A Man In Black wrote: DigMarx wrote: Finally, what is a "martial maneuver" but a feat by another name? Cleave sounds like a martial maneuver to me. Semantics. Something every other class in the game can't trivially poach from you, and something that isn't expected to be balanced with +1 to hit. You mean like Critical Mastery, Spell Breaker, Greater Shield Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Penetrating Strike, Greater Penetrating Strike, Deadly Stroke, Weapon Specialization, and Greater Weapon Specialization?
Zo
Quote: Something every other class in the game can't trivially poach from you, and something that isn't expected to be balanced with +1 to hit. Quote: You mean like Critical Mastery, Spell Breaker, Greater Shield Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Penetrating Strike, Greater Penetrating Strike, Deadly Stroke, Weapon Specialization, and Greater Weapon Specialization? *sigh*
Depressing nitpicking aside, +X to hit/damage/AC isn't an ability. It's a thing that keeps an ability relevant.
A Man In Black wrote: Quote: Something every other class in the game can't trivially poach from you, and something that isn't expected to be balanced with +1 to hit. Quote: You mean like Critical Mastery, Spell Breaker, Greater Shield Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Penetrating Strike, Greater Penetrating Strike, Deadly Stroke, Weapon Specialization, and Greater Weapon Specialization? *sigh* LOL I'm not responsible for what copy/paste comes up with!
DigMarx wrote: LOL I'm not responsible for what copy/paste comes up with! It doesn't matter. You listed a bunch of feats, only one of which is an ability (and a passive one to boot). The rest are bonuses to keep existing abilities (in this case, the Hit A Dude ability) relevant.
You could probably create a list of fighter-only feats which are interesting things to do instead of +X to a thing. You'd need to abandon a lot of the existing baggage of feats, in particular the idea that feats should be roughly balanced with +1 to hit and that good feats require a pile of prereqs. But then you're making a class that, instead of taking choices from the general pool of feats, chooses from its pool of special abilities and relies chiefly on those, only using its feats from leveling up to choose feats from the general pool.
In what sense are those class-specific feats not maneuvers?
A Man In Black wrote: DigMarx wrote: LOL I'm not responsible for what copy/paste comes up with! It doesn't matter. You listed a bunch of feats, only one of which is an ability (and a passive one to boot). The rest are bonuses to keep existing abilities (in this case, the Hit A Dude ability) relevant. And this doesn't meet your criteria how? All require multiple levels in fighter, thereby preventing others from "poaching" the ability. I could just as easily dip my rogue into warblade. Seems pretty trivial to me. What would you like your fighter to do? NOT progress in the Hit A Dude ability? I'm really not sure what your point is.
Zo
My point, DigMarx, was that just like how you can graphically describe a simple hit, a 'manuever' can BE a simple hit, story wise, the only difference being mechanics that make a significant impact on combat.
The point, is that the warblade doesn't change the fighter's archtype if you don't want it to, it can just as easily fill the archtype of 'mundane warrior who survives on skill and force of arms alone.'
Slight Side Note: In my personal campaign I've lifted the restrictions on how many times a PC can take Martial Maneuver and Martial Stance, and granted the Fighter full initiator level for all the disciplines except Devoted Spirit, Shadow Hand, and Desert Wind (the supernatural/magical disciplines).
With his houseruled option to retrain a combat feat every odd level after first (and using the ToB principle of a maneuver you are replacing counts as a prerequisite for the maneuver you are replacing it with and having that apply to the Fighter's feat replacement class feature) the Fighter has alot of options at his disposal and tends to perform better.
DigMarx wrote: And this doesn't meet your criteria how? All require multiple levels in fighter, thereby preventing others from "poaching" the ability. I could just as easily dip my rogue into warblade. Seems pretty trivial to me. What would you like your fighter to do? NOT progress in the Hit A Dude ability? I'm really not sure what your point is. Get new things, in addition to +1 to the old things. Balance of excitement as well as power.
kyrt-ryder wrote: ...All kinds of stuff... I agree with you and believe your personal campaign anecdotes are fully valid and reasonable.
My position is that there is no need for the game publisher to change the classic archetype from what it is for this very reason; you, as an experienced and reasonable DM, can make any changes YOURSELF, without demanding those changes be set in stone for everyone else. All I'm sayin...
Zo
DigMarx wrote: My position is that there is no need for the game publisher to change the classic archetype from what it is for this very reason; you, as an experienced and reasonable DM, can make any changes YOURSELF, without demanding those changes be set in stone for everyone else. All I'm sayin... The "classic archetype," in this case, apparently meaning "Being good at hitting people and nothing else."
Again, this is why fighters don't get fixed.
A Man In Black wrote:
Get new things, in addition to +1 to the old things. Balance of excitement as well as power.
