Fighters are getting a whole bunch more Fighter-only feats... they were announced a while back, IIRC. If you haven't seen that lot, go have a look. It's the kind of thing they need, IMO. Lots more ways to be effective on the battlefield. Like what the PHB2 did for the class, but better, again IMO.
|
getting blitzkrieged by feats does not fix the problem you still have only 2 bonus feats at second level. so you can buy your nerfed power attack and expertise. the feats i have seen so far are nice looking...if i could get them 10 levels earlier, but will be okay abilities at higher levels.
I have not been wowed yet.
At low level fighters don't need much more. The fixes have been at the higher end because that is where more people see them dropping off at.
At low level fighters don't need much more. The fixes have been at the higher end because that is where more people see them dropping off at. [/QUOTE
our playtest group right now is between 4th and 6th level right now, with the highest level character being a 4th rogue/2nd ranger.
Often the cries from the group "where's the fighter? get the fighter over here! We're getting stomped!" Fighter clanks over in his heavy plate armor and sheild which the group pooled money together to buy for him and slashes up baddies with his +1 battle axe and shield bashes
"yea fighter!" (they don't even call him Cirak which is his name, they call him fighter!)
The fighter is 4th level, he might as well be a super hero at this point as the baddies cower in fear from him.
They were in a monestary fighting an undead beastie and getting trounced, fighter took it out single handedly
Admittedly, the fighter was down to about 5 hitpoints. after the battle, and the cleric was out of heals, they couldnt wait to go rest and then go on because of other things goin on in the module, so the fighter, cleric and bard returned to town leaving the sorceror and rogue/ranger to finish the dungeon and save the day, the rogue seemed more powerful (oddly enough) without the rest of the party as she had found slippers of spider climbing and wandered the cielings backstabbing alot of things while the sorceress ran diversions with prestidigiation, and other silly spells and harassing bow fire.
Rogue took down main villian in toe to toe battle,going down to 2 hp before the end.
But the main point is she still said "dang I wish the fighter was here" after all of that.Low level fighters are tanks/superheros. The fighter rocks at lower levels, no need to fix him there! He does EXACTLY what he should do..... "Hulk crush! Hulk kill puny kobolds! Dont make hulk angry!"
I agree to a point. The fighter should also be a tactical ace too. I prefer to have options other than swing each round (though swinging each round can be nice too)... but that comes down to how to build a fighter and player preferances, not game design.
I agree to a point. The fighter should also be a tactical ace too. I prefer to have options other than swing each round (though swinging each round can be nice too)... but that comes down to how to build a fighter and player preferances, not game design.
Bingo.
I think everyone is still looking for the wuxia/anime fighter. Crouching goblin, hidden troglodyte smells like monk to me not fighter.
If the paladin/fighter type can not go into the dragons lair with his party, and be the biggest contributor to the slaying of said beastie, there is something fundamentally wrong. Dragon slayer = sword and shield fighter-type, not a robe wearing old man with gimmer stick he robbed from yoda.
The iconic fighter is not going to dance along the roof of the dragons lair or get stuck in mid kick for five seconds like some retard from matrix, he sticks nasty wyrms with his sword.
the idea of battle tactics and how they would affect the game mechanics are in fact more or less powers given to the bard (morale and courage bonuses) The fighter can still role play battle tactics amd the GM can give bonuses to good ideas or sound plans,but techincially that would work for the wizard too.
However I would house rule that only the fighter would have the skill and knowledge to make said plan unfold and there for the wizard player can dream up the same idea but its not going to work.
To give the fighter some "tactical movement" class features/feats would first have to give the fighter back his movement in battle at all.
But I could see the arguement for those kinds of abilities, but technically they all alreay exist as things anyone can do, all the fighter needs is movement to do them.
The fighter can do all sorts of things once he can move and still fight, thats the fundamental nerf.
Once all this gets into the final version however, and the fighter isbeefed up being able to wear armor better than anyone, and move better in that armor, we are going to hear all the paldin players whine about how their paladin should be just as good in heavy armor asthe fighter.
