Maybe buy one? If wizards can have access to buying stuff then so can the fighter.
In Pathfinder a fighter can use his wand of cure light to take care of himself.What happens when the wand runs out of charges?
Who made the wand?
But it still requires spell casters and crafters in the world to make them.
The argument is like saying that quarterbacks are better than running backs.
|
Maybe buy one? If wizards can have access to buying stuff then so can the fighter.
In Pathfinder a fighter can use his wand of cure light to take care of himself.What happens when the wand runs out of charges?
Who made the wand?But it still requires spell casters and crafters in the world to make them.
The argument is like saying that quarterbacks are better than running backs.
You aren't making sense at all with where you are trying to go with this.
So because a fighter goes into a shop and purchases a wand then he is subject to the need of a spellcaster?
Are you seriously that desperate with your arguments?
What exactly are my arguments? The only point I'm making is that the whole thing is a completely stupid argument. It's designed to be a team game.
You didn't say what your fighter does when his wand runs out of charges?
- Sorry everyone, could you just stop hitting me and wait here a few hours while I nip to the shop and get a new wand?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What exactly are my arguments? The only point I'm making is that the whole thing is a completely stupid argument. It's designed to be a team game.
I think this is part of why the fighter's lack of limited-use abilities isn't quite as great as it seems at first; the fighter is still going to be in a party with spellcasters and other character who need recharge time.
From a practical perspective, the fighter's ability to keep going all day is only a moderately useful ability when he's part of a group and the rest of the party still needs to rest and recharge. Unless a fighter can expect to solo level-appropriate encounters (with no buffing/caster support) he's still going to need to stop along with the rest of the party once everyone else has out of spells/abilities.
The thing a Fighter is the best at is to take the first turn of duty when the rest party are out of X/day powers and all sleeping. ;)
|
** spoiler omitted **...
I'm pretty sure, by inviting a fellow poster to build a 20th level Fighter for direct comparison, I'm not ignoring anything.
get rid of the keen, take improved crit then add the guardian weapon enchant to add +5 as a free action to his saves for as long as he chooses to while wielding the weapon, then you would only fail a save from a balor, pitfiend, or dragon at 20 on a 1+.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, i couldnt respond to some messages i saw because they were locked, so here is my 2 cents on why some people think fighters suck.
Wizard Player: Well once again it looks like our big bad Fighter did not contribute very much. Whats wrong? That greatsword and full-plate to heavy for you?
Wizard, Bard and Paladin players all laugh.
Fighter Player: Oh sorry, when i made this character i thought that we might actually be sent on a time sensitive mission. Like when the evil necromancer was using an ancient artifact to summon legions of undead to terrorize the local towns and farms who were not able to defend themselves. I thought we might want to confront him as soon as possible, but i see i was wrong considering it took us 4 days to clear a 3 floor dungeon to get to him. Oh well, i guess we should go report our "success" to whoever is still alive.
Wizard, Bard, Paladin and GM get a sour look on there face and go post on the forums about how poorly the fighter did in there most recent game. GM makes plans to fudge the numbers next session to kill the Fighter for insulting the scenario he made.
The fighter is good because he does not rely on a LIMITED amount of spells or spell-like abilities to remain effective. If you cast all your high level spells every single encounter, or waste all of your smite evils on a grasshopper who looked at you wrong, or use up all your ki or rage or whatever class your playing, then you should have to live with those decisions. Instead your weak GM and his weak scenario allow you to just set up camp
and sleep away those silly things called LIMITS. You should be basing your use of spells and abilities based on how the current encounter is goin, not based on trying to out-do the fighter just because you can, mabey then you could get through a dungeon without sleeping after every 3 encounters.Classes with spells or spell-like abilities are balanced with the classes that do not have them because there is a LIMIT ( notice the capital letters yet, they are important) to how many times they can do them. If you take away that LIMIT then you are causing the classes to become un-balanced, so there is nothing wrong with the fighter, there is something wrong with the way your GM runs his games.
Now that im done ranting go ahead and post about how your wizard doesnt spam all his high level spells and still manages to out-do the fighter in every way, or how your GM doesnt let you sleep but you still out-do the fighter over a long session because fighters are just that weak. Etc etc etc etc....
The problem with your post, OP, is that it's a lie. Fighters are just as limited by resources as every other class in the game. In my opinion, that are actually more limited by resources than Rangers and Paladins are specifically because Rangers and Paladins DO have spells.
See, Fighters have Hit Points. It's a resource that literally everyone has to deal with. From the lowly commoner to the mightiest dragon, hit points are something you must manage. As levels rise, not only does it become more difficult to manage your hit points versus incoming attacks, but you also have to deal with kicker effects like poisons, diseases, bleed damage, and other things that you will generally need those spells that the other guys have to help you with. Thus fighters contribute equally to the so-called 15 minute work day, because by their nature they have to drain party resources to remain functional.
You mock the Paladins, Clerics, and Wizards because they apparently have to rest to re-prepare their spells. I'd like to see what a party of fighters would do after taking a beating, or getting a nasty case of DC 20+ zombie rot. Perhaps they have invested in the Heal skill and will take a week off to restore their limited resource naturally. Hey, a 10th level fighter can heal up to 20 HP per day if he's taking it easy. Maybe even 40 HP if he has someone else taking care of him via Heal.
If anything, Fighters are worse at undergoing endurance tests than a party of casters. Fighters run out of HP and have nothing left. A Paladin can fight, fight, fight some more, heal himself, fight some more, remove a disease, fight some more, become fatigued from not resting because he's just fighting all the damn time, and then heal himself and remove the fatigue to boot. Hell, with a few consumables (such as wands & scrolls), the Paladin can literally go days without resting if he's good at managing his options.
You're free to rant. However, your rant is demonstrably false. Fighters do not have a higher tolerance for long games. If anything, they have the lowest tolerance for games, because they cannot effectively pace themselves. The only solution to taking less damage is to avoid fighting, which means the fighter avoids doing anything, since they have no meaningful support capabilities. If your HP suffers, your ability scores suffer, your status condition suffers, then you have no method to get around it without relying on those other characters to make you worthwhile.
Bard has many different resources. While possessing only 1 hp per HD less than you, he has 6 levels of spellcasting, many rounds worth of bardic music, decent martial capability and lots of out of combat utility. With a simple feat, he gets up to +5 damage on all of his attacks (Arcane Strike). In many cases, he can convert one resource to another. At 5th level, with only a 12 Charisma, you have unlimited cantrips, 5 1st level spells, and 2 2nd level spells (assuming only a 12 Charisma). So what does that mean?
Well it means he has around 22.5 HP vs 27.5 HP (d8 vs d10) before Con modifier. He has +2 to damage (equivalent to weapon specialization w/ 1 feat) from Arcane Strike. His BAB is +3 vs +5, which he can buff to +5 while getting an extra +2 to damage (now matching the fighter's to-hit and exceeding his damage) when he decides to use some of his inspire courage which buffs the entire party. With his spells, he could cast a single cure light wound spell to recover around 9 points of HP damage (1d8+5 at this level), which effectively pushes him to more Hp throughout the day than his 5th level fighter counterpart. He has 4 more castings of that spell level today, so if he only used that resource to match the fighter, he would exceed the Fighter's effective Hp in an endurance run by 40 Hp; without scratching his 2nd level spells and before his out of combat utility comes into play. Of course, if he doesn't need those extra Hp, then he could instead use remove fear, grease (+10 vs grapple plus other benefits), silent image (easy total concealment for your party plus other uses), or unseen servant (who can apply potions and oils to your allies throughout the day).
Bard wins vs Fighter in endurance game. Incidentally, he makes a really nice archer. A Bard with emphasis on Str/Dex/Cha makes a really good archer, scout, utility guy, and damage dealer (he can even wear gloves of dueling via Use Magic Device to get the +2 to hit and damage, on top of bardic music, arcane strike, and bracers of archery).
So that's Bard vs Fighter. Shall we go Ranger or Paladin next? Heaven help the guy who says Rangers and Paladins lack staying power. They're basically mini-Fighters plus utility casting and better saving throws and more defenses. The Paladin's saving throws alone can mean the difference between having to stop and rest vs pressing on (since the Paladin at higher levels can reliably bet on making even his bad saves, and with a Ring of Evasion is near impossible to touch with bad spells requiring saves).
