The fighter is the only class that should have full BAB.


Homebrew and House Rules

51 to 88 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

StreamOfTheSky wrote:

I have the opposite view. Kill the Fighter. Don't have one designated "best at fighting" class. Have classes best at fighting certain ways, against certain foes, etc...

End the tyranny fighter holds over the other martials. The sooner people stop arguing about how X class feature makes Y other martial class feel useless, the sooner we can focus on the martial / caster disparity that's the actual issue.

He would not be missed.


Donovan Lynch wrote:
Quote:
1) a horrid BAB
As bad as a wizard is now, or 1-3 points worse than a cleric is now, for lvls 1-12 (the range most people I know play at).

I just want to point out a minor flaw here. Despite the fact that PFS stops at 12th, not everyone does (including just about anyone playing an AP). So you can't reason based on levels 1-12. Any arguments need to be valid for 1-20.


Donovan Lynch wrote:

Re: Master Arminas's statement about Fighters being SAD...are you crazy? Fighters need Str, they need Con, they often need Dex, and if they want to have nice things like feat prereqs, decent Will saves, or out-of-combat abilities, they shouldn't dump Int, Wis, or Cha either.

Fighters are no more SAD than Clerics or Wizards, and I would argue less so.

Fighters NEED only Strength. Everything else is nice, but not required. On a 15-point buy, you can easily start with this array: Str 16 (10 points), Dex 12 (2 points), Con 14 (5 points), Int 10 (0 points), Wis 12 (2 points), and Cha 7 (-4 points). Add your +2 bonus to Strength for human, half-elf, or half-orc, and you are looking at Str 18, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 12, and Cha 7 at 1st level.

A Dwarf fighter (on the same 15 points) would have Str 16, Dex 12, Con 16, Int 10, Wis 14, and Cha 5. An Elf would be Str 16, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 12, Wis 12, and Cha 7.

Pretty good stats on a 15-point buy. Increasing to 20 just gets the fighter more gravy.

Str 17 (13 points), Dex 12 (2 points), Con 14 (5 points), Int 12 (2 points), Wis 12 (2 points), and Cha 7 (-4 points).

Human, half-elf, half-orc: Str 19, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 7. Dwarf: Str 17, Dex 12, Con 16, Int 12, Wis 14, Cha 5. Elf: Str 17, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 14, Wis 12, Cha 7.

Now, if a fighter really wanted to, he could do this on 15-points. Str 17 (13 points), Dex 12 (2 points), Con 14 (2 points), Int 10 (0 points), Wis 10 (0 points), Cha 8 (-2 points).

H,HE, or HO: Str 19, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 8. Dwarf: Str 17, Dex 12, Con 16, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 6. Elf: Str 17, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 8.

So yes, Fighters are, by and large, Single Attribute classes. Strength is what they need; no net negatives in Int or Wis are GOOD, while Cha is a pure dump stat. Moderate Dex and Con helps, but isn't really required.

That same Fighter at 20th level, putting all 5 level-dependent ability score gains in Str, would have the following: Str 30, Dex 18, Con 20, Int 10, Wis 16, Cha 8. And he would have spent just 180,000 gold on a Belt of Physical Perfection +6 and a Headband of Inspired Wisdom +6, leaving him with 700,000 gp left to spend on EVERYTHING else. That doesn't even include inherent bonuses, by the way. Cloak of Resistance +5 is 25,000 gp, Ring of Protection +5 is 50,000 gp, Amulet of Natural Armor +5 is 50,000 gp. That leaves 575,000 gp to spend on the rest of his miscellaneous items, armor, and weapons. Okay, let's back the Fighter take full advantage of his Armor Training, we buy a +2 Manual of Quickness of Action for 55,000 gp (520,000 gp left) which bumps Dex to 20. Ghost touch light fortifaction glamered Full Plate +5 costs 85,350 gp (including base armor and masterwork costs). +5 ghost touch heavy steel shield costs 49,170 gp.

Total remaining is 385,480 gp. Armor class is 46, even before Dodge, or Shield Mastery, or Ioun Stones, or what have you.

