I think it is worth saying that fighter is on-par with most other martials at this point. As long as you use Advanced Armor and Weapon Trainings, and assorted Mastery feats at least. After all, by somewhere between level 5 and 9 they become a 4 skills/level full BAB class with access to a decent will save, item crafting, scaling DR and/or AC boosts, and the ability to use spells like Suggestion, Fly, and Telekinesis. Most of this pretty much brings it to "on par" however, since other classes could already do things like fly, have skills, a good AC, sometimes a bit of DR, a good will save, etc.
i think a character who attacks physically as his main strategy is a martial.
I thought that too, but then people on the boards said skald and battle oracle don't count despite the main tactic (of mine) was magically assisted full attacks.
Something something specialization in a style of fighting something something options via (X) mastery feats and weapons tricks something something stronger feats means innate class feature of more feats is better something something advanced trainings blah blah blah etc...
Yes, aspects can be mimicked, obviously, but if not the entire build of the character can be absolutely invalidated and recreated by a similarly tiered character/martial, or even some stronger tiers if we're feeling frisky, then guess what? A character that can only be made via Fighter exists, and if they are a valuable asset to the party via what the **** ever was previously discussed ad nauseum in this thread, then you have a unique, useful ally.
That sums up anything I care to say. Took me forever to properly convey the thought, but there it is. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm tumbling out of this roundabout discussion/argument/test of sanity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A character that can only be made via Fighter exists,
Perhaps, but I've seen more evidence of unicorns than I've seen of such characters. Even your own description above doesn't actually list any capacities unique to the fighter, and relies on many aspects that fighters are notably poor at. One example among many; you suggest that fighters can make armor. So can experts, but experts get three times the skill points that fighters can. You mention that fighters can take Profession: Soldier, but again, so can experts, and in fact, experts have the skill points to do both at the same time.
You mention that fighters can "be a partial face," but again, so can experts, or indeed any character willing to burn skill points on Diplomacy and possibly some stat points on Charisma. And experts can burn skill points on armorsmithing, soldiering, and being a face all at once!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A character that can only be made via Fighter exists, and if they are a valuable asset to the party via what the **** ever was previously discussed ad nauseum in this thread, then you have a unique, useful ally.
And some allies are more useful than others, hence the Tier system.
A character only fighters can make has existed since the CRB. You can take Skill Focus (Profession[whatever]) with every general feat you get and still be decent at combat (Power Attack, Combat Reflexes, etc). Now, of course there are better fighter only builds, but the idea has always been.
Something something specialization in a style of fighting something something options via (X) mastery feats and weapons tricks something something stronger feats means innate class feature of more feats is better something something advanced trainings blah blah blah etc...
Yes, aspects can be mimicked, obviously, but if not the entire build of the character can be absolutely invalidated and recreated by a similarly tiered character/martial, or even some stronger tiers if we're feeling frisky, then guess what? A character that can only be made via Fighter exists, and if they are a valuable asset to the party via what the **** ever was previously discussed ad nauseum in this thread, then you have a unique, useful ally.
That sums up anything I care to say. Took me forever to properly convey the thought, but there it is. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm tumbling out of this roundabout discussion/argument/test of sanity.
Styles? Ranger and Slayer are equals in archery, Ranger Slayer and Vigilante are better TWFers, zweihanding requires one, maybe two feats to be effective, sword and board can be summed with "twf, again, and einhanding means you're a Swashbuckler, Magus or 3rd Party. And I've yet to see a combat feat as good as a class feature. Even if there was, well Avenger Vigilantes can go down that route as well, and also have actual class features, not to mention skills.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A few reminders:
- The same amount of optimization should be applied to both characters. A heavily optimized fighter can tank better than a cleric, but that cleric should be assumed to be optimizing as well. I saw a post that compared, rhetorically, a hyperoptimized fighter build to a cleric wearing scale mail, and it really frustrated me. Always, always, always assume everything is equal except class features.
-Tiers are not just about combat, they're primarily about versatility. A LOT has been argued about combat in this topic, and it's mostly missing the point- I mean, it's interesting that casters can, even at the lowest levels where the disparity is at it's lowest, make very real attempts to be good at combat as the martials- but even if they don't succeed, it's the fact that they were able to make that attempt, plus everything else they can do, that is the important thing.
- Narrative influence: Not just having a unique combat style, this is being *mechnically* able to change the way the story goes in ways beyond "beating the enemy", because everyone can do that. Frosty mentioned Profession Soldier as a way to do this, and I just have to say that Profession Soldier, while very cool and full of flavor, is mechanically near useless. That's a RAW reading, and the Tier list by necessity must be about RAW.
- Finally, just remember that the tier list was written before the much needed Weapon/ Armor master updates. I'm genuinely interested in how or if the Fighter changes compared to other martials.
Finally, a plea- please read over the link that Jiggy gave to the C/DM myth topic- it's a good, illuminating read if you read it with an open mind. If nothing else, it might make you understand why your arguments aren't landing.
