Fighter - Who Needs Archetypes?

[Molosse]

So with the Weapon Master's Handbook out now, introducing Advance Weapon Training and the Armour Master's Handbook coming out next year, most likely containing something similar, can it be said that archetypes for the fighter aren't as effective as simply going for the base class? Or does access to the Advanced Weapon Training feat make up for it?

With things like:
-Doubling the benefits of Bravery and applying the base Bravery bonus to all Will saves
-Gaining the Warpriest's Damage Scaling
-Gaining x2BaB as skill points
-Gaining 2-4 weapon focused feats

And with hopefully similar, what we can hope, Advanced Armour Training options can it be argued that the base chassis for Fighter is now superior to any specific Archetype? Or is it simply different strokes for different builds.

As an aside the ammount of Fighter support is damn nice.

[Snowbluff]

No, it isn't.

1) Bravery is a bad feature and we should feel bad.
2) Nope. Nope. Nope.
3) Why not just buff their skills points? We have an archetype that does that.
4) Oh great, more combat feats. It's the one thing that fighter has plenty of.

Fighter is the shame of the PF system condensed into one terrible little package. Nothing you listed would really help building a more diverse or interesting build than a fighter would be able to do. Not to mention that there are far more interesting alchemist and summoner based archetypes for fighter that still provide little incentive to actually play the class outside of "oh boy numbaz."

[Molosse]

No, it isn't.

1) Bravery is a bad feature and we should feel bad.
2) Nope. Nope. Nope.
3) Why not just buff their skills points? We have an archetype that does that.
4) Oh great, more combat feats. It's the one thing that fighter has plenty of.

Fighter is the shame of the PF system condensed into one terrible little package. Nothing you listed would really help building a more diverse or interesting build than a fighter would be able to do. Not to mention that there are far more interesting alchemist and summoner based archetypes for fighter that still provide little incentive to actually play the class outside of "oh boy numbaz."

1) I mean, with the "Armed Bravery" you're only a point or two behind on Will saves from a class with a good Will save progression, and arguably better off versus fear effects.
2) For throwing weapons, or a two-weapon build, the damage scaling is pretty decent, by the time you get it's a pretty impressive jump in damage, similar to a scaling weapon specialization.
3) Would'a been nice, yeah.
4) More feats for nothing is always nice, hell grab Advanced Weapon Training and trade in a single feat for 2-4 feats later down the line. It's not revolutionary, but it's nice.

Eh, I like it. I was always happy with the Fighters role as a Fighter but was never happy with how it wasn't the best at the sole thing it can do. It's still not on the same level, but the disparity between classes like Fighter and Paladin is a tad closer than it was before the book was released.

[Psyren]

Don't mind Snowbluff, he hasn't read Weapon Master's Handbook :smalltongue:

While the good archetypes are still generally better, the ones that lose Weapon Training are a little weaker now because they lose access to the Advanced Weapon Training options. However, the strongest fighter archetypes (like Lore Warden, Mutation Warrior and Eldritch Guardian) still have it, so they have actually been buffed, because you can still take these archetypes while also benefiting from the new options in WMH. Until we get Armor Master's Handbook, the ones that lose Weapon Training but keep Armor Training (like Martial Master) will continue to take a hit.

The poor archetypes that lose Weapon Training however are now worse. For example, if you wanted to be an archer fighter, you'd probably be much better off going Lore Warden with some Advanced Weapon Training options and Ranged Weapon Tricks, focusing on bows, than actually being an Archer archetype fighter.

[Triskavanski]

Yeah Armed Bravery is petty good. Get x2 vs fear effects, get x1 vs other will saves, and x2 vs intimidate.


The ability to finesse any weapon actually is going to be a lot of fun with the Armor Master's guide I think if anything from there reflects Weapon Master.


In a way, some of the book has 'micro-archetypes' things that gave up like one or two class features for something else, but can choose to give them up, or just pick up the something else as a feat

[Snowbluff]

Well the real question is if any of this actually helps the fighter contribute anything entertaining to the system. The class is overall very boring and lacks diverse tactical options in combat when compared to classes like the Rogue, Alchemist, Summoner, Barbarian (bleck). In reality, fighters spend their time A-Clicking without any decision making involved. Things like "increase weapon damage" (really you are looking at 4 damage over, what, 20 levels?) are what I've been complaining about ever since fighter was made in PF. At this point, the class is rather pointless, and really needs a ground up overhaul or a complete replacement.

It's a class that needs qualities, not quantities.


Yeah Armed Bravery is petty good. Get x2 vs fear effects, get x1 vs other will saves, and x2 vs intimidate. Oh, that's definitely an improvement, but that's just about as much a class feature as the 3.5's scouts bonus to forts saves or the 3.5 swashbuckler's bonus to reflex, when both had those as bad saves.


In a way, some of the book has 'micro-archetypes' things that gave up like one or two class features for something else, but can choose to give them up, or just pick up the something else as a feat
Oh jees. It's called an ACF. :smallsigh:

[Molosse]

Well the real question is if any of this actually helps the fighter contribute anything entertaining to the system.

Depends on how you see entertaining mate. Gaining x2 BaB as skill ranks goes someway to making the Class better outside combat, grabbing the Inquisitors "Solo Tactics" in all but name gives access to both combat and non-combat teamwork feats as an actual effective choice and things like "Abundant Tactics" which let's you: "Add his weapon training bonus to the number of times per day he can use a combat feat he has that allows a limited number of daily uses, such as the Stunning Fist feat."
This opens up a lot of feats which normally wouldn't see play do their limited usage, as noted in another thread this includes something like Barroom Brawler so you can swap in different feats for different situations without taking dips into Brawler or limiting yourself to the Martial Master archetype.

Is it revolutionary? No, it's not at all. Does it make the baseline fighter better than archetyped fighter? Arguably and dependent on the Archetype.

This is all of course without seeing the Armour Masters Handbook.

As an aside, and relating to my original post, for a two-weapon/throwing weapon build the +2/3 dmg available at the level you first gain access to the bonus is pretty important when one is throwing out progressively more attacks. Hell, if you planned to stay within a single Weapon Group your entire career then it's practically a free bonus and the same logic goes for any of the Advanced Weapon Training options.

[Psyren]

For starters, that would be 5 damage per hit, which is also a static increase and thus gets multiplied on a crit/with Power Attack/with Deadly Aim/etc., and so adds up just a little faster than you imply.

Second, they are getting more utility than just pure numbers. You can functionally get all good saves, get your allies to reroll saves, unbeatable CMD to keep monsters from getting in your way, draw your weapon before combat starts, free maxed out skills, ignore negative conditions, ignore ranged attacks, ignore various harmful spells (including some with no saving throw) etc.

Third and final, I don't see why more numbers are a bad thing. Fighter is for the folks who just want to hit stuff. Helping them to not only do that, but also to shrug off/bypass whatever things the monsters do that keep them from hitting stuff, is all most folks who play a class called "Fighter" want to do. If they want something more complex, those classes exist and can be taken instead. Comparing a Fighter to an Alchemist or Summoner is to me missing the point, and rather spectacularly at that.

