Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Khrysaor wrote: 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. Or maybe posts can be flippant and meaningful at the same time?
the point is everything you guys have listed (except the Fighter Archetypes) is something a commoner can do just as good as a figther meaning that the fighter class isn't giving you those options anyone can do them (some people even better since they have more skills to monkey around with.)
Thats fine on dropping traits as it hurts the fighter more than having them helps others in this sense.
Talonhawke wrote: the point is everything you guys have listed (except the Fighter Archetypes) is something a commoner can do just as good as a figther meaning that the fighter class isn't giving you those options anyone can do them (some people even better since they have more skills to monkey around with.) And bonus feats, and proficiencies, and more hit dice, and more class skills. The commoner gets none of those that a fighter gets I'm afraid.
Talonhawke wrote: Thats fine on dropping traits as it hurts the fighter more than having them helps others in this sense. The argument is based around the classes. Not races, traits, stats. These all alter the base concept.
None of which has been given to make the fighter non combat relevant cept for a few skills. In fact all of that shows he is great for combat but nothing to help him once its over.
Khrysaor wrote: Talonhawke wrote: Thats fine on dropping traits as it hurts the fighter more than having them helps others in this sense. The argument is based around the classes. Not races, traits, stats. These all alter the base concept.
The point is still that anything outside of combat the fighter can do short of knowledge dungeneering a commoner can do just as good.
Talonhawke wrote: the point is everything you guys have listed (except the Fighter Archetypes) is something a commoner can do just as good as a figther meaning that the fighter class isn't giving you those options anyone can do them (some people even better since they have more skills to monkey around with.) And most mundane tasks that any class can do, so can the commoner. What a commoner can't do? Wear armor with no penalties(no other class gets this), wield most any weapon with exceptional prowess(not mimicked by any class), gain DR wearing any armor or shield(some classes get DR but not many), increase the crit multiplier on a weapon(barb is the only other one that comes to mind. While raging)
Talonhawke wrote: Khrysaor wrote: Talonhawke wrote: Thats fine on dropping traits as it hurts the fighter more than having them helps others in this sense. The argument is based around the classes. Not races, traits, stats. These all alter the base concept.
The point is still that anything outside of combat the fighter can do short of knowledge dungeneering a commoner can do just as good. Maybe it's time to read the fighter section and see what it means to be a fighter.
Edit: commoners get climb, craft, handle animal as class skills. There's a whole lot more a fighter is doing better.
Name something the fighter class can do outside of combat that the fighter can do better. I'll bet you come up with a handful of skills and thats it.
Atarlost wrote: 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. It's only being considered less because people continually compare everything to classes that do those things better. You have to compare classes as a whole or there is no comparison. Each class gives things up to get something different.
Talonhawke wrote: Name something the fighter class can do outside of combat that the fighter can do better. I'll bet you come up with a handful of skills and thats it. This makes no sense.
The game consists of 'in combat' and 'out of combat'. It's either skills in combat or skills out of combat. Telling me to ignore the main skill set of a class defeats the purpose of this. Why don't we just compare the in combat fighter to the in combat barbarian. Oh ya, the barbarian can't rage. Any more silly arguments?
Each class brings something different. Fighters are far more competent than a commoner 'in combat'. A fighter has more class abilities than a commoner and can perform any of those skills better than a commoner. There's nothing more out of combat. Role playing is player dependent. It's only skills and a fighter gets more class skills than a commoner.
So you agree that the fighter brings nothing to the table short of combat?
If so then you are in the camp with most of us who don't hate the fighter we just want him to have some versitility.
This is the same argument for the last 15 pages. The fighter is still boring and not versatile outside of combat. Try for 20 pages you guys!
yeah i know maybe i should have titled my thread about the master chymist something along the lines of I hate fighters and need a question answered.
Talonhawke wrote: So you agree that the fighter brings nothing to the table short of combat?
If so then you are in the camp with most of us who don't hate the fighter we just want him to have some versitility.
No. Now you're just trying to put words in my mouth to help your failing argument. The fighter has versatility. The game designed the fighter to have intelligence. This is why there's feats like combat expertise. Just because people here are min/maxers and you dump everything non combat to max damage per round, doesn't mean the class is flawed. It's your play style design that is flawed to the intentions of the class.
The fighter brings far more out of combat utility than a commoner. The fighter doesn't bring as much OoC utility as the other classes, but they should still bring something. If you don't then it's your failure as a character designer. Bob already showed a versatile fighter, and others have shown how this is possible. If you still choose to play fighters how you do, don't complain about a design that others find no problem with. Generally when someone has a problem and others don't, it's because the person has a problem and not the fundamentals.
Mergy wrote: This is the same argument for the last 15 pages. The fighter is still boring and not versatile outside of combat. Try for 20 pages you guys! Thanks for the help Mergy. I don't think we could pull this off without you.
Name something then that the fighter does better than a commoner barring combat options.
I can play a high intelliengence commoner and have the same skill points and only slightly lower total skills for things they either both have or both lack as class skills.
Thats what we are saying yes you can play a smart fighter and have those options without being useless elsewhere (others may disagree here)but nothing you have by virtue of being a fighter does that only things you have by virtue of being in existence.
Talonhawke wrote:
Thats what we are saying yes you can play a smart fighter and have those options without being useless elsewhere (others may disagree here)but nothing you have by virtue of being a fighter does that only things you have by virtue of being in existence.
If you can be a figthter that is good in combat and have options outside combat, it does not matter how you have those options. yo will not suck in combat and you will not suck outside combat, period.
Note I said not be useless however your now at best on par in combat and sub-par in everthing else.
Talonhawke wrote: Name something then that the fighter does better than a commoner barring combat options.
I can play a high intelliengence commoner and have the same skill points and only slightly lower total skills for things they either both have or both lack as class skills.
Thats what we are saying yes you can play a smart fighter and have those options without being useless elsewhere (others may disagree here)but nothing you have by virtue of being a fighter does that only things you have by virtue of being in existence.
Again with the pointless argument of let's ignore what your class does better by ignoring all the best skills you do bring.
Every class skill that the commoner doesn't get.
Now let's compare a cleric to a fighter. Clerics can't use spells. Oh what's that? They get the same skills per level and they're pretty much the same at everything.
Im not saying that a fighter CAN be built with intelligence. I'm saying it is a stat prerequisite of the class. Dumping int is a bad choice for a fighter.
When building balanced characters you will invest heavily into two stats that enhance your class features and one stat to make up for your classes weakness. Dumping a class weakness compounds how bad you are. A fighters main skill sets are combat oriented as they are FIGHTERS. You need str or dex depending on weapon style and to enhance your weapon training. You need dex to enhance your armor training and build up reflex saves Constitution is not a prerequisite but shouldn't be dumped. 12 is fine. Lacking OoC utility seems to be the big downfall according to the thread, and int is the cure. Will saves is another weakness, unfortunately if you don't invest largely in this, you won't see substantial results. This is also a bad choice since a heavy investment here limits everything else.
Clerics can't use spells. Oh what's that? They get the same skills per level and they're pretty much the same at everything
Domain powers.
You guys just don't get what a fighter is. You want your fighters to be barbarians, rangers, rogues. Fortunately for you, they've already made those classes for you. If you don't like how your play style meshes with a class, then don't play the class. Arguing that the class sucks because it doesn't do what you want it to do does not make the class worse. It means your style doesn't work with the class intentions. Pick a new class, or change your play style. Balance is key, min/maxing is a trap.
Talonhawke wrote: Note I said not be useless however your now at best on par in combat and sub-par in everthing else. maybe, but 3 or 4 page before, Useless was a prety coomon word.
TarkXT wrote: Clerics can't use spells. Oh what's that? They get the same skills per level and they're pretty much the same at everything
Domain powers.
I guess that means we can bring out the fighter archetypes again too?
Lol thats awesome so awesome.
We are looking at what the class can do not what it can do only with skills. We are looking at the whole package in and out of combat.
No one has said the fighter fails combat we have said once it ends he takes a backseat for 95% of things that come up. Meaning that any fix to this is not a fighter ability is a character ability.
My commoner can be as if not more diplomatic or knowledgeable or a forger or a locksmith than a fighter. Now when the fight starts the fighter leaves me in the dust when it ends we are back to equal on most footings.
Spells are a cleric class feature which has in and out of combat uses if we were talking the 3.5 warmage then sure i would agree spells don't contribute but in this case they can and will shore up the clerics out of combat needs if he is prepared to handle such things when they arise.
And the cleric still has diplomacy and sense motive as class skills and tied to high prioity stats.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Khrysaor wrote: You guys just don't get what a fighter is. Mmm, no, you just don't get what a fighter is to US.
Khrysaor wrote: TarkXT wrote: Clerics can't use spells. Oh what's that? They get the same skills per level and they're pretty much the same at everything
Domain powers.
I guess that means we can bring out the fighter archetypes again too? Nope all basic clerics have those check your CRB.
It doesn't matter. One side will never be satisfied until fighters can do everything that everyone else can do, at once, otherwise someone does it better and that's not fair. The other side is content with the current fighter model and can make useful concepts within the constraints.
The squeaky wheel doesn't always get the grease I'm afraid.
Talonhawke wrote: Khrysaor wrote: TarkXT wrote: Clerics can't use spells. Oh what's that? They get the same skills per level and they're pretty much the same at everything
Domain powers.
I guess that means we can bring out the fighter archetypes again too? Nope all basic clerics have those check your CRB. And yet every cleric is different in the abilities they get. Some of which bring nothing useful to the table out of combat. Point is moot.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Khrysaor wrote: One side will never be satisfied until fighters can do everything that everyone else can do, at once, otherwise someone does it better and that's not fair. Your baseless mischaracterization of those you disagree with is not good form. Please refrain from such statements.
Then we can't count weapon training or fighter bonus feats for the fighter since each fighter may be different now a barbarian wins the whole discussion even without rage powers in most cases since he has a good amount of skills and can deal with traps one way or another.
Find them with perception then either set them off and avoid damage with trapsense and dr or smash trap and move on.
Talonhawke wrote: No one has said the fighter fails combat we have said once it ends he takes a backseat for 95% of things that come up. Meaning that any fix to this is not a fighter ability is a character ability.
I just do not get that, I, of course, think that the fighter should have a couple of extra skill points and perception and acrobatics as class skills.
but, if you can build a fighter that does not need to backseat 95% of the time, then why to argue.
Khrysaor wrote: Talonhawke wrote: Khrysaor wrote: TarkXT wrote: Clerics can't use spells. Oh what's that? They get the same skills per level and they're pretty much the same at everything
Domain powers.
I guess that means we can bring out the fighter archetypes again too? Nope all basic clerics have those check your CRB. And yet every cleric is different in the abilities they get. Some of which bring nothing useful to the table out of combat. Point is moot. Wait what was the argument here?
You picked a cleric not casting spells as your example of a character who cant do anything outside of skills. And yet here he is packing his channel energy, using his domain powers and praising gods like a boss.
What it looks like you're trying to say is that if you strip away these abilities he's basically in the same boat socially as a commoner. Remind me again what this has to do with the fighter?
So you agree the fighter could do with a few more things. And to build up to more than 95% you start falling behind in what your the best at fighting.
If you can only be on par with the other damage dealer and he is still better than you out of combat you are the worse off.
I want a fighter who can be usefull for a few more things once combats over with out losing what makes me want to play a fighter. That is the ability to spend all day bashing heads in without worrying about alignment/Favored enemies/sneak attack/rage rounds. I should be able to be the best at Damage and still have so other nice things. Either that or make me the uncontested fighter let me overcome DR with anything let me treat my weapons like they had enhancement bonuses let me move and full attack or even just double attack make me more than just a hand ful of extra feats over the other guys.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Khrysaor wrote: One side will never be satisfied until fighters can do everything that everyone else can do, at once, otherwise someone does it better and that's not fair. Your baseless mischaracterization of those you disagree with is not good form. Please refrain from such statements. Lol. Your perpetual attempts at trolling with a lack of general input makes me giggle. People like you make the internets worth it.
TarkXT wrote: More you basically stripped him of a good majority of his class abilities.
It was a rhetorical comment made on the basis that I'm supposed to argue the value of a fighter and exclude all in combat purposes.
Talonhawke wrote: So you agree the fighter could do with a few more things. And to build up to more than 95% you start falling behind in what your the best at fighting.
If you can only be on par with the other damage dealer and he is still better than you out of combat you are the worse off.
I want a fighter who can be usefull for a few more things once combats over with out losing what makes me want to play a fighter. That is the ability to spend all day bashing heads in without worrying about alignment/Favored enemies/sneak attack/rage rounds. I should be able to be the best at Damage and still have so other nice things. Either that or make me the uncontested fighter let me overcome DR with anything let me treat my weapons like they had enhancement bonuses let me move and full attack or even just double attack make me more than just a hand ful of extra feats over the other guys.
Look at the point buy suggestions a few pages back. You give up 1 point of damage to have +2 skills per level. 1 point of damage does not remove you from contending with the heavy hitters and 2 extra skills puts you on par with a barbarian. Problem solved.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Khrysaor wrote: You guys just don't get what a fighter is. Mmm, no, you just don't get what a fighter is to US. What a fighter is to you, is not what a fighter is in PF. Get over yourself.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Khrysaor wrote: You guys just don't get what a fighter is. Mmm, no, you just don't get what a fighter is to US. The fighter to you is not what the fighter is supposed to be. The only thing the class failed at was making you interested in playing it, it didn't fail at what it was designed to do.
So in other words and once again this is not a fault of the class more than it is a fault of you wanting something the fighter wasn't designed to give.
Khrysaor wrote: Look at the point buy suggestions a few pages back. You give up 1 point of damage to have +2 skills per level. 1 point of damage does not remove you from contending with the heavy hitters and 2 extra skills puts you on par with a barbarian. Problem solved. There is no rule prohibiting barbarians from putting points in int. Everyone gets the same stat generation method. Everyone gets the same +1 stat/4 levels. If you want your 14 int to have 4 skill points/level and don't value the attack and damage you'd get from putting those points into strength then you wouldn't value them as a barbarian either and the 14 int barbarian has 6 skill points/level. The fighter is still behind. He will always be behind.
Atarlost come on we all know that only a fighter is allowed to have a good Int or take a feat like skill focus to be better.
The thread title is "Why all the Fighter hate?". We've told you, and you disagree with our opinions. That doesn't make us wrong in having problems with the fighter.
The entire argument about skills vis a vis the commoner is a smoke screen.
Anyone can build a commoner who is as good at Int skills as, say, the Wizard. All you have to do is build the Commoner to Int, just like the wizard.
The only way to leverage skills via CLASS is to get a bonus on them, take 10 under pressure, get free skill focus feats, or get a two for one.
That basically devolves down to the Rogue and Bard, and maybe a couple archetypes.
Everyone else is a 'commoner' as far as skill points go.
It's the same reason the whole 'craft like a commoner' is a smoke screen. It's so easy to circumvent 'can't be a crafter' that a COMMONER can do it. It's not a problem for ANYONE, let alone a fighter.
The argument is well and truly that the fighter doesn't have MORE. That doesn't mean he sucks out the gate.
He needs more. We all know he needs more to really shine. That doesn't mean he sucks.
===Aelryinth
HappyDaze wrote: I would really like it if the fighter's bonus feats were 'prepared' each day (from all available combat feats) so he could tailor himself to the presumed needs of the upcoming encounters. That's an awesome idea!
Aelryinth wrote: That basically devolves down to the Rogue and Bard, and maybe a couple archetypes.
Everyone else is a 'commoner' as far as skill points go.
Really? I wasn't aware the Barbarian, Ranger, Cavalier, Alchemist, and Gunslinger, Inquisitor, and Oracle had been errata'd to only get 2+int skillpoints/level.
Aelryinth wrote:
The argument is well and truly that the fighter doesn't have MORE. That doesn't mean he sucks out the gate.
He needs more. We all know he needs more to really shine. That doesn't mean he sucks.
===Aelryinth
i Think exactly the same.
Atarlost wrote: Khrysaor wrote: Look at the point buy suggestions a few pages back. You give up 1 point of damage to have +2 skills per level. 1 point of damage does not remove you from contending with the heavy hitters and 2 extra skills puts you on par with a barbarian. Problem solved. There is no rule prohibiting barbarians from putting points in int. Everyone gets the same stat generation method. Everyone gets the same +1 stat/4 levels. If you want your 14 int to have 4 skill points/level and don't value the attack and damage you'd get from putting those points into strength then you wouldn't value them as a barbarian either and the 14 int barbarian has 6 skill points/level. The fighter is still behind. He will always be behind. And there are multiple classes that only get 2 skills per level and can afford less in int. Barbarians don't strike me as an intelligent bunch with lines like,
PRD wrote: While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any
Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills
(except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability
that requires patience or concentration.
Thematically it just doesn't fit. A Barbarian also has more emphasis required on all of his physical stats more than a fighter. They aren't allowed heavy armor and have to make up for the lacking AC with dex and higher con needs for rage and hp since they're getting hit more.
Its an example of how versatile a fighter can be. You can afford to throw a few points here or there and sacrifice a little to your end game combat utility.
So can Barbarian, Ranger, Pallies, caviliers, clerics, gunslingers, warriors, commoners and monks.
Once again nothing that being a fighter. And thematiclly nothing stops the barbarian from having skills to use outside of rage and the brains to use them.
|
