|
Most games as a fighter I go with a bow. I refuse to lock in feats unless I know for sure flying creatures will be prevalnet in a campagin. To may other awesome feats to take. "just in case" is not good enough for me to waste feats slots. Though I would like to see a clinging feat or a jump feat that allows a fighter to grab on to a creature or jump high enough onto a creature. The other problem I see is that combat at least for a fighter imo can be boring. Yes one can sunder, trip etc exceolt that requires feats. At least with other melee classes they get some flavor with their abilites.
|
Most games as a fighter I go with a bow. I refuse to lock in feats unless I know for sure flying creatures will be prevalnet in a campagin. To may other awesome feats to take. "just in case" is not good enough for me to waste feats slots. Though I would like to see a clinging feat or a jump feat that allows a fighter to grab on to a creature or jump high enough onto a creature. The other problem I see is that combat at least for a fighter imo can be boring. Yes one can sunder, trip etc exceolt that requires feats. At least with other melee classes they get some flavor with their abilites.
Okay the fighter has class abilities, tons of feats, archtypes, and your own imagination.
How much more flavor do you need?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cool! Can you bump that thread maybe and tell me how it's been going?
I don't even use it myself, although I still like it. I have a different formulation I'll post in that thread.
Didn't see this, sorry. It'll be a long write so I'd rather skip it. To sum up, we love using it, combat is far more dynamic and a lot of more stuff is happening.
We're using it so that maneuvers deal your unarmed damage unless you've got a trip etc weapon. On a nat 20 critical you also get a free maneuver of your choice if the roll beats the CMD (which it usually does on a crit).Also, a successful acrobatics check lets you stand up from prone as part of a move action (rather than it's own action), the same is true for picking up items from the ground.
There's some more rules I don't remember of the top of my head though.
Edit: Also, now the Improved Maneuver feats give you a +2 bonus to attack rolls when you try to use the maneuver without dealing damage, and in addition allows you to deal any melee weapon damage when using it with a weapon (but then you don't get +2).
Alright I missed 500+ post on this are we actually still arguing that the fighter is useless due to lack of flight or have we moved on?
Alright I missed 500+ post on this are we actually still arguing that the fighter is useless due to lack of flight or have we moved on?
Now some people have started agreeing with the OP, adding that lack of teleport and lack of seeing invisible enemies also ruin the fighter, and concluded that the very idea of a fighter class is inherently worthless because it lacks (Su) abilities.
The new goalpost position is that a fighter should be able to handle every threat single-handedly. Without spending a single gold piece. Or using racial abilities. Or using feats, because getting lots of feats apparently doesn't count as a class feature for some reason, so basically, weapon and armor training should be enough on their own. And they should be able to do it with the same level of DPR that they would have in the most optimal circumstances imaginable, so bows don't work either.
I haven't heard the people setting up these goalposts make any suggestions of their own that don't involve burning all non-spellcaster classes.
Others have taken the much more reasonable position of "It would be nice if fighters had a couple extra skill points per level and/or a couple of extra class skills like Perception, to give them a bit more to do outside of combat".
|
|
Alright I missed 500+ post on this are we actually still arguing that the fighter is useless due to lack of flight or have we moved on?It has evolved. Now is more like " fighter is useless due to lack of flight, auto heal, teleportation and plane shift"
And because the fighter can't one shot a god using his bare hands.
Alright I missed 500+ post on this are we actually still arguing that the fighter is useless due to lack of flight or have we moved on?Now some people have started agreeing with the OP, adding that lack of teleport and lack of seeing invisible enemies also ruin the fighter, and concluded that the very idea of a fighter class is inherently worthless because it lacks (Su) abilities.
The new goalpost position is that a fighter should be able to handle every threat single-handedly. Without spending a single gold piece. Or using racial abilities. Or using feats, because getting lots of feats apparently doesn't count as a class feature for some reason, so basically, weapon and armor training should be enough on their own. And they should be able to do it with the same level of DPR that they would have in the most optimal circumstances imaginable, so bows don't work either.
I haven't heard the people setting up these goalposts make any suggestions of their own that don't involve burning all non-spellcaster classes.
