Pathfinder 1E I have been asked to try this again

[Tequila Sunrise]

well I'm not sure what you mean about captain planet, the short answer is of 5 people total (1 will GM and 4 will play) I drive 3 of them to game including this would be DM... if I don't go the other 2 can not get to game location.

Gotcha. That's a tough sitch you're in. Have you suggested simply converting the Bo9S classes as a work-around to one of your problems? One of PF's selling points is backwards compatibility, after all. Also, what of those 3.5 work-arounds you mentioned? Surely most if not all of them could be applied to PF?

In any case, I'll stand by my original suggestion. It sounds like Ross is the only one who wants to go PF, so I suggest contacting everyone in the group to tell them that you'll give his campaign one session, on the off chance that this time PF won't drive you nuts. (Preferably without sounding like a dick.) If, as you say, the other players feel more or less the same, you'll likely get their support.

I don't know what happens if/when the group tells Ross "Gave it a shot, still hate PF." Is he obligated to run a campaign with a system everyone likes? Can he pass the torch to the next DM in line? Might he take it personally, and fracture your group further? In any case, I'd say the result is better than playing a game you truly can't stand.

Does anyone have any house rules suggestions to stop LF/QW??

Stop it completely? Not going to happen unless you're playing 4e, but you already know that.

3.x casters can be truly nerfed via dealing with the real problem: their spells. It's not as sexy a fix as "Let's go back to different xp tracks, and hope that nobody multiclasses," but I'm of the opinion that fixing spells is the only real way to get casters anywhere near balanced.

 

[Neonchameleon]

While I'm definitely not a fan of the Bo9S, that said, for those that claim to be its fans - always use the argument the it made fighters less boring. A martial adept is a separate class, that has martial capabilities, but in no way is a fighter.

And this is where everyone talks past each other. There are two meanings of the word "fighter" that are being used interchangeably and they aren't the same.

• A fighter is someone who focusses on armed and normally melee combat as their main skill and trade.
• A Fighter is a proper noun referring to a specific class - in other words either an implementation of the fighter archetype or a specific subset of fighters within the game universe

The Fighter is a very very boring implementation of the fighter archetype. It's one with minimal competence outside combat (rather than being a well rounded athlete as you'd expect) and where the best tactic in melee almost invariably involves walking up to an enemy and spamming the same attack rather than worrying much about things like tactics..

The Warblade might not be a Fighter but they are definitely a fighter - something covered by the archetype Fighters are supposed to reflect but don't do a good job of. Therefore warblades might not make Fighters more interesting but they are an interesting version of Fighters. That not all fighters are warblades is irrelevant.

If you want a martial class that is more interesting, not necessarily better, look at samurai,

No more interesting than the Fighter.

gunslinger,

Because that's really relevant for making melee combatants interesting.

some ranger archetypes (since PF ranger is better than 3x ranger)

Which ones? The ones I checked are all spam classes just as the fighter is.

just like Bo9S, PF offers far more interesting martial classes to play instead of a fighter.

Possibly - if you count the Synthesist Summoner and the Magus? Because other than the spellcasters, all the Pathfighter fighter options suffer the same core problems as the Fighter. Spam, spam, spammety spam. And little worry about tactics at any other level. To be interesting first a fighter should be competent (which means we need more skill points), and second they need to think about things like pacing themselves and have the options they have available changing as the fight goes on.

 

[TwoSix]

With the relative gonzo-ness of the setting and the description of numerous defined power groups, 13th Age would seem like a very good fit.

But since I imagine he has some concept in mind that's been inspired by his reading of the Pathfinder material, I doubt he'll be willing to switch, and he'll be unhappy even if he does.

My rule with 3.X/Pathfinder is to "embrace the crazy". Since spellcasters are overpowered, PLAY A SPELLCASTER. You don't grow into your full shenanigans until mid-high levels, and then you can just keep them in your back pocket until you need them. Then you get to watch the DM squirm as you present an option that can destroy his well-manicured plotline, but then you magnanimously decide not to do it. Then you get to watch as he runs the game, the both of you KNOWING you could change everything any time you want to.

Not that I've ever done that, of course. Ahem.

