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

Fighters are awesome.


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

51 to 100 of 140 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
By the gods, it needs a way to get a decent mount that doesn't require the Leadership feat.

Well Fighters used to get lots of followers and even a keep (god only knows where they got it from exactly). Seems like you could saddle them with their choice of an animal companion or a follower with warrior levels (so some Fighters might choose a trusty mount, others might have their own Tonto).

IMHO, the biggest problem with Fighters -- every time I go back and look at them -- is their lack of options. Most classes get options through spells. It's admittedly difficult to give Fighters meaningful options while keeping them as the "non-casting guy". Barbarians seem to have a firm monopoly on "really cool Ex abilities and the occasional Su ability".

There's not a whole lot of difference between playing a 20th level Fighter and a 1st level Fighter in terms of what your class brings to the table. I've watched players actually just grow horribly bored playing them before; and their complaints are pretty valid. It would be akin to playing World of Warcraft or similar game, except you don't learn new abilities. You just auto-attack and heroic strike you way from first to max level. By the time you get to max level, you may never want to see a Heroic Strike again (and might not since your hotkey has worn down by this point).

Since I'm kind of tired of harping on Rangers & Paladins, let me look at some of the other classes. Not as a rivalry to the fighter, but in the way they are designed...

Bards: Bards are the class for the ADD kid at the table. They have moderate to strong martial capabilities, skills, a variety of class features that do certain things and require certain actions, and finally has icing in the way of spells.
Barbarians: Barbarians are so close to being Fighters it's silly. They're big meatshields with decent armor proficiencies, ability to move in armor as well as most people out of it, and get lots of nice abilities (uncanny dodge is particularly sweet). However, something that makes their class unique and interesting is their rage mechanics. They have a little game within the game. This allows them to have awesome abilities while being quite balanced.

Speaking of barbarians and their game within game feature, that's something most classes kind of need. Most classes have a mechanic that sets them apart from other classes. Fighters don't really do that. Rogues have their mini-game of sneak attack (try to get into the right position for big payoffs); barbarians have their rage and rage cycling; bards have their music + spells; and some of the better designed 3.5 classes like Binder and Psychic Warrior had their own little mini-game styles built in.

Fighter's game-type is identical to the Warrior game type. Hit it and hope it stops moving. They have no unique abilities, no game inside a game, and no resources of any sort to use. It's just hit it or don't hit it. The simplicity might be appreciated by those with 2 braincells to rub together; but if you're looking for simplicity there is another issue... Truly, Fighter is often heralded as the class you let the newbie play to learn the game, but it's contrasted with requiring way more system mastery to make decent than most classes (barring monk for a moment here).

Personally I believe the direction that the Tome of Battle was going in was a good one. Their "Warblades" which might as well have been called "Melee Fighter 2.0" relied on hitting things to get the job done. But they did so with little tricks. Sometimes (arguably most times) they would make physical attacks, but had special stances they could swap between to simulate the change in tactics (one stance might make it harder to flank you, while another might give benefits vs fighting large foes and another still might provide increased defense vs a single foe), and could preform special techniques (strike an enemy and force them to save vs sickened, or hit a foe with a single attack that pins their weapon(s) and prevents them from making AoOs for 1 round).

The problem I see with the Fighters -- and it will remain a problem -- is that Fighters have the least options of what to do during actual play. This compounded with the fact they are essentially doomed to being mundane, and lacking adaptive options, means that they will go on having troubles in games as levels progress.

The fact their saves and skills are also very bad is just icing on the cake of shame. :(


Ashiel wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
By the gods, it needs a way to get a decent mount that doesn't require the Leadership feat.
Well Fighters used to get lots of followers and even a keep (god only knows where they got it from exactly). Seems like you could saddle them with their choice of an animal companion or a follower with warrior levels (so some Fighters might choose a trusty mount, others might have their own Tonto).

The Leadership feat looks like that's what it was supposed to represent. However, even in 1st Edition the fighter didn't get a better mount just because he had a keep and an army. You didn't just add class levels to creatures back then, at least not easily like you can with the d20 system.

Quote:
IMHO, the biggest problem with Fighters -- every time I go back and look at them -- is their lack of options. Most classes get options through spells. It's admittedly difficult to give Fighters meaningful options while keeping them as the "non-casting guy". Barbarians seem to have a firm monopoly on "really cool Ex abilities and the occasional Su ability".

They pretty much have as many combat options as the other martial classes.

I think that too often the limitations of a class are more of a limitation of the player. Whenever I read that a class can't contribute (I know you didn't say that, it's just something that bugs me a lot) I ask myself if the problem is the player. Characters that can't contribute are not played well. At a minimum you can voice your opinion and make suggestions. Too often too, people fall into the trap of feeling like the need to use spells when often they can just let someone use the skills they've invested in to accomplish the same thing without wasting resources. Every time a wizard casts charm person when a diplomacy, bluff, or intimidate check would have accomplished the same thing, I wonder where the problem lies. I wonder if the group could have gone one more encounter if the wizard had a different spell prepared since he didn't need that one in the first place.

I really don't see a problem with the saves or skills on the same level as you. Every class has its weaknesses and the fighter is no different. If the GM only throws creatures at the party that target Will saves, the GM is intentionally targeting the fighter while ignoring the fact that the wizard would have some serious issues against Fortitude and Reflex saves. If the GM only throws creatures that have weak Will saves against the party, he is favoring the casters' more potent spells. A good mix of encounters is what is best. This is the kind of stuff that I see often on the boards.

As for Tome of Battle, I didn't really like it. It felt like they were trying to turn the fighter into a spell caster. It was obviously a precursor to 4E (which WotC has said) and it shows. I didn't really like the feel of many of the classes in 4E either. I want my extraordinary characters to be extraordinary, my supernatural characters to be supernatural, and my spell casters to be spell casters. There is a place for all of them. I don't want them to all feel the same.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
They pretty much have as many combat options as the other martial classes.

Well, not really. Other martials have all the fighter's combat options (hit it, maneuvers, etc), but they also have other stuff. While Fighters might be better in terms of raw numbers at the very generic stuff, other martials have tricks that let them excel and adapt to situations. For example, a Barbarian gain rage and then do cool things (like gain big dodge bonuses to AC, gain huge bonuses vs spells, or even get new combat options entirely). Paladins can swift-action cast grace and move around the battlefield without provoking attacks. Rangers can pull stunts like cast entangle or jump and bounce around the battlefield while hiding due to his cloak of displacement.

Likewise, all these other classes have tricks and such they can use to give them advantages in certain scenarios. A Paladin can be about to drop below 0 Hp and lay on hands as an immediate action (and with 1 feat will be healing +2 HP per die on top of it). They can't do such things constantly, but they don't need to do such things constantly.

Quote:
Too often too, people fall into the trap of feeling like the need to use spells when often they can just let someone use the skills they've invested in to accomplish the same thing without wasting resources.