Others have taken the much more reasonable position of "It would be nice if fighters had a couple extra skill points per level and/or a couple of extra class skills like Perception, to give them a bit more to do outside of combat".
Good summary :-)
I thought I was onto something when I provided a build that could actually make a fighter fly on its own and combat teleporting enemies. But that was before I learned that feats are not supposed to be used for things like that :-(
I learned a lot in this thread: I feel really bad now about all those times I accepted a fly spell from a wizard or water breathing from a cleric. Maybe I should apologize to them for being such a burden on the party... ;-P
Most games as a fighter I go with a bow. I refuse to lock in feats unless I know for sure flying creatures will be prevalnet in a campagin. To may other awesome feats to take. "just in case" is not good enough for me to waste feats slots. Though I would like to see a clinging feat or a jump feat that allows a fighter to grab on to a creature or jump high enough onto a creature. The other problem I see is that combat at least for a fighter imo can be boring. Yes one can sunder, trip etc exceolt that requires feats. At least with other melee classes they get some flavor with their abilites.
It seems you have a problem with what I particularly like about the fighter: It is *not* predetermined in any kind of direction like most other classes are. I consider the fighter the most flexible and customizable platform for building a character in pathfinder since no background is attached (academy, temple, ...) or culture or way of fighting is predetermined (barbarian etc.).
I think a lot is determined by fluff for the fighter which you control, the rest comes with feats.
As for not wasting feats: For ranged I usually just take deadly aim if I have a dedicated melee build, power attack vice versa. That's usually enough to make you decent or at least not meaningless.
Otherwise there are so many options for a fighter now to do something else than just hack & slash that I don't quite see the problem here: Take eldritch heritage chain for tons of good abilities (like flight), debuff your enemies with enforcer/dazzling display, battlefield control through the maneuvers (particularly free ones like with shield slams), class features such as tactician to assist your party, styles to make the enemy think twice about whether they really want to fight you, take feats that boost your skills or grant you additional abilities (spell-like or such, additional traits etc.)...
What would you like to have in there? :-)
|
|
Most games as a fighter I go with a bow. I refuse to lock in feats unless I know for sure flying creatures will be prevalnet in a campagin. To may other awesome feats to take. "just in case" is not good enough for me to waste feats slots. Though I would like to see a clinging feat or a jump feat that allows a fighter to grab on to a creature or jump high enough onto a creature. The other problem I see is that combat at least for a fighter imo can be boring. Yes one can sunder, trip etc exceolt that requires feats. At least with other melee classes they get some flavor with their abilites.It seems you have a problem with what I particularly like about the fighter: It is *not* predetermined in any kind of direction like most other classes are. I consider the fighter the most flexible and customizable platform for building a character in pathfinder since no background is attached (academy, temple, ...) or culture or way of fighting is predetermined (barbarian etc.).
I think a lot is determined by fluff for the fighter which you control, the rest comes with feats.
As for not wasting feats: For ranged I usually just take deadly aim if I have a dedicated melee build, power attack vice versa. That's usually enough to make you decent or at least not meaningless.
Otherwise there are so many options for a fighter now to do something else than just hack & slash that I don't quite see the problem here: Take eldritch heritage chain for tons of good abilities (like flight), debuff your enemies with enforcer/dazzling display, battlefield control through the maneuvers (particularly free ones like with shield slams), class features such as tactician to assist your party, styles to make the enemy think twice about whether they really want to fight you, take feats that boost your skills or grant you additional abilities (spell-like or such, additional traits etc.)...What would you like to have in there? :-)
Sounds like they want all those things built into the fighter so the class can officially declare that those abilities are his and only his.
Sounds like they want all those things built into the...Most games as a fighter I go with a bow. I refuse to lock in feats unless I know for sure flying creatures will be prevalnet in a campagin. To may other awesome feats to take. "just in case" is not good enough for me to waste feats slots. Though I would like to see a clinging feat or a jump feat that allows a fighter to grab on to a creature or jump high enough onto a creature. The other problem I see is that combat at least for a fighter imo can be boring. Yes one can sunder, trip etc exceolt that requires feats. At least with other melee classes they get some flavor with their abilites.It seems you have a problem with what I particularly like about the fighter: It is *not* predetermined in any kind of direction like most other classes are. I consider the fighter the most flexible and customizable platform for building a character in pathfinder since no background is attached (academy, temple, ...) or culture or way of fighting is predetermined (barbarian etc.).
