High five! Glad to see someone else agrees. It validates me, and I can sleep at night. Hahaha.
Good advanced ideas.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
High five! Glad to see someone else agrees. It validates me, and I can sleep at night. Hahaha.
Good advanced ideas.
*brofist*
Quite a few of my games have gone from low to high levels. High levels tend to be an entirely different beast than low levels, but an enjoyable if terrifying beast at that. Fighters need nice things to function at those levels if the GM isn't sugarcoating stuff. I'm a strong believer in giving Fighters (and all martials) nice things. I'm also not afraid of the item creation rules because they are critical to fighters having nice things (and also critical to having a wide variety of items without having a book that has a 1000+ pages of magic items that tries to cover every possibility).
In general, all martial characters are going to want methods that improve their maneuverability (flight, dimension hopping, etc), improve their survivability (effects like fortification are good, as are continuous low-level effects like protection from evil), methods to get their buffs on without giving their enemies time to tear them apart (Intelligent items are probably the best bet for this at high levels where potions just don't cut it anymore), some energy resistances (resist 10 to most things at least prevents you from getting nuked by with alchemist fires), and some counters for dirty tricks (having armor that casts death ward 1/day, for example, is a good investment for when someone wants to enervation-bomb you).
In the case of those who are mounted, I recommend phantom steeds because they are expendable. If one is destroyed, you can re-summon another one. That's very important at high levels where literally everything can kill you and your minions. Even characters with scaling mounts like Rangers, Cavaliers, Paladins and Druids have to deal with their pets dying. Rangers & Druids can get a new mount every 24 hours, but Paladins and Cavaliers have to wait a lot longer and may suffer additional penalties. Having a phantom steed at-will makes loosing your mount far less of an issue (you might want to have a ring of feather falling incase it gets nuked in the air).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters need nice things to function at those levels if the GM isn't sugarcoating stuff.
I'd say that at high levels, ALL characters need nice things to function well if the GM isn't sugarcoating stuff. It's one of my inherent problems with d20...it's ENTIRELY too g@*!%#n dependent on magical gear as you rise in level.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, where has the OP gone to?
Probably dropping chum in some other shark tank, or dropping Mentos in a Diet Pepsi factory.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't a strength of the Fighter. Having less class skills and skill points is not a pro. Likewise, virtually no other class is forced to take skills based on a particular theme. Not even bards since they can use Perform in place of more useful skills. I've had Rangers and Barbarians who were built nothing like the iconic ranger or barbarian. A barbarian with ranks in Diplomacy and Sense Motive? Yep. Been there, done that. Just means that you get to have more skills as part of your actual character without relying on magic items and the like.
You can always play against type. I've shown plenty of fighters that have excellent diplomacy and perception skills and tons of knowledge skills. Rangers need to put ranks into Stealth and Handle Animal if they want to be good at using two of their abilities. They are probably putting points into Perception as well so that's half their points already. Fighters don't have that expectation. It is a strength, even if you personally want to ignore it. Freedom of choice is always nice.
Incidentally, the lion's share of Barbarian abilities are Ex abilities as well. Very few of them are Supernatural abilities, and their best abilities like Come And Get Me and Superstitious are Extraordinary abilities. As are virtually all of their abilities excluding a themed rage powers. Rangers also possess a ton of Ex abilities. In fact, every class feature of the Ranger (including Hide in Plain Sight) except their spells are Ex abilities.
Also, most fighter abilities are not "always on". Many feats require them to make use of some over others. You cannot use Cleave + Spring Attack. You cannot use Vital Strike + Whirlwind Attack. Most feats only make you a bit better at certain things with small bonuses. Several feats have arguably gotten worse in Pathfinder, since it now requires 2 feats to get +20% success chance on a specific combat maneuver as opposed to 1 (a fighter must now spend a minimum of 6 feats to get +20% to 3 maneuvers, as opposed to 3 feats in 3.5).
Also, the Fighter-only feats require the Fighter to have a very specific weapon selected to make use of them. Fighter specialized in longswords and longbows? Shatter. Oh look, the Fighter just got most of his class features dispelled until he pulls a backup weapon (penetrating strike sucks big by the way); while being equally shut down in terms of usefulness in dead-magic zones (since in dead-magic zones it's entirely possible for many monsters to go on relatively unhindered).
Barbarians might have supernatural abilities (there aren't any in Core that I'm aware of) and rangers and paladins have spells. The fighter is all extraordinary. This means that he doesn't have to worry about his spells being stopped or countered. He doesn't have to worry about anti-magic (which probably won't happen often but can happen so it should be taken into account).
You hand selected some feats to try to show me that I was wrong. I knew someone would that's why I said "nearly always on." But you missed the point. He does not need to use a standard action to do something this round to benefit him next round. For example, the ranger needs to cast spells this round so that they are effective next round. During that round, the fighter is already fighting. Yes, there are exceptions, but Cleave, Whirlwind, Vital Strike, Spring Attack, etc, don't require him to use an action this round to be effective next.
Incidentally, so can most every other martial. The only styles that require heavy feat investment are archery and dual-wielding. I suppose if you want a dual-wielding archery master, then Fighter might be for you (but Rangers can do it too); but I posted a Ranger in another thread a while back showing that it's not just Fighters who can do this. That ranger was very competent at melee, archery, and mounted combat, came with his own re-spawning mount, had AC comparable to a Fighter, that can sword & board better better than a monk flurries.
It doesn't matter if other classes can do it sometimes, the fighter can do it all the time. The shorter the chain, the more options he can have.
There aren't all that many combat styles to begin with. Since combat basically comes down to "deal damage but don't die trying to" for martials and a good BAB is the central ingredient to being good with melee and ranged weapons; the Fighter isn't winning any awards here.
It's all about options. Yes, in the end the fighter still needs to deal damage, but if the players are into "I hit, I deal X damage." and nothing more, then they aren't caring about styles anyway. If that's the main going anyway, then all martial classes are the same and none of them suck. People don't play the cavalier for the skill choices. People don't play the ranger for the skill choices. They play the class because of what it brings to combat and sometimes out of combat. They like the styles that those classes can master. The fighter can do that too, but he can pick and choose which styles. He still can have a few feats left over for shoring up weaknesses or to round out the character more.
But not both. Even a generalized Fighter lacks the options that their peers do, which leaves specialization as being the area that Fighters can excel next to their peers. Everyone talks about Fighters being better at hit & damage than their peers; but they forget to mention that it requires 40% of their bonus feats invested in a weapon to get really sexy numbers (without the extra feat expenditure and special magic items, they cap out at +4 to hit and +4 to damage at 20th). If you do it for for a melee and a ranged weapon, they've eaten 80% of their bonus feats. Now you have 2 extra feats beyond anyone else.
You can't build a specialized generalist. That wouldn't make any sense. A generalist would dip into many options, probably not mastering many of them while a specialist would focus at least half of his feats on his preferred weapon/style. I never said that fighters were better at hitting and damage than their peers. One thing they do have, that their peers don't, is that they can use Combat Expertise and Power Attack at the same time with fewer issues with hitting. Whether or not that is viable for any particular character is up to the situation.
Both of which suck balls. Penetrating Strike requires you to be 12th level for something you can cover for about 2% of your WBL, or 8% if you want magic weapons. The very fact that you herald this as some sort of great fighter option is example enough that Fighters need nice things (and don't have them).
If you don't have to spend money to overcome something, then it doesn't suck. That's money you can invest in something else. Other than the paladin, who else can get past DR/Epic? Those feats work with any weapon the fighter is holding. Disarmed? Sundered? Tuesday? Doesn't matter. Instead of needing a golf bag of weapons and wasting time trying to figure out the monster's weakness, the fighter just ignores the problem altogether. I have seen those feats used well. You may not like them but for characters that don't want a golf bag of weapons, they don't need one.
I never actually assume that I'll have weapons higher than +2 equivalency unless I can craft them myself; because in the core rules the item availability caps out at 16,000 gp (making +3 or better weapons a real rarity). I am fully prepared to engage in a 20th level adventure decked out in +2 weapons. Carrying spares is not only not a bad option, but it's a Good Idea(TM). Adventures are dangerous. There are many creatures that can destroy your weapons, and spellcasters will ruin them for good. Not having a golf-bag of weapons makes you a target for shatter, or even a lowly grease spell can begin to annoy the piss out of you.
Any adventurer worth their salt is going to have a backup weapon or six. Preferably in different flavors (cold iron, silver/mithral, adamantine. A couple of oils for certain annoying types of aligned DR; but if you do get a +5 weapon then you get to laugh because you bypass magic/alignment/cold iron/silver/adamantine. Paladins can pick up a stick off the ground and crush enemies with a +7 equivalent weapon.
Also, on the subject of DR, there are only like 3 monsters in the entire Bestiary that have DR/Epic. Solar, Terrasque, and...actually, I take it back. There are 2 monsters in the entire Bestiary that have DR/Epic. Neither of which is it particularly easy to melee with them to begin with (meleeing with a Tarrasque is the epitome of stupidity, and Solars are generally going to not bother fighting you directly and simply won't if they don't desire to, because they have those sorts of options).
In the Age of Worms, there was a god that had it as well. It may be rare, but it was something that was a problem. There's also DR/Adamantine and others. If the fighter is using a longsword and fighting something with DR 10/bludgeoning, he doesn't care. He's dealing all his damage. The fighter should have a back up weapon or two but doesn't need to have a weapon for every situation. That's what I'm talking about. I would rather not have to invest in half a dozen weapons for every situation.
