No bro, you didn't, you created something to fulfill YOUR argument and then halfassed your way through it, pretty common on this board honestly but im over this.
I believe there's a term for when someone makes a big ruckus out of leaving a discussion while acting offended instead of making an argument. I can't remember what it is so I might just call it "doin a Ryan" from now on.
I literally don't know what you mean when you say it's going to eclipse every other martial out there. You haven't explained anything and just continue spewing baseless claims. Everyone here is arguing in good faith except you.
Heal skill has enough feats now that you don't really need a specific class to play healer anymore.
I know, I have a Shaman with Healing Hands in the group I currently GM for. Which is why I didn't further my plans to replace healing wands with something else, as the player wanted to build the character that way and I didn't want to invalidate that choice.
Of course, you never needed a specific class for HP healing in Pathfinder. Wands of CLW are in the CRB, and Druid, Bard, Paladin, and Ranger could use them just as well as a Cleric. Infernal Healing actually predates Pathfinder as a standalone game (appearing first in Gods and Magic from 2008), and were reprinted 6 month after the realease of the CRB. With IH, 7 out of 11 classes could use healing wands. Nowadays, it's 20 out of 40, plus potentially Occultist, Medium, and a bunch of classes via archetype.
I think that if a class's signature ability (apart from spells, obviously) boils down to "saves you a few gp after a fight", that counts as a class that "needs more love". I did say "if anything", though, because Cleric is certainly not the class in most need of 'love'.
For me, it feels like Paizo set the Slayer up to get a lot of cool talents in the future, as well as cherry pick some of the best talents that Rogues could get as well, and then forgot to actually create said cool talents or access to other Rogue talents.
Oh god yes. There is basically nothing in the Slayer Talent list apart from Ranger Combat Style, Rogue Talent, and Trapfinding. Not a single talent that is actually cool.
It's a more general problem, though. Barbarians can fly and sunder spells, Ninjas can turn invisible, unMonks can turn ethereal, but a Slayer gets... combat feats. Rogue and Vigilante have the same problem to some degree, but at least the latter gets pounce (in addition to improvements to saves and skills). There are some playstyles that profit a lot from Ranger Combat Style (e.g. TWF and shield bashing), which is why Slayer and Ranger have more genuinly character shaping choices, but some interesting options for those who don't want these select playstyles would be nice. Overall, more magical options for Rogue, Slayer, and Vigilante would be nice. Making Qinggong Powers aviable as Ninja Tricks might also be nice.
My position is that simply applying both specializations to vigilante creates an Ur-Martial that has a strong potential to wildly outshine all the others by virtue of being equal to superior in combat output, and better even than a number of 6 level casters at out of combat engagement.
Except it only does so in a surprise round when the enemy was unaware of the Vigilante. In any other round, the damage isn't higher then that of other well-build melees. And I don't see how Vigilante has anything that makes them "better even than a number of 6 level casters at out of combat engagement".
Of course, all it would take to remove the problem would be to add "except during the surprise round" to the first sentence of the Mad Rush description. Alternatively, Hidden Strike could simply be set to always use d4s, because it's really only the d8s on 5+ attacks that's the problem. And with either fix (or even both for all I care), I rather like the dual spec idea. Of course, it is my firm belief that every martial in the game (not counting Kineticist) should have d10 HD, full BAB, and 2 good saves. Because seriously, there should be at least some upside of not being able to reshape reality with your thoughts.
Also, should I point out that a Weretouched Shifter 4/Stalker Vigilante 8 as-is utterly blows the hypothetical dual-spec-Vigilante 12 out of the water?
What exactly does the barbarian have that the vigilante doesnt?
How about flight?
Also, should I point out that a Weretouched Shifter 4/Stalker Vigilante 8 as-is utterly blows the hypothetical dual-spec-Vigilante 12 out of the water?
Sure, but let me point out that with Weapon Shift and a Sap you can apply Sap Master to all your attacks on a pounce through the Scout Rogue archetype.
what books have the Heal related feats in them? I have the Masterwork Tools app and I think it's current up to Ultimate Intrigue/Wilderness/Occult (whichever one of those is the latest) and I've never seen those. Other than Skill Unlock: Heal
But again, I feel Healing is A theme of the Cleric, not their only theme, one they do well, and one they can do for free without using up their spell slots, which allows them to fill any other role they may want to with their spell selection.
|
Huh, so much for that 'quiet, measured discussion' I guess.