We could go Cleric or Druid as well. I posted a guide in a blasting thread recently that showed how a druid can reliably cast 1 spell per combat later on and bring ruin to enemies with heavy damage + hardcore lockdown. Clerics on the other hand have as much staying power as religion. What with their ability to summon more healers, melee like a boss, be very effective tanks, and be able to mend their own woes and often prevent themselves and their party from running out of that magical resource we call HP.
In fact, the most enduring party I've ever run in my 12+ years of GMing was a party of...4 clerics. Yep. 4 clerics. It was also the absolute strongest party I ever ran for too. They were Pathfinder clerics to boot. Turns out that with that much full casting and healing, it's really hard to keep them down. Plus all the summoned monsters, animated undead minions, and ability to trade roles as needed (every cleric could fight adequately, tank adequately, cast adequately, summon adequately, etc), it made them very enduring + tons of meat shields (or bone shields as appropriate).
So yeah. Rants are nice, buy lying isn't. The more you know! ^_^
1: I'll admit paladin has better survivability. They get better saves. But their AC will probably be lower because they can't just straight out pretty much negate the Max Dex restriction to most armors.
Just throwing this out there, but they don't need it. By 20th level, a Paladin can acquire or create suits of armor that have more maximum dexterity allotments than they can reasonably need. Upwards to +8 maximum Dexterity. Since the standard game assumes 15 point buy, 20 PB for PFS, you will have trouble exceeding +8 Dexterity by 20th without suffering severely in other areas. At low levels, a +2 to +3 Dex is all you will need for quite a while; since heavy armors like Full Plate are quite expensive. Most martials on a realistic budget will be sporting chainmail early on, breastplates a bit later, and maybe breastplate + armored kilt for a while (+7 AC, +3 max dex, heavy armor).
At 20th level, +5 mithral celestial plate w/kilt is one of the better armor options that you will be looking at, and costs a bit less than a +5 weapon, if I recall correctly. That nets you +15 armor, w/+8 maximum Dexterity. Ranger can wear it and get all their medium-armor required abilities as well (but has to forgo the kilt, so -1 AC for rangers).
2: Without a mount their mobility will be lower because they don't get armor training. So they'll be significantly slower in Heavy and medium armor than fighters. Unless you take a mount. Then you run into the whole problem again of "my GM thinks I'm too strong. He's just going to put me into the most restrictive situation for my character possible" A few narrow area fights and you start hitting problems.
All martials (including Fighters) should be looking for some sort of fairly regular access to phantom steed (CL 14+) for their travel and riding needs. Most martials will want access to haste in some way, if only via boots of speed. Boots of Striding are also cheap. Or you could get boots of striding + speed by using your Craft Wondrous Items feat to make them yourself, since you qualify for it at 7th level without wasting feats on feat-traps.
3: I will not admit the paladin has better overall utility in battle. He can't, say switch weapons in the middle depending on his opponent. A fighter has enough feats to overall be strong with both bows and melee weapons. A paladin has nowhere near as many feats.
Most feats either aren't very good (definitely not comparable to class features) or are too situational to be effective very often. Divine Grace alone is worth at least a quarter of the Fighter's feats in terms of dividends that it pays. The immunities are nice too. The only feats martials actually tend to need are...Power Attack and...
Well Power Attack. Everything else is gravy. I'm partial to Combat Reflexes and a few Archery feats myself. Everything else is just icing on top of an already awesome cake.
Paladins have utility in battle. Hence they have more utility in battle than Fighters, whose battle utility ends at "I hit it better" when compared to everyone else. The Paladin can heal (and I do not just mean Hp, I mean they can heal conditions that will cause the party to lose the battle entirely, such as removing curses, poisons, nausea, fatigue, heal ability damage, etc), provide benefits vs status ailments merely by standing around, and can cast restoration, resist energy, and I think death ward; and can turn any melee weapon into a +5 holy weapon on demand at higher levels (or lower levels with a scroll or wand).
4: Fighters get some of the very nice, "fighter only feats" such as penetrating strike and such.
Penetrating strike isn't exactly anything to write home about. It's actually a very terrible feat. It's only useful when you have nothing to penetrate DR with. You can cover your ass versus virtually every type of damage reduction found in the Bestiary by 12th level as any class. Often for coppers on the gold. Cold iron, silver/mithral, +1 or better, etc. Hell, a simple +5 weapon bypasses magic, cold iron, silver, adamantine, and alignment damage reductions. The only DR that's really a problem is DR/-, but Penetrating Strike is useless against that.
Penetrating Strike is actually a wonderful example of why people think Fighters suck. You have to be 12th level and expend a feat for something that anyone with a brain stem has been doing since 3rd level.
5: The best assurance of survivability is a dead enemy. Hands down, no contest, game over. You have little chance of dying from your enemy if they're already dead.
Given that dealing damage is a decreasingly effective method of dealing with encounters as your levels rise, but failing a saving throw vs becoming a lawn ornament means you lose, I'll take the Paladin; thanks.
I feel a sudden urge to start a "Why Wizards Blow" thread...
I for one don't think the fighter suck. I do however thing some of the rhetoric used (on both sides) are a bit unqualified/hyperboled. Some posters on both camps have a rather black and white take on the issue.
Fighter suck team: The fighter have crappy will saves, can't heal himself, Can't fly, only have two skill per level. If he fail his will saves he will suck and if he gets killed he can't fight.
- Yes, the fighter can fail a will saves. So can any class - Even Paladins. It isn't until level 17 that the paladin gets immunity to compulsion spells and spell-like abilities. And that is actually a two edged sword. from level 17 it can't benefit from spells like heroism, Good Hope School enchantment, Prayer. Can't heal himself? Need magic? Need help? Yes this game is based on magic and on teamwork. If you don't like it, maybe this isn't the game for you. All classes suck if they are dead. And skill points? Yes that suck, deal with it.
Fighter has no flaws and is perfectly fine team: Fighter don't have two skills per level - they can have more, The fighter is so versatile. A jack of all trades. There are archetypes if you want to specialize, the fighter has so many feats. He doesn't need to rely on magic/limited recourses. All classes are great. It just a matter of context and having a good DM.
- No, the class feature is 2 skills per level. Raising Int, playing a human, adding fav. class bonus to skills isn't a class features. That is game mechanics.
- No, the fighter is not a full BAB jack of all trades. That would be the ranger. And if you really want to be versatile and a jack of all trades, Play a bard give him one or more levels fighter and call him a fighter.
- Many feats? The barbarian don't need or want bonus feats her rage power are far better and more sexy and more versatile than anything the fighter can get with feats. Heck, the Barbarian can even pick fighter feats with rage powers. Same goes with Paladin, her Powers are far more powerful that some bonus feats. Is she feat starved she can pick one or two levels fighter. The Ranger already have bonus feats AND skills AND powers. How the h*ll is the fighter going to be versatile if 80 % - 100 % of her feats are needed just to keep up with classes like Rangers, Barbarians, Paladins or even bards. A switch hitting fighter needs point blank shot etc. The ranger can just aviod these feat at pick just the thing he needs. More feat does not automatically equal more versatility. The classes that doesn't get feat every level still get feats and they get other stuff as well.
-Archetypes don't give you a broader pallet to paint with. It just gives another pallet. Also, archetypes are out there for any class. also, The fighter archetypes doesn't solve the main problems with the fighter.
- Don't rely on magic/limited recourses? Sure she does. Every class does and the none magic classes probably more than others. Fighter is one of the classes that is most dependent on magic items and potions/wands. As Chengar Qordath pointed out: "the fighter's ability to keep going all day is only a moderately useful ability when he's part of a group and the rest of the party still needs to rest and recharge"
- Bad DM = weak class. Good DM = Powerful class? Heck in the right context even an NPC class like the Expert can be great, that don't make it a great class or even a PC class.
My main problem with the fighter isn't the class, but its main class features - feats. Nice to have one feat per level, but the range of feats don't impress me.
It's ether feats like iron will, dodge, shield focus
or Weapon specialization, improved trip.
There are very few feats that let you actually tailor a fighter to be versatile (getting more skills per level, deal with crappy will saves, giving you some unique power, giving you new class skills). Also very few feats that let you do stuff that you can't normally do. Step up chain and disruptive chain would be the exception.
