The problem is that fighter haters keep using misinterpretation, exaggeration, and hyperbole, since this is a point at me.
There are fighter haters here?
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!!!
Except it is. Commoners can't preform at item crafting properly either. Neither can warriors, experts, aristocrats, or monks. Everyone else can. Sorry, but no matter how much you go on about it, you're not going to convince me that waiting until 7th level, paying an unneeded feat tax, and getting a watered down version of item crafting, in any way compares to actually being able to take the real item creation feat (by real, I mean actually get the benefits that the feat normally grants).
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.
I didn't see your example. My apologies. The only fighters I saw were Bob's, and both relied on either specific races or archtypes to save the Fighter. Sorry if there was some confusion.
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.
I listed a lot of spells. Probably a good third of them for most levels, and the majority of the 1st level spells are not combat spells at all. But you insisted that the ranger spells were mostly limited to combat, dismissing further notation on it. Well sorry, I don't really consider your view fair at that point, because you were downplaying the out of combat utility of ranger spells.
Likewise, at least two other posters called you for that crap where you were trying to twist item creation so flamboyantly. I'd even agree that you could make a helmet of intellect. No problem. Bag of holding? Utter BS. Trying to force it to let the crafting be relevant? Not cool.
It wasn't just about productivity in downtime either. I pointed out that the ranger's ability to qualify himself for item creation increased his overall versatility, because he could craft his own answers to certain situations, and that his class was contributing to his ability to do so. The fighter can't do that at all, because he's limited to exceedingly small subsets of crafting, and that's after trying to make up for the fact his class hinders his entrance into the crafting scene in general.
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.
If the Ranger was limited in his crafting like the Fighter was, I'd agree. Leave crafting to the wizards. However, Rangers can craft everything wizards can. They are -3 levels behind the curve, but they effectively can do everything. Just like with their casting. Being able to do something (in this case actually use your feat properly) later than the guy who does it best, well that's fine. Not being able to do something properly at all (in this case, not use your feat properly), well that's not fine.
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.
You say most campaigns don't, but can you prove that? How about sandbox games? Or any game that assumes the characters are proactive rather than reactive?
That being said, I must admit that I made an error. I was thinking that time stood still on the Astral Plane, hence why I was suggesting that you could just hop to another plane to craft (the astral plane is assumed in most campaign settings), but after re-examining it, I don't think it is that time stands still, just that it has no effect on anything...which is...weird, but oh well. o.O
What utility are you looking for?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.
Another loaded question. Is that all you do, ask questions looking for a way to spring some ineffective trap on people?
The ignorance is on your part: You talk about builds, I talk about classes. It's like you ignore everything I've said, only consider your "facts" which I've already dismissed, and think that your argument somehow matters when it's built on nothing. I say "nothing" because, as I've said, such things were already dismissed.
I'd go over it again, but I prefer not burning an hour linking all my previous posts. Do your own reading.
EDIT: Tell you what. click my name and then click the "Posts" tab to get started (look for the post at Wed, Jan 25, 2012, 06:33 PM and work back to present). If you haven't learned anything by then, I'll have to write you off as one unwilling to listen
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like I'm trying to teach calculus to a pack of dogs.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Malignor wants the class on its own to bring X, not a build. Myself and others think it does not matter if the class grants the ability or not. What matters is can it be done in the game, without hindering the class so that it can not do its primary job.
Example:If I use all of the fighters general feats to take skill focus a lot, and dumped his strength to get skill points that is an issue. If I only take skill focus twice so he is good at UMD and perception that should not be an issue. I might lose 1 or 2 points of DPR post level 10, but that is hardly crippling.
PS:Insert other skills as needed.
|
Ashiel: You mentioned above that you have a problem with Bob's builds because they use some specific things such as race. What Bob did was use certain aspects to create an optimized type of fighter. Any time you use the best of options you are optimizing which is what a lot of people go for when they build a PC. Now, no rules have been broken in order to attain these builds so everything is legit.
Specific builds require specific choices. If you build an archery based fighter then you choose specific feats. Now this doesn't change the class in anyway with regards how good it is. If you want a heavy social based fighter then you need to choose certain options that are going to give you the best results, all classes have this so picking on the fighter doesn't help your argument.
|
|
Malignor wants the class on its own to bring X, not a build. Myself and others think it does not matter if the class grants the ability or not. What matters is can it be done in the game, without hindering the class so that it can not do its primary job.
Example:If I use all of the fighters general feats to take skill focus a lot, and dumped his strength to get skill points that is an issue. If I only take skill focus twice so he is good at UMD and perception that should not be an issue. I might lose 1 or 2 points of DPR post level 10, but that is hardly crippling.
PS:Insert other skills as needed.
If someone is going to argue over the viability of a class then they need to acknowledge "all" the options available to a class. If you complain about the functionality of a class without looking at all the options then you end up in the wrong because those choices you didn't look at may have what you were looking for. Example: Archtypes are an option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*sigh* fine, let me put it to you this way.
A build is made up of a race, ability scores, traits, standard progression, and class.
Race, Ability Scores, Traits and Standard Progression apply to any class, from Commoners, to Wizards, To Rogues to Oracles to Fighters. As such, they are not important for a discussion that separates Fighters from the others.
Read the thread title. Please.
When you use a Build to argue for the relevance of a Class, you are being absurd. The things you use to counter my claims are constructed with race, ability scores, traits and standard progression, not the class. You could just as easily make a Commoner, Wizard or Rogue who solves all the same problems with the same or similar things, and you've still said nothing about the Fighter. I built a commoner to illustrate that fact. When using non-class features to make a claim about a class, the net contribution to argument is ZERO.
Now, there is one thing which could paint me in a corner here: If the Fighter class alone were so awesome at combat, that it was undeniably better than the Barbarian, Cavalier, Paladin or Ranger. Then you have breathing room to let the others "catch up" in combat, while you burn up other build components on some diversification.
But the Fighter is not significantly better than the Barbarian, Cavalier, Paladin or Ranger in combat alone.
If the other martials allocate their non-class build features on combat, and the Fighter doesn't, the Fighter will fall behind, proportionally to how much they use on utility.
If the other martials allocate their non-class build features on utility, and the Fighter does too, the Fighter has zero chance of catching up to them, because they had a significant headstart out of the gate... and yet they'll all still be on a level paying field for combat contribution. Again the Fighter falls behind.
Startling fact: The fighter does not get more non-combat feats, better race choices, more traits, more skill ranks, better class skills, or better gear than the other classes. As such, in matters of comparing one class to another, non-class build components bring nothing to the table.
|
*sigh* fine, let me put it to you this way.
A build is made up of a race, ability scores, traits, standard progression, and class.
Race, Ability Scores, Traits and Standard Progression apply to any class, from Commoners, to Wizards, To Rogues to Oracles to Fighters. As such, they are not important for a discussion that separates Fighters from the others.
Read the thread title. Please.
When you use a Build to argue for the relevance of a Class, you are being absurd. The things you use to counter my claims are constructed with race, ability scores, traits and standard progression, not the class. You could just as easily make a Commoner, Wizard or Rogue who solves all the same problems with the same or similar things, and you've still said nothing about the Fighter. I built a commoner to illustrate that fact. When using non-class features to make a claim about a class, the net contribution to argument is ZERO.
Now, there is one thing which could paint me in a corner here: If the Fighter class alone were so awesome at combat, that it was undeniably better than the Barbarian, Cavalier, Paladin or Ranger. Then you have breathing room to let the others "catch up" in combat, while you burn up other build components on some diversification.
But the Fighter is not significantly better than the Barbarian, Cavalier, Paladin or Ranger in combat alone.
If the other martials allocate their non-class build features on combat, and the Fighter doesn't, the Fighter will fall behind, proportionally to how much they use on utility.
If the other martials allocate their non-class build features on utility, the Fighter has zero chance of catching up to them, because they had a significant headstart out of the gate.Startling fact: The fighter does not get more non-combat feats, better race choices, more traits, more skill ranks, better class skills, or better gear than the other classes. As such, in matters of comparing one class to another, non-class build components bring nothing to the...
This. Oh my God, this.
Ashiel: You mentioned above that you have a problem with Bob's builds because they use some specific things such as race. What Bob did was use certain aspects to create an optimized type of fighter. Any time you use the best of options you are optimizing which is what a lot of people go for when they build a PC. Now, no rules have been broken in order to attain these builds so everything is legit.
Specific builds require specific choices. If you build an archery based fighter then you choose specific feats. Now this doesn't change the class in anyway with regards how good it is. If you want a heavy social based fighter then you need to choose certain options that are going to give you the best results, all classes have this so picking on the fighter doesn't help your argument.
None of the examples that I've used for rangers, including the ranger build that does everything, require specific races or archtypes. In fact, it didn't even require specific general feats, because I was literally just tossing some stuff from like 3-5 different things, and it still pops out entirely playable and a fine member of the party. It would work for dwarfs, humans, elves, gnomes, halflings, goblins, kobolds, half-elfs, half-orcs, orcs, blah, blah, blah. All of those would be able to tweak the build in different ways, but the crux of it is the class. I did it with 15 PB, and I didn't even apply racial mods because I wanted to make a point.
If you need certain races to make the class viable or stand out, then it fails. End of story. Want to play Bob's 1st Fighter in a Dragonlance campaign? Good luck, no orcs there. Want to play his 2nd Fighter in a core game? Good luck, it relies on an archtype from a splatbook.
Want to convince us that Fighters are legit, and totally r0x0rs teh b0x0rs? Show us. Show us a Fighter, that is representative of fighters in general, and not some narrow sub-group of Fighters of X race or Y archtype, and I for one will jump on the bandwagon. I have not seen that. Not yet anyway. And having good +A/+B hit/damage numbers isn't enough to convince me of general combat effectiveness either.
This. Oh my God, this.But the Fighter is not significantly better than the Barbarian, Cavalier, Paladin or Ranger in combat alone.
I know. It's sad. :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll agree they aren't that much better.
The problem is that out of combat, if you want to design it that way, they aren't significantly worse.
Worst of all, in a party, they don't have to be. They should concentrate on being good at what skills they can be good at. If they need to take a trait that gives them Perception, then they should do it. Otherwise, they should focus on what they need to.
Why do they NEED to be good at a social skill? It's trivial to become that way...it's a NON-ISSUE. But he should leave it to the face.
The Ranger is in NO WAY equal to the wizard as a crafter. His Int score is less, his Spellcraft ability is way lower, he's never going to use it to counterspell or make those high Spellcraft DC's, and he doesn't get bonus feats to use on Item Creation...he has to use his General feats! In addition to being three levels behind AND not having the spell selection to make a considerable number of the items he would want to!
Compared to the Wizard, at Item Creation the Ranger BLOWS. Because the Ranger wants absolute utility, he doesn't have it. The Wizard can get at least 4 more crafting feats FREE then the Ranger. And he has the caster level, spell selection, and high level spells to do it all.
The Ranger absolutely sucks at Item Creation, on your scale. He has to pay the feats out of his General List, Low Caster level, delayed acquisition, penalty to Spellcraft, and far lower Int meaning he can blow the checks. Especially on higher level items, this is going to suck.
So, I could care less that the Fighter can't do everything. It's like saying a Rogue or Inquisitor should never fight because he's got 3/4 BAB. Nobody should ever play anything but a Monk because nobody else has all good saves. Nobody should ever play anything but casters, because otherwise you don't get 9th level spells. The Fighter is good enough at what he wants to be good at to do the job, it's totally relevant and appropriate, and it maximizes downtime potential.
The fact the Fighters class doesn't help him with it is a non-issue, because ANYONE and EVERYONE can do the same thing.
And you have problems believing an armor smith can make a box or bag?
take a Plate armor breastplate. Weld the seams. Seal the arm holes and the neck holes. What do you have?
A box or container. You have now made a container you can put Holding onto.
Congrats. You could do the same by turning a helm UPSIDE DOWN.
Oh, but it must be a 'bag'.
Take a chain metal coif. Line it with silk, fleece, or leather. Instead of leaving the face open, close it. That leaves you...a silk-lined, steel mesh bag.
I've seen hanging curtains made of metal rings, as an alternate to cloth. You could make a 'cloak' the same way. It'd be heavier then a standard one, and louder and noiser, but it would still be a cloak.
Almost ANY item of apparel can fall under the Armorsmith skill. People have been armoring their attire for millenia! they have been decorating their armor with tokens, forming fantastic figures onto steel, etching and embroidering and stamping.
You'll find that substituting metal for almost anything isn't that hard to do. Books can be made out of metal plates...that's exactly like etching and decorating full plate armor. Do you think a scribe makes those? No, the smiths do it...delicate, high end work, requiring master craftsmen, but smiths do it.
I'm not stretching at all to do this. I'm using historical example. Your outrage over what is possible is just more and more amusing.
Anyone can be productive in downtime.
As for those four challenges:
The Fighter can take the Intimidate skill for social situations. He can spend ONE RANK to Aid Another for the party face at Diplomacy checks. Unless no one in the party has Sense Motive, he has no reason to take it...but if they don't, he can take it because he has no demands on his skill points.
During downtime, like anyone else, he can buy the feat and magic items to make magic items. With the Int headband, he could also make the raw materials.
During downtime for the town or village, he could potentially take Knowledge (engineering) and direct the building of fortifications by the populace. Or take that +2 INt headband and make some masterwork weapons. OR, you know, make magic items.
Or, shock, DRILL them by taking Profession (soldier). Make the helm/headband +4, if you like! You've got your choice of skills to stick into it, after all.
There has to be a NEED to do this, however. Making it a class ability is useless because there are no rules for training/aiding militia for PC's.
IN Pathfinder, getting a full Perception score is the matter of a trait and allocating the skill ranks. The fighter has no demands on his skill points. Unlike the Ranger, he's not expected to max out Wild Empathy, Survival, Knowledge (Nature and Dungeoneering), Stealth and Perception. The Fighter's skill points are largely and completely elective to put into what is needed to put into. There ARE NO SKILLS INTEGRAL TO THE FIGHTER CLASS. Pretty much every other class out there has DEMANDS on its skill points.
Not Fighters!
----
Let me reiterate my position.
I DO believe the Fighter should have all good saves. If you don't have magic, you should have something to fall back on.
I DO believe the Fighter should have 4 or 6 skill points a level. There is no reason the ranger gets them and he doesn't.
I DO believe Combat Feats should be more powerful/inclusive when taken by a fighter.
I DO believe they should get basically a feat every level...switching between combat and out of combat feats.
But making a blanket statement that they can't do what Malignor posted is just plain wrong. The fact that everyone and everyone can do it just means its a Dumb Requirement, because ANYONE can do it!
==Aelryinth
When you use a Build to argue for the relevance of a Class, you are being absurd.
Hold the phone. Let me make something extremely clear because it is missed every time that build is brought up. The original claim was that fighters can't do anything out of combat. I made a fighter that was relevant in and out of combat. There was also a claim that the fighter doesn't contribute beyond hitting things. I made sure that this was also debunked. If you go back, you will see that the discussion centered around the balor at level 20.
Let me tell you how we are reading what you and others are saying:
"All swans are white."
I found a swan that was black.
Now you are saying:
"All swans are white except the black one that you found therefore all swans are still white."
I'm willing to bet that I could post build after build and the goal posts would be moved all over the place so that no build could ever meet whatever criteria you and others want to set forth.
A character must be built with the entirety of the concept. I chose human because I tend to play humans. You can use any race with that build and you would lose out on a whopping 1 skill point per level and a single feat but you could also gain other things to make up for that like darkvision, low-light vision, bonuses to skills, a bonus to attack, different stats, etc. The differences are negligible.
If someone said all wizards suck because they can take metamagic feats that enhance their damage but take only spells that are utility spells, it would be the same as saying that all fighters suck because you can make bad choices. The wizard, in fact all spell casters, require a level of system mastery as well. It is very easy to choose the wrong spells at the beginning of the day.
|
|
It's not about the build you put up. You're correct that you will not convince us with builds, because as Malignor states, it is not about the build. It's about the core abilities of the class, and the fact that the fighter's core abilities are lacking in non-combat situations.
As for your analogy, here is my counter-analogy.
We say:
"All swans have wings."
You cut the wings off the swan with a hacksaw.
Now we say:
"All swans have wings, except for the one you mutilated with a hacksaw."
If you need certain races to make the class viable or stand out, then it fails. End of story. Want to play Bob's 1st Fighter in a Dragonlance campaign? Good luck, no orcs there. Want to play his 2nd Fighter in a core game? Good luck, it relies on an archtype from a splatbook.
The first fighter was human. The second one was half-orc. Your statement is pointless though. You are moving the goal posts again. Now you are trying to put criteria on those builds that were never in the discussion in the first place. The statement was that fighters can't do anything out of combat. Not that the core fighter can't do specific things as well as another class. Stop moving the goal posts. Stop removing options. If you are playing in a campaign where certain options aren't available, then your choices will be different. I love how I keep seeing the cavalier thrown into the discussion and I picked an archetype from that same book but the archetype is not allowed but the cavalier is. I don't recall you doing that, but there are at least two others who have.
Want to convince us that Fighters are legit, and totally r0x0rs teh b0x0rs? Show us. Show us a Fighter, that is representative of fighters in general, and not some narrow sub-group of Fighters of X race or Y archtype, and I for one will jump on the bandwagon. I have not seen that....
You won't agree no matter what. You will shift the goal posts again. You also will not give any specific enough criteria that must be met so it will be impossible to provide any such build. Instead, I will throw out a fighter that can do well with skills like Diplomacy and Acrobatics and you will say that he can't use Spellcraft as well as a ranger. You will say that the fighter won't be able to do anything other than hit things in combat, I will throw out a fighter that can do that and you will say that he can't use his animal companion though. So until you and others settle on precisely what you think is required, you will never be satisfied. Even if I do manage to throw out a build that meets everything you want, you will then discount it because it took a very specific build that required such a high level of system mastery that it isn't something that would see play in a regular game.
They are lacking in non-combat because he doesn't need to excel in non-combat. There are other classes that are better at it. If he needs to be good at a social skill, he can be. You just have to orient him to it. What you're wanting is for him to do it all...and he doesn't have to. The rest of the party is going to be as good or better at it.
And with one Rank in any skill he can Aid someone much better at it. That's contributing to social skills.
The only Melee class that could shine out of combat in social situations is the Paladin...because he might have the Charisma to really make it work.
For exploration, ask a wizard - skills rapidly become superfluous. As soon as you've got some sort of flying ability, nobody cares about climb, acrobatics, or your 40' move rate. They become irrelevant.
This is what is making us scratch our heads. The way the game is played, the Fighter does not NEED to be automatically awesome out of combat...he can ELECT to be if he so chooses, because there are no skills integral to his class, like they are to all the others.
In effect, the Fighter will fill in the holes the rest of the party leaves open, or help them out. It's all he needs to do. The DEMAND for him to be good at all sorts of stuff is just...wrong.
However, it would be NICE if he did have something, you know?
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not about the build you put up. You're correct that you will not convince us with builds, because as Malignor states, it is not about the build. It's about the core abilities of the class, and the fact that the fighter's core abilities are lacking in non-combat situations.
As for your analogy, here is my counter-analogy.
We say:
"All swans have wings."
You cut the wings off the swan with a hacksaw.
Now we say:
"All swans have wings, except for the one you mutilated with a hacksaw."
Your counter analogy is misplaced though. Remember that the claim was that "the fighter" couldn't do anything out of combat and remain relevant in combat. I proved that wrong by putting up a fighter that could. Then you and others changed your position to "core fighter only" but other classes can bring in anything from anywhere and even use classes that aren't core. So forgive me if I don't put much stock in your opinion of the capabilities of any class.
|
What if he agreed to wear the bag on his head?Nobody is arguing you have to actually create the original item. But the item has to be something that falls into your craft skill in order to imbue it with magic.Look through your CRB wondrous item section and count out the number of items you'd be able to make if that was true. There's more items with no skill requirements listed than there is requiring something.
A bag of holding likely does not fall into armor smithing, hard as you might argue. You can argue for boots, because armored boots are a mainstay of warriors, but cloaks? Not likely...at least, not a 'real' cloak. It would have to be a sheet of armor links or something...still a possibility, but you'd be stretching for it, and those kind of items would look pretty weird.You're imbuing it with magic through your craft skill. You take an existing masterwork bag and you attach some magical metal plates to it. A magic metal ring at the mouth where a drawstring runs and that's the magic. The bag opens the ring activates the access to the dimensional space inside. It's magic. Use some imagination.
Likewise you could add metal shoulder plates onto the cloak. You just have to be creative.
EDIT: Making armor would also give you the ability to make more things too. If you know how to form leather, stud leather, bend steel, link chain, everything else you would have learned along the way, you'd be able to apply that to making other items. I doubt a master leather armor maker wouldn't know how to make a leather backpack.
NO, just NO.
You can't put some iron plates on a bag and call that craft armor.
LOL! This has been most entertaining. Thanks everyone. Can't we all just get along. :)
It's not about the build you put up. You're correct that you will not convince us with builds, because as Malignor states, it is not about the build. It's about the core abilities of the class, and the fact that the fighter's core abilities are lacking in non-combat situations.
As for your analogy, here is my counter-analogy.
We say:
"All swans have wings."
You cut the wings off the swan with a hacksaw.
Now we say:
"All swans have wings, except for the one you mutilated with a hacksaw."
But that isn't what you are doing.
You are saying, "All Swans are not black." Absolute statement. Fighters cannot craft. Fighters have no social utility. etc etc.
We show you a swan that is black. That Fighters can craft. that fighters can have social skills.
You're saying "That is not a swan, because it's black, and anything black cannot possibly be a swan." Because he's not ZOMG the best at Crafting and Social skills, he still 'cannot' do these things.
In other words, you're using circular logic to defend your position, and ignoring what declaims your position.
i.e. if yOu want to make a defensible argument, because so far every one you've made has been shot down, set up firm criteria.
That Dragonlance campaign example was RICH. Classic goalpost moving.
How good would your FR ranger with FE (Orcs), (Dragons), (Zhentarim), and (Drow) do in a Dark Sun campaign, mmmm? What a Crappy build!
==Aelryinth
What is with all of this sadistic talk of torturing swans? Was that really the best analogy we could come up with?
And we're absolutely puzzled by that, because he does everything he needs to with Crafting, and everything he needs to with social skills. Fightyness has NOTHING to do with it.
The barbarian has no social skills. He has no crafting. Technically, only the Paladin does, and he's skill point starved because he's got Cha as an additional requirement. Rangers don't really have social skills, either.
It's not like cutting off the wings of a swan...it's like decking one swan out in steel armor, and then whining that it's not mithral or adamant like the other swans.
===Aelryinth
I am saying the fighter as a class brings nothing to crafting, social utility, etc. etc. or anything that is not combat.
I agree that you can build a fighter to craft, but it's like cutting the wings off a swan so you can have wingless swans.
Why do you think this would be crippling the fighter? He can invest one skill point per level, take 2 feats, and be able to craft his own weapons or armor or wondrous items. All he needs to do is figure out what he wants to be good at crafting and go from there. He will never be as good as a caster, and shouldn't be, so how has he crippled himself? Many of his other skills have low DCs, can be used untrained, and he can get by with minimal investment. He has enough skill points to be able to craft what he needs.
As for other out of combat uses, why must he cripple himself again? So that he can be able to do everything? What if he just wants to be good enough to Take 10 on most of the skills he feels he needs while the other characters do their thing?
The problem is that you see a small penalty as completely debilitating while we see it as a challenge that can be overcome if we want.
The problem is that you see a small penalty as completely debilitating while we see it as a challenge that can be overcome if we want.
It's a challenge that no other class really has to deal with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that you see a small penalty as completely debilitating while we see it as a challenge that can be overcome if we want.It's a challenge that no other class really has to deal with.
Not even remotely true. If the ranger wants to be good at Diplomacy, what will he need to do? If the cleric wants to be better with armor and shields, what will he need to do? No class can do everything no matter how much you think they can. The reality is that the fighter doesn't need to be able to do what you want and even if he does want to be better at some things, he can invest appropriately.
How do you think Ariel is able to pull up all those good ranger spells off the top of her head? System mastery. She has spent more time with the ranger than with the fighter. How do you think that others are able to do the same thing with the classes they mention? System mastery. They have spent more time with those classes than they have with the fighter. The reason I am able to do well with a fighter is because I have spent far too much time with the class. The reason I don't make good clerics or druids is because I don't spend enough time with those classes. System mastery is how every single one of us figures out how to deal with challenges. The reason you don't see some things as challenges is because you have already learned how to deal with them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, you mean like the barb, who has no real social skills or downtime ability; the paladin, who is lacking skillpoints and is MAD; the Ranger, who is almost REQUIRED to take a massive skill set and has no social skills; both of the latter having inferior casting ability; the rogue, who has no magical ability and thus no downtime ability either; huh, cavalier, no downtime; monk, no downtime; cleric, sucking the skill points here; mages, sucking the skill points with Int Req skills until VERY high levels;
Yeah, NO OTHER CLASS HAS THE SAME PROBLEMS.
yeppers.
Can y'all anti-fighters stop with the absolute statements?
==Aelryinth
|
|
The most profound disagreement in this thread is not whether there's a problem, but if there is a problem, what it might be.
I dislike the fighter class for two reasons. One, the core mechanics that the fighter bring are devoted solely to combat, while even the barbarian gets some out of combat benefits (trap sense and damage reduction are both great for general dungeoneering even out of combat, and the barbarian benefits from more skills and a better skill list). Two, the fighter is just plain boring. That's my personal opinion, but if the fighter had extra options that didn't just show up from feats, similar to the gunslinger's deeds or the rogue's tricks, I would be a lot more happy about the state of the fighter.
If the ranger wants to do diplomacy and sense motive he can get it for 33% of his skill points at 10 int.
A fighter uses 50% of his skill points including favored class at int 13. With no bonuses he has to max them.
25% are going into crafting. That last skill point gets to cover climb, swim, and any other class skills that might be useful. A bunch of them have fixed DCs so you might eventually sort of cover the lot.
What? You wanted to take knowledge (dungeoneering) to not be ignorant of your job? Sorry. Can't know your stuff and be sociable unless you're human.
What?
What's this a comment on? Ranger or Fighter?
Kindly pick two of Knowledge (Dungeoneering), Knowledge (Nature), Wild Empathy, Perception, Stealth, and Survival that the Ranger can no longer use....OH< and he needs SPELLCRAFT on top of this. So pick THREE...half his skills. Can't forget needing that Spellcraft skill so he can be a crafter too, y'know!
So that, you know, he sucks at his job as a ranger, so he can be sociable.
Whereas skill points really don't affect the fighter working at his job at all. It's all elective for him. I really don't think there's too many fighters who bother to full invest Kn(Dungeoneering), y'know?
===Aelryinth
Wild Empathy
This sir does not require skill points.
EDIT: And honestly some rangers don't bother with dungeoneering, stealth, or spellcraft either.
Mergy, that's not the problem here.
I already posted criteria about problems with the Fighter.
Yes, he needs more skill points. But he doesn't 'absolutely suck' because he doesn't have them, mostly because nothing the Fighter is supposed to do is skills reliant.
Yes, he needs better saves. It doesn't make him absolutely suck, and you can sorta work around it.
Yes, he needs more move and attack utility. But that's all melees. Except maybe the Barb.
He doesn't need 'face' skills anymore then a barb or ranger. Taking such is an elective choice.
He has no problem with crafting if that's a core of the campaign.
It'd be REAL nice if he had some broad anti-magic, as the only pure non-magic class. Instead, no magic is a weakness, not a strength.
He definitely doesn't need much help in combat...perhaps more versatility with more weapons.
Absolute statements that because of two minor issues that basically anyone can solve make the FIGHTER suck are just irking us.
==Aelryinth
Acknowledged, Tark. Insert Climb, Swim, Ride and Handle Animal...also considered pretty core skills for classic ranger builds.
And kindly note the Ranger has more MAD then the Fighter, due to the Wisdom req for Ranger spells, so he's actually likely to have a lower Int...especially since he thinks he can get away with it with 6 skill points.
===Aelryinth
I think you're mistake is believing everyone disparaging the fighter is anti-fighter.
I don't believe I ever said he absolutely sucked.
|
|
I hardly think the ranger is more MAD than the fighter. The ranger's combat style feats ignore prerequisites, and both the fighter and the ranger will want a moderate wisdom for the all-important saving throw. It's not like the ranger ever needs more than a 14 in wisdom anyway. Actually, a two-weapon fighting build is less MAD than a similar fighter build.
I hardly think the ranger is more MAD than the fighter. The ranger's combat style feats ignore prerequisites, and both the fighter and the ranger will want a moderate wisdom for the all-important saving throw. It's not like the ranger ever needs more than a 14 in wisdom anyway. Actually, a two-weapon fighting build is less MAD than a similar fighter build.
I have to agree with this. I can make an effective two-weapon fighter without having to use the archetypes but it requires a lot of work.
The fighter is MAD as well. He needs Strength for damage, Constitution to soak up some damage, Wisdom for Will saves and non-class skills like Perception, Dexterity or Intelligence if he wants certain feat chains. Charisma is needed if he wants to focus on Intimidation.
I don't know how versatile I can build a fighter if I stretch the MAD out. I will see if I can, if anyone is interested. It won't be done for a day or so because of work and needing some sleep every now and then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you use a Build to argue for the relevance of a Class, you are being absurd.Hold the phone. Let me make something extremely clear because it is missed every time that build is brought up. The original claim was that fighters can't do anything out of combat. I made a fighter that was relevant in and out of combat. There was also a claim that the fighter doesn't contribute beyond hitting things. I made sure that this was also debunked. If you go back, you will see that the discussion centered around the balor at level 20.
Let me tell you how we are reading what you and others are saying:
"All swans are white."
I found a swan that was black.
Now you are saying:
"All swans are white except the black one that you found therefore all swans are still white."
I'm willing to bet that I could post build after build and the goal posts would be moved all over the place so that no build could ever meet whatever criteria you and others want to set forth.
Let's go over the things I've said, shall we?
- Fighters fight. That's all. They sit out for much of the remaining game. They need gear to count for anything in high level. I cry for them. I don't hate them. I dream of them being better one day.
- Once level 4 is reached, the Fighter is already overshadowed by pretty much everyone else in any area besides combat. ... Other classes have mechanics and the same DM fiat/fluff you are toting, leaving the Fighter as little more than background noise by comparison. The alternative is to tailor the game to let the Fighter feel useful... and that is evidence of failure right there.
- at level 5+, any challenging social encounters require Diplomacy, Sense Motive, or similar skill checks of around DC 20... Armor, no stealth ranks. ... Investigation. Lack of perception, lack of stealth, lack of social skills, lack of divination magic... the fighter class has no tools to provide a player with in attempting to investigate.
- what does a Fighter have to offer for these situations which a commoner doesn't?
- A level 0 commoner can do the same. Where is the Fighter class helping?
- What's missing from the Fighter is some additional abilities which give the fighter a way to be really useful in other facets of the game, out of the box.
- Everyone should be enjoying the game at all times, including Fighters. And it shouldn't be something that requires a "Good GM" to do. N00bs are people too.
- NPC warriors are Grunts. Fighters are SpecOps, elite mercenaries, world-travelling combat geniuses and the like.
- Fighters are the kings of the sandbox combat build... The sheer number of feats, plus good starting proficiencies, give the Fighter lots of different build options for combat. Sure, they can build for non-combat, and fall behind in both combat and non-combat roles (see Bob's posts above). Economics of opportunity cost and all that.
- Actually, we're saying that the Fighter can contribute to the LEAST number of situations. What everyone is getting at is exactly what I was saying: The Fighter's player gets stuck sitting out of situations, more than a player of any other class. They sit out because, all other things being equal, their character has nothing meaningful to offer.
- That's what I see as a problem - a character, by virtue of the class alone, burning up game time just for the sake of compensation, pity and/or providing a handicap.
- I claim, by personal experience and observation, and reinforced by an intuitive analysis of the game material, that there is a class which "sits out" the most during non-combat in the level 6+ game: Fighter. The Fighter is at home in combat, and is designed to bring some good stuff to the table of violent conflict. But in many other situations, the class (not the character, or their equipment, but the class) falls short. In effect, the Fighter is a battle-commoner
- my argument is that all classes should have something meaningful and significant (CR-wise) to contribute to... to ... I guess you can call them "game themes": Subterfuge, constructive preparation, social challenges and so on. It doesn't have to be every type of instance of each game theme, but at least one, please.
- The problem is, most of the classes can handle 80-95% of all situations, using the benefits of their class alone. The Fighter is the exception, handling far fewer game themes, unless he gimps his combat contribution in order to be a skilled commoner.
- Compare a combat-built Fighter to any other combat-built martial class. They are all competitive in terms of battle prowess, but the Fighter is left with no additional role to fill in a level-competent manner. Compare a JOAT-built Fighter to any other JOAT-built martial class. They are all competitive in terms of battle prowess, but the Fighter has fewer roles to fill in a level-competent manner. Build a Fighter with enough JOAT to be as flexible and multi-purpose as some other combat-built martial class, and you'll see the JOAT-fighter's combat prowess fall behind.
- There's no proof. I only see poor excuses for evidence.
- I've built a Commoner who can craft as good as any Fighter. If a Commoner can do it, anyone can do it. Therefore, the Fighter class brings nothing.
- 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.
- 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 all of them have (good BAB, good Fort, d10 HD) ... How can it not be obvious? Compare them.
- I argue for classes being able to have value in numerous ways, for fun, flexibility and playability.
- 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".
Now... where did I "move the goalposts"? I'm bored and tired of that accusation being repeated ad-nauseum, so here are all the posts that matter: Spell it out for me.
Ohhh where do I begin here.
I had a big long post. But to be honest I think this sums things up a bit more of what I mean.
The fighters problem is that he honestly suffers from his own strength. He's simply too generic, too general for his own good. This gives him conceptual and mechanical strength in that you can build the fighter you like and never worry about being out of theme. But since other classes have spread to fill their respective niches (and even overlapped in a lot of cases) they've stolen room that the fighter might have branched outand within their respective specialties have even surpassed him. He simply has no theme, no gimmick as it were and for that I think he suffers when it comes time to start writing archetypes and doling out the skill bonuses and interesting class abilities. Some classes have tons to work with and mold and thus spread in directions outside of their theme (urban barbarians, urban druids, spellslingers, arcane duelists.)
It's not about building a class that can do anything. It's about building a class that can do something well within its own theme. The only theme the fighter has is fighting. It's a theme he does well. Unfortunately it's the only theme he has.
When you use a Build to argue for the relevance of a Class, you are being absurd.Hold the phone. Let me make something extremely clear because it is missed every time that build is brought up. The original claim was that fighters can't do anything out of combat. I made a fighter that was relevant in and out of combat. There was also a claim that the fighter doesn't contribute beyond hitting things. I made sure that this was also debunked. If you go back, you will see that the discussion centered around the balor at level 20.
Let me tell you how we are reading what you and others are saying:
"All swans are white."
I found a swan that was black.
Now you are saying:
"All swans are white except the black one that you found therefore all swans are still white."
I'm willing to bet that I could post build after build and the goal posts would be moved all over the place so that no build could ever meet whatever criteria you and others want to set forth.
Let's go over the things I've said, shall we?
...
- Fighters fight. That's all. They sit out for much of the remaining game. They need gear to count for anything in high level. I cry for them. I don't hate them. I dream of them being better one day.
- Once level 4 is reached, the Fighter is already overshadowed by pretty much everyone else in any area besides combat. ... Other classes have mechanics and the same DM fiat/fluff you are toting, leaving the Fighter as little more than background noise by comparison. The alternative is to tailor the game to let the Fighter feel useful... and that is evidence of failure right there.
- at level 5+, any challenging social encounters require Diplomacy, Sense Motive, or similar skill checks of around DC 20... Armor, no stealth
Is everyone going to agree to any replies to this or will more excuses come forth if factual rebuttals are made. I would not bother responding until a uniform decision is made. Like it or not the goalpost were moved and things were still not defined which is something I brought up pages ago.
How many of these must be met before a class can be said to be acceptable, and to what extent. Are there only certain ones that need to be met? Etc.........I am going to snip an earlier question I asked to get a point across that failed.
What things should the martial classes be able to do without relying on the casters?
Every martial class fails some of the earlier acid test so how many need to be passed by one build in order for a class to be viable?
The above quote is in addition to anything I asked in this post.
My response is a metagame response, and it has been so since the beginning:
Make the Fighter, as a class, have something useful to do outside of combat.
Without that, Fighters out of combat are effectively Commoners, and have the highest chance of not being able to contribute ("sitting out" or "attracting DM pity fiat")
Can it be more simple?
Can it be more general?
Bob Loblaw's TACTIKALL build made a multi-faceted weakling who was still unable to perform the kinds of utility that a core-only Ranger or Paladin can provide. True, he made a fighter that could contribute in strictest sense, but also robbed the Fighter of his edge in combat, making him a 2nd rate JOAT, falling behind the curve both in and out of combat... which is exactly one of my issues about making class viability. Further, the JOAT-ness was mostly via non-Fighter class abilities, so the class itself did very little for that utility.
Lastly, making one build does not solve a general issue. The issue is one of averages, distribution, common themes. I never said "For all Fighters, there is no contribution out of combat." This isn't some shallow For-all or There-exists type logic. It's deeper than that.
Here... lemme give it a go...
"For all PCs who suffer from lack of non-combat contribution, there exists some subset which are fighters. Call this subset FNC. Claim: The proportion of FNC, compared to the sample size of all Fighters, is higher than the corresponding non-contributing characters of all other classes."
... meh...
I'm not saying all.
I'm not saying all.
A counterexample is not proof of the contrary.
The builds provided are counterexamples at most.
Logic 101.
I just noticed that archetype loses weapon training. I liked the variant that was in the original campaign setting that allowed a fight to trade one feat for 4 skill points.
Thanks for the reply.
I just noticed that archetype loses weapon training. I liked the variant that was in the original campaign setting that allowed a fight to trade one feat for 4 skill points.
Thanks for the reply.
One of the reasons I was disheartened by that. The one thing that Fighters really have over their peers in terms of combat ability is the fact they can at least get some pretty gnarly hit / damage modifiers due to Weapon Training + Dueling Gloves + Weapon Specialization feats, which is arguably like having Favored Enemy (Everything) (you can absolutely hit +9/+11 with your favorite weapon, and +8/+10 with your 2nd favored weapon).
They tried to fix Fighters by giving them bigger numbers. That archtype doesn't address most of their problems, but took away their bigger numbers, which makes them less suited for the one thing they were really suitable for - slobberknockin'. :P
Something I want to put out there.
If I tell you that I want to play a Wizard that casts divine spells, what will you(general) tell me?
Don't nerf yourself, bro?
EDIT: Unless you wanted to a divine caster with a more wizardly feel (like a prayerbook full of spells and stuff), in which case it might be time to breakout the homebrew lab and cook you up some sort of bibliomancer class or prestige class or something.
Or, if you wanted a wizard that gets all the arcane spells plus all the divine spells, I'd point you in the direction of the mystic theurge and suggest a 7/3/10, so you could hit either 9th arcane or 9th divine, at your option by 20th.
Or if you just wanted one spell, like planar ally (conjurers might like this) or desecrate (necromancers love this), then it might be a good spell to research as an arcane spell (though I personally use a custom research cost progression that is more akin to crafting a magic item).