Recharge-sources are a funny thing. A lot of GMs -- and arguably even the game itself -- is much harder on skills and mundane options than spells. I mean, even if you're the best damn swimmer in the world, you still only swim at 1/3rd your speed. Which means that even if you have a +60 swim, you're not much better in a swimming environment than someone with a +8 swim, except you might be able to comfortably swim through something insane like an underwater tornado (maybe DC 50? :P).

Attrition is another funny bit. I had a group recently who was going through a dungeon crawl. There were points where they went along through the dungeon more or less without stopping, and then there were points where they encountered very bad enemies and stopped to rest almost immediately. They were in an old subterranian fortress, and were on their own clock (they were simply adventuring). They locked or barred some doors here and there, someone pulled out some jerky, and they would sit and nurse their wounds for a while. So some times they went long stretches with no troubles, and other times they almost everything they had to survive.

On an unrelated note, one of my PCs did a ballsy and half-insane thing that worked wonders for him in some of the dungeon encounters.

Crazy Fuzzy Psion:
He was playing a psion who was built for tanking (because psions are funny like that, and if you're not focused on blasting you can probably focus on trying to survive pretty good). The party encountered some brown mold (CR 2). Now for those who don't know, Brown mold is not a creature but a type of fungus that grows in dungeons and such and is mentioned in the environment section. Anything within 5 ft. of it takes 3d6 nonlethal cold damage every round with no save. The party was amused by this stuff and managed to get past it, but the psion got a clever idea. Finding that the stuff grows rapidly when exposed to an open flame, he manifested the psionic-equivalent to resist energy (cold) and then smeared the fungus on himself and lit a tindertwig. Poof, he's covered from head to toe in a brown fuzzy heat-devouring mold. Like some sort of frigid sasquatch. The party looked at him like he was insane, but with the energy resistance up, he was relatively safe from the effects of cold.

So while the party was exploring, with the psion a good 5 ft. from everybody, anything that got within 5 ft. of the psion or tried to grapple him was taking 3d6 nonlethal cold damage every round. The psion basically killed an ochre jelly like that because the party split it a few times and all the splits were freezing over. When the psion was running out of resistance juice, he would scrap the stuff off and put it inside a jug the party was carrying and discard any excess.

I was so amused by this. I thought it was quite clever. He's still carrying jars of cultivated brown mold around because he plans to use them as weapons. One trick the party has already used was chucking clay jugs of mold at enemies and then dropping fire-damage attacks in the radius, causing the mold to envelope areas and plunge them into frigid cold.

It did nothing to the fast zombie brown bears, but you can't win everything right? :P

I mentioned in my alignment thread that trying to balance the classes by forcing them into specific paces is arbitrary and stupid. Why not fix something at its source? If the class is only good in marathon runs, fix it. If the class is only good at going nova, fix it. If it's only good between the extremes, fix it. Don't try to force the rest of the game, the players, and their options around that one class in the name of fairness.

Quote:
I really don't see a problem with the saves or skills on the same level as you. Every class has its weaknesses and the fighter is no different.

The problem is it's clear that they have save issues. It's not about the GM using will saves to "target" the fighter. Out of the core classes, Fighters and Rogues have the worst saves. Barbarians have the same saves as Fighters but get abilities that make up for it when they're doing their shtick. Rangers have 2 good saves, bards have 2 good saves, clerics and druids have 2 good saves, paladins have 2 good saves plus abilities that gve them the best saves ever, and wizards and sorcerers have only 1 good save but they have tons of spells that buff or immunize them against bad things.

That basically puts Fighters and Rogues in a precarious position. They are highly vulnerable to virtually any mental-based attack, as well as most alignment or positive/negative eenrgy based attack. Fighters are also more vulnerable to traps and CC spells like entangle and pit spells. In an encounter with multiple foes, a Fighter has decent fortitude saves and poor Reflex and Will. A mere shell of his former glory where he had the best saving throws in the game (Pre-3E).

Furthermore, he has to rely entirely on outside sources to buff himself. Most other classes can get similar benefit with those same buffs. For example, a Paladin has Divine Grace AND a +5 cloak of resistance.

Quote:
As for Tome of Battle, I didn't really like it. It felt like they were trying to turn the fighter into a spell caster. It was obviously a precursor to 4E (which WotC has said) and it shows. I didn't really like the feel of many of the classes in 4E either. I want my extraordinary characters to be extraordinary, my supernatural characters to be supernatural, and my spell casters to be spell casters. There is a place for all of them. I don't want them to all feel the same.

I'm going to try and avoid nerd raging about this. Tome of Battle is admittedly one of my favorite books for 3.5. It fixed a lot of problems and let martial characters have a bone for once. It was presented in a way that separated it heavily from spellcasting and in a way that was reminiscent of fighting styles (stances, techniques, counters, etc). There were three new classes introduced with one for each flavor of martial. The crusader was a less magical and more martial paladin-type (as a paladin type it had some supernatural abilities). The sword-sage which is a very monk-ish character (this guy got his own styles of combat that had a very mystical/supernatural bent). Then you had the Warblade (Fighter 2.0) who was entirely mundane and used techniques that might as well have been derived from raw images of dwarfs hammering giants in the gonads for its clear emphasis on beating stuff to death in new and exciting - yet mundane/extraordinary ways.

I actually dislike 4E's mechanics vehemently. Tome of Battle had me stoked for 4E, and when I got the finished product I was heartbroken. They had basically thrown out everything that was good about the system and dumbed it down to a mere shadow of its former self, and turned stuff into at-will, 1/encounter, and 1/day abilities. In essence, the only thing that remained from the ToB was martials weren't only using mundane attacks. That was about it.

The classes in Tome of Battle? Not like 4E at all. Warblades needed a moment to set up the ball for another flashy move (you couldn't spam the same move over and over, but you could use technique->normal attack->technique if you desired), and Crusaders relied on divine inspiration (crusaders used physical attacks and cycled through their tricks). Sword sages were the closest to 1/encounter mechanics, but had tons of techniques, and a feat that allowed them to spend a full-round action to reset all their techniques (fully reminiscent of films and media where a warrior pulls back, says some dialog while he flourishes and regroups himself before the battle continues).

It is my experience that those who make such criticisms of the Tome of Battle do so because they clearly don't actually know as much about it as they think they do. The idea that the Tome of Battle characters are spellcasters is laughable. Exactly what makes them spellcasters? Perhaps it was just because their techniques were divided into different schools that each emphasized certain traits (gee, that has nothing to do with martial fighting; because surly Kendo, Fencing, or Germanic Longsword fighting surely must all be the same right?), or was it that the different abilities were organized into simple and easy to read formats akin to spell descriptions (I mean, why not invent some sort of new way to write text, instead of creating a block that tells you the details of a technique along with flavor and rule text)?

If someone is going to criticize the Tome of Battle, then they at least need to be real criticisms instead of stuff they are projecting onto it. :)


Ashiel wrote:

and bounce around the battlefield while hiding due to his cloak of displacement.

just to point out that even with the concealement of the cloack you can not use stealth If people are observing you. A smoke bomb would fix that i suppose.


