For me, it's the INVESTIGATOR. On top of what everyone has already stated about the class, all of which I agree with and/or seen, it has also been my experience that any time someone brings an investigator to the table, the party as a whole is made weaker for it when compared to other class options.
It is not uncommon for me to see things like a 10 STR, 12 DEX, 18 INT investigators who can't ever hit the right side of a barn. I've yet to see any of the powerful-on-paper investigator builds from online make any sort of appearance or splash.
Where are the Investigators putting their stats? I've seen 18 int, 16 Dex all the time with ranged weapons...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(maybe) interesting observation after skimming over the replies:
Every single class with Int as key attribute has beeen mentioned. Some of them quite a lot. What is it about those intelligent characters that makes them disliked so much / weak?
I wonder how much is an overreaction to Cha being historically the most common "dump stat" (outside of a few classes/"builds" that required/focused on Cha) before PF2...
However, in PF2 it seems that Int is now the most common "dump stat" if not required by the class. It also seems that the Cha-focused classes got a bunch more and/or better goodies than the Int-focused ones.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The locked in pattern really gets me.
Ranger has this every time they want to target something else. And how little buffs you get from Huny Prey is really noticeable. It’s just not very interesting.
Gunslinger and Reloads. Especially with how Reloads are specific activities.
Magus in theory would be better but Spell Strike is so good you feel bad when you can’t keep looping into it.
The old Swashbuckler was basically reloading your melee weapon by spamming your 2 skills over and over again.
I’m glad Paizo is moving away from that kind of uninspired action tax design.
I wouldn't say they are moving away from it. They have implemented a lot of the possible options. Another class with the same action tax would look too similar to be worthwhile. So they are trying different things.
I'm not especially fond of these mechanics. I understand it is a key part of Paizo's design. A hunt prey action doesn't really fit my concept of a ranger. The Finisher aspect of a swashbuckler is an annoying limit - is just not necessary as we already have MAP.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That shouldn't be the case, even if we make as many weapons as possible able to deal all three types of physical damage. Reach should be important with spears, polearms, arming swords, and daggers (at the minimum), each being advantaged at some ranged and disadvantaged at others. Dropping one's poleaxe and pulling out a dagger to meet a foe in a grapple can and should be rewarded, and turning one's hand-and-a-half sword upside down to use as a brutal club should also be rewarded.Or maybe they just want a game where the optimal solution to literally every problem isn't "just use the same weapon I always use."
It's not like the Fighter hitting something with a greatsword in every situation is going to be ineffective even if they could get a weakness by switching to another weapon. It's still going to do damage. It's just not optimal to ignore the weakness.
This is not a realistic game, and it's not trying to be.
Look, either give me feats so the Fighter can use his sword in the same ways as other weapons, or give me feats so that the Fighter can apply to multiple weapons and not a specific one.
It's either "a feat to bludgeon with a sword like a hammer" or "a sword feat that I can apply to a knife".
It's either "give the Fighter a reason to use more weapons with the same feat" or "give the Fighter a reason to use more feats with the same weapon".
It's not that hard to fix.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At least the ranger has ton of action compression feats, but I agree the swashbuckler, gunslinger, and magus feel unfun because of their action taxes, specially since they feel pointless when other classes do similar things and don't require the action tax (I.E, rogues with sneak attack and anyone with a bow). In the case of the magus I understand why the action tax is there, since spellstrike is easily the best damage steroid in the system, but the problem is that all the effects that recharge spellstrike are limited in use (they cost focus points) and often suck too. People seem to love dimmensional assault because "its free movement and attack" but it imposes MAP so you can't recharge+spellstrike in the same turn (you know, the thing every magus wants to do) because you risk missing your nova strike, so it's very likely that unless you need to move (note that the range of the teleport is going to be between 10 and 20 which probably won't be enough in some cases like ranged foes) its preferable to just spend an action to recharge spellstrike than use your cool recharge powers.
