Ash, where are you getting the bonus to attack and damage at 8th? Might of the Gods only applies to Strength and Strength-based skill checks.
My bad. That's what I get for posting after being up all night. >_>
I was going from memory and forgot there was an extra condition and was thinking that it was just an enhancement bonus. (o_o)"
Oh well, for everything else there's mastercard divine power. :P
I like prestige classes but I think there were too many that were just slapped together in 3.5 (not just from WotC either). I really liked the ones that blended two classes together. It made multiclassing not be so detrimental. I also liked the ones that moved your character into a non-standard direction. Most of the prestige classes could have gone away and been replaced with simple feats, some with longer feat trees or heavy prerequisites. Too many of them also really favored casters. You didn't give up any spellcasting and you gained several abilities beyond the one every few levels. There wasn't much of a sacrifice for most casters but non-casters gave up quite a bit that was level dependent (qualifying for fighter bonus feats, sneak attack, rage, etc.).
As for my comment before about certain races making for different fighters that others can't get, it's not just about synergy. There are archetypes only available to certain races. Certain races have abilities that turn combat feats that you would have to take as a character feat and allow you to take it as a class feat. Some actually are only available to certain races completely.
Now, whether or not those options are good, bad, or average are entirely up for debate and will vary greatly from campaign to campaign.
Archetypes that require a specific race:
1. Airborne Ambusher (Strix)
2. Cavern Sniper (Drow)
3. Dirty Fighter (Orc)
4. Foehammer (Dwarf)
5. Swarm Fighter (Kobold)
Combat Feats available only to certain races:
1. Ankle Biter (Goblin)
2. Banner of Doom (Tiefling)
3. Blazing Aura (Ifrit)
4. Blinding Sneak Attack (Tiefling)
5. Blistering Feint (Ifrit)
6. Blood Beak (Tengu)
7. Blundering Defense (Halfling)
8. Brutal Grappler (Half-orc or Orc)
9. Bullying Blow (Orc)
10. Cautious Fighter (Halfling)
11. Claw Pounce (Catfolk)
12. Cleave Through (Dwarf)
13. Cloven Helm (Dwarf)
14. Combat Distraction (Goblin)
15. Critical Versatility (Human)
16. Deathless Initiate (Half-orc or Orc)
17. Deathless Master (Half-orc or Orc)
18. Deathless Zealot (Half-orc or Orc)
19. Demoralizing Lash (Hobgoblin)
20. Desperate Swing (Halfling)
21. Destroyer's Blessing (Half-orc or Orc)
22. Dog-Sniff-Hate (Goblin)
23. Earth Child Binder (Dwarf or Gnome)
24. Earth Child Style (Dwarf or Gnome)
25. Earth Child Topple (Dwarf or Gnome)
26. Elven Accuracy (Elf)
27. Elven Battle Training (Elf)
28. Ferocious Tenacity (Half-orc or Orc)
29. Final Embrace (Naga, serpentfolk, or other creature that can constrict)
30. Final Embrace Horror (Naga, serpentfolk, or other creature that can constrict)
31. Final Embrace Master (Naga, serpentfolk, or other creature that can constrict)
32. Fire Hand (Goblin)
33. Fury of the Tainted (Tiefling)
34. Giant Killer (Dwarf)
35. Gloom Strike (Fletchling)
36. Gnome Weapon Focus (Gnome)
37. Goblin Cleaver (Dwarf)
38. Goblin Gunslinger (Goblin)
39. Gore Fiend (Half-orc or Orc)
40. Great Hatred (Gnome)
41. Grudge Fighter (Orc)
42. Halfling Slinger (Halfling)
43. Hardheaded (Dwarf)
44. Haunted Gnome (Gnome)
45. Haunted Gnome Assault (Gnome)
46. Hainted Gnome Shroud (Gnome)
47. Improved Fury of the Tainted (Tiefling)
48. Improved Low Blow (Halfling)
49. Kobold Flood (Kobold)
50. Kobold Groundling (Kobold)
51. Lead from the Back (Goblin)
52. Let them Come (Dwarf)
53. Lucky Strike (Halfling)
54. Martial Mastery (Human)
55. Martial Versatility (Human)
56. Natural Jouster (Centaur)
57. Orc Hewer (Dwarf)
58. Orc Weapon Expertise (Orc)
59. Reverse-Feint (Orc)
60. Risky Striker (Halfling)
61. Roll with it (Goblin)
62. Saddle Shrieker (Goblin)
63. Scorching Weapons (Ifrit)
64. Sea Hunter (Merfolk)
65. Sharpclaw (Ratfolk)
66. Smash (Half-orc or Orc)
67. Spit Venom (Nagaji)
68. Surprise Strike (Halfling)
69. Sympathetic Rage (Half-orc or Orc)
70. Tail Terror (Kobold)
71. Tanglefeet (Goblin)
72. Tantrum (Gnome)
73. Taskmaster (Hobgoblin)
74. Terrorizing Display (Hobgoblin)
75. Tree Hanger (Vanara)
76. Twin Thunders (Dwarf or Gnome)
77. Twin Thunders Flurry (Dwarf or Gnome)
78. Twin Thunders Master (Dwarf or Gnome)
79. Uncanny Defense (Halfling)
80. Vast Hatred (Gnome)
81. Vulpine Pounce (Kitsune)
82. Witty Feint (Gnome)
There were plenty of feats that were based on being size Small or smaller and several for size Large and larger. There were also several feats that were not specific for certain races but would need certain racial abilities (e.g. darkvision or scent). There were also many that required the character to multiclass in some way. Maybe they would need spellcasting, rage, just being a wizard, hexes, etc. These open up new options for the character that give the fighter more bonus feats to choose from.
