I guess I'm the kind of Fighter who leads the Giant into a Trap and causes them to fall down tangled in some rope to get in at least one round of fighting in while they are struggling for freedom.
This is a poll to find out how many people still play fighters.Yes: I still play fighters because I love the versatility and the customization of the class. I love being able to go from a two hander powerhouse, to a agile two weapon expert, to a good old sword and board tank.
Without looking at any other replies, sometimes you just want to go out and beat on enemies with edged and blunt objects. It was good enough for my ancestors and it's good enough for me :)
*edit* It's especially appealing after grading stacks of papers...
One of my most played AD&D chars was a fighter.
When we recently did a Ravenloft game (again AD&D) I played a fighter.
In 3.0 I never played a true fighter because the psychic warrior was cooler and had more options.
In PF I played one monk 1/ Fighter 2 who was supposed to go monk 1/ fighter x but stopped playing him when we hit level 5 (that was before the brawling armor enchent came out. With it I would still play him I guess)
I really like the fighter but it is hard to make him really useful out of combat. And even in combat he usually has limited options.
If you specialize in one weapon you can never use the one cool weapon you get from the loot.
And you are prone to being weak if you meet enemies with a DR for your damage type.
And most of the time you can do well vs hard big guys but weak(er) vs hordes.
You can't contribute meaningful vs some enemies like swarms. Because, really, what good does a flask of acid do to high CR swarms?
When casters are confronted with enemies they can't damage (like golems) the can still do some buffing etc.
All in all I like the fighter but I don't play it any more because I like to have options.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...I'm playing my first, and almost certainly my last, fighter.
Fighters are awesome because you get 21 feats and can plan your entire build focus around a fighting style, and be fantastic at it.
Fighters are horrifically boring because once you've chosen those feats (probably on character creation), there's no room to 'grow'. Even my two-hander barbarian is more interesting and more fun to play than my two-hander fighter, because the barbarian's rage powers seem far more interesting and versatile than the limited ladder of combat feats my fighter has to stick with to achieve similar levels of damage. At every level I feel like I'm adjusting my barbarian's rages to match what we're facing, while the fighter just 'follows the straight and true path' of the original feats I chose.
I like characters that grow, develop, and change over time. I find that with a fighter you plan the whole thing out during creation, and rarely (if ever) have a need to adjust on the fly. In other words, I am not Hannibal, and I don't love it when a plan comes together. (And yes, I'm old enough to have watched the original, yet young enough to have enjoyed it.)
I would say that any character, fighter or otherwise, that you plan out in its entirety at character creation, would wind up boring. I've tried it before. I've pre-planned fighters, sorcerers, monks, druids, and one bard (that I ended up never playing) from creation all the way to 20. I end up hating myself because I've now pigeon-holed myself into a very linear and specific progression. What you are describing, is completely self-inflicted and not the fault of the class itself.
That being said, I'm not saying you are doing it wrong or anything like that. Some people prefer to set their progression up in advance. Maybe they like to know what's coming. Maybe they are planning things out based on a theme. Maybe they're just OCD. Doesn't matter, that's the way they play, and there's nothing wrong
You know that fighters can swap out feats right?
Any class can fall victim to this.
I like playing a fighter because of improvised weapon feats:
"See this mug? I'm going to pick it up and BREAK YOUR FACE."
"Skeletons?! I attack him with a CROWBAR!"
I love playing more seriously with rogues and wizards.. but.. come on.. you give me GM credit and I have a crazy fighter who uses EVERYTHING to fight. ^_^
I have a fighter/ranger (primarily fighter) whose weapon of choice is a barstool, who is a blast to play.
Unfortunately, as she's leveling, there being no way to enchant ordinary items as weapons is causing her to use actual weapons now. My GM allowed me to put oil of magic weapon on the stool, but I think even that's a stretch and I am not sure how to find a reasonable way to create a magic stool of bar brawling, for example. Although it would be awesome.
I play fighters because they are strong.
I usually mix in something else though, like ranger or rogue to get a few more skills and to give my PCs a different flavor
I play a fighter to regularly outshine my friends who play other classes... especially my friends who play Paladins and Barbarians.
So you play with them just to prove they don't know how to play the other two classes?
If they did, you'd be the one being outshined unless you're all playing low-level with a biased DM.
And to answer the thread itself, no. I've played Clerics and a Sorcerer so far. Fighters aren't as good as some people think they are.