Don't know what to tell ya, the spell-casters have always and will continue to dominate in that area. I mean, PF fighters get some decent bennies like armor training, a feat every level, and so on, but nothing is going to beat hitting 5th level and getting Fireball. Or 13th level and Limited Wish. That's the game I grew up playing and that's the reason I got back into D&D with PFRPG. Maybe I'm the only one that doesn't think a fighter and a wizard should do the same thing or have an identical ability/power progression.
Zo
EDIT
A Man In Black wrote: The "classic archetype," in this case, apparently meaning "Being good at hitting people and nothing else."
Again, this is why fighters don't get fixed.
LOL #1 That's the name of the class; FIGHTER. #2 There's more to the game than combat. #3 If you're worried about it, change it. You can do whatever you like in your own campaign.
DigMarx wrote: Don't know what to tell ya, the spell-casters have always and will continue to dominate in that area. I mean, PF fighters get some decent bennies like armor training, a feat every level, and so on, but nothing is going to beat hitting 5th level and getting Fireball. Or 13th level and Limited Wish. That's the game I grew up playing and that's the reason I got back into D&D with PFRPG. Maybe I'm the only one that doesn't think a fighter and a wizard should do the same thing or have an identical ability/power progression. Fighters don't get nice things.
DigMarx wrote: Maybe I'm the only one that doesn't think a fighter and a wizard should do the same thing or have an identical ability/power progression.
Zo
I WANT them to be very different (the 9 level maneuvers thing obviously wasn't my idea) however, they do need to grow at roughly the same pace, otherwise you run into the problem that DEFINES 3.5, and that is a part of pathfinder, and that problem is spellcaster dominance.
What bugs me is that the fighter is essentially a lie. You don't get to be powerful. You just get to murder bigger dudes.
The whole idea of having levels is that everyone gets to be more powerful, do more things, overcome new challenges. Unless you're a fighter, in which case you're hitting people for somewhere between 25% and 100% of their HP every turn for your entire career. Regardless of your fighting style, you do a large chunk of damage and possibly add a niggling status effect.
Even with all the buffs and new feats and all that, we're still at the stage where a level 14 character can either travel to new worlds or anywhere on their home world nearly instantly, fly all day, create illusory castles, and turn their enemies into frogs...or make a "devastating attack [which is] is made at a +23 bonus and deals 3d8+21 [damage]".
On something of a tangent: am I the only one insanely amused that Valeros is completely boned when fighting the red dragon on the Pathfinder cover (assuming it's an adult red dragon, which makes sense since Valeros is level 14 and it's CR 14)? That red dragon drops Haste on himself and kills Valeros with one full attack.
I totally see what both you guys are saying, and you're not wrong. I guess I just disagree with the means of solving the problem, or that it needs to be solved by the game publisher. Different strokes for different folks.
Zo
DigMarx wrote: I totally see what both you guys are saying, and you're not wrong. I guess I just disagree with the means of solving the problem, or that it needs to be solved by the game publisher. Different strokes for different folks. Well, the game publisher could come out and just say, "If you play a fighter you don't get more powerful. You're going to be doing this one thing 1-20." That's more disappointing but also more honest. But instead you get "a devastating 3d8+21 damage" at level 14 and that's just BS. It's flat out lying to say "This is really powerful!" when it's obviously not.
You know, if I ever make a separate thread about the iconics or fighters, it's getting named "A devastating 3d8+21 damage."
You know:
Do the complainers here actually play fighters in games, or just nit-pick the mechanics? Because I have never actually seen an irrelevant fighter in the game. That includes the guy who wanted a character with a limp (no benefit, just RP).
If you do play fighters, at what point did you start to do nothing and just watch the fights? I played a 3.0 fighter to level 16 and never once faced an encounter where I did not have something to contribute. And it had nothing to do with the DM being nice, as there were 7 people in the party, and he had to challenge all of them.
When you did start to do nothing in the game, why? Did you lack equipment, or was there a lack of party synergy, or were you specialized in some way that prevented you from contributing?
Finally, now that the fighter is doing nothing, what did your teammates do? Were they somehow focused on damage optimization in a way you werent? Or did they have ways of bypassing the enemy defenses that you didn't?
Because, frankly, it already having been established that I'm not playing the same game as the majority, I can't quite follow the logic of what is being argued here anymore. Even a generalist fighter, one who is dealing less in meele and less at range, is still doing both very well. I know of no other class that can boast the same versitility, wizards included. If you preped a generalist whatever, and pulled a random monster from the beastiary, live or die, I'd wager the fighter will be the better off on average than any other class.
So it blows my mind that threads upon threads expound the power of the wizard for their versatility, but when aplied to the fighter, the argument is mocked with statements like "fighters can't have nice things". Well, wizards can't have good fort saves, full bab, or d10's for hp. Or tons of free casting-related feats. Or the ability to easily cast in armor. Or spell attacks that don't require caster level checks in meele. Does that mean they "don't get nice things"?