Again, to increase their attack bonuses, you need to invest feats and such into it. Otherwise they only end up with a +4 better. +6 with special gloves (which other classes can actually use with a UMD check as if they were a fighter with Weapon Training, but I'm going to ignore that for the most part). Of course, we're again talking about hit and damage. +18 damage and +6 AC is really nice at the cost of 20 class levels, and trading your class features and feats' to-hit modifiers for those other things (Power Attack + Combat Expertise is -12 to hit, so you have to have full focus {+2}, full training {+4}, gloves {+2}, to reduce that to a -4 to hit, which puts your to-hit modifiers around that of a Cleric. You get +18 to damage and +6 to AC for washing your main class feature down a tier. Unfortunately, unlike Jesus over there, you likely aren't 10 feet tall, summoning celestial superbeings, and sporting DR 15/alignment when you decide to trade your class features for more power.
I'm not saying that they should use it all the time. That would be stupid. You use it in the right situation. I don't even count the gloves because until recently I didn't even know about them. Two feats and weapon training puts him at +6. A third feat ignores the penalty of the power attack on the first attack. In the appropriate situations, he can use both feats (and may actually have them both unlike other classes). Should he? If the enemy's AC is low enough, attack bonus high enough, and damage high enough, it's certainly an option. If he's fighting half a dozen creatures and is surrounded, it can help keep him alive while putting a hurt on the enemy. It is not a tactic that is meant to be used all the time.
My brother has soloed a wyvern with a 3rd level expert. With enough player skill, you can make anything look good. I've seen adepts (the NPC class) stand beside core martials in 3.5 and look good (admittedly, they could be pretty awesome, especially since that was pre-shapeshifting nerfs). If you know enough about how to work the system, and are good with managing your wealth by level, then nothing - not even a commoner - will be "useless". However, it does not mean that the class is on the same footing as its peers in the least.
Good for him but that doesn't address what I said. This thread is about the fighter sucking. That means that it doesn't stand with the other classes. You don't even have to work the system to put the fighter on equal footing with other martial classes.
This is the nail in the coffin. If your GM has to write specific instances for the Fighter to shine, then you have a critical problem. There is virtually no other class in the book that requires your GM to make extra special considerations for them to be worthwhile (barring some sort of weird-alignment campaign, but we have antipaladins for that).
Let me make this clear because this is always the counter-argument people have. It is always wrong as well.
It is the job of the GM to ensure that the adventures have something for everyone to do. If the GM refuses, then that GM is not doing their job. That doesn't mean that the GM needs to cater to any particular character. From what I've seen in these arguments, the GM already tailors the game for the casters. They have no problem tailoring for the cavalier (lots of open ground). They have no problems with tailoring for the ranger (put them in favored terrain and give them some favored enemies once in a while). The moment someone suggests that the GM makes sure that the guy who wants to trip go up against some appropriate challenges where that can happen is all of a sudden catering. That's BS.
How many GMs actually follow the magic rules 100%? Most of the ones in these types of discussions don't. How many make sure that the clerics and paladins are staying true to their dogmas? How many are making sure that animal companions are called in appropriate areas? How many are making sure that wild shaping druids actually know the animal they are turning into? How many make the ranger or druid make a Handle Animal check to control their animal companion? Many GMs are more than willing to enforce the rules when it comes to fighters but not as much when it comes to other classes. When one class is discriminated against, it will never shine.
Here is where the fighter is better than the other melee classes:
1) They don't have to allocate their limited skill points to any particular theme giving them greater versatility with their points. There are enough ways to get more skill points (higher Intelligence and archetypes) to make this even more useful. If they need a class skill they don't have (like Perception) there are a few ways to do that as well. Personally, I think they should have Perception.
More skills with a higher Int isn't a class feature of the fighter, its game mechanics, but the archetypes with more skills sound nice. The only one I know is the Lore Warden, but that is not from one of the core books, it's from the Pathfinder Society Field Guide (none core books are not an option for many/some players).
Problem with the archetypes is that they give you themes. Not more options for the fighter only new options - as in new themes.
Still if you can link me to the archetypes I would be grateful.
The Tactician archetype also grants more skills and skill points. I didn't say that higher Intelligence was a feature of the fighter, although I can see how you read it that way. I was saying that higher intelligence allows the fighter to use that freedom even more.
Archetypes give you themes, just like:
1) choosing a god for your cleric or paladin
2) choosing a bloodline for your sorcerer
3) specializing as a wizard
4) choosing a patron for your witch
5) choosing barbarian rage powers
6) choosing a mystery for your oracle
7) etc.
Archetypes don't give many more options to an individual build. They give more options to the player for what is available to play.
High five! Glad to see someone else agrees. It validates me, and I can sleep at night. Hahaha.
Good advanced ideas.
I don't doubt th eeffectiveness of a mounted archer, but that seems like an awfully specialized and limited style of play - how would such a character fare in the new skull and Shackles AP for instance? or your typical dugeon crawl for that matter?
You can always play against type. I've shown plenty of fighters that have excellent diplomacy and perception skills and tons of knowledge skills. Rangers need to put ranks into Stealth and Handle Animal if they want to be good at using two of their abilities.
If you have to play against the strengths of the class, then I pity the class. The only skill that the Ranger actually needs for his abilities is Stealth. Rangers can completely ignore the Animal Companion if they want. Then again, they only have freakin' 4 more skill points per level; which means without bothering with anything they effectively get 4 free skills beyond the fighter. He could take Stealth and Handle Animal and still beat the Fighter in skills. Or he could realize that he only needs enough Handle Animal to take 10 and train his pet (which means all of like 3 ranks in the skill, since he gets a +4 with his companion).
Since you generally fall back to citing a specific fighter archtype that gets 4 skill points per level; I'm sure you wouldn't mind me noting that rangers get to trade that stuff out with archtypes like Urban Ranger.
All in all, this is pretty terrible. Arguing that the fix for the Fighter is to play against his strengths and choose non-class skills, and try to pretend you have skills. That's just sad my friend.
They are probably putting points into Perception as well so that's half their points already. Fighters don't have that expectation. It is a strength, even if you personally want to ignore it. Freedom of choice is always nice.
Oh lawdy, how terrible. Forced to put points into Perception. The skill Fighter fans have been weeping over because it's dodged their class skill list for 3 editions now. Yeah. People put points into Perception because it's arguably the best skill in the entire game. How much of a terrible drawback to have it not only as a class skill, but to also have an abundance of skill points to invest in it fully without any real effort. Rangers weep tonight, they do!
It doesn't matter if other classes can do it sometimes, the fighter can do it all the time. The shorter the chain, the more options he can have.
The problem is the Fighter can't do it all the time. As noted before, very few passive feats are actually all that powerful. Toughness, Improved Initiative, and Dodge are pretty nice. However, Combat Expertise requires you to be attacking to use it. Any round you use a magic item, quaff a potion, take a total defense, and so forth. If you spend 20% of your feats to get +20% to grappling, those feats are wasted when you're not grappling. Normally that's not a big deal, but since we're talking about your class features here, it's kind of disheartening.
Then again, to keep the Fighter going, you have to have those pesky classes that do things to keep him going. As I noted before, the Ranger and Paladin have more stamina than the Fighter has in terms of Marathon runs because their class features keep them going longer and stronger more easily.
The argument that fighters are like the Energizer bunny is a fallacy. And speaking of freedom of options, Fighters don't have those. If the fighter needs to lay it all on the line, he has no control over his pacing. A Paladin can burn through all of his Lay on Hands in a single intense battle or when something critically bad has occurred. The Fighter can just die because he cannot adjust his pacing. He cannot decide "Holy crap, this fool just halved my health in a single blow! This is not about winning, this is about surviving! KAIOKEN x4"; he just gets to go "Oh shiznits, I can keep hitting it like I hit every goblin we come across. It won't matter if I can rest or not, because I have to survive this fight, but I'm stuck on the same pace. I hope my friends Paladin, Barbarian, and Ranger can save me!"
Virtually every other class in the game has a method of pacing themselves comfortably. A wizard can slink about and go long, long periods of time without needing to re-prepare spells. Especially if he's got some nice wands and such (magic missile wands of 9th caster level are particularly sexy as a default attack when you're conserving your big guns). Paladins can wade through tons and tons of easy encounters and use a single Lay on Hands now and then, or burn a lesser restoration now and then to remove fatigue; or they can begin throwing down their smites, buffs, and burn lay on hands like it were tinder to survive a battle gone wrong. Rangers can just go "Bye!" *poof* and then re-ambush the target with an AoE like spike growth, or wander off and heal while the off-tank deals with the big bad (by off tank, I mean Paladin, Bard, Cleric, since all of those are good at tanking).
Fighters do not have a method for pacing themselves. Most of their feats and abilities do not synergize (Power Attack/Combat Expertise do not synergize, Combat Expertise and Improved Trip/Disarm do not synergize, Power Attack and Improved Grapple do not synergize, and so forth) and are either called on to be used or are collecting dust. If the Fighter can't take it out by hitting it, then there's not much he can do. At very high levels you get critical feats (requiring a feat that is obsoleted by your own class feature that comes later) which are really cool but other classes can get them too (the one that hits with 2 status effects is nice, but really blinding or stunning is usually enough). If you need to go all out...you just can't. There is no all out. You're an NPC warrior with more feats.
Want to see how scary that is? Well I'll show you. Take a 20th level NPC warrior. It's about CR 9 or so by Bestiary standards. Has about as many feats as a 10th level Fighter, and is about the same CR; only it has higher base stats. Still only about CR 9 though. Kind of a wussy for its hit dice. Want another example of how awesome feats are? Well you can dump tons of racial HD on monsters. They get lots more feats, but their CR doesn't go up much.
