I would hardly call the gunslinger a "better" fighter because it makes firearms better when firearms feel designed to be fixed by the gunslinger's features. A longsword doesn't need a fighter to function, but the fighter is the best class using a longsword.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To beat Usain Bolt's record, you'd need to hit 70 feet of movement per action. A level 19 human monk with Fleet tops out at 65 feet per round without magical aid.
Try 520 feet per round for an elf monk with Furious Sprint from Barbarian archetype. Without magic. Last I checked, the equivalent of 173.33 feet per action more than doubles Usain Bolt on his best day.
And the hero can do it ALL DAY LONG WITH GEAR.
If you're going to compare the fastest real life figure to a game character, at least make an honest attempt of it and not use a mediocre build with no options.
Compare the best with the best.
But since you're just here to trash on PF2e (yet again) then it's no surprise you didn't bother to put in a good faith effort.
The net outcome is the same: changing how the weapon works in some way.... for the Fighter only.
How come Gunslingers are heavily specialized in Firearms and Crossbows, but Fighters cannot fill blanks with other Weapon groups again?
It literally already does. Where do you think that proficiency bump is coming from?
That it doesn't do it in the hyper-specific way that you think it should doesn't matter.
An extra +2 to attack rolls is not the same as Rage, Sneak Attack and Spells getting more powerful with levels.
If you give Legendary Proficiency to every class, what does the Fighter have left?
If you remove Legendary Proficiency from every class, what does the Fighter have left?
Dude, Mythic Proficiency can be access by anyone.
Really? Where are the rules to craft custom weapons? There's none... A regular blacksmith cannot craft a longsword with extra traits, for instance. The Fighter should be able to be "the only one" to wield weapons in creative ways.Literally anyone can craft their own weapons if they take Crafting. That's not an Inventor thing. Modifying weapons with additional traits IS an Inventor thing. That's the whole schtick of the weapon innovation.
Fighter doesn't need that and there's no particular reason to give it to them.
Why are you actively ignoring all the fighter feats that allow it to use weapons in "creative ways"? It's like you are posting, but haven't even played the class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm currently playing a fighter who uses a single falchion. He use Dual-handed Assault and picked up Dueling Parry and Dueling Dance. To my knowledge the only other class that can do this is the swashbuckler.
Fighter can master every fighting style and has feats with weapons other classes can't access. It is clearly the best with weapons.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stop feeding the troll.
Please note that I'm not trying to disparage you, JiCi. I understand that the Fighter doesn't seem to have any sort of flair or oomph that you enjoy that makes it fulfill the fantasy you have, and that's something that - while I disagree - is a fair opinion to have.
However, I do think that arguing that Fighter doesn't have anything that fulfills a "weapon master" niche isn't a fair take given that most of its class feature and feat budget go into allowing you to effectively make a Build-a-Bear War Machine.
Ok... In P1E, I was thrilled to get the Weapon master Handbook and how they FINALLY gave Fighters more content, mostly to trade weapon/armor training for some really cool features. In P2E however, I feel like this aspect is missing.
I'll gladly take the Soldier's fighting styles from Starfinder and give and adapt them to the Fighter and only the Fighter.
Dude, even the Fighter archetype is a joke. Every other class gives you a class feature, but that one give you the equivalent of Weapon Proficiency one level later.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
An extra +2 to attack rolls is not the same as Rage, Sneak Attack and Spells getting more powerful with levels.
If you give Legendary Proficiency to every class, what does the Fighter have left?
If you remove Legendary Proficiency from every class, what does the Fighter have left?
This is a lot of words without saying anything of substance whatsoever.
Dude, Mythic Proficiency can be access by anyone.
Kineticist has entered the chat.
Mythic is also an optional, poorly designed system that very few tables will ever use. It's completely irrelevant here.
Really? Where are the rules to craft custom weapons? There's none... A regular blacksmith cannot craft a longsword with extra traits, for instance. The Fighter should be able to be "the only one" to wield weapons in creative ways.Literally anyone can craft their own weapons if they take Crafting. That's not an Inventor thing. Modifying weapons with additional traits IS an Inventor thing. That's the whole schtick of the weapon innovation.
