Ashiel |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel wrote:Except that we can skip 3, 4 and the last ones. I'd tell the player, ok, let's play, then decide the feats n skills later, once you understand how they work. You cannot do it with a fixed ability of a class.cablop wrote:For people who wants to spend TOO few time making a character before deciding if the're going to love the game, a fighter is the right choice. 5 minutes and you are on the road to adventure.Fighter vs Ranger character creation
1. Generate ability scores.
2. Assign ability scores.
3. Assign skill points (2 vs 6).
4. Pick a general Feat from a large list of feats.
R. Write down class features.
F. Pick a combat Feat from a large list of feats.The ranger is faster to generate because there's less time spent sifting through crap.
Yeah you can. Seriously, if you're just going to ignore skill points and feats and class features, there is literally no difference between the two at 1st level.
This isn't even an argument for the Fighter.
Ashiel |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a game. It's meant to be fun. An element of risk is part of the fun. Your hand holding of players would detract from the fun. Help provided when asked is fine. Dictating what a player should play to "win" the game is a complete waste of time as the GM can up or lower the dimmer switch to increase/lower difficulty as he wants.
It's like you've got an industrial scarecrow factory. :o
A GM should never be a slave to a pre-written script, with the players acting as his jailors holding the proverbial gun to his head so that he does not step out of line and so that he keeps running the show as written. That's a perverse scheme that reeks of players reading the adventure ahead of time to test the GM. The reek usually comes from players that never volunteer as GMs and show up completely prepared to "win" every single encounter of the module!! oh!! what heroes! oh! what geniuses!! they have all the right feats and made all the right choices! down to the last potion of reduce person they needed to fit into that HOLE!!! wow! they're awesome!
It's amazing you said so much and yet none of it was relevant. Cheating aside (because changing statistics of things round to round is cheating), nothing about what I've said (or anyone else I've seen) even resembles what you're babbling about.
And it's not doing any favors to suggest that fighters are great because the GM can cheat and reduce the difficulty level of the game on the fly to accommodate the suckage.
Ashiel |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel wrote:Exactly. Seeking to optimize always results in no satisfaction. Believe me, it took me years to find out. It's an arms race you'll never win unless you play an RPG that is no longer supported - Paizo still puts out books monthly, so there will always be better options than those that came before.Well...this was a Pathfinder character. Back when Pathfinder was still shiny.
EDIT: Also, weapon specialization sucks for a lot of reasons, even if I was buried into it for her favored weapon. Looking back on it, it never made her more enjoyable to play, it was just required to try to justify the existence of the fighter next to other martials (and failed to do so).
Not sure what you're saying "exactly" for. This was literally a tale of woe, about how I came up with a character concept that I liked and still like, and how the Fighter mechanics failed me.
Start playing for flavor, and you'll feel the warmth of the sun on your cheeks again.
I think you're barking up the wrong tree. You don't know me, my games, or my characters. Likewise, I had to introduce three new people to RPGs within the last month, same sessions, etc. Literally every single one of them has been chomping at the bit to play again.
Unchained does a great job to add options and systems that enriches the game experience. It has allowed a player in my campaign, for instance, to skyrocket his 'plain fighter' into the stratosphere in terms of roleplay. He's level 3 and has two non-combat feats (that adds skill options and traits) and he's loving it so far. The background skills option does an amazing job for fighters (although I'm starting to look at Sleight of Hand in a stern manner here...) He knows his saves will suck compared to a paladin, and I've given him advice so that he's not thrown to the wolves and unprepared in that regard, so that he doesn't spend the first 10 rounds of each fight being paralyzed, running in fear or dominated, but I'm not about to tell him to not play a fighter or to absolutely take feats to improve his will save. One can recognize flaws and not necessarily make a build to compensate: it's also about realizing that a couple potions of this or that should be kept on hand instead of piling huge stashes of gold forever so that you can have your 50K sword ASAP. It's about going with the flow. Man.
It's amazing that you can make my points for me and yet be completely and utterly unaware that you're doing so.
Ashiel |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I absolutely believe in playing for flavor. That being the case, when a new player wants to play, I ask them what they want to play as, and proceed to hear a description. I then help them to build a character who actually does what they describe, rather than being hamstrung by trying to make the character say 'Fighter' on their sheet.
Pretty much this.
I'm a nice, friendly, happy guy. Look at my post history, ask anybody. So's N. Jolly in almost everything I've ever seen him post.
I also optimize, and so, kinda inevitably, being told I'm playing the game wrong pissed me off quite a bit, actually. I imagine it did him, too. Being insulted tends to result in that, even for otherwise happy and friendly people.
Not sure about my posting history, but I know that my biggest peeves tend to stem from people bein' like "rules bad, roleplay good!" tends to get on my nerves. That and people not reading posts when they're insistent on arguing them (seriously, there ought to be a rule or something).
Purple Dragon Knight |
I believe you. Now, a question: What about the character you describe would be harder or less fun as a Slayer? Because from description a lot of things would be easier and more fun.
Easy. You have to read the fluff of classes out there. I now firmly believe they are written for a reason.
For slayer, prd says:
Slayer
Skilled at tracking down targets, slayers are consummate hunters, living for the chase and the deadly stroke that brings it to a close. Slayers spend most of their time honing their weapon skills, studying the habits and anatomy of foes, and practicing combat maneuvers.
Role: The slayer is elusive, and adept at finding the opportune time and location to strike. Combining the deadliest talents of rangers and rogues, a slayer's abilities are all about getting into combat, dealing with a target, and getting back out again.
