Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Poll: Do you still play a Fighter? Whatever your answer is tell us why.


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

151 to 200 of 215 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Elbe-el wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Elbe-el wrote:

As a DM who has been often tasked with bringing new players into the fold, I love the Fighter class. No class is simpler, easier to play, and bereft of complications as the Fighter. Even Paizo has managed to keep the Fighter the all-around best class for novice players.

Once they get a feel for the game and its rules, most of the new players graduate to Rangers or Druids...but I get a few who prefer to go Paladin.

My really advanced players? The super-smart ones who catch on to the rules quickly and show a real aptitude for the game? They go on to play spell-casters, or, if they are "scary and dangerous" smart, they play Monks (and in doing so, generally make a mockery of the most dangerous encounters I can concoct...is the Monk class ever going to be brought under control?)

playing a fighter who swings a weapon and does nothing else while others help me with the math is easy.

but i have seen people who get confused on the math of their fighters. and they are no less complicated than a rogue, barbarian, or ranger. in fact, they have the same complication on the grounds that they are choosing talents, and have to master the situations for which those talents apply.

I'm not exactly sure what you were attempting to illustrate with that post, but if I'm reading it properly, you seem to be saying that you have problems with stupid players. Not exactly sure what that says about the Fighter class itself, though...

close enough. i am saying that choosing feats for a fighter is no different from choosing rage powers for a barbarian or rogue talents for a rogue. and all 3 have a similar amount of circumstantial boni.

yes, it is very easy to play a fighter who hits things, but at the same time, it is easy to play a ranger or barbarian who hits things too.

in fact, i would say the best beginner class is a bard, because you can feel around the different roles and determine which one you prefer.


Bard or Magus are very good starter classes for those who have experience with RPGs of any kind including VRPGs like Skyrim and Final Fantasy.

For those entirely new to the concept though... I find a Fighter the best way to ease them in. They can focus on learning the basics of Leveling Up and fighting in Combat. While learning the basics of Spells by watching their allies and receiving spells.

Heck, I am a Veteran Player with around 70+ campaigns under my belt. I still avoid playing Prepared Casters as much as possible simply because of the massive amount of Book Keeping necessary for them. I mean when I end up with 20 pages of Notes in 10pt font with half-inch margins just for my Alchemist's Formulae Book... Something is wrong.

Sadly I can build Monks easily if I know the GM and the way they run encounters.

Who needs magic weapons just give me my Belts and such.


Laiho Vanallo wrote:

I love playing plain fighter, it's like driving one of those bad ass muscle cars from the 70s.

We currently play a low-magic campaign and I just love being the guy that can take any/most threats to the face with my 25 AC.

I walk around in full-plate, with this big winter cloak hiding most of my armor and gear (no helmet). After this hard day of adventuring were the wizard is out of big spells, the cleric is out of juice too and the rogue is badly wounded, out of the blues this bandit stand menacingly in the middle of the road asking for our hard earned gold. He says: "hey I have friends up there (point up at the nearby hill) and they will shoot you if you do not comply!"

I decide to play along (actually took a few ranks in bluff): "Please good sir! Let us go through without harm! I have all the money you want right here! Let me bring it to you! (I dismount my mule and start walking toward the bandit).

Once I am about 10 feet away from the poor bastard I stop dead in my track, remove my cloak and charge at him with my falshion (Critical hit!), Slice the guy in two, get shoot by the archers uphill (everything bounce off my armor). Next round I walk uphill throw my falshion to the first archer I see (throw anything FTW), he drops on the ground bleeding. Then the other archer tries in vain to shoot me again. I charge at him once I reach the top of the hill and grapple him, then I pummel his face while he as no way to retaliate (Full plate armor come equipped with those "handy" gauntlets!)

4 Round later (24 second for our characters) all my poor battered companions see is my character, walking down the hill with two bodies on my shoulders while whistling.

You cannot get that feeling of satisfaction with a wizard.

Great feat choices and a fine story. :D

Going fighter, along with plenty of other melee classes, can really allow you to really get stuck in and have so much fun. Fun is what it is about after all.

Throw anything sure is superb. The only way that could have been cooler, is if your fighter had deflect arrows, so one of those was harmless per round regardless of what they rolled!


Azaelas Fayth wrote:

Bard or Magus are very good starter classes for those who have experience with RPGs of any kind including VRPGs like Skyrim and Final Fantasy.

For those entirely new to the concept though... I find a Fighter the best way to ease them in. They can focus on learning the basics of Leveling Up and fighting in Combat. While learning the basics of Spells by watching their allies and receiving spells.

Heck, I am a Veteran Player with around 70+ campaigns under my belt. I still avoid playing Prepared Casters as much as possible simply because of the massive amount of Book Keeping necessary for them. I mean when I end up with 20 pages of Notes in 10pt font with half-inch margins just for my Alchemist's Formulae Book... Something is wrong.