The magus needs more recharge feats like Magus' Analysis.
Look, either give me feats so the Fighter can use his sword in the same ways as other weapons, or give me feats so that the Fighter can apply to multiple weapons and not a specific one.
It's either "a feat to bludgeon with a sword like a hammer" or "a sword feat that I can apply to a knife".
It's either "give the Fighter a reason to use more weapons with the same feat" or "give the Fighter a reason to use more feats with the same weapon".
It's not that hard to fix.
If your fighter is skilled in a school that teaches half-swording and the mordhau, they should be able to use their sword in a vast number of situations, only being badly disadvantaged by a skilled user with great reach and footwork to keep them at bay.
If your fighter is skilled in a school that teaches half-swording and the mordhau, they should be able to use their sword in a vast number of situations, only being badly disadvantaged by a skilled user with great reach and footwork to keep them at bay.Look, either give me feats so the Fighter can use his sword in the same ways as other weapons, or give me feats so that the Fighter can apply to multiple weapons and not a specific one.
It's either "a feat to bludgeon with a sword like a hammer" or "a sword feat that I can apply to a knife".
It's either "give the Fighter a reason to use more weapons with the same feat" or "give the Fighter a reason to use more feats with the same weapon".
It's not that hard to fix.
People have been defending for Fighter for "having Legendary Proficiency", yet their ACTUAL class features (Bravery, Reactive Strike, Combat Flexibility) outright suck!
You cannot say that Combat Flexibility is so much better than a Barbarian's Rage, a Rogue's Sneak Attack or a Magus's Spellstrike.
Combat Flexibility just gives you even MORE feats, instead of, I don't know, ignore item requirements or, get this, apply specific feats to non-eligible weapons.
Like I keep saying, give the Fighter to apply weapon group specific feats to other weapons, or give it the ability to apply the same feats to multiple weapons.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You cannot say that Combat Flexibility is so much better than a Barbarian's Rage, a Rogue's Sneak Attack or a Magus's Spellstrike.
No, but you can say legendary proficiency does... because that's their equivalent feature.
You don't get to unilaterally decide something doesn't count just because it's inconvenient for you.
You cannot say that Combat Flexibility is so much better than a Barbarian's Rage, a Rogue's Sneak Attack or a Magus's Spellstrike.No, but you can say legendary proficiency does... because that's their equivalent feature.
You don't get to unilaterally decide something doesn't count just because it's inconvenient for you.
Proficiency is separate from class features.
If Legendary Proficiency was given to all classes in their respective aspects, or that Proficiency capped at Master, what would the Fighter have left?
Funny that the Gunslinger's Legendary Proficiency doesn't come up in conversation compared to Ways and feats, huh...
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Proficiency is separate from class features.
See previous statement about unilaterally deciding things don't count because it's more convenient for you not being a real argument.
If that's too complicated for you, notice how different classes have different proficiency tracks.
If that's too complicated, note how proficiencies are literally under the class features heading.
Saying genuinely nonsensical things like this really kind of ruins any hope of your actual ideas landing. You have to know that, right?
If Legendary Proficiency was given to all classes in their respective aspects, or that Proficiency capped at Master, what would the Fighter have left?
Indeed, fighters would be quite bad if their unique combat mechanic wasn't unique. Extremely thought provoking idea you've put forward here.
Barbarians would also be pretty mediocre if they couldn't rage. Rogues without sneak attack would be skill monkeys that are garbo in combat.
Go figure, martials use their unique offensive abilities to be good in combat.
I'd play and enjoy every class yet, to be clear, but my least favorite would have to be Witch because I resent its dearth of hexes and how poorly it compares against bards. It just never hit the personal preferences I had for it coming from PF1.
I would say my favorite class is cleric, but of the last four opportunities to play three of my characters have been barbarians. I love the leeway the extra HP gives you in being able to try risky stuff, and their chassis is solid enough to support a lot of roleplay concepts.