I think a lot is determined by fluff for the fighter which you control, the rest comes with feats.
As for not wasting feats: For ranged I usually just take deadly aim if I have a dedicated melee build, power attack vice versa. That's usually enough to make you decent or at least not meaningless.
Otherwise there are so many options for a fighter now to do something else than just hack & slash that I don't quite see the problem here: Take eldritch heritage chain for tons of good abilities (like flight), debuff your enemies with enforcer/dazzling display, battlefield control through the maneuvers (particularly free ones like with shield slams), class features such as tactician to assist your party, styles to make the enemy think twice about whether they really want to fight you, take feats that boost your skills or grant you additional abilities (spell-like or such, additional traits etc.)...What would you like to have in there? :-)
Oh, I can understand if someone feels there should be something else or in addition in the fighter class. That's why we have archetypes and options after all. For example, I myself am a real bugger for skills, so I would like the fighter to have 4 skill points. Well, it's not that way, not great, but I can live with that. I could however choose one of the archetypes that grant those 4 skill points if it was important to me - it usually is not.
I also have no problem when someone wishes his fighter to be able to fly or heal himself or such. What irritates me is when that person states that fighters are useless without that and the solutions I present are for some reasons bad or not legal or won't work or whatever - and that apparently I am lacking "system mastery" to understand that. When someone states "x is always true" and I show that it is not true with an example just to then read "but your solution is not acceptable" and "I should move with the times" and I would not understand why dedicated "melee fighters" don't work that way, I don't feel that there is someone who wants to talk about something in an open manner, but who has a set opinion and wants to force it on me.
Memorax said that he wishes some other things like that clinging to enemies etc. Cool with me, I would like to hear more about what he would like. Maybe I have an idea there :-)
@Memorax: Just in case you don't know because many seem to overlook this ability: You can retrain a fighter feat every 4 levels. So you are not necessary completely locked into a specific feat choice.
If skills are a problem, dont dumpstat Int, and play a human.
Next :p
If skills are a problem, dont dumpstat Int, and play a human.
Next :p
Already doing that - I want MORE :D
Did I mention that my favourite class is bard? ;-)
We're using it so that maneuvers deal your unarmed damage unless...
That's quality feedback right there.
This thread was good for something after all!
Reflex or fall for flying creatures.
Non-scaling DC 15, which translates to a 5% chance of actually doing anything at the levels of play we're talking about.
|
|
For the record I'm not saying a fighter should fly far from it. What I would like to see is a feat that I can take at higher level that allows me to grab on to a creature without having to grapple it. Or a feat that within certain conditions allows me to leap within range of a creature that flies. Maybe not even as a feat as class abilities at higher levels. Something along the lines of Rogue Talents or a Monks Ki pool. I'm not saying don't use magic items or spells or that the class has to do everything. Just have more than extra feats and armor optimization and Bravery as class abilites. I don't think that is asking for too much imo.
As for taking more archery related feats. When I play a fighter the first thing I try and do is get Full plate. Which does not allow for more than a Dex bonus of +1. So I see no reason to have a Dex higher than a +1 imo. By the time Armor training necomes viable I susually have equipment or a fellow party member casting spells on my character to attack flying enemies. I look at classes like the Barbarian, Ranger and Paladin and imo they have so much more interesting abilites. A fighter is bonus feats, armor/weapon training and bravery. With Weapon mastery at level 20. They all can do the same as the Fighter just a little less better. I guess I miss the 2E fighter that could eventually build a keep and attract followers.
By the time Armor training necomes viable I susually have equipment or a fellow party member casting spells on my character to attack flying enemies.
Oh, I see, so it's a problem that fighters can't attack flying enemies, and you don't see any point in bothering with archery to get around this because there's no reason to since fighters can already attack flying enemies just fine.
Wait, remind me, where is the problem in all of this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no problem Roberta, the whole argument is naff.