Sadly I can build Monks easily if I know the GM and the way they run encounters.

Who needs magic weapons just give me my Belts and such.

Bard, Inquisitor, and Magus are good starter classes for complete newbies too because they allow the concept of feeling around for a preferred role.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Those are great classes (except for the Bard...the Bard is a stupid class and a stupid hold-over from the Gygax days that should have been dropped ages ago...), but they are all very much more complicated than a Fighter to play.

That doesn't detract from how awesome they are (except for the Bard, which still completely sucks and is stupid as a PC class), but it DOES make them more difficult to play for a novice than a Fighter (who has a plethora of options, true, but NOT a plethora of new or different mechanics).


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Bard, Inquisitor, and Magus are good starter classes for complete newbies too because they allow the concept of feeling around for a preferred role.

Inquisitor is the one I was forgetting!

Honestly Though I have tried using those to introduce people completely new to the very concept of a Role-Playing Game. It didn't really work. Heck, if I hadn't convince one of the ones to try a Fighter after her Magus got ganked then she never would have continued trying to play.

Another thing that is good about Fighters, and by a lesser factor any Martial character, is their ease of starting creation. I can build a Martial in around 30-45 minutes using Point-Buy or 15-20 if using Rolled stats. A Fighter I can usually build a bit faster. If I have really went over the archetype.

@Elbe-El: Why do you hate the Bard?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
I love fighters, because I see them as a challenge--a challenge to make them interesting, flavorful, and fun--something more than a vanilla killer of things.

I've just finished my latest "something more than a vanilla killer of things" type of fighter. Hopefully it will serve to show the crazy variety one can get with fighters.

Taur Thelyn (13th-level human forest warden)

He is a master of several combat maneuvers, has an impressive array of skills, makes for an excellent scout and sneak thief, can create HUGE swaths of overgrowth so thick everyone except him has their movement speed reduced to 5 feet (at will no less), and has a number of useful spell-like and item abilities.

His attacks, damage, and AC are lower than I'd like, however, putting him into the role of support fighter. Anyone have any advice for improving upon them?
If so, please post it here.


Elbe-el wrote:

Those are great classes (except for the Bard...the Bard is a stupid class and a stupid hold-over from the Gygax days that should have been dropped ages ago...), but they are all very much more complicated than a Fighter to play.

That doesn't detract from how awesome they are (except for the Bard, which still completely sucks and is stupid as a PC class), but it DOES make them more difficult to play for a novice than a Fighter (who has a plethora of options, true, but NOT a plethora of new or different mechanics).

I call bull excrement on that one. As a Fighter, you need to know what feats to pick unless you want to be dead weight in the group.

Also, you're vastly undervaluing the Bard. I assume it's because you saw someone incompetent play one and think they're all pathetic.


The problem a lot of newer players have with those classes is the variety of abilities and having to remember what does what. It can get confusing even with Dyslexic Studios excellent sheets.


I play fighters because for many character concepts I have, that is the class that fits best. For the "grizzled mercenary" or "street thug" or whatever, I find that most "dirty" warrior jobs fits best as fighter. Sometimes ranger or barbarian works if you're not into using armor, but many times fighters or multiclass fighters seem to fit best.

Currently playing a fighter 5 in a game, the "grizzled old grumpy mercenary" type. Might dip into ranger for skills but so far it's working out quite fine.

If your group is hyperoptimized and going up against enemies higher than the suggested CRs, you need to optimize a fighter a lot and picking the wrong feats means your dead weight. If running a standard AP or something of similar difficulty, you don't need to do that. Heck, I haven't even got weapon focus and I still pull my weight.


"Oh, no, the Orcish horde serving the Evil Necromancer has attacked this peaceful village one week before the Yearly Final Battle Between Good and Evil! Whatever shall we do? The Adventuring Party staying at the Inn of The Welcome Wench will save us! Adventurers!"

Fighter: "I draw my sword, ready my shield, and await the Horde!"

Wizard/Sorcerer/Witch: "I ready my spells, and get my familiar to a safe place."

Cleric/Druid: "I gather my wits and weapons, prepare my spells and stand ready to heal".

Rogue: "I blacken my blades and prepare an ambush position, while making sure my wands and scrolls are ready for us (I hope...)"

Bard: "I get out my lute...and play a jaunty tune while there is battle and slaughter going on all around me. I might do some other stuff, but only if it relies on me playing a jaunty tune on my lute while battle and slaughter are going on all around me...because no Orc, Goblin, Gnoll or Dragon would EVER charge and fully attack a guy wielding a LUTE in the middle of a brutal war..."

"Bard" should ALWAYS have been an NPC class, period.


No, seriously, bards in PF is totally awesome. They're generally better in melee than monks & rogues, got more skills than ranger, and are the best buffers in the game, period.

In a small party, bards are good. In a large party, bards are completely frakkin' awesome.

