theres a big difference between what you want and what is Lemmy. there is a reason fighters get 2 base skill points a level and more feats then anyone.
saves are not all about combat, your widening the definition. being charmed is not combat, a explosion may be in combat, but its not in itself combat.
a fighter should not have 3 good saves honestly.
this is again the problem with fighters, they are everything from peasants with pitchforks to high lords with years of training. its why they need a more defined role and everyone is trying to put there own idea of what a fighter is.
if you give fighters both good reflex and fort, id say actually lessen the effect of bravery, not make it better.
i think the limit on magic could be done away with as well, the only thing that really doesnt like magic is a barbarian.
but they should NOT have a abundant of skill points, 3 good saves, etc.
some things you need to invest in, shouldnt be given. but with fighter you get enough feats that with a little work you can invest accordingly.
Just like with any class that wants to do something, they have to invest in it, and some things they are never gonna be as good at as other classes.
4+ isn't abundant, its really baseline for anyone who isn't an intellect based caster. 2 good saves is something I'd actually like to see for every class, since it universally nerfs casters and makes heroes look more heroic(That might just be me.) Its definitely something to help round out the fighter. Getting the choice between your good saves would be pretty rockin' for deciding who you are, even for a rogue.
I give fighter in my homegames 4+int skill per level, I find that to be enough but Now I am considery replacing bravery with something like
Resilences (Ex)
Starting at 2nd level, a fighter gains a +2 bonus on saves against one particular condition. The fighter can choose from the folowing list
- Poisons
- Fatigue and Exhausted condition
- Fear
- Sickening and nauseated
- Paralize
- Stunn and daze
- dazzled and blind
- Staggered and slow
- energy drain
- damagin burst effect (like Fireball)
- Charm
at 6th level and every 4 level beyond the fighter can choose anw condition to gain the +2 bonus, the previons condition increase by +2.
For example a 10th level fighter could have Resilence( Poison, Energy drain , Fear) that menas the figther have a +6 bonus against poison, +4 against energy drain and +2 agaisnt fear effects.
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Fighters are not peasants... Those are Commoners. They are not even city guards. Those are Warriors.
You can make a Fighter who is a peasant, of course, but you can do the same with a Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian or even Wizard if you want. Saying Fighters are "commoners with pitchforks" makes as much sense as saying "Cleric are tailors".
Fighters are elite combatants. They above your usual soldier. Or at least, they should be.
They don't need lots of skill points, but 2 per level is simply insulting. And makes no sense. Here is a guy who focus solely on mundane skills... except he's no more skilled than your average commoner. 4+Int skill points per level is pretty much the least anyone who is not a Int-based full caster should get.
Saves are about resisting stuff. Charm person is not combat... until it's used in combat. Just like a hammer is just a tool until you use it to crush someone's skull. And Will-targeting spells are pretty common in combat, so being able to resist at least some of them should be expected from a guy who devotes his life to combat.
And I don't see how a good Reflex save reduces the effect of Bravery.
Fighters definitely should get a better name, just so people stop thinking Fighter = "anyone holding any weapon, no matter how unskilled"
Also, "Fighter" is as boring a name as "Magic User". Hell, even "Warrior" sounds more awesome!
Personally, I'd call them Champion or Paragon...
Fighter is a person whose main role is fighting, whereas warrior may be a commoner with some martial training out of neccessity. . .
I agree that it would be better if Fighters were called "Warriors" and vice versa!!
MrSin wrote: 4+ isn't abundant, its really baseline for anyone who isn't an intellect based caster. I disagree, if that was the case then i could make a case that a martial non sneak attack based class like the monk should have 10HD and full bab.
you dont get your cake and eat it too
Quote: 2 good saves is something I'd actually like to see for every class, since it universally nerfs casters and makes heroes look more heroic(That might just be me.) Its definitely something to help round out the fighter. Getting the choice between your good saves would be pretty rockin' for deciding who you are, even for a rogue. true id love 2 good saves for everyone, but i dont think everyone should get to choose 2 good saves, id keep that as a fighter thing, since you can make a case for a fighter that is very reflexive, strong of fortitude, strong of will as it all can fit in the fighter theme.
I dont see a rogue as strong fortitude.
but either way this thread is about fighters and making them more fun/relevant. im trying really hard (really i am!) to limit myself to that
The reason auto-scaling feat trees are always brought up is that they free up fighter things to take more feats, thus adding to variety.
Imagine a fighter who could greater specialize in 2 weapons while only burning two feats...not 8.
Imagine one who could get all the Vital Strike feats with ONE feat. Who could grab all the Mounted Combat feats with ONE feat. Who could grab all the Step Up feats with ONE feat.
