If pathfinder made the fighter less bricky and more in line with the other classes, a lot of the oldschool fanbase would be upset at the change in the game they love. It's just an unfortunate class balance issue that they can't fix.
See, I disagree. What's missing from the Fighter is some additional abilities which give the fighter a way to be really useful in other facets of the game, out of the box.
I'm actually making a pet project right now where I'm addressing all the situational categories of RPG games, and ensuring that every class has something to do where it could make sense.
For example, the Fighter:
What would you say to a Fighter who, in addition to the current abilities, had the following... (this is a work in progress).
Combat Sense (Ex): Whenever at the receiving end of looming surprise attack, feint or other sneaky tactic involving combat, you automatically roll this check, as if a perception or sense motive check. Roll 1d20, plus your WIS modifier, CHA modifier and 1/2 your Fighter level. If successful, you get a "hunch", effectively telling you to pay attention or be on guard (and thus not be surprised, and/or making an active perception/sense motive check to point out the threat before it happens).
Hardcore (Ex): Having the guts and training to build a career on violence gives a certain authenticity to your threats. As a full round action, you can make an Intimidate check with an additional bonus of +1/2 Fighter level.
Killer Student (Ex): In learning the way of the fighter, you didn't just learn how to swing a weapon. You also learned a great deal about the kinds of enemies you may face, their weaknesses and strengths, and how to kill them. Add 1/2 your Fighter level to Knowledge checks in identifying a creature's abilities.
Warrior's Craft (Ex): Starting at level 6, can pick from special Warrior's Craft feats:
Use Fighter Level + CHA bonus + 1d20 and roll on a table to see the # of people you recruit (modified by population size; can't get em all).
Would such abilities go against a Fighter's concept? Design? Make them OP (compared to spellcasters)? Would if make the fighter more fun to play? More useful in different situations?
I'm sorry, but the fighter is no longer the best at fighting. At mid-to-high levels the alchemist, synthesist, druid can all pull off fighting just as well if not better. Yes they can't do it "all day", but neither can the fighter. The fighter will run out of health if he doesn't have magical healing, and he can't even heal himself under most circumstances.
That depends on how you define "best at fighting."
|
Or the fighter multiclasses two levels of barbarian for Uncanny Dodge and +10 move, becoming a more well-rounded character. (The barbarian could do the same thing to acquire heavy armor proficiency for, eventually, mithral full-plate, thereby also becoming more well-rounded.)I'm actually making a pet project right now where I'm addressing all the situational categories of RPG games, and ensuring that every class has something to do where it could make sense.
For example, the Fighter:
What would you say to a Fighter who, in addition to the current abilities, had the following... (this is a work in progress).
Combat Sense (Ex): Whenever at the receiving end of looming surprise attack, feint or other sneaky tactic involving combat, you automatically roll this check, as if a perception or sense motive check. Roll 1d20, plus your WIS modifier, CHA modifier and 1/2 your Fighter level. If successful, you get a "hunch", effectively telling you to pay attention or be on guard (and thus not be surprised, and/or making an active perception/sense motive check to point out the threat before it happens).
Hardcore (Ex): Having the guts and training to build a career on violence gives a certain authenticity to your threats. As a full round action, you can make an Intimidate check with an additional bonus of +1/2 Fighter level.I'm not seeing the rationale for a fighter ending up with a higher Intimidate score than a barbarian or a rogue/ninja, especially when, since he has more feats to "waste" than any other class, can easily tuck Intimidating Prowess into his build for probably a +7 jump (given the usual STR/CHA disparity of the typical fighter), and tack on another +2 total if half-orc. With both going and a barbarian dip, he's easily over +10 without a single rank in the skill.
Killer Student (Ex): In learning the way of the fighter, you didn't just learn how to swing a weapon. You also learned a great deal about the kinds of enemies you may face, their weaknesses and strengths, and how to kill them. Add 1/2 your Fighter level to Knowledge checks in identifying a creature's abilities.Or put points in Knowledge:Dungeoneering, which is a fighter class skill?
Warrior's Craft (Ex): Starting at level 6, can pick from special Warrior's Craft feats:
Drillmaster (Warrior's Craft): You can spend long hours, practicing combat maneuvers with...
