@Ssalarn : First off Bravery is not equal to evasion so lets not pretend that it is.
Besides a better save, I would probaly let the player pick the save between reflex and will, what would make the Fighter compare to the Ranger and Barbarian better?
I liked the comparison for damage you did it really made sense to me, even though a fighter can do more damage doesn't mean you beat the enemy any faster.
why not, everyone else has been?
if a Fighter in Full plate gets hit 40% less of the time than the Barbarian the odds of the enemy doing more than one damage at 7th level(when the Barbarian gets DR) is pretty high and by 13th level the fighter just might have adamantine full plate which has the DR 3/- which is the same as the Barbarian. There is no situation where a Medium armor such as breast plate can get higher AC than the Full plate with the same options(feel free to prove me wrong cause I wanna use the Breast plate more)
I am NOT saying that the Barbarian is bad, it just isn't my choice of class if I am looking for a up front heavy fighter
then stop comparing fighters to other classes that have medium or full spellcasting.
you say that Barbarians can hold there own with fighters in combat, I feel that while they can for one or two fights a fighter is good as long as they have HP and I do not believe that the damage reduction of a Barbarian makes up for the lack of heavy armor and even if it does a fighter can get adamantine and have better DR so not getting hit AND DR is better in combat, as for moving in combat...buy Boot of expeditions retreat, use Vital strike, Charge, or any other of the fighters choices that require a standard action. I'm not saying the Barbarian is bad, and if you want to play a mobile combat character then by all means do that for that matter the ranger is just as good if not better than the Barbarian in that way, if you want to play the Heavy armor tank like character then Paladin and Fighter are the way to go and you play the Fighter when you don't want to play LG.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I do not believe that the ranger and Barbarian can stand and fight as well as a fighter and Paladin, heavy armor is better than damage reduction and if you put better stats into dex you lose some of the other abilities that would make the non-fighter better. The only thing I have against the Paladin is the alignment other than that I would agree that most parties would benifit from a Paladin in the group
It is sad to think that the only way you can role-play is limited by the numbers on the sheet :(
one of the major arguments for other classes over fighters and rouges is that other classes such as wizards can replicate there skills/abilities with spells? so what I am asking is would you agree that the same replication could apply to the Paladin/Barbarian/Ranger?
on more than one post in the last two pages the fighter has been compared to full spell casters like the wizard in combat abilitys so yes someone has.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
but you don't need class abilitys to do things like move in combat. I never said that more damage is more useful I am pointing out that there have been more than one point made that the barbarian can do more damage and that is one reason they are better, my point is that they can't allways do so.
Good luck on not having them compare the fighter and full spellcasters, I believe that the way people play MMO's truly affect the way they play games like pathfinder.
why were they dissapointed with the performance of the fighter? were the monsters appropriate level for the group? were there lots of spell casters in the group?
Kirth Gersen wrote:
saying that other classes can do more damage is not evidence, showing the math and showing that more than one build of the class could do that would be.
The reason I took away the Paladin and Monk is because they have the ability to heal and that makes them better. as for the Barbarian doing the fighters job better I don't agree since I would rather not get hit than take one or two less damage for that matter I could just get adamantine Full plate for my fighter and have both. As for the saves while it is not a perfect fix the fighter has enough feats to use some non-fighter ones to pick up things like Iron will to help those out. I haven't had other classes out damage my fighters so it is hard for me to believe that they are so far behind in that area
I am all for debating the value of Fighters vs Barbarians just not Fighter vs. All spellcasters. It's getting silly that every time I point out the weaknesses of classes we come back to spellcasters vs. fighters
again we go back to comparing Fighters to Spell casters.
Other than Paladins and Rangers what non-spell casting class is better at filling the role of a fighter? I do agree that the ability to heal pushes the Paladin and Ranger over the fighter in usefulness.
agreed, well mostly I never have played a fighter without a back up weapon but that is just me.
I guess the trouble I am having is that you(not just you) are thinking of characters as an indavidual and I think of them as one of a group so I do expect the fighter to get buffed by the Wizard and healed by the cleric and for the rouge to spot the bad guys and traps.
I all for more skills points and the ability to generalize more effectively. What if they gave the Bravery bonus to all will saves, would that be enough to help there saves? Maybe just add UMD to the skill list to solve the healing issue? I don't think any of this would break the game and just might bring the fighter back into the same power level as other martials
so what you are saying is that without a spell book the wizard is useless? that was the point I was making in reply to his "take the weapon away from the fighter" point.
Question: what Martial class can fly all day or summon angels? and I would still take the fighter with me since they would most likely die and I would get more treasure :)
True, I would argue that the spell book is easier to destroy even on accident and much more likely for a bad guy to try and steal.
I could also point out that after a long day of adventuring and spell casting that the wizard needs to rest and regain spells and if he is interupted then he is considerably less useful than a fighter who is low on HP but still can swing a sword.
I guess what I am trying to say is that EVERY class has a weakness, and I agree that the fighter needs some help to keep up, I would love to see Weapon focus and specialization scale up based on level without needing more feats but that is just me. What do you think could be done to help the fighter?
since it is also a biased hypothetical to take away the fighters weapon I thought that was fair and it is much more likely that someone tries to separate the Wizard from his spell book. If you read the whole post you would see that I did compare the barbarian and ranger, and since the fighters main class feature is his weapon it is a viable comparison.
