Something else a pure archery Ranger has going is the ability to possibly ignore something like Point blank shot in a ranged build.
Before you call me an idiot over this think about is sure its a +1 to hit and to damage but you have to be inside of most things charge range to use it and then you either give up a full attack to get away or you play the 5ft step game.
Without worrying about being in 30ft you can stay at 1 or even two range increments with hunters eye and unload a full attack from out side of a lot of creatures chance to reach you in one round and simply 5 ft step each round they advance to less than a charge range for only one less on attacks and one less damage per attack.
If the creature has a clear path it can charge to get to you, even if you are 60 feet away for most monsters. If it does not have a clear path then being within 30 feet is not so bad. The thing I like about ranger archers is that they can get Manyshot and Improved Precise Shot early.
When i play archers i tend to be the guy leading the party in case of retreat but thats just personal preference.
A fighter is able to get many shot at the same level as a ranger.
True. I thought a higher BAB was needed.
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.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.
Yet another post which validates my stance: Fighter not so useful out of fighting-time.
And what, exactly does the Fighter excel at, so much more than other martial classes?
I see nothing significantly applicable.
Hence, my railing against the current fighter design; add something thematically relevant which gives the Fighter more than one role, and I'll be much more content.
I do think the class needs more features so that a higher level of system mastery is not needed. <---Is this acceptable to everyone?
Wraith i can go with that i don't even have to have it be something that gives out of combat uses if you make is to that taking those things with what i already have doesn't move me down to simply being on-par with everyone else when they aren't doing their special thing.
|
I do think the class needs more features so that a higher level of system mastery is not needed. <---Is this acceptable to everyone?
But you don't need system mastery to fight well using a fighter.
PS: What exactly constitutes as system mastery and at which point would it start? I believe system mastery is different for each person. I have had people say that a Wizard requires system mastery to play because of all the spells they have to choose. What is difficult to one person can be easy to another.
I am not talking about just fighting well. I mean fighting well, and doing two or things well outside of combat.
System Mastery in this case means taking a class beyond its normal(as envisioned by most) constraints, and still not taking away from its main function enough so that it can't do the main job.
As an example Ashiel made a fighter that eventually got good at diplomacy, but he was still good in combat.
I made a fighter that was good at perception and stealth, and could still fight because the concept called for it. I had to drop two feats into skill focus, but I was still doing good damage.
|
|
I am not talking about just fighting well. I mean fighting well, and doing two or things well outside of combat.
System Mastery in this case means taking a class beyond its normal(as envisioned by most) constraints, and still not taking away from its main function enough so that it can't do the main job.As an example Ashiel made a fighter that eventually got good at diplomacy, but he was still good in combat.
I made a fighter that was good at perception and stealth, and could still fight because the concept called for it. I had to drop two feats into skill focus, but I was still doing good damage.
Instead of looking at the class as an individual, try looking at the bigger picture. Most situations like needing to actually make a Diplomacy roll is usually handled by 1 PC. Wanting your fighter to be good in X and actually needing to be good in X are two different things. There is nothing stopping your player that's playing a fighter to actually engage in out of combat role playing, you don't need Diplomacy unless it really counts for something then that would be best handled by that 1 PC who is better at it. You don't need system mastery in order to create a stealth based fighter. I think the problem with some people is they still have the 3.5 mindset when dealing with Pathfinder. There is no more costing of 2 skill points in order to get a rank in a cross classed skill. All skills are open to all classes and I think people still have trouble with this. Making a stealth based fighter is simple because all you really need to do is focus on Dex, Stealth skill and Skill Focus Stealth. Any build could require system mastery if that person isn't really familiar with the rules. If you are going to play a stealthy scout type fighter then you aren't obviously going to be the tank so there are certain feats you know you won't have to take so it frees your feat slots for other feats to choose. A fighter can be as simple or as complex as you want it to be and that is the whole point behind the design of the class. Anyone can pick up a fighter and fight, meanwhile the veterans can pick up the fighter and turn it into multiple things. It's not up to the class to find uses but it's up to the player to find uses for his character. Some people also have trouble with knowing what to actually do with skills.
Let's say you have two characters, one has +30 to stealth and the other has +20. Now let's say the DC for stealth rolls is 20. Now even though the first character has a better plus to his rolls it really doesn't matter because both will always make their check unless they roll a 1. As long as the PC with the lower skill can still make the DC's with no problem then it doesn't matter who makes the roll. There is such a thing as overkill.
