|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Squirrel_Dude wrote: I've never had a problem with Weaboo fightin magics, though. Sadly, it seems that everyone besides you and I has. No one can agree what a high-level fighter should be able to do because no one is willing to go anime for whatever reason. As I've seen in a few of these topics, some people actually argue that a fighter being crap at high level is okay.
Caster Martial disparity is, as usual, right up there with religion on the list of things you don't bring up in polite conversation. Because conversation stops being polite when you do.
EvilPaladin wrote: Also, as food for thought, How long would it take a Well-Prepared Wizard to take out a Pit-Fiend? Compared to the Fighter? Maybe a better question would be, how long would it take a well-prepared pit fiend to TPK the party? Let's assume that the pit fiend knows he (it?) is going to face this particular party, which at their levels are undoubtedly world famous, and has researched their abilities and usual tactics. He's fighting on his home ground, so he not only knows the terrain, he also has all the personnel and resources that a general in Hell's armies would have access to.
JoeJ wrote: EvilPaladin wrote: Also, as food for thought, How long would it take a Well-Prepared Wizard to take out a Pit-Fiend? Compared to the Fighter? Maybe a better question would be, how long would it take a well-prepared pit fiend to TPK the party? Let's assume that the pit fiend knows he (it?) is going to face this particular party, which at their levels are undoubtedly world famous, and has researched their abilities and usual tactics. He's fighting on his home ground, so he not only knows the terrain, he also has all the personnel and resources that a general in Hell's armies would have access to.
Paranoid magic users plotting against paranoid magic users won't answer anything. It has always come down to a cold war because otherwise it's a single, high-stakes coinflip/diceroll.
Just go back on-topic, for the safety of the forum.
DominusMegadeus wrote: Squirrel_Dude wrote: I've never had a problem with Weaboo fightin magics, though. Sadly, it seems that everyone besides you and I has. No one can agree what a high-level fighter should be able to do because no one is willing to go anime for whatever reason. As I've seen in a few of these topics, some people actually argue that a fighter being crap at high level is okay.
Caster Martial disparity is, as usual, right up there with religion on the list of things you don't bring up in polite conversation. Because conversation stops being polite when you do. I may have a different definition of weeaboo fightan magicks than everyone else. I see classes like the Magus already filling that role; when I think of the standard Magus build to me it looks a lot like Chrono.
I want the Fighter to be able to do things that would be theoretically possible given infinite athletic capability. Jumping up to huge heights and tagging an enemy in the air, running so quickly the human eye has difficulty keeping up with you, etc. etc. None of these things seem magical at all to me.
Lemmy wrote: Indeed. Even in PF mechanics, they are completely different. One is a skill check, the other is a grapple attempt.
Can Batman, without using any gear or trick, grapple a T-Rex? Can he survive jumping from the moon or being immersed in lava? Is he as powerful as a Pit Fiend?
Batman isn't anywhere near 20th level. I'd be surprised if he reached the double digits.
IMO, he's a 6~8th level character who rolled 4~6 18s for his attributes, is using an extremely broken gestalt (or homebrew) class and has wealth way over the expected for his level.
But he's in an adventuring party with a guy who can tear mountains apart with his bare hands and shrug off nuclear weapons, a woman who can defeat the freakin' god of war in melee, and a guy with a magic ring-of-whatever-I-want. It must be really boring to be Batman, since he obviously can't contribute anything.
JoeJ wrote: But he's in an adventuring party with a guy who can tear mountains apart with his bare hands and shrug off nuclear weapons, a woman who can defeat the freakin' god of war in melee, and a guy with a magic ring-of-whatever-I-want. It must be really boring to be Batman, since he obviously can't contribute anything.
Yep, and what Batman accomplishes he manages through author fiat, something which martial classes rather lack access to.
JoeJ wrote: Lemmy wrote: Indeed. Even in PF mechanics, they are completely different. One is a skill check, the other is a grapple attempt.
Can Batman, without using any gear or trick, grapple a T-Rex? Can he survive jumping from the moon or being immersed in lava? Is he as powerful as a Pit Fiend?
Batman isn't anywhere near 20th level. I'd be surprised if he reached the double digits.
IMO, he's a 6~8th level character who rolled 4~6 18s for his attributes, is using an extremely broken gestalt (or homebrew) class and has wealth way over the expected for his level.
But he's in an adventuring party with a guy who can tear mountains apart with his bare hands and shrug off nuclear weapons, a woman who can defeat the freakin' god of war in melee, and a guy with a magic ring-of-whatever-I-want. It must be really boring to be Batman, since he obviously can't contribute anything.
He has that much wealth.
EDIT: Plus what Andreww said.
Batman works because Author FIAT.
JoeJ wrote: Lemmy wrote: Indeed. Even in PF mechanics, they are completely different. One is a skill check, the other is a grapple attempt.
Can Batman, without using any gear or trick, grapple a T-Rex? Can he survive jumping from the moon or being immersed in lava? Is he as powerful as a Pit Fiend?
Batman isn't anywhere near 20th level. I'd be surprised if he reached the double digits.
IMO, he's a 6~8th level character who rolled 4~6 18s for his attributes, is using an extremely broken gestalt (or homebrew) class and has wealth way over the expected for his level.
But he's in an adventuring party with a guy who can tear mountains apart with his bare hands and shrug off nuclear weapons, a woman who can defeat the freakin' god of war in melee, and a guy with a magic ring-of-whatever-I-want. It must be really boring to be Batman, since he obviously can't contribute anything.
While your right in that batman seems to play in the big kid pool with no issue, it does not invalidate the fact that batman cannot, in fact, fall from orbit or take a lava bath or wrestle an eight tonne animal into submission. I would have to argue, then, that batman is not a level twenty character because those qualities are true of twentieth level characters.
Scavion wrote: JoeJ wrote: Lemmy wrote: Indeed. Even in PF mechanics, they are completely different. One is a skill check, the other is a grapple attempt.
Can Batman, without using any gear or trick, grapple a T-Rex? Can he survive jumping from the moon or being immersed in lava? Is he as powerful as a Pit Fiend?
Batman isn't anywhere near 20th level. I'd be surprised if he reached the double digits.
