|
Let me clarify a statement earlier: When I said "I may be wrong, but Battle Oracles are the strongest fighter in the game," I was not saying "Unless the fighter is now better." Because the fighter is not better. I was saying "Maybe things have changed and a new class is even more hilariously powerful then the Battle Oracle at rendering the already obsolete fighter further obsolete."
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 08:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
Still can't believe they nerfed the Spiked Chain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 08:32
|
|
|
smashthedean posted:The more I look into Alchemists and get past the complexity, the more I'm enjoying them and wanting to play one. The ridiculous levels of damage an Alchemist/Barbarian who combines Mutagens and Raging can put out is awesome (or bombs are cool too). If we weren't so busy talking about how absolutely fucktardedly broken my summoner's eidolon is, we'd be talking about the party summoner. We're in a (house rule) single class game so he doesn't have any barbarian shenanigans to fall back on and basically just uses mutagens, potions of miscellaneous buffs, and fluid form to just wreck house. My eidolon obviously has a shitload more damage output on a focus-fire type of basis but a large-size attacker with 20ft reach and combat reflexes gets a silly number of attacks per round, and with poison and whatnot he's extremely effective. Basically the entirety of the APG seems pretty unbalanced to me at this point. There's no question in my mind that summoners are busted, from what I can tell alchemists are like an arcane-flavor barbarian (who also gets awesome bomb attacks), oracles have a lot of potential to be broken open, etc. My dude has leadership, his cohort is an inquisitor, very poorly built (dwarf crossbow wielder, I rolled terrible stats) and even at two levels below party average he wrecks things with his judgments and on-demand bane attacks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 10:35
|
|
|
Not so much, it depends on what standards you're going by. None of the APG classes hit the power of a wizard, cleric or druid, they're more like a middle ground between the power of fullcasters and the sad weakness of the mundane classes, which can get similar straight line output but won't be doing much of anything else. In the tier system of measuring class power, most of them fall squarely in T3, with solutions available to most problems, and enough capability in their main abilities to win through by force otherwise. Contrast that with the T1 Big Three(any problem, theres a spell for that), and the T4 mono-capable classes(can only do one thing great, and thats usually straight damage).
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 13:02
|
|
|
Is the fact that casters eventually become God-incarnates fixable by a DM running the campaign? I know there are magic immune, and resistant, but something tells me at higher levels that casters would be able to somehow get past both of those as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 16:16
|
|
|
If I've been reading this thread right, here's how to "fix" the Fighter:
Does that look about right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 17:00
|
|
|
So basically, make it a 4E fighter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 17:08
|
|
|
Chaltab posted:So basically, make it a 4E fighter. If that is what it takes to make the fighter not-terrible, then SO BE IT.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 17:15
|
|
|
Don't get me wrong, I heartily endorse that plan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 17:49
|
|
|
Fudge Handsome posted:If I've been reading this thread right, here's how to "fix" the Fighter: The bolded are the most critical. For the full-attack thing, one alternative is to have more effective standard action attacks. For Bravery, look up the paladin for a 'suitable' bravery at level 1. You might grant them bonuses whenever a fear effect fails on them as well. Whatever you do, you don't need to up damage or accuracy. The Fighter hits pretty hard and often already. You might also look to giving them improved combat maneuvers, a cheap one might be combining two maneuvers(Bull Rush + Trip = Throw, Grapple + Sunder = literal dis-arm), augmenting stock maneuver effects(increasing bull rush distance, giving you Creature Climb on a grapple or allowing you to attack someone with your improvised meat projectile), widening the scope of maneuvers(loosening size limitations and ignoring size bonuses) and also stuff to allow you to attack or hinder multiple targets. Variant weapon specializations that add additional modes of use and tricks for the weapon you specialize in can also help. Don't forget non-melee styles either. Possibly throw in alternate save-targeting stuff, Reflex is easy to justify for flurry-type attacks, disabling techniques can add rider effects on Fort saves and adding additional will saves for particularly brutal moves to viewers isn't impossible. Thats more or less the combat end. Out of combat, a greater skill base, and possibly power-mobility(super jump, or similar superhuman travel abilities) stuff can help a lot, as can leadership-type abilities but theres only so much you can do without completely altering the concepts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 18:45
|
|
|
