Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game


Pathfinder Society


Starfinder


Starfinder Society

Do Fighters Finally Not Suck?!


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

101 to 120 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Blackwaltzomega wrote:

At level 11, when a fighter can have both of these feats, he can cast Dimension door. Once. As a standard action. Handy for out of combat! Relatively useless in combat unless you've gained the power to attack as a swift/move action somehow.

If you're taking item mastery feats you're also taking abundant tactics. They're basically part of the same package.

Edit so its more like 5X a day at 11th.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:

At level 11, when a fighter can have both of these feats, he can cast Dimension door. Once. As a standard action. Handy for out of combat! Relatively useless in combat unless you've gained the power to attack as a swift/move action somehow.

If you're taking item mastery feats you're also taking abundant tactics. They're basically part of the same package.

Edit so its more like 5X a day at 11th.

Which would be awesome if Dimensional Agility et all and Teleportation Mastery were combat feats.

They aren't.

Abundant tactics doesn't work with any of the feats involved in this combo, or indeed any item mastery feats at all.


Huh, apparently some are most arent, telekinetic mastery is. Teleportation isn't. Weird


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Talk about the Fighter being "effective" or not is always funny, as people throw in things light "flight" or "plane shift" and never explain how their actual game looks like, but keep it on a purely theoretical level, with weighting "class features" higher than "itemancy".

Me, I use PF only to play APs and that´s it. My comparison point is: Does a Fighter well in Giantslayer as published and not modified by me? And it does.


An NPC warrior can do well in Giantslayer as published without modification. That isn't a high hurdle.


Alex Smith 908 wrote:
An NPC warrior can do well in Giantslayer as published without modification. That isn't a high hurdle.

I´ve not said it´s a hurdle, but that it gives the overall boundaries "effectiveness" of things can be measure against instead of talking about them in a vacuum.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd say the better measure of effectiveness is "does this character usually have an equal part to contribute in Kingmaker or similarly complex adventure path". I want a fighter to be able to meaningfully contribute mechanically to as many situations as possible. For instance in a diplomatic situation the fighter should still have something to do even if he isn't the star, without having to have invested a huge portion of his resources into it. Alternatively enemies who cannot be fought directly is a fairly common narrative device and the fighter should have means of indirectly fighting them such as combat maneuvers without having to have invested hugely into that specific maneuver.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Like I guess what it gets right down to is that a fighter's feats and or abilities should have as much utility for all of a sorcerer's known spells put together for a given level and all of those fighter abilities should scale at least as well as sorcerer spells.


so yeah, item mastery feats aren't combat feats? that kinda makes them worthless. you can't brawler them out either.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alex Smith 908 wrote:
I want a fighter to be able to meaningfully contribute mechanically to as many situations as possible. For instance in a diplomatic situation the fighter should still have something to do even if he isn't the star, without having to have invested a huge portion of his resources into it. Alternatively enemies who cannot be fought directly is a fairly common narrative device and the fighter should have means of indirectly fighting them such as combat maneuvers without having to have invested hugely into that specific maneuver.

I advise snagging the Everyman Unchained: Fighters.


I'll give it a look


Alex Smith 908 wrote:
I'd say the better measure of effectiveness is "does this character usually have an equal part to contribute in Kingmaker or similarly complex adventure path". I want a fighter to be able to meaningfully contribute mechanically to as many situations as possible. For instance in a diplomatic situation the fighter should still have something to do even if he isn't the star, without having to have invested a huge portion of his resources into it. Alternatively enemies who cannot be fought directly is a fairly common narrative device and the fighter should have means of indirectly fighting them such as combat maneuvers without having to have invested hugely into that specific maneuver.

Sorry, AP and complex? You´re kidding me? You could do each and everyone of them with NPC classes and still do fine. Heck, they´re designed to be played with 12-year-olds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah I know hence why I think actually using them as a measuring stick is kinda dumb. I was trying to find the most complex possible example, and all of the others besides Kingmaker that have any degree of interesting design are 3rd party. You were the one who brought them up as an example of standard play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Frogsplosion wrote:
so yeah, item mastery feats aren't combat feats? that kinda makes them worthless. you can't brawler them out either.

Not as a brawler alone. You need Weapon Training to do it. Advanced Weapon Training is a combat feat, and Item Mastery is an Advanced Weapon Training option. Using that, you can flex into Item Mastery feats. Typically through Barroom Brawler through a fighter, though you can do it with Warrior Spirit and the Training weapon special ability.


Isonaroc wrote:
Elf Wizard wrote:
Cantriped wrote:
No they aren't, they cost you a share of the loot...
Do Fighters actually survive the entire adventure in your games?
Generally yeah. The only class I see consistently die is the rogue.

That is usually the player.

And I don't have an issue keeping my fighter alive.

Unlike the wizard in our group, who failed his save vs. Destruction week before last ... and even if I had been targeted and (very unlikely) failed his save, it would not have killed my fighter.

Contributor

Jonathon Wilder wrote:
Alex Smith 908 wrote:
I want a fighter to be able to meaningfully contribute mechanically to as many situations as possible. For instance in a diplomatic situation the fighter should still have something to do even if he isn't the star, without having to have invested a huge portion of his resources into it. Alternatively enemies who cannot be fought directly is a fairly common narrative device and the fighter should have means of indirectly fighting them such as combat maneuvers without having to have invested hugely into that specific maneuver.
I advise snagging the Everyman Unchained: Fighters.

Thanks for the shout-out! :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While we're pointing out good 3rd party replacements for the Fighter, the Spheres of Might Conscript is basically what you want from a Fighter (a blank page chassis that you can fill in with most any non-casting concept you want) except really good. This is largely because, unlike having a lot of extra feats, having a lot of extra sphere talents is actually worth a damn.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Triune wrote:
Do Fighters Finally Not Suck?!

No.


Arachnofiend wrote:
While we're pointing out good 3rd party replacements for the Fighter, the Spheres of Might Conscript is basically what you want from a Fighter (a blank page chassis that you can fill in with most any non-casting concept you want) except really good. This is largely because, unlike having a lot of extra feats, having a lot of extra sphere talents is actually worth a damn.

I am proud to be a backer for the book! :)

Anyway, last time I checked DDS' forums, I was shocked to see someone who wanted out-of-combat abilities booted out of Spheres of Might, which is exactly the opposite of what I'd like to happen to martials. Wonder why did that person think like that...


Lucas Yew wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
While we're pointing out good 3rd party replacements for the Fighter, the Spheres of Might Conscript is basically what you want from a Fighter (a blank page chassis that you can fill in with most any non-casting concept you want) except really good. This is largely because, unlike having a lot of extra feats, having a lot of extra sphere talents is actually worth a damn.

I am proud to be a backer for the book! :)

Anyway, last time I checked DDS' forums, I was shocked to see someone who wanted out-of-combat abilities booted out of Spheres of Might, which is exactly the opposite of what I'd like to happen to martials. Wonder why did that person think like that...

They're a secret wizard, obviously, who feels their party role of "all of the party roles" is threatened.

101 to 120 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Do Fighters Finally Not Suck?! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.