1) Will save, iron will, cloak of resistance.
Dragon breath: You have HP2) I am the one who is buffed?
3) Why would I want to make magic items as a fighter? That's what loot is for or the party wizard. Social interaction: easy, you're a hero. Why respect the fighter? Because he kills bad guys.
4) Intimidating prowess, intimidate, Profession(engineer) [for giggles because I'm human and have the exta skill points with my 10 int]
5) High BAB, weapon training, feats, armor training.
1) These are not class features. The Fighter has no way of fighting this. He depends on outside resources to combat these.
2) Still wouldn't help you fight an Army.
3) He just said not DM fiat.
4) "With the exception of intimidate" To which I'll add, acting like a thug doesn't sound very heroic.
5) These effects aren't adding more options as opposed to gaining a new spell slot which is effectively greater power in combat or out of. Also none of these depend upon a high stat except Armor Training which is more of an anchor than a boost. You have to allocate more to Dex to make full use of your class feature. Dex doesn't synergize that well with Fighters.
Fighters ARE less durable than his fellows.
Barbarians) Everything, from AC, to HP, to Saves
Paladins) HP, Saves, comparable AC, immunities
Ranger) Saves(But to a degree less so), less Ambush prone(Could have spotted and disabled those traps you had trouble with), is an effective scout.They have no ability to lead aside from GM Fiat.
Utility, I lol'd. A Fighter is good for opening the door for the Wizard atleast. Your words not mine.
So barbars and paladins OP?
Because until you figure out how fighters fail to perform in APs and campaigns (like the rogue), then your condemnation of the class does not necessarily mean it needs buffs.
*Rangers have a better reflex save and worse AC. Yeah no, not a good counter example. Can handle traps? Because you are playing the fighter-type to be a scout because?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So barbars and paladins OP?
Seriously this bit is getting old.
"Every class but Fighter is OP" is a terrible argument.
Because, BY DEFINITION, the majority CANNOT BE OVERPOWERED. Overpowered implies that something is too powerful compared to similar options.
The thing in the minority is not normal while everything else is overpowered. he is UNDERPOWERED WHILE EVERYTHING ELSE IS NORMAL.
Because until you figure out how fighters fail to perform in APs and campaigns (like the rogue), then your condemnation of the class does not necessarily mean it needs buffs.
"Figure out"?
It's easy to figure out. We've pointed it out multiple times.
S*+!ty saves. No utility. Little out of combat capability.
These are all indisputable things about the class. You may be able to stick a band-aid on some of them with copious amounts of wealth and non-class specific options, but none of that is the class. Period.
My mistake their stat block does include leather armor, so their starting AC is 15. Ashiel said their AC was higher than that for some odd reasons (17 with crouching).
DO YOU NOT READ!?
Cover. Say it with me. Cover. In the example the kobolds have cover. When I was going step by step through your rebuttals - which you had nothing for half of - I mentioned cover so many times, including when discussing AoO.
This is not rocket science. ಠ_ಠ
IF you establish fighters as the baseline, every class but rogue and monk is OP.
If you establish barbs, rangers and paladins as the baseline, monks rogues and fighters are underpowered.
That's the difference in perspective.
==Aelryinth
Also, when Aelryinth asked what class features do Fighters have to help with their saving throws vs things like Dryads, who in the right mind can read that and then answer "Iron Will, and Cloak of Resistance" without being anything other than a troll of the lowest order?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, when Aelryinth asked what class features do Fighters have to help with their saving throws vs things like Dryads, who in the right mind can read that and then answer "Iron Will, and Cloak of Resistance" without being anything other than a troll of the lowest order?
To be fair, he wasn't 'of the lowest order', because he didn't mention a wayfinder with the right ioun stone...which wouldn't have worked because Dryads are Neutral. :)
So, troll of at least the middling order!
==Aelryinth
IF you establish fighters as the baseline, every class but rogue and monk is OP.
If you establish barbs, rangers and paladins as the baseline, monks rogues and fighters are underpowered.
That's the difference in perspective.
