|
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?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters fight. And they do it fairly well. Not necessarily the greatest (the Summoner's class feature probably takes that crown), but sufficiently well to do his job. I don't begrudge the fighter for his combat performance. I begrudge that a class exists with the sole purpose of being good at fighting. As then it becomes a glass ceiling for all other noncaster classes. None are allowed to dare surpass the fighter at "combat," and when spellcasters are so powerful both in and out of combat, being limited like that ends up holding down all the noncaster classes and keeping them down. It truly gets ridiculous. The board consensus here seems to be that Fighter should be better at unarmed fighting than a monk (and currently, he is, no question!), because....wait for it... unarmed fighting is still fighting!
Combat is the single most important part of the game, takes up the most time of a session, and is typically the only sort of encounter that can kill you. I'm sure your campaign is very special and different, but for most, the above is true. Having a single class to be purported as the best at fighting is patently unfair and messed up. As long as a single class exists for the sole purpose of being "the best" at it and in return getting garbage or nothing for out of combat or special/magical abilities... noncasters will continue to lag massively behind the casters.
What class survives longer than him at level 12, assuming they have to deal with each encounter?
Barbarian is my pick of martial class actually. Has amazing saves, skills, HPs, touch AC, and possibly AC with DR depending on your archetype and build. He also never takes a hit to his +1's when he switches weapons, and one archetype can boost his dex. That is my opinion of course, and not something I'm willing to state as fact.
I don't think anyone argues fighters don't fight. Is there something I missed?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Animal beat drums, Fighter beat kobolds!
|
|
What class survives longer than him at level 12, assuming they have to deal with each encounter?Barbarian is my pick of martial class actually. Has amazing saves, skills, HPs, touch AC, and possibly AC with DR depending on your archetype and build. He also never takes a hit to his +1's when he switches weapons, and one archetype can boost his dex. That is my opinion of course, and not something I'm willing to state as fact.
I don't think anyone argues fighters don't fight. Is there something I missed?
Barbarians will excel for the first 10...maybe 12 encounters...then start dropping off, as they typically start running out of rage eventually...and most have a lower AC than a fighter does. The fighter trudges on.
Well, you picked level 12, which is kind of a big level for Barbarian. It's the level he gets Come and Get Me. Granted, that makes him more vulnerable, but since he's getting a bunch more attacks per round at highest BAB, and his counter-attacks resolve first, he'll likely be preventing a lot of damage to himself solely by killing enemies before they can hurt him. If it wasn't for not getting a feat at 12th, Barb would also have Dazing Assault, and be nearly untouchable in melee (since he counter-dazes anyone that attacks him before they can land the hit).
|
|
Well, you picked level 12, which is kind of a big level for Barbarian. It's the level he gets Come and Get Me. Granted, that makes him more vulnerable, but since he's getting a bunch more attacks per round at highest BAB, and his counter-attacks resolve first, he'll likely be preventing a lot of damage to himself solely by killing enemies before they can hurt him. If it wasn't for not getting a feat at 12th, Barb would also have Dazing Assault, and be nearly untouchable in melee (since he counter-dazes anyone that attacks him before they can land the hit).
Barbarians rock...there's no doubt about it. Fighters can take the same feat.
Indeed. In fact, the only way to take it at 12th level is to be a Fighter, and Dazing Assault is such a game-changing feat, that edge alone might make fighter the better combatant at precisely level 12. Now that I think about it.
Lasts longer, on their own? Impossible. On paper, a Fighter can last indefinitely (though in practice this is not the case).
Can match? Barbarians and Rangers. To a lesser extent, Paladins (they can roflstomp over about 3 encounters a day but are less effective otherwise).
I'm actually not sure what this thread is for. I don't think anyone has ever said Fighters are bad at fighting.
They're just bad at fighting AND being able to do other stuff.
It's not really a relevant challenge, unfortunately. Not only will this scenario simply not come up in the course of any standard game, but it doesn't matter what the fighter does solo because the game isn't meant to be played with a party of one.
I like fighters, at least conceptually; the competent warrior who succeeds through skill at arms and a bit of cleverness is very much the classic hero! It's just that the fighter as written doesn't really deliver that.
No Fighter in their right mind is going to fight without the rest of the party when the rest are out of resources. So it can't really be considered a class feature that they never run out of said expendable resources (seeings as they don't have any). The occasional ambush or bad luck is a reason to conserve resources before the end of the adventuring day. It's not something to base an entire class on.
Why make a class that only contributes to one aspect of the game, anyway?
Fighters should be simple to learn, robust no matter how badly you build them, but reward mastery of the system and tactical planning. Tactical being something besides fill attack.
And this won't be popular, but I liked Tome of Battle's and Fourth edition's idea of encounter resources instead of everything being daily.
P.s. why doesn't weapon mastery boost all the weapon categories to the same level instead of this "next category starts at square 1" crap? Not like it's game-breaking if I can use a bow and a sword at +2 -- can't very well use them at the same time. Or if I two-weapon fight with weapons in different categories it's worse than if I use two of the same weapon for the full bonus...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What class survives longer than him at level 12, assuming they have to deal with each encounter?
This is actually very easy: the Paladin.
It seems like you're making a variety of assumptions, such as the assumption that never in those encounters will the Fighter come up against something that can overcome his meager Will save and render him relatively defenseless.
Let's up the ante on your challenge - lets omit magical gear. After all, this is a challenge based on what the class can do, not what the class can buy, correct?
Feel free to introduce any Fighter build you like to face the challenge you describe and figure how long he'll go compared to the following fairly generic Paladin:
Human 12th level Paladin
Attributes:
STR 14
DEX 14
CON 14
INT 10
WIS 8
CHA 15 (+2 racial bonus, +1 at 4th, 8th & 12th)
Feats:
1st - Fey Foundling
1st - Power Attack
3rd - Deadly Aim
5th - Extra Lay on Hands
7th - Extra Lay on Hands
9th - Extra Lay on Hands
11th - Extra Lay on Hands
Spells:
1st - Hero's Defiance x2, Divine Favor x2
2nd - Litany of Righteousness x3
3rd - Deadly Juggernaut x2
Weapon Bond +3 2/day
When healing himself as a swift action via Lay on Hands, he'll regain 6d6+12 hit points at a pop (removing harmful conditions each time), and he can do it 19 times a day which means on average he has about 627 more hit points a day to play with than the Fighter [(3.5*6+12)x19].