And why would you carry a lute? You can just sing out a warsong, or recite chapters of the Art of War while driving your sword through the hearts and words through the minds of the enemy.

They work well for so many concepts. Perform is a really wide skill with loose descriptions. I've seen four bards the last half-year in our games, including:
- The above mentioned Art of War-reciting general.
- A "sword-dancer" Sandman bard
- A goblin songleader (goblins in PF like to sing, you know)
- The best frakkin spy I've ever seen in a party.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Cards, Companion, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Elbe-el wrote:

Bard: "I get out my lute...and play a jaunty tune while there is battle and slaughter going on all around me. I might do some other stuff, but only if it relies on me playing a jaunty tune on my lute while battle and slaughter are going on all around me...because no Orc, Goblin, Gnoll or Dragon would EVER charge and fully attack a guy wielding a LUTE in the middle of a brutal war..."

"Bard" should ALWAYS have been an NPC class, period.

If you had players that missed an insane amount of times, you'd probably value one of the best buffers in the game a bit more. They can also debuff quite well.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

In line with the original question. I love my Fighter, and as GM I admire the versatility of the class. I've gone from nearly losing the group wizard, to saving the day so many times. It may just be the people I was playing with, but a Fighter got a lot of respect from my teamates too. And with the inclusion of Tactitian my Int fighting will eventually climb the ranks to where my old fighter left off.


You watched a Bard do better in melee than a Monk? Bad monk player, then. Buffs? Let me have the Druid for that, thank you, I won't have to put up with any stupid art shows while I'm killing bad guys (something else that the Druid can actually help with while the Bard does...whatever.)

...and if my players miss THAT much, I advise them to try rolling new dice. It speeds up play by not weighing the party down with a stupid class.

In the MMO setting that organized play has created, I'm sure that Bards are great. I'm sure new panda stuff would be great, too, just as soon as Paizo gets around to it. In the meantime, though, I'm interested in role-playing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Elbe, have you ever checked the various Monk threads that have been floating around here? Judging from your lack of knowledge on how bad Monk is compared to the Bard, you haven't. Also, I've never really seen a Druid do buffs since he could be out there controlling the battlefield or chopping some heads while in Wildshape, so it's usually the Cleric or the Wizard (or the Bard) being busy giving the melee guys a hand with buffs. And yeah, I'm willing to assume it's no use arguing this point since all I see in your posts is hate towards the Bard itself with no actual rational points to bring up to support your claims.


Icyshadow wrote:
Elbe-el wrote:

Those are great classes (except for the Bard...the Bard is a stupid class and a stupid hold-over from the Gygax days that should have been dropped ages ago...), but they are all very much more complicated than a Fighter to play.

That doesn't detract from how awesome they are (except for the Bard, which still completely sucks and is stupid as a PC class), but it DOES make them more difficult to play for a novice than a Fighter (who has a plethora of options, true, but NOT a plethora of new or different mechanics).

I call bull excrement on that one. As a Fighter, you need to know what feats to pick unless you want to be dead weight in the group.

Also, you're vastly undervaluing the Bard. I assume it's because you saw someone incompetent play one and think they're all pathetic.

If you go 2 handed weapon, the only feats you actually need is power attack and the weapon specialization/focus line. Then you hit things every round.


Elbe-el wrote:

"Oh, no, the Orcish horde serving the Evil Necromancer has attacked this peaceful village one week before the Yearly Final Battle Between Good and Evil! Whatever shall we do? The Adventuring Party staying at the Inn of The Welcome Wench will save us! Adventurers!"

Fighter: "I draw my sword, ready my shield, and await the Horde!"

Wizard/Sorcerer/Witch: "I ready my spells, and get my familiar to a safe place."

Cleric/Druid: "I gather my wits and weapons, prepare my spells and stand ready to heal".

Rogue: "I blacken my blades and prepare an ambush position, while making sure my wands and scrolls are ready for us (I hope...)"

Bard: "I get out my lute...and play a jaunty tune while there is battle and slaughter going on all around me. I might do some other stuff, but only if it relies on me playing a jaunty tune on my lute while battle and slaughter are going on all around me...because no Orc, Goblin, Gnoll or Dragon would EVER charge and fully attack a guy wielding a LUTE in the middle of a brutal war..."

"Bard" should ALWAYS have been an NPC class, period.

Bards are amazing for damage. The bonus on attack rolls is very powerful. A bard will increase damage done by his allies by about 30 percent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elbe-el wrote:

You watched a Bard do better in melee than a Monk? Bad monk player, then. Buffs? Let me have the Druid for that, thank you, I won't have to put up with any stupid art shows while I'm killing bad guys (something else that the Druid can actually help with while the Bard does...whatever.)

...and if my players miss THAT much, I advise them to try rolling new dice. It speeds up play by not weighing the party down with a stupid class.

