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.
It's true that you have enough class feats to have good options for more than one weapon, but you also have enough options within one weapon category (plus weapon agnostic feats) that it wasn't a problem to me.
You could play the man at arms, but you're definitely going to be better with one weapon versus the others. And that's reinforced not only through proficiency but through item costs as well. Of course, none of that is actually an issue in my opinion. And my experience is that you choose a melee weapon, and a ranged weapon and you really only switch between those two.
There are certainly scenarios where having a specific weapon might really help in an encounter, but I haven't personally experienced a scenario where I wanted to use a different weapon for every combat because it stood out that it would have been a better choice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
it's just weird and arbitrary.
You could make the same sort of argument about a Rogue who wants to use a halberd, a barbarian or thaumaturge who wishes they could effectively wield a bow, or a swashbuckler who wants a greatsword.
It's all arbitrary. Game design is like 40% arbitrary decision making. I'm not seeing why the Fighter in particular deserves this extra special consideration and desperately needs a change.
But understand the following. As already mentioned in another post, the rogue, the barbarian, the thaumaturge and other martial artists have a more specific and better defined personality/archetype than the fighter, who has the idea of being more generic and comprehensive. So simply limiting him in the middle of the game only hinders this flexibility or imposes a parsonage, in my opinion, unnecessarily, because if there were no such limit, the fighter would continue to serve the builds focused on a weapon or a group of weapons in the same way and would suffer the costs of changing weapons in the same way.
Interestingly enough, even the rogue has greater flexibility than expected for his archetype because of the ruffian racket, as he may not be able to fight well with a halberd, but he can with a fauchard because for balance reasons the game designers wanted to avoid the use of d10 or d12 weapons along with the sneak attack, it is something easy to understand and that makes sense given all the other capabilities that the rogue has.
The barbarian, on the other hand, does not use his fury bonus on bows, because the idea does not make much sense for the personality/archetype that the class imposes. Probably if the Barbarian imposed his fury on a bow, even a composite one, he would break it in half! lol
As for the thaumaturge, the issue of the bow has been questioned a lot in other topics, too, but since the idea of the thaumaturge is to have as many implements in hand as possible, using weapons with more than one hand is somewhat counterintuitive for him. Even if it were possible, it wouldn't make much sense in practice. In fact, it's actually a good thing they don't allow it, because if the designers allowed weapons with more than one hand, it would probably open up a flank for some players to start criticizing the 2-handed thaumaturge, saying that he would be sub-efficient for carrying one less implement.
The point I criticize about the fighter is that he starts with this full man-at-arms capability, then it becomes limited, then it goes back... It's not like he starts with that. It's not like the level 1 fighter has to choose a group of weapons to specialize in. I would understand and wouldn't be criticizing if the concept were like that, but since it isn't, it just looks weird.
It's not a big problem as the OP presented, in the vast majority of cases, a player who wants flexibility can simply choose a group like polearm, spears or knife and will have formidable flexibility, probably enough to do whatever this player wants. But it's a limitation that I don't understand why it was made and I honestly think it's unnecessary and exclusively harmful. Again, it's not something that I'm going to find absurd and say that the class is bad as the OP exaggeratedly presented, nor would it even make me open a thread complaining, but I can't help but agree with him that it seems like an unnecessary limitation to me.
But understand the following. As already mentioned in another post, the rogue, the barbarian, the thaumaturge and other martial artists have a more specific and better defined personality/archetype than the fighter, who has the idea of being more generic and comprehensive. So simply limiting him in the middle of the game only hinders this flexibility or imposes a parsonage, in my opinion, unnecessarily, because if there were no such limit, the fighter would continue to serve the builds focused on a weapon or a group of weapons in the same way and would suffer the costs of changing weapons in the same way.
That's only true if you only think of the proficiency as the only "bonus" fighter's get to their weapons.
That is only part of it. The class feats also offer significant bonuses to weapon usage.
However, it takes a mindset of understanding the class feats are part of the power budget (a flexible part) and not baked into every fighter having the same exact ones.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also important to note that Fighter still has the Combat Flexibility line as one of its core class features, too, further emphasizing that Fighter is incredibly flexible via its feat selection, able to fulfill different roles day-by-day if the situation calls for it (and I guarantee you in a large, open-world type game like Kingmaker that situation WILL come up a bunch).
But understand the following. As already mentioned in another post, the rogue, the barbarian, the thaumaturge and other martial artists have a more specific and better defined personality/archetype than the fighter, who has the idea of being more generic and comprehensive. So simply limiting him in the middle of the game only hinders this flexibility or imposes a parsonage, in my opinion, unnecessarily, because if there were no such limit, the fighter would continue to serve the builds focused on a weapon or a group of weapons in the same way and would suffer the costs of changing weapons in the same way.I mean, I did point out a potential reason for it - to keep specifically the dual weapon fighter from overlapping with the non-two handed builds, because if the fighter gets max proficiency in everything having your second weapon be shield spikes or a free hand becomes close to optimal.
The legacy reason is because in 3.5e the fighter's main thing of note was extra fighter feats and the main fighter feat chain was gated behind feats that specify specific weapons or weapon groups, so the fighter is actually meant to wield one type of weapon specifically for the exact same reason the rogue has their specific weapon list.
Building on that thought, in PF1 fighters had a similar nature. Where they choose a weapon group (via weapon training) that they were the best at. Everything else lagged behind, and it actually got worse as levels grew.
Ok so recap of fighter being in actuality the main choice for a weapon master in this game.
Level 1
Starts at Expert with all but advanced weapons
Reactive strike and shield block
Class feat choice
Trained in heavy armor
As they level
Goes to legendary at 13 with a weapon group and can get more weapon groups with a feat, everything else (besides advanced weapons) are master. At 19 legendary in all but advanced which are master.
Level 6 class feat allowing to choose a weapon group and treat all advanced weapons in that group as martial.
Combat flexibility and its improved version are 2 extra fighter class feats.
heavy armor goes to master at 17
Rest of the differentiation is in feat selection like any class. This is where you carve out what your fighter can do with weapons and it is very much pick the way your fighter uses weapons.
Even at level 1 the choices determine what weapon set up is going to give you more ooph. As you level you can get more set ups going or delve more into feats that work better with the one set up.
So simply limiting him in the middle of the game only hinders this flexibility or imposes a parsonage, in my opinion, unnecessarily, because if there were no such limit, the fighter would continue to serve the builds focused on a weapon or a group of weapons in the same way and would suffer the costs of changing weapons in the same way.You and PathMaster keep saying that, but have you really been in a game playing a L10 fighter where you said "I took Sword weapon specialty, but gosh, I really can't do my party job as frontline melee without Axe speciality too."
That's not the point, as I said before, it's the prohibition of the concept itself. More practical players don't care, but a more thematic player is harmed.
IOW, is this really a significant limit in play? Or is it just a limit in theorycrafting and conceptual character generation?
