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.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.
The wizard gets only 2 pt, and is described as having 'no skill point problems' because he's building to Int.
A Commoner building to Int will have more skill points then all those classes you mention. Kindly acknowledge the point being made and not talking around it.
==Aelryinth
Cept maybe the alchemist or ranger. Alchemist do to needing and ranger do to starting with 6+ meaning a commoner would need a 18int and use favored class to beat out the ranger with a 10
And yet there's been several people who've exclaimed how they enjoy the class and it works for them.
Indeed. Loudly and for 600 some odd posts. Ironically such adamant belief does nothing to help the fighter.
So i guess since we have threads talking about
Monks are fine as is.....
Sneak attack is overpowered......
Martial caster disparity doesn't exist ever.....
Gunslingers are the the most broken.....
They must be right since plenty of people agree with those thoughts too. Just because x% of the people believe something is fine and good doesn't make it so. It just means if it were voted on the highest percentage would be given their way with a few concessions to the lower percentage.
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.
It's not one point of DPR.
To craft any CR relevant magic items at all: 1 skill rank per level, plus 2 feats. That's 20% non-combat feats (10% of all your feats) and up to 50% of ranks (depending on race & INT).
To be CR relevant in social situations requires 1 skill rank per level. Again, that's up to 50% of ranks, taking away from climbing, acrobatics, knowledge, UMD, what have you.
So now, to be able to craft and be socially relevant, you've thrown away 20% of your non-combat feats and the lion's share of your skill ranks.
A Cavalier, Barbarian or Ranger can do all you just did, and have extra ranks, plus class abilities which do more than combat. The Paladin and Ranger can craft far more than the fighter, with one less feat, and by investing in a skill which has additional uses, both combat and non-combat. Epicfailgratz; in gaining diversity, you invest more than anyone, to still gain less than anyone.
I think we should be more concerned about the wizard. The class gets d6 hit dice, only one good save, bad BAB, 2 skills per level, and almost all of it's class abilities can be replaced with a skill anyone can use. I mean a commoner who invested heavily in UMD could cast higher level spells than a wizard of the same level. A familiar is a weak version of an animal companion, item creation feats aren't always allowed, a bonded item is a liability, and extra meta magic feats aren't all that hot since meta magic rods do the same thing but better.
And what if the party has to go to a dead magic plane *GASP* the wizard is just a commoner at that point.
How do you figure every PC is commoner + class? I've never thought of my characters as being a commoner. Commoners' don't adventure.
You missed the point completely.
A commoner is a nobody; the simplest, least capable class there is.2+int skill ranks
1/2 BAB
d6 HD
all bad saves
no class abilities.
Now, statistically speaking, how useful would a Commoner be in an adventuring party? Obviously, lower than every other class.
So let's agree that the Commoner is the "floor" value for character contribution.
Mechanically, what is the difference between a fighter and a commoner?
+1/2 BAB, +2 hp/HD(avg), Good Fort, bonus Combat Feats, Armor & Weapon Proficiencies, Bravery, Weapon Training, Armor Training.
Look at that list of items. How many of these items contribute to...
- using downtime for the benefit of the party?
- using downtime for the benefit of a community?
- handling social challenges?
- stealth & subterfuge?
- transportation?
- insight or collecting information?
- anticipating danger before it happens?
That's right... zero. Nada.
What do all those abilities contribute to?
That's right... combat, and surviving hazards.
So mechanically, can it not be said that a Fighter is as effective as a Commoner when not in combat? I say it can.
If you do that very same breakdown with ANY other class, even the Barbarian, it becomes apparent that the Fighter has the least utility and flexibility of any class; it is the mechanical equivalent of a Commoner with combat ability.
Mechanically, what is the difference between a fighter and a commoner?
+1/2 BAB, +2 hp/HD(avg), Good Fort, bonus Combat Feats, Armor & Weapon Proficiencies, Bravery, Weapon Training, Armor Training.
They can do more than that. You should be much more specific and instead say "core rule book fighter." With the addition of the APG and UC, both being free as part of the PRD, I think it's reasonable to include other options.
Look at that list of items. How many of these items contribute to...
- using downtime for the benefit of the party?
- using downtime for the benefit of a community?
- handling social challenges?
- stealth & subterfuge?
- transportation?
- insight or collecting information?
- anticipating danger before it happens?That's right... zero. Nada.
What do all those abilities contribute to?
That's right... combat, and surviving hazards.
Fighters can't use their skills to make stuff? Fighters can't use their abilities to work with the militia? Fighters can't use their Knowledge (engineering) to work with the military or just to help build things in general? Fighters can't use Intimidate out of combat? Fighters can't put points into non-class skills? Fighters can't use Handle Animal or Ride? Heck, most of those skills are class skills. A fighter that wants to do a lot of them is going to need to invest properly.
