If the Sorc puts comparable resources into raising Will saves -- and why wouldn't they, they don't like getting enchanted either? -- and wizards obviously get their magic items cheaper once they can make their own, then it's going to be further apart, right? So I guess it depends on what you think a balance for saves actually is.
I guess the Sorc could aim to start with a 12 Wis, too, and take a hit in something else (although that's clearly a sacrifice made to get the higher Will save).
1) Few sorcerers or wizards are going to worry much about their Will saves, in my experience. At most, they may start with a 12 Wis if they have the points to spare (or start with enough good rolled stats). Their (usual) priorities are Int/Cha (whichever is their casting stat), Dex, Con, Int (if a sorcerer), and then anything else (depending on character concept). Even if the fighter and the sorcerer start with the same Wis, the fighter is likely to stay close since he will invest more as levels increase.
2) If there's a spellcaster in the party making stat boosters for themself with Craft Wondrous Items, are they going to be so selfish as to refuse to make them at reduced price for others in the party, as well (especially if the recipient pays the creation cost)? If so, then why does the rest of the party put up with it?
The multiple attacks after a move is somewhat addressed with PFBeta: IIRC, there's a feat (Cleave?) that's a standard action to make two attacks at adjacent targets. The (in)ability to play roadblock may still remain an issue with some, however.
Looking through the feats, I was mistaken that there was one that allowed more than one melee attack as a Standard Action. However, this is a much requested item and it's relatively simple to house-rule a melee version of Rapid Shot or a Standard Action version of Cleave. A prerequisite of +6 or +11 BAB will keep it from affecting low levels (where it would be somewhat overpowered). My preference would be for a melee version of Rapid Shot at +6 BAB and a Standard Action version of Cleave at +11 BAB (scaling to up to three attacks at +16 BAB).
Regarding the cost of a +4 Wis booster at 15th level, if the fighter “can't afford" a 16,000 gp item with a Wealth by Level total of 240,000 gp (per the Running Pathfinder chapter), I'd question the player's priorities. Using one feat out of the first 11 (12 if human) for Iron Will and less than 7% of the total available wealth on a magic item at 15th level to change the fighter to something other than an "easily dominated liability" will hardly cripple the fighter in other areas, no matter the sound and fury that some raise over this issue.
Sometimes I think that the "(high level) fighters suck" proponents expect (or are trying to do) too much. IMO, the lack of multiple melee attacks with a move is really the only drawback in 3.x/PFG.
BTW, I appologize if this is a duplicate post. It shows up in My Account, but not on the thread.
|
I'll also point out that the fighter is in a better position to take advantage of this new playtest feat:
Improved Iron Will
You have a clarity of thought that allows you to fight off mental attacks.
Prerequisites: Iron Fortitude.
Benefit: Once per day, you may reroll a Will save. You must decide to use this ability before the results are revealed. You must take the second roll, even if it is worse....than anyone else. And unless I'm gravely mistaken, This Feat beats having a "good" will score to a large degree.
What the heck is iron fortitude. I hope that's a typo and they mean Iron Will.
I used the Cumbrous Saves from Savage species to great effect. I know they're supposed to be for monsters, but I figure that if you meet the prereqs...
|
1) Few sorcerers or wizards are going to worry much about their Will saves, in my experience. At most, they may start with a 12 Wis if they have the points to spare (or start with enough good rolled stats). Their (usual) priorities are Int/Cha (whichever is their casting stat), Dex, Con, Int (if a sorcerer), and then anything else (depending on character concept). Even if the fighter and the sorcerer start with the same Wis, the fighter is likely to stay close since he will invest more as levels increase.2) If there's a spellcaster in the party making stat boosters for themself with Craft Wondrous Items, are they going to be so selfish as to refuse to make them at reduced price for others in the party, as well (especially if the recipient pays the creation cost)? If so, then why does the rest of the party put up with it?
Well, as to whether the wizard makes stuff for everyone else, that will depend on available time and on the character being played (I don't see that every character would be so altruistic as to charge at cost and certainly they'll make theirs first, which is where time would be a limitation). Indeed, to some extent it breaks the WBL/CR economy if they do, except that's arguably already pretty broken. As for focussing on Will saves, it would depend, I think, on whether they tend to end up needing them. When I DM, if I think that the opponents would rather have a captive caster (which would make sense relatively often) then they'd go for that, so casters in my game have as much incentive to ensure that they are good on Will saves as anyone else. Wizards that can get it cheaper than the rest would be even more foolish not to do it, not as top priority, perhaps, but high enough that it gets done.
In the end, it's just another line of attack that needs to be defended, of course. It's just not very pleasant, to me, to start an encounter, have the fighter charge, get enchanted, sit the thing out or else turn on your friends. I'm a simulationist with some narrativist and even stuff like party dependence seems to me often to be overly gamist (sure, party cooperation should increase effectiveness, but I also like inter-party rivalries and other aspects that may more often leave players 'on their own' and my personal preference is less for solutions that are rooted in the actions of other party members and more for having a better individual chance). In real life, after all, there's often a Yoko.
|
Maybe it is because i am coming into this late, but i have not seen anything in the fighter that Posted that definatively marks the fighter as inferior.
He doesn't do enough damage.... And exactly how much moe damage, in actual game play, is the mage doing? 10-15? big whoop.
Fighters are useless because they cannot get close enough. Many work arounds to this. Firstly, why, in the Nine Hells, have you not ever picked up a bow?
Skill points to low. Personally i agree on this one, Show some love. is 4 skill points really going to break the game?
Can't defend the caster... I thought the caster was the beez neez? why does he need the fighters help? he has all those nifty damage spells? OK, sarcasym aside, Teamwork, it is what we live and die by.
Armor/Attacks/Damage=Can be the best or worst in the game.
Class abilities. OK, they are a little on teh thin side, i'll give you that. But with feat tree's, and feats ONLY fighters can take, it levels. Personally i think the Feat talked of early in the thread about forcing opponents to pay more attention to fighters is great. Make it a class ability at 12th level. And to the guy who has said no to everything from new ideas, to the same old way. You can't have it both ways. Saying the fighter threaten's a certain creature within his threat range is very basic. Having fought with swords i can tell you that fighting two opponents, no mater where they are, is a heck of a lot harder than the three mousecateers made it look.
Mid/high level playability. If you can't roll with the punches, then i can't play your character for you. I can make any decent character a threat. Why are we not saying the shapeshifter druid is useless at crowd control? There are many examples in which the fighter was Awe inspiring, and many in which they suck. if i tie your leg behind your shoulder i can kick your butt every time too. but in the great sceam of things everyone has Kryptonite.
Anti magic field and the All powerful mage turns into "a monkey with pointy ears" while the fighter can back out of the situation and regroup.
there are other things posted in this thread. But all in all i agree with Old Guy GM. If you pull your head out of your butt and think then the possibilities are endless... One last not. if the fighter falls short in your oppinion, you can always cross class to something you actually want to play. Personally i will never play a ranger again. If i want to be an archer i take a fighter, if i want to take magic, i become a mage/druid/cleric/paladin/PrC.
Man i know i am gonna get blasted right off the planet in the morning....:D
|
|
If you pull your head out of your butt and think then the possibilities are endless...
That's very helpful.
I think that you'll find, in any case, that many of your points are addressed, although of course you may not agree with how they are addressed, in this and many other threads. It's such a contentious and common argument that it does rather feel that there's nothing much more to be said, or any chance of persuading people on either side. None of which, of course, means that it's not enjoyable to argue about, for those of us that enjoying arguing even when the argument cannot be 'won'.
|
|
It's such a contentious and common argument that it does rather feel that there's nothing much more to be said, or any chance of persuading people on either side. None of which, of course, means that it's not enjoyable to argue about, for those of us that enjoying arguing even when the argument cannot be 'won'.
So very true, and the hilarity that can ensue keeps drawing many of us back as well! :p
|
|
stuff
"Pull your head out of your butt"?
Yep, you're being constructive.
That is the one thing you can say to me, who has been playing for 30 years now, gone through 5 1/2 editions of this game (never played Mentzer BECMI or Compendium Basic), and has seen players good, bad and everything in between, that will make me completely ignore your input.
Nice job. :)
a number of arguments that have been rebuked, ad nauseum.
Regarding heads lost up orifices, perhaps you might read some of the many, many instructive posts explaining the flaws, deficiencies, and outright incorrect assertions in your points regarding the fighter.
Don't act like this is a settled issue. We've had as many rebuttals as arguments on this thread; I have yet to see a rational explanation for the "conventional wisdom" that fighters should be able to move and full attack a la 2nd edition.
Uh, I don't believe fighters ever could move and full attack in 2nd edition. You could move half your movement rate and get an attack or you could take multiple attacks. I don't believe 2e even had a 5' step.
If my memory serves correctly, de-mobilizing fighters is the nerf that never was.
Comparative nerf because spellcaster mobility increased, I'd concede...
Don't act like this is a settled issue.
The misstatements I refer to are things like "people say fighters don't do enough damage; mages barely do any," for example -- when in fact it isn't now, and never has been, about damage. It's been demonstrated to no end that evokers are sub-par and that fighters can deal a lot of hp in damage -- most especially once they hit 20th level.
The issue, as you correctly state, is far from settled -- I believe it never will be settled, in fact. Most of the trolling points have been laid to rest, however.
I have yet to see a rational explanation for the "conventional wisdom" that fighters should be able to move and full attack a la 2nd edition.
I have yet to see a rational explanation of why NPC wizards should be able to tumble their full move across a battlefield, happily avoiding attacks of opportuinity, all while casting one spell with somatic and material components, and casting another, quickened, spell, also with somatic and material components -- all at the same time, with no chance of failure and essentially no chance of being disrupted. But yet by the 3.0, 3.5, and especially Pathfinder Beta rules, they can!
I have yet to see a rational explanation of why NPC wizards should be able to tumble their full move across a battlefield, happily avoiding attacks of opportuinity, all while casting one spell with somatic and material components, and casting another, quickened, spell, also with somatic and material components -- all at the same time, with no chance of failure and essentially no chance of being disrupted. But yet by the 3.0, 3.5, and especially Pathfinder Beta rules, they can!
Let's break it down:
Is it rational that
a) a spellcaster can move his full move action distance and still get 2 spells off?
b) a spellcaster can get two spells off in one round at all?
c) pick up enough tumble skill to make a DC 25 check?
I have no problem with c because it takes an investment in skill ranks that's non-trivial. More significant in 3e than PF maybe, but still non-trivial. Plus, making a tumble check to avoid attacks of opportunity doesn't mean you're actually tucking and rolling about the battlefield. It just means you're moving in such a way that you aren't dropping your guard. Maybe it's footwork worthy of Ali in his glory days, maybe it's Daredevil acrobatics, maybe it's something a bit more Remo Wiliams.
Is A bad because you're getting the move action along with the spells or is B bad enough? If it's B, then the problem is swift action spells in general, and that includes quickened spells. But whatever the solution to the problem is, diagnosing the right actual problem is necessary. Wrapping a bunch of issues together doesn't get us closer to fixing the real problem because we might miss the real root cause.
Bill, Good post.
Your point (A) is the main issue: casters get, essentially, a full move and a full round worth of offense, every round. Warriors above 5th level get one or the other, with no exceptions. Your point (C) exacerbates this issue to a level even worse than it was before:
Pathfinder rules are increasingly geared towards the default that casters will cast acrobatically. Wizards' high Int gives them a ton of skills; by investing in Acrobatics as well as Spellcraft, they end up way ahead of everyone else in terms of avoiding attacks while mobile and still keeping full actions. They become essentially unstoppable: tumble away to avoid triggering nearby readied actions to disrupt their casting, then cast defensively (or out of range) with essentially no chance of disruption.
The following are tangential:
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Don't act like this is a settled issue. We've had as many rebuttals as arguments on this thread; I have yet to see a rational explanation for the "conventional wisdom" that fighters should be able to move and full attack a la 2nd edition.Uh, I don't believe fighters ever could move and full attack in 2nd edition. You could move half your movement rate and get an attack or you could take multiple attacks. I don't believe 2e even had a 5' step.
If my memory serves correctly, de-mobilizing fighters is the nerf that never was.
Comparative nerf because spellcaster mobility increased, I'd concede...
Actually...
In 1st Ed., fighters (and everyone else, for that matter) could full move and full attack. Movement and attacks were separate, whether single or multiple. A fighter in plate mail could move 60 feet in a round and make their attacks. If they had multiple attacks, they auto-went first in combat, or more to the point, before creatures with single attacks or multiple natural weapons. (PH1 pp. 102-105)
In 2nd Ed., fighters with iterative attacks no longer auto-won initiative vs. single attackers/multiple natural weapon types. Instead, their first attack came on initiative order and later attacks came later. HOWEVER, there was no prohibition on moving and making multiple attacks. You are right that if you moved more than half your speed you could not attack, unless you charged (which increased your move to 50%). A fighter in plate mail could move 30 feet and make his normal attacks, move 60 feet and take no attacks, or charge 90 feet and make an attack at +2 to hit (but -2 to enemy initiative, losing his Dex bonus, and taking a further -1 to AC). Moving up to half speed also halved your missile rate of fire. (PH2 pp. 95-97)
I'd need to look at some errata for 2nd Ed, though, because it depends on how you read the following sentence:
"When closing for combat, a character can move up to half his normal allowed distance and still make a melee attack."
Is the "a" descriptive (can make any melee attacks normally allowed) or is the "a" proscriptive (can make only a single attack)?
For both monsters and PCs, in all the years I played or DMed 2nd Ed it was run as the former - you move up and make your attacks, but the text is ambiguous, and may well support the latter idea better. It may have been a carryover from 1st Ed and a rule change that no one noticed (or if they noticed decided to ignore) in the edition change.
In either case, the TWF paragraph in the next column over already violates it, as it states that an off-hand weapon alows you to make one extra attack with the off-hand, regardless of how many attacks are normally allowed, so a move/charge with TWF was certainly allowed.
I have no idea about the Player's Option stuff - I do have the books somewhere but never played in a game with those rules.
The relevant point, I suppose, is that certainly in 1st and arguably in 2nd (definitely in 2nd with TWF) fighters could move at half speed (which was 30 feet in those days for a heavy fighter, 60 for a light) and make full attacks.
Also, the larger comparative nerf of casters having separate movement + casting ALONG WITH insta-casting. No more would a caster start casting a spell, and then you could react to it with missiles, charge attacks, etc. Shoot, one of the primary uses of magic missile back in the day was to zap enemy spellcasters and spoil their higher-level spells. It was the original "counterspell," as it was very quick to cast, and any hit would disrupt casting.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Bill, Good post.
Your point (A) is the main issue: casters get, essentially, a full move and a full round worth of offense, every round. Warriors above 5th level get one or the other, with no exceptions.
Well, very small exceptions for pounce-like effects and such, but that's pretty much it.
Caster full round of offense (with rare exceptions) is a standard action, so you can move normally.
Basher full round of offense (with rare exceptions) is a full-round action, so you can't move normally.
|
I'm with Bill, Kirth, Jason et all on this one. The disparity between the caster getting full move while still utilizing his full offensive capabilities versus the fighter type's limitations with moving and full attack is indeed unbalancing IMO.
Either fighter types need to be able to trade iterative attacks for movement (at the very least) or they need to be able to move and get full attack.
Or spell casting times need revision across the entire spell spectrum. Some spells need longer casting times IMO. Whether it be full round, 1 full round (ie. summoning spells) or even longer. This would make certain spells more disruptable on top of equally out the "economy of actions" gap.
I would prefer a combination of the two.
Fighter types already suffer "engagement" problems at higher levels due to invisible, flying, or warded creatures etc. Add to this their vulnerability to certain spells, their lack of ability to disrupt spell casters and their inability to effectively restrict movement on the field of battle. All of this makes for unhappy fighter types.
I know I have been an opponent of raising will saves for the fighter types and against nerfing the spells that take advantage of this vulnerability, but, I do agree that the fighter types do need help to stay relevant at higher levels.
Lots of different solutions have been suggested. Some good. Some not so good. I think that the two ideas above (and I am not taking credit here) are the two best IMO. The simplest and most backwards compatible changes would be to make the change to full attack/trade attack for movement and changing casting times.
Dominate is thrown around as an example of the big bad boogey man of spells that fighters face. If dominate was to take, say a full round to cast, then there would automatically be a chance for the fighter to escape due to some sort of intervention. This intervention would not have to rely on a specific spell counter either. The spell caster could be damaged and lose the spell breaking the effect, line of sight/effect could be broken, defenses could be buffed etc. The target would not have to rely on team mates for this either. These could even be accomplished by the target himself in the round between the spell being started and the completion of the spell on the caster's next turn.
I don't know what, if any, changes are coming (some patches have already been attempted with the new feats errata), but I hope and trust that the designers will address this issue in the final rule set.
Cheers
Even if mages are much more mobile than fighters, it still doesn't tell me what a fighter's going to *do* if we grant them extra mobility. Where are you going to go with a full attack and a move action? What's the tactical benefit?
Possibility 1: enemy wizard tumbles away and casts at you; you run up and whale on him. Possibility 2: cut down mook threatening you, then move up to BBEG and attack him before he kills you. Possibility 3: Kill current opponent; see friend in dire straits; move over and attack friend's assailant. Etc.
P.S. Trip, etc. don't work if you can't reach them in the first place. They just walk around you, 10 ft. away, and avoid your less-combat-apt friends' AoO in the meantime. AT DC 15 + CMB, clerics and rogues have little chance of effectively tripping anyone, and their attacks of opportunity really aren't that scary. The fighter was always easy to avoid in 3.5, and in Pathfinder we just made it a lot easier.
(BTW, would you post a sample "tumbling mage" build, please? Let's see exactly what a mage has to give up to play ninja.)
Tumbling Mage build: Int 18 (for example) = 6 skill points/level.
After maxing out Spellcraft, Knowledge (arcana), Perception, and 2 other skills, instead of maxing out Knowledge (Japanese Noh Composers of the Eleventh Century), max out Acrobatics instead. That's the only "build" you need. You give up nothing except that 6th skill.It's almost to the point where I wonder if anyone actually reads the rules for combat and just drools over the class descriptions.
It's almost at the point where I wonder if any DMs actually use the options for evil wizards, or if they just subconsciously nerf them to make the players feel good. (P.S. I recently used an 11th level enchanter to TPK an entire party of 8th level Pathfinder characters -- who were prepared for him and who won the initiative -- using no particularly bizarre tactics. It was no contest.)
|
|
It's almost at the point where I wonder if any DMs actually use the options for evil wizards, or if they just subconsciously nerf them to make the players feel good. (P.S. I recently used an 11th level enchanter to TPK an entire party of 8th level Pathfinder characters -- who were prepared for him and who won the initiative -- using no particularly bizarre tactics. It was no contest.)
I should have gotten a bonus to my will save, you know, since my head was up my ass. I couldn't possibly have heard the wizard when he cast that takeout spell...
|
|
I should have gotten a bonus to my will save, you know, since my head was up my ass. I couldn't possibly have heard the wizard when he cast that takeout spell...lol
So many questions! Is that a standard action or full round? Do you lose your Dex modifier to AC as well? ....
:)
Its like donning or removing armor, and easier to do if you have help.
:p
It's been argued repeatedly that "hit points don't matter" at high levels because of save-or-die spells. Why full attack, then? No, I mean it. Your mage has those spells too. Why not rob your opponents of their opportunities instead of dealing damage? Trip. Bull rush. Sunder. Grapple. Move to obstruct. If you want the fighter to be a linebacker, don't punch - block.
Because it's fairly easy to create a high-level fighter who can cause 200-250 points of damage on average from a melee full attack. Unlike spells, there are no saves for half, elemental resistances or immunities, effects like death ward, etc. to keep this from becoming a Russian Roulette on who wins initiative (activate boots of speed, charge or move, full attack, opponent is dead).
Do the combat types need a bit of a boost at high level? Yes, IMO. However, allowing a move and a full attack makes them too powerful (again, IMO). A melee version of Rapid Shot or a Standard Action version of Cleave would give that boost without things getting out of hand.
On the roadblock issue, take a look at Improved Shield Bash (shield bash and keep AC from shield), Shield Slam (free Bull Rush with shield bash), and Two-Weapon Fighting (can make weapon and shield bash attacks in the same round). Add in Combat Reflexes and a decent Dex, and you can make multiple AoOs with a shield bash/Bull Rush.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
It's been argued repeatedly that "hit points don't matter" at high levels because of save-or-die spells. Why full attack, then? No, I mean it. Your mage has those spells too. Why not rob your opponents of their opportunities instead of dealing damage? Trip. Bull rush. Sunder. Grapple. Move to obstruct. If you want the fighter to be a linebacker, don't punch - block.Because it's fairly easy to create a high-level fighter who can cause 200-250 points of damage on average from a melee full attack. Unlike spells, there are no saves for half, elemental resistances or immunities, effects like death ward, etc. to keep this from becoming a Russian Roulette on who wins initiative (activate boots of speed, charge or move, full attack, opponent is dead).
It's true, there are not those defenses.
However, there are, of course:
1. DR/you probably don't have it (lessened somewhat in PF, thankfully)
2. Having to attack against full AC vs. touch AC with most spells (suddenly dragons are
usually-miss, not auto-hit)
3. "You can't reach me" effects (flight being the most obvious) which make melee prowess moot - I've seen many high-level campaigns where the melee mashers sit impotently against flying opponents when they have run out of flying potions or have gotten dispelled and the wizard is doing something else this round and doesn't have time to get out his wand of fly to use on you.
4. "Oops you missed" effects (mirror image, invisibility, displacement, blink, mislead, incorporeal foes) that are not circumventable by powers inherent to the class (though they may with some pricey equipment) - yes, Blind-fight helps, but it's no cure-all, and many low-level spell solutions are caster-only (see invisibility, allow a save (faerie fire), are only partially effective (glitterdust fixes Stealth/invis but doesn't help vs. other miss chances).
5. Attrition in effectiveness of iterative attacks
6. "I can attack you and you can't attack me" effects (Flyby Attack + reach, Spring Attack + climb/swim, feats like Large and in Charge/Hold the Line/Shall Not Pass + reach that prevent you from even closing on your target)
7. Your soopa-fighter can, if everything works out perfectly, deliver the above-noted pile of killpower to ONE target; other bad guys out there are unharmed.
8. You are not obstructed by terrain or barriers from closing on your opponent.
Once the game operates in 3 dimensions, reach becomes common for monsters, and the bad guys use decoys that are immensely more effective vs. melee fighters than vs. casters (or even vs. ranged fighters), then even that giant pile of damage you could, in theory, inflict, becomes a much harder goal to realize. Sure, if all fights are against one BBEG that doesn't have simple anti-fighter countermeasures, then your fighter is golden. If not... then not.
Do the combat types need a bit of a boost at high level? Yes, IMO. However, allowing a move and a full attack makes them too powerful (again, IMO). A melee version of Rapid Shot or a Standard Action version of Cleave would give that boost without things getting out of hand.
Oh those would help, no doubt.
But neither really addresses the core issue. (again, IMO) :)
You're seriously going to give the fighter a 25' radius? On a featureless plain, maybe. In a dungeon with 60' by 60' rooms and 10' corridors? Seriously?
Why would a high-level wizard fight in a confined -- or any other non-optimal -- space, ever? He can just about always pick his own battlefield by teleporting as his first action.
|
|
Why would a high-level wizard fight in a confined -- or any other non-optimal -- space, ever? He can just about always pick his own battlefield by teleporting as his first action.Because that's his home? Or where the treasure is? Or where's he conducting the Ritual Of Ultimate Power? Or the Mystic Well of Doom? Or any of a hundred other plot points that an adventure designer can and does come up with? It's not PVP we're talking here; it's an adventure.
You can complain that it's not "smart" for the evil wizard to teleport away... but that's heroic fantasy for you. If the evil wizard was really smart, he'd skip right past trying to take over the world and crank out magical items all day to earn a fortune in gold and buy his own kingdom.
Changing the battlefield to suit your needs is probably the basis of all military victories that weren't due entirely to luck. Getting the best position is often more advantageous than going first. That doesn't mean necessarily leaving the dungeon either.
Teleport, in Kirth's example, is just one of the myriad options a wizard has to change the battlefield. By repositioning yourself you can inflict more damage (ex lightning bolts in hallways and fireballs in wide rooms) You can create hazards with summon swarm, create barriers with the wall spells, and negate magic with Antimagic field.
Meh, there's lots of stuff like that. I hope that helped.
Regards,
Studpuffin:
The Most Studly of Fowl
|
|
Agreed. I'll point out that while mages have some very dramatic ways of altering the battlefield, ownership of strategic points is by no means limited to the mage. If you're very, very good at this, it's eminently possible that you might want to skip attacking the mage entirely on the first round, and simply run to the place where the mage wants to be. Not only does that keep the mage from placing himself in an optimal position, it forces him to try and move you, instead of moving to him. Ultimately, maneuver is the best tool for terrain manipulation.
Oh, by no means does the mage get this exclusively. I meant to say that they have many options, even a none-to-tactically minded person could control a battlefield with a mage, cleric, or bard however. A good tactician will always make someone react to their actions and not vice-versa, and any class can cause this to happen. A fighter with a little versatility is sometimes more optimal than a mage in a given case (say, when facing a beholder whose looking at you) or when fighting low AC opponents and you have Power Attack and Great Cleave. Sometimes a little forethought is all you need to win the day.
However, there are, of course:
1. DR/you probably don't have it (lessened somewhat in PF, thankfully)
Considering that DR in 3.5 is usually moot to a prepared fighter (and even more so in PFRPG, without the need for a cold iron weapon, a blunt adamantine weapon, and a couple vials of silversheen; for most "typical" or "traditional" non-evil parties, holy is almost a non-brainer, anyway), and will only knock down the average damage by about 40-60 points at best, it's not a huge factor. About the only real significant DR at high level is DR x/-, which can only be gained through specific items (adamantine armor) or class features (barbarian).
2. Having to attack against full AC vs. touch AC with most spells (suddenly dragons are usually-miss, not auto-hit)
Note I said average damage. The full AC and BAB reduction for iterative attacks has been factored in. I've posted the math in other threads, but a 20th level PFRPG fighter can probably kill a balor demon one round if they get off a full attack.
3. "You can't reach me" effects (flight being the most obvious) which make melee prowess moot - I've seen many high-level campaigns where the melee mashers sit impotently against flying opponents when they have run out of flying potions or have gotten dispelled and the wizard is doing something else this round and doesn't have time to get out his wand of fly to use on you.
Assuming the PC is unprepared while the enemy is prepared stacks the deck, regardless of what class you're discussing. What's preventing said melee types from having a fly X/day on command item instead of relying on the wizard's wand of fly?
4. "Oops you missed" effects (mirror image, invisibility, displacement, blink, mislead, incorporeal foes) that are not circumventable by powers inherent to the class (though they may with some pricey equipment) - yes, Blind-fight helps, but it's no cure-all, and many low-level spell solutions are caster-only (see invisibility, allow a save (faerie fire), are only partially effective (glitterdust fixes Stealth/invis but doesn't help vs. other miss chances).