Other classes get to slog through the feat tree...the fighter's class features, combat feats, would auto-scale exactly like Barbarian rage powers and Paladin class abilities do.
But anytime there's an attempt to even the scale, no, no, Fighters can't have good things.
===Aelryinth
w01fe01 wrote: MrSin wrote: 4+ isn't abundant, its really baseline for anyone who isn't an intellect based caster. I disagree, if that was the case then i could make a case that a martial non sneak attack based class like the monk should have 10HD and full bab. What does that have to do with skill points? 4+ is a good baseline because it gives you plenty to go around, but doesn't excel.
w01fe01 wrote: I dont see a rogue as strong fortitude. I've seen a few thug rogues who could disagree. Rogues have pretty pitiful saves as is anyways.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
w01fe01 wrote:
I disagree, if that was the case then i could make a case that a martial non sneak attack based class like the monk should have 10HD and full bab.
Monk could use it. At least then they could hit things and be a credible frontliner.
w01fe01 wrote: you dont get your cake and eat it too Yeah, not if you're a Fighter, Monk, or Rogue.
You get a piece of cake inside of an impenetrable forcefield while all the other classes eat and enjoy theirs and rub that fact in your face.
Lemmy wrote: Fighters are not peasants... Those are Commoners. They are not even city guards. Those are Warriors.
You can make a Fighter who is a peasant, of course, but you can do the same with a Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian or even Wizard if you want. Saying Fighters are "commoners with pitchforks" makes as much sense as saying "Cleric are tailors".
Fighters are elite combatants. They above your usual soldier. Or at least, they should be.
should and are are two different things. again, its a case of fighter having no clearly defined role besides ARGH I FIGHT STUFF GUD. your looking for identity by over examining fluff and putting your own tastes to things.
Quote: They don't need lots of skill points, but 2 per level is simply insulting. And makes no sense. Here is a guy who focus solely on mundane skills... except he's no more skilled than your average commoner. 4+Int skill points per level is pretty much the least anyone who is not a Int-based full caster should get. same reason a fighter doesnt know how to farm, its a different skill set. you could say they have 2 skills and 2 more for feats where they can gain benefits in combat like acrobatics or something.
and this is another reason im having trouble, because we talk about all these buffs/changes but we dont consider its impact on the entire aspect of the game, or its relevancy. why is the fighter, who spends his time on martial prowess, able to have as many skill poitns as say...a monk who supposedly spends great effort at expanding there mind as well as there body. and yet again this is where someone can come in and add a little flavor to there own idea of what a fighter is and say "well, a fighter would read lots of books on fighting!"
Quote: Saves are about resisting stuff. Charm person is not combat... until it's used in combat. Just like a hammer is just a tool until you use it to crush someone's skull. And Will-targeting spells are pretty common in combat, so being able to resist at least some of them should be expected from a guy who devotes his life to combat. you cant play it like that, in that case fighters should have resistance to EVERYTHING since everything can be used in combat at some way. has to be limitations, and i stand by fighters should NOT have 3 good saves. You also have to decide what a fighter, is designed against, are they designed as a dungeon exploring fighter used to spells in combat? in this world how often are spells used in heavy warfare? is a fighter a combatant that is used to heavy warfare? all these things go back to again, fighters have a lack of identity, or rather, there identity apparently applying to everything.
Quote: And I don't see how a good Reflex save reduces the effect of Bravery. im saying if you give him both good fort and good reflex, the benefit of bravery should be reduced.
Quote: Fighters definitely should get a better name, just so people stop thinking Fighter = "anyone holding any weapon, no matter how unskilled"
Also, "Fighter" is as boring a name as "Magic User". Hell, even "Warrior" sounds more awesome!
Personally, I'd call them Champion or Paragon...
i agree very much, a paladin is a fighter, so is a monk and a ranger...but a WARRIOR or or weapon master (i know there is a archetype) or something would make more sense.
im all for making fighters better, but im against making them better because they have weaknesses, everyones supposed to have them.
Aelryinth wrote: The reason auto-scaling feat trees are always brought up is that they free up fighter things to take more feats, thus adding to variety.
Imagine a fighter who could greater specialize in 2 weapons while only burning two feats...not 8.
Imagine one who could get all the Vital Strike feats with ONE feat. Who could grab all the Mounted Combat feats with ONE feat. Who could grab all the Step Up feats with ONE feat.
Other classes get to slog through the feat tree...the fighter's class features, combat feats, would auto-scale exactly like Barbarian rage powers and Paladin class abilities do.
