|
Did you seriously miss the mulan reference? :( Its Mushu man!LOL...yeah, whatever. The point is, you don't really need diplomacy to have basic interactions. You casually lay out drive-by shootings as if it was supposed to matter...well, I lived in a bad neighborhood in the city that has had the nickname 'the murder capital of America'...and my point is 'so what?' Trust me, people are people.
Now...sure, a lot of people don't trust outright. Go into a convenience store late at night when only one person is there, and typically you'll be watched like a hawk. And? When you make your purchase, if you want to know if there's a restaurant open nearby, most people will likely tell you. If people have extra reason to be paranoid...so be it...but there's no special rule for 'extra paranoid around fighters' as a default, and for damn good reason.
Completely. I've never seen it...or...don't recall it, at any rate. *sigh*...I'm old. :p
|
|
Completely. I've never seen it...or...don't recall it, at any rate. *sigh*...I'm old. :pMushu's Wakeup Call
Umm...I still missed it. I mean...I watched the vid...what are you referring to?
Freebies? EVERYBODY gets them. Yes, if you can't talk to people and have them respond as people do, as a rule, your DM is a dick.
I don't think you got my point. The porter is as good as your fighter in this situation. If people are nervous already, likely the fighter will do worse. In either case the fighter is not going to to accomplish anything more than a bare minimum, he has to be special built for it (alternatively, he can roll really well).
That is not a GM being a dick, that's RAW.
|
|
Umm...I still missed it. I mean...I watched the vid...what are you referring to?Oh I messed up the quote slightly but the line that you whatever'd too was the last 30 seconds or so. :P
On a side note, I am right now considering a homerule for my next campaign. The effective caster level of all casters will be equal to the number of casters in the party multiplied by the number of marsupials within 100 feet.
Ummm...HUH?
Ooookay.
|
|
Freebies? EVERYBODY gets them. Yes, if you can't talk to people and have them respond as people do, as a rule, your DM is a dick.
I don't think you got my point. The porter is as good as your fighter in this situation. If people are nervous already, likely the fighter will do worse. In either case the fighter is not going to to accomplish anything more than a bare minimum, he has to be special built for it (alternatively, he can roll really well).
That is not a GM being a dick, that's RAW.
"Roll to talk."
Yeah, that's gonna be a blast.
"Roll to talk."
Yeah, that's gonna be a blast.
You are being deliberately obtuse. Either that or you are not even reading responses (of course it could be both).
Fighter = Porter for social interactions. Beyond that, yes you do have rolls involved but that is nothing like your "Roll to talk" hyperbole.
|
|
"Roll to talk."
Yeah, that's gonna be a blast.
You are being deliberately obtuse. Either that or you are not even reading responses (of course it could be both).
Fighter = Porter for social interactions. Beyond that, yes you do have rolls involved but that is nothing like your "Roll to talk" hyperbole.
I keep referring to everyday interactions, and keep getting told that a roll has to be made.
You do the math.
I keep referring to everyday interactions, and keep getting told that a roll has to be made.You do the math.
And I keep telling you that you could just as well send the porter off to do that level of interaction while you busy yourself with ale and whores and you deliberately ignored my point.
Try that math.
|
|
I keep referring to everyday interactions, and keep getting told that a roll has to be made.You do the math.
And I keep telling you that you could just as well send the porter off to do that level of interaction while you busy yourself with ale and whores and you deliberately ignored my point.
Try that math.
Look through the thread...and a couple others. Almost every friggin' interaction, somebody said I'd have to roll.
Maybe I don't have a porter. I can't think of many characters I've played that did. Most inns aren't that fancy.
this is the most boring fighter thread I have ever seen.
Way too much math for my taste.
Look through the thread...and a couple others. Almost every friggin' interaction, somebody said I'd have to roll.
Maybe I don't have a porter. I can't think of many characters I've played that did. Most inns aren't that fancy.
Nobody said for every interaction you had to roll, except one guy who said he had a GM that did that once.
