Hey hey now, ranger doesn't designate tree hugger, druid designates tree hugger.Overall I disagree with this statement. A word generic as "fighter" does not automatically designate "level headed combatant" any more then rogue designates sneak thief or ranger designates tree hugger.A fighter is meant to be a level headed combatant.
Gotta love those tree huggers. Don't call them that though, if it's cloudy outside. Or if those trees are around to hear you. They take offense to you insulting their hugger's honor. They may come get you, and their bark isn't worse than their bite. :P
Gotta love those tree huggers. Don't call them that though, if it's cloudy outside. Or if those trees are around to hear you. They take offense to you insulting their hugger's honor. They may come get you, and their bark isn't worse than their bite. :PHey hey now, ranger doesn't designate tree hugger, druid designates tree hugger.Overall I disagree with this statement. A word generic as "fighter" does not automatically designate "level headed combatant" any more then rogue designates sneak thief or ranger designates tree hugger.A fighter is meant to be a level headed combatant.
Hahahahahahahaha.
That was a good one, again good job.
Overall I disagree with this statement. A word generic as "fighter" does not automatically designate "level headed combatant" any more then rogue designates sneak thief or ranger designates tree hugger.A fighter is meant to be a level headed combatant.
So now you're arguing that you should be able to play big dumb fighter who's also a skill monkey. You don't have a rage ability to make you lose your mind. Role play away but that's not the class intent. If you want to rage be a barbarian. Just because you want to play a class your own way doesn't make the class broken.
Fighter
-------
Skills: Climb, Craft, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Dungeoneering, Engineering, Profession, Ride, Survival, Swim.
Proficiencies: All armor, simple/martial weapons
Bravery +5
Armor Training 4
Weapon Training 4
Armor Mastery
Weapon MasteryA fighter is designed to be a combat expert. They are 'brave'. Brave things do not lose their mind in combat. That's being reckless. The abilities of the fighter are best enhanced by strength and dexterity. The short comings of the fighter, the lacking utility/social skills, means that you NEED to invest points into intelligence.
Now you're making my points for me. Thanks, I guess.
NEED in RPG is bad. CAN is good.Other classes don't NEED to invest points in int to have something useful out of combat. They CAN if they want more skills, but don't NEED. That is the point.
That, with small alterations, the fighter wouldn't NEED to put points in int to not sit out bored when the fighting stops.
My idea: Up his skills to 4 points/level and maybe give him a small ability from a list, these ability hving use out of battle butlittle to none in battle, so he won't get actually more powerful just more versatile.
Ashiel, your whole point about Fighters/Magic Items is absolutely wrong.
It takes a Fighter ONE feat more then the mage to start making items...Magical Artisan.
He then needs only 4000 gp per line of stuff he wants to make. How? Modular Headbands of Intelligence tied to skill ranks of what he wants to make.
If he want to work on weapons, throw on a +2 Int headband with Craft (weapons) a day ahead of time, and start working away. Armor? gauntlets? Girdles? Shields? Helms? Which all fall under armor crafting? Same thing. Crafting doesn't really start saving you lots of money until you are high level, at which point owning 2 or 3 headbands is pocket change for the benefit they provide.
So the crafting argument is a non-argument. Costing one feat and pocket change is not a cost, but will provide him with 90% of the valuable items he needs.
And fighters get 21 feats over 20 levels, 22 if human. Remember, bonus feats at level 1 and 2.
If the fighter wants to heal himself, he can buy CLW wands...they are cheaper then potions. Saying 'you can't find a town' is hand-waving the very simple fix for not being uber. THe ranger wanting to make those wands has to spend one of his general feats to do so, and while he's making wands, the fighter can upgrade his armor and weapons.
AS for skill points/out of combat, remember that there are very few skills that are actually useful IN COMBAT. Acrobatics, maybe ride, climb. Sense Motive, iffy. Intimidate, if used right.
That means if a fighter wants to drop points into Diplomacy, he can. Should he have to? No, that's what a skill monkey is for. It's inefficient for the party for multiple people to be good at social skills.