His saves are much higher, he has immunities the Fighter doesn't have, he had a customizable magic weapon the Fighter doesn't have via the Weapon Bond class feature... and let's say that the evil/neutral foe ratio is perhaps 70/30 as we've come to expect in Pathfinder, he has plenty of options at his fingertips. Against Evil foes he can Smite and use Litany or Righteousness, against non-Evil foes he can cast Divine Favor, Deadly Juggernaut (which will last through a 8-10 encounters or so each time its cast resulting in bonuses of +5 to attack, +5 to damage and DR 10/- for most of its duration) and Weapon Bond.
Near as I can tell, the Fighter doesn't have any way to regain health if he's dependent on his class abilities which would dramatically affect how long he can keep going I'd say... nor does he have the versatility to deal with a variety of threats that are in no way required to target only his AC. Sure, once the Paladin has finally run out of spells, uses of Lay on Hands, Divine Bond, etc. AND assuming he never has to deal with threats to his Will or Reflex saves the fighter will eventually be a more effective combatant than the Paladin - but my bet is that it never gets that far, that the Fighter without resources runs out of life long before the Paladin with resources does.
And then heaven forbid any of those foes can be overcome through Diplomacy or Intimidate, eh?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, you don't need a fighter... but there's so much fighter hate on the boards, and I just don't think they deserve it.
This statement always bothers me.
Most people who complain about Fighters/Rogues/Monk/whatever (myself included) don't do it out of hate!
We do it because we're frustrated!
And this frustration is mostly because we freaking like these classes, but their underwhelming mechanics hurt the enjoyment of using them!
I love Fighters, and I like Monks and Rogues too! I don't point out their flaws because I hate them, I do it because I like them. (And because I enjoy analyzing game mechanics, but that's unrelated)
Compare to Cavaliers/Samurai. I really don't care about them. At all. So I just ignore the class. Even though I feel they are about as underpowered as Fighters, I won't spend much energy on a thread about them because I don't give a damn about them. (Well, except for a particular homebrew Cavalier archetype that is really cool, but that's not the point)
There are no Fighter haters here, my friend, just frustrated Fighter fans!
And this won't be popular, but I liked Tome of Battle's and Fourth edition's idea of encounter resources instead of everything being daily.
I have to say, taking a couple cues from the Warblade would do a lot to help the fighter out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The warblade is also a really strong melee class but where the crazy stuff begins is when you have a fighter and warblade in the party, co-ordinating tactics. Scary stuff.
And this frustration is mostly because we freaking like these classes, but their underwhelming mechanics hurt the enjoyment of using them!
This statement has actually always bothered me. I think all three classes do what they are intended to do but people get upset they can't do every thing else as well.
This statement has actually always bothered me. I think all three classes do what they are intended to do but people get upset they can't do every thing else as well.
And this frustration is mostly because we freaking like these classes, but their underwhelming mechanics hurt the enjoyment of using them!
That depends.
It's obvious that the Fighter can fight well, yes, and that's what it's intended to do. So in that sense it accomplishes it's purpose.
I still think it is TOO specialized into combat.
On the other hand...what role does the Rogue have in any party? Or the Monk? If they have one, it's not executed well, because they don't really do anything that can't be replicated as well or better by another class, which is why they have issues.
This coming from someone whose favorite class is the Monk.
This statement has actually always bothered me. I think all three classes do what they are intended to do but people get upset they can't do every thing else as well.
And this frustration is mostly because we freaking like these classes, but their underwhelming mechanics hurt the enjoyment of using them!
That depends.
It's obvious that the Fighter can fight well, yes, and that's what it's intended to do. So in that sense it accomplishes it's purpose.
I still think it is TOO specialized into combat.
On the other hand...what role does the Rogue have in any party? Or the Monk? If they have one, it's not executed well, because they don't really do anything that can't be replicated as well or better by another class, which is why they have issues.
This coming from someone whose favorite class is the Monk.
That is generally what I'm referring to.
"I want to do A. Fighters do A. Others do A and B therefore fighter is broken even though A was all I wanted."
I know it's not a popular argument but the Fighter should excel at fighting (and they do). Can I build other classes to fight and do something else? Sure and when I want to I will use those classes.
(Rogues and monks have their own things but I don't want to be the one to take the focus of this thread off of fighters.)
This statement has actually always bothered me. I think all three classes do what they are intended to do but people get upset they can't do every thing else as well.Really? Because I can't think of one thing that they do better than the other classes in their category.
Melee? Mounted Fury Rage lance pounce FTW.
Ranged? hmmm smite evil anyone? Screw that unbypassable DR that the fighter has to take 2 feats after level 10 in order to get past just 5 of it. Smite.
Skills/ Trapmaster? Bard anyone? No rogue supremacy here. The archaeologist clever explorer ability completely invalidates trap finding while still allowing the bard to have spell casting and bardic performance if only for the rogue.
Mobile fighter? nope its not you monk. I'm probably giving this to the barbarian, maybe the eidolon from the summoner class.
Yeah, not really trying to get into a whole "thing" here. I'm not gonna sit here and defend the base class from every uber build out there on the World Wide Web.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem in my opinion isn't the classes - its the absurd presumption that all of the classes have to be balanced. That every class has to be just as effective as every other class for the game to somehow be 'fair'. That's ridiculous. Let's put aside the fact that playstyle, tactical ability and rules expertise has a far greater impact on the effectiveness of any character than the actual relative class feature ever could, it shouldn't matter in the slightest anyway.
