Fighter Weapon Mastery and Versatile Legend kind of suck, actually.

[PathMaster]

So, Fighter.

You all know the meme of 'Human Fighter'. It's as basic you can get: no worrying about being a multi eyed paranoid horse-thingy, no getting worked up setting up sneak attack, no spell slots to worry about, you just go up to the enemy and hit them in the head until they die.
Easy, clean and simple.

Now, Pathfinder Second Edition has brought a whole slew of improvement for the Martial classes, allowing them to contribute to the team as much as their spellcaster friends.

Among these changes, Fighter was given more of an identity to call its own. In D&D, Fighter is the class that... fights good. Kind of vague, don't ya think?
In Pathfinder 2e, Fighter is the class that... fights good. OK, that hasn't actually changed, but it now actually means something, thanks to the class' unique niche of being one step ahead in weapon proficiency compared to other Martials of the same level, allowing them to hit AND crit more often (Shut up Gunslinger. You too, Rogue. Off guard is not a proficiency bump.)

And that's where the problem lies.

See, most martials have a preference for weapons due to their mechanics: Barbarians don't like Agile weapons, Rogues want to use weapons with Finesse and Thaumaturge suffer by being a martial with a Key Attribute different from Strength or Dexterity etc.

Now, you'd think that Fighter with their higher proficiency would be the most free to choose a weapon, and for the first 4 levels you'd be right, but once you hit Level 5 you can say all of that goodbye, because Fighter Weapon Mastery forces you to commit to a single Weapon Group.
Want to use that cool Lance you found that shoots lighting? Too bad, you choose Polearms for your weapon group, and Lances's weapon group is Spears, not Polearms (why are they different we may never know), so you sell it because the rest of the party is playing Thaumaturge and you don't have the time to retrain.

Now you might say this is in exchange for some class feature Fighters get at level 5.
Well, let's see:
Nothing. Fighters don't get anything that other Martials don't also get at that level.
In fact, you could argue they get less, since other Martials have their weapon proficiency uniformly increase, even for weapons they cant' really use. The only other thing unique to Fighter is Combat Flexibility, and that is a Level 9 Feature.

You could instead say that's to keep the class from becoming too strong, except that's not true, since for the first 4 levels they get free reign to pick up any weapon they like (except Advanced ones but they're another can of worms I'm not gonna get into) and swing it around with their higher proficiency. Not only that, but once a Fighter reaches Level 19, they gain the Versatile Legend feature, allowing them to once again ignore weapon groups just like in the good old days. And I haven t heard a thing about Fighters terrorizing those level ranges.

So, we've established that Fighter in its current state is literally unplayable by being forced to only pick a single type of weapon.
Where do we go from here?

Well, for all I ranted about Fighter Weapon Mastery being a bad feature, the idea of a Fighter specializing into a single Weapon Group isn't a bad one.
It just needs some polish:

First of all, it needs to be a choice on whether you focus on a single weapon group, or none at all.
Second, the choice should be made at level 1. Such a core part of a character's build should be made immediately, to let the character invest in it ASAP without it being kind of a waste (I'm looking at you Invulnerable Rager and Harbinger's Protection).
Third, there needs to be some kind of actual benefit for the tradeoff. Thankfully, Paizo has already done my job with the Slinger's Precision class feature: bonus precision damage, either +2 or +1d4. Since Fighter is all about consistency, I'll go with the +2 damage.
If that's too strong, we can instead let Fighters use Advanced Weapons of their weapon group without incurring in the proficiency drawback, since the budget for them is only one step of the damage die higher compared to Martial weapons. Whatever the bonus is, proficiency for weapons of other groups should be reduced to Trained and remain a step behind. Also, remove Versatile Legend, it's obsolete either way.

And if a Fighter doesn't want to specialize, no problem. They'll still get to enjoy a higher proficiency with their weapons.

So TL;DR fighter should have a choice between specializing or not, all the while keeping their higher proficiency bonus.

[Perpdepog]

PathMaster wrote:

So, we've established that Fighter in its current state is literally unplayable by being forced to only pick a single type of weapon.

Did we, though?

Also, I love how weapon proficiency goes from "the class' unique niche" to making fighters "literally unplayable" in the space of just one or two paragraphs; that's got to be a new record.

[GameDesignerDM]

I have played several Fighters. None of them have been unplayable - in fact, they are very much playable. Highly, even.

[pauljathome]

PathMaster wrote:

So, we've established that Fighter in its current state is literally unplayable by being forced to only pick a single type of weapon.

I'm finding it hard to find words to voice how much I disagree with this. At least, without resorting to ad hominems or profanity.

So I'll just say that if you think that you have established that the fighter is literally unplayable then you're completely and utterly wrong

[Ectar]

Perpdepog wrote:

PathMaster wrote:

So, we've established that Fighter in its current state is literally unplayable by being forced to only pick a single type of weapon.

