TwoFistedMonkeyStyleAttack's page

I don't know if this as already been thrown out there and I'm not too optomistic about getting one, but hey why not ask anyway?

I was always a big fan of the 2E crit chart. How impossible of a task would it be to get an optional rule on the ole' crit hit chart for PFRPG?

How about... no? There ARE things in DnD world compared to whom giants are simpy unimpressive. Like, every creature of CR 14+. Generally, why anyone who is on the same level with you should feel intimidated any more than your skill check suggest?

Well the DnD world is suppose to be more than just CR and other numbers so that's why I thought that one regular base book race fighter taking out giants as rather impressive.

Too bad, that the skill by itself sucks and has no use. Imposing -2 penalty for one whole turn as a standard action? No, thanks.

I'm not a number cruncher and don't consider the math of the game as the most important aspect. Say big evil bad guy sends his minions after the fighter. Fighter is a very intimidating character and the minions become more afraid of facing the fighter than the big evil bad guy. Intimidation and fear can go a long ways, but that would be an aspect that you would have to RP and the dice might not be a factor.

Oh, I get it. It is not like the idea of using a lot of DM fiat is uncommon. Please, can we return to the discussion of the rules, which require you to first get past the caster's defences to do anything like this and also give full casters an ability to either crush fighters in grapple or escape grapples perfectly by levels 5-7?

So what you're saying is if a fighter is allowed to exploit the inherent weakness of the wizard it's using a lot of DM fiat, but when a wizard does the same thing to the fighter, then it's just fine and dandy.

That makes absolutly no sense at all.

Because being the DM means you are going to run a game that everyone of the players, reguardless of class or abilities, should have fun and be able to play. That right there requires extra effort from the DM. Not just for the fighter, but for every class and every player at the table.

You seem to miss the fact that they suck at this or cannot do this (fighers don't cause fear without items). Poison and non-magical traps are weak in general. Intimidation, IIRC, can be made good, but not by pure fighters.

By book standards, the fighter is usually weak in the will save area as everyone on the forums keep pointing out. But the wizard is normally weak in the fort and ref save areas, but yet poison and non-magic traps are weak so then it's not the fighters fault the system is geared towards helping out the wizard, so maybe traps and poisons need to be reworked. If a fighter takes out a giant or two by himself and he's not a spellcaster, then sorry, but that would make just about anyone scared of him. By the book, intimidation is a class skill for the fighter so it can work just by putting skill points in it.

There are about two such situations - a dead magic zone or a wild magic zone. Both are supposed to be quite rare, even if they exist in the setting at all. A melee-based fighter (archery ones are hardly effective) is massively disabvantaged by a huge bunch of situations that make getting into melee hard.

When a wizard is casting a spell, stuff a rag in the mouth. No silent spell feat, no spell. Dive tackle and start smashing the hands. No still spell feat, no spell. There are too many ways to take away a wizards magic for me to list them here, but you get the idea.

It is, and a DM should not be responsible for making party of characters with very different power levels work together, even if currently he is. DnD parties are currently like the Justice League which must face stupid enemies or enemies with just one specific weakness so that weaker members would have any chance to contribute. Except that monster manuals do not take this into account.

Misunderstanding here, my fault, I'm sorry. What I meant was that if a DM is going to run a game and someone is gonna play a fighter, then the DM should have stuff in that game for the fighter to do and more than just swing the sword. Now if the fighter just doesn't do anything else, or at all, then it's not the DM's fault. My statment was just to say that the fighter isn't limited by gear, that shouldn't be a factor of weather a fighter is useful or not.

But how they can be used in new and interesting ways (except for multi-use feats from 3.X supplements)? By definition, they are very narrow tricks. Those feats that allow for more interesting things that "hit them harder" and "hit them some more" were nerfed in PBeta, by the way,...

This ones kinda hard to explain. I'm one of those people that's always trying to think outside the box and as a DM I'm pretty sure you do to. I encourage my players to think of ways through maneuvers or whatever way they can justify to apply certain older feats in new ways. If they think it through and I agree with the idea, then suddenly the feats arn't so very narrow anymore. I'm not very good at explaining my views on a computer so bare with me here. Tryin my best. :)

That's a good question. I've been wondering about that as well, but had forgotten about it.

Thanks for asking because I woudn't have remembered to.