Rather than maintaining that fighters are deficient in doing these sorts of things without a new feat to back them up, wouldn't it make more sense to maintain that fighters, by already knowing what to do (given Knowledge:Engineering being a class skill, and Weapon Training giving them more raw bonuses with more weapons than anyone else), are by far the best to undertake such tasks already?
I.e., a paladin or bard would be a more charismatic drill-instructor, but that doesn't mean they know what they're talking about when it comes to building a siege-tower, or knows the most effective combat technique with a dozen different weapons or which are most effective versus different kinds of opponents.
In the original Golarion Campaign Hardcover, they had a neat little substitution feat.
Academy Trained (or some such)
It took the place of a 1st lvl (character lvl mind you) fighter's bonus feat. In return the fighter got 5 skill points per level, also several new skills were made class skills.
I really wish this had ported over to PFRPG. It was great and did a great deal to solve the out of combat issue so many people seem to face.
My issue with the fighter class, to many people seem to confuse the NPC warrior's role with the PC Fighter's. Fighters are exceptional at combat but should have the opportunity to be well rounded people as well. If you play in a game that requires skill checks for out of combat things, like Appraise and Profession and don't free form stuff like Diplomacy and Knowledge: Geography the fighter does get a little hosed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I've always wondered why fighters don't get skills like
Heal: they would get used to first aid at some point
Sense Motive: as a largely mercenary class this would be up there with survival.
Diplomacy: fighters are semi professional soldiers, and knowing when and how to talk your way OUT of a fight is how you become an old fighter.
Knowledge: History: they study tactics, in the type of game worlds involved that's a study of great heroes who've been immortalized in writing. At least at some level.
I figured since commoners get perception that everyone should have it. I don't see how the guy that fights for living is not trained to notice things.
Sense Motive and Heal should be in there too since I equate Fighter to the special forces soldier of our world to a large extent, and warrior NPC class to others with less military training.
|
Since Pathfinder is a group game, why would you really worry about having a very diplomatic type fighter when the party's paladin, cleric, bard, or rogue can do this job better?
Yes it is possible to build a "face" fighter but when one of your other party members plays a bard then you don't have to build one. You don't have to have certain numbers in your stat array to role play. You role play your fighter how ever you want. The fighter was actually designed to do what it does best and that is combat. Because the fighter has more feats than any other class in the game they are able to take on many different roles. You could take every social feat out there and build your skill fighter. Since all classes can actually take any skill it has been made easier for the fighter to be a skillful character. Now, just like any other class out there, you have to sacrifice some things to be better at others but you don't have to actually sacrifice everything. You can be a great fighter with lower skill options or you can be a good fighter with better skill options.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is, Fighter is the best at what he does (direct damage) only if he steps up and optimizes for it. They're not "kings of the hill" out of the box, they really have to plan ahead and pick the right feat load-out.
If you gimp yourself by taking Skill Focuses and +2/+2 feats, any other martial class will take you over rapidly while still retaining all the things that make them unique.
At which point you sit back and ask yourself, why play a Fighter?
It's a class for people who know what they are doing.
The problem is, Fighter is the best at what he does (direct damage) only if he steps up and optimizes for it. They're not "kings of the hill" out of the box, they really have to plan ahead and pick the right feat load-out.
If you gimp yourself by taking Skill Focuses and +2/+2 feats, any other martial class will take you over rapidly while still retaining all the things that make them unique.
At which point you sit back and ask yourself, why play a Fighter?
It's a class for people who know what they are doing.
Yet, at the same time it's also probably the most forgiving class when it comes to mistakes.
One of the least talked about features is also probably one of its most potent. That is, the ability to switch out bonus feats.
When combined with the fact that you do get what amounts to an excess of feats at times you do end up with what is generally a new person friendly class.
|
Yet, at the same time it's also probably the most forgiving class when it comes to mistakes.
One of the least talked about features is also probably one of its most potent. That is, the ability to switch out bonus feats.
Every four levels. Somehow, I think the people that can change out their options every session are the most forgiving of mistakes. Not Fighters.