In the MMO setting that organized play has created, I'm sure that Bards are great. I'm sure new panda stuff would be great, too, just as soon as Paizo gets around to it. In the meantime, though, I'm interested in role-playing.

Bard OT:

Yes, bards fare MUCH better in melee than monks. There's numerous threads on this so I won't go into more detail on that. Druids can be decent buffers, but nowhere near bards. From 7th level onwards they can open up combat with a first turn Inspire Courage + Haste, to give the whole party +3 to hit, +2 to damage, +1 AC, +30ft movement and an extra attack. That can _double_ many melee characters damage output. No other class comes near that in terms of sheer effectiveness. And at the same level he will have 10+Int maxed skills (excluding bonuses from being human etc) from a really good class list.

It sounds more like you don't like the flavor of the stereotypical bard and because you don't want to accept any other flavor and because of that prefer to call it "mmo"ish despite bards being around for several decades and just gotten more and more awesome over the years.


Elbe-el wrote:

You watched a Bard do better in melee than a Monk? Bad monk player, then. Buffs? Let me have the Druid for that, thank you, I won't have to put up with any stupid art shows while I'm killing bad guys (something else that the Druid can actually help with while the Bard does...whatever.)

...and if my players miss THAT much, I advise them to try rolling new dice. It speeds up play by not weighing the party down with a stupid class.

In the MMO setting that organized play has created, I'm sure that Bards are great. I'm sure new panda stuff would be great, too, just as soon as Paizo gets around to it. In the meantime, though, I'm interested in role-playing.

Monks, unless built around the act, will nearly always miss due to a combination of their reduced base attack bonus, multiple attribute dependency, and difficulty affording enhancement bonuses.

because of this, a bard, does better in melee combat (and ranged too) than a monk. there is nothing stopping the bard from performing and full attacking in the same turn.

a strength based melee bard, for example. is proficient with the longspear, cestus, longsword, gladius, light armor, and shields. so with the longspear and cestus, they can do a combat reflexes build, with a buckler and either a longsword or gladius, accompanying thier light armor, their defense improves, and a mithril shirt provides more AC than a monk's wisdom bonus, and can also get flat cost armor properties too.

and bards are better at stacking static bonuses than monks. a 1st level bard with a gladius, buckler, and chain shirt with a 14 Dexterity has a base AC of 17. a 1st level a monk needs a 16 in both Dexterity and Wisdom to achieve the same AC the bard gets without the buckler. and such a defensive monk is a feat behind the strong bard to get a similar attack bonus with less static bonuses per hit, and no ability to enhance themselves without archetypes. leaving the strength based bard a feat ahead, and they only need a 16 charisma to get 6th level spells by level 16. since bards don't care about DCs. meaning they can allocate more resources to physical stats.


I detest the Bard not for mechanical reasons...mechanically, the Bard unbalanced against other classes and very close to overpowered and broken.

My problem with the Bard is not with its effectiveness as far as the rules are concerned, but with the Bard's merits in an artistic sense...a ROLE-PLAYING sense. Simply stated, the Bard as a PC class makes no sense at all...even in a fantasy setting.

If this were World of Warcraft, where actual role-playing isn't a factor, then I'd never play anything BUT Bards (Paizo's writers tried too hard, I think, to make it a viable class). If game mechanics are all we're worried about, then it doesn't make any sense for anyone, anywhere, ever, at all, to play anything BUT a Bard (they can heal, buff, fight, do anything a rogue can do, and blast...why ARE there other classes?).

...but that isn't what I do. And it isn't what I want done to my art, science, and first love (is it REALLY just a hobby for you? Really?)

Simply stated, we're supposed to be better than that...more imaginative than simple DPR calculations. If that is what my life's passion has been reduced to, well...I have no answer for that but sadness.


Elbe-el wrote:

I detest the Bard not for mechanical reasons...mechanically, the Bard unbalanced against other classes and very close to overpowered and broken.

My problem with the Bard is not with its effectiveness as far as the rules are concerned, but with the Bard's merits in an artistic sense...a ROLE-PLAYING sense. Simply stated, the Bard as a PC class makes no sense at all...even in a fantasy setting.

If this were World of Warcraft, where actual role-playing isn't a factor, then I'd never play anything BUT Bards (Paizo's writers tried too hard, I think, to make it a viable class). If game mechanics are all we're worried about, then it doesn't make any sense for anyone, anywhere, ever, at all, to play anything BUT a Bard (they can heal, buff, fight, do anything a rogue can do, and blast...why ARE there other classes?).

...but that isn't what I do. And it isn't what I want done to my art, science, and first love (is it REALLY just a hobby for you? Really?)

Simply stated, we're supposed to be better than that...more imaginative than simple DPR calculations. If that is what my life's passion has been reduced to, well...I have no answer for that but sadness.

