Balanced Classes in Combat


Races & Classes

Liberty's Edge

The Pathfinder RPG represents an opportunity to address one of my pet peeves with D&D.

One of my major problems with 3.x has been the dominance of the fighter class in combat.

At first glance, of course, this seems like a silly statement... of course the fighter should be great at combat, that is the whole point of the class.

The standard answer to questions of in-game balancing goes something like this:

"Just wait until we get to the gala ball, then my Bard will shine and that stupid fighter will look like a dolt!"

or

"My Ranger will show everyone who's really boss when its time to look for food in the forest or find our way back home from the dungeon."

My points are these:

1. every session we get into combat
2. we spend most of our time in combat
3. combat is exciting and should be fun for everyone!

I grow weary of the fighter hitting more frequently AND doing more damage AND not getting hit that often. There have been games where the fighter and the barbarian have each dished out 100+ points of damage in a single round... and my 13th level Bard shot his light crossbow (and probably missed!!!)

In my opinion, each character should be approximately equal in the amount of usefulness they bring to combat... each should be able to do their thing in their niche and be useful.

To that end, I think redefining HOW the fighter is better in combat is perhaps called for... and the answer shouldn't just be "They hit harder and more frequently."

For instance:

The fighter should be the best in terms of being able to use all the various types of weapons/tactics/armour available in the game. Other classes, by comparison, need to specialize their choices of weapon, etc. This has nothing to do with actual "Skill At Arms"; the fighter and the Rogue (and maybe the Wizard?) may be equally skilled with a Dagger, for instance, but the fighter is ALSO that good with a bow and a longsword and a mace.

What do you think? Am I being an unreasonable "fighter-Hater"? I don't want to make every class into quasi-fighters, nor do I want to completely "de-claw" the fighter class itself.

On the other hand, I really don't think it's fun to sit so completely on the sidelines with a Bard, Ranger, Monk, Druid (less so with Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer, Rogue) while the fighter so impressively clubs everything to death.


Brent Evanger wrote:


My points are these:

1. every session we get into combat
2. we spend most of our time in combat
3. combat is exciting and should be fun for everyone!

1. This will be up to a DM's DMing style. As a matter of fact, our DM just told us last night that the next four sessions will be role-play only. I suppose the fighter could sit out the next couple of sessions, but since he is in favor of role-playing vice roll-playing he, like the rest of the group is looking forward to the next couple of seesions as much as any combat heavy session.

2. I suppose that this is up to the DM. In my 25 years of gaming I've never run across a game where you spend more than half a session in combat, and generally it's more like a third or a quarter. Most of the game seems to be devoted to travel, or exploration or social interaction by the characters.
3. I agree that there should be combat, and it should be exciting for everyone. The opportunity to role-play in combat is the same as in social interaction. Perhaps you can describe how the bard finds and positions himself to be the most advantageous to the party. Or how he gives a triumpant yell that one shot was a crit, or laments the ineffectualness of his crossbow, as the bolt slides off the dragons scales.

So to sum up, I would say that narrative description and effectual role-play here can easily show how the fighter is better with his greatsword, the bard his crossbow, and the rogue with his dagger. No need to change the system IMO.


Well, my experience is exactly the opposite of the OP.

I don't think the fighter dominates in combat at all. The ability of monsters to hit him far outstrips his AC. He regularly encounters monsters with improved grab and insane grapple checks. His pathetic Will save makes him bait for even low level spellcasters -- a 3rd level cleric with a Hold Person spell can ruin a 10th level fighter's day. At high levels, he lacks the ability to see the frequently invisible creatures and must depend on the cleric and the wizard. In combats with environmental hazards his complete lack of skill points make it hard for him to navigate hazards: a non human fighter can't even max out jump, climb, and swim unless he has a 12 INT.

He's expected to stand out in front and if the party doesn't work together he's frequently the one to get killed -- when the cleric doesn't support him, for example.

Sure, compared to a bard the fighter is OK. But why not compare him to a real class before pronouncing him overpowered? Say, the Cleric, or even the Wizad.