The whole Pigeon holing is done only if one looks at it from an Optimization standpoint.
And I have a Swashbuckling Fighter who wears Silk Ceremonial Armour and uses Weapon Finesse.
Of course this is made using Rolled Stats.
Sounds like a dead man walking from here. :P
And where does he get that Haste spell from?
Do tell me, I'm really quite curious about that claim.
I'm also fairly sure he couldn't have cast it all by himself.
I play a fighter to regularly outshine my friends who play other classes... especially my friends who play Paladins and Barbarians.So you play with them just to prove they don't know how to play the other two classes?
If they did, you'd be the one being outshined unless you're all playing low-level with a biased DM.
And to answer the thread itself, no. I've played Clerics and a Sorcerer so far. Fighters aren't as good as some people think they are.
They are as good as some say. It is known.
I do not play fighters for one reason and one reason only...skill points.
I strongly prefer characters who have a diverse array of in combat and out of combat skills, for that single reason I never play fighters. I will occasionally dual class them, but never a straight up fighter.
If we went back to rolled stats in our crew I might conisder it again, because I could potentially have the stats to burn to really pump intelligence, but as it stands with point buy its a nonstarter for me.
Until then if I want to play a melee combatant I choose any of the numerous classes who can get in the fight and still have a few skill points to toss around. I might not be the best melee guy in the game..but I cant stand being a one trick pony...I get too bored.
And where does he get that Haste spell from?
Do tell me, I'm really quite curious about that.
I'm fairly sure he couldn't have cast it all by himself.
The fighter does not exist in a vacuum, a common problem with saying this class is better than that class. Fighter may get haste from an ally wizard, or just buy potions of it from his earnings from all the monsters he killed.
A solo fighter has flaws, but they sure can be great to play, as long as your feat choice isn't bland to the player, or become so.
I do not play fighters for one reason and one reason only...skill points.
I strongly prefer characters who have a diverse array of in combat and out of combat skills, for that single reason I never play fighters. I will occasionally dual class them, but never a straight up fighter.
If we went back to rolled stats in our crew I might conisder it again, because I could potentially have the stats to burn to really pump intelligence, but as it stands with point buy its a nonstarter for me.
Until then if I want to play a melee combatant I choose any of the numerous classes who can get in the fight and still have a few skill points to toss around. I might not be the best melee guy in the game..but I cant stand being a one trick pony...I get too bored.
You can take some INT, your physical stats don't have to be at their maximum with your int penalised as a consequence. With the high number of feats, you might start out as a one trick pony, but after a while you probably should have learned some more tricks, and be quite decent to very good (take skill focus) in 2-3 skills with a few around in other areas.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can take some INT, your physical stats don't have to be at their maximum with your int penalised as a consequence. With the high number of feats, you might start out as a one trick pony, but after a while you probably should have learned some more tricks, and be quite decent to very good (take skill focus) in 2-3 skills with a few around in other areas.I do not play fighters for one reason and one reason only...skill points.
I strongly prefer characters who have a diverse array of in combat and out of combat skills, for that single reason I never play fighters. I will occasionally dual class them, but never a straight up fighter.
If we went back to rolled stats in our crew I might conisder it again, because I could potentially have the stats to burn to really pump intelligence, but as it stands with point buy its a nonstarter for me.
Until then if I want to play a melee combatant I choose any of the numerous classes who can get in the fight and still have a few skill points to toss around. I might not be the best melee guy in the game..but I cant stand being a one trick pony...I get too bored.
This. Remember you can also put your favored class points into skill points which can help -- fighters don't need the HP as badly (sure, more HP is nice but with a high hit die and a decent Con you'll be fine).
A human fighter with an Int of 13 -- to qualify for some combat maneuvers -- will have 4 skill points to start with, 5 if he also takes the skill point for his favored class. Build up Craft, Intimidate, Knowledge: Dungeoneering, and Survival (just for example) -- all class skills for the fighter and all extremely useful for the party in and out of combat. Put the optional 5th point in another Craft or Knowledge or whatever. That's not bad at all.
I do still play Fighters, but it's quickly giving way to other things. With the addition of Weaponmaster, Fighter is now a 3-level dip. What Fighters really had going for them was the static hit and damage bonuses that made archery and/or dual-wielding awesome. Of course, these days I can't help but to feel that Ranger X/Weaponmaster 3 has that on lockdown.
