| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters know how to use shields, they can use feats to get better at it but all fighters know a bit about picking one up.
In the monk thread I was in favor of monastic weapons being trained for monks without an extra feat (i had other ideas of how to make that happen but i am for it). Sure not all monks would use them but the ones that do wouldn't have to pay an extra feat to build their monk. The shield is the same for fighters except players who want to use a shield don't have to ask for it to change. It is already there.
Its not like fighter lost a free choice of something to get shield block, they just got it as one more thing they can do no matter what kind of fighter you build.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't free. It's part of the class design budget. Like you get this or you don't. But if you don't, are you much of a game designer?
I very much do and am - and someone up thread, Mathmuse, I believe - already explained what the fighter's class design is and how the first-level feats and the chassis plays into that - and the Fighter is one of the cleanest designed classes in PF2E.
It's pretty clear 'fight guy' knows how to use a shield, and so they get access to it.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Poor, poor fighters. Truly, their lack of choice in whether they receive shield block has relegated them to the bottom of the tier list and are virtually unplayable. If only they had more feat flexibility than any other core class, like the ability to swap a class feat or two out every day. Or maybe if they had another built in reaction so good any optimized melee build tries to poach it by level 6. Or had a higher grade of proficiency than any other class. We should do a charity drive for fighters and fighter players.
It makes no in world sense that a bastard sword doesn't have a point. Surely there is a half intelligent armorer somewhere that's like, 'hey, I have an idea forming in the cavity of my thick dwarven skull! Why don't I make a sword with a longer handle *and* a sharp point...' Also, free hand fighter builds are kind of weak, because you can do many similar things more easily, and more effectively, with the various 2 handed weapons with the trip and shove traits.
What kind of fighter doesn't know the basics of fighting with a shield though?
I know everyone's having fun being suitably shocked at the sacred cow being butchered. And I know, of all the classes that might not need an upgrade...or even a side-grade, it's not the Fighter. But I like Jacob Jett's ideas. Because I find PF2 a little...constrained, and I'm opening it up a little because I don't really think versatility of options are the same as being overpowered.
I'm already houseruling that most 1st level Fighter feats are just Basic Actions in combat that anyone, regardless of class can do. Personally I find PF2 suffers just as much "there should be a feat for that basic, universal activity" as there was in PF1 that was partly the reason Elephant in the Room turned up (I guess the other part was the feat's requiring chains to access).
Now I just have to create some *interesting* things for Fighters to get. Possibly no feats at 1st level, and just basic access to ALL the 1st level feats I deem *aren't* basic actions and any new ones I have made. Then I have less to create. ;)
Making the shield into a Weapon is an interesting idea - Shields have always inhabited a strange place in "Armor" as in Armor "and Shields!!!" so I'm all for them moving over to the "held-in-hands/wielded" category instead of the "worn" category. (Sorry bucklers, I'll still forever love your misbegotten ways!). I'd probably still leave in some interactions with hit points, but will have to think more carefully about "giving all weapons provide an AC bonus" - which leads me to...
Parrying: I'm already dropping the Parry trait from only being "certain weapons" and am just allowing folk to Parry with an action no matter what they are holding because I don't see why the lil guard on a main gauche is the *only* part you Parry with, and makes it an oh-so awesome Parrying trait weapon... You want to Parry, fine, whether it be with a broomstick, scarf or sawtooth sabre. Use the action, get the benefit. A whole +1 to AC. The Parry-conversant feats are a complete joke, with little improvement on that measly +1.
Don't panic...it's all just houserules. And when my house completely burns to the ground because everyone is using Double Slice, or Exacting Strike or Point Blank Stance or Parrying with their longspears I'll come and tell you all about it...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shield block fits nicely in the fighter profile, as a class to adapt any combat situation.
Maybe we could be used to the “perfect situation” of typical playing, I wear my perfect equipment, with my perfect companions.
Think that in reality it could be forced to use anything at hand. It is already prepared to use 2-handed weapons (just strike), can also use 2 weapons (but usually requires some extra training as is more complex), but maybe you find in the situation where you have some fighting equipment around to get quickly and ready to combat, which could be some weapons and protections (like a shield), so no matter what you get you are able to fight properly.
