Playing a Tanky Fighter doesn't feel so good.

[Claxon]

I'll say it. Defensive characters have always been pretty weak in D&D and Pathfinder.

Barring mechanics which force the enemy to attack the tanky character, which negates or avoids the damage, they're just a meatshield that doesn't otherwise contribute to the end condition (reducing the enemy to 0 hp) effectively.

[nicholas storm]

I was thinking that maybe a fighter could use a shield at low levels to increase survivability and then change to a 2H weapon once potency runes come into play.

[FitzTheRuke]

I think that when people with RL martial arts experience express dissatisfaction with the Fighter, it's generally because the game mechanics often make it impossible to perform certain acts that are not only *possible* IRL, but *essential* to be a competent combatant IRL.

It's not because we want the game to be "realistic" per se (in fact it's usually someone's erroneous notion of what is "realistic" that causes the class to have the constraints upon them in the first place).

Personally, I'd like the Fighter to be able to do slightly *more* than is "realistic" (within reason), but we are often saddled with ones that can do *less* than real people can do.

Take how often D&D makes it either impossible (or at least take special training (feats)) to be able to Hit Someone with Your Shield. Hitting someone with a shield is not "special training" it's *basic competency*. (Yes, I know PF2 is designed with this basic competency. It's something I like about it).

Anyway, on the main subject: I think the reason behind the design choices tends to be that the Fighter is designed to be simple, and anything that makes them more *interesting* usually also makes them more complicated.

[PossibleCabbage]

I honestly thought the fighter was in a good place- there are several different paths to build along, and all of them are good at what they are supposed to be good at. All of your class feats go to fighting, but you have the same number of skill and skill feats as the bard or the cleric.

What the fighter needs, however is:
1) More feats, we have solid options but not enough. (Every class needs this)
2) Skill feats should be better.
3) Heavy Armor needs a redesign or fighters shouldn't be locked into it the way they are.

While "tanking" is arguably fine in things like video games, I think Pathfinder doesn't need it. Everybody's job is to deal damage, nobody's job is to take damage. One's capacity to take damage is simply a limiter on how long they can continue to do damage.

[PossibleCabbage]

I think the best version of Parry & Riposte in PF1 is in the most recent player companion- a fighter archetype (spear fighter) has a version where they can just do it as an AoO but every time they use it they eat a (cumulative) penalty to all of their attacks until the end of their next turn (starting at -4, but archetype abilities decrease it.)

I wonder if we could import something like that to PF1, where you can just elect to parry as a reaction and the cost is this attack contributes to your MAP for next round.

[DM_Blake]

All this discussion about strapping shields to forearms and having a FREE hand is completely irrelevant.

Shields just don't work that way. They never have.

Bucklers are HELD in the hand like a weapon. Never strapped.

Targe sheilds have a pair of "enarmes", one of which was often adjustable (to fit larger or smaller forearms (e.g. Popeye the Sailor Man) or fit over armor pieces (bracers, if worn). The other enarme was gripped in the hand.

Larger shields often had a rigid handle instead of a leather strap. This is held in the hand and helps keep the larger shield in the correct orientation.

Yes, it's possible to HOLD things with the shield hand. The leather enarme is fairly flat and leaves the thumb and fingers free for grasping even while the palm is held held in place by the enarme.

Note that if you wanted to simply slide the shield farther up your arm so that BOTH enarmes were on your forearm, leaving your hand completely free, then the shield would flop around on your arm. When you lifted it up to block, instead of orienting vertically like you want, it would be flopping at some weird angle with it's face pointing downward. Any blow to the top or bottom of the the shield would wrench it around your arm.

This is because your arm is not flat. It's round. The only way to keep your shield straight up-and-down (oriented vertically) is to have that enarme held flat against your flat palm.

Also, it is never possible to WIELD weapons with any of these shields. Any kind of swing you would make with a 2h sword, spear, axe, or polearm would put your shield out of position - it wouldn't defend you at all. Worse, the bulk of the shield would make your attack inaccurate. So you sacrifice accuracy and get no defense for it. Nobody would ever do this.

Everybody who used shields in battle always chose a weapon that they could wield in one hand. The only notable exception was the pike (or sarissa) which was thrust with the weapon hand and guided by the shield hand. In this case, it's just a straight thrust. No swinging. The shield hand doesn't grip it or "wield" it; it just helps guide the thrust.