Fighter doesn't need that and there's no particular reason to give it to them.
So again you're back to "the fighter should be able to do this because I want it". That's nice. You've said that like 15 times. We get it. Stop pretending like that's any kind of reasonable argument in favor of why it should be that way and it's just your personal bugbear that you want Fighter to be a different thing.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please note that I'm not trying to disparage you, JiCi. I understand that the Fighter doesn't seem to have any sort of flair or oomph that you enjoy that makes it fulfill the fantasy you have, and that's something that - while I disagree - is a fair opinion to have.
However, I do think that arguing that Fighter doesn't have anything that fulfills a "weapon master" niche isn't a fair take given that most of its class feature and feat budget go into allowing you to effectively make a Build-a-Bear War Machine.
Ok... In P1E, I was thrilled to get the Weapon master Handbook and how they FINALLY gave Fighters more content, mostly to trade weapon/armor training for some really cool features. In P2E however, I feel like this aspect is missing.
I'll gladly take the Soldier's fighting styles from Starfinder and give and adapt them to the Fighter and only the Fighter.
Dude, even the Fighter archetype is a joke. Every other class gives you a class feature, but that one give you the equivalent of Weapon Proficiency one level later.
Gunslinger gives you a skill, and profiencies, just like fighter.
Monk gets 1d4 -> 1d6 fists, a skill and profiencies.Inventor gets a level 2 skill feat, a skill, and an innovation it can do nothing else with. Aside from construct, this might as well just be giving you a free weapon. And if you do pick construct, it's beastmaster with extra steps.
The idea that fighter is alone in getting functionally nothing from is dedication is not true.
Also the fighter does have "fighting styles" - that's what its feats are for, and it get more than any other comparable class thanks to combat verstality.
The idea that fighter is alone in getting functionally nothing from is dedication is not true.
Also the fighter does have "fighting styles" - that's what its feats are for, and it get more than any other comparable class thanks to combat verstality.
Then where are the feats that have "expert / master / legendary proficiency in [this weapon group]" as a prerequisite?
A 1st-level featless fighter in PF2e is way more interesting than 90% of fighters from PF1e. The PF1e fighter was arguably the worst class in that system, while the PF2e fighter is among the strongest (not necesarily interesting, though I won't be the one saying that fighters are boring since I think this iteration of the fighter is like, the best one ever). The PF1e fighter, like every martial in that edition, struggled to even work on a fundamental level if they didn't have their required feat taxes and, in some cases, the right archetype combinations.
Martials in PF2e just work, so having "boring feats" (not like I agree with that) is more acceptable since its not like before were feats were needed for the class to function in the first place. With that said, there's a ton of low level fighter feats that allow you to do fun stuff or compress actions like Agile Shield Grip, Exacting Strike, Snagging Strike, etc. I think the problem here is that JiCi wants the fighter to be an hyper-specialized martial when the fighter is meant to be a little generic and generalist in its approach.
Like the PF1 fighter wasn't a terrible class, but it required an extreme degree of systems mastery* to make competitive whereas other classes were just as strong with relatively little optimization.
*
The PF2 fighter on the other hand is quite possibly the single best class for a beginning since you're almost guaranteed to have a pretty good character if you just choose feats based on their names and how appropriate you think that sort of thing is for your character.
No, you're right. I forgot that there were guidelines about rest, marching, and performing continuous activities that the GM could rightfully bring to bear against such a character.
Still, to be able to move at that speeds under extreme adverse conditions, for tens of minutes, is far and away better than any IRL human could hope for.
This seems more like a silly joke post which boils down to Fighter is a great class, why complain when the system makes switching weapons difficult? The Fighter can be the most consistent hitter in the game which is pretty alright, the class is quite ltierally consistent perhaps special strikes.
If you want something more interesting then simply do not play Fighter. Fighter is only 1 of the many Martial classes in Pathfinder Second Edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now this thread is returning to a reasonable line of discussion.
In a way, I tend to agree with PathMaster that I don't see much mechanical sense in forcing the fighter to have to specialize in a weapon group.