I'm... not sure what C/MD has to do with what I have been posting. I know what it is. I know why it exists. It's why I haven't bothered discussing magic and its infinite uses, but rather agree with anyone that said a Wizard is too stronk or something to that effect.
I also know what a tier list is meant to be. I know it's not just about combat, and that combat is only a part of the reasoning behind the list's rankings. It's why I never bothered to discuss any tier 1 or 2 classes and their value in combat, and have kept my talks to tier 3< as that (That being magic users and combat) wasn't the point of any of my arguments.
But this is what I meant by the roundabout. At this point I'm just re-explaining everything I've already said and why I have been saying it. Pretty much my whole purpose in this topic was just arguing a class's use and function in a party and what sets them apart, makes them unique and marks them as equals (Please don't take this too seriously, for God's sake) amongst others, that class being a Fighter. It started with why I thought it was pointless to say blah blah commoner blah and ended with my last post, which really does sum up my entire point, but it will/was just be needlessly picked apart and the actual intent will be ignored, as is the case with your post, PK.
No **** a a Cleric affects the narrative more than a Fighter. They can just ask God for help or make a wish, or for lesser examples, the same way a Wizard can scry for days or a Witch can save everyone from a huge fall with her Flight Hex at very low levels. I've played all these characters and have done all these things myself. But again, that was never my point.
I've tried to make it clear several times what I was trying to say. Though I guess that got lost in the bull****. Eh. Whatever. At the very least this has been an entertaining **** show.
so your point was that a fighter is better than a commoner at combat?
so your point was that a fighter is better than a commoner at combat?
Yeah. Sure. Why not.
so your point was that a fighter is better than a commoner at combat?
If I understand this, its that a fighter is worth a share of the treasure as much as a barbarian. So yes, better than a commoner (and an expert, and a warrior, and so on and so on until you reach the nonmagical fighting PC classes where it belongs). And under the current rules a fighter is as good a tank as a barbarian.
Assuming I agree with the tiers (im not ready to throw it one way or the other I think its a complex issue that not everyone expereinces)
My only thing about this is what would be the fix or is it really a problem to be fixed?
Should wizards and sorcerers spells be nerfed?
I'm OK if you want to give the fighter say 4/skills and maybe some sort of out of combat abilities I don't think he needs much more in combat abilities otherwise you start having him trivializing combat without buffing monsters too. but I don't personally want a baseline fighter with like 1/day use abilities and a lot of other mechanics to keep track of I want it pretty straight forward I don't need my fighter to attack will saves or some such i'm down for it just attacking and if I attack and i crit or otherwise trigger an effect that might be alright. and I guess a second wind heal might be ok that could be 1/day I suppose since it kind of makes since. I just don't want a mundane martial role to be replaced by book of the nine swords classes.
Assuming I agree with the tiers (im not ready to throw it one way or the other I think its a complex issue that not everyone expereinces)
My only thing about this is what would be the fix or is it really a problem to be fixed?
Should wizards and sorcerers spells be nerfed?
I'm OK if you want to give the fighter say 4/skills and maybe some sort of out of combat abilities I don't think he needs much more in combat abilities otherwise you start having him trivializing combat without buffing monsters too. but I don't personally want a baseline fighter with like 1/day use abilities and a lot of other mechanics to keep track of I want it pretty straight forward I don't need my fighter to attack will saves or some such i'm down for it just attacking and if I attack and i crit or otherwise trigger an effect that might be alright. and I guess a second wind heal might be ok that could be 1/day I suppose since it kind of makes since. I just don't want a mundane martial role to be replaced by book of the nine swords classes.
I don't think classes need to be FIXED per se (at this point anyway); though I guess some classes could get some streamlining (unchained Fighter that incorporates some of the Mastery stuff and Stamina that has been released over the years could be nice, if for no other reason than to make me do a smaller reference list for where i got my stuff)
Yeah it kind of want to agree with you on that I like stamina but i wouldn't want it like automatically i like it as an option. I do like all the mastery i think they improve the base quite a bit.
My only thing about this is what would be the fix or is it really a problem to be fixed?
It's not a problem as far as tiers are concerned. Even if it were, that is way beyond the scope of this thread and teeters extremely close to, if not part and parcel of, the C/MD debate. The only thing tiers represents is the general capability of a class. In that sense, it's pretty agnostic.
In that light, though, keep in mind Pathfinder has not been extensively evaluated since the whole tiers thing started in 3.x. Not only has Pathfinder not been extensively evaluated, but there are so many archetypes that mix and match that a class could be difficult to be singularly boxed in to a single tier.
Like I said, the tiers thing didn't start with Pathfinder. No coherent list really exists, and, with Paizo's fascination with archetypes, I'd wager that needle can move. Sussing out such a list would indeed involve great debate.
|
Like I said, the tiers thing didn't start with Pathfinder. No coherent list really exists, and, with Paizo's fascination with archetypes, I'd wager that needle can move. Sussing out such a list would indeed involve great debate.
