Since weapon and armor proficiencies are tied directly to classes now, and are not very flexible or able to be swapped around, I am curious whether the FIghter Archer build should be a specific archetype that focuses more on medium armor and less marital melee weapon proficiencies, or if there should be more types of heavy armor, perhaps some with lower AC bonuses, and higher Dex mods.
Or is the idea that maxing out dex and using light armor as a fighter is a viable build, even though your proficiency in it never gets goes higher than trained?
Or you just play a ranger as archer.
Yeah except ranger archers aren't great either because you lose a lot of archer feats that only a fighter gets. I have a 2e ranger archer I am planning on playing and it seems underwhelming.
From a design standpoint the solution should be to make the ranger better at that and not to give the fighter more options in my opinion.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since weapon and armor proficiencies are tied directly to classes now, and are not very flexible or able to be swapped around, I am curious whether the FIghter Archer build should be a specific archetype that focuses more on medium armor and less marital melee weapon proficiencies, or if there should be more types of heavy armor, perhaps some with lower AC bonuses, and higher Dex mods.
Or is the idea that maxing out dex and using light armor as a fighter is a viable build, even though your proficiency in it never gets goes higher than trained?
The swashbuckling duelist Fighter also loses out on this.
I think an easy solution would be replacing Heavy Armor Expertise with:
Defensive Expertise [11th]
Your base speed increases by 5 feet. Choose one of the following benefits:
- Your proficiency ranks with heavy armor and shields increases to expert.
- Your proficiency with Reflex saves increases to master.
And then replacing Armor Mastery with:
Defensive Mastery [17th]
Your base speed increases by an additional 5 feet. Choose one of the following benefits:
- If your proficiency rank with heavy armor and shields is expert, it increases to master.
- Your proficiency ranks with shields, light and medium armor increases to expert.
This way, you have two paths to take as a Fighter – better Reflex saves and +1 AC, or +2 AC but use heavy armor.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Druids get orders that modify how their feats work. Fighters could have schools that govern what their abilities give them:
Schools:
Might (two-handed weapons, or weapon and shield with heavy armour progression)
Finesse (dual wielding one-handed weapons, or one weapon and a free hand with light armour progression)
Archery (ranged weapons with light armour progression)
You would be able to be in the Might school and take a Finesse feat, but you'll get an extra bonus from a Might feat.
Druids get orders that modify how their feats work. Fighters could have schools that govern what their abilities give them:
Schools:
Might (two-handed weapons, or weapon and shield with heavy armour progression)
Finesse (dual wielding one-handed weapons, or one weapon and a free hand with light armour progression)
Archery (ranged weapons with light armour progression)You would be able to be in the Might school and take a Finesse feat, but you'll get an extra bonus from a Might feat.
That would be very cool
From a design standpoint the solution should be to make the ranger better at that and not to give the fighter more options in my opinion.
Or merge them and let the player handle it.
From a design standpoint the solution should be to make the ranger better at that and not to give the fighter more options in my opinion.Or merge them and let the player handle it.
By that logic you could just have the fighter as a class and barbarian, paladin and ranger as a fighter subclass. Which is obviously not intended in this edition.
The point is that the initial post is about having a fighter centered around the things that the ranger already has. Instead of shoehorning a class into something, maybe work with what is already there.
I haven't read every class word for word, but I don't think any character in the game gets better than trained with light armor. The more I look at it though, the more clear it is that light armor + max Dex + the same proficiency, is going to be better than heavy armor every time, because ACP is rough and heavy armor prevents you from having very good reflex save.
After building a high dex fighter up, I actually don't think fighters need a trade out for not wearing heavy armor, or else, not a very big one. Secret Wizard's suggestion would be as far as that should go, although that may be too much even. I am glad that we are going to have a long time to play test this because I have already discovered that a lot of things that look out of balance don't quite play out that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By that logic you could just have the fighter as a class and barbarian, paladin and ranger as a fighter subclass. Which is obviously not intended in this edition.
That's a hyperbolic strawman and you know it.