I agree that message boards can overlap with what could be better put into private messages, but there are many great ideas being discussed in each poster’s own manner.
Back to the point, what other classes can benefit from more options that would lead into more detailed role playing?
I love the ideas so far, what else does everyone have?
I don't really see what makes the Inquisitor any more limited than a cleric, outside the connotations of the name. From a purely fluff perspective, being more pragmatic and flexible than other agents of the divine is a cornerstone of the class' identity. Basically, you can slot an Inquisitor in in much the same way you could a paladin or antipaladin, except without the cloyingly stringent code of conduct that's historically left a bad taste in so many people's mouths and led to so many weird horror stories.
This might be more mechanical than just fluff based, but I feel like the most underdeveloped and in-need-of-love class is the Ninja. Yeah, it's an alternate class, but even Samurai and Antipaladin got some love later in PF1's publishing history.
Ninja has a cool chassis that gives it some flexibility, but there are very few archetypes (it has the fewest in the game by a decent margin) and a lot of the ones it does have are very specific and therefore sometimes hard to work with.
The only real saving grace is that its core chassis is so similar to a rogue it's not hard to homebrew rogue archetypes onto the ninja (or even create an unchained ninja), assuming you have a GM amenable to that kind of thing.
|
This might be more mechanical than just fluff based, but I feel like the most underdeveloped and in-need-of-love class is the Ninja. Yeah, it's an alternate class, but even Samurai and Antipaladin got some love later in PF1's publishing history.
Ninja has a cool chassis that gives it some flexibility, but there are very few archetypes (it has the fewest in the game by a decent margin) and a lot of the ones it does have are very specific and therefore sometimes hard to work with.
The only real saving grace is that its core chassis is so similar to a rogue it's not hard to homebrew rogue archetypes onto the ninja (or even create an unchained ninja), assuming you have a GM amenable to that kind of thing.
I wanna culturally appropriate the hell out of that class and make a non-Asian ninja. No exotic 'eastern' weapons. Some other word for 'ki' like mana or heat or arete or sang. Just totally reflavor it to a Persian hashashin, or an Ulfen 'hex nail' witch hunter who uses innate magical potential to fight the ebil Winter Witches of Irrisen.
Ditto the monk, actually. Make a version that doesn't get the traditional nun-chucks or kama or whatever, and flavors that they eschew weapons and armor, because they seek to master the primal powers of the animal kingdom that they feel mankind is losing by relying on tools and gear. This Mwangi 'monk' (just picking a location out of a hat, they could be anywhere) runs like a cheetah, strikes swift as a cobra, grapples like an anaconda, swims like a crocodile and slams you around like an angry wildebeest.
I can see Monks from different cultures, but a non-Japanese Ninja is just an Assassin and/or Rogue.
Clerics of the same god kind of blend together over time. +1 for removing Channel Energy and giving them some kind of talent system.
Rogues need character defining choices that are actually good.
Swashbucklers and Gunslingers getting selectable lists of deeds sounds cool.
I can see Monks from different cultures, but a non-Japanese Ninja is just an Assassin and/or Rogue.
Spy? Shadow Spy
The only problem with Vigilante is the bad fort save. Otherwise, I think the avenger specialization is a bit too good. I haven't messed with stalker or the archetypes much, but they look alright. I guess extra specializations could be nice, if someone wanted to make more content.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, but let me point out that with Weapon Shift and a Sap you can apply Sap Master to all your attacks on a pounce through the Scout Rogue archetype.
I know, but there is the issue that the archetype clearly talks singular, so I went with the lass ambiguous one. Also, for the surprise round, WTS4/Stalker 8 is better than WTS4/Scout 8 even with Accomplished Sneak Attacker, so that made for a stronger argument. For a regular round, there're plenty of melees that surpass the DPR of the hypothetical Vigilante, so there is no valid argument there anyway.
what books have the Heal related feats in them?