Ken


Brent Evanger wrote:


My points are these:

1. every session we get into combat
2. we spend most of our time in combat
3. combat is exciting and should be fun for everyone!

Wow, that's an awfully broad generalization, and one that definitely doesn't hold true in my experience. My current group fairly frequently spends 3-4 hours in roleplay vs. 30 minutes or so in combat in any given gaming session. And that's been more-or-less true of most other groups I've been involved with. In my experience, roleplay always seems to beat out combat in terms of time spent per session, with a few notable exceptions.

While I can understand that the situation you outline here must be frustrating for you as a player, I don't think it's a universal -- or even necessarily a common-- experience. I think this is something that might be better addressed by discussing it with your DM and seeing if he or she is willing to work with you to balance this particular game more effectively. Calling for an overhaul of the core rules to weaken the fighter class, which is already a bit overshadowed at high levels by the caster classes in order to resolve something that isn't a universal problem seems a bit shortsighted to me.

(As an aside, I'd say that if your bard isn't effective in combat, then you may have made some sub-optimal choices in your character creation. I say this as someone who's currently playing a half-elf bard who frequently charges into melee and dishes out as much damage as our half-orc barbarian NPC. A lot of that is due to having a cooperative DM who's given me a custom feat to let me make use of bardic music while engaged in melee, but I think it would be possible to make a bard an effective combatant without that.)


The problem you are actually seeing is that Bards stop being good at stabbing things around 4th level or so. At first level they lose out on a BAB and some hit points, but they sing a jaunty tune that gives everyone +1 to hit and damage and they end up pulling their weight against the Orcs most of the time. A few levels down the road though, and swinging a long sword just isn't good enough to accomplish anything whether you are getting a Morale Bonus or not.

Fighters aren't overpowered in combat, they aren't even good at combat. But the way Bardic abilities progress means that they are getting weaker over time as they rise in level. Their casting doesn't advance at a 1:1 ratio, so they fall farther and farther behind the Enchanters until their spells don't really matter at all. Their fighting doesn't advance at a 1:1 ratio, so they fall farther and farther behind a Cleric or Rogue at stabbing people in the face. Fundamentally, by about level 6 a Bard doesn't have any level appropriate martial actions to take against opponents. And by level 12 he doesn't really have any level appropriate spells to cast at opponents either.

Bards are owed a major over haul. But this is in no way a symptom of fighters being overpowered.

-Frank

Dark Archive

Core Bards are rather weak in combat. But once you bring in feats like Snowflake Wardance, Dragonfire Inspiration, Song of the Heart and Knowledge Devotion (combined with Elf Diletante and Bardic Knack) combined with the right spells gets the bard some rather nice combat options. In my opion the bard is actually stronger in combat than the fighter, he just needs to be build right. He also has something to do when he isn't fighting, something the fighter lacks.
A fighter that doesn't do better in combat than a non-optimized bard except the ability to use more weapons would be totally useless unless you also remove all noncombat abilities the bard has. But than you could just as easily remove all classes and let everyone play a warrior.


BUT: I really like his way of thinking. Making the fighter not the "hit many - hit hard" class but invent something to make him "the most adaptable combatant" possible.

Instead of giving the fighter power attack, dodge or other such (lame) feats, they should be perhaps the only ones to gain access to Blind fight and other similar feats I don't know right now...
(As I said: Invent something)


Brent Evanger wrote:
2. we spend most of our time in combat

To the extent that this is true, this is a bug and and not a feature. Unnecessarily complex combats make it harder to roleplay and lead to a more tactical view of the world than I'd like.

I agree that 'standing in the back feeling useless' is a problem, but I don't think "combat takes forever" is part of all that's good and true.


Jadeite wrote:
Core Bards are rather weak in combat. But once you bring in feats like Snowflake Wardance, Dragonfire Inspiration, Song of the Heart and Knowledge Devotion (combined with Elf Diletante and Bardic Knack) combined with the right spells gets the bard some rather nice combat options.

For a minute there, you gave me Magic: the Gathering flashbacks.

