Fighters are the source of like every problem in Pathfinder


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 248 of 248 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What wait. A Rangers favored enemy depending on their type is supposed to be....racist. So a Paladin Smite Evil ability is the same as well because they target evil and it only works against evil creatures. Oh god the SJWs are targeting D&D now.

The class is not racist. A player might develop a background where he might be racist or at least feel more negative towards a certain creatures or a organization. If the PC is the only survivor of a gnoll attack on his family. It makes sense that one of his favored enemies if not his first one be a Gnoll. If anyone shows up at our gaming table and says that the class is racist. Well don't look surprised if we look at you as if your nuts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Frosty Ace wrote:
Two or three years ago, I would smile wryly and be forced to agree with you, but as it is now, with many more feats that are useful and chains that are worth taking, Weapon Training and Armor Training offering options that make sense (Unique options that allow for an actual mastery of weapons and armor) making them real class features, and a bevy of archetypes that fit with the fighter's general motif and are good to boot (Not even mentioning a core fighter is also a real contender with any archetype) I think it's fair for them to be called a real martial.

So, what level spell slot are you willing to give up to get Weapon Training or Armor Training? What feats are worth a higher level spell slot, of 7th or 8th level?


Bluenose wrote:
Frosty Ace wrote:
Two or three years ago, I would smile wryly and be forced to agree with you, but as it is now, with many more feats that are useful and chains that are worth taking, Weapon Training and Armor Training offering options that make sense (Unique options that allow for an actual mastery of weapons and armor) making them real class features, and a bevy of archetypes that fit with the fighter's general motif and are good to boot (Not even mentioning a core fighter is also a real contender with any archetype) I think it's fair for them to be called a real martial.
So, what level spell slot are you willing to give up to get Weapon Training or Armor Training? What feats are worth a higher level spell slot, of 7th or 8th level?

I'm pretty sure I was talking about martials, but... none? If I'm playing a Caster, it's because it fulfills a concept I want. Same if a play a Caviler, Barbarian or Fighter. Besides, to answer your question, whenever I make a Gish or something similar is when I give up spells for mundane features and feats, and I never regret it.

You're bringing up CM/D, which is a whole other problem and what this thread ain't about.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluenose wrote:
So, what level spell slot are you willing to give up to get Weapon Training or Armor Training? What feats are worth a higher level spell slot, of 7th or 8th level?

An approximate answer is given by the Magus class, which sacrifices many of its spell slots for Fighter abilities and abilities that let Fighter and Wizard abilities work together. The Magus is considered less powerful than a Wizard at high levels, so let us keep the comparion to the lower levels.

Spell Slots, 1st,2nd,3rd,4th,5th counting bonus slots from Int 18
1st: Wizard 2,0,0,0,0 Magus 2,0,0,0,0
2nd: Wizard 3,0,0,0,0 Magus 3,0,0,0,0
3rd: Wizard 3,2,0,0,0 Magus 4,0,0,0,0
4th: Wizard 4,3,0,0,0 Magus 4,2,0,0,0
5th: Wizard 4,3,2,0,0 Magus 5,3,0,0,0
6th: Wizard 4,4,3,0,0 Magus 5,4,0,0,0
7th: Wizard 5,4,3,2,0 Magus 5,4,2,0,0
8th: Wizard 5,4,4,3,0 Magus 5,5,3,0,0
9th: Wizard 5,5,4,3,1 Magus 6,5,4,0,0
10th: Wizard 5,5,4,4,2 Magus 6,5,4,2,0

At 2nd level, the Magus gained light armor proficiency and freedom from arcane spell failure in light armor, martial weapon proficiency, good Fortitude, an arcane pool, spell combat, and spellstrike over the Wizard. He lost the Wizard's arcane school, arcane bond, Scribe Scroll, and full access to the sorcerer/wizard spell list. He did not lose any spell slots.

At 4th level, the Magus also gained +1 to BAB, a magus arcana, and spell recall over the Wizard. He also lost a 2nd-level spell slot.

At 7th level, the Magus also gained medium armor proficiency and freedom from arcane spell failure in medium armor, a second magus arcana, and a knowledge pool over the Wizard. He also regained the lost 2nd-level spell slot but lost one 3rd-level and two 4th-level slots compared to the wizard.