Most people have said that you have to roll if you're gonna track somebody down like that, which is what the roll is FOR. This again falls into the category of "What's the point of having skills if they're never used?" scenarios again.
|
|
Look through the thread...and a couple others. Almost every friggin' interaction, somebody said I'd have to roll.
Maybe I don't have a porter. I can't think of many characters I've played that did. Most inns aren't that fancy.
Nobody said for every interaction you had to roll, except one guy who said he had a GM that did that once.
Most people have said that you have to roll if you're gonna track somebody down like that, which is what the roll is FOR. This again falls into the category of "What's the point of having skills if they're never used?" scenarios again.
No.
Locating a local ranger is not 'tracking somebody down'. It's a matter of asking who would guide someone on a hunt...a real pro. So hard.
Again, that is with the assumption that everyone in town is going to know the guy, and the first person you ask is going to know exactly where your Ranger is located.
That's a pretty f%*+ing big assumption.
Look through the thread...and a couple others. Almost every friggin' interaction, somebody said I'd have to roll.
Maybe I don't have a porter. I can't think of many characters I've played that did. Most inns aren't that fancy.
Nobody said for every interaction you had to roll, except one guy who said he had a GM that did that once.
Most people have said that you have to roll if you're gonna track somebody down like that, which is what the roll is FOR. This again falls into the category of "What's the point of having skills if they're never used?" scenarios again.
I have seen people say you can't be good at role playing if you don't have the skills. I can "role play" the big dumb fighter who tries to ask questions and messes everything up. Which gives the bard the chance to "role play" coming in and saving the situation. I can have fun pretending to be bad at something. Just because I've built my fighter to fight doesn't mean I sit there doing nothing between fights. I don't have to be using Ability X on my character sheet to be "gaming."
Again, that is with the assumption that everyone in town is going to know the guy, and the first person you ask is going to know exactly where your Ranger is located.
That's a pretty f#**ing big assumption.
No, haven't you been paying attention. Gather Information rolls obviously aren't supposed to exist since anybody can do that.
I'd also mention Page 94 of the CRB, which actually lists a diplomacy DC modified for requesting "simple advice or directions." Sounds a lot like 'Could you tell me where to find a ranger?' to me.
|
|
Again, that is with the assumption that everyone in town is going to know the guy, and the first person you ask is going to know exactly where your Ranger is located.
That's a pretty f#**ing big assumption.
No, haven't you been paying attention. Gather Information rolls obviously aren't supposed to exist since anybody can do that.
I'd also mention Page 94 of the CRB, which actually lists a diplomacy DC modified for requesting "simple advice or directions." Sounds a lot like 'Could you tell me where to find a ranger?' to me.
Before you post that, I'm going to need a diplomacy roll.
You failed? Sorry, no answer.
I have seen people say you can't be good at role playing if you don't have the skills. I can "role play" the big dumb fighter who tries to ask questions and messes everything up. Which gives the bard the chance to "role play" coming in and saving the situation. I can have fun pretending to be bad at something. Just because I've built my fighter to fight doesn't mean I sit there doing nothing between fights. I don't have to be using Ability X on my character sheet to be "gaming."Look through the thread...and a couple others. Almost every friggin' interaction, somebody said I'd have to roll.
Maybe I don't have a porter. I can't think of many characters I've played that did. Most inns aren't that fancy.
Nobody said for every interaction you had to roll, except one guy who said he had a GM that did that once.
Most people have said that you have to roll if you're gonna track somebody down like that, which is what the roll is FOR. This again falls into the category of "What's the point of having skills if they're never used?" scenarios again.
That is good roleplaying, roleplaying the faults of the character.
What some people say they do, is use their own words for the roleplay and ignore the skillcheck, so if the players is a good talker the fighter will sound like a bard and talk rings around npcs despite having charisma 7 and Diplomacy -3. If the player is shy or not very imaginative he is downright punished because even if he wants to roleplay a smooth talker his maxed Bluff and 26 charisma are worthless if he can't act it out. Not exagerating, that kind of situation has showed up in the boards before.It allows them to think the fighter is perfectly fine with just two skill points a level. They put those into ride, climb, acrobatics and other skills and roleplay social situations whatever way they want. On the other hand it's against RAW and RAI, punitive to more inhibited players and really bad roleplay, since you're not roleplaying the freaking character.