So I think it fits perfectly in the base fighter class training.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only person who said sword and board is the "correct" build is you. No one else has. It's there for those who want to use it. Almost every class has something like this (druid, wizard, Magus....). Now I could sort of see this being an issue if you cost you something, but it doesn't. And for a fighter it absolutely makes sense that they would learn to use a shield as a part of their basic training.Ah, but it did cost the player something. It cost them a choice (of which they have been deprived).
No, it actually doesn't.
The Fighter class design and balance doesn't have room for freely or even limitedly choosing a level 1 General Feat.
"Lose Shield Block and pick a different level 1 Feat" isn't really something that is on the design table. So it was never a choice for the player in the first place. Taking away Shield Block from the Fighter chassis it still wouldn't have design space for a choice of a General Feat.
You seem to be working under the assumption that Shield Block that Fighter gets is a General Feat. It isn't. It is a class feature. The level 1 General Feat gives the Shield Block reaction also, but the two are not equivalent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually if you want to play a class that was balanced and concepted around not having shield block the barbarian does a good job at it.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately, my interpretation of your diatribe is that the "correct" fighter build is "sword and board," to which I say, piffle.
What a weird thing to say when that's literally nowhere in their post.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't free. It's part of the class design budget. Like you get this or you don't. But if you don't, are you much of a game designer?I very much do and am - and someone up thread, Mathmuse, I believe - already explained what the fighter's class design is and how the first-level feats and the chassis plays into that - and the Fighter is one of the cleanest designed classes in PF2E.
It's pretty clear 'fight guy' knows how to use a shield, and so they get access to it.
However, Jacob Jett is arguing at a deeper level than my previous explanation, so I ought to respond in greater depth.
Like this is design 101. Everything is part of the budget and thereby needs a, "why I am here and who am I for." Personally I either would have made parry my go-to here or wrapped Shield Block into the collection of feat choices.
I once was a member of a board game design club, but most of my work there was serving as a playtester. My true experience was in algorithm design, inventing new mathematical techniques to calculate the right answer. I like applying my experience to analyzing how games work.
Players in a resource-management game have a budget. They have in-game resources, they have turns, they have moves, and they have to allocate those to to maximum effect toward the winning condition. In d20 roleplaying games, that winning condition is often surviving combat with minimal loss of hit points and other resources.
The game designers are not playing a resource-management game. They apply as many mechanics and flavorful tropes as they want in order to make the game playable and fun. Giving a fighter an additional feature, such as Shield Block, consumes only a tiny piece of the ample resource of the player's attention. (One of my players had Attention Deficeit Disorder. He sometimes forgets his character's abilities. We give him time to review his character sheet during his turn.) The Pathfinder designers don't have a character budget; instead, they have a goal. That goal is Balance.
Balance means that the strength of the character is predictible within a narrow range. Balance has two purposes. First, it keeps the party members equally valuable in the party, which makes for more satisfying roleplaying. Everyone pulls their weight. Second, it makes the overall strength of the party predictible to aid the GM in encounter design. We don't want any Total Party Kills due to GM misjudgment.
Sometimes balance means giving a character class more features than another character class. For example, most martial classes simply pick up a weapon, such as a warhammer. The monk class is designed for unarmed combat, so it gains Powerful Fist, "The damage die for your fist increases to 1d6 instead of 1d4." At 3rd level they gain Mystic Strikes so that their unarmed attacks cound as magical, and at 9th level they gain Metal Strikes so that their unarmed attacks count as cold iron and silver, and at 17th level they gain Adamantine Strikes. That is a lot of free features simply to stop the monk from giving up on their fists and picking up a weapon instead, because we want monks to be playable at all levels as an unarmed combatant.
Part of the flavor of the fighter is their mastery of the tools of war. They are good with all weapons, all armor, and all shields. As others have said, Shield Block is the closest ability to the shield proficiency in PF1, so that feature signals that fighters are good with shields.