Yeah, that fighter is really MAD isn't he. I mean he has to have a 19+ Int or Wis or Cha to cast spells. He has to have a high Strength and Charisma to fight and smite. He needs HIGH Str, Dex, AND Wis because he can't wear armor like a monk. Oh, wait, he DOESN'T.

Because, when it boils down to it, a Fighter needs Strength. Everything else is gravy.

Master Arminas

Master Arminas


I was wrong about spells per day. I thought Wizards had a faster spell progression than clerics. I was wrong. Clerics actually get 1 more spell per day at all levels than wizards due to domains.

Donovan Lynch wrote:

Yeah, because clerics don't get spells like Inflict X Wounds, Hold Person, Augury, Find Traps, Spiritual Weapon, Animate Dead, Bestow Curse, Dispel Magic, Searing Light, Chaos Hammer, Holy Smite, Greater Magic Weapon, Lesser Planar Ally, Slay Living, Summon Monster, or the TONS of other great control, utility, and direct damage spells they get.

Oh wait...

Please don't whine about how the cleric's spell list is so limited. They have an awesome spell list.

You and I strongly disagree as to what makes a good spell.

Inflict X Wounds? Touch attack with a save that does 1d8/2d8/3d8 + CL damage? Compared to Magic Missle, Scorching Ray, or, well, any other damage spell? Thats part of your "awesome spell list"?

Augury? Maybe your DM is more generous than mine, but I almost always get "Weal and woe," which is just monumentally unhelpful.

Find Traps? Still doesnt give you trapfinding needed for magical traps

Slay Living? Nonscaling single-target damage on a touch attack that saves for 1/4?

Holy Smite? Medium aoe damage that requires you to know the alignment of what you will be fighting ahead of time? (GM: You are attacked by Giant Spiders. You: Evil Giant Spiders? GM: No.)

Of the spells you listed, I would consider Dispel Magic, Greater Magic Weapon, and the Summon Monster line "Awesome," with a footnote by Planar Ally line because its good, if you can afford it.

No, I do not believe clerics have a particularly strong spell-list.

Donovan Lynch wrote:


#1: most healing is done between combats, not during.
donovan Lynch wrote:
So maybe Clerics shouldn't be able to wade into combat as confidently as fighters? Maybe they could hold back and cast spells, maybe even *gasp* buff the fighter!

So... Clerics shouldn't melee. They should buff the fighter, and then cast from their awesome spell list... what, exactly? I'm confused. I shouldn't heal. I shouldn't be in melee, so I should use none of my touch spells. I should save some of my spells for healing between combats. It sounds alot like I buff the fighter, and then stand there and watch him fight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Enchanter Tom wrote:
Drop every other class that is full BAB to 3/4 BAB and every class that is 3/4 BAB down to half ...

NO


MagiMaster wrote:
I just want to point out a minor flaw here. Despite the fact that PFS stops at 12th, not everyone does (including just about anyone playing an AP). So you can't reason based on levels 1-12. Any arguments need to be valid for 1-20.

YMMV. I wasn't even considering PFS, just statistics...unless you start at 10th level, most of your campaign is going to be played at 12th and lower, and a large number of campaigns will end before they get higher than 12th. I personally have not played in any campaign higher than 12th unless the characters started at high level.

While I can see where you're coming from, all too often I see people doing the reverse...arguing that as long as it's okay at 15th-20th, it's fine...even though VASTLY more people play 1st-5th than 15th-20th.

Master Arminas wrote:
Because, when it boils down to it, a Fighter needs Strength. Everything else is gravy.

I'm not even going to try to deal with that eye-blasting wall of numbers, so I'm just going to ask: how is the fighter less MAD than a wizard? Or a cleric?

Naedre wrote:
You and I strongly disagree as to what makes a good spell.

Okay, you and I need to stop shifting goalposts and agree on what we are arguing.

You said clerics could only buff and heal...so I listed a number of spells they get that are not buffing OR healing (utility, direct damage, control). I would say I have answered your objection that they can only buff and heal.