Nicos wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

and bounce around the battlefield while hiding due to his cloak of displacement.

just to point out that even with the concealement of the cloack you can not use stealth If people are observing you. A smoke bomb would fix that i suppose.

Anyone pointed out what causes the observing condition? My copy of the PRD says that you can't use stealth while being observed, but cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. I don't plan on getting into a Stealth debate here, but I'm going by what the book says unless someone can point me to a place in the book that says Rogues + Concealment =/= the predator.


Ashiel wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

and bounce around the battlefield while hiding due to his cloak of displacement.

just to point out that even with the concealement of the cloack you can not use stealth If people are observing you. A smoke bomb would fix that i suppose.
Anyone pointed out what causes the observing condition? My copy of the PRD says that you can't use stealth while being observed, but cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. I don't plan on getting into a Stealth debate here, but I'm going by what the book says unless someone can point me to a place in the book that says Rogues + Concealment =/= the predator.

Well, does the cloack make you invisible? No. then people can see you then you can not use stealth in plain sight.


i'm sure that a blurry after image is sufficient for stealth. you are just making the blur blurrier. pretty darn difficult to observe an eyesore.


Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
i'm sure that a blurry after image is sufficient for stealth. you are just making the blur blurrier. pretty darn difficult to observe an eyesore.

You see a blurry image, the character hide behind the blurry image(then a 20% of mmiss chance). I do not see how that help the PC to total disapear from the sight of his enemy.

But i guess the rules of stealth are porrly written, so is better if we a gree to disagree because both interpretation have it fundaments.


Nicos wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
i'm sure that a blurry after image is sufficient for stealth. you are just making the blur blurrier. pretty darn difficult to observe an eyesore.

You see a blurry image, the character hide behind the blurry image(then a 20% of mmiss chance). I do not see how that help the PC to total disapear from the sight of his enemy.

But i guess the rules of stealth are porrly written, so is better if we a gree to disagree because both interpretation have it fundaments.

don't think of it as you dissapearing from the enemy's sight. here is a better explananation. you are so blurry, that you are hurting your foes eyes so bad that they cannot focus on you without seeing an eyesore. thus, you can make a stealth check to hide, because thier eyes get sore whenever they look at you. in fact, you know when to time your movements for an optimal eyesore.


Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
i'm sure that a blurry after image is sufficient for stealth. you are just making the blur blurrier. pretty darn difficult to observe an eyesore.

You see a blurry image, the character hide behind the blurry image(then a 20% of mmiss chance). I do not see how that help the PC to total disapear from the sight of his enemy.

But i guess the rules of stealth are porrly written, so is better if we a gree to disagree because both interpretation have it fundaments.

don't think of it as you dissapearing from the enemy's sight. here is a better explananation. you are so blurry, that you are hurting your foes eyes so bad that they cannot focus on you without seeing an eyesore. thus, you can make a stealth check to hide, because thier eyes get sore whenever they look at you. in fact, you know when to time your movements for an optimal eyesore.

Hiding using a cloack of displacement is allowed by a sentence in the stealt rule and is disallowed by another sentence, so it is hardly RAW.

Seems more like a loophole.


Ashiel wrote:


Anyone pointed out what causes the observing condition? My copy of the PRD says that you can't use stealth while being observed, but cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. I don't plan on getting into a Stealth debate here, but I'm going by what the book says unless someone can point me to a place in the book that says Rogues + Concealment =/= the predator.

The stealth skill allows one to maintain being unobserved by an individual when circumstances would otherwise have that individual now observing the skill user.

Hide in plain sight allows two things: removing the need for cover/concealment (possibly replacing with another requirement) and removing the requirement to be unobserved. The ranger version breaks this into two separate abilities even, in case there was any confusion on one being redundant.

Admittedly the stealth rules could use a nice re-write, but that's the easy intent of them for you,

James

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Nicos wrote:

You see a blurry image, the character hide behind the blurry image(then a 20% of mmiss chance). I do not see how that help the PC to total disapear from the sight of his enemy.

But i guess the rules of stealth are porrly written, so is better if we a gree to disagree because both interpretation have it fundaments.

Ever seen a mirage? Rub you eyes and look back to find it gone?

That's stealthing with blur.


I did some work when PF came out. From what I can tell TWF using the same weapon, such as a pair of kukir, and picking up critical feats.

You not only do more melee damage than any class I can think of, except maybe a synthesist, but you have a ton of critical effects that will go off a lot of the time, with the bonus to hit to pull everything off.


My problem with fighter is that they are kinda boring. Not the roleplayign aspect, with enough roleplay you can have fun playing anything. But the mechanical aspect is lacking.

In combat, all martials suffer from the "Move or suck" syndrome, but fighter are hit the hardest.

Sure, a Paladin can't move and full attack, but he can move, cast a spell and attack, or move, heal himself and attack, move, smite, attack.
Barbarians have all kinds of cool stuff to do while raging, including Pounce and Spell Sunder.
Ranger have spells, animal companions and a whole lot of skills and stealth options.
Even gunslinger have more to do in combat than simple shoot their guns.

Out of combat, Fighter are probably the most helpless of all classes. No skills ranks, not many class skills (well, survival and knowlege(dungeons) can be useful, if fighter can invest in them and didn't dump Int/Wis), no saves, no bonus to anything other than killing stuff.
They have tons of feats, but everything cost 2~5 feats. So if they want to increase their out-of-combat utility, they must sacrifice a considerable amount of in-combat power.

A ranger, paladin or barbarian can probably focus all his feats to combat and still contribute out-of-combat a lot more than most fighters.
And IIRC, the gunslinger's class skill list and saves are simply better than the fighter's. Exceptfor knowledge(dungeoneering) they have all the rest + more. All that while still getting 5 bonus feats.

Fighter should have something unique to them. That noone else could have (and I don't mean higher numbers!). And they should have more options in and outside of combat. Sure fighting is what they do best, but its not all they do. At least, it shouldn't be.


TriOmegaZero wrote:


Ever seen a mirage? Rub you eyes and look back to find it gone?

Nop, never.

Shadow Lodge

Well if you can't imagine it, I'd say you have insurmountable problems.


Ashiel wrote:
It is my experience that those who make such criticisms of the Tome of Battle do so because they clearly don't actually know as much about it as they think they do. The idea that the Tome of Battle characters are spellcasters is laughable. Exactly what makes them spellcasters?

They don't suck. In 3.5, not suck = spellcasters.

Personally even in Pathfinder I tend to object to someone bringing a fighter or a rogue into the party. I can barely tolerate Barbarians and Rangers- the former because of the defensive special abilities, the latter because of the spellcasting. But a dungeoncrawl isn't a children's party, not everyone gets a prize for coming, and I won't sacrifice the group because someone wants to play Mr. "I don't need magic or special abilities". If someone wants to play a rogue type, they can play a Bard. If they want a melee character, there's Barbarians, Clerics, Paladins and Rangers. That should do it.


ericthetolle wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
It is my experience that those who make such criticisms of the Tome of Battle do so because they clearly don't actually know as much about it as they think they do. The idea that the Tome of Battle characters are spellcasters is laughable. Exactly what makes them spellcasters?
They don't suck. In 3.5, not suck = spellcasters.