This is not his character; you could basically rename the Slayer class to Hitman. It's fine if that's what you're going for, but the character I'm speaking of is more aligned with the fighter description, especially:
Far more than mere thugs, these skilled warriors 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. Soldiers, knights, hunters, and artists of war, fighters are unparalleled champions, and woe to those who dare stand against them.
Role: Fighters excel at combat—defeating their enemies, controlling the flow of battle, and surviving such sorties themselves. While their specific weapons and methods grant them a wide variety of tactics, few can match fighters for sheer battle prowess.
Anzyr |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
N. Jolly wrote:I want to quote that, so that you can read this again in ten years. You basically prove my point, as you don't come off as very happy in general.Purple Dragon Knight wrote:Exactly. Seeking to optimize always results in no satisfaction.Yeah, I'm going to stop you right here.
So you're saying all those times I've optimized my character to do fun things in a game lead me to have no satisfaction?
Optimizing poor concepts into viable builds that were fun and enjoyable for both me and my GM lead to no satisfaction?
People who've posted on my guides saying that they were able to make a character who met their design goals and allowed them to have fun in their game weren't lead to satisfaction?
Because personally, I'm not exactly sure if I believe that. I'm basically an avatar of optimization here, and I've enjoyed doing it immensely not only in the build phase but in the playing of said optimized character, and you can take this as a 10/10 for satisfaction where optimization is concerned.
Looks like you're stepping onto the wrong side of calling something "Badwrongfun", so if you just turn on your blinker and hang a right, pretty sure you can get back in your lane.
Woah, Woah, Woah! If anyone is a cantankerous optimizer on these boards it's me not N. Jolly. Though, a lot of that has to with having to reinvent the wheel every time someone shows up to a optimization thread like Martial/Caster Disparity, or Why Healing is Inefficient, without having done the required reading.
Not sure about my posting history, but I know that my biggest peeves tend to stem from people bein' like "rules bad, roleplay good!" tends to get on my nerves. That and people not reading posts when they're insistent on arguing them (seriously, there ought to be a rule or something).
Polite and detailed from my memory. Actually your explanations tend to be very in-depth, which is a good thing.
Purple Dragon Knight |
Now, I wouldn't mind the fighter having 4+int skill points and the bravery bonus being 1/2 of the class level (the way many similar bonuses are), but overall I think the post-unchained the fighter works pretty decently.
Agreed. I made the following adjustments for Unchained Fighter in my game:
Unchained fighter - fighters and fighters only get a Stamina Pool via Combat Stamina feat (free at 1st level); fighters also receive Endurance as bonus feat at 3rd, Toughness at 5th, Diehard at 7th, Extra Stamina at 9th and Push the Limit at 11th. Eldritch Knights and Ulfen Guards can count their levels as fighter levels for the purposes of obtaining these bonus feats, but must have at least one level of fighter to gain the Combat Stamina feat in the first place (more details available upon demand, if applicable to your character).
Aratrok |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Deadmanwalking wrote:I believe you. Now, a question: What about the character you describe would be harder or less fun as a Slayer? Because from description a lot of things would be easier and more fun.Easy. You have to read the fluff of classes out there. I now firmly believe they are written for a reason.
For slayer, prd says:
Slayer
Skilled at tracking down targets, slayers are consummate hunters, living for the chase and the deadly stroke that brings it to a close. Slayers spend most of their time honing their weapon skills, studying the habits and anatomy of foes, and practicing combat maneuvers.Role: The slayer is elusive, and adept at finding the opportune time and location to strike. Combining the deadliest talents of rangers and rogues, a slayer's abilities are all about getting into combat, dealing with a target, and getting back out again.
This is not his character; you could basically rename the Slayer class to Hitman. It's fine if that's what you're going for, but the character I'm speaking of is more aligned with the fighter description, especially:
Far more than mere thugs, these skilled warriors 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. Soldiers, knights, hunters, and artists of war, fighters are unparalleled champions, and woe to those who dare stand against them.
Role: Fighters excel at combat—defeating their enemies, controlling the flow of battle, and surviving such sorties themselves. While their specific weapons and methods grant them a wide variety of tactics, few can match fighters for sheer battle prowess.
Or, and stop me if this is crazy, you could actually just use the mechanics of the class to model your character, because the little fluff paragraphs at the top of classes are utterly meaningless when it comes to game time. It could not matter less that someone's example fluff tells you slayers are sneaky, nothing at all is stopping you from building one that isn't if that isn't what you want.
Deadmanwalking |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Deadmanwalking wrote:I believe you. Now, a question: What about the character you describe would be harder or less fun as a Slayer? Because from description a lot of things would be easier and more fun.Easy. You have to read the fluff of classes out there. I now firmly believe they are written for a reason.
Going by those descriptions all Rangers are social darwinist psychopaths, all alchemists are insanely reckless, and corebook monks are seriously mobile in combat.
Those descriptions are, basically, a load of crap. The roles are usually a bit better (though see the Monk example above), but the role descriptions for Slayer and Fighter are nearly identical in terms of what they suggest you're actually capable of.
Brand new players who haven't got a good idea of what they want to play can use them for inspiration, but restricting people to playing those classes in those ways is a terrible idea, and not something even Paizo does or, I think, advocates doing.
If all you have to justify giving a character a particular Class is that Class's description paragraph, you're basically saying:
"What this character gets out of being a Fighter is getting to write Fighter on his sheet."
