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

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

 

[Shasarak]

A fighter in a less "crunchy" game is surrounded by three opponents who are trying to grab him. The player controlling the fighter looks at the GM and says, "I want to spin around with my sword held outward and try to strike all of the opponents surrounding me. They are crowding in on me, so they would have a hard time not being hit." The DM thinks about it and says,"O.K., that makes sense. It'll be harder to hit the opponents, because you are spinning and not aiming. Take a -5 penalty on each roll."

Yeah, sometimes I miss the days where you can just tell the DM that you are stabbing the Fool in the eye to get an insta-kill without having to go through the slog of peeling off his hit points the old fashioned way.

 

[Shasarak]

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?

Because a shield adds to your AC and neither breath weapons nor fireballs target your AC.

Spoiler

View attachment 95465

 

[Charlaquin]

Because a shield adds to your AC and neither breath weapons nor fireballs target your AC.

Sure, but that doesn’t explain why a shield adds to your AC but not to your Reflex. Cover adds to your Reflex, why not shields?

 

[Tranquilis]

I disagree. In fact, I can say with relative certainty that, at most tables, delineated abilities only increase player choice at creation and serve to restrict player choice during play. I'll give you an example.

A fighter in a less "crunchy" game is surrounded by three opponents who are trying to grab him. The player controlling the fighter looks at the GM and says, "I want to spin around with my sword held outward and try to strike all of the opponents surrounding me. They are crowding in on me, so they would have a hard time not being hit." The DM thinks about it and says,"O.K., that makes sense. It'll be harder to hit the opponents, because you are spinning and not aiming. Take a -5 penalty on each roll."

In a more crunchy game, the DM is more likely to say, "That sounds like a Whirlwind attack. Did you take that feat? If not, you can't do that." Now a more flexible DM might allow someone to try a whirlwind attack untrained with penalties, but then runs the risk of irritating the player who took that feat, as it might be seen as devaluing that feat choice (if anyone can do it, the feat just becomes about bonuses). I've actually seen this happen at the table in a PFS game.

You see, by delineating these choices in the rules, you add to your choices during character creation. But in many circumstances, you've now closed off the other actions you didn't take feats for during play. It's the difference between a board game and a role playing game. In an ideal (meaning theoretical) board game, all actions are prescribed precisely by the rules. In an ideal RPG, all actions are possible, with the rules determining the results. The middle generation of RPGs (3.5, et al.) became more like board games ( I'd argue because of a fear of bad DMs restricting player agency and also the desire to minimize "arbitrary" decisions at the table... but that's another argument). This has somewhat trained many DMs and players to think of RPGs as pseudo-board games (especially in combat), with only those actions expressly permitted as being allowed. AD&D had rules to describe the results of actions; modern RPGs of the same lineage have rules to explain what *can* be done (look at the action economy rules, with bonus actions, reactions, etc...). Pathfinder 1 was firmly in that mold (and less so than 5e is). PF2 appears to have the same underlying rationale...

Preach on!! Less "ruled" options, and more imagination, please.

 

[Eirikrautha]

Yeah, sometimes I miss the days where you can just tell the DM that you are stabbing the Fool in the eye to get an insta-kill without having to go through the slog of peeling off his hit points the old fashioned way.

Hopefully, the first PF2 monster compendium will contain a stat block for Straw Dogs, since you seem fond of them.

P.S. As per AD&D PH - Incapacitated creatures may be killed at the rate of one per round (no pesky hp need be peeled)...

 

[Shasarak]

Hopefully, the first PF2 monster compendium will contain a stat block for Straw Dogs, since you seem fond of them.

P.S. As per AD&D PH - Incapacitated creatures may be killed at the rate of one per round (no pesky hp need be peeled)...

It is amusing that you had to find a "rule" to describe a narrative attack. I guess you must be more used to "crunchy" games.

 

[houser2112]

Preach on!! Less "ruled" options, and more imagination, please.

It's ok if you like that style of game. Lo and behold, there is a game just for you called Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition. I hear its mantra is "Rulings, not rules". Why you want to turn Pathfinder into 5E when you already have 5E and all the OSR systems that cater to that style is beyond me. As another poster said:

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.

 

[Arilyn]

Preach on!! Less "ruled" options, and more imagination, please.

Ahh, but even 5e is pretty crunchy. If you really want less rules, more imagination, you should be looking at games like Heroquest by Robin D. Laws or Barbarians of Lemuria. These are examples of games that actually fit the parameters of "rules light". 5e's got plenty of rules, or we wouldn't see so many discussions on the forum about what specific spells or feats do. And even back in the day,with ADnD and 2e, there was plenty of warnings in both game books to be very very careful about changing rules, lest the whole balance of the game come tumbling upon you. Sure PF is crunchier than 5e, but arguing about "rulings not rules" in any DnD game, except original (mostly cause they were incomprehensible) doesn't actually bear up.

 

[Shasarak]

Sure, but that doesn’t explain why a shield adds to your AC but not to your Reflex. Cover adds to your Reflex, why not shields?

Maybe you can provide that feedback during the playtest?

 

[Charlaquin]

Maybe you can provide that feedback during the playtest?

I will, if after playing with the rules as written I feel like shields could use a bit of a boost.