But anytime there's an attempt to even the scale, no, no, Fighters can't have good things.
===Aelryinth
same with any class that is considered weak in any way my friend. I do say i dont think fighters are that bad, maybe a bit boring, but not bad, they may not spike as hard as say...a barbarian, but damnit if they arent consistant.
MrSin wrote: w01fe01 wrote: MrSin wrote: 4+ isn't abundant, its really baseline for anyone who isn't an intellect based caster. I disagree, if that was the case then i could make a case that a martial non sneak attack based class like the monk should have 10HD and full bab. What does that have to do with skill points? 4+ is a good baseline because it gives you plenty to go around, but doesn't excel.
w01fe01 wrote: I dont see a rogue as strong fortitude. I've seen a few thug rogues who could disagree. Rogues have pretty pitiful saves as is anyways. yes and there are rogues with 24 STR im sure, we are talking game mechanics and identity, not exceptions to the rule.
i can honestly say if warrior was brought up to 4 skill poitns a level, other classes would need to be increased to 6 accordingly.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Rynjin wrote: Yeah, not if you're a Fighter, Monk, or Rogue.
You get a piece of cake inside of an impenetrable forcefield while all the other classes eat and enjoy theirs and rub that fact in your face.
You forgot to include Barbarian in that list - they get theirs behind a Force Field, too; but the difference is they can Spell Sunder the Force Field to get their delicious caek.
It are a fact.
Rynjin wrote: w01fe01 wrote:
I disagree, if that was the case then i could make a case that a martial non sneak attack based class like the monk should have 10HD and full bab.
Monk could use it. At least then they could hit things and be a credible frontliner.
w01fe01 wrote: you dont get your cake and eat it too Yeah, not if you're a Fighter, Monk, or Rogue.
You get a piece of cake inside of an impenetrable forcefield while all the other classes eat and enjoy theirs and rub that fact in your face. i enjoy martial classes so its what i usually force to work. however, i think most people agree full casters are too strong in some ways. do we buff everyone? or nerf full casters? i dont know, not gonna open that can of worms here, no place for it, this is about fighters...my only consideration to other classes is making fighters better without stepping on other classes toes too much.
a fighter is good at combat, they should be given the tools to excel at such, outside of combat...well...theres archetypes for that (tactician, lore warden for example)
w01fe01 wrote: i can honestly say if warrior was brought up to 4 skill poitns a level, other classes would need to be increased to 6 accordingly. Why? That doesn't make any sense. If you take the paladin and fighter up to 4+ you just make them competent. You wouldn't be like my friend and end up with too few skill points to put into knowledge religion.
You'd also be kicking rogues in a sensitive place, more so than they've already been. 4+ likely wouldn't step on their toes, but 6+ for everyone but the fighter would likely be pushing them into a well dug grave.
again cant have your cake and eat it too philosiphy here.
you want more skillpoints as a fighter? roll an archetype that gives more, or bump that INT or take some kind of skill focus feat.
if it pushes rogues negatively all the more reason not to give it to warriors.
not trying to be mean or thick. its all relative, of course, if you want to give all non sneak attack/stealth based classes full bab and 10HD maybe i just wouldnt care
but thats also homoginization, and thats bad.
w01fe01 wrote: i can honestly say if warrior was brought up to 4 skill poitns a level, other classes would need to be increased to 6 accordingly. Well, if Warrior were, that might be true. But if Fighter were. . .it's not axiomatically the case that Fighters should have fewer base skill points (INT not included) than typical, non-skill-monkey, classes.
Not that I'm saying Fighters axiomatically deserve an increase. But it's a reasonable argument for an otherwise lagging class. After all, Barbarian has 4, and while there are good reasons a Barbarian *might* excel in different skills than a Fighter, there aren't really good reasons they would necessarily have more skills.
It's just a legacy thing. I suppose one can make the argument that if it's the way it's been, it's the way it should be; "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." But the point of the thread seems to be that Fighters are comparatively weaker. w01fe01 wrote: if it pushes rogues negatively all the more reason not to give it to warriors. It might *also* be the case that Rogues, along with Fighters, need a boost to catch them up with other classes.
But it's not a good argument to say that fixing the Fighter would make the Rogue feel all lonely there at the bottom of the ant heap.
I shouldn't have to be a specific archetype or take a specific feat or take a specific trait and build my character all around giving the characters something he should already have!
Your the one making it homogenization, and its not always bad*. Depends on what you're talking about. I know I'm not the one who suggested giving every class 6+, and rogues have far more problems than their skill point totals(but that's another thread.)