Have you been in a game where you took polearm specialty and then the GM dropped some amazing magical lance on you where (a) the great magic couldn't be transferred and (b) nobody else could use it well, and (c) using it well was important for the story? That seems like a very theoretical problem to me, and rarely or never an actual one. Moreover it's a problem that can be addressed through GMing guidance rather than a change to the Fighter class. So I don't find it at all a compelling reason to seek a rules change.
Something similar happened in my games, and I think it must have happened to other players here too, where an enemy dropped a weapon with better runes than the fighter player weapon during exploration/encounters but the fighter couldn't use it until he managed to return to a city and transfer the runes. This is quite common, the player drops a different weapon than the one he is used to using, but the fighter specifically can't use it until he transfers the runes.
it's a limitation that I don't understand why it was made and I honestly think it's unnecessary and exclusively harmful.Because giving Fighter Weapon Mastery in every weapon would increase vertical power, making an already strong class stronger. Which neither the class nor the game...
Sorry, but I can't see a vertical power increase in allowing the fighter to have proficiency in a greater number of weapons. It's the opposite, it's a horizontal limit, you penalize the fighter if he uses a weapon from a different group only.
But understand the following. As already mentioned in another post, the rogue, the barbarian, the thaumaturge and other martial artists have a more specific and better defined personality/archetype than the fighter, who has the idea of being more generic and comprehensive. So simply limiting him in the middle of the game only hinders this flexibility or imposes a parsonage, in my opinion, unnecessarily, because if there were no such limit, the fighter would continue to serve the builds focused on a weapon or a group of weapons in the same way and would suffer the costs of changing weapons in the same way.I mean, I did point out a potential reason for it - to keep specifically the dual weapon fighter from overlapping with the non-two handed builds, because if the fighter gets max proficiency in everything having your second weapon be shield spikes or a free hand becomes close to optimal.
The only situation where I see this giving an advantage would be if you use an agile weapon as a secondary. And even then, you would be missing out on using a d8 weapon since the maximum the shield can reach is d6.
And to top it off, you can do this dual weapon with the shield and an agile weapon at levels 1-4 and 19-20! This is the point I mentioned before, the limitation would make sense if it were constant, but it isn't! It's only mid-level! At 1-4 this works, at 19-20 this works! Because yes!
So simply limiting him in the middle of the game only hinders this flexibility or imposes a parsonage, in my opinion, unnecessarily, because if there were no such limit, the fighter would continue to serve the builds focused on a weapon or a group of weapons in the same way and would suffer the costs of changing weapons in the same way.You and PathMaster keep saying that, but have you really been in a game playing a L10 fighter where you said "I took Sword weapon specialty, but gosh, I really can't do my party job as frontline melee without Axe speciality too."That's not the point, as I said before, it's the prohibition of the concept itself. More practical players don't care, but a more thematic player is harmed.
IOW, is this really a significant limit in play? Or is it just a limit in theorycrafting and conceptual character generation?
Have you been in a game where you took polearm specialty and then the GM dropped some amazing magical lance on you where (a) the great magic couldn't be transferred and (b) nobody else could use it well, and (c) using it well was important for the story? That seems like a very theoretical problem to me, and rarely or never an actual one. Moreover it's a problem that can be addressed through GMing guidance rather than a change to the Fighter class. So I don't find it at all a compelling reason to seek a rules change.
Something similar happened in my games, and I think it must have happened to other players here too, where an enemy dropped a weapon with better runes than the fighter player weapon during exploration/encounters but the fighter couldn't use it until he managed to return to a city and transfer the runes. This is quite common, the player drops a different weapon than the one he is used to using, but the fighter specifically can't use it until he transfers the runes.
...it's a limitation that I don't understand why it was made
None of this is sufficient to alter the class. I lost my sword recently in the middle of a dungeon and had to use an inferior blade with lesser runes for most of the dungeon. Didn't love it, but I made it work and was still able to do crashing slam and the like.
Having to wait to use a better weapon is part of the game for every martial.
I often build rogues and barbarians using the unconventional weapon feat to pick up a better advanced weapon, so if I find something better I have to wait to maximize its use on those classes as well.
If you're a giant barbarian, you have to wait as well.
Waiting is part of every class including the fighter if you pick up a better weapon that doesn't work with your particular advantage. But unlike every other class, if the weapon is great the fighter can use it at equal proficiency to every other class in the group until he returns to town.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, IMO the rune transfer argument is a player/group problem, not a character/class problem...
If none of the characters gain and improve proficiency in Craft (and take Magical Crafting), even though it's 1) a central/useful skill for many classes (alchemist, gunslinger, inventor) and 2) has plenty of application both during adventures and downtime, nobody has a set of crafting tools, and the group can't take one day to transfer the runes ("It takes 1 day (instead of the 4 days usually needed to Craft) to transfer a rune or swap a pair of runes, and you can continue to work over additional days to get a discount, as usual with Craft.") then that's on them.
Note: Transferring runes does not require a workshop, as the character isn't actually creating an item. And if a GM gets all "you need to go back to town for specialized raw materials to transfer runes" instead of just deducting the cost then IMO you should get a new GM that will let the flow of play continue rather than "gatekeeping" (or maybe even *gasp* tailor the treasure to suit the characters in the group).
But understand the following. As already mentioned in another post, the rogue, the barbarian, the thaumaturge and other martial artists have a more specific and better defined personality/archetype than the fighter, who has the idea of being more generic and comprehensive.
Only because you're internalizing the restrictions on other classes as important to their identity but not to the fighter.
Which is ultimately as arbitrary as anything else here.
Like you go explain why it definitely doesn't make sense to have barbarian archers (isn't that just shutting down players with a specific thematic vision) but we could just as easily say that it doesn't make sense that a class focused around specializing in the use of a certain category of weapon to the point of being more accurate and deadly than anyone else should get other types of proficiencies.
It's just you've decided internally the latter justification doesn't count for some reason. You have to admit it's somewhat strange to claim that a class' core and to some extent only real defining mechanic is antithetical to what the class should be because on some level that mechanic is the class.
Personally I think it's telling that there's only one class in PF that can use any weapon without limitation with their combat gimmick, and that maybe it's okay to just let that be part of their thing instead of insisting the fighter poach it.
Sorry, IMO the rune transfer argument is a player/group problem, not a character/class problem...
If none of the characters gain and improve proficiency in Craft (and take Magical Crafting), even though it's 1) a central/useful skill for many classes (alchemist, gunslinger, inventor) and 2) has plenty of application both during adventures and downtime, nobody has a set of crafting tools, and the group can't take one day to transfer the runes ("It takes 1 day (instead of the 4 days usually needed to Craft) to transfer a rune or swap a pair of runes, and you can continue to work over additional days to get a discount, as usual with Craft.") then that's on them.
Note: Transferring runes does not require a workshop, as the character isn't actually creating an item. And if a GM gets all "you need to go back to town for specialized raw materials to transfer runes" instead of just deducting the cost then IMO you should get a new GM that will let the flow of play continue rather than "gatekeeping" (or maybe even *gasp* tailor the treasure to suit the characters in the group).
