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?
Things
I'm not exactly an expert on this sort of thing (in fact, I like fighters pretty well myself) but, I'd say one of the reasons they are considered underpowered, is that the one thing they are expected to do and do well (FIGHT), can be done better by several other classes.
ThingsI'm not exactly an expert on this sort of thing (in fact, I like fighters pretty well myself) but, I'd say one of the reasons they are considered underpowered, is that the one thing they are expected to do and do well (FIGHT), can be done better by several other classes.
Such as?
Rogues can't stand and deliver the way that fighters can. Barbarians, Rangers, Paladins, are heavily flavored variations of Fighers that have useful abilities and powers, but pay for it by having much less in the way of combat feats. Many of thier special abilities are also environment or divine-dependant (not violating a code of honor, not becoming lawful, etc)
Plus, there's just the fact that a non-supernatural hero who is not beholden to any gods, philosophy, or abstract requierments, but who gets by on his own wits and mettle and skill, it very attractive to a whole *lot* of players on a conceptual level. I'd rather play a fighter on that alone.
Hell, Mike Mearls made an entire set of classes in Iron Heroes by detailing and spreading out this concept into several different classes.
I've always like the fighter, i always question why someone would play a paladin over a fighter. i'm a rogue man myself, but i like just a simple fighter if i'm not playing a rogue.
I've always like the fighter, i always question why someone would play a paladin over a fighter. i'm a rogue man myself, but i like just a simple fighter if i'm not playing a rogue.
Indeed!
You can give a character flavor by roleplaying, without having to take a different class to do it. Fighters, being almost a blank slate, are ripe for all kinds of epic storytelling, backstory, roleplaying, and fun. I think, also, that it's far more satisfying to defeat a frost giant as a fighter than as a paladin or something, because afterwards I can say "I did it myself".
I don't think they're too weak any more. The new class features have given them quite a boost, I'd say: Better attack bonus, more damage, more AC - and the ability to get even more of that via dexterity.
I'd say that unless you go crazy with the power level (30 or mor points purchase method, epic levels, min-maxed race/template/class/PrC choices) and generally have a lenient GM, the fighter's AC can beat everyone else's. Heavy Armour with an extra bonus on top of armour, shield, natural and deflection in addition to an increased max dex bonus mean that your AC is better than the clerics, or the rogue's, or the barbarian's, or the monk's.
Add to that the weapon training stuff, and all the exclusive feats they're getting, and you have yourself a veritable fighting machine.
And of course the fighter's about as vanilla as you can get, but I think that's a good thing. Vanilla might not be as exotic as mango-kiwi or as precious as truffle, but it's still very tasty, and goes well with just about everything.
You can use the class for an amazing amount of fighting types, and you can easily add it to just about every other class without getting weird mixes that are just too weird to work properly. Everyone can use a couple of levels of fighter to improve his fighting talents without having to cook up a new backstory about how he just happened to find religion, or all of a sudden is able to use that spellbook.
As I have said before, being a "blank slate", the Fighter is a big box of lego blocks limited only by the player's creativity and ability to make a solid build. Being a fan of customization, I love fighters.
Of course, the virtue of a "make your own class features" class which grants total control to the player also means a Fighter is only as good as his player's ability to make builds, which automatically makes him a "not for everyone" class, and particuarly vetoed to the kind of players who don't like to think.
Precisely last month I GM'd Entombed with the Pharaohs (module J1), and the one shining when the going got tough wasn't the group's Sorcerer or even the Cleric, it was the Fighter.
Of course there will always people griping with totally one-sided scenarios like the spellcaster who has already six buffs on his person to make himself completely invulnerable and previously scried on you to know you're coming (saying of course, that you failed the save against the scrying) and so and so and so, but as one-sided scenarios go I might as well come up with equally ludicruous scenarios like drow or svirfneblin fighters with Spell-Resistance enhancing feats, armor with an inner coating of lead or otherwise magic items to prevent any divination effects from working on them, Blindsight-related feats, magic items with immunities and resistances (one of them being Greater Globe of Invulnerability of course), and dispelling weapons. Heh, that reminds me of my days of Neverwinter Nights, I remember all PvP servers there had a golden rule regarding duels: Pre-buffing is for amateurs, nothing you do has any merit unless you can prove yourself to a rival both starting in neutral conditions.
Fighters suck because things that use various tricks, more complex than "I full attack!", put them at enormous disadvantage, and things that do not use said tricks tend to crush them by virtue of bigger numbers and better abilities, such as improved grab, pounce, etc. They suffer from lack of real class abilities, low flexibility (becase they cannot be have even two viable tricks without sacrificing power by investing in different feat trees), low survivability at medium-high levels (where their AC becomes incredibly hard to maintain at somewhat credible levels without sending their offense down the drain; and attack that do not target AC/HP become very common), and massive buff/magic item dependence. These disadvantages can be mitigated with optimization, but, well, if everyone optimized equally fighters remain inferior. Because everything they can do, others (and by this I mean other fighting classes) can do better.
I think the perception of a Fighter's strength depends a lot on how dirty your fellow players play. And by dirty I mean use spells from the Pathfinder BETA. Our group just got 4th level spells, here's a few things we did to some generic fighters in our last game:
Solid Fog - This gave us 3~4 turns to get ready/buff/summon while the fighter waded through the fog.