Fighters kill stuff all the time. All day long.
I tend to think of fighters like WOLVERINE.
Crappy social skills.
Too much body hair.
Takes it to the face, then totally kills you.
Annoys the crap out of the supposed party leader (Cyclops), but the party leaders girl wants you cause there's something about being an angry, hairy, low charisma baddass!
Wolverine sucks at social skills besides intimidating.
He takes beats and gives it back in spades.
The iconic fighter is like Wolverine
and that's badass.
Therefore fighters are badass.
|
|
I have seen people say you can't be good at role playing if you don't have the skills. I can "role play" the big dumb fighter who tries to ask questions and messes everything up. Which gives the bard the chance to "role play" coming in and saving the situation. I can have fun pretending to be bad at something. Just because I've built my fighter to fight doesn't mean I sit there doing nothing between fights. I don't have to be using Ability X on my character sheet to be "gaming."Look through the thread...and a couple others. Almost every friggin' interaction, somebody said I'd have to roll.
Maybe I don't have a porter. I can't think of many characters I've played that did. Most inns aren't that fancy.
Nobody said for every interaction you had to roll, except one guy who said he had a GM that did that once.
Most people have said that you have to roll if you're gonna track somebody down like that, which is what the roll is FOR. This again falls into the category of "What's the point of having skills if they're never used?" scenarios again.
That is good roleplaying, roleplaying the faults of the character.
What some people say they do, is use their own words for the roleplay and ignore the skillcheck, so if the players is a good talker the fighter will sound like a bard and talk rings around npcs despite having charisma 7 and Diplomacy -3. If the player is shy or not very imaginative he is downright punished because even if he wants to roleplay a smooth talker his maxed Bluff and 26 charisma are worthless if he can't act it out. Not exagerating, that kind of situation has showed up in the boards before.
It allows them to think the fighter is perfectly fine with just two skill points a level. They put those into ride, climb, acrobatics and other skills and roleplay social situations whatever way they want. On the other hand it's against RAW and RAI, punitive to more inhibited players and really bad...
You see, we don't use points, so I rarely have a character with 'dump stats'...and I prefer a reasonably intelligent character. I've played the lumbering oaf, too, though...on a whim...and I played him as lumbering as he deserved. Your argument is a fully different one. My last fighter actually had a 15 Cha.
|
|
Fighters kill stuff all the time. All day long.
I tend to think of fighters like WOLVERINE.
Crappy social skills.
Too much body hair.
Takes it to the face, then totally kills you.
Annoys the crap out of the supposed party leader (Cyclops), but the party leaders girl wants you cause there's something about being an angry, hairy, low charisma baddass!Wolverine sucks at social skills besides intimidating.
He takes beats and gives it back in spades.The iconic fighter is like Wolverine
and that's badass.
Therefore fighters are badass.
I tend to think of fighters as a whole lot of different types...because, you know...they are. That tactical genius that rose through the ranks to become the kingdom's highest ranking general?
He's still a fighter.
I have seen people say you can't be good at role playing if you don't have the skills. I can "role play" the big dumb fighter who tries to ask questions and messes everything up. Which gives the bard the chance to "role play" coming in and saving the situation. I can have fun pretending to be bad at something. Just because I've built my fighter to fight doesn't mean I sit there doing nothing between fights. I don't have to be using Ability X on my character sheet to be "gaming."Look through the thread...and a couple others. Almost every friggin' interaction, somebody said I'd have to roll.
Maybe I don't have a porter. I can't think of many characters I've played that did. Most inns aren't that fancy.
Nobody said for every interaction you had to roll, except one guy who said he had a GM that did that once.
Most people have said that you have to roll if you're gonna track somebody down like that, which is what the roll is FOR. This again falls into the category of "What's the point of having skills if they're never used?" scenarios again.