The moment the combat feat becomes available to the fighter because of other prerequisites, it's potentially a fighter class ability. It allows the fighter to take other feats as character feats. For example, an orc taking Moonlight Stalker, Moonlight Stalker Feint, and Moonlight Stalker Master is able to take Iron Will, Improved Scent, and Keen Scent at will be at an advantage over the human who also wants to fight in concealment.
Fighters are able to do things that other classes can't do. Other classes can do things that the fighter can't do. It's up to the player to decided which class or combination of classes will allow them to play the type of character they want. For many people, the fighter won't give them the features they want. For many other, it gives them exactly what they want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know this is awfully simple of me but, I personally wish people would stop bashing fighters. Yeah they might not be that versatile out of combat, some people dont care. Can a Ranger be made that outshines fighter in combat? Thats variable on many factors. Can a fighter be enjoyable? Well , I dm'd for a player in 3.5 that went all the way to level 24 with a fighter 14/ weaponmaster 10, his most memorable character so far in the years we've played together. So, I guess I feel the class can be fun, it can be good to great at fighting and yes it has flaws.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know this is awfully simple of me but, I personally wish people would stop bashing fighters. Yeah they might not be that versatile out of combat, some people dont care. Can a Ranger be made that outshines fighter in combat? Thats variable on many factors. Can a fighter be enjoyable? Well , I dm'd for a player in 3.5 that went all the way to level 24 with a fighter 14/ weaponmaster 10, his most memorable character so far in the years we've played together. So, I guess I feel the class can be fun, it can be good to great at fighting and yes it has flaws.
Thats completely fine. No one is saying you can't have a good time with a Fighter.
Could a Fighter be made funner out of combat? Definitely! Is there room for improving the design of the Fighter? Most assuredly!
Would you say the Fighter is perfect as is? Pretty useless outside of situations that can be solved by SMASH? Everyone(Barring few exceptions) can fight well. What makes classes special is what they do aside from that.
By pointing out these flaws, we can hopefully influence future decisions to grant the Fighter some degree of out of combat ability.
The point of these discussions and like discussions on say the Rogue or Monk is to point out really flawed areas in class design so that they can be made better on a whole.
I know this is awfully simple of me but, I personally wish people would stop bashing fighters. Yeah they might not be that versatile out of combat, some people dont care. Can a Ranger be made that outshines fighter in combat? Thats variable on many factors.
In most combat? I doubt it, but certainly the ranger will shine more than the fighter in several combats.
By the other hand the fighter NEVER shine more out of combat than the ranger.
Such disparity seems to not disturb you but ir does really annoys me.
IF the figther get more out of combat utility then the same poeple that did not care before woudl still not care. B the other hand people like would find the game to be better.
It just feels kind of irritating when some of us say "We'd like to see better saving throws on the Fighter. They used to have great saves back in the day, now they have nearly the worst and it shows",
Not so great back in AD&D days, it depended. But Fighters only have one Goof save, and the reason is simple- D20. That's the way the fighter was in 3.0, thus 3.5 and then PF as PF was just a bunch of houserules for 3.5 for a while. And, they wanted to change as little as possible. Why does it still have only one good save and 2skp? The customer base doesn't care about it enuf to justify a 2nd edition re-write. They make a handful of people happy, and many, many more would say "That's just what WoTC did, and I am not putting up with new 'editions" every few years just to sell more books".
And frankly- LOTS of player choose Fighter and really enjoy playing it. Most of the people I see screaming the loudest about it seem to either play full spellcasters- or they don't even play PF at all.
Would you say the Fighter is perfect as is? Pretty useless outside of situations that can be solved by SMASH? Everyone(Barring few exceptions) can fight well. What makes classes special is what they do aside from that.By pointing out these flaws, we can hopefully influence future decisions to grant the Fighter some degree of out of combat ability.
The guys I see playing fighters dont seem to want much other than SMASH. If they wanted more than smash, if they wanted a fighter with lots of Skills and two good saves- then they play a Ranger.