Thankfully we're not talking about 1e or I would have to bring up the Shifter and its... unique problems.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your fighter is skilled in a school that teaches half-swording and the mordhau, they should be able to use their sword in a vast number of situations, only being badly disadvantaged by a skilled user with great reach and footwork to keep them at bay.Look, either give me feats so the Fighter can use his sword in the same ways as other weapons, or give me feats so that the Fighter can apply to multiple weapons and not a specific one.
It's either "a feat to bludgeon with a sword like a hammer" or "a sword feat that I can apply to a knife".
It's either "give the Fighter a reason to use more weapons with the same feat" or "give the Fighter a reason to use more feats with the same weapon".
It's not that hard to fix.
People have been defending for Fighter for "having Legendary Proficiency", yet their ACTUAL class features (Bravery, Reactive Strike, Combat Flexibility) outright suck!
You cannot say that Combat Flexibility is so much better than a Barbarian's Rage, a Rogue's Sneak Attack or a Magus's Spellstrike.
Combat Flexibility just gives you even MORE feats, instead of, I don't know, ignore item requirements or, get this, apply specific feats to non-eligible weapons.
Like I keep saying, give the Fighter to apply weapon group specific feats to other weapons, or give it the ability to apply the same feats to multiple weapons.
The more you talk about the fighter the more I notice you haven't even been on the same table as one.
Fear effects and auras that make those within frightened are kinda common with monsters in PF2e and bravery effectively allows you to easily ignore their effects.
Reactive Strike is one of the most busted feats in the whole game, to the point that most martials auto-pick Reactive Strike at 6th level if they have it in their class feat list (which I believe its all martials except for rogues, investigators, inventors, and thaumaturges, which have their own equivalent). Fighters in particular can do multiple RSs at high levels and proc it with concentrate actions too, which allows them entirely shut down foes by literally not allowing them to play the game at all.
Combat Flexibility isn't a deal breaker but its a nice option to have some easily retrainable backup option. The funny thing here is that you want to sound smart by comparing combat flexibility with rage when one is a 9th-level side feature while rage is the main shtick of its class.
Oh, and ignoring the actual main feature fighters have which is their legendary weapon proficiencies.
Just last week the PCs in my campaign went to a fair that had a ghost dummy minigame for the PCs (6th level) to try which consisted of dealing as much damage to the dummy (20 AC) within 10 rounds. The party is a ruffian rogue with the wrestler archetype, a spirit barbarian with the scion of domora archetype, and a fighter with the spirit warrior archetype that uses his fists and longsword. The rogue dealt 361 damage (he was really unlucky lol), the barb dealt 502 damage, and the fighter dealt 784.
You want to make it sound as if having legendary weapon proficiencies wasn't important when its the weapon proficiencies which make the fighter the strong class it is.
Fear effects and auras that make those within frightened are kinda common with monsters in PF2e and bravery effectively allows you to easily ignore their effects.
Then why doesn't Bravery get any better as you level up?
Reactive Strike is one of the most busted feats in the whole game, to the point that most martials auto-pick Reactive Strike at 6th level if they have it in their class feat list (which I believe its all martials except for rogues, investigators, inventors, and thaumaturges, which have their own equivalent). Fighters in particular can do multiple RSs at high levels and proc it with concentrate actions too, which allows them entirely shut down foes by literally not allowing them to play the game at all.
Then why does Tactical Reflexes feel necessary, or why doesn't the Fighter get a feat to use Reactive Strike with ranged weapons, or get a 3rd reaction?
Combat Flexibility isn't a deal breaker but its a nice option to have some easily retrainable backup option. The funny thing here is that you want to sound smart by comparing combat flexibility with rage when one is a 9th-level side feature while rage is the main shtick of its class.
It's a "backup" option... THAT's the problem... It's not made to be "activated" on whim during an encounter for extra benefits.
Oh, and ignoring the actual main feature fighters have which is their legendary weapon proficiencies.