Sleet Storm - The fighters didn't have good acrobatics checks.
Invisibility, Greater - The fighters had no way to see through our invisibility.
Fly - Most of the fighters where melee, we where safer in the air than on the ground.
Certainly a fighter could counter any one of these, but he's not likely to be able to counter more than one at a given time, in my experience. Fighters are limited to 'I KILL THINGS', they can even do it well but when faced with a more complex battlefield they are not versatile.
Of course there will always people griping with totally one-sided scenarios like the spellcaster who has already six buffs on his person to make himself completely invulnerable and previously scried on you to know you're coming (saying of course, that you failed the save against the scrying) and so and so and so, but as one-sided scenarios go I might as well come up with equally ludicruous scenarios like drow or svirfneblin fighters with Spell-Resistance enhancing feats, armor with an inner coating of lead or otherwise magic items to prevent any divination effects from working on them, Blindsight-related feats, magic items with immunities and resistances (one of them being Greater Globe of Invulnerability of course), and dispelling weapons.
Yeah, these fighters are ludicrous (not because of their ability to do anything at all to an equal-CR caster - keep in mind, that we're talking about CR 11+ here, judging by amount of expensive magical stuff - exactly the opposite, in fact). The spellcaster with six buffs on his person all adventuring day (24/7 and more buffs if the player puts his mind to it instead of simply making no-brainer choices)? That's what we call a vanilla 9-th level. Even a 5th level can easily keep 2-3 good buffs on all adventuring day (and does so in out game).
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
I think the perception of a Fighter's strength depends a lot on how dirty your fellow players play. And by dirty I mean use spells from the Pathfinder BETA. Our group just got 4th level spells, here's a few things we did to some generic fighters in our last game:
Solid Fog - This gave us 3~4 turns to get ready/buff/summon while the fighter waded through the fog.
Sleet Storm - The fighters didn't have good acrobatics checks.
Invisibility, Greater - The fighters had no way to see through our invisibility.
Fly - Most of the fighters where melee, we where safer in the air than on the ground.Certainly a fighter could counter any one of these, but he's not likely to be able to counter more than one at a given time, in my experience. Fighters are limited to 'I KILL THINGS', they can even do it well but when faced with a more complex battlefield they are not versatile.
These fighters were played stupidly... Why did they try to push through the fog? They should've waited you out and let your buffs run down.
Sleet Storm, start crawling or go full defensive for the duration.
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.
Against flyers you need effective ranged attacks or a fly potion. simple enough.
Fighters can't counter spells directly, so they need to use tactics and equipment. It's not really much different than real life special forces. Tactics, Equipment, Intelligence. Even mooks have commanders that should feed them the intelligence if need be.
--Vrock and Awe!
|
You can give a character flavor by roleplaying, without having to take a different class to do it. Fighters, being almost a blank slate, are ripe for all kinds of epic storytelling, backstory, roleplaying, and fun. I think, also, that it's far more satisfying to defeat a frost giant as a fighter than as a paladin or something, because afterwards I can say "I did it myself".
This is exactly why fighters are my favorite class. No one else in my gaming group agrees with me, but I've always considered fighters to be the best because of their "blank slate" quality. Fighters can be anything. Rogues, barbarians, rangers, and paladins are all basically versions of the fighter. They all have fancy tricks like rage or sneak attack, but the sheer number of feats that fighters get means that you can replicate the sneaky feel of a rogue or the bestial nature of a barbarian while having much more control over how your character evolves over time. Also, as Dr. Swordopolis says, when your fighter takes out a bunch of orcs single-handed it's vastly more fun and satisfying then simply fireballing them into oblivion.
Another aspect of fighters that I feel tends to be ignored is that they are masters of the fight. That includes tactics and the very mechanics of a battle. Of course depending on the character, tactics sometimes aren't an option, but with a bit above average intelligence most fighters can figure out a way to use the environment or the objects around them to increase their options in battle. I say if you can't make the DM have to make up rules to account for something you do every once in a while then you aren't much of a PC.I guess what I'm trying to say is that spells and fancy effects bore me. I don't want my battle solved for me, I want to have to figure out a way to make what I have work, and starting with a blank slate is a great way to give me the options I need to do that.
Hey everyone, brand new to the forums here,
I'm have to say that the fighter is my 2nd favored of the classes right behind the barbarian, even though the barbarian is just a flavored version of the fighter. Some might think that because the fighter has so few class abilities to back it up than it has to suck. Wrong. The fighter has so little class abilities holding it back that you can take that class in anyway anyone with even a mediocum of imagination wants to go. That is the best thing about the class. Infinite story and roleplaying opportunities.
Survival rate for the fighter at any level is actually incredibly high (just behind the rogue in my group)so if fighters in other games are dropping like flies at higher levels then it has to be because the pc's don't want the fighter anymore.
|
really?
for crying out loud, said thread was locked by Jason due to this discussion going no where.
and i say lock it again
people who think nothing is wrong with the Fighter wont have their minds changed (if they actually play the game and come to this decision, nothing i say will change that) and the rest of us will keep lamenting how much the spellcasters own the game. (they are the only BBEG Adventure paths use, you have to build your Fighter and pick his equipment is such a way as to cover all the hundred and one ways that a spellcaster can own you in one round)
i am starting to dislike spellcasters having at-will abilities, i used to be able to say "at least my sword swings are not per-day abilites" now spellcasters are always able to toss something every round. (tonight's game was owned by a second level wizard with the evoker special ability, hate to see how nasty he will be at 5+ level)
your just fanning a pointless fire OP
There's a simple answer to this.