Did we, though?

Also, I love how weapon proficiency goes from "the class' unique niche" to making fighters "literally unplayable" in the space of just one or two paragraphs; that's got to be a new record.

IMO, the quoted passage is pretty clearly hyperbole, in an effort to inject humor to an otherwise long and detail-oriented post.

Edit: though with 3 people taking "literally" literally, maybe I'm the one mistaking OP's intended meaning.

[Deriven Firelion]

Have you not played a fighter past level 5 or something?

Eventually fighters get Legendary in all weapons except advanced.

They can switch weapons and have one level of proficiency weaker until they are legendary in all weapons. If you want to use a bow, do so. You won't feel weak doing it at all.

You can choose feats for multiple weapon styles if you feel like it.

Combat Flexibility allows you to pick up fighter feats for particular tactics.

This has to be some kind of joke. Fighter is one of the strongest classes in the game.

The specialization is nothing more than I'm great in every weapon, but legendary in one type of weapon until I'm legendary in them all.

[PathMaster]

Ectar wrote:

Perpdepog wrote:

PathMaster wrote:

So, we've established that Fighter in its current state is literally unplayable by being forced to only pick a single type of weapon.

Did we, though?

Also, I love how weapon proficiency goes from "the class' unique niche" to making fighters "literally unplayable" in the space of just one or two paragraphs; that's got to be a new record.

IMO, the quoted passage is pretty clearly hyperbole, in an effort to inject humor to an otherwise long and detail-oriented post.

Edit: though with 3 people taking "literally" literally, maybe I'm the one mistaking OP's intended meaning.

Yeah, it hyperbole at its finest, I don't think Fighter is actually unplayable, its current state is perfectly fine.

I figured "Literally unplayable" would ring some bells, and together with the post being riddled with humor would tip people off, but I guess not.

[Agonarchy]

I am afraid your intentions are literally unreadable.

Perhaps restate it without humor, sarcasm, hyperbole, etc.?

[Claxon]

What Deirven said.

Fighter's are good at every weapon. At 5th level, they become a master of one group, well still being experts at everything else. Sure, other classes catch up to you, in the things you didn't choose to be good at. And even then it usually a subset of weapons that are viable for them in the first place.

Aside from a fighter choosing a main melee weapon and backup ranged weapon (or vice versa) I just don't really see this come up.

But basically every other martial class has the same problem. If for some reason the weapon they like to use, can't be used, they are less effective.

At level 13, fighter become master of every weapon, and a legend at one group.

At level 19, you become legendary at every weapon (except advanced weapons).

*Technically advanced weapons always end up a step behind, so please just remember advanced weapons are largely an exception, though rarely worth using even if their proficiency did scale the same.

I say all that to say, I couldn't disagree with the OP's observations on Fighter's more if tried.

Fighter is possibly one of the best classes in the game. So to say it's unplayable is...I dunno. Not believable.

[Tremaine]

Erm what's the issue? Youth today don't remember ADnD weapon proficiencies....

[Errenor]

I have only one question. What would THAT

PathMaster wrote:

worrying about being a multi eyed paranoid horse-thingy

be? O_O I'm worried.

P.S. Ah, ok, that's probably Goloma. But what if you are a Goloma Fighter? Still worried.

[Unicore]

I understand a little bit of why the fighter might look weapon silo'd on paper, but I think the difficult piece to see until you can put it in practice is interactivity of combat flexibility with having standard martial weapon progression for everything outside your specialization.

Fighter feats are really good for giving a character activities that are powerful in and of themselves. And since it is difficult to get many of them to stack on top of each other, one specific weapon centric feat can suddenly make a fighter about as good with a secondary or even tertiary weapon as other martials might be with their primary weapon.

The "I found this new awesome weapon and I want to make it my focus" is kind of a separate issue, because, in the lance example, even in APs the GM gets advice to consider switching up treasure based upon the characters in the campaign. If a GM is going to seed really shiny, powerful weapons that don't fit the party's build, then they should consider making retraining the weapon specialization feature a bit easier, or at least give the party enough time to make it not feel impossible.

[Mangaholic13]

Tremaine wrote:

Erm what's the issue? Youth today don't remember ADnD weapon proficiencies....

It's not that I don't remember, it's that I never knew it.

I got into DnD during 3.5

[Deriven Firelion]

Unicore wrote:

I understand a little bit of why the fighter might look weapon silo'd on paper, but I think the difficult piece to see until you can put it in practice is interactivity of combat flexibility with having standard martial weapon progression for everything outside your specialization.

Fighter feats are really good for giving a character activities that are powerful in and of themselves. And since it is difficult to get many of them to stack on top of each other, one specific weapon centric feat can suddenly make a fighter about as good with a secondary or even tertiary weapon as other martials might be with their primary weapon.