Ah, I understand that. If you are trying to play a high fantasy game I will agree that bards don't fit. Someone starting to sing or dance in the middle of a battle can break the mood, but Pathfinder isn't high fantasy. My alchemist with 3 arms and a tumor familiar isn't going to fit that vision either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elbe-el wrote:

I detest the Bard not for mechanical reasons...mechanically, the Bard unbalanced against other classes and very close to overpowered and broken.

My problem with the Bard is not with its effectiveness as far as the rules are concerned, but with the Bard's merits in an artistic sense...a ROLE-PLAYING sense. Simply stated, the Bard as a PC class makes no sense at all...even in a fantasy setting.

If this were World of Warcraft, where actual role-playing isn't a factor, then I'd never play anything BUT Bards (Paizo's writers tried too hard, I think, to make it a viable class). If game mechanics are all we're worried about, then it doesn't make any sense for anyone, anywhere, ever, at all, to play anything BUT a Bard (they can heal, buff, fight, do anything a rogue can do, and blast...why ARE there other classes?).

...but that isn't what I do. And it isn't what I want done to my art, science, and first love (is it REALLY just a hobby for you? Really?)

Simply stated, we're supposed to be better than that...more imaginative than simple DPR calculations. If that is what my life's passion has been reduced to, well...I have no answer for that but sadness.

the bard is no more overpowered than a magus or inquisitor.

in fact, the strongest class is still the wizard.

but stop thinking of bards as the guy with the lute, historically, your steriotypical bard was a storyteller. they recited oral epics that educated the local masses and occasionally served as a muse to inspire. they weren't singing and dancing in combat, they were reciting epic stories passed by mouth for generations to give their audience inspiration by means of a different outlook on things. they were the teachers, the movie theaters, the internet of the time.

bards definitely fit in high fantasy. block song and dance from your mind, instead, think of the great epics recited on the battlefield to inspire the leaders with ideas.


I played a fighter once, weapon master archetype dagger tosser with a joke name. He'd claim he was a private eye by trade. Only way he got away with wearing medium armor and standing 10 feet away from the bad guys while chucking an obscene amount of knives at monsters. The crit damage was crazy. Monsters ignored him most of the time. Only ran him as a fighter cause he needed the bonus feats to be a dagger chucking machine. He did it well, it was fun.

Sometimes I need to see in practice what a bunch of feats do together.

Other times you just want to know that you are going to hit and kill things incrementally better with passive class abilities that are always on. (There is a player in my group of friends who plays the same fighter build exclusively. He has a blast role playing too, argues jokingly that fighters are the best class and everyone else is doing it wrong.)

Thats what fighters are for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Elbe

There are many folktales of people with magical voices and music that affects the supernatural.

Go read up the Finnish mythic tales of Kalevala, and see the awesome that is Väinämöinen, who is a Bard.

Also, I might (small maybe) some day try out a Fighter just to see if I really can keep him from being dead weight up until level 18-20.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elbe-el wrote:

I detest the Bard not for mechanical reasons...mechanically, the Bard unbalanced against other classes and very close to overpowered and broken.

My problem with the Bard is not with its effectiveness as far as the rules are concerned, but with the Bard's merits in an artistic sense...a ROLE-PLAYING sense. Simply stated, the Bard as a PC class makes no sense at all...even in a fantasy setting.

If this were World of Warcraft, where actual role-playing isn't a factor, then I'd never play anything BUT Bards (Paizo's writers tried too hard, I think, to make it a viable class). If game mechanics are all we're worried about, then it doesn't make any sense for anyone, anywhere, ever, at all, to play anything BUT a Bard (they can heal, buff, fight, do anything a rogue can do, and blast...why ARE there other classes?).

...but that isn't what I do. And it isn't what I want done to my art, science, and first love (is it REALLY just a hobby for you? Really?)

Simply stated, we're supposed to be better than that...more imaginative than simple DPR calculations. If that is what my life's passion has been reduced to, well...I have no answer for that but sadness.

Driving and inspiring your allies in the heat of battle with epic poems, or soul stirring performances of musical pieces that pump your moral such that victory is snatched from the jaws of defeat, such that a even match becomes a route and spinning the tale afterward around the campfire or at the local inn doesn't fit in your fantasy?

Studying a bit here and a bit there in the arcane arts, the art of combat, a dizzying array of learned skills, and the practical application the great folkloric performances of myriad peoples and cultures of the world seem like class abilities no one in a fantasy setting should have to you?

You couldn't riff with any of this? Really?

The Bard is more than just crunch, it is some of the fluffiest crunch. Maybe you should give it another read and see where that takes you.


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Elbe-el wrote:

I detest the Bard not for mechanical reasons...mechanically, the Bard unbalanced against other classes and very close to overpowered and broken.

My problem with the Bard is not with its effectiveness as far as the rules are concerned, but with the Bard's merits in an artistic sense...a ROLE-PLAYING sense. Simply stated, the Bard as a PC class makes no sense at all...even in a fantasy setting.