Saying the fighter CANNOT be effective out of combat, and CANNOT own key skills is a complete misnomer. If he needs to have Perception, Acrobatics, and Diplomacy, he can have them. IF he needs a floating skill rank to make stuff, he can BUY it...which completely destroys the need to spend class benefits on it.
Sure, I agree FIghters should have more skill points, and the combat skills on their list. But this whole talk about 'cannot' is a handwaver for other problems. A Fighter certainly CAN, without resorting to archetype stuff.
I'd also agree that the mere fact certain fighter archetypes exist is a black mark on the fighter. Many of those abilities should simply be part of all fighters, as many upgrades and rewrites of fighters by posters here attest to. The fact other classes can get superior versions of feats that they don't even have to qualify for rankles me deeply.
But those are different problems. The whole 'can't contribute out of combat' is for people who don't know how to play ANY CHARACTER. It's not a fighter situation in the slightest.
===Aelryinth
Overall I disagree with this statement. A word generic as "fighter" does not automatically designate "level headed combatant" any more then rogue designates sneak thief or ranger designates tree hugger.A fighter is meant to be a level headed combatant.
So now you're arguing that you should be able to play big dumb fighter who's also a skill monkey. You don't have a rage ability to make you lose your mind. Role play away but that's not the class intent. If you want to rage be a barbarian. Just because you want to play a class your own way doesn't make the class broken.
Fighter
-------
Skills: Climb, Craft, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Dungeoneering, Engineering, Profession, Ride, Survival, Swim.
Proficiencies: All armor, simple/martial weapons
Bravery +5
Armor Training 4
Weapon Training 4
Armor Mastery
Weapon MasteryA fighter is designed to be a combat expert. They are 'brave'. Brave things do not lose their mind in combat. That's being reckless. The abilities of the fighter are best enhanced by strength and dexterity. The short comings of the fighter, the lacking utility/social skills, means that you NEED to invest points into intelligence.
I think you've done everything but actually refute my point against your statement. My consideration was not a mechanical concern but a thematic one.
Barbarian: STR-DEX-CON
Cleric: STR-DEX/CON-WIS
Ranger: STR-DEX-WIS
Paladin: STR-CON-CHA
Rogue: STR-DEX-CHAFighter is not STR-DEX-CON. It's STR-DEX-CON/INT.
Sir, I think it may be best that you put the cleric down. He's had a rough day.
Actually I'm kind of curious what leads you to believe that a fighter needs to get away with less con then a barbarian. Particularly since they have less hit dice.
Ashiel, your whole point about Fighters/Magic Items is absolutely wrong.
It takes a Fighter ONE feat more then the mage to start making items...Magical Artisan.
He then needs only 4000 gp per line of stuff he wants to make. How? Modular Headbands of Intelligence tied to skill ranks of what he wants to make.
Unless you are going to explain how the Fighter gets around the restrictions on what he can Craft, I think you sir, are wrong.
Interesting, I never noticed that Magical Artisan was tied to only one Craft Skill, instead of any/all Craft skills. Point acknowledged.
But, you know, in the end I don't think it matters. With exactly one craft skill, the Fighter can labor ceaselessly out of combat creating his one shtick...weapons or armor, most likely, and then simply swap 1:1 with those who create other things.
Which is time leverage and highly beneficial to the entire party. He can also get his weapons or armor upgraded much more quickly, which is also a big benefit.
The major restriction on out of combat work is time, not money. It's entirely likely the fighter will simply not have the time to upgrade his own or everyone's gear, just as the wizard isn't going to have time to do everything that he wants to do.
In other words, even if he can only create one thing, that means that the spellcasters don't need to create it...and he can simply swap for what he wants, and everyone profits. The Ranger can actually take Craft Wand, so he can use Instant Enemy, while tossing CLW wands out for the fighter's benefit, and the fighter keeps upgrading his armor for him in return. Everyone profits...it's called specializing and not duplicating efforts.