Fudge Handsome posted:If I've been reading this thread right, here's how to "fix" the Fighter: Paladin gets immunity to fear at level 3, Fighter gets +1 at level 2 from Bravery. Bravery needs to just be outright immunity or the ability to ignore a fear effect X turns per day. The rest of your points are pretty much spot on. In 3.5, a Fighter was not an exciting class, but a lot of builds dipped into it for the extra feats just to get to a prestige class/feat combo earlier than expected. With few exciting prestige class options in Pathfinder (I don't think I've found any that are interesting), it's turned into a boring class that offers no upside compared to even a slightly better melee. I can literally not see any reason that I would ever play a fighter. The problem is that they get extra feats, which everyone gets anyway, but are still limited on what they can take by their BAB. I would say do something like "for determining eligibility for Fighter Bonus Feat prerequisites, add your Fighter level to your BAB," but it doesn't really fix the problem throughout your career. You get cool things a lot earlier than everyone else if you stick with Fighter, but when you get to 10 you're pretty much done caring. At that point you're already severely outclassed by the casters and your "cool" feats aren't making up for it. I think it would fix it for the range that most games tend to run for, but the real problem is that fighters get the same poo poo that everyone else can get, they just get more. And feats aren't as good as they used to be to begin with, and do not approach the power of things like Barbarian Rage and some Paladin abilities.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 18:53
|
|
|
I considered putting together and effort post touting the merits of a Fighter as I do think that they are a pretty solid damage dealing class if built correctly, but I feel like the biggest problem that people seem to have with the class is that it's boring, which is true. They can hold up just fine in combat, but they don't have a bunch of special perks or abilities to them that make them stand out. Personally, I'm kind of fine with that as sometimes people just want to play a straightforward class that is all about hitting stuff really hard all the time and doesn't have to worry about a bunch of special extras or fluctuating power levels based on x/day abilities. GaryLeeLoveBuckets posted:In 3.5, a Fighter was not an exciting class, but a lot of builds dipped into it for the extra feats just to get to a prestige class/feat combo earlier than expected. With few exciting prestige class options in Pathfinder (I don't think I've found any that are interesting), it's turned into a boring class that offers no upside compared to even a slightly better melee. I can literally not see any reason that I would ever play a fighter. It's true that Pathfinder doesn't have nearly as many exciting prestige classes as 3.5, but what they do have in place is Archetypes. The Fighter archetypes mostly focus on different weapon groups and some of them suck, but some of them are pretty awesome; my personal favorite being the Archer (which is still the highest consistantly damaging build I've found that doesn't rely on x/day abilites or the like). And yes, Bravery is horrible and moving full-speed in armor isn't a huge thing, I was just listing it as one thing that Fighters have besides just more feats. I think that the fact that a level 10 fighter has +22 to hit on his first attack and Oracle has +16 (3 less from 3/4 BAB, 1 less from no Greater Weapon Focus until later, 2 less from no Weapon Training) is the biggest case-maker for a Fighter still being a viable option. I'm not saying that Oracles of Battle aren't great fighters in their own right or that having spells isn't a huge boost, I'm just saying that Fighters aren't completely worthless, they're just boring. But sometimes, boring is okay.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 21:03
|
|
|
I don't disagree that fighters are a lower tier class but I will say that you can do some nasty poo poo with a fighter. Consider a Two Handed Fighter with Combat Reflexes, Enlarge Person + Permanency (a small investment at mid to high levels), and a huge polearm. You're looking at 5 squares of reach. All of your attacks do double your strength damage (generally I houserule this to carry over into Power Attack damage too but that's not rules as written) and you are getting plenty of attacks per round. Throw on Disruptive and Spellbreaker and you start controlling nicely sized swathes of the battlefield and putting out huge damage, and causing trouble for spellcasters. Throw in Step Up, Following Step, and if you really want, Step Up and Strike. You can rag on the fighter for not being versatile, and not having very much to do outside of combat. But as far as putting out the hurt, they are very good at what they do. Fighters also benefit greatly from multiclassing. Throw a feat or two into Teleport Tactician and take a few Barbarian levels and the rage power No Escape or whatever it's called. You end up being able to move your (enhanced) speed as an immediate against the Withdraw action and pretty much become impossible to get away from. Now all you need is to find a way to Dimension Door once in a while and even spellcasters using long range spells are in trouble when you're on the battlefield. Leadership or hired wizards work very well for this. Fighters are underpowered, but there is a very flippant attitude towards them in this thread that a well built Pathfinder Fighter can poo poo all over. Fighters can be very, very menacing on the battlefield. It's everywhere else that, as smashthedean points out, they get a little boring, and that is a legitimate problem with the class.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 21:18
