Actually, D&D and Pathfinder doesn't like the Fighter class. I like the concept of the Fighter, but it is designed so poorly that it shouldn't even exist.i disagree 100% with this post. i think the FEATS of pathfinder are so poorly designed that they make the fighter, which is a feat based bag of legos, suck as a result. fighters (and barbarians) had the occult slayer PrC class, and a few really great anti caster high DPR feat combos that blew the socks off npc casters. a shock trooper, power attacking, leaping carger, crazy mofo who could one hit a balor if he tried to use his SLA ability...
...but in this game its barbarians who are the crazy op anticaster high DPR class. fighters are SOL because of the poor decision to allow barbarians to use fighter only feats, and have access to better anticaster class features.
barbarians should be the ones who fail at magic, who can take a hit and keep going, who deal insane ammounts of physical damage to everything, but no they get all the tricks you could want in one bag of OP.
the fighter is actually better then the 3.5 version by 300%, but the lack of great feat choices make it a one trick, bland, "gate guard". a physical damage dealer with very little technique. when the discription states otherwise.
So write more feats, allow in feats from other sources (third party of *gasp* 3.5), or wait for more feats and options to come out.
Your right-- the fighter is primarily designed as a class that gets access to a ton of feats. The fighter's strength is that he doesn't get any abilities you might not want because all he gets is feats-- if you don't want to rage, ride a magic horsey, sneak attack, be nature oriented, ect then you take fighter and get the choice of exactly which feats you want.
Have you read some of the other gaming community forums? There is certainly a market for a 3e-like system that fixes the fighter-caster disparity, among other 3e problems, without neutering casters (and botching every attempt to fix the other problems) like 4e did.
As for better feats, the Fighter didn't really have many in 3.5, they didn't have many in PF so far , and you can wait as long as you want but they won't get any. Not as long as they're defined as the class that never gets magic, and has many feats but few class features.
If it's a feat, anyone can get it. If it's a Fighter-only feat, it's a class feature in a different section of the book.
Have you read some of the other gaming community forums? There is certainly a market for a 3e-like system that fixes the fighter-caster disparity, among other 3e problems, without neutering casters (and botching every attempt to fix the other problems) like 4e did.
As for better feats, the Fighter didn't really have many in 3.5, they didn't have many in PF so far , and you can wait as long as you want but they won't get any. Not as long as they're defined as the class that never gets magic, and has many feats but few class features.
If it's a feat, anyone can get it. If it's a Fighter-only feat, it's a class feature in a different section of the book.
And I feel that there are companies doing just that like Dreamscarred with their paths of war. . there is no reason that these updated martial classes need to replace the ones we currently have or require a new edition.
They'll effectively be replacements, because face it: They are needed. The guy who says he wants to play a wholly mundane class beyond the low levels is the guy asking for water balloon throwing to be as good as archery. And I'm not taking a dig at SKR when I say that.
They'll effectively be replacements, because face it: They are needed. The guy who says he wants to play a wholly mundane class beyond the low levels is the guy asking for water balloon throwing to be as good as archery. And I'm not taking a dig at SKR when I say that.
You might say that, but many people have enjoyed playing Fighters as written to 20th level already, and they will continue to do so. . .not every game has to be the same, not every character has to be the same, not everyone lives in a paradigm where one member of the group "wins" and the guy who wanted to carry a sword and kill stuff was worthless because the wizard did stuff too. . . despite what people on this board would have you believe there are a wide variety of games which many people do enjoy and there is no need for everyone to be the Divination God Wizard or the equivalent.
Also, because you select Fighter does not mean you have "lost" pathfinder-- its a collective game about having fun, not a competition . . .
When Tome of Battle came out for 3.5 it didn't stop people from playing Fighter, just gave them other martial options to choose from.
Stop trying to claim it's about one member of the group "winning". That is a total misrepresentation, if not an outright misunderstanding. It's about one member of the group pulling his weight, and not being so reliant on his teammates for everything from transport to basic combat effectiveness to magic items, when all he is able to contribute is hitting the thing with the thing.
Stop trying to claim it's about one member of the group "winning". That is a total misrepresentation, if not an outright misunderstanding. It's about one member of the group pulling his weight, and not being so reliant on his teammates for everything from transport to basic combat effectiveness to magic items, when all he is able to contribute is hitting the thing with the thing.
I have never seen this to actually be the case in any game. And you are undervaluing hitting things with the thing greatly-- its a really important part of the game. . . if the fighter kills foes in combat he is pulling his weight.
Just like if the Bard spends the combat buffing the party he is pulling his weight, ect. . .
Again, if you are feeling that way when you play a fighter then I'd say it has more to do with the playstyle of your group or the attitude of your players than it does an inherent flaw in the game.
Lots of classes can deal direct damage in combat just fine, while being able to contribute out of combat as well. And they have a lot more of that narrative power that you don't place much value on.
Lots of classes can deal direct damage in combat just fine, while being able to contribute out of combat as well. And they have a lot more of that narrative power that you don't place much value on.
They can "deal direct damage just fine" sure. . . but they don't deal the absolutely insane amounts of damage that the front line fighter does. . .my current party has two melee characters, a wizard, a wizard/cleric, a bard, and an archer-- the melee characters are never or rarely "overshadowed" by the Wizards in any meaningful way, and without the consistent, repeatable, guaranteed damage output of those melee fighters the wizards would have died at some point.
If you really have no appreciation for this, try playing a party of all Wizards and see if the game really is "easier" for you that way.
I have had that experience, not in all-Wizard parties admittedly, but in all-caster parties. It actually is a lot easier, even at low levels. There is always a solution to hand, and if more meat shields are needed there is always Summon Monster.