Because Paizo could errata the entire class system and add Legendary Proficiency to them, such as Monks with unarmed strikes or Alchemists with bombs and alchemical items.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...but my least favorite would have to be Witch because I resent its dearth of hexes and how poorly it compares against bards. It just never hit the personal preferences I had for it coming from PF1.
All that witches need to be awesome is the removal of the one hex per round limitation.
The only real "upgrade" bravery could have is master proficiency which would be probably too much since you effectively have master benefits against fear effects already, plus the frightened reduction which is IMO the actual benefit of the feature. It really doesn't need an upgrade.
Tactical Reflexes isn't needed lol. As I said, RS on its own is so good that all martials want to poach it. Tactical Reflexes is the option that allows the fighter to do it better if they want to focus on it. This is literally the thing you are asking for and you don't like it lol.
I don't know why you have a problem with combat flexibility being a backup. The only class I remember having a high level feature thats a game changer for the class is the thaumaturge with intensify vulnerability. Other classes like the barbarian get minor stuff at high levels like resistances and such, so why would the fighter be any different? Arguably, combat flexibility is a much preferable option than those since its customizable and lets you poach something you could need that day if needed.
If your whole argument is that "paizo could errata legendary to everyone" then I can say that Paizo could errata rage, sneak attack, and 10th-level spellcasting with 10 spell slots per rank from the four traditions to fighters too and I would automatically claim I'm right because "it could happen, right?".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
More than anything I think I want more options on the Witch.
Having one single hex cantrip (that's also tied to a handful of other features) can feel really bad if you end up with one you don't really want to cast or is overtly niche.
The PF1 Witch (and I know it's somewhat not a great idea to compare across editions but still) was defined by having a large variety of hexes it could choose between.
The other two classes with unique cantrips, Psychics and Bards, all have the ability to get multiple ones too. This can do a lot to make your choices feel more interesting.
I also kind of wish there were more care put into hexes in general. I've had more than a few witches show up at tables and basically ignore most of their base class features entirely because they didn't get a useful hex cantrip and/or their familiar ability is bad.
Not saying people should feel forced to use certain abilities if they don't want to but it's kind of a bad look how often I see witches decide they don't want to bother with what should be core features.
It was yesterday that I thought it was really weird that witches couldn't poach the hexes and/or familiar abilities from other patrons. I get that lore-wise it wouldn't make much sense to have two patrons, but it could be justified saying that, for whatever reason, a second patron wants to claim you or that your patron has like a subdomain or whatever idk. I also agree the 1/round hex limitation is kinda silly and innecesary for certain hexes, and it would make much more sense and certianly be more fun to limit it to 1/round per specific hex, so if you have two hexes you can use them once each.
The only real "upgrade" bravery could have is master proficiency which would be probably too much since you effectively have master benefits against fear effects already, plus the frightened reduction which is IMO the actual benefit of the feature. It really doesn't need an upgrade.
Or, y'know, reduce the frightened condition's value even more until the Fighter is outright immune to being scared?
Tactical Reflexes isn't needed lol. As I said, RS on its own is so good that all martials want to poach it. Tactical Reflexes is the option that allows the fighter to do it better if they want to focus on it. This is literally the thing you are asking for and you don't like it lol.
Tactical Reflexes feels like the "Weapon Specialization". They could have given the Figter a "free class feature upgrade" at Level 9 with a 2nd reaction, and a 3rd action at Level 18.
I don't know why you have a problem with combat flexibility being a backup. The only class I remember having a high level feature thats a game changer for the class is the thaumaturge with intensify vulnerability. Other classes like the barbarian get minor stuff at high levels like resistances and such, so why would the fighter be any different? Arguably, combat flexibility is a much preferable option than those since its customizable and lets you poach something you could need that day if needed.
You make it sound like the Fighter is required to carry a golf bag of weapons or a Shifting Rune, when that should be the case of the OTHER martial classes.