From the moment the fighter obtains Fighter Weapon Mastery, it ends up having to specialize in a weapon group, which undermines the idea of making a more "man-at-arms" fighter.
That said, it's not as if using several weapons from different groups (or, more practically, the full potential of a Shifting rune) is completely unfeasible, but rather delayed since Weapon Legend and Versatile Legend progress these other groups more slowly until legendary with a progression quite similar to that of the casters and kineticists.
The designers' idea is probably to allow the fighter to specialize in his training, reflecting the weapon group in which he best invests his training. However, honestly, for me this only hinders some builds and does not bring any benefit in terms of balance, it only limits the character, for a relatively trivial reason.
That said, it is something that Paizo can either fix in a future book (like Battlecry) or through a permissive GM who is favorable to some homebrew creating a level 6 feat to add new weapon groups to the training, similar to Advanced Weapon Training but with a new group instead of advanced with probably an special entry allowing to take the feat multiple times. It is not something that is difficult to solve nowadays.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I just view this as ultimately a non-issue.
Every weapon using class has things that lock them into pretty much using 1 weapon, or at least one category of weapon.
The fighter's proficiency with weapons does do something similar in effect, but the fighter is still good with all weapon, just slightly better with certain ones (until higher level).
But the fighter also has feats that specialize them into certain weapon categories. You could spread it around to cover lots of different kinds of weapons....but why?
Other than an antagonistic GM not giving you weapons that match what you use (something that IIRC is discouraged, or rather I should say the rules encourage a GM to customize weapon drops to things the players will use).
Outside of wanting to have like a main weapon and one backup (so like a main melee and a back up ranged weapon or vice versa) I just haven't seen a ton of people walking around with a golf bag of weapons going "I really want to use all the different weapons".
Heck, from what I've seen even the fighters combat flexibility and improved flexibility tend to be used as a "I'm going to specialize into this thing and "prepare" it everyday."
There might be some situations where a player might realize they really need a feat temporarily because of situation that will persist for longer than 24 hours, but isn't expected to continue indefinitely but I've rarely seen people utilize it that way.
Since I misjudged this thread let me asking a question then. What makes Fighter's one weapon group not needed or boring when you get classes like Rogue who MUST use a Agile or Finesse weapon unless you are a certain Racket? What about Gunslingers being good is only Guns, Crossbows & Combination (Gun-half) weapons?
Honestly it is just flavor mostly since i doubt you will ever actually need weapons from multiple groups and if you need that then get +2 (14) Int and multiclass in to Inventor so you can get a Basic Weapon modification at level 8, which can give your weapon all 3 types of damage types.
In fact I agree with Claxon, maybe I don't see it as a huge deal. Since I don't see anyone in a TTRPG switch weapons at all except for black-powder firearms which need to be reloaded or you use the Gunslinger's Bandolier... Maybe I am missing the point.
If the argument is about boring, then yes, the fighter features on paper are "boring".
But in play they are very effective. And if you find smashing the enemy to bits with consistent damage and abilities that allow you debuff or otherwise bully the enemy, then yes, it's boring.
It doesn't have any fiddley little tricks or combat routines that you need to do to keep your effectiveness up.
You just go out there and smash. And sometimes when you smash you get to do extra nifty little things.
The most "fiddley bit" to me it hoping that I can land intimidating strike and shatter defenses.
...when is a Barbarian not going to Rage in combat, especially now that the Remaster allows them to do it as a Free Action and they no longer take a penalty to AC? Almost never, because the benefits rarely outweigh the drawbacks, and Rage isn't a limited resource. A Barbarian that never rages is making themselves worse for no reason.
Off the top of my head, an animal instinct barbarian would be pretty loath to rage in a ranged combat, since that would preclude their using a ranged weapon to participate in the fight.
I mean, Sudden Leap exists. Rage and suddenly leap at your enemy.
Is it as effective as pulling out a backup weapon? Probably not. But it's on point for a barbarian.
We need to put the ball on the ground a bit here.
PathMaster went overboard with his OP, and caused a lot of confusion because of it. But if we narrow it down and focus on the main point, the whole question is, is fighter focus starting from level 5 onwards on a weapon group necessary or not?
