Why all the Fighter hate?

[Ashiel]

Ashiel wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

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).

shallowsoul wrote:

So you don't know?

Just confused as to what you mean. So my answer was posed in the tone of a question, hoping you would elaborate.

[Gorbacz]

Shallowsoul,

Since you're like kind of new here, you really should take a moment of your time and re-read all those zillion Fighter vs. Wizards vs. Ivory Tower vs. CoDzilla vs. DPR Olympics vs. Balance threads, because what's happening here is a lot of running in cycles. All this was done before, and every six months or so new "Fighters weak LOLWUT" guy comes around and here we go again, cause Ashiel has way too much spare time and he never lets such threads float.

Waste of Internet on all accounts.

[ciretose]

Gorbacz wrote:

Shallowsoul,

Since you're like kind of new here, you really should take a moment of your time and re-read all those zillion Fighter vs. Wizards vs. Ivory Tower vs. CoDzilla vs. DPR Olympics vs. Balance threads...

Don't do it!

[Ashiel]

Gorbacz wrote:

Shallowsoul,

Since you're like kind of new here, you really should take a moment of your time and re-read all those zillion Fighter vs. Wizards vs. Ivory Tower vs. CoDzilla vs. DPR Olympics vs. Balance threads, because what's happening here is a lot of running in cycles. All this was done before, and every six months or so new "Fighters weak LOLWUT" guy comes around and here we go again, cause Ashiel has way too much spare time and he never lets such threads float.

Waste of Internet on all accounts.

I really do need a life outside of gaming, but probably don't want one. :P

[Bob_Loblaw]

If I don't come back and respond for a while, it's because I have a friend in crisis and I would much rather focus on getting him some help. Happy game debate my friends.

[shallowsoul]

Has nothing to do with being new really and I'm not new to gaming.

Is there a way to be a wizard and still be able to cast divine spells?

[TriOmegaZero]

Mystic Theurge.

Also, houserules.

Ashiel wrote:

I really do need a life outside of gaming, but probably don't want one. :P

Is overrated.

[shallowsoul]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Mystic Theurge.

Now you got it!

Now, what if I said "Well the Wizard sucks because I have to take a few levels in cleric and then the Mystic Theurge PrC in order to cast divine spells?"

[Ringtail]

What color of swan is the theurge?

[TriOmegaZero]

I'd say that does nothing to fix my bicycle.

[Mergy]

I'm having trouble understanding your analogy shallowsoul. If you wouldn't mind explaining your point, I'm sure everyone would be happy to comment on it.

[Malignor]

shallowsoul wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Mystic Theurge.

Now you got it!

Now, what if I said "Well the Wizard sucks because I have to take a few levels in cleric and then the Mystic Theurge PrC in order to cast divine spells?"

Then you're complaining about an ability which doesn't change the playability of your character, nor does it force you to sacrifice your effectiveness to provide playability.

In other words, this analogy is invalid.

[wraithstrike]

Mergy wrote:

I'm having trouble understanding your analogy shallowsoul. If you wouldn't mind explaining your point, I'm sure everyone would be happy to comment on it.

That is what I was about to say.

[shallowsoul]

Malignor wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Mystic Theurge.

Now you got it!

Now, what if I said "Well the Wizard sucks because I have to take a few levels in cleric and then the Mystic Theurge PrC in order to cast divine spells?"

Then you're complaining about an ability which doesn't change the playability of your character, nor does it force you to sacrifice your effectiveness to provide playability.

In other words, this analogy is invalid.

Actually the whole purpose of this little exercise is to show you that the Wizard has to give up spell slots, some bonus feats, familiar abilities, dip into another class, and have to take a PrC in order to go outside the norm of the class. Now this will be looked at as okay.

Now the fighter can stay within his own class and possibly give up a point of DPR in order to attain something that is outside the norm of the class. Well let me rephrase that last part, to attain even more than outside the norm such as social skills and crafting but suddenly the class as a whole sucks according to some people.

[Khrysaor]

leo1925 wrote:

Khrysaor wrote:

Aelryinth wrote:

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.

Aelryinth wrote:

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.

It was profession(blacksmith) but thanks for coming out. Its about being creative. This is a game of magic.

[Atarlost]

The wizard can cast divine spells. Lots of spells are on both lists. The wizard can summon a number of outsiders with divine casting or SLAs that mimic divine spells using summon monster. He also, by virtue of being an int based SAD class, has skills. And, if for some reason he feels he needs to mix it up in combat, perhaps because of a drunken bet, he can throw up Displacement and Haste and Tensor's Transformation and be a far better fighter than a fighter is a wizard.

The fighter can't cast *any* spells, divine or arcane, has few skills, and is sabotaging his combat capability to take int above 13 in either a point buy game or with a stat array that includes a 13. Except with the Lore Warden archetype which can get mechanical benefit from knowledge skills. I guess anyone can have a few nice things if they're connected to the Pathfinder Society.

[Khrysaor]

Atarlost wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

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.

2+2 doesn't cut it when compared to 4+2 or 3+2+2.

This is the problem. It doesnt' matter what proof you give. Some people already have their minds made up and if you provide anything to sway them there's always the next +2 to add. Moving the goalposts ruins an argument. People who don't realize they're moving the goalposts, shouldn't post in forums.

[TOZ]

Khrysaor wrote:

People who don't realize they're moving the goalposts, shouldn't post in forums.

Dude, that's like, some Zen shiznit there...

[Khrysaor]

Malignor wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

Malignor wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

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.

Isn't it ironic that we who are unhappy with the design of the Fighter are using more math to back us up...

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.

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.

How do you figure every PC is commoner + class? I've never thought of my characters as being a commoner. Commoners' don't adventure.

[TriOmegaZero]

That's because they have class features. Those features are what makes them not-Commoners.

But underneath that is the base commoner. They didn't stop being commoners, they just gained more.

[Khrysaor]

Bob_Loblaw wrote:

Fighter can just start a fight club.

And since the problem of skill points stems from some people thinking a fighter doesn't need intelligence, the first rule will be broken and his fight club will get large.

[Atarlost]

Khrysaor wrote:

Atarlost wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

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.

2+2 doesn't cut it when compared to 4+2 or 3+2+2.

This is the problem. It doesnt' matter what proof you give. Some people already have their minds made up and if you provide anything to sway them there's always the next +2 to add. Moving the goalposts ruins an argument. People who don't realize they're moving the goalposts, shouldn't post in forums.

The goal posts aren't just numbers. If you define 2 to be about one NPC class worth of utility the goalposts have always been 6. If you define 4 to be the goalposts the fighter is getting 1.5+1.5 while falsely claiming to be 2+2.

[Khrysaor]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

That's because they have class features. Those features are what makes them not-Commoners.

But underneath that is the base commoner. The didn't stop being commoners, they just gained more.

So once we tear away everything that is the class, we see that every class is a commoner. Except some people might have been experts or any other NPC type. This argument is pointless. Classes are not commoners.

[TriOmegaZero]

The Expert and Warrior are still commoners underneath. They just have less extra than the real classes.

[doctor_wu]

But if the swan took barbarian levels wouldn't it be able to craft 3pp products?

[Khrysaor]

Malignor wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

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.

Barbarian

Fast movement +10 speed.
Breast plate reduces a +40 to +30.
Full plate reduces +30 to +20 since you lose fast movement in heavy armor

Fighter
Armor Training 1 and 2
Breast plate doesn't reduce anything. 30ft speed
Full plate doesn't reduce anything. 30ft speed

While raging the barbarian has terribad AC while wearing medium armor, next to the fighter in full plate moving at full speed and never getting hit because he has an epic AC. So while the barbarian is raging and cleaving his way through everything, he's still getting hit. He has the HP pool because he WILL get hit. When his rage ends and he's left to kill whats left, he's a beat down tired combatant struggling to get through the rest. The fighter is slow and steady and will get through all of those things, in time, with probably less overall damage.

Fighters are meant to have endurance. They're abilities are the same all the time. Barbarians are meant to rage and they lose endurance with every round that goes by.

Fighters have DR5/- if they have any armor or a shield.

Uncanny dodge is the best thing a Barbarian brings to the table.

[Khrysaor]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

The Expert and Warrior are still commoners underneath. They just have less extra than the real classes.

So where's my skill points for being a level 1 commoner/expert/warrior before I start adventuring as a level 1 fighter. I get what you're saying, that all classes had roots and started somewhere, but it has no affect on the classes and has no valid points to argue it. They're NPC classes for a reason.

[TriOmegaZero]

It's the lowest common denominator, and you remove it to solve the equation.

[Khrysaor]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

It's the lowest common denominator, and you remove it to solve the equation.

It's an NPC class and not a PC class. It is not a part of the denominator.

[TriOmegaZero]

NPC and PC classes are built off of the same chassis. The Commoner is the bare bones of it.

[Khrysaor]

You keep thinking that.

[Talonhawke]

We will don't worry.

[wraithstrike]

The only thing really common is basic feats, but every creature gets feats even if they operate off of racial HD unless they have no intelligence so the commoner analogy is not perfect, but I think the point still gets across whether it is agree with or not.

[TriOmegaZero]

Khrysaor wrote:

You keep thinking that.

I will if you will.

wraithstrike wrote:

The only thing really common is basic feats, but every creature gets feats even if they operate off of racial HD unless they have no intelligence so the commoner analogy is not perfect, but I think the point still gets across whether it is agree with or not.

Every creature type has a BAB/Save Progression, HD type, and skills per HD. There are no creatures in the game that do not use these base statistics. And none get less than the Commoner.

Everything in the game is a Commoner with extra features added.

[Khrysaor]

All for you TOZ.

PRD wrote:

Aside from the players, every other person encountered

in the game world is a nonplayer character (NPC).
These characters are designed and controlled by the
GM to fill every role from noble king to simple baker.
While some of these characters use player classes, most
rely upon basic NPC classes, allowing them to be easily
generated. The following rules govern all of the NPC
classes and include information on generating quick
NPCs for an evening’s game.

Classes are:

Adept
Aristocrat
Commoner
Expert
Warrior

These are all the designed NPC classes. Not PC classes. Nothing anywhere in the section states that the commoner is the lowest common denominator. If everyone is then why doesn't everyone have Climb, Craft, Handle Animal as class skills. It's because they're not.

[shallowsoul]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

NPC and PC classes are built off of the same chassis. The Commoner is the bare bones of it.

I'm not sure where you get your information but I'm afraid you are wrong.

While all classes are based on BAB,Skills, Hit dice,weapon prof, armour prof and saves, the PC classes are based on class abilities as well. If PC classes were built from NPC classes then where are those skills that are present in some? Also, why do you choose commoner as your basis?

Remember, PC classes and NPC classes are not the same. All classes are built from the 3rd edition mold but that mold wasn't started with the commoner or any other NPC class I'm afraid.

[TriOmegaZero]

A Fighter is a Warrior with bonus feats, and now in PF a couple class abilities. A Rogue is a Commoner with better BAB/Reflex and improved HD, along with his class abilities. A Druid is an Adept with better spell progression and Fort/BAB, along with his class abilities.

And all NPC classes are Commoners with their base components improved.

[wraithstrike]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Khrysaor wrote:

You keep thinking that.

I will if you will.

wraithstrike wrote:

The only thing really common is basic feats, but every creature gets feats even if they operate off of racial HD unless they have no intelligence so the commoner analogy is not perfect, but I think the point still gets across whether it is agree with or not.

Every creature type has a BAB/Save Progression, HD type, and skills per HD. There are no creatures in the game that do not use these base statistics. And none get less than the Commoner.

Everything in the game is a Commoner with extra features added.

Maybe everything is a modified vermin, and adding intelligence grants you feats, and skill points, and changes your creature type.

[TriOmegaZero]

shallowsoul wrote:

I'm not sure where you get your information but I'm afraid you are wrong.

Just by reading the rules. Creatures are built out of HD, BAB, Saves, and Skills. This is the bare bones of the system, and the Commoner is the barest skeleton.

[TriOmegaZero]

wraithstrike wrote:

Maybe everything is a modified vermin, and adding intelligence grants you feats, and skill points, and changes your creature type.

Nah, Vermin have 3/4 BAB and d8 HD. Plus Good Fort. They actually get skill points, but then the Mindless quality takes them away.

[Talonhawke]

The point being made that if the only way that a class can obtain the ability to do something falls into the same category of a commoner being able to do it with the same resources then the class isn't giving that ability something everyone has is giving it.

Outside of the skills listed on the class (which can pretty much be ignored thanks to traits) no one has lower than the commoner on skill points, feats, ability score increases, or special abilities.

So if one of your basic anything goes feats is the only way you can get it so could a commoner. If you can claim to simply put skill points into it and take a trait so could a commoner. If you say I can do it thanks to x ability then your class helped you and a commoner couldn't do it.

Basicly if a commoner can do everything listed for the fighter to be relevant then most if not all non-fighters can do it better thanks to either Higher skill points,special abilites, or their specific bonus feats.

Heck if your only going one combat style route a ranger can do it as good or better than a fighter since he can avoid some feat taxes and and other preqs.

[Mort the Cleverly Named]

wraithstrike wrote:

Maybe everything is a modified vermin, and adding intelligence grants you feats, and skill points, and changes your creature type.

Vermin get medium BaB, d8 HD, good fortitude saves, and Darkvision 60'.

Would it be easier if people said "Minimum Possible Advancement" instead of "Commoner?" As in, all bad saves, d6 hp, no special abilities, a feat every other level and 2 skill points. You know, the exact stuff a commoner gets (minus one simple weapon proficiency and a few class skills).

The point is to differentiate "class abilities" from stuff absolutely everyone gets. I feel like that is getting lost, here.

[wraithstrike]

I know what the point is. I was just bored. Others just don't agree with the method, but that has been a point of contention for the entire thread.

[Khrysaor]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

A Fighter is a Warrior with bonus feats, and now in PF a couple class abilities. A Rogue is a Commoner with better BAB/Reflex and improved HD, along with his class abilities. A Druid is an Adept with better spell progression and Fort/BAB, along with his class abilities.

And all NPC classes are Commoners with their base components improved.

Bad assumption is bad.

[Khrysaor]

Talonhawke wrote:

The point being made that if the only way that a class can obtain the ability to do something falls into the same category of a commoner being able to do it with the same resources then the class isn't giving that ability something everyone has is giving it.

Outside of the skills listed on the class (which can pretty much be ignored thanks to traits) no one has lower than the commoner on skill points, feats, ability score increases, or special abilities.

So if one of your basic anything goes feats is the only way you can get it so could a commoner. If you can claim to simply put skill points into it and take a trait so could a commoner. If you say I can do it thanks to x ability then your class helped you and a commoner couldn't do it.

Basicly if a commoner can do everything listed for the fighter to be relevant then most if not all non-fighters can do it better thanks to either Higher skill points,special abilites, or their specific bonus feats.

Heck if your only going one combat style route a ranger can do it as good or better than a fighter since he can avoid some feat taxes and and other preqs.

Can't assume traits since not everyone allows them. This thread has broken down to a class comparison not an NPC class vs PC class comparison. Commoner may be the lowest of the low but that doesn't mean it was the template that everything was created on. If it was, everyone would have all the class skills and abilities of a commoner, which they don't.

[TriOmegaZero]

Khrysaor wrote:

Bad assumption is bad.

Flippant reply is flippant.

[shallowsoul]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

A Fighter is a Warrior with bonus feats, and now in PF a couple class abilities. A Rogue is a Commoner with better BAB/Reflex and improved HD, along with his class abilities. A Druid is an Adept with better spell progression and Fort/BAB, along with his class abilities.

And all NPC classes are Commoners with their base components improved.

*shakes head sadly*

[TriOmegaZero]

*bubble pipe*

[Khrysaor]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Khrysaor wrote:

Bad assumption is bad.

Flippant reply is flippant.

And yet my post was full of meaning. It says you're making a bad assumption. I guess flippant must be full of meaning where you're from.

[shallowsoul]

Talonhawke wrote:

The point being made that if the only way that a class can obtain the ability to do something falls into the same category of a commoner being able to do it with the same resources then the class isn't giving that ability something everyone has is giving it.

Outside of the skills listed on the class (which can pretty much be ignored thanks to traits) no one has lower than the commoner on skill points, feats, ability score increases, or special abilities.

So if one of your basic anything goes feats is the only way you can get it so could a commoner. If you can claim to simply put skill points into it and take a trait so could a commoner. If you say I can do it thanks to x ability then your class helped you and a commoner couldn't do it.

Basicly if a commoner can do everything listed for the fighter to be relevant then most if not all non-fighters can do it better thanks to either Higher skill points,special abilites, or their specific bonus feats.

Heck if your only going one combat style route a ranger can do it as good or better than a fighter since he can avoid some feat taxes and and other preqs.

Why is anyone comparing the fighter to the commoner anyway? All classes have a connection because the bare bones class structure is the same when it was created for 3rd edition. All classes share the same basic structure whether it's an NPC class or a PC class.

Commoners don't have the class skills, the hp, the BAB, the bonus feats, the proficiencies, and the class abilities. All classes, to a certain extent, can technically do somethings like gain skills so where is the problem?