The Fighter, how is it better?

[Loopy]

Thalin wrote:

I mean, rogue is bad on both will and fort. Someone casts any spell on him he's reliant on others to fix it. Fighter is no different. Fighter has a bow even if it's not his speciality; it's certainly his second weapon choice, and he will get it to accept his str damage and shoot a few times even without feat lines. Where are you saying the fighter is more reliant on others to do their job?

In the charm case? Well sure; sucks to be dominated to move, but we all have ways to be locked up. But then, that's why we travel in parties.

The fighter wants to be targetted and wants to hit hard. He wants to be in your face (yay full move in plate). He does not want to miss (WF/GWF, new class feature). He wants high damage output. He does these things very well... So what is the issue? I see arguments for ranger, rogues, monks, and barbarians all needing help; but fighters seem from all the play i've seen to be a very effective member of the party.

I do admit, I think Improved Iron Will (and the other 2) should be a bit more powerful. Maybe an additional +1 or +2 to the save AND the reroll. Or more rerolls. Or a +4 to the reroll. Or something. The latter would help not just the fighter, but everyone for that one really bad save they absolutely must make.

[wraithstrike]

Thalin wrote:

I mean, rogue is bad on both will and fort. Someone casts any spell on him he's reliant on others to fix it. Fighter is no different. Fighter has a bow even if it's not his speciality; it's certainly his second weapon choice, and he will get it to accept his str damage and shoot a few times even without feat lines. Where are you saying the fighter is more reliant on others to do their job?

In the charm case? Well sure; sucks to be dominated to move, but we all have ways to be locked up. But then, that's why we travel in parties.

The fighter wants to be targetted and wants to hit hard. He wants to be in your face (yay full move in plate). He does not want to miss (WF/GWF, new class feature). He wants high damage output. He does these things very well... So what is the issue? I see arguments for ranger, rogues, monks, and barbarians all needing help; but fighters seem from all the play i've seen to be a very effective member of the party.

The rogue is not required to be up front most of the time, and is not subject to be targeted first most of the time since his main ability works most of the time in conjunction with a flanker. If I get rid of the fighter with a will save, the fighter and the rogue's sneak attack damage disappear. If I make the rogue go away I still have to deal with the fighter, and rogues normally have a higher wisdom so the best bet is still to target the fighter. A rogue does not even need to deal a lot of damage to be effective for a party.

If you to be targeted then you should have protection against what will hit you. Saying throw a will save at me for a fighter is like begging for a power attack while having a low AC. I have no issue with a fighter's damage. Even in 3.5 they could hit hard, but they can also be sent away quite easily.

[malkav666]

Then the rogue the rogue shanks the caster with a poisoned blade and takes him out of the combat (and likely kills him). Low saves are like that, the wizards low fort save is no less of a hindrance to the the wizard than the low will is to the fighter IMO.

love,

malkav

[Mirror, Mirror]

wraithstrike wrote:

I think the point(though not directly stated) is that most DM's compensate for your characters either intentionally or subconsciously so everyone has fun, but a class should be able to "make it" any way.

I take exception to this argument every time I hear it, as I have played a fighter in a particularly brutal campaign where the DM had a way for us to resurrect for free. As long as it was not a TPK, we would all come back with no penalty, so he pulled no punches.

And my fighter did not die, even once. I failed saves and got clobbered around, but I did not die. Others did, and frequently, but not I. You claim that the DM must have compensated "either intentionally or subconsciously", but I assure you there was none of that. What the argument IS, however, is an attempt to discredit the argument of others a priori. It borders on magical thinking (fighters cannot hold their own, so if a fighter is holding his own, it must be metagame intervention). Since it cannot be validated one way or another, it is best left aside.

[Thalin]

Ironically low will saves is far better for surviving that campaign. Will makes you kill the party, Fortitude kills you directly. Will makes you helpless, so ignored.

And going beyond that, fighters have good ac and good hp, so they survive well. No, they were saying it would be a suprise if the figter did NOT survive, because it would imply they were holding aggro and doing enough damage to prove themselves a threat and keep the wizard from getting ganked.

So ironically, in the campaign described it would be more impressive for your figter yo get hacked down every fight while the wizard doesn't die once :)

[A Man In Black]

Mirror, Mirror wrote:

So your proposal is to create a custom class for every fighter archetype? Are you willing to leaf through a "Complete Fighter" the size of the current rule book?