That is good roleplaying, roleplaying the faults of the character.
What some people say they do, is use their own words for the roleplay and ignore the skillcheck, so if the players is a good talker the fighter will sound like a bard and talk rings around npcs despite having charisma 7 and Diplomacy -3. If the player is shy or not very imaginative he is downright punished because even if he wants to roleplay a smooth talker his maxed Bluff and 26 charisma are worthless if he can't act it out. Not exagerating, that kind of situation has showed up in the boards before.
It allows them to think the fighter is perfectly fine with just two skill points a level. They put those into ride, climb, acrobatics and other skills and roleplay social situations whatever way they want. On the other hand it's against RAW and RAI, punitive to more inhibited players and really bad...
I understand your point but that is a problem with the players, not the class. Fighters fight. It's what they do. It's in their name. Being mad they can't do something out of combats is silly. Being mad because you cannot have fun unless you are using a class ability is stupid. (And if I see one more comparison to the commoner...)
Seems more like a Cavalier to me.
The iconic fighter is like Wolverine
Well, that would explain why I dislike the Fighter class...
Now if only Wolverine was splashed across various comic books in horrible situations or dead like the 3E writers seemed to like doing with Regdar (one of the iconic 3E Fighters), instead of existing as a rather pathetic Marty Stu author self-insertion...
Fighters kill stuff all the time. All day long.
I tend to think of fighters like WOLVERINE.
Crappy social skills.
Too much body hair.
Takes it to the face, then totally kills you.
Annoys the crap out of the supposed party leader (Cyclops), but the party leaders girl wants you cause there's something about being an angry, hairy, low charisma baddass!Wolverine sucks at social skills besides intimidating.
He takes beats and gives it back in spades.The iconic fighter is like Wolverine
and that's badass.
Therefore fighters are badass.I tend to think of fighters as a whole lot of different types...because, you know...they are. That tactical genius that rose through the ranks to become the kingdom's highest ranking general?
He's still a fighter.
Totally.
Wolverine is just a example of how the majority of Fighter haters seem to think of them without identifing an example.
Either low cha (wolverine)
Or low Int (Caramon)
You can totally make a ton of awesome fighters with the current package.
Ignigo Montoya
Spartacus
Maximus
Drizzt (was full fighter in menzoberrezan)
Bruenor Battlehammer
Lancelot
King Arthur and the Samasian knights (from the movie)
Boromir
There are a ton of fighters that make classic chars and they can all be done with the class as is. Nothing I can think of (besides wolverines fast healing) cannot be done with the current class as is.
Again, that is with the assumption that everyone in town is going to know the guy, and the first person you ask is going to know exactly where your Ranger is located.
That's a pretty f#**ing big assumption.
No, haven't you been paying attention. Gather Information rolls obviously aren't supposed to exist since anybody can do that.
I'd also mention Page 94 of the CRB, which actually lists a diplomacy DC modified for requesting "simple advice or directions." Sounds a lot like 'Could you tell me where to find a ranger?' to me.
"Excuse me, but could you point me to the holy grail?"
Fighters kill stuff all the time. All day long.
I tend to think of fighters like WOLVERINE.
Crappy social skills.
Too much body hair.
Takes it to the face, then totally kills you.
Annoys the crap out of the supposed party leader (Cyclops), but the party leaders girl wants you cause there's something about being an angry, hairy, low charisma baddass!Wolverine sucks at social skills besides intimidating.
He takes beats and gives it back in spades.The iconic fighter is like Wolverine
and that's badass.
Therefore fighters are badass.
Wolverine is clearlya barbarian.
Berzerker rage is one of his defining traits.The claws, The intimidation, the scent and even the fast healing? All rage powers.
|
|
Fighters kill stuff all the time. All day long.
I tend to think of fighters like WOLVERINE.
Crappy social skills.
Too much body hair.
Takes it to the face, then totally kills you.
Annoys the crap out of the supposed party leader (Cyclops), but the party leaders girl wants you cause there's something about being an angry, hairy, low charisma baddass!Wolverine sucks at social skills besides intimidating.
