| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.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.
We're not trying to "impose our will" on you, we're telling you our opinion and the reasoning behind them. This is a forum. Discussing our opinions is pretty much all there is to do here. Forum involve discussion, and discussion often involves trying to convince someone else of your opinion. As long as we do so politely, things are going exactly as intended.
You didn't give a single reason for Fighter to have terrible skill points and saves. You simply said it'd be too much. Why? I don't know. You never gave us any reasoning. No, you simply assumed we're dirty munchkins who want Fighters to be able to "DO EVERYTHING EVER!" and proceeded to scream "cake whatever" time and time again, as if that'd make it a less empty argument. You ignore our argument and say we are the ones being close-minded. You come to a discussion forum and then act surprised or offended when we discuss the subject.
Fighters are mediocre at fighting exactly because they are so narrow oriented.
And saying Fighters should have 2 good saves and a mediocre number of skills is not the same as wanting them to "be able to do everything".
Even if they had all good saves and 4 skill points per level, Fighters would still need help with a lot of situations, including, but not limited to: invisible opponents, incorporeal creatures, battlefield control spells, touch attacks, healing, removing harmful conditions, mobility, gathering information, etc.
So no, 4 skill points per level and 2 good saves + a decent bonus against a few effects is not even close to "being able to do everything"
1- Bravery sucks. Your average Wizard or Sorcerer is still more likely to resist fear effects than Fighters.
2- Martial classes shouldn't be easily dominated. Otherwise they simply fail at their job. A bonus against compulsion is not the same as a good Will save. There are lots of spells that target will, many of them belong to Illusion and Transmutation schools.
3- 2 skill points is not enough to be good at anything. At most, you're not completely terrible at a single role. Fighters shouldn't be useless out of combat simply because the class is named "Fighter". This is a terrible argument! Fighters could be named "GUY-WHO-ONLY-HITS-STUFF" and their design would still be terrible.
4- Feats do not compensate for Fighters' weaknesses. They help a little bit, but in the end, Fighters still have bad defenses and nearly zero out of combat utility.
5- Being good in combat shouldn't mean you have to suck at everything else. All other martial classes are just as good as Fighters in combat (or better) and they're all vastly superior to him out of combat.
No class should as worthless as Fighters are outside of their specialization. Especially when "outside of their specialization" includes "everything not related to combat".
Just a slight segway, I believe that if you want to look at a martial that no one is unhappy with, then the obvious candidate would be the ranger.
full bab
good fort and reflex
6+int skills
a companion capable of a fair amount of dpr in its own right
four levels of spellcasting
against the fighter...
tell me, where aside from hitting things do they measure up to this totally reasonable class?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well... They hit things really hard! And they have higher AC... And they... Uhhh... Did I mention they hit things really hard?
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.
That's why I advocate for a name change. Seriously. It's not tongue in cheek or a joke.
As long as they are called "fighters", there'll be a resistance among the fanbase to give them heroic stuff. A "fighter" can't be fear-inmune because, you know, militia, pitchfork peasants and sleepy city watch aren't fear inmune.
Now call the class "Legendary hero". There's no resistance in the fanbase to give a class named "legendary hero" fear inmunuity. Because pitchfork peasants aren't legendary heroes. Achilles, Beowulf, Ullyses, Jamie Lanister and Kull are legendary heroes, and those *are* inmune to fear. Give the class a proper name, and he can be fixed. Until then, people will complain whenever the pitchfork peasants get nice stuff.
|
Here's a little Fighter variant I threw together.
The goal was to not change the fighter too much, but still give him greater flexibility outside of (and maybe for) combat.
Capability in combination with Vicissitude technically gives the fighter scaling for some, but not all feats.
The Vicissitude feat-changing was stolen from the fighter's bonus feat entry, so he only get's it every 3rd level, because it is now possible to change a prerequisite feat if you still "meet" the prereq via Capability.
This frees up feats for either combat purposes OR out of combat uses, and makes it easier to qualify for them.
Here's the link
Achilles, Beowulf, Ullyses, Jamie Lanister and Kull are legendary heroes, and those *are* inmune to fear.
Who says?
Aren't bards (real or otherwise) pretty famous for making the hero look perfect and conveniently leaving out all the gritty details that would paint them in a bad light? :P
Achilles, Beowulf, Ullyses, Jamie Lanister and Kull are legendary heroes, and those *are* inmune to fear.Who says?
Aren't bards (real or otherwise) pretty famous for making the hero look perfect and conveniently leaving out all the gritty details that would paint them in a bad light? :P
Or the complete opposite and paint heroes they don't like in the most negative (and often comical) light they possibly can. "yeah ok he slayed the hydra single handedly, but did you see what he tried to do with that chicken? Hardly a great hero, now who would like a song". Rep both good and bad is by bards, who will take as much an opportunity for telling comedies as epics.