 

[gamerprinter]

And this is where everyone talks past each other. There are two meanings of the word "fighter" that are being used interchangeably and they aren't the same.

• A fighter is someone who focusses on armed and normally melee combat as their main skill and trade.
• A Fighter is a proper noun referring to a specific class - in other words either an implementation of the fighter archetype or a specific subset of fighters within the game universe

The Fighter is a very very boring implementation of the fighter archetype. It's one with minimal competence outside combat (rather than being a well rounded athlete as you'd expect) and where the best tactic in melee almost invariably involves walking up to an enemy and spamming the same attack rather than worrying much about things like tactics..

The Warblade might not be a Fighter but they are definitely a fighter - something covered by the archetype Fighters are supposed to reflect but don't do a good job of. Therefore warblades might not make Fighters more interesting but they are an interesting version of Fighters. That not all fighters are warblades is irrelevant.

This is an RPG forum, and D&D/PF is the subject matter - correct? With those specificities in mind, when one uses the word "fighter" it almost always means the character class called "fighter" and not to some general concept of martial operative. In a non-RPG context "fighter" can mean many possible things - someone who has never played D&D is not going to understand the context of "fighter", but most everyone here is.

Being that that's the case, why use incorrect terminology, ever? Not that all of us will be perfect in our definitions (what creates many misunderstandings and vagueries of online discourse), at least when speaking of specific character classes, we can all use the same words that are expected to share the same meaning.

In this case, "Fighter" would never refer to a general melee combatant or defines "martial character", if we mean that, we use those words. However when we use "fighter" it almost always means a specific player class. Why use an actual class specific name to mean something else on an RPG forum, ever? That makes no sense - and why I responded the way I did. I don't talk past anyone - I said, fighter, I mean fighter. Its the listening party that must be ducking their head to miss my point. I'm talking at them directly, not past them. Fighter is fighter, not some general melee guy. (For example, ranger is not a fighter, but is a martial character class.)

No more interesting than the Fighter.

I like Fighters too, and do consider them interesting, but the OP states how the Bo9S makes the fighter not boring - apparently some people think the the base 3x/PF fighter is boring (I don't share that believe), but in respect to the point of view of the OP, I was pointing out that there are other martial classes in 3x/PF other than fighter, and that perhaps they might find one of those classes less boring. I totally agree that the fighter is no less interesting than the samurai, nor any other class one might want to play.

Because that's really relevant for making melee combatants interesting.

I did not realize this thread or subject matter was limited to non-ranged combat only (because it isn't). Its about fighters and martial combat which includes but is not restricted to melee combat only. Me, I'm no fan of the gunslinger, (I don't really want guns in my campaigns) but as another martial class, it offers interesting ranged options for those looking for something different in a martial class. That's why it was mentioned

Which ones? The ones I checked are all spam classes just as the fighter is.

Sorry, SPAM classes - I don't know what that means...

Possibly - if you count the Synthesist Summoner and the Magus? Because other than the spellcasters, all the Pathfighter fighter options suffer the same core problems as the Fighter. Spam, spam, spammety spam. And little worry about tactics at any other level. To be interesting first a fighter should be competent (which means we need more skill points), and second they need to think about things like pacing themselves and have the options they have available changing as the fight goes on.

Regarding more skill points for fighter - I totally agree. Some of the fighter archetypes like mobile fighter (?) adds some concept of class features beyond the endless feat chain, which is the PF fighter's only 'strength'. And again the bolded text - I don't know how SPAM applies to the fighter in the context that you're using - I don't know what you mean by SPAM in this instance. I must use different vocabulary for the same concept.

And regarding the Summoner and Magus - I really like the magus, and absolutely detest the summoner, and though I haven't officially banned the summoner from my game, I let my players know, that I am no fan of the summoner... that said, I like or find interesting: some ranger archetypes, the basic PF paladin and some of the archetypes, I really love the magus (but I consider him somewhere between a half caster and full caster, so actually falls outside the definition of martial character - in my book), the basic samurai is OK, but add any of the Way of the Samurai archetypes and you've got something I am interested to play. I like these other martial classes because of the class options (things to do) other than use feats and beat someone over the head. Some of these classes have more skill points to spend (since you mentioned the lack of the fighters skill points - this must have some meaning, and add to the concept of "more interesting").

