|
I've yet to see the bolded aspect of your post. I've seen people use their general "everybody gets a feat every odd level" feats to try to make up for the fighter's lack of non-combat utility. The fighter class in those cases brought nothing to the table.Why are people still trying to downplay the fighter? I really don't understand this.
What kind of proof will it take for some of you to realize that you are wrong about the fighter? What exactly is it going to take?
It's like arguing that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4.
Here's what you don't seem to understand. The fighter gets so many feats that he has the option of doing anything he likes with regards to builds.
Who cares if other classes have general feats. Those general feats are pretty much the only feats they have to use while the fighter has those feats plus the bonus feats from being a fighter.
|
|
Why does the fighter need to be superb at lots of other things when it's already fantastic at what it was designed for?And what is that? It just isn't combat.
It's already been proven that the fighter can be good at out of combat situations, good is generally good enough when it comes to those situations. If fantastic is required then a class that is more suited for that needs to step up because we are playing a team game here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also trying to figure out how the fighter class brings the ability to craft items. As you've said, they're just general feats that anyone can take. What does the fighter class bring to downtime?
This question needs to go away because it really is the definition of a stupid question. This is a role playing game. If you can't figure out what to do during down time, then that's not a problem of the class. It's a problem with the player. I suggest trying to actually role play. You may find lots to do during down time.
The fighter, like every other class, can invest skills and feats that matter to him or the party during down time. The fighter is designed to be a master of combat. I don't see anything that even remotely suggests that he is supposed to be anything else. If you want more than a bunch of extraordinary combat options, then play something else.
From the PRD:
Some take up arms for glory, wealth, or revenge. Others do battle to prove themselves, to protect others, or because they know nothing else. Still others learn the ways of weaponcraft to hone their bodies in battle and prove their mettle in the forge of war. Lords of the battlefield, fighters are a disparate lot, training with many weapons or just one, perfecting the uses of armor, learning the fighting techniques of exotic masters, and studying the art of combat, all to shape themselves into living weapons. Far more than mere thugs, these skilled warriors reveal the true deadliness of their weapons, turning hunks of metal into arms capable of taming kingdoms, slaughtering monsters, and rousing the hearts of armies. Soldiers, knights, hunters, and artists of war, fighters are unparalleled champions, and woe to those who dare stand against them.
Role: Fighters excel at combat—defeating their enemies, controlling the flow of battle, and surviving such sorties themselves. While their specific weapons and methods grant them a wide variety of tactics, few can match fighters for sheer battle prowess.
Oh, and since he does have Knowledge (engineering) he can do some work for the kingdom and townsfolk. He can do contractual work or charity work, building the party's reputation and help get more contacts. He can barter his skills with others. Maybe he will help the king get a new type of ballista and in return he has access to the royal family that others may not get. Remember that the fighter can have 3 skill points per level, not just 2. If he is a tactician, he can have 5. In addition, he gets extra skill points from race and Intelligence just like everyone else. If you want a bunch of skill points, you need to invest in that just like everyone else. The ranger has a bunch of skill points, but also needs them because he has given up some things, like heavy armor and weapon mastery, to pick up other abilities.
If you want a fighter that does more than just swing a variety of weapons, then you should look into archetypes. They are specifically meant to modify the core fighter to fit different themes.
I say again, that your problem isn't with the fighter class. It's with you wanting the fighter to be something that it was never meant to be. You want it to be a ranger, or barbarian, or whatever. If you can't build to your concept with one class, then find the class that allows you to do so.
|
|
Doing anything you like loses it's appeal when everything you can choose to do sucks.
Personal opinion isn't a fault of the class.Nor is personal opinion proof that the class isn't faulty.
LOL!!!!! Factual proof has already been shown in this thread. If you can't get passed your own opinion then that's your fault, not the class.
Actually don't saddlebags make the cavalier a good golf caddy outdoors?
What math are you talking about? The only proof that I've seen are actual builds that were posted by Bob and those builds covered the situations that some of you complained about. Of course once those builds were shown the goalposts were moved.Isn't it ironic that we who are unhappy with the design of the Fighter are using more math to back us up...Why are people still trying to downplay the fighter? I really don't understand this.
What kind of proof will it take for some of you to realize that you are wrong about the fighter? What exactly is it going to take?
It's like arguing that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4.
I have a hard time looking through your entries in this thread which aren't a mixture of loaded questions and vague generalizations without any decent backing. I wonder why you raised this thread at all, unless this whole thing is one giant troll. Nevertheless, despite any agenda on your part, I've enjoyed the discussion with various posters.