Does giving Shield Block to all fighters break balance? The designers could have chosen to make sword-and-board style more costly by requiring a 1st-level fighter feat to learn Shield Block. The answer is that shield use has a heavy price in other ways than costing a feat. It occupies a hand, so that the fighter cannot use two-handed weapons. It requires a Raise a Shield action, so that the fighter cannot use that action for a third Strike (or a Second Strike if the fighter had to move). Shield Block itself requires investing in a sturdy shield--100gp minor at 4th level, 360gp lesser at 7th level, 1000gp moderate at 10th level, up to 40,000gp supreme at 19th level--or shield runes that are just as expensive. And someone should learn Crafting to keep that shield in repair.
In addition, 1st-level characters are easily killed in combat. Giving the fighter Shield Block to survive 1st level, and serve as a tough frontline protecting the other party members, makes 1st level more playable. Adding a feat cost to fighter's Shield Block would make that temporary choice to protect the party painful to any non-shield character concept.
Concerning parrying instead of shielding, some weapons, such as Bo Staff, have parry built in as a weapon trait. And for other weapons, the fighter can learn Dueling Parry or Twin Parry.
Now it's clear that Shield Block is primarily here to provide access to Reactive Block.
Both Shield Block and Reactive Shield cost a reaction to use. Thus, they cannot be used together until the fighter learns the 8th-level fighter feat Quick Shield Block. Both abilities serve a shield bearer, but one does not support the other until 8th level.
And in an earlier comment:
Unfortunately, my interpretation of your diatribe is that the "correct" fighter build is "sword and board," to which I say, piffle. The hallmark of bad design are universal features that are only used by a minority of the population. When this pattern emerges, it's a clear indication that the universal feature should have been an optional one.
Pathfinder 2nd Edition tactics require adaptability. Perhaps sometimes a fighter uses a shield. Other times the fighter might be an archer. Other times they might need to hit hard with a two-handed weapon. Those three combat styles are free to the fighter at 1st level. Requiring that the fighter spend feats to gain that versatility, as the case with dual wielding or freehand dueling, would mean less versatility.
Versatility can win battles without ruining balance. The fighter role in the party becomes more than damage dealer. Sometimes the fighter is a protective bulwark instead. Sometimes the fighter is the strong athlete who can swim across a river trailing a rope to pull non-swimmers across. Sometimes the fighter is the fierce face of intimidation.
I think the issue is that you're thinking of those feats as "basic" actions instead of being (in universe) signs of very specific training and (out of universe) a way to give every martial class a distinct playstyle so they don't merge together into a featureless slop.
My point is that a) I disagree, they *are* actually basic actions - most of them really don’t need “very specific training” to accomplish (which is why I categorise things like Double Slice, Exacting Strike or Point Blank Stance as “something I don’t think *only* fighters need to be able to do, and nor should it require a feat”) and b) I really am not concerned about “merging” or “distinct playstyles”. Whacking stuff to death is *the* oldest profession.
But if you must do this, remember there's a whole slew of archetypes (Archer, Dual Weapon, Bastion...) whose entire purpose is "you get Fighter feats but 2 levels after" so you could simply give everyone access to Fighter feats at +2 level and maybe ban Fighter since it seems you really dislike it. That'd be balanced, sorta.
Sure, and I’ve considered just giving everyone Free Archetype: Fighter at 1st level. I don’t dislike the Fighter at all, it’s one of my favorite classes. It just needs way more narratively engaging and compelling features to not make it the whack-a-mole class.
To be clear, I understand why the rules are the way they are, and they work. But they aren’t engaging for me. I’m also lucky in that I don’t have major optimisers around me, and in fact, most of these changes are to provide versatility and choice to those players. Also, narratively, they make no sense to me as written, and as much as I can understand the mechanic-side reasons why they are the way they are, they irk me to no end. Even the Parrying feats at later levels do little to improve parrying. And again, you have to a) have a specific weapon, and b) a certain class. If you spend a feat to train for it, you should be able to do it, it’s not arcane or esoteric and shouldn’t be way out of reach for adventurers who no matter how un-Fightery they are still get into scraps on the regular.
