| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To everyone that says that tere's no feat, feats doesn't scale well and things like that...
Weapon Specialization chain.
Weapon Training.
Archetypes that specialize in your weapon training.Only the fighter has this awesome chain of feats that can make him one of the highest dpr.
Only the fighter has these 2 class skill/feats and they are awesome.
Make yourself an archer (someone pointed it before)Human fighter:
(lvl1) Point Blank Shot
(Human) Precise Shot
(BF1) Deadlye Aim
(BF2) Rapid Shot
(lvl3) Weapon Focus (longbow)
(BF4) Weapon Specialization
(lvl5) Iron Will
(BF6) Manyshot/Clustered Shot
(lvl7) Clustered Shot/Manyshot
(BF8) Greater Weapon Focus
(lvl9) Improved Iron WIll/Improved Critical
(BF10) Improved Critical/Improved Iron Will
(lvl11) Improved Precise Shot
(BF12) Greater Weapon SpecializationYou can have the same chain but with Power Attack and mele oriented feats, doesn't matter the weapon you choose, this weapon will be deadly.
PD: I stopped at 12th since it's when he obtains GWSpec.
let's make a little calculation:
Deadly Aim: -4atk/+8dmg
GWSpec+WepSpec:+4dmg
GWFocus+WFocus:+2atk
Manyshot: Extra atk
Rapidshot: Extra atk -2atk
Base atk +12/+7/+2
Modified: +8/+8/+8/+3/-2 1d8+12
+2atk/dmg from weapon training (lvl 5/9) (+3 in case of Weapon Master Arch.)
+10/+10/+10/+5/+0 1d8+14
And that is without Probably a +5dex bonus and +2-3 base str bonus.
If someone says that this needs to be lvl 12 to work, he is wrong.
He does well in all the levels, but when he hits that Weapon Spec Feats he goes up in his performance as a dpr.
Weapon Spec does not scale.
It consumes four feats.I find it suspicious also that you used it for the one weapon that is best used by fighters, the very feat intensive route of archery (esp with Rapid Fire and MUltishot).
How about we actually, you know, DO MATH.
Weapon Spec affects only one weapon. Assuming its your primary Weapon Training, your maximum benefit FROM CLASS is +6/+8. With any other weapon in your primary, You are +4/+4. Any other weapon, your bonus rapidly falls off to nothing.
A Ranger can, with no feat expenditure, reach +10/+10 with any weapon, putting you to shame, and make any enemy desired his best favorite enemy. If he moves from missile to melee, he keeps his full bonus. At later levels, he can easily do this multiple times a day.
A Barbarian at level 20 gets +8 to his strength, which is either +4/+4 with every weapon, or +4/+6 with a 2h'er. Doesn't matter what he picks up, he can use it. And then Reckless offensive can increase that to +10 Strength or even higher. Yes, he's got more then enough Rage to last every fight.
The Paladin at the same level can issue a smite for, say, +8/+20. He can share that smite with the whole party. Against the rare foe that isn't evil, he can add +6 of variable bonuses to whatever weapon he is wielding, including Brilliant to completely deprive it of armor. He has an array of spells to auto-confirm crits, do additional damage.
Again, he can do this with any weapon he happens to wield...bow, sword, shield, lance.
Weapon Spec does not scale. It would scale if weapon focus was ONE FEAT that improved as you level. But, no. Each feat stands alone and is fixed and immovable. the numbers themselves have to change for a feat to scale.
==Aelryinth
*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.
Yeah, your moving the goalposts around has been confusing, especially when mine have all stayed in exactly one place. I understand you were trying to misdirect my points, but really, that wasn't too kosher.
You clearly have a very minimalist view of what a fighter should be, obviously just a warrior with a pastiche on it. The lack of your concern for interclass balance happily is not the opinion of the majority of people who want to play the classic core fighter and not feel like they, well, suck at it.
The paladin represents the classic armored warrior who defeats his opponents through skill at arms in a magical world.
The fighter represents that guy in OUR world. Our world, unfortunately, is not magical, and the fighter as represented clearly is not suitable for his role in a magical world.
So, I would like a fighter made for a magical world, and telling me to play another class is a complete cop-out and abandonment of the archetype. I want the fighter for a magical world, not one for ours, thank you.