Sure it's convenient to have some damage that doesn't come from spells. But how many of those encounters could have been won without casters being present? He'll, without those spellcasters, how many encounters would the party have been physically unable to reach?
Meanwhile, try an all Fighter party without the DM really soft-pedaling.
Aside from anything else, it's a boring game that goes from fighting level 1 giant rats in some guy's basement to fighting level 20 giant rats in the Basement of Forgotten Kings. If you have a campaign centering on a clash of armies or political intrigue, the gap becomes even more pronounced. No one ever argued that Fighters were bad at fighting. It's everything else that's the problem.
Let's give the Fighter a silly bonus, like +100, to his attack and damage rolls. The army would still rather have a Wizard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The o.p. had a creative idea on how to plug a glaring weakness with the Fighter that gave several bonuses to boot. What a rube he is. He clearly shouldn't waste his time on solutions, but instead:
Thanks for the whining that offers NO PRACTICAL SOLUTION. Let's homebrew. Let's argue about Wizards' strengths and weaknesses since that will help our poor Fighter out so much. Let's suggest complete makeovers to Pathfinder for a completely new edition. But most importantly let's whine, avoid the issue of bolstering our actually existing Fighter, and simply hijack the thread with mostly petty arguments. Thanks.
I'd like to apologize for my naivete for wanting to try to solve the problem. Sorry.
Actually, D&D and Pathfinder doesn't like the Fighter class. I like the concept of the Fighter, but it is designed so poorly that it shouldn't even exist.i disagree 100% with this post. i think the FEATS of pathfinder are so poorly designed that they make the fighter, which is a feat based bag of legos, suck as a result. fighters (and barbarians) had the occult slayer PrC class, and a few really great anti caster high DPR feat combos that blew the socks off npc casters. a shock trooper, power attacking, leaping carger, crazy mofo who could one hit a balor if he tried to use his SLA ability...
...but in this game its barbarians who are the crazy op anticaster high DPR class. fighters are SOL because of the poor decision to allow barbarians to use fighter only feats, and have access to better anticaster class features.
barbarians should be the ones who fail at magic, who can take a hit and keep going, who deal insane ammounts of physical damage to everything, but no they get all the tricks you could want in one bag of OP.
the fighter is actually better then the 3.5 version by 300%, but the lack of great feat choices make it a one trick, bland, "gate guard". a physical damage dealer with very little technique. when the discription states otherwise.
Disagree with it all you want. Feats are feats, and feats are something everyone gets. Just because you get more isn't really anything special, considering several classes get bonus feats outside of just the Fighter. The "Fighter-only" feats aren't really for Fighters only, considering there are multiple ways to get (the effects of) Fighter-only feats without being a Fighter.
And the sad thing is? You're right about Fighters being a better class in PF than 3.X. The problem is that so is every other class in comparison to their predecessor. Smite being an effect on you instead of an expendable, possibly wasteful ability is just as good a boost, if not moreso. Rage Powers and the improved Rage mechanics are also just as good, and again, assuming if not superior. So really, at best the two goalposts (Fighter's place in power compared to the other classes) were moved. At worst, the Fighter is still the same approximate level of power, and the other classes (besides Rogue maybe) gained an exponential level of power.
Maybe if Fighter-only feats were...I don't know...actually Fighter-only, and did a lot of great stuff to enhance their currently known features (or better yet, make them separate class features to be put on the Fighter)? The Fighter probably wouldn't suck as bad and be a bearable class to play with any race, flaws and all.
The o.p. had a creative idea on how to plug a glaring weakness with the Fighter that gave several bonuses to boot. What a rube he is. He clearly shouldn't waste his time on solutions, but instead:
Thanks for the whining that offers NO PRACTICAL SOLUTION. Let's homebrew. Let's argue about Wizards' strengths and weaknesses since that will help our poor Fighter out so much. Let's suggest complete makeovers to Pathfinder for a completely new edition. But most importantly let's whine, avoid the issue of bolstering our actually existing Fighter, and simply hijack the thread with mostly petty arguments. Thanks.
I'd like to apologize for my naivete for wanting to try to solve the problem. Sorry.
Can't get to discussing solutions while bogged down arguing with people who deny there was ever a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The o.p. had a creative idea on how to plug a glaring weakness with the Fighter that gave several bonuses to boot. What a rube he is. He clearly shouldn't waste his time on solutions, but instead:
Thanks for the whining that offers NO PRACTICAL SOLUTION. Let's homebrew. Let's argue about Wizards' strengths and weaknesses since that will help our poor Fighter out so much. Let's suggest complete makeovers to Pathfinder for a completely new edition. But most importantly let's whine, avoid the issue of bolstering our actually existing Fighter, and simply hijack the thread with mostly petty arguments. Thanks.
I'd like to apologize for my naivete for wanting to try to solve the problem. Sorry.
Sorry man. . . its a good dip for a fighter. Tried to steer the conversation back to fighter dips/builds, but the "We must have PF 2E" crowd is too strong on these boards, you can't mention Fighters without that argument coming up.
Lots of classes can deal direct damage in combat just fine, while being able to contribute out of combat as well. And they have a lot more of that narrative power that you don't place much value on.They can "deal direct damage just fine" sure. . . but they don't deal the absolutely insane amounts of damage that the front line fighter does. . .my current party has two melee characters, a wizard, a wizard/cleric, a bard, and an archer-- the melee characters are never or rarely "overshadowed" by the Wizards in any meaningful way, and without the consistent, repeatable, guaranteed damage output of those melee fighters the wizards would have died at some point.
If you really have no appreciation for this, try playing a party of all Wizards and see if the game really is "easier" for you that way.