|
|
|
Being large permanently is a terrible idea, squeezing down those 5 foot hallways is going to screw the fighter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 21:33
|
|
|
Danhenge posted:Being large permanently is a terrible idea, squeezing down those 5 foot hallways is going to screw the fighter. I DMed a game of 3.5 that had a permantantly enlarged Orc Barbarian. It did cause a few issues with squeezing into small spaces, but I think that problem was pretty easily countered with Reduce Person spells/wands cast by the party Wizard. I may have even been nice enough to let them craft up a Reduce Person at will item eventually, though it's been years and I don't really remember.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 21:40
|
|
|
smashthedean posted:I DMed a game of 3.5 that had a permantantly enlarged Orc Barbarian. It did cause a few issues with squeezing into small spaces, but I think that problem was pretty easily countered with Reduce Person spells/wands cast by the party Wizard. I may have even been nice enough to let them craft up a Reduce Person at will item eventually, though it's been years and I don't really remember. reduce person counters and dispels enlarge person
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 21:48
|
|
|
Danhenge posted:reduce person counters and dispels enlarge person Yep, which made him normal sized until the Reduce Person wore off and then the permanent-duration Enlarge Person took back over. I guess I could see how the dispelling part could be an issue if your GM wanted to make it one though. Personally I'd rule that you can't just off-hand dispel a Permanancied effect with a level 1 spell, but that's just my interpretation and I'm admittedly pretty player-friendly in my GM-style.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 22:16
|
|
|
grah posted:I don't disagree that fighters are a lower tier class but I will say that you can do some nasty poo poo with a fighter. All of the anti-caster stuff doesn't really work in practice, and that's the only reason any of that build has for being a fighter. You may threaten that huge area, but one of the caster's allies can easily make you unable to make Attacks of Opportunity by stepping into any square between you and the caster, if they weren't there already. Then you have a huge 10' dead zone around you where you can't attack (if something addresses that, I apologize). The positioning required even to make is somewhat inconvenient for the caster is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 23:02
|
|
|
Also I don't think anyone here's suggesting the Fighter isn't effective at dishing out damage. He can dish out a ton of damage, if he can get into position in time(or just get a bow and go 'gently caress positioning'), and with the bonus feats, he can 'complete' fighting styles easier(but not earlier, many of these feats have quite a few prereqs) than other characters. Except of course, these are low to low-mid styles for the most part, and once they are complete, they work for just about anyone, while at the same time, are stuff monsters tend to be fairly resistant to. Plus, styles are often incompatible requirement wise, and even when they are you have a style you're good at, and one you're a few levels behind on. Basically, you do things that even level 1 characters can do and you do them all the way as you level. I'm not even talking about X/day stuff, just building off of the basic combat techniques can get you plenty of battle flexibility up to mid levels, and extending the capabilities of fighter feats in unique ways can help somewhat further(generally just remove or reduce hindrances to using these techniques). Even expanding skill access slightly would have them not sit out non-combat scenarios for lack of applicable abilities.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 23:44
|
|
|
The basic problem in my eyes is that yeah, the PF fighter isn't unplayably dysfunctional, but let's face it, that's a pretty low bar to set.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 23:47
|
|
|
smashthedean posted:Yep, which made him normal sized until the Reduce Person wore off and then the permanent-duration Enlarge Person took back over. I guess I could see how the dispelling part could be an issue if your GM wanted to make it one though. Personally I'd rule that you can't just off-hand dispel a Permanancied effect with a level 1 spell, but that's just my interpretation and I'm admittedly pretty player-friendly in my GM-style. The permanency rules explicitly say that spells cast on other creatures, objects, or areas can be dispelled as normal
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 23:52
|
|
|
The only way I've ever found to make a Fighter work against a caster is Cut Magic, but that's a pretty niche solution, and it doesn't wholly balance everything out (goes a long way toward fixing things though). The PF Fighter would be much better off if it had something like it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 00:27
|
|
|