I think the skill focus thing is common sense, but many people would never bother with it, and would rather just say it won't work. The fighter has been placed in a box, and unless shown how to unpack it the fighter will stay in that box. In short they have adopted a mindset, and it is hard to break them from it. Part of system mastery is being open to trying new ideas, IMHO.
Fortunately the first part isn't true.System mastery means that if a Fighter takes a bunch of useless feats, he is, well, useless.
System mastery means that if a Wizard takes a bunch of useless feats, he is still 100% functional.
Except for the part of it that is. To edge out other classes in the combat niche, Fighters must specialize, and specialize hard. Those impressive +9/+11 numbers I was talking about earlier assume 4 feats invested in your main weapon of choice. If you wanted to switch-hit (say your main weapon at +5/+5 and your second favorite group at +4/+4), then you might need to invest 8 feats to be significantly superior in terms of damage comparatively to your peers.
A fighter who spreads his feats out over all sorts of stuff, will not have the competitive edge that he has by specializing. It's easy to make mistakes with Fighters. Spread yourself a bit too thin, and you end up being the guy who has hit/damage modifiers similar to the other guys, except you're sucky at everything else. Other classes have class features that let them do stuff without relying on those feats, and those feats just make it better.
|
|
Fortunately the first part isn't true.System mastery means that if a Fighter takes a bunch of useless feats, he is, well, useless.
System mastery means that if a Wizard takes a bunch of useless feats, he is still 100% functional.
Except for the part of it that is. To edge out other classes in the combat niche, Fighters must specialize, and specialize hard. Those impressive +9/+11 numbers I was talking about earlier assume 4 feats invested in your main weapon of choice. If you wanted to switch-hit (say your main weapon at +5/+5 and your second favorite group at +4/+4), then you might need to invest 8 feats to be significantly superior in terms of damage comparatively to your peers.
A fighter who spreads his feats out over all sorts of stuff, will not have the competitive edge that he has by specializing. It's easy to make mistakes with Fighters. Spread yourself a bit too thin, and you end up being the guy who has hit/damage modifiers similar to the other guys, except you're sucky at everything else. Other classes have class features that let them do stuff without relying on those feats, and those feats just make it better.
Where are you getting these numbers from? Also, do you ever take into account that the fighter keeps his damage bonus no matter what kind of creature he is fighting? So what if he kicks ass with certain weapons, rangers do so with certain creatures, which come along less often depending on DM, and a paladin can only smite evil, the group isn't always fighting evil, and on top of that the paladin can only do it a certain amount of times per day. Fighters do carry around more than one weapon if you are afraid that your weapon is going to be stolen or sundered. The fighter also gets to add it's weapon training bonus to it's CMD for certain things.
What you need to admit is the fact that the fighter doesn't work for you because you seem to require more than the fighter is supposed to give. It has nothing to do with there being a flaw in the class but in personal preference. Go play a ranger if the ranger class suits you better but don't think people are going to stand by while you spread false statements about the fighter.
Where are you getting these numbers from? Also, do you ever take into account that the fighter keeps his damage bonus no matter what kind of creature he is fighting?
He's adding his numbers from Weapon training and feats.
Attack
+7 Weapon Training and gloves + 2 Weapon Focus feats.
Damage
+7 Weapon training and gloves + 4 weapon specialization feats.
4 feat invest ment out of the fighters 20 so about a 25% investment.
If he decides to play with a different weapon like switch hit he can make a 50% investment to get the same numbers to both.
Now depending on his desired fighting style he can dedicate up to 75% of his feats. For some builds this is very easy. For others, not so much.
|
|
Take a Fighter and a Wizard, both have their feat array filled with Skill Focuses, +2/+2 Skill Feats and funky stuff such as Run or Endurance.
Now tell me, which of these two will have more easily achieve the role of the class. And in case you say something about metamagic feats, remember about rods.
|
|
Take a Fighter and a Wizard, both have their feat array filled with Skill Focuses, +2/+2 Skill Feats and funky stuff such as Run or Endurance.
Now tell me, which of these two will have more easily achieve the role of the class. And in case you say something about metamagic feats, remember about rods.