Also there are no feats that improves the fighters mobility like pounce. Nor feats that can give him low light vision or darkvision.
Finally: The way the feat chains are designed they are simply feat taxes. This mean the fighter can't really be versatile and good at what he does.
Simply: The fighter feats out there aren't that sexy or versatile, most of them are just taxes and most of them involve improving what you already do. Killing stuff. They don't offer you versatility like more skills per level.
Do the fighter suck? No
Do the range of feats that are offered to the fighter suck? Yes. Most of the feats can be picked by any class and the fighter only feats out there are extremely few and not very versatile.
Fighters gets feats!!! yes, so does all classes.
Fighter gets more feats! Yes and they are spent on keeping up with the rest of the classes and very few of them are exclusively fighter feats.
Why does the feats have to be just or the fighter? Well, why is a class feature a class feature, not features every class can pick them?
Would the other classes be upset if the fighter could do this? You bet.
Feat every level is unique, the feats out there are not. With very few exceptions: they are stuff any class can pick or just taxes.
stuff
Great post with the exception of this "Given that dealing damage is a decreasingly effective method of dealing with encounters as your levels rise"
Damage wins out 99% of all times. That is why the sword and board isn't a viable concept at really high levels.
If I misread you, sorry.
Not to dispute your general point, Ashiel, but you're not really comparing to a fighter, you're comparing to a generic guy with d10/full BAB and no class features. The reason should be obvious: you're saying "having used these class abilities and with these feats, the bard is better than the fighter who gets access to none of his class abilities." That's incredibly unhelpful.
Remember: Rants are nice, but lying isn't.
---
Edit: But for clarity, your general point is spot on!
Well I was actually trying to keep the post as short as possible. I did mention that the Fighter was sporting Weapon Specialization (one of their standard Fighter-only feats); but they would have more feats. The problem with that is that for Fighters to excel, then they generally put their feats towards additional hit and damage options (even the majority of good archery feats such as precise shot, manyshot, and so forth are only improving hit and damage in some way) which keeps them competitive vs other martials in terms of damage, but nothing else.
For example, in my previous post, I showed how a Bard can keep up with the Fighter's damage in a way that feels almost too good, and can do it by himself. The Bard won't truly match the Fighter's damage because at high levels he will be a day late and a dollar short (he has 3/4 attacks instead of 4/4 attacks); but damnit if he doesn't give it a good shot. Just with Arcane Strike, he gets up to a +5 to damage with all of his weapons (martial and melee) which is better than greater weapon specialization (+4 damage with 1 weapon). Then he can use Inspire Courage on his party which affects himself + all allies and minions, bringing him to +5 to hit and +5 to damage. Holy crap, he just matched the Fighter pound for pound in damage with ALL WEAPONS on any given hit. Since he can also UMD to emulate Weapon Training when putting on his Gloves of Dueling, he gets another +2 to hit and damage as if he were a Fighter, so now he's at +22 to hit, +12 to damage with all weapons and is passively granting +5 to hit and damage to his friends (friends being ranger or paladin, cleric or druid, wizard, plus summons and minions; and the +5 to hit and damage is surprisingly good for arcane casters as the +25% hit on rays and touch spells is kinda sexy).
Notice that the above assumes...1 feat. Just one. To outfox a Fighter who has spent 4 feats (Weapon Focus + Greater Focus + Weapon Specialization + Greater Specialization). If he wants to craft items, he spends 1 feat at 3rd level, the Fighter spends 2 feats and has to wait until 7th level at the earliest and gets a gimped version of item crafting. Meanwhile, the Bard's benefits function with all weapons, not just his favorite one; so he'll have his +2 to hit and +7 to damage with every weapon he picks up (ranged or melee), and can stack bracers of archery (which he crafts himself) for another +2 to hit and +1 to damage, and then pop Bardsong when it's an important fight.
Meanwhile, the Bard has better saving throws (2 good vs 1 good), way more skills, and more in and out of combat utility in the forms of buffs, aids, and battlefield adjustments. He still has 9 feats left to spend without being human. That's enough to load him down with Power Attack, Deadly Aim, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Craft Wondrous Item, Improved Initiative, and Toughness; and that's if you want him to be a dedicated archer which the Fighter is actually clearly superior at (really, I don't dislike Fighters, and believe that they make excellent archers and dual-wielders).
This song and dance routine goes on with pretty much all the other classes. The Fighter can be summed up as "weapon training, armor training, plus 10 feats". That's the entirety of the Fighter class as it is. It's not like Fighters are getting really worthwhile class features plus lots of extra feats. They are getting lots of extra feats instead of class features.
Frankly, virtually all class features are better than feats, and require less optimization to make effective use of. Fighters can accidentally fall for a trap-feat like Master Craftsman and suffer for it. A Paladin who takes nothing but Skill Focus (Every skill he has) is still immune to fear, compulsions, smites like a boss, heals like a boss, saves like a boss, shares asskicking for goodness like a boss, creates DR-penetrating magic melee weapons out of thin air like a boss.
Let's pretend for a moment that class features equal feats for a moment. Let's say every new spell level was a feat, and every named class feature was a feat. We'll even assume their upgrades aren't new feats but just feats that scale (something actual feats rarely do).
Bard would begin play with
8 bonus feats (Bardic knowledge, bardic performance, cantrips, countersong, distraction, fascinate, inspire courage +1, 1st level spells), and receive 2 more bonus feats at 2nd level (Versatile performance, well-versed), another at 3rd level (Inspire competence +2), another at 4th level (2nd level spells), another at 5th level (loremaster 1/day), another at 6th level (suggestion), another at 7th level (3rd level spells), another at 8th level (dirge of doom), another at 9th level (inspire greatness), two at 10th level (jack of all trades, 4th level spells), another at 12th (soothing performance), another at 13th level (5th level spells), another at 14th (frightening tune), another at 15th (inspire heroics), 16th nets another (6th level spells), 18 gets another (mass suggestion), 20 gets their final (deadly performance).
That's also assuming we're not counting scaling benefits (such as extra uses of abilities, or the fact inspire courage and similar things reach higher bonuses on their own, unlike Weapon Focus, Specialization, and similar feats). That would give the Bard 10 feats in his first 2 levels.
Compared to Fighter? Well, he gets 10 feats, bravery, armor training, and weapon training, the armor ability, and the final weapon specialization ability. That's 14 over 20 levels. If we count his scaling abilities, he would get bravery +5 (maybe 2 feats at best), armor training IV (maybe worth 4 feats), weapon training IV (4 feats), and his armor/weapon abilities (1 feat each), so 22 special qualities/feats over 20 levels. Bard matches about 1/2 his class in "feats" at 1st level.
That's ignoring the fact the bard's "feats" get better as he gets better too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
stuffGreat post with the exception of this "Given that dealing damage is a decreasingly effective method of dealing with encounters as your levels rise"
Damage wins out 99% of all times. That is why the sword and board isn't a viable concept at really high levels.
If I misread you, sorry.
Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I was meaning that killing stuff with damage alone slows down considerably. At 1st level, a fighter will 1 shot most enemies they attack after move + standard action. Damage dealing is highly effective for this fighter at this level. At 20th level, the Fighter will struggle to 1-shot enemies of 1/4 his CR in a single blow. If you're fighting anything in the CR 11+ range, those types of things don't generally want to be dead. Outsiders are notoriously hard to pin down in melee and allow you to play whack-a-mole with their noggins. :P
That's also before considering that HP scales up pretty impressively in the d20 system. A CR 7 succubus has 8d10 HD before con modifier. That's 44 base hit points. You would need to deal 44 points of damage after damage reductions to take her out. Even at 12th level, a Fighter will have some difficulty reliably 1-shotting that succubus, even before you add in her HP due to Con. So while damage rises, HP rises a bit faster, so you need to be able to last long enough to actually deal the damage to kill your opponent.
Paladins and Rangers can outlast opponents better than Fighters can. They have more tricks up their sleeves than fighters do. While the Fighter might be able to kill a single foe a round sooner, all things being equal, the Fighter is less likely to survive to do so without being crowd-controlled or rendered impotent without extreme help from his spellcasting friends (thus causing the Fighter to contribute to the short workday the OP was ranting about), if he's not already dead.
