| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or you could read the thread?Ranged Weapon or Item that gives Flight.
OR you can listen to logic and stop being ignorant and stubborn.
Was logic the thing that said to half your damage output at best or the thing that said to do nothing a 3rd of the fight (ALSO halfing your damage output)?
Hey if you want to make a character who is so specialized that when something comes up not in his specialization that he sucks that's your problem.
The rest of us can still make balanced Fighters who are good at both melee and ranged.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Was logic the thing that said to half your damage output at best or the thing that said to do nothing a 3rd of the fight?
Coupla points and then I'm done trying to communicate with a brick wall.
1. Half your output is much, much better than none of your output.
2. If you are having to use range to attack the enemy, then the enemy must be at range and not in melee with the party, which means the enemy is also not doing "claw, claw, bite, tail-slap" full attacks each round, so while your damage may be less, the enemy is likely doing less as well.
3. You are not the only character in the party. While your inability to match your melee output might reduce your damage output, your party wizard may well be able to use spells that he avoids during melee like, say, lightning bolt or fireball, and as such your blaster party members might see their damage output go up.
4. On occasion this game requires actual tactics to succeed.
You seem to have deep and compelling problems with each of these, summarized thusly:
1. You cannot accept the fact that there might be times you can't be teh awesome.
2. You don't like it when you aren't in the spotlight.
3. You don't want to, or can't, employ tactics.
Again, good luck. I must say I hope I don't encounter your attitude in any of the games I play. I would not care to play at a table where someone pouts and whines because they can't be awesome all the time.
Are people really still talking about this?
Clearly the OP has an opinion that he refuses to budge from despite the preponderance of evidence against his assertion.
The word for that is delusion. So why bother?
Was logic the thing that said to half your damage output at best or the thing that said to do nothing a 3rd of the fight (ALSO halfing your damage output)?
When your character is stuck in an unlikely scenario in which their 100 melee-oriented feats are useless, half damage is a pretty good backup plan.
If you build your character one-sided and single-focused, you're going to be useless when you aren't in that singular situation(melee) that you geared for. For crying out loud, adapt or fail.
Like I said earlier, you're bringing a knife(melee) to a gunfight(ranged). Expect to fail.
^ And again: Why the hell do knifes have so much material for them in a game about gunfights?
I wasn't aware facing any of half+ the monsters in the bestiaries was an unlikely scenario
Seriously, everyone seems to insist this is a rare situation. It isn't. Check the bestiary by CR for everything after CR8 then you can come back.
And you should check with your DM if they're going to repeatedly throw encounters at your party which render your character useless. Or better yet, stop being useless.
Wait! I think I get it.
Deuxhero is thinking that Pathfinder is a game you WIN against! His beef is that if tactics other than those his character is designed to fight against are employed, he can't win, and that's just not fair.
Again, find another game to play DH. You are spitting into the wind here. Your fundamental problem is with a core game design principle, which is that characters have to make trade-offs to deal with different tactics and situations.
You are playing Pathfinder, and are a fighter. You are not playing "Superheroes" and you aren't Superman.
Wait, Pathfinder is a game where you are supposed to be deadweight for your team and or die horribly and repeatedly?
Sure if that's what you want to do. As the GM I'll be amused by this at least.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, this thread is ridiculous. Yes, a fighter cant inherently fly without spending resources for it. Does it matter? *spoiler alert* no.
Yes, a melee only optimized fighter will struggle at fighting the 50% or so creatures that fly, but he will certainly rock the other 50% that don't fly.
Yes, an archer optimized fighter will rock against the 50% that fly, but will struggle in close quarters combat.
And yes, a balanced fighter will do well, but not as good as the fully optimized builds, against both.
I fail to see the problem here. If you are concerned about only half of the higher level mobs having flight (an assertion I'm taking for granted as I don't care to check it myself), then build appropriately. Or, if you refuse to adjust your build. Find a way to get access to flight.
Which changes nothing about how the game is designed, just how your group plays it.
In no way does it fix the rules.
Every single entry in the Bestiary is an OPTION. In no way, shape, or form, are you supposed to go page by page, fighting everything in the book.
I've played campaigns in the Underdark, where we saw maybe one flying creature. This went into the high teens, level-wise.
I've played above-ground campaigns as a 21st level Fighter, and had a blast, wrecking everything the DM put against us.
The tools for adapting to ANY encounter are already in the game, YOU refuse to use them. You fail because you refuse to use the tools that are readily available to you IN GAME.
But sure, keep blaming the system. See how good it's gotten you so far?
