well, when you build a character starting high enough level to afford an agile weapon, the penalties of sucking effectively no longer apply. because low levels are no longer a real consideration.
Many of you seem to be assuming the fighter will be alone and not with an adventuring party. Provided he has three other characters backing him up carrying their own weight, 75 to 100 damage a round is more than sufficient at all levels.
If memory serves me correctly, your group turned on you and ejected one of your characters because you tried to play a sorcerer who was practically useless in combat because you spent the first two rounds of every fight casting defensive self-buffs that rarely mattered.
That has NEVER happened. There were some concerns, but there was no turning or ejecting at all. Also, my spellcasters rarely spend more than one round buffing unless it benefits the entire party (such as haste).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
well, when you build a character starting high enough level to afford an agile weapon, the penalties of sucking effectively no longer apply. because low levels are no longer a real consideration.
So, remind me, what part of this build is supposed to be impressing me? Because an 18th-level Ranger has more skills, does more damage, casts more spells, and could actually have survived the first six levels of play. The same could be said of an 18th-level Bard, 18th-level Eldritch Knight, or (except for the spells) an 18th-level Rogue. (Perhaps even - dare I say it - an 18th-level Monk?) And yet apparently this is supposed to be proof to all the narrow-minded haters who don't understand the fighter that if you actually think outside the box, you can... stop taking levels in the fighter class, stop being able to fight well, and still be outclassed at what you are trying to do by several other classes.
A lot of the "fighter should be able to do more crowd" seem to be assuming the fighter will be alone and not with an adventuring party.
Then enlighten us - what part of this build's mediocrity stops being mediocre with help from the rest of the party?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone who says fighters are ONLY good for fighting, and also those who constantly create humdrum fighters that aren't really in-depth characters, but faceless PC placeholders that swing swords repeatedly.
So....silly people?
|
well, when you build a character starting high enough level to afford an agile weapon, the penalties of sucking effectively no longer apply. because low levels are no longer a real consideration.
Well yes...but there in lies the difference between a thought exercise and ACTUAL gameplay. RD is generally pretty good at the former...less so at the latter. I suppose you can be replacing a dead character or playing a campaign that starts off high or a one shot module...but generally speaking, having a build that is gonna suck for the 5+ levels better damn well have some pretty dang big payoff at the end (like say the two arcane full casters...and those suck less that this build does at early levels)...and this really doesn't (it can't even outdamage my EK that is gonna get level 9 spells next level and started off with 13 str that wasn't raised beyond a +6 item).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it amusing that something meant to show all those straw people who create bland faceless non-characters with no actual personality... is impossible to actually build as a character in a standard start-at-first-level campaign and needs to spontaneously come into being at demigod-levels.
It's pretty sad when you start arguing with non-existent strawmen... and lose.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many of you seem to be assuming the fighter will be alone and not with an adventuring party. Provided he has three other characters backing him up carrying their own weight, 75 to 100 damage a round is more than sufficient at all levels.
Or...I don't know...the caster removes an enemy from the map. The rogue SA and drops and enemy with the party flanker (lets say cleric) while the cleric removes an enemy with a spell and the fighter drops an enemy all on their own. So while your party took out one guy...mine just cleared the encounter. That is what having a proper damage ratio can let you do. If the enemy is pretty tough, well the rogue and fighter may team up to kill it, leaving the casters to do more useful things then damage to try and remove ONE guy. That is why 75 is insufficent damage for this level. If you can't drop a 200 HP critter with all your hits hitting on your own (a CR 14 mook), you are wasting the action of a partymate to clean up after you. Yes bad dice roll will sometime make you need a second round...but with your model, you can CRIT with ever single attack and still be unable to drop that CR 14 mook. On average you need 3 rounds...my EK needs 2...and 2 rounds = pretty useless. Guess what that makes a 3 round fighter build.
well, when you build a character starting high enough level to afford an agile weapon, the penalties of sucking effectively no longer apply. because low levels are no longer a real consideration.So, remind me, what part of this build is supposed to be impressing me? Because an 18th-level Ranger has more skills, does more damage, casts more spells, and could actually have survived the first six levels of play. The same could be said of an 18th-level Bard, 18th-level Eldritch Knight, or (except for the spells) an 18th-level Rogue. (Perhaps even - dare I say it - an 18th-level Monk?) And yet apparently this is supposed to be proof to all the narrow-minded haters who don't understand the fighter that if you actually think outside the box, you can... stop taking levels in the fighter class, stop being able to fight well, and still be outclassed at what you are trying to do by several other classes.