/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.
Arguing about the semantics of "combatant" is simply a distraction from the substance of this disagreement, which is whether some random peasant who picks up his torch and pitchfork is a good example of what the Fighter class ought to be designed to represent.
I still think that it is not, and that the niche of random peasants with pitchforks is filled by the Commoner or Warrior NPC classes. Thus there is no need to drag down the Fighter class so that it can be a good representation of such unskilled characters.
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.
I am not sure what you mean by talking vacuum. If you are arguing that numbers only mean so much, I fully agree, which is unfortunate for fighters as he gets offensive numbers but no abilities to help him bring them to bear.
Can you explain, other than numbers, what it is about fighters that makes them the most consistent damage delivering class, or what it is about them that makes them damn good tanks?
I have explained why I think the opposite in both cases (respectively: lesser ability to overcome obstacles that stand in the way of damage than other martial classes, and lack of class abilities to avoid or mitigate harm, whether hit point harm or magical harm).
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.
Well, for example, with many spells that could prevent the barbarian dealing his damage (such as a force wall, a deeper darkness, a pit spell, a dominate), a barbarian might be able to just Spell Sunder them out of the way, or get help passing his saves against them with Clear Mind or Superstition or whatever other rage powers. A paladin can hold foes in melee with him with a litany of entanglement, preventing them from going mobile and interrupting his full attacks, or he can power through damage or effects that would otherwise slow him down via his great saves, his lay on hands, and his mercies. A ranger has spells to see and fight in the dark where a fighter might be blind, spells to avoid having his own mobility hampered so that he can still get to the foe to deal his damage, and likely has an animal companion friend meaning that if you want to shut down his damage, you need to disable 2 creatures rather than just the ranger himself.
Just some examples off the top of my head. All classes are better in some situations than others, but that does not mean that all classes are equally disadvantaged by adverse situations. These other three martial classes all have much better options for adapting to adverse circumstances, and still being able to do their thing despite what is getting thrown at them, than the fighter does.
Achilles, Beowulf, Ullyses, Jamie Lanister and Kull are legendary heroes, and those *are* inmune to fear.Who says?
Aren't bards (real or otherwise) pretty famous for making the hero look perfect and conveniently leaving out all the gritty details that would paint them in a bad light? :P
Have we read the same books?
"Often many men must suffer misery - through the will of one - as we do now."
That's one thing that the Beowulf poet had Wiglaf say about his hero.
Or could you point me to the lines in the Iliad where Homer talks about how Achilles' rage was so awesome for all involved. Are these the ones?
Rage :
Sing, Goddess, Achilles' rage,
Black and murderous, that cost the Greeks
Incalculable pain, pitched countless souls
Of heroes into Hades' dark,
And left their bodies to rot as feasts
For dogs and birds, as Zeus' will was done.
Or perhaps was it when he was talking about how totally A-OK Achilles' treatment of Hector's body was, and how his hero was not acting evilly and impiously at all?
Etc.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMHO most classes should possess Perception has a class skill just like all classes possess Craft and Profession. Simply because Perception is not a skill but a sense, and is a class skill for all humanoids (and nearly all creatures in fact) and for commoners. People mention ambushes, but Perception is also useful during combat (for dealing with strike-vanishers), to merely perceive at a distance (important when you're archery specialized and you need to see what you're shooting at), etc.
Bluff and Sense Motive seem like good candidates since Bluff is used for a rudimentary combat technique (feinting) and Sense Motive is for anticipating feints.
^ Skill stuff.
=================================================================
Fighters aren't good at fighting. They are good at hitting things with objects, and they are decent at getting hit with objects and being okay with it. However "combat" or "battle" in D&D is a fantastic thing where you routinely are subjected to magical spells, flamethrowers (usually lodged in some critter's mouth), bolts of lightning, noxious gas, a vampire's gaze, the level-draining touch of a wight, have to deal with the read of ogres, the regeneration of trolls, flying manticore with ranged attack tail spikes, succubi that control your stuff, creatures that shroud the battlefield in perpetual darkvision resistant darkness but can see in it and have sneak attack, etc.
Fighters are not good with dealing with most of these things. They have little defense against any of these things. If it doesn't involve beating it with a pointy stick then they are not very useful. They are one of the worst classes in the game at "fighting" because fighting is far, far deeper than To-hit and AC statistics.
Their saving throws are abysmal. In pre-3E, fighters had the best saving throws in the game barring perhaps Paladins (who shared the same progression but got a +2 bonus on saves for being a Paladin). In 3E they took an arrow to the knee and lost their strong defenses against magical assaults and the like.
Regardless of what role a Fighter is supposed to take, or what name he has, we can all agree on one thing. He is the mundane non-magic guy. He has no magic in a multiverse that is permeated in magic (when natural parts of the world include things like elder fire elementals, dryads, and lizards that turn you to stone, you're in the deep end of magical), yet he has no adaptations to living or existing in this world.
