Kick back, get something to drink, this gonna be a long one.
Right now there are several threads on these boards that feel the fighter is in terrible shape compared to the rest of the classes, there one that even states that the fighter will be banned in their campaign. I have heard that they do not have striking power, the AC is too low, they don't have enough class-only "stuff", etc etc. The point I will try to make today is that none of this true, and with some creativity, and some tactical acumen, the fighter is better than ever. So , lets look:
PF gives us some new things for our fighters, bonus feats, bravery, armor training, weapon training, armor mastery, weapon mastery. I want to look at each of these starting with the higher-level abilities. I don't want to focus on the Mastery abilities too much, as the focus here is the low to mid-level fighter.
Armor/Weapon Master
These require some planning, mostly because if you don't think you will reach 19 or 20 in your campaign, then they won't help you much. But if you do, the potential is certainly impressive. while the DR 5/- isnt much at 19th level, the increased crit ability certainly is, especially if you have building your crit potential up, leading to this point.
Bravery
If you think a bonus to one of your worst saves isnt worth it, then you havent been hit by enough fear spells. A fighter can fail a reflex save and still do his job, after all, you have plenty of hp. But a fighter running in fear isnt helping anyone.
Armor Training
Free AC! Just for being you...not to mention reducing penalties to swim, climb, jump etc. Offsets the lack of skill points to some extent, as it doesnt require as many points to get past that armor anchor you are wearing. Add in increased Dex bonus, and that AC starts to climb.
Weapon Training
Free attack and damage! By 9th level, you are a +2 with one set, and a +1 with another set of weapons. Here I will make a point that is a recurring theme for this post: NO BONUS HAPPENS IN A VACUUM!! Too many people look at this +2 and say, "at 9th level, so what?" Think friends: +2 weapon training, +2 weapon, weapon focus, weapon specialization, +9/+4 BAB; you are +14/+9 to hit with +6 to damage and Ive added no stat bonus and just 2 simple feats. Which brings me to the best part: Feats <contd>
So now lets talk about what makes the fighter, the fighter. Feats. I read on these boards a statement that fighters dont get class specific items. Ive already stated what they DO get thats different, and would argue that the volume of feats is their greatest asset. Some people have argued that this isnt really an advantage, because the feats arent fighter only. I dont agree with this, if for no other reason that you cant take away from the other melee classes just to "make the fighter better." In the end, weapon specialization (and the greater version), along with greater weapon focus, are more than enough.
Fighters get a feat at EVERY level. This allows you to create some truly unique fighters. If you believe that the sword-and-board fighter is boring, its your fault for making one. I have prototyped (in my game group, I dont claim these ideas are original) several fighter types that move away from the "classic" fighter. **these were done in 3.5, the Beta makes them even more viable**
Archer: high Dex, decent Str, load up on missile weapon feats, and create a table on the back of your sheet for your bonuses, because you will need it. Rapid shot, many shot, precise shot, point blank shot, deadly aim, pinpoint, etc. Improved crit, power crit make you even more nasty from range, should those make it to PF (and in my campaign, they have).
Shield Wall: dwarf with high Str, tower shield, defender weapon, shield specialization, PHII feats like active shield defense, and shield ward. Add improved bull rush and improved overrun to help move the pack forward, and you've got it.
There are others. Spiked chain/flail tripper, spear wielder, 2-hand wielder, etc. All of which have been a blast to play. Your choice of feats is your strength as a fighter, you can create any type you can imagine if you just add a little creativity to your thought process.
I have 2 players who swear by their fighters, they've played fighters in the last 3 campaigns, and are easily the nastiest fighters Ive seen. There isnt a single player in my group who would want to hit the bad guys without them.
I completely agree with you, fighters are outstanding in that they are a blank template class, allowing a skilled player to plan out and make a wonderful physical character to augment the group.
The group that I am currently running consists of a Cleric3/Rogue2, Rogue5, Fighter5, Sorcerer5, and Barbarian5. They beat the hell out of my campaign dungeons, encounters, and roleplay situations. The Barbarian is obviously the melee fighter, but my fighter player is fully specializing in ranged combat, and the two of them together make for a devastating combination. I remember the ranger fighter player destroyed my advanced CR5 gelatenous cube at level 4 with a rapidshoted deadly aimed +5/+5 1d8+11 longbow strike and slew it at the top of the first initiative round a game ago. No ranger could accomplish that at level 4. Fighters ftw.
I completely agree with you, fighters are outstanding in that they are a blank template class, allowing a skilled player to plan out and make a wonderful physical character to augment the group.
The group that I am currently running consists of a Cleric3/Rogue2, Rogue5, Fighter5, Sorcerer5, and Barbarian5. They beat the hell out of my campaign dungeons, encounters, and roleplay situations. The Barbarian is obviously the melee fighter, but my fighter player is fully specializing in ranged combat, and the two of them together make for a devastating combination. I remember the ranger fighter player destroyed my advanced CR5 gelatenous cube at level 4 with a rapidshoted deadly aimed +5/+5 1d8+11 longbow strike and slew it at the top of the first initiative round a game ago. No ranger could accomplish that at level 4. Fighters ftw.
I wasnt joking about the table either Deathcon. That ranged fighter will have his regular attack mods, rapid shot mods, manyshot mods, all with and without pointblank/weapon focus. Add in the multiple attacks at lvl 6, magic weapons, deadly aim, precise shot, etc, the archer (fighter) needs a damn excel spreadsheet to roll attacks. One of my players had one too, even colored coded the columns to match his dice colors so he knew what mods applied to which die. He loved it.
|
Fighters are fine archers (cant see the enemy coming and cant sneak up close for a good shot, but at least dont have to move for a full attack, sorry melee Fighter) buuuuuuut archer is about it. fighter is still a duct tape class (take some levels so you can get into a prestige class in time) Rogues can be about as good archers at low levels (thanks rogue talents!)
Fighters are as good as the feats they have access to, until there are significant higher level FIGHTER-ONLY feats, they will still be blah. (Oh Fighter only SCALABLE feats would be even better!)
Armor and weapon master are definitely nice, but they are still not enough. Barbarian now has "bonus feats" in the form of Rage powers. so a bit of a trade of was made between the Barbarian and the Fighter, but I think that the Fighter made of as the poorer.
I don't trash talk Fighters to my new group, yet they still navigate around the Fighter. feats are more plentiful and not worth other class abilities ( let me take uncanny dodge as a feats and we will talk)
I don't think its a myth, i got the proverbial Sasquatch sitting right next to me.
Fighters are fine archers (cant see the enemy coming and cant sneak up close for a good shot, but at least dont have to move for a full attack, sorry melee Fighter) buuuuuuut archer is about it.
Disagree completely Sneaksy. The Dwarf Shield Wall was so good, I never even considered a dwarven defender PrC. Two players of mine ran 2 fighters that worked in tandem. One was the Shield Wall, the other was a Minotaur Spiked-Chain Tripper. Very nasty.
Take the time to look at the archer fighter, and you'll find the archer rogue doesnt even come close, he just doesnt have the feat selection to keep up. And before you mention all of the sneak attack damage, the fighter can dish his from 120' on out as needed. No need to to get within 30', or flank, or catch them flat-footed, to add handfuls of damage dice.
We can agree to disagree. My point of this thread was to get people out of the MMORPG ruts for characters that we tend to fall into. "Fighters are tanks, clerics heal, wizards nuke, blah, blah, blah." The game provides plenty of options, all we need to do is open our minds to the possibilities.
Fighters are as good as the feats they have access to, until there are significant higher level FIGHTER-ONLY feats, they will still be blah. (Oh Fighter only SCALABLE feats would be even better!)
Fighters have access to feats others dont classes by way of sheer volume. Other classes have to pick carefully, as they won't get many feats. The fighter has no such limitations.
Armor and weapon master are definitely nice, but they are still not enough.
Again, we have a tendency to jump to the end game, a MMORPG fallacy. The masteries dont even come into effect until 19 and 20. There is FAR more mileage out of armor and weapon training throughout the fighter's career.
I don't trash talk Fighters to my new group, yet they still navigate around the Fighter.
People avoid fighters for the same reason they avoid cleric healbots, they want to do something other than "tank". Open the mind!
I think people are wanting way too much, the Fighter has so much to work with right now. I made a theoretical level 20 fighter last night that could do 140 damage reliably at level 20 with a single blow with a +31 to hit modifier. +5 Adamantine Scythe w/weapon mastery giving it a x5 critical, average weapon damage 4-5 (1+8/2), weapon spec damage +4, weapon training damage +4, magical damage +5, 24 STR two-handed bonus 10, utilizing the Devastating Blow feat means: 28 damagex5 = 140. I wasn't sure if a player could use the Overhand Chop feat along with the Devastating Blow Feat, if they could the damage would be even higher. The fighter would be hitting at a +31, which would reliably hit even a great wyrm gold dragon 50% of the time. I also gave him the great cleave tree, then used the rest of the feats to boost his defenses and skills, making him a better Survivor than a Ranger, a better Sneaker than the Rogue, more Intimidating yet more Diplomatic than the Paladin, along with his dazzling display tree, he has a lot of great options for single and multi opponent combat, as well as "in the world" abilities and skills. And this is just the unarmored/itemed build for the fighter. All I gave him was a weapon to use.
To address this "myth":
1. No one denies that the fighter is a superior class at low levels. Giving examples of them rocking at 4th level reinforces what is already well-established.
2. The fighter begins to lag at 11th+, because spell effects scale exponentially with level, whereas more feats are just more feats: like having unlimited cantrips, and more of them. The 20th level capstone is great, but doesn't address levels 12-19.
3. Examples of how hard they can hit neglect the issues in actual play: specifically, how seldomly they get a chance to just stand there and swing, barring DM coddling.
I'm hoping no one will take my word for this, nor assume I'm full of nonesense right off the bat, either. Instead, I present a reasonable test. Rather than creating example 20th level fighters and assuming they appear out of nowhere, full-attacking a dragon (why isn't it flying, breathing, and casting spells?), or citing low-level experiences, try running an actual fighter, in a normal party, through a Paizo AP (Shackled City, Age of Worms, or Savage Tide do nicely). If the DM plays intelligent monsters intelligently, keep track of how much the fighter actually contributes from levels 12-19, in actual play, vs. the cleric or wizard or druid.
To address this "myth":
I'm hoping no one will take my word for this, nor assume I'm full of nonesense right off the bat, either. Instead, I present a reasonable test. Rather than creating example 20th level fighters and assuming they appear out of nowhere, full-attacking a dragon (why isn't it flying, breathing, and casting spells?), or citing low-level experiences, try running an actual fighter, in a normal party, through a Paizo AP (Shackled City, Age of Worms, or Savage Tide do nicely). If the DM plays intelligent monsters intelligently, keep track of how much the fighter actually contributes from levels 12-19, in actual play, vs. the cleric or wizard or druid.
Done, done, and done. I ran the Shackled City Campaign. 3 fighters "survived" from 1st thru 19th. The aforementioned dwarf/mino tandem, and an elven fighter slinging a greatsword. No one, and I mean no one, in our group would have substituted their "contribution" for another cleric, wizard, or druid. Good post Kirth.
And by the way, intelligent monsters, played intelligently, dont stand around waiting to be nuked, either.
I have to agree with the OP 100%. The player, who plays a fighter in my campaign (we're playing through Rise of the Runelords) is having a blast- mostly because he can build the kind of fighter he wants to! Feats every level is no mean thing, but you have to do a lot of reading (to know which feats to take in order to get just that special fighter you want). IMO the fighter is far from boring (though that's absolutely subjective...), but you need to be creative!
GRU
I have to agree with the OP 100%. The player, who plays a fighter in my campaign (we're playing through Rise of the Runelords) is having a blast- mostly because he can build the kind of fighter he wants to! Feats every level is no mean thing, but you have to do a lot of reading (to know which feats to take in order to get just that special fighter you want). IMO the fighter is far from boring (though that's absolutely subjective...), but you need to be creative!
GRU
We are running Second Darkness (with d0 d1 d1.5 and d4 mixed in.) The sword and board fighter squahses stuff and is having bunches of fun, he eclipses other characters in any confrontation. It is going to be a bit before we get him to 11th. ( to see if he starts sucking wind)
Although Ive heard/noticed how power attack was nerfed has anyone noticed how much better cleave/great cleave are, in comparison?Our cleric of calistria, however has been lacking (they actually had to leave the entire d1.5 module when they cleric got eaten by a worg in the woods, they didnt even make it through the random woods encounters.)
They ended up in riddleport where they found a temple of calistria, but they only had enough money for the priestess to cast the raise dead spell and not enough for the component.
Fortunately (i made this up) the priestess had a stake int he gold goblin, and they were ableto pay off their debt by working there, which started the first module of second darkness (where the cleric actually took out the big baddie at the end single handledly!! well err the rogue an the fighter did get hits on it until it retreated, but we like to say the cleric took it out,makes him feel better)
Any way, being a cleric of calistria (REVENGE) Now he's leveld to 4th and wants to go back to falcons hollow!!
Good fun.
Done, done, and done. I ran the Shackled City Campaign. 3 fighters "survived" from 1st thru 19th. The aforementioned dwarf/mino tandem, and an elven fighter slinging a greatsword. No one, and I mean no one, in our group would have substituted their "contribution" for another cleric, wizard, or druid. Good post Kirth.
Awesome! THAT'S the kind of feedback that's valuable! I've run Age of Worms and Savage Tide, and had the following experiences:
To address this "myth":
2. The fighter begins to lag at 11th+, because spell effects scale exponentially with level, whereas more feats are just more feats: like having unlimited cantrips, and more of them. The 20th level capstone is great, but doesn't address levels 12-19.
This I don't quite get. 11th level is great for fighters - 3rd attack, Backswing improves, Devastating Blow available, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, Vital Strike, etc. 12th level Greater Weapon Spec adds another chunk of damage. Another Armor training at 11th, a Weapon training at 13th. At 10th Dodge might have increased to +2 AC. Somewhere around 14th Critical Mastery is available from the new feats to start stacking on the critical effects. All these things just stacking on top of eachother.
3. Examples of how hard they can hit neglect the issues in actual play: specifically, how seldomly they get a chance to just stand there and swing, barring DM coddling...
Rather than creating example 20th level fighters and assuming they appear out of nowhere, full-attacking a dragon (why isn't it flying, breathing, and casting spells?)
While his example was a "20th level fighter out of nowhere", it was not full-attacking - Devastating Blow is a Standard action. A fighter of that level almost always has Winged Boots or Wings of Flying or something else for that. Breath Weapon? Great Wyrm Red Dragon only does about 100 points to a 20th level Fighter given 30 Fire resist and failed save. The fighter does more back.
I don't quite get how Power Attack can be called 'nerfed' in the same breath as deriding it for causing too many misses, while simultaneously ignoring huge bonuses to hit *and* damage adding up.
I'm slightly getting worked up and should quit, but it seems as if the argument has progressed from "fighters suck" --> "high level fighters suck" --> "Fighters suck between 12th and 19th level, at least in my experience playing 3.5". Fighters are tough as nails, before and especially now. Between 12th and 19th level is when they can start burning wealth to provide whatever other bonuses/abilities they need to perfect their art, be it a dex item to take full advantage of Armor Training, or flight, or a wickedly powerful weapon.
I don't get it.
"Fighters suck between 12th and 19th level, at least in my experience playing 3.5"
Daggone forum ate my post. Saved, but won't retrieve! Anyway, the above is all I ever claimed. Everyone knows they're good at low levels. When asked what problematic levels were, I specified what they were in my experience.
My biggest issues are with the following:
1. Lack of ability to adequately guard friends (monsters can go around or over easily, especially now that it's so hard to trip or grapple them -- square-based grids mean the old "I get in front of the monster and block it!" doesn't work, according to the rules);
2. Lack of ability to disrupt enemy spellcasting (casting defensively is too easy, and readying attacks fails if the caster just steps away first); and
3. Summon monster, gate, et al. bring in much better meleers than fighters, at no great cost the caster. The gate spell is particularly problematic in this regard (see the Wormfood article on gated allies for AoW; if I were a fighter, I wouldn't want to engage in hazardous combat when a much better combatant is easily available at all times).
I know it's easy to get worked up -- this is a major point of 3.X game design -- so please understand that I'm in no way saying this stuff just be annoying; nor am I the only person who has noticed it (although many others have been banned due to congenital inability to express themseleves as politely as you do, and as I hopefully manage).
1. The fighter has to improvise. Back his wizard friend into a corner or somewhere with cover on the back and sides if possible. Take the feat that allows his to get multiple attacks of opportunity and then let the on rushing bad guys run past him. after he hits all the ones that run by and then kills the last one and has the feat that allows you to cleave through an opponent to hit the next one in line. Then before you know it the fighter has killed every enemy in the first round on one turn before the wizard even gets to blink. (This actually happened once and it stunned everyone) Sorry about the rant their, but you get my drift, with alittle thought and some feats, the fighter can easily defend and protect the sissy spellcaster everytime.
2. Disrupting a spellcasters concentration isn't the fault of the fighter, it's the fact that it's just too easy for a wizard to keep his focus. I say make the check for a wizard to maintain his spell more difficult. House rule on my end isn't 15+spell level, it's 15+damage dealt. That makes it fair, atleast to me anyway.
3. Who's going to keep the wizard alive longer? The best friend fighter that has multiple feats to deal with almost any situation and will fight to the death to try and keep his wizard friend of many years and more adventures alive, or the demon you just summoned and enslaved and are now forcing to defend your life at the risk of it's own with no gain.
Hmmm?
The point must be made, also, that if the Fighter seems underpowered, or if he doesn't seem to be contributing, then the GM is "doing it wrong". A GM should tailor the game to the needs and abilities of the player to roleplay and the character to act.
One could just as easily run a game where the fighter was the absolute lynchpin and wizards were a useless class to play, as one in which fighters seem underpowered.
|
The point must be made, also, that if the Fighter seems underpowered, or if he doesn't seem to be contributing, then the GM is "doing it wrong". A GM should tailor the game to the needs and abilities of the player to roleplay and the character to act.
Ok, so by "doing it wrong" you mean playing RAW. Just so we understand each other. You do realize this is a playtest, right? The GM section of the book can have all the guidelines for coddling players and tailoring encounters to give the poor fighter something to do at 18th level.
But that isn't the point. 3x took something away from the fighter (several things, actually) that they had in earlier editions. Some of us have actually PLAYTESTED high level fighters and found them lacking (and, frankly, have for the entire 3x era). Some of us do not want to have to "nerf" the wizard, or put certain monsters on the shelf because they don't play well with fighters.
One could just as easily run a game where the fighter was the absolute lynchpin and wizards were a useless class to play, as one in which fighters seem underpowered.
And that game wouldn't be D&D/Pathfinder. It isn't how the game is set up. I can't imagine how harsh the houserules would have to be to make wizards irrelevant...
I can't imagine how harsh the houserules would have to be to make wizards irrelevant...
It has nothing to do with houserules. It's all about how the DM sets up the game. It's actually very easy to make any of the classes irrelevant and often times many people do usually because the DM doesnt like that class so he makes it suck for that class. Or the player of that class is just playing that class because of PLAYTESTING and gets bored because they wanted to play something else and give up on the fighter before it had a chance.
I've played many years, editions, classes and settings, and had a blast with all of it. No one class is really better than any other unless the player makes it that way.|
|
You know, whenever y'all say anything, it is usually to tell someone they're "doing it wrong". Just out of curiosity, who made you the arbiter of "correct" play styles?
Rules as written, fighters do have deficiencies at high levels. Some of these may be addressed by new feats, but feats do not take into account the basic paradigm shift of the round structure from AD&D/AD&D2e to 3x. (Nor does it take into account several other fundamental changes, but enough typing has been done on that topic in these forums. Dig through the archives and enjoy...). Until that shift has been accounted for (through feats, class features, changes in disruption DCs and "casting defensively" - CD should REQUIRE the Combat Casting feat as far as I'm concerned, give wizards more feat tax....). You can argue "roleplaying" all you want, "roleplaying" doesn't change math. Considering that D&D was, is and always will be(more likely than not) based on mechanics introduced through tabletop wargaming, with "roleplaying" as an overlay, the math does have importance, whether your "superior playing style" group likes it or not.
I play a "sandbox" type game, informed by the pulp and classic fantasy lit that informed Gygax when he wrote D&D. There is nothing wrong with groups who want to emphasize the roleplaying aspects of the game, but, considering that a vast majority of the rules in the game govern actions and consequences in COMBAT, it is important that those rules allow all classes to be relevant throughout the life of a campaign. Not "equal", not "balanced" (I hate those two words), but relevant.
Considering the types of opponents that high level parties typically face, the poor fighter isn't particularly "relevant" as things stand...
|
|
I have a question that I'm sure can be answered by you guys.
Make an 11th level sword and board fighter, and an 11th level rogue.
Given that they should be about the same magic gear wise, and stat wise (outside of the fighter's primary being Str and the rogue's being Dex), what would they look like attacking a foe (on either side as a flanking manuver).
What would be their AC? HP? Totals to hit and damage?
Please use Pathfinder only for this, I don't want to see other stuff folded in.
Thank you.
Funny, I just did exactly this (a fighter/11 for myself, and a rogue/11 for the gf) for an upcoming (Sunday after next) playtest session using a Pathfinder module. I'll post the relevant stats for each when I get home.
Well, one difference, no "sword and board". Uses a Greataxe...
You know, whenever y'all say anything, it is usually to tell someone they're "doing it wrong". Just out of curiosity, who made you the arbiter of "correct" play styles?
Which is, of course, exactly what you are doing here. This thread began as a call to open the collective imagination about the fighter class. You have in this thread (and others that Ive read), made to sure to remind us that we are wrong for ignoring the "math" regarding the high-level fighter. Aside from the fact that your math may or may not be statistically valid, myself and others are making the point that the fighter doesnt NEED to be boring or irrelevant. It is - and should be - entirely up to the GM to involve all of his players in a relevant fashion. (If you need help on this, let me know.)
Considering the types of opponents that high level parties typically face, the poor fighter isn't particularly "relevant" as things stand...
And what types are these? Please point out to me a case where the fighter wont be relevant, given a GM who takes the time to ensure ALL of his players are engaged in a meaningful fashion. If you cant cite me a case that applies to ALL of the campaigns people out there run (which you cant, no one can), then any opinion on the fighter is just that, an opinion. Like the one I gave when I started this thread. Please dont unload the "Ive playtested everything since the dawn of games" rant on me either. Been there, done that, and I dont need 1000 posts to prove it.
Last thoughts on this, and last post on this thread for me: Any character is playable at any level, and dont let any of the "experts" out there tell you otherwise. If I had a nickel for everyone who told me a class was broken, then gave one away for everyone who told me that same class should be nerfed, Id have...nothing. Do the math.
You can argue "roleplaying" all you want, "roleplaying" doesn't change math. Considering that D&D was, is and always will be(more likely than not) based on mechanics introduced through tabletop wargaming, with "roleplaying" as an overlay, the math does have importance, whether your "superior playing style" group likes it or not.
Hogwash. Math is irrelevant. In my group, if a player describes something sufficiently well, they do not have to roll, they simple succeed.
D&D is whatever I decide it is when I sit down at the table. It is primarly a roleplaying game, it happens to have some mechanics and rules, that we can use, or toss aside if we feel like. By the way, nobody except you has used the phrase "Superior Playing Style".
If I want to play a fantasy game that was purely mechanics, stats, and numbers, I will go play Final Fantasy Tactics on my gameboy, which does this flawlessly and without the encumbrance of human error. I do not sit down at a table with other human beings and play a roleplaying game in order to *crunch numbers*
Mechanics serve roleplaying and fun, or they should be thrown out with the rest of the garbage.
|
|
You can argue "roleplaying" all you want, "roleplaying" doesn't change math. Considering that D&D was, is and always will be(more likely than not) based on mechanics introduced through tabletop wargaming, with "roleplaying" as an overlay, the math does have importance, whether your "superior playing style" group likes it or not.
Hogwash. Math is irrelevant. In my group, if a player describes something sufficiently well, they do not have to roll, they simple succeed.
D&D is whatever I decide it is when I sit down at the table. It is primarly a roleplaying game, it happens to have some mechanics and rules, that we can use, or toss aside if we feel like. By the way, nobody except you has used the phrase "Superior Playing Style".
If I want to play a fantasy game that was purely mechanics, stats, and numbers, I will go play Final Fantasy Tactics on my gameboy, which does this flawlessly and without the encumbrance of human error. I do not sit down at a table with other human beings and play a roleplaying game in order to *crunch numbers*
Mechanics serve roleplaying and fun, or they should be thrown out with the rest of the garbage.
1) That's nice. Handwaving is fine, not everyone plays that way. Just because you can handwave some things away, and "tailor" your game to suit your playsyle, doesn't mean there aren't mechanical problems at high levels in d20 games.
2) No, it is primarily a COMBAT game (funny, 90% of the PHB and half of the DMG - and, arguably, 99% of the MM - are concerned with actions in combat...) used as a vehicle for roleplay.
3) You could always play Amber, no dice and all...
4) Are you sure you've been playing D&D all these years???
Again, just because YOU handwave stuff, ignore half the rules, and conduct a drama class (which is fun. nothing wrong with that), doesn't mean that the rest of us, who, i dunno, use the rules (for the most part), like to let the dice decide a bunch of stuff (and, at $9 - $20 a tube, I do like to use them...), and don't consider all that stuff we pay money for "garbage" don't have some legitimate concerns over what we perceive as a shortcoming in high level fighter play.
|
|
You can argue "roleplaying" all you want, "roleplaying" doesn't change math. Considering that D&D was, is and always will be(more likely than not) based on mechanics introduced through tabletop wargaming, with "roleplaying" as an overlay, the math does have importance, whether your "superior playing style" group likes it or not.
Hogwash. Math is irrelevant. In my group, if a player describes something sufficiently well, they do not have to roll, they simple succeed.
D&D is whatever I decide it is when I sit down at the table. It is primarly a roleplaying game, it happens to have some mechanics and rules, that we can use, or toss aside if we feel like. By the way, nobody except you has used the phrase "Superior Playing Style".
If I want to play a fantasy game that was purely mechanics, stats, and numbers, I will go play Final Fantasy Tactics on my gameboy, which does this flawlessly and without the encumbrance of human error. I do not sit down at a table with other human beings and play a roleplaying game in order to *crunch numbers*
Mechanics serve roleplaying and fun, or they should be thrown out with the rest of the garbage.
......wow......
you understand this...is a playtest right? meaning a focus on the rules, right?
i probably would love to have you sit at my table (i love players that are not sticklers for the rules) but right now i think you are trying to defend the honor of the Fighter, instead of protecting the Fighter by helping the mechanics. we both love the concept of Fighters, so lets start with that...
There is an issue that I feel obligated to bring up. Some campaigns have limited access to magic items. There just isn't a reliable magic item shop in every town. While in theory every class is equally hampered by limited item access, the fighter can be almost crippled by it. Sure you're OK in a 10' wide corridor and a 5' wide tunnel presents few problems, something as "devastatingly" difficult as a 20' pit you can't jump over or a wall you can't climb can stymie you. If your foes can fly, swim, ride or go invisible (truly earth shatteringly difficult accomplishments as 11th level) and things get much worse.
Heck, just being up against monsters that use their noggins can generate the same effect. Antimagic or dispels = fighter dusting off that sling he got at 2nd level and trying to quickly figure out what his to hit with it is.
You may be one fine armored combatant, but a single large fire elemental with reach and spring attack will toast you.
Being an archer is only a limited answer unless you don't mind granting AoO's every shot. I miss the days of Sword & Fist (never thought I'd say that) when you could at least take a prestige class to duck the issue.
Here's another problem; ammo. If you actually keep track you are going to run dry well before the dungeon is cleared. An 11th level fighter can easily pump out 4 or 5 arrows a round. You empty two or three quivers a fight and only recover half.
Secondly, someone has to stand in the front line to at least try and keep the nasties off of the squishy guys. A fighter that constantly 5' steps away from the foe doesn't help all that much.
Here's how I'd build a Fighter that wants to be an all around useful guy.
1. Spend a couple of his 20-odd feats on Master Craftsman, and then Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item.
Then he can make his OWN magic items, since he'll need them so much.
2. Make a cloak of Resistance. Make Winged Boots (or some equivalent to fly). Make a custom continuous Enlarge Person item (reach + increased damage). Lunge + Reach = Use any weapon like you did with Spiked Chain before.
If possible, get a magic item that does something along the lines of Psionic Lion's Charge (full attack on charge, psychic warrior power). Or a short range teleport spell (maybe a weaker dimension door? search splatbooks for a spell that's in the 2nd or 3rd level that applies) set as a swift action (quickened version, so 6th or 7th level)... booya!
Hell, a swift action Teleport is a 9th level equivalent spell... 150k to make. And worth every penny for a high level fighter. Teleport to anywhere within sight + full attack. Possibly more important than maxing out your weapon or armor.
3. Make a throwing weapon (uses strength to damage) that has the returning and distance properties. Preferably one with a different damage type (slashing, bludgeoning, etc). Make it a Silvered, Holy, light hammer of Returning and Distance and there's your "I make undead go boom" weapon as well.
4. 2 skillpoints per fighter level. 1 for favored class. Another 1 if Human. Another 2 if you pick the Pathfinder Campaign Setting option. Before any Int bonuses, that's 6 points per level.
Get a couple craft skills for magic items, grab a Knowledge (dungeoneering) so you know what kills which ooze and when a tunnel collapse might happen, a snag Sense Motive so you have a role during the "talking bits" that happen before you stick swords in people. Helps against Feinting too.
If you have points leftover, snag some off-key abilities people wouldn't expect from a Fighter. My brother's latest fighter has Sneak and Acrobatics (for tumble). With Armor Training and Mithral Armor, he'll have no penalty to his checks either.
5. Keep a few potions of Remove Fear, Protection from Evil, and Pass Without Trace on hand.
...
With the above steps, I'd say that this character would be quite effective, even at high level. Especially so with the swift teleport + full attack.
Hogwash. Math is irrelevant. In my group, if a player describes something sufficiently well, they do not have to roll, they simple succeed.
Now, THAT is hogwash. Stop bringing blatant DM fiat in discussion of mechanics and rules. This very instant. It proves absolutely nothing and is actively disruptive to any semblance of productivity of said discussion.
D&D is whatever I decide it is when I sit down at the table.
Dead drong. No one cares what you decide when you sit down at the table, because we aren't there and don't even know what happens there (and many wouldn't care one bit even if they knew). D&D is what written in the books. That's what we care about and that's what we can meaningfully discuss here, because the books provide us a common ground.
|
fighter observations from a 5th to currently 16th lvl home-brew-game.
rules are: pfrpg beta, + outside sources (incl PHBII, Spell Compendium, and Magic Item Compendium)
not sure what the fighter's exact build is, but he is a high-ac, dex-based spring-attacker who uses a pick typically.
some key points that i have noted:
He has the highest ac in the group when fully prepared (combat focus, dodge, haste<that we all usually get>) and is usually untouched in melee save for nat-20's or ridiculous atk bonus guys.
he consistently moves in, soaking up AoO's from guys along the path to his target, whacks him for 35-40 damage a hit, then moves away. if he spring attacks to a flanking position, my rogue 16 can move in and finish him off easily.
on a full-attack, with bardic music going (almost every fight), he's putting something like 140-160 damage out, without crits. thats not too shabby
some other points:
between the melee-druid (shapeshifter variant), the crossbow-wielding rogue (me), and the fighter, the kills are split about 30%/40%/30% , with the cleric and bard sneaking in a killshot every once in a while.
the reason the rogue is keeping up with the two melee-guys is that more things are crit-able, and he's using a crossbow and the crossbow sniper feat, allowing him to sneak attack from 60' away.
long story short, while not a "pure" pfrpg playtest by any means, this game is really showing just what a fighter is capable of...and that is to beat face with pointy things quite nicely.