IMO, he's a 6~8th level character who rolled 4~6 18s for his attributes, is using an extremely broken gestalt (or homebrew) class and has wealth way over the expected for his level.
But he's in an adventuring party with a guy who can tear mountains apart with his bare hands and shrug off nuclear weapons, a woman who can defeat the freakin' god of war in melee, and a guy with a magic ring-of-whatever-I-want. It must be really boring to be Batman, since he obviously can't contribute anything.
He has that much wealth.
EDIT: Plus what Andreww said.
Batman works because Author FIAT. Yep. Its the Plot special ability probably.
DominusMegadeus wrote: JoeJ wrote: EvilPaladin wrote: Also, as food for thought, How long would it take a Well-Prepared Wizard to take out a Pit-Fiend? Compared to the Fighter? Maybe a better question would be, how long would it take a well-prepared pit fiend to TPK the party? Let's assume that the pit fiend knows he (it?) is going to face this particular party, which at their levels are undoubtedly world famous, and has researched their abilities and usual tactics. He's fighting on his home ground, so he not only knows the terrain, he also has all the personnel and resources that a general in Hell's armies would have access to.
Paranoid magic users plotting against paranoid magic users won't answer anything. It has always come down to a cold war because otherwise it's a single, high-stakes coinflip/diceroll.
Just go back on-topic, for the safety of the forum. Back on topic then, how would you compare martial vs. magical characters when the scenario isn't a video-game-like boss fight but an entire extended campaign where it may take years of planning, gathering resources, and developing intelligence before the group has even a prayer of taking on the enemy leader himself?
It's not who does what in the last battle that matters so much, but how much of a part each PC has had in the campaign to get to that point.
JoeJ wrote: Lemmy wrote: Indeed. Even in PF mechanics, they are completely different. One is a skill check, the other is a grapple attempt.
Can Batman, without using any gear or trick, grapple a T-Rex? Can he survive jumping from the moon or being immersed in lava? Is he as powerful as a Pit Fiend?
Batman isn't anywhere near 20th level. I'd be surprised if he reached the double digits.
IMO, he's a 6~8th level character who rolled 4~6 18s for his attributes, is using an extremely broken gestalt (or homebrew) class and has wealth way over the expected for his level.
But he's in an adventuring party with a guy who can tear mountains apart with his bare hands and shrug off nuclear weapons, a woman who can defeat the freakin' god of war in melee, and a guy with a magic ring-of-whatever-I-want. It must be really boring to be Batman, since he obviously can't contribute anything.
So Batman is a poorly optimized character with an amazing RPer. Doesn't change the facts.
As someone said before, a ton of Batman's success is DM fiat. The villains have to actively not crush his pitiful human form so he doesn't look lame in front of people like Superman and Flash.
Mind you, Batman is well done a lot of the time, and is so crazy prepared that he can beat supergods, but he still gets bailed out from his physical weakness by plot.
JoeJ wrote: DominusMegadeus wrote: JoeJ wrote: EvilPaladin wrote: Also, as food for thought, How long would it take a Well-Prepared Wizard to take out a Pit-Fiend? Compared to the Fighter? Maybe a better question would be, how long would it take a well-prepared pit fiend to TPK the party? Let's assume that the pit fiend knows he (it?) is going to face this particular party, which at their levels are undoubtedly world famous, and has researched their abilities and usual tactics. He's fighting on his home ground, so he not only knows the terrain, he also has all the personnel and resources that a general in Hell's armies would have access to.
Paranoid magic users plotting against paranoid magic users won't answer anything. It has always come down to a cold war because otherwise it's a single, high-stakes coinflip/diceroll.
Just go back on-topic, for the safety of the forum. Back on topic then, how would you compare martial vs. magical characters when the scenario isn't a video-game-like boss fight but an entire extended campaign where it may take years of planning, gathering resources, and developing intelligence before the group has even a prayer of taking on the enemy leader himself?
It's not who does what in the last battle that matters so much, but how much of a part each PC has had in the campaign to get to that point.
Get a Bard to do it, probably. The fact that the Fighter is borderline useless mechanically in anything other than fighting is my biggest issue with the class. At least the Barb has the skill points for sense motive so he can have a bad feeling about things.
andreww wrote: JoeJ wrote: But he's in an adventuring party with a guy who can tear mountains apart with his bare hands and shrug off nuclear weapons, a woman who can defeat the freakin' god of war in melee, and a guy with a magic ring-of-whatever-I-want. It must be really boring to be Batman, since he obviously can't contribute anything.
Yep, and what Batman accomplishes he manages through author fiat, something which martial classes rather lack access to. In the comic, yes, just like every other character. But how is it that he's still playable in a game (of which there have been several good ones; the latest from Green Ronin)? Is Pathfinder really that much worse at handling characters of different power levels?
JoeJ wrote: Back on topic then, how would you compare martial vs. magical characters when the scenario isn't a video-game-like boss fight but an entire extended campaign where it may take years of planning, gathering resources, and developing intelligence before the group has even a prayer of taking on the enemy leader himself?
It's not who does what in the last battle that matters so much, but how much of a part each PC has had in the campaign to get to that point.
Sure but then this comparison still favours magical characters over martial ones. Clerics and Druids gain access to useful spells like Speak with Dead, Commune, Commune with Nature or even stuff like Speak with Animals/Plants/Stone. Arcane casters bring the whole panoply of enchantment, divination and conjuration magic to bear.
Martial characters are limited mostly to what they can achieve either through mundane skill use or what they can go by convincing the GM something should just work and there is your problem. Magical characters also get to convince the GM of stuff that should just work without needing a roll and often get far more skill points than martial characters. They can also circumvent all sorts of skill checks through the use of spells.
If you are in for the long haul political, espionage, intrigue style scenario then the last thing you want is a character who, on level up, gains +1 to hit things with a pointy thing and 2 skill points.
I haven't played the games in question but I have played a few fighting games where you have a playable godlike that theoretically should be way above the power level of the other characters. Elizabeth should be untouchable by anyone other than the Wild Card holders in Persona 4 Arena, and yet Atlus toned her down because having one character that's just completely unstoppable for lore reasons is not very fun in a competitive game.