* There is a difference between game balance, handling classes individually, and out right homogenizing them. Giving the paladin and fighter 4+ is not homogenizing every class in the game, but it is improving game balance and making those classes more fun and competent.
i honestly...thin barbarian should have 2...never made sense to me that they got 4.
i also dont think giving fighters (sorry, warrior slip) 2 more skill points wont bring them up to snuff if they are weaker anyways, making it a wanted change, not a needed one.
i can understand how its annoying, but then...whenever i dont play a fighter i find it annoying how few feats i get lol.
its all comparative, there is a difference between having nice things, and and trying to shore up all/more weaknesses then they should haved shored up.
w01fe01 wrote: i honestly...thin barbarian should have 2...never made sense to me that they got 4. No, that's a bad idea too. Then a 10 intellect barbarian wouldn't have enough points to put into perception, survival, and knowledge nature and he'd die horribly in a forest. Not so good for simulationist or game balance.
MrSin wrote: I shouldn't have to be a specific archetype or take a specific feat or take a specific trait and build my character all around giving the characters something he should already have! monk should have full bab...
rogue should have x
fighter should have y
x should have z
sorry but i disagree. its not should, its want.
Quote: Your the one making it homogenization, and its not always bad*. Depends on what you're talking about. I know I'm not the one who suggested giving every class 6+, and rogues have far more problems than their skill point totals(but that's another thread.) how am i making homoginization? ive made a couple suggestions as to ideas to make fighters more interesting/better. i simply dont agree on the increase in skill points or having 3 strong saves. that makes it stronger, and thats not strictly the issue, they can be uninteresting which i think is more of a travesty. they are consistant, but boring. i also didnt suggest EVERYONE get 6+, i said other classes, didnt even give a number. and it was more a tongue in cheek comment, cuz id totally love more skills even on a class with 4 skill points. but id also like casting on martial characters. full bab on 3/4 and half bab classes, and 12hd on every non barbarian. doesnt mean its needed.
Quote: * There is a difference between game balance, handling classes individually, and out right homogenizing them. Giving the paladin and fighter 4+ is not homogenizing every class in the game, but it is improving game balance and making those classes more fun and competent. how is it improving game balance? i can agree to possibly making them more fun, but i fail to see how it has to do with improving balance. first youd have to explicitly designate whats wrong with the fighter class, not whats weaker on them...but whats wrong. having less skills doesnt in itself mean they are weaker.
MrSin wrote: w01fe01 wrote: i honestly...thin barbarian should have 2...never made sense to me that they got 4. No, that's a bad idea too. Then a 10 intellect barbarian wouldn't have enough points to put into perception, survival, and knowledge nature and he'd die horribly in a forest. Not so good for simulationist or game balance. we can agree to disagree honestly, either way i think fighters problems extend to something besides there lack of skill points.
edit: simulationist...in that case, evasion shouldnt exist since its illogical. all in all its still a game, full realism just wont work, so at what point is the line drawn for it?
more interesting then lack of skill points, what do we do to make them...well...fun but combat oriented?
they are toted as a combat focused class, but just giving a plethora of feats isnt interesting enough because...ultamitely...the feats are not always in themselves interesting enough.
so i think they should have a ability, using a limited resource...like magus, gunslinger, monk, etc.
allow them to perform martial feats, regenning after so much rest/criticals/kills.
this would be a way to make them more fun/interesting, give them more options, without just bloating feats even more or making them brance outside of there current only real identity of combat focus.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
w01fe01 wrote: again cant have your cake and eat it too philosiphy here. The problem is (as a lot of people keep pointing out) the Fighter gets neither.
Chengar Qordath wrote: w01fe01 wrote: again cant have your cake and eat it too philosiphy here. The problem is (a lot of people keep pointing out) the Fighter gets neither. i disagree, many times ive wished i had more feats, or full bab, or more hp, or a weapon profficiency i didnt have to spend a feat on.
they do, the problem is with comparitive power, but really, thats a martial vs caster thing more then a figher thing, most martial classes are considered weak comparatively.
so, power...is a wider issue then fighter alone, and should be addressed as such. now, making them more interesting/fun/better options then just a feat monkey...is totally valid.
w01fe01 wrote: Chengar Qordath wrote: w01fe01 wrote: again cant have your cake and eat it too philosiphy here. The problem is (a lot of people keep pointing out) the Fighter gets neither. i disagree, many times ive wished i had more feats, or full bab, or more hp, or a weapon profficiency i didnt have to spend a feat on. Of the things you just listed the fighter only has one over the other martials. Bonus feats! However the other martials get other nice things to compensate for those. Animal companions, spells, and what have you. Comparing martial to martial the fighters tend to come up poor, though in straight DPR with full attacking they do fine if I remember right.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
w01fe01 wrote:
monk should have full bab...
rogue should have x
fighter should have y
x should have z
sorry but i disagree. its not should, its want.