Frankly, the ranger, barbarian, and paladin (possibly monk too) are already offshoots of the fighter. The fighter is the base generic class. You also want a swashbuckler? Can I get my dervish, samurai, charriot archer, gladiator, hoplite, centurion, elephant knight, chivalric knight, man-at-arms, mongol cavalry, and hun steppe cavalry classes as well? Each have a unique flavor, skill set, and ability set, so they should all be included.

Sure, since you described about three or four different classes there tops. You've got soldier, skirmisher, samurai/brute (some sort of term for a charismatic fighter), and knight (as in proper mounted soldier). You could probably even fit several of them into one class if you went with a talent-pool-style class.

The problem with the fighter is that it doesn't do anything but hit people, in a game where everyone hits people. An actual theme other than "guy who fights and does nothing else" allows you to give the class a full range of level-appropriate abilities.

Roll back to when the class was called "fighting man," and then think about restarting from there. What are other things fighting men could do on an adventure? What kinds of fighting men are there that you'd want to play? What are some fighting man concepts that would work such that you're not playing a Star Wars stormtrooper at level 20?

[Frerezar]

Hey MiB you have been a big defender ofthe fighter not being good at anything but straight up fighting, I would really like your input on what other things you see an archetypical non magical fighting guy doing that doesn´t have to do with hitting people. (don´t take this as rethoric or an argumentative challenge, I am just looking fo constructive imput from players with different perspectives)

[A Man In Black]

Frerezar wrote:

Hey MiB you have been a big defender ofthe fighter not being good at anything but straight up fighting, I would really like your input on what other things you see an archetypical non magical fighting guy doing that doesn´t have to do with hitting people. (don´t take this as rethoric or an argumentative challenge, I am just looking fo constructive imput from players with different perspectives)

Leading men. Being scary. Moving among the nobility. Outsmarting people. Delivering speeches.

Pretty much anything Aragorn, Fafhrd, or Ogami Itto (of Lone Wolf and Cub); do would be a start for ideas.

[Frerezar]

mmm Being Scary and giving speches is archetypical. On that sense what do you think on an increasing bonus on charisma checks against anyone who has seem him in combat?

[angryscrub]

Mirror, Mirror wrote:

Well, since you insist...

angryscrub wrote:

i know it's not very long or anything, but i think you maybe may have seen some of these before? or are you seriously suggesting that the fighter with the 7 cha and no ranks in bluff should be able to lie to the wise old head of the monastery with max sense motive ranks better than the bard with a 20 cha and maxed bluff ranks, simply because the figher's PLAYER is a better liar in real life?

You are creating a fighter with 7 cha and no bluff ranks and you want to bluff? Well, roll that d20!

Have you taken a look at the DC's for most activities that are NOT opposed rolls? 5 ranks in almost anything makes you somewhat competant. Yes, you get fewer skills. That's the price you pay for having more combat options. You want more skills, play something else.

hmmmm. i think i see part of the issue here. you're not looking at this from an economic perspective. it's opportunity cost. every roll is an opposed roll. not necessarily against an npc or pc, but against some other character type that you could have been playing. i'm not saying fighters can't bluff, or even that they can't be good at it relative to a nonbluffer. just that the amount of resources they have to devote, vs say a rogue, is way more than the rogue has to devote to fight. thus, the more you try to have a fighter that can bluff like rogue, the easier for the rogue to surpass the fighter at fighting.

and maybe the games i've played in are atypical, i don't know, but combat does not dominate. generally what each character can offer the party out of combat is at least as important as in combat offering. from that perspective, the 3.5 fighter was absolute and complete suck. pathfinder is much better, and i admit, i haven't run the numbers yet, so the fighter might be equal to the barbarian now, but i'm not convinced of that yet.

Mirror, Mirror wrote:

This is the part I have the most trouble understanding: people want more options for the fighters, and in the process, end up making them more like Barbs/Rangers/Monks. If that's your character concept, play one of those.

I almost always take some sort of craft skill, like carpentry, or unusual knowledge skill, like engineering. It sometimes has combat uses, and often is just fluff. BUT, it helps out the bard and the wiz, who do not have to take that skill. Alternatively, take 5 ranks in a bunch of skills and assist on the rolls. Then, when you need to do something, you can roll, or ask your buddy to help out. Not since 1st Ed have I ever lacked an OOC activity to do.

why does it have to have combat uses? are your campaigns just one giant arena combat after another? i hope i'm not coming off as snarky here, because i'm honestly just curious. what is a fluff skill? skills are a part of how the classes are balanced, and define not what you can do, but what you're actually good at.

Mirror, Mirror wrote:

So let me ask YOU, what is it you want the fighter to be? What do you want him to do? Or more importantly, what archetype do you want him to fulfill that would not be better suited to another class? I happen to believe that the largest complaints come from people who would rather play something else anyway.

look, i don't want the fighter to be anything in particular. i just think that based on how the mechanics of each class work, and my experience in how much combat dominates a game, they're the weakest class. i'm not claiming they can't hit hard, and that they can't be useful at low levels, especially if combat dominates your game, but they don't scale well in combat to high levels (except archers), and the contortions you have to go through to make them equivalent to another class out of combat are ridiculously resource intensive.

Mirror, Mirror wrote:

So, why not get rid of all the full BAB classes and instead have a class that gets a choice of special ability paths, 6 skill pts/lvl, the ability to select 10 skills as class skills, and, hell, FULL WIZARD AND CLERIC SPELL CASTING! Wouldn't that pretty much be the end-all be-all class that would end the argument forever?

Classless systems, like GURPS, allow you to create any character you want. In a classed system, like PFRPG, you are generally stuck playing to the strengths of a certain class. That's just the way the game is, and no amount of "tweaking" the fighter will make them the class everyone else seems to want.

So I ask again, what do YOU want the fighter to be?

i say again, i don't want them to be anything. i just think that as written, they're a very poor choice, and that a newbie player who rolls one up with any archetype but "likes to hit things with sticks" is going to be sorely disappointed in a long term campaign.

[tejón]

Strong Demeanor (Ex): Beginning at 2nd level, a fighter gains a bonus equal to half his fighter level when making Diplomacy, Intimidate and Perform (oratory) skill checks. This bonus does not stack with the fighter's Charisma bonus (but the check is still affected by a Charisma penalty).

[wraithstrike]

malkav666 wrote:

Then the rogue the rogue shanks the caster with a poisoned blade and takes him out of the combat (and likely kills him). Low saves are like that, the wizards low fort save is no less of a hindrance to the the wizard than the low will is to the fighter IMO.

love,

malkav

Since the fighter is up front normally. It is easier to get to him. Getting to a well played wizard in a game is not as easy as just wanting to do it.

[Kirth Gersen]

I liked the fact that in 1e, one of the fighter's main class features was a free army when you hit 9th level. And an army was a big deal then; not like now. A bunch of 0-level fighters with good leadership could still take down a 9th level wizard by ganging up and grappling him, if nothing else.

Dunno how to deal with that in 3e, when a simple lesser planar binding can take out an entire army of almost any size.

[wraithstrike]

Mirror, Mirror wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

I think the point(though not directly stated) is that most DM's compensate for your characters either intentionally or subconsciously so everyone has fun, but a class should be able to "make it" any way.

I take exception to this argument every time I hear it, as I have played a fighter in a particularly brutal campaign where the DM had a way for us to resurrect for free. As long as it was not a TPK, we would all come back with no penalty, so he pulled no punches.

And my fighter did not die, even once. I failed saves and got clobbered around, but I did not die. Others did, and frequently, but not I. You claim that the DM must have compensated "either intentionally or subconsciously", but I assure you there was none of that. What the argument IS, however, is an attempt to discredit the argument of others a priori. It borders on magical thinking (fighters cannot hold their own, so if a fighter is holding his own, it must be metagame intervention). Since it cannot be validated one way or another, it is best left aside.

When you got clobbered did he focus fire on you while you were on the brink of death until you died? If he did not then he spared you intentionally or not.

[wraithstrike]

Thalin wrote:

Ironically low will saves is far better for surviving that campaign. Will makes you kill the party, Fortitude kills you directly. Will makes you helpless, so ignored.

And going beyond that, fighters have good ac and good hp, so they survive well. No, they were saying it would be a suprise if the figter did NOT survive, because it would imply they were holding aggro and doing enough damage to prove themselves a threat and keep the wizard from getting ganked.

So ironically, in the campaign described it would be more impressive for your fighter yo get hacked down every fight while the wizard doesn't die once :)

Fort saves used to skill you, but now with the pseudo death saves they just hurt really bad. There is a thread on this somewhere.

Now that I think about it in 3.5 a lot of people just had death ward up so they did not even have to worry about it.

[A Man In Black]

Frerezar wrote:

mmm Being Scary and giving speches is archetypical. On that sense what do you think on an increasing bonus on charisma checks against anyone who has seem him in combat?

Okay, that's a class ability.

The point is that this isn't something you can just patch on without game impact. You're still looking at 20 levels of a coherent class to fill in.

[wraithstrike]

wraithstrike wrote:

Thalin wrote:

Ironically low will saves is far better for surviving that campaign. Will makes you kill the party, Fortitude kills you directly. Will makes you helpless, so ignored.

And going beyond that, fighters have good ac and good hp, so they survive well. No, they were saying it would be a suprise if the figter did NOT survive, because it would imply they were holding aggro and doing enough damage to prove themselves a threat and keep the wizard from getting ganked.

So ironically, in the campaign described it would be more impressive for your fighter yo get hacked down every fight while the wizard doesn't die once :)

Fort saves used to skill you, but now with the pseudo death saves they just hurt really bad. There is a thread on this somewhere.

Now that I think about it in 3.5 a lot of people just had death ward up so they did not even have to worry about it.

That should be "used to kill you" not "used to skill you".

[Kaisoku]

A Man In Black wrote:

Frerezar wrote:

Hey MiB you have been a big defender ofthe fighter not being good at anything but straight up fighting, I would really like your input on what other things you see an archetypical non magical fighting guy doing that doesn´t have to do with hitting people. (don´t take this as rethoric or an argumentative challenge, I am just looking fo constructive imput from players with different perspectives)

Leading men. Being scary. Moving among the nobility. Outsmarting people. Delivering speeches.

Pretty much anything Aragorn, Fafhrd, or Ogami Itto (of Lone Wolf and Cub); do would be a start for ideas.

Didn't the Fighter in a previous edition gain what is basically the Leadership feat after a certain level? Like... land and a bunch of followers, etc?

I think the original "idea" of the Fighter was a warrior that starts off being good at fighting, but then turns into the "Hero", so to speak. It's why in so many stories and movies, the guy people all look up to and want to follow is the Fighter.
The Bard was always a secondary character, unless the story was strictly about bardic things. The inspiring-by-doing types always seemed like the Fighter to me.

.

I personally feel that the Fighter has more issues than simply "out of combat options". Here's what I feel would be appropriate:

1. Fix the in-combat inflexibility. Allow for variable feat pool, increasing with levels. Something like 5 variable feats by 20th.

2. 'Stances' that allow for "greater than feat" bonuses if you meet a prerequisite set of feats. These are not chosen like feats, rather, if you have the feats in question, you automatically gain the benefits.
A large feat requirement means it's meant for higher levels, however that's when a Fighter needs more than a feat to compete.
It would mesh well with the small pool of variable feats, since he could change his "stance" effect each time he changes his feats.

Something like:
Unstoppable Force
Requirements: Greater Overrun, Greater Bull Rush, Run, Lunge
Benefit: You are treated as two sizes larger for purposes of Overrun and Bull Rush (for bonus to check and for size limitations).
Additionally, when charging, you may overrun any number of targets as part of your movement, and if you succeed on your combat maneuver check, the target is treated as if you made a successful bull rush as well.

A Fighter who did nothing but spend feats on those things would have access to this effect by 7th level. About the time he's going to potentially be facing Huge creatures (Hill Giants, etc).

Other effects could provide the Fighter options at higher levels that allow him to perform combat maneuvers against normally extremely difficult (or outright forbidden) opponents.
Variable feats means easily switching to a ranged combat option against Flyers, as well as potentially gaining a "stance" that allows "tripping"/grappling/etc against a ranged foe (although not maintaining for grapple). Enough to force a flyer to crash down.

3. Give the fighter more skillpoints. 4 + Int should be fine.
Compare to the other 2 + Int classes (Cleric, Sorcerer, Wizard, Paladin), they all have spells that grant variable, out-of-combat situation resolution and utility.
The Fighter gaining a few extra skillpoints won't suddenly make him overpowered.

4. Give him Perception, Sense Motive, Knowledge (history/nobility) and Diplomacy. Sure, he probably won't have the primary ability score pumped up for those skills... hence why the extra +3 bonus for a class skill won't really make this overpowering.
It also fits when you consider the Fighter to be something of a Guardian and Inspiring Hero.

5. Change the Bravery ability into a "Heroic Inspiration" ability. He instead provides a bonus (same amount) to himself as well as others nearby. This bonus can be towards saves against Fear effects, Charm effects, Sleep effects, or a bonus towards crit confirmation/spell resistance penetration, concentration, or any one Str or Dex skill check the fighter has at least 2 ranks in.

The Fighter can change it (once per day? after making a full minute speech/ie out of combat? grants any bonus he wants, but limited to a number of times/rounds per day?) choose your favorite mechanic and put it here.

I like the idea that the Fighter can give the bonus to himself. Meaning... he can be alone, injured, and tired, stuck in a pit and trying to climb out, and give himself a little pep-talk and get better at climbing just enough to make it.

.

I seriously can't see these types of bonuses making the Fighter suddenly "the only option" for any one particular thing, and it gives him something of a role (other than beat things up).
The main power issue could be the stances, however those would normally kick in only by mid levels and higher, where the Fighter starts to lag behind anyways.

[Treantmonk]

wraithstrike wrote:

Fort saves used to skill you, but now with the pseudo death saves they just hurt really bad. There is a thread on this somewhere.
Now that I think about it in 3.5 a lot of people just had death ward up so they did not even have to worry about it.

Except that save or die still exists. It's just not called "Finger of death" anymore.

instead it's called "Baleful Polymorph" or "Flesh to stone"...

[Loopy]

Treantmonk wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Fort saves used to skill you, but now with the pseudo death saves they just hurt really bad. There is a thread on this somewhere.
Now that I think about it in 3.5 a lot of people just had death ward up so they did not even have to worry about it.

Except that save or die still exists. It's just not called "Finger of death" anymore.

instead it's called "Baleful Polymorph" or "Flesh to stone"...

Or Disintegrate.

Unless, of course, you're not a wizard or sorcerer and have HP and a good fort save. Or REALLY good luck at your DM rolling crappy.

[wraithstrike]

Treantmonk wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Fort saves used to skill you, but now with the pseudo death saves they just hurt really bad. There is a thread on this somewhere.
Now that I think about it in 3.5 a lot of people just had death ward up so they did not even have to worry about it.

Except that save or die still exists. It's just not called "Finger of death" anymore.

instead it's called "Baleful Polymorph" or "Flesh to stone"...

I used the Flesh to Stone example in another thread, but for the most apart my example applies.

To the post below this one: Disintegrate was no more a save or die than any other spell that does hit point damage is. I do immensely enjoy the spell, even though I know it is not the the best spell to take. The idea of disintegrating someone just brings a smile to my face, and I always find some excuse to give it to my NPC casters.

PS: I just realize with all those "or's" in the sentence you(Loopy) were making fun of disintegrate. Everything is all fun and games until you are turned to dust :)

[Loopy]

wraithstrike wrote:

Treantmonk wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Fort saves used to skill you, but now with the pseudo death saves they just hurt really bad. There is a thread on this somewhere.
Now that I think about it in 3.5 a lot of people just had death ward up so they did not even have to worry about it.

Except that save or die still exists. It's just not called "Finger of death" anymore.

instead it's called "Baleful Polymorph" or "Flesh to stone"...

I used the Flesh to Stone example in another thread, but for the most apart my example applies.

To the post below this one: Disintegrate was no more a save or die than any other spell that does hit point damage is. I do immensely enjoy the spell, even though I know it is not the the best spell to take. The idea of disintegrating someone just brings a smile to my face, and I always find some excuse to give it to my NPC casters.

PS: I just realize with all those "or's" in the sentence you(Loopy) were making fun of disintegrate. Everything is all fun and games until you are turned to dust :)

Ya. I was basically insinuating that Disintegrate is, in my opinion, the prime wizard killer at the mid levels.

[A Man In Black]

Loopy wrote:

Ya. I was basically insinuating that Disintegrate is, in my opinion, the prime wizard killer at the mid levels.

Disintegrate needs to hit. Flesh to Stone does not. Disintegrate may roll poorly. Flesh to Stone just works. And they both reduce a flying wizard to unresurrectable debris.

Not sure what this has to do with fighters...

[Loopy]

A Man In Black wrote:

Loopy wrote:

Ya. I was basically insinuating that Disintegrate is, in my opinion, the prime wizard killer at the mid levels.

Disintegrate needs to hit. Flesh to Stone does not. Disintegrate may roll poorly. Flesh to Stone just works. And they both reduce a flying wizard to unresurrectable debris.

I like the fact that Disintegrate still does damage if the character does save. I don't mind that I have to make a ranged touch attack. And the chance of a critical hit with the spell gives me shivers of delight.

A Man In Black wrote:

Not sure what this has to do with fighters...

Sometimes a conversation naturally evolves past the original topic or diverges for a time. It's how social interaction with others works.