The Main Problem with Fighters


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

3,101 to 3,150 of 3,805 << first < prev | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | next > last >>

Peter Stewart wrote:
I've no doubt that his bad touch AC and likely weak saves would have been the death of him either way, but illustrating it as a 1 round K/O as an example of putting forth how martial characters don't function well in that circumstance sort of rubs me as misleading. There was a lot going on there beyond 'caster says die'.

That's why he was a footnote, and my main case study was comparing a 13th level wizard boss and a 20th level +4 CR, artifact wielding boss, used against the same party.

If you go back and read my post, you will note that I literally only stuck him in there when I happened to remember that he existed after finishing writing the main post, and used him in no points of any argument my post may or may not successfully have advanced.

If you are an NPC who wants to fight a high level party like ours, though, there's nothing so earth-shatteringly strange about you might have to deal with an artifact. You might have to deal with a lot.


One big boss tend to work bad IN PF anyways. Even a big and optimized barbarian can be easily killed if the wizard/witch/sorcerer wins initiative before the barbarian can rage.


Peter Stewart wrote:
Coriat wrote:

Yup. One of the probably several reasons why fighters make worse bosses than PCs is because they will only typically particularly good at one or two aspects of defense, and a party is probably going to have more avenues of attack than that. It's like a PC fighter except that instead of only some monsters having the means to attack your various Achilles' heels, every party probably will.

Being a boss enemy probably puts an even higher premium on broad defenses and resiliency than being a PC does.

To an extent, but I would observe that on the whole that encounter was way out along the outlier side of the spectrum in a bunch of ways. That character's primary defense against martial characters was the band of followers using In Harms Way. He was almost custom built to be a target for said sorcerer, who's character had history with him. Said sorcerer used the most powerful ability on a greater artifact that is specifically good at targeting that specific kind of defense for the first time in the campaign during that encounter.

I've no doubt that his bad touch AC and likely weak saves would have been the death of him either way, but illustrating it as a 1 round K/O as an example of putting forth how martial characters don't function well in that circumstance sort of rubs me as misleading. There was a lot going on there beyond 'caster says die'.

As said encounter's designer, I can confirm that it was indeed tailored to be a very tough nut to crack for the melee characters, and a glass cannon for the sorcerer who actually was involved with the NPC prior to the battle.


Kain Darkwind wrote:

As said encounter's designer, I can confirm that it was indeed tailored to be a very tough nut to crack for the melee characters, and a glass cannon for the sorcerer who actually was involved with the NPC prior to the battle.

So what you're saying is, when casting about for a martial class for a mini boss who you wanted to have a giant glass jaw against magic, fighter fit the bill just great?

;)

(for serious, though, as I already said, I didn't and still don't have much perspective on or much to say about that fight, other than that it happened.)


Coriat wrote:
Kain Darkwind wrote:

As said encounter's designer, I can confirm that it was indeed tailored to be a very tough nut to crack for the melee characters, and a glass cannon for the sorcerer who actually was involved with the NPC prior to the battle.

So what you're saying is, when casting about for a martial class for a mini boss who you wanted to have a giant glass jaw against magic, fighter fit the bill just great?

;)

Yep. Also fit the bill when casting about for a martial class for a mini boss who I wanted to have no weak points and be able to solo scare the party, like Warduke.

A very versatile class.

To be fair though, Zane may have had rogue levels as well.


I think some of the main problems with Fighter (Martial characters in general) is the over all idea that if you are a martial class it means you are a normal person. Especially if you don't have any SU abilities.

Its not big and flashy, so it tends to be looked over.

If Skills were done up a bit better (and fighters giving more skill points) it might be advantagous. I noticed in the Swashbuckler play test, they have this ability called Derring Do that allows them to potentially add a massive amount of bonus to certain skills. A smaller bonus to some skills for Investigator.

Playing through the brawler.. I'm finding it to be a flexible class due to the ability to just poof any combat feat into knowing.

The fighter class itself is very rigid while spellcasters tend to be fluid.


