Pathfinder 2E We need a damage on a miss forum again!!

[Sunseeker]

Despite the Three Pillars concept WotC is still trying to peddle, in actual practice combat takes up far more than a third of the game.

And most classes take to the combat pillar quite well.

So I would argue it evens things out if most classes dedicate more resources to the Combat Pillar, and the Combat Pillar takes up more of the pie.

You really don't want to design classes (or even optimize in this manner) where you do nothing during certain parts of the game. Doing less? Doing very specific things during that time? That's fine. I have no problem with the fighter being limited in their social and exploration skills. What I DO have a problem with is them being limited in those areas, but then as soon as they start performing the incredible in the ONE AREA of expertise, they get shot down as implausible.

Bounded accuracy makes the bar for being "good in combat" quite low. And several classes outperform fighters quite regularly. So absolutely noone, and I mean NOONE [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] gets to tell me that the Fighter is the best at what they do, because they aren't, across multiple editions they aren't.

 

[CapnZapp]

Having a class devoted to entirely 1 pillar of the game means that you're going to miss out on 2/3rds of the game.

I may not be the best at the maths, but I'm fairly certain that 2/3rds of the game is more than 1/3rd.

I'm fairly certain that the notion that all three pillars are equal is balderdash. In the words of Angry GM:

Let’s be honest: D&D is a combat focused game. You can’t argue that. And you’d be stupid to try. You can stay away from combat if you want, but you can’t pretend it isn’t designed around a pretty damned cool combat engine. And the basic structure of the game is a string of mostly action-oriented encounters (including combats) that ultimately resolve a problem or achieve a goal.

I'm not the best at the maths either, but I don't need to be - being focused on combat means you're king most of the time, and does decently most of the time in-between fights. You're after all an equal when it comes to planning, where to go next, how to approach this or that problem.

Only during key checks (persuade the princess, find the death trap, locate the lost gardens of Nangalore) do you take a back seat, but that's okay, since your pillar involves hundred of die rolls, theirs two or three or a dozen tops.

"Miss out on 2/3rds of the game" - nothing could be further from the truth. Except in your campaign perhaps.

 

[Arakasius]

Well as others said already, they're not number 1 in damage and its really not worth giving up as much as they do to have such limited gameplay. Just play a class that can out damage the fighter and actually have options and fun things to do. When all you can ever do is hit things it gets limiting.

 

[Charlaquin]

And most classes take to the combat pillar quite well.

So I would argue it evens things out if most classes dedicate more resources to the Combat Pillar, and the Combat Pillar takes up more of the pie.

You really don't want to design classes (or even optimize in this manner) where you do nothing during certain parts of the game. Doing less? Doing very specific things during that time? That's fine. I have no problem with the fighter being limited in their social and exploration skills. What I DO have a problem with is them being limited in those areas, but then as soon as they start performing the incredible in the ONE AREA of expertise, they get shot down as implausible.

Bounded accuracy makes the bar for being "good in combat" quite low. And several classes outperform fighters quite regularly. So absolutely noone, and I mean NOONE [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] gets to tell me that the Fighter is the best at what they do, because they aren't, across multiple editions they aren't.

Gotcha. Now that, I agree with.

 

[CapnZapp]

Well as others said already, they're not number 1 in damage and its really not worth giving up as much as they do to have such limited gameplay. Just play a class that can out damage the fighter and actually have options and fun things to do. When all you can ever do is hit things it gets limiting.

Nah, it's okay to have a straightforward class which "just" hits things.

There are more complex classes for those of us that wants and needs it.

The fighter, meanwhile, is a huge improvement over 3E since it actually remains relevant. It keeps offering a fun contribution to combat very high up in the levels (although, by really high level any mundane class gets limited compared to magic)

 

[CapnZapp]

And most classes take to the combat pillar quite well.

So I would argue it evens things out if most classes dedicate more resources to the Combat Pillar, and the Combat Pillar takes up more of the pie.