Point taken.

Quote:
Personally even in Pathfinder I tend to object to someone bringing a fighter or a rogue into the party.

I have a hard time blaming ya there. :P

Quote:
I can barely tolerate Barbarians and Rangers- the former because of the defensive special abilities, the latter because of the spellcasting.

Hm, what? Can you clarify what you mean here?

Quote:
But a dungeoncrawl isn't a children's party, not everyone gets a prize for coming, and I won't sacrifice the group because someone wants to play Mr. "I don't need magic or special abilities". If someone wants to play a rogue type, they can play a Bard. If they want a melee character, there's Barbarians, Clerics, Paladins and Rangers. That should do it.

I do have to admit that if I was putting together the ideal team, Fighter, Rogue, and Monk would not be in that team. Paladin/Bard/Cleric/Wizard would probably be the choice, though I'm fond enough of druids that druid could replace cleric depending on your specializations.

Paizo Employee Paizo Glitterati Robot

Removed a post and response to it. Flame baiting, abuse to other users and similar behavior are not cool here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Well, not really. Other martials have all the fighter's combat options (hit it, maneuvers, etc), but they also have other stuff. While Fighters might be better in terms of raw numbers at the very generic stuff, other martials have tricks that let them excel and adapt to situations. For example, a Barbarian gain rage and then do cool things (like gain big dodge bonuses to AC, gain huge bonuses vs spells, or even get new combat options entirely). Paladins can swift-action cast grace and move around the battlefield without provoking attacks. Rangers can pull stunts like cast entangle or jump and bounce around the battlefield while hiding due to his cloak of displacement.

They really don't have all the fighter's combat options. No matter how much you try to repeat this, they don't. They simply do not have the feats to pull it off. Not one single class other than the fighter can pull off several improved maneuvers. That's ok. The fighter doesn't do mounted combat as well as the cavalier. The fighter doesn't do crazed melee like the barbarian. The fighter doesn't do stealthy archer quite like the ranger. The fighter doesn't do holy warrior like a paladin. I'm ok with all of that. There is a place for every class. The cavalier doesn't do stealthy archer as well as a ranger. It fills a niche.

Quote:
Likewise, all these other classes have tricks and such they can use to give them advantages in certain scenarios. A Paladin can be about to drop below 0 Hp and lay on hands as an immediate action (and with 1 feat will be healing +2 HP per die on top of it). They can't do such things constantly, but they don't need to do such things constantly.

The fighter can master critical hits better than anyone else, which is also situational. Feats like bashing finish and improved critical (shield) and improved critical (whatever) can make a sword and board fighter much more dangerous in combat. I've watched a sword and board fighter get multiple critical hits in a single round, all of which trigger free attacks from his shield some of which also managed to be critical hits which triggered more shield attacks. If you beat the enemy fast and hard enough, you won't need that healing (which is a common argument against healing in combat, finishing your opponent off is generally a better tactic whenever possible). Being able to use multiple critical feats makes it even more dangerous. Blinding flash can dazzle your opponent (with no range issues and it's a fortitude save and with all the apparent spell casters he's fighting that's awesome). There are several different feats that have bleed effects (one of which he can get at first level: Bloody Vengeance). There are a lot of feats that allow the fighter to synergize with other classes should the character decide to multiclass. It's the only class that can do that with several classes (not every character is going to be a single class character). He can try to demoralize every foe within 30 feat, and have a good chance of success. Feats like deadly finish are great against regenerating foes (no fire or acid required). He's got things like deadly stroke available (Con bleed? yes please). There are more feats that synergize with the fighter class (because they are combat feats and therefore potentially class abilities) and preferred race than any other. He can do all kinds of things in combat that other classes don't have the feats to choose to do especially because they also need to use their feats to shore up weaknesses (the cavalier's Will save is as good as a fighter's as is a non-raging barbarian and so is a gunslinger's and a ranger's). (That went on longer than intended.)

Quote:
Recharge-sources are a funny thing. A lot of GMs -- and arguably even the game itself -- is much harder on skills and mundane options than spells. I mean, even if you're the best damn swimmer in the world, you still only swim at 1/3rd your speed. Which means that even if you have a +60 swim, you're not much better in a swimming environment than someone with a +8 swim, except you might be able to comfortably swim through something insane like an underwater tornado (maybe DC 50? :P).

If you have the time, why not just use the skills? If you are low level, why waste precious spell slots? If you don't need to use magic, why use it? If you've got plenty of time and the fighter has a good enough climb check and some rope and pitons, he can climb up and set things up so that the entire party has to make a DC 5 climb check, which they will most likely succeed on by taking 10. Obviously if you are in a situation where you need to be underwater for hours at at time and dealing with whirlpools, magic is better. Most adventures don't have that though. You can't pick an extreme example and say "see I told you it sucked." That's silly at best and really just being disingenuous.

Quote:
Attrition is another funny bit. I had a group recently who was going through a dungeon crawl. There were points where they went along through the dungeon more or less without stopping, and then there were points where they encountered very bad enemies and stopped to rest almost immediately. They were in an old subterranian fortress, and were on their own clock (they were simply adventuring). They locked or barred some doors here and there, someone pulled out some jerky, and they would sit and nurse their wounds for a while. So some times they went long stretches with no troubles, and other times they almost everything they had to survive.

I'm currently in a party with a sorcerer (focused on enchantments), wizard (diviner), summoner (no archetypes), and a magus. We are just starting the Serpent's Skull AP and so far, we are getting our asses handed to us because we have too many casters and there are too vermin and undead. My character (the sorcerer) has yet to cast a single 1st level spell (they are both mind affecting) and his only combat spell (ray of frost) has been ineffective against the zombies. Basically I'm playing a crossbowman with a low attack bonus. The diviner isn't much better off. The summoner and magus are out of spells already and they are our only combat effective characters right now. Currently, if we had the traditional party, we would be much better off.

Quote:

It's not about the GM using will saves to "target" the fighter. Out of the core classes, Fighters and Rogues have the worst saves. Barbarians have the same saves as Fighters but get abilities that make up for it when they're doing their shtick. Rangers have 2 good saves, bards have 2 good saves, clerics and druids have 2 good saves, paladins have 2 good saves plus abilities that gve them the best saves ever, and wizards and sorcerers have only 1 good save but they have tons of spells that buff or immunize them against bad things.

That basically puts Fighters and Rogues in a precarious position. They are highly vulnerable to virtually any mental-based attack, as well as most alignment or positive/negative eenrgy based attack. Fighters are also more vulnerable to traps and CC spells like entangle and pit spells. In an encounter with multiple foes, a Fighter has decent fortitude saves and poor Reflex and Will. A mere shell of his former glory where he had the best saving throws in the game (Pre-3E).

