From this thread, it's easy to see that there are varying opinions on the fighter's effectiveness, and what can be done to improve it. I personally believe that I could be quite content to play a Pathfinder fighter as well as a 3.5 Fighter and still have plenty of fun. There is no change that will please everyone and still have the fighter remain backwards compatable and relatively easy to play. Right now, I'm playing a cleric and I have played several DMPC clerics. You know what? I'd rather play a fighter over a cleric any day. Nothing is more boring than having to burn most of your spell slots and actions healing others and yourself. If I actually want to fight good enough to be worth anything, I'd have to spend most of the combat and many valuable spell slots buffing myself. I think I would have a lot more fun playing a Pathfinder cleric than a 3.5 cleric, and I'd rather play a fighter (either version) than either of them.
I agree that if the fighter is supposed to be a TANK then he needs to have abilities that let him control the battlefield, he should be able to intercept, and stop opponents from getting past him. at higher levels, when the monsters tend to be smarter and have more spells, what good is a tank when the opponent becomes invisable, flies, or teleports past him? any ideas how to deal with that? i guess thats where the party wizard shines huh? i really like the idea posted earlier about being able to daze and stun thereby controling the enemies actions, most likely through feats and advancing these abilities so at higher levels they can do things like render an opponent helpless or even a save or die type feat. something like that plus the armor and weapon training would deffinatly make the fighter more useful at high levels. also i feel the idea of gaining SR slowly over time would make the fighter more viable as a playable option in later levels. while it would be easy to make a SR feat tree it should be an inherent ability (any fighter that has been caught by a sleep spell, a hold person, or fear (yay, my bad a$$ fighter runs away...) spell and forced to sit out an entire combat and usually having to be dragged around until the spell wears off (usually spent ordering another pizza or the refilling the chip bowl while your fellow gamers roll dice) Either an inherent SR or some abiltiy to save better. oh last but not least the dreaded control spells and having to watch your own character turn on the rest of the party...
How does a 15th level cleric keep 1 round/level spells (like righteous might and divine power) and one minute duration spells (like divine favor) on 24/7? I'm not interested in spikes or weapon of the deity, as they aren't SRD spells and therefore inapplicable to a discussion of cleric power in the Pathfinder RPG. Splatbook feats also are generally inapplicable to the discussion--Persistent Spell, for example, has been banned from every campaign I've ever participated in or run.
In a later post in this thread, you also mention a wizard keeping bear's endurance up in every encounter of the day--how's that?
Magic items answer the problem, with time, money, extra XP, and the craft wonderous item feat, you can easily create items that gibe you those spells either on command or all the time. wonderous items covers about 7 or 8 different body slots... wizards or clerics with item creating feats can easily out tank a fighter (even if they slow down their leveling with spending XP on item creation)
That just goes to show the differences between groups. I've DMed and played a lot, and I have never even see someone acquire a ring of blinking. I guess that's why I assumed it was foolish to design a character around having one. Granted, I haven't played or DMed very many high level campaigns, but I still would never consider designing a character around having a certain magic item at a certain level. I like to rely more on my character's abilities than his gear.In third edition rules you literally are assured of getting a Ring of Blink. Specifically. It's the thing you need, and you are expected to trade your other magical loot in as "character wealth" in order to purchase the items you actually need. And while I loathe it, the 3rd edition is created predicated on the idea that people will do that. Heck, Andy Collins said that the whole 3.5 weapon sizing thing was not a problem because player characters "just purchase the weapons they want and need anyway."
So yes. A 10th level Rogue can be certain of having a Ring of Blink in the default assumptions that the game was written under. And yes, I see people play the Blink Rogue + Flasks of various stuff a lot. It's an extremely common, simple, and effective character archetype. You will also want a Wand of gravestrike and a Wand of Golemstrike to activate with UMD under standard rules.
In Pathfinder you don't even need the wands because Sneak Attack works on most constructs and undead.
-Frank
The example isn't really of a character designed around his gear, its a halfling "thrower" who figured out a neat trick after picking up a new item. i've had many halfling characters with throwing feats and i've had several players adapt their own abilities to a new techniques based on an item they recieved later.
There are a few things that might help Fighters.