You really don't want to design classes (or even optimize in this manner) where you do nothing during certain parts of the game. Doing less? Doing very specific things during that time? That's fine. I have no problem with the fighter being limited in their social and exploration skills. What I DO have a problem with is them being limited in those areas, but then as soon as they start performing the incredible in the ONE AREA of expertise, they get shot down as implausible.

Bounded accuracy makes the bar for being "good in combat" quite low. And several classes outperform fighters quite regularly. So absolutely noone, and I mean NOONE [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] gets to tell me that the Fighter is the best at what they do, because they aren't, across multiple editions they aren't.

Lol

If you want me to say the Fighter isn't the best, I'll readily admit it.

My point is: combat is by far the biggest pillar, maybe nor in every game, but in enough games that I'm okay with a straightforward class with abilities only for that pillar.

You're right it isn't always the DPR king, but it's never far away.

In summary, it's not the class that needs the most help. Or even third, or fifth. In fact, except for battlemaster maneuvers which should have been tiered I'm generally pleased with the class.

If nothing else, consider it not a class of its own, but an excellent platform for multi-classing two or five levels for your existing character. In 5e the fighter class is excellent MC material. Almost every character gets excellent use out of Action Surge

I don't see a need to give fighters abilities in the explore and social pillars at all. Start as ranger or bard and switch over to fighter and you're all set.

Or even start with a Fighter and pick a rich or powerful background - if people have to or want to listen to you, you don't need any actual good skill scores!

 

[Charlaquin]

Classes should work on their own without having to rely on level-by-level multiclassing. Frankly, I think the existence of that style of multiclassing hams the game because it creates an excuse not to design individual Classes better.

 

[CapnZapp]

Classes should work on their own without having to rely on level-by-level multiclassing. Frankly, I think the existence of that style of multiclassing hams the game because it creates an excuse not to design individual Classes better.

Again, I don't think the Fighter is created badly for not being great at social or exploration.

It's already much more versatile than any edition before it, thanks to backgrounds. It can already be good at social or exploration, just not excellent. In many games that's good enough - social and exploration often being minor segments where no specialized abilities are really necessary.

And as I said, in combat-light social-heavy scenarios, it's okay for the fighter to feel out of place, and that you maybe shouldn't play one unless you're up for a challenge. (In many groups, you own personal ability to role-play a character is enough to carry a social game)

Likewise for exploring.

It's really only in combat you can't tell on your abilities as a player. Unless your DM is okay with you defeating her in actual combat you need numbers on the paper.

If you want every class to offer a build for every pillar, no thanks. As long as every class can be built for the combat pillar, I'm good.

 

[CubicsRube]

I have a rule I'm introducing in my next game. In social and knowledge rolls, if you have a relevant background or your main class (cant use multiple classes for the benefit), then you can gain advantage on the roll.

It makes sense to me that your training would give you insight into knowledge about topics and also in relating to (or threatening) people of the same background.

This makes fighters much more useful out side of combat as they are one of the classeds that relate most to the common man. Militrary? Guards? Mercenaries? Body guards? Ex soldiers?

It doesn't negate skill monkeys and social characters, but its a simple way to try and add a bit of a niche to most classes outside of combat.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Besides, the 5E Fighter is already much more versatile and flexible than any fighter before it.

The most flexible version of the least flexible class, by far? ;P I mean, apparently Cornu aspersum is the fastest species of snail in the world, at a blistering 1 m/hr.

The battlemaster in 5e is fine, but I wouldn’t call 5e fighters particularly versatile or fun to play. It’s just attack, bonus action attack for your entire career. It’s not very exciting. Bounded accuracy in fifth makes every class be able to contribute to skills outside combat, so the fighter is no different than any other class since the difference between two classes is only going to be a few points. (mostly the stat mod plus a couple more points from your 2 starting proficiencies) But that’s not due to anything from the class, the 5e Fighter is actually fairly limited, repetitive and dull.

Fun is subjective.
BA means that anyone can step up and contribute any time a check is called for, since most DCs are under 20, even if you have no proficiency and an 8 in the relevant stat, you can occasionally deliver a success. The fighter takes advantage of that, a lot.