|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
My point is that saying "this class can contribute, but within its limits" doesn't say anything... You could say the same about a crippled commoner.
I just don't think a Warrior (or a Fighter) is good enough to be an adventurer... Unless the whole adventure is about standing still and beating up a sandbag. In that case, Fighters are awesome. Otherwise, they are a load. They drain too many resources... To the point where at high levels I'd rather be a lonely Wizard than have to share loot with a Fighter.
The fighters combat prowess will only be lacking by not choosing feats well.
If the Fighter is using his general feats to shore up his pitiful defenses, then he doesn't have any feat advantage over any other class... And feats are just not that good.
And I'd rather have lay on hands than any rage power or 4. A scaling swift action cure is pretty sweet.
Pretty sweet, yeah... but not worth 4 Rage Powers. Even more so considering that, unlike feats, Rage Powers actually scale with level.
But I'd trade Weapon Focus/Specialization and their Greater versions for LoH in the blink of an eye (I'm not even including Mercies here).
Fighters have the highest DPR of any class once they hit 20 due to the crit modifier AFAIK.
Once they hit 20th, yeah... During all other 19 levels, Barbarians and Slayers are better... But even if they are not, they are still far more effective, because at 20th level, a full attack will kill anything anyway... It doesn't matter if your full attack deals 300 damage or 300000000000. The result is the same. OTOH, at high levels, the Fighter's lack of options becomes even more crippling compared to other classes.
Rangers are not overpowered. They are one of the best balanced classes in the game (in fact they could use a boost, nothing major, just minor buffs here and there). The fault is in Fighters, who not only are not any better in combat than any other martial class, but are also completely useless in anything that doesn't involve stabbing people in the face.
to make things even worse in order to "reward" Fighters, devs often create unreasonably long feat chains with awful prerequisites... They still fail to realize that those things punish Fighters more than anyone else and basically rob them of their main class feature.
IMO, every martial class should have 2 good saves and at very least, 4 skill points per level. Fighters could even get 6, since they are all about non-magical training. Ever since 3.0 it's been pointed out that Fighters are underpowered, but the solution has always been throwing more numbers at it and hope it works... It's time the devs realize that just raising its numerical bonuses does not work!
I'm not here to contest the power of any other class to the fighter just stating that the fighter in its current incarnation can be made to be a functional and contributing member of an adventuring party providing whatever niche service you design it to be within its limitations.
The problem is that the same thing can be said about any class. Even Warriors.
Even though grabbing those feats are not directly through a class feature the fact that fighters gain 11 combat feats which is more than many other classes can attain alone and then they get their regular 10 normal feats that can be used for whatever the like. As the ones I listed which was more the point as your class feature gives you all the combat prowess you need leaving your standard feats to shore up weaknesses.
Now, bow... Earlier in this thread I did say that getting bonus Combat feats is basically the same as getting bonus general feats if you are going to use them on combat feats anyway... And I stay by that statement.
However, if a Fighter uses only his bonus feats on combat feats, his combat prowess will be far bellow that of other classes (without having extra feats, all Fighters get are numerical bonuses, and as I said, those are useful, but not nearly as important as having actual options)... And he still won't be as versatile as them.
Everyone loves to argue that some other class can take feats too, but not every class can take as many feats and progress through as many different chains of feats as the fighter. Some classes can get bonus feats without prerequisites to further certain builds faster, but there will always be builds that are only attainable through a fighter and the sheer number of feats they get. Sure some other class may perform functionally 'better' with their own class features and arrangements of feats, but never in every facet.
The problem here is that most feats are not nearly as good as real class features. I'd much rather have Lay on Hands than an extra feat or 4.
The only thing that Fighters really excel are as switch-hitters, but even then, Rangers and Slayers are overall a far more effective character, despite the lower DPR.
Fighters have great build versatility, but lack too much character versatility. They very often have to be one or two-trick ponies to stay effective, and in this game, having just one or two tricks is just not good enough.
IMHO, the whole design philosophy for Fighters is flawed. No class can be effective when their whole point "Guy who is good at hitting stuff, therefore must useless at everything else" will never be a good class. Specially when the definition of "good" is "have an extra +2".