And from the perspective of someone who thinks mechanics should be shaped by flavor, not flavor by mechanics, that's a terrible argument. Neither are in-world terms for a particular and specific thing, and nobody in-world would notice which he was...so why in the world not use the one that best reflects mechanically what the player actually wants to accomplish with the character?
Purple Dragon Knight |
And it's not doing any favors to suggest that fighters are great because the GM can cheat and reduce the difficulty level of the game on the fly to accommodate the suckage.
We all know there's been a bit of power creep due to new classes coming out, but it's no reason to ridicule anyone's choice of playing a fighter. Your own post admits you had fun playing a fighter in the past, that she was cool, blah blah blah. Not sure why you're trying to convince yourself that blah blah blah is no longer worth anyone's consideration because new stuff came out since.
Deadmanwalking |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel wrote:And it's not doing any favors to suggest that fighters are great because the GM can cheat and reduce the difficulty level of the game on the fly to accommodate the suckage.We all know there's been a bit of power creep due to new classes coming out, but it's no reason to ridicule anyone's choice of playing a fighter. Your own post admits you had fun playing a fighter in the past, that she was cool, blah blah blah. Not sure why you're trying to convince yourself that blah blah blah is no longer worth anyone's consideration because new stuff came out since.
This is both completely irrelevant, and not what Ashiel was saying.
Ranger and Paladin are better and more powerful than Fighter. And those are corebook classes, so 'power creep' isn't really the issue here, and that being the case, why bring it up?
Purple Dragon Knight |
Those descriptions are, basically, a load of crap. The roles are usually a bit better (though see the Monk example above), but the role descriptions for Slayer and Fighter are nearly identical in terms of what they suggest you're actually capable of.
Brand new players who haven't got a good idea of what they want to play can use them for inspiration, but restricting people to playing those classes in those ways is a terrible idea, and not something even Paizo does or, I think, advocates doing.
We're talking about new players here. I don't think the descriptions are a load of crap. They summarize the intent of the class and like you said, can give a sense to a new player where to put his skill ranks etc. That said, you're right that a proper chat with an experienced GM is the best way if a new player wants something more specific. The GM should be accepting of a player's choice within the campaign parameters (alignment restrictions and so forth); otherwise you're being pushy. Not everyone showing up at the table cares as much about being optimal. Some people are fine living with only the Core Rulebook, for example.
Starbuck_II |
Deadmanwalking wrote:I believe you. Now, a question: What about the character you describe would be harder or less fun as a Slayer? Because from description a lot of things would be easier and more fun.Easy. You have to read the fluff of classes out there. I now firmly believe they are written for a reason.
For slayer, prd says:
Slayer
Skilled at tracking down targets, slayers are consummate hunters, living for the chase and the deadly stroke that brings it to a close. Slayers spend most of their time honing their weapon skills, studying the habits and anatomy of foes, and practicing combat maneuvers.Role: The slayer is elusive, and adept at finding the opportune time and location to strike. Combining the deadliest talents of rangers and rogues, a slayer's abilities are all about getting into combat, dealing with a target, and getting back out again.
This is not his character; you could basically rename the Slayer class to Hitman. It's fine if that's what you're going for, but the character I'm speaking of is more aligned with the fighter description, especially:
Far more than mere thugs, these skilled warriors 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. Soldiers, knights, hunters, and artists of war, fighters are unparalleled champions, and woe to those who dare stand against them.
Role: Fighters excel at combat—defeating their enemies, controlling the flow of battle, and surviving such sorties themselves. While their specific weapons and methods grant them a wide variety of tactics, few can match fighters for sheer battle prowess.
Wait, you let the games fluff ruined the characters fluff?
How about he writes Slayer and puts in Parenthesis (Fighter) so he acts like a fighter but a better Chasis (Slayer).
Aelryinth RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 |
The class fluff descrips are worthless for determining how a class does at what you want it to.
Take 3.5e.
Read the description of the 3e fighter in the complete fighter's handbook.
Then read the fluff for the warblade in the Tome of 9 Swords.
They are UNCANNILY similar.
but how tjose classes perform the same role is vastly different.
Likewise, when the warblade enters the hall and everyone rises to their feet, that's his 'reward'. Meanwhile, the wizard is making magic items and constructs, traveling to far planes, etc. One the DM has to gift to you and roleplay appropriately, the other you earn yourself.
Ignore class flavor, ignore the class name. Look at mechanics. Build to do what you want.
Tempest_Knight |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel, I think you should know, in this thread you are coming off as one of 'those players' who railroad GMs so you can 'Win PFS'. I'm sure this isn't your intent, but that is the feel I'm getting from your posts and their litany of Ad Hominem attacks.
~
To add more fuel, and another counter-point;
I have played with a Fighter that out skilled almost all of the rest of the group, all-in-all the Fighter was the most useful single character in the group.
The person playing the Fighter had a great time, and the rest of the group enjoyed playing with the Fighter, even when being shown-up by the Fighter in 'their' area of specialty.
The build supported ALL of the other 'roles', filled in gaps, and was effective, efficient, and versatile in combat.
All things people up thread state CANNOT be done using a Fighter.
~
To help some of my fellow posters, I shall give a brief primer on Logical Fallacies;
Straw Man (two words): Ignoring the given argument, replacing it with a weaker argument of your own, then disproving the weaker argument and claiming to have thus disproved the original argument.