If this were World of Warcraft, where actual role-playing isn't a factor, then I'd never play anything BUT Bards (Paizo's writers tried too hard, I think, to make it a viable class). If game mechanics are all we're worried about, then it doesn't make any sense for anyone, anywhere, ever, at all, to play anything BUT a Bard (they can heal, buff, fight, do anything a rogue can do, and blast...why ARE there other classes?).

...but that isn't what I do. And it isn't what I want done to my art, science, and first love (is it REALLY just a hobby for you? Really?)

Simply stated, we're supposed to be better than that...more imaginative than simple DPR calculations. If that is what my life's passion has been reduced to, well...I have no answer for that but sadness.

the bard is no more overpowered than a magus or inquisitor.

in fact, the strongest class is still the wizard.

but stop thinking of bards as the guy with the lute, historically, your steriotypical bard was a storyteller. they recited oral epics that educated the local masses and occasionally served as a muse to inspire. they weren't singing and dancing in combat, they were reciting epic stories passed by mouth for generations to give their audience inspiration by means of a different outlook on things. they were the teachers, the movie theaters, the internet of the time.

bards definitely fit in high fantasy. block song and dance from your mind, instead, think of the great epics recited on the battlefield to inspire the leaders with ideas.

The issue here is you do it during combat. While the fighter is trading blows with the dragon and your wizard is launching spells at it, your bard is singing/dancing/reciting poems.


How is a Deadly Performance from a bard so much weirder than a Power Word: Kill from a wizard? One sings something so horrible that they die, the other says a word so horrible that they die.

And all spells with verbal components is to some extent similar to audible bardic performances - both use the power of words and sound to magically change the world. And the same with somatic spells/performances.

How is a wizard chanting a few words in some forgotten language to block the enemies spell (dispel magic) so much saner than a bard chanting a few words in an understandable language to block the enemys spell (countersong)?


I don't play very often, but when I do, I play a Fighter.
[/Most Interesting Man in the World]

When I'm not playing (which is most of the time), I like to think about fun character ideas for the next time I will play. Mostly, I find an interesting 'thing' for my character to do that sounds like it would be fun to try. Things like 'specializing in whips and combat maneuvers' or 'stealing documents, forging fakes, then replacing them' or 'summoning as many owls as possible at the same time'. Chances are, if my idea doesn't involve magic, it will involve a huge feat investment. So it just follows that if I ever want to actually try my 'special thing', Fighter will be the way to go because I'll get my feats twice as fast as any other class.


johnlocke90 wrote:

The issue here is you do it during combat. While the fighter is trading blows with the dragon and your wizard is launching spells at it, your bard is singing/dancing/reciting poems.

What? At the point at which you are fighting a dragon, you begin performance as a move or swift action and maintain it as a free action each round.

You do so while casting spells and/or trading blows with it because you aren't inspiring from the sidelines, you are inspiring while doing things worthy of being included in the tales you weave. Bards are especially necessary during fights with dragons because of the boost vs fear saves inspire courage grants while simultaneously granting the edge the fighter needs to punch that much harder through the beast's thick hide and expansive hit point pool.

According to the rules, he isn't giving a dry poetry read or a stale performance, he is giving a performance the gods themselves would be moved to tears, that a crowd of thousands would stamp their feat to and cry out the refrain to, he is stirring the fighter's very soul, as well as his own, toward victory.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

I play a Fighter for the only reason that matters to play any class.

I have fun playing the class and the other people I play with that fighter are also having fun despite all the message board armchair theorycrafters who insist that it can't be possible.


I have yet to really get to play many characters in Pathfinder (I mostly GM), but I've helped build, or built, many fighters for other players, both in and out of my group. I've never had any complaints from the players about fighters being bad, and it's still the most common class blade in my hobby store.

I do, however, have 4 Fighter concepts just waiting for a chance for me to play them. I don't know if or when I'll get to play any of them, but I hope I get to do so.


LazarX wrote:

I play a Fighter for the only reason that matters to play any class.

I have fun playing the class and the other people I play with that fighter are also having fun despite all the message board armchair theorycrafters who insist that it can't be possible.

Here here! I agree.


Tels wrote:

I have yet to really get to play many characters in Pathfinder (I mostly GM), but I've helped build, or built, many fighters for other players, both in and out of my group. I've never had any complaints from the players about fighters being bad, and it's still the most common class blade in my hobby store.

I do, however, have 4 Fighter concepts just waiting for a chance for me to play them. I don't know if or when I'll get to play any of them, but I hope I get to do so.

I helped another newer player make a fighter. It was a sherlock holmes/japanese thieftaker type character, that had some great investigative skills, and was fierce at grappling and reach grappling with his mancatcher.

Cool char, he did well, but the dm killed the char along with most of the party. The guy didn't come back.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I play fighters for 1 reason. The feats. You can do stuff you just can't do with other classes. I mean 11 extra feats just give you a lot variables to play with and frees up your 10 feats for things that aren't combat related.


