Welcome to Pathfinder Society gaming. Roleplay is when the Venture Captain tells you what your mission is.
Lol, so harsh.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just as disturbed by the implication of several posts here that skill checks are pretty much the alpha and omega of roleplaying...a view that's sadly common since the game became skill-based in 3e. Roleplaying is much more than rolling dice.
And on the other hand, I get annoyed by the old school D&D view that player skill is more important than character skill. Nothing quite like having a high charisma bard with maxed out social skills in a game where a DM requires you to "roleplay it out" such that b/c I personally suck at eloquating the party fighter played by the socially literate player ends up being the party face. And yet the DM never demands that same fighter player to "roleplay" his 18 strength by bench pressing 300 pounds.
But hey, dump statting charisma is about as "traditional D&D" as you can get, amirite?
I had an int type fighter, that could identify anything (and did) focusing on the enemies weakness... i like that school idea recently posted. take on a protegee, make a weapon or four, heh craft of any kind. become the town butcher. is only limited by what you come up with.
|
Honestly, I was talki g more about stuff that doesn't require a skill check no matter what the system. Chatting with an NPC WITHOUT trying to extract important information out of them. Interacting with the world in any way that isn't on a success/failure basis. You know, actual roleplaying.
But since you bring it up, yes, I do thing that in some ways, sometimes relying on player ingenuity rather than (character talent)/(player dice luck) is more fun.
I think "Lol RP nub" and similar comments are ignoring the fact that no amount of Supar Legit Roleplaying™ is going to pass that Diplomacy/Bluff/Sense Motive/Knowledge/Whatever check you need to progress, meaning that whether or not you are a Supar Legit Roleplayer™, you are still dead weight outside of combat compared to any class with even 4+Int skills. Which is pretty much all of them except Paladin and casters (which are the exception to that since, y'know, spells beat skills 70% of the time).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just as disturbed by the implication of several posts here that skill checks are pretty much the alpha and omega of roleplaying...a view that's sadly common since the game became skill-based in 3e. Roleplaying is much more than rolling dice.And on the other hand, I get annoyed by the old school D&D view that player skill is more important than character skill. Nothing quite like having a high charisma bard with maxed out social skills in a game where a DM requires you to "roleplay it out" such that b/c I personally suck at eloquating the party fighter played by the socially literate player ends up being the party face. And yet the DM never demands that same fighter player to "roleplay" his 18 strength by bench pressing 300 pounds.
But hey, dump statting charisma is about as "traditional D&D" as you can get, amirite?
Next time he wants you to roleplay your Intimidate, walk over to him and start breaking his fingers.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do fighters do out of combat?
Regret their character building decision and play on their smartphone.
Of course we make characters that are smarter, stronger, wiser and more charismatic than we are. I'm sure some of our characters would play themselves differently than we do. That's why you do need dice rolls. They also add the element of chance which can redirect the flow of an entire game. I do like when my players role play their negotiations, appeals and other social things. And if they do a good enough job I let them succeed without a roll. However I would never fail someone because they aren't as good as their character at a roll like that.
That said, you still have to drive your character. The players decide what they want to attempt to do - what actions they are going to take.
Ultimately the GM decides how important a certain type of character is in game based on how he runs it. If it's a lot of dungeon crawling and encounters, players will build characters around combat. If you emphasize skills more, and not just spot checks, but skills that are critical to the success of a party, they will increase in value among players. If you put a lot of social interactions, and those interactions have import on the overall outcome of adventures and campaigns, then players will partipate in those interactions more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do fighters do out of combat?
Regret their character building decision and play on their smartphone.
Maybe you do.
Personally, I have a blast.
I really enjoy Fighters in every edition of D&D except 3rd.
In 1e and AD&D, they were actually the toughest, most resilient around--significantly more HP than other classes, actually better AC, they were the best at actually fighting (they were the only ones with multiple attacks), they had the best saves (they progressed the fastest), and they got more out of physical stats than others, etc. They were awesome!
In 4e (my general feelings one the game aside), while I prefer Swordmage and Battlemind tanking, Fighter tanking is relevant and interesting for the entire game.
