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

Why all the Fighter hate?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

301 to 350 of 1,672 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

A fighter can be decent socially. Most people don't do it. With all of those feats why not just take skill focus(X)?


Mergy wrote:

Guard: Intimidate and Sense Motive

Mercenary: Diplomacy and Sense Motive
Thug: Bluff and Intimidate
Soldier: Diplomacy and Intimidate?

I dunno, someone help me out with this!

I wouldn't just restrict it to social skills. Some of these are overlapping existing stuff, but this is just an idea.

I'm using labels whose wording portray that a Fighter (a PC class) is a superior training package to a Warrior (the NPC class). Warriors are run of the mill grunts, bodyguards, guards and so on.

Security Specialist: Intimidate, Perception, Sense Motive, Know Nobility, Know Local, Know Engineering, Handle Animal

Military Specialist: Know Engineering, Know History, Survival, Heal, Climb, Ride, Handle Animal, Know Geography, Swim

Guild/Society Elite: Craft Weapons, Craft Armor, Know History, Know Religion, Perform, Acrobatics, Stealth, Perception, Bluff

wraithstrike wrote:
A fighter can be decent socially. Most people don't do it. With all of those feats why not just take skill focus(X)?

Do we really need to answer that?

I'll say one thing, tho.
A Fighter build dedicated to Dazzling Display should take Skill Focus - Intimidate, because that gives a substantial boost to the chances of DD working, and/or for an extra round. This is the one build I can see having some fun in some social encounters, since they'd be able to bully lots of NPCs.

However, this is one of many options, and only a fraction of Fighters go the DD route. Such a build has dedicated a strong portion of his build to this, in lieu of other options.

======

I'm having a hard time trying to convey something, in comparing a Fighter to a Sorcerer - something that hilights the similarities in build inflexibility, yet the sheer breadth of options that a "general" Sorcerer has over a "general" Fighter.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed a post. Someone playing the game differently than you do does not make them a liar.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Note that Skill Focus is not a combat feat, and thus not part of a Fighter's class abilities.

Seriously, why did nobody do that test with a spellcaster?
Here's the cleric.

Opening a Locked Wooden Door
Try sundering it. Um, it's going to be awhile.

Opening a Locked and trapped wooden door
Hope someone has a glaive. Um, it's trapped?

Opening a locked and trapped nigh unbreakable door(with and without nighunbreakable wall)
This is not your lucky day. Still.

Getting out of a 30ft. dirt pit.
Hope you're high enough level to memorize air walk.

Getting out of a 30ft. slippery ice pit.
See above.

Getting over a wall of force 10ft high without a ceiling? 15ft high? With a ceiling?
Same thing. Waste of a spell, but we do what we gotta do.

Crossing a 10ft., 20ft. and 30 ft. wide canyon
Air Walk again. Gee, clerics seem to be useless until 9th level.

Crossing Lava
Hope I have Prot/fire and air walk.

Being in Lava
Prot/fire will keep me alive for maybe 3 rounds.

Killing an invisible enemy.
Woot! True Seeing for the win! Oops, again, I have to be 9th level. Hey, I'm running out of spell slots here!

Killing a burrowing enemy
I suppose I could try to summon or call an earth elemental. If I have that memorized.

Killing a teleporting enemy.
Ah, suck. Hopefully I can hold it. Dimensional anchor is so situational. Maybe it's extraplanar and I can banish it?

Killing an enemy with an unbeatable high AC but low touch AC
Well, if I'm not a Good cleric and can use negative energy and channeling, I could try some Inflicts or Harms.

Moving through natural hindering terrain.
Damn, need air walk again???

Moving through unnatural hindering terrain
Air walk.

Being underwater
Well, I can cast both these spells, but more likely I'm going to drown, because unless I know its coming, I never memorize Water Breathing.

Being on a precarious footing (edge of cliff, along tree branches, etc.)
Suck until 9th. Air Walk!

A rampaging lynch mob without dealing any HP damage
Fear? Level 7 before I get that. Enthrall?

Being left with an improvised weapon.
No holy symbol? I have to summon one or I'm worthless.

Being tripped, disarmed, grappled, sundered.
And I don't have Freedom of movement? Try to make that concentration check to get the spell off. No holy symbol? get out of range and claw for another one. Maybe use channeling.

Magical effects on other party members.
OH, here's my shtick. Tons of party buffs! I can actually do this starting at level 1!

Magical effects on the terrain(think Black tentacles, entangle and other things that can't be broken down, assume you can't just walk around it) Dispel magic, probably under 50% success rate (NPC casters tend to be slightly higher level). Air Walk.

Magical effects on himself that hinder him (assume failed save).
Oh, I got tons of healing stuff, although I'm level 5 before I can really deal with most stuff (Disease, blindness, restorations). And, of course, I can't do it very often, and probably not until the next day. Only got a few spell slots, you know! At higher levels, Heal does it all, naturally...although I'll probably need that Break Enchantment.

And, um, I might have just a wee bit of problems if I'm the one under the spell effects. Don't tell anybody, thought.

==Aelryinth


Malignor wrote:
Mergy wrote:

Guard: Intimidate and Sense Motive

Mercenary: Diplomacy and Sense Motive
Thug: Bluff and Intimidate
Soldier: Diplomacy and Intimidate?