I think their spell list is good because it is good-sized, has a variety of spells, most of which are quite useful, and because they have access to all of it. You dispute this general point?

Quote:
Inflict X Wounds? Touch attack with a save that does 1d8/2d8/3d8 + CL damage? Compared to Magic Missle, Scorching Ray, or, well, any other damage spell?

All right, Cleric's direct damage isn't great. They still get it, so they can do more than heal or buff.

Quote:
Augury? Maybe your DM is more generous than mine, but I almost always get "Weal and woe," which is just monumentally unhelpful.

I'm sorry your DM hates you. :)

Quote:
Find Traps? Still doesnt give you trapfinding needed for magical traps

*shrug* Campaign dependent. I don't use a lot of traps in general, and mechanical outnumber magical by a fair amount.

Quote:
Slay Living? Nonscaling single-target damage on a touch attack that saves for 1/4?

I will admit this one too...wow, I had no idea how bad they neutered it.

Quote:
Holy Smite? Medium aoe damage that requires you to know the alignment of what you will be fighting ahead of time? (GM: You are attacked by Giant Spiders. You: Evil Giant Spiders? GM: No.)

I feel you're reaching here, but again, campaign dependent. Most of my campaigns, evil enemies outnumber non-evil by a substantial margin.

Quote:
Of the spells you listed, I would consider Dispel Magic, Greater Magic Weapon, and the Summon Monster line "Awesome," with a footnote by Planar Ally line because its good, if you can afford it.

I did not say those were all "awesome" spells. I said the overall list is awesome, because it contains a wide variety of useful spells, and they get all of it.

Re: Planar Ally..."if the task is strongly aligned with the creature's ethos, it may halve or even waive the payment". Slaying evil is pretty high on the list of a lot of good Outsiders.

Quote:
So... Clerics shouldn't melee. They should buff the fighter, and then cast from their awesome spell list... what, exactly? I'm confused. I shouldn't heal. I shouldn't be in melee, so I should use none of my touch spells. I should save some of my spells for healing between combats. It sounds alot like I buff the fighter, and then stand there and watch him fight.

Okay, let me put it this way: What do you want your cleric to do?

The answer seems to be, "wade in and hit guys". In which case I ask why you aren't playing a fighter.

Often, the implied answer is "wade in and hit guys, as good as or better than the fighter...oh and heal, deal with undead, and summon archons". I'm not really cool with that.


Donovan Lynch wrote:
MagiMaster wrote:
I just want to point out a minor flaw here. Despite the fact that PFS stops at 12th, not everyone does (including just about anyone playing an AP). So you can't reason based on levels 1-12. Any arguments need to be valid for 1-20.

YMMV. I wasn't even considering PFS, just statistics...unless you start at 10th level, most of your campaign is going to be played at 12th and lower, and a large number of campaigns will end before they get higher than 12th. I personally have not played in any campaign higher than 12th unless the characters started at high level.

While I can see where you're coming from, all too often I see people doing the reverse...arguing that as long as it's okay at 15th-20th, it's fine...even though VASTLY more people play 1st-5th than 15th-20th.

I wouldn't really argue that there's some decaying distribution to what level of play people tend to reach (so more people play to 6 than 16). But I don't think it's valid to argue that if it's fine up to 12, it's fine overall (anymore than it'd be valid to say if it's fine at 12-20, it's fine overall).


Did I miss the memo? Fighters are supposed to be the "best at fighting" class? I thought they were supposed to be the "most versatile and flexibly customizable style fighting" class.


Donovan Lynch wrote:
Master Arminas wrote:
Because, when it boils down to it, a Fighter needs Strength. Everything else is gravy.
I'm not even going to try to deal with that eye-blasting wall of numbers, so I'm just going to ask: how is the fighter less MAD than a wizard? Or a cleric?

A Wizard, or Sorcerer, is the single most SAD character in game. They can pretty much ignore EVERY stat except their casting stat and still be decent characters. Of course, they don't in practice. 15-point buy usually looks like this (for a Wizard):

Str 10 (0 points), Dex 10 (0 points), Con 10 (0 points), Int 18 (17 points), Wis 10 (0 points), and Cha 8 (-2 points). Human, half-elf, half-orc, or Elf bumps that Int to 20. Only negative is Cha. And it can still be a VERY good, VERY solid character.