People don't play Rogues or Bards or Wizards or Fighters or Barbarians or Monks because they're excited over the fact that they're exactly equal to everyone else. They play them because they have a concept they love a fantasy to indulge in. In every movie and book you've ever enjoyed, when in God's name were all the character's carefully balanced to be equally effective regardless of the challenge that might need to be overcome? If you think a particular class is too gimped to be fun to play, don't play it. If you think a class is too over-powered to be fun to play, don't play it - I can guarantee you in both cases there will be someone who disagrees and will have no problem stepping into that skin.
If people step back from the pointless and ultimately self-destructive never-ending quest for balance - players and game designers both - life suddenly becomes a lot easier and these games suddenly become a lot more fun.
That is generally what I'm referring to."I want to do A. Fighters do A. Others do A and B therefore fighter is broken even though A was all I wanted."
I know it's not a popular argument but the Fighter should excel at fighting (and they do). Can I build other classes to fight and do something else? Sure and when I want to I will use those classes.
(Rogues and monks have their own things but I don't want to be the one to take the focus of this thread off of fighters.)
The problem being that if Class A is really good at X, but Class B is really good at X and Y, then Class A is poorly balanced with the other classes.
The Fighter SHOULD excel at fighting, yes. But combat is not the entirety of the game, for one, and even worse, the Fighter is not in any significant capacity better at combat than other classes who CAN function well outside of combat.
The Fighter is Class A in this scenario, when Class B exists in multiple forms in the game.
I like all options to be as balanced as possible in any game I become invested in. Coming up with balancing solutions, or at the very least pointing out these problems gives me almost as much enjoyment as actually playing the game does, which is why I do it.
If people step back from the pointless and ultimately self-destructive never-ending quest for balance - players and game designers both - life suddenly becomes a lot easier and these games suddenly become a lot more fun.
Balance is neither pointless or destructive.
Quite the opposite, in fact. Games that are otherwise perfect can be utterly ruined by rampant and significant imbalance between classes or loadout options.
A significant portion of the game's design should ALWAYS be invested in balance, because that is by far the hardest factor to get right. Mild imbalance is expected, though attempts should be made to rectify the issue. Major balance issues should be a priority in any game. There are a long line of games, both digital and analog, that have failed solely because of their imbalance (though there are admittedly some that thrive in spite of it, especially among long running digital military shooter series). Major balance issues effectively invalidate a good portion of work the designers put into it.
If you have Classes A, B, and C, and Feats X, Y, and Z, but Class C does everything A and B do and more, or Feat Z does everything X and Y do but with extra bits, Classes A and B and Feats X and Y become wasted effort and wasted word count.
Regardless of how much it comes up, the Fighter/Monk/Rogue balance issues ARE mild imbalances, yes. But that doesn't mean they should be ignored, and that also does not mean that the pursuit of balance is "pointless and destructive".
And before you come back with the (all too common) argument that "4E tried to balance everything and it sucked, so balance must be bad" I would like to preemptively point out that A.) Homogeneity =/= Balance, and B.) Just because someone else failed to do something does not make it impossible. It just means they failed to do it.
This statement has actually always bothered me. I think all three classes do what they are intended to do but people get upset they can't do every thing else as well.
And this frustration is mostly because we freaking like these classes, but their underwhelming mechanics hurt the enjoyment of using them!
That depends.
It's obvious that the Fighter can fight well, yes, and that's what it's intended to do. So in that sense it accomplishes it's purpose.
I still think it is TOO specialized into combat.
On the other hand...what role does the Rogue have in any party? Or the Monk? If they have one, it's not executed well, because they don't really do anything that can't be replicated as well or better by another class, which is why they have issues.
This coming from someone whose favorite class is the Monk.
That is generally what I'm referring to.
"I want to do A. Fighters do A. Others do A and B therefore fighter is broken even though A was all I wanted."
I know it's not a popular argument but the Fighter should excel at fighting (and they do). Can I build other classes to fight and do something else? Sure and when I want to I will use those classes.
(Rogues and monks have their own things but I don't want to be the one to take the focus of this thread off of fighters.)
See, I agree with this completely. I personally think that Paladins are technically vastly superior to Fighters... BUT I have some Fighter builds I truly love and truly love playing. Fighter builds that can do things no one else can do even if other classes can do most things better.
Play what you enjoy and worry less about what others can do is what I say - I've never met a Fighter who wasn't happy with his character until someone convinced him through long and passionate debate that he sucked compared to something else. Usually people who play Fighters are pretty happy just... well, fighting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem being that if Class A is really good at X, but Class B is really good at X and Y, then Class A is poorly balanced with the other classes.
This would matter to me if our characters were determined by random draw, by lots and whatever we were given we had to play whether we wanted to or not. Fortunately that's not the case - since every class, every character is not only voluntarily played but presumably played with joy and gusto, why the heck would I care if its properly 'balanced' or not?
And this frustration is mostly because we freaking like these classes, but their underwhelming mechanics hurt the enjoyment of using them!This statement has actually always bothered me. I think all three classes do what they are intended to do but people get upset they can't do every thing else as well.
So we are all dirty munchkins who want to be awesome at everything and make the GM cry? Yeah, that must be it...
You know... Loving a class doesn't mean you should ignore its flaws.
Paladins do what they are intended to do, but can't do everything else as well. Same goes for Inquisitors, Bards, Magi, Barbarians, Rangers and Alchemists. And yet, I don't see a significant number of people complaining about the mechanics of those classes (although they may complain about flavor/alignment, but that's another story).
If we simply wanted all-powerful characters we'd simply play over-optimized full-casters.
|
|
What class survives longer than him at level 12, assuming they have to deal with each encounter?This is actually very easy: the Paladin.
It seems like you're making a variety of assumptions, such as the assumption that never in those encounters will the Fighter come up against something that can overcome his meager Will save and render him relatively defenseless.
Let's up the ante on your challenge - lets omit magical gear. After all, this is a challenge based on what the class can do, not what the class can buy, correct?