If you want a warrior with skills- ranger. With many cool abilities- barbarian, with spells and holyness- Paladin. Then there's the cavalier and the samurai.
Why must we change the fighter away from what it is and what the guys who play it want it to be? Why must the Fighter become another ranger? Why can't the guys who want to play the ranger...play a ranger? Let the guys who want to play a fighter- play one. There's nothing to fix. The fighter is what it is as that appeals to certain players. Why can't they have that?
And heck there's even a few Fighter archetypes that get some of those things.
You know, there's some guys that want a scoop of vanilla ice cream. Sure, to YOU, it's taste better with some hot fudge, some whip cream, chopped nuts a cherry and maybe some jimmies.
But he just wants a scoop of vanilla. Why can't he have it? Why must you INSIST that he MUST have fudge on his ice cream because you would like it better that way?
I know this is awfully simple of me but, I personally wish people would stop bashing fighters. Yeah they might not be that versatile out of combat, some people dont care. Can a Ranger be made that outshines fighter in combat? Thats variable on many factors.In most combat? I doubt it, but certainly the ranger will shine more than the fighter in several combats.
By the other hand the fighter NEVER shine more out of combat than the ranger.
Such disparity seems to not disturb you but ir does really annoys me.
IF the figther get more out of combat utility then the same poeple that did not care before woudl still not care. B the other hand people like would find the game to be better.
The, gee... I dunno... why not PLAY A RANGER?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually really like playing fighters. Even in 3.5 they were a blast.
I can't stand favored enemy mechanics(you basically are hoping to not see new things. Where is the thirst for adventure?) and no a 3rd level spell in a 4 level spell progression class doesn't magically solve all problems. Rangers have their appeal, but I would choose the fighter mechanically every time.
Out-of-Combat is the easiest place to make up for weaknesses with cleverness. The nature of the game really enforces this. It's in combat and dungeons where improv falters and the fighter's mechanics shine. Fighters just love dungeons, puts everything into cleave range. I just love my 3-5 attacks at lvl 4.
Sure high level play is more about your Christmas tree, but I feel like my character is wearing the story and is powered by accomplishments.
Who cares if the wizard can batman? Especially when one of his favorite strategies is to gate the fighter into the BBEG's bathtub.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When a Wizard can start the game out with 7 skill points per level as opposed to the Fighter's 1-3, AND bend reality to his whim?
Gee, I wonder which class is more appealing, and this is way down at the bottom levels where Fighters are fairly useful (albeit less useful than their Barbarian/Ranger/Paladin peers, imo)
I am sure that to you triple fudge ripple with hot fudge, some whip cream, chopped nuts a cherry and maybe some jimmies is FAR "more appealing" than a scoop of plain vanilla. So, then why don;t you play a wizard/eat triple fudge ripple with hot fudge, some whip cream, chopped nuts a cherry and maybe some jimmies and let the other guy play a fighter/plain vanilla. Why is his decision to play a fighter badwrongfun, so badwrongfun that you must take his scoop of ice cream away from him and apply hot fudge, some whip cream, chopped nuts a cherry and maybe some jimmies because it's better for you dammit and you'll eat that hot fudge and like it as I know it tastes better!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The, gee... I dunno... why not PLAY A RANGER?I know this is awfully simple of me but, I personally wish people would stop bashing fighters. Yeah they might not be that versatile out of combat, some people dont care. Can a Ranger be made that outshines fighter in combat? Thats variable on many factors.In most combat? I doubt it, but certainly the ranger will shine more than the fighter in several combats.
By the other hand the fighter NEVER shine more out of combat than the ranger.
Such disparity seems to not disturb you but ir does really annoys me.
IF the figther get more out of combat utility then the same poeple that did not care before woudl still not care. B the other hand people like would find the game to be better.
There are several reason actually.
1) Magic, perhaps I do not want it.
2) I despise Favored enemy
3) I perhaps would like a non-animal companion build
4) heavy armor
5) I like fighter's straight non-situational big numbers
6) I like the big amount of build fighter have avaliable.
7) I prefer sustain combat prowess and not nova ones.
Are you saying that rangers are actually better than fighters, and that that is a good thing that nobody should complain or something?
Because the Fighter won't stop being vanilla if he gets a good will save and more skills per level. He'll still be the simple mundane weapon and armor feat guy who either hits you with a pointy stick or shoots one at you. He'll just be a little less likely to hit his friends with said stick and be a little more useful between fights.
And this.
If you have a concept you want to make using the fighter class then It is not like 2 extra skills per level would ruin it for you.
The, gee... I dunno... why not PLAY A RANGER?I know this is awfully simple of me but, I personally wish people would stop bashing fighters. Yeah they might not be that versatile out of combat, some people dont care. Can a Ranger be made that outshines fighter in combat? Thats variable on many factors.In most combat? I doubt it, but certainly the ranger will shine more than the fighter in several combats.
