Playing a Tanky Fighter doesn't feel so good.


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 163 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hello, I want to talk about the fighter and how weak it feels when it competes in terms of DPS towards other classes and it feels weak, in terms of what it can do, apart from attack and the occasional shield block to defend a friendly character. I will be speaking about 10th level.

The first issue I have come upon is the flavor text of the fighter:

"During combat, you stand between allies and enemies if you’re a melee fighter. You draw fire and deal out major damage with unmatched accuracy. Your ability to attack foes who move away lets you punish those who try to get past you. If you’re a ranged fighter, you deliver precise shots from a distance. It’s likely you’ll benefit from spells from spellcasting allies to make you tougher, faster, or better at attacking."

The thing is, there is no ability which allows you to draw fire, and I am clearly out DPS'ed by other classes. There's literally no Taunt ability which allows me to shield my allies. The Coerce ability works if I speak for 1 minute but I'm sure enemies won't wait for me to finish my emotional speech.

Sure the DM might decide that since I go first enemies would attack me, but other than that in an ambush I can't make my enemies draw the fire to me.

There is no incentive for me to play as a Fighter with a sword and a shield dishing out massive damage, where clearly the damage is not there.

Sure, I can take Power Attack, and the damage would seldom increase when I mix it with Forceful weapons such as the Scimitar and the Orc NeckSplitter. But that would be 5d8 at most,

Now that's only DPS wise.

Versatility wise, the class is lacking. If you look at fighters throughout they can complete combat feats which others aren't able to do normally. Their weapon training would allow them to do much more and clearly with the critical specialization that was the intention.

But it is still lacking. I still would need to roll a critical hit against a creature which means going over it's AC or rolling a 20 which is hard however you look at it. I would allow the fighters to use the critical specialization without having them hit a Critical at any case.

I would love to hear what other people think. :D


First off, on the DPS note, if you're playing a tank you probably won't have the best DPS, 1 handed weapons are naturally better than 2-handed. I'm not sure though how the rest of the party is out-DPSing you unless they are all using 2-handed weapons. Fighters in my experience are top-notch DPS due to having the best accuracy in the game.

As for lacking versatility-wise, I'm not sure where that's from either. In my experience the Fighter feats can give you a really cool variety of options that let you pull different tricks in combat.

As for tanking, yeah, there's a bit of issue though. Attack of Opportunity helps give you some area control but really as it stands now making a tank work falls partly to the GM as a responsibility. There is no aggro mechanic, but the GM chapter of the rulebook recommends that GMs consider allowing players to taunt monsters for aggro and such when appropriate as it can make for a better story feel to battles. And Fighters are honestly plenty capable of making themselves a significant threat, which should draw enemy attention, whereas in PF1 tanky Fighters couldn't really do that.

Also having critical specialization effects proc on a regular hit would probably be pretty broken. Some of those abilities are seriously strong.

Sorry Fighter isn't working great for you, I'm curious what leads to your issues as they don't match up with my own experience.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Peenicks wrote:
Sure, I can take Power Attack, and the damage would seldom increase when I mix it with Forceful weapons such as the Scimitar and the Orc NeckSplitter.

Don't take PA. It's a trap. If you have any level of potency rune on your weapon, it's a straight downgrade. I forget the name of it, but the feat that lets you ignore your second strike for MAP if it misses is much better.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Well, as far as the role as specified in your quote, the melee fighters would either draw fire by rushing in to attack the enemies, or use the local tactical space constraints to stand front of your more fragile companions, and use AoO to protect them and keep enemies away from them.

Granted, the first tactic puts you in a lot of danger, and the second, is often only effective against one foe at a time.

Being able to taunt might be a good idea, but it is relatively powerful, such that I'm not sure it should be a standard. One of my concerns ends up being when it is used in reverse, and how it impacts player agency in their decisions.

As to the idea of always applying the critical specialization, even when not getting a critical, I have concerns about, again in part on how it would apply back against the PCs for instance. I would feel like you'd have to give the defender a save against the effect, if the fighter didn't get a critical, for instance. An alternate, might be to have the fighter be give spell points, similar to some of the spell casters. But instead of putting the 'power' into spells, they could pay a SP to impart add the specialization effect on an attack that only got a success. That way they would have a limited resource that they can choose to spend to get those bonuses.

As far as giving them more flexibility and some better ability to have a little more of an ability to have surge abilities, I've contemplated giving them the ability to pick their next class feet, ahead of time, and offer them the ability to access it once a day. So a 1st level fighter would get to pick a 2nd level fighter feat, but would only be able to use the action associated with it once per day, spending a 'SP' to use it. (I even suggested that lower level fighter feat slots might include other feat choices giving them a pool of actions that they can access once at a time, by paying the SP each time.)


Peenicks wrote:
OP

Well, let's break this down based on pure math.

Starting out, assuming 18 in your primary stat, Fighters will always be +1 to hit higher than other classes due to their increased proficiency, and are comparable to Paladins in terms of AC assuming identical armor (and Dexterity) choices. Their choice of feats are on-par with Barbarians with the likes of Sudden Charge, the likes of TWF Rangers with Double Slice (which is actually superior IMO when action usage is a non-issue), but will be weaker with Sword and Board/Shields compared to Paladins whom select Shields with their Righteous Ally, but as I've stated before, they will be better offensively as a result, making this a wash.

By 3rd level, assuming all optimal martial characters have Expert weapons, you included, you'll have +2 higher to-hit than anyone else, meaning you are 10% more likely to hit compared to any other class (and assuming you could normally critical on a Natural 20, 10% more likely to critically hit anyone). These bonuses amplify further with flanking/feinting enemies, and you can utilize Intimidation tactics to reduce an enemy's likelihood to hit you (even if these cost actions to do) if you are a sword/board type. Your feat selections don't expand very much at the moment, but in the higher levels, getting the ability to swat down flying enemies (especially if they grab you and try to drop you, a common flying enemy tactic), the ability to be flexible in ranged and melee combat, and so on, are what makes the Fighter their class, as most classes aren't anywhere near as flexible (or as strong as a result). Remember, at 3rd level, even using their non-specialized weapons, they are still +1 higher proficiency than most other classes, and simply having a standardized bow means they are equally accurate compared to a trained character using an expert quality primary weapon.

And when Core comes out, I would absolutely love an Armor Master Subclass choice (similar to what the other classes have received in treatment) where they substitute their Armor and Weapon benefits. Legendary Armor/Shield proficiency by 13th level would be awesomesauce, combined with other useful defensive feats (such as Stand Still, the Paladin's "Shield Other" feat, and so on), is probably the standard I can expect.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Hi everyone.

I am playing the fighter in Peenicks's campaign. He was either sick of my ceaseless ranting or perhaps found some of my points worthy enough to indulge in writing this.

The issues with the fighter class are multitudinous, and they aren't at all new (according to my current research into the mechanics of several D&D editions, possibly excluding the 4th I still need to compare and contrast).

