Why I'm Banning the Fighter


Classes: Barbarian, Fighter, and Ranger

301 to 350 of 363 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Quote:
and the Evoker (specialist wizard) was actually scary..

They were called Invokers, and they had to start the game with 16 con.

That for a wizard in 2nd ed was scary on its own, since you stopped rolling for hps at level 10 and just got 1 for every level (unless you were a fighter, where you got 1 + con modifier. Also the fighter was the only class to benefit in hps from a con score higher tahn 16.)

On that note, at 20th level of 3d or 3.5, magic missile seems pretty useless. My mages usually cast it to see if the target has spell turning or something but in 2nd, where your hps at lv 20 were like 50 if you were an average mage, Magic missile was still good.

Enough reminessence though.

I'll put it this way. Fighters suck or are great depending on how you play your world and what you allow your players to have in their hands.

A fighter in a minmax munchkin world will end up sucking yes, unless he opts for the more 'twinked' prestige classes like the iaijutsu master.

A fighter in a campaign such as those I usually run where I only allow feats and spells from the core books (and in my latest campaign, only PF books) is going to be just as good as anyone else.

The most major perk of the fighter is his versatility. He has so many feats to chose from he can go from extremely focused on one thing to having a few feats in every area, making him part ranger (track feat), part archer, part 2-handed, part sword-shield, part monk, and even a scary barbrawler who goes about and deals 1d8 damage with a chair in a bar that crits at 19-20. All of this in one character.

Sovereign Court

Vak wrote:


I'll put it this way. Fighters suck or are great depending on how you play your world and what you allow your players to have in their hands.

A fighter in a minmax munchkin world will end up sucking yes, unless he opts for the more 'twinked' prestige classes like the iaijutsu master.

It seems to me that the problem with this argument is that 'munchkin' is pretty much an insult. So you're insulting the people that find in their games that fighters suck, because at the very least, by implication, they're "doing it wrong" (and the use of 'munchkin' makes the accusation rather less pleasant). This is the cousin to the 'badwrongfun' argument and that never goes anywhere good, either. I guess that's not what you meant, but that's how it can come across.

Vak wrote:


A fighter in a campaign such as those I usually run where I only allow feats and spells from the core books (and in my latest campaign, only PF books) is going to be just as good as anyone else.

Actually, many people would say that you get a better fighter through the skilful use of non-core material and that in-core, the 'spiked chain tripper' is the only fighter build that is relevant at higher levels (because other builds are ignorable due to factors including the move/can't full attack issue, the high difficulty of interrupting enemy casters and the ability of opponent melee brutes to shake off/ignore fighter AoO damage on thei way to attack the casters).

Vak wrote:
The most major perk of the fighter is his versatility. He has so many feats to chose from he can go from extremely focused on one thing to having a few feats in every area, making him part ranger (track feat), part archer, part 2-handed, part sword-shield, part monk, and even a scary barbrawler who goes about and deals 1d8 damage with a chair in a bar that crits at 19-20. All of this in one character.

This is the case at lower, "normal" levels, I would say. Later on, it just doesn't scale (and, incidentally, the fact that many 3.5 feats don't scale is a big problem for the feat-reliant fighter, because there's no point having a bank of previously-selected feats if their value deflates, which is why I have no idea why Power Attack, that does scale and did work, has been so horribly nerfed).

The Exchange

fighter versatility is its ability with feats to have slightly less penalties, or a slightly better bonus so things that anyone can do. everyone else has abilities that add a brand new and distinct element to the game. i also will disagree that "core" fixes the Fighter, splatbook spells and feats are not the real reason for the sickness of higher level play. all you really need to be an nigh unstoppable mage resides in the main book.

Scarab Sages

Carnivorous_Bean wrote:
I'm in the school of 'don't nerf the casters, buff the fighters' myself, so these look like a decent start at least. Need to see how they do in practice, of course.

That's what I like to hear. it seems others would be happier with a return to the imbalance and unfun of playing a wizard in 1e. There's an easy answer for people who want to return to those rules... ;)

How about something like.... you can go your full combat move and make a single attack. For each 5' less than your combat move you can make an additional attack (assuming you have those attacks to make). This means that a fighter with 4 attacks and a base 30 move could move 30 and make 1 attack, 25 and make 2 attacks, 20 and make 3 attacks, and 15 or less and make all 4 attacks.

I also think it was a neat idea mentioned above about making the equivalent of a 5' step between each attack to work your way around to flank someone. I would suggest that is possible as long as the movement still exists and the above rule wasn't violated. For instance, the fighter moves in 20 (meaning he can make 3 of his 4 attacks), makes one attack, shifts 5' and makes a second attack, then shifts another 5' and makes his last attack, now positioned part-way around the target without having suffered AoO because of his melee prowess and not needing to drop his guard while positioning himself.

Liberty's Edge

hmarcbower wrote:
That's what I like to hear. it seems others would be happier with a return to the imbalance and unfun of playing a wizard in 1e.

Reading this, I have to seriously doubt that you've ever played AD&D...


I don't in any way consider munchinism to be some sort of insult. I just keep a tight noose around it in my campaigns because I like to keep a realistic medieval feeling about them.

I do enjoy the occasional powerplaying minmaxing and munchkining campaign, in which I assure you, fighters are perhaps the most prominent.

Pack them with the right magical gear, prestige classes and buffs and they will put any caster to shame.

Thijs is so because after a point in a by-the-book campaign allowing splat-books and the like, the party has the option to be invulnerable to most energy-type attacks, immune to mind effecting, touch AC of around 50 (see belt of monk for a small example of how to get started with this) and other fancy trinkets such as belt of battle which in short allows you to move next to your target, activate it and then proceed to mercilessly annihilate him with your dreaded fighter-style full attack.

Its a circle game. In low powered campaigns like mine, fighters are as good as the mages.

In high power campaigns mages will rule.

