Ziegander's Been Playing Pathfinder: The PF Fighter Fix

[Ziegander]

The Fighter

http://www.compagniapugnalespada.it/Interscambio/Firme_4/Tywin.jpg

Alignment: Any
Hit Die: 1d10

Class Skills: Athletics* (Str), Craft (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Disable Device (Dex), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (Engineering) (Int), Knowledge (Geography) (Int), Knowledge (History) (Int), Perception (Wis), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Sense Motive (Wis), Stealth (Dex), and Survival (Wis).
Skill Points at 1st Level: (4 + Int modifier) × 4
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 4 + Int modifier

By placing Jump checks as part of the Acrobatics skill, nobody can Jump chasms unless they can also balance on a beam or tumble around foes. This is stupid. Instead, Climb, Jump, and Swim combine, as a Str-based skill, to form Athletics. This makes much more sense given that a character's Dexterity ought to have nothing to do with how high or far it can jump.

Anyway, I had fun designing this class. I recently created a Lore Warden/Tactician combination character with a little help from the DM, and it's been great so far, but I can't help but keep thinking that the class just could use a lot more work. So, that's where this guy comes in. A Fighter that distinguishes himself as being a smart, skilled, battlefield tactician. For the most part he comes with the Lore Warden and Tactician archetypes built-in (with some other improvements and refinements made by yours truly).

Please do let me know how you think this rebuilt class stacks up against things like the PF Paladin, PF Ranger, and even others like their Alchemist, Inquisitor, or Magus in terms of power and versatility. Can it hang with classes like that and contribute to a party on equitable terms?

{table=head]Level|BAB|Fort|Ref|Will|Special

1st|+1|+2|+2|+2|Bonus Feat, Tactician

2nd|+2|+3|+3|+3|Bonus Feat, Tactical Awareness

3rd|+3|+3|+3|+3|Armor Training

4th|+4|+4|+4|+4|Bonus Feat

5th|+5|+4|+4|+4|Weapon Training

6th|+6/+1|+5|+5|+5|Bonus Feat

7th|+7/+2|+5|+5|+5|Know Thy Enemy

8th|+8/+3|+6|+6|+6|Bonus Feat

9th|+9/+4|+6|+6|+6|Greater Tactician

10th|+10/+5|+7|+7|+7|Bonus Feat

11th|+11/+6/+1|+7|+7|+7|Expert Aid

12th|+12/+7/+2|+8|+8|+8|Bonus Feat

13th|+13/+8/+3|+8|+8|+8|Knowledge is Power

14th|+14/+9/+4|+9|+9|+9|Bonus Feat

15th|+15/+10/+5|+9|+9|+9|Battle Insight

16th|+16/+11/+6/+1|+10|+10|+10|Bonus Feat

17th|+17/+12/+7/+2|+10|+10|+10|Master Tactician

18th|+18/+13/+8/+3|+11|+11|+11|Bonus Feat

19th|+19/+14/+9/+4|+11|+11|+11|Expose Weakness

20th|+20/+15/+10/+5|+12|+12|+12|True Mastery, Bonus Feat
[/table]

Weapon and Armor Proficiency
A fighter is proficient with all simple and martial weapons and is proficient in the use of his Unarmed Strike such that he possesses the Improved Unarmed Strike feat for all intents and purposes. A fighter is also proficient with all armors and shields (including Tower Shields).

Some fighters forgo their unarmed training to instead gain proficiency with a single exotic weapon.

Bonus Feats
At 1st level, and at every even level thereafter, a fighter gains a bonus feat in addition to those gained from normal advancement (meaning that the fighter gains a feat at every level). These bonus feats must be selected from those listed as Combat Feats, sometimes also called “fighter bonus feats.” He must meet the prerequisites of any Combat Feats selected in this way.

Upon reaching 4th level, a fighter exchange a single Combat Feat he knows for a new one, once per day, spending an hour in practice. In effect, the fighter loses the bonus feat in exchange for the new one. The old feat cannot be one that was used as a prerequisite for another feat, prestige class, or other ability. A 4th level fighter can only change one feat at a time in this way and can only change the bonus feats he has gained through this ability, but for every four fighter levels he has thereafter he may swap out an additional bonus feat (two at 8th level, three at 12th level, and so on).

Tactician (Ex): At 1st level, a fighter receives a bonus Teamwork Feat in addition to his Combat Feat and his normal 1st level feat. He must meet the prerequisites of this feat. As a standard action, he may grant any one of his bonus feats to all allies within 30 feet who can see and hear him (the fighter may select any of his bonus feats when using this ability, not just bonus Teamwork feats). Allies retain the use of this bonus feat for a number of rounds equal to his Intelligence modifier + half his class level (rounded up). Those allies do not need to meet the feat's prerequisites. The fighter can use this ability once per day at 1st level, plus one additional time per day at 5th level and every four levels thereafter (9th, 13th, and 17th).

Tactical Awareness (Ex): Starting at 2nd level, a fighter gains a bonus to Perception checks equal to half his class level and a +1 bonus to initiative checks. The bonus to initiative checks increases by 1 at 6th level and every four levels thereafter.

Armor Training (Ex): Starting at 3rd level, a fighter learns to wear armor more efficiently, increasing its protection and gaining greater maneuverability. Whenever he is wearing armor, he reduces the armor check penalty by 1 (to a minimum of 0) and increases both the armor bonus to AC and the maximum Dexterity bonus allowed by his armor by 1. Every four levels thereafter (7th, 11th, 15th, and 19th), these bonuses increase by +1 each time, to a maximum –5 reduction of the armor check penalty and a +5 increase of the armor bonus to AC and the maximum Dexterity bonus allowed.

In addition, a fighter can also move at his normal speed while wearing armor whose check penalty has been reduced at least to -3 in this way. While he wears an armor whose armor check penalty has been reduced to 0, he does not count that armor's weight against his carrying capacity.

Weapon Training (Ex): Starting at 5th level, a fighter can select one group of weapons, as noted below. Whenever he attacks with a weapon from this group, he gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls.

