...am I missing something key here.A year of discussion and the search function of this website, perhaps? Sarcasm aside, my PCs are hitting level 7 and the party fighter remains dominant in combat.
After actually reading the ENTIRE OP, reading something like that makes me want to hurt some one.
I have to say, that in every way, except maybe skills, a fighter is better at doing anything a barbarian can do. Yeah barbarians have a ton of hit points, but that means nothing with the lack of heavy armor, even mithral, and the negative to AC via their rage ability.
To be fair, Barbarians got the shaft in the Pathfinder updates from 3.5
Isn't the cleric and wizard helping protect the Fighter. You're creating a team not just one character. Fighter does damage and takes damage, spellcasters protect nonspellcasters from magic.
+1
that is the Point, you are åart of a team, the classes wasent compared to match each other in a way like, "my wizard can kill your fighter".
actually the fighter in the game where i play is complaning the class is to powerfull. he hits on almost every attack and deals out s@*# loads of dmg with his 2 weapon attacks.
in many battle the fighter and me (beeing a barbarian) dominates the battles.
shure we can complaine about the weak will safe, but the spellcasters usually complain about low fort safe and low CMD...
Up to +5 to attack and damage, Increases in armor's Max Dex, improved movement with medium and heavy armors, bonuses to fear saves, bonuses for weapon groups.
Improved feat chains, powerful new feats for high level characters, new exclusive feats for fighters, a nice Skill Focus feat you can take to waste your "useless and excesive" feats in order to improve your poor skills (and now, Traits, that allow you to have nice bonuses to some skills using one feat). Bonuses to CMD against disarming. DR at high levels.
Maneuvers are still useful, I don't know what is the OP talking about.
In order to ignore the aid of other players It only needs Fly (potions ftw) and Spell Resistance IMO.
(i.e. he'll never be able to fight anything on level with him passed like 7, because they never attack AC.)
?????????
|
cant people just play the damn game? why does it always have to be "class x sucks cuz when i min/max it, it does 6 less damage than a min/maxed class y" i'm really tired of all this "thats broken" and "thats weak" and "thats not balanced" The devs are people and the game is complicated and has to be interesting! perfect balance is impossible!
+2
|
Have to agree with Zurai here, Fighter is not the only class with crap will saves. You have 12 feats by 12th level. Iron will and improved iron will and do not dump wisdom. Hell fighter has the feats to spend and still invest heavy in what he does..damage
I was playing a fighter. I went for Strength, Dex and Con, and yes, I dumped the Wis and Cha. I had items boosting my saves, had a cohort who constantly put pro vs. evil on it, had a ring that gave +4 vs fear saves, etc. etc. etc. My guy was prepared. But when you hit level 12+, you encounter things like banshees that yell and force you to make DC 30+ will saves or you die. Don't get me wrong: at low and mid levels I loved playing my fighter, but I warn you that you won't have a good time at high levels. You'll spend a lot of games in panic mode, or sleeping, or held personed, etc. High level play is paladin time baby!
|
|
RP = Character issues
G = Effectiveness issuesI'm going to throw out a wild suggestion that's against my better judgement but here goes: how effective a character is in a given campaign should never be a concern of the player. There are two components to a roleplaying game and while the overall concept and individual build choices belong to the player, managing balance and character effectiveness should be the GM's responsibility, not the player's. The GM is there to run the world and keep things fun for everyone. The strings and cogs are for him to worry about. The player should play a character he likes and if his choices are less effective than necessary to enjoy the game, that's for the GM to fix, either by rebalancing things or advising the player. Most games assume a mixed party of average characters, which is a lot easier to challenge than a group of characters with the highest damage output possible, the highest saves, every knowledge skill, etc.
Some players will refuse all options they consider inferior. This is just a fact of gaming. I'm not proposing those players force themselves to play something they don't like. What I'm saying is that focusing too much on the game mechanics might be to the exclusion of the other component and while there may be GMs that love grinding out battle after battle and keeping all the gears turning just to watch the players "win", but most of them deal with all the grueling mechanical details and put in the prep time because they enjoy watching the players PLAY.
Thank you for your time. The Rabbit Season/Duck Season debates may resume.
My thoughts exactly. I have been gaming for 22 years now and moved beyond the need to optimize characters. I don't mind playing a hulking dumb fighter with Profession: cook ranks, and I'm glad he survived that long. When he died the fellow PCs wanted to bring him back from the dead (if only for the good meals he prepared between combats) but the cleric's divinations revealed that his soul was happy basking in Desna's glow and that it would refuse to come back from the dead if called upon... Bottom line: I had a lot of fun at low and medium levels, but yes, when he got close to the high level zone, whether this was through constant targeting by the DM or via the nature of high level play in itself, I was lucky if I could get to the enemies for a round or two during each fight due to some kind of condition or failed save, whereas a paladin can be right in the big boss' face for 90% of the combat and be effective.
So barbarian, ranger and rogue are also broken. They need to do the same thing, yet have far, far less feats to do so.My reply is that going from all good saves (AD&D) to one good save was one of the biggest nerfs to the Fighter class, and if blowing 2 feats is REQUIRED for any class to keep you effective, then a strong will save should just be part of the class.
==Aelryinth
The barbarian gets his will save when he rages. Cost, 0.
The Ranger gets a good Reflex save. That's his tradeoff...and wis is one of his higher reqs.The Rogue gets slippery mind..effectively two chances to save. Feat cost, 0.
So, no, none of those examples work AT ALL. The Bravery bonus is a joke (it doesn't even match a strong will save), adn the Iron Will feats are GENERAL feats, not COMBAT feats...so the fighter gets nothing from his class to help his saves.
Period. That's not good at all. And as the class that went from best saves to one good, that's really a kick in the teeth.
===Aelryinth
TOB only allowed you to better use standard actions by layering status effects and such on top of them. PF has given us this now- feats like Dazing Assault, Deadly Stroke, Conrugan Smash, and class abilities like piledriver allow fighters (and some other classes) to layer extra damage or status effects on standard and full attacks.
A fighter is very unlikely to miss on a Dazing assault with Furious Focus on.He only needs to connect once to force the save and better than TOB- he can do it EVERY round without 'recharge' mechanics.
TOB allowed you to do full round dmg on standard actions.
It allowed you to do status effects...BEFORE level 15.It let you get rid of hostile conditions.
It gave you access to healing.
It increased your movement capabilities and options.
It rewarded you for having Intelligence and being a Fighter.
It let you get a Wis bonus...in armor!
it let you set your own saves without dependence on magic.
It gave you the ability to buff yourself with specific effects...without using magic, or that magic could not duplicate.
Yeah, TOB gave you a lot of good stuff.
==Aelryinth
There need to be feats which have Int as a prereq and give Fighters abilities similar to the abilities a 4e Warlord or 3x Marshal are known for.
There are. It's called the White Raven school from ToB! :)
==Aelryinth
Duck season!
|
|
Duck season!
Oh, I don't know. I think the fighter is supposed to be vanilla. There needs to be at least one class where new players can just hop in and play something that's only complicated if you want it to be. Most players Ive had with girlfriends who wanted to sit in end up playing fighters. All they need to understand at first are the core mechanics of attack and save. A more advanced player will go for other fighter options, like improved combat maneuvers and stuff, but if all fighters were like barbarian or rogue or even those god awfully complicated TOB classes, it would be daunting for someone new to roleplaying games. Let the fighter stay vanilla. It's a hard job but necessary and as others have pointed out, the fighter is hardly an NPC class in terms of power.
Obvious troll is obvious.
A 10th level TOB class could wipe the floor with two level 12 3.5 fighters...
No, actually, it couldn't. Warblades, Crusaders, and Swordsages didn't have half the potential damage of a 3.5 fighter. Hello, Leap Attack-Shock Trooper-Power Attack. The best a Warblade can do is Raging Mongoose + Time Stands Still, which still pales in comparison to the 1000+ damage charge a non-ToB character can get.
Obvious troll is obvious.He posted something else somewhere that wasn't as Trollish, so it's possible this was a genuine question...my moneys still on mustache-twirling though.
I dunno, dude. I read the OP and all I could think was "this is horrendously erroneous flame-bait that has been clogging up the boards since alpha." Sounds trolly to me.
EDIT: Incorrect spelling.
This. Ideally. and there's the whole "Want to stay relevant? Read a book!" approach.
I guess there's just, dunno, a need for an 'advanced' fighter.
You mean like Barbarian, Ranger, Monk, Paladin, or Cavalier?
Seriously, the clases seem to boil down to "I wanna hit sh#t really hard." "Awesome, you're a Fighter." "But I also wanna do something groovy and specialized." "Ok, go ahead and look at these other classes."
They're all effective at what they do, but when your sctick is fighting, fighter is the best.
My Fighters are pretty awesome in the games I've played them in. I'm with some of the others in that the (well built) Fighter does seem to dominate combats for the majority of the game, especially with the right magic items. I don't see that it needs to be "fixed".
*is having an extremely hard time pointing out how ridiculously op TOB was compared to standard 3.5 characters at the time.*
A 10th level TOB class could wipe the floor with two level 12 3.5 fighters...
That's not because of the ToB class being super powerful, it's because the Core 3.5 fighter was hilariously pathetic.
Fun fact - pound for pound, a PF Fighter will outdamage a warblade.
On the other hand, the warblade will have fun maneuvering around the battlefield, doing different things each round, acting like an actual martial warrior would, and improving his skills, talents, and techniques.
Every fighting class and warrior school in every culture in every era had fighting techniques and formalized moves. Warblade give you that.
After actually reading the ENTIRE OP, reading something like that makes me want to hurt some one....am I missing something key here.A year of discussion and the search function of this website, perhaps? Sarcasm aside, my PCs are hitting level 7 and the party fighter remains dominant in combat.
Only because you're reading something into it that isn't there.
Zo
The Mobile Fighter archtype has got to be one of my favorites in thw entire APG, no doubt.
Right now, the two-weapon fighter, going for scimitars and the critical effects feat tree for me.
Duck Season!
I have to say, that in every way, except maybe skills, a fighter is better at doing anything a barbarian can do. Yeah barbarians have a ton of hit points, but that means nothing with the lack of heavy armor, even mithral, and the negative to AC via their rage ability.Tough call now with APG powers- I posted a build in a barb thread over in advisethat had pounce, an AC of 40, and stands equal or better in terms of soaking damage and saves and will rerolls. DPR was around fighter levels.
But it isn't till level 10, and you end up spending 2-3 (can't remember exactly) other powers that have nothing to do with most barbarian builds.
I was playing a fighter. I went for Strength, Dex and Con, and yes, I dumped the Wis and Cha. I had items boosting my saves, had a cohort who constantly put pro vs. evil on it, had a ring that gave +4 vs fear saves, etc. etc. etc. My guy was prepared. But when you hit level 12+, you encounter things like banshees that yell and force you to make DC 30+ will saves or you die.
That doesn't sound like a problem with the fighter and sounds more like a problem with a creature having a save or die effect that is too powerful.
[sarcasm]I love threads like this[/sarcasm]
Ok, this whole argument is silly. And a majority of you realize it. +1 to you guys.
People shouldn't play classes because they are "ULTRA UBER AND DO ZOMG TONS OF DAMAGE!!!", they should play them because they have an interesting concept they want to see (OMG IS HE SUGGESTING NON-OPTIMIZED CHARACTERS!! MY BLEEDING EARS!!!). Fighters have always been the great because they have the largest toolbox to utilize. You want a ranged combat specialist that doesn't suck in melee, Fighter is an excellent choice. Do you want a two weapon whirling death machine? Fighter is an excellent choice. Do you want a sword and board guy who protects his fellow party members? Fighter is an excellent choice. Do you want a guy who deals massive amounts of melee damage? Fighter is an excellent choice. And the great thing about the pathfinder system is that no two of these choices have to be the same like in 3.5.
Also, I believe that weaknesses make the character. Characters with no weaknesses are boring to play. The DM might as well say you have killed everything and call it an early night.
Lastly, +1 million to this guy.
Isn't the cleric and wizard helping protect the Fighter. You're creating a team not just one character. Fighter does damage and takes damage, spellcasters protect nonspellcasters from magic.
Seriously. This game is a team sport. Get it out of your head that you have to be the end all be all to every situation that arises. It may seem like the spellcasters are the penultimate at everything but it takes a while for them to get there and they are nothing without melee classes. A wizard without a tank, and healer is a very dead wizard indeed.
|
I think the problem with the fighter isn't his will save or anything else that's been mentioned so far in this thread. It's that he's really got nothing to do outside of combat.
The fighter needs skills.
The fighter should be a master tactician who can plan -how- to storm the castle/dragon cave/monster lair.
I think that was always sort of the point behind the Marshal Class. It was someone trading combat prowess for more skills/tactics/leadership training . That said, it might now hurt to have a 'Marshal' Archetype that trades something out (perhaps a feat or two here and there or a Weapon Mastery feature) in exchange for more skill points or some buffing abilities akin to said core class. In fact, I'd really like to see it in the future, now that I mention it.
However...
Nothing in fighter's current setup, short of perhaps giving him penalty modifiers in his mental attributes, keeps you the player from role-playing him in way that makes him that tactician. Fight smart, plan ahead, work with your fellow players/PCs on group tactics. Be a leader in how you play the character. Don't ask the system to do it for you.
|
|
paladin (...) being gay
That's certainly a problem for many. They must be educated, and in many cases redeemed from their wrong views.
Fortunately, the Dawnflower never considered this a sin, and I can also still smite with the best of them. I can't help but feel confident that my view of the matter is deemed right and lawful by gods and the multiverse itself because of that.