A Fighter in d20 has several problems

They primarily attack one defense - AC - and generally don't get the option to attack others.

They have a limited number of options - they get one feat for every four automatic spells a Wizard learns, for instance.

They're dependent upon gear to be level-appropriate - instead of levels to use gear, it's gear to use levels.

Any gear they can have can be used by classes that don't need it - in other words, they're a subset of options.

Feat chains - to access level-appropriate abilities, feats must be taken in chains. Most feats only then keep the one ability level appropriate. Starting a new chain means not getting a level appropriate feat.
So they're a crappy choice. And basic choices like race and class shouldn't be crappy, they should be balanced.

More balanced, more fun.
-Crissa

*Fighters can set traps, use poison, fear, intimidation and more, but only if the player thinks about it, not because the class doesn't perticularly say so.

To me, more balanced doesn't seem like more fun, just less variety.

Galnorag, as a fellow barbarian enthusiast, I salute you!

Though I'm not saying Tamec is wrong, by no means. Just expressing my views that literacy doesn't mean the barbarian is stupid, just that they have had to learn different things in different ways.

Honestly, as long as it's a good novel I don't care who writes it. I'm a fan of every author that's been named on this thread and others who haven't so it doesn't matter to me who writes the fiction so long as the author does a meaningful job at it.

Seriously, my favorite fantasy novel is In Legend Born by Laura Resnick who mostly writes romance novels that my wife reads. She picked up this book by accident and gave it to me. Wonderful, simply wonderful.

I'm with the opinion that congragulates them on a find well found...but if it's too powerful they still can't have it. I hate telling players they can't have or do something , but if they get then power curve goes out the window ya know?

I'm guilty of mmo syndrome too. Everyone is or has been and will be again at some point.

After sword and fist came out, I was the first player to have a fighter/barbarian with monkey grip, all the two-weapon fighting feats, two greatswords and a ring of jumping. Yea, I was that guy. But hey, sometimes it's fun to do stuff like that, maybe not fun for you personally, but to others it is. Don't discourage players from finding cool things from the books and try not to limit them from doing what they like to do. But it's good to put your foot down somewhere and draw a line so things don't get too out of hand.

And I pray for your sake that you never get a player who is also addicted to Oblivion. Holy Crap is the only thing I can say about that.

I can't imagine how harsh the houserules would have to be to make wizards irrelevant...

It has nothing to do with houserules. It's all about how the DM sets up the game. It's actually very easy to make any of the classes irrelevant and often times many people do usually because the DM doesnt like that class so he makes it suck for that class. Or the player of that class is just playing that class because of PLAYTESTING and gets bored because they wanted to play something else and give up on the fighter before it had a chance.

noted, I like the Rage power as an ability free of supernatural influences though, the barbarian is a concept that can excist without that just fine. I don't think a barbarian should go that route, just like a fighter should not be able to make his weapon change to admantine by concentrating.

I like the idea of exchanging the elemental damage by physical damage much better.

I respect that.

The fighter don't have any uniquie special abilities. I personally think that's a good thing because you can now take that character in any direction you want. The other classes are all great classes, but you can only take them in so many directions with character building, but the fighter can go 360 degrees with multiple turns and still have nothing but character building options. That's what makes them great too me, not the fact they don't have any bells and whistles. Picking a character class just because you think it's easier to play and instant options to deal with certain situations, now that's a cop-out.

This is an RPG with magic and dragons and monsters, but I keep seeing the word "Realistic" pop up. "Realistic" in a fantasy game just doesn't seem to work.

To all of you realistic people out here I have one word....FIREBALL!!!

though I do agree and see the added benefits, I'm still going to laugh at the irony. :)

Tholas wrote:

Uhm, arent we supposed to play a cooperative game? I for myself don't care much if a lonely and naked char can take out a flying critter because if it comes to this the player or group either screwed up badly or the GM wants this char dead. From my experience a caster might be able to overcome most enemies on his own but he will burn much of his precious spellpower doing so. And what is a caster without his spells?

So no, fighters don't rule or fail and neither does any other class by itself. Adventurer parties who believe in teamwork rule because the sum is more than the parts.

teamwork require everyone needing the team. High level parties have to have spellcasters but dont have to have nonspellcasters, its as simple as that. its easy to look at an adventuring party through an unfocused lens and say that it seems to work fine, so it must be fine. If you feel like testing your gaming chops by trying to make a higher level Fighter that is an equal party member to the spellcasters, then be my guest. It can be done, but it is not nearly that easy.