He takes beats and gives it back in spades.The iconic fighter is like Wolverine
and that's badass.
Therefore fighters are badass.Wolverine is clearlya barbarian.
Berzerker rage is one of his defining traits.
The claws, The intimidation, the scent and even the fast healing? All rage powers.
True dat.
I see one thread after another ranking on fighters...most of them seem to me to be threads started and perpetuated by people that really don't get fighters...at all.
Let me introduce you to what fighters actually DO.
This is a bit of a challenge...as of now, freeform.
The Fighter's Challenge:
For the fighter, I will assume a reasonably optimized fighter, well-rounded and conversant with melee, ranged, and close combat...carrying a decent array of weapons, and in good appropriate heavy armor, at level 12.
He meets random encounters, none higher than CR8. They come at him every 2d6 rounds, showing up at varying ranges as he traverses varied terrains.
What class survives longer than him at level 12, assuming they have to deal with each encounter?
I'm gonna go with a Paladin. Since the challenge is reasonably optimized I am assuming we're not trying to exploit the system and get the most bang out of bucks by using WBL+UMD to push us further but are going with things like feats, class features, etc. So I'd posit a Paladin with the following 15 PB array: 14, 14, 12, 7, 12, 14. Pick a race to suite (most anything with +2 Charisma would be ideal such as Human, Half-Orc, Half-Elf, Drow, Aasimar, Merfolk, etc). The feats Power Attack, Deadly Aim, Fey Foundling, Unsanctioned Knowledge (Entropic Shield, Heroism, Phantom Steed, Divine Power). Anything else is more or less gravy.
At 12th level with +3 points into Charisma and a +4 stat item to Str, Dex, and Cha, and a +3 resistance cloak, we have the following stats: Str 18, Dex 18, Con 12, Int 7, Wis 12, Cha 21 (57,000 / 108,000 gp, rest is spent on weapons and armor and such, such as a +3 armor, and some +2 weapons, maybe some low-level wands by taste).
Our Paladin is immune to Fear, Disease, Charms.
Saving throws are +17, +16, +17.
Each time we use Lay on Hands we heal for 6d6+12 HP damage and auto-cure the following effects: Fatigue, Sickened, Cursed, Blinded. We can do so 11 times per day (a net result of +198-528 Hp per day, average of +363 Hp per day).
Our Paladin has a +18/+13/+8 without buffs which is plenty for dealing with CR 8 encounters without needing to buff (but I'll get to buffs later; I'm discussing endurance right now).
Our Paladin has 4 1st level spells, 3 2nd level spells, 2 3rd level spells. These spells will consist of the following: 1st~Divine Favor x2, Lesser Restoration, Entropic Shield; 2nd~Heroism x1, Resist Energy x2; 3rd~Phantom Steed, Magic Circle against Evil.
Our Paladin can cast heroism which gives him a +2 bonus to most all d20 rolls (attacks, saves, checks) for 90 minutes (10,000 rounds), and magic circle against evil which also lasts the same duration (this circle is mostly to deal with annoying summoned creatures mobbing him). Entropic Shield lasts for 10 minutes and provides a 20% miss chance vs ranged attacks (which is not concealment). Lesser Restoration is used if he suffers ability damage. Resist Energy lasts 90 minutes and grants him resistance 20 to a chosen energy type (he can do this for up to 2 energy types). Phantom Steed lasts 10 hours at a time and can grant our Paladin exceptional mobility versus enemies (especially since the steed's speed is crazy and you can full-attack with ranged weapons from horseback). Divine Favor is used in certain situations to get a +3 bonus to hit and damage rolls with all weapons for 10 rounds, which can net a few more winning Power Attacks and works nicely with ranged weaponry.
We haven't counted any smite-evils or divine bonds.
With the rest of our money we can acquire a decent AC too. So if I had to pick a class that could just take on wave after wave after wave of low-CR enemies or really run an endurance race, I'll take Paladin. They take a licking and keep on ticking and are one of the hardest classes to burst down or debilitate (you cannot effectively use Intimidate on them, fear auras, charms, mind-controlling effects, fatigue them, poison them, disease them, ability damage them, and their Hp just keeps going like the energizer bunny do to Lay on Hands being effective +Hp/Day).