At least fighter problem are easy to houserule away. More skill points, improving bravery to make the fighter saves good, making weapon focus chain work with the entire fighter weapon group, making armor mastery stack with adamantine. And that pretty much is it for me.


Kain Darkwind wrote:
Coriat wrote:
Kain Darkwind wrote:

As said encounter's designer, I can confirm that it was indeed tailored to be a very tough nut to crack for the melee characters, and a glass cannon for the sorcerer who actually was involved with the NPC prior to the battle.

So what you're saying is, when casting about for a martial class for a mini boss who you wanted to have a giant glass jaw against magic, fighter fit the bill just great?

;)

Yep. Also fit the bill when casting about for a martial class for a mini boss who I wanted to have no weak points and be able to solo scare the party, like Warduke.

A very versatile class.

To be fair though, Zane may have had rogue levels as well.

Well, I wasn't certain whether fighter alone did fit that bill; thus the many more levels of it, the +4 CR of miscellaneous stuff, artifacts and power gear load and (as you mentioned at the time) stupefying amount of work prepping special defenses, mysterious possible aid/damage split, dragon ally, etc. Thus my original post along these lines.

I mean, do you think you'd have needed all that extra stuff to provide a challenge using a 20th level human wizard?

It's may be a difficult encounter to talk shop about anyway though, that he yet lives and we might meet again some day.

One could investigate a presumed-even baseline. For example, does the level 15 fighter (Pirate King) have as much challenge to offer as the level 15 wizard (Cruel Conjurer) in the NPC codex? Or CR 15 (Dwarven Arbalester and Deep Marshal)?

(hey, neat, they are both dwarves...)

Anyway, your perspective is probably a lot better than mine on this, which is why I'm asking these questions instead of answering them.


Zane's defeat was brought about directly by an artifact and indirectly by what amounts to possibly +4 CR of misc stuff (rollbox, wbl, +2 party members over standard, etc), and a lot of work prepping special defenses, so I don't know that the comparison is that poor.

And the dragon was more a tipping point rather than an actual combat?

I suspect designing a CR 20 wizard encounter would require about as much work. Assuming you expect your PCs to encounter the guy once, you can load up on expended greater planar bindings, custom magical items and other things designed to add to the encounter. What seems unlikely however, is that a wizard NPC could be designed to stand solo, toe to toe with the fighters handing out that much damage, while the casters wreck havoc on his buffs. Not without a lot of "and this defense doesn't actually hinder wizards the way that standard defenses of this nature do." tacked on to the gear.


Kain Darkwind wrote:
What seems unlikely however, is that a wizard NPC could be designed to stand solo, toe to toe with the fighters handing out that much damage, while the casters wreck havoc on his buffs. Not without a lot of "and this defense doesn't actually hinder wizards the way that standard defenses of this nature do." tacked on to the gear.

Are we assuming the wizard would try to fight like a fighter rather than a wizard? I mean, I can understand why Warduke advanced into melee, being a meleer, but I expect that as Warduke fought like a fighter, so too a wizard of his level would fight like a wizard.

Taking a sample of the casting enemies so far, that probably would suggest that fighting like a wizard renders it questionable (though still possible) that melee would be reached if the wizard did not want it, and I cannot recall any of them advancing into it voluntarily. It looked like fighter power eventually managed to close with about half of the lower level caster foes that form the sample.

Or one could ask the same questions about the NPCs. Neither the cruel conjurer nor the deep marshal has much for touch spells, any polymorphs, or other apparent motive to voluntarily enter melee as fighgers would (and have done).


If we compare ranged attackers, the 5th and 6th level elven archers (fighters and rangers) dealt more damage to the party than the 10th level wizards, and also survived more encounters.

The real point is that it is remarkably difficult to survive melee with the party's fighters. And if you are a solo encounter (rather than with a horde of summoned demons or hired flying apes) it becomes remarkably difficult to avoid melee.