Actually it is about the GM targeting the fighter. The standard complaint is that the fighter has a low will save. That only matters if you are using abilities or spells that target will saves. If the fighter is up against an ability that targets fortitude he is far better off than the wizard. If the GM uses abilities that target fortitude saves it feels like people whine on the boards that it isn't fair or that the wizard will always have just the right ability in place and ready to go to deal with that. Traps that deal damage or need to hit aren't very dangerous to the fighter at all. The fighter is no more susceptible to positive/negative energy attacks than any other class. With his high hit points, he can do just fine against most attacks that need reflex saves.

Bringing up 1E really isn't useful. We're not playing 1E. We're playing Pathfinder. I am probably more familiar with 1E than you are since that's what I started playing with way back in the dark ages.

Quote:
Furthermore, he has to rely entirely on outside sources to buff himself. Most other classes can get similar benefit with those same buffs. For example, a Paladin has Divine Grace AND a +5 cloak of resistance.

The fighter can get by just fine without buffs. I've seen it over and over again. The paladin has divine grace. What does the cavalier have again?

Tome of Battle Off Topic Discussion

Spoiler:

Quote:
I'm going to try and avoid nerd raging about this. Tome of Battle is admittedly one of my favorite books for 3.5. It fixed a lot of problems and let martial characters have a bone for once. It was presented in a way that separated it heavily from spellcasting and in a way that was reminiscent of fighting styles (stances, techniques, counters, etc).

Nerd rage all you want. I still didn't like it. It didn't do anything other than make things more complex than was necessary. It really did look and feel like spell casting. Abilities with a set number of uses per day...hmmm...what does that look like? Vancian spell casting? Yep. Every single little thing they could do was specifically spelled out, just like spells. It was annoying to many of us because we spent as much time looking up maneuvers as we did spells. I have showed it to new players and they wondered why there was another spell system created for 3.5. I explained to them it wasn't another spell system but that's exactly what it looks like.

Quote:

It is my experience that those who make such criticisms of the Tome of Battle do so because they clearly don't actually know as much about it as they think they do. The idea that the Tome of Battle characters are spellcasters is laughable. Exactly what makes them spellcasters?

If someone is going to criticize the Tome of Battle, then they at least need to be real criticisms instead of stuff they are projecting onto it. :)

I am very familiar with it. That is why I didn't like it. No matter how much you try to defend it, I still won't like it. You know what else I don't like? Druids, bards, and clerics. I'm also very familiar with them too. It's because of my familiarity with them that I don't like them. I don't disparage others because they do like them. I find that they don't fit my style of character. And that's ok with me.

That pretty much all I'm going to say on the issue. I don't want to derail this thread any more than we already have.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm about to play some KotoR, so I'll get to the rest of it later; but I wanted to address some of this for folks who haven't seen the ToB yet.

Tome of Battle:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
It didn't do anything other than make things more complex than was necessary. It really did look and feel like spell casting. Abilities with a set number of uses per day...hmmm...what does that look like? Vancian spell casting? Yep. Every single little thing they could do was specifically spelled out, just like spells. It was annoying to many of us because we spent as much time looking up maneuvers as we did spells. I have showed it to new players and they wondered why there was another spell system created for 3.5. I explained to them it wasn't another spell system but that's exactly what it looks like.

Let me respond by fixing the above.

"It didn't do anything other than give martials options. It really didn't look and feel like spell casting but like declaring a maneuver. Abilities with a set number of uses per day...hmmm...what does that look like? Vancian spell casting? Yep. Fortunately there were no abilities in the book that you only used a set number of times per day, since all of them were usable all day long; which I know since I'm very experienced with the book and spent more than 5 minutes flipping through the book to look at the pictures. Every single little thing they could do was specifically spelled out, just like feats. It was annoying to many of us because we spent as much time looking up maneuvers as we did feats or any other ability that was new to us. I have showed it to new players and they wondered why there was another spell system created for 3.5. I explained to them it wasn't another spell system but that's exactly what it looks like to those who didn't actually read the rules."

There, that pretty much patches it all up into something that sounds accurate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:

I'm about to play some KotoR, so I'll get to the rest of it later; but I wanted to address some of this for folks who haven't seen the ToB yet.

Let me respond by fixing the above.

"It didn't do anything other than give martials options. It really didn't look and feel like spell casting but like declaring a maneuver. Abilities with a set number of uses per day...hmmm...what does that look like? Vancian spell casting? Yep. Fortunately there were no abilities in the book that you only used a set number of times per day, since all of them were usable all day long; which I know since I'm very experienced with the book and spent more than 5 minutes flipping through the book to look at the pictures. Every single little thing they could do was specifically spelled out, just like feats. It was annoying to many of us because we spent as much time looking up maneuvers as we did feats or any other ability that was new to us. I have showed it to new players and they wondered why there was another spell system created for 3.5. I explained to them it wasn't another spell system but that's exactly what it looks like to those who didn't actually read the rules."

There, that pretty much patches it all up into something that sounds accurate.

Please don't do that again. I really dislike when someone changes what I said. Debate my points but please don't change what I wrote. You and I are in disagreement with ToB and that's ok. You have your opinion and I have mine. When you do this you are saying that I am a liar about my familiarity with the product. I own it. I have built several characters, PCs and NPCs with it. I have worked with it quite a bit. To assume that I didn't actually read the rules and understand them because I came to a different conclusion than you is a piss-poor way to debate something. I can say that you liked it because you didn't understand it but that would be just as untrue. Please do not change my words nor pretend that you are superior because you like something others do not.


Ashiel wrote:

I'm about to play some KotoR, so I'll get to the rest of it later; but I wanted to address some of this for folks who haven't seen the ToB yet.

** spoiler omitted **

For somebody that complains about people making personal attacks at her, that was incredibely disrespectful.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Please don't do that again. I really dislike when someone changes what I said. Debate my points but please don't change what I wrote. You and I are in disagreement with ToB and that's ok. You have your opinion and I have mine. When you do this you are saying that I am a liar about my familiarity with the product. I own it. I have built several characters, PCs and NPCs with it. I have worked with it quite a bit. To assume that I didn't actually read the rules and understand them because I came to a different conclusion than you is a piss-poor way to debate something. I can say that you liked it because you didn't understand it but that would be just as untrue. Please do not change my words nor pretend that you are superior because you like something others do not.

I'm not calling you a liar, but I am calling you on falsehoods. If you say something that is false, then I will note it. I did it the way I did to draw attention to each point specifically. When you say stuff like "Abilities with a set number of uses per day...hmmm...what does that look like? Vancian spell casting?" it makes it really hard to believe that you're familiar with the book because none of the abilities work that way. It would be like me going: "Paladins are always evil". Anyone here would stand up and say "You mean always NOT-evil.", then I say "Oh no, I mean always evil. I have the book.", and then anyone can just open their copy and see that it says "Lawful Good".