At 10th level, the Magus also gained second +1 to BAB, improved concentration during spell combat, a third magus arcana, and counts as a 5th-level fighter for feats. He also gained an extra 1st-level spell slot, regained the lost 3rd-level spell slot, did not regain the lost two 4th-level spell slots, lost two 5th-level spell slots, and lost a bonus feat.

So, it appears that one spell slot of the caster's highest spell level is worth either an additional +1 to BAB; or the combination of medium armor proficiency, casting in medium armor, and a magus arcana; or the combination of gaining two much lower spell slots and counting as a 5th-level fighter. I am assuming that a magus arcana is worth a bonus feat.

I can imagine the value of a spell slot as a feat chain:

Arcane Might
Your arcane might allows you to cast more spells.
Prerequisite: Ability to cast 3rd-level arcane spells.
Benefit: Chose a class that lets you cast 3rd-level arcane spells. You can cast one additional first-level spell per day from the spells for that class, subject to the usual restrictions and preparations of the class.
Special: This counts as a metamagic feat.

Improved Arcane Might
Your arcane might increases in strength.
Prerequisite: Arcane Might
Benefit: The additional spell from Arcane Might can be of any level up to the second highest level the chosen class can cast.
Special: This counts as a metamagic feat.

Greater Arcane Might
Your arcane might increases to ultimate strength.
Prerequisite: Arcane Might, Improved Arcane Might
Benefit: The additional spell from Arcane Might can be of any level the chosen class can cast.
Special: This counts as a metamagic feat.

Feat chains for arcane casters look silly, don't they? They are just as silly for the fighter.


Maybe if they would fix the source rather than trying to pile more rules on top of 16 years of rules.


My issue with the "fix" that is coming in with weapon/armor handbook is now I get to use my "class feature" to patch up to base.

I have
lv1 feat
lv2 feat
lv3 armor training
lv4 feat of advanced armor training (skill point)
lv5 weapon training
lv6 feat of advanced weapon training (skill points) *Congrats, I've now used two class features to have comparable skill points to the barb.
lv7 advanced armor (another skill point) Now you have as many skills as the slayer.
lv8 feat
lv9 advanced weapon (reflex save one) now my reflex base is almost the same as the slayer's!
This leaves 3 feats that aren't used for Advanced Training trying to catch up to the slayer.

Slayer
lv1 studied target +4 skills per level and +2 ref
lv2 feat no prereqs +4 spl ref +3
lv3 sneak attack +4 spl ref +2
lv4 WF or any combat feat +3 spl ref +3
lv5 increase studied bonuses +3 spl ref +3
lv6 feat no prereqs, SA +1 spl ref +3
lv7 swift study ref +3
lv8 WF or any combat feat ref +4
lv9 SA ref+1

Slayer has
The same attack and damage boost that WT gives with my studied combat
The same number of skills
1 REF
3d6 sneak attack

Fighter has
heavy armor

Compare
Slayer has 2 Pre-Req free feats, WF, and 1 combat feat
Fighter has 3 combat feats

[sarcasm]Yeah, I'm so glad they "fixed" the fighter by letting him buy patches with feats.[/sarcasm] Yes it's far better than nothing, but he should have a free Advanced Training when he gets the training or WT lv1. That would at least help him catch up AND still have feat trees as his special thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:

Yes it's far better than nothing, but he should have a free Advanced Training when he gets the training or WT lv1. That would at least help him catch up AND still have feat trees as his special thing.

You'd find similar outcomes with Ranger and Swashbuckler I imagine due to the pre-req free bonus feats and abilities with a specific weapon that mimic WT, and in Swash case gets Vital Strike 3 levels sooner than Fighter can take the feat (5th vs 8th).

I've got the fighter getting an Advanced selection and the training tier at each tier, gets them going faster in the level of game we're most likely to play in our game. Even with the two handbooks, some house ruling is in order to really make it come into play for some groups who cap out around 9 or 10th level in a campaign.

For those playing APs or high level, it's nice, but as you point out - you're still sacrificing so much because there is this perception that Fighters get such a mountain of feats they can use it as the payment for bolstering it as a core class. They don't get to skip any pre-reqs (like several classes now), and through 10th level only get 2 more than Ranger and 3 more than Wizard.


Ranger does pull ahead nicely.