It should also be noted that while excessive measures need to be taken to allow a caster PC to score the kill on a boss fight (or for the boss to gain multiple rounds for witty bantering lines in a combat), no excessive measures are required for a fighter to score a kill. I simply let the nature of combat take its course. Somewhere in the course of 200 hp a round, one of the two fighters is statistically likely to pull it off.


not to be mean but can you guys take your campaign specific talk to a PM or separate thread.

PS
if your 5/6 level martials live longer than 10th level wizards someone is doing something wrong.


Grit is a very solid mechanic that enhances martial characters greatly, and I feel a pathfinder 2.0 should incorporate it for Fighters as well.

Personally, I've always seen them as an INT based class, given all the training necessary, I would love to see a fighter revision that focused on INT and allowed the fighter something like INT to attacks and damage rolls with particular weapons, rather than the static bonuses from weapon training.


proftobe wrote:

not to be mean but can you guys take your campaign specific talk to a PM or separate thread.

PS
if your 5/6 level martials live longer than 10th level wizards someone is doing something wrong.

Probably not if you think you are going to toss out judgements which you can't possibly have a basis for making.


THis is a thread with 3000+ post, some out of topic do not hurts.

And a martial as a BBEG is hard. particulary cause most of them need a big load of equipement. I would recomend to add other thing than Pc can not have, maybe some template.


IMHO, Barbarians and Paladins and Rangers make for pretty amusing solo-boss encounters if you absolutely must have them. Barbarians have great saves and the downsides of superstition is basically nil when you have no party members and your only source of magic is from items you're using. Their well-rounded defenses (DR, saves, HP, plus gear benefits), are martial powerhouses and can have Spell Sunder (which eliminates a lot of naughty tricks).

Rangers are ideal for more hit and run shenanigans (in their favored terrain, a Ranger can be a meany stinky pants).

Paladins (or Antiapaladins) can just be really hard to put down for most of the same reasons; though I think solo vs party, Barbarian might be the most impressive alone.


As a DM I tend to find that as the casters become stronger the ROLE of the fighter becomes more defensive in nature as the casters are often the primary solution to a challenge, whereas at low level the fighter is often a primary part of the solution to the challenge.

There is nothing wrong with the fighter per se (except possibly Perception as a class skill and a couple more S.P.) but casters need a serious nerfing in terms of reducing their ability to dominate jut about every encounter (bring back d4 hit points for Arcane Spell Users, ban metamagics rods and items that add to spells known/ability to spontaneously cast as well as bringing back prohibited schools for specialists I say).


strayshift wrote:
There is nothing wrong with the fighter per se (except possibly Perception as a class skill and a couple more S.P.) but casters need a serious nerfing in terms of reducing their ability to dominate jut about every encounter (bring back d4 hit points for Arcane Spell Users, ban items that add to spells known/ability to spontaneously cast and prohibited schools for specialists I say).

Making things more swingy and reducing availability isn't really a fix. Similarly, its sort of awkward to state that nothing is wrong with fighters, but then taking actions that enhance their role as a defender. Its not always awesome being a body guard either, and the fact your sort of forced into the role isn't too hot either. Never was a fan of being a meat shield when I could've been a team player and participate in more things, like... problem solving.


Nor am I a fan of being a meat shield. I love the Two Handed Weapon Fighter for example, they seriously hurt stuff (and isn't that why we play a fighter really?). However I'm in a party alongside a guy who can fly, turn people invisible, incapacitate multiple foes, have the enemies weaknesses revealed to them, change shape, protect themselves, escape if things turn really sour, etc, etc, etc.

I know if I was designing this game from scratch which one I would limit.


strayshift wrote:
I know if I was designing this game from scratch which one I would limit.

I'd actually go the other way around. I'd like to see fighters brought up rather than casters more limited. I'd also like to see casting in a way you can do it all day safely, rather than characters who can end up sitting out a good portion of the game. I'm sure there's a safe way to do that.


I feel as though fighters could benefit from a special destiny mechanic.

I feel like mundane is fine as long as something in the universe is routing for you, otherwise you may be screwed.


Kain Darkwind wrote:
And if you are a solo encounter (rather than with a horde of summoned demons or hired flying apes) it becomes remarkably difficult to avoid melee.