If barbar is the baseline then rangers, cavaliers, fighters, melee-focused druids, samurai, and just about every other melee-front man is underpowered sans the paladin.
Also, when Aelryinth asked what class features do Fighters have to help with their saving throws vs things like Dryads, who in the right mind can read that and then answer "Iron Will, and Cloak of Resistance" without being anything other than a troll of the lowest order?
Yeah, because the fighter using FEATS is a crazy idea. PCs are more than just their class features. Saying "fighters are glass cannons" is a false statement.
Saying that "fighters are glass cannons without gear or feats" is a trivially true statement that has no baring on the game..
Now your talking lets do this and I will show you that you are massively exaggerating the Rangers advantages out of combat and are underestimating the Fighters in combat advantages.
Do you have your scenario already written? If not I'm sure we can come up with something.
Almost missed this in all the other posts.
How about giving the Fighter homefield advantage and plunking them down in a level appropriate PFS scenario with solid reviews?
20 point buy, standard WBL, stick to options you can find in the Paizo PRD? If you want we can get the characters drawn up and I'll buy each of us a copy of the scenario (I've never played it).
Excellent, no need to buy it for me as I already own it. Should I open a PbP thread? Who do you want to GM this.
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If barbar is the baseline then rangers, cavaliers, fighters, melee-focused druids, samurai, and just about every other melee-front man is underpowered sans the paladin.
Ummm, I was about to chide Ashiel for her troll accusations, but.... Are you really serious with this? I mean, really? Are you seriously implying that the barbarian is OP compared to the druid? If it were Ranger and Cavalier alone, I could see having a discussion and trying to point out where you're wrong, but.... I don't even think there's a little bit of hope for this conversation going anywhere if you seriously believe that a barbarian is OP compared to a Druid.
If barbar is the baseline then rangers, cavaliers, fighters, melee-focused druids, samurai, and just about every other melee-front man is underpowered sans the paladin.IF you establish fighters as the baseline, every class but rogue and monk is OP.
If you establish barbs, rangers and paladins as the baseline, monks rogues and fighters are underpowered.
That's the difference in perspective.
Cavs/Sams, slightly. But that's because they're glorified Fighters.
Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin are balanced with each other.
Barbarian has most consistent high damage output and in combat utility, with a fair bit of survivability.
Paladin has the highest burst damage output and loads of survivability. Brings utility in the form of status effect removal.
Ranger has the highest out of combat utility, second highest sustained damage (since Favored Enemies are likely to be encountered fairly commonly), and medium survivability (medium armor, decent saves, great Perception and Initiative bonuses).
Druid is basically "Barbarian with spells".
Or anyone else?
I don't know how you guys seriously think the ranger can tangle with the paladin and barbarian in combat.
Out of combat utility is not a balancing factor when comparing in combat function. Since we are talking about combat anyways, out of combat ability is even less relevant.
If barbar is the baseline then rangers, cavaliers, fighters, melee-focused druids, samurai, and just about every other melee-front man is underpowered sans the paladin.Ummm, I was about to chide Ashiel for her troll accusations, but.... Are you really serious with this? I mean, really? Are you seriously implying that the barbarian is OP compared to the druid? If it were Ranger and Cavalier alone, I could see having a discussion and trying to point out where you're wrong, but.... I don't even think there's a little bit of hope for this conversation going anywhere if you seriously believe that a barbarian is OP compared to a Druid.
The to-hit gap is large enough alone that a barbar can decimate foes the melee-focused-druid (low-ish wis, low DCs) can't even touch, and as the fighter-type in the party you are suppose to be DOING DAMAGE! All the CC in the world doesn't help because that wasn't your tactical role.
non-class specific options
Why does that matter is a discussion about PVE?
I don't know how you guys seriously think the ranger can tangle with the paladin and barbarian in combat.
Spells. Favored Enemy/Terrain. Animal Companion. Bonus Feats.
This isn't Rocket Surgery.
Out of combat utility is not a balancing factor when comparing in combat function. Since we are talking about combat anyways, out of combat ability is even less relevant.
