I think this thread is pretty much done.
Tark has pretty much tidied up the real problems faced.
Best comment is still "Buy a bow".
This is really all a non issue, and flying creatures just aren't that much of a big deal.
There wasn't even a reason for this thread to go beyond the first page. It could have just ended with a "yes, that's right, a Fighter can't fly by its own abilities." :|
Well according to the OP this is a fatal flaw. As others have shown, no it isn't, as long as the fighter doesn't focus on melee to the exclusion of ranged capabilities.
|
<:3 But that doesn't address the actual topic and instead refers to a topic that doesn't exist (in this thread). Had deuxhero's statement been "Fighter's cannot contribute meaningfully to ranged combat" then, yes, it would be a point. But deuxhero's post was "Fighters are one of the few without some inmate method of reaching flying foes short of blowing WBL AND actions on activating flight."
Hence why it need have only been a single page long.
If that was the case then it needn't have been posted in the first place, because there's not any real room for discussion in just a simple statement. Unless you think the only legitamte response would be just to say "yes, that's true." However, the second post the OP made made it clear, that, yes, he did intend that the fighter's lack of flight was to be construed as a flaw.
|
Celestial Armour.
Leadership with Flying Mount.
Buy a scroll and hand it to a caster.
Invest in UMD and use the scroll yourself.
Use a lasso or harpoon to pull the monster down.
Use some of your spare feats to be a better archer.
Tanglefoot bags.
Tanglefoot arrows.
Be an Aasimar and grow your own wings.
Play a Strix.
Every class that flies needs to invest a resource in it. Barbarians invest rage powers. Alchemists invest discoveries. You wants to fly, invest in flight.
|
|
To lordzack,
I agree, a simple statement such as the one made doesn't deserve a full thread (very much less this entire discussion). :|
As to the second post, it can be (and in ways ranged combat can't solve, such as Wind Wall or image spells above silent), but I don't think it deserves a full thread either, just something noteworthy for caster classes to use and mundane characters to prepare for.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In other news, fighters can't breathe underwater as a class feature. Film at eleven.
Just because you make a thread with a specific topic doesn't give you an right to determine exactly how people are going to discuss it. Even an answer of "And you're point is?" is a legitimate one. As long as people aren't jerks about it, of course.
But that's the problem, if anything beside just mirroing the opinion of the OP is considered a "strawman" is it really the "strawman's" fault? Or is the OP at fault for making such a loaded statement?
I didn't mean to imply deuxhero actually made a loaded statement, I was saying that hypothetically. (That might seem disingenuous, but I just realized what I said could be construed in that way) I'm saying you're wrong to try to tell people they should't be discussing the topic in a certain way. Even though duexhero didn't agree that using a bow is an adaquate replacement for flight, as far as I recall he didn't say that people were wrong for bringing it up.
|
|
In a way? Perhaps. But at the same time it's not entirely wrong, either. By making the statement "we shouldn't concern ourselves with particular types of answers," I was saying that "neither addresses the strengths or weaknesses of the class' chassis nor addresses the actual topic." In this way it can be seen as this:
- By adding on cross-class skills (in particular, UMD) to the Fighter, the conversation is no longer focused on what the Fighter can do but what someone with UMD can do. A point that can also easily be made for certain feats as well.
- By adding Magic Items (non-weapons and such) into the discussion, it's obviating the point of this thread by adding in extraneous material that can likewise be changed to "anyone with these items can perform said task" rather than relying upon the merits of the Fighter class.
- By addressing the issue of allies, it creates a situation in which the individual strengths and weaknesses of the Fighter class are not properly addressed (instead, opting to hide it behind a veil of the strengths and weaknesses of other characters). Likewise, questions concerning GMing style (such as "Why should the party be split?") fall into this category.
By addressing any of these points (especially to the extent this thread has suffered), the only "thing" advancing was the dissonance between deuxhero and the majority of the participants on this thread.
[Edit]
Likewise, I've never said that bringing up a bow (or any of the other alternative weapon recommendations) was "wrong" or "should not be discussed." My only objections were the above stated.
There's nothing in the fighter class description saying they can't use a bow. Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, etc. can just as easily be applied to bows as any other kind of weapon.
You're not a moderator, Baka Nikujaga. It's just not up to you to decide whether certain types of discussion are appropriate or not. I kinda just realized that what you're trying to do is really the province of the moderators.