So we're not going to compare actual builds. Instead we're just going to make claims. Yeah, the cavalier is actually a great class and can do quite a bit. However, until a build is posted that is actually better, I don't have any reason to believe that it is actually better.Also, remember that the original claim was that the fighter couldn't do anything that I actually accomplished. So the fighter that I built, would it leave a player with nothing to do in and out of combat? Can it actually be a benefit to the party? Can it do this at all levels of play? Or are we just going to ignore the fact that I did what was said couldn't be done because we don't want the fighter to actually be playable?
Well, that is unlikely to happen as I do not particularly feel so strongly about the cavalier's superiority so much as to sit down and make 20 characters for all levels just to prove a point to anonymous people over the internet. The wifey tends to get very poignant about work i get paid for.
As for actually accomplishing what you set out to do? I don't think anyone would argue it. What they're arguing is that other classes can do it without much effort whatsoever.
Every four levels. Somehow, I think the people that can change out their options every session are the most forgiving of mistakes. Not Fighters.Yet, at the same time it's also probably the most forgiving class when it comes to mistakes.
One of the least talked about features is also probably one of its most potent. That is, the ability to switch out bonus feats.
Of those they are very few and very far between. And altogether aren't very new person friendly at all.
Fighters are, for better or worse remarkably simple. Most of their stuff is in terms of static numbers that are on all the time. No activation time, no worrying about uses per day, no numbers to track.
The only time a fighter gets too complicated is when you try to turn them into soemthing they're not.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
[picks at proposal]
As I said, the example above was for Fighter.
Combat Sense was going to be provided to: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue.
Hardcore was going to be provided to: Barbarian, Cavalier, Fighter, Inquisitor, Paladin and Ranger
Knowledge Dungeoneering is great ... against Oozes and Abberations. What about giants? Goblinoids? Magical beasts? Animals? You'd think a fighter would be taught how to face off against a pack of wolves, or learn about troll regeneration? Bot no, a Fighter only knows anything about common CR 1-5 foes, and maybe some abberations and oozes. Why abberations and oozes? Plus, Fighter skill ranks...
Well the goalposts have already moved from "the fighters can't do anything out of combat" to "well they can but they can't do everything out of combat."
And the problem with GM fiat is that the adventures are, by default, GM fiat. The GM chooses the encounters. The GM chooses where those encounters take place. The GM chooses the treasure available. The GM determines if and what any houserules will exist. The GM chooses the the campaign theme (or lack thereof).
People are confusing GM fiat with proper GMing. GM fiat would be to ignore a set of rules or common sense to favor the fighter. Proper GMing is providing encounters that will challenge every character. That's the job of the GM.
Example, the GM has decided that the next adventure will be against an army of orcs and ogres with some giants thrown in the mix. The dwarves in the party will enjoy this as will the martial characters. The casters will easily find something to do as well. This is not GM fiat. It's planning and encounter for everyone.
Example, the GM has decided that he tires of hearing the oracle of life complain that he's constantly healing the fighter so he fudges some rolls so the fighter takes less damage.
The classes are not 100% balanced. They can't be. Not even other systems have pulled that off even with it as a design goal. The classes are meant to do what they are built to do. If you are playing a fighter like a ranger, then you should probably be playing a ranger. If your problem with the fighter is that he can't do what a barbarian can do, then you should be playing a barbarian. If you play with people that whine that you aren't contributing enough, then maybe you need to play with less selfish people because they are unable to see what it means to contribute.
[picks at proposal]As I said, the example above was for Fighter.
Combat Sense was going to be provided to: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue.
Hardcore was going to be provided to: Barbarian, Cavalier, Fighter, Inquisitor, Paladin and Ranger
Knowledge Dungeoneering is great ... against Oozes and Abberations. What about giants? Goblinoids? Magical beasts? Animals? You'd think a fighter would be taught how to face off against a pack of wolves, or learn about troll regeneration? Bot no, a Fighter only knows anything about common CR 1-5 foes, and maybe some abberations and oozes. Why abberations and oozes? Plus, Fighter skill ranks...
This is the example I was talking about with not understanding how skills work. What are the DCs you need to hit? Generally you're shooting for 5 or 10+CR. That's easily attainable.
Those creatures: goblinoids, animals, trolls, all are generally common so their DCs are already high when they reach 10. That means that anyone, even the fighter, can attempt the check without having any ranks at all. By putting 1 rank in, he can start to try others as well. It's easy getting ranks. It's also easy finding a +2 or +3 (or more) to skills.
