Kudos, Bob. I especially like how you addressed the mounted combat issue.
Was there a change of heart?
There was no change of heart. I don't completely dismiss the class simply because it doesn't fit my preconceived notions of what I want. I look at what the class can accomplish. That doesn't mean that I accept it as perfect. It just means that I don't think it's worthless either.
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.
This is part of the problem. You are limiting the class to melee only when there is nothing that even suggests that they should be. In fact you can make an effective fighter that uses both melee and ranged. Self-limiting ideas are not a problem with a particular class. It's a problem with the player.
This is part of the problem. You are limiting the class to melee only when there is nothing that even suggests that they should be. In fact you can make an effective fighter that uses both melee and ranged. Self-limiting ideas are not a problem with a particular class. It's a problem with the player.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.
Melee: WF, WS, PA, Furious Focus, GWF, GWS
Ranged: PBS, RS, WF, WS, Deadly Aim, Manyshot, Precise Shot, Improved Precise Shot, Melee Shooting thingy, GWF, GWS18 feats. Unless we are talking about serious high levels we won't get anywhere near that. Archery just needs too many feats. And then you are still subpar in mele because others will have improved critical and the critical feat tree...
The whole SWITCHHITTERS ARE SO SUPERIOR is a thing I trace back to a certain Treant who has a huge fanbase who believe anything he says ;). We had one in our group again for our last Kingmaker campaign and it was 15pb (like usual) and he was really disappointed about his character because he never really was GOOD he always was AVERAGE. A pure optimized fighter steals his spotlight any time of the day.
This is part of the problem. You are limiting the class to melee only when there is nothing that even suggests that they should be. In fact you can make an effective fighter that uses both melee and ranged. Self-limiting ideas are not a problem with a particular class. It's a problem with the player.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.
Melee: WF, WS, PA, Furious Focus, GWF, GWS
Ranged: PBS, RS, WF, WS, Deadly Aim, Manyshot, Precise Shot, Improved Precise Shot, Melee Shooting thingy, GWF, GWS18 feats. Unless we are talking about serious high levels we won't get anywhere near that. Archery just needs too many feats. And then you are still subpar in mele because others will have improved critical and the critical feat tree...
The whole SWITCHHITTERS ARE SO SUPERIOR is a thing I trace back to a certain Treant who has a huge fanbase who believe anything he says ;). We had one in our group again for our last Kingmaker campaign and it was 15pb (like usual) and he was really disappointed about his character because he never really was GOOD he always was AVERAGE. A pure optimized fighter steals his spotlight...
I never said that you should take every possible feat for each. You can be effective in both. This is why too many people have a problem with the fighter: they don't know how to build one. Like any other character, you should start with a concept and take the appropriate feats to meet that concept. If you need more feats than you can take, then you need to revise your concept.
The simple build I posted last page can get the job done in combat, both melee and ranged, and can do plenty out of combat. It's not fancy but it is effective.
What you demonstrated is a total failure of understanding. Allow me: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.
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.Instant failure. My point is only within the context of zero combat; things like info gathering, subterfuge, exploration, problem solving. All of this:
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.
... has zero value in a CR-relevant non-combat situation. Your "demonstration" adds up to nothing but wasted space.
Do you know what that means? It doesn't count outside of combat. If you take all those abilities away for an investigation ... no change, no detriment to the Fighter.
If you take all those abilities away for a gambling scene ... no change, no detriment to the Fighter.
If you take all those abilities away for exploration ... no change, no detriment to the Fighter.
If you take all those abilities away for a stealthy infiltration ... no change, no detriment to the Fighter.
If you take all those abilities away for preparing defenses for an upcoming siege ... no change, no detriment to the Fighter.
If you take all those abilities away for empowering the party during downtime ... no change, no detriment to the Fighter.
Why? Because zero Fighter class abilities have any value in any of those situations. The only things which have any chance of counting are: Race, ability scores, standard progression feats, and the 2+INT skill ranks ... all of which are also applicable to a Commoner.
Now, going back to your ridiculous wizard statement...
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.
See how silly that statement is for this context? Wizard spells (and other class abilities) are rather useful for...
- investigation (divination spells, enchantment spells)- gambling (divination spells like detect thoughts, mage hand to move dice)
- exploration (movement modes, divination again, familiar)
- infiltration (reduce person, invisibility, cats grace, familiar)
- preparing defenses for an upcoming siege (wall of stone/iron/ice, explosive runes, crafting feats)
- empowering the party during downtime (scribe scroll, other crafting feats)
So they apply.
There was no change of heart. I don't completely dismiss the class simply because it doesn't fit my preconceived notions of what I want. I look at what the class can accomplish. That doesn't mean that I accept it as perfect. It just means that I don't think it's worthless either.Kudos, Bob. I especially like how you addressed the mounted combat issue.
Was there a change of heart?
Neither do I. Don't mistake my criticism for dismissal (as people are prone to do in a media such as a messageboard). I like playing Fighters, and I like the class. I merely wish it were designed for more than just fighting... like every other class is.
Neither do I. Don't mistake my criticism for dismissal (as people are prone to do in a media such as a messageboard). I like playing Fighters, and I like the class. I merely wish it were designed for more than just fighting... like every other class is.There was no change of heart. I don't completely dismiss the class simply because it doesn't fit my preconceived notions of what I want. I look at what the class can accomplish. That doesn't mean that I accept it as perfect. It just means that I don't think it's worthless either.Kudos, Bob. I especially like how you addressed the mounted combat issue.
Was there a change of heart?
Same here. For what it does, it does very well. Sadly what it does is in a very narrow scope within the game.
Thats the main problem TarkXT.
The fighter is well made but he is not flashy and cool like most other classes plus he cannot quickly change into anything that is even remotely useful for out of combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so, seeing as it is nearing 1k posts, what is the current state of this debate?
The state of the debate is "tons of side arguments about specific examples and situations." Mostly based on a comparison to the commoner several pages ago, exact combat utility, and accusations of logical fallacies. However, the basic question at stake is:
"Is the fact that the fighter class doesn't offer class-based out of combat options a problem? Is the fighter's combat ability great enough to cancel out any such problem, if it exists?"
The "anti" camp says yes and no. They just don't think they get enough out of combat ability to shine. They dislike playing the class because they feel they will be mostly irrelevant in non-combat situations, and fighters aren't so much stronger than other martial characters in combat to make up for it. However, it needs to be pointed out that pretty much all of them have emphatically rejected the idea that they "hate" the fighter or that it "sucks." They wish the class were given an out of combat bump, but they aren't going to yell "LOL newb" and throw a Mountain Dew at you for playing it.