Sure, sure, there are a few exceptions of flanged or elongated bracers that served as shields while being strapped to the arm. Not really used in any army ever. More like gladiators or other mercenaries making personal weapons. These are not what anybody thinks of when they say "shield", so are external to the discussion of using a shield and wielding a weapon. If they are to be included in a RPG, they should be treated like an exotic weapon - a special feat would be needed to use them proficiently.

If you don't believe me, just go try it. Shields are not hard to make, especially if you only want a basic imitation for experimental sake. Get a piece of plywood, cut it with a saw, then bolt two leather straps on it. Then strap it to your arm WITHOUT holding it in your hand and let a friend slam it with a baseball bat. See what happens. See how it flops around your arm. Then try holding it right. Much better. Then try holding that baseball bat in the usual 2H grip and let your friend pitch a few baseballs. See if you can hit them. Film it. Look at where your shield goes during your swing and see for yourself how that shield would provide zero defensive value.

This isn't rocket science here. It's barely even physics 101.

Disclaimer: Yes, I think the fighter class can use some help. They've always needed help in all versions of this game. No, I don't think Taunt is the solution. Obviously, I don't think shields flopping around on forearms is the solution, either.

[Edge93]

DM_Blake wrote:

All this discussion about strapping shields to forearms and having a FREE hand is completely irrelevant.

Shields just don't work that way. They never have.

Bucklers are HELD in the hand like a weapon. Never strapped.

Targe sheilds have a pair of "enarmes", one of which was often adjustable (to fit larger or smaller forearms (e.g. Popeye the Sailor Man) or fit over armor pieces (bracers, if worn). The other enarme was gripped in the hand.

Larger shields often had a rigid handle instead of a leather strap. This is held in the hand and helps keep the larger shield in the correct orientation.

Yes, it's possible to HOLD things with the shield hand. The leather enarme is fairly flat and leaves the thumb and fingers free for grasping even while the palm is held held in place by the enarme.

Note that if you wanted to simply slide the shield farther up your arm so that BOTH enarmes were on your forearm, leaving your hand completely free, then the shield would flop around on your arm. When you lifted it up to block, instead of orienting vertically like you want, it would be flopping at some weird angle with it's face pointing downward. Any blow to the top or bottom of the the shield would wrench it around your arm.

This is because your arm is not flat. It's round. The only way to keep your shield straight up-and-down (oriented vertically) is to have that enarme held flat against your flat palm.

Also, it is never possible to WIELD weapons with any of these shields. Any kind of swing you would make with a 2h sword, spear, axe, or polearm would put your shield out of position - it wouldn't defend you at all. Worse, the bulk of the shield would make your attack inaccurate. So you sacrifice accuracy and get no defense for it. Nobody would ever do this.

Everybody who used shields in battle always chose a weapon that they could wield in one hand. The only notable exception was the pike (or sarissa) which was thrust with the weapon hand and guided by the shield hand. In this case, it's just a...

Okay, cool, good to know. Glad I'm not going crazy on my memory of every shield design I've ever seen and my reasoning on how they would work. XD

[Peenicks]

DM_Blake wrote:

All this discussion about strapping shields to forearms and having a FREE hand is completely irrelevant.

Shields just don't work that way. They never have.

Bucklers are HELD in the hand like a weapon. Never strapped.

Targe sheilds have a pair of "enarmes", one of which was often adjustable (to fit larger or smaller forearms (e.g. Popeye the Sailor Man) or fit over armor pieces (bracers, if worn). The other enarme was gripped in the hand.

Larger shields often had a rigid handle instead of a leather strap. This is held in the hand and helps keep the larger shield in the correct orientation.

Yes, it's possible to HOLD things with the shield hand. The leather enarme is fairly flat and leaves the thumb and fingers free for grasping even while the palm is held held in place by the enarme.

Note that if you wanted to simply slide the shield farther up your arm so that BOTH enarmes were on your forearm, leaving your hand completely free, then the shield would flop around on your arm. When you lifted it up to block, instead of orienting vertically like you want, it would be flopping at some weird angle with it's face pointing downward. Any blow to the top or bottom of the the shield would wrench it around your arm.

This is because your arm is not flat. It's round. The only way to keep your shield straight up-and-down (oriented vertically) is to have that enarme held flat against your flat palm.

Also, it is never possible to WIELD weapons with any of these shields. Any kind of swing you would make with a 2h sword, spear, axe, or polearm would put your shield out of position - it wouldn't defend you at all. Worse, the bulk of the shield would make your attack inaccurate. So you sacrifice accuracy and get no defense for it. Nobody would ever do this.

