Masterwork tool????
Tell me you're joking!
If you're not, what tool helps you make a UMD check?
Fragment of paradox. You have a microscopic piece of pure paradox, the source of all magic, holding this gem in the same hand as you hold a magical item grants a +2 tool bonus to UMD checks for those who are trained to do so (AKA have ranks).
A book could help with UMD.
|
Interesting thing that happened tonight: The party was jumped by some CR 15 swarms of diminutive creatures. The paladin, fighter and ranger were all powerless to stop them (just did not have the right tools for the job). So, while the debate over who's better in a fight might be interesting, we were all EQUALLY useless in that encounter.
|
|
To me it's never been about feats when it comes to not taking a fighter. It's that everyone else can take feats. Sure the fighter can get the most yet everyone else can take feats also. In some cases the same ones. Nothing makes you stand out in terms of other melee classes. Bravery is not that great. Armor training while useful is not something to write home about. Weapon specialization gives a small advantage yet the other melee classes can hit as hard and do a little less damage. At least in 2E the fighter was the only one who had access to weapon specilization. A class feature non of the other melee types were allowed to have. A Paladin/Ranger/Barbarian if they wanted could do the same. Just waste of feats imo. The fighter is a decent class. Yet in 3.5 and with PF they got lazy and tossed feat upon feat to hide that the fighter imo gets nothing unique in tersm of class features.
|
To me it's never been about feats when it comes to not taking a fighter. It's that everyone else can take feats. Sure the fighter can get the most yet everyone else can take feats also. In some cases the same ones. Nothing makes you stand out in terms of other melee classes. Bravery is not that great. Armor training while useful is not something to write home about. Weapon specialization gives a small advantage yet the other melee classes can hit as hard and do a little less damage. At least in 2E the fighter was the only one who had access to weapon specilization. A class feature non of the other melee types were allowed to have. A Paladin/Ranger/Barbarian if they wanted could do the same. Just waste of feats imo. The fighter is a decent class. Yet in 3.5 and with PF they got lazy and tossed feat upon feat to hide that the fighter imo gets nothing unique in tersm of class features.
And you honestly need to let that go. Bonus feats are a part if the fighter like it or not. I'm not sure you fully grasp just how important and great it is to be able to select so many feats and the combos that go with it, doesn't matter that all classes get feats, the other classes don't have as much to play with like the fighter.
To be quite honest, the fighter is the most balanced, consistent, versatile, and dependable class out there. Classes aren't always determined by their unique abilities that they may possess.
Everyone gets feats, so having something everyone gets anyway as a class feature can hardly be called special.
Also, I disagree with your notions of the Fighter being versatile and dependable while especially not agreeing with it being balanced.
|
Assuming the enemy isn't evil, I would do about 1d8+16 with a +25 on my chance to hit and ignoring all DR. I doubt the fighter will outdamage me by much and if the enemy has decent DR, I will outdamage him.In addition, I will wreck this fighter in melee because he has a dex of 19 and won't have good strength, while I am using a dex of 10.
at 1 attack... my fighter would have, assuming you are getting a +5 from your devine bond, 5 attacks at a higher to hit because of weapon training and a bunch of other awesome items my character will have in ranged attacks. my fighter with just an 18 strength, 18 dex, and 14 con as my base stats will STILL out do you in AC, ranged, and Melee with my greatsword. im sorry the fighter will out do you in combat, period.
i wont build my level 14 fighter just to prove you wrong, but im looking at my character sheet and my charcter is doing much better damage then 1d8+16 ranged, and im getting 5 attacks to your 3, no haste, with clustered shots and improved precise shot. im sorry you can try to declare that you immaginary paladin out classes a fighter, but its not a real thing.
your paladin has saves, smite, and healing. other then those 3 things your paladin is not more effective in combat.
|
|
Everyone gets feats, so having something everyone gets anyway as a class feature can hardly be called special.
Also, I disagree with your notions of the Fighter being versatile and dependable while especially not agreeing with it being balanced.
But nobody else gets that amout of feats which leads to classes not being open to the various builds that the fighter can take. You need to look past the feats in general and focus on the results at the end of the day.
Look at it this way. Everyone has money but you can buy more when you have more of it.
While Divine Bond is very nice, but the standard action activation (Unless the Quicken Spell-Like Ability feat is an option for you) can be a bit of a pain sometimes.
I'm also be a skeptical of the claim that it's as good as weapon training + Focus and Specialization. Training+Focus+Specialization+Gloves of Dueling will ultimately net you +8 to hit and +10 damage. The only divine bond option that can really match that is brilliant energy against a heavy armor wearing opponent. That and the possibility of bumping up your enhancement bonus to bypass certain DR types.
Fighter feats do get a bit undercredited. Yes, everyone gets feats, but a fighter will have 21 feats to the Paladin's 10. Not to mention some of the fun fighter-only toys like Critical Mastery. Paladins do have a reputation for being a bit feat-starved.
Archetypes might also bear mentioning, since a lot of the fighter archetypes give you some very nice options in exchange for cutting down on your versatility.
Fighter feats used to be stronger in 3.5e than they are in Pathfinder.
Why does everyone overlook the fact that melee classes have essentially been nerfed?
Fighter feats used to be stronger in 3.5e than they are in Pathfinder.
Why does everyone overlook the fact that melee classes have essentially been nerfed?