This fluff nonsense that everyone mentions confuses me. Fluff is entirely on you. I can build a Samurai with the Barbarian class. Ranger can cover almost anything. Paladin has to adhere to certain things but it definitely doesn't have to be the shining-armor guy with pearly teeth and you have tons of leeway with how you want to roleplay their codes.
It and monk are both great dipping classes though. I mean, Monk 2/Weaponmaster 3/Whatever Else 15 nets you +4 BAB, +6 Fort, +4 Ref, +4 Will, 5 bonus feats, and you get a ton of weapon and armor proficiencies to boot.
EDIT: The last strait-fighter I played that was exceptionally memorable was during the Pathfinder beta. It was an elven desert nomad who dual-wielded kusari-gama from the 3.5 DMG (they're basically 1d6 light slashing weapons with disarm, trip, reach, and attack adjacent, like tiny spiked chains) who was searching for her half-elven daughter after her human lover took off with her after an argument over how she would be raised. Her motivations for adventuring were to acquire the means to find her daughter. Had fun with her but it was difficult filling out the concept for her people with a fighter, and if I had to do it again she would definitely be a ranger instead. In this case I enjoyed her flavor more than her class mechanics (which worked against her flavor I later realized, but I chose Fighter because she was supposed to be a warrior amongst her kind who specialized in their favored weapon, and I was playtesting Beta).
The last Fighter I actually built was a goblin archer using a 3.5 feat to acquire an animal companion, so I gave him a riding bat (a giant bat animal companion) and had this kind of tiny fantasy-mongol thing going on where his bat flew around and he shot arrows at things with his composite bow. Didn't play him for very long but it was an amusing thought, but not Pathfinder legal by any means. As for what made this character stand out is he was a generic archery fighter ('cause they're quite good at archery) that got to move around in 3 dimensions while full-attacking (which can be quite potent), though the same thing can be done at high levels with phantom steed. Even here, I felt like I was missing too much stuff though. Hit and damage was fine, but I felt pretty naked, and about all there was to do was just shoot stuff.
I'm not really fond of having a PC that encourages the "okay, let's get to the fighting" mentality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe the thread title should be changed to "Do you play a full Fighter?" because I doubt a dip really counts.
Also, why is the word "still" on the thread title? I've never played one and aside from a 3-level dip I probably never will.
You can take some INT, your physical stats don't have to be at their maximum with your int penalised as a consequence. With the high number of feats, you might start out as a one trick pony, but after a while you probably should have learned some more tricks, and be quite decent to very good (take skill focus) in 2-3 skills with a few around in other areas.I do not play fighters for one reason and one reason only...skill points.
I strongly prefer characters who have a diverse array of in combat and out of combat skills, for that single reason I never play fighters. I will occasionally dual class them, but never a straight up fighter.
If we went back to rolled stats in our crew I might conisder it again, because I could potentially have the stats to burn to really pump intelligence, but as it stands with point buy its a nonstarter for me.
Until then if I want to play a melee combatant I choose any of the numerous classes who can get in the fight and still have a few skill points to toss around. I might not be the best melee guy in the game..but I cant stand being a one trick pony...I get too bored.
This. Remember you can also put your favored class points into skill points which can help -- fighters don't need the HP as badly (sure, more HP is nice but with a high hit die and a decent Con you'll be fine).
A human fighter with an Int of 13 -- to qualify for some combat maneuvers -- will have 4 skill points to start with, 5 if he also takes the skill point for his favored class. Build up Craft, Intimidate, Knowledge: Dungeoneering, and Survival (just for example) -- all class skills for the fighter and all extremely useful for the party in and out of combat. Put the optional 5th point in another Craft or Knowledge or whatever. That's not bad at all.
Yep! They have feats to spare, so toughness can deal with hp problems (especially in PF). I have even seen a fighter make do with a bad con to be strong elsewhere. Char is still alive and killing week to week.
Build up Craft, Intimidate, Knowledge: Dungeoneering, and Survival (just for example) -- all class skills for the fighter and all extremely useful for the party in and out of combat. Put the optional 5th point in another Craft or Knowledge or whatever. That's not bad at all.
