Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Why all the Fighter hate?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

1,501 to 1,550 of 1,672 << first < prev | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | next > last >>

ciretose wrote:


Where are we posting for the RoTRL challenge and have we found any judges.

So you all had played RoTRL? why we do not try something diferent?

Exactly what is the idea you people have?

Andoran

Nicos wrote:
ciretose wrote:


Where are we posting for the RoTRL challenge and have we found any judges.

So you all had played RoTRL? why we do not try something diferent?

Exactly what is the idea you people have?

I don't care which AP it is, I just want to run through a discussion encounter by encounter discussing how it actually plays out when you run the game as written with characters build within the framework of the AP.

To often these discussions turn into theorycraft with builds that wouldn't actually exist unless you built them starting at that level with a GM who had an open magic shop.

If you play the game as intended, starting from first level, the classes work just fine.

It's just when Schrödinger's (blank) appears, led by the rules lawyer that major issues occur.


Ashiel wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Someone can dimension door the fighter there. The caster is the only one that would lose actions, but the others do not.

And you would want to dimension door into melee why?

Maybe if you were an eldritch knight. Then it would be a good way to get you both into melee quickly.

If the fighter becomes an immediate threat with a full attack beating the crud out of the enemy, what should the enemy do? Attack the one who brought the fighter there (it doesn't have to be a wizard) or attack the one that is going to kill him next round? Also, no one said that the caster needs to be in melee range. A fighter with reach and a caster behind him can end up being in a good tactical position.


All this talk of hurling the fighter down range reminded me of a 1st Edition game I was in many moons ago. We had a half-orc barbarian, halfling thief, dwarf fighter, and I was playing a human wizard. There was a chasm about 15 feet wide between us and some orcs. I should preface this with the fact that the maximum Wisdom a barbarian could have was 15 so it was common for players to dump Wisdom and sometimes Intelligence. This was one of those times. On the first round the barbarian threw his axe and killed an orc. The second round he threw his shield and killed an orc. He then looked at the halfling and had an epiphany: halflings are smart! He then threw the halfling at the orcs, and killed one. It was so long ago, I don't remember what the rest of us were doing. Probably too busy laughing to be very effective.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Someone can dimension door the fighter there. The caster is the only one that would lose actions, but the others do not.

And you would want to dimension door into melee why?

Maybe if you were an eldritch knight. Then it would be a good way to get you both into melee quickly.

Or a bard. I've told that story a time or two around here. Haven't you read it?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Someone can dimension door the fighter there. The caster is the only one that would lose actions, but the others do not.

And you would want to dimension door into melee why?

Maybe if you were an eldritch knight. Then it would be a good way to get you both into melee quickly.

Or a bard. I've told that story a time or two around here. Haven't you read it?

I don't read anything you write. TOZ, sure, but not you :)

I actually hadn't read that story before. It would work great and kinda makes me want to play a bard in an upcoming adventure.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I mean, sure, you could do that as a wizard and be waaaaay better than a bard. But I guess it's good to take a handicap when you play with the melees.

;)


TarkXT wrote:
AlecStorm wrote:
Alienfreak wrote:


As a GM I would not let take this Heritage. The first level power is also the bloodline power, so this choice would be an exception (you can't gain bloodline powers with eldritch heritage).
I'm afraid I'm a bit confused here. Do you mean he can't gain the blood line arcana?

Yes, with this feats you can't gain bloodline arcana. The alternate class features that gives you the animal companion substitute the 1st level power and bloodline arcana.


ciretose wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


It's really nice if you have a mage-friend to telekinesis you into a badguy, which slams the badguy for damage, then places you adjacent to him to full attack. Also, if you have a mage friend to cast greater magic weapon, you get an extra +4 to hit and +4 to damage on all attacks. Heroism or greater heroism is nice too. Inspire Courage pulls extra duty here as well.

*blink*

Wow...ok first off read Telekinesis. Second off, if you are hurled into someone, causing damage, you would also sustain damage.

Second, greater magic weapon is an enhancement bonus...just like whatever weapon the fighter will be using by that level...so it doesn't stack.

Heroism and inspire courage are fine I guess...so you are batting .500.

Great in baseball, not so good here.

Where are we posting for the RoTRL challenge and have we found any judges.

Why should he throw the fighter if he can deal 20000d6 damage with a telekinesis?