He has never...
1) Learned skills. He has the worst skill selection in the game, even when compared to classes with similar skill point values. All the time he spent not learning magic he apparently spent doing...?
2) Learned to use his will to shirk the diabolical spells of mages. It seems likely that if you're going to completely forgo magical powers in a magical world, you'd at least try to hone your mind against such tricks. Unfortunately the dean of Fighter University was mind-controlled and has taken "Will Save 101" off the curriculum indefinitely.
3) Learned to be reflexive. Despite apparently spending no time working on magic, or skills, the fighter is also pretty bad at athletics. He is neither fast nor agile on his feet. His Reflex save is outmatched by back roguish con-men and the dog sitting on your couch.
We have a completely "mundane" guy who "sucks at fighting" because he should not "exist in this world by all accounts of logic" and who apparently spent the entirety of his youth sitting on his couch masturbating rather than learning any skill that could be applied in his career of fighting magical monstrosities for money.
At the very least since Fighters...
A) Have no magical abilities - at all.
B) Have to meet the prerequisites for their bonus feats (most martials that get bonus feats as features do not).
C) Have no means of solving problems without hitting them.
Should probably have...
A) Perfect saving throws (or at the very least 2 good ones)
B) 6 + Int modifier skill points (or at least 4 + Int mod)
C) Have a pool of themed options (it'd be nice to get their leadership back from pre-3E, or have the option to get a mount, or have some options for being sturdier and more stalwart, etc).
What they get...
A) Huge feat chains that have lots of feats that they don't want.
B) Irritating prerequisites that require you to map out your build from start to finish with extreme care.
C) Forced to spend a lot of their non-fighter bonus feats to try to cover for the weaknesses other martials don't have (like Iron Will and Lightning Reflexes vs Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin) who can also take those same feats for layered defenses.
Oh, and D) They get to be compared to farmers with pitchforks, sleepy drunken guards, and the the local constable instead of Beowulf, Aragorn, Achilles, Gemli son of Gloin, Conan, Captain America, Wolverine, Batman, William Wallace, etc. With people being serious about it. Probably the most insulting thing out of all of it.
Aragorn was a switch hitter ranger.
Captain America is a Shield and cesti Ranger.
Conan is a Invulnerable Rager.
Achilles was a Urban Barbarian
Wolverine is a Beast totem barb.
William Wallace was a Barbarian
Batman would be an Inquisitor. (Seriously the class screams stealthy intimidating dude with a ton of skills and batman's unlimited gizmos would be the 6 levels of casting)
I' ll agree Gimli was a fighter.
I'd also agree on Flint, Caramon, Ivan Bouldershoulder and Bruenor Battlehammer.
Thibbledorf Pwent was a Viking fighter archetpye or a Brawler with a dip in Barbarian.
Wolverine is a Beast totem barb.
He probably has a few Ranger levels too, considering how good he's at stealth and infiltration.
Batman would be an Inquisitor. (Seriously the class screams stealthy intimidating dude with a ton of skills and batman's unlimited gizmos would be the 6 levels of casting)
That makes sense, though Batman would definitely have full BAB and Improved Unarmed Strike. I'd say the closes we get is some bizarre 6th level gestalt of Ranger, Monk and Ninja... With maybe some casting class to represent his gizmos. Ranger/Monk/Inqusitor/Ninja make sense... That's why he's so OP even though he's lowish level. (I'd say Superman is likely a 2nd level LG Expert with like... 22 racial HDs)
Oddly enough, the one save we see Batman fail all the time is Fortitude... But that's mostly because lots of his opponents use some kind of poison as one of their main weapons, including, but not limited to Joker, Poison Ivy and Scarecrow. His Will and Reflex saves, OTOH, are definitely as high as possible.
Maybe Wolverine is a WILD STALKER RANGER?
Ranger skills+ Mad Rage.
Wild stalkers don't get a companion animal= Wolverine
Wild stalkers get huge Perception bonuses= Wolverine
Wild stalkers get RAGE= Wolverine.
The claws could be the Unarmed combat style+ Beast Totem?
I agree with Ashiel. The only real time I wanted to roll a fighter was when I knew the entire party were new players. I decided to go TWF with a longsword-shortsword (Much like Valeros) and I learned some things about fighters and feats.
The first thing I learned was that feat progression sucks. Just to be a two weapon fighter I needed a LOT of feats. Just to do anything really took a lot of feats. To do one thing that I wanted to do usually required 3 to 5 feats. I wound up mapping out a Ranger instead, despite hating the concept of Ranger(I'm not a fan of fruity nature classes), because he gets TWF feats without meeting prerequisites letting me do what I wanted.