If not, how can we fix it?
I gave my opinion on this in my previous post.
The rest is just rambling.
You have 4 levels to figure out what weapon you want to specialize in, legendary in all weapons isn't a big bonus by the time you get it as you don't have feat support to just swap styles.
You can always retrain if you find a weapon you'd rather use, your supposed to be given such time if you need it and it shouldn't be an issue in the first place because your GM should seed out gear that works for you.
This is along the lines of "I'm not going to use a shield so shield block is taking away from my power budget" kind of territory. For the majority of people they are already playing within the bounds the fighter makes, so perhaps the question is why are you outside of them, and what about that is important to you?
The cost of multiple weapons already pushes you away from using multiple weapons, so what benefit are you looking for when changing from your good gear that you have feat and trait support for?
But if we narrow it down and focus on the main point, the whole question is, is fighter focus starting from level 5 onwards on a weapon group necessary or not?
I mean it wouldn't be the end of the world if they change it, but the Fighter is already a highly functional class and doesn't really need improvements either.
The OP's suggestion of giving fighters a damage buff seems especially unnecessary and out of place.
Generally speaking most martials have some sort of limitation on the weapons they can use and I'm not sure the OP has really articulated why it should be so important for Fighters to lose theirs.
Off the top of my head the only martial whose combat gimmicks work without any incentive or restriction innately is a ranger's Edge. Maybe that's the answer if you want to be able to use any weapon without restriction, just play a Ranger.
Now this thread is returning to a reasonable line of discussion.
In a way, I tend to agree with PathMaster that I don't see much mechanical sense in forcing the fighter to have to specialize in a weapon group.
From the moment the fighter obtains Fighter Weapon Mastery, it ends up having to specialize in a weapon group, which undermines the idea of making a more "man-at-arms" fighter.
That said, it's not as if using several weapons from different groups (or, more practically, the full potential of a Shifting rune) is completely unfeasible, but rather delayed since Weapon Legend and Versatile Legend progress these other groups more slowly until legendary with a progression quite similar to that of the casters and kineticists.
The designers' idea is probably to allow the fighter to specialize in his training, reflecting the weapon group in which he best invests his training. However, honestly, for me this only hinders some builds and does not bring any benefit in terms of balance, it only limits the character, for a relatively trivial reason.
That said, it is something that Paizo can either fix in a future book (like Battlecry) or through a permissive GM who is favorable to some homebrew creating a level 6 feat to add new weapon groups to the training, similar to Advanced Weapon Training but with a new group instead of advanced with probably an special entry allowing to take the feat multiple times. It is not something that is difficult to solve nowadays.
I don't agree. They are equally good at all weapons and the best with a single weapon group. A level 6 feat let's them have proficiency in all advanced weapons from that weapon group.
If any class was offered a +2 to hit above everyone else that stacks with everything, they would take it. That bonus works for everything they do with that weapon that requires a hit.
It's a very powerful ability. Eventually the fighter can do better with every weapon.
Then stack with a bunch of feats that allow them to further develop their fighting style other classes don't have access to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We need to put the ball on the ground a bit here.
PathMaster went overboard with his OP, and caused a lot of confusion because of it. But if we narrow it down and focus on the main point, the whole question is, is fighter focus starting from level 5 onwards on a weapon group necessary or not?
If not, how can we fix it?
I gave my opinion on this in my previous post.
The rest is just rambling.
I don't think the fighter needs any changes. Works absolutely fine as one of the most powerful classes in the game.
If you don't want to be the guy really good with one weapon group, then play something else.
Fighter has always been the weapons class. Simple to play. Simple concept. Very effective at what it does. Been that way in every edition there has been class named fighter.
This is one of the best versions of the fighter they've had.
The Fighter Archtype has an underwhelming level 12 feat if I am nitpicking on anything. Diverse Weapon Expert
But the fighter also has feats that specialize them into certain weapon categories. You could spread it around to cover lots of different kinds of weapons....but why?
Fighters have enough feats to invest in a couple of lines.
It suits the narative of a man at arms.
PF2 has some moderate differences between weapons. So it sort of makes sense to do so.