It's a bit of a different scenario because the players are fighting against each other rather than with, but the point stands.
andreww wrote: JoeJ wrote: Back on topic then, how would you compare martial vs. magical characters when the scenario isn't a video-game-like boss fight but an entire extended campaign where it may take years of planning, gathering resources, and developing intelligence before the group has even a prayer of taking on the enemy leader himself?
It's not who does what in the last battle that matters so much, but how much of a part each PC has had in the campaign to get to that point.
Sure but then this comparison still favours magical characters over martial ones. Clerics and Druids gain access to useful spells like Speak with Dead, Commune, Commune with Nature or even stuff like Speak with Animals/Plants/Stone. Arcane casters bring the whole panoply of enchantment, divination and conjuration magic to bear.
Martial characters are limited mostly to what they can achieve either through mundane skill use or what they can go by convincing the GM something should just work and there is your problem. Magical characters also get to convince the GM of stuff that should just work without needing a roll and often get far more skill points than martial characters. They can also circumvent all sorts of skill checks through the use of spells.
If you are in for the long haul political, espionage, intrigue style scenario then the last thing you want is a character who, on level up, gains +1 to hit things with a pointy thing and 2 skill points. So what fighters need, probably, is not godlike strength and endurance feats (the previously mentioned destroying a mountain or diving into lava) but more ability to diversify.
JoeJ wrote: andreww wrote: JoeJ wrote: Back on topic then, how would you compare martial vs. magical characters when the scenario isn't a video-game-like boss fight but an entire extended campaign where it may take years of planning, gathering resources, and developing intelligence before the group has even a prayer of taking on the enemy leader himself?
It's not who does what in the last battle that matters so much, but how much of a part each PC has had in the campaign to get to that point.
Sure but then this comparison still favours magical characters over martial ones. Clerics and Druids gain access to useful spells like Speak with Dead, Commune, Commune with Nature or even stuff like Speak with Animals/Plants/Stone. Arcane casters bring the whole panoply of enchantment, divination and conjuration magic to bear.
Martial characters are limited mostly to what they can achieve either through mundane skill use or what they can go by convincing the GM something should just work and there is your problem. Magical characters also get to convince the GM of stuff that should just work without needing a roll and often get far more skill points than martial characters. They can also circumvent all sorts of skill checks through the use of spells.
If you are in for the long haul political, espionage, intrigue style scenario then the last thing you want is a character who, on level up, gains +1 to hit things with a pointy thing and 2 skill points. So what fighters need, probably, is not godlike strength and endurance feats (the previously mentioned destroying a mountain or diving into lava) but more ability to diversify.
Exactly. They are okayish at killing things, but it'd be nice if the class provided some ways of interacting with the other portions of the game and to not leave it all on the thespian skills of the player.
Neither: the game should be split into the spheres of "spells" and "no spells". I feel like anything else dilutes both to the point at which they are both kind of bland.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
JoeJ wrote: So what fighters need, probably, is not godlike strength and endurance feats (the previously mentioned destroying a mountain or diving into lava) but more ability to diversify.
Personally I think there are two areas they could do with a buff in. Inside combat they, like all of the martials, are too stuck with the full attack routine. Anything which prevents them from making their full attack basically renders them pointless.
Outside of combat they need something to give them a lot more versatility. More skill points, tricks they can access at higher skill ranks, something really that actually lets them accomplish things within the context of the mechanics.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Arachnofiend wrote: I may have a different definition of weeaboo fightan magicks than everyone else. I see classes like the Magus already filling that role; when I think of the standard Magus build to me it looks a lot like Chrono.
I want the Fighter to be able to do things that would be theoretically possible given infinite athletic capability. Jumping up to huge heights and tagging an enemy in the air, running so quickly the human eye has difficulty keeping up with you, etc. etc. None of these things seem magical at all to me.
When considering what a pinnacle fighter might be, I think of Wrath from Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood. His speed, reflexes, skill, and strength were at insane levels. He did things like rush up a 60 degree slope 50 feet tall in 1.5 seconds, slice bullets in half in mid air, bisect physically enhanced opponents with a single stroke, or even snatch the remains of his shattered weapons out of the air with his hands or teeth to stab his enemies. He was all but unbeatable in a physical fight.
JoeJ wrote: So what fighters need, probably, is not godlike strength and endurance feats (the previously mentioned destroying a mountain or diving into lava) but more ability to diversify. Like the brawler?
Buri wrote: JoeJ wrote: So what fighters need, probably, is not godlike strength and endurance feats (the previously mentioned destroying a mountain or diving into lava) but more ability to diversify. Like the brawler? Maybe but the Martial Manoeuvres ability in the last playtest was pretty awful. If it wasn't limited to an handful of daily uses and wasn't shackled to combat feats only it might add something. Has it been expanded since the end of the playtest?
andreww wrote: Outside of combat they need something to give them a lot more versatility. More skill points, tricks they can access at higher skill ranks, something really that actually lets them accomplish things within the context of the mechanics. For that, I would rework skill points so that there are more of them, and they are based the relevant stat (i.e. strength based skills use skill points derived from the strength stat, etc.) and bring in skill tricks from 3.5. Simply upping the number of skill points by itself does not really resolve much; it just adds to the number inflation that is a big problem with this system. By making skill points dependent on more than just Int, you can give more skill points overall without the wizard with a 20+ Int overshadowing everybody in the skills arena.
I've never played high level games, so I can't say much to that end, however I do feel like I could understand where martial players are coming from.
I think it depends on the martial. If we're talking fighter, then there's a problem with the comparison. Fighters by nature are not magical in really any way. That is opposed to say a barbarian who has access to rage powers, paladins who are martials with divine power, magus who have access to spells, etc..
So really, I think the only one that needs balancing are the martials without any access to solid magical potential. These would be Fighters, Rogues and maybe a few others.
As far as the title question, while I'm sure some very high level spells such as wish could use with some balancing, I feel like the non-magical potential martials should be buffed more so than casters de-buffed. I don't see the point in taking fun out of one class because another class isn't as powerful. It would, however, make sense to me to let one class have its fun and increase the power (and fun) of the other "weaker" class so it's as powerful and fun as the other. People don't like their stuff getting taken away, but they do like getting new stuff.