Clerics, not so much. You need Wis to spell casting. You need Cha for your channeling. They rely on medium armor and shields, and often serve as 2nd-line melee characters, wading in with heavy mace or morning star, so you need Strength. Con is far more useful to a Cleric than a Sor/Wiz, because he finds himself on the front more often.

Druids tend to focus on Strength and Wisdom, with Dex/Con as dual tertiary stats. Int/Cha are their dumps. Why? High Wisdom gets them spell-casting, and high Strength maxs out the benefit from Wild Shape.

So basically, the Fighter is needs less ability scores than a Cleric, although not quite the single ONE of a Wizard or Sorcerer.

Master Arminas


I would never play a character(expecially a squishy) with a 10 con. Other than that, yeah your pretty much spot on Arminas.


I would say with armor training fighters have got a pretty good reason to invest more than a 12 in Dex. As it stands not only their AC gets better subsequently but there are so many other things tied to DEX, it's not even funny anymore. Sure a fighter can work with just the minimum CON and DEx but ultimately investing more in thiose will increase the survivability more than it cramps their damage output.


Dragonamedrake wrote:
I would never play a character(expecially a squishy) with a 10 con. Other than that, yeah your pretty much spot on Arminas.

I'm not sure that I've ever seen a character with a Con less than 12 survive to the end of a campaign.


Dragonamedrake wrote:
I would never play a character(expecially a squishy) with a 10 con. Other than that, yeah your pretty much spot on Arminas.

I was trying not to dump a bunch of things below 10. But you are right; my players would probably have a Str 8, Dex 12, Con 12, Int 18, Wis 10, and Cha 7 on a 15-point buy (-2 Str, +2 Dex, +2 Con, +17 Int, +0 Wis, -4 Cha = 15 points).

AND they would put their favored class bonus into Hit Points (a starting Int of 20 is more than enough for skills).

Master Arminas


Threeshades wrote:
I would say with armor training fighters have got a pretty good reason to invest more than a 12 in Dex. As it stands not only their AC gets better subsequently but there are so many other things tied to DEX, it's not even funny anymore. Sure a fighter can work with just the minimum CON and DEx but ultimately investing more in thiose will increase the survivability more than it cramps their damage output.

The heaviest armor (full plate) has a max Dex of +1. Armor training 4 increases that +5 (at 15th level). That means a Dex of 20 is all that you ever need (unless you go mithril armor, of course). You can get that with a 2 point investment at 1st level (starting Dex of 12), getting a belt of physical perfection +6 (over time, of course), and adding a +2 inherent bonus to Dexterity. All quite doable by the time you hit 15th or 16th level. Or, add two of your every-four-levels attribute increases to Dex, and put that inherent bonus into Strength. Saves money at 15th level, but accomplishes the same goal.

And an Elf fighter investing 2 points in Dex will start with a 14, so he doesn't need anything more than a +6 belt.

Archer fighters might well be different, but if you are going archery, that isn't the same as what most people picture with Fighter.

Master Arminas


Donovan Lynch wrote:
Naedre wrote:
You and I strongly disagree as to what makes a good spell.

Okay, you and I need to stop shifting goalposts and agree on what we are arguing.

You said clerics could only buff and heal...so I listed a number of spells they get that are not buffing OR healing (utility, direct damage, control). I would say I have answered your objection that they can only buff and heal.
Naedre wrote:
5) a limited spell list that is focused on heals & buffs (for other people only, apparently)

I think we are getting confused. I'm not moving the goal posts.

My original statement was that the Cleric spell list is focused on healing (including the implied removing status effects) and buffing. Thats fine. Buff spells are a cleric's strength.