The "pro" camp says no and yes. The fighter still gets their skill points, and a reasonable fighter can be built that gets plenty of them. They argue that the giant pile of fighter bonus feats allows them more leeway to use their general, level based feats to add out of combat utility, if that is something the player wants. Finally, the Fighter's always-on combat bonuses do put them at a high level in relation to combat, making the slightly lower polish on their out-of-combat abilities no particular issue.
Honestly, the bit that is getting everyone is "is it a problem?" Even Bob, who I don't think will mind if I call him one of the strongest advocates of the fighter, has offered a few additions that he feels would improve the class. The only difference is he doesn't think that they "need" it to fix a "problem," while the other side does (to some extent, possibly involving words other than "need" and "problem").
I agree. Very good summary, there, Mort.
Your name may not be as clever as you think, but your analysis of this debate looks bang on.
|
... has zero value in a CR-relevant non-combat situation. Your "demonstration" adds up to nothing but wasted space.
Mastery of the bold command isn't the same as mastery of logic.
There are 9 skills effected by check penalties. A fighter will have an advantage over a commoner in all of those skills.
What skills? Acrobatics, Disable Device, Escape Artist, Fly, Ride, Sleight of Hand, Stealth, Climb and Swim checks.
You may note some of those skills correspond to the examples you gave.
Haunts are fear based. Fighters will have an advantage over a commoner in all of those skills.
Fighters have 11 more feats than a commoner. As shocking as this may be to you, feats can sometimes be used outside of combat.
Weird huh.
Your entire "commoner" premise is a strawman. I don't think that isn't even up for real debate.
I'm just pointing out that even your strawman fails.
If history is any guide, I await either your Schrödinger's Wizard reply or a moving of the goal posts to another strawman.
|
|
"Is the fact that the fighter class doesn't offer class-based out of combat options a problem? Is the fighter's combat ability great enough to cancel out any such problem, if it exists?"
The fighter offers 11 extra feats. How you use these feats is up to you, but you will have a total of either 21 or 22 feats available to you fully built out. A fighter can take feats other classes can't or won't because they have so many. Things like skill focus makes a lot more sense for a fighter than it would for most other classes, for example.
Additionally, as I've pointed out a number of times, armor training is functionally a skill boon vs other martial classes when you consider you get a +4 available vs armor check penalties and a +4 available to Max Dex.
This is a potential +8 swing for dex based skills for a level 20 fighter vs other martial classes.
The fighter isn't the skill based martial class, the Ranger is. The fighter will outshine a ranger vs anything other than a rangers favored enemy, and in some cases even outshine them in those situations when you consider the armor, weapon, and fighter only feats.
This has become a discussion of a whole series of solutions in search of a problem, lead by strawmen.
Remember, this discussion is about non-combat utility.
The Fighter's 11 bonus feats are combat feats. They bring little or no uses to the table outside of combat; discard for this discussion.
Being less hampered while armored doesn't mean better at the skills in general. The Commoner has no armor proficiency, and will thus be unarmored, and thus have an ACP of zero; the best that any Fighter can hope for. How is the Fighter better? He can wear armor? We're talking about non-combat situations here. For non-combat, armor may as well be a negative status effect.
The fear save bonus I'll give you... sort of. It doesn't scale properly with level, falling behind a good Will save, and isn't quite CR relevant. Further, a minor resistance to one status effect which you almost never see outside of combat - is it just me or does that look ... insignificant?
The irony? You're saying "strawman" this and "strawman" that, and here you are, misrepresenting my claims, presenting irrelevant information, and claiming victory. Can you guess what that is?
The fighter offers 11 extra feats... A fighter can take feats other classes can't or won't because they have so many. Things like skill focus makes a lot more sense for a fighter than it would for most other classes, for example.
They argue that the giant pile of fighter bonus feats allows them more leeway to use their general, level based feats to add out of combat utility, if that is something the player wants.
Additionally, as I've pointed out a number of times, armor training is functionally a skill boon vs other martial classes when you consider you get a +4 available vs armor check penalties and a +4 available to Max Dex.
This is a potential +8 swing for dex based skills for a level 20 fighter vs other martial classes.
Terribly sorry, I hadn't seen your argument about ACP reduction before. I would have included it otherwise. Regardless, I do not think the Maximum Dexterity thing works like that. It is solely in relation to dex-to-AC, not dex-to-skills. Making the greatest bonus to skills possible in your example +4.
The fighter isn't the skill based martial class, the Ranger is. The fighter will outshine a ranger vs anything other than a rangers favored enemy, and in some cases even outshine them in those situations when you consider the armor, weapon, and fighter only feats.
Finally, the Fighter's always-on combat bonuses do put them at a high level in relation to combat, making the slightly lower polish on their out-of-combat abilities no particular issue.
This has become a discussion of a whole series of solutions in search of a problem, lead by strawmen.
It has also become a highly charged one, where people do not read each others responses carefully.
I thought the original point of this thread was to discover the reason people dislike fighters when did it turn into a discussion about non combat utility?
|
|
Remember, this discussion is about non-combat utility.
The Fighter's 11 bonus feats are combat feats. They bring little or no uses to the table outside of combat; discard for this discussion.
Being less hampered while armored doesn't mean better at the skills in general. The Commoner has no armor proficiency, and will thus be unarmored, and thus have an ACP of zero; the best that any Fighter can hope for. How is the Fighter better? He can wear armor? We're talking about non-combat situations here. For non-combat, armor may as well be a negative status effect.
The fear save bonus I'll give you... sort of. It doesn't scale properly with level, falling behind a good Will save, and isn't quite CR relevant. Further, a minor resistance to one status effect which you almost never see outside of combat - is it just me or does that look ... insignificant?
The irony? You're saying "strawman" this and "strawman" that, and here you are, misrepresenting my claims, presenting irrelevant information, and claiming victory. Can you guess what that is?
11 extra combat feats means you don't have to spend the non-combat feats on combat feats.
I honestly hope you didn't type "the commoner is unarmored" with a straight face, because that level of cognitive dissonance can't be healthy.
Your link to the strawman argument was great. But I'm not sure that you read it. If you had, you may have noticed that creating a scenario that compares a fighter to a commoner with relatively arbitrary criteria for comparison that excludes the majority of the classes features...why I would almost use that as an example if I were writing a book.