As you well pointed still need at last 1 day per rune of downtime. I really gave the wrong impression when I said I had to go back to town (because that's usually what happens during downtime, you can't always get out of exploration mode in the wild/road to spend a day working on a rune). But the point is that you have to stop in a safe place to do that.
This ignores the 'vertical' argument I actually made. The change you advocate would give fighters the critical weapon specialization in other weapon groups. Critical weapon specialization effects are a vertical benefit, because they add to the effectiveness of your strikes with that weapon. Whether you consider this a big or trivial boost is up to you, but it is a boost, no two ways about it.
Sorry, but it's still horizontal, and even the crit specializations that do more damage can be from your current weapon group that you're specialized in and it's not like you can switch weapons at crit time to choose the weapon that will use the crit.
Won't a more thematic player be helped because it incentivizes them to stick to their preferred weapons once runes start mattering (they don't at 1-4, conveniently) instead of optimisation brain forcing them to use a weapon that doesn't fit their character?
That's not the point, as I said before, it's the prohibition of the concept itself. More practical players don't care, but a more thematic player is harmed.
Actually, thinking about it in a more practical way, it's only level 1. Because from level 2 onwards you start to have the +1 rune and keeping multiple weapons starts to stop being a weight issue and becomes a price issue as well. But there is still some degree of flexibility.
The more I read this thread the more confused I get from it. Are we just talking about how there is no need for the Weapon Group ability of Fighter? It is there to stop someone from being good with literally everything by level 13, in hindsight that is not that impressive when you consider you need money or time to switch runes. By level 13 you will be legendary with a +2 Greater Striking weapon, most people have locked themselves into their weapon by level 5 with only perhaps a back up ranged weapon even if they aren't good at it. A bow is very good to have as back up.
The problem I mentioned is still open. There would be no balance problem in allowing the fighter to be exceptional with any weapon (on the contrary, it would make Combat Flexibility much more flexible than just an extra feat as it ends up being in the case of specialized characters), nor a reason to restrict the flexibility of switching weapons to weapons from different groups.
In simple terms, I still don't see what benefit restricting the fighter to a single weapon group brings to the game.
I think the only situation where it could provide any significant mechanical benefit would be in archer builds with backup finesse weapons and vice versa. But it's not like archer builds (with the exception of archetypes like the Eldrith Archer) are that powerful, in fact some here even consider archers a meme.
As for the people who commented that other classes are limited in their weapon options, I agree, but they are usually still much more comprehensive than a single weapon group.
So this story that the Fighter is the most flexible in practice is not true, with few exceptions, he ends up being one of the least flexible in terms of changing weapons without needing retraining.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem I mentioned is still open. There would be no balance problem in allowing the fighter to be exceptional with any weapon (on the contrary, it would make Combat Flexibility much more flexible than just an extra feat as it ends up being in the case of specialized characters), nor a reason to restrict the flexibility of switching weapons to weapons from different groups.
In simple terms, I still don't see what benefit restricting the fighter to a single weapon group brings to the game.
I think the only situation where it could provide any significant mechanical benefit would be in archer builds with backup finesse weapons and vice versa. But it's not like archer builds (with the exception of archetypes like the Eldrith Archer) are that powerful, in fact some here even consider archers a meme.
As for the people who commented that other classes are limited in their weapon options, I agree, but they are usually still much more comprehensive than a single weapon group.
Barbarians are "limited" to not using agile and ranged weapons (except for thrown weapons), which leaves them with more than 116 non-combination martial and simple weapons available to use at any time (with the exception of the giant's and animal's instinct).
Champions can basically use anything, but since their "archetype" greatly encourages the use of shields, restricting them to only non-advanced 1-handed weapons, they can use any weapon in a set of 162 options currently.
Investigators and rogues are limited to using agile or finesse weapons well, which limits them to 92 ranged weapons and 85 melee weapons. Not to mention the ruffians who expand this to any d8 melee weapon.
Magus can basically use and change any weapon, what limits them is Hybrid Studies, but even this can become 100% flexible if you use the famous Starlit Span as Hybrid Studies. The Swashbuckler is similar to the investigators and rogues, but for some reason the designers chose not to allow him to receive the panashe effects with ranged weapons...
Fighters are as good as everyone else with every single weapon.
But better with a select weapon group. They get the critical benefit of every weapon they use without qualification.
They are the least limited with weapons in the game.
On top of that they get Master Perception with a +2 initiative with Battlefield Surveyor.
Frightened reduced by 1 immediately and crit save on success against fear effect.
All Armor master with specialization by level 17.
Flexible interchangeable daily feats.
They get Reactive Strike for free on top of an extra reactive strike from a feat.
Limiting them to one weapon group being better than everyone else is hardly limiting.
Fighter gets a ton of highly effective, great stuff.
You can even arguably be a better champion as a fighter with Champion archetype because you get shield up all the time defensive stance by level 12. And with the extra Reactive strike, you can use one reaction for champion's reaction and still have another for Reactive Strike.
Viewing the fighter as all based on this one weapon group "limitation" is not looking at the overall fighter chassis which is very flexible and great for building on.
Yeah, it's an important distinction to make that Fighter isn't actually "limited" to any weapon group in particular. They are more proficient than ALL other Martial classes are with ALL simple/martial weapons until they hit level 5, where they choose one group to continue being more proficient in while the rest are still equal with every other martial in the game. This is an important distinction, and it does make a difference!
It's a soft specialization - the only thing you get from your chosen group is the extra +2 to accuracy and crit spec for your chosen group (until 13 where it becomes crit spec for all). And while that IS a good boon, mind you, and not taking advantage of it is somewhat foolish, that doesn't mean that you're somehow a worse martial if you need to pull out a polearm because the enemy is scary at melee, or because you want to dual-wield one from your chosen group and one from non-chosen, or anything like that.
There is not a single feat in the game which explicitly cares about Fighter's weapon group choice for Weapon Mastery - in fact, Advanced Weapon Training can even choose a weapon group different than your Weapon Mastery group if you really want to.
That's the thing about Fighters - if you want to just build a guy who can Strike 3 times with the same weapon and get big number, you can do that. But if you wanna build a guy who dual-wields a Dwarven Waraxe and a Morningstar who occasionally two-hands his axe AND has a Composite Longbow on their back to catch those pesky harpies out of the air? You can do that too. How, in any world, is that not an embodiment of its flexibility?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How, in any world, is that not an embodiment of its flexibility?
There's a difference between "being flexible with multiple weapons" and "being flexible with ONE weapon".
When in one session are you gonna use 5 different weapons?
Many Fighter feats have requirements for specific weapons. You want flexibility? Have the Fighter remove those requirements.
I don't think I can combine Haft Striker Dance with Two-Weapon Flurry, because I'm not wielding 2 separate weapons. Spear Dancer with staves? Dream on too...
Actually, JiCi...