And when you have some actual argument as to why besides "Lol cake", perhaps I'd be inclined to listen to you.
Until then I have this mound of factual and numerical deficiencies the classes have compared to others I'll be sitting on.
sorry when i think martial i think classes that do not have spells
rogues
monks
both are martial classes imo
and fighters get wider access to weapons then most classes.
and yes other classes get nice things, everyone gets nice things, im not arguing that fighters shouldnt, or that they have enough already...if it wasnt obvious by my earlier suggestions already.
im saying there nice things should keep in focus with what the calss is about, combat.
does anyone DISLIKE the idea of a grit/arcane pool type resource for fighters? could come up with some really interesting uses for it i imagine.
Rynjin wrote: w01fe01 wrote:
monk should have full bab...
rogue should have x
fighter should have y
x should have z
sorry but i disagree. its not should, its want.
And when you have some actual argument as to why besides "Lol cake", perhaps I'd be inclined to listen to you.
Until then I have this mound of factual and numerical deficiencies the classes have compared to others I'll be sitting on. until you post the mountain i call strawman
fighters are not bad in combat, they are boring, they get no super cool abiltiies or anything. they should.
your acting like i think fighters are fine, which im not, im simply disagreeing with shoring up all there weaknesses simply cuz people dont find them interesting, rather...make them interesting!
w01fe01 wrote: this is again the problem with fighters, they are everything from peasants with pitchforks to high lords with years of training. I do not agree with this at all. High lords with years of training may be fighters, but peasants with pitchforks are not fighters, they are NPC classes such as commoner or perhaps warrior for those gifted in combat.
Fighters are elite combatants.
Coriat wrote: w01fe01 wrote: this is again the problem with fighters, they are everything from peasants with pitchforks to high lords with years of training. I do not agree with this at all. High lords with years of training may be fighters, but peasants with pitchforks are not fighters, they are NPC classes such as commoner or perhaps warrior for those gifted in combat.
Fighters are elite combatants. great whats an elite combatant?
everyone in this game is a combatant...an elite one means...they are better?
again, i still see a problem with there identity.
but there is one aspect of it that is very consistant
thats combat, they are combat focused first and foremost. they should be made more interesting in that regard. plus a way to make them more fun/interesting imo would be easier for incorporating small, non overreaching buffs that address the class both for its issues, and without making them needlessly good in areas a fighter has no business being good in.
w01fe01 wrote: and this is another reason im having trouble, because we talk about all these buffs/changes but we dont consider its impact on the entire aspect of the game, or its relevancy. why is the fighter, who spends his time on martial prowess, able to have as many skill poitns as say...a monk who supposedly spends great effort at expanding there mind as well as there body. and yet again this is where someone can come in and add a little flavor to there own idea of what a fighter is and say "well, a fighter would read lots of books on fighting!" Why you do not ask that question for the ranger, cavalier, gunslinger, samurai and BARBARIANS.
w01fe01 wrote:
im saying if you give him both good fort and good reflex, the benefit of bravery should be reduced.
Bravery is already a very weak ability taht have nothing to do with reflex.
i agree with you nicos, strange indeed.
as for bravery, great..keep bravery, buff it even, but then, no good reflex save.
this is geting really more about why cant a fighter be good at everything because its a fighter, which is a catchall. rather then lets make a fighter better.
2 skill points are simply not enough. Any role you might want to cover with your skills requires investment 2~4 different skills.
Having 2 skill points means you're mediocre (at best) in a single role.
Your argument for "Fighters shouldn't have good saves or skills" is that no class should be able to do everything...
Well, guess what, they could have all good saves and 10 skill points per level and they'd still lag behind any full caster.
You know what would change if Fighters had a good Reflex save? They'd survive more blasts. That's it. Do you know what would change if they had some sort of resistance against mind control? They'd be on par with Barbarians and Paladins. You know... the 2 front-liners who can actually stay in the front-line without fear of being dominated by a Wizard 4 levels below them?
And what would change if Fighters had 4 skill points per level? Maybe they'd be finally able to do something out of combat! They'd be capable of actually contributing in a significant way... But no, "you can't have the cake and eat it too" so Fighters should be completely useless out of combat (and so should Barbarians, apparently)
w01fe01 wrote: i honestly...thin barbarian should have 2...never made sense to me that they got 4.
Now the guy that have lived all his live in the wilderness can only swim and climb. god forbid he need to now something about nature, or find his own food or stay alert at night for preators.
