Fighter's can't Fly, and you can't melee what you can't reach.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

751 to 800 of 803 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>

memorax wrote:
Unfortunately it falls aprt imo because "this is the way I do it then everyone else should do" just does not work for everyone.

Then how come you are telling everyone they're wrong in the way they post? Are you trying to say everyone else should be posting the way you do, because that's the onetrueright way? Some people really believe it's not the fighter, it's the player; yet you've taken offense to that and have tried to tell people - multiple times - that they are wrong and insulting for having such an opinion. Why are you trying to tell people that what works for you is the right way and everyone else should be doing it, too? Other people have different opinions, and your way just does not work for everyone.


Quick question... Are there as many threads about how to create more flavor fun as there are threads about how to fix the system to make it numerically more fun? I can't find that many and wonder if this part of the game is as interesting to other posters as it is to me.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
boldstar wrote:
Quick question... Are there as many threads about how to create more flavor fun as there are threads about how to fix the system to make it numerically more fun? I can't find that many and wonder if this part of the game is as interesting to other posters as it is to me.

I may just be getting wistful but those threads seemed to be more common here before PFRG came out. Since Paizo didn't have its own ruleset, the site was a lot more campaign ideas/questions, stories and questions about the magazines (Dragon and Dungeon).


deuxhero wrote:

To avoid further derails of this

http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz68d8&page=1?Synthesist-more-powerful-than-a -fighter

Of the melee classes, Fighters are one of the few without some inmate method of reaching flying foes short of blowing WBL AND actions on activating flight.

A fighter specialized and using prestige classes into a thrower class will have no problem defeating a flying foe. My best fighter character only used ranged attacks.


Uhm why are so many of you criticizing Memorax so much? Are you confusing him with the OP?
He would like to have a few extra rules in Pathfinder and a few alternative options for a fighter. What's wrong with that?

If we had a perfect system with all options everyone needed, we wouldn't get new archetype, classes or prestige classes with every new book.

Also it's not always an option to houserule it for everyone:


  • Time: Not evryone has the time to come to a consistent ruling.
  • Agreement: Making up own houserules is easily a reason for argument. Having an "official" rule reduces stress and potential problems.
  • Not the GM: Not everyone who asks for rules has the option to houserule something. This is particularly true for PFS games.
  • System balance: It's often not so easy to truly assess how good a rule is, where it breaks etc. See the discussion about Kirth's fly skill checks, the corner cases that are not quite clear etc.

So telling someone to just houserule it is not really productive IMO.


Tessius wrote:
boldstar wrote:
Quick question... Are there as many threads about how to create more flavor fun as there are threads about how to fix the system to make it numerically more fun? I can't find that many and wonder if this part of the game is as interesting to other posters as it is to me.
I may just be getting wistful but those threads seemed to be more common here before PFRG came out. Since Paizo didn't have its own ruleset, the site was a lot more campaign ideas/questions, stories and questions about the magazines (Dragon and Dungeon).

You're not merely wistful, you're just looking in the wrong place.

This is the Pathfinder RPG general discussion forum. By definition, the creative threads get moved to homebrew or to the various setting or product sections, like the AP threads.

Homebrew is great for creative rule use, it is my favorite forum, but even that is dwarfed by the creativity, utility, and friendly collaborative spirit you find in the individual AP forums. In those forums, complete strangers put their time and effort into making your life easier. It's amazing.

If you prefer cordial experimentation with the rules, or discussion of specific campaigns and settings, and you dislike general, generic theorycraft... you should click the little triangle next to PFRPG general discussion and hide the forum. I've done so myself, many times.


Sangalor wrote:

Uhm why are so many of you criticizing Memorax so much? Are you confusing him with the OP?

He would like to have a few extra rules in Pathfinder and a few alternative options for a fighter. What's wrong with that?

If we had a perfect system with all options everyone needed, we wouldn't get new archetype, classes or prestige classes with every new book.

Also it's not always an option to houserule it for everyone:


  • Time: Not evryone has the time to come to a consistent ruling.
  • Agreement: Making up own houserules is easily a reason for argument. Having an "official" rule reduces stress and potential problems.
  • Not the GM: Not everyone who asks for rules has the option to houserule something. This is particularly true for PFS games.
  • System balance: It's often not so easy to truly assess how good a rule is, where it breaks etc. See the discussion about Kirth's fly skill checks, the corner cases that are not quite clear etc.

So telling someone to just houserule it is not really productive IMO.