In too powerful campaigns where everyone has access to virtually anything, mages are practically useless since you can find other means to do what they do via their class, you can get your saves to godlike levels, and then all that matters is how many attacks you make, and how much powerattack you can cut off to dish mroe damaeg :P

The Exchange

Vak wrote:

I don't in any way consider munchinism to be some sort of insult. I just keep a tight noose around it in my campaigns because I like to keep a realistic medieval feeling about them.

I do enjoy the occasional powerplaying minmaxing and munchkining campaign, in which I assure you, fighters are perhaps the most prominent.

Pack them with the right magical gear, prestige classes and buffs and they will put any caster to shame.

Thijs is so because after a point in a by-the-book campaign allowing splat-books and the like, the party has the option to be invulnerable to most energy-type attacks, immune to mind effecting, touch AC of around 50 (see belt of monk for a small example of how to get started with this) and other fancy trinkets such as belt of battle which in short allows you to move next to your target, activate it and then proceed to mercilessly annihilate him with your dreaded fighter-style full attack.

Its a circle game. In low powered campaigns like mine, fighters are as good as the mages.

In high power campaigns mages will rule.

In too powerful campaigns where everyone has access to virtually anything, mages are practically useless since you can find other means to do what they do via their class, you can get your saves to godlike levels, and then all that matters is how many attacks you make, and how much powerattack you can cut off to dish mroe damaeg :P

I just want to point out that 2levels of Fighter does not make a you a fighter if you are 17th level..... what the f*(k is your spellcasters spending on while nonspellcasters have so much money to spend on magic items???? if you can afford to get your saves to godlike level, the spellcaster can afford to get his spell DC's to even more godlike levels. if your Noncaster get sizable more gold, then i think it could go pretty much as you paint it, but under the current rules, everyones supposed to be built with similar gold.


here's this spending money thing again.

ITs NOT REAL money.

if there is this fanatsy world, then the money is fantasy and how people get stuff is fantasy.

Spellcaster do however have to spend money on expensive material components,non casters do not.

However, in my game world, you cant buy high level magic (nothing over 3000 gpv) you have to find it.

So theoretically based on the rolls, you could randomly find more fighter stuff, and the mages wouldnt have a wad of stuff, but then they could just collect what they need, be patient, wait, wait and then when they have it all together , build their own.

Sovereign Court

The game is set according to how much money characters are supposed to have because money is power. Now yes, the DM can restrict the money or the use to which the money is put (such as by limiting magic item access), just as the DM can play opponents stupid so they attack the meleers instead of ignoring them and going for the casters. No one is denying that you can play D&D and have fun, but we're talking about designing a game, not how design features/flaws can be addressed through play and DMing style.

Vak, if you have any characters lying around from one of these min/maxed campaigns of yours where fighters are doing so well, say a fighter and a wizard at the higher levels, I'd be pretty interested to see them to understand how you did it, because I don't know how to do it with comparable optimisation of each class. Also, 'munchkin' is generally used as an insult in the endless wars between people that optimise and people that don't, or people that worry about the numbers and the game design and people that are just concerned with having a good time through play. Neither side is involved in an inherently nobler enterprise, but the conversations are generally eventually both incredibly dull and also heated.


I suppose I enjoy both types of games. I just have more RP fun with teh non-minmaxed ones, while I get more laughs with the powersteaming ones.

Bagpuss I'll see if I can get you the character sheets, but you'll have to wait till I get back home from the holidays.

For now, what I can tell you is that while there are ways to increase your saving throws and gain immunity to stuff (scarab of protection, mind blank spell, etc etc), Spell DC's eventually stop increasing.
Unless you go to epic levels and go with increasing each and every stat to 50+, that is - Because when that happens, you either use a death spell to kill your enemy outright, or let the fighters do it, because damage spells that work (like disintegrate which deals since 3.5) still has a cap on damage, while fighter melee damage does not.

In my most prominent minmaxed party, the most powerful character was a wizard yes, but it was not his spells that did the work ,but his cohort due to his leadership feat - an eladrin that would smite evil for +500 on the atack roll and deal some 2000 damage total in a full attack.

The wizard could do a maximum of twin maximized maw of chaos + quickened twin maximized maw of chaos. Maw of chaos deals 1d6 per caster level. The wizard was lv 24, and had a caster level of 31 for chaotic spells. That's 124d6 maximized,756 damage on a 20ft area burst, no save.

Yes both these character had their main stats around 80.

This difference was not so visible in lesser levels but still, go check out the iaijutsu master prestige class. Its in the oriental adventures book. That's one example of a prestige class that makes fighters elite.

Now, if you want to talk about a pure fighter class, I can't talk of that, since I've not had the chance to play a minmax PF campaign yet, and nobody would follow his starting class to lv 20 in 3d, or 3.5 if he called himself an optimizer.

Liberty's Edge

Another problem is rules crossover. The "WBL" chart is in the DM's Guide, not the PHB. It is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. Same thing with core prestige classes. They're an OPTION, not a given.

Players are taking way too much for granted these days. The prestige class laden splats didn't help, as they took PrCs away from the DM's fiat and made greedy players drool...

Sorry about the mini-rant there.

The Exchange

yes there are more magic items to bump saves, but that only sorta balances the disparity of secondary saving throws. spellcasters are primarly focused on increasing their casting stat, were melee type have to many other stats to make sure are good (STR DEX CON)

using only beta material for this 20th level comparison

sure you could have cloak of resistance +5, luckstone +1, Iron will, and a 16 WIS (which is way more than far for a stat that does nothing for the class) this gives you a +17 to will saves (a good looking bonus for sure)

headband of vast INT +6, book of INT +5, spellfocus abjuration, and a 20 INT (easy with pathfinders multiple races with possibly +2 to INT AND we were nice enough to give the Fighter a 16 WIS, so it must be a high stat game) and 5 levels of stat adjustments nad the DC for inprisonment is 34 (or 38 with a little research)

thats a 17 or higher in order not to be taken out permenantly, and if you did some research or know the guy your screwing over, he only saves on a 20


Just to put a few more things on the table:

Ring of spell turning.