-t
My biggest issues are with the following:
1. Lack of ability to adequately guard friends (monsters can go around or over easily, especially now that it's so hard to trip or grapple them -- square-based grids mean the old "I get in front of the monster and block it!" doesn't work, according to the rules);
In my game, the fighter immediately took on the role of the tank, but all the players were getting annoyed when he couldn't protect anyone else (the enemy kept whacking the rogue). So I introduced a new feat that basically replicates the 4ed combat challenge. Marked enemies (well, enemy) take penalties to attack other characters, and the fighter get to make AoOs against anyone who tries to move away. It's a bit more powerful than most feats, but everyone in the group loves it. We haven't figured out the mechanics for when the fighter (or enemy) gets multiple attacks yet, but that's just details.
Maybe Pathfinder could add this as a standard feat. If not, it's an easy house rule that can beef up fighters if you find them insufficient.
|
|
Fanguad, I can't get my mind around why an intelligent foe would give a care about the ineffectual guy with the pointy thing. "Marking" is too, I dunno, arbitrary for me I guess...
Kirth pretty much feels the same way (he's in my group irl).
Now, I can see something working, a feat that takes advantage of intimidate perhaps, that might make less intelligent (or pride sensitive) NPCs and critters come after you in anger. It would be language dependant, I think, but I can wrap my mind around that more than a "marking" mechanic...
Edited: Looked at the avatar and not the name, needed to change some stuff...
Jess, Kirth and I have discussed "marking", and, IIRC, he likes it about as much as I do, that is, not at all. Too "magical", I guess. We can't get our minds around why an intelligent foe would give a care about the ineffectual guy with the pointy thing...
Now, I can see something working, a feat that takes advantage of intimidate perhaps, that might make less intelligent (or pride sensitive) NPCs and critters come after you in anger. It would be language dependant, I think, but I can wrap my mind around that more than a "marking" mechanic...
I agree that 4ed marking seems very magical, so I made sure to flavor it up by describing the fighter up in the monster's face - so if the monster tries to ignore the fighter, the fighter makes him regret it. It's still a little magical (I ruled that the monster knows the bad things that can happen to him if he choses to ignore the fighter), and I required a few ranks of Intimidate or Bluff as a prereq for the feat.
It sounds to me that you have more of a problem with the flavor of marking than the mechanic.
EDIT: I was wondering why you called me "Jess"...
|
|
It sounds to me that you have more of a problem with the flavor of marking than the mechanic.
True, I don't care for the "fantastic" in my fighter. I want them to be what they were without the 4e weirdness, without the Bo9S "wuxia" stuff, and without "Monkey Grip" (meh). More economy of actions is all I need, probably won't get, so, eh...
|
|
what if marking made the enemies actions cause an AoO if he didnt attack the Fighter, but someone else. you know, make him pay for ignoring the master of blades (or whatever)
If it works when the fighter threatens the square, I could see burning a feat on something like that. That is worlds apart from the fighter "compelling" someone to do something, it's just making it a bad idea to ignore the guy with the pointy thing.
I like it, and it isn't all "mystical" and stuff, it's kind of "intuitive" ;)
Edit: just don't give it some goofy name :)
|
|
I think a mid-level fighter only feat that increases his weapons die damage by 1 should be introduced (thus 2D4 becomes 3D4, that sort of thing). Boost damage a bit.
I also don't really care for multiple attacks. I think these additional attacks could be translated into a multiplier. This multiplier would be ignored when using a non-standard Attack Action, such as when performing Cleave or some such thing. Perhaps a Full-Round Attack simply boosts the multiplier by 1. I don't know, just random ideas off the top of my head. =D
Anything helps, the status quo isn't cutting it, imo.
Basically (mechanically) this would be some sort of "aid other/ Hinder other" mechanic that the fighter could use right?
|
|
Try watching many team sports, such as basketball. "Marking" isn't some magical ability, it's a matter of making it hard for someone to do the things they really want to without distraction. MMOs don't need a specific mechanic since they're much more realistic than a tabletop RPG in allowing real time combat.Fanguad, I can't get my mind around why an intelligent foe would give a care about the ineffectual guy with the pointy thing. "Marking" is too, I dunno, arbitrary for me I guess...
Kirth pretty much feels the same way (he's in my group irl).
Now, I can see something working, a feat that takes advantage of intimidate perhaps, that might make less intelligent (or pride sensitive) NPCs and critters come after you in anger. It would be language dependant, I think, but I can wrap my mind around that more than a "marking" mechanic...
Edited: Looked at the avatar and not the name, needed to change some stuff...
No, "marking" is kind of magical. Facing someone up in basketball is a physical endeavor, that requires skill, quicks and anticipation. YOU engage the ball handler, he doesn't just come into your area of affect because you want him to.
I don't know why you think marking has to have a magical flavor. Marking has a few specific effects:
If you move away I get an AoO: not magical, you can't let your guard down near a fighter
If my AoO hits, you stop moving: not magical, I got in your way
If you attack someone else you get -2: not magical, if you try to ignore the fighter, he gets in your way, or otherwise disrupts you
If they move away and *then* attack they get -2: ok, this is pushing things, but you could say they had to spend so much mental effort getting away from you, they couldn't concentrate on launching a decent attack against your ally
Only one mark at a time: not magical, two fighters start to get in each other's way. this is mostly for game balance, so you can't triple mark a guy, who then provokes 10 AoOs for sneezing.