It’s about as “classless” a system as I’m prepared to go, but it’s the way I see the mechanics of combat, in-world verisimilitude of training and the overlap between those two allied edges of the system. One could argue this the other way, and allow martials to have free feats for spell-use, but I can’t help with that because I have a low-magic fantasy as my *narrative* baseline. All the magic in the rules is still there, but my campaign isn’t so magic-focused or magic-facing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bastard Swords are awesome. It's like a greatsword you can drop to a 1-handed grip using a free action so you can have a free hand. Sure you lose Versatile Piercing, but you gain the ability to grapple, draw/use potions, draw/throw bombs, use a healers kit with battle medicine, etc.. You save an action on having to sheath you greatsword before using a potion and aren't left unarmed during it.
And having shield block for free is nice, even if you don't need it 100% of the time. I've had to drop my bow and draw my spare shield to block before in a one shot when a boss ran at me. As a free hand fighter you could also use it for blocking puzzles/traps that shoot projectiles, or if opponents are out of range. Hobgoblin Archer firing at me from a position I can't reach this turn? Run up while blocking with shield, next turn get close, free action drop shield when I get close enough to grapple or disarm him.
It feels like arguing that Druids should be able to trade their Wildsong feat for a general feat because they don't plan on talking to animals/plants this campaign and they don't want to pay for it. It's just a free part of the class, you spent nothing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My point is that a) I disagree, they *are* actually basic actions - most of them really don’t need “very specific training” to accomplish (which is why I categorise things like Double Slice, Exacting Strike or Point Blank Stance as “something I don’t think *only* fighters need to be able to do, and nor should it require a feat”) and b) I really am not concerned about “merging” or “distinct playstyles”. Whacking stuff to death is *the* oldest profession.
This is why I think Fighter is kind of a bad idea for a class. Because it has no identity beyond 'fighting', which is something literally every class in the game is expected to be good at, it doesn't really have a lot of room for growth and development on its own.
What ends up inevitably happening is that in order to make the Fighter stand out, the rest of the martial ecosystem is eroded in order to artificially create a niche for them. Things that could just be an aspect of being a martial instead become 'cool fighter things' because what else is a fighter, and everyone else sucks a little more.
PF2 does a slightly better job of not letting the fighter ruin the game than PF1, but echoes of this show up in basically every system adjacent to modern D&D.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the basic issue is that if you imagine fantasy characters, there needs to a class that covers things like "retired professional soldier" or "mercenary" or "swordmaster" things that aren't really related to religion, nature, magic, mysticism etc.
You could probably combine the rogue and the fighter into one class that is "I do things by knowing how to do those things, based on a lot of training" though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is why I think Fighter is kind of a bad idea for a class. Because it has no identity beyond 'fighting', which is something literally every class in the game is expected to be good at, it doesn't really have a lot of room for growth and development on its own.
"You made a mistake."
"Oh yeah, what's that?""You thought of me as a man of the military. I'm not."
"What are you then?"
"I am a man of war."
-- from one of Gordon R. Dickson's "Dorsai" stories.
Perhaps "Warrior" is a better name than "Fighter".
I have arrived!
My point is that a) I disagree, they *are* actually basic actions - most of them really don’t need “very specific training” to accomplish (which is why I categorise things like Double Slice, Exacting Strike or Point Blank Stance as “something I don’t think *only* fighters need to be able to do, and nor should it require a feat”) and b) I really am not concerned about “merging” or “distinct playstyles”. Whacking stuff to death is *the* oldest profession.
This is why I think Fighter is kind of a bad idea for a class. Because it has no identity beyond 'fighting', which is something literally every class in the game is expected to be good at, it doesn't really have a lot of room for growth and development on its own.
What ends up inevitably happening is that in order to make the Fighter stand out, the rest of the martial ecosystem is eroded in order to artificially create a niche for them. Things that could just be an aspect of being a martial instead become 'cool fighter things' because what else is a fighter, and everyone else sucks a little more.
PF2 does a slightly better job of not letting the fighter ruin the game than PF1, but echoes of this show up in basically every system adjacent to modern D&D.
[Emphasis mine] This is pretty much the way I look at it. At least at first level, Fighters need something *interesting* to do. Not just be able to also hit things the same way but different.
Which is what I think the Rogue, Investigator, Ranger and Swashbuckler all attempt to do, with greater or lesser degrees of success.