Being able to do everything is meaningless without the unlimited time and money behind it to actually do that, and will never apply in any campaign. A Fighter with Armor crafting can make his armor, his shield, his gauntlets, his girdle, a magic helm, a gorget, bracers, armored boots (sollerets). That right there is easily 300k+ of gear just for himself...and most of the party is going to want those things, too.
And he needs to spend 4k, and a feat to do it. Cheap.
I'm reminded of a party SKR was in, where everyone in the party had social skills and was trying to be able to do everything, and consquently didn't have any specialists, and the party had a far narrower set of skills then a party of specialists whose people couldn't cover all the bases. They 'reorganized' at one point, one guy became the face, another the 'aid another' for social skills, and they all grabbed up different skills so the PARTY could cover a wider range of situations, instead of one character trying to do it all.
But if you've a party with a cleric, wizard and rogue, and none of them take Diplomacy, the fighter has almost no MANDATORY skills, and can spend points on Diplomacy to close the gap.
If he needs to contribute as a crafter, then he can blow a feat and 4k and become a crafter and work away during downtime. It's really that simple!
===Aelryinth
I removed some posts.
1) Be civil.
2) Flag it and move on. (This means don't reply.)
3) "Popcorn" and "in before the lock" type posts are the opposite of helpful. See #2.
If you want to stay relevant on both fronts of melee or casting you need you physical stats along with wis. Ya it's nice to have a good cha since it affects number of channels but isn't a necessity.
What you're describing their is a battle cleric sir. Just needed clarification. Carry on.
I would argue the point about the barbarian. But there are others far more skilled at a barbarian than I who can speak better for it.
Yes I'm talking about a melee cleric since they are designed to go into melee. At some point the buffs stop, no one needs to be healed, there's no reason to cast a 0th level spell so you pull your weapon and smash something in the face.
If you want to stay relevant on both fronts of melee or casting you need you physical stats along with wis. Ya it's nice to have a good cha since it affects number of channels but isn't a necessity.
What you're describing their is a battle cleric sir. Just needed clarification. Carry on.
I would argue the point about the barbarian. But there are others far more skilled at a barbarian than I who can speak better for it.
Ho boy, I think you were better off just leaving the statement stand and sticking to the topic of fighters.
If I start getting into caster clerics, bad touch clerics, archery clerics, support clerics, healing clerics, channeling clerics, or undead lords I'll be forced into nasty language.
I'm going to leave this thinking you are talking about a certain way to play a cleric and not imply it's the only feasible way.
I'm just going to call it a miscommunication and leave it at that since that's what it appears to be.
But that barbarian lacks the ability to be mobile while wearing heavy armors and lacks the dexterity to make up for the AC gap. The barbarian trades out his defense to opt for more offense. The fighter is a balanced combatant. You don't excel at something unless you go all out for it. The barbarian is inherently designed to be high damage low AC.
Why are you talking about combat statistics? I was talking about out-of-combat utility.
Despite you changing the subject, I'll still respond... kind fellow that I am.
I've never played a Barbarian in heavy armor. I tend to keep them in light armor, preferably Mithril Breastplate. As you say, a Barbarian isn't an AC goon like the Fighter, so I don't worry too much about struggling against the inevitable - I work within it.
Instead, Barbarians have more HP, more mobility (40', Acrobatics class skill) and DR (which shines against lots of smaller attacks). That and when they Rage, the principle of "dead enemies don't hit back" comes into play.
|
A fighter is designed to be a combat expert. They are 'brave'. Brave things do not lose their mind in combat. That's being reckless. The abilities of the fighter are best enhanced by strength and dexterity. The short comings of the fighter, the lacking utility/social skills, means that you NEED to invest points into intelligence.
My God! That's sound simply horrible...until you remember that Combat Expertise requires intelligence, and that defense is better than offense whenever tangling with anything that has more attacks than you do.
...it's almost enough to make you wonder if those sneaky game writers designed it that way to reward players who could manage to pull themselves out of the rapture of maximum DPR versus stupid Olympics contests.