Batman has Kirin style with a huge circumstance bonus due to his wealth. He has files on every member of the Justice League and how to go about killing them including keeping materials such as kryptonite to do so should he need to. Anyone that has that much knowledge of their friends would also do the same about their enemies.
Yes, his accomplishments are author fiat just as every literary figure is. Superman has gone through many incarnations about his abilities that aren't consistent and so do many other characters.
Skills come up a bunch in regards to the fighter since dumping intelligence seems to be a common thing, so what do people invest skills into? The class comes with 2 if you choose to keep int at 10 or 3 with a 2 point buy investment, the favored bonus can grant another, and should you choose a human you can grab another putting you up to 5 per level. There's enough here to have max in 5 skills with a headband to give you another 1-3 skills. More than likely you'll only end up with a +4 mental perfection headband or a +4 mental superiority headband by late game levels. So what skills does a fighter need to take to be considered useful and for this point to not be so problematic for people?
Considering the investment you put into getting skills that a better designed class could put elsewhere it's a moot point. A Ranger gets 1 more skill, doesn't need to be human, doesn't need to put points in Int(Verily, he can in fact put it down to 8 and still match the proposed Fighter build), and can put his Favored Class bonus elsewhere.
That headband isn't likely showing up before 12th level either. So for most folks never.
There's nothing that requires a character to stay in the same class for their entire career. What about a multiclass fighter/rogue? (Which is probably closer to what Batman is, given his stealth abilities.) That slows the increase in DPR but increases the number of skills compared to a single-class fighter.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
JoeJ wrote: There's nothing that requires a character to stay in the same class for their entire career. What about a multiclass fighter/rogue? (Which is probably closer to what Batman is, given his stealth abilities.) That slows the increase in DPR but increases the number of skills compared to a single-class fighter.
As a side observation, You could gestalt the two classes together and it still wouldn't be that good compared to most other classes in the game
Scavion wrote: Considering the investment you put into getting skills that a better designed class could put elsewhere it's a moot point. A Ranger gets 1 more skill, doesn't need to be human, doesn't need to put points in Int(Verily, he can in fact put it down to 8 and still match the proposed Fighter build), and can put his Favored Class bonus elsewhere.
That headband isn't likely showing up before 12th level either. So for most folks never.
So instead of stating what other classes get how about answering the question. It's not a moot point if there's not enough skills a fighter needs to be useful. What skills do you want a fighter to have for you to not think it's useless? The investment I listed isn't much and not being a human drops a skill point still leaving you with 4 points per level.
JoeJ wrote: There's nothing that requires a character to stay in the same class for their entire career. What about a multiclass fighter/rogue? (Which is probably closer to what Batman is, given his stealth abilities.) That slows the increase in DPR but increases the number of skills compared to a single-class fighter. I wouldn't even classify Batman as a fighter at all. He'd be a ninja all the way. He was trained by ninjas, uses subterfuge and misdirection as a combat tactic, understands anatomy enough to lay down some hurt which is equivalent to sneak attack, is trained in martial arts, uses shurikens, and has a lot of skills invested into knowledges, acrobatics, and all things ninja.
Scavion wrote: As a side observation, You could gestalt the two classes together and it still wouldn't be that good compared to most other classes in the game And not a lick of evidence was given to prove anything in that thread. If a fighter can already get some of the highest DPR adding an extra 10d6 will definitely make them the best by far along with applying any sneak attack modifier to boost AC or apply anything debilitating. Can trip a creature on the first attack with an advanced talent granting a bonus to hit to all further attacks ensuring even more hit. You'd have a 5% chance to miss ever on any iterative while being able to apply sneak attack to every attack.
Flawed wrote:
JoeJ wrote: There's nothing that requires a character to stay in the same class for their entire career. What about a multiclass fighter/rogue? (Which is probably closer to what Batman is, given his stealth abilities.) That slows the increase in DPR but increases the number of skills compared to a single-class fighter. I wouldn't even classify Batman as a fighter at all. He'd be a ninja all the way. He was trained by ninjas, uses subterfuge and misdirection as a combat tactic, understands anatomy enough to lay down some hurt which is equivalent to sneak attack, is trained in martial arts, uses shurikens, and has a lot of skills invested into knowledges, acrobatics, and all things ninja.
I could see modeling him that way, along with somehow having something that lets him blow way past the maximum possible points in Intimidate for his class/level.
Investigator is the class that you're looking for if you're trying to fit Batman in the Pathfinder system. A fantasy Batman would certainly trade out his gadgets for extracts.
Sticking for the moment with the class roles we've been given, fighters should be the most versatile in combat. Barbarians rule in standing toe-to-toe and pounding away, cavaliers should be the kinds of mounted combat, paladins excel in destroying supernatural evil, and rangers are masters of using the terrain outdoors. Outside of those specific niches, however, they should come second to fighters.
To make this really work, there need to be a lot of viable options beyond standing still and full attacking. Maybe fighters should be able to perform combat maneuvers without provoking an AoO. And instead of either getting all their attacks or moving and getting only one, maybe they should get a certain amount of movement for each attack they give up.
Arachnofiend wrote: Investigator is the class that you're looking for if you're trying to fit Batman in the Pathfinder system. A fantasy Batman would certainly trade out his gadgets for extracts. Batman doesn't have any magic, and he lives in a world where magic is available.
Flawed wrote: Scavion wrote: Considering the investment you put into getting skills that a better designed class could put elsewhere it's a moot point. A Ranger gets 1 more skill, doesn't need to be human, doesn't need to put points in Int(Verily, he can in fact put it down to 8 and still match the proposed Fighter build), and can put his Favored Class bonus elsewhere.
That headband isn't likely showing up before 12th level either. So for most folks never.
So instead of stating what other classes get how about answering the question. It's not a moot point if there's not enough skills a fighter needs to be useful. What skills do you want a fighter to have for you to not think it's useless? The investment I listed isn't much and not being a human drops a skill point still leaving you with 4 points per level.
