Having run some Pathfinder sessions and listened to some frankly crazy musings from one of the players, I'm wondering how is the Pathfinder Fighter better than in 3.5. Armor training is a big one and so are the vital strikes but is the sum of those two things really that big?
It depends on what you mean by 'better'. One of the big things for alot of people now is that there are reasons to take more then 4 levels of fighter. Armor training and weapon training certainly make the fighter better at fighting. The simplified combat manuevers mean that a figther focusing on those things can be simple and fun to play (and he is good at focusing on those things). In addition a big thing for me is the critical focus feat tree for higher levels. Some of those are pretty nasty and only a fighter can do 2 at once.
Is a fighter going to dominate most fights? Unlikely, but certainly the fighter is atleast marginally 'better' then the 3.5 fighter.
The Armor Training is big, not only because it increases the armor's value as well as the max Dex bonus it allows, while reducing the armor check penalty...but, it also lets a fighter move his normal speed, instead of being the guy who's too slow to keep up with the fleet-footed members of the party and those wearing light or no armor.
He has Weapon Training as well which gives him additional bonuses with certain groupings of weapons (like heavy blades, light blades, etc.). He also gets a bravery bonus so his poor Will save doesn't completely handicap him against fear effects...which is really an effect a brave warrior ought to stand a better chance of resisting.
Lastly, at really high level (19th and 20th, respectively) a fighter gets Armor Mastery and Weapon Mastery. The former grants him DR 5/— when he is wearing armor or using a shield. That's up there with a barbarian's ability to shrug off damage. And, perhaps more importantly, Weapon Mastery lets a fighter take his favored weapon and automatically confirm critical hits with it...while also increasing its critical damage multiplier by 1. And, he can never be disarmed while wielding that kind of weapon. That's pretty big mojo and a cut-above the 3.5 fighter.
Also, under Pathfinder rules, feats in general come more often. Yet a warrior retains all of his normal bonus feats. So, he accumulates more feats as he levels up. There are a lot of new, interesting, flavorful combat feats in Pathfinder. So, fighters have a lot more variety and combat styles available to them now.
But that's just my two-cents,
--Neil
Having run some Pathfinder sessions and listened to some frankly crazy musings from one of the players, I'm wondering how is the Pathfinder Fighter better than in 3.5. Armor training is a big one and so are the vital strikes but is the sum of those two things really that big?
Yes. In my opinion, the Fighter really wasn't all bad to begin with and these abilities (including shadow changes such as improvements to many combat feats and an overall increase of the armor values) makes the fighter even better.
The only way to make a Fighter fit a vision of the class that people who kvetched about the class during 3.5 happy would have involved porting the Tome of Battle: Book of the 9 Swords.
And I'd rather castrate myself using a method involving a rope, a wooden beam, and a jump from a hayloft than use that system.
Having run some Pathfinder sessions and listened to some frankly crazy musings from one of the players, I'm wondering how is the Pathfinder Fighter better than in 3.5. Armor training is a big one and so are the vital strikes but is the sum of those two things really that big?
Strangely enough this was on my mind lately, but I did not want to be the one to light the fire.
He does more damage, is harder to hit, and has more tricks up his sleeve.
I don't see how this isn't an improvement.
What do folks want? The ability to fly? AOE attacks? Maybe some magic? Come on, now.
I really like how the fighter's Armor Training/Mastery and Weapon Training/Mastery set him apart from the other melee classes. A barbarian has his tweaks. So do paladins and rangers. But, if you want the best of the best when it comes to hands on combat with your weapon of choice, the fighter's your man. And, if you want the guy who can maximize the use of armor to go toe-to-toe with the biggest, baddest monsters on the planet, the fighter's your go-to guy.
In addition, the fact that many of the fighter's best abilities come into effect at higher levels now, means he's worth playing single-class as opposed to the multiclass cherry-picking a lot of players engaged in.
Just my two-cents,
--Neil
|
Having run some Pathfinder sessions and listened to some frankly crazy musings from one of the players, I'm wondering how is the Pathfinder Fighter better than in 3.5. Armor training is a big one and so are the vital strikes but is the sum of those two things really that big?
No, but that stuff along with Weapon Training and *literally* gaining a Feat at every level adds up to something pretty nice, especially if you're using other 3.5 books like PHB2 and Complete Warrior.
He does more damage, is harder to hit, and has more tricks up his sleeve.
I don't see how this isn't an improvement.
What do folks want? The ability to fly? AOE attacks? Maybe some magic? Come on, now.
Nobody complained about the 3.5 fighter ability to hit, and do damage. They complained amount the fluff saying he was a leader, they were guards, and some other thigns when in fact they had terrible spot, and listen skills, and no social skills. Now that the skill system has been changed they might be able to be decent with the social skill, and perception checks. I dont remember all of the other complaints. I have them saved on my hard drive somewhere. I will post them if I can find them.
Edit:
This came from one of the more civilized discussion on the WoTC boards about fighters. I think some of these have been taken care of now.