I dunno... maybe behind the screen it is. I admit it hadn't been anything close to my impression from the other side of the game, where the 5th and 6th level elven snipers you cite (among others) never even had any close calls with getting caught in melee by either Heinrick or I. Perhaps that's an artifact of only seeing the actual encounters rather than the difficulty that goes into making them achieve that?

Quote:
It should also be noted that while excessive measures need to be taken to allow a caster PC to score the kill on a boss fight (or for the boss to gain multiple rounds for witty bantering lines in a combat), no excessive measures are required for a fighter to score a kill. I simply let the nature of combat take its course. Somewhere in the course of 200 hp a round, one of the two fighters is statistically likely to pull it off.

For what it's worth, the ratio of named bosses slain by Katrina to Heinrick this past adventure is like 5 to 1. That's while Heinrick was constantly popping mythic power from our playtest to try to kill things while Kat was too good for mythic power and stuck with plain old spells :P

Now, combat has been significantly kinder to Einar... but looking at the list we made it seems like honors have been relatively even between the spellcasting half and the non, if you scoring the kill as the metric. Einar has half again as many as Kat and Rath, who are about even, but down at the bottom Heinrick has hardly any.

Quote:
not to be mean but can you guys take your campaign specific talk to a PM or separate thread.

It seems unlikely. At the end of the day, the reason we're here talking about this in the fighters thread is because I've been moderately dissatisfied with how much fun I'm having playing my melee fighter in combat for... about three levels, now, since 12/13th or so?, my fellow melee fighter has been, I think, markedly less happy than I for a roughly similar (perhaps slightly shorter) span of time, and we both feel like the class and its limits at this level have been play a role in that. If it wasn't close to my personal experience, I wouldn't bother to participate heavily in these threads about fighters and problems.

But we're also not the only players who have ever been dissatisfied, so we discuss it and decide whether the class really has anything to do with it, whether it's something else, or whether we're all just whiners (a serious possibility).

And Kain adds his perspective, such as how much prep work goes into making an encounter that can both allow the fighters to employ their offense at all yet still stand up to it enough to produce a good fight, and prep work is a metric that is missing from my experience of the game as a player.

There are each others' confirmation biases to iron out as well. For example, I spend 80% of my rounds in combat waiting for the wall of force to come down, trying to move into or out of position, whatever... someone else, who doesn't experience sitting through those 80% of rounds that I do, is likely to focus on the 20% of rounds when I burst forth in all my glory and unleash the awful might of the full attack, because the former is boring and the latter is memorable.

On the other hand, one can see that I have biases as well. For instance, one that just revealed itself is that I've become likely to assume that the bulk of troublesome foes are likely not fighters and have to be reminded of some that were (like the elf beyond visual range snipers. Though I could swear you mentioned sometime later that they were using True Strike, Kain. Perhaps UMD).

So at the end of the day, we all refine our perspective about the main problem with fighters... which is the topic of this thread.

(also, my personal opinion is that it is ten times easier to identify problems in the game from discussing playing it than discussing in the abstract).


Coriat wrote:
I dunno... maybe behind the screen it is. I admit it hadn't been anything close to my impression from the other side of the game, where the 5th and 6th level elven snipers you cite (among others) never even had any close calls with getting caught in melee by either Heinrick or I. Perhaps that's an artifact of only seeing the actual encounters rather than the difficulty that goes into making them achieve that?

An ambush is markedly different from a boss fight. I don't think anyone would consider the elven snipers a fulfilling boss fight. They definitely were capable of dealing damage and staying away from the party, but consider the work that was put into that. First, I scared Kat from even attempting teleportation, due to risk aversion with the astral storms. Second, I split up the attackers, in a massively large battlefield. Third, I made sure they would be able to see through the cover to attack. Fourth, I gave them a means to move at full speed through the vegetation. Fifth, I made sure they started at least one round of full movement away from even being seen. The hope was that they could hit and run, building up anger and tension towards them.