Alienfreak wrote:
Why should he throw the fighter if he can deal 20000d6 damage with a telekinesis?

Because the Wizard+Fighter fastball special is cooler, less abusive, and makes the Fighter feel epic?

Bob_Loblaw wrote:
If the fighter becomes an immediate threat with a full attack beating the crud out of the enemy, what should the enemy do? Attack the one who brought the fighter there (it doesn't have to be a wizard) or attack the one that is going to kill him next round? Also, no one said that the caster needs to be in melee range. A fighter with reach and a caster behind him can end up being in a good tactical position.

Good answers. I concur.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Or a bard. I've told that story a time or two around here. Haven't you read it?

Also a good option. Bards are cool, and many of them can do fine in melee. Good call. :)

Andoran

Ashiel wrote:
Alienfreak wrote:
Why should he throw the fighter if he can deal 20000d6 damage with a telekinesis?

Because the Wizard+Fighter fastball special is cooler, less abusive, and makes the Fighter feel epic?

Thought you were gone?

Less abusive is a relative term I suppose. Ike was less abusive than say, Buffalo Bill from silence of the lambs.

Being used as a projectile weapon being less hindering to the person than walking to the same enemy is still pretty ridiculous, particularly when the spell says you can move something 20 feet per round without them becoming a missile, which would be the circumstance where what you propose would apply.

But why try to follow RAI?


Ashiel wrote:


Also a good option. Bards are cool, and many of them can do fine in melee. Good call. :)

I played an Arcane Duelist from level 1 to level 16 in Curse of the Crimson Throne. It was a ball and sometimes she even outdamaged the fighter :-)

It was a blast. The class was just as a Paladin.
Bards are great.


ciretose wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Alienfreak wrote:
Why should he throw the fighter if he can deal 20000d6 damage with a telekinesis?

Because the Wizard+Fighter fastball special is cooler, less abusive, and makes the Fighter feel epic?

Thought you were gone?

I wanted to chime in and offer props to Bob and TriOmegaZero for their posts. I will continue to read the thread, but I am done with it the back and forth. The childish baiting gets old, and forum hopping should be fun.

EDIT:

Zark wrote:

I played an Arcane Duelist from level 1 to level 16 in Curse of the Crimson Throne. It was a ball and sometimes she even outdamaged the fighter :-)

It was a blast. The class was just as a Paladin.
Bards are great.

'Tis true!

Andoran

Ashiel wrote:


I wanted to chime in and offer props to Bob and TriOmegaZero for their posts. I will continue to read the thread, but I am done with it the back and forth. The childish baiting gets old, and forum hopping should be fun.

Coincidentally before your theories are put to practical applications in the test you agreed was fair.


ciretose wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


I wanted to chime in and offer props to Bob and TriOmegaZero for their posts. I will continue to read the thread, but I am done with it the back and forth. The childish baiting gets old, and forum hopping should be fun.
Coincidentally before your theories are put to practical applications in the test you agreed was fair.

I have a severe aversion to ass.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Donkeys DO have a rather pungent odor...

Andoran

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Donkeys DO have a rather pungent odor...

It's all about the excrement I think. Sure Donkey excrement is unpleasant, but Bull is a far more pungent to me.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Beware the Shamurai warriors, masters of Bullshido.


TOZ wrote:
Beware the Shamurai warriors, masters of Bullshido.

Those must be bards. :3

Silver Crusade

Aelryinth wrote:
Nicos wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

You know your shield costs 53,000 gp?

No i did not know it :P

shallowsoul wrote:


+2 keen, holy so far is a +5 weapon and then an extra...
But the +2 are shield bonus not armor bonus, oh well I really do not konw.

A shield +2, +1 Holy is a +2 Peice of armor, +3 Weapon, with +3000 gp for Adamantine.

that means it is 4k +18k +3k = 25k, not 53k.

Weapon enhancements on a shield are tabulated completely independent of the armor value.

The general destination for a shield is +5 Shield of Bashing, +5 Defender. Once you get Shield Mastery, you dump all the Defender into AC, and use the Shield Mastery bonus for offense and defense. You walk around with a +12 AC from your shield.

==Aelryinth

I'm not so sure you are incorrect on the price. Holy Is considered +2 not +1 and you forgot that he put the "keen" property on his spiked shield. You can't consider it a +2 shield bonus item and expect to put weapon special properties on the item. It has to be at least a +1 weapon first before you can add things like "keen", or Holy.


shallowsoul wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Nicos wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

You know your shield costs 53,000 gp?