First off, why would you do that and second, the fighter still gets all his class abilities so he is still able to do his job which is fight.
Your scenarios are just laughable.
|
|
Take a Fighter and a Wizard, both have their feat array filled with Skill Focuses, +2/+2 Skill Feats and funky stuff such as Run or Endurance.
Now tell me, which of these two will have more easily achieve the role of the class. And in case you say something about metamagic feats, remember about rods.
How about you post the fighter build and we will see what we have to work with.
First off, why would you do that and second, the fighter still gets all his class abilities so he is still able to do his job which is fight.Your scenarios are just laughable.
Probably because you claimed it takes no system mastery to play a fighter. When clearly it does. Even Bob acknowledged this and put it forth for one of the sole reasons why people dislike them; because they were hard.
but don't think people are going to stand by while you spread false statements about the fighter.
Don't worry. I haven't.
Combat is more than just hit and damage numbers. 3.x/PF combat is rich, dynamic, and ever changing. You could go from fighting a group of weeny thugs in one battle, to fighting an ogre with a reach weapon in the next, to fighting some sort of multi-tentacled eldritch abomination by the end. Battles occur in three dimensions. Enemies have impressive movement capabilities from even low-levels, and then incredible movement capabilities in higher levels; some of them literally being able to move through objects, or even attack you from angles you cannot defend against at all (for example, an ethereal opponent with a ghost touch reach weapon and Blind-Fight that attacks you from underground, through walls, etc).
As we gain levels, to remain more and more viable, we need to also be able to adapt and react to different kinds of problems. Are you going to be in a battle where gnoll adepts are spamming lightning bolt? Will you be able to contend with the erinyes who dropped a smokestick as her last attack from an arrow volley? What will you do when your best friend falls prey to a charm or dominate spell in the middle of combat? How do you handle hordes of enemies, or swarms? Do you have to choose between moving and having an effect on your enemies? Are your tactics going to grow progressively less effective as you gain levels, or can they be easily countered by cheap consumables?
Do you have options for effectively dealing with invisible foes? Or foes that like to use poisons or diseases? Do you have a way to at least try to protect yourself against crowd-control effects like web, solid fog, and so forth? If you're not in your best environment, does your usefulness wane?
These are questions all classes must ask themselves. For most classes, they can address most of these. For example, Paladins aren't really hurting just because they aren't fighting evil. They have a ton of other abilities that make them the best tanks in the game, provide party support, deal with disease, fear, poisons, compulsions, provide healing, have some very strategic combat spells (grace is a cool one, it is), and so forth. At higher levels they gain DR/Evil, which actually rewards them when they aren't fighting evil by making them harder to kill. If they are fighting evil, then they can use their anti-evil stuff.
I feel like the Fighter struggles to remain relevant because many of these questions probably make him feel bad, or feel targeted, but are entirely things that can just pop up in a game, regardless of the classes involved.
One of the reasons I like archery fighters so much is that their primary mode of dealing damage doesn't rely on mobility, can be mobile if mounted, and is effective at bypassing a wide variety of damage reductions without becoming cost-prohibitive (cold iron and silver arrows are cheap, for example). I also like to check with my GM to see if I can have a quiver enhanced with abundant ammunition on it, so I can have a quiver like the ones in Baldur's Gate II.
How about you post the fighter build and we will see what we have to work with.
Why bother?
Add skill focus twenty times on your sheet picking whatever strikes your fancy. Heck you can even toss endurance or run on their once or twice.
|
|
First off, why would you do that and second, the fighter still gets all his class abilities so he is still able to do his job which is fight.Your scenarios are just laughable.
Probably because you claimed it takes no system mastery to play a fighter. When clearly it does. Even Bob acknowledged this and put it forth for one of the sole reasons why people dislike them; because they were hard.
It doesn't take system mastery to play a fighter. You trying to tell me that it takes system mastery to choose feats? Ever seen a wizard who had the wrong spells for the job? But yet I'm sure you are ignoring that fact. The same goes for any spell caster, it can take a form of system mastery to choose the right spells to last you the day. Choosing feats is an assumed knowledge of the game. There is really no bad combat feat out there. Fighters can't choose skill focus using their fighter bonus feats anyway.
|
|
How about you post the fighter build and we will see what we have to work with.
Why bother?