A lot of the "fighter should be able to do more crowd" seem to be assuming the fighter will be alone and not with an adventuring party.Then enlighten us - what part of this build's mediocrity stops being mediocre with help from the rest of the party?
the character doesn't impress me much either. the raven king thing has been done way too many times before. it may have a minor contribution in the damage and skills department, and i could probably build an arcane trickster who contributes more than he in the utility department. just not in the melee damage department. not counting cohorts.
|
|
the character doesn't impress me much either. the raven king thing has been done way too many times before. it may have a minor contribution in the damage and skills department, and i could probably build an arcane trickster who contributes more than he in the utility department. just not in the melee damage department. not counting cohorts.
Well, in combat, you AT still has spells right? Spells that can remove enemies from the map? Well there ya go. Remove a 200 HP mook and you just did 200 damage.
Guys, I made a fighter, but she does so much more than fight. She has loads of skills per level with great class skills, gets huge bonuses against certain enemies or in certain areas, casts a few spells, and she even gets her own animal companion!
Amazing, eh? Check and mate, haters. And all I needed to do to make it work was take 20 levels of Ranger.
And for those of you who say Wizards suck because all they do is cast spells, I think it's time I introduced you to my wizard. He's a magus.
Oh my god I love you so much right now. *sides hurt from laughing*
my first attempt at an 18th level pathfinder arcane trickster since i played 3.5 7 years ago she is also built on the heroic NPC stat array.
she has some buffs, battlefield control, a hint of utility and while not the best combatant, does fairly well for a 1/2 bab combatant. she just eats the 15% arcane failure because she knows it isn't s big deal.
her sneak attacks deal (with pirahna strike) 45 per swing which, while not good for slaying level appropriate foes, helps for cleaning up the insignifficant trash.
my first attempt at an 18th level pathfinder arcane trickster since i played 3.5 7 years ago she is also built on the heroic NPC stat array.
she has some buffs, battlefield control, a hint of utility and while not the best combatant, does fairly well for a 1/2 bab combatant. she just eats the 15% arcane failure because she knows it isn't s big deal.
her sneak attacks deal (with pirahna strike) 45 per swing which, while not good for slaying level appropriate foes, helps for cleaning up the insignifficant trash.
upped her to 20 point buy since it is appearantly the norm. will be redoing her point buy a bit.
essentially, she uses blur to set up sneak attacks and she can hit an AC of 33 (AC of a CR18) with a 14+ on her first swing. for 8d6+18 when pirahna striking. using the combination of attack and move backwards. a CR 18 with it's +28 attack bonus needs a 15 to hit her and has to roll a 20% miss chance, with maybe the possibility of mirror images and illusions interfering. a grueling process of hit and run that denies the enemy full attacks if they pursue her. plus she has a few ranged spells of her own or could summon or bind flanking buddies.
You defeated your own argument Raving Dork, because the character you posted isn't a fighter, he isn't even PRIMARILY a fighter. He was just a fighter long enough to build the pre-req for shaodowdancer, he's essentially a shadowdancer who's less skilled and less of a shadowdancer than most in trade for better BAB.
And it's a shame because you could have made the argument for depth with a single classed fighter. Instead you walked away from your own challenge.
Indeed, I've seen others make much more compelling arguments for the fighter sing single classed fighters.
Haters going to hate. Didn't your mothers ever tell you that if you can't say anything nice, to not say anything at all?
It's not an optimized character. It's not meant to be. It's a concept character that I happen to be real excited about. And despite everyone's protestations on this thread, he is perfectly capable of pulling his weight in a party from mid levels on up (I believe many of the low level arguments have merit).