Without looking at gear - since all classes can have gear - how many options does a Fighter have vs another class?
If the answer is 'less', the Fighter fails.
It's that simple. Sure, you can make a fighter that excels in, well, fighting. The problem is that most of the other classes - especially spellcasting ones - no longer really delve into fighting at later levels, and just bypass the fighter totally.
Hitpoints don't make up for low saves and less tactical options.
-Crissa
|
|
Without looking at gear - since all classes can have gear - how many options does a Fighter have vs another class?
If the answer is 'less', the Fighter fails.
...
Hitpoints don't make up for low saves and less tactical options.
What I was trying to say was that fighters do have tactical options, it's just that you have to get more creative to come up with them rather then "get all the orcs close together, fireball, rinse, repeat". So yes, it's a more of a challenging class to play, but that's good. I'm definitely not one of the more experienced PCs, but I would think that the more experienced people would get this. What's the point in playing if it's too easy?
Craft Universal Item
Psionic Lion's Charge (Psychic Warrior 2nd, Manifester 4th)
Use-Activated (on a charge), 2000 x 2nd level power x 4th level manifester = 8000gp to buy or 4000gp to make.
Tada! You can now full attack on a charge whenever you want. That might even the playing field for the Fighter.
...
Doing the same with Craft Wondrous Item would require somewhere between Quickened Dimension Door (8th level slot, 15th caster level) or Quickened Teleport (9th level slot, 17th level).
However, that would let you travel MUCH farther in an instant, and give all sorts of extra options (bringing people/things along, don't have to see the destination, can travel past obstacles instead of just your regular movement, etc).
We're talking 120-150 thousand gold for the maker (240-300k to buy outright).
I'm not sure exactly how you'd price a simple "teleport 30' as a swift action" item.
Even then... it'd really be a player fix. Such an item would become so standard as magical equipment for melee characters, it'd be ridiculous to consider this for a core rules fix.
What I was trying to say was that fighters do have tactical options, it's just that you have to get more creative to come up with them rather then "get all the orcs close together, fireball, rinse, repeat". So yes, it's a more of a challenging class to play, but that's good. I'm definitely not one of the more experienced PCs, but I would think that the more experienced people would get this. What's the point in playing if it's too easy?
Here here.
really?
for crying out loud, said thread was locked by Jason due to this discussion going no where.
and i say lock it again
people who think nothing is wrong with the Fighter wont have their minds changed (if they actually play the game and come to this decision, nothing i say will change that) and the rest of us will keep lamenting how much the spellcasters own the game. (they are the only BBEG Adventure paths use, you have to build your Fighter and pick his equipment is such a way as to cover all the hundred and one ways that a spellcaster can own you in one round
This seems like a very juvenile attitude. Somebody who talks about "owning the game" shouldn't be playing D&D. You should be playing Guild Wars or some other computer game instead. I certain detest when players who think they can "win" show up at my table, or who measure thier success based on whether they could "own" other players in the party.
How the GM runs the game, also, has a tremendous, overwhelming impact on which class is "better". Spellcasters have some overwhelming weaknesses that always make me reluctant to play them.
For example: depending on rest.
Casters have to rest 8 hours. How often does anybody ever get 8 hours of sleep? Really? A GM that simply started observing this would suddenly put casteres at a great disadvantage. Suppose that you're in a war, and you're catching sleep in 3 or 4 hour increments, at best?
Suddenly, that fighter matters, alot. He's mortal, so he needs *some* rest. But not much. He's also much tougher, and can continue to operate when everyone else is exhausted. (So can the Monk, Barbarian, Ranger, and the other Fighters-With-Flavor)
Others in this thread have made the assertion, repeatedly, that the Fighters-with-Flavor do a better job at fighting than the vanilla class. How so? This has not been backed up by anything except blustering. Sure, Barbarians, or Rangers, or Paladins, are better at one or two things than Figthers. Not so good at other things. They also aren't so different that they couldn't just be worked into a customization tree for a single, modifiable Fighter class.
|
|
Uhm, arent we supposed to play a cooperative game? I for myself don't care much if a lonely and naked char can take out a flying critter because if it comes to this the player or group either screwed up badly or the GM wants this char dead. From my experience a caster might be able to overcome most enemies on his own but he will burn much of his precious spellpower doing so. And what is a caster without his spells?
