| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To answer the OP's question - I don't really feel that they do. Sure, the fighter is disadvantaged compared to the wizard, but there are people who simply want to play a simple, brutish class that can be plug-and-played without too much trouble, and it's totally okay to offer the option to these people.So, why do you think they want to play a "simple, brutish class" anyway? It sounds from the description like someone who doesn't want to think too hard after a long day/week at work, but simply go in and smack some things around. That seems a sensible reason, yes?
Now, why is the PF approach bad for that? Grease, Charm Person, Colour Spray, and there's a lot more as levels go up. Now the skills and saving throws the Fighter has are nowhere near good enough for them to reliably bypass these and get to the smacking things around but that they enjoy. How very frustrating for them.
You know, I have yet to see a GM use Color Spray against the players at level 1. Tossing out save-or-fail level 1 spells like they are actually commonplace in campaigns, just because they exist on the rulebooks, proves absolutely nothing.
The fact that the fighter can be countered by 7 million things doesn't mean the GM necessarily have to pull all of them on every single battle. Pathfinder is an organic game; a GM isn't supposed to make the game un-fun for the fighter by throwing will saves at him every other turn in the same way that a GM isn't supposed to fiat out everything that a wizard can do. A GM isn't blind, after all, and if things turn out unfairly for the fighter, usually a discussion will occur and the GM will adjust his combat tactics later on.
GMs that are inexperienced enough to not be able to adjust his monsters tend also not to be experienced enough to use monsters to their full capabilities.
A fighter can be easy-baked to just deal damage with no trouble whatsoever. Grab a greatsword, get the relevant +X numerical items, dueling gloves, and maybe winged boots at level 9 and you now have enough damage to do your role. Even if it's not fully optimized, you can perform your role competently with just the standard power attack and the weapon focus/specialization line.
The point that I'm trying to make is, there are people who like playing fighters despite knowing how weak they are. Therefore, there's justification for it to continue to exist.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally,between swashbuckler, brawler, cavalier, barbarian, ranger, and slayer i cant find many concepts not better covered by these classes vs fighters...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is fine, but that's not going to change my opinion. ;)I rather enjoy running a campaign where everybody is T2 myself.I suppose, Ssalarn. I love Barbarians, but they're really just an example of the BARE MINIMUM of what mundane martials should be able to do.
I really just won't be happy until everybody is T3.
Just for the record: we are talking about Terminator Movies yeah?
-While the robot chick in T3 was ok, I still prefer the liquid metal man from T2 so I'm going to have to agree with kyrt-ryder here....
:p
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyways, to me it seems the martial characters, Barbarian, fighter etc do far more damage a round consistently then the evocation magic my wizard wields. So why do martial's feel they don't have "nice things"?.
As others said, dealing damage is the worst option for casters.
But in addition to that it always depends on the circumstances. How many enemies do you have? How many rounds does the combat last? How effectively can you deal area damage without hitting friends?Single target: Use suffocation, for example. If the enemy fails 1 of 3 saves he is reduced to 0 hp. No matter how many he had before. No need to use spells that deal x dice of type y.
Or use damage over time spells first and direct damage later. That way the total damage dealt adds up.
Area spells: A lightning bolt vs a single target clearly deals less damage than a raging barbarian. A fireball vs 5 enemies might deal more.
VS. special enemies: Casters have a much easier time adapting their damage to special enemies. And that starts at level 1. versatility is the key here.
I have seen casters out-damaging martials but I have yet to see a martial having more versatility or narrative power than a caster.
If what you want is a simple combat brute, how would you feel about a 'Juggernaut' class that received Full BAB, All Good Saves, Full Movement in Armor, a dodge bonus to AC instead of an increased max dex for armor, Weapon Training, Damage Reduction, Energy Resistance, a built in Resistance Bonus to Saves and a limited per day d20 reroll mechanic?
That's a simple brute. The Fighter is far far more complicated.
I'd rather play that than a fighter who is so helpless vs magic. What you describe is vastly superior to the fighter. And you can afford to use feats for fun stuff because once you take power attack you have everything you need for combat. And you're less MAD so you can afford higher int to have more skillpoints.
Edit: In fact such a class, with a single level dip into hunter for versatility (spells and permanent animal focus) could be my go-to pc option.
Edit2: As a matter of fact something like a permanent animal focus (named differently) would be just what the fighter needs to become viable. (+ better saves)
Realistically, an optimized wizard may be a bit too powerful for a cooperative play setting, so that may not be the best place to put the bar.Are we talking optimized to a practical level or abusing Simulacrums and Planar Binding and such?