Of those they are very few and very far between. And altogether aren't very new person friendly at all.Fighters are, for better or worse remarkably simple. Most of their stuff is in terms of static numbers that are on all the time. No activation time, no worrying about uses per day, no numbers to track.
The only time a fighter gets too complicated is when you try to turn them into soemthing they're not.
Wizard, Cleric. That's two out of the Core Four. Using the entire Core Book, 3 out 11. Also, Witch, Magus, Alchemist. Hardly "few and far between".
And yeah, Fighters are simple to run. Just like a tricycle is easier to ride than a bicycle, it doesn't mean you're not taking the piss out of the newbie when you give it to him.
I didn't read the entire thread but what bugs me about fighters is the 2+INT skill points becuase sure mastering the forces of magic 2+INT, devoting your life to a deity 2+INT, being a holy warrior of a deity 2+INT, learning how to swing a big sword very well 2+INT. Well something doesn't seem right for me, i have enough trouble understanding why clerics and paladins have 2+INT but why fighters have 2+INT is beyond me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Example, the GM has decided that the next adventure will be against an army of orcs and ogres with some giants thrown in the mix. The dwarves in the party will enjoy this as will the martial characters. The casters will easily find something to do as well. This is not GM fiat. It's planning and encounter for everyone.
Army of landbound melee types. The casters spend an afternoon killing them, until the army routs or the casters get bored. If the Fighters wanna play, they are going to put the party at risk and drain resources, compared to just sitting out the fight.
And if you constantly have to fudge rolls because little Timmy is a total gimp, that is a f*++ing problem, and your insistence that it isn't is somewhere between dishonest and profoundly stupid.
Personal attacks are very classy.
This goes by the presumption that those "casters" are in 100% control. They can get picked off my arrows, targeted by enemy casters (yes, orcs, ogres and giants have them too!) or run out or prepared spells.
One the Fighter, they are a solid class that does their job well. They don't do everything, and shouldn't. They are an enjoyable class to play.
Just as a practical example from my game:
There is a fighter in the group I'm running. No archetypes, no additional content, simply a Core Rulebook fighter. We also have a sorcerer, a druid and a monk. Now recently they came across a certain huge fiend with DR 10/magic, SR 21, Resist acid 10 cold 10 electricity 10 fire 10 and some serious damage dealing capabilities, all in all a CR 10 creature threatening the APL 8 group.
The sorcerer had a hard time to overcome the SR and energy resistances. The monk had a hard time to overcome the DR. The druid, focused on summoning, couldn't summon his critters as quickly as the fiend killed them.
Fighter swung his sword, power attacking and vital striking, and saved the day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[1] Well the goalposts have already moved from "the fighters can't do anything out of combat" to "well they can but they can't do everything out of combat."
[2] And the problem with GM fiat is that the adventures are, by default, GM fiat. The GM chooses the encounters. The GM chooses where those encounters take place. The GM chooses the treasure available. The GM determines if and what any houserules will exist. The GM chooses the the campaign theme (or lack thereof).
[3] People are confusing GM fiat with proper GMing. GM fiat would be to ignore a set of rules or common sense to favor the fighter. Proper GMing is providing encounters that will challenge every character. That's the job of the GM.
[4] Example, the GM has decided that the next adventure will be against an army of orcs and ogres with some giants thrown in the mix. The dwarves in the party will enjoy this as will the martial characters. The casters will easily find something to do as well. This is not GM fiat. It's planning and encounter for everyone.
[5] Example, the GM has decided that he tires of hearing the oracle of life complain that he's constantly healing the fighter so he fudges some rolls so the fighter takes less damage.
[6] The classes are not 100% balanced. They can't be. Not even other systems have pulled that off even with it as a design goal. The classes are meant to do what they are built to do. If you are playing a fighter like a ranger, then you should probably be playing a ranger. If your problem with the fighter is that he can't do what a barbarian can do, then you should be playing a barbarian. If you play with people that whine that you aren't contributing enough, then maybe you need to play with less selfish people because they are unable to see what it means to contribute.
I numbered your paragraphs (instead of separating them individually) because I like to maintain your message in all the context.