People always wanted the paladin to be the fighter plus more, thats how weapon specialization got robbed from the fighter in 2e (thank goodness it was given back) But mark my words, once youve given that fighter movement in heavy armor, (which he should get) the paladins (and even some clerics) will be crying to the point of breaking crystal. hmmmm you mean there is a reason to be a lawful good fighter? Again? wow its been 20 years!
I think everyone is still looking for the wuxia/anime fighter. Crouching goblin, hidden troglodyte smells like monk to me not fighter.Fighter is so... old school fantasy, to me. I'm not sure the younger players out there quite get the vibe anymore.
When I think old school D&D fighter, I think Fafhrd, or Aragorn, or Beowulf. With modern authors, I think the heroes of A Game of Thrones, or any of Guy Gavriel Kay's books. A strong point man, someone who's a classic action hero. Cartoons should never enter the picture.
Maybe it's an archetype that's dying? Is that even possible?
I dont think so. Fighters are still fighters.
Let's take something modern-esque.
League of extra-ordinary gentlemen. Hyde and Tom sawyer would have both been fighter types with Alan Quartermain the quintessential ranger (ever the hunter).
Even the Female Vampiress, a fighter. Most of the baddies they fought,fighters. The good guy turned bad with the picture of himself? A fighter turned duelist.
None of those characters had anything about them that said anything other than straight combatant, other than some flair:
Duelist guy and the vampiress, undead.
Hyde? a lycanthrope.
even Captain Nemo was nothing more than a fighter with maybe a few monk levels (possibly?)
Lets look at X-men:
Wolverine, fighter, possbly ranger but I dont think so, being part were-wolf thingy (going with DnD transaltions) his tracking more or less comes from his mutation, not his training.
Colossus, a fighter who can transform into an iron golem.
Cyclops? Well hes either a fighter with some kind of bow, or possibly a spell caster? Probably make him a spell caster.
Nightcrawler, definately a rogue.
Rogue? Odd, not a rogue but a fighter who has turned into a vampire.
(or possibly psionic) shes actually closest to a mind flayer, except she does eat brains,but if she held on long enough she probably would, thats what happens when in the comic she absorbs Ms Marvel to get her adult powers of flying super strength and invulnerability.
Anyway, anyones main purpose to attack and beat things down is a fighter. you may want to argue wolverine is a barbarian because of the rage thing.
Heck look at legend of Zelda! what's he? a fighter.
Even the uber popular jedi are argueably mostly fighter levels with some psionic levels thrown in.
Cartoons should never enter the picture.
You lost me about there.
Aragorn, Fafhrd, Beowulf, I'm with you on them, classic examples... though I've always prefered Gimli over Aragorn. ... but as a longtime fan of the art of animation and sequential art (modern and old-style,) I don't see why we shouldn't get to have nice things, like cool fighters. Sure, animation is a visual medium, it needs to carry strong and bold in a quick glance, but it isn't inherently shallow.
Random note, I think Hellboy has some levels in fighter.
My own prejudices more than anything else, I guess. But I feel like anime and its cousins has a lot more to do with the "money shot" (cool powers/stances/immediate effects), and less about flow and tempo of a combat (my experience of a literary combat scene). Likewise, a well-run fighter's contribution to a combat is often measured over the length of the fight, rather than what he or she does in one round. It's not a coincidence that most examples of how wizards dominate fighters occur on a blank, featureless plain...
Bingo again.
When the Big Bad Guy comes screaming around the corner, 20' away, all fangs and teeth, with murder and dinner (not necessarily in that order) on the brain, no one is looking for the Wizard to give them time to do something. "Hold him off while I get my sword and shield ready!" is not something you hear at many game tables.
I agree to a point. The fighter should also be a tactical ace too. I prefer to have options other than swing each round (though swinging each round can be nice too)... but that comes down to how to build a fighter and player preferances, not game design.
One thing to keep in mind, there is a certain appeal to having at least one relatively un-complicated class that newbies in the group can feel comfortable playing without having to worry about excessive choices and decisions. Fighters have always been the class we give the younger, new, or temporary player to the group. If we make it just as complicated as every other class then the newb will just feel intimidated. I'm in favor of making the class more interesting, and at higher levels more powerful, but I'd like to see that done in as simple a way as possible, ie, avoid point systems like ki or rage, as well as avoid powers where the player has to make a dozen choices each round.