Snagging Strike comes closer to what I think a fighter should be able to do...but even it seems like just 2 basic actions (Strike and Grab) that has become 1 "becoz training". Same with level 2's Combat Grab.
Brutish Shove. Lightning Swap. Lunge. What about any of of these says "level 2 epic warfighter limitbreak move of awesomeness" and not "level 2 General feat"? I'm not seeing it.
Personally I think there is something in the interaction of class feats and the action economy that has made tacking two actions into one action "a thematic ability".
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Boy, do I hate getting this free thing I do not want. Class ruined. F tier. Gimme back my money pls
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel this discussion highlights a subtle element behind 2e's success, which is that its design is very much opposed to min-maxing. In 1e, you could definitely build a hyper-optimized character who could do some ridiculously strong and unique things... but if they got disarmed or something equally simple, they turned into a harmless babe, because their entire playstyle hinged on a very specific combination of feats and gear and broke without any one of those elements. That kind of character could also find themselves doing pretty much the exact same thing in combat for the rest of their career, which may fit the fantasy the player originally had in mind, but also runs the risk of eventually getting stale.
By contrast, every class in 2e has some amount of stuff that doesn't look strictly necessary to a build, but that ends up coming in handy: you might have this highly specific idea for an archer Fighter, for example, and you'll be able to easily realize that character fantasy thanks to the game's options... but you'll likely also want to pack a spare bludgeoning damage weapon for when you run into oozes or skeletons, and potentially a shield for when you run into a monster who can punish your ranged Strikes with some nasty attacks of their own, such as a barbazu. At those points, features that aren't core to your character's fantasy, like Attack of Opportunity/Reactive Strike and Shield Block, suddenly become really useful, and your character ends up feeling much more fleshed-out and their playstyle less brittle as a result.
Most importantly, all of this means that even the most laser-focused character in 2e gets to vary their playstyle in encounters, particularly as many monsters will force the party to adapt their tactics as well. This prevents play from getting too repetitive, and allows encounters to be won through good tactics rather than just good builds, both of which I think are essential qualities to any tabletop system where combat is important. It's not just that there's no need to take Shield Block out of the Fighter, because the Fighter's already a really strong class and doesn't need to be further min-maxed: having aspects to your character that round them out instead of all contributing to the exact same goal is a feature, not a bug, which is why every class has similar extra benefits.
It makes no in world sense that a bastard sword doesn't have a point. Surely there is a half intelligent armorer somewhere that's like, 'hey, I have an idea forming in the cavity of my thick dwarven skull! Why don't I make a sword with a longer handle *and* a sharp point...' Also, free hand fighter builds are kind of weak, because you can do many similar things more easily, and more effectively, with the various 2 handed weapons with the trip and shove traits.
It's already been amply discussed why the bastard sword is not just a strictly better version of the longsword and greatsword. If the lack of versatile (piercing) bothers you so much it is ruining your enjoyment of the game, make Bastard Swords just straight bladed katanas. Game balance is preserved and you can now stab or slash with your bastard sword to your heart's content.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
At least at first level, Fighters need something *interesting* to do. Not just be able to also hit things the same way but different.
Which is what I think the Rogue, Investigator, Ranger and Swashbuckler all attempt to do, with greater or lesser degrees of success.
It feels strange to me for you to say that right after saying that you give all the special interesting things that a Fighter can do to all of the other characters without needing a feat. So it feels like you are deliberately nerf'ing Fighter and then turning around and claiming that it needs buffed.
Also, Rogue and Ranger do just hit things the same way but different. Generally that 'different' is 'add precision damage'. Unless going Flurry Ranger in which case the 'different' is the same different as Fighter - improved accuracy.
Investigator and Swashbuckler do hit things different, and many people consider those classes sub-par as a result.
The only person who said sword and board is the "correct" build is you. No one else has. It's there for those who want to use it. Almost every class has something like this (druid, wizard, Magus....). Now I could sort of see this being an issue if you cost you something, but it doesn't. And for a fighter it absolutely makes sense that they would learn to use a shield as a part of their basic training.Ah, but it did cost the player something. It cost them a choice (of which they have been deprived).No, it actually doesn't.