Everybody who used shields in battle always chose a weapon that they could wield in one hand. The only notable exception was the pike (or sarissa) which was thrust with the weapon hand and guided by the shield hand. In this case, it's just a...

So let's say, because it is like this. Would a Fighter be able to pull off feats like Combat Grab, regardless?

[Raylyeh]

Thank you Blake that was actually insightful to me at least.
As far as the repeated complaints about heavy prerequisites, I just don’t see it. At most higher level feats require you to have an earlier feat in that combat style chain. Whereas in PF1 combat feats often had a laundry list of prerequisite feats plus ability score requirements. If you don’t want to stick to just one combat style nothing is stopping you from mixing it up you just have to accept that you may spend a significant number of actions stowing and readying weapons and that you won’t be as good at one style compared to someone who specialized in one style. TTRPGs have always rewarded specialists over generalists with the arguable exception of Bards though PF2 is limiting that more than in the past.

[MER-c]

Just dropped in, holy cow that was the most flags I've ever thrown in any one ten minute time frame.

As for my opinions on the Fighter, and other martial for that matter. I like where the Fighter, Monk, Ranger, and Barbarian are right now. I still think Paladin can use work but it's playable, if nothing else. Of the classes above I think Monk is in one of the better spots, but Fighter, when I finally got my hands on it, was almost perfect for what I enjoyed. A versatile class that was straightforward and easy to use the combo system in place with Open and Press actions added a new layer to how I thought about combat, and I think it can be expanded. If I had one wish for Fighter it would be to give some more coll reactions to help out, things like a Parry and Riposte, maybe a reactive shot to a ranged attack for bow or crossbow users. Stuff that can really cement the Fighter as the Master of the Battlefield.

[Cellion]

Peenicks wrote:

Feats not having such limiting pre-requisites. Somewhere along the lines flies the shields not taking up hands.

Here's an example of changes I would do.

A shield taking up a hand creates a relevant trade-off for any person thinking of using a shield. Do you want more AC and the capacity to Shield Block weaker hits? Well, you'll have to give up the real benefit of having a free hand: being able to manipulate things in your environment, draw items, and so on. If shields didn't take up a hand, you would lose decision-making depth in the combat system.

As for your comments on feats:
Dueling Parry is a Raise Shield action for people who are pursuing a single one-handed weapon combat style, it's redundant with Raise Shield. Combat Grab adds specific flavor and benefit to the one-handed weapon combat style, giving people who prefer that style something nice as a combat tool. Same applies to most of the 2-handed specific feats. They exist to simulate the huge weapon smashy fighting style thats all about momentum, allowing you to move people around and knock them down.

All of these feats exist to enhance to flavor of a certain fighting style, while giving it a unique mechanical flavor as well for a Fighter. The shield user feats are all about using your shield more often, extending its benefits around you, and being defensive. The one-handed feats are about being nimble and using your free hand to get up close and personal or manipulate your foes. Etc.

Sure you could make all the feats open to all combat styles, but then you'd remove trade-offs as well, making a one-true-build all too likely.

----

FWIW: I think Fighter is one of the most satisfying class designs in 2E. It has great base proficiencies and most of its feats provide new options in combat that are worth considering. It delivers debuffs and provides zones of control on the battlefield with its AoOs.

[PossibleCabbage]

It sorta feels like everybody feels like their personal favorite class needs help because it's weaker than the PF1 version, and this is true of all classes relative to their 2018 PF1 counterparts since the latter has 10 years of books of options with all related power creep to borrow from.

I imagine survey data of "Which classes are least popular" suggests which classes actually need the most work moreso than does forum talk.

[WhiteMagus2000]

To the OP and his buddy.

You seem to have stumbled into a heated debate that's been going on for the last ten years. How to fix fighters. People have suggested that fighters just get a few more skills and bonus skill feats but, were told that that would make them too rogue-like. There were other options that let them make alchemist preformance enhancers, but this made the too alchemist-like. There were options to make them educated combat tacticians, but this made them too bard-like. When asked "what do you want", the answer was usually MOER DAMAGE!

Fast forward to PF2 play test. Fighters have the best consistent damage output and the best feats to control combat, such as Sudden Charge and Swipe. Fighters are currently the best (or one of the best) classes in the game. As a long time fan of rangers and alchemists (which are currently much weaker than fighters), it's really hard to emphasize with your point of view and agree that fighters need to be even stronger.

If you really are looking for versatility, then I have good news for you. Multi classing. You can make your fighter more rogue like, or bard like, or wizard like. I'm not sure if they'll make you more powerful, but they certainly add new abilities.