[Molosse]

Comparing a Fighter to an Alchemist or Summoner is to me missing the point, and rather spectacularly at that.

I think they meant Mutation Warrior and Eldritch Guardian, or at least I hope they did.

[Psyren]

I think they meant Mutation Warrior and Eldritch Guardian, or at least I hope they did.

Initially he did, but then his second post said:


The class is overall very boring and lacks diverse tactical options in combat when compared to classes like the Rogue, Alchemist, Summoner, Barbarian (bleck).

Hence my saying he was missing the point by directly comparing those.

[GreyBlack]

Imagine, for a moment, a fighter who inspires his allies to greatness, getting access to the Bard's Inspire Courage or Inspire Competence abilities, like Odysseus or Admiral Yi.

How about a fighter who gains size bonuses although he remains the same size (e.g. counts as a large creature when beneficial without increasing his size)?

How about a fighter who gains miraculous abilities, like a superhero, as he levels up?

These are what the Fighter need. Not some quantitative bonuses to their already strong areas, but rather some archetypes that give another way to play them qualitatively.

[Molosse]

Initially he did, but then his second post said:



Hence my saying he was missing the point by directly comparing those.

Ah, got it. As an aside Disruptive and Spellbreaker, with the new: Dispel Mastery, Weapon Material Mastery (Cold Iron) and Spellcut offer up a decent little anti-spell casting chassis to be built upon.


Imagine, for a moment, a fighter who inspires his allies to greatness, getting access to the Bard's Inspire Courage or Inspire Competence abilities, like Odysseus or Admiral Yi.

I mean, Bard VMC is exactly that. Drillmaster Fighter (VMC Bard) is pretty much that, doubly so if you grab the Fighter Tactics and/or Inspiring Confidence AWT. Works even better for Fighter due to their ability to grab insane amounts of feats.

[Snowbluff]

Depends on how you see entertaining mate. Gaining x2 BaB as skill ranks goes someway to making the Class better outside combat, grabbing the Inquisitors "Solo Tactics" in all but name gives access to both combat and non-combat teamwork feats as an actual effective choice and things like "Abundant Tactics" which let's you: "Add his weapon training bonus to the number of times per day he can use a combat feat he has that allows a limited number of daily uses, such as the Stunning Fist feat."

That's all well and shiny, but stunning fist requires you to use your fist, relies on a secondary stat, and


Second, they are getting more utility than just pure numbers. You can functionally get all good saves, get your allies to reroll saves, unbeatable CMD to keep monsters from getting in your way, draw your weapon before combat starts, free maxed out skills, ignore negative conditions, ignore ranged attacks, ignore various harmful spells (including some with no saving throw) etc.
A bunch of these accomplish anything but make a numbers arms race that PF is designed to avoid, and the rest don't require any decision making in play.


Third and final, I don't see why more numbers are a bad thing. Fighter is for the folks who just want to hit stuff. Helping them to not only do that, but also to shrug off/bypass whatever things the monsters do that keep them from hitting stuff, is all most folks who play a class called "Fighter" want to do. If they want something more complex, those classes exist and can be taken instead. Comparing a Fighter to an Alchemist or Summoner is to me missing the point, and rather spectacularly at that.

It's precisely the point. The problem is player involvement. Creating a class that pretty much does nothing except fill space in a party isn't a class at all. When you have an alchemist or synthesist, you have something simple, effective, and adds a bunch of possible options that teach a player more about the game. At the very least a rogue is incentivized to learn about the game and play using mechanics to their advantage.

And if you are saying that the class is designed to be simple for A-Clicking through a game, then why would they bother with all of these smoke and mirrors while they fumble through the same mistakes of fighter development leading back over a decade, way back to 3e. Why not just make them have good saves, instead of nerfing a supposed buff by continuing to penalize the fighters who would rather make the class their own by mixing and matching archetypes? It's just the same problem we had back when PF started, where people got hyped over fighter "buffs" that were technically improvements, but really do nothing to make the class stand out or more effective.

[Molosse]

That's all well and shiny, but stunning fist requires you to use your fist, relies on a secondary stat, and

Did... Right, so, you understand that it's not just Stunning Fist? It's any feat with the combat tag that has a specific number of uses per day and then it grants you more uses of that feat per day.

[GreyBlack]

Ah, got it. As an aside Disruptive and Spellbreaker, with the new: Dispel Mastery, Weapon Material Mastery (Cold Iron) and Spellcut offer up a decent little anti-spell casting chassis to be built upon.



I mean, Bard VMC is exactly that. Drillmaster Fighter (VMC Bard) is pretty much that, doubly so if you grab the Fighter Tactics and/or Inspiring Confidence AWT. Works even better for Fighter due to their ability to grab insane amounts of feats.

Well, yes, but imagine trading away something like Bravery instead of half of your feats as you level up. Again, I'm just spitballing ideas.

[Psyren]

Did... Right, so, you understand that it's not just Stunning Fist? It's any feat with the combat tag that has a specific number of uses per day and then it grants you more uses of that feat per day.

I'm a fan of Heroic Defiance myself.


Well, yes, but imagine trading away something like Bravery instead of half of your feats as you level up. Again, I'm just spitballing ideas.

5 feats is not half of a fighter's feats by a long shot.



A bunch of these accomplish anything but make a numbers arms race that PF is designed to avoid, and the rest don't require any decision making in play.

How is it an arms race? The bestiary entries are static. A balor is a balor is a balor.

Why is a class that doesn't require piles of decision-making, and is just generally competent vs. a variety of foes, a bad thing?


It's precisely the point. The problem is player involvement. Creating a class that pretty much does nothing except fill space in a party isn't a class at all. When you have an alchemist or synthesist, you have something simple, effective, and adds a bunch of possible options that teach a player more about the game. At the very least a rogue is incentivized to learn about the game and play using mechanics to their advantage.

And if you are saying that the class is designed to be simple for A-Clicking through a game, then why would they bother with all of these smoke and mirrors while they fumble through the same mistakes of fighter development leading back over a decade, way back to 3e. Why not just make them have good saves, instead of nerfing a supposed buff by continuing to penalize the fighters who would rather make the class their own by mixing and matching archetypes? It's just the same problem we had back when PF started, where people got hyped over fighter "buffs" that were technically improvements, but really do nothing to make the class stand out or more effective.

Alchemists and Synthesists are simple for you, an active participant in a high-optimization message board. Of course Fighter is going to be a boring class for you.

What is "A-Clicking?"

[GreyBlack]

5 feats is not half of a fighter's feats by a long shot.

Again, half by level-up, not from the class itself, buT NOT THE POINT.

Point is, I'd love to see a fighter who grows up into the General, not one who always stays on the outskirts remaining pseudo-competent, WITHOUT having to multi-class to get it (VMC counts). Besides, if Brawler can get Inspire Courage, why can't the Fighter?

ETA: "A-Clicking" is a derogatory term from RTS games, where all you have to do is press A and click on a given portion of the map to have your entire team attack and move through to that point, decimating everything in the way.

[Molosse]

I'm a fan of Heroic Defiance myself.

5 feats is not half of a fighter's feats by a long shot.

How is it an arms race? The bestiary entries are static. A balor is a balor is a balor.