Every four levels thereafter (9th, 13th, and 17th), and also at 20th level, a fighter becomes further trained in another group of weapons. He gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when using a weapon from this group. In addition, the bonuses granted by previous weapon groups increase by +1 each. For example, when a fighter reaches 9th level, he receives a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with one weapon group and a +2 bonus on attack and damage rolls with the weapon group selected at 5th level. Bonuses granted from overlapping groups do not stack. Take the highest bonus granted for a weapon if it resides in two or more groups.

A fighter also adds this bonus to any combat maneuver checks made with weapons from this group. This bonus also applies to the fighter's Combat Maneuver Defense when defending against disarm and sunder attempts made against weapons from this group.

Know Thy Enemy (Ex): At 7th level, a fighter can spend a swift action to study a specific target in sight. He must make a special Intelligence check (1d20 + his class level + his Intelligence modifier) to determine the target’s abilities and weaknesses as part of this action (DC 15 + the target's CR). If successful, the fighter not only notes the appropriate abilities and weaknesses, as detailed under the Knowledge skill, but also gains a +1 competence bonus to his CMB and on all attack rolls and weapon damage rolls made against that creature and a +1 competence bonus to his AC, his CMD and on saving throws against that creature's attacks. Note that these bonuses apply only to that specific creature. These bonuses last for the duration of an encounter, or until the fighter loses consciousness, or attempts a new Knowledge check to use this ability on a different target. For every 5 points by which the fighter beats the Knowledge check DC these bonuses increase by 1.

Greater Tactician (Ex): At 9th level, the fighter receives an additional teamwork feat as a bonus feat. He must meet the prerequisites for this feat. Using the tactician ability is now a swift action.

Expert Aid (Ex): At 11th level, when a fighter uses the aid another special attack, he may affect one additional ally per point of his Intelligence bonus. These allies must be within 30ft of the fighter to be affected and the fighter does not need to be in position to attack any foes beyond the first required to use aid another.

He may use aid another to grant a bonus to an ally's next attack roll, an ally's AC against the next attack that targets them, to an ally's next skill check, or to an ally's next saving throw. Additionally, he may grant an ally a new saving throw against an effect they currently suffer from, adding the usual bonus to this save (he may grant a new saving throw even against an effect that did not initially allow a saving throw). Each ally may be granted a different bonus.

Finally, whenever the fighter uses the aid another special attack, for every 10 points by which the fighter beats AC 10 with his attack roll, the bonus granted to an ally increases by +1.

Knowledge is Power (Ex): At 13th level, a fighter can read his foes so well that he may spend a swift action to learn how the creature is likely to spend its next turn (no save). This lets him know what the creature is planning to do when he uses this ability (though later actions/events may cause the creature to change its mind). He may only use this ability against a creature that he is gaining the bonuses from his Know Thy Enemy ability. Furthermore, allies within 30ft of the fighter gain half of the bonuses derived from Know Thy Enemy, rounded down.

Battle Insight (Ex): At 15th level, as a swift action, a fighter may grant himself or one ally within 30ft who can see and hear him the ability to ready a move or standard action without spending any actions on their own turn. This effect lasts for 1 round, and must be capitalized on in that time. The fighter may use this ability a number of times per day equal to 1 + his Intelligence modifier (minimum 1) and no more than once per ally per encounter.

Master Tactician (Ex): At 17th level, the fighter receives an additional teamwork feat as a bonus feat. He must meet the prerequisites for this feat. Whenever the fighter uses his tactician ability, he grants any two feats that he knows. He can select from any of his feats, not just his bonus feats.

Expose Weakness (Ex): At 19th level, against any target he is gaining the bonuses from his Know Thy Enemy ability, the fighter and any allies within 30ft who can both see and hear him automatically overcome that creature's DR, SR (but not magic immunity), Regeneration, resistance to energy damage (but not immunity), and immunity to critical hits and/or sneak attack.

True Mastery (Ex): At 20th level, the fighter gains Damage Reduction 5/— whenever he wears armor. Whenever he makes a weapon attack with a weapon from one his chosen weapon groups, the critical multiplier for that weapon is increased by 1 and he automatically confirms any critical threats. He cannot be disarmed of any such weapon.

[Vadskye]

Bonus Feats

Upon reaching 4th level, a fighter may spend a swift action to learn a new Combat Feat in place of a Combat Feat he has already learned. In effect, the fighter loses the bonus feat in exchange for the new one. The old feat cannot be one that was used as a prerequisite for another feat, prestige class, or other ability.
Instant, spontaneous access to everything printed in a certain category is bad. It mechanically rewards the player for memorizing all of the (hundreds of?) combat feats that have been printed in any PF book. That's less of a problem when the choice only during downtime, preferably around when the casters are preparing spells - but as a swift action, it's a huge headache.

I recommend allowing the fighter to change his feats after an hour or so spent practicing his new feat selections. You still get the flexibility to adjust to new situations, but without the huge baggage in every round of combat. Alternately, you could use a list of "feats known", akin to the way Tome of Battle handles maneuvers, and let the fighter swap between those as a swift action. That is a little weird, though.

(This is part of my general design principle that deep knowledge of the system shouldn't directly translate into mechanical power, which you may not agree with.)


Tactician (Ex): At 1st level, a fighter receives any Teamwork Feat he meets the prerequisites of as a bonus feat. As a standard action, he may grant any one of his bonus feats to all allies within 30 feet who can see and hear him. Allies retain the use of this bonus feat for a number of rounds equal to half his fighter level + his Intelligence modifier (minimum 1 round). Those allies do not need to meet the feat's prerequisites. The fighter can use this ability once per day at 1st level, plus one additional time per day at 5th level and for every 5 levels thereafter.
Does this grant any bonus feat, or just the teamwork bonus feat granted in the previous sentence? Could be clarified. Granting arbitrary feats without any prerequisites is... interesting. I suspect this would be abusable, but I don't know the PF feats deeply enough to know how.


Tactical Awareness (Ex): Starting at 2nd level, a fighter gains a bonus to Perception checks equal to half his class level and a +1 bonus to initiative checks. The bonus to initiative checks increases by 1 at 6th level and every four levels thereafter.
If I was going to pick a class to get initiative and perception bonuses, it would be barbarian, ranger, or rogue, not fighter. Thematically, I think those should all have better initiative as a general rule. Why give this to fighters?


