| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a recent thread, poster Ravingdork posted that … “The only thing keeping your fighters lame and limited is yourself.”
But then his own example immediately undermines his argument and derails the thread. This left the original topic unanswered.
So, I am going to ask.
Can a fighter …
… be more than “just” a fighter?
Yes. I don't feel like reposting my other post from the other thread though. So there. Good night.
Are archetypes allowed?
Of course, since I don't believe that they change the underlying question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. I don't feel like reposting my other post from the other thread though. So there. Good night.
Fixed it for you.
Yes - but its from a RP perspective as much as 'flavour'.
I agree completely, but mechanics matter too as they are how you translate that personality and flavor into a world where dice play a rather large part in how things play out. Talking about skills here. You need skills to represent some of that flavor, but the fighter gets 2+int. So if for example you wanted to play your fighter as a suave, street smart, defender of the common man who happens to have a knowledge of fine wines, you could, but when he actually tried to be any of those things besides "defender," mechanically he'd fall on his face (unless you spent a number of feats for Skill Foci). :O
Well, I'd imagine that a Lore Warden would make a pretty cool wandering scholar-type character.
Yes - but its from a RP perspective as much as 'flavour'.I agree completely, but mechanics matter too as they are how you translate that personality and flavor into a world where dice play a rather large part in how things play out. Talking about skills here. You need skills to represent some of that flavor, but the fighter gets 2+int. So if for example you wanted to play your fighter as a suave, street smart, defender of the common man who happens to have a knowledge of fine wines, you could, but when he actually tried to be any of those things besides "defender," mechanically he'd fall on his face (unless you spent a number of feats for Skill Foci). :O
Meaning that at lower levels, he is not going to be anywhere close to your character concept.
So, the character you described would work better as a Fighter/Rogue. :(
Lore Warden bumps you to 4+INT skills. Take a couple of traits for desired class skills and you can at least make decent out-of-combat contributions (though you'll still be no Rogue).
Lore Warden bumps you to 4+INT skills. Take a couple of traits for desired class skills and you can at least make decent out-of-combat contributions (though you'll still be no Rogue).
Which is fine. A fighter should be the "Primary Melee" not the "Skill Monkey."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True, Lore Warden does give you more skills to express your character's personality/background/flavor/whatever, but using that as the solution seems to imply that "well Lore Wardens can be more than just a fighter, but the rest can't." If you understand what I mean. I think they should just give em 4+int base.
True, Lore Warden does give you more skills to express your character's personality/background/flavor/whatever, but using that as the solution seems to imply that "well Lore Wardens can be more than just a fighter, but the rest can't." If you understand what I mean. I think they should just give em 4+int base.
Which really says that "Ravingdork" was wrong in his initial idea.
The Rogue would still get double a fighter's base skill points and would still have a much larger pool of class skills, so I don't think so.
The Rogue would still get double a fighter's base skill points and would still have a much larger pool of class skills, so I don't think so.
Okay. I was wondering if the Rogue weapon list should be expanded to compensate.
A return to "should characters with 2+Int skills get more skill points"? Ahhh - like the Monk, it seems this one will never die.
2+Int is too few for any class, even the "supposedly" scholarly wizard.
I guess it all depends on what you mean. I could say "Can a sorcerer be more than just a sorcerer?" Or, "Can a alchemist be more than just an alchemist?" Or any class for that matter.
Strictly speaking, absolutely they can. Take a profession, and then you will be a fighter (or whatever) AND your selected profession. But I doubt that's what you meant.
Ignoring that, then no. A fighter is designed to... fight. It's right there in the name. They don't get many skill points, so it's best to select a couple of skills and focus on those. But that doesn't mean that you can't make a different kind of fighter. Mounted knight, hoplite, archer, there are many variations. Quite some time ago, I got bored and did the math to see if a fighter can out-monk a monk. Turns out that they can, at least in some aspects. Feats can duplicate several of the monk abilities, and the AVERAGE damage per round with unarmed combat will be higher with an unarmed fighter than an unarmed monk (monk still wins the max-damage comparison). Plus, fighters can wear platemail while doing it, if they want.