Why is a class that doesn't require piles of decision-making, and is just generally competent vs. a variety of foes, a bad thing?

Alchemists and Synthesists are simple for you, an active participant in a high-optimization message board. Of course Fighter is going to be a boring class for you.

What is "A-Clicking?"

Sadly Abundant Tactics only works on combat feats mate. A-clicking, I believe, is Snowbluff saying that playing a Fighter is similar to going around in an Action RPG and clicking on the enemies until they fall over or a RTS where A is an attack-move.


Again, half by level-up, not from the class itself, buT NOT THE POINT.

Point is, I'd love to see a fighter who grows up into the General, not one who always stays on the outskirts remaining pseudo-competent, WITHOUT having to multi-class to get it (VMC counts). Besides, if Brawler can get Inspire Courage, why can't the Fighter?

Do VMC's really count? The designer of the VMC chassis has said that it benefits Fighters due to their excessive amounts of extra feats. In any case the Drill Seargent archetype with the aforementioned AWT's works towards building your General, but why not make use of game features to take it all the way?

As to a Fighter getting Inspire Courage? It'd be nice but it'd most likely trade away Weapon Training and/or Armour Training and with the new AWT' options and, hopefully, some new AAT' options in the next book the VMC looks to be the better option.

[Molosse]

Edit:/ Double Post

[Psyren]

Again, half by level-up, not from the class itself, buT NOT THE POINT.

It is the point. Fighters have plenty of feats to spare, VMC is a fine option for them. And it's not even a necessary one, just nice to have.



Point is, I'd love to see a fighter who grows up into the General, not one who always stays on the outskirts remaining pseudo-competent, WITHOUT having to multi-class to get it (VMC counts). Besides, if Brawler can get Inspire Courage, why can't the Fighter?

How do you define "pseudo-competent?" If they can handle CR-appropriate enemies with level-appropriate wealth, they are competent. If yours isn't, you haven't built him right. Especially now, in the post-WMH landscape.



ETA: "A-Clicking" is a derogatory term from RTS games, where all you have to do is press A and click on a given portion of the map to have your entire team attack and move through to that point, decimating everything in the way.

Why is "decimating everything in my way" a bad thing? I would imagine this is a primary goal of many fighter players. After all, isn't destroying your enemies the point of "fighting?"

[LudicSavant]

Why is a class that doesn't require piles of decision-making, and is just generally competent vs. a variety of foes, a bad thing? Because that's pretty much the definition of lacking tactical depth.

[Psyren]

Because that's pretty much the definition of lacking tactical depth.

And? If I wanted a complex class like a Synthesist, I'd play one. If I just want to sit at the table and hit stuff, Fighter (and Barbarian) are just fine for that.

[Slithery D]

I'm a fan of Heroic Defiance myself.


Which doesn't appear to have the Combat tag for feats, alas, it's General.



What is "A-Clicking?"

Computer games were you just press "a" (on an Xbox controller) or hold down your mouse button to do a simple attack, none of your special spells/abilities.

[Captain Morgan]

Yeah, Fighters are the class your DM builds for the new player who would be overwhelmed by spell slots while they get the hang of playing the game. It doesn't (necessarily) have many tactical decisions to make, but there are tons of classes which do, and tons of players who don't really care about that. It's actually really good for a bare bones character to exist for players that just want to A-Click.

And there are Fighter variations which have more tactical choices too. For individual tactical decisions, the Martial Master has plenty to offer. Both the Drill Sergeant and Tactician archetypes can be used for GreyBlack's general concept, while providing more tactical choice than a Bard's Inspire Courage numerical bonuses. If you want numerical bonuses, than you can VMC Bard or take feats like Battle Cry. If none of these options are close enough to your concept... then why not just play an Exemplar Brawler?



Honestly, I am not sure why one should expect a Fighter archetype to cover EVERY possible character concept. Or why multiclassing should be a huge problem, as multiclassing Martials can in PF is still plenty effective and so few games reach level 20.

The Fighter lacking tactical decisions is a feature, not a bug. And has plenty of options to specialize at this point. If it doesn't suit your needs, you can play another class. Harping on non-issues like this distracts from the Fighters all too real issues.

Actual problems with the Fighter include:

1) Lack of ways to contribute out of combat. (Low skill points, no narrative bending spells.)
2) Easy to neutralize in combat. (Poor will save, flight against non-archers, wind wall against archers, invisibility...)
3) For all that a Fighter is easy to run, they are very hard to build. There are too many feats to wade through with complicated prerequisites.
4) Their advantages (high combat numbers) aren't high enough to justify being used over classes which beat the pants off them in other categories, like the Paladin, Slayer, Ranger, Barbarian, or Inquisitor.


From what I've heard, the WMH helps on a lot of these fronts, though not all of them. BAB to skills helps on Point 1. Bravery applying to all Will Saves helps to Point 2. Things to boost raw damage help cement the Fighter as the premier DPR class for Point 4, and there are specific style feats that make them the best choices for niche combat choices like thrown weapons.

Is all that enough to completely fix the fighter? Probably not. Nor will adding more feats ever make the Fighter easier to build for newbs. But they are steps in the right direction. Unfortunately we probably won't see actual improvements to the Core content. Instead, Paizo is launching stuff like this, Unchained, and Dirty Fighting type feats to stealth errata the game into something more streamlined and balanced.

[Triskavanski]

And? If I wanted a complex class like a Synthesist, I'd play one. If I just want to sit at the table and hit stuff, Fighter (and Barbarian) are just fine for that.

heck if you're having a hard time making the fighter complex (if that is what you want you want ) I think you're just doing things wrong. Especially in light of these new tactics (Melee, Ranged, Dirty) and Weapon Master's Guide.


Either that, or I'm just crazy. I mean I am, but I don't think I'm just crazy. Cause with my characters, like my Dirty Fighter, I'm constantly making use of things like ready actions, fighting defensively, taking total defense, moving into positioning with allies (when available.)

Every movement of mine is far more than "Me smash!" A lot more. Especially compared to our sorc who just casts fireball every fight at just about everything.

[Molosse]

heck if you're having a hard time making the fighter complex (if that is what you want you want ) I think you're just doing things wrong. Especially in light of these new tactics (Melee, Ranged, Dirty) and Weapon Master's Guide.

The new Overwatch Style seems to be heavily pushed towards tactical lines of play. Eh, I never saw the Fighter as being limited in tactical depth, I was just never able to solve a problem by casting a spell or spell-like effect.

[GreyBlack]

Why is "decimating everything in my way" a bad thing? I would imagine this is a primary goal of many fighter players. After all, isn't destroying your enemies the point of "fighting?"

Due to the lack of control one has over their forces at that point, a well-micro'd force can abuse the AI if someone just does the A-move. In Pathfinder terms, it's the stereotypical "Smash everything" fighter who doesn't use his swift action for anything because he thinks it's useless. It's a question of higher level play versus dull brutes. Much mirroring this debate XD

[Psyren]

Actual problems with the Fighter include:

1) Lack of ways to contribute out of combat. (Low skill points, no narrative bending spells.)
2) Easy to neutralize in combat. (Poor will save, flight against non-archers, wind wall against archers, invisibility...)
3) For all that a Fighter is easy to run, they are very hard to build. There are too many feats to wade through with complicated prerequisites.
4) Their advantages (high combat numbers) aren't high enough to justify being used over classes which beat the pants off them in other categories, like the Paladin, Slayer, Ranger, Barbarian, or Inquisitor.