I will preface this with an addendum: I don't claim to know everything there is to know about the fighter class neither in PF 2nd edition or D&D. I DM a 5e campaign and have previously only dabbled in tabletops.
But (and this is a big one), I have 7 years of body training, 2 years of Japanese Jiu-jutsu, and boxing/mma experience. I know the difference between a physically apt and trained individual vs. an average Joe. I am also well read on HEMA techniques. This is not to stroke my ego, merely to lend some credentials that may give me a better insight into how a fighter should be designed mechanically.

THEREFORE - - -

I believe that the root of the problem(s) is in the absolute lack of understanding of how medieval combat used to work, and how those techniques would be applied and built upon in a fantasy setting where magic and mythical creatures are involved. Too much time has been spent balancing the caveats of spells, not enough on the weapons. Yes, the tools of the fighter need more work. Consider them the Fighter's spellbook if it makes it easier. Because of this, the fighter is, for all intents and purposes, misunderstood as a class.

"Fight" is their name. They feel at home on a battlefield, they are a cerebral class during a battle despite not being spellcasters. Their understanding of the weapons they wield turn them into an extension of their own bodies. It should be on par with the wizard and his knowledge of the arcane. Sounds too radical? Well, imagine how smart and trained you'd have to be to have a chance against someone who can sling spells at you. If you consider that you'd be the underdog, then you might as well try to sling spells yourself. They should be adaptive, perhaps more so than the other classes. They don't have the overwhelming strength of the barbarian, nor the ambush skills of the rogue, nor the holy magic of clerics and paladins, nor the reality bending capabilities of sorcerers and wizards. So what DO (should) they have?

How about instead of critical hits applying a certain effect on the attacked target, you get a specific skill that

So here are my current problems, specifically, with the fighter class in PF2.

1. Not being able to attack with the longsword whilst holding it with two hands if I have a shield in one hand. This may sound stupid when you don't know how people used shields. Shields in medieval times were mostly *strapped* to the arm. If you were ever winded by a strike in the body you know that not even heightened adrenaline helps the body retain absolute composure. Your hand "forgets" to hold the shield, you drop it, bon voyage to the afterlife. This type of a shield doesn't leave much in the way of offensive capabilities with it, but some consider it a better version than the center-grip shield. With the shield being strapped you needn't always hold it. A two-handed attack is quite possible while still holding your shield, in fact, it is preferable to swing it that way in certain conditions since the shield still protects you while you strike. Whoever made that restriction has no idea what they're restricting.

2. Medium armor constraints in acrobatics or god-forbid - movement. This is high-quality b%%&#$~@ for anyone that has trained anything passionately. 10 kg of added weight is nothing to scoff at, but the key thing is - it. is. spread. out. over. your. entire. body. I know of people, regular people, who wear chainmail shirts underneath normal clothing to protect themselves against being stabbed in rough neighborhoods. Its barely visible underneath a blouse. They have claimed that after a month they don't even feel it. I don't find that hard to believe. Ok, certain acrobatic checks need to get harder, just if the armor goes past the knees, below the character's center of balance. But movement speed, seriously? On a trained m&!!!%%#++&$? Give me a break, please. And yes, I realize it "gets better" once you hit a certain level, but I don't see how someone's mind can handle learning and channeling numerous spells each day, whilst it takes longer for a body's physiology longer to adapt to added weight. It makes no sense for the 1st level fighter to not already possess this aptitude.

3. NO VERSATILITY. I can harp about this for an eon. And it is so easily fixable it perplexes me why they haven't tried to balance it. The fighter deserves way better in the way of options. And here's how we give the class what it needs - the aforementioned weapons. Instead of critically hitting to achieve a weapon's extra trait, how about you give smaller bonuses in the form of different options when the fighter becomes better versed with the weapon.

Example: Longsword. Trained: + to hit. Expert: Chance to parry/ added AC. Master: Roll to disarm. Legendary: Counter attack. This is just off the top of my head. Some weapons could allow for bleed effects, others for dismembering or disabling body parts. It will allow for so much versatility while still keeping the class strictly martial. You will finally have a use for having expert status on all weapons, many of them will serve you well in different situations, as they historically did. If you think it is over powered nerf the damage. But its versatility that the class sorely lacks.

Here's why I'm in such a ranting mood on the topic. The druid in the party can deal fire, lighting, positive and negative damage, on top of the slashing damage provided by the scimitar she wields. That's versatile. I can do slashing (longsword), and bludgeoning (shield). If a fighter wants to do magic damage then the only way to do it is through wielding magical weapons. Because this off-balances things in the druids favor the aforementioned weapon traits will make up for it.

And Edge93, I don't know how far you've progressed with your fighter, but at level 5 I feel underpowered as hell compared to the druid. She can deal a lot more damage, whilst not having to move into range, whilst having similar AC, whilst not being encumbered by armor, whilst having enormous versatility, whilst being able to have the additional output of damage from her pet. The flavor text Peenicks mentions is an outright lie. Why a taunt mechanic in a form of a shout/battlecry still hasn't been implemented is infuriatingly confusing. At the very least it would allow the class to have a protection role without DM fiat.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

So two things- a taunt mechanic is singularly inappropriate for a tabletop roleplaying game IMO, since one of the core assumptions of the genre is that we assume PCs and NPCs are individuals with minds who are free to make decisions based on the circumstances they find themselves in. While certainly antagonists make bad decisions as befits their characterization all the time, something like "I will stop attacking the person next to me in order to run over to the heavily armed person and attack them" simply stretches credulity.

Another thing though, D&D/PF has never really supported the fantasy of "I am an impenetrable wall of defense, nothing can harm me." Even the tankiest characters you could build in previous editions could only survive a few more hits than everybody else. Defense simply is not very strong in D20 games, and I don't think it can be without switching to a completely different system. So don't even try to "tank" - your defense is simply a measure of how long your offense lasts in a fight.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:

First off, on the DPS note, if you're playing a tank you probably won't have the best DPS, 1 handed weapons are naturally better than 2-handed. I'm not sure though how the rest of the party is out-DPSing you unless they are all using 2-handed weapons. Fighters in my experience are top-notch DPS due to having the best accuracy in the game.

As for lacking versatility-wise, I'm not sure where that's from either. In my experience the Fighter feats can give you a really cool variety of options that let you pull different tricks in combat.

As for tanking, yeah, there's a bit of issue though. Attack of Opportunity helps give you some area control but really as it stands now making a tank work falls partly to the GM as a responsibility. There is no aggro mechanic, but the GM chapter of the rulebook recommends that GMs consider allowing players to taunt monsters for aggro and such when appropriate as it can make for a better story feel to battles. And Fighters are honestly plenty capable of making themselves a significant threat, which should draw enemy attention, whereas in PF1 tanky Fighters couldn't really do that.

Also having critical specialization effects proc on a regular hit would probably be pretty broken. Some of those abilities are seriously strong.

Sorry Fighter isn't working great for you, I'm curious what leads to your issues as they don't match up with my own experience.