==Aelryinth
Design Manager
|
To everyone that says that tere's no feat, feats doesn't scale well and things like that...
Weapon Specialization chain.
Weapon Training.
Archetypes that specialize in your weapon training.Only the fighter has this awesome chain of feats that can make him one of the highest dpr.
You missed the whole point. No one is saying the Fighter can't deal damage, of course he can. It's everything else he can't do. Like make saves. Or pass skill checks. Or contribute in a meaningful way without draining resources from the other party members. Every single other class in the game does something to conserve or contribute resources, action economy, etc. to the party. The Fighter actually hits a point where he becomes almost non-functional without the other party members shoring him up. The Fighter doesn't actually have good damage mitigation, and of his three class abilities outside his bonus feats, Bravery is so conditional as to be nearly worthless, and Armor Training doesn't actually scale unless he dumps stat resources into Dex. What kind of weird dichotomy is it when the classic grunt has to have a high enough Dex to pick locks with his teeth if he wants to actually gain a scaling benefit from his ability to wear full plate?
The worst part is that his poor Will saves and lack of bolstering class features that are actually useful mean his ability to deal unrivaled combat damage make him worse than a drain on party resources, they make him a constant and deadly threat to the people he's supposed to be protecting. I have seen more party deaths at the hands of dominated damage monsters like the Fighter you listed than to any other source. Yay that you gave him Iron Will and Improved Iron Will, but he's still behind most of the other classes in his total chance to succeed on a Will save, and he's hyper-specialized into a single fighting style. You've got a 12th level character who can be made defunct by a spell that was available back at 5th level.
*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.
1) What about the guy who willpower is so strong that he block any foul magic trying to control him? like, you know, a LOT of fightes in stories.
No? so the fighter is faling here.
2) What about the cunning strategist that is also charming and great warrior?
No? so the fighter is failing here.
I Argue then that the fighter fails to represent its classic archetype.
Why the ranger can be the guy who fight armored and defeat his enemies opponents through skill at arms and also solve a lot of thing using skills, plus other things.?
THe fighter is probably the only calss that have to use his class abilities to shore his weakness, and by doing so he suffers in his main job.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it a amusing that a class that is found so weak and underpowered by many, has so many horror stories about that same smashing all the other uber classes to bits once it gets dominated, ahaha.
having a weakness or needing help to gain optimal efficiency is not a weakness is a team game, just saying
The worst part is that his poor Will saves and lack of bolstering class features that are actually useful mean his ability to deal unrivaled combat damage make him worse than a drain on party resources, they make him a constant and deadly threat to the people he's supposed to be protecting. I have seen more party deaths at the hands of dominated damage monsters like the Fighter you listed than to any other source. Yay that you gave him Iron Will and Improved Iron Will, but he's still behind most of the other classes in his total chance to succeed on a Will save, and he's hyper-specialized into a single fighting style. You've got a 12th level character who can be made defunct by a spell that was available back at 5th level.
Eh, I'm running a Dwarf fighter currently in one of the campaigns I'm in. It's penance for the Wizard I'm running in my other campaign. I'm really looking forward to finishing the Cornugon Smash chain next level (Intimidating Prowess, Dazzling Display, Shatter Defenses, Cornugon Smash), and picking up a Cruel weapon, so my spellcaster buddies get -4 to all saves whenever I get to hit something. And I'm doing reasonable DPS (similar to our full-on archery ranger) in most encounters, even without Pounce. Normally about 40-50 dmg per round (at level 6) with no buffs. I have a bow for situations where I can't get into range (which does crap DPR, but still something), or I can Dazzling Display and probably give my casters a boost.
More importantly -- I planned him out, and by level 10, I'll have a +13 Will save vs. spells, which will be +15 vs. Charm and Compulsion effects. And that's without any buffs (Prayer and the like), and without burning all of my wealth on it. Granted, I could push the saves higher on other classes (*cough* Paladin *cough* Superstitious Raging Barbarian). But many classes, including full casters, will not have Will saves that high.