Swash it's iffy. They are fairly balanced to each other, which is why people say that the swash is really bad too.

*And you mean improved crit, not vital strike.

But the reason for the slayer comparison is the class also fits the "generic fight guy" that people say is the figher's theme. If you read the figher's title and fluff and then the slayer's mechanics you'd think it makes sense. "perfecting the uses of armor" is the only thing that wouldn't fit.


Envall wrote:
Maybe if they would fix the source rather than trying to pile more rules on top of 16 years of rules.

You mean over 30 years of rules and "rule fix".

Fighter being weak is one thing, Vancian spellcasting being overpowered is another.


Jader7777 wrote:
you're in the reality of table top adventures:

I still get a sick sort of amusement from seeing people use this oxymoron. And then I feel bad amount it because I know it's wrong of me to enjoy other people's problems.


memorax wrote:
What wait. A Rangers favored enemy depending on their type is supposed to be....racist. So a Paladin Smite Evil ability is the same as well because they target evil and it only works against evil creatures. Oh god the SJWs are targeting D&D now.

This isn't about social justice. This is about wanting to be able to play a character who isn't obsessed with the best ways to murder gnolls.


I did post a Fighter fix along with some house rules here if anyone feels like taking a look and commenting. I am very open to criticism and am on about the fourth iteration so please do not be shy.

Dark Archive

The Mortonator wrote:

But... but... we already had the final Fighter thread! D:

Azten wrote:
It's a class. It's a good class. It is not a spellcaster or skilled class. Leave it be.

It's interesting to see this opinion. Not common on the boards.

Personally, I would say that the game's problems are probably the other way around. There are terrible feat trees and narrow feat focuses, and thus Fighter is held back.

Yes, I'm still reading the thread. That said, fighters have always been a good class. Yes, even in 2nd edition paladins and rangers were better then fighters, but only due to having additional options such as a little magic.

IMO the main problem is not Casters Are Overpowered or Martials Are Underpowered. It's that people only look at the absolute peak of what is capable, while ignoring the fact that quite often you don't need to hit that peak to be effective.

I made a level 1 scythe fighter who does 11-17 damage per attack. But let's be honest with ourselves. Do you really need to deal that much damage with each attack before level 5 or 6? Looking through the PFS scenarios I have, most of the low to mid tier scenarios tend to have foes with 6 to 12 hit points each. The BBEG may have up to 40 hit points. And that's the final climatic battle for the adventure. It's suppose to be harder.

And yet it's a common thought that if you're not maximizing what you can do, you shouldn't bother. Unless you're doing something silly like trying to pin a dragon, how high of a CMB do you actually need for many common tactics? Probably not one in the 70's.

Fighters are a good class. Especially with the revamp Paizo did. It's just that people on forums tend to fall into the min/max mindset of what is "good". You know, the one where a build is only "good" if it hits the absolute peak of possible damage, and anything even a few points off of that is "gimped". Where if the enemies aren't missing you 95% of the time, your defenses are horrible and you may not have even bothered. It's only when viewed through this lens that fighters don't look like a good class.

The fact that completely maximized and optimized builds tend to trivialize nearly everything thrown at them is cited as proof they're good builds. IMO, such builds get boring really quickly. If there's no challenge, where you you getting the enjoyment?


Kahel Stormbender wrote:

Yes, I'm still reading the thread. That said, fighters have always been a good class. Yes, even in 2nd edition paladins and rangers were better then fighters, but only due to having additional options such as a little magic.

IMO the main problem is not Casters Are Overpowered or Martials Are Underpowered. It's that people only look at the absolute peak of what is capable, while ignoring the fact that quite often you don't need to hit that peak to be effective.

The main problem is not "Casters Are Overpowered or Martials Are Underpowered", the main problem is Casters Are Overpowered and Martials Are Underpowered. One of the Fighter's other problems is Random Loot, and random shop availabilities.


Atarlost wrote:
memorax wrote:
What wait. A Rangers favored enemy depending on their type is supposed to be....racist. So a Paladin Smite Evil ability is the same as well because they target evil and it only works against evil creatures. Oh god the SJWs are targeting D&D now.
This isn't about social justice. This is about wanting to be able to play a character who isn't obsessed with the best ways to murder gnolls.

Poe's Law.