Add skill focus twenty times on your sheet picking whatever strikes your fancy. Heck you can even toss endurance or run on their once or twice.
This is why I can't take your claims seriously. You don't fully know the rules. You can't choose skill focus using fighter bonus feats.
|
|
How about you post the fighter build and we will see what we have to work with.
Why bother?
Add skill focus twenty times on your sheet picking whatever strikes your fancy. Heck you can even toss endurance or run on their once or twice.
A Fighter with 20 non-damage-related feats is at best a glorified Warrior. That's because feats are his primary class features, everything else is just gravy.
A Wizard with 10 non-spell-realted feats is still a full caster who can stop time, teleport, call Balors and so on. That's because spells are his primary class feature, everything else (feats included) is just gravy.
How about you post the fighter build and we will see what we have to work with.
Why bother?
Add skill focus twenty times on your sheet picking whatever strikes your fancy. Heck you can even toss endurance or run on their once or twice.
This is why I can't take your claims seriously. You don't fully know the rules. You can't choose skill focus using fighter bonus feats.
Then pardon me for not bothering to take you seriously.
The point being is to fill up your sheet with useless crap then compare that to a wizard with equally useless crap, then come back and tell us which one is still crapping all over the order of the universe.
It doesn't take system mastery to play a fighter. You trying to tell me that it takes system mastery to choose feats? Ever seen a wizard who had the wrong spells for the job? But yet I'm sure you are ignoring that fact. The same goes for any spell caster, it can take a form of system mastery to choose the right spells to last you the day. Choosing feats is an assumed knowledge of the game. There is really no bad combat feat out there. Fighters can't choose skill focus using their fighter bonus feats anyway.
It takes system mastery to choose the right feats as much as it takes to choose the right spells.
The difference you'll find is that the wizard can correct his mistakes in spell selection with remarkable ease compared to the nigh unchanging fighter.
IMpossible. Fighters can only take combat feats with their class abilities.
Also, the argument for wizards fall flat as well. Wizards ALREADY use metamagic rods instead of spending feats on those things. In other words, since they can buy the feats instead of taking them, they do so...using magic items to compensate for their lacking.
You know, just like any other class does.
C'mon, that's just a bad argument.
===Aelryinth
|
|
How about you post the fighter build and we will see what we have to work with.
Why bother?
Add skill focus twenty times on your sheet picking whatever strikes your fancy. Heck you can even toss endurance or run on their once or twice.
This is why I can't take your claims seriously. You don't fully know the rules. You can't choose skill focus using fighter bonus feats.
Then pardon me for not bothering to take you seriously.
The point being is to fill up your sheet with useless crap then compare that to a wizard with equally useless crap, then come back and tell us which one is still crapping all over the order of the universe.
It doesn't take system mastery to play a fighter. You trying to tell me that it takes system mastery to choose feats? Ever seen a wizard who had the wrong spells for the job? But yet I'm sure you are ignoring that fact. The same goes for any spell caster, it can take a form of system mastery to choose the right spells to last you the day. Choosing feats is an assumed knowledge of the game. There is really no bad combat feat out there. Fighters can't choose skill focus using their fighter bonus feats anyway.It takes system mastery to choose the right feats as much as it takes to choose the right spells.
The difference you'll find is that the wizard can correct his mistakes in spell selection with remarkable ease compared to the nigh unchanging fighter.
I'm trying tell you that you can't really fill it with useless crap. Sure you can use all your general feats for skill focus but you still have all those other feats that have to be used for combat feats. Spell casters actually are more prone to making spell choice mistakes than fighters are to making wrong feat choices. If you specialize with a bow you know you really don't want to invest in power attack unless you plan to have melee be your back up.
How about you post the fighter build and we will see what we have to work with.
Why bother?
Add skill focus twenty times on your sheet picking whatever strikes your fancy. Heck you can even toss endurance or run on their once or twice.
This is why I can't take your claims seriously. You don't fully know the rules. You can't choose skill focus using fighter bonus feats.
Unless you play a tactician.
Shallowsoul, you're the one taking a fighter out of context, putting it in isolation, and claiming a Fighter build alone is the answer. A Fighter build alone isn't enough.
You need to build a Fighter alongside a Barbarian, and compare combat vs. combat, and non-combat vs. noncombat.
You need to build a Fighter alongside a Ranger, and compare combat vs. combat, and non-combat vs. noncombat.