Ring of elemental immunity

Scarab of protection...

With a certain rule from a certain book you can combine magical abilities too, so you can have a ring of spell turning AND elemental immunity, and so on and so forth.

There's only a handful of spells that exist that can still take you out permanently, msot of which are fort save which the fighters will make.

There's always the trap the soul, for which you have the ring of spell turning.

Sovereign Court

Irresistable Dance is a pretty nasty spell to have placed on anyone (and it's not subject to spell turning). Of course, there has to be a touch attack made, but as it stands wizards can generally make that touch attack against most meleers; it's a lethal spell in effect, and what's worse is that you die looking stupid. Once you're dancing like a loon, you are relatively easy to pick off and even if they don't bother, you're irrelevant.

Of course, it's not just a problem for fighters, although their touch ACs may not be very high at all.


As a side note, the gameplay that fighter proponents talk about actually exists. At low levels. But in my current RotRL game, I'm already noticing the first signs of its breakdown at 4th level, even though the party is not particulalrly optimized and most of the enemies are used as is, except for their behavior. The party melees (guisarme tripper/charger and NPC charger wannabe) easily crush under-CR mooks, while taking manageable damage, unless totally swarmed (like by 4 and more ghouls ganging on a single character at once, the situation that party's casters mostly manage to prevent/mitigate). But monsters, that are above party CR (but still within supposedly manageable limits)? We play with houserules that make fighting classes tougher, and still it is either cleric going on healbot duty, or the melee that the monster attacked dying on the monster's second action, because the melee just lost one third to half of his hit points and is paralyzed (we fight various ghouls and ghasts, at the moment, and as the party's casters consist of buff cleric and unfocused bard, their BC so far failed to do jack to local mid-bosses, the latter being undead with quite decent saves).


What do people think of the critical-hit rider feats (i.e., stunning strike, et al) as a high-level option for fighter viability? I think there's merit here; when hp no longer matter, striking to debuff the enemy - in particular, to strip him of actions - seems really strong. From what I can see, there's no save vs. the status effects, just the crit. That could work.


Bagpuss, irresistable dance is a mind affecting spell.

Mindblank is the first thing a warrior in a powersteamed game should have 24/7 which should not be hard, since mindblank has a duration of 24 hrs.

Scarab Sages

Sneaksy Dragon wrote:

yes there are more magic items to bump saves, but that only sorta balances the disparity of secondary saving throws. spellcasters are primarly focused on increasing their casting stat, were melee type have to many other stats to make sure are good (STR DEX CON)

using only beta material for this 20th level comparison

sure you could have cloak of resistance +5, luckstone +1, Iron will, and a 16 WIS (which is way more than far for a stat that does nothing for the class) this gives you a +17 to will saves (a good looking bonus for sure)

headband of vast INT +6, book of INT +5, spellfocus abjuration, and a 20 INT (easy with pathfinders multiple races with possibly +2 to INT AND we were nice enough to give the Fighter a 16 WIS, so it must be a high stat game) and 5 levels of stat adjustments nad the DC for inprisonment is 34 (or 38 with a little research)

thats a 17 or higher in order not to be taken out permenantly, and if you did some research or know the guy your screwing over, he only saves on a 20

Right... so the absolute optimized strongest power of the wizard versus the unoptimized, weakest part of the fighter is hard to resist.... and you have a problem with this why?

Scarab Sages

FatR wrote:

As a side note, the gameplay that fighter proponents talk about actually exists. At low levels. But in my current RotRL game, I'm already noticing the first signs of its breakdown at 4th level, even though the party is not particulalrly optimized and most of the enemies are used as is, except for their behavior. The party melees (guisarme tripper/charger and NPC charger wannabe) easily crush under-CR mooks, while taking manageable damage, unless totally swarmed (like by 4 and more ghouls ganging on a single character at once, the situation that party's casters mostly manage to prevent/mitigate). But monsters, that are above party CR (but still within supposedly manageable limits)? We play with houserules that make fighting classes tougher, and still it is either cleric going on healbot duty, or the melee that the monster attacked dying on the monster's second action, because the melee just lost one third to half of his hit points and is paralyzed (we fight various ghouls and ghasts, at the moment, and as the party's casters consist of buff cleric and unfocused bard, their BC so far failed to do jack to local mid-bosses, the latter being undead with quite decent saves).

I don't know if RotRL is typical of the kind of adventures published today (we have not played a lot of boxed adventures in the past 10 years), but we're just finishing it up in the next couple of weeks. As far as I'm concerned the encounters in that entire adventure path were ridiculously unbalanced against the characters. If you had an absolutely optimized party with exactly what was needed to overcome each enemy (oh, and the fighters didn't just have it hard by having to suck up so much damage that it just became impossible - casters had to deal with very high SR and saves on almost every creature of consequence), it might have been a little better balanced. I am positive that the iconics wouldn't have made it out of Sandpoint, to be honest.

I think it's a great adventure path, but I question the construction of the encounters. So many times the environment was as dangerous as the actual monsters, but it also greatly empowered the bad guys - oh, and they almost all had what we came to call the "Paizo template" - some sort of teleport effect to get away from combat when they get close to death.

Anyway... I really don't know if RotRL is typical or not, but I know our group had significant problems with most of the big encounters. We are, on normal Thursdays, a wizard (I focussed on non-save spells, so a lot of rays, etc), a fighter, a ranger, and a cleric (who, in more than one encounter, ended up standing behind the ranger with his hand on his back casting healing spells every round (including Heal a couple of times) because the bad guys put out SO MUCH damage and were so strong that AC was basically pointless to worry about. It got easier on other nights when a couple of other guys showed up and we had a bow-focussed ranger and a Knight, but it was still a case of whoever was standing in front of the bad guy being dead in round two just from pure damage output by the bad guys.