No i did not know it :P

shallowsoul wrote:


+2 keen, holy so far is a +5 weapon and then an extra...
But the +2 are shield bonus not armor bonus, oh well I really do not konw.

A shield +2, +1 Holy is a +2 Peice of armor, +3 Weapon, with +3000 gp for Adamantine.

that means it is 4k +18k +3k = 25k, not 53k.

Weapon enhancements on a shield are tabulated completely independent of the armor value.

The general destination for a shield is +5 Shield of Bashing, +5 Defender. Once you get Shield Mastery, you dump all the Defender into AC, and use the Shield Mastery bonus for offense and defense. You walk around with a +12 AC from your shield.

==Aelryinth

I'm not so sure you are incorrect on the price. Holy Is considered +2 not +1 and you forgot that he put the "keen" property on his spiked shield. You can't consider it a +2 shield bonus item and expect to put weapon special properties on the item. It has to be at least a +1 weapon first before you can add things like "keen", or Holy.

But the feat shield master said otherwise

Shield Master (Combat)
Your mastery of the shield allows you to fight with it without hindrance.

Prerequisites: Improved Shield Bash, Shield Proficiency, Shield Slam, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.

Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon. Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus.

The shield bonus becomes the weapon bonus a +5 bashing spiked heavyshield (+7 to Ac, +5 to attack and 2d6+5) wuld cost only 25k

Silver Crusade

Nicos wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Nicos wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

You know your shield costs 53,000 gp?

No i did not know it :P

shallowsoul wrote:


+2 keen, holy so far is a +5 weapon and then an extra...
But the +2 are shield bonus not armor bonus, oh well I really do not konw.

A shield +2, +1 Holy is a +2 Peice of armor, +3 Weapon, with +3000 gp for Adamantine.

that means it is 4k +18k +3k = 25k, not 53k.

Weapon enhancements on a shield are tabulated completely independent of the armor value.

The general destination for a shield is +5 Shield of Bashing, +5 Defender. Once you get Shield Mastery, you dump all the Defender into AC, and use the Shield Mastery bonus for offense and defense. You walk around with a +12 AC from your shield.

==Aelryinth

I'm not so sure you are incorrect on the price. Holy Is considered +2 not +1 and you forgot that he put the "keen" property on his spiked shield. You can't consider it a +2 shield bonus item and expect to put weapon special properties on the item. It has to be at least a +1 weapon first before you can add things like "keen", or Holy.

But the feat shield master said otherwise

Shield Master (Combat)
Your mastery of the shield allows you to fight with it without hindrance.

Prerequisites: Improved Shield Bash, Shield Proficiency, Shield Slam, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.

Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon. Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus.

The shield bonus becomes the weapon bonus a +5 bashing spiked heavyshield (+7 to Ac, +5 to attack and 2d6+5) wuld cost only 25k

That feat has nothing to do with the item creation part. It let's you add your shield's bonus to attack and damage as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus. It's still going to cost you more than 25k I'm afraid.

Silver Crusade

Nicos wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Nicos wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

You know your shield costs 53,000 gp?

No i did not know it :P

shallowsoul wrote:


+2 keen, holy so far is a +5 weapon and then an extra...
But the +2 are shield bonus not armor bonus, oh well I really do not konw.

A shield +2, +1 Holy is a +2 Peice of armor, +3 Weapon, with +3000 gp for Adamantine.

that means it is 4k +18k +3k = 25k, not 53k.

Weapon enhancements on a shield are tabulated completely independent of the armor value.

The general destination for a shield is +5 Shield of Bashing, +5 Defender. Once you get Shield Mastery, you dump all the Defender into AC, and use the Shield Mastery bonus for offense and defense. You walk around with a +12 AC from your shield.

==Aelryinth

I'm not so sure you are incorrect on the price. Holy Is considered +2 not +1 and you forgot that he put the "keen" property on his spiked shield. You can't consider it a +2 shield bonus item and expect to put weapon special properties on the item. It has to be at least a +1 weapon first before you can add things like "keen", or Holy.

But the feat shield master said otherwise

Shield Master (Combat)
Your mastery of the shield allows you to fight with it without hindrance.

Prerequisites: Improved Shield Bash, Shield Proficiency, Shield Slam, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.

Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon. Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus.