You must not be playing a Wizard right, or you're playing a completely different game from what we're playing. Either way, that's highly incorrect, as many people will attest to the fact that Wizards very easily outdamage any Martial, single-target and all. Also, chances are that Fighter wouldn't be able to do consistent, repeatable, guaranteed damage (which is an absolutely bold-faced claim) without the Wizard bailing that goober out of every little problem that comes his way.
The funny part is? The Summon Monster spell replaces any need for a Martial. Who needs to have a physical Martial character that travels with your party, drain your resources all day long, eat your food, and fail at his job horribly when you can just spawn one (or even several) of them at the snap of fingers, and have that/those creature(s) do the same exact job as said Martial, except equally good, if not better, and not split the loot with said goober(s)?
stuff
I'm sorry I'm kinda slow, but does that mean you think it's good idea to take Inquisitor levels? Please forgive me for being on topic.
The o.p. had a creative idea on how to plug a glaring weakness with the Fighter that gave several bonuses to boot. What a rube he is. He clearly shouldn't waste his time on solutions, but instead:
Thanks for the whining that offers NO PRACTICAL SOLUTION. Let's homebrew. Let's argue about Wizards' strengths and weaknesses since that will help our poor Fighter out so much. Let's suggest complete makeovers to Pathfinder for a completely new edition. But most importantly let's whine, avoid the issue of bolstering our actually existing Fighter, and simply hijack the thread with mostly petty arguments. Thanks.
I'd like to apologize for my naivete for wanting to try to solve the problem. Sorry.
I already provided a solution: Rewrite the class.
I already provided how the class should be rewritten so as to keep its strengths in line with the other martials. (If you'd like, I can post the link again, but it's in here.)
The issue of debate is that goobers think there isn't a problem at all and should leave the Fighter as-is. I think you should be telling them that, instead of chewing us out for exposing what the problem really is.
Lots of classes can deal direct damage in combat just fine, while being able to contribute out of combat as well. And they have a lot more of that narrative power that you don't place much value on.They can "deal direct damage just fine" sure. . . but they don't deal the absolutely insane amounts of damage that the front line fighter does. . .my current party has two melee characters, a wizard, a wizard/cleric, a bard, and an archer-- the melee characters are never or rarely "overshadowed" by the Wizards in any meaningful way, and without the consistent, repeatable, guaranteed damage output of those melee fighters the wizards would have died at some point.
If you really have no appreciation for this, try playing a party of all Wizards and see if the game really is "easier" for you that way.
You must not be playing a Wizard right, or you're playing a completely different game from what we're playing. Either way, that's highly incorrect, as many people will attest to the fact that Wizards very easily outdamage any Martial, single-target and all. Also, chances are that Fighter wouldn't be able to do consistent, repeatable, guaranteed damage (which is an absolutely bold-faced claim) without the Wizard bailing that goober out of every little problem that comes his way.
The funny part is? The Summon Monster spell replaces any need for a Martial. Who needs to have a physical Martial character that travels with your party, drain your resources all day long, eat your food, and fail at his job horribly when you can just spawn one (or even several) of them at the snap of fingers, and have that/those creature(s) do the same exact job as said Martial, except equally good, if not better, and not split the loot with said goober(s)?
You must be playing with Martial characters who are not maximizing their damage output. . . 7 attacks each of which do in the range of 20-30 damage per beats out whatever one single spell a Wizard is using for single target by a significant margin. . .
Summoned creatures have too low of attack bonuses to hit and deal too little damage to matter; if your DM actually has monsters spend time attacking them then this is definitively a version of making inherently bad decisions on the part of the NPCs to favor the players and it is slanting the game in their favor
Also, if a summoned monster even lasts more than a single hit you are simply facing enemies that are far below the level you should be. . .
The o.p. had a creative idea on how to plug a glaring weakness with the Fighter that gave several bonuses to boot. What a rube he is. He clearly shouldn't waste his time on solutions, but instead:
Thanks for the whining that offers NO PRACTICAL SOLUTION. Let's homebrew. Let's argue about Wizards' strengths and weaknesses since that will help our poor Fighter out so much. Let's suggest complete makeovers to Pathfinder for a completely new edition. But most importantly let's whine, avoid the issue of bolstering our actually existing Fighter, and simply hijack the thread with mostly petty arguments. Thanks.
I'd like to apologize for my naivete for wanting to try to solve the problem. Sorry.
I already provided a solution: Rewrite the class.
Rewrite the class- I'll keep that in mind when I play a Fighter. I'll simply whine about this guy needs a complete rewrite in a hypothetical next edition by whomever instead of addressing his weaknesses. I'll couple that with denial about nothing is really wrong and simply hum and plug my ears when my character gets possessed.
I already provided how the class should be rewritten so as to keep its strengths in line with the other martials. (If you'd like, I can post the link again, but it's in here.)
The problem is that goobers think there isn't a problem at all and should leave the Fighter as-is. I think you should be telling them that, instead of chewing us out for exposing what the problem really is.
You must be playing with Martial characters who are not maximizing their damage output. . .Lots of classes can deal direct damage in combat just fine, while being able to contribute out of combat as well. And they have a lot more of that narrative power that you don't place much value on.They can "deal direct damage just fine" sure. . . but they don't deal the absolutely insane amounts of damage that the front line fighter does. . .my current party has two melee characters, a wizard, a wizard/cleric, a bard, and an archer-- the melee characters are never or rarely "overshadowed" by the Wizards in any meaningful way, and without the consistent, repeatable, guaranteed damage output of those melee fighters the wizards would have died at some point.
If you really have no appreciation for this, try playing a party of all Wizards and see if the game really is "easier" for you that way.
You must not be playing a Wizard right, or you're playing a completely different game from what we're playing. Either way, that's highly incorrect, as many people will attest to the fact that Wizards very easily outdamage any Martial, single-target and all. Also, chances are that Fighter wouldn't be able to do consistent, repeatable, guaranteed damage (which is an absolutely bold-faced claim) without the Wizard bailing that goober out of every little problem that comes his way.