[Raylyeh]

To Peenicks, what exactly are you asking in regards to combat grab? I will just say that I think that the combat grab feats are amazing, it’s a very effective one handed grab and you can still hold a significant weapon at the same time. That’s a feat of martial prowess in my book. Not only is that hard as hell to pull off in the real world but in PF1 and D&D I’m not sure it was even possible short of a feat tree that I’m not aware of off the top of my head or possibly weird grappling interactions. In either case that is usually only effective with 2 hands. Honestly if this thread has done anything for me it has really made me want to play a 1 hand-open hand fighter.

[Sara Marie]

I removed a bunch of posts and replies. This thread went really aggressive pretty quickly. Please tone it down. The point is to collaborate or discuss your opinions, not to insult, belittle or argue with each other. It's important to remember that people here can have very different values and opinions on how they best enjoy Pathfinder, there is no need to get aggressive with each other over a game we are all here to enjoy. A good way to avoid escalating conversations is to use "I" statements:

"So what you're saying is..." phrased instead as "When I read this, its sounds to me like you're saying..."
"Fighters are underpowered..." phrased instead as "I feel like fighters are underpowered..."

If someone is getting aggressive with you, flag it and move on. It is not appropriate to fire back with insults of your own or continue to escalate the thread.

[Narxiso]

While I like most of the changes to fighter as it is, I would like (though many may not agree) to see a ranged melee attack, like a sword slash that hits an opponent at a distance (I would also like cool abilities like this for other martial classes). That would make me think of a fantastical sword master. However, as is, I like the fighter and would gladly buy PF2.

[Cyouni]

Raylyeh wrote:

To Peenicks, what exactly are you asking in regards to combat grab? I will just say that I think that the combat grab feats are amazing, it’s a very effective one handed grab and you can still hold a significant weapon at the same time. That’s a feat of martial prowess in my book. Not only is that hard as hell to pull off in the real world but in PF1 and D&D I’m not sure it was even possible short of a feat tree that I’m not aware of off the top of my head or possibly weird grappling interactions. In either case that is usually only effective with 2 hands. Honestly if this thread has done anything for me it has really made me want to play a 1 hand-open hand fighter.

As someone currently playing in HoU as one, they're fun. Improved Combat Grab is such a good control tool, and Dueling Riposte comes up quite often.

[Edge93]

Cyouni wrote:

Raylyeh wrote:

To Peenicks, what exactly are you asking in regards to combat grab? I will just say that I think that the combat grab feats are amazing, it’s a very effective one handed grab and you can still hold a significant weapon at the same time. That’s a feat of martial prowess in my book. Not only is that hard as hell to pull off in the real world but in PF1 and D&D I’m not sure it was even possible short of a feat tree that I’m not aware of off the top of my head or possibly weird grappling interactions. In either case that is usually only effective with 2 hands. Honestly if this thread has done anything for me it has really made me want to play a 1 hand-open hand fighter.

As someone currently playing in HoU as one, they're fun. Improved Combat Grab is such a good control tool, and Dueling Riposte comes up quite often.

LOL my HoU party had one too! Half Elf, Full Plate, wielding an Orc Necksplitter. He didn't actually use Combat Grab though, he had Duelist's Parry, Dueling Dance (Resulted in MAJOR AC for almost no action cost), Duelist's Riposte (He got crit missed a lot but usually had already spent his reaction on AoO, lol), Intimidating Strike, Certain Strike (That crap is BROKEN with Forceful weapons and targeting Weaknesses), and Shatter Defenses.

He was a serious player in the campaign, second only to the Monk in damage output if even that, definitely contributed well to the party's victory.

[Cyouni]

Edge93 wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Raylyeh wrote:

To Peenicks, what exactly are you asking in regards to combat grab? I will just say that I think that the combat grab feats are amazing, it’s a very effective one handed grab and you can still hold a significant weapon at the same time. That’s a feat of martial prowess in my book. Not only is that hard as hell to pull off in the real world but in PF1 and D&D I’m not sure it was even possible short of a feat tree that I’m not aware of off the top of my head or possibly weird grappling interactions. In either case that is usually only effective with 2 hands. Honestly if this thread has done anything for me it has really made me want to play a 1 hand-open hand fighter.

As someone currently playing in HoU as one, they're fun. Improved Combat Grab is such a good control tool, and Dueling Riposte comes up quite often.

