What level was this character? Fighters get a feat at every level which is his main power. You won't see the difference in armor until you actually play. You can look at two and say "wow at level 1 the barbarian swings for 5 more damage" but the fighter catches up when specializing, and will have a higher armor class in the end.
In previous editions (3.0, 3.5) the barbarian was strictly worse. The gap has been closed but IMO (and there are those who would disagree) fighter is still a more powerful class.
Fighter is much better than the barbarian, especially if you use the Chronicles variant with the extra skill points in trade for the 1st bonus feat. It fixes a lot of the fighters issues.
I smell a seven page thread coming.
I think Barbarian is probably the "best" class at 1st level. Pretty soon, perhaps around 5-7 level, fighter surpasses it. Then the magic using classes start to pass the melee classes. Then the dinosaurs came, but they got too big and fat so they died. And turned to oil...
I think Barbarian is probably the "best" class at 1st level. Pretty soon, perhaps around 5-7 level, fighter surpasses it. Then the magic using classes start to pass the melee classes. Then the dinosaurs came, but they got too big and fat so they died. And turned to oil...
+1. People will make a zillion fiddly arguments but this is the meat of it.
Am I overlooking some aspect of the fighter that balances out his redundancy?
Tons of bonus feats, and Pathfinder has got lots of cool feats to take. At first level a fighter can get extra hit points and CA (toughness, shield mastery-or whatever it calls, dodge, etc..) using those feats, or get an exotic weapon like a bastard sword and do a little more damage. As he level up he can use more feats to get huge damage and attack bonuses.
When he level up the fighter can use medium and heavy armor without suffering most max.dex. and speed limits, increasing its AC.
Many exclusive feats (specialization and so on).
If you ask me, the fighter is the best character for a 1vs1 melee fight, but the barbarian is a bit better when many creatures or rogues attack the group (improved uncanny dodge and Damage Reduction ftw).
So my question is this:
What is my motivation for playing a fighter? Why would anyone play a character who is obviously unbalanced (in the bad way)? Has anyone else noticed this?
Well ... 3.x had Barbarian as King of Damage. Just the way things worked out, w/a 2-handed weapon and that str bonus, it was king.
Fighters now blow them out of the water. Seriously!
If anyone's unbalanced, it would be the barbarian and it has been skewed to the "weak" side even for the added boons granted. Read those powers REAL close, and you'll see they are almost like spell slots - ie: you can use it 1/rage (probably makes it worse than a spell slot actually). In the end, it's probably THE most poorly translated/updated treatment of a class.
The fighter, w/armor specializations get to move crazy-fast in medium and hvy armors, lose check penalties, and gain dex bonuses to the AC max through Armor Training.
What puts them over the top is the Weapon Training - each one grants a +1/+1 to a weapon class, and adds to more weapon classes as you gain to a maximum of +4/+4 ON TOP of the other fighter-exclusives (Wpn Specalizations and Greater, and Greater Wpn Focus). They WILL out-hit everything else present ... they WILL out-damage everything else present.
You've also overlooked the benefits of the level 20 ability - up the crit multiplier by 1, auto-confirm crits, and never be disarmed ... WOW!!
Barbarian's crit is a +8 Rage (ie: not changed from 3.x at all), and one more rage power (yippee! +1 use/rage thing).
This is not to get into the lame mechanics of the Rage On/Rage Off options from level 17+ w/the Tireless Rage feature that suddenly turn "fire and forget" 1/rage powers into instantly refreshable powers/uses as soon as you hit level 17. How the HELL that makes sense?? I'll never understand it, but no - you're initial impression on Barbarian's being FAR better is definitely wrong. It's the complete opposite.
I house ruled it, making the fighter the superior presence on the battlefield by adding +1 to BAB, Reflex Save, and Will Save, giving him the best saves of the warrior group and the best starting BAB in the game. Is that too powerful?
I wouldn't say "too powerful" BUT, you've essentially made THE BEST MECHANICAL combatant in the game THAT much more mechanically superior. I'd undo this if I were you.
That said, there *is* a lack of flavor to the class and there are a few options in the Suggestions/House Rules sections for giving fighters a bit more "umpf" elsewhere, so I'd check those out - Archives, too (within the section) if you're interested.
Am I overlooking some aspect of the fighter that balances out his redundancy?
Yes - pointed out above, but again - you've inverted the classes and their relationships. Fighter is FAR and away the *better* class, and Barbarian needs help - big time!
