@Kolokotroni: No, he wishes he could do what Tony can do, there is nothing in Pathfinder that lets you fly at mach, much less the mach 2+ the Iron Man suit is capable of.
Well obviously there are some differences, tony stark uses technology, there is only magic in dnd, but yea, the 20th level wizard doesnt wish anything, except when he casts wish ofc.
The wizard can actually move at about mach 3000(actually mach 3125) since he can teleport 2000 miles in approximately 3 seconds.
@Tacticslion: Yes, they can make magic items, but only one type. Tony simply builds too many types of items and again: his inventions aren't magic.
He's not a caster, but he can fake being a caster well enough, that he's basically a techno-wizard, he also doesn't share the weakness of wizards: anti-magic.
Not really, Tony can drink Reed Richards under the table, and he has more people skills. Tony is also a better fighter. In the few alternate realities in which Tony was married, he also treated his wife a lot better than Reed has ever treated Sue.
The important bit is that Pathfinder doesn't compare well to super-heroes, especially not the high-end of super-heroes, you will never see someone moving planets in Pathfinder.
@Kolokotroni: I'm not going to try to calculate the speed of teleporting across the galaxy with a single step, but I can pretty much guarantee it's faster than mach 3000. Yes, you can do the same, inaccurately, but it takes you two standard actions, it takes him one move action, and his is more accurate.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
According to literature/film, every PC gets the "Protagonist" template which includes the Iron Will feat, among other things.
Of course, if we consider literature/film, the fighter should have a Will save with a good progression.
Also real life: most fighters have a case of the stubborn, weak-willed individuals are weeded out, and high level fighters tend to be trained against torture techniques.
Of course, if we consider literature/film, the fighter should have a Will save with a good progression.I agree there... that +1 vs fear thing just doesnt cut it.
well that gets to the whole all classes should get minimum 4 skill points and 2 good saves argument we see around here.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One iconic Fighter not mentioned so far is Boromir.
He's charismatic, but still a bit of an ass. He is weak willed, trying to get teh ring from Frodo. And his shining moment is killing a large bunch of Orcs before being cut down by an archer fighter with Deadly Aim.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff re: Tony and Reed
Look, I like Stark, but he's not god. Reed Richards effectively is, and just doesn't know it. Earth X: he imitated Charles Xavier's powers by bending his brain into the proper shape. His son can reshape realities. His grandson has a literally infinite amount of energy at his beck and call. Reed himself can, as has just been mentioned, imitate and thus surpass any superhero he wants just by thinking about it long enough and stretching right. For the record, no Earth X wasn't canon. But all the rules at play in Earth X (with a couple of minor exceptions) are presumed to function in the standard Marvel world.
Also: Reed Richards has actual powers, while Tony Stark has a machine that's (for right now) not killing him.
Further: Reed is known (for a fact) to be the smartest human being in the world. It's not questioned, it's not questionable. They've done tests and everything. It has been stated as fact that should Reed actually put his mind to it, he could solve such "trivial" things as world hunger, disease, and all the rest.
Finally: Reed Richards isn't cool. I don't like him as a person, morally, or as a comic character. He's lazy, has the wrong priorities, bad fashion sense, and some of his "good" decisions are morally questionable (especially in dealing with his wife), he's boring, and the typical use of his power is kind of stupid. Tony on the other hand, is cool, despite his rather terrible character flaws. Just saying "Tony's better" isn't a fact anymore than saying "Wolverine's better", because neither of these are true. Wolverine is certainly more relatable, just as Tony is more relatable, but saying they're "better" simply isn't accurate.
Would the iron man suit defeat Reed in a fight? Possibly, depending on how much thought Reed's given it before hand. But not necessarily, especially considering that Reed's effectively killed more than one "all powerful" entity, while Tony... hasn't. He's done some amazing things, but he's not killed "all-powerful" entities, yet. Maybe slept with some, though.
Re: Tony v. Magic Users - Tony has never, by himself, outside of possibly seducing something, gone toe-to-toe with a big magic user and won due to tech. He's awesome, but like Spiderman and Wolverine part of what makes him so awesome is his human, limited side and the limits to his abilities. Tony's experienced multiple tech-failures and has failed more often than he's succeeded... but his gambles pay off because he works hard. IF we tried to stat him up in pathfinder: he's a rogue that specializes in creating magical (sentient) constructs who, in turn, each specialize in crafting and synthesizing magical items for him. Voila. Does that cover his schtick? No. But that's because he's not a mage. And Pathfinder, although it does have technology (a supplement I don't have, sadly) doesn't really cover it well in the magic-centered world. Tony is, at best, a rogue who has serious heart problems, but has gained a partial construct template.