Even a practically optimized wizard can easily become a fun-ruiner if he's really built to be powerful. To toss out one example I brought up earlier, wizard starts combat by casting a Dazing Fireball. Enemies get no actions for three turns, turning the fight into a complete mop-up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm starting to think people love to hate the fighter. While I've never found the fighter to be an attractive class myself, there are many who do, and I think the reason why is the combination of simplicity and customizability (with all of those feats, more skill points would have been nice too but alas). Saving throws is a problem of course, but isn't really a problem with all of the class with the poor saving throw progression and no way to magically enhance them (barbarian, rogue, cavalier, slayer, etc. (martials)). Although some will hate the suggestion, a new class that has a fighter like chassis but at least 4 skill points per level and a marshal like ability to yell out commands that have some crowd control effects, good saves (obviously), and some type of feat-like (rage powers, rogue talents) customization feels warranted. This way you can have your versatile martial class, and the fighter is still there as the simpler option. Alternatively, a extensive archtype might be able to fit the bill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If what you want is a simple combat brute, how would you feel about a 'Juggernaut' class that received Full BAB, All Good Saves, Full Movement in Armor, a dodge bonus to AC instead of an increased max dex for armor, Weapon Training, Damage Reduction, Energy Resistance, a built in Resistance Bonus to Saves and a limited per day d20 reroll mechanic?
That's a simple brute. The Fighter is far far more complicated.
I have no issues with that, ultimately (and in fact, I would add 4+INT skills to it). What I gathered that most people meant when they "give martials nice things" is to add combat options to literally everything (aka making everything T3), and I'm simply proposing that having a class remain relatively a simple and straightforward brute (aka low T4-high T5) is a good thing, too.
And yes, I do play with GMs that act differently than you do. I'm assuming you play with optimized and highly tactical players so they'll scout and snipe the caster as early as level 1, so you can go all-out on them? Most of the parties I've been with would TPK if the GM liberally pulls out color spray at that level, so wizards simply do not show up at level 1. Most of my GMs adjust the encounters they use to the party's optimization level anyhow, so if there is no spellcasters in the party, they won't design challenges that require spells we don't have.
That is the main reason we're playing an organic tabletop game, after all.
I'm starting to think people love to hate the fighter. While I've never found the fighter to be an attractive class myself, there are many who do, and I think the reason why is the combination of simplicity and customizability (with all of those feats, more skill points would have been nice too but alas). Saving throws is a problem of course, but isn't really a problem with all of the class with the poor saving throw progression and no way to magically enhance them (barbarian, rogue, cavalier, slayer, etc. (martials)). Although some will hate the suggestion, a new class that has a fighter like chassis but at least 4 skill points per level and a marshal like ability to yell out commands that have some crowd control effects, good saves (obviously), and some type of feat-like (rage powers, rogue talents) customization feels warranted. This way you can have your versatile martial class, and the fighter is still there as the simpler option. Alternatively, a extensive archtype might be able to fit the bill.
Like the Marshal class from 3.5
That was pretty good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let us look at a world where casters had to use magic the same way martials use feats. First the caster would have to cast "gather magic" so that he could cast another spell. If he wanted to cast fireball, he would have to have lesser fireball 1, lesser fireball 2, and lesser fireball 3 prepared, or else fireball wouldn't work. On the plus side, the caster gets one cantrip that he can user over and over again....
This kind of thing is posted so often, it makes me think there is a large segment of the gaming population that would be interested in such a system. Perhaps you should band together with other like-minded individuals and design your own system or house rules on this system. Then you can come back and have everyone analyze such a system and provide you with feedback.
Let us look at a world where casters had to use magic the same way martials use feats. First the caster would have to cast "gather magic" so that he could cast another spell. If he wanted to cast fireball, he would have to have lesser fireball 1, lesser fireball 2, and lesser fireball 3 prepared, or else fireball wouldn't work. On the plus side, the caster gets one cantrip that he can user over and over again....This kind of thing is posted so often, it makes me think there is a large segment of the gaming population that would be interested in such a system. Perhaps you should band together with other like-minded individuals and design your own system or house rules on this system. Then you can come back and have everyone analyze such a system and provide you with feedback.
I second this. I love the idea of prerequisites for spells (other than caster level, I mean)-please do this! :D
Personally,between swashbuckler, brawler, cavalier, barbarian, ranger, and slayer i cant find many concepts not better covered by these classes vs fighters...
Admittedly, the fighter makes a rather good heavy armour warrior guy. I mean, cavalier can also be a heavy armour warrior guy, but with cavalier you basically have to be a mounted warrior or a swashbuckler.
Even a practically optimized wizard can easily become a fun-ruiner if he's really built to be powerful. To toss out one example I brought up earlier, wizard starts combat by casting a Dazing Fireball. Enemies get no actions for three turns, turning the fight into a complete mop-up.Realistically, an optimized wizard may be a bit too powerful for a cooperative play setting, so that may not be the best place to put the bar.Are we talking optimized to a practical level or abusing Simulacrums and Planar Binding and such?
Three rounds in which casters would have to expend three spells to kill the opposition that a martial can kill in that time without using any resources.