I dunno, someone help me out with this!

I wouldn't just restrict it to social skills. Some of these are overlapping existing stuff, but this is just an idea.

I'm using labels whose wording portray that a Fighter (a PC class) is a superior training package to a Warrior (the NPC class). Warriors are run of the mill grunts, bodyguards, guards and so on.

Security Specialist: Intimidate, Perception, Sense Motive, Know Nobility, Know Local, Know Engineering, Handle Animal

Military Specialist: Know Engineering, Know History, Survival, Heal, Climb, Ride, Handle Animal, Know Geography, Swim

Guild/Society Elite: Craft Weapons, Craft Armor, Know History, Know Religion, Perform, Acrobatics, Stealth, Perception, Bluff

I do like that. there is no reason taht someone taht dedicate to martial studies have to be stupid.

for example,If i am remebering correctly, in the golden age of Isalm a cavalier have to now about history, poetry, astronomy, mathematics among others.


Aelryinth wrote:

Being underwater

Well, I can cast both these spells, but more likely I'm going to drown, because unless I know its coming, I never memorize Water Breathing.

Magical effects on the terrain(think Black tentacles, entangle and other things that can't be broken down, assume you can't just walk around it) Dispel magic, probably under 50% success rate (NPC casters tend to be slightly higher level). Air Walk.

Magical effects on himself that hinder him (assume failed save).
Oh, I got tons of healing stuff, although I'm level 5 before I can really deal with most stuff (Disease, blindness, restorations). And, of course, I can't do it very often, and probably not until the next day. Only got a few spell slots, you know! At higher levels, Heal does it all, naturally...although I'll probably need that Break Enchantment.

And, um, I might have just a wee bit of problems if I'm the one under the spell effects. Don't tell anybody, thought.

Scrolls for situational spells.

I have one for arcane spellcaster

dimensional lock + being grappled underwater by a golem :P


Nicos wrote:
Malignor wrote:
Mergy wrote:

Guard: Intimidate and Sense Motive

Mercenary: Diplomacy and Sense Motive
Thug: Bluff and Intimidate
Soldier: Diplomacy and Intimidate?

I dunno, someone help me out with this!

I wouldn't just restrict it to social skills. Some of these are overlapping existing stuff, but this is just an idea.

I'm using labels whose wording portray that a Fighter (a PC class) is a superior training package to a Warrior (the NPC class). Warriors are run of the mill grunts, bodyguards, guards and so on.

Security Specialist: Intimidate, Perception, Sense Motive, Know Nobility, Know Local, Know Engineering, Handle Animal

Military Specialist: Know Engineering, Know History, Survival, Heal, Climb, Ride, Handle Animal, Know Geography, Swim

Guild/Society Elite: Craft Weapons, Craft Armor, Know History, Know Religion, Perform, Acrobatics, Stealth, Perception, Bluff

I do like that. there is no reason taht someone taht dedicate to martial studies have to be stupid.

for example,If i am remebering correctly, in the golden age of Isalm a cavalier have to now about history, poetry, astronomy, mathematics among others.

That wasn't restricted to Islamic cavaliers, either. Samurai and many Knights were pretty well educated, too.

Personally, I think more social and knowledge skills, perception, and either 4 or 6 skill points per level is in order for the Fighter. That's really the only fix (aside from general martial combat fixes I made) that I see as necessary.


I feel as if a lot of people don't understand that their stats reflect their character. Yeah you know as a player that perhaps that person is lying but does that mean your character does? Well let's check, roll your d20 and add your sense motive bonus. Just because you can talk up a storm or tell if someone's lying in real life doesn't mean your character can do so.


Didn’t see a gunslinger so here goes.

TarkXT wrote:
Opening a Locked Wooden Door
Blast lock
Quote:
Opening a Locked and trapped wooden door
Blast lock
Quote:
Opening a locked and trapped nigh unbreakable door(with and without nighunbreakable wall)
Blast lock.
Quote:
Getting out of a 30ft. dirt pit.
Rope and Grappling hook+Climb skill
Quote:
Getting out of a 30ft. slippery ice pit.
Same as above
Quote:
Getting over a wall of force 10ft high without a ceiling? 15ft high? With a ceiling?
Same as above
Quote:
Crossing a 10ft., 20ft. and 30 ft. wide canyon
Acrobatics and skill focus in such
Quote:
Crossing Lava
Someone else or a spell
Quote:
Being in Lava
Move fast and cheat death
Quote:
Killing an invisible enemy.
Perception and Entangling alchemical bullets to hit it in a cone and keep it still.
Quote:
Killing a burrowing enemy
Ready to shot then activate my stunning shot deed.
Quote:
Killing a teleporting enemy.
Same as above
Quote:
Killing an enemy with an unbeatable high AC but low touch AC
I’m a gunslinger nuf said
Quote:
Moving through natural hindering terrain.
Move slower.
Quote:
Moving through unnatural hindering terrain
same
Quote:
Being underwater
Dry load powder
Quote:
Being on a precarious footing (edge of cliff, along tree branches, etc.)
Acrobatics and skill focus
Quote:
A rampaging lynch mob without dealing any HP damage
Menacing shot
Quote:
Being left with an improvised weapon.
Depends if its immediate danger help the heavy hitters flank if I have a day and the rest of my gear make a new one.
Quote:
Being tripped, disarmed, grappled, sundered.
Can shot fine from prone weapon cords for disarm and try to keep range.
Quote:
Magical effects on other party members.
Nothing if I don’t have a potion
Quote:
Magical effects on the terrain(think Black tentacles, entangle and other things that can't be broken down, assume you can't just walk around it).
Fight at range or get some back up if evasion won’t help
Quote:
Magical effects on himself that hinder him (assume failed save).
Other than re-rolling the save do my best at what I do.