"Buy a dang bow"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well if you don't like my answer to the question than don't ask to hear it next time. Kind of feel ike I'm being setup after being asked for my honest opinion.
Oh, I see, so it's a problem that fighters can't attack flying enemies, and you don't see any point in bothering with archery to get around this because there's no reason to since fighters can already attack flying enemies just fine.
I never said I had a problem with fighters. I just wish they would get more to their class abilites. Their list of abilites is boring compared to to other classes. Not much flavor imo. A high dex is not imo a must for a fighter either because until he reaches a certain point with armor training is not going to get a full benefit from it. Archery is helpful yet I don't expect to hit as often. Not a complaint I know full well when I play fighters that fro me at least melee is going to be my strong point
There is no problem Roberta, the whole argument is naff.
"Buy a dang bow"
Which if you reas the entire thread had said that already. Guys stop assuming those who want to see some minor changes to the fighters are stupid. It's damn insulting after awhile.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the implicitly proposed solution.
Combat Feat: Move Goalposts
Flavor Text: Your exude such martial prowess that even the objectives of combat bow before your will.
Prerequisites: 7th-level Fighter
Benefit: Once per combat you can change an opponent's numeric requirements by 10% (or +/- 2 on a die roll) in any way you desire.
Examples...
---
Demon: Ha! You're at negative six hit points.
Fighter: I'm moving the goalposts. Instead of doing 90 hit points of damage to take me from fully healthy to unconscious you need to do 99. I'm at positive three.
---
Demon: I teleport away!
Fighter: I'm moving the goalposts. Your initiative number did beat mine by one. But you need to be quicker than that to stay ahead of me. Your initiative suffers -2. I full attack before you get to teleport, and also get the attack of opportunity the teleport provokes.
---
Demon: While flying and taunting you I have readied an action with my whip to do a called shot on any potion you try to drink. You fighters always drink invisibility or fly potions when attacking us flying demons.
Fighter: I'm moving the goalposts. Your called shot suffers a -12 to hit instead of the normal -10 to hit.
This thread is just 14 pages of people piling on the naysayers. Yes that is rude. So are the ridiculous accusations of moving goalposts, us demanding that fighters can fly or teleport and so on.
If you don't bother reading our points goodbye.
The OP more or less demanded that fighters can fly (as "ranged weapon" wasn't an acceptable answer)
This was the OP:
"Fighters are one of the few without some inmate method of reaching flying foes short of blowing WBL AND actions on activating flight."
This was proven wrong (ranged fighters).
The goalpost was moved to:
"Melee fighters etc"
This was proven wrong (overland Flight when it gets around blows no actions in combat, spending a feat or two for ranged ability even as melee fighter).
The goalpost was moved to:
"Magic is not to be included even if it doesn't drain WBL and it should be able to deal near full melee damage to it"
This was proven wrong as someone brought up Aasimar fighters with a few feats, or Eldritch Heritage.
The goalpost was moved to:
"No race or feat bonuses allowed".
So yes, the goalposts HAVE been moved.
At the beginning, this was the issue was like:
"Fighters are one of the few without some inmate method of reaching flying foes short of blowing WBL AND actions on activating flight."
Now it's:
"Fighters built solely for melee are one of the few without some inmate method of reaching and dealing near the full melee damage to flying foes high in the air short of blowing WBL OR actions or feats or race choice on activating flight."
So yes. The goalposts have been moved.
And a lot of people criticizing an idea doesn't mean they're "piling on" - it means that it should probably be reevaluated really, really hard. And you can see that the tone is very different to Kirth than to the OP.
For the record I'm not saying a fighter should fly far from it. What I would like to see is a feat that I can take at higher level that allows me to grab on to a creature without having to grapple it. Or a feat that within certain conditions allows me to leap within range of a creature that flies. Maybe not even as a feat as class abilities at higher levels. Something along the lines of Rogue Talents or a Monks Ki pool. I'm not saying don't use magic items or spells or that the class has to do everything. Just have more than extra feats and armor optimization and Bravery as class abilites. I don't think that is asking for too much imo.