The second thing I learned was that I had to spend a lot of time on feats. A LOT of time. There are like a gagillian feats and a lot of them are terrible. Not to mention the prerequisites often asks for ability scores well outside of what I was doing so I have to carefully plan my ability scores around what feats I want. I wind up having to write out my progression from lvl 1-20 and re-work things several times before actually playing the thing. New players often go for fighter because of the iconography of 'tough dude with a sword' and the simplicity of just having feats as his gimmick but it's more complicated to make than my Magus.
The third thing I learned is that after all these things I can't do squat against a few too many things. Before trying a fighter, I figured that since he's not studying religion or mysticism He might have some skill ranks to make him a bit well rounded, especially since optimization guides set Int as a dump stat, but he has a piddly 2 skill ranks leaving me to wonder what on earth I will do if Int is my dump stat. I don't even get class skills to help out. I'd like to be able to jump over a barrel without dying if I'm mostly defined by my athleticism, or maybe see something. What the hell am I going to do with Craft.
I also can't dodge for crap and fall prey to mind affecting things really easily.
I don't think that the fighter is 'bad' in terms of doing what he's supposed to do, but he isn't supposed to do much, and even then some of the other classes do the same thing only get cool powers. I think a Rogue is weaker but at least it gets to be cool, especially out of combat.
Seeing as cool powers are what people like, is the VIKING archetype just plain better than fighter since you get feats AND rage powers?
Seeing as cool powers are what people like, is the VIKING archetype just plain better than fighter since you get feats AND rage powers?
Depends on what your doing. They get synergy with demoralizing and shields, but if your not interested in that sort of thing then your just a barbarian with less skill points and no uncanny dodge or any of those other nice barbarian archetypes.
Seeing as cool powers are what people like, is the VIKING archetype just plain better than fighter since you get feats AND rage powers?
Oddly enough I'm not big on giving Fighters anything even slightly supernatural like rage powers.
If I were to personally 'remake' fighters I'd give them;
4+INT mod skill ranks per level
Good will saves (Weapon training makes me believe that a fighter is defined by intense training in mastery over combat tools)
Something akin to Style Feats that are based on weapons. Especially since those feat chains are 3 feats long and the prerequisites are lessened for the class they're made for.
Yeah. Weapon style feats would be awesome.
Yeah. Weapon style feats would be awesome.
Ditto, I'd like to see them. Preferably without weapon restrictions. Would help all the martials, but master of many weapon styles fighter sounds pretty awesome.
Look to the Diamond Mind and Iron Heart ToB styles for inspiration.
Look to the Diamond Mind and Iron Heart ToB styles for inspiration.
I like Leaping Dragon Style from the Tiger Claw discipline myself. All the disciplines had their niche.
Maybe Wolverine is a WILD STALKER RANGER?
Ranger skills+ Mad Rage.
Wild stalkers don't get a companion animal= Wolverine
Wild stalkers get huge Perception bonuses= Wolverine
Wild stalkers get RAGE= Wolverine.The claws could be the Unarmed combat style+ Beast Totem?
Ah, that makes sense! Maybe he is some kind of Lycanthrope as well, with his keen senses and claws... But as a playable character, yeah, a Wild Stalker comes really close!
Conan is a feat ranger with FE: Human and Animals.(Seriously, in the Conan world Rangers with Fe: Human would be UNSTOPPABLE) Maybe a barb/1.
Supes is likely an expert/3, fighter/3 with the Kryptonian template. He actually IS very good at fighting without super powers, because they've been taken away so much. Taught by Batman, of course.
======
Fighters should be the most modular of the classes, and get more out of feats then any other class.
FOr instance: Iron Will: A fighter would add his bravery bonus to the save granted by Iron Will.
L. Reflexes: He'd add his armor training bonus.
Great Fort: He'd add his weapon training bonus.
Thus, the fighters gets more out of a feat then any other class.
etc.
==Aelryinth
Here is who is bad at will saves:
- Alchemist
Barbarian (Not everyone goes with Superstition - And even those who do, it doesn't work outside of Rage.)
Cavalier/Samurai
Fighter
Gunslinger
Ranger
Rogue/Ninja
So why is it that Fighters are they only ones that are constantly argued about needing a high Will save (because it somehow makes sense?) and you never hear it about all these other classes?
|
Of course if you really want to try to have a Fighter be somewhat good on saves, you can try pusing the Unbreakable archetype until level 13, so that you can obtain the evasion-like negation to Fortitude and Will saves, then obtain a Ring of Evasion to get the last save...
So by level 13 you have your 8/4/4 scores to your saves. If you want to, you can forego the ring and dip into monk or rogue for 2 levels to gain evasion for your Reflex save. If you go into monk, you will be looking at 11/7/7 base for your saves at Ftr 13/Mnk 2, which negates all partials. Toss in a Cloak of Protection, and you got yourself some secent saves.