More interesting is relative to one's perception - I find these classes more interesting than fighter, perhaps you don't.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is an RPG forum, and D&D/PF is the subject matter - correct? With those specificities in mind, when one uses the word "fighter" it almost always means the character class called "fighter" and not to some general concept of martial operative. In a non-RPG context "fighter" can mean many possible things - someone who has never played D&D is not going to understand the context of "fighter", but most everyone here is.

Everyone who claims that the Book of 9 Swords makes fighters interesting is talking about the concept of a fighter rather than the fighter class as it exists in most editions of D&D. 4th being a notable exception. Otherwise their claims don't make sense. Objecting that their claims don't make sense when to them they do just wastes time. Objecting on these grounds is pointless.

This is actually a difference in philosophy and one about what classes mean - do they dictate the world or do they reflect it? Are Fighters called fighters because they are the class that was designed to represent fighters or do fighters do what they do because they are Fighters.

In this case, "Fighter" would never refer to a general melee combatant or defines "martial character", if we mean that, we use those words.

If you can convince the entire D&D community to accept this standard then fine. I don't think it will happen. Both definitions will be used - so you might as well be prepared for both.

Why use an actual class specific name to mean something else on an RPG forum, ever?

Because the class name was chosen to represent an archetype - and it's the archetype that people consider the important part. But this is irrelevant. People do this.

That makes no sense - and why I responded the way I did. I don't talk past anyone - I said, fighter, I mean fighter. Its the listening party that must be ducking their head to miss my point. I'm talking at them directly, not past them. Fighter is fighter, not some general melee guy.

And here you are flat incorrect. If they meant what you think they meant their argument makes no sense. Which means it must mean something else. You are misunderstanding their argument and replying to that. If you drop the prescriptivism and instead respond to the language as it is being used you stop talking past them.

I like Fighters too, and do consider them interesting, but the OP states how the Bo9S makes the fighter not boring - apparently some people think the the base 3x/PF fighter is boring (I don't share that believe), but in respect to the point of view of the OP, I was pointing out that there are other martial classes in 3x/PF other than fighter, and that perhaps they might find one of those classes less boring. I totally agree that the fighter is no less interesting than the samurai, nor any other class one might want to play.

In short none of them solve the problem. That the fighter is mechanically boring and does not reflect the concerns an actual flesh and blood fighter would worry about.

I did not realize this thread or subject matter was limited to non-ranged combat only (because it isn't).

We're talking about the Book of 9 Swords. The Book of 9 Swords has literally nothing for ranged combatants. Thus the restriction.

Sorry, SPAM classes - I don't know what that means...

Classes that always want to move up and attack using the same attack, charge and attack, or full attack. They want to always be hitting in the same way. If it's a trip fighter they want to always be tripping.

the basic samurai is OK, but add any of the Way of the Samurai archetypes and you've got something I am interested to play.

I like these other martial classes because of the class options (things to do) other than use feats and beat someone over the head.

Not really, looking at the Samurai class. It's use class abilities and beat someone over the head - with a few modifiers to the rolls here or there. And the Rite Publishing orders don't help except with things that are very setting specific.

Some of these classes have more skill points to spend (since you mentioned the lack of the fighters skill points - this must have some meaning, and add to the concept of "more interesting").

The skill point issue is merely an example of how the fighter class is not fit for purpose.

More interesting is relative to one's perception - I find these classes more interesting than fighter, perhaps you don't.

If we're talking about someone who finds the Book of 9 Swords classes interesting they are looking for a changing and interesting list of options in play - Pathfinder feats and features tend to fail hard here. It's not about concept, it's about execution and a specific form of execution.

 

[gamerprinter]

Everyone who claims that the Book of 9 Swords makes fighters interesting is talking about the concept of a fighter rather than the fighter class as it exists in most editions of D&D. 4th being a notable exception. Otherwise their claims don't make sense. Objecting that their claims don't make sense when to them they do just wastes time. Objecting on these grounds is pointless.