Stopping the enemy is all well and good, but they still need to be killed
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about this for a better discussion: don't attack players whose play style is different than yours. If you enjoy games where casters shine, excellent. If someone else prefers games where non casters shine, excellent. If others prefer a game where everyone can shine, excellent. After running games in different systems for several decades, I've come to the conclusion that the GM has the opportunity to make sure everyone has fun and if another player is unhappy with that then said player can find a group more to their liking.Martials already have nice things, for those who like those things. Others want more. Unfortunately there are some who think that if the class doesn't do what they want then it universally sucks. Some classes are more fun for others to play. There's nothing wrong with it. Enjoy playing your characters. Let others enjoy playing theirs. As long as everyone is having fun, that's what matters.Agreed, if you give the plebs what they want who knows what might happen. Sure, today they might just be asking for things to do in combat that are more interesting the finding the nearest target and full attacking but some day they might actually dare to ask for some narative control over the game! Think of the scandal!
I don't see anyone attacking people like to play martials. I like to play martials a lot - but I'm not going to pretend that their power doesn't fall by the wayside at higher levels. (Of course - I generally avoid higher levels for that and a few other ways the system starts to break down.)
That's like if you get upset when someone says that the players in the WNBA aren't as good because you happen to like watching the WNBA. Go ahead and watch them - I'm not going to stop you. But don't pretend that those players would stand a chance in the NBA.
I can mostly agree with much or what was said before, but I would add a few clarifications of my own.
I have seen very few groups/campaigns where a well made and well run fighter or even rogue has not been just as essential to the success of the team as the caster.
Most people I have actually met (not theory crafting on the forums) that do not like to play martials usually say that it is boring. Not that they aren't powerful enough. They don't want to almost always say "I full attack," throw handful of dice, and basic math for the next year of gaming. I happen to be one of those people.
I think casters at the highest levels ARE too powerful. Given my preference, martials wouldn't be strengthened but casters would be weakened in some ways. I think some of the 'best' spells are obviously too low level. I think some spells should be long rituals not standard action casting. I think some spells are just way too easy. Fly, illusions, teleport, polymorph, and scrying are the first ones that come to mind.
Just because you can have a bit of magic to cast an illusion should mean you have all the related skills to memorize person X detailed appearance and know his mannerisms. I think that should also require other checks like spellcraft, perception, and maybe sense motive.
But for all that, the system as-is works pretty well. Most people can play reasonably close to the character that they want. And of course most groups I have known house rule some stuff to make it even closer to what they want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have seen very few groups/campaigns where a well made and well run fighter or even rogue has not been just as essential to the success of the team as the caster.
While this may be true, that also doesn't mean that the rogue isn't vastly overshadowed and overpowered.
Most sports teams, for example, have the key "skill positions" where someone gets to make all the important decisions, get all the splash plays, and generally end up on talk shows and boxes of cereal. In American football, this is often the quarterback (who can make more than $5 million per year even if they're only "average" quarterbacks, and who top out at $20 million plus.) There are also positions that are still critical to the team's success -- center, for example, or left offensive tackle -- that pay a quarter as much and are lucky if someone pays them to endorse a local shoe store.
Why does Andy Dalton (QB, Cincinnati Bengals) make $16MM a year, while his center, Russell Bodine, makes less than $700K? Jameis Winston makes $6MM+ and hasn't played a single game.
The reason, of course, is that quarterbacks show up on highlight reels and sell tickets while centers generally don't. And relatively few 8 year olds dream of becoming an NFL center for exactly that reason.
Most people I have actually met (not theory crafting on the forums) that do not like to play martials usually say that it is boring. Not that they aren't powerful enough. They don't want to almost always say "I full attack," throw handful of dice, and basic math for the next year of gaming. I happen to be one of those people.
Agreed.
I've almost never seen a center make a game-changing play. Well, let me rephrase that. I've often seen a center screw up badly enough to change the game, but that's not a good thing. I've almost never seen a center make a highlight-reel, game-winning play. I've similarly rarely seen a fighter make a highlight reel. A baseline fighter does lots of damage in a very workmanlike fashion but rarely gets to be heroic.... and you generally only realize how important he is when something's gone horribly wrong. Fighters need more opportunities to do heroic, game-winning things.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I agree, leaving the Fighter (and most martials) the way they are is really not a good plan. That "I full attack!" stuff wears on even the most ardent of people who like martial characters. Everybody should be able to have fun and effective options for interacting with the game at the whole, and the problem is that there are a number of classes who are just barely competent in ONE role, and that's with assistance. That's not fair or fun for a lot of people.
While I agree, leaving the Fighter (and most martials) the way they are is really not a good plan. That "I full attack!" stuff wears on even the most ardent of people who like martial characters. Everybody should be able to have fun and effective options for interacting with the game at the whole, and the problem is that there are a number of classes who are just barely competent in ONE role, and that's with assistance. That's not fair or fun for a lot of people.
I'd be inclined to agree (as I also can't stand not having options), but I've met several people who still like playing fighters and other martials after doing so since earlier editions. It's not something I could ever understand, but they do still seem to have fun in games by just playing their character's personalities and full-attacking whenever they can.
So I won't say "it's not fair or fun for a lot of people." Different players can have vastly different expectations and tastes in a tabletop game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I agree, leaving the Fighter (and most martials) the way they are is really not a good plan. That "I full attack!" stuff wears on even the most ardent of people who like martial characters. Everybody should be able to have fun and effective options for interacting with the game at the whole, and the problem is that there are a number of classes who are just barely competent in ONE role, and that's with assistance. That's not fair or fun for a lot of people.I'd be inclined to agree (as I also can't stand not having options), but I've met several people who still like playing fighters and other martials after doing so since earlier editions. It's not something I could ever understand, but they do still seem to have fun in games by just playing their character's personalities and full-attacking whenever they can.