You need to build a Fighter alongside a Paladin, and compare combat vs. combat, and non-combat vs. noncombat.
You need to build a Fighter alongside a Cavalier, and compare combat vs. combat, and non-combat vs. noncombat.
Through such an exercise you need an unbiased standard of measuring value.
I'm not willing to put in that amount of effort on someone so stubborn; your mind is made up.
IMpossible. Fighters can only take combat feats with their class abilities.
Also, the argument for wizards fall flat as well. Wizards ALREADY use metamagic rods instead of spending feats on those things. In other words, since they can buy the feats instead of taking them, they do so...using magic items to compensate for their lacking.
You know, just like any other class does.
C'mon, that's just a bad argument.
===Aelryinth
I don't know what spellcasters you're talking about, but there's only a handful of metamagic feats that are seriously worth anything, and even if the wizards don't have those feats, or even rods, they are still very, very powerful.
I've posted on this very forum about a 15th level wizard with NPC gear with a pair of CR 8 advanced allips as minions, who proceeded to school a party of 13th level PCs, 8 members strong.
Thinking back, I don't think that caster used a single metamagic rod during the entire 20+ round battle.
|
|
Unless you play a tactician.
How about you post the fighter build and we will see what we have to work with.
Why bother?
Add skill focus twenty times on your sheet picking whatever strikes your fancy. Heck you can even toss endurance or run on their once or twice.
This is why I can't take your claims seriously. You don't fully know the rules. You can't choose skill focus using fighter bonus feats.
Yes but we were talking about the fighter in general, not including archetypes.
|
|
Shallowsoul, you're the one taking a fighter out of context, putting it in isolation, and claiming a Fighter build alone is the answer. A Fighter build alone isn't enough.
You need to build a Fighter alongside a Barbarian, and compare combat vs. combat, and non-combat vs. noncombat.
You need to build a Fighter alongside a Ranger, and compare combat vs. combat, and non-combat vs. noncombat.
You need to build a Fighter alongside a Paladin, and compare combat vs. combat, and non-combat vs. noncombat.
You need to build a Fighter alongside a Cavalier, and compare combat vs. combat, and non-combat vs. noncombat.
Through such an exercise you need an unbiased standard of measuring value.
I'm not willing to put in that amount of effort on someone so stubborn; your mind is made up.
You don't have to make my mind up on anything you claim because I know better.
|
|
How about you post the fighter build and we will see what we have to work with.
Why bother?
Add skill focus twenty times on your sheet picking whatever strikes your fancy. Heck you can even toss endurance or run on their once or twice.
A Fighter with 20 non-damage-related feats is at best a glorified Warrior. That's because feats are his primary class features, everything else is just gravy.
A Wizard with 10 non-spell-realted feats is still a full caster who can stop time, teleport, call Balors and so on. That's because spells are his primary class feature, everything else (feats included) is just gravy.
That is unfair, you want the fighter take bad decision about his class abilities but you let the wizard take good decision about his class abilities (spells).
Why do dot compate a ighter with 20 bad feats Vs a wizard with 10 bad feats and a spellbook full of bad spells.
Bravo! You've just discovered the principal difference between the two classes. You can't "screw up" a Wizard permanently, because he can always swap out spells and use rods to substitute the most important casting feats (metamagic).
Whereas a badly build Fighter means you're SOL, simply.
|
|
How about you post the fighter build and we will see what we have to work with.
Why bother?
Add skill focus twenty times on your sheet picking whatever strikes your fancy. Heck you can even toss endurance or run on their once or twice.
A Fighter with 20 non-damage-related feats is at best a glorified Warrior. That's because feats are his primary class features, everything else is just gravy.
A Wizard with 10 non-spell-realted feats is still a full caster who can stop time, teleport, call Balors and so on. That's because spells are his primary class feature, everything else (feats included) is just gravy.
That is unfair, you want the fighter take bad decision about his class abilities but you let the wizard take good decision about his class abilities (spells).
Why do dot compate a ighter with 20 bad feats Vs a wizard with 10 bad feats and a spellbook full of bad spells.
Bravo! You've just discovered the principal difference between the two classes. You can't "screw up" a Wizard permanently, because he can always swap out spells and use rods to substitute the most important casting feats (metamagic).
