Pathfinder 2E Fighter Class Preview For Pathfinder 2nd Edition!

There is precious little as to what a fighter can do *outside* of combat...

 

[Eirikrautha]

The only thing an RPG needs in order for all actions to be possible is a robust, but ideally easy to use set of core rules that the GM can use to adjudicate the results of the actions the players describe. Giving players codified options of things they can do using a more specific set of rules, such as a spell or a combat maneuver, does not prevent other players from performing actions with similar intended results using the core rules of the game. Just because the Battlemaster in 5e has a disarm maneuver doesn’t mean only Battlemasters can disarm people. Just because the Rogue has Sneak Attack doesn’t mean only Rogues can attack people’s weak points from a hidden position. People seem to draw these weird arbitrary lines where it’s ok for characters other than the Ranger to follow tracks, but for some reason if a Feat called “Whirlwind Attack” exists, nobody who doesn’t have it is allowed to spin around in a circle when they attack. It’s bizarre.

Ideally, that would be how it worked. But both organizationally and mechanically, it's not. I've benn at PFS tables at Cons where players were told outright, "You don't have X feat, so you can't do that." Maybe those GMs were "doing it wrong." But I've watched it happen, and I don't think its that rare. It becomes the expectation that, if a mechanical option is available that it will become the preferred method of doing that thing.

Your own examples support this. If "attack people’s weak points from a hidden position" is codified in the game rules as "do more damage" then only a Rogue gets sneak attack damage. If the game is balanced around the chance a Battlemaster has to disarm, then either you trivialize the BM's ability by giving everyone else the same chance to succeed, or the game mechanics numerically "persuade" others not to try because the numbers mean they have a radically lower chance of success (this was one serious problem with PF1's skill system). Either way, the build choices reduce the *viable* choices.

Of course, this is necessary in any RPG. The question is the extent. And that circles back around to my original point. The OP could tell very quickly whether the new PF would fit his balance of where player choice occurs,

 

[Dungeonosophy]

A newbie question: why doesn't a shield help against breath weapons and fireballs, even at 1st level, whether I'm a Fighter or not?

 

[Charlaquin]

Ideally, that would be how it worked. But both organizationally and mechanically, it's not. I've benn at PFS tables at Cons where players were told outright, "You don't have X feat, so you can't do that." Maybe those GMs were "doing it wrong." But I've watched it happen, and I don't think its that rare. It becomes the expectation that, if a mechanical option is available that it will become the preferred method of doing that thing.

I’m not interested in designing games around “bad DM proofing” them. I’d much rather the designers assume DM competence, and then the community teach DMs to do it well than for the designers to restrict themselves because someone somewhere might handle it less than ideally.

Your own examples support this. If "attack people’s weak points from a hidden position" is codified in the game rules as "do more damage" then only a Rogue gets sneak attack damage.

It’s not. The Rogue’s Sneak Attack feature is codified as “do more damage when you attack someone’s weak points from a hidden position.” This is an example of a really well designed maneuver because rather than allowing the character to do something specific (and in some DMs minds, disallowing other characters from doing it), it gives them a unique benefit when they do something that anyone can do. Ideally, this is how all maneuvers, feats, etc. should be designed. This is why 4e’s Hammer Hands (an at-will stance that lets you shove an enemy 5 feet and then move into the space you shoved them out of whenever you hit with a melee attack while in the stance) is a better-designed Power than Tide of Iron (an at-will Attack that does the sake shove-and-shift effect on a hit), despite having nearly identical effects.

If the game is balanced around the chance a Battlemaster has to disarm, then either you trivialize the BM's ability by giving everyone else the same chance to succeed, or the game mechanics numerically "persuade" others not to try because the numbers mean they have a radically lower chance of success (this was one serious problem with PF1's skill system). Either way, the build choices reduce the *viable* choices.