The main feat in that regard is Healer's Hands from Planar Adventures. It allows treating deadly wounds as a full-round action.
I'm likely falling into a "fluff" trap, but does the Inquisitor need help? I like the mechanics and played one once several years ago, but I always felt that class needed a very specific type of campaign.
I would call it "class name trap", as the trap lies in thinking that the class's fluff is in any way connected to its name. It's not. Indeed, class names are the one part of the character that has absolutely no bearing in-game. The issue isn't the character not fitting in, the only issue is the class's name not fitting in. Don't ever use it in-game and everything is fine.
Basically, you don't have to play an inquisitor character when using the Inquisitor class. You aren't actually required to hunt or even care for whatever faith others may have. In a polytheistic setting, inquisition in the real life sense for the most part wouldn't even exit, as the "everyone not with us is agaisnt us" thing doesn't work.
In short, Inquisitor has pretty much the exact same flavor as a Warpriest, and in any campaign (and every party) in which a Warpriest works, an Inquisitor works, too.
I feel like the most underdeveloped and in-need-of-love class is the Ninja
What, you mean all but completely replacing it with a better option doesn't count as showing love? I know, it lacks Invisible Blade.
Swashbucklers and Gunslingers getting selectable lists of deeds sounds cool.
They actually did that a little bit in Chronicle of Legends, offering replacement deeds (Gunslinger, Swashbuckler). It's just too little too late.
I think the avenger specialization is a bit too good.
How's that? it's a martial without different movement forms, vision enhancements, or even attack roll bonus. It gets pounce, but fairly late. It has plenty of bonus feats, but that was never enough to make a class good. Some of the later social talents (especially Companion to the Lonely) made it a well enough class, but far from the best martial.
How's that? it's a martial without different movement forms, vision enhancements, or even attack roll bonus. It gets pounce, but fairly late. It has plenty of bonus feats, but that was never enough to make a class good. Some of the later social talents (especially Companion to the Lonely) made it a well enough class, but far from the best martial.
Do we really want to get into that derail? But really, attack roll bonuses are nice, but there are plenty of non-class options for having a really high attack bonus, and the avenger already has full BAB. Its bonus feats often come with bonus feats, the pounce is average level for other pounces, it has a good option for a finesse build, and a good reflex and will save. On top of that, it still has good skills.
Avengers are pretty nice overall. They've got a really good skill package and some nice combat options, but they lack some of the big force multipliers more traditional martials have and the d8 HD and poor fort save are definitely kinda rough spots.
I think it's a bit much to call them too good, but I don't think it's fair to suggest they're bad either.
If you think about it, the stalker Vigilante does a lot of what Ninjas in folklore are meant to do. They were peasants or such by day, natural infiltrators and masters of disguise, and then trained in striking from the shadows but not especially good in a stand-up fight (represented by the d4s during a normal turn and the d8s during the surprise round plus all the Batman-esque fear effects from surprising foes).
Samurai and Ninja certainly got the shit end of the stick in 1e, a lack of archetypes, feats for their class abilities, entirely broken archetypes (sword saint) and etc.
The worst thing about the ninja was that the rogue could poach it's abilities, and thus there became no reason to play a ninja. And I'm not sure which lead to which (because this is a bit of a chicken or egg question) but the ninja basically got no support because the rules were "yeah, ninjas can take rogue things and rogues can take ninja things".
So very few people played them, and in return we got no more options for them.
Of course, it was also connected to the rogue chassis (easily the worst chassis) in the game and they never released an "unchained ninja".
Do we really want to get into that derail?
You don't think that this is a weird stance to take after you got into that derail first? You may not have intended your last post to be an invite for discussion, but it certainly sounded like one.
I'm also quite interested in why you think the Avenger is too good. You're not arguing that the Avenger is going to outperform every other martial. So is it because you feel it should be noticeably weaker than other full BAB options?
Its bonus feats often come with bonus feats
Some of the vigilante talents give more than one bonus feat, but they're rather specialized. If you're going for a whip-n-board TWF build with Cleaving Finish, that may or may not be blind, then you could potentially save a lot of feat slots by taking these talents.
Shield of Fury (2), Signature Weapon (2), Strike the Unseen (3), Sweeping Strike (2), Whip of Vengeance (2).