The easiest way to avoid the 10 foot dead zone is to be a half orc with the Toothy trait, tacking a bite attack on to cover that area. It's not the attack you want to be using but it does fill in your threatened area. Spiked Gauntlets work for this too, or armor spikes. I don't find being Large to be a tremendous problem. Squeezing through 5' corridors is annoying but most combat is going to take place in somewhat more open areas, and so many higher CR monsters are Large or larger that size constraints will rarely hurt you more than the enemy. I wasn't aware interposing enemies completely voided the ability to AoO, I thought they only provided soft cover, as for ranged attacks, which can be negated with a feat. As far as I'm aware it would have to be someone with a tower shield getting in the middle and full-defending towards your direction to offer full cover. Either way, anyone moving much through this area is going to get smacked at least once by the fighter on the way in. And if you start adding things like Lunge or the (sadly underpowered) Combat Patrol this threatened area gets truly huge. And of course, if Stand Still were written correctly you could shut down this issue immediately, but unfortunately Paizo doesn't like fighters having nice things. As for Cut Magic, there is a Barbarian archetype that sunders magical effects to dispel them and is terrifyingly effective at it, mostly because of some particulars about the Sunder/CMB rules.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 01:21
|
|
|
Sundering? You might as well not play the character, really. Cut Magic is a fair bit better than that. How'd you like a fighter fix that simply lets you counterspell a spell with an immediate action, based on a skillcheck? Much better than forfeiting a standard action, that's for sure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 01:32
|
|
|
grah posted:I wasn't aware interposing enemies completely voided the ability to AoO, I thought they only provided soft cover, as for ranged attacks, which can be negated with a feat. As far as I'm aware it would have to be someone with a tower shield getting in the middle and full-defending towards your direction to offer full cover. Cover and Attacks of Opportunity You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you. "cover" means any sort of cover, afaik
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 01:36
|
|
|
Danhenge posted:Cover and Attacks of Opportunity Yeah, you're right, I didn't realize. That is pretty unfortunate. Transient People posted:Sundering? You might as well not play the character, really. Cut Magic is a fair bit better than that. How'd you like a fighter fix that simply lets you counterspell a spell with an immediate action, based on a skillcheck? Much better than forfeiting a standard action, that's for sure. Sundering isn't always a standard action, it replaces any melee attack, including AoOs, which means unlike an immediate action you can manage more than one in a round and don't forfeit your swift action doing it. Even if it was a standard I hardly see how burning a standard action to have a very high chance of dispelling a magical effect equates to "don't bother to play the character". A barbarian's CMB can end up awfully high and the DCs on those sunder checks against spells just don't grow fast enough to make it a challenge.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 01:47
|
|
|
grah posted:I don't disagree that fighters are a lower tier class but I will say that you can do some nasty poo poo with a fighter. Not that I think Fighters do bad damage or anything, but I do find it funny that your suggestion for making a strong Fighter includes plenty of non-Fighter abilities (spells and Barbarian levels). I'm sure that says something about the class. Also merging the Athletics skills (climb, jump, swim) and reducing armor check penalties across the board would help physical classes including the Fighter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 01:53
|
|
|
grah posted:Yeah, you're right, I didn't realize. That is pretty unfortunate. Because if you have to burn a standard action to dispel, you can be blocked. There's ways to force a character to lose his standard action without removing immediates. Not to say having the option is bad, but if you have to burn your turn to dispel a spell after it's sunk in you're going to lose in the end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 02:01
|
|
|
The fighter can under the right circumstances do a whole lot of damage. The problem is, that's all the fighter can do, and while some classes may not be able to put out the pure pound for pound damage the fighter can do, they can do so much more else that it doesn't matter. I mean, the Pathfinder fighter can most likely outdamage a warblade, but I'll take a warblade any day. Take the other classes that compete directly with fighter, like ranger or paladin. Ok, the ranger only really hits fighter level damage against favoured enemies...but he still does enough damage to matter without that, and he has his animal companion or equivilant, and he his far more skills, and he has spells, and he has a fighting style he doesn't need to meet the pre-requisites for. The paladin only hits (and if I'm correct surpases) fighter damage when smiting...but she still does enough damage to matter when not smiting, and she has spells, mercies and lay on hands, weapon tricks, etc, etc. The problem the fighter has is that it's an NPC class. It not only has no niche, it has no identity at all. Ok, the fighter is a guy who fights. But the ranger, or paladin, or barbarian, they all fight too. The most damning thing that hit this was the poo poo-pile of Ultimate Combat. Ultimate Magic was spellcasters only, because "only they cast spells," despite the fact that this was the perfect chance