LOL my HoU party had one too! Half Elf, Full Plate, wielding an Orc Necksplitter. He didn't actually use Combat Grab though, he had Duelist's Parry, Dueling Dance (Resulted in MAJOR AC for almost no action cost), Duelist's Riposte (He got crit missed a lot but usually had already spent his reaction on AoO, lol), Intimidating Strike, Certain Strike (That crap is BROKEN with Forceful weapons and targeting Weaknesses), and Shatter Defenses.

He was a serious player in the campaign, second only to the Monk in damage output if even that, definitely contributed well to the party's victory.

Oof, Certain Strike on weaknesses sounds brutal. I went with the more control/lockdown style with Combat Reflexes, Improved Combat Grab, and a paladin multiclass for Divine Grace. Ended up with a pretty hilarious scene where a slaver demon tried to get up from prone, got AoOed (missed), so it tried to disarm (crit failed), which let me Riposte it (also missed).

[Edge93]

Cyouni wrote:

Edge93 wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Raylyeh wrote:

To Peenicks, what exactly are you asking in regards to combat grab? I will just say that I think that the combat grab feats are amazing, it’s a very effective one handed grab and you can still hold a significant weapon at the same time. That’s a feat of martial prowess in my book. Not only is that hard as hell to pull off in the real world but in PF1 and D&D I’m not sure it was even possible short of a feat tree that I’m not aware of off the top of my head or possibly weird grappling interactions. In either case that is usually only effective with 2 hands. Honestly if this thread has done anything for me it has really made me want to play a 1 hand-open hand fighter.

As someone currently playing in HoU as one, they're fun. Improved Combat Grab is such a good control tool, and Dueling Riposte comes up quite often.

LOL my HoU party had one too! Half Elf, Full Plate, wielding an Orc Necksplitter. He didn't actually use Combat Grab though, he had Duelist's Parry, Dueling Dance (Resulted in MAJOR AC for almost no action cost), Duelist's Riposte (He got crit missed a lot but usually had already spent his reaction on AoO, lol), Intimidating Strike, Certain Strike (That crap is BROKEN with Forceful weapons and targeting Weaknesses), and Shatter Defenses.

He was a serious player in the campaign, second only to the Monk in damage output if even that, definitely contributed well to the party's victory.

Oof, Certain Strike on weaknesses sounds brutal. I went with the more control/lockdown style with Combat Reflexes, Improved Combat Grab, and a paladin multiclass for Divine Grace. Ended up with a pretty hilarious scene where a slaver demon tried to get up from prone, got AoOed (missed), so it tried to disarm (crit failed), which let me Riposte it (also missed).

LOL nice. XD Our party had a Trip Cleric with a Guisarme and +21 (I think) to Trip against the Slaver Demons' Reflex DC of like 23 or 25. He borderline trip locked one of the demons for like 3 rounds, using a pattern of Trip, Strike, Step to force the demon to waste 2 actions every round to get up and approach. The Cleric also had AoO so an extra attack every time the fiend got up. He had wretched luck on most of his non-trip attacks but he irritated the demon so much that after a few rounds it screwed off with Dimension Door to fight someone else. XD

And yeah, the Certain Strike was brutal. Before weakness it was 13 damage if a -5 attack missed, 17 if a -10 attack missed (And he only crit failed a Certain strike once the entire chapter). After Weakness, depending on the foe it was 20, 23, 25, or 28 on a -5 attack, 24, 27, 29, or 32 on a -10. It was freaking nuts and it absolutely tore through the HP of some of the foes like the Glabrezus where he could actually spend a couple rounds starting in melee.

It has the opposite effect on resistances though, absolutely tanks the damage. XD

[BerserkOne]

As long as this discussion is going to address things that "RL Fighters" can do that seem beyond the capabilities of Fighters (or any melee combatant) in the game, there are two big ones that stand out for me.

1) Why do we need to spend an Interact action to switch the grip on a weapon? I am reasonably confident that I, as a person with no martial training or physical conditioning to speak of, can swing an item of the approximate weight and dimensions of a bastard sword at least three times in six seconds with any combination of one- or two-handed grips. Switching the grip on a weapon is trivial. Moreover, it is utterly, laughably trivial considering that with the same action cost we can draw an arrow from a quiver, nock it on the bowstring, draw the bow, aim, and release the arrow.

2) Why don't shields have the "Shove" property included in the relevant weapon table entries? It would seem historically that pushing an opponent with one's shield was a major tactic of fighting with one, to the point that whole armies would form a line do it in coordination during the age of the shield-wall. But the only way to get anything resembling it here is to take the shield critical specialization and hope for a critical hit when striking with it.

Just my two cents worth.