Combat Styles: These would be feat trees that improved the way you can use a particular combination of weapons and armors. (ie handaxe and longsword twoweapon fighter, or heavy shield, breastplate, and longspear wielder) This would five fighters (not just by class but also paladins and rangers) more flavor and special moves that they can perform at higher levels. Maybe allow some of these to develope into drains, or moveing abilities. This is also a great way to fold the tome of battle into feats though paizo may not have the rights to it players can house rule this into effect for their own fighters.
Armor and Weapon Groups: This would bunch weapons into things like Weapon Group (Axes) and armors in Armor Group (Leathers). These would imply that similar weapons and armor of slight variation would still use the same bonus that such as weapon focus and armor specialization. Allowing fighters to be more organic.
Damage Increase: An odd and often overlock ability is that where a particualr weapon can deal more base damage then the average. Weapon specialization could increase weapon die size or treat it larger for damage purposes or even just make it deal an extra d6. The fighter will feel better when he can drop a handfull of d6s like everyone else.
These are just a few points to explore.
|
Combat Styles: These would be feat trees that improved the way you can use a particular combination of weapons and armors. (ie handaxe and longsword twoweapon fighter, or heavy shield, breastplate, and longspear wielder) This would five fighters (not just by class but also paladins and rangers) more flavor and special moves that they can perform at higher levels. Maybe allow some of these to develope into drains, or moveing abilities. This is also a great way to fold the tome of battle into feats though paizo may not have the rights to it players can house rule this into effect for their own fighters.
I like this idea, but it seems like something that should be feat options or something, like the current 'weapon style' feats (but better).
Armor and Weapon Groups: This would bunch weapons into things like Weapon Group (Axes) and armors in Armor Group (Leathers). These would imply that similar weapons and armor of slight variation would still use the same bonus that such as weapon focus and armor specialization. Allowing fighters to be more organic.
I'd rather that Fighters be allowed to retrain / swap out these sorts of feats more easily. If I've got Weapon Focus (longsword), I don't see any reason why I shouldn't be able to spend some time to switch to Weapon Focus (battleaxe) or something.
One option would be to only allow a 'retrain' when you are slated to get a feat of that type anyway. Example: a 1st level Fighter has Weapon Focus (greatclub) 'cause he was cheap and spent all his starting gold on nice armor. At 2nd level, he's found a sweet Masterwork Longsword, so he retrains to Weapon Focus (longsword) at the same time as he trains to learn his new bonus Fighter feat of Combat Reflexes or whatever.
Damage Increase: An odd and often overlock ability is that where a particualr weapon can deal more base damage then the average. Weapon specialization could increase weapon die size or treat it larger for damage purposes or even just make it deal an extra d6. The fighter will feel better when he can drop a handfull of d6s like everyone else.
This idea I like.
Option 1; +1 damage / odd level (so +1 at 1st, +2 at 3rd, to +10 at 19th) to all damage rolls with hand to hand, melee or missle weapons.
Option 2; replace iterative attacks with a bonus die of damage (same as the weapon / attacks base die) for every 5 points by which you exceed the targets AC with the attack roll. This could be an option, in which case the Fighter could choose to try for the iterative attacks, or try for the 'big swing' that has the best to hit chance, and the chance to do multiple dice of damage.
Option 3; both of the above.
I like this idea, but it seems like something that should be feat options or something, like the current 'weapon style' feats (but better).
Making them feats and improve/providing more of them is the actual point.
I'd rather that Fighters be allowed to retrain / swap out these sorts of feats more easily. If I've got Weapon Focus (longsword), I don't see any reason why I shouldn't be able to spend some time to switch to Weapon Focus (battleaxe) or something.
One option would be to only allow a 'retrain' when you are slated to get a feat of that type anyway. Example: a 1st level Fighter has Weapon Focus (greatclub) 'cause he was cheap and spent all his starting gold on nice armor. At 2nd level, he's found a sweet Masterwork Longsword, so he retrains to Weapon Focus (longsword) at the same time as he trains to learn his new bonus Fighter feat of Combat Reflexes or whatever.
Retraining is presented in the DMG2 but the idea never really flowed well with me. It felt more real for a fighter to just us a similar weapon with equal effectiveness. It only takes a few moments or a day to get the feel for your +1 longsword even though your trained with a broadsword.
Whatcha gonna do against a wall of force if all you can do is swing a sword kind of hard?This, to my mind, is not a Fighter deficiency. It's an example of an 'all or nothing' spell that needs to be rebalanced.