The problem with the fighter is not that it has nothing to contribute, but that it can only contribute one thing, and even that one thing pales in comparison to what other party members can do in the same category. The only thing a fighter is able to do is eliminate an enemy, but spellcasters can not only eliminate that same enemy faster, but make the enemy into an ally at the same time. Plus all the other benefits that casters bring, which a fighter can't do because all he can do is eliminate enemies.
While the boosts to skills made it so fighters are not incompetent at key skills (perception, stealth, sense motive, etc), they aren't especially good at using them, either, and other classes not only get the ability to be relevant in combat but can also boost their skill checks or totally short circuit the need to make skill checks at all.
Zurai wrote: The problem with the fighter is not that it has nothing to contribute, but that it can only contribute one thing, and even that one thing pales in comparison to what other party members can do in the same category. The only thing a fighter is able to do is eliminate an enemy, but spellcasters can not only eliminate that same enemy faster, but make the enemy into an ally at the same time. Plus all the other benefits that casters bring, which a fighter can't do because all he can do is eliminate enemies. The problem here is that this is a purely theoretical argument. If there were no traps, the rouge didn't contribute anything but damage either. If you didn't need to do any tracking or surviving in the wilderness, the Barb and the Ranger didn't contribute anything but damage either. What else DOES the monk contribute?
And casters have a great bag of tricks, but they can also miss. A few good saves and the "win" buttons are generally eliminated. The best paths for battlefield control deal with setting up the enemies to be eliminated by, guess?, the damage dealing party members! So dealing damage is a necessary component of the best casting strategies in the game, and the fighters will likely be better at it than the evokers, which places their usefulness on roughly even terms.
In a game where most advancement comes from defeating opponents, killing enemies isn't everything, it's the only thing.
Mirror, Mirror wrote: The problem here is that this is a purely theoretical argument. If there were no traps, the rouge didn't contribute anything but damage either. If you didn't need to do any tracking or surviving in the wilderness, the Barb and the Ranger didn't contribute anything but damage either. What else DOES the monk contribute? Wait, so you're saying that rangers and rogues and barbarians get multiple schticks? And the game doesn't fall apart entirely? So why is there a class that does nothing but hit people, without really even doing a better job than a ranger or rogue or barb?
Quote: And casters have a great bag of tricks, but they can also miss. A few good saves and the "win" buttons are generally eliminated. The best paths for battlefield control deal with setting up the enemies to be eliminated by, guess?, the damage dealing party members! So dealing damage is a necessary component of the best casting strategies in the game, and the fighters will likely be better at it than the evokers, which places their usefulness on roughly even terms. A few bad rolls and the fighter is dead before he even contributes. Hell, even on the freaking cover of Pathfinder, Valeros charges in to do his devastating 3d8+21 damage, then just gets dropped like a sack of potatoes. And that's not even bad rolls, just average ones.
"Well, it might not work!" is not a defense of magic being better than hitting people, especially when Plane Shift/Overland Flight/Greater Teleport/usw. doesn't ever not work, and especially when hitting people stops working on bad luck or certain monster abilities.
A Man In Black wrote: Wait, so you're saying that rangers and rogues and barbarians get multiple schticks? And the game doesn't fall apart entirely? So why is there a class that does nothing but hit people, without really even doing a better job than a ranger or rogue or barb? Yeah, and they can't even hit as well as the fighter! So broken...
The fighter gets the ability to fight better than the others, and they get more varied abilities and niche fighting. So, you mean to tell me that fighters should get the ability to be better faster than anyone else AND have some other abilities? Do you even play fighters?
A Man In Black wrote: A few bad rolls and the fighter is dead before he even contributes. Hell, even on the freaking cover of Pathfinder, Valeros charges in to do his devastating 3d8+21 damage, then just gets dropped like a sack of potatoes. And that's not even bad rolls, just average ones.
"Well, it might not work!" is not a defense of magic being better than hitting people, especially when Plane Shift/Overland Flight/Greater Teleport/usw. doesn't ever not work, and especially when hitting people stops working on bad luck or certain monster abilities.
Actually, "save neg" practically solidifies the fact that not all spells will work all the time. To-hit bonuses increase faster than AC, even for monsters, so the fighters likely WILL hit and do damage.
Oh, and "Plane Shift/Overland Flight/Greater Teleport" does not actually kill enemies. Look for some spells the actually do, and you will find a save (or a touch attack, which is easier, for the most part).
And the "few bad rolls" bit applies to ALL classes, with no exception.
Mirror, Mirror wrote: Yeah, and they can't even hit as well as the fighter! So broken...
The fighter gets the ability to fight better than the others, and they get more varied abilities and niche fighting. So, you mean to tell me that fighters should get the ability to be better faster than anyone else AND have some other abilities? Do you even play fighters?
Except that fighters aren't better or faster than other melee classes. They are comparable. If they aren't comparable, the CR system breaks down as some characters cease to be able to contribute to combat (and you end up with monks). The fighter doesn't get a monopoly on fighting.