That being said, it's reasonable for the level, which was my only goal. Dominate Person is a 5th lvl spell. With a +6 INT bonus, that gives a 21 save DC (similar to that from a Vampire). That gives me a 75% chance to succeed on my save. It gives me ~97% chance to avoid attacking my party if ordered to. With buffs (e.g. Prayer + Good Hope, both of which are AoE and don't need to specifically target me), It goes to 10%/0%. That does not qualify as a constant and deadly threat to the party.
There are some weaknesses in the Fighter class certainly, and I would personally love more skill points. The Will save in particular though can be worked around. People just choose not to, because they're pushing for max DPS at the expense of everything else.
I find it a amusing that a class that is found so weak and underpowered by many, has so many horror stories about that same smashing all the other uber classes to bits once it gets dominated, ahaha.
Because they've been buffed up by the party casters. Because they've been standing next to a caster the entire time, and didn't have to close distance.
And that's besides the point. No one ever claimed the Fighter was bad at dealing damage to things it hits.
@Laif.
I can't understand what your trying to say in your last post. Is there any way you might be inclined to edit it for clarity?
Are you trying to argue that your feat choices are actually scaling as a rebuttal to the post you quoted, or are you referring to some other factor that isn't clear?
I think there is some kind of miscommunication going on here.
I see.
I don't agree with the statement that bonus feats are free because they are bundled with the rest of the fighter class. If bonus feats were free, then I would take them on my barbarian.
I think this is an opportunity cost that cannot in any way be ignored.
I also do not follow your reasoning with regard to the comment about feats not scaling. If a feats scaled, the fighter would have the same number of feats that each, individually, accomplished more. In a sense, the big smiley face after the fighter feat reference page would be true in both cases, but more relevant in the one where each feat had progressively greater effects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*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.
Yeah, your moving the goalposts around has been confusing, especially when mine have all stayed in exactly one place. I understand you were trying to misdirect my points, but really, that wasn't too kosher.
You clearly have a very minimalist view of what a fighter should be, obviously just a warrior with a pastiche on it. The lack of your concern for interclass balance happily is not the opinion of the majority of people who want to play the classic core fighter and not feel like they, well, suck at it.
The paladin represents the classic armored warrior who defeats his opponents through skill at arms in a magical world.
The fighter represents that guy in OUR world. Our world, unfortunately, is not magical, and the fighter as represented clearly is not suitable for his role in a magical world.So, I would like a fighter made for a magical world, and telling me to play another class is a complete cop-out and abandonment of the archetype. I want the fighter for a magical world, not one for ours, thank you.
==Aelryinth
Sure, chief. Whatever you say.
Meanwhile, I'm having fun playing a fighter and you're blathering on about how it's unplayable. Who's doing it right?
*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.
Yeah, your moving the goalposts around has been confusing, especially when mine have all stayed in exactly one place. I understand you were trying to misdirect my points, but really, that wasn't too kosher.
You clearly have a very minimalist view of what a fighter should be, obviously just a warrior with a pastiche on it. The lack of your concern for interclass balance happily is not the opinion of the majority of people who want to play the classic core fighter and not feel like they, well, suck at it.
The paladin represents the classic armored warrior who defeats his opponents through skill at arms in a magical world.
The fighter represents that guy in OUR world. Our world, unfortunately, is not magical, and the fighter as represented clearly is not suitable for his role in a magical world.So, I would like a fighter made for a magical world, and telling me to play another class is a complete cop-out and abandonment of the archetype. I want the fighter for a magical world, not one for ours, thank you.
==Aelryinth
Sure, chief. Whatever you say.
Meanwhile, I'm having fun playing a fighter and you're blathering on about how it's unplayable. Who's doing it right?
Both I would think. You both appear to be shooting at different outcomes, so your arguments are not making a dent on the other in this case.
I find it a amusing that a class that is found so weak and underpowered by many, has so many horror stories about that same smashing all the other uber classes to bits once it gets dominated, ahaha.
having a weakness or needing help to gain optimal efficiency is not a weakness is a team game, just saying
Fighters suck, no fighter could ever beat a mage.
Don't bring fighters in your party, they'll kill the mage the second they are dominated!
Seems like a gap in logic to me . . .
Don't claim the fighter is standing next to the Mage, he's in the front hitting things. . .
You can't have it both ways!