Without house rules or spellcasting granting access to fabricate, Craft is not particularly useful to a party. With fabricate however it's quite awesome.
|
I do occasionally play fighters but only because we have a house rule that says you can add an archetype without it changing any features of the original class; a second archetype that affect that ability replaces it. So you can have two archetypes on a fighter that would normally clash. Gives a little more versatility and makes them more interesting.
Because otherwise I find them to be the absolute most boring class in the game.
-edit- that houserule only applies to fighters not any other class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Build up Craft, Intimidate, Knowledge: Dungeoneering, and Survival (just for example) -- all class skills for the fighter and all extremely useful for the party in and out of combat. Put the optional 5th point in another Craft or Knowledge or whatever. That's not bad at all.Without house rules or spellcasting granting access to fabricate, Craft is not particularly useful to a party. With fabricate however it's quite awesome.
And thus I can once again proudly speak of the superiority of wizards.
My last 3.5 character was a single-class fighter (technically an aristocrat 1/fighter x, as all players needed to start out as an NPC class at Level 1 for that campaign...)
Baron Drax von Stryker was one of my favorite PCs, ever, in 30+ years of tabletop gaming.
Basically, I always come up with a character concept first, then build the mechanics around the concept. This usually results in, from a power-gamer viewpoint, a non-optimal build.
This isn't a concern at all for me, as I play tabletop games for the role-playing aspect, not the number-crunching. (If I ever hear a fellow player refer to "damage per round" I roll my eyes and sigh audibly...) I'm much more interested in developing the PC's personality than stats, although I certainly still try to build as effective a character as I can given the roleplaying constraints.
That said, regardless of the class I play, I tend to build for general usefulness rather than around a small number of extremely powerful tricks.
I like fighters for their general versatility and for the fact that their "powers" don't have a use limit. Spellcasters use up their spells, paladins use up their smite, and barbarians use up their rage over the course of a long adventuring day, but a fighter can fight at full effectiveness until she runs out of hit points!
I have a fighter/ranger (primarily fighter) whose weapon of choice is a barstool, who is a blast to play.
Unfortunately, as she's leveling, there being no way to enchant ordinary items as weapons is causing her to use actual weapons now. My GM allowed me to put oil of magic weapon on the stool, but I think even that's a stretch and I am not sure how to find a reasonable way to create a magic stool of bar brawling, for example. Although it would be awesome.
That sounds like a blast to play! Does she carry a barstool around with her?
If this situation came up in my campaign, I would say that typical barstool for medium-sized humanoids would be a two-handed improvised weapon that did 1d8 bludgeoning damage. A character would need the Catch Off Guard feat to use it as a weapon without the -4 non-proficiency penalty for using an improvised weapon.
While you would certainly never find one as loot in a dungeon, I don't see anything in my read of the rules that would disallow enchanting an improvised weapon as a magic weapon. I would certainly allow a character with the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat and Craft (woodworking) skill to construct a barstool designed for smacking people over the head. (It might take a little convincing to get a hired craftsman to build it for you...) I would rule that a Masterwork "fighting barstool" would cost about 325 gp, and could be enchanted as a weapon by the normal magic weapon creation rules.
I love fighters as a class, I'm just disappointed in the 3.x/PF incarnation of them.
It feels like the essence of the fighting man has been reduced to big guy in armor doing lots of hit point damage in melee (or ranged). Feats can be nice but there are just too many inherent weaknesses in the class as written that just makes using them for a long time an exercise in frustration.
The archetypes help especially the mobile fighter (because pounce-like abilities are often critical at higher levels) but I fundamentally feel that the design choice to make the fighter and the rogue at two ends of a continuum of combat effectiveness to out of combat utility resulted in both classes being weaker than they should be. However I also realize that backwards compatibility was a key design goal for PF and some of the more systemic problems with the classes weren't possible to fix given those restrictions.
Basically, I always come up with a character concept first, then build the mechanics around the concept. This usually results in, from a power-gamer viewpoint, a non-optimal build.
Humorously this is the path a lot of we optimizers take as well. Sometimes we switch it up. Sometimes we develop both side by side. Part of optimizing is knowing how to get the other food groups along with getting your candy.
This isn't a concern at all for me, as I play tabletop games for the role-playing aspect, not the number-crunching. (If I ever hear a fellow player refer to "damage per round" I roll my eyes and sigh audibly...)
