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

RPG Superstar 2015

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


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

1 to 50 of 215 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Grand Lodge

I still play fighters because pathfinder fighters are really good.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yep: I just like the class.


Does multiclass/dip count? Might be playing a PC with 3 (at level 7), later 4 fighter levels soon.

In general, I do play fighters. They're able to put up good numbers, and frankly...that's good enough for me, I add my own flavor. The movement/acrobatic-based ones have, along with Ninja/Archaeologist/Vivisectionist effectively replaced the Rogue class for me, as it was my favorite class in 3E but sucks to high heaven in PF. Similarly, I love monks, but they're even worse, so using fighter to make an unarmed build is basically the only viable way to go currently (and is what my above possible character is based around). Unless you're willing to go with natural attacks and heavy refluffing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Pawns Subscriber

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.)

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because it is one of my favorite classes In the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the very rare chances I get to play at all, I play a fighter unless all the rest of the players contain 0 people that want to play a wizard.

"guy with sword" is basically the first thing I think of when I think "fantasy".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, I find it fun to play a character that has little to no supernatural or magical powers in a world where magic seems fairly common.

I find:
-To play a Fighter is to play the game.
-To play a Wizard is to understand the rules of the game.
-To be able to play a Wizard but choosing to play a Fighter is to understand the game.

Fighters are one of those classes that requires one to think to make it work and be fun.


Yes I play fighters. fun class. its the only class where you make the character rather than fitting into some prearranged designed idea.

(how many people get to play a barbarian that is NOT a raging maniac from the wilds?)

my only problem with fighters is that they can get TOO insanely powerful when over specialized into some min/max focused monstrosity.

as a GM super focused fighters become a problem because they are hard to design encounters around and the players get pissy if you counter their obvious weaknesses even in fair and balanced run of the mill ways.


I play a fighter to regularly outshine my friends who play other classes... especially my friends who play Paladins and Barbarians.


blue_the_wolf wrote:


as a GM super focused characters become a problem because they are hard to design encounters around and the players get pissy if you counter their obvious weaknesses even in fair and balanced run of the mill ways.

Fixed that for you ;-)


Azaelas - thats a blatantly biased oppinion. If I understand correctly your basically disparaging casters as rules tweekers who dont grasp the spirit of the game.

if I am wrong i apologize but even though I rarely play casters I have to point out that

A) playing a caster is not just a matter of blow it up. they have to play with aspects of the game that fighters dont have to ... like resource management.

and B) fighters can be just as rules twisting as casters can.

please dont take this as fuel for an argument. I am just trying to say that its OK to say you like one class without backhandedly disparaging the another.

Prince - Fair point. I have the same problem with Paladins, barbarians, casters and other classes I was just keeping the topic on fighters.


@blue_the_wolf: It is actually a gag held over from a 3.5 Forum.

It started as a Person saying Wizards are the only class worthwhile to play.


hell yes fighter is my favorite class behind monk.

monk >fighter >eldritch knight(archer >paladin >sorcerer

i love fighters because they can do all of the combat roles, for mundane fighting, all at the same time. so amazing knowing you can shoot something hard or slap it in the face with a great sword, and you dont need to make one of them useless.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've never understood how the guy with the sword could be defining for fantasy - the whole point for me has always been magic. I've never played a class that couldn't cast, and I've never had the urge to.

I do realize I'm in the minority, and I don't mean it disparagingly. I'm just presenting my point of view. I like the fighter precisely because it's so easy to multiclass with - you can have some other concept that needs a bit more weapon power, and then just dip into fighter for a few feats, HP and the BAB boost. Unlike most of the classes in the game, there is almost no flavor implied.


NobodysHome wrote:
Fighters are horrifically boring because once you've chosen those feats (probably on character creation), there's no room to 'grow'.

This is going to be a weird post:

I agree with you. Fighters turn into this giant "when will I get what feat?" project that doesn't even happen organically (because it really can't thanks to laundry lists of prereqs to keep track of if you want anything fun to use) and doesn't even feel like playing the game.

Which is why I prefer editions of D&D without feats, and games like Dungeon Crawl Classics where all characters are boiled down mechanically to the point where there are no hard choices, no empty levels, and nothing to distract you from just playing an awesome character and having fun.

...and the free-form mighty deed system, it's basically the best fantasy combat maneuver resolution system I've ever seen - which doesn't take much more than just an attitude of "Why yes, your warrior can try any kind of trick, swordplay, or stunt he wants to without being penalized with his own death because you failed to take the right feat."