Fighter loses his bonus if he loses access to his preferred weapon type, This can also cause problems in extended adventures where the Fighter may go 2-3 levels without hitting a town he can trade in, and spend the whole time stuck with a sub-par weapon if he doesn't get what he built for. That's a problem very unique to the Fighter; he's actually more limited in what weapons he can use than any other full BAB class, and that's not theorycraft, that's what I see at the table every time we run an AP or module. The GM either has to adjust the loot specifically to accommodate the Fighter, or the Fighter starts falling behind quick. Why am I spending money to have someone prebuild an adventure for me to save time if I have to turn around and spend that time scrubbing every book to verify if I have to add or change loot to keep one...
Very Good points, and yes I did edit your post down. So we take away the fighters weapon, lets take away the wizards spell book and the clerics holy symbol at the same time. it seems to me that the fighter can still pick up any martial weapon and be good or for that fact because they have a better base attack they can pick up an exotic weapon and still be okay. Since the wizard and cleric don't have a full base attack lets try the barbarian and ranger, what happens when you find amazing full plate in the treasure? they lose out because they lose most of there abilitys by putting it on so you run into the same problem with the fighter and his weapon if not worse because if the fighter finds a weapon that isn't his normal but is good enough to replace the abilitys he can still use it. So even though I agree that if you take away the fighters weapon it hurts them I don't think that it is worse than taking the primary items from other classes.
If that's the case you are playing magical tea party, not a RPG. There isn't anything wrong with playing magical tea party, but I don't need rules for that. Until I tell you that this post completely changed your outlook to my own and you say "Nuh uh." Then we need rules. Good thing I have a caster lying around... *rolls dice*
What happens when you find a situation that is not covered by the rules, it doesn't matter what it is just that the player wants it to happen and the rules don't say that you can or that you can't what do you do?
the Mechanics are not the final arbiter of the actions of your character, the DM is so if you convince them that you are an amazing swordsman through role-playing then sometimes you can do things without needing to roll dice. Those kind of things are totally up to the DM and how they run their game.
that is what I was trying to say, thank you
If the mechanics say you aren't a good sword fighter all the RP in the world isn't going to make you one. And as a some who can both build and RP, I should know.
There is more than one way of accomplishing a goal, swinging a sword is one of them but not the only one. Convincing the enemy that you are much better than they are with a sword is another, avoiding the fight alltogether is another....no where in the rules does it say that you HAVE to kill a monster to earn exp
In my experience people who have to say they can do things rarely can.
It is a part of Role-playing and I am not disagreeing with you as far as it is a part of the game, I am trying to point out(badly) that you don't need the mechanics to play the role of a character. I know many players who could care less what the bonus is to hit something with a sword or how to find out and they can still role play. At least to me the point of playing any game is to have fun, some people have more fun when they have lots of rules like in pathfinder and others have more fun with LARPing but the mechanics don't tell you how much fun you are having. I feel the MMO effect has many players focused too much on how to "win" at role-playing and less on "how do I make a unforgetable character." I say "win" because things like Damage per Seconed/round and phrases like "how they can change the world around them" lend themselves more to the Roll side of the game and the mechanics of the game itself. On the other side of the game you have the players who only care about the personality of the character to the exclusion of the mechanics or even the disdain for them, When the game is not designed to be heavy in either way it should be a balance of the two.
Correct, they measure the ROLL part not the ROLE.
and to be fair the rules are more for the GM so he/she can tell you what happens when you do the action since it is up to him what really happens in the game
how is it equal? why would the mechanics be as important since you can change the mechanics and still play a character the same, or even the game itself?
please elaborate on your point
Saying what you enjoy is secondary to the game intent isn't condescending. The entire point of D&D is to "role play" a character in a fantasy setting. The mechanics are just the means to measure the effects of role playing. Without the mechanics there's nothing to tell you how effective your efforts are. You can't just say I cast fireball without having a spell range, blast radius, damage, and everything else the mechanics measure.
whoa whoa whoa, hold the phone....mechanics don't measure the effects of role playing, the are more of a "if I do -this- what happens?" or a way of avoiding arguments like the "my guy can kick your guys behind" kind. the ONLY way of measuring the effectiveness of ROLE playing is how much fun you are having.
100% agree with the first paragraph here.
I read the "tiger" as more "easy 'super aggressive person'" than what you did.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
if you optionize ALL NPCs then what is the point for the players? since they don't know what challenges you are going to put in there way so they have to try and cover all bases whereas your NPCs only have to worry about the players...
I am not trying to bash on you or your DMing, just pointing out another side to your point
I agree, for that matter if it comes down to my choice to sunder the weapon of the bad guy that I really want or the party wizard maybe dying then the weapon goes away.