Depends on the concept. As is, the Fighter is a poor schematic for many concepts. A base of 2 skp per level and a craptacular class skill list means not taking Profession or Craft skills and hamstringing your total ranks in skills. It means that you're either forced to invest in intelligence and/or play a human. It means you have to spend traits to make very generic concepts(The ones the Fighter is supposed to be the best for filling) instead of developing those concepts further.
In your average campaign, climb and swim are pretty mandatory with Perception being a ridiculously conceptual skill for Guardsman/Mercenaries/Intrepid Adventurers which Fighters don't even emulate well. Already we're strained for Skill points here and forced to lower our abilities elsewhere to make up for the deficiency. Ride, Intimidate, Handle Animal are often popular choices. Diplomacy, maybe more knowledge skills for folks who want to be like Roy.
And I already know the counter argument. "You don't need those skills, you can just put 1 rank in and live with that." And you're right. I can go ahead and be mediocre in my skills. I can frown when I see my "Keen-eyed Watch Captain" fail to catch the purse snatcher. I can fumble about in the water or fall to my death with my poor skill bonuses.
It's really not that hard to see that the Fighter is actually pretty awful at realizing the basic concepts listed in it's description.
But this thread is all about end game fighters where climb and swim are pretty useless. Investing in a skill that eventual diminishes to nothing isn't a good option. Even a single point into each means a +4 minimum bonus with a 10 strength. Taking 10 is a thing with climbing and swimming giving you a 14 roll. Any strength and you beat most low level DCs expected of players. Rough waters are DC 15 and any surface with adequate hand holds. A rope and grapple does most other things. Corners reduce DCs as do chimneys. DC 20 stormy waters don't allow take 10, but why are you trying to swim in stormy waters as a low level pc.
Perception should be a class skill for all classes. Everyone has a reason for attention to detail and should be something invested in.
Ride is very situational as a large mount tends to get in the way not to mention it has no inherent boosting skills through the class and becomes fodder real quick.
Intimidate is specific to a build and not something that everyone uses. Its not that great giving up a standard action to intimidate a single target and if you're investing to get dazzling display than this is something you put ranks in.
I've yet to take ranks in handle animal as a fighter, but that's also because I never invest in ride as a fighter. Goes back to the mount being weak and vulnerable.
Throwing points in knowledge checks seems counter intuitive after stating intelligence as a dump ability.
So of those listed climb and swim do not require much investment, perception is a solid choice for anyone, ride is dependent to building a mounted combat character otherwise minimal ranks are needed, same goes for handle animal, intimidate is dependent on your build using it, and knowledge checks are good to have, but again if you're dumping your intelligence why do you expect to be knowledgeable about anything.
Let's assume a dazzling display build then. With 4 ranks per level from +2 class, +1 favored bonus, +1 intelligence mod, you have max ranks in perception, intimidate, 1 rank every odd level for climb and swim should keep you up to par on most climb and swim checks along with a few items to help you like fins to increase swim speed and a rope to increase climbing, and you're left with 2 ranks every even level to invest elsewhere if you wanted sense motive or diplomacy or knowledge checks. Not the best at those but your stats aren't based on those skills anyway so you fall to assistant role in skill checks. Even with no ranks you can roll for most skills, including knowledge checks, to beat the DC 10 to aid another.
15 point buy of:
STR: 14+2
DEX: 14
CON: 14
INT: 12
WIS: 12
CHA: 7
Needing an 18 starting stat is a myth invented by optimizers. BAB+1, +3 STR, +1 Weapon Focus and you're sitting at a +5 to hit needing a roll of a 6 or 7 to hit at level 1. Doing on average 7.5 a hit with a one handed weapon and no power attack. 9.5 with power attack at the decrease to hit. Using a 2 handed weapon you're now up to 12 per swing which is killing any CR 1/2 and almost any CR 1. One shotting monsters isn't necessary either and wearing a kikko, heavy shield your +2 from dex and you're sitting at a 19 AC which is near impossible to hit at level 1. Drop one of the traits for the Defender of the Society trait and you hit 20 and use your other feat for dodge or shield focus and you hit 21 which means you're only being hit on a 20.
Back to skills though...
Let's pick Half Elf since the human will skew the skills to having another full point per level along with multiple skill focus feats from race alone. Generally in an intimidate build you're going to throw down a trait to an intimidate bonus and grabbing a trait to get perception as a class skill is great too. Sure you can say its a tax, but it's worth it. So now the level 1 half elf fighter has skill focus (Intimidate) and skills totaling: Climb +7, Swim +7, Perception +8, Intimidate +6. Fighters also get many feats so you could as easily take toughness at level one dropping your con to 12 and bumping int or wis to 14.
By level 8 you'll have a belt for strength and the bonus +2 from levels putting you to a +5 strength mod, +4 ranks, +3 class in both swim and climb, and full ranks in the others increasing skills to: Climb +12, Swim +12, Perception +15, Intimidate +13, Ride +9, Knowledge Dungeoneering +8. If you're worried gloves of swimming and climbing are a thing and only cost 6250 gp which is affordable at that level and increase your swim and climb to +17 ensuring you get out of most climbing and swimming issues with a minimal roll. Sell the gloves at a 3125 gp loss if you paid for them in whole and buy your gloves of dueling as needed. Eyes of the eagle are also cheap and push your perception up to +20.
Or play the imbalance game you mentioned, take alluring as one of your initial traits grab craft wondrous items and craft magic arms and armor at 3 and 5 and enjoy cheaper items at crafting costs. Requires ranks into spellcraft which you can take from your riding skills or just be a human and enjoy more skill focus and more skills.
Flawed wrote:
12 intelligence and a favored class bonus gets you 4 per level. Stop dumping intelligence to maximize strength and enjoy more benefits. I also don't get your absurd argument that i need 5 skill focus feats when i never said anything of the sort. Why not just diplomacy and sense motive and be a face? A couple knowledge checks to play something thematic? Acrobatics for added combat mobility? Bluff and disguise to add to your infiltration abilities and be a skirmisher? A couple archetypes get more and one can use bonus fighter feats for skill focus. Why are you trying to build a character off of two feat intensive builds? Arguing that it's not possible because you want to use something that requires the most amount of feats isn't an argument. "I want to cast nothing but 9th level spells, but I don't get that many a day and have to use others. Omg wizards are no good." Why even play the game if I have to pick the class that does it best. That's not a good argument either. It's a role playing game which means I can play any class and choose the role I want to play. The system is there to make it happen within the limitations.
I just picked 5. I NEVER said you said 5, not that the fighter has 5 good skills that really help him be more versatile. He needs better class skills, and 4+int to start with.
One archetype does not make a class. That is like saying the monk is good just because the zen archer is good.
My point with the feats, is that there not enough feats, if the pigeon hole you into being a two handed or sword and board type.
Playing role does not matter if you cant do it well. I can make a melee focused caster, but I would likely die unless the GM coddles me.
No thanks.
Quote: Do you really think the wizard gained access to all of those spells without spending any of his WBL or needing to spend money on spell components? That is not even close to the point I was making. My point was that the fighter will still be inadequate, and it will only hurt his primary abilities. What primary ability is the wizard hurting by purchasing spells?---> None.
Quote: Not every spell, but some are. I'm not seeing where the fighter doesn't keep up with what he's intended to do. This is akin to saying you're upset because your wizard doesn't do 500+ DPR with his staff. I did not say EVERY spell. I said spells. I am saying he does not keep up with the lower spell casting classes for versatility. That is NOT even close to expecting a wizard to do 500 DPR. If I had said I expect for him to compete with full casters then you may have made sense.
Justin Sane wrote: On the out-of-combat contributions of high-level fighters. And now we know to truly make Fighters better. Have them put their 1 skill point into Profession (Wharf). Narrative power go!
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote: Flawed wrote: Marcus Robert Hosler wrote: Is a Fighter as powerful as a Pit Fiend? A level 20 fighter with proper WBL, yes. I don't believe you* can make a fighter that can win against a pit fiend. With enough optimization the pit fiend may not be able to just stand there and trade full attacks, but it shouldn't be able to lose.
*general you It can be done. A fighter can two round a pit fiend depending on how it is played, but at level 20 that is not saying much since he is fighting something equal to his level.
I think you're right. Casters are still generally too powerful. The problem isn't strickly power. The problem is the spell list gives them so much versatility it makes many warriors obsolete, not because warriors can't do what they do well. The problem is warriors get into many situations where their effectiveness is just completely shut off or compensated for by casters. At high levels casters can summon a purple worm, produce a force cage which is nearly indestructable, or call down death in massive waves. Just like "high magic" was cut off in from mortals in the DnD world I think it may be wise to cut off non-spontaneous magic users to 6th levels spells while being able to select one or two 7th level spells. Spontaneous casting should be capped at 7th level because sheer power is their strength not versatility or you could make higher level spells only available by spending a feat.
Versatility is a double edged sword. On the one hand players are no longer required to stick into the molds of tank, healer, rogue, wizard. This is a good thing, but at the same time it gives the casters more power. Unseen servant can set off many traps on their own and this spell is available at 1st level that lasts in terms of hours and doesn't die unless it gets hit with an area attack causing 6 damage. That is a powerful level one spell if you're going into a well trapped area. It's good to be able to compensate for a missing role, but there is such a thing as too much.
Pathfinder did a real good job with making the spell lists quite different at the beginning with the core books. If you took a look at all the core class spell lists you could tell they were quite different. Druids had a little direct damage, clerics had even less. Of course, sorcerers and wizards were the master blasters. In addition, except for cure light wounds druids received healing spells one spell level behind a cleric. Bards had access to it's own unique mix that complimented the class well. Unfortunately, I think they lost some of the class theme fitting spells as time went on making each of the spell classes more versatile. Of course, you can't blame them. It's the player's choice to play with non-core books.
The problem never really has to do with damage, but versatilty. The fighter can kill things in melee in a non-movable fight better than any other class. The problem is that situation doesn't occur very often. What about reflex and will saves. What about skills? What about touch attacks? What happens if he is force caged? Well, what if he has an anti-magic field up and he is next to a wizard?
The system isn't fair, but it doesn't matter. It's fun. Should casters be toned down a little bit? Yes, but does pathfinder need to do anything about, no probably not. The players can limit themselves to certain books. Although, I would like to see the fighters skills bumped up to 4 and stealth and acrobatics put on their list. I would like to see them be good at something besides combat because most classes have skills that complement their core class in someway.
I have seen several posts talk about fighters so I want to put my two cents in on those as well.
Best skills: Acrobatics, Diplomacy, Knowledges, Perception, Stealth, and use magic device. Not to say other skills are bad, handle animal, intimidate, heal, and survival can all save the life of your party.
Generally speaking
Barbarians are going to have skills in climb, swim, and have acrobatics and perception which are some of the best skills in the game.
Bards have so many advantags
Clerics are naturally good at sense motive, diplomacy, and heal
Druids have perception, heal, survival, and knowledge nature.
Monks have stealth and acrobatics (Some of the best skills)
Paladins have diplomacy and handle animal (goes with their mount)
Rangers are a mixed bag because they have alot of skills but stealth and perception are some of the best.
Sorcerers have use magic device and intimidate. (not the best skills, but hey they are casters)
Wizards have high knowledges and are arcane casters enough said
Out of combat skills are great but the fighter is completely hosed from this stand point.
Fighters...get swim and climb...wow that's bad. I think acrobatics and stealth would be preferable for dex fighters...but hey. In addition, heavy armored fighters have to lose it to climb or swim. Fighters should have at least 4 skills per level and more class skills. I also wouldn't mind seeing fighters getting free ranks in one craft and profession.
My apologies for the rant.
Also, keep in mind this is highly DM dependent. Pathfinder combat was balanced for four encounters per day for spell casters. This can modify the balance of power quite extensivly. I am currently running through rise of the runelords and we had a party of 2 level 3 characters and one level 2 characters go all the way through thistle top clear the castle and started clearing the lower levels before we found our last character. I think we went through four encounters before entering thistle top and had at least five encounters clearing the first and second level. Then we went to the lower level and had an additional encounter before we found the 4th player. Needless to say the druid and oracle were completely out of spells at that time, and we still cleared the entire place before resting and leveling. Before all was said and done we had over 20 encounters I believe. If we didn't kill Nulia in one go the goblins were going to be "reinforced by other tribes". This is another one of the great balancers. The DM.
Environment is also going to be your biggest balancer no matter what kind of game you play. If you're playing in a game where you only have 2-3 encounters per game casters will have more of an advantage. If your playing in a forest the whole campaign rangers and druids will reign supreme.
Flawed wrote: But this thread is all about end game fighters where climb and swim are pretty useless. It really isn't all about end game. I also wasn't the one saying anything about dumping Int. I also see how you pointedly avoided talking about Armor Check Penalties in any of your assumptions.
You also did exactly what I said you would do and simply tell me "Yeah but you don't need those skills."
Intimidate/Diplomacy isn't about builds though I find it quite telling you only focused on the combat use of it. It's about gaining some degree of agency outside of combat which martials desperately lack. Skills flesh out characters. Kn.Local means you know who to speak to in town, where the best bars are, where to lay low and who's in charge. Ride is a very realistic skill in any game that isn't 8 and up where purchasing a horse to get somewhere faster is a solid plan.
Buildwise yours isn't anything new to me and I already know a Barbarian or Ranger can do so more effectively.
So Flawed build a fighter and tell me why I should use that fighter if I want to do more than just fight. What out of combat options am I being given? What in combat options do I have?
Levels 7 and 13 are good levels to use.
Scavion wrote:
Depends on the concept. As is, the Fighter is a poor schematic for many concepts. A base of 2 skp per level and a craptacular class skill list means not taking Profession or Craft skills and hamstringing your total ranks in skills. It means that you're either forced to invest in intelligence and/or play a human. It means you have to spend traits to make very generic concepts(The ones the Fighter is supposed to be the best for filling) instead of developing those concepts further.
In your average campaign, climb and swim are pretty mandatory with Perception being a ridiculously conceptual skill for Guardsman/Mercenaries/Intrepid Adventurers which Fighters don't even emulate well. Already we're strained for Skill points here and forced to lower our abilities elsewhere to make up for the deficiency. Ride, Intimidate, Handle Animal are often popular choices. Diplomacy, maybe more knowledge skills for folks who want to be like Roy.
And I already know the counter argument. "You don't need those skills, you can just put 1 rank in and live with that." And you're right. I can go ahead and be mediocre in my skills. I can frown when I see my "Keen-eyed Watch...
A mounted archer raised on the steppe would need Ride and probably Handle Animal and Survival (plains) just to establish their character. A viking should have Swim and Profession (sailor); a pirate should have those and add Acrobatics for getting around in the rigging. A knight needs Ride, Knowledge (nobility), and possibly Diplomacy. Not every fighter wants Intimidate, but it's a pretty iconic skill for any kind of "tough guy" character, and Perception, as noted, is always useful.
Scavion wrote: Flawed wrote: But this thread is all about end game fighters where climb and swim are pretty useless. It really isn't all about end game. I also wasn't the one saying anything about dumping Int. I also see how you pointedly avoided talking about Armor Check Penalties in any of your assumptions.
You also did exactly what I said you would do and simply tell me "Yeah but you don't need those skills."
Intimidate/Diplomacy isn't about builds though I find it quite telling you only focused on the combat use of it. It's about gaining some degree of agency outside of combat which martials desperately lack. Skills flesh out characters. Kn.Local means you know who to speak to in town, where the best bars are, where to lay low and who's in charge. Ride is a very realistic skill in any game that isn't 8 and up where purchasing a horse to get somewhere faster is a solid plan.
Buildwise yours isn't anything new to me and I already know a Barbarian or Ranger can do so more effectively. It is all about end game. This is the entire point of this thread. Martials are generally better than casters at low levels and the scale shifts as you level. A sorcerer is just as useless at skills as you claim the fighter to be only their skill set is different.
I never said you don't need those skills. I said you don't need max ranks in some skills to be effective. Why max out climb ranks if you don't need to. Same with swimming. And eventually both skills become moot. It's the same as min/maxing stats to have a huge strength bonus at level 1. Eventually the gains just aren't there and you're hurting your character by dumping elsewhere. The mechanics support this.
You can intimidate without ranks and the skill bonus I posted, which was max ranks, gives you a degree of agency outside of combat. Riding a horse is easy. It requires a DC 5 and you can take 10. A single rank and the stats provided allow you to do everything short of controlling a mount in battle which you're claiming isn't the case anyway. So where else do you want to send those goal posts.
I gave him kn(dungeons). Feel free to change it to kn(local). Or just put a couple ranks in each and enjoy being able to do all the things you just listed with a simple take 10.
This is the problem. Everyone likes to complain about this stuff and say the fighter can't do these things, but they can. The DCs aren't that hard. Sure some classes can get more skills. Big deal. The fighter does what it needs to if you pay attention and read the rules.
JoeJ wrote: But he's in an adventuring party with a guy who can tear mountains apart with his bare hands and shrug off nuclear weapons, a woman who can defeat the freakin' god of war in melee, and a guy with a magic ring-of-whatever-I-want. It must be really boring to be Batman, since he obviously can't contribute anything. That's because he actually has good class features (whatever they may be) and insane WBL (while most other characters are limited to a couple magic items, although some of those are rather powerful).
He's not a Fighter, who can't even move 10ft and make a full attack. He's is some insane gestalt/homebrew class.
He has great saves, (well, Reflex and Will at least... Fort maybe not so much since he seems to be poisoned every other week) and his GM allows his skills to actually do cool stuff instead of what can reasonably be achieved by an average joe who goes to the gym.
He still can't survive being devoured by a T-Rex, though. Much less being punched by Superman (who is probably a 3rd level Expert/Brawler with lots of racial HD and really good racial (Su) abilties).
I'd say Wonder Woman is the closest to an actual high-level PF character... And I don't think even her reaches 20th level, although she definitely gets close. (the power of Gods in the DC universe is very inconsistent, but it generally appears to be lower than what deities are described as being capable of in 3.X/PF)
Flawed wrote:
It is all about end game. This is the entire point of this thread. Martials are generally better than casters at low levels and the scale shifts as you level. A sorcerer is just as useless at skills as you claim the fighter to be only their skill set is different.