My own prejudices more than anything else, I guess. But I feel like anime and its cousins has a lot more to do with the "money shot" (cool powers/stances/immediate effects), and less about flow and tempo of a combat (my experience of a literary combat scene). Likewise, a well-run fighter's contribution to a combat is often measured over the length of the fight, rather than what he or she does in one round. It's not a coincidence that most examples of how wizards dominate fighters occur on a blank, featureless plain...
One anime will completely fix this for you:
Record of Lodoss War.
Main Character: Parn (fighter)
I love that anime as a wonderful example of what a good campaign arch can look like.
And agreement for the poster above me too.
I think the problem is not with the class itself but with the player who isn't intrigued by the class. If you don't like the idea of a big, strong, dumb(?) fighter, don't play one. There are plenty of other character classes to play. There's no lack of other warrior classes in the game: Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger, even Rogue to an extent.
That said, a creative player will be able to take the fighter template and build a character that interests him. Even though I don't think the game should be all about feats and skills, nor about maximizing your character's power potential--because there are so many interesting things to do and see in a well-run campaign, so many roles to play and possibilities to create, that skills and feats can almost be seen as secondary--I'm fairly certain that anyone who wanted to could mix and match feats, skills, and abilities on a fighter character and cook up something deliciously interesting. As has already been pointed out, a fighter doesn't have to be able to throw explosive fireballs from his fist like some yahoo from Street Fighter to be interesting. Think about your character's personality, loves, hates, motivations, history and background, their goals and aspirations. These are qualities that can be developed in any character, regardless of class and level. I think that often times players get caught up in the mechanics of the game and trying to fit them together in order to create some superhero character. The problem with that, to me, is that a superhero without aspirations or a developed personality is just a collection of numbers and words on a piece of paper. He's lifeless.
Digression over...
One note on Record of Lodoss War that I left out on accident:
Parn doesn't have any special super attacks. He's just a guy with a sword. Same with Ghim, a dwarven fighter in the series.
One thing to keep in mind, there is a certain appeal to having at least one relatively un-complicated class that newbies in the group can feel comfortable playing without having to worry about excessive choices and decisions. Fighters have always been the class we give the younger, new, or temporary player to the group. If we make it just as complicated as every other class then the newb will just feel intimidated. I'm in favor of making the class more interesting, and at higher levels more powerful, but I'd like to see that done in as simple a way as possible, ie, avoid point systems like ki or rage, as well as avoid powers where the player has to make a dozen choices each round.
A good point. I have 5 teenage noobs in my group, playing with their dads for the first time. They tried samurai, and ninjas, etc etc. All of the "cool" stuff. And they led the "league" in player deaths, and didnt have much fun. We reeled them in and handed them some simple, but different fighters they could use until they picked up the nuances of the game. They had a blast, and felt like they were doing something.
And even though it is a good story, that's not precisely what I'm talking about. Even Lodoss war is presenting a fight as a series of amazing weapon strikes and money shots. Compare and contrast that sort of combat with the cinematic combat in Gladiator, or even Lord of the Rings (all right, let's just ignore Legolas for a moment here.) It's as much a limitation of the medium as an artistic choice, really.
Well, I may be forced to admit you have a point. Comics and manga, because of the medium, need to be concerned with the moment, since that's primarily what a still frame can show. Choose the strike with the most impact. And because a large portion of animation (at least, what's based around heroics and adventure) is based on or influenced by sequential art, it bears the mark of going for those essential moments in time, which creates a tendency toward heroes with big, special strikes.
That doesn't preclude the attempt to create solid, steadfast warriors as characters, mind you. A case can be made that Parn and Ghim are cut of this cloth, even if the anime loses that focus after a while. I still think Hellboy has a lot of common with the likes of pulpy stalwart heroes who hit foes dead on and hold the line through sheer dogged refusal to give up. Reminds me, Mike Mignolia did a comic book retelling of some of Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser's stories once. I need to check it out.
I do have to admit, sometimes I want my solid swordsman to pull a impossibly-huge-damn sword-strike, chopping the dragon's head off, but that may be the anime/comic influence in me.