By the other hand the fighter NEVER shine more out of combat than the ranger.
Such disparity seems to not disturb you but ir does really annoys me.
IF the figther get more out of combat utility then the same poeple that did not care before woudl still not care. B the other hand people like would find the game to be better.
There are several reason actually.
1) Magic, perhaps I do not want it.
2) I despise Favored enemy
3) I perhaps would like a non-animal companion build
4) heavy armor
5) I like fighter straight non-situational big numbers
6) I like the big number of build fighter have avaliable.
7) I prefer sustain combat prowess and not nova ones.Are you saying that rangers are actually better than fighters, and that that is a good thing that nobody should complain or something?
1. There's an archetype or two for that.
2.There's an archetype or two for that.3.There's an archetype or two for that.
4.There's a feat for that. Or Multiclass.
etc
No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying rangers are better in NON combat sitreps.
Because the Fighter won't stop being vanilla if he gets a good will save and more skills per level. He'll still be the simple mundane weapon and armor feat guy who either hits you with a pointy stick or shoots one at you. He'll just be a little less likely to hit his friends with said stick and be a little more useful between fights.And this.
If you have a concept you want to make using the fighter class then It is not like 2 extra skills per level would ruin it for you.
Buying a whole new set of rulebooks and loosing half the Paizo customer base WOULD ruin it for me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Buying a whole new set of rulebooks and loosing half the Paizo customer base WOULD ruin it for me.Because the Fighter won't stop being vanilla if he gets a good will save and more skills per level. He'll still be the simple mundane weapon and armor feat guy who either hits you with a pointy stick or shoots one at you. He'll just be a little less likely to hit his friends with said stick and be a little more useful between fights.And this.
If you have a concept you want to make using the fighter class then It is not like 2 extra skills per level would ruin it for you.
If only there was some kind of free online database from which one could reference this extremely small rules cha-OH WAIT THERE IS
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Buying a whole new set of rulebooks and loosing half the Paizo customer base WOULD ruin it for me.Because the Fighter won't stop being vanilla if he gets a good will save and more skills per level. He'll still be the simple mundane weapon and armor feat guy who either hits you with a pointy stick or shoots one at you. He'll just be a little less likely to hit his friends with said stick and be a little more useful between fights.And this.
If you have a concept you want to make using the fighter class then It is not like 2 extra skills per level would ruin it for you.
Why is that? it would be like the easiest errate ever. They have errated bigger things in the past.
Loosing half the paizo customers? really?. "look, they give the fighter better skills, damn paizo, I will never buy any other of their books".
The, gee... I dunno... why not PLAY A RANGER?I know this is awfully simple of me but, I personally wish people would stop bashing fighters. Yeah they might not be that versatile out of combat, some people dont care. Can a Ranger be made that outshines fighter in combat? Thats variable on many factors.In most combat? I doubt it, but certainly the ranger will shine more than the fighter in several combats.
By the other hand the fighter NEVER shine more out of combat than the ranger.
Such disparity seems to not disturb you but ir does really annoys me.
IF the figther get more out of combat utility then the same poeple that did not care before woudl still not care. B the other hand people like would find the game to be better.
There are several reason actually.
1) Magic, perhaps I do not want it.
2) I despise Favored enemy
3) I perhaps would like a non-animal companion build
4) heavy armor
5) I like fighter straight non-situational big numbers
6) I like the big number of build fighter have avaliable.
7) I prefer sustain combat prowess and not nova ones.Are you saying that rangers are actually better than fighters, and that that is a good thing that nobody should complain or something?
1. There's an archetype or two for that.
2.There's an archetype or two for that.
3.There's an archetype or two for that.
4.There's a feat for that. Or Multiclass.
etcNo, I am not saying that at all. I am saying rangers are better in NON combat sitreps.
Multiples archetypes that do not mix instead of the combat package the fighte offers.
For example if I take the guide archetype to replace favored enemy then I now have a nova mechanics.
EDIT: and note that rangers can not use their combat styles in heavy armor.
A 14 int fighter just have less out of combat utility than a 7 int ranger. In what world that can be good?
Give the fighter 2 more skills and ther ranger would still have more skills points, a better skill list, bonus to skill points due to favored enemy and favored terrain, bonus to survival, better stealth due to camouflage and HIPs, spells and extra senses due to his pet.
Aka, the ranger would still be way ahead, the fighter would not step in the ranger shoes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would you say the Fighter is perfect as is? Pretty useless outside of situations that can be solved by SMASH? Everyone(Barring few exceptions) can fight well. What makes classes special is what they do aside from that.By pointing out these flaws, we can hopefully influence future decisions to grant the Fighter some degree of out of combat ability.