The Fighter class design and balance doesn't have room for freely or even limitedly choosing a level 1 General Feat.
"Lose Shield Block and pick a different level 1 Feat" isn't really something that is on the design table. So it was never a choice for the player in the first place. Taking away Shield Block from the Fighter chassis it still wouldn't have design space for a choice of a General Feat.
You seem to be working under the assumption that Shield Block that Fighter gets is a General Feat. It isn't. It is a class feature. The level 1 General Feat gives the Shield Block reaction also, but the two are not equivalent.
The problem here is that Shield Block is unique as a General Feat in terms of power, and there's no comparable feat to it.
If you give me Dueling Parry and Nimble Dodge as General Feats, then it's really IS basically a free General Feat.
But no equivalent options are there for other types of characters to pick up.
I'd love for the main options to be:
- Wanna use a Shield? Here's Shield Block, you get +X AC and the ability to absorb damage with a reaction.
- Wanna use a 1H weapon and an empty offhand? You get to turn on Parry for a blanket +2 AC and a reaction to riposte on critical failures.
- Wanna use a 2H weapon, TWF, or be ranged? Here's Nimble Dodge... you don't get to activate for a blanket +AC, but you still get a defensive reaction if you need it.
I played a super fun two-weapon fighting fighter build where one weapon was a shield boss - a classic viking raider archetype, and that was pretty fun. I did good damage and had the defensive properties available if I needed it.
Honestly, when I was playing with building a fighter and feeling bad for not using all the features, I find the main source of the issue is player mentality. Yes, not all fighters use shields. Not all fighters use plate armour either. For Archie the Archer, are the armour proficiency features ‘useless’ and should they be swapped out for Other Stuff? Honestly … I’d say no.
Even if a feature seems ‘dead’ it can be useful, such as our Investigator findng uses for her warhammer.
Ordinarily, you would expect the class chassis to work 100% with every build you might want to play, while the build-specific features should come in a subclass, feats, etc. Seeing a feat included in the chassis that seems intended for a build you don't intend to play can feel a bit awkward.Except that the fighter has no subclasses, and AIUI this is an intentional design decision. The devs wanted at least one class for players who don't want to make those sorts of decisions up front, who may not feel familiar enough with the rules to commit, etc. The fighter is that class. It is intentionally designed *not* to be a specialist at any specific type of combat style, but remain fairly good at many of them throughout. The bonus proficiency above what everyone else gets is a good example: because it applies to all attacks across the board, it allows the fighter to always be good at melee, ranged, unarmed, etc. regardless of their feat choice.
While I think we agree on the larger thrust of this thread, I don't agree with this piece. Fighter has to choose a weapon group to specialize in for their damage enhancer to apply. Hunter's Edge, Sneak Attack, Rage, etc will always function better than legendary proficiency if the player wants to try a new weapon group. It would be more accurate to say fighter can be BUILT to support any fighting style. And from that perspective shield block by default doesn't fit.
But the fighter chassis is too strong for that to really matter. I also agree with whoever said losing Reactive Strike on archers stings way worse.
I do wonder though. For those that feel like fighter should not have shield block and reactive strike automatically do you feel like the class is not string enough without having a choice instead of these options being part of the chassis?
Also wouldn't the class become way more customizable than any other class if at level 1 instead of being given shield block you got to pick a general feat?
I played a super fun two-weapon fighting fighter build where one weapon was a shield boss - a classic viking raider archetype, and that was pretty fun. I did good damage and had the defensive properties available if I needed it.
I kinda wanted to try that as a Flurry ranger. Hatchet in one hand (Agile for the Flurry), and the Shield Boss counts as a weapon for Twin Takedown. Hit with hatchet and bash with boss, use Hatchet for normal attacks, have a shield I can use defensively if I need it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's more that they feel frustrated at getting something they don't want because they feel like if they hadn't gotten it, they could have instead gotten something that they did want, and thus been more awesome. There's a feeling of power budget just being left on the table, and for the dedicated optimizers among us, the idea of losing out on any of your power budget at all feels pretty bad, given how tight the balance math is.