While in Haft Striker Stance, you can use feats and abilities that normally require you to be wielding two melee weapons each in a different hand, treating the haft as the second weapon, but you can’t use abilities that require you to be wielding a two-handed weapon.
And while you can't Spear Dancer with a staff specifically, it doesn't limit you to melee Strikes, so you could absolutely chuck a ranged Spear at somebody, then step, then whack with a staff.
Like, it's unfortunate that Spear Dancer doesn't work with long clubs, sure, but there is a limit to which a weapon cannot emulate another weapon. To answer your "5 weapons in a session" strawman with my own, at what point do you just want Fighter to use an ordinary staff to fire arrows?
Fighter can still be extremely flexible within its own weapon choice if it wants to be. No other class can Trip with a non-Trip weapon. You wanna Strike twice well without agile and even better with it? Swipe ain't quite Sweep, but it achieves similar purpose and even gives Sweep a bonus. Twin Parry gives... need I go on?
Fighter's feats already turn weapons you have into weapons they aren't quite in ways that no other class gets access to in this quantity, that you can either take or ignore at-will. You won't find a Rogue wielding the same weapons as a Fighter that's able to do the same things without archetyping. And there are plenty of weapons in the game that can support a wide array of combinations of these feats.
Fighters are as good as everyone else with every single weapon.
But better with a select weapon group. They get the critical benefit of every weapon they use without qualification.
Considering that the fighter is "good as everyone else with every single weapon" is trying to ignore the fact that having +2 proficiency is not relevant for the fighter and ignoring that without it he has no way to compete with the extra damage of a barbarian or inventor, the precision of investigators, rogues and swashbucklers, the fusion of magical damage from a spellstrike in addition to eventual arcane case bonuses and so on.
They are the least limited with weapons in the game.
Yes, I agree, until you are forced to specialize in a weapon group. When that happens you are as limited or more limited than any other martials in the game.
On top of that they get Master Perception with a +2 initiative with Battlefield Surveyor.
Frightened reduced by 1 immediately and crit save on success against fear effect.
All Armor master with specialization by level 17.
Flexible interchangeable daily feats.
They get Reactive Strike for free on top of an extra reactive strike from a feat.
Limiting them to one weapon group being better than everyone else is hardly limiting.
Fighter gets a ton of highly effective, great stuff.
You can even arguably be a better champion as a fighter with Champion archetype because you get shield up all the time defensive stance by level 12. And with the extra Reactive strike, you can use one reaction for champion's reaction and still have another for Reactive Strike.
Viewing the fighter as all based on this one weapon group "limitation" is not looking at the overall fighter chassis which is very flexible and great for building on.
The rest of the fighter's chassis is balanced in proportion to the balance of the vast majority of other martials.
The barbarian has more HP, is legendary in fortitude, gains a little temporary HP every combat, some built-in damage resistances and brutally strong damage on the first attack of each fight at level 11 and the ability to ignore 10 points of any physical damage resistance starting at level 19. However, it cannot use heavy armor without needing to spend a class feat on it at level 8 (or a general or a sentinel/champion dedication at lower levels, but sacrificing Quick-Tempered) and it is useless for dexterity builds.
The rogue progresses twice as many skills at twice the speed with twice as many skill feats, in addition to making the 3 saves "save or suck" instead of always having to have one of them suffering the effect of success, from level 9 onwards it applies debuffs that are generally much more powerful than any critical specialization and do not need to be critical and it still gains an extra one at level 15, is legendary in perception and at level 19 it gains a 3rd debuff which is Master Strike which despite limited to 1x per target in practice and being incapacitation is extremely debilitating. But it is limited to using light armor (or medium if it is a ruffian) and has fewer HP.
The point here is, the martial chassis is well balanced between them. The fighter is not better or worse than anyone else. But the point that makes it compete with the extra damage that almost all other offensive martials have is precisely higher proficiency with a specific group of weapons. And at this point it ends up having less flexibility than the other martials, because the number of options after choosing the group is simply smaller.
I insist on the point I made earlier, I still don't see how limiting the fighter to one weapon group benefits the fighter or the game and removing this limit or expanding the number of weapon groups would harm the game.
I'm simply not saying that the fighter is bad, unbalanced, or anything like that. I just mean that it has a specific point that, to me, doesn't make sense to exist, it just limits it unnecessarily.
Yeah, it's an important distinction to make that Fighter isn't actually "limited" to any weapon group in particular. They are more proficient than ALL other Martial classes are with ALL simple/martial weapons until they hit level 5, where they choose one group to continue being more proficient in while the rest are still equal with every other martial in the game. This is an important distinction, and it does make a difference!
It's a soft specialization - the only thing you get from your chosen group is the extra +2 to accuracy and crit spec for your chosen group (until 13 where it becomes crit spec for all). And while that IS a good boon, mind you, and not taking advantage of it is somewhat foolish, that doesn't mean that you're somehow a worse martial if you need to pull out a polearm because the enemy is scary at melee, or because you want to dual-wield one from your chosen group and one from non-chosen, or anything like that.
There is not a single feat in the game which explicitly cares about Fighter's weapon group choice for Weapon Mastery - in fact, Advanced Weapon Training can even choose a weapon group different than your Weapon Mastery group if you really want to.
That's the thing about Fighters - if you want to just build a guy who can Strike 3 times with the same weapon and get big number, you can do that. But if you wanna build a guy who dual-wields a Dwarven Waraxe and a Morningstar who occasionally two-hands his axe AND has a Composite Longbow on their back to catch those pesky harpies out of the air? You can do that too. How, in any world, is that not an embodiment of its flexibility?
Let's be honest, no one will invest in secondary equipment for a fighter that is not from the weapon group they chose to specialize in, unless they don't care about class optimization and actively choose to fight below their capacity.
Making a fighter fight with a secondary weapon outside of their chosen group is like making a barbarian fight with a weapon that doesn't benefit from rage or a rogue with a 1d10/1d12 weapon. You can even do this in a desperate situation where you can't use your main attack benefit, but not on purpose.
For example, a fighter player who invested in fighting with a 2-handed force weapon will very rarely have invested several runes in a backup bow. It will probably use any bow it found lying around, at most it will have transferred some old runes to it, and even then!
There are no in play depictions of being a weaponmaster that a Fighter cannot already fulfill, unless you consider the (entirely out of universe) set of prerequisites its feats have or don't have to be core to the weaponmaster fantasy, which I have to say is an extremely specific way of looking at a class fantasy that is a bit to niche to cater to. If you wondered why 3.PF1 did things that way, it was because feats were available to all and hence the prerequisites and ways to ignore them were a way to soft-lock them to fighters with their increased number of feats - the prerequisites were never at any point intended to be a core part of the class fantasy, and indeed 4e delivers the exact same class fantasy without those prerequisites and prerequisite removal, because they moved most of the flavour of being a weaponmaster into powers (which map far better onto PF2e feats, especially for martials).
Taking advantage of this point to digress a little.