Armor Training (Ex):
Why not also reduce arcane spell failure? Doesn't matter to most fighters, but it's thematically appropriate (reducing all the downsides of armor).

Additionally, in Rise, the "armor training" equivalent actually reduces the effective encumbrance category of the armor: medium armor becomes treated as light armor for all purposes, and so on. This is similar to what you're doing here, but it enables more interaction with other class features: a sufficiently high level fighter is treated as being literally unarmored while wearing armor, so they can cast spells without arcane spell failure or benefit from monk features. I like interactivity like this.


Weapon Training (Ex): Starting at 5th level, a fighter can select one group of weapons, as noted below. Whenever he attacks with a weapon from this group, he gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls.
Do all fighters specialize in a group of weapons? Consider letting fighters choose to be specialists or generalists, with distinct bonuses based on that choice. Some fighters like to be masters of all weapons in the world, and the fighter class should innately support that.


Know Thy Enemy (Ex): At 7th level, a fighter can spend a swift action to study a specific target in sight. He must make a Knowledge check to determine the target’s abilities and weaknesses as part of this action (DC 15 + the target's CR).
So fighters should be book learners? Fighters (in general) shouldn't use Knowledge checks; they know their enemies by the way they fight, not from a studied understanding of their biology. I'd rather see a unique check, like a Fighting Lore, that simulated some of the benefits of a Knowledge check. This feels like an ACF or feat for an unusual kind of fighter, not a core class feature.


Expert Aid (Ex): At 11th level, when a fighter uses the aid another special attack, he may voluntarily accept a -10 penalty to his attack roll to affect one additional ally per point of his Intelligence bonus.
Basically useless, since aiding is still a standard action.


Knowledge is Power (Ex): At 13th level, a fighter can read his foes so well that he benefits from a Detect Thoughts ability against any target he is gaining the bonuses from his Know Thy Enemy ability, allowing him to detect a creature's surface thoughts as a swift action (no saving throw allowed). Furthermore, allies within 30ft of the fighter gain half of the bonuses derived from Know Thy Enemy, rounded down.
Sounds very (Su), not (Ex), to me. I think I understand what you're going for, but reading full surface thoughts based on a Knowledge check is wrong in all sorts of ways. Should be more limited: "can predict what his foe is going to do during its next turn" makes more sense.


Expose Weakness (Ex): At 19th level, against any target he is gaining the bonuses from his Know Thy Enemy ability, the fighter and any allies within 30ft who can both see and hear him automatically overcome that creature's DR, SR, Regeneration, resistance to energy damage, and immunity to critical hits and/or sneak attack.
I like this in general, but not all immunities should be overcome just because you know things really well. This lets you crit oozes and incorporeal creatures and deal fire damage to fire elementals? Too broad.


True Mastery (Ex): At 20th level, the fighter gains Damage Reduction 5/— whenever he wears armor. Whenever he makes a weapon attack with a weapon from one his chosen weapon groups, the critical multiplier for that weapon is increased by 1 and he automatically confirms any critical threats. He cannot be disarmed of any such weapon.
Both of the crit abilities dramatically improve high crit range weapons over high crit threat weapons. x3 crit weapons are already worse than a longsword or rapier; why make that even more true?

In general, I like the feel of this. Some fighter fixes go off in loony directions, and this sticks very close to how fighters should be. I'd say that it's missing any ability to resist hostile effects, however. Have you seen the Rise fighter's Combat Discipline ability? It's worth considering, I think.

[Ziegander]

Instant, spontaneous access to everything printed in a certain category is bad. It mechanically rewards the player for memorizing all of the (hundreds of?) combat feats that have been printed in any PF book. That's less of a problem when the choice only during downtime, preferably around when the casters are preparing spells - but as a swift action, it's a huge headache.

I understand your concern, and I considered it for a while before I decided to go with the swift action swapping of feats instead of an hour of practice. What decided it for me was twofold: 1) if you're building a fighter, you're already carefully weighing your options for what feats to take and what you qualify for and making your decisions based on what seems the most optimal for what you want to do, and 2) the PFSRD has all of the feats listed in one reference so looking stuff up is a lot easier than diving through 100 splatbooks. So, basically you will already know (if not by heart, then by name) a general list of things you qualify for, and you have a unified place to find the things you need.


Alternately, you could use a list of "feats known", akin to the way Tome of Battle handles maneuvers, and let the fighter swap between those as a swift action. That is a little weird, though.

I considered this for a moment, but, you're right, it's pretty odd.


(This is part of my general design principle that deep knowledge of the system shouldn't directly translate into mechanical power, which you may not agree with.)

I do tend to agree with that principle, but I also acknowledge that if you've chosen to play the Fighter class you've chosen to at least dip your feet into the vast pool that is deep system knowledge. The Fighter, after all, is not the Barbarian who rages and hits things in the face with a greataxe. The Fighter is, and since 3.5 has always been, about choices between a myriad of possible options at every even level. It's not for beginners, no matter what anyone says.


Does this grant any bonus feat, or just the teamwork bonus feat granted in the previous sentence? Could be clarified. Granting arbitrary feats without any prerequisites is... interesting. I suspect this would be abusable, but I don't know the PF feats deeply enough to know how.

I don't know how I can make "grant any one of his bonus feats to all allies," any more clear. It's any bonus feat the fighter has. You say arbitrary as if the ability has no meaning. The fighter is explaining the principles of a fighting style he has learned to his team and allowing them to temporarily make use of his superior training. He gains Power Attack as a bonus feat? He can teach his allies how to best leverage their strength for a powerful attack with a moment's notice. This is part of what makes the fighter useful to his group.


If I was going to pick a class to get initiative and perception bonuses, it would be barbarian, ranger, or rogue, not fighter. Thematically, I think those should all have better initiative as a general rule. Why give this to fighters?

Because he has the military training to recognize the advantage of knowing the tide of battle?


Why not also reduce arcane spell failure? Doesn't matter to most fighters, but it's thematically appropriate (reducing all the downsides of armor).

I see your point.


Additionally, in Rise, the "armor training" equivalent actually reduces the effective encumbrance category of the armor: medium armor becomes treated as light armor for all purposes, and so on. This is similar to what you're doing here, but it enables more interaction with other class features: a sufficiently high level fighter is treated as being literally unarmored while wearing armor, so they can cast spells without arcane spell failure or benefit from monk features. I like interactivity like this.