...In what way? "Oh no, the feats no one used (combat maneuver feats) have been broken up! Whatever shall we do?" doesn't really count. The Shield Combat tree is definitely better than ever, even if I think it's something that should only take a single feat to accomplish.
|
|
Fighter feats used to be stronger in 3.5e than they are in Pathfinder.
Why does everyone overlook the fact that melee classes have essentially been nerfed?
In what way?
They still kill things don't they? I've never seen a thread titled "My fighter is having trouble killing things. Advice?"
Could it be that casters got more powerful instead of melee getting weaker?
Improved Trip used to give a +4, as well as a free attack if you succeed on your attempt. Just to name an example.
And yes, casters have gotten more powerful in Pathfinder. At least have something to agree upon here when it comes to the topic.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Out of the game's 18 base classes, 9 have CLW on their spell list and 4 more have UMD as a class skill by default (for a total of 13/18) - but apparently unless it's the fighter herself who can use the CLW wand, we're forced to pretend for some reason that nobody can use CLW wands, the group uses nothing but natural healing, and hit points are a more limited resource than things like spells, smites, and Divine Bond with a fixed low number of uses per day.
I think the problem with the idea of the "Energizer Fighter" is based around this problem, and I'll be honest, for me I find it a flaw as well.
1) Fighters don't have to stop if they have infinite healing between normal encounters. The problem is that this is true for any martial class. I mean, if we have our infinite healing between combats, then we really don't need to worry about anything except non-damaging attacks.
2) All the classes that CAN use healing items are classes that lack the fighter's longevity (in theory) by the argument that the fighters can go all day. So what does the Fighter do when everyone else need a break? Continue the adventure without them? No, that's not practical, because the Fighter absolutely positively is lost without those classes that can heal and buff him. So unless a Fighter is in fact in a party of all Fighters (I've seen them, albeit rarely) then this supposed longevity is pretty useless, because now the fighter has to stop anyway because all those guys making him look great are now out of mojo.
One of my biggest problems with all of this is people talk about the resources of the other martial classes as if they are going to be expending them over every little thing. That's kind of foolish, I think. A wizard does not (or should not) blow every spell he has when fighting enemies or encounters in which they are not needed. A Paladin or Ranger should not use their x/day effects unless they are needed.
Meanwhile, should they be needed, then they have them. A Fighter is stuck on 1 speed. He cannot shift up, nor down. If his ability is overkill his ability is wasted. If his ability is underkill there is no way to improve.
In truth, it has been my experiences that it functions more like this...
An 8th Level Adventure
We have an 8th level adventure. During this adventure the party must enter an ancient tomb, retrieve the mcguffen, and to do so they must brave the perils of traps and ageless guardians such as constructs and undead, and then much wrench the mcguffen from the hands of the evil crypt king and make it home alive. Very nice, yes, hmm?
So our adventure is laid out like this
Introduction: Some townsfolk stuff, gathering information about the tomb, learning some history about it, talking to some NPCs about plot stuff and so forth. Okay, now all that's settled, time for the meat and potatoes.
Part 1: ECL 4 Our heroes enter the tomb. They appoint the meat shield in the front along with the guy with the highest Perception modifier to look for traps. Now as they are going along, a difficult to spot trap opens in the floor and a hard (DC 20) Reflex save is required to avoid falling down into the pit that happens to contain some gelatinous cubes that have been cultivated in the tomb with create food & water traps over generations (with the oozes reproducing and dying off in an eternal cycle to keep the trap going).
Part 2: ECL 9 After surviving the dreaded drop to gel trap, our heroes press on. Not far into the tomb yet, they encounter the first of the dungeon's tomb guardians. These are the first of several dreaded encounters. A pair of 16-Headed Fast Hydra Zombies (CR 7 each). Each zombie has the following raw statistics: .
Part 3: ECL 9 After getting past the hydra zombies, the party comes to what appears to be a dead end. It's actually merely a permanent silent image of a wall, beyond which are three mummies lurking in wait for anyone who would trespass into their domain. The mummies have long since detected the wall as an illusion, and thus can see the party coming. A surprise round is almost inevitable unless the party has detect evil or detect undead active coming into the room, as the mummies are not moving at first and are not visible. When someone approaches the wall, their despair auras force three DC 16 Will saves vs being paralyzed 1d4 rounds. The mummies charge 20 ft. on the first round and battle is drawn, likely engulfing the party in the auras and forcing many saves vs suck.
This is a dangerous encounter because the mummies are physically powerful in terms of damage, and it is incredibly easy for a large amount of the party -- possibly the whole party -- to get crowd controlled into coup-fodder, and mummy rot is bad.
Part 4: ECL 7 A reprieve from the mummies and what-not in the dungeon, now the party must deal with a pair of basilisks who have found their way into the dungeon through another entrance which has now been covered by desert storms. Scattered in this room are many petrified scarab beetles that were kept alive and reproducing with create food and water traps over the centuries, but now these giant flesh-eating beetles lie petrified and scattered across the floor as the basilisks find themselves trapped in the dungeon in a room that has plentiful food and water (and stone) to snack on (the basilisk have been relieving themselves in the next room).
Part 5: ECL 8 And now we come to the final tomb guardian before the big bad. This enemy is very annoying for the party simply because it is somewhat difficult to harm without ghost-touch weapons (which are incredibly expensive) and it deals strength-damage with its touch attacks.
