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.Yeah, but that presupposes that the player Know what are the good spells, how that is not system mastery?.
And beside that also presuppsoses that the fighter will chose the bad feats over and over again.
How do you figure? The fighter gets to change 4 feats over his entire career. 4. Likewise, he is limited to stuff that will not break feat chains, so if you took Power Attack, Cleave, and Great Cleave, and you've decided that you are getting no-where with those feats, you have to remove G. Cleave, Cleave, then Power Attack. Ouch...
Likewise, the wizard makes a god-awful spell selection, decides it's not working, so he goes and gets some more and adds them to his book. He tries those out. Crud, biffed again. Goes out and grabs some more. Oh wait, these spells are actually working pretty good. Nice!
Ranger's falcon animal companion isn't really doing much. He dismisses it and grabs a nice warhorse. Sweet deal. The Alarm spell not really that great? Ok, next day he tries entangle and realizes it reams land-bound enemies since it targets Reflex and has terrible effects even on a successful save. "Hm..." ponders the Ranger, "that worked pretty well." he says, and decides to note that as one he will prepare more often. Later he gets BBQed by a Hell Hound, and browses his spell list and goes "Oh, I could have avoided being Ranger McNuggests by casting this spell. Maybe I'll prepare it too."
Can you really say they require the same level of system mastery?
EDIT: That's before considering that with the Fighter you need to have a very, very solid understanding of the types of weaknesses that you have and cannot combat with your class alone, what the transition from low to high levels entails, and so forth. A Fighter that burns a few feats on Fleet (the +5 ft. land speed feat) might be pretty happy about it at levels 1-6, but as combat becomes increasingly mobile and increasingly 3-dimensional, he may later come to regret that choice. He needs to have a strong metagame knowledge of the kinds of things he can encounter and take steps outside of his class to try to adapt and remain relevant.
It doesn't take class-mastery, but in-depth system mastery.
Also a gm might give out some of the good spells as treasure on scrolls fighters do not have anyway for that.
Another thing is a beastmaster ranger can select a gaint vulutre animal companion and level it up exclusively and take mounted combat style. Also rangers have a higher percentage of good feats on their combat style feats they get for archery the only really bad feat is far shot although the level 10 feats are not taht good either. but manyshot improved precise shot rapid shot precise shot those are all great feats.
Actually, this argument for spell swapping only applies to the Druid and the Cleric, as far as in-class goes.
The wizard is awarded a very specific number of spells by his class. He can certainly screw those up, and gets no recourse...from his class.
What he CAN do is go out and purchase new gear (spells) to make up for his fundamentally bad choices.
But that's not a class ability per se, it's purchasing additional gear. A subtle distinction.
It's the Druid and cleric who are truly forgiving of mistakes in this area, because they've got the full spell list.
And if you're playing 3.5, you could always pay a psion in the same manner, and totally remix your character. And I'm betting a limited wish could do the same.
==Aelryinth
Since I think it was overlooked, or at least not addressed, I'm going to re-iterate one of my previous posts, Nicos, to give an example (again) of what I mean.
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.
Characters can and probably will face a lot of obstacles in their journeys. Even combat, the Fighter's forte, will frequently demand a lot from him, and if you're not careful, you might not even have the means to deliver, even next time. No class is prepared for every situation, but I feel like a Fighter has an unfair disability in this sort of thing.
I don't hate Fighters. I actually like them. I think they're cool at a subset of stuff. I liked Fighters in 2E and Baldur's Gate I & II, where they had solid saving throws, and grandmastery specialization (which was the shiznit, with all its extra attacks per round and stuff). Still, as I became more and more familiar with that game, I began relying less on Fighters because they weren't adding much to my parties that other classes weren't. Grandmastery (the equivalent to full specialization / weapon training in PF) was sexy, but couldn't compare to the benefits stuff like Paladins and Rangers were bringing to the party. Once I understood dual-classing, my favorite melee martial was actually a ranger/cleric, and was consistently more useful. Especially later in the game when you're dealing with enemies who shat all over your armor class (yay ironskins negating attacks), and healing 18 hp/round from regeneration kept them alive when stuff got through. Their wards and buffs were especially good. Max-damage on every hit, 25 Strength and Constitution, spell resistance? Boy, they were sexy.
Err, sorry, a little bit of a tangent there. :P
Actually, this argument for spell swapping only applies to the Druid and the Cleric, as far as in-class goes.
The wizard is awarded a very specific number of spells by his class. He can certainly screw those up, and gets no recourse...from his class.
What he CAN do is go out and purchase new gear (spells) to make up for his fundamentally bad choices.
But that's not a class ability per se, it's purchasing additional gear. A subtle distinction.
It's the Druid and cleric who are truly forgiving of mistakes in this area, because they've got the full spell list.
And if you're playing 3.5, you could always pay a psion in the same manner, and totally remix your character. And I'm betting a limited wish could do the same.
==Aelryinth
I consider the wizard's options to add more spells to his spellbook class feature to be a feature connected to his class. Similar to how I consider an alchemist's ability to expend gold to brew potions a feature of his class.
If you are arguing that the ability to add new spells to your spells known, which is a feature of your class, does not count as a benefit of your class, and instead is the same as purchasing equipment, then we will not agree on this, ever.
The fighter can add new magic martial weapons to his arsenal. Does that make it a feature of his class because he's automatically proficient in martial weapons? Just because the wizard is proficient in adding spells to his spellbook doesn't remove the fact it's costing gold to acquire new gear that complements his class abilities.