At higher levels, focus firing and teamwork tear enemies apart the best. By enemies, I mean whomever you are attacking. Bad guys get just as much mileage out of this stuff as the heroes do. I posted a CR 20 encounter a little while back on these boards; as a demonstration of just how terrifying high level play really is. It was a demon horde. A literally horde of demons being led by a Marilith. It included a clutch of succubi, a marilith overlord, some shadow demons, a pack of vrocks, and a few other things that were there for poops and giggles. Most of these enemies have plenty of HP, and are very mobile. Most of them had plenty of spell-like abilities including things like telekinesis, dispels, and AoEs. The succubi were ready to teleport to downed PCs (those knocked unconscious by the Marilith's grip) and coup them with 7d6 vampiric touch attacks delivered with their claws (when they weren't charm-bombing the PCs and their minions with DC 22 charm monsters).
Unless your GM accepts that item creation rules are part of the core rules, then Fighters have little to no chance in such a theater of operations because they have little way to survive that kind of pounding long enough to kill their enemies. Without ready access to protection from evil 24/7, they would fall just to the succubus underlings; since DC 22 charm monster is still a threat vs a +11 will save (+6 base and +5 resistance) before Will modifiers; especially if it's getting spammed at you round to round multiple times.
But completely ignoring damage dealing for a moment (though Rangers and Paladins have that in Diamonds if not Spades), Paladins have enough defense that they can in many cases simply outlast the enemies in the encounter and kick their tails without even bothering to Smite anything (though the Marilith might make a good candidate); while the Ranger can run amok with Stealth rules and keep vanishing with a high Stealth check to get to favorable locations to full-attack or to at least avoid being targeted by certain bad things until he's ready (heck, Stealth for a round and cast freedom of movement makes it hard to CC you when you come back to the fight).
In terms of sheer survivability, Paladin wins. However, Rangers are such wonderful strikers and loaded with lots of in and out of combat utility that I love them too. Especially with that spell that basically lets them smite like Paladins (you can declare any enemy to be your favored enemy regardless of type). Grab a scroll, a wand, or by all means a couple of pearls of power and you'll make enemies cry like little babies like that. Especially after you've walked right up to them without them noticing you despite having true seeing active and full-attack their faces with a +10 to hit and damage to every attack. :)
stuffGreat post with the exception of this "Given that dealing damage is a decreasingly effective method of dealing with encounters as your levels rise"
Damage wins out 99% of all times. That is why the sword and board isn't a viable concept at really high levels.
If I misread you, sorry.
If you really pump AC you can be really hard to hit, but if you go sword and board it is better to go TWF sword & board. That takes up a lot of feats though, which is why I have yet to do it.
Paladins are not out of hand. I do see issues with GM's "out to get" paladins though. That is a GM issue IMHO.
Those rages last enough rounds for an entire adventuring day after a certain level, probably 6. Certain events might be on a timer, but many time you can just chill out until the fatigue goes away, and not using it on push over opponents also helps.
Rangers do decent damage even when favored enemy is not one. The guide archetype turns it on as needed.
HP endurance is a joke depending on the GM, and if HP endurance is the factor then most classes are pretty even.
With all that said the OP's premise is still faulty, but so is the group he plays with. I don't think fighters are a bad class, but they are what they are, and if someone wants more they should just play another class.
Paladins are a mistake. Superpowers "balanced" with forced roleplaying and subject more than any other class to arbitrary power loss. GM undergoes life stresses or takes a philosophy class and the next thing you know you're running a warrior with a better will save. They should never have been left in the game as a core class. Complaining that fighters aren't paladins is like complaining that 3.5 fighters weren't 3.5 druids or 3.5 clerics with 3.5 divine metamagic. It's not the fighter that's out of band.
It has been my experience that Barbarians, Paladins, and Rangers are pretty darn close to the Goldylocks point. That is to say they're "just right" in terms of balance. Paladins are in fact so very well balanced that their roleplaying "limitations" might as well not exist, because they're only there for limiting roleplaying instead of limiting power. In the vast majority of games, Paladins function perfectly fine unless your GM is a moron; because the limitations that Paladins have aren't actually limitations on things that make you effective. Only when the GM tries to add restrictions that aren't there, or tries to twist the meanings of things, can there be a problem. Incidentally, Paladins have access to a core magic item that literally prevents the GM from being a douchebag, because it tells him whether or not his actions will cause him to fall before he does them (see phylactery of faithfulness).
Barbarian rage powers aren't comparable to fighter feats. They go away when rage ends. Unlike the other rounds/day classes they can't start raging again if a second wave of enemies arrive just when they think the fight is over. A barbarian husbanding rage rounds is a warrior with fast movement. The fighter always has weapon training and armor training and his feats. Even when fatigued.
On the contrary. There are plenty of feats that have limited uses per day. The improved save feats, stunning fist (fighter feat), and some others have limitations. Most fighter feats that are used to get a damage edge on their peers require a specific weapon; which means if you are denied that specific weapon, then you have problems (and I don't mean your GM denying it, but your enemies). You need 4 feats per weapon to get the full effect. That's 8/10 of your bonus feats if you want to spec both a melee and a ranged weapon.
Rangers, again, are not always on. They don't bring the damage of other full BAB classes except against favored enemies. They don't get instant enemy until level 11. 10 if they have 16 wisdom, which is rather unlikely. Fine in a narrowly themed adventure. Most adventure writers seem to go for variety. They're not a bad class with substantial noncombat capability, but they don't do what fighters do.
Incidentally, they deal the same amount of damage as all martials except Fighters. Barbarians, Paladins, and Rangers all deal similar damage when not using their special abilities. Fighters deal somewhat higher damage but are below the special abilities folk when they use their special abilities, and have little else to show for it; and they have to invest great quantities of their bonus feats to do it.
Incidentally, you mention a bit later (see below) that consumables such as wands are cheap for healing. I'll get to that in a moment (because I agree), but by that understanding a wand of instant enemy isn't terrible for its price, and can last an entire campaign.
Fighter abilities are always on and work against pretty much anything but swarms given the right equipment.
Well it depends. Fighter "abilities" include "hit it" and "hit it again". There are a lot of ways to more or less invalidate that; especially against some of the more trickster opponents you might see at higher levels. Perhaps a discussion another day, but it will suffice to say at the moment that there are situations that spring up where "hit it" is not exactly easy to do or of marginal effectiveness.
The HP limit to endurance is a joke. HP are a bit less than 3gp a pop as long as there's an adept, bard, cleric, druid, inquisitor, oracle, paladin, ranger, UMD user, or witch still standing. There is no reason to ever run out of happy sticks under default item availability rules unless the pacing is too tight to hit a city for a very long time. Crits happen, but nobody should be running out of HP from attrition.
Notice what you just said. You listed a bunch of spellcasters. Fighters by themselves aren't exactly good at UMD (and UMD shuts the item off if you roll a 1, which kinda sucks when you need to keep spamming it between combat). Meanwhile, no, without those casters, fighters have no reliable way to heal themselves even with magic items. Also, your cost to HP ratio is questionable. It's actually an average of 3 GP = 1 HP when using cure light wounds wands, with 15 gp per charge. If your GM is like me and allows the purchasing of partially charged wands it's easier; but some are anal about buying them in 50 charge lumps. Generally, if you have a wand crafter in the party (IE - another spellcaster) then you can get them pretty cheap.
But yes, HP is a resource. However, you're basically talking about sacrificing one resource that everyone has access to (money) to restore your lacking resource (HP) in a way that is definitely inefficient without those lovely casters to do it for you. In general, casters are very useful because they can either make use of these happy sticks without risk of failure, or they can bypass the need for the sticks entirely (at higher levels it's actually pretty effective to have outsiders who follow you around and heal you).
However, you can indeed run out of HP. Every 750 gp is an average of 250 hp in healing. You can easily go through several of these between combats at even mid-levels, if you need to patch folks up. Flushing 750 gp down the toilet regularly because your class lacks any other method for allowing themselves to go further is a great example of trying to patch-fix a problem with a hacky work-around.
Using the Bard vs Fighter approach once again. The bard can convert 5 1st level "resources" into 40 hit points. It costs him effectively nothing beyond his own means, which means he can save his money for whatever he needs, or use the happy sticks when he's out of expendables (this is similar to an alchemist using extracts before real potions/oils). The Fighter must expend 120 gp worth of healing and 8 charges from a wand to get the same healing. That money could have been put to use buying an oil of enlarge person and bless weapon for dealing with foes.