Enemy knows he's marked: not magical, since the fighter is right in his face. a decently experienced adventurer knows what's going to happen if he turns his back on a foe.
Facing someone up in basketball is a physical endeavor, that requires skill, quicks and anticipation. YOU engage the ball handler, he doesn't just come into your area of affect because you want him to.
Marking is the same thing, abstracted into 6 second rounds.
--
What part do you consider to be necessarily magical?
|
|
Feat that upps damage type: Vital Strike. Drop the lowest bonus attack to increase the weapon dice by 1.
An immediate action type feat would be cool, so as to force others to move or take a mighty whack with the pointy thing. Threatens wizards some extra, at least.
Personally, I'm loving the pathfinder add's to the fighter. Paul's tough and puts out a whole world of hurt, especially when we get the drop on things. IMO, fun in campaign = good character.
-t
|
|
I don't know why you think marking has to have a magical flavor. Marking has a few specific effects:
If you move away I get an AoO: not magical, you can't let your guard down near a fighter
If my AoO hits, you stop moving: not magical, I got in your way
Thing is, you didn't get in my way (no movement) you just took a swing at me. Already in the mechanics, not "marking".
If you attack someone else you get -2: not magical, if you try to ignore the fighter, he gets in your way, or otherwise disrupts you
I can get behind giving the fighter a +2 if he or she is adjacent and the target attacks someone else, and an extra +2 if flanking is involved. Still not "marking".
If they move away and *then* attack they get -2: ok, this is pushing things, but you could say they had to spend so much mental effort getting away from you, they couldn't concentrate on launching a decent attack against your ally
The fighter still gets an AoO for the opponent leaving a threatened square. Once the opponent is away from the threat range of the fighter, any "negative" is no longer explainable logically, must be "magic" if a fighter is affecting an opponent he or she no longer threatens.
Only one mark at a time: not magical, two fighters start to get in each other's way. this is mostly for game balance, so you can't triple mark a guy, who then provokes 10 AoOs for sneezing.
Movement rules still preclude much of this.
Enemy knows he's marked: not magical, since the fighter is right in his face. a decently experienced adventurer knows what's going to happen if he turns his back on a foe.
Still covered under the AoO rules...
Facing someone up in basketball is a physical endeavor, that requires skill, quicks and anticipation. YOU engage the ball handler, he doesn't just come into your area of affect because you want him to.
Marking is the same thing, abstracted into 6 second rounds.
Not quite, not even close, really. "Marking", as it has been explained, is a "draw aggro" move, "D-ing up" in B-ball is something else entirely, more akin to the "Shall Not Pass" feat proposed for the final rules. Playing defense doesn't penalize the ball handler unless the defender is adept at defense. Watch Iverson's breaking down of Jordan in A.I.'s rookie season. Jordan (epic character if there ever was one) "marked" A.I., A.I. (A skilled novice, NBA-wise - he was a rook, after all) made Jordan look like a chump with two crossover dribbles. What mechanic do you propose to simulate something like that?
In my game, the fighter immediately took on the role of the tank, but all the players were getting annoyed when he couldn't protect anyone else (the enemy kept whacking the rogue).My biggest issues are with the following:
1. Lack of ability to adequately guard friends (monsters can go around or over easily, especially now that it's so hard to trip or grapple them -- square-based grids mean the old "I get in front of the monster and block it!" doesn't work, according to the rules);
The fighter (and other melee focused characters) can still be a roadblock, they just need to be more active about it: ready a bull rush, initiate a grapple, make a trip attempt with an attack of opportunity, use terrain to limit the enemy's ability to maneuver, etc. Do they work well all the time and against all opponents? No, but when you're a Medium sized creature trying to keep Large, Huge, etc. creatures from getting past you (or even Medium or Small creatures in open terrain), it's not like you should have a lot of options without straining belief.
As far as enemies ignoring the fighter go, that's their funeral. The fighter should be dishing out respectable damage on a regular basis with Backswing, Overhand Chop, Power Attack, Vital Strike, Weapon Specialization, Weapon Training, etc. If enemies keep trying to avoid the fighter, ask the party casters for some mobility boosting spells (longstrider, fly, haste, etc.) or acquire magic items to fill the need.
And active avoidance of the fighter means the enemies are fearing the fighter: It's not that he's pitiful, it's that they don't want to get hit for the damage he can do. Clever players will use the fact the monsters move from the fighter to their advantage.
(standard disclaimer of noninsultingness)
To me the big flaw is his inablity to make use of his primary ablitys...his attack. A fighter is just that sure he has the feats and is a wonderful canvas class , but his lack of attack and movement hurts.I mean oh i move 30 feet cast fireball.....or metor swarm or flamestrike...or i cast my spell and hit this guy with my mace or something.
The switch to 1 attack and move and full attack and no move is really why the casters feel so overpowered. Spells do not need nerfed, casters do not need nerfed. Melee classes full attack really needs looked at if you ask me. the melee classes can make many attack and not move or move and make one attack that really is the root of many of the feeling of i cant do anything as the mid levels when you get them extra attcks you really cant use them unless you somehow pin the foe to the ground or something
And gods give them 4 skills all ready sheesh
What melee classes? Fighters can do ranged combat.