It's ironic how it's always the fighter who gets his mind control, when in stories it's more often the foolish wizard who is being controlled by some mastermind.
Anyway, in my opinion, to be fair to fighters (both mechanically and in flavor), they should either get some sort of indomitable will at level 10, or get it in a feat, which basically allows them to add their Con or Str to their Will save or something. (Perhaps with a small Int prereq)
Otherwise you have these heavy hitters being built up only to get turned into tools of the enemy after they reach 10th level. Also I never did understand why a Fighter is more easily affected by Fear than a Wizard.
If you want the General, trade in the Brute. Instead of trying to be uber strength, put some points back in Int and you'll have skill points to diversify.Most Generals however aren't known for skills outside of battle. The most successful ones however are good at hiring expert enginneers and tacticians to come up with plans for him to approve. Generals need to be leaders, not PhDs.
How much do you need really? Some tactical knowledge (1 knowledge skill), some commandeering (Intimidate and/or Diplomacy), and sense motive to read your enemy.
That's 3-4. Fighters get 2+int. So you need int 12-14 (or less if you are a human or use your favoured class bonus for HP).
If you want to be a general (and don't want to go cavalier), you should be that smart, anyway.
So you could say the small number of skill points the class makes sense, since it forces you to put int into it if you want to be a general, and generals should have smarts.
Beyond that I have to say that fighters can more than pull their own weight. They're fighters. They fight. Other classes are there for other things. Fighters hurt, kill, damage, destroy, defeat, protect and defend. They do so with the application of martial prowess. They are not really trained for anything else, but their training in their area of expertise is second to none.
What other classes could or couldn't do is not really relevant - it depends a lot on circumstances.
Mr. Fishy played a game with a barbarian/rogue/ranger, a wizard, a rogue[Mr. Fishy], a cleric, a paladin and Mr. Fishy's trollop was the FIGHTER!
We were attacked by a pair of flying invisible megalodons [long story] Mr. Fishy's trollop killed one of the horrible beast single handedly, then helped the rest of the party who where fighting the other one for your lives.
Mr. Fishy was so proud...Mr. Fishy's trollop PWNED that Giant shark from hell. Mr. Fishy bled.
|
Out of context, duod. I said "being gay AND likking Deth metal."
Totally different.
Oh. So a paladin can do either, but not both? A gay paladin is okay, a paladin who likes death metal is okay, but a gay paladin who likes death metal isn't.
What about, say, a gay fighter who likes death metal? Is that okay again?
This seems to be a very complex issue.
What is death metal, anyway.
*listens to some*
Oh. I say. Can't say I'm too fond of that. I suspect the lyrics are satanic - I would be sure if I could understand any of this. That woman sure does not sing with a voice like ambrosia!
Mr. Fishy played a game with a barbarian/rogue/ranger, a wizard, a rogue[Mr. Fishy], a cleric, a paladin and Mr. Fishy's trollop was the FIGHTER!
We were attacked by a pair of flying invisible megalodons [long story] Mr. Fishy's trollop killed one of the horrible beast single handedly, then helped the rest of the party who where fighting the other one for your lives.
Mr. Fishy was so proud...Mr. Fishy's trollop PWNED that Giant shark from hell. Mr. Fishy bled.
Outstanding. No part of this story sounds boring. I don't know if it's true or if you're lying through your teeth, but I don't really care - flying super sharks are great. Only tyrannosaurs in F-14s can top that.
|
Out of context, duod. I said "being gay AND likking Deth metal."
Totally different.Oh. So a paladin can do either, but not both? A gay paladin is okay, a paladin who likes death metal is okay, but a gay paladin who likes death metal isn't.
What about, say, a gay fighter who likes death metal? Is that okay again?
This seems to be a very complex issue.
What is death metal, anyway.
*listens to some*
Oh. I say. Can't say I'm too fond of that. I suspect the lyrics are satanic - I would be sure if I could understand any of this. That woman sure does not sing with a voice like ambrosia!