[Edge93]

BerserkOne wrote:

As long as this discussion is going to address things that "RL Fighters" can do that seem beyond the capabilities of Fighters (or any melee combatant) in the game, there are two big ones that stand out for me.

1) Why do we need to spend an Interact action to switch the grip on a weapon? I am reasonably confident that I, as a person with no martial training or physical conditioning to speak of, can swing an item of the approximate weight and dimensions of a bastard sword at least three times in six seconds with any combination of one- or two-handed grips. Switching the grip on a weapon is trivial. Moreover, it is utterly, laughably trivial considering that with the same action cost we can draw an arrow from a quiver, nock it on the bowstring, draw the bow, aim, and release the arrow.

2) Why don't shields have the "Shove" property included in the relevant weapon table entries? It would seem historically that pushing an opponent with one's shield was a major tactic of fighting with one, to the point that whole armies would form a line do it in coordination during the age of the shield-wall. But the only way to get anything resembling it here is to take the shield critical specialization and hope for a critical hit when striking with it.

Just my two cents worth.

1) I initially saw it as to keep the one/two handed weapons from being too much of a gimme choice, and to make casting with a 2h weapon trickier. With Somatic actions no longer taking free hands (Though material still does) this is less of a thing, and overall I've warmed less to the action cost to re-grip (I was glad they made dropping grip a free action, and I will be surprised if re-gripping remains an action in the CRB).

2) Huh, good point. Hadn't really thought of it but yeah, would totally be good. It would make Doubling Rings hype for a Sword and Boarder too, as copying your weapon potency to the shield would keep your Shove checks boosted even if you don't have an Athletics boosting items.

Or as I realized you could do in another thread, put the potency runes on your shield and wear doubling rings, now you can shift your other weapon between different types and keep the potency.

Aggressive Shield does do a shove-y thing but as a reaction, not to mention being a class feat. Eh. It'd still be a good feat even if shields got Shove though, as it works differently.

[BerserkOne]

Edge93 wrote:

BerserkOne wrote:

As long as this discussion is going to address things that "RL Fighters" can do that seem beyond the capabilities of Fighters (or any melee combatant) in the game, there are two big ones that stand out for me.

1) Why do we need to spend an Interact action to switch the grip on a weapon? I am reasonably confident that I, as a person with no martial training or physical conditioning to speak of, can swing an item of the approximate weight and dimensions of a bastard sword at least three times in six seconds with any combination of one- or two-handed grips. Switching the grip on a weapon is trivial. Moreover, it is utterly, laughably trivial considering that with the same action cost we can draw an arrow from a quiver, nock it on the bowstring, draw the bow, aim, and release the arrow.

2) Why don't shields have the "Shove" property included in the relevant weapon table entries? It would seem historically that pushing an opponent with one's shield was a major tactic of fighting with one, to the point that whole armies would form a line do it in coordination during the age of the shield-wall. But the only way to get anything resembling it here is to take the shield critical specialization and hope for a critical hit when striking with it.

Just my two cents worth.

1) I initially saw it as to keep the one/two handed weapons from being too much of a gimme choice, and to make casting with a 2h weapon trickier. With Somatic actions no longer taking free hands (Though material still does) this is less of a thing, and overall I've warmed less to the action cost to re-grip (I was glad they made dropping grip a free action, and I will be surprised if re-gripping remains an action in the CRB).

2) Huh, good point. Hadn't really thought of it but yeah, would totally be good. It would make Doubling Rings hype for a Sword and Boarder too, as copying your weapon potency to the shield would keep your Shove checks boosted even if you don't have an Athletics boosting items.

Or as I...

When did they change the re-grip rules? I must have missed that.

On the topic of shoving with shields, it's not as though there is no precedent for shields to have weapon properties. All the light shield entries have "Agile." At the very least the heavy shield should get "Shove."

It occurs to me that many of the issues being debated here could apply to Paladins and Barbarians as easily as Fighters. When we talk about armor penalties and the viability/availability of different combat maneuvers it almost seems more like a discussion of strength-based characters vs dexterity-based characters and spell-casters than a discussion of any one specific class.

[Loreguard]

Reading through all of this, I'm realizing that I've had something that I think bothered me to a degree, but never really 'connected' with me until just now.

Fighters have always pretty much been trained with almost all weapons. Now fighters are even trained with all exotic weapons. However, in many respects due to needing to buy feats, fighters frequently had to follow a path that normally chewed up most if not all your feats to really feel like you're keeping up.