Let's ignore the DPS for a moment there, what tricks are there?

Intimidating Strike? Combat Grab? Double Shot? Most of the good ones, require 1 free hand, which is occupied by the shield. At no point there is something, which consists the shield apart form Reactive Shield. Abilities like Twin Parry Should be reactions because you usually parry as a reaction not, as an action.

Most of the tools which a fighter knows to combat problems are way at the end of the leveling tree. Level 14 has knockdown per se. But do you realize how long that is until you get those?

Most of the other tricks are moving things, and let's face it. They are very situational.

RazarTuk wrote:
Don't take PA. It's a trap. If you have any level of potency rune on your weapon, it's a straight downgrade. I forget the name of it, but the feat that lets you ignore your second strike for MAP if it misses is much better.

Now that I think about it, good point. :D

PossibleCabbage wrote:

So two things- a taunt mechanic is singularly inappropriate for a tabletop roleplaying game IMO, since one of the core assumptions of the genre is that we assume PCs and NPCs are individuals with minds who are free to make decisions based on the circumstances they find themselves in. While certainly antagonists make bad decisions as befits their characterization all the time, something like "I will stop attacking the person next to me in order to run over to the heavily armed person and attack them" simply stretches credulity.

Another thing though, D&D/PF has never really supported the fantasy of "I am an impenetrable wall of defense, nothing can harm me." Even the tankiest characters you could build in previous editions could only survive a few more hits than everybody else. Defense simply is not very strong in D20 games, and I don't think it can be without switching to a completely different system. So don't even try to "tank" - your defense is simply a measure of how long your offense lasts in a fight.

This is the point of realism where it gets really wonky. If you cut someone, he starts bleeding by default. Why don't most weapons have a bleeding value. We can add realism to this as much as we want. A simple taunt ability which would only be usuable let's say, once or twice per encounter like Spell Points for Fighters would be simple enough to mitigate all of the above problems.

Pen & Paper RPG's which go along the lines of D&D/Pathfinder, have a long history of Fighters being the single most s$$&tiest class ever. Literally why bother with some tiny mechanics that don't do anything when you can just be a Barbarian, Rogue, literally anything else.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Peenicks wrote:
Edge93 wrote:

First off, on the DPS note, if you're playing a tank you probably won't have the best DPS, 1 handed weapons are naturally better than 2-handed. I'm not sure though how the rest of the party is out-DPSing you unless they are all using 2-handed weapons. Fighters in my experience are top-notch DPS due to having the best accuracy in the game.

As for lacking versatility-wise, I'm not sure where that's from either. In my experience the Fighter feats can give you a really cool variety of options that let you pull different tricks in combat.

As for tanking, yeah, there's a bit of issue though. Attack of Opportunity helps give you some area control but really as it stands now making a tank work falls partly to the GM as a responsibility. There is no aggro mechanic, but the GM chapter of the rulebook recommends that GMs consider allowing players to taunt monsters for aggro and such when appropriate as it can make for a better story feel to battles. And Fighters are honestly plenty capable of making themselves a significant threat, which should draw enemy attention, whereas in PF1 tanky Fighters couldn't really do that.

Also having critical specialization effects proc on a regular hit would probably be pretty broken. Some of those abilities are seriously strong.

Sorry Fighter isn't working great for you, I'm curious what leads to your issues as they don't match up with my own experience.

Let's ignore the DPS for a moment there, what tricks are there?

Intimidating Strike? Combat Grab? Double Shot? Most of the good ones, require 1 free hand, which is occupied by the shield. At no point there is something, which consists the shield apart form Reactive Shield. Abilities like Twin Parry Should be reactions because you usually parry as a reaction not, as an action.

Most of the tools which a fighter knows to combat problems are way at the end of the leveling tree. Level 14 has knockdown per se. But do you realize how long that is until you get those?

Most of the other...

. The closest in spirit to a taunt are the intimidation skill feats, leading to Battle Cry and eventually ‘Scare to Death’ they aren’t strictly a taunt, but a debuff effect that invokes a feat response would perfectly reasonably trigger ‘kill the scary thing first’ response in monsters.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Fighters in combat deal some of the most damage possible in PF1e. Your claim that they're the crappiest class ever doesn't really hold water. Linear fighter quadratic wizard has nothing to do with damage.

[EDIT]: I was talking about PF1e


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No one can wield a sword in their shield arm. That's like complaining that you can't fire a bow with your toes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Fighters in combat deal some of the most damage possible. Your claim that they're the crappiest class ever doesn't really hold water. Linear fighter quadratic wizard has nothing to do with damage.

Indeed, fighter feats are much more powerful for "fighting" as a primary vocation are significantly more powerful than other class's comparable feats. Like Paladins, Barbarians, and Rangers don't have good stuff like combat grab or double slice to say nothing for higher level stuff like certain strike. In terms of "doing damage with weapons" fighters are best in class.

I think the OP just wants to "tank" which is a thing which is not the fighter's job really, nor is something that Pathfinder even supports or has ever supported. Like, the "Defender" class is clearly the Paladin, and even the Paladin is pretty iffy at defending *other people* (though retributive strike got better in 1.6).


I admittedly have had little experience with the fighter, In the playtest only one person in my group played one and it was at 4th level but I don't remember them having any trouble.

I can only say that after going through their abilities and feats that 1. they have a higher to hit and therefore more crits than any class except maybe monk, which I think has the same progression once the handwraps equal out with the magic weapons. Simultaneously they have the same for AC. Higher than a monk if they go shield. A shield fighter keeps up with the paladin Ac-wise while still having a better attack and attack options. Someone that's better at math may be able to refute my numbers, if so feel free to let me know. I guess a rogue who's always attacking at flat footed has about the same to hit but if he's flanking with the fighter (always a good call) the fighter is still ahead.

As far as the caster problem, There is one solid solution though you have to be the one hand-open hand build or multiclass barbarian. Close with the caster and use improved combat grab or for the barbarian dip no escape and that caster isn't going to be reliably getting spells off ever. it be dead very soon.

As someone said above, the idea of the aggro tank is mostly a video game/MMO invention. It has never really been a TTRPG thing and short of giving the fighter or paladin enchantment spells it makes no logical sense.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Brother Fen wrote:
No one can wield a sword in their shield arm. That's like complaining that you can't fire a bow with your toes.

You're clearly not reading the point that you don't hold a shield, rather it's on your arm. Your hand is still free.

Most of the people above, like to cling to one point which is the DPS. Forget the DPS. Look at the other points.

Better yet. LOOK AT THIS

YooGee the Kodiak DM wrote:

Hi everyone.

I am playing the fighter in Peenicks's campaign. He was either sick of my ceaseless ranting or perhaps found some of my points worthy enough to indulge in writing this.

The issues with the fighter class are multitudinous, and they aren't at all new (according to my current research into the mechanics of several D&D editions, possibly excluding the 4th I still need to compare and contrast).