I will look into it.


Do all fighters specialize in a group of weapons?

In Pathfinder they kind of do. This is a class feature cribbed straight from the Pathfinder fighter with no changes.


Consider letting fighters choose to be specialists or generalists, with distinct bonuses based on that choice. Some fighters like to be masters of all weapons in the world, and the fighter class should innately support that.

I don't know what a generalist would get in place of the standard weapon training bonuses that would make that choice distinct and interesting. Do you have any suggestions?


So fighters should be book learners? Fighters (in general) shouldn't use Knowledge checks; they know their enemies by the way they fight, not from a studied understanding of their biology. I'd rather see a unique check, like a Fighting Lore, that simulated some of the benefits of a Knowledge check. This feels like an ACF or feat for an unusual kind of fighter, not a core class feature.

This is where you and I simply disagree. The Barbarian is, and should be, the only warrior that is purely based on raw, physical power. Where the Paladin is Str/Dex/Con/Cha and the Ranger is Str/Dex/Con/Wis, the Fighter should be Str/Dex/Con/Int. He's the warrior who fights smarter, not harder.

And besides, you don't have to have learned your knowledge skills from books. Whatever gave you that idea?


Basically useless, since aiding is still a standard action.

Lol, okay, so you think granting multiple allies a variable bonus that starts as low as +2 to whatever the Fighter wants, and can climb to a fairly high number is useless because its a standard action? I disagree, but, okay.


Sounds very (Su), not (Ex), to me. I think I understand what you're going for, but reading full surface thoughts based on a Knowledge check is wrong in all sorts of ways. Should be more limited: "can predict what his foe is going to do during its next turn" makes more sense.

Ehhhh, here you're probably right, actually.


This lets you crit oozes and incorporeal creatures and deal fire damage to fire elementals? Too broad.

I don't think so. It's a 19th level ability. You should fight like a literal god at this level. That seems like an appropriate level of power and versatility.


Both of the crit abilities dramatically improve high crit range weapons over high crit threat weapons. x3 crit weapons are already worse than a longsword or rapier; why make that even more true?

That's only actually true in Pathfinder if you're taking lots of Critical feats. It's not true at all if you're just talking about an average damage per round calcuation.


Have you seen the Rise fighter's Combat Discipline ability? It's worth considering, I think.

I'll take a look. Thanks for the critiques!

[mephnick]

I agree that the Fighter class should have access to knowledges or some approximation thereof.

Remember that the PC classes are heroic classes. Heroic soldiers in all forms of literature and media are generally pretty intelligent.

The low level grunts that got conscripted from the gutters of poor cities should generally be represented by an NPC class.

[Vadskye]

I understand your concern, and I considered it for a while before I decided to go with the swift action swapping of feats instead of an hour of practice. What decided it for me was twofold: 1) if you're building a fighter, you're already carefully weighing your options for what feats to take and what you qualify for and making your decisions based on what seems the most optimal for what you want to do, and 2) the PFSRD has all of the feats listed in one reference so looking stuff up is a lot easier than diving through 100 splatbooks. So, basically you will already know (if not by heart, then by name) a general list of things you qualify for, and you have a unified place to find the things you need.

I do tend to agree with that principle, but I also acknowledge that if you've chosen to play the Fighter class you've chosen to at least dip your feet into the vast pool that is deep system knowledge. The Fighter, after all, is not the Barbarian who rages and hits things in the face with a greataxe. The Fighter is, and since 3.5 has always been, about choices between a myriad of possible options at every even level. It's not for beginners, no matter what anyone says.
There's a world of difference between analyzing hundreds of options when you level up and analyzing hundreds of options every round of every combat. Not even mages have to do that. No one would give a mage fully spontaneous casting from an entire school of magic; even ignoring balance concerns, it's obviously way too complicated. This is even worse, because it's as a swift action, so it's in addition to any other choices he makes during the round.

To be clear - could we play a fighter with this class feature? Sure, absolutely. But you (presumably) aren't designing a class for game designers who are used to spending too many hours bookdiving. Prepared casting is one of the most complicated things in D&D, and this class feature blows that out of the water. Try playtesting it with someone who isn't used to spending hours preparing to play a character.


I don't know how I can make "grant any one of his bonus feats to all allies," any more clear. It's any bonus feat the fighter has.
The wording is perfectly clear. The placement is just unfortunate, since it comes directly after an unrelated sentence about a different kind of bonus feat.


You say arbitrary as if the ability has no meaning. The fighter is explaining the principles of a fighting style he has learned to his team and allowing them to temporarily make use of his superior training. He gains Power Attack as a bonus feat? He can teach his allies how to best leverage their strength for a powerful attack with a moment's notice. This is part of what makes the fighter useful to his group.
I was ambiguous, sorry. I don't mean "arbitrary" in the sense of "without justification"; having the fighter grant his combat feats to his allies is an intuitive and effective way of making the fighter act like a leader. (I've always struggled with the "aura" mechanic; it feels too arbitrary and supernatural.) I'm considering finding a place for it in my fighter.

I say "arbitrary" just because you can grant any combat feat, regardless of prerequisites. Perhaps that's perfectly balanced; it just worries me. I haven't thought of a way to abuse it, though.


Because he has the military training to recognize the advantage of knowing the tide of battle?
Whereas the barbarian is about acting on pure instinct, the ranger is an extremely perceptive hunter, and the rogue is a jumpy little bugger. I see what you're getting at here, but I don't think a flat bonus is the best way to do it; that seems more like barbarian or rogue territory. What about "adds Intelligence bonus to initiative checks"?


In Pathfinder they kind of do. This is a class feature cribbed straight from the Pathfinder fighter with no changes.
I still don't like it. :smalltongue:


I don't know what a generalist would get in place of the standard weapon training bonuses that would make that choice distinct and interesting. Do you have any suggestions?
Generalists could get "You may become proficient with any weapon by training with it" and later "You may apply all weapon-specific or weapon group-specific feats or abilities you have to any weapon you are proficient with", but have lower bonus values in exchange. Generalists would still need some flat bonuses, since those bonuses are so large, but they could cap at +3 instead of +5.


