Just a small rant feel free to give it a miss.
In the old days when there was a Fighter, Thief, Cleric and Mage , Fighters had a very well established place and role in the game. But now do we really need one ?
I mean a Barbairan, Ranger and Paladin are all Fighters with a certain flavour. Do we really need a Flavorless Fighter ?
I'll grant that fighter are really good at doing one thing, multiclassing hehehe. So perhaps they should be relegated to a new type of class specifically for multi classing only.
Good BAB, extra feats no fancy abilities to speak of grab a few levels as you require. Why keep hitting a dead horse , we all know the reason Barbarians Ranger and Paladins arose was because people who play'd fighters were sick of the blandness of their characters, ok so now we've got Falvour'd Fighter why not let Gramps go the way of the do-do ;)
I don't think Fighters are flavorless. They are just focused on fighting. And with fighter bonus feats, a player can give a fighter the flavor he wants.
I've played plenty of fighter characters that were very specifically *not* barbarians (no rage), rangers (no magic, no animal companion) or paladins (no holiness).
Any concept that doesn't pigeonhole you never gets outdated. It's what you call a classic.
I love fighters. And in my Pathfinder game I'm running currently, the fighter has been the absolute dominator of combat, even though we (at one time) had a cleric, a wizard and a rogue.
In fact, of that original group, only the fighter is left. Joined by a ranger and a druid and still clearly the BMOC.
In my current Savage Tide campaign 2 of the 6 PC's are fighters. And without these two, the group would be dead already.
So no, the fighter is not dead yet.
As a lover of the fighter I'd definately have to say "no" to them being an outdated concept.
Sure Barbarians, Paladins and Rangers can all function as front line combatants for any party and throw some neat "schtick" and abilities, but for pure combat focus and flexability of concept, the Fighter simply can't be beat...
I think that arguably a party doesn't need a fighter if there is a barbarian or paladin around but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be one. A high level barbarian is pretty bland. Fighters can at least be fine-tuned.
The Fighter as a class is not flavorless, the name of the class on the other hand. As I've said elsewhere, time to change the name to Warrior.
...And I've said this before, flavor doesn't come from the class, it comes (or doesn't) from the player. Gimli and Legolas were both fighters and are good illustrations on the variety of ways to take them.
I agree whole-heartedly! A little bit of creativity with a fighter and you really don't need any of the 3 hybrid classes (4 if you include monk). It is entirely possible for a fighter to be a Religious Zealot, a Tribal Warrior, a Lone Wolf Hunter/Archer or a Pugilist. (sp? Brawler) Not to mention various prestige classes, while not as unique, still very possible... Samurai, Swashbuckler, Knife-Fighter, etc. Most of us survived 2nd Edition through the use of a very vivid imagination.
Stat/Feat/Weapon Based Fighters:
1. Str based - Two-handed weapon (Great Sword, Great Axe, etc.)
2. Str based - Trip & Disarm (Spiked Chain, Flail, Whip)
3. Dex based - Ranged (Bow, Crossbow, Daggers, etc.)
4. Dex based - Skirmisher (Mobility, Spring Attack, Whirlwind!)
5. Con based - Tank (aka Meat Shield)
I'm sure there are a few more than I've listed, but that covers the basics. :) I personally think other than the Wizard (spell choices) & Cleric (Domains), the Fighter is THEE most customizableable core class. The rules don't GIVE you anything, you have to PICK all your abilities through Feat and Weapon choices.
|
I play a lot of spell casters and I must say a good meat shield is the best. And no, no barbarian which will run off and go "GROG SMASH" nor an Upity Paladin "we must slay the evil" when we should run the other way, will work. No a standard basic Fighter is mandatory. Plus when I do play Fighters they never stay basic, I always find myself a nitch, if nothing other then max ranks in Craft: Banzai Tree.
Edited for readability.
And it's worth mentioning the Feat from the Campaign Setting Gazetteer:
It must be taken at first level, but gives the Fighter 4 skill points per level instead of 2. You're giving up that bonus Feat at 1st level, but will have much more developed skills, especially as the your class level goes up. It takes away one reason to multiclass from Fighter: just to have some real skill points to work with. I like it.
Ah, Fast Learner. Getting people more skills since 2005.
|
Stat/Feat/Weapon Based Fighters:
1. Str based - Two-handed weapon (Great Sword, Great Axe, etc.)
2. Str based - Trip & Disarm (Spiked Chain, Flail, Whip)
3. Dex based - Ranged (Bow, Crossbow, Daggers, etc.)
4. Dex based - Skirmisher (Mobility, Spring Attack, Whirlwind!)
5. Con based - Tank (aka Meat Shield)
And don't forget the hybrid Str & Dex based - Two-Weapon Style.
Ftrs r teh awsum!