In fact, Paizo itself has acknowledged it's less then stellar treatment of the barbarians and has stated they plan to update it with the release of the APG sometime soon-ish I think. (I hope mostly - definitely want to get my hands on that).
Community-wise, there's a LOT of barbarian lovers that are waiting to see what Paizo does to *fix* things, but there are just as many that have modified things as they see fit (again - see the Suggestions/House Rules section for options).
*whew* long-winded, but hopefully helpful.
Thanks for the responses. It seems that the answer is that the fighter starts pathetic (sorry, but it's true) but gets better. Perhaps I'll just let the class progress at the fast rate for a few levels.
As for the Barbarian, as my moniker might suggest I am a BIG Robert E. Howard fan, so I have never felt that the raging berserker was what I was looking for in a barbarian. I always felt the 1st edition Ranger minus spells, add a few Thief skills, was closer to Conan. The berserker thing is Slaine. That said, for the raging berserker, the Pathfinder Barbarian is one of the best I've seen. At least it's not a static ability that never grows or develops. I like that about most of the Pathfinder classes.
Of course, I'm a newbie to Pathfinder, having revilved 3.0 and 3.5, so I'm sure I'll have more questions. It's a very cool game so far, though.
Just a suggestion, if you have problems with 1st level fighters, you may give 'em one the heavy armors for free, usually they can't get one of those heavy armors that give huge AC for fighters until they get the treasure of first level. Once they get the heavy armor AC boost they are usually pretty solid characters.
I had to calculate some comparisons between the fighting classes recently (long story) and the fighter could consistently delivers better damage than just about any other combat class, round on round, unless they are fighting their 'speciality'. Surprisingly, they even beat the barbarian when raging.
If you really want to full attack for masses of damage, TWF is now the way to go. Use something like two short-swords, because you can gain the advantages of Weapon Specialisation and Weapon Training twice, and the Double Slice feat puts you ahead of the greatsword wielder in bonus damage.
If you want to get in and out of a fight and be more mobile, then a nice heavy weapon like a greatsword is great combined with the Vital Strike feat tree.
You won't do the same damage as a ranger vs his favoured enemy, or a paladin smiting, but against every foe you run into you can deal consistent good damage.
Can you do anything else? Well that's what the other combat classes do.
Fighter: Does exactly what it says on the tin.
In pure damage, the fighter equals the barbarian at lvl 4 with weapon focus, weapon specialization, and weapon training, giving him +2 hit +3 to damage, and he never looks back. At lvl 8 he gets better bonuses than the barbarian at lvl 11.
That being said, the barbarian gets a whole lot of unique tricks only he can do. Personally, I think the barbarian is a much better class, even though he is outdamaged by the fighter. I am a skill point whore though, and think that the barbarian's rage powers are well worth it, even if some of them are limitted to 1/Rage. I think many of them would still be good at 1/day.
Fighter is much better than the barbarian, especially if you use the Chronicles variant with the extra skill points in trade for the 1st bonus feat. It fixes a lot of the fighters issues.
Is there anywhere that this version of the fighter can be found online. I'm not buying a $40 book to trade a feat for some skill points, and all of my searching has come for nought.
I house ruled it, making the fighter the superior presence on the battlefield by adding +1 to BAB, Reflex Save, and Will Save, giving him the best saves of the warrior group and the best starting BAB in the game. Is that too powerful?
Yes, that's too powerful. Way too powerful.
He will get extra attacks sooner, will hit more often, will qualify for feats sooner, and with those save modifiers, he loses some of his built in weakness, the balancing factor that keeps him from ruling the battlefield unchallenged.
It's even worse considering, as others have (unanimously, it seems) pointed out so far, the fighter is the best of the melee classes already. You're taking the best and making him better.
Am I overlooking some aspect of the fighter that balances out his redundancy?
Apparently you are.
And what do you mean by "redundancy"? If you mean that he's "redundant" because he is the best at doing what he is built to do (fight) then I would say you're using the wrong word; the word you're looking for is "specialty".
I am not sure why you would want to balance out his "speciality" unless, by chance, you're only comparing a level 1 fighter to a level 1 barbarian. The rest of your post that I didn't quote makes it look like you're only comparing first level characters: 2 skill points, 1 HP, can't afford heavy armor, etc.
In which case, I would say give it a few levels and see how it plays out. Don't start tweaking a class based on its performance at level 1.
I think Barbarian is probably the "best" class at 1st level. Pretty soon, perhaps around 5-7 level, fighter surpasses it. Then the magic using classes start to pass the melee classes. Then the dinosaurs came, but they got too big and fat so they died. And turned to oil...
I completely agree (except maybe with the dinosaur, they didn't die they just evolved into birds)
Barbarians are better are 1st but fighters quickly over take them IMO. 5ht level sounds about right to me
|
Thanks for the responses. It seems that the answer is that the fighter starts pathetic (sorry, but it's true) but gets better. Perhaps I'll just let the class progress at the fast rate for a few levels.
If it doesn't pan out like you expect, you might check out Kirth Gersen's rewrite here for some things to help it out. I think a good minimal houserule would be to add the Fighter Talents to the class, but if you feel like we do, I haven't had a problem using it exactly as written in my 3.5 Shackled City campaign.
Fighter is much better than the barbarian, especially if you use the Chronicles variant with the extra skill points in trade for the 1st bonus feat. It fixes a lot of the fighters issues.Is there anywhere that this version of the fighter can be found online. I'm not buying a $40 book to trade a feat for some skill points, and all of my searching has come for nought.
You gain Diplomacy, some Knowledge skills and Sense Motive and 4+Int bonus skill points per level in exchange for your 1st level bonus feat.
I wanted to do this in a Pathfinder game, my DM felt the skill gain was worth more than one feat, and wanted to take the bonus feats at 8th and 16th levels as well, but game me a load more class skills (Bluff, Heal, all Knowledge skills). As I wanted a swashbuckler type, I suggested losing the medium and heavy armour proficiency instead of the first level feat, and he agreed.
If it doesn't pan out like you expect, you might check out Kirth Gersen's rewrite here for some things to help it out.
That's been superceded at least once; I'll have to send you the updated one. The thing is, using that fighter also assumes you're using our combat rules, feats, skills rules, and other class rewrites.
The Paizo boards are the politest I have been on, in all honesty. I'm glad your questions were answered, for myself I have found the differences between fighter and barbarian at 1st level small enough for the fighter to still be viable. That extra feat can mean a lot that makes up for that rage power, after all, and the feats only rack up. I would say the fighter is on a par at 2nd level, and pulling ahead by 4th.
Redundancy means that the fighter AT FIRST LEVEL is not a viable class given that the comprable classes- barbarian in particular- are far superior. This is pretty obvious if you examine their abilities. The barbarian has less money and 1 less feat, but in exchange for those losses, he has 2 extra skills, 2 extra HP, and 2 class abilities- in addition to the same Saving Throws and BAB. Thus, the fighter is redundant AT FIRST LEVEL.
This however is incorrect.
The feat is a big thing at level 1, Your looking at 2 more HP but he can match the Barb all day long, while the barb can surpass him on damage a few times per day but with the drawl back of maybe dieing from damage once he leaves rage.
They cover different things.
However your Barb is set , the fighter has a feat he can spend has he wishes, which make all the difference in the world some time. Try a level 1 archer fighter, he'll always out damage the barb archer{ I played one that could get 2 shots at +3 at 1d8+2 per shot which averages 13 hp per round or so
Your not looking at the whole of the class, In the long run fighter is the best at melee fighting, hands down. He does not depends on limited ablitys favored enemys or smites or rages that end up sometimes a deadly to the barb as his target. No he is built to do one thing, and he excels at that
In no way is he redundant
I do agree the skill points blow and I never use 2 per level, but I was overruled many times in the beta when I brought that up.
The barbarian has awesome maneuverability and a few good rage powers. On a related note, one of my players made his straight-classed fighter into a Shadowdancer. I'm pretty sure that beats a lot of the barbarian stuff. The Barbarian is still much better at living, however, since the Fighter quickly folds to a fighter or a caster and the barbarian can actually live an extra round. The fighter is more dangerous to fight, but the barbarian is a better survivor. Also an excellent single level splash class.
DM Blake- There is no need to be rude. 9.9 I am inexperienced with the system, not an effin moron.
Quite obviously, you don't get around very much on the Internet. ^^ DM Blake wasn't rude at all, maybe a bit sarcastic.
And he is right... you shouldn't be giving the fighters oodles of stuff at first level, because he isn't as powerful as the Barbarian at that point, while ignoring that he will get much better later on.
Because by that logic the Wizard and lots of other classes need to be buffed up like hell, so that they can be as dangerous as a first level Barbarian.
Different classes shine at different points in their career. The Fighter is already fine at first level, just not as good as the Barbarian. He is on par with the Paladin and Ranger, though, and much better than the Monk.
DM Blake- There is no need to be rude. 9.9 I am inexperienced with the system, not an effin moron.
Redundancy means that the fighter AT FIRST LEVEL is not a viable class given that the comprable classes- barbarian in particular- are far superior. This is pretty obvious if you examine their abilities. The barbarian has less money and 1 less feat, but in exchange for those losses, he has 2 extra skills, 2 extra HP, and 2 class abilities- in addition to the same Saving Throws and BAB. Thus, the fighter is redundant AT FIRST LEVEL.
My question was wondering if there was a change in that later, and the answer has been a resounding, "Yes." Thus, no need of house rules (as I had already indicated by the time you ruded forth).
If you are going to be rude and simply reply in hateful fashion what others before you have replied in much more civil fashion, then why bother? You are only being rude... and, ironically, redundant.
Anyway, thanks again to everyone who responded. I appreciate the input. I also appreciate the friendliness and courtesy generally shown. It is rare on the internet.
Woah, easy does it.
I wasn't rude and I definitely wasn't hateful. I certainly wasn't trying for rude, and if I do say so myself, I can be rude with the best of them when that's what I'm going for.
So, I apologize if you mistakenly inferred rudeness and hatefulness where none was intended or implied. I was merely chiming in on the chorus of voices helping you to gain the understanding you seek.
I responded to your question about whether your proposed houserule was too powerful, something that had been only marginally touched prior to my post, so I didn't feel it was redundant at all to address that part of your post.
I also asked for clarity about why you felt the fighter was reduntant, pointing to the first level comparison which I don't recall had been clarified at that point. This, too, was not redundant since this clarity was lacking in the original question and the subsequent replies.
None of which makes my post "redundant". Sheesh. You seem to have a fixation with that word, and a certain lack of clarity on how it should be properly used... (there, now that was rude of me, though not hateful in the least, but I felt it was fair return on the fact that the "rude" label had already been misapplied, so I decided to earn it, even if the earning of it was mildly understated).
And so, because I am a nice tarrasque, I will apologize for the rudeness of this post, in advance, before I am again accused of it.
|
Mmm... can't wait til the APG is out.
From the sneak peek in the Paizo blog, I'm curious what the archetypes change for the class. Breaker, Brutal Pugilist, Drunken Brawler, Elemental Kin, Hurler, Savage Barbarian... so many tasty sounding variations.
I'm also interested in the Fighter archetypes, too. Haven't seen any teasers there, though.
|
|
Redundancy means that the fighter AT FIRST LEVEL is not a viable class given that the comprable classes- barbarian in particular- are far superior. This is pretty obvious if you examine their abilities. The barbarian has less money and 1 less feat, but in exchange for those losses, he has 2 extra skills, 2 extra HP, and 2 class abilities- in addition to the same Saving Throws and BAB. Thus, the fighter is redundant AT FIRST LEVEL.
This however is incorrect.
The feat is a big thing at level 1, Your looking at 2 more HP but he can match the Barb all day long, while the barb can surpass him on damage a few times per day but with the drawl back of maybe dieing from damage once he leaves rage.
They cover different things.
+1 This...
Having an extra feat at level 1 is pretty major. For example, for a ranged build it allows you to take Precise Shot (a +4 to hit against targets in melee is pretty major), or allows Cleave or both two weapon fighting and two weapon defense for your melee type. Throw in Power Attack as your second feat (or third if you're human) and you're already more flexible in combat the barbarian.
Barbarians are fun, and are powerhouses at level 1, but fighters are certainly not "redundant" and more-so aren't "pathetic".
Two Weapon Fighting plus Double Slice at level 1 and you out-damage that barbarian with his greatsword, or at least match him if he's raging.
Use something like two short-swords, because you can gain the advantages of Weapon Specialisation and Weapon Training twice...
How so? I'm a big fan of TWF so I'd be interested to see where you found this. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.
Use something like two short-swords, because you can gain the advantages of Weapon Specialisation and Weapon Training twice...How so? I'm a big fan of TWF so I'd be interested to see where you found this. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.
It counts for each weapon, unlike say a longsword /short sword combo you would only get to use the feats on one weapon, or take the feats once per weapon.
Ahh, I see where you're going. I was misreading it as doubling the bonus not from using the weapon in each hand.
Exactly so. If you have Weapon Focus & Weapon Specialisation (short sword) and Weapon Training (light swords) by 5th level you have +2 to hit and +3 damage with each sword. Do the same with a greatsword and you only get that +3 damage once and not twice. Double Slice means you get to add your full strength bonus to both attacks, also a 1/3 increase over using a two-handed weapon.