The guys I see playing fighters dont seem to want much other than SMASH. If they wanted more than smash, if they wanted a fighter with lots of Skills and two good saves- then they play a Ranger.
If you want a warrior with skills- ranger. With many cool abilities- barbarian, with spells and holyness- Paladin. Then there's the cavalier and the samurai.
Why must we change the fighter away from what it is and what the guys who play it want it to be? Why must the Fighter become another ranger? Why can't the guys who want to play the ranger...play a ranger? Let the guys who want to play a fighter- play one. There's nothing to fix. The fighter is what it is as that appeals to certain players. Why can't they have that?
And heck there's even a few Fighter archetypes that get some of those things.
You know, there's some guys that want a scoop of vanilla ice cream. Sure, to YOU, it's taste better with some hot fudge, some whip cream, chopped nuts a cherry and maybe some jimmies.
But he just wants a scoop of vanilla. Why can't he have it? Why must you INSIST that he MUST have fudge on his ice cream because you would like it better that way?
Hrm. I don't think having more options would suddenly make him dislike his Fighter. More choices=/=Ranger. I was pretty sure the big draw of the Fighter was getting a bunch of feats and options to choose from there to diversify yourself.
Heck getting 4 skill points per level isn't going to change those Fighters that much. Getting Perception added to their skill list isn't going to change them that much. Being able to fulfill the conceptual image of Watch Guard more than mediocre-ly isn't going to change the way your Fighter feels.
And I'm really disappointed in your argument DrDeth.
You've basically said that because some people want their fighters a certain way, other people who want some other stuff while still allowing the former people to have their Fighter how they like it have to suffer.
I can't endorse that kind of closeminded thinking and I hope Paizo doesn't feel the same as you. I dearly hope so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't stand favored enemy mechanics(you basically are hoping to not see new things. Where is the thirst for adventure?)
I play rangers pretty frequently (though lately I have been addicted to playing around with refluffed psions to make a variety of exotic magical folk that I've had ideas for but no way to make work with core) and I can tell you that choosing favored enemies for Rangers tends to be pretty easy for the most part. >_>
For example, Favored Enemy [Undead], Favored Enemy [Magical Beasts], Favored Enemy [Aberrations], Favored Enemy [Evil Outsiders]. Favored Enemy [Construct]. The only campaigns these sorts of favored enemy options aren't going to pop up in semi-frequently are the ones that lack the sense of adventure you describe. >_>
and no a 3rd level spell in a 4 level spell progression class doesn't magically solve all problems. Rangers have their appeal, but I would choose the fighter mechanically every time.
Funny you should mention that. You're absolutely right that no 3rd level spell is going to solve all problems. Fortunately we have 1st-4th level spells and that gets us close enough. Rangers jump out the gate with their spellcasting offering great problem solving options like energy resistances, the ability to prevent poison and heal diseases, large crowd-control abilities, and freedom of ****ing movement (a strait up holy grail effect for martials). The fact that Rangers can also cast a spell as a swift action and make their strong martial capability skyrocket vs a hard enemy is just gravy.
Out-of-Combat is the easiest place to make up for weaknesses with cleverness. The nature of the game really enforces this. It's in combat and dungeons where improv falters and the fighter's mechanics shine. Fighters just love dungeons, puts everything into cleave range. I just love my 3-5 attacks at lvl 4.
Can you give an example of this cleverness you speak of? Because I'm not really seeing how being a Fighter helps in dungeons. Is it the molds they can't hurt? The traps they can't find? Or is it the fact that Cleave is bad and should feel bad *zoidberg*?" :P
Sure high level play is more about your Christmas tree, but I feel like my character is wearing the story and is powered by accomplishments.
Hmm, I think you're talking about receiving tons of shiny things in the form of magic items. Meanwhile other martial characters are bringing their own shiny things. Fighters are heavily reliant on magic items for problem solving though, so I can understand your concern here.
Who cares if the wizard can batman? Especially when one of his favorite strategies is to gate the fighter into the BBEG's bathtub.
I find it humorous that I don't really ever compare Fighters to wizards. Nor do I find wizards to be the end-all-be-all of Pathfinder play. I'm more amused by Fighter vs *insert other core martial class here* since those do the same thing that the fighter does, often as well or only marginally less, while bringing far more to the table than being a stick-wielding meatbag.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some people just want to smash, and that's good enough for them. Why shouldn't they be able to smash while also enjoying meaningful class-based save bonuses, and better out-of-combat mechanics?
I know this is awfully simple of me but, I personally wish people would stop bashing fighters. Yeah they might not be that versatile out of combat, some people dont care. Can a Ranger be made that outshines fighter in combat? Thats variable on many factors. Can a fighter be enjoyable? Well , I dm'd for a player in 3.5 that went all the way to level 24 with a fighter 14/ weaponmaster 10, his most memorable character so far in the years we've played together. So, I guess I feel the class can be fun, it can be good to great at fighting and yes it has flaws.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
90% of the appeal of fighter's for me is their lack of per day/encounter abilities outside of HP.