The bard at 5th level won't miss the 1st level spells all that much (especially since the bard I mentioned uses them purely for utility anyway, specializing in martial weapons and buffs for offense), so it hasn't really put a dent in the bard's general usefulness. A bard with 0 1st level spells and full HP and combat ability is more useful than a Fighter at 3 HP with combat ability.
Analyze the combat prowess and sustainability of the fighter all you want. The real problem is that the fighter class exists AT ALL. There's actually very little precedent in fantasy for a guy who can ONLY fight. The few characters that are all about combat are either A.) NOT actually all about combat at all, it's an illusion and their fighting abilities are in addition to an array of other tricks up their sleeve (Dell Brandstone, Lan Mandragoran) or B.) aren't well emulated by the fighter class (Garet Jax)
Analyze the combat prowess and sustainability of the fighter all you want. The real problem is that the fighter class exists AT ALL. There's actually very little precedent in fantasy for a guy who can ONLY fight. The few characters that are all about combat are either A.) NOT actually all about combat at all, it's an illusion and their fighting abilities are in addition to an array of other tricks up their sleeve (Dell Brandstone, Lan Mandragoran) or B.) aren't well emulated by the fighter class (Garet Jax)
I actually agree with you in full. I like Fighters, but they are really just the warrior NPC class with bigger numbers. There's actually very little special about them, and they kind of fail as a generic "build it yourself" class. The "adventurer" in BESM D20 did that much better (in BESM d20, there was a generic "adventurer" class which statistically came out with less overall points worth of abilities, but you had totally free reign with how you spent your points; which allowed you to make truly custom characters, and the ability to distribute your pros and cons exactly as you saw fit made it on par with the other pre-made archtypal classes).
I actually agree with you in full. I like Fighters, but they are really just the warrior NPC class with bigger numbers. There's actually very little special about them, and they kind of fail as a generic "build it yourself" class. The "adventurer" in BESM D20 did that much better (in BESM d20, there was a generic "adventurer" class which statistically came out with less overall points worth of abilities, but you had totally free reign with how you spent your points; which allowed you to make truly custom characters, and the ability to distribute your pros and cons exactly as you saw fit made it on par with the other pre-made archtypal classes).
I haven't played it but I've been interested for a while, being a huge anime fan.
I think another problem is the expectations of the player in regards to martial characters. It isn't reasonable to expect to be able to keep playing you're mundane fighting-men at every level. Bronn needs to turn into a freakin' superhero if he wants to keep playing once the other party members have become Kelsier and Vin.
Life as a wizard is tough man, suck it up.No really, I need this class to have fun, but my DM won't allow it. Says it's not PF compatible.
Yeah, that' class isn't completely overpowered at all...[/sarcasm]
I actually agree with you in full. I like Fighters, but they are really just the warrior NPC class with bigger numbers. There's actually very little special about them, and they kind of fail as a generic "build it yourself" class. The "adventurer" in BESM D20 did that much better (in BESM d20, there was a generic "adventurer" class which statistically came out with less overall points worth of abilities, but you had totally free reign with how you spent your points; which allowed you to make truly custom characters, and the ability to distribute your pros and cons exactly as you saw fit made it on par with the other pre-made archtypal classes).I haven't played it but I've been interested for a while, being a huge anime fan.
I think another problem is the expectations of the player in regards to martial characters. It isn't reasonable to expect to be able to keep playing you're mundane fighting-men at every level. Bronn needs to turn into a freakin' superhero if he wants to keep playing once the other party members have become Kelsier and Vin.
BESM d20 is actually a very nice system/book (there are a few things I don't like, but by its very nature it's intended to be customizable; so you can play with more or less of the rules in play; or even throw off character classes and play it point-based). The book has a very nice statistical breakdown of the core 3.x character classes, and the name itself is both a bit misleading and also illuminating at the same time.
BESM d20 can handle "anime". The thing to keep in mind is that "anime" is a medium. It's like saying that this RPG system can handle stuff from virtually any medium. The truth of the matter is that's basically what it is designed to do. The same system can handle everything from cool mundanes (like the Punisher or characters from Samurai Champloo) to Dragon Ball Z characters who are capable of taking out planets with their abilities (though admittedly you shouldn't have these two character scales in the same groups :P).
My only issue with the book is that it's kind of hard to follow in certain places. It might take you a few reads to get what it's saying here and there. Not so much a problem of grammar or anything. More an issue of pacing. I'd give a specific example, but I'm going from memory at the moment. I'll grab it off my shelf and check it out in a while and maybe discuss more about it. I got mine at an event and got it signed by Yoko Ishida and her backups (who do a lot of music for animes published by Geneon).
I was quite serious though, when I say that the "adventurer" class was better in terms of a "build it yourself" class, I was being quite honest. All abilities in BESM d20 are assigned a point value based on their characteristics (you can even create your own abilities based on some very usable systems) with different ranks and so forth. Most character classes get themed abilities worth a certain number of points at each level. Adventurers do not get themed abilities but get to choose all of their abilities custom. Overall, their point allotment is actually a bit lower than that of other classes, but since you have more control over how you build your character (meaning you have no "wasted points") it balances out.
I feel like the Fighter class in 3.x/PF was meant to be this sort of thing, geared mostly as a warrior. The problem is while Feats are the closest thing that the 3.x/PF system has to floating points with set values, they are rarely if ever comparable in awesomeness to actual class features (example: fast movement vs fleet, divine grace vs iron will, animal companions vs weapon focus, etc).
The problem is that in pre-3E, the Fighter was the generic warrior type of guy. NPCs used this generic warrior class as well. Paladins and Rangers were more or less superior to Fighters, being Fighter+, but in turn had increased XP requirements and/or higher minimum stats (minimum stats were kind of stupid since virtually all generation in those sets were done randomly; whereas we have invisible Minimum Stats in 3.x/PF which get more milage in terms of balance with Point Buy).
Now, all classes use the same XP measure, and all the martials except Fighter are well balanced. Barbarian vs Paladin vs Ranger vs Antipaladin is more or less a matter of preference. All are equally capable at filling the martial roles of the party, and while each have certain fields they excel in all can do those things in fairly effective ways.
The issue is the Fighter who only successfully carries himself in 2 spots (hit & damage and mundane AC; and he doesn't really do mundane AC much better than the other classes). The Fighter is still being built like the game expects him to throw 2 proficiency points into Longsword and roll along, but that is not reflective of the current theater of operations. There's also the fact the Fighter has been severely nerfed from previous editions. So while other classes have become more user friendly, the Fighter has found himself lacking in a lot of ways.
For example. Opening my copy of OSRIC; I see some interesting core rules for the Fighter. For one thing, the Fighter suffers a smaller proficiency penalty when using weapons they aren't proficient in (-2 vs -3 or -4). Additionally, they get extra attacks per round against most mundane NPCs (those with less than a full hit die; or in 3.x terms, anyone who was an "NPC classed" character). Looking further, they have better saving throws than most classes. Their saving throws are amazing when lined up next to classes like Druid. With the same amount of XP (750,000 XP) the Fighter has saves comparable to the druid (the druid is actually 2 levels beyond the Fighter at this point). The fighter's saves go so far as to have a 75% chance of success on his worse save at high levels, however. The druids cap out at 75% to their best saves. With a bit of magic (such as an item that grants a +1 or better to all saves) the Fighters are hard pressed to fail those saves.
Fighters get fewer attacks in 3.x/PF (with full-attack mechanics and 3.5 haste nerfs being heavily to blame), bad saving throws, and despite having equal or better proficiencies in previous editions, they have the least amount of skill points and the least actual class features. They no longer have more attacks per round than their peers (Fighters actually got more attacks per round than Paladins!). Literally everything that the Fighter had going for it has vanished. Gone are superior attack routines, superior saving throws, minion-mashing special attack rules, or the great benefit of single-ability dependency (having a 16+ Strength meant you gained bonus XP, whereas Paladins required 16+ in two stats to get bonus XP).