EDIT: Any class can take the Alluring trait and qualify for any item crafting feat. Many races come with SLA's which allow fighter's of that race to craft as well. And with the rules on crafting items even lacking the spell prerequisites and having a dumped intelligence you could pull off the DC's.
None of those things are Fighter-specific. Nor are Fighters particularly good at it... In fact, they are worse than literally every other PC class in the game.
Fighters are what you design them to be. They have 10 feats and 11 bonus combat feats which means you can use your 10 feats for anything you want. Other classes have 10 feats to use for combat AND other stuff.
Problem is... Most feats are not nearly as good as real class features. I'd take a Rage power over a bonus combat feat any day of the week and twice on sunday!
Fighters aren't a great class, but they still accomplish what they're intended to do with some thought.
...By investing far more resources than would be necessary for any other class.
Ironically, none of these things can be acquired through Fighter class features... And Fighters are not particularly good or benefit any more from them than any other class. In fact, other classes would either benefit more from these options, not need them as desperately and/or have an easier time using them.
And it accentuates yet another problem with Fighters... While most other classes (save for Rogues, but they are not exactly a good class to use as a standard) can use feats to expand their repertoire, Fighters are forced to use their normal feats to (not really) compensate their weaknesses... And even then, they still aren't as effective as other martial classes...
For example... Let's take a look at Dr.Fighty McCharming here... Look how he is a darn good party face... Even though he is not Human, doesn't use any archetype and has low Cha.
Is it possible to make a versatile Fighter? Sure it is. I know that. But the amount of required investment is stupidly higher than any other class! A Barbarian or Paladin doing the same thing would have a much easier time and/or be better at it!
Taking gear into consideration just exacerbates how ineffective Fighters are compared to other classes. Fighters do not get extra WBL and are really bad at crafting/using magic items. They don't have skill points to assign to craft skills or UMD, they don't have spells to use wands without UMD, Int is a tertiary attribute at best and Cha is their most common dump stat.
If anything, they need more money than any other martial class.
And of course, if they use only their bonus feats to improve their combat prowess, then they lose any advantage they would have over other martial classes, making them even more easily obsoleted.
And yes, multiclassing can help them... But that's not really a good argument for the class is it? "Hey, this class is weak, but if you take levels in another class, your character gets better!". If anything it just goes on to show that Fighters only excel as a dip class.
xavier c wrote:
I'm not JJ, of course... But I'd say that while she can be those things at times, in Iomedae's case, the best definition of "stern" would be "strict".
Just because something is not used by all members of that class, doesn't mean it shouldn't part of the class.
e.g.: Not all Fighters use heavy armor, but that doesn't mean they should lose Armor Training.
If something is moderately common and expected from a class, it should be part of it.
Not all Fighters need to be inspiring, but the class should be able to do and be good at it that if the player chooses (even if they are not as good as more specialized classes). Same goes for scouting.
See... I don't mind that hitting stuff is their main schtick. My problem is that it's often all that they can do because trying to do something else requires heavy investment and/or is not very effective.
That's why I like feats that give Fighters more options, such as Cornugon Smash, Combat Reflexes, Lunge,maneuver feats (although many of them suffer from "crappy prerequisite" syndrome), etc.
Weapon Focus/Specialization are incredibly boring because they don't expand any of the Fighters options. I've literally seen 12th level Fighters who had exactly the same abilities they had at 1st level, only with higher numbers... And said build was considered "optimized" too! I don't think I've seen that happen with any other class in the game!
Focusing on hitting stuff is cool. Being only able to hit stuff is extremely limited and (IMO) incredibly boring. Even in fighting games, character who only have high damage and lots of hp are far more often than not considered weak. And this is in games where combat is literally the only thing involved, it's (almost) always 1x1 (or some version of tag teams) and stuff like difficult terrain is (almost) never something to worry about!
If those limitations are so severe even in fighting games, imagine how bad they are in a game where literally anything and everything the GM can imagine is possible.
Clerics can be almost anything they want to be. Frontline melee, party face, healer, caster, any mix of these. Let's be careful when we use the term "diversity".
I agree. We don't need more full casters...
That said... Most fantasy "Fighters" are not limited to hit stuff (and many of them are low level too).
Fighters should at very least be able to:
- Navigate the battlefield with ease.
At high level, Fighter should be able to do fantastic feats of strength and skill as well, such as deflecting rays, breaking magic barriers, kill multiple mooks with a single swing of his blade, etc.