to kick it old school and introduce some very powerful magic items, weapons, armor, etc, that were "fighter only." But Ultimate Combat had a lot of stuff for those same spellcasters, under the claim of "Well they get into combat too!" And yeah, the fighter is really loving boring, because it plays the exact same from level 1 all the way to level 20. Actually no, the fighter is less boring at early levels because, until the Full Attack and extra attacks come into play, he can still move around while fighting. Literally every other class gains new mechanics or functions as they level. One of the problems is that the only fighter ability is "Get more feats." Now, hypothetically, this could be fixed by adding in more fighter only feats that actually do something, but you will never see that happen, because I think the developers at large - be it WotC or Paizo or whoever else - have a massive block that pounds them over the head with "It's a feat! It can't be that powerful or versatile!" So the biggest problem with the fighter isn't strictly mechanical. The biggest problems come down to developer philosophy. And frankly, until the fighter gets a niche or identity, it will never be fixed. When you look at all the other post-3.5 games, that's the first and foremost thing that they fix. 4e made the fighter the weapon master and giant walking wall, capable of combat mastery to a degree that no other class can hit. There's been scores of "new and improved 3.5" over in the GitP forums, and they've all replaced the fighter with a dualist or a warlord or something equivelent to those two. The warblade was a martial artist with the emphasis on "martial," capable of doing near - but not quite - supernatural feats of power (because the origin of "feat" was "something pretty much extraordinary, in that it is beyond the ordinary). And Legend cut the fighter out entirely! Just having "Can fight" is simply not enough of a niche. That's something that describes an NPC.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 02:50
|
|
|
Saddest thing is, the Fighter can't even shown up the warblade! Properly tricked out a Warblade can pump out as much as sixteen attacks' worth of damage in a single turn, and about eight of those are pretty much guaranteed hits. Sure, the Warblade has to rest for a turn afterward, but that simply means he only makes three attacks on the turn he's recharging his maneuvers in, all at full to-hit. The Fighter is just a really, really sorry class, and even the PHBII feats that are basically Fighter Only don't help it much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 03:06
|
|
|
What about giving the fighter a free archetype? That is, allowing a player to apply an archetype to the fighter without replacing any class features. I know a GM who did the same thing for monks. I have no idea how any of it worked out, but it sounds interesting to me -- the only issue I can think of is that some archetypes replace more class features than others and would be inherently more valuable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 04:17
|
|
|
Fighter has probably the most boring and awful archtypes of any class. They really can't get ahead in anything. Of course that's somewhat fitting since the fighter doesn't have any abilities to trade away for archtypes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 05:55
|
|
|
The more I read about the fighter, the sadder it gets.  Such terrible design.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 07:32
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:That's something that describes an NPC. I think you hit the nail on the head here with this. A lot of my old school RPG friends get absolutely livid if you suggest that a Fighter do anything other than fight things, and I guess the implication is that it was something they always "just did." I'm having a really hard time trying to pin down the thought processes involved in that line of thinking, though. I want to ask if they have ever even played a Fighter, but they're all pretty big min-maxers. Thinking back, I can't remember any game I played with them that they rolled one, but every time a new player joined up they were immediately pointed toward the Fighter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 08:03
|
|
|
What I find interesting is that this isn't new. In fact, most editions have started off with fighters as a baseline "All they do is fight things" class, and, as the edition goes on, adds more to the fighters or replaces them to give them a niche...only to tear it back down again in the next version, never learning from the past. 1e had the most basic of basics for fighters, which was kinda fitting since, you know, AD&D first edition. But the first UA supplement was very much geared for martial classes over all else, expanding their power by a lot with new methods of stat rolling intended to improve martial stats and new fighter-esque classes that had new skills and abilities (See also the first time where power given to fighters is clear power creep while new spell lists before UA were not seen as such). 2e had baseline fighters who were actually better off then they were in 3e and had a sort of vaguely defined "leadership" idea, but still kinda bad...but then Skills and Powers if expanded on the "leadership" part of the class and made them exceptional leaders in times of peace and war, and masters at siegecraft for assaulting enemy countries. It also added "epic" skills for when you got to a high enough level, with the lion's share of awesome ones going to fighters and thieves. 3e had the baseline fighter who was way boring and useless...expanded a little with PHB2...and then created the Warblade, who had a lot of abilities and decisions to make as it went on. Oh, and the author stated that originally, the book was going to go more in depth with martial schools and the like for factions, so the warblade would've grabbed that old "fighter as a leader" idea from pre-3e editions, too. So now we have Paizo, who made the same goddamn mistake. The question is, will they also learn from it and try to fix it eventually?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 08:54