From what I've heard, the WMH helps on a lot of these fronts, though not all of them. BAB to skills helps on Point 1. Bravery applying to all Will Saves helps to Point 2. Things to boost raw damage help cement the Fighter as the premier DPR class for Point 4, and there are specific style feats that make them the best choices for niche combat choices like thrown weapons.

For #2 we've also got a Cyclonic Bow, Lenses of Situational Sight and Winged Boots (all of which the fighter can craft solo), for #3 we have retraining or just letting the more experienced players help with building your fighter (which they're going to do anyway), and for #4 the Fighter gets plenty of unique toys just in this book like AWT and Spellbreaker/Spellcut.


Due to the lack of control one has over their forces at that point, a well-micro'd force can abuse the AI if someone just does the A-move. In Pathfinder terms, it's the stereotypical "Smash everything" fighter who doesn't use his swift action for anything because he thinks it's useless. It's a question of higher level play versus dull brutes. Much mirroring this debate XD

As Trisk and Molosse pointed out, there are ways to use your fighter more tactically if that's what you're after. Yeah, you'll never be as tactical as an Alchemist or Inquisitor who is built for melee, but you're not supposed to be because you don't get spells. If you want spells, play something with spells, it's not hard.

[Triskavanski]

Or you get a little more tactical and pick up UMD and scrolls and wands.


Sure you'll use up quite a bit of gold, that is for sure, but you expand your options.

[Molosse]

Or you get a little more tactical and pick up UMD and scrolls and wands.


Sure you'll use up quite a bit of gold, that is for sure, but you expand your options.

Or to be even MORE tactical, to a given value of tactical, grab the Relic Master Archetype and the Item Mastery Feats.

[Triskavanski]

I don't know if the Relic master is good enough to lose weapon training. I guess that really depends how many of those magic item mastery feats you want to use more times per day. But because Telekinetic Mastery is a combat feat, Abundant Tactics works with it, giving you a much larger number times per day you can assault enemies with telekinesis.

Heck, I think you can do it more times per day then a Sorcerer would ever be able to.

My level 7 weapon master will be able to use it about 5 times per day.

[Serafina]

That's all well and shiny, but stunning fist requires you to use your fist, relies on a secondary stat, and As mentioned above, you haven't read Weapon Masters Handbook.

Because that is no longer true.
If you take Ascetic Style, you can "apply the effects of feats that have IUS as a prerequisite, as well as effects that augment an unarmed strike" with any Monk weapon.
The second feat incidentally also treats you as a monk of your class level for the purpose of all feats that get more uses from having Monk levels - such as Stunning Fist.
And the third feat outright changes your weapons damage to that of a monks unarmed strike of your level -4. Oh and allows you to take Monastic Legacy without any monk levels, so that can actually be higher than your character level!


Incidentally, a Fighter can easily take all the new Weapon Style feats using the Weapon Mastery Advanced Weapon Training - because all those feats are selected for a single weapon, just like Weapon Focus.


Now granted, yes, the Fighter only gets a bunch more feats that way. Fighters already have plenty of those. But between Weapon Tricks, Divine Fighting Techniques, Racial Styles, Weapon Styles and Weapon Mastery feats, having a ton of combat feats is now actually really tempting.


And there's really nice stuff in the book that benefits from having a high BAB, or a high Fortitude save. Which very much benefits all the full BAB classes - in other words, non-casters.

One such feat is Spellcut.
It's available at BAB +9, and outright replaces your saving throw bonus (as far as I can tell, including ability scores and items) with your BAB. Granted, that is only for spells that only target you and are not melee attacks (or that allow reflex saves), but that's most of the dangerous ones. It's only once per round, but this almost fixes the Fighters low will save.
Combine it with Smash from the Air (which has the exact same prerequisites, power attack and one feat) in order to counter ranged touch attacks, and you can actually counter a lot of spellcasting.


And again, nobody is arguing that the fighter really gets a lot of utility out of this. At best you get some skills (if you're going for Elven Battle Focus, use Lore Warden and maybe go Magus VMC, you actually get a lot of skill points) and some low-level spell-likes.


But some of that Advanced Weapon Training really does make the Fighter stand out.
Abundant Tactics is something other classes really can't do, if you find combat feats with limited uses per day (even only once per day).
Weapon Finesse on any weapon allows some interesting things.
Weapon Sacrifice will save you or an ally from getting killed up to your times per day.
That's the stuff other classes now can't do, but a Fighter can, and it's some nice stuff. And getting quick access to some of the style feats is worth quite a bit too.

[N. Jolly]

Honestly, for the first time in forever, this supplement has made me think that there might actually be value in a guide/handbook for fighters...what a glorious time to be mundane and martial.

[Serafina]

Honestly, for the first time in forever, this supplement has made me think that there might actually be value in a guide/handbook for fighters...what a glorious time to be mundane and martial.Aside from the (admittedly few) unique things the fighter now gets, such a handbook would best consist of the following:

Here are all the cool combinations of Combat Feats, Weapon Styles and Weapon Mastery Feats you can get.
You can theoretically get those with other classes. A fighter can get them 5+ levels earlier, or just make the feat-chain more complete.


It'd also be really nice to have a list of the combat feats that have limited uses per day, and show which of them get really strong with more uses (sadly Heroic Defiance is a general feat).

[Captain Morgan]

For #2 we've also got a Cyclonic Bow, Lenses of Situational Sight and Winged Boots (all of which the fighter can craft solo), for #3 we have retraining or just letting the more experienced players help with building your fighter (which they're going to do anyway), and for #4 the Fighter gets plenty of unique toys just in this book like AWT and Spellbreaker/Spellcut.

While I agree with you on #4, #3 isn't necessarily true, unfortunately. Not every game is going to have players who will have the time, knowledge, and inclination to help you out. Which is why ideally the floor for certain characters wouldn't be quite as low, but that's not changing any time soon.

And while I know magical equipment can be used to cover short comings for the Fighter, I don't find that particularly convincing for the classes short comings. For one, not every game allows for full magic mart access. And without something like Unchained's Automatic Bonus Progression in play, every copper spent on wands or utility threatens to make the Fighter fall behind on the arms race of escalating bestiary numbers as you climb levels. Where as a higher level Wizard loses very little by using his lower level spell slots for niche things like Glitterdust. It's also tough to know WHICH magic items you'll need to spend resources on, but that argument can also be applied for choosing spells or feats for casters.

All that being said, provided you know what you are doing, between WMH's sweet new content and some of the better archetypes, there are actually cool, unique, and powerful ways to build a Fighter. I definitely agree with the sentiment that the Weapon Master's Handbook is a sweet set of options, and actually addresses a lot of problems the class had before.

