We Need to Talk About the Fighter - Pathfinder 2e

[@shadeslydepaw2960]

I've played a bit of 1e with a fighter in the party, and watched the campaign transition to 2e mid-campaign, albeit roughly, so I'll share my own thoughts. I'm only about halfway through the video, but fighter was one of the worst classes in PF1e. The reason behind this is that the extra combat feats they get really didn't matter. Majority of the time, those feats are spent on "Feat Taxes," or terrible/unwanted feats to get to better feats, namely Dodge, Weapon Focus, and Combat Expertise. Fighter got an easier pass around them, but that's all it really got. And those +1 AC from those feats eventually mean nothing. Numbers scale wildly different in PF1e. A good example is a bard's inspire courage, which scaled upward to a +4 bonus throughout the levels, and even then it's still quite a small bonus at level 17. Abilities you weren't specialized in in PF1e were completely useless as they were too low, typically. The combat feats fighter's get don't do much compared to the rage a barbarian gets, or bane of inquisitor, or just the everything all 9th level casters get, who broke the game by their mere existence. Combat Flexibility in 2e on the otherhand is fantastic. Every feat can do something good and useful, so getting an extra 2 is phenomenal. With a fighter critting more, that is quite good, but what was stated is that critting more=more damage, therefore fighter does more damage than every other martial. In order to prove this, as stated in other comments, you have to prove that the more frequent crits is more powerful than the flat increase in barbarian rage damage, or the extra attacks a flurry ranger uses, or the rogue sneak attack, etc etc. What is stronger, attacking six times at practically no penalty every turn, or getting a crit every few turns? Watching the fighter transition from 1e to 2e was like night and day. They went from the chains that held us down to carrying the chains; well, a lack of chains. Everyone in the party was roughly on foot with each other in something. The only one who wasn't was our cleric, who was built quite poorly compared to what everyone else did, and they were still quite good. Along with the fighter in the party, we had a rogue, who, while they didn't quite crit as often, were still putting out very similar overall damage compared to our fighter. I don't think fighters are poorly designed. I think they have finally found a good niche to live in; just consistent damage compared to others. Coming from 1e, where I loathe to even look at fighters to being moderately excited to build one is great! tldr; you oversold the fighter's extra feats in 1e, and need to prove critting more outdamages other martials so much so that it is broken and needs to be fixed.

[@Redjordan]

yeah, PF1 Fighter was pretty bad untill advanced weapon trainding and advanced armor trtaining came around, but with that they are actually pretty good.

[@HenshinFanatic]

@@Redjordan Especially the options in Weapon Master's Handbook, Melee Tactics Toolbox, and Ranged Tactics Toolbox player's companions.

[@amberjones4067]

I've run some calculations myself on a spread sheet and, depending on the situation, the Barbarian can outperform the Fighter a lot of the time. Especially Giant Instinct Barbs. A Monk may do less damage but in a real combat they have the movement needed to get to enemies in fewer actions and can flurry at level 1. Plus, their strikes become magical (then silver, cold iron and adamantine) so they're more likely to exploit enemy weaknesses.

[@ericrobinson2611]

Agreed here. There are archetypes that do give bonuses to attack roll, but conditionally/that require you to use an ability (marshal and archer come to mind). These are all also typed bonuses so they won't stack. I really don't think this has anything to do with the Fighter class. The bigger issue is that +2 is just too much. I think Paizo would have been better off giving fighters a flat +1 circumstance bonus to attack with weapons in their weapon group. Then again, that also would mean no class got Legendary weapon proficiency.

[@upsidely]

I'm not big on 1e, but did listen to Glass Cannon Network's Giantslayer campaign. Jimmer, Skid's fighter seemed ridiculous. He was consistently the highest damage dealer in a lot of encounters.

[@Zarroc1733]

Honestly my group and I really like the fighter as it is. Our current party doesn’t have a fighter, but the previous party had one and they only crit slightly more often than the other players. +2 is a 10% increase and that was obvious. The other thing is the other players would often use abilities to get other bonuses to catch up or even get past the fighter. The swashbuckler for example crit almost as much as the fighter did. As for the archetype thing, I personally like that the archetypes don’t give bonuses to hit even without the fighter being involved. I’ve played too many systems where getting every numerical bonus available felt almost necessary. In 2e I feel the party can be far more diverse because there are no numerical boosts available as feats, or they are so few and have a really high opportunity cost, that players aren’t compelled to take them. So all in all I am happy that it’s a design space that will continue to be ignored.

[@Jason-ji8ql]

While I see a lot of where this argument is coming from, I feel there's an important aspect that's being overlooked. Accuracy is just as important as damage potential overall. Against a target with a slightly higher AC, the Fighter is more likely to land a hit, even if it's not a crit. Damage is damage, and if no one can hit the boss, then the boss isn't dying. I also feel like this is only a major issue at lower levels, because if players are taking advantage of using the system to lower a targets defenses, that means the party as a whole is succeeding.

[@lugh.i]

Good analysis and great video. Fighter getting a bump it's a design choice deeper than just trying to "correct" o "export" what the Fighter in 1E was. One of the main problems that 2E wanted to fix was the linear fighters, quadratic wizards problem in 1E. Back then, it didn't really mattered if the Fighter had 10 more feats than you and more precision if in turn 0-1, the wizard (and many other Tier 1 classes) could say "my Contingency triggers, all of these spells are already casted on my I cast this on turn 1 and I win... by myself... everything, onto the next trivialized encounter!". And this was true in exploration and in combat and social encounters. The +2 is highly efficient and effective but fighters CANNOT win encounters by themselves, magic classes now cannot do that either... most of the time, and that's great, more focus on team tactics and teamwork. I've GMed for many different classes in 2E, saw more as a player and I've played a fighter and a wizard up to 17-18th level and I gotta say, it's fine as it is. Fighters can do some stuff and hit more often, but other martials can do many other things besides damage which the fighter could never do. Also, some "builds" for the fighter require many feats which ask you to use 2 actions (I think the Fighter list has the highest 2-action feat count in the game too), which puts some control over action economy versus other classes which have some action-reducers built in (or feats to pull that off).

[@lugh.i]

All of the above kinda breaks with the Fighter/Druid Archetype cool awesome complicated combo, but yeah~ 🌚🌝

[@jeremynowak2800]

Never played PF2 but it sounds like the design choice is solid and gives a great class identity much like 4e d&d did for fighters. I'm just glad that some other fine people are showing the best clas some love and its not just play a spellcaster or suck syndrome of so many rpgs. UNITE MY FIGHTER BRETHREN!!!

[@kateslate3228]

This. It is OK for hallmark classes to be better in some aspects. Not everything should be the same flat line.

[@deityofcrystals]

the martial vs caster dillema only exists in dnd and dndlikes.

[@poke_onix9235]

The fighter can crit like, 10% more often at most. That's really good, yeah. But that's the point. It's powerful at what it does, but the rouge is really good at skills and overall versatility. How come nobody mentions that and calls that unbalanced? Every class has a place in a party set up, and that includes the fighter. So what it's best at what's it does? So what it crits often? That's the point and a part of the overall balance of the game. Idk, maybe it's just me but I don't feel like it's too overpowered, but just good at what it's meant to do. Limited in scope but good at one thing. And that's fine.

[@Athalwolf13]

The only problem some raise and I get is that Monk should have the same proficiency with unarmed fighting like a fighter. And if I am not mistaken, Ranger technically still does more DPR , though Fighters benefit from critical effects.

[@askaveng7911]

@@Athalwolf13 Monk probably should have some more support to unarmed attacks, but not the expert proficiency. It would just become Fighter+ then, because Monk has way better defenses and utility And yes, Ranger does about the same DPR as Fighter and Rogue, if you look at the numbers. I've compared the most optimized builds I could create in terms of damage in several different circumstances, and these three are usually no more than 10% away from each other. The rest of the classes (including Barbarian, which is usually referenced as "damage dealer") deal at least 30% less DPR. And this, actually, makes the Rogue class overpowered. Not only they are one of the three best damage dealers in the game, they also have insane amount of in-game versatility because of the skill feats and increases. On top of that, Rogue is the most versatile class in terms of building because of the Rackets

[@LetholdusKaspyr]

@@Athalwolf13 Fighters have the highest proficiency bonus, but classes like the Swashbuckler or the Monk, which are more specialized in a specific fighting style, can pull off fancier tricks. I think that's a fine balance.