In a game where Knock or Hold Person are considered 'all or nothing' spells that are to be modified to only give large bonuses, or allow saves every round, a Wall of Force should be a construct with hit points that can be battered down.
I completely disagree. All-or-nothing is what tactics are all about. You can't succeed just by doing the same thing over and over again, and the game would be something I don't want to play (4e) if you could. There is at some level a point of simulation going on, and in the real world you really can completely negate swordsmen by any of a number of means.
If your opponents happen to be on the other side of a chasm, or on top of a high wall, or flying in the air, your sword is pretty much completely useless. And against those kinds of opponents, Conan really does put his axe or sword down and switch to a bow (seriously, read the books). He does this because foes who are out of reach are 100% immune to melee attacks.
High level D&D has a number of other points of inaccessibility which have to be overcome through level appropriate effects. Effects which the high level Fighter never gets because apparently he's not allowed to have nice things. Low level inaccessibility effects include flight, water walking, climbing, and riding a horse. The counter for those effects is a frickin bow, which low level Fighters are indeed allowed to use in response. Higher level effects include force walls/spheres/cages, ethereality, and solid fog. And Fighters are never gifted with abilities that will do crap against those things.
Which means that no matter what numbers you give the Fighter, he's still not a valid adventurer once you get to high levels.
-Frank
Unless he can fly or jump 70' into the air.
Which he can't. Thank goodness.
|
I'd prefer if a lot of the wizard spells were brought back to normal mechanics instead of the weird exception based design that they employ now.
I think you may be right about a major problem with the game, and it does seem to effect fighters more than others. For example, Black Tentacles is a major 'problem' for a fighter in the area of effect. And other than leave, he has no recourse. He can't begin chopping tentacles, which you might expect from reading Planet Stories.
I think the reason that is wasn't done in 3.5 is that spell design is just a little more complicated. Having something that can't be destroyed by any means is easier to describe than saying 'this spell creates 2d6+1 / 2 caster level tentacles, each with DR 50/- and energy resistance (all types) 50, and hit points equal to caster level.'
It might be easier if it did. Then a high level fighter would know that if they can cut the 15 tentacles that make up the black tentacles, they would effectively 'dispel' the magic. This would help give fighters some ability to stand up to a wizard (but they still wouldn't have level appropriate abilities at high levels). I would like to see this if possible because it does make the game more interesting, and not really more complicated, just requiring a couple lines of description...
|
|
I completely disagree. All-or-nothing is what tactics are all about.Whatcha gonna do against a wall of force if all you can do is swing a sword kind of hard?This, to my mind, is not a Fighter deficiency. It's an example of an 'all or nothing' spell that needs to be rebalanced.
In a game where Knock or Hold Person are considered 'all or nothing' spells that are to be modified to only give large bonuses, or allow saves every round, a Wall of Force should be a construct with hit points that can be battered down.
To me that's completely contradictory. All-or-nothing means that the Fighter *cannot win,* and if we agree on one thing, that this is not good for the game. Tactics are irrelevant if he *cannot win.* Tactics are what happens when he has options, and isn't guaranteed to win, as he would be if he had magical counters for every single situation that could possibly crop up.
An indestructible Wall of Force, one that can kill dragons in flight by casting it in front of them, one that can destroy ships at sea by casting it in front of them, one that can stop the moon from falling onto the earth by casting it front of the falling moon, is an unnecessary all-or-nothing effect. One that is essentially invisible adamantine is ridiculously hard to break down, but not impossible, especially with the right gear and some sort of improved Sundering ability (either built into the class or as a Feat).
I get that you want a Fighter that can fly or turn invisible or dispel magic or do all sorts of magical things, but I know that isn't what I want. Book of Nine Swords was built for the 'Fighter' that you want.
I want to play the standard 'martial power source' Fighter, who can do amazing, but not supernatural, things. I want him to be balanced against the Wizard, yes, and that does mean that he needs some better options, some things to do with his weapon other than hit point damage (such as applying various conditions. A Fighter who can choose to strike someone to temporarily blind someone, lame them, stun them, nauseate them, deafen them or render them mute, and can re-configure his attack and damage and AC bonuses a la Combat Expertise / Power Attack on the fly has a hell of a lot more 'tactics' than just beating away with his sword.). And yes, the Wizard (Cleric, etc) needs some adjustments, too. All-or-nothing spells that completely invalidate other classes utility need to be adjusted so that they aren't pissing in the other guy's Cheerios everytime they cast Righteous Might or Knock or Wall of Force.