The funny part is? The Summon Monster spell replaces any need for a Martial. Who needs to have a physical Martial character that travels with your party, drain your resources all day long, eat your food, and fail at his job horribly when you can just spawn one (or even several) of them at the snap of fingers, and have that/those creature(s) do the same exact job as said Martial, except equally good, if not better, and not split the loot with said goober(s)?
You want to know why a Fighter isn't able to maximize his damage output? Because he has to invest in resources other than maximizing his damage output, so his damage output is very poor, just so he can have damage output (that isn't effectively negative damage output). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put 2 and 2 together and realize that's too big for 3.
There is no half-assing it, especially by the mid to late game. You either have the 2 involved for maximizing raw damage output, or you have the 2 involved for making sure you can have a damage output at all (and not a non-existent, or effective negative damage output). You can't try and split them in half, because the one you split in half only goes to the other section, and the one that's left over is wasted.
The other classes don't have to guess and choose between being able to do something poor and get mocked at for, or choose to be "the best" (which is questionable), and never be able to show it because they won't get the chance to. Because they aren't that weak or that poorly designed.
**EDIT**
@ EpicFail: I've said what I needed to say on the subject matter. If you think "Rewrite the Class" = "Rewrite the Game," then fine, that's the conclusion you jump to, but it's not the conclusion I proposed. And if you just want an opinion on the matter of Inquisitor to Fighter ratio, I'd rather say 20 Inquisitor/0 Fighter than (any) Inquistior/X Fighter.
With that said, you got your answer, and I'll leave this thread alone before you rage too much. But if the other side wants to make another thread about what we were discussing (or take it elsewhere), then I'm game. I haven't given up my side, and they haven't thrown anything out that I couldn't refute.
|
Disagree with it all you want. Feats are feats, and feats are something everyone gets. Just because you get more isn't really anything special, considering several classes get bonus feats outside of just the Fighter. The "Fighter-only" feats aren't really for Fighters only, considering there are multiple ways to get (the effects of) Fighter-only feats without being a Fighter.
And the sad thing is? You're right about Fighters being a better class in PF than 3.X. The problem is that so is every other class in comparison to their predecessor. Smite being an effect on you instead of an expendable, possibly wasteful ability is just as good a boost, if not moreso. Rage Powers and the improved Rage mechanics are also just as good, and again, assuming if not superior. So really, at best the two goalposts (Fighter's place in power compared to the other classes) were moved. At worst, the Fighter is still the same approximate level of power, and the other classes (besides Rogue maybe) gained an exponential level of power.
Maybe if Fighter-only feats were...I don't know...actually Fighter-only, and did a lot of great stuff to enhance their currently known features (or better yet, make them separate class features to be put on the Fighter)? The Fighter probably wouldn't suck as bad and be a bearable class to play with any race, flaws and all.
this is what i hate about the boards, you basically agreed with my assessment that the fighter class is not in its self terrible, but more the lack of fighter only, MEANING FIGHTER ONLY!!!, feats is one of, if not the only major issues with the class... and yet you're arguing with me.
any fighter fix can be accomplished through a feat choice, it really can, IF Paizo lets fighters have the only access to that feat as a result. just imagine if a fighter had access to a feat that let them activate "an intrinsic aversion to magic" for x number of rounds per day that emulated an anti-magic field. THAT IN ITS SELF WOULD SOLVE MANY ISSUE WITH FIGHTERS!!!. three rounds of the ability to prevent any spell from being cast at you, able to grapple a teammate into your sphere to save them from a AOE, or bypass magical barriers and defenses. being able to shut a caster down for 3 rounds while you pimp slap his face off with your masterwork sword, that would be a boon to the class.
lets say this feat required fighter level 12 and reduced your caster level by 5 for spells and activated abilities or some such drawback. if i wanted a caster killer type character i would love that feat, and a normal fighter who only cares about big DPR numbers wouldn't even need to have a second look at it.
only issue is for some reason barbarians would get it at some point... *-_-
@ EpicFail: I've said what I needed to say on the subject matter. If you think "Rewrite the Class" = "Rewrite the Game," then fine, that's the conclusion you jump to, but it's not the conclusion I proposed. And if you just want an opinion on the matter of Inquisitor to Fighter ratio, I'd rather say 20 Inquisitor/0 Fighter than (any) Inquistior/X Fighter.
How silly of me; I'm waiting for the wrong thing entirely. Instead of a complete re-write of the current system, I need only wait for Pathfinder to re-write the core class of Fighter. My bad. I'll just wait.
Funny how you think noting the hard work you put in whining and urging a re-write to wisely hijack this thread is rageful. Thanks for the insight to how your logic works. My poor little brain is searching for solutions, probably why I'm raging all over the place, instead of suggesting playing an entire other class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can't get to discussing solutions while bogged down arguing with people who deny there was ever a problem.The o.p. had a creative idea on how to plug a glaring weakness with the Fighter that gave several bonuses to boot. What a rube he is. He clearly shouldn't waste his time on solutions, but instead:
Thanks for the whining that offers NO PRACTICAL SOLUTION. Let's homebrew. Let's argue about Wizards' strengths and weaknesses since that will help our poor Fighter out so much. Let's suggest complete makeovers to Pathfinder for a completely new edition. But most importantly let's whine, avoid the issue of bolstering our actually existing Fighter, and simply hijack the thread with mostly petty arguments. Thanks.
I'd like to apologize for my naivete for wanting to try to solve the problem. Sorry.
And the problem with that is? Sometime the solution to a problem is realizing that there isn't a problem. People like playing heroic fighters with no magical or other weird baggage. You may not, and EpicFail may not, and whoever those people you respect that posted all the wargame text may not, and many others may not, but many, many do. The fighter fills that role admirably.