In the Age of Worms, there was a god that had it as well. It may be rare, but it was something that was a problem. There's also DR/Adamantine and others. If the fighter is using a longsword and fighting something with DR 10/bludgeoning, he doesn't care. He's dealing all his damage. The fighter should have a back up weapon or two but doesn't need to have a weapon for every situation. That's what I'm talking about. I would rather not have to invest in half a dozen weapons for every situation.
Gee, fighting gods eh? Hm, well I suppose that's at least on par with Solars. It's a wonder the god didn't just shatter your weapon though. Last I checked the rules for deities from 3.5 (that is Age of Wyrms right, 3.5?) the God could have just broke your sword. It's not exactly difficult. Heck, a wizard can do it. Dispel Magic + Quickened Shatter. Make a will save. Do you fail? Then your sword is broken, and it's likely that if it was really pimped in magic, not even Make Whole will fix it. Relying on one weapon is just foolish.
Let me make this clear because this is always the counter-argument people have. It is always wrong as well.
It is the job of the GM to ensure that the adventures have something for everyone to do. If the GM refuses, then that GM is not doing their job. That doesn't mean that the GM needs to cater to any particular character. From what I've seen in these arguments, the GM already tailors the game for the casters. They have no problem tailoring for the cavalier (lots of open ground). They have no problems with tailoring for the ranger (put them in favored terrain and give them some favored enemies once in a while). The moment someone suggests that the GM makes sure that the guy who wants to trip go up against some appropriate challenges where that can happen is all of a sudden catering. That's BS.
It's not BS at all. You misunderstand (or misrepresent) my position. I make no such concessions. All the classes in the game stand on their own two feet. Not once have I had to change the game, published or otherwise, to accommodate a specific class (except maybe Monk and Fighter). I give no special hints to Rangers. Half the time I couldn't. My adventures don't tend to only use one type of enemy anyway. Variety is the spice of life. I do recommend taking broad favored enemies like Undead, Aberrations, Magical Beasts, etc. I specifically note these other classes as being awesome because they don't have to have stuff tailored to them. If I'm playing a Ranger and come across a favored enemy, yay, but I don't expect it.
I've run quite a few homebrew and published adventures. Published Adventurers include stuff like Paizo Adventure Paths, or the Red Hand of Doom (a really great adventure from 5th - 15th written by James Jacobs, and it's known for being difficult). If I have to modify these types of things, or my own games that use that actual published rules for building classes and such, then the class fails. I don't have to do it for the other classes.
That shows there is a problem.
I don't doubt th eeffectiveness of a mounted archer, but that seems like an awfully specialized and limited style of play - how would such a character fare in the new skull and Shackles AP for instance? or your typical dugeon crawl for that matter?High five! Glad to see someone else agrees. It validates me, and I can sleep at night. Hahaha.
Good advanced ideas.
Most folks that have dedicated mounted characters tend to build small. Halflings, gnomes, goblins, and similar. That way you can ride medium sized mounts, which can comfortably fit inside dungeons and such.
|
Most folks that have dedicated mounted characters tend to build small. Halflings, gnomes, goblins, and similar. That way you can ride medium sized mounts, which can comfortably fit inside dungeons and such.I don't doubt th eeffectiveness of a mounted archer, but that seems like an awfully specialized and limited style of play - how would such a character fare in the new skull and Shackles AP for instance? or your typical dugeon crawl for that matter?High five! Glad to see someone else agrees. It validates me, and I can sleep at night. Hahaha.
Good advanced ideas.
Gnome/Halfling cavaliers are actually quite powerful if properly built.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I played an elfling worg rider in Midnight. He got really nasty.
I don't doubt th eeffectiveness of a mounted archer, but that seems like an awfully specialized and limited style of play - how would such a character fare in the new skull and Shackles AP for instance? or your typical dugeon crawl for that matter?High five! Glad to see someone else agrees. It validates me, and I can sleep at night. Hahaha.
Good advanced ideas.
Mounted archers of the steppe, plains and valleys weren't pirates. Ha ha, you can always dismount and fulfill a normal archer role. Or, break from the party for a dungeon and really scout around to find a back or side entrance. Beef up stealth if you do so.
If you have to play against the strengths of the class, then I pity the class. The only skill that the Ranger actually needs for his abilities is Stealth. Rangers can completely ignore the Animal Companion if they want. Then again, they only have freakin' 4 more skill points per level; which means without bothering with anything they effectively get 4 free skills beyond the fighter. He could take Stealth and Handle Animal and still beat the Fighter in skills. Or he could realize that he only needs enough Handle Animal to take 10 and train his pet (which means all of like 3 ranks in the skill, since he gets a +4 with his companion).
Rangers can ignore the animal companion but the general consensus is that it's better than hunter's companions. So I guess if they are going to go for an inferior option, sure they can ignore handle animal. Controlling the animal companion in combat means that you cannot Take 10. If the Ranger wants to track well he needs to put ranks into Survival. A stereotypical ranger should also be putting ranks into perception and probably knowledge (dungeoneering) and (nature). This pretty much uses up his skill points. Of course you don't have to play a ranger this way but it is the classic ranger.
Since you generally fall back to citing a specific fighter archtype that gets 4 skill points per level; I'm sure you wouldn't mind me noting that rangers get to trade that stuff out with archtypes like Urban Ranger.
I wasn't referring to any particular archetype in this case. Yes, there are two archetypes that increase a fighter's skill point but even if they aren't taken, there are no skills that a classic fighter should take. Now if they are going for a specific type of fighter (mounted for example) then they need to invest their few skill points into certain skills. However, there are better ways to build a mounted character than to use a fighter (unfortunately).
All in all, this is pretty terrible. Arguing that the fix for the Fighter is to play against his strengths and choose non-class skills, and try to pretend you have skills. That's just sad my friend.
What skills are required for the fighter? The only one that really should be on their list and they should invest in is Perception. That's easily gotten through traits.
Oh lawdy, how terrible. Forced to put points into Perception. The skill Fighter fans have been weeping over because it's dodged their class skill list for 3 editions now. Yeah. People put points into Perception because it's arguably the best skill in the entire game. How much of a terrible drawback to have it not only as a class skill, but to also have an abundance of skill points to invest in it fully without any real effort. Rangers weep tonight, they do!
It doesn't matter if it's a class skill or not for this discussion (it really should be but that doesn't matter for this point). The fact that the ranger needs to invest his skill points into specific skills means that he doesn't have the freedom with his skill points. This is a benefit that the fighter has. I do think that all PC classes should have perception as a class skill. That's a whole different discussion though.
The problem is the Fighter can't do it all the time. As noted before, very few passive feats are actually all that powerful. Toughness, Improved Initiative, and Dodge are pretty nice. However, Combat Expertise requires you to be attacking to use it. Any round you use a magic item, quaff a potion, take a total defense, and so forth. If you spend 20% of your feats to get +20% to grappling, those feats are wasted when you're not grappling. Normally that's not a big deal, but since we're talking about your class features here, it's kind of disheartening.
I don't really care if combat expertise requires one to be attacking or not to use it. That doesn't change the argument in the slightest. Besides, if the character isn't in combat then he probably doesn't have to worry about his AC anyway. There are no classes that use all their features all the time. Not a single class. Arguing that your grapple feats don't work all the time is like arguing that evasion isn't that great because you aren't needing reflex saves all the time. A three feat chain is 33% of a 20th level fighter's bonus feats. That means that he can use just his fighter feats for three different styles of combat and still use the character feats to learn more or to work on other things he wants to work on. Which other classes use just their class features to learn three different fighting styles (or master three combat options)?
Then again, to keep the Fighter going, you have to have those pesky classes that do things to keep him going. As I noted before, the Ranger and Paladin have more stamina than the Fighter has in terms of Marathon runs because their class features keep them going longer and stronger more easily.
The argument that fighters are like the Energizer bunny is a fallacy. And speaking of freedom of options, Fighters don't have those. If the fighter needs to lay it all on the line, he has no control over his pacing. A Paladin can burn through all of his Lay on Hands in a single intense battle or when something critically bad has occurred. The Fighter can just die because he cannot adjust his pacing. He cannot decide "Holy crap, this fool just halved my health in a single blow! This is not about winning, this is about surviving! KAIOKEN x4"; he just gets to go "Oh shiznits, I can keep hitting it like I hit every goblin we come across. It won't matter if I can rest or not, because I have to survive this fight, but I'm stuck on the same pace. I hope my friends Paladin, Barbarian, and Ranger can save me!"
I've never made the claim that the fighter can keep going. Not once in any thread on any forum. The fighter can make adjustments in combat to minimize the problems but he has no way, with his class abilities, to go on forever. The paladin having to heal after taking 50% of his hit points in a single hit only means that he gets hit again next round and is now just taking hits and not really stopping the beatings. The fighter doesn't have any way to nova. Doesn't exist for the class. It was never meant to either. Nova is for other classes. The fighter is meant to be consistent and reliable. If you want to nova, then the fighter is not the class for you. If you want to use tactics to get out of difficult situations, then the fighter is the better class. He can have several options that are better than the others.
Want to see how scary that is? Well I'll show you. Take a 20th level NPC warrior. It's about CR 9 or so by Bestiary standards. Has about as many feats as a 10th level Fighter, and is about the same CR; only it has higher base stats. Still only about CR 9 though. Kind of a wussy for its hit dice. Want another example of how awesome feats are? Well you can dump tons of racial HD on monsters. They get lots more feats, but their CR doesn't go up much.
So you are saying that a 20th level warrior is equal to a 10th level fighter and trying to argue that the fighter's feats aren't all that great? That doesn't make any sense at all. Also, roughly every 2 HD increases the CR by 1. If I dump 10 HD on a creature, it's CR goes up by about 5 and it gains 5 more feats. That's not insignificant. Of course the actual power is going to depend on how the GM advances the creature. If he adds Skill Focus (profession) to a behir, he's not really making the creature any more powerful when toughness would be a better choice. That's a problem with not all feats being equal though.