In essence, your summary is fabricated. Perhaps not intentionally, but every instance where I added bold text was directly in relation or correction to stuff you said or were insinuating about the rules in the book. You complained that you had to reference stuff. Everyone has to reference stuff. Especially when you need lots of feats out of more than 4 different sources. "What feat is that in". "Uhh, I think it's in the APG. I used the PRD to make it, so...let me check." *Jeopardy Music Plays* Suggesting that it's somehow prone to slowing down the game when maneuvers are quite literally akin to feats is really messed up Bob.

That being said, I will honestly say I haven't a clue as to why it offended you. This might be a lack of sympathy, empathy, or just plain difference of environment or something, but I simply don't understand your feelings on it. It would be one thing if I hadn't quoted what you actually said and emphasized the changes with the bold text; but as is it literally confuses me. Though since you request it, I shall not make further examples using that technique (a technique which has in my experience been popular in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way).

EDIT: Fun fact. The last time I played a ToB character, I didn't have to reference a thing after character creation. Given that I only had a handful of special abilities, I just read each of them when I was picking them out (like I do with feats). If someone was having trouble remembering what their stuff did, I'd recommend the same thing I recommend to everyone who needs trouble keeping track of feats/spells/items/summons. Grab a cue card or some notebook paper and write down the details (at least shorthand it). Need to remember what your mods for Power Attack are? Make a note. Want to remember how many times per day your Fighter can use Stunning Fist? Make a note. Want to remember how to determine the DCs for Intimidate checks? Make a note.

I suppose that explains the fighter-pushing though. Literally everything beyond "roll d20 add X" might need to be referenced if someone forgot how it worked, or the GM asks. If that is a huge problem for your group, then there's no wonder Fighters just seem like the bees' knees.

Nicos wrote:
For somebody that complains about people making personal attacks at her, that was incredibely disrespectful.

I'm so glad a parody as a form of criticism that includes the original source material for comparison is akin to a personal attack, or calling Bob some sort of dirty name. We learn something every day I suppose.

Sarcastometer: 9,000.1


Off topic ToB discussion:

Spoiler:

Ashiel wrote:
I'm not calling you a liar, but I am calling you on falsehoods. If you say something that is false, then I will note it. I did it the way I did to draw attention to each point specifically. When you say stuff like "Abilities with a set number of uses per day...hmmm...what does that look like? Vancian spell casting?" it makes it really hard to believe that you're familiar with the book because none of the abilities work that way. It would be like me going: "Paladins are always evil". Anyone here would stand up and say "You mean always NOT-evil.", then I say "Oh no, I mean always evil. I have the book.", and then anyone can just open their copy and see that it says "Lawful Good".

It wasn't a falsehood it was an opinion. There is a huge difference. You asked me why it felt like spell casting to me and I told you. That's my opinion. It most certainly does mirror spell casting in some ways. Many people didn't like it because of that. That's their opinions. There is a significant difference.

Quote:
In essence, your summary is fabricated. Perhaps not intentionally, but every instance where I added bold text was directly in relation or correction to stuff you said or were insinuating about the rules in the book. You complained that you had to reference stuff. Everyone has to reference stuff. Especially when you need lots of feats out of more than 4 different sources. "What feat is that in". "Uhh, I think it's in the APG. I used the PRD to make it, so...let me check." *Jeopardy Music Plays* Suggesting that it's somehow prone to slowing down the game when maneuvers are quite literally akin to feats is really messed up Bob.

As GM, I prefer things to much easier than having to reference tons of books or have pages upon pages for NPCs. It's the same reason I didn't use Magic of Incarnum or the warlock much either. Having spell casters around can already slow a game down. Feats are much easier to work with and many simply add a bonus or are easy to remember. Having to look up which abilities are supernatural or extraordinary and how yet another class functions bogs down play. Having to remember how often I could use a maneuver and if I was working with a stance or not was more hassle than it was worth. They certainly function differently than feats.

Quote:
That being said, I will honestly say I haven't a clue as to why it offended you. This might be a lack of sympathy, empathy, or just plain difference of environment or something, but I simply don't understand your feelings on it. It would be one thing if I hadn't quoted what you actually said and emphasized the changes with the bold text; but as is it literally confuses me. Though since you request it, I shall not make further examples using that technique (a technique which has in my experience been popular in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way).

I appreciate your willingness to not change my wording again. I have had a lot of people do that in the past and it ends up being a huge misquote and misrepresentation of what was said and intended. It was worse on the Wizards boards because you could always go back and change things yourself to and that would just create more confusion. At least on these boards you're limited to how much time you have to edit (which has it's drawbacks as well). I spend a lot of time in political and religious discussions and there is a lot of intentional misrepresentation of what others have said. I don't think you meant any malice and I don't hold grudges well so it's all water under the bridge already.

As for why we like fighters: we find them fun. We also find other classes fun too. One thing we really like about Pathfinder is that we don't have 5 shelves of books to take things from. It's more focused and still allows us to create the characters we want (mostly). I'm looking at my 3E glut as I type this and I wonder how I managed to play it in the first place.

Keep in mind that I usually GM and I have only 4 hours to game once a week. When I'm not gaming, I'm still working a full time job and trying to juggle the rest of my messed up life. I don't like having dozens of books for me to go through and remember during those 4 hours. As a player it's a whole different thing because you can take the time to print out only what you need. I did this with the AoW campaign I ran and stat blocks themselves were 2-3 pages per creature once we started to get to mid and higher levels. Of course there are always new creatures with new abilities and new magic items and sometimes new spells and feats and so on. I'm becoming a simple man the more I run.

I probably won't be posting much for about a week. Don't think I'm offended or upset. I'm on vacation and I plan on spending the week with my family I haven't seen in 5 years. I'm going to be busy with non-gaming stuff.


Ashiel, while I agree with your points about ToB, I must say that your comment did sound somewhat mean, as if you were depreciating Bob's opinion. I believe that was not the case or the intention, as from what I've seen, you are usually pretty polite and does have respect for Bob's opinions.
But since forums lacks voice tone and facial expressions, it's easy to misinterpretate sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek tone as a rudeness sometimes.

On a different note, I'm personally a fan of ToB. The unarmed swordsage finally gave me a way to play a wuxia monk without feeling useless.

I'm not sure something similar to ToB is the way to go for Pathfinder. I'd not be against it, but I'd rather have as few rules as possible. Not that it matters as ToB is not open license content, IIRC.

But I'd like to see more martial classes with grit-like mechanics. Limiting the abilities in use allows the creation of more powerufl and flavorful abilities.
Unless you end like the monk, whose limited use abilities were not only limited, but mostly sucky. Then again, bringing monks to a relative class power/utility debate is kinda cheating.


Please take the fighters nees options bits elsewhere.
This is the fighters are awesome.thread.

If you wanna start a 'I hope Paizo makes a TOB patch for fighters thread, go ahead, i'll gladly comment since I LOVED ToB. But this is not that thread.

BTW in the Pathfinder Companion threads -Knights of the inner sea is coming out.
Hopefully your TOB patches (in the form of fighter 'style feats' could be in there)

Back to thread.
Fighters are awesome.


With a fighter, and a big book of feats, I can do almost anything I want in a fantasy game. Fighters are awesome! *raises ale*

Andoran

Ashiel wrote:


The only thing that concerns me is the "hack fix"

*Looks at the pot to determine it's color. It is dark, but is it darker than the kettle?*

Andoran

Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

I did some work when PF came out. From what I can tell TWF using the same weapon, such as a pair of kukir, and picking up critical feats.

You not only do more melee damage than any class I can think of, except maybe a synthesist, but you have a ton of critical effects that will go off a lot of the time, with the bonus to hit to pull everything off.

I think this is the real point that is being overlooked. A lot of combinations and synergies are absolutely deadly. Some are somewhat narrow, but in the structure of a party you can be a bit more narrow so long as your specialization is effective. The pounce Barbarian is often a one trick pony with a hell of a trick.

Fighters have enough feats to do several things well, with both ranged and with melee weapons in combat. They are somewhat skill deprived, but in pathfinder with fewer skills, favored class bonuses, and the armor check bonus they aren't completely useless here either (as demonstrated in the other thread that got shut down and the ongoing build thread elsewhere.)

What you have in the fighter class is a class with enough feats to complete a chain without being a one trick pony. A class that can be effective both ranged and melee in the same build, and that uses feats to fill party gaps rather than skills. And the ability to change out feats that was added is actually quite huge for fighters as they transition to mid to high levels who want to get to a useful feat chain now, while leaving some of the stuff that was better a low levels behind.

It is impossible to disprove a negative, so the strawmen "They can't do this" stuff always overwhelms these discussions. But at the table if you don't have a long series of caster favoring houserules on 15 minute work days, the fighter fills a role in a party very effectively.

Which is what it is supposed to do.

Is there room for improvement? Sure, this is true of all the classes, IMHO which is why I think enough time has passed for the Devs to start looking at a fully compatible 1.5 version of core for tweeks and updates.

But the same people who complain about the fighter tend to be the people who have caster favoring house rules and/or "creative" rules interpretations and manipulations.

I don't think this is a coincidence.

EDIT: And by improvement, I don't mean a power booster or creeping forward to "rebalance". I mean improving the way all of the classes mechanics better fit the intended design of the class. More steel, less duct tape, if you will.


Lemmy wrote:
But I'd like to see more martial classes with grit-like mechanics.

This. And don't forget that these mechanics have a good recovery method implemented (apart from resting).

ToB aside:
That's what bothers me in ToB. There is no simple in-game explanation for why a character can use a given maneuver only once, especially if you play a Swordsage (with no inbuilt recovery method) or a Crusader of a lawful god (for which the randomized granting of maneuvers doesn't make any sense).

Btw: All of the classes prepare their maneuvers - like Clerics and Wizards. There is no sponaneity involved. You could use that particular maneuver right now, but haven't prepared it? Sucks for you, then. It is as if the character choses to forget combat tricks he used numerous times before when readying maneuvers.

Implementing a slot system like for the Sorcerer would have been better IMO. It would still be like spellcasting, but at least you'd be able to use the maneuvers you need/want in that particular moment. And when you run out of slots, you just are too tired to apply your 'special moves'.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

TOB:
Why do people think you can only use maneuvers once? Each class can recover them in some way. All it means is you need a moment to focus before you can do it again. No different than regaining your sight picture while firing a rifle.

Andoran

I have to respectfully disagree with adding more grit like mechanics. It is hard enough to keep track of the table as a GM without adding a moving counter for kills. Not to mention the metagaming aspect.

I would not be opposed to more superhuman type abilities being added as options, but please no more bookkeeping.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Agreed. I prefer on/off switches to counters.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Keep in mind that I usually GM and I have only 4 hours to game once a week. When I'm not gaming, I'm still working a full time job and trying to juggle the rest of my messed up life. I don't like having dozens of books for me to go through and remember during those 4 hours. As a player it's a whole different thing because you can take the time to print out only what you need. I did this with the AoW campaign I ran and stat blocks themselves were 2-3 pages per creature once we started to get to mid and higher levels. Of course there are always new creatures with new abilities and new magic items and sometimes new spells and feats and so on. I'm becoming a simple man the more I run.

Heh, there's a reason I love NPC classes. I think NPC classes lack class features for this very reason. Just drop a ton of HD on them and you're golden. Even adepts are really simple (they either have a familiar or they don't :P). They're a really useful tool for GMing, especially if you multi-class them.

Okay, and since I promised to discuss some of your other points today, here we go. :)

Quote:
Actually it is about the GM targeting the fighter. The standard complaint is that the fighter has a low will save. That only matters if you are using abilities or spells that target will saves. If the fighter is up against an ability that targets fortitude he is far better off than the wizard. If the GM uses abilities that target fortitude saves it feels like people whine on the boards that it isn't fair or that the wizard will always have just the right ability in place and ready to go to deal with that. Traps that deal damage or need to hit aren't very dangerous to the fighter at all. The fighter is no more susceptible to positive/negative energy attacks than any other class. With his high hit points, he can do just fine against most attacks that need reflex saves.

There's a few things I'd like to point out. When I'm looking at classes, I'm not assuming that the GM is throwing out any one save-type in particular. I assume there will be a variety. Fighter's got 1/3 saves where most classes have 2/3 or some method of buffing their saves or both (Barbarian has the same saves as Fighter, but has ways of significantly buffing his saves). Also, I have to disagree on the Reflex thing. There's lots of stuff that calls for Reflex saves that has little to do with damage. Spells like entangle, create pit, grease, any of the improved pit spells, as well as stuff like forcecage and resilient sphere.

Quote:
Bringing up 1E really isn't useful. We're not playing 1E. We're playing Pathfinder. I am probably more familiar with 1E than you are since that's what I started playing with way back in the dark ages.

I think that when moving forward it's important to know what you've left as well. It's useful in looking back, seeing that Fighters had some really nice features and were not at all as fragile or as easily CC'd as they are now. They were to say "awesome". Most classes got more and become better. They devolved.

STR Ranger wrote:
Please take the fighters nees options bits elsewhere.

Say no more good sir, I'm making like a hippie. :)


TriOmegaZero wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

ToB:
To clarify my statement, Swordsages have no recovery mechanic that works in combat. You can take a Adaptive Style, but that means a Full-Round Action doing nothing.
Silver Crusade

I just wanted to reiterate a point that has been said already in another thread.

What makes the fighter so great is that it's a feat base class and not a special abilities one. Sure the class does have some abilities, but it's main ability is the sheer number of feats that it gets. I know everyone has feats but nobody has as many feats as the fighter does.

You can create anything from Robin Hood, to Zorro, to Rob Roy by the feats that you take. You want followers, well just take Leadership. Oh I know everyone "can" take it, but most other classes may not be able to afford to take it. Having all those extra feats is part of what makes the fighter a fighter.