The "I found this new awesome weapon and I want to make it my focus" is kind of a separate issue, because, in the lance example, even in APs the GM gets advice to consider switching up treasure based upon the characters in the campaign. If a GM is going to seed really shiny, powerful weapons that don't fit the party's build, then they should consider making retraining the weapon specialization feature a bit easier, or at least give the party enough time to make it not feel impossible.

It is way less weapon-siloed in PF2 than PF1. PF1 really made them stuck using one weapon with weapon styles combined with feats that only gave one type of weapon a bonus. They are far more wide open now.

[YuriP]

I have my own criticism of the fighter, mainly because his progression curve is much more horizontal than that of the other classes.

OK, this seems like a good thing, right? After all, if the fighter has a better horizontal progression, it means that he is even more versatile than other martial, and in fact he is. But in practice, when watching some fighters in 1-20 games, one thing I noticed in PF2e is that, despite being much lesser than in other systems, he still starts out much better than he ends up.

A fighter at level 1 is a monster that is proficient with heavy armor, shield blocking, reactive strike, expert with all weapons except advanced ones, and thanks to this, he hits and, mainly, criticizes more than any other (except the gunslinger). No other martial can match him in this regard. Barbarians have a bit more HP, but their standard proficiency is medium armor, and their damage bonus is +6 at most, but they sacrifice 1 AC due to clumsy (or 4 without sacrificing AC). However, they lack reactions at this level and are bad at ranged attacks (they can even buy the Raging Thrower, but its key attribute is not Dex and the range of these weapons is very short). The rogue even gains 1d6 accuracy (2.5 avg), but is restricted to doing this with a maximum of a 1d8 weapon and needs to position himself properly to do so. The thaumaturge gains +2 from Personal Antithesis (maybe more if he's lucky enough for the target to have some weakness), but has lower hit and damage because he doesn't have a key attribute for hit and damage, and so on.

What I mean is that no other martial starts out as complete as the fighter. However, as the levels progress, the fighter vertically seems to be stuck in time. Okay, he always has +2 on hits due to proficiency and some feats that reduce the MAP of some activities or even guarantee that 19 will be a critical hit if he hits, but this does not progress as brutally vertically as the barbarian's rage, or the rogue's debilitating precision damage, or the thaumaturge's imposed weakness along with the status bonus of intensifying his implement. Even with the fighter gaining master armor proficiency a little earlier and armor specialization (which honestly is something forgettable), the general feeling I have is that he is being surpassed by the other martials, even though he potentially has greater horizontal versatility, because at high levels the other martials have also already spent enough feats to have all the versatility they need. However, even so, the fighter is solid from level 1-20, never being a weak class, or even seeming subpar, it just seems to be slightly outclassed by the others (but not all of them, I still don't think that classes like investigator, inventor and swashbuckler can be more efficient in combat than a fighter even after having improved a lot with the remaster, but they gain advantages in other areas and strategies besides hitting well and hard).

So the fighter still gives that D&D feeling where he is the best to start at level 1, but not to finish at level 20, although in PF2e he is still very good at level 20, unlike what he was in PF1 and D&D. However, one thing I can definitely say, he is still very far from being unplayable or sucks at any level, he is not even subpar, he just has a less vertical progression, being normally slightly better at the beginning of the game and slightly worse at the end of the game when compared to several other martials.

[Deriven Firelion]

The fighter isn't exciting, but he's powerful at level 1 and powerful at level 20. If all you want to do is hit things real hard real often, not much beats the fighter.

If you want to have other types of interesting abilities, fighter is probably not for you. The fighter is the ultimate user of weapons at level 1 and at level 20. That's what they do. They do it better than anyone else. Their overall chassis is very solidly build.

But it's very focused and very boring if you want to do much else than hit stuff really, really well.

I think some people love that simple class fantasy of being great with weapons.

[Unicore]

I disagree that the fighter is boring in practice. It is incredibly dependent on its feats to give it character, but it is pretty easy to build a fighter that has many different options for what to do with every turn. Most other martials are much more heavily tied to specific and repetitive routines.

I do think that it is possible to build a boring fighter if you don’t diversify your feats at all, but I think you pretty much have to MC out of fighter to do it.

[Bluemagetim]

Fighter chassis is also so strong that they make a great class to be when you want to archtype

[Deriven Firelion]

Unicore wrote:

I disagree that the fighter is boring in practice. It is incredibly dependent on its feats to give it character, but it is pretty easy to build a fighter that has many different options for what to do with every turn. Most other martials are much more heavily tied to specific and repetitive routines.

I do think that it is possible to build a boring fighter if you don’t diversify your feats at all, but I think you pretty much have to MC out of fighter to do it.

Boring is a relative term. So what you find fun, I find boring. I find the fighter boring, much like the bard. They do narrow things really well and if you don't do that one thing every round, then you can feel like you're wasting your time.

