I can vouch for this. It's more like ~80 points but the classes are built on a 120 point spread.
You know what, let me put this another way. If you were take the idea that every class is built on a 50 point spread and then compare the value of the Fighters feats in an actual build to what they actually give him, you'd discover that the Fighter is working with about 10 points less than everyone else.
Now that's an interesting perspective. Hm....
You can fix ALL of the Fighter's problems while still being completely within the rules of Pathfinder. Saying that people who don't have problems with the fighter are not playing Pathfinder is just being an arse.Let's separate "rule zero" from "the rules of Pathfinder," and that might change your opinion. Generally fighters are made to feel like they contribute at higher levels because the DM warps eveything around that goal. I've done it myself, in many campaigns. But with a DM who acts as a referee rather than as a story writer, invoking RAW rather than plot points -- and with casters not pulling their punches or adhering to elaborate gentlemen's agreements -- then that feeling is very quickly diminished.
TL/DR: If fighters contribute extremely well because of DM intervention, that's a feature of the DM, and not a feature of the fighter class mechanics.
definitely agree with that tldr. In my experience though, that's true of every class as I'm not actively trying to kill a PC. Still, good point.
Likewise, if I want to play a hedge magician with a familiar, I can have a lot of fun playing an Adept, but the Witch class, mechanically, is a much better choice for the role I'm trying to pull off.
But maybe I don't want Hexes? Maybe I don't want to play a Witch? What you seem to be saying is that the Witch is "mechanically" superior (OK, granted) thus it is "a much better choice for the role" and that is flat out wrong.
Mechanics are NOT roles. Many point out that a archaeologist bard is better than a Rogue. Mechanically, maybe. But maybe I DON'T WANT SPELLS.
People WANT and LOVE and PLAY the heck out of the plain vanilla fighter. It's a very popular class. What's wrong with that? Why is their CHOICE "badwrongfun" because *YOU* think it's "mechanically" inferior? Heck, Kirth, you have told us many times you don't even play Pathfinder anymore.
"Mechanically superior" is to a large extent a matter of opinion, anyway. Certainly the Witch is mechanically better than the NPC class the Adept- but that's because... [/i]it's a NPC class [/i].
Still, "mechanics' aside, I sometimes do things for ROLEPLAYING reasons, because *I* want to, because it's you, know- "fun". I took a level of Aristo for my Bard, and in a couple of threads posters told me in no uncertain terms I was WRONG to do so. But these are people who can't separate the mechanics from roleplaying. They were calling what I did "badwrongfun".
In our games, and in the designers own games, the Fighter (and the rogue) are solid classes that contribute and are fun to play. So don't go saying "he isn't in most other peoples' games". Speak for your own games (which aren't even Pathfinder, are they?). Don't tell us we're playing wrong if in our games, playing a fighter is fun and the fighter contributes. Because if by "playing wrong" you mean we're playing our games like James Jacobs and not like Kirth Gerson, then I want to "be wrong". I revel in our 'wrongness". I rejoice in our "wrongness". If to be 'right" I have to play with a set of houserules which are the size of one of the core rulebooks, then I want to be "wrong".
So take your "ten myths" and.....
:-)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And yet none of what you said actually refuted 'his' myths. In fact, you only provided a perfect example of them. Also...
People WANT and LOVE and PLAY the heck out of the plain vanilla fighter. It's a very popular class. What's wrong with that? Why is their CHOICE "badwrongfun" because *YOU* think it's "mechanically" inferior?
I'm pretty sure no one is saying "You can't have fun playing a fighter."
I think people are saying, "I like the idea of the fighter, but the execution is flawed in some respects -- the rules don't live up to the billing."
That's STILL not to say you "shouldn't" play a fighter, or that you "can't have fun" playing a fighter, so please stop attacking those strawmen. What's being said is that the design of the fighter class mechanics doesn't live up to the billing that the fighter receives -- and that other classes' mechanical packages can, in many cases, do the fighter's job more efficiently than his actual mechanical package allows.
...it's almost like he answered your question before you asked it.
@ Ashiel: You might want to take a look at Rogue Genius Game's Talented Fighter class link1, link2. It may not have all the things you are wanting, but it is reported to offer a superior chassis that allows a broad range of mechanically viable builds. Where it might still be lacking is in some of the non-combat more narrative type capabilities.