Or...I don't know...the caster removes an enemy from the map. The rogue SA and drops and enemy with the party flanker (lets say cleric) while the cleric removes an enemy with a spell and the fighter drops an enemy all on their own. So while your party took out one guy...mine just cleared the encounter. That is what having a proper damage ratio can let you do. If the enemy is pretty tough, well the rogue and fighter may team up to kill it, leaving the casters to do more useful things then damage to try and remove ONE guy. That is why 75 is insufficent damage for this level. If you can't drop a 200 HP critter with all your hits hitting on your own (a CR 14 mook), you are wasting the action of a partymate to clean up after you. Yes bad dice roll will sometime make you need a second round...but with your model, you can CRIT with ever single attack and still be unable to drop that CR 14 mook. On average you need 3 rounds...my EK needs 2...and 2 rounds = pretty useless. Guess what that makes a 3 round fighter build.Many of you seem to be assuming the fighter will be alone and not with an adventuring party. Provided he has three other characters backing him up carrying their own weight, 75 to 100 damage a round is more than sufficient at all levels.
I really don't believe that's a valid argument since facing MULTIPLE enemies each with hundreds of hit points isn't really a balanced encounter at any level.
Generally, you face one or two tough monsters, or one boss monster and several mooks, not a half dozen monsters each with as many hit points as the whole party combined.
GM: "Ten tarrasques descend upon you from the hills while 20 jabberwocks dive out of they sky, all of which carry 20th-level lance pouncing barbarian riders!"
Yeah, whatever. Give me a break.
Generally, you face one or two tough monsters, or one boss monster and several mooks, not a half dozen monsters each with as many hit points as the whole party combined.
You have a very narrow view of encounter design my friend.
Generally, you face one or two tough monsters, or one boss monster and several mooks, not a half dozen monsters each with as many hit points as the whole party combined.
You have a very narrow view of encounter design my friend.
While it's technically true that "bad encounter design" is a subset of "encounter design", I don't think it should really count for much in discussions.
Who says a fighter can't be more than just a fighter?
...
The only thing keeping your fighters lame and limited is yourself.
Discuss.
Fixed the original post for you.
When you play a fighter you've chosen a set of mechanics that give you tons of resources to be effective in combat and very few resources to be effective outside of combat.
I dig the gritty feel of the fighter and am playing one currently in a friend's homebrew campaign. The strength of the fighter class is that you get a ton of feats and can delve deeply into some of the more interesting feat trees much earlier in the game (and have all the bells and whistles of a full BAB class). The tradeoff for this is that you lose a lot of out-of-combat utility. So if you want your fighter to be useful out of combat you have to plan and allocate your scarce resources (i.e., skill points) judiciously. That and think outside the box in terms of non-skill actions you can take (scattering a bag of flour instead of casting see invisibility).
So with some not inconsiderable effort you can play a single-class fighter that is interesting and useful outside of combat.
In my other campaign I'm playing a samurai. The samurai gets another 2 skill ranks per level and his class abilities keep him on par (albeit a little behind) a single-classed fighter in terms of combat utility (except when he's challenging, when he can edge slightly a well-built fighter). Those extra two skill ranks per level go a long way and I've been able to invest in diplomacy and sense motive and can act as the party's face.
So with a fraction of the effort that went into crafting a fighter that is useful out of combat I have a samurai that is more useful out of combat and only slightly less useful in combat (unless challenging).
Haters going to hate. Didn't your mothers ever tell you that if you can't say anything nice, to not say anything at all?
You're right, why can't we all just be nice and nonconfrontationa-
"Hey, screw you jerks who suck at roleplaying and just make faceless inhuman non-characters who have no personality whatsoever, your characters are lame because you are unimaginative and this is how you should build them if you actually knew what you were doing!"
oh
"Hey, screw you jerks who suck at roleplaying and just make faceless inhuman non-characters who have no personality whatsoever, your characters are lame because you are unimaginative and this is how you should build them if you actually knew what you were doing!"
You are taking my words out of context as well as adding a few unnecessary derogatory terms. My post was in response to people who basically said fighters suck because of their narrow focus. I'm not attacking anyone, merely attempting to show that their statements are untrue. As with any character, a fighter is what you make of it. If you don't put in any effort, then yes, it is more likely to end up a faceless inhuman non-character with no personality whatsoever.
If you spend all your resources into fighting, then guess what? When you aren't fighting, you're not going to be doing much. If you want to do something outside of fighting, you're going to need to not put so much emphasis on combat. Don't be the Int 7, char 7 lump on a log.