Feel free to introduce any Fighter build you like to face the challenge you describe and figure how long he'll go compared to the following fairly generic Paladin:
Human 12th level Paladin
Attributes:
STR 14
DEX 14
CON 14
INT 10
WIS 8
CHA 15 (+2 racial bonus, +1 at 4th, 8th & 12th)Feats:
1st - Fey Foundling
1st - Power Attack
3rd - Deadly Aim
5th - Extra Lay on Hands
7th - Extra Lay on Hands
9th - Extra Lay on Hands
11th - Extra Lay on HandsSpells:
1st - Hero's Defiance x2, Divine Favor x2
2nd - Litany of Righteousness x3
3rd - Deadly Juggernaut x2
Weapon Bond +3 2/dayWhen healing himself as a swift action via Lay on Hands, he'll regain 6d6+12 hit points at a pop (removing harmful conditions each time), and he can do it 19 times a day which means on average he has about 627 more hit points a day to play with than the Fighter [(3.5*6+12)x19].
His saves are much higher, he has immunities the Fighter doesn't have, he had a customizable magic weapon the Fighter doesn't have via the Weapon Bond class feature... and let's say that the evil/neutral foe ratio is perhaps 70/30 as we've come to expect in Pathfinder, he has plenty of options at his fingertips. Against Evil foes he can Smite and use Litany or Righteousness, against non-Evil foes he can cast Divine Favor, Deadly Juggernaut (which will last through a 8-10 encounters or so each time its cast resulting in...
You have made a very specific build that most people would never play. Now, if you want, I will make a build that will probably outlast that paladin...yes, you can heal...you have some strong advantages...but at 12th level, the fighter is going to put out so much more damage without the boosts that will go away...and his AC will be higher...and he'll fight with tactics that the paladin can't afford. You'll go through that healing faster than you think you will.
I know...paladin is one of my favorite classes. They rock. So do other martials. So do casters...but they all have their niche...the fighter's niche is - as long as he has his gear - he's ALWAYS ready. I'll grant you the exception that he can't heal himself...but he also needs it less.
I understood the Tome of Battle to be a fix. To replace the sub par martial classes with new classes that were designed to be on par with casters, Gish characters and those who REALLY dominated combat back in 3.5.
PF did a lot to improve the martial classes, and nerf the CoDzilla effect, but still, I find that they are kinda... lackluster still.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also want to say this - I see absolutely NO reason why Fighters shouldn't have 4 skill points per level. A Fighter who's skilled at riding, tracking, maybe some swimming and climbing, maybe knows how to fish or was apprenticed to a blacksmith and has knowledge about local geography or the local nobility? Hardly the kind of thing that would upset the game. Its a small fix but it'd be one of the first things I proposed.
This would matter to me if our characters were determined by random draw, by lots and whatever we were given we had to play whether we wanted to or not. Fortunately that's not the case - since every class, every character is not only voluntarily played but presumably played with joy and gusto, why the heck would I care if its properly 'balanced' or not?
The problem being that if Class A is really good at X, but Class B is really good at X and Y, then Class A is poorly balanced with the other classes.
Because simply having the option to ignore it does not invalidate the fact that it is an inferior option.
Look at it this way: Taking an inferior option has the potential to be less fun if you are overshadowed by your fellows.
Having an option that is on par with the others carries no such danger. There is no downside, and any number of upsides to balancing the classes.
As an aside, this is the most terrible argument I've seen thrown around in any discussion (Bar the "4E did it and failed, so it's destined to suck). It is the game equivalent of "Don't like don't read" and completely ignores any flaws and glosses over reparable imperfections with the asinine assumption that just because someone CAN enjoy it means it is good and shouldn't be fixed.
I'll repost this because the discussion moved faster than my editing.
Balance is neither pointless or destructive.
Quite the opposite, in fact. Games that are otherwise perfect can be utterly ruined by rampant and significant imbalance between classes or loadout options.
A significant portion of the game's design should ALWAYS be invested in balance, because that is by far the hardest factor to get right. Mild imbalance is expected, though attempts should be made to rectify the issue. Major balance issues should be a priority in any game. There are a long line of games, both digital and analog, that have failed solely because of their imbalance (though there are admittedly some that thrive in spite of it, especially among long running digital military shooter series). Major balance issues effectively invalidate a good portion of work the designers put into it.
If you have Classes A, B, and C, and Feats X, Y, and Z, but Class C does everything A and B do and more, or Feat Z does everything X and Y do but with extra bits, Classes A and B and Feats X and Y become wasted effort and wasted word count.
Regardless of how much it comes up, the Fighter/Monk/Rogue balance issues ARE mild imbalances, yes. But that doesn't mean they should be ignored, and that also does not mean that the pursuit of balance is "pointless and destructive".
And before you come back with the (all too common) argument that "4E tried to balance everything and it sucked, so balance must be bad" I would like to preemptively point out that A.) Homogeneity =/= Balance, and B.) Just because someone else failed to do something does not make it impossible. It just means they failed to do it.
...and his AC will be higher...and he'll fight with tactics that the paladin can't afford. You'll go through that healing faster than you think you will.
I know...paladin is one of my favorite classes. They rock. So do other martials. So do casters...but they all have their niche...the fighter's niche is - as long as he has his gear - he's ALWAYS ready. I'll grant you the exception that he can't heal himself...but he also needs it less.
Erm...
1.) Why would the Fighter have a higher AC than the Paladin? They can both wear full plate so their ACs should be identical given all else is equal.
2.) Why would the Fighter need less healing? The Paladin and Fighter should have the same HP, and same ACs, so they can take as many hits and get hit just as often...but the Pally can heal.
|
|
This statement has actually always bothered me. I think all three classes do what they are intended to do but people get upset they can't do every thing else as well.
And this frustration is mostly because we freaking like these classes, but their underwhelming mechanics hurt the enjoyment of using them!
That depends.
It's obvious that the Fighter can fight well, yes, and that's what it's intended to do. So in that sense it accomplishes it's purpose.
I still think it is TOO specialized into combat.