So here's the trick. They aren't just running balance by class. They're running it by subtype. They're running it by build. They're looking at the archer fighters and the two-handed fighters and the sword-and-board fighters and the two-weapon fighters and considering them individually. The dedicated two-handed fighter isn't going to get anything for cashing in their shield block because they don't lose anything for cashing in their shield block, and the dedicated two-handed fighter is already functioning at about the level they're supposed to. Letting them get shield block is mostly there as a way of saving space, and possibly enabling people who want to do funny things like run around with a weapon and a shield with a shield spike.
In some ways, giving shield block is the default for dedicated martials. If your class is intended to walk around in clanky armor and take hits, you get shield block. for the people who are running classes that aren't like that, they have to pay a small surcharge to opt in to that fighting style, if they want it. It's a "Huh. That's funny." tax.
I played a super fun two-weapon fighting fighter build where one weapon was a shield boss - a classic viking raider archetype, and that was pretty fun. I did good damage and had the defensive properties available if I needed it.I kinda wanted to try that as a Flurry ranger. Hatchet in one hand (Agile for the Flurry), and the Shield Boss counts as a weapon for Twin Takedown. Hit with hatchet and bash with boss, use Hatchet for normal attacks, have a shield I can use defensively if I need it.
I took Barbarian Free Archetype for Rage and some of the cool Barbarian feats and it really made the build shine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The dedicated two-handed fighter isn't going to get anything for cashing in their shield block because they don't lose anything for cashing in their shield block,
Yeah. I like that way of wording it.
Snipped some harassing posts and their quotes. If things do not remain civil, this thread will be locked. You are entirely allowed to disagree, just do it politely.
I think it's more that they feel frustrated at getting something they don't want because they feel like if they hadn't gotten it, they could have instead gotten something that they did want, and thus been more awesome. There's a feeling of power budget just being left on the table, and for the dedicated optimizers among us, the idea of losing out on any of your power budget at all feels pretty bad, given how tight the balance math is.
So here's the trick. They aren't just running balance by class. They're running it by subtype. They're running it by build. They're looking at the archer fighters and the two-handed fighters and the sword-and-board fighters and the two-weapon fighters and considering them individually. The dedicated two-handed fighter isn't going to get anything for cashing in their shield block because they don't lose anything for cashing in their shield block, and the dedicated two-handed fighter is already functioning at about the level they're supposed to. Letting them get shield block is mostly there as a way of saving space, and possibly enabling people who want to do funny things like run around with a weapon and a shield with a shield spike.
In some ways, giving shield block is the default for dedicated martials. If your class is intended to walk around in clanky armor and take hits, you get shield block. for the people who are running classes that aren't like that, they have to pay a small surcharge to opt in to that fighting style, if they want it. It's a "Huh. That's funny." tax.
Then that class is the best at each of those fighting styles right now?
Is it already fighter for most weapon choices?
It feels strange to me for you to say that right after saying that you give all the special interesting things that a Fighter can do to all of the other characters without needing a feat. So it feels like you are deliberately nerf'ing Fighter and then turning around and claiming that it needs buffed.At least at first level, Fighters need something *interesting* to do. Not just be able to also hit things the same way but different.
Which is what I think the Rogue, Investigator, Ranger and Swashbuckler all attempt to do, with greater or lesser degrees of success.
No, what I’m saying is that those special interesting things aren’t special or interesting at all. What is interesting about calming down to take a better shot, or swinging two weapons or shoving brutishly or being a lil wuicker to stow and retrieve weapons. Not a lot. And none of my houserules do anything to *nerf* the fighter. I’m *not taking anything away* from them, and are proposing to give them more. It feels strange to me that you seemed to get the *opposite* opinion of what I felt I presented.
Also, Rogue and Ranger do just hit things the same way but different. Generally that 'different' is 'add precision damage'. Unless going Flurry Ranger in which case the 'different' is the same different as Fighter - improved accuracy.
Investigator and Swashbuckler do hit things different, and many people consider those classes sub-par as a result.
Well, the Precision thing is not that similar because it can interact with creatures who are vulnerable to precision damage as I encountered recently. Also, it’s the flanking and repositioning that a Rogue does (and a Ranger flanking with their furry fren) that makes it more than same but different. Sneak Attack, Surprise Attack. Extra dice, from surprise and off-guard.