To make a boss fight of that nature would require something beyond that.

Quote:

For what it's worth, the ratio of named bosses slain by Katrina to Heinrick this past adventure is like 5 to 1. That's while Heinrick was constantly popping mythic power from our playtest to try to kill things while Kat was too good for mythic power and stuck with plain old spells :P

Now, combat has been significantly kinder to Einar... but looking at the list we made it seems like honors have been relatively even between the spellcasting half and the non, if you scoring the kill as the metric. Einar has half again as many as Kat and Rath, who are about even, but down at the bottom Heinrick has hardly any.

I'm not really sure that 'scoring the kill' is the best metric, but it seems to be what you players view as the important part. To the point where not slaughtering the astral dreadnaught is considered a 'failure'. I think if someone puts 300 damage on a guy, and someone puts the last 20 that kills him, it is hardly a failure for Mr. 300. I'm also not entirely certain that 'names' are a good metric either. The hurrotch (also fighters) from the previous adventure 3 years ago weren't named, but could probably solo many of the named characters from this current adventure, who had a significantly lower level and CR.

Quote:
I've been moderately dissatisfied with how much fun I'm having playing my melee fighter in combat for... about three levels, now, since 12/13th or so?, my fellow melee fighter has been, I think, markedly less happy than I for a roughly similar (perhaps slightly shorter) span of time, and we both feel like the class and its limits at this level have been play a role in that.

Just as a reminder, even if I argue that the class itself doesn't need major alterations or that your accomplishments are being significantly downplayed, that doesn't mean I'm deaf to the issues being raised. I definitely think things to do rather than sit and wait for a wall of force to come down (via magic) is important. Which is largely why I agreed with Kirth and began my work on the talented fighter, in order to provide more options for the fighter than just sitting around during downtime, whether that is campaign or combat based.

I'm not sure Roon included the other half of my statement though. Fighters and 500 damage a round is a huge encounter design headache, but casters (and never fighters) provide campaign design challenges.

Quote:
On the other hand, one can see that I have biases as well. For instance, one that just revealed itself is that I've become likely to assume that the bulk of troublesome foes are likely not fighters and have to be reminded of some that were (like the elf beyond visual range snipers. Though I could swear you mentioned sometime later that they were using True Strike, Kain. Perhaps UMD).

At least one can cast it as a sorcerer, I believe the leader was an arcane archer. All of them likely have UMD, since elves do make common use of magic. I could check the notes, but a lot of work went into getting them into a range where they could buff and have better than 5% chance to hit. As mentioned above, the important bits went into setting things up so they could run away. Called shots notwithstanding.


Ashiel wrote:
IMHO, Barbarians and Paladins and Rangers make for pretty amusing solo-boss encounters if you absolutely must have them. Barbarians have great saves and the downsides of superstition is basically nil when you have no party members and your only source of magic is from items you're using. Their well-rounded defenses (DR, saves, HP, plus gear benefits), are martial powerhouses and can have Spell Sunder (which eliminates a lot of naughty tricks).

Spell Sunder doesn't eliminate them from contention, it ablates them away in return for the boss's actions.

Which I suspect is actually pretty attractive from an encounter design perspective, since it lets many of the typically devastatingly effective spells against martial opponents lacking the particular spell/item support (such as Wall of Force, Fickle Winds, etc) instead become moderately effective, becoming a barrier that costs actions to overcome instead of an impervious barrier locking them in the corner for 1 round/level.


Kain Darkwind wrote:
[...] or that your accomplishments are being significantly downplayed

I suddenly feel like you were talking to someone else. ;)

Quote:
I'm not really sure that 'scoring the kill' is the best metric, but it seems to be what you players view as the important part.

I'm not sure it is either, but I talked about it a bit since you brought giving kills to others up as a challenge. And if it is a good metric, it's because the PCs (Roon probably the most, but everyone pays/paid some attention to this) view it as important, so, six of one...

Quote:
I'm also not entirely certain that 'names' are a good metric either.