It's spending gold to add options. IF there were more magic items that granted feats, in the manner of Bracers of Archery, fighters could do exactly what wizards are doing.
So, nope, not going to agree on that. The only truly forgiving spell-choice is the Druid and the Cleric. The wizard has to jump through hoops (minor, but he's still jumping). It's no different then a Fighter spending gold to add extra feats to his arsenal, or spending gold to mix his feats up with a Limited Wish or something.
==Aelryinth
The fighter can add new magic martial weapons to his arsenal. Does that make it a feature of his class because he's automatically proficient in martial weapons? Just because the wizard is proficient in adding spells to his spellbook doesn't remove the fact it's costing gold to acquire new gear that complements his class abilities.
A fighter is free to use other martial weapons. Being proficient with them is absolutely a class feature. Just like "Spellbook" is a listed, enumerated class feature of the wizard.
Regardless, the comparison is not genuine. Multiple magical weapons are far, far more expensive than some new spells. Comparing the two would be like saying "Sure, I have to walk a mile to the river. But you have to turn on a tap. So really, we are in the same situation."
EDIT: Additionally, it doesn't account for weapon training or feats. A wizard who totally switches his spell selection can do so easily. A fighter who has concentrated on melee combat cannot transform into a top quality archer by picking up a bow.
I think that only druidds could cast ironskin :P.
I did like Valigar, sneak attack +high streng + a lot of potion of invisivility for the win!
Actually, Ranger/Clerics can. If you play Baldur's Gate II again anytime in the future, you should definitely give a Ranger/Cleric a try. You're limited to bludgeoning weapons, but you can get some pretty decent blunt weapons in the game (I recommend flails and hammers, because there are some nice ones, and the flail of ages and crom faeyor are pretty sexy). It may even be a bug, but Ranger/Clerics get druid spells on their spell lists (maybe due to having some sort of sphere or somesuch, I dunno).
My Ranger/Druid was prancing around in full plate, wearing a shield that protected against energy types, with ironskins while animating the dead and summoning animals and swarms of insects. Rarely did I actually need to resort to the heavier stuff, but god help his foes if he was given a bit of time to buff. It was also nice having an extra hand in the party who could raise dead, heal when resting, and so forth.
I think my last BG party consisted of a Ranger/Cleric (main), thief/mage (Imoen), fighter/cleric (Anomen), Conjurer (Edwin), Fighter/Druid (Jaheira), and Minsc (his class is irrelevant, because he has a permanent place in my party :P).
On the subject of sneak attack; have you ever tried Kensai/Thief for backstabbing? Kensai are a pain to level since they're so fragile early on and have such restrictions; but their melee is pretty ferocious, and if you swap them to theif you can pickup Use Any Item, which makes you pretty sexy and gives you some gnarly backstab. :P
The fighter can add new magic martial weapons to his arsenal. Does that make it a feature of his class because he's automatically proficient in martial weapons? Just because the wizard is proficient in adding spells to his spellbook doesn't remove the fact it's costing gold to acquire new gear that complements his class abilities.A fighter is free to use other martial weapons. Being proficient with them is absolutely a class feature. Just like "Spellbook" is a listed, enumerated class feature of the wizard.
Regardless, the comparison is not genuine. Multiple magical weapons are far, far more expensive than some new spells. Comparing the two would be like saying "Sure, I have to walk a mile to the river. But you have to turn on a tap. So really, we are in the same situation."
EDIT: Additionally, it doesn't account for weapon training or feats. A wizard who totally switches his spell selection can do so easily. A fighter who has concentrated on melee combat cannot transform into a top quality archer by picking up a bow.
Pretty much this.
It is weird indeed, neither the ranger nor the cleric can cast ironskin.
I figure it's because the ranger gets druid-like casting but they never get high enough spell levels to cast 'em. While the cleric levels allow them to hit 'em. Like I said, it might have been a bug, but I still found them to be very useful. A less odd thing would have just been the Fighter/Druids like Jaheira. They give up the only real benefit of being a Fighter (weapon mastery), but in exchange get those very same spells (ironskins is almost critical if you really want a warrior who will survive some of the nastier combats). EDIT: On the plus side, the fighter/druids can wear armor, and wield bladed weapons and polearms easily enough, which was a bit of an advantage over their ranger/cleric rivals. :)
yeah I try the fighter/thief is good.
Kensei-mage is also popular for those who like gishing it up with melee-wizards (who were also very effective both offensively and defensively, being able to use spells like mirror image, greater invisibility, and stoneskin, to rock socks).
but my favorite class was the cavalier, with carsomyr you are a tank a heavy hitter and a wizard hunter.
Cavaliers are indeed very awesome. Not as strong in +hit/+dmg or attacks per round as Fighters, but their immunities, resistances, and other paladin benefits made them more appealing as a primary melee class in many a party.
I think we have a similar issue with the modern Fighter, except, they aren't in a computer game, so the range of problems they will encounter will grow, as greater options are presented. For example, in Baldur's Gate, creatures don't fly, so warriors rarely have to worry about dealing with enemies in three dimensions. A lot of enemies may teleport, shadow door, or dimension door, but their options are generally more limited against warriors in the PC game.
|
The 20th level fighter without feats is a commoner/warrior discussion is utterly ridiculous.
Putting aside that the combat feats are the primary boon of the class, and that eliminating them would be like having a wizard without spells. But let’s set the strawman on fire as it stands with the facts.
A 20th level warrior attack is 20(bab)+Strength.