[Psyren]

While I agree with you on #4, #3 isn't necessarily true, unfortunately. Not every game is going to have players who will have the time, knowledge, and inclination to help you out. Which is why ideally the floor for certain characters wouldn't be quite as low, but that's not changing any time soon.

If you don't have experience and the other players are unwilling or unable to help you, then that becomes the GM's job. For the GM to tyrannically say "I know you didn't really understand the implications of {feat} and nobody, including myself, was able to help you realize that it would be a weak choice, you are stuck with it because I say so."

And even in PFS, retraining rules are legal. So in home games they should definitely be allowed if nobody is going to help an inexperienced player, and that goes for every class, not just fighters.


And while I know magical equipment can be used to cover short comings for the Fighter, I don't find that particularly convincing for the classes short comings. For one, not every game allows for full magic mart access.

You don't need "magic mart access" if you can craft your gear. The whole point of Master Craftsman is to be able to make what you need.

Cyclonic was created to address a problem - wind spells shutting down archers. If martials can't get it, then the casters in the party need to be dealing with the wind. If neither of those is an option, the GM is basically giving the archer player a middle finger.


And without something like Unchained's Automatic Bonus Progression in play, every copper spent on wands or utility threatens to make the Fighter fall behind on the arms race of escalating bestiary numbers as you climb levels. Where as a higher level Wizard loses very little by using his lower level spell slots for niche things like Glitterdust. It's also tough to know WHICH magic items you'll need to spend resources on, but that argument can also be applied for choosing spells or feats for casters.

Per Ultimate Campaign, taking crafting feats is intended to boost your WBL. I personally think wands are unnecessary (*coughGiacomocough*) - wondrous items and magic arms/armor are all a fighter needs to be competitive.

[Captain Morgan]

If you don't have experience and the other players are unwilling or unable to help you, then that becomes the GM's job. For the GM to tyrannically say "I know you didn't really understand the implications of {feat} and nobody, including myself, was able to help you realize that it would be a weak choice, you are stuck with it because I say so."

And even in PFS, retraining rules are legal. So in home games they should definitely be allowed if nobody is going to help an inexperienced player, and that goes for every class, not just fighters.



You don't need "magic mart access" if you can craft your gear. The whole point of Master Craftsman is to be able to make what you need.

Cyclonic was created to address a problem - wind spells shutting down archers. If martials can't get it, then the casters in the party need to be dealing with the wind. If neither of those is an option, the GM is basically giving the archer player a middle finger.



Per Ultimate Campaign, taking crafting feats is intended to boost your WBL. I personally think wands are unnecessary (*coughGiacomocough*) - wondrous items and magic arms/armor are all a fighter needs to be competitive.

I don't really disagree with any of these points, but it assumes that players and/or GMs are aware of the inherent imbalances to the system and then works to address them. This doesn't mean the system is inherently well balanced.

Crafting isn't always a practical option, either. I've played in campaigns where magical loot was rare, and we spent too much time running to settle down and craft things. And ultimately, there's no particular reason why Fighters are well suited to the task with their low skill points and INT being a low priority stat for them. A Fighter who devotes resources towards magical loot for utility will still fall behind many other classes who do the same.

I'm actually pretty cool with the space the Fighter occupies right now though. Provided, that is, that a player has the resources to make it more competent. The one irony is that players who know the system well enough to build good fighters using things like Master Craftsmen, archetypes, and the feats present in this book may find themselves drawn to classes with more inherent mid-play tactics and flexibility. But if the party's experienced players are willing to help out, and the DM stays aware of the issues he class faces then you can certainly build a Fighter which contributes effectively enough and is easy and fun to pilot.

[Psyren]

I don't really disagree with any of these points, but it assumes that players and/or GMs are aware of the inherent imbalances to the system and then works to address them. This doesn't mean the system is inherently well balanced.

I agree, but at the same time, I don't think it has to be. (Neither does Snowbluff, if his Axiom is any judge.)

But what we all have to learn sooner or later in this very social game we all play, is to recognize whether the person sitting across the table from you is having fun with their character or not. If not, you do something about it, especially (but not only) if you are the GM. To me it's not a difficult concept, and the designers have done their part by providing the necessary tools (retraining, Master Craftsman, and an endless stream of splats/options) to empower the players to fix these problems midstream.

If the GM and players all ignore the solutions to these problems, it seems to me that they forfeit their right to complain that the problems exist.



Crafting isn't always a practical option, either. I've played in campaigns where magical loot was rare, and we spent too much time running to settle down and craft things. And ultimately, there's no particular reason why Fighters are well suited to the task with their low skill points and INT being a low priority stat for them. A Fighter who devotes resources towards magical loot for utility will still fall behind many other classes who do the same.

This goes back to a GM problem. If the gear being provided is unsuitable to the challenges being faced, there are no opportunities to shop for better, and no downtime for crafting better, then gear-dependent classes are going to get hosed. It's as simple as that. And it would be no different than if shops, crafting and loot were inadequate in any other RPG, whether it's Pathfinder, Fallout, Diablo or Final Fantasy.



I'm actually pretty cool with the space the Fighter occupies right now though. Provided, that is, that a player has the resources to make it more competent. The one irony is that players who know the system well enough to build good fighters using things like Master Craftsmen, archetypes, and the feats present in this book may find themselves drawn to classes with more inherent mid-play tactics and flexibility. But if the party's experienced players are willing to help out, and the DM stays aware of the issues he class faces then you can certainly build a Fighter which contributes effectively enough and is easy and fun to pilot.

Agreed.

[Captain Morgan]

I agree, but at the same time, I don't think it has to be. (Neither does Snowbluff, if his Axiom is any judge.)

But what we all have to learn sooner or later in this very social game we all play, is to recognize whether the person sitting across the table from you is having fun with their character or not. If not, you do something about it, especially (but not only) if you are the GM. To me it's not a difficult concept, and the designers have done their part by providing the necessary tools (retraining, Master Craftsman, and an endless stream of splats/options) to empower the players to fix these problems midstream.

If the GM and players all ignore the solutions to these problems, it seems to me that they forfeit their right to complain that the problems exist.



This goes back to a GM problem. If the gear being provided is unsuitable to the challenges being faced, there are no opportunities to shop for better, and no downtime for crafting better, then gear-dependent classes are going to get hosed. It's as simple as that. And it would be no different than if shops, crafting and loot were inadequate in any other RPG, whether it's Pathfinder, Fallout, Diablo or Final Fantasy.



Agreed.

I agree with you on these points. But part of the issue is that new and inexperienced players aren't going to be aware of all of these sexy new options and which ones they should use, and many GMs become wary of allowing too much splat book content in. While it can do a lot to boost a weak class, splat content can also make a strong character insane, especially when you get crazy outliers like Leadership or the original Divine Protection feat. Newer feats and spells can have really insane interactions with older stuff. (Personally, I enjoy this aspect of PF, and it's part of why I prefer it to 5e. But it can throw an inexperienced DM for a loop.)

I like how Paizo is raising the ceiling with their new content, including for older classes. I would personally like it if the floor hadn't been so low to begin with though. Which is part of why I like content like Path of War where it is harder to build a BAD character.