Also, obsession is a factor of character not class. Being skilled at taking down your opponents and exploiting their weaknesses is called fighting smart. Note they don;t even need to be a race, unless one really stretches the definition to include non sentient animated objects known as constructs. And nobody is gonna call you out for being good at shooting animals.

You're trained to exploit the weaknesses of opponents, and to understand their movements and psychology, who may well be another species. Or not. Could be your species. To define this as racism implies that it's racist to attack a demon with holy energy because thats their weakness. It makes no sense.

If you want to define your character as exploiting these weaknesses due to racism or what not that's your business. But to imply it's the norm is like saying barbarian's rage means they are all psychopathic murderer's and sorceror's bloodlines means they're all descendent of xenophiles.


Icehawk wrote:
Being skilled at taking down your opponents and exploiting their weaknesses is called fighting smart. Note they don;t even need to be a race, unless one really stretches the definition to include non sentient animated objects known as constructs. And nobody is gonna call you out for being good at shooting animals.

Nobody ever takes favored enemy for animals or constructs. It's always humans or one of the intelligent monsters. The player's handbook will come straight out and tell you which one. Any other favored enemy would be a complete waste that never comes up.

And replace whichever intelligent monster your campaign is themed around with "Chinese people" and tell me there isn't a problem. That it's okay for people to train specifically to kill Chinese people and they're not racist at all. Goblinoids or Gnolls or Giants are just as much people within the game's setting as the Chinese are people in the real world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is it really racist to learn how to be really good at killing something specifically when 95% of its population wants to kill you?


HyperMissingno wrote:
Is it really racist to learn how to be really good at killing something specifically when 95% of its population wants to kill you?

Chicken or the Egg situation...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
Icehawk wrote:
Being skilled at taking down your opponents and exploiting their weaknesses is called fighting smart. Note they don;t even need to be a race, unless one really stretches the definition to include non sentient animated objects known as constructs. And nobody is gonna call you out for being good at shooting animals.

Nobody ever takes favored enemy for animals or constructs. It's always humans or one of the intelligent monsters. The player's handbook will come straight out and tell you which one. Any other favored enemy would be a complete waste that never comes up.

And replace whichever intelligent monster your campaign is themed around with "Chinese people" and tell me there isn't a problem. That it's okay for people to train specifically to kill Chinese people and they're not racist at all. Goblinoids or Gnolls or Giants are just as much people within the game's setting as the Chinese are people in the real world.

You think no military practices fighting against the chinese army, or the russian army or what not? Hell who do you think wrote one of the most famous manuals on warfare? China. It doesn't preach attack your enemy blindly with knowing nothing about them. It says know your enemy. If gnolls are assaulting your villages, you don't practice fighting animals. And you don't just wander in without understanding how they fight. Thats how you get people killed.

Also I would definitely pick animals in a hostile druid campaign and I'd pick constructs in a tech or golem focused campaign (and have). Because as you said, nobody picks favored enemies that are useless. You pick them because they are fighting you and you want to be good at fighting back. Some favored enemies occur more often than others simply because some monsters are more common than others. Can you name many non hostile undead? They're the most common. Same with evil outsiders.

If being good at fighting specific enemies is racist, guess the whole world is. Every single one of em.


Atarlost wrote:
Nobody ever takes favored enemy for animals or constructs.

That may be true in your game, but it is not true in everyones. For example, in my games the most common favoured enemies have been animal, construct, and dragon.


Atarlost wrote:
Icehawk wrote:
Being skilled at taking down your opponents and exploiting their weaknesses is called fighting smart. Note they don;t even need to be a race, unless one really stretches the definition to include non sentient animated objects known as constructs. And nobody is gonna call you out for being good at shooting animals.

Nobody ever takes favored enemy for animals or constructs. It's always humans or one of the intelligent monsters. The player's handbook will come straight out and tell you which one. Any other favored enemy would be a complete waste that never comes up.

And replace whichever intelligent monster your campaign is themed around with "Chinese people" and tell me there isn't a problem. That it's okay for people to train specifically to kill Chinese people and they're not racist at all. Goblinoids or Gnolls or Giants are just as much people within the game's setting as the Chinese are people in the real world.

Personally in the few games I've played constructs make up about 1/3 of Rangers choice for that ability, and the term is not Racist, it deals with species not race.