That's Evanescence, not detth metl.
Only gay oracles that are deaf can listen to detth metl.
It's ironic how it's always the fighter who gets his mind control, when in stories it's more often the foolish wizard who is being controlled by some mastermind.
Actually the wizard usually controls kings and men that are depicted as fighters or barbarians. Then the evil wizard is controlled by a mastermind, due to the classic hunger for power and because the mastermind is a demigod, another wizard or cleric of higher level, an intelligent item with a +4 bonus to DC against evil characters, or another weird thing.
Also I never did understand why a Fighter is more easily affected by Fear than a Wizard.
It goes better in Pathfinder, Bravery gives you almost the same save as a Wizard, altough it stinks at low levels (redesigning how this feature works would prolly make sense)
I agree that Pathfinder, being a game that gives options, should have an expanded offer of feats that improve your will and reflex saves, I love options.
It's ironic how it's always the fighter who gets his mind control, when in stories it's more often the foolish wizard who is being controlled by some mastermind.
It's funny if depressing. Fighters in 2e had some of the best saves. Now in 3e they have the worst.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
It's ironic how it's always the fighter who gets his mind control, when in stories it's more often the foolish wizard who is being controlled by some mastermind.It's funny if depressing. Fighters in 2e had some of the best saves. Now in 3e they have the worst.
That's not entirely true. Their saves in 1st and 2nd stunk at low levels. They didn't become the kings of saving throws until double digit levels.
I think we can all admit in every edition of the game fighters started lagging behind the other classes usually around level 7 or 8 (except 4e). But, I think the pathfinder fighter is just a far better fighter then previous versions being viable up to level 20 due to his tremendous damage output, but he is still vulnerable to saves or sucks, making him feel like a glass cannon at times.
I'm all for spicing up the fighter a bit, and I personally love the arms master approach the fighter gets in pathfinder, but he does need some way to simply shake off effects that other classes would be disabled by. To me this is what fighters should do, when the stakes are high they he pulls through. But, I'm not much of a fan of the TOB, and I like that pathfinder essentially gives you combat maneuvers in the form of feats.
The fighter has come a long way, but he still needs that extra something to really make him shine.
That's not entirely true. Their saves in 1st and 2nd stunk at low levels. They didn't become the kings of saving throws until double digit levels.It's ironic how it's always the fighter who gets his mind control, when in stories it's more often the foolish wizard who is being controlled by some mastermind.It's funny if depressing. Fighters in 2e had some of the best saves. Now in 3e they have the worst.
The same was true in BECMI/RC D&D.
I've just opened my old and cranky Rules Cyclopedia. Saves of the Fighter (in BECMI, like in AD&D, the lower the better) were practically the same as all the other classes - there were some differences here and there (Fighters were better at 'Dragon Breath', Clerics were slightly better at 'Death Ray and Poison' and 'Magic Wands', Thieves were better at 'Paralysis and Turn to Stone', while Magic Users were the worst, since their saves improved only every 5 levels and their XP table was the slowest - Demihumans excluded), but the greatest difference was the fact that Saves were level based... but classes had different XP tables (and the Fighter was not the fastest, either).
With the same XP (1.500.000), a Cleric was 22th level, a Fighter 19th level, a Thief 20th and a Magic User 17th... and the best saves (although by few points) were those of the Cleric (the Magic User was the worst, being of lowest level, and Fighter and Thief were basically even - with a slight advantage to the Thief).
EDIT: and regarding saves in 3.x/Pathfinder; people sometimes seem to forget that a Base Good Save is not so much better than a Base Bad Save. Over 20 levels the difference is 6 points (2 or 3 points at low levels), which is something but not huge. Now, if we consider high Wisdom characters like Cleric, Druids and Monks (and thanks to Charisma, Paladins), the difference truly becomes quite huge. Wizards, Sorcerers and Bards however are NOT usually high-Wisdom characters - if they do not invest something in their Will save, they won't end so much better than the Fighter (moreover, sometimes these classes put Wisdom as a dump state for roleplay - the bookworm Wizard, the reckless Sorcerer, the carefree Bard - and this harms them just like having a Bad Will Save).
A Fighter 12th has a Base Will Save of +4; a Wizard 12th has a Base Will Save of +8. Without magic items, feats, or a good Wisdom score, even the Wizard is not sure about succeeding on mind-affecting spells (quite the opposite, I might add); a Wizard 12th with low Wisdom (8), no feats and no Cloak of Resistance has only +7 on his Will save... and a Confusion spell cast by a non-specialized 20 Int enemy Wizard (a low score for that level) has still a DC 19 (again, this enemy Wizard has an average Int for this level, and no Feats to improve the DC of his spell), meaning that our 'Base Will= Good' character still has to roll a 12+ to avoid the effect of the spell...
OP, other people covered several points. About combat maneuvers, rememebr that now every bonus to "hit" goes to the CMB. If you play smart, an/or are well buffed, you are likely to succeed. Be sure of taking every advantage. Open with a maneuver is a good idea, because you can face a "debuffed" enemy and take advantage of the +2 bonus from the charge.
To add to this, bonus fighter gets fom weapon training can be used for maneuvers, as well as enhancement bonus from weapons (these two, if the weapon is used for a maneuver like disarm, trip or sunder).
Low will saves means that fighter's resources must be invested a little bit on will defenses, your choice by feats or items. That' all. Stop with this OP, broken, and stuff.
Remember that the party casters duty is to save fighter mind, in the same way fighter's duty is to save party member's **s, taking blows in their place.
At very high level, few items against mind controls or that pimp will saves, and a fly/teleport item are enough to support a well played fighter. (Barring combat equip) Party buffs just increase his letality. One could say that at high level their item dependency is high, but it's the same for every PC and not for every challenge.
Remember that pathfinder added options to deliver significant blows after a move, so you can deal a reasonable amount of damage without being stuck with a full attack. A critical Deadly Stroke or a Devastating Blow (see APG) are SCARY.
Move and strike can be enough. If you rushed an enemy in a position good for the rogue to flank, and away from the caster, who cares if you didn't get a full attack?
Finally, remember to use the right tools for the right job. If you are a melee specialist, it does not mean you can't use your high BAB and tremendous strenght with a bow.
I'm sorry, but even in other boards I've seen people post about fighter and full attacks and stuff, but after a while I realized they even tried to play a fighter properly.
This does not mean that things can be improved - I have my ideas about how feats should scale - but Pathfinder fighter is a great class, good for pure damage, and/or smart combat, with a vast array of weapons.
OP, other people covered several points. About combat maneuvers, rememebr that now every bonus to "hit" goes to the CMB. If you play smart, an/or are well buffed, you are likely to succeed. Be sure of taking every advantage. Open with a maneuver is a good idea, because you can face a "debuffed" enemy and take advantage of the +2 bonus from the charge.
To add to this, bonus fighter gets fom weapon training can be used for maneuvers, as well as enhancement bonus from weapons (these two, if the weapon is used for a maneuver like disarm, trip or sunder).
Low will saves means that fighter's resources must be invested a little bit on will defenses, your choice by feats or items. That' all. Stop with this OP, broken, and stuff.
Remember that the party casters duty is to save fighter mind, in the same way fighter's duty is to save party member's **s, taking blows in their place.
At very high level, few items against mind controls or that pimp will saves, and a fly/teleport item are enough to support a well played fighter. (Barring combat equip) Party buffs just increase his letality. One could say that at high level their item dependency is high, but it's the same for every PC and not for every challenge.
Remember that pathfinder added options to deliver significant blows after a move, so you can deal a reasonable amount of damage without being stuck with a full attack. A critical Deadly Stroke or a Devastating Blow (see APG) are SCARY.
Move and strike can be enough. If you rushed an enemy in a position good for the rogue to flank, and away from the caster, who cares if you didn't get a full attack?
Finally, remember to use the right tools for the right job. If you are a melee specialist, it does not mean you can't use your high BAB and tremendous strenght with a bow.
I'm sorry, but even in other boards I've seen people post about fighter and full attacks and stuff, but after a while I realized they even tried to play a fighter properly.
This does not mean that things can be improved - I have...
Aha, 3x3 Eyes. now i remember.
Eheh, correct. There, in the manga/anime, Kaiyanwang is an example of powergamer.
How else could you call someone that takes as Wu a DRAGON? :P
"Paladin season!"
Looks around
"Wait, sorry wrong thread."
Eheh, correct. There, in the manga/anime, Kaiyanwang is an example of powergamer.
How else could you call someone that takes as Wu a DRAGON? :P
Yep yep. It'd just been a while since i read that one. The memory gears were rusty!
Wait 'till your PCs get to 12 then... and come talk to me again. I agree with the OP: I used to be with the "fighters are great" crowd until I played one, and with a Will save of +4 at level 12... you can guess what happened to the guy EVERY game... :(...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.
Zo
12th level Party right here. Four full casters. Guess who we all end up building our turns around? Yeah. The fighter.
|
|
Sorry guys, I just can't agree with anybody who says that fighters stink or that they need more power. Fighters are just as capable of dominating a game as are wizards, clerics, druids, rogues, etc., and this is primarily not a balance issue. This is a player skill issue.
A skilled player can dominate any game. If the most skilled player in the group happens to be playing a wizard (and they often do), then the wizard will dominate the game. But if the skilled player is playing a fighter, then the fighter will dominate the game.
Sure, fighters have two crappy saves and only one good one. But the same is true of the rogue and the wizard, which are the other really old classes in D&D. Of the big four (fighter, thief, magic-user, and cleric), only the cleric is really good at saves, and even the cleric has a glaring weakness (no reflex and little reason to have a good Dex). All the classes that are really, really good at saves came later, and they have given up some pretty awesome powers to do so. Fighters have two bad saves, but they have good reasons to take a high Dex and a half-decent Wis.
If you're really worried about saves, though, you should probably be playing the race that was meant to resist magic - the dwarf. Dwarves rock at resisting magic.
If your fighter simply has a terrible save, ask one of the casters to buff it. Prepare well for encounters. Ambush enemy casters. Be smart. Cloaks of Resistance are cheap. Abjuration magic is even cheaper.
One thing I love about playing a fighter (or rogue, or fighter/rogue) is that anything a fighter can do, he can do all day. He doesn't have to shepherd his spells, or conserve his energy for the big boss. He is free to think about strategy and how to defeat the enemy. And he can deal lots and lots of damage. As long as his hit points are above zero, there's a chance he can win the fight.
The fighter may have some lower maximums than, say, a transmuter, who can turn into a giant, add Bull's Strength, and then cast a Transformation. But that takes time, and unless the wizard is using Time Stop, the fighter will have Great Cleaved his way through half the battlefield already.
And even if the Wizard does use a Time Stop and gets a ton of amazing buffs, there's still a potent counter - Greater Dispel, or maybe Anti-Magic Field. This will hurt a fighter, too, because of all that magical gear, but he can still trip, wrestle, punch, and eye-gouge his opponents into submission. Wizards under the same effects can face uselessness.
On paper, it looks like wizards should dominate the game entirely. They have access to powers that fighters do not. And if the wizard has time to prepare, a 20th-level wizard can kick the ass of pretty much any other 20th-level class. But the fighter is good to go all the time, and can't be completely defeated by something as silly as an Anti-Magic Field. And if you surprise a fighter, he's still got a chance at kicking your butt.
I will agree that by the book, it looks like the wizard should be better than the fighter. But in real live play, it doesn't work out that way. Just go play, have fun, and kick ass. If your character isn't dominating the game, then somebody else at the table is probably just better at doing so than you are - there's no shame in this. As long as you're working as a team, a little competition can be fun. Fight smarter.
Jeez, this was long. Go play Pathfinder.
"Elf season"
"Elf season"
*points gun at self*
Rabbit Season! Fire!
Sorry guys, I just can't agree with anybody who says that fighters stink or that they need more power. Fighters are just as capable of dominating a game as are wizards, clerics, druids, rogues, etc., and this is primarily not a balance issue. This is a player skill issue.
Player skill matters, but putting the fighter on par with the casters is nonsense. I can dominate a game much more easily with a caster than a fighter, so to say "just as easily" is the wrong choice of words.
|
|
Nonsense? I think not. The dominance of a powerful caster is expendable - it might be easy for one or two encounters, but all ten? Probably not. The dominance of a fighter is unwavering. Perhaps slightly harder every encounter, but no harder on the tenth as it was on the first.
On average, I find them to be comparable.
How much do you need really? Some tactical knowledge (1 knowledge skill), some commandeering (Intimidate and/or Diplomacy), and sense motive to read your enemy.
That's 3-4. Fighters get 2+int. So you need int 12-14 (or less if you are a human or use your favoured class bonus for HP).
If you want to be a general (and don't want to go cavalier), you should be that smart, anyway.
So you could say the small number of skill points the class makes sense, since it forces you to put int into it if you want to be a general, and generals should have smarts.
And let's not forget certain feat chains which require INT 13. ^^
Yep yep. It'd just been a while since i read that one. The memory gears were rusty!Eheh, correct. There, in the manga/anime, Kaiyanwang is an example of powergamer.
How else could you call someone that takes as Wu a DRAGON? :P
Loved the series (but 15 years to wait in order to have it fully imported and translated here in Italy... with a full reprint from the beginning at half publication, which halted the story progression... man, how I hated to wait for reading the final...), for some reasons the translators however called Shiva 'GUI Yan Wang' so it was almost impossible for me to catch the reference (and I'm a Manga geek ;) )...
And Benares was a real 'beast' (I hated him sooooo much... always came back, and every time it seemed more powerful than ever...).
Loved the series (but 15 years to wait in order to have it fully imported and translated here in Italy... with a full reprint from the beginning at half publication, which halted the story progression... man, how I hated to wait for reading the final...), for some reasons the translators however called Shiva 'GUI Yan Wang' so it was almost impossible for me to catch the reference (and I'm a Manga geek ;) )...
And Benares was a real 'beast' (I hated him sooooo much... always came back, and every time it seemed more powerful than ever...).
I know the story of Italian version very well.. I'm Italian too :) nice to see another one around here. In an italian board my avatar name is actually Gui Yan Wang.
I somewhat loved Benares. He loved combat above else, and even if he's a complete monster, somewhat showns some simpathy for yakumo. Great manga.
More on topic: Triomegazero, I can speak for what I have seen in my campaigns.. a lot of enemies are immune to everything, so if the party use wisely spells and buffs to make the fighter his living weapon, it comes out as a very good use of resources. A debuff, a buff, a control, and starts the slaughter.
If taken by surprise, the fighter is ready to act and let the casters react. I agree with wraithstrike - magic is powerful and casters DO have more exploits. But, at least in my experience, fighter are very good party members because fit very well in the party buff/readyness interactions.
"Elf season"*points gun at self*
Rabbit Season! Fire!
*pulls trigger*
Outstanding. No part of this story sounds boring. I don't know if it's true or if you're lying through your teeth, but I don't really care - flying super sharks are great. Only tyrannosaurs in F-14s can top that.
Its true and flying super sharks are not great! they do a metric ass ton of damage in the "surprise round" and with AoO and with their regular attacks and their swallow hole ability...flying sharks suck!
Outstanding. No part of this story sounds boring. I don't know if it's true or if you're lying through your teeth, but I don't really care - flying super sharks are great. Only tyrannosaurs in F-14s can top that.Mr. Fishy played a game with a barbarian/rogue/ranger, a wizard, a rogue[Mr. Fishy], a cleric, a paladin and Mr. Fishy's trollop was the FIGHTER!
We were attacked by a pair of flying invisible megalodons [long story] Mr. Fishy's trollop killed one of the horrible beast single handedly, then helped the rest of the party who where fighting the other one for your lives.
Mr. Fishy was so proud...Mr. Fishy's trollop PWNED that Giant shark from hell. Mr. Fishy bled.
its true, o my, its been years sense i've seen that comic!
Player skill matters, but putting the fighter on par with the casters is nonsense. I can dominate a game much more easily with a caster than a fighter, so to say "just as easily" is the wrong choice of words.Sorry guys, I just can't agree with anybody who says that fighters stink or that they need more power. Fighters are just as capable of dominating a game as are wizards, clerics, druids, rogues, etc., and this is primarily not a balance issue. This is a player skill issue.
And I can dominate certain types of game with a fighter, far more easily than I can a wizard. I.E.Long adventure days, with numerous intelligent threats using hit and run tactic. Why? Because Spells run out and swords don't
And other kinds the rogue and bard put to bed with far less effort than a wizard. I.E. Skill and social based, character driven urban adventures, especially if you have small party size, low limited healing and long adventure days.
Here's my take:
The problem with wizard Vs. fighter lies in their definitions. A D&D wizard (or any spellcaster, really) is pretty much somebody who manipulates reality by studying and talking. A fighter is a dude with a sword. And, really, since second Edition (never played 1st) the game has suffered from the fact that these two characters have no business on the same field of battle. It isn't like Buffy, where it's one uber witch and one warrior mystically imbued with superhuman strength. And it isn't like exalted, where they're both supernatural godthings (don't know exalted that well) and one happens to use a sword.
Now, wizards of the coast tried to solve this in a couple of different ways. First they added tome of battle, which many people, myself included, didn't like. The fact is, a fighter shouldn't be making carpets of fire or icy shadow clones, because then he's not a fighter. People have also said the fighter should be like thor (comics) or hercules. But, as TOB showed us, a lot of player don't WANT their fighter to be either of those things. More power to you if you like TOB, I'm not dissing it, but it doesn't fit most people's definition of D&D, and you're no longer playing a fighter in that sense.
On the other hand, 4e tried to balance a wizard by taking away their ability to manipulate reality. They can't really fly or teleport or do this huge variety of things that D&D wizards are supposed to be able to do. Again, if you like 4e, great. But, a 4e wizard is not a wizard in the way that a 2nd, 3rd, or 3.5 wizard is. This pisses some players off. Others (me) just aren't interested in playing a wizard who works in the same framework as the fighter.
Now add to that that the fighter is generally supposed to be the simplest, newb-friendliest class, and you see the problem. Paizo couldn't 'fix' the fighter in the sense you'd like because it isn't broken. Each class does exactly what it should do while keeping the game d20. The best that paizo could do was make sure that the fighter had interesting fighter-level options (which they did by adding new, worthwhile feats) and make sure that the fighter can, as a friend of mine says, contribute meaningfully to combat (YMMV, but I think they've done this). To me, the pathfinderizing of the fighter didn't come to fruition until APG varients. Once that came out, we saw a class that had a very straightforward, simple mechanics in core then had more advanced, complex options in the the APG that allowed it to go in a variety of directions. Besides, it's better than the monk and barbarian.
Wait wait wait, so to the adventure is about deaf oracles trying to listen to gay paladins performing death metal. Why would that have it's own area on the forums?
I don't like the direction these new adventure paths are taking...
Now, wizards of the coast tried to solve this in a couple of different ways. First they added tome of battle, which many people, myself included, didn't like. The fact is, a fighter shouldn't be making carpets of fire or icy shadow clones, because then he's not a fighter. People have also said the fighter should be like thor (comics) or hercules. But, as TOB showed us, a lot of player don't WANT their fighter to be either of those things. More power to you if you like TOB, I'm not dissing it, but it doesn't fit most people's definition of D&D, and you're no longer playing a fighter in that sense.
This strikes me as a strange complaint.
The "warrior" class in ToB was the warblade. He can't make carpets of fire. He can't make icy shadow clones.
The swordsage was the "monk" class, and yeah, he could do all that. But the Core monk is clearly supernatural. Why wouldn't the ToB monk be?
I just get irritated when people talk about hating ToB then go off on things that are wrong. Warriors in ToB weren't doing supernatural things. Iron Heart was the warblade school, and it was "You're really big and tough and strong." Diamond Mind was the classic fencing style of fighting. Stone Dragon was dwarven to the max. White Raven was a callback to the 2e ideal that fighters should also be leaders. None of them were supernatural.
None of them were supernatural.
To be fair, Stone Dragon is kinda-sorta supernatural in that it has that stupid restriction where you have to be touching the ground to use any of its maneuvers.
Nonsense? I think not. The dominance of a powerful caster is expendable - it might be easy for one or two encounters, but all ten? Probably not. The dominance of a fighter is unwavering. Perhaps slightly harder every encounter, but no harder on the tenth as it was on the first.
On average, I find them to be comparable.
All ten encounters, what are you talking about? If the party has 10 fights and the caster is burned out by fight 4(the number the game is based on) then the party should lose well before fight 10.
Make a party without a fighter, and make one without a caster and the party without the caster will have a lot more issues with a lot more things.
Player skill matters, but putting the fighter on par with the casters is nonsense. I can dominate a game much more easily with a caster than a fighter, so to say "just as easily" is the wrong choice of words.Sorry guys, I just can't agree with anybody who says that fighters stink or that they need more power. Fighters are just as capable of dominating a game as are wizards, clerics, druids, rogues, etc., and this is primarily not a balance issue. This is a player skill issue.
And I can dominate certain types of game with a fighter, far more easily than I can a wizard. I.E.Long adventure days, with numerous intelligent threats using hit and run tactic. Why? Because Spells run out and swords don't
And other kinds the rogue and bard put to bed with far less effort than a wizard. I.E. Skill and social based, character driven urban adventures, especially if you have small party size, low limited healing and long adventure days.
Any class can dominate certain types of games. Swords don't run out but hit points do, and you stand up front long enough, and you will have to rest just like the caster. I am also willing to bet that without a caster to help you out that, strangely enough, your hit points start to disappear faster as the better spells become unavailable.
Note: I am not saying any one caster(why does everyone always assume wizard) can do everything. I am stopping that goalpost from being moved before it gets started. I am saying with a player of moderate to above average capability the caster brings more to the table and is less expendable.
Nonsense? I think not. The dominance of a powerful caster is expendable - it might be easy for one or two encounters, but all ten? Probably not. The dominance of a fighter is unwavering. Perhaps slightly harder every encounter, but no harder on the tenth as it was on the first.
On average, I find them to be comparable.
All ten encounters, what are you talking about? If the party has 10 fights and the caster is burned out by fight 4(the number the game is based on) then the party should lose well before fight 10.
Make a party without a fighter, and make one without a caster and the party without the caster will have a lot more issues with a lot more things.
Just as an aside, in the game I am running the party has neither a proper fighter or a proper caster. They do have a archer ranger and a blaster sorcerer. They're doing fine though. Which surprises no one more than me, TBH, but hey I'm just reporting results.
Just as an aside, in the game I am running the party has neither a proper fighter or a proper caster. They do have a archer ranger and a blaster sorcerer. They're doing fine though. Which surprises no one more than me, TBH, but hey I'm just reporting results.Nonsense? I think not. The dominance of a powerful caster is expendable - it might be easy for one or two encounters, but all ten? Probably not. The dominance of a fighter is unwavering. Perhaps slightly harder every encounter, but no harder on the tenth as it was on the first.
On average, I find them to be comparable.
All ten encounters, what are you talking about? If the party has 10 fights and the caster is burned out by fight 4(the number the game is based on) then the party should lose well before fight 10.
Make a party without a fighter, and make one without a caster and the party without the caster will have a lot more issues with a lot more things.
A blasting sorcerer still has enough spells to do utility things. If "all" his spells are blasting I would have to see the game myself to be convinced that something is not right, or there is another reason why they are succeeding.
PS: By all I really many 60% or more.
A blasting sorcerer still has enough spells to do utility things. If "all" his spells are blasting I would have to see the game myself to be convinced that something is not right, or there is another reason why they are succeeding.PS: By all I really many 60% or more.
He is a 4th level sorcerer and doesn't have too many spells known. The utility he has is out of combat utility, which wasn't really necessary. They just got through a nonstop combat session where they fought 6 encounters ranging from CR to CR+5. One character died due to a lucky crit. They do have an uber-healer though.
Player skill matters, but putting the fighter on par with the casters is nonsense. I can dominate a game much more easily with a caster than a fighter, so to say "just as easily" is the wrong choice of words.Sorry guys, I just can't agree with anybody who says that fighters stink or that they need more power. Fighters are just as capable of dominating a game as are wizards, clerics, druids, rogues, etc., and this is primarily not a balance issue. This is a player skill issue.
And I can dominate certain types of game with a fighter, far more easily than I can a wizard. I.E.Long adventure days, with numerous intelligent threats using hit and run tactic. Why? Because Spells run out and swords don't
And other kinds the rogue and bard put to bed with far less effort than a wizard. I.E. Skill and social based, character driven urban adventures, especially if you have small party size, low limited healing and long adventure days.
Any class can dominate certain types of games. Swords don't run out but hit points do, and you stand up front long enough, and you will have to rest just like the caster. I am also willing to bet that without a caster to help you out that, strangely enough, your hit points start to disappear faster as the better spells become unavailable.
Note: I am not saying any one caster(why does everyone always assume wizard) can do everything. I am stopping that goalpost from being moved before it gets started. I am saying with a player of moderate to above average capability the caster brings more to the table and is less expendable.
it's easier for a fighter to get access to healing stuff then it is for a spellcaster to get access to all-day power, however. And when you don't have a caster, you go looking for alternatives...generally magic items.
The problem with the whole all-day thing is teleport. Have your four encoutners, out of spells, time to go. This grinds a fighter to no end, because he's not ALLOWED to show his strength. Unless you put in stuff to stop this tactic, spellcasters WILL dominate at high level, because they will always have all their power to call on.
As for ToB...the warblade was a wonderfully done class that had nothing to do with supernatural. STone Dragon required you to be in contact with a solid surface, i.e. BRACED. It's not like you were hauling up earth power (until you got to that PrC, anyways). It was simply predicated on always being braced to swing. (It also made it the easiest class to take manuvers from).
The swordsage was pure eastern hoo-ha, a martial sorceror with a great bag of tricks, easily played as buddhist pacificst who could throw you into the next county, ninja assassin, crazy flame-fisted warrior, or precise, scientific duelist.
Teh Crusader? His THEME was right, but mixing manuvers and divine stuff turned me right off to the class. Never much got into it.
==Aelryinth
Actually, the only thing strange of the crusader was divine spirit, but in the sense that made healing (ex). If Divine Spirit school heals were (su), I really can't find problems with the class.
Barring the infamous interpretation of IHS, was a fine book.
I like more a warrior without "cooldowns" like the fighter, but the ToB classes were nice and multiclassed VERY well with non-ToB combatants.
Overall, what Aelryinth and Cirno said. Yeah, you read it right - I agree with Cirno ;)
STone Dragon required you to be in contact with a solid surface, i.e. BRACED. It's not like you were hauling up earth power (until you got to that PrC, anyways). It was simply predicated on always being braced to swing.
Incorrect. From the Stone Dragon entry in Tome of Battle:
Unlike with other disciplines, adepts of this school rely on an external force -- the power of earth and stone -- to help power their maneuvers. As a result, Stone Dragon maneuvers can be initiated only if you are in contact with the ground.