Then again, you now have to try to build around everything else...
Alchemists have access to spells to up their saves.
barbarians get boosted Will and Fort saves when they rage...and incredibly strong protective rage powers. And don't forget uncanny dodge and trap sense.
Cavaliers, fighters and gunslingers are all the same thing.
Rangers get two good saves AND evasion, in addition to some protective spells.
Rogues and Ninjas at least get slippery mind, which fighters have no equal of, but yes, they're sucking the will save. It's just that your tank is much more dangerous to the party dominated then your rogue is. Also, uncanny dodge and trap sense.
==Aelryinth
Cav/Samurai could use it (though Ref might make more thematic sense for a horse mounted character, though "Resolve" for Samurai speaks to Will for me), along with Rogue/Ninja (you hear about that a lot in Rogue threads).
Rangers need Wis, so they have a bit more leeway for having low progression, and Fort and Ref are better thematically for the savvy woodsman archetype the class is based on. As well, they're already in a greatspot balance-wise, and don't need it for that reason.
Gunslingers also need Wis somewhat, so the same thing applies as for Rangers, and as Dex is their main stat regardless of archetype or build (meaning all Gunslingers have good Reflexes), and also represent a sort of fighter archetype as well, hardy and of the rough and tumble sort, Fort makes sense for them too. There could be arguments for swapping the two, I'm sure, but they have no specific need of it thematically or balance-wise.
Alchemists having high Will saves would be thematically INappropriate. The built-in fluff for them, from the Bombs to the Mutagens to many Discoveries representing self-experimentation points toward a sort of "Mad Scientist" vibe, and common sense and strong wills are kinda contrary to that theme. Fort works because of poisons and other alchemical unsavories that they're built up a resistance/immunity to, and Ref because Bombs and being dextrous. And, again, they don't need it for balance purposes. They're good.
Barbarians get a Will bonus in Rage and Superstition is kinda expected for them to have I think. As well, in my eyes, Reflex would be a better thematic second save than Will for them, as much like Rangers their abilities evoke a survivalist and a rough and ready fighter.
But the Fighter class, is, supposedly a disciplined and well trained warrior, a hero, an "unparalleled champion" and force on the battlefield. Of all of the pure martial classes, Will makes the most sense for them thematically, and balance-wise it would help a lot to bring Fighters up to speed with other classes.
Here is who is bad at will saves:
Alchemist
Barbarian (Not everyone goes with Superstition - And even those who do, it doesn't work outside of Rage.)
Cavalier/Samurai
Fighter
Gunslinger
Ranger
Rogue/NinjaSo why is it that Fighters are they only ones that are constantly argued about needing a high Will save (because it somehow makes sense?) and you never hear it about all these other classes?
I think people argue will saves for fighters because there's a sense of the trope where magical mind control will not sway the warrior because his will to fight is so strong.
Personally I tend to define the Fighter as someone who's source of power is mastery over skill at arms, using martial knowledge and training to overcome limitations of average men, making strength of will a defining trait they should have.
Here is who is bad at will saves:
Alchemist
Barbarian (Not everyone goes with Superstition - And even those who do, it doesn't work outside of Rage.)
Cavalier/Samurai
Fighter
Gunslinger
Ranger
Rogue/NinjaSo why is it that Fighters are they only ones that are constantly argued about needing a high Will save (because it somehow makes sense?) and you never hear it about all these other classes?
IMO, all classes should have some sort of defense against magic, but front-liners need it more than anyone else, because they're supposed to be able to hold the front lines. They can't do that if any schmuck with a SLA can easily dominate them...
But let's consider the classes you mentioned.
Alchemist: These guys have all sorts of buffs and 2 good saves. They can cover up their defenses pretty well, although not as well as real caster, of course.
Barbarian: Even without Superstition, Barbarians get a scaling bonus to Will saves, and higher Con means better Fort saves as well. They also have access to a lot of Rage Powers that greatly improve their ability to resist magic. If you don't pick any of them, that's your fault. Fighters, OTOH, can grab Iron Will and... Well, that's pretty much it. Sure, Rage Powers only works during Rage, but Rage is the Bread & Butter of Barbarians. They don't need awesome defenses even when they're not Raging.
Cavalier/Samurai: Should receive a buff too. From what I've seen, these guys are just as underpowered as Fighters, if not even more so. At least they get something unique, though.
Gunslinger: They have 2 good saves and only have to worry about 2 stats, one of which is Wisdom. Even the archetype that uses Cha gets a scaling bonus to will saves! SADness and focus on Wis makes a pretty good defense.