I respect your opinion, but truthfully, I was trying to avoid talking to memorex because while I may disagree with his point of view, I accept that it is a point of view with some merit. That is why in my post I specifically stated that I was not referring to him. It seems, however, that he decided that I was being rude anyway (I think because I disagreed with him) so I pointed out that he has gone out of his way to be insulted by previous posts that really weren't aimed at him.

In the case of getting extra options, I referred him to a previous link to homebrew


Rules that I thought might help.


Thanks for your replies :-)

memorax wrote:

An archtype with a ki pool and limted ki abilitie imo would be a goo step. I liek your idea about armor. Makes kind of sense too imo. If a fighter cam move around more easily in armor after a certain point why not make it so that it's also considered lighter

I have toyed with the idea a bit. Maybe I start a fighter archetype suggestion thread... An alternative I thought of was to give up armor training 3 & 4 and the bonus feats at level 2, 6, 10, 14 and 18 to get a spell from spell lists at levels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 as a spell-like ability, powered by its ki pool...

Would need some ironing out, though :-)

memorax wrote:


An archtype with a ki pool and limted ki abilitie imo would be a goo step. I liek your idea about armor. Makes kind of sense too imo. If a fighter cam move around more easily in armor after a certain point why not make it so that it's also considered lighter

Could help fighting dragons and withstanding wizards ;-)

memorax wrote:


The thing is it's not so much not wanting to take dex based skill s omuch that a fighters low skill points require one to be very careful in what skills to take or not to take. And before anyone else says "oh now low skill points are a problem etc" I'm not saying that I realize it's a trade off for being able to hit mor often. I usually always have at least an int and dex of 13 so I don't have to worry about feat selection later. Mind you I so at ;east take point blank shot and precise shot at least. I'm also not adverse to taking other archery feats. I just like my builds a certain way.

Interesting. I would not take those two feats but rather get the seeking ability and deadly aim. Usually shooting in melee is not that much of a problem in our games since the enemy is either large enough or - if there is melee - I would go to melee myself :-P

Regarding the followers: Well, I guess a lot is about personal preference for fluff :-)

memorax wrote:


Liberty's Edge

boldstar wrote:


I respect your opinion, but truthfully, I was trying to avoid talking to memorex because while I may disagree with his point of view, I accept that it is a point of view with some merit. That is why in my post I specifically stated that I was not referring to him. It seems, however, that he decided that I was being rude anyway (I think because I disagreed with him) so I pointed out that he has gone out of his way to be insulted by previous posts that really weren't aimed at him.
In the case of getting extra options, I referred him to a previous link to homebrew

Sorry boldstar. I just felt like I was being grouped into the same category as the op for no reason. Just because Im not on the "fighters donèt need any change" bandwagon. Sangalor asked for my honest opinion which seemed to bother some. I guess I felt like I walked into a equivalent of a internet ambush. So once again I want to apologize. I also appreciate link. Between yourself Sangalor your one of the few posters that posted anying truly of any substance imo.

Liberty's Edge

Sangalor wrote:


Thanks for your replies :-)

No problem. Between yourself boldstar and a few others your one of the few imo constructive contrbuting to this thread imo.

Sangalor wrote:


I have toyed with the idea a bit. Maybe I start a fighter archetype suggestion thread... An alternative I thought of was to give up armor training 3 & 4 and the bonus feats at level 2, 6, 10, 14 and 18 to get a spell from spell lists at levels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 as a spell-like ability, powered by its ki pool...
Would need some ironing out, though :-)

Very interesting imo. Unfortunately you mentioned spell like ability and fighter in the samesentence. I fully expect you to receive the wrath of the "fighters donèt need to be changed faction" imo. Personally I like Ki-ools and wish every class had access to one. Still good idea on the archtype.

Sangalor wrote:


Could help fighting dragons and withstanding wizards ;-)

The fighther does already have some decent options to do so. Just something else to add as a potential option.

Sangalor wrote:


Interesting. I would not take those two feats but rather get the seeking ability and deadly aim. Usually shooting in melee is not that much of a problem in our games since the enemy is either large enough or - if there is melee - I would go to melee myself :-P

It is imo very dependant on the type of campaign being played and the types of oppostiotion one faces. Im currently playing a Bard and the DM likes to have enemies close into melee range. So precise shot at least for my character is a must.

Sangalor wrote:


Regarding the followers: Well, I guess a lot is about personal preference for fluff :-)

Seconded.

Shadow Lodge

buy a dang bow already and get over it

I will admit, that I do find it a bit hilarious that for some reason gaining some sort of inherent flight ability is outside of the fighters grasp, yet he CAN gain the ability to punch someone until they turn to stone.

Shadow Lodge

And I'd find it rather fiting with Paizo's MO if the capstone ability for a legendary fighter was some sort of massive jumping ability....that is completely outclassed by a 3rd level spell.

legendary wizard - raise armies of the undead, destroy continents with a gesture, etc

legendary fighter - jump really high

Liberty's Edge

Evil Lincoln wrote:
Tessius wrote:
boldstar wrote:
Quick question... Are there as many threads about how to create more flavor fun as there are threads about how to fix the system to make it numerically more fun? I can't find that many and wonder if this part of the game is as interesting to other posters as it is to me.
I may just be getting wistful but those threads seemed to be more common here before PFRG came out. Since Paizo didn't have its own ruleset, the site was a lot more campaign ideas/questions, stories and questions about the magazines (Dragon and Dungeon).

You're not merely wistful, you're just looking in the wrong place.

This is the Pathfinder RPG general discussion forum. By definition, the creative threads get moved to homebrew or to the various setting or product sections, like the AP threads.

Homebrew is great for creative rule use, it is my favorite forum, but even that is dwarfed by the creativity, utility, and friendly collaborative spirit you find in the individual AP forums. In those forums, complete strangers put their time and effort into making your life easier. It's amazing.

If you prefer cordial experimentation with the rules, or discussion of specific campaigns and settings, and you dislike general, generic theorycraft... you should click the little triangle next to PFRPG general discussion and hide the forum. I've done so myself, many times.

Thanks EL. I rarely search for something specific. I usually only just skim the most recent posts list on the right and look at those. It's good to know that those other posts aren't as rare as I thought.

Liberty's Edge

Kthulhu wrote:

And I'd find it rather fiting with Paizo's MO if the capstone ability for a legendary fighter was some sort of massive jumping ability....that is completely outclassed by a 3rd level spell.

legendary wizard - raise armies of the undead, destroy continents with a gesture, etc

legendary fighter - jump really high

Dont give them any ideas please. I like most of the stuff in the books yet imo it would fit the devs mo ti give something like that to a legendary fighter.


boldstar wrote:
I respect your opinion, but truthfully, I was trying to avoid talking to memorex because while I may disagree with his point of view, I accept that it is a point of view with some merit. That is why in my post I specifically stated that I was not referring to him. It seems, however, that he decided that I was being rude anyway (I think because I disagreed with him) so I pointed out that he has gone out of his way to be insulted by previous posts that really weren't aimed at him.

Oh how true! I know the feeling.

I am still in the camp of "Buy a dang bow".


You silly goose! Of course fighters can fly! Just ask my Catapult Golem, Binky.


I always felt that if flying enemies are such a problem for teh Fighter, make a Dragoon from Untimate Combat. They can get a flying mount, and if it's Wartrained, it'll just come get you when you jump off it. just be sure you're further away from teh ground. Also one thing that the OP never seemed to mention that most of the flying enemies in the book were not ranged enemies. Their melee attacks are their primary attacks, and they often use thier flight to out-maneuver the enemies rather than staying out of melee.
Also, everyone needs a 'nanny' every once in a while. After all, if you're fighting even somewhat sentient creatures, all of them should be trying to, as they say in Shadowrun, "Geek the mage first". The spellcasters, especially at higher levels, are the largest threat because they don't just do damage, but they make the entire group better with all the buffs. The most powerful wizard I ever played had not a single pure damage spell (I say pure, because he did have Black Tentacles, and other such spells), but was almost completely a buffer and combat controller. Walls, Black Tentacles, Fly, Haste, Slow, Confusion, all these spells made my wizard a MONSTER on the battlefield, and all because they allowed the other classes to do thier jobs better. When you go up against a group of enemies with a spellcaster, who do you target first? The wizard or cleric.
In any case, if you don't like the fighter, that's your business. But there's nothing I can see that's wrong with the class.


Why is this convo still being discussed? Its just a giant wheel of the same opinions. It was an ignorant Original Post. IT still is 700+ post later. Can we please go back to something else... Im sure there's a Monk or Paladin thread you can bang your head against instead.


Dragonamedrake wrote:
Why is this convo still being discussed? Its just a giant wheel of the same opinions. It was an ignorant Original Post. IT still is 700+ post later. Can we please go back to something else... Im sure there's a Monk or Paladin thread you can bang your head against instead.

Because we are discussing different things already and are tying up loose ends.


A bunch of people did try to be civil at some point, then they got offended by the pushback from the original incivility.

Go ahead and break the cycle, if you have the patience.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I tried to be civil, I got answered with sarcastic attacks and fallacies. If you'd actually bothered to look at my first posts in this thread you'd see that. Yeah sorry if I'm unkind about being responded with repetitious fallacies and implications that I'm an idiot for thinking naturals cannot compete with supernaturals.

Those who replied to me, OP, Kirth and memorax in this way have in no way shown to really understand the OP's or our issues, or even our proposed solutions. Look how hard Kirth's suggestion got smacked, as if he just suggested to give Fighters infinite Time Stop or something.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Evil Lincoln wrote:

A bunch of people did try to be civil at some point, then they got offended by the pushback from the original incivility.

Go ahead and break the cycle, if you have the patience.

"Such a silly game. The only way to win is not to play."


12 people marked this as a favorite.
JrK wrote:
as if he just suggested to give Fighters infinite Time Stop or something.

FIGHTYS GIVE ANYBODY PERMANENCIED TIME STOP AT WILL AS PRIMARY CLASS ABILITY.

AM CALLED STAB THEM TO DEATH. TIME PRETTY STOPPED.


JrK wrote:

I tried to be civil, I got answered with sarcastic attacks and fallacies. If you'd actually bothered to look at my first posts in this thread you'd see that. Yeah sorry if I'm unkind about being responded with repetitious fallacies and implications that I'm an idiot for thinking naturals cannot compete with supernaturals.

Those who replied to me, OP, Kirth and memorax in this way have in no way shown to really understand the OP's or our issues, or even our proposed solutions. Look how hard Kirth's suggestion got smacked, as if he just suggested to give Fighters infinite Time Stop or something.

That's because we are talking about the actually rules. Not house-rules or opinions. There is nothing wrong with a supernatural fighter or whatever. But that isn't the Fighter in Pathfinder and if it doesn't fit you're play style then either fix it or play another game that allows what you want.

I like Fighters. I like them doing cool things, within reason. Thus i like Pathfinder Fighters.

Play style preference aside in the core rules they are fine and have many options to combat flying, teleporting, etc foes. This has been shown again and again in this thread by people who have shown the math and wrote builds. This argument is met with simply saying No, moving the goalposts, and a lack of evidence beside because i said so.


See, you really didn't understand my point, or that of others. You and others discount our position by accusing us of moving the goalposts, without really understanding what we are saying.


JrK wrote:

I tried to be civil, I got answered with sarcastic attacks and fallacies. If you'd actually bothered to look at my first posts in this thread you'd see that. Yeah sorry if I'm unkind about being responded with repetitious fallacies and implications that I'm an idiot for thinking naturals cannot compete with supernaturals.

Those who replied to me, OP, Kirth and memorax in this way have in no way shown to really understand the OP's or our issues, or even our proposed solutions. Look how hard Kirth's suggestion got smacked, as if he just suggested to give Fighters infinite Time Stop or something.

Actually, I specifically called out fixing the fly skill with respect to shooting down opponents. Kirth's solution may not be fully vetted, but it is essentially a good idea. I can (and did) acknowledge that while disagreeing with the OP's premise and Kirth's analysis.

But, it is very easy to only hear the aggressive responders, or the aggressive parts of any response.

Again, if you want to break the cycle, I would welcome the company.


You are actually one of the good participants EL. Restecp. My beef is not with thou.


JrK wrote:
See, you really didn't understand my point.

If you think no one understands your point, then it probably isn't an issue with everyone else, it's likely you who is the one not presenting your point well enough to be understood. Try restating your point in a different way; the might help others understand you more.

Alternatively, perhaps they do understand your point, and you do not understand their counter points. Try rereading what others have said with the intent to see things from their point of view; that may help in understanding your opposition. As a bonus, if you understand your opposition, it'll help you present your own arguments in a way they are likely to understand.


All that can said about the matter had been said already. Buy a dang bow or houserule it the way you want should be enough.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think both sides need to realize (and loads of you do, don't go crazy now) that we're dealing with two different 'issues'.

1. Currently the Pathfinder Fighter cannot deal with situation XYZ. (OP's view)

2. The Fighter would be better/more fun with some changes to it. (Circa Page 10 where this starts to be more prevalent).

I disagree with the examples provided when discussing 1. and have given my views on it. I find its mainly an encounter design issue.

I agree with 2, but then again I change a little of everything in my homebrew game. I differ from some of the other posters here in how I'd change things, certainly. But I still agree and like hearing how things are changed in different games.


Dreihaddar wrote:

I think both sides need to realize (and loads of you do, don't go crazy now) that we're dealing with two different 'issues'.

1. Currently the Pathfinder Fighter cannot deal with situation XYZ. (OP's view)

2. The Fighter would be better/more fun with some changes to it. (Circa Page 10 where this starts to be more prevalent).

I disagree with the examples provided when discussing 1. and have given my views on it. I find its mainly an encounter design issue.

I agree with 2, but then again I change a little of everything in my homebrew game. I differ from some of the other posters here in how I'd change things, certainly. But I still agree and like hearing how things are changed in different games.

I support this as the "Final Answer" in this thread. You may disagree with either assertion, but confusing the two is the source of our collective distemper.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I cleaned up some things.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
deuxhero wrote:
Being useless at the ONE thing you are supposed to do without a baby sitter is really, REALLY pathetic.

I think you are mistaking 'baby sitter' with 'other member of the group'. The game is meant to have situations that require the group to work together and use their abilities to over come obstacles. However achieved, once the fighter is in optimal range he does indeed fight. Based on your argument all Bow based Fighters should be screaming UNFAIR as they spend feats on being great at range which actually would matter little if the 2H Fighter can always just 'fly' up and smack the monster. If you put all your eggs in the melee basket with a melee class then you should expect to need to rely on others to help cover your failings.

S.


Stefan Hill wrote:
I think you are mistaking 'baby sitter' with 'other member of the group'. The game is meant to have situations that require the group to work together and use their abilities to over come obstacles. However achieved, once the fighter is in optimal range he does indeed fight.

This is an excellent point -- I'm a big advocate of party interdependence as a laudable design goal.

That said, I do think the core rules promise more than they perform, in that area. I'd be A-OK with the fighter needing the wizard to buff him in order for him to effectively fight, if the reverse were true -- i.e., the wizard needed the fighter in order to effectively cast spells. Like, what if the chance of spell failure while threatened was 0%, but the fighter had a class feature that let him automatically intercept all attacks against the wizard? Now the two of them are co-dependent. The fighter guards the wizard so that the wizard can cast spells so that the fighter can fight. Everyone wins. Instead, concentration checks are laughably easy after mid-level, and fighters can't effectively bodyguard anyway without a lot of other investments (even the spiked chain guard builds got nerfed in PF), so the actual dependence is largely 1-way.

I feel that rogues sort of lost their niche as well -- what if traps were universally far, far more deadly (like, a simple 20-ft pit now deals 20d6+ZOMG!!! damage!!!), and if ONLY rogues could find traps. Everyone would need the rogue in order to adventure. He wouldn't really have to have other abilities, because his niche would be secure. But as it is, traps are so weak for their CR, and are so easy to get past without disarming them, that the rogue's main schtick has gone the way of the dodo.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Stefan Hill wrote:
I think you are mistaking 'baby sitter' with 'other member of the group'. S.

Like This?

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:


That said, I do think the core rules promise more than they perform, in that area. I'd be A-OK with the fighter needing the wizard to buff him in order for him to effectively fight, if the reverse were true

Easy fix that would cause spell casters to complain like the demons they summon... Bring back 1e/2e casting in combat rukles. Even 1 hp of damage = auto-loose spell. Meat shields will be in all sorts of demand, and those rogues sneaking at the back intercepting foes will be getting a pay raise!

Casting in combat rules broke the fighter...

S.


Yeah the change to casting rules was a shock to me, coming over from 2E.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In conclusion, I win this thread.

Shadow Lodge

Yeah, if anything, 3.X/Pathfinder became more unbalanced that 0E/1E/2E. In those games, a dart could ruin a spell. In the current game, smashing the wizard's face with a greatclub will hurt him, but the spell's still going to go off.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
Yeah, if anything, 3.X/Pathfinder became more unbalanced that 0E/1E/2E. In those games, a dart could ruin a spell. In the current game, smashing the wizard's face with a greatclub will hurt him, but the spell's still going to go off.

You used the words "balance" and "2E dart" in one sentence. Funny :)

Shadow Lodge

My feeling on the matter is that 3.X (and later Pathfinder) beefed up all the classes. However, they didn't stop there...they all but eliminated the weaknesses of the spellcasting classes, while at the same time making the weaknesses of the non-spellcasting classes worse.

1 to 50 of 803 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Fighter's can't Fly, and you can't melee what you can't reach. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.