I like casters more or a martial like a monk or rogue that have a spread of abilities that are more interesting or better action economy that makes for more interesting options or better group synergistic abilities.

This is one of those times that is definitely based on your personal enjoyment. Some people love it. I do not. Just as I do not like the bard, though I know they are very powerful. It's not my cup of tea.

I even like the barbarian better because at least they look cool when you want to play The Hulk-type martial.

[PossibleCabbage]

The Warrior of Legend class archetype is pretty cool, I wouldn't mind getting more stuff like that.

[pauljathome]

PathMaster wrote:

Yeah, it hyperbole at its finest, I don't think Fighter is actually unplayable, its current state is perfectly fine.
I figured "Literally unplayable" would ring some bells, and together with the post being riddled with humor would tip people off, but I guess not.

You've made 25 posts in total on these boards.

To expect us to realize that somebody we've never heard of is intentionally trying to be humourous as opposed to our thinking you a troll or a complete idiot is, uh, kinda optimistic. And evidence of something that I will not explicitly point out since I want to stay polite.

[Tridus]

Unicore wrote:

I disagree that the fighter is boring in practice. It is incredibly dependent on its feats to give it character, but it is pretty easy to build a fighter that has many different options for what to do with every turn. Most other martials are much more heavily tied to specific and repetitive routines.

I do think that it is possible to build a boring fighter if you don’t diversify your feats at all, but I think you pretty much have to MC out of fighter to do it.

Boring is relative. I find Fighter boring. Unquestionably effective, but boring.

My son still raves about his Extinction Curse Fighter over a year after that campaign ended. He LOVES Fighter. He could hit things really hard with a giant sword, scare things to death, and had some nifty feat tricks when he remembered to use them. He didn't need or particularly want anything else.

Fighter is pretty great as it stands because it does exactly what it says on the tin and it doesn't require system mastery to do it. For a lot of players, that's exactly what they want. For folks that want something different, we have a huge variety of class options now.

[pauljathome]

Tridus wrote:

Fighter is pretty great as it stands because it does exactly what it says on the tin and it doesn't require system mastery to do it. For a lot of players, that's exactly what they want. For folks that want something different, we have a huge variety of class options now.

The fighter also makes a wonderful base to expand from, especially if you are NOT using Free Archetype. You get everything you need with a minimum expenditure of class feats so you can devote all your feats to cool other things.

[thenobledrake]

This is a really confusing claim to me.

In my experience, players more often than not limit themselves to a particular weapon even if there isn't a specific increase in stats for one. They also limit themselves to a particular weapon because of all of the other mechanical differences that can come up before a fighter has to pick a weapon group to be even better with.

So to lay the feeling of being limited on getting an increased proficiency strikes me as odd because most players were already locked-in on their weapon choice just because it had a particular trait they liked, and most that weren't locked-in at that point got locked in once runes started getting added to a weapon. Meaning that in practice there's no change in play happening at the time weapon mastery group is chosen.

[ElementalofCuteness]

Money and Runes I think is the big issue with multiple weapons ro anything similar to it honestly. Fighter is great, we had one in a campaign i played like half a year ago and he was kill stuff so quickly we just sat there intrigued at his great-axe. Yeah sometimes it can seem boring but that is like saying Barbarian or Ranger is boring for doing the same mechanic over and over again.

The biggest issue is having multiple weapons with up-to-date runes to feel worthy of using.

[YuriP]

Boring is relative to the gameplay style that each person likes. Those who like to deal with greater complexity are also usually those who find the fighter (and the ranger) more boring, although as pauljathome pointed out, it also has the most suitable chassis for most martial archetypes, both due to the high availability of feats and the proficiency that affects practically anything that involves Strike, so depending on the intended archetype even those who find it boring can take it.

While the opposite is also true, and there is a huge variety of players who do not like to deal with too many options, which makes the fighter a great option.

I also agree with ElementalofCuteness that the main limiting factor is not the weapon group, but the runes, since having multiple weapons with complete runes is very expensive, and a single one with the Shifting rune sacrifices a property slot or a Doubling Rings (but it only works with 1-handed weapons).

[Dragonchess Player]

Personally, I find it a little amusing how the complaint seems to have shifted: a "golf bag" of weapons (to deal with various resistances) was "bad" in 3.5/PF1, but is now something to be desired in PF2.

If a player wants a character that can be more flexible (on a day-to-day basis, at least) with their main weapon, the mind smith archetype can help. Especially with Mental Forge and Malleable Mental Forge; also Mind Projectiles to choose between melee and ranged strikes without needing to switch weapons.

[JiCi]

If the Fighter's main gimmick is to crit like crazy, then the critical hits should be more appealing.

If a barbarian uses a greataxe to crit, he can strike another target within reach.