Part 7: ECL 11 After healing up we go into the final chamber, where a sarcophagus opens along with the front door of the chamber. From it the guy who owns the mcguffin can be found spooning said mcguffin in his sarcophagus. This guy happens to be a CR 11 mummy lord (a mummy with 3 levels of cleric, 4 levels of sorcerer, and 2 mystic theurge). Just to show our GM is a douche (or awesome), we're now on encounter number 7, after having just slugged through 6 other encounters which have for the most part been about equal to our APL, with one being significantly lower and two being higher. Now we're up against an Epic encounter for our level (CR 11 vs APL 8 party). We should probably all die.
Anyway, the mummy lord casts sorcerer and cleric spells at CL 6th/5th (which means 3rd level spells on both sides), and has roughly the following statistics:
I'd love to see someone go through the same dungeon with other classes (fighter or not) as a martial class to see how they would do. Just to keep a semblance of score, our Paladin does not statistically perish in any encounter, and requires a resource contribution from the party of...
150 gp worth of potions and/or scrolls, and 1 1st level spell (hide from undead) to get through the dangers here. Why is this important? Because Big Bad Evil Guy at the end of the dungeon is going to test your might, and you don't want to leave the majority of your might cast 4 rooms back. :P
Improved Trip used to give a +4, as well as a free attack if you succeed on your attempt. Just to name an example.
And yes, casters have gotten more powerful in Pathfinder. At least have something to agree upon here when it comes to the topic.
As both me and Shallowsoul said:So?
The casters have been nerfed pretty hard all things told, I don't think you realize just how UNSTOPPABLE casters were in 3.X.
...seriously?
With the extra class features, higher HD and all the other sweet stuff, you'd say that casters have been nerfed?
Yeah, I'm bailing out of this conversation before I start hitting my face on the desk from the sheer level of absurdity.
Interesting thing that happened tonight: The party was jumped by some CR 15 swarms of diminutive creatures. The paladin, fighter and ranger were all powerless to stop them (just did not have the right tools for the job). So, while the debate over who's better in a fight might be interesting, we were all EQUALLY useless in that encounter.
Fortunately Ultimate Equipment has given martials the Swarmbane Clasp. For just 4,500 added to the cost of your amulet of natural armor, you can kill a swarm of sand-sized things with a sword or arrows and be immune to Swarm Distraction. :P
I'm interested to see the fighter response to Ashiel's adventure. Obviously they've got Bravery to help with the fear stuff, but in my experience fighters fall apart when presented with status conditions of any kind. On the other hand, it's a long, mostly ~APL adventure which emphasizes their supposed longevity.
...seriously?
With the extra class features, higher HD and all the other sweet stuff, you'd say that casters have been nerfed?
Yeah, I'm bailing out of this conversation before I start hitting my face on the desk from the sheer level of absurdity.
Let's take a look at what you aren't paying attention: The auto-win spells. Both Force Wall and Force Cage are breakable now, admittedly you have to be pretty powerful to go through them, but you can, unlike in 3.X. Then there are all the spells that either got turned into touch attacks, or had saves attached to them. Then there's the Celerity spells which had the disadvantage of "you become dazed after using this spell" when there were items that would allow you to flat ignore being dazed, cheap items.
Yes, the casters have been nerfed, badly, they were also made more survivable in exchange, so I still don't think it's quite enough, but it's not as ridiculous as it used to be.
Only some spells have gotten the nerfs. Saves can always fail, and touch AC tends to be the lowest of the bunch.
Adding to that, with some creativity on the part of a skilled player, most spells can turn into auto-win spells, and I mean that by RAW.
(Why did I even bother responding?)
Only some spells have gotten the nerfs. Saves can always fail, and touch AC tends to be the lowest of the bunch.
Adding to that, with some creativity on the part of a skilled player, most spells can turn into auto-win spells, and I mean that by RAW.
(Why did I even bother responding?)
In what way? You can't make the saves high enough to bother a paladin, period, and anyone who decides to take the improved Iron Will/Fortitude feats is going to laugh at your best efforts. Most of the spells that are based on touch only do damage and again, you run into the issue that by the time you've dealt enough damage to most of the non-caster classes, you've been dead for 5 turns.
im confused why you think ghost touch weapons are so expensive, and yes i ALWAYS have one on my melee characters. its situational but it will save your ass, and only costs 8kgp.
Oh hey it is! For some reason I was thinking it was a +2, but I think I was getting that mixed up with disruption. Sorry, it's very late. Actually, that's not so bad in cost then (a +2 is 8,000 but a +3 is a whopping 18,000 gp, putting it out of reach for most parties of those levels unless you've got crafters and 9,000 gp lying around).
To me it's never been about feats when it comes to not taking a fighter. It's that everyone else can take feats. Sure the fighter can get the most yet everyone else can take feats also. In some cases the same ones. Nothing makes you stand out in terms of other melee classes. Bravery is not that great. Armor training while useful is not something to write home about. Weapon specialization gives a small advantage yet the other melee classes can hit as hard and do a little less damage. At least in 2E the fighter was the only one who had access to weapon specilization. A class feature non of the other melee types were allowed to have. A Paladin/Ranger/Barbarian if they wanted could do the same. Just waste of feats imo. The fighter is a decent class. Yet in 3.5 and with PF they got lazy and tossed feat upon feat to hide that the fighter imo gets nothing unique in tersm of class features.
I don't play casters because so many classes already cast spells and many of them are the same or similar there's so little variance.
|
Ah yes. Fighters vs every other melee type. The classic issue.