Here's the thing: If you're upset that the barbarian/ranger/whatever is a better fighter, why not just play a barbarian and let the folks who still want to play a fighter do so? What is the obsession with "pulling your own weight"? Play your own character instead of obsessing over someone else's.
I like playing a fighter, and frankly if someone at the table constantly gave me the kind of arguments you've been posting, I would stop "pulling my own weight"--because I'd stop playing at that table and find a table with players who want to play.
The o.p. had a creative idea on how to plug a glaring weakness with the Fighter that gave several bonuses to boot. What a rube he is. He clearly shouldn't waste his time on solutions, but instead:
Thanks for the whining that offers NO PRACTICAL SOLUTION. Let's homebrew. Let's argue about Wizards' strengths and weaknesses since that will help our poor Fighter out so much. Let's suggest complete makeovers to Pathfinder for a completely new edition. But most importantly let's whine, avoid the issue of bolstering our actually existing Fighter, and simply hijack the thread with mostly petty arguments. Thanks.
I'd like to apologize for my naivete for wanting to try to solve the problem. Sorry.
Hey, am I the only one who noticed the really witty quotation modification there? EpicFail was real subtle with it.
This is why I hate the fighter debates, people.
And if anybody wants to tell me, "Why don't you post something constructive?", I dare them to find one of these threads that constructed anything of consequence. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^ I suspect that the kind of person who enjoys playing fighters wouldn't be dissuaded from doing so by what's said about them in these forums. Frankly, I find a lot of the hyper-optimization bizarre but fascinating: the best part is when people deny that's what it is, and insist that it's simply getting players to "hold their own" or "get the most out of their characters." If that means your average adventurer resists demon/dragon magic with 95% effectiveness, count me out: I get that the game is based in fantasy, but there comes a point when it starts to detract from the game.
All that said, go ahead and have fun however you like. If caster/martial disparity is disrupting your game, the easiest solution may be to simply hit casters with the nerf bat. Same goes for any abused mechanic.
Its a really small but vocal set of posters on here who bully anyone that disagrees into silence who are demanding this complete rewrite of what the rest of us seem to think is a generally pretty good game.
Can't get to discussing solutions while bogged down arguing with people who deny there was ever a problem.The o.p. had a creative idea on how to plug a glaring weakness with the Fighter that gave several bonuses to boot. What a rube he is. He clearly shouldn't waste his time on solutions, but instead:
Thanks for the whining that offers NO PRACTICAL SOLUTION. Let's homebrew. Let's argue about Wizards' strengths and weaknesses since that will help our poor Fighter out so much. Let's suggest complete makeovers to Pathfinder for a completely new edition. But most importantly let's whine, avoid the issue of bolstering our actually existing Fighter, and simply hijack the thread with mostly petty arguments. Thanks.
I'd like to apologize for my naivete for wanting to try to solve the problem. Sorry.
And the problem with that is? Sometime the solution to a problem is realizing that there isn't a problem. People like playing heroic fighters with no magical or other weird baggage. You may not, and EpicFail may not, and whoever those people you respect that posted all the wargame text may not, and many others may not, but many, many do. The fighter fills that role admirably.
Here's the thing: If you're upset that the barbarian/ranger/whatever is a better fighter, why not just play a barbarian and let the folks who still want to play a fighter do so? What is the obsession with "pulling your own weight"? Play your own character instead of obsessing over someone else's.
I like playing a fighter, and frankly if someone at the table constantly gave me the kind of arguments you've been posting, I would stop "pulling my own weight"--because I'd stop playing at that table and find a table with players who want to play.
What's wrong with whining and off-topic unhelpful, pointless arguments? Really??
If caster/martial disparity is disrupting your game, the easiest solution may be to simply hit casters with the nerf bat. Same goes for any abused mechanic.
Not quite that simple.
It really depends on what you want but if we were going to include all aspects of the argument you'd have to also include that fighters, and martials in general, rarely get nice things.
In a sense that, by the time casters begin the onerous and thankless of completely rewriting reality, making realities of their own and binding powerful and ancient demons and angles to their whim with the power of their mind.
Others pretty much keep doing the same thing they've been doing since level 1 with minor variation here and there.
So, hitting casters with the nerf bat only causes hurt feelings for the casters and does nothing to really resolve the issue of a 20th level fighter pretty much doing the same variation of what he did at levels 1-5.
Now, that aside, the solution for save improvement provided isn't very good. Mainly because it relies on a divine casting class just as prone to the whims of gm shenanigans as any other divine class.
Really if saves are an issue going dwarf for steel soul and glory of old on top of fairly high Con and Wis do a great deal to make up for losses after iron will.
So a 20pt. buy dwarf.
Str: 17
Dex: 12
Con: 14
Int: 7
Wis: 15
Cha: 8
At level 1 wiht glory of old and steel soul is looking at a +7 on the sorts of will saves that are bad to fail.
If you need a reroll then greater iron will does exist.
There are so many ways to fix abused spell casting that I can't imagine it would be problematic.
Are we talking about game design or at the table?
There are so many ways to fix abused spell casting that I can't imagine it would be problematic.Are we talking about game design or at the table?
There are plenty of ways to fix it at the table as a GM based on what foes you use and assuring that you are not interpreting every single questionable rules issue in the spell casters favor that it doesn't NEED to be changed with any game design method.
As much as people claim that fighter can only compete with "GM Fiat" they tend to ignore that when spell casters are truly running rough shod over a game there is usually GM Fiat involved by allowing it through rulings or refusal to adjust the opponents or plot to account for this.