Well, I would argue that those people aren't actually hurt by giving fighters more "nice things." If I want to be a druid without an animal companion, or a wizard who only casts fire spells, or a slayer who has sworn only to use his father's ancestral corkscrew as a weapon,... I can do that. It's much easier not to use class abilities that you have than it is to use ones that you don't have.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright - I'm gonna chime in here on this thread as well:
My sense is that - from the fighters that I build - I get frustrated by needing to take a Feat when someone else gets cool stuff as a class feature.
"But - you get so many more Feats than I do! Why are you complaining?"
"Because your class just GIVES you stuff, and I always have to come begging for things I should just be able to do!"
TO OQ,
I actually like that particular type of sports analogy (though I'm not really an huge fan of American football).
However; in the PF and D&D games I have seen, I would rarely characterize the difference as that extreme. I would say maybe the difference between a forward and guard in basketball. Yeah the forwards tend to score a few more points. But the guard is often showier when he does. Plus he tends to have the ball in hand much more of the time.
They both have their shine time.
In our games the martials, yes including fighters (though I will admit rarely rogues); have been the game changers / the hero / the combat ender nearly as often as the casters. It has just been that the spotlight action is always the same full attack, bazillion damage, and dead - that it was for the last 917 encounters. But that doesn't bother a lot of players. In fact that is precisely what a whole lot of them seem to want.
Don't get me wrong, I am not necessarily opposed to the fighter getting some new toys (though I'd rather see the end game wizard lose some). But I would more in favor of more options rather than more powerful options.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright - I'm gonna chime in here on this thread as well:
My sense is that - from the fighters that I build - I get frustrated by needing to take a Feat when someone else gets cool stuff as a class feature.
"But - you get so many more Feats than I do! Why are you complaining?"
"Because your class just GIVES you stuff, and I always have to come begging for things I should just be able to do!"
In part, I think this is an issue with some things being feats when they shouldn't be.
Like, why on earth do I need a feat and BAB+11 to use Strike Back? Why is it somehow insufficient to just ready an action? Readying an action to attack is exactly how I'd want to handle an opponent with greater reach if I can't get in close enough to hit them normally. But, because there's a feat to do it, I can't unless I'm at least level 11 and took the feat.
I'd argue that Power Attack is much the same. Why do you need special training to try to sacrifice accuracy for power? I don't need any special training to sacrifice accuracy for defense (by fighting defensively). I don't need special training to sacrifice my ability to effectively hit my opponent to do non-lethal damage.
And of course, the ridiculousness of martial feat chains comes up pretty often. Are there even any real spellcaster equivalents here? Spell Perfection comes to mind as the closest thing, but those three metamagic feats you need to qualify will be useful in just making good use of Spell Perfection to begin with. (One of the most common uses of Spell Perfection I've seen is to make a Fireball far more powerful by letting you stack Empowered, Maximized, and Intensified at a more reasonable spell level. Or drop Maximized in favor of Quickened to get off two solid Fireballs in a single round.)
Combat Expertise comes up a lot, too, and for good reason. Why is a Wizard more likely to have the potential to safely trip someone than the Fighter? BAB is kind of the primary measure of martial combat prowess, isn't it? So why isn't Improved Trip just gated on your BAB?
And really, that all adds up to why Fighters are kind of hosed. Their primary class feature is more feats, but the feats that Fighters want seem to have been stretched out so that they need to use all of those extra feats. Either the fighter is passable in 2-3 things, or actually good at one thing. Meanwhile, spellcasters get the same and more through solid spell selection and clever use of those spells.
^And most of the Combat Feats are able to be taken by most anyone, so it's not like only Fighters can have them.
"Oh - hey! I want to Power Attack, too!"
Granted, they have reqs, but not prohibitively so.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
^And most of the Combat Feats are able to be taken by most anyone, so it's not like only Fighters can have them.
"Oh - hey! I want to Power Attack, too!"
Granted, they have reqs, but not prohibitively so.
Not even fighter only feats are fighter only ironically.
There are so many classes that can pick fighter feats or get them as bonus feats its more likely to find a non fighter having it than it is to see an actual fighter using them.
...
In part, I think this is an issue with some things being feats when they shouldn't be.Like, why on earth do I need a feat and BAB+11 to use Strike Back? ...
I can agree with a lot of those examples, but not necessarily all of them.
You can fight defensively or you can take combat expertise and be even better at it. I would like to see power attack like that. Maybe a 2 for 1 trade without the feat and a 1 for 2 trade with the feat. I think that works.
I agree that combat expertise as a prereq for tripping or disarming an opponent is pretty lame. They seem to have nothing to do with each other.
I do think some of the other feat chains are sensible and I think work ok.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not even fighter only feats are fighter only ironically.