Paladins are GREAT depending on what foes you are facing or if you need some source of alt healing/support. They're okay against foes that have resistances, and know how to limit their bonues. They suck when they run out of their various magical resources.
Fighters are just good. But it's a low average good that makes them the swiss army knife of combat. A great fighter carries a range of equipment and weapons. The Golf Bag O' Gear is just part of the fighter's life unfortunatly.
Honestly though, I wish Fighters had more starting skill points rather than 2. To represent their flexiblity.
That's my take on it.
|
|
Fortunately Ultimate Equipment has given martials the Swarmbane Clasp. For just 4,500 added to the cost of your amulet of natural armor, you can kill a swarm of sand-sized things with a sword or arrows and be immune to Swarm Distraction. :P
Yes, there is an ap for that. ;) We hadn't seen a swarm for a number of adventures and our area effect player had to bail early so his character was "guarding the horses" as we like to call it. We were plain old just caught with our pants down.
The pally and ranger (me) both had the same problems from the swarm to deal with (distraction, confusing poison, ability damage), but the pally with his move of 15 (halfling in plate) got chased down and therefore swarmed more than the move 40 ranger (woodland stride and longstider). The fighter was flying, so he didn't get hurt, but had nothing to contribute either.
None of us had any appreciable area effect abilities (I tossed some oil and almost had to part with my prized bottles of high-end whiskey before the oracle was able to drop a fire elemental on them). Mostly, we just got stomped on until the elemental was finished.
Well, turning it around to look at it from that perspective, wouldn't having a fighter who can go "all out" in every single encounter also tend to work to preventing as many encounters from being encounters where "they are needed"? If you've got an encounter where the Paladin would've needed his Divine Bond, spells, smites, whatever to take the enemy down without incurring considerable risk (or else some fairly big spells from the wizard, or lots of healing to patch the party up afterward) then having a fighter who can operate at comparable(ish) levels to that without burning any x/day abilities could help carry the party through without having to resort to any of that, allowing you to save more for the BBEG.
I don't think so because other classes have their big guns that they can access if they needed, while operating at a functional but conservative capacity throughout the day (because you really don't need to be heavily optimized into physical attacks to deal sustainable damage). But Fighters lack the ability to pace themselves which is IMHO a weakness. A fighter has no way to say "Okay, this is bad, time to crank it up". Instead it's "This is bad, time to do no better than I did versus all the battles I didn't really need to crank it up in".
In my experiences, Fighters are actually much more problematic when it comes to conserving resources. They need others for absolutely everything they do, from healing to buffing to recoving from status ailments, Fighters need others to do it. That means a Fighter is a drain on the overall strength of the party, because a Fighter requires the actions and expendable power of his allies to succeed. Using the generic adventure I put up here which I tested a Paladin against, every time the Paladin doesn't need someone to heal him is a round that a spell was not wasted and the healer got to do something else. Every time the Paladin makes a saving throw is a time where someone doesn't have to fix him.
Which returns back to my other point. I find the Paladin (and Ranger) far more useful because at the end of the day they bring more to a party than they consume, and they can go over 9000 when they need to, and do fine when they don't. If I was tasked with putting together a party for a campaign, I would consider having a Paladin even if I knew from a metagame standpoint that we would never encounter so much as a single Evil-aligned enemy the whole time (which would effectively make smite evil useless), simply because to me the Paladin can be relied on and counted on time and time again to be consistent and well-rounded, bringing something to the group and fighting well enough.
In addition to the above, as others have already pointed out, there can be plenty of times where (practical, optimal or not) you can't afford to run back to town when the apocalypse is happening in three hours, or pitch your tents for a good night's sleep while you're trying to escape from the Dreadful Tower of the Dark Lord Deathy-kill. You've just got to keep fighting your way through, and you either win or you die. And in such a situation, I tend to think it'd be pretty nice to have a character in the mix there that's still operating at his max output the whole way through.
There's a few problems I have with this from a practicality standpoint. Ignoring the fact it's so exceptionally niche as to not warrant building your team around, there is also the fact that once again the Fighter relies on all those party members and their limited expendable resources. The fighter is a drain on those resources, while Ranger and Paladin add to those resources because the Fighter absolutely needs others to buff him, to protect him, and to solve his problems.
That's not to say Rangers and Paladins can't use buffs and such. Everyone benefits from things like enlarge person, haste, and heroism. I just but more stock in things beyond just numbers. A Paladin's saving throws, immunities, and x/day abilities all combine to make them not merely a decent warrior but also more. I believe these benefits assist him in being a more reliable and steady warrior than a Fighter. The Ranger is less defensive than a Paladin but has a much more impressive spell list and way more skill points, and I find them to be still be pretty good at remaining consistent due to good Fortitude AND Reflex save and access to methods of immunizing himself and other to things like poison, and having access to freedom of movement (and to a lesser degree his emphasis on Wisdom over Charisma and Intelligence means he will typically get a bit more out of it than a Fighter which also offsets the lower Will saves).
I believe that both Paladins AND Rangers AND Barbarians are well-rounded and balanced enough - and bring enough to the party - that they actually reduce the expense on the party to succeed in most cases, and as such actually increase the likelihood that your party will not need to rest if the party is in a hurry and is likely to face many encounters in a fairly short period.