But if you're an archer then there's only Signature Weapon if you want to gain multiple feats per talent.
Personally I think Vigilantes are pretty neat. They're far from a bad martial and give you some really good skill options.
If I had one real complaint it's less that they didn't get enough love and more that they got too much of the love that should have gone other places. There are a lot of Vigilante-specific things that feel like fixes to general system issues and that feels kind of bad if you want to play something other than a Vigilante.
I guess you could say the same thing about the Ninja. The base ninja feels kind of like a patch on the base rogue and then the unchained rogue/teisatsu both do a lot to replace the original ninja too, but there's jut enough uniqueness between each option that it sort of feels like sometimes like I'm less deciding which class suits the concept the best and more what ideas I'm willing to compromise on or give up.
Sort of wish that Paizo had just bit the bullet and let the URogue/Teisatsu poach everything the ninja had, rather than leave it in this state of limbo where the class was basically abandoned but still has some exclusive stuff and then release a few archetypes right at the end of PF1's lifespan.
Guess that's a little off topic though.
|
Swashbuckler: Same as the Gunslinger treatment, again give them a better signature class ability because right now they don't have one.
And that's the other one. Open it up to staff specialist or spear-dancer (evoking the epic sweeping acrobatic spear styles of that elf from Hellboy 2, or the dude in Game of Thrones who fought the Mountain) or various other weapons, even the longsword (Crouching Tiger, Hidden What?). Game balance isn't going to collapse into fiery oblivion if the 'Swashbuckler' uses a weapon with a d8 base damage instead of a d6.
Both would become more of a weapon specialist / kensai sort of class, a lightly armored prodigy at their weapon, only instead of it being the gun or rapier, it would open up to bows, crossbows, thrown daggers (Merisiel as a 'Knifechucker?' Yes!), spears, staves, whips, paired fighting batons, etc.
Bladed Brush is out there, just need alternative versions.
I fully admit to not being as well versed in all the options out there as many of you. I'm likely falling into a "fluff" trap, but does the Inquisitor need help? I like the mechanics and played one once several years ago, but I always felt that class needed a very specific type of campaign. Far more so than a cleric, or even a paladin, it seemed to me hard to justify this class on a campaign that wasn't somehow linked to their faith/god. Am I just looking at it through to narrow of a lens?
On a possibly more legitimate note, what the hell are Omduras good for?
Heh, there was an archetype for the Omduras that allowed changing the spell list from Divine to Arcane. ;)
On a more serious note, it was mostly just to showcase what type of class Niobe (from the comics of the same name) would partly be in PF 1e terms.
Fighter... oh boy...
It feels like the other martial and semi-martial classes always have something more special than the Fighter, be the Barbarian's Rage, the Cavalier's Challenge, the Shifter's Aspects, the Ranger's Styles, the Magus's Spells and such.
The Fighter is almost the mindless gear-reliant brawn of the group. There's nothing "awesome" about it. Any martial BBEG is far off with another class than the Fighter. The ONLY major evil NPC that was a Fighter was the Duke, a menacing gladiator... which is borderline mindless.
It also lacks any believable reason to go adventuring. EVERY OTHER CLASS has a reason to leave towns and explore dungeons to fight monsters. The Fighter does not, as it's often not suited to explore tight corridors and climb mountains. It's your typical solider who got removed from its urban comfort zones.
Yes, the Weapon Master's Handbook gave the Fighter some much-needed abilities (to trade for Weapon and Armor Training), but the rest still sucks:
- Bravery should have been 1/2 your levels as a bonus against Fear AND Mind-Affecting effects.
- Perception is STILL NOT a Class Skill. It gets SURVIVAL, but NOT Perception. Oh and you GOT to love that it's still NOT 4 + Int modifier. Unlike the Wizard's, your Fighter might have the best Intelligence score to compensate. Yeah, they bumped d4 HD to d6, but not that.
- There's no innate ability to preserve your gear, such as adding your Fighter level to resist Sunder, Disarm, rusting effects and others. Of all classes, THEY should be more efficient at protecting their weapons.