I will preface this with an addendum: I don't claim to know everything there is to know about the fighter class neither in PF 2nd edition or D&D. I DM a 5e campaign and have previously only dabbled in tabletops.
But (and this is a big one), I have 7 years of body training, 2 years of Japanese Jiu-jutsu, and boxing/mma experience. I know the difference between a physically apt and trained individual vs. an average Joe. I am also well read on HEMA techniques. This is not to stroke my ego, merely to lend some credentials that may give me a better insight into how a fighter should be designed mechanically.

THEREFORE - - -

I believe that the root of the problem(s) is in the absolute lack of understanding of how medieval combat used to work, and how those techniques would be applied and built upon in a fantasy setting where magic and mythical creatures are involved. Too much time has been spent balancing the caveats of spells, not enough on the weapons. Yes, the tools of the fighter need more work. Consider them the Fighter's spellbook if it makes it easier. Because of this, the fighter is, for all intents and purposes, misunderstood as a class.

"Fight" is their name. They feel at home on a battlefield, they are a cerebral class during a battle despite not being spellcasters. Their understanding of the weapons they wield turn them into an extension of their own bodies. It should be on par with the wizard and his knowledge of the arcane. Sounds too radical? Well, imagine how smart and trained you'd have to be to have a chance against someone who can sling spells at you. If you consider that you'd be the underdog, then you might as well try to sling spells yourself. They should be adaptive, perhaps more so than the other classes. They don't have the overwhelming strength of the barbarian, nor the ambush skills of the rogue, nor the holy magic of clerics and paladins, nor the reality bending capabilities of sorcerers and wizards. So what DO (should) they have?

How about instead of critical hits applying a certain effect on the attacked target, you get a specific skill that

So here are my current problems, specifically, with the fighter class in PF2.

1. Not being able to attack with the longsword whilst holding it with two hands if I have a shield in one hand. This may sound stupid when you don't know how people used shields. Shields in medieval times were mostly *strapped* to the arm. If you were ever winded by a strike in the body you know that not even heightened adrenaline helps the body retain absolute composure. Your hand "forgets" to hold the shield, you drop it, bon voyage to the afterlife. This type of a shield doesn't leave much in the way of offensive capabilities with it, but some consider it a better version than the center-grip shield. With the shield being strapped you needn't always hold it. A two-handed attack is quite possible while still holding your shield, in fact, it is preferable to swing it that way in certain conditions since the shield still protects you while you strike. Whoever made that restriction has no idea what they're restricting.

2. Medium armor constraints in acrobatics or god-forbid - movement. This is high-quality b*&&$!## for anyone that has trained anything passionately. 10 kg of added weight is nothing to scoff at, but the key thing is - it. is. spread. out. over. your. entire. body. I know of people, regular people, who wear chainmail shirts underneath normal clothing to protect themselves against being stabbed in rough neighborhoods. Its barely visible underneath a blouse. They have claimed that after a month they don't even feel it. I don't find that hard to believe. Ok, certain acrobatic checks need to get harder, just if the armor goes past the knees, below the character's center of balance. But movement speed, seriously? On a trained m&#@$&$+!#&$? Give me a break, please. And yes, I realize it "gets better" once you hit a certain level, but I don't see how someone's mind can handle learning and channeling numerous spells each day, whilst it takes longer for a body's physiology longer to adapt to added weight. It makes no sense for the 1st level fighter to not already possess this aptitude.

3. NO VERSATILITY. I can harp about this for an eon. And it is so easily fixable it perplexes me why they haven't tried to balance it. The fighter deserves way better in the way of options. And here's how we give the class what it needs - the aforementioned weapons. Instead of critically hitting to achieve a weapon's extra trait, how about you give smaller bonuses in the form of different options when the fighter becomes better versed with the weapon.

Example: Longsword. Trained: + to hit. Expert: Chance to parry/ added AC. Master: Roll to disarm. Legendary: Counter attack. This is just off the top of my head. Some weapons could allow for bleed effects, others for dismembering or disabling body parts. It will allow for so much versatility while still keeping the class strictly martial. You will finally have a use for having expert status on all weapons, many of them will serve you well in different situations, as they historically did. If you think it is over powered nerf the damage. But its versatility that the class sorely lacks.

Here's why I'm in such a ranting mood on the topic. The druid in the party can deal fire, lighting, positive and negative damage, on top of the slashing damage provided by the scimitar she wields. That's versatile. I can do slashing (longsword), and bludgeoning (shield). If a fighter wants to do magic damage then the only way to do it is through wielding magical weapons. Because this off-balances things in the druids favor the aforementioned weapon traits will make up for it.

And Edge93, I don't know how far you've progressed with your fighter, but at level 5 I feel underpowered as hell compared to the druid. She can deal a lot more damage, whilst not having to move into range, whilst having similar AC, whilst not being encumbered by armor, whilst having enormous versatility, whilst being able to have the additional output of damage from her pet. The flavor text Peenicks mentions is an outright lie. Why a taunt mechanic in a form of a shout/battlecry still hasn't been implemented is infuriatingly confusing. At the very least it would allow the class to have a protection role without DM fiat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think the OP just wants to "tank" which is a thing which is not the fighter's job really, nor is something that Pathfinder even supports or has ever supported.

I don't know about that. We've always been able to use positioning on the battlemat to get the tank to tank. Taunt mechanics hasn't really been necessary in our experience due to the fact that full attacks prohibit movement. A tanking fighter can get up to 2 AoOs each round (more than most tanks get in PF1e). Throw in feats like "shield adjacent creature" feat chain and it works pretty well in PF1e with no taunting required.

I just checked and Shield Warden is the PF2e version of the "shield adjacent creature" PF1e feat (does anyone know what it's actually called?). Quick Shield Block lets you do it 1 additional time per round.

So that's 1 AoO per round, 1 Shield Block per round and 1 extra reaction per round that can be either an AoO or a Shield Block (your choice). That seems like a pretty powerful tank to me. It could only be improved if Paizo produced a "Stand Still" feat that enhances your AoOs.

Taunting isn't necessary in a tabletop RPG.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
YooGee the Kodiak DM wrote:
I will preface this with an addendum: I don't claim to know everything there is to know about the fighter class neither in PF 2nd edition or D&D. I DM a 5e campaign and have previously only dabbled in tabletops.

I would be curious whether you feel like this complaint applies to D&D 5e and if you don't think it does, what does that fighter do that's missing from the PF2e one.

YooGee the Kodiak DM wrote:

But (and this is a big one), I have 7 years of body training, 2 years of Japanese Jiu-jutsu, and boxing/mma experience. I know the difference between a physically apt and trained individual vs. an average Joe. I am also well read on HEMA techniques. This is not to stroke my ego, merely to lend some credentials that may give me a better insight into how a fighter should be designed mechanically.