How to solve that? I really don't know. I think it's a matter of fixing the monsters, not boosting the fighter so much that he can withstand such hit point damage because then he becomes almost invincible to things that could be more "powerful" but just don't have the damage output. When it comes to absolute, pure damage, there isn't much you can do with it because it varies so much between low-damage but very dangerous creatures because of special attacks and huge damage that blows through any AC going from relatively unpowerful creatures.

Scarab Sages

Bagpuss wrote:

Irresistable Dance is a pretty nasty spell to have placed on anyone (and it's not subject to spell turning). Of course, there has to be a touch attack made, but as it stands wizards can generally make that touch attack against most meleers; it's a lethal spell in effect, and what's worse is that you die looking stupid. Once you're dancing like a loon, you are relatively easy to pick off and even if they don't bother, you're irrelevant.

Of course, it's not just a problem for fighters, although their touch ACs may not be very high at all.

Wouldn't a quick Dispel Magic fix that up?

The Exchange

hmarcbower wrote:
Bagpuss wrote:

Irresistable Dance is a pretty nasty spell to have placed on anyone (and it's not subject to spell turning). Of course, there has to be a touch attack made, but as it stands wizards can generally make that touch attack against most meleers; it's a lethal spell in effect, and what's worse is that you die looking stupid. Once you're dancing like a loon, you are relatively easy to pick off and even if they don't bother, you're irrelevant.

Of course, it's not just a problem for fighters, although their touch ACs may not be very high at all.

Wouldn't a quick Dispel Magic fix that up?

how much of your Fighter money actually goes towards being a Fighter?!?! I have mere pittance to go towards items that protects against magic, most goes towards making my weapons attempt to keep up with ever bettering DR, and trying to get my armor magicked so i don't get killed by monsters full attacking me!

secondly my earlier example was showcasing how a realistic Fighter build would fair against a realist Wizard build. Fighters dont have the possibility to make themselves competent agianst wizards DC's. they have to spend a good chunk of money at being a Fighter. wizards really only need to spend money buffing their spellcasting. they have spells for everything else. the above example for a Fighters will save SHOULD be good enough, but it just isnt.

example or no, time and time again higher level spellcasters obtain DC's that are near impossible to make (or pretty much impossible to make)........one shot kill. oh i could one shot kill a wizard with a Fighter, i do need to crit with my 20x3 or x4 weapon. a wizard just need to throw a spell, no real luck necessary, just tactics.

you ever wonder why all the AP's major villains are spellcasters, its nothing new for any 3.0 or 3.5 module, actually its the status quo. you just get such a tougher fight.

The Exchange

also note that a wizard can dispel the Fighters magical items abilities, at least long enough to totally hose them. thats happened to me before. i drink my potion of fly to close with the enemy mage, he then dispels the potions effects and i plummet to the ground, how many potions does a guy have to carry?

The Exchange

I must add that i probably am only this miffed about this subject because my logical side is saying that its to late in the playtest for this to mean anything. that just fires me up more...need to go talk about balancing animal companions or sumthin...


hmarcbower wrote:


I don't know if RotRL is typical of the kind of adventures published today (we have not played a lot of boxed adventures in the past 10 years), but we're just finishing it up in the next couple of weeks. As far as I'm concerned the encounters in that entire adventure path were ridiculously unbalanced against the characters.

Actually, I found encounters as written seriously underpowered against any but 3.5 core party that does not include a druid, a decent wizard or a passable-Charisma cleric (as I said, I play with houseruled fighting classess, but at 4th level differences aren't that significant and you can get much more more melee power out of 3.5 supplements anyway). The last battle near Foxglove Manor was four characters vs Aldern + 14-16 ghouls (there was so many that I might have simply forgotten about two ghouls, that were temporarily disabled on the first round), because the party goofed around for too long and he just gathered all surviving minions (i.e., everything in the manor, except the ghoul dire bat, which went to hunt PCs and was killed a night earlier + surviving ghouls from the farmlands, where some were turned and run away) and went to besiege their shelter. The party still won, although this time by the skin of their teeth. But their chances would have been better if they had the time to craft all they wanted and had money to craft, before going against Aldern. Were I to use the adventure as written, the party would have flattened everything so far, but the ghoul dire bat, hardly ever being in danger. That's because the dire bat is the only opponent in the entire Pathfinder 2 whose abilities actually synergise with each other and its combat tactics.

Scarab Sages

Bagpuss wrote:

Irresistable Dance is a pretty nasty spell to have placed on anyone (and it's not subject to spell turning). Of course, there has to be a touch attack made, but as it stands wizards can generally make that touch attack against most meleers; it's a lethal spell in effect, and what's worse is that you die looking stupid. Once you're dancing like a loon, you are relatively easy to pick off and even if they don't bother, you're irrelevant.

Of course, it's not just a problem for fighters, although their touch ACs may not be very high at all.

hmarcbower wrote:
Wouldn't a quick Dispel Magic fix that up?
Sneaksy Dragon wrote:
how much of your Fighter money actually goes towards being a Fighter?!?! I have mere pittance to go towards items that protects against magic, most goes towards making my weapons attempt to keep up with ever bettering DR, and trying to get my armor magicked so i don't get killed by monsters full attacking me!

Hm. Or he could have a caster friend (you know, party-member) nearby to cast dispel magic on him. I sometimes wonder if the folks arguing for a fighter to be able to do everything try to solo ever adventure they come across. Some of you talk about how the wizard should have to rely on the fighters to protect them and let them get their spells off like they are slow children or something, but when it comes to suggesting that Dispel Magic (a pretty low-level spell, and cheap to put on magic items) would solve what was considered a character-eliminating spell, the immediate assumption is that the fighter himself has to come up with this magic... why wouldn't one of the casters in the party take a round to free the fighter from this effect? What is so terrible about the fighter relying on the wizard for some things when you want the wizard to be entirely reliant upon the fighter just to do what a wizard is supposed to do?