In other words...yes, you want it to be able to do a bit of everything.
In other words, I don't want to be completely useless just because standing still and full attacking is not an option. Slayers, Barbarians, Rangers and Paladins can all contribute fairly well out of combat, and they are not even close to being capable of "doing everything". And even though they might have lower AC and DPR, they are at least as good as Fighters when it comes to combat.
Literally every other class has more versatility than the Fighter. And most of them are just as good in combat as well. Why is the Fighter the only one that can't do anything other than hit stuff with a pointy stick?
"Having a role" should mean "Having something you're really good at" not "The only thing you can do".
Fighters are not even very good at fighting... They are good at standing still and full attacking, but since combat usually involves more than that, Fighters are at best mediocre at fighting.
If your party expects your Fighter to do everything (combat, social, healing), you need to find a new group to play with.
No one wants the Fighter do everything. We just want it to eb able to do something when hitting stuff with a sword is not a viable option. All other martial classes are (at least) just as good as Fighters in combat and far more versatile.
Being able to hit things really hard shouldn't require the class to be completely useless at everything else!
Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10
This is the order I prefer you guys to use:
Attack Roll -> Damage -> Crit Confirmation (if Necessary) -> Extra Damage (if Necessary) ->
Just use preview/edit post to add the necessary rolls.
To be fair, the problem with caster is more often than not caused by problematic spells. Not the spell system.
Vancian, spontaneous-vancian, power-point, mana... None of those would be too unbalanced if we didn't have stuff like skill-obsoleting spells and stuff like teleport, scrying, simulacrum, maze, summon monster, etc... Now, IMO, those effects are iconic to fantasy stories, so they should stay, but they could use a balance tweak.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Sadly true... There is a lot of good 3pp stuff for PF. I'd buy even more of them if they had HeroLab data packs.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Since these are alternate options that we don't expect everyone will use, my gut suspicion (which is wholly a personal suspicion but seems to make sense to me) is that it wouldn't make much sense to publish more about these systems ourselves, given the way our product lines work. That said, I can easily see some of the 3pp expanding on some of these. For a few of them, anyway, they lend themselves really easily to expansion.
This part worries me... For some systems, it might not be a problem (things like the "Armor as DR" system don't need expansion to keep functional, since they affect game-wide rules), but for some of them (like Words of Power) not having continuing support makes them basically pointless and dooms them to be forgotten/ignored... I've seen this happen to way too many "alternate rules" for 3.5/PF.
Will the new systems in PF require the character to sacrifice something to use them or will they just be pure additions?
e.g.: Let's say there a system that allows characters to move and full attack... Will it be
A- Using this system you move and full attack.
B- Using this system you move and full attack, but you can only make 2 attacks per turn and only add half your strength modifier.
Because it they lean towards B, I fear the weak/boring aspects of the game go on being too weak/boring...
Also, can we expect to have continuing support for these system after PF:U or will they be promptly abandoned and never mentioned again like Words of Power?
One more time: I'm not disagreeing with you!
What I'm saying is this: Getting bonus Combat feats is pretty darn close to just getting bonus feats (for a martial class, that is).
Back to my past analogy... The Fighter is getting 500 bucks + health care... Which helps them save money to buy stuff they like. That's a fact. It's just not enough to make them a good class.
Other classes are still better because even though they don't get free health care, they are earn 500 bucks + a bunch of diamonds that are worth far more than the price of the best health care plan ever!
This means Fighters are not as effective as other classes, but it still doesn't change the fact that getting free health care is basically the same as getting the money to pay for health care, since most characters will invest in health care anyway.
And it's not true. Actually, they don't need to get Combat feats.
They don't need to. But they most likely will do it anyway.
Rage-related feats are Combat feats in all but name... They are feats devoted to combat. The only reason they are not classified as such is because it doesn't make any difference, since Barbarians don't get bonus feats.
Rangers' bonus feats are also limited to combat feats.
Paladins are likely as not to focus on things that up paladin abilities, like Extra Mercy and Channeling, once they get Power Attack.
I've seen many Paladins take a great variety of combat feats.
Casters won't get combat feats at all.
Arcane Strike, Improved Initiative and Defensive Combat Training are Combat feats (oddly enough, Combat Casting isn't). Not to mention that Clerics, Druids and other medium BAB casters will likely take even more combat feats.