Gee, fighting gods eh? Hm, well I suppose that's at least on par with Solars. It's a wonder the god didn't just shatter your weapon though. Last I checked the rules for deities from 3.5 (that is Age of Wyrms right, 3.5?) the God could have just broke your sword. It's not exactly difficult. Heck, a wizard can do it. Dispel Magic + Quickened Shatter. Make a will save. Do you fail? Then your sword is broken, and it's likely that if it was really pimped in magic, not even Make Whole will fix it. Relying on one weapon is just foolish.
Information about the Age of Worms final encounter:
In an effort to make it possible for a group of 4 level 20 characters be able to handle fighting a divine rank 1 god, there were several things written into the adventure to weaken the god. I don't know if the writers expected the party to accomplish everything before fighting Kyuss, but my party did. They then used the two additional tactics written into the adventure that made it so Kyuss had zero actions for 3 rounds. Taking out the god was very anti-climactic. Sad too because the rest of the adventure was really well done. Fighting the dracolich was a much harder fight than fighting a god.
It's not BS at all. You misunderstand (or misrepresent) my position. I make no such concessions. All the classes in the game stand on their own two feet. Not once have I had to change the game, published or otherwise, to accommodate a specific class (except maybe Monk and Fighter). I give no special hints to Rangers. Half the time I couldn't. My adventures don't tend to only use one type of enemy anyway. Variety is the spice of life. I do recommend taking broad favored enemies like Undead, Aberrations, Magical Beasts, etc. I specifically note these other classes as being awesome because they don't have to have stuff tailored to them. If I'm playing a Ranger and come across a favored enemy, yay, but I don't expect it.
Any GM that's any good will always make sure that the adventure has something for everyone. If the GM never puts something in the adventure for the characters to use their abilities, then the GM is failing the players. That doesn't mean that there should always be traps for the rogue or orcs for the ranger. It does mean that if the fighter has improved trip and the GM only throws Huge 4-legged flying creatures at the party, the GM isn't doing a very good job of making sure the players are happy. Then again, if the GM says that the campaign is going to be a dragon hunting campaign and the fighter takes Improved Sunder, Improved Trip, and Improved Disarm, then he's not really thinking about the character and how it fits into the campaign. Just like if the campaign is arctic and the wizard only focuses on cold-based spells, he's not thinking it through.
I've run quite a few homebrew and published adventures. Published Adventurers include stuff like Paizo Adventure Paths, or the Red Hand of Doom (a really great adventure from 5th - 15th written by James Jacobs, and it's known for being difficult). If I have to modify these types of things, or my own games that use that actual published rules for building classes and such, then the class fails. I don't have to do it for the other classes.
I have never had to modify a published adventure for any particular class. I can see it being done for new classes that weren't around when the adventure was written (adding some gunslingers so there can be some cool treasure) but overall I don't see it as necessary.
That shows there is a problem.
I would argue that it's a problem with adventure design. Honestly, the difference in what a fighter needs in an adventure is about the same as what a barbarian needs. If the adventure doesn't have to be changed for the barbarian, then it shouldn't need to be changed for the fighter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rangers can ignore the animal companion but the general consensus is that it's better than hunter's companions. So I guess if they are going to go for an inferior option, sure they can ignore handle animal. Controlling the animal companion in combat means that you cannot Take 10. If the Ranger wants to track well he needs to put ranks into Survival. A stereotypical ranger should also be putting ranks into perception and probably knowledge (dungeoneering) and (nature). This pretty much uses up his skill points. Of course you don't have to play a ranger this way but it is the classic ranger.
You play against type? Why won't you let me, Mr. Loblaw? I mean, even if I want the animal companion and don't trade it out for something else, is there a reason and decide I want to max Handle Animal, I still have 3 more skill points per level than the Fighter. Are you saying I must put ranks into a skill because it's a class skill? Um, no, that's never been true. Though the fact my class skill list makes Fighters look like inept outcasts of learning does mean I can't drop a few ranks here and there in all kinds of stuff. I can drop a rank in Heal so I can take 10 and increase natural healing rates or have decent chances of solving low-level poisons on my own (with a fair Wisdom, dropping 1 point gets me a +5-6 easily). I can drop a point into several knowledge skills to get at least a chance to answer stuff beyond DC 10.
If it pretty much uses up my skill points, that's great. Your Fighter didn't have the skill points to spend on them in the first place. With the same Intelligence, I can buy the same 2 skills you get, handle animal, and max 3 more skills of my choice. And they are my choice. And part of that choice even includes not maxing all of them. If at 1st level I want to drop a rank into 6 skills (say Climb, Ride, Stealth, Handle Animal, Perception, and Knowledge {Nature}) then I have between a +2 and +8 to all of those. Next level? I drop a point into Knowledge {Geography} and {Dungeoneering} so I can try against DCs higher than 10. I up my Perception and Stealth because I decide I really like those skills (they keep me and my party alive, and having more Stealth is nice since I like walking around in armor). I then drop a rank into Linguistics and learn to speak goblin, and drop a rank into Heal to get a +6 to Heal checks so I can stabilize/treatpoison or take 10 and double natural healing rates (maybe I want to stuff herbs into the festering wounds of halflings).
I wasn't referring to any particular archetype in this case. Yes, there are two archetypes that increase a fighter's skill point but even if they aren't taken, there are no skills that a classic fighter should take. Now if they are going for a specific type of fighter (mounted for example) then they need to invest their few skill points into certain skills. However, there are better ways to build a mounted character than to use a fighter (unfortunately).
I'm just saying that when someone criticizes the fact Fighters never went to school, you tend to jump to the lone archtype that gets 4 skill points instead of 2. Even with Handle Animal, Rangers get 3 more skill points per level than Fighters; so we're effectively getting the animal for free. But if we just decided we hate having an animal (some people just want one character) then we don't have to have one. The alternative is arguably as good as a bonus feat anyway; or we could trade it out just as easily as Fighters can try and get more skill points.
What skills are required for the fighter? The only one that really should be on their list and they should invest in is Perception. That's easily gotten through traits.
There are few if any skills required by anyone. Like I pointed out, I don't have to max every skill on a Ranger (nor would I want to). The most I will ever need for handle animal is a +11 (I literally cannot fail at that point). Stealth is a skill everyone would have if they had the points for it. Perception is awesome. Traits aren't a given, and if you have to burn a trait to try to catch up with me, I'm still smiling because I'm ahead of you in skill points and traits now.
"Oh you spent one of your two traits to get Perception as a class skill? That's awesome. Oh me? Yeah, I took Reactionary for +2 to my Initiative and another thing to get +1 to my Will saves, since I already had the skill points to max Perception and got the +3 for free."
As to it being unfortunate that there are better ways to build a fighter, I agree. It is unfortunate. Unfortunately, there's a better way to build most archetypal builds without Fighters. They do excel at bows and dual-wielding though. I kind of feel like they have dual-wielding on lockdown in terms of making it look good.
It doesn't matter if it's a class skill or not for this discussion (it really should be but that doesn't matter for this point). The fact that the ranger needs to invest his skill points into specific skills means that he doesn't have the freedom with his skill points. This is a benefit that the fighter has. I do think that all PC classes should have perception as a class skill. That's a whole different discussion though.
Oh hells no man. This door swings both ways. First, before you can tell me that the ranger is at a disadvantage in his options for skills compared to the Fighter, you have to figure out the problem of the Ranger getting 4 more skill points than the Fighter with an equal Intelligence. That's a big problem with your argument. Even if I decide I absolutely must max Stealth AND Handle Animal (and maxing Handle Animal is a sick joke), I still have 2 more skill points than you do. That gives me more freedom than you when deciding what skills I want. You need 4 more points of Intelligence than me to even get to the point where we are equal after I dump 2 points into two useful skills.
Now when your Fighter has at least 6 skill points per level, then we can talk. Until then, you're only kidding yourself.
I don't really care if combat expertise requires one to be attacking or not to use it. That doesn't change the argument in the slightest. Besides, if the character isn't in combat then he probably doesn't have to worry about his AC anyway.
Haha, man I wish that were true. (The first D&D game I ever played in ended up with my barbarian carrying the party's sorcerer out of the dungeon because he was a trap-magnet. On a side note, a barbarian gets a free +4 dodge bonus to his AC when walking around because he has Uncanny Dodge and isn't using his standard action for much else.)
There are no classes that use all their features all the time. Not a single class. Arguing that your grapple feats don't work all the time is like arguing that evasion isn't that great because you aren't needing reflex saves all the time.
Entirely true. If you go back and re-read my post, I also said the same thing. I said few abilities (regardless of class) are always on. Most require them to be activated in some way. Some static things like Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Fast Movement, Toughness, Divine Grace, and stuff like that are always on; but most of the time casting a spell, using cleave, or using Combat Expertise requires activation of some sort. I was pointing out that Fighter feats are not "always on". In fact, very little is.
That being said, feats of any sort are rarely if ever on par with actual class features. Your Fighter could burn 3 feats to boost his saves and it still pales compared to Divine Grace, and you can't even match the saving throws of a Paladin or Ranger without them (Paladin has +2 to +6 more Will save than you with no investment, and Ranger has +2 to +6 Reflex save than you with no investment).
A three feat chain is 33% of a 20th level fighter's bonus feats. That means that he can use just his fighter feats for three different styles of combat and still use the character feats to learn more or to work on other things he wants to work on.
Which other classes use just their class features to learn three different fighting styles (or master three combat options)?