You created a strawman. I beat your strawman. And most importantly, your strawman has nothing to do with the issue at hand, specifically the value of the fighter in the game.
|
|
Terribly sorry, I hadn't seen your argument about ACP reduction before. I would have included it otherwise. Regardless, I do not think the Maximum Dexterity thing works like that. It is solely in relation to dex-to-AC, not dex-to-skills. Making the greatest bonus to skills possible in your example +4.
You are correct, my mistake. The general point remains, however.
|
Look, the goalposts are going to continue to be moved no matter what. You find an answer for A they move on to B, you find an answer for that they move on to C and so on. Honestly, if the Fighter were given anymore skill points up front then there would really be no point in the Ranger except to play something different to be honest. Who would care about Favored Enemy because to a fighter everyone is the favored enemy if he is using his main weapon of choice.
I thought the original point of this thread was to discover the reason people dislike fighters when did it turn into a discussion about non combat utility?
Because that was the reason people gave for disliking the fighter. Others disagreed with their assessment of the situation, and things went from there.
But now we are apparently supposed to be dealing with the strawman argument that was created.
"I dislike X because of Y" is not a straw man argument. The fact that you don't agree with assessment Y does not make it one. The fact that people are debating the reasoning behind assessment Y, sometime by giving examples or comparisons, and then evaluating those examples or comparisons does not in any way relate to men made of straw. Please, pick a new fallacy.
|
|
I thought the original point of this thread was to discover the reason people dislike fighters when did it turn into a discussion about non combat utility?Because that was the reason people gave for disliking the fighter. Others disagreed with their assessment of the situation, and we went from there.
But now we are apparently supposed to be dealing with the strawman argument that was created."I dislike X because of Y" is not a straw man argument. The fact that you don't agree with assessment Y does not make it one. The fact that people are debating the reasoning behind assessment Y, sometime by giving examples or comparisons, and then evaluating those examples or comparisons does not in any way relate to men made of straw. Please, pick a new fallacy.
In all fairness: if someone is going to use comparisons then they need to use some that have actual relevance. Comparing a Fighter and a Commoner in the way intended is not relevant. Saying both classes has BAB is fine but that wasn't what has been compared.
|
|
I thought the original point of this thread was to discover the reason people dislike fighters when did it turn into a discussion about non combat utility?Because that was the reason people gave for disliking the fighter. Others disagreed with their assessment of the situation, and we went from there.
But now we are apparently supposed to be dealing with the strawman argument that was created."I dislike X because of Y" is not a straw man argument. The fact that you don't agree with assessment Y does not make it one. The fact that people are debating the reasoning behind assessment Y, sometime by giving examples or comparisons, and then evaluating those examples or comparisons does not in any way relate to men made of straw. Please, pick a new fallacy.
When you say that you are going to compare a class to commoner, but set criteria that ignore the primary feature of the class (extra feats) you aren't trying to have a serious conversation about the topic, you are creating a strawman so you can "win".
Not you specifically, as you specifically seem to be acting in an intellectually honest way.
But the scenario presented for discussion is the very definition of a strawman argument.
They are pretty much only good in combat, I want to see an out of combat niche for the fighter.How about this...
Count how many even levels the campaign will include. The Fighter will eventually get that many bonus Combat Feats, right?
Now, consider all those General Feats that grant +2 in two related skills, which at least in my group are never used. (Acrobatic, Alertness, Animal Affinity, Athletic, Deceitful, etc.) Give the Fighter a bunch of those at first level to represent all the things he did as a young adult before his career focusing on martial training. As many as his eventual number of Combat Feats.
Whenever the Fighter gains a bonus Combat Feat it replaces one of those General Feats. Perhaps his hours of study and practice have enabled him to learn Greater Grapple but in past years those hours were spent with his pets and family horse, or practicing witty banter with his smooth-talking friends.
The Fighter would start the campaign as a skill monkey but loose that role as the adventures went on.
That's interesting. Though I have to say, I'm worried about your group. Deft Hands and Persuasive are, well, REALLY GOOD feats. Of course, I build Rogues, not Fighters. But if I'm running a human, odds are I took both those feats at first level and waited 'til 3rd to get Two-weapon Fighting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The commoner thing seems to be a powderkeg. I think the reasoning behind it has become lost under the weight of 1000 posts.
In all fairness: if someone is going to use comparisons then they need to use some that have actual relevance. Comparing a Fighter and a Commoner in the way intended is not relevant. Saying both classes has BAB is fine but that wasn't what has been compared.
They are being compared in that they both have 2+INT skill points a level, and get a general feat every other level. It was used as a comparison to suss out differences between "class abilities," and "abilities everyone gets." The counterargument is that "Fighter's bonus combat feats open space for general feats," to which the counter is "Fighter's class features (including combat feats) are not so strong as obviate the need for those feats for combat abilities."
You can disagree with the reasoning, and the final assessment on the Fighter's combat utility without his general feats, but I hope this explains how the other parties train of thought went.
When you say that you are going to compare a class to commoner, but set criteria that ignore the primary feature of the class (extra feats) you aren't trying to have a serious conversation about the topic, you are creating a strawman so you can "win".
A straw man argument would be to present the commoner as equal to the fighter, then explain how the commoner itself sucks. That is not what was happening with the comparison. Since the topic was already out of combat utility (as that was the answer to the initial question "Why do people dislike fighters?"), it was presented as a class with identical out of combat utility (given that, if both parties built solely towards out of combat utility, they would come out with identical results (in relation to OoC utility)).
The tactician archetype skews this comparison, as does your argument for the utility of Armor Training and Bravery, but that is getting away from the original point of the comparison. The entirety of the commoner comparison was to illustrate the difference between a "Class Ability," and a "Hit Dice Ability," or, as they put it, a "Commoner Ability." Nothing more, nothing less. It was not intended to be a straw man, even if that was how it came to appear. The sooner it can be put in the past, the sooner I can go back to enjoying watching the discussion of the intricacies of comparative Ranger/Fighter combat prowess.
Mort once again demonstrates his high level of understanding, and once again proving that he is indeed clever.
== Summary ==
OP: Why hate on fighter?
Me: Not hate, pity. Pity b/c the fighter generally only has combat ability, and lacks utility. More fighters sit out of non-combat situations than do other classes.
GroupF: Here's a fighter which has utility. I proved you wrong! (strawman - implies I said "all fighters lack utility", which I never said; counterexamples only work to disprove "For-all" arguments)
Me: Out of combat, a fighter is the equivalent of a commoner: 2+INT skill ranks, 1 feat/odd level, race, traits, ability scores
=============
So now here we are revisiting an argument which has been touched many a time. I beat this down too, but apparently not well enough.