What frustrated me was your statement that Cleric "maybe even *gasp* buff the fighter!" To me, this implied that Clerics shouldn't even bother buffing themselves for melee (which a good portion of their best spells do) and instead "Maybe they could hold back and cast spells,"

And my point was a Cleric's spell list is focused on buffing your party and yourself. Not that clerics can't do another things, but buffing and healing is what are best spells do. But your stated goal is for a cleric to be a wizard in medium armor, regardless of the fact that clerics get a spell list that is not designed to do anything like that.

Clerics are not blasters. They are not the strongest debuffers. They don't have the battlefield control tools that other classes have. They *can* do it. They arn't as good at it as a wizard, or even a druid, IMO.

Donovan Lynch wrote:

Okay, let me put it this way: What do you want your cleric to do?

The answer seems to be, "wade in and hit guys". In which case I ask why you aren't playing a fighter.

Often, the implied answer is "wade in and hit guys, as good as or better than the fighter...oh and heal, deal with undead, and summon archons". I'm not really cool with that.

Yes, I want a cleric that can contribute in melee dps, or heal, or deal with undead. Just not all at the same time. A cleric can do any of those roles, but they have to build for them.

A 18 Str/14 Wis/10 Cha "battle-cleric" focused self-buffing will be nearly as good as (not better) a fighter in melee combat. But he will have lower Con, Dex, and AC than the same fighter, and all his spellcasting ability will be used to make him a decent melee combatant. He will use all his feats to focus on his combat, and use few for his casting. He isn't a full-time healer, undead-hunter, or caster. And he is less durable than a fighter.

A 12 Str/18 Wis/14 Cha cleric will have alot more utility, spellcasting ability, and healing. His feats will focus on his spellcasting or channeling abilities. He will benefit everyone in the party. But he will never come close to the fighter in melee (unless he uses all his buffs on himself and withholds them from the fighter, which is a player problem, not a class problem.)


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Reducing them to a healbot is different from giving them 1/2 BAB. Plenty of people will still play a cleric with 1/2 BAB.

Well the fact that:

1) Divine Power, which every cleric is casting anyway, bumps you to full BAB regardless of what it was beforehand...

2) The Skillful weapon enhancement (+1) in C.Arcane that gives the user medium BAB if his is less than that (btw, I hate that this item existed)

3) Every cleric ever is prestige classing out after a few levels anyway, so he gets the x4 skill points at level 1 on the 6 + int and more class skills, and a free extra domain (which you can "swap out" for a different one for 1 day / CL via a 2nd level spell in C.Champion whenever you want something sexier than Knowledge domain) for the price of...-1 BAB, generally.

So yeah....3E cloistered cleric wasn't exactly much loss...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I never got to a level where Divine Power was available. Never heard of the Skillful enhancement. Nor did I get to prestige out either.


StreamOfTheSky wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Reducing them to a healbot is different from giving them 1/2 BAB. Plenty of people will still play a cleric with 1/2 BAB.

Well the fact that:

1) Divine Power, which every cleric is casting anyway, bumps you to full BAB regardless of what it was beforehand...

That was the old Divine Power. The Pathfinder version does not do that. The new Divine Power says

Quote:
You gain a +1 luck bonus on attack rolls, weapon damage rolls, Strength checks, and Strength-based skill checks for every three caster levels you have (maximum +6). You also gain 1 temporary hit point per caster level. Whenever you make a full-attack action, you can make an additional attack at your full base attack bonus, plus any appropriate modifiers. This additional attack is not culmative with similar effects, such as haste or weapons with the speed special ability.

Master Arminas


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I personally think that classes should be stripped of their fluff and made solely for statistically character development. That way people have more liberty when creating their own personal character to fit their backstory. Also I'm wondering what Tom actually knows what balance is considering he praises traditional D&D and says that 4e is balanced. I personally think that arbitrarily lowering bab will not solve the problem with fighters. Rather it'll just limit character creation freedom and funnel certain classes into a support role. Bards will no longer be viable as melee skirmishers or archers. No one will play the barbarian considering the fighter will be explicitly the best melee class. The cleric will never be able to hybrid again effectively. Both the inquisitor and magus will never be played again. If you really want to improve the balance of the game I suggest buffing the fighter rather then making some classes unplayable and pushing others into the full caster role.