Edit couldn't find origanial post so didn't know if there was a set level.


Robespierre wrote:
I feel as if a lot of people don't understand that their stats reflect their character. Yeah you know as a player that perhaps that person is lying but does that mean your character does? Well let's check, roll your d20 and add your sense motive bonus. Just because you can talk up a storm or tell if someone's lying in real life doesn't mean your character can do so.

Let say 10 in wis and cha, 0 ranks in sense motive and diplomacy i.e. a normal person.

If I as a normal person can say a reasonable speech and can be reasonably suspicious about someone ( even if i really do have the certainty that is actually liying) then a figther can do it.

Is not like a figther or another class withour ranks in social skill will be the best in social situation but certainly he will not necesarily sucks at it.

Cheliax

Yes Nicos, he'll suck at it at mid-level and above. That's about the point when the swing on a d20 calms down. Two commoners lying to each other is one thing. A trained liar who has made it his life's work to be a better liar (some rogues, bards, sorcerers are like this) is not within the grasp of a normal person to catch by any means, nor should it be.

We're not saying the fighter must succeed in social situations. We're saying that the fighter class as a class contributes nothing to any situation that does not involve combat. That doesn't mean you can't build a character who is a fighter who has social skills, but the fighter class that he took did not help him with that. It is, in my opinion, a bad class that cannot contribute outside of combat.


Mergy wrote:

Yes Nicos, he'll suck at it at mid-level and above. That's about the point when the swing on a d20 calms down. Two commoners lying to each other is one thing. A trained liar who has made it his life's work to be a better liar (some rogues, bards, sorcerers are like this) is not within the grasp of a normal person to catch by any means, nor should it be.

We're not saying the fighter must succeed in social situations. We're saying that the fighter class as a class contributes nothing to any situation that does not involve combat. That doesn't mean you can't build a character who is a fighter who has social skills, but the fighter class that he took did not help him with that. It is, in my opinion, a bad class that cannot contribute outside of combat.

Well, you are right As a class a figther does not have any mechanic that contribute a lot in non combat situations, and i would lie to see his skill imrpoved.

But the claim "the player have to sit and wait in non-combat situations only because he have a fighter" it just not right.


Nicos wrote:
But the claim "the player have to sit and wait in non-combat situations only because he have a fighter" it just not right.

Perhaps you're envisioning things differently than I intend to communicate them.

There are some moments in a session, when some of the group is happily involved and the rest are scanning their character sheet, thinking of what they can do. It may be 10 seconds, or it may be 10 minutes. It may be quickly resolved by the GM having to "fix" things, or the players pooling ideas. It doesn't matter, because the point is that a Player is struggling to find a way to do something which is worth being cool, and proud of.

Now, I'll bet you dollars to donuts that most of those moments at all the PF gaming tables around the world are because of player issues or GM issues. These are class-independent, so let's take all those away for this discussion (we're talking about classes here). What are we left with?

I claim, by personal experience and observation, and reinforced by an intuitive analysis of the game material, that there is a class which "sits out" the most during non-combat in the level 6+ game:

Fighter

The Fighter is at home in combat, and is designed to bring some good stuff to the table of violent conflict. But in many other situations, the class (not the character, or their equipment, but the class) falls short. In effect, the Fighter is a battle-commoner; In a fight, rock-em-sock-em, 1337 H4X with a finely honed set of skills for crushing his enemies. Out of a fight, he is reduced to a commoner, relying on base skill ranks, feats and gear the same way an equal leveled commoner would, which is to say "maybe, and just barely."

Compare this to any other PC class, and even some NPC classes (Adept, Expert) and it becomes quite clear: When the group isn't clashing steel, and a player jumps up and says "I use skill X" or "I use spell Y", it often is a moment when the Fighter's commoner-like design is exposed.


shallowsoul wrote:
Bob, I really like your PC format. Are you using a character builder?

I use Hero Lab. It's got much of what I like. There are some things, like the way it writes out the Vital Strike chain and the way it doesn't breakdown skills, that I would want improved. Otherwise, it works well.

I need to apologize for not putting the end spoiler tag. I wanted to avoid a wall of text.

I'll put in a request for that.


Zoe Oakeshott wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Mergy wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

Why did the fighter have to sit out on social situations? You do realize that role playing isn't just in the dice. You can be sociable without having to roll dice.

What does ability to roleplay have to do with the base functionality of the fighter class?