I'm not sure I was using it in a strictly literal manner. "The Hall Guardian" totally counts as a name, even though it seems unlikely that that's the moniker with which it signed its rent checks. "Black Shield 3" is what doesn't necessarily.

Regardless, the lower down the totem pole of namingness you go, the more of the share of those foes the arcanists tend to defeat, often in a single action. So I'm not sure the effect of expanding the metric would be to increase Heinrick's share of the glory we were talking about, relative to Kat.

Quote:
They definitely were capable of dealing damage and staying away from the party, but consider the work that was put into that.

This does sound like exactly the type of concern that isn't likely apparent for me. Yay communication.

Quote:

I'm not sure Roon included the other half of my statement though. Fighters and 500 damage a round is a huge encounter design headache, but casters (and never fighters) provide campaign design challenges.

For what it's worth, you'll never see me maintain that a fighter's attack bonus and damage need any further improvement, and for the last year or so, largely based on your feedback, I've been contemplating whether some aspects ought to be toned down incrementally. I'm not sure I've made up my mind. On a mechanical level, I remain really curious to evaluate how the departure of our bard player will influence this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trogdar wrote:

I feel as though fighters could benefit from a special destiny mechanic.

I feel like mundane is fine as long as something in the universe is routing for you, otherwise you may be screwed.

Oh god so much this!

If you must be completely mundane, I want some kind of mechanic that does this. I want to have a shot at succeeding crazy stuff.

Or maybe I just want my characters to be Ta'veren. Hrmmmm.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The equalizer wrote:
Fighters still have limited feats.You choose what your fighter specializes in or if you want a really nice chance to prevent something like being grappled then you take close quarters fighting. No fighter build can do it all. The same could be said for every other class. As opposed to the solution of "there is a spell for that" as if casters were not limited on the number of spells they can cast per day.

The issue with fighters, for me, is how the game deals with feats. To be affective fighters MUST plan their feats and pay the feat tax (which can be MASSIVE). Even with well planned feats fighters will still have big holes in defense/offense. Magic items can circumvent some of the limitations but not all.

Even after a fighter has planned their combat future out of combat potential is really limited. It's the out of combat mediocrity that really bothers me about the fighter class.

In a perfect world every class would get combat abilities/feats and out of combat abilities/feats that were separate. Of course more martial classes could get more combat and less out of combat but at least they'd have something. As it stands fighters must spend all their feats on combat to maintain effectiveness.

Sczarni

My issue with fighters is that You cannot build one to be effective and thus You think fighters stink as a class. What do you want??? Fighters to be as overly broken as a class. Then you will complain that the class is broken.

It depends on how you build the character.


Ulfen Death Squad wrote:

My issue with fighters is that You cannot build one to be effective and thus You think fighters stink as a class. What do you want??? Fighters to be as overly broken as a class. Then you will complain that the class is broken.

It depends on how you build the character.

Oh! Here comes the "Well if you know how to build/play/use them right!!!" argument... Pretty much mandatory of any fighter/rogue/monk thread...

I'm sorry but with ALL of the min-maxers, system gurus, and knowledgable people on the boards, are you some how suggesting that they are all wrong and you know better than them?

Nobody is doubting the fighter can be brutal in melee combat. But the problem comes is that they are ONLY good at melee combat. And they are ONLY good in a DPR olympics type deal... in actual game-play, it has been pointed out time and again they are are actually not that good at THAT due to their inability to do ANYTHING other than hitting the enemy with a stick. On top of that they has HORRID defenses. The fighter is almost as much a liability to the party under certain circumstances (anything with the ability to charm/dominate)


The main problem with fighters is that people want the classes to balance.

Plain and simple, they want the fighter to be good both in and out of combat, they want a secondary reason for the fighter to exist.

I personally enjoy the fact that the fighter is such a simple class and doesn't require such thought investment in what all you can do both in and out of combat, but there are those who feel every class needs to be equal in what they contribute both in and out of combat, otherwise they cannot role play properly.

And I will preach the same song I have preached in every 'balance at all costs' thread. If you want it to balance, then play a different edition, rather than telling us fans of PFRPG that we're wrong for liking things the way they are.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

The main problem with fighters is that people want the classes to balance.