If the Fighter is supposed to be this "weapon master", then why can't be either use one weapon in multiple ways, or multiple weapons in the same way?
If your whole argument is that "paizo could errata legendary to everyone" then I can say that Paizo could errata rage, sneak attack, and 10th-level spellcasting with 10 spell slots per rank from the four traditions to fighters too and I would automatically claim I'm right because "it could happen, right?".
Rage is the Barbarian's identity, just like Sneak Attack is the Rogue's identity and Ways are the Gunslinger's identity...
Relegating a proficiency bonus for the Fighter's identity makes the class uninspired. Pretty sure that if you remove the Fighter entirely, the other martials won't suffer at all.
At least sorceres and wizards are different enough to warrant being separate...
They can use one weapon in multiple ways. Agile shield grip lets you use a shield in a different way. Snagging strike. Blade break. Brutish shove. Haft striker stance. The fighter feat selection is choc full of "you use your weapon to [insert new way here]".
Not enough, if that's the case...
- No option to use any one-handed weapon in two hands outside of the Two-Hand trait and Dual-Handed Assault, which is a Flourish move. That rule has been removed from P2E, because of what exactly?
- No option to substitute a critical specialisation effect from one group to another, such as using the Knife's effect with swords.
- No option to remove "awful traits" like Volley from bows
- No option to reduce reload times for crossbows, firearms and other projectile weapons
- No option to add the Versatile trait on weapons in which you're Master or Legendary. Please note that some archetypes grant similar features, so no, it's not "an inventor's thing".
- No option for double weapons, such as treating a staff as "two separate weapons/heads" when it comes to runes
- No option to apply weapon group-specific feats to other weapon groups, which I think Combat Flexibility should be all about and what the Fighter should be able to do if they must use a dagger instead of a sword, and not say "I could use this dagger to defend myself, but 99% of my feats won't work with it".
The only real "upgrade" bravery could have is master proficiency which would be probably too much since you effectively have master benefits against fear effects already, plus the frightened reduction which is IMO the actual benefit of the feature. It really doesn't need an upgrade.Or, y'know, reduce the frightened condition's value even more until the Fighter is outright immune to being scared?
Fighter already has two saves where success = crit success. You want to add a third conditional one as well? Pretty much all martials have two, and for some reason only the Rogue gets all three (with Fortitude only capping at Expert), and the casters only getting one.
Granted, Bravery feels more like a leftover thing from 3.5 to me and could be completely omitted (why are specifically Fighters brave, but not Barbarians?), but it's plenty impactful already. Upping that numerical value over time would invalidate fails or crit fails eventually. That can't be the intention of a class feature.
I should point out we've had this conversation before - the fighter can do many of these, you just dislike they're in stances or bespoke actions (because you want to combine a bunch of feat-based benefits in a single attack, something PF2e design is against in general).
I shouldn't be restricted to a stance, a press and/or a flourish to use abilities that I was able to use normally in P1E.
Why do I need a stance to use "Point Blank Shot"?
Why do I need a flourish to use "a one-handed weapon in two hands"?
Why are there so many restrictions to prevent the Fighter to Strike 3 times in the same round, without suffering the same penalties as other martials?
If a fighter could treat one weapon as many, then I think fighters would be far more bland, with less identity to differentiate one fighter from another.
I also think it steps on some of the toes of the inventor which, by many accounts, doesn't have a lot going for it already.
If a fighter could treat one weapon as many, then I think fighters would be far more bland, with less identity to differentiate one fighter from another.
I disagree, because the other classes can't do so in the first place.
It should be part of the Fighter's "specialisation" aspect.
I also think it steps on some of the toes of the inventor which, by many accounts, doesn't have a lot going for it already.
The inventor crafts a custom item that only they can use, and of course, there is still no crafting rule to add and remove traits on existing weapons.
The Apocalypse Rider can take a feat that treats all two-handed weapons as if they had the Jousting trait while mounted.