Liberty's Edge

Atarlost wrote:


This isn't about social justice. This is about wanting to be able to play a character who isn't obsessed with the best ways to murder gnolls.

It's a class ability that allows the Ranger to be effective against certain creatures. It's not a obsession by any means. Find me the Flavor text where it qualifies as a "obsession". Not to mention murder I mean c'mon. This is a rpg where a group goes into a monster liar defeats it usually by killing it. Then taking it's treasure. Sometimes hired by someone else to do it.

Atarlost wrote:


Nobody ever takes favored enemy for animals or constructs. It's always humans or one of the intelligent monsters. The player's handbook will come straight out and tell you which one. Any other favored enemy would be a complete waste that never comes up.

Or it could simply be that since a favored enemy is a ability that requires the creature to be one that shows up frequenetly in a campaign to be effective. If animals or constructs. Never show or or are rare. Why the hell would I waste taking either or as a favored enemy. Of course players are going to take favored enemies that are common in a campaign world imo.

Atarlost wrote:


And replace whichever intelligent monster your campaign is themed around with "Chinese people" and tell me there isn't a problem. That it's okay for people to train specifically to kill Chinese people and they're not racist at all. Goblinoids or Gnolls or Giants are just as much people within the game's setting as the Chinese are people in the real world.

Your really reaching here. If I was playing a game of PF that a DM decides to use material from the Forgotten Realms 2E Horde boxed set. The Horde being based off the Genghis Khan style Barbarians or something similar. Of course I would take human It's not being racist. It's simply making effective use of a class ability. So it makes sense that I would take. Again stop pretending to be triggered by a class ability. Not only that in a rpg of all things.


Hating a class because you don't like the way you personally choose to fluff it seems.. kind of bizarre.

I mean why not just, not fluff it that way in your head? Rp it differently. You're essentially just being bitter about your own imagination here and it's... weird.


Atarlost wrote:

Nobody ever takes favored enemy for animals or constructs. It's always humans or one of the intelligent monsters. The player's handbook will come straight out and tell you which one. Any other favored enemy would be a complete waste that never comes up.

And replace whichever intelligent monster your campaign is themed around with "Chinese people" and tell me there isn't a problem. That it's okay for people to train specifically to kill Chinese people and they're not racist at all. Goblinoids or Gnolls or Giants are just as much people within the game's setting as the Chinese are people in the real world.

I can f+&+ing guarantee that every military force in the world has specific training to be particularly effective against whatever enemy they're currently fighting or who they fight most often.

Hell! Professional athletes and trainers will often review and analyze footage of their next opponent... Do you think that's because they are racist against their adversary?

You're choosing a role play flavor of your own and claiming it to be the standard and/or official flavor of the class, despite the fact that nothing in the game says that's the case. That's narrow-minded and dishonest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, more importantly, ethnicities and nationalities are not species.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Fighters are the source of like every problem in Pathfinder

I don't see how fighters are to blame for Pathfinder falling apart at higher levels.

Neither do I see how we can blame the fighter that often skills are made irrelevant by spells.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Also, more importantly, ethnicities and nationalities are not species.

were you referring to my post?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Also, more importantly, ethnicities and nationalities are not species.

You'll never be a best selling fantasy author with that attitude! Next you'll be expecting planets with more than one kinda terrain in space!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was referring to Atarlost's post, actually. Though I now see I'm jeopardizing my chances of being a best-selling fantasy author. Full steam ahead here's my planet based entirely on Texas

it is literally the size of texas

it is the smallest planet ever but it is very very dense


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I was referring to Atarlost's post, actually. Though I now see I'm jeopardizing my chances of being a best-selling fantasy author. Full steam ahead here's my planet based entirely on Texas

it is literally the size of texas

it is the smallest planet ever but it is very very dense

Does it export cowboy hats? I bet it exports cowboy hats.

Then it would literally be a planet of hats.

Seriously though, change "Chinese" to "German" and make the character a WW2 SAS commando. In that context Favored Enemy(race) seems totally fine and not racist at all.


What if u only dealt non lethal damage with your favored enemy bonus.

Like you are captain bob of the guard and you use your trusty club to bop the troublemakers then put them in jail.

Is that still obsessing with murder


Atarlost wrote:
When that prey is people, as it almost always is, they're racists.