1) It needs to still be recognizable, in the end, as a Fighter. If we're doing a total remake, we already have the Warblade.
2) The PHB says Fighters are generic guards. They should be at least reasonably good at that job.
3) The PHB says Fighters are good wartime and/or military leaders, and also represent veteran soldiers. They should at least be reasonably good at that job too.
4) Fighters are supposed to be flexible. They should be. This means that not every Fighter build should be the same, but also that a given Fighter build is also adaptable to new situations. If I can describe a higher level Fighter build using a single word to describe their only tactic, such as "charger" or "tripper" then there's a problem.
5) Fighters must be useful both in combat and out... they can be better in combat, but the class shouldn't be worthless outside of combat. It's fine if their abilities all have a martial bent, but they should still be useful.
6) Fighter level 20 should be better than Fighter level 2. More to the point, the further you go in the Fighter class, the better the levels should get. Wizard 17 gives you 9th level spells while Wizard 1 gives 1st level spells, but right now Fighter 18 gives the same thing as Fighter 2, if not worse since you've probably taken all the good feats anyway.
7) The fixed Fighter should still be able to fill the roles it currently can and apply to the character concepts it currently can, in addition to being able to be guard types, veteran soldiers, and military leaders. If we lose potential builds in the fix, the fix is a failure.
8) Fighters shouldn't have glass jaws... they're supposed to be tough. Right now their will save tends to be pathetic and their reflex save isn't too hot either.
9) In the end, Fighters should be roughly balanced with Warblades, Crusaders, and Duskblades, but should not be based around manuevers or spells. Some people don't like manuevers and spells, and options already exist for making good melees with them... let's have a fix that is without them.
10) Fighters should be able to operate siege engines. Right now, they're one of very few classes that can't use a ballista effectively (it's Profession Siege Engineer to use) and that doesn't make any sense.
11) It wouldn't hurt if we could make sword and board viable for Fighters too. A lot of people seem to like the concept, so it would be good if we could make it work.
12) Fighters are supposed to be the best at feats. Right now, they just get more of them, but since few feats are really all that strong, being the best at feats means too little. So, that should be fixed.
- Weapon and Armor training; most reasons already mentioned, but also nice capstones with those including DR. Also Weapon Training makes Weapon Specialization feel like less of a "necessity"--before often Fighters were taken specifically for Weapon Specialization; now it's an option but Weapon Training provides enough of a benefit that, depending on your build, it becomes less of a "must-have" and frees up feat slots if it's not the direction you want to take.
- Combined with new feat rules, gets a feat every level. Makes building a combat style much easier and can do so much faster, and still be able to take some other feats for fluff and rounding out the character. Plus if you want a character good at Combat Maneuvers, Fighter is one of your best bets because of combo of many feats and full BAB.
- New class skills like Survival, Knowledge Engineering, Knowledge Dungeoneering means fighter is much more likely to provide a non-combat contribution to party. Plus Intimidate mechanics made way cool. Yes, I think they should have maybe gotten Acrobatics, Perception, and Heal as class skills too, but at least with new skill rules they can buy those skills up to a fairly decent strength even with it not being a class skill (which is more about the Pathfinder skill system being better than the Fighter, but the Fighter definitely benefits a lot from it).
- Fighter Only Feats (sometimes I think if they were listed as "Fighter Talents" under Fighter rather than in the Feat section, they might not be overlooked so much) provide a number of things ONLY fighters--and usually only high level fighters can do. OP mentioned Vital Strike. There's also
-- Disruptive and Spellbreaker -- being able to completely nullify casting defensively rules is huge. Combine with stuff like Stand Still and Step Up, if a caster gets into melee with a fighter, they're screwed.
-- Critical Mastery
-- Various "Improved FOO Focus" feats--even standard Sword and Board fighting style can become pretty powerful and nasty in a trained fighter's hands.
1) It needs to still be recognizable, in the end, as a Fighter. If we're doing a total remake, we already have the Warblade.
Looking good so far.
2) The PHB says Fighters are generic guards. They should be at least reasonably good at that job.
They certainly are, especially using the stand still feat and ranged attacks. High-end hordes and other things of excessive value, however, should include a mixed retinue of guards, not just fighters.
3) The PHB says Fighters are good wartime and/or military leaders, and also represent veteran soldiers. They should at least be reasonably good at that job too.
Are you thinking there should be battlefield control abilities? I'm not sure I'd agree with you if you are. Just using standard skills should be enough for this, however fighter plays well with other classes for multiclassing purposes. Fighter/Bard would make a great commander. I know that I'm invoking multiclassing here but I think it speaks to the Fighter's ability to mesh with other classes.
4) Fighters are supposed to be flexible. They should be. This means that not every Fighter build should be the same, but also that a given Fighter build is also adaptable to new situations. If I can describe a higher level Fighter build using a single word to describe their only tactic, such as "charger" or "tripper" then there's a problem.