Some easy options:
Don't dump charisma, take the dangerously curious trait and skill focus use magic device. You can now use scrolls, wands and such items.
Pick up the master craftsman and the craft magic arms and armor feats. Now you can make your own (and your teammates') magic weapons.
Don't dump int and take the lore warden archetype. Now you are the knowledge expert. If you still want heavy armor, spend the proficiencies.
It's all about the choices you make. If you only want to fight, that's fine. Just realize that outside of fighting, you're going to be bored.
Saying that the way to make an interesting fighter despite the fighter's low skill points per level and poor class skills is to switch to a 6+INT class and stop focusing on actually being able to hurt things is proving your supposed detractors' points. If the only way to make an interesting fighter were to stop playing a fighter (it's not), the detractors would be right.
You're literally arguing with non-existent strawmen and losing. How is that even possible?
they have weapon training, armor training, you can wear normal plate armor without going fancy mithril and still move normal and get higher dex bonus to ac.Anything the fighter can do, the Barbarian/Paladin/Ranger can do better.
What does a Fighter got? Feats. That's it. No meaningful class abilities, skills, or spells. He does ONE thing, or variations of that one thing, which is hitting things. And the only thing he gets out of it is just more of something every class gets.
Sure there's a couple interesting archetypes, but most of them are fairly unimpressive and other classes can do what the archetypes do, but usually better.
If I ever ran a campaign, Fighter would be a banned class.
I only wish I'd known this simple fact a long time ago and stopped trying to play fighter thinking "This time it'll be different. This time, I'll get to do something!"
If you can get items that accomplish the same thing as your class abilities, then your class abilities are not unique or valuable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What can a fighter do better? Archery for one. Ranger eventually gets +10 to attack and damage from favored enemy at level 20 and needs to blow a third level spell he'll never have more than 4 of to do so against most opponents.Anything the fighter can do, the Barbarian/Paladin/Ranger can do better.
What does a Fighter got? Feats. That's it. No meaningful class abilities, skills, or spells. He does ONE thing, or variations of that one thing, which is hitting things. And the only thing he gets out of it is just more of something every class gets.
*cough*Pearls of Power*cough*
*cough*Craft Wondrous Item*cough**cough*Rangers are casters*cough*
Also TWF. Rangers' ability to ignore prerequisites bites them in the ass when they can't get the feats that actually make TWF outdamage two handed weapons because they don't have enough bonus feats. Anyone else will sink all their feats TWFing and miss something important like iron will or power attack. Paladins are up to the job, but only against things they can smite.
*cough*Rangers don't need more feats*cough*
Also combat maneuvers. Nobody else can very well spare the feats for multiple maneuvers, and +5 from weapon training and fighter only feats on sunder, disarm, and trip gives maneuver rolls as good as any non-situational bonus can get. The lore warden archetype beats out even capstone level favored enemy. Certain monk archetypes get faster maneuvers, but nobody beats a fighter's potential CMB and CMD.
*cough*Favored enemy applies to combat maneuvers. Smite adds to combat maneuvers. Barbarians crush fighters at combat maneuvers.*hack gag*
the existence of wands/staffs and UMD make level wizards wothless?If you can get items that accomplish the same thing as your class abilities, then your class abilities are not unique or valuable.they have weapon training, armor training, you can wear normal plate armor without going fancy mithril and still move normal and get higher dex bonus to ac.Anything the fighter can do, the Barbarian/Paladin/Ranger can do better.
What does a Fighter got? Feats. That's it. No meaningful class abilities, skills, or spells. He does ONE thing, or variations of that one thing, which is hitting things. And the only thing he gets out of it is just more of something every class gets.
Sure there's a couple interesting archetypes, but most of them are fairly unimpressive and other classes can do what the archetypes do, but usually better.
If I ever ran a campaign, Fighter would be a banned class.
I only wish I'd known this simple fact a long time ago and stopped trying to play fighter thinking "This time it'll be different. This time, I'll get to do something!"
Wizards get the wands and staffs anyways. Who would want to give those items to someone who could fail a UMD check at a wrong time? Nobody. The only reason you'd see a wand in any other hand is if there isn't an arcane caster.