In fact, what I think happened between the fighter change from PF1 to PF2 is that they chose to incorporate the Weapon Focus build into the fighter chassis, but in a more flexible way by not limiting it to a specific weapon, but rather to a group of weapons. However, in PF1, this was one of the possible builds for the fighter (and other similarly flexible martials) that PF2 made mandatory, thus reducing the fighter's flexibility a bit in the end, although it gained flexibility in other points with the greater customization of PF2e, but this is already a general improvement of the system, not something exclusive to the fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like, it's unfortunate that Spear Dancer doesn't work with long clubs, sure, but there is a limit to which a weapon cannot emulate another weapon. To answer your "5 weapons in a session" strawman with my own, at what point do you just want Fighter to use an ordinary staff to fire arrows?
There's the Bow Staff, but still...
Any character usually carry a primary melee weapon, a primary ranged weapon and a backup weapon. That's it.The idea of carrying a "golf bag", with 5 or 6 weapons is ridiculous, especially when factoring Bulk, Cost and even feats.
Fighter can still be extremely flexible within its own weapon choice if it wants to be. need I go on?
Not every Fighter feat work with every weapon, and like I keep telling you, the Figther doesn't have a feat or feature that let them treat "ONE signature weapon" as special to bypass certain requirements.
Where is the feat that allows you to treat any weapon as Two-Hand, similar to how the Apocalypse Rider can treat every two-handed weapon as Jousting?
Where is the feat that allows you to use another critical effect from another weapon group?
Where is the feat that allows you to increase one signature weapon's damage by one die?
THAT's versatility.
Fighter's feats already turn weapons you have into weapons they aren't quite in ways that no other class gets access to in this quantity, that you can either take or ignore at-will. You won't find a Rogue wielding the same weapons as a Fighter that's able to do the same things without archetyping. And there are plenty of weapons in the game that can support a wide array of combinations of these feats.
Guess right now, all I can do is wait until Paizo release archetypes like Warrior of Legends, but for the remaining weapon groups then...
The Bow Staff isn't "an ordinary staff" man, c'mon. That ain't a gotcha and you know it. You know what I meant.
Nor is your insistence on this "golf bag" as though I'm suggesting it? Obviously five or six weapons is absurd. My point is with Fighter you only really need two weapons to cover most bases, and you can comfortably have three without leaving anything behind at all.
You have versatility already; it's just not all in on a single omni-weapon.
Some of your ideas are interesting - I would actually like to see a Fighter feat that gives you an option for another crit spec, as well as a version of the Apocalypse Rider feat more generalized. I'm not saying Fighter is perfect and currently supports literally every conceivable playstyle under the sun. It has 112 feats, though, many of which a lot less restrictive than you're giving credit for.
After looking it over, I'm not sure what is so special about Warrior of Legend, either? The only special thing it gives to your spears for specializing so hard is... parry, and some additional doom-based damage. None of the other feats have anything to do with your chosen weapon group being spears/polearms, nor does it adjust anything to do with feat requirements to allow you to use spears/polearms for things they usually can't. I'm legitimately confused - this seems like EVERYTHING you were complaining about. This is just Twin Parry but for spears and polearms. I mean it's a cool archetype otherwise but I'm not sure what it has to do with our discussion. Could you please clarify what you mean?
Let's be honest, no one will invest in secondary equipment for a fighter that is not from the weapon group they chose to specialize in, unless they don't care about class optimization and actively choose to fight below their capacity.
Making a fighter fight with a secondary weapon outside of their chosen group is like making a barbarian fight with a weapon that doesn't benefit from rage or a rogue with a 1d10/1d12 weapon. You can even do this in a desperate situation where you can't use your main attack benefit, but not on purpose.
For example, a fighter player who invested in fighting with a 2-handed force weapon will very rarely have invested several runes in a backup bow. It will probably use any bow it found lying around, at most it will have transferred some old runes to it, and even then!
I'm not sure how to respond to "A fighter who cares about class optimization won't invest in a secondary weapon" followed in the same breath by "They'll probably use a bow that's just lying around or have old runes on it".
It's dirt cheap to keep a weapon one step behind in fundamental rune progression, and if a weapon is your backup option, it doesn't need to have all of its property rune slots filled. I mean, if you wanna be plinking at Erinys with a 1d8 bow, be my guest, but literally 100 gp woulda doubled that, which is pocket change by level 8. Not counting the silver arrows, but you get my meaning.
Seriously, why are you obsessed with getting a critical effect from another weapon group? This can't eb a PF1e thing (because they don't exist in PF1e).
Because "Legendary Proficiency" is NOT the Fighter's main feature. If that mindset doesn't apply for the Gunslinger, who also gets Legendary Proficiency with Firearms, it shouldn't apply to the Fighter, plain and simple. It's just a bonus, NOT a class feature.
Reactive Strike doesn't increase to TWO reactions on its own unless you manually pick Tactical Reflexes, nor is there a feat for THREE reactions at Level 19 OR that Reactive Strike could be used with Ranged Attacks.
Bravery? It doesn't increase your Will saves to Master AND reduce frightened condition's value by 2.
Versatile Legend DOESN'T apply to that one weapon group you've picked at Level 13 for Weapon Legend, barring Legendary Proficiency with any Advanced Weapon from that group.
Combat Flexibility? It's just "a few extra feats" and not something like "pick 1, 2 or even 3 Fighetr feats which you DON'T have the requirements. Now you do with one weapon of your selected group for a day". THAT's flexibility for you, because you can use weapons in ways that they weren't intended.
All of that missing stuff... forces me to rely on critical hits. While you can apply different effects to them, their feats are so specific that it's kinda underwhelming.
You're selecting a weapon group, why can't you apply that critical effect to other weapons? It's one thing to deal more damage and add one effect on every Strike, it's another to have a little extra, because you're a Fighter.
Also, in P1E, there were Critical Feats and at high level, there was a feat that allowed you stack 2 effects, so there.
Let's be honest, no one will invest in secondary equipment for a fighter that is not from the weapon group they chose to specialize in, unless they don't care about class optimization and actively choose to fight below their capacity.
Making a fighter fight with a secondary weapon outside of their chosen group is like making a barbarian fight with a weapon that doesn't benefit from rage or a rogue with a 1d10/1d12 weapon. You can even do this in a desperate situation where you can't use your main attack benefit, but not on purpose.
For example, a fighter player who invested in fighting with a 2-handed force weapon will very rarely have invested several runes in a backup bow. It will probably use any bow it found lying around, at most it will have transferred some old runes to it, and even then!
I'm not sure how to respond to "A fighter who cares about class optimization won't invest in a secondary weapon" followed in the same breath by "They'll probably use a bow that's just lying around or have old runes on it".
It's dirt cheap to keep a weapon one step behind in fundamental rune progression, and if a weapon is your backup option, it doesn't need to have all of its property rune slots filled. I mean, if you wanna be plinking at Erinys with a 1d8 bow, be my guest, but literally 100 gp woulda doubled that, which is pocket change by level 8. Not counting the silver arrows, but you get my meaning.