For example, I noted that with my Paladin in a dungeon, the party encounters 7 encounters (far more than the 4 equal CR) and the adventure wasn't even "fair" because by the time they had encountered the 6th encounter they were already beyond the 4 equal CR encounters the game was balanced around and at least two of those encounters were higher than 8th level (the level of the Paladin and presumably the party), and then would be forced to fight a CR 11 super-boss to acquire the McGuffin for the adventure. If you put a time-limit on the adventure, it would have made little difference because all was assumed to have been done without resting and with the party doing the absolute minimum they could do (most of the encounters could be overcome merely by the martial beating stuff down and a few level 1-2 spells).
This. If the shiny smite-iness of the Paladin doesn't match the concept I had for the character I want to roleplay, heck no I'm not going to play one. And as far as out-of-combat utility goes, I'm really rather partial to the Fighter's awesome class features of "able to lie" and "able to participate in planning sneaky, conniving plans with the rest of the group."
Not that I'd absolutely never play a Paladin either, but I've seen nothing in this thread that has made me cross Fighter off my list of "classes that would be pretty cool to play someday".
Well, I do think the Paladin is better than the Fighter. And the Antipaladin. And the Ranger. And the Barbarian. All bring more to a party. Fighters hit things. Anyone can hit things. Adventuring is about a lot more than hitting things.
Like I said before- mathematically a Wizard is more powerful than a Sorcerer. So why would anyone play a sorcerer?
Because it’s fun.
Sure, it’s often not fun playing a seriously gimped/nerfed class. But Fighter is hardly gimped or nerfed. Pally does edge out the fighter- sometimes.
Or we can rephrase the OP’s question- Full Spellcaster classes are WAY more powerful than the other classes. (Pally may edge out Fighter, but Paladin is stomped badly by Cleric, Druid, Wizard, etc).
Why would anyone thus play anything but a full spellcasting class?
|
|
Like I said before- mathematically a Wizard is more powerful than a Sorcerer. So why would anyone play a sorcerer?
Because it’s fun.
Sure, it’s often not fun playing a seriously gimped/nerfed class. But Fighter is hardly gimped or nerfed. Pally does edge out the fighter- sometimes.
Or we can rephrase the OP’s question- Full Spellcaster classes are WAY more powerful than the other classes. (Pally may edge out Fighter, but Paladin is stomped badly by Cleric, Druid, Wizard, etc).
Why would anyone thus play anything but a full spellcasting class?
I agree with the overall general statement and I think this is where a good many people on these boards fail to understand. It's not always about taking the class that puts out the highest numbers, it's about the fun and individual preferences.
...seriously?
With the extra class features, higher HD and all the other sweet stuff, you'd say that casters have been nerfed?
Yeah, I'm bailing out of this conversation before I start hitting my face on the desk from the sheer level of absurdity.
Actually Icyshadow, I agree with Shallowsoul and Blue Star on this one. Casters in Pathfinder core are not half of what they were in 3.5 core. They got buffs to their classes themselves, but their spells got stealth-nerfed all over the place. Concentration as a game mechanic was heavily nerfed. Almost all the spells that were "I win" buttons have been nerfed heavily, and some of the ones that were too good have been nerfed. Crazy junk like chain-gating (which allows a someone with gate to call a solar to call a solar to call a solar to call a solar to call a solar...), wishing for items of infinite power items, and a plethora of other stuff. That's before you get into the extremely heavy nerfs to transmutation and polymorph spells and effects, the addition of saving throws to spells that had none before (like force-cage).
Pathfinder has mages that have been "nerfed" in the same way that Fighters were nerfed from 3.0 to 3.5. The class itself was not nerfed. All the tools the class relies on however got the shaft.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...seriously?
With the extra class features, higher HD and all the other sweet stuff, you'd say that casters have been nerfed?
Yeah, I'm bailing out of this conversation before I start hitting my face on the desk from the sheer level of absurdity.
Actually Icyshadow, I agree with Shallowsoul and Blue Star on this one. Casters in Pathfinder core are not half of what they were in 3.5 core. They got buffs to their classes themselves, but their spells got stealth-nerfed all over the place. Concentration as a game mechanic was heavily nerfed. Almost all the spells that were "I win" buttons have been nerfed heavily, and some of the ones that were too good have been nerfed. Crazy junk like chain-gating (which allows a someone with gate to call a solar to call a solar to call a solar to call a solar to call a solar...), wishing for items of infinite power items, and a plethora of other stuff. That's before you get into the extremely heavy nerfs to transmutation and polymorph spells and effects, the addition of saving throws to spells that had none before (like force-cage).
Pathfinder has mages that have been "nerfed" in the same way that Fighters were nerfed from 3.0 to 3.5. The class itself was not nerfed. All the tools the class relies on however got the shaft.
That’s not a “nerf”- a “nerf” is when something has been weakened to the point of uselessness. For example, a Nerf Bat isn’t very dangerous.
What you are talking about is the Paizo FIXED many of the worst excesses of munchkinism. That’s not a “nerf”- it’s a “fix”.
Icyshadow is right.
Only three classes were nerfed (and arguments can be made even so): Monk, Bard & rogue. Even that last one- rogue, wasn’t nerfed so much as that it’s special role can now be done by a number of other classes.
|
|
That’s not a “nerf”- a “nerf” is when something has been weakened to the point of uselessness. For example, a Nerf Bat isn’t very dangerous.
What you are talking about is the Paizo FIXED many of the worst excesses of munchkinism. That’s not a “nerf”- it’s a “fix”.
Icyshadow is right.