By that logic you could just have the fighter as a class and barbarian, paladin and ranger as a fighter subclass. Which is obviously not intended in this edition.That's a hyperbolic strawman and you know it.
Actually I'd be partial to that.
Me too. Ranger and paladin are bad, and what few good options they have can be incorporated into other classes or archetypes.
This barbarian is.. pretty lacking overall. Draconic's later abilities don't mesh at all with the three round rage mechanic, and the only really functional totems at this point are fury and spirit.
By that logic you could just have the fighter as a class and barbarian, paladin and ranger as a fighter subclass. Which is obviously not intended in this edition.That's a hyperbolic strawman and you know it.
Can you explain to me how this is a strawman when you literally suggested to merge the classes? I don't think it's far fetched to go from merging fighter and ranger to merging all melee classes.
I like how they gave every class it's own flair. Fighter is the best at fighting. Paladin is the best at protecting. Barbarian is the best at staying in fight. Ranger is the best with multiple attacks. There is no need to make the fighter the best at everything.
|
|
Just make the schools the weapon groups.Druids get orders that modify how their feats work. Fighters could have schools that govern what their abilities give them:
Schools:
Might (two-handed weapons, or weapon and shield with heavy armour progression)
Finesse (dual wielding one-handed weapons, or one weapon and a free hand with light armour progression)
Archery (ranged weapons with light armour progression)You would be able to be in the Might school and take a Finesse feat, but you'll get an extra bonus from a Might feat.
I don't know that it's that simple. Greatswords and shortswords are both in the same weapon group, as are greataxes and hatchets.
I don't know that it's that simple. Greatswords and shortswords are both in the same weapon group, as are greataxes and hatchets.Just make the schools the weapon groups.Druids get orders that modify how their feats work. Fighters could have schools that govern what their abilities give them:
Schools:
Might (two-handed weapons, or weapon and shield with heavy armour progression)
Finesse (dual wielding one-handed weapons, or one weapon and a free hand with light armour progression)
Archery (ranged weapons with light armour progression)You would be able to be in the Might school and take a Finesse feat, but you'll get an extra bonus from a Might feat.
Yeah, I agree that doesn't make much sense thematically. Fighting with a shield and hatchet is a much different beast than fighting with a greataxe, and it would make sense for that shield and hatchet fighter to feel more comfortable with a shield and hammer than a great weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From a design standpoint the solution should be to make the ranger better at that and not to give the fighter more options in my opinion.
Ok, but hear me out, why not both? Why can't Rangers be more flexible and also have fighters less restricted in their choice of armor? I agree that the ranger needs improvement, but I think the fundamental problem with 2e is how much each class is stuck in a limited box that they're penalized from trying to leave. If you want to reward Fighters for choosing heavy armor, then maybe make heavy armor actually worthwhile in the first place, as opposed to restricting their proficiency exclusively to heavy armor. Make heavy armor +1 AC over medium armor, which is +1 AC over light armor, at their respective Dex caps. You get the same effect (in fact you get that effect even sooner than now), and it actually makes dex fighters have class features at 11th and 17th levels.
Can you explain to me how this is a strawman when you literally suggested to merge the classes? I don't think it's far fetched to go from merging fighter and ranger to merging all melee classes.
Because, for one, a paladin isn't a fighter. They're mostly a fighter with a splash of Cleric. Barbarians are Their Own Thing. They might not be very good at that thing in this edition, but they've got their shtick.
Fighter is the best at fighting. Ranger is the best with multiple attacks.
"Fighter is best at fighting. Except when the ranger is the best at fighting."
Both the fighter and the ranger get to pick between two weapon fighting and ranged weapon fighting (they both get access to Double Slice at level 1).
Fighter gets Furious Focus ("this attack doesn't count towards your multi-attack penalty"), Ranged Aid Another, and Dueling Parry (another one-handed weapon feat).
Rangers get...uh... CROSSBOW ACE (if you reload or use Hunt Target, add your WIS to damage! Woo! Hunt Target is a waste of action economy and +WIS is tiny) and Quick Draw and....uh...no two-weapon-fighting feat at 2nd...Oh oh, They get Twin Parry at 4th which is just like Dueling Parry except actively worse (Dueling Parry: have a one handed weapon, get +2 AC. Twin Parry: have two weapons and if both are not agile, get +2 AC, otherwise +1).