StreamOfTheSky wrote:


3) Every cleric ever is prestige classing out after a few levels anyway, so he gets the x4 skill points at level 1 on the 6 + int and more class skills, and a free extra domain (which you can "swap out" for a different one for 1 day / CL via a 2nd level spell in C.Champion whenever you want something sexier than Knowledge domain) for the price of...-1 BAB, generally.

Uh what? Every 3e cleric I played almost always stayed single classed cleric and still beat most of the party when it came to damage. And in PF, I would never multiclass a cleric. Ever.


Helaman wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Next game I GM I plan to disallow the standard fighter and require taking an archetype. Archetypes are still very powerful and much more thematic, reflecting the variety on training that different people would receive
Except that it more or less removes either Armour Training, Weapon Training or both as an option for the character. I like archetypes too but a vanilla fighter is a very good option.

That's my purpose. Armor and Weapon training makes those fighters too darn powerful!

Lantern Lodge

Umbranus wrote:

I would just add a fighter only feat that increases BAB by 1. Not just +1 to hit but really +1BAB with everything that comes along.

Make it a once only feat and you're good to go.
This was the fighter can get his secont attack one level earlier, he gets +1 CMB and CMD but you don't have to change all the other classes.

Dedicated fighter
Prerequesites: Fighter 3rd level, no casterlevel, SLA or su abilities.

Benefit: BAB increases by 1

Special: If the character would later gain a casterlevel, SLA or su ability he can choose not to gain those abilities, keeping this feat instead or he can loose access to this feat.

Can not be taken more than once.

1. This should only exclude abilities given by classes and still allow abilities given by race(My tiefling has a su ability, why cant she be a fighter?)

Lantern Lodge

hogarth wrote:
Enchanter Tom wrote:
The fighter is supposed to be the fightingest class that ever was or is or ever shall be, so why does everyone else get full BAB next to him? He should have the most attacks and the most accurate attacks. Drop every other class that is full BAB to 3/4 BAB and every class that is 3/4 BAB down to half (take that monks) and watch the tears flow.

Alternate possibility: Take every non-magical class (e.g. rogue, cavalier, barbarian) and merge them into the fighter class. Rename it "Adventurer" or "Hero" or something.

The paladin can just be a cleric archetype or something.

Check out the 3.5 unearthed arcana it has an alternate 3 class system in there that fits the above and is quite nice.

Lantern Lodge

Donovan Lynch wrote:

...

So maybe Clerics shouldn't be able to wade into combat as confidently as fighters? Maybe they could hold back and cast spells, maybe even *gasp* buff the fighter! Or if they want, multiclass with Fighter...that's why the multiclassing rules exist.

Take a look at 12th level...core rules, Clerics would have +9 (from 3/4) BAB, and in my proposal they'd have +6. That's a 3 point difference.

So take your 12th level character and make them a 8th level Cleric and 4th level Fighter. Now they have +4 from Cleric and +4 from Fighter...total of +8 BAB. Still down a point, but if they take 1 more level of Fighter they get weapon training and another point of BAB. Now they can fight, but they actually have to give something up for it (a spell level or 2).

...

You cant just compare to the fighter(better bab and bonuses to atk with weapons) you also have to consider the ac of enemies at the CR the cleric would be fighting.

besides the idea behind the cleric is to wade into combat and save the fighter when he does something stupid or gets critted.

And they do give up something for their spells, it called a 3/4 bab and limited weapons and no extra fighter feats or abilities that improve their to hit ability(unless they expend a spell)


DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Umbranus wrote:

I would just add a fighter only feat that increases BAB by 1. Not just +1 to hit but really +1BAB with everything that comes along.

Make it a once only feat and you're good to go.
This was the fighter can get his secont attack one level earlier, he gets +1 CMB and CMD but you don't have to change all the other classes.

Dedicated fighter
Prerequesites: Fighter 3rd level, no casterlevel, SLA or su abilities.

Benefit: BAB increases by 1

Special: If the character would later gain a casterlevel, SLA or su ability he can choose not to gain those abilities, keeping this feat instead or he can loose access to this feat.