My point is, fighter doesn't have to just mean sword-and-board combat. But if you want to something less combat-focused, there are better options than a fighter.
Ravingdork is right about at least one thing - A fighters job is to fight so he needs to at least be able to do that or there is no sense in taking him.
To answer Lord Fyre's question though - Yes, A fighter can certainly be more than just a fighter.
You just have to allocate your resources a bit differently and it also depends on the group size.
Start with UMD - a vastly under used skill by fighters. Take Toughness then you can allocate your favored class bonusto skill points to pay for UMD.
have the group crafter (or buy if crafting is not allowed) skill boosting items. A +5 competence item can be bought for 2500 or crafted for half that or the same amount if you go non-slotted.
buy or craft wands for the fighter because they do not provoke AoO's
Get a +2 int item for him and choose a non class skill because the headband will cover that skill.
A fighter can certainly spare a feat for skill focus.
alot really depends on group composition and ratio of combat, if there is another fighter to help share the load then you can defintely experiment a bit with options - if not you are pretty much F'ed becuse melee damage is the surest method of croaking monsters.
The Rogue would still get double a fighter's base skill points and would still have a much larger pool of class skills, so I don't think so.
Not to mention the Rogue gets quite a few class abilities and rogue talents to bump up his skills beyond what he gets from skill points alone.
2+Int is too few for any class, even the "supposedly" scholarly wizard.
I think 2+Int is an alright number of skill points on an Intelligence-based SAD class like the wizard. With how much you'll be pumping your Intelligence up, the number of base skills isn't that important anyway. As it is, the Wizard can catch up to or even surpass the Rogue's number of skills just by virtue of pumping intelligence through the roof at every opportunity.
Honestly, as far as skills are concerned, nothing is going to hurt the Rogue more than getting rid of cross-class skill limits already did. The damage has already been done.
Yes it can. I will try to put up a level 10 build using APG, CRB, UC, and UM.
WBL 33% on any one item is the limite
20 pb, and 2 traits.
He shall be
Willard the Detective. I will try with a core fighter first. If that does not work I might go with the Lore Warden archetype(exception to my allowed sources.).
Give me an hour or 2.
The Rogue needs to be made better in some way regardless of whether the fighter's getting 2+INT or 4+INT skill points. I'd be more concerned about comparing the Fighter to the Ranger, since they're both full-BAB classes and the skill monkey aspect is one of the Ranger's perks, but I don't think it would even come close to invalidating Rangers.
I think the problem is that in a level based system like pathfinder that no character can really do what his concept requires at 1st level. Most characters do not come into their own until around 5th level or so.
At 1st level your stats are often more important than your class abilities. Take a fighter vs. a wizard for example. I have 2 characters one is a elf wizard with an 18 STR, and the other is a human fighter with a 10 STR. Both are using armor even though the wizard is not proficient in it. Assuming both have DEX of 12 and a CON of 14 The fighter also has weapon focus in long sword so they have equal chance to hit. The Wizard will take down the fighter in 1.4 hits, where the fighter will take 1.6 hits. The odds are in the wizards favor. Now put both characters at 4th level and things change dramatically. Now this is of course and exaggeration but the point is valid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
a fighter can sacrifice 'Fighteryness' to become something else. as Ravingdork's Raven King has proven. but all you are doing is a tradeoff. it's no fighter, it's a heavily armored shadowdancer with the leadership feat and suspiciously custom tailored equipment.
a fighter can sacrifice 'Fighteryness' to become something else. as Ravingdork's Raven King has proven. but all you are doing is a tradeoff. it's no fighter, it's a heavily armored shadowdancer with the leadership feat and suspiciously custom tailored equipment.