This is not knocking your playstyle: Have you ever decided to drop the game-play portion with the mechanics and just do free-form roleplay? There are groups IRL that do so (like some LARPers, though most LARPs have rules too I think), message board forums, etc. If you are off put by other people enjoying the whole of the game and not just one facet of it, perhaps you would be happier finding one that is more firmly grounded in that particular aspect you enjoy; rather than rolling your eyes at people who enjoy other parts of the game.
I'm much more interested in developing the PC's personality than stats, although I certainly still try to build as effective a character as I can given the roleplaying situation.
Another Optimizer declares himself. Frabjous day. :3
That said, regardless of the class I play, I tend to build for general usefulness rather than around a small number of extremely powerful tricks.
As do I, my friend. It's one of the reasons I'm not a fighter fan. General usefulness > narrow overspecialization.
I like fighters for their general versatility and for the fact that their "powers" don't have a use limit. Spellcasters use up their spells, paladins use up their smite, and barbarians use up their rage over the course of a long adventuring day, but a fighter can fight until she runs out of hit points!
Well, technically so can all those other classes, but those classes that ensure we have hit points to continue on need to stop and rest, so we're anchored to resting occasionally by virtue of not leaving others behind. Unless the campaign is specifically crafted to encourage such things, a martial is not going to fair well if they continue on without the aid of their party. HP are a resource, and so are things like ability scores (ability damage / drain) and levels (energy drain from things like wights, vampires, or enervation).
With a stockpile of cure light wounds wands, wands of lesser restoration and perhaps restoration then we could keep a Fighter going on possibly forever. It's just not reasonable. :(
I enjoy fighters. Several of my PF characters have been fighters, or had substantial fighter levels.
Unfortunately being bad at being a ginsumatic fighter generally means that CR appropriate foes are going to burn through more of your daily resources than they otherwise would.
Less DPR means the monster stay up longer which means it does more HP or other forms of damage which means that the party is at greater risk or needs to burn more resources.
This is often in the form of more consumable usage (Wands of CLW, lesser restorations, etc) or more spell use meant to keep the fighter in optimal shape (hastes, spell healing, other buffs).
This tends to actually heighten the problem with the 15 minute adventuring day because the fighter simply can't sustain himself for 4 fights a day without substantial support from other characters.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And where does he get that Haste spell from?
Do tell me, I'm really quite curious about that claim.
I'm also fairly sure he couldn't have cast it all by himself.
Probably from the wizard who's ass would have been rotting in a grave long ago if it wasn't for the fighter.
This is not knocking your playstyle: Have you ever decided to drop the game-play portion with the mechanics and just do free-form roleplay? There are groups IRL that do so (like some LARPers, though most LARPs have rules too I think), message board forums, etc. If you are off put by other people enjoying the whole of the game and not just one facet of it, perhaps you would be happier finding one that is more firmly grounded in that particular aspect you enjoy; rather than rolling your eyes at people who enjoy other parts of the game.
I've done some LARPing in the past, and it was fun. Yes, there are rules regarding what you can and can't do in a LARP (and there are numerous systems). I haven't done a LARP in more than a decade, though, because they seem to attract mostly high school and college-ages gamers (specially the "emo" types). 15 years ago, I pretty much stopped LARPing because I was afraid of being viewed as the creepy old guy hanging out with teenagers. That's even more of an issue now that I'm the parent of a teenager...
I like 3.5/PF for the tactical combat and that the ruleset gives players a good definition of what your character can and can't reasonably do. I do play other game systems where the rules are much more free-form (e.g. Amber Diceless Role-Playing) and those systems scratch a very different itch.
I am fortunate that I'm playing with a bunch of folks who've gamed together for more than a decade, and we're all pretty much on the same page regarding the "power gamer / roleplayer" continuum-- somewhere in the middle, actually.
No, I'm not going to play a fighter whose feats are "Skill Focus: Perform (pipe organ), Magical Aptitude, and Weapon Focus: Pocketkniife." [Although, that might be an interesting role-playing challenge...] But, I have played a [3.5] fighter whose second-highest stat was Intelligence, had a magic item creation feat (it was functionally similar to PF's "Master Craftsman"), had the Improved Feint feat (to symbolize his backstory as a former competetive fencer), and had maxed out the skills Knowledge (nobility), Diplomacy, and Perform (oratory). He was still a major bada$$ in a fight.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
This is a poll to find out how many people still play fighters.
Yes: I still play fighters because I love the versatility and the customization of the class. I love being able to go from a two hander powerhouse, to a agile two weapon expert, to a good old sword and board tank.