As much as people claim that fighter can only compete with "GM Fiat" they tend to ignore that when spell casters are truly running rough shod over a game there is usually GM Fiat involved by allowing it through rulings or refusal to adjust the opponents or plot to account for this.
I'm curious what you mean by rulings that are in the casters favor.
I'm curious what you mean by rulings that are in the casters favor.
As much as people claim that fighter can only compete with "GM Fiat" they tend to ignore that when spell casters are truly running rough shod over a game there is usually GM Fiat involved by allowing it through rulings or refusal to adjust the opponents or plot to account for this.
Sno-cone wish machine; Charm Person turning NPCs into instant cohorts, ect.
Those are two of the obvious ones that have had some discussion where the RAW leave interpretation in the hands of the GM, and if every time such a situation happens you always rule in favor of the caster it bends the game in that characters favor.
Not really the thread to go through them in very much detail, just pointing out that it has an effect and allowing the liberal/permissive interpretation of these consistently is a form of "GM Fiat" in favor of wizards.
I'm curious what you mean by rulings that are in the casters favor.
As much as people claim that fighter can only compete with "GM Fiat" they tend to ignore that when spell casters are truly running rough shod over a game there is usually GM Fiat involved by allowing it through rulings or refusal to adjust the opponents or plot to account for this.Sno-cone wish machine; Charm Person turning NPCs into instant cohorts, ect.
Those are two of the obvious ones that have had some discussion where the RAW leave interpretation in the hands of the GM, and if every time such a situation happens you always rule in favor of the caster it bends the game in that characters favor.
WHen you rule agianst those, you are actively reducing the caster pwoer. Wich, IMHO, is the better thing to do, but if you have to fix something then that something was broken in the first place.
And besides, the issue is not fighter/caster. It is fighter/barbarian or fighter/paladin.
aftet the mid levels the barbarian will have comparable AC, Absurd amount of damage, considerably better saves, considerably better mobility (pounce), other great options besides I full attack (I spell sunder).
And yet, the barbarian have more skill points, wich is the thing that most annoy me about fighters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious what you mean by rulings that are in the casters favor.
As much as people claim that fighter can only compete with "GM Fiat" they tend to ignore that when spell casters are truly running rough shod over a game there is usually GM Fiat involved by allowing it through rulings or refusal to adjust the opponents or plot to account for this.Sno-cone wish machine; Charm Person turning NPCs into instant cohorts, ect.
Those are two of the obvious ones that have had some discussion where the RAW leave interpretation in the hands of the GM, and if every time such a situation happens you always rule in favor of the caster it bends the game in that characters favor.
WHen you rule agianst those, you are actively reducing the caster pwoer. Wich, IMHO, is the better thing to do, but if you have to fix something then that something was broken in the first place.
And besides, the issue is not fighter/caster. It is fighter/barbarian or fighter/paladin.
aftet the mid levels the barbarian will have comparable AC, Absurd amount of damage, considerably better saves, considerably better mobility (pounce), other great options besides I full attack (I spell sunder).
And yet, the barbarian have more skill points, wich is the thing that most annoy me about fighters.
The rules do not specifically state whether Sno-cone wish machine works-- its very much up for interpretation and you have to choose one way or the other (if you have players who push for it).
Charm Person causes them to treat you as a trusted friend and ally, but some games allow that to go far away beyond what any person would do for a friend-- if you charm the merchant he might give you a small discount, but he's not giving away his stuff; if you charm the city guard they might look the other way for you breaking some minor rule, but they aren't opening the gates to the city to be sacked, ect.
As far as Fighter/Paladin or Fighter/Barbarian the advantage of Fighter is that they can choose any path-- they get the number of feats needed to take any chain and multiple chains whereas Barbarian and Paladin get specific abilities which rely upon them being in rage, in lesser armor, fighting against specifically evil creatures ect. . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with posting 'solutions' is inevitably these get shot down or poo-poohed by many of the posters.
SideKick's reliance on a specific set of gear and feats for all fighters aside, he is correct on one point.
You CANNOT improve the fighter without redoing feats. It's just that simple.
As far as DPR and able to hack stuff goes, the fighter is fine.
But Fighter class features, the customizable stuff, are feats. Feats are equal to half a class feature. And the feats that other classes get, that build off THEIR class features, are often awesome (compare Rage Power feats to most combat feats!). You know feats are awesome when they do well as class features!
That, and many core fighter feats, like Robilar's Gambit, were taken away and given to the Barbarian as Rage Powers. The fighter, the martial tactician, doesn't even get Acrobatics as a Class skill so he's a natural at buying enough to get the Defensive Fighting bonus.
So, if you want to solve the Fighter problem (and the Rogue, too), you need to address several glaring problems.
1) The fighter has no magic, but is incredibly vulnerable to magic. That's just INSANE. He should be training hard to resist magic more then any class. At high levels, even RAGE is magical. He's the only non-magical martial, and he's the most vulnerable to magic.
Makes no sense. IN 1E, this was exemplified at the basic level by having the best saves over time. In 3.5, you at least had the Mage SLayer chain of feats.
2) He doesn't have spells to solve problems. That means he MUST rely on skills. Relying on gold is a cop-out. He should certainly have more skills then a barbarian. Barbarians are not scholars of war, they are survivors. They don't train endlessly, they rage.
In 1/2E, he had the most weapon proficiencies and above average non-weapon profs. There is NO paradigm for a functional intelligent fighter in 3.5+, until you get to the Warblade, who adds his Int bonus to a bunch of combat stuff. The Ranger became the skilled fighter.
3) There is no capacity for self-improvement for the fighter beyond what every class gets. Nothing like bonus spells, or rage rounds, or different options for the same power. Everything is fixed. There is NO versatility in the fighter, no adaptability.