[@Benjamin-zu6gh]

The problem is that what it does is way to broad. It’s fighting things. But lets take the ranger for example. It’s thing is focusing down a single enemy. So it’s way more narrow that the fighter. With that it should be better that the fighter while doing that specific thing. Or take the Barbarian he is good at hitting things. You pay for that with not being able to take concentrate actions while raging and a penalty to ac. Yet you don’t do any more damage than the fighter does anyway. (for example power attack at level 20: fighter 46,8 barbarian 44,7 damage on average) That is very problematic.

[@Benjamin-zu6gh]

@@Athalwolf13 A flurry ranger does more dpr. But pnly against your hunted prey and when you can use all your actions to attack(you don’t have to move). And if the enemy has resistances against your damage type your damage drops way more than the fighters.

[@GUST_87]

Honestly, the fighter as is I feel like is quite fine. For starters, as you said, fighters receive no class support for anything that has to do with non-combat activities, which means that they have to rely on the base amount of skill increases & skill feats any other class has access to for ALL of their out-of-combat activities, not to mention most fighters tend to invest in some skills for their combat application. It leaves the fighters out-of-combat options and versatility sorely lacking. How much this impacts them is impossible to say due to the variety of situations and scenarios in any given adventure, but can quickly be very noticeable if acrobatics or athletics aren't able to solve a skill check. I also feel like the gunslinger vs fighter comparison is quite poor, or is rather misleading. Because it's not fighter vs. gunslinger, its more ranged vs. melee weapons, and the damage difference. I honestly find it really strange that you have such an issue with one and not the other, simply because of the slight damage variation. Here's how I see it: Ranged weapons will, disregarding propulsive or thrown weapons, deal 4 to 7 less damage than melee weapons on hit as a campaign goes on. However, they also get a lot of benefits, the main one being how their action economy benefits from range. A fighter with a bow can, as soon as a fight starts, loose a double shot or similar ranged attacks against enemies, while a melee fighter has to spend time getting into range. This becomes 10x worse if you fight enemies that are hard or can't be reached, such as flying or wall-climbing enemies. If don't have a magic item, or a party member with a spell, or said item/spells are out of charges, melee fighters can be completely locked out of a fight. It also means you're further away from danger, and any big-brute like enemy has to spend more actions approaching you, giving you even more time to either move back or fire more shots. I see the bonus damage melees do as an incentive or reward for having to deal with all of these issues. Saying that ranged attackers have to "rely on critical hits" is just not accurate. Ranged weapons will just inherently deal less damage than melee, and losing 4 to 7 damage is nowhere near "pitiful", when enemy HP easily goes into the several hundreds. Losing 4 to 7 damage a hit, or 8 to 14 on a crit makes very little difference when a midlevel encounter can have enemies with around ~400 ish HP combined. Then you also have points like how dexterity improves reflex saves (even considering bulwark, you'll still be better if your class has mainstat DEX) or has more applications to the number of skills its based on. Carry capacity is always nice but characters that don't fight with big swords rarely need to carry something that heavy around. I feel like the gunslinger and fighter are very much in the same boat, the main difference between the classes being that gunslinger is meant to focus on one specific weapon group, while fighter is more of a "build-a-bear" style class. Gunslingers penalties to other weapons ultimately do not matter as nowhere have I ever seen a fighter willingly use a weapon they did not pick to make themselves scale faster in. These classes are, by design, strictly better than other classes when it comes to raw offensive combat numbers. Which is how it should be, as that is the main draw of the class. If someone picks a class, I think that person should be able to look at something they have, or can do, and look at all the other classes (or other party members), knowing that they excel at that thing. Whether that's a barbarians HP pool, a fighter/gunslingers to hit bonus, an alchemists insane alchemical versatility or a rogues skill, you should be able to excel and be better than everyone else. Whether that's in combat, or out of combat.

[@poke_onix9235]

Hey it's the funny meme guy himself here to lay down some TRUTH

[@Benjamin-zu6gh]

The barbarians bonus HP are barely able to offset the HP penalty while raging

[@lugh.i]

I must say, this is a magnificent comment section. *GUST comes and drops a nuclear bomb* OH, GREAT HEAVENS!!

[@GUST_87]

@@Benjamin-zu6gh Barbarian gets temp HP during raging. There is no HP penalty.

[@lindarkknight4044]

@@Benjamin-zu6gh You tap into your inner fury and begin raging. You gain a number of temporary Hit Points equal to your level plus your Constitution modifier. This frenzy lasts for 1 minute, until there are no enemies you can perceive, or until you fall unconscious, whichever comes first. You can't voluntarily stop raging. While you are raging: You deal 2 additional damage with melee Strikes. This additional damage is halved if your weapon or unarmed attack is agile. You take a -1 penalty to AC. You can't use actions with the concentrate trait unless they also have the rage trait. You can Seek while raging. After you stop raging, you lose any remaining temporary Hit Points from Rage, and you can't Rage again for 1 minute. No Hp loss just a -1 to ac.

[@Aw3som3-117]

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. First of all, I think regardless of whether the fighter had a +2 or not Paizo would still limit their design space around flat bonuses, and I applaud them for that. It takes real foresight to know what is and isn't appropriate for a given rules system, and I think they made the right choice with this one, personally. Anyway, that's beside the point. The main thing that I want to comment on is how the assumption going into it is that fighters are broken without doing any actual in-depth analysis on it. Yes, fighters hit more, and they also crit more. That is not to be understated: it is a *huge* advantage. They are the class that hits and crits. Buuuuut, Barbarians are the class that can take a hit and deal a lot of bonus damage. Clerics are the class that can heal. Bards are the class that buff their allies and control the battlefield. The list goes on. Every class is good at some things and not as good at others. What would need to be shown is that the +2 to hit is flat-out better than all the other classes bonuses and not just something that feels good. I'll be the first to admit hitting and criting a lot *feels* very good regardless of what else goes with it. It's the reason why I have a hard time having fun playing an alchemist. But that doesn't necessarily make it broken.

[@real_mereghost]

Pretty much this. A fighter fights. That's all the class does, so it is kinda expected for it to excel over the others. I still have nightmares with the poor D&D3 fighter that wasn't special in basically any way. =(

[@Argol228]

Yeah I am playing a Magus in a campaign we have a fighter. and as it stands. neither of us are really styanding above the other in combat. Getting that Crit with my Scythe+Gouging claw ends lives. the fighter has probably crit more then me but I have been able to do AoE damage and I don;t need to swap weapons to throw out a ranged attack thanks to ice beam (yes I know that isn't the name) Plus I took staff acrobat so I am more mobile around the field then the fighter and can do things like trip opponents twice my size and trip multiple. The fighter really is just "run up and hit and reposition for flank, occassionaly" Though he has been getting nerfed a lot due to critical fumble deck and getting exhausted XD

[@Benjamin-zu6gh]

Yes barbarians can take more hits than fighters but they take mor hits as well because of lower ac (penalty+no heavy armor). And they don’t really do more damage. +2 to hit and damage and +18 to damage pretty much cancel each other out while wielding a heavy weapon. Furthermore they can’t use any concentrate actions while raging.

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

@@Argol228 Plus, as a Magus you have much more control over what damage type(s) you deal. Enemy weaknesses are not something a fighter is particularly good at. Every class has situations that it excels in.

[@upsidely]

@@TheRulesLawyerRPG Hey look, it's Ronald! 👋

[@ttrpgplayer7939]

I normally am a huge fan of your videos. This video though kind of gives misleading information for people not familiar with Pathfinder 2e. I understand your point about Fighter's feeling too good but they are not "just better at Fighting". Also Fighter just has nothing to do with limiting archetypes. Feats that add numbers can quickly become "mandatory" and that is why they aren't there. For example every martial for the most part gets other things that make up for it... Fighter: Gets +2 to hit/crit Barbarian: Gets rage Monk: Flurry + Better Defense Ranger: Hunter's Edge Rogue: Sneak attack damage. etc... If any other class has +2 they would beat the Fighter by a landslide. I really think you should have at least compared this information. Is Fighter +2 statistically better than all these other bonuses? Maybe... IMO your main point should have been that even if a Fighter statistically did the same amount of average damage per encounter a Fighter probably still feel better because of the extra crit chance and hit chances. When playing a TTRPG the most important things is how players "feel". Also what really puts Fighters' over the time are when they use weapons that have the best crit specializations. Mainly Picks/Hammers/Flails. Really though I do think the game would have been better if they gave the Fighter a more interesting mechanic since the +2 can make them feel like they outclass the competition.