Quote: Actually, "save neg" practically solidifies the fact that not all spells will work all the time. To-hit bonuses increase faster than AC, even for monsters, so the fighters likely WILL hit and do damage. You know what scales even slower than AC? Bad saves. You know what scales almost as fast as to-hit? Save DCs. You know what every enemy has lots of? HP.
Part of the problem is that monster designers, going all the way back to Cook/Tweet/Williams, assumed that melee was really important and really strong, so nearly every enemy has some sort of defense against it. Reach, in particular, is something nearly everything with any melee ability at all has at higher levels, and it's just free damage for Team Monster that Team PC generally doesn't get. On the other hand, even after two revisions to the Monster Manual, monster still come with blinking weak spots to spells.
Take the Purple Worm for example. It's only vulnerable to melee when it wants to be, gets AoOs that grapple from ridiculous reach, has a hugely potent poison that inconveniences only those who attack with bits of metal...and has a +4 will save.
Quote: Oh, and "Plane Shift/Overland Flight/Greater Teleport" does not actually kill enemies. Look for some spells the actually do, and you will find a save (or a touch attack, which is easier, for the most part). That's nice, but spellcasters get those AND the spells that kill people. Nevermind that Plane Shift doubles as a spell that kills people, if you need something that nearly nobody has an immunity to.
A Man In Black wrote: Except that fighters aren't better or faster than other melee classes. They are comparable. If they aren't comparable, the CR system breaks down as some characters cease to be able to contribute to combat (and you end up with monks). The fighter doesn't get a monopoly on fighting. Actually, fighters ARE better at fighting than the other classes. Take any level, and fighters have more options and likely better feat chains. They hit more often, deal more damage, and no niftier things via combat maneuver feats.
A Man In Black wrote: Part of the problem is that monster designers, going all the way back to Cook/Tweet/Williams, assumed that melee was really important and really strong, so nearly every enemy has some sort of defense against it. Reach, in particular, is something nearly everything with any melee ability at all has at higher levels, and it's just free damage for Team Monster that Team PC generally doesn't get. On the other hand, even after two revisions to the Monster Manual, monster still come with blinking weak spots to spells. So you attack at range? And when the beastie closes in, you step up and fight in meele? You get a reach weapon? You put skill ranks into acrobatics? You, like everyone else at higher levels, get items that provide a miss chance vs AC buffs? How about the guy with the best AC/ miss chance charge in, provoke the AoO, and everyone else come in with no problems?
A Man In Black wrote: That's nice, but spellcasters get those AND the spells that kill people. Nevermind that Plane Shift doubles as a spell that kills people, if you need something that nearly nobody has an immunity to. Spells that kill people GET SAVES. That was my point, and your pointing to Plans Shift only proves it (Will neg). But, more to the point, killing people with spells is sub-optimal to using the entire party to kill people with battlefield control spells, and for that, you need fighters (or probably want them, since they are more versital and adaptable).
Mirror, Mirror wrote: Actually, fighters ARE better at fighting than the other classes. Take any level, and fighters have more options and likely better feat chains. They hit more often, deal more damage, and no niftier things via combat maneuver feats. No, they don't. The paladin and the ranger are just plain better situationally and just plain worse situationally, the barbarian is on par for most of their career, and the rogue trades defense for damage pretty evenly from 1-20. And when it comes to versatility, the paladin and ranger have an easier time dropping their bow and picking up a falchion, since the only feat they need to be good at using a falchion is Power Attack, while the fighter is -1/-1 behind because of Weapon Training and needs Weapon Specialization to not be -1/-3 behind.
And each of those classes does other stuff, too.
Quote: So you attack at range? And when the beastie closes in, you step up and fight in meele? You get a reach weapon? You put skill ranks into acrobatics? You, like everyone else at higher levels, get items that provide a miss chance vs AC buffs? How about the guy with the best AC/ miss chance charge in, provoke the AoO, and everyone else come in with no problems? Save for the miss chances (which don't work on 234523451241 other high level opponents), that's a fine list of things that don't work on a purple worm, when spellcasters negate a purple worm with one spell cast that targets will, or possibly a flight spell they cast before breakfast.
My only point about a purple worm is that, like all foes, it has a formidable array of anti-melee defenses, but a blinking spell vulnerability weakpoint. And this is considered acceptable monster design, to such a degree that the purple worm hasn't changed in this regard through two revisions of the Monster Manual. And you see this all the time, from 1 to 20; even the tarrasque is a bad-save one-shot wonder with Plane Shift.