- The feats themselves aren't as rewarding and bloat the whole class. Ok, MANY feats should have scaling mechanics to them, such as you take one feat and it gets stronger as you level up, WITHOUT forcing you to take the next feat in that tree. Basically, any Improved and Greater feat should have been merged with their basic feat.
- Since feats would be reduced in number, the Fighter wouldn't NEED that many bonus feats, so it could instead get MORE special abilities, taken from the Weapon/Armor Training OR the archetypes.
So yeah, the Fighter should have gotten a reason to be selected...
Eh, Fighters are okay. I do buff them to Int + 4 and give them good Will Saves in my home games but Advanced Armor and Weapon Training along with the Weapon/Armor Mastery feats gives them a niche.
Its kind of a boring Niche, but its not Swashbuckler levels of boring.
Eh, Fighters are okay. I do buff them to Int + 4 and give them good Will Saves in my home games but Advanced Armor and Weapon Training along with the Weapon/Armor Mastery feats gives them a niche.
The problem is that it gives ONE niche... when it needs like 3 or even 4.
It does feel a bit weird that they don't get Fencing Grace or Slashing Grace as a class feature at minimum, or something similar to the Unchained Rogue.They all need love but if I had to choose.
Swashbuckler- Should have got dex to damage and a good fort save.
It's because of the timing. The swashbuckler was developed first and slashing grace was thrown in at the last minute, apparently the damage got thrown in because just getting to finesse the slashing weapons wasn't good enough. Fencing grace came in the following companion book, when it was discovered that swashbucklers were oddly better at battleaxes than rapiers.
The unchained rogue was its own thing that came later on.
|
|
Eh, Fighters are okay. I do buff them to Int + 4 and give them good Will Saves in my home games but Advanced Armor and Weapon Training along with the Weapon/Armor Mastery feats gives them a niche.The problem is that it gives ONE niche... when it needs like 3 or even 4.
Online games have fighters / tanks able to cover DPS or tanking roles, depending on what gear they have equipped (two-handed weapon or dual weapons for DPS, shield and one-hand weapon for tanking), and it would be neat to see Fighters be able to handle multiple rolls as well.
Perhaps even a 'Vancian Fighter' who could swap out their bonus Fighter feats every day, with 1 hour of training in the morning, so that one morning they are a trip specialist with a reach polearm, but if the adventure turns in a direction where a trip specialist is useless, they can spent an hour the next day 'preparing' new Fighter bonus feats to be a cleave machine or whatever.
Most of the Core Classes are pretty good, now that UnChained versions exist and AWT/AAT are available. Whatever UnChained didn't fix, Hybrid Classes did.
The Base Classes are some of the best put together classes in the game, in my opinion... or at least most of them. Vigilante is whatever, but I don't have an ounce of sympathy for the people that actually want to play one. Don't know much about the Shifter, either... but most of the Base Classes are golden.
The Hybrid Classes are some of the best classes, in my opinion. Well done. Except the Swashbuckler. Everyone point and laugh at the Swashbuckler. Ha(x3)!!!
Most of the Occult Classes actually seem pretty well put together. I don't have much experience with them, but from everything I have read or looked at, they seemed alright.
The Hybrid Classes are some of the best classes, in my opinion. Well done. Except the Swashbuckler. Everyone point and laugh at the Swashbuckler. Ha(x3)!!!
The swash has been given buffs through Deeds of Renown, so it is in a better spot now. You're no longer incapacitated when you can't deal precision dmg and getting Resolve means there's no reliance on charisma for better saves.
What book are deeds of renown in?
Online games have fighters / tanks able to cover DPS or tanking roles, depending on what gear they have equipped (two-handed weapon or dual weapons for DPS, shield and one-hand weapon for tanking), and it would be neat to see Fighters be able to handle multiple rolls as well.Eh, Fighters are okay. I do buff them to Int + 4 and give them good Will Saves in my home games but Advanced Armor and Weapon Training along with the Weapon/Armor Mastery feats gives them a niche.The problem is that it gives ONE niche... when it needs like 3 or even 4.