So no, fighters don't rule or fail and neither does any other class by itself. Adventurer parties who believe in teamwork rule because the sum is more than the parts.
teamwork require everyone needing the team. High level parties have to have spellcasters but dont have to have nonspellcasters, its as simple as that. its easy to look at an adventuring party through an unfocused lens and say that it seems to work fine, so it must be fine. If you feel like testing your gaming chops by trying to make a higher level Fighter that is an equal party member to the spellcasters, then be my guest. It can be done, but it is not nearly that easy.
|
|
really?
for crying out loud, said thread was locked by Jason due to this discussion going no where.
and i say lock it again
people who think nothing is wrong with the Fighter wont have their minds changed (if they actually play the game and come to this decision, nothing i say will change that) and the rest of us will keep lamenting how much the spellcasters own the game. (they are the only BBEG Adventure paths use, you have to build your Fighter and pick his equipment is such a way as to cover all the hundred and one ways that a spellcaster can own you in one round
This seems like a very juvenile attitude. Somebody who talks about "owning the game" shouldn't be playing D&D. You should be playing Guild Wars or some other computer game instead. I certain detest when players who think they can "win" show up at my table, or who measure thier success based on whether they could "own" other players in the party.
How the GM runs the game, also, has a tremendous, overwhelming impact on which class is "better". Spellcasters have some overwhelming weaknesses that always make me reluctant to play them.
For example: depending on rest.
Casters have to rest 8 hours. How often does anybody ever get 8 hours of sleep? Really? A GM that simply started observing this would suddenly put casteres at a great disadvantage. Suppose that you're in a war, and you're catching sleep in 3 or 4 hour increments, at best?
Suddenly, that fighter matters, alot. He's mortal, so he needs *some* rest. But not much. He's also much tougher, and can continue to operate when everyone else is exhausted. (So can the Monk, Barbarian, Ranger, and the other Fighters-With-Flavor)
Others in this thread have made the assertion, repeatedly, that the Fighters-with-Flavor do a better job at fighting than the vanilla class. How so? This has not been backed up by anything except blustering. Sure, Barbarians, or Rangers, or Paladins, are better at one or two things than Figthers....
fatigue hurts fighter type more than spellcasters! getting penalties to attack rolls and skill checks means next to nothing for spellcasters. and have you ever heard of the problem of the 15 minute adventuring day? most adventurers have easy fallback locations for sleep, so yes, all spellcasters i have seen get 8 hours worth of sleep, pretty much whenever they want (by that point the cleric is out of healing, and the Fighter has taken enough damage that he agrees to retire for the moment)
it not juvenile to look at class balance. if one is better than the other ones we dont put on rose colored glasses and say it peachy keen. i apologize for using the word "owned" how about i say that the spellcasters are "better".
war scenarios? 3-4 hours sleep? in home brew campaigns this may be a problem, but ive never seen published material that disallows a spellcaster to rest. by the rules, 3-4 hours would still fatigue the Fighter, so he would suck the penalties while the pathfinder spellcaster probably has at will blasties to hit enemies with (reserve feats also give spellcasters endless ammunition, no attack roll needed so fatigue barely scratches them)
3-4 hours of sleep means dead fighter, because he is so beholden to the clerics healing that he will die if the cleric doesnt get rest.
dont call people juvenile, its been polite so far, lets keep it high-brow (a little sarcasm okay)
teamwork require everyone needing the team. High level parties have to have spellcasters but dont have to have nonspellcasters, its as simple as that. its easy to look at an adventuring party through an unfocused lens and say that it seems to work fine, so it must be fine. If you feel like testing your gaming chops by trying to make a higher level Fighter that is an equal party member to the spellcasters, then be my guest. It can be done, but it is not nearly that easy.Uhm, arent we supposed to play a cooperative game? I for myself don't care much if a lonely and naked char can take out a flying critter because if it comes to this the player or group either screwed up badly or the GM wants this char dead. From my experience a caster might be able to overcome most enemies on his own but he will burn much of his precious spellpower doing so. And what is a caster without his spells?
So no, fighters don't rule or fail and neither does any other class by itself. Adventurer parties who believe in teamwork rule because the sum is more than the parts.
If it was easy then no one would want to play that class because it's easy.....but then everyone says to fighter sucks because it's too hard to stay alive...? Anybody else notice this?
3-4 hours of sleep means dead fighter, because he is so beholden to the clerics healing that he will die if the cleric doesnt get rest.
Just a quick note, clerics dont need to rest to regain their spells.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Just a quick note, clerics dont need to rest to regain their spells.
3-4 hours of sleep means dead fighter, because he is so beholden to the clerics healing that he will die if the cleric doesnt get rest.
Also there are no hard and fast rules for Sleep for non arcane spellcasters... Forced March comes closest, as does sleeping in armor, but there is no set mechanic for not sleeping at all. It's assumed to happen, but there's no penalties for not doing it unless the DM steps in a says so.
--Vrock-a-by Baby...
This seems like a very juvenile attitude. Somebody who talks about "owning the game" shouldn't be playing D&D.
However, I certainly understand how Sneaksy feels from having been forced to play the horrendous Star Wars d20 for years, I guess he feels Pahtfinder is being taken in that direction and fears the game will end up with only three classes: arcane casters, divine casters, and the rest.
While I love fighters, I sure think the class needs more tools... however, I think the direction this should be taken is one the development team has already clearly stated they won't change: the tools. Better movement on Full Attack, fix the nerfed combat feats (I'm watching you Power Attack/Combat Expertise), more tools for Action-Denial, more terrain modifiers, more save-or-suck maneuver options, and more of everything a typical one-dimensional player hates because it makes his head hurt.
