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)?
Both, or either one, depending on how you look at things. Jason Bulmahn has already more or less clarified that he wants feats to BE the fighter's class features... so if we want better things for them, those things have to appear as feats, not as class features. OK, that said, we're all laboring under a system of strict limitations and the non-scaling nature of Pathfinder feats (a 13th level fighter can no longer make a 13-point Power Attack, for example). Casters get 6th level spells, but there is no such thing as a "6th level feat," so already there's a built-in plateau... at higher levels, a fighter can do more, but he can't do things all that much better.
More importantly than that, though, is the fact that the whole rules system is skewed against him in the upper registers. His primary ability (multiple attacks) is never available when he moves (which he has to do more and more of to keep up at higher levels). So the nature of combat beats his primary class feature into submission. His previous abilities in past incarnations of the game (interception of enemies and disruption of spellcasting... and often use of the first to prevent the second, with respect to his teammates) -- abilities which remained relevant at ALL levels -- have been removed by the changes in the structure of the rules, and attempts to re-introduce them via feats have thus far failed.
|
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.
great post, its like sharing a coke with a guy but his half of the coke is at the bottom (horrible metaphor, but what the heck^^) Ive got a guy playing a halfogre warblade, and even HE is starting to feal useless because we are getting higher level. as my shaman i just got more and better options in the upcoming levels. i couldnt imagine how out classed he would be if he was a human fighter...
1. Spell acqusition was HARD. You only got 1 spell per 2 levels as chosen by the DM (specialists got to choose one bonus spell per level but it had to be their speciality).
However, the chance to learn spells AND the actual acquisition of spells was not something a player could count on. There WAS no certainity that players would come across spells like Fly, Fireball etc and spell research was a true pain the ass (why do you think captured spellbooks were like gold to wizards back then....)
Except... not. No, seriously, it wasn't hard, unless you played kind of a setting where the entire world was explicitly built to screw you. In standard settings, such as FR and Greyhawk, friendly neighborhood wizards, who can sell you spells were availiable in just about any non-hostile town. Also, there were reroll spells (in one of completes, IIRC), so, unless you got unlucky when learning them, learning other things that you need posed little problem.
2. Could easily create magic items or buy magic items. This affected wizards more heavily since the treasure tables were slanted towards the melee classes and thus you couldn't get around your limited slots.
You gained ability to create magic items relatively late, but actually creating them was easier, unless the DM really jumped through the hoops. (Because all PC crafters I know of used bodies, "borrowed" through Magic Jar to pay Con costs for Permanency.)
Scenario: You come across a locked door. What do you do?
Unless I'm blowing the whole building up from the air, I do scouting in, say, Wraithform, so doors simply aren't an obstacle. Well, unless I'm low-level - as I already said, suckage of low-level wizards (although they still were able to one-shot a few encounters per day) served as a way to balance their future godliness.
|
|
total ownership is never balance by early sucking. one, because some games start at higher level and the spellcaster never "earn" their godliness through tougher early levels. second, the early levels are not that hard for spellcasters now (at will cantrips and abilites, 1d6 hitpoints and better skill access than fighters). and thirdly it isnt balanced aesthetically, who the F*(k want to play the guy thats pretty good right now but will be nearly useless once the game starts getting good. that sound like an NPC in a video game.
unless we want our four party members to be Tank CLeric, Tank Druid, WIzard and Sorcerer for most games, some changes need to be addressed.
(its getting harder and harder to find primary BAB classes that people are willing to play, the undated Paladin is getting good play right now but the other have fallen off)
Eh, the Paladin is still a weak sister, imo.
I converted the Unearthed Arcana Prestige Paladin to Pathfinder rules. Now that's a cool paladin! (In my homebrew campaign, we unanimously abandoned the base paladin for the prestige paladin long ago).
I am going to right now say I am not suggesting that Paizo get rid of the Fighter. I am trying to provoke meaningful productive discussion by stating the reasons I am not allowing the Fighter in my game.
I admit, some of these are surmountable to a certain degree. But I'm not going to bother. In my game you can be a Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Knight or Swashbuckler, but not a Fighter. So what do you think?
It's your game, so it's your perogative. I think this is foolish, however. Players should not be pigeonholed into a stereotype. Fighters are generic *precisely* so that players aren't forced into a mold, so they can make it thier own.
I would never play in a game with a GM that has these sorts of attitudes. Better not to play at all. Nor would I allow a player into my group that thinks this way.
|
|
Nor would I allow a player into my group that thinks this way.
no gestapo tactics Doc, you would NOT ALLOW them to THINK that way ^^. Funny stuff.
I have to agree the disallowing is a bit ruff, but if the mechanics mess with you that much, go for it (or fix it) I would LOVE someone to take the blow and play a Fighter in my games. It is one of the 4 classic classes.
I hate people dipping for two levels of Fighter, SO annoying. i havent seen a full level Fighter in ages.