Sure, that's true of every class. You can take fewer levels in a class and take more levels in another class, and you'll have fewer of the elements of the first class and more of the elements of the second class.
That's not a thing that's special about the fighter. That's not a thing that anyone needs to prove. That's "multiclassing is a thing that exists".
a fighter can sacrifice 'Fighteryness' to become something else. as Ravingdork's Raven King has proven. but all you are doing is a tradeoff. it's no fighter, it's a heavily armored shadowdancer with the leadership feat and suspiciously custom tailored equipment.Sure, that's true of every class. You can take fewer levels in a class and take more levels in another class, and you'll have fewer of the elements of the first class and more of the elements of the second class.
That's not a thing that's special about the fighter. That's not a thing that anyone needs to prove. That's "multiclassing is a thing that exists".
i know, Ravingdork just highlighted it when he tried to create a multiclass fighter that doesn't even do the fighter thing anymore.
What do you consider to be nonfighter stuff cnetarian?
If you're going to try and build a skill based fighter, here's some advice (because everyone knows I'm just the guy to ask). :P
- Don't skimp on Intelligence. You could probably get by with a 14 without dropping your other stats too far. Might even open you up for some fun options.
- Play a human, or other race that gets bonus skill ranks. If you plan to take Skill Focus, such as for UMD, then take the alternate racial trait that gives you Skill Focus three times.
- Put your favored class bonus into skill ranks. Use Toughness to make up for it if you must.
- If you have access to them, use traits to diversify your class skill list. If not, get the Additional Traits feat. Fighters have plenty of feats to spare.
That alone gives you 6 skills maxed out, three of which ought to be really high. Not bad for the most part. With a headband you can eventually get 9 skills maxed out.
If you happen to be a Lore Warden or Tactician, that's 8 total skills maxed out (or 11 with a headband). That's more than most other characters will have.
I recommend seriously considering Perception, Stealth, Survival, and Use Magic Device as the first four, as they make up some of the most commonly used and/or useful skills. If you have a decent Charisma, picking up two or three social skills to be the "party face" could be quite useful outside of combat as well. Knowledge skills too, though they may vary depending on your campaign.
By the time you are high level, your fighter could easily be considered a detective, diplomat, guide, hedge magician, sage, scout, soldier, tracker, and trap finder all in one, just from your skills alone!
And the best part? You sacrificed very little combat effectiveness to get there. What few points of damage you might have lost can easily be made up for with buffs from scrolls and wands (thanks to Use Magic Device) and other clever tricks other fighters would be incapable of performing (such as ambushing a foe from a superior position with Stealth).
You don't get to dictate stats, and feats also. There are no such as things as "class non stats". All that should be needed is for the character to be able to do his job, and still do other functions.
If you are saying the "typical*" fighter can't do it then I agree, but that is different than saying someone can't make a single classed fighter that can do his job well, and handle other functions.
*will save prone, low mental stat, hit things hard.
Just to be clear which one are you speaking of?
Hmm, so I made a fighter npc recently, he is an archer, but also with feats put towards making him tough (endurance, die hard), and I passed along tracking, so it is a fighter ranger, with no ranger levels. Confused a player into thinking he was a ranger. :?
Another one would be a bow cav skirmisher, with plenty of feats put aside to beef saves, so it is a bit like a monk/pally in the regard. :D
Another one I saw, a grappler/archer with a lot of attention to sense motive. :)
Another one that took some monk levels, so it is a fighter monk, with a considerable focus on diplomacy and sense motive. So the fighter is also a monk, and a diplomat. :/
One I made for a buddy, a polearm fighter that was highly skilled in investigation and skills. Very thieftaker. :}
And although I am again multiclassing slightly, a barb 1 fighter rest with feats to lengthen out the duration of rage, can be a barb light with a lot of feats. Ends up raging longer than a pure barb, but gets the fighter abilities and bonuses. A fighter with quite the long temper. :]
What do you consider to be nonfighter stuff cnetarian?Anything non-melee combat really, but I'd be willing to consider fighter class skills as still adding to fighteryness. INT over 13 also is non-fighter (there is nothing that adds to fighter role which requires an INT over 13, and that is only needed for the combat ezpertise feat line, ugh). WIS adds noting to fighteryness either, but is an essential part of fighter effectiveness so a WIS of 12 base would not unreasonable. Feats which don't improve combat effectiveness are non-fighter stuff, it is just barely acceptable to have master craftsman and & create magic arms&armor but only because they indirectly improve a fighters effectiveness at fighting.