Why are you only comparing combat ability? The reason the Fighter sucks ass is because he fails out of combat and in combat can't do anything but stand and full attack.
non-class specific optionsWhy does that matter is a discussion about PVE?
Person A uses Option B to boost Stat C that he sucks at.
Person D uses Option B to boost Stat C that he doesn't suck at even higher.
Net advantage gained: 0.
It also matters because we're discussing Class vs Class in a PvE context, not Magic Item and Non-Class Specific Feats vs Class in a PvE context.
What can a FIGHTER do, not "What can those Winged Boots do?".
Again, this is simples. It shouldn't be that hard for you to grasp.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know how you guys seriously think the ranger can tangle with the paladin and barbarian in combat.
Out of combat utility is not a balancing factor when comparing in combat function. Since we are talking about combat anyways, out of combat ability is even less relevant.
Did we just somehow come full circle and end up back at the beginning of this thread?
Fighters can perform in combat decently, but they can't do anything else. Everyone else can. Fighters, Rangers, Barbarians, et al are all capable of performing at a fairly similar baseline in combat, typically with differences small enough that they aren't actually terribly relevant. Fighter however can't effectively resolve a situation if he can't hit it, and his AC counts for very little since he's more prone to damage from traps, spells, and other effects. Since he has no method of recovery, this actually results in a shorter combat day for him. Getting shot in the face because you were flat-footed and tagged in a surprise round takes away from the Fighter's longevity. Falling down a pit because he couldn't avoid a trap lowers his longevity and his damage output.You are so lasered in on this idea that AC and base hit/damage are the only things that matter that it's starting to seem like you are either intentionally baiting the other posters, or you've never even actually ever sat down and played the game.
non-class specific optionsWhy does that matter is a discussion about PVE?Person A uses Option B to boost Stat C that he sucks at.
Person D uses Option B to boost Stat C that he doesn't suck at even higher.
Net advantage gained: 0.
It also matters because we're discussing Class vs Class in a PvE context, not Magic Item and Non-Class Specific Feats vs Class in a PvE context.
What can a FIGHTER do, not "What can those Winged Boots do?".
Again, this is simples. It shouldn't be that hard for you to grasp.
I have only been talking about PVE and responding to general statements about the fighter.
All this class vs class nonsense*, trying to compare the fighter to broken classes like the barbar, does not interest me*.
*only about the fighter and for this one thread
You are so lasered in on this idea that AC and base hit/damage are the only things that matter that it's starting to seem like you are either intentionally baiting the other posters, or you've never even actually ever sat down and played the game.
Half-true, my actual play experiences with the fighter were in 3.5 and only went up to lvl 14.
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the fighter worse off in 3.5?
The fighter is actually better at ranged combat.
Why? Because ranged combat is extremely feat-intensive, and doesn't hit the fighter's main weakness, i.e. relying on full attacks. Archers always make full attacks. The ranger can rival him with FE at full, but round to round, against all foes, Archery is the #1 fighting style for a fighter.
Pretty much this, against non-FE.
Fighters are the best ranged damage dealers (barring a Smiting Paladin) because the confluence of their three class features actually supports that combat style very well.
In staying power yes. But vivisecsionist with greater invisibility and high level zen archer that stun snemies with their arrros are scary.
Lol.
Okay Marthkus, you win.
We'll compare the Fighter to the Fighter, and tehe Fighter comes up just peachy compared to itself.
So by the power of circular logic, YOU! WIN! THE ARGUMENT!!!!!
Ssalarn, if nobody steps up we could just play it out in the open as well. I am assuming you want each character to solo the module so this method might even be preferable.
You are so lasered in on this idea that AC and base hit/damage are the only things that matter that it's starting to seem like you are either intentionally baiting the other posters, or you've never even actually ever sat down and played the game.Half-true, my actual play experiences with the fighter were in 3.5 and only went up to lvl 14.
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the fighter worse off in 3.5?
Dungeoncrasher and Zhentarim were a thing, the feat chains weren't as painfully broken up so you had a net increase in effective feats, feats were better in general, Stand Still was a thing for battlefield control builds...
Etc so forth.
Lol.
Okay Marthkus, you win.