Again, assuming an unprepared PC (or party) vs. a prepared enemy (most of these defenses have short durations) stacks the deck. Considering that a continuous effect see invisible item would cost less than a +6 stat booster, why wouldn't a high-level fighter have one? The ghost touch weapon ability only adds +1 to the effective bonus, so it's pretty easy to get. Blink, blur, etc. will usually only have a minor effect (20-50% miss chance at most). Mirror image is rather better, but the absolute limit on the number of attacks it protects against keeps it within reason.
5. Attrition in effectiveness of iterative attacks
See 2., above. This was factored in when I said average damage.
6. "I can attack you and you can't attack me" effects (Flyby Attack + reach, Spring Attack + climb/swim, feats like Large and in Charge/Hold the Line/Shall Not Pass + reach that prevent you from even closing on your target)
Again the assumption of prepared enemy vs. unprepared PC. A fighter can easily spare the three feats to gain Spring Attack (and, given the lack of "must have" class skills, have maximum ranks in Acrobatics, as well). Then, there is the enlarge person + spiked chain (or other reach weapon) combination...
7. Your soopa-fighter can, if everything works out perfectly, deliver the above-noted pile of killpower to ONE target; other bad guys out there are unharmed.
Against multiple foes, the fighter will almost always be less effective than a spellcaster (although if that enlarged fighter with a spiked chain also has Whirlwind Attack, they can usually remain close). This is an inherent feature of the 3.x system. Even when considering pure damage, a spellcaster will be able to do more total damage against 3-4+ foes than a fighter of equal level; likewise, against one or two foes, the fighter will almost always be more effective than a spellcaster. Apples vs. oranges.
8. You are not obstructed by terrain or barriers from closing on your opponent.
Effective use of terrain is a whole different argument and involves too many variables tied to specific circumstances to make sweeping statements apart from the following: Most of the time, the PCs have as much chance of gaining an advantage as their foes.
Please Note: All that follows is a parody. No actual characters were created during the course of this post. Enjoy.
You see, to parody something, you must know what the hell you're talking about. You don't. For single-digit levels vanilla cleric archers take something like War domain, human for a race (Elves with Elf domain offer some perks at the first few level, in exchange for permanent loss of power after that), PBS, Rapid Shot, Zen Archery, Holy Warrior(Complete Champion feat), and Quicken Spell. (Precise Shot is sh*t, because it is replaced, rather than augmented, by available item enhancements, and you have loads of money but very few feats.) They cast Divine Power + Quickened Divine Favor and, by 9th level, have a +2 (GMW) bow attacks at +18/+18/+13 for 1d8+14 per arrow, so long as they get a +3 STR bow. (-1 attack and damage at range >30 feet.) This is before any investments in item enhancement and after dumping everything but Con in favor of high Wis. They don't invest into Dex, of course. At low levels 2-3 points of difference barely matter anyway. Their only serious sacrifice on other fronts, compared to vanilla cleric, is lack of item creation feats and they are actually dedicated casters with massive primary stat as well.
As about 3.0 cleric archers, they didn't even use Zen Archery and still demolished non-casting archers. Here is a complete example of a very early build:http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/dungeons-and-dragons-24/cleric-archer-564 74.html
...so why do we keep having these "fighters are terrible" threads? They kick butt. It's just at the highest levels that they seem to suffer in comparison.I'll even go further: Fighters probably rock in the majority of *all* D&D games, because more of them are low or mid level rather than high level.
So what's the problem?
They don't. At 6-7th level things are like this: either casters debuff/disable enemy melee brutes, or party melees are in terrible predicament, because they, at best have 50/50 chance of surviving this. Fighters most of all, thanks to lack of real class abilities. Just yesterday in our game we had witnessed what easily can happen to a real meleer who attacks an undebuffed CR 7 enemy. That thing is called "taking 97 damage in two rounds and dying". Granted, crit happened, but he wasn't likely to survive even without that