[@voinuppla]

I totally agree with the analysis, that a "better" mechanic would have been more interesting. And that giving other classes the +2 Bonus would break the Fighter. But that is not what Nonat is recommending, in fact he says that he has no idea how to fix this. In my point of view, the other Class features do not scale the same way as the +10% increased Crit-Chance of the fighter. The only exception being the Rogue precision Damage. => Rogues are broken in my opinion *g* That being said, I don't know how to "fix" this either :(

[@Landmassorussia]

15:28 Marshal, specifically inspiring marshal stance, does give you a bonus to attack rolls. +1, which while not a ton, is still a numeric bonus. Also, 2e fighters in my experience crit far less often than most 1e martials, since just about everyone who could would get a keen rapier, kukri, falchion, or whatever else lets you threaten a crit on a 15-20.

[@CreativeBotStudious]

I would have to disagree with a lot of the video. I love that the fighter class finally has their niche and they finally don't suck and can keep up with other classes at higher levels. They also seem very well built to versatility not needing that 18 strength like Barbarian or Champion (not that they really do either). I just think that every other class has a ton they do better than the fighter and this is something the fighter can do, but the fighter still has to rely on their party members for help. (Crits really don't help a ton in the long run.)

[@cornervermelho]

Fighters was always my favorite class, in whatever system I played since D&D 3.0. and we finally got some love. LET WE HAVE IT! as Always great video. Shout out from Brazil

[@sageofdoom1]

So honestly the design limitations put on place cuss of the fighter I feel like might make the system last longer because it keeps them from adding many bonuses to hit and keeps things tighter. Yes fighters are accurate but it seems like they deal less damage then the others who are offensive martals. Both barbarions and rangers add damage. So I've always seen it as accuracy vs damage

[@docopoper]

In Pathfinder 1 it was actually full casters that broke the system. I remember thinking to myself that the balance of homebrew mattered way less simply because full casters were already so brokenly powerful.

[@diegorodrigues9528]

Yep, same in 5e, you can just say fuck balance.

[@lugh.i]

My thoughts exactly, linear fighters, quadratic wizards.

[@rpgchronicler]

For me in pf2e exists if you only care about martials. Casters got the nerf hammer for the sake of balance from my perspective and is not worth playing as such.

[@lugh.i]

@@rpgchronicler Absolutely disagree with that vision, but I respect it.

[@docopoper]

@@rpgchronicler I'm really enjoying playing a caster in pf2e. It's nice to not feel overpowered, and giving out buffs like haste feels really good. As a caster you still get all sorts of abilities that are simply not possible without magic.

[@arlaxazure486]

I really appreciate this video, Nonat! I want to chip in my own 2 cents from my own experience with my group. Fighters are strong because they HAVE to be strong. Every other class, including the Barbarian, has access to magic-like powers. Fighters do not. They are the least bit magical. And if we're going by damage numbers, a wizard will outperform the fighter in the event 9 low-level goblins group up in fireball range. The Fighter can definitely crit, but they're only as valuable as the HP they take off. Meaning they can take out 3 16HP goblins, but the Wizard can take out 9. Against a big boss, yeah, the Fighter's going to excel because it's a fight against a single target that can soak up hits. But that's how the fighter gets their worth: Actual damage output, not theoretical output. In a role-playing sense, these are martial warriors that make up the vast majority of most armies and military units. They are powerful units that can fulfill many roles. Infantry, archers, cavalry, spearmen- Slight tweaks in their training and they can be any one of the 80% of most armies. The downside is that they cannot fulfill 'special' roles without sacrificing bits of their fighter power. They cannot heal, they cannot teleport, they cannot hide their allies in terrain, they cannot disable traps, any extra damage they do is purely bound by their equipment (this reflects on adaptability to enemies with damage reduction), and they're weak on the skill usage. Sure, they made great athletes/acrobats, and anything else they reach for will likely keep up with the party, but they will be quickly outshone on social and intellect checks by others. In example: magical identification/usage and high-society heists. Fighters control the battlefield. They are the chess pieces that can efficiently eliminate targets one-by-one, whether it's controlling the flank or blitzing the main target head-on. They're meant to take multiple hits and still keep going in order to keep up with the damage. Combat is one of the biggest distractions in a scene, preventing certain things from happening. So Fighters soften this distraction enough to allow for multiple objectives to be achievable. TL;DR: Fighters are good against enemies made to last in combat. They lose efficiency against low-level mooks. They're bound to the damage their weapons do. They control the battlefield so others can do their special powers.

[@sephrinx4958]

Double slice is absolutely not optional for dual wield classes imo. Especially more so if weapon is not agile.

[@anexor3632]

You were *almost* correct about the fighter's feat progression in 1e; they got at least 2 feats at first level, one being the general feat that *everybody* gets every *odd* level, and one being the fighter's bonus combat feat, then at second level and every *even* level after that, the fighter got another bonus combat feat, which means that by the end they had 21 feats (assuming they didn't get any bonus feats from other sources) as opposed to 10 like most other classes (there were exceptions, such as wizards getting 4 bonus feats for a total of 14)

[@KarlBarbosa]

Honestly, given Fighter has pretty much zero utility or support, not giving him the extra +2 over every other martial class would have made the Fighter underpowered by comparison. I think Fighter is perfectly fine as is. He can't talk, he can't track, he can't heal, he can't sing. Hell, he's not especially angry either. But he's really good at hitting people and that's totally cool by me.

[@KeenanJones1]

+2 to hit isn't "more damage", at least not compared to other martial classes. Sure, it does mean +20% damage, but that's not really that different from Rage. The ACTUAL value of Fighters is that they have +10% activation rate for "on crit" effects. More opportunity to trigger Critical Specializations. More opportunities to deny actions with AoO. More opportunities to inflict conditions... ...and that's great! If you want damage, play Barbo. Their total damage is higher. If you want sustain, play Champion. They manipulate bad guy numbers with reactions If you want mobility, play Monk. They get basically an extra action per turn. Fighter is what you play if you want CONTROL. Its the DEBUFF martial.

[@PlatonicLiquid]

Note for DPR calculations and expected value because this is a misconception I see a lot, bonuses to attack results in higher or lower increases to damage depending on the target's AC. To keep it simple, lets say you have a fighter vs a barbarian and they both inflict 1 damage on a hit, and 2 on a crit. Lets say the barbarian needs an 11 to hit an enemy. The expected value is .55 (because they crit on a 20). The fighter would need a 9, and the expected value is .7 (sidenote, the fighter has a x2 chance to crit here over the barbarian). Thats a 27% increase. However, lets now go against an enemy the barbarian needs a 19 to hit. The expected value is .15, but the fighter only needs a 17, so the expect value is .25. That is now a 67% increase. To the other extreme, if the barbarian hits on a 2, the expect value is 1.4 for the barbarian and 1.5 for a fighter, so thats only a 7% increase. In short, fighters are stronger the stronger an enemy is. The more a party does to debuff the enemy/buff the martials, the closer fighters become to other maritals in terms of damage.

[@Gloomfall]

Fighters did get a TON of feats on top of Advanced Weapon Training and Armor Training. They also had the option to pick up Weapon Focus / Greater Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization / Greater Weapon Specialization. Honestly pretty great if they took those for the specific weapon they were using. When they added out the ability to add alternative Weapon and Armor Training options they could be tweaked even more. I do definitely prefer PF2E's version of it.

[@elwayfan01]

For the algorithm! Seriously though, other martial classes can't complain about the fighters increased proficiency because that's the entire point of the class. That would be like a sorcerer complaining that the wizard can get extra slots by draining their bonded item. Or prepared vs spontaneous casting etc. Fighter. It does what it says on the label.

[@creativeburst2442]

One thought with being expert you could spread out your ability score to develop other parts of your character like making them more charismatic to intimidate and still be able to hit stuff.

[@1dm564]

Have you done the math on Fighter vs. Barbarians? You make the assertion that Fighters deal the highest damage of any class, but I don't think that's actually true. Barbarians hit less often, but hit waaaay harder. It comes out to a nearly identical expected output of damage.

[@austinobst8989]

It depends on what type of encounters you get. With a lot of equal level and higher level enemies, the fighter becomes the best. With lower level enemies, classes with damage gimmicks like sneak attack or rage become a lot better.

[@skyfirezn]

I would love to see a flurry or Precision ranger in that mix.

[@juho1069]

I have done the math, and at level 5 against a young black dragon fighters will do less (expected) damage than optimized rogues or rangers. Barbarian can almost match the fighter damage, but will be about 5% behind depending on the build. At level 7 fighter pulls ahead of the rest with furious focus and higher weapon specialization damage. I haven't actually done the math further than that, but I imagine rogue is going to take the top spot back at level 11.

[@srivasuuvasista4364]

Yooo, I love the new style of presentation! Very digestable! Well done!

[@Nonat1s]

Thank you! Hopefully most other people feel the same!!

[@squidrecluse2336]

Something I never really hear anyone bring up when talking about the 2e Fighter is the fact that their higher weapon proficiency means they don't need to have as high of an attack ability stat to be viable. A Fighter with a 16 in their attack stat will be just as likely to hit as any other martial with an 18. Freeing up that ability boost to be spent elsewhere can be really powerful in certain builds.

[@PyroMancer2k]

I'd say give the Fighter's Prof in a similar way to how Spell Casting Feats work in Archetypes. For example: The current Fighter Dedication has "You become trained in simple weapons and martial weapons." So I would add the following feats. Weapon Mastery Feat 6 Prereq: Fighter Dedication Choose one weapon group. Your proficiency rank increases to expert with the simple weapons, martial weapons, and unarmed attacks in that group. If you are already an expert in that group you become a Master. Weapon Legend 14 Prereq: Fighter Dedication, Weapon Mastery Choose one weapon group. Your proficiency rank increases to master with the simple weapons, martial weapons, and unarmed attacks in that group. If you are already a master in that group you become a Legendary. The reason for the wording is to prevent spell casters or other slower progressing Proficiency classes from simply jumping up to fighter tier. They need to already be at least normal martial progression and even then the feat comes one level after their normal prof increase. Plus if need be it could be moved back another block to say 8 & 16. The Spell casting classes have a standard 4 Trained, 12 Expert, and 18 Master for their Archetype Prof progression. So having feats to increase prof in the Archetype is already present. However when it comes to Martials in general I've always found the Archetype system to be a bit lacking. I mean you can be pretty much anything and pick a spell caster Archetype and use the Spell Caster feats which are the same across pretty much ALL spell caster Archetypes to increase your spell proficiency. Yet there is no similar system to Martial characters. So if you start as a Caster and Archetype into a Martial sure you may get Trained in some Armor/Weapons which is fine early on. But that is usually it, some classes may have an armor or weapon proficiency increase at 12 but not most. The result is trained weapons you get from your Dedication quickly fall behind and stay that way. I mean at level 15 most Martials have Master Prof so Expert is a bit behind which is fine for non-Martial classes who is Archetyping into one, but instead they are stuck at Trained which is -4 behind the curve since their Archetype doesn't have a way to increase the Prof. Might as well not bother with the weapon at that point as there is a good chance of Crit Failure. I understand the desire not to simply give +# bonuses in Archetype system. At the same time they already have a way to help ensure the bonuses don't stack out of hand through the Proficiency system. The feats mentioned above don't break the curve the fighter already established it is just slightly delayed. And even if you push the feats back to 8 & 16 they still don't over take the fighter but simply catch up at a later point. But it also requires you to be a Martial class as well since you don't get the fighter level prof unless you already have the normal Marshal Prof. Thus no fighter prof level Casters. In closing I do realize after talking about how Prof increase is handled in Martial vs Caster Archetypes that normally a Caster can only reach Expert with their own class weapon prof. With the addition of these feats it would allow a Caster to get Martial in a weapon group but I'm ok with that. I mean the fighter's main thing is he is really good weapon weapons and that should be reflected in the multi-class. As it is now a caster multiclasses into fighter and aside from access to the feats at 1/2 your level which are primarly martial oriented there is no real benefit. And given the Prof curve as it is now I don't see any reason to ever really take Fighter Dedication as a Caster, all the other Martial have some unique opinions which aren't as reliant on your weapon prof. This setup is THREE feats just to increase prof by one tier. Considering you only get 10-11 Class feats that's basically about 30% of your class feat resources dedicated to getting that extra +2. I think that's a fair trade off. The Spell Caster line after all takes 4 Feats but you also get 8 spell slots, one for each spell level 1-8. Which I would argue is a lot more powerful and versatile trade off.

[@Ryan-rq6dx]

You kinda rolled over it at the end but the idea that the fighter might not fully invest into their attack stat is an interesting one. That +2 from proficiency allows them to branch out a little with their stats(which they will need to do if they care about anything other than fighting. You know, the other half of the game)

[@avivschwarz8513]

Weird take about the archetypes being limited by the fighter's advancement, especially since it stems from being a higher proficiency level and not a numerical bonus. Having an archetype such as the archer bump you up to expert at level 1 is effectively making it "not for fighters", or at least prevents fighters from cheesing the system by taking it. The fact that Paizo chose not to do this probably indicates other design considerations.

[@ttrpgplayer7939]

I also am surprised about the opinion, Fighter's have nothing to do with it. Feats are just designed to rarely add flat bonuses which is good imo. His example of having a feat giving +2 to hit and having "not for Fighter" would just make every character better than a Fighter since they have other bonuses.

[@griztorc]

Even if the fighter didn't have +2 attack, feats that simply gave a +X bonus to all attacks would be outrageously broken and overpowered, becoming "must picks". That's why they are avoided. And the fighter doesn't do the most damage in the game. Barbarians do the most damage in the game, with Giant Instinct being at the top. Behind those are the precision rangers with an animal companion. Fighter is consistent and good at combat, but their whole niche IS combat, more than any other class, even the barbarian.

[@abobbins]

Hmmm, I think fighter can out damage giant instinct. At high levels fighter putting out 6 attacks per round (Double slice, two weapon flurry, 2 opportunity attacks) of which 4 have zero penalty. Barbs can put out 4, including an opportunity attack they need to pay a feat for. Sure, they can take two weapon warrior, for double slice, but that's more feat taxes, and they're losing rage damage on 2nd attack unless they cop a -2 to hit penalty. Our group won't play any other melee class except fighters as we've played circa 70 levels of campaigns by now, including 2 full APs, and fighters always outperform other martials in melee DPR. Also, note that with -3ac vs fighter, giant barbarian taking circa 50% more damage than the fighter from attacks. Why bother taking it, apart from fluff?

[@torn180]

More please. I've always been more into PF1e so it's nice to see someone talk about the comparisons and changes that have been made between the systems, especially in regards to the classes. Thank you for the video!

[@benjaminliska8755]

Awesome video! I really enjoyed the analysis you did here, especially going back to PF1 to look at the origins of the PF2 Fighter. Keep up the great work!

[@FaptainCalcon750]

Honestly, I would of considered meeting in the middle(kind of) and just make them start Trained like everyone else, but just give them a Flat +1 to attack rolls, or something. Then just hold off Legendary for one weapon type until 19th Level.

[@austinobst8989]

If fighters got to be more versatile with weapons such as adding certain traits and having access to common advanced weapons at level 1, along with probably some extra feats, it could fit in more.

[@THEdeadlynightshade1646]

So what I'm hearing is you want a archetype that gives full wizard casting to fighters? I mean if you want to give the +2 to other classes it's only fair a fighter gets to grab full class bonus from somewhere else :D (no horse in this race I'm a alchemist player I'm gonna be last place regardless)

[@hinish7124]

I played a monk in 2e up to level 20 and it felt wierd to see the fighter scale to legendary unarmed combat out of the box while the monk stayed at master. However, as Nonat pointed out, it's to keep the identity of the fighter being the best at fighting.

[@officialdoctortnt7252]

Ey love to see our two braincells to figure out this ARG

[@Nonat1s]

Haha, I'm glad somebody did, otherwise I would've felt a bit goofy 😂

[@rickmimms449]

I got so excited for the announcement, that I forgot there was an actual video attached! Congrats Nonat!

[@Nonat1s]

Thank you so much!! I'm so freaking excited and nervous about finally announcing all of it, haha!

[@VampByDay]

I mean, I agree with most things you said. The only caveat I would put out there is that . . . Well, Fighters do what fighters do. But on the other hand, they can’t prevent combat damage like the champion or have the insane mobility of the monk, and a flurry Ranger is much more likely to crit on iterative attacks. All martials have their thing they are good at, for fighters it is just Hits and crits. If you are facing an enemy 40 ft up on a rock face who is raining down death, we’ll your great sword fighter ain’t going to be able to do anything, but a monk could run up the shed cliff to get to them. Combat doesn’t take place in a vacuum.

[@Nonat1s]

If Fighters were only focused on one weapon, I'd be inclined to agree, but they're still equal to everyone else when not using their favored weapon. A greatsword fighter could still drop their sword, draw a bow, and be just a functional as a ranger, especially with bonus Combat Flexbility to take whatever feat they might need like Double Shot.

[@Nastara]

@@Nonat1s They really aren’t because Fighters don’t get bonus damage mechanics. A ranger and a rogue is a better switch hitter than a fighter because their extra damage mechanics don’t depend on a solitary weapon group. So technically the fighter is worse at using other weapons that essentially every martial.

[@yamazaki752]

It's worth noting that PF1e Fighter was one of the worst classes of the edition. Better than it's big brother, the 3.5 Fighter, whose terribleness was only topped by the Truenamer, and that was because True Name Magic was horrendously bad, but PF1e fighters had it rough, despite the massive number of feats they got. The reason was simple: most combat feats were not that impressive, and fighters didn't qualify for the good stuff. Sure, you could go into a decent two-weapon fighting build, but so could rangers and they got those feats for free. Even the stupid simple 2-hander fighters were outclassed by barbarians and bloodragers, because rage powers and bloodlines granted massive boons. The only thing they could possibly be good at was combat manuevers... something that fell off the map in the teens in effectivity, because most things were immune or just plain too big to be affected. Advanced Weapon and Armor Training helped even things out, and opened the doors for some really funky builds (Iron Caster being a very interesting one), but typically you barely took levels in fighter. And of course, casters had outclassed all the martials by a landslide, especially by 8th level. By 12, there was almost no point in having a straight fighter in the group - it was either gishes or full mages. Chances of it, PF2e Fighter is somewhat of an over-correction from those dark times. The extra +2 makes a big difference, but the mileage will only matter compared to the rest of the group.

[@Zakiel97]

on the whole I agree with 1e fighters being lackluster but I think some archetypes made them work, in the 10th level game I currently play there is a bloodrager who has a +5 hammer (it's a plotitem) and way more strength but my dual-wield weaponmaster out-damages that guy easily in most combats that allow for a couple of full-round attacks. The weaponmaster in particular is broken in my opinion, with power attack I'm talking like 80 dmg+ a round if every attack lands. So though other classes have more utility and are better in most circumstances you can build pretty scary fighters if you really go for it imo.

[@yamazaki752]

@@Zakiel97 you are right that archetypes very much helped fighters in the long haul. It made them fairly comparable to the other martials. Still horribly outclassed by the mages, but what else is new? LOL

[@priestesslucy]

I got into so many arguments on the Paizo Forums back in the day. People insisting that medium creatures 'should not be able to grapple or trip or bullrush really really really big foes' and I say bullshit. What's the point of a fantasy experience if some classes don't get to experience the fantasy

[@CreepsMcGerald]

I really liked this video, brought me back to the old P1e crit fishing builds for fighters. Never really put much thought into how much that early +2 effects combat for other martials

[@Nonat1s]

I'm playing in a D&D 3.5 game right now, and I'm 100% a crit fisher, haha! Wielding a rapier and critting on a 16-20 feels so ridiculous lol

[@coolboy9979]

I want to add that the gunslinger is also like the fighter, except that they use guns which have all good deadly traits

[@rpgchronicler]

What about crossbows?

[@StevenBryceWroten]

The Persona music definitely sold it for me. I’m already subbed, but would have done it for that again.

[@DaegonMalak]

I am very tired of this complaint and it really has no relevance to how the game plays. This complaint comes from someone who only focuses on combat which is only 1 of 3 pillars of a good tabletop. Sure lets say you play at a very combat heavy table, fine so that +2 means your character has a +10% chance to hit and crit which means that every 10 attacks or 10 crits you hit or crit again respectively. What this really means is that your character does 10% more damage than other classes all other stats and values being equal. So lets look at the math; Fighter with a 1d10 weapon and +4 strength hits 10 times plus a bonus for their added accuracy which makes the average damage 110 (6 on the die plus 4 plus an additional attack granted by accuracy). Or if you want to look at it another way that 10% bonus equates to 10 damage for every 100 the fighter makes. Barbarian with a 1d10 weapon and a +4 strengths hits 10 times and does not get a bonus hit for accuracy. The damage becomes 120 if they rage (6 on the die plus 4 for strength plus 2 for rage. Now if you don't think this reflects the accuracy then lets take another look. Leverl 5 Fighter and Level 5 Barbarian same weapons and same attributes. Fighter has an attack bonus of +15(5 for level +6 for master proficiency +4 attribute bonus) And Barbarian has an attack bonus of +13(5 for level + 4 for expert bonus +4 for Attribute bonus). Both Fighter and Barbarian are attacking a creature with an AC of 22. On the First hit Fighter has a 65% chance to hit and a 20% Chance to crit, on the second hit its a 40% chance to hit and 5% chance to crit and on the 3rd attack it's a 15% chance to hit and 5% chance to crit. So out of 3 rounds of combat the fighter hit 6.5 times on the first attack, 4 times on the second attack and 1.5 times on the third attack. Since hits and crits overlap you subtract the crit chance and double the damage for the crits. So in 10 rounds the fighter did their average damage of 10(see above) 4.5 times so 45 plus 40 damage from the two crits totaling 85 damage. On the second attacks they average 35 damage plus 10 from the .5 crits so 45 and on the third attacks they average 10 damage and 10 from the .5 crits for a total of 20. All in all fighter did an impressive 150 damage. Barbarian's turn. First hit has a 55% chance to hit and a 10% chance to crit, a 30% chance to hit and 5% chance to crit on the second attack and a 5% chance to hit and crit on the 3rd attack. So after 10 rounds and under the assumption that the barbarian is raging the barbarians average damage is 12 so on the first attacks the Barbarian averages 54 damage on hits and 24 on crits totaling 78, on the second attacks the barbarian averages 30 damage on hits and 12 on crits totaling 42 and on the 3rd attacks the barbarian essentially gets half a crit so 12. All in all this totals to 132 damage. So with accuracy included Fighter does 18 more damage than the Barbarian after 10 rounds of combat most combats last only half of that though so more than likely it would only be 9 damage which is just under a hit for the Barbarian. Not really all that much to write home about and if you consider the other martials then you could bump the difference by 20% making it 21 damage after 10 rounds and 11 realistically. So 1 to 2 hits for most fights 3 to 4 for a long combat. Considering monk and champion have higher AC and barbarian has 20% more hp all things being equal in the harder fights those classes will probably get those other attacks in while fighter is napping. TLDR:/ Fighter does more damage then other classes in exchange most other martials either last longer or make up for it in other ways (lets not even talk about flurry ranger). At most fighter gets an extra hit or crits worth of damage in a fight which aint much and honestly doesn't make up for the fact that the class offers not much else outside of combat(counting base features). The +2 difference just really doesn't make that much of a difference in the grand scheme of things and even if your game is 75% combat the fighter gets to be 10% more efficient for 75% of the time and bring nothing the other 25% of the time (at base not including builds and whatever, all we are talking about is a +10% chance to hit and crit which isn't even 10% crit chance for most attacks after the first.) Special Note: Attack of Opportunity is highly situational and not a reliable form of damage dealing and a variable completely determined by the individual DMing the game.

[@thason3304]

This is the first time I’ve actually heard an argument about why the fighter is detrimental to the system that I’ve actually thought to not be “overblown overreaction”. I’ve never considered the fact that the fighter could have an effect like that on archetypes. By the way, I love the delivery style you had in this video. Normally you get really excited about what you’re talking about and your voice tends to fluctuate in volume and pitch reflecting that, and don’t get me wrong that’s engaging and fun to listen to. This time however you went with a more even-pitched and calm delivery, and it was nice to listen to. I hope to see more stuff like this in the future

[@gm9460]

You mean you have never listened to a nonat video before? He never shuts up about fighters. It is getting quite boring to be honest

[@thason3304]

@@gm9460 he spends an inordinate amount of time putting the fighter down and I’ve never really felt most of his arguments have merit. The effect of the fighter class on archetype development is the first argument I’ve heard that actually has merit. That being said, if an archetype would be rendered broken by having a +2 to attack, why not just switch it up? Don’t give a flat +2, just even out proficiencies a bit. For example, if you want a sorcerer that can actually use the dragon claw focus spell but don’t want them scaling melee with martials, write something like “at level 8 raise trained to expert and at level 17 raise expert to master” I can see merit in archetypes being affected by fear of making the fighter OP (though I’m a firm believer that in its current state it is not OP). But all it really takes to prevent crossing that threshold is wording an archetype a little differently, and Paizo knows this.

[@gm9460]

@@thason3304 it doesn’t really have merit I don’t think. I really don’t believe even if fighter didn’t exist that there would be archetypes that increased proficiency. Because they would soon become the “go to” choice. Thing is many people still find fighters boring. I have played a bunch of games and listened to lots of actual play podcasts. Fighters are really rare across the board. There are about three I can think of and one was a legacy conversion so not influence by the proficiency spike. One was because someone was playing a jouster and would have been a cavalier if it was 1E. And another was someone switching class because they are a terrible roller so swashbuckler was a bad fit (all 3 from podcasts). In the games I play in and run people don’t pick it. Small anecdotal example I know But if NoNat is being driven mad by all the people around him going the “min max” approach (in as much as that really exists in 2E) then it is more about the players it seems

[@ghostsword6554]

Honestly the fighter's attack bonus works out, but it is very much intentional that it is next to impossible to become better than a class at their niche thing. Fighters hit, and deal good damage, but other classes have important things in their repertoir as well. Fighers are popular but often outdamage by rogues, at least that is my experience from running a lot of PF2

[@Ixnaeus]

I liked the deep dive analysis. Thanks for adding some interesting and thought provoking variation to the channel. There is a spot on your wall near the top left (likely your right as video tends to be mirrored) corner of your poster that I kept trying to brush off of my screen. 🤣 I seriously tried to brush my screen four times through the video.

[@Ariakin88]

I’m on the waiting list and can’t wait for the kickstarter!

[@Nonat1s]

You're amazing! I've been shaking all day from excitement! Ah!

[@Ariakin88]

@@Nonat1s so are u bro! Getting that high tier reward for sure! We’re excited to 😄🙌🏼

[@chicksandwich]

This is the only ttrpg fighter I've actually felt was worth playing

[@HyoushinKitsune]

I think a big reason Paizo wanted to make sure the 2E fighter was good is that practically no one played a character that only had levels in Fighter in 1E. Sure, multiclassing was pretty common overall, but I've known and used plenty of characters in Society play that only had one class. No one "played" a Fighter, though. You took a couple levels in Fighter for the feats, and that was it.

[@quincykunz3481]

Here's what people miss about how good the +2 is. Yes, it is +2 to hit, which is about a 10% boost to damage. In most situations it is also +2 to crit, which is about another 10% boost to damage. It is also a +2 to aid, a +2 to land debuffs attached to your attacks like shove, +2 to land crit specialization effects, and a +1 damage from weapon expert. On top of that, this doesn't require you restrict yourself by spending actions to set up, marking a specific target, staying in a specific stance, spending a resource, only working against flat-footed, or taking a penalty. It just works.

[@couver73]

If it were me, I'd probably have the Fighter start out at level 1 with a weapon group specialization. That weapon group could only include simple and martial weapons of that group at first, starting at expert proficiency and give similar penalties to the gunslinger with weapons of another group. Later on, a fighter could choose additional groups to specialize in for similar benefits, increase their proficiency by one rank, and later include advanced weapons in those groups. So yeah, I basically offer a 2e conversion of 1e's Fighter progression at 1st level.

[@андрейкопылов-л6ъ]

You are like the first youtuber i see that says that the watch time of 50/50 is a good thing cause of new audience which is brought. I love you even more now. Finally.

[@xdragoonzero0]

Fyi, outside of a typo in Gunslinging Legend, the Gunslinger isn't penalized in its proficiency with other weapons. They're just locked to the same progression as the non-Fighter martials. The limitation is only there so they can't take an Archetype dedication like Mauler to bump those proficiencies to be equal to their guns.

[@icedragongamemaster6797]

Lets compare two martial classes. So a level 10 Fighter VS a level 10 Dragon Barbarian. The Barbarian has temporary HP 10 + Con, deny advantage, piercing and energy resistance 3 + Con , breath weapon, Draconic Rage(-1 to AC, + 8 to damage). Do you believe that the fighter is better? I believe they are equal in strength.

[@Benjamin-zu6gh]

+ it takes 1 action to rage, + no heavy armor, + fighter has one more feat + you can’t use concentrate actions while raging

Well, if you want to have a "Not a fighter condition" in feat rising attack bonus, you can have something like this in your archetype: Dagger Excellence You become an expert in fighting with daggers. At 5 level, this proficiency becomes a master and at 13th level, it becomes legendary. This way it hands same proficiency that fighter already has with their weapon of choice. Plus it is still relevant if they wants to diversify their weapon choice. Also for sake of balancing, I would stick with this only for simple weapons.

[@cmeast]

Your kickstarter sounds pretty awesome actually - love the concept of the cursed archetypes!

[@JH41682]

Also loved the announcement! Signed on the backer list for sure!

[@ProbablyEzra]

I feel like shifting some power from the attack bonus to other aspects of the fighter could be great, either +2 attack but -1 to crit or just +1 instead of +2 to attack, and then give extra flavor and damage in other areas, and maybe give them a way to 'earn' the lost +1 back via an array of different feats that all can give +1 but don't stack with eachother. That being said, I don't have much of a problem with current fighter either

[@TheDarkplace]

So the fighter is better at combat than the other classes and this is a problem how? Every class can do something the others can not . With the fighter thus is hit harder and more often.

[@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide]

So this actually runs alongside a topic I've been thinking about for my channel - and while it's not specifically about Fighters, the Fighter issues you discuss here highlight the issue. I may be making a pseudo-reply video soon, because I think this highlights some good game design questions.

[@darksavior1187]

The advantage of the fighter to so reliably hit and crit (compounded moreso if a target's AC is compromised by debuffs) is way more substantial that it appears. It is enough of an advantage to carry the gunslinger, who has the same advantage but only with guns, which would otherwise be very lackluster. This advantage belies how impactful critical hits really are, they can change combats at every level dramatically, and add to it critical specializations on weapons, and its an extremely powerful advantage. Tack onto it everything else the fighter has going on, which is amazing class feats, best armor, high hitpoints, and the fighter is overwhelmingly the best class to play in combat. Since all of the APs in Pathfinder are deeply combat focused, being the best in combat (and fighter very much is) means a lot. The fighter outshines every other class in this area. Fighters also do a lot of other martial classes schtick better. Better archer than a ranger, better hand to hand than a monk, better 2 handed weapon use than a barbarian, . . .

[@NicholasKratzer]

I really enjoyed this video, and would love more like it. I've heard so much about how strong the fighter is, and it's nice to get a proper breakdown of why that is, and why it's hard to fix

[@SamBrockmann]

It's actually not as strong as folks make it out to be. A +2 is a 10% chance to crit. That's huge, yes. But it is by no means game breaking for the "hits and crits" class (that's literally what fighters excel at) to be good at hits and crits.

[@jasoneldridgephotography]

Eh, too much credence is given to balance these days. I don’t typically play fighters but I’m happy to see them have their moment in the sun.

[@TheFoxofShadows]

Just want to add that there are archetypes that are restricted to specific classes, the prime example being the Runelord archetype from Secrets of Magic which requires you to be a Wizard. so while it may not be a requirement as arbitrary as "not a fighter", archetypes restricted to a specific class or range of classes is already established as a part of the archetype system.

[@zacharyharwell351]

I can only speak from the perspective of someone coming from 5e, but I can tell you this: as someone who CAN'T get into a character without some semblance of who they are as a person, I've used that bonus to make fighters with lots of roleplay potential (Such as an Impersonator Android with the Amnesiac background, so they think they're human) and I know this may or may not be the norm, but I really feel it opens up the fighter to add those roleplay feats without feeling like they're "making a sacrifice" for it

[@DeadlyD8]

One thing I will add to the conversation, would be in regards to the part where you discussed "Fighter class w/ Martial Archetype" vs "Martial class vs Fighter archetype". It's super important to remember that Archetypes only provide feats up to level 10 (since the feats you take from multiclass archetype have to be 1/2 your level). This matters because feats after level 10 tend to be some of the most powerful, and the game was designed around that. So while, yes, the fighter can access other class's feats and still have that sweet +2 attack bonus, the fighters level 10+ feats vs other classes' level 10+ feats aren't as strong. This is another sacrifice you'd be making for that singular attack bonus that the fighter starts with. Fighters are certainly good, but they're not broken.

[@Tenuto40]

Yes to more analysis! Loved it! Something that might help: how to make to the most out of archetype dedications. I love mixing and matching things to come up with new ideas, but sometimes, dedications just seem so limited or slow in doing what they do. Aid to my Wisdom roll would be much appreciated!

[@Zephz43]

I'm going to hard disagree. Fighters are more accurate, but aren't straight up numerically better than other martials. A Barbarian may have less accuracy, but higher av. damage, which makes their expected damages comparable. The magus is a similar case, but with the added nuance of spending resources to do damage. 2E's design already takes into consideration powerful class features and how to block them from other classes taking archetypes. As an example, a Cleric's Font is extremely powerful, but it is a class feature, and there's no feat that gives that to a character that's not a cleric. Any feature that would require a Cleric Font can't be taken because that's a prerequisite, even if the druid wanted to bump his Heal die to a d10, he can't. All that's needed for a Class Feat to not be available for anyone taking an archetype is having an exlcusive class feature as a requisite, using your example of Monks, their +2 could have a requirement of Mystic Strikes if Paizo wanted to give them a +2, but I don't think at all that's what they had in mind for this edition's design. Each Martial class has their own strengths, and while the Fighter is a powerhouse, I think it's misleading to assume that's better at combat than every other martial, since every class has their own specialties and faults, even in combat.

[@abobbins]

Might be true at low levels, where +6 rage damage significant. But fighter overtakes barbarian as the damage dice rack up (Even as rage goes to +18), as well as when they gain their 2nd oa at level 10. At level 20 a fighter, vs 5 enemies, can pump out up to 12 attacks per round, of which 9 have zero MAP penalty. Barbarian maxes out at 5, I believe, 2 without MAP penalty. High level fighters are mincing machines.

[@Zephz43]

@@abobbins I've done DPR comparisons up to level 20, considering 3 damage runes that aren't being resisted (best case for the fighter) and Barb stills holds up in damage, the main difference being that Barbarians deal more damage to Lowe AC foes while Fighters do best against higher AC.

[@profounddark3810]

I think, as is the case with a lot of D&D-esque TTRPG "balance" stuff, it depends a lot. Not only on what players think balanced means but also how the group plays, what sorts of monsters they're fighting, and so forth. For example, against higher AC opponents, the fighter hits more often but crits just as frequently as the Barbarian, but the Barbarian is typically doing more fixed damage on every hit (from the rage). Meanwhile, some classes may do more damage in the short term (i.e., Ki Strikes/Flurry of Blows) but maybe less damage over time, so they're more effective in shorter combats. I actually find that Rogue's with Sneak Attack generally throw out way too much damage (in games I've run) because I almost never see a Rogue not attacking flat-footed creatures (especially once they get to Gang Up). But, I could probably change that if I used more enemies with abilities like Deny Advantage or immunities to Precision Damage. That being said, if overpowered fighters is a thing, it may be a meaningful hack to have the 5th level Fighter Weapon Mastery only grant a +1 (probably untyped) bonus to attacks with the selected weapon group instead of higher proficiency. But, that will impact some other stuff down the road, so 🤷‍♂

[@cheezeofages]

I think the fighter is certainly great and can pretty much do any fighting gimmick really well. You can build pretty much any martial gimmick out of a Fighter. However, the other martials trade the accuracy and robust press moves for other specialties. Like Ranger can pretty well keep up with fighter for hitting things and can be amazing at exploration mode. Monks don't start with expert in unarmed and need a feat to get crit specialization, but come with an attack most other classes have to spend a feat on, get free special material effects (which is a bigger deal in 2e), and can get crit spec from a feat as early as level 2. By level 4 the monk can build to on a crit flurry force two saves vs getting both stunned and/or slowed.

[@lilifoliaenvt]

Quick note, Fighters didn't get a bonus feat every level! They only got bonus combat feats on even levels, meaning they basically just got 1 feat per level (plus the initial bonus feat at Level 1).

[@quincykunz3481]

I guess the main issue isn't that fighters are so overwhelmingly powerful that they warp the game, it's that they're basically always going to be a little bit better than everyone else. Rogues get the skill-monkey crown, casters at the highest levels can can keep pace with sheer weight of options, and alchemists at the highest levels can pull shenanigans by sharing thier stuff, but it only takes a couple archetype feats to get most of the slots of a caster or enough skills to fill your general needs... and then you want to be a fighter.

[@NormalesEinhorn]

Reminds me of Yasuo and Yone from League of Legends They both passively get 2.5x more of the benefit from crit chance but their critical damage multiplier isn't as high as it is for other classes

[@LetholdusKaspyr]

As you pointed out, a Fighter without the +2 is straight-up worse than everything else. A Fighter has a higher numerical bonus than a Monk, Swashbuckler, etc, but also can't approach the flexibility and power of their high-end feats. The Fighter is a generalist class, and all the others are specialists.

[@harrietr.5073]

I'd always thought the Fighter is just a Dex man-made Weapon attacker, or martial, with medium or heavier armour proficiency, specialising in certain weapons either Melee or Ranged/Shoot. A.K.A. a knight. Hearing about that +2 is terrifying from a game design standpoint.

[@Groundlord]

Correction on the number of feats Fighters got in 1E: The feats granted by the Fighter class were only obtained at 1st level and every *even* level. So while they did get a feat "at every level," the feats they got at odd levels was from being an Xth level _character_ rather than from being an Xth level _Fighter._ At level 20, a Fighter would have a total of 11 bonus feats (plus any they might pick up with Advanced Weapon/Armor Training options) over what a typical character would have.

[@coolboy9979]

That the player book is compatible with 5e is a lot of work. Godspeed

[@henriquessmil]

That NPC with the bison in the back, man I want to use him, so much style in just one man.

[@Nonat1s]

She's a woman! 😉 Female Hobgoblin: Lilliana!

[@henriquessmil]

@@Nonat1s Yooooo, bison ridder mommy, I really need her in my table lol

[@ArthrenBear]

Thanks for this video. It really helps to understand some of the philosophy behind the game design. There have been several things that just seemed weird, and I’ve been wading through trying to figure it out. More of this please!!!

[@manituan4956]

I don't see how the fighter design choices limit the archetype design space. Fighter has some big issues, not the +2 to hit though.

[@AeromancerOffical]

News just in … Fighters are better at melee fighting!

[@Zedrinbot]

I feel like fighters aren't really all that bad, tbh. They're reliable, but not infallible or universally the best. But this does make me wonder about the prospect of halving bonuses from level and proficiency (add half your level, trained/expert/master is +1/2/3 instead of 2/4/6 etc.) This would reduce the ceilings a bit and would make some chars a bit less swingy. (It'd might also make the difficulty level of usable mobs a bit wider, which is an annoying issue in vanilla IMO.) edit: did some math, put it in a reply, warning for people who hate math. it's a big post and I have no idea why I torment myself hashing these things out. But basically, the REASON things feel weird is because Fighter (at least to me), especially at low levels, often will have more than a 50% chance to hit on their opening attacks, while everyone else has a lower chance. HOWEVER, despite this, it's still very much feasible for other classes to outdamage fighters in the martial department, even with a lower hit chance. (Heck, in the example below, just a level 1 accuracy test against an AC 18 target, even _monk_ edges ahead of the greatsword fighter ever so slightly.)

[@Zedrinbot]

Also, just decided to math some stuff out. Do NOT click "read more" if you hate math, this is a long post. tldr; Monk actually can outdamage a fighter in some 'balanced' scenarios. In my experience, what makes things feel weird is even if the math is sound, accuracy and effectiveness can feel questionable or just bad overall, especially at low levels. You'll often have "balanced" fights where the fighter is the only one who actually has above a 50% chance to hit, but they actually will deal comparable or even less overall damage on average comparatively. -- Let's compare them to monks and rangers, who rely on more attacks with the same action economy rather than higher accuracy to deal their damage. say we've got a +4 strength modifier at level 1, and for proficiency, trained will be +3, expert +5. The bonuses are as follows: Fighter (any bigger weapon, we'll say greatsword): +9, +4, -1 Monk (agile fist): +7, +3, -1, -1 Flurry Ranger (agile shortsword, hunted prey): +7, +5, +3, +3 Say the target's AC is 18, not an uncommon value for a level 1 encounter. This is largely arbitrary and you can run these numbers for any AC. Then, determine their chances to hit (overall) and chance to JUST crit in parentheses. For instance, the fighter needs to roll at least a 9 to hit, or 19 to crit. Rolling 9-20 is a 60% chance, while 19-20 is 10%. Fighter: 60% (10%), 35% (5%), 10% (5%) Monk: 50% (5%), 30% (5%), 10% (5%) x2 Ranger: 50% (5%), 40% (5%), 30% (5%) x2 Naturally you don't usually wanna just unload onto a target with all attacks, but really it's just the first hit that has a better chance for the fighter to crit. Meanwhile a monk and ranger basically both can get one extra action out of the same number of attacks--they can get those first two attacks off as a single action, while the fighter makes two attacks. (For those who've crit fished before, especially in 5e, you might know if we just wanna look at ONLY crits, making two attacks (like the ranger or monk would) actually gives you nearly the same crit chance as critting on a 19 like a fighter (9% vs. 10%). This gets weird at different thresholds.) Anyway, looking just at the first action, our fighter's using his d12 greatsword (6.5 average on the die) with his +4 modifier. For his first attack, they have a 50% chance to hit normally for 10.5 average damage and 10% to crit (21 average damage), for a total average of 7.35 on this first action (multiply the accuracy by the damage basically, and add them up). The monk, flurrying with d6 fists has a 50% chance to hit (7.5 avg) and 5% to crit (15 avg), followed by 30% (7.5 avg) and 5% to crit (15 avg). That's 7.5 average damage on the first action. Ranger, also twin takedown-ing with d6 shortswords meanwhile has 50% hit (7.5 avg), 40% hit (7.5 avg), and 5% crit (15 avg) x2, for a total average of 8.25 damage for one action. Yes, that's right. On average, Monk is technically able to do more damage with their opening action than the fighter on average, at least against a target with an AC of 18 and when not factoring other elements. This is a white room test and isn't a measure of overall effectiveness. -- This won't universally be the case and there's some stipulations: 1. the fighter here is using a 2 handed weapon, so he has no hands free. 2. the monk can have both hands free and doesn't even need to draw a weapon, and can target different targets with their attacks. 3. the ranger has to spend an action to hunt his prey at some point to get the full benefits here, and has to attack the same target both times. While he has no hands free like the fighter, quickdraw is an option if that kinda thing is causing him trouble. There's also still two actions remaining, so how they use those will also influence things, and there's other ways to manipulate action economy with other feats. Fighter might not get anything like flurry, but they can get abilities that let them intimidate or charge as part of their attack too. When it comes to mobs that have lower AC, the advantages will swing a lot more favorably for the fighter, especially when they get critical specializations or weapons that have crit effects, though this is offset by the more numerous strikes the flurry attackers make. Meanwhile at higher ACs, the flurry attackers actually will crit more often (since the +2 isn't actually allowing the fighter to crit more at an AC of 19 or higher), but the fighter will feel more reliable due to the higher overall accuracy. You can calculate this all for different accuracy/AC levels and different numbers of actions (important to specify actions, not just attacks, due to things like flurry) and classes too. Barbarian would be another good comparison. You should find that it's pretty neatly balanced. (god it feels like I'm writing a thesis here, this is what sleep deprivation does to a person)

[@Nonat1s]

I will read this later today when I have more time, but I already respect you for it.

[@GryphonDes]

What a fun and nostalgic video hehe -- and for the record I really do MISS the Inquisitor! One of the most memorable times in 35+ years of TTRPGs was the campaign where I got to play an inquisitor!

[@dalekreject7324]

Glad to see I'm not alone i liking the design choice. One of the big reasons I did not jump back into TTRPGs with 5e is that it's easy (from what I've heard) to make a non-optimal build and... suck. Or at least fall behind others in the party. Fighters SHOULD be better at combat. They're fighters, it's what they do. The level of balance in this gameis what keeps me around. I like to see what bizarre characters I can build still be viable. Having not played many martials, I tried my hand at fighter. Went grappling, and had some crafting background (from dwarf). And it was a blast. I love that having 2 dwarf fighters built completely different brought totally different flavor to the game. And despite being better at combat, the hero of the fight could be anyone in the party.

[@bokajon]

How to make a book DnD compatible: Remove the unique feats and features of the NPCs. Voila! Seriously though, can't wait for Sinclair's Library! Good luck!

[@spider0804]

I do not really understand how you make a class the best at hitting without giving an increase in proficiency tbh. Every class should be the best at something, if you want a tool kit to smack things and NOTHING ELSE, fighter. Any other martial class besides alchemist and war cleric can do something super cool in addition to hitting well as a default. May as well call out flurry ranger for 5 attacks a round at a combined MAP that is far lower than anyone else doing the same thing. The only thing about fighter is if you have someone with a low to hit modifier they look at the fighter and how far they are behind and possibly feel crappy about it.

[@Dwim]

You'll never get over it he ... It's fine as is, go along.

[@Jipposan]

Honestly, it was few days ago when I last time thinked about this issue. Like you said, it is old news and it kinda lifts its head every now and then. Because of this I will allow dual-class optional rule in the next AP I will put into test and that will be in the Abomination Vault AP. But that may takequite some time before I get to run it.

[@Trashloot]

We are level 20 in Age of Ashes and we are constantly fighting higher level enemies. Our Fighter basically just hits more often and we all basically crit only on a 20. (Most of the times) Similarly if you play in a campaign where you regularly fight lower level trash mobs then everyone will crit anyways. The issue only appears if you Regularly play against similarly leveled enemies. And even than its not an issue. True strike gives you 2 dice to potentially hit a 20 against a higher level foe. Barbarian (and other classes) add nice flat damage Bonuses making you less reliable on dice luck when it comes to damage and so on. Im Basically saying that everyone has a niche. Chain lighting is better at hitting multiple enemies than everything the fighter has. Barbarians get nice movement options to close the distance to an enemy who is kiting the party. ... And im super glad that there are no feats which give numerical advantage because they feel mandatory (to me).

[@SatvikBeri]

I signed up 8 seconds into the video. Can't wait!

[@Nonat1s]

Love seeing the hype!!!

[@burns5421]

My problem with the fighter isn’t that they crit more, it’s just that they flat out hit more often. The fighter is effectively 2 levels higher than every other class during combat. And I see a lot of people bringing up the barbarian’s bonus damage as equaling out, but that bonus damage does no good if you never actually hit. Guaranteeing some damage will always be better than the possibility of slightly more damage.

[@killingkat7198]

I just taking a stab at it but maybe a feet between 15 and 20th level that allows you to increase your proficiency by one step with even just a select group of weapons for everybody else.

[@kjronning1]

How I would fix it? Stances. Remove the expert proficiency, add 2 or 3 stances. 1st stance: bonus to attack (optional: and damage). 2nd stance: bonus to defense. This is what stances were made for, and they're awfully underused.

[@kjronning1]

also, make it so that they always start combat with a stance. There you go.

[@kjronning1]

actually, going to add this to my game right now. byeee

[@juliannim6843]

Have you done any mathimatical analysis of the average fighter damage output compared to other martials? The fighter definetly hits and crits more than the other martials might, but (some of) the other martial classes have damage boost, which makes their hits and crits do more damage than the fighter. My played experience is it evens out pretty nicely, but if you (or anybody else) has crunched the numbers and the fighter has an obvious advantage, I would like to know

[@paladinslash4721]

The problem with fighter is that they tend to overshadow other martials, most egregious examples being the swashbuckler and champion. For the low cost of 2-3 feats via champion archetype, a fighter can become a better and more threatening defender than a champion

[@Partimehero36]

Nonat: I'm not a game designer. Also Nonat: hey everyone, I'm designing a game book!

[@Nonat1s]

Haha, my producer pointed this irony out to me right after i posted the video 😂 It'll be more clear in the Kickstarter, but I'm only a part of the entire team putting this book together. I mostly come up with cool ideas and have a team of designers and balance-checkers to make it all happen!

[@garrethbaldwin8513]

I like the content, if you are going to be doing more of these standing videos though I'd love to see some of the artwork from your merch up on the wall behind you. You have some really amazing OC art for those.

[@Moistened_Ewok]

The fighter's hit chance definitely is nice but, and I don't have the exact math in front of me, a barbarian is doing a whole lot of extra damage whether it crits or not. It seems to close that damage gap quite handily and even go further.

[@pontchristophe3938]

Easy way to circumvent the "no numerical bonus to archetype because of fighter", would indeed to have a prerequisite "you're not a fighter". That wouldn't surprise me and will give them more freedom on design. But an archetype should never give them +2, only +1. Because fighter's proficiency is its "core", so no one should mimic it (by "core for class X" I mean everything that you cannot get through class X archetype, like subclass. This core is the essence of the class and cannot be mimic). But yeah I get why you say it limits paizo archetype design possibilities.

[@williamvankeulen1307]

Fighter is fine, being more accurate than the barbarian makes sense in terms of class difference. Barb does more damage, is more versatile and interesting in combat and does much more out of combat. Fighter good at fighting makes sense. I like the way arcehtypes give more versatility/options rather than just flat combat bonuses anyway.