Thanks I'll check 'em out. Currently I'm thinking of a sort of combat style-based chassis and selectable class features. From the sounds of this it seems like a similar process. It's one of the things I've had great success with when designing classes and I find it makes classes more modular and much easier to release supplemental content for.
For example, the barbarian's rage powers. IMHO it's far more elegant to be able to release new rage powers that fit certain themes and/or offer new options that having to re-invent the wheel with each new supplement. The same is true for things like rogue-talents (since even if rogue talents are generally written to be underwhelming, the mechanic for how they select their abilities is really solid).
I did a Fighter archetype for the Magic of Incarna supplement I'm writing for Dreamscarred Press
Awesome! I hope to see it soon. I liked Incarnum but it was really difficult to read. Any chance you guys might be simplifying the explanation of how Incarnum works? While it was really simple when you "got it" I found the book to be daunting for myself and most of the people I know (one of my friends wanted to try it but couldn't make heads or tails of the book).
I'd really like to see like-mechanics explained better. :)
And yet none of what you said actually refuted 'his' myths. In fact, you only provided a perfect example of them. Also...
People WANT and LOVE and PLAY the heck out of the plain vanilla fighter. It's a very popular class. What's wrong with that? Why is their CHOICE "badwrongfun" because *YOU* think it's "mechanically" inferior?...it's almost like he answered your question before you asked it.I'm pretty sure no one is saying "You can't have fun playing a fighter."
I think people are saying, "I like the idea of the fighter, but the execution is flawed in some respects -- the rules don't live up to the billing."
That's STILL not to say you "shouldn't" play a fighter, or that you "can't have fun" playing a fighter, so please stop attacking those strawmen. What's being said is that the design of the fighter class mechanics doesn't live up to the billing that the fighter receives -- and that other classes' mechanical packages can, in many cases, do the fighter's job more efficiently than his actual mechanical package allows.
He does state that some people were calling badwrongfun on what he did in another thread, however.
he does state that some people were calling badwrongfun on what he did in another thread, however.Then he should ask those people why it is badwrongfun.
fair, but it runs contrary to the "noone is saying" part.
The Fighter is there for the players who like a plain solid no frills build, that does two things (tank, dpr), does them well, and nothing weird going on.
Speaking generally, I still haven't found it to tank well - though I do suspect it is probably true that it still makes a fairly solid archer tank I suppose. DPR still isn't what the name claims it is and doesn't actually exist.
(should it be "Mad PR" (maximum average damage per round) in light of its deceptive popular appeal?)
;)
Design Manager
|
I did a Fighter archetype for the Magic of Incarna supplement I'm writing for Dreamscarred PressAwesome! I hope to see it soon. I liked Incarnum but it was really difficult to read. Any chance you guys might be simplifying the explanation of how Incarnum works? While it was really simple when you "got it" I found the book to be daunting for myself and most of the people I know (one of my friends wanted to try it but couldn't make heads or tails of the book).
I'd really like to see like-mechanics explained better. :)
I'm doing everything I can to make sure the mechanics are
a) simplifiedand
b) clarified
I'm always open to suggestions if you feel it's too weighted down by the clunky verbage of the old system.
The Playtest docs for pretty obvious reasons are kind of stripped down, but they're still pretty passable. I'd love if you popped over to the thread and checked out the three new base classes. I also spent a little time talking about the Akashic Warrior over here at GitP.
As said previously I think the Two-Handed Weapon Fighter is excellent, not much, if anything, out-damages it in hand to hand combat.
It's probably true. I've personally seen a two-handed fighter even do good crowd control. The problem for a melee fighter in combat, as I've stated in another thread, is not what happens when they get into melee. The problem is having a reliable way to into melee so that they can make a full attack, against enemies who don't want that (see: all enemies). They're not particularly mobile so they can be pretty easily avoided, and have poor saves so they can be pretty easily stalled by area control spells.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As said previously I think the Two-Handed Weapon Fighter is excellent, not much, if anything, out-damages it in hand to hand combat.
And NOBODY is arguing the fighter falls down on DPR, so it's a moot point.
That's the whole problem here. Too many fighter lovers are saying his DPR is fine, and the rest of us are saying 'We know that, it's EVERYTHING ELSE that honks us off!'
:P
==Aelryinth
And yet none of what you said actually refuted 'his' myths. In fact, you only provided a perfect example of them. Also...