Why? Seriously, why must a fighter conform to these standards you put forth?
Hey bob now that you are her what do you think of
http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=462866
That's quite interesting. I never got to do any high level, fully equipped play; didn't realize how ridiculously powerful you could get.
If you can perform your role as a fighter then I think it makes sense to branch out if you can. Now if you are sacrificing so much as a fighter, that you are starting to fall behind the curve that is an issue.
If I have to choose a fighter than do 300 points of damage or one that can do 240, but also have utility I will go with the 2nd one. Being a one trick pony is not a good idea if one can help it.
Will you lose some DPR? Sure. Will you still be able to bring the pain, and be useful in other areas. Yes.
PS:That are just random numbers I made up, but you get the poing.
Why? Seriously, why must a fighter conform to these standards you put forth?What do you consider to be nonfighter stuff cnetarian?Anything non-melee combat really, but I'd be willing to consider fighter class skills as still adding to fighteryness. INT over 13 also is non-fighter (there is nothing that adds to fighter role which requires an INT over 13, and that is only needed for the combat ezpertise feat line, ugh). WIS adds noting to fighteryness either, but is an essential part of fighter effectiveness so a WIS of 12 base would not unreasonable. Feats which don't improve combat effectiveness are non-fighter stuff, it is just barely acceptable to have master craftsman and & create magic arms&armor but only because they indirectly improve a fighters effectiveness at fighting.
Exactly. Yep, a fighter with low wis has a poor will save, and is not getting help with their sense motive from their relevant ability score. You become vulnerable to enchantment, hold person, fear and you can't read people. That is startling, you have very little idea and can't figure out difficult deceptions via checks. There is a huge weakness there. A good fighter should know who their enemies are, and where the blades and bolts will come from.
If you can perform your role as a fighter then I think it makes sense to branch out if you can. Now if you are sacrificing so much as a fighter, that you are starting to fall behind the curve that is an issue.
If I have to choose a fighter than do 300 points of damage or one that can do 240, but also have utility I will go with the 2nd one. Being a one trick pony is not a good idea if one can help it.
Will you lose some DPR? Sure. Will you still be able to bring the pain, and be useful in other areas. Yes.
PS:That are just random numbers I made up, but you get the poing.
What is this curve? I make characters, not curve adherents.
They should be able to fight, sure, but fighting takes many forms. You could make a ranged throwing fighter that is desperate to never fight up close and is quite poor at it. There is also the defensive type fighters which aren't so great at to hit and damage (expertise) but they sure are good at blocking, protecting, soaking and hindering. They don't fight hard, they dodge and block carefully.
Ha! Or you could make a social fighter (beef dip, bluff, sense motive) for a court intrigue heavy game, who doesn't at all fight like many other fighters.
I am not understanding the last post.
Ah well.
I just noticed i was missin a couple of point in my stats due to high level
Updated char
I don't see any tactical feats and that's a big part of being a tactician. I don't know how well he would do with just a crossbow as his primary weapon up to level 18. His damage seems a bit low for such a high level character. The good news is that he might be able to strike from hiding and get some shots off before the enemy can close.
If I wanted to be more than just a Fighter, I'd play more than just a Fighter on top of being a Fighter, or something that's like a Fighter, except much better. Which is pretty much all martial classes besides Rogues.
In other words, quoting myself from my previous post, if I wanted to be more than a Fighter, I'd just roll a Paladin.