It's because you ignored the central paragraph where I said that this would be a desperate attempt.
The main point is that if you are a fighter not focused on the bow group, you will most likely not invest in your backup weapon because it is not worth it. I agree, the outdated runes are much cheaper, but having an outdated potency rune already means having "-3" to hit, "-2" coming from the group you are not trained in and "-1" from the outdated rune (simplifying it with just the potency rune so as not to make the explanation too complex).
It is so bad that many players choose to abandon weapon groups like swords so as not to be punished for it. I have seen several PC fighters with tridents with the spear group because of this, even because the first distance penalty is better than that, because it would be cool to fight with a sword, but you lose the backup weapon to deal with flying enemies for example.
In the end, many end up looking for ways to fly to compensate for the restrictions.
Seriously, do you even play the fighter?
The more we talk about it, the less I'm not too keen on it...
I found this floating around:
I want to play a Fighter that...
- can be shoot stuff -> Here's the Gunslinger
- can attack furiously -> Here's the Barbarian
- can hunt and track prey -> Here's the Ranger
- can fight with my fists -> Here's the Monk
- can focus on light weapons -> Here's the Swashbuckler
- can command -> Here's the Commander
- can focus on defense -> Here's the Guardian
- can fight for the Church -> Here's the Champion
- can cast spells -> Here's the Magus, Warpriest Cleric and Battle Oracle
- can use magic items -> Here's the Thaumatheurge
- can make my own weapons -> Here's the Inventor
- can fight for the Gods -> Here's the Examplar
This isn't like picking the sorcerer over the wizard, it's literally "trading generic features" for something unique.
Rage, Hunter's Edges, Ways, Epithets, Styles and other similar abilities are not feats or "bonuses"; they're class features. If those are supposed to be as good as Combat Flexibility, there's a problem, because it doesn't match.
I would rather be LESS flexible and insteat be MORE specialized in one weapon group and have this "flexibility" be 4 or 5 special abilities per weapon groups that only the Fighter can access, exactly like Advanced Weapon Training.
Seriously, do you even play the fighter?The more we talk about it, the less I'm not too keen on it...
At least you admit it. If you played one you'll hae noticed they are ridiculously strong.
A +2 to attack doesn't seem like a lot, but I remember fighters critting like 5 times in a row or something ridiculous like that. Even if you were to argue this is copium or exaggeration, I substract enemy HP the ol' way of taking notes on my cellphone and the fighters are always dealing the most damage in their respective encounters.
Specialization also has value in making characters stand out from one another through making interesting decisions. If every fighter has a similar kit, their actual play can become samey.
It's actually an issue that impacts Kineticists with Weapon Infusion - weapon infusion works about the same for different elements, and the choices are all very obvious, and it's going to be the same every time I use it even if the build is otherwise completely different.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've had trouble answering some of these, because several of these assertions are mind-bogglingly different from how I play.
There's no need for a golf bag full of weapons, because the shifting rune exists. I use the shifting rune *a lot*. I have had it literally prevent a TPK. That said, there's nothing wrong with a golf bag per se. If I'm not running shifting, I will usually have 2 fully runed weapons (1 melee, 1 ranged) and 1-3 partially runed specialty weapons.
Have I ever used a special weapon dropped by the adventure, even though it is suboptimal for my character? YES!!! All the time. Not just with Fighters, not just with Rogues, but with full casters. As far as I'm concerned, Rule 1 of RPGs is trust the author/GM. If they give you a special thing, you USE THE THING.
There is nothing more boring to me than just going through a checklist of most optimal choices. The whole point is to adapt to circumstances. The fighter has a great chassis for adapting to circumstances.
Fighters are as good as everyone else with every single weapon.
But better with a select weapon group. They get the critical benefit of every weapon they use without qualification.
Considering that the fighter is "good as everyone else with every single weapon" is trying to ignore the fact that having +2 proficiency is not relevant for the fighter and ignoring that without it he has no way to compete with the extra damage of a barbarian or inventor, the precision of investigators, rogues and swashbucklers, the fusion of magical damage from a spellstrike in addition to eventual arcane case bonuses and so on.
They are the least limited with weapons in the game.Yes, I agree, until you are forced to specialize in a weapon group. When that happens you are as limited or more limited than any other martials in the game.
On top of that they get Master Perception with a +2 initiative with Battlefield Surveyor.
Frightened reduced by 1 immediately and crit save on success against fear effect.
All Armor master with specialization by level 17.
Flexible interchangeable daily feats.
They get Reactive Strike for free on top of an extra reactive strike from a feat.
Limiting them to one weapon group being better than everyone else is hardly limiting.
Fighter gets a ton of highly effective, great stuff.
You can even arguably be a better champion as a fighter with Champion archetype because you get shield up all the time defensive stance by level 12. And with the extra Reactive strike, you can use one reaction for champion's reaction and still have another for Reactive Strike.
Viewing the fighter as all based on this one weapon group "limitation" is not looking at the overall fighter chassis which is very flexible and great for building on.
The rest of the fighter's chassis is balanced in proportion to the balance of the vast majority of other martials.
The barbarian has more HP, is legendary...
You are not more limited. That is ridiculous.
You can compete with the damage abilities of other classes. Other classes extra damage abilities are far more limited to the fighters. This whole discussion is this strange argument focused on weapons and one weapon group being better than others.
How about the following?
1. Barb has to be raging. Raging limits their actions inherently. On top of the inherent limitation on weapons. Can't do a caster archetype while raging because cant use concentration trait abilities.
2. Rogue on top of the weapon limitation, has to have the target flanked or off-guard to use Sneak Attack. This in general limits the rogue to melee and very close in battle.
3. Investigator can Strategic Strike once per round. If they miss, they can't even do it.
4. Swashbuckler can finisher once per round. On top of weapon limitations. They also need panache.
5. Ranger can only use their benefit against marked prey.
6. Magus: Must recharge every round to use my schtick.
7. Thaumaturge all kinds of gobbly g@@+ to use their schtick.
Fighter: I can pick up any weapon in the game and use it immediately as well as any class in the game with no qualification and one weapon group I can use even better than anyone else.
This one advantage which some are calling a limitation allows me to hit as hard or harder than any class in the game. If I don't use this advantage, then I'm still doing good damage but not as good as this +2 bonus with a weapon group.
Sorry, the fighter is the most unlimited class in the game.
Seriously, do you even play the fighter?The more we talk about it, the less I'm not too keen on it...
I found this floating around:
I want to play a Fighter that...
- can be shoot stuff -> Here's the Gunslinger
- can attack furiously -> Here's the Barbarian
- can hunt and track prey -> Here's the Ranger
- can fight with my fists -> Here's the Monk
- can focus on light weapons -> Here's the Swashbuckler
- can command -> Here's the Commander
- can focus on defense -> Here's the Guardian
- can fight for the Church -> Here's the Champion
- can cast spells -> Here's the Magus, Warpriest Cleric and Battle Oracle
- can use magic items -> Here's the Thaumatheurge
- can make my own weapons -> Here's the Inventor
- can fight for the Gods -> Here's the ExamplarThis isn't like picking the sorcerer over the wizard, it's literally "trading generic features" for something unique.