Why does a fighter need to use stealth & subterfuge? He's a tank, not a ninja. Why does the fighter need to worry about insight or collecting information when another character is going to be able to do it? How many characters in the party need to be able to do that? I'm guessing: 1.
With the archetypes (which are still valid options), some of your problems go away completely.
So mechanically, can it not be said that a Fighter is as effective as a Commoner when not in combat? I say it can.
Since all skills can be used by anyone, doesn't that effectively mean that all classes are as good as the commoner when it comes to using their skills? By the standards you are setting, then it does completely invalidate all skill uses.
If you do that very same breakdown with ANY other class, even the Barbarian, it becomes apparent that the Fighter has the least utility and flexibility of any class; it is the mechanical equivalent of a Commoner with combat ability.
The fighter is only as inflexible as the player that wants to limit himself.
Yikes. Take a day from the forums to play some D&D and get 100+ new posts. Impressive. ;3
Sadly, our group lost another Fighter today. New player, and he rolled a half-orc fighter about two sessions ago. He was level 2 today. This session, he was killed by a mook with a decent shot. He has decided he doesn't want to play a Fighter anymore. Said it was too boring when he wasn't fighting, and then when he was fighting he wasn't as good as the rest of the party, despite the fact his feats were all combat feats, and wielding a 2-hander.
He kind of twiddled his thumbs a lot when we weren't chopping NPCs, and thus ended up rushing the other PCs, and spurring them on to combat scenarios when possible. Sadly, in the last two combat scenarios against CR 1/3 and 1/2 enemies, he was dropped pretty early in the fights. My character dragged him at -13/-14 to a healer and paid to have him healed, then we got back out there to try and stop a conspiracy going on. He died in the next battle. He shall be missed.
During the session, we met up with each other, saw some NPCs, got some rooms at an inn, and did some investigating. Then we did some breaking & entering. Then we did some sewer hopping. Then we did some sneaking. Then we did some combat, when we found the conspiring baddies. Honestly, nothing in the session really worked out for him, ever.
After his PC death, my character has decided to take him to a temple that condones undeath and is going to pay to have him rezzed as a ghast (same ECL as his PC when he died). He wants to pickup a different class afterwards. He still wants to be a martial character, but he definitely doesn't want to be a Fighter anymore.
Sadly, our group lost another Fighter today. New player, and he rolled a half-orc fighter about two sessions ago. He was level 2 today. This session, he was killed by a mook with a decent shot. He has decided he doesn't want to play a Fighter anymore. Said it was too boring when he wasn't fighting, and then when he was fighting he wasn't as good as the rest of the party, despite the fact his feats were all combat feats, and wielding a 2-hander.
This doesn't really demonstrate anything other than a low level character can be taken out with a lucky shot. I'd hazard a guess that if another character were targeted with that shot, they could have had the same end result. Anything below level 4 is in "lucky shot range." When I used to play M:tG we called it Lightning Bolt range.
Without knowing anything about the encounters, both in and out of combat, it's almost meaningless. I have seen clerics and wizards sit out of an encounter because they didn't have anything to do. When I say "sit out" I just mean they didn't roll dice or use spells. My players still like to role play and will still come up with ideas and suggestions.
He kind of twiddled his thumbs a lot when we weren't chopping NPCs, and thus ended up rushing the other PCs, and spurring them on to combat scenarios when possible. Sadly, in the last two combat scenarios against CR 1/3 and 1/2 enemies, he was dropped pretty early in the fights. My character dragged him at -13/-14 to a healer and paid to have him healed, then we got back out there to try and stop a conspiracy going on. He died in the next battle. He shall be missed.
CR 1/3 and 1/2 enemies doesn't really tell enough of a story. How many? Did they gang up on the fighter while leaving the others pretty much alone? Did they flank the fighter but not the cleric? Did they use Aid Another? Did he go in without support? Were his tactics something that could have gotten him killed if he was playing a barbarian or cavalier? Were his rolls just not great and the opponents' rolls good?
During the session, we met up with each other, saw some NPCs, got some rooms at an inn, and did some investigating. Then we did some breaking & entering. Then we did some sewer hopping. Then we did some sneaking. Then we did some combat, when we found the conspiring baddies. Honestly, nothing in the session really worked out for him, ever.
He couldn't get a room at the inn? He couldn't use Diplomacy to gather some information (it's an untrained skill and you are all low level so the DCs shouldn't be all that high)? The sneaking part can be difficult for anyone in medium or heavy armor. Armor Check Penalties are meant to make some skills harder. Sewer hopping shouldn't be all that hard.
After his PC death, my character has decided to take him to a temple that condones undeath and is going to pay to have him rezzed as a ghast (same ECL as his PC when he died). He wants to pickup a different class afterwards. He still wants to be a martial character, but he definitely doesn't want to be a Fighter anymore.
This doesn't really show that the fighter is a bad class though. I can tell you that I have had a fighter in an Age of Worms campaign from level 1 to 20 and the only two times he died was: 1) when he willingly put himself into a heroic position to save the party, and 2) when he was aged to over 200 years (along with everyone else, but the elf didn't seem to mind much). Is my anecdote any more relevant than yours? I could argue that it is because the character has been played through all 20 levels. I don't really think it is though. I think that there are too many variables to take anecdotes with anything more than a grain of salt.
Also, 'get over yourself'? Who the hell do you think I am?
A sad and lonely man with a bubble pipe.
How come these fighters never play any local sports, mug innocents, save innocents from being mugged, find a fighting tournament, enter a horse race, etc. Once played with a scythe wielding barbarian who helped some farmers with their harvest as untrained labor.
Yeah a fighter is basically a commoner when they can't use their class abilities but that's true of any class, you take away the wizards spell casting and the wizard is going to feel pretty useless too.
|
It's turned into a massive game of tag. One side gives excuses to why the fighter is bad, the other side bunks those excuses and shows why. Then the other side comes up with another excuse and then that one is bunked so it's on to another and another and another.
Ashiel: What was the point in your post? To show that Fighter's are bad? Any class can take a killing blow at low levels or even high levels. I've had people playing all sorts of classes sit out of situations because they didn't know what to do, had nothing to do with the class. Sounds to me like it was down to the player and not the class.
|
Ashiel: What was the point in your post?
I am going to be good an not say what I'm thinking, but not good enough to not comment that I'm thinking it....
But back to the point, here is what the fighter is.
The combat aspect of a larger character design.
You want to play a feat heavy concept, fighter is your class.
You want to take a dip in a class that will add BaB and let you grab a combat feat, Fighter is your class.
It is a class that serves a role. If they had more skill points, they would be a ranger.
With all the out of combat conversation, people seem to be forgetting that will the additional feats, Fighters are one of the few classes that can take the out of combat style feats without being caught short on the combat feats.
Fighters aren't my personal class of choice, but I've seen them done very well as a straight fighter and I've seen them be probably the best dip class in the game.
Sadly, our group lost another Fighter today. New player, and he rolled a half-orc fighter about two sessions ago. He was level 2 today. This session, he was killed by a mook with a decent shot. He has decided he doesn't want to play a Fighter anymore. Said it was too boring when he wasn't fighting, and then when he was fighting he wasn't as good as the rest of the party, despite the fact his feats were all combat feats, and wielding a 2-hander.This doesn't really demonstrate anything other than a low level character can be taken out with a lucky shot. I'd hazard a guess that if another character were targeted with that shot, they could have had the same end result. Anything below level 4 is in "lucky shot range." When I used to play M:tG we called it Lightning Bolt range.
Anything higher than level 4 is also lucky shot range, but that's a bit irrelevant. I wasn't trying to prove anything, just discussing the problems the Fighter in our group has had; and why that player no longer wants to play a Fighter, but wants to play a martial class.
Without knowing anything about the encounters, both in and out of combat, it's almost meaningless. I have seen clerics and wizards sit out of an encounter because they didn't have anything to do. When I say "sit out" I just mean they didn't roll dice or use spells. My players still like to role play and will still come up with ideas and suggestions.
He was free to toss out ideas and suggestions. He could do that as any class though. I think he realized that too, given the fact he was down with playing a martial character as long as it wasn't a Fighter. As for the encounters, there was a...
From this point the game was paused, as our schedule had run its course. Can't wait for the next game, but the player has already expressed that he wants to play something that can do something besides talk to us when we aren't fighting; and he wouldn't mind having something else he could do in combat.
I'm thinking of pooling our money and going to have him turned into a ghast or mummy at that temple. If we turn him into a ghast, he loses his class levels and is still a 2nd level character. If we have him turned into a mummy, he'll have to wait a while before he gets any class levels again, but he'll essentially be a super-tank for a while. I think he likes the idea of a ghast, because he could take Civilized Ghoulishness and have 3 natural attacks which cause paralysis; and I think he didn't want to be the same thing as me (as I mentioned at the beginning of the game that I was going for a mummy antipaladin).
He kind of twiddled his thumbs a lot when we weren't chopping NPCs, and thus ended up rushing the other PCs, and spurring them on to combat scenarios when possible. Sadly, in the last two combat scenarios against CR 1/3 and 1/2 enemies, he was dropped pretty early in the fights. My character dragged him at -13/-14 to a healer and paid to have him healed, then we got back out there to try and stop a conspiracy going on. He died in the next battle. He shall be missed.CR 1/3 and 1/2 enemies doesn't really tell enough of a story. How many? Did they gang up on the fighter while leaving the others pretty much alone? Did they flank the fighter but not the cleric? Did they use Aid Another? Did he go in without support? Were his tactics something that could have gotten him killed if he was playing a barbarian or cavalier? Were his rolls just not great and the opponents' rolls good?
Actually, the opponents rolls were pretty crappy most of the time. Our GM rolls the dice in the open, and they rolled <10 frequently. During the Fights where he dropped, they hit him on a 14, which was a good roll but not crazy good. None of them used Aid Another, and we generally try to avoid letting enemies flank us, because it's bad form. We didn't have a Cleric sadly. HoA Gunslinger + Antipaladin + Fighter was our party. We were sweating not having magic at least a few times during the game (mostly in out of combat situations, where we were trying to identify stuff, recognize certain things, etc).
As for his tactics, I can't really fault him on them. When they enlarged, he did the same and backed up while drawing his reach weapon, to keep them from surrounding him. He and they were wearing armor that slows you down, she he didn't see trying to kite them as being a solid option. I was even proud of the way he swat-teamed the door in the sewer with me, as we both grabbed shields and total defensed when we were penetrating the door, allowing us to survive the initial round of attacks while we closed for the kill.
He couldn't get a room at the inn? He couldn't use Diplomacy to gather some information (it's an untrained skill and you are all low level so the DCs shouldn't be all that high)? The sneaking part can be difficult for anyone in medium or heavy armor. Armor Check Penalties are meant to make some skills harder. Sewer hopping shouldn't be all that hard.
Quite the contrary. He could get a room at the inn, but he insulted the hostess he was flirting with (kind of funny actually, and had no obvious negative consequences except a pride sting). He could use Diplomacy, but he wasn't any good at it, and so he didn't have much luck (the DCs don't scale with your level by the way, so low-level and high level is irrelevant, unless you're searching for more and more difficult information). Armor check penalties of course make sneaking harder, which would have been fine if he was doing other stuff well, but I think it was just "yet another thing" he couldn't do. Climbing into the sewer was easy enough, since that basically entailed climbing a later and following their obvious tracks in the muck to their meeting.
This doesn't really show that the fighter is a bad class though. I can tell you that I have had a fighter in an Age of Worms campaign from level 1 to 20 and the only two times he died was: 1) when he willingly put himself into a heroic position to save the party, and 2) when he was aged to over 200 years (along with everyone else, but the elf didn't seem to mind much). Is my anecdote any more relevant than yours? I could argue that it is because the character has been played through all 20 levels. I don't really think it is though. I think that there are too many variables to take anecdotes with anything more than a grain of salt.
I dunno. I wasn't using it as an argument. When I make my arguments, I use more tangible examples. I was sharing this experience as an example of a player who - right or wrong - no longer has interest in the Fighter class, and the reasons for that. I think it's relevant to the thread, if not our debates. You'll notice I didn't address any of you guys when I was sharing it. Just sharing it. Not everything is about an argument with you, shallowsoul, or Krysler-building (I can't recall the spelling on his name at the moment, and I'm feeling lazy at the moment... :P *tongue in cheek*).
The combat aspect of a larger character design.
You want to play a feat heavy concept, fighter is your class.
You want to take a dip in a class that will add BaB and let you grab a combat feat, Fighter is your class.
It is a class that serves a role. If they had more skill points, they would be a ranger.
They'd need more than skill points before they matched a ranger. :(
With all the out of combat conversation, people seem to be forgetting that will the additional feats, Fighters are one of the few classes that can take the out of combat style feats without being caught short on the combat feats.
Other classes don't need those feats to be relevant, or get them for free. Effectively making it a moot point. :\
Fighters aren't my personal class of choice, but I've seen them done very well as a straight fighter and I've seen them be probably the best dip class in the game.
You are entirely right, Ciretose. While I do believe the Fighter class is lacking in general playability (I don't even think they're better at general combat than the other martial characters), they are an awesome dipping class. Between 1-5 levels of Fighter is usually all you need to really get the most out of the class while primarily being something else. 1-2 levels is good enough to grab some extra feats and proficiencies. 4 levels grabs 3 feats and armor training I (which is a cool ability for barbarians and rangers, though Paizo gave it to rangers as a spell now, and rangers could enchant their magic items with it if they wanted, making it less appealing unless the ranger wants the feats too). 5 levels of Fighter is enough to get Weapon Training I in your favorite weapon group, and allows you to wield gloves of dueling for +3/+3 with your favorite weapon group.
Barbarian 15 / Fighter 5 is kind of sexy for this reason. Ranger 15 / Fighter 5 is also kind-of sexy for this reason. Paladin 15 / Fighter 5 is iffy, but probably also decent. I know Paladin 19 / Fighter 1 is an excellent dip, since it saves you from getting the terrible Paladin capstone ability, and can grab you an extra combat feat, which you might be able to fill out a harder combat style with (such as archery, dual-wielding, etc).
|
|
The combat aspect of a larger character design.
You want to play a feat heavy concept, fighter is your class.
You want to take a dip in a class that will add BaB and let you grab a combat feat, Fighter is your class.
It is a class that serves a role. If they had more skill points, they would be a ranger.They'd need more than skill points before they matched a ranger. :(
Match the ranger at what, combat?
A fighter can actually make a better TWF and a better Archer than the Ranger so where is the exact selling point for the Ranger, animal companion? Hell a fighter can get an animal companion but it won't be doing any tricks.
If you have a fighter and a rogue in a party why would you even need a ranger?
The combat aspect of a larger character design.
You want to play a feat heavy concept, fighter is your class.
You want to take a dip in a class that will add BaB and let you grab a combat feat, Fighter is your class.
It is a class that serves a role. If they had more skill points, they would be a ranger.They'd need more than skill points before they matched a ranger. :(
Match the ranger at what, combat?
A fighter can actually make a better TWF and a better Archer than the Ranger so where is the exact selling point for the Ranger, animal companion? Hell a fighter can get an animal companion but it won't be doing any tricks.
If you have a fighter and a rogue in a party why would you even need a ranger?
Well let's compare. Rangers are known as being quite adequate switch-hitters, and the ability to attain early and easy qualification for certain feats without their prerequisites is very nice for cutting down on multi-ability dependency, allowing rangers a small edge on Fighters initially. They have more skill points, meaning that they can afford to invest in combat skills and other practical skills (even if you hose your Int to 7, you have 4/level ranks, which is enough for Acrobatics, Climb, Perception, and Stealth; and anything beyond is gravy).
Many of their spells at 4th level and beyond have noticeable combat applications. Be they spells that enhance your survival (resist energy or delay poison), hold your enemies at bay so the party can shoot them to bits (entangle, spike growth, stone spikes, etc), or some of the newer spells allowing them to deal more damage (lead blade and gravity bow are decent examples).
The ranger then get's favored enemy (which can be used to pick big groups like aberrations, magical beast, undead, or evil outsiders) which adds to hit and damage and a lot of skills when dealing with those. The Ranger gets a few favored terrains which give bonuses to Initiative and skills (and this is a mean trick to pull with NPCs who are native to certain planes by choosing their plane as their favored terrain).
The Ranger gets his animal companion which is essentially a disposable 14 HD cohort with various defensive abilities, which means he comes with a nice flanking buddy or second line of defense for the squishy party members (it's sad when Fido #35 dies valiantly at the blade of that big-bad, buying the moment for the party's wizard to get out of dodge). That's not even counting if you want to be a mounted character, since you come pre-equipped with a critter that reaches 14 HD (as opposed to the 2 HD of a normal horse), making them a little more useful later on as mounts.
There is a lot more to combat than bigger numbers. I've never suggested that Fighters don't have bigger numbers. In fact, that's about the only reason to play one, is just for the goofy-high hit/dmg modifiers they can get. It was one of the criticisms I made against the archtyped fighter that was presented, because they gave up their biggest advantage over any class in the book to poorly imitate other classes.
I'm pretty sure I described a Strength/Dexterity priority Fighter, wielding double-weapons, full TWF plus optional feats, Power Attack, and full specialization as a "slaughtermiester" earlier in this thread. It was a bit tongue in cheek, but I was serious. The thing Fighters clearly dominate with is the fact they can get a +9/+11 to hit with their favorite weapon, which is kind of like having favored enemy (everything); assuming +5 training, total specialization (weapon focus, greater focus, specialization, greater specialization), and gloves of dueling. Toss on some bracers of archery (+2 hit and +1 damage) and you get +11/+12 with your favorite bow.
It's one of the reasons I'm very fond of archery based Fighters (barring the fact that Paizo decided to just give spellcasters a self-only wind wall spell that makes them completely immune to incoming arrows without disrupting their mojo in the least).
But big numbers don't mean a lot in a game a dynamic as 3.x/PF. There's too much going on. Big numbers only solves issues that can be solved through HP damage. It doesn't bring anything to the party except more dakka. If your party just needs more dakka, then it's not terrible. However, when planning to survive in an adventure, options are a virtue.
EDIT: As for your Fighter and Rogue question, mainly to be effective at combat while also being better at being Stealthy as a rogue and arguably equal in terms of problem solving and skill monkeying. In a 4 person party, Ranger looks more attractive because you don't need a Fighter or a Rogue, as the Ranger does both of their jobs adequately, while also bringing a spare tank, healing, and problem solving spells to the party (and the option of an additional caster). Leaving you with a more diversified party overall.
Ultimately I'd take a Ranger, Bard, Cleric, Wizard, over Fighter, Rogue, Oracle, Sorcerer, most any day of the week and twice on tuesdays.
|
I don't believe they make a better TWF or archer than a ranger. Perhaps at higher levels (11+, when the fighter can grab improved precise shot), but not from 1-10; the ability to ignore prerequisites for TWF means that the ranger doesn't have to worry about his dexterity score either. He also brings the ability to use wands of cure light wounds and other divine spells. That's on top of the extra party member as well.
You're really aggressive about this fighter love, but you still haven't convinced me; all you've really done is been rude.
I don't believe they make a better TWF or archer than a ranger. Perhaps at higher levels (11+, when the fighter can grab improved precise shot), but not from 1-10; the ability to ignore prerequisites for TWF means that the ranger doesn't have to worry about his dexterity score either. He also brings the ability to use wands of cure light wounds and other divine spells. That's on top of the extra party member as well.
You're really aggressive about this fighter love, but you still haven't convinced me; all you've really done is been rude.
Well, they can be better in terms of strait damage at higher levels, once they have weapon training up a bit, and full on specialization. Makes their to-hit/damage modifiers very high. You're right that at lower levels when those sorts of benefits are less pronounced, that you really don't notice it as much; and it requires a significant amount of specialization (ideally, 4 feats spent on specialization in a particular weapon alone).
It takes at least 5 levels to get +1 weapon training, and 2/3 of your bonus feats to get +2/+3 with your favorite weapon by that level. About like having barbarian rage or favored enemy against the targets. However, you then need Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, and Precise Shot to make it worthwhile, which is your 1st, 3rd, and 5th level feat. So you're basically tapped out at this point, and you're going to need a 17 Dexterity if you want Manyshot at 6th level, which complicates a bit with your stats. The standard game assumes at 15 point buy, so you're likely looking at any of the following possibilities.
Ranger can more comfortably support...
I'd even be willing to say the Ranger has an edge on melee and ranged combat in a game that's only going to reach level 6-12 or so, at least through most of his career. Fighter can pull ahead in hit/damage with significant investment, with his favorite weapon, but it costs a lot of try and be competitive in the early levels for certain.
In higher level games, fighter as a dip is still very nice. 5 levels of Fighter gets the Ranger the lion's share of the Fighter's specialization (+3/+3 with glove, +1/+2 weapon specialization, if desired), ability to move freely in medium armor, and still lands the ranger 4th level spells, 4th favored enemy, and most of their good abilities including evasion, and lands with +13, +10, +6 saving throws.
It's turned into a massive game of tag. One side gives excuses to why the fighter is bad, the other side bunks those excuses and shows why. Then the other side comes up with another excuse and then that one is bunked so it's on to another and another and another.
Where are you getting this from? I've shown every one of my posts, and not one response has "bunked" any of them. In fact, alot of posts from you and others have confirmed my claims directly.
Dispense with delusion.
|
|
The combat aspect of a larger character design.
You want to play a feat heavy concept, fighter is your class.
You want to take a dip in a class that will add BaB and let you grab a combat feat, Fighter is your class.
It is a class that serves a role. If they had more skill points, they would be a ranger.They'd need more than skill points before they matched a ranger. :(
No actually they don't.
1st level Ranger brings Martial Weapon, medium, armor, shields, 6 skill points, favored enemy, track and wild empathy.
1st level fighter brings Martial Weapon, all armor, and a bonus combat feat.
If you want a combat feat of your chosing, you take the fighter.
If you want heavy armor and that combat feat (say for a Divine class taking a dip) you take the fighter.
As you take more fighter you get more access to fighter only feats.
A ranger isn't going to as good in combat against a non-favored enemy than a fighter.
Of course, as I learned in your other thread skills are used...how can I put this politely...differently in your game.
So YMMV.
Just tossing it out there that heavy armor proficiency is effectively meaningless at 1st level, because no one can afford the high-end medium armor, let alone heavy armor. Also at 2nd level, in general, since mwk full plate costs 1,650 gp; so unless you're taking several months of downtime to craft it yourself, it's out of your budget.
Also, I never said Fighter wasn't a good dipping class. I actually agreed with you that it was.
Likewise, you don't know how my games are run, so don't begin this trash with me again. The only thing that I have posted to the contrary of the normal nature of the way skills work was an experiment that posted - and clearly noted - as being for entertainment purposes only, and not part of a discussion; and you have clung to that and ignored my disclaimer on it repeatedly like some illiterate fool; and bring it up in every thread you are in that I am in, presumably to bait me; and I'm getting sick and tired of it.
About like having barbarian rage or favored enemy against the targets.
Except it is against all targets (unlike favored enemies) and doesn't require limited activation followed by fatigue (like rage).
But what relative value could that possibly have.
...
I'm pretty sure I described a Strength/Dexterity priority Fighter, wielding double-weapons, full TWF plus optional feats, Power Attack, and full specialization as a "slaughtermiester" earlier in this thread. It was a bit tongue in cheek, but I was serious. The thing Fighters clearly dominate with is the fact they can get a +9/+11 to hit with their favorite weapon, which is kind of like having favored enemy (everything); assuming +5 training, total specialization (weapon focus, greater focus, specialization, greater specialization), and gloves of dueling. Toss on some bracers of archery (+2 hit and +1 damage) and you get +11/+12 with your favorite bow.
It's one of the reasons I'm very fond of archery based Fighters (barring the fact that Paizo decided to just give spellcasters a self-only wind wall spell that makes them completely immune to incoming arrows without disrupting their mojo in the least).
But big numbers don't mean a lot in a game a dynamic as 3.x/PF. There's too much going on. Big numbers only solves issues that can be solved through HP damage. It doesn't bring anything to the party except more dakka. If your party just needs more dakka, then it's not terrible. However, when planning to survive in an adventure, options are a virtue.
Cept maybe the alchemist or ranger. Alchemist do to needing and ranger do to starting with 6+ meaning a commoner would need a 18int and use favored class to beat out the ranger with a 10
And a wizard needs a 22 Int to match a rogue with a 10 Int. Obviously, that means wizards suck at skill points.
Oh, wait. That is why the 'build to Int' language is in there. In other words, the commoner will build to Int, the ranger will build to be an effective PC, and the commoner will end up with more skill points then the ranger or rogue or fighter or alchemist, just like the wizard does.
After all, what is the commoner going to invest in, otherwise?
==Aelryinth
Cept maybe the alchemist or ranger. Alchemist do to needing and ranger do to starting with 6+ meaning a commoner would need a 18int and use favored class to beat out the ranger with a 10And a wizard needs a 22 Int to match a rogue with a 10 Int. Obviously, that means wizards suck at skill points.
Oh, wait. That is why the 'build to Int' language is in there. In other words, the commoner will build to Int, the ranger will build to be an effective PC, and the commoner will end up with more skill points then the ranger or rogue or fighter or alchemist, just like the wizard does.
After all, what is the commoner going to invest in, otherwise?
==Aelryinth
Let's be real now. Wizards DO suck at skill points. It's just that they are rewarded heavily for pumping Intelligence like it's going out of style, which gives them an average to above average skill point total because of their hyper-specialization. EDIT: I actually built a Wizard with a 12 Intelligence who focused almost exclusively on Wisdom for a build using some 3.x material (I had my reasons). The wizard once again sucked at skill points, proving good and well to me that it wasn't the Wizard's class that let me enjoy skill points, but their emphasis on Intelligence. :3
Compare to a Sorcerer who is not as ferociously rewarded for Intelligence pumping as the Wizard, and we come back to sucking at skill points. The sorcerer and wizard are pretty similar in concept, skills, and intended role.
Now I doubt anyone is going to suggest that Fighters get as much out of pumping Intelligence as Wizards do. In fact, they get very little out of having an Intelligence higher than 13, and have to have at least a 14 (now worth calling a major stat) just to meet a barbarian with a 10 Int.
It's true that Commoners have nothing better to do than to pimp Intelligence. All they can do is skills, and they have little reason to do anything else, since skills like Craft, Profession, and Handle Animal are about as far as a commoner needs to go to get bye in the world or even excel at their role of mundane dude who makes a suitable living. Hell, the absolutely most successful Commoners are probably absolute terrible examples of strength, dexterity, and charisma (kind of like uber-geeks) who have pimped Intelligence or Wisdom scores. Optimized commoner fo' sho'! (7, 7, 10, 18, 13, 7 = highly intelligent but nerdy dude who happens to be making a sick-awesome living in terms of commoners.)
Unless the ranger is against a favoured enemy at all levels a fighter will make a better archer assuming same race and stats. The fighter will have the same relevant feats at the same point as the ranger or earlier as well as additional feats.
Unless the ranger is against a favoured enemy at all levels a fighter will make a better archer assuming same race and stats. The fighter will have the same relevant feats at the same point as the ranger or earlier as well as additional feats.
Instant Enemy renders this a moot point.
Unless the ranger is against a favoured enemy at all levels a fighter will make a better archer assuming same race and stats. The fighter will have the same relevant feats at the same point as the ranger or earlier as well as additional feats.Instant Enemy renders this a moot point.
Oh my gawd that spell is so freaking amazing. XD
It's turned into a massive game of tag. One side gives excuses to why the fighter is bad, the other side bunks those excuses and shows why. Then the other side comes up with another excuse and then that one is bunked so it's on to another and another and another.Where are you getting this from? I've shown every one of my posts, and not one response has "bunked" any of them. In fact, alot of posts from you and others have confirmed my claims directly.
Dispense with delusion.
Actually all that has been proven is that other classes have better class abilities which was never a secret. Saying the fighter can't be built to do X in game, which is what matters is still up for discussion, and is really what matters at the end of the day. He can't provide a lot of X's but a player can reasonably(not the best, but well enough) occupy himself outside of combat. Now if the player wants to do a lot of things out of combat I think we can all agree that the should play another class.
Instant enemy doesn't come into play until 10th level and it gives you a +6/+6. The fighter can at this point have have an additional +3 to hit over the ranger and +4 to damage all day if the fighter has duelling gloves the ranger only has an +1 to hit more than the fighter. So I give you the ranger has a slightly better chance to hit than the fighter as long as they have instant enemy on the target. The fighter still has more feats though.
Well it is a very amazing spells, but certainly the ranger can not use it at all levels.Unless the ranger is against a favoured enemy at all levels a fighter will make a better archer assuming same race and stats. The fighter will have the same relevant feats at the same point as the ranger or earlier as well as additional feats.Instant Enemy renders this a moot point.
I haven't encountered problems with rangers at low levels really. At third level my human archer ranger has point blank shot precise shot rapid shot and deadly aim. Granted I only got to play this build until second level though but it worked.
Well it is a very amazing spells, but certainly the ranger can not use it at all levels.Unless the ranger is against a favoured enemy at all levels a fighter will make a better archer assuming same race and stats. The fighter will have the same relevant feats at the same point as the ranger or earlier as well as additional feats.Instant Enemy renders this a moot point.
No he can't.
But then the fighter doesn't see weapon training until level 5. So he's not exactly getting it at all levels too is he? So he's simply sailing on the same boat as the fighter at those levels until a favored enemy comes along and he simply smashes it.
At 5 - 10 the fighter finds himself in really good shape and even better then the ranger. Well, kinda. Combat Style means that the ranger is pulling tricks the fighter wont be able to pull until levels 10 or so and by then Instant Enemy is in the rangers grasp along with the possibility of pearls of pwoer to use it plenty of times a day.
|
|
Well it is a very amazing spells, but certainly the ranger can not use it at all levels.Unless the ranger is against a favoured enemy at all levels a fighter will make a better archer assuming same race and stats. The fighter will have the same relevant feats at the same point as the ranger or earlier as well as additional feats.Instant Enemy renders this a moot point.No he can't.
But then the fighter doesn't see weapon training until level 5. So he's not exactly getting it at all levels too is he? So he's simply sailing on the same boat as the fighter at those levels until a favored enemy comes along and he simply smashes it.
At 5 - 10 the fighter finds himself in really good shape and even better then the ranger. Well, kinda. Combat Style means that the ranger is pulling tricks the fighter wont be able to pull until levels 10 or so and by then Instant Enemy is in the rangers grasp along with the possibility of pearls of pwoer to use it plenty of times a day.
Well by 2nd level the fighter gets 5 feats if he is human and four if he's not. The fighter could take Point Blank Shot, Weapon Focus (Bow), Rapid Shot, and Precise Shot, and if he's human then he could add Deadly Aim. Then by 5th level the fighter has armour training 1, weapon training 1 and 2 more feats.
The only ranged feat from combat style the ranger can get that the fighter can't before 10+ is improved precise shot. The fighter has weapon specialization before this and gets greater weapon focus after this before instant enemy. The ranger can also get pinpoint targeting before the fighter. The fighter can take disrupting shot, critical mastery penetrating strike, and greater penetrating strike as well which the ranger can't.
And that +1 to hit the ranger has over the fighter once it gets instant enemy is negated by the fighters weapon training at 13 and the fighter has pulled ahead in terms of damage by level 12. At 15 the ranger has +2 to hit over the fighter but deals 1 less damage. At 17 the fighter is behind a rangers favoured enemy in attack by 1 and ahead in damage by 2. At 20th level the ranger is ahead of the fighter in terms of attack bonus by 3 and equal in damage against favoured enemies. The fighter can have every feat related to ranged combat the ranger has and then some, an increased critical multiplier, and automatically confirms critical threats. The ranger can also automatically confirm critical hits and receive an additional +2 to hit when using quarry but that takes a standard action to activate.
This is just a standard fighter a weapon master will have an extra +1 to hit and damage, critical specialist, deadly critical, and reliable strike.
|
|
Its not irony when people feel things are fine while less people complain it isn't. This game's been out for years now, and if it was so imbalanced, maybe something would have changed. The designers think its fine. A lot of players think its fine. A small group complain because they can't play their fighter like he's any other class.Indeed. Loudly and for 600 some odd posts. Ironically such adamant belief does nothing to help the fighter.
And yet there's been several people who've exclaimed how they enjoy the class and it works for them.
Well the rogue is still around, so I don't think that's a valid argument.
|
|
Likewise, you don't know how my games are run, so don't begin this trash with me again. The only thing that I have posted to the contrary of the normal nature of the way skills work was an experiment that posted - and clearly noted - as being for entertainment purposes only, and not part of a discussion; and you have clung to that and ignored my disclaimer on it repeatedly like some illiterate fool; and bring it up in every thread you are in that I am in, presumably to bait me; and I'm getting sick and tired of it.
When you stop arguing skills do things beyond what the rules say they do, I'll stop bringing it up.
I think you overvalue skills in general because they are used beyond what they were designed to do, which is relevant to this discussion as it is important for anyone discussing the topic of skills with you, specifically, to understand you allow them to replace ability scores in a number of circumstances.
If you don't like that I bring it up, don't argue on here about things that pertain to the value of skills.
We all have a post history on here. It's relevant.