I think there's a guide trying to suss that all out. Archetypes are a large swing factor (vigilante is like the master of switching tiers through archetypes), but most of them don't switch tiers a lot. There's only a select few that really do (mutagen warrior fighter for one), as the rest of them only help the class move around in its original tier.
I think there's a guide trying to suss that all out. Archetypes are a large swing factor (vigilante is like the master of switching tiers through archetypes), but most of them don't switch tiers a lot. There's only a select few that really do (mutagen warrior fighter for one), as the rest of them only help the class move around in its original tier.
There are a few tricky ones. For example, if wizards are normally tier 1, the spell sage makes them tier 0 by letting them cast heal, planar ally, miracle, and so on since they have access to the bard, cleric, and druid spell lists not to mention that tree teleport spell that has an unlimited range, I believe, before greater teleport comes into play normally.
As for that guide, do you have a link handy?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's finished yet, I thought about getting involved but then decided against it due to time restraints.
There were some differences in opinion about how to categorize them, and I think a general idea was reached, but doing something like this for everything in the game was always going to be a challenge.
Thanks!
Sadly... Most tier-altering archetypes are the ones that grant (or remove) spellcasting and/or spell-altering options.
I think the Path of War Expanded archetypes for martials push at least a couple of them up a tier.
From what I've seen, sometimes. Though in a good way, I think.
There's a reason its inspiration was derisively referred to as "Sword Magic" (the 9 levels and "initiator levels" didn't help).
.... well the rulebook itself literally called initiating Blade Magic over and over and over. The public didn't give it that name, Wizards of the Coast did.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like Fightin' Magic gets a bad rap. It always struck me as the logical result of people developing martial arts in a setting as ridiculously high-magic as any 3rd Edition/Pathfinder setting needs to be to accommodate half the core classes.
In a setting where magic gets that powerful, it stands to reason martial arts with real power behind them would bear a certain resemblance to magic.
I agree. As a DM I let my players know that Path of War (and psionics) is an option. the part i leave out is that they WILL run into enemies built upon it.
I find tiers are less about the class but more about the build. I can build tier 4 Wizard for example and build tier 1 Inquisitor. The classes limit you on what tier you can build. For example I can build well optimized fighter and still not reach tier 3.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find tiers are less about the class but more about the build. I can build tier 4 Wizard for example and build tier 1 Inquisitor. The classes limit you on what tier you can build. For example I can build well optimized fighter and still not reach tier 3.
The tier list is more looking at the classes ceiling rather than floor. As in it doesn't care about how poorly a character can be built only how well.
More specifically it focuses on flexibility and adaptability opposed to how good the class is at a specific thing, hence why the Wizard / prepared full casters are tier 1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Should wizards and sorcerers spells be nerfed?
so, I think what people want is a nerf of some problem spells.
but I think a good thing to add as well, is spells having requirments to be learned. like fireball requires you know 6 evocation spells(half this for spell known classes) for instance. being a certain kind of caster should mean something.
Clerics probably shouldn't get their entire spell list, etc.
as it is casters can easily cherry pick their spells with few repercussions, while feat based characters usually have to dig deep to get their playstyle running and will do horribly if they try to do different playstyles.
thank you band that is constructive So more like the spheres of power route?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
thank you band that is constructive So more like the spheres of power route?
yeah but obviously pathfinder won't want to invalidate most of their already written material.
A few high level spells are simply too open ended and thus EXTREMELY versatile. like using limited wish, which is obviously just the worst case example.
simulacrum comes to mind as another poster child.
most spells are fine, it's that their price to obtain is ridiculously low compared to non-casters.
Meta magic also is pretty up there in crazyness. Basically, metamagic is already pretty strong, and then there's a bunch of ways to make it stronger, they shouldn't have had abilities that for isntance up the DC of spells to the new level.
As for spell requirements I think something like
you need X many spells from that school to get that level of spell. with the formula basically being half of the spell level squared rounding down. (with classes that require spells known requiring half as many.)
0 = 0
1 = 0
2 = 2(1)
3 = 4(2)
4 = 8(4)
5 = 12(6)
6 = 18(9)
7 = 24(12)
8 = 32(16)
9 = 40(20)
Also, I'd only count spells you gain for your class for this total. Wizards only count spells in the spell book, sorcerers only count spells in their... blood? so that items and what not can't inflate your standing in a school.
maybe other neat dynamics could be added to, like removing wizard's school and opposition school's current benefits (besides powers) and instead your primary school requires half, and your oppositions require double. This way if your opposition school is destruction, you simply will almost be incapable of taking high level destruction spells while still being able to cast the ones you do have as easy as the rest.
on top of this, several spells need rebalancing so that they're in the right spell level to be worth the cost, several are simply too high up for instance, while a few are too low.