<I have not noticed Purple Dragon Knight make any Straw Man arguments, though some of the posts claiming that, then follow up with a Straw Man of their own.>
There have been some use of a modified No True Scotsman fallacy... discounting opposing arguments/evidence because 'it doesn't really apply because "No True Scotsman"...'
<This is seen in all of the appeals to the Fighter is No True Method to teach the Game. Therefor, all evidence/arguments otherwise are wrong.>
~
I will leave off by pointing out, Personal Attacks are an Ad Hominem fallacy. And I have seen them in abundance against anyone who doesn't agree with the Fighter=Bad group.
The 'group consensus' in an Appeal to Popularity.
Most of the Fighter=Bad arguments that don't fall into the above fallacies, tend to rely on the use of Circular Reasoning to various degrees.
~
Before anyone decides to make a Fallacist's Fallacy claim. I have not posted a position in this debate, nor discredited a position for the use of Fallacies, thus removing that Attack.
I am just attempting to help others make sound arguments without relying on the use of Fallacies.
In Logic, a conclusion can be correct while the argument is invalid because of the use of Fallacies. Conversely, a conclusion can be wrong even though the argument in flawless and fallacy-free.
Aratrok |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel, I think you should know, in this thread you are coming off as one of 'those players' who railroad GMs so you can 'Win PFS'. I'm sure this isn't your intent, but that is the feel I'm getting from your posts and their litany of Ad Hominem attacks.
~
To add more fuel, and another counter-point;
I have played with a Fighter that out skilled almost all of the rest of the group, all-in-all the Fighter was the most useful single character in the group.The person playing the Fighter had a great time, and the rest of the group enjoyed playing with the Fighter, even when being shown-up by the Fighter in 'their' area of specialty.
The build supported ALL of the other 'roles', filled in gaps, and was effective, efficient, and versatile in combat.
All things people up thread state CANNOT be done using a Fighter.
~
To help some of my fellow posters, I shall give a brief primer on Logical Fallacies;
Straw Man (two words): Ignoring the given argument, replacing it with a weaker argument of your own, then disproving the weaker argument and claiming to have thus disproved the original argument.
<I have not noticed Purple Dragon Knight make any Straw Man arguments, though some of the posts claiming that, then follow up with a Straw Man of their own.>
There have been some use of a modified No True Scotsman fallacy... discounting opposing arguments/evidence because 'it doesn't really apply because "No True Scotsman"...'
<This is seen in all of the appeals to the Fighter is No True Method to teach the Game. Therefor, all evidence/arguments otherwise are wrong.>
~
I will leave off by pointing out, Personal Attacks are an Ad Hominem fallacy. And I have seen them in abundance against anyone who doesn't agree with the Fighter=Bad group.
The 'group consensus' in an Appeal to Popularity.
Most of the Fighter=Bad arguments that don't fall into the above fallacies, tend to rely on the use of Circular Reasoning to various degrees.
~
Before anyone decides to make a Fallacist's Fallacy claim. I have not posted a position in this debate, nor discredited a position for the use of Fallacies, thus removing that Attack.
I am just attempting to help others make sound arguments without relying on the use of Fallacies.
In Logic, a conclusion can be correct while the argument is invalid because of the use of Fallacies. Conversely, a conclusion can be wrong even though the argument in flawless and fallacy-free.
Oh man, I needed that laugh. Thanks. xD
Aelryinth RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 |
Tempest_Knight |
Didn't learn anything from the lesson?
The point was, use REAL arguments, and don't attack/dismiss other posters because they don't support you.
Please remain civil. Don't ridicule others for trying to elevate the level of debate in the forums.
~
I have read through the entire thread, no valid, provable argument has been made to support the Fighter=Bad argument.
I have seen many fallacy-riddled arguments. I have seen many personal attacks. I have seen any post disagreeing with Fighter=Bad being dismissed as wrong without supporting evidence, and all evidence against being dismissed as not relevant.
These are all Fallacies. Again, this does not make the position wrong. It just makes the arguments for that position wrong.
If you cannot support your position without propping it up with fallacy after fallacy, you SHOULD reevaluate your position and your arguments.
I would love to see some debate on the subject that does not devolve to personal attacks and flippant dismissal of the potential value of the Fighter.
Aelryinth RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TK, blatantly displaying at least four fallacies of the caster-martial disparity disbelief arguments, and resenting us for noticing them, isn't making your argument hold water.
I think you need to do more research and comprehension of mechanics before you start talking about giving lessons to anyone here. I don't have the time, but if you want to actually go point to point onmechanics, Ashiel is just waiting to take you apart, and "I've seen X in my time" arguments EVERYONE is going to ignore.
You need hard facts, and I bet if we dug at all into the buildnof the nameless fignter-god you're talking up we'd find all kinds of things wrong...because we always do.
It's like me saying "There's no problem with dual wielding halfling fighter/thief/barbs", conveniently ignoring the fact my randomly rolled stats were 18 18 17 16 12 10 before mods.
TarkXT |
My concern has little to do with optimization. That's simply allowing for someone to make more mistakes and be more forgiving. No one wants to feel like a burden. So the higher floor provided by the ranger/paladin is a bonus but not the main thing. I'm not interested in yet another fighter=bad debate.
No, my concern has more to do with what aspects of the game get touched and how progressively those come online while providing enough flavor to work from as a base to start thinking about roleplay as something beyond dice rolls.
The goal, ultimately, is efficiency. I want a tool that teaches the game as a whole eventually. So if our paladin friend reaches 5 or 6 I'd want that player to feel confident enough to tackle a cleric, or a wizard, or a barbarian, or anything else for that matter.
Fighter does not do this.
Aratrok |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The value of Fighter as a class is something that was discussed to death 15 years ago. Your assertion is kind've on the level of saying no provable argument has been made to support the argument that Earth isn't flat.
A lot of us have had this exact internet fight many, many times. It's a boring slog to repeat the same things over and over again to people who refuse to just go look it up for themselves.
N. Jolly |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would love to see some debate on the subject that does not devolve to personal attacks and flippant dismissal of the potential value of the Fighter.
So all that "because the fighter's lacks ability to mechanically involve themselves in the game by way of their own base mechanics as well as touching on a painfully small amount of the game's basic mechanics which makes them a poor teaching tool beyond the most basic of the system's functions, they are a poor first class for a new player" was a personal attack or flippant dismissal?
People want things that don't have to depend on GM fiat because you can't trust the amount of GM fiat from table to table. That's why you need the most comprehensive baseline possible, and that's something the fighter isn't. It's the least able to involve itself mechanically the world around it due to its limited class features, and thus doesn't teach the meshing of mechanics and roleplay that go along with the system. Paladin does (teaches the value of charisma as well as diplomacy), ranger does (teaches the value of skills as a whole), fighter doesn't, that's the point.
Tempest_Knight |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm getting a snooty 'my opinion means more then yours' from that topic, and a massive 'personal assertation without documentation' about a skilled player in a thread about new players.
Firing a cannon at the empty field and thinking you were hitting a target?
No True Scotsman.
Didn't you read the, please leave Fallacies out of the discussion?
Also, you don't require 'documentation' of anything supporting your position. Why?
So, to count points on your post...
The given story doesn't count as it doesn't Truly apply. (variation of No True Scotsman)
The entire tone of the post is meant as an Ad Hominem.
By the dictates of Logical Debate, your entire post would be invalid. Glad we aren't having a Logical Debate, aren't you? (yes, the last two words are a thinly veiled, mild, Ad Hominem*)
*Only, it isn't an Ad Hominem fallacy, as it is not the basis of disproof. Just a barbed personal observation.
~
My opinion, as posted, is that we don't need/want all of the arguments for or against anything/everything to be a pile of Fallacies.
My opinion is, that we can do better and can argue without the crutch of Fallacies. And have meaningful debate.
Aelryinth RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're blatantly posting multiple fallacious arguments, and then dismissing the opinions of others by assigning others based on your personal bias to those calling you on it?
Like I said, you're firing a cannon at an empty field and thinking you're hitting a target.
When you come up with actual fact-based and number grounded arguments in support of your position, you 'might' have snooty-nose rights. Right now you are just coming across as a critic of style without knowing any substance to base the critique on.
So, I think you should stop throwing around the finger pointing and try to actually argue your point, okay?
Tempest_Knight |
Aelryinth and Aratrok;
Ad Hominem is not necessary. Nor is Aelryinth's Appeal to Authority and Straw Man.
Especially since, unlike you two, I haven't taken a position on the argument.
~
TarkXT, thank you for the thought out and civil post. I do agree that other classes help teach more of the game.
But the thing that most here seem to be missing, is that the New Player should not be being forced to fit others' expectations.
You can suggest a more rounded 'training' class, but if the New player wants to just learn the basic D20 mechanics and play a Fighter, let them.
The New player wants to jump in at the deep end? Let them, but maybe provide some pointers/tips if they are open to it.
~
N. Jolly, prove your position.
Nothing in the Fighter forces them 'out of the game mechanically' as per your assertion. If you disagree, prove it.
If we wish to make the GM fiat position... the GM allows/disallows ALL classes to be good/bad and it will vary from table to table. This is usually done subconsciously, and not intentionally or maliciously.
Tempest_Knight |
You're blatantly posting multiple fallacious arguments, and then dismissing the opinions of others by assigning others based on your personal bias to those calling you on it?
Like I said, you're firing a cannon at an empty field and thinking you're hitting a target.
When you come up with actual fact-based and number grounded arguments in support of your position, you 'might' have snooty-nose rights. Right now you are just coming across as a critic of style without knowing any substance to base the critique on.
So, I think you should stop throwing around the finger pointing and try to actually argue your point, okay?
So, agree with you, or its wrong?
You don't seem to be able to make an argument without blatant personal attacks.
You also, don't seem to be able to understand what is written.
Your apparent Megalomania is coloring your 'reading' to anything that doesn't blindly support your position is attacking you and inherently wrong.
~
If you would read my posts, I an simply trying to get people to quit the flagrant use of flawed arguments. Meaning the piles of Fallacies that make the basis of most arguments on the forums.
I do apologies for the blunt, potentially inflammatory comment, but I feel it is some what allowable after 3 posts that were Ad Hominem attacks that ignored the actual post.
Blackvial |
I don't see how the Fighter's PRD description is anything but a huge fat lie made specifically to deceive the reader in what the Fighter is actually capable of.
Just based on descriptions, the Fighter sounds like a class I would want to play. In play, it does pretty much nothing that it says.
maybe it's not the class itself and how you play it, give us a break down of how you have built your fighter(s) and maybe we could help figure where you went wrong?
N. Jolly |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
N. Jolly, prove your position.
Nothing in the Fighter forces them 'out of the game mechanically' as per your assertion. If you disagree, prove it.
If we wish to make the GM fiat position... the GM allows/disallows ALL classes to be good/bad and it will vary from table to table. This is usually done subconsciously, and not intentionally or maliciously.
Fine, let's look at the fighter's (lack of) skill list and amount of skills:
Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (dungeoneering) (Int), Knowledge (engineering) (Int), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Survival (Wis), and Swim (Str).
No social skill aside from intimidate, and they get 2 skill points plus intelligence in a class that doesn't reward higher intelligence than 13 for combat expertise. This mechanically keeps them out of learning the value of social skills since the majority of new players I've met only put skill ranks into class skills.
Let's also go over how even IF they did put ranks in it, we're also dealing with a class that doesn't reward higher charisma, so unless that player wanted to be charismatic (and we've all seen enough people play loner 'anti hero' mercenaries as their first character), they can't participate in social checks as long as the GM is using the default DCs for them, again keeping them out of the game mechanically.
They don't even get sense motive (although they have a faux reason to raise their wisdom in the case of low will save, but none that immediately is obvious to a new player, thus making wisdom seem like a less important stat), so how they can also be easily lied to and manipulated, thus removing more agency from their character.
Without perception (which is straight up silly that fighters didn't get this as a class skill), a lot of concepts like scout and watchman don't even make sense, as lacking perception keeps them from making vital checks against normal DCs. Sure, they can still make perception checks, but not against most things that would actually prove a threat to them.
Fighters barely even teach the skill system as most of their skills are highly circumstantial. They get handle animal without an animal to handle, unlike both paladin and ranger who will eventually show the value of handle animal and ride as it relates to an animal companion. A fighter buys a horse, and they learn it gets destroyed after 1 attack, painful if a fighter (rightfully) wants to try mounted combat.
I could go on, but if this isn't enough for you, nothing will be.
Scavion wrote:maybe it's not the class itself and how you play it, give us a break down of how you have built your fighter(s) and maybe we could help figure where you went wrong?I don't see how the Fighter's PRD description is anything but a huge fat lie made specifically to deceive the reader in what the Fighter is actually capable of.
Just based on descriptions, the Fighter sounds like a class I would want to play. In play, it does pretty much nothing that it says.
Let me mention the line that's basically a bold faced lie in the description.
Far more than mere thugs, these skilled warriors 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.
Taming kingdoms? How? You don't have the charisma for that.
Slaughtering Monsters? Fine. A little over ambitious, but fine.Rousing the hearts of armies? A straight up lie of the largest caliber. This is a holdover from when fighters got followers just for being tough, and this continues to be a lie to the class. You can't rouse a ham sandwich to action, let alone an army.
Ashiel |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel wrote:And it's not doing any favors to suggest that fighters are great because the GM can cheat and reduce the difficulty level of the game on the fly to accommodate the suckage.We all know there's been a bit of power creep due to new classes coming out, but it's no reason to ridicule anyone's choice of playing a fighter. Your own post admits you had fun playing a fighter in the past, that she was cool, blah blah blah. Not sure why you're trying to convince yourself that blah blah blah is no longer worth anyone's consideration because new stuff came out since.
To clarify for those interested, this was when Pathfinder was pretty new and we were trying out the various classes to see how they played post revision from 3.5.
The Fighter's fluff description that you cling so dogmatically to is:
Some take up arms for glory, wealth, or revenge. Others do battle to prove themselves, to protect others, or because they know nothing else. Still others learn the ways of weaponcraft to hone their bodies in battle and prove their mettle in the forge of war. Lords of the battlefield, fighters are a disparate lot, training with many weapons or just one, perfecting the uses of armor, learning the fighting techniques of exotic masters, and studying the art of combat, all to shape themselves into living weapons. Far more than mere thugs, these skilled warriors 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. Soldiers, knights, hunters, and artists of war, fighters are unparalleled champions, and woe to those who dare stand against them.
Role: Fighters excel at combat—defeating their enemies, controlling the flow of battle, and surviving such sorties themselves. While their specific weapons and methods grant them a wide variety of tactics, few can match fighters for sheer battle prowess.
Sounds good, except much of it is an outright lie. It sounded pretty good prior to making the character but it didn't turn out very well in practice.
Now let's look at the Ranger's fluff:
For those who relish the thrill of the hunt, there are only predators and prey. Be they scouts, trackers, or bounty hunters, rangers share much in common: unique mastery of specialized weapons, skill at stalking even the most elusive game, and the expertise to defeat a wide range of quarries. Knowledgeable, patient, and skilled hunters, these rangers hound man, beast, and monster alike, gaining insight into the way of the predator, skill in varied environments, and ever more lethal martial prowess. While some track man-eating creatures to protect the frontier, others pursue more cunning game—even fugitives among their own people.
Role: Rangers are deft skirmishers, either in melee or at range, capable of skillfully dancing in and out of battle. Their abilities allow them to deal significant harm to specific types of foes, but their skills are valuable against all manner of enemies.
This fluff sounds very little like my character or her concept, sans the overlapping bits between Ranger and Fighter (such as unique mastery of specialized weapons).
This didn't change the fact that Ranger would have done an infinitely better job at actually representing my character and what she was supposed to be able to do than Fighter ever would have and did. In fact, I ended up retiring that character because she just wasn't any fun to play and too much effort had to be devoted to just being passingly functional, though I'd like to play the character using the Ranger class some other time.
Aside from "I'm adventuring to find my kidnapped daughter" she wasn't a "great hunter of beasts" yadda-yadda. Well, anymore than any other heroic martial sort is. Of course, a Fighter will never be at "rousing the hearts of armies" without a serious dose of that "power creep" you complain about (because by default fighters couldn't rouse the heart of their own fanboys).
Blackvial |
Without perception (which is straight up silly that fighters didn't get this as a class skill), a lot of concepts like scout and watchman don't even make sense, as lacking perception keeps them from making vital checks against normal DCs. Sure, they can still make perception checks, but not...
i always thought the scout concept was for rangers and rogues
N. Jolly |
N. Jolly wrote:Without perception (which is straight up silly that fighters didn't get this as a class skill), a lot of concepts like scout and watchman don't even make sense, as lacking perception keeps them from making vital checks against normal DCs. Sure, they can still make perception checks, but not...i always thought the scout concept was for rangers and rogues
I've seen fighters try to pull this off...TRY. I mean at least a slayer teaches the skill system better, it's basically a fighter who teaches skills instead of a fighter who doesn't, you know, the core one.
Jason S |
Paladin has alignment restrictions and if you make a new player fall, could be the last time they play RPGs. I agree with others, in some ways it's one of the more complex of the core classes.
A ranger without a pet is not a bad idea.
The fighter is the best class for any player who isn't 100% committed to learning the game or spending time levelling a character. That's the trick really, to get a player invested enough in the game. The unchained rogue is also not bad right now as well, maybe it's a better suggestion because there's more going on.
Blackvial |
Blackvial wrote:you don't need Charisma to tame a kingdom, you use a weaponSo... what, you plan on conquering large swaths of territory by yourself? Because you certainly don't have the tools to recruit an army.
i don't think that line about taming a kingdom was about conquering it, but that is just my interpretation
Ashiel |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blackvial wrote:you don't need Charisma to tame a kingdom, you use a weaponSo... what, you plan on conquering large swaths of territory by yourself? Because you certainly don't have the tools to recruit an army.
Given that Fighters can very regularly be completely dismantled by small groups of better classes with lower levels, I doubt they're taming a kingdom with their weapons either.
I mean, other classes might have means to do so. Fighters really don't. There's a lot of times we laughed at my brother's Paladin when he was knee deep in trouble and remarked, "Well, if he was a Fighter he'd have been dead three rounds ago".
Blackvial |
Arachnofiend wrote:Blackvial wrote:you don't need Charisma to tame a kingdom, you use a weaponSo... what, you plan on conquering large swaths of territory by yourself? Because you certainly don't have the tools to recruit an army.Given that Fighters can very regularly be completely dismantled by small groups of better classes with lower levels, I doubt they're taming a kingdom with their weapons either.
I mean, other classes might have means to do so. Fighters really don't. There's a lot of times we laughed at my brother's Paladin when he was knee deep in trouble and remarked, "Well, if he was a Fighter he'd have been dead three rounds ago".
let me guess he was a rush in and try to kill as many things as possible type of paladin without thoughts of positioning, setting up flanking maneuvers with the rogue, and keeping the enemies off of the casters and archers so they can do their job?
The Mortonator |
If we wish to make the GM fiat position... the GM allows/disallows ALL classes to be good/bad and it will vary from table to table. This is usually done subconsciously, and not intentionally or maliciously.
Fine, let's look at the fighter's (lack of) skill list and amount of skills:
Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (dungeoneering) (Int), Knowledge (engineering) (Int), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Survival (Wis), and Swim (Str).
No social skill aside from intimidate, and they get 2 skill points plus intelligence in a class that doesn't reward higher intelligence than 13 for combat expertise. This mechanically keeps them out of learning the value of social skills since the majority of new players I've met only put skill ranks into class skills.
Let's also go over how even IF they did put ranks in it, we're also dealing with a class that doesn't reward higher charisma, so unless that player wanted to be charismatic (and we've all seen enough people play loner 'anti hero' mercenaries as their first character), they can't participate in social checks as long as the GM is using the default DCs for them, again keeping them out of the game mechanically.
They don't even get sense motive (although they have a faux reason to raise their wisdom in the case of low will save, but none that immediately is obvious to a new player, thus making wisdom seem like a less important stat), so how they can also be easily lied to and manipulated, thus removing more agency from their character.
Without perception (which is straight up silly that fighters didn't get this as a class skill), a lot of concepts like scout and watchman don't even make sense, as lacking perception keeps them from making vital checks against normal DCs. Sure, they can still make perception checks, but not against most things that would actually prove a threat to them.
Fighters barely even teach the skill system as most of their skills are highly circumstantial. They get handle animal without an animal to handle, unlike both paladin and ranger who will eventually show the value of handle animal and ride as it relates to an animal companion. A fighter buys a horse, and they learn it gets destroyed after 1 attack, painful if a fighter (rightfully) wants to try mounted combat.
Quoting for emphasis. Much as I have defended Fighter, this is where they need a kick in the rear the most. The skills for Fighter are a terrible holdover from 3.X. They didn't make sense or help then, they don't now.
Advanced Weapon Training is an extremely awkward hotpatch to this issue, but it would be better just to give Fighter the skills they need and throw on an extra +2 skill points.
Ashiel |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel wrote:let me guess he was a rush in and try to kill as many things as possible type of paladin without thoughts of positioning, setting up flanking maneuvers with the rogue, and keeping the enemies off of the casters and archers so they can do their job?Arachnofiend wrote:Blackvial wrote:you don't need Charisma to tame a kingdom, you use a weaponSo... what, you plan on conquering large swaths of territory by yourself? Because you certainly don't have the tools to recruit an army.Given that Fighters can very regularly be completely dismantled by small groups of better classes with lower levels, I doubt they're taming a kingdom with their weapons either.