One thing to keep in mind, there is a certain appeal to having at least one relatively un-complicated class that newbies in the group can feel comfortable playing without having to worry about excessive choices and decisions.
The thing about fighters, though, is that as many feats as they get, to be effective, you need to make careful feat choices along the way. In character generation, a fighter is not as "newb" friendly as playing a premade one (unless you want them to hit the Power Attack/Cleave tree every time.) The complication is front-loaded, if you will.
My own prejudices more than anything else, I guess. But I feel like anime and its cousins has a lot more to do with the "money shot" (cool powers/stances/immediate effects), and less about flow and tempo of a combat (my experience of a literary combat scene). Likewise, a well-run fighter's contribution to a combat is often measured over the length of the fight, rather than what he or she does in one round. It's not a coincidence that most examples of how wizards dominate fighters occur on a blank, featureless plain...One anime will completely fix this for you:
Record of Lodoss War.
Main Character: Parn (fighter)
I love that anime as a wonderful example of what a good campaign arch can look like.
And agreement for the poster above me too.
Actually if your gonna quote RoLW, which i can firmly agree with, and was the anime that really got me into wanting to RP, Parn IS the quintessential Fighter, and that has to do with the story being based off of the Author's 1st edition Campaign. I would love to talk with the player of that char. Just something to think about.
Oh and to add, after having read through many of the threads about the PF Fighter, and learning new things as Ive come across them, I concur with giving the Fighter back the ability to move and make multiple attacks in the same round, having played in other systems, loosely using 1st and 2nd ed. combat mechanics, me and my ilk have never seen anything unbalancing by this, even when I upgraded our Arduin game to 3.5 and kept the ability to move and hit consecutively, nothing was out of whack , and the Mages still held their ground pretty tightly, also I would truly like to see that the Figher have a movement-based class ability progression, dont stop at move and hit, give him a bit more movement at higher levels, it only makes sense, since the fighter should be the first one on the scene, charging in and all, but I also agree that the soldier-Fighter would also have an understanding of tactics, probably for another thread, but give the Fighter, knowledge (Tactics) and give the skill some fighter touches, hell give the fighter bonuses to it, or make it Fighter-only class skill, though Fighter should have better than a +3 bonus at higher levels, also with tactics as I've seen with some other versions of the skill, allow it to do various in combat or pre-combat advantages, like ambushing, or improving defense, or offense, based on the ranks, or Fighter levels.
Sorry had somore ideas but half asleep~
|
|
It's not a coincidence that most examples of how wizards dominate fighters occur on a blank, featureless plain...
sorry, but spellcaster ownage is not a hypothetical situation, it is a real problem. It happens in the game i play in, not a blank featureless plain, unless we are just going to ignore input that doesnt say what we want it to say. (you callin' me a liar, friend?:P)
(sidenote to previous poster)The Fighters in Lodoss Wars had Will saves primary
to the guy with 5 newb teens, a experienced player can build an Adept that can wipe the floor with a newbs Warblade. so having teens building poorly put together ninjas and Samurais, get hosed, and then hand them custom build Fighters from a pro, does not make for good evidence of Fighter worth.
I really dont care to push this envelop any further. if Fighters are getting plenty of high level play time then im happy, they are a anchor head for Fantasy RPG, and i wish them the best. I just havent seen a Fighter played in 3 years. (whoops, saw one, and he got murdered in the first AP of RotRL)
I do know that the LARPers out there will tell you that a "real time" combat (calling it "real" is pretentious) has its own tempo, and controlling that flow can be extremely important. How to carry that over to 3.5/Pathfinder, and whether that concept would actually be fun on the tabletop, I have no idea.
As a SCAdian (Society for Creative Anachronism) heavy weapons fighter (wearing leather/metal armor and using blunt versions of weapons made out of rattan and/or other material), the combat is about as real as you can get without serious risk of injury. I will say that 3.x actually came closer to "real" combat than 1st and 2nd Ed.