They already have that class; it's called "Ranger", and it gets 6sk/lvl.That, with small alterations, the fighter wouldn't NEED to put points in int to not sit out bored when the fighting stops.
My idea: Up his skills to 4 points/level and maybe give him a small ability from a list, these ability hving use out of battle butlittle to none in battle, so he won't get actually more powerful just more versatile.
Barbarian: STR-DEX-CON
Cleric: STR-DEX/CON-WIS
Ranger: STR-DEX-WIS
Paladin: STR-CON-CHA
Rogue: STR-DEX-CHAFighter is not STR-DEX-CON. It's STR-DEX-CON/INT.
Those are the NEEDS of the class to stay relevant.
Bah.
Some of my recent builds....
Barb: CON>STR>WIS (half-orc supercork switch-hitter)
Cler: WIS>CHA>CON (Guided Hand & Dangerously Curious UMD/Channel build)
Rang: DEX>STR>INT (archery/TWF/2hPA triple-switcher)
Pala: DEX>CHA>CON (halfling paladin/rogue)
Fight: CON>STR>INT (brick-wall dwarf with stone armor, tower shield & Combat Expertise)
-- not one of them had strength as the primary stat.
Attack and damage bonuses are the easiest things to get in the game, and hence uber strength (as opposed to adequate strength) is among the least "necessary" aspects of a combat build.
So by your definition, Monks are amazing archers because there is one archtype that is an amazing archtype? I'm not sure how to adequately explain why that's a load of crap, but I hope most people don't need it explained to them.Now you are also changing definitions. Look, you don't have to like it but the truth is that a fighter can be built to use class features to meet the concerns many people have. They are still fighters. The fact that they can't multiclass into another fighter archetype proves that.
The goalposts have been moved because the conversation went from "fighters" to "the narrow fighter definition I want to use."
You're are twisting what I said. If you said that you can't make an effective archer with the monk class, I would say that you can and then show you how. If you said that all monk builds should be able to be good archers, I would tell you that you are wrong. The fact is that the monk, with a specific archetype, can be a very effective archer and it is still a monk. No matter how much you try to argue it away, the zen archer is still a monk. It just doesn't have the same abilities as the core monk. Just like a spellslinger is still a wizard, it's just not the same type of wizard as the diviner.
Alright Loblaw, I'll take the bait. Hit me with a Fighter build that can fight and still be relevant out of battle and I'll make a barbarian build to do the same. Let's see if the trained soldier can beat the illiterate berserker. Since I'm throwing the gauntlet, you choose: What level, how many attribute points, how many traits, what race.
I already put out one full build, from level 1 to 20 for a tactician. He wasn't the main damage dealer but he would be incredibly relevant in battle. With all the skills he had, he would be very relevant out of battle as well.
Oh, and the barbarian isn't illiterate anymore.
Uhmmm... no archetypes, the fighter has an archetype that increases skill points but the barbarian doesn't have anything similar to keep the playing ground level. And no multiclassing, that would be about the class yu multiclass into, not about the fighter. Feats and rage powers can be from any book of the main line (APG, UM, UC),unless Bob decides for Core only. Like I said, by the laws of dueling, I threw the gauntlet, he can decide the weapons and grounds.
And by relevant I mean anything that he can do well enough to be used out of battle. Skils most likely, but if can get something from his feats, it's cool. Paladins have healing andspells, Rangers have several bonuses to skills and stuff like camouflge and hide in plain sight, Rogues can get all sorts of interesting abilities from thei talents... Barbarians and Fighters are the only two who, at first glance, have no out of combat utility, so I say we see if one fares better than the other.
Too bad if there is an archetype that grants skill points to the fighter. That same archetype takes away a bonus feat at first level, does not grant heavy armor or tower shield proficiency, loses bravery, loses weapon training 1, and armor training 3. He doesn't just get 2 extra skill points.