Just some food for thought, I don't particularly like the fighter class the reason is because it's not really a generic concept, and I would go as far as to say it does pigeon hold you.
I remember in second edition the fighter was described as being a shock troop and a man-at-arms, this is true, and isn’t a very good design as a generic warrior class. The third addition version barrows far too much from this concept, not enough skill points, or class skill selection, feats that are entirely focused around combat and weapons mastery, the fighter is surprisingly limited in it’s concept. I like the pathfinder fighter better, but it seems to be just an improvement of this man-at-arms concept. It's hard to make a gallant, crusader, swashbuckler, or brigand without mutli-classing or prestige classes, because the only thing a fighter can properly emulate is the fighting style not the flavor and non-fighting abilities of these concepts.
The reality is D&D has no generic warrior class.
Fighter's aren't outdated at all. Are they boring? Maybe. They can be, certainly. And that's not a bad thing: It's always good to have at least one class that you can play without a ton of things to keep track of. That's the fighter. Use general feats that just give you straight bonuses (like weapon focus and so on, improved initiative, toughness...), and you can concentrate on hitting people.
It also helps if you want to add some pure fighting prowess to a character of another class: Say you want a wizard with a bit more of a punch, but don't want to muddle your concept with a code of conduct or weird rage powers or anything like that. In that case, you get some levels of fighter.
Plus, if you do want more than just making attack rolls, there's lots of feats that gives you options, from easy stuff like power attack over combat expertise and improved ____ to things like Robillar's gambit.
And finally, it's true that a character is only as boring as you allow him to be. Just because everything he does is represented by attack rolls doesn't mean that he just stands there and keeps striking his sword in the exact same way, like some computer game figure.
Can a class be boring but the character who has the class not be?
I think so.
On the other hand, I can't imagine the fighter class being that boring...there are so many ways to work those feats.
Just some food for thought, I don't particularly like the fighter class the reason is because it's not really a generic concept, and I would go as far as to say it does pigeon hold you.
No more than any other class, and less than most.
Also with the wealth of cultural backgrounds in Pathfinder, as well as ability and feat choices - there's no reason for any class [let alone the fighter] to be boring and outdated.
And like KaeYoss said - its nice to play a class that's pretty simple to book-keep and run, no fishing around for descriptions of uber-powers or spells - nope. Blood and iron, brothers and sisters... blood and iron!
[unless that is you're playing a ________ [insert variant fighting style] fighter... :)
WOW from all of this I got one very clear message
Most of us would be completely happy to dump Paladin Ranger Barbarian and even Monk , grab the unique parts of their classes and turn them into feats and a Fighter could become any one of them or indeed the oringinal fighter and only take up 1/4 of the space in the book.
Perhaps this thread should be renamed, Fighter why do we need anything else on the front line ?
It would free up the dev to include 2-3 new classes with a distinct flavor of their own. OMG maybe I'll get my pure shifter !
In my experience, the Fighter isn't boring. Now some players... yeah, they can be boring. No matter what class they play. Same personality. Same style of play. Might as well be a Clone Trooper. It's all about what you put into the character, not the class...
In defence of the other side of the argument. I havebeen in parties where most people hid behind the fighter with all the extra damage feats and most of the time our job was to clap when he killed more than one thing at once or did exceptional damage. It WAS boring at lower levels because most monsters at that level didn't have the unusual skills that negate fighters. I am a little bored with strong, stupid, unlikable two-handed weapon wielding fighters. I do think though that the feats are available to take fighters in different ways, it is just that due to some of the feat trees a lot of these builds are sub-optimal.
In my experience, the Fighter isn't boring. Now some players... yeah, they can be boring. No matter what class they play. Same personality. Same style of play. Might as well be a Clone Trooper. It's all about what you put into the character, not the class...
Hey, I think the clone troopers are an awsome character. All the same, but not shallow. ^^
WOW from all of this I got one very clear message
Most of us would be completely happy to dump Paladin Ranger Barbarian and even Monk , grab the unique parts of their classes and turn them into feats and a Fighter could become any one of them or indeed the oringinal fighter and only take up 1/4 of the space in the book.
That's the very clear message you got? How did you figure that?
I love the Fighter. I'd drop the Paladin first ... you can always alternate Fighter and Cleric levels if you want a Holy Fighter that isnt Lawful Good.
Anyway, I love the fighter. My ONLY complaint with the Fighter, and with D&D generally for this issue, would be skills. I dont view my fighter in such a limited way that I agree with the 3.5 skills that are core for him. I personally would prefer for a character concept to get Perform and Knowledge (all). I have always liked the idea of a Scholarly Warrior, but I dont want to have to have magical musical effects or water his combat down or get non-thematic (to me) powers just so I can get some extra skill points to be well rounded or to have a character focus other than just smashing stuff. I wish all skills were for all classes. *shrug*
But yeah otherwise I love fighters and I think the new stuff is good, but I liked pure fighters even in 3.5E. Other than the skill selections. :)
Lewis
I don't think Fighters are flavorless. They are just focused on fighting. And with fighter bonus feats, a player can give a fighter the flavor he wants.