Something that I see a lot of in these fighter threads is moving of the goalposts. Every time someone comes up with a reason why the fighter isn't good, someone else comes in, proves them wrong, and then it's on to another reason.

Not sure why low will saves are being used as a blow to the fighter. Classes such as the rogue have low will saves as well so I'm not sure where the beef is. Worried about low will saves, then just take the Psion trait and the Iron Will feat, that's an automatic +4 vs Mind effecting spells.

I will admit that the fighter needs Perception as a class skill but I believe "every" class needs that one.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We aren't complaining about the Rogue because this is a Fighter thread...and at least Rogues get Slippery Mind as an option.

And the skills guy got more hammered in 3.5 then the feat guy. Just look at the capstone for the Rogue vs the ninja.

And psion trait and Iron will are non-fighter, non-combat feats. Ergo, not specific to fighters, fighters can't use class abilities to shore up that weakness at all.

The barbarian, on the other hand, has both rage and superstitious to up his saves, and they are class abilities...and hugely useful ones, too.

I mean, come on, the barb gets Tumble as a class skill, where the Fighter, ideally the class most focused on self-training, does NOT. WTH.

Just so many examples of Fighters Don't Get Nice Things, And Let's Not Talk About The Rogue.

==Aelryinth

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Fabius Maximus wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
I have to say, my Swordsage never had a problem finding time to use Adaptive Style or just take the action to recover the one maneuver he needed. So I can't accept your claim.

OK, say something positive about fighters...um...uh...well, compared to 5E Fighters, Pathfinder fighters are full of options and awesomeness. 5E fighters make Pathfinder fighters all look like Warblades.


Currently playing a fighter archer archetyp, and I love my extra feats. as an archer, there are some other choices for class that provide better options. However,say fighter, I can expand how I fight. It is the only true combat oriented class. Monk, paladin, ranger all have their fun when they airlift for their instances, but the fighter us all about the COME AT ME BRO!! Anyone, anytime, anyplace. They are the general badass vs all types. Evil, undead, good, giants, orcs, elves, you get the idea. They are informally awesome versus all of them. If they ever were to ritualist, though feats and items, holy crap are they amazing.

You pick the fighter class for feats and killing the crap out of enemies. now one thing I haven't seen mentioned I don't think on here is the fighters capstone ability. For my archer that means an auto crit of X4. Or if you were to go weapon master and have fun with you're auto crit capstone ability, get the best 18-20 range weapon that has a high multiplier. Now you can auto crit for up to a x3 or even x4 damage, but also get most of your critical effects off. Since you have extra feats, you can get critical mastery and really go to town. Best post is the auto fruit I think. More damage is great, but able to crit automatically is awesome.

Shadow Lodge

i dont know guys, in a 6 mob encounter im getting up to 7 attacks in a round with my fighter, combat reflexes and a reach weapon makes any class good, a fighter is just better then everyone else at it.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Fabius Maximus wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **

ToB:
That may be true for you. And for a class that's supposed to be doing stuff in combat, standing around for about 6 seconds doing nothing is weird. Forgetting how a maneuver works mid-combat is even weirder.

Ashiel wrote:
Paladin can lay on hands and get +2HP per die...

How?

Silver Crusade

Aelryinth wrote:

We aren't complaining about the Rogue because this is a Fighter thread...and at least Rogues get Slippery Mind as an option.

And the skills guy got more hammered in 3.5 then the feat guy. Just look at the capstone for the Rogue vs the ninja.

And psion trait and Iron will are non-fighter, non-combat feats. Ergo, not specific to fighters, fighters can't use class abilities to shore up that weakness at all.

The barbarian, on the other hand, has both rage and superstitious to up his saves, and they are class abilities...and hugely useful ones, too.

I mean, come on, the barb gets Tumble as a class skill, where the Fighter, ideally the class most focused on self-training, does NOT. WTH.

Just so many examples of Fighters Don't Get Nice Things, And Let's Not Talk About The Rogue.

==Aelryinth

The fighter can't have everything. Do you truly understand that? Traits are a part of character creation so there is nothing wrong with using that to help fill in anything that may need a little help. What you are asking is that the fighter class have everything built into it and that's not going to happen.

There are a lot of things that are non-class abilities, traits, items etc that classes use to give themselves an advantage and the fighter is no different nor should you give it any flak for doing so. The reason I used the rogue is because it has weak Will saves as well but you can't hold that against the class nor can you the fighter. The Wizard has weak Fortitude and reflex saves so where's the uproar about that?

Who gives a rip about Tumble? A fighter is usually a heavily armored class so tumble doesn't fit with the concept. There is actually nothing stopping you from making a dex based fighter and putting points in Tumble. All you will be missing is a +3 so it's not big deal. It's not about the height of your score but whether or not you are able to hit those DC's with no problem and I can promise you that a +3 is not going make you or break you on that Tumble DC. Also with Tumble, the fighter would actually be really good at it because he would be able to wear his armor and still be able to Tumble great because of the lack of armor check penalty that he would have. Sure the barbarian may get tumble but if he's wearing armor then he will be getting a minus so it actually evens out.

Let's also talk about all the nice things the fighter does get. Some of you seem to conveniently turn a blind all to all the nice things the fighter does get. He has one of the best ACs in the game, he has some of the best to hit in the game, he can auto crit at high levels, he is arguably the best switch hitter in the game, he gets to lose the armor check penalties, he can move full speed in armor, he does continuous damage, the class is capable of handling almost any feat tree, he can swap out feats, he gets a crap ton of feats, etc.....

Stop moving the goalposts every time someone debunks your argument with regards to certain things about the fighter. You whine about Will saves, someone shows you that you can bump their will saves then you move those posts to try and justify your argument. I honestly don't think some of you want to proven wrong about the fighter because every time someone does you go on to something else. Who cares if traits don't belong to the actual fighter class? Seriously, who cares?

I mean you and others present arguments as to why you think the fighter isn't good, then people like Bob Loblaw present you with builds that prove you wrong and then you come back with, "Well that race isn't a fighter trait" or "That trait isn't exclusive to fighters" or "You shouldn't have to give up this ability for that one when taking an archtype."

The proof to these arguments has been presented and has facts and builds to back them up so to keep arguing, about the same old thing, is pretty pointless.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Fabius Maximus wrote:


** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
When you swing a baseball bat, do you forget how to, or do you need to reset yourself in order to make a homerun swing?

You are making the mistake of thinking it's a memorization problem when it's really a positioning problem.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Fabius Maximus wrote:


** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

ToB:
And that positioning takes around 6 seconds, where you can't do anything, not even move (or, in other words, position yourself)?

STR Ranger wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Paladin can lay on hands and get +2HP per die...
How?

Fey foundling from inner sea world guide but it has to be taken at first level. fey foundling feat

51 to 100 of 140 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Fighters are awesome. 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.