[Psyren]

I agree with you on these points. But part of the issue is that new and inexperienced players aren't going to be aware of all of these sexy new options and which ones they should use, and many GMs become wary of allowing too much splat book content in. While it can do a lot to boost a weak class, splat content can also make a strong character insane, especially when you get crazy outliers like Leadership or the original Divine Protection feat. Newer feats and spells can have really insane interactions with older stuff. (Personally, I enjoy this aspect of PF, and it's part of why I prefer it to 5e. But it can throw an inexperienced DM for a loop.)

I like how Paizo is raising the ceiling with their new content, including for older classes. I would personally like it if the floor hadn't been so low to begin with though. Which is part of why I like content like Path of War where it is harder to build a BAD character.

I totally agree, but the floor is what it is. Short of Pathfinder 2.0, what can they do besides release splats?

[Serafina]

They could just have admitted that they goofed with quite a few of the weaker classes, and done more extensive Unchained-style upgrades for them.

Which they partially did in the Weapon Mastery Handbook now, what with the Fighter getting actual class features via Advanced Weapon Training.

But that's not chassis-upgrade. Just upgrading to 4 skill points/level, a scaling bonus to Acrobatics/Climb/Intimidate/Ride/Swim (all physical skills, with the exception of Intimidate but that's an archetypical fighter-skill) and replacing Bravery with a feature that delays certain status-effects (mostly stuff you suffer from on failed will-saves) - together with Advanced Weapon Training - would have greatly improved the Fighter.

Oh, and Archetypes that replace Bonus Feats instead of Bravery/Weapon Training/Armor Training. Add those, and you can represent all sorts of interesting things with the Fighter and give them actually unique class features.


Sure, it doesn't fix the inherent caster/mundane disparity, especially in regards to utility. But then again, that's a much larger project and they're somewhat trying to tackle that via occult rituals too.

[Molosse]

So I have a question.

Gloves of Dueling state's "If the wearer has the weapon training class feature and is using an appropriate weapon, her weapon training bonus increases by +2."
Does this then mean that if the PC is utilizing the weapon for a specific AWT the bonus would increase by +2?

For example, "Dazzling Intimidation" The fighter applies his weapon training bonus to Intimidate checks and can attempt an Intimidate check to demoralize an opponent as a move action instead of a standard action. is perhaps a dubious interaction but what about "Defensive Weapon Training" When his weapon training bonus for weapons from the associated fighter weapon group reaches +4, this shield bonus increases to +2.

[Psyren]

They could just have admitted that they goofed with quite a few of the weaker classes, and done more extensive Unchained-style upgrades for them.

There is an Unchained Fighter, it's called allowing combat stamina.

I keep seeing "they should admit it!" It seems to me that printing a book like MTT, or RTT, or Unchained, or WMH, are all implicit admissions that the fighter needed help.

For the record though, I agree with you that Fighters should be 4+Int.



Oh, and Archetypes that replace Bonus Feats instead of Bravery/Weapon Training/Armor Training. Add those, and you can represent all sorts of interesting things with the Fighter and give them actually unique class features.

They did this too, it's called VMC.



Sure, it doesn't fix the inherent caster/mundane disparity, especially in regards to utility. But then again, that's a much larger project and they're somewhat trying to tackle that via occult rituals too.

Not everyone sees caster/mundane disparity as a "problem" to be "fixed." Reducing the gap in specific ways is certainly something we can talk about, but removing it entirely? Nah.


So I have a question.

Gloves of Dueling state's "If the wearer has the weapon training class feature and is using an appropriate weapon, her weapon training bonus increases by +2."
Does this then mean that if the PC is utilizing the weapon for a specific AWT the bonus would increase by +2?

For example, "Dazzling Intimidation" The fighter applies his weapon training bonus to Intimidate checks and can attempt an Intimidate check to demoralize an opponent as a move action instead of a standard action. is perhaps a dubious interaction but what about "Defensive Weapon Training" When his weapon training bonus for weapons from the associated fighter weapon group reaches +4, this shield bonus increases to +2.

Seems like this would work just fine to me.

[Captain Morgan]

I totally agree, but the floor is what it is. Short of Pathfinder 2.0, what can they do besides release splats?

Setting aside the options Serafina mentioned, they could do a full Unchained version of the character. Combat Stamina is really nice, but even assuming your game makes it available to Fighters (and only Fighters) it mostly just seems to make the Fighter better at murdering things, where he already excelled at that. I haven't read the Combat Tricks that thoroughly but I've seen nothing that boosts his will save or gets him more skills, for example. (Yes, you can do that with current options. They made the Unchained Monk even though you could make a good monk via archetypes and system mastery.)

But the point of my post wasn't to criticize Paizo. I was attempting to argue that the issues GreyBlack was complaining about were not really issues, and that options been released help deal with many of the actual problems, despite the claims of Snowbluff. It's still worth mentioning that these were problems to begin with, because someone who reads that will be more likely to use content like the Weapon Master's Handbook to fix those problems.

[Secret Wizard]

Judge this post-Weapon Master's Handbook Fighter, 20 pt. buy, 2 traits, no archetype, Human:

Fighter 12

Traits: Defender of Society, River Rat

Creation: S14 D16+2 C15 I10 W12 CH7

Pips: +1 CON, +2 DEX

Final: S14 D20 C16 I10 W12 CH7

Feats:

1. Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse
2. Weapon Focus (Dagger)
3. Iron Will
4. Weapon Specialization (Dagger)
5. Advanced Weapon Training - Versatile Training (Thrown)
6. Improved Two-Weapon Fighting
7. Double Slice
8. Improved Critical
9. Critical Focus
10. Advanced Weapon Training - Focused Weapon (Dagger)
11. Two-Weapon Rend
12. Greater Weapon Focus (Dagger)

Skills would look like:
Acrobatics (MAX), Climb (MAX), Perception (MAX), Sense Motive (MAX), Swim (MAX), all of those class skills.

AC with Full Plate: 24

Saves: F +11, R +9, W +7

Attacks: +17/+17/+12/+12/+7 (1d10+7, 17-20/2x)

And everything listed is WITHOUT Magic Items. I think it's more than solid as a character.

[Triskavanski]

hmm.. I'm surprised the character isn't actually wielding kukri instead.

[Secret Wizard]

hmm.. I'm surprised the character isn't actually wielding kukri instead.

Worse Versatile Training skill bonuses.

[Sacrieur]

The problem with archetypes is that Paizo basically just does what WotC did with them: stripping out core class abilities to replace with something "equally" powerful in their own eyes. For the fighter, this means all of the archetypes are going to be equally bad or worse because a fighter archetype isn't allowed to be better than the vanilla fighter.

Consider the Myrmidarch Magus archetype for instance, Paizo foolishly believed that a class ability that made you qualify for fighter feats was just too darn good and not only did it have to replace the regular fighter training ability, but also its knowledge pool ability. Because being able to use your magus class level to qualify for fighter feats is totally equivalent to being able to cast any spell off of the Magus spell list.

Paizo needs to stop being afraid to buff the fighter. Don't be afraid to make it lavishly wonderful at fighting. Shhh. It'll be okay.