[1] You're making an obvious exaggeration of my stance. I have nothing there for Fighters in stealth scenarios. I have nothing for AoE, flight, magic, solving puzzles, disarming traps, diplomacy (intimidate isn't 100% applicable for all social situations), and the crafting feats above are feats you can pick from, not auto-abilities. But these things suddenly provide options.
Even if what you say here isn't an exaggeration, so what? Every primary or secondary caster class can do everything out of combat. Why should casters get all the fun? Cavaliers are proof that you don't need supernatural abilities to have nice things. I think every class should be just as universally helpful as the casters are.
[2-4] The GM is restricted by the PCs. For a Fighter, the GM has to make the game either combat-centric, or fudge the universe to make the Fighter not sit out for half the game. You may be advocating this, but I think it's unnecessary and disappointing, especially to new gamers.
[5] That's a very bad example for your cause. I don't think I need to elaborate on why.
[6] Firstly, my group has always been what you call "Good GMs". We compensate in order to work with the system we get, or we playtest houserules in a formal manner where everyone at the table gets a say in the approval.
Secondly, during these years of "Good GMing", I see the bias which infects each campaign. I see players forcing their brains to contrive ways for (situationally) useless characters have something to do outside their class' narrow role. And I see that the problem lies with the game design - specifically classes. Starting with D&D 3.x, and continuing into 3.5 and even more in PF, I see that mechanics now exist for non-magical ways to do cool things - morale bonuses, teamwork feats, and so on. Yet there has been little or no update to the core classes in the spirit of these new mechanics (+5 vs. Fear is pretty sad, even falling 1 shy of good Will save vs. Fear). It wouldn't be hard, in fact it's quite easy to do, and such updates need not magnify existing specialties (such as the Fighter's sandbox combat awesomeness), but instead give additional, thematically accurate, avenues for contribution.
Everyone should be enjoying the game at all times, including Fighters. And it shouldn't be something that requires a "Good GM" to do. N00bs are people too.
|
|
Honestly, I've always wondered why fighters don't get skills like
Heal: they would get used to first aid at some point
Sense Motive: as a largely mercenary class this would be up there with survival.
Diplomacy: fighters are semi professional soldiers, and knowing when and how to talk your way OUT of a fight is how you become an old fighter.
Knowledge: History: they study tactics, in the type of game worlds involved that's a study of great heroes who've been immortalized in writing. At least at some level.
Do modern-day boxers or infantry grunts have much in the way of this? ...if they're a US or other western forces GI, they might have some medical training. History? Maybe a few higher-ranking officers have more than 1 rank in the skill.
Diplomacy? The job of a soldier is to obey orders and kill the enemy, not talk to them.
NPC warriors are Grunts.
Fighters are SpecOps, elite mercenaries, world-travelling combat geniuses and the like.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is, Fighter is the best at what he does (direct damage) only if he steps up and optimizes for it.
Wrong. Fighters are not the kings of direct damage (cavaliers and barbarians are most optimized for that) -- Fighters are the kings of unbreachable armor-class, and they don't need much in the way of stats to get there. (Mainly enough INT for Combat Expertise, and enough strength to stand up while wearing plate.)
You don't know what doom is until you've faced a smart dwarf with a tower shield, and you need a crit to hit him, and he can hit you on more numbers. He wins the war of attrition.
It's not a fighter's job to kill things by doing the most DPR possible; it's his job to lock down the BBEM which is +35 on six attacks, while his softer ranged buddies safely blast the crap out of it.
Actually, you're part right. Fighters are the kings of the sandbox combat build. They can be top of the line as...
Archers
Cavalry
Weapon masters
Brawlers
Pikemen
Infantry
Duelists
Tactical combatants
Or sometimes two or more of these.
The sheer number of feats, plus good starting proficiencies, give the Fighter lots of different build options for combat. Sure, they can build for non-combat, and fall behind in both combat and non-combat roles (see Bob's posts above). Economics of opportunity cost and all that.
The problem is, Fighter is the best at what he does (direct damage) only if he steps up and optimizes for it.Wrong. Fighters are not the kings of direct damage (cavaliers and barbarians are most optimized for that) -- Fighters are the kings of unbreachable armor-class, and they don't need much in the way of stats to get there. (Mainly enough INT for Combat Expertise, and enough strength to stand up while wearing plate.)