Look above and I've created a Commoner which can do everything I said the Fighter can't do. Every PC class is "Commoner + X". Any argument made in favor of a Fighter's out-of-combat-utility has involved the Commoner piece of the Fighter class. To me, this is failure - every other class' "Beyond the Commoner" portion contributes to both combat and utility.
In terms of contribution...
The Barbarian is arguably equal to a Fighter in combat, superior out of combat.
The Ranger is arguably equal to a Fighter in combat, superior out of combat.
The Paladin is arguably equal to a Fighter in combat, superior out of combat.
The Cavalier is arguably equal to a Fighter in combat, superior out of combat.
Then we get into the casters, whose shadows dominate this landscape of usefulness and contribution.
|
My problem is with the fighter class because I do want to like it. I won't like it, however, until it's as much fun to play as a barbarian, a ranger, a paladin, a gunslinger, or a cavalier.
As for shallowsoul, I really don't know where this 'factual proof' of yours is. If you mean character builds, then yes, there were a few character builds that relied on being human and having a high intellect before crowing "look how many skills the fighter can get!". I'm not impressed by the 'factual proof'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's still a general feat.Which the Ranger qualifies for due to his class.
And the Ranger being better at the task is again a moot point.Except that it the Ranger is better at it due to his class.
Completely irrelevant. The ranger does not have any item creation feats as class features. Since craft skills are available to the fighter, then it can be argued that the fighter qualifies due to his class.
The ranger is still limited to what he can make. He only has so many skill points. If he is investing enough to be good at crafting for the party (remember that his spell list is very small), then he is forgoing other skills.
Yes, one can make an effective crafter who is also a ranger. No, it's not really all that much better than a fighter who is also a crafter. It's only slightly better. But then during that down time, the fighter can just go out and earn some XP for leveling.
An arena would be a great place for this. The fighter battles appropriate encounters, and would get 4 times the XP since he's by himself. That means that after 3 to 4 days, he can gain a level. During that time, the ranger has managed to craft one or two items. You don't even need an official arena. The fighter can just start a fight club. He can seek out some challenges on his own out of town. He can just pick a fight.
So while the rest of the party is making items, the fighter is just working on getting stronger. Sounds reasonable and well within the abilities of the fighter class.
|
As for shallowsoul, I really don't know where this 'factual proof' of yours is. If you mean character builds, then yes, there were a few character builds that relied on being human and having a high intellect before crowing "look how many skills the fighter can get!". I'm not impressed by the 'factual proof'.
If that was what he referred to, then I do not find that proof of anything either.
|
|
I see exactly what some of you are trying to do. You are trying to say that the fighter sucks because it doesn't have out of combat abilities built directly into the class. The class abilities of the fighter are for combat, there was no mistake involved.
Now the general things that all classes get are still a part of each class. Other classes have to use their general feats to encompass their combat and out of combat abilities while the fighter has it's combat feats already built in while it has it's general feats that it can use to take care of anything out of combat it wants or can use those to increase his combat abilities.
You are arguing a personal opinion and that's fine but don't try and discredit the class.
|
|
As for shallowsoul, I really don't know where this 'factual proof' of yours is. If you mean character builds, then yes, there were a few character builds that relied on being human and having a high intellect before crowing "look how many skills the fighter can get!". I'm not impressed by the 'factual proof'.If that was what he referred to, then I do not find that proof of anything either.
You don't have to focus on me, Bob has already provided the builds. If you refuse to read them and acknowledge their factual relevance then that's your problem.
In terms of contribution...
The Barbarian is arguably equal to a Fighter in combat, superior out of combat.
The Ranger is arguably equal to a Fighter in combat, superior out of combat.
The Paladin is arguably equal to a Fighter in combat, superior out of combat.
The Cavalier is arguably equal to a Fighter in combat, superior out of combat.Then we get into the casters, whose shadows dominate this landscape of usefulness and contribution.
Show me. Most of the skills that those classes will be using are combat oriented. What do those classes bring, out of combat, that the fighter is prohibited from bringing?
These are the skills that those classes bring, that the fighter class does not.
Barbarian skills:
Acrobatics (Dex), Knowledge (nature) (Int), Perception (Wis)
All 3 are combat oriented skills
Cavalier skills (depending on the order, there are other skills):
Bluff (Cha), Diplomacy (Cha), Sense Motive (Wis)
Not necessarily combat oriented skills (Sense Motive and Bluff can be). However, with 4 skill points per level and the need to put ranks into Ride and Handle Animal, and the skills for his order, his flexibility with skills drops quickly.
Fighter skills:
Knowledge (engineering) (Int)
The only martial class listed that comes with this. Its usefulness will vary depending on the player and GM as well as the campaign itself, much like the ranger's geography and the paladin's nobility skills.
Paladin skills:
Diplomacy (Cha), Heal (Wis), Knowledge (nobility) (Int), Knowledge (religion) (Int), Sense Motive (Wis), and Spellcraft (Int).
With the same number of skill points as the fighter and the need to invest in at least Ride, his flexibility is no where near where you are saying.
Ranger skills:
Heal (Wis), Knowledge (geography) (Int), Knowledge (nature) (Int), Perception (Wis), Spellcraft (Int), Stealth (Dex)
Most of these are combat oriented. In addition, skills like Perception and Stealth work better when you max them out because they are opposed skill checks. This starts to reduce the flexibility of the skill points.
So show me how those classes can bring more out of combat stuff than the fighter?
My problem is with the fighter class because I do want to like it. I won't like it, however, until it's as much fun to play as a barbarian, a ranger, a paladin, a gunslinger, or a cavalier.
As for shallowsoul, I really don't know where this 'factual proof' of yours is. If you mean character builds, then yes, there were a few character builds that relied on being human and having a high intellect before crowing "look how many skills the fighter can get!". I'm not impressed by the 'factual proof'.
It was one build that had a base of 4 points per level by virtue of class alone. The argument at the time was that the fighter can't do anything out of combat. Now the goal posts have moved.
What, specifically, do you want to see from "out of combat?"
As for "fun to play," there will never be a way to address that problem. I would never argue that druids or clerics aren't powerful but for the life of me I will never find them fun to play.
As for shallowsoul, I really don't know where this 'factual proof' of yours is. If you mean character builds, then yes, there were a few character builds that relied on being human and having a high intellect before crowing "look how many skills the fighter can get!". I'm not impressed by the 'factual proof'.If that was what he referred to, then I do not find that proof of anything either.
Don't forget headbands of intellect to give the Fighter more skill points, because obviously everyone else can't do that too. :P
The other arguments all involved very specific racial builds (one had to be a half-orc with scent-based feats), for example. It was akin to saying "Fighters are great and can make lots of magic items, as long as you're a gnome", which is about as accurate as saying "Gnome barbarians can make lots of magic items". It's true, but not for the reason it's being argued.
Which Brings me back to My Point: Fighters get a lot of flak because they require way more system mastery to be viable compared to their peers. I even like playing Fighters, for specific purposes. However, again, I feel less inhibited by them due to excessive amounts of system mastery, and the reliance on custom made magic items to remain relevant at higher levels.
But for some reason, you can't give an honest criticism around here without people crying that you must obviously hate fighters forever, and must be biased against them, etc, etc.
Yet there is a bias I've noticed in this thread. A bias so strong, that people are willing to break the rules and cheat to try and make the Fighter look bad, declare rangers to have spells that are only usable in combat (despite me listing about 1/2 of their spells and pointing them out as non-combat spells), and arguing that apparently a Ranger's class does nothing for helping them be item crafters, despite the fact their class automatically qualifies them for item creation feats to be used in their entirety; and suggesting that it is somehow at least equal to the Fighter's ability to waste a level-based feat for a bad feat, to qualify them for a severely limited and watered down version of the item creation feats the ranger class opens up to them.
There's definitely a bias here. Definitely, definitely.
@TOZ: If you missed it: a comparison. :P
I see exactly what some of you are trying to do. You are trying to say that the fighter sucks because it doesn't have out of combat abilities built directly into the class. The class abilities of the fighter are for combat, there was no mistake involved.
Now the general things that all classes get are still a part of each class. Other classes have to use their general feats to encompass their combat and out of combat abilities while the fighter has it's combat feats already built in while it has it's general feats that it can use to take care of anything out of combat it wants or can use those to increase his combat abilities.
You are arguing a personal opinion and that's fine but don't try and discredit the class.
Take a Barbarian, Cavalier, Fighter, Paladin and Ranger. Remove their Commoner-pieces (base stats, 2 ranks, odd-level feats, bad saves, d6 hitdie). Then take away what al of them have (good BAB, good Fort, d10 HD)
Barbarian: 2 ranks, Fast Movement, Rage, DR, Trap Sense, Uncanny Dodge, 10 Rage Powers, +1hp
Cavalier: 2 ranks, Challenge, Order, Mount, Tactician, Banner, Charge stuff
Paladin: Auras, Smite, Mercy, Channeling, Divine Casting, Immunities, Lay Hands, Bond\Mount, Good Will save
Ranger: 4 ranks, Favored Enemy, 5 Bonus Feats, Divine Casting, Animal Companion, Stealth Powers, Favored Terrain, Evasion, Good Reflex save
... then ...
Fighter: Bravery, Armor Training, Weapon Training, 10 Combat Feats
How can it not be obvious? Compare them. Take your time.
Barbarian skills:
Acrobatics (Dex), Knowledge (nature) (Int), Perception (Wis)
All 3 are combat oriented skills
Here, I'll break protocol to jump in, simply because I don't need to exhaustively go over what is about to become obvious.
Acrobatics is used for balancing and jumping, both of which are useful for exploration and infiltration. Exploration and infiltration are not combat.
Knowledge Nature is combat?
Identify natural hazard Nature 15 + hazard's CR
Identify a common plant or animal Nature 10
Identify unnatural weather phenomenon Nature 15
Determine artificial nature of feature Nature 20
Who seeks out rare herbs or scrutinizes the weather in combat? Again, this is a skill which brings utility to the table.
Perception ... I don't even need to begin on this, do I?Further, notice that I'm not even focusing on class skills in any of my latest arguments, simply because I'll concede that the new cross-class rules make the whole subject approach moot. Especially when you add traits as well.
I see exactly what some of you are trying to do. You are trying to say that the fighter sucks because it doesn't have out of combat abilities built directly into the class. The class abilities of the fighter are for combat, there was no mistake involved.
Now the general things that all classes get are still a part of each class. Other classes have to use their general feats to encompass their combat and out of combat abilities while the fighter has it's combat feats already built in while it has it's general feats that it can use to take care of anything out of combat it wants or can use those to increase his combat abilities.
You are arguing a personal opinion and that's fine but don't try and discredit the class.
Take a Barbarian, Cavalier, Fighter, Paladin and Ranger. Remove their Commoner-pieces (base stats, 2 ranks, odd-level feats, bad saves, d6 hitdie).
Barbarian: 2 ranks, Fast Movement, Rage, DR, Trap Sense, Uncanny Dodge, 10 Rage Powers
Cavalier: 2 ranks, Challenge, Order, Mount, Tactician, Banner, Charge stuff
Paladin: Auras, Smite, Mercy, Channeling, Divine Casting, Immunities, Lay Hands, Bond\Mount
Ranger: 4 ranks, Favored Enemy, 5 Bonus Feats, Divine Casting, Animal Companion, Stealth Powers, Favored Terrain, Evasion... then ...
Fighter: Bravery, Armor Training, Weapon Training, 10 Combat Feats
How can it not be obvious? Compare them. Take your time.
Monk also get fast movement. Rage, smiting, and favored enemies are just boost to DPR that are limited and/or situational.
IIRC only the barbarian has DR, but he is also stuck with medium armor unless he uses a feat to upgrade.Trap Sense is shared with the rogue and so is uncanny dodge.
Rage Powers have to be looked at individually.
Cavalier Mount/Druid Companion/Paladin Mound
The orders and banners have to be looked at individually.
Nobody else has the paladin's aura.
Mercies remove bad status affects just like spells.
The lay on hands works in conjuction with the mercies. Paladins can channel though.
Rangers get to ignore prereq for their bonus feats which is nice. Rangers do hide better/easier due to class abilities at higher levels. Favored Terrain is unique.
Evasion is shared with the rogue.
Some of the above are valid. Some need to be removed if the criteria is only class X can do it.
How can it not be obvious? Compare them. Take your time.
Many of those are situational, supernatural, spells, or limited in scope. All useful in their own right, but the fighter's abilities are not so limited and cannot be taken away easily.
Barbarian skills:
Acrobatics (Dex), Knowledge (nature) (Int), Perception (Wis)
All 3 are combat oriented skills
Here, I'll break protocol to jump in, simply because I don't need to exhaustively go over what is about to become obvious.
Acrobatics is used for balancing and jumping, both of which are useful for exploration and infiltration. Exploration and infiltration are not combat.
Knowledge Nature is combat?
...Identify natural hazard Nature 15 + hazard's CR
Identify a common plant or animal Nature 10
Identify
Most of the uses for Knowledge skills are combat oriented. Knowing what you are fighting is definitely combat oriented. Perception is combat oriented, as it lets you avoid getting surprised. What I was referring to was the skills that have little to no in-combat use. There is nothing stopping a fighter from investing in those skills. If he has enough points and wants to, then he is more than welcome to do so. I don't see this as a problem at all.
Some need to be removed if the criteria is only class X can do it.
You misread me.
Commoner, as in the NPC class.Further, I am not arguing for the Fighter having unique abilities. Never have, never will. Demanding unique abilities is a dead-end argument for a sandbox game that keeps adding more material.
I argue for classes being able to have value in numerous ways, for fun, flexibility and playability. Players should play characters that feel like well-rounded heroes, not like one-trick ponies. Or, if they are one-trick ponies, everyone should be one. But this disparity of utility hurts the viability of one of the original, beloved classes of the genre.
|
|
Most of the uses for Knowledge skills are combat oriented. Knowing what you are fighting is definitely combat oriented. Perception is combat oriented, as it lets you avoid getting surprised. What I was referring to was the skills that have little to no in-combat use. There is nothing stopping a fighter from investing in those skills. If he has enough points and wants to, then he is more than welcome to do so. I don't see this as a problem at all.
I can't get over how wrong this is.
I suppose Bluff is a primarily combat oriented skill, because it has applications in combat. Damn, so does linguistics, as it opens up combat options - particularly with certain spells and oracles. Man, is there ANY skill that has no combat orientation other than Craft & Profession?
Some need to be removed if the criteria is only class X can do it.You misread me.
Commoner, as in the NPC class.Further, I am not arguing for the Fighter having unique abilities. Never have, never will. Demanding unique abilities is a dead-end argument for a sandbox game that keeps adding more material.
I argue for classes being able to have value in numerous ways, for fun, flexibility and playability. Players should play characters that feel like well-rounded heroes, not like one-trick ponies. Or, if they are one-trick ponies, everyone should be one. But this disparity of utility hurts the viability of one of the original, beloved classes of the genre.
Same, same. I don't care if the the abilities are shared by other classes. That's irrelevant. To say that being able to heal your party is meaningless because clerics, druids, and paladins can do it too is silly.
Why are Rangers great? Because they have options. They only have one or two things that are really unique to rangers (favored enemy, and favored terrain spring to mind). But they are amazingly useful to have on your team. Paladins too. The fact Paladins get spells like restoration doesn't diminish them because clerics do. It's that they get those and more stuff to bring to a party.
My criticism of the Fighter class extends to the fact it really only does combat, and in my opinion doesn't even do combat that well, because they lack versatility or options in combat to deal with a variety of situations that come up in combat, without having to constantly step outside of their class to do so.
Some need to be removed if the criteria is only class X can do it.You misread me.
Commoner, as in the NPC class.Further, I am not arguing for the Fighter having unique abilities. Never have, never will. Demanding unique abilities is a dead-end argument for a sandbox game that keeps adding more material.
I argue for classes being able to have value in numerous ways, for fun, flexibility and playability. Players should play characters that feel like well-rounded heroes, not like one-trick ponies. Or, if they are one-trick ponies, everyone should be one. But this disparity of utility hurts the viability of one of the original, beloved classes of the genre.
I understand that, but that is different than a fighter has to use his commoner features to do it. The fact that I am using basic feats to do something is not the same as the option not being there at all.
Yeah a fighter using his basic feats will lose something in combat, but he gets enough combat feats that the loss should not be that great unless the player tries to do something that he should have chosen another class for.Trying to emulate ranger as an example is a bad idea.
Some need to be removed if the criteria is only class X can do it.You misread me.
Commoner, as in the NPC class.Further, I am not arguing for the Fighter having unique abilities. Never have, never will. Demanding unique abilities is a dead-end argument for a sandbox game that keeps adding more material.
I argue for classes being able to have value in numerous ways, for fun, flexibility and playability. Players should play characters that feel like well-rounded heroes, not like one-trick ponies. Or, if they are one-trick ponies, everyone should be one. But this disparity of utility hurts the viability of one of the original, beloved classes of the genre.
Same, same. I don't care if the the abilities are shared by other classes. That's irrelevant. To say that being able to heal your party is meaningless because clerics, druids, and paladins can do it too is silly.
Why are Rangers great? Because they have options. They only have one or two things that are really unique to rangers (favored enemy, and favored terrain spring to mind). But they are amazingly useful to have on your team. Paladins too. The fact Paladins get spells like restoration doesn't diminish them because clerics do. It's that they get those and more stuff to bring to a party.
My criticism of the Fighter class extends to the fact it really only does combat, and in my opinion doesn't even do combat that well, because they lack versatility or options in combat to deal with a variety of situations that come up in combat, without having to constantly step outside of their class to do so.
So ideally the core fighter should have class features that allow it to _____ without having to resort to general feats or be played by someone who is really good with game mechanics to find a way to compensate? If so I agree but now the issue is that we are really having a problem issue with the level of system mastery needed to do ____, and not whether or not _____ can be done, similar to the issues with the core monk.
edit:clarification
Yeah... hence why I'm not even bothering to touch the combat-skill-application subject with a 10 foot pole. It's painful to think that anything has to even be explained here...
That such a line of thinking exists, shreds what little hope I have of human competence.
I blame my background in IT for jading me so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for shallowsoul, I really don't know where this 'factual proof' of yours is. If you mean character builds, then yes, there were a few character builds that relied on being human and having a high intellect before crowing "look how many skills the fighter can get!". I'm not impressed by the 'factual proof'.If that was what he referred to, then I do not find that proof of anything either.Don't forget headbands of intellect to give the Fighter more skill points, because obviously everyone else can't do that too. :P
The other arguments all involved very specific racial builds (one had to be a half-orc with scent-based feats), for example. It was akin to saying "Fighters are great and can make lots of magic items, as long as you're a gnome", which is about as accurate as saying "Gnome barbarians can make lots of magic items". It's true, but not for the reason it's being argued.
Which Brings me back to My Point: Fighters get a lot of flak because they require way more system mastery to be viable compared to their peers. I even like playing Fighters, for specific purposes. However, again, I feel less inhibited by them due to excessive amounts of system mastery, and the reliance on custom made magic items to remain relevant at higher levels.
But for some reason, you can't give an honest criticism around here without people crying that you must obviously hate fighters forever, and must be biased against them, etc, etc.
Yet there is a bias I've noticed in this thread. A bias so strong, that people are willing to break the rules and cheat to try and make the Fighter look bad, declare rangers to have spells that are only usable in combat (despite me listing about 1/2 of their spells and pointing them out as non-combat spells), and arguing that apparently a Ranger's class does nothing for helping them be item crafters, despite the fact their class automatically qualifies them for item creation feats to be used in their...
The problem is that fighter haters keep using misinterpretation, exaggeration, and hyperbole, since this is a point at me.
Yes EVERY CLASS CAN USE A HEADBAND FOR SKILL POINTS. Guess what? Not being able to Craft IS NOT A FIGHTER PROBLEM. Anyone can do it. It's NOT a problem if you want to do it!!!
My examples didn't use Archetypes. Thus, not 'all' the examples used them, yet you just dismissed them all because your arguments didn't apply.
A rule that applies to ALL CHARACTERS requires more system mastery? I suppose.
You definitely have an anti-fighter bias, and you take it out on others who acknowledge the weaknesses, yet have found workarounds.
ANd then you go right into character slams. Nobody broke the rules. The majority of ranger spells are designed for combat use, not 'all of them', and not 'only useful in'. Exaggeration and hyperbole, and willful misrepresentation of facts. A Ranger's class puts him 3 levels behind a fighter in making items...a fact you are ignoring. The fighter can make all the key items he needs with one feat, the magic item Malignor noted obviates even needing to spend for the Crafting feat, and you are ignoring the goalpost...the complaint that the Fighter can stay absolutely relevant and productive in down time.
And then you bring in SLOW TIME PLANES, to complete your argument. It's kind of ridiculous to even have to read it, Ashiel. C'mon, tone it down, lighten it up, and understand the position.
The fact that the fighter is a less versatile then a ranger is about as relevant as the fact that the ranger is not as good as a wizard...so the Ranger should never craft.
as long as the fighter can remain productive and useful and pump out 1000 gp of valuable and usable gear during down time, that's ALL that is required. That's it. Stop. End of argument.
Your 'infinite time' argument is not. Most campaigns do not have 'infinite time'. A normal AP is going to have 2-6 months of downtime, MAYBE. Most campaigns are done before 12, most AP's don't reach 18. ANd if you have 'infinite time', you keep pumping out +10 armor, +6 stat boosters, magic boots, torcs, gauntlets and girdles. It's not that hard to do.
So, you're railing at a straw man, an argument that is not there. Malignor is trying to make the point that Crafting is a fighter problem with his Commoner post. It's not true. It's proof that Crafting is NOT a Fighter problem. It's a General Character Problem. That's it. A Commoner can do the job, which means a Fighter can do the job, which means a Ranger can do the job, which means a bard can do the job, which means a cleric can do the job, which means a wizard can do the job. ANYONE CAN DO THAT JOB.
So, it's not a fighter problem if anyone can do the job. The goal post has been met...if he needs to be productive in downtime, he can be productive in the downtime.
The only limiting factor is time. And no, most campaigns do not have infinite time, the same way they don't have infinite gold, and no, most campaigns don't end up with slow-time planes, either. As a matter of fact, I can't think of any non-Epic ones that would consider it, and it's a GM house-rule to even allow such an imbalanced monstrosity. That argument isn't an argument either. Nobody plays at that level.
And it's interesting how you rail about the need for custom magic items, then turn around and make tons of disposables, but the fighter can't use those...and use 3.5 slow-time planes abuse, but don't draw on the incredibly rich heritage of 3.5 magic items which can allay almost all the weaknesses you're looking at.
So, yeah, we're detecting a lot of anti-fighter bias, and it's coming out in spades. You need to take the rant and emotion out of your argument, acknowledge the counter-points, and move on.
===Aelryinth
I argue for classes being able to have value in numerous ways, for fun, flexibility and playability. Players should play characters that feel like well-rounded heroes, not like one-trick ponies. Or, if they are one-trick ponies, everyone should be one. But this disparity of utility hurts the viability of one of the original, beloved classes of the genre.I understand that, but that is different than a fighter has to use his commoner features to do it. The fact that I am using basic feats to do something is not the same as the option not being there at all.
Yeah a fighter using his basic feats will lose something in combat, but he gets enough combat feats that the loss should not be that great unless the player tries to do something that he should have chosen another class for.Trying to emulate ranger as an example is a bad idea.
There's a big problem here, though: If any of those other classes are burning up Commoner feats and Commoner skill ranks to enhance combat power, the fighter does too in order to keep up.
All things equal (and this is the big part), the fighter is stuck choosing between "JOAT suck" and "competitive 1-trick pony".
Sure the option is there, as you say, but it's not free. For other classes, it's free!
Comparing the Monk and the Fighter aren't really accurate. The fighter does what the class is supposed to do without any type of system mastery. Now if you want to go beyond that core design then yes it would require some system mastery but that's really true of all classes.
In a sense they are, but only for this thread. In order for the monk to work as advertised, and for the fighter to do things other than fight well, which is what seems to be desired in this thread you need better than average system mastery.
Now if you just want to do a lot of hit point damage, and get a high AC then you don't need a high level of system mastery, and the fighter works just fine. <--Many players are happy with that.
|
|
Comparing the Monk and the Fighter aren't really accurate. The fighter does what the class is supposed to do without any type of system mastery. Now if you want to go beyond that core design then yes it would require some system mastery but that's really true of all classes.
In a sense they are, but only for this thread. In order for the monk to work as advertised, and for the fighter to do things other than fight well, which is what seems to be desired in this thread you need better than average system mastery.
Now if you just want to do a lot of hit point damage, and get a high AC then you don't need a high level of system mastery, and the fighter works just fine. <--Many players are happy with that.
I don't have a problem with that but people don't need to say that a class is bad because it takes system mastery to take the class beyond what it's supposed to do.
I argue for classes being able to have value in numerous ways, for fun, flexibility and playability. Players should play characters that feel like well-rounded heroes, not like one-trick ponies. Or, if they are one-trick ponies, everyone should be one. But this disparity of utility hurts the viability of one of the original, beloved classes of the genre.I understand that, but that is different than a fighter has to use his commoner features to do it. The fact that I am using basic feats to do something is not the same as the option not being there at all.
Yeah a fighter using his basic feats will lose something in combat, but he gets enough combat feats that the loss should not be that great unless the player tries to do something that he should have chosen another class for.Trying to emulate ranger as an example is a bad idea.
There's a big problem here, though: If any of those other classes are burning up Commoner feats and Commoner skill ranks to enhance combat power, the fighter does too in order to keep up.
All things equal (and this is the big part), the fighter is stuck choosing between "JOAT suck" and "competitive 1-trick pony".
Sure the option is there, as you say, but it's not free. For other classes, it's free!
The fighter has weapon training along with combat feats. They are not catching up until they turn on their special abilities. The fighter brings it(hp damage) all day long.
The fighter can spend half of his generic feats on a second combat style, and the other 5 generic feats for whatever he wants to do with them.The fighter is now a two trick combat pony who can afford to invest in things(probably no more than 2) the class was not designed for, and be decent at them. Yeah he still lacks some utility, but there are other party members so it won't be that much of an issue in most game.
I argue for classes being able to have value in numerous ways, for fun, flexibility and playability. Players should play characters that feel like well-rounded heroes, not like one-trick ponies. Or, if they are one-trick ponies, everyone should be one. But this disparity of utility hurts the viability of one of the original, beloved classes of the genre.I understand that, but that is different than a fighter has to use his commoner features to do it. The fact that I am using basic feats to do something is not the same as the option not being there at all.
Yeah a fighter using his basic feats will lose something in combat, but he gets enough combat feats that the loss should not be that great unless the player tries to do something that he should have chosen another class for.Trying to emulate ranger as an example is a bad idea.
There's a big problem here, though: If any of those other classes are burning up Commoner feats and Commoner skill ranks to enhance combat power, the fighter does too in order to keep up.
All things equal (and this is the big part), the fighter is stuck choosing between "JOAT suck" and "competitive 1-trick pony".
Sure the option is there, as you say, but it's not free. For other classes, it's free!
By your own example, it costs pocket change (headband and bracer) and the EXACT SAME FEAT everyone else uses.
And if they are an inferior caster, they actually have problems in their niche!Something you can solve with a small amount of gold might not be free, but it's the next best thing.
==Aelryinth
I mean free in terms of feats and skill ranks.
The fighter has weapon training along with combat feats. They are not catching up until they turn on their special abilities. The fighter brings it(hp damage) all day long.
The fighter can spend half of his generic feats on a second combat style, and the other 5 generic feats for whatever he wants to do with them.The fighter is now a two trick combat pony who can afford to invest in things(probably no more than 2) the class was not designed for, and be decent at them. Yeah he still lacks some utility, but there are other party members so it won't be that much of an issue in most game.
You pretty much conceded my entire argument: The Fighter lacks utility, but keeps up in combat.
Others may have a more extreme view than I do, but we're different folks.
As an aside, the whole "enduring effectiveness" argument is a false one which has little to no application.
Firstly, all classes have useful "always on" abilities, such as a Barbarian's Uncanny Dodge and Trap Sense, or a Paladin's Mount, or Ranger's favored things.
Secondly, even if a Barbarian went nova, Rage with all the fixins' is crazy powerful; I claim that rage is mechanically superior than Weapon Training and Armor Training and Bravery combined. Burn up that rage and what you have is a Barbarian who still has DR, more hitpoints (higher HD and because he killed everyone faster while going nova; dead foes don't hurt you), fast movement, uncanny dodge, trap sense and 2 more ranks per level. The fighter who went through the same "simulator" has fewer hitpoints and still has all 10 of his feats. Who will win the endurance challenge? Looks like a toss-up to me.
Either way, the Barbarian still has more skill ranks and fast movement, giving more utility, despite the biased test.
|
|
The fighter has weapon training along with combat feats. They are not catching up until they turn on their special abilities. The fighter brings it(hp damage) all day long.
The fighter can spend half of his generic feats on a second combat style, and the other 5 generic feats for whatever he wants to do with them.The fighter is now a two trick combat pony who can afford to invest in things(probably no more than 2) the class was not designed for, and be decent at them. Yeah he still lacks some utility, but there are other party members so it won't be that much of an issue in most game.
You pretty much conceded my entire argument: The Fighter lacks utility, but keeps up in combat.
What utility are you looking for?
A fighter focused on damage can kill a lot of things by round 2 if not round 1. In that regard it doesn't matter if you are fighting a barbarian or a fighter.
I have never claimed a fighter inherently had utility without the player investing in it. I am saying that in an actual game they can still fight well and gain some utility. I would have no trouble sacrificing some of that DPR for utility though, which is why I normally play rangers.
As for DR it depends on the monster. Something that does 60 points of damage over 5 attacks is better for the barbarian than something that does it over 2 attacks. A fighter might never get hit depending on the build.
I know barbarians can get higher AC than most people believe, but that brings us back to system mastery.
What utility are you looking for?The fighter has weapon training along with combat feats. They are not catching up until they turn on their special abilities. The fighter brings it(hp damage) all day long.
The fighter can spend half of his generic feats on a second combat style, and the other 5 generic feats for whatever he wants to do with them.The fighter is now a two trick combat pony who can afford to invest in things(probably no more than 2) the class was not designed for, and be decent at them. Yeah he still lacks some utility, but there are other party members so it won't be that much of an issue in most game.
You pretty much conceded my entire argument: The Fighter lacks utility, but keeps up in combat.
Here are my offerings. Note that each ability is listed with other classes who could/should also have them. Note also that I'm not saying "use these; this is the answer"... they're just concepts I'm putting forward to think about, pick and choose, modify, etc.
|
|
What utility are you looking for?The fighter has weapon training along with combat feats. They are not catching up until they turn on their special abilities. The fighter brings it(hp damage) all day long.
The fighter can spend half of his generic feats on a second combat style, and the other 5 generic feats for whatever he wants to do with them.The fighter is now a two trick combat pony who can afford to invest in things(probably no more than 2) the class was not designed for, and be decent at them. Yeah he still lacks some utility, but there are other party members so it won't be that much of an issue in most game.
You pretty much conceded my entire argument: The Fighter lacks utility, but keeps up in combat.
Something useful to do in CR-relevant social situations Something CR-significant to do during downtime that helps the party Some interesting way to help an army, city, village or town without having to go kill something. Some significant CR-relevant form of perception or insight, to help the party, instead of only depend on them. Here are my offerings. Note that each ability is listed with other classes who could/should also have them. Note also that I'm not saying "use these; this is the answer"... they're just concepts I'm putting forward to think about, pick and choose, modify, etc.
The fighter is fully capable of doing all of that and people have already given you builds so why are you still asking for what's already been given.
Sounds to me like you just hate the fighter because you want to hate the fighter.
You are essentially committing self inflicting ignorance when you refuse to look at the facts and acknowledge them.