There's more movement involved in "real" combat than is reflected in 3.x (a "5 ft step" is probably more like 10 ft, broken up in several position shifts), but keeping the game system at a workable level of abstraction instead of a detailed simulation requires some level of simplification. 3.x combat is already fairly complex; introducing a multiple action per round system (i.e., for each "action" choose either to move a fraction of your speed, make a single attack, or perform some other "action"; basically subdividing the current round into smaller initiative chunks), while allowing better simulation, would significantly raise the complexity
Making more than one "significant attack" at the same time you're moving is something I've seen very few people be able to do (i.e., probably a feat; perhaps PFRPG needs an "Improved Spring Attack" that allows more than one attack or an "Improved Cleave" that's a standard action); the mechanics of maintaining balance while swinging more than once at different target points with enough force to actually matter as you're moving (not just shifting position or using footwork), also keeping your own defenses up and wearing/carrying ~30-40 extra pounds, is quite difficult. It's also very difficult to block someone else from moving around you without either being in a formation or jumping in their face and pushing them (i.e., a bull rush maneuver).
I am getting tired of these complaining about the fighter threads. If you don't like fighters, then play something else. The new version of the fighter may not be perfect, but it is not bad, and they are not done yet.
Fighters are getting a whole bunch more Fighter-only feats... they were announced a while back, IIRC.Are you sure? I certainly hope not -- I hate fighter-only feats -- but I wasn't aware that Jason was that keen on them, either.
Yeah they are out already. A few of the nwe feats are for everyone but the vast majority are fighter only.
I am getting tired of these complaining about the fighter threads. If you don't like fighters, then play something else. The new version of the fighter may not be perfect, but it is not bad, and they are not done yet.
Agree. Also, now that there no longer are any cross class skills there is a great way to diversify the fighters: skills.
And if you don't like the "hit you in the head with my sword/axe" class then multiclass or play something else.This "I don't like to play a fighter as a fighter. I want my fighter to be someting else" is getting old.
And this " I don't want to boost the int to 14 so I can have more skill points I just want the fighter to have 4 skills per level" or "I want fighters to have Acrobatics as a class skill cause I don't want to waste a feat io skill focus"
And same thing with Perception and Sense Motive "cause I don't want to pick skill focus as a feat. "I'm saving all my feats so I can pick all the 'hit you on the head' feats".
Light armor, High dex, weapon finess, Two-Weapon Fighting, skill focus Acrobatics and a high charisma (12 - 14) and use magic device. Give it a try.
:-)
/Zark
|
I am getting tired of these complaining about the fighter threads. If you don't like fighters, then play something else.
Unless I'm mistaken, this is a design discussion in a playtest/design focus forum. So 'if you think it's lame, play something else' isn't really a terribly helpful design approach but is, rather, advice as to how players might deal with the results of the design if they don't like it. Statements about why it might or might not be fun to play a particular class are entirely appropriate and hopefully useful in a design discussion, but I don't see how "play something else" in response can hope to clear either bar.
That's true and I agree, but if you read through the beginning of this thread, I see nothing constructive, just debate(mostly civil actually) about why fighters need more or need less. Not too much design going on there. Look at the title of the thread, what kind of dialogue is that going to inspire? I usually don't post in these kinds of threads, but I guess I just felt a little exasperated that the old stuff is being rehashed...again.
It's also very difficult to block someone else from moving around you without either being in a formation or jumping in...Physically block, yes - but in my experience, an opponent will move around you very slowly and warily. They don't want to expose thier backs to you and get walloped in the process. Opportunity attacks are definitely real.
Usually, they run past just outside of your reach. When that's not feasible, it's still a common tactic to perform a shield rush (D&D bull rush) or accept that attack to get at someone behind you (i.e., if you're a sword and shield in front of a polearm), when the person behind you is more dangerous if not taken out quickly. In combat, doing something (other than hiding or sneaking) "very slowly and warily" usually means you either don't do anything significant (i.e., waste actions) or end up dead quickly when someone who doesn't do things "very slowly and warily" jumps in your face and pounds you. What happens before combat starts is another matter.
Do you want an example of a FIGHTER (case-sensitive is intentional) in modern Manga?
Guts (or Gatsu, if you transliterate from Japanese) from BERSERK (by Kentaro Miura).
Maybe some levels of Barbarian, but indeed a straight Fighter.
He uses might (a swing with a Fullblade with one arm AND THE TEETH) - he can easily crush stone pillars with his Dragon Slayer !!! -, but he uses clever strategies, too (see the duel with the Kushan armed with Urmins, if you know the Manga).
And he is the ONLY character of the whole saga that do not want to use magic (of course, since his Dragon Slayer killed so much Apostles, it has become able to hurt even magical creatures, and recently he has gotten the Berserker Armor that makes him a REAL Berserk, often unable to distinguish friends from foes, but totally insensible to pain and fatigue - until the fight ends, and then he is often beaten like a pulp, but victorious).
Now, that's a LYRIC character and a remarkable Fighter.
Of course, the Manga itself is really crude and violent, and most teenagers could not read it. But for adult people, it's worth to see how a Manga can depict a Fighter which is different from the 'classical' Hadouken-type warrior (like Crono from Chrono Trigger saga).
|
|
That's true and I agree, but if you read through the beginning of this thread, I see nothing constructive, just debate(mostly civil actually) about why fighters need more or need less. Not too much design going on there. Look at the title of the thread, what kind of dialogue is that going to inspire? I usually don't post in these kinds of threads, but I guess I just felt a little exasperated that the old stuff is being rehashed...again.
The context is pretty clear, it seems to me, and it is about what should be done for fighters at the design level. But it's clearly also related to an almost-endless debate in 3.x forums across the internet, about whether fighters blow or not so that it might look a little like them (and for obvious reasons, too).
|
|
Usually, they run past just outside of your reach. When that's not feasible, it's still a common tactic to perform a shield rush (D&D bull rush) or accept that attack to get at someone behind you (i.e., if you're a sword and shield in front of a polearm), when the person behind you is more dangerous if not taken out quickly. In combat, doing something (other than hiding or sneaking) "very slowly and warily" usually means you either don't do anything significant (i.e., waste actions) or end up dead quickly when someone who doesn't do things "very slowly and warily" jumps in your face and pounds you. What happens before combat starts is another matter.
Not to mention that they can often just afford, at higher levels where hp are larger and scale faster than single attack damage tends to, to soak the odd AoO to get at other threats (casters, for example), if they're intelligent creatures/opponents.
That's true and I agree, but if you read through the beginning of this thread, I see nothing constructive, just debate(mostly civil actually) about why fighters need more or need less. Not too much design going on there. Look at the title of the thread, what kind of dialogue is that going to inspire? I usually don't post in these kinds of threads, but I guess I just felt a little exasperated that the old stuff is being rehashed...again.The context is pretty clear, it seems to me, and it is about what should be done for fighters at the design level. But it's clearly also related to an almost-endless debate in 3.x forums across the internet, about whether fighters blow or not so that it might look a little like them (and for obvious reasons, too).
Well first. The name of the thread is not ..still weak, it's...still boring. But yes U have a point but so does Blope.
I have a feeling - correct me if I'm wrong - this fighter thread (and many others) is not really about fighters 'not being fun'.
It's about fighters not being powerful enough.
Full attack action as a standard action - does this make the fighter more fun or just more powerful?
I do think fighters (and other classes like the bard) should have more ways to diversify without multiclassing, but most suggestions are not focused on "more fun" or "diversify" they are focused either on: "More powerful" or just on "I want it all".
A lot of people just want fighers to be more powerful (perhaps they should be). But, for example, adding more skill points per level what is it really all about? "only 2 skils ponits per level"!
Well these people don't want to:
- Play human ...and/or
- pick your favored class extra skill point per level - the want an extra HP per level..and/or
- boost int to 14, they just want 13 so they can boost str, dex or con.
This is only an exampel. But this "more skill points per level" is not about making the fighter more fun, it's all about "I want to maximize my charecter and sacrifice nothing. I want it all".
And same thin class skills. "I want that skill as a class skill and I want this skill as a class skill" Pick skill focus. But people don't want to waste a single feat on anything else than combat feats (exept Iron will).
So ..still boring. Well let's talk fun. What's fun? More damage?
/Zark
|
What's fun is not sitting back watching the wizard wreck shop while you sit around with your thumb up your nether region.
High level fighters are like earrings, they look nice, but they don't really do anything. (well, unless your DM is nice enough to provide a foe that just stands there...)
No mobility = meh.