Yes. Feats.
PS: Notice how this response was incredibly short? That's because anyone that thinks Fighters are "inferior" is insane. Feats are the bread and butter of a well-made character.
And where does he get that Haste spell from?
Do tell me, I'm really quite curious about that claim.
I'm also fairly sure he couldn't have cast it all by himself.
He could also have UMD, since cross-class skills are much more viable since PFRPG, and use scrolls or wands to buff himself.
It's on my to-do list.
Haste from a wand is pretty pricey and means that the fighter is burning an standard action self-buffing. Granted at standard burn rate a wand is probably going to last you 3 levels of advancement but that's a pretty significant investment for one of the most gear dependent classes in the game.
I always thought a potion of haste would be more convenient. No rolls necessary.
Potions of Haste are 750 a pop, fine as a possible backup but as a routine usage of a consumable that's really really pricey.
You can take some INT, your physical stats don't have to be at their maximum with your int penalised as a consequence. With the high number of feats, you might start out as a one trick pony, but after a while you probably should have learned some more tricks, and be quite decent to very good (take skill focus) in 2-3 skills with a few around in other areas.I do not play fighters for one reason and one reason only...skill points.
I strongly prefer characters who have a diverse array of in combat and out of combat skills, for that single reason I never play fighters. I will occasionally dual class them, but never a straight up fighter.
If we went back to rolled stats in our crew I might conisder it again, because I could potentially have the stats to burn to really pump intelligence, but as it stands with point buy its a nonstarter for me.
Until then if I want to play a melee combatant I choose any of the numerous classes who can get in the fight and still have a few skill points to toss around. I might not be the best melee guy in the game..but I cant stand being a one trick pony...I get too bored.
This. Remember you can also put your favored class points into skill points which can help -- fighters don't need the HP as badly (sure, more HP is nice but with a high hit die and a decent Con you'll be fine).
A human fighter with an Int of 13 -- to qualify for some combat maneuvers -- will have 4 skill points to start with, 5 if he also takes the skill point for his favored class. Build up Craft, Intimidate, Knowledge: Dungeoneering, and Survival (just for example) -- all class skills for the fighter and all extremely useful for the party in and out of combat. Put the optional 5th point in another Craft or Knowledge or whatever. That's not bad at all.
Or I could just be a Ranger...seriously guys, dont assume because someone expresses an opinion that they are an idiot. I am aware how builds work. Its just my feeling that with their skimpy class skill list, few skill points and the general push towards point buy that the class is not ideal for my tastes. The thread solicited opinions...no need to pile on with ways you can round off the square peg to convince me I am doing it wrong.
|
|
My very first RPG PC, made from the first edition D&D red box, was a fighter. I haven't played one since, but I also stopped playing for about 20 years in between. I'm currently making a fighter (Lore Warden, focused on knowledge skills, and reach weapon tripping/damage in combat) as my 10th Pathfinder Society PC.
Build up Craft, Intimidate, Knowledge: Dungeoneering, and Survival (just for example) -- all class skills for the fighter and all extremely useful for the party in and out of combat. Put the optional 5th point in another Craft or Knowledge or whatever. That's not bad at all.Without house rules or spellcasting granting access to fabricate, Craft is not particularly useful to a party. With fabricate however it's quite awesome.
First of all, please take note of the words "just for example." I was not suggesting those were the only skills you should ever put points into. By all means train whatever skills you feel suits your build best.
Secondly, regarding the usefulness of Craft, that is not my personal experience in the many years I have played, especially in low level campaigns (bearing in mind many campaigns start at 1st and some stay at low levels for awhile).And I've still seen Craft come into play at high levels as well. Whether it's to jury rig a trap, fix a sundered weapon (the spells that can do such are not always available or prepared in lieu of something more important), repair or create something with artistry (not something a spell can duplicate in our gaming group), craft a container or cage for an unexpected prize found, smelting mithral ore so you can make that breastplate, or to find a way to transport a horse across a chasm with an anti magic field, amongst probably even better examples I am forgetting, it is never a skill I have regretted training for the character concepts for whom it was appropriate. IMO Craft is entirely a skill that depends upon the creativity of the players who use it.