Sneaksy Dragon wrote:
secondly my earlier example was showcasing how a realistic Fighter build would fair against a realist Wizard build. Fighters dont have the possibility to make themselves competent agianst wizards DC's.

Not for a will save, that is correct. That's the fighter's WEAKEST POINT. And you might assume that was a typical wizard build, but you also used a spell that the wizard was particularly potent with. Are you striving to achieve having no weak points for the fighter? Do you really think that is a practical (or wise) design goal?

Sneaksy Dragon wrote:
they have to spend a good chunk of money at being a Fighter. wizards really only need to spend money buffing their spellcasting. they have spells for everything else. the above example for a Fighters will save SHOULD be good enough, but it just isnt.

I guess that would be true if the wizard didn't have to spend money (and, until Pathfinder, XP) just to develop the tools of his trade and to progress through the basic functions of his class. All of a fighter's money is disposable income. A Wizard actually has bills to pay, and every time he casts a spell that has a component it costs him money. What's it cost the fighter to swing his sword?

Sneaksy Dragon wrote:
example or no, time and time again higher level spellcasters obtain DC's that are near impossible to make (or pretty much impossible to make)........one shot kill. oh i could one shot kill a wizard with a Fighter, i do need to crit with my 20x3 or x4 weapon. a wizard just need to throw a spell, no real luck necessary, just tactics.

You want a fighter that can defend against everything (including the most powerful, most specialized spellcaster's most powerful spell, targeting the fighter's weakest point), can do massive damage, can take massive damage, is able to shrug off magical effects, is able to stop a wizard from doing what his class is intended to do without any effort, and apparently walks alone through the world with no friends so needs to be fully self-sufficient.

Sneaksy Dragon wrote:
you ever wonder why all the AP's major villains are spellcasters, its nothing new for any 3.0 or 3.5 module, actually its the status quo. you just get such a tougher fight.

I dunno... one of the easiest fights we had in Rise of the Runelords was against a bad guy that was straight spellcaster. The wizard (me) cleared a path through her defenses to get the the fighters into melee, and they whumpadumped her into a gooey pile in two rounds. This is a case where the fighters needed the casters to get through the magical defenses so they could get to work. The ones we have the most trouble with tend to be the massive damage giants (and other strong beasties) because our melee masters can't stand toe-to-toe with them for more than three attacks (and they tend to get two a round...) without being one backhand away from oblivion. Plus, I'm sure you've noted that when there *is* a caster as the main bad guy he's often surrounded by minions that stop you from getting to him. That's because if you get to him, he's dead.

Sovereign Court

hmarcbower wrote:


Wouldn't a quick Dispel Magic fix that up?

Cast by someone else, yes, and it would be Greater Dispel Magic you'd use, and it may not work. But that's a spell action that could perhaps be used better doing something else. And won't it also debuff the meleer? Spending a spell to rescue the meleer and debuff them... the only plus side is that Greater Dispel is only 6th level and Irresistable Dance is 8th (for sorcerer or wizard).

And it was just an example (and it'd apply to everyone, not just meleers, except casters will have higher touch ACs)...

Sovereign Court

hmarcbower wrote:
You want a fighter that can defend against everything (including the most powerful, most specialized spellcaster's most powerful spell, targeting the fighter's weakest point), can do massive damage, can take massive damage, is able to shrug off magical effects, is able to stop a wizard from doing what his class is intended to do without any effort, and apparently walks alone through the world with no friends so needs to be fully self-sufficient.

Really, the issue is "why do I need this fighter in my party?" Even without the leadership feat (you get a fighter two levels lower, but he gets no share) you'd be better off with a meaty druid or cleric. Interdependence of party members is a sliding scale, but as levels get higher the fighters (and other meleers) depend more on the others than they do on them. Arguably, in the end (as Kirth said earlier) they're even a net negative because of the XP they consume (ie, without them the party would advance faster and that would produce a more powerful party than the party with the fighter in it). That's not the main problem, though; the main problem is that the fighter/meleer needs more than he brings.

The Exchange

i feel like i have to go over the same points every time with a new guy. i can understand that you love your wizard, and he rocks the party, butyou are being selfish.

*i cant believe you said that Fighters have the disposable income, wizards get 2 spells every level, in second ed you had to by EVERY SPELL IN YOUR BOOK, where you have to buy some material components (i really can ever remember buying anything but diamond dust for stoneskin, and that spell is worth it) The Fighter has to buy potions constantly, and they are much more expensive then material components. Spells cover most of the wizards needs, so there money can go directly to increasing their primary spellcasting stat, gaining metamagic items, etc

*people always want to patch fighter problems by saying "but your in a team, you have mages for that stuff" the problem is the reverse never happens. if casting failed every time you were hit and you whined about it i would say "welll your in a team, let your friend protect you" but that doesnt happen. its not a solo game, so why can the spellcasters PLAY IT LIKE IT IS! ive played mages that didnt need a party to succeed. but ive never played a 3rd ed Fighter who could say the same. Fighters are the wobbly leg, fix it or get another leg.

seriously tired of going over the same points with new people all the time with no new information stirred from it. im happy to help but sheeeeesh.

Sovereign Court

Chill, Mr Dragon, it's inevitable that people will come in and join the debate and that they'll have similar opinions to other people you've debated already (and it's not like those people changed their minds anyhow, in most cases). It's the nature of internerd discussions and in particular the nature of internerd discussions of D&D meleer power levels. There are people that think it's all pretty good for one reason or another (that they believe it's balanced, that it's OK because it doesn't happen in their games/play style, that there's a trade for meleers being good at lower levels, that magic-users should more powerful, etc). None of those opinions are illegitimate, they're just not ones some of us share when it comes to discussing game design.

