The fighter is the one class that is a total blank slat. It has whatever flavor you give it.
The class has nothing to do with it. You could argue the same thing with a commoner.
The fighter is the one class that is a total blank slat. It has whatever flavor you give it.The class has nothing to do with it. You could argue the same thing with a commoner.
The class has everything to do with it. Evey other player class has built in fluff and flavor, every one. That is every one except the fighter.
I don't play it, but I use it in place of the warrior class for soldiers. I never use the warrior for anything.
The class has everything to do with it. Evey other player class has built in fluff and flavor, every one. That is every one except the fighter.The fighter is the one class that is a total blank slat. It has whatever flavor you give it.The class has nothing to do with it. You could argue the same thing with a commoner.
You assume that characters are put into binary flavors because of what class they choose? I say nay good sir, in fact characters are far more dynamic than that. They have something called personality, and just because a character sheet says wizard, cleric, or even fighter that doesn't mean they're pigeon holed into certain a "flavor". If that's your real reason for playing a fighter I shall call you Brian, the Fair and Strong.
Calm Emotions stops everyone from fighting, and a barbarian is better suited then a fighter at resisting it. Not to say fighters suck because of that, just that resisting spells isn't really going to be an area that fighters are better then barbarians.Fighters rock. They're unequaled as archers, and the barbarian is the only one who can go toe-to-toe with them in melee (and when he's out of rage, the scale tips back towards the fighter).Exactly. And unlike the fighter, a simple second level spell shuts down muich of his offensive and defensive powers (easily killing him if he's only still standing due to his rage bonus hp).
The consequences are much more serious for a barbarian, so there is a big difference.
Fighters are fine. I like martial types and figters are a good for weapon specialists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't get this. What does optimization of fellow group members have to do with how much fun and how usable a fighter is?
Because having your rear end constantly handed to you by encounters isn't fun. Because moving, and missing a monster for your turn when the wizard goes next and obliterates an army isn't fun, and being dominated so you hack off the wizards head and use it for a hamlet soliloquy in an authentic dutch accent gets old after the 6th time.
In return for those things happening more often, what are you gaining in terms of fun? What do int and charisma get you? You seem to be going for the stormwind fallacy in assuming that a less optimized fighter is somehow a better role played one.
It sometimes requires a bit thinking around corners and NOT dumping stats like intelligence or charisma.
I have my builds on paper somewhere, so I cannot give you them. Maybe I could develop one later. For now, just some general points from the top of my head:Oh good. I disagree with you, therefore I don't know how to role play or think outside of the box.
- Focussing only on damage is a bad thing and does not give the fighter credit. Instead of trying to win a DPR race, use the versatility of combat styles a fighter can easily implement: battlefield control, critical focused, intimidation, ranged, melee, tank ... Many more, but these are just some.
An Int of 13 can help you do that. So will Strength. Charisma will not.
Even for a fighter there are too many cool, fun trees with requirements that soak up all your extra feats. Toss on the basics like weapon focus and there's no point in trying to go for versitility until higher levels, if then.
Once per four levels. And you can't shift a prerequisite. The campaign should be over before this really matters.
There's no reason that the casters can't do this as well. Playing a weak class does not make you a strong, versatile, or creative player. Being a creative player does that whether you pick up a fighter or a witch.
The casters, who don't need magical weapons, magical armor and ac boosters, are in an even better position to do this.
Playing PF tomorrow. Two out of 5 PCs are straight fighters.
I really don't get this. What does optimization of fellow group members have to do with how much fun and how usable a fighter is?Because having your rear end constantly handed to you by encounters isn't fun. Because moving, and missing a monster for your turn when the wizard goes next and obliterates an army isn't fun, and being dominated so you hack off the wizards head and use it for a hamlet soliloquy in an authentic dutch accent gets old after the 6th time.
Casters have similar problems with miss chances, failed saves (fortitude in particular), spell resistences etc. So what's your point here?
"Obliterating an army" only works without acceptable opposition, readied archers etc. In principal you are correct that casters can deal better with a larger number of enemies at once, but that "gets old" pretty quickly as well if they all make their saves, take no damage due to evasion and similar things.
In return for those things happening more often, what are you gaining in terms of fun? What do int and charisma get you? You seem to be going for the stormwind fallacy in assuming that a less optimized fighter is somehow a better role played one.
Here is where we differ: Just because I am not trying to win a DPR race or do the things a wizard or class x does (cause then, you know, there is no need to have a wizard or class x anymore), does not mean the fighter is "less optimized". He is just not optimized in the same way or for the same things you consider important.
It does not have anything to do with being better at role playing.It sometimes requires a bit thinking around corners and NOT dumping stats like intelligence or charisma.
I have my builds on paper somewhere, so I cannot give you them. Maybe I could develop one later. For now, just some general points from the top of my head:Oh good. I disagree with you, therefore I don't know how to role play or think outside of the box.
That is not what I said or implied. Just because some things require more out of the box thinking does not mean that because you do not see it you are incapable of doing that or role playing.
Even for a fighter there are too many cool, fun trees with requirements that soak up all your extra feats. Toss on the basics like weapon focus and there's no point in trying to go for versitility until higher levels, if then.
Again, your idea about what's "cool" and "fun" differs from mine. I stated before that e.g. doing damage is one thing you can be great at, but it's not what I would limit a fighter to.
The fighter may retrain his bonus feats. Use that to adapt to changing conditions (I am not entirely sure, but I believe the fighter is the only class who is allowed to that with feats).
Once per four levels. And you can't shift a prerequisite. The campaign should be over before this really matters.
Our campaigns usually run up to level 16, sometimes higher. So it's not over before it matters.
Look at magic items. I mean, really look at them. For... ... mundane gear
There's no reason that the casters can't do this as well. Playing a weak class does not make you a strong, versatile, or creative player. Being a creative player does that whether you pick up a fighter or a witch.
The casters, who don't need magical weapons, magical armor and ac boosters, are in an even better position to do this.
There are limits for casters due to different focuses. For one, encumberance. For two, the necessary stamina to keep at it long enough. And thirdly, casters who "do not need it" usually use spells for that. Well guess what a dispel magic does to them then?
We can go at this again and again. To me casters are most of the time overestimated in their abilities and - apparently - given too nice a treatment in many adventuring groups. This includes wizards always having the right spells prepared, having only one combat per day so casters can nova, no meaningful opposition who does not even gather information on that mighty opposition via spies and scrying and prepares accordingly, no difficult terrain preventing 5-foot steps to cast defensively without breaking a sweat, no spell resistence monsters or opponents with spell turning or protective spells such as blur and mirror image...
I have fun with magic users and I have fun with martials. I have not seen a single class that was "useless" or truly "weak" yet. So fun to all of those who love casters, but regarding the topic of this thread I reiterate that fighters - IMO - are a lot of fun :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Casters have similar problems with miss chances, failed saves (fortitude in particular), spell resistences etc. So what's your point here?
I really don't get this. What does optimization of fellow group members have to do with how much fun and how usable a fighter is?Because having your rear end constantly handed to you by encounters isn't fun. Because moving, and missing a monster for your turn when the wizard goes next and obliterates an army isn't fun, and being dominated so you hack off the wizards head and use it for a hamlet soliloquy in an authentic dutch accent gets old after the 6th time.
Its not about caster vs non caster its about optimized vs unoptimized. an unoptimized character runs into the same problems described above regardless of class.
"Obliterating an army" only works without acceptable opposition, readied archers etc. In principal you are correct that casters can deal better with a larger number of enemies at once, but that "gets old" pretty quickly as well if they all make their saves, take no damage due to evasion and similar things.
Casters also take down single targets more quickly. And you deal with readied arches with improved invisibility and a metamagic rod of silent spell. Tactics that are supposed to level the playing field between casters and martials simply do not work without mary sueing the martials.
Here is where we differ: Just because I am not trying to win a DPR race
Either am I. I'm trying to make the fighter good at his chosen niche(s), be it damaging, meat shielding, combat manuevers or what have you. I am asking in what build are you not better off dumping your charisma score like a bad habbit?
That is not what I said or implied. Just because some things require more out of the box thinking does not mean that because you do not see it you are incapable of doing that or role playing.
And i would like to see what "outside of the box" thinking you're doing to make the level 16 fighter the cats pajamas that bursts through everyone's expectations of a class at that level. Tanglefoot bags are really not going to cut it.
Again, your idea about what's "cool" and "fun" differs from mine. I stated before that e.g. doing damage is one thing you can be great at, but it's not what I would limit a fighter to.
Yes. YOU said dealing damage. I did not. I'm talking about grappling, tripping, repositioning etc.
there are limits for casters due to different focuses. For one, encumberance.
Encumbrance is a total non issue past level 5. Adventurers snag a handy haversack or bag of holding and thats the end of it unless they want to carry around kegs.
For two, the necessary stamina to keep at it long enough.
At higher level the fighters hit points and the healers spells will give out before the casters spells.
And thirdly, casters who "do not need it" usually use spells for that. Well guess what a dispel magic does to them then?
It makes the opposition waste a spell that could have been used to kill them, and gives the caster a chance to retaliate with a save or die spell.
We can go at this again and again. To me casters are most of the time overestimated in their abilities and - apparently - given too nice a treatment in many adventuring groups. This includes wizards always having the right spells prepared
Scrolls.
having only one combat per day so casters can nova
And the higher up you go the more spells a wizard gets, the more they come close to the ideal wizard with the fight ending spell usable every round.
no meaningful opposition who does not even gather information on that mighty opposition via spies and scrying and prepares accordingly
Mary Sueing the portion of the characters and theplayers ability to realize that something is up.
no difficult terrain preventing 5-foot steps to cast defensively without breaking a sweat,
Flying.
no spell resistence monsters or opponents with spell turning or protective spells such as blur and mirror image...
Those are even more problematic for the fighter, and mirror image doesn't prevent you from being targeted anymore.
You assume that characters are put into binary flavors because of what class they choose? I say nay good sir, in fact characters are far more dynamic than that. They have something called personality, and just because a character sheet says wizard, cleric, or even fighter that doesn't mean they're pigeon holed into certain a "flavor". If that's your real reason for playing a fighter I shall call you Brian, the Fair and Strong.The class has everything to do with it. Evey other player class has built in fluff and flavor, every one. That is every one except the fighter.The fighter is the one class that is a total blank slat. It has whatever flavor you give it.The class has nothing to do with it. You could argue the same thing with a commoner.
I do not get the reference.The fact is every other class does have built in fluff. You can choose to change some of it, but it is built in. The fighter does not have this.
"Tastes Crunchy!"
"More Blasty!"
"Tastes Crunchy!"
"More Blasty!"
"Tastes Crunchy!"
"More Blasty!"
"Tastes Crunchy!"
"More Blasty!"
"Tastes Crunchy!"
"More Blasty!"
"Tastes Crunchy!"
"More Blasty!"
"Tastes Crunchy!"
"More Blasty!"
"Tastes Crunchy!"
"More Blasty!"
"Tastes Crunchy!"
"More Blasty!"
"GRAAAAAAAARH! RAGEPOUNCECHARGELANCE!"
*bleed*bleed*bleed*
Also, it's amusing to me that all the people who say Arcane Casters are the shiznits never actually propose solutions to this problem.
Here are a few:
1) Casting time is equal to half the level of the spell, in rounds. Round down; 1st level spells (other than Sleep) are the only spells that take a Standard action.
2) While casting a spell of level 2 or higher, you're doing a full round action and get no AoOs, and can only take a 5' step.
3) While casting, if you take any damage whatsoever, the spell fails automatically. None of this namby-pamby Concentration check b~*~+&@#.
4) The maximum number of non-instantaneous spells a caster can have up at any time is equal to their Constitution modifier.
I just want to know if anyone else out there still plays a fighter. I do and I really enjoy playing him.
There is a plain vanilla fighter in my current game. He seems to be in a competition with the party barbarian to see who can dish out the most damage per round.
Also, it's amusing to me that all the people who say Arcane Casters are the shiznits never actually propose solutions to this problem.
Here are a few:
1) Casting time is equal to half the level of the spell, in rounds. Round down; 1st level spells (other than Sleep) are the only spells that take a Standard action.
2) While casting a spell of level 2 or higher, you're doing a full round action and get no AoOs, and can only take a 5' step.
3) While casting, if you take any damage whatsoever, the spell fails automatically. None of this namby-pamby Concentration check b~+!***!.
4) The maximum number of non-instantaneous spells a caster can have up at any time is equal to their Constitution modifier.
-_-
If you're going to play the "Let's Fix the Fighter" game, you should start by making the fighter better instead of making other classes worse. Of course, I don't believe the fighter needs much of a fix, so I can't really comment on the subject.
:'(Also, it's amusing to me that all the people who say Arcane Casters are the shiznits never actually propose solutions to this problem.
For what it's worth, I've never seen the Casters Uber Ales Martials Suck thing anywhere but on forum cage fights. So I don't think those changes are actually necessary...
But, let's see if the people who insist martials are pointless take up the challenge and run their games with those rules.
Also, it's amusing to me that all the people who say Arcane Casters are the shiznits never actually propose solutions to this problem.
Here are a few:
1) Casting time is equal to half the level of the spell, in rounds. Round down; 1st level spells (other than Sleep) are the only spells that take a Standard action.
2) While casting a spell of level 2 or higher, you're doing a full round action and get no AoOs, and can only take a 5' step.
3) While casting, if you take any damage whatsoever, the spell fails automatically. None of this namby-pamby Concentration check b~+!***!.
4) The maximum number of non-instantaneous spells a caster can have up at any time is equal to their Constitution modifier.-_-
If you're going to play the "Let's Fix the Fighter" game, you should start by making the fighter better instead of making other classes worse. Of course, I don't believe the fighter needs much of a fix, so I can't really comment on the subject.
The problem that's going on here is described as quadradic wizard, linear fighter. It's easier to reduce the overpowered class than to boost the underpowered one, and making a wizard more challenging to play will make everyone else's game more enjoyable, because suddenly the wizard will actually need other people.
Rather than suffering them coming along to carry his loot when his floating disk spell runs out... :)
But, if you insist!
Fighters have Spell Resistance equal to double their highest attack bonus. They can turn it on and off as a free action up to three times per round.
Their preternaturally keen senses, honed from childhood to survive on the grimdark battlefields of an FRPG, allow them to snicker at all illusion spells, as well as being able to shoot down a hummingbird with a bow and arrow while blindfolded as a free action, making hitting flying wizards so easy that they seldom bother, so as not to make the wizards egos suffer.
*grin*
Our current group has a Human Alchemist, Dwarf Fighter, Human Cleric of Abadar, and a Kitsuni Gunslinger.
Oddly enough we did not include a rogue in this party, a first for us...
The Alchemist handles the disable device checks the cleric handles the face duty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you don't have to nerf the spellcasters much, you just have to nerf the spells.
Remember, PF is an evolution of 3E, which was an evolution from 1 and 2E.
Casters received HUGE buff-ups from those additions, and Fighters received MAJOR nerfage.
If you want to equalize things, you have to hit both ends, and ignore the whining of the no longer uber casters.
It's noteworthy that wizard-lovers clamp up when the subject of 2e->3E buffing comes up. Casters didn't suffer in the earlier editions, but man, did they do well in 3E.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you don't have to nerf the spellcasters much, you just have to nerf the spells.
Remember, PF is an evolution of 3E, which was an evolution from 1 and 2E.
Casters received HUGE buff-ups from those additions, and Fighters received MAJOR nerfage.
If you want to equalize things, you have to hit both ends, and ignore the whining of the no longer uber casters.
It's noteworthy that wizard-lovers clamp up when the subject of 2e->3E buffing comes up. Casters didn't suffer in the earlier editions, but man, did they do well in 3E.
==Aelryinth
All fighters really need are two or three things, IMO, and then they're golden.
1. Give them the ability to use all of their attacks and move (or even just pounce).
2. Some of the feat chains they get should be automatically built into the class; Vital Strike should be a basic part of the class design, along with armor training, weapon training, and the rest. Or, failing that, it should at least become a single feat that scales as the fighter levels.
3. An extension of 2, many of the feat chains are pricy, mostly in part to the fact that fighters have so many feats that they can afford to pay them. But just because they *can* pay for them, doesn't mean they *should* pay, especially when most of the feats are junk.
4. Parrying. I like the duelist ability to parry by using one of the attacks for the round. If fighters could do that, it would add an awesome, fighter specific ability that fits virtually every fighter concept.
As for nerfing spells and casters, I'd rather not. I'm one of those wizard-lovers, and I feel that the great majority of spells work fine; some could be toned down, a few should be beefed up, but most are fine. Don't make other classes suck just so plain Jane fighters can feel special; I'd rather not play 4E.
4. Parrying. I like the duelist ability to parry by using one of the attacks for the round. If fighters could do that, it would add an awesome, fighter specific ability that fits virtually every fighter concept.
Please tell more, so that I may steal it.
|
:'(Also, it's amusing to me that all the people who say Arcane Casters are the shiznits never actually propose solutions to this problem.
For what it's worth, I've never seen the Casters Uber Ales Martials Suck thing anywhere but on forum cage fights. So I don't think those changes are actually necessary...
But, let's see if the people who insist martials are pointless take up the challenge and run their games with those rules.
I was sad because Kirth HAS made such changes to his game here.
|
I never really understood the "Wizards rule, fighters drool" argument. I've played Wizards most of my D&D career so I know the ins and outs of the class and the spell lists. I will say that in a vacuum spellcasters can rule but games don't happen in a vacuum. I know how to build a damn good fighter as well and myself and people in my group that have as well have always contributed to the game.
There are battles where the Wizard does rule and there are times where the fighter rules, and the rogue, cleric etc....
you don't have to nerf the spellcasters much, you just have to nerf the spells.
Remember, PF is an evolution of 3E, which was an evolution from 1 and 2E.
Casters received HUGE buff-ups from those additions, and Fighters received MAJOR nerfage.
If you want to equalize things, you have to hit both ends, and ignore the whining of the no longer uber casters.
It's noteworthy that wizard-lovers clamp up when the subject of 2e->3E buffing comes up. Casters didn't suffer in the earlier editions, but man, did they do well in 3E.
==Aelryinth
All fighters really need are two or three things, IMO, and then they're golden.
1. Give them the ability to use all of their attacks and move (or even just pounce).
2. Some of the feat chains they get should be automatically built into the class; Vital Strike should be a basic part of the class design, along with armor training, weapon training, and the rest. Or, failing that, it should at least become a single feat that scales as the fighter levels.
3. An extension of 2, many of the feat chains are pricy, mostly in part to the fact that fighters have so many feats that they can afford to pay them. But just because they *can* pay for them, doesn't mean they *should* pay, especially when most of the feats are junk.
4. Parrying. I like the duelist ability to parry by using one of the attacks for the round. If fighters could do that, it would add an awesome, fighter specific ability that fits virtually every fighter concept.
As for nerfing spells and casters, I'd rather not. I'm one of those wizard-lovers, and I feel that the great majority of spells work fine; some could be toned down, a few should be beefed up, but most are fine. Don't make other classes suck just so plain Jane fighters can feel special; I'd rather not play 4E.
You forgot saves.
If Fighters could kindly get back their all Good Saves, and possibly pick up another 2 skill points a level, I think we'd be on the right track.
Especially with the Barbarian able to get such massive saves with Superstitious. Eesh.
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest problems Fighters have is that Fighters have to rely far too much on things that they themselves simply do not have access to, and require certain considerations from the GM. This means that in some games, Fighters really shine, and in other games, Fighters seem really terrible.
Fighters...
Finally, a friend of mine summed up her opinions of her time spent playing a Fighter...
"I loved my character, but I quickly grew bored with my class. Her personality, spunk, and antics were great, but when it came to the game her options were hit it or hit it harder. There really wasn't anything unique to the class that gave it any options that other classes didn't get in some form, or just didn't need."
Ashiel and everyone else who has a problem with the fighter's options, I found something for you:
It's 3.5, not PF, but it's nice. It's very, very nice. A little tweaking, and it should work. May even work fine in PF without tweaking. Whoever made it did us a favor.
The biggest problems Fighters have is that Fighters have to rely far too much on things that they themselves simply do not have access to, and require certain considerations from the GM. This means that in some games, Fighters really shine, and in other games, Fighters seem really terrible.
True, and this should hold for any class.
Are next to rogue in the class most reliant upon magic items to remain viable as levels rise. They have to rely on either allies to expend resources to keep them viable, or they must rely on magic items to give them options that are just not ignorable in a higher level arena where the GM plays creatures and NPCs to their potential.
Show me any character that doesn't rely on magic items as they level. There isn't a single one. Even the spellcasters rely on magic items. I have never seen a single one that was all powerful that didn't have a crap ton of magic items. If you want more spells or more potent spells, you are very reliant on magic items.
They have the least options of any class in the game in terms of raw potential within their class. They have little to nothing that is actually theirs. Most of their options end at Combat Maneuvers, which literally anyone can attempt, and most martial characters will excel at anyway (including Barbarians, Paladins, and Rangers) and have their own methods of doing things; while barbarians get a number of options through rage powers, rangers get a good selection of spells (including freedom of movement which is critical at higher levels). Paladins have excellent saving throws, swift-action self-healing (which is effectively a crapload of extra hit points), the ability to remove status ailments, and they too have an excellent variety of spell options (including the almighty bestow grace which gives them ChaMod*2 to saves, grace which allows them to selectively ignore AoOs for movement, and holy sword which turns any weapon they wield into a +5 holy weapon on command).
This is also far from the truth. One of the problems is that people don't describe their actions. Another is that GMs assume that many of those actions all of a sudden should have penalties. Most of the time it's because someone isn't using his creativity to explain what he's doing. Spells give you a description of your actions. Base Attack doesn't.
Also, just because anyone can attempt a combat maneuver doesn't mean that they will be good at it. A fighter can master several maneuvers, a couple of critical attacks, some ranged and melee, and still have some options for other things outside of just fighting.
All of the options you mention are not meant for the fighter. The fighter is the most customizable of the mundane classes. It does require a little work because of this but a player that is paying attention to the campaign really shouldn't have much of a problem. Unless the campaign is specifically designed to work against non-casters (which too many are).
They require heavy amounts of system mastery to really unlock their full potential to make their limited attack routines seem appealing. For example, unless you know the correct feats to take, that archers need strength, to buy certain magic items, and so on and so forth,...
They really don't require all that much more mastery than any other class. A spellcaster requires a ton of system mastery as well. You need to choose the right class, the right spells known and/or prepared, the right god (if a divine caster), the right feats, and if you are wrong you need to hope that you aren't so wrong that you can't make changes tomorrow.
I also want to address this part separately:
a Fighter will fall by the wayside very quickly in a game run by a competent GM.
This is such a load of garbage that I find it not just false but incredibly offensive. A competent GM will make sure everyone is having fun at the table, regardless of class. A competent GM will make sure that the encounters are appropriate for the characters. A competent GM will ensure that the players know the basics of the campaign before hand so that they won't make truly horrible choices (if running a Dark Sun style game, you may not want to play arcane casters or play characters reliant on heavy armor). That particular line is just flat out insulting to any competent GM.
I get it, you don't like fighters because they don't fit your style or the style of the group you are in. However, to assume that only crappy GMs can run games with fighters shows a serious lack of understanding of what it takes to be a competent GM.
Still play them? Yes.
Still find them relevant? Yes.
That said, my players are the types of people who either A. don't know the system well enough to really optimize, or B. who optimize explicitly with the intention not to invalidate other party roles.
There's a lot of "I won't take X Feat or X Spell if it will make your character shine less" at my table. What's kinda cool is that I don't enforce this. The players decided to do it themselves.
My current game group which has 6 players and they recruited 2 NPC's. Of the 6 PC's 3 of them are fighters. The other three are wizard, rogue and cleric. While the two NPC's they went out of their way to recruit are a fighter and a Witch. They seem to like fighters. :)
This post makes me want to play Final Fantasy I.
So why didn't the kitty leave with the almost dead ranger while the getting was good?
Its still suboptimal tactics. The kitty could have coup de graced the sleeping fighters before the oracle got them up. The fighters weren't saved by their awesomness, they were saved by poor tactics (which mightbe appropriate for the cat)
Its still suboptimal tactics. The kitty could have coup de graced the sleeping fighters before the oracle got them up. The fighters weren't saved by their awesomness, they were saved by poor tactics (which mightbe appropriate for the cat)Why do Internet posters fill in gaps by assuming stupidity?
Quickest route to the most likely outcome. :k
Round 1 - ranger shoots arrow, party kills last goblin, cats puts 3 pcs to sleep.
Round 2 - Cat knocks out ranger, oracle wakes up antipaladin.
Round 3 - oracle wakes up fighter
Round 4 - oracle wakes up paladin
Round 5 - cat tries to flee, fighter blocks for oracle, oracle heals ranger, cat tries to flee and gets smashed.
And what was kitty doing on rounds 3 and 4 instead of coup de gracing?
Man, Fighters are like, my favorite class. I'm serious.
He's saying it should have been.
Round 2-Cat CDGs Antipaladin
Round 3-Cat CDGs paladin
Round 4-Cat flees.
If you're asleep you can be coup de graced.
What WAS the cat doing on round 3 and 4? Was he attacking the Oracle?
Trying to beat the party while they were waking up, kill the oracle, or save the goblin. I'm not clear on what you think it would gain by permanently killing the archer while everyone regroups
Dinner.
If its primary motive is instead to avenge the Goblin, it can either 5 foot step and CDC , or if its further away, charge and pounce the unconscious prone helpless victims.. probably getting the same result.
Good to see so many people enjoy playing Fighters. I know I do!
Like some said before, I'm fond of Fighter multiclassing. Fighter/Rogue always brings up good memories for me. My second AD&D character was a dual class fighter/thief, after all.
|
|
Its still suboptimal tactics. The kitty could have coup de graced the sleeping fighters before the oracle got them up. The fighters weren't saved by their awesomness, they were saved by poor tactics (which mightbe appropriate for the cat)
You don't know the setup to be honest. There could have been attacks of opportunity because that's what happens when you try a coup, also it doesn't auto kill. If they survive then they have to make Fort saves, which they are good at. Also, it takes a full round action so the cat will have to walk up and stand there. Next round, deliver the coup and not be able to move. By this time the person may survive and the cat becomes surrounded.
What's the INT on this creature?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My current fighter 6 (Polearm master), PFS
Str: 21 (+1 lvl +2 gauntlets)
Int: 14
Wis: 12
Dex: 14
Con: 12
Chr: 7
Feats:
1) WF, Combat Reflexes, Dodge
2) Combat Expertise
3) Mobility
4) Spring Attack (switched for WF), Whirlwind Attack
5) Improved Trip
6) Greater Improved Trip
Future
7 (will be inquisitor 1 for growth domain): Lunge
9) Power Attack, Weapon Spec
He's a great damage output machine with a lot of options. He wields a currently +1 Horsechopper, and makes an attempt to whirlwind trip everyone within 10 feet. At 7th level he will do it within 15 feet, and 4 times / day within 25 of a large template (room clean). His trip bonus makes him rarely fail, and even as straight damage he does a great job.
Nobody except a fighter does it this efficiently, as this build is as feat-intensive as they come.
but it is a CR 4 with an AoE sleep and pounce. I put it up against a 15 point buy 5 man 1st level party the round after they mopped up some goblins...
Both the ranger and the fighter are "suboptimal" giving up combat ability for utility, so it is pretty CR fair.
I would point out that core assumptions in the designing encounters guide suggests that 5 PCs is not a lot and shouldn't be enough to affect the APL.
Its still suboptimal tactics. The kitty could have coup de graced the sleeping fighters before the oracle got them up. The fighters weren't saved by their awesomness, they were saved by poor tactics (which mightbe appropriate for the cat)You don't know the setup to be honest. There could have been attacks of opportunity because that's what happens when you try a coup, also it doesn't auto kill. If they survive then they have to make Fort saves, which they are good at. Also, it takes a full round action so the cat will have to walk up and stand there. Next round, deliver the coup and not be able to move. By this time the person may survive and the cat becomes surrounded.
What's the INT on this creature?
It's called the kamadan, it has pounce, 1 bite +7 (1d6+3), 2 claws +7 (1d3+3)and 2 snakes +2 (1d4+1).
The sleep ability is a breath weapon dc 15 in a 30 foot cone. AC 17 hp 42 combat reflexes, dodge and mobility 10 reach with the snakes. Int of 5 and Init of +2.
Considering these are level 1 characters I'm kind of thinking that a pounce on any of them while asleep should have killed them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel and everyone else who has a problem with the fighter's options, I found something for you:
It's 3.5, not PF, but it's nice. It's very, very nice. A little tweaking, and it should work. May even work fine in PF without tweaking. Whoever made it did us a favor.
Eh, I'm not really very impressed with the Fighter Redux class. I think its wording could be cleaned up, and honestly it seems like the person who wrote it really liked Fighters and was satisfying some sort of idealistic image of how he or she felt Fighters should be.
For example, the class has a perfect d10 HD, perfect BAB, perfect saves (Fort, Ref, Will), 6 + Int mod skills, a ton of class skills, and so forth. Yet at the same time it falls into the exact same trap problems that the core Fighter does, and does nothing to fix them. It IS more versatile, since apparently this Fighter redux can learn and forget feats on the fly, and apparently gets extra swift and immediate actions. Though his foil action spell is pretty goofy as well.
But like I said, despite basically trying as hard as possible to just make this class the most BAMF thing possible, it still suffers from the usual problems that Fighters possess as levels rise. Nothing new here.
The biggest problems Fighters have is that Fighters have to rely far too much on things that they themselves simply do not have access to, and require certain considerations from the GM. This means that in some games, Fighters really shine, and in other games, Fighters seem really terrible.True, and this should hold for any class.
But it's not true for every class. Or at least, it is less true for most classes besides Fighter. For example, if I'm playing a druid, ranger, sorcerer, cleric, wizard, or bard, I am more or less guaranteed certain opportunities, unless the GM is going out of his way to specifically counter that class, and in that case Druid, Ranger, and Bard are usually still decent options who have options. Also the only reason I didn't mention Paladin was because their abilities can be easily stripped because your GM tries to make you fall.
Fighters on the other hand (as well as rogues, monks, and to a lesser extend barbarians - but barbarians have options and class features that alleviate a lot of stuff) are basically at the mercy of circumstance. For example, if you cannot get magic items that grant certain magical effects, you are basically screwed. For example, rangers get stuff like resist energy, longstrider, freedom of movement, pass without trace, and a variety of other useful buffs and even some CC effects. In short, a Ranger is already a competent warrior (good BAB, nice saves, good HP, nice feats & stuff) and his third tier (full casting, bard casting, ranger casting) spell list offers more options than the Fighter's entire class.
Show me any character that doesn't rely on magic items as they level. There isn't a single one. Even the spellcasters rely on magic items. I have never seen a single one that was all powerful that didn't have a crap ton of magic items. If you want more spells or more potent spells, you are very reliant on magic items.
Please don't misrepresent me. Or perhaps I misrepresented myself. Let me try this another way. Again, like with the circumstantial problems the Fighter has in the way of options from his class, a Fighter is entirely reliant upon magical items to remain viable in any form at higher levels, or the exclusive support by the party's casters expending their resources to cover his ass.
For example, a Fighter will need death ward in some form at higher levels if your game has either A) spellcasters, B) shadows, wights, vampires, or other bad undead. He will need freedom of movement if he wants to remain viable in an a theater where creatures can move about and hamper movement easily (for example, without something like freedom of movement, a Fighter has absolutely no defense against spells that disrupt movement, such as fog cloud, black tentacles, or even entangle, which cut your limited natural movement in half, and may anchor you to the ground completely.
Fighter is the worst class to play in most environments described as "low-magic", or in games where GMs won't allow items that mimic spell effects like protection from evil, mind blank, freedom of movement, resist energy, and so forth, because this setback combined with their paltry selection of options, essentially ensures they can not participate viably in a theater that also includes higher level creatures and challenges.
They have the least options of any class in the game in terms of raw potential within their class. They have little to nothing that is actually theirs. Most of their options end at Combat Maneuvers, which literally anyone can attempt, and most martial characters will excel at anyway (including Barbarians, Paladins, and Rangers) and have their own methods of doing things; while barbarians get a number of options through rage powers, rangers get a good selection of spells (including freedom of movement which is critical at higher levels). Paladins have excellent saving throws, swift-action self-healing (which is effectively a crapload of extra hit points), the ability to remove status ailments, and they too have an excellent variety of spell options (including the almighty bestow grace which gives them ChaMod*2 to saves, grace which allows them to selectively ignore AoOs for movement, and holy sword which turns any weapon they wield into a +5 holy weapon on command).This is also far from the truth. One of the problems is that people don't describe their actions. Another is that GMs assume that many of those actions all of a sudden should have penalties. Most of the time it's because someone isn't using his creativity to explain what he's doing. Spells give you a description of your actions. Base Attack doesn't.
Spell fluff is just as mutable as anything else. It doesn't matter if a fireball is blue, green, purple, or even looks like a "kamehameha" as long as it still deals 10d6 fire damage and ignites flammables on fire. Clever description does not add options to a class, and never has, and frankly it shouldn't.
"I attempt to kill the goblin with my sword" has the same effect as "I dashingly spin my sword in a flurry to distract the goblin before asserting my foot atop its own so that he cannot retreat, before ending my flourish by driving the tip of the blade through the goblin's chest with a powerful thrust!"
In both cases, you are still rolling 1d20 + mods vs goblin AC. You are making one of the most obvious mistakes ever when discussing how valid a class is, and that is talking about its fluff. Fluff is like play-dough. It can be shaped into different things. If a ranger uses pass without trace, it could be described as walking on top of the terrain like Legolas walks on the snow in Fellowship, or it could be that the land itself seems to erase your presence, as your footsteps evanescence after each step.
This is not some sort of special feature of the Fighter, nor is there some sort of special benefit for just describing your actions flavorfully. That's just silly.
Also, just because anyone can attempt a combat maneuver doesn't mean that they will be good at it. A fighter can master several maneuvers, a couple of critical attacks, some ranged and melee, and still have some options for other things outside of just fighting.
Yeah, yeah. The biggest contributor is base attack bonus, and there are other classes that have a high BAB. Monsters also tend to be pretty ballin' at it too. Again, we're basically talking about how the Fighter has a handful of options that are neither his own, nor are they valid tactics against lots of things. For example, tripping doesn't work vs flying creatures, swimming, or anything with more legs than eyes. Disarming is useless versus most monsters and requires you to be in melee with them anyway, and is heavily defended against with a simple locked gauntlet. Likewise, Paizo seems to like handing out martial class abilities as low-level spells, so now you might even run into spellcasters who can't be disarmed at all because they popped a low-level spell to steal part of your capstone ability but applying the stolen portion to every weapon they wield.
Likewise, Barbarians tend to be pretty awesome at combat maneuvers as well. Also wizards and sorcerers, who can now preform combat maneuvers without even bothering to spend anything more than a move action with a whip made out of force, or do it from a great distance with telekinesis. Color me unimpressed that Fighters have the option to spend some feats to not provoke attacks.
All of the options you mention are not meant for the fighter. The fighter is the most customizable of the mundane classes. It does require a little work because of this but a player that is paying attention to the campaign really shouldn't have much of a problem. Unless the campaign is specifically designed to work against non-casters (which too many are).
Hmmm, out of the mundane classes there are 2. Fighter and Rogue. Barbarians get all kinds of cool powers, some of which are supernatural. As for most customizable, I'm not really sold on that. Fighters excel by specializing, but most things can be done by simply diversifying your options. Even rogues beat the Fighter in versatility, and recently got a feat that allows their sneak attack to remain viable past 11th level. A barbarian gets his bonuses regardless of which weapons he's wielding, and can change his entire focus round to round if he desires, with no real problem, merely by swapping his weapons (polearm for tripping and lockdown, net for CC, 2-hander for damage, etc).
They really don't require all that much more mastery than any other class. A spellcaster requires a ton of system mastery as well. You need to choose the right class, the right spells known and/or prepared, the right god (if a divine caster), the right feats, and if you are wrong you need to hope that you aren't so wrong that you can't make changes tomorrow.
Haw, haw, haw. That's funny. The majority of the full-casters get their power from their spells. Sure domain powers and such are nice, but it's hard to have a cleric that can't be salvaged the next day by picking a different selection of spells. Repeat this concept with Ranger, Paladin, Druid, and Wizard. Bards & Sorcerers are the easiest to mess up for a level or two at a time.
So I'm a newbie and I'm playing a druid. I come to discover that casting cure light wounds really isn't helping our party against orcs that deal twice as much damage with every swing, so the next day I prepare entangle instead and learn it's really useful. Later, I find that casting summon nature's ally can be used to check for traps, tank, and help my allies, and I discover I can spontaneously cast it, so I also end up preparing something random like obscuring mist. Later my pet bird is killed in battle so I grab a bear instead, and find it's a bit more combat savvy that my hawk or whatever was. So I'm learning as I go. Go me. Is it going to make a huge difference in my character because I took Toughness and Skill Focus (Craft: Leatherworking)? Um, no.
A Fighter is as easy to mess up as it is to customize. While Pathfinder was kind enough to allow Fighters to replace a single bonus feat every 4 levels, you can't replace anything that you're using as a prerequisite, so if you take Combat Expertise and Improved Disarm, and later realize you're not really very happy with either, and would have preferred Power Attack and Combat Reflexes...guess what... you have to eat 8 more levels before you can change them! :P
They require heavy amounts of system mastery to really unlock their full potential to make their limited attack routines seem appealing. For example, unless you know the correct feats to take, that archers need strength, to buy certain magic items, and so on and so forth, a Fighter will fall by the wayside very quickly in a game run by a competent GM.This is such a load of garbage that I find it not just false but incredibly offensive. A competent GM will make sure everyone is having fun at the table, regardless of class. A competent GM will make sure that the encounters are appropriate for the characters. A competent GM will ensure that the players know the basics of the campaign before hand so that they won't make truly horrible choices (if running a Dark Sun style game, you may not want to play arcane casters or play characters reliant on heavy armor). That particular line is just flat out insulting to any competent GM.
There. I fixed your quote, and re-added the context. Maybe you won't make that mistake the next time. ^-^
I stand by what I said. I consider a competent GM to be anyone who plays enemies to their potential. I'm not talking about loop holes or munchkin type shenanigans, but just playing enemies like they want to live. If the GM has to consciously tone down what the enemies can and probably should do to make the Fighter relevant, then that is a far more damning thing for the Fighter class than I have bothered to utter.
For example, let's look at some of the things that you might encounter at high-ish levels. Like the CR 7 Succubus. She's not so bad, but can be annoying to fight. But your Fighter needs either a blessed weapon or cold iron weapon to hurt her, and she flies, making her immune to tripping. She doesn't use weapons so there will be no disarming. She can greater-teleport at-will and ethereal jaunt at-will, so locking her down can be a huge pain in the butt. Her AC is a nice 20 without armor (and she could happily wear leather armor for 22 with no penalties), and given her ability to easily manipulate her terrain with movement abilities can generally find some cover (+4 AC) if not in a barren field of low-cut grass (in which case the succubus can happily haunt the party while Ethereal until she wants to screw with them some more). She sports an at-will DC 22 save vs Charm Monster, which means DC 17 if the Fighter is actively in combat with her. At 7th level a Fighter's base will save is only +2. Count a +1 cloak and a +2 Wisdom and you have a +5. His chances of failing are exceedingly high. Her dominate person is 1/day at DC 23, which is almost an assured failure. So let's hope he has some sort of protection from evil spell active, but that's probably too much of a pain to keep active if your GM wouldn't allow you the option to get it on a pierce of armor. Fail one save and you're the succubus' minion for the next 12 hours, and she can make you do whatever she wants with an opposed Charisma check (good luck on that one sir). Best case scenario, the Fighter hits her with a lot of cold-iron arrows because the player was experienced enough to come prepared (I do so love golf-bagging).
That's CR 7. It gets worse as your levels rise. As your level rises, you will definitely need more and more access to certain types of buffs and effects on at least short-term activation effects, including freedom of movement, death ward, etc.
Why? Well because without these sorts of options, you will die or spend large amounts of time trying to be relevant unless your GM is coddling you or otherwise not playing creatures like they want to survive. Here's a good acid test. If your GM has lots of kobolds charge your party's warrior with their little short 1d4-2 short swords, as opposed to hanging back and firing crossbows, taking cover, using alchemical items, and so forth, then I probably won't consider that GM very competent. Some people like these sorts of games where the GM passes out free XP points under the guise of some sort of trivially easy combat, but "maunty haul" campaigns aren't really my thing.
But hey, if your GM has to purposefully have intelligent creatures not employ their own tactics and abilities in smart ways to keep the Fighter relevant, then that is a harsher criticism of the class than I could ever give to it.
I get it, you don't like fighters because they don't fit your style or the style of the group you are in. However, to assume that only crappy GMs can run games with fighters shows a serious lack of understanding of what it takes to be a competent GM.
No, you don't get it. I actually like Fighters. One of the most successful characters in one of my online games is in fact a Fighter. One of my favorite characters was an elf fighter from a population of desert nomads who dual-wielded the 3.5 DMG kusari-gamas, and had left her people to search for her half-elven daughter after her human lover took their child and left. Fighters make excellent archers, and literally nothing in the core game can match them pound for pound in raw killing power.
Understanding that the class requires a number of things to remain relevant as the game progresses doesn't mean I dislike the class. I didn't condemn the class, nor did I even say that Fighters automatically fail in games run by a competent GM like you are misconstruing it. No, I specifically said: "For example, unless you know the correct feats to take, that archers need strength, to buy certain magic items, and so on and so forth" and "The biggest problems Fighters have is that Fighters have to rely far too much on things that they themselves simply do not have access to" and "This means that in some games, Fighters really shine, and in other games, Fighters seem really terrible".
Fighters just require a solid amount of experience, solid feat selection, a strong idea of what you want to excel at primarily and if you want any sub-specializations, and so forth. Likewise, you need to check with your GM to see if he or she allows magic items that function continuously, via command word, or like boots of speed with certain staple magic effects. If you won't be able to easily access magic items that you will need, you will probably be better off being a Ranger, Paladin, or even Cleric and grabbing a crafting feat and using your class features to patch up your defenses a bit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my last campaign we had 2 straight fighters. In my current campaign we have 1 straight fighter. So yes, people still play fighters. When you absulutely need to stab, bash, slash or shoot it over and over, the fighter is really your best bet in pathfinder, as it should be.