Alternately, the Fighters could have all sorts of magical abilities, in which case they aren't Fighters anymore, they're just another version of Wizard, and all you've done is lose the battle to make Fighters viable by throwing up your hands and replacing them with another Wizard variant instead.
And then we can follow this progression to swap the Rogue out for the Ninja and have a complete Core party of Wizard, divine Wizard, fightin' Wizard and sneaky Wizard.
One issue with some of these 'balance' discussions is that they make a lot of assumptions. This Wizard has to be 17th level to cast a Quickened Wall of Force, has to know Wall of Force, has to have picked Quicken spell as a metamagic feat (which I've never seen done, since it's so freaking useless with it's +4 cost, requiring an 11th level Wizard and a 5th level spell slot just to Quicken a Shield spell!). And the Fighter? What's he got? A spoon? There are weapons that can dispel effects on a hit. If the Wizard has *everything* that could possibly stymie him, perhaps in the last 17 levels the Fighter might have picked up a Potion of Fly (for the flying wizard), a Potion of See Invisible (for the invisible one), some Force Arrows (for the incorporeal one) and / or Boots of Striding and Springing (to jump over that indestructible wall and cleave the noob hiding behind it)?
To complain about a completely unequipped Fighter being able to affect a Fighter is like complaining about how hapless Wizards are against equal level Fighters when they've got no spells. Fighters are gear-dependent, and your helpless Fighter example doesn't seem to have a single bit of gear that can help him against a Wizard. Wizards are spell-dependent, and your sample Wizard seems to have any spell or feat he needs to ruin the Fighters day.
You've got some decent arguments Frank (even if I disagree with this one), but your lopsided straw man examples only make them look overwrought.
My side of it;
The Fighter needs more.
Some Wizard (& Cleric) spells need to be less all-or-nothing.
The Fighter should *not* be just another Wizard, with all sorts of super-powers, 'cause that's conceding defeat and admitting that there is no place for a Fighter in this game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I get that you want a Fighter that can fly or turn invisible or dispel magic or do all sorts of magical things, but I know that isn't what I want. Book of Nine Swords was built for the 'Fighter' that you want.
I think you mischaracterize his argument.
He wants 'non-magical abilities' that are appropriate for the fighter's level. Or at least, that's what he said. He used the example of 'blindness'.
In D&D, the only way to blind someone is to cast a 2nd level spell on them. This doesn't really make sense, because we have people in the real world who are blinded without recourse to magic. Using RAW, placing a burning poker in a helpless characters eyes will do hit point damage, but it won't affect their ability to see. Common sense, of course, can be applied instead, but I'd like to see the rules make common sense unnecessary because there are a lot of people who have little.
If a fighter throws dirt in an opponent's eye, if a fighter cuts the opponents forehead so blood runs into the opponent's eye, if the fighter stabs the opponent in the eye - these are all situations where a fighter could legitimately 'blind' an opponent without using magic. This is not 'magical', but it does something similar to a spell that does exist. Right now the wizard has a choice - hit the opponent for 4d6 damage with a scorching ray or hit him with blindness. If the wizard chooses damage, it may not drop the opponent, but it will do damage. If the wizard chooses blindness, it may completely remove a healthy opponent from combat (effectively) or it may do nothing. The wizard gets a tactical choice - do something that will have SOME EFFECT, or something that MAY have a POWERFUL EFFECT. The fighter does need choices like that. I'm not asking for the fighter to have such high damage output that he can one-shot Pit Fiends - I'm hoping the fighter gets choices so full attack for maximum damage ins't the only choice he is faced with.
You would have to convert maneuvers from tome of battle into combat feats and give the fighter feat options to increase duribility. I think for the most part the pathfinder fighter is good but the feat choices for it need to improve. It might need a few exrat combat only feats to help it gain faster then a rogue (who is only 1 feat behind it). I would say give fighters 5 combat feats and 1 style feat style feats could be a way to unlock more combat feats related to a particular combat style.
|
|
I get that you want a Fighter that can fly or turn invisible or dispel magic or do all sorts of magical things, but I know that isn't what I want. Book of Nine Swords was built for the 'Fighter' that you want.I think you mischaracterize his argument.
He wants 'non-magical abilities' that are appropriate for the fighter's level. Or at least, that's what he said. He used the example of 'blindness'.
I've been suggesting that Fighters be able to inflict Conditions like blinded (nauseated, stunned, lamed, mute, deafened) for over a month, and I did in the post right above. As always, I apparently said too much, since you didn't notice my point.
I have *not* been suggesting that Fighters need supernatural abilities to cleave through magical barriers or supress the effects of magical flight or invisibility or incorporeality, examples of ways in which Frank has said that Fighters are useless beyong level X.
It's a huge picture here, and every single problem with Fighter / Wizard / Cleric balance isn't going to be solved by shoving magical powers at the Fighter. The Wizard and Cleric need to be examined as well, and spells that are plainly *too good* need to be tuned to where they remain useful and desirable options, but not overwhelmingly unbeatable fiats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me that's completely contradictory. All-or-nothing means that the Fighter *cannot win,* and if we agree on one thing, that this is not good for the game. Tactics are irrelevant if he *cannot win.* Tactics are what happens when he has options, and isn't guaranteed to win, as he would be if he had magical counters for every single situation that could possibly crop up.
No.
All-or-nothing means that the Fighter as conceived will never win. But let's face it - that Fighter doesn't win. He's a Polish Lancer. And that would be fine if we were running the Siege of Vienna, he'd happily charge in amongst the Bulgarian levies and hope that his heavy armor would keep him up in the face of Janissary Musket Drill long enough to disperse them, but we aren't doing that. D&D is a lot closer to the Siege of Leningrad - and we know how that worked out. Mobile bunkers and armed aircraft left the lancer, heavy armor and all, a pathetic relic on the battlefield.
D&D is a game where a few levels make a huge difference. This ain't World or Warcraft, where you get your flying mount at level 40 (or whatever), this is Dungeons and Dragons - and you get a flying mount at level 5. The tactical arms race moves exceedingly quickly in D&D land, and if your intention is to stand there like a slack jawed yokel with a sword for your entire career, then your entire career is 3 levels long or less.
There's nothing wrong with playing games at a low level of complexity. But you have to understand that this necessitates playing the game a low levels, because the offensive and defensive options of high level monsters and players are quite large. If you play a character who is binarily shut down by opponents using those high level options, then your character is not a real high level character.
Now you don't need to use "magic" to solve high end problems. D&D land has physics which are pretty weird. Winged lions can fly and animate columns of flames can speak and fight in the middle of an antimagic field. People can fall half a mile onto razor sharp iron spikes and leap up running within 6 seconds in some kind of "nonmagical" fashion. People can and do perform seriously outré "nonmagical" actions in D&D land.
So the prospect of having people get their tactical versatility from nominally "nonmagical" sources is entirely in keeping with the way D&D physics already work. But whatever the special effects or the mechanics that are being trotted out, what it comes down to is that the players are seriously going to be asked to run through a castle that is made out of lava. They are going to be fighting enemies who lurk on the ethereal plane and summon minions. They are going to have their way blocked by impassable force fields. They are going to be confronted by enemies who are hundreds or thousands of yards away. And while it's not much of a game if every player character is always prepared for every eventuality, it's even less of a game if one or more characters does not even have the option of being prepared for some of those.
-Frank
|
While I actually agree with your concerns Frank (and like the way that Pathfinder has tried to make fighters tougher) you keep comparing monsters of a particular CR with characters of the same level. That is not how CR works. A dire bear is a CR 7 monster and so is a EL 7 threat. That's an even challenge for four 7th-level PCs, not a single character of the same level.
Now I know why EL and CR has been ditched by WotC. People still can't understand it properly.
Sorry Frank. :)
It's an appropriate challenge for four characters of that level; that is to say, four characters of that level should be able to expect to beat it almost all the time. However, a 7th level character is also CR 7 and therefore also theoretically an EL 7 encounter; he should be roughly as challenging to fight as a CR 7 monster and when pitted solo against a CR 7 monster, each should have a reasonable chance of beating the other. That's what he's saying, and he's not misunderstanding it at all. WotC is ditching EL and CR because it's a broken system, not because people don't understand it.
I actually like the concept of CR/EL, and thought it showed alot of promise. The problem is that soo few of the classes are actually capable of meeting their own standard.
Since the system started out with the false pretense that the core classes were balanced, people ended up discovering this to be an incorrect fact. Unfortunately, many took this fact and interpreted it as wizards/clerics being overpowered, rather than fighters/paladins utterly failing.
Because there is an imbalance, something needs to be done. One could upgrade the martial characters to be on par with flask rogues and wizards, or downgrade the casters to be on the level of fighters. The reason why Frank argues for upgrading is because the CR system (or even the ability system) for monsters does not work if fighters are the baseline, and it takes FAR more effort to both lower casters & the Monster Manual; thus, upgrade the classes to be appropriate CRs on their own, using the MM as our guideline.
Now, this does create one downside. Higher level gameplay (possibly even mid-level) is fast. Save-or-dies (includes high damage melee attacks) are handed around like candy. Combat is likely to be quick and bloody, while both in and out of combat, the game is barely recognizable as anything short of epic myth. This isn't a commonly enjoyed theme in gaming when it actually occurs, simply because people don't really know how to handle it.
|
|
This is a personal pet peeve of mine, so I will explain the CR system exactly once on this particular thread so that I don't start insulting people.
- A party of Level X is supposed to go down fighting half the time against an encounter of EL X + 4. Another way to say this is that a party of Level X is approximately as powerful as an encounter of EL X + 4.
- A group of monsters that is twice the size is an encounter of EL + 2. A party that is twice the size faces Encounters which are EL + 2 vs. those who are not.
- Doubling a Double is a quadruple. So if you go from a party of four to a party of one, you face challenges of X - 4.
So a Party of one character is supposed to be an even match for a Monster with a CR equal to his level.
Sorry but this is simply not the case. I quote from the DMG "A monster's Challenge Rating tells you the level of the party for which the monster is a good challenge. A monster of CR 5 is an appropriate challenge for a group of four 5th level characters."
This is rather simple to understand, so I don't know why you would want to make it so complicated. Therefore a 7th level fighter should be able to handle a CR 3 creature by himself while a party of four CR 7 characters should be able to handle a CR 7 creature. By that standard a 7th level fighter is powered just about right.
|
|
Let me relate the tale of Kailor Axwarden.
Kailor is now 16th level and very useful to his team.
He hardly ever kills anything or does anything immpresive.What he does do his soak up damage for the party. His 250 hp covered in a AC 42 coating of steel and fort save of 23 will save of 18 makes him a tough nut to crack. every fight his goal is to place him self in the most danger to protect the other members of the party. It is not a glamourous role, but it is an important one.
His role to the party is just a valid as Maglor the elven archer who can drop a 120hp of almost guarenteed damage a round.
WOW, how do you pull that off?
|
To me that's completely contradictory. All-or-nothing means that the Fighter *cannot win,* and if we agree on one thing, that this is not good for the game. Tactics are irrelevant if he *cannot win.* Tactics are what happens when he has options, and isn't guaranteed to win, as he would be if he had magical counters for every single situation that could possibly crop up.No.
All-or-nothing means that the Fighter as conceived will never win. But let's face it - that Fighter doesn't win. He's a Polish Lancer. And that would be fine if we were running the Siege of Vienna, he'd happily charge in amongst the Bulgarian levies and hope that his heavy armor would keep him up in the face of Janissary Musket Drill long enough to disperse them, but we aren't doing that. D&D is a lot closer to the Siege of Leningrad - and we know how that worked out. Mobile bunkers and armed aircraft left the lancer, heavy armor and all, a pathetic relic on the battlefield.
D&D is a game where a few levels make a huge difference. This ain't World or Warcraft, where you get your flying mount at level 40 (or whatever), this is Dungeons and Dragons - and you get a flying mount at level 5. The tactical arms race moves exceedingly quickly in D&D land, and if your intention is to stand there like a slack jawed yokel with a sword for your entire career, then your entire career is 3 levels long or less.
There's nothing wrong with playing games at a low level of complexity. But you have to understand that this necessitates playing the game a low levels, because the offensive and defensive options of high level monsters and players are quite large. If you play a character who is binarily shut down by opponents using those high level options, then your character is not a real high level character.
Now you don't need to use "magic" to solve high end problems. D&D land has physics which are pretty weird. Winged lions can fly and animate columns of flames can speak and fight in...