What if fighters got bonus fighter/combat feats, every other levels, somewhat like rogues get. These extra feats choices are considered bonus feats. They can only be spent on fighter feats (not on multiclass feats)

Or a little more extreme... what if most of the combat maneuvers for fighters were changed into proficiency/skill feats. And fighters get bonus combat proficiency feats every odd level. These feats grant new combat actions, but they have prerequisites in the form of expert/master/legendary weapon proficiency in the weapons/shield/armor in question. Some might extend the sort of benefits that specific weapon traits provide. Fighters would then be able to pick up several weapon/armor/shield activities letting them build a good selection of combat strategies that they could pursue. As skill feats frequently have the tradition of scaling with proficiency, combat skill feats could also provide additional bonuses as their weapon skill increases.

Fighter Class feats could be reserved for things such as archetypes such as multi-classing as well building up types of actions that might not be as tied to specific weapons or equipment. Maybe things like Sudden Charge, or maybe Furious Focus or Power Attack which somehow seem like they might be less tied to specific weapons/tools as general training (I honestly for instance could imagine them being used with natural attacks easily).

With this one, some of these early combat styles wouldn't necessarily become exclusive to fighters, but they would have them by far sooner than any other classes, and ones tied to master and legendary might well be exclusive to fighters. It would give fighters unique early access into these combat styles, and if you give them enough, they should be able to build up a nice playbook of actions they can use in combat. [instead of spellbook, they effectively have a playbook, of different actions they can use to maximize their strategic delivery of the best damage or protection for their party] These feats don't have to be as powerful as spells, they just provide useful options that can scale with their weapon proficiency.

The other thought I had was how Fighters, unlike most of the other classes don't have a 'path' choice, such as the different spell-casters, the rogues, and barbarians and such, built into the class. My first thoughts involved having a generalist (kind of like defaulted) who knows lots about all weapons, or a specialist, who would only begin being expert as two or three weapons (potentially depending on if any of them are exotic). Another option that comes to mind is the 'officer' or 'noble' whom would be a fighter, but who might get to choose CHA as their primary stat. They might get non-magical inspire/strategy effects. Potentially learning a reaction to do spontaneous Aid actions to help allies with an action after the roll was made, when they might need a boost? You could even have a Tank'ish' option that might have 'CON' as their primary attribute. Perhaps such a tank character might have the ability/training to have armor grant them a small amount of Damage Resistance based on their armor, its quality, and their proficiency, allowing them to reduce the damage they take from some weapons. (things like padded might provide Resistance of 1 vs Bludgeoning, Chain vs Slashing, plate vs Slashing and Piercing perhaps, etc)

As for the mentioned Taunt mechanism... I dislike ones that force a particular opponent to attack you. However, the ones where you take a slight penalty to hit if you have the option of attacking the taunting individual, but you choose to instead attack someone else. A form of distraction penalty. It could even grow to granting an ally concealment due to a taunt pulling the attackers attention away from their foe for a moment. (although that sounds like a CHA based ability)

[PossibleCabbage]

I feel like the fighter needing to spend feat after feat to keep up with stuff is resolved by eliminating feat taxes like combat expertise, weapon focus, improved [combat maneuver] etc. just to get to the fun stuff. IIRC this was used as a technique in PF1 to make things for fighters without locking everybody else out of them - just make them part of long feat chains.

But since nobody needs to take a junky prerequisite, and things like "weapon focus" which are pure math enhancers no longer exist as class feats it's not really necessary to give fighters many more class feats than everybody else.

[Edge93]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like the fighter needing to spend feat after feat to keep up with stuff is resolved by eliminating feat taxes like combat expertise, weapon focus, improved [combat maneuver] etc. just to get to the fun stuff. IIRC this was used as a technique in PF1 to make things for fighters without locking everybody else out of them - just make them part of long feat chains.

But since nobody needs to take a junky prerequisite, and things like "weapon focus" which are pure math enhancers no longer exist as class feats it's not really necessary to give fighters many more class feats than everybody else.

Agreed here. On that note though I do like that they get those two flexibility feats at certain levels as a nod to Fighter feat count.

And now it makes me want to make a Fighter who uses those feats to set himself up to where he can switch between TWF, dualist, 2H, Archery, or Sword and Board each day as takes his fancy. You'd probably have to take some feats from the styles as permanent feats meaning some dead weight each day depending on style, but being able to relegate two key feats from each style seems like it would make the idea actually viable!

TWF needs Double Slice and Two Weapon Flurry or Twin Parry, other feats optional.