Wands exist for casters so they can keep casting after they run out of spells (or to cast spells they don't want to waste slots on). Wands are also expendable, Magic armor isn't.
So no, they don't make Wizards useless.
There is far more outright acidity than I expected in this thread. Damn.
If I want to be a Fighter who's more than a Fighter, I'd roll a Paladin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You expected less of a Ravingdork thread?
Maybe he has that incite rage ability some bards can get.
What can a fighter do better? Archery for one. Ranger eventually gets +10 to attack and damage from favored enemy at level 20 and needs to blow a third level spell he'll never have more than 4 of to do so against most opponents. Fighter gets +7 attack, +10 damage at level 17 between weapon training and fighter only feats against everything. And the fighter has +4 AC. It's not like the ranger's ignoring any prerequisites except point blank shot in this case. Barbarians, of course, make lousy archers and paladins can't smite anything that's not evil. Luring Cavaliers would have an edge if they could take clustered shots or penetrating strike, but they can't.Anything the fighter can do, the Barbarian/Paladin/Ranger can do better.
What does a Fighter got? Feats. That's it. No meaningful class abilities, skills, or spells. He does ONE thing, or variations of that one thing, which is hitting things. And the only thing he gets out of it is just more of something every class gets.
-Rangers don't need as many feats/they get combat style feats/their favored enemy bonus is better and its not hard to guess a campaign theme.
-Rangers are skilled. They'll always be a better scout than a fighter since they have stealth and perception.-Rangers are casters. They can augment their fighting in ways fighters never can.
-Barbarians aren't archers
-Paladins don't need smite to fight/When they do smite they own/ There is tons of evil to be smote in Pathfinder
-Cavaliers aren't archers/Cavaliers curbstomp anything they can charge.
Also TWF. Rangers' ability to ignore prerequisites bites them in the ass when they can't get the feats that actually make TWF outdamage two handed weapons because they don't have enough bonus feats. Anyone else will sink all their feats TWFing and miss something important like iron will or power attack. Paladins are up to the job, but only against things they can smite.
-TWF isn't THAT feat intensive
Also combat maneuvers. Nobody else can very well spare the feats for multiple maneuvers, and +5 from weapon training and fighter only feats on sunder, disarm, and trip gives maneuver rolls as good as any non-situational bonus can get. The lore warden archetype beats out even capstone level favored enemy. Certain monk archetypes get faster maneuvers, but nobody beats a fighter's potential CMB and CMD.
Which is nothing that other classes can't do. Plus, CMs are very situational imo except for trip, which is one of the things enemies are most likely to resist against.
Any form of combat other than two handed weapon without maneuvers is feat intensive and other classes will always be scrimping for feats to put any other combat style together on schedule. I guess if you start at...
What does "On schedule" mean?
Actually, don't answer. That was rhetorical. "On schedule" means that people have convinced themselves their characters suck if they don't have X feat by Y level, leading to the ridiculous situations where people think they need to be a Fighter, Human, or Fighter/Human because they think Pathfinder is all about feats.
Starting first level ranger as non-human is NOT as bad as you think it is.
-Rangers don't need as many feats/they get combat style feats/their favored enemy bonus is better and its not hard to guess a campaign theme.
I'm a ranger fan and interestingly I never build rangers with the assumption that I'm going to run into favored enemies, or that there is even a theme of a campaign (for all I know a good campaign may go from the north pole to the south pole and everywhere in between). I still prefer Rangers (my favored enemies of choice are Undead, Magical Beasts, Evil Outsiders, and Aberrations, and once Instant Enemy drops we can add everything else to that list).
-Rangers are casters. They can augment their fighting in ways fighters never can.
I absolutely love the self-buffs rangers get, the ability to be immune to poison for class level-3 hours beginning at 1st level, the ability to leave no tracks, or the fact they get freedom of movement as a 4th level spell making them very difficult to crowd-control. They also have awesome AoEs like spike growth, and their combat buff spells in splats (like lead blades or gravity bow are also awesome).
-Barbarians aren't archers
All martials are archers. It's just a matter of depth of specialization. :P
-Paladins don't need smite to fight/When they do smite they own/ There is tons of evil to be smote in Pathfinder
Yep. I do not always expect to smite, but when I do, it's biblical.
-Cavaliers aren't archers/Cavaliers curbstomp anything they can charge.