There are so many classes that can pick fighter feats or get them as bonus feats its more likely to find a non fighter having it than it is to see an actual fighter using them.
Honestly, I think that's okay, because even the Fighter-only feats aren't really good enough to be worth having to play a Fighter.
The only one I can think of that comes close is Deadly Stroke, and it's still locked behind a long list of prerequisites and a high BAB. Even classes that can take feats as if they were Fighters are going to expend a lot of resources to get it.
Of course, that's nearly as bad for a Fighter. Five feats is a lot, even for a Fighter, and that doesn't include the supporting feats that you really need to make Deadly Stroke useful (like Intimidating Prowess and Skill Focus Intimidate). Though you can sidestep the optional bits if you have a caster that's able to stun or fear your opponents. But that's just another example of martial characters needing help from casters to have a chance to shine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a lot of the martial feats would be much more interesting if they could be completed as part of a full-attack. For example that Deadly Stroke feat suddenly seems a lot cooler if added onto one of the attacks in your full attack.
A million times yes.
I've played a Fighter before, and it was okay, but not my favorite. I loved role-playing that character, but I could've used a very similar concept with a number of other classes.
Deadly Stroke is the only thing that ever draws me back to the idea of playing a Fighter. It does so regularly, and every time, I sit down and try to figure out how to make it work. Invariably, I come to the same conclusions:
1) It takes too long to get up and running. Level 11 is very late in the game, and it assumes the campaign won't be over by then.
2) Even once you get everything together, it's a very fragile thing. First I have to spend a full round action to demoralize a bunch of people. Or a standard action, if I go for just a single target. Then, next round, I need to hit the target to trigger Shatter Defenses, so they'll be flat footed. Then, the next round, I have to use a standard action to use Deadly Stroke to finally get any payoff at all. I've spent at least 5 feats (probably more to guarantee it works the first time) over 11 levels to have a gimmick that takes three rounds to kick in.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a 8th level sylph wizard with the air speciality. I am thoroughly enjoying the character. My theme for the character not surprisingly is wind, electrical damage, storms etc.....So I am having lots of fun with Aggressive Thunder Cloud, Lightning Bolt, Ball Lightning etc.....
Thursday night I went to a Pathfinder Society game at, Game Theory in Raleigh NC, I had signed up to play Darkest Vengeance. I arrived little early. I noticed there was another player with a wizard! We spent some time comparing spell lists and picking spells we wanted to share before the game. We also compared what we were planning to have our wizards prepare for the game.
We both decided to prepare a couple of Haste spells, so we would have 4 haste spells available for the adventure.
In our party we also had a player, a good friend, with a hyped up "gnoll" barbarian with a Falchion, a real heavy hitter. The character is actually some sort of tiefling that looks like a gnoll. My friend just likes gnolls and Lamasthu.
Anyways back to the spell selection....While looking at what I could do with a lightning bolt, I realized, with reflex saves, Evasion...etc....my 8d6 lighting bolt, was going to cause much less damage then the barbarian.....Haste+ Barbarian was my most effective combination for dealing damage.
Anyways, to me it seems the martial characters, Barbarian, fighter etc do far more damage a round consistently then the evocation magic my wizard wields. So why do martial's feel they don't have "nice things"?.
Thoughts?
Because all the barbarian is doing is damage. That's it, that's just about all he can do. Outside of combat, where other elements common to Pathfinder adventures are at play, he's no better than you are. Same # of feats (less if you count your wizard bonus feats), smaller number of skill points unless he's getting some from his favored class bonus AND has a decent Int to get more, no class-specific abilities that give him social/exploration/investigation options, etc. So, while the barbarian excels like a mofo at combat, otherwise he's just kind...there.
Now, in contrast, let's take a look at what other options your wizard has every day. At 8th level, you have, after those two hastes and four school-specific bonus spells, 10 spells to toss around by base. With your likely +4 Int mod, that's another spell of each level for 14 total. I'm just going to toss out this list of common utility spells wizards of your level might have. Keep in mind, this is CRB only and it's not anything meant specifically for combat (offensive/defensive), this is just "let me do neat/handy things" spells:
- 0th level - detect poison, detect magic, read magic, light, mage hand, mending, message
- 1st level - alarm, endure elements, hold portal, protection from evil, grease, mount, unseen servant, comprehend languages, detect undead, identify, charm person, hypnotism, floating disk, disguise self, magic aura, silent image, ventriloquism, animate rope, enlarge person, erase, expeditious retreat, feather fall, jump, reduce person
- 2nd level - arcane lock, obscure object, detect thoughts, locate object, see invisibility, continual flame, darkness, gust of wind, hypnotic pattern, invisibility, magic mouth, minor image, misdirection, phantom trap, alter self, darkvision, knock, levitate, make whole, rope trick, spider climb, any of the six individual "+4 to an ability score" spells
- 3rd level - dispel magic, magic circle against evil, nondetection, phantom steed, arcane sight, clairaudience/clairvoyance, tongues, heroism, suggestion, daylight, tiny hut, illusory script, invisbility sphere, major image, gentle repose, beast shape I, fly, gaseous form, secret page, shrink item, water breathing
- 4th level - remove curse, dimension door, minor creation, secure shelter, arcane eye, detect scrying, locate creature, scrying, ch arm monster, geas (lesser), hallucinatory terrain, illusory wall, rainbow pattern, shadow conjuration, animate dead, beast shape II, elemental body I, enlarge person (mass), mnemonic enhancer, reduce person (mass), stone shape
Now granted, you have to have a copy of those spells in your spellbook but still, look at all those options! Keep in mind, I kept some spells, such as summon monster I-IV, off that list, since their most common (but certainly not only) uses is in combat. THAT'S the problem people talk about when it comes to the caster-martial disparity. All the really neat abilities don't get made into feats that anyone can qualify for, they get turned into spells. Following that logic, anything too cool or strong is not allowed to be a feat because it'd be "always on" and "it'd be unfair since magic has downsides", whereas spells don't fall into either category. Which are two bogus bits of logic. Some spells can last all day and most typically last at least 1 minute/level. Also, there's pretty much no downside whatsoever to using magic: there's no toll it takes on your system, being evil with it doesn't warp your mind, it typically takes no longer than a standard action, is very cheap, and at higher levels most concentration checks become auto-pass. Magic is easy, highly effective, and versatile to a degree skills simply cannot compete with.
