Turtles only, no damage, FINAL DESTINATION.
You don't need to be able to do damage to be effective.
Beta, with the use of the additional feats has opens up the possiblity of multiple builds of fighter that don't have to even do damage to remove powerful opponents from battles or who are damned good at inflicting crippling status effects, while being almost completely immune to the majority of melee monsters.
A blinded and deafened enemy who cant hit you and cant get away from you is as good as dead. Some builds of 20th level fighter can achieve that against most opponents on any turn the full attack, or one is three-ish times they charge(of the time of my head). And next turn the drop two more status effects or do extra damage.
So yeah, turtling is all they can do, sure. *rolls eyes.*
...while being almost completely immune to the majority of melee monsters.You are claiming that the game is broken in favour of fighters? Because that's the implication of the fighter being immune to the majority of level-appropriate melee monsters.
I am not sure I agree.
Certain fighter builds can now clock up really pretty obscene ACs, without even getting into Optimiser wonkieness. I'll do up the maths on one tomorrow. But if i am remembering correctly yes, against a melee brute that a 20th level fighter would be expected by the SRD RAW(this may be different under PFRPG) to fight alone, their are fighter builds which allow a sword and sheild fighter to remain 95% resistant to their attacks and prevent multiple such creatures interacting meaningfully in combat.
Invisibility is a kicker. Short of a Hand of Glory, an Onyx Dog, or Dust of Appearance the best a fighter can do against Invisible foes is to fall back to cover and use dogs (or other animals with scent) to warn of approaching foes.
I have this one boofhead in a game who plays a stock vanilla fighter. A Katana weilding guy in medium armour ('heavy armour is for pansys')
His solution for invisible monks was blind fight combined with listen checks, and it worked out fine for him.
Batts
Invisibility is a kicker. Short of a Hand of Glory, an Onyx Dog, or Dust of Appearance the best a fighter can do against Invisible foes is to fall back to cover and use dogs (or other animals with scent) to warn of approaching foes.I have this one boofhead in a game who plays a stock vanilla fighter. A Katana weilding guy in medium armour ('heavy armour is for pansys')
His solution for invisible monks was blind fight combined with listen checks, and it worked out fine for him.
Batts
we had invisible kobolds via dust of disappearance recently, it wasnt that big of a deal, however, i supposed had it been invisible t-rex's it would have been a TPK.
Dust of appearance and wands of see invisible aren't hard to come by.
potions of fly also not a big deal.
Our fighter took down a flier with his greatsword via (get this) using the throw anything feat. It was agood hoot, and the flier (ala the GM) certainly wasn't expecting it either!
Another thing that confuses me is the way to tell if the weapon you found on your last dungeon crawl is better suited to you or your teammate. Back in 1.0 and even 2.0 it was relatively easy to find out what the item did and who was better suited to wield it to help the party.
It's not that much harder now. You just have to do a skill check. Or cast a spell and get a nice bonus on the skill check. And it definetly is cheaper now. No more wasting hundreds of GP to identify items.
Only if you try to apply specific examples to general situations. Dwarf Charge distance is 40'. That's what a Human Barbarian can cover in leisurely stride with Move action. In other words, if you're playing a Dwarf Fighter and you want to try to show an archer the error of using bows, make damn sure you have a trump card first (like dead end corridor).
So it's a dwarf melee vs. a barbarian with a bow? Why can't the dwarf just run (even in full plate he gets x3 movement) to be adjacent? The barbarian can't get out of attack range and still fire on it's next turn.
What if the dwarf melee is also a barbarian?
Setting up specific scenarios, (while at times helpful) is always a dubious endeavor.
Saw a recent post in this forum (which was then locked) in which a certain gentleman made the assertion that fighters will die in D&D more often than other characters, that they suck, are under-powered, not a good character choice, etc.
I dispute this. I've mainly played fighters or Fighter/Multiclass combinations over the years, and I've always had a terrific time playing them, and never really felt like I was useless or sucked. Indeed, oftentimes it seemed like the Fighter is always the last man left standing at the end of a long battle, the one that finally kills the dragon (or whatever) after many of his comrades have died.
In general, playing them has always been fun, both for roleplaying and for game crunchyness. My favorite story and character dialogue moments have all been while playing a Fighter or a fighter-like class.
My questions to you are:
1) Why do people feel that Fighers suck?
2) Do you, honestly, think they're underpowered, or need to be "fixed"?
3) What are some good experiences (if you have some) that you've had playing a Fighter?
Have you ever haggled? If you want to pay 100 $ you start with 50$.
That's what the "fighter must have it all" is all about.- Good will saves
- more class skills
- more skill points
- more feats
- 12HD
- and more, and more, and more
It's haggle
I've mainly played fighters or Fighter/Multiclass combinations over the years, and I've always had a terrific time playing them, and never really felt like I was useless or sucked.
In what editions, and at what levels? As far as I know, the argument isn't that "fighters suck," it's that "Fighters suck at high levels in 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder." They used to be viable at high levels in 1e and 2e, and they remain very, very good at low levels now.
In answer to your questions, I've had GREAT exeriences playing fighters at all levels in 1e, and at low levels in 3.X. At high levels in 3.X, I had a lousy time because it eventually became clear that either the DM or the other players had to coddle them to keep them participating. So, yes, I honestly think they need help at high levels, as I've posted ad nauseum, with suggestions and recommendations, in dozens of other threads you've apparently missed.
Have you ever haggled? That's what the "fighter must have it all" is all about. It's haggle
Incorrect; it's a request to give them back what the changes in the combat rules from 2.0 to 3.0 took away from them. No more, no less. They used to be able to move and full attack, to intercept enemies and stop them cold, to reliably disrupt spellcasters, to save against effects on a 4 or better that they now need a 19-20 to save against. They no longer can do any of those things, as of 3.0. At low levels, it doesn't matter too much if they can or not, because they kill anything that moves in one or two hits. At high levels, they can't keep up with the other classes anymore, though.
|
I have been playing 3.0/3.5 since it came out and now PRPG, and have never had a problem where the fighter felt left out. This problem consist completley because of the group and DM. If you find that all of your fighter are not having fun, maybe you should look at 4th ed or everyone go on WOW.
I don't care if that really pisses people off, but this topic has been done to death. Let us who like the fighter play it the way it is, and thoes of you who don't, find a game where a fighter can do more.
A fighter had throw anything? And what if he hadn't chosen, of hist limited pool of options, that one item?
Sure, fighter builds can have high AC. How this helps vs traps and magic, I'll not know, since those are supposed to be a goodly portions to threats.
The point is that fighters have less options. They don't get skills; they don't get spells; they don't get magic activation items; and their feats don't, in RAW, scale.
Sure, a Barbarian can move umm... Faster than a Dwarf. What this has to do with fighters being balanced means f-all.
-Crissa
I have been playing 3.0/3.5 since it came out and now PRPG, and have never had a problem where the fighter felt left out. This problem consist completely because of the group and DM. If you find that all of your fighter are not having fun, maybe you should look at 4th ed or everyone go on WOW.
I don't care if that really pisses people off, but this topic has been done to death. Let us who like the fighter play it the way it is, and those of you who don't, find a game where a fighter can do more.
If by "do more" you mean "stay relevant at higher levels", then I suspect that quite a few Fighters will be eying other games if they aren't fixed in PRPG. As it stands right now, once you get to higher levels, either Fighters get the jump on the Wizards and utterly murder them, or the Wizards get the jump on the Fighters and either make them their slaves (thanks Dominate Monster) or murder them. As a DM, you really do have to coddle parties lacking magical firepower, or else they'll get facerolled.
|
I have been playing 3.0/3.5 since it came out and now PRPG, and have never had a problem where the fighter felt left out. This problem consist completley because of the group and DM. If you find that all of your fighter are not having fun, maybe you should look at 4th ed or everyone go on WOW.I don't care if that really pisses people off, but this topic has been done to death. Let us who like the fighter play it the way it is, and thoes of you who don't, find a game where a fighter can do more.
So you want the PFRPG fighter reverted to the 3.5 one, then? Or are convinced that the beta fighter is, in fact, the perfect fighter class? Otherwise, it would appear that discussions about what changes should be made to the 3.5 fighter are still relevant. You, know, for those people who aren't happy with the 3.5 and/or the PFRPG fighter and selfishly don't do what you tell them and just play WoW or 4e, those pricks. How dare they, etc, etc.
well dont you think at this point its really not about the fighter class, but the combat rules?
The thing IVe been thinking about most really is, if you fix the combat rules to allow this full attacking and moving thing, then we are going to have all sorts of slice and dice monsters. (12 heade hydra with a haste on them would be nasty!)
Wouldnt that TOTALLY change their CR?
Then you have critters like the raptor who have pounce attacks that under altered combat rules, would be useless abilites.
So if you give fighters more fighter feats/class features to simulate this "change" or "revert" then you have all the paladins, rangers and rogues moaning (if they are fighter only feats)
But if you make them feats avaialble to all, they become heavy sided "must have feats" and swallow up slots an there are alreay a million feats now, so you might as well change the combat rules because every one will take those feats.
See how this becomes a dizzying circle? then consider backwards compatability?
Oi vey! what a head ache?
In my personal opinion, after spending quite a bit fo time thinking about this.
The best way to address the issue would be to revamp the saving throw tables,(giving a little more love to the non casting classes) and nerf the mages ability to move/dodge/tumble and cast. Then make it easier to disrupt spells by changing the DC for spellcraft in combat situations.
Leave the whole flat footed and swinging thing alone. Its like a pandoras box (see above).
Just out of the wild blue yonder, if a mage cast fly on a fighter and used his concentration to cause the fighter to fly and manuver (effectively the mage is the pilot not the fighter) then couldnt a mage move a fighter into to attack and the fighter still full attack (seeing as technically the fighter is standing still, holding his actions and waiting until the target comes into range?
sorry just wanted to throw out a boomerang.
|
|
Personally, I'm entirely against fighter-only feats. I do also think that a lot of the changes I'd like to see are changes in combat rules and changes to/additional feats. For me, it's more a meleer problem than a fighter problem; the fighter just maybe gets it the worst (well, the monk gets it worst, but the monk's not an out-and-out meleer and there's more to monk woes than just the problems with meleers versus casters).
If you feel like following with a counterexample, you may want to produce something more difficult to circumvent. In this case for example, the Barbarian using Withdraw can move 80'. This is 4 times Dwarf movement (and more than one run action). If the Barbarian uses any terrain feature to cancel possible charges, the Dwarf is looking at full attack action every second turn.
If the Dwarf is a Barbarian, he is also not a Fighter, hence, you leave the boundaries of the original example (that of a Dwarf Fighter vs a Barbarian Archer). And since we were talking fighters here...Regards,
Ruemere
First... why the heck is a barbarian running away for an entire battle and attacking at range... shame on him.
Second... the dwarf fighter just needs one attack. You yourself said bows were easy to sunder.
Third... fighters have access to reach weapons. Withdraw isn't so easy.
Fourth... if a dwarf fighter is constantly being attacked by barbarian archers and we assume he'll never be able to catch them, he can take a tower shield and completely nullify any ranged attack routine they may have. I doubt he will however, because:
1) This example is a corner case IMO
2) It doesn't fairly represent what is being discussed in this thread; namely, it is a poor example in representing the side of the argument that fighters aren't "good enough."
Ruemere, I simply find it highly dubious when people try to explain their POV with very specific examples.
Personally, I'm entirely against fighter-only feats. I do also think that a lot of the changes I'd like to see are changes in combat rules and changes to/additional feats. For me, it's more a meleer problem than a fighter problem; the fighter just maybe gets it the worst (well, the monk gets it worst, but the monk's not an out-and-out meleer and there's more to monk woes than just the problems with meleers versus casters).
I agree that it may be more of a combat rules problem and that's where any disparities can be fixed best.
I'm going to go completely out on a limb and say that I think that the fighter gets a lot of attention as well because, despite its limitations, it's a more popular class than the other melee types. Could be totally wrong on that though. I make that assumption solely based on my 2 group's class preferences and on the overall impression I get from the boards.