You don't know what doom is until you've faced a smart dwarf with a tower shield, and you need a crit to hit him, and he can hit you on more numbers. He wins the war of attrition.
It's not a fighter's job to kill things by doing the most DPR possible; it's his job to lock down the BBEM which is +35 on six attacks, while his softer ranged buddies safely blast the crap out of it.
An unbreachable armor class is pointless if you can't force the enemy to attack you over your softer, squishier party mates. And as far as I know, there is no taunt/aggro mechanic in Pathfinder (and there should never be).
Locking down the BBEM is combat maneuvers (like trip), not a high AC. So is the fighters job supposed to be high AC or combat maneuvers?
|
|
Actually, you're part right. Fighters are the kings of the sandbox combat build. They can be top of the line as...
Archers
Cavalry
Weapon masters
Brawlers
Pikemen
Infantry
Duelists
Tactical combatants
Archery: fighters can do a lot of damage with bows, but are no good at tailing a target who's aware he's being hunted and on the run.
Cavalry: Unless a fighter archetype grants Mount, or he's best buds with a summoner, this is weak. (The fighter also eats armor check penalties, unlike the cavalier; and, even if he's smart, probably doesn't have room to max Ride as well as get Handle Animal to auto-15.)
Brawlers: Grappled-based monks and beast-totem barbarians will still tear them apart. The fighter will need a pile of carefully chosen feats just to bring himself up to par with what they get more or less automatically.
Pikeman: AC is good if phalanx soldier, but a barbarian two-handing a bardiche will do much more damage.
Infantry: YES. Fighters are the champs of heavy armor S&B. His job is to get hit only once or twice out of every ten attacks.
Duelists: Dawnflower bards and feint rogues are tops in this area (although less durable if they get in over their AC and can't withdraw or Escape Artist).
Weapon Masters/Tactical...can be good, but tactical usually isn't as good as cavalier
An unbreachable armor class is pointless if you can't force the enemy to attack you over your softer, squishier party mates. And as far as I know, there is no taunt/aggro mechanic in Pathfinder (and there should never be).
Antagonize?
Archery:[/b] fighters can do a lot of damage with bows, but are no good at tailing a target who's aware he's being hunted and on the run.
Cavalry: Unless a fighter archetype grants Mount, or he's best buds with a summoner, this is weak. (The fighter also eats armor check penalties, unlike the cavalier; and, even if he's smart, probably doesn't have room to max Ride as well as get Handle Animal to auto-15.)
Brawlers: Grappled-based monks and beast-totem barbarians will still tear them apart. The fighter will need a pile of carefully chosen feats just to bring himself up to par with what they get more or less automatically.
Pikeman: AC is good if phalanx soldier, but a barbarian two-handing a bardiche will do much more damage.
Infantry: YES. Fighters are the champs of heavy armor S&B. His job is to get hit only once or twice out of every ten attacks.
Duelists: Dawnflower bards and feint rogues are tops in this area (although less durable if they get in over their AC and can't withdraw or Escape Artist).
Weapon Masters/Tactical...can be good, but tactical usually isn't as good as cavalier
Archer is not hunter/stalker. Archer as in a guy in a battle who uses a bow.
Cavalry as in able to do it, not necessarily having the mount (though Leadership can arguably handle that).Brawlers - true, but they can still specialize and do very well in a game.
... for all of these, I guess I should change my wording as "effective", because I never meant the best. Combat-feat-wise, they have all the cards.
Antagonize fails on many levels. (Also explains why I forgot about it. It sucks.)
It is a standard action to use, so only 1/round. Only works against creatures with an Intelligence of 4 or more. Oh, and its a mind-affecting effect.
And only the Intimidate function forces the target to attack you, but then its also only one one attack, after which the creature is free to do whatever it wants again. You can only target a specific creature 1 time a day, even if you fail the check.
So congratulations. You've forced the BBEM to focus on you. For a single attack. The rest of its attacks that turn target your allies again, as do the monsters attacks on all later turns.