The problem here is that calling three different maneuvers three different styles of combat is laughable. A fighter who grabs +4 to Disarm, Grapple, and Trip is a bad joke. When you count their prerequisites, you're out of feats. So now you're spending the same feats as everyone else. Except everyone else has class features that are better and get to spend their feats on stuff that they would have taken anyway. Perhaps you remember a thread similar to this one. I posted a generic core ranger who rocked multiple "styles". Besides just being generally good at combat maneuvers because he's a warrior and that's a given, he also rocked melee combat, ranged combat, and mounted combat. That's 3 styles right there. He had also taken feats some rather useless feats (including Improved Unarmed Strike and Deflect Arrows, despite the fact I could have just got arrow snaring on a buckler or something).
Ability Adjustments: 4th (+1 Str), 8th (+1 Dex), 12th (+1 Str), 16th (+1 Str), 20th (+1 Str)
Feats: 1st) Power Attack, 3rd) Quick Draw, 5th) Precise Shot, 7th) Craft Wondrous Item, 9th) Mounted Combat 11th) Spirited Charge, 13th) Deadly Aim, 15th) Iron Will, 17th) Toughness, 19th) Deflect Arrows
Bonus Feats: 2nd) Rapid Shot, 3rd) Endurance, 6th) Manyshot, 10th) Improved Precise Shot, 14th) Pinpoint Targeting, 18th) Shot on the Run.
Common Spells: Longstrider (+10 ft. speed for up to 17 hours), resist energy (energy resistance 30 against any element I choose), freedom of movement (I ignore grapples, holds, aquatic penalties, webs, telekinesis, etc), neutralize poison (cause being poisoned is bad), and a bunch of other cool stuff.
Mount: His name is Silvermane. He's my animal companion. I got him at 4th level, and took mounted combat at 9th. He's my good buddy. He's fast, and he's smarter than your average horse. Tough too. Of course, when he dies, I mourn his loss but find another one like him. He's trained really well. He's got just a crapload of tricks, and even understands speech, like the horse in Tangled. I crafted him some horseshoes of the Zypher so he can fly. I really like using gravity blade while 2-handed power attacking with my lance as we come screaming through the air at full speed. It's like a roller coaster of doom! Of course, that's when he's not just moving at full speed while I'm full attacking from his back with my bow.
Unarmed Fighting: Well I took improved unarmed strike as a joke, because I figured I could help my monk buddy train. It kind of pisses him off that I'm actually pretty good with my +2 cold iron gauntlets, and I figure it's nice because I can't be disarmed of them. I could have saved a feat though and just used my armor spikes or spiked gauntlet, but at least I learned to deflect arrows, which is kinda cool. It's not really very good for me, but I'm not trying to be optimized or anything. Just thought it would be cool to learn Fung Ku!
Skills: I got 120 skill points over 20 levels, and didn't put my favored class bonus here. I could get another 20 points if I did, but I figured I wouldn't mind a few more HPs (like I had a d12 HD really), so I went with that. I then get another 60 for the +6 Intelligence item I crafted myself. That leaves me with the following (before mods ability mods, magic items, or masterwork tools):
Acrobatics +23
Climb +23
Perception +23
Stealth +23
Survival +10 (+20 tracking)
Heal +10
Spellcraft +23
Handle Animal +13 (+17 w/ companion)
Knowledge (Dungeoneering) +18
Knowledge (Nature) +18
Swim +18
Ride +23
Linguistics +5
Fly +6
Notice that the above doesn't actually take into account any of the extra stuff rangers get (no favored terrain, favored enemy, evasion, swift tracker, track, wild empathy, quarry, improved evasion, hide in plain sight, or master hunter). This ranger isn't all that special, but he can handle almost any general adventuring situation he could expect to find.
I've never made the claim that the fighter can keep going. Not once in any thread on any forum. The fighter can make adjustments in combat to minimize the problems but he has no way, with his class abilities, to go on forever.
But the OP did. As have quite a few folks singing the false prophecies of Fighter. :P
The paladin having to heal after taking 50% of his hit points in a single hit only means that he gets hit again next round and is now just taking hits and not really stopping the beatings.
Suffer 50% of his HP in one blow, if enemy is evil use a swift action heal and then proceed to carve ass with smite. If enemy is not evil, activate swift action grace and run like hell without provoking any attacks of opportunity.
The fighter doesn't have any way to nova. Doesn't exist for the class. It was never meant to either. Nova is for other classes. The fighter is meant to be consistent and reliable.
Consistent is true. Reliable I question. He has difficulty pacing. Like I said. He has no way of handling marathon runs, and no way to nova (or even spark for that matter), so if the day doesn't land just right then he's out of his element. Since the OP was talking about Fighters being like the Energizer bunny, I showed it wasn't true. But the reverse is no more true either. So no matter what the pace of the adventure is, he has no way to adequately adapt to it. If the average adventure has 4-5 encounters, you might end up in adventures that have 1-3 big encounters occasionally, or some that have 6-8 minor encounters. Almost every class in the game can pace themselves depending on threat level. Fighter don't. Fighter just don't.
Also, explain to me exactly how a Fighter is really all that reliable? I mean they're so freaking easy to dismantle with CC abilities, and they have nothing that helps them excel at helping people with problems that doesn't involve hitting something. Ranger is reliable. Paladin is reliable. Fighter is reliably unreliable.
If you want to nova, then the fighter is not the class for you. If you want to use tactics to get out of difficult situations, then the fighter is the better class.
Bull ****. Fighters are arguably the least adaptable class in terms of getting out of difficult situations through tactics. I don't even understand how you could utter such nonsense. My mind is boggled. What tactics can the Fighter make use of to get out of difficult situations exactly? If the party is being stalked by goblins who are abusing Stealth, what does the Fighter do to help that every other class can't? If the party is caught in a room with resetting traps that keep making things tricky, what does the Fighter do to help that every other class can't? If the party has to get through a poisonous bog, what does the Fighter do to help that every other class can't? If the party is fighting enemies who like to spam energy touch attacks (like alchemist fire, scorching ray, etc) what does the Fighter do to help that every other class can't?
Not a damn thing. They have virtually no options for removing bad conditions. They have virtually no options for providing aid to their allies. They have poor mobility. They have trouble dealing with any offense that doesn't directly target their armor class (which isn't much better than a non-Fighter's all things being equal; hell Bards are often better physical tanks than Fighters). They have poor saves. Their options involve making attack rolls and not much else (even combat maneuvers are just another attack roll).
How can you even say that with a strait face? *headdesk*
So you are saying that a 20th level warrior is equal to a 10th level fighter and trying to argue that the fighter's feats aren't all that great? That doesn't make any sense at all. Also, roughly every 2 HD increases the CR by 1. If I dump 10 HD on a creature, it's CR goes up by about 5 and it gains 5 more feats. That's not insignificant. Of course the actual power is going to depend on how the GM advances the creature. If he adds Skill Focus (profession) to a behir, he's not really making the creature any more powerful when toughness would be a better choice. That's a problem with not all feats being equal though.
Nope. I'm saying a 20th level warrior with CR 9 NPC gear is everything a 10th level Fighter is, only better (+20 BAB, 20d10 HD, +12 Fort, +6 Ref and Will, more skill points, and 10 feats before bonus feats) and it's still only CR 9. Haw haw haw. And CR 9 it is. A party can dismantle such an NPC relatively easily. Mainly because he's just like a 10th level Fighter (except better) but he's still like a 10th level Fighter. He is prone to crowd controls, heinous debuffing, dismantling with vulnerability to spells, and can be kited pretty well.
Hell, Paizo keeps publishing stuff that makes Fighters look worse and worse. We now have a spell that creates our own little wind-wall bubble around casters. Folks can now zip around in the sky on their 100 ft. flying phantom steeds and Warriors (that is, Fighters) can't do diddly about it. Even if you can fly and try to engage them in melee, you can't catch 'em. Dirty casters. >:(
In an effort to make it possible for a group of 4 level 20 characters be able to handle fighting a divine rank 1 god, there were several things written into the adventure to weaken the god. I don't know if the writers expected the party to accomplish everything before fighting Kyuss, but my party did. They then used the two additional tactics written into the adventure that made it so Kyuss had zero actions for 3 rounds. Taking out the god was very anti-climactic. Sad too because the rest of the adventure was really well done. Fighting the dracolich was a much harder fight than fighting a god.
Wow. A deity that was easier than a dracolich. That is so sad. Sounds like a real Solar would have been better. Yeah...Penetrating Strike sucks. I'm not sure that spending 2 feats to have an effective +10 to damage against 2 creatures is really worth it. :\
Any GM that's any good will always make sure that the adventure has something for everyone. If the GM never puts something in the adventure for the characters to use their abilities, then the GM is failing the players. That doesn't mean that there should always be traps for the rogue or orcs for the ranger. It does mean that if the fighter has improved trip and the GM only throws Huge 4-legged flying creatures at the party, the GM isn't doing a very good job of making sure the players are happy. Then again, if the GM says that the campaign is going to be a dragon hunting campaign and the fighter takes Improved Sunder, Improved Trip, and Improved Disarm, then he's not really thinking about the character and how it fits into the campaign. Just like if the campaign is arctic and the wizard only focuses on cold-based spells, he's not thinking it through.
Perhaps we misunderstand one another. My adventures are quite varied. Most of the published adventures I've had were quite varied. Ironically, when I ran the Red Hand of Doom (hint: goblinoids and dragons) we didn't even have a Ranger, but it had a lot of obvious themed opponents. My games have traps, plot twists, a variety of monsters, urban, wilderness, and dungeon adventures. The thing is...