Grabbing a creature itself is always referenced as grappling in Pathfinder (Grab ability), but I think you refer to that "clinging to" from earlier, right? Yes, that would probably be nice. Someone suggested treating it like an attack with a grappling hook. I would do the same and just say you cannot control the target - only let go. I still would use CMB to attack against CMD, and the target could shake you off accordingly.
Leaps like a monk's high jump are also cool, I would not mind having an archetpye with a ki pool and some limited ki abilities like high jump or such. Maybe a bit like the qi gong's menu to choose from, just less in total to keep it in line :-)Something I would find cool if armor training allowed you to treat your armor as being a step or so lighter for the purpose of special features or feats, i.e. you could use evasion (from another class) in medium armor...
As for taking more archery related feats. When I play a fighter the first thing I try and do is get Full plate. Which does not allow for more than a Dex bonus of +1. So I see no reason to have a Dex higher than a +1 imo. By the time Armor training necomes viable I susually have equipment or a fellow party member casting spells on my character to attack flying enemies. I look at classes like the Barbarian, Ranger and Paladin and imo they have so much more interesting abilites. A fighter is bonus feats, armor/weapon training and bravery. With Weapon mastery at level 20. They all can do the same as the Fighter just a little less better. I guess I miss the 2E fighter that could eventually build a keep and attract followers.
Hm, do you know that the maximum dex only is a limitation of what you add to armor class, right? It has no effect on other DEX-related things, e.g. attack rolls or skill checks. Still I can understand if you optimize for your chosen armor, but well - then you choose not to be good at ranged combat IMO :-) I would in your case at least start with a DEX of 13, increase it to 14 later - this way you can all the basic feats like deadly aim, point-blank shot, dodge etc. without losing too many points.
Personally I think the feats are much more valuable in Pathfinder than in D&D 3.5 where you really only had "slash better" or "hack differently". Did you see my build about flying and fighting teleporting enemies above? The fighter can pull something like that off without big worries due to his number of feats, so I wouldn't think of it to lowly :-PAnd what do you mean with followers - how is it different from taking the leadership feat? I have not played 2E that extensively so I do not know about that mechanic there...
By the time Armor training necomes viable I susually have equipment or a fellow party member casting spells on my character to attack flying enemies.Oh, I see, so it's a problem that fighters can't attack flying enemies, and you don't see any point in bothering with archery to get around this because there's no reason to since fighters can already attack flying enemies just fine.
Wait, remind me, where is the problem in all of this?
I think you're criticizing the wrong guy here, Roberta. Memorax just stated his opinion, what he would like in the class and why he has his preferences. I think his points should be addressed or, if that is not possible what's there, accepted if it's his opinion.
I think it's fair to want to have some different features in the class (not more, since I think that would be too much). Maybe a kind of qi-gong fighter, or one that adds his intelligence bonus to AC like the duelist, only right from the start so you can optimize for skills more easily, or ... would be a great future archetype here :-)
...
Sorry, it seems like your position has been taken in this thread - you're too late for the party ;-P
Which if you reas the entire thread had said that already. Guys stop assuming those who want to see some minor changes to the fighters are stupid. It's damn insulting after awhile.
'Buy a dang bow' = minor change.
Generally the class works just fine, and I am not convinced by the arguments for change presented so far.
You aren't being told you are stupid, and neither is it being asserted. To assert that anyone rejecting your argument in favour of their own is insulting you is...rather insulting.
|
|
You aren't being told you are stupid, and neither is it being asserted. To assert that anyone rejecting your argument in favour of their own is insulting you is...rather insulting.
I don't much appreciate being asked my honest opinion and because it goes contrarty to what many feel in this thread have it ripped apart. As I said if you don't like the asnwer than don't ask the question. Contrast your approach to Sangalor. Yes we are in disagreement. Yet he asked for my opinion got it and responded to it. As opposed to yours and Roberta which was the usual "it's not the fighter it;s the guy posting who has a problem" type of post. You don't get to disagree woth another person post then get unhappy and offended when they defend themselves and disagree.
I could understand if I was posting like the OP who while I agree with to a small extent pretty much ignored every peice of advice given to him. I like the Fighter yet see room for improvement. That makes me all of a suuden some sort of pariah. As I said don't much like being ripped apart for a honest opinion.