Pippi wrote:
Laiho Vanallo wrote:

*snip* Cool Encounter *snip*

You cannot get that feeling of satisfaction with a wizard.

Without detracting from the fun awesomeness of that particular example, and without trying to start a fight, I honestly think you can, if for different reasons. :)

I can think of moments like that either I or my my friends have had with characters of all classes. Fighters are neat, but they don't hold a monopoly on crowning moments of awesome. :)

I should have worded this better, I love spell-casters do not get me wrong. I should have said "I cannot get that feeling of satisfaction with a wizard". You are right, the fighter do not have the monopoly of cool action moments, however the massive amount of feats they gets, can transform them into very cinematic combatants if played right!

Sure the wizard could have used a fireball to "one shot" one or two of the bandits. But my team know they can depend on my high AC and my crazy combat maneuvers bonuses when faced to most common treats, saving precious time and resources. I love the classic feeling of slicing through my enemies with my own hands without having to wonder " Gee whiz Batman! I sure hope that this will not affect my paladin code of conduct!" or " Well I have only 0 ki point left, I hope I will be able to land a punch with my flurry of blows!" or again "Ok if I rage for the two next round will I be able to go uphill while being fatigued?"

I love being able to not focus too much on mechanics as a player, giving me more time to focus on roleplay.(God know how hard it's for me to keep my toughs straight for 5 seconds)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Azaelas Fayth wrote:

Bard or Magus are very good starter classes for those who have experience with RPGs of any kind including VRPGs like Skyrim and Final Fantasy.

For those entirely new to the concept though... I find a Fighter the best way to ease them in. They can focus on learning the basics of Leveling Up and fighting in Combat. While learning the basics of Spells by watching their allies and receiving spells.

Heck, I am a Veteran Player with around 70+ campaigns under my belt. I still avoid playing Prepared Casters as much as possible simply because of the massive amount of Book Keeping necessary for them. I mean when I end up with 20 pages of Notes in 10pt font with half-inch margins just for my Alchemist's Formulae Book... Something is wrong.

Sadly I can build Monks easily if I know the GM and the way they run encounters.

Who needs magic weapons just give me my Belts and such.

My vote is for Rangers being the absolute best class for newbies. It lets you learn the whole system at a very healthy and manageable pace. I mean, you begin as a very competent warrior who is just as good as any other warrior at that level (1-3rd) and martials are the easiest to play at low levels. Then by 4th level you have figured out how the basics of combat work, so now you get a small variety of prepare-able spells each day which allows you to become familiar with the magic system without being overwhelmed with making the wrong choices because you're still an awesome warrior (and their spell list is quite good). You also get one pet that recycles when it dies, allowing you to practice running minions in a timely manner (it's way easier to learn how to run extra minions with Ranger + Fido than jumping into "Rah, overrun them my summons/undead/eidolon"). Finally they have a very large selection of class skills and tons of skill points, which allows you to sample a variety of skills and become comfortable with the skill system.

Oh, I forgot that they also have combat styles which allow you to ignore prerequisites (making it way easier to not accidentally screw up your build as a newbie, in the way that not immediately realizing you need a 17 Dex for something and having to wait another 8 levels to qualify for it), and those styles are built into nice little trees that give them at certain paces, making it hard to screw up a ranger's bonus feat selection unless you're actually trying to.

If I was teaching a newbie how to play, I'd be elated if they wanted to play a Ranger. I'd also be pretty confident that I won't have to hear them lament to me later about how badly their *insert generic martial character of must have system mastery to excel here* is doing at higher levels. A conversation I've had far too often, I'm afraid.


I play fighter because I like the feeling og either beeing a badass master with my choesen weapon, or being an able generalist.

Oh and I also love crossbows and I feel that the fighter is the only class with enough feats to make a good crossbow build.

Andoran RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

I agree, Ashiel; I consider ranger and paladin to be the easiest classes for new players, particularly if the player chooses the non-pet option instead of the pet.

Classes without a clearly defined role (such as bard or druid) are difficult for new players. Full preparation spellcasters, especially divine preparation spellcasters, are also pretty hard, because they have a lot of hard decisions to make each day.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The hardest classes to play, I think, are those found in the APG, particularly the alchemist and summoner. They have so many exceptions, restrictions, and rules unlike anything found elsewhere that it can send one's head spinning in no time.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Charlie Bell wrote:
Full preparation spellcasters, especially divine preparation spellcasters, are also pretty hard, because they have a lot of hard decisions to make each day.

I think they are only as hard as the player makes it. You can make a standard prep list and never change it out, removing all the hard decisions except 'do I save this spell for later or use it now?' Divine casters are even more forgiving since a bad choice can be swapped out the same session you realize it, rather than having to wait for the next level up to do so.