In my first response to this thread, I did, include "If you're saying you get a more powerful martial class, then yes, I agree with you." Just in case we were missing each other on definitions of "fighter" - I did consider the possibility that we were having a misunderstanding of the vocabulary being used. I was very specific on what I meant by "fighter", and why I had a problem with his explanation.

As an aside, when I say I hate the Bo9S, I think its really because I hate the wizard, and most caster classes (the concept just doesn't sync with me, somehow, I can't really explain), and IMO, the martial adept classes are martial classes that play like a caster - and I don't like casters. So I'm guessing that's what does it for me. I can't really be objective about it.

This is actually a difference in philosophy and one about what classes mean - do they dictate the world or do they reflect it? Are Fighters called fighters because they are the class that was designed to represent fighters or do fighters do what they do because they are Fighters.

I perfectly get the "chicken before the egg" issue, a fighter was named such to describe what he's supposed to be good at, whether that actually fits the concept of the word "fighter" best is really inconsequential. The word was assigned to a specific character class that has been in use for 40 years - that alone should give the benefit of the doubt that "fighter" in the context of D&D shouldn't be assigned to describe all non-casters, rather one specific class. Would you use the word "wizard" to describe any caster, such as a being used to describe a "cleric"?

If you can convince the entire D&D community to accept this standard then fine. I don't think it will happen. Both definitions will be used - so you might as well be prepared for both.

I think I'll just include what I mean, and what I think a given OP might mean in any response I give to this same train of thought, just as I did in my first post to this thread. I guess I am anal about using exact terminology in everything I say. Even if I'm talking to a child, I don't deliberately use 'small words' to mean what I am saying. To everyone, in all conversations (online and off) I always use exact terminology if I can. And when an issue appears that may be based on misunderstood terminology, I almost always clarify exactly what I mean. If I'm using the right words, and state the meaning of the words I say, I have to believe anyone reading understands my meaning, and shouldn't really twist it to mean something else - because I clarified.

And here you are flat incorrect. If they meant what you think they meant their argument makes no sense. Which means it must mean something else. You are misunderstanding their argument and replying to that. If you drop the prescriptivism and instead respond to the language as it is being used you stop talking past them.

I agree that their argument makes no sense, under the pretense of the word "fighter" being used in their explanation, and why I offered several "if this is what you mean instead" statements in my response, since I wasn't really sure they meant was what I meant, in the word "fighter". I was trying to find some common ground (be on the same page), so the issue could be discussed with reason. If I had not offered alternatives to my use of the "fighter" in my response, then you'd be perfectly right in pointing out my mistranslation of the words they are using.

Again, I did say, "if you you mean you get a more powerful martial class, then I agree with you". I said this just in case we were not in agreement with the word "fighter".

We're talking about the Book of 9 Swords. The Book of 9 Swords has literally nothing for ranged combatants. Thus the restriction.

I thought there was one, I had the Bo9S for about a month, before I gave it away to another group who wanted to learn about martial adepts (I don't remember for sure). Maybe not, but again, the entire OP was not exclusively about the Bo9S, just one part of the argument. So I wasn't limiting my discourse on melee combatants or martial adepts only - the rest of the post was regarding the whole of Pathfinder, and not just one 3x book mentioned in the discussion.

Classes that always want to move up and attack using the same attack, charge and attack, or full attack. They want to always be hitting in the same way. If it's a trip fighter they want to always be tripping.

Perhaps I play suboptimally, but I never reserve my attacks to only one kind - charge, spring attack, trip. I have a mix of combat feats and I use whatever seems optimal in combat at the time, which can vary with circumstance. Sometimes you're fighting in a static small area with no room to charge - what do you do then, not fight? That might seem a good time to trip.

Not really, looking at the Samurai class. It's use class abilities and beat someone over the head - with a few modifiers to the rolls here or there. And the Rite Publishing orders don't help except with things that are very setting specific.

I don't know, I think samurai resolve is for something other than "hit someone over the head".

That Rite Publishing release was designed for any low or high fantasy oriental setting, not for Kaidan specifically, though that is why it was created. Historically, samurai are archers not primarily katana wielders, so one of my favorite Way of the Samurai archetypes is for Yabusame, the original traditional archetype for samurai in Japanese history before the Edo Period. Right now without the archetype, a samurai can use a bow like any other character, but is not optimized for bow, so yabusame fixes that. The Kuge archetype is for those who want samurai skill monkeys, those with better educations and an emphasis on diplomacy - more skill points (6+INT), bonus skill focus feats, bonus to Knowledge checks, etc. Those who like the courtier concept for L5R, the kuge is the archetype for a samurai courtier (which Kaidan has no needs for since the imperial court is undead, who'd want to handle diplomacy there?!). The nitojutsu-sensei is the Pathfinderized "Miyamoto Musashi", the 2-weapon samurai, and more than that, its getting rid of the samurai dependence on a mount, more like a samurai built to explore dungeons.

Also, since you obviously don't have the supplement in question, you wouldn't know this, but only at the very beginning it the book states that "this was originally designed for use for the Kaidan setting of Japanese horror, but" and throughout the rest of the supplement the word and setting of Kaidan is never mentioned again. IMO, the PF samurai is an extremely limited on the concept of samurai, and I needed to fix that for use in any oriental game. The archetypes, traits, feats, samurai clan statblock rules are for any use of the samurai class in any setting, and not for Kaidan use only.

The best way to explain is that in my development of Kaidan, I need two different things, one being setting material, the other being Oriental Adventure type rules adapted for use in Pathfinder. All the adventures, setting guides, even the racial supplements are all strictly setting material, whereas both "Way of..." books (yakuza and samurai) belong to a more general Oriental Adventures rules material. Since PF doesn't have an official OA book - we're making that too.

If we're talking about someone who finds the Book of 9 Swords classes interesting they are looking for a changing and interesting list of options in play - Pathfinder feats and features tend to fail hard here. It's not about concept, it's about execution and a specific form of execution.

I don't know, I don't find this to be true, but its quite subjective I suppose, I imagine there are people who do think that. Maybe there is a better way to make a fighter, but from my point of view the Bo9S was not it. Though I am sure it is perfect for some.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

...I think its really because I hate the wizard, and most caster classes (the concept just doesn't sync with me, somehow, I can't really explain)...

Wow, playing D&D must be very frustrating for you, what with all those wizards (and others magical types) running amok!

I perfectly get the "chicken before the egg" issue, a fighter was named such to describe what he's supposed to be good at, whether that actually fits the concept of the word "fighter" best is really inconsequential. The word was assigned to a specific character class that has been in use for 40 years - that alone should give the benefit of the doubt that "fighter" in the context of D&D shouldn't be assigned to describe all non-casters, rather one specific class. Would you use the word "wizard" to describe any caster, such as a being used to describe a "cleric"?

It's funny, 'caster' is a short, simple, and accepted word to describe spell-using classes. But 3.x has no comparable word for warrior-types. In 2e you can say 'warrior' to encompass all those classes, but in 3.x someone's sure to think you're referring to the NPC class. Similarly in 4e you can use 'warrior,' though the distinction between warriors and casters isn't terribly relevant in mechanical discussions.

Anywho, in 3.x discussions I usually try to use 'warrior-type,' 'fighter-type,' 'muggle,' 'melee dude,' or whatnot. But sometimes I forget, and simply use 'fighter' to describe all fighter-type classes. And I don't expect others to be exact in their terminology, because it's just not a reasonable expectation. Linear Fighter Quadratic Wizard, after all.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

When I say fighter I mean character who's concept would fit into fighter class in the core game.

Example: If I play a core D&D game only 3e and I say I want to play a soldier with a sword shield and chain I would play a fighter... If I play that it will be boreing however if that is my concept that is what I'm stuck with.
If I play the exact same concept with everything allowed and I take warblade and wield the same equipment and RP the same personality I have interesting choices every round.
If I play in 4e I have a lot more choices every level (and multi builds) and can still be a fighter...

 

[Halivar]

Obviously, the only way to cut this gordian knot is to trim it all back to four classes. Fighter is fighter is fighter!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Obviously, the only way to cut this gordian knot is to trim it all back to four classes. Fighter is fighter is fighter!

ok we will rename warlord fighter and rename warlock wizard that could work...