You haven't been asked your honest opinion (well not by me anyhow, perhaps by the OP) so I am really not that fussed, I didn't ask you.
I do believe the problem with the player, not the class, and not a lot of what has been posted here has shifted my opinions much.
It was your assertion that people disagreeing with you were somehow trying to insult or offend you. If you want to discuss things on public boards then I suppose you need to be prepared for people to disagree with you, this isn't an echo chamber.
In short, don't get offended, but I see no need to 'fix' the class. Works fine when one doesn't forget to buy a dang bow.
|
|
like a monk's high jump are also cool, I would not mind having an archetpye with a ki pool and some limited ki abilities like high jump or such. Maybe a bit like the qi gong's menu to choose from, just less in total to keep it in line :-)
Something I would find cool if armor training allowed you to treat your armor as being a step or so lighter for the purpose of special features or feats, i.e. you could use evasion (from another class) in medium armor...
An archtype with a ki pool and limted ki abilitie imo would be a goo step. I liek your idea about armor. Makes kind of sense too imo. If a fighter cam move around more easily in armor after a certain point why not make it so that it's also considered lighter
Hm, do you know that the maximum dex only is a limitation of what you add to armor class, right? It has no effect on other DEX-related things, e.g. attack rolls or skill checks. Still I can understand if you optimize for your chosen armor, but well - then you choose not to be good at ranged combat IMO :-) I would in your case at least start with a DEX of 13, increase it to 14 later - this way you can all the basic feats like deadly aim, point-blank shot, dodge etc. without losing too many points.
The thing is it's not so much not wanting to take dex based skill s omuch that a fighters low skill points require one to be very careful in what skills to take or not to take. And before anyone else says "oh now low skill points are a problem etc" I'm not saying that I realize it's a trade off for being able to hit mor often. I usually always have at least an int and dex of 13 so I don't have to worry about feat selection later. Mind you I so at ;east take point blank shot and precise shot at least. I'm also not adverse to taking other archery feats. I just like my builds a certain way.
Personally I think the feats are much more valuable in Pathfinder than in D&D 3.5 where you really only had "slash better" or "hack differently". Did you see my build about flying and fighting teleporting enemies above? The fighter can pull something like that off without big worries due to his number of feats, so I wouldn't think of it to lowly :-P
I saw and read your build and like it. Still while feats in PF are for the most part better for me at least a fighter is mainly for hitting and killing things. It's not say you can't build/run him more creatively yet imo the designers assumed that's what you were going to use the Fighhter for.
And what do you mean with followers - how is it different from taking the leadership feat? I have not played 2E that extensively so I do not know about that mechanic there...
I guess I liked the fluff more than in PF. Reading that you can build keep just reads more interesting then looking at the followers chart in PF. That just me though
|
|
You haven't been asked your honest opinion (well not by me anyhow, perhaps by the OP) so I am really not that fussed, I didn't ask you.
I do believe the problem with the player, not the class, and not a lot of what has been posted here has shifted my opinions much.
It was your assertion that people disagreeing with you were somehow trying to insult or offend you. If you want to discuss things on public boards then I suppose you need to be prepared for people to disagree with you, this isn't an echo chamber.
In short, don't get offended, but I see no need to 'fix' the class. Works fine when one doesn't forget to buy a dang bow.
Many players have and still have problems with the monk. PF offereds more archtypes to try and give those players more options. I see no reason why the fighter cannot be given the treatment. We have a inner sea magic and upcoming bestirary. Why not a inner sea combat book that offers a archtype that offers a clinging or leaping ability. A archtype tha specializes in taking on flying enemies.
Sp let me get this straight. Your not interested let alone interested in hearing my side of things. What was your purpose then for coming into into this thread? So you can go "bad bad people who don't like fighters like they are". Okay I guess. Everyone needs to find a way to increase their post count I suppose.
Many players have problems with the Monk, sure, and I think that even the most intransigent person would have to accept the reams and reams of information that shows the monk has holes. I happen to differ with the idea that the Fighter class and the Monk class can be used in the same sentence when considering class issues.