You're are twisting what I said. If you said that you can't make an effective archer with the monk class, I would say that you can and then show you how. If you said that all monk builds should be able to be good archers, I would tell you that you are wrong. The fact is that the monk, with a specific archetype, can be a very effective archer and it is still a monk. No matter how much you try to argue it away, the zen archer is still a monk. It just doesn't have the same abilities as the core monk. Just like a spellslinger is still a wizard, it's just not the same type of wizard as the diviner.
Ok, well let me put it another way for you.
I still don't give two coppers about archtypes because just because one archtype gives some reprieve from the issues that Fighters innately have, it is not relevant to Fighters in general.
The above says nothing for Fighters. It's only relevant as far as being that specific archtype. The archtypes are incompatible, and you can't multiclass between them, and they always give up something, and then it just becomes an issue if system mastery to try and weasel out which abilities are stronger than others (a scaling bonus to Initiative is obviously stronger than a scaling bonus on fear saves to anyone well-versed in the game's mechanics, for example).
If you said monks suck at archery, that's not really contestable. I might chime in and say "With the exception of the Zen Archer archtype, but that's a very specific archtype", but overall you would be correct since the rest of the monks are stuck throwing shurikens if they want ranged attacks. If someone wants to play a Monk, that is a normal Monk or even the majority of Monk archtypes, the statement is entirely true.
I see this as being oh-so-similar to the days when people said Fighters had problems in 3.5, and people defending the Fighter as you are now said stuff like "Oh but Fighters are fine, because you can take X, Y, or Z prestige class". >.>
The very fact that some of the new archtypes are more or less just better than the core books shows there is a problem. A big problem, actually. Trying to "fix" a class by releasing an archtype to try and cover up your mistakes is not acceptable.
When I'm speaking of other classes, I'm speaking of those classes in general terms. When I'm talking about those classes, I'm speaking about what all members of those classes have in common. I am talking about the rule, not the exception. With the Fighter, you are doing the opposite.
Perhaps we are having a miscommunication. I may just not be perceiving what you are saying how you intend for me to perceive it. So let me try this one more way before I end this post (it's probably a bit scattered-brained as I just woke up)...
I'm reading your argument as the equivalent to...
While my argument is the equivalent to...
It seems very similar to saying "Rogues have problems" and then being told "Ninjas don't have problems!".
@Ashiel
I pretty much argee with you on this subject but i have to say that i disagree with the "no class fixing archetypes" because i am glad about the qinggong monk, i am glad about the beast rider cavalier and i am glad about the ninja (if only it didn't had the asian baggage with him), and now becuase of this thread the tactician fighter came to my attention and i am starting to think that this fighter might be able to function as a fix fighter but i am not sure yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're are twisting what I said. If you said that you can't make an effective archer with the monk class, I would say that you can and then show you how. If you said that all monk builds should be able to be good archers, I would tell you that you are wrong. The fact is that the monk, with a specific archetype, can be a very effective archer and it is still a monk. No matter how much you try to argue it away, the zen archer is still a monk. It just doesn't have the same abilities as the core monk. Just like a spellslinger is still a wizard, it's just not the same type of wizard as the diviner.Ok, well let me put it another way for you.
I still don't give two coppers about archtypes because just because one archtype gives some reprieve from the issues that Fighters innately have, it is not relevant to Fighters in general.
This is why there is a disconnect. Every fighter archetype is still a fighter no matter what you try to argue. The fighter in the core book is one type of fighter. The others are also fighters. Paizo has made this clear and no matter how much you want to say that they aren't, the fact is that they are and they are part of the discussion.
Fighters have plenty of skill points and Intelligence benefits because of the Tactician archtype.
Fighters don't have mobility problems because of the Mobile Fighter archtype.
Both are true statements. Not every fighter can do those things, just like not every cleric can cast True Strike.
The above says nothing for Fighters. It's only relevant as far as being that specific archtype. The archtypes are incompatible, and you can't multiclass between them, and they always give up something, and then it just becomes an issue if system mastery to try and weasel out which abilities are stronger than others (a scaling bonus to Initiative is obviously stronger than a scaling bonus on fear saves to anyone well-versed in the game's mechanics, for example).