I never said you don't need those skills. I said you don't need max ranks in some skills to be effective. Why max out climb ranks if you don't need to. Same with swimming. And eventually both skills become moot. It's the same as min/maxing stats to have a huge strength bonus at level 1. Eventually the gains just aren't there and you're hurting your character by dumping elsewhere. The mechanics support this.
You can intimidate without ranks and the skill bonus I posted, which was max ranks, gives you a degree of agency outside of combat. Riding a horse is easy. It requires a DC 5 and you can take 10. A single rank and the stats provided allow you to do everything short of controlling a mount in battle which... Martials are not better then casters at low levels. And definitely not better then a Druid or Summoner at low levels. If for some reason you don't believe this, this argument is meaningless as there is no way to change your mind, regardless of the facts. Really Level 1 is a miserable time to be a Fighter.
Riding a horse does not give you agency. Intimidate could, but Fighters aren't very good at it. The guy with the lute is going to be way more intimidating then you could ever hope to be.
You mistake me. I complain about this stuff. You showed that Fighters can kinda sorta do it. I know other classes do it better.
Thats my beef.
Flawed wrote: It is all about end game. This is the entire point of this thread. Martials are generally better than casters at low levels and the scale shifts as you level. A sorcerer is just as useless at skills as you claim the fighter to be only their skill set is different. Casters being poor at low levels is a myth plain and simple. I even have charts of varying customization. The difference tends to be 1 or 2 hit points between Martials and Martial replacements like a Druid, Cleric or Magus. A Sorcerer can be fantastic at skills with a simple choice of the Sage bloodline. Congratulations, you now have about 5-7 skill points per level.
Climb and Swim ranks are never completely moot. Have you never been attacked while scaling a cliff or fort? A horse in combat is different from just riding a horse.
Don't try to diminish a discussion with flamboyant claims of goal post moving.
Flawed wrote: This is the problem. Everyone likes to complain about this stuff and say the fighter can't do these things, but they can. The DCs aren't that hard. Sure some classes can get more skills. Big deal. The fighter does what it needs to if you pay attention and read the rules. Do you really think me so inept that I can't read the rules? The rules are specifically why I feel the way I do.
At the end of the day, even the build you posted yourself is paltry compared to other classes.
JoeJ wrote: A mounted archer raised on the steppe would need Ride and probably Handle Animal and Survival (plains) just to establish their character. A viking should have Swim and Profession (sailor); a pirate should have those and add Acrobatics for getting around in the rigging. A knight needs Ride, Knowledge (nobility), and possibly Diplomacy. Not every fighter wants Intimidate, but it's a pretty iconic skill for any kind of "tough guy" character, and Perception, as noted, is always useful.
This is just your assumption of how things should work. I know plenty of open sea fishermen that don't know how to swim. You can know how to sail a boat without it being your job. Climbing rigging is as easy as a knotted rope DC 5 solved by taking 10. Crossing a narrow surface 7-11 inches is a DC 10 solved by taking 10. DC 5 for 1-3 feet wide. If you want to play a knight with those 3 skills it's not hard with 2+INT and add on a favored bonus. I'm still not getting what the fighter is lacking because it can do everything you guys have mentioned.
Flawed wrote: JoeJ wrote: A mounted archer raised on the steppe would need Ride and probably Handle Animal and Survival (plains) just to establish their character. A viking should have Swim and Profession (sailor); a pirate should have those and add Acrobatics for getting around in the rigging. A knight needs Ride, Knowledge (nobility), and possibly Diplomacy. Not every fighter wants Intimidate, but it's a pretty iconic skill for any kind of "tough guy" character, and Perception, as noted, is always useful.
This is just your assumption of how things should work. I know plenty of open sea fishermen that don't know how to swim. You can know how to sail a boat without it being your job. Climbing rigging is as easy as a knotted rope DC 5 solved by taking 10. Crossing a narrow surface 7-11 inches is a DC 10 solved by taking 10. DC 5 for 1-3 feet wide. If you want to play a knight with those 3 skills it's not hard with 2+INT and add on a favored bonus. I'm still not getting what the fighter is lacking because it can do everything you guys have mentioned. Yes it can *do* them. That's not the problem. The problem is that the other classes are *better* at it. Fighting? Druids put you to shame and are full casters. Rangers make you cry and they have way more skills, spells and good save just to make you feel bad. Barbarians wreck your world and break magic with their bare hands while having the kind of saves you wish Bravery gave you. Paladins? Even if their opponent isn't evil they have loads more versatility, self healing, status condition removal, better saves, more skills, spells, and a Horsey or Excaliwannabe just to really drive home the Fighters inferiority. And lets not talk about the Summoner, or the Alchemist, or the Oracle, or...
Flawed wrote: JoeJ wrote: A mounted archer raised on the steppe would need Ride and probably Handle Animal and Survival (plains) just to establish their character. A viking should have Swim and Profession (sailor); a pirate should have those and add Acrobatics for getting around in the rigging. A knight needs Ride, Knowledge (nobility), and possibly Diplomacy. Not every fighter wants Intimidate, but it's a pretty iconic skill for any kind of "tough guy" character, and Perception, as noted, is always useful.
This is just your assumption of how things should work. I know plenty of open sea fishermen that don't know how to swim. You can know how to sail a boat without it being your job. Climbing rigging is as easy as a knotted rope DC 5 solved by taking 10. Crossing a narrow surface 7-11 inches is a DC 10 solved by taking 10. DC 5 for 1-3 feet wide. If you want to play a knight with those 3 skills it's not hard with 2+INT and add on a favored bonus. I'm still not getting what the fighter is lacking because it can do everything you guys have mentioned. Taking 10 wrote: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Climbing the rigging during a storm is a lot more difficult than you may think. I'd be very surprised to meet fishermen who can't swim as that is quite the strange phenomenon.
Ultimately your conclusion is "Guys, the Fighter can do all those things using out of class resources, that means the Fighter is okay despite other classes being able to do so within their class resources while using out of class resources to develop their characters further."
|