Plain and simple, they want the fighter to be good both in and out of combat, they want a secondary reason for the fighter to exist.

I personally enjoy the fact that the fighter is such a simple class and doesn't require such thought investment in what all you can do both in and out of combat, but there are those who feel every class needs to be equal in what they contribute both in and out of combat, otherwise they cannot role play properly.

And I will preach the same song I have preached in every 'balance at all costs' thread. If you want it to balance, then play a different edition, rather than telling us fans of PFRPG that we're wrong for liking things the way they are.

Man it's like a congealed mass of all the fallacious arguments everyone's made over this thread's entire lifespan!


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

They make these amazing things called bows... Maybe they could be useful against flying enemies...

Or so I hear. Mostly I just throw my helmet at them.

Or even use a fly spell on him, oddly enough. Oh, I forgot. If you use a spell on another character that character did nothing and all the credit is the casters. Still. Casting fly on a fighter can be quite an excellent damage spell at times.


Wind Chime wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
The main problem with fighters is the people who can't play them very well and complain about how it's the fault of the class.
Define play them, they have no unique fluff they are the most generic class aka a fighter someone who fights. I have played a fighter a mechanically well built archer and from a power point I was just fine (no one had optimized so the comparison wasn't telling). But the character was about the most boring I had ever played he was great at what he did (full attack dpr) but that was all he did every round. When I compare it to the pouncing grappling casting shape changing kitty cat druid I also played in the same campaign where each round I had a dozen options and could also use my pet to full attack at the same time and there is no comparison, the druid was both more interesting and fun to play.

So you have to have the fluff provided FOR you to make a class interesting?


Aelryinth wrote:

Aye. trying to argue "my character is a great scout as long as I get buffs", be it from spells or potions, just makes me roll my eyes. Unless you can provide the buffs yourself, it's never, ever a brush you can paint with in every campaign.

Basically, if you can't get the buffs, you're not a scout. That means it's the buffs, not the class, doing the work.

==Aelryinth

Somehow I thought that one of the roles in the game of spell casters was providing buffs to others in the party. Weird.


Rynjin wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

The main problem with fighters is that people want the classes to balance.

Plain and simple, they want the fighter to be good both in and out of combat, they want a secondary reason for the fighter to exist.

I personally enjoy the fact that the fighter is such a simple class and doesn't require such thought investment in what all you can do both in and out of combat, but there are those who feel every class needs to be equal in what they contribute both in and out of combat, otherwise they cannot role play properly.

And I will preach the same song I have preached in every 'balance at all costs' thread. If you want it to balance, then play a different edition, rather than telling us fans of PFRPG that we're wrong for liking things the way they are.

Man it's like a congealed mass of all the fallacious arguments everyone's made over this thread's entire lifespan!

That was kinda the point, I really wanted to bring up Rangers because the thread turned into Rangers vs. Fighters for a minute there, but I couldn't find a way to do it without constructing a wall of text that would just get skipped over.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

The main problem with fighters is that people want the classes to balance.

Plain and simple, they want the fighter to be good both in and out of combat, they want a secondary reason for the fighter to exist.

I personally enjoy the fact that the fighter is such a simple class and doesn't require such thought investment in what all you can do both in and out of combat, but there are those who feel every class needs to be equal in what they contribute both in and out of combat, otherwise they cannot role play properly.

And I will preach the same song I have preached in every 'balance at all costs' thread. If you want it to balance, then play a different edition, rather than telling us fans of PFRPG that we're wrong for liking things the way they are.

Man it's like a congealed mass of all the fallacious arguments everyone's made over this thread's entire lifespan!
That was kinda the point, I really wanted to bring up Rangers because the thread turned into Rangers vs. Fighters for a minute there, but I couldn't find a way to do it without constructing a wall of text that would just get skipped over.

I'm not sure you know what fallacious means. Unless your point was to make a lot of arguments that are false.


ShadeOfRed wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

The main problem with fighters is that people want the classes to balance.