On the other hand...what role does the Rogue have in any party? Or the Monk? If they have one, it's not executed well, because they don't really do anything that can't be replicated as well or better by another class, which is why they have issues.
This coming from someone whose favorite class is the Monk.
That is generally what I'm referring to.
"I want to do A. Fighters do A. Others do A and B therefore fighter is broken even though A was all I wanted."
I know it's not a popular argument but the Fighter should excel at fighting (and they do). Can I build other classes to fight and do something else? Sure and when I want to I will use those classes.
(Rogues and monks have their own things but I don't want to be the one to take the focus of this thread off of fighters.)
See, I agree with this completely. I personally think that Paladins are technically vastly superior to Fighters... BUT I have some Fighter builds I truly love and truly love playing. Fighter builds that can do things no one else can do even if other classes can do most things better.
Play what you enjoy and worry less about what others can do is what I say - I've never met a Fighter who wasn't happy with his character until someone convinced him through long and passionate debate that he sucked compared to something else. Usually people who play Fighters are pretty happy...
Yes, they are...and as a rule, I can do better with a paladin. It's very rare that the game pushes a party like I was mentioning...but I've also built the fighters that would make a paladin shake his head in awe.
Then again, just like you point out...it's not like it even matters. I've enjoyed playing 'sub-optimal' characters plenty, too.
I went on a bit of a crusade over at the optimization board at WOTC during 3.5's heyday, crusading for the lowly fighter...who always got so much flack...I finally built one of the definitive chain trippers...straight human...and proved the point, not just by posting the build...but by playing him, and having a blast.
When Pathfinder boosted the fighter, I was hoping it would be over...it's amazing what you can do with a fighter, in Pathfinder...but no...it's the same old thing.
*sigh*
Oh well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think some of the problem is that there are getting to be to many classes that are to specific i would rather have a few more general classes which players can adapt through skills and feats to make them unique
You have made a very specific build that most people would never play. Now, if you want, I will make a build that will probably outlast that paladin...yes, you can heal...you have some strong advantages...but at 12th level, the fighter is going to put out so much more damage without the boosts that will go away...and his AC will be higher...and he'll fight with tactics that the paladin can't afford. You'll go through that healing faster than you think you will.
I know...paladin is one of my favorite classes. They rock. So do other martials. So do casters...but they all have their niche...the fighter's niche is - as long as he has his gear - he's ALWAYS ready. I'll grant you the exception that he can't heal himself...but he also needs it less.
Yeah, that's pretty much all wrong. First of all this is the exact build I used when I played my first Paladin from 1st all the way to 14th level and every choice made along the way was done so with specific intent completely seperate from this challenge that would eventually be posted on a message board somewhere.
The Fighter's AC might be higher - but not by much. As I recall both classes get the same armor profeciencies, no? And no, the Fighter isn't going to put out 'so much more damage'... he'll eventually put out more damage but not by such a significant amount that it'll make a difference over the time it takes for him to die. The Fighter has maybe around 100 hit points? The Paladin with the same HD and the same Constitution bonus would effectively have SEVEN TIMES more hit points to work with. Do you really think that with the same AC, much better saves and seven times the hit points the Paladin wouldn't outlast the Fighter? And that's BEFORE including spells which would allow him to out-damage the Fighter for a good long while. And I have to throw this out there - why CR 8? Why not CR 9 or CR 10? Is it because the carefully chosen threat level won't ideally suit the Fighter who has no ability whatsoever to recover the most prescious resource of all - his hit points? Is it because the higher level you go the more reliant you become on saving throws and the less reliant you are on AC?
Smiting has me out-damaging the Fighter. Spells have me out-damaging the Fighter. Saving throws have me taking less damage and completely avoiding save-or-suck scenarios. The Paladin might go through his healing fast, but I guarantee it will take him a lot longer to get through 700 hit points than it will take the Fighter to get through 100.
This is a challenge the Fighter absolutely loses. Now I'm anti-balance so that truth doesn't particularly bother me and I like Fighters besides, but its simple math. I suspect you might have a very common blindspot in that you've grown so used to covering fighter's weaknesses through the use of magic items (Cloaks of Resistance, Wands of CLW), you are unable to mentally divorce what you can do on your own with what needs to be done for you by someone or something else.
|
|
This would matter to me if our characters were determined by random draw, by lots and whatever we were given we had to play whether we wanted to or not. Fortunately that's not the case - since every class, every character is not only voluntarily played but presumably played with joy and gusto, why the heck would I care if its properly 'balanced' or not?
The problem being that if Class A is really good at X, but Class B is really good at X and Y, then Class A is poorly balanced with the other classes.
Because simply having the option to ignore it does not invalidate the fact that it is an inferior option.
Look at it this way: Taking an inferior option has the potential to be less fun if you are overshadowed by your fellows.
Having an option that is on par with the others carries no such danger. There is no downside, and any number of upsides to balancing the classes.
As an aside, this is the most terrible argument I've seen thrown around in any discussion (Bar the "4E did it and failed, so it's destined to suck). It is the game equivalent of "Don't like don't read" and completely ignores any flaws and glosses over reparable imperfections with the asinine assumption that just because someone CAN enjoy it means it is good and shouldn't be fixed.
I'll repost this because the discussion moved faster than my editing.
...Balance is neither pointless or destructive.
Quite the opposite, in fact. Games that are otherwise perfect can be utterly ruined by rampant and significant imbalance between classes or loadout options.
A significant portion of the game's design should ALWAYS be invested in balance, because that is by far the hardest factor to get right. Mild imbalance is expected, though attempts should be made to rectify the issue. Major balance issues should be a priority in any game. There are a long line of games, both digital and analog, that have failed solely because of their imbalance (though there are
Why do fighters have better AC?
Firstly, they can afford to take the feats. Secondly, they can have higher Dex that actually counts in their armor. Then, just to make it fun, they are the only class that can still move tactically in that heavy armor, and actually take full advantage of it.
It's really pretty basic.
at 12th level, the fighter is going to put out so much more damage without the boosts that will go away...and his AC will be higher...and he'll fight with tactics that the paladin can't afford.