Ranger: Ranger could actually receive a (small) bonus in this department (maybe a small bonus to saves caused by favored enemies or to saves made while in a Favored Terrain?). Anyway, they're still not as defenseless as Fighters. Why? A) They already get 2 good saves and Evasion. B) They have more reason to invest in Wisdom than Fighters. C) They have spells. Freedom of Movement by itself makes them considerably better than Fighters at fighting magical opponents. D) If they really want, they can even craft their own magic items, saving some extra cash to invest in their saves.
Rogue/Ninja: These guys have the worst saves in the whole game. It'd not be such a bad problem if they weren't so bad at hitting stuff and keeping a decent AC as well. Having to chase after 3 of the most basic stuff a character needs to survive pretty much ensures Rogues are always lagging behind. I like the idea of Rogues/Ninjas being able to make a Reflex save instead of a Will save a few times per day. Maybe 1 time per day at 2nd level and an extra one every 4 Rogue level thereafter?
This is why fighters need good will saves!!
If you haven't seen the whole thing, The bad dude's favorite tactic is DOMINATING warriors to kill themselves.
Look, Reflexes is regarded as the worst save in the game because no reflex-affecting effect is going to be SoD/SoS. It's all damage-based stuff, and a Fighter can soak that. That leaves Fort and Will as the "good" saves, and the Fighter gets one of them.
It could be worse - they could only get Ref.
Now, just like a Barbarian who chooses not to invest in save-related Rage powers is making a bad choice, a Fighter who tanks their Wisdom score in order to squeeze out an extra point or two of Strength is making a bad choice. That's how min/maxing works, after all.
Besides, don't most will-save issues have built-in rerolls (sometimes with bonuses) when you would be forced to do things totally against your will? Fort saves don't allow that - thank goodness they get great Fort saves, huh?
Now please don't misunderstand - I am totally in favor of beefing up the Fighter class. I honestly think it under-performs as it is now. I just don't think Perception as a class skill or a high base Will save are thematic to the majority of Fighter concepts.
This is why fighters need good will saves!!
If you haven't seen the whole thing, The bad dude's favorite tactic is DOMINATING warriors to kill themselves.
I was thinking this, but I was afraid to say it due to obscurity.
Now please don't misunderstand - I am totally in favor of beefing up the Fighter class. I honestly think it under-performs as it is now. I just don't think Perception as a class skill or a high base Will save are thematic to the majority of Fighter concepts.
I agree with not giving them Perception as a class skill, although part of that is because I think Perception is too encompassing and important and should be re-divided or turned into a general thing (like concentration)
But I do disagree that Will saves are are not compatable with most fighters thematically. Thematically I think that a high will save fits perfectly.
I'm sure no one else agrees with this, but I think high will makes more sense to fighters than high fort. I think fighters are thematically more defined by their prowess by martial mastery as opposed to physical might. They gain skill at arms by training to use weapons better as opposed to going super saiyan (Barbarians) so I think they're more entitled thematically to Will saves than Fort saves. Also the figures I think of when I think of a Fighter works out much like the above video.
Now please don't misunderstand - I am totally in favor of beefing up the Fighter class. I honestly think it under-performs as it is now. I just don't think Perception as a class skill or a high base Will save are thematic to the majority of Fighter concepts.
Out of curiosity, please (re?)state your opinion on what would be a good way to "beef" up the fighter, if you don't mind. I looked up your recent posts in the thread and may have missed it...though in my defense there were an inordinate number of posts concerned with perception.
Now, just like a Barbarian who chooses not to invest in save-related Rage powers is making a bad choice, a Fighter who tanks their Wisdom score in order to squeeze out an extra point or two of Strength is making a bad choice. That's how min/maxing works, after all.
The problem is that even with a moderate Wisdom and Iron Will, Fighters still have weak defenses against magic. Many builds simply can't afford more than a Wisdom 10 or 12. You want your Fighter to be an archer, TWFer, maneuver specialist or simply capable of doing more than standing around doing nothing when not in combat, you'll need to invest in Dex and/or Int plus Str and Con. So you won't have much left to put in Wisdom.
I never dump Int and very rarely dump Wis, and even when I do, I never go lower than Wisdom 8. If my class has poor will save, I'll try and boost Wisdom every time, and still, if I'm a Fighter, it's simply not enough.
Now, Iron Will and traits such as Indomitable Faith or Auspicious Tattoo help a little... But just a little.
Good Reflex simply makes sense to me. Fighter are supposed to be physical paragons, and agility reflects that. No warrior ignores evasion and reflexes, not even the ones clad in full plate.
Adding a bonus against compulsion effects simply puts Fighters on par with Gunslingers, who can easily have considerably higher Wisdom score. Fighter would still be vulnerable to all sorts of effects. Many spells that target will belong to Transmutation or Illusion schools, so being able to resist compulsion more often is not the same as having a good will save.
And again, front-liners should have a pretty good chance to resist effects such as Dominate Person. They are the ones protecting the party, they're the ones keeping the enemies at bay. If they fail their will saves as often as Fighters do, they fail at their role.