Rage, Hunter's Edges, Ways, Epithets, Styles and other similar abilities are not feats or "bonuses"; they're class features. If those are supposed to be as good as Combat Flexibility, there's a problem, because it doesn't match.
I would rather be LESS flexible and insteat be MORE specialized in one weapon group and have this "flexibility" be 4 or 5 special abilities per weapon groups that only the Fighter can access, exactly like Advanced Weapon Training.
And yet the fighter can perform better than every class you listed, do more damage, and probably kill every single class in head to head combat.
So that list is laughable because all those great statements and the fighter you have a problem with takes them all out, outdamages them, and makes them look weak.
To do a visual comparison, that list is the huge dude at the start of Troy who looked incredibly tough and powerful, like an easy win. The fighter is Achilles killing him in one blow with perfect precision using his shortsword.
|
Seriously, do you even play the fighter?The more we talk about it, the less I'm not too keen on it...
I found this floating around:
I want to play a Fighter that...
- can be shoot stuff -> Here's the Gunslinger
- can attack furiously -> Here's the Barbarian
- can hunt and track prey -> Here's the Ranger
- can fight with my fists -> Here's the Monk
- can focus on light weapons -> Here's the Swashbuckler
- can command -> Here's the Commander
- can focus on defense -> Here's the Guardian
- can fight for the Church -> Here's the Champion
- can cast spells -> Here's the Magus, Warpriest Cleric and Battle Oracle
- can use magic items -> Here's the Thaumatheurge
- can make my own weapons -> Here's the Inventor
- can fight for the Gods -> Here's the ExamplarThis isn't like picking the sorcerer over the wizard, it's literally "trading generic features" for something unique.
Rage, Hunter's Edges, Ways, Epithets, Styles and other similar abilities are not feats or "bonuses"; they're class features. If those are supposed to be as good as Combat Flexibility, there's a problem, because it doesn't match.
I would rather be LESS flexible and insteat be MORE specialized in one weapon group and have this "flexibility" be 4 or 5 special abilities per weapon groups that only the Fighter can access, exactly like Advanced Weapon Training.
Wait so do you want the fighter to be flexible or not? One minute you're lamenting that fighter doesn't have access to a wider array of options and the next you're asking for feats that would by nature force a fighter down a narrower path.
And again, for what I'm going to make the last time:
The fighter DOES have the ability to specalise in a type of weapon. That's what the feats do. That's why combat flexability exists, to give fighter versatile access to more feats. It's weaker because fighter derives incredible power from its feats, much more so than other classes.
...Fighters are as good as everyone else with every single weapon.
But better with a select weapon group. They get the critical benefit of every weapon they use without qualification.
Considering that the fighter is "good as everyone else with every single weapon" is trying to ignore the fact that having +2 proficiency is not relevant for the fighter and ignoring that without it he has no way to compete with the extra damage of a barbarian or inventor, the precision of investigators, rogues and swashbucklers, the fusion of magical damage from a spellstrike in addition to eventual arcane case bonuses and so on.
They are the least limited with weapons in the game.Yes, I agree, until you are forced to specialize in a weapon group. When that happens you are as limited or more limited than any other martials in the game.
On top of that they get Master Perception with a +2 initiative with Battlefield Surveyor.
Frightened reduced by 1 immediately and crit save on success against fear effect.
All Armor master with specialization by level 17.
Flexible interchangeable daily feats.
They get Reactive Strike for free on top of an extra reactive strike from a feat.
Limiting them to one weapon group being better than everyone else is hardly limiting.
Fighter gets a ton of highly effective, great stuff.
You can even arguably be a better champion as a fighter with Champion archetype because you get shield up all the time defensive stance by level 12. And with the extra Reactive strike, you can use one reaction for champion's reaction and still have another for Reactive Strike.
Viewing the fighter as all based on this one weapon group "limitation" is not looking at the overall fighter chassis which is very flexible and great for building on.
The rest of the fighter's chassis is balanced in proportion to the balance of the vast majority of other martials.
The barbarian has
Explain the ridiculous to me. You have 46 weapons in the swords group including the combinations which is the largest group in the game. 59 non-agile weapons in the group of possible weapons for barbarians, excluding combinations and advanced, 85 finesse or agile weapons, non-range and non-advanced and so on.
You are putting the limitations, restrictions and action costs of the other classes together with the limitations of the weapons. So it seems easy to say that there is a limitation of flexibility, and even if they are not limited, they cost actions and conditions, but not the possible weapons.
Sorry Firelion, I really like and agree with your opinions, but you're forcing it here.
I understand that you like how the fighter is and that you don't agree with me that it could receive more adjustments. But these points you're pointing out have nothing to do with the issue.
At least you admit it. If you played one you'll hae noticed they are ridiculously strong.
A +2 to attack doesn't seem like a lot, but I remember fighters critting like 5 times in a row or something ridiculous like that. Even if you were to argue this is copium or exaggeration, I substract enemy HP the ol' way of taking notes on my cellphone and the fighters are always dealing the most damage in their respective encounters.
I already have trouble making a Fighter that isn't a braindead meathead that always "kicks in the door" OR that isn't "Wuxia".
Do I really need to take in that all it can do is "dealing more damage"?
Wait so do you want the fighter to be flexible or not? One minute you're lamenting that fighter doesn't have access to a wider array of options and the next you're asking for feats that would by nature force a fighter down a narrower path.
And again, for what I'm going to make the last time:
The fighter DOES have the ability to specalise in a type of weapon. That's what the feats do. That's why combat flexability exists, to give fighter versatile access to more feats. It's weaker because fighter derives incredible power from its feats, much more so than other classes.
I want to be specialized in one specific weapon group, but to also be flexible with it.
Everyone can wield a sword, but the Fighter should have 5 extra features they only can do with Sword weapons, similar to what a Gunslinger obtain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At least you admit it. If you played one you'll hae noticed they are ridiculously strong.
A +2 to attack doesn't seem like a lot, but I remember fighters critting like 5 times in a row or something ridiculous like that. Even if you were to argue this is copium or exaggeration, I substract enemy HP the ol' way of taking notes on my cellphone and the fighters are always dealing the most damage in their respective encounters.
I already have trouble making a Fighter that isn't a braindead meathead that always "kicks in the door" OR that isn't "Wuxia".
Do I really need to take in that all it can do is "dealing more damage"?
Wait so do you want the fighter to be flexible or not? One minute you're lamenting that fighter doesn't have access to a wider array of options and the next you're asking for feats that would by nature force a fighter down a narrower path.