A 20th level fighter gets a bonus +4 to attack and damage for a range of weapons, +3 From another, +2 from a 3rd and +1 from a forth. All of this stacks with any other bonuses on the weapon or that you may get from feats. With one weapon he not only automatically confirms crits, but crits at a multiplier higher.
The 20th level warrior can wear all armors.
The 20th level fighter’ armor has an additional +4 available Dexterity Bonus and a -4 to armor check penalty. That is a breastplate with no armor check and available +7 dex, as well as giving him DR 5/-.
So with the -4 to armor check, that is a potential total benefit equal to adding 4 skill points to 9 skills (All the Dex and strength) for 36 skill points. Add in another 4 skill point for the Dex penalties avoided on the 7 Dex skills and we are up to 64 more skill points in real terms vs his Warrior cousin.
And we’ll throw in a +5 against fear effects.
That is before you add 11 bonus feats, many of which are only available to fighters.
I’m not a big Fighter fan myself. It’s just not for me. But I’m far less of a fan of ridiculous hyperbole.
|
I probably shouldnt jump in this mess of a thread but i dont understand why there is so much debate about this.If you have a fix for fighters that works in your group then use it.I wish they had more points for skills but using traits and skill feats usually fixes it for me.For example my current fighter has stealth as a class skill by virtue of the highlander trait.If I wanted him to have perception as a class skill as well I need only give him the cosmoplitan feat.Yes it stings a little as i could have used that feat on Combat but im already pretty good at that.Finally if you dont think its broken as a class then theres no need to fix it.
The 20th level fighter without feats is a commoner/warrior discussion is utterly ridiculous.
The point I make for such an argument is to point out that a Fighter can be constructed as a Commoner-with-combat-only-abilities, whereas every other class can be constructed as a Commoner-with-abilities-for-many-occasions.
Class Abilities "beyond a commoner" include any skill ranks per level beyond 2+INT.
Class Abilities "beyond a commoner" include any feats beyond the standard 1-per-odd-level.
Class Abilities "beyond a commoner" include any HD beyond d6.
Class Abilities "beyond a commoner" include any Good saves.
Class Abilities "beyond a commoner" include any BAB beyond +1/2.
Class Abilities "beyond a commoner" include any abilities listed under a class description, such as proficiencies, spell casting, (Ex), (Su) or (Sp) abilities and so on.
Claim 1: Focus of Class Abilities
For non-combat obstacles and roles, the roster of Fighter class abilities has no significant value; there are NO abilities which have significant CR-relevant use out of combat (the same as a Commoner).
For non-combat obstacles and roles, the roster of (not-Fighter PC) class abilities has significant value; there are abilities which have significant CR-relevant use out of combat.
Claim 2: Combat Equivalence
The class abilities of the Fighter provide a high level of combat effectiveness.
The class abilities of the Barbarian/Ranger/Paladin/Cavalier provide a high level of combat effectiveness.
I claim that these levels of combat effectiveness are competitive - that is to say that they are roughly equivalent, in that no one class has an undeniable advantage in combat over the others (generally speaking).
Claim 3: Variety of the Competition
The (competing) martial classes, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin and Cavalier, who have combat equivalence with the Fighter also have a roster of class abilities which have significant value out of combat.
These are the claims which support my opinion on the Fighter.
Fill all the Wizards spell slots with feather fall and then let him go adventuring. Then take a Fighter and take only useless feats.
Now tell me which one is utter crap and which one isn't.
The point I make for such an argument is to point out that a Fighter can be constructed as a Commoner-with-combat-only-abilities, whereas every other class can be constructed as a Commoner-with-abilities-for-many-occasions.
Yeah, but the fighter also can be constructed with non-combat abilities, and every othrer classes can be consturcted with zero out of combat abilities, that does not prove anything.
hey, as someone said before we all know that the fighter needs something extra to really shine, they are not the best of the best. But at the same time that does not imply that the fighter sucks no matter what the player try to do.
can we agree in that?
No one is arguing that, Nicos. I've noted that I like playing Fighters under certain conditions. Just because we think the Fighter struggles and hurts as a class doesn't mean we hate it or believe it's unplayable.
I've seen players play NPC classes as well. My brother soloed a wyvern as a 3rd level expert in a solo-game once, using animals he trained with Handle Animal; because he had enough system knowledge to know that oxen and such are cheap, readily available, and perfectly suitable for turning into war-machines with Handle Animal. No one is going to argue that Experts are on par with the core classes, I'd hope.
The biggest problem that Malignor is pointing out is that Fighters are most definitely not the hands down best martial class. Every martial class in the book has abilities that give them various advantages in combat, and are roughly on par with the Fighter in combat ability. However, all of those classes have OTHER STUFF too.
Even when comparing combat effectiveness, I think the Fighter falls behind because the extent of their combat ability tends to revolve around +hit and +damage, which is all well and good, but exceedingly limited for the dynamic combat that occurs in 3.x/PF.
Fill all the Wizards spell slots with feather fall and then let him go adventuring. Then take a Fighter and take only useless feats.
Now tell me which one is utter crap and which one isn't.
I'm going to say the one who can swap Feather Fall for something better tomorrow? :P
The point I make for such an argument is to point out that a Fighter can be constructed as a Commoner-with-combat-only-abilities, whereas every other class can be constructed as a Commoner-with-abilities-for-many-occasions.
[1] Yeah, but the fighter also can be constructed with non-combat abilities, and every othrer classes can be consturcted with zero out of combat abilities, that does not prove anything.
[2] hey, as someone said before we all know that the fighter needs something extra to really shine, they are not the best of the best. But at the same time that does not imply that the fighter sucks no matter what the player try to do.
can we agree in that?