Whereas a badly build Fighter means you're SOL, simply.
If I'm not mistaken, I believe a fighter can change out his feats at certain levels.
|
|
For the record, I'm not arguing that Fighters are bad or that I hate the class. It's just a class that requires more system mastery than other classes, and a player that knows very well what he is doing. That or he asks the GM to optimize his character, as it is the case with one Fighter in my games.
He's super happy to play an Int 6 Fighter who whacks things with his greatsword in melee to great effect and out of combat he's the party simpleton comic relief with a dash of skill usefulness (Intimidate and Handle Animal).
But he's happy because we sat down and discussed the class, and there were no unfounded illusions about what Fighters are about.
|
|
If I'm not mistaken, I believe a fighter can change out his feats at certain levels.
Four times during your career, you have to meet the requirements and hey we're back at square 1 with the need to plan ahead.
The swap-out is sure handy for some things (like Cleave being a decent feat early on, when you fight dozens of mooks, but increasingly useless as the paradigm shifts to combats against 1-2 strong enemies), but that's no tool for fixing any fundamental mistakes made along the way.
|
|
For the record, I'm not arguing that Fighters are bad or that I hate the class. It's just a class that requires more system mastery than other classes, and a player that knows very well what he is doing. That or he asks the GM to optimize his character, as it is the case with one Fighter in my games.
He's super happy to play an Int 6 Fighter who whacks things with his greatsword in melee to great effect and out of combat he's the party simpleton comic relief with a dash of skill usefulness (Intimidate and Handle Animal).
But he's happy because we sat down and discussed the class, and there were no unfounded illusions about what Fighters are about.
Wizards by themselves take system mastery with regards to your spells. You have to have a lot of knowledge with regards to encounters and your fellow pcs.
Wizards by themselves take system mastery with regards to your spells. You have to have a lot of knowledge with regards to encounters and your fellow pcs.For the record, I'm not arguing that Fighters are bad or that I hate the class. It's just a class that requires more system mastery than other classes, and a player that knows very well what he is doing. That or he asks the GM to optimize his character, as it is the case with one Fighter in my games.
He's super happy to play an Int 6 Fighter who whacks things with his greatsword in melee to great effect and out of combat he's the party simpleton comic relief with a dash of skill usefulness (Intimidate and Handle Animal).
But he's happy because we sat down and discussed the class, and there were no unfounded illusions about what Fighters are about.
A trait shared by all classes. Some are more forgiving of mistakes than others.
|
|
Wizards by themselves take system mastery with regards to your spells. You have to have a lot of knowledge with regards to encounters and your fellow pcs.For the record, I'm not arguing that Fighters are bad or that I hate the class. It's just a class that requires more system mastery than other classes, and a player that knows very well what he is doing. That or he asks the GM to optimize his character, as it is the case with one Fighter in my games.
He's super happy to play an Int 6 Fighter who whacks things with his greatsword in melee to great effect and out of combat he's the party simpleton comic relief with a dash of skill usefulness (Intimidate and Handle Animal).
But he's happy because we sat down and discussed the class, and there were no unfounded illusions about what Fighters are about.
A Wizard who finds out that his spell loadout for this evening is wrong casts teleport and returns the next day with the correct array of the good stuff.
A Fighter who picked his feats wrong (say, the classic Fighter trap: Whirlwind Attack build!) suddenly discovers that he's Forever Alone, and that can't be undone.
You don't have to make my mind up on anything you claim because I know better.
err .... makesensemuch?
People don't make up the minds of other people. They can only appeal to their sense of reason or empathy in hopes of convincing them. That's call a debate.
Kind of like how we're presenting data and information. Except you seem to be paying attention only to those parts you want, ignoring the rest, and looking for things to twist into a (often not related) loaded question or statement, perhaps in some unsuccessful effort to say "gotcha"? That's how it looks, anyway.
Wizards by themselves take system mastery with regards to your spells. You have to have a lot of knowledge with regards to encounters and your fellow pcs.For the record, I'm not arguing that Fighters are bad or that I hate the class. It's just a class that requires more system mastery than other classes, and a player that knows very well what he is doing. That or he asks the GM to optimize his character, as it is the case with one Fighter in my games.
He's super happy to play an Int 6 Fighter who whacks things with his greatsword in melee to great effect and out of combat he's the party simpleton comic relief with a dash of skill usefulness (Intimidate and Handle Animal).