The reason not to is item costs. Which is a perverse game mechanic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PathMaster went overboard with his OPAre you referring to the hyperbole?
Yes, people here tend to take things very seriously. Hence the use of hyperbole, irony and other figures of speech need to be very explicit that they are like that or someone might take it seriously and drag the thread into an easy pointless discussion.
I usually invest in a bow. I use it fine. You can still take feats to be good with a ranged weapon as a fighter. But so many people are focused on min-maxing their character, they think because it's not in the weapon group that they're not worth taking. You're still as good at shooting a bow as every other class with feats that can make you better.
The swashbuckler, gunslinger, monk, and rogue are far more limited in weapon choice.
The barbarian can be limited depending on their instinct. Their rage doesn't work as well with agile weapons including their fists.
That's the trade off. You can be very good with weapons or you can have other stuff and be more limited with weapons.
That's what I don't see the OP comparing at all. The other classes. The fighter has this ability to pick up any weapon and be good with it, even advanced weapons.
Every other martial class has a much tighter weapon focus with the ranger being the easiest to weapon switch or build around different styles as they are a generalist. The ranger has the Hunt Prey focus which can limit how good they are depending on if they are attacking their prey or someone else.
The fighter is the best all around user of weapons against all targets without any conditions. Their special power is they the absolute best with a single weapon group until they are the best with them all.
I'm not getting what the OP is talking about because other classes are far more limited in weapon use and if they lose their one great weapon, they have to really adjust. Whereas a fighter can grab just about any weapon they find and be as good as everyone else at using it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We need to put the ball on the ground a bit here.
PathMaster went overboard with his OP, and caused a lot of confusion because of it. But if we narrow it down and focus on the main point, the whole question is, is fighter focus starting from level 5 onwards on a weapon group necessary or not?
If not, how can we fix it?
I gave my opinion on this in my previous post.
The rest is just rambling.
I don't think the fighter needs any changes. Works absolutely fine as one of the most powerful classes in the game.
If you don't want to be the guy really good with one weapon group, then play something else.
Fighter has always been the weapons class. Simple to play. Simple concept. Very effective at what it does. Been that way in every edition there has been class named fighter.
This is one of the best versions of the fighter they've had.
I don't disagree, but I also don't see any point in forcing the fighter to specialize in a single weapon group, this only limits it without practically any mechanical justification for it.
If you play a level 1-4 adventure and want to make a fighter who fights with a sword and a backup polearm and/or throwing weapon for when you need a longer reach/range, it's possible, but when you reach level 5 you are forced to select only one of the groups or you won't benefit from all your proficiency.
I would understand if the concept of the weapon group existed from level 1 and the fighter was required to choose a weapon group and specialize with it, but that's not the case, even the feats you get, with Combat Flexibility, are an indication that you can flex your combat ability with different weapons, but at most levels, you are simply limited to being exceptional with just 1 single weapon group and only in the end-game do you return to being versatile as you were at the beginning.
And it's just weird, I don't see a good reason to limit the fighter's flexibility in this way, it just restricts the types of characters you can make with it, since even changing weapons is possible as long as you don't change weapon group keeping your highest proficiency, I simply don't see a mechanical or balancing reason that justifies the restriction, I even see a logical issue that is the character's representation focusing on training one type of weapon, but this logic also breaks down because it doesn't exist in the initial levels, nor in the final ones, it's just weird and arbitrary.
However, as I said before, I think it's something that can simply be solved by adding a feat (even to give a slightly higher cost to maintain high flexibility with different types of weapons for those who think that's fair), I don't think it's worth rewriting the class because of this, since it's already quite solid the way it is, but it wouldn't kill you to add a feat to allow it to allow for another type of character archetype that some players might want to play.
I said this with a practical example. I have a player in my AoA campaign who has been playing as a fighter since level 1, and he initially fought with a bastard sword and a guisarme when he wanted to have a greater reach, initially switching weapons, then using the shifting rune. But when he reached level 5 he came across this situation, he ended up choosing the sword group, but when he switched to the guisarme and I warned him that he was adding his attack roll for this weapon incorrectly, that's when the problem hit. Since he was innocent, I let him change the weapon group (without needing retraining) to the polearm group, and since he wasn't exactly worried about wanting to play with swords, I told him that since there were no d12 weapons in the group, he would then use the scythe when he wanted more damage than range, since the d10 mortal helped to maintain a damage output competitive with the d12 weapons.