Also, while I'm a rabid enemy of nerfing spells, I aknowledge Casting Defensively is dead easy, even for non-wizards (even for a ranger with only +1 Int modifier, he starts with a +5 Spellcraft modifier at level 1, he only needs to roll a SIX on the die saying he hasn't improved his score by the time he can cast spells). I'd say put the Concentration skill back in game as well as the old DC 15 + spell level... at least that way Mr. Ranger would need an 11 on the die, a 50% chance to lose each spell sounds more fair. Want to be a "battle mage"? That's what the Combat Casting feat is for, customization always has a price, casters don't need to be "battle ready" by default. I'd be willing to even go back to the d4 for hit die on sor/wiz (again, want to be a "battle mage"? That's what the Toughness feat is for).
Then again, this is not gonna happen, making magic hard and complex is the direct opposite of the designers' goal as that would take us back to the 2E days where the average player avoided magic users like the plague because they "felt like homework". The goal is making casters nice and easy, but then you can't have complex and "magical" magic as that'd be overkill, so you have to both water it down and make it one-dimensional so even your twelve year old, DB-Z-fan nephew will easily understand and like it... while I may understand Paizo's reasons, I strongly disagree with them. I'm a fan of K.I.S.S, yes, but some things just aren't meant to be simple, they need a specific degree of complexity in order to remain fun, and unnecesary oversimplification only dumbs them down.
Anyway, back on track, this thread's only purpose was only for Fighter lovers to raise their hands and say AYE, not for beating on a dead horse.
P.D: AYE!
|
the only reason I don't use a fighter is the fact that I feel cripped with 2 skill points + int mod...
last week we playeda combat against a bestial creature that we did considered pretty dangerous and that we felt we could not win against in fair combat... what we did?
as it was an undead while the dark cleric forced the creature to stay in place the rogue (who thinks himself a fighter and bountyhunter) crashed the wood ceiling over it, the halfling bard dosed the wood and the creature in oil... while the ranger used the cleric's fire weapon to make all of it burn...
of courseit was not enough and the thing forced by the cleric run away instead of fighting us...
in the street while thething was trying to extinguish the fire in the groung the cleric cut it with the flaming weapon... which gave us 2 hideous creatures...
what happened?
rogue: used rope to tangle one of the creatures and haul it above the ground (the web was slowly burning)
meanwhile the ranger used a wagon to bullrush the creature,hurting it but not driving over it as he expected, but distracted it from attacking the clericagain (big mean wound already in her shoulder)
the thing angry tried to bullrush the ranger with the same wagon but an awesome reflex let the ranger jump over the wagon and use it as high ground
meanwhile the bard and another archer used arrows and bolts to puncture the thing
while it was distracted, the bullrushed creature was tripped by the rogue (improved trip) and we attacked it... and did the same when it tried to came up and the rogue tripped it again in his AoO
when the creature in the web freed tiself the rogue turned its attention to it just as the ranger landed the last blow on the one they bullrushed and tripped, and since both things were one... they both fell in disgusting fuss....
that combat lasted about more than 2 hours online gaming... but i will be hard pushed to remember a combat that enjoyed so much as a player (i was the ranger)
it was fun because we used everything around us to combat... therewas nothing more boring that listening to the halfing bard's turn "i shot the creature *rolls dice* i hit *rolls damage* ok, whose turn is now?"
his actions went in 2 minutes or less, ok it was an efficient time disposal but his attacks were doinglittleandi am not sure he washaving as much fun as us...
you will say... what does THIS has to do with the Fighter...
we used tactics that werehard for us but were successful on them...
the fighter is the master of this tactics, you can decide in which one you want to be best... but still the fighter has lots of chances...
if a player has no more imagination when using a fighter and say "i do a full attack" (same with all classes), its not the fighter's fault
yes of course part of this was because we were allowed to use combat maneuvers as part of our AoO, we thought creative and the DM likes when we use the environment for the fighting...
but yes... the fighter is cool as is (just add him 2 extra skill points per level, please; kicks the dead horse), just make the combat options better... we discused that in the combat chapter
This seems like a very juvenile attitude. Somebody who talks about "owning the game" shouldn't be playing D&D.However, I certainly understand how Sneaksy feels from having been forced to play the horrendous Star Wars d20 for years, I guess he feels Pahtfinder is being taken in that direction and fears the game will end up with only three classes: arcane casters, divine casters, and the rest.
While I love fighters, I sure think the class needs more tools... however, I think the direction this should be taken is one the development team has already clearly stated they won't change: the tools. Better movement on Full Attack, fix the nerfed combat feats (I'm watching you Power Attack/Combat Expertise), more tools for Action-Denial, more terrain modifiers, more save-or-suck maneuver options, and more of everything a typical one-dimensional player hates because it makes his head hurt.
Also, while I'm a rabid enemy of nerfing spells, I aknowledge Casting Defensively is dead easy, even for non-wizards (even for a ranger with only +1 Int modifier, he starts with a +5 Spellcraft modifier at level 1, he only needs to roll a SIX on the die saying he hasn't improved his score by the time he can cast spells). I'd say put the Concentration skill back in game as well as the old DC 15 + spell level... at least that way Mr. Ranger would need an 11 on the die, a 50% chance to lose each spell sounds more fair. Want to be a "battle mage"? That's what the Combat Casting feat is for, customization always has a price, casters don't need to be "battle ready" by default. I'd be willing to even go back to the d4 for hit die on sor/wiz (again, want to be a "battle mage"? That's what the Toughness feat is for).