Why are you asking me? Malignor included that as part of the reason why fighters are no good. He was saying that because someone he was with was playing a fighter they had to sit out of social situations.

I know that's not true.

Well, seeing as how they lack the skill points to spend on social skills, they can't do it well.

How many fighter builds should I put out there that have enough skills? So far, I've put out one that had so many skill points I was thinking I was overspending.


Zoe Oakeshott wrote:
I haven't looked at any of the builds. I'm making the point that, with the Fighter's low skill points, there isn't much to spare. If you buy a social skill, you are ignoring something else. Fighters have very few skill points to spare. There also may not be a Rogue or Bard face in the group to do all the social interactions.

By ignoring the builds, you are ignoring the evidence that proves you wrong.

What others are getting at is that you don't have to roll dice for every outcome. You should only roll dice when the outcome has some significance. If the fighter heads off to secure rooms for the party (someone needs to do this), he probably won't need to roll unless he tries to do something like get a discount.

Maybe the fighter spends his time training the local militia how to handle some possible attacks that they could face. Maybe they are concerned with a local half-orc that they need to keep an eye on but don't want to hurt. Maybe he acts like Percy in Cowboys and Aliens and they want to just find a way to keep him from hurting himself or others. So they fighter shows them some techniques on how to use the flat of the blade (Catch off Guard). Maybe they want to know how to be more accurate with their crossbows in close quarters so he spends his time teaching them the finer points of point blank shot and precise shot.

If your fighter has nothing to do, then I am sorry that you don't take the time to find something to do.

The fighter in my group, when he isn't using his diplomacy, is off training soldiers when he can. He keeps making a name for himself. Making contacts for the party.


Aelryinth wrote:
Note that Skill Focus is not a combat feat, and thus not part of a Fighter's class abilities.

It's a potential bonus feat for the Tactician, which is a fighter.


Mergy wrote:

Yes Nicos, he'll suck at it at mid-level and above. That's about the point when the swing on a d20 calms down. Two commoners lying to each other is one thing. A trained liar who has made it his life's work to be a better liar (some rogues, bards, sorcerers are like this) is not within the grasp of a normal person to catch by any means, nor should it be.

We're not saying the fighter must succeed in social situations. We're saying that the fighter class as a class contributes nothing to any situation that does not involve combat. That doesn't mean you can't build a character who is a fighter who has social skills, but the fighter class that he took did not help him with that. It is, in my opinion, a bad class that cannot contribute outside of combat.

First, that's false. There are archetypes that allow for for more social abilities.

Second, does it really matter? If there is already someone in the group that is all that and a bag of chips, why does the fighter need to be too? Generally, only one character needs to be good at social skills. During those times, the characters that aren't good should keep their mouths shut.


So the fighter must use fighter only feats for this exercise? I thought the point was to see if the fighter could do X in a real game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
the characters that aren't good should keep their mouths shut.

AKA - sit it out.

=============================================

Now to take the test with a Cleric. :D

Quote:
Opening a Locked Wooden Door

Sunder it. Strength is a priority, and we can use 2 handers too.

Quote:
Opening a Locked and trapped wooden door

As above, with a reach weapon. Alternatively, Summon Monster III and have a bull ram it down.

Quote:
Opening a locked and trapped nigh unbreakable door(with and without nighunbreakable wall)

Shatter if the door is nonmagical. Otherwise differ.

Quote:
Getting out of a 30ft. dirt pit.

Feather token (tree) which I crafted. Alternatively, boots of spider climb that I crafted. Climb out with a rope & grappling hook. Air Walk, Summon Monster II to summon a giant worker ant with a climb speed to carry me out, Summon Monster III to summon a giant lizard with a Climb speed to carry me out.

Quote:
Getting out of a 30ft. slippery ice pit.

As above.

Quote:
Getting over a wall of force 10ft high without a ceiling? 15ft high? With a ceiling?

Air walk, and possibly stone shape or summon monster III to summon a medium sized wolverine to burrow a tunnel under it.

Quote:
Crossing a 10ft., 20ft. and 30 ft. wide canyon

Summon Monster IV+ to summon an Air Elemental to carry me across the especially long chasms. Air Walk is an alternative. A flying zombie (such as a giant bat or similar) can ferry me across as well. Feather Token (tree) that I crafted, knocked across the expanse makes a bridge.

Quote:
Crossing Lava

Resist energy, or see above.

Quote:
Being in Lava

Resist energy again, because it makes me immune to lava.

Quote:
Killing an invisible enemy.

Bag of crushed chalk scattered around. Goggles of see invisibility which I crafted, or summon a babau who has constant see invisibility to direct the party.

Quote:
Killing a burrowing enemy

Summoned wolverines, borrowing undead, or just wait for them to emerge.

Quote:
Killing a teleporting enemy.

Dimensional anchor because smart casters never leave home without it (it's a no-save spell that bars teleportation and planar travel, and is a staple for fighting mages and outsiders).

Quote:
Killing an enemy with an unbeatable high AC but low touch AC

Summon Monster III+ to summon aurochs or later bison, and have them trample the enemy (ignores AC and turns it into a Reflex save for half damage). Alternatively, summon lantern archons and let them blast the foe to pieces using their touch-attack DR-ignoring rays. Alternatively still, inflict spells. Searing light. Alchemical weapons spam. Undead minions spamming alchemical weapons. Undead minions volley-firing with slings and rocks just to roll 20s.