This worked for him, because he wasn't keen on playing with a sword, but if he wanted to, he would simply be forced to deal with an attack with 2 less hit and critical because the class simply restricts the weapon group, which makes this type of build unfeasible in my opinion since mechanically you only lose.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Advantages come with costs. The more advantages, the more costs. If the fighter is going to get more advantages they will need to pay for it.
BALANCE! XD
Always room for more feats and archetypes! A weapon juggler archetype would be fun for a lot of classes. Maybe something a bit like a metal kineticist and able to warp a weapon mid-combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We need to put the ball on the ground a bit here.
PathMaster went overboard with his OP, and caused a lot of confusion because of it. But if we narrow it down and focus on the main point, the whole question is, is fighter focus starting from level 5 onwards on a weapon group necessary or not?
If not, how can we fix it?
I gave my opinion on this in my previous post.
The rest is just rambling.
I don't think the fighter needs any changes. Works absolutely fine as one of the most powerful classes in the game.
If you don't want to be the guy really good with one weapon group, then play something else.
Fighter has always been the weapons class. Simple to play. Simple concept. Very effective at what it does. Been that way in every edition there has been class named fighter.
This is one of the best versions of the fighter they've had.
I don't disagree, but I also don't see any point in forcing the fighter to specialize in a single weapon group, this only limits it without practically any mechanical justification for it.
If you play a level 1-4 adventure and want to make a fighter who fights with a sword and a backup polearm and/or throwing weapon for when you need a longer reach/range, it's possible, but when you reach level 5 you are forced to select only one of the groups or you won't benefit from all your proficiency.
I would understand if the concept of the weapon group existed from level 1 and the fighter was required to choose a weapon group and specialize with it, but that's not the case, even the feats you get, with Combat Flexibility, are an indication that you can flex your combat ability with different weapons, but at most levels, you are simply limited to being exceptional with just 1 single weapon group and only in the end-game do you return to being versatile as you were at the beginning.
And it's just weird, I don't see a good reason to limit the fighter's flexibility in this way, it just restricts the types...
The specialization is an advantage, not a requirement. A fighter could easily build a variety of weapons, but they have one class feature that gives them a powerful advantage with one weapon group.
It's still more versatile than a lot of other advantages.
If you take axe, it works with all axes: one hand, two hand, agile, or thrown. Same with any group. A 6th level feat improves that to all advanced weapons as well.
Then you can build your fighting style.
I've built a few fighters. Two handed fighters using big weapons with Crashing Slam, one handed fighters with a single weapon and dueling parry with dueling dance, two-weapon fighters with double slice and that line, archer fighters with debilitating shot and that feat line.
The fighter picks up that weapon and goes.
Whereas the rogue has to use an agile or finesse weapon as does the swashbuckler. Barb can't use finesse weapons or they halve their rage damage and are generally best with big weapons.
Basically, every class uses one weapon and does their schtick. I don't see why the fighter being as good as everyone else with most weapons and then really good with one weapon group is somehow excessively limiting. It means they practice a little more with a single weapon group which is a classic man-at-arms weapon master class fantasy.
It gives a huge, useful advantage while not being overly limiting or complex.
I think the fighter is done very well for what it is supposed to be. It makes you feel great with that weapon. It's very simple and focused to build. It's very effective. It combines great with other martial archetypes.
One of my fighters took magus archetype and he can really smash hard for that one spellstrike per combat.
I've done rogue plenty of times and it synergizes great.
Champion archetype synergizes great with fighter.
Fighter is a real nice, versatile, simple class. Your self-limiting if you're looking at it and looking at getting plus 2 with a single weapon group when you're just as good with a ranged weapon as everyone else and can pick up feats to enhance its use.
I'm not seeing it. You can build the fighter a lot of ways. It's not a very limiting class unless you make it so.