11 extra combat feats means you don't have to spend the non-combat feats on combat feats.
So can a commoner. So can anyone. If we're talking about non-combat utility, nobody needs to spend their 10 feats on combat feats.
Let's look at combat, then, and then see if the Fighter can spare those feats as you say.
Does 11 combat feats, bravery, heavy armor proficiency, and weapon & armor training overtake the combat value of fast movement, 40 skill ranks (dedicated to combat-useful skills), improved uncanny dodge, trap sense, DR5/-, 10 rage powers and mighty tireless rage for 38+CON rounds per day? Cuz that's what the difference is. After comparing these, both have ability scores, race, 2+INT skill ranks and 10 regular feats.
Does Bravery, 11 combat feats, Weapon/Armor Training and heavy armor proficiency overtake the value of fast movement, 2 skill ranks, improved uncanny dodge, trap sense, DR, 10 rage powers and mighty tireless rage for 38+CON rounds per day AND 10 feats chosen as combat feats by the barbarian? Or does the fighter now have to spend his 10 regular feats to keep up with the barbarian's 10? How many feats can the fighter sacrifice before his combat prowess looks bad next to the barbarian, ranger and paladin, who spend their feats on combat feats?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The above comparison is crap.
A Barbarian without any feats put on combat is worth nothing.
Compare a Fighter that has Weapon Training 6, WF, GWF, WS, GWS, PA, Furious Focus and Improved Critical against a Barbarian that has his Rage.
Without mentioning that for the 40 skill points you highly advertise we would need at least 8 int while our fighter can safely dump it to 7, saving him two points and giving him a higher stat elsewhere.
Fighter has (lets say) 28 Str and a straight +5 weapon with speed boots for 60ft movement in his heavy armour. That means he ends up with +43/+43/+38/+33/+28 to hit and 2d6+28 dmg (17-20 x3 automatic confirm).
With PA & FF that is +43/+37/+32/+27/+22 to hit and 2d6+46 dmg (17-20 x3 automatic confirm)
Now our Barbarian has 28 Str and a furious weapon so it ends up at +6 and speed boots for 50ft movement in his medium armour. So in Rage he has 36 Str.
Ends up with +40/+40/+35/+30/+25 and 2d6+25 dmg (19-20 x2).
.
.
.
Lets look outside of the combat. What you guys falsely advertise as the problem of the fighter:
Both are equal
Lets look inside the combat:
Fighter is better
So we just have proven that the fighter is as good as the barbarian in non combat situations while having a higher AC, faster movement, better to hit and more damage in combat.
The Barbarian has the problem not the Fighter. The Fighter is just fine here. And we only used 7 out of his 11 combat feats!
And every time the Barbarian takes a combat feat you can easily counter that with your last 4 feats and he gets worse in your beloved OUT OF COMBAT COMMONER STATISTICS (seriously who came up with that crap) while you come out ahead or if you decide to be equal you have another feat to spend on fancy feats.
The statement that nobody is forced to take combat feats and thus the fighter isn't better is an aweful bad strawman argument. Play someone in an official Pazio AP and you WILL TAKE COMBAT RELEVANT FEATS. The fighter can easily spend 5 feats on non combat relevant stuff and still have everything he needs. Your Barbarian or Paladin? I wanna see him being good with spending half of his feats on out of combat things.
Did I already say aweful bad strawman argument? Because it is... seriously... stop that kindergarden arguments niveau just to look as you were right.
.
.
.
.
The fighter doesn't lack anything out of combat what you wrongly state. What the fighter lacks is shiney specials that he can pull off:
Summoning Barriers
Flying around without items
Teleporting around
Save or Sucks
etc pp.
Its just disappointing standing in front of your enemy for the 5th round dishing out another 100 damage while everyone else can do fancy stuff that actually changes things unlike increasing a single "damage taken" bar.
GroupF: Here's a fighter which has utility. I proved you wrong! (strawman - implies I said "all fighters lack utility", which I never said; counterexamples only work to disprove "For-all" arguments)
The original sentiment was that the fighter had no out of combat utility. "The fighter" is a blanket term that any reasonable person would take to mean the class as a whole, not one version of it. It wasn't a strawman. It was an improperly stated position. I'm not going to go back to who said it exactly because it's so far back. But that was the position. Since then the position has been revised to be "the core book fighter" which is a completely different position.
Does 11 combat feats, bravery, heavy armor proficiency, and weapon & armor training overtake the combat value of fast movement, 40 skill ranks (dedicated to combat-useful skills), improved uncanny dodge, trap sense, DR5/-, 10 rage powers and mighty tireless rage for 38+CON rounds per day? Cuz that's what the difference is. After comparing these, both have ability scores, race, 2+INT skill ranks and 10 regular feats.
Does Bravery, 11 combat feats, Weapon/Armor Training and heavy armor proficiency overtake the value of fast movement, 2 skill ranks, improved uncanny dodge, trap sense, DR, 10 rage powers and mighty tireless rage for 38+CON rounds per day AND 10 feats chosen as combat feats by the barbarian? Or does the fighter now have to spend his 10 regular feats to keep up with the barbarian's 10? How many feats can the fighter sacrifice before his combat prowess looks bad next to the barbarian, ranger and paladin, who spend their feats on combat feats?
Weapon training should not be undervalued. Improving more than just your ability to hit, it also affects your CMB and CMD, granting you more options. It also applies to group of weapons, which adds to versatility. The fighter doesn't need to expend resources, like rounds of rage, to be able to improve his attack bonus.
Armor training and the ability to wear heavy armor without much restriction also shouldn't be undervalued. Not being restricted in movement and not having your Dexterity capped as bad as other classes puts you into a better defensive position, which the barbarian does not have as an option. Not having the armor affect your skills as much is also a huge boon, especially to a class that doesn't have much in the way of skill points to offset some of those penalties. Heavy armor gives the fighter more defensive capabilities.
Improved Uncanny Dodge is really great for eliminating the flanking bonus, but heavier armor has this same effect. Depending on how often sneak attacks are used in the campaign determines the value of not being able to be sneak attacked.
Trap Sense is not something I would put on par with any of the fighter's abilities. I haven't really seen it as much of a boon with the barbarian. The ability seems out of place for the class to begin with, at least it looks that way to me.
Damage reduction is something the fighter gets as well, but not until very late in the game. However, not getting hit is better than needing damage reduction.