[Psyren]

Setting aside the options Serafina mentioned, they could do a full Unchained version of the character. Combat Stamina is really nice, but even assuming your game makes it available to Fighters (and only Fighters) it mostly just seems to make the Fighter better at murdering things, where he already excelled at that. I haven't read the Combat Tricks that thoroughly but I've seen nothing that boosts his will save or gets him more skills, for example. (Yes, you can do that with current options. They made the Unchained Monk even though you could make a good monk via archetypes and system mastery.)

But the point of my post wasn't to criticize Paizo. I was attempting to argue that the issues GreyBlack was complaining about were not really issues, and that options been released help deal with many of the actual problems, despite the claims of Snowbluff. It's still worth mentioning that these were problems to begin with, because someone who reads that will be more likely to use content like the Weapon Master's Handbook to fix those problems.

For the record I didn't accuse anyone of criticizing anyone else. And I agree that highlighting these problems (or more productively, the solutions that have been published to address these problems) is a good move, hence my continually doing so.

The Unchained Monk isn't really comparable though, I think. Other than the sacred cow of 2+Int skills, the Fighter's chassis is fine, and that lone deficiency I don't feel is worth a ground-up rewrite. As you yourself noted, they weren't struggling to do damage the way monks and rogues were, they were just weak at other things - things that people playing a class called "fighter" arguably don't mind as much being secondary anyway. For the folks that do want those secondary things played up, ad-hoc options like archetypes or the additions presented in WMH/Unchained are sufficient, without needing an entire alternate version of the class like the rogue and monk got.

If there is an "Unchained Fighter" someday, I won't complain, but I'm not holding my breath for one either; we got everything we need to build one ourselves anyway.


The problem with archetypes is that Paizo basically just does what WotC did with them: stripping out core class abilities to replace with something "equally" powerful in their own eyes. For the fighter, this means all of the archetypes are going to be equally bad or worse because a fighter archetype isn't allowed to be better than the vanilla fighter.

Erm... you're joking, right? So Lore Warden, Mutation Warrior, Martial Master, Mobile Fighter, Unbreakable and Eldritch Guardian aren't better than the vanilla fighter? :smalltongue:

And no, even in 3.5 ACFs could make a class (much) more powerful than its base version. Mystic Ranger, STP Erudite, Spirit Lion Barbarian, Dominant Ideal Ardent, Abrupt Jaunt Wizard, Cloistered Cleric... please tell me you've heard of these?

[Serafina]

An Unchained Fighter really wouldn't be that hard:

Skill Ranks per level: 4 + Int modifier
Class Skills: Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (dungeoneering) (Int), Knowledge (engineering) (Int), Perception (Wis), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Survival (Wis), and Swim (Str).
Hit Die: D10

Full BAB, Good Fortitude saves, Bad Reflex and Will Saves

Class Features:

Weapon and Armor Proficiencies: A fighter is proficient with all simple and martial weapons and with all armor (heavy, light, and medium) and shields (including tower shields).

Bonus Feats: At 1st level and every even level thereafter, a fighter receives a combat feat or a teamwork feat as a bonus feat. The Fighter may uses his Constitution Modifier in place of any Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma modifier used to determine the number of uses or the DC of any such bonus combat feat.

Steeled Body: A Fighter adds half his class level (minimum 1) to all Acrobatics, Climb, Ride and Swim skill checks

Act of Bravery: Beginning at 2nd level, a Fighter can, as an immediate action, shake off Fear and other debilitating conditions. This removes one fear-based condition and one other condition. The Fighter can select one condition to be removed at 2nd level and every 4 levels thereafter. At 6th level, an Act of Bravery also removes the Frightened Condition. At 10th level, it also removes the Panicked Condition. At 14th level, the Fighter is allowed to make a Fortitude saving throw to remove any Enchantment (Compulsion) effect that can be ended with a Will-save.

At 2nd level, a Fighter can select from the following conditions:
Deafened, Fatigued or Sickened

At 6th level, a Fighter adds the following conditions to those he can select:
Blinded, Entangled or Staggered

At 10th level, a Fighter adds the following Acts of Bravery to those he can select
Dazed, Exhausted (only if Fatigued is already selected), Nauseated (only if Sickened is already selected).

At 14th level, a Fighter adds the following Acts of Bravery to those he can select:
Paralyzed, Stunned

Armor Training: As vanilla Fighter

Weapon Training: As vanilla Fighter, with Advanced Weapon Training listed as default options (and additional weapon groups being an additional one, in which case the full bonus gets applied).

Armor Mastery: As vanilla Fighter

Weapon Mastery: As vanilla Fighter




Heck, it's even easy to translate a bunch of Archetypes:

Scholastic: As vanilla Lore Warden

Bardic Knowledge: As the Bards class feature. This replaces Steeled Body

Maneuver Mastery, Know Thy Enemy, Hairs Breadth, Swift Lore: As vanilla Lore Warden

Know Weakness: At 19th level, a Lore Wardens attack ignore any damage reduction that can be overcome by a special material or magical weapon.

Or make up new ones:
Observant Warden:A Valiant Guard can add half his class levels to Perception and Sense Motive checks. This replaces Steeled Body.

Piercing Gaze: At 2nd level, a Valiant Guard can observe one person or object within 30 feet in detail as a swift action to pierce magical disguises. He makes a Sense Motive check, if it is greater than the save DC of the magical effect he recognizes that the target is affected by a Illusion or Transmutation (Polymorph) effect, but does not learn the targets true appearance. The range of this ability increases to 60 feet at 6th level, and to line of sight at 14th level. At 10th level, a Valiant Guard can investigate a number of targets equal to half his class level with one swift action. This ability replaces Act of Bravery.

Unfailing Eyes: At 10th level, a Valiant Guard is permanently affected by True Seeing. Should this effect become inactive, it can be reactivated as a swift action. This replaces the bonus feat gained at 10th level.


But this kinda goes beyond the scope of this thread, so I put it under spoilers.

[Triskavanski]

Well, with this book for the weapon masters out there, Myrmidarch looks a bit more attractive to me since they qualify for AWT multiple times.

Even if the ranged spell strike doesn't work properlike.. or something. I forget what the issue is with it.

[Secret Wizard]

Ranged Spellstrike was rewritten to work well, so not to worry.

[darkdragoon]

A couple (more) uses a day of one particular effect doesn't really compare to having built-in resources (and most of those have issues anyway).

Save progression cannot be simply fixed with a couple more points.

Most of these others have built-in diminishing returns.

There are some neat concepts (I do like the overwatch idea and the save granting one).

But really most of what's there could have been argued about in 2000.

[Triskavanski]

Why can't save progression be fixed by more points?

[Snowbluff]

Ranged Spellstrike was rewritten to work well, so not to worry.

I'm curious about this.

[darkdragoon]

Why can't save progression be fixed by more points?

well you could, but most likely you'd be copypasting Divine Grace onto everybody, and even that's not necessarily enough.

[Psyren]

I'm curious about this.

The Ultimate Combat errata from back in August just lets you do what everyone was houseruling anyway - letting you use a single full-round action to both cast a ranged spell and full-attack. In the original printing you needed a full-attack action to use Ranged Spellstrike, which kept you from actually casting the spell.


well you could, but most likely you'd be copypasting Divine Grace onto everybody, and even that's not necessarily enough.