There are a metric ton of feats available to the fighter. I don't think any argument that starts with "I CAN specialize if I want to therefore the Fighter is fail at being flexible" or something to that effect is pure nonsense. You can specialize in something or you don't have to. It's the very definition of flexibility.
5) Fighters must be useful both in combat and out... they can be better in combat, but the class shouldn't be worthless outside of combat. It's fine if their abilities all have a martial bent, but they should still be useful.
Yeh. The improvements to the Fighter's class skills list is a testament to this. Even with only an average of 3 to 4 skill points per level, the Fighter can have some nice skill rolls especially if the party is missing a tracker.
6) Fighter level 20 should be better than Fighter level 2. More to the point, the further you go in the Fighter class, the better the levels should get. Wizard 17 gives you 9th level spells while Wizard 1 gives 1st level spells, but right now Fighter 18 gives the same thing as Fighter 2, if not worse since you've probably taken all the good feats anyway.
Every feat adds another dimension to the character in combat. There are a lot of "good" feats. One might argue they're all good depending on the situation. The more situations you're prepared for, the more powerful you are. You could describe this as an exponentially beneficial concept because you're limiting the DM's options in combat. I love it when a player takes something they normally wouldn't to find out it pays off in spades.
7) The fixed Fighter should still be able to fill the roles it currently can and apply to the character concepts it currently can, in addition to being able to be guard types, veteran soldiers, and military leaders. If we lose potential builds in the fix, the fix is a failure.
I don't think we've lost any of this. I guess you're just posting this verbatim for completeness so I assume you don't have umbrage with this.
8) Fighters shouldn't have glass jaws... they're supposed to be tough. Right now their will save tends to be pathetic and their reflex save isn't too hot either.
Fighters can't have all good saves. Because of their huge amount of feats, they are free to use feats which improve these saves. Fighters have resistance to fear as well.
9) In the end, Fighters should be roughly balanced with Warblades, Crusaders, and Duskblades, but should not be based around manuevers or spells. Some people don't like manuevers and spells, and options already exist for making good melees with them... let's have a fix that is without them.
I'd say this assumption is no longer true. They should be balanced on the other Pathfinder classes. I think they are. Just because Wizards get level 9 spells doesn't mean the Fighter is underpowered in comparison. It means they're different.
10) Fighters should be able to operate siege engines. Right now, they're one of very few classes that can't use a ballista effectively (it's Profession Siege Engineer to use) and that doesn't make any sense.
Check.
11) It wouldn't hurt if we could make sword and board viable for Fighters too. A lot of people seem to like the concept, so it would be good if we could make it work.
I assume you're referring to a fighter's difficulty in tanking through defense rather than damage (2h or 2wf). I agree to an extent. I also don't want to take target choice out of the DM's hands, though. If we did a "taunt" then what's the point of a DM, really? Why not automate everything? There needs to be a middle ground somewhere.
12) Fighters are supposed to be the best at feats. Right now, they just get more of them, but since few feats are really all that strong, being the best at feats means too little. So, that should be fixed.
I disagree with the basic assumption. I do think more feats makes them "best at feats". And the feats HAVE gotten much better in Pathfinder. There are some that are "niche" feats which aren't useful in every fight or every situation. Another character will probably not take these feats, but a Fighter can afford to and they'll be prepared in these situations where another character might not.
I think the fighter is great. I also thing with the addition of some feats to counteract anything new that comes out or to give the fighter an edge in situations that the current feats might not, it could be even better.
I think the main problem is the fighter can be very flexible with his feats, but he will never be the best at anything. There is very little in the way of feats that scale or have more then one or two additional feats. These feats are the fighters class abilities. Most classes have abilities of some sort that scale considerably as they level. The fighter now has armor and weapon training but i dont think it covers the ground of say a rogues sneak attack, or the progression of a wizards spells. If you only have feats to work with you can only do as much as feats allow. The other classes have potent class features that let them do stuff.
|
|
I started playing Pathfinder a few months ago. Fighter has always been my favorite class, despite its relative weakness to the casting crew. However, the 3.5 fighter lacked many great feats after a few levels and sort of petered out.
I couldn't be happier with the Pathfinder Fighter. Weapon and armor training are great bonuses. The number of useful feats for fighters I would say doubled. It's to the point where I have to agonize over the next feat. I didn't have to do that before.
As noted earlier, the critical feats are great. You have to be pretty high level before they come into play, but that at least gives fighters a considerable jump in power in the 15+ land where casters generally rule. Vital Strike is a great way to deal considerable damage and still maintain a move action for fun stuff like feinting or just zipping about now that you can with Armor Training. The new Power Attack is also great. One of our other players has a two-weapon fighter who's also pretty phenomenal. And all the new two weapon fighting feats are great too and perfect for the fighter with all the extra feats available.
Edit: I can't believe I forgot about Disruptive, Spellbreaker, and Step Up. Those feats are a collective FU! shout at BBEG casters. And that's onyl three levels of feats for a fighter instead of double that.