This problem doesn’t go away in a streamlined system. If you let a player’s described action in combat do something other than the system-prescribed effects of an attack, and the result is better than a normal attack, you trivialize normal attacks. If the result is worse than an attack, the game mechanics “persuade” other players not to try. This was part of the reason for the shift towards “front loaded” maneuvers in the first place - players wanted to be able to do cool things without having to rely on DM adjudication either invalidating normal attacks or making cool improvised options not worthwhile. This is just something you kind of have to accept as part of roleplaying games. DM-adjudicated results are always going to run the risk of not being perfectly numerically balanced witn the rest of the system. The inclusion or exclusion of codified maneuvers doesn’t change this fact either way.

Of course, this is necessary in any RPG. The question is the extent. And that circles back around to my original point. The OP could tell very quickly whether the new PF would fit his balance of where player choice occurs,

Sure, but my point was they should have known that from the word “Pathfinder” in the title. Anyone who came into PF2 hoping it would be anything short of a crunchy, “front-loaded” system was setting themselves up for disappointment. Paizo knows their niche, and while they may be trying to streamline the complexity of the new system, they know that any significant loss of mechanical depth, particularly in terms of character building options, is going to lose their core audience’s interest.

 

[Charlaquin]

A newbie question: why doesn't a shield help against breath weapons and fireballs, even at 1st level, whether I'm a Fighter or not?

That is an excellent question. I personally think it should, especially since you have to spend an action to raise your shield now.

 

[Arakasius]

Most tables I've played at operate nothing like Critical Role. How you can leap from scripted streaming shows to "general community" is beyond me.

Critical Role is a show that is bringing a lot of new people to the game. They're likely to emulate the playstyle shown within. There is tons of other streams out there running 5e in a very similar way now. I don't think you can discount the effect that that show has on the game and how many people emulate it in their playing. And Mercer is actually a fairly strict rules DM compared to most people I know.

 

[mellored]

There is precious little as to what a fighter can do *outside* of combat...

It seems like everyone get's class feats, which are for combat, and skill feats and ancestor feats, which seem like they fill the non-combat part of things.

 

[Charlaquin]

It seems like everyone get's class feats, which are for combat, and skill feats and ancestor feats, which seem like they fill the non-combat part of things.

From what’s been previewed, there are Class Feats, which you get every even-numbered level, Ancestry Feats, which you get at 1st level and certain odd-numbered levels, and General Feats, which you get at odd-numbered levels where you don’t get an Ancestry Feat. Skill Feats are a sub-category of General Feats, so you can take those any time you get a General Feat. There may be some levels where you have to take a Skill Feat, but that’s not entirely clear. Also, at odd-numbered levels, you get Skill Increases, allowing you to increase your Proficiency with a limited number of Skills. Rogues get to do this every level.

So yeah, even if all Fighter Class Feats are combat-related, at least half of your Feats will still be able to get you things not directly related to combat, if you want them to.

 

[Ancalagon]

So you’re just going to ignore the part where I said “after level 3” then?

More like forget :/

Anyway, to address that more fully - There is definitely more in PF than 5e for that... but at the same time, because of feat chains etc, you need to plan your character in advance. So does "after level 3" really "exist"? Since you'll have made those choices already at low level...

 

[Ancalagon]

It seems like everyone get's class feats, which are for combat, and skill feats and ancestor feats, which seem like they fill the non-combat part of things.

You aren't the first to point it out, but this is good news. It's good when the fighter player can be more engaged

 

[Charlaquin]

More like forget :/

Anyway, to address that more fully - There is definitely more in PF than 5e for that... but at the same time, because of feat chains etc, you need to plan your character in advance. So does "after level 3" really "exist"? Since you'll have made those choices already at low level...

Now on that, I fully agree. That’s a big part of why I play 5e currently. My hope is that PF2 will rectify that, providing a game that offers plenty of build choices throughout a character’s careeer that are not so interdependent as to require you to plan the build ahead of time.

I mean, there is already a system that provides that. But hopefully PF2 will provide one that doesn’t carry the stigma 4e does.