Personally, I'm entirely against fighter-only feats. I do also think that a lot of the changes I'd like to see are changes in combat rules and changes to/additional feats. For me, it's more a meleer problem than a fighter problem; the fighter just maybe gets it the worst (well, the monk gets it worst, but the monk's not an out-and-out meleer and there's more to monk woes than just the problems with meleers versus casters).I agree that it may be more of a combat rules problem and that's where any disparities can be fixed best.
I'm going to go completely out on a limb and say that I think that the fighter gets a lot of attention as well because, despite its limitations, it's a more popular class than the other melee types. Could be totally wrong on that though. I make that assumption solely based on my 2 group's class preferences and on the overall impression I get from the boards.
Personally I think the fighter in pathfinder now rocks and has finally gotten the class specific attention it needed.
But the combat issue is still there, but like I mentioned above, the whole pandoras box issue, and there are certain things I like about not full attacking with a move. Archers for example dont get run up on and drilled.
In OUR games WE dont have a problem with the move rules and fighters get in plenty of opportunity for full attacks. BUT I think people like bagpuss and their groups probably have more miniatures/warhammer expereince and are constantly looking at tactical moves and such, so the "issue" is more readily apparent.
My players havent done mini-battle boards since battle tech was in vogue.
we also tend to do alot fo close dungeon fighting, the rooms are small etc. sure there are outside encounters (like a dragon that was swoop attacking us recently) But they arent common enough to ruin the fighters fun.
However im not saying that the problem isnt there, just that it can more easily show up in one group than another.
But Im going to have to rest my case and say the fighter is great, and the melee/combat rules are bad.
It will be interesting to see what Jason comes up with (and I know he is comming up with something from reading these threads)
I hope and pray it isnt a string of "must have feats", it will become dizzying
Invisibility is a kicker. Short of a Hand of Glory, an Onyx Dog, or Dust of Appearance the best a fighter can do against Invisible foes is to fall back to cover and use dogs (or other animals with scent) to warn of approaching foes.I have this one boofhead in a game who plays a stock vanilla fighter. A Katana weilding guy in medium armour ('heavy armour is for pansys')
His solution for invisible monks was blind fight combined with listen checks, and it worked out fine for him.
Battswe had invisible kobolds via dust of disappearance recently, it wasnt that big of a deal, however, i supposed had it been invisible t-rex's it would have been a TPK.
Dust of appearance and wands of see invisible aren't hard to come by.
potions of fly also not a big deal.
Yes. Some fighter lovers don't want to use their brain. I've been saying this in every thread (use potions and wands) but No. They don't want any problem what so ever. Yes here is something for them:
"I hate magic and magic users ...so I hate Supernatural Abilities & Spell-Like Abilities...so here is what I want"Fighter only ability : At level 5: See Invisibility - 1 round / fighter level [extraordinary]
Fighter only ability : At level 7: Grow wings - 1 round / fighter level [extraordinary]
Fighter only ability : At level 11 Full attack - full attack as a standard action - [extraordinary]
Am I having fun? No.
Why? Posting stuff like this is infantile, but thera are people who actually think like this.
Ï had a Paladin max out use magic devise and he had two wands of See Invisibility (and some other wands like longstrider, Heroism etc) and some potion s of fly and boots of fly. And we hade spellcasters using invisibility purge, glitterdust, dispel magic etc.
And the melee attack and move problem. Yes there is a problem, but it's not a fighter only problem. I'd say Barbarians, Monks and Paladins have a harder time because the are all about melee. I can't see them successfully go the archer way. No weapon training, no weapon specialisation, not many feats and neither Barbarians nor Paladins are dex based classes. And Palaadin as the archer don't work for me. I can't really see the Paladin as a coward using a bow as her main weapon.
Full attack and move? Do we want all the monsters/bad guy to get this as well?
|
I can't really see the Paladin as a coward using a bow as her main weapon.
In some campaign settings (such as Kingdoms of Kalamar), martial deities won't allow ANY follower to use a melee weapon without repurcussion, and Paladins outright lose their powers for using a bow or even hurling a javelin.
There's nothing from stopping a fighter from taking Use Magic Device. I always keep something handy when I play a fighter. :D
I can't really see the Paladin as a coward using a bow as her main weapon.
In some campaign settings (such as Kingdoms of Kalamar), martial deities won't allow ANY follower to use a melee weapon without repurcussion, and Paladins outright lose their powers for using a bow or even hurling a javelin.
There's nothing from stopping a fighter from taking Use Magic Device. I always keep something handy when I play a fighter. :D
if they can't use melee and can't use bow. what may they use?
Or did you mean: "In some campaign settings (such as Kingdoms of Kalamar), martial deities won't allow ANY follower to use a ranged weapon without repurcussion [...]"?
I can't really see the Paladin as a coward using a bow as her main weapon.
In some campaign settings (such as Kingdoms of Kalamar), martial deities won't allow ANY follower to use a melee weapon without repurcussion, and Paladins outright lose their powers for using a bow or even hurling a javelin.
There's nothing from stopping a fighter from taking Use Magic Device. I always keep something handy when I play a fighter. :D
if they can't use melee and can't use bow. what may they use?
Or did you mean: "In some campaign settings (such as Kingdoms of Kalamar), martial deities won't allow ANY follower to use a ranged weapon without repurcussion [...]"?
Rainbows... and lollipops?
I agree, it's a stupid (or sadistic) war god that doesn't see the huge tactical advantage of ranged combat.
And it is much easier for a fighter to have use magic device now in pathfinder than it ever was in 3.5
One thing I learned from this topic is that Solid Fog is the most overpowered 4th lvl spell, not Black Tentacles.
I think the problem with "weak" fighters is more about overpowered spells like this one then their class features.
I think it's much more of a problem when players don't come up with creative solutions to counter the many spells spellcasters can hurl at them. If you simply walk to the spellcaster until you can stand in front of him and beat him with a sword, of course he's gonna blast you to oblivion.
And that's the real fun of the game for me: Adapting to situations and make the environment work for you and against the enemies. For almost any example of a supposedly overpowered spell, there's some fighter player here who has a story how he defeated the spellcaster anyway. Just look at any cool fighting movie. It's not the cool moments when they charge a mook and impale him, but when they crush enemies with a heavy table, hurl them out of a window, or break their leg to make them fall from a wall. I think that's were fighters really shine, and it's nothing that could be done by fancy class features but only by the players creative way of thinking.