Give me THAT for other traits, but only for the Fighter.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just fundamentally don't care for JiCi's design vision for the Fighter. Might be time to move on.
I also think it steps on some of the toes of the inventor which, by many accounts, doesn't have a lot going for it already.The inventor crafts a custom item that only they can use, and of course, there is still no crafting rule to add and remove traits on existing weapons.
Well no, and now they never will. Adjusting the existing traits of armor, weapons, and contract companions is literally the entire mechanical schtick of the inventor class.
Giving that kind of ability out to anyone with a high enough crafting skill and the right skill feat would be like letting all martials have the fighter's legendary weapon proficiency.
Well I think the class that can take a steel pipe and use it to cut through things is not the fighter.
If anything that might be a class archetype of monk that uses Qi to make blunt objects cut. I mean there is a trope for this and it would be cool to play but it would need to be flushed out more than just that.
If you want a fighter that just chooses a weapon and now that weapon does every damage type, can apply any weapon crit spec, and can use it to make a latte then its just doesn't fit into game design at all.
Weapons need to feel different and they need to be that way for fighters who are the class best suited to getting off weapon spec procs. It might even be the case that fighters got the +2 so they could interact with crit specs more often than other classes.
The fighter that picks the axe group should feel different to play than the one that picks the polearm group or the knife group or the sword group. And they can because those weapons have different properties and work with different sets of fighter feats.
i agree with Ravingdork, taking away those differences would remove the few mechanical distinctions they have to distinguish themselves.
If you want a sword that can make a latte then it will need a foaming whisk pommel and a heat resistant handle, tie a small tight mesh to the hilt fill it with grinds cover with a cup, heat the blade to 200 degrees to transfer heat to the water.
Remove the cup from the mesh and place it at the end of the blade while keeping the sword blade down at an angle so the liquid runs along the edge into the cup.
heat milk in a separate container and use the pommel end to froth it. Poor milk into the coffee cup. Theres your sword made latte.
Afterward strike foes using the sword in one hand and use another action to drink your latte from the other.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find really fun that JiCi finds rage and sneak attack as "unique features of that class" but can't accept legendary proficiencies as the same thing but for fighters. I honestly won't bother answering that last comment because its useless as this point and he will make a strawman of whatever I say anyways so there's no point in doing that really. If anything I'm kinda happy he isn't on the design team.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I should point out we've had this conversation before - the fighter can do many of these, you just dislike they're in stances or bespoke actions (because you want to combine a bunch of feat-based benefits in a single attack, something PF2e design is against in general).I shouldn't be restricted to a stance, a press and/or a flourish to use abilities that I was able to use normally in P1E.
There's your problem. One of the first things our game group discovered when we migrated from 1e to 2e is that you simply cannot approach 2e like 1e. It is a completely different game system. Ignore everything you ever knew about 1e mechanics, strategies, and tactics and approach 2e as though you are learning/playing a brand new system.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For using Dual-Handed Assault, the main reason it's a flourish is, to me, pretty clearly because it's a single action for a strike that's pretty much objectively stronger than what you would be doing without the feat...
More specifically, Dual-Handed Assault is a Flourish because it is action compression. It is a single action to (1) interact to regrip the weapon, (2) action to strike, and (3) free action to release the weapon; and it gives a damage boost that you don't normally get from two-handing a one-handed weapon.
Normally, to move from one-handed to two-handed, you must spend 1 action to Interact to adjust your grip / regrip. Dual-Handed Assault gives you the benefit of two-handing the weapon without the added action cost to regrip.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well I think the class that can take a steel pipe and use it to cut through things is not the fighter.
If anything that might be a class archetype of monk that uses Qi to make blunt objects cut. I mean there is a trope for this and it would be cool to play but it would need to be flushed out more than just that.
It's the mind smith archetype, specifically the Mental Forge feat to give the mind weapon the Modular (B, P, S) trait.