Plain and simple, they want the fighter to be good both in and out of combat, they want a secondary reason for the fighter to exist.

I personally enjoy the fact that the fighter is such a simple class and doesn't require such thought investment in what all you can do both in and out of combat, but there are those who feel every class needs to be equal in what they contribute both in and out of combat, otherwise they cannot role play properly.

And I will preach the same song I have preached in every 'balance at all costs' thread. If you want it to balance, then play a different edition, rather than telling us fans of PFRPG that we're wrong for liking things the way they are.

Man it's like a congealed mass of all the fallacious arguments everyone's made over this thread's entire lifespan!
That was kinda the point, I really wanted to bring up Rangers because the thread turned into Rangers vs. Fighters for a minute there, but I couldn't find a way to do it without constructing a wall of text that would just get skipped over.
I'm not sure you know what fallacious means. Unless your point was to make a lot of arguments that are false.

It was supposed to be funny


master_marshmallow wrote:
ShadeOfRed wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

The main problem with fighters is that people want the classes to balance.

Plain and simple, they want the fighter to be good both in and out of combat, they want a secondary reason for the fighter to exist.

I personally enjoy the fact that the fighter is such a simple class and doesn't require such thought investment in what all you can do both in and out of combat, but there are those who feel every class needs to be equal in what they contribute both in and out of combat, otherwise they cannot role play properly.

And I will preach the same song I have preached in every 'balance at all costs' thread. If you want it to balance, then play a different edition, rather than telling us fans of PFRPG that we're wrong for liking things the way they are.

Man it's like a congealed mass of all the fallacious arguments everyone's made over this thread's entire lifespan!
That was kinda the point, I really wanted to bring up Rangers because the thread turned into Rangers vs. Fighters for a minute there, but I couldn't find a way to do it without constructing a wall of text that would just get skipped over.
I'm not sure you know what fallacious means. Unless your point was to make a lot of arguments that are false.
It was supposed to be funny

Ahh, natch. Guess I'm so used to seeing these arguments, I thought you were literally being serious. :)


It's not surprising with as much as I find myself advocating the devil in this thread and its many reincarnations.

If releases like the Advanced Class Guide kill the rogue as hard as I think they will, and if the Brawlers vanican combat feat mechanics remain in any form, I think it is entirely plausible for us to see a 'fighter fix' in the future.

Shadow Lodge

why would you guys necro this thread?!?!?! it died and came back because you people wouldn't leave the lake!!

it Friday the 13th xxvii run away!! only no nudity :(


TheSideKick wrote:


why would you guys necro this thread?!?!?! it died and came back because you people wouldn't leave the lake!!

it Friday the 13th xxvii run away!! only no nudity :(

A spammer necroed it. Then those posts were deleted and the game was afoot again. I caught it when it made it's return. I groaned, I looked, flagged and moved on. Then I noticed "real people" were posting again in it and the "comments" that brought it back were gone.


R_Chance wrote:


A spammer necroed it. Then those posts were deleted and the game was afoot again. I caught it when it made it's return. I groaned, I looked, flagged and moved on. Then I noticed "real people" were posting again in it and the "comments" that brought it back were gone.

It is destiny, it will not die until it reach the 10,000 post.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
only no nudity :(

Speak for yourself.

Shadow Lodge

It was only a matter of days before it was to be reincarnated anyway.


The Swashbuckler kills yet another "fighter" archetype :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
Trogdar wrote:

I feel as though fighters could benefit from a special destiny mechanic.

I feel like mundane is fine as long as something in the universe is routing for you, otherwise you may be screwed.

Oh god so much this!

If you must be completely mundane, I want some kind of mechanic that does this. I want to have a shot at succeeding crazy stuff.

Or maybe I just want my characters to be Ta'veren. Hrmmmm.

I actually made a Mat Cauthon character with all of the luck abilities I could find. Including racial heritage catfolk for black cat.

3,101 to 3,150 of 3,805 << first < prev | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The Main Problem with Fighters All Messageboards