And what happens when you have to make Will/Reflex saves? Those are pretty common, you know?
What happens when you have to remove conditions from yourself and/or your allies?|
|
You have made a very specific build that most people would never play. Now, if you want, I will make a build that will probably outlast that paladin...yes, you can heal...you have some strong advantages...but at 12th level, the fighter is going to put out so much more damage without the boosts that will go away...and his AC will be higher...and he'll fight with tactics that the paladin can't afford. You'll go through that healing faster than you think you will.
I know...paladin is one of my favorite classes. They rock. So do other martials. So do casters...but they all have their niche...the fighter's niche is - as long as he has his gear - he's ALWAYS ready. I'll grant you the exception that he can't heal himself...but he also needs it less.
Yeah, that's pretty much all wrong. First of all this is the exact build I used when I played my first Paladin from 1st all the way to 14th level and every choice made along the way was done so with specific intent completely seperate from this challenge that would eventually be posted on a message board somewhere.
The Fighter's AC might be higher - but not by much. As I recall both classes get the same armor profeciencies, no? And no, the Fighter isn't going to put out 'so much more damage'... he'll eventually put out more damage but not by such a significant amount that it'll make a difference over the time it takes for him to die. The Fighter has maybe around 100 hit points? The Paladin with the same HD and the same Constitution bonus would effectively have SEVEN TIMES more hit points to work with. Do you really think that with the same AC, much better saves and seven times the hit points the Paladin wouldn't outlast the Fighter? And that's BEFORE including spells which would allow him to out-damage the Fighter for a good long while.
Smiting has me out-damaging the Fighter. Spells have me out-damaging the Fighter. Saving throws have me taking less damage and completely avoiding save-or-suck scenarios. The Paladin might go through...
First...I did say 'most people'. I've seen a lot of paladin builds...yours is definitely effective...but it's far from the only one. I like your build...but I'd make my own.
By 12th level, yes, I can put out a lot more damage without relying on spells...and definitely have a distinctly better AC. Yes, there are a lot of evil creatures, but there are a lot that aren't too, so most of the time, the smite simply won't add.
The saves are the real advantage here. That's one thing that can stop anybody cold, by dumb luck...and paladins are lord god of saves. Mind you, I was assuming standard gear for the level. It does make a big difference.
at 12th level, the fighter is going to put out so much more damage without the boosts that will go away...and his AC will be higher...and he'll fight with tactics that the paladin can't afford.And what happens when you have to make Will/Reflex saves? Those are pretty common, you know?
What happens when you have to remove conditions from yourself and/or your allies?
Or if you catch a disease? Or suffer ability damage? Or get dominated or put to sleep? Better hope you've spent some of those limited skill points on Heal in case you take some bleed damage.
And tactics like what? Tripping? All of those feats are instantly negated when you face a flying creatue - or even a Huge four-legged one. Disarming? Sundering? Most threats at that level use natural weapons or spells. Dirty Tricks? Please.
|
|
at 12th level, the fighter is going to put out so much more damage without the boosts that will go away...and his AC will be higher...and he'll fight with tactics that the paladin can't afford.And what happens when you have to make Will/Reflex saves? Those are pretty common, you know?
What happens when you have to remove conditions from yourself and/or your allies?
That's their biggest problem, right there. It's not insurmountable, as a rule...but if they have an 'Achilles' Heel', that's it.
Why do fighters have better AC?
Firstly, they can afford to take the feats. Secondly, they can have higher Dex that actually counts in their armor. Then, just to make it fun, they are the only class that can still move tactically in that heavy armor, and actually take full advantage of it.
It's really pretty basic.
I suppose the better way to word the question is "Why would the Fighter have such a higher AC if he was also doing everything else you mentioned" (i.e. consistently outdamaging the Paladin and using Combat Manuevers). Every point of Str you miss because you put it in Dex is one point of damage the Paladin creeps up on you on, kinda negating your Weapon Spec/Greater and Weapon Training bonuses bit by bit. Every bit of cash you spend on Dex boosting items (in addition to Str) is a bit you didn't spend on pumping saves and damage, once again. Even throwing in the fact that the Paladin wants a Cha headband (and ignoring the fact that you need a Wis headband) you're behind by 2k gold just on the +2 belt while the Pally's still doing fine with the +Str. Once he goes for the Str/Con belt he catches up to you...but outpaces you in HP unless you go for the All Physical Stat belt, putting him firmly ahead in wealth again.
On top of that, those Combat Maneuver Feats (which I assume you meant by "Options the Pally can't afford") get expensive real quick, and lord help you if you go for Trip, since that alone is going to make you sacrifice something else important for that 13 Int.
The AC gain you get from Dex nets you diminishing returns over time, is all I'm saying.
|
|
at 12th level, the fighter is going to put out so much more damage without the boosts that will go away...and his AC will be higher...and he'll fight with tactics that the paladin can't afford.And what happens when you have to make Will/Reflex saves? Those are pretty common, you know?
What happens when you have to remove conditions from yourself and/or your allies?Or if you catch a disease? Or suffer ability damage? Or get dominated or put to sleep? Better hope you've spent some of those limited skill points on Heal in case you take some bleed damage.
And tactics like what? Tripping? All of those feats are instantly negated when you face a flying creatue - or even a Huge four-legged one. Disarming? Sundering? Most threats at that level use natural weapons or spells. Dirty Tricks? Please.
Well-rounded. Ranged combat. Sound familiar? Fighters can rock with bows. Now...I've admitted...if they get hit with the wrong spell, that stops them on a failed save...but did you not catch the point? By 12th level, a good well-rounded fighter can fight in a number of different ways...if not stopped by a spell...they stand an excellent chance of making it through most of those encounters with ease.
First...I did say 'most people'. I've seen a lot of paladin builds...yours is definitely effective...but it's far from the only one. I like your build...but I'd make my own.
By 12th level, yes, I can put out a lot more damage without relying on spells...and definitely have a distinctly better AC. Yes, there are a lot of evil creatures, but there are a lot that aren't too, so most of the time, the smite simply won't add.