The shield bonus becomes the weapon bonus a +5 bashing spiked heavyshield (+7 to Ac, +5 to attack and 2d6+5) wuld cost only 25k

A +5 bashing shield is going to cost you 36,000gp because it's considered a +6 shield. +1 for bashing and +5 enhancement bonus.


shallowsoul wrote:

That feat has nothing to do with the item creation part. It let's you add your shield's bonus to attack and damage as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus. It's still going to cost you more

A +5 bashing shield is going to cost you 36,000gp because it's considered a +6 shield. +1 for bashing and +5 enhancement bonus.

Yes you are right. but a +6 shield still is half the price of a +6 weapon.


We always ran the fast ball as a charge that required either the thrower to ready or the thowee to delay until the others turn.

Mildly off-topic:

Thinking about the fastball special reminds me of a party we had in a 3.5 ebberon game we started at level 3 i believe and the party warforged took a 3rd party template for one level adjustment to be large. Took the fling ally and fling enemy feats and constantly proceeded to to open fights by fastballing the Halfling Druid into fights so he could close distance quicker. The GM eventually created a homebrew feat that let him wildshape mid throw and thus turn into X creature for more damage and on a few occasions pounce. Though his favorite was Dire Weasel and attach.

Silver Crusade

Nicos wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

That feat has nothing to do with the item creation part. It let's you add your shield's bonus to attack and damage as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus. It's still going to cost you more

A +5 bashing shield is going to cost you 36,000gp because it's considered a +6 shield. +1 for bashing and +5 enhancement bonus.

Yes you are right. but a +6 shield still is half the price of a +6 weapon.

Yes, that is fine but you won't be adding Holy or Keen to it and expect to pay that little.

Andoran

Talonhawke wrote:

We always ran the fast ball as a charge that required either the thrower to ready or the thowee to delay until the others turn.

Which again makes perfect sense. I'm not arguing against the concept of throwing someone into battle, I'm arguing against the concept that the person thrown into battle as a projectile weapon (per the spell) should be able to make more attacks than if they just walked up to the enemy.

Which is of course ridiculous.

While suspension of disbelief is important for the game to work, suspension of common sense is jarring to any kind of verisimilitude you are trying to create at the table

Some people disagree. They are why we have to screen who we let sit down at our tables...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What if they actually have pounce how do you feel about Tiger Cannons?

Andoran

Talonhawke wrote:
What if they actually have pounce how do you feel about Tiger Cannons?

That could work for me. It would at least be an arguable premise rather than something completely absurd.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

I missed the Keen on pricing the shield. Looked right past it.

His +2 Shield has also got to be +1 Keen Holy as a weapon, which is +4, not +5.

So he's got +2 Shield at 4k, and "+4" Weapon at 32k, for a 38k shield, +3 for adamantine is 41k.

Keen saves him a feat, and since you don't usually plan to enchant a shield up to +10, isn't a bad idea at all.

If you've got someone with GMW and don't care about DR, making it a +1 Weapon with +9 of kickers isn't a bad idea, if you're going for Shield Mastery. Just make sure Defender is one of the kickers!

==Aelryinth


ciretose wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
What if they actually have pounce how do you feel about Tiger Cannons?
That could work for me. It would at least be an arguable premise rather than something completely absurd.

That's the funniest thing I've read in a long time. I understand what you are saying, but imagine someone who doesn't know anything coming here and reading: what about tiger cannons? and the response is "as long as it's not absurd!" Tiger cannons are absurd, and I'm going to find a way to use them.

Andoran

Bob_Loblaw wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
What if they actually have pounce how do you feel about Tiger Cannons?
That could work for me. It would at least be an arguable premise rather than something completely absurd.
That's the funniest thing I've read in a long time. I understand what you are saying, but imagine someone who doesn't know anything coming here and reading: what about tiger cannons? and the response is "as long as it's not absurd!" Tiger cannons are absurd, and I'm going to find a way to use them.

There is visually absurd and logistically absurd.

Throwing an ally at an enemy as a projectile is, naturally, an absurd visual. However technically, it would "work" at damaging the enemy (and your friend of course).

Having this be mode of travel for your friend be more efficient than walking to the point they can do more after bouncing off an enemy (or wall if you miss) than they could if they walked over...not so much.