[1]This is only correct if you ignore the general case, and focus only on the rare (and often disappointing) exceptions:
- Mobile Fighter's Fleet Footed at level 15 (wait 14 levels for Fast movement and Acrobatics Mastery)- DR/- from Armor Mastery (level 19) and some of the DR and resistances in the Armor Master archetype; this is useful against all manner of mechanical traps or natural hazards, less so than for a Barbarian's Trap Sense + DR.
- Tactician gets 4+INT ranks per level at the cost of a combat feat, and can use Combat Feats for Skill Focus. This averages to a weaker combatant (falling behind the BaseFighter, and likely the Barb/Pally/Rgr/Cavalier) in exchange for 2 skill ranks - something the base Barbarian, Cavalier and Ranger already get, without sacrificing combat effectiveness (see Claim 2).
- Unarmed Fighter resists fatigue and related conditions, which would make for a fantastic endurance runner, explorer or 24h/7d laborer. I actually like this alot.
- Unbreakable archetype's resistances are good against many traps, harsh conditions and so on. This is another archetype whose abilities I like.
Do the best of these refute my claims? Kind of, but not really, because it means that there are 2-3 archetypes which are suddenly "must-haves", reducing the base class and other archetypes to "must-fix". These are workarounds more so than resolutions, and even then their utility still falls short of the other competitive martial classes; Suppose the Fighter class were a product... creating 12 new models of the product, some of which deserve a recall (along with the base model) doesn't mean that the recall shouldn't happen.
[2] I totally agree. The Fighter can be salvaged by exploring certain archetypes (above), a GM who can compensate the shortfalls in-game, a player group who can aid the Fighter in finding relevant ways to contribute beyond fighting, houserules, or by defaulting to the one or two build paths which make combat abilities work out of combat (eg. a Dazzling Display specialist, who doubles as a great interrogator and extortionist as well).
But again, these are workarounds, and not a general solution. This is also why showing a build proves nothing. Show me builds like Bob Loblaw's TAKTICALL all you want, and all you're doing is proving my claims in the general sense by providing counterexamples which rely on only the rare cases - the "workarounds".
Is good to read that, because at the begining of this thread the argument was diferent.
Indeed. I can at least say that I don't hate the Fighter. I believe most classes are playable (including some NPC classes even), including the Fighter; but some classes just are not as good as others and it shows. Fighter tends to be among its peers what the Oracle is to the Cleric and Druid.
It is because I like the Fighter that I'd like to see them have a bit more love. That is all. I think a first step to seeing them have a bit more love, or giving them a bit more love ourselves through house rules, is to admit where they are struggling, and look at ways to fix it.
It seems that we somewhat have managed to agree,
Yay! ^.^
... so what other bug have you found in BGII? :P
Well a lot of item bugs. Fortunately you can download fixes for those (the Baldurdash fix-pack fixes a lot of the bugged items, such as the Azure Edge which is supposed to make undead save with a -4 or be destroyed, but doesn't actually apply the -4, nor does it work on all undead).
I'm not 100% sure that it is a bug. It might have to do with divine spheres (kind of like domains in pre-3E). Now my 2E tabletop is horribly rusty, but druids and clerics get different "spheres" of magic, and it's possible that the Ranger/Cleric gets some of the same spheres of magic (which determine what clerical spells they have access to), granting those spells. But I wouldn't quote me on that in a 2E tabletop game, 'cause honestly, I'm not sure. :P
I can't think of many bugs off the top of my head (I know there's a surprising amount of them, but most are item bugs or trivial things which you can download fixes for, often in bulk). In general, I like discussing strategies for the game, and these days solo-runs have caught my interest more often, as it's kind of fun to try and make it through the whole game with 1 character (or one character plus Minsc, 'cause I <3 Minsc).
I've really been fond of Mage/Clerics too, as they just have soooooo many spells, and a lot of their spells combine well. Early in the game, a mage/cleric can get through most things with animate dead, strength of one (which gives all the undead 18/75 strength or something like that), a few area buffs, and haste. Toss stinking cloud at your enemies and watch the undead tear them to pieces while they're all too stunned to fight back. Being able to spam doom and greater malison to debuff saving throws of particularly nasty enemies is exceptionally useful.
Actually, there is a small bug. As best as I can tell, doom stacks with itself in BG II, so you can spam it to really hose some saving throws. I've killed some of the craziest things by hitting them with a good save or die after a liberal amount of doom-spam while they were dealing with my minions.
I've also recently begun to appreciate smaller parties. While you can have up to 6 people in the group, I've taken to preferring 3 person parties who manage to pull of multiple roles. Dual-classed Ranger/Cleric, dual-classed Thief/Mage, and an Inquisitor or second X/Cleric is a pretty solid group that brings a lot to the table, while giving you a pair of front-liners, and a solid amount of spellcasting, while also making sure you can deal with most anything, without splitting XP too far. Leveling a 3 man party is noticeably faster than leveling a 6 man party.
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.
I thought you could only get +6 out of weapon training. +4 from the ability and +2 from gloves.
Also 4 of 20 is 20% not 25%. And it's 4 of 21 which is now less than 20%.
Well today we learned why I hated math. I'm quite simply terrible at it. For some reason I thought it was +5 from weapon mastery. So where is that other 1 coming from I wonder.
@tark
extra bonus feat at first level.
I think is more like a bug but the rules of spheres were confusing so I do not know.