It says that not every fighter is the same. You are arguing from a point of view of "all fighters have the same flaws." I am arguing from the point of view of "there are options out there that are still the fighter that reduce or eliminate those flaws but bring with them other flaws."
A bonus on initiative is not necessarily stronger than a scaling bonus on fear saves. Someone well versed in the game's mechanics wouldn't make blanket statements assuming that the mechanics carry the same weight in all campaigns in all situations. Yes, in many games a bonus to initiative does carry more weight. It's not a given that it would be that way in all campaigns.
If you said monks suck at archery, that's not really contestable. I might chime in and say "With the exception of the Zen Archer archtype, but that's a very specific archtype", but overall you would be correct since the rest of the monks are stuck throwing shurikens if they want ranged attacks. If someone wants to play a Monk, that is a normal Monk or even the majority of Monk archtypes, the statement is entirely true.
Sure, wizards suck at casting enchantments if they took it as an opposition school. If you take one option over another, you generally sacrifice somewhere else. A zen archer monk is still a monk. There is no getting around that. You cannot play a zen archer monk that is also a master of other weapons. You can play one that is a master of many styles. The archetypes are meant to allow you to play the type of character you want with the class you want. It doesn't always work, but that is the general idea. If you are playing a "normal" monk, you are not playing a zen archer. If you want to play a monk that is also an archer, then you need to play a zen archer.
I see this as being oh-so-similar to the days when people said Fighters had problems in 3.5, and people defending the Fighter as you are now said stuff like "Oh but Fighters are fine, because you can take X, Y, or Z prestige class". >.>
Prestige classes are in no way similar to archetypes. Archetypes are more like the substitution levels that were introduced later. The chassis remained the same but at some levels you gave up one thing to gain something else. The only difference is that with the archetypes you must take all the substitution levels.
The very fact that some of the new archtypes are more or less just better than the core books shows there is a problem. A big problem, actually. Trying to "fix" a class by releasing an archtype to try and cover up your mistakes is not acceptable.
This is so far from the truth. The archetypes allow people to play characters that fit their concept better. Not all people will use archetypes. Not all archetypes have the same value in all campaigns. For example, it is very unlikely that a PC will play a gravewalker witch in my games. In other games, they are probably more than welcome. Doesn't change the fact that there is an archetypes that fits someone's concept. It was not an attempt to fix a mistake. It was an attempt at broadening the options for players and game masters.
When I'm speaking of other classes, I'm speaking of those classes in general terms. When I'm talking about those classes, I'm speaking about what all members of those classes have in common. I am talking about the rule, not the exception. With the Fighter, you are doing the opposite.
I'm still talking about the fighter. I am not ignoring options available just so I can be right. Either those options are there or they are not. Since they are there, they are part of the discussion.
Perhaps we are having a miscommunication. I may just not be perceiving what you are saying how you intend for me to perceive it. So let me try this one more way before I end this post (it's probably a bit scattered-brained as I just woke up)...
I'm reading your argument as the equivalent to...
Monks are good archers because of Zen Archer Monk.
While my argument is the equivalent to...
Monks are bad archers except for the Zen Archer Monk.
As I said before, that's not exactly what I am saying. What is being said is that monks do not make good archers and I am saying that they can be if you use the zen archer option and take the appropriate feats/traits along with races that compliment the build. The core monk will not fit the concept but there is alternate monk that does. It is still a monk, he just trained at a monastery that allowed him to travel a different path.
It seems very similar to saying "Rogues have problems" and then being told "Ninjas don't have problems!".
Not exactly the same thing. If you said that the rogue has a specific problem and the ninja doesn't, then it is ok to say that the alternate rogue does not have that problem so play the version that meets your needs. That's why the archetypes and alternate classes exist. Ignoring that doesn't make it go away. They are still all part of the same class.