Andoran

Also, since Ashiel is still lurking, I created a thread for what I proposed.


ciretose wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
What if they actually have pounce how do you feel about Tiger Cannons?
That could work for me. It would at least be an arguable premise rather than something completely absurd.
That's the funniest thing I've read in a long time. I understand what you are saying, but imagine someone who doesn't know anything coming here and reading: what about tiger cannons? and the response is "as long as it's not absurd!" Tiger cannons are absurd, and I'm going to find a way to use them.

There is visually absurd and logistically absurd.

Throwing an ally at an enemy as a projectile is, naturally, an absurd visual. However technically, it would "work" at damaging the enemy (and your friend of course).

Having this be mode of travel for your friend be more efficient than walking to the point they can do more after bouncing off an enemy (or wall if you miss) than they could if they walked over...not so much.

I was just trying to imagine someone completely unfamiliar with role playing games coming into this thread accidentally and reading your statement out of context. Some things that we all say around here are really absurd to those who aren't in the loop.

Silver Crusade

So in light of all the builds that have been posted, do any of you still think the fighter is lacking?


Yes. Just because you can build something interesting and fun with the class does not mean that the class is not lacking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that this problem should be discussed aside from specific builds.
Since is not the combat power the fighter's problem is another aspect that should be observed. I know, is not easy like creating a build and see wich is more powerful, but I think we can do it.
Now I'm trying the fighter with 4 skills/level and some more class skills. Tumble, and other depending on background. A town guard? Knowledge local. Professional soldier, knowledge nobility, and so on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
So in light of all the builds that have been posted, do any of you still think the fighter is lacking?

I'm pretty much where I started. "Lacking" may be a bit strong, but I do think they could really use a couple extra skill points, a more generous skill list (seriously, no Perception?), and maybe some unique fluffy tricks or bonuses for outside of combat. Without that, for me the class will still just be for dipping.

Also, for Lore Wardens. Seeing as how they give a good chunk of what I just asked for, and all.

Silver Crusade

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Yes. Just because you can build something interesting and fun with the class does not mean that the class is not lacking.

So it's interesting and fun but it's still lacking. What is it lacking exactly? Please don't come up with something that is off the wall like spellcasting or some other nonsense. The class does exactly what it was meant to do but if your expectations are higher than what the class was designed for then I guess you will just have to homebrew it into whatever you want it to be.

Silver Crusade

Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
So in light of all the builds that have been posted, do any of you still think the fighter is lacking?
I'm pretty much where I started. "Lacking" may be a bit strong, but I do think they could really use a couple extra skill points, a more generous skill list (seriously, no Perception?), and maybe some unique fluffy tricks or bonuses for outside of combat. Without that, for me the class will still just be for dipping or maybe the occasional Lore Warden.

You do realize that if you add these extra things on to the class you make it too powerful. The fighter can have a good Perception score that will still allow him to hit the DC's of most Perception checks while still keeping his combat ability.


shallowsoul wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Yes. Just because you can build something interesting and fun with the class does not mean that the class is not lacking.
So it's interesting and fun but it's still lacking.
It's possible to make a build using any class interesting. That doesn't mean the class itself isn't lacking. It is difficult to make interesting characters out of it. Just because some people can do so (and good for them) doesn't mean that it isn't difficult.
shallowsoul wrote:
What is it lacking exactly? Please don't come up with something that is off the wall like spellcasting or some other nonsense. The class does exactly what it was meant to do but if your expectations are higher than what the class was designed for then I guess you will just have to homebrew it into whatever you want it to be.

The problem is that it lacks interesting stuff. It's too bland. Everybody else gets interesting things to choose from. Barbarians get rage powers. Cavaliers get orders. Rangers get favored enemies and terrains and spells. Paladins get all sorts of divine powers. They also all have a fair bit of out of combat utility. Fighters get none of this. Fighters get feats. Feats are boring. I want something more interesting. Why not new combat manoeuvres only they can learn or Book of Experimental Might-style fighting domains that only they can have?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
You do realize that if you add these extra things on to the class you make it too powerful. The fighter can have a good Perception score that will still allow him to hit the DC's of most Perception checks while still keeping his combat ability.

I absolutely don't agree with that. While the Fighter is fine and playable as it is, it is a far cry from "too powerful." Being slightly more skillful and getting an unique trick or two isn't going to change that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Yes. Just because you can build something interesting and fun with the class does not mean that the class is not lacking.
So it's interesting and fun but it's still lacking. What is it lacking exactly? Please don't come up with something that is off the wall like spellcasting or some other nonsense. The class does exactly what it was meant to do but if your expectations are higher than what the class was designed for then I guess you will just have to homebrew it into whatever you want it to be.

