Why fighters suck


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

751 to 784 of 784 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

Aelryinth, my point is that WBL represents what items your are supposed to have, not what you supposedly bought.

Characters can (and should) have full access to their WBL even if they never ever go to the market, or even enter a city. If I play a isolacionist druid who does not thrust civilized people and their cities, I'd expect the DM to provide me with my needs. Only difference is that it'd all come from loot or rewards for completing quests.

I'd say its much more likely to find a used wand in the hands of the enemy cleric (who may have bought/crafted/found it) than finding a high-level wizard with time and willingness to craft whatever it is you want. Even so, either Ashiel or Ciretose later get a +5 sword and its inside his adequate WBL, I'd have no problem with that at all.

Also, one more time:

I'm following RAW as closely as I can. We are discussing on the internet. RAW is the ONLY commom ground we have!
If partially charged wands are RAW, then they are fair game. If that is the munchkiniest thing we'll see here, we are doing great.

I don't even care about the wands anymore. Can't we all forget them and go on.

Liberty's Edge

The wand question is resolved. Lemmy ruled, and this is being run as if Lemmy were the GM and it is over.

If some people (not just me) look at a build at think someone is doing something hinky, that is what they are going to judge the build on.

If some people (not just me) look at a build and think it is too dependent on consumables, that is what they are going to judge the build on.

Ashiel did an extensive post about how the fact that I do significantly more damage wasn't relevant. This was fine.

I (and many others) point out that she has questionable wands and depends on consumables, and we are attacking her.

It is completely absurd.

If Ashiel doesn't like that many people seem to think her build is flawed...well that is what this discussion is about.

I should not be criticized for putting forward builds everyone agrees are clean while still being effective.

If you agree wish Ashiel's reading of the rules, you will view her builds one way. If you don't you won't.

I don't think anyone is saying I'm off book in any way at this point. I think the future +3 falcion I don't even have is a complete red herring thrown out to distract from the fact that many people think Ashiel is bending the rules.

Lemmy doesn't. He is the judge. So we go on, if not for Ashiel taking her ball and going home.


Aelryinth wrote:
And he doesn't even have to be a spellcaster, anymore. A decent Expert with the right feats, level 6, can probably do the job without much problem. Just needs to be able to hit a DC 19 skill check with take 10.

Just a little nitpicky here but, a 6th level expert cannot craft or upgrade any magic items. They have to be 7th level minimum, because they have to take Master Craftsman at 5th, then the appropriate creation feat at 7th. Adepts are better artisans because they could have been crafting or upgrading the weapon at 5th level using the same modifiers. Sorry for nitpicking, I just wanted to drop a note here on that.

As far as commissions and upgrades go, that's much the same as any other services. What are the odds you will find a rogue you can hire to spy on the enemy camp for you? What are the odds that the old artisan on the hill thinks you worthy to reforge the fragments of the ancient sword you found? Whose butt do you have to kiss to get a +4 magical beast-bane weapon so you can fight the Tarrasque?

Which is why I -- personally -- more or less regardless of character only assume that I am going to reach 20th level on +2 or worse weaponry, and I've done so before. It's entirely possible to go an entire campaign on only +2 weapons, +3 armors, +4 resistance, and +4 stat items. Anything else is gravy; and I don't plan on it unless I can myself craft them or if I have begun a game and one of the other PCs can craft the item that I want (and we work out when and how it will be crafted, and if he wants any extra compensation for the convenience of a made to order item).

Now and then I might come across a particularly nice piece of equipment (maybe the demon was wielding a +2 vicious weapon), or there's one that's particularly nice available in town ("Hey guys, can I borrow about 3,500 gold from you guys? The mage's guild recently got a powerful blessed sword and I want to get it bfore someone else does", the sword being a +1 holy longsword).


Lemmy wrote:

Aelryinth, my point is that WBL represents what items your are supposed to have, not what you supposedly bought.

Characters can (and should) have full access to their WBL even if they never ever go to the market, or even enter a city. If I play a isolacionist druid who does not thrust civilized people and their cities, I'd expect the DM to provide me with my needs. Only difference is that it'd all come from loot or rewards for completing quests.

I'd say its much more likely to find a used wand in the hands of the enemy cleric (who may have bought/crafted/found it) than finding a high-level wizard with time and willingness to craft whatever it is you want. Even so, either Ashiel or Ciretose later get a +5 sword and its inside his adequate WBL, I'd have no problem with that at all.