What we are left with is a class that resembles the NPC class with an extra feat every other level. Pathfinder added Weapon and Armor Training but that was about it (Bravery certainly isn't worth mentioning). So our of our martial lineup of Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, and Fighter; it is only the Fighter that stands out as unbalanced (and not in a "good way" for the fighter). Fighter is the problem here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is where the fighter is better than the other melee classes:
1) They don't have to allocate their limited skill points to any particular theme giving them greater versatility with their points. There are enough ways to get more skill points (higher Intelligence and archetypes) to make this even more useful. If they need a class skill they don't have (like Perception) there are a few ways to do that as well. Personally, I think they should have Perception.
2) They have zero supernatural or spell-like abilities. None of their bones feats or archetypes grant anything other than extraordinary abilities. These abilities are nearly always "on" which is a huge boon.
3) They are able to focus on multiple combat styles without losing out. They are able to fill both ranged and melee with equal ease. They fit into nearly any campaign and are easily adapted to the campaign simply by choosing appropriate feats.
4) Customization is easy. You can build a fighter that is very specialized or one that is a generalist. Some feats allow the fighter to not have to worry about things other classes do, like Penetrating Strike and Greater Penetrating Strike. Even though magic weapons can help overcome damage reduction, the fighter need not invest in a wide variety of weapons nor does he need to worry about one that can't be overcome with higher bonuses, like DR/Epic or DR/adamantine.
5) Because they have plenty of ways to increase their attack bonuses, they are able to use feats like combat expertise and power attack at the same time with little problem. They obviously can't do it all the time but they are able to more often than other classes.
The fighter is not for everyone but it shouldn't be discounted because it isn't another class. I can put a fighter up alongside any other class and it will fill the role it was built to fill. It won't be the same as the others, but it won't be useless either. The only things that hinder the fighter are the GM and Players. The GM has a responsibility to write adventures that the players will enjoy and the players have a responsibility to build and play characters that will fit into the GM's world. When someone complains that the fighter isn't the ranger (or barbarian, or paladin, or whatever class), all I can do is agree. It isn't supposed to be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is where the fighter is better than the other melee classes:
1) They don't have to allocate their limited skill points to any particular theme giving them greater versatility with their points. There are enough ways to get more skill points (higher Intelligence and archetypes) to make this even more useful. If they need a class skill they don't have (like Perception) there are a few ways to do that as well. Personally, I think they should have Perception.
This isn't a strength of the Fighter. Having less class skills and skill points is not a pro. Likewise, virtually no other class is forced to take skills based on a particular theme. Not even bards since they can use Perform in place of more useful skills. I've had Rangers and Barbarians who were built nothing like the iconic ranger or barbarian. A barbarian with ranks in Diplomacy and Sense Motive? Yep. Been there, done that. Just means that you get to have more skills as part of your actual character without relying on magic items and the like.
2) They have zero supernatural or spell-like abilities. None of their bones feats or archetypes grant anything other than extraordinary abilities. These abilities are nearly always "on" which is a huge boon.
Incidentally, the lion's share of Barbarian abilities are Ex abilities as well. Very few of them are Supernatural abilities, and their best abilities like Come And Get Me and Superstitious are Extraordinary abilities. As are virtually all of their abilities excluding a themed rage powers. Rangers also possess a ton of Ex abilities. In fact, every class feature of the Ranger (including Hide in Plain Sight) except their spells are Ex abilities.
Also, most fighter abilities are not "always on". Many feats require them to make use of some over others. You cannot use Cleave + Spring Attack. You cannot use Vital Strike + Whirlwind Attack. Most feats only make you a bit better at certain things with small bonuses. Several feats have arguably gotten worse in Pathfinder, since it now requires 2 feats to get +20% success chance on a specific combat maneuver as opposed to 1 (a fighter must now spend a minimum of 6 feats to get +20% to 3 maneuvers, as opposed to 3 feats in 3.5).
Also, the Fighter-only feats require the Fighter to have a very specific weapon selected to make use of them. Fighter specialized in longswords and longbows? Shatter. Oh look, the Fighter just got most of his class features dispelled until he pulls a backup weapon (penetrating strike sucks big by the way); while being equally shut down in terms of usefulness in dead-magic zones (since in dead-magic zones it's entirely possible for many monsters to go on relatively unhindered).
3) They are able to focus on multiple combat styles without losing out. They are able to fill both ranged and melee with equal ease. They fit into nearly any campaign and are easily adapted to the campaign simply by choosing appropriate feats.
Incidentally, so can most every other martial. The only styles that require heavy feat investment are archery and dual-wielding. I suppose if you want a dual-wielding archery master, then Fighter might be for you (but Rangers can do it too); but I posted a Ranger in another thread a while back showing that it's not just Fighters who can do this. That ranger was very competent at melee, archery, and mounted combat, came with his own re-spawning mount, had AC comparable to a Fighter, that can sword & board better better than a monk flurries.
There aren't all that many combat styles to begin with. Since combat basically comes down to "deal damage but don't die trying to" for martials and a good BAB is the central ingredient to being good with melee and ranged weapons; the Fighter isn't winning any awards here.
4) Customization is easy. You can build a fighter that is very specialized or one that is a generalist.
But not both. Even a generalized Fighter lacks the options that their peers do, which leaves specialization as being the area that Fighters can excel next to their peers. Everyone talks about Fighters being better at hit & damage than their peers; but they forget to mention that it requires 40% of their bonus feats invested in a weapon to get really sexy numbers (without the extra feat expenditure and special magic items, they cap out at +4 to hit and +4 to damage at 20th). If you do it for for a melee and a ranged weapon, they've eaten 80% of their bonus feats. Now you have 2 extra feats beyond anyone else.
Some feats allow the fighter to not have to worry about things other classes do, like Penetrating Strike and Greater Penetrating Strike.
Both of which suck balls. Penetrating Strike requires you to be 12th level for something you can cover for about 2% of your WBL, or 8% if you want magic weapons. The very fact that you herald this as some sort of great fighter option is example enough that Fighters need nice things (and don't have them).
Even though magic weapons can help overcome damage reduction, the fighter need not invest in a wide variety of weapons nor does he need to worry about one that can't be overcome with higher bonuses, like DR/Epic or DR/adamantine.
I never actually assume that I'll have weapons higher than +2 equivalency unless I can craft them myself; because in the core rules the item availability caps out at 16,000 gp (making +3 or better weapons a real rarity). I am fully prepared to engage in a 20th level adventure decked out in +2 weapons. Carrying spares is not only not a bad option, but it's a Good Idea(TM). Adventures are dangerous. There are many creatures that can destroy your weapons, and spellcasters will ruin them for good. Not having a golf-bag of weapons makes you a target for shatter, or even a lowly grease spell can begin to annoy the piss out of you.
Any adventurer worth their salt is going to have a backup weapon or six. Preferably in different flavors (cold iron, silver/mithral, adamantine. A couple of oils for certain annoying types of aligned DR; but if you do get a +5 weapon then you get to laugh because you bypass magic/alignment/cold iron/silver/adamantine. Paladins can pick up a stick off the ground and crush enemies with a +7 equivalent weapon.
Also, on the subject of DR, there are only like 3 monsters in the entire Bestiary that have DR/Epic. Solar, Terrasque, and...actually, I take it back. There are 2 monsters in the entire Bestiary that have DR/Epic. Neither of which is it particularly easy to melee with them to begin with (meleeing with a Tarrasque is the epitome of stupidity, and Solars are generally going to not bother fighting you directly and simply won't if they don't desire to, because they have those sorts of options).
5) Because they have plenty of ways to increase their attack bonuses, they are able to use feats like combat expertise and power attack at the same time with little problem. They obviously can't do it all the time but they are able to more often than other classes.
Again, to increase their attack bonuses, you need to invest feats and such into it. Otherwise they only end up with a +4 better. +6 with special gloves (which other classes can actually use with a UMD check as if they were a fighter with Weapon Training, but I'm going to ignore that for the most part). Of course, we're again talking about hit and damage. +18 damage and +6 AC is really nice at the cost of 20 class levels, and trading your class features and feats' to-hit modifiers for those other things (Power Attack + Combat Expertise is -12 to hit, so you have to have full focus {+2}, full training {+4}, gloves {+2}, to reduce that to a -4 to hit, which puts your to-hit modifiers around that of a Cleric. You get +18 to damage and +6 to AC for washing your main class feature down a tier. Unfortunately, unlike Jesus over there, you likely aren't 10 feet tall, summoning celestial superbeings, and sporting DR 15/alignment when you decide to trade your class features for more power.