Then again, this is not gonna happen, making magic hard and complex is the direct opposite of the designers' goal as that would take us back to the 2E days where the average player avoided magic users like the plague because they "felt like homework". The goal is making...
I will gladly raise my hand and say "AYE" I Love the fighters. I would absolutely never ever for any reason play one because I only enjoy the spellcasters but I LOVE FIGHTERS. Why? you may ask, because they give me the time I need to cast my spells, or change shape or dig out/use this magic item.
I have played with any type fighter you can imagine from the immaculately coiffed lady Daniel, mistress of the rapier & man gauche style to the "why do I need to wear clothes", Mongo swing stick! barbarian and everything in between.One class IS NOT better than the others because if you work as a team instead of being a mini munchkin group then everybody has their chance to shine.
I have asked many times in my groups and the wizard is always either chosen last or not chosen at all(expect by me,I love the class)where as the fighter is the first slot to be picked.
It doesn't come down to well were high level lets retire the non spellcasters, as long as everybody has fun. I have never, ever had a fighter player say to me " I'm jealous because you killed 40 such and so's, and I only got 4" it's always been "hey do that again!" to which I reply "keep'em offa me and I will. That folks is what team work is about. I LOVE THE Fighters!
Fighters are pretty great.
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
|
|
OK.
The OP is one of the Denites, and the whole thread is a Den flamebait. Going by the old rule of "don't feed the trolls", I suggest to ignore it.
Oh, and Fighters rule. Mages and Druids suck. Why ? Because "Fighter" starts with "F", which is the coolest letter ever. Bite that, Den guys.
You're not being fair here.
As long as these 'denites' treat other people like they're, well, people I really don't see a problem with them posting their views here. Their views don't offend me. They don't effect how I run my game in any way.
Let's consider some of these 'denites': CKAfrica, FatR, Ruemere, TriOmegaZero or even Crissa up thread here. Do these guys mistreat the rest of us in any way? Do they cause any trouble at all? Not that I've seen. Nowadays an outright misanthrope will have a short stay here whether he posts at tgdbm.com or not, and most of those guys over there are NOT misanthropes.
[Edit]Board wars suck. There's nothing good to be gained by them.
Sam
Nowadays an outright misanthrope will have a short stay here whether he posts at tgdbm.com or not, and most of those guys over there are NOT misanthropes.
But I'm a declared misanthrope! I demand recognition!
|
The OP is one of the Denites, and the whole thread is a Den flamebait. Going by the old rule of "don't feed the trolls", I suggest to ignore it.
I read the Den everyday, sometimes more. As much as I dislike the style of posts over at the Den, the people over there know the game very well and are genuinely interested in bettering it. Petty bickering about sock puppets and "board wars" is pointless. Read the OP, contribute if you want, put on a tinfoil hat if it makes you feel better, but the last thing this place needs is board vs board crap. If you think the OP is being disingenuous, please don't post or feed the troll. It adds nothing. Really.
[Edit] And to Samuel Leming's point - it doesn't matter at all where on the 'net someone calls home, does it? We should welcome anyone to these boards interested in improving the game, as long as they post here within our standards. Thus far, no one has done anything outside of those standards. Let's try and welcome their ideas with an open mind. Maybe we'll learn something.
The fighter don't have any uniquie special abilities. I personally think that's a good thing because you can now take that character in any direction you want. The other classes are all great classes, but you can only take them in so many directions with character building, but the fighter can go 360 degrees with multiple turns and still have nothing but character building options. That's what makes them great too me, not the fact they don't have any bells and whistles. Picking a character class just because you think it's easier to play and instant options to deal with certain situations, now that's a cop-out.
The OP is one of the Denites, and the whole thread is a Den flamebait. Going by the old rule of "don't feed the trolls", I suggest to ignore it.Oh, and Fighters rule. Mages and Druids suck. Why ? Because "Fighter" starts with "F", which is the coolest letter ever. Bite that, Den guys.
I'm not one of these Denites, whatever that means. The message boards I post on are the Relic Forums and Comic Book Rumbles.
I posted this thread because I felt that there must be people out there who enjoy playing Fighters (and fighter-variants) and so I wanted to see what they have to say. Also, I wanted to get, in thier own words, why it is that people seem to hate fighters.
I see now that the hatred of fighters is based on rather shallow reasons. Reasons that have little or nothing to do with actual roleplaying. All the justifications people are giving sound like they're coming from a WoW player or a Guild Wars player, who sees thier characters as only a collection of stats and powers, instead of a real character.
|
|
The OP is one of the Denites, and the whole thread is a Den flamebait. Going by the old rule of "don't feed the trolls", I suggest to ignore it.Oh, and Fighters rule. Mages and Druids suck. Why ? Because "Fighter" starts with "F", which is the coolest letter ever. Bite that, Den guys.
I'm not one of these Denites, whatever that means. The message boards I post on are the Relic Forums and Comic Book Rumbles.
I posted this thread because I felt that there must be people out there who enjoy playing Fighters (and fighter-variants) and so I wanted to see what they have to say. Also, I wanted to get, in thier own words, why it is that people seem to hate fighters.
I see now that the hatred of fighters is based on rather shallow reasons. Reasons that have little or nothing to do with actual roleplaying. All the justifications people are giving sound like they're coming from a WoW player or a Guild Wars player, who sees thier characters as only a collection of stats and powers, instead of a real character.
agreed Swordopolis
as you say, its how its played, no what give more pluses
|
|
- escape grapples (DC 32, we're switching completely to my CMB system next session - current CMB rules are simply killing melee folk)
we have been using cmb 10 instead of 15 for a while now
and no, your example is not campaign specific, just a very well planned encounter with enemies ready for your PCs...
it was just a damn well ambush
|
10 bonus feats is a pretty nice class feature, armor and weapon training is as well...
Fighters are Tabula Rasa...
Use Bo9S if you want fighters with abilities...
Besides Jason is going to have some extra stuff in the final edition for fighters only from what I've understood from the fighter design portion of the boards....
|
|
Last session 2 spellcasters (NPCs, no magic items) eliminated 4 strong melee characters (PCs: Fighter multiclass, Paladin, Fighter straight, Cleric) at the same time tying down two spellcasters (PCs).
Eventually, thanks to party spellcasters interference, 4 melee characters were rescued.
12th level characters (mostly). NPC spellcasters lacked any magic items whatsoever while PCs had somewhat diminished wealth.
When the melee characters finally closed down on enemies, they found out that in order to hit enemies they had to:
- see in the dark
- beat 50% miss chance (Blink)
- beat another 50% miss chance (Displacement)
- beat armor class 27Of course, when the proverbial something hit the fan, the enemies simply teleported away (Dimension Door, contingency).
Summing it up... 2 spellcasters made more of a difference than 4 melee guys.
The enemies, while tough, lacked killer items.
Solid Fog + Black Tentacles + Cloudkill... + 4 x Stinking Cloud = Bye bye to melee guys.----
Now, anyone can argue that the example is campaign specific, lacks details and so on. However, just look at some of the obstacles the melee guys had to overcome and think how cool it would be for melee guys to be able to:
- force their way through Solid Fog
- escape grapples (DC 32, we're switching completely to my CMB system next session - current CMB rules are simply killing melee folk)And so on.
Regards,
Ruemere
Blind fighting really helps with 3 of those problems...funny how no one takes it...precise strike as well...
Casters have to rest 8 hours. How often does anybody ever get 8 hours of sleep? Really? A GM that simply started observing this would suddenly put casteres at a great disadvantage. Suppose that you're in a war, and you're catching sleep in 3 or 4 hour increments, at best?Suddenly, that fighter matters, alot. He's mortal, so he needs *some* rest. But not much. He's also much tougher, and can continue to operate when everyone else is exhausted. (So can the Monk, Barbarian, Ranger, and the other Fighters-With-Flavor)
Stop bringing E6 stuff into discussion of vanilla DnD. First, by the time you get into two-digit levels you have at least three options to get rest no matter what in the core only (unless pursued by similarly potent spellcasters). Second, wars as we know them either do not exist or do not matter - conflicts are decided by the clash between highest-level guys from both sides. Third, and most importantly, if the casters are out of spells, everyone dies to the first significant threat. Partially because some members of the party are crippled. Partially because the fighting types cannot really handle many types of opponents by themselves . And unlike the first two points, this largely applies to low levels too.
|
|
Blind fighting really helps with 3 of those problems...funny how no one takes it...precise strike as well...+1
Also, what about Dispel Magic or counterspelling? First thing my clerics casts is a targeted Dispel Magic when we encounter some buffed up enemy caster ...
Targeted Dispel assumes availability of line of sight. Blind-Fight does not help against Blink or Displacement. Counterspelling assumes availability of line of sight. Precise Strike? Nothing by that name within Pathfinder BETA.
For your information:
Melee characters were locked by several spells. Enemy spellcasters were using Stealth (nope, no invisibility), range and cover of darkness.Are that all PCs or just the melee guys? No wonder they look bad against magic heavy encounters. Imho this group lacks another full time caster or at least a ranged attack guy.
(PCs: Fighter multiclass, Paladin, Fighter straight, Cleric)You missed the mention of TWO PARTY SPELLCASTERS. These guys saved the day, while the melee characters (it's a loose term for characters who need to close into melee or close range at least to be effective) had a fun time against impossible odds.
Party spellcasters met the challenge head on and eventually allowed melee people to finally to attempt to start to fight back (through, for the reasons stated above, melee hasn't accomplished much).
The bottom line: just two casters and with no magic items managed to keep the party occupied (and would have killed melee guys if it were not for party spellcasters). Oh, and enemies were just doing a little sortie (scouting and measuring PC strong points) - the final encounter assumes that enemy spellcasters will be surrounded by heavy hitters (companion mobs) and the encounter is likely to occur within enemy fortress.
It should be Challenging encounter from Pathfinder BETA rules (the two spellcasters rated as Average).
Regards,
RuemerePS. Yes, it was an...
Cool, now your players know what the enemy can do, they can prebuff, get some items to help. Maybe try some different tactics than just dumb rush :)
Also, Blink gives your casters a 20% chance to drop their spells in the etheral plane. Guess they just rolled well the entire time.
Potion of see invis drops the blink miss chance to 20%. Depending on the books you're allowing, a simple 2000gp pair of boots lets you teleport out of those effects (magic item compendium). As players progress, these types of challenges allow them to row organically and adapt to changes. Plus the beta magic item creation stff allows you to custom build gear much more freely. This means you can put in a "special order" for gear that helps over come some of these challenges.
Last game we played, 3 meleers caught three casters (2 wizards and a cleric) off guard and killed them in a round. Casters must be weak.
I can see this discussion degenerating into another thread about perfect situation setup for casters vs fighters.
For what its worth, fighters are a great class. They allow flexability in the builds a player wants. They aren't too complex to run in games. This gives a whole bunch of players something they can get to grips with in DnD very easily. And that's important.
Plus Dwarven fighters, how can you go past that ! :)
I really liked the post about the character being rolpleayed rather than just a bunch of stats. Showed up a difference in playstyles that we've seen all over these boards really nicely.
Cheers
Stop bringing E6 stuff into discussion of vanilla DnD. First, by the time you get into two-digit levels you have at least three options to get rest no matter what in the core only (unless pursued by similarly potent spellcasters). Second, wars as we know them either do not exist or do not matter - conflicts are decided by the clash between highest-level guys from both sides. Third, and most importantly, if the casters are out of spells, everyone dies to the first significant threat. Partially because some members of the party are crippled. Partially because the fighting types cannot really handle many types of opponents by themselves . And unlike the first two points, this largely applies to low levels too.
Firstly, I don't know what you mean by "E6 stuff". Secondly, this isn't a discussion of Vanilla D&D (There is no such thing, anyways) but a discussion about Fighters in general.
Thirdly, what rest options, other than sleeping? Which means having a safe camp and being able to sleep an amount of time that nobody I know ever gets except on weekends when they're not working, and that nobody in wilderness-related or military-related fields fields that I know *ever* get.
I have considered house-ruling away the rest requirement before, and simply using a 24 hour reset, simply because the idea of 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep *while on an adventure* is ludicrous. Who doesn't wake up a few times during the night when they sleep? Nobody I know.
Wars *do* exist in my D&D games, and in every D&D game that I've played in.
If the casters are out of spells, that means the party has to get really creative, use thier environment and good tactics, or look at options like diplomacy, running away, or surrender.
Are you not able to see past the end of your rulebook?
If it was easy then no one would want to play that class because it's easy.....but then everyone says to fighter sucks because it's too hard to stay alive...? Anybody else notice this?teamwork require everyone needing the team. High level parties have to have spellcasters but dont have to have nonspellcasters, its as simple as that. its easy to look at an adventuring party through an unfocused lens and say that it seems to work fine, so it must be fine. If you feel like testing your gaming chops by trying to make a higher level Fighter that is an equal party member to the spellcasters, then be my guest. It can be done, but it is not nearly that easy.Uhm, arent we supposed to play a cooperative game? I for myself don't care much if a lonely and naked char can take out a flying critter because if it comes to this the player or group either screwed up badly or the GM wants this char dead. From my experience a caster might be able to overcome most enemies on his own but he will burn much of his precious spellpower doing so. And what is a caster without his spells?
So no, fighters don't rule or fail and neither does any other class by itself. Adventurer parties who believe in teamwork rule because the sum is more than the parts.
The two 17th level fighters in the AoW campaign I'm running seem to do just fine. I don't see the casters stealing the show. In fact, I find myself as a DM beating on the fighters a whole lot more than the casters, because they can handle it.
However, in another high level campaign, I play as a fighter in a party of 3, with the rest of the group consisting of a druid, and a half-celestial crusader. I often feel like I'm just along for the ride. But this is mostly due to the fact that:
1) their equipment is better than mine (my best item is still only +2 whereas they have several +4 items... well actually, I just received a +4 cloak of resistance)
2) they are both 17th level, I'm 16th level.
3) they optimize, I don't.
This argument will never go away, I think. I like the classes pretty much how they are. The only thing I think needs looking at is the "economy of actions," as past threads point out.
|
|
...economy of actions...
This is it in a nutshell. 3x made everything a fighter does cost MORE (in action cost), and everything a spellcaster does cost LESS (and made it easier to avoid losing a spell, to boot).
Melee types do need to be able to do more with their actions than is currently allowed, RAW.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Potion of see invis drops the blink miss chance to 20%. Depending on the books you're allowing, a simple 2000gp pair of boots lets you teleport out of those effects (magic item compendium). As players progress, these types of challenges allow them to row organically and adapt to changes. Plus the beta magic item creation stff allows you to custom build gear much more freely. This means you can put in a "special order" for gear that helps over come some of these challenges.
Sorry Wrath but there's no such animal as a Potion of See Invisibility. It's a Personal range only spell and is not eligible to be made into a Potion. The only core ways for a Non-spellcaster/non-UMD skill user to get See Invisibility is the Hand of Glory. An Onyx Dog has the ability and Dust of Appearance can also do the job.
--King of Vrock!