Quote:
Moving through natural hindering terrain.

Air walk, undead mount, magic items I crafted, etc.

Quote:
Moving through unnatural hindering terrain

As above.

Quote:
Being underwater

Freedom of movement, water breathing, summoned elementals, undead, etc.

Quote:
Being on a precarious footing (edge of cliff, along tree branches, etc.)

Those boots of spider climbing I mentioned I crafted before.

Quote:
A rampaging lynch mob without dealing any HP damage

Diplomacy class skill. Alternatively, insect plague to create a wall that the mob refuses to go into. Alternatively, wall of stone to bar passage. Alternatively, scary undead.

Quote:
Being left with an improvised weapon.

Summon Monsters. Use club or poopy improvised weapon 'cause I'm a freain' BAMF! Strength is a priority. I have a 3/4 BAB. I can wear medium or heavy armor (with a feat). See divine favor, divine power, or righteous might. :D

Quote:
Being tripped, disarmed, grappled, sundered.

Fall on my butt, and eat the -4 to hit and AC. Locked gauntlets and a good CMD; freedom of movement and a good CMD; backup weapons, spells, minions, or natural attacks if I've become undead already.

Quote:
Magical effects on other party members.

Too many to list.

Quote:
Magical effects on the terrain(think Black tentacles, entangle and other things that can't be broken down, assume you can't just walk around it).

Freedom of movement, resist energy, neutralize poison, etc.

Quote:
Magical effects on himself that hinder him (assume failed save).

Freedom of movement, death ward, delay or neutralize poison, resist energy and a lot more that I don't feel like listing at the moment. :P


I just would like to point out that I don't give two coppers about what X archtype can do, because that does not account for the Fighter. It accounts for a very specific breed of fighter. If all Fighters except Mobile Fighter Archtype Fighters have mobility problems, then Fighters have mobility problems.

If you have to be a X, Y, or Z special archtype every other question, then the class fails, and fails hard.


Mergy wrote:
It is, in my opinion, a bad class that cannot contribute outside of combat.

A class that can not do ____, and one that is not designed to do _____ are two different things. Just to be clear which position are you supporting?

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My position is that a class that is not designed to perform outside of combat is bad class design. A class that brings nearly nothing to the table for non-combat situations is the fighter.

(It does bring Handle Animal, Intimidate, K (Dungeoneering), K (Engineering) and Survival, so I cannot say it brings absolutely nothing.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will not disagree. The design is bad, but that just make it difficult to do things outside of combat. It is still doable. Of course this is not much different than the argument by some that a core monk was viable. It just takes a high level of player expertise that should not be needed. I do see your point. I just don't want "can't" to be confused with "is very difficult" even if it is annoying to make the fighter do anything other than stab people in the face well or shoot them in the face.

Cheliax

My argument however is that player expertise is making the fighter what it is not designed to be. The fighter class is not bringing any of that to the table. I could make a commoner who brings just as much to out of combat situations.


Mergy wrote:
My argument however is that player expertise is making the fighter what it is not designed to be. The fighter class is not bringing any of that to the table. I could make a commoner who brings just as much to out of combat situations.

That is basically what I said if I understood you correctly. Player expertise should not need to be high to make a class work well. Unless you are just saying the commoner is just as good as the fighter out of combat which may be true. At least the commoner gets perception, which never made sense to me how fighters don't get it, and commoners do.

Commoner Joe(12 years old):"I can see everything."
Fighter Joe(25 years old):"ugh" as he is stabbed in the back

How does on go off to military academy get become less perceptive?

Cheliax

We're basically in agreement. You make a fighter to fight, but anyone who states that they can make a balanced character (diplomacy, knowledge skills, etc.) out of this class is fighting an uphill battle just to find non-combat avenues.


Ashiel wrote:

I just would like to point out that I don't give two coppers about what X archtype can do, because that does not account for the Fighter. It accounts for a very specific breed of fighter. If all Fighters except Mobile Fighter Archtype Fighters have mobility problems, then Fighters have mobility problems.

If you have to be a X, Y, or Z special archtype every other question, then the class fails, and fails hard.

So a fighter is not a fighter? This is moving the goalposts. First you are saying that a fighter can't do X. It is shown how a fighter can do X and then you say that a fighter that isn't that type of fighter can't do X. That is the definition of moving the goalposts.

Cheliax

Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

I just would like to point out that I don't give two coppers about what X archtype can do, because that does not account for the Fighter. It accounts for a very specific breed of fighter. If all Fighters except Mobile Fighter Archtype Fighters have mobility problems, then Fighters have mobility problems.

If you have to be a X, Y, or Z special archtype every other question, then the class fails, and fails hard.

So a fighter is not a fighter? This is moving the goalposts. First you are saying that a fighter can't do X. It is shown how a fighter can do X and then you say that a fighter that isn't that type of fighter can't do X. That is the definition of moving the goalposts.

If the issue is skill points, then the tactician is a bit better. The regular fighter still has tons of issues. What Ashiel is saying is that one archetype does not fix a class' core problems.