Lack of options. And the problem is not perception, you can have as a class skill with one trait, the problem is that a class that rock in combat and doesn't have enough skills for non combat and roleplay situations is a class for board game, not for an RPG.

This remember me some class of MMORPG that can do just one thing. Well, this is not a videogame. I don't think that my player should play something boring just because "the class does was meant to do".
There's a reason for wich now we play PF and not 3.5. Evolution.

Silver Crusade

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
The problem is that it lacks interesting stuff. It's too bland.

You've actually missed the whole design purpose of the class. It's like saying the Wizard is lacking because it doesn't have access to Druid spells.

The class is not a class that is supposed to come with flashing lights and lots of bells and whistles. Wizards are built around their spell lists primarily. By choosing different spells you can have anything from a diviner to an Invoker. The fighter is the same with regards to feats. The feats are the fighter's spell list while the abilities that it does come with accentuate those feats. The fighter does what it is designed to do but it's design is subjective which means you may not like it but it's still properly designed.


I don't think feats are boring, but there are archetypes that can solve this problem. Btw, I give 4 skill points to all classes that before had 2, so also paladin, mage, sorcere, etc.

Andoran

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Yes. Just because you can build something interesting and fun with the class does not mean that the class is not lacking.

Really? Because I think that is pretty much exactly what it means.


ciretose wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Yes. Just because you can build something interesting and fun with the class does not mean that the class is not lacking.
Really? Because I think that is pretty much exactly what it means.

No, it isn't what it means. Just because some interesting builds are possible doesn't mean that the class itself could stand to be more interesting. Sure, I could pick an interesting selection of feats if I tried hard enough. As a class feature, they are still generally fairly boring.


shallowsoul wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
The problem is that it lacks interesting stuff. It's too bland.

You've actually missed the whole design purpose of the class. It's like saying the Wizard is lacking because it doesn't have access to Druid spells.

The class is not a class that is supposed to come with flashing lights and lots of bells and whistles. Wizards are built around their spell lists primarily. By choosing different spells you can have anything from a diviner to an Invoker. The fighter is the same with regards to feats. The feats are the fighter's spell list while the abilities that it does come with accentuate those feats. The fighter does what it is designed to do but it's design is subjective which means you may not like it but it's still properly designed.

Wizards can do all sorts of interesting stuff with spells, like flying, turning invisible, and throwing fireballs, and change them daily. Feats just give you a bonus to the stuff you already do, remove penalties, or give you a single extra combat option. That's not particularly interesting. I like the idea of what the Fighter was supposed to be and do, but bonus feats were a boring way to go about it.


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
The problem is that it lacks interesting stuff. It's too bland.

You've actually missed the whole design purpose of the class. It's like saying the Wizard is lacking because it doesn't have access to Druid spells.

The class is not a class that is supposed to come with flashing lights and lots of bells and whistles. Wizards are built around their spell lists primarily. By choosing different spells you can have anything from a diviner to an Invoker. The fighter is the same with regards to feats. The feats are the fighter's spell list while the abilities that it does come with accentuate those feats. The fighter does what it is designed to do but it's design is subjective which means you may not like it but it's still properly designed.

Wizards can do all sorts of interesting stuff with spells, like flying, turning invisible, and throwing fireballs, and change them daily. Feats just give you a bonus to the stuff you already do, remove penalties, or give you a single extra combat option. That's not particularly interesting. I like the idea of what the Fighter was supposed to be and do, but bonus feats were a boring way to go about it.

I am going to have to disagree. I like having access to alot of feats, to be this "mundane" dude who can roll with the mystical forces. It is a character that I can get immersed in, whereas it is harder to pull that off with a Wizard who does all the other mumbo jumbo stuff.

I think it is just a different flavor of tea, which is why there are a plethora of base classes to choose from. You choose the one that meets your playstyle and go from there. Every class isn't for every playstyle.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love the fighter, but the class still has some issues. Much in the same way a Ranger without access to Instant Enemy does when he's in a campaign full of grumpikens when he chose snarlaks as his favored enemy.

1,501 to 1,550 of 1,672 << first < prev | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Why all the Fighter hate? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.