The saves are the real advantage here. That's one thing that can stop anybody cold, by dumb luck...and paladins are lord god of saves. Mind you, I was assuming standard gear for the level. It does make a big difference.
I wasn't trying to put forth this Paladin build as the only one - I even specifically called it out as generic, able to meet a lot of general threats without specializing in any particular way. My most recent Paladin is a Tiefling Oath of Vengeance, Oath against Fiends with a 1 level dip in Lore Oracle (for instance)...
Yes there are a lot of evil creatures. A LOT. Enough so that I wouldn't immediately say that 'most' of the time Smite simply won't add. And for times when it doesn't there's Divine Favor, Deadly Juggernaut (remember that lasts through multiple combats), Divine Bond, etc.
The saves are a real advantage, but not due to luck, due to design. Beating AC is all about luck. Hitting on a crit is all about luck. But we design our characters to minimize our dependence on luck and to minimize the effectiveness of our adversaries luck... that's every bit as true with AC as it is with saves. And let's not forget the Paladin's immunities which don't even allow luck to come into it.
Finally yes, 'standard gear' does make a big difference... for the Fighter. For the Paladin, not so much. That's a crucial part of equation when discussing one particular class vs. another - being able to buy things to cover up all your weaknesses doesn't make the class superior or even balanced, it just makes your list of needed crutches longer. If a class can't stand on its own then it doesn't belong in the equation and Fighters have the most built-in and glaring weaknesses in the game.
|
|
Why do fighters have better AC?
Firstly, they can afford to take the feats. Secondly, they can have higher Dex that actually counts in their armor. Then, just to make it fun, they are the only class that can still move tactically in that heavy armor, and actually take full advantage of it.
It's really pretty basic.
I suppose the better way to word the question is "Why would the Fighter have such a higher AC if he was also doing everything else you mentioned" (i.e. consistently outdamaging the Paladin and using Combat Manuevers). Every point of Str you miss because you put it in Dex is one point of damage the Paladin creeps up on you on, kinda negating your Weapon Spec/Greater and Weapon Training bonuses bit by bit. Every bit of cash you spend on Dex boosting items (in addition to Str) is a bit you didn't spend on pumping saves and damage, once again. Even throwing in the fact that the Paladin wants a Cha headband (and ignoring the fact that you need a Wis headband) you're behind by 2k gold just on the +2 belt while the Pally's still doing fine with the +Str. Once he goes for the Str/Con belt he catches up to you...but outpaces you in HP unless you go for the All Physical Stat belt, putting him firmly ahead in wealth again.
On top of that, those Combat Maneuver Feats (which I assume you meant by "Options the Pally can't afford") get expensive real quick, and lord help you if you go for Trip, since that alone is going to make you sacrifice something else important for that 13 Int.
The AC gain you get from Dex nets you diminishing returns over time, is all I'm saying.
AC is an important thing for many fighters' primary job...and I'm not the one that says you have to go through WF/WS/GWF/GWS...in fact, a well-rounded fighter won't. They aren't that specialized.
Well-rounded. Ranged combat. Sound familiar? Fighters can rock with bows. Now...I've admitted...if they get hit with the wrong spell, that stops them on a failed save...but did you not catch the point? By 12th level, a good well-rounded fighter can fight in a number of different ways...if not stopped by a spell...they stand an excellent chance of making it through most of those encounters with ease.
I'm pretty sure I selected Deadly Aim myself... of course Fighters can rock with bows, but its a trade-off as every feat they put into them takes away from some of those other 'tactics' you mention. Some threats will require you to use bows (and we'll assume for argument's sake right now that we're dealing with unlimited ammo), and some threats won't allow you to use them. Staying well-rounded will weaken the Fighter in areas he might otherwise specialize in... meanwhile healing works for any kind of damage.
1.) Why would the Fighter have a higher AC than the Paladin? They can both wear full plate so their ACs should be identical given all else is equal.
2.) Why would the Fighter need less healing? The Paladin and Fighter should have the same HP, and same ACs, so they can take as many hits and get hit just as often...but the Pally can heal.
Armor training could give the fighter up to 3 AC over the Paladin, if the fighter has the dexterity to support it.
However, I'd say that's a (potential) 3 AC advantage more than offset by the Paladin's vastly superior saves and numerous immunities. Before we even get into issues like encounter-ending will save spells, there's the fact that fighters are gonna take more average damage than paladins from basic damage dealing spells and abilities.
Another thing worth mentioning along with the better saves is that paladins can do condition removal with their lay on hands. A fighter who's been staggered, blinded, or nauseated is pretty much out of the fight (barring outside assistance), while the Paladin can easily remove any of those conditions with a swift action.
Edit: Dang, the conversation moved past me while I was typing all that up.
|
|
First...I did say 'most people'. I've seen a lot of paladin builds...yours is definitely effective...but it's far from the only one. I like your build...but I'd make my own.
By 12th level, yes, I can put out a lot more damage without relying on spells...and definitely have a distinctly better AC. Yes, there are a lot of evil creatures, but there are a lot that aren't too, so most of the time, the smite simply won't add.
The saves are the real advantage here. That's one thing that can stop anybody cold, by dumb luck...and paladins are lord god of saves. Mind you, I was assuming standard gear for the level. It does make a big difference.
I wasn't trying to put forth this Paladin build as the only one - I even specifically called it out as generic, able to meet a lot of general threats without specializing in any particular way. My most recent Paladin is a Tiefling Oath of Vengeance, Oath against Fiends with a 1 level dip in Lore Oracle (for instance)...
Yes there are a lot of evil creatures. A LOT. Enough so that I wouldn't immediately say that 'most' of the time Smite simply won't add. And for times when it doesn't there's Divine Favor, Deadly Juggernaut (remember that lasts through multiple combats), Divine Bond, etc.