What is being said is "there is a solution to the problems I complain about but I don't want to hear about them so that I can be right."

The fighter isn't designed to be a skill using fiend. Most of the skills people complain that he can't use only need one person to use anyway. Let those with the classes that can invest in them use their skills. That way people aren't stealing the thunder from other classes. Sure there should be some overlap. I also agree that Perception should be a class skill. At least it can be picked up with either a trait or Cosmopolitan. It's not ideal, but it is still an option.

With all the options available to fighters (or any character for that matter), we can't simply discount them because they are specifically designed to address the very problems people were having.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
The fighter isn't designed to be a skill using fiend.

I take the opposite position. If any full BAB class should be a skill monkey, it's Fighters.


Zoe Oakeshott wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
The fighter isn't designed to be a skill using fiend.
I take the opposite position. If any full BAB class should be a skill monkey, it's Fighters.

I thought that was the point of rangers. Also can't rangers get throught the locked wooden door with a saw. Rangers can find traps with perception and can have polearms to find them.

Natural hindering terrain woodland stride.
Crossing lava resist energy.


doctor_wu wrote:
Zoe Oakeshott wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
The fighter isn't designed to be a skill using fiend.
I take the opposite position. If any full BAB class should be a skill monkey, it's Fighters.

I thought that was the point of rangers. Also can't rangers get throught the locked wooden door with a saw. Rangers can find traps with perception and can have polearms to find them.

Natural hindering terrain woodland stride.
Crossing lava resist energy.

Rangers are only skill monkeys as it pertains to the wilderness. With Fighters, I want social skills and knowledge skills.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

I just would like to point out that I don't give two coppers about what X archtype can do, because that does not account for the Fighter. It accounts for a very specific breed of fighter. If all Fighters except Mobile Fighter Archtype Fighters have mobility problems, then Fighters have mobility problems.

If you have to be a X, Y, or Z special archtype every other question, then the class fails, and fails hard.

So a fighter is not a fighter? This is moving the goalposts. First you are saying that a fighter can't do X. It is shown how a fighter can do X and then you say that a fighter that isn't that type of fighter can't do X. That is the definition of moving the goalposts.

No, it's not moving goalposts. Citing an archtype and trying to suggest that all Fighters can do so is about as sensible as suggesting that because Bards and Rogues share many of the same features means that they are the same class.

It is like saying that Monks are great archers. No, Zen Archer monks are great archers. See the difference? An archtype is like an alternate class. They have some abilities that are shared between the two, but the moment you select 2 handed Fighter, you are not a Fighter anymore, you are a 2 Handed Fighter.

It does not help the Fighter's position to say "Well mobile Fighters can be mobile", "Well this other archtype has some skills", "This archtype can do...", because you're not doing that with Fighters. Those are not features of "The Fighter", they are features of those archtypes.

EDIT: On a side note, every time I've mentioned a class in this thread, I have been talking about the standard class. I'm not taking every archtype they have (read alternative class) and trying to pass it off as that class. When I was answering TarkXT's acid test with the Ranger, Paladin, and Cleric, I was using the generic ones. Didn't even bother looking at archtypes. I didn't even pick domains for the cleric when I was taking the test, because I was keeping it as simple as possible, and it wouldn't be fair to cite domains I could use, since I can't swap between them.

In fact, the fact you have to keep falling back to referencing all these different archtypes to try and defend the Fighter, pretty much cements my view that the Fighter has problems. I imagine, that it probably reflects poorly on the Fighter to anyone else reading the thread.


Now you are also changing definitions. Look, you don't have to like it but the truth is that a fighter can be built to use class features to meet the concerns many people have. They are still fighters. The fact that they can't multiclass into another fighter archetype proves that.

The goalposts have been moved because the conversation went from "fighters" to "the narrow fighter definition I want to use."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob_Loblaw wrote:

Now you are also changing definitions. Look, you don't have to like it but the truth is that a fighter can be built to use class features to meet the concerns many people have. They are still fighters. The fact that they can't multiclass into another fighter archetype proves that.

The goalposts have been moved because the conversation went from "fighters" to "the narrow fighter definition I want to use."

So by your definition, Monks are amazing archers because there is one archtype that is an amazing archtype? I'm not sure how to adequately explain why that's a load of crap, but I hope most people don't need it explained to them.

Despite the fact, of course, that most monks don't even HAVE proficiency with bows to be good archers, I might add.

Ok, well we can play that game. If that's the case, the Fighter absolutely sucks monkey cheeks because while Fighter has archtypes that make them fair in some of their weaknesses, they're still behind everything else because everything else has archtypes too.

The Ranger can find and disable magical traps, rock sword & board, has all kinds of crazy good weapon styles, has bonus feats, gets a free hippogriff, is a shapeshifter, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Because obviously RANGER means every ranger archtype ever, at the same time, always.

EDIT: I should go back and re-take TarkXT's acid test not with a Ranger, but as a super-gestalt ranger that is every archtype at once. That would mean I at least can laugh at some of the harder ones, since I'll also be able to disable traps, ride my hippogriff over all those terrain issues, and use my wall-climbing vermin infiltrator abilities on the pit questions. Because obviously, that's what Rangers do.