People WANT and LOVE and PLAY the heck out of the plain vanilla fighter. It's a very popular class. What's wrong with that? Why is their CHOICE "badwrongfun" because *YOU* think it's "mechanically" inferior?...it's almost like he answered your question before you asked it.
Just the opposite. He's saying that IN HIS OPINION the mechanics & design of the Fighter are subpar. Yeah, that's his opinion. He seems to be saying that since IN HIS OPINION the mechanics & design of the Fighter are subpar, you shouldn't have fun playing a fighter- because IN HIS OPINION other classes' mechanical packages can, in many cases, do the fighter's job more efficiently. But two things:
1. the mechanics are HIS OPINION.
2. People sometimes don't WANT the best mechanical package- they want the mechanical package they want to play- one that is simple and plain. Why can't they have that? What is so damn wrong with having a simple class? I mean, sure, to many the Ranger is better- but then PLAY THE RANGER. Why turn the fighter into another ranger? It's a choice. Pick the class you prefer.
Neither of these are "myths".
This gets into a weird question of playing what one wants to play without having someone in the same party complaining about it or being manipulative. IIRC, Kirth or Rynjin and I argued that in another thread not too long ago, centering around optimization and other people at the table.
|
Design Manager
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now that's an interesting perspective. Hm....I can vouch for this. It's more like ~80 points but the classes are built on a 120 point spread.
You know what, let me put this another way. If you were take the idea that every class is built on a 50 point spread and then compare the value of the Fighters feats in an actual build to what they actually give him, you'd discover that the Fighter is working with about 10 points less than everyone else.
Call it like a "gamist" perspective if you will, and it's actually a pretty good way to summarize what the people who have been... less than complimentary of the Fighter have been trying to get at. The Fighter has less goodies than everyone else. Numerically, he has less. If you completely took away the Ranger's spellcasting and related features and replaced it with nothing, then the Ranger and Fighter would actually be pretty close to balanced to each other. Pause. Reflect on that.
It's not that the Fighter is bad, it's more like he's incomplete. There is room for the Fighter to do more / be more than he currently is without changing the base chassis very much at all. This could be done via more robust Fighter specific feats, or via grafting additional utility on to the base chassis.
The problem with the Fighter is that he has all of these abilities that are weighted very heavily for their potential, but it's a potential that's never truly realized. "Fighter's can get Weapon Specialition, +2 to all damage rolls!" Cool, you've just emulated 1/2 a first level spell, except it only works for one weapon. This continues on throughout the life of the Fighter. The feats that are unique to him are either super situational, just plain not good, or do something that other classes have been doing for a while, only not as well, and yet these feats are supposed to be as good as an animal companion and 4 levels of spellcasting. They released that nature's ally feat which says (basically) a Ranger Animal Companion is worth two feats. The Ranger also gets 5 bonus feats, so what they're basically saying is that the Fighter's remaining bonus feats after you take out two for the Animal Companion are worth an entire level of spellcasting each (plus some situational abilities like Wild Empathy and Hide in Plain Sight). Seriously. Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization, which together are worth +1/+2 for exactly one weapon are weighted towards the fighter as though they were worth all the Ranger's 1st and 2nd level spells.
The Fighter needs feats that come closer to being as strong as a single level of spellcasting- I'm not saying he should have spellcasting, but he should have feats that are as good as what a Ranger gets from 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th level spells. What if, for example, a Fighter got a feat that looked like this-
Prerequisites: Fighter level 3, Charisma 11+
The Fighter's fearsome reputation goes before him, lending him added powers of persuasion.
The Fighter picks a region where he is well known; this region is a settlement or settlements with a total population of 1,000 or fewer people, and he gains a +2 competence bonus on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks to influence people in that area. As his reputation grows, additional areas learn of him (typically places where he has lived or traveled, or settlements adjacent to those where he is known) and his bonuses apply to even more people. At 6th level, the region is a settlement or settlements with a total population of 5,000 or fewer people, and the modifier on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks is +4. At 10th level, the region is a settlement or settlements with a total population of up to 25,000 people, and the modifier on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks is +6. At 14th level, the region is a settlement or settlements with a total population of up to 100,000 people, and the modifier to Diplomacy and Intimidate is +8. At 18th level and above, his renown has spread far, and most civilized folk know of him (GM's discretion); the modifier on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks is +10.