Like I said, it feels like the Fighter is lacking a special reason to exist. An army commander? The Cavalier or even the Bard does a better job. A tribal leader? Barbarians, bloodragers, hunters and shifters can fit that role. An agile fighter? Rogues, monks, rangers and swashbucklers make better skirmishers. An unarmed fighter? Monks, brawlers and unarmed archetypes work better. An archer? Rangers and hunters, again, work better. Someone with a special power? Magi, occultists, warpriests and paladins work better.
Your best roles for Fighters are bodyguards, soldiers and gladiators, and I can go on and on about roles that other classes just do it better than the Fighter.
Perhaps even a 'Vancian Fighter' who could swap out their bonus Fighter feats every day, with 1 hour of training in the morning, so that one morning they are a trip specialist with a reach polearm, but if the adventure turns in a direction where a trip specialist is useless, they can spent an hour the next day 'preparing' new Fighter bonus feats to be a cleave machine or whatever.
We do have the Martial Master archetype, which gets the Brawler's Martial Flexibility.
What book are deeds of renown in?
Pathfinder Player Companion: Chronicle of Legends
The same book where all the alternate capstones came from, if I remember correctly. Archives messed up when listing them so it seems the Deeds of Renown have flown under the radar for most people.
Eh, Fighters are okay. I do buff them to Int + 4 and give them good Will Saves in my home games but Advanced Armor and Weapon Training along with the Weapon/Armor Mastery feats gives them a niche.The problem is that it gives ONE niche... when it needs like 3 or even 4.Online games have fighters / tanks able to cover DPS or tanking roles, depending on what gear they have equipped (two-handed weapon or dual weapons for DPS, shield and one-hand weapon for tanking), and it would be neat to see Fighters be able to handle multiple rolls as well.
Perhaps even a 'Vancian Fighter' who could swap out their bonus Fighter feats every day, with 1 hour of training in the morning, so that one morning they are a trip specialist with a reach polearm, but if the adventure turns in a direction where a trip specialist is useless, they can spent an hour the next day 'preparing' new Fighter bonus feats to be a cleave machine or whatever.
The Spheres of Might Armiger is my new Fighter :)
Eh, Fighters are okay. I do buff them to Int + 4 and give them good Will Saves in my home games but Advanced Armor and Weapon Training along with the Weapon/Armor Mastery feats gives them a niche.
This. From a strictly mechanical PoV, it appears to me that quite a lot of people miss that the fighter class as written (with access to all "non-alternative" 1PP options), did end up enabling highly varied and AFAIK the most capable actual *fighter* (= combatant with a pointy stick) high level PC builds in the game. With the exception of a few caster builds with certified BS options (such as Sacred Geometry, trompe l'oeil constructs or glimpse of the akashic) and/or those relying on options which are only truly powerful in games run by a (very) lenient GM (like gate for helpful unique creatures or wish), I'd even go as far as saying that no class can produce even remotely as powerful* high level PC combatants as the fighter can.
Additionally, options such as Versatile Training and those providing utility and combat boosts making more well-rounded stats feasible, (perhaps most notably Mutation Warrior and VMC barb for rage powers) means such a "combat monster fighter" can quite easily also become a very capable dungeon crawler, most likely able to very reliably scout, infiltrate and disarm even the most complex, well-protected and trap-ridden hell-holes ever published for the game.
That said, I think the fighter does have a few problems, and the one I find the far most annoying is that the class' strength is so highly dependent on the player's skills in/interest in/available time for char-op. I mean, IME it's not too difficult for a newer player to put together a fighter able to pull their weight in a typical Paizo AP during early levels, but it's damn near impossible for such a player to make a fighter who has the same relative usefulness in a more demanding game and/or during higher levels, and much less a fighter who is as useful, mechanically interesting and unique as the average full caster in the same party.
*"Powerful would in this context be defined as something along the lines of:
"The ability to, without outside support, reliably take multiple foes with highly varied abilities, of a CR equal to at least PC level +5, out of combat each round, in highly varied circumstances, while spending a minimum of limited party resources, and/or the ability to drastically increase the party's ability to do the same."
Online games have fighters / tanks able to cover DPS or tanking roles, depending on what gear they have equipped (two-handed weapon or dual weapons for DPS, shield and one-hand weapon for tanking), and it would be neat to see Fighters be able to handle multiple rolls as well.