And again, for what I'm going to make the last time:
The fighter DOES have the ability to specalise in a type of weapon. That's what the feats do. That's why combat flexability exists, to give fighter versatile access to more feats. It's weaker because fighter derives incredible power from its feats, much more so than other classes.I want to be specialized in one specific weapon group, but to also be flexible with it.
Everyone can wield a sword, but the Fighter should have 5 extra features they only can do with Sword weapons, similar to what a Gunslinger obtain.
Actually thats kind of what I did with this broadspear fighter build.
With Swipe vicious swing and lunge they can use the spear either to strike harder on a single enemy, swipe two creatures with a +1 to hit, or lunge out to a creature 15 ft away. They can pierce with it or slash with it and on crit add frighten. At level 6 this fighter already has multiple ways to fight with a single weapon. If I could get rooting rune on the weapon id probably do that instead for immobilizing enemies from reach on crit.Broad Spear Fighter 6
N
Medium
Elf
Desert Elf
Humanoid
Perception +11; Low-Light Vision
Languages None selected
Skills Acrobatics +10, Athletics +14, Deception +11, Diplomacy +11, Intimidation +11, Lore: Alcohol +9, Society +9, Stealth +10
Str +4, Dex +2, Con +1, Int +1, Wis +1, Cha +3
Items +1 Scale MailAC 24; Fort +11, Ref +12, Will +11; Bravery
HP 72; Resistances: Fire 3
Shield Block
Reactive Strike Speed 30 feet
Melee +1 Weapon Striking Fearsome Broadspear +17 (Uncommon, Reach, Sweep, Versatile S, Emotion, Fear, Magical, Mental), Damage 2d10+4 P
Vicious Swing
Lunge
Bon Mot
Swipe
Arcane Innate Spells DC 21, attack +11; Cantrips Shield
Primal Innate Spells DC 21, attack +11; Cantrips Stabilize
Primal Innate Spells DC 21, attack +11; Cantrips Vitality Lash, Light, Tangle Vine
Additional Feats Advanced Weapon Training, Bargain Hunter, Desert Elf, Hobnobber, Otherworldly Magic, Titan Wrestler, Wildborn Adept, Wildborn Magic
Additional Specials Fighter Weapon Mastery (Spear), Select Advanced Weapon Group (Spear)
Sorry, but it's still horizontal, and even the crit specializations that do more damage can be from your current weapon group that you're specialized inThis is just incorrect. A current 5th level fighter takes Sword master. They pick up an axe and crit with it. They do double damage. Your variant fighter takes All master. They pick up an axe and crit with it. They do double damage AND damage to the target next to it. This is very much a vertical improvement. Your modified swordmaster picks up a bow, crits with it, they add immobilize to the target which a current sword master fighter doesn't get. They punch someone, they add slowed 1. And so on. These are clearly vertical power improvements.
Sorry, but I don't understand what kind of mess you're making there. How are you accumulating these critics?
and it's not like you can switch weapons at crit time to choose the weapon that will use the crit.Of course they can. Fighter gets Lightning Swap as a L2 feat. If they don't want to take that, they can still Release + Interact to draw a new weapon for 1 action.
You know that you already have MAP-5/MAP-4, right? In practice, you can combine critical effects like this and you already need to get a nat 20 on the second Strike, so the weapon group no longer matters.
|
I insist on the point I made earlier, I still don't see how limiting the fighter to one weapon group benefits the fighter or the game and removing this limit or expanding the number of weapon groups would harm the game.
You agree that the fighter is already a very powerful class but claim that changing this rule won't affect the fighters power.
I've a very simple (and quite common) counterexample to prove you wrong.
Its quite common for a melee focused fighter to have a composite longbow as a backup weapon for those times when they just can't get into melee.
You'll be giving this fairly common character a +2 to hit and extra damage (at most levels) with said backup composite longbow.
You've made this character more powerful.
We can argue how MUCH more powerful you've made this character if you want but it is inarguably made more powerful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To piggy-back on one part of what YuriP said, I don't find that there's a big power imbalance with the Fighter's weapon proficiencies (though there might be a bit of an imbalance), I just find it odd and inconsistent with other classes.
To reiterate, all weapon characters have a basic combat trick. Barbarians get rage, Swashbucklers get panache/finishers, Rogues get sneak attack, Rangers get hunter's edge, and Fighters get increased proficiency. The oddity that gets to me is that during levels 1-4 and 19-20 the Fighter's combat trick (increased proficiency) applies to all weapon groups, but during levels 5-18 it only applies to one weapon group. Of course, all other classes have their basic combat tricks restricted to certain types of weapons too, but these restrictions last all the way from levels 1 to 20. Only the Fighter has their combat trick apply to all weapons at lower levels, then have it restricted to a single weapon group at middle levels before having it again apply to all weapon groups at very high levels. It has the weird result of making the Fighter switch from being a master of all weapons to a specialist at one weapon group then back again.
Consider if this applied to other classes and their weapon tricks. Say the Rogue could use sneak attack with all weapons in levels 1-4, then was restricted to using Sneak Attack with only finesse weapons in levels 5-18, then was allowed to use Sneak Attack with all weapons again in levels 19-20. Or if Barbarians could use rage with bows at early levels, then couldn't use it with them at middle levels, then could use it with them again at later levels. That would surely be weird and inconsistent design for those classes and their combat tricks, but for some reason it is applied to the Fighter and its combat trick.
To be clear, I'm not sure whether the best option is to restrict the Fighter to a single weapon group for its combat trick (higher proficiency) or to let it use any weapon with its combat trick. I just think that it should be consistent from level 1-20 because the switching back and forth makes me twitchy!
I insist on the point I made earlier, I still don't see how limiting the fighter to one weapon group benefits the fighter or the game and removing this limit or expanding the number of weapon groups would harm the game.You agree that the fighter is already a very powerful class but claim that changing this rule won't affect the fighters power.
I've a very simple (and quite common) counterexample to prove you wrong.
Its quite common for a melee focused fighter to have a composite longbow as a backup weapon for those times when they just can't get into melee.
You'll be giving this fairly common character a +2 to hit and extra damage (at most levels) with said backup composite longbow.
You've made this character more powerful.
We can argue how MUCH more powerful you've made this character if you want but it is inarguably made more powerful.
As much as it already is at levels 1-4 and 19-20.
Increasing flexibility with the weapon groups that gain the benefit increases the number of possible character options much more and not the strength that already exists at these levels or if you simply choose a weapon group like spear or the bow itself in situations where you need range.
It is not possible to justify that you will become OP because you switched from short swords to bow without being forced to suffer a -2 for it. It is not as if the bow fighter did not already exist, or the 2-handed spear fighter who switched to a trident and can reach up to 20 ft or even 40 ft if he is going to have the same penalty as if it switched to a bow, this ignoring the str bonus on damage.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is not possible to justify that you will become OP
So I think you have now conceded that you are indeed making the fighter more powerful but you're now moving the goalposts to claim that this addition in power is not sufficient to make the Fighter "OP".
Have I got that about right?