There is also the point that the bow was invented for a reason... long ranged combat. A fighter that doesn't have a bow is like a wizard without spell components and a spellbook. If the person is developed for melee only what was he thinking?
What's fun is not sitting back watching the wizard wreck shop while you sit around with your thumb up your nether region.
High level fighters are like earrings, they look nice, but they don't really do anything. (well, unless your DM is nice enough to provide a foe that just stands there...)
No mobility = meh.
So damage = fun.
So fighters are only good if a foe "just stands there"?
Here's some options/tip-offs:
1) As Matthew Hooper pointed out. - Mounted combat
2) As Abraham spalding pointed out. Archery. (it's really awsome with deadly aim and all the archer feats)
3) Teamwork
4) tactics / plan ahead
5) check out the new feats
Sometimes the stuff in threads like this sounds a bit like:
"I don't like options cause I don't want to hurt my brain, I just want to hack away with my big axe".
Same thing: Well fighter suck when monsters fly (ever heard of fly?)
etc. etc.
Well, This is not solo play like Diablo is it? It's a team thing. I don't want this game to turn out to be a computergame like Diablo
And again: so fun = damage.
Is that all there is?
actually currently out of all the archery feats Multi shot is a trap. An extra d8 damage and I spent a feat for this? No thank you, I'll take something else.
actually currently out of all the archery feats Multi shot is a trap. An extra d8 damage and I spent a feat for this? No thank you, I'll take something else.
No it's not. Check out the rules again Abe :-)
All attack bonus apply normaly.
Most damage bonuses still apply: Deadly aim, Weapon Specialization, Weapon traing, str bonus to damage (when using a mighty bow), most magic bonus including: holy, flaming (but noy flaming burst damage), etc.
Only precision-based damage (such as sneak attack) and critical hit damage are applied only once on the first attack (the attack when you use two arrows on the bow)
All other attack work as normal.
:-)
Fighter archers are deadly. More deadly than rangers ever can be.
See to it your fighter:
- have a boots of speed (or Winged Boots)
- max out UMD (and/or skill focus UMD) and let the party have two wands of see invisibility (and 2 wands of Longstrider, etc).
vicious :-)
[...]
No mobility = meh.
So fighters can not use a full attack as a standard attack in melee.
let's se now. are there any other classes this applies to, hmm....Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger (TWF), Rogue, Monk.
Is this a fighter problem or a melee problem?
And the monsters who move around have the same problem.
[...]
To give the fighter some "tactical movement" class features/feats would first have to give the fighter back his movement in battle at all.
But I could see the arguement for those kinds of abilities, but technically they all alreay exist as things anyone can do, all the fighter needs is movement to do them.The fighter can do all sorts of things once he can move and still fight, thats the fundamental nerf. [...]
Something like this?
Fast and furiousPrerequisite: Dex 13, BAB +6
Benefit: As a standard action, you may attack two times at a single
opponent Both attacks use the same attack roll (with
a –4 penalty) to determine success and deal damage normally (but
see Special).
For every five points of base attack bonus you have above +6, you
may add one additional attack to a maximum of four
attacks at a base attack bonus of +16. However, each attack after the
second adds a cumulative –2 penalty on the attack roll (for a total
penalty of –6 for three attacks and –8 for four).
Damage reduction and other resistances apply separately against
each attack.
Special: Regardless of the number of attacks you fire, you apply
precision-based damage (such as sneak attack damage) only once. If
you score a critical hit, only the first attack deals critical
damage; all others deal regular damage.
A fighter may select Manyshot as a combat feat.
And one more time: movement + melee is also a problem for other melee classes (and some monsters) So stop taunting Paladin lovers.
This is even a bigger problem to Barbarians, Paladins and rogues.
You may build yor Fighter as an archers and melee charecter. But Barbarians (and Paladins and Rogues) are all about melee.
[...] Fast and furious
Prerequisite: Dex 13, BAB +6 [...]
Sorry it should be....
Fast and furious (Combat)
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Dodge, Mobility, base attack bonus +6.
[...] Fast and furious
Prerequisite: Dex 13, BAB +6 [...]
Sorry it should be....
Fast and furious (Combat)
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Dodge, Mobility, base attack bonus +6.
But if i get fast and furious, will get a whale tail and a cool green led glow to my armor to make me look more rad, too?