Essentially I’d like to see more battlefield control/manipulation from the outset for the fighter. I’m especially in love with the oldskool spear and shield combo, so being able to create some debuffs/zone control with a spear or polearm would be great.
Love the shield as second weapon builds/ideas, keep them coming.
It feels strange to me that you seemed to get the *opposite* opinion of what I felt I presented.
I think you need to better define what you mean by *interesting* then. How is taking a careful shot, or swinging two weapons at the same time (same attack penalty and combining damage) not interesting, but moving to a good position before swinging at someone is (especially since a lot of characters like to move to flanking position before attacking)?
I now wonder what is the best class to build Captain America.
You also need to better define what you mean. That is what causes the most problems in these 'build this existing character in PF2 mechanics' challenges. We don't know what you are looking for in the character.
What is the core aspects of Captain America that need to be available at level 1? What can wait until level 4?
What level is Captain America at the time of doing cool thing X in such-and-such comic book or movie? Which of those cool things are one-off things from the rule of cool and which are permanent abilities that the character is always able to rely on having available? Which are just awesome narrative descriptions of rather mundane mechanics?
I now wonder what is the best class to build Captain America.
I want to know this too!
It feels strange to me that you seemed to get the *opposite* opinion of what I felt I presented.I think you need to better define what you mean by *interesting* then. How is taking a careful shot, or swinging two weapons at the same time (same attack penalty and combining damage) not interesting, but moving to a good position before swinging at someone is (especially since a lot of characters like to move to flanking position before attacking)?
I now wonder what is the best class to build Captain America.You also need to better define what you mean. That is what causes the most problems in these 'build this existing character in PF2 mechanics' challenges. We don't know what you are looking for in the character.
What is the core aspects of Captain America that need to be available at level 1? What can wait until level 4?
What level is Captain America at the time of doing cool thing X in such-and-such comic book or movie? Which of those cool things are one-off things from the rule of cool and which are permanent abilities that the character is always able to rely on having available? Which are just awesome narrative descriptions of rather mundane mechanics?
Thing is too they are almost always well beyond level 20 characters if were taking superheros, many with magic item equivalents as innate abilities.
But for Cap were probably talking about fighting with a shield that should get the agile grip, should be a throwing shield, should get returning as soon as possible, should get a rare durable metal when available, would need unarmed fighting in there too. If were going beyond fighting style we would need something to rep his leadership capabilities, tactical prowess, and diplomacy is also up his alley. Athletics and acrobatics up to the some of the legendary feats when available.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO Champion of Mazludeh (standing in for Columbia).
Champ of that deity hits a lot of points lol
It feels strange to me that you seemed to get the *opposite* opinion of what I felt I presented.I think you need to better define what you mean by *interesting* then. How is taking a careful shot, or swinging two weapons at the same time (same attack penalty and combining damage) not interesting, but moving to a good position before swinging at someone is (especially since a lot of characters like to move to flanking position before attacking)?
Heh, I get it. And that is partly why I’m not suggesting anyone else approach this the way I am. I guess there are some Fighter 1st level activities that seem mundane and not exactly specialised, and not exactly *only* in the wheelhouse of the Fighter. And others, though not many, do. And some Rogue activities seem…well in the thematic wheelhouse of *just* the sneaky, tumbly, stealthy folk.
I get that looked at in isolation, you could be mistaken for thinking that a classless feat based system is the approach I would like. But it isn’t. I still see themes and value in the specialisations as broadly presented. I just don’t personally think the Fighter is very well presented, at low levels, as doing anything nearly as cinematic or narratively satisfying as they might be AND some of the things they are “given” to do are things I feel most adventurers should have the capacity to do *as* basic actions.
It’s a vibe thing. What is a general or combat activity that should be a Class Feature? What is a general or combat activity that should be a General or (in PF1 terms) Combat feat? What is a specialised activity only *certain* folk of particular class or classes can do? I feel like this is a dial that isn’t set right for how I view the ruleset. It isn’t *wrong* currently, just not on the setting I prefer. And I feel like the ruleset promotes fiddling with the dial.