Fighters have feats and features that let them get more critical hits from more than just their proficiency bonus.
Reactive strike is free and is a no map attack until later feats will give you multiple ones still with no MAP.
Feats like swipe functionally give you another one as well, especially if the party learns how to set you up for it.
Fighter feats create their own combat styles with weapons and lean heavily on different critical effect features from both the weapon itself and the runes you put on it. So the flexibility is already there.
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.
And that's super popular for a reason: it's a blank canvas. You can be ANYTHING as a Fighter. The class doesn't impose any assumptions on you, and people's perception of the class from past versions also doesn't impose any assumptions on you. (That's also one of the reasons Human is so popular.)
For some reason you want to remove a feature that people like about Fighter vs other classes to try to make it fit into a smaller box so you can give it more stuff that it doesn't need.
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.
1. It actually can get rid of the Volley trait on all bow weapons. There's a stance for that.
2. So what? Nothing intrinsically says that Fighter should be able to do these things.
3. As was pointed out, this is already an Inventor thing. Why would it make sense to give Fighter a thing to make it more unique by taking it from another class?
Fighter is one of the best designed classes in the game at doing what it's intended to do. It doesn't need these kind of changes. Maybe it's just not the class for you, and that's fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
Hey, now; manners, please. Not everybody is 100% familiar with the available content in the game, even in Core content. The books are damned thick, after all, and dense with stuff to boot!
They were simply making a suggestion based on what they believed were faults, and I do believe they were moreso making a point that they think Fighter could use more stuff to make them feel "weapon master"y. While I do not agree with this assessment, it's important to be civil when discussing it.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you are complaining about Fighter (ridiculously) you really at the very least should've read the class completely.
"Reading the class completely" and "remembering and understanding the implications of one out of all 112 (one hundred and twelve) of its feats" are two very different things, friend.
It's funny how perspective colors the relationship of different game systems.
Because where you are saying that PF2 could take a particular thing from D&D I am seeing a thing which D&D just recently "we'll do that too"'d from PF2 because the it's-not-a-new-edition D&D "weapon mastery" details are basically just a take on PF2's weapon traits and critical specializations blended together (and then made artificially limited so that gaining more as you level up can be presented as if it were a meaningful benefit even though you already picked the most relevant and/or can swap out for the most relevant options at regular intervals).
Eh, the Weapon Masteries system in D&D 5e 2024 is something that could have easily been made completely independently. It's not exactly like it takes that much fantasizing to think "maybe someone who is familiar with hammers should be able to use their weight to toss an enemy back 10 feet when they hit the monster with it" or something. While it's a mighty fine coincidence they happened around the same time as the 2e Remaster, I don't think they were really "cribbing" anything there.
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?
It's not about "adding more traits" to an existing weapon, it's about the Fighter treating a selected weapon with extra traits.
A bastard sword won't gain Versatile P on its own, but a Fighter could deal Piercing damage with it, just like you could wield a longsword with 2 hands, grating it the Two-Hand 1d10 trait.
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?
and then there's this part:
When using a ranged weapon that doesn’t have the volley trait, you gain a +2 circumstance bonus to damage rolls on attacks against targets within the weapon’s first range increment.
If it was coupled with a feat that removed the Volley trait from any Bow weapon, you could benefit from the extra +2 with a composite longbow, because you would treat it without the problematic trait.