I might have to shave my head and rename my fighter Diesel, too.
What's fun is not sitting back watching the wizard wreck shop while you sit around with your thumb up your nether region.
High level fighters are like earrings, they look nice, but they don't really do anything. (well, unless your DM is nice enough to provide a foe that just stands there...)
No mobility = meh.
So damage = fun.
So fighters are only good if a foe "just stands there"?
Here's some options/tip-offs:
1) As Matthew Hooper pointed out. - Mounted combat
2) As Abraham spalding pointed out. Archery. (it's really awsome with deadly aim and all the archer feats)
3) Teamwork
4) tactics / plan ahead
5) check out the new featsSometimes the stuff in threads like this sounds a bit like:
"I don't like options cause I don't want to hurt my brain, I just want to hack away with my big axe".
Same thing: Well fighter suck when monsters fly (ever heard of fly?)
etc. etc.
Well, This is not solo play like Diablo is it? It's a team thing. I don't want this game to turn out to be a computergame like Diablo
And again: so fun = damage.
Is that all there is?
Zark makes a good point here: (as do others) I think alot of the spellcasters rock and fighters suck has to do abit with meta gaming.
Comments like "smart opponents can run right by a figher and take that AoO to get to the squishies behind him because they are more dangerous"
What "smart" creature is going to allow a free run by shot from a sharp pointy thing? Last time I checked, SWORDs Hurt!
Now you might get a GOLEM to do that or even convince an OGRE that thats a good battle plan "Ok mr ogre just ignore the crunchies in the front, barrelt rhough all those sharpy things and get the little pink aquishy meany guy in the back and ill give you a cookie" Cookie? RAAAARRR!!! *Ogre rushes in and thinks about getting stuck in the kneecap...just about the time it actually happens.
"cookie not worth ouchie!"
I dont think "smart opponents" look at a sword an say " I can take it"
Now given that analogy if you were holding me at sword point against a cliff, or walking the plank on a pirate ship, I might say All I ineed to do is bum rush this guy and I think I can take him in a wrestling match? Yea I'll take a sword stroke, but its better than being afloat at see or dying off this cliff? THEN a smart person might say "I can stake a sword stroke"
But smart opponents dont check their wallet first to see how many hit points they have left.
Here's something that occured to me. I've been reminiscing about my 91st level fighter of 1e fame.
Trying to figure out what was cool about him at 91st level and what was the point of continuing to play him (im still not sure), other than the whopping 3 extra HPs he got per level.
In 1e the fighter got 1 attack PER level against squishies like orcs, goblins and the like.
Technically speaking by game rules that was 91 attacks a minute? Ginsu!!! AND he was likely to kill them all becaue he had -10 AC they had what ac 8? maybe 6? ( I needed to roll a 2) and their Hps were 8 or under.
He didnt even need an army! just attack countries by himself!
Obviously those rules didnt scale right.
What about this however, for the purposes of the fighter "getting in the attacks he should be able to" with out making him the energizer bunny, what about giving him Attacks of opporunity that scale with his level, like one extra every 3 levels?
think about it.
9th level fighter, moves into position (only allowed the one attack) but if anything moved to him, by him or around him, he'd get his one normal AoO, and two more. This would keep people from just walking by him, and would also make him more dangerous if he himself moved into a formation of enemies himself.
maybe one every three levels is too much, because at 20th level hed have 7 AoOs and like what 5 normal attacks?
There could be situations where he got in 12 strikes in 6 seconds?
Maybe thats not out of the question under the right circumstances, but it would take 30 minutes in real time to finish his turn!
But maybe instead of dishing out free normal attacks with movment, the AoO could be boosted. of course this is likely what jason is doing with added feats.
Anyway, so far with my 5th level fighter, and the group I play with I havent seen this ability to be out manuvered with people running around me.
We'll see what happens by 11th.
I dont have a wizard in the group (we have a sorceror) and our cleric is one level lower than me, and no druid. So I might not see the being over shadowed by spellcasters in this group at all.
The rogue/ranger is 3 levels higher than me, but she keeps forgetting to flank for sneak attacks, just keeps trying to play a fighter, and Ive already passed her easily in doing that.