Let me make something clear. I don't think the fighter is perfect. I think that there are some things that could make it better. That being said, when someone comes in claiming that the fighter cannot do something, instead of listening to a bunch of claims, I look it over and see if that is true. If I can find even one instance where it isn't true, then the original statement is false. The more instances that I find that disprove it, the less likely I am going to accept hyperbole.
Every single one of theses discussions starts the same way:
--"Fighter can't do anything out of combat and can only hit things in combat."
--"Actually, they can do a lot in and out of combat, here's how..."
--"I'm not going to take into account what you said because it doesn't fit my paradigm." or "well then they can't do this or this or this."
--"Actually, they can also do those things, here's how."
--"Yeah but class X does that too." or "Class X does that better."
See how the goal posts get moved?
Now we are also seeing:
--"The fighter can't do as much as spell casters in and out of combat."
--"Here is a build that can do as much in and out of combat. No it doesn't use spells, but it buffs the party and has a ton of options out of combat."
--"Show me how it compares to a barbarian."
The argument was originally that the fighter could not do much. Now it has changed to the fighter isn't a barbarian or ranger or wizard...etc. That is all 100% true. The fighter is none of those things. If that's what someone wants to play, then play it. The barbarian doesn't suck just because the ranger is better at being a mounted archer. The wizard doesn't suck because the barbarian can smash things without wasting spells. The classes fill different roles. If the fighter doesn't fit the concept you want, that isn't a fault of the fighter class. It is just what it is. Play the class or combination of classes that allow you to fill your concept.
@Ashiel
I pretty much argee with you on this subject but i have to say that i disagree with the "no class fixing archetypes" because i am glad about the qinggong monk, i am glad about the beast rider cavalier and i am glad about the ninja (if only it didn't had the asian baggage with him), and now becuase of this thread the tactician fighter came to my attention and i am starting to think that this fighter might be able to function as a fix fighter but i am not sure yet.
Sorry, perhaps I garbled what I was trying to say.
I don't mind archtypes that are "patches" on anything except principle. If Zen Archer and Qi Gong monk are actually decent to play with, then that's great. But I would note which ones I'm speaking of specifically when I was referring to them for that reason.
I would be more likely to point people in the direction of those archtypes because of the class's usual problems. I myself think monks have tons of problems, but have been meaning to get around to rolling a Zen Archer because for most purposes they are not like regular monks.
Again, it's overly specific vs general. For example...
"Playing a gnome tactician fightr that uses his racial caster levels to qualify for item creation feats, and the trading his first bonus feat for 4 + Int modifier skill points, works really well. Fighters don't have problems" is misleading. Yeah, he's got some Fighter in there, but a lot of it is most definitely not simply by virtue of being a Fighter.
Which goes back to my previous commentary about system mastery. I'm not saying it's not possible to make a Fighter that contributes, or to play one effectively. However the level of system mastery needed to patch their holes is just too extreme. Especially comparing them to other classes like the Ranger, Paladin, and Barbarian, who actually rival the Fighter in terms of combat effectiveness (and some would say surpass them in many cases) while also being legitimately useful without jumping through hoops to do so.
For example, I believe it was Khrysaor (but I could be wrong) who posted a Fighter who gave up a lot of his damage potetial (the thing that Fighters actually DO excel at over their peers) to try and diversify them a little bit. Whereas, most classes have combat effectiveness plus diversity built in.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters have no problem with skill points, or mobility, or at shrugging off status effects, or at mounted combat, or combat manoeuvres or even unarmed combat!
My fighter build is a Tactician/Mobile Fighter/Unbreakable/Roughrider/Lore Warden/Brawler.
Fighters have no problem with skill points, or mobility, or at shrugging off status effects, or at mounted combat, or combat manoeuvres or even unarmed combat!
My fighter build is a Tactician/Mobile Fighter/Unbreakable/Roughrider/Lore Warden/Brawler.
** spoiler omitted **
Wow, I needed that. Q.Q
Interestingly, neither does my my build!
So, have we solved anything yet?
Nope. Rational thought and logical discussion is, as always, been overtaken.
I still want to see the acid test taken by a barbarian.