What does not seem to have been mentioned here:
The fighter is much, much better at their schtick than anybody else is at theirs.
A two-weapon fighting shield-user has an AC that borders on ridiculous while getting the highest DPR of any class.
If you want a class that does -damage-, to -everything-, -all the time-, and is as unkillable via physical attacks as is humanly possible in this game, you want to take a fighter.
Fighters are a class created for players who want to brawl, swing swords, hit things, and end up climbing over the mounting corpses of their enemies. Pathfinder does a good job of making sure that they do this way better than anybody else (something not true in 3.5).
If you want to solve problems/do combats in strange and different ways, you should be playing a caster. That's what they do in 3.x. Asking for fighters to have a caster's versatility instead of just being combat monsters was more of a change than PF was willing to take on.
It bothers me that fighters were dethroned as the toughest blokes around-and haven't regained their stature in Pathfinder. Barbarian gets d12 hp per level, fighter only d10? Reverse those, or leave the barbarian and give the fighter even more hp. It is even more egregious because other classes have been juiced-even bards and rogues get d8, and arcanes d6, while fighters are the same as they were 20 years ago. In a sense, fighters are wimpier compared to those classes now.
My perception of the fighter:
True, the fighter is a bit 'vanilla' blend. Vanilla's good, but other option's are usually more flavourful on their own, like chocolate or pistachio.
But dip vanilla in hot chocolate fudge, or mix-in some cookie-dough and it get's awesome! Even a few smarties will make it just as interesting as strawberry. And when what you want is to complement a brownie or a piece of apple pie, there's noting like vanilla!
In other words, the fighter multiclass superbly! Either mix a few rogue level in your fighter build or fighter-up your ranger, the fighter's the way to go!
'findel
There's some really strange arguments going on here, most of them a blind.
Complaints about any class being able to do what the Fighter does, because they can take feats that aren't fighter only.
THat's analgous to whining that spellcasters are useless, because anyone with gold and UMD can do anything a spellcaster can do.
But just like a fighter, trying to duplicate a caster doesn't happen as early or as fast or as easily as just BEING the caster. Likewise, trying to pull off a Fighter's duties just doesn't happen as easily or as fast, because of thsoe feats.
====
A Melee PrC is nothing more then a Fighter with a customized feat tree that the designer didn't want to stat up. Nothing more, nothing less. You immediately realize how overpowered most melee PrC's are when you break them mechanically down into a feat tree. The reaction is always "That feat is way too powerful!", when all it does is give you exactly what taking two levels in X PrC does.
Melee PrC's should be next to non-existent. Customized feat trees should take their place. Flavor to get into the class is just flavor to be priviliged to learn the first feat. And as long as each feat requires the one before it, no dipping for high level feats will take place.
I did this with the Dwarven Defender, built a Fighter with the same feats, ended up exactly like a F/10 DD/10. Everyone screamed at how powerful the feats were. Made me laugh.
===========
Monks do not do more dmg then a fighter. A monk's base dmg tops out at 2-20, with a TH score 8 less then a fighter. At average 11 dmg, a Fighter dropping his TH by 5 with Power Attack still has +3 TH over the monk, and does +16 dmg, comfortably bypassing the monk.
Oh, you are talking about abusing SIZE increases. Nobody abuses size increases better then a Fighter!
Why, you ask? Because of the APtitude enchantment from Book of 9 Swords.
MOnk size abuse predicates on the combination of Improved Natural Attack, Superior Unarmed Strike, and actual size increase to L or H. Because dmg increases are incredible once you get beyond 3-18 base dmg, this results in monstrous base dmg.
But, Monks can't use Wield Oversized Weapon for UA strikes, nor Exotic Weapon (Heavy Weapon). With APtitude, we can apply INA to the greatsword, and with StrongArm bracers wield a weapon one size larger, and Aptitude lets us increase our dmg with SUS!
So, we have 3 size increases UA doesn't get (Strongarm, WOW, and EW(HW)). Those right there take a 2-12 dmg greatsword to 6-36 base dmg.
Ouch, you say?
SUS gives us a dmg progression! THREE dmg advances! So we can hit 16-96 dmg at level 15! (and 'only' 8-48 and 12-72 in between).
INA turns into Improved Greatsword Attack. 24-144.
Oh! we can still get Enlarged! 36-192, anyone?
Or, abuse Expansion, to H, G, etc? 48-288, 72-432, etc?
The next time a Monk tries to pull this sort of stuff, just have him run into a Greatsword Fighter with a +1 Aptitude Greatsword, and school him in the ways of size abuse.
===Aelryinth
Just out of curiosity has anyone else played around with building fighter talent trees?
|
The problem is that casters have so many options and power that the fighting classes (not just fighter) look pale in comparison. The fighter, since he gets lots of feats, ends up looking worse than barbarian and paladins.
I think what the fighter really needs is good, powerful feats at end of trees that other classes just can't afford to take. And if it needs to be even more specialized, just have the requirements be fighter only like weapon specialization.