Anb before somebody sugest to have 14 int so the barbarian could have more skill, does that means that average int guys have no chance to survive in the barbaric life style? are all barbarian tribe composed of people 20% smarter than the average?
w01fe01 wrote:
until you post the mountain
I have, along with others, somewhere in the past 34 pages. They're there if you wish to look for them.
w01fe01 wrote: i call strawman That doesn't mean what you think it means.
w01fe01 wrote: fighters are not bad in combat, they are boring, they get no super cool abiltiies or anything. they should.
your acting like i think fighters are fine, which im not, im simply disagreeing with shoring up all there weaknesses simply cuz people dont find them interesting, rather...make them interesting!
Their weaknesses aren't things they should have. They're not weaknesses to balance their strengths, they don't have any particularly huge strengths at all that need balancing.
Therefore, said weaknesses should be shored up. Giving them 4+Int and good Ref or Will saves leaves them as still slightly inferior to Rangers (Spells + prerequisite-less Feats still makes them better), but closes the gap considerably.
w01fe01 wrote:
this is geting really more about why cant a fighter be good at everything because its a fighter, which is a catchall. rather then lets make a fighter better.
4 skill per lvel hardly make someone good at everything. If that were true the rogues were not the weak class they are.
look you guys, i said my thoughts on it, its not your job to convince me, i said i disagree, not that omg your wrong change your ways of thinking to mine argh!
and regardless i think making a fighter more interesting is far more important then 2 more skill points a level...not for the purposees of them not getting it...but for changing the topic of discussion to something more impactful then omg a small number increase.
once again, what are your ideas on making a fighter more fun? i gave my idea...twice i think. whats yours, what do you think of mine? etc, etc...
Nicos wrote: w01fe01 wrote:
this is geting really more about why cant a fighter be good at everything because its a fighter, which is a catchall. rather then lets make a fighter better.
4 skill per lvel hardly make someone good at everything. If that were true the rogues were not the weak class they are. you want more skill points to the most combat focused class in the game
you want all good saves
you want no restriction on magic
you want to be good at everything, and good isnt great either.
and if anyone brings up how fighters are weak vs casters im gonna smash my face into my keyboard. ALL CASTERS are out of balance vs martial classes, that is not a fighter issue, its a magic user issue.
Quote: great whats an elite combatant?
everyone in this game is a combatant...an elite one means...they are better?
No, again (though I feel like some of the sands of this discussion might be shifting underfoot... weren't we talking about pitchfork wielding peasants, and whether they deserved the lofty title of Fighter, a second ago, not other PCs as it seems you may be referring to now?)
Regardless, not everyone in the game is either a combatant or an elite one. See: aforementioned peasants, who are not fighters at all, whether or not they may be handy with that pitchfork.
w01fe01 wrote: they may not spike as hard as say...a barbarian, but damnit if they arent consistant. They AREN'T consistent. This is something I'll try to consistently (:P) keep questioning every time someone tries to claim it as fact.
Their poor defenses, their lack of ability to overcome debilitating effects, and their poor ability to overcome most obstacles that go beyond simple AC make them among the least consistent of all classes - in my experience - since no matter what damage their theoretical full attack might be dealing, they will spend plenty of time not dealing that to the foe because something has stopped them and they've got no way to deal with it. Probably the second least consistent, however, because the poor Rogue with his sneak attack is even less so. I can't think of any other core class that has less consistency to offer than those two however.
My fighter in the most recent combat in our game spent much of the combat not dealing any damage because the foes kept using walls of force and he cannot really do anything at all about walls of force, as I have posted about before in this thread. (since that last post the fight went for two more rounds chasing down the last enemy, in neither of which rounds I dealt said enemy any damage due to more force effects).
Sometimes the fighters manage to get a few full attacks in though; in fact, I'd say the only thing consistent about either of our fighter's combat performance is that it is extremely inconsistent and depends greatly on the conditions of the fight and foe.
w01fe01 wrote: Nicos wrote: w01fe01 wrote:
this is geting really more about why cant a fighter be good at everything because its a fighter, which is a catchall. rather then lets make a fighter better.
4 skill per lvel hardly make someone good at everything. If that were true the rogues were not the weak class they are. you want more skill points to the most combat focused class in the game
Every class class is combat focused. Barbarians, rangers, inquisitors, alchemist and even bards, and they are great in their combat role. Every one of them, and they have more skill points.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
w01fe01 wrote:
you want more skill points to the most combat focused class in the game
It works for the Barbarian and Ranger, classes that are overall better at combat.