I mean, other classes might have means to do so. Fighters really don't. There's a lot of times we laughed at my brother's Paladin when he was knee deep in trouble and remarked, "Well, if he was a Fighter he'd have been dead three rounds ago".
No, far from it. In fact, he was actually really, really good about keeping enemies off his allies because he used things like shield other, would frequently move to provide cover to allies while declaring smites on major targets to make him impossible to ignore (he WILL kill you if you don't stop him), and he frequently in the habit of making it quite impossible to ignore him in the battle which drew attention away from his allies (for example, his unstoppable juggernaut nature also made a bunch of psychic warrior bodyguards piss their pants trying to stop him from taking out their employer).
It's more like he made a lot of saving throws he never would have as a Fighter, and also shrugged off a lot of magic missile spam. Such as this one encounter where the party was intercepted by a mercenary company consisting of humans, orcs, goblins, and trolls. A group of goblin sorcerers decided to try to shut him down by spamming magic missile at him every round on the round.
Let me tell ya, eating 6d4+6 unavoidable force damage every round will make most anyone worried. Aratrok was playing in that game and remarked humorously that he would have been killed twice over if he was a fighter, but because his endurance was so great as a Paladin he just kept wrecking faces. Paladins are cool like that.
If he had been a ranger, well, he would have just Stealthed in the middle of combat and whacked the goblins. >_>
Ashiel |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread has gotten hysterically funny and awful at the same time.
When was the last time someone actually posted about the topic?
Requesting close.
Pretty sure that talking about WHY fighters are a bad choice for newbies is 100% on topic, thanks.
EDIT: Also, wtf? If you don't want to talk about it, go away. Why try to get the thread closed for everyone else because you don't want to read it anymore? How rude is that?
Lemmy |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
master_marshmallow wrote:This thread has gotten hysterically funny and awful at the same time.
When was the last time someone actually posted about the topic?
Requesting close.
Pretty sure that talking about WHY fighters are a bad choice for newbies is 100% on topic, thanks.
EDIT: Also, wtf? If you don't want to talk about it, go away. Why try to get the thread closed for everyone else because you don't want to read it anymore? How rude is that?
In fact... I'm pretty sure I've seen at least one mod ask people to stop asking them to lock threads.
Serghar Cromwell |
Ashiel wrote:In fact... I'm pretty sure I've seen at least one mod ask people to stop asking them to lock threads.master_marshmallow wrote:This thread has gotten hysterically funny and awful at the same time.
When was the last time someone actually posted about the topic?
Requesting close.
Pretty sure that talking about WHY fighters are a bad choice for newbies is 100% on topic, thanks.
EDIT: Also, wtf? If you don't want to talk about it, go away. Why try to get the thread closed for everyone else because you don't want to read it anymore? How rude is that?
I can corroborate this.
Aelryinth RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 |
Aelryinth and Aratrok;
Ad Hominem is not necessary. Nor is Aelryinth's Appeal to Authority and Straw Man.Especially since, unlike you two, I haven't taken a position on the argument.
~
TarkXT, thank you for the thought out and civil post. I do agree that other classes help teach more of the game.
But the thing that most here seem to be missing, is that the New Player should not be being forced to fit others' expectations.
You can suggest a more rounded 'training' class, but if the New player wants to just learn the basic D20 mechanics and play a Fighter, let them.
The New player wants to jump in at the deep end? Let them, but maybe provide some pointers/tips if they are open to it.
~
N. Jolly, prove your position.
Nothing in the Fighter forces them 'out of the game mechanically' as per your assertion. If you disagree, prove it.
If we wish to make the GM fiat position... the GM allows/disallows ALL classes to be good/bad and it will vary from table to table. This is usually done subconsciously, and not intentionally or maliciously.
and now, an outright lie that you haven't taken a position in addition to your own Ad Hominem and self-elected Higher Authority, while completely ignoring your own Stormwind Fallacy, and CMD Fallacies 1, 4 and probqbly 2-3 others?
Cannon. Open field. Missing target. And yes, your kettle is quite black.
Deadmanwalking |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We're talking about new players here.
We are. Experienced players know what they want and how to achieve it, and are unlikely to be swayed by the class descriptions IME.
I don't think the descriptions are a load of crap. They summarize the intent of the class and like you said, can give a sense to a new player where to put his skill ranks etc.
But they do so wrong in almost every way. They may summarize one way to play the Class thematically, but they do so in a very absolute manner and without regard for how the Class actually plays mechanically.
That said, you're right that a proper chat with an experienced GM is the best way if a new player wants something more specific.
I find that, for new players, a proper chat with with an experienced GM or player is the best way to make any character at all. They can be clear about what they want the character to accomplish and have access to someone who can actually help make that a reality rather than flailing around in the dark trying to accomplish something without knowing how.
The GM should be accepting of a player's choice within the campaign parameters (alignment restrictions and so forth); otherwise you're being pushy. Not everyone showing up at the table cares as much about being optimal. Some people are fine living with only the Core Rulebook, for example.
Oh, absolutely. If the player is experienced enough to know the difference between a Fighter and Slayer and, when given descriptions of what both are capable of, chooses the latter they should certainly not be prevented from doing so. But that's not brand new players, is it?