It's basically just the Famous ability of the Celebrity Bard archetype, but it's insanely appropriate for a Fighter and gives him the skill bonuses he didn't get from his core chassis. As well, it's roughly equivalent to a single level of Ranger spellcasting (not as much versatility, but strong always on bonuses). If the Fighter had some feats like that, he'd be solid.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
He seems to be saying that since IN HIS OPINION the mechanics & design of the Fighter are subpar, you shouldn't have fun playing a fighter-
You are willfully ignoring his statements to the contrary.
That's STILL not to say you "shouldn't" play a fighter, or that you "can't have fun" playing a fighter, so please stop attacking those strawmen.
fair, but it runs contrary to the "noone is saying" part.he does state that some people were calling badwrongfun on what he did in another thread, however.Then he should ask those people why it is badwrongfun.
And in the Paladin thread when I said "My Sorc tactics are "boost the fighter and help him get to the BBEG" as he is a unstoppable killing machine when I do so. " I was flat out told I was playing my sorc wrong.
And so what would be the "mechanically correct" fighter? Check out Kirths 'fix". It goes on for (I am not kidding) 22 pages, with stances, talents, grit, the banner class ability of the Cavalier, and even more. Three Good saves. Strangely, still only 2Skp/level (but there's a confusing plethora of bonus skills).
So, the "mechanically correct" fighter has rcvd a HUGE power boost and no longer has that ease of simplicity that attracts many to the class. This is the "mechanically correct package". More powerful and much more complex. (Still can't teleport or fly or cast Wish, tho).
He seems to be saying that since IN HIS OPINION the mechanics & design of the Fighter are subpar, you shouldn't have fun playing a fighter-
You are willfully ignoring his statements to the contrary.
That's STILL not to say you "shouldn't" play a fighter, or that you "can't have fun" playing a fighter, so please stop attacking those strawmen.
Nope. Sure he says that, but then his posts say the opposite. He's very clear that mechanics & design of the Fighter are subpar thus is a poor choice for the role you're trying to pull off.
His exact words were "is a much better choice for the role I'm trying to pull off." Just reverse that- mechanically inferior is thus a poor choice.
Tell us "I am not saying X!" while indeed, implying it very strongly & obviously is being somewhat disingenuous. It's like the old "I am not saying that xxxx is yyyy but..." and then go on to imply that very thing.
Just the opposite. He's saying that IN HIS OPINION the mechanics & design of the Fighter are subpar. Yeah, that's his opinion. He seems to be saying that since IN HIS OPINION the mechanics & design of the Fighter are subpar, you shouldn't have fun playing a fighter- because IN HIS OPINION other classes' mechanical packages can, in many cases, do the fighter's job more efficiently. But two things:
1. the mechanics are HIS OPINION.
2. People sometimes don't WANT the best mechanical package- they want the mechanical package they want to play- one that is simple and plain. Why can't they have that? What is so damn wrong with having a simple class? I mean, sure, to many the Ranger is better- but then PLAY THE RANGER. Why turn the fighter into another ranger? It's a choice. Pick the class you prefer.
Neither of these are "myths".
1. Everything someone says or thinks is their opinion. Highlighting the fact that what someone thinks is an opinion doesn't make their beliefs any less valid.
2. No one is saying simple classes are bad. Most people would say that the Barbarian is a pretty good class, and it's always a class highly recommended to new players because of the simplicity to achieve its strengths as a class. There's also a debate as to whether or not the fighter actually is a simple class because of all the feat choices and feat trees. I would submit that it's actually a bland class, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, and that makes it easy to customize the class to your liking.
3. It's clear that people don't always want the best mechanical package, otherwise 3.5 would only be played by parties of Druids, Clerics, Artificers, and Wizards. That doesn't mean that some classes can't be made stronger.
I would also postulate that there is a different between people not wanting to play the best mechanical class, and people not caring if they play best mechanical class. I must admit, I can't empathize with the first group because I can't understand purposefully picking a mechanically inferior option. Not simpler, but purposefully inferior. For the latter group, I'd imagine that they wouldn't care if the fighter was made more powerful.
And in the Paladin thread when I said "My Sorc tactics are "boost the fighter and help him get to the BBEG" as he is a unstoppable killing machine when I do so. " I was flat out told I was playing my sorc wrong.fair, but it runs contrary to the "noone is saying" part.he does state that some people were calling badwrongfun on what he did in another thread, however.Then he should ask those people why it is badwrongfun.