So why can't the Fighter have it?
w01fe01 wrote: you want all good saves MORE THAN ONE > ALL.
I felt the caps were necessary since you seem to have missed that most people have been talking about Reflex OR Will as another good save.
w01fe01 wrote: you want no restriction on magic This sentence doesn't really make any sense in context, so I'm not sure what you mean.
w01fe01 wrote: you want to be good at everything, and good isnt great either. THIS, by the by, is a strawman.
NOBODY has said "Fighters need to be good at everything", that is words you are putting in other's mouths so you can shoot down everything tangential to it.
What people HAVE been saying is "The Fighter needs to be good at SOMETHING", because currently he is not. He's not even good at combat. Dealing damage? Sure. But that's not all combat is. That is the least part of it.
w01fe01 wrote: and if anyone brings up how fighters are weak vs casters im gonna smash my face into my keyboard. ALL CASTERS are out of balance vs martial classes, that is not a fighter issue, its a magic user issue. Rangers and Paladins are only casters by technicality, and Barbarians aren't at all.
These are the classes Fighters are consistently compared to and found wanting.
You are once again speaking against something the majority has not said.
w01fe01 wrote: you want more skill points to the most combat focused class in the game Most combat-focused? Perhaps. Best at combat? Not even close. 4 skill points per level is still the bare minimum to be effective as anything! 2 points means you can't even have all skills necessary to excel at whatever it is you want to use your skills for.
w01fe01 wrote: you want all good saves Two good saves is nothing OP, especially when of those saves is Reflex. A bonus against mind control only puts them on par with Barbarians and Paladins. Every class should have some sort of resistance against SoL spells.
w01fe01 wrote: you want no restriction on magic I don't even know what this means... Are Fighters unable to use magic items for some reason? Because most us agree that Fighters shouldn't use magic.
w01fe01 wrote: you want to be good at everything, and good isnt great either. We want Fighters to be good at something. Barbarians, Paladins and Rangers all make great combatants, they're all at least as good in combat as a Fighter (I'd honestly say they're better, but that's my opinion), and they all have other useful tools to help the party. Fighters don't have anything... If a problem can't be solved by killing something, a Fighter's only resource is step aside and hope his friends can do something..
w01fe01 wrote: and if anyone brings up how fighters are weak vs casters im gonna smash my face into my keyboard. ALL CASTERS are out of balance vs martial classes, that is not a fighter issue, its a magic user issue. Fighters are not only weak against casters. They are weak against anything that doesn't target AC or Fort. Every other martial class has better saves than Fighters (except, maybe, Cavalier/Samurai). Every single one of them has some sort of ability to help them against unusual attacks or defenses.
Weak saves is not a minor problem... It's a huge weakness! And Fighters get nothing to either alleviate this weakness or compensate them for it.
Lemmy wrote: Fighters are not peasants... Those are Commoners. They are not even city guards. Those are Warriors.
You can make a Fighter who is a peasant, of course, but you can do the same with a Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian or even Wizard if you want. Saying Fighters are "commoners with pitchforks" makes as much sense as saying "Cleric are tailors".
Fighters are elite combatants. They above your usual soldier. Or at least, they should be.
I must respectfully disagree.
A city militia might be mostly level 1 Warriors.
City Guard are going to be mostly level 1 Fighters. Lieutenants would likely be level 3 Fighters. The Captain of the Guard would find a nice spot at level 5. Also, you likely won't see any magic items - the captain might be sporting a +1 weapon, but not much else.
So when the adventuring Fighter comes strolling into town, decked out in magic and likely with as many or more levels, he could mop the floor with the best the City Guard has to offer, even without giving the Fighter class more options than it has now.
Let's look at in-setting examples even: Chelaxian Hellknights are definitely superior to level 1 warriors.
Cormyr War Wizards are the mage version of "infantry grunt" and they have to be high enough level to Widen a Fireball spell. Definitely not your level 1 Adept.
And the list goes on and on.
Adventurers are special snowflakes because they have opportunity, not because the rest of the world is made up of ineffectual nobodies.
Neo2151 wrote: I must respectfully disagree.
A city militia might be mostly level 1 Warriors.
City Guard are going to be mostly level 1 Fighters. Lieutenants would likely be level 3 Fighters. The Captain of the Guard would find a nice spot at level 5. Also, you likely won't see any magic items - the captain might be sporting a +1 weapon, but not much else.
So when the adventuring Fighter comes strolling into town, decked out in magic and likely with as many or more levels, he could mop the floor with the best the City Guard has to offer, even without giving the Fighter class more options than it has now.