"Rage powers" is rather vague. Some are clearly better than others. Many of them are only useful once per rage. Many don't really provide much to the character. This is harder to compare. Raging Swimmer doesn't compare to Weapon Specialization but Scent rocks.
Once we get to the 17th level and higher abilities, we are looking at a fighter that has a lot of bonuses to a variety of weapons for attack, CMB, and CMD. We are getting to the damage reduction. We are also looking at Weapon Mastery. In addition to certain feats that only fighter can take, like penetrating strike and greater penetrating strike, and critical mastery, disruptive and spellbreaker, greater shield focus, greater weapon focus, weapons specialization, and greater weapon specialization, we are looking at a class with abilities that other core classes can't gain.
The fighter's combat prowess isn't dependent upon his getting his blood pressure up. It is "always on" and can't be taken away with a simple spell that a 3rd level cleric can use. Sure it's a Will save against a raging barbarian, but it can still work. The fighter doesn't have any such weakness (other than spells that would affect everyone like hold person).
Overall, I say the two remain equal in combat prowess. The biggest difference is those 2 skill points per level, which can be dealt with in other ways.
My main problem with the existance of 2+int SPpL is that it promotes dumping Int to 7 every time.
|
|
11 extra combat feats means you don't have to spend the non-combat feats on combat feats.So can a commoner. So can anyone.
Except a commoner does not have 11 extra feats.
This is why your argument is a strawman.
Do you honestly not understand this, or are you being purposefully obtuse?
You created a comparison between two things while setting up criteria for one that removes the primary feature of the class.
As to your barbarian analogy, which is at least somewhat reasonable, armor training equals reduce armor check penalties in 9 skills, so that more or less evens out with the two extra skills per level.
The barbarian can spend 10 feats on combat feats, and the fighter can spend 10 feats on combat feats and at the end the fighter will have another combat feat to burn before they use any of their 10 non-combat feats left to choose from.
You can't exclude this fact from the debate, no matter how inconvenient it is for your argument.
And even without the feats they will get a bonus to attack and damage from weapon mastery all the time, not just when raging. The fighter has exclusive access to feats that can do additional damage, that can prevent teleportation all the time (not just when raging) can increase spell DC not just for people next to them, but from range, ignore damage reduction, attack on a 5 foot step, hit on a failed spell...etc...etc...
To crush the barbarian skill BS, let's go level by level.
1st Lever +2 Barbarian
2nd Level +4 Barbarian
3rd Level Fighter gets Armor training 1, meaning a +1 to 9 skills. Barbarian has +6 skills.
4th level Fighter still +9, Barbarian + 8
5th Level Barbarian +10, Fighter +9
6th Level Barbarian +12, Fighter +9
7th Level Barbarian +14, Fighter gets another level of Armor training so +18.
Etc...
By 20th the fighter has -4 to armor check for a total of 36 skill points to the barbarians 40.
4 points over 20 levels, and comparable throughout.
Hell you overlooked armor mastery, meaning both 20th levels have 5/—.
You are grasping at...well...straws.
Follow Mort, he seems reasonable.
|
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!
I feel like I missed a great opportunity to share with you all the True Meaning of Snark.
|
|
What I like most about fighters is that you can use all your combat feats to focus on combat, then use your normal level based feats to take the non-combat feats without fear of losing out. There are a lot of fun, roleplaying social and skill based feats that get passed up by nearly all classes because they are totally useless in combat. The fighter does have room to specialize in something inside and outside of combat. Yeah, these are not cool magical abilities, but they give you a good opportunity for mechanical character development. They only lack utility when they are created without any. They can have plenty of skill points to spread around and plenty of feats to use for things OTHER than combat.
The game is not a contest to see who is better at something. Players, in general, are not tracking every hit and keeping a running DPS average. I have found it a fun class to play and so have the players I have that are using them.
Compare a Fighter that has Weapon Training 6, WF, GWF, WS, GWS, PA, Furious Focus and Improved Critical against a Barbarian that has his Rage.
Without mentioning that for the 40 skill points you highly advertise we would need at least 8 int while our fighter can safely dump it to 7, saving him two points and giving him a higher stat elsewhere.
You're already comparing apples to oranges here by minmaxing with dump stats to INT favoring the Fighter. Further, you're creating a counterexample which proves nothing of value to anything in this discussion at all. Bad formatting too.
Later, you start adding equipment for some reason, and the equipment isn't equal, so you're muddling the comparison with added complexity... is it to obscure something, or perhaps load the comparison unevenly for your favor? If you're being dishonest here, your response to my accusation would likely be equally as dishonest. If you're being honest and just making a mess (which is more likely the case), then you may be insulted by my question. A question which is nonetheless warranted.
Either way, your post can be discarded quite early, simply because the unnecessary mess it introduces makes any reasonable and unbiased analysis border on the impossible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To crush the barbarian skill BS, let's go level by level.1st Lever +2 Barbarian
2nd Level +4 Barbarian
3rd Level Fighter gets Armor training 1, meaning a +1 to 9 skills. Barbarian has +6 skills.
4th level Fighter still +9, Barbarian + 8
5th Level Barbarian +10, Fighter +9
6th Level Barbarian +12, Fighter +9
7th Level Barbarian +14, Fighter gets another level of Armor training so +18.Etc...
By 20th the fighter has -4 to armor check for a total of 36 skill points to the barbarians 40.
4 points over 20 levels, and comparable throughout.
Hell you overlooked armor...
Speaking of failures. This fails to take into account that a Barbarian is usually wearing lighter armor than a comparable fighter. Why? Mainly because he can also move full speed in it. Also because as has been pointed out fighters rely more on armor since barbarians take such massive penalty to AC.
Now in a pure side by side comparison that's absolutely correct a fighter will have a higher bonus in those skills that call for an armor check penalty if they're both wearing the same armor.
Basically you're comparing a tax deduction to a tax credit and calling it money in the bank.
Here let's make a more accurate assumption.
Let's assume that they're both wearing the same armor at least for the first few levels.
Let's assume they both put a point in a skill that is a class skill and has an armor check penalty.
Let's assume that they both have about an 18 in the relevant ability score. Let' say strength for clarity's sake.
So at level 1 things kind of look like this
Barbarian (MW Breastplate)
+1 Rank +3 Class + 4 Ability -3 armor check penalty = +5
Moves at 30ft.
Fighter (MW Breastplate)
+1 Rank +3 Class + 4 Ability -3 armor check penalty = +5
Moves at 20ft.
The barbarian's faster and generally has the same AC right up until he starts ragign which is where the fighter has his advantage. Now this is pretty much the same right up until we hit level 3 where Armor Training kicks in.
