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

PaizoCon 2014!

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


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

201 to 215 of 215 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Andoran RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Continuing OT: the main reason I think preparation spellcasters are harder is the information overload. Divine prep casters are worse in that regard because when you prep spells, you have ALL the choices available to you. It's a steeper learning curve. I find that new players have an easier time when they only have to know what a few things are and do.

But I also agree with Lamontius. While I might provide advice to new players on which classes are easier or harder to learn, at the end of the day, it's the player's decision to make.


Elbe-el wrote:
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.

You mean because no one sings in high fantasy. Um . . . Lord of the Rings, plenty examples of people inspiring their allies to action with songs or poetic words. You even have examples of names from ancient stories or legend having significant power. Yes Strider is the quintesential switch hitting ranger but in the attack on weathertop in the book he points to the most powerful weapon he used was not his sword but that he invoked the name of Elbereth.

Plenty of stories from historical military history of songs to boost morale so that fits.

Plenty of stories of horns, drums, and other instruments using intraments on the battlefields.

Now the way you envision the bard might make it unlikey on the battlefield.


Ilja wrote:

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.

- 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.

I love the whole thought of a Art of War chanting Bard...

And Not all Bards are Fops.

Andoran RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

My CoCT bard was a playwright and actor. His inspire courage shtick was basically reciting the Golarion equivalent of the St. Crispin's Day monologue from Henry V.


Ashiel wrote:
My vote is for Rangers being the absolute best class for newbies.

Ranger isn't very bad, but one of the problems I know some players have is remembering what gets the Favored Enemy/Terrain Bonuses. Dyslexic Studio's sheets help out with that though.


Azaelas Fayth wrote:
Ilja wrote:

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.

- 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.

I love the whole thought of a Art of War chanting Bard...

And Not all Bards are Fops.

Preform (Oratory) is an awesome bard profession. I can't recall the last time I had a bard that sang.


Our COTCT bard always starts impromptu metal songs whenever he inspires courage.


I pretty much never play the pure vanilla fighter. But I do multiclass them and use the archtypes. Mostly multiclassing. Like has been mentioned the fighters abilities are not interesting(To me) when compared to the other classes. I think if i got to play more often I would play them more. Then again my group just uses classes as mechanics and you make your own fluff, so multiclassing is much more common because of that. In the end it comes down to I get an idea and start to figure out what mechanics would best fit that concept while still keeping it viable. Sometimes the answer is fighter.

On the off topic stuff, I would agree that ranger is the best learner class because it has little bit of anything. Still in the camp that choose what you will and let's make it work. On the bard thing I actually agree that the fluff sucks, mind you this only applies to the very traditional standard bard. I just hate the concept of magical singing helping. Now change that to the Orc berserker bashing people's helmets with two maces like drums to induce a primal roar in your allies and covering fear in your enemies and now we are talking.


Gnomezrule wrote:
Our COTCT bard always starts impromptu metal songs whenever he inspires courage.

I love it!

Best Bard ever: Gregory Deegan!

BTW: I love the thought of a Debuff based Bard that insults his enemy to weaken them.


First off, is there supposed to be an actual poll to vote in?

As for the question. I definitely still play fighters. I love that the class has a simple design which allows for complex character builds. I love making feat intensive builds, too. The kind where even a human fighter doesn't have enough feats for the build. But above all, I think that the Armor Training Class feature is one of the greatest class features Paizo has ever made. The ability to have a fighter running at full speed in full plate, or to have an archer fighter in full-plate-equivalent armor with the advent of Ultimate Combat's eastern armors and still take full advantage of its dex mod to AC, is ridiculously awesome. Paizo took a class that used to just be a 2 level dip and made it into something people actually consider single-classing in again.


I have a Fighter that used the Piecemeal Armour Rules to make a suit of armour from Plate Torso & Legs and Chainmail Arms. Add to it the thing was Mithril. When He founded the Mercenary Guild: The Crusaders that became the standard for the Higher ranking warriors. Lower ranks could get a non-mithril suit.

It still appears under the title of Crusader Plate.

And his build was feat light...


Lemmy wrote:

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.

You never played a fighter with endurance?

:D

If you get cut up a thousand ways, all their hp won't help you. If you can slow the cutting or shut it right down (disarm/grapple/sunder) then they can be pretty hardy. PF toughness makes having a nice hp pool easier. Endurance and die hard are great investments for a fighter, if you want to push your char hard, not take little rest breaks and still be standing and fighting while impaled, rended or crit a few times.


I feel fighter is the class that (if we exclude multiclassers) has the easiest time getting a high AC without gimping mobility or damage output too much.

In a campaign where most assaults target AC, that's very useful.


The Fighters versatility mostly comes to me from its wide variety of Archetypes and The ability for them to gain Multiple fighting style after a few levels.

Andoran

Sure, the malleability of the class is a blast - choose your feats to create your character concept of choice and make it sing. For powergamers and optimizers, there are certain instances where you're a world breaker, but with the exception of "non-magic-users-need-not-apply" encounters, you're still highly useful and contributing the rest of the time.

Plus the "real-worldness" of the abilities of fighters and rogues makes it easier to flesh them out and make them feel "lived-in" in terms of development, learning, progression, history, et al. As opposed to spellcasting classes where it's just "I've leveled up, so my understanding of this mysterious construction called MAGIC has deepened," given that there's no real-world analogue to use as frame of reference. Not that the latter can't be done, but more people than not are too lazy to bother.

My only actual quibble with the PF version of fighter is that Armor Mastery's DR doesn't stack with adamantine armor. C'mon, cut the higher level meat sacks a break! ;)

201 to 215 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.