Let it be known that I vehemently disagree with whoever told you that. Buffing allies is a great way to play a caster, as it lets them feel like they're star of combat. It doesn't necessarily reflect well on the fighter, but that's a good play by a caster.
fair, but it runs contrary to the "noone is saying" part.he does state that some people were calling badwrongfun on what he did in another thread, however.Then he should ask those people why it is badwrongfun.And in the Paladin thread when I said "My Sorc tactics are "boost the fighter and help him get to the BBEG" as he is a unstoppable killing machine when I do so. " I was flat out told I was playing my sorc wrong.
And so what would be the "mechanically correct" fighter? Check out Kirths 'fix". It goes on for (I am not kidding) 22 pages, with stances, talents, grit, the banner class ability of the Cavalier, and even more. Three Good saves. Strangely, still only 2Skp/level (but there's a confusing plethora of bonus skills).
So, the "mechanically correct" fighter has rcvd a HUGE power boost and no longer has that ease of simplicity that attracts many to the class. This is the "mechanically correct package". More powerful and much more complex. (Still can't teleport or fly or cast Wish, tho).
still not agreeing Kirth everywhere, but his Kirth finder stuff seems fun. Long-winded, but fun. I hope he feels the same for fighters in Freehold.
This is the "mechanically correct package". More powerful and much more complex.
False dichotomy. My fighter rewrite is "a" correct solution, specifically for the preferences of the Houston home game (full of players who like complex stuff), and when used in conjunction with our other houserules (and the power level they imply). It is not "THE correct package" for all scenarios and for all people, because such a thing does not exist. It is, in fact, an incorrect package for many games, as I've also alluded.
In fact, I have pointed out, repeatedly, that scaling back casters' "win button" spells would lead to an alternative scenario, in which more minor fighter tweaks would be a MORE correct approach than a rewritten fighter.
In the future, please do me the honor of addressing what I'm actually saying, not what you think I might be saying about a totally different situation in a totally unrelated thread.
Also, claiming that your (incorrect) inferences are actually another person's intentional (and sinister) implications is fundamentally dishonest. You don't get to decide what other people are thinking.
I did a Fighter archetype for the Magic of Incarna supplement I'm writing for Dreamscarred PressAwesome! I hope to see it soon. I liked Incarnum but it was really difficult to read. Any chance you guys might be simplifying the explanation of how Incarnum works? While it was really simple when you "got it" I found the book to be daunting for myself and most of the people I know (one of my friends wanted to try it but couldn't make heads or tails of the book).
I'd really like to see like-mechanics explained better. :)
I'm doing everything I can to make sure the mechanics are
a) simplified
and
b) clarified
I'm always open to suggestions if you feel it's too weighted down by the clunky verbage of the old system.The Playtest docs for pretty obvious reasons are kind of stripped down, but they're still pretty passable. I'd love if you popped over to the thread and checked out the three new base classes. I also spent a little time talking about the Akashic Warrior over here at GitP.
Sure I'd be more than happy to. It might be sometime between now and tomorrow since I'm about to play Torchlight II with my brother, but I'd definitely love to take a look at them. ^_^
As said previously I think the Two-Handed Weapon Fighter is excellent, not much, if anything, out-damages it in hand to hand combat.It's probably true. I've personally seen a two-handed fighter even do good crowd control. The problem for a melee fighter in combat, as I've stated in another thread, is not what happens when they get into melee. The problem is having a reliable way to into melee so that they can make a full attack, against enemies who don't want that (see: all enemies). They're not particularly mobile so they can be pretty easily avoided, and have poor saves so they can be pretty easily stalled by area control spells.
Full attack is not the end of the world. For when moving you could have the hamatula strike to grapple ruinning the day of any enemy two hadner or the felling smash+greater trip for attack+trip+attack.
Or scimitar plus bashing finish plus shield bash plus shield slam for attack + attack + busll rush + any AoO from your party.
As said previously I think the Two-Handed Weapon Fighter is excellent, not much, if anything, out-damages it in hand to hand combat.And NOBODY is arguing the fighter falls down on DPR, so it's a moot point.
That's the whole problem here. Too many fighter lovers are saying his DPR is fine, and the rest of us are saying 'We know that, it's EVERYTHING ELSE that honks us off!'