The fighter is not for everyone but it shouldn't be discounted because it isn't another class. I can put a fighter up alongside any other class and it will fill the role it was built to fill. It won't be the same as the others, but it won't be useless either.
My brother has soloed a wyvern with a 3rd level expert. With enough player skill, you can make anything look good. I've seen adepts (the NPC class) stand beside core martials in 3.5 and look good (admittedly, they could be pretty awesome, especially since that was pre-shapeshifting nerfs). If you know enough about how to work the system, and are good with managing your wealth by level, then nothing - not even a commoner - will be "useless". However, it does not mean that the class is on the same footing as its peers in the least.
The only things that hinder the fighter are the GM and Players. The GM has a responsibility to write adventures that the players will enjoy and the players have a responsibility to build and play characters that will fit into the GM's world. When someone complains that the fighter isn't the ranger (or barbarian, or paladin, or whatever class), all I can do is agree. It isn't supposed to be.
This is the nail in the coffin. If your GM has to write specific instances for the Fighter to shine, then you have a critical problem. There is virtually no other class in the book that requires your GM to make extra special considerations for them to be worthwhile (barring some sort of weird-alignment campaign, but we have antipaladins for that).
Actually a nice feat for a paladin to get lay on hands is fey foundling ISWG though this could backfire with a dick gm that makes all weapons you face cold iron. +2 hp per dice rolled will make the X(d6+2) for lay on hands nice.
Actually a nice feat for a paladin to get lay on hands is fey foundling ISWG though this could backfire with a dick gm that makes all weapons you face cold iron. +2 hp per dice rolled will make the X(d6+2) for lay on hands nice.
Ironically, even the drawback isn't much of a drawback. You get multiple LoH per day. At +2 healed per die, your healing kicks up significantly, and the cold iron weakness only adds +1 to damage taken. You'd have to get hit twice before the extra damage outclassed the healing of just 1 lay on hands at the lowest levels. By 20th level, your Paladin is sporting 10d6+40 healing every time they burn a LoH (with capstone you're looking at +100 HP/LoH). You'd have to get hit 40 times with a cold-iron weapon to offset the extra healing.
So even if your GM was a "dick GM" and armed everything from peasants to mariliths with cold iron weapons, it still would be in your favor. Which is fine. Feats are supposed to make you better. Not make you equal the net power of yourself without the feat.
That being said. Even if such weaponry is common (golf bagging is smart, cold iron is cheap, etc) in your games, it's not like everything you come across will be sporting it. Most monsters don't wield weapons at all.
|
|
Analyze the combat prowess and sustainability of the fighter all you want. The real problem is that the fighter class exists AT ALL. There's actually very little precedent in fantasy for a guy who can ONLY fight. The few characters that are all about combat are either A.) NOT actually all about combat at all, it's an illusion and their fighting abilities are in addition to an array of other tricks up their sleeve (Dell Brandstone, Lan Mandragoran) or B.) aren't well emulated by the fighter class (Garet Jax)
LOL! Biggest crock I have ever heard.
|
|
Also, most fighter abilities are not "always on". Many feats require them to make use of some over others. You cannot use Cleave + Spring Attack. You cannot use Vital Strike + Whirlwind Attack. Most feats only make you a bit better at certain things with small bonuses. Several feats have arguably gotten worse in...
Feat combos not working cannot be compared to something that is "always on". The combo either works or it doesn't and a fighter player isn't going to take a combo that doesn't work.
PS: Your brother didn't solo a wyvern with an expert. You brought this up in another thread and it was debunked.
Easy two word solution to Fighters Sucking and having to wait for the rest of the party to get through a dungeon:
LEEEERRROOOOYYYYYYY JENKINS!
Personally, I don't see how much hits an AC of 24 at first level. He should be waiding through most stuff without ANY need for help from the rest.
Not that it matters, but Leeroy Jenkins was a Paladin.
Feat combos not working cannot be compared to something that is "always on". The combo either works or it doesn't and a fighter player isn't going to take a combo that doesn't work.
Also, most fighter abilities are not "always on". Many feats require them to make use of some over others. You cannot use Cleave + Spring Attack. You cannot use Vital Strike + Whirlwind Attack. Most feats only make you a bit better at certain things with small bonuses. Several feats have arguably gotten worse in...
Well, yeah it kind of is. "Always on" isn't super complicated. A Paladin on the other hand has Divine Grace. It's entirely passive and requires no effort on her part to gain benefit from. Toughness is another example of an "always on" ability that is really always on.
Spending 3 feats to get to get Improved Trip and Greater Trip does not give you "always on" abilities. They merely improve an ability you already have by 20%, and serve no function when you are not actively tripping something. That means you're spending 30% of your bonus feats for something that only works when you aren't doing anything else. If you are simply trying to kill your opponent with damage, then 30% of your bonus feats are of no use. If your opponent is immune (or heavily resistant) to being tripped (such as giant centipedes, anything that flies/hovers/swims/burrows or has more legs than eyes) so as to make tripping not a good option, then 30% of your bonus feats are wasted.
So those feats are not "always on". Always-on feats include things like Toughness, Iron Will, Great Fortitude, Lightning Reflexes, Improved Initiative, Dodge, Shield Focus, etc. Most of these feats are great feats. Many of them serve all characters well (martial or otherwise). They are passive and help you merely because they are there.
Most classes have these sorts of benefits. Many of them are hidden. For example, Fighters have an "always on" bonus to Fortitude saves ranging from +2 to +12. This can be compared to the Ranger who also has the same benefit along with an equal buff to Reflex, or a Paladin who has the same buff to Fortitude and Will in addition to Divine Grace.
In general, all classes have few always-on abilities. Including most martials and spellcasters. Most require that they do something to make use of them. The catch is that Fighters have to invest more of their "class features" into effects that are indeed rarely "always on" which generally provide less impressive results or benefits than class features shared by their peers.
PS: Your brother didn't solo a wyvern with an expert. You brought this up in another thread and it was debunked.
Um, no? What are you smoking? O.o
Since when was "That's great. Your brother is awesome. Brilliant." and similar responses being debunked? The only person who said anything negative about it was you, who basically called me a liar for suggesting it and then shut your trap when it was explained. Yeah, debunked my shiny backside.
Here is where the fighter is better than the other melee classes:
1) They don't have to allocate their limited skill points to any particular theme giving them greater versatility with their points. There are enough ways to get more skill points (higher Intelligence and archetypes) to make this even more useful. If they need a class skill they don't have (like Perception) there are a few ways to do that as well. Personally, I think they should have Perception.
More skills with a higher Int isn't a class feature of the fighter, its game mechanics, but the archetypes with more skills sound nice. The only one I know is the Lore Warden, but that is not from one of the core books, it's from the Pathfinder Society Field Guide (none core books are not an option for many/some players).
Problem with the archetypes is that they give you themes. Not more options for the fighter only new options - as in new themes.
Still if you can link me to the archetypes I would be grateful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I said before I don't think fighters suck, but I think the lack of options - as in cool fighter feats - make them problematic.
I agree with Ashiel when she says: "they kind of fail as a generic "build it yourself" class."
I Still think Bob_Loblaw has some points. It's one of the classes that are a clean sheet. Too bad I can paint the picture I want.
I see people often harping on the fact that Fighters are 'unique' because they get a feat ever level and that's simply not so.
At every even level the Fighter can take an extra combat feat.
Well, at every even level a Rogue through Rogue talent can also take an extra combat feat, PLUS they have a wider selection to choose from because of the Rogue Talents themselves. Then at 10th level, the get more advanced Rogue Talents AND can now choose from ALL feats rather than just combat feats which the Fighter would still be limited to.
Fighters have a higher BAB, but Rogues get more skill points (a lot more). Fighters get Armor and Weapon Training while Rogues get Sneak Attack, Evaision, Uncanny Dodge and Trapfinding/Trap Sense.
Getting bonus feats ain't all that unique.
Back to my point comparing Fighters and Paladins. In ANY standard dungeon crawl, if the same level Fighter and the Paladin went in side by side with nothing to rely on but their personal class features and abilities, the Fighter would be asking to rest long before the Paladin did, plain and simple. And that is the point that the OP was trying to make, a point that is simply wrong. The Paladin is more versatile, more survivable and deals near enough as much damage as makes no difference. Not liking it doesn't make it not true...