Here's the thing: we can say "but X can do Y" all we want. And it's true. Our characters don't do the exact things as characters in fiction and literature. Honestly, I don't see that many paladins, wizards, sorcerers, druids, or clerics as the classes, running around in fiction and literature. Cavaliers, sure, Rangers, sure, fighters, sure, barbarians, yes, and rogues, absolutely. I see magic users, but they really aren't capable of the things that wizards, sorcerers, witches, and other full-casters are capable of. Really, no one is, save demigods, because in many ways, it's just too much at high levels. As far as not being able to do what <insert name here> does in <insert title here>? Yeah, that happens. But that's partially what templates are for.
Pathfinder is balanced for Pathfinder. It's meant to be evocative and it's meant to get the gist, and that's what it does. You can create anything else you want, you just have to use the tools you want and step beyond RAW. There is no singular game system that has ever been made that can match the amazing game called "imagination", which is what authors use when they create their rules for their world. Instead, we can roughly approximate the gist of what iconic characters are like, balance them for a fair level range, and just let it go beyond that. And that's what this problem is about. I have absolutely no problem with the game as it is. I think it works fine. Does it cover everything? No. Does it need to? No. If I'm going to develop something for my home game that it doesn't quite cover, the nifty thing is I've got this great rules framework to make it with. It doesn't have to be balanced with everything else unless I want it to be. That's the magic of home brew!
One thing about high level fighters and good will saves: it's true. I suppose they'll just have to spend one of their very few feats on will-boosting things, or perhaps simply have high levels, and thus have decent saves anyway, or something. (Although, if I recall, doesn't intimidate include torture in its definition and have a modified level check to negate instead of will?)
To clarify: I have no problem with a "fighter" having a high will and some good skills. Seriously, you should see some of the gestalt combos I pull out, or creature/character builds I make for fun. But I do have a small problem saying that fighters aren't skilled as they currently stand, and with a base of fighters having high skills and great saves. That's not what they're there to do. They're present to be good at: fighting. Voila, mission accomplished. The preponderance of their "skills" go into: proficiencies, improvements in those proficiencies, specializations in those proficiencies, feats, and the like. If you'd like to trade off a whole slew of feats for some saves and skills, might I recommend: the ranger. If a strong will is what you need: oh, look, a paladin. Both? Gestalt madness abounds! Although really anything and anyone past 15th level is doing pretty stinking astounding things. I mean, wow.
I've been trying to think through the greatest fighting men of myths and legends, and I can't think of a feat they accomplish that a 10th to 15th level fighter couldn't pull off.
Beowulf swims across a sea and wrestles sea serpents. High Con, ranks in swim and class skill, improved unarmed strike, maybe endurance feat. He wrestles Grendel and pulls off his arm. Assuming Grendel is an ogre or hill giant, this is doable. Kills grendel's mother with magic sword, after holding breath and swimming. Done. In middle or old age, kills a dragon but is killed in the process. Sounds about right.
Gilgamesh wrestles stuff (bulls, giants), walks, climbs, has a lot of sex, tells off goddesses, and stays awake for a long time. Has a cool and tricky friend.
Hercules could easily have been just an exceptionally strong fighter -- that was of course also part god, but still doesn't have to be anything but a fighter and it makes sense -- after all Hera kept driving him crazy with god magic... not exactly a high will save there, even if he wasn't afraid of anything (gee it's almost like that's a fighter ability or something).
Besides we really can't talk fighter unless we include the fighter archetypes too after all those are fighters as well.
Legolas could be fighter just fine, after all while he had superior senses those were part of being an elf and not class abilities (well after the boxes and what not in D&D but lets not get too carried away), he's just an archer by the accounts of the book, same idea with Gimli, just another dwarf fighter.
Heck Grendel could have had fighter levels, and this is ignoring the vast majority of Author's crew (many of whom were not paladins, rangers or anything other than sword swingers).
@Tacticslion:
Most spellcasters in Pathfinder are nowhere near the level of power most spellcasters in Marvel are shown to be, you never hear a Pathfinder wizard say (truthfully) "I could cast a spell that would kill that demon, but it would kill all life on earth." Even in the epic levels, this never happens, because they are using two completely different spell systems.
Pathfinder isn't balanced at all, the casters can do everything the noncasters can do, and more.
Pathfinder isn't balanced at all, the casters can do everything the noncasters can do, and more.
HA! This isn't true. Casters can do a lot -- but not everything a non caster can do.
Maybe slept with some, though.
Dude in the world of comic books -- that always counts for more though.
Pathfinder isn't balanced at all, the casters can do everything the noncasters can do, and more.HA! This isn't true. Casters can do a lot -- but not everything a non caster can do.
Like what? Being superfluous? That's not exactly something you want to be able to do.
Like what? Being superfluous? That's not exactly something you want to be able to do.
Continuous killing of things -- fighters have it, wizards don't.
Sneak attack -- provided you aren't going to hit up the bard.