About any area denial spell can be negated by simply retreating back for a couple of meters. And you're rarely fighting on a flat empty plane that goes on in any direction, so you're unable to get out of line of sight.
101 ways for a fighter to kill a wizard.
1. Drop the pesky wizards tower on his head by sundering a structural wall.
2. 'Antimagic field in a can' Magic item and lump of firewood wood
I'll be the first to agree that, yes, fighters can be totally awesome at high levels: all you have to do is selectively ignore the game rules (aka "creative thinking" aka "use their brain") and let them do things that, according to the written combat rules, they can't do. But, in my case, this just tells me that the written rules could use some revision -- which is exactly what the Pathfinder RPG is all about.
Yes, my group, and Bagpuss', and Ruemere's, could ignore the combat rules, too, and talk about how great fighters are and how uncreative everyone else is. But for us, Pathfinder represents a way to put all those houserules that are needed to make them great into the actual rules.
And, yes, the combat rules themselves in 3.X are more to blame than the rules for the fighter class. I think the fixes could be fairly simple, too: make casting defensively scale with BAB of threatening character; allow trading of iterative attacks for movement (thus nixing the hydra's pounce example mentioned above), introduce a combat maneuver that checks someone else's movement, and either nudge saves a bit or nerf the "save-or-out-of-the-fight" enchantments a bit (I'd prefer the former, but YMMV).
Whats being missed here between the two sides (fighters are fine, and Fighters suck) is that each side doesn't play in the other sides camapaign.
Take a guy like HoustonDerek and his group. All seasoned players, clearly all tacticians. Everyone who plays wih them will maximize the tactical advantage as much as they can (they are thinkers).
So in a thinkers world a spell caster is going to pull out all the stops to keep from being stabbed, crushed, or otherwise stymied, and afterall why wouldn't he? He is after all the only supra-genius in the room (18 or higher int)
But because of the uber effectiveness of spells and the fact that mages can cast AND move, the tactical choices available for the fighter is "Die, Die now, or Die a slow agonizing death"
Now all their buddies in the same fight, clerics and wizards etc. can counter and still pull of tactical choices of their own, and as we've all pointed out, fights last 3-6 rounds, in which the fighter has spent the majority of his time, either dominated, manevuering a boulder into place to crush a mage who moved three turns ago, or geting about one swing in.
So they are talking about the level of contribution in that encounter, and the tools at which they are given to contribute are lacking.
Now on the fighters rock side of the table, lets say people like Zark, they play in more of a fantasy setting where things are so tactical and logical.
There is nothing wrong with either style of play, by the way.
But in Zarks world mages take spells based on what they like to cast and may pass up the most tactically perfect spell, or firendly mages spend more time buffing and helping fighters rather than being a one man show.
For whatever reasons, the fighters limitations is Zarks world aren't seen, or are minimized and dont occur often, and they are glaring and horrible in The world HoustonDerek and is crew play in.
Both are true and real.
No one wants fighters to see the invisibile or grow wings.
The arguement is that mages are afforded this magic cast and move, and the fighters are not, and that enemies can just run by fighters (ignoring them) to fight the actual threat (the spell casters).
I think the idea is more "Fix this problem" than it is "make the fighters godlings"
In the case where you have one mage and one fighter, the system gets even worse. Both start 30 feet apart. They both have the same movement.
The mage can cast and move, the fighter can move and swing once.
So if the mage wins inititive then he casts, and moves, now the fighter is he wasnt hit with something he couldnt save against and kept him from moving at all, has to move to where the mage was, and can do nothing, or ready a bow.
We keep going through this scenario as the mage casts and moves and the fighter can only hope to get in one swing, maximum.
This denys the fighter his main function, full attack. While allowing the mage to always use his main function, cast spells. So iterative attacks become useless if everything keeps moving. And after all WHY would a mage stand still for a fighter to drill him?
The reason why a mage should NOT be able to cast and move is his somatic component in older editions meant he had to stand still to cast. Now he can swing on vines and flip as long as he makes his check which everyone playing a mage maxes out.
With maxed out spellcraft it is pretty hard to fail doing any of this.
A fighter does not need to make a check to get access to full attack but is pretty much denied it cart blanch and the mage has too many opportunities to deny him of this.
But as I have pointed out before, in some people camapign this doesn't really happen often. In others its a regular occurance.
Persoanlly I would still like to see a return to a somatic component MEANING something and spellcraft checks being a little harder to make (there should be a substantial chance to fail a spell with somatic component if you are tumbling. But still the ability to actually get it off too!)
So with that being said nobody is looking for super powers for the fighter, and noones arguement is "wrong".
I also dont think anyone actually beleives the fighter itself needs more work.
It's the combat system for some , or in my opinion mages need a tad more nerf.
I'll be the first to agree that, yes, fighters are great at high levels if you ignore the game rules (aka "creative thinking") and let them do things that, according to the written combat rules, they can't do. But, in my case, this just tells me that the written rules could use some revision -- which is exactly what the Pathfinder RPG is all about.
Yes, my group, and Bagpuss', and Ruemere's, could ignore the combat rules, too, and talk about how great fighters are and how uncreative everyone else is. But for us, Pathfinder represents a way to put all those houserules that are needed to make them great into the actual rules.
And, yes, the combat rules themselves in 3.X are more to blame than the rules for the fighter class. I think the fixes could be fairly simple, too: make casting defensively scale with BAB of threatening character; allow trading of iterative attacks for movement (thus nixing the hydra's pounce example mentioned above), introduce a combat maneuver that checks someone else's movement, and either nudge saves a bit or nerf the "save-or-out-of-the-fight" enchantments a bit (I'd prefer the former, but YMMV).
Thinking creatively and breaking the rules are not one and the same thing. There are a great many creative solutions to encounterd which are entirely within the rules.
I'll be the first to agree that, yes, fighters can be totally awesome at high levels: all you have to do is selectively ignore the game rules (aka "creative thinking" aka "use their brain") and let them do things that, according to the written combat rules, they can't do. But, in my case, this just tells me that the written rules could use some revision -- which is exactly what the Pathfinder RPG is all about.
Yes, my group, and Bagpuss', and Ruemere's, could ignore the combat rules, too, and talk about how great fighters are and how uncreative everyone else is. But for us, Pathfinder represents a way to put all those houserules that are needed to make them great into the actual rules.
And, yes, the combat rules themselves in 3.X are more to blame than the rules for the fighter class. I think the fixes could be fairly simple, too: make casting defensively scale with BAB of threatening character; allow trading of iterative attacks for movement (thus nixing the hydra's pounce example mentioned above), introduce a combat maneuver that checks someone else's movement, and either nudge saves a bit or nerf the "save-or-out-of-the-fight" enchantments a bit (I'd prefer the former, but YMMV).
Yes thats true kirth, I keep forgetting about that idea to trade movement and iterative attacks. Thats' proabably the best idea, make that a single feat (so those that aren't fighters dont have to soak up alot just to do the same)
and you have pretty much fixed that whole problem.I still think there should be some trade/nerf on mage casting and movement. But I wont cry if it doesnt happen.
Beef some saves a little, specifically higher level, and that shall not pass feat, and then wammy, near perfect no?
See now most of that or not all is rules set and not the actual fighter.
Looking at the fighter itself, just as it is. The OP is right, Fighters Rule.
Take a guy like HoustonDerek and his group. All seasoned players, clearly all tacticians. Everyone who plays wih them will maximize the tactical advantage as much as they can (they are thinkers). So in a thinkers world a spell caster is going to pull out all the stops to keep from being stabbed, crushed, or otherwise stymied, and afterall why wouldn't he? He is after all the only supra-genius in the room (18 or higher int)
I very much admire your insight... or do you have HoustonDerek's apartment bugged? Last Sunday (me as referee) played out exactly that way. The party wizard forgot some important facts and ended up out of the game halfway in; the rest of them (including Derek) attacked the NPC wizard without tilting the scales far enough in their favor first... and they all died. We loved it, because, in Derek's words (or words to that effect), "Hey, we got impatient, and didn't think straight. If that guy hadn't killed us, it would have seemed contrived and artificial and lame. And that's no kind of game I'd want to play in."
I still think there should be some trade/nerf on mage casting and movement. Beef some saves a little, specifically higher level, and that shall not pass feat, and then wammy, near perfect no? See now most of that or not all is rules set and not the actual fighter.
Yes, to all those points. In fact, the next time I lose it and bust into one of these threads, just remind me that you've got it covered. That way I won't spew all kinds of long-winded posts again that somehow miss the essence of what you've so aptly summarized.
|
|
if they can't use melee and can't use bow. what may they use?
Or did you mean: "In some campaign settings (such as Kingdoms of Kalamar), martial deities won't allow ANY follower to use a ranged weapon without repurcussion [...]"?
I mean exactly that. Some deities find ranged weapons cowardly and offensive and their followers cannot use them (technically they can, but Paladins and Clerics will quickly find themselves their Ex-version).
Fighters are pretty great.No, they're not.
The entire cast of options that Fighters have, is, indeed, the subset of options all other classes have.
And that should be a self-obvious enough definition to tell you that fighters suck.
Fighters need to be able to hit the opponent. That's all they have the bonuses to do. They can't entangle them from afar, throw fog or darkness down, hide, sneak, turn into wild beasts or the enemy's friends. These are all things other classes can do, and the fighter cannot.
The fighter also does not innately have any counters to any of these options other classes have.
It's really, really simple. Fighter has less options, and therefore is an NPC, not a PC. Any attempt to say 'But they're just harder to play!' is a cop-out, because in no cases is the fighter doing something which isn't an option to another class.
Hitpoints do not make up for not having spells.
-Crissa
For a long time I've wondered about how good the fighter is compaired to other classes. I think you make some valid points but I don't think the Fighter should just disappear or die. Its got a solid foundation with a lot of possibilities. And in early levels of the game the Fighter is just down right king of the party.
I think the weapon and armor training is a step in the right direction. But I think more is needed. Though the Fighter is somewhat suppose to be the simple class to play I think they may need to add more to it. The Fighter needs to be the undisputed king of martial combat!
Take a guy like HoustonDerek and his group. All seasoned players, clearly all tacticians. Everyone who plays wih them will maximize the tactical advantage as much as they can (they are thinkers). So in a thinkers world a spell caster is going to pull out all the stops to keep from being stabbed, crushed, or otherwise stymied, and afterall why wouldn't he? He is after all the only supra-genius in the room (18 or higher int)I very much admire your insight... or do you have HoustonDerek's apartment bugged? Last Sunday (me as referee) played out exactly that way. The party wizard forgot some important facts and ended up out of the game halfway in; the rest of them (including Derek) attacked the NPC wizard without tilting the scales far enough in their favor first... and they all died. We loved it, because, in Derek's words (or words to that effect), "Hey, we got impatient, and didn't think straight. If that guy hadn't killed us, it would have seemed contrived and artificial and lame. And that's no kind of game I'd want to play in."
Kirth its lotsa years of playing, lotsa of reading yours and Dereks posts and just recognizing the Jist of what you've both said.
And Lotsa agreeing with you.You also have to remember since I have bounced around the country so much, I've been "forced" to play with whatever groups I could find.
Four major groups I've ever been in:
1) elementary school: Most of the players were older then me and I had to beg to play. I never got to make my own character, they "Gave me one" every time. I maybe did that for a year. All the players were my friends older brother and his school mates.
2) High school/College: My core group of friends during that period of my life. I met all of them after joining the "Strategic Games" club in High school for something to do after school while waiting for a ride home.
Strategic Games were supposed to be like risk and stratego, but everyone was playing RPGS.
Players ranged from a little older to a little younger than me, and we pretty much also hung out when not RPGing (most of us there were a few weirdos we only RPG'd with)
In these games there was One of each type of player.
Back then I Always HAD to be the STRONGEST character (highest STR stat) Idunno it was an obession of mine.
This kid Brian was the Min/Max power gamer (and he liked to play girl charaters)
Chris was the sneaky strategist.
Bill was either always a drow or the GM.
John was always the "outside the box" character trying to make a character there wasnt ever a rule for (in first ED he wanted to play an elven, paladin, werewolf. but we has a good guy! yknw because he was a a paladin)
Mark always seemed to be the guy that found the rule that totally blew up the whole camapaign, we was the "sleeper" always seemed to be the weakest member of a party until KpoW! Monkey wrench.
In cyberpunk, Mark played a net runner who found a way to take control of the biggest baddest cyborg NPC and take his body using his cyberdeck (basically magic jarred him) so he was a net running solo, basically.
In Rampant Live action RPG he was the first mage to specialize and go for only mind control (only one list made it easy for him to buy LOTS of mana points, which were the qualifier for the next level and the next level of spells) No buffs, no damage control, just mind control, which at first level is only repulse spells, until he got sleep on his list, and then assassinated like EVERYBODY.
Mark had a DnD Drow Fighter/Magic-user/ Theif. I dont remember how we rules lawyered this one, but he was able to back stab an adult blue dragon and take it out in one shot.
Then there were the two shawns
Well Sean and Shawn
Sean was hmmm "Normal" by all aspects.
Shawn was always a Bard and ALWAYS talking. He also managed the hobby cart, was the oldest memeber of our group and sold us basically everything we bought for gaming.
Shawn also was sometimes the GM. It was better that way because the always talking thing seemed to fit better.
3) when we started playing Rampant Live RPG, awhole new group got put together.
A chicks started playing reguarly (yyyyeeeeehaw no need for dudes to play chicks! awwwwwesome!)
You guessed it Brian was quickly dropped from the group 1) his gender bender characters were better suited to be played by well the right gender and 2) he drooled on every girl that EVER played with us 3) most of the girls usually ended up dating me, although some of them went off with John or Mark.
So Brian wasnt needed.
Not so sure what happened to Shawn, but he never even tried the live RPG thing, and then wasnt included int he tabel top group either and the other Sean was married by then.
Bill wandered off.
New gamers (to me) were Louisa, Another chick i cant remember, and two dudes I cant remember. Also was this one Girl.... one heck I can't think of her name either.
Anyway this is the group were Id basically get killed, by PCs ALL the time. Paladns killing me because of evil alignment, females killing me because I was male (dont ask me about that one) etc etc.
And alot more power gamers. Dont ask me why.
The most power character in the group was one of the girls whose name I cant remember, because she was a cleric, and could cast both inflict and heal spells and would "trick you" if you asked for healing and was close to death, shed basically finsih you off, an you had to start another character at level 1.
Obviously I didnt play long.
In Rampant Live,we all were friends and played well together, hmpf.
4) The Army days. I was almost always DM (90%) we basically gamed when we ran out of Paychecks from spending it on wine women an song (two weeks on two weeks off, we got paid once a month)
One night after returning from the chow hall, a CAR LOAD of girls pulled up with a CAR LOAD of liquor, asking us if we wanted to party.
We said no, WHY? We wanted to get back to gamming! HA! is that twisted or what? (I alllllmost went with them my self all alone, but I was the GM and I felt bad, STILL twisted!!!!)
In the Army RPG group this one guy HYDA was able to "teach me" not to be a "say no" DM, Don't say no It can't be done, just let the player figure out some crazy way of trying it, then assign it a difficulty, if he fails then he fails, but at least he got to try.
That always seemed to be a better way to play than, No you cant scale the glass wall with your quadrapalegic character.
After that it has just been bounce bounce bounce, never had a solid group. that was Ten years ago.
Some stuff about fightersHave you ever haggled? If you want to pay 100 $ you start with 50$.
That's what the "fighter must have it all" is all about.
- Good will saves
- more class skills
- more skill points
- more feats
- 12HD
- and more, and more, and more
It's haggle
Was this sarcasm?
Surely you don't believe that the right way to intelligently design a logical, balanced, and integrated system mechanic (gaming or anything else) is to shoot for the moon and haggle with other system designers until you reach a happy medium?
I'll assume your post was sarcasm.
For a long time I've wondered about how good the fighter is compaired to other classes. I think you make some valid points but I don't think the Fighter should just disappear or die. Its got a solid foundation with a lot of possibilities. And in early levels of the game the Fighter is just down right king of the party.I think the weapon and armor training is a step in the right direction. But I think more is needed. Though the Fighter is somewhat suppose to be the simple class to play I think they may need to add more to it. The Fighter needs to be the undisputed king of martial combat!
I think the fighter is already the king of martial combat.
Undisputed?
I surely hope not.
If the fighter is undispute king, then nobody would ever want to play a monk, barbarian, paladin, or ranger. Why play 2nd rate wannabe combatants when you could play the undisputed king?
No, a fighter should be the king of martial combat, but every other melee class needs to right there behind him.
Close behind him.
Or why play them?
All the PF fighter really needs to round him off is the following:
1. Give fighters a few new class skills. Stop treating fighters like dumb brutes.
Acrobatics - moving around the battlefield without getting clobbered is crucial to being a successful melee expert.
Bluff - feinting in combat should not be sole perogative of bards and rogues.
Escape Artist - getting out of grapples is life-or-death in melee. Fighters should be better at this.
Heal - ever met a career soldeir that couldn't apply first aid?
2. Give fighters 4 skill points per level so they can be skillful. Not dumb brutes.
3. Give fighters good reflex saves. Any fighter who can't jump out of harm's way is a soon-to-be-dead fighter, especially in a world with fireballs and breath weapons and traps around every corner.
4. Take away a bonus feat at some mid-high level and replace it with Evasion, for the same reason as improving their reflex saves. Sure, rogues learn evasion at a very low level, and fighter learn it at a much higher level. Low-level fighters take their lumps from spellcasters but if they live long enough to reach higher levels, they will learn how to get out of the way of much of the spellcaster's damage.
5. Fix and/or improve several combat feats. Do NOT make them fighter-only because the other melee classes need them too. Power Attack is one example, but there are many. This is not so much a failure of the fighter class, but a failure of those particular feats.
And bam!
Just like that, fighters are fixed. They can live longer in high-level combat and they are more versatile with their skills.
They will have many feats to allow them to employ a wide array of interesting combat tactics, more than any other class in the game.
They are already good at avoiding melee damage (good armor and high AC) and dealing melee damage (high BAB and weapon training and specialization), so they don't need any help there at all.
As for their ability to sneak, hide, fly, kill invisible creatures, etc. (all that stuff that people complain fighters cannot do) - well, fighters shouldn't do all this stuff. That's why they have friends, and bows, and some potions.
Rogues can't tank. Wizards can't brawl. Bards can't do much of anything :)
So why should fighters expect to be able to do everything on their own?
Was this sarcasm?
Surely you don't believe that the right way to intelligently design a logical, balanced, and integrated system mechanic (gaming or anything else) is to shoot for the moon and haggle with other system designers until you reach a happy medium?
I'll assume your post was sarcasm.
Unfortunately, that's how some people really do roll.
Fixing 3.5/Pathfinder fighter without breaking the game in fighter's favor should allow just that. For example:
1. Dominated? Just give me a round to come around. (i.e. fighter does nothing while shrugging off effects)
2. Walled off? Flexing muscles, bringing the house down! (i.e. surge of strength and breaking up stuff, including walls of force)
3. Attacked from range? Go fully defensive and sniff the bastard out using my sense of smell (i.e. more skill points to find out whereabouts of opponent)
4. Disabled by spell? Scream, flail about and slowly thaw.
By the way, Barbarian can already do most of this stuff.
Regards,
Ruemere
These all sound like the basis for some really nifty Fighter Talents to me...
[stuff and] But in Zarks world mages take spells based on what they like to cast and may pass up the most tactically perfect spell, or firendly mages spend more time buffing and helping fighters rather than being a one man show.
For whatever reasons, the fighters limitations is Zarks world aren't seen, or are minimized and dont occur often, and they are glaring and horrible in The world HoustonDerek and is crew play in.
Both are true and real.
Perhaps youn are right, but I would not say (or write) "in Zarks world mages take spells based on what they like to cast and may pass up the most tactically perfect spell"
I would say:in Zarks world mages take spells based on what benifits the group even if it means that these spells make the fighter/paladin/tank shine.
make it easier to disrupt spells by changing the DC for spellcraft in combat situations
agree. Make it scale with BAB or something.
Some stuff about fightersHave you ever haggled? If you want to pay 100 $ you start with 50$.
That's what the "fighter must have it all" is all about.
- Good will saves
- more class skills
- more skill points
- more feats
- 12HD
- and more, and more, and more
It's haggleWas this sarcasm?
Surely you don't believe that the right way to intelligently design a logical, balanced, and integrated system mechanic (gaming or anything else) is to shoot for the moon and haggle with other system designers until you reach a happy medium?
I'll assume your post was sarcasm.
sarcasm? Yes and no. I don't say I like it. I'm just saying all these proposals have been made in differnt threads and I don't like them.
As for "let's let fighters have "move + full attack". I never understood it. This....is....not....a ....specific....figher....problem.This is a high level problem for melee characters. And I have been saying this again and again and again.
Yes - it's a problem
and
yes I do think high level play is a problem
and
yes change the DC for spellcraft somehow.
But move + full attack a specific fighter problem? No.
As for our game. My DM says our group are great at building good defensive charecters (not so much focus on offence). Perhaps that's why our fights last a bit longer than most of the posters here. No one in our group 'shines'.
Our last rogue made use of a silence box. Not sneak attack all the time, but he made it hard for enemy spellcasters. At higher levels some of them had silent spell, but it worked from time to time.
The Wizard casted true seeing on the tank or fly etc. Not flashy but it worked.
The wizard (or cleric) did't shine all the time, neighter did any one in the group. But the group shined.
Do we want a dragon to charge and use a full attack?
Do we want the evil enemy fighter/melee charecter to charge and have a full attack?
Important balance assumption!
- characters within 1-2 levels of each other should not be able to kill themselves with one spell/round of attack, even with criticals and failed saves,
- that said, one should be able to prevent the other from acting for a round or two.- characters within 3-4 levels of each other should be able to hurt the weaker party with relative ease, but again, no one-round fatalities yet.
- character of more 4 levels/CR of difference are of the relation hero-mook. Higher level character should mop down the floor with 8 such guys.
Basically, ordinary attacks should become save-or-dies with high level difference while any current save-or-die should become "disabled for a round, penalized for several rounds afterwards".
Regards,
Ruemere
You cannot make this statement in a vacuum.
I would certainly expect a fight between a 1st and 2nd level character to be decided by one good blow, especially if it's a critical.
Likewise, I don't think I would ever expect a 20th level character to one-shot a 16th level character, nor wipe the floor with 8 16th level characters.
Even the SRD says 2 16th level characters are CR 18 and 4 16th level characters are CR 20. Not 8. (I am not sure how pathfinder compares).
Even so, 4 16th level fighters would certainly wipe the floor with a 20th level fighter, not the other way around.
Perhaps you were thinking in terms of level percentages rather than abosolute level differences?
As far as I can tell, the classic stereotype of a heroic fighter relies on a fighter being able to dodge, shrug off blows or, in a dramatic surge, pull themselves from the rubble and keep on fighting.
Fixing 3.5/Pathfinder fighter without breaking the game in fighter's favor should allow just that. For example:
1. Dominated? Just give me a round to come around. (i.e. fighter does nothing while shrugging off effects)
2. Walled off? Flexing muscles, bringing the house down! (i.e. surge of strength and breaking up stuff, including walls of force)
3. Attacked from range? Go fully defensive and sniff the bastard out using my sense of smell (i.e. more skill points to find out whereabouts of opponent)
4. Disabled by spell? Scream, flail about and slowly thaw.
By the way, Barbarian can already do most of this stuff.
Regards,
Ruemere
So let me see If I got this right.
Give the fighter the good stuff the barbarian have and give the barbarian nothing?Our gruop almost got TPK:ed by a vampire. He used spells and vampire styff. Should the Vampire not be able to to that?
Go for "Book of Nine Swords" - Style ... I like it!!!
CMB = Combat Maneuver Bonus right? why not give them some extra maneuver features like in "ToB" ... would sound awesome. And in any case they wouldn't be overpowered if the maneuver and stance selection is limited by CMB, and the 9 different Initiator powers are determined by class - especially more for the nonspellcaster classes.
Greets
ultimate_illusionist
Go for "Book of Nine Swords" - Style ... I like it!!!
CMB = Combat Maneuver Bonus right? why not give them some extra maneuver features like in "ToB" ... would sound awesome. And in any case they wouldn't be overpowered if the maneuver and stance selection is limited by CMB, and the 9 different Initiator powers are determined by class - especially more for the nonspellcaster classes.
Greets
ultimate_illusionist
The Book of Nine Swords is fun, and I like it too, but it's also fairly comic bookish, or video gamey.
Not everyone wants that in their D&D. If we did, we'd be playing 4e.
I don't want my D&D fighters running around shouting "Seven Dragon Chop" and then executing some outlandish and unrealistic combat maneuver that for all intents and purposes just mimics a spell on another class' spell list.
Even if the majority of Pathfinder developers and testers felt otherwise, I don't believe this really falls in the realm of "Backwards Compatibility".
While I like the Book of Nine Swords, I'd rather save it as an optional splat book.
So let me see If I got this right.
Give the fighter the good stuff the barbarian have and give the barbarian nothing?Our gruop almost got TPK:ed by a vampire. He used spells and vampire stuff. Should the Vampire not be able to to that?
No , the non sense about giving the fighter things like evasion takes something away from the rogue, thats their bit.
Fighters kill. Rangers do other stuff, Paladins do other stuff, and Barabarians still other stuff.
Fighters SHOULD be the best with arms and armor. Just because the others are basically at one time fighter subclasses doesnt mean they should be the fighter plus.
If you want to have more move and a surge of strength, barbarian, if you want heal and potective auras? Paladin. Want to "sniff out where the enemy is,Ranger.
Full BAB shouldnt mean "just as good as fighter" anymore than Fighter should mean "just as good as paladin (ranger, barbarian etc)
Further more, if the party gets hosed with an AOF spell the rogue is suppoed to be the one most likely to skip out on the effects. Thats what the evasion (and some other features are all about)
Like wise with the rogues slippery mind. He's desinged to be the "annoying one" the evil arch mage just can seem to pin down.
You shouldnt spread around the rogues goodies anymore than everyone should get armor training or weapon specialization.
These all sound like the basis for some really nifty Fighter Talents to me...Fixing 3.5/Pathfinder fighter without breaking the game in fighter's favor should allow just that. For example:
1. Dominated? Just give me a round to come around. (i.e. fighter does nothing while shrugging off effects)
2. Walled off? Flexing muscles, bringing the house down! (i.e. surge of strength and breaking up stuff, including walls of force)
3. Attacked from range? Go fully defensive and sniff the bastard out using my sense of smell (i.e. more skill points to find out whereabouts of opponent)
4. Disabled by spell? Scream, flail about and slowly thaw.
By the way, Barbarian can already do most of this stuff.
Regards,
Ruemere
I'll try not to be rude here just in case my poor English has made me missunderstand something.
I'll now repeat some stuff I posted in other threads.This is not a computergame like Diablo, Oblivion or Neverwinter Night.
This is Not PVP.
This is not one player vs. one monster.
A fighter, or any class for that matter, can't have it all.
It is good when you can get TPK:ed.
Some game sessions ago our group allmost got TPK:ed ...by our lvl 6 archer ranger. Had he been a archer fighter, we would all have been dead.
A vampire Dominated the ranger and our fighter got his hands full by two lycanthropes. Yes Dominated.
So what do you do? Hope you stay alive and get your ranger back to normal by spells. In this case we had to kill the bad guys and beat our ranger to -7.
....some more damage and he would have been killed by his own - ahahaha
Anyway. If you are a fighter. If you get Dominated. You should hope you get some help from your local cleric, Paladin, Bard or sorcerer/wizard.
Spells like Dispel Evil works perfect.
If your Fighter has lost 100 HP and need healing. What does he do? Get a feat and heal himself? No, he turns to his lokal Cleric, Paladin, Bard, druid or whatever.
This is not a solo game. The Fighter or Ranger (or whatever) should have his/her weak spots. You help each other.
It's not great to play rogue with bad will and fortitude saves when you fail to disable a trap and then have a disintigrate, slay living or Feeblemind to deal with.
Poor fortitude saves - sorry you are dead. Does that mean the rogue should have good fortitude saves?
Poor will saves - sorry you're now are a drooling piece of met and the rest of the group has to run away and leave you to die.
Rogue? The scouting charecter. Sorry you're 60 feet away from the party and just got ambushed. In 2 rounds you're dead dead dead. Unless you got freedom of movement and 60 ft speed.
Shall we give rogues a speed boost and freedom of movemnet?
My point is: you play like an army. Every class has his/her role/function.
Dominated fighter or ranger (or XXXX)? The Cleric: - here I come!
- A fighter without his armor and weapon suck.
- A spellcaster without his spells suck.
And sometimes in some battles a class like the fighter or rogue or wizard suck. ...and the bard more or less always syck.
Now. Some time a long time agio we played Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. The Party got into trouble with an earth elemental who almost got us TPK:ed. We came back with a new tactic. I can't remeber it all but the main thing was:
Shield Other, haste, stoneskin on our fighter/dwarven defender. The rogue had a wand of CMW (or CLW?) and healed the cleric (and the fighter). The cleric healed himself and the fighter.
The fighter was the star. The rogue could not sneak attack but he helped.
And when we fought something with Spell Immunity, like a Golem, our wizard had to do other stuff than cast fireball or Disintegrate.
And when we fought rogue vampires. No fun for the rogue (3.5 couldn't sneak attack) and no fun for the wizard (the have great reflex saves + evasion)
Same stuff now. I play a rogue. I don't complain If we meet elementals or Barbarians or stuff I can't sneak attack. I try to help the party the best way I can. I got wisdom 12 , Iron will and and a cloak of resist +2 and I still fail my will saves from time to time and I fail my fort saves. And if I were to bash out a lot of damage - i still only got my studded leather +1 and nu armor training. My AC not good enough to be a tank. It takes 2 hits and I'm out, so I use combat expertise and sometimes I fighting defensively. I don't hit the mosters all of the time but our fighter get's a flank bonus and he hits and do damage.
I like it. I like the fact that my rogue got some weak spots. We can get TPK:ed - I like it.
No Pain - no Gain, no Fun and no Glory