I'm not 100% sure that it is a bug. It might have to do with divine spheres (kind of like domains in pre-3E). Now my 2E tabletop is horribly rusty, but druids and clerics get different "spheres" of magic, and it's possible that the Ranger/Cleric gets some of the same spheres of magic (which determine what clerical spells they have access to), granting those spells. But I wouldn't quote me on that in a 2E tabletop game, 'cause honestly, I'm not sure. :P
There was a lot that was confusing in 2E. I have some of the 2E books, including the PHB, and some of it is just mind boggling to me. Not even beginning on THAC0, which while counter intuitive makes some level of sense, the rules for things like Dual-Classing are just so awful. Not once in my time spent playing games of any sort, especially tabletop RPGs, have I seen any rule that demanded that players metagame as ferociously as dual-classing. According to my copy of the book, if you use any of the benefits from your previous class before your new class is dominant then you gain no experience points for the session.
Now try explaining that one in the world. "Sorry guys, I just used up my single magic missile spell. You guys are on your own." - "But why don't you just draw your sword/axe/mace/whatever and help us not die? I know you're studying magic, but you used that up, and you didn't forget how to swing your sword did you?" - "No, but if I use my sword, I don't get any experience points, and I'll never level up again..."
I've also recently begun to appreciate smaller parties. While you can have up to 6 people in the group, I've taken to preferring 3 person parties who manage to pull of multiple roles. Dual-classed Ranger/Cleric, dual-classed Thief/Mage, and an Inquisitor or second X/Cleric is a pretty solid group that brings a lot to the table, while giving you a pair of front-liners, and a solid amount of spellcasting, while also making sure you can deal with most anything, without splitting XP too far. Leveling a 3 man party is noticeably faster than leveling a 6 man party.My last party consisted in 4 four menbers, i did not like that they leveled up so fast it make the encounters very easy. in the end I get frustrated with jaheira romance so i quited.
It is a shame that the enemies are so predictable, even the migthy mind flayers are so esay to defeat with mordekainen sword. The only worthy enemy is kangax the demilich.
You might want to check out some of the fan made fixpacks and tweak packs. Some of them exist specifically to make enemies smarter, or the game harder. For example: Sword Coast Stratagems II is a big tweak pack for the game. You simply run the WeiDU installer and it asks which components you would like to install. It then runs through them with Y/N questions, and comes with .html readme if you want to double check any of the options. All of them are optional.
I used this mod and it made enemies much smarter. They were smarter in their use of items, class features, dealing with cheese tactics like cloud-bombing, and so on and so forth. Definitely an awesome modpack. I didn't install every option from the pack, but the beauty is you don't have to! :D
Well today we learned why I hated math. I'm quite simply terrible at it. For some reason I thought it was +5 from weapon mastery. So where is that other 1 coming from I wonder.
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.
I thought you could only get +6 out of weapon training. +4 from the ability and +2 from gloves.
Also 4 of 20 is 20% not 25%. And it's 4 of 21 which is now less than 20%.
That's my fault. I counted it as +5, when it is +4. Ouch. For some reason I've been discussing the Fighter believing they got another +1 to hit and damage. It's a bit sad, 'cause that means they're worse than I thought. :(
Fill all the Wizards spell slots with feather fall and then let him go adventuring. Then take a Fighter and take only useless feats.
Now tell me which one is utter crap and which one isn't.
Well, the Wizard can memorize better spells the next day. The Fighter is stuck with his useless feats until he can convince the DM to let him rebuild himself.
Of course, that's only a small part of the problem. Even without any spells, the Wizard can do just about anything the Fighter can, except combat, as well as or better than the Fighter. That's too bad, because there are far more heroes in fantasy literature who fit the "fighter" concept than pretty much anything else, and the Fighter class doesn't really address that.
It's this kind of hyperbole that is not helpful at all to the conversation. The wizard, without his spells, is rather useless. Let's be very fair. He has 2 skill points per level plus Intelligence. In these conversations the wizard always takes Spellcraft and a bunch of Knowledge skills. He knows a lot but really can't do much out of combat other than be a walking know-it-all. He certainly won't be doing much as well as or better than the fighter (or any other character for that matter).
Why are we taking away a Wizard's spells?
It has nothing to do with the discussion about out-of-combat utility.
We can take away all the class skills of most Fighter variants, and it will change nothing regarding the Fighters out of combat utility.
As for knowledge and spellcraft ... being a know-it-all can be very useful out of combat.
Read the table
Why are we taking away a Wizard's spells?
It has nothing to do with the discussion about out-of-combat utility.We can take away all the class skills of most Fighter variants, and it will change nothing regarding the Fighters out of combat utility.
As for knowledge and spellcraft ... being a know-it-all can be very useful out of combat.
Read the table
Someone else brought up the hyperbole. It's one thing to say that the wizard can do well without spells beyond the 2 bonus per level. Another to say that they will perform better than another class without their class feature.
Fighters are not restricted to just their class skills when they spend their skill points. If the fighter is designed to know a bunch of stuff, it is very easy to build a fighter than can do just fine with knowledge skills, and not put more than 5 ranks in any Knowledge skill. If the fighter is built to deal with casters, then it stands to reason that he would put some ranks into Spellcraft.
In the end though, when dealing with out of combat stuff, there is so much that it is rather pointless to assume that one class is automatically precluded from doing anything at all while all other classes can automatically do better in all situations. That is the stance that several people have taken and it is demonstrably wrong.
I built a fighter with the core chassis (no archetypes). I used only the fighter bonus feats for combat feats. Character feats were intentionally non-fighter bonus feats. The only two that are focused on combat but not bonus feats that I chose were Iron Will and Toughness.
