After the rally of support the ole fighter go in my last thread I figured they deserved a thread to answer the opposite question.
If Fighter's are so good at being customized (which they are) and can technically become just as good a Paladin, Ranger Barb even Monk, then why the hell don't we dump Paladin Ranger Barb and Monk , turn some of their funky abilites into a few more feats for a Fighter and let the Fighter shine all on his own.
Would take up 1/4 less space in the book , which leaves room for some classes with a more distinct flavor.
So dump 4 classes into the Fighter as new feats and call him teh ub3r warrior and save a few tree's while we do it ;)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
OGL, you have three tiers of warrior.
Front Line: Fighter, Barbarian, Warmain, Champion, etc.
Second Line: (fighting with a bit of magic/psionic etc): Psychic Warrior, Ranger, Paladin, Thanemage, Mageblade Runeblade, and my own Arcane Legionary. Monk might fall in this.
Third Line: I'd put the Monk here. Thug (losing those armour profs HURT) Rogue, Feat Rogue, Unfettered, Champion Bard. Ranger might go here as well.
I don't think a single class can fit all the options here
Well apart from a few abilities which could easily be rewritten as feat I honestly don't see much of a difference between a Fighter/Druid and a Ranger.
Or a Fighter/Cleric and a Paladin.
Optimized are there any real differences assuming a few new feats to fill the class flavour of the ranger and paly?
The reason most of these classes exist is simply for convenience of design. If you look at the pathfinder paladin, all of his class abilities together would equal 25 feats plus he gets 9 open feats of his own. Now a fighter 13 / cleric 7 gets 16 feats to play with to make a paladin.
No I’m not saying it’s impossible to do it with that many feat, certainly if you change the nature of the feat system, that one feat can give multiple applications of abilities like smite evil then you should be able to get something paladin like by 20th level.
I’ve personally found that people are of mixed opinion about this in gaming groups, but those on the side of keeping the paladin class would argue that allowing them to keep the class would get them the concept they wanted to play and make that concept available since level 1 instead of multi-classing and using feats to create to create a sorta paladin class at a much higher level. When I though about it I asked myself was it really important to throw out all of these other class, dose it really make the game simpler. I concluded that I didn’t think it would improve the game in any remarkable way by doing so.
Actually I’m at a bit of a loss as to why the fighter is a sacred role in a party and why something like the paladin couldn’t stay, even if it’s just for convenience of design.
|
Well apart from a few abilities which could easily be rewritten as feat I honestly don't see much of a difference between a Fighter/Druid and a Ranger.
Or a Fighter/Cleric and a Paladin.
Optimized are there any real differences assuming a few new feats to fill the class flavour of the ranger and paly?
Personally, I'd love to see this happen. I doubt it can be done, though, because of back compatibility issues. I don't think Paizo is willing to remove anything. They only want to improve what's already there.
Well apart from a few abilities which could easily be rewritten as feat I honestly don't see much of a difference between a Fighter/Druid and a Ranger.
Or a Fighter/Cleric and a Paladin.
Optimized are there any real differences assuming a few new feats to fill the class flavour of the ranger and paly?
I disagree, I see quite a bit of difference in them. Most of which stem from being multi-classed. I honestly like having all of the class options, to include multiclassing. Sometimes you have an amazing theme that just has to be this or that. To simply oust a class because they my be similar would be a mistake. The hybrids have a place and usually receive unique abilities that other classes even multiclassed (non-hybrid) characters, would never have access to. (ex: Increased unarmed damage, Wisdom AC bonus, Rage, Increased Movement, Lay on Hands, Magical Warhorse, Favored enemy)
Ranger struggles the most in this arguement as a fighter can pretty much replace him every which way to Sunday. Favored enemy is nice and flavorful, but hardly a big loss... Track is a feat which could be taken in 3.5 and simply a Survival Bonus in Pathfinder.
Fighter/Druid:
PROS:
1. - 2 Feats only being 2nd level. (4 feats at 3rd level & if Human)
2a. - Animal Companion could serve as free mount/suitable flanker.
2b. - Ranger Animal companion comes to late in the game to be useful, eventually a multiclass character, even being druid, would have the same problem with an animal companionfalling behind the curve. (Natural Bond Feat only fixes +3 levels of multiclassing)
3. - Ability to Heal friends and self.
CONS:
1. - BAB does not increase on GOOD scale. (Straight Ranger +1, +2, etc.)
2. - No Track Feat or Combat Styles, which would require you to use the optional feats provided by 1st level and Fighter Bonus feats.
3. - "Multiclass Woes" ... Powerful start, mediocre finish unless heading for a prestige class. Straight Ranger or Fighter would be much better in melee, Straight Druid would be much better at casting and have much higher level spells.
OTHER:
1. - By the time Rangers get spells they are for the most part a big bunch of worthless and his time is better spent in combat.
Fighter/Cleric
PROS:
1. - 2 Feats only being 2nd level. (4 feats at 3rd level & if Human)
2. - Ability to Turn Undead. (and Healing Surge)
3. - Domain Powers.
4. - Ability to Heal friends and self.
CONS:
1. - BAB does not increase on GOOD scale.(Straight Paladin +1, +2, etc.)
2a. - No Paladin Powers, would have to be somehow incorporated as "Turn Undead" uses similar to the Healing Burst of Pathfinder.
2b. - Would not get Magical Warhorse, very useful tool in a Paladin's armory.
3. - "Multiclass Woes" ... Powerful start, mediocre finish unless heading for a prestige class. Straight Paladin or Fighter would be much better in melee, Straight Cleric would be much better at casting and have much higher level spells.
OTHER:
1. - By the time Paladins get spells they are for the most part a big bunch of worthless and his time is better spent in combat.
I also agree that the Pathfinder attempt was to upgrade our existing rules and make them somewhat backwards compatible like the last 30 years of D&D has been. To simply start yoinking "core" classes & races would punch a large sucking chest wound in that theory. Or just cost all of us 3 years of life in waiting and $300 in splat book material that should've been core book material aka 4E. R.I.P. D&D, it was a good 20 years, I will miss you when I'm playing Pathfinder. Yes, I R ranting, I'm done now. :D
You always have the option of using the Prestige Paladin and Prestige Ranger variants from Uneathed Arcana, which are OGL material. They lose a little from BAB (but only +1 or +2), but their spellcasting is actually worthwhile (as a cleric 9-13 or druid 8-13, depending on how many cleric or druid levels are taken). Barbarians are different enough (rage and physical improvement instead of weapon training and tricks) to not overlap too much with the fighter, IMO.
The monk is a different issue, which is covered on other threads.