Barbarian
+3 Rank +3 Class + 4 Ability -3 armor check penalty = +7
Moves at 30ft.
Fighter
+3 Rank +3 Class + 4 Ability -2 armor check penalty = +8
Moves at 30ft.
So after level 3 the fighter is already slightly better off. His deduction has earned him another point in a score that he's already paid for. The barbarian however is still waiting on the mithral fairy to come save him.
So what about 7th? Well at this point both might be wanting mithral armor. After all the lower ACP and higher dex bonus and not to mention higher speed benefits both parties. Personal preferences and builds can change this.
Barbarian Mithral Breastplat
+7 Rank +3 Class + 4 Ability -1 armor check penalty = +13
Moves at 40ft.
Fighter Mithral Breastplate
+7 Rank +3 Class + 4 Ability +0 armor check penalty = +14
Moves at 30ft.
So again the barbarian regains his speed advantage. As long as the fighter grabs armor with a lower ACP than his armor training tax deduction he'll always have a higher base in that skill.
But wait. Shouldn't the fighter be grabbing heavy armor? Aftera ll he can move in it at full speed. Plus he's got 13 more levels for his armor training to only get better. So let's stick him in Mithril Full plate instead.
Fighter (Mithril Full Plate)
+7 Rank +3 Class + 4 Ability -1 armor check penalty = +13
Moves at 30ft.
Well shucks. Now he's merely on par with the barbarian and he's still faster. Or is he? Well he ended up trading his minor advantage in that one area for what adds up to about a +3 armor class. If mr. barbarian is raging that's closer to +5 advantage. So for a -1 on a skill we can likely just take ten on anyway we earned ourselves 3 armor class. Not too shabby. More then that if he should ever get a faster base speed for any reason he can take full advantage of it no matter what armor it is.
But certainly the barbarian can get mithril full plate if he wants too right? Well, he can actually. But does he really want to? Let's say that in some far off realm the barbarian decided to get mithrial full plate.
Barbarian (Mithril Full Plate)
+7 Rank +3 Class + 4 Ability -3 armor check penalty = +11
Moves at 30ft.
Well he gets more armor but loses speed. So at this point it's personal preference.
At this point things somewhat level off. Eventually while wearing heavy armor the fighter will be about 1 point ahead of the barbarian on those skills that call for ACP. He'll be two points in equivalent armors. Eventually the fighter's ACP will simply disappear to 0. These numbers of course get heavily skewed with the inclusion of traits or other abilities which can eliminate armor check penalties entirely.
The thing to take away from this is that Armor Training is not a bonus. It's a deduction. You only really benefit if you pay into it. That means wearing heavier armors, taking advantage of penalties where the barbarian is attempting to avoid them. The bigger tax you pay, the higher your return.
However skills aren't just about ranks and abilities. If they were the Rogue would dominate and I would never have played a Cryptbreaker Alchemist over it.
So far our assumption has been really unfair to the barbarian. We've assumed that he hasn't been raging, hasn't been using rage powers, and hasn't been doing other things that he can do. So let's look at the short list of thins that he can do to boost his skills.
Rage: Quite simply his primary combat ability is also a skill booster. Strength based skills. From the start he gets a +2 bonus on strength based checks while raging. This jumps to +3 and eventually +4 at 20th.
For those of you watching at home that means at level 1 while raging not only is he likely hitting harder and more accurately, but he's probably climbing and swimming better due to the power of his "gets real mad" power.
Rage Powers: Ho boy. So you know how some people are saying that most of those skills are pretty easy to make and therefore the fighter doesn't have to put a full investment into them? How about if a Barbarian doesn't have to make them? Or even put skill ranks into them?
Bestial Climber: Grants Climb Speed while raging. No need to roll. Requires Raging Climber.
Bestial Swimmer:: Grants swim speed while raging. No need to roll. Requires Raging Leaper.
Chaos Totem: Grants +4 bonus to escape artist checks. Requires Lesser Chaos Totem.
Raging, Leaper, Climber, Swimmer: Gain a bonus equal to level on jumping, climbing or swimming while raging.
The default answer to a fighter having a slightly better number of hit points than the barbarian is to get mad at it. Get really mad. And then utterly annihilate that advantage.
But isn't this unfair to the fighter? Well yes, yes it is. We're not including his feats.
So let's take a brief look at feats he can take.
Skill Focus: A +3 bonus, +6 if ranks are invested.
Feats like Alertness, Stealth etc.: +2/+2 on two skills. Stacks with skill focus.
Additional Traits: Actually a really good feat. Can give you more calss skills and a minor bonus to those skills. About a +1/+1.
This is far from a complete list I know, but most of the feats have about the same gist, you get bonuses to a roll if I missed somethign feel free to point it out. The thing with these feats is that the barbarian can take them too. But, the fighter can't take rage powers. So are they really any advantage? Well, in a sense they are since a fighter can really dig into those high end feat chains like archery and TWF. Some take this as a way to make them versatile combatants. Others take it as a license to invest in things like skill focus and cosmopolitan. But, rage powers, and for that matter spells, tend to completely overpower feats thanks to their narrow class based nature. The fighter can invest one of his feats to get a 3 to 6 bonus on climb. The barbarian can invest a feat or a rage power to get a +20 while raging. The figher can invest a second feat to get a +2 bonus on climb that stacks. The barbarian can invest a feat or a rage power to make the point moot. The fighter can spend a feat on Step Up. But the barbarian probably already had that, and No Escape as well.
Of course we can't forget armor mastery can we? I mean you've only been waiting nineteen levels to get DR right? Oh wait nvm, the Barbarian invested in a money market plan that had him building up to DR 5/- since 7th level so he's had that for a really long time. And you know what? He has it naked. So he's awesome even while shirtless. In fact a certain guide demands that you be shirtless for the sake of awesome.
But the barbarian will get fatigued right? Sure he can. He'll jump out of the pit, rend whatever's at the top into pieces and take a small rest while the fighter gets his grappling hook ready. Don't worry. We'll wait. Of course he can just dip very slightly into oracle and not even worry about it.
So ultimately the whole Armor Training argument comes down to this. The judges compare the two raw sheets and nod to one another claiming that the fighter has the clear advantage. He has higher armor, he suffers from 0 to 1 armor check penalty to the barbarians 1 or 2 and even invested one or two feats into skill focus to drag his bonuses even higher. The Barbarian might have won based on having 2 more skill points per level but he dumped his int completely. Fighter's given the award for more skilled.