This all gets worse AGAIN when you get into magic items. These are typically considered to be the vast majority of your wealth by level (WBL), as per the system rules. A caster, especially a wizard, can easily take item creation feats and make magic items to help themselves out. Hell, you get Scribe Scroll for free! That's a massive bump to your potential # of spells per day at pretty low cost. Barbarians, fighters, rogues, cavaliers, monks, etc cannot do this, not without sinking an extra feat (Master Craftsman) into it and devoting a LOT of ranks in Craft to the process. Even then, they don't meet prerequisites and so will have a harder time making the DC. To add insult to injury, unless their ranks in Craft are relevant to the item type being created, they cannot use their feats and skill ranks to make that kind of item, regardless of it they have the right item creation feat. This is another major kind of flexibility issue between the two types of classes.
So, that's why there's a feeling that "martials can't get nice things". When it comes to travel, exploration/investigation, counteracting/combating magic, getting help when you need it, miscellaneous utility, or almost anything outside of hitting things hard until you kill them, 95% of the time they simply don't have anything like the options a spellcaster would. If this was 4E and the game was entirely combat and skill checks, that wouldn't be an issue. It isn't, though, so it is.
Because all the barbarian is doing is damage. That's it, that's just about all he can do. Outside of combat, where other elements common to Pathfinder adventures are at play, he's no better than you are. Same # of feats (less if you count your wizard bonus feats), smaller number of skill points unless he's getting some from his favored class bonus AND has a decent Int to get more, no class-specific abilities that give him social/exploration/investigation options, etc. So, while the barbarian excels like a mofo at combat, otherwise he's just kind...there.
Fortunately, the barbarian class is better off than the fighter class, with 4+Int skills rather than 2+Int. Therefore, a barbarian is not quite as useless outside combat. The 11th-level gnome barbarian I am playing has maxed out Acrobatics, Climb, and Swim, and then made Climbing even better with the Bestial Climber rage power. Our current adventure is in the jungle and someone has to do the climbing and swimming to blaze the trail. She has little chance of stealth beyond her racial bonus, but with her barbarian speed, and a rage power to boost it, she can outrun most monsters too big for her to tackle alone.
Of course, just the phrase "gnome barbarian" shows that she is not optimized for damage. She is optimized to take risks, for the fun of it.
Usually, when I play a martial, I chose ranger. That way, I can track the enemy, scout out the enemy, find a safe campsite that the enemy won't spot during the night, and feed the party by hunting. The last ranger I played served as a detective during The Skinsaw Murders module. And in combat, the ranger can handle both ranged and melee.
Not all martials are useless outside combat. But those useful skills are best at low levels. Climbing is not as necessary when the wizard can cast Fly or Spider Climb, and Sense Motive is not as valuable when the wizard can cast Suggestion or Charm Person.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because all the barbarian is doing is damage. That's it, that's just about all he can do. Outside of combat, where other elements common to Pathfinder adventures are at play, he's no better than you are. Same # of feats (less if you count your wizard bonus feats), smaller number of skill points unless he's getting some from his favored class bonus AND has a decent Int to get more, no class-specific abilities that give him social/exploration/investigation options, etc. So, while the barbarian excels like a mofo at combat, otherwise he's just kind...there.Fortunately, the barbarian class is better off than the fighter class, with 4+Int skills rather than 2+Int. Therefore, a barbarian is not quite as useless outside combat.
The Barbarian also gets some interesting and effective rage powers. For example, Come and Get Me provides a way to trick enemies into attacking you over someone else, Celestial Purge blocks invisibility, Dragon Totem (Wings) lets you fly, Good For What Ails You gives you re-saves, and so forth.