If it was easy then no one would want to play that class because it's easy.....but then everyone says to fighter sucks because it's too hard to stay alive...? Anybody else notice this?

As much as I like the idea, I don't see it catching on. I ignore the encumbrance rules for the simple fact that they are too much work for too little gain. Adding up a grocery list of equipment weights is not my kind of fun. If a system could be worked out that was simple and fast to use, I'd jump on it.

Yep, me too. Trying to use the encumberance rules just means more time spent doing math than having fun.

1. The fighter has to improvise. Back his wizard friend into a corner or somewhere with cover on the back and sides if possible. Take the feat that allows his to get multiple attacks of opportunity and then let the on rushing bad guys run past him. after he hits all the ones that run by and then kills the last one and has the feat that allows you to cleave through an opponent to hit the next one in line. Then before you know it the fighter has killed every enemy in the first round on one turn before the wizard even gets to blink. (This actually happened once and it stunned everyone) Sorry about the rant their, but you get my drift, with alittle thought and some feats, the fighter can easily defend and protect the sissy spellcaster everytime.
2. Disrupting a spellcasters concentration isn't the fault of the fighter, it's the fact that it's just too easy for a wizard to keep his focus. I say make the check for a wizard to maintain his spell more difficult. House rule on my end isn't 15+spell level, it's 15+damage dealt. That makes it fair, atleast to me anyway.
3. Who's going to keep the wizard alive longer? The best friend fighter that has multiple feats to deal with almost any situation and will fight to the death to try and keep his wizard friend of many years and more adventures alive, or the demon you just summoned and enslaved and are now forcing to defend your life at the risk of it's own with no gain.
Hmmm?

I say leave them as is. Barbarians arn't just a different form of fighter, they are a completely new breed. The abilities and spells of the druid and ranger classes come from their affinity and connetion with nature and their environment. The elemental rage of the barbarian is just them doing the samething, atleast to a lesser degree.

The way I see it, and this is just my personal view, a barbarian rages not because they're just completely bonkers, but because of their own special connection to their environment. They instinctivly know how to channel the wild powers of the land into themselves to fuel their already free and unchained emotions sending them into an unstoppable rage. The elemental rage is just them learning how to derive more power from themselves and their connection with the natural world.

Just my 2 cents

I've been blessed with a good group so I don't have to worry about this problem often. In my games it's more of a medium level of magic items that are more often found through adventuring or gifted to someone in the group for services rendered, and the group usually doesn't see it coming. Magic shops do exist, but my group has gotten use to the idea that I'm not out to kill them so if they use what they have in new and inventive ways then they can survive. I don't think magic items should define a pc, but neither should they go without them at all.

Besides, if I someone in my campain went to a spellcaster and placed a special order for a certain magical item, then expect me as the DM to place a small twist on that enchantment.

If a fighter went to a powerful, good cleric and had a sword made to help him combat evil, then maybe that cleric also knew of an evil wizard that enslaved a village. As the cleric enchanted the weapon, he just might have placed a quest spell on it as well. Now the fighter has a choice, take the weapon and be forced to go a save the village, or leave the village to it's fate and the magical weapon behind.

Or something like that.

What I was trying to say was that fighters do have tactical options, it's just that you have to get more creative to come up with them rather then "get all the orcs close together, fireball, rinse, repeat". So yes, it's a more of a challenging class to play, but that's good. I'm definitely not one of the more experienced PCs, but I would think that the more experienced people would get this. What's the point in playing if it's too easy?

Here here.

Hey everyone, brand new to the forums here,
I'm have to say that the fighter is my 2nd favored of the classes right behind the barbarian, even though the barbarian is just a flavored version of the fighter. Some might think that because the fighter has so few class abilities to back it up than it has to suck. Wrong. The fighter has so little class abilities holding it back that you can take that class in anyway anyone with even a mediocum of imagination wants to go. That is the best thing about the class. Infinite story and roleplaying opportunities.

Survival rate for the fighter at any level is actually incredibly high (just behind the rogue in my group)so if fighters in other games are dropping like flies at higher levels then it has to be because the pc's don't want the fighter anymore.