Meanwhile, I'm having fun playing a fighter and you're blathering on about how it's unplayable. Who's doing it right?
if the fighter would have have extra 2 skill point per level and a slightly better saving trhows, would your fun be ruined?
Would hte result be unbalanced? game disrupting?
I tend to think the fighter is made in direct opposition to there mission statement.
I feel as though the fighter ought to be the one who will do well regardless of circumstance because they are skilled with every weapon of war under the sun. In practice, the class is designed to be more and more specialized over time until they, at their pinnacle, must fight in very specific ways or suffer poor returns.
I feel like that is the most apparent issue when you look at the fighter chassis to rationalize their fluff.
If I were to remake the fighter, I think I would remove the weapon training feature and replace it with a kind of negative return mechanic such that the first stage would reduce the penalty from any combat feat by one. This would effect each feat individually, thus the fighter could use something like power attack and combat expertise without penalty. It would definitely make the fighter the best at using combat techniques and it wouldn't be about a bunch of pluses, just about exploiting your combat technique better than anyone.
I do think that a few more skill points would make a lot of sense in terms of the internal consistency of a person raised without magic would likely have to rely on skills because he/she is certainly not relying on spell components.... but that could be just me.
What else has a combat based penalty I wonder? It would certainly make for some interesting niche builds because suboptimal options would be less so due to the class feature interactions.
yay, fighter can do one thing really well. and that one thing is, being the best at beating a straw dummy with his signature weapon he blew a massive amount of resources into improving. which is best off being a bow. oh wait, he probably sunk all his resources, enchanted the weapon greatly, bought a pair of gloves, and well, if he kills the straw dummy, god forbid he be forced to walk more than 5 feet to another straw dummy
if the straw dummy were replaced with a creature that either was capable of flight, were capable of casting spells, were capable of inflicting inflicting debuffs and conditions, were capable of targeting the fighter's poor will save, had a superior attack range, that was incorporeal, or were capable of making touch attacks
our fighter is screwed if the foe can meet 3 or more of these fighter killing criteria
in other words, the fighter is only good for killing Straw Dummies that are reinforced with lots HP but no mobility, no damage mitigation, and no means of targeting anything other than the fighter's fully armored armor class.
I see the main problem of everyone.
You want a class that can do everything, roll a paladin is the closest one to that.
That get repeated over and over, and it just false. Having, for example, a couple of more skill points and a better saves is hardly doing everything. MOre likely is puting him on par witht barbs and paladins.
A fighter shines with teamwork.
Like everyone else.
Yes a 2 more skill points would be nice, but for what would you use them apart from perception?
For whatever I wnat to round up mycharacter so he can fill the image I have for him. The diplomat, the scholar, the leader, the stealthy assaing, maybe all togheter.
I even would say that this annoys me much more than the save thing. And If I have to choose one improvement over the other I choose to have extra skills.
Be positive and you will enjoy the fighter ;)
I do enjoy fighters. Be the mundane guy is my favorite role in D&D, not sure why fighter have to suffer in mundane task.
yeah, they can hit hard why that deny the fighter the chance of doing something else? whatever else?
Yeah, more for roleplay than for game mechanics. I like that option too.
The problem I see is what to add to not overstep in other classes and give a little bonus to the fighter.
Little improvements will not overstep in other classes. 4+int skill per level will only make him on par with the barbarian and he will still be below the ranger. He will be above the paladin but I also thinkg the paladin should have 4+int skill per level.
I see the main problem of everyone.
You want a class that can do everything, roll a paladin is the closest one to that.
This kind of comment is not necessary. It's obvious that no one is interested in the class doing everything.
Have you ever heard of a straw man fallacy?
Here's how my wizard wins any duel vs a fighter.
He has at most
Initiative
+3 (dex) +4 Improved initiative +1 (trait)
8 initiative
Though more likely 4 because most fighters gotta get dem combat feats on a tight schedule
Wizard
+2 dex +4 improved initiative +1 trait +4 Familiar
11 initiative
If he wins initiative
Archer: I am probably dead, though my gloves of arrow snatching may save me from dying.
Melee fighter: I survive because he only hit me once. Then I quicken vanish and fly away. Next turn set up a wind wall and kill him.
If I win initiative
I fly up and make a quickened wind wall. I am now invincible to fighter.