If a fighter uses a greataxe to crit, he can strike another target within reach OR make the initial target off-balance (like a Sword) OR knock it prone (like a Hammer) OR combine 2 or even 3 effects at once, making the initial target prone, off-balance AND striking a secondary target.

Basically, when a Martial crits, the target is cripple, but when the Fighter crits, the target should struggle to keep its limbs from falling off.

[BigHatMarisa]

I wouldn't go so far as to say the Fighter's "main gimmick" is to crit like crazy. That's not the stated goal of Fighter's design - it's a knock-on effect of their actual main gimmick (the 960 gp worth of accuracy they start with) being tied (intentionally) to the same system that governs hits and crits.

Fighter's "main gimmick" is more "I am more accurate" as a whole which leads to more hits and also some more crits. They already take GREAT advantage of this with the ability to actually utilize Press actions better than some other baseline martials. They also make better use of on-crit runes and crit specializations as they currently are without having to bump them up a notch, since they'll see them actually proc more often than Master martials.

Oh, and, you know, dealing double damage more often, which is the main meat of critting.

Also, while I do understand the "it sucks keeping multiple weapons up-to-current" argument, it really isn't that harrowing to keep it one step behind. Intended gold acquisition rate accelerates so hard that keeping a backup weapon one step behind your main is trivial. Source: I was the Druid in our Extinction Curse game with a good 40% of the gold allocation in a 5-person party (they were very kind to me) and the Fighter was still able to keep a throwing weapon on her back a step behind her greatsword.
Keeping a +1 striking shortbow on-hand that you can whip out in place of your +2 striking longsword STILL puts you +1 ahead of other martials in accuracy when their weapon is +2. Even if we mean +2 striking shortbow vs. +2 greater striking longsword; it's better to deal SOME damage to the flying idiots than to stand there doing nothing.

[Tridus]

Dragonchess Player wrote:

Personally, I find it a little amusing how the complaint seems to have shifted: a "golf bag" of weapons (to deal with various resistances) was "bad" in 3.5/PF1, but is now something to be desired in PF2.

I don't think that many people actually want this in PF2. But for pretty much any design decision, you can find someone that wants to change it.

[Red Griffyn]

Guys... its a troll post. OP admitted they don't believe what they are saying. Lets chalk this post up to a poorly landed joke and move on.

[Tremaine]

Mangaholic13 wrote:

Tremaine wrote:

Erm what's the issue? Youth today don't remember ADnD weapon proficiencies....

It's not that I don't remember, it's that I never knew it.

I got into DnD during 3.5

Fair, and I was being a bit sarcastic..

Also old, which always surprises me.

[JiCi]

BigHatMarisa wrote:

I wouldn't go so far as to say the Fighter's "main gimmick" is to crit like crazy. That's not the stated goal of Fighter's design - it's a knock-on effect of their actual main gimmick (the 960 gp worth of accuracy they start with) being tied (intentionally) to the same system that governs hits and crits.

One issue I keep seeing is how "being good with every weapon" doesn't bring you more advantages.

Like I said, if the Fighter could swap crit effects from one group to another, without having to carry multiple weapons or a Shifting Rune, that would be welcomed. Dude, imagine if the Fighter could ADD weapon traits to weapons with feats. That would also be a good thing.

Essentially, "spear training" should reflect on "polearm training", "sword training" should reflect on "knife training", "hammer training" should reflect on "club training", and so on. THAT's what the Fighter is currently missing. THAT's the "weapon versatility" that should be added.

Most characters carry a melee weapon, a ranged weapon and a small back-up weapon. Carrying more seems pointless. You guys argue that a "golf bag" is required. There's the problem: a Fighter's "one signature weapon" should equal to many.

For instance, a Fighter should be able to deal Piercing damage with every Sword weapon, as not all of them have "Versatile P".

[Dragonchess Player]

JiCi wrote:

BigHatMarisa wrote:

I wouldn't go so far as to say the Fighter's "main gimmick" is to crit like crazy. That's not the stated goal of Fighter's design - it's a knock-on effect of their actual main gimmick (the 960 gp worth of accuracy they start with) being tied (intentionally) to the same system that governs hits and crits.

One issue I keep seeing is how "being good with every weapon" doesn't bring you more advantages.

Like I said, if the Fighter could swap crit effects from one group to another, without having to carry multiple weapons or a Shifting Rune, that would be welcomed. Dude, imagine if the Fighter could ADD weapon traits to weapons with feats. That would also be a good thing.

Essentially, "spear training" should reflect on "polearm training", "sword training" should reflect on "knife training", "hammer training" should reflect on "club training", and so on. THAT's what the Fighter is currently missing. THAT's the "weapon versatility" that should be added.

Most characters carry a melee weapon, a ranged weapon and a small back-up weapon. Carrying more seems pointless. You guys argue that a "golf bag" is required. There's the problem: a Fighter's "one signature weapon" should equal to many.