He does have options. They are called magic items. Everyone gets them, but the fighter depends on them more than others to be effective at high levels. They can let him fly, dispel walls of force, etc. What he needs are feats or other class abilities that are on par with some higher level spells. You seem to think that every class besides the cleric, rogue, druid, and wizard are useless after 3rd level, but I think you are being blinded by your loathing of other classes. People do play, and effectively contribute to the party with fighters from low to high levels. It can and does happen. I have seen a fighter that was very effective from 1st to 18th level where the campaign ended.
|
|
I didn't say that they need "spells" or spell-like effects. I said that they need feats or class abilities on par with spells, at least as far as causing damage is concerned. Things like having a fighter coup de grace a creature that is flat-footed, stunned or dazed or inflict con damage without supernatural abilities. Similar things could be given to the barbarian, paladin, and ranger.
|
|
Yesterday I sat down with the DM of the current campaign I'm playing in and we playtested a 7th level fighter against a CR 7 ogre barbarian. The Ogre got in one good hit but only managed to do 21 hp damage to the fighter. Meanwhile the fighter slaughtered the ogre barbarian in just about seven rounds. I would say that the new fighter class in Pathfinder is pretty powerful based on that test.
|
|
The thing about the whole "the fighter is useless" bandwagon is that it became a life of it's own. It has altered people's perceptions of the class to the point that it has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. You have people like Frank who believe that the fighter along with most of the other non-spellcasting classes are so useless that they should not be played or even be in the PHB. He goes on endless tirades about this like it is an important religious doctrine or a pressing concern of modern society. I don't mean to bash Frank, but I think the very existance of this thread points out that I am right. Last year, I finished up playing through the Red Hand of Doom. Guess who was the most consistant damage dealer in the group? A vanilla human fighter that later had only one non-SRD feat. That's right a lowly fighter that had a lot of archer feats and enough melee feats to hold her own when forced into melee. A lowly fighter was one of the most important members of the party. In the end, I do conceed that non-casters are not as versatile and powerful at high levels. That does not mean they are useless. They are anything but useless. The power disparity doesn't have anyting to do with the weakness of the fighter or other classes. It has to do with the fact that spells increase in power exponentially, or at least to a much greater degree than hp, BAB, feats, and melee class abilities. If they flatten out the power curve of spells and higher level monsters, the "fighter is useless" arguement would disappear. If the designers had done their job properly 6 years ago, and did enough palytesting to realize the curve was off and fix it, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.
|
|
Okay now test that same fighter against...
This assumes that you fight them on their home turf (since that is were you would most likely find them). Using the tactics section as a guide on how they fight.
After this, then that would give you a better measure on where the pathfinder fighter stands. Doing one test isn't enough.
So I went through your list and added a few of my own as well. Against things like the Abolith or the Succubus the fighter loses because they are set up in such a way that a straight fighter simply doesn't have the resources to handle them all by himself. But arguably neither does any other class, on their own.
Against a straight up brawler however, a 7th level fighter against an EL 7 encounter or a CR 7 creature is much more likely to hold his own. He ended up winning 3 out of every 4 encounters that he had to deal with. For example a group of four gricks is smacked down in two rounds without ever hitting him. Meanwhile the bullette gets beaten up pretty badly but takes our fighter down in the end. The dire bear on the other hand mauls our hero pretty badly, knock him down to 24% of his original hit points, but a few really solid hits and a few lucky criticals and the dire bear is toast.
It was like this for most of the encounters that the DM ran and we went for about four hours trying different combinations. Large opponents that could provoke an AoO by simply moving close to them, or opponents like dragons or a chimera that have ranged attacks generally gave the fighter fit and often came out victorious, while an opponent or group of opponents that he could get up close and personal with generally ended up losing to the fighter. This is why 4th Edition has codified the roles of various classes in the party. In military terms fighters are infantry, while wizards are artillery. They don't need to be balanced against each other, just against their role on the battlefield.
The thing about the whole "the fighter is useless" bandwagon is that it became a life of it's own. It has altered people's perceptions of the class to the point that it has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You have people like Frank ... I don't mean to bash Frank, but I think the very existance of this thread points out that I am right.
Yes, let's take advantage of Frank's absence to bash him on his own thread. And how is the prophecy self-fulfilling?
Last year, I finished up playing through the Red Hand of Doom. Guess who was the most consistant damage dealer in the group? ... A lowly fighter was one of the most important members of the party.
Were you actually the most important, or just dealing the most damage? A lot of the best wizard spells just hold enemies down for the fighters to mince. Fighter does the damage, but we know where credit is due. Other spells kill stuff without damaging.