In 3rd edition (and in turn, in Pathfinder), not only do they have the fewest skill points in the game, they have no alternative non-combat ability to fall back on (for example, every other 2+int skill classes have spells), they aren't the toughest and most resilient (Barbarians have more HP, most classes can get equal or better AC, most classes have better saves, they don't get more from attributes than anyone else), they aren't even the best at fighting (Everyone with a full BAB is basically equal)! Pathfinder almost made it worse by making Paladins and Rangers so much better, because now there's just about no reason to play a Fighter over one of those classes (they're equal in combat and insanely better at non-combat stuff).
It's disappointing to me, because I like the concept of Fighters, and prefer that sort of character in most RPGs. I want them to be better, more useful, and more relevant throughout the whole game.
That said, I do have a blast roleplaying in general, and I bet I actually would have fun playing a Fighter. But I'd have more fun, (because I'd be more effective and useful) playing almost any other class.
Fighters used to get a bunch of followers at level 10 and that would make them land owners and potential lords. You can also throw a bunch of gear at fighter to help him "catch up" with the rest of the group after level 10.
|
What do fighters do out of combat?
Regret their character building decision and play on their smartphone.
Maybe you do.
Personally, I have a blast.
I really enjoy Fighters in every edition of D&D except 3rd.
In 1e and AD&D, they were actually the toughest, most resilient around--significantly more HP than other classes, actually better AC, they were the best at actually fighting (they were the only ones with multiple attacks), they had the best saves (they progressed the fastest), and they got more out of physical stats than others, etc. They were awesome!
In 4e (my general feelings one the game aside), while I prefer Swordmage and Battlemind tanking, Fighter tanking is relevant and interesting for the entire game.
In 3rd edition (and in turn, in Pathfinder), not only do they have the fewest skill points in the game, they have no alternative non-combat ability to fall back on (for example, every other 2+int skill classes have spells), they aren't the toughest and most resilient (Barbarians have more HP, most classes can get equal or better AC, most classes have better saves, they don't get more from attributes than anyone else), they aren't even the best at fighting (Everyone with a full BAB is basically equal)! Pathfinder almost made it worse by making Paladins and Rangers so much better, because now there's just about no reason to play a Fighter over one of those classes (they're equal in combat and insanely better at non-combat stuff).
It's disappointing to me, because I like the concept of Fighters, and prefer that sort of character in most RPGs. I want them to be better, more useful, and more relevant throughout the whole game.
That said, I do have a blast roleplaying in general, and I bet I actually would have fun playing a Fighter. But I'd have more fun, (because I'd be more effective and useful) playing almost any other class.
I don't feel limited by skills...there are too many things that don't require them...or, as has been pointed out, the fighter can actually be skilled at.
Oh...and as to the fighting...I had one in 3rd/3.5 that was a chain specialist, and could decimate...if built in Pathfinder, he'd be considerably better.
That's interesting, considering PF nerfed the spiked chain to the point that SIMPLE weapons are superior to it. And nerfed the s**t out of combat maneuvers and got rid of / massively increased the level requirements / nerfed the "lockdown" feats like Stand Still.
...That you think your chain specialist fighter would be considerably better in PF than he was in 3E.
Interesting in an "utterly counter-intutive, logic-defying" sense.
I don't feel limited by skills...there are too many...What do fighters do out of combat?
Regret their character building decision and play on their smartphone.
Maybe you do.
Personally, I have a blast.
I really enjoy Fighters in every edition of D&D except 3rd.
In 1e and AD&D, they were actually the toughest, most resilient around--significantly more HP than other classes, actually better AC, they were the best at actually fighting (they were the only ones with multiple attacks), they had the best saves (they progressed the fastest), and they got more out of physical stats than others, etc. They were awesome!
In 4e (my general feelings one the game aside), while I prefer Swordmage and Battlemind tanking, Fighter tanking is relevant and interesting for the entire game.