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:What I find interesting is that this isn't new. In fact, most editions have started off with fighters as a baseline "All they do is fight things" class, and, as the edition goes on, adds more to the fighters or replaces them to give them a niche...only to tear it back down again in the next version, never learning from the past. If I recall one of the more recent books they put out expanded on Fighters a lot, or at least produced an archetype that was a very large step up from what they had before. When the book went out for beta testing there was a massive backlash for all the new abilities, most of them along the lines of, "Fighters can't have that, it's too strong!" So basically no. gently caress jocks
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 10:01
|
|
|
Yeah, basically for the majority of the vocal target audience...it doesn't sell, so they won't do it. Its not even that hard to bring it up to Rogue or Ranger quality(which isn't such a big gap that you need to change extant characters), ignoring caster-grade functionality.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 10:15
|
|
|
I'm running a campaign right now in which I went into the Pathfinder system and rewrote a lot of stuff to see if it made the game a little better. My group likes pulpy, action packed games, so I gave everyone a feat every level and a free archetype (free meaning, you get the bonuses of said archetype, but don't trade anything out for it). Each class got a small write up to deal with what I/my group thinks that class should do as well, such as rogues being the only class able to use action points to influence enemies and alchemists getting a bonus to use standard alchemical items like Thunderstones/Tanglefoot bags, etc. Here's the entry for fighters: Fighter: Archetype: Fighters get TWO free archetypes, for which they trade out no class abilities. They can take further archetypes as normal. BaB: Excellent. (as per Iron Heroes Weapon Master) Defense: +4 AC, +4 DR Skills: 4. Additionally, fighters get Knowledge (tactics) maxed for free. Also, Acrobatics, Athletics, Bluff, Escape Artist, and Perception are added to the Fighter class skill list. (Fighters are the typical guard class, so they should know how to perceive. Additionally, feinting is part of what melee combat is about. Acrobatics/Atheletics/Escape Artist just make sense) Feats: Unlike all classes, Fighters get 3 feats per level. (this replaces typical fighter bonus feats) Spells: Fighters do not get spells. Abilities: Fighters a bonus to their CMD and CMB equal to +½ their class level. I figure that in most fantasy literature, fighters are the dudes charging the dragon with a stick. They should be able to shrug off fear (spend a feat on Iron Will, etc), trip/disarm/beat whole armies to death, that sort of thing. This is what they -do-. I really don't care if the system says they can't, so I changed it. With these rules, two people made fighters. One is a swashbuckler type who is focused on fighting in a flashy manner while being acrobatic, and the other is an unarmored (seriously, like AC 14) greatclub using beatstick. They're very different characters, and I can honestly say I would call neither of them useless, even compared to the alchemist, bard, sorcerer, summoner, or wizard characters that were made.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 13:29
|
|
|
Swags posted:I'm running a campaign right now in which I went into the Pathfinder system and rewrote a lot of stuff to see if it made the game a little better. My group likes pulpy, action packed games, so I gave everyone a feat every level and a free archetype (free meaning, you get the bonuses of said archetype, but don't trade anything out for it). Each class got a small write up to deal with what I/my group thinks that class should do as well, such as rogues being the only class able to use action points to influence enemies and alchemists getting a bonus to use standard alchemical items like Thunderstones/Tanglefoot bags, etc. That sounds like a nightmare though, purely due to having to keep track of *Sixty-Seven* feats by the end. Why not just do something like the Battlelord fix instead and reduce the bookkeeping?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 15:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
gently caress it gently caress it gently caress it. I'm going to go through the list of fighter archetypes, pick out some of the replacement class features in those archetypes, make a list of fighter talents (in the same vein as rogue talents) out of them, and find some spots in the fighter's levels to stick those abilities in there. What's a good name for these? Should I just call them fighter talents? How about techniques? Doesn't 4e call them exploits?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 16:11
|
|