Well, as I said before all martials are archers (cavaliers are pretty good mounted archers, as are rangers ^-^), but otherwise yeah! :P
Also TWF. Rangers' ability to ignore prerequisites bites them in the ass when they can't get the feats that actually make TWF outdamage two handed weapons because they don't have enough bonus feats. Anyone else will sink all their feats TWFing and miss something important like iron will or power attack. Paladins are up to the job, but only against things they can smite.-TWF isn't THAT feat intensive
It really isn't. Two weapon defense is a trap-feat. All you need is TWF, ITWF, GTWF, TW-Rend, and Double Slice. Some would even suggest you don't need greater two-weapon fighting (since some people don't put much stock in 2nd iteratives) but I say with +10 to hit and damage on your weapons with favored enemy it's totally viable. :P
Which is nothing that other classes can't do. Plus, CMs are very situational imo except for trip, which is one of the things enemies are most likely to resist against.
Barbarians are kings of combat manuevers. Crazy suckers get to add their level to a combat maneuver once per rage, and then get to rage-cycle later on. Their level man. And it stacks with other benefits from rage like the one that adds bonuses to hit while in a rage (applies to CMB too). Meanwhile, anything with a full BAB is good at maneuvers by default. Rangers apply favored enemy on combat maneuvers as well. Paladins can apply smite or their buffs like divine favor.
All in all, agreed. Just bantering. ^.^
I'm a ranger fan and interestingly I never build rangers with the assumption that I'm going to run into favored enemies, or that there is even a theme of a campaign (for all I know a good campaign may go from the north pole to the south pole and everywhere in between). I still prefer Rangers (my favored enemies of choice are Undead, Magical Beasts, Evil Outsiders, and Aberrations, and once Instant Enemy drops we can add everything else to that list).
My friend picked Humanoid Humans as his first favored enemy. He's gotten to use it fairly often even in a rural-wilderness based campaign.
In fact, Humans are a pretty safe bet for any campaign.
Fighters can be more than fighters with all the feats they have. You don't need to max out your strength when you have Weapon Training and Weapon Specialization. Sure it's fun to see how high you get DPR but that gets boring really quick in games that span 12 or more levels. With the right traits and higher int, wis, chr you can make a fighter who is more than just swinging a sword.
Response to gnomersy:
"Just like you can't take levels in fighter unless fighters are allowed."
Response to the response to gnomersy:
"Of course, but fighters are far more likely to be allowed than anthropomorphic birds."
Phew, good thing we got that over with fast.
Who says a fighter can't be more than just a fighter?
My character Revin Bitter can dance, debuff, deceive, evade, fight, fly, judge, lead, retreat, scout, sneak, socialize, steal, tank, teleport, think, transform, and use any number of other interesting spell-like and supernatural abilities or skills. He is king of the shadow people, he is a monster assassin, he is a bird man, he is an enigma. He is not cardboard. He is so much more than just a fighter.
He is versatile AND potent. He's awesome in nearly every way. Some say he's not even human. Others say he's Batman.
The only thing keeping your fighters lame and limited is yourself.
Discuss.
RD, while I do agree the fighter is often pigionholed unfairly you have more levels of another class than you do fighter. It would be a fair argument if people are saying the shadowdancer side is doing the work.
edit:I see I was ninja'd. :)
Let's be nice though guys. Ravingdork was cool enough to share a character with us. Even if he made some somewhat odd assertions, I'd like to see him bring more stuff along. ^.^
Well, while a lot of the criticisms of this build still stand, I do want to say that you have certainly made an interesting build and that there would be plenty of things that your Raven King brings to the table that a party would be happy to have.
And I think RD's build does demonstrate a valid point that as we get more feats that do interesting things, Fighters have the opportunity to become much more interesting themselves. Hell, there are now multiple ways to get the ability to fly with just an expenditure of feats. That is a huge change over the core book feats which really were mainly about making you slightly better at things you already could do.
I think the biggest problem with this thread/build was that you are trying to make a point about the Fighter, but 1. you are using more levels in another class than Fighter and 2. you seem to be trying to accomplish way too many things. If you gave up a few skills and a couple SLA in exchange for making yourself better than a sub-par combatant, you could have a winning build.