| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are a wise person.stuffOh, relax. For real. This isn't a fight that needs had.
You see, you know how some people have an hour of meditation every day? I have an hour of nerdrage. Helps with the bowels.
It was to show that he can hit is target and deal damage
But he CAN"T hit his target. That's the point.
There's more to hitting a target than rolling and adding. You have to get to it. At higher level play you don't deal with armor class, you deal with mirror images, flying, invisibility, quickened dimension doors, clones, projected images... the only way to be missed is to not be somewhere you can be hit. Even without magic the dragon still flies and has a breath weapon and damage reduction to deal with the arrows.
Oh, i also forgot to add. Dragon moves towards fighter. Fighter hits fear aura and wets pants. He has -2 to all his attacks and saves.
IF it matters to you that the fighter be independent of other classes... he is not. He needs gear that he can't readily make or spells put on him that he can't cast.
Also i just had the mental image of a giant red dragon plopping on a chef's hat that said "Kiss the cook" and roasting the fighter.
An anti magic zone is one thing. One. A will save is half the spells and half the monsters in the game. They're ubiquitous. Its the difference between being allergic to argon vs being allergic to water.
can't get them to be useful because I find their spell lists annoying. I also dislike druids because one of the best ways to play them is to actually play the animal companion with the druid as a buffer.
I don't like how you play them to be useful " is VASTLY different from "they're not useful".; one is a problem with the class the other is a preference with the player.
The vast majority of my games don't hit the levels where fighters are useless, so i have no problem playing them.
Also, you cannot simply assume that the opponents in one game will be the same as in another. I can run a full campaign from levels 1 to 20 without having to bring in any opponents that you would bring into yours.
Right, but what kind of fine toothed comb would you have to use to weed out anything that won't Roflcopter the fighter with a will save?
So if I throw an enemy caster at the party that tosses an anti-magic field into the mix, that's GM fiat. But if I throw a balor in that targets the fighter's will save, that's just too bad for the fighter?*deep breath* I'm trying really hard not to say anything ugly about this, so let me see if I can try to break it down for you.
Take a step back and count to 10. Relax. Instead of just being against whatever I say, try to look at what I am saying. If this is getting your worked up, grab your favorite drink crack open a magazine for a few minutes and read your favorite article. I like to crack open my books on snakes while sipping on a diet coke. It helps.
ANTI-MAGIC-FIELD is a spell. It is a game effect. It's also really crappy for MOST things that can cast it, and fails against any wizard wearing a pointy hat*. That aside, it is a perfectly valid tactic if you wish to try and employ it. However, it is obviously not a "dead magic zone" where magic just doesn't work. Somebody had to use Antimagic field. Someone uses the 10ft radius AMF, good for them. Somebody says "the area that this adventure is taking place in is a dead magic zone" is GM fiat. See the difference? One is a game effect, one is because I said so.
No difference. The GM determines what is in the game. Everything is GM fiat. I know you want to see it differently but it really isn't. If there is a way within the rules to get the effect, then it isn't GM fiat. I think any GM that is going out of his way to target any particular character has some issues as GM that need attention.
It's good you don't advocate it. AMF sucks. There are almost always better ways to defend yourself, because it generally shuts down the useful protections without actually hindering any opponent who has considered that they may face something with either A) Spell Resistance or B) antimagic field.
I find it annoying for all characters. I hate having to recalculate all the attacks and damage from the melee/archers. I hate having to refigure all the spell effects. It's just too much work with little payoff. That isn't to say I haven't used them but I use them so rarely I can count on both thumbs the number of times I've used them in the last 10 years (it was easier in previous editions and some areas we gamed in actually encouraged it for a while).
You are arguing something no one else is. Nobody is whining that it's GM fiat when you use stuff that's part of the normal game. In fact, I'm 99% positive that it has only been typical game stuff used as examples for why you need certain things to remain viable. Y'know, citing monster stats and tactics and such.
It's hard to argue monster stats and tactics because what I see as a reasonable CR X encounter, you won't. I run things very differently than you. I don't use hardly any outsiders for example.
Your entire argument, which is virtually non-existent as a pro-Fighter argument, could be applied to the Commoner class with literally no change at all. "It's not the class, it's the playstyle. It's not that a Commoner has trouble with typical adventure expectancies, it's that the GM isn't...", blah, blah, blah.
It is always the play style. Commoners are not an appropriate Player Character class. Yup, many people can have a ton of fun with one. They will be very boring for the high majority of players, and that's fine because that was part of the design intent. The developers didn't want Commoners as a PC class. Mission accomplished. It is always the play style though. I'm sure you can point to at least one other player that always plays the same thing (or handful of things). It suits his or her style.
Yeah, but if that campaign has A) spellcasters, B) high level undead, C) outsiders, D) a myriad of magical creatures, we have the same issue. If I have to tailor the game to specifically ignore most of the high level monsters, classes, and so forth, or drastically dumb them down, then there is a problem. Plain and simple. There's no arguing that.
Of course it does. I was actually making that point. A fighter that is a master of heavy armor is a poor choice for a seafaring campaign. A fire elementalist blaster wizard would probably also be a poor choice. A druid that likes to summon often that is in a large party may actually be a poor choice for the group because he can eat up too many actions.
I write the campaign. I expect my players to adapt. As GM it is my responsibility to make sure everyone is having fun and no one is too powerful or too weak. In the Age of Worms game I am running, it's the wizard that I have to make sure I don't kill. I still kill him, but I try to be careful that I don't. He gets himself into a lot of trouble. I haven't had to pull any punches from the two fighters and the barbarian/rogue.
I don't tailor a game to ignore any opposition in particular. When I write or run an adventure, I ask myself what is most appropriate? If the party is going to be dealing with red dragons, should I also throw in some ice golems? That may not be appropriate for what the feel I'm trying to convey.
OMGWTF!? Dude, seriously, stop it. Classes are nothing. Nothing. They are just a set of game statistics on a piece of paper. They have little to nothing to do with roleplaying or the like beyond just facilitating your concept. Roleplaying has absolutely 0% to do with the Fighter being good, bad, or successful in one game or another. Not even a teeny, tiny, bit! I've put together Rurouni Kenshin style samurai using Barbarian/Fighter/Rogue, because the abilities fit the theme.
What does this even have to do with this discussion?
The point I was making is that we spend a lot of time arguing about how one class plays compared to another but is that how we actually play? I don't. Do you? Do you argue about one thing but then not actually play that way? I argue for fighters, which I haven't played in years. The last two characters I played was the Beginner Box wizard and an oracle of life. Before that, I don't remember because it has been so long. I generally GM.
Also, it's worth noting that the AMF spell is pretty poor when used against a wizard that has contingency and uses the anti-anti-magic field trick. See, wizards wear pointy hats. Ever wonder why? They will tell you it is because it represents their connection to the heavens or some such garbage, but it's actually because it's a teepee they shrank using shrink item and are wearing on their head.
The moment that an AMF is introduced to their area, the teepee expands (being caught in the AMF) which surrounds them. Since an AMF is an emanation, they are no longer affected by the AMF inside of the teepee, at which point that are free to escape, possibly via a contingency, or manually (which works especially well with cones made of metal, which usually gives them a bit of time before something can carve through it).
Once the wizard dimension doors away, he can replace his hat with his spare that is inside his bag of holding or haversack, and proceed to drop conjuration (creation) spells on the foolish moron who thought AMFs were a good idea.
You see, you know how some people have an hour of meditation every day? I have an hour of nerdrage. Helps with the bowels.You are a wise person.stuffOh, relax. For real. This isn't a fight that needs had.
Huh. as a usual target of that nerdrage its nice to know i'm doing my part to keep things flowing :)
This is why I should know better than to get into this. Very few people actually have any intention on seeing other points of view. Instead, they just want to be the opposition and apply their narrow game view onto the system as a whole. I am incredibly grateful that most PnP RPGs are flexible enough to handle so many styles of play.
No matter what opponent I toss out there, it will be assumed that I created it specifically to be balanced against the fighter. Even if I just went to the adventure I'm running. Have a good night all.
This is why I should know better than to get into this. Very few people actually have any intention on seeing other points of view. Instead, they just want to be the opposition and apply their narrow game view onto the system as a whole. I am incredibly grateful that most PnP RPGs are flexible enough to handle so many styles of play.
No matter what opponent I toss out there, it will be assumed that I created it specifically to be balanced against the fighter. Even if I just went to the adventure I'm running. Have a good night all.
More points less ad hom please? You're kind of relying on peoples alleged dislike of the fighter as a motivation for what we're saying, as well as some sort of anti fighter bias for picking things that affect will save when will save affecting abilities are very very common.
Take a step back and count to 10. Relax. Instead of just being against whatever I say, try to look at what I am saying. If this is getting your worked up, grab your favorite drink crack open a magazine for a few minutes and read your favorite article. I like to crack open my books on snakes while sipping on a diet coke. It helps.
I'm not arguing against whatever you sake for sake of arguing. I vehemently disbelieve what you say, because I know it to be false. It's like listening to someone go on about the earth being flat, and I can see where they're coming from, I just don't buy it.
ANTI-MAGIC-FIELD is a spell. It is a game effect. It's also really crappy for MOST things that can cast it, and fails against any wizard wearing a pointy hat*. That aside, it is a perfectly valid tactic if you wish to try and employ it. However, it is obviously not a "dead magic zone" where magic just doesn't work. Somebody had to use Antimagic field. Someone uses the 10ft radius AMF, good for them. Somebody says "the area that this adventure is taking place in is a dead magic zone" is GM fiat. See the difference? One is a game effect, one is because I said so.No difference. The GM determines what is in the game. Everything is GM fiat. I know you want to see it differently but it really isn't. If there is a way within the rules to get the effect, then it isn't GM fiat. I think any GM that is going out of his way to target any particular character has some issues as GM that need attention.
There's a huge difference. It is not GM fiat that a 12 Str gives a +1 bonus. That just part of the game. It's not GM fiat that a succubus has a DC 22 Charm Monster. It is GM fiat when the GM says "rocks fall, everyone dies" or "your spell just doesn't work here" or "I'm going to fudge the dragon's saving throw because I don't think he should go down so easily" is GM fiat. When you're stepping outside what is expected for the games rules, you are using GM fiat. Used wisely, and it can be a good thing, but used poorly (like making dungeons full of no-magic zones) and it's a terrible thing.
Now I get that you're saying the GM chooses the enemies, but that's just the thing. If I have to specifically avoid choosing stuff because it trivially invalidates a class, there is a problem.
Likewise, if all things are GM fiat, then nothing is broken ever. There is no problem with anything. In fact, there shouldn't even be a Pathfinder, because 3E was 100% correct, and 3.5 was 100% correct, and the mechanical problems didn't actually exist, because they only existed because of GM fiat. In fact, maybe we shouldn't even be playing with a rule set, or even rolling dice, because that's GM Fiat too, right?
It's hard to argue monster stats and tactics because what I see as a reasonable CR X encounter, you won't. I run things very differently than you. I don't use hardly any outsiders for example.
Do you use Wizards, Sorcerers, Druids, Clerics, Paladins, Rangers? How about Bards? Maybe Witches, or Summoners? How about adepts? Most of the things I've noted aren't specific to outsiders. I just usually grab outsiders by default 'cause they're commonly decent higher CR encounters, and are usually fairly balanced in their options (not usually a one-trick pony).
Of course it does. I was actually making that point. A fighter that is a master of heavy armor is a poor choice for a seafaring campaign. A fire elementalist blaster wizard would probably also be a poor choice. A druid that likes to summon often that is in a large party may actually be a poor choice for the group because he can eat up too many actions.
Actually a Fighter is the best class to wear heavy armor with on a seafaring game. They get the ability to ignore most if not all of their armor check penalty, have good Strength scores, Swim as a class skill, and with a little enhancement to his armor can swim like a fish. A fire elemental blaster is actually a good option unless by seafaring you mean underwater campaign, and even then once he can reliably make the DC 20 + spell level Concentration check, he is almost assured nothing he faces will have Fire resistance. Of course, he could always just use his Fire spells to nuke other ships like a cannon while using a different set of spells for his under water activities (similar to how a wizard might prep spells for both outdoor and indoor use). Resolving actions due to summoning is a player problem, not the class. I've been in plenty of games where I was playing a summoner or necromancer, only to resolve my turn and all my minions turns in less time than it took for the barbarian next to me to finalize his turn.
I write the campaign. I expect my players to adapt. As GM it is my responsibility to make sure everyone is having fun and no one is too powerful or too weak. In the Age of Worms game I am running, it's the wizard that I have to make sure I don't kill. I still kill him, but I try to be careful that I don't. He gets himself into a lot of trouble. I haven't had to pull any punches from the two fighters and the barbarian/rogue.
I suppose this is a good example of our play style differences. I expect players to adapt, but I don't pull any punches. I build encounters using the rulebook like a Baatezu with a naughty itch. I play NPCs like they don't want to die, and while I'm not out to kill anyone, my NPCs might be. However, most of the time the party pulls through, and I congratulate them because they survived and it was all because of them. I wasn't pulling punches, so the victory was entirely theirs.
I don't tailor a game to ignore any opposition in particular. When I write or run an adventure, I ask myself what is most appropriate? If the party is going to be dealing with red dragons, should I also throw in some ice golems? That may not be appropriate for what the feel I'm trying to convey.
Speaking of Red Dragons and Ice Golems, Pink Dragons are a b!&+# (that is a half-red white dragon or a half-white red dragon).
The point I was making is that we spend a lot of time arguing about how one class plays compared to another but is that how we actually play? I don't. Do you? Do you argue about one thing but then not actually play that way? I argue for fighters, which I haven't played in years. The last two characters I played was the Beginner Box wizard and an oracle of life. Before that, I don't remember because it has been so long. I generally GM.
I actually play in a game where tactics are used and we don't ignore a large set of those tactics. I don't play Fighters often. In fact, I don't play anything often as I too am almost always GMing, and when I do finally get around to playing I'm usually itching to play a Necromancer of some sort (but necromancer-clerics can melee too, so that's ok). However, it is years of experience with both playing and GMing that has taught me the pros and cons of being a Fighter.
And it was those pros and cons I was referring to. It was why I said in some games the Fighter will seem awesome (like games where he can get the items he needs to cover his rear), and terrible in others (low magic games, or games where a GM thinks having an armor with freedom of movement or protection from evil or death ward is uncalled for illegal).
This is why I should know better than to get into this. Very few people actually have any intention on seeing other points of view. Instead, they just want to be the opposition and apply their narrow game view onto the system as a whole. I am incredibly grateful that most PnP RPGs are flexible enough to handle so many styles of play.
No matter what opponent I toss out there, it will be assumed that I created it specifically to be balanced against the fighter. Even if I just went to the adventure I'm running. Have a good night all.
Why do people assume that if other people disagree with them it's because they don't see their point of view? Honestly I have tried to see your point of view. In some cases, like when you started talking about how the Fighter was such a great class because of roleplaying, it felt like my head was superman subjected to a small truckload of kryptonite, but I at least recognized that the color of the kryptonite was green before my ears began to bleed.
You see, you know how some people have an hour of meditation every day? I have an hour of nerdrage. Helps with the bowels.You are a wise person.stuffOh, relax. For real. This isn't a fight that needs had.Huh. as a usual target of that nerdrage its nice to know i'm doing my part to keep things flowing :)
Hmm? I think the only time I've ever seriously disagreed with you in principle was in your Philosophy thread. There are people on these boards that infuriate me. You're not one of them. So this boggles me.
Hmm? I think the only time I've ever seriously disagreed with you in principle was in your Philosophy thread. There are people on these boards that infuriate me. You're not one of them. So this boggles me.You see, you know how some people have an hour of meditation every day? I have an hour of nerdrage. Helps with the bowels.You are a wise person.stuffOh, relax. For real. This isn't a fight that needs had.Huh. as a usual target of that nerdrage its nice to know i'm doing my part to keep things flowing :)
A character of mine? Not once, actually. I spend most of my time GMing. I've had some NPCs that have done it, and some PCs that have done so. Does that count, or did it actually have to be my character?
Or we could talk about how anyone who pops AMF is just asking for a dazing acid arrow in the face.
My campaigns usually feature a lot of fighters. Our optimization levels are usually average at best. We play the game for fun overall, not as a mathematical exercise where each player tries to one up the others. =)
In the two campaigns I'm running there are a total of 0 wizards or sorcerers.
It's quite nice actually.
Ah but it's not all melee. There is a cleric and a druid involved and an oracle.
Well, this thread shows again that there are those who are strongly convinced that fighters (and often by extension all martials) suck, are boring, don't work, are no fun, cannot compete... And there are those who think they are fine and have fun with them.
I stand by my opinion that fighters are fun and are absolutely playable. I also do not think they need "fixing" either.
Many arguments brought forth try to plot fighter against caster which is something I still do not understand: Pathfinder is not a competition about who is the best guy/girl in a group. It's a teamwork game where different skills are required to do the work.
Each class has its strengths and weaknesses. This affects casters as well as martials, and both can excel or just suck in a campaign, depending on playstyle, group dynamics and setting.
Something that seems to be an unmentioned assumption by some posters is that just because there are many monsters in the bestiary which can make a martial's life miserable they a) either must all be used or b) because they are there the usefulness of martials is reduced.
This is not the point of the bestiary. The monsters there do not all have to be used. Many are there for specific situations, to mimic monsters of legend or fiction, or just because someone had an idea he found cool. Most of the really "common" monsters (animals, goblins, giants, magical beasts, fey etc.) can be dealt with by all classes without great difficulty. And yes, CR can be adapted by greater numbers or leveling up (more hitdice etc., the rules are all provided and may be used).
I would not care if 70%, 80%, 90% or xx% of the CR 12+ monsters were almost unbeatable by martials without caster help and only 10% were terrible to casters. A DM will select those best fitting which may only be one or two of all of those and that is perfectly acceptable and not in any way "wrong".
I, my players and many posters here play fighters and have fun. We are not doing it "wrong", "underoptimize" or "nerf" other classes. We play different games, that's all.
Casters are fun to play, martials are fun to play. That's good enough for me :-)
Many arguments brought forth try to plot fighter against caster which is something I still do not understand: Pathfinder is not a competition about who is the best guy/girl in a group.
No, its not. But you can hit a point where the martials contribution to the group is pretty nominal even if the casters aren't trying all that hard, and thats not fun.
I assume that something will happen to screw over the fighter because most DM's are not going to work to avoid it, in no small part because of assertions that there's nothing wrong with the fighter. If you have to cherry pick to avoid making a character irrelevant then something has gone wrong with that character.
There will be those that focus on the mechanics. There will be those that focus on the aesthetics. The disconnect often comes in the crossing of those two mindsets.
As A Man In Black once put it
Well duh. The fighter we have isn't very good at anything but murder, and even then his skillset is pretty limited.
This is especially true when it comes to melee fighters and unlike the other full BAB core classes he has no out-of-combat problem-solving utility.
When it comes to damage the Barbarian can out damage the fighter and has more skills, better skills and a lot of cool powers.
Rangers and Paladins has a load full of out-of-combat problem-solving utility stuff going on and when they got their thing going they are even more deadly than a fighter. Heck a high level guide and Barbarian can move and full attack.
Fighter. Just say it out loud. Fighter! Shouldn't a class called "Fighter" be vastly better at fighting than any other class? If not, where are the fighter's of out-of-combat problem-solving utility stuff?
Edit:
He is boring. Got no cool abilities, no Extraordinary Abilities, no Supernatural Abilities, no Spell-Like Abilities, 2 skills per level, boring class skills, no spells, crappy (will) saves, and isn't even the best class there is when it comes to murder.
I'm surprised most of this thread is focused on damage and fighter vs. wizard.
I'm not talking melee vs. wizard or sorcerer (although I could) , I'm talking fighter vs. other melee dudes.
The only thing the fighter has are feats. They need it just to keep up with the other full BAB classes, because unlike the barbarians über rage powers (And Paladin and rangers get cools spells or other cool stuff ) the only thing fighter gets are feat chains that let them do things they all ready can do a bit better.
As for: some think they are great, therefore they are great? Some think the earth is flat. That doesn't make the earth flat.
Well, I meant in general. I too have a cleric and druid in my party, but they're melee focused. :)
One of the most powerful parties I ever GMed for was a PF-cleric party. The whole party was clerics, with wisdom as a 3rd stat, Strength prime, Con secondary. All humans, all took Heavy Armor Proficiency, and they spread their skills out to cover different things. All of them had 4 * CL worth of undead, while each of them were slobberknockers in melee. They were all capable of healing each other or themselves, all were buffers, and all were tanks.
Good times.
"As for: some think they are great, therefore they are great? Some think the earth is flat. That doesn't make the earth flat."
So if I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that those that don't agree with your opinion are wrong.
You have to realize that what makes something "great" is largely in the eye of the beholder.
The world being flat can be proven wrong by science.
1 + 1 = 2 is a mathematical fact that can be proven.
The color green is the best color of them all cannot be proven.
How do you prove an opinion on an abstract gaming element is right or wrong?
Will you next tell me the color red is also wrong?
We aren't dealing with something that can be proven by science, because it's all based on opinion.
You may be a mechanical-minded individual who feels that abilities = X, damage output = Y, and utility = Z, and greatness score = X + Y + Z and then compare it with Mage(X+Y+Z) and Ranger(X+Y+Z) to calculate who has the biggest and best overall score, but that still doesn't make it a fact, it only means that as you see it, it is superior.
We don't all score things the same.
My buddy still plays your plain ol' sword, sheild, and fullplate fighter... (AND think's that everyone else should too.) HE seems to enjoy it.
I usually play catsers but was tempted roll a polearm fighter. They look like they are actually worth going to lvl 20 w/ now in PT. My only gripe is that Armor Training loses it's usefulness as you get higher since it's unlikely your dex will scale w/ the bonus you get.
As A Man In Black once put it
Well duh. The fighter we have isn't very good at anything but murder, and even then his skillset is pretty limited.This is especially true when it comes to melee fighters and unlike the other full BAB core classes he has no out-of-combat problem-solving utility.
When it comes to damage the Barbarian can out damage the fighter and has more skills, better skills and a lot of cool powers.
Rangers and Paladins has a load full of out-of-combat problem-solving utility stuff going on and when they got their thing going they are even more deadly than a fighter. Heck a high level guide and Barbarian can move and full attack.Fighter. Just say it out loud. Fighter! Shouldn't a class called "Fighter" be vastly better at fighting than any other class? If not, where are the fighter's of out-of-combat problem-solving utility stuff?
Edit:
He is boring. Got no cool abilities, no Extraordinary Abilities, no Supernatural Abilities, no Spell-Like Abilities, 2 skills per level, boring class skills, no spells, crappy (will) saves, and isn't even the best class there is when it comes to murder.I'm surprised most of this thread is focused on damage and fighter vs. wizard.
I'm not talking melee vs. wizard or sorcerer (although I could) , I'm talking fighter vs. other melee dudes.The only thing the fighter has are feats. They need it just to keep up with the other full BAB classes, because unlike the barbarians über rage powers (And Paladin and rangers get cools spells or other cool stuff ) the only thing fighter gets are feat chains that let them do things they all ready can do a bit better.
As for: some think they are great, therefore they are great? Some think the earth is flat. That doesn't make the earth flat.
Lolwut? Fighters have Extroadinary abilities. Also, they don't just have feats; they have weapon training, and some other cool things that other classes can't have, like Specialization and Penetrating strike.
Paladins have superb defense built into their class features, and I like that, but their offense is pretty "meh," and the only builds you can really make work for them (in a setting that doesn't accommodate mounted combat very well) are 2H melee or Archery (obviously, switch hitting, too).
Barbarians are more customizable, faster, and very cool in a number of ways, but have to worry about consumable resources and fatigue, and fatigue Suuuuuucckks. (unless your GM doesn't pay attention to that stuff, in which case, no wonder the fighter gets shafted). I know you can dip Oracle to deal with that, but we're talking Barbarians, not Barbarian/Oracles.
Rangers get a lot. They get full B.A.B., a full animal companion, limited spellcasting, lots of skills/level, good class skills, bonus feats (and at earlier levels than they can normally be gotten) and two good saves in addition to some other conditional stuff (trackless step, favored enemy). I never see them come up in discussions about this sort of thing, though, and to be honest, I'm not sure why not.
Also, nobody thinks the earth is flat; In fact, practically nobody EVER thought that. And fighters are great. I can't think of anyone else who can trip a 10 foot circle of enemies and then take AoOs against them every round, whilst bullrushing foes who get too close.
Edit: And you mention that high level guides and Barbarians can move and full attack. Well a mobile fighter can do that starting at like, 11th, and, more importantly, an infinite number of times per day. He can also whirlwind attack as a standard action, and I don't know of any other way to do that. Research moar.
Started playing a Cad and I love every second of it!
Many arguments brought forth try to plot fighter against caster which is something I still do not understand: Pathfinder is not a competition about who is the best guy/girl in a group.No, its not. But you can hit a point where the martials contribution to the group is pretty nominal even if the casters aren't trying all that hard, and thats not fun.
I assume that something will happen to screw over the fighter because most DM's are not going to work to avoid it, in no small part because of assertions that there's nothing wrong with the fighter. If you have to cherry pick to avoid making a character irrelevant then something has gone wrong with that character.
I have seen many people claim fighters are irrelevant at high levels. I have played in numerous high level games. I have never seen those claims actually play the way the people said they would. In most games, its actually the casters who feel they are underpowered/don't have much to do, and the martial characters have a blast.
stuff
you're just adding fuel to the fire. Saying "Man fighters are AWESOME cuz they can do these things that don't matter" isn't helping your case. In a 2d game, when the enemy lines up and lets you swing at them like a pinata, the Fighter will always kick but. Against intelligent enemies who know how to a)lay traps b)use magic c)fly d)attack from range e)use the environment to their advantage f)be invisible, the fighter is woefully unequal to the task.
And that's just combat ITSELF. Where the fighter is expected to be the BEST not just adequate. Let's say you don't know where the enemy is. You can't scry him, you can't find the path to him, you can't track him, you can't gather information to find out more about him. What if you have to talk your way out of a situation? What about ANY situation that doesn't call for combat?
I know the response to these, so I'll lay them out.
1)A fighter can have a ranged weapon.
Absolutely, and an archer fighter has a lot more longevity than a melee fighter, I'll give you that. But then, any martial class can be nearly as good as an archer and will bring other skills as well.
2)A fighter can take ranks in [Skill X] especially now that things are easy for cross-class skills.
Absolutely. However if he has a decent int, assuming point buy, he's lacking somewhere else he direly needs. Low point buys are brutal on MAD characters, which a smart fighter becomes.
This is Shroedinger's Fighter. He can do anything if he spends his feats/skills right. But let's face it, he's going to be really good in combat and useless everywhere else.
If you feel fighters are 'useless' or 'unplayable', you might want to try playing one for a few months before your opinion coagulates into outright prejudice. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. The class has weaknesses (they all do, except possibly druid), but its strengths are pretty straightforward. I'm particularly fond of the fighter in gauntlet-type adventures - where you go through 5+ fights between rests, and could be blindsided by a random encounter at any time (including during your rests).
Seriously - play-test a class before you pass judgement. For at least a couple of months.
Yep. The only reason anyone could have distaste for the fighter is cuz we've never played one.
Oh the arrogance.
you're just adding fuel to the fire. Saying "Man fighters are AWESOME cuz they can do these things that don't matter" isn't helping your case. In a 2d game, when the enemy lines up and lets you swing at them like a pinata, the Fighter will always kick but. Against intelligent enemies who know how to a)lay traps b)use magic c)fly d)attack from range e)use the environment to their advantage f)be invisible, the fighter is woefully unequal to the task.And that's just combat ITSELF. Where the fighter is expected to be the BEST not just adequate. Let's say you don't know where the enemy is. You can't scry him, you can't find the path to him, you can't track him, you can't gather information to find out more about him. What if you have to talk your way out of a situation? What about ANY situation that doesn't call for combat?
I know the response to these, so I'll lay them out.
1)A fighter can have a ranged weapon.
Absolutely, and an archer fighter has a lot more longevity than a melee fighter, I'll give you that. But then, any martial class can be nearly as good as an archer and will bring other skills as well.
2)A fighter can take ranks in [Skill X] especially now that things are easy for cross-class skills.
Absolutely. However if he has a decent int, assuming point buy, he's lacking somewhere else he direly needs. Low point buys are brutal on MAD characters, which a smart fighter becomes.This is Shroedinger's Fighter. He can do anything if he spends his feats/skills right. But let's face it, he's going to be really good in combat and useless everywhere else.
Excuse me. I am not looking to get involved in a fight with you. I don't feel as though I was particularly confrontational. Rather, I was correcting factual inaccuracies in Zark's post (No extraordinary abilities, get nothing but feats, have nothing to set them on par with other martial types).
That said, if you haven't played a fighter, please do play a fighter before raging about it. And if you have played a fighter, I'm sorry you haven't become used to finding creative solutions to out-of-combat problems. I certainly never run into any issues of efficacy inside or outside combat.
Incidentally, from a min-maxy, point-buy standpoint, ever since Ultimate Magic, a medium to high charisma score aids with negotiation, and actually ends you with a higher strength score, if you get up to Improved Eldritch Heritage (Orc) or (Abyssal), and the Skill Focus (survival) (KN: Planes) does plenty to increase out of combat effectiveness. And I never said "Man fighters are AWESOME cuz they can do these things that don't matter," or even anything to that effect. If, in your games, the ability to attach maneuvers to attacks, the ability to almost unerringly succeed at hitting with attacks or maneuvers, and the ability to move and full attack at normal speed in full plate are "things that don't matter," we play very different games. Just, you know, as an aside.
|
Well for one thing all classes need magical items and it is assumed that you will have certain items at a certain level in the least.
Secondly, it seems to be assumed that there are magic shops everywhere that the Wizard can go into and purchase spells. That is purely play style and nothing else. The game doesn't assume you find Spells R Us. You are guaranteed a certain number of spells per level and that's it. Also, it is assumed that you are going to know each and every encounter and that you will always be prepared, wrong on both accounts. It is also assumed that that enemies are going to fail their saves, wrong.
There are so many factors that come into play that you cannot sit there and give a reliable argument. Since spellcasters like Wizards change from day to day there is no telling whether you will have picked the right spells or not. The fighter is going to be essentially the same except for when it comes time to choose feats and different equipment. The fighter is going to be reliable because he can do continuous damage. The spellcaster is not very reliable. Save spells are not very reliable.
I've been playing spellcasters since they were called Magic-Users and I can tell you that it isn't as black and white as you may think. Now if your DM caters to your spellcaster and you are allowed to flip through books at your leisure and choose any spell you want and let you know in advice about all the battles then yes I could see the spellcaster having a better chance.
Magical gear is actually what the fighter is built for and always has been. There is no shame in relying on magic gear because all classes do it.
Long live the Caster-Martial Disparity argument!
If you feel fighters are 'useless' or 'unplayable', you might want to try playing one for a few months before your opinion coagulates into outright prejudice[...]Yep. The only reason anyone could have distaste for the fighter is cuz we've never played one.
Oh the arrogance.
On the contrary; there are dozens of reasons that a person might dislike the fighter class. I would never dream of suggesting that fighters are for everybody (there's a reason there are so many other classes, after all.) That does not invalidate my basic suggestion: that those who are dismissing the class based on its perceived, theoretical power level or balance should probably watch (or, better still, play) the class in actual play in order to re-assess their judgement.
Such is my arrogance!
Erm, I think you're missing the point. It sounds to me as if he's suggesting has has played a fighter, and the results were underwhelming, rather than he doesn't need to play a fighter to know it's subpar. Thinking they're bad after playing one is a very strong possibility, because all roleplaying groups are different.
There is no right way to play Pathfinder, and based on the playstyle, tactics, optimization levels, types of DM, and multiple other factors, fighters may be an amazingly fun to class, or a complete bore that doesn't contribute much to the group even if they're built the exact same way.
So if you play a fighter, and have an amazing session, and contribute positively to the group and feel important, does that mean the fighter is objectively a useful class? No, it means that's the case for your gaming group. The same can be said about the inverse, and I think it's these differences that cause so many of these strong debates in the first place.
Personally, fighters work great in my group, but I realize that isn't the case for everyone.
If you feel fighters are 'useless' or 'unplayable', you might want to try playing one for a few months before your opinion coagulates into outright prejudice[...]Yep. The only reason anyone could have distaste for the fighter is cuz we've never played one.
Oh the arrogance.
On the contrary; there are dozens of reasons that a person might dislike the fighter class. I would never dream of suggesting that fighters are for everybody (there's a reason there are so many other classes, after all.) That does not invalidate my basic suggestion: that those who are dismissing the class based on its perceived, theoretical power level or balance should probably watch (or, better still, play) the class in actual play in order to re-assess their judgement.
Such is my arrogance!
Erm, I think you're missing the point. It sounds to me as if he's suggesting has has played a fighter, and the results were underwhelming, rather than he doesn't need to play a fighter to know it's subpar. Thinking they're bad after playing one is a very strong possibility, because all roleplaying groups are different.
There is no right way to play Pathfinder, and based on the playstyle, tactics, optimization levels, types of DM, and multiple other factors, fighters may be an amazingly fun to class, or a complete bore that doesn't contribute much to the group even if they're built the exact same way.
So if you play a fighter, and have an amazing session, and contribute positively to the group and feel important, does that mean the fighter is objectively a useful class? No, it means that's the case for your gaming group. The same can be said about the inverse, and I think it's these differences that cause so many of these strong debates in the first place.
Personally, fighters work great in my group, but I realize that isn't the case for everyone.
*slow clap, building into thunderous applause*
/argument
I've never had to limit what I throw at my players for the fighters to be effective.
I sort of think the problem with most Fighters is how players write them up. Mind you, I'm writing these up pretty quick and I'm not a character generating master so the numbers will be a little off, but, here is two different 5th level 15 point buy Fighters:
Sir Smash the Destroyer
STR 16
DEX 15
CON 16
INT 8
WIS 10
CHA 8Feats
Power Attack
Furious Assault
Cleave
Weapon Focus Two Hand Sword
Weapon Spec Two Hand Sword
Great Cleave
Step UpFort +7 Ref +3 Will +1
Attack: Two Handed Sword +11 Strike, 2d6+14 Damage
Magic Items
+2 Two Handed Sword
+1 Armor
Couple Healing Potions
Personally I'd prefer St 18, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 7, Wis 13, Cha 7, Human. His low Intelligence and Charisma comes from his growing up in a rural area and not getting a good education and quickly enlisting into combat training at an early age to go into the military. He has a very strong sword arm and is competent with a bow. Because I'm not interested in purely combat, I opt to place his favored class bonus into skill points to represent his experience with practical skill through hands on learning.
His first level skills are Handle Animal +2, Ride +6, and Survival +5. His 1st level feats are Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, and Iron Will, representing his time practicing archery, and his stubborn nature. He carries a 2 handed weapon (doesn't matter what sort) and has good skill with it.
At 2nd level, he has been dealing with people outside of the military life and has learned to curb his cussing and swearing and talking about that one time when his friend Rodger caused the cow's head to explode when he accidentally shot it with his composite bow. He dumps 2 ranks into Diplomacy to bring him in line with the average person, but he still has no taste for lying as it was beaten out of him and he considers it dishonorable. His third rank goes into Handle Animal. At 2nd level, his feat of choice is Improved Initiative as his activity has made him a bit faster at reacting.
At 3rd level, he picks up Weapon Focus (Longbow), as he gets a bit better at using his bow, bringing it it closer to his skill with his sword. He puts a point into Climb, Jump, and Swim.
At 4th level, he grabs Rapid Shot for his Longbow, which he has upgraded to a +4 composite longbow. He really likes his bow, and his natural strength is still handling his melee aspects just fine. He drops 3 ranks into Perception.
At 5th level, he grabs Weapon Specialization (Longbow) and weapon training (bows). He drops 2 more ranks into Perception, and 1 rank into Intimidate for a +2.
At 6th level, he grabs Power Attack to boost his melee for when he needs to switch to his 2 hander. He relies mostly on his ability to draw a weapon as part of a move action, so he hasn't invested in quick draw at the moment (he might later). He drops another point into Perception, and a point into any other two skills he feels like working on right now (maybe Ride if the campaign is open, or he might instead opt for Intimidate).
Etc, etc, etc.