Great post. I must stress, as I always have with the fighter, that at the higher levels who you spend your time with is just as important as your abilities. A group of four level 20 fighters going against an Ancient Red Dragon is going to get TROUNCED and rightly so. You need at least a relatively balanced party for such a thing.
Level 20 Fighter vs. Level 20 Wizard? The point of the game isn't to do single combat between two characters, it's for each character to contribute to the adventure shining in some situations and being not so good in some situations, but equally and consistently in general. I think that a well-balanced fighter build does this.
I think the main problem is the fighter can be very flexible with his feats, but he will never be the best at anything. There is very little in the way of feats that scale or have more then one or two additional feats. These feats are the fighters class abilities. Most classes have abilities of some sort that scale considerably as they level. The fighter now has armor and weapon training but i dont think it covers the ground of say a rogues sneak attack, or the progression of a wizards spells. If you only have feats to work with you can only do as much as feats allow. The other classes have potent class features that let them do stuff.
I guess we disagree on how valuable feats are in general. We've gotten so used to feats as a concept that we forget how useful even the most basic feats can be and how many there are. There do need to be more feats, but I don't think the array we have now negatively limits the Fighter.
10) Fighters should be able to operate siege engines. Right now, they're one of very few classes that can't use a ballista effectively (it's Profession Siege Engineer to use) and that doesn't make any sense.Check.
Er... just to make sure we're all on the same page: fighters have Profession on their class list now. Barbarians are the only class without it.
Er... just to make sure we're all on the same page: fighters have Profession on their class list now. Barbarians are the only class without it.10) Fighters should be able to operate siege engines. Right now, they're one of very few classes that can't use a ballista effectively (it's Profession Siege Engineer to use) and that doesn't make any sense.Check.
Yeah, I meant check as in they got it in Pathfinder. Hehe.
I think the main problem is the fighter can be very flexible with his feats, but he will never be the best at anything. There is very little in the way of feats that scale or have more then one or two additional feats. These feats are the fighters class abilities. Most classes have abilities of some sort that scale considerably as they level. The fighter now has armor and weapon training but i dont think it covers the ground of say a rogues sneak attack, or the progression of a wizards spells. If you only have feats to work with you can only do as much as feats allow. The other classes have potent class features that let them do stuff.I guess we disagree on how valuable feats are in general. We've gotten so used to feats as a concept that we forget how useful even the most basic feats can be and how many there are. There do need to be more feats, but I don't think the array we have now negatively limits the Fighter.
I dont think it negatively limits what the fighter can do, just how well they can do it.
The rogue gets a scaling damage bonus all the way through his career, and a good one. The barbarian gets rage and powers that build on that. The paladins smite is based on his level.
The fighter can take weapon focus, greater weapon focus then he's stopped. Or weapon spec and then a long time later greater weapon spec. There is a limit to how much you can add for any one thing. Where as most of the other classes have that one thing they do really really well. So what happens is the fighter performs pretty well the whole time. The other classes perform ok most of the time, but really shine in their moment. That becomes the visible impression and thus the fighter looks and feels lukewarm as a class.
|
|
Great post.
Thankee (assuming you were talking to me).
I must stress, as I always have with the fighter, that at the higher levels who you spend your time with is just as important as your abilities.
Absolutely true. When taken in the context of an entire party, the Fighter actually can be quite slick. Hasting him will probably end up doing as much damage after an encounter as a fireball, not to mention the rest of the party. Other buffs will make him huge, practically untouchable, etc.
|
Fighters are the new hand to hand combat gods. My friend is playing a two-weapon fighter in our current campaign. He has 4 attacks per round that do 1D0+18 per attack! (This fighure is derived from a 22 Str, +2 spec, +2 blade, double slice feat, fighter weapon talent, power attack bonus of +6 dmg and a feat from Complete Adventurer where he can use a bastard sword in each hand!)
This he gets 4 attacks that do from 19 - 28 points of damage. He is a true killing machine and the only class I could see keeping up with him would be a paladin smiting an evil foe such as a dragon, undead or evil outsider. The barbarian and ranger seem feeble compared to the fighter in every way possible.
1) It needs to still be recognizable, in the end, as a Fighter. If we're doing a total remake, we already have the Warblade.Looking good so far.
2) The PHB says Fighters are generic guards. They should be at least reasonably good at that job.They certainly are, especially using the stand still feat and ranged attacks. High-end hordes and other things of excessive value, however, should include a mixed retinue of guards, not just fighters.
3) The PHB says Fighters are good wartime and/or military leaders, and also represent veteran soldiers. They should at least be reasonably good at that job too.Are you thinking there should be battlefield control abilities? I'm not sure I'd agree with you if you are. Just using standard skills should be enough for this, however fighter plays well with other classes for multiclassing purposes. Fighter/Bard would make a great commander. I know that I'm invoking multiclassing here but I think it speaks to the Fighter's ability to mesh with other classes.