The first build is no-magic added. He can get the job done, but obviously will need magic (as would any character at level 20). Notice that he isn’t flashy at all. He is built to be efficient in combat and to have things to do out of combat. I made a few unoptimized choices (amulet of mighty fists, sharp senses feat, and I started with an 8 Constitution for example) to show that the character isn’t crippled by a few bad choices. The second build is just the first one equipped.
MUNDANE CR 19
Male Elf Fighter 20
NN Medium Humanoid (Elf)
Init +7; Senses Low-Light Vision; Perception +25
--------------------
DEFENSE
--------------------
AC 24, touch 14, flat-footed 20. . (+9 armor, +1 shield, +3 Dex, +1 dodge)
hp 144 (20d10)
Fort +11, Ref +9, Will +10
Defensive Abilities Bravery +5; DR 5/—; Immune sleep; Resist Elven Immunities
--------------------
OFFENSE
--------------------
Spd 30 ft.
Melee Masterwork Dagger +19/+14/+9/+4 (1d4+28/19-20/x2) and
. . Masterwork Flail, Heavy +20/+15/+10/+5 (1d10+25/19-20/x2) and
. . Masterwork Longsword +22/+17/+12/+7 (1d8+28/19-20/x3)
Ranged Masterwork Longbow, Composite (Str +4) +21/+16/+11/+6 (1d8+19/20/x3)
Special Attacks Weapon Training: Blades, Heavy, Weapon Training: Bows, Weapon Training: Flails, Weapon Training: Natural
--------------------
STATISTICS
--------------------
Str 18, Dex 17, Con 8, Int 14, Wis 14, Cha 8
Base Atk +20; CMB +24; CMD 38
Feats Alertness, Bleeding Critical, Breadth of Experience, Cosmopolitan: Perception, Diplomacy, Critical Focus, Critical Mastery, Deadly Aim -6/+12, Dilettante, Dodge, Elven Weapon Proficiencies, Improved Initiative, Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Vital Strike, Iron Will, Perfect Strike (2d20) (5/day), Power Attack -6/+12, Sharp Senses, Skill Focus: Diplomacy, Skill Focus: Stealth, Staggering Critical (DC 30), Toughness +20, Vital Strike
Skills Acrobatics +16, Climb +3, Diplomacy +20, Escape Artist +2, Fly +2, Knowledge (Arcana) +6, Knowledge (Dungeoneering) +14, Knowledge (Engineering) +14, Knowledge (Geography) +6, Knowledge (History) +6, Knowledge (Local) +11, Knowledge (Nature) +11, Knowledge (Nobility) +6, Knowledge (Planes) +10, Knowledge (Religion) +10, Perception +25, Ride +2, Sense Motive +4, Stealth +22, Swim +3
Languages Celestial, Common, Draconic, Dwarven, Elven, Giant
SQ Armor Mastery (Ex), Armor Training 4 (Ex), Elven Magic, Weapon Mastery: Longsword (Ex)
Combat Gear Arrows (40), Masterwork Buckler, Masterwork Dagger, Masterwork Flail, Heavy, Masterwork Full Plate, Masterwork Longbow, Composite (Str +4), Masterwork Longsword;
--------------------
TRACKED RESOURCES
--------------------
Arrows - 0/40
Masterwork Dagger - 0/1
Perfect Strike (2d20) (5/day) - 0/5
--------------------
SPECIAL ABILITIES
--------------------
Armor Mastery (Ex) DR 5/- while wearing armor
Armor Training 4 (Ex) Worn armor -4 check penalty, +4 max DEX.
Bleeding Critical Critical Hits deal 2d6 bleed damage.
Bravery +5 (Ex) +5 Will save vs. Fear
Critical Focus +4 to confirm critical hits.
Critical Mastery Apply two Critical feats to a critical hit rather than one.
Damage Reduction (5/-) You have Damage Reduction against all attacks.
Deadly Aim -6/+12 Trade a penalty to ranged attacks for a bonus to ranged damage.
Dilettante You can make untrained Knowledge checks up to DC 15.
Elven Immunities +2 save bonus vs Enchantments.
Elven Immunities - Sleep You are immune to Sleep effects.
Elven Magic +2 racial bonus on caster checks to overcome spell resistance. +2 to spellcraft checks to determine the properties of a magic item.
Improved Unarmed Strike Unarmed strikes don't cause attacks of opportunity, and can be lethal.
Low-Light Vision See twice as far as a human in low light, distinguishing color and detail.
Perfect Strike (2d20) (5/day) Roll 2d20 for an attack with a Monk weapon and use the higher as your attack roll, the next as your critical confirmation.
Power Attack -6/+12 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
Staggering Critical (DC 30) Critical hit staggers target
Vital Strike Standard action: x2 weapon damage dice.
Weapon Mastery: Longsword (Ex) Chosen weapon has an improved critical multiplier, always confirms criticals, and cannot be disarmed.
Weapon Training: Blades, Heavy +4 (Ex) +4 Attack, Damage, CMB, CMD with Heavy Blades
Weapon Training: Bows +3 (Ex) +3 Attack, Damage, CMB, CMD with Bows
Weapon Training: Flails +1 (Ex) +1 Attack, Damage, CMB, CMD with Flails
Weapon Training: Natural +2 (Ex) +2 Attack, Damage, CMB, CMD with Natural weapons
Hero Lab® and the Hero Lab logo are Registered Trademarks of LWD Technology, Inc. Free download at http://www.wolflair.com
Pathfinder® and associated marks and logos are trademarks of Paizo Publishing, LLC®, and are used under license.