No one can put out the hurt like a fighter can -- which is good, because the fighter can out AC all the bestiary opponents without losing his combat prowess, he's got lasting power and can hit things at the one spot where they don't get back up or have another line of defense -- the HP.
Wizards can throw around damaging spells, but these aren't guaranteed -- they can' try to bind -- still not guaranteed, they can summon... which likely just buys them time.
The one things spell casters generally aren't good at is actually ending things.
Like what? Being superfluous? That's not exactly something you want to be able to do.Try an all caster party sometime for real play - come back with the results.
At level 10+ you may just be able to keep your summons around for a few minutes. Your trapfinding spells may not run out before going a few areas. Maybe NPCs wont object to having charm cast on them before you interact with them.
All caster party can handle that.
Sorcerer or Oracle high CHA so theres your interactions.Magus or Crusader Cleric or Good wildshape druid cna tank.
Archeoligist bard. Skill monkey and trapfinding.
Thats only 3 ppl and thats every thing you named.
Like what? Being superfluous? That's not exactly something you want to be able to do.Try an all caster party sometime for real play - come back with the results.
At level 10+ you may just be able to keep your summons around for a few minutes. Your trapfinding spells may not run out before going a few areas. Maybe NPCs wont object to having charm cast on them before you interact with them.
Or you could stop being a jerk to your NPCs. Considering casters include clerics, druids, and summoners I'm not seeing too many problems. My group is level 12 and for the foreseeable future our summoner's Eidolon is the group tank.
Traps don't hit that hard usually, I should know, I've hit almost every single one, and I'm the "rogue" though I'm actually a ninja. We've also ran into about as many traps as we have combat encounters. My group is pretty much all casters and my ninja, except this paladin we sometimes have around, but he's gone most of the time, so he doesn't count.
Yeah honestly an all caster party can do fine -- just like an all non caster party can do fine, either one is going to have some issues at times, but both are possible.
Check out some of the old archived threads around here, this isn't exactly new territory and there is plenty of stuff on both sides honestly.
Personally I'm out now -- it's not with wasting time on the internet over.
|
No fighters in our source material? Hm.
Corwin: Can you conceive of a millenium? Several of them? Can you imagine somebody who - for every day of a lifetime like that - has spent his time learning soldiers, tactics, weapons? Do not think that because you see him in his rose garden, with a small army at his call, that you know Benedict. All that there is of military science thunders in his head. I truly believe that if he wanted the throne, right now, I would bow down and do him homage. I fear Benedict.
Bigwig: My Chief Rabbit has ordered me to defend this run and until he says otherwise I shall stay here.
Both awesome quotes!!! Fighters pure and true.
I've been trying to think through the greatest fighting men of myths and legends, and I can't think of a feat they accomplish that a 10th to 15th level fighter couldn't pull off.
Beowulf swims across a sea and wrestles sea serpents. High Con, ranks in swim and class skill, improved unarmed strike, maybe endurance feat. He wrestles Grendel and pulls off his arm. Assuming Grendel is an ogre or hill giant, this is doable. Kills grendel's mother with magic sword, after holding breath and swimming. Done. In middle or old age, kills a dragon but is killed in the process. Sounds about right.
A fighter has narrow range of skills.
Sure a fighter could do any of those feats, but is the fighter capable of all of those feats?Look at Beowulf: He can swim forever, had unarmed and grappling skills wrestling giant serpents and ripping arms off of giants, fought (and exterminated them) giants, tracked down Grendel's mother, and used a Giant Sword (Which in Pathfinder is only legit by being a Titan Mauler Barbarian) to kill Grendel's mother, became a king, and fought a dragon with just his cousin at his side; even though he died afterwards(obviously he had die hard, right?)
Really Beowulf was more of a Ranger/Barbarian gestalt with Unarmed Skills (which by the way, most soldiers and warriors in real life tend to have), exterminating giants and using brute strength and oversized weapons. Where in the game have you seen a character able to rip a giants arm off as well as effectively use a giant's sword, and still able to swim for 3 days?
But in the game, fighters need a feat to make others bleed (and only on a critical hit). You need to be strong and have to invest to make a wild swing (Power Attack). People can only master one weapon in their lifetime. Wearing the best armor makes you move a fraction of your speed. It's harder to swing a stick than a manufactured club... Come on, in this game you only need 13 Dex to catch an arrow. An ARROW! Yah, I know that the game isn't realistic, and I don't expect it to be since after all it is a fantasy game; but there are some really unrealistic things going on that don't make the game more fantastic. This is the crux of my problem. You have to invest just to be realistic.
I'm not saying that fighters can't be fun or effective; they definitely can be, especially with the right group. I'm saying that the belief that fighters need to be realistic is a flawed view, because they are already unrealistic; just not in a beneficial way.
Beowulf was consider the gold standard for a warrior in his race, and they really weren't the barbarians people commonly try to paint them to be.
A fighter is more likely to swim for three days than a barbarian. First he can do so in full plate with little problem, secondly he's got the feats to invest in things like endurance and diehard where as the barbarian doesn't -- in fact the barbarian has very little in the way of actual endurance. Ripping someone's arm off isn't even possible in the game so it's not like you can say that's something a barbarian would do and a fighter wouldn't.
Fighters (especially human fighers) make some of the best grapplers in the game, this is in no small part because they can have a CMD for grappling of 50 at level 20 with nothing more than their levels and favored class bonus -- this isn't including strength, dexterity, deflection bonuses, or anything other than their BAB and favored class bonus -- you cannot win a grapple against them because you can't overcome their CMD to do so (after including strength and Dexterity and perhaps improved grapple you are likely looking at a 60+ CMD against grappling). Fighters should not specialize in one weapon -- they should specialize in at least two, if they specialize at all -- they don't really need to.
Everyone has to spend something to make people bleed: a rage power is equal to a feat is equal to a rogue talent from what we have in pathfinder -- as such no one is spending any more between the barbarian, rogue and fighter for the same basic ability -- it's just a matter of when they spend it. Bloody assault doesn't rely on a critical hit.
The fighter isn't supposed to be realistic. The fighter is simply supposed to be non-magical.
Sunder isn't realistic (Mythbusters).
HP isn't realistic.
Sunder isn't realistic (Mythbusters).
I would have felt alot better about that episode though if they had used weapons that were made of authentic materials for there times instead of all the same thing.
Beowulf was consider the gold standard for a warrior in his race, and they really weren't the barbarians people commonly try to paint them to be.
A fighter is more likely to swim for three days than a barbarian. First he can do so in full plate with little problem, secondly he's got the feats to invest in things like endurance and diehard where as the barbarian doesn't -- in fact the barbarian has very little in the way of actual endurance. Ripping someone's arm off isn't even possible in the game so it's not like you can say that's something a barbarian would do and a fighter wouldn't.
Fighters (especially human fighers) make some of the best grapplers in the game, this is in no small part because they can have a CMD for grappling of 50 at level 20 with nothing more than their levels and favored class bonus -- this isn't including strength, dexterity, deflection bonuses, or anything other than their BAB and favored class bonus -- you cannot win a grapple against them because you can't overcome their CMD to do so (after including strength and Dexterity and perhaps improved grapple you are likely looking at a 60+ CMD against grappling). Fighters should not specialize in one weapon -- they should specialize in at least two, if they specialize at all -- they don't really need to.
Everyone has to spend something to make people bleed: a rage power is equal to a feat is equal to a rogue talent from what we have in pathfinder -- as such no one is spending any more between the barbarian, rogue and fighter for the same basic ability -- it's just a matter of when they spend it. Bloody assault doesn't rely on a critical hit.
I know I've been exaggerating things. (The barbarian comment was about him using a giant's sword cue Titan Mauler Barbarian class)
Human Alternate Favored Class Bonuses are some of the best favored bonuses ever; so your argument is more specific human fighters who take the alternate class feature every level are some of the best grapplers in the game. Otherwise it's really not much different than any full BAB class.And why can't Barbarians have much in the way of endurance; having their main ability based off of constitution and still having a good fort save I find that statement jarring. By 17th level, they're no longer tired by raging. Every other class has at least 10 feats in their 20 levels.
I didn't know about Bloody Assault, I was thinking about Bleeding Critical.
Anyway, I've never seen a fighter that awesome in actual play; I've never seen a fighter wrestle a giant; I've never seen a fighter survive a 3 day trek through dangerous terrain; I've never seen a fighter do all that, be responsible for the extinction of some powerful race, become a king, and then take on a dragon without magical gear or an army to back him up.I read is how theoretically a fighter can be that awesome; but I never actually see it in play.
Yet in real life they are more awesome than what I ever see in the game. In real life a person can punch more than once every six seconds. In real life a person trained to kill also knows how to infiltrate, and survive the wilderness, treat minor wounds, and knows hand to hand combat. In real life it takes more skill to not make a person bleed after hitting them full on with a long, heavy, sharp object...
Really guys, this is just a rant and I'm probably being obtuse, but I can't be the only the only one who sees that a lot of the 'appeal' of the fighter is overcoming those unrealistic limitations that don't actually exist in real life.
I've seen two different fighters go amazing. Had one bull rush a demon from a tower and ride him to the ground. The second went all out and wrestled a triceratops to a pin.
I've played 2 fighters in 3.5
Kodo DeThey's greatest moment was when he cleaved two hill giants in one blow, using his intelligent holy greatsword, Sannoth the Oracle. I followed through on the great cleave for fun and also cut down an adjacent small tree. He hunted down his 6 older brothers, then completed the family quest to raise their dead king (before realizing his father's tales were lies, the king is evil, and then Kodo led an army against him).
Dagh Fagkhir's biggest moment was using Close-Quarters-Combat and spiked gauntlets to stop the grappling assault of an advanced (Gargantuan) Behir, then slay it in one mighty throw of his Orcish Shotput - x3 crit. The DM said I shattered it's lower spine (he had crit zone tables). He also had a foolproof plan to crush the Loremaster Lich which was lording over the group, by using a secret cube (cubic gate) and dragging him into the positive material plane in the inevitable battle.
Low-tier superheroes anyway. You don't see anyone as the equal of even Iron Man in all of this, even at 20th level, much less someone more powerful.And some of us see that as a problem. In my opinion the non-magical capabilities of Thor (the super hero) line up with what a high level non-epic fighter should be capable of.
Thor the Marvel superhero can press 100 tons, 200 tons with his magical belt and 10 times that while berserking that would be the equivalent of lifting 2000 medium cars... that is NOT somthing i would like to see in Pathfinder.
Low-tier superheroes anyway. You don't see anyone as the equal of even Iron Man in all of this, even at 20th level, much less someone more powerful.And some of us see that as a problem. In my opinion the non-magical capabilities of Thor (the super hero) line up with what a high level non-epic fighter should be capable of.Thor the Marvel superhero can press 100 tons, 200 tons with his magical belt and 10 times that while berserking that would be the equivalent of lifting 2000 medium cars... that is NOT somthing i would like to see in Pathfinder.
Those are Marvel tons, they are not the same thing as regular tons. I think you square the amount of tons in Marvel and that gets you the number of short tons. For example: 1 Marvel ton= 1 short ton, 2 Marvel tons= 4 short tons.
So Spider-Man, a guy who can lift 10 Marvel tons, can lift 100 short tons, this will allow him to throw tanks, like we've seen him do every now and then, when he's lost his temper.
Also, Thor is in the immeasurable range. Thor going all-out destroys planets, once he hit Beta-Ray Bill so hard the planet they were on exploded, though this only happens when he's completely lost his temper.
|
So Spider-Man, a guy who can lift 10 Marvel tons, can lift 100 short tons, this will allow him to throw tanks, like we've seen him do every now and then, when he's lost his temper.
Also, Thor is in the immeasurable range. Thor going all-out destroys planets, once he hit Beta-Ray Bill so hard the planet they were on exploded, though this only happens when he's completely lost his temper.
Well, Thor is actually listed as "over 100 tons". Past 100 tons, Marvel doesn't really track specific strengths. And that's ignoring his belt that doubles his strength and his berzerker mode that gives him 10x strength.
Spidey's an odd case. His strength was set a 10 tons pretty early in the comics. And at that time, it put him in the top ten strongest heroes. Of course, since then, Marvel's had a rather massive amount of strength inflation. Spidey's gotten a few upgrades in strenght over the years as well, although never well-defined. I generally work on the assumption that post-"The Other" and pre-"One More Day" Spidey was at approximately a 20 ton strength level. But since the very beginning, in certain desperate situations, he's been show to vastly exceed this, although Marvel seems loathe to actually document this (much like they seemed loathe to actually pin down his increased strength level after "Spider-Man: Disassembled" and "The Other").
I just find it funny that this conversation leaped from low-tier superheroes to Thor. He's about as far up the tier-structure as you get for characters that are actually used on a regular basis, at least in Marvel.
|
|
Often when someone goes on about making fighters supernatural on these boards, someone else will rebuke with the idea that fighters should be bound by the laws of the world AKA they should be realistic. But are they really?
I've seen iconic examples of Wizards, Assassins, Rogues, Bards, Barbarians, and Paladins in stories and myths, but I don't think I've ever seen one of a straight fighter. I don't know of any fighting character that wasn't either charismatic, stealthy, or a barbarian.
In real life, what I know of both historical and modern armies is that they are actually trained in many non-combat skills as well. Making them closer to rangers than just fighters. Is there anyone in real life who is only skilled in the use of a single type of weapon?
Recently, I've seen many threads that want to combine rogues and fighters for mechanical reasons, but maybe they should be combined for flavor reasons, maybe call them mercenaries.
In it's place, the Ninja should be left (magic wielding assassin is probably what the rogue should have been).Or perhaps I'm just missing something?
fighters as well as other classes such as rogue are always going to be better than real life humans. This is because real life humans suck ass.
HOWEVER its not that they are better than RL humans thats the issue. Fighters are NON supernatural. They do not break the laws of physics, just the laws of probability and human skill level. Thats how they should be and that's how i hope they stay. This goes for the other non magical classes to. One of the reason i hate the idea of a ninja replacing a rogue so much but thats for another time/thread.
I do find 2-skill-point/level classes a bit frustrating, but I think focusing on the number of skill points is looking at this the wrong way.
A fighter might not get a lot of skill points per level, but presumably he has a few ability scores with positive modifiers. This means that most untrained skills that do not have an ACP still might get a bonus to the roll.
Compare that to a peasant with no such positive modifiers. That's who you should be comparing to. Not the rogue or the bard. Those guys are more highly specialized.
To me, the real issue has always been the limited skill selection of the fighter. I can't remember if 3.5 has Survival in there; if not, that at least is an improvement in Pathfinder.
But as to the original topic, I think fighters are meant to be as fantastic as the other classes. It may be that we live in a time where we see a lot of well-trained people doing amazing things with their bodies, but I think you have to view fighters through the same lens as you would fantasy characters like Conan (who is definitely a well-trained fighter, regardless of his "barbarian" moniker), and legendary warriors like Perseus (who though he was the son of Zeus, did not possess the strength of Heracles). Conan, though human, is capable of great physical feats beyond the norm, such as acts of great strength, stamina and courage when courage fails others. Perseus, similarly, is pretty much human, but is incredibly courageous and highly skilled.
You have to think of fighters as being like Samson, capable of breaking chains in his hands and of bringing the temple down by pushing over its columns. Because super-strength is the most common superhero power, we are used to this and take it for granted. But when we were kids, we would have been in awe of it.
Low-tier superheroes anyway. You don't see anyone as the equal of even Iron Man in all of this, even at 20th level, much less someone more powerful.And some of us see that as a problem. In my opinion the non-magical capabilities of Thor (the super hero) line up with what a high level non-epic fighter should be capable of.Thor the Marvel superhero can press 100 tons, 200 tons with his magical belt and 10 times that while berserking that would be the equivalent of lifting 2000 medium cars... that is NOT somthing i would like to see in Pathfinder.
I would agree, thor or superman are outside the range of 20th level characters, they are in point of fact gods. In one case literally. I am sure if Gorum was so incline he could pick up 200 tons, but thats neither here nor there.
I do think however that the abilities of say spiderman or the Hawkman are reasonable targets for high level characters in pathfinder (including their modes of transportation via magic items).
What is it you are looking for? You want a stealthy skill laden green beret? Why not a use a ranger? Why does it have have to have the tag "fighter"? A ranger is a 'warrior' just as much as a paladin, fighter or cavalier.I've posted a build for a skillful fighter - in fact one who's stealth equals that of a rogue - as a way of example IF you want a skillful standard fighter, who actually is a "fighter".
I just don't get what you want... apart from 'fighters should be like these amazing dudes who can like do just about anything and kill ya with any weapon upto and including a shoe horn'.
Whats a 'win' here? Full access to all skills as class skills and 6 skill points a level? Free feat access to unarmed combat and improved combat maneuver feats?
Really I just felt like ranting.
Mostly I'd like fighters to at least have 4 skill points. With all the 3.5 legacy, I doubt it will get better than this. One of the major offenders are the imbalanced feats and feat trees. We give you more feats, but in return you have to use more feats.Also ranting that the only non-magical things anyone ever mentions being unrealistic are HP and crafting, when there's many more things that are unrealistic going on.
But yah, mostly just rant; Fighters are pretty great (could still use more skill points per level though).
DISCLAIMER: WOW, I write/type/talk/whatever waaaaaaaaayyyyyy too much. Sorry. Spoiler boxes for your convenience!
Ion Raven: I'm not attempting to pick on you, but since you're the OP (and/or you made the OP, I'm not entirely sure of the presumed parlance inherent with those letters, after seeing it be used in multiple ways around here) and you make the clearest arguments for your points, I'm using your quotes as some examples. Also, please, as always, read most everything I write with a warm, wry (but not mocking!), friendly voice, and not snide or jerky.
(The barbarian comment was about him using a giant's sword cue Titan Mauler Barbarian class)
Eh, it never said that he didn't take penalties. It was obviously a very magical sword of some kind or another - it even says so - so he probably just hefted the super-heavy (but likely "large" sized) sword and took the penalties but gained the bonuses while slamming it into the monster. It was then annihilated by her blood, so I guess we'll never know (except for the hilt).
Anyway, I've never seen a fighter that awesome in actual play
I think this is the crux of the problem.
To add to the stack of fighter stories floating around: I've seen - and built - a couple of incredibly awesome fighters in play, with sub-optimal stats, some who focuses with skill ranks in cross-class skills.Most recent example one, I took an NPC from Serpent Skull and (since she was recruited and has traveled with the party) have built her up as she leveled. She's taken on - bare-handed, mind you - creatures and encounters that I really didn't think she'd survive. Once she was dominated and sent at the party. One counter-domination (and successful CHA-check later) and she suddenly devastated the baddies by herself. She's far from being optimally built, by any means, focuses on unarmed combat, wears leather armor, and has destroyed no less than six creatures of her level plus a boss two levels higher. By herself. The only thing she failed was a will save (twice), which can be (and since has been) corrected with appropriate gear. That's pretty awesome in play. I have not min-maxed (in fact, I've been trying to make the NPCs less terrific to get the players to leave some of them behind). While the will save may be an issue, keep in mind that she's had (as in she was created with) a horrid wisdom - she actually had a penalty to her will save until recently!
Or lets take my Kingmaker game (where I play, not run). The fighter (a spiked-chain specialist*) was deprived of her favored weapon and up against a powerful, basically min-maxed fighter sub-boss at the end of the first adventure, and she was alone (our characters had split up). It was a pretty epic confrontation, for third-level critters, and she was, and remains, awesome. Its still something we chat about because it was so very cool. Three adventures later, we've taken on daemons, liches, and all sorts of stuff, and we're still talking about how cool it was for her to punk one very dumb, but extraordinarily strong fighter.
Really, I think it comes down to the fact that people just haven't seen fighters shine in combat. Their idiom - that of not using magic - is seen as a handicap, when its really not. They can do absolutely amazing things. I used to think they were underpowered... but I've been proven wrong enough (especially with pathfinder) that I've changed my tune.
* You know, I just realized that, again, she's a high-dexterity drunk female, utilizing lighter armor with a sub-optimal weapon choice. Is this archetype popular, or do I just have the strange privilege of just happening to have two presented to me (neither made by me) for two games in a row?
In real life a person can punch more than once every six seconds.
This is a thing, however: an "attack" in-game, doesn't just consist of one "attack" in real life... because an "attack" is often actually a series of movements that creates the final effect of "hitting the other guy". That's what an attack roll is supposed to indicate - that the fighter parries, parries, thrusts, parries, thrusts HIT (that's attack roll one), much like hit points are supposed to be an abstraction (although they're a pretty poor one due to all sorts of other reasons).
And this is often the crux of players' problems with D&D-style gaming - it's not realistic enough at its base level, so that when it reaches the "heights" of fantasy, oh well. I've had (and continue to have) that issue as well. But a large part of that is a failure to recognize the abstraction for what it is - an abstraction. Heaven knows, I'm guilty of encouraging this as a GM: "The ogre swings it's club - four times! "**. And that's one reason why it feels strange that one guy can't attack more than once in a round. It also feels strange because most of us don't have combat experience. I have some (martial arts training, and a tournament once, nothing special), and I can tell you that I can run through my forms, and place many, many more attacks and much faster, with more precision in practice than I can in a real fight. I can punch... a lot... rapidly on a bag or other target. I can actually get a decent hit in maybe once or twice when I'm sparring or competing (again, though, I'm not that terrific).
And its those two things combined that are what the system is attempting to describe. And if you look at it from that perspective... it does a pretty good job. However that reacts very poorly with other abstractions like "hit points", when you say that they only decrease when you get "hit"... er... strange things occur.
** Actually, I do not believe I have ever used that exact example in game ever. But it's just there to serve as an example of similar things I do as both player and GM.
Now, to clarify, casters are still far more powerful than non-casters. But then again, without a) nerfing casters or b) suddenly granting non-casters the ability to manipulate all of reality at their whim... well, that's about what you've got, options-wise.
magic users come in two variants and only two variants: insanely overpowered, or not worth mentioning.
So like the casters in 3.5 then!
Joking aside, magic users can have it really hard at lower levels, but often become very hard to stop at higher ones, if "played right"***. Again, you're correct - Marvel doesn't seem to truck much with lower-tier magic stuff, but, as you said, that's because they're using two different systems.
That's kind of why I say it's hard to compare Pathfinder (and who is what within Pathfinder) with Marvel (or any given fictional work): the author(s) use their own system of measurement and the sheer breadth of authors and cool written works ensures that it's really just kind of off the scale of what any one game system can follow.
One other thing about "real life" against "game capabilities": the basic DC for any check is a DC of "10". That compares the standard, i.e. "average" base. For example, a basic "anyone would know that" DC for a knowledge is 10. Climbing and the like are similar. However as time as gone on, or depending upon your location (in real life) what a DC 10 knowledge means has changed. I think it would be substantially more difficult for any of us on this board to identify from amongst the many species of mushrooms that grow in Eastern Europe which ones are edible. However, when I lived in Lithuania, most of the people I knew could do that. They had basic ranks in "survival", even when they were city dwellers, although they didn't have high ranks - many were surprised to discover just how much stuff was edible over there.
One strange story, happened while I lived there though (it made the newspapers): when a mushroom expert from elsewhere came over and was hiking, he (and his companions) ate some bad mushrooms, that the natives instantly knew to avoid. Roll of natural 1? Maybe. But it might just have been that the "expert's" DC 10 =/= the natives' DC 10... in other words, because "everyone" knew the mushroom in Lithuania the "value" of a DC 10 shifted accordingly, whereas an "expert" from elsewhere has a higher DC. Again, drop any of us on these boards, say, 500 years ago, or, heck, let's say 80 years ago. Would we survive? Probably... we'd work it out. But there'd be quite a steep learning curve, and most of us would never be as fully integrated or "comfortable" as the "natives" of that time would be, because for us it would be investing in ranks that we would have to roll for, while they would all just have a base DC 10 that they could take 10 in.
And that's really what I'm trying to get at: set the bar for the game world. Does everyone know not to eat those mushrooms? Makes sense, then, that the character wouldn't eat the mushrooms. Does no one know about the mushrooms? Eat 'em and find out! ... Or not! Really, there's just a kind of presumption that most things we take for granted are known to people of the time, but that's obviously not true. I mean, when I first arrived in Lithuania (in the early 90s shortly after its freedom), more than one grown, reasonable, well-educated adult actually asked us if, when we turned on the faucets in the USA, living fish really came out (this would have been very desirable, as fish was hard to come by at that time). THEY DIDN'T KNOW. And these weren't foolish, unreasonable. or terribly gullible people - they were people without knowledge that I'd consider fairly basic (DC 5, even), and in a culture that spread rumors as if it was the gospel truth.
So, : your mileage may vary, but things that are "basic" to us, in both knowledge and general capability aren't basic in a game-world, and vice-versa.
*** By which I don't mean "right" as in "this is the right thing to do", but "right" as in "certain selections are probably the most likely to get the result indicated".
Yet, if I build him as a fighter, I can't actually build him as skilled.
Give him an Int of 14. Make him human. Take an extra skill point per level for favoured class instead of an extra HP. That's six skill points per level. So you can max out six skills or spread them out in lots of skills after a few levels. Woodlore, sailing and tracking all pretty much come under survival. One skill point per level gives you all those. You don't need to put lots of points in climb and swim as you should have a good strength bonus. Put some points in stealth, pick an archetype that works for your intended equipment, and away you go.
Fafhrd was was highly skilled fighter, skilled at stealth, mountaineering, woodlore, sailing, and tracking, who fought with two weapons. Sounds like a Ranger right? Except he had no pet, he had no spells (yes, I know they can be traded in), he really had no major enemies he really hated; his vendetta against the Thieve's Guild was quickly resolved. The powers and abilities of a Fighter make a lot more sense for him. Yet, if I build him as a fighter, I can't actually build him as skilled.
actually sounds more like a barbarian who gets those skills and more skill points.
Well, Thor is actually listed as "over 100 tons". Past 100 tons, Marvel doesn't really track specific strengths. And that's ignoring his belt that doubles his strength and his berzerker mode that gives him 10x strength.
Spidey's an odd case. His strength was set a 10 tons pretty early in the comics. And at that time, it put him in the top ten strongest heroes. Of course, since then, Marvel's had a rather massive amount of strength inflation. Spidey's gotten a few upgrades in strenght over the years as well, although never well-defined. I generally work on the assumption that post-"The Other" and pre-"One More Day" Spidey was at approximately a 20 ton strength level. But since the very beginning, in certain desperate situations, he's been show to vastly exceed this, although Marvel seems loathe to actually document this (much like they seemed loathe to actually pin down his increased strength level after "Spider-Man: Disassembled" and "The Other").
I just find it funny that this conversation leaped from low-tier superheroes to Thor. He's about as far up the tier-structure as you get for characters that are actually used on a regular basis, at least in Marvel.
Only if you don't pay attention to the cosmic books, which are to be honest: the best books. Bar none, unless Marvel Adventures: The Avengers are included, then it's truly a matter of taste. They have never announced that "Spider-Man has gotten stronger", he just is. The best example is Namor, who was listed as 85 or 90 tons, always has been, always will be, but he's been shown to lift battleships. Which are upwards of 58,000 tons.
I think the biggest problem here is confusing "class" and "concept."
Concept is what you want your character to be able to accomplish. Classes are the chassis that you use to create that concept. If you want to build a stealthy combatant, you have many ways to accomplish this. You could use a fighter. You could use a rogue. You could use a ranger. You could multiclass. You should not limit yourself to the class for your concept. You should use the classes to fulfill your concept.
Many of the iconic characters I've seen in these discussions are probably better emulated with some multiclassing. Even in this thread alone, we have seen some valid arguments for a character being a barbarian or fighter. Why limit him to one or the other? Why not fighter/barbarian?
Because then you get tarred and feathered as a dirty munchkin for taking more than one class.
?