THEREFORE - - -

I believe that the root of the problem(s) is in the absolute lack of understanding of how medieval combat used to work

I'm going to stop you right there. It's a pretty big social faux pas for someone to come in and argue "here's my credentials on real life fighting and now here's the points I want to argue". The only reason to present your credentials is to try to assume a position of authority. It's unlikely anyone here is going to match the credentials you have outlined, and if anyone does then the argument boils down "you're wrong" and "no I'm not". It's not something that anyone here can engage you on in a conversation (without potentially lying about their own credentials) and it's ultimately pointless.

Pathfinder isn't real life. It is the evolution (and sometimes revolution) of a tabletop RPG that started in 1974 and has evolved into Pathfinder 2e, Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition, Castles & Crusades and 13th Age (along with many countless other splits). Real life is largely irrelevant to the game compared with what's fun. If you don't think the fighter is fun, that's great. Make that argument and we can engage you on that argument. Trying to argue from a position of authority however stops us from being able to engage you on that argument.

As an example of how unrealistic PF2e is: When D&D was first being created the creators decided to use hit points that would grow with your level. They knew this was completely unrealistic but did so because they thought it was more fun.


As far as the NO VERSATILITY thing goes and his examples of a fix, most of those are available as different weapon's critical specialization effects that Fighters just get whereas most other classes have to go through hoops to get.

As far as the battle cry thing, it exists. It's the demoralize intimidate action and there's even a skill feat called "battle cry" that lets you do it for free at the start of combat. Though I find it far more realistic that the enemy's reaction is "Holy Crap! that huge guy is running at me and yelling I should stay away from him." than "Lets ignore the skinny guy throwing fireballs at us and go after said big yelly guy."

I do see your point about the shield thing and maybe the armor one. Heavy armor has a problem right now in that currently all armors are made to equal out to about the same AC and Heavy armor is there for the people that dump Dex, however the fact that it seriously penalizes your athletics and speed is really harsh. Add to that how MAD classes are now and not to mention your poor reflex save, no one dumps dex entirely. They give incentives for fighters and paladins to stay in heavy armor but particularly for fighters that feels wrong. Also note that the armor check penalty does not apply to athletics for purposes of attack/combat maneuvers. I forget that sometimes.

Ultimately, as John said, the D20 system was never made to be super realistic, if realism is what you want there are better systems for it. Have fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are people, such as myself, who enjoy being the big burly in the group who can take a hit and stand toe-to-toe with the biggest monster in the dungeon. That's a playstyle that I think should be facilitated. I'm open to hearing how a Fighter's damage could be boosted slightly without stepping on what the Barbarian is good at (High DPS Fighter w/good armour vs. High DPS Barbarian w/poor armour).


The deal isn't to make it realistic. Give the fighter tools only available to him. Per se the critical specialization is fine But let's say he can target creatures and their weak spots better. You don't need to have it realistic.

He currently has some tidbits, but is outclassed in terms of what he can do opposed to other classes.

Fighter D&D 5E is just horrendous in my opinion. He has some tiny tricks up his sleeve which are clearly outclassed by the barbarian and the monk in terms of melee.

I'd say the fighter in Pathfinder 2E is good only about 1/3. He has a decent and good start based on what tools he has available right now.

But he needs to be more versatile then that. He doesn't only know a couple of pre-defined skills. There is a plethora of different fighting styles available, and cherrypicking doesn't do it much glory.

The critical specialization is fine. Only what's your chance that you can score a critical strike in Pathfinder 2E? Very low. The effects of the critical strikes are good, but let's say you can apply them all the time. Suddenly the Fighter which can make targets flat footed all the time, bleeding etc is more threataning and gives him a wider pool of weapon usage to reap the effects.

I'll try the following changes since I'll be playing with Yoogee next Sunday:
- Shield no longer takes a hand free.
- Critical specializations can be applied when you normally hit.

And see how this works. :D


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I see this is degenerating into one of those "I like the idea of this class most therefore it should be better than the others" threads...

In parting I will say that unless you're fighting a significantly higher level enemy than you, crits are more common than you're making them out to be. Yes, In PF1 you could at high levels optimize like hell to get more crits but that wasn't the norm and what do you know? Easier to do for fighters than anyone else.

Have fun playing you OP homebrew Fighter!


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Peenicks wrote:
The deal isn't to make it realistic.

Strange. The post I was told to focus on spent a significant amount of time berating Paizo for their lack of understanding medieval combat. But okay.

Peenicks wrote:
Give the fighter tools only available to him.

Tricks that only the fighter can do:

* Grab someone when they strike them with their weapon (Improved Combat Grab).
* Spend an action to reroll their 2nd attack if it fails (Furious Focus).
* Enter a stance to ignore the volley penalty on longbows (Point Blank Shot)
* Spend 1 AoO per round to raise your shield against an attack.
* Assist an ally with a ranged weapon (Assisting Shot)
* Get a free attack on your 2nd or 3rd attack against another enemy if your attack misses (Quick Reversal)

I'm stopping there.

Peenicks wrote:
Fighter D&D 5E is just horrendous in my opinion.

Right. So the problem isn't "fighters in PF2e" but "Fighters in tabletop RPGs".


14 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the OP complaint of "my tank fighter doesn't feel very special" could be replaced by "my (insert any 2e class) doesn't feel very special" because everything's been nerfed, dampened and suppressed into an underwhelming sameness where a mere conditional +1 is begrudgingly granted as a feat or class ability.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

@ John Lynch 106

Alright, John. Ignore my real life experience, it has no bearing on the topic. Although, since we're discussing "having fun", I believe we can agree that keeping reality "real" is what makes the fantasy fantastical. Maybe that's neither here nor there.

Lets focus on what you propose - "having fun". I wouldn't be giving this discussion 2 hours out of my Sunday if I had fun playing the fighter. And what turns it from bad to worse for me is the recommendations including the druid's as well as people on this very thread and ALL over the internet telling me (and people like me) to play something else, another class, as if that is the ideal solution to the problem. No, lets sit down and discuss how to make this better. Because if thinking of lighting storms, fireballs, and wishes, comes easier to you than creating and managing a fighter class then YOU are the cause of the problem. You have pegged this class as "simple, crude, stationed in its tropes". When I'm saying "you" I obviously address the game designers. This is why I mentioned my experience - I believe it gives me, not authority or bragging rights, but a certain merit if I were to design a martial class. The finer details are easier to envision because they don't need to be envisioned at all, I've seen it, read it, to an extent - done it. No one is a wizard (harry). Anyone can become a fighter IRL. That's why it irks me more than seeing a more fantastical class not get what it deserves, because in my view it would be rather easy to brandish its edges.

I have no personal experience playing a fighter in 5e. I played a cleric alongside one and I remember the fighter being fairly modest, up until another PC rolled a barbarian - and this class outshined the fighter in everything. Better at taking damage, better at dealing damage. The finer details I can't claim to know, I was focused on my cleric and following the rules of the game. The player eventually concluded that he didn't like the fighter after he rolled a druid.

All I want is for the class to get more on par with what it's claimed to be. Not over powered, not special treatment, just what's right for it. Give it a fighting chance ffs. And if that's too much to ask, I'll get my ass off the forums and sit it firmly into homebrew territory. It's not like things can get much more off-balanced in my view.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
YooGee the Kodiak DM wrote:
I wouldn't be giving this discussion 2 hours out of my Sunday if I had fun playing the fighter.