Fighters can already do this, and do it very well. Again, I believe the problem (if any) is that the class provides very few clues as to how such a fighter is put together, and that many options which may appear related to and/or great for a certain combat role and style are actually weak or simply traps. In effect, a less experienced player might be capable of building a fighter capable of dealing decent amounts of hp damage with full attacks, but will find it vastly more difficult to build say a truly effective tank, melee controller or skirmisher.
As an example, the near game-breaking potential of the Dirty Trick Master feat isn't exactly obvious to someone who isn't very familiar with the related combat rules as well as a sufficient number of the mostly very specific supporting options which combine to make that feat such an incredible power-house (such as options for great reach, Kitsune Vengeance, Cloak and Dagger Subterfuge, Ascetic Style, Combat Style Master, Weapon Style Mastery, dueling (PSFG) weapon, monk versatile design weapon modification, Tempest Shield, Paired Opportunists, etc, etc). Which isn't strange, especially when considering that even well-known and otherwise at least decent class guides also fail to mention this.
The problem is that it gives ONE niche... when it needs like 3 or even 4.
What is that ONE niche, in your opinion?
I honestly don't think the fighter has one niche, but several. And it's perfectly possible to build a fighter capable of switching between different niches and/or fulfilling multiple niches simultaneously. And when it comes to combat niches more specifically, I don't think any other full bab class is able to do so as well as the fighter is, especially as most of the other classes are simply offering a few somewhat different ways to deal hp damage with a weapon.
Like I said, it feels like the Fighter is lacking a special reason to exist. An army commander? The Cavalier or even the Bard does a better job. A tribal leader? Barbarians, bloodragers, hunters and shifters can fit that role. An agile fighter? Rogues, monks, rangers and swashbucklers make better skirmishers. An unarmed fighter? Monks, brawlers and unarmed archetypes work better. An archer? Rangers and hunters, again, work better. Someone with a special power? Magi, occultists, warpriests and paladins work better.
Well, AFAIK the fighter at least has the potential to do one thing better than these classes, and that is to *fight*.
But yes, I agree the fighter as a class concept is poor, being too vague and generic while simultaneously being too combat focused.
Your best roles for Fighters are bodyguards, soldiers and gladiators, and I can go on and on about roles that other classes just do it better than the Fighter.
From a mechanical PoV, I believe you're wrong here. No other class provides as strong options for these roles as the fighter does.
Perhaps even a 'Vancian Fighter' who could swap out their bonus Fighter feats every day, with 1 hour of training in the morning, so that one morning they are a trip specialist with a reach polearm, but if the adventure turns in a direction where a trip specialist is useless, they can spent an hour the next day 'preparing' new Fighter bonus feats to be a cleave machine or whatever.We do have the Martial Master archetype, which gets the Brawler's Martial Flexibility.
Basically any fighter with Barroom Brawler, Abundant Tactics, Warrior Spirit and perhaps a Manual of War already has quite a bit of this type of feat versatility. But I certainly wouldn't mind it there was at least an archetype able to switch out multiple combat feat chains on a daily basis (basically resulting in a Vancian PoW initiator).
Yeah, Swash and Gunslinger each fit only a single niche because they only have one valid "playstyle" because all their class abilities revolve around one specific weapon choice (and most of the class abilities either suck or are boring).
The fighter meanwhile, while it will usually fit only a single niche gets to do the incredibly important job of selecting that niche. A fighter can make any type of weapon in the game work with all its options on the table and so you can play multiple different fighters and have them do multiple different things.
Like, if you strip the character away, most Swashbucklers are close enough to be identical compared to the variance you can get out of the Fighter Chassis ... which is kinda sad considering the Fighter is pretty bare bones even with Advanced W/A training. Cavaliers have much the same problem, especially since they can't even use ranged weapons for challenge without taking a single specific archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter may have the specific niche of "guy whos good with weapons/fighting" (because it doesn't actually have to be weapons, he can unarmed strikes work and even natural attack if he picks them up from outside the class) but there is a lot of variation within that niche.