Dark Immortal wrote:
What This says, but mostly it depends on what is going on in the combat, where the Character is and where the bad guys are and where the other Characters are you can always move to a better location if all else fails...or sunder the bad guys weapon if they have one
so the wizard just isn't there? or having an extra round or two to cast spells without being attacked is bad? the fighter doesn't have to do all the work on there own nor does the wizard again it is a team effort.
and the Orkin man can run out of poison but the fly-swatter works all the time(kind of like a fighter, fancy that)
It doesn't matter what environment a fighter is in the fighters job is the same as is the rouges and the wizards and the clerics. the fighters part of the party is to prevent or slow down a monster from getting to the wizard and to provide a stable person for the rouge to get there flank on with, the rouge job is to find and disable traps, open doors and flank with the fighter and help them dispose of threats, the clerics job is to keep people standing and maybe just drop some baddys along with the fighter and rouge, and last but deffinitly not least the wizard should provide mass damage and boost to the party. yes there are lost of options that you can choose but the game isn't based on any one class doing all of the jobs of the others. it should be a team effort since that is what the CRs are based off of and the whole game is based off of in fact.
and just a FYI tactics work in wide open spaces too.
Mr. Dodo wrote:
If the monster has to get through the fighter to get to the wizard then you are forcing a fight and protecting the weaker characters...I wasn't talking about abilitys or powers I am talking tactics.
I would like it if the Weapon focus and Weapon Specialization were a little better than a +1 and +2. I would think if they went up +1/4 levels it would help or in the case of Specialization a +2/4 levels and then the Greater versions would change it to +2/4 levels and +4/4 levels.
I also tend to look at the game more of a team effort, yes the wizard can do more damage but that is okay since the Wizard is unlikely to go into the dungeon with the fighter, and yes the Barbarian can get a massive bonus or the ranger can dish out tons of damage but there are limits to that whereas the fighter can do the same damage to most if not everything he comes across. The fighters job in the party is to prevent the monsters from getting to the weaker(i.e. less HP) characters like spellcasters.
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
The free attack is coming from the casting of a spell with range touch. Spellstrike lets you use your weapon instead of your hand, and Spell Combat lets you cast a spell and make a full attack in the same round. Taken together, this adds up to one more melee weapon attack than you would get when normally making a full attack, hence the use of the phrase 'extra attack'. Do you disagree with any of what I've just written?
yes I do, since the spell has to require a attack role, the ability itself does not give an extra attack and that is what everyone is saying.
since you are so fixated on the whole shocking grasp thing you are forgetting the whole there are other touch spells out there, lets take bestow curse, it just so happens to be a touch spell so you could channel it(assumeing it is on the list) and yet it would NOT give an extra attack because neither spellstrike nor spell combat give an extra attack. and since the OP didn't say "the DM wont let me use shocking grasp to gain an extra attack" and no one has said anything other than "yes it gives an extra attack" or "no it doesn't" and the statement of "it doesn't give an extra attack" is correct but you can gain one by using the correct spells with these abilitys" is a little more correct.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
yes, but since you say that it is because of spellstrike and spell combat you are still wrong.
The Fabolous, Awesome, Marvelous, Super-Duper Really Cool Grick's Guide to Spell Combat and Spellstrike. just to help some of you out since you seem to be having issues with some words I will post the parts of this very well said post.
"Spellstrike does not grant you an extra attack. You still have the exact same number of attacks (d20's rolled) as you would without it.
You may get an extra attack when using Spell Combat over making a regular full-attack, but ONLY if the spell you cast has an attack roll. "
"Sparky walks up, demanding an explanation. "So when can this happen? It says something in there about a free attack! What the heck, dude?"
It's simple. Any time Melvin could normally deliver a touch spell, he has the option of using his sword to do so. This means 1-4 above will apply. The rules for Spellstrike specifically call out being able to use Spellstrike in place of the free attack granted from casting the spell. (Remember point [1a] from the very top?) However, that is not a limitation, that is just point out that, in addition to being able to deliver his normal touch spells with his sword, he ALSO can deliver the FREE touch spell granted by casting it. If the rules did not spell this out, it would not be clear that Melvin is able to swing his sword more than once per round. This point is important, and it's thrown a lot of people off-track.
So, once more, all those times that Sparky could deliver his touch spell? (Free attack from casting, touch attack with held charge, full-attack with held charge and weapons) Melvin can do all of those things, and he ALSO has the option of doing any or all of those things with his sword, instead of his hand or claw or fist. That is what Spellstrike does.
Spellstrike is not an action. It's not a 'free' attack. It's not anything. All it does is let you use your sword instead of your hand. "
Orfamay Quest wrote:
no it doesn't say extra it replaces the free touch with free melee so in fact it give you the ability to touch with a weapon.
I think you are the one misinterpreting the rules since you and many other in this thread forget that you can no make a full attack in the same round as you make a standard action such as casting a spell the wording of that ability is so that you may use it in the same round and not to give a extra attack.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
or saying " you took Power attack so I am going to choose when you use it."
it is the players feat let them play it
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
not at all, what I am saying is that whatever you can do so can the DM and since he can spend whatever ammount of gold on a NPC to balance out what you are doing he can do it better. I believe that the problem with optimizers isn't the player it is the DM, since it is the DMs job to run the game(not just the environment) and make if fun and challenging