It's a real shame you've only come in at this point. Please fill in the surveys, especially the class ones. It might be too late to enact substantial change, but you might help get things tweaked in the right direction.

YooGee the Kodiak DM wrote:
And what turns it from bad to worse for me is the recommendations including the druid's as well as people on this very thread and ALL over the internet telling me (and people like me) to play something else, another class, as if that is the ideal solution to the problem.

I haven't seen anyone say that, but okay.

YooGee the Kodiak DM wrote:
No, lets sit down and discuss how to make this better. Because if thinking of lighting storms, fireballs, and wishes, comes easier to you than creating and managing a fighter class then YOU are the cause of the problem.

I don't know what you're saying here except I'm the cause of the problem?

YooGee the Kodiak DM wrote:
You have pegged this class as "simple, crude, stationed in its tropes". When I'm saying "you" I obviously address the game designers.

Oh. Right. I was about to say you clearly don't know my gaming pedigree to make such claims about me.

YooGee the Kodiak DM wrote:
This is why I mentioned my experience - I believe it gives me, not authority or bragging rights, but a certain merit if I were to design a martial class. The finer details are easier to envision because they don't need to be envisioned at all, I've seen it, read it, to an extent - done it. No one is a wizard (harry). Anyone can become a fighter IRL. That's why it irks me more than seeing a more fantastical class not get what it deserves, because in my view it would be rather easy to brandish its edges.
YooGee the Kodiak DM wrote:
All I want is for the class to get more on par with what it's claimed to be. Not over powered, not special treatment, just what's right for it. Give it a fighting chance ffs. And if that's too much to ask, I'll get my ass off the forums and sit it firmly into homebrew territory. It's not like things can get much more off-balanced in my view.

I'm not really seeing anything of substance here about what you would change about the PF2e fighter. Can you perhaps try to dumb it down for me and avoid mentioning your real life expertise?

YooGee the Kodiak DM wrote:
I have no personal experience playing a fighter in 5e.

Fair enough. I asked because I don't recall the D&D 5e fighter being substantially different to the PF2e one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Raylyeh wrote:
In parting I will say that unless you're fighting a significantly higher level enemy than you, crits are more common than you're making them out to be.

Maybe I'm missing something, but every math breakdown I've read on these forums has had the optimized Fighter hit maybe 10% crit rate on first attack against an equal level opponent, and anything less than that at 5%. I don't think equal level counts as "significantly higher level" and I certainly wouldn't count "nat 20, maybe nat 19 with the best possible build" to be particularly common.


Shinigami02 wrote:
Raylyeh wrote:
In parting I will say that unless you're fighting a significantly higher level enemy than you, crits are more common than you're making them out to be.
Maybe I'm missing something, but every math breakdown I've read on these forums has had the optimized Fighter hit maybe 10% crit rate on first attack against an equal level opponent, and anything less than that at 5%. I don't think equal level counts as "significantly higher level" and I certainly wouldn't count "nat 20, maybe nat 19 with the best possible build" to be particularly common.

You could easily be right. I haven't actually looked at a level per level breakdown. I'm running on just my personal experience in the play test and in play it has seemed like my group and I have been critting more than in PF1. This could just be pure luck or an illusory correlation. Though I've mainly been playing a dread stalker build rogue so our enemies are often at -3 AC. (-1 fear, -2 flank) So that helps a lot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Which brings me to a point I think a lot of people ignore. These classes don't exist in a vacuum. Do we need to look at them in a vacuum? for a number of reasons yes we do for a level of balance but we also have to look at what they contribute to the group because that is also a large factor. You can argue about how bland or unrealistic fighters are but statistics and general consensus says that they are stand up melee combatants. Plus many of their builds add significant tactical battlefield control for the group and usually there is also at least one other melee combatant and if they aren't doing their best to take advantage of flanking that's on them, not the game. With the new set up every buff or debuff helps get those crits and Group cohesion and tactics are a lot more important in PF2 than in other D20 games.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@ John Lynch 106

Just bear with me since I can't figure out how to quote you, I'll just copy what I'm responding to.

"It's a real shame you've only come in at this point. Please fill in the surveys, especially the class ones. It might be too late to enact substantial change, but you might help get things tweaked in the right direction."

- Already did.

"I haven't seen anyone say that, but okay."

- I did. From the druid in our party. After today's morning session I went out to see if the fighter class had similar problems in previous editions and tabletops. Meaning how little thought was given to bring the class out of specialized territory since it can logically be justified. I went over the numbers with Peenicks, John. He's more experienced than me in min-maxing, he built a quick 10-lvl fighter while remaining with a sword and a shield. We quickly realized that at 10-th level he can only hope to match the druid's DPS output she has at 4-th! level with lucky dice rolls. Mechanically, he's the underdog every time. I can link the threads I went over. A sizeable chunk of people advised just switching to another class. It's not that important for thinking of ways to fix the class, I was merely disappointed at the apathy I encountered. Simultaneously, I was hoping to avoid the same replies to what I have to say happen here by addressing this.

"I don't know what you're saying here except I'm the cause of the problem?"

- Read through my post again, I'm not fond of repeating myself. But you might as well be in the way of correcting the class if you have the same perspective as the game designers or a defeatist attitude.

"Oh. Right. I was about to say you clearly don't know my gaming pedigree to make such claims about me."

- Despite my foul mood over the subject I'm a decent human being and I'm trying to solve what issues I see with the class. I'm not out to provoke fights that have no positive outcomes.

"I'm not really seeing anything of substance here about what you would change about the PF2e fighter. Can you perhaps try to dumb it down for me and avoid mentioning your real life expertise?"

- You don't strike me as a person that needs it dumbed down. Find a way to give the fighters versatility by possibly introducing class specific bonuses for every level of weapon training above "untrained". Get me a paycheck from Paizo and I'll get the solution done faster. Otherwise what time I have to homebrew the class is predicated on my free time. I am motivated to find suitable and balanced alternatives to underpowered and improperly restricted feats. I gave an example of such a feat in the first post. Ignoramuses are free to look up HEMA techniques with strapped shields. I'm sorry I can offer nothing more at the present time, but when I can - I will. I'll stop mentioning my expertise when you convince me that it can't be used as a well of logic and inspiration for creating these solutions. Why does it bother you so much, I've already stated several times that I'm not using it authoritatively?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Raylyeh wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
Raylyeh wrote:
In parting I will say that unless you're fighting a significantly higher level enemy than you, crits are more common than you're making them out to be.
Maybe I'm missing something, but every math breakdown I've read on these forums has had the optimized Fighter hit maybe 10% crit rate on first attack against an equal level opponent, and anything less than that at 5%. I don't think equal level counts as "significantly higher level" and I certainly wouldn't count "nat 20, maybe nat 19 with the best possible build" to be particularly common.
You could easily be right. I haven't actually looked at a level per level breakdown. I'm running on just my personal experience in the play test and in play it has seemed like my group and I have been critting more than in PF1. This could just be pure luck or an illusory correlation. Though I've mainly been playing a dread stalker build rogue so our enemies are often at -3 AC. (-1 fear, -2 flank) So that helps a lot.