4) Fighters are supposed to be flexible. They should be. This means that not every Fighter build should be the same, but also that a given Fighter build is also adaptable to new situations. If I can describe a higher level Fighter build using a single word to describe their only tactic, such as "charger" or "tripper" then there's a problem.There are a metric ton of feats available to the fighter. I don't think any argument that starts with "I CAN specialize if I want to therefore the Fighter is fail at being flexible" or something to that effect is pure nonsense. You can specialize in something or you don't have to. It's the very definition of flexibility.
5) Fighters must be useful both in combat and out... they can be better in combat, but the class shouldn't be worthless outside of combat. It's fine if their abilities all have a martial bent, but they...
This was a list of things referring to the 3.5 fighter. Not all of them have been fixed, but even they were it would not matter, because different people expect different things out of the fighter. A lot of this depends on how the DM runs a game. Some DM show no restraint. Some DM's make sure certain classes have a chance to shine, and so forth. A fighter fix for group A might be considered broken in group B.
Having run some Pathfinder sessions and listened to some frankly crazy musings from one of the players, I'm wondering how is the Pathfinder Fighter better than in 3.5. Armor training is a big one and so are the vital strikes but is the sum of those two things really that big?
I think.
I think it's also worthy of mention that fighters are now the kings of Trip/Disarm/Sunder since weapon training adds to these rolls.
The biggest boost for fighters IMO is the Pathfinder Skill system. You can now create sneaky, perceptive fighters - something that required multiclassing in 3.5.
You can make a very decent fighter with 5 skills maxed out (Human, Int 13 for Combat Expertise requirement, and Favored Class bonus) - and in Pathfinder these don't need to be class skills in order for the fighter to be good at them.
Critical feats are nasty. Any class can get them, but Fighters are the only ones who can use 2 per critical hit. That's a significant boost.
The fighter still has weaknesses (as it should have), but less than it used to have.
The rogue gets a scaling damage bonus all the way through his career, and a good one. The barbarian gets rage and powers that build on that. The paladins smite is based on his level.
The fighter can take weapon focus, greater weapon focus then he's stopped. Or weapon spec and then a long time later greater weapon spec. There is a limit to how much you can add for any one thing. Where as most of the other classes have that one thing they do really really well. So what happens is the fighter performs pretty well the whole time. The other classes perform ok most of the time, but really shine in their moment. That becomes the visible impression and thus the fighter looks and feels lukewarm as a class.
I would say that this is a failing of the individuals who can't see the value of the whole package rather than a failing of the class.
I see the feat choices certainly as a "scaling" ability easily on par with sneak attack or arcane spellcasting, not to mention combining that with d10 hit die, heavy armor, and full base attack bonus. With each extra attack the fighter gets, his latent bonuses from Weapon Training, Weapon Focus, and Weapon Specialization gain value. With every "tricky" feat he takes, he reduces the DM's array of combat choices a little. The more of these he takes, the more valuable he becomes.
I guess what I'm saying is that it is ALWAYS the fighter's moment. The fighter should become more and more prepared for any combat situation as he gains levels. To alter this would probably require some kind of spell-like or supernatural abilities. At that point I'd probably say play a Paladin, Ranger, or multiclass character.
|
I'm playing a fighter in PFS. My character doesn't have the highest AC, nor do the best damage of the other characters I've played with, But with my build as a duelist, I hit almost every time.
(Built to PFS standards and using the campaign guide)
Cristian Aldori
Fighter6 HP58
Spd-30, Init:+6
S14, D18, C14, I13, W10, Ch10
AC 22 (arm+7, Dex+4, Deflect+1)
Fort+8, Ref+7, Will+3, (+2 vs. Fear)
CMB:10 CMD:22
Bluff+6, Intimidate+9, Know(local)+4, Sense Motive+10, Survival+8
Aldori Dueling Sword +1: +13/+8(1d8+7)
Feats: Exotic Wpn Prof: Aldori Dueling Sword, Weapon Finesse, Wpn Focus: ADS, Agile Manuvers, Combat Expertise, Weapon Specialization, Improved Feint, Lunge
Traits: Suspicious (SM class skill, and +1 to SM), Reactionary (+2 init)
Equip: Aldori Dueling Sword+1, Breastplate +1, Cloak of Resistance+1, Ring of Protection +1, Wayfinder
It's easy to fix the fighter. Give it something to do that isn't hitting people. But at that point, is it still the fighter any more?
you mean like tripping them, knocking them around, not letting them move, blinding them, stunning them, or intimidating a whole bunch of them at a time? You can do stuff besides hit people with swords, you just have to work towards that.
I dont think it negatively limits what the fighter can do, just how well they can do it.The rogue gets a scaling damage bonus all the way through his career, and a good one. The barbarian gets rage and powers that build on that. The paladins smite is based on his level.