We'll compare the Fighter to the Fighter, and tehe Fighter comes up just peachy compared to itself.
So by the power of circular logic, YOU! WIN! THE ARGUMENT!!!!!
That is still PvP.
If you want to determine if the fighter needs buffs you compare PVE. If you want to determine an unbalance you compare class vs class.
Gratz you already know things are unbalanced, what you have not shown is why the fighter needs a buff instead of barbars and paladins getting nerfs.
You are so lasered in on this idea that AC and base hit/damage are the only things that matter that it's starting to seem like you are either intentionally baiting the other posters, or you've never even actually ever sat down and played the game.Half-true, my actual play experiences with the fighter were in 3.5 and only went up to lvl 14.
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the fighter worse off in 3.5?
Dungeoncrasher and Zhentarim were a thing, the feat chains weren't as painfully broken up so you had a net increase in effective feats, feats were better in general, Stand Still was a thing for battlefield control builds...
Etc so forth.
And all my fighters stuck to the PH.
The fighter is OP compared to the fighter Rynjin. Silly you for getting that wrong! ;)
|
Design Manager
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have only been talking about PVE and responding to general statements about the fighter.
All this class vs class nonsense, trying to compare the fighter to broken classes like the barbar, does not interest me.
They're comparing the Fighter in standard play to how every other class handles in standard play. That's how you establish a baseline.
Thge Barbarian, Cavalier, Ranger, Gunslinger, etc. are all very competitive in combat with a Fighter. So we've established a combat baseline, and they all are within a reasonable level of each other. But then we look at the rest of the picture.... Every other class has ways to contribute outside of combat, and/or unique problem resolution in combat. The Fighter does not. He contributes no party resource, he can't be reasonable expected to succeed at saves, skill checks, or overcoming supernatural challenges. Everyone else has some or all of those things.
You can't come into a thread titled "What does a Fighter do that a Ranger doesn't?" and then say "Now, now, I don't want to be competitive and start comparing things, lets just talk about how many goblins a Fighter in a 10 foot by 10 foot room can kill". It's assinine, and does nothing to establish whether or not the Fighter is a balanced class. You can't discuss balance in the absence of all other factors any more than one lonely kid can play on a seesaw.
|
Design Manager
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is still PvP.
If you want to determine if the fighter needs buffs you compare PVE. If you want to determine an unbalance you compare class vs class.
Gratz you already know things are unbalanced, what you have not shown is why the fighter needs a buff instead of barbars and paladins getting nerfs.
Just stop it. You can't seriously really be making the argument that every other class in the game needs to be nerfed because the Fighter is the only balanced class. Is that really the argument you're making? Because it's terrible.
You can't come into a thread titled "What does a Fighter do that a Ranger doesn't?" and then say "Now, now, I don't want to be competitive and start comparing things, lets just talk about how many goblins a Fighter in a 10 foot by 10 foot room can kill". It's assinine, and does nothing to establish whether or not the Fighter is a balanced class. You can't discuss balance in the absence of all other factors any more than one lonely kid can play on a seesaw.
Oh I'll compare fighter and ranger. The fighter wins out in combat.
I won't compare fighters to barbarians. The latter is just broken.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And all my fighters stuck to the PH.You are so lasered in on this idea that AC and base hit/damage are the only things that matter that it's starting to seem like you are either intentionally baiting the other posters, or you've never even actually ever sat down and played the game.Half-true, my actual play experiences with the fighter were in 3.5 and only went up to lvl 14.
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the fighter worse off in 3.5?
Dungeoncrasher and Zhentarim were a thing, the feat chains weren't as painfully broken up so you had a net increase in effective feats, feats were better in general, Stand Still was a thing for battlefield control builds...
Etc so forth.
Just on the feats thing alone 3.5 fighter is better off than the PF one because the net cost of getting the same exact stuff PHB vs. CRB is higher in the CRB. Look at Improved Trip (2 feats) vs. its equivalents in PF as one example. PF hands out more feats but by breaking up a bunch of them the net amount of feats available to martials is smaller.