Okay, on to the OP. I believe that what the Bard needs is more ways to use his CHA and stagecraft in combat. He should have an easier time feinting (in fact, I'd give him improved feint for free). He should have an easier time intimidating people (something like "can demoralize others (with the Intimidate skill) as a free action")


One thing that gives the fighter such an edge is that they get feats every other level from level 2 to 20.

I think the other classes should have a line of bonus feats to develop each of their personalities.

This would allow Bards, Rangers, Paladins, and many other classes to have more ways to build up their characters.

Alpha, as it is shown now, will give all characters a feat every other level and fighters will get a bonus feat and weapons or armour training bonuses.

That gives twice the number of feats to fighters then to other classes plus the addition of the armour and weapon training abilities.

That is going to move fighters up significantly as they already had plenty of feats compared to other classes.

I also think that all classes should have a recognized 'battery' to power their abilities/feats from.

Paladins have smite and lay on hands. Clerics have turn undead. Wizards and Sorcerers have spells per day. Barbarians have rages. Bards have their number of special songs per day.

This 'battery' gives a limit and an expenditure control on the special feats and extra effects that a person can use in a day.

Sorcerer's and Wizards tend to have bigger batteries and Paladins and Barbarians have smaller batteries. Each battery though is dedicated to a pool of feats and abilities.

Dark Archive

Smerg wrote:

One thing that gives the fighter such an edge is that they get feats every other level from level 2 to 20.

I think the other classes should have a line of bonus feats to develop each of their personalities.

This would allow Bards, Rangers, Paladins, and many other classes to have more ways to build up their characters.

Alpha, as it is shown now, will give all characters a feat every other level and fighters will get a bonus feat and weapons or armour training bonuses.

That gives twice the number of feats to fighters then to other classes plus the addition of the armour and weapon training abilities.

That is going to move fighters up significantly as they already had plenty of feats compared to other classes.

But in 3.0 and 3.5 the bonus feats were the fighters only class feature. The problem with that is that the feats didn't really scale that much. In 3.0 Whirlwind Attack and Improved Critical were the pinnacle powers of the fighter and especially Whirlwind Attack isn't that useful in a game where most of the fights are between the group and one monster. Unlike the feats the fighter got, most of the other class features had an exponential power curve. Feats used to be linear at best, if not logarithmic. The fighter never had an edge. He is easily outclassed in combat by Clerics and Druids and probably also by Bards and Rogues. Rangers and Barbarians are easily as strong as the fighter. The only Core Class weaker than the fighter is probably the monk.

I agree that the fighter somehow missed a daily powerpool. But this did not make him stronger, it weakened him significantly. I like the Pathfinder fighter because now there are some feats worth taking beyond 10th level and dead levels were removed. Also, the one combat feat per round clause reduces the synergy dependency of the feats, allowing more freedom in character development.


The problem with fighter feats isn't that they don't increase exponentially, but that they don't increase enough. +1 to hit is pretty lame for a feat. Seriously, it really is.

I realize its a sacred cow, but I'd remove weapon focus/specialization from the game - either that or totally rewrite it. A fighter's feats should enable him to do more daring swordplay, not get some boring static +1 to hit.

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

In all honesty often it is not the fighter that dominates the combat, its usually the barbarian and rogue that do.

In comparison to those to classes alone the fighter is a pour choice unless you need some feats to flush yourself out.

As for the bard, well the bard just needs an overhaul in general.

And I agree that the pour monk needs on as well!


LilithsThrall wrote:

The problem with fighter feats isn't that they don't increase exponentially, but that they don't increase enough. +1 to hit is pretty lame for a feat. Seriously, it really is.

I realize its a sacred cow, but I'd remove weapon focus/specialization from the game - either that or totally rewrite it. A fighter's feats should enable him to do more daring swordplay, not get some boring static +1 to hit.

This was one of the biggest things about the PHBII for me - the late-game extensions to the weapon specialization chain is the single best "patch" for fighters that I know of. (With the possible exception of Dungeon Crasher, which is a buttload of fun.)

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / Alpha Release 1 / Races & Classes / Balanced Classes in Combat All Messageboards
Recent threads in Races & Classes
Non-SRD Classes