Unfortunately, modern games tend way too much towards unintentional limitation brought on by the illusion of options.


The reason why they are deemed the defining point is because they are non-magic dealing with magic.

The little fluff implied is because of the variety of things the class can cover.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16

Yes, though always with an Archetype. My current favorite is ranged fighter, especially Half elf or human with elven heritage that allows me to take the (Legolas) feat. Forgot what it's called but lets you stab someone with an arrow, back them up, then shoot them with the same arrow.

Not much in a diplomacy or intigue game but stand your ground, drop everything as it comes awesomeness. Plus a longbow has better base damage and crit multiplier than most melee weapons.

And Dex fighters live longer.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Azazyll wrote:
I've never understood how the guy with the sword could be defining for fantasy - the whole point for me has always been magic. I've never played a class that couldn't cast, and I've never had the urge to.

Perhaps because most of the protagonists in early sword and sorcery fiction were warriors or rogues, not wizards, sorcerers, or priests. Conan, Jirel of Joiry, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, Imaro, John Carter, Kull of Atlantis, and the like were far more common than Elric. Magic largely tended to be the tool of the antagonists.

Of course, thinking about that makes me wonder why the fighter was given such a weak Will save, since most of those characters displayed willpower far beyond that of any of the other characters in their respective stories. Run of the mill NPC warrior having a weak will save makes sense. Protagonist PC fighter - not as much.


Yes, when I actually play. Usually a GM.

I just liked being able to hit things with a sword. That's just it.


I don't know about you guys but I know a lot of stories where the Fighter Hero failed a Will Save every so often.

Heck, The entirety of the Argonauts failed Will saves regularly for quite a while when dealing with Medea.


No. But has nothing to do with ruleset. Haven't played a "fighter" since 1'st edition. I probably am more likely to try a fighter now. However, our group always has folk fighting over playing the fighter :P

Greg

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

No, unless a 1-2 level dip counts.

Star Voter 2013

TriOmegaZero wrote:
No, unless a 1-2 level dip counts.

You might want to consider a third level of weapon master.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

That would require a second level first at the moment. :P


Sure! :)

It feels like our silly group finds more joy in story creation than the nitty-gritty of the actual mechanics of our characters. It's still fun to look over feats and the like to find neat things to have our characters do, but we're probably more concerned with the the narrative of the game, for the most part. Fighters make for stories that are just as fun as the rest of the classes.

We often try to come up with in-game reasons for new feats and abilities gained with each level, or try to work out multi-classing forays so they tie in with actual game events. It's not something we always manage, and sometimes it's actually more wotk than it's worth, but when we do pull it off, it can make for some very nice story moments.


Yes I play fighters. One of the better classes in the game, can do nearly any non magical concept with a fighter, very versatile,

However I almost never make fighter NPCs because it's more work to choose their feats, rather than referencing another classes list of class abilities.

Liberty's Edge

Played the fighter a lot in 2E. Find that 3E version boring. Not that I would never play one yet Paladins and Barbarians are my choices 99% of the time.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yes. I like that it is both simple and complex to build a fighter character, and I like their versatility.


Yes. It's my primary interface with the game.


Besides dungeonmastering.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:

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 with that. I am absolutely NOT trying to disparage anyone's play style.

I just happen to think that what you're complaining about with fighters, is in no way exclusive to them. Any class planned out 10, 15 or even 20 levels in advance is going to feel a little predictable and boring because you already know what's coming and the mystery is gone.

For my own opinion, I love fighters. Fighters are the quintessential fantasy character. Fighters are a classic staple of the genre. I love the idea of the mighty warrior, his heavy plate armor gleaming in the sun, his mighty shield on his arm, likely emblazoned with a symbol of some importance, swinging his sword to cleave the enemy in half with a single blow. The imagery, the style, the very idea of it is part and parcel to all things fantasy, and fantasy would not be the came without them. I love fighters because I can look beyond the numbers. I can ignore the stat-crunching and the pre-planning and the linear thinking and play the fighter for the flavor. I can play them for the image and what they represent. I can play them for the story and the glory. I can see them for what they, at their core, will always be.

The true heart of fantasy.

Thank you. Enjoy the rest of your day.


Yes, spread those feats out, take some odd ones, don't just get stuck with two hander/archery feats, go hunting. A fighter can be really cool, just from their feats alone.