No, you're correct on that. You almost always either outlevel or outnumber your opponent, and either can easily be used to boost your hit/crit rate quite quickly. I'm running a converted AP right now, and it frequently uses enemies of APL-4 to round out tough encounters. And you crit all over the place in those.

1v1 with an equal leveled monster is a scenario with very little bearing on actual encounters because you're supposed to win encounters, not have every one of them be a coin flip.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Exactly what can a druid do at 5th level that's the height of power and versatility?
Not to mention pretending that an animal companion is in any way power-comparable to a fighter.

And by the way, I'm 100% calling your bluff that a 10th-level fighter is required to have damage equivalent to a 4th-level druid.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Peenicks wrote:
Brother Fen wrote:
No one can wield a sword in their shield arm. That's like complaining that you can't fire a bow with your toes.

You're clearly not reading the point that you don't hold a shield, rather it's on your arm. Your hand is still free.

I think you missed the point. There are people who fire a bow with their toes.


@ Cyouni

We're talking about versatility in terms of comparison. I don't understand the confusion about this.
She can do several different types of damage, for one. She can attack multiple opponents simultaneously. Burning hands does 4d6 fire damage to up to 3 targets at her level at reasonable range. What's the fighter's equivalency to all this? And where did you see me comparing the animal companion with the fighter in terms of power? I mentioned that it is simply another thing that the druid has. That creature gets a whole lot better when it can bite through ropes perhaps or get someone's attention. It's another playable character for the druid, another plethora of options. That bluff exists only in your head. Explain to me why I'm "bluffing"?


YooGee the Kodiak DM wrote:

@ John Lynch 106

Just bear with me since I can't figure out how to quote you, I'll just copy what I'm responding to.

"It's a real shame you've only come in at this point. Please fill in the surveys, especially the class ones. It might be too late to enact substantial change, but you might help get things tweaked in the right direction."

- Already did.

"I haven't seen anyone say that, but okay."

- I did. From the druid in our party. After today's morning session I went out to see if the fighter class had similar problems in previous editions and tabletops. Meaning how little thought was given to bring the class out of specialized territory since it can logically be justified. I went over the numbers with Peenicks, John. He's more experienced than me in min-maxing, he built a quick 10-lvl fighter while remaining with a sword and a shield. We quickly realized that at 10-th level he can only hope to match the druid's DPS output she has at 4-th! level with lucky dice rolls. Mechanically, he's the underdog every time. I can link the threads I went over. A sizeable chunk of people advised just switching to another class. It's not that important for thinking of ways to fix the class, I was merely disappointed at the apathy I encountered. Simultaneously, I was hoping to avoid the same replies to what I have to say happen here by addressing this.

"I don't know what you're saying here except I'm the cause of the problem?"

- Read through my post again, I'm not fond of repeating myself. But you might as well be in the way of correcting the class if you have the same perspective as the game designers or a defeatist attitude.

"Oh. Right. I was about to say you clearly don't know my gaming pedigree to make such claims about me."

- Despite my foul mood over the subject I'm a decent human being and I'm trying to solve what issues I see with the class. I'm not out to provoke fights that have no positive outcomes.

"I'm not really seeing anything of substance here about what you would change about...

I don't see anything good coming from us continuing this conversation. I just wanted to let you know I did read your reply although all I've gotten from it is "fighter sucks. Make it better". That might be an unfair summary of your post but it's all I've been able to understand. If anything else of substance was included I apologise for being unable to understand it.


YooGee the Kodiak DM wrote:

@ Cyouni

We're talking about versatility in terms of comparison. I don't understand the confusion about this.
She can do several different types of damage, for one. She can attack multiple opponents simultaneously. Burning hands does 4d6 fire damage to up to 3 targets at her level at reasonable range. What's the fighter's equivalency to all this? And where did you see me comparing the animal companion with the fighter in terms of power? I mentioned that it is simply another thing that the druid has. That creature gets a whole lot better when it can bite through ropes perhaps or get someone's attention. It's another playable character for the druid, another plethora of options. That bluff exists only in your head. Explain to me why I'm "bluffing"?

In that regard you're correct, versatility is one of the things that casters in general have over non casters and this is why. Few if any casters can, over the course of an adventuring day, dish out the amount of consistent, single target, no resource cost DPR of most non casters. So they make up for it with a limited pool of high burst damage, often multi target attacks plus buffs, debuffs and out of combat life improvement stuff. It's MAGIC, Of course it does things people without it can't, that's the point! If you think that's a problem there is a very viable Fighter build that just wrecks casters from level 2 on if you're willing to get rid of that precious shield. If that's not enough I don't know what to tell you other than to start playing a system that has no magic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
YooGee the Kodiak DM wrote:

@ Cyouni

We're talking about versatility in terms of comparison. I don't understand the confusion about this.
She can do several different types of damage, for one. She can attack multiple opponents simultaneously. Burning hands does 4d6 fire damage to up to 3 targets at her level at reasonable range. What's the fighter's equivalency to all this? And where did you see me comparing the animal companion with the fighter in terms of power? I mentioned that it is simply another thing that the druid has. That creature gets a whole lot better when it can bite through ropes perhaps or get someone's attention. It's another playable character for the druid, another plethora of options. That bluff exists only in your head. Explain to me why I'm "bluffing"?

I don't want the fighter to have a weapon equivalent of burning hands*. So our wants are now diametrically opposed. Fighters are not spellcasters. They shouldn't get spells. Nor should they get equivalent abilities that have a martial spell effect. If you want a spellcaster fighter play an Eldritch knight. I played one in PF1e. It was hard, but a lot of fun. It's a lot easier in PF2e because you don't have to multiclass into a prestige class. All you have to do is sacrifice those situational feats you dislike so much to get spells.

*I believe archers have a close blast attack which I'm ok with. I wouldn't want it working with a greatsword though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Raylyeh wrote:
I don't know what to tell you other than to start playing a system that has no magic.

D&D 4th ed did what the OP wants. I for one am glad Paizo didn't go to that extreme with PF2e (although they came close)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hope someone got a laugh, cause I wasn't laughing when I typed it.

That's one of the points, yes. They were numerous, and while not perfectly concise (English is not my 1st language) I did try to communicate them to you. Fighters should be more than one-trick ponies. Their feats need dire improvement. Weapons are the way to go about bringing versatility without turning the class into something that it isn't. A strapped shield leaves a free hand. Some armor restrictions are utterly illogical, especially those that influence movement speed. A taunt mechanic should at least be considered.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
YooGee the Kodiak DM wrote:

I hope someone got a laugh, cause I wasn't laughing when I typed it.