MAGIC ADDED CR 19
Male Elf Fighter 20
NN Large Humanoid (Elf)
Init +10; Senses Low-Light Vision; Perception +31
--------------------
DEFENSE
--------------------
AC 44, touch 19, flat-footed 37. . (+14 armor, +6 shield, +6 Dex, -1 size, +5 natural, +3 deflection, +1 dodge)
hp 204 (20d10+60)
Fort +22, Ref +20, Will +21
Defensive Abilities Bravery +5; DR 5/—; Immune sleep; Resist Elven Immunities
--------------------
OFFENSE
--------------------
Spd 30 ft.
Melee +1 Dagger +24/+19/+14/+9 (1d6+33/19-20/x2) and
. . +3 Flail, Heavy +27/+22/+17/+12 (2d8+34/19-20/x2) and
. . +5 Keen, Speed Longsword +31/+31/+26/+21/+16 (2d6+39/17-20/x3)
Ranged +4 Seeking, Speed Longbow, Composite (Str +7) +28/+28/+23/+18/+13 (1d8+26/20/x3)
Space 10 ft.; Reach 10 ft.
Special Attacks Weapon Training: Blades, Heavy, Weapon Training: Bows, Weapon Training: Flails, Weapon Training: Natural
--------------------
STATISTICS
--------------------
Str 18/26, Dex 18/22, Con 8/14, Int 14, Wis 14/20, Cha 8/14
Base Atk +20; CMB +29; CMD 49
Feats Alertness, Bleeding Critical, Breadth of Experience, Cosmopolitan: Perception, Diplomacy, Critical Focus, Critical Mastery, Deadly Aim -6/+12, Dilettante, Dodge, Elven Weapon Proficiencies, Improved Initiative, Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Vital Strike, Iron Will, Perfect Strike (2d20) (5/day), Power Attack -6/+12, Sharp Senses, Skill Focus: Diplomacy, Skill Focus: Stealth, Staggering Critical (DC 30), Toughness +20, Vital Strike
Skills Acrobatics +23, Appraise +5, Bluff +5, Climb +11, Diplomacy +26, Disguise +5, Escape Artist +9, Fly +7, Heal +8, Intimidate +5, Knowledge (Arcana) +9, Knowledge (Dungeoneering) +17, Knowledge (Engineering) +17, Knowledge (Geography) +9, Knowledge (History) +9, Knowledge (Local) +14, Knowledge (Nature) +14, Knowledge (Nobility) +9, Knowledge (Planes) +13, Knowledge (Religion) +13, Perception +31, Ride +9, Sense Motive +10, Stealth +40, Survival +8, Swim +11
Languages Celestial, Common, Draconic, Dwarven, Elven, Giant
SQ Armor Mastery (Ex), Armor Training 4 (Ex), Elven Magic, Weapon Mastery: Longsword (Ex)
Combat Gear +1 Dagger, +3 Flail, Heavy, +4 Seeking, Speed Longbow, Composite (Str +7), +5 Buckler, +5 Fortification, Heavy, Shadow, Greater Mithral Full Plate, +5 Keen, Speed Longsword, Arrows (40); Other Gear Amulet of Mighty Fists +2, Belt of Physical Perfection, +6, Boots, Winged, Boots, Winged, Cloak of Resistance, +5, Headband of Mental Prowess, WIS & CHA +6, Manual of Quickness of Action, +1, Potion of Barkskin (CL 12) (5), Potion of Heroism (5), Ring of Protection, +3, Stone of Good Luck (Luckstone)
--------------------
TRACKED RESOURCES
--------------------
+1 Dagger - 0/1
Arrows - 0/40
Perfect Strike (2d20) (5/day) - 0/5
Potion of Barkskin (CL 12) - 0/5
Potion of Heroism - 0/5
--------------------
SPECIAL ABILITIES
--------------------
Armor Mastery (Ex) DR 5/- while wearing armor
Armor Training 4 (Ex) Worn armor -4 check penalty, +4 max DEX.
Bleeding Critical Critical Hits deal 2d6 bleed damage.
Bravery +5 (Ex) +5 Will save vs. Fear
Critical Focus +4 to confirm critical hits.
Critical Mastery Apply two Critical feats to a critical hit rather than one.
Damage Reduction (5/-) You have Damage Reduction against all attacks.
Deadly Aim -6/+12 Trade a penalty to ranged attacks for a bonus to ranged damage.
Dilettante You can make untrained Knowledge checks up to DC 15.
Elven Immunities +2 save bonus vs Enchantments.
Elven Immunities - Sleep You are immune to Sleep effects.
Elven Magic +2 racial bonus on caster checks to overcome spell resistance. +2 to spellcraft checks to determine the properties of a magic item.
Improved Unarmed Strike Unarmed strikes don't cause attacks of opportunity, and can be lethal.
Low-Light Vision See twice as far as a human in low light, distinguishing color and detail.
Perfect Strike (2d20) (5/day) Roll 2d20 for an attack with a Monk weapon and use the higher as your attack roll, the next as your critical confirmation.
Power Attack -6/+12 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
Staggering Critical (DC 30) Critical hit staggers target
Vital Strike Standard action: x2 weapon damage dice.
Weapon Mastery: Longsword (Ex) Chosen weapon has an improved critical multiplier, always confirms criticals, and cannot be disarmed.