This is where you and I simply disagree. The Barbarian is, and should be, the only warrior that is purely based on raw, physical power. Where the Paladin is Str/Dex/Con/Cha and the Ranger is Str/Dex/Con/Wis, the Fighter should be Str/Dex/Con/Int. He's the warrior who fights smarter, not harder.

And besides, you don't have to have learned your knowledge skills from books. Whatever gave you that idea?
The fighter can absolutely be smart! We've all seen :roy: after all. And I love the Int/Wis/Cha symmetry of the fighter/ranger/paladin; I never noticed that before. But Knowledge skills explicitly represent study. Identifying monsters is one specific use of Knowledge, but forcing the ability to be based on a Knowledge skill means the fighter must have everything that goes along with that Knowledge skill: spell knowledge and a mastery of arcane principles to identify a dragon's weaknesses, an understanding of the prevailing code of law in order to identify an orc's weaknesses, and so on. Knowledge skills are simply too broad for you to use them effectively as an "identify that monster" core class feature.


Lol, okay, so you think granting multiple allies a variable bonus that starts as low as +2 to whatever the Fighter wants, and can climb to a fairly high number is useless because its a standard action? I disagree, but, okay.

+2 to +5 on attack or AC for a single attack? Yes, at 11th level, that means essentially nothing. Everyone has multiple attacks per round, and his aid would only be relevant on the attack which will almost always hit anyway.


Ehhhh, here you're probably right, actually.
Sometimes I get lucky. :smalltongue:


I don't think so. It's a 19th level ability. You should fight like a literal god at this level. That seems like an appropriate level of power and versatility.
It's not a question of power. It's a question of "that makes no sense whatseover". There's a good game design article about this, but the location escapes me at the moment. Basically, fire elementals are immune to fire because they are made of fire. But you have an ability which ignores immunities, so now you can burn a fire elemental with a mundane torch. You can look at a shapeless mass of flesh or ooze that is 100% consistent and identify "weak points". Things just start breaking down. Can you ignore a golem's magic immunity? Just let immunities be immunities.


That's only actually true in Pathfinder if you're taking lots of Critical feats. It's not true at all if you're just talking about an average damage per round calcuation.
Only if you ignore "overkill damage", where you deal more damage than the enemy had hit points remaining. In any combat with more than one opponent, 19-20 x2 is better than 20 x3.


I'll take a look. Thanks for the critiques!
Glad to help!


I agree that the Fighter class should have access to knowledges or some approximation thereof.

Remember that the PC classes are heroic classes. Heroic soldiers in all forms of literature and media are generally pretty intelligent.

The low level grunts that got conscripted from the gutters of poor cities should generally be represented by an NPC class.

"Intelligent" is completely different from "learned". I think Know Thy Enemy should be an Intelligence-based check, but not a Knowledge skill.

[mephnick]

"Intelligent" is completely different from "learned". I think Know Thy Enemy should be an Intelligence-based check, but not a Knowledge skill.

Yeah I agree, although that kind of thing generally reflects wisdom more than intelligence, as wisdom is supposed to be the "awareness" stat.

[Ziegander]

There's a world of difference between analyzing hundreds of options when you level up and analyzing hundreds of options every round of every combat. Not even mages have to do that. No one would give a mage fully spontaneous casting from an entire school of magic; even ignoring balance concerns, it's obviously way too complicated. This is even worse, because it's as a swift action, so it's in addition to any other choices he makes during the round.

To be clear - could we play a fighter with this class feature? Sure, absolutely. But you (presumably) aren't designing a class for game designers who are used to spending too many hours bookdiving. Prepared casting is one of the most complicated things in D&D, and this class feature blows that out of the water. Try playtesting it with someone who isn't used to spending hours preparing to play a character.

I will reconsider it.


The wording is perfectly clear. The placement is just unfortunate, since it comes directly after an unrelated sentence about a different kind of bonus feat.

I believe I have addressed the complaint.


Generalists could get "You may become proficient with any weapon by training with it" and later "You may apply all weapon-specific or weapon group-specific feats or abilities you have to any weapon you are proficient with", but have lower bonus values in exchange. Generalists would still need some flat bonuses, since those bonuses are so large, but they could cap at +3 instead of +5.

I will look into it, these are good ideas.


The fighter can absolutely be smart! We've all seen :roy: after all. And I love the Int/Wis/Cha symmetry of the fighter/ranger/paladin; I never noticed that before. But Knowledge skills explicitly represent study. Identifying monsters is one specific use of Knowledge, but forcing the ability to be based on a Knowledge skill means the fighter must have everything that goes along with that Knowledge skill: spell knowledge and a mastery of arcane principles to identify a dragon's weaknesses, an understanding of the prevailing code of law in order to identify an orc's weaknesses, and so on. Knowledge skills are simply too broad for you to use them effectively as an "identify that monster" core class feature.

You've swayed me.


+2 to +5 on attack or AC for a single attack? Yes, at 11th level, that means essentially nothing. Everyone has multiple attacks per round, and his aid would only be relevant on the attack which will almost always hit anyway.

It's +2 to +X to a number of different things, an ally's next attack, an ally's AC vs the next attack, an ally's next skill check, an ally's next saving throw. And he can grant each of his allies a different bonus, based on what they'll be getting up to. The attack will already automatically hit? Great, more Power Attack damage!

Though, I do want to add the functionality that he can add Aid Another bonuses to a single saving throw and also to remind that he can use Aid Another to grant one additional saving throw against an effect currently affecting an ally (even one that did not initially grant a saving throw). Does that seem more useful to you? It's at-will.



But you have an ability which ignores immunities, so now you can burn a fire elemental with a mundane torch. You can look at a shapeless mass of flesh or ooze that is 100% consistent and identify "weak points". Things just start breaking down. Can you ignore a golem's magic immunity? Just let immunities be immunities.

Except the only one of those that it says it does is break an ooze's immunity to critical hits, which I think is perfectly fine for him to be able to do because he knows a lot about them. I will make it more explicitly clear about the fire immunity, but the magic immunity you're just conjuring out of nowhere.