I'm not sure... I'd have no problem saying that captain is a 3rd level warrior. Most non-adventurers have 1 or 2 levels in a NPC class, maybe 3. A guard composed of elite warriors could have Fighters, Rangers, Barbarians, etc... But the average guard watching the streets is a 1st~2nd level warrior. Which already makes them considerably stronger than any commoner, expert or aristocrat.
Neo2151 wrote: Let's look at in-setting examples even: Chelaxian Hellknights are definitely superior to level 1 warriors.
Cormyr War Wizards are the mage version of "infantry grunt" and they have to be high enough level to Widen a Fireball spell. Definitely not your level 1 Adept.
And the list goes on and on.
Adventurers are special snowflakes because they have opportunity and wealth, not because the rest of the world is made up of ineffectual nobodies.
Well, Hellknights are definitely better than your average guard. They certainly have levels in one PC class or another... But I believe we are disagreeing more about the professions of NPCs than about their classes...
4 skill points, and add acrobatics and perception.
Any skilled warrior should be able to spot threats at least once in a while, particularly when he says he's doing that. It's hard to be acrobatic with armor, but it shouldn't be impossible. Light-armored fighters might do OK with that, if they max it out. Others won't bother, beyond a point or 2.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Invisible Kierkegaard wrote: 4 skill points, and add acrobatics and perception.
Any skilled warrior should be able to spot threats at least once in a while, particularly when he says he's doing that. It's hard to be acrobatic with armor, but it shouldn't be impossible. Light-armored fighters might do OK with that, if they max it out. Others won't bother, beyond a point or 2.
Personally I give them 4 skill points per level and add Heal, Perception and 2 other skills of the player's choice as class skills. It always bugged me that Fighters are supposed to be represents all sorts of different warriors with all sorts of different trainings and background and yet, they all had the exact same skills :\. And Heal and Perception simply seem like skills every class with martial training should have...
/sigh
@coriat
first, yes everyone is a combatant, by definition if your participating in combat your a combatant. its why its a poor word choice.
second, they are most consistant at delivering damage. poor defenses i guess i have to see to believe, everygame ive played a fighter could be a damn good tank. if your talking numbers, they only mean so much. people say monks are weak ive seen them wreck things. and ive seen paladins suck. if your talking vacuum, ok i guess.
most martial classes however there performance depend on the situation, ive yet to see a situation stated that didnt apply to all classes in some way thus far.
@nicos
they are the most combat focused, and capable of focusing the most, the number of combat oriented feats they can choose from is obvious enough.
@Rynjin
im done with the skill point talk, you guys have your opinions, i have mine, im not addressing it anymore.
as for saves, i saw people saying they should have all good saves, i disagreed, ive already posted that i think they should have 2 good saves, and possibly should even be able to choose wich 2.
nobody said fighters need to be, everyone has added things together to do just that tho (be good at everything), they should have a suitable number of skill points, good saves, stronger defenses, better offenses to deal with any situation that leaves them at a disadvantage (i imagine every class would like that) have some things sure, but not all, thats my point.
fighters are combat focused, they need to be good at COMBAT, just as a rogue is good at skills and wizard at spells. but being good at combat doesnt mean buff all there passive abilities, thats not fun, and thats another issue fighters have, fun.
ive seen more then one person talk about fighters being weak vs casters, that was where i was addressing my grievance. as for the rest, like i said, im obviously not against changes to fighters.
you know what fighters get to compensate for saves weaknesses? bravery and more feats then anyone in the game.
now...im for them having 2 good saves obviously.
regardless this is just becoming a silly situation. im tring to steer the conversation into a more impactful and meaningful direction and everyone wants to just yell at me cuz i disagree with something. i get it, if your not for your against, so im the enemy. peace.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
w01fe01 wrote: look you guys, i said my thoughts on it, its not your job to convince me, i said i disagree, not that omg your wrong change your ways of thinking to mine argh! If you're incapable of doing anything to defend your position beyond screaming "caaaaaaaake!" and willfully ignoring logic and facts, don't be surprised when someone calls you on it.
Chengar Qordath wrote: w01fe01 wrote: look you guys, i said my thoughts on it, its not your job to convince me, i said i disagree, not that omg your wrong change your ways of thinking to mine argh! If you're incapable of doing anything to defend your position beyond screaming "caaaaaaaake!" and willfully ignoring logic and facts, don't be surprised when someone calls you on it. i did, several times, everyone says no they disagree, opinions are what they are. i simply used that term as it came to my mind. i wasnt called out on anything, people simply said they disagree. thats fine, i wasnt trying to say i have powers over your gaming tables and will impose my will.
|