Only three classes were nerfed (and arguments can be made even so): Monk, Bard & rogue. Even that last one- rogue, wasn’t nerfed so much as that it’s special role can now be done by a number of other classes.
Quit being pedantic.
Like I said before- mathematically a Wizard is more powerful than a Sorcerer. So why would anyone play a sorcerer?
Because it’s fun.
In my campaigns, sorcerers receive the same spell progression that wizards do and gain bloodline spells as soon as they are able to cast them. This has had a positive effect of making them more in line with wizards both in terms of single and multi-classed sorcerers. The result has been nothing but positive and has encouraged people to play sorcerers more often than before because they know that while sorcerers are different that they won't be inferior.
Sure, it’s often not fun playing a seriously gimped/nerfed class. But Fighter is hardly gimped or nerfed. Pally does edge out the fighter- sometimes.
The fighter's problem from my point of view is not simply Fighter vs Paladin. It's fighter vs Paladin, Ranger, and Barbarian. Fighter shares more in common with this class in terms of playability, only they get bigger numbers and a few more feats (otherwise they receive the same HP, saving throws, skill points, base attack, and proficiencies and similar skill point pool). Fighter is an amazing dipping class and thanks to dueling gloves and archtypes is now more dip-able than ever (weaponmaster 3 is probably the best dip ever for martial classes right now since you get 2 bonus feats, weapon training I, access to gloves of dueling, and a +3 BAB, and +3/+1/+1 to saving throws).
Or we can rephrase the OP’s question- Full Spellcaster classes are WAY more powerful than the other classes. (Pally may edge out Fighter, but Paladin is stomped badly by Cleric, Druid, Wizard, etc).
I disagree. I think that Pathfinder has done a very good job keeping Barbarians, Rangers, and Paladins as good options next to full-casters. Barbarians, Rangers, and Paladins have the versatility that was often lacked by 3.x martials, and have much more impressive defenses and so forth. Clerics and druids are probably the closest to them, but all three of these martials bring good combat support to the group as well as other things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That’s not a “nerf”- a “nerf” is when something has been weakened to the point of uselessness.
You are wrong. "Nerf" just means "weaken".
I agree with the overall general statement and I think this is where a good many people on these boards fail to understand. It's not always about taking the class that puts out the highest numbers, it's about the fun and individual preferences.
I agree with you from a practical standpoint. I think most people do too, though that's up to them. Fighters can be fun sometimes, and it's nice to shut your brain down and say "I full attack it with my bow" once in a while.
But it's also fun to have discussions about what each class brings to a team. Whether or not it actually colors your gameplay in practice, there's still something to learn about the game when you debate.
I agree with the overall general statement and I think this is where a good many people on these boards fail to understand. It's not always about taking the class that puts out the highest numbers, it's about the fun and individual preferences.I agree with you from a practical standpoint. I think most people do too, though that's up to them. Fighters can be fun sometimes, and it's nice to shut your brain down and say "I full attack it with my bow" once in a while.
But it's also fun to have discussions about what each class brings to a team. Whether or not it actually colors your gameplay in practice, there's still something to learn about the game when you debate.
Very true sir. Very true. Debating is not about winning, it is about the exchange and comparison of ideas. My games have improved greatly over the years because of understandings gained from debates and examining issues and points raised during those debates.
They are very useful if you can take the good bits from them.
On a side note, I'm a little disappointed that I went through the trouble of building a dungeon-adventure as a sort of gauntlet to run and yet very little has been said concerning it. Not even one Fighter-proponent has stepped up to take the mathematical challenge. I for one was hoping to see a Fighter-proponent demonstrate their equality, but thus far it has more or less been pretty much ignored. Sigh, I do, because it took a while to compile a series of enemies and encounters that would be cool and/or appear in a tomb for an 8th level dungeon (including picking out creatures who the correct CRs and environmental stuff, and throwing together a final boss and picking gear and such out).
Oh well. :\
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On a side note, I'm a little disappointed that I went through the trouble of building a dungeon-adventure as a sort of gauntlet to run and yet very little has been said concerning it. Not even one Fighter-proponent has stepped up to take the mathematical challenge. I for one was hoping to see a Fighter-proponent demonstrate their equality, but thus far it has more or less been pretty much ignored. Sigh, I do, because it took a while to compile a series of enemies and encounters that would be cool and/or appear in a tomb for an 8th level dungeon (including picking out creatures who the correct CRs and environmental stuff, and throwing together a final boss and picking gear and such out).
Oh well. :\
I enjoyed the romp, if nothing else.
You set up the dungeon challenge which is a great dungeon for paladins, not so great for fighters. No doubt, a Paladin does better vs Mummies than a Fighter. So?
Remember, a large portion of a fighter's bonus feats are spent in fighter-only +number feats, which, aside from weapon training, are the only thing putting him ahead of the other martials numbers-wise in the first place.
I said something about this earlier. To get your numbers to really stand out, you generally need 4 feats invested in your favorite weapon. Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization. At most a Fighter can spec 2 weapons unless they have a very specific human feat which allows them to apply said feats to other weapons in the same group (which for most weapon groups is really only insurance vs random weapon drops since it blows chunks to find a sweet shortbow when you're full on super specced in longbows), and then you need your niche magic item, the gloves of dueling. All together it brings you to +8 to hit (+4 weapon training, +2 gloves, +2 weapon focus feats) and +10 to damage (+4 weapon training, +2 gloves, +4 weapon specialization feats) with your favorite weapon. Most other classes get similar capabilities with all weapons one way or another.