For instance, a Fighter should be able to deal Piercing damage with every Sword weapon, as not all of them have "Versatile P".

Note that the Haft Striker Stance (and Haft Beatdown) feat, although published in War of Immortals with the avenger class archetype, is available as a fighter (or ranger or rogue) class feat without needing an archetype: "These feats are primarily intended for avengers but are also available to other rogues and members of certain other classes where appropriate. Once you select one of these feats, it loses the traits from the other classes."

The Haft Striker Stance feat allows the character to "treat the haft of your wielded [two-handed hammer, spear, or polearm] as a simple weapon dealing 1d4 bludgeoning damage. The haft is in the club group and has the agile and finesse traits. The haft shares any fundamental runes attached to the main weapon, so long as it would normally qualify for them." A halberd, horsechopper, or naginata, for instance, would be able to switch between all three types of damage (bludgeoning, piercing, slashing) without additional actions (other than entering the stance) while benefiting from one set of fundamental runes. Not bad.

The only issue would be a way to make ranged strikes, but there are ways to manage that. Even ways that don't require drawing a different weapon (e.g., kitsune with Foxfire).

[Squiggit]

JiCi wrote:

BigHatMarisa wrote:

I wouldn't go so far as to say the Fighter's "main gimmick" is to crit like crazy. That's not the stated goal of Fighter's design - it's a knock-on effect of their actual main gimmick (the 960 gp worth of accuracy they start with) being tied (intentionally) to the same system that governs hits and crits.

One issue I keep seeing is how "being good with every weapon" doesn't bring you more advantages.

Like I said, if the Fighter could swap crit effects from one group to another, without having to carry multiple weapons or a Shifting Rune, that would be welcomed. Dude, imagine if the Fighter could ADD weapon traits to weapons with feats. That would also be a good thing.

Essentially, "spear training" should reflect on "polearm training", "sword training" should reflect on "knife training", "hammer training" should reflect on "club training", and so on. THAT's what the Fighter is currently missing. THAT's the "weapon versatility" that should be added.

Most characters carry a melee weapon, a ranged weapon and a small back-up weapon. Carrying more seems pointless. You guys argue that a "golf bag" is required. There's the problem: a Fighter's "one signature weapon" should equal to many.

For instance, a Fighter should be able to deal Piercing damage with every Sword weapon, as not all of them have "Versatile P".

What would you take away from what's already one of the best classes in the game for the pile of extra features you want to give them?

[JiCi]

Squiggit wrote:

What would you take away from what's already one of the best classes in the game for the pile of extra features you want to give them?

Because the Fighter lacks an identity, that's why.

The other martial classes have a pre-determined path with their features and proficiencies that allow better characterisation. This is something missing from the Fighter.

For instance, if you're a barbarian and ranger, you're close to nature, just like if you're a magus or thaumatheurge, you're well-versed into magic.

If you're a Fighter, you're... someone... that's it. When your whole class resolves around being a mercenary, a freed gladiator or a retired soldier, you're limited. Even with classes like the Guardian and Commander, being a "soldier" sounds way better with those...

[Squiggit]

That's not an answer, and the fighter being more generic than its specific alternatives is the point, not a problem.

[YuriP]

JiCi wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

What would you take away from what's already one of the best classes in the game for the pile of extra features you want to give them?

Because the Fighter lacks an identity, that's why.

The other martial classes have a pre-determined path with their features and proficiencies that allow better characterisation. This is something missing from the Fighter.

For instance, if you're a barbarian and ranger, you're close to nature, just like if you're a magus or thaumatheurge, you're well-versed into magic.

If you're a Fighter, you're... someone... that's it. When your whole class resolves around being a mercenary, a freed gladiator or a retired soldier, you're limited. Even with classes like the Guardian and Commander, being a "soldier" sounds way better with those...

But the fighter's lack of identity is a desirable characteristic of its, even though other classes have a better defined one and that sometimes better represents the role a player wants to play, the fact that they are stuck in their roles sometimes restricts what the player wants to do with them.

For example, on the advice forum a player showed up asking for tips and suggestions for a character riding a tyrannosaurus that he wanted to make. I had suggested that a good option would be a champion because the champion's reaction both protects the mount and allows him to give this PC an additional reaction option if an enemy focuses on its mount. However, this player answer was that he/she preferred the fighter because the champion's divine warrior personality didn't fit well with what this player wanted to do.

So I agree that the fact that the fighter basically focuses on having a better hit and critical with a specific weapon group leaves it without a striking personality, but at the same time this means that you can impose on it the martial personality you want, often without even needing to choose an archetype or make any mechanical adjustments.

[Dragonchess Player]

^ This.