In 3rd edition (and in turn, in Pathfinder), not only do they have the fewest skill points in the game, they have no alternative non-combat ability to fall back on (for example, every other 2+int skill classes have spells), they aren't the toughest and most resilient (Barbarians have more HP, most classes can get equal or better AC, most classes have better saves, they don't get more from attributes than anyone else), they aren't even the best at fighting (Everyone with a full BAB is basically equal)! Pathfinder almost made it worse by making Paladins and Rangers so much better, because now there's just about no reason to play a Fighter over one of those classes (they're equal in combat and insanely better at non-combat stuff).
It's disappointing to me, because I like the concept of Fighters, and prefer that sort of character in most RPGs. I want them to be better, more useful, and more relevant throughout the whole game.
That said, I do have a blast roleplaying in general, and I bet I actually would have fun playing a Fighter. But I'd have more fun, (because I'd be more effective and useful) playing almost any other class.
Chain fighters 4 life. They are so good in 3.0-3.5.
I'm just as disturbed by the implication of several posts here that skill checks are pretty much the alpha and omega of roleplaying...a view that's sadly common since the game became skill-based in 3e. Roleplaying is much more than rolling dice.And on the other hand, I get annoyed by the old school D&D view that player skill is more important than character skill. Nothing quite like having a high charisma bard with maxed out social skills in a game where a DM requires you to "roleplay it out" such that b/c I personally suck at eloquating the party fighter played by the socially literate player ends up being the party face. And yet the DM never demands that same fighter player to "roleplay" his 18 strength by bench pressing 300 pounds.
But hey, dump statting charisma is about as "traditional D&D" as you can get, amirite?
One of the hardest characters I ever played, was a female Chelaxian noblewoman with a crazy charisma. Oriana Jeggare the war mage.
Really difficult task, and I tried my best. It was a memorable game and damn I was both feminine, charming and in control.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's interesting, considering PF nerfed the spiked chain to the point that SIMPLE weapons are superior to it. And nerfed the s**t out of combat maneuvers and got rid of / massively increased the level requirements / nerfed the "lockdown" feats like Stand Still.
...That you think your chain specialist fighter would be considerably better in PF than he was in 3E.
Interesting in an "utterly counter-intutive, logic-defying" sense.
Meteor hammer.
I was both feminine, charming and in control.I'm so horny now.
That char was pretty hot, and a fun experience. She wasn't lucky in love though, only lucky on the sonicball dice.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just as disturbed by the implication of several posts here that skill checks are pretty much the alpha and omega of roleplaying...a view that's sadly common since the game became skill-based in 3e. Roleplaying is much more than rolling dice.
Yes, it is. And you can have a lot of fun roleplaying a fighter with no out-of-combat skills. But if you want to roleplay a fighter who is able to usefully contribute out of combat - not just a fighter you enjoy playing out of combat, but one who does useful things other than kill enemies - then you need to give him some skills. These skills in turn inform your roleplay.
Your fighter has ranks in Craft (Weaponsmith), and always comments on the craftsmanship of looted weapons.
Your fighter has ranks in Knowledge (Dungeoneering), and loves to trade stories with other adventurers about the ugliest things they've seen on dungeon crawls.
Your fighter has ranks in Survival, Ride, and Handle Animal. He was raised in a rural area and feels uncomfortable in large cities - but he gets along well with rangers and druids.
And on the other hand, I get annoyed by the old school D&D view that player skill is more important than character skill. Nothing quite like having a high charisma bard with maxed out social skills in a game where a DM requires you to "roleplay it out" such that b/c I personally suck at eloquating the party fighter played by the socially literate player ends up being the party face. And yet the DM never demands that same fighter player to "roleplay" his 18 strength by bench pressing 300 pounds.
But hey, dump statting charisma is about as "traditional D&D" as you can get, amirite?
D&D/PF is a mental game, all the physical examples are out of place.
I particulary find annoying when a player play a cha based character and use that for excuse to be crappy at roleplaying.
A fighter with 7 cha and without any social skill should not be a smooth talker that is just another example of bad roleplay.
In this case some midle ground seems apropiated.