One I've got planned, for a 3.5 with a dab of pathfinder game.
Fearless
Improved Unarmed Strike
Deflect Arrows
Throw Anything
Improved Grapple
Snatch Arrows

What will the guy use? Well probably a naginata (reach halberd without the set for charge) with the option of throwing it, biffing foes and later grappling them, but earlier on able to deflect an arrow a round and later catch it (keep one hand on the nagi and one free to deflect when possible).

So yeah, can do the cool walk up to an archer, deflecting an arrow a round, while holding the nagi one handed on the shoulder, before bringing it down and then maybe tackle them and pin them. He is going to be bossu.


Deadrender wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:

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 with that. I am absolutely...

Plan to 5 or so, but don't go much further and be ready to break the plan on your stone tablets. A better idea that getting all obsessive about it "at this level I will take this and have this."


I haven't played a PF fighter yet but I have played them in other editions. Sometimes I want a warrior that does not come with built-in flavor. There are a hell of a lot of feats of there, and no one else fit to eventually get a bunch of them.

Grand Lodge

I have played one...just to try out all the classes. Even did it a second time with the gunslinger I suppose. Not a fan of them...but then again, not a fan of the fighty classes in general. I will say that the system mastery needed for a good fighter is rather high however. Not as much as a decent monk...but it is high.


I normally only plan around one or two levels ahead.

My Favorite Fighter:

I have a Switch-Hitter who uses a Bow and Twin Gladius/Cestus. He has all the standard Archery and Two Weapon Fighting Feats.

Using a Ranger you don't have enough feats for both styles.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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.

The Exchange Marathon Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014, Dedicated Voter 2015

I have one fighter and want a second.

Every fighter can be built differently. In PFS i have a lvl 2 Lore warden with high dex who aids another and uses butterfly sting all the time (body guard).He buts in all the time with advice or horrible explanations of what be thinks is happening. My next fighter is a high save (@8 12/8/11) whirlwind attacking, spring attack, blind fighting monster. (Preferred Weapon tbd) who can see through fog like effects, has constant protection from evil for mind effecting effects, and still one hands for +16 damage. (@lvl 8)

Both have tons of skills including diplomacy, some knowledges, and spell craft. Both will likely get headbands of int around lvl 10 for UMD.

I find that Gish builds have to spend resources to be like a fighter in combat, which is less useful than a fighter who has to spend most resources out of combat.

That aside I love my samurai, and ninja i am currently playing. i also have an awesome pally idea brewing (halfling with high dex/chr maybe using a gun but definetly riding on a battle pug) My recently deceased wizard was fun but not metal enough(funny thing is he died from accidently being in a bbeg's circle of death while invis).


As a GM, I run all kinds of classes but I don't get to actually run characters. I get to build them all the time though. The fighter has a lot of versatility in its build capabilities and can be quite strong but you have to understand its weaknesses to be able to build one well enough to fit into some groups.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

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. ^_^

Grand Lodge

GeneticDrift wrote:


I find that Gish builds have to spend resources to be like a fighter in combat, which is less useful than a fighter who has to spend most resources out of combat.

Well most of my games tend to have a good chunk out of combat so I kinda dislike having to spend a lot of resources out of combat...and not only that, but my fighter uses more resources then my gish does (do you have any idea how awesome scrolls of giantform 2 is on a straight up fighter?!?) in general.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Pawns Subscriber
Deadrender wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:

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 with that. I am absolutely...

Never apologize for a beautifully-written argument.

I think that's my issue with fighters; I am semi-OCD, and because their 'extra cool stuff' comes as 'feats' instead of 'spells' or 'rage powers', I feel like I have to use them extremely carefully. Plus all the laddered dependencies, and you can be 4-5 levels in before you realize, "Oh, carp! I'm not going to be able to do that for another 8 levels because I forgot to do x, y, and z early on." They take much more planning early on than other classes, and my *personal* experience is that you don't get to deviate from the plan nearly as much as you do with other classes. (I am going to take Master Craftsman just because it fits in with his ridiculous personality, but that's another thread.)

But obviously I'm in the vast minority (I think I have exactly one person agreeing with me), so it's definitely just my OCD nature rising to the surface. (I *love* playing wizards because I can sift through my 200 spells and pick out the best ones *every day*! That says something right there.)

EDIT: Yeah, I'm that guy who absolutely refuses to play a sorcerer because I can't stand the notion of being 'locked in' to such a limited spell selection. And that probably says something about me right there.