That's not suck, though. That's the norm. Most people don't just plain suck...is the basic point. When you have those big skills...that's when you friggin' rock. A +5 in real life could work at the U.N. (and from what I see, a lot of them have less...)No one is saying Fighter can't interect with people... Most everyday Diplomacy checks are DC 0~5. And most of the time, even with a Cha 7, you can make that check. So why bother rolling that?
Read the rules fo Diplomacy.
I don't think Fighters suck at social encounters because they can't ever speak to another person. I think they suck at social encounters because they can't do it in any significant way... In social situations, unless you're trying to scare someone, a Commoner is just as useful as a Fighter.
Fighters are not "completely useless" out of combat... But they do worse than every other class!
IMO, being worse than everyone else means you suck at whatever it's you are trying to do. Isn't that the definition of "suck"?
Yeah, but then again, we're all commoners, experts and warriors... I dunno about you, but I expect my character classes to be more effective than NPC classes.
I dunno about you, but I expect my character classes to be more effective than NPC classes.
In everything?
I dunno about you, but I expect my character classes to be more effective than NPC classes.In everything?
At something other than killing stuff. Even Barbarians who dump Int have more out of combat utility than Fighters.
At something other than killing stuff. Even Barbarians who dump Int have more out of combat utility than Fighters.I dunno about you, but I expect my character classes to be more effective than NPC classes.In everything?
Well they can be better at some things, just not everything. They are mainly focused on fighting. If you don't want to focus that much on fighting, don't play a fighter.
I know that sounds mean but I don't know how to finish this statement. I don't think the Fighter class needs out-of-combat abilities (by which I mean class special abilities). That makes them something other than fighters.
Now if you think Fighters are not good at fighting; then yes, something is wrong with the fighter.
Why don't you think the Fighter needs out of combat abilities? That's the million dollar question, really.
And it better be something a bit more solid than "Well, they're called the FIGHTER, they fight, that's it".
Why don't you think the Fighter needs out of combat abilities? That's the million dollar question, really.
And it better be something a bit more solid than "Well, they're called the FIGHTER, they fight, that's it".
That's it really. There are other classes that fight plus. If you want to do multiple things choose a class that does multiple things (or, Heaven forbid, multiclass).
Though really, my main grief is this notion I have to be using an ability to have fun. I really don't understand these other groups. Does everybody do everything? Do you take turns having fun? How is the fighter useless because he is not the party face? Isn't there another class for that?And no I'm not saying you have to be pigeonholed into your class name. If you can take the mechanics and make something else out of it then fine. Just don't complain the fighter focuses on fighting too much. ("Man, I hate this Wizard class. All I do is cast spells!")
At something other than killing stuff. Even Barbarians who dump Int have more out of combat utility than Fighters.I dunno about you, but I expect my character classes to be more effective than NPC classes.In everything?Well they can be better at some things, just not everything. They are mainly focused on fighting. If you don't want to focus that much on fighting, don't play a fighter.
I know that sounds mean but I don't know how to finish this statement. I don't think the Fighter class needs out-of-combat abilities (by which I mean class special abilities). That makes them something other than fighters.
Now if you think Fighters are not good at fighting; then yes, something is wrong with the fighter.
Barbarians are awesome at Fighting. So are Paladins, Rangers and Gunslingers. And all of them can actually contribute out of combat!
Fighter have higher AC and DPR, but no so much so that it justifies their incompetence at doing anything other than swinging a freaking sword!
I'm not asking for Fighters to get 8 skill points per level, all skill as class skills and a dozen supernatural utility abilities.
I'm asking them to get any freaking thing. I'm asking elite warriors to have more skill points and overall versatility/utility than commoners!
Why is it that "being good at full attacking" an acceptable excuse to suck at everything else?