Quote: Spells that kill people GET SAVES. That was my point, and your pointing to Plans Shift only proves it (Will neg). But, more to the point, killing people with spells is sub-optimal to using the entire party to kill people with battlefield control spells, and for that, you need fighters (or probably want them, since they are more versital and adaptable). This poses two problems. Killing enemies who have been rendered more or less combat-incapable is something you don't need a full fighter to handle. Hell, that's a job a bard can handle. Moreover, it's a singularly unexciting and unheroic job. Who wants to be the guy whose job it is to execute the blinded giants? That's not challenging or exciting.
kyrt-ryder wrote: wraithstrike wrote:
Better is not the goal. Good is the goal. It is very easy to get better at something and still suck at it. People want the front-line guy to have better defenses. As it stands I have never seen a fighter that is grown from a lower to a higher level be able to have a good AC, good will save, and fight well.
Watch yourself wraithstrike. If your not careful somebody is sure to get on and tell you that your not supposed to be able to have an all around decent character, that you need to choose a focus point, and something (AC, Saves, or the ability to contribute in a fight) has to be sacrificed or else it's 'just not right' or somesuch. I'd say it's the definition of "decent" we might disagree on.
I'm going to weigh in one more time and say that the choice of character has been and should be far more complex than simply what can they do in combat. The fighter provides a body for the wizard & cleric to buff, a shield to allow them to cast their offensive spells unmolested, and a vanguard to lead the charge into the adventure. However the fighter also provides a player a venue to immerse themselves in a team-based story telling experience, and perhaps said player actually wants to roleplay a Miyamoto Musashi, Gimli, Fafhrd or Lancelot. Since red box I've played every core class other than druid and 1st ed bard. I've never regretted choosing a character because of their class, and I've certainly never thought twice about whether my character will be equal to any other at Xth level. To each his own.
Zo
I'll just pipe in and say just for fun, since I'm mostly talking to myself here anyway, that complexity does not necessarily equal better. Nor does simplicity, necessarily, per se.
Fighters have, very broadly speaking, a simple role in D&D. They engage in weapon based combat, and they protect people.
The simplicity in itself does not mean it's BAD. It may not be every player's favorite way to play, but it may actually be some players' preferred way to play.
Not to mention that getting past the basic idea of it, all kinds of different factors come in to play... the weapons one uses to hit and in what style (a THF build on vital and penetrating strikes, a TWF build on cuisinart style of combat, machinegunning with rapid bow fire, etc.), tripping, disarming, sundering, grappling (and so on), resisting such things, harrying spellcasters, bypassing damage reduction, etc. etc. etc.
The fighter is also great for a demoralization build with intimidate, and outside of combat can easily contribute with Climb, Craft, Knowledge: Dungeoneering, Knowledge: Engineering, Survival, etc. all skills which have been extremely useful at least in the games I've played in or run. Not to mention--as with all characters--whatever roleplaying he brings to the table. No, the fighter is not a skillmonkey, but it's not supposed to be.
Yes, still a simpler role than that which others play---but also nicely reliable.
Spellcasters are versatile and very powerful, but those who seem to think that they "win" D&D conveniently forget things like saving throws, spell resistance, concentration checks, and even just things like making sure you prepare the right spell for the day or having the right spell components. Their great power comes at a cost, and it is NOT always reliable.
Comparatively, the likelihood a fighter will be able to hit a high level monster in combat is higher than whether a spellcaster will beat said monster's spell resistance. When the spellcaster does, it will be to awesome effect, but then in my opinion, so is sparks flying off a broadsword as it bypasses a creature's chitonous hide and skewering it deep beneath its flesh. I have reliably seen many combats where spellcasters don't get a spell off to save their life while the melee and ranged combatants are grinding the enemy into paste. Of course, I have also seen the opposite--but the point is, is that these occurences both happen at a fairly balanced rate, and that means EVERYONE is contributing, and contributing well. That's all we can ask for in the end, and just because not everyone's class abilities comes dressed in magical sparkles doesn't mean they're useless. They may not be interesting to everyone, but that's everything to do with player preference, and absolutely nothing to do with how the game or any given class actually functions.
Edit: fixed tag, added clarification
After reading through the last pages, I ask now to all those detractors of the so maligned fighter. What would you like the fighter to be able to do that would not equal to ¨hit better or impose a pittiful status effect¨ and wouldn´t go against clasic sword and sorcery archetypes? (because as far as I can remmeber ToB di just that but in a flashier manner)
DeathQuaker wrote: ...stuff...
The fighter is also great for a demoralization build with intimidate, and outside of combat can easily contribute with Climb, Craft, Knowledge: Dungeoneering, Knowledge: Engineering, Survival, etc. all skills which have been extremely useful at least in the games I've played in or run. Not to mention--as with all characters--whatever roleplaying he brings to the table. No, the fighter is not a skillmonkey, but it's not supposed to be.