:P
==Aelryinth
This is true. For me fighter offensive capabilities are great even among all the pwoercreep the otehr full BAB have enjoyed. Unforutnately he lack of out of combat options and he suffers witht the saves.
You can fix ALL of the Fighter's problems while still being completely within the rules of Pathfinder. Saying that people who don't have problems with the fighter are not playing Pathfinder is just being an arse.Let's separate "rule zero" from "the rules of Pathfinder," and that might change your opinion. Generally fighters are made to feel like they contribute at higher levels because the DM warps eveything around that goal. I've done it myself, in many campaigns. But with a DM who acts as a referee rather than as a story writer, invoking RAW rather than plot points -- and with casters not pulling their punches or adhering to elaborate gentlemen's agreements -- then that feeling is very quickly diminished.
TL/DR: If fighters contribute extremely well because of DM intervention, that's a feature of the DM, and not a feature of the fighter class mechanics.
IMHO: The GM acting as referee is more likely to not be playing Pathfinder, than the any other kind of GM.
Also you don't need rule-0 to address "problems" with the fighter.
still not agreeing Kirth everywhere, but his Kirth finder stuff seems fun. Long-winded, but fun. I hope he feels the same for fighters in Freehold.
Very imaginative and interesting. In no way am I suggesting that it's a bad thing. Just that, crikies- it *is* complex and as you said 'long winded'. Most of the guys I know that like playing Fighters want anything BUT complex and long winded. They want to kill things with pointy things.
Like I said, I personally much prefer Ranger and paladin. I like deep & complex. But PF has enough classes there's room for every player type.
You don't get to decide what other people are thinking.
What , you mean this metal thing I have on with holes in it (and a little dried pasta) [i]isn't[i/] a helm of Telepathy?!?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Act as flamebait?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I might be wrong, don't think anyone is saying "I hate fighters."
I'm pretty sure no one is saying "You can't have fun playing a fighter."I think people are saying, "I like the idea of the fighter, but the execution is flawed in some respects -- the rules don't live up to the billing."
That's STILL not to say you "shouldn't" play a fighter, or that you "can't have fun" playing a fighter, so please stop attacking those strawmen. What's being said is that the design of the fighter class mechanics doesn't live up to the billing that the fighter receives -- and that other classes' mechanical packages can, in many cases, do the fighter's job more efficiently than his actual mechanical package allows.
Say I want to play "a skillful character," so I read names and descriptions, and decide to play an Expert. I can have a lot of fun playing an Expert, but the rogue's mechanical package is actually a lot better for what I'm trying to do. Likewise, if I want to play a hedge magician with a familiar, I can have a lot of fun playing an Adept, but the Witch class, mechanically, is a much better choice for the role I'm trying to pull off. If I want to play an armored combatant who kills enemies and protects my allies, I can play a warrior or a fighter, but those choices aren't necessarily the best choices to accomplish that goal.
This has all been explained ad nauseum, of course, but the same people keep erecting the same tired old strawmen .
It's not a strawman in the slightest. Those who hate playing fighters will never like them. Not a single person who favors the ranger over the fighter will ever claim that fighters are good at filling certain roles. It just won't happen. They beat around the bush constantly saying everything other than "they suck" but even this thread title is suggesting the very same thing. It's not a strawman at all. If they didn't think that the fighter sucked then they wouldn't handwave away every single thing that someone posts as good about the fighter. They do. They even put it in the lower tiers along with the monk and rogue. So let's be honest about this: people who think that the ranger is superior in every way to the fighter honestly believe that the fighter sucks. They don't put it on a spectrum or scale. They only speak in binary terms: ranger always better than fighter - all situations, all campaigns, all play styles, all the time.
1) Races are not a fighter feature.
2) Anyone can put points into skills but it's harder for a Fighter. My Psion is 9th level in my GM's Friday game. I've got skill points tacked around all over the place. She's got ranks in Stealth, Perception, Knowledge skills, Linguistics, Heal, Disable Device, Bluff, Diplomacy, the works. Little of this is because of her class however and just more because I like dipping and tend to try to get the most bang for my buck when it comes to investing skill points - because I have a lot of system mastery.
Incorrect. There are fighter options available only to certain races. There are fighter options that grant more skill points and access to more skills.
The reason I mention that people are saying that "people shouldn't play fighters" is because this thread alone is meant to say just such a thing. It's a loaded question. It isn't meant to elicit information. It's meant to start an argument.