Barbarians get their mighty rage which is +4 to hit and +6 to damage from Mighty Rage without any feat investment or using Rage Powers. Paladins don't get bonuses like that innately but have access to things like spell buffs, their trademark smite, etc. Rangers on the other hand get almost as many feats as Fighters, waaaaaay more awesome stuff, spells, and the buggers even have "Ranger's smite" in instant enemy at high levels. :P
You set up the dungeon challenge which is a great dungeon for paladins, not so great for fighters. No doubt, a Paladin does better vs Mummies than a Fighter. So?
So give it a go. The dungeon is nothing but an ancient Egyptian themed dungeon crawl. There are no encounters that the party shouldn't be able to overcome. I even took extra care to choose enemies that were Neutral (like the pair of Basilisks), and didn't cater to the Paladin's spell's prepared. The adventure is pretty generic. Can your Fighter not hack it?
There are only 2 mummy encounters in this dungeon tomb adventure. Three of them who are below the APL by 3, and one mummy who is based heavily on the mummy lord from 3.5, who is just a CR 5 mummy with spellcasting. Spellcasting. Not even strong spellcasting. The mummy lord BBEG is actually a full spell level below the party in terms of maximum spell levels for goodness sakes. I must say I feel very much like Serum here:
Oh dear. Now we'll be off to find encounters that do nothing but hit point damage so the fighter can compete.
Okay, so no mummies? Perhaps maybe I should have used outsiders instead. Succubi and Erinyes, yes? Because that doesn't sound like it favors the Paladin at all (*cough*double damage smites vs higher CR foes, immunity to charm, protection from evil, swift-action heals*cough*). Perhaps I should have filled the dungeon ONLY with oozes. Say gel cubes, mustard jellies, black puddings, and ochre jellies. Is that what it takes to make a dungeon not stacked in a Paladin's favor?
You set up the dungeon challenge which is a great dungeon for paladins, not so great for fighters. No doubt, a Paladin does better vs Mummies than a Fighter. So?
Actually, gimme a bit. I'm going to build another dungeon AGAINST the Paladin, with as few saving throws as possible (because clearly the Basilisks and 6th level spellcasting was oh-so-biased against Fighters).
|
|
I have never seen nor heard a game in which a fighter was useless. A fighter always contributes one way or the other and I can promise you that he always contributes in the fighting department.
I think people need to step back and take a look at how things go round by round starting with number 1.
Okay round 1 what are you doing?
Paladin: Okay I am using my standard action to activate Divine Bond and I move.
Wizard: I cast a buff on myself.
Cleric: I cast a buff on another party member.
Fighter: I run up and attack or I pull out my bow as I move and I attack.
Fighter doesn't have to buff nor does he need to get into position. He either fires with his bow or he moves up with his sword. He doesn't have to worry about effects such as Rage or Favored Enemy to do his job. His damage is going to be continuous no matter who he's fighting and a lot of people that I know, love that dependability.
I have never seen nor heard a game in which a fighter was useless. A fighter always contributes one way or the other and I can promise you that he always contributes in the fighting department.
I think people need to step back and take a look at how things go round by round starting with number 1.
Okay round 1 what are you doing?
Paladin: Okay I am using my standard action to activate Divine Bond and I move.
Wizard: I cast a buff on myself.
Cleric: I cast a buff on another party member.
Fighter: I run up and attack or I pull out my bow as I move and I attack.
Fighter doesn't have to buff nor does he need to get into position. He either fires with his bow or he moves up with his sword. He doesn't have to worry about effects such as Rage or Favored Enemy to do his job. His damage is going to be continuous no matter who he's fighting and a lot of people that I know, love that dependability.
The problem is that they're not dependable in a real game, they're dependable in a vacuum. They have some of the worst defenses in the game; fortitude is their only good save and bravery is the only class feature that helps with saves. They've got spare feats to take Lightning Reflexes, Great Fortitude, and Iron Will, but that's where the party ends.
That means that a fighter is going to need to either spend precious consumable resources to recover when he fails a save (if it didn't result in immediate death or becoming a lawn ornament), or rely on party members to fix him up after most fights.
Edit: Also given that a lot of fights go much longer than one round, I'm not so sure getting an extra attack at the start of the fight is really all that great.
I'm thinking about what could be done to help Fighters rise up to Paladin/Barbarian/Ranger level of efficiency (I think Rangers still need a slight buff to be on par with the other two, but the difference is not that big).
For one thing, we maybe we should change the name of the class. "Fighter" is as terrible a name as "Magic-User" was.
Well... The obvious first, let's give them 4 skill ranks per level, and maybe a better list of class skill... Hell, I'd even let them choose one or two skills to become class skills (since they are supposed to be generic).
Increase its saves. IMO Fighter could have all good saves and still be balanced. Sure, it'd make monks look bad... But everything makes monks look bad.
Now we reduce feat chains. Instead of wasting 3~6 feats in a feat chain full of nearly useless feats, each chain consists of 1~2 scaling feats, maybe 3, if the 3rd one is really awesome and gives new abilities. If you really have to break up combat maneuvers in two feats, then remove both Combat Expertise and Int 13 as prerequisites. Hell, just remove Combat Expertise from the game altogether! Noone will miss it! And is there any reason for TWF to consist of 4 feats instead of 2?