And advanced weapon training and advanced armor training shored up weak points in the fighter like will saves, and even a lack of skills. Really the weakest point of the fighter in my opinion is that that don't get any robust skill bonuses or any interesting expanded use of skills as part of the class.
And while that is disappointing, I don't think it's enough for me to say that the class needs "more love" compared to where it was before Advanced Weapon/Armor Training.
Fighter may have the specific niche of "guy whos good with weapons/fighting" (because it doesn't actually have to be weapons, he can unarmed strikes work and even natural attack if he picks them up from outside the class) but there is a lot of variation within that niche.
And advanced weapon training and advanced armor training shored up weak points in the fighter like will saves, and even a lack of skills. Really the weakest point of the fighter in my opinion is that that don't get any robust skill bonuses or any interesting expanded use of skills as part of the class.
And while that is disappointing, I don't think it's enough for me to say that the class needs "more love" compared to where it was before Advanced Weapon/Armor Training.
The reason I say this is that it lacks special abilities that almost rival spells. I would LOVE to trade some of the bonus feats for maneuver-inspired abilties.
For instance, where's the ability to hit for [my weapon] x [my level] = [your BBEG is hurt] + [a special debuff] ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vampire Hunter
There, I said it.
That class is a mess. Give it a d10 hd, why was a full BAB class ever given a d8 hd?
That class really should just be a ranger or slayer archetype, or get an overhaul to be more of its own thing
I like the Vampire Hunter. Sure, as it is right meow, it could have been a Ranger archetype. But the class is pretty neat as far as what is all in there. I think it does pretty well at capturing the spirit of Vampire Hunter D... and it does extremely well in gestalt with something like Warpriest.
For instance, where's the ability to hit for [my weapon] x [my level] = [your BBEG is hurt] + [a special debuff] ?
The various Power Attack feats that cause accuracy penalties and let you land status effects, the crit feats that land status effects, and the unarmed attacks that inflict special debuffs, the Item Mastery Feats from the Weapon Masters Handbook?
Like I know they're not maneuver level of power but they do exist
I thought the Fighter's niche was that they didn't have a resource pool that can run out, and didn't rely on gimmick BS like whatever+1/2level=more BS...
Fighters just keep swinging. All. D@mn. Day.
That's their niche. A completely mundane means to overcome the enemy's HP.
If you want dumb $#!+ like a Swashbuckler's Precise Strike Deed, then there's a class other than Fighter for you to consider.
If the aforementioned feat chains like Power Attack + Cornugon Smash = hurt + debuff aren't adequate, you have plenty of feats to pursue whatever you find acceptable. Maybe consider Dirty Tricks... be a Half-Orc, there's a whole Fighter archetype that focuses on hurt + debuff.
No, Fighters are not great. But they are WAY better than they used to be. And adding gimmick BS to the Fighter isn't going to make them any better.
For instance, where's the ability to hit for [my weapon] x [my level] = [your BBEG is hurt] + [a special debuff] ?The various Power Attack feats that cause accuracy penalties and let you land status effects, the crit feats that land status effects, and the unarmed attacks that inflict special debuffs, the Item Mastery Feats from the Weapon Masters Handbook?
Like I know they're not maneuver level of power but they do exist
That was just a comparison.
One thing that doesn't help the Fighter is most archetypes are replacing Weapon and/or Armor Training, thus forbidding any Advanced Training options.
The Fighter has TONS of Bonus Feats which could be replaced by any of an archetype's abilities, but most of them demand you to sacrifice Weapon/Armor Training.
oh, and it doesn't help that the Fighter just cannot pick an Advanced Training in place of a Bonus Feat.
Well, most of this is incorrect. Firstly, having archetype replace one kind of training doesnt lock you out of both kinds of advanced, so saying it forbids any training is wrong
Advanced Weapon Training allows you to specialize, but you HAD, as stated: "A fighter with an archetype that replaces weapon training cannot select advanced weapon training options."
Secondly, even if it replaces weapon or armour training, some things it replaces it with can still be used as advanced training, such as Dragoon, maybe still used as weapon training
Those are few and far between... Yes, some archetypes alter Weapon Training for specific weapon groups, but the rest replaces it.
Thirdly, there is totally a feat that allows advanced training. I'm unclear what you mean by this.
What is it?