Cheliax

Don't forget the havoc that a magician/sandman/arcane duelist bard could unleash. Take the test with him next! :D


Alright Loblaw, I'll take the bait. Hit me with a Fighter build that can fight and still be relevant out of battle and I'll make a barbarian build to do the same. Let's see if the trained soldier can beat the illiterate berserker. Since I'm throwing the gauntlet, you choose: What level, how many attribute points, how many traits, what race.


It only takes one rank in survivial to not get lost in a maze of streets in a metropolis. And rangers get nature related knowledge skills. Also knowlege nature is one of the best knowledge skills in the game identify 5 creature types.


Ashiel wrote:


So by your definition, Monks are amazing archers because there is one archtype that is an amazing archtype? I'm not sure how to adequately explain why that's a load of crap, but I hope most people don't need it explained to them.

I don't think that is what he is saying by comparison. A better of example would be someone saying monks suck at archery. So BobLaw shows them the Zen Monk that does not suck. He is by comparison saying it is possible if you do this.

The issue of the core class was never called out in the fighter or monk example. I also never didn't thought the limitation was to have him use only the core fighter.
People didn't care for the monk or barbarian either when the game(PF) was finalized, but with the new splatbooks AM BARBARIAN is gaining fame. The Zen Archer and Sohei monk are bringing these classes up. My point is that people don't generally care if they have to use an archetype to do X, as long as they can do it.
Even with archetypes the fighter is lacking IMHO because there is not one archetype that is give me more things to be decent at AFAIK without multiclassing. Not that I mind multiclassing, but I almost feel like it is required with the fighter.
The Tactician is not bad and is close to what I would have liked the base fighter to have been*, but it still does not have perception as a class skill, and that still annoys me. If I had gotten to the website during the beta testing I would have fought for that.


VM mercenario wrote:
Alright Loblaw, I'll take the bait. Hit me with a Fighter build that can fight and still be relevant out of battle and I'll make a barbarian build to do the same. Let's see if the trained soldier can beat the illiterate berserker. Since I'm throwing the gauntlet, you choose: What level, how many attribute points, how many traits, what race.

What do you mean be relevant, and are archetypes allowed? It is always better to have all terms stated up front.

Silver Crusade

Ashiel wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
the characters that aren't good should keep their mouths shut.

AKA - sit it out.

So when matters of the arcane come up does everyone on your group try to handle it or do you let the Wizard handle it?


Uhmmm... no archetypes, the fighter has an archetype that increases skill points but the barbarian doesn't have anything similar to keep the playing ground level. And no multiclassing, that would be about the class yu multiclass into, not about the fighter. Feats and rage powers can be from any book of the main line (APG, UM, UC),unless Bob decides for Core only. Like I said, by the laws of dueling, I threw the gauntlet, he can decide the weapons and grounds.
And by relevant I mean anything that he can do well enough to be used out of battle. Skils most likely, but if can get something from his feats, it's cool. Paladins have healing andspells, Rangers have several bonuses to skills and stuff like camouflge and hide in plain sight, Rogues can get all sorts of interesting abilities from thei talents... Barbarians and Fighters are the only two who, at first glance, have no out of combat utility, so I say we see if one fares better than the other.


shallowsoul wrote:
So when matters of the arcane come up does everyone on your group try to handle it or do you let the Wizard handle it?

See, this is where I disagree with the "test" ideas above; I think it's acceptable for Fighters to be reduced to "Commoner" status when dealing with individual situations and obstacles beyond their very concept. Fighters are non-magical, highly trained combat specialists, so they should enjoy various roles and options within that concept without getting locked into a particular build.

A Fighter class not having the tools to deal with say, planar travel, isn't a problem. Being an elite combat specialist has nothing to do with planar travel (generally speaking), so it fits.

However, my argument is that all classes should have something meaningful and significant (CR-wise) to contribute to... to ... I guess you can call them "game themes": Subterfuge, constructive preparation, social challenges and so on. It doesn't have to be every type of instance of each game theme, but at least one, please.

That said, your loaded question above doesn't challenge my argument.

Silver Crusade

VM mercenario wrote:

Uhmmm... no archetypes, the fighter has an archetype that increases skill points but the barbarian doesn't have anything similar to keep the playing ground level. And no multiclassing, that would be about the class yu multiclass into, not about the fighter. Feats and rage powers can be from any book of the main line (APG, UM, UC),unless Bob decides for Core only. Like I said, by the laws of dueling, I threw the gauntlet, he can decide the weapons and grounds.

And by relevant I mean anything that he can do well enough to be used out of battle. Skils most likely, but if can get something from his feats, it's cool. Paladins have healing andspells, Rangers have several bonuses to skills and stuff like camouflge and hide in plain sight, Rogues can get all sorts of interesting abilities from thei talents... Barbarians and Fighters are the only two who, at first glance, have no out of combat utility, so I say we see if one fares better than the other.

A human fighter could technically gain 39 extra skill points over 20 levels. Plenty of skill points to spend.


shallowsoul wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
the characters that aren't good should keep their mouths shut.

AKA - sit it out.

So when matters of the arcane come up does everyone on your group try to handle it or do you let the Wizard handle it?

The bard uses the knowledge and skills he's picked up over the years to contribute to the discussion.

The Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Inquisitor, Alchemist, Order of the Tome Cavalier, Witch, and Magus also have magical expertise to consider.

The barbarian gets really really tired of the boring conversation and just sunders the ever living crap out of it!


shallowsoul wrote:
VM mercenario wrote:

Uhmmm... no archetypes, the fighter has an archetype that increases skill points but the barbarian doesn't have anything similar to keep the playing ground level. And no multiclassing, that would be about the class yu multiclass into, not about the fighter. Feats and rage powers can be from any book of the main line (APG, UM, UC),unless Bob decides for Core only. Like I said, by the laws of dueling, I threw the gauntlet, he can decide the weapons and grounds.

And by relevant I mean anything that he can do well enough to be used out of battle. Skils most likely, but if can get something from his feats, it's cool. Paladins have healing andspells, Rangers have several bonuses to skills and stuff like camouflge and hide in plain sight, Rogues can get all sorts of interesting abilities from thei talents... Barbarians and Fighters are the only two who, at first glance, have no out of combat utility, so I say we see if one fares better than the other.
A human fighter could technically gain 39 extra skill points over 20 levels. Plenty of skill points to spend.

Not everyone plays human though do they?

In fact some of the solutions posed by Bob in his earlier answers indicate that it might be better not to play human in order to deal with some problems better.


Feather token. DC 22 for both clerics AND fighters. Just as easy for both class to make them.

Slippers of Spider Climbing. DC 14 for clerics AND fighters. Easy to make.

What are goggles of see invisibility? Either way the DC is the same for both since clerics don't get see invisibility. A gem of true seeing is a DC 20 for the fighter.

Fighters get 10 bonus feats, which means they can use their regular feats for anything they want. Even skill focus if they feel so inclined. Arguing you cannot use your fighter bonus feats for these is redundant.

10 ranks in craft + skill focus craft + taking 10 + stat + class ability = 30+ skill which means you can make a lot as a fighter with CWI. There's also masterwork craft tools and not masterwork spellcraft tools for another +2. At the first chance you can, 5000gp is the cost to craft an item for +10 skill. The fighters now up to ~45+.

You guys have problems building classes from what I read. A fighter could have 10 Str and would still have a higher BAB and to hit than any 3/4 with 20 str. Stop making stat dumped idiot fighters and build something more balanced.

Lots of classes that you argue are prepared casters. Now you'll have to be using up spell slots(non renewable daily abilities), to ensure you get around these obstacles. The fighter comes with everything up front and can use it an unlimited number of times a day. Comparing classes will NOT prove much, as you're not comparing them to the nth degree where one could excel beyond the other. What happens if the cleric burned his 5th level spells on breath of life to prevent some unneeded character deaths. What happened if it was a long adventuring day and the cleric has used his resources. The fighter is still applicable and your cleric can be the grand diplomat with the door locks, traps, pits, chasm.

Arguing that items can get one class out of a situation is also true of any class. WBL exists because the game is designed around getting items to balance characters out. If no one got items 3/4 BAB melee classes will sit out of combat. 3/4 BAB caster classes will only cast spells and will run out of resources.

Silver Crusade

Malignor wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
So when matters of the arcane come up does everyone on your group try to handle it or do you let the Wizard handle it?

See, this is where I disagree with the "test" ideas above; I think it's acceptable for Fighters to be reduced to "Commoner" status when dealing with individual situations and obstacles. Classes without weaknesses are ... lame.

A Fighter class not having the tools to deal with say, planar travel, isn't a problem. Being an elite combat specialist has nothing to do with planar travel (generally speaking), so it fits.

However, my argument is that all classes should have something meaningful and significant (CR-wise) to contribute to... to ... I guess you can call them "game themes": Subterfuge, constructive preparation, social challenges and so on. It doesn't have to be every type of instance of each game theme, but at least one, please.

That said, your loaded question above doesn't challenge my argument.

The point I'm trying to make here is that there are situations where it's obvious who handles that particular situation. You can't sit there and pick on the fighter class just because there are certain situations that makes sense for him to sit out of. Why not pick on the other classes when they have to sit out of a situation? Fighters don't handle matters of the Arcane so it makes sense for the Wizard to handle it. I don't know about you but I want the Wizard above anyone else to handle those types of matters. The same goes with picking a lock. Now, since Stealth can be used untrained then a dex type fighter could take Skill Focus Stealth, gain that + 3, still wear very good armour because of his Armour Training and play the scout.

Before joining a game or a campaign starts, everyone usually presents their character and everyone sizes up the strengths and weaknesses of the other characters with everyone having some sort of focus. Let's say your mate Bob has a character that specializes in diplomatic situations, well you now know you can focus your interests elsewhere because the "face" position has been filled.

Too much nitpicking of the fighter when it isn't necessary.

Silver Crusade

Khrysaor wrote:
3/4 BAB caster classes will only cast spells and will run out of resources.

Which means at high level almost all monsters will make their saves because there will be no items to up that INT which won't get those DC's to where you need them.

301 to 350 of 1,672 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 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.