The power disparity doesn't have anyting to do with the weakness of the fighter or other classes. It has to do with the fact that spells increase in power exponentially, or at least to a much greater degree than hp, BAB, feats, and melee class abilities. If they flatten out the power curve of spells and higher level monsters, the "fighter is useless" arguement would disappear. If the designers had done their job properly 6 years ago, and did enough palytesting to realize the curve was off and fix it, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.
So your argument is seriously that if wizards weren't better than fighters, people would stop saying that fighters were worse than wizards? Yeah, I guess that's true.
Incidentally, I'm not saying that fighters can't ever contribute to the game at high levels. It just demands a certain playstyle. the DM has to not use monsters and tactics that invalidate fighters-- if he just refuses to throw around the walls of force and invisibility and so on, if he just has his necromancer stand there and take it, fighters can be good. It helps if the DM hands out awesome artifact swords. And if the wizard uses his spells on buffs and setting up the fighters kills, instead of killing things and making his own fighters (summon, animate, etc.).
Believe me, I've played a high-level game where the fighters had fun. And even if the party ends up unable to take on the CR it's actually supposed to fight, a good DM will pick appropriate challenges.
Still, there are problems that crop up, like when either the DM or the casters don't play along, or when a preset adventure depends on optimized characters to get through it. That's why fighters should be fixed.
|
|
The real issue behind all of this is that the power curve of all spells as they increase in level is far steeper than the power that can be attained by increasing hp, bab, extra attacks, etc. The designers failed to playtest and make necessary adjustments to high level play. The fighter or any other class isn't the problem. The whole system, particularly the magic system, is out of whack. The problem is that you can't fix the system without throwing backwards compatability out of the window, and thus it is not within the scope of the Pathfinder RPG to fix the system. The best Jason and company can do is tweak the fighter and other non-spellcasters as best they can without killing backwards compatability. So far, I think they've done an excellent job and we are still just in Alpha. By the way, the fighter I mentioned was very valuable. She was instrumental in many of our victories. She may not have slowed enemies down with wall off fire, or hasted everyone, but she did something even better. She killed the enemies before they killed us. In the end, what else matters in combat?
She may not have slowed enemies down with wall off fire, or hasted everyone, but she did something even better. She killed the enemies before they killed us. In the end, what else matters in combat?
Pretty much anything else actually. Anyone can do damage, including clerics, warmages, animal companions, summoned monsters, cohorts, hirelings, and skeletal minions.
Giants do a lot of damage and have a lot of hit points. If that was enough to be powerful, giants would rule the world.
|
|
We would have had multiple TPK's or at least a handful of PC deaths if it hadn't been for the fighter. I don't know if I could say that about anyone else except of course the healing spells of the cleric. The point I am making is that the fighter did her job and did it well. If Franks's reasoning were true, she would have been as ineffective as a commoner with a quarterstaff. That definitely was not the case. It has never been the case with any of the 3.0/3.5 fighters I have played or played with. In many fights, the fighter was the only one to reliabley do significant damage to the opposition. According to Frank, that is impossible. It's not impossible. I saw it for myself.
|
|
The real issue behind all of this is that the power curve of all spells as they increase in level is far steeper than the power that can be attained by increasing hp, bab, extra attacks, etc.
A Fighter gets Feats, which can give him +2 damage with a specific weapon. At that level, the Rogue is already doing +2d6 damage with any weapon in specific circumstances.
The Fighter clearly needs ramping up, to be able to inflict extra dice of damage in certain circumstances, and perhaps a flat damage bonus of +1 per odd Fighter level or something.
*And* certain spells need to be tweaked downwards. A 15th level Fighter should be able to batter down a 9th level Wizards Wall of Force within a few rounds, round in which that Wizard might want to be casting Teleport or Dimension Door, since line-of-effect is going to stop him from doing anything meaningful to the Fighter during that time...
There should rarely be a case where an X level member of this class *always* wins against another class of the same level.
Why must all characters be equal?
I agree the D&D character classes in are not equal, nor should they be. It's an RPG and should only play smoothly with a balanced party. If the party balance if off then the DM should shift the challenges, or it will be a frustrating short campaign.
As a thirty-year veteran of the game, I am little pleased with the "new" abilities that appear in each new version. Now that I'm older I do appreciate some complexity in my games, but at some point enough is enough. When you need a numbers, statistics, or dice fix, pick up a tabletop or board game and stop trying to make D&D something it's not.