So, meh. Feats are already 1/2 a class feature for most feat categories. Combat feats take that down even further.
I'm not disagreeing with this. But getting bonus Combat feats is basically the same as getting bonus feats.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but saying a Fighter has no easier time getting, say Iron Will or Toughness, than any other class because they only get Combat feats is not completely true. A Ranger or Cavalier benefits just as much from that any of those feats, but they don't have as many feats to invest...
I'm not saying Fighter is a good class or that Combat feats is are as good as real class features... I'm merely pointing out that getting extra Combat feats is basically the same thing as getting general feats for most classes. Even more so for full-BAB classes.
Fighter can often afford to grab general feats and feat chains that other classes can't. They can also complete feat chains much earlier. Unfortunately, this is not enough to make them an effective class, but it is something they can do.
I don't know why you're so eager to say getting bonus Combat feats doesn't help with getting more general feats. It does. Unless you don't plan to take any Combat feat at all... And I don't remember the last time I saw a character without at least 1 Combat feat.
That's a different problem. I agree that bonus feats are not nearly as good as real class features. My point is just that since character will most likely grab Combat feats anyway, getting bonus combat feats isn't very different from getting bonus feats.
Again, Fighters have NO feats that help them out of combat. They only have combat feats.
Well... Intimidating Prowess is a Combat feat, and it does help out of combat.
And I still think having bonus combat feats (mostly) counts as having bonus normal feats.
After all, earning $500 + health care is basically the same as getting $500 + the money necessary to pay for health care... Not exactly as good, of course, but it's pretty close, since you most likely want that health care anyway.
If it needs a fix, it's because it's broken. You really shouldn't to pay a feat tac just to be able to move 10ft and deal (at best) +2d6 damage... Especially considering casters can easily teleport as move action and still cast 2 spells.
Heavily punished by the system? How? I see no evidence of it.
1- Requires heavy feat investment just so it's not basically useless.2- One of the most common prerequisites is basically useless for most characters. It's the very definition of feat tax.
3- Often requires Int 13 despite the fact that most martial characters have no reason to invest in Int (It's also infuriating that with Int 12 you can learn to cast 2nd level spells but can't possibly learn to trip someone without provoking ¬¬')
Sunder is probably the least taxing maneuver, since it doesn't have insane prerequisites. Probably the one that comes closer to being truly functional... Still, you need to invest a feat just so you don't get punched in the face while doing it and magical armor and weapon often have great Hardness and HP.
Also, no one likes destroying their loot (this is partially fixed with Make whole and Mending, though)
Bull Rush also requires 1~2 feats just to be effective and is very situational, to say the least. I've repeatedly seen characters go dozens of combats without ever using bull rush.... Or using it with shield bash only because they could do it as a free action, as it more often than not provided little to no benefit (pushing someone 5~10ft is basically irrelevant 90% of the time).
Mark Seifter wrote:
Ah, that's true. Good catch. Thanks.
Yeah, size bonuses are difficult to adjust. Although Large creatures are not usually that bad...
I suppose it could be something like +1, +2, +4, +6, +8, +10, etc... PCs would at least have a chance to get out of grapples by those colossal creatures. :/
But, anyway... Here is my question:
1- Now that we have the "your attribute modifier count as a source" errata, any chance to FAQ Fury's Fall to allow the character to add both Str and Dex? Just so it has some use for characters with Weapon Finesse? (It also encourages characters to not dump Str... Although, honestly... I don't think dumping Str bellow 10 is ever a good idea, unless you're a full arcane caster).
Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10
So... Reviewing this post, this is my decision:
1- BAB x Spell-casting: I'm keeping the spell-casting x BAB restriction. Keep in mind that you can use any spell list, but the spell-casting progression is restricted by BAB.
2- Firearms: Firearms deal damage as if they were 1 size category bigger. This makes them competitive with crossbows.
"Insightful Shot" is a feat. It allows you to add Int or Wis to damage rolls of ranged weapons. If you already add a different attribute, it instead replaces that with your Int or Wis modifier. Exceptions are abilities that explicitly say they are added in addition to the normal attribute modifiers.
3- Animate Object: Works normally. You can animate Large and bigger weapons, but they suffer a penalty to attack roll as if wielded by a creature of the Magus' size category.
Any doubts, criticism or suggestions?
Mark Seifter wrote:
As to your question, it is an interesting question to be sure. In my games, I would say that the weapon bonuses still don't apply, but then again, I've been on the receiving side of a giant monster's grapples enough times to know that the status quo is already on the grappler's side enough that I wouldn't want to push it even more in that direction (for instance, my poor brawler in the playtest for my two Occult Adventures classes has been grappled successfully numerous times despite my having spend significant character resources on bonuses to prevent grapples). If I didn't see the status quo in that way, your question is close enough to a toss-up for me that I could have seen myself answering the other way.
I think that's more of a problem with size bonuses to CMB. They scale too fast and too far. Without Grab, grapple is a pretty weak maneuver... It requires 3~4 feats just so the grappler has and advantage over the "grapplee" (mostly because your target can keep full attacking you while you have to spend actions just to maintain the grapple. In fact, most of my characters have a cestus or spiked gauntlet just so they can punch the hell out of anyone who grapples them).
Size bonuses to CMD/CMB could be a bit lower, IMHO... They could scale by +2 for every additional size category, instead of having an exponential increase... And to make things worse, those Huge creatures most often come with huge Str modifiers as well.
James Jacobs wrote:
1- And did a great job with them. The Kaiju are my favorite creatures from Beastiary 4.
2- Oh, now I'm curious! How do you do it? Do the PCs have to gather armies? Or are the kaijus basically unstoppable and the PCs' job is to deal with the destruction and save as many lives as possible?
3- "because he's a cyborg alien kaiju with a buzzsaw for a torso/belly!" is probably the best reason I ever heard for having a favorite monster!
Yes I know the rules. An AoO provides a penalty to CMB. That penalty doesn't apply if you have the appropriate feat. There are options available to martial characters to do more than move and attack.
Yeah... Nothing like investing 2~3 feats just so your character is not absolutely awful at doing something every warrior should know how to do...
Even better! You have to invest 4 points in an attribute you don't need and get a feat you most likely don't ever plan to use and has no synergy with you maneuver feat...
No. At the end of the day, full-attacking is basically the only combat option most martials have. Trying to do something different is heavily punished by the system.
1- What's your favorite (Pathfinder) Kaiju?
2- As a GM, do you do anything to make battles against colossal enemies (such as Kaijus) different from simply attacking a creature that has greater reach and lots of HP? (e.g.: making the PCs have to climb it or attack specific body parts)
3- What's your 3 favorite film Kaiju? Any special reason for your choices?
Chess Pwn wrote:
apparently it's not as easy as that. Maybe because they don't want the standard small races to have that big of a damage difference?
Well, the difference between 1d6 and 1d4 is just a +1 on average, so it's not a big deal.
The exception, of course is the difference between 1d12 and 3d6, but few weapons use those dice.
Hey, Mark, I just saw this post of yours:
Mark Seifter wrote:
You can blame those darned gnomes and halflings and their manufactured weapons for that. Seriously, I created something elegant that had thus-far pinned down everything, only to find that those small races were the only thing in the game that couldn't fit. Come, my friends, let us band together and lay waste to the villages of all the gnomes and halflings until we have our FAQ!
Couldn't the dev team say the damage dice for Small characters are always 1 size smaller than the ones for Medium characters? That would mean that they fit in any progression you guys come up with...
BTW, right now, 'til Paizo publishes an official answer, this is the progression I'm using:
Die Size Progression:
1 -> 1d2 -> 1d3 -> 1d4 -> 1d6 ->
1d8 -> 1d10 -> 1d12 (or 2d6) -> 3d6 ->
3d8 -> 3d10 -> 3d12 (or 6d6) -> then keep adding 1d12 (or 2d6) per additional size category.
Is it any close to the one you created? :)
Do you think I could have that bonus, then? ^^
Hmmm... If I add a /sarcasm at the end of my post, do you think that would give you a bonus to your next Sense Motive check? ;)
Yeah... skills and spells obviously count for nothing! Role-playing and player's charisma should be all that matters! All in the name of making Fighters not-completely-useless when there's nothing to stab with a pointy stick...
That's completely fair to the players who invested in social skills and other useful out-of-combat abilities.