And for the record: liking the idea of the fighter is not the same as liking the fighter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not a strawman in the slightest. Those who hate playing fighters will never like them. Not a single person who favors the ranger over the fighter will ever claim that fighters are good at filling certain roles. It just won't happen.
I favor the Ranger over the fighter.
The fighter is better at combat maneuvers thanks to the Lore Warden Archetype, and the extra feats they have to complete the long chains required to be successful at them.
They beat around the bush constantly saying everything other than "they suck" but even this thread title is suggesting the very same thing.
It's a question. It doesn't suggest anything. We inject a tone into it, which is easy to do because it's only text and not audio.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how heavy armor really means anything.
3 more AC wont save you enough from a monster swinging at +30.
A simple +1 to any stat could mean the difference between life and death. At ANY level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Simple question, what do you see as the Fighter's niche that the Ranger is unable to imitate?
Bathing.
Rangers taste like moldy green tea.
A simple +1 to any stat could mean the difference between life and death. At ANY level.I don't see how heavy armor really means anything.
3 more AC wont save you enough from a monster swinging at +30.
Do not forget that a lot of times is just not a +30 but a +30/+25/+20. that +3 make the DPR to falls. How much? not sure, somebody shold made the calculation.
So if fighters get 12 bonus feats, but Rangers get 5, you have to ask yourself if 7 feats, Bravery, Armor Training and Weapon Training and the capstone ability are worth all the Ranger abilities as stated.
So the 12 feats thing applies to going to 20, how many feats do you think the Tracker package of Wild Empathy, Track, Endurance, Woodland Stride, Swift Tracker, Camoflague, Hide in Plain Sight, Favored Enemy bonuses when tracking, Quarry bonuses when tracking and 4 Favored Terrains is worth?
In a point-buy system you'd easily see that the Fighter has spent less points on his character but is meant to keep up with the other characters.
He's spent 200 and the Ranger, Paladin and Barbarian have spent about 300 and the full casters have spent about 350 to 400 or more.
Yet 1 Level of Fighter is supposed to be "worth" 1 level of Ranger but no point-buy system would shake things out like that.
Your argument would seem to be valid. If not for the major part you're leaving out, which is that not all feats are available to all classes, and some are specifically available only to the fighter. Rangers do not qualify for many, many feats which can easily make the fighter much more deadly against a wider range of foes and with a wider range of weapons.
The relative blankness of the fighter's class table is misleading. In gaining bonus feats, the fighter is getting class abilities through a backdoor. But he IS getting them.
A simple +1 to any stat could mean the difference between life and death. At ANY level.Especially if that +1 turns a BAB to +6 instead of +5.
This is true, but I think we forget the importance of minor stat boosts to combat stats at high levels because an +2 looks less important when it's next to a base +30 modifier. I hold that the +3 to a skill from something being a class skill is ultimately inconsequential, but I'm not sure that's the case for attack rolls at armor class. Skill DCs are pretty much static, except for opposed rolls (but those numbers get really crazy at high levels anyway), attack bonuses and armor class are not.
Let's compare a level 5 character, with a +10 (5 BAB, +4 Str, +1 weapon) to attack and a level 15 character with a +23/+18/+13 (15 BAB, +6 Str, +2 weapon) to attack. You'd think that a +2 bonus to attack wouldn't matter as much at a higher level, but that's not necessarily the case.
CR 5 monster AC, per Bestiary monster creation rules: 18
CR 15 monster AC, per Bestiary monster creation rules: 30
The level 5 character needs an 8 to hit the monster without the modifier, and a 6 with the modifier to hit the creature. That's a +10% swing
The level 15 characer needs a 7 to hit the monster without the modifier, and a 5 with the modifier. That's still a +10% swing. That extra 10% chance follows through to the other iterative attacks, so in ways that +2 is actually more valuable to a higher level character than a level 1 character.
Rangers do not qualify for many, many feats which can easily make the fighter much more deadly against a wider range of foes and with a wider range of weapons.
The relative blankness of the fighter's class table is misleading. In gaining bonus feats, the fighter is getting class abilities through a backdoor. But he IS getting them.
But there are not many good combat feats, once you get your combat style feats out of the way. Eventually you start to consider taking Weapon Specialization because nothing else looks appealing.
Fighter-only feats in particular tend to be underwhelming.