IN 3.5, the Warblade could change his preferred weapon every morning, and the manuvers he could draw on fight by fight. With the right reserves, he could go from an offensive build to a defensive, from a greatsword specialist to a IUS wunderkind to a master Lancer.
And he could burn feats to buy more manuvers, which were each way stronger then almost any feat.
4) Feats don't scale with level. Feats are like spells, they should scale. All the best feats do scale. Even if they don't scale for other classes, they should scale for fighters.
5) Feats have incredibly high stat reqs. ITWF? Dex 19. You know, an INT of 19 lets you cast 9th level spells. Where exactly is the comparison basis here? Getting a second off hand attack takes a stat as high as that needed to cast a Meteor Swarm?
Hey, Fighters use feats, and can't even qualify for them.
6) Fighters have neither leadership nor recovery options...those are all delegated to other classes. Yet fighters have historically been leaders, and one of the tropes of all melee characters is their ability to recover quickly from injuries, and shrug off problems. Yet, the fighter cannot do such things.
Warblades had Iron Heart Surge, which could end pretty much any hostile magical effect. They also got access to limited healing later on. All of the PF full BAB classes have some form of healing or recovery options...EXCEPT the fighter.
Barbs can eventually inspire Rage in others. Paladins can help others smite, and buff them or heal them. Rangers can buff and heal. Fighters have no innate teamwork options that cannot be done just as easily by others. God forbid they be able to inspire like a bard!
7) There is no capacity for good training in the game. Training is what fighters do in their downtime, and rogues to a lesser extent. Casters cast spells, research magic, make magic toys. Rangers hunt, paladins pray, barbs live large, and fighters train.
Fighters should be able to train more and get more out of training then any other class (except maybe rogues). Nope.
If you want a Fighter fix, this is the stuff you have to address.
Note: DPR is not one of the options you need to address. See how it's not mentioned? It's everything else that is.
==Aelryinth
Once again, your idea of what a fighter should be does not match the archetype the fighter was designed to fulfill.
1. It is not insane. It is how the fighter was intended to work. If you wish to have resistance to magic, use feats or items to shore up your weaknesses.
2. Of course the fighter doesn't have spells. It's a fighter. Why would a fighter have spells?
Skill points are a bit on the low side, and rational people can have an agreeable discussion on the subject. Even so, the fighter runneth over with feats and can thus spend a feat or two on Skill Focus, a feat that even scales with investment. It's a relatively small complaint given that skills have fewer uses in combat--which is what a fighter is born for.
3. A fighter is as versatile as the feats selected. A fighter can be a DPS monster, a walking tank, a ranged murder machine, a switch hitter, a maneuver specialist, or a battlefield controller. It can't be all of these things at once, but it can be many of them.
4. Some feats do scale with level, as you've noted. Other feats scale with level in the sense that their contribution grows as the fighter gains (and lands) more attacks/crits/whatever and gains more survivability so that the feats work longer. Remember, unlike most class features, feats rarely have limited uses--a character can Great Cleave all day.
5. Fighters can absolutely qualify for their feats. If you want to two-weapon fight, may I suggest that you make, oh, a Dexterity-strong build? If you want to be a maneuver specialist (the "fight smarter not harder" type), an Int of 13 is hardly unreasonable unless you absolutely must max Str/Dex/Con.
6. Fighters want to be leaders? There's a feat for that.
And I don't know where you're getting the idea that all melee characters should be able to recover extraordinarily quickly from injuries. That is most certainly not typical for mundane fighters outside of mythic settings. Again, you seem to want the fighter to be something it isn't when there are already other class options for such things. Play one of those!
7. Fighters can't train? On the contrary, they get to retrain their bonus feats--for free, instantly, and even if the new feat would not have been possible to take at the time the replaced feat was gained. They even get to do this if the GM doesn't allow the optional retraining rules--it's built into the class. If you want downtime activities, half of Ultimate Campaign is devoted to the subject--build a stronghold and train some followers or something.
Your arguments seem to boil down to "the fighter is a fighter, and I want the fighter to be X". There's already an X. Go play an X! You'll be much happier.
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other issue with the "there's a feat for that" argument, is when you start adding up all those feats. The Fighter's bonus feats start counting for less and less when you're spending all of your feats by level just shoring up the weak points to get him somewhere equivalent to where everyone else before feats.
No Perception or Sense Motive class skills and low skill points - Okay, we'll take Skill Focus in one of those to shore things up, try and keep peeps from slipping by.
Two poor saves - Guess we better shore those up since we don't want to spend our adventuring careers falling in pits and and attacking our friends. Iron Will and Lightning Reflexes aren't as good as even one more good save would be, but we'll take them.
That's now our by-level feats for 1,3, and 5. So if I wanted to play an archer, I could have Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, and Rapid Shot. Meanwhile, the Paladin still has better saves, skills, and the same archery feats. Also the Ranger. And the Cavalier. And the Barbarian. And the Gunslinger. And that's just the other full BAB classes. The Fighter isn't even spending feats to get ahead, he's spending them to try and catch up, and he's not succeeding at it. That's the issue with the "there's a feat for that" response. When you start spending those by-level feats to plug up the holes, his bonus feats just put him where everyone else was already at before adding in their class features.
I do agree that feats need to scale more, but aside from that, I'm inclined to follow Blahpers' view on things.
For example, the Vital Strike line should all be one feat, and all the Improved/Greater fetas need to be rolled into one another, getting more powerful at various levels of base attack bonus.
a bunch of stuff
1) There are no feats that can adequately replace what you are deficient in or be comparable to the other martial classes.
There are no feats that give you a good save.There are no feats that give the equivalent that a Rage bonus to Will does.
There are no feats that give you evasion or improved evasion.
There are no feats that give you Cha to all saves or a bunch of immunities to will based stuff.