You know what else is an option? The Fighter class.
I think we're having a breakthrough...
You know what else is an option? An Aasimar Fighter, and take the Angelic Wings feat detailed in the Advance Race Guide. BAM! Flying Fighter. Enjoy Pathfinder.
Someone suggested that back on one of the early pages.
It's worth repeating. No spells, no items, no alternate class features, just a race and maybe two racial feats.
Again, the tools are in the game. In plain sight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^ Funny you mention the Underdark. It's full of burrowing creatures you are even WORSE at countering.
Actually, the fighter is one of the better classes at countering burrowing creatures. Most characters have to ready actions against burrowing creatures, and fighters are more likely than for example clerics or bards to survive their first strikes.
Actually, the fighter is one of the better classes at countering burrowing creatures. Most characters have to ready actions against burrowing creatures, and fighters are more likely than for example clerics or bards to survive their first strikes.^ Funny you mention the Underdark. It's full of burrowing creatures you are even WORSE at countering.
Ayup. Been there, done that.
You can, however, ready a grapple. Then break it as a free action your next turn and full attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except you can't ready full attacks.
Then stop playing Pathfinder. Seriously, you've done nothing but rant and go at length about how faulty it is, so just give it up. It's a game, not a political movement. You're obviously convincing yourself not to enjoy it, so just quit then.
Or are you having too much fun arguing for the sake of arguing?
|
I have NEVER been a fan of "mundane fighter" as a class concept in a high fantasy game.Guy empowered by the force of righteousness itself? Good.
Guy who gets so angry he can rip a man in two? Good.
Wizard who isn't quite as good at Wizardry as most in exchange for knowing how to use a weapon? Good.
Guy so skilled at meditation and self disipline he can pull off stunts that defy physics? Good (in fluff anyways).
Guy who literally has no special fighting ability greater than an average guard except knowing a few more tricks and hitting slightly harder? Why does this exist?
Why does Fighter exist in Pathfinder?
Off the top of my head, and in no particular order, YMMV and Including but not limited to:
Hercules
Hektor
Achilles
Ajax
Jason
Leonidis
Genghis Khan
Gilgamesh
Beowulf
Julius Caesar
Joan of Arc
El Cid
Roland
Sigfried
Miyamoto Musashi
Lu Bu
Guan Yu
King Arthur
Lancelot
Galahad
David
D'artagnan
William Wallace
Attila the Hun
Hannibal
Alexander
Khalid Ibn-Al Walid
Robin Hood (oops, how'd the archer get in here?)
Cú Chulainn
Saladin
Vlad the Impaler
Spartacus
Ivanhoe
The "mundane warriors" in folklore and fiction ranging from English to Chinese, dating from several thousand BC to this very day, are among some of the most compelling images and icons in our collective understanding. We know their deeds, we know their weapons, we know their companions, and we ADMIRE them.
This is not a Pathfinder problem. This is YOUR problem.
|
So far in carrion crown, we have encountered only one monster that could fly and use a ranged attack. We are level 10.
When do you only fight flying monsters?
When does your party need you to fight the flyer instead of the beast on the ground?
When can't you ignore or bring a flyer to you? / why does it have to die?
Yes, an archer optimized fighter will rock against the 50% that fly, but will struggle in close quarters combat.
Except not. Level 8 Archer archetype ability, snapshot and 5 foot step all make him pretty useful there.
Useful, but not as good as a melee optimized char.
The point you keep missing throughout this entire thread, is that different scenarios play out differently. Don't expect one build to cover all your options with 100% efficiency. If you want to be great at melee, you will struggle at range. If you want to be great at range, you wont be as good at melee.
Somewhere in the middle is where I like to build. Flight is neither required nor useful to me in most scenario's. It's all down to tactics. You can always ready an action to hit said bird as it fly's by if you're too stubborn to carry a bow and are too proud to ask the wizard for flight.
I have NEVER been a fan of "mundane fighter" as a class concept in a high fantasy game.
But some people are.
Dr Grecko, while I have been one pointing out that there are trade-offs, I don't agree that if you optimize for melee you will therefore "struggle at range". You will do fine at range, you just won't rock the universe like you do at melee. A fighter with a basic strength adjusted bow and no archery feats at all is still going to have a higher base to hit and a MUCH higher damage bonus than my druid who has taken all the archery feats, and my druid does fine as an archer. Throw a couple of archery feats and a reasonably priced magic bow into the mix and that fighter is doing major damage with his bow.