Also, one more time:

I'm following RAW as closely as I can. We are discussing on the internet. RAW is the ONLY commom ground we have!
If partially charged wands are RAW, then they are fair game. If that is the munchkiniest thing we'll see here, we are doing great.

I don't even care about the wands anymore. Can't we all forget them and go on.

It's alright Lemmy. I appreciate what you've done here. I have no will to continue further, beyond just discussing these things such as verisimilitude. Ciretose's continues to make claims about me, misrepresent the things I post, and genuinely just tries to pick fights with me. I think he gets off on it. If you would like to continue this conversation, feel free to PM me (I still need to get you set up on OpenRPG so we can have a game sometime). I simply do not want to be a part of this "competition" as long as Ciretose is around. I'm fine with Bob and others, but I'm at my end with Ciretose.


Any critiques of my builds? We've picked on the ranger and paladin but this is supposed to be about others as well.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Any critiques of my builds? We've picked on the ranger and paladin but this is supposed to be about others as well.

Gimme a bit to rummage through the trash posts Bob, and I'll give you my honest thoughts on them. I need to find your posts in the thread. :)


Here's my take on Ashiel's builds:

I don't really care if she has partial wands. Partial wands count against your WBL accordingly. It doesn't really matter how she got them so long as they are not crafted as partial wands, which they weren't. She was trying to give some back story to the characters and maybe it didn't mesh well with how some people viewed her justification. I really don't concern myself with things like that. I look at how the character functions overall. If she got them through trade or found them or they were a gift from a friend or they were given as a quest reward or whatever, it really doesn't matter. They are legal to count against the WBL with their value prorated for the number of charges remaining.

I won't be using partial wands because I don't think I need them for what I'm trying to accomplish. She is building her characters as if they are in an actual game. I am building mine with only this comparison in mind.

I would like for Ashiel to complete the ranger and paladin. I would like to see how each does compared to the fighters. I think I have already shown that my fighters are competent in and out of battle. Some are more specialized than others, but they can do more than just hit things. I've got more to show with each of them (and I'm thinking about posting a half-elf as well just so we don't miss out on how another race).

Whether or not Ashiel has said anything about +2 items at level 20 really doesn't matter for this discussion. I say we drop it and move on with what we are doing. If something doesn't add to the discussion, then we should just drop it altogether. I was serious about stopping the silly jabs at each other. It is detracting from the conversation.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:

Here's my take on Ashiel's builds:

I don't really care if she has partial wands. Partial wands count against your WBL accordingly. It doesn't really matter how she got them so long as they are not crafted as partial wands, which they weren't. She was trying to give some back story to the characters and maybe it didn't mesh well with how some people viewed her justification. I really don't concern myself with things like that. I look at how the character functions overall. If she got them through trade or found them or they were a gift from a friend or they were given as a quest reward or whatever, it really doesn't matter. They are legal to count against the WBL with their value prorated for the number of charges remaining.

I won't be using partial wands because I don't think I need them for what I'm trying to accomplish. She is building her characters as if they are in an actual game. I am building mine with only this comparison in mind.

I would like for Ashiel to complete the ranger and paladin. I would like to see how each does compared to the fighters. I think I have already shown that my fighters are competent in and out of battle. Some are more specialized than others, but they can do more than just hit things. I've got more to show with each of them (and I'm thinking about posting a half-elf as well just so we don't miss out on how another race).

Whether or not Ashiel has said anything about +2 items at level 20 really doesn't matter for this discussion. I say we drop it and move on with what we are doing. If something doesn't add to the discussion, then we should just drop it altogether. I was serious about stopping the silly jabs at each other. It is detracting from the conversation.

I agree. (As the lurker and the guy just reading this stuff. I am finding the thought experiment interesting. I am learning stuff that will make me a better GM and I have enough information to make decisions based upon the playstyle of my group.)


Okay, some commentary on builds.
Nicos posted a halfling Paladin here that looks like a good start on a mounted build (I'm guessing?). I think it looks fair. Definitely defensive (+1 size is good for that) and he could get a 21 AC at 1st level with a heavy shield). I think he forgot his size bonus to hit, since his attack mods should probably be +3 scimitar and +5 charging.