Of course, if there are people who prefer low-level play because the game works well at those levels, they won't much care what gets changed for the higher levels so long as it doesn't significantly impact their favoured lower levels. That's OK, as we are mostly talking about fixing things at those higher levels.


I'm kind of hopeful we can move past the "fighters suck! Do not! Do too!" part of the thread and try to come up with some practical answers. I'd like to think we more or less agree that the fighter's fun at low levels, less so at high levels, and work on evening things out.

Scarab Sages

Sneaksy Dragon wrote:
i feel like i have to go over the same points every time with a new guy. i can understand that you love your wizard, and he rocks the party, butyou are being selfish.

new guy... nice.... is this where we whip out our d20s and see whose is bigger, or compare to see whose old red or blue cover books are in better condition? Gimme a break.

Sneaksy Dragon wrote:
*i cant believe you said that Fighters have the disposable income

I know... shocking, isn't it. They get to choose what to spend money on as there is no "fighter tax" like there is for playing a wizard. And guess what, it's just possible that the wizard might make something that has a beneficial effect for your fighter. If you ask him nicely and pay a share.

Sneaksy Dragon wrote:
wizards get 2 spells every level, in second ed you had to by EVERY SPELL IN YOUR BOOK

Whoops! You must be in the wrong place.. we're talking about 3.x and Pathfinder here, not 2e.

Sneaksy Dragon wrote:
where you have to buy some material components (i really can ever remember buying anything but diamond dust for stoneskin, and that spell is worth it)

Just because you choose not to follow the rules doesn't mean they aren't there....

Sneaksy Dragon wrote:
The Fighter has to buy potions constantly, and they are much more expensive then material components. Spells cover most of the wizards needs, so there money can go directly to increasing their primary spellcasting stat, gaining metamagic items, etc

But to cast those spells costs money (yes, even the spells that save your fighter's butt when he gets in too deep in combat or needs a utility spell to get into position) that the wizard no longer has. Can you imagine that it cost the fighter 10gp every time he swung his sword? That would be robbery! But it's OK for wizards, I guess.

Sneaksy Dragon wrote:
*people always want to patch fighter problems by saying "but your in a team, you have mages for that stuff" the problem is the reverse never happens.

The reverse always happens. It happens for the majority of the most commonly played levels of the game - from 1 to 12.

Sneaksy Dragon wrote:
if casting failed every time you were hit and you whined about it i would say "welll your in a team, let your friend protect you" but that doesnt happen.

Whew, thank the gods! Otherwise it would be a seriously unfun experience to play a caster who needed to be absolutely babysat for half of his career.

Sneaksy Dragon wrote:
its not a solo game

I'm glad we agree on something.

Sneaksy Dragon wrote:
so why can the spellcasters PLAY IT LIKE IT IS! ive played mages that didnt need a party to succeed. but ive never played a 3rd ed Fighter who could say the same. Fighters are the wobbly leg, fix it or get another leg.

This ties into something I'm going to reply to the post below yours. Have a read.

Sneaksy Dragon wrote:
seriously tired of going over the same points with new people all the time with no new information stirred from it. im happy to help but sheeeeesh.

This is actually a similar complaint I have about this issue, I have just chosen less condescending tones to express that.

Scarab Sages

Bagpuss wrote:
Chill, Mr Dragon, it's inevitable that people will come in and join the debate and that they'll have similar opinions to other people you've debated already (and it's not like those people changed their minds anyhow, in most cases). It's the nature of internerd discussions and in particular the nature of internerd discussions of D&D meleer power levels.

Hey, I resent being called an internerd. Oh wait, I am. Nevermind. :)

Bagpuss wrote:
There are people that think it's all pretty good for one reason or another (that they believe it's balanced, that it's OK because it doesn't happen in their games/play style

Aha, and here's that part I alluded to in my reply to Sneaksy. Everyone complains about this - no matter what. It doesn't happen in my games, so it must not be a problem. The reverse is always true, too, though - just because it happens in your games doesn't mean that it's actually a problem, either. There's no way to overcome that other than to realize that your group might not be typical (no group really is) but to be able to rise above the localized events and try to see the system as a whole, understanding that what your group wants might not be the best way to have the core rules arranged.

Bagpuss wrote:
that there's a trade for meleers being good at lower levels, that magic-users should more powerful, etc). None of those opinions are illegitimate, they're just not ones some of us share when it comes to discussing game design.

And because there is disagreement, anyone who doesn't agree with one position is obviously not thinking about game design? I would disagree with that... oops. ;) I see exactly what you're driving at, and I agree with the sentiment. But there is too much of the "you disagree with me so you obviously don't understand what the adults are talking about over here... run along". That's not what you said, thankfully, and reading your posts I don't get that vibe from you, but there are people who talk/think like that.

Bagpuss wrote:
Of course, if there are people who prefer low-level play because the game works well at those levels, they won't much care what gets changed for the higher levels so long as it doesn't significantly impact their favoured lower levels. That's OK, as we are mostly talking about fixing things at those higher levels.

Good point. However, the entire 20-level career has to be considered. Others are making the argument that because meleers don't dominate at 20th level that it's unfair - despite the fact that they did dominate the first 11 or 12 levels. I don't dispute that there's a power shift once you go over that level. But if you think it needs to be adjusted, then you need to adjust the lower levels in order to compensate for the new power shift that has been introduced.

Scarab Sages

Matthew Hooper wrote:
I'm kind of hopeful we can move past the "fighters suck! Do not! Do too!" part of the thread and try to come up with some practical answers. I'd like to think we more or less agree that the fighter's fun at low levels, less so at high levels, and work on evening things out.

Is it possible that the fighter actually peaks too soon? That because there is a significant power boost very early for the fighter that the perception is that it doesn't do as well at higher levels because it's already achieved so much of its potential early on? I know on the occasions where I've played a fighter I'm often at a loss for which feats to take by the time I hit around 12th to 14th level.