This is really funny. If the rules said that you need to pick Favoured Enemy: Mwangi/Ulfen, that would be racist. Just being extra good at killing humans or dragons really isn't. Though I could live with being racist against dragons. They come to our towns, burn them down and then they eat all our goats and cows! Those damn village burning, cattle eating bastards! They're taking our jobs! Poor pyromaniacs and butchers. And they're lazy, all they do all day is sleeping on piles of gold! I just realised that dragons are based on just about every racist stereotype out there...

I mean, are human doctors racist as well? Because they don't know as much about the dragon body as they do about the human body? And are Dwarves racist against orcs? When a dwarf says "they're invading our homes" and "we need to build a wall", they're not really being prejudice against orcs, they're actually right...

Liberty's Edge

Lemmy wrote:


I can f#*@ing guarantee that every military force in the world has specific training to be particularly effective against whatever enemy they're currently fighting or who they fight most often.

Hell! Professional athletes and trainers will often review and analyze footage of their next opponent... Do you think that's because they are racist against their adversary?

You're choosing a role play flavor of your own and claiming it to be the standard and/or official flavor of the class, despite the fact that nothing in the game says that's the case. That's narrow-minded and dishonest.

Seconded on the entire post.

That's like saying a exterminator sent into a home to remove ants or other insect infestations is racist towards insects. It means the exterminator is good at what he does. I think too many players read too much into what they read. Or try to find anything wrong.

It's the first time ever where I have seen a fellow player accuse game mechanics of making a class racist. If my gaming table had Rangers and undead were a common enemy. Saying that the Ranger is racist because he is a effective at fighting undead and feels too much like genocide. Is guaranteed to get a few looks your way and questions about your overall mental stability.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Fighters:
Should have 2 good saves: Fortitude + Reflex.
Should have 6 skill points per level.
Should be able to complete two feat trees by 10th level, ignoring all prerequisites except for BAB (so TWF doesn't require extra Dex, Combat Reflexes does not require extra Int).
Should be able to take Advanced Weapon Training from level 2, not 5.
Ditch Bravery, and just give Iron Will.

So, I just made them equal to Ranger. My estimation is that Ranger spells = one feat tree, and Ranger Favored Enemy = Weapon Training with entire groups of weapons at the earlier level.

Casters, particularly the Wizard:
Should not get the huge WBL boost from crafting at half cost.
Should not have to deal with feat trees with extreme limits any more than should the martials.
Should not be able to deal damage without breaking invisibility, including having summons/minions do so. Note: Greater Invisibility eliminates this restriction.

So, I didn't equal out the Single Attribute Dependent vs. Multi-Attribute Dependent effects of the C/MD, but without super cheap crafting, something is done about it.
Stealthy Martials are on equal footing by the time Greater Invisibility is available to casters

Invisibility bonuses to stealth should be cut in half. The bonus of +20 while moving (and especially +40 while still) is ridiculous.
A Stealth of 30 should act as Invisibility (e.g having a +20 and doing Take 10).

So, now the Rogue or other stealthy character is not automatically worse off than a 3rd level arcane caster.

Attacks:
Weapon Focus for +1 to attack now works on weapon groups. Weapon Focus negates critical fumbles. Unless we're making every spell require an attack roll and a save, critical fumble rules really make Martials incompetent compared to casters.
Add Weapon Expertise as a feat that lets all characters with +6 BAB move AND attack with multiples, but not stacking with any other multiple attack. Then Pounce, etc. are not creating inequality among martials, and Haste isn't near mandatory.

There. Now Martials are competent (particularly Fighter), and Casters are a little more reasonable. How do we bring up the monsters' power for the extra attacks of Weapon Expertise, and what to do with Vital Strike builds?


Wait, what wizard doesn't craft for the whole party?


Milo v3 wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Nobody ever takes favored enemy for animals or constructs.
That may be true in your game, but it is not true in everyones. For example, in my games the most common favoured enemies have been animal, construct, and dragon.

+1

Because hopefully...the GM and player discuss what "might" be good options so you don't blow a major class feature on something that the GM isn't going to use in encounters. So they're a function of the story, not the system.


HyperMissingno wrote:
Wait, what wizard doesn't craft for the whole party?

Technically, he can, but per RAW is supposed to be paid by the other player the full value.

The Wizard surely doesn't need to be effectively at WBL * 2.