Bob_Loblaw posted a very interesting Fighter build here of his Fighter "Turret". Turrent seems to be built as a Tank, and a pretty good one as far as physical evasion % is concerned. Another halfling. The halfling build is good for a Fighter since the halfling saving throw bonuses and fearless help Fighters a good bit, and the +1 to hit and AC is IMHO more important than raw damage (and actually returns more damage when you combine with Power Attack). The sling specializations are amusing, and it makes me feel warm and gooey inside to see slings getting some love (even if it is another example of needing 2-3 feats to wipe your ass in Pathfinder). The DR that he gets from his armor is fairly solid at this level (actually enough to mean something) and I believe he excels at fighting tons of mooks but has enough offense to keep single target foes busy to make me happy. Halfling gives him a nice boost on some skills and he seems to have picked his skills wisely. My biggest concern is his tactics in combat seem a bit limited and he might get CCed easily; but at this level that's kind of an expected risk and I think he does better at making saves than most (his weak save is highly respectable).

I'll try to comment on some of the other builds shortly. My brother's friend is coming over and they want me to run them a D&D game, so I need to get a couple of notes together and do that. Family > Forums y'know. :)


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
I would like for Ashiel to complete the ranger and paladin.

For you Bob, I will.


Sorry, Bob, things derailed so quickly I forgot to post about your builds. I'll reread them now.


Guy Kilmore wrote:
I agree. (As the lurker and the guy just reading this stuff. I am finding the thought experiment interesting. I am learning stuff that will make me a better GM and I have enough information to make decisions based upon the playstyle of my group.)

I hope you and others are seeing interesting ways to build and use fighters. Rangers and paladins are relatively easy to build because their abilities are mostly preset and the class design guides the user through the process. Fighters don't have that so it takes a bit more understanding of how the feats interact with each other and you really do have to know where you want to go with the build.

I treat my characters a lot like authors treat their characters: I let the character talk to me and tell me what he wants to do next. Just because a particular feat is mechanically better than another does not mean I'm going to take it. I look at how the feats fit the concept. I won't take a useless feat just to prove that I can get by with fewer feats, that would be silly (even if I can do it, I don't think it will show of value).


Ashiel wrote:
I'll try to comment on some of the other builds shortly. My brother's friend is coming over and they want me to run them a D&D game, so I need to get a couple of notes together and do that. Family > Forums y'know. :)

Completely unacceptable. This is all about me now. :)


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
I'll try to comment on some of the other builds shortly. My brother's friend is coming over and they want me to run them a D&D game, so I need to get a couple of notes together and do that. Family > Forums y'know. :)
Completely unacceptable. This is all about me now. :)

I think my brother would say something similar. :P *moves notes to laptop*


Ashiel wrote:

Okay, some commentary on builds.

Nicos posted a halfling Paladin here that looks like a good start on a mounted build (I'm guessing?). I think it looks fair. Definitely defensive (+1 size is good for that) and he could get a 21 AC at 1st level with a heavy shield). I think he forgot his size bonus to hit, since his attack mods should probably be +3 scimitar and +5 charging.

I am exploring if a mounted TWF sword and shield halfling paladin is viable. Sadly is heavily feat dependent and it would not be that good until mounted skirmisher.

Liberty's Edge

Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Any critiques of my builds? We've picked on the ranger and paladin but this is supposed to be about others as well.

I worry a bit about your damage dealing, but I like the flavor and don't think they would hold back any party they were in.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:


I would like for Ashiel to complete the ranger and paladin. I would like to see how each does compared to the fighters.

Me too.

I disagree, I mean HEAVILY disagree with ashiel in the wand issue but this thread already have a judge, and Lemmy have spoken his verdict, so we need to move on.


ciretose wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Any critiques of my builds? We've picked on the ranger and paladin but this is supposed to be about others as well.
I worry a bit about your damage dealing, but I like the flavor and don't think they would hold back any party they were in.

Depending on which build you're looking at I can see that. The half-orc is dealing more than enough damage. Spruce can handle the damage through multiple attacks at this level but as he levels he needs to do something. I have some ideas and I will see how they pan out. Turret isn't supposed to deal a lot of damage per hit either, at least not yet. He's going to be interesting as he grows as well. The gnome is similar to Spruce in that he will be dealing less damage but will have more attacks. I think it will balance itself out. DR is the biggest issue that they will face but they all have some money left over for potions to enhance themselves. I didn't know what I wanted to buy so I just left a bunch of money unspent.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was looking at the little guys. I must have missed the half orc in the flood :)


There should be a place when posting all those builds instead of being scattered across the thread.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Black_Lantern wrote:
Paladins also have heavy roleplaying restrictions.

Do you meany roleplaying opportunities?


Galnörag wrote:
Black_Lantern wrote:
Paladins also have heavy roleplaying restrictions.
Do you meany roleplaying opportunities?

Everyone have the same opportunities of a lawfulgoodness life, the paladin does not have the same freedom of the others.


I like Spruce's versatility, he has a good mix of skills.

but his relatively low HP and poor Reflex saves are worrisome, specially considering he engages in melee with 2 weapons and no shield. If he's attacking from distance, he risks being the target of a Fireball, which would put him in a bad spot, considering poor reflexes saves (although these are alleviated by his Dex and gear) and lower than average HP.

His impressive stealth modifier allows him to scout pretty well and use hit-and-run tactics, but in doing so, he sacrifices his extra attacks (at least 'til high levels, when the archetype's class features allow him to overcome this limitation, the ful attack after moving is particullary good for TWFers).

TWFing and staying versatile is doable, but costs a lot of feats,and attributes.

Elven immunites are wonderful for a class with low Will save. Silent hunter is obviously much more useful than elven magic (for fighters).

It's a very flavorful build and quite efficient, but he seems to be trying his hardest just to keep up with an equal level ranger.
However, wilderness stuff is the ranger's speciality, so that is doesn't say much about the class being weaker.

It does show that fighter can do wilderness and stealth-related stuff too and that poor Con does not completely cripple the class, but it sure takes its toll (even more so on lower levels, where 3 or 4 HP can make a huge difference).

I guess that's it for this build, I'll now check the others (I did read them before, mind you, but with all that happened here I forgot about the specifics). I particullary like Kor and Turret.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Guy Kilmore wrote:
I agree. (As the lurker and the guy just reading this stuff. I am finding the thought experiment interesting. I am learning stuff that will make me a better GM and I have enough information to make decisions based upon the playstyle of my group.)

I hope you and others are seeing interesting ways to build and use fighters. Rangers and paladins are relatively easy to build because their abilities are mostly preset and the class design guides the user through the process. Fighters don't have that so it takes a bit more understanding of how the feats interact with each other and you really do have to know where you want to go with the build.

I treat my characters a lot like authors treat their characters: I let the character talk to me and tell me what he wants to do next. Just because a particular feat is mechanically better than another does not mean I'm going to take it. I look at how the feats fit the concept. I won't take a useless feat just to prove that I can get by with fewer feats, that would be silly (even if I can do it, I don't think it will show of value).

I tend to build my PCs and NPCs the same way. I tend to make my recommendations to the PCs I GM for in a similar way. It is nice to see traits and feats people use to flesh certain concepts, because there are alot of feats and combinations. It is nice to see people who are more adept at accessing those rules and combinations, put stuff together. It increases my breadth of experience.

I say this for builds that many people have posted and I find value in what is going up. It is also nice to see builds for both Ashiel and Ciretose, as I have played and GMed both styles of campaigns.

While I find the discussion of different playstyles in reference to build somewhat illuminating. (It explains why a build is going in a certain direction and how the playstyle effects the expression of the concept.) I think some of it has gone on longer than it needs to.

Liberty's Edge

Looked at Bob's half orc and I share the reflex save concern someone mentioned earlier. He also starts out a little vulnerable for my personal tastes. But I like all of the concepts.


Bob,

19 hit points on a third level front line fighter? A boss will take him out in a good hit, never mind a crit.

Liberty's Edge

While we are looking at the third level builds, my fighter compared to the ranger has:

+ Better ability to hit (+7 to +9 is what it says, but Ashiel should actually be +8 with her masterwork warhammer)

+ +10 to movement

+ Significantly more melee damage

+ More hit points

+ Ability to hit anything with magic damage resistance (but this is more item selection)

- Lower initiative (+4 to +8)

- Lower perception. (+2 to +7)

- Less ranged damage (Ashiel picked up a composite this level)

- Can't sleep in armor

- Lower will save

I leave it to the judges to see what they value more.


Removed a bunch of posts. We warned you about being personally abusive to other posters. Whatever conclusion you wanted to come to clearly has come by in the last 5 pages. We're done here. Thread locked.

751 to 784 of 784 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why fighters suck All Messageboards