Yes.
I see the Fighter as a "Master at Arms" type of deal. Being able to pick up any sort of weapon and rock the boat with it. Being proficient with most things found in the weapon/armor tables has its benefits, especially if the GM uses randomly rolled treasure.

I recall being the target of a volley of arrows during an adventure spelunking in some caverns. It was impossible to close the gap to them due to a chasm, but the Fighter in our party remembered his Tower Shield. He provided cover for his mates one by one, and led us safely across, until we could get into a more advantageous position. What a stand up guy!


I have a Fighter who normally wields Twin Crowbars or Twin Table Legs.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I almost never played a Fighter in 1st and 2nd edition, unless it was part of a multiclass, like an Elven Fighter/Magic-User, or built off of some insane race, like the Spelljammer Xixchil, which could have four glaive-limbs and make ridonkulous amounts of attacks.

3.X turned that around a small amount, and I actually find single-class Fighters interesting now, but still not enough to get me to play one over a Cleric or a Druid or a Ranger.

Pathfinder has made them even sexier, and yet, I still find myself more willing to play a Barbarian, Paladin or Ranger over a Fighter. The bonus feats just aren't good enough, and being able to take more of them doesn't compare to having Rage, Smite/LoH/etc. or an Animal Companion.

Using something like Iron Heroes, or Monte Cook's Book of Experimental Might 2, I could *totally* go for a Fighter that had a series of feats and combat options (such as the ability to impose various conditions, without having to wait until 15th level and pray for a critical hit...) that weren't necessarily available to pretty much everyone (as feats mostly are), but, as it stands, Fighters just aren't that appealing to me, despite being vastly superior to their 1st edition predecessors.

Fighters also tend to be locked into certain roles. Some weapons are just flat out better than other weapons, and you'll rarely, if ever, see a mace or spear wielding fighter. You'll also rarely, if ever, see a Fighter that uses light or no armor, leaving the class stuck unable to accurately represent a ton of non-European cultures, and, even in Golarion, explicitly built around an 'Inner Sea' that includes a fantasy version of Arabia and a fantasy version of Egypt, there is no support at all for desert fighters in light or no armor. For a class that's as 'modular' and open as the Fighter is, it's totally pigeonholed in other ways, by a lack of options that should have been built into the class from the very start (and not something that one has to take an Archetype, Prestige Class or bunch of feats to realize).

Instead of introducing magical breastplates that don't penalize swim checks for men on ships, there should have been, right from the start, options to make Fighters who don't wear breastplates, *and are still effective.*

That's pretty much my beef with Fighters. To be competitive with a Barbarian, Paladin or Ranger, you have to fit your character into one of a small set of builds, due to the limiting mechanics. All that theoretical versatility of being able to totally customize your Fighter goes completely out the window, because so many choices are already locked out. By 10th level, whether your 'Fighter' was a camel-riding bedouin, a medieval knight or a buckler of swashes in the mold of Errol Flynn, everyone's pretty much required by the lack of other meaningful options to wear the same uniform to work.

In 3.X, thanks to the Armored Caster feat and the Twilight armor enhancement, it was easier to make an effective Wizard with a breastplate than to make a swashbuckler-y Fighter who wore only a shirt. PF hasn't re-introduced those exact options, but it's still rollerskating uphill to make a thematically appropriate Osirioni or Qadiran Fighter.


I love dipping into Fighter for many characters, bonus feats, bonus save, all the proficiencies and Full BAB it's a good mix with Rogue to round out some of the flaws in each kit, I enjoy doing it to pick up elritch knight if I'm going to have a caster cohort to make them less favorable targets(assuming leadership is kosher). Some times it's worth grabbing on characters who want that little bit of extra combat oomph but who don't necessarily need more levels in their core class.


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.

Star Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2015

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 with that. I am absolutely...

This... 100%

The Exchange Marathon Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014, Dedicated Voter 2015

Cold Napalm wrote:
GeneticDrift wrote:


I find that Gish builds have to spend resources to be like a fighter in combat, which is less useful than a fighter who has to spend most resources out of combat.
Well most of my games tend to have a good chunk out of combat so I kinda dislike having to spend a lot of resources out of combat...and not only that, but my fighter uses more resources then my gish does (do you have any idea how awesome scrolls of giantform 2 is on a straight up fighter?!?) in general.

I prefer to be the tiny guy picking on the giant. But that does sound awesome. I can see it now, hiding in a fog effect where tiny fighter has be spring attacking the giant, fighter says a few words with UMD and he grows and grows ready to beat up the giant in a fair fight (his own size).

1 to 50 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.