...stuff...
i just wanted to comment here on this, because it directly relates to my main problem with fighters. it's been fixed somewhat with pf thanks to the skill system changes, but how is the fighter getting that many skill points? i count five skills. 2 for class, 1 for favored class, 2 for 14 int maybe? just be aware that's five extra points in a point buy a ranger or barb doesn't have to spend on int, but can spend on physical stats to be better in combat. weapon training makes up for this somewhat in pf, but the fact remains, the better you try to make a fighter at anything but fighting, the quicker he loses his edge over a ranger, barb, or even rogue, while still not being as useful out of combat.
it's an issue of role playing vs roll playing. if every gaming session for you is just a giant arena combat, and between sessions the healbots fix everyone, then fighters honestly aren't that bad, imho. the problem for me is the exponentially inverse relationship between a fighters usefulness and out of combat activities. mechanically, fighters are by far the worst class, no matter what build you try to make, for out of combat utility. anything less than constant fighting = the fighter standing around scratching his butt.
Aelryinth wrote: D@D is unique in that it now allows wizards to mix it up in melee and cast spells and get away with it. That's not something you see in almost any literary tradition. Wizards stay back from the fight and die if they get in combat. Not entirely unique. The Wizards of Jack Vance's Dying Earth, restricted to carrying 2-4 spells total (if they're really good) frequently had to supplement thier magic with a fair amount of fencing. Merlin would frequently be on the battlefields with Arthur, and Elric himself practised swordcraft because all of Moorcock's magery was mainly in the form of rituals which would take anywhere from minutes, hours, or days to complete. Then of course there were Mercedes Lackey's Herald-Mages which were almost as much fighter as bardic mage.
The mage as fragile glass cannon is actually more of a wargaming/D+D trope than standard literature.
So, in summary, Fighters suck because they have don't pass most saving throws most of the time and they need to take Weapon Specialization to deal a good average of damage?
A Man In Black wrote: Caedwyr wrote: For all the people concerned about will saves, has anyone ever tried having their bard/sorcerer charm/dominate the party members with weak will saves. Charm Person would allow the fighter to act normally, and if someone else was trying to charm/dominate/mind control them, the dominator would have to beat the Bard/Sorcerer's Charisma check. Dominate Person throws in the added bonus of giving a long duration 1-way overt communication Telepathic Bond type effect. lol wut.
Just.
lol wut.
I respect your creativity but I don't think this is a practical solution in most games. Nor do I think that it's a good sign that the best way to cover one of the fighter's weaknesses is to submit to willing slavery to a stronger party member. Yeah, the solution is pretty out there and not something that is going to be done in most games. Dominate Person is one I'd have serious reservations about, if I were the fighter. However, Charm Person basically makes the target treat the caster as Friendly, which is something that is probably going to be true anyways in many groups (not all). So, a spell with a 1 hour/level duration that causes the fighter to behave as they normally would, and cannot force them to behave in a way that goes against their nature, and provides additional protection against mind controlling effects seems like a pretty good deal to me.
Frerezar wrote: After reading through the last pages, I ask now to all those detractors of the so maligned fighter. What would you like the fighter to be able to do that would not equal to ¨hit better or impose a pittiful status effect¨ and wouldn´t go against clasic sword and sorcery archetypes? (because as far as I can remmeber ToB di just that but in a flashier manner) The short and sweet of it man, is our biggest issue is less with the Fighter in general, and more with how he stands up to monster design.
When monsters of equal CR have HP at least equal to their own (and these are the frail spellcasty types I'm talking about, the brutes start out at +50% and go up to double at times), DR, Reach, etc etc etc, it becomes very hard for anybody with a pointy stick (but especially the fighter, he doesn't have the same versatility and tricks available to the Paladin, Barbarian, and Ranger) to contribute to the VICTORY (Note: The fighter plays cleanup after the spellcaster wins. A trained animal could do the same in a party without a fighter.)
When it takes 2 turns of full attacks to drop an opposing creature at minimum, more often 3, the Fighter has a problem, because his HP can't stand up to that beating, and odds are good the opponent has alot of other things going for it. Reach, DR, Poison, Stench, Acid, all kinds of things that are a big "F.-U." to Fighters, while said creature has a will save that a BARD would beat 9 times out of 10.
As far as I recall DR has changed and become easier to overcome with magic weapons, and there are also feats to do so. also Archery has been pumped up, and the clear advantage it has over melee is the full attack every turn (mostly).
When it comes to monster design however I see the point that has been made regarding very crappy will saves (+4 really???) compared to a monster´s physical resistance.
The only things I can see being done is faciloitatig the melee full attackby giving pounce to everyone with a full BAB after a certail level (couple full attacks, one of them without receiving one helps), and in creasing the ighter´s will save to good.
However those things don´t really address the problems that some people seem to b havin with the clas, the whole ¨all he is good at is hitting things better. I can see a complain about the archetypical melee fighter (specially TWF sword and board, but cavalier is there for that hehe) being suboptimal to a now better archer type, but don´t quite understand what is expected from a class called a fighter besides fighting well.¨
I guess those kind of comments make sense when there is (or was) such an uproar about wanting a fighter/mage class (which I personally use an updated warlock for in my games)
Mr.Fishy wrote: Mr. Fishy thinks that a brave fighter should makeable. Iron will helps and so does Improved Iron Will. IMO, instead of Iron Will and Improved Iron Will, you're better off with Endurance and Steadfast Determination.