The fighter's "role" is that of an exceptional warrior. The type of warrior (I'm speaking to more than just weapon choices and "fighting styles" [class feats]) is mostly up to the player.

Other "warrior" classes are more narrow. This can be a benefit if the character concept aligns with that of the class, but not all concepts fit neatly into a class (even with class archetypes).

[JiCi]

Squiggit wrote:

That's not an answer, and the fighter being more generic than its specific alternatives is the point, not a problem.

It's not generic if it's supposed to be a weapon master.

Sure, it can often way more often than other martials, but... since when "quantity is better than quality"? It should go like this:

A cleric uses Sword A to get Effect B.
A rogue uses Sword A to get Effect C.
A wizard uses Sword A to get Effect D.

A fighter uses Sword A to get Effects B, C and/or D, because he's the weapon master, not the cleric, rogue or wizard.

A "weapon master" should select different critical effects, apply various traits and so on... and right now, it's not.

[thenobledrake]

The problem with fighter "lack of identity" is that it is artificially constructed.

It's only because people think of every martial as being a "weapon master" of some sort that the class which actually has that as its niche looks like it is missing something.

The cause of that is all those other martial classes tracing their lineage back to being "it's a fighter, but..." in design, so even though PF2 has more unique pieces of each class people look at fighter as the "vanilla" martial (with the context of vanilla in this case being treated as the absence of flavor rather than a flavor itself).

[Mangaholic13]

YuriP wrote:

JiCi wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

What would you take away from what's already one of the best classes in the game for the pile of extra features you want to give them?

Because the Fighter lacks an identity, that's why.

The other martial classes have a pre-determined path with their features and proficiencies that allow better characterisation. This is something missing from the Fighter.

For instance, if you're a barbarian and ranger, you're close to nature, just like if you're a magus or thaumatheurge, you're well-versed into magic.

If you're a Fighter, you're... someone... that's it. When your whole class resolves around being a mercenary, a freed gladiator or a retired soldier, you're limited. Even with classes like the Guardian and Commander, being a "soldier" sounds way better with those...

But the fighter's lack of identity is a desirable characteristic of its, even though other classes have a better defined one and that sometimes better represents the role a player wants to play, the fact that they are stuck in their roles sometimes restricts what the player wants to do with them.

For example, on the advice forum a player showed up asking for tips and suggestions for a character riding a tyrannosaurus that he wanted to make. I had suggested that a good option would be a champion because the champion's reaction both protects the mount and allows him to give this PC an additional reaction option if an enemy focuses on its mount. However, this player answer was that he/she preferred the fighter because the champion's divine warrior personality didn't fit well with what this player wanted to do.

So I agree that the fact that the fighter basically focuses on having a better hit and critical with a specific weapon group leaves it without a striking personality, but at the same time this means that you can impose on it the martial personality you want, often without even needing to choose an archetype or make any mechanical adjustments.

A YouTuber I watch mentioned a similar issue where, when introducing a friend to Pathfinder 2e, and the friend had a character concept that the YouTuber thought would work as a barbarian. The friend's response?

"But my character isn't from a barbarian tribe."

And thus, the YouTuber had to explain to his friend about how, "being a Barbarian class doesn't mean your character comes from some primitive tribe or even goes into a blind rage when raging."

A class having an identity can be a double-edged sword.

[Deriven Firelion]

JiCi wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

What would you take away from what's already one of the best classes in the game for the pile of extra features you want to give them?

Because the Fighter lacks an identity, that's why.

The other martial classes have a pre-determined path with their features and proficiencies that allow better characterisation. This is something missing from the Fighter.

For instance, if you're a barbarian and ranger, you're close to nature, just like if you're a magus or thaumatheurge, you're well-versed into magic.

If you're a Fighter, you're... someone... that's it. When your whole class resolves around being a mercenary, a freed gladiator or a retired soldier, you're limited. Even with classes like the Guardian and Commander, being a "soldier" sounds way better with those...

The best with weapons is a very clear identity. Fighters have one of the clearest, simplest, most effective identities in PF2.

[JiCi]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

The best with weapons is a very clear identity. Fighters have one of the clearest, simplest, most effective identities in PF2.

You make it sound like the Fighter must carry one weapon per damage type, weapon group and/or material... because specializing in one weapon is a trap option...

[Deriven Firelion]

JiCi wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

The best with weapons is a very clear identity. Fighters have one of the clearest, simplest, most effective identities in PF2.

You make it sound like the Fighter must carry one weapon per damage type, weapon group and/or material... because specializing in one weapon is a trap option...

No, it isn't. I've played a lot of fighters and I'm not sure what you're even talking about.

I pick a weapon group at level 5. I use that mostly. I also carry a bow and ranged weapon and use it as needed.

There are very few DRs by damage type any longer. There is no real DR that you can't pound through. I build some base strategy, then work off it as needed.