[Vadskye]

Yeah I agree, although that kind of thing generally reflects wisdom more than intelligence, as wisdom is supposed to be the "awareness" stat.
Well, I mean, yes. Wisdom should theoretically be everything having to do with awareness, and not willpower. But D&D has historically interpreted Intelligence as being a "tactical awareness/prediction" stat, as seen in the Duelist and Invisible Blade. It's a little inconsistent because D&D/PF's ability scores are inherently inconsistent about how they should be used, but I wasn't going to worry about it.

[MoleMage]

If you change Know Thy Enemy to a special type of intelligence check, consider allowing the appropriate training bonus for class skills to apply to it if the person is trained in the skill. Or some similar method to reward, but not require, training in the Knowledge skills for the purposes of that class feature.

[Meth In a Mine]

This looks great!

I can't speak for everyone, but I like the idea of a fighter swapping out his bonus feats. The 3.5 PHB and the ELHB both portrayed the fighter as "master of more combat styles than any other class around" so with that in mind I feel that there is no reason why a two-handed fighter can pick up a pair of short swords and think "Dang, what am I supposed to do with these?". You'd think that a fighter wouldn't need archetypes, he'd just be good at everything. If he wasn't good at all aspects of martial combat, the barbarian would seem to just be strictly better than the fighter.

However, I do agree with Vadskye that as a swift action every round is a touch too complicated. Perhaps it could be X/encounter, or X/day, or something along those lines. Vadskye mentioned playtesting it, and I've designed an experiment. Place a 10th level fighter in combat with a randomly chosen CR 10 monster. The fighter goes first, but only gets two minutes for his entire turn. If that becomes stressful to manage, then this ability is in danger of slowing the game flow.

Good work and cheers!

[Vadskye]

I will reconsider it.

I believe I have addressed the complaint.

I will look into it, these are good ideas.

You've swayed me.
See, this is why brewing with you is fun, Ziegander. You listen. :smallbiggrin:


It's +2 to +X to a number of different things, an ally's next attack, an ally's AC vs the next attack, an ally's next skill check, an ally's next saving throw. And he can grant each of his allies a different bonus, based on what they'll be getting up to. The attack will already automatically hit? Great, more Power Attack damage!

Though, I do want to add the functionality that he can add Aid Another bonuses to a single saving throw and also to remind that he can use Aid Another to grant one additional saving throw against an effect currently affecting an ally (even one that did not initially grant a saving throw). Does that seem more useful to you? It's at-will.
Let me think. 11th level fighter will typically have... what, +25 to attack? Let's also assume he has a +3 Int modifier - enough to affect all of his allies in a typical 4 man group. Assuming that's somewhere in the vicinity of reasonable, he can give each ally about a +2 or +3 bonus to one thing. Let's pretend they're all power attacking, and that they all hit; at its most generous, that means it grants about 18 extra damage. What's the expected damage of a single standard action attack? Somewhere around 18? I don't know detailed PF math.

My point is that it still sounds no more than passable, but that depends heavily on your assumptions. On the other hand, it is at will, and it's an AOE. My bet is that you might see this used as the fighter is moving into position, when he can't get a full attack off. So maybe it would be okay. I'd still get rid of the -10 penalty, though, and/or grant it earlier.


Except the only one of those that it says it does is break an ooze's immunity to critical hits, which I think is perfectly fine for him to be able to do because he knows a lot about them. I will make it more explicitly clear about the fire immunity, but the magic immunity you're just conjuring out of nowhere.
The magic immunity came from the "ignores SR" idea, since magic immunity functions as "SR infinity", but I'll admit that it's a stretch. With the clarification, I think it's clear enough. Being able to crit oozes isn't the weirdest thing around, I guess.


Know Thy Enemy (Ex): At 7th level, a fighter can spend a swift action to study a specific target in sight. He must make a special Intelligence check (1d20 + his class level + his Intelligence modifier) to determine the target’s abilities and weaknesses as part of this action (DC 15 + the target's CR).
I'll just note that I really like this.


Knowledge is Power (Ex): At 13th level, a fighter can read his foes so well that he may spend a swift action to learn exactly how the creature will spent its next turn (Will negates, DC 10 + half his class level + his Intelligence modifier). He may only use this ability against a creature that he is gaining the bonuses from his Know Thy Enemy ability. Furthermore, allies within 30ft of the fighter gain half of the bonuses derived from Know Thy Enemy, rounded down.
But this wording is too strong. A creature can always change its mind in response to new information. "learn what the creature is most likely to do" or "learn what the creature is planning to do" would be better.

[Ziegander]

Let me think. 11th level fighter will typically have... what, +25 to attack? Let's also assume he has a +3 Int modifier - enough to affect all of his allies in a typical 4 man group. Assuming that's somewhere in the vicinity of reasonable, he can give each ally about a +2 or +3 bonus to one thing. Let's pretend they're all power attacking, and that they all hit; at its most generous, that means it grants about 18 extra damage. What's the expected damage of a single standard action attack? Somewhere around 18? I don't know detailed PF math.

I did the math, you seem to be right. I'll go ahead and remove the -10 penalty. With +25 to attack he will automatically hit 26 for +3 aid, easily hit +4, and be within reach of +5. Remember, he doesn't have to aid attack rolls, he can boost AC, saves, skills, and even grant additional saves even when none were originally allowed. It seems useful to me.



The magic immunity came from the "ignores SR" idea, since magic immunity functions as "SR infinity", but I'll admit that it's a stretch.

Ah, right, I had forgotten about magic immunity functioning like that. I'll amend it.


But this wording is too strong. A creature can always change its mind in response to new information. "learn what the creature is most likely to do" or "learn what the creature is planning to do" would be better.

I could make that change, and probably should, but if I do, it'll be going back to a no-save effect.

[Vadskye]

I could make that change, and probably should, but if I do, it'll be going back to a no-save effect.
Sounds fine.


Battle Insight (Ex): At 15th level, as a swift action, a fighter may grant himself or any ally within 30ft who can see and hear him the ability to ready a move or standard action without spending any actions on their own turn. This effect lasts for 1 round, and must be capitalized on in that time. The fighter may use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + his Intelligence modifier.

I didn't think about this before, but this is actually really broken. Allies ready action for you to say "turnip", you say turnip immediately after using the ability, and every caster on your team gets a free spell off immediately. That's game-changingly broken. Even readying a free move action is incredibly powerful. Ready vs "I am attacked", and all your allies are automatically be immune to full attacks. Free readying is really, really good. I wouldn't use this.

[Ziegander]

I didn't think about this before, but this is actually really broken. Allies ready action for you to say "turnip", you say turnip immediately after using the ability, and every caster on your team gets a free spell off immediately. That's game-changingly broken. Even readying a free move action is incredibly powerful. Ready vs "I am attacked", and all your allies are automatically be immune to full attacks. Free readying is really, really good. I wouldn't use this.

Not all allies, just one at a time. Sorry, ambiguous wording. I realize free readying is really, really good. Maybe more tolerable if it's just Int-bonus times per day rather than 3+Int? Maybe only once per encounter too?

[MoleMage]

Not all allies, just one at a time. Sorry, ambiguous wording. I realize free readying is really, really good. Maybe more tolerable if it's just Int-bonus times per day rather than 3+Int? Maybe only once per encounter too?

Make it work like the Witch's Hexes that imitate Cure Spells? After an ally has been affected by it, they can't be affected by it for 24 hours. Then remove the fighter-end usage limit.

[Vadskye]

Not all allies, just one at a time. Sorry, ambiguous wording. I realize free readying is really, really good. Maybe more tolerable if it's just Int-bonus times per day rather than 3+Int? Maybe only once per encounter too?

On a second reading, I think your wording was fine, I just read it too quickly. I'd actually take a different tack. No matter how you limit it, the best use of a standard action will basically always be spellcasting, and it feels strange to me that a fighter makes his allies' spellcasting better. Instead, keep it as is, but change "move or standard action" to "move or attack action". (Or maybe "move action or attack", depending on your wording preferences). That means the fighter helps his allies fight. And given that it's only one ally, letting an ally ready a move action to negate a full attack isn't over the top for a 15th level limited use fighter ability, particularly given that it would still provoke AoOs.

[Ziegander]

So of course, since I've started playing Pathfinder, you just know I also have to start fixing PF feats. It was bound to happen. And there are just so many that sound great, but ultimately suck.

Well. No. More.

Well, at least, sometime soon they will suck no more. I'm not going to start fixing them right this minute.

[Ilorin Lorati]

One of the simple things I like to to help relieve it somewhat is combine all weapon specific feats into weapon groups. Certainly no fix, but it's takes a bit of the "this is stupid specific" edge off. I look forward to seeing what you do with them.

[Vadskye]

So of course, since I've started playing Pathfinder, you just know I also have to start fixing PF feats. It was bound to happen. And there are just so many that sound great, but ultimately suck.

Well. No. More.

Well, at least, sometime soon they will suck no more. I'm not going to start fixing them right this minute.

Fantastic. Pathfinder suffers from the same "really cool on paper, useless in practice" problem as D&D, so it's good to see that being addressed. (Also some "useless on paper, useless in practice" feats like Run.)

One thing I've noticed in my work on feats is that deep feat trees with many prerequisites generally make the game worse, not better. Also, allowing virtually unlimited stacking is deeply problematic. Those are worth keeping in mind if you're planning a feat overhaul (and I would be happy to explain my reasoning if you disagree).

[Blue_C.]

Well, I'm interested in your reasoning. I fairly like deep feat trees in concept. There's something great in my mind to finally getting Whirlwind Attack, not unlike hitting a capstone ability. Because in theory that's exactly what you just did. Now, of course, practice comes up against the hard shores of reality, but I still like the concept. I also like the idea of specialization, of having that one great way for you to approach a problem and gradually getting even better at it.

I can see a flip side of it, as highlighted by sneak attack and turn undead, that overspecialization can sometimes result in uselessness, but I'm not totally against that either. In any team effort, someone is always going to contribute the least, and sometimes that's you. If it's always you or if it's never you, that's a problem, but not necessarily one of class design. Sometimes that's exactly what it is, encounter/adventure design have to be considered as well.

In any case, I would like to hear your view, as I'm not firmly wedded to my own.

As to this thread's official topic, I'm a little unclear on how the Tactician bonus feats work. As a hard-ass DM, I would rule that you get the bonus feat/s once, at first level. If you don't qualify for it at first level, you don't get it for free via this ability, you need to spend one of your other feat slots at some point. As a player, I'd probably try to argue that learning teamwork feats for free is a class ability, and I qualify for those feats at whatever level I hit the prerequisites, and the sky (and my collection of splat books) is the limit on how many of those buggers I can get. It's the use of "any" in that sentence that's confusing me. Do you mean "any one" or "all" there, and do you intend this to be a persistent feature of this class, or merely provide an initial glut for the fighter to play with?

It may simply be easier to strike the first line from the Tactician ability, and allow the fighter to pick up and exchange Teamwork feats with his bonus feat feature. Or failing that, perhaps allow something like 1+Int modifier of bonus teamwork feats that he meets prereqs for initially, and allow him to swap those out (I'd do once per level, but with 1 hour meditation would fit better, I admit) as he sees fit and meets the prereqs for better feats.

[Ziegander]

As to this thread's official topic, I'm a little unclear on how the Tactician bonus feats work. As a hard-ass DM, I would rule that you get the bonus feat/s once, at first level. If you don't qualify for it at first level, you don't get it for free via this ability, you need to spend one of your other feat slots at some point. As a player, I'd probably try to argue that learning teamwork feats for free is a class ability, and I qualify for those feats at whatever level I hit the prerequisites, and the sky (and my collection of splat books) is the limit on how many of those buggers I can get. It's the use of "any" in that sentence that's confusing me. Do you mean "any one" or "all" there, and do you intend this to be a persistent feature of this class, or merely provide an initial glut for the fighter to play with?

It may simply be easier to strike the first line from the Tactician ability, and allow the fighter to pick up and exchange Teamwork feats with his bonus feat feature. Or failing that, perhaps allow something like 1+Int modifier of bonus teamwork feats that he meets prereqs for initially, and allow him to swap those out (I'd do once per level, but with 1 hour meditation would fit better, I admit) as he sees fit and meets the prereqs for better feats.

Tactician gives the Fighter a single bonus Teamwork Feat at first level (in addition to the bonus Combat Feat he also gets at 1st level). Beyond that it allows him to grant that bonus feat to his allies who do not need to meet the prerequisites. Yes, the Fighter, at level 1, does need to meet the prerequisites for the Teamwork Feat he selects, and yes there are a few that he can qualify for at 1st level.

You seem to be misunderstanding how the ability works entirely. How can I make it more clear for you?

[Blue_C.]

Tactician gives the Fighter a single bonus Teamwork Feat at first level (in addition to the bonus Combat Feat he also gets at 1st level). Beyond that it allows him to grant that bonus feat to his allies who do not need to meet the prerequisites. Yes, the Fighter, at level 1, does need to meet the prerequisites for the Teamwork Feat he selects, and yes there are a few that he can qualify for at 1st level.

You seem to be misunderstanding how the ability works entirely. How can I make it more clear for you?

Actually, I didn't misunderstand the ally part at all. I also stated the part that was unclear. You say in the first sentence of that class feature "a fighter receives any Teamwork Feat he meets the prerequisites of as a bonus feat." Because "any" can colloquially mean either "one" or "all," I was asking for clarification on which you meant. Saying "any one" in that sentence, or even just "one" would clear it up.

[Mighty_Chicken]

Hi Zig. Sounds like an interesting fix, maybe even the exact level of utility/power I've been looking for.

He's like a "martial powered aura provider". I love the idea.

But to me specifically, the "commander" concept is the one that fits the fighter archetype the least.

Do you have plans for ACF that would substitute the "commander" class features with class features that's reflect the different kinds of fighter - the fencer, the slayer, defender, etc? If you are, are you going to apply the "fighters are adaptable" philosophy to it?

EDIT: regarding Blue's observation, I agree. It's ambiguous.

[Ziegander]

Saying "any one" in that sentence, or even just "one" would clear it up.

Corrected.


Do you have plans for ACF that would substitute the "commander" class features with class features that's reflect the different kinds of fighter - the fencer, the slayer, defender, etc?

I don't have any plans at the moment, but I might be tempted to work some out. But they will all be Intelligence-focused regardless.


If you are, are you going to apply the "fighters are adaptable" philosophy to it?

I'm not sure what you mean.

[Mighty_Chicken]

Corrected.



I don't have any plans at the moment, but I might be tempted to work some out. But they will all be Intelligence-focused regardless.

Nice.


I'm not sure what you mean.

Combat adaptability, weapon adaptability, and now "tactical feat adaptability". A very popular concept in this forums (maybe in others?) is that adaptability is part of the solution for the fighter

I'm thinking what you people could do with this concept, but regarding other fighter types.

Maybe we could have "feat lists" for each "specialist fighter", regarding repertoires... so the commander fighter would have all Teamwork feats in his repertoire, the defender fighter would have save bonus, AC and shield related feats in her repertoire, etc. I digress, though.

[Vadskye]

Well, I'm interested in your reasoning. I fairly like deep feat trees in concept. There's something great in my mind to finally getting Whirlwind Attack, not unlike hitting a capstone ability. Because in theory that's exactly what you just did. Now, of course, practice comes up against the hard shores of reality, but I still like the concept. I also like the idea of specialization, of having that one great way for you to approach a problem and gradually getting even better at it.

I can see a flip side of it, as highlighted by sneak attack and turn undead, that overspecialization can sometimes result in uselessness, but I'm not totally against that either. In any team effort, someone is always going to contribute the least, and sometimes that's you. If it's always you or if it's never you, that's a problem, but not necessarily one of class design. Sometimes that's exactly what it is, encounter/adventure design have to be considered as well.

In any case, I would like to hear your view, as I'm not firmly wedded to my own.

There are two main ways to make feat trees. One is the Whirlwind Attack approach, where each feat in the tree grants completely different abilities. The other is the Two Weapon Fighting approach, where each feat offers an incremental improvement on the exact same concept. Each is bad for different reasons.

Suppose your goal is to make your character better at fighting multiple opponents. Whirlwind Attack is a great feat for this purpose; indeed, that's the only reason you would want Whirlwind Attack. However, all of its prerequisite feats do totally different things. Dodge and Spring Attack are only good against a single foe; that's the exact opposite of Whirlwind Attack. Combat Expertise interacts okay mechanically with Whirlwind Attack, but it has a very different fluff. (And Mobility is just terrible.) In order to follow that feat tree, you have to spend four feats gaining abilities that are unrelated to your actual goal! The whole feat tree is just a mishmash of unrelated ideas.

Two-Weapon Fighting feat trees solve that problem. If you take one of those feats, you know you're going to get better at something you care about. However, it also strongly encourages overspecialization. The core problem with noncasters isn't necessarily a lack of power; there are plenty of extremely powerful builds (Ubercharger, trip builds, etc.), and using homebrew martial classes helps even the scales on that end. The problem is a lack of flexibility.

Let's use an extreme example. Suppose you could take combat feats like Weapon Specialization or Improved Grapple multiple times, and their effects stacked. It would be easy to make characters which were extremely powerful in one specific area, and useless in other areas. The game would obviously not be healthy if that were possible; that's why we limit stacking. Deep feat trees which are just "the same thing, but better" have the same problem; it's just less obvious. Specialization isn't a bad thing, and different characters need to have different strengths. However, there should be a hard limit on how many resources (feats, etc.) it is possible to devote to a single aspect of your character.

Of course, I'm not saying that the idea of feats having prerequisites is bad in itself. Many new abilities only make sense if you have previous abilities. You're right that there's something great about finally hitting that "ultimate ability" in a feat tree. Capstones are fun, and mini-capstones are still pretty cool. Plus, from a balance perspective, you don't want to just make Whirlwind Attack freely accessible to anyone; there obviously have to be prerequisites of some kind. But the current system for building deep feat trees isn't the right way to do it.

So what works? I'm, uh, still working on that. One promising idea that I'm still tinkering with is a "flexible feat tree". Essentially, you group feats into categories, and capstone-style feats like Whirlwind Attack require X feats of your choice from within a category (or some combination of categories), plus a BAB requirement. Also, having consistently defined feat categories would be a very helpful tool for building homebrew (such as the "specialist fighter" idea discussed above).

Ziegander, if you think this is too off-topic for your fighter fix, I'd be happy move this to a different thread.