Can not be taken more than once.

1. This should only exclude abilities given by classes and still allow abilities given by race(My tiefling has a su ability, why cant she be a fighter?)

The intend was to give fighters that rely purely on fighting and eschew any supernatural abilities.

You could very well change the special so that one can give up any racial abilities to gain access to that feat.

Lantern Lodge

since when are abilities not just fighting? In a fight you are going to use whatever is available to you to win the only difference in the classes comes from what you train in and racial abilities are not chosen by Characters and such characters would be absolutely stupid to ignore a possible advantage in combat.

Besides the fighter is already the best fighter so why is this needed? sure hes not the only full bab but he gets to hit bonuses(aka better at fighting) that no else does.

besides what if I want an archer fighter and I roll the levitate ability on my tiefling why the heck should I not be allowed to use that AND spend a whole entire feat on a better bab?

note combat maneuvers are not part of standard fighting styles except martial arts which is mnk not fighter.


Enchanter Tom wrote:
The fighter is supposed to be the fightingest class that ever was or is or ever shall be, so why does everyone else get full BAB next to him? He should have the most attacks and the most accurate attacks. Drop every other class that is full BAB to 3/4 BAB and every class that is 3/4 BAB down to half (take that monks) and watch the tears flow.

After reading that, all I can think is "what about barbarians? Fighter is the "fightingest class" ever? Barbarians get a BITE ATTACK, meaning as far as concept goes a fighter can get so mad he goes into blind rage, Barbarians can get so mad they literally BITE YOU TO DEATH. That sounds a little more brutal than "grr I'm angry and hit harder." Also, as other have said BAB is not the analysis of how great anyone is in a fight. Going completely on BAB a Barbarian should be able to DESTROY a rogue at level 10+ but in actual terms, the Rogue has the better chance in anything but an open field based on all their runny hidey sneaky multi-strikey skills and such.


Mikkaddo wrote:
After reading that, all I can think is "what about barbarians? Fighter is the "fightingest class" ever? Barbarians get a BITE ATTACK, meaning as far as concept goes a fighter can get so mad he goes into blind rage, Barbarians can get so mad they literally BITE YOU TO DEATH. That sounds a little more brutal than "grr I'm angry and hit harder." Also, as other have said BAB is not the analysis of how great anyone is in a fight. Going completely on BAB a Barbarian should be able to DESTROY a rogue at level 10+ but in actual terms, the Rogue has the better chance in anything but an open field based on all their runny hidey sneaky multi-strikey skills and such.

I can't believe someone just said a rogue would beat a barbarian in just about anything. Nevermind they're immune to rogue's primary source of damage, they get damage resistance, higher health, higher speed, higher BAB, enormous bonuses to strength and con.

The rogues have the stealth ability which frankly any barbarian worth his salt should be putting points into perception (Yes they won't equal out but it just means one good roll from a barbarian should negate the stealth). Not to mention everytime they leave cover they automatically lose stealth.

I can't find one reason a rogue would win. The only real advantage they have is they're likely putting alot into stealth and high perception or the rage ability "scent" will hit that.


Mikkaddo wrote:
Enchanter Tom wrote:
The fighter is supposed to be the fightingest class that ever was or is or ever shall be, so why does everyone else get full BAB next to him? He should have the most attacks and the most accurate attacks. Drop every other class that is full BAB to 3/4 BAB and every class that is 3/4 BAB down to half (take that monks) and watch the tears flow.
After reading that, all I can think is "what about barbarians? Fighter is the "fightingest class" ever? Barbarians get a BITE ATTACK, meaning as far as concept goes a fighter can get so mad he goes into blind rage, Barbarians can get so mad they literally BITE YOU TO DEATH. That sounds a little more brutal than "grr I'm angry and hit harder." Also, as other have said BAB is not the analysis of how great anyone is in a fight. Going completely on BAB a Barbarian should be able to DESTROY a rogue at level 10+ but in actual terms, the Rogue has the better chance in anything but an open field based on all their runny hidey sneaky multi-strikey skills and such.

