Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Preview #2: Fighter

[Nikosandros]

I think they kept the save progression from the Beta (Fort +9, Ref +4, Will +4 (-1 for a 8 WIS) ).

Well, it's the same progression as D&D and it wasn't changed in alpha or beta.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I wonder what the philosophy behind keeping iterative attacks was...and how those things are going to be put to use given that they usually can't actually hit the things the characters are facing...

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Well, it's the same progression as D&D and it wasn't changed in alpha or beta.

I referenced the Beta only because I'm sitting at my computer and I had it available as a PDF. The 3.5 PHB was across the room on a shelf. Sorry.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I wonder what the philosophy behind keeping iterative attacks was...and how those things are going to be put to use given that they usually can't actually hit the things the characters are facing...

The impetus behind keeping them is almost certainly "compatibility." A system like Wulf Ratbane's would be better, but would probably be seen as too incompatible. (I personally don't think Wulf's system would be any harder to handle on the fly than incorporating things like Vital Strike, but I'm not making the decisions. Wulf's system is also statistically much more robust than the Vital Strike tree.)

As the player of a 17th-level melee brute under Pathfinder Beta, I can say that Vital Strike does make my last iterative attack useful (in that it gives me something to swap on for 3d6 more damage on each of my other attacks). So I guess if that's your only metric, it succeeds.

 

[Nikosandros]

I referenced the Beta only because I'm sitting at my computer and I had it available as a PDF. The 3.5 PHB was across the room on a shelf. Sorry.

I guess that I just assumed that everyone is as sick as me and knows the formula to calculate the saves by heart...

 

[Hjorimir]

Pathfinder seems more like a house-ruled 3.5 system rather than a modernized revision (or 3.75 as some had called it). I look at that fighter and find I have zero desire to play. It looks...clunky. Just my 2 cp.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The impetus behind keeping them is almost certainly "compatibility." A system like Wulf Ratbane's would be better, but would probably be seen as too incompatible. (I personally don't think Wulf's system would be any harder to handle on the fly than incorporating things like Vital Strike, but I'm not making the decisions. Wulf's system is also statistically much more robust than the Vital Strike tree.)

As the player of a 17th-level melee brute under Pathfinder Beta, I can say that Vital Strike does make my last iterative attack useful (in that it gives me something to swap on for 3d6 more damage on each of my other attacks). So I guess if that's your only metric, it succeeds.

Lame reason, but if they give me something to do with them, I can maybe forgive it for being well-intentioned. Most of the time those things are just wasted space on a character sheet.

 

[Betote]

I wonder what the philosophy behind keeping iterative attacks was...and how those things are going to be put to use given that they usually can't actually hit the things the characters are facing...

Iterative attacks are there because if you use PFRPG with a 3.5 module, you'll want to know where that +23/+18/+13 comes from, and because, believe it or not, some people actually liked iterative attacks (I know our group does). But, if you don't like them, they've given you a way out via the Vital Strike feat chain, which lets you give up some of your iterative attacks to gain a damage bonus.

Do you want to keep iterative attacks as they are? Ban VS. Do you want them to go away? Give every character the benefits of VS for free, and mandatory. Do you want a middle ground? Keep them as feats.

That's the beauty of 3.x: Options, not restrictions. And it works at both sides of the DM screen

 

[Remathilis]

The impetus behind keeping them is almost certainly "compatibility." A system like Wulf Ratbane's would be better, but would probably be seen as too incompatible. (I personally don't think Wulf's system would be any harder to handle on the fly than incorporating things like Vital Strike, but I'm not making the decisions. Wulf's system is also statistically much more robust than the Vital Strike tree.)

Here is the problem Pathfinder found itself in IMHO.

Compatibility and Innovation are a slide-scale. The further from Compatible you move, the further you can move toward innovation. Pathfinder was forced to hover somewhere in the middle; it needed to keep the underlying math problems (iterative attacks, save progressions, etc) to keep it compatible with other 3.5 material, which limits its ability to "fix" such problems as flurry of misses and "roll a 20" saves. At best, you create some patch (Vital Strike). At worst, it ignores it.

I would have much preferred a SAGA like approach which irons out bab/save/defense math, allows some rebalancing of classes without adherence to the 3.5 progressions, and fixes spells and such to keep the classes viable WITHOUT going with the 4e system.

If it hovers too close to "compatible", it ends up just being a fancy-house rule document. If it goes to close to innovative, it stops being "3.5+" and starts becoming its own system (which loses its original purpose; being the successor to the 3.5 core books).

I'd have preferred the latter.

 

[Scott DeWar]

I would have to respectfull dissagree with the above poster as I have played several sessions since that post was made. pathfinder has placed a rather great degree of innovation without sacrficeing much in compatability from 'big mama' 3.5. the beefingup of the classes was very much worth the enjoyment of spell casters, martial types and skill monkies, all.

The math needed to keep the iterive attacks is quite simple and even better if the information is written up as part of the chaaracter sheet.