Since Kirth is posting, I thought I'd bring it up.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
90% of the appeal of fighter's for me is their lack of per day/encounter abilities outside of HP.
Since Kirth is posting, I thought I'd bring it up.
Mmm. This can be done, and done well, but it's kinda difficult to both write and to sell. I mean, look at Warlock. When it first came out, everyone's jaws dropped to the floor. Endless casting? What was WotC smoking?
Then we played them and figured out that what they were smoking was powdered nerf bats, 'cause Warlock sucked.
Now in PF there's still a perception amongst the community that sustainable class features are super strong all on their own. I mean...people defend weapon specialization, man. Tagging Fighter some effective/dynamic all-day abilities means selling the concept past those folks.
Warlock was the best class ever!
Weapon focus and specialization is just unneeded in PF with weapon training and gloves of dueling. It's something you did in 3.5 because you had too, now there is just FAR less reason to limit yourself to one weapon.
90% of the appeal of fighter's for me is their lack of per day/encounter abilities outside of HP.
Since Kirth is posting, I thought I'd bring it up.
Well part of the thing with that is they aren't very flexible because of it. They are hardcore proponents of the "4 equal CR encounters per day" mindset. They don't have any method of pacing themselves which creates some real issues.
For example, a Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin can comfortably adapt to the needs of an adventure. If the GM places a marathon session of low-CR encounters spread over an extended period, these classes do very well, needing to expend little to no resources. If however the reverse is true and they need to step up and meet the demands of a higher-CR encounter then they can start popping their big guns (smite, rage-cycling, buffs, instant-enemy, etc), which makes more flexible from a narrative perspective.
Meanwhile the Fighter only goes at one speed which is (when made competently) a bit better than a Ranger or Paladin without buffs, but they lack the ability to pace themselves in an endurance game (they only soak party resources rather than adding to them) and they can't adapt to harder encounters either (okay, turns out you're getting a APL+2-3 encounter, pray hard).
Here's a funny secret. My brother plays a Paladin. About the only resource he uses fairly regularly is Lay on Hands (which is nothing more than "Have more HP") and he doesn't even near running out of that in most sessions (because his AC and saves are greeeaaat~). In most encounters he doesn't bother using smite, or even bother casting spells (most of his spells are for out of combat or are on hold for emergencies in combat). He does quite well. But when he comes across an enemy who means to tear him a new one, smiiiiite.
I had to run him a side-session in the current campaign I'm running because he split up with the party to go do some information gathering and track down someone. While he was looking for the family of a vampire victim in his care, he was attacked by a vampire assassin and a dominated psychic warrior thrall). He fought both of them off without dying (even though the assassin got a death-attack sneak attack off on him, he saved and healed up while fighting them both off as they were flanking him).
In the end, he ended up killing the vampire and then knocking the dominated psychic warrior unconscious by making his sword merciful (Paladins yo) and knocking him on his butt.
I'll never understand how someone can say with a strait face "It's better to need it and not have it" instead of "It's better to have it and not need it". >_>
I assume he's referencing me because I balance most of the nifty combat tricks in KF using action economy instead of uses per day?
But when your bro is not smiting his to-hit and damage is less than a fighter. His saves are higher, but a fighter's AC would be higher because of armor training and pumping dex more.
Does the paladin win out? Sure, but that is not to say the fighter does not have mechanical advantages.
I assume he's referencing me because I balance most of the nifty combat tricks in KF using action economy instead of uses per day?
I saw grit on the fighter's table. -_- watching you...
I saw grit on the fighter's table. -_- watching you...
That's about the only one I couldn't think of a slick work-around for. Make sure to take a look at how [strike] and [stance] feats work instead.
90% of the appeal of fighter's for me is their lack of per day/encounter abilities outside of HP.
It is a good portion of the appeal to me I Admit. Everyone else nova, lets have a class that do not.
There are mechanical advantages of just one speed all day. I basically have not problem with the combat proess of the fighter, they need better saves, and perhaps fighter only feat that let then do cool things but taht is all in my mind.
It just taht there is also mechanical advantages of Nova, it is just wrong to think that fighter are better combatant because they can fight all day, it is just a mistake that the paizo Devs do not want to see or admit.
Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages, therefoe there is NO need for fighter to lack of out of combat utility. The lack of out of combat utility is what really really annoys me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But when your bro is not smiting his to-hit and damage is less than a fighter.
Not by enough to matter, which is the point. He has had no problems what-so-ever with smacking enemies around and he's a sword & board Paladin. >_>
His saves are higher, but a fighter's AC would be higher because of armor training and pumping dex more.