As he gets up on stage he starts to thank his mom and his pop for keeping him out of those dirty barbarian and ranger gangs and telling him to train like a proper fighter. As he gets to the middle of this speech the pissed off drunken barbarian Bestial Leaps on top of the stage and let's out a massive Roaring Drunk intimidate check as he screams through the mike.
"YO FIGHTY AM RESPECT YOU AND AM LET YOU FINISH BUT AM JUST GOTTA SAY THAT SPELLSUNDER IS GREATEST RAGE POWER OF ALL TIME! OF ALL TIME!"
Then he Strength Surges and spikes the mike into the stage destroying it utterly while the Alchemist has spiked the punch, the Inquisitor is fighting werewolves in the back, the Paladin is too busy doing a televised drug PSA with the Cavalier, the Bard is filming a porn starring Fighter's mom and the Sorcerer, the Rogue's made off with the paladins wallet, the Cleric's sacrificing a goat, the Ranger's already walked home with a dozen awards, the gunslinger wasn't even let in the building, the monk couldn't even catch a bus to the ceremony and the wizard, magus, druid, and oracle are all like "Peace!" and teleport out.
That's what being a fighter is like. You're Bluto in a cartoon starring Popeye.
Can you build an effective Fighter just from this Class combat feats alone?
Far to often I see the Character feats used to augment the Class feats to make fighter builds. To me that is effectively the same as saying you want to customize your character for pure combat. Those Character feats could be used in non-combat trees.
So again. Is it absolutely required that the Character feats are used to make the Fighter effective in combat compared to other classes?
Similar to that, can you use the current selections of feats to build a non-combat role for the fighter using just Character feats?
One really nice thing about the fighter compared to several other martial classes is that his abilities are all extraordinary. That may not seem like much but it can be significant. They can't be turned off by a handful of spells. Even the barbarian (once we leave the core book) has several supernatural options with his rage powers. These can be suppressed and should not be overlooked in comparisons.
Can you build an effective Fighter just from this Class combat feats alone?
Yes, and you can still have versatility in and out of combat. The more options that are allowed (archetypes, feats, etc) the easier this becomes.
Far to often I see the Character feats used to augment the Class feats to make fighter builds. To me that is effectively the same as saying you want to customize your character for pure combat. Those Character feats could be used in non-combat trees.
I posted a fighter that used only his bonus feats to augment his fighting while his character feats for other purposes. He was effective and efficient but would be very boring to play by most people's standards. He really does only fire his bow or hit things with his sword. Combat maneuvers will provoke attacks. I was trying to be as general as possible with the build.
So again. Is it absolutely required that the Character feats are used to make the Fighter effective in combat compared to other classes?
Not required but the more general you are, the less fun the character build will be. If you want to be more focused, you can build an effective fighter with just his bonus feats.
Similar to that, can you use the current selections of feats to build a non-combat role for the fighter using just Character feats?
Sure can. With feats like Cosmopolitan and traits, you can open up skills to be class skills. With some archetypes you can get more skill points. If you want to be good at tripping, you will be adding skill points to your character as a side effect (minimum Intelligence score).
Except a commoner does not have 11 extra feats. You created a comparison between two things while setting up criteria for one that removes the primary feature of the class.
If both the Fighter and Commoner were building strictly for non-combat utility, had the same ability scores, same traits, and same race, they are approximately equal for skill ranks and general feats. Go ahead, give the fighter 11 combat feats and weapon/armor training. How do they help with exploration? Subterfuge? Diplomatic challenges? Whodunnits? Crafting?
At best, they let the Fighter do the same (non-combat) things as a commoner, but in breastplate! Forgive my lack of amazement at the wonderful contribution that breastplate brings to sleuthing, sailing, crafting and stealth.
The point is, mobility in armor does nothing for non-combat when you can just wear no armor to begin with. Weapon training does nothing for non-combat when weapons have no place in non-combat. Bravery is pitifully situational, as fear effects have a barely mentionable chance of occurring (outside of combat) in the average campaign. Combat feats generally don't contribute to non-combat (though I admit there may be some odd corner cases). Higher HD and BAB and Fort saves don't do much out of combat.
As to your barbarian analogy, which is at least somewhat reasonable, armor training equals reduce armor check penalties in 9 skills, so that more or less evens out with the two extra skills per level.
If we're doing the "heavily armored olympics" maybe.
Rage has some limited uses out of combat since it's a general ability score boost, giving +2 to +4 (depending on level) to Climb and Swim checks, both in and out of armor. Plus with a higher base land speed in no/light armor, the distance covered is higher per check. Plus that higher speed gives +4 to leaping. Plus a Barb has acrobatics as a class skill, giving +3 to acrobatics. So now that 40 skill bonus difference becomes at least 43, plus bursts of 47-51 in rage, or a smidge higher if in light/no armor (from leaps + fast movement). The fighter's skill bonus offset of 36 only applies if both are wearing +4ACP or higher armor. At best, the fighter can challenge the barbarian to a well-armored athletic challenge and still come up a bit short.I'll admit, though, that's an interesting analysis.
|
|
@TarkXT
100% fair, it isn't a straight up trade. Having the skills to put where you want is better than not having the skills. It is an advantage for the Barbarians to have more skills. But I am arguing that isn't the huge advantage that others seem to be portraying it as.
When looking at the two both are full BaB, but fighter will have a higher natural to hit and damage. A barbarian can get higher damage when raging, particularly two handed.
A fighter will have better AC, a Barbarian will have damage reduction, so push until the fighter gets Damage reduction very late in the game. Fighters get feats which are always on, Barbarians get rage powers which are on when raging, fighters get access to feats others don't, Barbarians get trap sense and uncanny dodge, Etc...
when you go down the line the designers seem to have balanced pretty well in my opinion. YMMV.
The only comment I would make on rage powers is that you have remember that in addition to the fatigue and rounds per day problem, they can be turned off by relatively low level spells.
My issue comes from people trying to say a class isn't as good as another class by saying "without the primary feature of the class, they suck!"
Ciretose
One thing to note on Rage, especially since you're pointing to DR via Armor Mastery as a piece of victory.
At that level, the Barbarian has Tireless Rage, which means that, in combat he can do the following:
Round1: Free action enter rage. Use 1/rage power "A"
Round2: Activate different 1/rage power "B". Free action end rage.
Repeat.
Now, between his actions on rounds 2 and 3 the Barbarian is out of rage, but the sweetest thing is that as of level 17, a Barbarian can use all his 1/rage powers as often as every second round.