Having said that, we're about to begin the Skull and Shackles AP and our group of four doesn't include a Paladin but it does include a Fighter, because the group doesn't think a Paladin would be appropriate for the setting... when we run the newly revised Rise of the Rune Lords when it comes out, you can guarantee there will be one, if not two.
Getting bonus feats ain't all that unique.
Actually, it is. Fighters get way more than any other class.
I've refrained from commenting here, but my experience with 15+ level parties is that the fighter gets lots of buffs all the time from casters. Add his magic items to the buffs his allies constantly give him, and he's a juggernaut of very nasty damage to just about anything in his path.
I think we're ignoring what a typical party does to their frontliner in a typical fight. If there's any prep time at all, he gets a nice bunch of bonuses and stacks them without any spellcasting on his own part.
At high levels, it's pretty routine. He's hasted, flying, displaced, and whatever else the party casters can do for him and the group, overall.
Since he has lots of feats, he can do whatever works for the situation, and has ways to make sure it hurts.
Eh basing power on buffs from casters rather negates the original point.Getting bonus feats ain't all that unique.Actually, it is. Fighters get way more than any other class.
I've refrained from commenting here, but my experience with 15+ level parties is that the fighter gets lots of buffs all the time from casters. Add his magic items to the buffs his allies constantly give him, and he's a juggernaut of very nasty damage to just about anything in his path.
I think we're ignoring what a typical party does to their frontliner in a typical fight. If there's any prep time at all, he gets a nice bunch of bonuses and stacks them without any spellcasting on his own part.
At high levels, it's pretty routine. He's hasted, flying, displaced, and whatever else the party casters can do for him and the group, overall.
Since he has lots of feats, he can do whatever works for the situation, and has ways to make sure it hurts.
Agreed. When sufficiently buffed, all martials are incredible. Even NPC classed warriors (those guys without the bonus feats and such) can look sexy with tons of buffs. However, the rant from the OP was saying that Fighters do not contribute to the 15 minute workday, and that in games where the party cannot stop and rest is where the Fighters excel. A Highly Regarded Expert's post is yet another in a long line of posts that says "that is bull****", if only indirectly.
Agreed. When sufficiently buffed, all martials are incredible. Even NPC classed warriors (those guys without the bonus feats and such) can look sexy with tons of buffs.
And fighters get tons of feats other martials simply don't have.
And fighters get tons of feats other martials simply don't have.
Agreed. When sufficiently buffed, all martials are incredible. Even NPC classed warriors (those guys without the bonus feats and such) can look sexy with tons of buffs.
Feats don't mean very much. For quantity, rangers nearly match fighters in bonus feats (the archery line is my favorite, since virtually every martial should be competent at ranged combat as well; but if you want to count extended content, then they also get stuff for 2 handed, sword & board, or most any specialization you could want). It would mean something if other classes didn't get stuff that makes up for less feats in spades. Most of the pro-fighter crowd around here (including Bob_Loblaw, a great poster IMHO) tend to end up spending their feats on stuff to try and mitigate their poor saves and lack of options beyond "I hit it".
As I noted before, the majority of feats are not as good as actual class features, and often stack with actual class features (taking all the save boosting feats won't net you half the benefit of Divine Grace, and they stack with Divine Grace, as an example). The only feats that melee needs to rock socks is Power Attack. Dodge + Mobility can be nice if you want Spring Attack. I built a Ranger who rocks 2-handed melee, can sword & board reliably, preforms mounted combat, and rocks archery in another thread. He also had all around good saves and a lot of utility.
This also comes back to another thing that bugs me about fighters. They're extremely easy to screw up royally. I pointed out before that a Paladin who spends all his feats on Skill Focus still has a lot of potential simply because of his class features. Fighters have to scrounge through every splatbook they have access to in hopes of finding good feats to spend their resources on.
My favorite combat feats in Core are...
Arcane Strike (useless to Fighters); Blind-Fight; Catch off Guard (for pole-arm users); Combat Reflexes; Deadly Aim; the main archery feats (Point Blank/Precise/Rapid/Manyshot); Dodge; Mobility; Improvised Weapon Mastery (for pole-arm users); and Power Attack. Only about 8 + archery feats. Most of these aren't needed except for certain concepts; but most of these are genuinely good for most everyone. You can make a very effective martial with just half of these.
A lot of other stuff is of very limited usefulness. The vital strike line of feats is superior for monsters because it rewards having bigass weapons most of all. Now if your GM will let you play an ogre or something (or perhaps a Half-Giant, as they're quite cool and balanced), then the Vital Strike line seems a little better. I mean, an ogre can quaff a potion and be flinging around 4d6 greatsword damage. Vital striking that is pretty nice. Actually, a large-sized ranger + enlarge person potion + lead blade = "WTF! Look out for that buss!" (6d6 * greater vital strike = 63 average base damage).
Hey, where has the OP gone to?
He's gone fishing. :P
TO be clear fighters don't suck at level 1 if they have 18 strength two handed weapon they will tke donw most opponents. And the casters and other things don't have that much ammonition.
Yep the old Zweihander build works well. Something I've put in as a dm, and been tempted to really play, is the horse archer fighter/lancer. So you are going into the mounted combat feats, you want to lower the penalties you take while running and shooting, as level 1, you aren't there yet, don't have alllll the feats, but give it time horse samurai-san. Money goes into bow and horse, not greatsword and armour.
A greatswordsman is scary. Although the horse archer can counter the swordsman. Some risk and plenty of 2d6s are great, but if you can stay safer and do d6,d6,d6 over and over, they will be just as dead. Keep distance, get the horse moving while you are shooting. Wear them down. You scout for the party, you engage and circle, you find weaknesses, you get them chasing after you, but avoid facing too much ranged by yourself.
Spec up your bow, take a s++#load of arrows (although you won't need as many as you think, you are just making combats more likely a ten round affair than four to five). Avoid the absolute arrow-blitz feats, this one is a bit different to a ranger or archer fighter. Keep the lance to charge down a weakened opponent. Get boots of speed later for yourself (if the horse goes down) and horseshoes of zephyr (or something similar) for your faithful horse. Get interested in buying better steeds, let the dm know about this. Do less magic item shopping and more fine horse purchasing/racing with your ill gotten gains.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TO be clear fighters don't suck at level 1 if they have 18 strength two handed weapon they will tke donw most opponents. And the casters and other things don't have that much ammonition.Yep the old Zweihander build works well. Something I've put in as a dm, and been tempted to really play, is the horse archer fighter/lancer. So you are going into the mounted combat feats, you want to lower the penalties you take while running and shooting, as level 1, you aren't there yet, don't have alllll the feats, but give it time horse samurai-san. Money goes into bow and horse, not greatsword and armour.
A greatswordsman is scary. Although the horse archer can counter the swordsman. Some risk and plenty of 2d6s are great, but if you can stay safer and do d6,d6,d6 over and over, they will be just as dead. Keep distance, get the horse moving while you are shooting. Wear them down. You scout for the party, you engage and circle, you find weaknesses, you get them chasing after you, but avoid facing too much ranged by yourself.
Spec up your bow, take a s!!~load of arrows (although you won't need as many as you think, you are just making combats more likely a ten round affair than four to five). Avoid the absolute arrow-blitz feats, this one is a bit different to a ranger or archer fighter. Keep the lance to charge down a weakened opponent. Get boots of speed later for yourself (if the horse goes down) and horseshoes of zephyr (or something similar) for your faithful horse. Get interested in buying better steeds, let the dm know about this. Do less magic item shopping and more fine horse purchasing/racing with your ill gotten gains.
Mounted archery is arguably the best martial spec you can have. Small rider + decent medium flying mount = win. You can move up to your mount's speed, fight in 3 dimensions, and full-attack every turn for heavy damage. Mounted archery is in fact so good, that I recommend every martial consider getting a magic item that let's them use phantom steed at 14th caster level at least a few times per day if not at-will (it gives you a horse with a very fast fly speed, air walk, water walk, ignores difficult terrain, etc). You can easily out-pace hasted barbarians on one, while full-attacking with little to no penalty every round.