All situational: The barbarian has a certain number of rage rounds (and the attack and damage number still don't look that good compared to a fighter); the paladin has a limited number of smites to use on a limited number of enemies (and not every enemy works with it); rangers only work well against a few monster types. Rogues need to catch enemies with their pants down.
Fighters just walk up to something and whack the living bejeezus out of it.
The fighter can take weapon focus, greater weapon focus then he's stopped. Or weapon spec and then a long time later greater weapon spec.
You forget weapon training. And all those feats help, too.
In my experience, the fighter's attack and damage bonuses don't have to hide behind the other classes'. Beside the fact that it's unconditional and works all the time, it does a nice job of keeping up with the rest. In many cases (like barbarians or rogues) I found that the other classes cannot even keep up with their situational stuff.
What do folks want? The ability to fly? AOE attacks? Maybe some magic? Come on, now.?Heaven forfend that the fighter get nice things.
Like what? The ability to make wizards crap themselves when they're next to a fighter because their concentration checks are getting harder, they can't move away, and when they mess it up, they get attacked to boot?
Or the fun stuff where they can scare people, hack their defenses to pieces, and then make people bleed like a stuck pig?
Or the sick stuff they get to do with critical hits, two sick things at a time?
Or ignore damage reduction?
Or get a caravan-load of feats to do fightery stuff?
They can do a lot of stuff, be quite effective. But they will never get stuff that is not fighter stuff. They will not get spells. They will not get mystical, supernatural powers. They will not get nonsensical immunities or anything.
If that makes you not like the class, don't play it. Or go find a game where fighters can do magic and all that, because this game won't change like that. Or house-rule it.
Because tripping goes obsolete once things start flying
There was an immense thread discussing this at WotC a couple years back (at least one).
Suffice it to say, it is debatable whether tripping a flying creature is possible or legal.
Technically, nothing in the rules says you can't clip a wing of a passing dragon and "trip" him.
Not that I'm necessarily on the "Tripping flying creatures is legal" side, just bringing forward that it doesn't have a clear answer.
Unless Pathfinder clarified this, but I doubt it.
Without getting into this whole can of worms, there's the potential for turning the fighter into a "duelist" class, who is built around putting enemies at a disadvantage, with possible themes like a swashbuckler who outmaneuvers people and negates their attacks, or a brute who sends people sprawling and laying trip-like debuffs on them, or a trickster who ignores magical offenses and defenses and mucks up spellcasters.
You could take tripping and turn it into a whole schtick for the class, but it's not a schtick on its own.
We have feats that do these things.
you mean like tripping them, knocking them around, not letting them move, blinding them, stunning them, or intimidating a whole bunch of them at a time? You can do stuff besides hit people with swords, you just have to work towards that.Sure, those are great ideas (at least, some of them are). Now, make them abilities which don't require a disproportionate resource investment in order to use them at a limited level band or on a limited basis. Because tripping goes obsolete once things start flying, intimidation as written is a very weak thing to do with your actions, and the crit feats have some major issues.
Because each of them is limited or unreliable because that's "realistic", the fighter is laboring under restrictions other classes don't have.
Tripping goes obsolete? I was unaware all high level monsters fly exclusively. I must have missed something. Its not easy, but i can still be done and has a big impact on a fight. For flying creatures there is standstill which very well may knock them out of the air.
Potential improvements to the PF fighter over the 3.5 fighter at level 20, including new feats:
I'm sure there's more I havn't thought of. That's just about 5 minutes of thinking and flipping through the Feats section of the core book.
The fighter gets some extra class skills as well, including a couple of Knowledges and Survival. However, he loses the ability to compensate his armor check penalty with jumping skill, since he doesn't get Acrobatics. So he sucks at jumping now.
The fighter gets some extra class skills as well, including a couple of Knowledges and Survival. However, he loses the ability to compensate his armor check penalty with jumping skill, since he doesn't get Acrobatics. So he sucks at jumping now.
How does he suck at jumping compared to a 3.5 fighter? ACP still applied to Jump in 3.5, and fighters with medium or heavy armor in 3.5 took a -6 penalty to their Jump checks because of speed penalties. Acrobatics isn't a class skill, but all that means is he doesn't get a +3 bonus. He still gets +1 to the skill check per point invested.
To summarize --
3.5 Fighter w/30 strength, 16 dex, and full plate: Jump +21 (23 ranks, +10 strength, -6 ACP, -6 speed)
Pathfinder Fighter w/16 dex and full plate: Acrobatics +24 (20 ranks, +3 dex, -2 ACP, +3 class skill)
Because tripping goes obsolete once things start flyingThere was an immense thread discussing this at WotC a couple years back (at least one).
Suffice it to say, it is debatable whether tripping a flying creature is possible or legal.
Technically, nothing in the rules says you can't clip a wing of a passing dragon and "trip" him.
Not that I'm necessarily on the "Tripping flying creatures is legal" side, just bringing forward that it doesn't have a clear answer.
Unless Pathfinder clarified this, but I doubt it.
Actually, Pathfinder did clarify it:
You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack. You can only trip an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. If you do not have the Improved Trip feat, or a similar ability, initiating a trip provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.
If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone. If your attack fails by 10 or more, you are knocked prone instead. If the target has more than two legs, add +2 to the DC of the combat maneuver attack roll for each additional leg it has. Some creatures—such as oozes, creatures without legs, and flying creatures—cannot be tripped.
The fighter gets some extra class skills as well, including a couple of Knowledges and Survival. However, he loses the ability to compensate his armor check penalty with jumping skill, since he doesn't get Acrobatics. So he sucks at jumping now.How does he suck at jumping compared to a 3.5 fighter? ACP still applied to Jump in 3.5, and fighters with medium or heavy armor in 3.5 took a -6 penalty to their Jump checks because of speed penalties. Acrobatics isn't a class skill, but all that means is he doesn't get a +3 bonus. He still gets +1 to the skill check per point invested.
To summarize --
3.5 Fighter w/30 strength, 16 dex, and full plate: Jump +21 (23 ranks, +10 strength, -6 ACP, -6 speed)
Pathfinder Fighter w/16 dex and full plate: Acrobatics +24 (20 ranks, +3 dex, -2 ACP, +3 class skill)
Ach, even after playing Pathfinder for a few months now, I still occasionally forget the difference between class and non-class skills. Still so used to having half-ranks in non-class skills. I probably should tell the party fighter this :)
Whoops, gave the fighter class skill bonus in Acrobatics, so he's not better off, but he is equal.
We have feats that do these things.Poorly.
I'm taking the cue of those feats and imagining fighter-like classes that do those things well.
I disagree. If feats or class abilities completely locked out other melee characters or spellcasters, it would not only be extremely frustrating to the Player or DM of the target of those abilities but it would be excessively overpowered. If this element were introduced to the game without some kind of resource expenditure (such as spells), I would likely flat-out ban it from my game.
And like I said above, the problem with a class whose main class feature is "feats" is that everyone gets feats, feats aren't typically level-appropriate class features after about level 5, and there aren't so many feats that most characters can't get at least most of the feats they want without being a fighter.
I don't see your point. Because another class can take improved trip doesn't mean they'll be as good as or better than an equivalent-level fighter. However, the point, while I'm totally right about it, is moot. The strength of the class isn't about being able to do individual things better than other classes. The fighter can be good at a lot of different maneuvers on the battlefield thanks to the class's multitude of feats. The fighter isn't a one-trick pony.
I tend to wonder about threads like these. I don't see how anyone who has played Pathfinder from LVL 1-8 or beyond cannot see how the Pathfinder version is not better than 3.5 Look at Armor Training, Weapon Training, feat list, hell even bravery.
I just don't see how it can be any more obvious...
|
The entire list of CR 12+ monsters in Pathfinder Bestiary which can be tripped and can't fly: Iron golem, storm giant, tarrasque
And to add my support, the iron golem is the only one less than Huge AFAIK, which means a PC would have to be enlarged to try tripping the giant, and can't trip the Tarrasque. Since someone posted the rules and I note you can't trip someone two sizes larger than you.
I just don't see how it can be any more obvious...
Because obviously you've missed the fact that all along we've completely agreed that fighters are balanced for early level play. Once you reach epic levels (by which I mean 10+) they suddenly can't play with the monsters or casting classes. PF didn't fix that, and in some ways made it worse. Remember, the Crit feats everyone crows about require a +11 BAB.
The entire list of CR 12+ monsters in Pathfinder Bestiary which can be tripped and can't fly: Iron golem, storm giant, tarrasqueAnd to add my support, the iron golem is the only one less than Huge AFAIK, which means a PC would have to be enlarged to try tripping the giant, and can't trip the Tarrasque. Since someone posted the rules and I note you can't trip someone two sizes larger than you.
I just don't see how it can be any more obvious...Because obviously you've missed the fact that all along we've completely agreed that fighters are balanced for early level play. Once you reach epic levels (by which I mean 10+) they suddenly can't play with the monsters or casting classes. PF didn't fix that, and in some ways made it worse. Remember, the Crit feats everyone crows about require a +11 BAB.
And you've missed the fact that after level 10, a lone fighter taking on a spellcaster or a flier is generally FAILSAUCE regardless. It is MEANT to be failsauce. He might be able to mitigate his weaknesses with some intelligent feat expenditure on the use of the Longbow and a nice composite magical version of the weapon.
The fact remains, that D&D is based on a group of adventurers balancing out each others' weaknesses with strengths. The Fighter (my God, I've been arguing this for years and years and years and I STILL can't believe I have to explain it every time it comes up) is weak against magic users and fliers. He needs other party members to help out, in general.
Now, if I were building a group of fighters for the sole purpose of fighting flying creatures, I'd put them on a wall, train them in the use of the Longbow (Str 16 + weapon spec + aptitude+ high BAB = oh my sweet baby Cthulu I feel sorry for creatures that fly towards your battlements instead of taking cover on the ground) and wait for a really stupid dragon to show up and be filled with arrows.
An individual Adventuring Fighter could also do the same if they wanted to because they have a butt-ton of feats to spend on such things.
It's funny. I never had problems with fighters in my game, even at high levels. There is always a single class fighter in every group I've DMed.
Maybe because I have house ruled very early (since 3.0) the DC to concentration checks to add 2*spell level (for every use, not only casting defensively), and forbid the "make a 5-foot step and cast spell without risk" and these kind of things.
Maybe also because, there is not much prestige classes in my game (very few of my players are interested in these). Same for other base classes.
Maybe because players have learn to not cast every powerful spells right away because they know they can't rest everytime without any risk of being embushed while resting.
Maybe because casters would be killed in one/two round(s) without a fighter to stop the monsters.
Maybe because all these reasons, I'm still hearing players at my table saying regularly "the fighter saved us all!".
They all want to play a fighter, and few want to play a wizard.
The way of playing a game with a few twists can really lead to some different views of the game.
It's really funny.
The entire list of CR 12+ monsters in Pathfinder Bestiary which can be tripped and can't fly: Iron golem, storm giant, tarrasqueAnd to add my support, the iron golem is the only one less than Huge AFAIK, which means a PC would have to be enlarged to try tripping the giant, and can't trip the Tarrasque. Since someone posted the rules and I note you can't trip someone two sizes larger than you.
I just don't see how it can be any more obvious...Because obviously you've missed the fact that all along we've completely agreed that fighters are balanced for early level play. Once you reach epic levels (by which I mean 10+) they suddenly can't play with the monsters or casting classes. PF didn't fix that, and in some ways made it worse. Remember, the Crit feats everyone crows about require a +11 BAB.And you've missed the fact that after level 10, a lone fighter taking on a spellcaster or a flier is generally FAILSAUCE regardless. It is MEANT to be failsauce. He might be able to mitigate his weaknesses with some intelligent feat expenditure on the use of the Longbow and a nice composite magical version of the weapon.
The fact remains, that D&D is based on a group of adventurers balancing out each others' weaknesses with strengths. The Fighter (my God, I've been arguing this for years and years and years and I STILL can't believe I have to explain it every time it comes up) is weak against magic users and fliers. He needs other party members to help out, in general.
Now, if I were building a group of fighters for the sole purpose of fighting flying creatures, I'd put them on a wall, train them in the use of the Longbow (Str 16 + weapon spec + aptitude+ high BAB = oh my sweet baby Cthulu I feel sorry for creatures that fly towards your battlements instead of taking cover on the ground) and wait for a really stupid dragon to show up and be filled with arrows.
An individual Adventuring Fighter could also...
It may be a team effort, but not all groups have the classic four. That is why the fighter should be able to stand on his own.
It may be a team effort, but not all groups have the classic four. That is why the fighter should be able to stand on his own.
What do you mean by "stand on his own"? Because as I see it, no class can stand on his own (ie without a teamwork effort).
Now, if I were building a group of fighters for the sole purpose of fighting flying creatures, I'd put them on a wall, train them in the use of the Longbow (Str 16 + weapon spec + aptitude+ high BAB = oh my sweet baby Cthulu I feel sorry for creatures that fly towards your battlements instead of taking cover on the ground) and wait for a really stupid dragon to show up and be filled with arrows.
This. Who says you have to build melee fighters only? Plus a fighter has enough feats that he could give himself a good melee boost and still be good at ranged combat as well.
I gotta say in a campaign I'm running it was the ranged specialist who was particularly the dragon-bane in the party. Mind, this was actually a ranger, but a Fighter would have just hurt more with various critical and specialization feats.
Also the argument about flying always seems to assume that every single fight in an RPG is going to take place in a empty field with clear skies. How many actual campaigns and pre-written adventures actually do?
Funny thing about a game based on Dungeons and Dragons is that strangely, a typical campaign may feature a lot of fights underground where the ceilings are not very high. Even with great vaulted ceilings, the Fighter who has no access to flight is still going to be able to find ways to affect a creature above, via ranged attacks, climbing walls, etc. Or playing other roles like protecting other members of his party. And in the end, if flying enemy is staying above and sniping at the party from afar, then they have plenty of room to do things like get out of range of the attacks, find cover, avoid line of sight, and wait till flying enemy gets tired/runs out of long-range spells/etc. Flying does not equal invincible, and no game I've ever actually played has shown me otherwise. And nothing other than actual game examples will convince me, frankly.
And I know a lot of anti-fighter people write off gear as a non-argument, but look: in actual practice, nearly any sensible high level fighter will either have gear that lets him fly, or a buddy that will cast a spell on him. (Just like high level spellcasters are going to invest in stuff that boosts their AC and so on). No, owning flying gear is not an actual class feature, but it doesn't eliminate the fact that a high-level fighter will have those resources, so it's all kind of a moot point.