That's an interesting thought...

Although I suspect by "evening things out" you meant to boost the power at high levels rather than actually even out the existing power into a more linear increase in power from level 1 to level 20... :)

I think I've heard lots of good suggestions (and made a couple that are passably good starts) for how to improve the perceived problems with the fighter. Hopefully Jason takes a look and considers some of them. (Note, i've also seen some of what I consider to be terrible, unbalancing suggestions for how to change the fighter... I guess the trick is figuring out which way the game is going to go and picking the right suggestions).

As a general concept, I'm all for scaling effects from feats so that a choice which was useful at 2nd level still has some impact at 18th level. I would really like to see more of those kinds of feats available to the fighter and other melee classes (though it would be nice to see some more fighter-exclusive feats, too).

Sovereign Court

hmarcbower wrote:


And because there is disagreement, anyone who doesn't agree with one position is obviously not thinking about game design?

My point, which on reflection isn't very clear, was meant to be that although we may ourselves be happy with some of those arguments, that we might not consider them helpful parts of a design discussion, based on what we consider design to be about (in particular, the issue of avoiding problems by using playstyle isn't normally very welcome in design discussions). Other people will include them in design discussions.


I love playing fighters, there is nothing like smashing the hilt of your greatsword into the face of the smug wizard and wrestle him to the ground making him scream like a girl.

a well played fighter is invalueable to a party and is downright scary with a few simple buffs, the upgrades to the fighter in pathfinder make him even more awesome and enough feats to actually complete a feat chain with some juicy extras.

ofcourse there are plenty of people that look down on any class that can't shoot lightningbolts out off their arse, but I like the fighter because he can do what he does without magic and he does it well.


Remco Sommeling wrote:

I love playing fighters, there is nothing like smashing the hilt of your greatsword into the face of the smug wizard and wrestle him to the ground making him scream like a girl.

a well played fighter is invalueable to a party and is downright scary with a few simple buffs, the upgrades to the fighter in pathfinder make him even more awesome and enough feats to actually complete a feat chain with some juicy extras.

The PF Fighter is weaker than the original. His main schtick, feats, have been gimped to nigh-uselessness (Dodge takes an action? WTF?) The bonuses you love so much are just a way to hide the fact Fighters are even less masters of battle than they were before.

Remco Sommeling wrote:
ofcourse there are plenty of people that look down on any class that can't shoot lightningbolts out off their arse,

We look down on people who have no real class features, actually.

Remco Sommeling wrote:
but I like the fighter because he can do what he does without magic and he does it well.


Guyr Adamantine wrote:
Remco Sommeling wrote:

I love playing fighters, there is nothing like smashing the hilt of your greatsword into the face of the smug wizard and wrestle him to the ground making him scream like a girl.

a well played fighter is invalueable to a party and is downright scary with a few simple buffs, the upgrades to the fighter in pathfinder make him even more awesome and enough feats to actually complete a feat chain with some juicy extras.

The PF Fighter is weaker than the original. His main schtick, feats, have been gimped to nigh-uselessness (Dodge takes an action? WTF?) The bonuses you love so much are just a way to hide the fact Fighters are even less masters of battle than they were before.

Remco Sommeling wrote:
ofcourse there are plenty of people that look down on any class that can't shoot lightningbolts out off their arse,

We look down on people who have no real class features, actually.

the feats changed as they are did not seem a problem to me, dodge takes a swift action now, but you dont have to pick a single foe for it, 10 ranks in acrobatics change the dodge bonus to + 2, dodge seems to have improved really.. you take the original dodge feat if you want I prefer this one.

most feats have changed for the better imo, with weapons training and armor mastery added you have a more durable fighter that hits better and harder.

Sovereign Court

The Power Attack nerf is heinous for fighters and meleers in general, Remco.


I dont think so, for a fighter with a decent strength score you will quickly have a + 4 modifier, that will be about all you can spare if you want to keep a good chance to hit. the warriors I have seen using power attack were missing or not confirming crits because of it quite often especially in a full attack action, where often only the first attack has a good chance of hitting.

now with the cleave and great cleave feat altered you can actually make multiple attacks using power attack and expect to hit, because all attacks you make will use your full BAB and you dont have to wait till the foes drop to use the feats.

Sovereign Court

You really think that you'd never want to trade more than your strength bonus? That's not my experience of fighters and Power Attack, I must say... and in any case, wouldn't you at least want to pick exactly how much you do trade?

The Exchange

I apologize about how condescending i sounded. I was talking about being new to the threat, i was not calling out your experience. i only have a problem with how you are calling us out for posting often and making our numbers seem bigger when you have blitzkrieged the Fighter sensitive threads, but you have been nothing but civil so far so i apologize.

Scarab Sages

Bagpuss wrote:
The Power Attack nerf is heinous for fighters and meleers in general, Remco.

There was a gigantic thread about this many months ago.

It was obviously never resolved because one side said it made fighting classes useless, and the other side said that "if you're relying on this one feat so heavily then clearly the feat was broken in the first place".

I won't rehash it beyond that. :)

Scarab Sages

Sneaksy Dragon wrote:

I apologize about how condescending i sounded. I was talking about being new to the threat, i was not calling out your experience. i only have a problem with how you are calling us out for posting often and making our numbers seem bigger when you have blitzkrieged the Fighter sensitive threads, but you have been nothing but civil so far so i apologize.

We're good. :)

Even being new to a thread, though, I always follow the etiquette of having read the entire thing before posting. I find nothing more frustrating than someone popping into page 6 of a long thread and starting out their post with "I haven't read the rest of the thread, but blah blah blah blah." They may be right, or may be wrong, but at least show the respect to previous posters by reading what has come before.

In any case, my blitzkrieg was sparked by the reemergence of these kind of threads. I really would like to have a place to compile the great ideas that have come up for helping the melee classes, but some people seem to take advantage of this situation to try to slip in a rider of "oh yah, and let's bring the casters down a notch at the same time".


Pendagast wrote:

what do we want for fighters from 12-20th level?

Oh let me see, maybe to set sail with captain morgan, but never leave dry land?

It seems to me, most people that are trying to criticize others who want the fighter to be better/viable, have to be those people who only started playing the game at 3.x.

All these people are the same people who cry nerf nerf! to things like spells, or druids.

take a trip back with meto the days of 1e and 2e where the fighter, (even if many levels lower than the wizard) was known as the mage slayer.....

I was there in the days of 2E. Wizards totally massacred fighters in the duels after getting to 7th level and learning AD&D2-style Stoneskin. They also so completely dominated encounters with their Fireballs and Lightning Bolts (which were doing fearsome damage in the days of low HPs), that you needed attrition dungeon runs or spellresisant/immune to energy enemies to seriously challenge them after about the same level. I never got above 7th or 8th level in AD&D2, but according to just about all people who actually played high levels, wizards pretty much dominated the game completely. Even the game setting openly admitted that.

Pendagast wrote:

In most combats encounters the magic user got off one or two spells.

Somatic gestures were required to cast almost all spells, which included strange standing postures, waving of the hands and hopping around on pogo sticks. If this was interupted, the spell was toast and lost, it took a single point of damage to interupt a spell, something a really nasty goblin was capable of and while runnign in fear that the goblinmight cut you down, the only spell your 8th level magic user could cast went something like this "help me help me, by all the powers i weild, please one of you fighter come get if of of me, I cant hit the goblins armor class".

Wrong. You forget a)wizard defenses (including Mirror Image, Fly, Stoneskin and other stuff), which, individually, were far superior to any defensive spell in 3.X b)the fact that low-level wizard spells were faster that most weapons and that a mere Magic Missile was likely to drop an ogre, after you got to 7th level. Also, you was able to fire save-or-dies out of your first level slots at medium-high levels.

3.X actually stripped much of sheer power from wizards, in exchange for making them more survivavle at the first four levels and generally making easiler to replenish their resources. In AD&D2 wizards were the kings of direct damage and destroyers of encounters, limited mostly by their slow XP progression, weakness at the very beginning and the fact that the full re-memorization took days at high levels.

Sovereign Court

hmarcbower wrote:
Bagpuss wrote:
The Power Attack nerf is heinous for fighters and meleers in general, Remco.

There was a gigantic thread about this many months ago.

It was obviously never resolved because one side said it made fighting classes useless, and the other side said that "if you're relying on this one feat so heavily then clearly the feat was broken in the first place".

I won't rehash it beyond that. :)

Mattastrophic and Jess Door made an excellent argument (here and here and throughout that thread) that Power Attack (the old, variable one with a BAB cap) is needed for AC to work properly, and that some version of it should be available as an attack option for all. In fact, a version of Power Attack available as a combat option plus the old Power Attack back would be, in my opinion, the best change to 3.5 combat and to the entire game, in PFRPG...


Seconded. One of the stronger aspects of a classic 3.5 fighter is that, with Power Attack (and Expertise, to some extent), you can take the very large numbers a fighter generates for BAB and slide them around as needed, essentially letting you customize the combat role of the character on the fly. Nerfing that as Pathfinder has is like telling a wizard he can only memorize spells once a week...

Heck, I wouldn't mind seeing a "nerf" version of Power Attack for Fort and Reflex saves.


hmarcbower wrote:
However, the entire 20-level career has to be considered. Others are making the argument that because meleers don't dominate at 20th level that it's unfair - despite the fact that they did dominate the first 11 or 12 levels.

That's the root of my issue. Anticipation is half the fun; the wizard, at 1st level, dominates one combat a day with his invincible color spray, and the rest of the time needs babysitting. But he knows that in a few levels, he'll be rocking the world. The melee guy starts off good, but what does HE have to look forward to? Steadily becoming less and less useful, until in 10 levels or so (or 6 more levels, in our Beta playtesting) he's largely irrelevant. That's no fun at all. Even if it were a 10 level/10 level split, the guy who's important in the back half has a lot more fun (because he's actively working towards something) than the poor guy who might as well quit halfway through, because he knows he's already hit the peak of his effectiveness, and it's all rapidly downhill thereafter.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
That's the root of my issue. Anticipation is half the fun; the wizard, at 1st level, dominates one combat a day with his invincible color spray, and the rest of the time needs babysitting. But he knows that in a few levels, he'll be rocking the world. The melee guy starts off good, but what does HE have to look forward to? Steadily becoming less and less useful, until in 10 levels or so (or 6 more levels, in our Beta playtesting) he's largely irrelevant. That's no fun at all. Even if it were a 10 level/10 level split, the guy who's important in the back half has a lot more fun (because he's actively working towards something) than the poor guy who might as well quit halfway through, because he knows he's already hit the peak of his effectiveness, and it's all rapidly downhill thereafter.

So, would you say its an issue with the fighter as a class (i.e. lack of class features) or an issue with what is available to the fighter in its teens (i.e. feats)?

'findel


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

See, I just envision Power Attack as the 3.x method of making called shots. You reduce your chance to hit your target but if you hit, you do more damage. In the old days we let anyone who wanted to take a -4 to attack to do a called shot and then if they hit something special happened. If someone took a -8 to attack they could whack someone in the head doing a lot more damage. I see power attack as basically the same thing as just saying you want to make a called shot, and in that case, it seems to me like anyone should be allowed to say they want to try a called shot and doesn't seem like it would break much if you did allow it.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
good points

yeah see I just want all classes to be equally fun and necessary across length of their career. Doesn't seem like that's an unfair request.

301 to 350 of 363 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Design Forums / Classes: Barbarian, Fighter, and Ranger / Why I'm Banning the Fighter All Messageboards