I don't have to make special concessions for the players because of their classes. If I run a game where the PCs go for a marathon run, they marathon run. If the party has to face a big insurmountable encounter and then surmount it, then that's what they must do. Plus stuff in between. Sometimes they have to deal with tricksters. They have to deal with people out to get them from behind the sidelines (a succubus who has been bugging the party in one of our recent games was annoying the Paladin in the party by making it look like the party was up to no good). They have to deal with nefarious traps and dirty tricks. Sometimes the party gets to enjoy a good ol' fashioned slobberknockin. Sometimes the party uses stealth and guile, sometimes they negotiate, sometimes they storm the castle, sometimes they run.
In many cases, I couldn't tell the PCs what kind of campaign it was going to be if I wanted to. My campaigns tend to evolve a bit more organically than that. Often it's a serious of events that lead to other series of events, and the PCs are always capable of deciding to go somewhere else or do something else. Sometimes I throw an adventure together on the fly because the PCs decided to go somewhere else that I had mentioned purely for flavor. Hell, once the party embarked on a quest to find the owner of a ring with a name engraved on it, solely because they wanted to return it to the owner (the engraving was purely for flavor, but it led to an entirely different grand adventure).
But darnit if I have to specifically avoid stuff because some class has problems, or throw in lots more of something because it's all they do, then by god that class has problems. Perhaps I have a different mindset than other players, but if I play a class, I want to adventure. I don't want to get the whole experience. Not play a game that uses stuff that is randomly generated from a pool of stuff I can handle and not that I can't. If I'm playing Baldur's Gate I and I decide to make a party that consists entirely of Mages, then I'm going to try to figure out ways to get around the magic-immune enemies. If I make a party without a Rogue, then I might need to think about how I'm going to make it around traps (Durlag's Tower is a nightmare without a thief).
The specific reason I like Rangers and Paladins is because they are good in an adventure. The whole adventure. If I was to build a 6 person party that was built for awesome, it would include something like Bard + Paladin + Ranger + Cleric + Druid + Wizard. Everyone can help and contribute in virtually all cases. Everyone is good in virtually all cases. Everyone can work together and use teamwork in all cases. Defensively the party is good. The party can address any problem. Nobody gets left out of anything.
I would argue that it's a problem with adventure design. Honestly, the difference in what a fighter needs in an adventure is about the same as what a barbarian needs. If the adventure doesn't have to be changed for the barbarian, then it shouldn't need to be changed for the fighter.
That's true, barring the fact that the Barbarian is roughly as good at Fighting as the Fighter is, only with option to shout "Kaioken" when he needs to, possesses more skill points, more class skills, and more options. Of course, you don't see me constantly tooting the barbarian's horn either, because they aren't as varied as Fighters. But they are good at both pacing themselves and going nova, while having more useful abilities out of combat.
I quit reading Ashiel's posts long time ago, they're just too much for my eyes. She should just write "you're wrong" every time and not much would be different ;-)
I hate it when people say other people are wrong but are too rude or clueless as to explain why. Why would I do the same to others, when I hate it so much myself?
I'm not going to go through point by point again and again. The simple fact is that the fighter does not suck. If someone wants to play a character that can cast spells, then don't play a fighter. If someone wants to play a class that has an animal companion, then don't play a fighter. If someone wants to play a class that can nova, then don't play a fighter. If someone wants to play a class that requires you to fully understand and utilize the combat section of the books and wants to do so in an extraordinary way, then play the fighter.
I get it, several people don't like the fighter. Then don't play one. Honestly, this gets old really fast. Play something that works for you. Many of us have figured out how to play the fighter. We have figured out its strengths and weaknesses and work within those limitations. We don't try to shoehorn it into something it was never meant to be.
If someone can't figure out how to deal with flying creatures or ethereal or any other problem, then they are not the people who should be playing the fighter (or probably any other martial character for that matter because they all have the same issues). The only reason the fighter is singled out is because people need their abilities handed to them on a platter.
|
|
I quit reading Ashiel's posts long time ago, they're just too much for my eyes. She should just write "you're wrong" every time and not much would be different ;-)I hate it when people say other people are wrong but are too rude or clueless as to explain why. Why would I do the same to others, when I hate it so much myself?
It was 6 screens of text.
6. Screens.
It wasn't a post, it was a novella.
I'm not going to go through point by point again and again. The simple fact is that the fighter does not suck. If someone wants to play a character that can cast spells, then don't play a fighter. If someone wants to play a class that has an animal companion, then don't play a fighter.
The only reason the animal companion was discussed was because you tried to suggest having one was some sort of skill draining weakness; but that was clearly wrong. Clearly enough that people who understand (6-3)>2.
If someone wants to play a class that can nova, then don't play a fighter. If someone wants to play a class that requires you to fully understand and utilize the combat section of the books and wants to do so in an extraordinary way, then play the fighter.
Care to share? Virtually all my characters (and most of my players) use everything in the combat section. Tactical movement. Special attacks. Cover. Dropping prone (crossbows, yay). Throwing splash weapons. Making attack and damage rolls. Combat Maneuvers. Aid another. Drawing items. Drinking potions. Withdrawing. Fighting Defensively. Total defense. What exactly is it that the Fighter is doing from Combat that everyone else isn't or isn't allowed to?
I get it, several people don't like the fighter. Then don't play one. Honestly, this gets old really fast. Play something that works for you.
Actually, I've said many times I've played Fighters. I don't dislike them persay. I just accept that they are limited, because they are. I've played every core class at one point or another, and I've GMed for every class base-class that's been released in Pathfinder.
Many of us have figured out how to play the fighter. We have figured out its strengths and weaknesses and work within those limitations.
Well share with the class Bob. You guys always say there's nothing wrong with the Fighter, or accuse others of not knowing how to play a Fighter. So educate us. Show us how Fighters are awesome. Explain what sorts of situations you can excel in based on your class.
Show us its strengths. We know its weaknesses. Working within the limitations of strengths and weaknesses is something people do with everything. My brother has played to great success with an expert before. I've run campaigns where everyone played Warriors, Experts, and Adepts (kind of fun actually, especially if you do a Fallout 3 kind of thing and give a feat every level).
We don't try to shoehorn it into something it was never meant to be.
I'm not exactly telling you to have an animal companion. I'm not asking them to shoot fireballs from their eyes or lightning from their ass. I'm just asking them to contribute to the majority of an adventure and not a minority.
If someone can't figure out how to deal with flying creatures or ethereal or any other problem, then they are not the people who should be playing the fighter (or probably any other martial character for that matter because they all have the same issues). The only reason the fighter is singled out is because people need their abilities handed to them on a platter.
I don't see why you think people need their abilities handed to them on a platter. Earlier in this thread I mentioned that the adventurer class from BESM d20 does a build it yourself generic class really well, and it would be nice if Fighter was nearly as nice. Incidentally, in BESM d20, the adventurer class is the exact opposite of getting fed your abilities. In many cases, it's more like going out and planting your abilities, watering your abilities, growing your abilities, harvesting your abilities, cooking them yourself in the kitchen, then serving them yourself.
I'm not going to go through point by point again and again. The simple fact is that the fighter does not suck. If someone wants to play a character that can cast spells, then don't play a fighter. If someone wants to play a class that has an animal companion, then don't play a fighter.The only reason the animal companion was discussed was because you tried to suggest having one was some sort of skill draining weakness; but that was clearly wrong. Clearly enough that people who understand (6-3)>2.
How do you control the animal companion? Does it not require you to use Handle Animal if you want to use it effectively? Where would those ranks come from? If you want to track, or know about your favored enemies, or be stealthy, or be perceptive, or be able to craft items (something you have mentioned rangers can do in the past), or anything else that is "ranger-like" where do these ranks come from? The fighter gets by just fine on his 2 points. Should he have more? Sure. Is it so much of a hindrance that the class becomes non-playable? Not really.
Care to share? Virtually all my characters (and most of my players) use everything in the combat section. Tactical movement. Special attacks. Cover. Dropping prone (crossbows, yay). Throwing splash weapons. Making attack and damage rolls. Combat Maneuvers. Aid another. Drawing items. Drinking potions. Withdrawing. Fighting Defensively. Total defense. What exactly is it that the Fighter is doing from Combat that everyone else isn't or isn't allowed to?
It's not that other classes can't use tactics it's that the fighter has more feats to make using a wider variety of those tactics better.
I get it, several people don't like the fighter. Then don't play one. Honestly, this gets old really fast. Play something that works for you.Actually, I've said many times I've played Fighters. I don't dislike them persay. I just accept that they are limited, because they are. I've played every core class at one point or another, and I've GMed for every class base-class that's been released in Pathfinder.
Have you played every core class at every level of play? I doubt it. Besides, I have never made the claim that they aren't limited. That would be a classic straw man argument: arguing against a claim I never made.
Well share with the class Bob. You guys always say there's nothing wrong with the Fighter, or accuse others of not knowing how to play a Fighter. So educate us. Show us how Fighters are awesome. Explain what sorts of situations you can excel in based on your class.
Show us its strengths. We know its weaknesses. Working within the limitations of strengths and weaknesses is something people do with everything. My brother has played to great success with an expert before. I've run campaigns where everyone played Warriors, Experts, and Adepts (kind of fun actually, especially if you do a Fallout 3 kind of thing and give a feat every level).
You are more than welcome to go back and reread every post I've made on the fighter. I am not going to repeat them. Honestly, how well your brother has played another class has zero bearing on how the fighter class functions. I have posted enough fighters on these boards to show fighters that can fill their concept well. You can use the search function. I'm not posting more builds.
I'm not exactly telling you to have an animal companion. I'm not asking them to shoot fireballs from their eyes or lightning from their ass. I'm just asking them to contribute to the majority of an adventure and not a minority.
Actually you are. Every single time you say that the fighter can't do what another class can do, you are saying exactly that. If you can't make your character a contribution, that isn't a fault of the fighter.
I don't see why you think people need their abilities handed to them on a platter. Earlier in this thread I mentioned that the adventurer class from BESM d20 does a build it yourself generic class really well, and it would be nice if Fighter was nearly as nice. Incidentally, in BESM d20, the adventurer class is the exact opposite of getting fed your abilities. In many cases, it's more like going out and planting your abilities, watering your abilities, growing your abilities, harvesting your abilities, cooking them yourself in the kitchen, then serving them yourself.
I don't really care about other game systems (I don't even know what BESM is nor does it matter for Pathfinder discussions).
How do you control the animal companion? Does it not require you to use Handle Animal if you want to use it effectively? Where would those ranks come from?
The DC to direct the companion is 10. 12 if it is wounded. At +11, I cannot fail to direct my animal in combat. With a 12 Wisdom, I begin with a +5. When handling my companion, I get a +4 to my checks. That's +9 at 1st level. I need to invest 3 ranks total, and I can take 10 and teach it any tricks I want and handle it without risk of failure. 3 ranks with 12 Wisdom.
If you want to track,
I get +1/2 my class level to Survival checks for tracking. I couldn't suck at it if I tried.
or know about your favored enemies,
Drop at least 1 skill point into every Knowledge skill. I can wing-it on any question, and I get my ranger's favored enemy bonus on virtually any check concerning them. I even get to try Knowledge checks untrained vs favored enemies as a feature. Anything else is gravy, and I have the points for gravy.
or be stealthy
Stealth is a skill I'd like to have maxed on every character from Barbarian to Wizard. The fact it's a class skill and I have lots of points is a plus.
or be perceptive
See Stealth above.
be able to craft items (something you have mentioned rangers can do in the past)
Yep. Even if I dump Int, I can comfortably support a +2 spellcraft with 1 rank. I'll probably end up putting at least 10 ranks here, because Spellcraft has a lot of tactical options. It's really good being able to see what spell someone is casting, identify magic items, identify magical effects, or craft items. It's worth maxing out actually. That being said, for the purposes of crafting items I only need it high enough to hit the DC of the item I want to craft minus 10. The vast majority of the items I will wish to Craft can be crafted with a Spellcraft of +10 or less. But it is my option. Options are good.
or anything else that is "ranger-like" where do these ranks come from?
6 + Int modifier. If I have a 10 Int, I get 6 per level. Up to 8 per level if human w/ favored class, but 6 is fine. See below of how a character might evolve over the course of a game.
Perception = 1
Handle Animal = 1
Stealth = 1
Survival = 1
Knowledge Nature = 1
Ride = 1
2nd Level
As 1st except...
Knowledge Arcana = 1
Knowledge Religion = 1
Knowledge Local = 1
Knowledge Dungeoneering = 1
Stealth = 2
Perception = 2
3rd Level
As 2nd except...
Knowledge History = 1
Knowledge Nobility = 1
Knowledge Geography = 1
Knowledge Engineering = 1
Perception = 3
Stealth = 3
4th Level
As 3rd except...
Handle Animal = 3
Linguistics = 2 (2 new languages)
Stealth = 4
Perception = 4
5th Level
As 4th except...
Stealth = 5
Perception = 5
Swim = 1
Climb = 1
Linguistics = 3 (1 new languages)
Disable Device = 1
6th Level
As 5th except...
Stealth = 6
Perception = 6
Spellcraft = 4
7th Level
As 6th except...
*learns Craft Wondrous Item*
Stealth = 7
Perception = 7
Spellcraft = 7
Linguistics = 4 (1 new language)
Etc...
The fighter gets by just fine on his 2 points. Should he have more? Sure. Is it so much of a hindrance that the class becomes non-playable? Not really.
Not playable? No. As I've noted before, even NPC classes are playable.
It's not that other classes can't use tactics it's that the fighter has more feats to make using a wider variety of those tactics better.
So like I asked. Show me how. Don't tell me you can. Show me.
You are more than welcome to go back and reread every post I've made on the fighter. I am not going to repeat them. Honestly, how well your brother has played another class has zero bearing on how the fighter class functions.
No, but it shows a class can be played despite being mechanically inferior. Unless you want to argue that warriors, experts, and adepts are somehow on equal footing with the core classes.
I have posted enough fighters on these boards to show fighters that can fill their concept well. You can use the search function. I'm not posting more builds.
The majority of your fighters I've seen try to be useful in spite of their class, not because of it. You've suggested several times her that going outside your class skills is somehow a strength of the Fighter. You've tried to argue that not having any real class features is somehow a strength of the Fighter. You've tried to argue that having less skill points was somehow a strength of the fighter. In summary, the only way to read your argument has been that the fighter is good because it's a Fighter. It must be the name. The name is apparently the class feature that turns all non-features and drawbacks into features and positives.
Actually you are. Every single time you say that the fighter can't do what another class can do, you are saying exactly that. If you can't make your character a contribution, that isn't a fault of the fighter.
Only insofar as I'd like them to do something. All they do is hit stuff. They have very few options, very shoddy defenses, passable physical offenses, little to no out of combat utility (and by little to no, I mean commoners match or exceed them in out of combat usefulness).
I don't really care about other game systems (I don't even know what BESM is nor does it matter for Pathfinder discussions).
You might not care about it, but the point was it has nothing to do with getting fed special abilities on a platter, which you accused people of requiring. I generally prefer classes that have tons of options and pick your own abilities; which was the point (that being said, BESM d20 is a d20 game that is built to handle anything you might ever see in an Anime of any sort; and is gauged around core 3.x D&D strengths; and can be used to run anything from generic down to earth Lodoss Wars style fantasy to blowing up planets with giant mecha-pilots).
The Fighter was not always so bad however. Opening up my copy of OSRIC (essentially 1E D&D), the Fighter is freakin' awesome. He has some of the best saving throws in the entire game, second only to I think the Paladin. He gets the best attack routine progression, and suffers around half the penalty for fighting with weapons he's not proficient in. He (like Paladins and Rangers) can specialize in weapons. He also gets this crazy amazing option to make one attack for every level of experience when attacking mooks (so if a 7th level fighter is attacking basic goblins, he can attack 7 times per round). He gets more proficiency points than Rangers & Paladins, and is entirely single ability dependent (which is kind of sexy since it basically means it's really easy to get a +10% bonus to all earned XP for them).
See, the Fighter in 1E is kind of like this monster of combat awesomeness, with really good defenses (strong defenses vs magic and such). Due to the war races & classes worked, you could actually get the best saving throws in the game with Fighters in old editions, because while the Paladin class had better saving throws, short folk (dwarfs, halflings, and gnomes) could be Fighters. And shorties got up to a +5 bonus on all saving throws based on Constitution (+1 to saves for every 3.5 Con they had), which could mean that you could be naked with no magic items at all and only fail saves on a natural 1. Kind of like a well built Paladin today.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is why conversations go nowhere. You are arguing against points I have never made and arguing with systems that have nothing to do with the fighter class in Pathfinder. Since it's going nowhere, I'm going elsewhere.
I will attempt respond to the 3 screens (better, cut it in half) with one screen
1.You can take 10 in combat? Really?
Um, no. What gave you that idea?
2. Schrodinger's Ranger and his magical technicolor skill checks
This means?
3. Perhaps the three pages would be better served with an actual build to compare?
I've thrown builds around before. This discussion actually doesn't require builds. Bob was quite clear. He acted like Fighters somehow had an edge on Rangers because -- in his words -- Rangers have to pick certain skills (specifically he said Handle Animal and Stealth, since they have two class features that use these); ignoring the fact that the Ranger only needs 3 ranks in Handle Animal by 4th level to do everything he will ever want, that Stealth rocks, or that the Ranger skill has 2 more skill points every level to spend on whatever the heck he pleases.
He swears that Fighters are awesome and have way more options than everyone else in combat, but refuses to show how. I'm not asking for a build. I'm asking for general guides. If I'm so god-awful at making Fighters, then show me a guide. Treantmonk can poop out some guides. I've made some guides. Let's see a Fighter guide. Educate we ignorant masses on the leet hax that is teh Fightah.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will attempt respond to the 3 screens (better, cut it in half) with one screen
1.You can take 10 in combat? Really?
2. Schrodinger's Ranger and his magical technicolor skill checks
3. Perhaps the three pages would be better served with an actual build to compare?
1. Ashiel showed that a ranger can get +9 to his handle animal checks without dedicating more than 3 skill ranks. That means on a roll of one, he can still control most of his companion's actions in combat. The take 10 was for training.
2. What? Where does this come from, especially when Ashiel posted a possible skill rank allocation that covered everything talked about
3. ...Which Ashiel did. What was asked for was a Fighter build that wasn't essentially "I hit it".
Really, if you're not willing to read all of Ashiel's admittedly long posts, there's not much point in you trying to respond.
|
|
Who said this.
"The DC to direct the companion is 10. 12 if it is wounded. At +11, I cannot fail to direct my animal in combat. With a 12 Wisdom, I begin with a +5. When handling my companion, I get a +4 to my checks. That's +9 at 1st level. I need to invest 3 ranks total, and I can take 10 and teach it any tricks I want and handle it without risk of failure. 3 ranks with 12 Wisdom."
I guess they can fetch when you are hanging around town, but when giving direction in combat you can't take 10. And if you want your animal companion to be any kind of useful after the first few levels, good chunk of your WBL goes to items for them.
You've thrown out numbers, not builds. Ever moving numbers for each argument. Stop writing walls of text and start posting complete builds (preferably under spoiler tags) to give a framework for the discussion.
I know this might pin you down, and you hate that, but that is kind of what we are all trying to do.
The fighter can wear heavier armor without armor check penalty, gets attack and damage bonuses to a wide range of weapons and weapon types, and can select feats other classes don't have access to with the twice as many feats as they get.