Finally, just so they become less boring, we give them some kind of grit/ki mechanic, which they get to spend to do cool things. One of the issues with giving cool things to fighters is that since it must be usable 100% of the time at no cost, it can't be too good (and the system assumes anything remotely different from "+X bonus" is too good). Give it some sort of limit and suddenly, fighters can get more powerful stuff.
Who knows... Using some of these ideas, I might even consider playing a Fighter someday...
I'd also like a way to make martial characters (not only fighters) capable of moving without losing so much efficiency...
I'm still working on balancing my own homebrew revisions and I think the Fighter would be dramatically improved by the following:
Better Saves: Saves should be 1/2 CL + 2 for favored save
Better Skills: 4 + Int or even 6 + Int
Ability to make others better: Something that the cavalier tactician ability to give teamwork feats, rally allies an issue battlecries.
Better Mobility: Move and Full Attack
Better Stickiness
Better ability to defend others
Of course once you buff the fighter you need to buff the rogue and so on and so on. Interesting enough the full casters generally need to fewest revisions.
I have never seen nor heard a game in which a fighter was useless. A fighter always contributes one way or the other and I can promise you that he always contributes in the fighting department.
I think people need to step back and take a look at how things go round by round starting with number 1.
Okay round 1 what are you doing?
Paladin: Okay I am using my standard action to activate Divine Bond and I move.
Wizard: I cast a buff on myself.
Cleric: I cast a buff on another party member.
Fighter: I run up and attack or I pull out my bow as I move and I attack.
Fighter doesn't have to buff nor does he need to get into position. He either fires with his bow or he moves up with his sword. He doesn't have to worry about effects such as Rage or Favored Enemy to do his job. His damage is going to be continuous no matter who he's fighting and a lot of people that I know, love that dependability.
The problem is that they're not dependable in a real game, they're dependable in a vacuum. They have some of the worst defenses in the game; fortitude is their only good save and bravery is the only class feature that helps with saves. They've got spare feats to take Lightning Reflexes, Great Fortitude, and Iron Will, but that's where the party ends.
That means that a fighter is going to need to either spend precious consumable resources to recover when he fails a save (if it didn't result in immediate death or becoming a lawn ornament), or rely on party members to fix him up after most fights.
Edit: Also given that a lot of fights go much longer than one round, I'm not so sure getting an extra attack at the start of the fight is really all that great.
I assume you speak of higher level encounters?
I'm thinking about what could be done to help Fighters rise up to Paladin/Barbarian/Ranger level of efficiency (I think Rangers still need a slight buff to be on par with the other two, but the difference is not that big).
For one thing, we maybe we should change the name of the class. "Fighter" is as terrible a name as "Magic-User" was.
I've always been partial to warrior (but the NPC class has that name, ironically since it should probably be the other way around).
Well... The obvious first, let's give them 4 skill ranks per level, and maybe a better list of class skill... Hell, I'd even let them choose one or two skills to become class skills (since they are supposed to be generic).
Skills are nice. :P
Increase its saves. IMO Fighter could have all good saves and still be balanced. Sure, it'd make monks look bad... But everything makes monks look bad.
Fighters used to have the best saves in the game next to Paladins.
Now we reduce feat chains. Instead of wasting 3~6 feats in a feat chain full of nearly useless feats, each chain consists of 1~2 scaling feats, maybe 3, if the 3rd one is really awesome and gives new abilities. If you really have to break up combat maneuvers in two feats, then remove both Combat Expertise and Int 13 as prerequisites. Hell, just remove Combat Expertise from the game altogether! Noone will miss it! And is there any reason for TWF to consist of 4 feats instead of 2?
Fighter's can't have nice things, and options for martials have constantly been punished or discouraged. It's a bad design choice IMHO, and I've revised a number of feats for my home games, including consolidating feat chains into singular feats (Two-Weapon Fighting scales with your base attack bonus, as does Vital Strike, etc).
Finally, just so they become less boring, we give them some kind of grit/ki mechanic, which they get to spend to do cool things. One of the issues with giving cool things to fighters is that since it must be usable 100% of the time at no cost, it can't be too good (and the system assumes anything remotely different from "+X bonus" is too good). Give it some sort of limit and suddenly, fighters can get more powerful stuff.
I'm fond of cooldown or build up mechanics. World of Warcraft has historically done a very good job keeping their Warrior class (the non-magic using fighting class more or less a Fighter) balanced and functioning well. Their rage mechanic (a value that increases as you fight and decreases as you use special attacks) is very good for this sort of thing. You generate this combat high by fighting (and you have a few methods of beginning a combat with a bit). While other classes are slowing down in a prolonged encounter, warriors are going into overdrive.
They also have a stance system seriously similar to the styles that the master of many styles has. Each stance has certain pros and cons. There is a balanced "battle stance", a very defensive/counter oriented "defensive stance", and an offensive stance emphasizing dual-wielding and/or critical hits "berserker stance". By shifting between these stances over the course of the battle you can greatly influence your odds of achieving victory. Certain special attacks can only be used in stance X, Y, or Z, and knowing how to "stance dance" is critical for a warrior to succeed.
Not saying that this would be the perfect mechanic for a mundane warrior, but that their version of the fighting-man is more interesting than "I hit it again, and again, and again", and is more than big numbers. That's good design to me.
Who knows... Using some of these ideas, I might even consider playing a Fighter someday...
I'd also like a way to make martial characters (not only fighters) capable of moving without losing so much efficiency...
Agreed.