Just stop it. You can't seriously really be making the argument that every other class in the game needs to be nerfed because the Fighter is the only balanced class. Is that really the argument you're making? Because it's terrible.That is still PvP.
If you want to determine if the fighter needs buffs you compare PVE. If you want to determine an unbalance you compare class vs class.
Gratz you already know things are unbalanced, what you have not shown is why the fighter needs a buff instead of barbars and paladins getting nerfs.
Why are paladins and barbarians every other class in the game?
You are so lasered in on this idea that AC and base hit/damage are the only things that matter that it's starting to seem like you are either intentionally baiting the other posters, or you've never even actually ever sat down and played the game.Half-true, my actual play experiences with the fighter were in 3.5 and only went up to lvl 14.
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the fighter worse off in 3.5?
Yes, by a lot.
This thread is full of jokes because there are a lot of fighter haters who refuse to let any of the supplemental materials for fighters that give them their much coveted 4+ skills per level count as existing because they want to complain.
You are so lasered in on this idea that AC and base hit/damage are the only things that matter that it's starting to seem like you are either intentionally baiting the other posters, or you've never even actually ever sat down and played the game.Half-true, my actual play experiences with the fighter were in 3.5 and only went up to lvl 14.
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the fighter worse off in 3.5?
Yes, by a lot.
This thread is full of jokes because there are a lot of fighter haters who refuse to let any of the supplemental materials for fighters that give them their much coveted 4+ skills per level count as existing because they want to complain.
There are a few archtypes that let you get 4sp/level yes. However, those are not the base class being right as rain. What's being discussed (or trying to be discussed) is the base class. Saying a fighter is good because Lorewardens and Tacticians give 4sp/level isn't part of the discussion as it's a wedge case, not the core of the topic.
Certain people are determined to keep blinders on, or argue endlessly using wedge cases as justification for their viewpoints. Abandon wedge cases.
Fighters don't really need more skill points either...
Look I fought tooth and nail defending the rogue, only to be proven objectively wrong.
The case against the fighter is just not that strong. All you guys are doing is convincing me that barbarians and paladins are OP.
|
Design Manager
|
Look I fought tooth and nail defending the rogue, only to be proven objectively wrong.
You're going to find that this becomes a habit for you with arguments like those you've been making....
You were proven objectively wrong several pages ago. It just hasn't hit you in a way you're willing to accept yet.
The fighter needs mechanics to support roleplaying in out of combat situations. I think a lot here say that additional skill points are a solid way to get that ball rolling. More class skills should be allowed also.
What I think it needs (in addition to skill points) is a dynamic class feature. Someone previously mentioned how the rogue and fighter are static and that was a very good point. Fighters need something that can fluctuate through out the game and help them in and out of combat.
You are so lasered in on this idea that AC and base hit/damage are the only things that matter that it's starting to seem like you are either intentionally baiting the other posters, or you've never even actually ever sat down and played the game.Half-true, my actual play experiences with the fighter were in 3.5 and only went up to lvl 14.
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the fighter worse off in 3.5?
Yes, by a lot.
This thread is full of jokes because there are a lot of fighter haters who refuse to let any of the supplemental materials for fighters that give them their much coveted 4+ skills per level count as existing because they want to complain.
There are a few archtypes that let you get 4sp/level yes. However, those are not the base class being right as rain. What's being discussed (or trying to be discussed) is the base class. Saying a fighter is good because Lorewardens and Tacticians give 4sp/level isn't part of the discussion as it's a wedge case, not the core of the topic.
Certain people are determined to keep blinders on, or argue endlessly using wedge cases as justification for their viewpoints. Abandon wedge cases.
If that is the case, then we shouldn't listen to arguments that bring up options for classes like Beast Totems allowing for full attacks.
Period.
Also, I'm really sick of the forum consensus of "the fighter sucks" and when I ask what they want the fighter to be able to do I get a collective answer of "WE DON'T KNOW, BUT WE WANT IT!!!"
Why are paladins and barbarians every other class in the game?They're not. The Paladin, Barbarian, Cavalier, Gunslinger, Ranger, Inquisitor, Magus, Bard, and more are all well balanced to each other. It's the Fighter who's the odd man out.