It's harder to play up than play down - harder to play a character who is smarter, wiser, or more charismatic than you than it is to play one who is less so. That player might not be using a cha-based character as an excuse to skip roleplay and just roll a 36 Diplomacy check, they may just be having a hard time personally making a speech that will convince those orcs to stop burning and looting and start worshiping Sarenrae.
I think "Lol RP nub" and similar comments are ignoring the fact that no amount of Supar Legit Roleplaying™ is going to pass that Diplomacy/Bluff/Sense Motive/Knowledge/Whatever check you need to progress, meaning that whether or not you are a Supar Legit Roleplayer™, you are still dead weight outside of combat compared to any class with even 4+Int skills. Which is pretty much all of them except Paladin and casters (which are the exception to that since, y'know, spells beat skills 70% of the time).
You don't have to be dead weight if you make even a small effort to pick up some useful skills, even with 2+Int skills. Just look at what skills the other guys don't have - there should be at least one - and put points in that. If nothing else, you can pick a relevant Craft or Profession the other guys don't have. If no one else has it, and you have max ranks, it doesn't matter if you're not optimized for it, you're still the best in the party. Pick up Knowledge (Dungeoneering) or Knowledge (Engineering) so the wizard and/or bard can skip one of the 10 Knowledge skills. Take Intimidate and be the bad cop while the Bard or Sorcerer optimizes their Bluff and Diplomacy.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note: StreamoftheSky is playing D&D Rocket Tag Turbo Edition, where if your party fails to obliterate a APL+3 encounter in 3 rounds, the players should go home and hang themselves because they are an obvious pollution of human gene pool.
In that paradigm, the only Fighter that mattered was Spiked Chain locker and the only Rogue that mattered was the blinking flasker. Anything else was just showing that your IQ is too low to play D&D, because you FAIL AT IT.
Note: StreamoftheSky is playing D&D Rocket Tag Turbo Edition, where if your party fails to obliterate a APL+3 encounter in 3 rounds, the players should go home and hang themselves because they are an obvious pollution of human gene pool.
In that paradigm, the only Fighter that mattered was Spiked Chain locker and the only Rogue that mattered was the blinking flasker. Anything else was just showing that your IQ is too low to play D&D, because you FAIL AT IT.
If you know the most effective strategy for most fights, why NOT use it?
Also, are you going to call StreamoftheSky's playstyle badwrongfun by any chance?
Agree with Gorb (strange I know).
Agree with Gorb (strange I know).
Same here. Feels equally odd.
Note: StreamoftheSky is playing D&D Rocket Tag Turbo Edition, where if your party fails to obliterate a APL+3 encounter in 3 rounds, the players should go home and hang themselves because they are an obvious pollution of human gene pool.
In that paradigm, the only Fighter that mattered was Spiked Chain locker and the only Rogue that mattered was the blinking flasker. Anything else was just showing that your IQ is too low to play D&D, because you FAIL AT IT.
Equalizer has actually played with a group like this. A terrible experience from the telling.
Note: StreamoftheSky is playing D&D Rocket Tag Turbo Edition, where if your party fails to obliterate a APL+3 encounter in 3 rounds, the players should go home and hang themselves because they are an obvious pollution of human gene pool.
In that paradigm, the only Fighter that mattered was Spiked Chain locker and the only Rogue that mattered was the blinking flasker. Anything else was just showing that your IQ is too low to play D&D, because you FAIL AT IT.
Yes, I prefer playing noncasters because I won't accept anything but the most powerful characters. Clearly.
I just like to play fun characters that get in there and kill their foes. Outside of combat, there is always plenty that can be done if you have objectives and *magical sound* imagination.
Note: StreamoftheSky is playing D&D Rocket Tag Turbo Edition
So...3rd edition D&D past level 10 or so? Is that really that rare?
|
|
Yes, I prefer playing noncasters because I won't accept anything but the most powerful characters. Clearly.Note: StreamoftheSky is playing D&D Rocket Tag Turbo Edition, where if your party fails to obliterate a APL+3 encounter in 3 rounds, the players should go home and hang themselves because they are an obvious pollution of human gene pool.
In that paradigm, the only Fighter that mattered was Spiked Chain locker and the only Rogue that mattered was the blinking flasker. Anything else was just showing that your IQ is too low to play D&D, because you FAIL AT IT.
