Dr. Chicago's page

hazel monday wrote:

Fighters are pretty great.

No, they're not.

The entire cast of options that Fighters have, is, indeed, the subset of options all other classes have.

And that should be a self-obvious enough definition to tell you that fighters suck.

Fighters need to be able to hit the opponent. That's all they have the bonuses to do. They can't entangle them from afar, throw fog or darkness down, hide, sneak, turn into wild beasts or the enemy's friends. These are all things other classes can do, and the fighter cannot.

The fighter also does not innately have any counters to any of these options other classes have.

It's really, really simple. Fighter has less options, and therefore is an NPC, not a PC. Any attempt to say 'But they're just harder to play!' is a cop-out, because in no cases is the fighter doing something which isn't an option to another class.

Hitpoints do not make up for not having spells.

-Crissa

For a long time I've wondered about how good the fighter is compaired to other classes. I think you make some valid points but I don't think the Fighter should just disappear or die. Its got a solid foundation with a lot of possibilities. And in early levels of the game the Fighter is just down right king of the party.

I think the weapon and armor training is a step in the right direction. But I think more is needed. Though the Fighter is somewhat suppose to be the simple class to play I think they may need to add more to it. The Fighter needs to be the undisputed king of martial combat!

After doing a lot of math I have concluded that with enough money the best way to get a high AC is to not wear any armor at all and get a monk's robe.

Everything an armored person can get so can a non armored person can with the following exception.

An armored person has a max dexterity bonus and can not get a bonus to AC from a second stat.

Wearing armor needs a boost. The max dexterity needs to be increase or eliminated for starters as a non armored person does not have one.

Does anyone else have any ideas?

Well, lets think. People in combat where armor to make them harder to hurt. If someone is whereing plate armor, then yeah they'll be slow and not as agile, however, if I ran up and pucnhed them in the chest I'd break my fist.

Or respectively if I hit them with a baseball bat, or club in this case, it may not have the impact I was hoping for.

Perhaps Armor can give some kind of damage reduction? After all, I believe the term for such peoples whom perfer this form of protection is tank?

Usually for HP I max a 1st level and then I have my players roll but take nothing under half the d#. So a fighter at 2nd level would roll a d10 and nothing under 5 is exceptable(10 in half is 5).

But perhaps to maybe a more gradual elevation in skill points in HP is in order so its not just super leap alll of a sudden?

Example 1st level rogue going into fighter in 3.5 would get d6 for 1st level hp and then get d8 for fighter.

d6
d8- the middle
d10

The rogue wouldn't get a d10 for fighter hp unless he stuck with it for another consectutive level. This same rule could be applied for characters taking a level in a hp die lower class such a fighter to wizard. D10 for the fighter, and a d6 for the wizard.

If the same thing is done for skill points then maybe cross-classing i general can find a middle ground where character are more blended

Are barbarians still illiterate in PFRPG?

It does not explicitly say it in the class description but I wasn't sure if that was one of the "if it hasn't been explicitly changed" things or if they are no longer illiterate.

I believe they are now literate as it says nothing about the matter, however role=playing illiteracy would be interesting.

I think 3.5e's multiclassing rules can use some improvement. I know I'm not the first to suggest anything in this direction, but more options can't hurt.

Basics:

Effective Class Level:
The effective class level (I'd abbreviate it with ECL, but that's taken) for a class is actual class level + (all other levels/HD)/2. Alternately, ECL could be capped at twice the actual level, like in Zynete idea.
Example: Fighter 6/Rogue 4 would have a Fighter ECL of 8 and Rogue of 7. If we use the cap, a Fighter 10/Rogue 2 would only be Effective Rogue 4.

Class Abilities, Class Level, Effective Class Level, and Improved Multiclassing

My idea is that for some things, you use the class level, for other things, you use the effective class level, and for another set of things, you use class level unless you have the Improved Multiclassing feat for that calss - then you use ECL for those, too.

Class Level
Some things should always depend on class level, and class level only. I'd say any spellcaster's spells per day and spells known should be among that list, and any bonus feats a class may grant. Also, the time when you get abilities, and when you get extra uses of those abilities, should generally be based on actual class level.

Effective Class Level
Generally, caster levels should depend on ECL. That means that your spells deal more damage, last longer, and will overcome SR more easily. Also, other abilities that have a power level based on your class level - like a paladin's smite, school powers, domain powers, that sort of thing - should be base don ECL.

Feat
There'd be a feat called Improved Multiclassing. You'd take it for each class you want to "unlock" further abilities of. You could take it several times, but only once per class. I don't know about prerequisites yet, but "have class levels" should definetly be in.

Feats and Abilities
The feat would enable you to get some stuff based on your effective class level instead of your actual class...

With multi-classing feats it sounds a bit like 4th edition D&D. I'd liek to say a way of multi-classinf that doesn't require feats. Perhaps something like dual-classing, where you advance into two classes at once or three. Its a hail-back to Advanced 2nd Ed. to be sure but it'd be interesting I think.

Does anyone know about what time we'd see the hardcover book of Pathfinder in stores? And I've heard they're releasing a Beta, when does that come out?

After looking as the aplha 3 relase of Pathfinder, I have to say this is what I was looking for.

Its awesome, and everyone is really beifed, which leads me to wonder. What about the Fighter? After looking his class over he's definately the 7th wonder-warrior of the world. The Bravery, Weapons and Armor training are all really awesome and I hope they stay, but is it enough?

Maybe the fighter could get a choice of abilites the way a Barbarian gets the rage powers or the rogue gets the talents?

Feel this needs to be brought up:

Intimidate (page 60):
I suggest that the "demoralize opponent" function be usable with STR instead of CHA.

Purpose: ensure that the average gnome farmer is not more intimidating in a fight than a raging half-orc barbarian.

I see your point. I thought since CHA was also a measure of comeliness that characters and creatures with negative CHA should instead use their negative as a bonus, because big ugly and not very sociable creatures can easily scare common folk.