Weapon Training: Blades, Heavy +4 (Ex) +4 Attack, Damage, CMB, CMD with Heavy Blades
Weapon Training: Bows +3 (Ex) +3 Attack, Damage, CMB, CMD with Bows
Weapon Training: Flails +1 (Ex) +1 Attack, Damage, CMB, CMD with Flails
Weapon Training: Natural +2 (Ex) +2 Attack, Damage, CMB, CMD with Natural weapons
Hero Lab® and the Hero Lab logo are Registered Trademarks of LWD Technology, Inc. Free download at http://www.wolflair.com
Pathfinder® and associated marks and logos are trademarks of Paizo Publishing, LLC®, and are used under license.
There are some things the fighter class does not do well, and should.
1) Mounted combat. Yes, he can be a mounted warrior but his mount quickly becomes useless without the Leadership feat. I don't see any archetypes that improve the mount.
2) True generalization. You can make him generalized, but he will be as boring as someone playing a caster that says, "I cast a spell that targets his Will save this round. Next round I will target his Reflex." He will be effective, but being too general is dull to play.
3) Perception and possibly Heal should be class skills. Perception because an expected role is guard. Heal because, let's be honest, his job is to get hit hard. He should know how to stop a little bleeding.
Something the fighter class does well, and is often overlooked as a Strength (some see it as weaknesses): Plays well with other classes. It is very easy to multiclass and with the archetypes it should be very easy to make just the right type of martial character you want to play.
===========
If I were to make any changes to the class, they would be only a few and they would be simple:
1) When swapping out a feat, it is ok to get rid of a prerequisite feat. The new feat still must have all its prerequisites met. So if the fighter had Power Attack, Cleave, and Great Cleave and no longer wants Cleave, he can swap it out at the appropriate level. He could not take Greater Trip unless he already had Improved Trip.
2) Give 4 skill points per level. I think the fighter can function with what he has, but players do like more options. Functioning is fine but functioning with style is better.
3) Have a way to improve a mount without having to have a small village too. It doesn't need to be as awesome as a cavalier's mount (and shouldn't be), but it should he more interesting than "Horse." Maybe something as simple as forgoing a bonus feat to improve his mount by applying a +1 CR template (I haven't done the math so I don't know how often I would allow this). He would be able to stack the CRs so that he could trade in to +1's for a +2 or trade in three +1's for a +3, etc. He could give it 2 HD or the Simple Advanced Template the first time. Next time, he could advance it 2 more HD or make it celestial. Next time he could just give it 2 HD or convert everything over to making it a half-dragon. This is just a preliminary idea and certainly needs some work.
4) This one is one for all classes, not just the fighter. You heal half your hit die (round down) per level per day of rest (d6 = 3, d8 = 4, d10 = 5, d12 = 6). As it stands, a wizard heals to his maximum hit points faster than a barbarian of equal level.
Kudos, Bob. I especially like how you addressed the mounted combat issue.
Was there a change of heart?
Fill all the Wizards spell slots with feather fall and then let him go adventuring. Then take a Fighter and take only useless feats.
Now tell me which one is utter crap and which one isn't.
Well, the Wizard can memorize better spells the next day. The Fighter is stuck with his useless feats until he can convince the DM to let him rebuild himself.
Of course, that's only a small part of the problem. Even without any spells, the Wizard can do just about anything the Fighter can, except combat, as well as or better than the Fighter. That's too bad, because there are far more heroes in fantasy literature who fit the "fighter" concept than pretty much anything else, and the Fighter class doesn't really address that.
If he lives to see another day with his group after failing hard that is. Try out that one in an AP of Paizo with a 4 person team and tell me if you survive it long enough for the wizard to find out which spells are good and which are not.
You won't.You mean the Fighter that is still a very viable party member with his high to hit and high ac?
And Fighters can retrain their bonus feats like sorcerers.
Ashiel maybe you were thinking of a weapon master? They do get +5/+5 from weapon training.
|
|
The point I make for such an argument is to point out that a Fighter can be constructed as a Commoner-with-combat-only-abilities, whereas every other class can be constructed as a Commoner-with-abilities-for-many-occasions.
And as I demonstrated you are wrong, even before we get in the "Fighter only" feats.
My point was, and is, that your premise was a ridiculous strawman that even failed as a strawman.
|
|
so, seeing as it is nearing 1k posts, what is the current state of this debate?
I still see them as highly versatile, able to be constructed with any feat tree without being "locked in" with feat selection. With that, I mean if you wanted to make a charging specialist cavalier, you pretty much lock down your first 3 feats at least (mounted combat, ride by attack, spirited charge) whereas a fighter would have 3 feats to spare in the same time frame.
I think this fighter "hate", as with most "this class sucks", is a small scope of highly visible posters. It is a solid overall class that can be built with many different build foci.
so, seeing as it is nearing 1k posts, what is the current state of this debate?
I still see them as highly versatile, able to be constructed with any feat tree without being "locked in" with feat selection. With that, I mean if you wanted to make a charging specialist cavalier, you pretty much lock down your first 3 feats at least (mounted combat, ride by attack, spirited charge) whereas a fighter would have 3 feats to spare in the same time frame.
I think this fighter "hate", as with most "this class sucks", is a small scope of highly visible posters. It is a solid overall class that can be built with many different build foci.
The only problem of the Melee classes is that they are melee and aerial combat exists.
The flavour problem is that they are mostly rather boring to play because you don#t get such fancy stuff as others do.
The current state of the debate is that Alienfreak joined, meaning we will get more snark per page.
Who or what is snark.
EDIT: Urbandictionary saved my day, again!