In fairness, it may also depend upon how a GM presents challenges and what the GM also asks skills to be used for... for example, in my group, a blacksmith may substitute his Craft skill for Appraise when examining an item made of iron (although what you learn may be slightly different -- Appraise will give you the direct value, Craft might allow you to recognize a certain pattern of design or tell you other aspects of quality from an artisan's point of view). But just for making stuff it's certainly come in handy.
And sure, access to fabricate makes the skill all the more awesome. But then, it's quite easy enough for a caster with that spell and any other character who's trained Craft to work together on a project, so all the more reason to train it then!
I think I would chalk this up to both a matter of personal opinion as well as a difference in play styles--and campaign styles, for that matter.
I have a fighter/ranger (primarily fighter) whose weapon of choice is a barstool, who is a blast to play.
Unfortunately, as she's leveling, there being no way to enchant ordinary items as weapons is causing her to use actual weapons now. My GM allowed me to put oil of magic weapon on the stool, but I think even that's a stretch and I am not sure how to find a reasonable way to create a magic stool of bar brawling, for example. Although it would be awesome.
That sounds like a blast to play! Does she carry a barstool around with her?
If this situation came up in my campaign, I would say that typical barstool for medium-sized humanoids would be a two-handed improvised weapon that did 1d8 bludgeoning damage. A character would need the Catch Off Guard feat to use it as a weapon without the -4 non-proficiency penalty for using an improvised weapon.
She does carry it around with her--not all bars have stools sized for dwarves, so she comes prepared. In fact, we played through Masks of the Living God, and there was a scene where the priests of Razimir got the party's belongings away from them. She has NEVER forgiven them for touching, let alone taking, her bar stool away from her, and now having gotten it back, she has sworn that every Razimiran priest she finds will get thwacked with it or some other choice implement and HARD.
Since she's a dwarf we assume it's smaller (but sturdy), so she uses it one-handed (as an improvised club). She has Caught Off Guard and I will probably grab Improvised Weapon Mastery when I hit 6th level.
While you would certainly never find one as loot in a dungeon, I don't see anything in my read of the rules that would disallow enchanting an improvised weapon as a magic weapon. I would certainly allow a character with the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat and Craft (woodworking) skill to construct a barstool designed for smacking people over the head. (It might take a little convincing to get a hired craftsman to build it for you...) I would rule that a Masterwork "fighting barstool" would cost about 325 gp, and could be enchanted as a weapon by the normal magic weapon creation rules.
Well, I'll chat with my GM about it. I have half-jokingly mentioned her going on a quest for the ultimate bar stool, but that could actually be a real goal for her. Maybe she can find some darkwood to craft one with (but the old one's seat is so comfortable... and it has all the notches in it for every one she's ever knocked out with it).
I’ve only played one fighter thus far in PF, though I’ve created dozens as a PF GM. The “fighter role” tends to be taken rather quickly in most of the groups I play with.
I will likely try another in the future as I like Lawful Evil & Lawful Neutral martial types and that negates Paladins & Barbarians quite handily, barring Ye Olde House Rules.
For combat & encounter focused “rail road”-y sessions & play styles, fighters come across as very strong class choices, though strangely somewhat MAD with the STR, DEX, & INT requirements that many of the “base line” Combat Feats require. I will admit some of the archetypes do address some of these weaknesses, but not to the point I would like.
They actually suffer more in a more “sand box”-y environment where other PCs with a greater variety of out of combat options can quickly make them seem redundant, especially at higher levels and over extended time periods where PCs are not actively on adventure (ie "down time").
Like many, I would prefer they were a little more robust in non-combat situations as they suffer from a more minor version of the issue that the Rogue does in that “others do their role almost as well or better than they do”, while they perform effectively a very narrow role. I look forward to Ultimate Campaign for this reason in the hope that it introduces some expanded options for high level fighters.
-TimD
I'd rather play a fighter than I would any of the other combat classes (especially barbarian which I find hugely boring). Under 3.X D&D I'd only play a fighter up to about 10th because then you had all your feats. Pathfinder has made them worthwhile for a full 20 levels and fore more enjoyable to play.
|
|
You know that fighters can swap out feats right?
Any class can fall victim to this.
I have never had this problem on a wizard(where I can swap out all my spells in a day). I honestly don't see how a wizard could fall victim to this. Maybe if he tried to go strength wizard then wanted to cast?
Same with a Cleric, or Paladin. Many classes can switch out abilities pretty quickly.
Bulls and bulldozers my friend.