Loopy wrote: So, in summary, Fighters suck because they have don't pass most saving throws most of the time and they need to take Weapon Specialization to deal a good average of damage? If one of the fighter's main jobs, which seems true according to most people, is to protect the squishy types, and he can simply be commanded to kill them, then that is a problem. It is like having a security guard who opens the door for the criminals, and then helps them empty the store.
I know casters can use some spells to help him out, but groups don't always cover all the roles, and they should not be forced too. There are some things a class should just be inherently able to defend against. As a former soldier I was taught mental toughness was just as important as physical toughness, and I am sure that has been true throughout history.
This means there is really no reason, RP or mechanic's based, as to why the fighter should be so easy to control. If you(general statement) don't want to give him a good will save then he should get a bonus every so many levels.
Just have to chime in here.
Fighters really truly DO fight better in melee than ANY OTHER CLASS IN THE GAME. Look at all threads complaining about how a Fighter fights better than a Barbarian/Monk/Ranger and therefore those classes are useless.
No one else can compete with the Fighters ability to hit things really hard.
BobChuck wrote: Just have to chime in here.
Fighters really truly DO fight better in melee than ANY OTHER CLASS IN THE GAME. Look at all threads complaining about how a Fighter fights better than a Barbarian/Monk/Ranger and therefore those classes are useless.
No one else can compete with the Fighters ability to hit things really hard.
Even in 3.5 the fighter could hit hard. Hitting hard is not the issue. I have seen anyone complain about a fighter being better in melee than a ranger, rogue, or monk.
I have not gotten my druid past level 4 yet so I can't look at a druid yet. At level 4 the fighter in my party is doing more damage, but not by much.
wraithstrike wrote: BobChuck wrote: Just have to chime in here.
Fighters really truly DO fight better in melee than ANY OTHER CLASS IN THE GAME. Look at all threads complaining about how a Fighter fights better than a Barbarian/Monk/Ranger and therefore those classes are useless.
No one else can compete with the Fighters ability to hit things really hard.
Even in 3.5 the fighter could hit hard. Hitting hard is not the issue. I have seen anyone complain about a fighter being better in melee than a ranger, rogue, or monk. Read the last fifteen posts. People said exactly that. "The fighter hits just as hard as barbarian/ranger/paladin/monk but doesn't have any of those other awesome abilities so he sucks". Uh, no. Those other classes have awesome abilities precisely because they don't hit as hard as a fighter. I was just pointing out the fallacy of that statement.
Whether or not "being the best at hitting things" is enough for the Fighter as a class is worth discussing, but they definately are the best at hitting things, except for maybe 5th level, when Druids go wonky for a bit (see Treantmonk's Druid Guide; the build is wacky fun at 5th but starts falling quickly)
BobChuck wrote: Read the last fifteen posts. People said exactly that. "The fighter hits just as hard as barbarian/ranger/paladin/monk but doesn't have any of those other awesome abilities so he sucks". Uh, no. Those other classes have awesome abilities precisely because they don't hit as hard as a fighter. I was just pointing out the fallacy of that statement. The barbarian just has the 3.5 high-level falloff because rage scales badly. Rogues do just fine; I've never seen anyone complain about rogues being bad at hitting people. (Just being bad at not dying, which fighters also have issues with.) Rangers and paladins do much better than fighters when they get to use their situational stuff, for reasons which should be obvious; most of the complaints are that being awesome in combat half the time and a warrior the other half is kind of less than cool. Those other classes have problems, but the problem is not "The fighter gets cooler toys than us."
Now the monk? The monk is just terrible.
Also, fallacy is not a synonym for wrong.
Quote: but don´t quite understand what is expected from a class called a fighter besides fighting well.¨ Well, for one, there's protecting the party, something class descriptions promise but the actual class cannot do at all. There are out-of-combat schticks. There are probably others I could think of if I weren't in a hurry to get to work.
But most of all, if all of the classes in the game fight, why do we have a class that is the "fighter" class?
BobChuck wrote: Fighters really truly DO fight better in melee than ANY OTHER CLASS IN THE GAME. Look at all threads complaining about how a Fighter fights better than a Barbarian/Monk/Ranger and therefore those classes are useless. I'll be happy to read such a thread ... as soon as you find one for me.
Zurai wrote: BobChuck wrote: Fighters really truly DO fight better in melee than ANY OTHER CLASS IN THE GAME. Look at all threads complaining about how a Fighter fights better than a Barbarian/Monk/Ranger and therefore those classes are useless. I'll be happy to read such a thread ... as soon as you find one for me. Barbarian
Monk
There was a discussion on tiering which put fighters above all the of the other melee classes but Paladin consistently, but I can't find it now.