Know what Fighters get at 4th?
Dual-Handed Assault, Swipe, and Twin Parry.
Neither get any at 6th and 8th.
Both get Twin Riposte at 10th.
Tell me again how these need to be separate classes/ranger is better at multiattack again?
Can you explain to me how this is a strawman when you literally suggested to merge the classes? I don't think it's far fetched to go from merging fighter and ranger to merging all melee classes.Because, for one, a paladin isn't a fighter. They're mostly a fighter with a splash of Cleric. Barbarians are Their Own Thing. They might not be very good at that thing in this edition, but they've got their shtick.
I hope you realize how silly that sounds.
Fighter is the best at fighting. Ranger is the best with multiple attacks."Fighter is best at fighting. Except when the ranger is the best at fighting."
Both the fighter and the ranger get to pick between two weapon fighting and ranged weapon fighting (they both get access to Double Slice at level 1).
Fighter gets Furious Focus ("this attack doesn't count towards your multi-attack penalty"), Ranged Aid Another, and Dueling Parry (another one-handed weapon feat).
Rangers get...uh... CROSSBOW ACE (if you reload or use Hunt Target, add your WIS to damage! Woo! Hunt Target is a waste of action economy and +WIS is tiny) and Quick Draw and....uh...no two-weapon-fighting feat at 2nd...Oh oh, They get Twin Parry at 4th which is just like Dueling Parry except actively worse (Dueling Parry: have a one handed weapon, get +2 AC. Twin Parry: have two weapons and if both are not agile, get +2 AC, otherwise +1).
Know what Fighters get at 4th?
Dual-Handed Assault, Swipe, and Twin Parry.
Neither get any at 6th and 8th.
Both get Twin Riposte at 10th.
Tell me again how these need to be separate classes/ranger is better at multiattack again?
You obviously didn't read the skills properly. Hunt Target costs 1 action and lasts basically as long as you want. You can even use that skill before the fight begins. Action economy wise it's one of the top skills any class can get.
The fighters furious focus has the press trait. That means you can only use that in situation where you make 3 attacks in one turn and it only benefits you when you miss. It doesn't even get close to how good hunt target is.The fighters dueling parry doesn't help him with multiattacks. Also that feat is probably meant to help out in situations where your shield has been destroyed. If the fighter had a shield, that feat would be redundant. Twin Parry actually helps with multiattacks.
There are a lot of mechanics that go into using the feats and it can get confusing at times. There is no doubt that hunt target makes the ranger the best at multiattacking and I'm glad they gave him that because dual wielding is what made him iconic in the early editions of d&d and i liked that.
Fighters choose a weapon group to focus on. They should also choose an armor type to focus on. I believe that most fighters will choose heavy armor, but I don’t think it should be the default.
Why is it that fighters and paladins get proficiency boosts to heavy armor without corresponding bonuses to proficiency in light and medium armor? This kind of gimps the characters (like my own) who favor lighter armaments and more mobility.
This is what I thought too when I first looked at it, but looking at raw proficiencies doesn't tell the whole story, Since the fighter can get a +2 bonus to Dex out of the gate, equal light armor proficiency to Heavy armor proficiency would make the Dex based fighter light armor fighter hands down better than the STR based Heavy Armor Fighter. At low levels the differences don't become that apparent, but at higher levels , dex based characters are increasing their AC with bonus attributes and magical armor, while the heavy armor fighter only gets the item bonus. Add this on to the fact that heavy armor slows characters down, limits the overall value of boosting Dex for skills and saves, and tags on an ACP modifier, it becomes a lot more visible on your character sheet why the Heavy Armor gets the boost.
The paladin is maxing out their Dex at 16, is not built with many ranged options, and is probably pushing STR and CHA as their primary stats, which means that the max dex paladin is not going to be a very common build. They are also supposed to be the absolute masters of Defense and Armor, so it makes sense that the only class which gives Legendary in an armor proficiency (excluding unarmored) also gets the highest light armor proficiency, and that proficiency is still maxed out at master.
Heavy armor is actually much more of a trap option for characters that don't get increased proficiency bonuses as they level up then it appears in theory. The wizard in heavy armor is going to be a sitting duck wasting a lot of wealth on keeping a comparable AC to a wizard that even just dedicates their level 1,5,10 and 15 stat boosts to dex, especially since Dex will improve their ability to hit with ranged and melee spell attacks.
There will be builds that can do it (High STR wizards who MC to fighter) but it is not as appealing an option at the table as it seems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, other folks have pointed out in other places that light and medium armor start out as much better options than heavy armor for most fighters, thanks to the ACP and speed reduction. The Fighter bonuses to Heavy Armor, in that context, look much more like making Heavy Armor viable in comparison to the lighter ones than making them the best option.
|
|
Yeah, other folks have pointed out in other places that light and medium armor start out as much better options than heavy armor for most fighters, thanks to the ACP and speed reduction. The Fighter bonuses to Heavy Armor, in that context, look much more like making Heavy Armor viable in comparison to the lighter ones than making them the best option.
If that's the case, I'm thinking that the answer should lie in buffing heavier armor as a whole rather than giving two classes exclusive features to make it viable.
With the current rules, assuming that characters can always hit the dex modifier cap (which, given the sheer number of stat boosts characters get, is not unreasonable), all forms of armor effectively grant the same bonus to AC (+7 before runes and quality bonuses). In PF1, this was not the case, with heavier armor being the superior option for raw AC regardless of dex score (hitting the max dex mod, full plate granted a total of +10, breastplate +9, and chain shirts +8).
Given the disadvantages that characters impose on themselves for wearing heavy armor (and the low opportunity cost of high dex), I don't think it would be unreasonable to increase the bonuses from medium armor by 1 (+4 for Hide/Scale, +5 for Chain/Breastplate) and the bonuses from heavy armor by 2 (+7 for splint/half, +8 for full plate).
After this, I envision that the three armor types should be balanced closely enough to warrant increased proficiency with all three as part of Heavy Armor Expertise/Armor Mastery/Armored Fortitude/Legendary Armor.
Why is it that fighters and paladins get proficiency boosts to heavy armor without corresponding bonuses to proficiency in light and medium armor? This kind of gimps the characters (like my own) who favor lighter armaments and more mobility.This is what I thought too when I first looked at it, but looking at raw proficiencies doesn't tell the whole story, Since the fighter can get a +2 bonus to Dex out of the gate, equal light armor proficiency to Heavy armor proficiency would make the Dex based fighter light armor fighter hands down better than the STR based Heavy Armor Fighter. At low levels the differences don't become that apparent, but at higher levels , dex based characters are increasing their AC with bonus attributes and magical armor, while the heavy armor fighter only gets the item bonus. Add this on to the fact that heavy armor slows characters down, limits the overall value of boosting Dex for skills and saves, and tags on an ACP modifier, it becomes a lot more visible on your character sheet why the Heavy Armor gets the boost.
The paladin is maxing out their Dex at 16, is not built with many ranged options, and is probably pushing STR and CHA as their primary stats, which means that the max dex paladin is not going to be a very common build. They are also supposed to be the absolute masters of Defense and Armor, so it makes sense that the only class which gives Legendary in an armor proficiency (excluding unarmored) also gets the highest light armor proficiency, and that proficiency is still maxed out at master.
Heavy armor is actually much more of a trap option for characters that don't get increased proficiency bonuses as they level up then it appears in theory. The wizard in heavy armor is going to be a sitting duck wasting a lot of wealth on keeping a comparable AC to a wizard that even just dedicates their level 1,5,10 and 15 stat boosts to dex, especially since Dex will improve their ability to hit with ranged and melee spell attacks.
There...
The Dex-based fighter deals less damage per hit. This could be further emphasized by buffing power attack, instead of nerfing lighter armor.