S&B needs Quick Shield Block and Shield Warden, other feats optional.

2H... doesn't really NEED anything, but I'd go Felling Strike and maybe Repositioning Strike. Other feats optional.

Archery needs maybe Point Blank Shot IF Longbow, and then what? Double Shot and Maybe Triple Shot?

Duelist has a variety of options but few necessities, I like Dueling Parry and Dueling Dance, or maybe something and Agile Grace.

Just an idea I kinda like now. You'd not be an expert in any of the styles, and it'd need magic weapon houserules, but it seems fun.

[Bluenose]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like the fighter needing to spend feat after feat to keep up with stuff is resolved by eliminating feat taxes like combat expertise, weapon focus, improved [combat maneuver] etc. just to get to the fun stuff. IIRC this was used as a technique in PF1 to make things for fighters without locking everybody else out of them - just make them part of long feat chains.

A problem there is that those feat chains were designed to start at level 1 and had an appropriate power level for the level you could acquire them. When you completed one, and your next feat was something selected from the things you didn't choose at level 1 last time. I'm sure people can imagine the reaction if a Wizard who didn't bother with shocking grasp at 1st level found it a prerequisite for lightning bolt at 5th, and that there wasn't a 4th level fire spell to continue their burning hands/scorching ray/fireball chain. While PF2 may have helped with the second in that their are feats which seem reasonable to take at 10th level or higher, but not really in a way that increases versatility. Higher level feats should grant extra benefits not because you've got a lower-level feat in a chain, but dependent on which lower level feat you have. Or low level feats should improve depending on which higher level one you take, although that looks more difficult to manage.

[Peenicks]

Thread unlocked I see. :D

Alright, so to continue the discussion.

After playing a little bit more after the closing of the thread, another issue I saw is that the Fighter does not get enough feats to compete with everyone else. And they still feel so small in comparison to what others get.

Why must a combat grab, be a press? This makes no sense at all. Why not do it at the start of the attack? I'll never understand why are these limitations here to someone who feels so limited already.

At 5th level, in comparison to what a wizard can do, vs what a fighter can do.

A Wizard has a couple of spells to choose from each doing something else..

The Fighter has only 3 feats which already feel limiting, with negative penalties. (this is not quadratic lizard, linear gizard talk about DPS)

Instead, why not increase the amount of feats the fighter gets? To have more things to do in combat, so you don't feel so *linear* in your choice of specialization.

[Helmic]

In regards to "tanking doesn't work in D&D/PF" I think it's more accurate to say that tanking works differently than it works in video games.

In 3.5-derived games, as others have pointed out there's no aggro mechanic. Enemies and players are going to attack whoever makes sense. Sure, you can bump up your defenses and HP a bunch and have self-heals, but none of that will matter if the enemy decides to go after your squishy backline isntead.

However, in PF and 5e, there's various abilities that will allow a character to essentially "blackmail" an enemy into striking them. If an enemy tries to move away or hit someone other than you, you're able to spend a reaction to smack it really, really hard or otherwise do something so bad that the enemy freely decides it would be a better idea to just try to kill you first rather than deal with your reaction in an attempt to hit a squishy.

The idea of tanking, then, isn't necessarily to soak up damage, but to rather f+#@ with your enemy's target prioritization such that they're missing more often or dealing ineffective damage. All Fighters have the unique Attack of Opportunity, which makes them "sticky" in that the enemy has to basically burn an action just to get away safely. If a Fighter, starting out near their allies Sudden Charges into an enemy in the first round, that enemy will have to burn one action to Step and then two actions to reach the Fighter's allies in melee, preventing it from dealing damage. That's not even a dedicated tanking build, that's just something Fighters do to prevent damage, they force enemies to waste an action if they want to switch targets.

Paladins notably have exclusive access to Retributive Strike, which is again just a form of blackmail tanking. It doesn't make your character any tougher, but instead so long your ally and the enemy are both within 15 feet of you you instead just automatically give your ally resistance to all damage. [/i]They[/i] get tanky, and then you might also be able to hit the enemy if you happen to be within reach. If you're the the GM controlling an intelligent enemy, you're going to catch on really quick that attacking anyone but the Paladin is going to be a waste of time, the Paladin is now the squishiest target even though their AC is sky high. Blade of Justice combined with extra Shield Block Reactions combined with turning every Shield Block additionally into a Retributive Strike can threaten to straight up kill many enemies daring to ignore the paladin. It's a pretty powerful bargaining chip, but paladins have to stay close to those they want to protect rather than rush in alone like fighters would prefer.