I was thinking this, but I was afraid to say it due to obscurity.This is why fighters need good will saves!!
If you haven't seen the whole thing, The bad dude's favorite tactic is DOMINATING warriors to kill themselves.
one of the best early DnD style shows ever.
also 300. just for awesomeness. but there is no scene where a fighter throws off a will affect.
Look, Reflexes is regarded as the worst save in the game because no reflex-affecting effect is going to be SoD/SoS. It's all damage-based stuff, and a Fighter can soak that. That leaves Fort and Will as the "good" saves, and the Fighter gets one of them.
ACTUALLY...
All of the pit spells remove you from combat.
Entangle neuters your melee prowess.
Grease makes you fall down or disarms you.
Pit traps are the...pits.
Web means you're a sitting duck.
Dazing *insert blast spell here* ruins your day.
Spike Growth turns you from martial to martyr.
Spike Stones, see spike growth.
Fire Seeds is indeed only damage but it's around 8d8+(caster level * 8) damage so you may want to take half damage in this case (and your life sucks if they are dazing fire seeds).
Sunray is reflex vs blindness AND damage. Blindness is definitely on the "suck" end of "save or suck".
There's a number of monster abilities that you may want good reflex saves for.
So from what I gather fighters need 6 +int skills per level, good will, fort and reflex saves, and fullcasting.
So from what I gather fighters need 6 +int skills per level, good will, fort and reflex saves, and fullcasting.
Also rage powers, rage, an animal companion, a scaling UMD, and the power to teleport as a free action when someone says a part of his truename. Can't be too safe right?
I'd be cool with 2 good saves and 4+ skill points myself. That's a good start, though a lack of class features isn't easy to fix I don't think.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So from what I gather fighters need 6 +int skills per level, good will, fort and reflex saves, and fullcasting.
If you gathered that from what's been written you need to seriously work on your reading comprehension.
So from what I gather fighters need 6 +int skills per level, good will, fort and reflex saves, and fullcasting.Also rage powers, rage, an animal companion, a scaling UMD, and the power to teleport as a free action when someone says a part of his truename. Can't be too safe right?
I'd be cool with 2 good saves and 4+ skill points myself. That's a good start, though a lack of class features isn't easy to fix I don't think.
Bah.
I say gut the current fighter and give him 1 fighter training per level. Full BAB, good fort, poor will, and ref, 2+int skills per level
Fighter training will be like feats, except they won't stack with feats and scale based off fighter level. This will give a fighter more depth and breadth as he levels.
At first level, in addition to a fighter training, give a fighter the Athletic ability which will allow him make climb, acrobatics jump, and swim checks using a modifier equal to 3+fighter level+strength.
Fighter training will be things that scale. So instead Weapon training would give a fighter a +1 to hit and damage with a weapon group. For every 4 fighter levels after the first the fighter selects another weapon group and his weapon training bonus increases by 1. This won't stack with weapon focus.
Armor training would be equal to one fighter training. Give a fighter access to scaling save boosting training. +1 at to save +1 per 4 fighter levels (+6 at 20). There would be three of those, but they wouldn't stack with another training which would be a +1 + 1 per 4 fighter levels to saves against magical, spell-like, and supernatural effects.
Then of-course take the feat chains and combine them into one fighter training. For example, all the feats you need to make two weapon fighting equal to two-handed fighting come as one fighter training that gives all the benefits of those feats as the fighter levels.
Both power attack and combat expertise scale, but I would tweak them so that they only trade 1 point of BAB plus 1 for every 4 levels of fighter after the first for bonuses. I would make them two fighter training, but you could use both at the same time and only have the penalty apply once. I would combine all the combat maneuver feats into two different fighter trainings that would require the power attack or combat expertise fighter trainings. I would also have the combat maneuver trainings add a scaling bonus to CMB and CMD instead of the flat +4 the tree normally gives.
And so forth until you make a modular fighter class with solid options that puts him on par with casters but still completely different without making any moves towards homology.
EDIT: 0_0
Out of curiosity, please (re?)state your opinion on what would be a good way to "beef" up the fighter, if you don't mind. I looked up your recent posts in the thread and may have missed it...though in my defense there were an inordinate number of posts concerned with perception.Now please don't misunderstand - I am totally in favor of beefing up the Fighter class. I honestly think it under-performs as it is now. I just don't think Perception as a class skill or a high base Will save are thematic to the majority of Fighter concepts.
Sure thing:
•As a start, I'd bump them to 4+Int skills. I am of the opinion that 2+Int shouldn't even be in the game honestly - the bottom should be 4+ and Fighters are not "skilled" characters, so they should fall near the bottom.