I offered a taunt mechanic. You didn't say it had to be a good one. :)
Antagonize does work quite well when you build to abuse it, though. ;)
Well the goalposts have already moved from "the fighters can't do anything out of combat" to "well they can but they can't do everything out of combat."
I figured that would happen though. I normally ask for point buy, what traits if any are allowed, and so on before I even begin such a discussion. :)
He can try to ignore the dwarf fighter, but the fighter is unlikely to miss the monster's AC, so the fighter is still doing enough damage to keep his attention.
Fighters do consistently very good damage. Other classes can do more damage when they turn their special abilities on.
You have to decide do you want to do a whole lot of damage at certain times or do you want to consistently be able to do a enough damage that it matters, and that is factor as to which class you choose.
Here is a house rule that could be used to expand the capability of a fighter:
Military skill bonus: When a skill is needed with a military context, fighters may use their level as rank for skill rolls.
This could be applied to engineering/craft skills related to combat (fix a siege engine, collapse a bridge), or to social skills in a military context. So a 10th level fighter might not be good at Bluff unless it is used to bluff his/her way past a guard.
If pathfinder made the fighter less bricky and more in line with the other classes, a lot of the oldschool fanbase would be upset at the change in the game they love. It's just an unfortunate class balance issue that they can't fix.See, I disagree. What's missing from the Fighter is some additional abilities which give the fighter a way to be really useful in other facets of the game, out of the box.
I'm actually making a pet project right now where I'm addressing all the situational categories of RPG games, and ensuring that every class has something to do where it could make sense.
For example, the Fighter:
What would you say to a Fighter who, in addition to the current abilities, had the following... (this is a work in progress).
Combat Sense (Ex): Whenever at the receiving end of looming surprise attack, feint or other sneaky tactic involving combat, you automatically roll this check, as if a perception or sense motive check. Roll 1d20, plus your WIS modifier, CHA modifier and 1/2 your Fighter level. If successful, you get a "hunch", effectively telling you to pay attention or be on guard (and thus not be surprised, and/or making an active perception/sense motive check to point out the threat before it happens).
Hardcore (Ex): Having the guts and training to build a career on violence gives a certain authenticity to your threats. As a full round action, you can make an Intimidate check with an additional bonus of +1/2 Fighter level.
Killer Student (Ex): In learning the way of the fighter, you didn't just learn how to swing a weapon. You also learned a great deal about the kinds of enemies you may face, their weaknesses and strengths, and how to kill them. Add 1/2 your Fighter level to Knowledge checks in identifying a creature's abilities.
Warrior's Craft (Ex): Starting at level 6, can pick from special Warrior's Craft feats:
Drillmaster (Warrior's Craft): You can spend long hours, practicing combat maneuvers with...
While I do disagree that the fighters need a buff, I actually do like these abilities. I'd definitely give them a try.
If I were a dragon, would I pay attention to the thing consistently hitting me that I can't hit back, or would I hit the easy-to-eat wizard attempting to bend reality around me?
Wizard's are not all that easy to hit unless they rely solely on AC, and in that case they will die long before the meet the dragon most likely. While you are trying to kill them(the wizard or sorcerer) your scales are being ripped off.
Honestly if I were a dragon, which is not what I envisioned trying to bypass the fighter, I would probably use a spell to get rid of him or bypass him. Dimension door, use the feat that allows you to act after you use dimension door, then show the wizard(fill in other troublemaker as needed) some love.
My other post assumed it was a monster with less options however like a giant or other bruiser type.
Something I feel I missed earlier.
Rather than maintaining that fighters are deficient in doing these sorts of things without a new feat to back them up, wouldn't it make more sense to maintain that fighters, by already knowing what to do (given Knowledge:Engineering being a class skill, and Weapon Training giving them more raw bonuses with more weapons than anyone else), are by far the best to undertake such tasks already?
I.e., a paladin or bard would be a more charismatic drill-instructor, but that doesn't mean they know what they're talking about when it comes to building a siege-tower, or knows the most effective combat technique with a dozen different weapons or which are most effective versus different kinds of opponents.
I actually have additional "Crafting" feats available to every class.