I often archetype as well. If I want to play a shield character, I can play a fighter with champion archetype.

I may pick up magus for an occasional alpha strike.

I may want to make a guy who uses axes. A greataxe and throwing axes for a ranged attack.

I'm not sure what you're doing with your fighters, but your self-limiting. The class chassis itself is flexible.

I see it as the way to play some character that is really good with certain weapons. It's a classic fantasy archetype the fighter does well.

[Ryangwy]

JiCi wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

That's not an answer, and the fighter being more generic than its specific alternatives is the point, not a problem.

It's not generic if it's supposed to be a weapon master.

Sure, it can often way more often than other martials, but... since when "quantity is better than quality"? It should go like this:

A cleric uses Sword A to get Effect B.
A rogue uses Sword A to get Effect C.
A wizard uses Sword A to get Effect D.

A fighter uses Sword A to get Effects B, C and/or D, because he's the weapon master, not the cleric, rogue or wizard.

A "weapon master" should select different critical effects, apply various traits and so on... and right now, it's not.

But... a cleric and wizard (assuming training) uses a sword to get effect A (the base traits of the weapon), badly.

A rogue (and most other martials) uses a sword to get effect A plus, under the right conditions, effect B (the crit effect).
A fighter gets effect A and B 10% more often with no requirements other than using the same weapon group (which, as already noted, is not really a constraint)

How is the fighter not the weapon master? He explicitly gets all the effects of the weapon 10% more than other martials and far more than those chump casters.

[RPG-Geek]

One thing that PF2 could steal from D&D is weapons having secondary effects, with fighters being the masters of using those secondary effects. I know that PF2 has critical effects and that Fighters are the best at scoring critical hits. Still, a system where every attack has a minor effect attached to it would make "just" swinging a weapon each round feel more engaging without adding a lot of extra overhead or decision-making to the game.

[BigHatMarisa]

RPG-Geek wrote:

One thing that PF2 could steal from D&D is weapons having secondary effects, with fighters being the masters of using those secondary effects. I know that PF2 has critical effects and that Fighters are the best at scoring critical hits. Still, a system where every attack has a minor effect attached to it would make "just" swinging a weapon each round feel more engaging without adding a lot of extra overhead or decision-making to the game.

Plenty of weapons do have special effects, though, tied to traits. Razing weapons cut through shields like butter, weapons with "maneuver" traits (Shove, Trip, etc.) let you use that maneuver with that weapon's item bonus. Hampering lets you use an action to slow the target by 10 feet after scoring a hit. Parry weapons let you get a buckler-like bonus to your AC when you Raise them.

Plus, a good chunk of Fighter's feats are allocated to secondary effects on Strikes already. They already sorta *do* this. Oh, you hit with this Strike? That guy's Grabbed now. You hit a Strike on a Fightened foe? They're Off-Guard now. You hit someone with your ranged weapon? Your next ally gets a +1/+2 to hit them. Oh, you missed with this Strike? No MAP penalty because you can follow-through properly.

[JiCi]

BigHatMarisa wrote:

RPG-Geek wrote:

One thing that PF2 could steal from D&D is weapons having secondary effects, with fighters being the masters of using those secondary effects. I know that PF2 has critical effects and that Fighters are the best at scoring critical hits. Still, a system where every attack has a minor effect attached to it would make "just" swinging a weapon each round feel more engaging without adding a lot of extra overhead or decision-making to the game.

Plenty of weapons do have special effects, though, tied to traits. Razing weapons cut through shields like butter, weapons with "maneuver" traits (Shove, Trip, etc.) let you use that maneuver with that weapon's item bonus. Hampering lets you use an action to slow the target by 10 feet after scoring a hit. Parry weapons let you get a buckler-like bonus to your AC when you Raise them.

Plus, a good chunk of Fighter's feats are allocated to secondary effects on Strikes already. They already sorta *do* this. Oh, you hit with this Strike? That guy's Grabbed now. You hit a Strike on a Fightened foe? They're Off-Guard now. You hit someone with your ranged weapon? Your next ally gets a +1/+2 to hit them. Oh, you missed with this Strike? No MAP penalty because you can follow-through properly.

Except that a Fighter who picked the Sword group cannot apply the Versatile trait on all associated weapons... or getting rid of the Volley trait on all Bow weapons... or adding the Jousting trait to all Spear weapons.

[Ryangwy]

JiCi wrote:

Except that a Fighter who picked the Sword group cannot apply the Versatile trait on all associated weapons... or getting rid of the Volley trait on all Bow weapons... or adding the Jousting trait to all Spear weapons.

... You're describing the Inventor now, you realise? Why would the a weapon master add more traits to weapons, instead of having feats that key off the existing traits on weapons like, IDK, the Fighter?

Also, they can already get rid of volley, it's called Point Blank Stance. Do you actually read the Fighter before you make such weird complaints?