Well, you might be a member of The Society of Sensation.
"I've played a non-optimized martial in barebones D&D. That beats your getting strangled with your own innards like, twice".
I play characters who are heroic and can perform badass feats, but most importantly, ones who can do their job well.
If I want to be the party tank, I find some way to either generate aggro (a "mechanic" I rather don't like, so this is the fallback option), or find a way to make someone who can effectively lockdown the area around him and prevent enemies from getting to his allies.
If the rest of the party couldn't rip their way out of a paper bag, I make someone who can deal a lot of damage. I don't particularly like to just be a "DPS", though, it's really boring. I'd rather be able to reliably trip, stun, air juggle, homerun bat, intimidate into a catatonic state, or do something else like that to foes rather than just raw damage. But paizo nerfed a lot of the "martial special effects budget" and found that the way to fix Fighter types is to give them bigger +'s to attack and damage. So I make do with what I have to work with.
Yes, I prefer playing noncasters because I won't accept anything but the most powerful characters. Clearly.Note: StreamoftheSky is playing D&D Rocket Tag Turbo Edition, where if your party fails to obliterate a APL+3 encounter in 3 rounds, the players should go home and hang themselves because they are an obvious pollution of human gene pool.
In that paradigm, the only Fighter that mattered was Spiked Chain locker and the only Rogue that mattered was the blinking flasker. Anything else was just showing that your IQ is too low to play D&D, because you FAIL AT IT.
Well, you might be a member of The Society of Sensation.
"I've played a non-optimized martial in barebones D&D. That beats your getting strangled with your own innards like, twice".
There are actually 3 types of martials in 3.5 rocket tag.
The first is, of course, the uber charger. Amazingly enough, uses a Chain, too. barb/FB or go home, do enlarged 50' across AOE's for 200 dmg.
The second is the Lockdown build. Actually, I immortalized that build on the WotC boards by going VERY indepth on how to build one. This one is a reach weapon build that prevents opponents from moving...and it is MUCH harder to do in PF.
The third is the machine gun archer. You don't need to charge or lockdown an opponent when you are getting 20 arrows per Greater Manyshot, and whatnot.
==Aelryinth
To the OP:
Downtime for fighters is about crafting or role-play. He does get somewhat hampered because his skill set doesn't cater to the latter...but as people have pointed out, you don't need to be great at something to be functional at something.
First of all, you can craft. If you take Heart of the Fields, you get a +1/2 your levels bonus to the crafting skill of your choice, and you can ignore a fatigue situation 1/day, allowing you to work long hours without a problem. It's not as spiffy as Fabricate, but Fabricate can't make a masterwork item, either.
Second, you can make magic items with magical artisan. Unfortunately, this takes two of your General feats, and you can't do it until 7th level without GM's waiving level reqs so you can take the feats ahead of time. At 7th, however, is when you start wanting +2 stuff...and cutting the price in half means getting it earlier and faster.
Thirdly, you can train animals, which is like crafting with pets. Fully trained pets of various sorts are worth good money. The problem here is the training times are often going to be longer then your down times.
Fourthly, you can role-play your way into things like combat trainer, militia instructor, private arms instructor, gladiatorial combat bouts, duellist for hire, special bodyguard, watch captain, bill collector, and the like, with appropriate skill points into areas to support such things. Your DM just has to be flexible and let you do this stuff while everyone else is doing theirs.
==Aelryinth
Use the Martial Academy Training class variant from the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting. For the cost of the fighter's bonus 1st level feat, you get:
Class Skills (in addition to the normal fighter class skills): Diplomacy (Cha), Knowledge (engineering) (Int), Knowledge (geography) (Int), Knowledge (nobility) (Int), Sense Motive (Wis).
Skill Points at 1st Level: (4 + Int modifier) × 4.
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 4 + Int modifier.
Does every class get x4 skills at 1st level, or just this one? If everyone gets it, I clearly missed it...
|
It partly depends on your GM. In my games, roleplay trumps rollplay, so a fighter can do social things, even if he doesn't have the skills. Although, if a particular player did that a lot, I would encourage him to put some points in those skills (usually don't have to encourage).
If your group's style is one of moving miniatures, rolling dice, min-maxing, and trying to come up with the best "builds" (which is unfortunately very prevalent in Pathfinder), then you may be largely out of luck. However, if you have a group that enjoys roleplaying and story more than mechanics and min-maxing, the only real limit is your imagination and willingness to stretch yourself.
It may be too late, but you can also mitigate this when you make your character. If you want to be able to roleplay more with the character, don't pump all your points into str dex and con. Put some in intelligence and charisma.
In my experience, more games are "won" or "lost" by good tactics and roleplay and just general player intelligence than they are by min-maxing. If you're a good player, you can be very successful with a fighter who doesn't have maxed physical abilities but has some intelligence and charisma. You might even find your GM is so grateful to see a unique character and not just another "optimized" character that he throws you a bone every now and then.
|
|
Does every class get x4 skills at 1st level, or just this one? If everyone gets it, I clearly missed it...Use the Martial Academy Training class variant from the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting. For the cost of the fighter's bonus 1st level feat, you get:
Class Skills (in addition to the normal fighter class skills): Diplomacy (Cha), Knowledge (engineering) (Int), Knowledge (geography) (Int), Knowledge (nobility) (Int), Sense Motive (Wis).
Skill Points at 1st Level: (4 + Int modifier) × 4.
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 4 + Int modifier.
In 3E everyone got x4 skill points at first level, there was no class skill bonus (instead non-class skills cost twice as many skill points per rank) and your max ranks were your level +3 instead of your level. So a fighter with 10 Int would normally get 8 skill points at first level, but it would cost 4 points to max out a skill and if it was a cross-class skill he'd only get 2 ranks out of it.
PF simplified it a bit and made cross-class skills less of a big deal.
I'm not sure why this variant is using 3E rules if it came from PF, but I'd bet it's in error - either from Paizo, or else these rules aren't actually from PF as this poster suggested.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[B]Fighter[B]: One who fights.
So by definition, your forte is in combat, not out of combat. Rogues are not inherently as good in combat (lower hit die, BAB, etc.), and a non-optimized mage/divine spellcaster will not be able to keep up with the fighter in straight combat prowess.
The fighter has powerful attacks, good AC, and plenty of hit points. He is dependable, straightforward, and good at what he does. Besides someone who can use a CLW wand, the warrior is the person I most want in the party, especially at low levels. In fact, at low levels, you are probably the most important player, unless the GM lets the wizard and the cleric rest for 8 hours after each fight. You are the only guy besides the rogue who can truck on all day and still be at maximum potential.
The downside of course, is that out of combat, you are far weaker. You can't heal yourself really, you're no skill monkey, and you certainly do not have the versatility of a wizard. Just pick whatever skills you think would come in handy or be useful, and max them out. Pick up a magic item or two that you can use (marvelous pigments, bag of tricks, etc.), and utilize these to provide help.
Finally, don't let the "optimization experts" tell you that you can't contribute. Because you can. Anyone can roleplay and have fun, and that is what Pathfinder is all about. Good luck with your character!
|
|
[B]Fighter[B]: One who fights.
So by definition, your forte is in combat, not out of combat. Rogues are not inherently as good in combat (lower hit die, BAB, etc.), and a non-optimized mage/divine spellcaster will not be able to keep up with the fighter in straight combat prowess.
The fighter has powerful attacks, good AC, and plenty of hit points. He is dependable, straightforward, and good at what he does. Besides someone who can use a CLW wand, the warrior is the person I most want in the party, especially at low levels. In fact, at low levels, you are probably the most important player, unless the GM lets the wizard and the cleric rest for 8 hours after each fight. You are the only guy besides the rogue who can truck on all day and still be at maximum potential.The downside of course, is that out of combat, you are far weaker. You can't heal yourself really, you're no skill monkey, and you certainly do not have the versatility of a wizard. Just pick whatever skills you think would come in handy or be useful, and max them out. Pick up a magic item or two that you can use (marvelous pigments, bag of tricks, etc.), and utilize these to provide help.
Finally, don't let the "optimization experts" tell you that you can't contribute. Because you can. Anyone can roleplay and have fun, and that is what Pathfinder is all about. Good luck with your character!
YES!
Very well said. Oh, by the way, there's this lovely little trait that even makes UMD a class skill...so you can be that guy with the backup wand of CLW. :)
|
|
I'm just as disturbed by the implication of several posts here that skill checks are pretty much the alpha and omega of roleplaying...a view that's sadly common since the game became skill-based in 3e. Roleplaying is much more than rolling dice.And on the other hand, I get annoyed by the old school D&D view that player skill is more important than character skill. Nothing quite like having a high charisma bard with maxed out social skills in a game where a DM requires you to "roleplay it out" such that b/c I personally suck at eloquating the party fighter played by the socially literate player ends up being the party face. And yet the DM never demands that same fighter player to "roleplay" his 18 strength by bench pressing 300 pounds.
But hey, dump statting charisma is about as "traditional D&D" as you can get, amirite?
Traditional D&D was let the dice decide...
That aside, as GM I never let the social roll happen unless the player can describe what they are trying to achieve and how. Not the details, just the intent and the general idea of how they mean to go about it. For example the player might wish to make a soldier angry. That is the intent. They then would say how, insult his fighting skill? Imply his wife was also into a bit of extra martial sword play? The more background and story they inject into the scene the better. Then I'll usually assign a bonus of penalty. Generic insult against an NPC they know quite a lot would be a minus to the roll, but using that knowledge to hit him where it hurts a bonus.
So at least in social skills I demand some Roleplaying before the Rollplaying is allowed. There are massive array of combat rules but bugger all social rules and I believe both are equally important in an RPG. Games like The Burning Wheel treat them pretty much equally - and I try to in PF. Combat is relatively boring and codified by Jason et al, players talking in character around the table with a few rolls and the infinite realm of imagination, now that is awesome. <note my personal opinion of GoodRightFun>
S.
[B]Fighter[B]: One who fights.
So by definition, your forte is in combat, not out of combat. Rogues are not inherently as good in combat (lower hit die, BAB, etc.), and a non-optimized mage/divine spellcaster will not be able to keep up with the fighter in straight combat prowess.
The fighter has powerful attacks, good AC, and plenty of hit points. He is dependable, straightforward, and good at what he does. Besides someone who can use a CLW wand, the warrior is the person I most want in the party, especially at low levels. In fact, at low levels, you are probably the most important player, unless the GM lets the wizard and the cleric rest for 8 hours after each fight. You are the only guy besides the rogue who can truck on all day and still be at maximum potential.The downside of course, is that out of combat, you are far weaker. You can't heal yourself really, you're no skill monkey, and you certainly do not have the versatility of a wizard. Just pick whatever skills you think would come in handy or be useful, and max them out. Pick up a magic item or two that you can use (marvelous pigments, bag of tricks, etc.), and utilize these to provide help.
Finally, don't let the "optimization experts" tell you that you can't contribute. Because you can. Anyone can roleplay and have fun, and that is what Pathfinder is all about. Good luck with your character!
I believe I've effectively proved my point on this subject as well in other threads: The Fighter still doesn't have an overwhelming combat advantage over other martials. He has a +1-3 to-hit and +4-6 damage on any of the other full BaB martial classes...assuming they're not using their main class features (Smite, Rage, Favored Enemy) at which point any of these guys can match or outstrip the Fighter in to-hit and damage, and still have other major advantages over him (Saves for all of them, and of course the Barbarian can snag Pounce, among other things).
So he doesn't even have "master of combat" to balance out the fact that he has almost no skill points and doesn't even get necessary and class appropriate skills as class skills (Perception, most glaringly).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter[B]: One who fights.
So by definition, your forte is in combat, not out of combat. Rogues are not inherently as good in combat (lower hit die, BAB, etc.), and a non-optimized mage/divine spellcaster will not be able to keep up with the fighter in straight combat prowess.
The fighter has powerful attacks, good AC, and plenty of hit points. He is dependable, straightforward, and good at what he does. Besides someone who can use a CLW wand, the warrior is the person I most want in the party, especially at low levels. In fact, at low levels, you are probably the most important player, unless the GM lets the wizard and the cleric rest for 8 hours after each fight. You are the only guy besides the rogue who can truck on all day and still be at maximum potential.The downside of course, is that out of combat, you are far weaker. You can't heal yourself really, you're no skill monkey, and you certainly do not have the versatility of a wizard. Just pick whatever skills you think would come in handy or be useful, and max them out. Pick up a magic item or two that you can use (marvelous pigments, bag of tricks, etc.), and utilize these to provide help.
Finally, don't let the "optimization experts" tell you that you can't contribute. Because you can. Anyone can roleplay and have fun, and that is what Pathfinder is all about. Good luck with your character!
I believe I've effectively proved my point on this subject as well in other threads: The Fighter still doesn't have an overwhelming combat advantage over other martials. He has a +1-3 to-hit and +4-6 damage on any of the other full BaB martial classes...assuming they're not using their main class features (Smite, Rage, Favored Enemy) at which point any of these guys can match or outstrip the Fighter in to-hit and damage, and still have other major advantages over him (Saves for all of them, and of course the Barbarian can snag Pounce, among other things).
So he doesn't even have "master of combat" to[/b]...
Yeah, but the Bbn runs out of rage, and you can't smite CN, and they aren't all magical beasts. The fighter only fails when martials fail...period.
ah, but the Bbn runs out of rage, and you can't smite CN, and they aren't all magical beasts. The fighter only fails when martials fail...period.
If the Barbarian runs out of Rage after about level 4, you're probably all f!*!ed anyway because you've been put through the wringer and your spellcasters are probably dry too.
I'm quite aware you can't Smite CN. I'm not sure what the point of that statement is.
And yeah, things aren't all Magical Beasts. Thankfully Rangers aren't limited to picking only Magical Beasts for FE (unless they are in your game?), they're quite free to pick the most common monster likely to show up in your game, and then pick the 2nd and 3rd most likely by level 10.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe I've effectively proved my point on this subject as well in other threads: The Fighter still doesn't have an overwhelming combat advantage over other martials. He has a +1-3 to-hit and +4-6 damage on any of the other full BaB martial classes...assuming they're not using their main class features (Smite, Rage, Favored Enemy) at which point any of these guys can match or outstrip the Fighter in to-hit and damage, and still have other major advantages over him (Saves for all of them, and of course the Barbarian can snag Pounce, among other things).So he doesn't even have "master of combat" to[/b][/b]...
Apparently you've never seen the smile on the player's face when he goes to attack the enemy...again...with the same, good old greatsword. He doesn't care what your math says, or how more OP barbarians or paladins are. He's having fun swinging that sword. A plain, simple character with high numbers, consistent damage, and a good AC. Every level he gets a new feat, which allows him to get better "power-ups" faster than any other class.
Perhaps all of the classes are not equal. Perhaps fighters are tier 5 and wizards are tier 1. I can't deny that. I know full well that wizards are capable of a thousand more things than a fighter. But it doesn't matter. If the player is playing a fighter and having fun, then that is what matters. As a GM, I would rather see a party of un-optimized losers who are having fun than a party of uber-powered monstrosities who aren't having fun, even if their characters are more l33t.Pathfinder is about having fun. Let the Fighter and the Monk and the Healbot and the Blaster Mage come out and play too. Because if they are having fun, then that is all that matters. :)
And that has jack all with the discussion at hand, which IS about effectiveness, not fun (a subjective factor).
I like Fighters as a combat class. They are fun.
But they simply are not as effective outside of combat as other classes, and are not overwhelmingly moreso IN combat either. I'm not going to let the fact that I like the class sugarcoat the fact that it needs work, much like the Rogue and Monk (my favorite class of all of them) need a bit of work as well.
Fun is not ALL that matters. I don't see how being more effective can be less fun, while the reverse is not true. It doesn't matter if they're fun now, if they can be brought up to par, they should be.