I've heard a decent argument for the gunslinger, but Cavalier and non-comparable non-martials. Really?
Once again we're talking about combat balance.
Look I fought tooth and nail defending the rogue, only to be proven objectively wrong.
You're going to find that this becomes a habit for you with arguments like those you've been making....
You were proven objectively wrong several pages ago. It just hasn't hit you in a way you're willing to accept yet.
No. All you guys did was show that paladins and barbarians are overpowered.
You are so lasered in on this idea that AC and base hit/damage are the only things that matter that it's starting to seem like you are either intentionally baiting the other posters, or you've never even actually ever sat down and played the game.Half-true, my actual play experiences with the fighter were in 3.5 and only went up to lvl 14.
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the fighter worse off in 3.5?
Yes, by a lot.
This thread is full of jokes because there are a lot of fighter haters who refuse to let any of the supplemental materials for fighters that give them their much coveted 4+ skills per level count as existing because they want to complain.
There are a few archtypes that let you get 4sp/level yes. However, those are not the base class being right as rain. What's being discussed (or trying to be discussed) is the base class. Saying a fighter is good because Lorewardens and Tacticians give 4sp/level isn't part of the discussion as it's a wedge case, not the core of the topic.
Certain people are determined to keep blinders on, or argue endlessly using wedge cases as justification for their viewpoints. Abandon wedge cases.
If that is the case, then we shouldn't listen to arguments that bring up options for classes like Beast Totems allowing for full attacks.
Period.
Also, I'm really sick of the forum consensus of "the fighter sucks" and when I ask what they want the fighter to be able to do I get a collective answer of "WE DON'T KNOW, BUT WE WANT IT!!!"
It's simple. Give fighter's +16 to all saves, pounce, and 2 more skill points.
There now they can be just like barbarians!
|
Design Manager
|
No one's given that answer. In fact, people have been pretty clear.
Give him one more good save and more skill points, and possibly an additional class skill, hopefully Perception.
Everyone's pretty resigned to the fact that there can't be any bigger changes than that in the system, so they're just asking for the simplest fix that helps shore the Fighter up and allow him to at least meet the same baseline as everyone else. The whiney people without solutions are not the ones asking for change in the Fighter. There are literally hundreds of proposed fixes that go more in depth than that, but that's a very widely agreed upon fix.
No. All you guys did was show that paladins and barbarians are overpowered.Look I fought tooth and nail defending the rogue, only to be proven objectively wrong.
You're going to find that this becomes a habit for you with arguments like those you've been making....
You were proven objectively wrong several pages ago. It just hasn't hit you in a way you're willing to accept yet.
Depends on where you set the bar. Compared to fighters, sure. Compared to rangers, probably a little bit. Compared to full casters, not really.
IMO barbarian and paladin should be the baseline that we try and bring the rest of the classes up to. Spell Sunder/ Dispel Magic is a thing that only those two classes can really do, that the other martial classes cannot. Rangers don't even get Dispel as a 4th level spell, sadly.
Fighters could easily receive a 'fix' in the form of a few new feats that enhance their already existing class abilities. Something like allowing Bravery to apply to different types of will saves at the cost of one feat, not just fear effects, but also compulsions.
If that is the case, then we shouldn't listen to arguments that bring up options for classes like Beast Totems allowing for full attacks.
Period.
Also, I'm really sick of the forum consensus of "the fighter sucks" and when I ask what they want the fighter to be able to do I get a collective answer of "WE DON'T KNOW, BUT WE WANT IT!!!"
Largely for the discussion about whether the "class" (core class in my eyes) is balanced, one needs to cut out all the wedge cases so I'd say pouncing barbs would be a wedge case for the time being and should be left to the wayside.
I'd say the collective answer is an out of combat role with mechanics to support it(not reliant on DM fiat), and not being a resource drain on the group is a good place to start for what people want fixed.
(I'd add to that in saying whatever people propose as a fix for their own home games, or peoples consideration should be a dynamic feature, or if multiple patches are presented, one of them being a dynamic solution.)