I agree. With the sheer number of feats the fighter can take, he has the chance, unlike any other class to become the true MASTER of the fighting arts. Highest attack bonus, highest ac. Most combat options. Most weapon selection. Can trip, disarm, sunder, grapple better than any other class. Really, truly the master of fighting.
If you really want more "flavor" to your fighter, there's always the absolute s*#+fest of 4e for you to really enjoy. I mean who doesn't like playing Goku?
Edit: Me. I don't like playing mother@#$%ing goku.
That's the very clear message you got? How did you figure that?WOW from all of this I got one very clear message
Most of us would be completely happy to dump Paladin Ranger Barbarian and even Monk , grab the unique parts of their classes and turn them into feats and a Fighter could become any one of them or indeed the oringinal fighter and only take up 1/4 of the space in the book.
Probably via this
Just a small rant feel free to give it a miss.
In the old days when there was a Fighter, Thief, Cleric and Mage , Fighters had a very well established place and role in the game. But now do we really need one ?
I mean a Barbairan, Ranger and Paladin are all Fighters with a certain flavour. Do we really need a Flavorless Fighter ?
I'll grant that fighter are really good at doing one thing, multiclassing hehehe. So perhaps they should be relegated to a new type of class specifically for multi classing only.
Good BAB, extra feats no fancy abilities to speak of grab a few levels as you require. Why keep hitting a dead horse , we all know the reason Barbarians Ranger and Paladins arose was because people who play'd fighters were sick of the blandness of their characters, ok so now we've got Falvour'd Fighter why not let Gramps go the way of the do-do ;)
Contrary to your position, I would respectfully submit that the fighter is actually the equal to the other options. This is due to the "blank slate" that allows ytou to take this class, more than any other, in whatever direction you feel necessary.
Pally, Ranger, and Barb all come with their class "baggage". That is a theme or flavor that you either embrace, or play in spite of. Some folks don't want this at all. Besides, you ever try to build an exotic weapon centric character with any of those? What a waste of time!
A lot depends on what level you play and if you use standard DMG demographics for NPCs in game.
that's true, fighters do seem less effective at higher levels in pure damage terms but they can devote time to other feats to be much better at their job...whirlwind attack is a classic example. They can afford to invest in feat trees. What about dazzling display etc... mages are awesome at high level. They deal out a lot of damage, that still doesn't mean they can take it and they will still be vulnerable to cmb from burly fighters.
|
|
In the old days when there was a Fighter, Thief, Cleric and Mage , Fighters had a very well established place and role in the game. But now do we really need one?
In the old days, none of the classes really had a 'role,' in MMO terms. Not until EverQuest did I see a stratification of roles (and even then, some classes didn't fit a role, or were trapped as hybrids and suboptimal at any specific role, and became the ugly stepsisters who couldn't get a date).
The only 'role' of a Paladin, or a Magic-User, or a Druid was to fill a certain cliched fantasy-stereotype role, not an actual tactical position in the party dynamic.
I mean a Barbairan, Ranger and Paladin are all Fighters with a certain flavour. Do we really need a Flavorless Fighter?
I see that backwards. We need the generic Fighter, we don't actually *need* the Paladin, Ranger or Barbarian, when we could as easily make a Feat chain of Rage feats, Archery / Animalfriend feats and Divine Smity feats to allow the base Fighter to become a rampaging berserker, a friend of the forest or a holy crusader filled with righteous fire. (That being said, I wouldn't want to remove those classes either, leaving them available for those who can't be bothered to choose their own feats and want to just play the 'Barbarian' right out of the box, rather than play a Fighter with some Rage feats.)
The Fighter is the most important class, because it fills multiple niches. Perhaps I want to play a swashbuckler. Perhaps I want to play a gladiator. Perhaps I want to play a hard-as-nails weather-beaten mercenary. Perhaps I want to play a tattooed slave-mameluke. Barbarians, Paladins and Rangers are already specialized into niches, and become less useful to make any of the hundred *other* warrior concepts that *aren't* natureboys, 'roid fiends or holier-than-thous.
Fighters are meat. Barbarians, Paladins and Rangers are meat with spice. If the game lacks unspiced meat, how am I supposed to season to taste, as the cookbook recommends, to find the flavor that *I* enjoy?
Some prefer to take a pre-made character, and that's what the Barbarian, Paladin and Ranger kinda are, warriors who have been very specifically focused and channeled in one direction. Other people prefer to build their own, and the Fighter is the DIY warrior-class, for those who would rather drive a vehicle they built with their own hands than just buy one at the lot and get to pick only the color.