A slower, clumsier version of this trick can also be done by throwing money at it in the form of potions of lesser restoration. But it hardly counts since it also burns up actions to draw and drink.
Also, I was wrong about the duration of rage at 20th level. It's 42+CON round per day, not 38 (forgot the 4 extra at level 1).
|
|
At best, they let the Fighter do the same (non-combat) things as a commoner, but in breastplate! Forgive my lack of amazement at the wonderful contribution that breastplate brings to sleuthing, sailing, crafting and stealth.
100% honest question. Do you not get the fact that if I have 11 feats to spend on combat, I can then spend the 10 to 11 other feats I have on non-combat feats?
It's like if someone gives me a 100 dollars to spend on Pathfinder Books, that means if I want to I can now spend 100 of my own dollars that I had been planning on buying Pathfinder books with on something else.
Most Martial Classes really need all of their feats to accomplish feat chains for one combat style.
Fighters don't.
They can go multiple combat style if they like, or they can diversify into non-combat skills with the non-combat feats, or they can take feats for specific purpose based on party need.
Having extra feats provided the very versatility you seem to think is a problem for the class.
Of course I get that fact.
All classes can spend their 10 feats on non-combat feats:
Alchemists can spend their 10 feats on non-combat feats.
Adepts can spend their 10 feats on non-combat feats.
Aristocrats can spend their 10 feats on non-combat feats.
Barbarians can spend their 10 feats on non-combat feats.
Bards can spend their 10 feats on non-combat feats.
Commoners can spend their 10 feats on non-combat feats.
...
Warriors can spend their 10 feats on non-combat feats.
Witches can spend their 10 feats on non-combat feats.
Wizards can spend their 10 feats on non-combat feats.
You don't need 11 combat feats to do that.
A Barbarian20 with no combat feats (all spent on things like crafting, skill focus or whatever) can still have...
Fast Movement, 42+CON rounds of Mighty Tireless Rage with 10 rage powers, DR 5/-, Indomitable Will, Trap Sense +6, and Improved Uncanny Dodge.
And, compared to the fighter... average +20hp over the fighter, average +40 skills over the fighter, and the same BAB and save bonuses as the Fighter; higher Fort and Will during rages.
Does the Barbarian need combat feats to be as effective as a Fighter who only has 11 (plus armor/weapon training and bravery)? Or alternately, does a fighter with exactly 11 combat feats (plus armor/weapon training and bravery) unquestionably (that is, clearly on the average) excel beyond a barbarian with no combat feats?
That's the question here, because the answer to that question will say whether the Fighter has "enough mojo to spare" to diversify with his regular feats and still remain combat-competitive.
Stuff to my stuff
Final follow up question then... Are the things you can now do out of combat exciting?
As this drives to the heart of complaints about the fighter. Can the Character feats alone make a fighter interesting outside of combat? Granted that's a highly subjective question in dependent on the game but that would be the final question.
I would expect, just from what my own brain is spitting out, that most of the options will be constantly avalibile but low glamor. Just like the fighters (Ex) feats in combat.
One really nice thing about the fighter compared to several other martial classes is that his abilities are all extraordinary. That may not seem like much but it can be significant. They can't be turned off by a handful of spells. Even the barbarian (once we leave the core book) has several supernatural options with his rage powers. These can be suppressed and should not be overlooked in comparisons.
Absolutely true. But do keep in mind that another thing barbarians are surprisingly good at is making saves and of course a savvy barbarian is already aware of those weaknesses and endeavor to deal with them. It's not much different then a paladin's smite evil or rangers favored enemy in this regard where there are situations where you cant use them. However unlike ranger's favored enemy or paladin's smite evil these situations will come up far less. Not too many enemies are going to waste an action on the possibility of failing Calm Emotions or try to use waves of exhaustion on the chance he's not already immune. Particularly since this doesn't guarantee a barbarian's death, it merely guarantees a barbarian's inconvenience.
Does the Barbarian need combat feats to be as effective as a Fighter who only has 11 (plus armor/weapon training and bravery)? Or alternately, does a fighter with exactly 11 combat feats (plus armor/weapon training and bravery) unquestionably (that is, clearly on the average) excel beyond a barbarian with no combat feats?
That's the question here, because the answer to that question will say whether the Fighter has "enough mojo to spare" to diversify with his regular feats and still remain combat-competitive.
Well said Malignor, which is what I was kinda meandering my way to. That would be the mechanical determination. Extending that to Paladins, Cavaliers, and possibly Rangers if we wanted to shake down the Full BAB class.
However Barbarian & Fighter are a good starting point. So the challenge then, what is the most evil/broken/ruthless thing you can do with them without using the Character feats to support the build?
(IMO, the most entertating builds will weave non-combat and combat into each other for synergies, but that is a complex and time consuming task.)
Such an analysis in order to be unbiased and properly representative, would be huge
Fighter competing vs. Barbarian
- No ability score differences
- No gear differences
- No race differences
- No base progression feat differences
Gear-based trials would have to be done for
- "nekked"
- optimally armed & armored vs. melee
- optimally armed & armored vs. ranged
- optimally armed & armored "for all occasions"
- arbitrarily borrowed/random gear
There'd be "smartguy" builds, "agility" builds, "brute" builds...
vs. outnumbered, vs. giantmonster, vs. casty type, vs. bushwacking assassin type(s), vs. flying...
Different environments (for things like cover, rough terrain, etc.)...
Lots of playtesting.
|
|
When you are comparing melee classes like the fighter, ranger, and barbarian you have to take into account the endless amounts of campaign situations that come up. A ranger only get's his highest favored enemy bonus if he is fighting his favored enemy and that may not come around very often unless the DM makes makes it that way, so in essence the Ranger is really DM dependent. Now one thing about Instant Enemy is that it's limited to that specific target so if you target Hobgoblin A it doesn't work on Hobgoblin B & C. It's a great spell but it's not the bees knees. Now in certain situations the ranger rocks and the same goes for the barbarian and fighter. I expect the three martial classes to have some things they do better between the three but it all balances out. Just because the ranger has a better Perception than the fighter that doesn't mean the fighter is a badly designed class. TWF fighters are better in close combat than rangers are because they are squishy compared to the fighter but if the fighter is in there tanking then the ranger can jump and do his work while the fighter has the creature distracted. People really need to also think about the teamwork aspect of the game.
TWF fighters are better in close combat than rangers are because they are squishy compared to the fighter but if the fighter is in there tanking then the ranger can jump and do his work while the fighter has the creature distracted.
Explain yourself. Don't just drop a comment like that and don't detail it.