If you really think a post is off topic, to the point of disrupting a thread, you should probably flag it, so the moderators should take care of it or not depending on their own discretion, yes. In fact, in the interest of taking my own advice, I'm not going to discuss this any further.
|
|
You're talking about a class that gets a bonus feat every other level. You may as well say that certain spells are out of line for the discussion of what a wizard can do, in which case they can't fly either. Moreover, this started with the claim that fighters were exception among the melee classes, when in fact, most barbarians and rangers without a special build (akin to the feats you're being told to take) can't fly.
The problem arises when the feats or skills aren't tied to the class (which is why it's a bit odd that a majority of the people taking contention with me are stating feats that aren't part of the problem).
Why non-weapons? You're setting up an artificial situation, one that WotC and Paizo never planned for and had no reason to. A character that is not using magical items is not reaching their potential, and will rarely turn up in the game.
We're talking about the chassis, not a character attempting to solve a situation. Had the discussion been otherwise, you would (and the majority) be right. I've never contested that.
Properly addressed how? No one is arguing that in the general case, without magic items or spells, a lone fighter can't melee a fighting opponent. The argument is that they can still attack the opponent, and that the case is not and should not be a major concern. The fighter like all other classes has its weaknesses.
And I agree that a Fighter can attack. However, again, that isn't the point. The point is that the Fighter does not possess a native method of flight and that's it.
[Edit]
Strike that, I misread.
|
|
Eh, to a certain extent. There are enemies of whom have been my personal bane (I'm looking at you, Erinyes! >:c) and so it's a good idea to possess something to counter flying enemies but it's not too big of a stickler until the actual Rocket Tag/arms race of optimization begins (of which many tables simply avoid through either the Gentlemen's Agreement, being unaware of the optimization problems that occur, or having a GM that isn't actively trying to obliterate the party).
[Edit]
But by the time this has developed, I'm fairly certain that most of the party will wind up either dead or excessively paranoid.
Fighters aren't very useful when the enemy is 100ft. in the air. Wizards aren't very useful in an Anti-Magic Field. Archers aren't very effective in a hurricane. Badgers aren't very effective on the bottom of the ocean. And I'm not very effective in the cold, cold vacuum of space.
But what happens when they're dire aquatic badgers of death?! Who will save our gnomes now?! D:
Fighters aren't very useful when the enemy is 100ft. in the air. Wizards aren't very useful in an Anti-Magic Field. Archers aren't very effective in a hurricane. Badgers aren't very effective on the bottom of the ocean. And I'm not very effective in the cold, cold vacuum of space.
Clearly, you should have optimized better.
|
I've never been useless as a melee character, I have been useless as a caster.
As a caster I've decided it wasn't worth me casting a spell in a fight and so we had a pc death. As a martial I've never been in a situation where I can't or choose not to give 100%.
as a caster I've given flight to a PC only to see them get KOed and fall into a river and drown.
My arrows strike true
flying is the better place?
Fight on your own terms
|
No no no...the questions about why your foes are always flying, always have surprised you, never land, why the fights are always on a flat featureless ground with no way of reaching said beastie, and never ever never in an underground area or place where its hard to fly.
Thems the questions you neglect to answer...for a 3rd time.
|
|
To prosfilaes,
If the option is at least available to the class via its own features then it's part of the chassis (just that it might not necessarily be encountered or used) while bonuses from races are seen as the strengths or weaknesses of the individual races.
To deuxhero,
Outsiders with caster abilities or SLA's?
|
|
As a martial I've never been in a situation where I can't or choose not to give 100%.
So you have never
Had to decide if useing a consumable was worth itHad to decide to take an AoO now or against another enemy
Worried about HP (this one I VERY much doubt)
Answered in a bad haiku
Blood is spilled
A drink for special occasions
Death's grip is weak
I dont carry pointless consumables, I carry stuff for specific instances. Using a potion of fly to fight land battles is stupid.
I take AoO, either way it 100% if I take all of my AoO
I live to have a good death, besides resurrection isn't too expensive. I'm 100% effective at negative HP due to being an awesome samurai. Until death which is rare.
I don't see the point of your statements.
|
Except that the feats people have been listing in order to gain flight (such as Leadership, racial feats, or things involving Use Magic Device) aren't taking advantage of the Fighter chassis (or are otherwise not limited to the Fighter). :|
I would counter that even though those are not combat feats, the fighter, with his large number of extra feats, has the most room in any of his builds to grab something like Leadership.
It's just like a bard has a great amount of room in his build to have a full UMD score, because of all the skill points. No one's saying the sorcerer can't grab UMD, but it's a lot easier for the bard.
Deuxhero = Wall
Others post = Your head
Topic = The sicking thud every time the two meet.
Deuxhero = Wall
Others post = Your head
Topic = The sicking thud every time the two meet.
BARBARIAN SMASHER RAGE POWER AM ABLE IGNORE HARDNESS OF WALL. BARBARIAN SUNDER TALKY WALL SMACK THUD TOPIC LIKE AM TUESDAY.
NOT CONSIDER THAT, HUH TALKY PERSON.
Deuxhero = Wall
Others post = Your head
Topic = The sicking thud every time the two meet.BARBARIAN SMASHER RAGE POWER AM ABLE IGNORE HARDNESS OF WALL. BARBARIAN SUNDER TALKY WALL SMACK THUD TOPIC LIKE AM TUESDAY.
NOT CONSIDER THAT, HUH TALKY PERSON.
Ahh but the real question AM .... Can you fly?
I think this thread is pretty much done.
Tark has pretty much tidied up the real problems faced.
Best comment is still "Buy a bow".
This is really all a non issue, and flying creatures just aren't that much of a big deal.
I agree, there is not much more to discuss and there is no reaso for this thread to reach the 200th post
oh wait...
I think we should shoot for an even thousand. Since deuxhero hasn't been around for a while I'll keep up the conversation:
Fighters are intrinsically broken because some enemies are invisible but the fighter has no way to see invisible creatures without resorting to magic of some kind. Therefore Paizo should fix the fighter class by allowing them to see invisible as well as fly. Discuss.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanics are a means to an end, the end being the game and more-so, the story. I can't think of a reason why a fighter should be able to fly, short of a bloodline with wings, but even still. There is not reason whatsoever that a fighter should be able to fly as a class ability, therefore they can't.
I think we should shoot for an even thousand. Since deuxhero hasn't been around for a while I'll keep up the conversation:Fighters are intrinsically broken because some enemies are invisible but the fighter has no way to see invisible creatures without resorting to magic of some kind. Therefore Paizo should fix the fighter class by allowing them to see invisible as well as fly. Discuss.
That's not the problem Humphrey.
The real problem is, fighters have no innate ability to become invisible themselves. Hence, the Fighter class is broken, and paizo should do something.EDIT: Oh, and he also can't fight ethereal creatures without huge amounts of money put in a special weapon.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, are they not teaching Critical Thinking anymore?
^If you don't get WBL as a Wizard, the fighter shouldn't either, same with low starting stats. Congrates, the fighter now has an even HARDER time taking out the foe.
My point is, fighters do more than fight. By engaging in melee (or by standing in the open cursing at a flying oppenent and drawing its attention) they absorb hit point damage and time...which *allows* the mages and everybody else to do their jobs. Providing for hit point loss is probably the single most important thing a fighter does.
100% dependent upon the monster being REALLY stupid despite any mental stats and attacking the guy who clearly isn't a threat. Even if they are provoked, a lot of fliers have flyby attack or ranged attacks.
Also, EVERY class can be a distraction, and most of classes can be better distractions than a Fighter. Really only... uh Inquisitor and Alchemist (and I doubt I am not overlooking something on them) are worse.
Uh,
1) there are feats for that, to intice a monster to fight you instead of someone else, ther are also skill checks for that to adjust attituudes and thus behaviors.2) Not all flying monsters are smart, some are hungry, and some are just plain mean.
3) Feinting and goading work, in real life too...ie think dragons and their stubborn pride.
4) An ignored fighter standing in an open field *is* a threat, if a flying animal / monster choses to ignore it and go after a different party member...like a mage in the open hiding behind said fighter.
5) Not every class can make a better distraction than a fighter, because if the distraction works, Hit Points may become the most importanrt number for the distractor.
And 6, you missed my point. *IF* you understand the role of a fighter in a situation like this, then and only then will understand how to play such a fighter. In a melee situation, the fighter melees, in a very rare flying, smart, monster in an open field ambush situation, the fighters job would be to protect. Actually play a fighter someday, you might like it. Without a good fighter for protection, especially in the all-too-rare scenario afore-metioned, a wizard may as well rename himself or herself "Dragon-Dung-the-Dead."