Alchemist: Trapper, Herbalist
Barbarian: Scout, Trapper, Herbalist, Craft Fetish (by "fetish" I mean the animistic, non-pervy definition; in this case, war paints, death masks and the like)
Bard: Recruiter, Inspirer ("crafts" regional auras, affecting morale of entire populations or regions)
Cleric: Recruiter, Spiritual Leader (by hosting big sermons & rituals, can "craft" auras of minor enhancement, such as crops, weather, etc.)
...etc.
A barbarian does not ever equal a fighter with the fighter's weapon at any level except level 1-3. Definitely not at higher levels.
He will likely surpass the fighter in any other weapon.
The cavalier is a better fighter when mounted and charging with a lance. When not charging and mounted, the fighter will clean his clock.
The fighter's armor check penalties are going to be minimal because of his class abilities. He if he wants Ride and Handle Animal, he has the skill points to grab them before Int and racials.
A fighter will always beat a Paladin except when the Paladin is smiting...both a limited times/day effect, and limited opponents effect.
A fighter will always beat a Ranger when using his primary weapon, except MAYBE against a devoted, full-ranked FE...or when the Ranger gets to 'cheat' and use Instant Enemy. The Ranger bonus is situational, but does apply to ANY weapon.
A fighter vs a rogue in DoT is not a contest.
The fighter's biggest weakness is in skills, mobility, and out of combat utility. And when you say this, it has to apply across ALL archetypes, not a select few. There are things that all fighters should have, they don't, and something should be done about it.
==Aelryinth
The thing with the fighter is, if you're going to really do something for him, just give him more feats.
The fighter is the MASTER of feats - quantity, quality, frquency.
The fighter should not only have more feats then anyone (a crown now taken by the martial monk), but should get something more out of the feats he takes then anyone else.
Rogues, likewise, should be the master of skills, and get more out of skills then any other class. Seriously, rogue Talents are just rogue-centered feats, nothing more. Rogues should be THE masters of skills...not bards.
=========
My nominal fighter fix would be:
4 skill points a level.
Add Perception to class list, and Acrobatics, + any 2 skills (and only at 1st level).
Armor and weapon and shield profs...only at first level (along with every other class)
Extra NON-combat feat every level they don't get a combat feat. The list would be restricted to feats that modify skills, saves, or hit points.
and then revamp the feats so that a Fighter gets more out of them as he levels, like Expertise and Power Attack.
For instance, Dodge...Every time the Fighter gets armor training, instead his Dodge bonus increases by +1, thus freeing him from needing a massive Dex score to get his scaling class AC (and as a Dodge bonus, it's effectively the same as a Dex bonus)
Iron Will: This increases by +1 with every advance of Bravery (they stack). This will in effect grant him a good will save and a hefty bonus against fear. Although why he can't just get immunity to fear is a mystery...
You don't need a crapload of skill points or high mental stats if you have the feats to boost the skills you consider important.
Martial Training: Any time the Fighter gains a bonus to a physical ability score from levelling, he gains an additional +1 to his lowest physical ability score, and his lowest mental ability score.
Martial Training should actually apply to many classes, but the Melee classes should really have this, since they are far more dependent on all the physical stats then any caster is.
Monks, fighters and Rogues should basically get 3 stat points every 4 levels...1 where they want, and 1 each lowest physical and mental stats. The other melee classes should get a bonus to their lowest physical stat. The caster classes, to their lowest mental stat.
I do like how 4E gave you a bonus to ALL stats at certain levels, and this should be built upon.
===
|
|
A barbarian does not ever equal a fighter with the fighter's weapon at any level except level 1-3. Definitely not at higher levels.
He will likely surpass the fighter in any other weapon.
IMO it's a bad idea for a fighter to stick all his eggs in one basket with Weapon Training (so mine usually end up +3/+3 with Gloves of Dueling); even double-stacked at high level, you're still looking at +4/+4 w/gloves.
The 2hPA barbarian who dips three or four levels in Weapon Master basically gets all the cheese at little cost. The S&B fighter who dips barbarian (aside from urban) gains little (since defense is as important to him as offense, and he doesn't want lower AC).
Bickering about +20 or +24 to hit at level 12 is completely missing the point.
Bickering about +20 or +24 to hit at level 12 is completely missing the point.
Agreed. Whether or not the fighter has +1 or +1000 the unfortunate fact remains is that he's still outright stopped by the simplest counters.