The saves are a real advantage, but not due to luck, due to design. Beating AC is all about luck. Hitting on a crit is all about luck. But we design our characters to minimize our dependence on luck and to minimize the effectiveness of our adversaries luck... that's every bit as true with AC as it is with saves. And let's not forget the Paladin's immunities which don't even allow luck to come into it.
Finally yes, 'standard gear' does make a big difference... for the Fighter. For the Paladin, not so much. That's a crucial part of equation when discussing one particular class vs. another - being able to buy things to cover up all your weaknesses doesn't make the class superior or even balanced, it just makes your list of needed crutches longer. If a...
I know it's out of fashion, but I actually enjoy playing where there isn't a 'magic store' in every city...so I've played without the perfect gear to cover every hole...and been just fine.
This challenge...through 8th level encounters...if you don't get it...was carefully thought out. With a good build, the fighter actually stands a pretty decent chance of blowing through most without a scratch. That's why the healing doesn't mean that much to me.
That's their biggest problem, right there. It's not insurmountable, as a rule...but if they have an 'Achilles' Heel', that's it.And what happens when you have to make Will/Reflex saves? Those are pretty common, you know?
What happens when you have to remove conditions from yourself and/or your allies?
Will saves and no ability to remove conditions is not exactly an Achilles' heel, it's a freaking huge weakness! Specially for a class who is supposed to go stay on frontlines.
Now, other martial classes have similar issues... But no one has it as bad as Fighters... Well, except for Cavaliers, maybe... I don't know much about the class.
Rangers have better saves and can cast healing/restoration spells, they also don't need to invest in UMD to use wands and even if they did, they get 6 skill points per level, so they can do it quite easily. Hell, if they want, they can even craft wands and magic items! (without having to spend two feats for the benefit of less than 1!)
Gunslingers have better saves and focus on Dex and Wis only, which means they're a SAD class who focuses on attributes that boost their saves! Oh, and they have better skill points too.
Barbarians get a lot of bonuses to all saves, and can easily increase those bonuses with Superstition and raise their touch AC with Ghost Rager. Witch Hunter and Spell Sunder also makes them incredibly dangerous to any spell caster! Pounce is pretty awesome too. Oh, and by 12th level, they rarely have to worry about running out of Rage rounds.
Paladins... Do we really need to discuss these guys? They have the best defensive tools in the game! They're a bit limited by their very few skill points, but their Charisma score and list of class skills helps a lot with social encounters. This is a great class. They excel at their main job, but can still contribute in every situation without ever overshadowing a specialist.
Oracle of Battle. I know, I know... They're full casters... But really, they make better martial characters than Fighters! Even though their saves are pretty bad, they can make up for it with their spell casting.
Now, assuming the Fighter can outlast every other class... What do they do after they finish their 6th encounter and all their friends need to rest? Do they go ahead alone and let the others sleep? Do they drag the Wizard with them so they can die together?
I know it's out of fashion, but I actually enjoy playing where there isn't a 'magic store' in every city...so I've played without the perfect gear to cover every hole...and been just fine.
This challenge...through 8th level encounters...if you don't get it...was carefully thought out. With a good build, the fighter actually stands a pretty decent chance of blowing through most without a scratch. That's why the healing doesn't mean that much to me.
Oh no, I get that the contest has been 'rigged' in a manner of speaking - I even point it out above.
MY point is that with a very close AC and better saves, the Paladin isn't going to be getting many more 'scratches' than the Fighter does... and is going to have seven times the hit points alone to work with.
I genuinely invite you to show me a standard fighter build that would survive so much longer than the generic Paladin build above... one that as you say is well-rounded enough to face multiple threats, with Iron Will and those Fighter-only 'tactics' and your ranged capability and - wow, those extra feats are starting to run out quickly, aren't they?
If a Fighter could last twice as long as a Paladin just going as straight up warriors, if those 2 or 3 points of AC somehow made the difference between his taking 100 hit points and my taking 200 over the same time period... I still wouldn't have even used half my healing ability while the Fighter is making rolls to stabilize himself.
And as an aside, we always play in low magic campaigns - I abhor having Ye Olde Magic Shoppes on every street corner where magical items can be bought, sold and traded like baseball cards. Thats why my builds never take gear into account - I refuse to have to rely on stuff my GM gives me just to survive and I certainly refuse to incorporate it into my planning.
|
|
That's their biggest problem, right there. It's not insurmountable, as a rule...but if they have an 'Achilles' Heel', that's it.And what happens when you have to make Will/Reflex saves? Those are pretty common, you know?
What happens when you have to remove conditions from yourself and/or your allies?
Will saves and no ability to remove conditions is not exactly an Achilles' heel, it's a freaking huge weakness! Specially for a class who is supposed to go stay on frontlines.
Now, other martial classes have similar issues... But no one has it as bad as Fighters... Well, except for Cavaliers, maybe... I don't know much about the class.
Rangers have better saves and can cast healing/restoration spells, they also don't need to invest in UMD to use wands and even if they did, they get 6 skill points per level, so they can do it quite easily. Hell, if they want, they can even craft wands and magic items! (without having to spend two feats for the benefit of less than 1!)
Gunslingers have better saves and focus on Dex and Wis only, which means they're a SAD class who focuses on attributes that boost their saves! Oh, and they have better skill points too.
Barbarians get a lot of bonuses to all saves, and can easily increase those bonuses with Superstition and raise their touch AC with Ghost Rager. Witch Hunter and Spell Sunder also makes them incredibly dangerous to any spell caster! Pounce is pretty awesome too. Oh, and by 12th level, they rarely have to worry about running out of Rage rounds.
Paladins... Do we really need to discuss these guys? They have the best defensive tools in the game! They're a bit limited by their very few skill points, but their Charisma score and list of class skills helps a lot with social encounters. This is a great class. They excel at their main job, but can still contribute in every situation without ever overshadowing a specialist.
Oracle of Battle. I know, I know... They're full casters... But really, they...
The real question isn't so much do they drag the casters along...the real question is what happens when that 7th...8th...however many extra encounters find them, before they're safe. These kinds of things do happen...and that's when the fighter shines like nobody else.