In my opinion, the Barbarian is a martial who does get at least some "nice things," and is a model that should be followed by the other martials.
|
|
2) Even once you get everything together, it's a very fragile thing. First I have to spend a full round action to demoralize a bunch of people. Or a standard action, if I go for just a single target. Then, next round, I need to hit the target to trigger Shatter Defenses, so they'll be flat footed. Then, the next round, I have to use a standard action to use Deadly Stroke to finally get any payoff at all. I've spent at least 5 feats (probably more to guarantee it works the first time) over 11 levels to have a gimmick that takes three rounds to kick in.
Demoralize through the Blade of Mercy/Enforcer combo so that it doesn't take a separate action. Saves you a round if it's on a full attack. (First attack triggers Enforcer - next one triggers Shatter Defenses.)
Perhaps out of combat roles (I'm using the term loosely here) would spice things up for martial characters, for examples fighters could identify soldiers (with or without uniforms) and the properties of weapons and armors , military/militia buildings (even if their disguised to look otherwise), and had abilities to keep up a marching formation for longer time without fatigue. Add in a few more skill points and skills like knowledge, local which could thematically fit. None of those changes would be in intrusive to the concept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I would argue that those people aren't actually hurt by giving fighters more "nice things." If I want to be a druid without an animal companion, or a wizard who only casts fire spells, or a slayer who has sworn only to use his father's ancestral corkscrew as a weapon,... I can do that. It's much easier not to use class abilities that you have than it is to use ones that you don't have.
This is very true.
I guess, as long as there's a simple path among the choices that someone can use to build a character that's very good at the standard "Thog Smash", it would appease most of the players that like playing Martials now. As long as we can find a way to get around the (imo silly) "it's too anime/wuxia" reaction, at least.
Because all the barbarian is doing is damage. That's it, that's just about all he can do. Outside of combat, where other elements common to Pathfinder adventures are at play, he's no better than you are. Same # of feats (less if you count your wizard bonus feats), smaller number of skill points unless he's getting some from his favored class bonus AND has a decent Int to get more, no class-specific abilities that give him social/exploration/investigation options, etc. So, while the barbarian excels like a mofo at combat, otherwise he's just kind...there.Fortunately, the barbarian class is better off than the fighter class, with 4+Int skills rather than 2+Int. Therefore, a barbarian is not quite as useless outside combat.The Barbarian also gets some interesting and effective rage powers. For example, Come and Get Me provides a way to trick enemies into attacking you over someone else, Celestial Purge blocks invisibility, Dragon Totem (Wings) lets you fly, Good For What Ails You gives you re-saves, and so forth.
In my opinion, the Barbarian is a martial who does get at least some "nice things," and is a model that should be followed by the other martials.
True, but then how much of this can readily and efficiently be used when not in combat? The flight is two rounds of rage per round in the air, so you need to expend 20 rounds for one minute of out-of-combat flight. Might as well just buy up a lot of potions. Celestial Totem is nice but it's range is utter crap (it only affects adjacent squares). Using that to search for invisible creatures/elements in anything significantly larger than a broom closest most likely means you're then out of rage for the day. Most rage powers that have any kind of potentially non-combat usage would be horribly inefficient to the point of being unusable on such timescales. Good for What Ails You appears to be the sole exception to that, since it would only require one round of rage and isn't limited in daily use otherwise.
Demoralize through the Blade of Mercy/Enforcer combo so that it doesn't take a separate action. Saves you a round if it's on a full attack. (First attack triggers Enforcer - next one triggers Shatter Defenses.)
That would work, yes.
In my case, my DM has only recently allowed the APG. Even then, that's only because the third party Thunderscape setting (and associated rules) explicitly assume the APG is in play. The book also says all other Paizo material is game, but he's still keeping it limited. So, while I have access to Enforcer, I don't have access to Blade of Mercy. Hinging a concept on finding a Merciful weapon is... Well, in all of the campaigns I've played with this DM, a Merciful weapon has never shown up, and whether or not custom crafting (or being able to find someone to add specific enchantments) is available is kind of hit and miss.
I'd argue that's still pretty fragile, though. You do cut out a round if you don't have to move to get to your target (so, only sometimes), but you also make healing twice as effective on that target. I suppose that's mitigated somewhat by the Constitution bleed from Deadly Stroke, but they're going to be looking to heal anyway to stop the bleeding. Making that heal even better doesn't seem prudent.
|
|
I'd argue that's still pretty fragile, though. You do cut out a round if you don't have to move to get to your target (so, only sometimes), but you also make healing twice as effective on that target. I suppose that's mitigated somewhat by the Constitution bleed from Deadly Stroke, but they're going to be looking to heal anyway to stop the bleeding. Making that heal even better doesn't seem prudent.
I suppose if they get in-combat healing. *shrug* It's rare enough outside of Heal (which will likely get them back to full HP anyway) that I don't generally plan for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose, Ssalarn. I love Barbarians, but they're really just an example of the BARE MINIMUM of what mundane martials should be able to do.
Barbarians aren't even mundane martials, unless you avoid all of their magical rage powers.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know what I'm about, son.
Alright - I'm gonna chime in here on this thread as well:
My sense is that - from the fighters that I build - I get frustrated by needing to take a Feat when someone else gets cool stuff as a class feature.
"But - you get so many more Feats than I do! Why are you complaining?"
"Because your class just GIVES you stuff, and I always have to come begging for things I should just be able to do!"
In part, I think this is an issue with some things being feats when they shouldn't be.
Like, why on earth do I need a feat and BAB+11 to use Strike Back? Why is it somehow insufficient to just ready an action? Readying an action to attack is exactly how I'd want to handle an opponent with greater reach if I can't get in close enough to hit them normally. But, because there's a feat to do it, I can't unless I'm at least level 11 and took the feat.
I'd argue that Power Attack is much the same. Why do you need special training to try to sacrifice accuracy for power? I don't need any special training to sacrifice accuracy for defense (by fighting defensively). I don't need special training to sacrifice my ability to effectively hit my opponent to do non-lethal damage.
And of course, the ridiculousness of martial feat chains comes up pretty often. Are there even any real spellcaster equivalents here? Spell Perfection comes to mind as the closest thing, but those three metamagic feats you need to qualify will be useful in just making good use of Spell Perfection to begin with. (One of the most common uses of Spell Perfection I've seen is to make a Fireball far more powerful by letting you stack Empowered, Maximized, and Intensified at a more reasonable spell level. Or drop Maximized in favor of Quickened to get off two solid Fireballs in a single round.)
Combat Expertise comes up a lot, too, and for good reason. Why is a Wizard more likely to have the potential to safely trip someone...
This is pretty spot on from my experiences as well. In addition to all of that the system itself is pretty hard to weapon-based classes as well. Descending attack bonuses, full-round attacks being the two major hindrances.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose, Ssalarn. I love Barbarians, but they're really just an example of the BARE MINIMUM of what mundane martials should be able to do.Barbarians aren't even mundane martials, unless you avoid all of their magical rage powers.
As I've specified elsewhere, the extraordinary/supernatural divide is bunk. No one cares if they show up on a detect magic and anti-magic zones are so exceedingly rare that the concept should not even matter, especially since there's the far more important matter of ALL OF YOUR MAGIC ITEMS TURNING OFF. The number of other factors that might ever distinguish between supernatural and any other type of ability can probably be counted on one hand, perhaps twice. Honestly, anti-magic shell should have just been an infinite SR zone, then we could have extraordinary abilities that didn't suck in comparison to their supernatural cousins 90% of the time.
Design Manager
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm starting to think people love to hate the Fighter. Saving throws is a problem of course, but isn't really a problem with all of the class with the poor saving throw progression and no way to magically enhance them (barbarian, rogue, cavalier, slayer, etc. (martials)).
Rogue was so weak it got a massive buff in unchained, Barbarians and Cavaliers have built in save boosters that put the Fighter to shame, and Slayers have two good saves. Plus, all of those classes save the Rogue are pretty on par with the Fighter in combat, and all of them including the Rogue are vastly better out of combat.
That being said, I don't hate the Fighter. I wrote a supplement called The Genius Guide to Bravery Feats that has nothing but cool Fighter options in it. It's even 5 star rated and nominated for best of 2014. The point isn't to brag though, it's to say that I actually really like the Fighter, but I still recognize the fact that the class has some substantial flaws and doesn't necessarily perform as advertised. The class description says the Fighter is a " skilled warrior(s) [who can] reveal the true deadliness of their weapons, turning hunks of metal into arms capable of taming kingdoms, slaughtering monsters, and rousing the hearts of armies", but other than the slaughtering monsters part, they don't actually deliver. Cavaliers can rouse the hearts of armies; Banner is built right in. Bards, Clerics, Wizards and others have abilities that allow them to literally tame kingdoms, but the Fighter doesn't really.
I can't speak for everyone, but I just want Fighters who live up to the hype, who are more dangerous to their enemies than their allies, who really can rally troops and tame kingdoms. It's certainly something that's doable, though not everyone is going to agree on how to get there.
^And most of the Combat Feats are able to be taken by most anyone, so it's not like only Fighters can have them.
"Oh - hey! I want to Power Attack, too!"
Granted, they have reqs, but not prohibitively so.
Not even fighter only feats are fighter only ironically.
There are so many classes that can pick fighter feats or get them as bonus feats its more likely to find a non fighter having it than it is to see an actual fighter using them.
Yeah, I think that there's a couple issues there.
1) If something's supposed to be Fighter only, there shouldn't be a bunch of classes that get to count as Fighters when picking their feats. Why on earth does the Magus need to take Fighter only feats? He can cast true strike as part of a full attack, you really think he needs Greater Weapon Focus?
2) It's reasonably fair to question why a feat with a Fighter level prerequisite is being made Fighter only. A Fighter can elegant that extra +1 to hit out of Greater Weapon Focus but a Cavalier can't? They should be hanging these feats on class abilities unique to the Fighter if they're supposed to be thresholded in a way that's thematically and mechanically appropriate.
If you're saying martials need to be magical in Pathfinder, I agree. If you're saying magical martials are mundane martials, well, that's just not true.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I feel like Dimension Dervish is A shining example of things wrong. In order to do cool things like move and full attack you need magic...