Hell, I think Barbarians are better fighters than Fighters!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And you really don't see that as an issue? That there are myriad classes that can Fight+ but then the Fighter can ONLY Fight? That's pretty much the definition of an imbalance.
And "Casting spells" covers a much larger area of ground than "Fightin' s+$!".
"Fightin' s!#!" is limited to "Kill that guy in the fastest and most efficient way possible". Very good when it's good. Next to worthless when it's not the answer.
But "Castin' spells" is not limited in that manner. Casting a spell can serve any purpose from "Fightin' s*~#" on down to "Findin' s%@+", "Gettin' over/around s@!#", "Talkin' to s&&#", "Makin' s!~$", and so on. There's a lot of "X'in s#~~" you can do with spells.
You don't have to use an ability to have fun. But this conversation is not about fun. Fun is subjective.
This conversation is about UTILITY or ACTION ("What Fighters DO." is the name of the thread, after all), which is something you can measure.
Fact of the matter is, Fighters DO less than other classes. They fight. Thassabouddit. Which is an issue when other classes can Fight PLUS.
I suppose what I would say here is that in general pathfinder has tried to move more away from specialization. They combined all of the core skills and redid the way skills worked so it took less skill points to do things out of combat.
In general, what it appears that they were going for was that everyone would ALWAYS contribute. Doesn't matter if you're in combat or out, most classes are capable of contributing. Except the fighter. He can of course RP just like anyone else. But if a skill check is required he is effectively gimped. He is an effective 4 INT beneath any other class that is not INT based in terms of skill points.
At the same time, he is not a god of combat. Barbarian rounds of rage very rarely run out. Once paladins hit 4th with oath of vengeance they pretty much have a smite whenever they need it. Rangers hitting 10th can craft a wand of instant enemy for under 8000 gold if they bother too (note it will be a standard action instead of swift action, but I feel a standard for a +6/+6 is quite worth it) They're all comparable to fighter in damage, but vastly more beneficial to the team in general (Healing and buffs), while being nearly as tanky if not more so, and having vastly better saves.
In short, the fighter equals other people approximately in the combat area but falls drastically short in the utility department, being the only non INT based class with 2 skill points. (Note the summoner also only gets 2 but his Eidolon also gets 4 skill points/HD)
So in a game type where they are attempting to make it so that everyone contributes to the game continuously the fighter will have relatively little in the mechanical attempts to contribute out of combat.
Every complaint is different. Most if the time I see people complaining that 3rd edition and Pathfinder have made the game too focused on combat. Can't please everybody.
And I know it is quite popular on these boards, I don't really get into the whole "comparing theoretical maximums."
No, actually I'm quite calm. It's just one expletive expanded across multiple examples. I tend to curse more the more relaxed I am actually. It's weird.
I'm used to a much less censored forum, it doesn't come across as angry there. =/
And you really don't see that as an issue? That there are myriad classes that can Fight+ but then the Fighter can ONLY Fight? That's pretty much the definition of an imbalance.
And "Casting spells" covers a much larger area of ground than "Fightin' s#$#".
"Fightin' s#$*" is limited to "Kill that guy in the fastest and most efficient way possible". Very good when it's good. Next to worthless when it's not the answer.
But "Castin' spells" is not limited in that manner. Casting a spell can serve any purpose from "Fightin' s%@!" on down to "Findin' s!$$", "Gettin' over/around s!$@", "Talkin' to s*$!", "Makin' s+%%", and so on. There's a lot of "X'in s~~~" you can do with spells.
You don't have to use an ability to have fun. But this conversation is not about fun. Fun is subjective.
This conversation is about UTILITY or ACTION ("What Fighters DO." is the name of the thread, after all), which is something you can measure.
Fact of the matter is, Fighters DO less than other classes. They fight. Thassabouddit. Which is an issue when other classes can Fight PLUS.
No sir, I do not. (And I would ask you to watch your language. Children live in my house.) if you only see combat as "I hit it with my sword" then I can see why you don't like fighters. The argument that everybody has to be able to do something at all times are there not balanced just strikes me as everyone has to be the same.