A Man In Black wrote: The barbarian just has the 3.5 high-level falloff because rage scales badly. Amen. I houseruled in the following stat boosts for rage:
1st-4th = +2
5th-9th = +4
10th - 14th = +6
15th-19th = +8
20th = +10.
Caineach wrote: Zurai wrote: BobChuck wrote: Fighters really truly DO fight better in melee than ANY OTHER CLASS IN THE GAME. Look at all threads complaining about how a Fighter fights better than a Barbarian/Monk/Ranger and therefore those classes are useless. I'll be happy to read such a thread ... as soon as you find one for me. Barbarian
Monk
There was a discussion on tiering which put fighters above all the of the other melee classes but Paladin consistently, but I can't find it now. Those threads are not saying the barbarian is useless, and the complaints are not about the fighter being to strong. The complain about the barbarian is that it needs something more to make it worth playing.
The challenge was also to find a single thread saying the fighter is better than the other melee classes, and that it makes them obsolete, or at least that is how I read it anyway.
I can't defend the monk.
Zurai wrote: I'll be happy to read such a thread ... as soon as you find one for me. This is probably a good place to start.
A Man In Black wrote: Also, fallacy is not a synonym for wrong. No, but fallacy DOES mean you can entirely ignore the argument, since there will be no truth preservation from premises to conclusion. Correct or incorrect, an invalud argument cannot be used to make a point.
And, frankly, it sounds a lot like you never play fighters, or have had bad experiences with them. I have never once seen one become irrelevant, and often they are the ones with the glory moments (cutting off heads, throwing people off bridges, etc.) Nevermons that the casters were keeping things controled for them to do their thing; the casters NEED fighters to do the fighting, and fighters NEED casters to do the casting.
Oh, and rangers and barbarians ARE worse fighters than fighters if they cannot be as good in all situations, unless they are so supremly good in one field that it overshadows all other shortcomings, which I have never seen to be the case. Fighters do as well when others are doing well, and do well when others are doing poorly. Since fighting is not just ranged or meele or vs evil, that would make fighters BETTER AT FIGHTING.
Finally, wanting fighters to have a role outside of combat is questionable at best, flat out bigoted at worst. They sacrifice the out-of-combat tricks to have the best overall in-combat value. In 3.5, an adjustment to the skill system was needed. In PF, we have it. Now fighters can have all kinds of skills, as so can be guards or woodsmen or blacksmiths. OOC roles are a product of the player's RP skill. Plenty of beginner barbs, monks, even clerics do little or nothing OOC because the players are not yet comfortable with those actions. Similarly, plenty of fighters can be running for mayor in the hands of a good player. OOC is mostly RP, and you really can't/shouldn't make rules for that.
Mirror, Mirror wrote: the casters NEED fighters to do the fighting, and fighters NEED casters to do the casting. Not true. Need is a strong word. Nice to have around is a lot better. Even having them around becomes less needful as they level up.
mirror mirror wrote:
Oh, and rangers and barbarians ARE worse fighters than fighters if they cannot be as good in all situations,....
Explain? By the way it was written if a ranger is only better 95% of the time the fighter is better because he had the advantage 5% of the time.
Quote: as so can be guards or woodsmen or blacksmiths. OOC roles are a product of the player's RP skill. Not true at all. Some DM's add modifiers, but by the rules all that is needed is to roll the dice, and say what you intend to do. I give a bonus for a convincing argument, but once again, that is not a rule.
Mirror, Mirror wrote: Oh, and rangers and barbarians ARE worse fighters than fighters if they cannot be as good in all situations, unless they are so supremly good in one field that it overshadows all other shortcomings, which I have never seen to be the case. Fighters do as well when others are doing well, and do well when others are doing poorly. Since fighting is not just ranged or meele or vs evil, that would make fighters BETTER AT FIGHTING. Well-said.
Mirror, Mirror wrote: Explain? By the way it was written if a ranger is only better 95% of the time the fighter is better because he had the advantage 5% of the time. I'm confused by this statement. The Ranger is certainly not better than the Fighter at fighty 95% of the time if that is what you mean.
Loopy wrote: I'm confused by this statement. The Ranger is certainly not better than the Fighter at fighty 95% of the time if that is what you mean. Mirror, Mirror stated that if a class was weaker than a fighter in any way, it was automatically worse than a fighter. Thus the response of "even if a class is stronger in 99% of circumstances, it's weaker than a fighter overall if it's weaker that last 1% of the time?".
In other words, Mirror, Mirror is making vast claims and not backing them up.
Mirror, Mirror wrote: Zurai wrote: I'll be happy to read such a thread ... as soon as you find one for me. This is probably a good place to start. Not if you want to actually support your position. That thread is nearly unanimous in saying the Barbarian is as good as or better than the Fighter.
|