Where you are getting confused is that you seem to think you are the OP, I came to answer his thread, and the answer pretty much from the get go was 'buy a bow'. You have come along later, taken a different stance, which I have considered, and then rejected in favour of the original position of 'buy a dang bow'. You chose to see this as somehow being an insult and personal attack, and then when you are corrected about it you just insist that being precious and offensive about it is your way of advancing your cause.
Buy a dang bow, and get over it.
|
|
Thank you for telling me the obvious. Where did I say don't buy a damn bow. I always buy bows. I just happen to think the fighter could use some small alterations. Not the ability to fly or teleport. Or be the class that does it all. I would like to see a archtype tha psecilizes in fighting flying creatures.
FYI saying buy a bow is giving advice. saying "Buy a bow and shut up abput it already rude and condenscending.
FYI saying buy a bow is giving advice.
I see it as a statement of position.
saying "Buy a bow and shut up abput it already rude and condenscending.
Your words, not mine.
Truly amazing.
Of course the fighter needs to fly, who else is going to deal with all these pesky flying fighters?
Okay, Let's say that PF 2.0 buffs the fighter so that he can fight optimally while flying, teleporting, facing invisible stalkers, encased in a lead block... Whatever possibility is out there that may call for teamwork. My guess is that the OP's next thread is "why are all the other classes irrelevant?"
BTW, while I disagree that the fighter needs minor changes like additional rules/abilities because, IMO it is one of the most powerful classes in the game, I do see a big difference between the OP (who is probably off somewhere giggling at this point) and those who want a little more or different rule set. I just don't understand why the rules have to get in the way of doing what you want YOUR game to do. If you reeeeaaaalllly need for fighters to fly, create a world populated by flying races. If you don't like that demons can teleport away, disallow teleport. It is YOUR game. Gonna sound like an old crusty gamer, but I distinctly remember when this game called for "paper and your imagination.". Not a rule for every conceivable situation.
Again, I was not attacking your point of view. My point was that I don't think you need specific PF rules allowing you to do these things. I know at least one poster on this thread linked to home brew rules ideas that may help you make your game the way you want it.
One more rant from the "old guy" soapbox. (not pointed at you memorex, so please do not take umbrage). Why is it that I keep seeing the argument that "I don't have enough time to make the changes. That is why PF needs to fix it for me.". It is YOUR GAME. Your: make whatever changes you want and keep the rest. And Game: it takes zero time to make a decision on the fly. If it works, great. If it doesn't, say oops and move on. I know I may be venturing into goodfun versus badfun territory but I dont mean to. I just think it is a cop out to say that you don't have time to make the game what you want it to be. Maybe I am wrong.
|
|
Boldstar I agree with most of your posts but your style is abrasive to say the least. Not everyone has endless time or the will to alter the system and bang it into shape. I used to do that. Now with work a girlfriend and real life getting in the way it's not just something I can or want to do. I maybe a cop-out poosibly yet I'm no the only guy who will tell you that. Why do you think I have bought every hardcover release from Paizo. Beyond Bestirary I I can make my own yet I have the other two bestiraries also because I want to picl from premade monsters. Same thing with the APG/UM/UC. I could take a base class from core and change it yet once again just easier and less time consuming to use the premade material. I get your point. Unfortunately it falls aprt imo because "this is the way I do it then everyone else should do" just does not work for everyone.
What is abrasive about my style? I was asking a question that I really do not understand. I've played RPGs for a long time, played with a lot of different players, and really don't understand some of the mindsets. I admitted that I might be wrong and was willing to listen to other points of view.
I did admit that I was getting on a soapbox, but even then, it does strike me that people who want Paizo to "fix" the game to fit their style of play doesn't take into account that there are a whole lot of styles of play and Pathfinder would quickly devolve into schizophrenia if it tried to do this. Instead, it is a pretty good system, that in my opinion, needs to be changed to fit your game style. if you decide not to do this, then it seems disingenuous to complain about a game that explicitly says you can change the rules.
If I were going to be abrasive I would point out that I specifically pointed out I was not talking about you because you have reacted defensively to just about every post that sidnt agree with you 100%. Please don't take my whole cloth comment and cut it to your fit.