In the last combat the enemies weren't able to hit him effectively and it even turned out that he was short-changing himself on AC 'cause he forgot he upgraded his light shield recently and wasn't adding the enhancement bonus.
Also, Dexterity doesn't grow on trees.
Does the paladin win out? Sure, but that is not to say the fighter does not have mechanical advantages.
As I've said. He would have simply been dead many times if he was a Fighter, because a Fighter has no meaningful abilities to protect himself in a real fight. A real fight being one that has fantastic elements in a fantasy world.
+2/+3 (weapon focus, specialization, and weapon training) to hit 24/7 and +1 maximum dexterity allowance is not worth "not dying". That is not a good trade. Especially when what you're trading for it is "more HP than everyone", +4 to hit / AC and auto-DR penetration vs most antagonists when it's really needed, immunity to fear, immunity to disease, +4 to all saving throws. >_>
It's not worth being able to give the vampire the finger when she tries to dominate you (which the vampire he's protecting attempted to do the first time he met her). It's not worth being able to heal the ability damage that you suffered. It's not worth being able to take several volleys of magic missiles and shout "Please sir, might I have another!?". It's not worth being immune to pissing your pants and letting a mummy count your coup.
"More hit and damage" would mean something if it was significant. Maybe. Just maybe. Statistically however his Paladin puts out quite a lot of sustainable damage and continues to do so even when he would have been disabled if he were a Fighter. In an actual session, I'll take "Five rounds of beating on that guy at slightly less damage than a Fighter" versus "One round of beating on that guy for slightly more damage, then four rounds of beating on the party". Which I know that gets tossed around a lot on the boards but the funny thing is, the party has been dealing with vampires a lot lately (tonight they will be dealing with their lord and I'm quite afraid for them) and honestly there are many instances where he would have been dominated...if he were a Fighter.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Fighters suck at Fighting. Combat in D&D is a lot more than "To Hit" modifiers and "Armor Class".
Fighters are more than enough for combat in dungeons. If they "suck" at fighting, that indicates problems with other classes.
Fighters are more than enough for combat in dungeons. If they "suck" at fighting, that indicates problems with other classes.
Can you explain the reasoning behind these statements?
Hrm. I don't think having more options would suddenly make him dislike his Fighter. More choices=/=Ranger. I was pretty sure the big draw of the Fighter was getting a bunch of feats and options to choose from there to diversify yourself.Heck getting 4 skill points per level isn't going to change those Fighters that much. Getting Perception added to their skill list isn't going to change them that much. Being able to fulfill the conceptual image...
He'd have less feats, thus less options. Adding 40 SkP mean they'd have to balance that out by a reduction in Combat capability, and yes he would then dislike his fighter.
Fighters are more than enough for combat in dungeons. If they "suck" at fighting, that indicates problems with other classes.Can you explain the reasoning behind these statements?
Fighters wreck in combat. If they suck comparatively IN COMBAT to other martial classes in a dungeon setting, that indicates the other martial classes are unbalanced.
Why is that? it would be like the easiest errate ever. They have errated bigger things in the past.
Cause it's not a "errata". It's a significant change to Core. They don't do that sort of thing in errata.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
He'd have less feats, thus less options. Adding 40 SkP mean they'd have to balance that out by a reduction in Combat capability, and yes he would then dislike his fighter.
Hrm. I don't think having more options would suddenly make him dislike his Fighter. More choices=/=Ranger. I was pretty sure the big draw of the Fighter was getting a bunch of feats and options to choose from there to diversify yourself.Heck getting 4 skill points per level isn't going to change those Fighters that much. Getting Perception added to their skill list isn't going to change them that much. Being able to fulfill the conceptual image...
I don't think anyone but you has ever suggested cutting down the fighter's combat abilities as part of the changes involved in bumping up his out-of-combat ability. That's pretty much your exclusive strawman.
Fighters are more than enough for combat in dungeons. If they "suck" at fighting, that indicates problems with other classes.Can you explain the reasoning behind these statements?Fighters wreck in combat. If they suck comparatively IN COMBAT to other martial classes in a dungeon setting, that indicates the other martial classes are unbalanced.
Not in the slightest. Barbarian, Paladin, and Ranger are all nicely balanced against each other, and are all relatively good at combat and adventuring. Fighter is the odd one out as he is good at neither of these things.
That means the fighter is unbalanced. Unbalanced in a way that is unfavorable to the Fighter. o_o
Can he seem to excel in situations that are easily solved by hitting things in small rooms? Yes, absolutely. But other martials excel in these situations as well and the overall differences between their performance (especially at lower levels) is mild.
Combat in D&D/Pathfinder is significantly more than just to-hit and damage rolls. There are a wide variety of exceptional circumstances, abilities, tactical options, and strange locations that you must deal with. Even in a dungeon situation you have to deal with things like mold that wants to kill you (or doesn't and just does accidentally), traps, enemies that lair there and have a home-field advantage, things that can fill hallways with gas and smoke, breath weapons, fear, and more.
Fighters have basically nothing that they can bring to bare or adapt to dealing with real fighting. In a situation where they can stand toe to toe and duel with an enemy they look pretty good. However, it is far to easy to CC them or attack them through the many gaping holes in their defenses.
Fighters have feats to expand into those areas.
I don't see how a combination of sword and fort save can't handle mold. Traps are what the skill monkeys are for. Surprise attacks from enemies is exactly where the Fighters AC comes in handy.
Blind-fight for smoke, HP for breath weapons, bravery for fear, and on and on.
Can other martials meet these challenges better? Sure. But maybe that isn't a good thing. Maybe the fighter handles all these situations just fine and its the other classes that are being gratuitous and unbalanced. In a PVE game it's more important how classes balance to the encounters not each other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters have feats to expand into those areas.
I don't see how a combination of sword and fort save can't handle mold. Traps are what the skill monkeys are for. Surprise attacks from enemies is exactly where the Fighters AC comes in handy.
Blind-fight for smoke, HP for breath weapons, bravery for fear, and on and on.
Can other martials meet these challenges better? Sure. But maybe that isn't a good thing. Maybe the fighter handles all these situations just fine and its the other classes that are being gratuitous and unbalanced. In a PVE game it's more important how classes balance to the encounters not each other.
Thing is, my experience differs from yours; the games my group(s) run favor classical enemies like dragons, undead, elementals, golems, demons, devils, necromancers, cultists, devils (said twice for emphasis), and the like. Aaaand Fighters have a lot of difficulties with these very storied, very classical monsters, Asmodeus forbid the new ones that fall into those categories. Watching - and experiencing - the struggle to contribute to those encounters is part of what set me on the path of optimization.
He'd have less feats, thus less options. Adding 40 SkP mean they'd have to balance that out by a reduction in Combat capability, and yes he would then dislike his fighter.
Hrm. I don't think having more options would suddenly make him dislike his Fighter. More choices=/=Ranger. I was pretty sure the big draw of the Fighter was getting a bunch of feats and options to choose from there to diversify yourself.Heck getting 4 skill points per level isn't going to change those Fighters that much. Getting Perception added to their skill list isn't going to change them that much. Being able to fulfill the conceptual image...
Literally no one else has suggested this. The thrust of the suggestion, in point of fact, is to bump Fighter's skill points and available class skills without changing almost anything else.
Thing is, my experience differs from yours; the games my group(s) run favor classical enemies like dragons, undead, elementals, golems, demons, devils, necromancers, cultists, devils (said twice for emphasis), and the like. Aaaand Fighters have a lot of difficulties with these very storied, very classical monsters, Asmodeus forbid the new ones that fall into those categories. Watching - and experiencing - the struggle to contribute to those encounters is part of what set me on the path of optimization.Fighters have feats to expand into those areas.
I don't see how a combination of sword and fort save can't handle mold. Traps are what the skill monkeys are for. Surprise attacks from enemies is exactly where the Fighters AC comes in handy.
Blind-fight for smoke, HP for breath weapons, bravery for fear, and on and on.
Can other martials meet these challenges better? Sure. But maybe that isn't a good thing. Maybe the fighter handles all these situations just fine and its the other classes that are being gratuitous and unbalanced. In a PVE game it's more important how classes balance to the encounters not each other.
I don't see why the fighter would have problems with those groups.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why the fighter would have problems with those groups.
What I've generally found from the Fighter end of this equation goes like this:
- Undead and their massive love for ability damage hurt. Corporeal undead are often fine (except for the castery types) but unholy hell do the incorps hurt. Even after you've got flying and ghost touch weapons they've got this bad habit of attacking and then retreating into walls.
- Elementals combine superior mobility, often superior size, solid HP, and numbers. Admittedly these are some of the least problematic, but they can still create difficulties, especially when you start talking about Earth Elementals using Earth Glide and reach to wreck your day.
- Dragons. This should not need an explanation.
- Golems are tough, mean, often come packing special abilities and are more than willing to trade blows with fighter all day long. Superior size & modifiers mean that combat maneuvers against them are a chancy proposition at best.
- Demons come locked and loaded with SLAs, a host of immunities, flight, teleportation, summons, and a bad attitude.
- Devils are like demons, except smarter.
- Necromancers and cultists fall into the 'maybe not as problematic' section but at the end of the day you're doing Fighter vs. Caster and that ends poorly.
Why is that? it would be like the easiest errate ever. They have errated bigger things in the past.
Cause it's not a "errata". It's a significant change to Core. They don't do that sort of thing in errata.
Chage a 2 for a 4 in a single page of a single book is a significant errata? seriously? the crane wing nerf needed more effort.