But he's happy because we sat down and discussed the class, and there were no unfounded illusions about what Fighters are about.
A Wizard who finds out that his spell loadout for this evening is wrong casts teleport and returns the next day with the correct array of the good stuff.
A Fighter who picked his feats wrong (say, the classic Fighter trap: Whirlwind Attack build!) suddenly discovers that he's Forever Alone, and that can't be undone.
Let's not also consider the fact it's difficult to royally screw up your spell list as a wizard, cleric, druid, paladin, or ranger. Sorcerers are kind of like the Fighters of spellcasters, as it is very easy to make a mistake and pick a bunch of spells that do you little good in an adventuring environment (a 6th level sorcerer with floating disk, protection from law, endure elements, hold portal, continual flame, phantom trap, and tongues is probably going to have some trouble. You can swap a spell per level (effectively 19 take-backsies), but it's easy to go entire levels with a bad loadout. Much like Fighters. For other characters, well, you can prepare something different.
A wizard chose all of the above spells as wizard spells? Meh, that sucks. Go to a small town, pay 15 gp total, and add magic missile to your spellbook. Now prepare magic missile in every slot that you would have used for your 1st, 2nd, and maybe 3rd level spells. Now you have something to hold you over until you can get some more spells. Hell, if you have about 200 gp, you could remix your entire spellbook at this level.
Divine casters like clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers, don't even have this problem. "Man, my options today were super balls. Maybe I should try this other thing instead". They're even very forgiving from a learning perspective. "Oh, well the party got sick from poison. Maybe I should pick something in case someone is poisoned again."
You don't have to make my mind up on anything you claim because I know better.err .... makesensemuch?
People don't make up the minds of other people. They can only appeal to their sense of reason or empathy in hopes of convincing them. That's call a debate.
Kind of like how we're presenting data and information. Except you seem to be paying attention only to those parts you want, ignoring the rest, and looking for things to twist into a (often not related) loaded question or statement, perhaps in some unsuccessful effort to say "gotcha"? That's how it looks, anyway.
If shallowsoul wants to see an example of how this works, he should PM Bobson. During a discussion about something where I was arguing X, Bobson argued Y, and I changed my mind within 3 posts, because Bobson made a compelling case. He was also very polite, I might add. I admitted my mistake, thanked Bobson, and haven't argued in since. If someone comes up arguing X, as I was before, I will try to do as good a job as Bobson did while discussing it with me.
That's impossible. People don't change their minds on the internet!
We're just full of surprises. :3
But that presupposes that the wizard do have the good spells in his spellbook meaning that the player did good choises, why the same player have to do bad choises with the figther?Wizards by themselves take system mastery with regards to your spells. You have to have a lot of knowledge with regards to encounters and your fellow pcs.For the record, I'm not arguing that Fighters are bad or that I hate the class. It's just a class that requires more system mastery than other classes, and a player that knows very well what he is doing. That or he asks the GM to optimize his character, as it is the case with one Fighter in my games.
He's super happy to play an Int 6 Fighter who whacks things with his greatsword in melee to great effect and out of combat he's the party simpleton comic relief with a dash of skill usefulness (Intimidate and Handle Animal).
But he's happy because we sat down and discussed the class, and there were no unfounded illusions about what Fighters are about.
A Wizard who finds out that his spell loadout for this evening is wrong casts teleport and returns the next day with the correct array of the good stuff.
A Fighter who picked his feats wrong (say, the classic Fighter trap: Whirlwind Attack build!) suddenly discovers that he's Forever Alone, and that can't be undone.
You really don't get it? It was explained a bit further up, but I'll do so again since the posts fly bye and it might have been missed.
Fighter picks a god-awful feat selection. Fighter is screwed.
Wizard picks a god-awful spell selection. He goes to town, drops 200 gp, and fills his book with new 1st level spells at 15 gp / spell. Repeat as needed for higher level spell with relative investment.
Cleric (or druid, or ranger, or paladin) picks a god-awful spell selection. He has all his spells, so he picks some new ones in the morning.
EDIT: Ironically, the wizard's mistake really only means that he picked the wrong spells first. He probably would have been served by taking those spells at some point anyway, since there are few spells in core that are really poor, so much as overly situational.