I have no idea what this means; the save boost to reflex is based on your WT bonus and the will save boost comes from Bravery - none require Charisma, so you can keep dumping it as before. Combined, these effectively get your fighter to all good saves.

As a sidenote, I'm willing to bet there will also be save buffs in Armor Master's Handbook - they may not stack with the ones in WMH but they'll give more routes to the same end goal, at least for standard fighters.

[Snowbluff]

The Ultimate Combat errata from back in August just lets you do what everyone was houseruling anyway - letting you use a single full-round action to both cast a ranged spell and full-attack. Looked at it. Level 11? Wow, that's pretty terrible consider most people play Magi to full attack with spells, and most people play archers to make a bunch o' attacks, and this makes multi hit spells like Scorching Ray worse, so this archetype sucks. :l


In the original printing you needed a full-attack action to use Ranged Spellstrike, which kept you from actually casting the spell.

I have no how bad the wording can be with the specificity rules to make it now work. o.0

[Molosse]

Looked at it. Level 11? Wow, that's pretty terrible consider most people play Magi to full attack with spells, and most people play archers to make a bunch o' attacks, and this makes multi hit spells like Scorching Ray worse, so this archetype sucks. :l

Myrmidarch is meant to give the option to push into ranged combat, it's not meant to be the focus of the archetype, instead the Myrm is meant to be a more "Fighter"esque Magus. However the Eldritch Archer Magus Archetype from Hero's of the Streets is a dedicated ranged attacker, grabbing Ranged Weapon Bond, Ranged Spell Combat and Ranged Spellstrike all by level 2.

[Psyren]

What Molosse said - Myrmidarch is more of a "general fighter magus" than a "ranged magus," even though it held that crown pretty exclusively until EA was published.

It did get two useful "bow magus" arcana though - one to let you change a touch spell to a ranged one, and one to let you change a spell's range to the range of your arrow. Combine those two and you can rain Frigid Touch and Scorching Ray arrows from 400ft. away etc.

[Snowbluff]

Eldritch Archer? Yeah, ranged spell combat sounds a lot more functional. I understand the myrmicrap is supposed to be more fightery, but that in no way explains the travesty of its features.

[squiggit]

Eldritch Archer? Yeah, ranged spell combat sounds a lot more functional. I understand the myrmicrap is supposed to be more fightery, but that in no way explains the travesty of its features.

Here. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/eldritch-archer-magus-archetype) It helps a lot, but otherwise can agree about the myrmidarch, especially given that Eldritch Archer is a fairly new archetype. For the longest time the only way to do ranged magus was with the myrmidarch, which basically meant you never could even if you ignored the weird issues with the myrmidarch's wording.

[Snowbluff]

Here. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/eldritch-archer-magus-archetype) It helps a lot, but otherwise can agree about the myrmidarch, especially given that Eldritch Archer is a fairly new archetype. For the longest time the only way to do ranged magus was with the myrmidarch, which basically meant you never could even if you ignored the weird issues with the myrmidarch's wording.

Yeah, I looked it up. You just pretty much reiterated the point of the last several posts. Sorry. :smalltongue:

I mean, was Eldritch Archer so hard to make?

[Triskavanski]

I don't really see the Myminarch as terrabad as people say. Yeah, its doesn't function like base magus, but isn't that kinda the point of an archetype most of the time?


Would the Myminarch be so bad if it was a fighter archetype instead that lowered the bab to 2/3s but gave the fighter a little spell casting, more skills, high will saves, a few of the magus's class features?

[Psyren]

I don't really see the Myminarch as terrabad as people say. Yeah, its doesn't function like base magus, but isn't that kinda the point of an archetype most of the time?


Would the Myminarch be so bad if it was a fighter archetype instead that lowered the bab to 2/3s but gave the fighter a little spell casting, more skills, high will saves, a few of the magus's class features?

Everyone would be like "zomg best fightar ever!" Much like they were with the Gifted Blade. It's pretty amusing to think about actually :smallbiggrin:

[Triskavanski]

gifted blade?

[Snowbluff]

gifted blade?

Soulknife that gets powers.

[Molosse]

Yeah, I looked it up. You just pretty much reiterated the point of the last several posts. Sorry. :smalltongue:

I mean, was Eldritch Archer so hard to make?

No, but they weren't trying to make an Eldritch Archer equivalent, they were trying to make a Fighter Magus. You're confusing intent with failure of design.

[Snowbluff]

No, but they weren't trying to make an Eldritch Archer equivalent, they were trying to make a Fighter Magus. You're confusing intent with failure of design.

They failed either way. I don't care if they weren't trying, I care why they weren't trying. Seriously, after everyone complaining about wanting to do ranged spell combat, they couldn't like put in the five minutes of work it took any sooner?

[Molosse]

They failed either way. I don't care if they weren't trying, I care why they weren't trying. Seriously, after everyone complaining about wanting to do ranged spell combat, they couldn't like put in the five minutes of work it took any sooner?

I'm not really sure how Paizo does their production but I'm guessing it's not so open where they can throw in extra archetypes and the like in any book that takes their fancy. Maybe.

Anyway, I don't think they failed, they made a pretty damn good Fighter Magus and then later on they've made a pretty decent Archer Magus. Both have the ability to do ranged combat decently but the Eldritch Archer is focused while the Myrm allows for some wiggle room, especially since the author has claimed that the Myrm qualifies for both AWT and the feat that grants access to AWT's.

[Snowbluff]

I'm not really sure how Paizo does their production but I'm guessing it's not so open where they can throw in extra archetypes and the like in any book that takes their fancy. Maybe.Yeah, maybe they were just waiting to put it in something that didn't have a lot going on in, prioritizing the more involved archetypes instead. :l


Anyway, I don't think they failed, they made a pretty damn good Fighter Magus and then later on they've made a pretty decent Archer Magus. Both have the ability to do ranged combat decently but the Eldritch Archer is focused while the Myrm allows for some wiggle room, especially since the author has claimed that the Myrm qualifies for both AWT and the feat that grants access to AWT's.

Advanced Weapon Training? >.>

[Molosse]

Advanced Weapon Training? >.>

Aye. That'd be the one.

[Snowbluff]

Aye. That'd be the one.

Okay, here's what I'm going to do:

Forget that the Myrm exists, make an Eldritch using the magus for the martial profs, ranged spell combat because that's good in life.

And an Arcane Archer Druid in 3.5. (If you can get me a way for Druid 8 to get into AA in PF, that'd be cool).

[Molosse]

Okay, here's what I'm going to do:

Forget that the Myrm exists, make an Eldritch using the magus for the martial profs, ranged spell combat because that's good in life.

And an Arcane Archer Druid in 3.5. (If you can get me a way for Druid 8 to get into AA in PF, that'd be cool).

Rock on with the first and as for the second... I dunno, Nature Fang Druid 9/Empyreal Sorceror 1/Arcane Archer 10.

[Psyren]

I'm curious, why druid into AA specifically? Is there a druid spell you want to put on an arrow?

It might be easier to get the spell(s) you want onto an arcane chassis and AA that way.