The problem is not that a melee focused fighter necessarily "sucks" at range, the problem is that people are defining "sucks" as "does anything less than awe-inspiring damage."
Wait, Pathfinder is a game where you are supposed to be deadweight for your team and or die horribly and repeatedly?
And no, the game is marketed and designed as high fantasy, you ARE supposed to be a superhero, not some guy who can't be told appart from an average bobby.
You are correct. Pathfinder without modification is a fantasy superhero team game.
And in many superhero teams, there is one guy with no supernatural powers.
Sometimes it's Hawkeye and everyone thinks he's lame. Sometimes it's Batman.
There are many, many GMs who allow a style of play where "dead weight" is when you give up role-playing. You are not limited to the combat abilities on your character sheet.
In any case, if you think the Fighter is so flawed, do not play the fighter. Not every class has to adhere to your sense of equality.
^ But nearly everything ELSE isn't hampered by it.
I'd expect a build to work in 50% of fights though.
Don't expect one build to cover all your options with 100% efficiency.
So why wouldn't it?
Dr Grecko, while I have been one pointing out that there are trade-offs, I don't agree that if you optimize for melee you will therefore "struggle at range". You will do fine at range, you just won't rock the universe like you do at melee. A fighter with a basic strength adjusted bow and no archery feats at all is still going to have a higher base to hit and a MUCH higher damage bonus than my druid who has taken all the archery feats, and my druid does fine as an archer. Throw a couple of archery feats and a reasonably priced magic bow into the mix and that fighter is doing major damage with his bow.
The problem is not that a melee focused fighter necessarily "sucks" at range, the problem is that people are defining "sucks" as "does anything less than awe-inspiring damage."
I fully agree, even a full optimized melee fighter will do alright in ranged. I was merely trying to point out that they wont be as good as a archery specialized char. Perhaps poor choice of words by using "suck". I was just pointing out that different builds specialize in different things and that he shouldn't complain when his melee specialized char isn't as good at range.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, Pathfinder is a game where you are supposed to be deadweight for your team and or die horribly and repeatedly?
And no, the game is marketed and designed as high fantasy, you ARE supposed to be a superhero, not some guy who can't be told appart from an average bobby.
You are correct. Pathfinder without modification is a fantasy superhero team game.
And in many superhero teams, there is one guy with no supernatural powers.
Sometimes it's Hawkeye and everyone thinks he's lame. Sometimes it's Batman.
In any case, if you think the Fighter is so flawed, do not play the fighter. Not every class has to adhere to your sense of equality.
Evil, this plays right into deuxhero's hands. The comparison you are making is, imho, not accurate. Fighters in Pathfinder are not Batman. They are more like Iron Man. They have magical weapons and armor which boost their "mundane" abilities exponentially. Plus they have feats and class features which go far beyond human capacity to perform. Not to mention they can fall from orbit and shake it off.
So even the "mundane" fighters in Pathfinder are far, far more powerful than a "mundane superhero." But, they can't fly without adding the "rocket boots" feature to their superhero armor, which is what DH is whining about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^ But nearly everything ELSE isn't hampered by it.
I'd expect a build to work in 50% of fights though.
Don't expect one build to cover all your options with 100% efficiency.
Wait, so only 50% of the creatures fly (according to your research). That should mean that 50% do not fly, and therefore your build should work in 50% of fights. So whats the problem?
|
Dear EVERYONE:
Clearly deux is refusing any good arguments against him, otherwise he would have been complaining about Rangers, Barbarians, Rogues, and Paladins early in the game when options for flight were not available at all aside from the options mentioned (potion/scroll/ally/just use a bow).
Flag the behavior and move on.
Well, we could have a "what is batman" argument, because those always go so well.
All I meant was that sometimes, superheroes are thematically without superpowers.
Game design isn't as obvious as it looks, I suppose. The fighter is challenging to play, but a good roleplayer can make it work. It's not "fair" in the way that endlessly tweaked MMO class design is "fair". Who cares?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
50% of fights.
I love how no one but me has actually looked at the SRD's monsters by CR in all 7 page.
My goodness, sir, you are smug.
50% of fights.
I love how no one but me has actually looked at the SRD's monsters by CR in all 7 page.
Perhaps I'm just trusting your analysis of mobs by CR, because I don't feel like doing extra legwork to address a non-issue.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
50% of fights.
I love how no one but me has actually looked at the SRD's monsters by CR in all 7 page.
While you're there, you should check out the Magic Item section and see if you can find something that grants flight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flight should be a non-issue for a group of level 10 characters anyway. Mountains, molehills, etc.