JoeElf wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Wait, what wizard doesn't craft for the whole party?

Technically, he can, but per RAW is supposed to be paid by the other player the full value.

What


HyperMissingno wrote:
Wait, what wizard doesn't craft for the whole party?

When they're in a party with a Witch in it? Not that witches are better crafters, but they also are in fine space without as many metamagic feats thanks to hexes.


The ultimate campaign crafting guidelines say that only the person with the crafting feat gets the wbl boost and only 25% per feat to a max of 50%. If crafting for another person it recommends that it counts as full value for their wbl and treasure should be adjusted accordingly.

Dark Archive

Lemmy wrote:
2- Change the Fighter's name to "Champion", "Paragon", "Warlord" or some such... Fighter is as bad as name as "Magic-user". Changing its name to something more epic will inspire players and designers to see the class as the paragon of physical combat it's supposed to be, instead of the "Warrior+" so many still view him as.

I'd prefer if 'Fighters' were called 'Warriors' and 'Warriors' were called 'Fighting-Men' or whatever. Warrior just sounds so much cooler than Fighter, to my ear.

Champion works, too. Various MMOs have used names like 'Hero' and 'Armsman' to good effect.

But the names are mostly just legacy stuff. I'd prefer if the Barbarian were re-named the Berserker, as well, since not all Berserkers are from 'barbarian' cultures, and certainly not all 'barbarians' are berserkers. Some 'barbarian' cultures don't even have an analogue for that.

And Monk. Ugh.

And Samurai, which is a social rank, not a cavalier-what-uses-katanas.


Just a Guess wrote:
Quote:
Fighters are the source of like every problem in Pathfinder

I don't see how fighters are to blame for Pathfinder falling apart at higher levels.

Neither do I see how we can blame the fighter that often skills are made irrelevant by spells.

This.

The main source of problems in Pathfinder are twofold: 3.0/3.5 was rather horribly balanced to begin with, and the Pathfinder developers seem to be actively attempting to widen that gulf rather than narrow it.


Just a Guess wrote:
Quote:
Fighters are the source of like every problem in Pathfinder

I don't see how fighters are to blame for Pathfinder falling apart at higher levels.

Neither do I see how we can blame the fighter that often skills are made irrelevant by spells.

Well, okay, maybe a couple small problems aren't entirely the fighter's fault.

But a big part of why high level sucks is the ridiculousness of the full attack paradigm, which the fighter is the heart and soul of.

And fighters are sort of the epitome and foundation of 'martial = mundane'. Skills suck because casters and non-casters play by different rules and different gameplay assumptions

Norman Osborne wrote:

This.

The main source of problems in Pathfinder are twofold: 3.0/3.5 was rather horribly balanced to begin with

Very true.

Quote:
and the Pathfinder developers seem to be actively attempting to widen that gulf rather than narrow it.

I'd say more they aren't that interested in fixing it rather than that. I mean, as bad as PF balance it has nothing on ice assassin or shapechange or assume supernatural ability + aberration wildshape or epic spells and so on and so forth.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Atarlost wrote:
memorax wrote:
What wait. A Rangers favored enemy depending on their type is supposed to be....racist. So a Paladin Smite Evil ability is the same as well because they target evil and it only works against evil creatures. Oh god the SJWs are targeting D&D now.
This isn't about social justice. This is about wanting to be able to play a character who isn't obsessed with the best ways to murder gnolls.

So don't play your ranger as obsessed with the best ways to murder gnolls. Done. You can even still have them as a favored enemy.

My dwarf ranger had favored enemy: human because he trained to be a diplomatic envoy to the human nations. Those bonuses to social interaction came in handy.

Atarlost wrote:
Nobody ever takes favored enemy for animals or constructs.

Seen them both. My Venture Agent's ranger tore through the beasts in the Land of the Linnorm Kings. (His hawk companion became known as the Wolfsbane.) Taking constructs is a good idea thanks to the bonus damage helping punch through the DR/hardness they usually have.


Set wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
2- Change the Fighter's name to "Champion", "Paragon", "Warlord" or some such... Fighter is as bad as name as "Magic-user". Changing its name to something more epic will inspire players and designers to see the class as the paragon of physical combat it's supposed to be, instead of the "Warrior+" so many still view him as.