Rangers are great, they do lots of things better than fighters. Taking and giving damage isn't one of them.
|
|
Who said this.
"The DC to direct the companion is 10. 12 if it is wounded. At +11, I cannot fail to direct my animal in combat. With a 12 Wisdom, I begin with a +5. When handling my companion, I get a +4 to my checks. That's +9 at 1st level. I need to invest 3 ranks total, and I can take 10 and teach it any tricks I want and handle it without risk of failure. 3 ranks with 12 Wisdom."
I guess they can fetch when you are hanging around town, but when giving direction in combat you can't take 10.
Sorry, but I don't think any ranger is going to try and train his companion tricks during combat.
|
|
I will attempt respond to the 3 screens (better, cut it in half) with one screen
1.You can take 10 in combat? Really?
2. Schrodinger's Ranger and his magical technicolor skill checks
3. Perhaps the three pages would be better served with an actual build to compare?1. Ashiel showed that a ranger can get +9 to his handle animal checks without dedicating more than 3 skill ranks. That means on a roll of one, he can still control most of his companion's actions in combat. The take 10 was for training.
2. What? Where does this come from, especially when Ashiel posted a possible skill rank allocation that covered everything talked about
3. ...Which Ashiel did. What was asked for was a Fighter build that wasn't essentially "I hit it".
Really, if you're not willing to read all of Ashiel's admittedly long posts, there's not much point in you trying to respond.
1. Problem of course being what you have to roll to actually use an animal in combat..
2. She posted several conflicting skill allocations, outside of an actual build. If she posted a build, it can't be all things at the same time, which is where the Schrodingers allegation came in.
3. The fighter hits it, or grapples it, or shoots it with an arrow...the ability to wear armor with little or no armor check penalty is in and of itself additional skill points that can be allocated elsewhere. The sheer number of feats allow for ability versatility.
But generally, in a party of four, if you are making a party the fighter is going to fill the hit point removal part of the team while tanking.
This isn't a flaw of the class. It is a niche.
|
|
So... DC 10 Handle Animal check for having it do a trick it knows... Let's see, the ranger rolls a 1, and gets a 10. At level one. Pretty sure, that's close to auto pass. At level 3 with three skill ranks, it's autopass if the animal is wounded.
A Ranger build was posted. Reasoning was given for choices. A Fighter build hasn't been posted.
Skill rank allocation has been posted. A build isn't really needed when the argument isn't about "two skill ranks a level is obviously better than 6 skill ranks per level, because the fighter isn't expected to use any of his, while the ranger is expected to put all his skill ranks in handle animal, perception, and stealth".
|
|
So... DC 10 Handle Animal check for having it do a trick it knows... Let's see, the ranger rolls a 1, and gets a 10. At level one. Pretty sure, that's close to auto pass. At level 3 with three skill ranks, it's autopass if the animal is wounded.
A Ranger build was posted. Reasoning was given for choices. A Fighter build hasn't been posted.
Skill rank allocation has been posted. A build isn't really needed when the argument is between "two skill ranks a level is obviously better than 6 skill ranks per level, because the fighter isn't expected to use any of his, while the ranger is expected to put all his skill ranks in handle animal, perception, and stealth".
Fair point. But if you are going to have a viable animal companion, you need to invest both resources and likely the boon companion feat. And those are still allocated skill points.
Where was the Ranger build posted. I came in late and all I saw were walls and walls of text.
EDIT: I just scrolled back, several fighter builds were posted. I haven't seen one ranger build yet, but I was skimming.
|
|
Rangers get 6 skill points, fighters get two.
Fighters have reduced armor check penalties, which effects 9 different abilities, which is functionally a bonus to 9 different skills. They also get heavy armor proficiency, and full movement in medium and eventually heavy armor.
Fighters get 21 or 22 feats. Including feats others do not have access to which stack with existing weapon damage bonuses.
Rangers get 15 or 16, but some of these don't require the prerequisites.
Both are martial proficient, Fighters get bonuses to attack and damage to 4 different groups of weapons that stack with other weapon bonuses.
Rangers get spells, but they aren't that great at the level they get them and this also makes them a bit MAD. And the special terrain and favored enemy bonuses are nice if they are in that terrain or fighting that enemy.
But generally, the fighter will do more damage with a wider range of weapons, moving faster, with a lower armor check penalty and 6 more feats over the life of the the character (starting off with a feat at 1st and 2nd level)
Treatmonk's guide points to a switch hitter as optimal. A fighter is by design a switch hitter.
|
|
To be clear on the issues with that "build"
No equipment, so I can't see where the Armor Check penalty is, I can't see the weapon and weapon damage and check that or the armor class.
Those are left out specifically so they can be added when something is pointed out that it is lacking and to prevent a direct comparison to a 20th level character.
1. Ashiel showed...
Really, if you're not willing to read all of Ashiel's admittedly long posts, there's not much point in you trying to respond.
Thank you Serum. Thank you, very, very much. :o
How can you argue with someone if you don't even read their posts?
And thank you as well, ImperatorK.
Ashiel knows what a build is. She also knows posting a build will pin her position down and expose house rules she uses.
What Da fack? O.<
=====================
Okay, exactly what do people want from a build here? I already gave a 20th level ranger with breakdowns of starting ability scores and such, along with a list of all his feats (some of which were just wasteful), skills, and didn't include anything that didn't directly pertain to his class or generic strategies (can be easily adapted to low or high magic games, or whatever), and explained what I'd use spells and such for. I'm not exactly sure what else anyone wants. I mean, beyond a 15 point buy legal stat array, skill allocation, feat allocation, and summary of spells...what else does anyone need to make a comparison of options here?
I mean, if someone other than Ciretose wants me to post a build of some sort, give me your desired levels and I'll post one, fully stat out, with magic items and everything. I just don't see what the point is. I'm talking about Ranger-Class not a single Ranger-Build. The build I already posted was actually copy/pasted from a joke that occurred in another thread, where someone said they wanted a build that did melee/archery/mounted combat/party support and a few other things, and jokingly I said "Here's a build *spoiler*Ranger 20*spoiler*" and then posted an actual generic ranger template in the next thread, showing that while kidding it was indeed true. Even was true despite the fact I wasted 2 feats on Improved Unarmed Strike and Deflect arrows like a newbie (and joked that it was because I wanted my ranger to "learn kung fu").
The fact that the ranger can sword & board and out DPS a monk's flurry of blows for many levels without any specialization, as shown here, is kind of icing on the cake.
To be clear on the issues with that "build"
No equipment, so I can't see where the Armor Check penalty is, I can't see the weapon and weapon damage and check that or the armor class.
Those are left out specifically so they can be added when something is pointed out that it is lacking and to prevent a direct comparison to a 20th level character.
Equipment varies. I left it blank so that people could adapt it for their own uses. I personally feel that the less specifics you need for a build the better it is (that way you have room to wiggle with your concept, inventory, etc). I personally prefer +5 mithral celestial plate armor, which is around 50,000 gp and has a +14 to AC, max dex of +8, and -0 armor check penalty, and counts as light armor. Toss an armored kilt on it, and we can make it a medium armor with +15 AC.
enchanting it to +5 is only an additional 16,000 and making it mithrill costs another 9,000.
50,000 for armor. if Ash wants to spend the money. let her.
i hate how specific armor is just so "specific". makes it to where DMs like Weekly William won't allow a +5 dwarven thrower or +5 agile dagger of subtlety.
|
|
Your 20th level Ranger isn't that impressive as "built" relative to a 20th level fighter.
The 20th level fighter has DR/5 and confirms all crits with a weapon that more or less can't be disarmed and that will do double crit damage, in addition to the +4 to attack and damage it would do as one of the first weapon groups selected.
So lets say I took a falcion. Lets say I took improved critical. So anytime I roll above a 15, I'm going to do X3 damage. I'm also probably taking those critical feats, because with two of them I can stun you on a 15 or higher and I have a ridiculous number of feats. I can also take the fighter only damage feats and really ramp that damage through the roof, but I'll stay focused.
I can wear mithral full plate armor with no armor check penalty (basically a +3 points for 9 different skills, so 27 skill points unspent...) with full movement (same as you with longstrider in medium armor...) and start with a +9 to armor without adding in any bonuses.
I wanted to see what your armor and damage reduction were, as well as your weapon damage and any special bonuses you got to your weapons. Like for example if I chose bows as my second weapon group, I would get a +3 to attack and damage to all of them. Not bad for a back up weapon if I'm going to melee primary.
I have enough feats to take skill focus if I want. With the boost to skill focus in pathfinder it is even kind of worth it for something like perception or even stealth (hey, I don't have any armor check penalities, and any dex penalties are way down)
You also may want to look up the editors note on Celestial Full Plate in the SRD, where it says the price The bonus is over mithral, so it can't be additionally mithral and celestial. Celestial is the material.
This is the kind of stuff I wanted to check in your full build. You tend to go off book.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
enchanting it to +5 is only an additional 16,000 and making it mithrill costs another 9,000.
50,000 for armor. if Ash wants to spend the money. let her.
You can't make it mithral, because it is made out of other materials that make it celestial. It would be like saying make my adamantine armor mithral so I can get the extra bonus.
|
|
Read the editors note before anyone says "It's still full plate!"
It's not. It is celestial armor, which is a type of material. Not to mention it is a specific magic item that gives no indication it can be special ordered.
You can't make it mithral, because it is made out of other materials that make it celestial. It would be like saying make my adamantine armor mithral so I can get the extra bonus.enchanting it to +5 is only an additional 16,000 and making it mithrill costs another 9,000.
50,000 for armor. if Ash wants to spend the money. let her.
what is so Celestial about gold and silver?