•Good Fort and Reflex saves. While there are few fighters that focus their mind as much as a spellcaster would (ie: no logical reason for a generally good Will) there are tons of "nimble-style" fighters, and it makes no sense that a Duelist character doesn't have the same sort of reflexes as a Rogue, etc. Not every Fighter is Bruenor Battlehammer.
•Add Acrobatics, Know: Local, and Sense Motive to the class skill list. Yes, there are arguments for things like Bluff or Heal, but those are character-specific enough that picking them up from Traits should be enough, IMO.
•I would redo Bravery to give a +1 bonus vs Fear at levels 2,4,6, and 8 and then immunity to Fear for the Fighter only at level 10. I have no issue giving Fighters fear immunity, but it should not be as good as a Paladin's.
•While I'm not totally against Lemmy's idea for a bonus vs compulsion effects, I don't think that should be a Core ability. Not every fighter is going to be that "unshakable" character, and it would fit nicely into a Fighter Archetype. But I disagree with giving it, or something like it, to a Core Fighter (Archers, after all, are not front-line combatants, and yet many Fighters go that path, and paths like it.)
•Scaling Feats - I'm totally in favor of this, but not because Fighters need it. Feats are broken in this game; there's too many in general and too many worthless feat trees. While this is a general gameplay issue in my mind, it is very related to Fighter issues, so it can go here too.
•Weapon-specific feats should apply to entire weapon groups. - Just like scaling feats, I think weapons should always belong in groups, and feats like Weapon Focus, etc, should apply equally to that Longsword as it does to that Bastard Sword. Fighters would continue to be the only ones who get Weapon Training, but it would be more valuable, as you wouldn't find yourself tied to a single weapon as easily.
I also think the class needs a mechanical way of being useful outside of combat, but I'm not sure what that should be. Maybe changing skills a bit does that, but maybe it doesn't. Otherwise, there's my list.
Also, just to be thorough, I am of the opinion that not all classes should be balanced. Magic warps reality to the user's will, and as such will always be superior to a weapon swing. I know many people are of the opinion that Fighters need more defenses against magic, but frankly, that's their weakness and it should stay that way.
I am of the opinion that not all classes should be balanced. Magic warps reality to the user's will, and as such will always be superior to a weapon swing. I know many people are of the opinion that Fighters need more defenses against magic, but frankly, that's their weakness and it should stay that way.
Actually, that's one of the things that bothers people about martial/caster disparity. Its when people state it should be that way. I've always preferred balance myself, avoids the game turning into wizard and friends and makes it more playable and easier to set up adventures for. There is a huge difference between playing the game with a rogue, healbot cleric, monk, and fighter vs. a group made of Magus, Paladin, Wizard, Cleric, and Gunslinger. Group 2 has a lot of options, group 1 could possibly trip over their own feet a few times. Running the same problems through group 1 as 2 could be a very different experience, and not all in a good way.
The biggest problem is prehaps that while fighters can fight, so can every other PC class (supposed to anyways), but most classes can do something else out of combat.
But every other class runs out of steam. The problem with the balance at the moment is that fighters are not on-par with everyone else because they took unlimited uses into account when they balanced them.
Make a fighter on par in combat with a full caster and have their lack of out-combat be compensated by never running out of combat steam.
Well, to be fair, Casters have limits on how many spells they can cast. If your GM ignores that, then it's a GMing problem, not a balance problem.
(And I'm also of the opinion that Concentration checks should be harder. A caster that can keep their distance should be a mac truck. A caster that has someone up in their personal space should be in serious trouble.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, to be fair, Casters have limits on how many spells they can cast. If your GM ignores that, then it's a GMing problem, not a balance problem.
Which is terrible balance. I can tear open reality and bend it over on its back 3/day(oh and I have a bunch of lower level spells...), but fighter is able to swing a sword all day so its fine.
4 encounter/day is bad at first level for the wizard yeah(though colorspray and grease do a number), but as time goes on that matters less and less because you gain more and more spells and wealth. I hate vancian, and I hate having to build my entire game around that. It tramples my ability to choose the pace and narrate my own game, and its not even a garuntee balance will happen. Compare to binders, incarnum, Psionics, or ToB. All alternate systems that have the power to stick around longer and less game breaking. Its a game problem, not a GM problem.
Edit: Your not giving me much incentive to play a fighter over a caster when you openly admit he is made to suck and the caster is made to shine.
Fighter doesn't do much out of combat, unlike a caster. In combat his at will options should be equal in usefulness as to what a caster can do 4/day.
lolwut? None of those non-vancian options change the power; they just change how it's applied. (If anything it can be even worse! "Oops, I prepared the wrong spell today" just doesn't happen with psionics, for example.)
And you're putting words in my mouth. 'Magic should be superior to non-magic' does not mean 'If you're not magical, you have to suck and suck hard.' (Edit - If this is the reality now, blame Paizo for allowing so much magical power-creep, not the idea itself.)