TriOmegaZero wrote:


I think they are only as hard as the player makes it. You can make a standard prep list and never change it out, removing all the hard decisions except 'do I save this spell for later or use it now?' Divine casters are even more forgiving since a bad choice can be swapped out the same session you realize it, rather than having to wait for the next level up to do so.

i helped 2 people who were new to the game who wanted to play clerics. the entire game they were trying to read and understand what the spells i gave them did. most of the time i was telling them "you should cast this spell and move here" so it was more like i was running 2 characters at the same time.

at that time i realised that maybe new players should stick to non casters, or maybe classes that have bard like spell progression. fewer spells perday, but they still get that feeling of being a spell caster.

in home games i convince "newbies" play sorcerers because they usually like to cast damage spells anyway, so why not just let them play a blaster sorcerer. they have fun and they have fewer options as to spell choices.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The fighter has always been my favourite class in the game and still is my favourite class. From my swashbuckler, to my knight, to my halfling cavalier, to my current two-handed weapon wielding gnome a lot of my most memorable characters have been fighters and I've always liked how much you can 'personalise' each one.


No. I don't play fighters anymore. I like the class' idea, but I despise its mechanics and gameplay.

I feel feats are simply not on par with actual class features. Neither in power nor in "coolness". Turning into a bird is fun. Increasing your to-hit by +1 is not. Hiding in plain sight is fun. Slightly raising your AC is not.

I feel those unnecessarily long feat chains only punish the players, and having to pick half a dozen pre-requisites before you can do anything cool is no more interesting than having half a dozen empty levels.

I feel the fighter's supposed versatility is a myth (or at least, greatly exagerated), just like its supposed endurance.

I'm willing to play fighters with a few houserules, though, but I assume that doesn't count.


Excuse me for joining in the off-topic:

A new player should be allowed to play whatever class it is that they are actually genuinely interested in - not a "starter class".

My reason to believe that: Player interested in playing because he heard he could be a Wizard being told "you have to play this unrelated character first," might end up thinking something along the lines of "nevermind, not interested in this game if I can't just sit down and play the type of character I wanted out of the options present."

Of course, I adhere to the belief that any class can be "starterized" so that the new player gets both an "easy" character and the character that actually interests them.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Jupp wrote:
i helped 2 people who were new to the game who wanted to play clerics. the entire game they were trying to read and understand what the spells i gave them did. most of the time i was telling them "you should cast this spell and move here" so it was more like i was running 2 characters at the same time.

If they were having that much trouble with spells, I would have had them prepare the same spell in every slot, and tell them they could cast that spell X times per day. And when they were ready to learn a new spell, switch them to that one.

voska66 wrote:
I play fighters for 1 reason. The feats

Same here. But I usually only need one or two. :)

Cheliax

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

Excuse me for joining in the off-topic:

A new player should be allowed to play whatever class it is that they are actually genuinely interested in - not a "starter class".

My reason to believe that: Player interested in playing because he heard he could be a Wizard being told "you have to play this unrelated character first," might end up thinking something along the lines of "nevermind, not interested in this game if I can't just sit down and play the type of character I wanted out of the options present."

Of course, I adhere to the belief that any class can be "starterized" so that the new player gets both an "easy" character and the character that actually interests them.

Agreed. While some might be easier to learn than others, someone new to the game is going to be more interested in learning if they're actually interested in their character to begin with.

The biggest help you can provide, rather than suggesting a "starter" class, is to simply sit down with them and answer questions for them as they roll up their first character based on what interests them.

If they're hand-wringing about deciding, well, suggest Monk.

*runs*


Choosing a starter class, for my games, depends entirely on the level of the party at the time. I just had a new player join my 11th level party, and wanted to play a Wizard. A brand new player coming in at 11th playing a Wizard would be a nightmare.

Now if the party had been 5th level or around them parts, I'd have been fine with it. Coming in at high level with a full caster as your first class is a no-no to me.

Cheliax

Tels, if you mean the new player is completely new to Pathfinder/tabletop RPGs/etc, then I think the real no-no is bringing them into a game where everyone else is level 11, regardless of class.

My first character was a level 4, and I was terrifyingly lost as a player new to Pathfinder, in a group where virtually everyone else was a longtime veteran.

Unless you're prepared to really spend a lot of time with them, one-on-one, to get them up to speed, it's going to most likely result in them being too overwhelmed and not wanting to keep playing.

Heck, the only reason I kept with it was sheer stubborness and being too clueless to realize even how clueless I was (am).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really enjoy fighters. I love feats. I love the anticipation of attaining that next feat. I love getting to even levels and saying, "I wonder what feat I'll take" and the GM says, "You don't get a feat at 6th" and I say, "yes I do. I'm I fighter. I get a feat at every level."

My GM doesn't play fighters.

Most of my usual group doesn't play fighters.

My favourite thing to play is badass. And fighters... they are badass.

151 to 200 of 215 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Poll: Do you still play a Fighter? Whatever your answer is tell us why. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.