I hope you realize how silly that sounds.
This isn't an argument. Convince me.
You obviously didn't read the skills properly. Hunt Target costs 1 action and lasts basically as long as you want.
Or until the thing is dead. Then you have to re-focus mid-combat. There's already an entire thread on Hunt Target being bad, especially for TWF.
You can even use that skill before the fight begins. Action economy wise it's one of the top skills any class can get.
The fighters furious focus has the press trait. That...
Fighters still have more and better options for TWF than rangers. The fact that Furious Focus is tagged with Press is irrelevant. Rangers can miss on their third attack too!
And you still didn't counter my argument that both classes get Double Slice, Twin Parry, and Twin Riposte. If anything you supported my argument:
Twin Parry actually helps with multiattacks.
Yes, it definitely does do that. But both the fighter and the ranger get it, how does that make the ranger the superior two-weapon melee combatant?
And that's before we even get to Dual-Handed Assault and Swipe.
I hope you realize how silly that sounds.This isn't an argument. Convince me.
You obviously didn't read the skills properly. Hunt Target costs 1 action and lasts basically as long as you want.Or until the thing is dead. Then you have to re-focus mid-combat. There's already an entire thread on Hunt Target being bad, especially for TWF.
You can even use that skill before the fight begins. Action economy wise it's one of the top skills any class can get.
The fighters furious focus has the press trait. That...Fighters still have more and better options for TWF than rangers. The fact that Furious Focus is tagged with Press is irrelevant. Rangers can miss on their third attack too!
And you still didn't counter my argument that both classes get Double Slice, Twin Parry, and Twin Riposte. If anything you supported my argument:
Twin Parry actually helps with multiattacks.Yes, it definitely does do that. But both the fighter and the ranger get it, how does that make the ranger the superior two-weapon melee combatant?
And that's before we even get to Dual-Handed Assault and Swipe.
I called you silly for making this statement: "Because, for one, a paladin isn't a fighter. They're mostly a fighter with a splash of Cleric." If you can't see the problem in your argumentation there then it's pointless to argue with you.
The link you provided leads to a thread that consists of an opening post an a single answer. Great reference to the supposedly major outcry about hunt target. Beside that pretty badly analysed.
Your whole argumentation is founded in the belief that hunt target is useless. Obviously I don't agree with that assessment.
Fighter and ranger share some feats. the difference is that the ranger can use them in combination with hunt target. And in contrary to what your linked thread says, double slice and hunt target actually have synergy.
Dual handed assault isn't even two-weapon fighting, so I dont even know why you bring that up. Swipe lets you make a multiattack, yes. But its circumstacial since it only works when fighting multiple opponents.
After all I think we can agree to disagree. I think you undervalue hunt target and you think I overestimate it.
The Dex-based fighter deals less damage per hit. This could be further emphasized by buffing power attack, instead of nerfing lighter armor.
But Light Armor isn't nerfed. Unlike many other proficiencies, there are not a bunch of feats sitting around with riders on requiring master or legendary armor proficiencies. Light Armor is the better way to get to Max AC, if your build can afford the boosts.
I would certainly hope that a Dex based fighter is doing slightly less raw damage than a STR based fighter, or else STR based fighters have nothing going for them.
The issue here is that people are having a hard time understanding the value of different proficiencies without seeing them in action. This was certainly the case for me with the fighter and armor proficiency. At first I thought I had to build a Heavy Armor fighter because otherwise I was wasting essential fighter resources, in the form of class features that benefited it. But Heavy armor is a terrible build for a fighter, especially at low levels. Reduced movement on a melee character is a death sentence. Heavy Armor becomes viable for the fighter at level 11 OR by taking the Gray Maiden dedication, or by becoming a cavalier and doing most of your movement on mount. STR based fighters will probably be using Medium armor until higher levels and DEX ones Light. By level 11, you should have a strong sense of which direction you are headed and the fighter is well supported in any direction they want to go. The paladin is better supported in armor, but lagging in weapons. This was the intent of the design and I think it is working. Fighters are in good shape and have a lot of flexibility as far as build options.