1) I'd prefer if 'Fighters' were called 'Warriors' and 'Warriors' were called 'Fighting-Men' or whatever. Warrior just sounds so much cooler than Fighter, to my ear.

Champion works, too. Various MMOs have used names like 'Hero' and 'Armsman' to good effect.

2) But the names are mostly just legacy stuff. I'd prefer if the Barbarian were re-named the Berserker, as well, since not all Berserkers are from 'barbarian' cultures, and certainly not all 'barbarians' are berserkers. Some 'barbarian' cultures don't even have an analogue for that.

3) And Monk. Ugh.

4) And Samurai, which is a social rank, not a cavalier-what-uses-katanas.

1) the French translation of DnD 3.5 did that, I could agree with the idea.

2) So true, +1.

3) yeah, this one can get more confusing that barbarian.

4) true, the Katana part isn't even historically accurate.


Set wrote:

I'd prefer if 'Fighters' were called 'Warriors' and 'Warriors' were called 'Fighting-Men' or whatever. Warrior just sounds so much cooler than Fighter, to my ear.

Champion works, too. Various MMOs have used names like 'Hero' and 'Armsman' to good effect.

But the names are mostly just legacy stuff. I'd prefer if the Barbarian were re-named the Berserker, as well, since not all Berserkers are from 'barbarian' cultures, and certainly not all 'barbarians' are berserkers. Some 'barbarian' cultures don't even have an analogue for that.

And Monk. Ugh.

And Samurai, which is a social rank, not a cavalier-what-uses-katanas.

Most names don't work if you break it down. Druids are only slightly druidic, Wizards can dump wisdom and be pretty damn fine and Paladins have nothing to do with kings or courts. Swashbucklers also make pretty terrible swashbucklers. Don't stress about it too much.

Though I do agree that fighter and warrior felt backwards.


HyperMissingno wrote:
JoeElf wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Wait, what wizard doesn't craft for the whole party?

Technically, he can, but per RAW is supposed to be paid by the other player the full value.

What

I think I know what he is referring to.

Ultimate Campaign - Crafting wrote:

...

However, game balance for the default campaign experience expects you and all other PCs to be close to the listed wealth values, so the GM shouldn't just let you craft double the normal amount of gear. As a guideline, allowing a crafting PC to exceed the Character Wealth by Level guidelines by about 25% is fair, or even up to 50% if the PC has multiple crafting feats.

If you are creating items for other characters in the party, the increased wealth for the other characters should come out of your increased allotment. Not only does this prevent you from skewing the wealth by level for everyone in the party, but it encourages other characters to learn item creation feats.
...

However, JoeElf seems to be making the (depressingly common) mistake of expecting players to abide by GM balancing tools which are totally transparent to the PCs. Keeping the PCs in line with WBL guidelines is solely on the shoulders of the GM.


Snowblind wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
JoeElf wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Wait, what wizard doesn't craft for the whole party?

Technically, he can, but per RAW is supposed to be paid by the other player the full value.

What

I think I know what he is referring to.

Ultimate Campaign - Crafting wrote:

...

However, game balance for the default campaign experience expects you and all other PCs to be close to the listed wealth values, so the GM shouldn't just let you craft double the normal amount of gear. As a guideline, allowing a crafting PC to exceed the Character Wealth by Level guidelines by about 25% is fair, or even up to 50% if the PC has multiple crafting feats.

If you are creating items for other characters in the party, the increased wealth for the other characters should come out of your increased allotment. Not only does this prevent you from skewing the wealth by level for everyone in the party, but it encourages other characters to learn item creation feats.
...

However, JoeElf seems to be making the (depressingly common) mistake of expecting players to abide by GM balancing tools which are totally transparent to the PCs. Keeping the PCs in line with WBL guidelines is solely on the shoulders of the GM.

And as a GM, I will count items the caster made for their party members at their price, while counting items made by and worn by the caster at their cost and take that into account when it comes to ensuring there is approximately enough treasure to maintain WBL. So in effect, when playing under a GM who aims to stick close to WBL like myself, the caster crafting for their party members is never going to get them ahead on WBL. Though doing so only hurts the caster in the sense that it delays their own access to the higher effective WBL taking crafting feats allows.

201 to 248 of 248 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Fighters are the source of like every problem in Pathfinder All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion