We have all heard numerous times how overshadowed melee classes are in 3.5 by their caster counterparts. However, I am now hearing that Pathfinder doesn't really address this much or even attempt to. Can any of you that have played Pathfinder enough to have a melee character or know of one in your group into the higher levels please talk a bit about how they play out in the high levels? Do they get overshadowed by casters? I am a bit encouraged in the fighters get feats at every level, etc. and hope this is not the case.
|
From what I've seen of it, Pathfinder has come at this perception from both ends, giving the Barbarian, Fighter and Paladin (no clue about the Ranger, as I've mostly focused on the improvements to the first three) quite a few new options to bring about some parity, while taking the most egregious 'niche-invading' problem spells from the Clerics and Wizards out behind the woodshed (Righteous Might, for instance, has been changed).
Without radically redefining the game, an invisible flying spellcaster is *always* going to be able to rain death down upon hapless melee specialists, but the spells and effects (such as Polymorph) that came closest to allowing a spellcaster to 'outfight the Fighter' by casting a spell (or activating Wild Shape) have been pared down and made less niche-invasive.
There will always be players who can pimp out a Wizard or Cleric or Druid to turn them into something that no Fighter can be reasonably expected to have a chance against. That's the nature of magic vs. swords, bows and shields and it simply can't change without reducing magic to be incapable of producing any effect that a man with a sword can't match and overcome, which is the same as saying, in effect, 'no magic at all.' From what I've read so far, Pathfinder has done a decent job of making match-ups less one-sided, while still maintaining the fantasy feel of classic D&D play, where wizards have been able to turn invisible, fly, one-shot people with hold person, etc. for three decades or so.
We have all heard numerous times how overshadowed melee classes are in 3.5 by their caster counterparts. However, I am now hearing that Pathfinder doesn't really address this much or even attempt to. Can any of you that have played Pathfinder enough to have a melee character or know of one in your group into the higher levels please talk a bit about how they play out in the high levels? Do they get overshadowed by casters? I am a bit encouraged in the fighters get feats at every level, etc. and hope this is not the case.
From my experience, melee classes generally fare pretty well into higher levels... as in, they can still do their job. Our Fighter could still tank and our Ranger could still dish out the damage. Now, our spellcasters, which couldn't comparably dish out or tank the same, had a fair amount of powerful spells to deal with pesky foes, some of which were probably more impressive than anything the melee specialists could do. But the thing is, they were fine with that. Even against enemy spellcasters, who had access to such spells of 'awesomeness', combat was well-regulated and challenging.
So yes, there is still a fair amount of "overshadowing," but I can assure you Pathfinder HAS made as much of an attempt as it can to address it. Bear in mind that the overarching need for Backwards Compatibility is a straight jacket for any sort of "drastic improvement" that could be made upon melee classes. If that doesn't satisfy you, simply house-rule some improvements yourself, but don't assume Pathfinder hasn't brought this into consideration; there's only so much they can do while keeping it in line with the 3.5 products.
I'm playing a high level fighter in Rise of the Runelords. I was all about huge damage, huge AC and huge HP. Around lvl 13 I wound up in a fight with our own combat-monster cleric/wizard due to mind control. He expected trouble based on where we were, so was pre-buffed.
Essentially it came down to chance. It was only a two-round fight that ended with both of us nearly dead, I just happened to slip down into negative hit points a bit faster than him. I believe he was in single digits.
So yeah, despite the best efforts of an experienced munchkin a mid+ lvl fighter was perfectly capable of standing up for himself. As power levels grow and the cleric/wizard gets 9th lvl spells (yes both) the fighter continues to grow in power as well. He will wind up dishing out hundreds of points of damage with an AC in the 50s or 60s, thus making him very effective at fulfilling his role.
Of course, his will save still isn't too hot.
One important thing to remember: Clerics are still capable warriors - but, as always, they have to be prepared. The fighter can start beating stuff to pulp from the surprise round. The cleric cannot. He needs a couple of rounds to buff. If he doesn't have those rounds (you're not always in the place to prepare for a fight), he's a lot less effective.
And he can only do it as long as he has some of those spells left.
One important thing to remember: Clerics are still capable warriors - but, as always, they have to be prepared. The fighter can start beating stuff to pulp from the surprise round. The cleric cannot. He needs a couple of rounds to buff. If he doesn't have those rounds (you're not always in the place to prepare for a fight), he's a lot less effective.
And he can only do it as long as he has some of those spells left.
'Zactly.
AND this was before you could use more than 1 combat feat a round. I fired off an email yesterday demanding a rematch when I get home.
I don't know about the higher level but at level 8 the fighters are doing better than the casters still. The group is two rogues, two fighters, one druid and one sorcerer.
The big difference I've seen is the fighters AC is a lot higher with shield focus and armor training. The extra feats help because the fighter. I think it's only 1 or 2 extra feats by 8th. Favored class and toughness is leading to high hit point totals.
Add to this that the sorcerer has taken the dragon Disciple PrC so they have lower caster level than 8th is probably helping this too. So we have this sorcerer in the group that has the same HPs as the toughest fighter due to that D12 hit dice and toughness feat.
The Druid is definitely toned down and really plays as more of support role in the game often boosting sorcerer claw damage with buff spells. Still the sorcerer has issue hitting but when they do hit it's up there with the fighters damage.
I've said something similar about rogues in another thread, but if you've got a lvl 8 sorcerer RELIABLY dealing as much damage as your fighter in any given round; someone should really talk to the fighter about his build.
I really like the new fighter. They actually get class abilities which is awesome, their class abilities are 100% in tune with their role in the party without forcing you to play a certain kind of fighter, and they have more feat slots than ever. The only thing I want from Paizo is more options to fill those feat slots. Perhaps a tree built off of toughness for truly mighty hit point totals.
Oh, and some sort of increased ability to use special maneuvers like disarm and trip. That stuff is way hard.
What is it you are wanting from a Fighter?
It always seems like when this comes up, people want the Fighter to just be immune to casters abilities and magic that doesn't deal damage.
I think there are generally two complaints about high-level fighters (I won't comment on whether I agree or not):
1) A Will save effect that's strong enough to affect the party cleric gives the fighter basically no chance at saving.
2) Fighters don't have much to do other than standing in one place making full attacks.
What is it you are wanting from a Fighter?
It always seems like when this comes up, people want the Fighter to just be immune to casters abilities and magic that doesn't deal damage.
I think there are generally two complaints about high-level fighters (I won't comment on whether I agree or not):
1) A Will save effect that's strong enough to affect the party cleric gives the fighter basically no chance at saving.
2) Fighters don't have much to do other than standing in one place making full attacks.
I disagree with both those complaints though. I've always loved fighters, even when they were clearly disadvantaged; so now it's like xmas every day.
1) That depends on the fighter's choice of feats and Wis bonus. And how hard it is for the Cleric to make it. Iron Will is open to anyone, and lord knows the fighter could spare a feat for it if he really wanted to.
2) That depends on the kind of fighter. Some spring attack, some use special maneuvers (less-so now maybe) but lots of fighters have special feats that give other options in combat.
I feel bad for constantly playing devil's advocate on here, but really it sounds like a lot of the problems people have with the system are actually issues with their understanding of it.
Except monks of course, those blow. ;)
There are things like Ring of Mind Shielding, spells like Protection from Evil, tons of anti-fear buffs, etc. If something happens to your fighter on a regular basis (i.e. more than two or three times over the span of a few sessions), then do something about it next time you shop for your fighter.
But! But! But!
I shouldn't have to do that! The fighter isn't supposed to be wasting his money or items on stupid things like buffing his will save! He's just a damage machine! In fact, he shouldn't even have skill points, he should be able to trade those in for extra damage! And automatically have a ride and handle animal skill equal to his HD! If you make a fighter spend money and effort on things to boost his will or reflex save, then you are perverting the ideal of the fighter! And you're making him less than the magic users and dex characters!
[/sarcasm]
Sorry, this seems to be the argument I see on forums all the time, that anything that detracts from a fighter having more damage/attack/ac shouldn't be needed. Blech! PDK's right, when you reach high levels, if your fighter doesn't have a ring of Mind Shielding or a periapt of Wisdom or something else to help boost his will saves, then either the DM hasn't been doing his job of using baddies abilities, or else the player has decided it's not enough of an imposition when he get's mind controlled/sleeped/paralyzed/dragon feared/etc.
My last fighter actually had an abysmally low will save on purpose at creation. I figured it would make the DM feel better about how awesome he was otherwise. Besides, I think it's funny when enemies mind control me against my party. No matter which group I end up with, they recognize value when they see it. Lawful Evil for the win.
Best time I ever had was with a mind-controlled half-ogre fighter whomping on the pompus cleric :) This was back in first edition, but it was a beautiful sight to behold as the fighter chased the cleric just trying to get one more hit in and off him! The third party member, an assassin/mage was too busy laughing at the high pitched girlish screams coming from the cleric to successfully off the baddy that was mind-controlling the fighter in the first place :)
There are things like Ring of Mind Shielding, spells like Protection from Evil, tons of anti-fear buffs, etc. If something happens to your fighter on a regular basis (i.e. more than two or three times over the span of a few sessions), then do something about it next time you shop for your fighter.
I can't speak about whether high-level fighters have problems with saves (I've never played one), but:
- A Ring of Mind Shielding doesn't help much with Will saves; it only helps against detect spells.
- Saying that there's no problem with the fighter class because a different class's class features can bail him out of trouble seems a bit odd.
But! But! But!I shouldn't have to do that! The fighter isn't supposed to be wasting his money or items on stupid things like buffing his will save! He's just a damage machine! In fact, he shouldn't even have skill points, he should be able to trade those in for extra damage! And automatically have a ride and handle animal skill equal to his HD! If you make a fighter spend money and effort on things to boost his will or reflex save, then you are perverting the ideal of the fighter! And you're making him less than the magic users and dex characters!
[/sarcasm]
Sorry, this seems to be the argument I see on forums all the time, that anything that detracts from a fighter having more damage/attack/ac shouldn't be needed. Blech! PDK's right, when you reach high levels, if your fighter doesn't have a ring of Mind Shielding or a periapt of Wisdom or something else to help boost his will saves, then either the DM hasn't been doing his job of using baddies abilities, or else the player has decided it's not enough of an imposition when he get's mind controlled/sleeped/paralyzed/dragon feared/etc.
Of course he should have to do that. Just like, if the wizard wants to be able to get out of grapples, he should take dimension door or set himself up with freedom of movement. And if the cleric needs to tank, he should bone up on the right high level combat buffs. Etc.
Why characters shouldn't have a weakness that can be remedied, and in a number of different ways I may add, is beyond me.
|
Agree. I can see the problem with 5ft step and Full Attack, though this has nothing to do with the Fighter and a lot to do with melee.
I've always suggested allowing more that one attack as a standard action at higher levels, (when you get your 3 attack, you can also make two as a standard action, 3 with base attack +21 attacks). Fighters get this 1 level earlier than anyone else.
|
To the OP I'm not really seeing anything that changes the peoblem of melee types being great at low levels and poor at high levels. From what I seen and heard so far you get:
- Bonus feats. Nice to get more feats but still does not help you when the arcane/divine classes can cast a 10D6+ attack spell.
-Bravery: Bonuses to saves versus fear (reaches +5 at 18th level)
Cute yet imo not enough espcially considering what you creatures fight at high levels and how hard it is to save against their Will attacks. Not to mention the Paladin is pretty much immune to that at low levels.
-A bonus to the AC conferred by his worn armour, as well as reduction of the check penalty and an increase to the armour's Max Dex bonus (tops out at +4 at 15th level, unnamed bonus).
This is good, but it's just adding numbers to the character. It does not actually give the fighter any interesting options or tactics, just encourages him to actually wear heavy armour and allows his armour to progress in effectiveness to kinda-sorta match the nasty high-end BABs he'll have to deal with. Pity it doesn't help against touch attacks.
-A free weapon focus analogue for entire classes of weapon (big swords, axes, small swords, flails, that kind of thing) (the bonus increases as the fighter goes up in levels, and applies to more weapon categories, in a manner fairly similar to the Ranger's favoured enemy ability, except in increments of "+1 to hit" rather than "+2 to damage"). = Extra to hit equals more damage, which is not bad, but it's bloody boring.
-Armour Mastery around 19-20th Level. DR 5/ or DR10 (not sure which) when wearing armour or using a shield.
This has been dropped from the final version. Apparently a Fighter having a DR 5/10 is "broken" and/or "overpowered". Sure it is. Unfortunately while cute it does not give more options to the Fighter.
-Weapon Mastery (20th level): Pick one weapon. All critical threats are automatically confirmed, increase the critical multiplier.
More useful and not too bad of an ability. Still fall short of what I really wanted and just very boring.
As I said I'm not really seeing anything that will make the fighter shine at high levels. It's too bad though they had an great opprtunity to try and makle the fighter different in PF yet not too different and imo they have not done much nor even really attempted to fix any shortcomings the melee types have.
Ya know everyone seems to forget the fighter only feats. They are class features pretty much
That they are. They're also just adding numbers without providing any interesting abilities.
That they are. They're also just adding numbers without providing any interesting abilities.
Not really, stunng an opponent or taking a 5' step when they do or stopping them from moving past with an AoO are all cool ability I think.
A fighter is all about feats and in many ways is one of the most flexible classes in the game.
I love the calls of boring then look at a wizard who is just as boring. what makes him diff? his spells. Feats are the same thing more or less. the wizard is a bunch of numbers nothing more , his spells make him interesting , same with feats
They're also just adding numbers without providing any interesting abilities.Some of the high-level fighter feats that were provided during the playtest allowed fighters to activate special conditions on a successful critical hit: target is blinded (no save), target takes bleed damage (no save), and stuff like that. Auto-blinding or bleeding out your opponent every time you crit is much more interesting than "adding numbers."
The critical feats aren't fighter-only feats, though, except for Critical Mastery.
To the OP I'm not really seeing anything that changes the peoblem of melee types being great at low levels and poor at high levels. From what I seen and heard so far you get:
- Bonus feats. Nice to get more feats but still does not help you when the arcane/divine classes can cast a 10D6+ attack spell.
-Bravery: Bonuses to saves versus fear (reaches +5 at 18th level)
Cute yet imo not enough espcially considering what you creatures fight at high levels and how hard it is to save against their Will attacks. Not to mention the Paladin is pretty much immune to that at low levels.
-A bonus to the AC conferred by his worn armour, as well as reduction of the check penalty and an increase to the armour's Max Dex bonus (tops out at +4 at 15th level, unnamed bonus).
This is good, but it's just adding numbers to the character. It does not actually give the fighter any interesting options or tactics, just encourages him to actually wear heavy armour and allows his armour to progress in effectiveness to kinda-sorta match the nasty high-end BABs he'll have to deal with. Pity it doesn't help against touch attacks.
-A free weapon focus analogue for entire classes of weapon (big swords, axes, small swords, flails, that kind of thing) (the bonus increases as the fighter goes up in levels, and applies to more weapon categories, in a manner fairly similar to the Ranger's favoured enemy ability, except in increments of "+1 to hit" rather than "+2 to damage"). = Extra to hit equals more damage, which is not bad, but it's bloody boring.
-Armour Mastery around 19-20th Level. DR 5/ or DR10 (not sure which) when wearing armour or using a shield.
This has been dropped from the final version. Apparently a Fighter having a DR 5/10 is "broken" and/or "overpowered". Sure it is. Unfortunately while cute it does not give more options to the Fighter.
-Weapon Mastery (20th level): Pick one weapon. All critical threats are automatically confirmed, increase the critical multiplier.
More useful and not too bad of an...
Really?
- Damage is easy. Bonus feats often help you maximize it. Take another look at feats. They are far and away the BEST ways to add all sorts of new actions for your fighter to perform.
- I think bravery works very well. Yes, it's a minor change; but one that works well with the fluff. You've got confidence in your strength of arms so are less likely to run away, you still don't have the kind of mental fortitude that a cleric displays. Anyway, paladins have the backing of a god keeping them from getting scared. How pansy is that?
- That armor bonus is substantial. +4 isn't something you can just produce from nowhere, that's nearly the best bonus you can get on magic armor or amulets or whatever. You can also wind up having a +4 Dex bonus in heavy armor, which is superb, and also DOES count against touch attacks. The often underestimated reduction to check penalty is extremely useful too. Fighters have the potential to swim/perform acrobatics in plate. Amazing. This also adds quite a bit to a fighter's versatility, btw. So no, not just adding numbers.
- Looks closer, I'm getting the impression you're not actually reading that carefully. The weapon training is actually analogous to weapon focus AND weapon specialization. Because it gives an increase to hit AND damage. Which is once again awesome. Not only do you hit more often, increasing overall damage, but each blow carries more power. On top of that you get this bonus for weapon groups as opposed to an individual weapon, thus increasing your versatility substantially. You know what they say: if you're bored it's no one's fault but your own.
- I wouldn't know what's been dropped from the final release, but armor mastery is okay for now. It's not a great ability, but it's a nice (5) increase to the fighter's overall toughness. And it's taken away if he's captured and stripped, so it has some nice fluff in my opinion. It's also just the precursor to the really nice lvl 20 ability...
- Weapon mastery! What an insanely great fighter class ability. And you don't even have to spend a feat on it. Lovely. You do know that with high crit potential weapons and improved crit/keen this ability almost guarantees a crit every 2-3 attacks? One of the most beautiful moments for a fighter is rolling that possible crit, and now they can proudly proclaim that a confirmation isn't necessary; it's just time to die. This is a(n appropriately) powerful ability that is completely in keeping with a fighters roll: fighting.
Fighters have whatever special attacks that you take the feats for, and they are perfectly modular. I think there is more potential for customization of fighters than any other class in the game, and rightly so. They represent the near-infinite ways in which you can do violence to another being. So if you want to fine-tune your style just SO, keep with the fighter. I'd be willing to bet that anything you're having trouble with can be easily fixed via the application of this feat or that piece of equipment, and there's always people around to help you do so.
If you want to play a character who has the ability to do a bunch of silly extra maneuvers with no real combat ability, well the monk is right over there -->
Not being played by anyone.
|
|
Damage is easy. Bonus feats often help you maximize it. Take another look at feats. They are far and away the BEST ways to add all sorts of new actions for your fighter to perform.
More feats is good yet for all the feats a fighter can take he still is going to be overshadowed by the spellcastters. Not to mention he can't just take any feat he has to take certain feats to really become a powerhouse. I once played a Wizard that only took Combat Casting and Spell Penetration. Everything else was Item Creation feats and I was still doing more damage then the Fighter.
As for actions Sunder pretty good at low levels useless at high levels. Which adventuring party in their right minds will allow a fighter to destroy the loot. Disarm works only against oppentns wielding hand weapons useless against creatures with natural weapons.
- I think bravery works very well. Yes, it's a minor change; but one that works well with the fluff. You've got confidence in your strength of arms so are less likely to run away, you still don't have the kind of mental fortitude that a cleric displays. Anyway, paladins have the backing of a god keeping them from getting scared. How pansy is that?
Bravery is interesting concept yet the value imo is still too low to be of any use with highler level creatures. Confidience in your weaons and armor mean nothing if you can still be easily affected by a mind altering ability.
The Paladin a pansy? He many need the influence of his god to remain unafraid yet with his small arsenal of divine spells he still can do more then a fighter. I think the Paladin as a class would be more popular then the fighter if they were not stuck taking Lawful Good as an alignment(I hope PF changes at least this) and if they received more abilites after 10th level.
The ability to cast low level divine magic,the ability to wear heavy armor and shield and to call a mount if need be. Pansy indeed.
- That armor bonus is substantial. +4 isn't something you can just produce from nowhere, that's nearly the best bonus you can get on magic armor or amulets or whatever. You can also wind up having a +4 Dex bonus in heavy armor, which is superb, and also DOES count against touch attacks. The often underestimated reduction to check penalty is extremely useful too. Fighters have the potential to swim/perform acrobatics in plate. Amazing. This also adds quite a bit to a fighter's versatility, btw. So no, not just adding numbers.
The armor bonus is decent yet it's not that great. The spellcasters given enough time can beat that. Espcially if they can prepare ahead of time. Wearing heavy plate and a tower shield confers a -16 to skill checks. -8 if you take a heavy shield. Unless you take armor optimization feats I can't see how you can say fighters have a good chance to swim and perform acrobatics not a low to medium levels anyway. Once again same problem you require a feat to do that. All a caster has to a is use a spell. Not to mention what happens if he takes a prestige class where he can no longer use heavy armor. What happens if he multiclasses into Ranger to get really good at two-wepaon fighting. what if he forsakes using a sheild to focus on a two handed weapon. All factors that have to be taken into account.
- Looks closer, I'm getting the impression you're not actually reading that carefully. The weapon training is actually analogous to weapon focus AND weapon specialization. Because it gives an increase to hit AND damage. Which is once again awesome. Not only do you hit more often, increasing overall damage, but each blow carries more power. On top of that you get this bonus for weapon groups as opposed to an individual weapon, thus increasing your versatility substantially. You know what they say: if you're bored it's no one's fault but your own.
Doing more damage and hitting more often still can't compete against an attack spell that does 10D6+. A figther even if he optimizes his feat selection still can't beat that. Nice personal attack by the way. It can possibly be the system at fault no of course not. Your not playing it right.
- I wouldn't know what's been dropped from the final release, but armor mastery is okay for now. It's not a great ability, but it's a nice (5) increase to the fighter's overall toughness. And it's taken away if he's captured and stripped, so it has some nice fluff in my opinion. It's also just the precursor to the really nice lvl 20
ability...
It's been dropped from the final release so don't get your hopes up. Apparently it's too broken. How is beyond me
- Weapon mastery! What an insanely great fighter class ability. And you don't even have to spend a feat on it. Lovely. You do know that with high crit potential weapons and improved crit/keen this ability almost guarantees a crit every 2-3 attacks? One of the most beautiful moments for a fighter is rolling that possible crit, and now they can proudly proclaim that a confirmation isn't necessary; it's just time to die. This is a(n appropriately) powerful ability that is completely in keeping with a fighters roll: fighting.
It's all right nothing spectualar really and you can already do something similiar with the right feat selection before you reach that level. I rather they received something that could not be duplicated by feats.
Fighters have whatever special attacks that you take the feats for, and they are perfectly modular. I think there is more potential for customization of fighters than any other class in the game, and rightly so. They represent the near-infinite ways in which you can do violence to another being. So if you want to fine-tune your style just SO, keep with the fighter. I'd be willing to bet that anything you're having trouble with can be easily fixed via the application of this feat or that piece of equipment, and there's always people around to help you do so.
Fans of the current fighter always keep using the fact that they has some many feats as solution to everything. Thing is spellcasters don't even have to take feats to be effective. They help even the odds and make their spells more potent yet you could play a spellcaster without them. You have to have an idea in mind withe fighter you can just build a fighter any which way. You have to plan ahead. Smae thing with spellcasters yet not as much. AS I said it's really hard to compete against that 10D6+ attack spell. I find that runnig fighters is a bit of a pain because you have to always keep in mind what your next choice will be. Other classes nopt so much
If you want to play a character who has the ability to do a bunch of silly extra maneuvers with no real combat ability, well the monk is right over there -->Not being played by anyone.
Nice attempt at redirecting the discussion into a totally unrelated area. The Op was as asking of PF fixed melee classes not if monks could do it better. You can start a new thread if you want I'm not going to take the bait in this thread. As for Monks not being played by anyone good luck in proving that.
It sounds like what you're looking for is feats that let you cast spells. Those actually exist, although they're a bit weak, IMO. I'm hardly referring to disarm and sunder when I say that feats can supply plenty of tactical options:
Caught Off-Guard
Dazzling Display tree (3 total)
Deadly Aim
Wind Stance tree (2)
Improved Unarmed Strike tree (3)
Scorpion Style tree (3)
Stunning Fist (perfectly available to fighters)
Mounted Combat tree (5)
Overhand Chop tree (3)
Point Blank Shot tree (bunches)
The list goes on and on, and that's just from the beta rules. You can easily build a fighter who is able to fight effectively in multiple ways and using many different styles of combat. If you look at 3.5 material it gets crazy. Brutal Strike is a fun one from the PH2 that springs to mind. There's lots of stuff like that floating around. You'll have to forgive me but when someone says "fighters don't have enough options" and I suggest that feats supply those options, those are the feats I'm thinking of. Not Improved Disarm.
Maybe I should start highlighting things somehow when I'm joking. Yeah, the paladin is a fine class. They haven't been reserved for LG for quite some time though. Unless your enemies are evil, fighter is still a better front-line combatant than a paladin.
Why would you lug a tower shield? It's very unwieldy, as you suggest. The example in my head for the "potential" to do those things in armor included not only armor optimization feats, but mithral. Didn't say you could do it with no optimization. I was trying to illustrate why those feats that everyone dislikes are so useful. And what's this about a fighter isn't as good a fighter if he multiclasses? Isn't that kind of par for the course? If a spellcaster multiclasses, he might lose an entire level of spellcasting. Anyway, why would a fighter multiclass to ranger to get really good at two-weapon? Those are all fighter bonus feats anyway...
10d6+ isn't that much damage? Sure if it's an area affect it will wipe out more peons, but your average BBEG is generally not going to be taken down by 10d6. He's going to be taken down by round after round of damage, and a lot of that is going to be dealt by the fighter. Average damage on a 10th level mage's fireball is 35. Average damage for a 10th level fighter's full attack with a greatsword assuming power attack and weapon specialization with 18 STR (although even a human could easily have 22 at that point without magic) is what... 38?
Wow, I'm bruising feelings all over the place! Well, when someone complains about something for not being powerful enough and misquotes the benefits; (fairly similar to the Ranger's favoured enemy ability, except in increments of "+1 to hit" rather than "+2 to damage") I gather the impression that they aren't reading carefully. That's better than assuming that they're deliberately disingenuous. That was far from a personal attack, but for what it's worth I'm sorry if I darkened your day.
Sure, a wizard could maximize, but a fighter could also take a much more inspired selection of feats for damage optimization. And while a fighter could miss, he'll probably miss no more than half his attacks while if a spell is evaded all the damage is gone.
That's too bad about armor mastery. But it was really a minor cherry on top considering it comes at 19th level.
Spellcasters don't have to take feats to be effective, they have to use spells. You can turn that around: Fighters don't have to use spells to be effective. As for planning builds, I'm of the opinion that you have to do that for every class. And if you're a spellcaster you then have to continue planning every time you gain new spells known, and every day when you get out of bed. Fighter has hardly reached that level of complexity.
Oh come on! You saw through my clever exaggeration regarding the popularity of the monk and yet you suppose that sentence is part of a machiavellian plot to derail the thread to monks? I'm afraid I'm not quite THAT subtle. And my dislike of monks is already well-documented enough not to need a new thread. Point stands though, lots of class features do not equate to a worthwhile class. The fighter only gets a few, but feats are their core feature and are as weak or as powerful as any given player allows them to be.
I just checked, I can't find an edit button to go put HUMOR BEGIN and HUMOR END tags in my previous posts. I'll do it from now on.
How melee combatants handle higher level is somthing that varies greatly depending on alot of factors. Though I can understand people thinking they don't manage since
1: They still need to relay on the class features of casters. Unless magic shops pop up in the middle of dungeons, melee classes are going to need to rely on spellcaster's to "buff" them.
2: An optimized spellcaster can acheive alot. An optimized melee character pretty much can only deal damage. They can do that well, but it doesn't change that that's all they can do. I've only ever had two melee character's that were considered overpowering by my group, and both were one-trick ponies. Though my overpowering caster's could fly, remove the magical and supernatrual abilities of others, deal enough ability damage to deck most creatures in a single round, buff, provide protection spells etc, and both of those caster's stuck very heavily to their origonal theme (one was a transmutator, and with the exception of 1 or two spells, every spell she knew was transmutation. The other was a frost-based mage, only using spells from the Frostburn book and a couple of cold focused spells from the PHB). Both were useful because although they didn't deal much damage, they could do alot more.
3: The weaknesses of spellcasters become a bit redudent at high levels. At low levels spellcasters have to be careful with their spells, making them deadly but requiring them to be careful. Once a spellcaster hits about 5th level running out of spells isn't likely. Likewise it becomes alot ahrder to one-shot spellcasters since even with D4 hit points they'll still have a decent amount.
4: High level play doesn't work. The higher level charatcer's get, the more characters fall into one of two catagories: Weak or Strong. The sad truth is that if a caster falls in the Strong catagory they will be one hell of a force to be reckoned with.
Truthfully I think the Fighter class is a poor base to compare with though. The class itself is pretty...well...it's only real class feature is gained by other classes normally: feats. Play any fighter to high level and you'll find that after only a few levels you're caring less and less about what feats you want, since all the feats you need will already be taken. The reason why the stereotype of the fighter is "Someone who can only smash" is because that's the extent of their combat options. If you want to compare casters to melee, compare classes that fit the best, both the paladin and the barbarian are far better bases for comparison.
Besides, I think alot of people seem to forget, when you add in extra feat options, the fighter isn't the only one who can take them, and I havn't seen much need to specilize in two distinct fighting styles, so the excess feats rarely make the fighter worthwhile at high levels.
How melee combatants handle higher level is somthing that varies greatly depending on alot of factors. Though I can understand people thinking they don't manage since
4: High level play doesn't work. The higher level charatcer's get, the more characters fall into one of two catagories: Weak or Strong. The sad truth is that if a caster falls in the Strong catagory they will be one hell of a force to be reckoned with.
Truthfully I think the Fighter class is a poor base to compare with though. The class itself...
While I can agree with most of what you say (in theory), I have to strongly disagree with a couple of points.
I'll agree that characters fall into weak or strong categories at high level (there's a certain amount of gray area, but it often gets lumped in with the weak) but as I think you implied that's not based upon class; it's based upon the individual build.
The fighter class is a poor class to compare spellcasters with because they don't cast spells. Paladin or ranger would be better in my opinion. You can then compare either of those classes to the fighter and detect some definite superiority in certain places. (Armor and specialization tree vs barbarian for one)
I don't think that other classes getting feats is any reason to suggest that fighters aren't vastly superior to it. Case in point, all wizards really get are arcane spells, and other classes get those to a lesser degree.
Here's one of those strong disagreements though: Fighters don't care about feats at high levels? To the contrary, I've worked up several 20 lvl fighter progressions, and I was definitely still having to prioritize and agonize over the decision, right up to lvl 20.
I thought the "someone who can only smash" was a stereotype of the barbarian? Anyway, why would you play as a class called "fighter" and be disappointed that fighting was kind of your thing?
I don't know that lots of people CAN take those really good feats that fighters qualify for. You don't find many classes taking a lot of feats that require a BaB 15+ because they simply can't hope to qualify for it, which makes that virtually a fighter only feat right there. Sure barbarians and rangers can take a few of those higher level feats, but they can't take as many and that's a very real strength.
Is there a character optimization board somewhere on these forums, because I think a lot of these discussions would benefit from examples but I'm always hesitant to take up a bunch of space posting characters. Especially since I take up so much space in my responses.
|
|
It sounds like what you're looking for is feats that let you cast spells. Those actually exist, although they're a bit weak, IMO. I'm hardly referring to disarm and sunder when I say that feats can supply plenty of tactical options:
Caught Off-Guard
Dazzling Display tree (3 total)
Deadly Aim
Wind Stance tree (2)
Improved Unarmed Strike tree (3)
Scorpion Style tree (3)
Stunning Fist (perfectly available to fighters)
Mounted Combat tree (5)
Overhand Chop tree (3)
Point Blank Shot tree (bunches)The list goes on and on, and that's just from the beta rules. You can easily build a fighter who is able to fight effectively in multiple ways and using many different styles of combat. If you look at 3.5 material it gets crazy. Brutal Strike is a fun one from the PH2 that springs to mind. There's lots of stuff like that floating around. You'll have to forgive me but when someone says "fighters don't have enough options" and I suggest that feats supply those options, those are the feats I'm thinking of. Not Improved Disarm.
The thing I know all the feats a Fighter can take. Your all acting as if I'm some sort of D&D Noob that just started playing. The only thing my gaming group played almost exclusivly since 3.0. was 3.0. then 3.5. I knopw how to optimize a Fighter I know what a fighter can do and unless you start from level 1 to optiomize him he will almost always be less effective at higher levels.
You make a good suggestion about using other masterial and when I DM I allow it. The problem is not every DM does. Some are stricly base book and some won't allow anything that is even remotely "broken" (how I hate that stupid term). A wizard using feats from the base book will still be better than the fighter.
I want to thank you for taking the time to list the above feats Kuma but as I said I know that already. I'm not looking for a spell or even the ability to do the exact same damage as a spellcaster. I just wantted PF to add something new to the fighter without making it too different. In the end imo the Paizo development group threw the fighter a small bone and a marrowless one at that.
Maybe I should start highlighting things somehow when I'm joking. Yeah, the paladin is a fine class. They haven't been reserved for LG for quite some time though. Unless your enemies are evil, fighter is still a better front-line combatant than a paladin.
It's a combination of one of two things a bad week and I being too ionate about defending certain things. sometimes it gets the better of my commen sense.
Why would you lug a tower shield? It's very unwieldy, as you suggest. The example in my head for the "potential" to do those things in armor included not only armor optimization feats, but mithral. Didn't say you could do it with no optimization. I was trying to illustrate why those feats that everyone dislikes are so useful. And what's this about a fighter isn't as good a fighter if he multiclasses? Isn't that kind of par for the course? If a spellcaster multiclasses, he might lose an entire level of spellcasting. Anyway, why would a fighter multiclass to ranger to get really good at two-weapon? Those are all fighter bonus feats anyway...
Why would one carry around a Tower Shield. it offers the best armor bonus in the game. It provides total cover though you have to give up your attacks to do so and quite frankly imo a Fighter with a Tower Shield looks more intimidating then the other types of sheilds. Yet I will concede that it's not exactly the best in combat.
Mithral is a solution and I'm gl;ad you pointed it out as I forgot about it yet it's not going to be affordable at low levels. What I meant about a fighter being less effective if he multicalsses depends on the class/prestige class he takes. A Fighter/Rogue if he wants to succeed on his rogue skills should not be wearing heavy armor so he is easier to hit. Certain prestige classes prohibit the wearing of certain types of armor.
10d6+ isn't that much damage? Sure if it's an area affect it will wipe out more peons, but your average BBEG is generally not going to be taken down by 10d6. He's going to be taken down by round after round of damage, and a lot of that is going to be dealt by the fighter. Average damage on a 10th level mage's fireball is 35. Average damage for a 10th level fighter's full attack with a greatsword assuming power attack and weapon specialization with 18 STR (although even a human could easily have 22 at that point without magic) is what... 38?
The thing is your right to a certain extent that the fighter can do a decent amount of damage a round and the spellcasters not as often. All it takes is a failed will save and depending on what happens those round by round damge does not happen. Meanwhile the spellcaster is going to still be able to do something because the smart spellcaster stay well out of range of anything that would stop a fighter in his tracks.
Sure, a wizard could maximize, but a fighter could also take a much more inspired selection of feats for damage optimization. And while a fighter could miss, he'll probably miss no more than half his attacks while if a spell is evaded all the damage is gone.
You are right if a spellcasters misses with a spell it's gone. The thing is maximize a spell only takes one feat slot. The fighter has to take many to even replicate that
Spellcasters don't have to take feats to be effective, they have to use spells. You can turn that around: Fighters don't have to use spells to be effective.
The thing is though you can do a hell of lot more with spells than you can do with fighter feats. Fly, enlarge someone, cover them in stone etc. A fighter even with the best feats can't compete against that
As for planning builds, I'm of the opinion that you have to do that for every class. And if you're a spellcaster you then have to continue planning every time you gain new spells known, and every day when you get out of bed. Fighter has hardly reached that level of complexity
In my experience it's the oppsite. I once went out of my way to make a Wizard that was just geared toward building stuff. The only ones that were combat oriented were Combat Casting and Spell Penetration. Even without optimizing the Wizard I was still doing more damage then the Fighter. The system is built that way. It drove the player usung the fighter nuts and he ended up using a Warblade from the Tome of battle.
|
|
A 14th-level fighter with a +1 flaming frost shocking greatsword can deal 9d6+28 damage in one hit.
It's a good amount of damage yet it takes four feats to get the damage to a decent level where all it takes is one spell and a mage of high enough level to do the same amount of damage
Can they also fly and teleport and put up walls of force without using magic items? No, of course not. But they have plenty to contribute in a fight, even compared to spellcasters.
I never said they were not able to contribute. Just that a certain level they get outclassed by spellcasters. They can do so much more includung inflict damage. Do you know how frustraing it is to have a play a fighter and see how the rules benefit spellcasters. And don't tell me to play something else because that a cop-out as far as I'm concerned.
And, incidentally, a 14th-level character will have magic items, so flying, teleporting, wall-of-force-using fighters and rogues cannot be ruled out just because those abilities aren't class
abilities for them.
True yet imo Seoni even being 4 levels lower then Valeros will still be better then him.
It's a good amount of damage yet it takes four feats to get the damage to a decent level where all it takes is one spell and a mage of high enough level to do the same amount of damage
A 14th-level fighter with a +1 flaming frost shocking greatsword can deal 9d6+28 damage in one hit.
I think you're missing the point ... both of the characters are at the same level to get to this amount of damage. The fighter used four out of 14 feats (15 if he happens to be a human) to get here with the same amount of experience it took the mage to be able to cast that spell.
A 14th-level fighter with a +1 flaming frost shocking greatsword can deal 9d6+28 damage in one hit.
It's a good amount of damage yet it takes four feats to get the damage to a decent level where all it takes is one spell and a mage of high enough level to do the same amount of damage
But that's 4 of 15 or so feats. At some point your high level spell slots run out. So really what your looking at is the mage can do it a few times the fighter all day. People seem to over look that and the fact a wizard may not have his best spell ready to go and often is not buffed to the max.
Step up can ruin a wizards day as well
Most of what I might say in reply was already said, but to address your level of expertise: I really didn't mean any offense. I wasn't assuming anything about your experience with D&D, I guess I just have a condescending writing style? You're not the first person to react that way to me, so I'm trying to work on it.
There's not much you can do for another player's satisfaction when you're in the game; but if you're running I think this might highlight the strengths of the fighter very well:
On the typical dungeon crawl, make it clear that if the party chooses to leave the dungeon/temple/whatever that the "enemy" will most certainly use the reprieve to reinforce their facilities. This might mean features of the dungeon will change, including blocked corridors/entrances, new traps, deadlier traps, etc. Whatever the enemy could cook up during the PCs absence. This isn't an unreasonable thing to do, and is actually the rule of thumb with my group. You leave, you get to fight your way back down.
The PCs will most likely decide to make camp within the "safe" part of the dungeon, which of course means that they're going to need to post a guard. Thing is, the wizard HAS to rest. He/she doesn't have an option. (although I know they don't have a specified minimum beyond "a good night's sleep") The other casters don't have that issue, but they're all probably spent by the time the group calls a halt to exploration. So what happens if the party is assaulted in the night? The only people who can actually put up a fight are probably the non-casters. No fighter has got a stronger sense of pride than one that's sitting on a pile of corpses when the rest of the party is blinking sleep out of their eyes. You can even tailor a single-PC encounter to make sure that one PC can handle it. That's not weakening the enemy, it's just allowing for the rest of the party to remain asleep.
Maybe that sounds contrived, but I guess you could always throw a normal CR at them while they're in bed and see how appreciative everyone is of the fighter who saves their spell-less ***es.
Just a creative way I thought of to illustrate for your players the above point about the fighter always being ready while casters are definitely limited.
Oh, and I know what you mean about being passionate about some things. You've probably already worked out that I feel that way about fighters, I'll try to be less aggro.
Fighters are only as boring as the feats they get.
They can be very "boring". That is by design. Sometimes, you just want it easy. If you want supernatural stuff, go paladin. If you want to hunt peopole, go ranger.
If you want to fight, go fighter.
Take cool feats if you want, don't if you don't.
The advantage of that "boredom" is that it is compatible with nearly everything else.
Fighters won't turn into warblades, ever.
Fighters won't turn into warblades, ever.
Thank Father Tiger for that! I've played a character with dips into the ToB, and tried to work out progressions and builds for it. It's like a nightmare you can't wake up from.
Of course, one of the other players in my group thinks it's the best thing since sliced bread.
I've played in a party that got to level 13 fairly recently. In it where a Monk/Cleric, a Fighter focused in Archery, a Beguiler, a Bard and a Int-based sorcerer/fighter. The monk had the biggest problems all the way through he was out shined at the lower levels by the Archer and he need all 3 of the spell casters to use multiple spells to buff him so that he could contribute in the fight.
What a lot of people gloss over with Fighters is that they really rock at lower levels, one swing with a great sword is instant death to most enemies. At the higher levels the fighter grew less and less satisfied, as he needed to wait until the casters buffed him or debuffed the opposition before he could act. Near the end it was quicker for the casters to handle things themselves, the fighter was relegated to dealing with weaker opponents.
Our DM likes to use spells that do other things than just direct damage, he's especially fond of mind control spells. He's also big on stealth, the fighter and the monk never really had any counter measures against invisibility. Some of you might be tempted to say that our DM was unfair to the non-casters but he use the encounters from the adventure path, just with smarter tactics and spell selection.
|
I have seen several PF Fighters now (and as DM have made many of them at multiple levels).
Things I have seen towards the mid-to-high level spectrum (8-15) that makes them shine are Armor Training, bonus feats, and to a lesser extent, Weapon Training.
You have your Mithral Chain Shirt +1. Put that on the Rogue, and he's getting +5 AC, and +6 Max Dex. Put the same shirt on the light armor specialized, high-dex fighter, and he's getting +8 AC and +9 max Dex. When all the little AC boosts start getting added in (Dodge, Natural Armor bonuses, etc) the fighter starts approaching the "unhittable" level of ac.
Paul the Fighter, in our recent Homebrew game, made it to 17th or 18th level, spring attacking with picks, and there were quite a few combats where the first round of combat was literally "roll, not a 20, etc. etc. etc."
That sucked up the entire first round of enemy actions, without any threat to the rest of the party.
Sure, the enemies will learn from that, and either swarm him, gas him, use non-conventional tactics (dropping heavy things, disintegrating the floor, etc) or simply ignore the fighter in favor of the more easily hit PC's, but then he gets to go to town on them. Plus, the rest of the party is able to read the enemies from their first round of actions and prepare counters or attacks as necessary.
As far as the "Fighters need Buffs to become viable," I consider that a specious argument. All the classes benefit from Buffs, and that Invisible, Flying, Protection from Evil'ed wizard could just have easily put those on the fighter, increasing his lethality and protection while remaining far away from the threat. When it comes to solo-fighters (a la NPC bosses and the like) careful use of consumables and magic items makes up for the lack of ally support. After all, this is generally a team-based-activity, is it not?
Plus, when you have 2 specialized party-support characters (in this case a Bard and Buff/Heal Cleric) everyone gets to be much more badass, not JUST the Fighter or Wizard or what have you.
To wit; the PF Fighter is very competitive into the mid to high level range, assuming you want him to fight, not cast spells.
-t
To be fair, the main arugment that "melee classes are weak at higher levels" doesn't stem from how much damage they do. The point is that spellcasters have many more options avalible.
While that might not sound so good on paper, in games it can be quite useful. Put melee focused classes in a situation where attacking an enemy won't work, and they'll become so weak. Put spellcasting classes out of their focus (such as a specialist illusionist against a foe with true seeing) and odds are he/she will still find a way to contribute.
Though as said in my earlier post, theres plenty of other factors to account. I think the "High level play just plain doesn't work" is the most signifcant. Even if melee classes were designed with the idea of granting more options, high level play would still be a mess. And the truth of it is, the only way to really avoid that is either
A: Completely rewrite the game, not just a fair portion of the rules like Paizo, but actually re-write the D20 system, though if you're going to that extent theres not much point playing D'n'D, you're better off just writing your own game.
B: Don't play high level. Which I admit can be a bit of a bummer, since you're less likely to have the heroic image of your characer fighting powerful demons, devils, dragons and other iconic big nasties which are all built for high level play.
|
Put spellcasters in Alkenstar! a mana dead zone...
here's a fun trick for melee classes, get something that radiates silence...keep it in a bag og holding or your handy haversack until you separate from your own spellcasters, (or with them if they have some silenced metaspells ready) Then wade through the enemy spellcasters...