In short, no, the fighter can't take feats, because the feats suck, don't exist and otherwise can't do the job.
2)You utterly missed the point. The fighter does not have the ability to SOLVE PROBLEMS. Other classes do it with spells. Some do it with skills. The fighter can't do EITHER.
3) A fighter is a die-cast fixed hunk of iron with no ability to change or alter his abilities from day to day. He has no versatility whatsoever. He is what he is today, tomorrow, and that's it.
4) The fact feats are usable all day is useless unless you can actually use them on something all day. After two minutes, when the fighting is over, would you rather have two spell slots you can devote to crafting tomorrow, or be able to Great Cleave the total lack of enemies?
In short, it doesn't matter that you can use feats all day. If there's nothing to use them on, duration is immaterial.
5) I want to Imrproved Two Weapon Fight, Improved Blind Fight, Die Hard, Expertise, and Keep my Str maxed out so I'm effective at damage. ANd by level 6, please, no delays.
What? Your Wizard doesn't need a 19 Dex, 19 Wis, 13 Int, 13 Con AND an 18 Str just to take a few low level spells? Why not???
6)Fighters cannot be leaders. They have no ability to buff followers. They can ACQUIRE followers with a feat...YAY. They can do NOTHING for them.
Leadership the feat is not being a leader. Your attempt to redefine the point is not appreciated.
7)You're confusing 'training' with 'retraining'. Training is about improvement, similar to a Wizard's ability to gather more spells, the ever-increasing size of any caster's spell list, the extra bonus spells you get for a high stat, etc.
The fighter class benefit is to 'retrain', and it works horribly. The closest analogy is the sorcerer swapping out an old spell for a new spell...and even the sorcerer gets to do it every other level.
Anyone can build a stronghold and recruit...it's not a Fighter thing, and they are worse at it then the other martial classes because, you know, they can't do anything to buff their followers.
==Aelryinth
It creates a hemispherical wall of force around you, sealing you off from the outside.
A spread effect can indeed spread around corners.
A dome has no corners.
It can't materialize on the other side of a wall.
The Dome is a wall.The text is posted right there. It creates a sealed dome with you inside. You care to explain how you're going to spread right through something that has no openings in it, nor corners to go around? Because I'm listening, and want to hear this fascinating explanation.
I wasn't wrong on the mechanics of the armor training/mastery thing, I was wrong on the titles. Yay, I called it the wrong name. My argument was totally correct. And I'm still sure they used to be separate abilities at some point...meh.
I was wrong on the name/AoE of the spell effect. Guess what? I am still perfectly correct on the mechanics.
I am absolutely correct on what a spread cannot do vs a sealed dome. I think you need to practice some visualization exercises and get back to me. When you find those corners and ability to spread through solid walls and floors that have no openings, get back to me.
The dome is not sealed if hte wizard is flying, there is no ground below his feet.
What high level scrodinger wizard is not flying? oh right, the ones that already know a whail of banshee /whatever another spread effect was in their near future, like every good scrodinger wizard, my bad.
By your definition, that Schroedinger wizard will be close enough to the floor, wall or ceiling that the dome will be perfectly useful regardless.
==Aelryinth
Speaking of Leadership, which is more useful to take as a cohort? A Fighter or a full caster?
a bunch of stuff1) There are no feats that can adequately replace what you are deficient in or be comparable to the other martial classes.
There are no feats that give you a good save.
There are no feats that give the equivalent that a Rage bonus to Will does.
There are no feats that give you evasion or improved evasion.
There are no feats that give you Cha to all saves or a bunch of immunities to will based stuff.In short, no, the fighter can't take feats, because the feats suck, don't exist and otherwise can't do the job.
2)You utterly missed the point. The fighter does not have the ability to SOLVE PROBLEMS. Other classes do it with spells. Some do it with skills. The fighter can't do EITHER.
3) A fighter is a die-cast fixed hunk of iron with no ability to change or alter his abilities from day to day. He has no versatility whatsoever. He is what he is today, tomorrow, and that's it.
4) The fact feats are usable all day is useless unless you can actually use them on something all day. After two minutes, when the fighting is over, would you rather have two spell slots you can devote to crafting tomorrow, or be able to Great Cleave the total lack of enemies?
In short, it doesn't matter that you can use feats all day. If there's nothing to use them on, duration is immaterial.5) I want to Imrproved Two Weapon Fight, Improved Blind Fight, Die Hard, Expertise, and Keep my Str maxed out so I'm effective at damage. ANd by level 6, please, no delays.
What? Your Wizard doesn't need a 19 Dex, 19 Wis, 13 Int, 13 Con AND an 18 Str just to take a few low level spells? Why not???6)Fighters cannot be leaders. They have no ability to buff followers. They can ACQUIRE followers with a feat...YAY. They can do NOTHING for them.
Leadership the feat is not being a leader. Your attempt to redefine the point is not appreciated.7)You're confusing 'training' with 'retraining'. Training is about improvement, similar to a Wizard's ability to gather more spells, the...
*sigh* I can't keep up with these goalposts zipping about, and correcting you is becoming exhausting.
In any case, you clearly have a different idea of what a fighter is supposed to be, and that idea is completely, utterly based in mechanical balance with other classes. It has been stated and restated that interclass balance is not a great concern of Paizo designers compared to whether the class properly represents its archetype. And it does--the fighter more than adequately represents the classic armored warrior who lives for combat and defeats his opponents through skill at arms.
If you want something else, play a different class.
2. Of course the fighter doesn't have spells. It's a fighter. Why would a fighter have spells?
That is not the point. THe point is why the that is supposed to be the most mundane guy in the game sucks at solving things by mundane means?
Imagine whatever fighter og legend, now replace translate themt o PF where they can only swim, climb and peraps ride.