That's one of the points, yes. They were numerous, and while not perfectly concise (English is not my 1st language) I did try to communicate them to you. Fighters should be more than one-trick ponies. Their feats need dire improvement. Weapons are the way to go about bringing versatility without turning the class into something that it isn't. A strapped shield leaves a free hand. Some armor restrictions are utterly illogical, especially those that influence movement speed. A taunt mechanic should at least be considered.

Unless specifically asked to reply, this is my last post here. A true "taunt ability breaks causality. But, What do you know, Fighters are the class that have the closest plausible equivalent. They have multiple feats that allow them to move the enemy where you want them or grab the enemy and and keep them next to you and if they try to get away from you in either situation, they have to spend 2 actions (step then move) or you punish them. (AoO) A number of these feats even require a shield to use. There are feats and I assume certain creature powers that can break that sequence but they are the exception not the rule.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There's a language barrier here, I'm pretty sure of it now.
That's the absolute last thing I want - to give fighters magic.
But don't you agree these classes need an overhaul? Magic can achieve almost anything. Spellcasters can fly or turn invisible. I don't think balance has been achieved by limiting the amount of times they can use their tools, or the number of tools they can take daily. So what, that restriction applies to fighters too, they can't carry all the weapons at once. Turns will be spent just getting close to someone and changing into a more appropriate weapon. That's just the reality of things. But what's missing from this reality is how adaptive a top-notch fighter can become. A weapon-specialist; well give them the specials, then. There should be things I can do with a weapon that others shouldn't be able to, just like spells are off-limits to me. The reason is of course training, required to become better in anything.

I want to give them weapon-based mechanics that can deal enough damage to stay relatively close to their spellcasting compatriots. Or give them the means to, you know, stay useful. The tools at their disposal are their weapons, right? That's why I compared them with the wizard's spellbook earlier. They should use weapons more effectively than everyone, but not by a weak-sauce bonus to hit. A better chance to crit is still relative, and not something you can count on and build a strategy around.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
YooGee the Kodiak DM wrote:

@ Cyouni

We're talking about versatility in terms of comparison. I don't understand the confusion about this.
She can do several different types of damage, for one. She can attack multiple opponents simultaneously. Burning hands does 4d6 fire damage to up to 3 targets at her level at reasonable range. What's the fighter's equivalency to all this?

Sure, three times per day, and they can save against it to reduce that by half. And 4d6 is average 14 damage to each. And then if that 14 damage doesn't kill all three of them, said druid is now very much in range with their significantly lower AC and no defenses to get hit in the face.

It turns out being a blaster caster isn't all upside, nor is a blaster caster even a passable example of versatility. Because in order to do that damage, you don't have the versatility you were claiming to have.

Quote:

And where did you see me comparing the animal companion with the fighter in terms of power? I mentioned that it is simply another thing that the druid has. That creature gets a whole lot better when it can bite through ropes perhaps or get someone's attention. It's another playable character for the druid, another plethora of options. That bluff exists only in your head. Explain to me why I'm "bluffing"?

Your exact words:

"whilst being able to have the additional output of damage from her pet."
"We quickly realized that at 10-th level he can only hope to match the druid's DPS output she has at 4-th! level with lucky dice rolls."

And not to mention that "other playable character" gets one action a turn (as an animal order) or requires the druid to sacrifice one of their actions...and has a -4 Int mod.


@ Edge93

Flag to your heart's content, Columbus. If I'm wrong about the DPS, I accept that. I can handle being wrong without being petty.

@ John and Raylyeh

Thank you for the discussion. I'll check in later when Peenicks is around. I apologize for being brash. Maybe after a few more tests I will have better arguments to offer or better defend the ones I posited.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If we're supposed to be comparing damage capabilities on closely-grouped enemies, why are we not comparing a THF with an expert guisarme to this druid?

I just randomly picked feats out of the THF list, assuming I didn't want the control capabilities of Brutish Shove. That gives me Sudden Charge, Intimidating Strike, and Swipe.
- Sudden Charge is the standard for when they're more than one move away, and saves an action that you can use to swing again.
- Intimidating Strike is the standard for when you're already up close, to land that second strike at effectively only -2. It also helps make AoOs at an effective -1 for if they try to escape, and reduces the chance you'll get hit in return.
- Swipe is for handling multiple enemies, swinging at both with a +11 to hit and 1d10+4 damage. (It's notable that with a +1 weapon, that's 2d10+4, averaging at 15 - very close to what a druid with a 2nd-level Burning Hands does.)
- AoO can be used to punish ranged enemies, casters, or just plain enemies trying to get away. With reach in this case, they can't even just Step to escape.
- There's also the option to trip enemies, if you want to give yourself options there.

None of these are anything the druid can get anywhere close to with their martial capabilities.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have removed a post for personal attacks, as well as the follow-ups.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Paizo had the opportunity with 2e to address the Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards problem, for years people had been talking about it, and asking for martials to be buffes, Paizo choose however to nerf everyone down to a similar level, no class os versatile or powerful anymore. That is the heart of the problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@ Cyouni

Because what you are doing right now is the reason why apparently no one can understand my posts. You take one narrow look at what's possible, while the larger picture still eludes you.

What you're doing is building this fighter to outperform the druid in DPS. So he will be good at that, of course. It doesn't address versatility. But I'm done trying to explain it further. It is unlikely I'll be adopting this system in any of my games in its current format.

@ Rob Godfrey

Thank you for the informative and impartial explanation, I didn't know of this. Knowing that people have mounted complaints before and it fell on deaf ears tells me everything I need to know.

The animosity displayed on this thread was unwarranted. For my part in it, I am sorry. It wasn't the lot of you that provoked me to act childish, it was the topic itself. If this system turns alright for your games have a blast playing. Peace


3 people marked this as a favorite.
EberronHoward wrote:
There are people, such as myself, who enjoy being the big burly in the group who can take a hit and stand toe-to-toe with the biggest monster in the dungeon. That's a playstyle that I think should be facilitated. I'm open to hearing how a Fighter's damage could be boosted slightly without stepping on what the Barbarian is good at (High DPS Fighter w/good armour vs. High DPS Barbarian w/poor armour).

Compare the Fighter to the Rogue. A rogue might be made in one way to be a social chameleon and con-artist, in another as a cat-burglar, thirdly as a spy and in a fourth way as an assassin. Now the Fighter can be a 'big burly', or a mounted warrior - oops, that's Cavalier - or a lightly armoured and mobile melee combatant - Swashbuckler took that niche - or an inspiring leader of men - except that is left to Bards, because obviously without magic you can't inspire - and doing too much damage upsets the Barbarian and being a Tank upsets some people's sense of what's realistic... And the fact that you like the one narrow option the Fighter gets shouldn't mean there shouldn't be other ways of doing them. It's not as if the options I'm suggesting are as varied as the rogue options, or deviate hugely from being good at combat.


Hey look, someone that actually gets it.

1 to 50 of 163 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Playing a Tanky Fighter doesn't feel so good. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.