Oh man, you gave me a good laugh there about the rogue.


Borthos Brewhammer wrote:
Oh man, you gave me a good laugh there about the rogue.

Wait I'm confused was he joking? I still can't see anyway a rogue would ever win in a fight against a barbarian but maybe its just me.

Shadow Lodge

Poison and prayers.


TOZ wrote:
Poison and prayers.

You're thinking evil cleric.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

No, I mean the Rogue prays the Barbarian fails his Fort saves enough for the ability damage to kill.

Which is not likely.


Robespierre wrote:
I personally think that classes should be stripped of their fluff and made solely for statistically character development. That way people have more liberty when creating their own personal character to fit their backstory.

No, thank you. D&D needs less My Unique Snowflake in it, not more.

Quote:
Also I'm wondering what Tom actually knows what balance is considering he praises traditional D&D and says that 4e is balanced.

Older editions of D&D were more balanced than 3e, and 4e is more balanced than 3e (even though 4e sucks).

Quote:
I personally think that arbitrarily lowering bab will not solve the problem with fighters. Rather it'll just limit character creation freedom and funnel certain classes into a support role. Bards will no longer be viable as melee skirmishers or archers. No one will play the barbarian considering the fighter will be explicitly the best melee class. The cleric will never be able to hybrid again effectively. Both the inquisitor and magus will never be played again. If you really want to improve the balance of the game I suggest buffing the fighter rather then making some classes unplayable and pushing others into the full caster role.

Inquisitor and magus both should have had full BAB to begin with, so I'd put them at 3/4. Barbarian gets to rage and have powers. Clerics get enough nice things without melee (and they'll only be missing out on +2 BAB at level 10, so half the game they can melee fine).


Enchanter Tom wrote:
Inquisitor and magus both should have had full BAB to begin with, so I'd put them at 3/4. Barbarian gets to rage and have powers. Clerics get enough nice things without melee (and they'll only be missing out on +2 BAB at level 10, so half the game they can melee fine).

Yes and that rage for barbarians gives the same bonus to attack as Weapon Training and slightly more damage. Less attack and the same damage when you consider they don't get the gloves of dueling.

Then you take into account the fact that there's an entire line of feats just for fighters including +4 damage, +1 attack, and piercing DR 10/Anything but unbypassable.

Furthermore they get 11 more feats than the other class and an effective -5 to armor penalties and +5 Max Dex bonus. Only class in the game that effects armor by that much, meaning and archer can wear mithral platemail and still get full dex bonus to AC.

Fighters get lots of nice things on their own merits. We haven't even considered their DR 5/- or the auto crit confirmation and +1 to the multiplier.

Yes this will make them undoubtedly the best. Not even close on any account

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Rogues are like wizards who can cast fireball multiple times per round without ever resting. After fighters, they are the most powerful class in the game.


Quote:

Yes and that rage for barbarians gives the same bonus to attack as Weapon Training and slightly more damage. Less attack and the same damage when you consider they don't get the gloves of dueling.

Then you take into account the fact that there's an entire line of feats just for fighters including +4 damage, +1 attack, and piercing DR 10/Anything but unbypassable.

Furthermore they get 11 more feats than the other class and an effective -5 to armor penalties and +5 Max Dex bonus. Only class in the game that effects armor by that much, meaning and archer can wear mithral platemail and still get full dex bonus to AC.

Fighters get lots of nice things on their own merits. We haven't even considered their DR 5/- or the auto crit confirmation and +1 to the multiplier.

I would drop weapon and armor training, actually. I'm talking about my "ideal" version of 3e, anyway. You should see what I did to Vital Strike if you think the fighter is powerful now.

Lantern Lodge

4e should have been called DnD Tactics. If you want rp or a balance go with earlier editions or pf but if you want a party based strategy and tactics game go with 4e.

The fighter is undeniably the best combat artist ever, apparently that doesn't stop people from trying. Does he have a grudge against someone who killed his fighter?

51 to 88 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / The fighter is the only class that should have full BAB. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules