I would definitely concur with Bob, if you are willing to heavily modify combat rules many of the problems with the fighter can be minimized especially the incredible tendency towards WF/GWF/WS/GWS.
Personally I think WF/WS should be applicable to the entire weapon group like weapon training is and there should be an option to apply weapon focus to both weapons in a TWF style that uses mismatched weapons (such as longsword/shortsword, rapier/dagger, longsword/shield, etc) because let's face it TWF needs all the help it can get.
Twinned shortsword or kukri is fun and all but sometimes you want TWF using mismatched weapons without taking a massive hit.
Making the +X feats more broadly applicable as well as reducing the number of feat taxes and giving some feats autoscaling (VS being split over 3 feats is bad, TWF is incredibly feat thirsty, etc) can go a long way towards giving back the fighter his master of weapons crown.
I would really have liked to see the weapon focus/specialization be one feat like it was before. A simple +1/+2 like in previous editions was easy. Then take double specialization for +3/+3. There are other things that could have benefited from this simplification as well, like TWF. I actually think that any feat tree that is more than 3 feats is too long. There can be branches, but Greater Weapon Specialization and Whirlwind Attack require too many feats and therefore are too long. TWF requires more than it should.
The problem with changing all of this then becomes, how powerful does the fighter become if you essentially double all of his feats?
I would definitely concur with Bob, if you are willing to heavily modify combat rules many of the problems with the fighter can be minimized especially the incredible tendency towards WF/GWF/WS/GWS.
Personally I think WF/WS should be applicable to the entire weapon group like weapon training is and there should be an option to apply weapon focus to both weapons in a TWF style that uses mismatched weapons (such as longsword/shortsword, rapier/dagger, longsword/shield, etc) because let's face it TWF needs all the help it can get.
Twinned shortsword or kukri is fun and all but sometimes you want TWF using mismatched weapons without taking a massive hit.
Making the +X feats more broadly applicable as well as reducing the number of feat taxes and giving some feats autoscaling (VS being split over 3 feats is bad, TWF is incredibly feat thirsty, etc) can go a long way towards giving back the fighter his master of weapons crown.
i agree with most of this
the Weapon Focus chain and the critical chains, should apply to a weapon group instead of a single weapon.
and there should be a feat to use mismatched weapons and both should use the weapon focus benefits together.
2WF and VS should have their respective chains merged and scale with B.A.B., the improved and greater manuever feats should also be merged
and power attack, deadly aim, combat expertise and pirahna strike should be turned into standard combat options.
the primary/offhand bonuses should be removed, especially as 2WF is already penalized by a -2 to hit, and applying multiple instances of DR.
and everyone with a +6 or higher B.A.B. should be allowed to move half their speed and full attack, and everyone with a B.A.B. of +1 or higher should be able to move between attacks, or just before and after attacking, as long as it doesn't exceed half their speed.
How about post those fighter builds so we can take a look at them. Just saying they do the least damage is just here say.in a party of 10 PCs, 1 of which starts saturday December 1st.
we have
2 multiclassed human barbarian/fighters
2 martial oracles, 1 an angelkin, the other a nagaji
1 dwarf fighter
1 drow rogue
1 human bard
1 gnome sorcerer
1 halfling witch
and 1 possibly human cleric whom will be just starting5 melee martials, 2 skill monkeys, one of which doubles as a pseudo martial, 2 arcane casters that contribute little besides damage, and 1 dedicated divine caster yet to come.
our fighter does the least damage in the party out of the dedicated martials. but then, he doesn't have the optimization that the 2 oracles have, nor the sheer multiclass synergy of the barbarians.
i don't have the character sheets for any of them, all 5 are 7th level
but the dwarf fighter attacks 3 times at +12/12/7 for 1d8+8 with 2 sawtooth sabres
both barbarians strike at +14/9 without rage, one for 1d8+16 the other for 2d6+16, one has a katana, the other an earthbreaker
both oracles strike at +10, one uses a glaive for 1d10+15 the other uses a longspear for 1d8+15, the oracles haven't got thier second swing yet, but they have combat reflexes.
i meant to say the dwarf does the least damage per swing.
I would really have liked to see the weapon focus/specialization be one feat like it was before. A simple +1/+2 like in previous editions was easy. Then take double specialization for +3/+3. There are other things that could have benefited from this simplification as well, like TWF. I actually think that any feat tree that is more than 3 feats is too long. There can be branches, but Greater Weapon Specialization and Whirlwind Attack require too many feats and therefore are too long. TWF requires more than it should.The problem with changing all of this then becomes, how powerful does the fighter become if you essentially double all of his feats?
That's a good question and honestly YMMV depending on play style.
Personally I think you could do some of the following:
1) Streamline skills further (climb and swim get merged into athletics for instance). Fighter gets more Skill Points and a slightly improved skill list (I mean come on even the commoner has perception as a class skill).
2) Streamline fighter feats and make them scale with level so that you only have to buy TWF once and you get the ITWF and GTWF benefits at the right BAB thresholds.
3) Give Fighters more build resources that can't be spent on making them more awesome death machines. Personally my idea would be to give them the cavalier tactician ability and a handful of teamwork feats that they can impart to their teammates.
4) Give the Fighter a few more non-feat but non-magical class abilities. The cavalier banner ability is a good candidate, inquisitor has couple as well.
5) Give the fighter some ability to challenge or mark an opponent. There are things I dislike about 4e but marking a single opponent is kinda cool. Plus it gives the fighter some stickiness which helps the whole party.
6) Improve mobility. If not full move + full attack then something slightly less awesome. 5' step + full attack needs to die in a fire.
the bard and the witch contribute a bit of healing as well.
and we tend to be on a seafaring campaign where we have 1 encounter days, but the 1 encounter days are combined APL+6-APL+8 for a 10 person party. which is APL +12-APL+14 for a 4 person party. the battlemats are very busy.
in fact, we use wands of infernal healing, because they are cheaper and heal more, despite taking longer. but even with that, we are still dirt poor due to keeping up with the healing needs.
I imagine those APL +6 or +8 encounter involve a ton of foes instead of a small number of really big foes simply due to the extreme likelihood that a CR+6 or so monster can one shot just about any PC given a full attack?
In those situations I can definitely see why your casters tend to be dedicated AoE blasters. Frying mook spam can be quite satisfying and is something I kinda miss in the transition from 2e to 3.x and the decline of the evoker.
there are tons of mooks, most of which are level 5-7 with NPC wealth and a few level 9-11 NPC leaders. 90% of which humanoid in anatomy.
i agree with most of this
the Weapon Focus chain and the critical chains, should apply to a weapon group instead of a single weapon.
and there should be a feat to use mismatched weapons and both should use the weapon focus benefits together.
2WF and VS should have their respective chains merged and scale with B.A.B., the improved and greater manuever feats should also be merged
and power attack, deadly aim, combat expertise and pirahna strike should be turned into standard combat options.
the primary/offhand bonuses should be removed, especially as 2WF is already penalized by a -2 to hit, and applying multiple instances of DR.
and everyone with a +6 or higher B.A.B. should be allowed to move half their speed and full attack, and everyone with a B.A.B. of +1 or higher should be able to move between attacks, or just before and after attacking, as long as it doesn't exceed half their speed.
Yep pretty much agree with all of this especially PA, CE and the like becoming standard stance changes that everyone can use which is pretty much the route that M&M 3e went (although you can still get enhanced versions of these options).
That way the cowardly staff mage is always in -2 to hit/+2 to AC mode, the fighter is always in -2 to hit/+2 to DMG, etc.
This gives the players way more granular control over the game. Fighting a big bruiser of a monster with high damage but low accuracy attacks? Go defensive. Fighting a ton of easy to hit mooks then switch into slayer mode.
With improved mobility you can almost get rid of VS as it currently stands or at least modify it so that it's more broadly applicable.
Basically the only thing you need to be careful of is the crazy fast monsters and NPCs (like high end monks) who could blitz from a long distance do a full attack and then move back out of counter attack range.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to go off on the "GM-Fiat" garbage again.
Okay, that's it. I didn't want to get into this the last time with you because I like you Bob, but garbage you say? Seriously? I won't lie. It's beginning to irk me and seems very petty for you.
The GM runs the game and it supposed to actually make some decisions once in a while. That means that there will be many times when the GM makes things happen. Too often people misuse the term. GM-Fiat is more about railroading or fudging constantly. Actually populating a world and placing things in it for the party to purchase or ignore is NOT GM-Fiat.
I'm really tired of that term being misused to the point of being devalued.
Actually. It IS. Do you know what fiat means?
1. an authoritative decree, sanction, or order: a royal fiat. Synonyms: authorization, directive, ruling, mandate, diktat, ukase.
2. a fixed form of words containing the word fiat, by which a person in authority gives sanction, or authorization.
3. an arbitrary decree or pronouncement, especially by a person or group of persons having absolute authority to enforce it: The king ruled by fiat.
When you have to step out of your way to ignore the rules on what is available in stores, and specifically place objects for the PCs for them to buy to make your case, then damn right it's fiat. It's just as much fiat as if I stick traps in an adventure where there would be none to try and make a rogue feel more useful, or removing traps from an adventure because there's no rogue. That's fiat. Doing something merely because you are the GM and can deem it so. F-I-A-T.
The Pathfinder game assumes that there are items for purchase. The Core Book and the Game Mastery Guide both give suggestions on how to handle it. I don't have the Equipment Guide but I would suspect that it may also have something. If not, I would be disappointed.
Yes, and the core rules are pretty clear. 16,000 gp is the upper limit of what is available in your standard game, and it's a limit I do follow. See, I tend to follow the rules or let people know about my house rules ahead of time, not argue with people on forums about how the rules don't apply or are stupid or whatever. The game simply doesn't expect every magic item to be available or for people to be on demand to make you magic items. That's the rules. The Gamemastery Guide has optional rules for adjusting the GP limits from the core rulebook but they are just as much optional rules as the Insanity rules in the same book. But in the core rules it's pretty clear that you can't just throw some gold pieces down in a town and get what you want.
The fighter doesn't need to specialize in a specific weapon. He can get by with groups if necessary for a short period of time. If he's a human, he can become more versatile with appropriate feats, allowing him to specialize in groups of weapons.
And if he's an ogre he has this sweet +10 racial bonus to Strength! I don't care what some human-only benefit does. I'm talking about the FIGHTER, not the HUMAN. When people say "Oh, sorcerers have plenty of spells because HUMAN SORCERERS get an extra spell every level" they're making a stupid statement. The same thing is happening here. A human's racial abilities or special racial-only options has almost nothing to do with the Fighter class itself. The fact you bring it up is clearly an indication that you're trying to dodge or mask the issues. You do this every time. Someone says "here is the problems we see with Fighter". And then people begin dragging "well this archtype with that race at this level with these specific feats could" into it and it's complete and utter crap.
However, specialization gives him a whopping +2 to hit and +4 damage. He can find ways to deal with that minor problem if he needs to. If the player can't figure it out, then maybe playing a martial character isn't right for him.
Good show Bob. Really good show. Just insult everyone and imply they can't play or shouldn't play martial characters if they find the Fighter lacking. Yeah Bob, y'know, without those weapon specializations the Fighter has little to nothing to write home about in terms of offense. All he's left with is a +4 from weapon training (patched to +6 if gloves of dueling are used) with a subgroup of weapons. Wooptie-friggin-doo. Without specialization then a Fighter's damage output is quite honestly nothing special. Like at all.
Lemmy's Fighter at least looked somewhat interesting. His attack and damage routines weren't special but I felt he actually would have contributed more to a group than by trying to deal damage. Unfortunately Fighters tend to have crappy ability requirements, terrible feat chains, and aren't any better at combat maneuvers than any other martial class (Barbarians are probably the absolute best, and both Rangers and Paladins are pretty good at them too). Most of the non-damaging options you get are kind of "meh", so you can get lots of "meh". But then people talk about how much a fighter's damage rocks, and how they can sustain their damage way more without special gimmicks which is only true with specialization.
If I was going to build a Fighter and try to make it both interesting and without trying to limit myself, it would probably be centered around trying to abuse Dazing Assault (because that feat is just broken) with a reach weapon, catch off guard, and whirlwind attack. Just try to focus on getting buffed to hell and back and stunlocking everything I could (it's nonmagical and nothing in the core rules is immune to dazing, not even undead or constructs). Unfortunately that tactic wouldn't become available until 11th level at the earliest (I'd have to spend one of my own non-class feats to take it ASAP but that's fine), so my build would look much like this.
Catch Off Guard (to improvise a reach weapon in melee) 1st level
Combat Reflexes (because I'm using a reach weapon) 1st level
Dodge (because I need it for stupid trees) 2nd level
Power Attack (must have to be competent and to qualify for DA) 3rd level
Combat Expertise (because I need it for stupid trees) 4th level
Mobility (because I need it for stupid trees) 6th level
Spring Attack (because I need it for stupid trees) 8th level
Whirlwind Attack (because it's maybe useful due to my specific build) 10th level
Dazing Assault (because it's OP) 11th
Will my damage by all that impressive? No. It won't. I'll have a +2 to hit and damage with my pole-arm and a +1 to hit and damage with my bow. But really the only thing that matters here is pummeling as many fools with my stick as I can and forcing a DC 21 saving throw every time I do or make them all lose their next turn.
I'd probably dot my build using my own feats to pick up things like Step-Up, and I might look into going for Combat Patrol. It's a gimmicky build that doesn't actually come into its own until 11th level, but at least it's useful and does something that might be reasonably hard for another martial to do (even though I'm pretty sure I can could do it with a Barbarian or Ranger as well and bring more to the table). But there you go. This is a simple but I feel effective build that revolves around a feat that is wicked good and makes use of the Fighter's ability to eat tons of feats we don't want to possibly by cool with like 3 feats we do. I even think that if we include enlarge person and lunge into the mix we might have a very good build for locking foes down.
We end up with a kind of one-trick pony (but it's partially disguised because he can still fight in a variety of ways, which means it won't super seem like he's a one trick pony, even though the objective is to stunlock stuff in an unfair manner), and our defenses still require us to dump more of our normal feats into stuff to try and shore them up, but at least the build doesn't require you to be some sort of baboon race from a splat book or require you to be born on the second tuesday of a leap year for it to work. It'll work with any race and is relatively ability score light on prerequisites (AFAIK I believe the highest you need in anything is Str 13, Dex 13, Int 13), so it's at least not totally crushing us on point buy (we'd want a 14 Dex anyway and a 13 Int isn't so bad if we've got a warrior's Charisma).
And by golly, it doesn't require that we have the leet hax items either. Honestly the only thing that's important is +hit to land our primary attacks at -5. So maybe we'll skip weapon specialization entirely and just try to splash Weapon Focus + Greater Focus + 2 from Weapon Training and then gloves of dueling. That could help us erase the -5 penalty from Dazing Assault. Even the DC for Dazing Assault doesn't care about anything other than BAB, so we don't even need good ability scores! Maybe the Ability Focus Feat. Yeah. That would help.
Behold, Shiela the Manslayer.
Shimmy the Manslayer, CR 11 (12,800 XP)
Medium Humanoid (Human) Fighter 11
Init +2; Senses Perception +11
==========================================================================
AC 29, touch 16, flat 25 (+11 armor, +2 deflection, +2 natural, +3 dexterity, +1 dodge)
Hp 87 (11d10+22)
Fort +12 (+9), Ref +9 (+6), Will +10 (+7)
==========================================================================
Melee +2 glaive +22/+17/+12 (1d10+13/x3)
Ranged +2 composite longbow +19/+14/+9 (1d8+10/x3)
Space/Reach 5 ft. / 10 ft.
Special Attacks Dazing Assault (DC 21)
==========================================================================
Str (21) 19, Dex (16) 14, Con (14) 12, Int 13, Wis (14) 12, Cha 7
BAB +11; CMB +16; CMD 32
Feats Catch Off Guard (1), Combat Reflexes (1,B), Dodge (1,B), Combat Expertise (2,B), Toughness (3), Power Attack (4,B), Iron Will (5), Mobility (6,B), Step-Up (7), Spring Attack (8,B), Lunge (9), Whirlwind Attack (10,B), Dazing Assault (11)
Skills
Equipment weapons, +2 strength belt, +2 dexterity vest, +2 constitution bandana, +2 wisdom helmet, gloves of dueling, +2 ring of protection, +3 ring of resistance, +2 amulet of natural armor, 13,150 gp remaining
Shiela the Manslayer. Her tactics are simple. Get buffed, and stop people from acting. In an ideal world she has a mage friend who helps feed her addiction to enlarge person which gives her a massive 20 ft. reach with her pole-arm. She wields a weapon she can afford to buy in a town without having to worry about luck of the dice gods or the GM to play Santa Clause. Her favorite buffs are freedom of movement and heroism. When faced with a single foe she just gets up on them in melee and keeps whacking the snot out of them. She takes a -5 penalty to hit but each time she slaps a foe they must make a hard DC 21 Fortitude save or get daze-locked for a round. This applies on every attack so if she slaps them 3 times then they make 3 DC 21 saves. Even without debuffing even stuff of her CR+3 has a good chance of failing that save on its good day.
When she can, she uses Lunge and Whirlwind Attack to make a single strike at +17 vs all targets within her 25 ft. reach in every direction. Anyone who gets slapped takes about 18.5 damage and must make a DC 21 save or lose their actions for 1 round. She's also not terrible with a bow (though she's not good with it either).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel,I am well aware of what GM-Fiat means and I even say so. I don't need you to give me a dictionary definition. GM-Fiat is being used improperly here. It has traditionally been used to mean that the GM is railroading the players or is in a constant state of fudging to the point that the players actions have little to know meaning.
It is not GM fiat to allow +3 or better weapons to be available. They are. They have price tags. They can be bought and sold or traded. They can be commissioned. They can be stolen. They exist therefore the party has a way of getting them if they want them. If you're going to allow casters access to higher level scrolls while denying martials access to higher level gear, you are favoring the casters. Or do you follow the randomness completely and sometimes there just aren't scrolls available?
As for my comment about human fighters, you completely ignored the fact that I said he can get by with groups of weapons and if he's human he can be more versatile. A human fighter is still a fighter. He just has options not available to other fighters. Just like an elven archer has options not available to others elven fighters. By ignoring the options in a thread that specifically asks "What's so bad about fighter bonus feats?" seems like a way to weaken the class when we could be looking at what's available that strengthen it.
As for your perceived insult, it was very clear that I was specifically saying that if you can't figure out how to find +2 to hit and +4 damage from the loss of 4 feats, then playing a martial character is not right for you. Martial characters need to find ways to increase their attack bonuses and damage. If they can't figure out +2 to hit and +4 damage by level 12, then the player is probably not playing a class that suits his play style. That's what I said. Don't twist it into something else. Just like if a player with a caster can't figure out how to cast spells without provoking attacks of opportunity with every casting or how to increase the DCs of his spells, he probably shouldn't be playing a wizard.
|
Please stop with the +3 weapon argument.
Someone, I'm not going to say any names because you know who you are, do not seem to understand what GM-fiat means and what world building in Pathfinder means.
There is no hard and fast "rule" as to what you find and how much you find in a city of any size. There are "guidelines" that help DM's who don't really feel like creating their own. If you actually go and read the section then you will know this.
If there is an actual "rule" that covers this then a citation is required, and no "guidelines" do not count as rules.
There are sections of the game that do not ever fall into the "outside the rules" scheme and world building is one of them. Cities are something that a DM builds and doesn't have to adhere to any sort of rule. He doesn't have to step into the realm of "homebrew" because rules do not apply, just like where you place your monsters, how you build your dungeons, and how you want your NPC's to act. You aren't outside the rules if you don't use the Golarion setting because there is no rule that states you must use Golarion as your campaign even though its officially published.
I understand but generally disagree with Ashiel's point concerning settlement design. I feel like Monte Cook's work with the 3.0 DMG provided a springboard for thinking about effective campaign and community development for D&D settings but they in many ways are of limited utility. Basically they are a mediocre tool for satisfying the simulationist aspects of world design. Even then scaling with them basically breaks down around level 12 or so. At a certain point you have to assume that craft on demand is available or whole classes of magic items simply won't be available for the average game (I mean really who actually is going to get Forge Ring or Craft Rods and Staves as a PC crafting feat?)
If you have a more gamist or narrativist viewpoint towards world building you are going to largely ignore that whole chapter because it doesn't make sense and let's be honest basically no existing commercial setting uses those design assumptions. Instead we typically get implausible metropolises littered with high level friendly casters who can craft on demand.
I used to be much more simulationist than I currently am but at a certain point in time I decided that default D&D design assumptions don't reflect my needs as a storyteller. Magic Item availability is just one aspect of the simulationist viewpoint in 3.x/PF that I think gets in the way of good storytelling.
Behold, Shiela the Manslayer.
Shiela the Manslayer. Her tactics are simple. Get buffed, and stop people from acting. In an ideal world she has a mage friend who helps feed her addiction to enlarge person which gives her a massive 20 ft. reach with her pole-arm. She wields a weapon she can afford to buy in a town without having to worry about luck of the dice gods or the GM to play Santa Clause. Her favorite buffs are freedom of movement and heroism. When faced with a single foe she just gets up on them in melee and keeps whacking the snot out of them. She takes a -5 penalty...
Shimmy the Manslayer, CR 11 (12,800 XP)
Medium Humanoid (Human) Fighter 11
Init +2; Senses Perception +11
==========================================================================
AC 29, touch 16, flat 25 (+11 armor, +2 deflection, +2 natural, +3 dexterity, +1 dodge)
Hp 87 (11d10+22)
Fort +12 (+9), Ref +9 (+6), Will +10 (+7)
==========================================================================
Melee +2 glaive +22/+17/+12 (1d10+13/x3)
Ranged +2 composite longbow +19/+14/+9 (1d8+10/x3)
Space/Reach 5 ft. / 10 ft.
Special Attacks Dazing Assault (DC 21)
==========================================================================
Str (21) 19, Dex (16) 14, Con (14) 12, Int 13, Wis (14) 12, Cha 7
BAB +11; CMB +16; CMD 32
Feats Catch Off Guard (1), Combat Reflexes (1,B), Dodge (1,B), Combat Expertise (2,B), Toughness (3), Power Attack (4,B), Iron Will (5), Mobility (6,B), Step-Up (7), Spring Attack (8,B), Lunge (9), Whirlwind Attack (10,B), Dazing Assault (11)
Skills
Equipment weapons, +2 strength belt, +2 dexterity vest, +2 constitution bandana, +2 wisdom helmet, gloves of dueling, +2 ring of protection, +3 ring of resistance, +2 amulet of natural armor, 13,150 gp remaining
Thank you so much for this example, as it epitomizes what perhaps 40-50% of us 'anti-fighters' are saying:
- Skills are so unimportant that you didn't even list any- There isn't a non-combat feat in the list
So (as has been my personal argument all this time) this fighter is great in combat. My fighter shines once the swords come out. But if you're in an RP-heavy game, what does she do the other 75% of the time when people are making Diplomacy, Knowledge, and Survival rolls to advance the plot? The paladin shines at Diplomacy. The ranger shines at Survival and woodland lore. The barbarian is almost as SOL as the fighter out of combat, but gets an extra 2 skill points per level to try to 'round out' the character. So the fighter's at a significant out-of-combat disadvantage as compared to the other martial classes.
|
|
...Behold, Shiela the Manslayer.
Shiela the Manslayer. Her tactics are simple. Get buffed, and stop people from acting. In an ideal world she has a mage friend who helps feed her addiction to enlarge person which gives her a massive 20 ft. reach with her pole-arm. She wields a weapon she can afford to buy in a town without having to worry about luck of the dice gods or the GM to play Santa Clause. Her favorite buffs are freedom of movement and heroism. When faced with a single foe she just gets up on them in melee and keeps whacking the snot out of
Shimmy the Manslayer, CR 11 (12,800 XP)
Medium Humanoid (Human) Fighter 11
Init +2; Senses Perception +11
==========================================================================
AC 29, touch 16, flat 25 (+11 armor, +2 deflection, +2 natural, +3 dexterity, +1 dodge)
Hp 87 (11d10+22)
Fort +12 (+9), Ref +9 (+6), Will +10 (+7)
==========================================================================
Melee +2 glaive +22/+17/+12 (1d10+13/x3)
Ranged +2 composite longbow +19/+14/+9 (1d8+10/x3)
Space/Reach 5 ft. / 10 ft.
Special Attacks Dazing Assault (DC 21)
==========================================================================
Str (21) 19, Dex (16) 14, Con (14) 12, Int 13, Wis (14) 12, Cha 7
BAB +11; CMB +16; CMD 32
Feats Catch Off Guard (1), Combat Reflexes (1,B), Dodge (1,B), Combat Expertise (2,B), Toughness (3), Power Attack (4,B), Iron Will (5), Mobility (6,B), Step-Up (7), Spring Attack (8,B), Lunge (9), Whirlwind Attack (10,B), Dazing Assault (11)
Skills
Equipment weapons, +2 strength belt, +2 dexterity vest, +2 constitution bandana, +2 wisdom helmet, gloves of dueling, +2 ring of protection, +3 ring of resistance, +2 amulet of natural armor, 13,150 gp remaining
You do realize that you aren't limited to your skills when it comes to role playing.
Your skills should have absolutely no hindrance on your role playing. Now if you are walking around with a 5 Charisma and no ranks in Bluff then don't assume you are going to lie your way through a brown paper bag but that's about it.
Worried about Knowledge? Why don't you ask that Wizard over there who has made it his specialty or that druid over there who knows about animals.
Didn't pass that Perception check? Well you may not be alone but there is usually always someone who does pass it and I'm sure they are going to let everyone know they saw something.
Classes in a group are like pieces of a puzzle, each one has a different responsibility and by bringing each of those together you form a well rounded party. Not everyone can do everything so you rely on each other to fill the gaps.
Okay so Fighters are not well optimized for roleplaying, got it.
Oh man I just min/maxed RP!
As for an RP-heavy game, man, my Tactician brings all the NPCs to the yard. With his tactics. Also Cad and Gladiator, super fun.
You do realize that you aren't limited to your skills when it comes to role playing.
Correct. Skills do however limit how good your character is at doing the stuff you want while roleplaying. Getting more skills allow the character to feel that ze contributes more in RP situation. Of course you can roleplay asking the wizard who the noble is, but being restricted to mainly doing stuff like that would empathize just how little but combat your character knows.
Now, that fighter is smarter than most and can get a reasonable amount of skills, but it's worse for others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You do realize that you aren't limited to your skills when it comes to role playing.
Your skills should have absolutely no hindrance on your role playing. Now if you are walking around with a 5 Charisma and no ranks in Bluff then don't assume you are going to lie your way through a brown paper bag but that's about it.
Fair point, but what I think NobodysHome is trying to say is that in any non-combat situation, Fighters have very few options. By "roleplaying" I think he meant something like "social encounters".
You can roleplay lots of different characters with any class, even the "restrictive" ones, such as Paladins. I'm playing a viking-ish Paladin right now, who enjoys driking and womanizing, but he's fiercely devoted to his duty and will always do what he believes is fair and right, even if it's the hardest solution. He'll lie to protect an innocent if he has to, but never for self profit.Worried about Knowledge? Why don't you ask that Wizard over there who has made it his specialty or that druid over there who knows about animals.
Didn't pass that Perception check? Well you may not be alone but there is usually always someone who does pass it and I'm sure they are going to let everyone know they saw something.
Classes in a group are like pieces of a puzzle, each one has a different responsibility and by bringing each of those together you form a well rounded party. Not everyone can do everything so you rely on each other to fill the gaps.
No ones is claiming that Fighters are completely useless or that Rangers/Paladins can (or should) solve ALL possible challenges, merely that they add more to the party's options, endurance and effectivness than a Fighter.
Fighter have very little to do when slashing things is not the ideal way to go. They can be built to be decent in that role, but this comes at the expense of what they are good at and is still not enough to compete with most other classes.
Saying "I don't need to be good at this, someone else will be" is okay if you're good at something, but not if you all you can do effectively is swing swords and crack skulls.
Rangers may suck in social encounters, but they have enough skills to be good at lots of things and amazing stealth/infiltration options. It's not hard for a ranger to have 6~7 skill ranks even if they dump Int. A Paladin is pretty good at social encounters thanks to his high Cha (which comes with huge benefits), detect evil and class skills like Diplomacy and Sense Motive. And that's not counting spells.
A Fighter, OTOH, will usually have 2~3 skill ranks/level, maybe 4. And his class features don't really help. I suppose he could get lots of Skill Focus, but again, he'd be sacrificing his effectiveness on his main job just to be passable at something else.
You do realize that you aren't limited to your skills when it comes to role playing.
Your skills should have absolutely no hindrance on your role playing.
That depends entirely on your GM.
If you say, "I want to find the best tavern in town," and your GM responds with, "OK. Roll Knowledge: Local to find it. Oh, don't have that? OK, roll Diplomacy to get an NPC to tell you. Oh, failed that? Why don't you have the bard ask for you?", then your roleplaying is hindered.
Obviously, that's an extreme example and a jerk GM, but the GM doesn't have to be a jerk to say, "You have no skill points in that, so you can't do it." Especially with regards to Craft, Perform, and Knowledge skills. I can "act" in any way I want at the table, but if I don't have the skills to back it up, I end up being nothing more than comedy relief, which seems to be the designated role of fighters outside of combat.
We're going through Carrion Crown where everything's a murder mystery, Knowledge skills and Diplomacy are at a premium, and the druid's Survival is so much higher than mine that I don't even bother rolling, I just provide +2 to him. I'd love to say that I'm alone in my evaluation, but my Carrion Crown GM is a fighter in my Kingmaker campaign and he has exactly the same complaint: As soon as combat's over, his job is to stand around and occasionally provide comic relief. He's actually gone so far as to start trying to get his character killed so he can choose a more interesting class to play. My wife played a fighter for exactly 3 sessions of Council of Thieves before retiring her to play a rogue.
Every Paizo AP we've played involves a LOT of noncombat skill checks to continue the plot and spends most of the time outside of combat, so the fighter's inevitably relegated to watching other people roll skill checks and provide some comedy relief. Add a barbarian or a paladin and the fighter's not even the best combatant. (Seems like almost every AP focuses on undead or evil outsiders, making paladins shine ridiculously.)
So yeah, in our campaign I kick butt in combat, and do the Swimming and the Climbing outside of combat. And I drink a lot. This somehow lacks the depth of any other character class I've played... even my backup wizard for this campaign has Craft: Stringed Instruments and Perform: Stringed Instruments just to add some depth, and he's got enough skill points to do it.
You do realize that you aren't limited to your skills when it comes to role playing.
Your skills should have absolutely no hindrance on your role playing. Now if you are walking around with a 5 Charisma and no ranks in Bluff then don't assume you are going to lie your way through a brown paper bag but that's about it.
Fair point, but what I think NobodysHome is trying to say is that in any non-combat situation, Fighters have very few options. By "roleplaying" I think he meant something like "social encounters".
You can roleplay lots of different characters with any class, even the "restrictive" ones, such as Paladins. I'm playing a viking-ish Paladin right now, who enjoys driking and womanizing, but he's fiercely devoted to his duty and will always do what he believes is fair and right, even if it's the hardest solution. He'll lie to protect an innocent if he has to, but never for self profit.Worried about Knowledge? Why don't you ask that Wizard over there who has made it his specialty or that druid over there who knows about animals.
Didn't pass that Perception check? Well you may not be alone but there is usually always someone who does pass it and I'm sure they are going to let everyone know they saw something.
Classes in a group are like pieces of a puzzle, each one has a different responsibility and by bringing each of those together you form a well rounded party. Not everyone can do everything so you rely on each other to fill the gaps.
No ones is claiming that Fighters are completely useless or that Rangers/Paladins can (or should) solve ALL possible challenges, merely that they add more to the party's options, endurance and effectivness than a Fighter.
Fighter have very little to do when slashing things is not the ideal way to go. They can be built to be decent in that role, but this comes at the expense of what they are good at and is still not enough to compete with most other classes.
Saying "I don't need to be...
I don't know whether I hate it or love it when someone says what I wanted to say far better than I could have...
|
|
You do realize that you aren't limited to your skills when it comes to role playing.Correct. Skills do however limit how good your character is at doing the stuff you want while roleplaying. Getting more skills allow the character to feel that ze contributes more in RP situation. Of course you can roleplay asking the wizard who the noble is, but being restricted to mainly doing stuff like that would empathize just how little but combat your character knows.
Now, that fighter is smarter than most and can get a reasonable amount of skills, but it's worse for others.
But a fighter can do this just fine so I'm not sure where the disconnect is.
If there is someone else in the group who has certain skills that are higher rank than yours then why are you so worried about it then? You don't need high rolls to assist others so again where is the problem?
Can we please step out of the vacuum for a moment and actually pretend like we play with other members in a group?
Edit: What exactly is keeping a fighter from role playing and using the skills that he has?
The disconnect is that many groups play where all characters are expected to contribute to non-combat encounters in meaningful way both social and exploration.
Yes a decent number of groups kinda handwave social encounters to the point where bluff/diplomacy/intimidate ranks don't really matter but a good number of people still really use them to indicate what sort of meaningful resolution you'll have in a social setting.
Same with exploration aspects of the game.
The problem is that with such a limited number of skill points the fighter is generally limited to a small number of skill areas or has broadly invested in a large number of skills that rely on low DC skill checks.
I think the essential issue is that many people are no longer content with the school of design that indicates that the fighter should be basically all combat all the time because giving him skills would horn in on the rogue's territory. Why not give the fighter more utility and make the rogue more useful in combat?
If there is someone else in the group who has certain skills that are higher rank than yours then why are you so worried about it then? You don't need high rolls to assist others so again where is the problem?
The problem is that a lot of players wouldn't want their out of combat _capabilities_ to be reduced to an Aid Another action. They want to excel at some things, and there are plenty of stuff that many archetypal fighters could excel at! It's just that after the mandatory-not-to-suck perception and (for heavy armor) acrobatics, there's not that many skill points left, so the average-intelligence veteran mercenary will still suck at knowledge (geography), survival, and bluff. The crusader knight (regardless of whether it's a cavalier or fighter) will still suck at knowledge (religion), knowledge (nobility) and only be mediocre at riding. And so on. A little extra skill points per level would go a long way towards helping fleshing out the non-combat areas where these archetypal characters excel, or are at least on par with the other ones who are good at it in the party.
Can we please step out of the vacuum for a moment and actually pretend like we play with other members in a group?
No-one here is doing that. The thing is that for a lot of players, the party succeeding at a given quest/task isn't a lot more important than feeling that the character, as a person, not just a cog in the party, is capable, and that it's capabilities match it's background.
My current fighter in a game is a veteran half-orc mercenary. Despite not dumping Int and despite favored class bonus to skills, at 5th level those 15 skill points felt really inadequate to fill out even the basics for such a character. I've kept to medium armor so far so has been able to survive without massive acrobatics, and I didn't even max perception (which is reaaally bad and I just wait to get killed by it) but 15 sp still is very little, especially when lacking a lot of class skill bonuses that are fitting.
Being a mathematician, here's a more concrete complaint about fighters. Let's crunch the numbers on the core classes:
Base Attack Bonus: +20. Tied for 1st with ranger, barbarian, paladin. OK. He's good at fighting.
Total Save Bonus: +24. Tied for last with the barbarian, rogue, and wizard. Oops. Every other fighting class has better saves.
Skill Points: 2. Tied for last with the cleric, paladin, sorcerer, and wizard. So except for the paladin, every other fighting class has better skills.
Non-feat bonuses: Armor Training, Weapon Training, and Bravery. I will make a subjective argument that this is far worse than any other class; without the bonus feats, the fighter isn't worth playing.
So you have the original poster's question: What is wrong with a fighter's bonus feats?
My answer is: There aren't enough of them.
Just to catch up with the saving throws of the other classes takes 3 feats for +2 to all your saves.
To keep up with at least 4 skills per level, you're missing 40 skill points = 7 feats.
I've already used up all 10 of my bonus feats 'keeping up with the Joneses'. This would be OK if the fighter-only feats kicked butt compared to the generally-available feats, but my personal impression is that they don't.
So you either accept a versatile character who's worse than the other fighting classes at fighting, and worse than the non-fighting classes at non-fighting stuff, or pour all your feats into combat feats to be a combat monster.
My complaint is that *I* PERSONALLY find the former approach dissatisfying, and the latter approach boring.
I'm not saying, "The fighter is broken! Fix it!" I'm saying that in my group, fighters are unappreciated, and raw numbers back up that the fighter's getting shortchanged unless his/her entire focus is combat.
If anyone in the party plays a bard, then most classes become useless outside of combat because bards are so good at diplomacy, sense motive, knowledge, etc.
Except for the occasional tracking...
If you have to start going all the way to the "yeah but outside of combat" argument you lost already.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the disconnect is that Full BAB and weapon and armor proficiencies are significantly overrated in terms of it's value and that 3.0 made the decision that skills should come at the expense of combat utility.
If we remove spells from the equation you have fighter on one end of the continuum with Full BAB, heavy armor, weapon proficiencies and poor skills and rogue on the other end with 3/4 BAB, light armor, some martial proficiencies and lots of skills.
Personally I think it's possible to increase the utility of the fighter and the combat effectiveness of the rogue without disrupting the cleric and wizard that much.
|
|
The disconnect is that many groups play where all characters are expected to contribute to non-combat encounters in meaningful way both social and exploration.
Yes a decent number of groups kinda handwave social encounters to the point where bluff/diplomacy/intimidate ranks don't really matter but a good number of people still really use them to indicate what sort of meaningful resolution you'll have in a social setting.
Same with exploration aspects of the game.
The problem is that with such a limited number of skill points the fighter is generally limited to a small number of skill areas or has broadly invested in a large number of skills that rely on low DC skill checks.
I think the essential issue is that many people are no longer content with the school of design that indicates that the fighter should be basically all combat all the time because giving him skills would horn in on the rogue's territory. Why not give the fighter more utility and make the rogue more useful in combat?
I'm not talking about handwaving and I think the other poster has made the mistake of getting role playing and roll playing mixed up. You don't exactly role play to get a mechanical advantage unless the DM is cool with that. You can role play all you want with the king but if you want to convince him to give you a +2 sword then that's where a skill would come in. Also, what's stopping you from helping the party "face" contribute to the Diplomacy roll? You can the Bard, for instance, can approach the king, say your peace, use the bard's diplomacy because it's obviously higher and then roll yours to add that +2 to it.
The party doesn't have to have all skills the same because that is a gigantic waste. You don't need to specialize in Diplomacy if someone else has it covered unless you want to and you and the face take turns using each other's skill score.
Let me give you a little example:
Bard: +20 Diplomacy
Wizard: +20 Knowledge Arcana
Druid: +20 Knowledge Nature
Fighter: +20 Knowledge Engineering
Ranger: +20 Survival
Rogue: +20 Stealth
Cleric: +20 Heal
Now when you work together as a group then you can know everything from organizing a GA Summit, to information about animals and magic, to knowledge of castles and bridges, to finding food and tracking, to mending wounds, to sneaking up on that orc encampment to spy on.
Funny what happens when the party pools all their greatest resources together instead of b+%+*ing about why one class can't do it all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, here is a Fighter who wants to be able to contribute out of combat and do something cool in combat... He has one single weapon spec feat, just because weapon focus is such a common requirement... He'll eventually get Lunge and Improved/Greater Sunder.
He's a decent archer and a great melee. He has good Perception, Intimidate and Sense Motive scores. His saves are okay, and he cant be possessed/mind controlled by evil creatures... (I really love this Wayfinder + Clear Spindle Ioun Stone combo!).
He has better AC and skills than his half-brother Fighty McFighter, but is not as good with reach weapons.
Human (Azlanti) Fighter 9
LN Medium Humanoid (human)
Init +4; Senses Perception +16
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 25, touch 14, flat-footed 22 (+10 armor, +3 Dex, +1 natural, +1 deflection)
hp 72 (9d10+18)
Fort +11, Ref +10, Will +10 (+2 vs. fear)
Defensive Abilities bravery +2
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft.
Melee Heavy Shield Bash +14/+9 (1d4+5/x2) and
. . +1 Silversheen Earth breaker +15/+10 (2d6+8/x3) and
. . +1 Silversheen Falchion +18/+13 (2d4+10/15-20/x2) and
. . Club +14/+9 (1d6+5/x2) and
. . Club +14/+9 (1d6+5/x2) and
. . Silversheen Scimitar +17/+12 (1d6+7/18-20/x2)
Ranged +1 Composite longbow (Str +4) +16/+11 (1d8+6/19-20/x3)
Special Attacks weapon training abilities (heavy blades +2, bows +1)
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 20, Dex 18, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8
Base Atk +9; CMB +14; CMD 28
Feats Clustered Shots, Combat Reflexes (5 AoO/round), Cornugon Smash, Improved Critical (Falchion), Iron Will, Point Blank Shot, Power Attack -3/+6, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Skill Focus (Perception) (Focused Study), Skill Focus (Sense Motive) (Focused Study), Weapon Focus (Falchion)
Traits Indomitable Faith, Suspicious
Skills Climb +9, Intimidate +11, Knowledge (dungeoneering) +9, Knowledge (engineering) +4, Perception +16, Sense Motive +17, Survival +1 (+3 to avoid becoming lost), Swim +9
Languages Azlanti, Common
Combat Gear Oil of shillelagh, Alchemist's fire (5); Other Gear +1 Full plate, +1 Heavy steel shield, +1 Composite longbow (Str +4), +1 Silversheen Earth breaker, +1 Silversheen Falchion, Club, Club, Silversheen Scimitar, Amulet of natural armor +1, Belt of physical might (Str & Dex +2), Bracers of falcon's aim, Cloak of resistance +3, Ioun stone (clear spindle), Ring of protection +1, Wayfinder (1 @ 0 lbs), 1200 GP
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Bravery +2 (Ex) +2 to Will save vs. Fear
Clustered Shots Total damage from full-round ranged attacks before applying DR
Combat Reflexes (5 AoO/round) Can make extra attacks of opportunity/rd, and even when flat-footed.
Cornugon Smash When you damage an opponent with a Power Attack, you may make an immediate Intimidate check as a free action to attempt to demoralize your opponent.
Ioun stone (clear spindle) Sustains bearer without food or water.
Point Blank Shot +1 to attack and damage rolls with ranged weapons at up to 30 feet.
Power Attack -3/+6 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
Precise Shot You don't get -4 to hit when shooting or throwing into melee.
Rapid Shot You get an extra attack with ranged weapons. Each attack is at -2.
That said, most of his out-of-combat utility comes from being human, rather than being a Fighter. So take that as you will.
If anyone in the party plays a bard, then most classes become useless outside of combat because bards are so good at diplomacy, sense motive, knowledge, etc.
Except for the occasional tracking...
If you have to start going all the way to the "yeah but outside of combat" argument you lost already.
No offense, man, but that has got to be the dumbest argument I've ever heard in the Fighter's defense.
It's like saying:"if there is a Paladin in the party and the enemy is Evil, most classes are useless because Paladins are awesome against evil opponents, so if you have to go into the 'yeah, but what against neutral enemies?' argument you already lost."
Or:
"If there is a SoL-focused Sorcerer in the party and the enemy has low saves and no SR, then most classes are useless because SoL-focused Sorcs are awesome against enemies with low saves and no SR, so if you have to go into the 'yeah, but what about enemies with good saves and SR?' argument, you already lost."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If anyone in the party plays a bard, then most classes become useless outside of combat because bards are so good at diplomacy, sense motive, knowledge, etc.
Except for the occasional tracking...
If you have to start going all the way to the "yeah but outside of combat" argument you lost already.
Does your group do all social interaction as a team?
or do you actually have subplots for the various PCs?
I've never really cared for the dedicated face school of roleplaying. While it might be nice for the Bard to handle some of the negotiations with the Duke it's nice if the Fighter can talk to the Duke's General, the cleric can rally the troops with a stirring speech, the rogue can gather information in the shadows and the wizard can collect the lore of the ages.
The problem is that the Fighter as a daring leader of men has basically disappeared from the 3.x/PF and I'd personally like to see him return.
I've been toying with the idea of "areas of competence" where a character get to add 1/2 their level to certain types of skills and potentially take 10, and/or some other perks whose main benefit is not combat situations. Like, you get to choose one of the following (just as examples):
Military - You are used to working with or in organized armies. You may add half your level to all knowledge checks pertaining to warfare and may take 10 on such checks. You may add half your level to all diplomacy, sense motive and gather information checks when dealing with military business. If you gain the leadership feat, you may, instead of gaining a single cohort, gain two cohorts of the appropriate levels, though they must have only levels of the warrior and expert classes and have military background.
Scientific - You are used to working with scholars and scientist. You may add half your level to all checks pertaining to finding information in libraries and to learning who has knowledge of a subject. In addition, choose a knowledge skill as your field of specialization. You may add half your level to all checks pertaining to that subject.
Religious - You are used to working with a particular set of religions. Choose one of the nine alignments. You may add half your level to all knowledge checks pertaining to the beliefs and church of any god of the chosen alignment or who is no more than one step away from that alignment, and take 10 on such checks. You may also add half your level to diplomacy, bluff and sense motive checks when dealing with religious matters among followers of those faiths.
Of course it would have to be fine tuned a lot, and a lot of other areas of competence added (as well as getting a better name for it).
This would mean classes which have a hard time being good at stuff out of combat will have one area where they are competent, and might mean that the "single party face" is less relevant, as all characters will probably have somewhere they're at least equal with the bard (as mentioned by vuron).
Would such a concept be worth fleshing out?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A nice build, Nicos, effective and reasonably useful out-of-combat, but like Skilly McFighter, a lot of its out-of-combat utility come from being human, not a fighter, and having a higher than average Int without getting anything from it other than 2 extra skill points.
It's also very weak s if forced into melee, or if archery is not the best way to go, let's say, if it's raining, the enemy has cover, casts wind wall or is around a corner.
Not to mention it can't do much more in a fight than full attack, which is rather boring, IMO.
Don't get me wrong, it's a very viable build, but I think it still suffers from most of the fighter's limitations. An archery Ranger would deal somewhat lower DPR and AC, but have much more versatility in and out of combat. An archery Paladin would have similar AC and somewhat lower damage, but would also have all the powerful features that come with Paladinhood.
That's just my 2 cents, though.
I think it's fair to include human as a way to get out of combat utility, as long as it's noted that that itself is a limiting factor on concepts. Note that half-orcs too can get that free skill point per level, though they pay for it with no darkvision.
If out-of-combat utility is easy to get without having to rely on class, it's less important that classes provide out-of-combat utility. It IS however quite limiting to have to be human/half-orc from it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bard: +20 Diplomacy
Wizard: +20 Knowledge Arcana
Druid: +20 Knowledge Nature
Fighter: +20 Knowledge Engineering
Ranger: +20 Survival
Rogue: +20 Stealth
Cleric: +20 Heal
I like how the Bard, Wizard, Ranger, and Rogue only have one skill each in this "example" and out-of-combat spells are tacitly ignored.
|
|
I like how the Bard, Wizard, Ranger, and Rogue only have one skill each in this "example" and out-of-combat spells are tacitly ignored.Bard: +20 Diplomacy
Wizard: +20 Knowledge Arcana
Druid: +20 Knowledge Nature
Fighter: +20 Knowledge Engineering
Ranger: +20 Survival
Rogue: +20 Stealth
Cleric: +20 Heal
Then the intent of the post has gone way over your head.
No offense, man, but that has got to be the dumbest argument I've ever heard in the Fighter's defense.
It's like saying:
"if there is a Paladin in the party and the enemy is Evil, most classes are useless because Paladins are awesome against evil opponents, so if you have to go into the 'yeah, but what against neutral enemies?' argument you already lost."
Or:
"If there is a SoL-focused Sorcerer in the party and the enemy has low saves and no SR, then most classes are useless because SoL-focused Sorcs are awesome against enemies with low saves and no SR, so if you have to go into the 'yeah, but what about enemies with good saves and SR?' argument, you already lost."
I don't think you understand my argument...Then a again maybe it is just a stupid argument.
Saying a fighter sucks outside of combat just because someone else can do it better is silly.
A fighter can take a simple trait to get the diplomacy skill and be just as good as most other classes, so how does he "suck outside of combat"?
@locke90
What nicos said.
Then the intent of the post has gone way over your head.I like how the Bard, Wizard, Ranger, and Rogue only have one skill each in this "example" and out-of-combat spells are tacitly ignored.Bard: +20 Diplomacy
Wizard: +20 Knowledge Arcana
Druid: +20 Knowledge Nature
Fighter: +20 Knowledge Engineering
Ranger: +20 Survival
Rogue: +20 Stealth
Cleric: +20 Heal
Yeah, 'Berta failed to mention how the Druid, Fighter, and Cleric only have one skill each in this "example" and out-of-combat spells are tacitly ignored.
;)
Wait -- wasn't this a post about the usefulness of a group cooperating?
|
|
Then the intent of the post has gone way over your head.I like how the Bard, Wizard, Ranger, and Rogue only have one skill each in this "example" and out-of-combat spells are tacitly ignored.Bard: +20 Diplomacy
Wizard: +20 Knowledge Arcana
Druid: +20 Knowledge Nature
Fighter: +20 Knowledge Engineering
Ranger: +20 Survival
Rogue: +20 Stealth
Cleric: +20 HealYeah, 'Berta failed to mention how the Druid, Fighter, and Cleric only have one skill each in this "example" and out-of-combat spells are tacitly ignored.
;)
Wait -- wasn't this a post about the usefulness of a group cooperating?
That's all it was my friend, just a quick example of how working together, well works.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I enjoy spending 75% of game time waiting for combat to start while the rest of the party gets to do things that aren't "I hit it with my stick".
It's okay, maybe someday Knowledge Engineering will matter and I'll get to be useful.
|
|
I enjoy spending 75% of game time waiting for combat to start while the rest of the party gets to do things that aren't "I hit it with my stick".
It's okay, maybe someday Knowledge Engineering will matter and I'll get to be useful.
Sounds like, and it is, a personal problem.
My fighter's don't suffer from that so why do you think you are having such a hard time?
Yeah, that's kinda weak
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Needing human skill point bonus and favored class bonuses and masterwork tools/magic competency items is just papering over the cracks though guys.
Fighters end up either sacrificing combat effectiveness or sacrificing utility to a degree that many other classes don't.
Fundamentally there is absolutely no reason why any class should be stuck with a 2+Int skill point value and mediocre skill list.
It was a design built around making the skillmonkey feel useful but the truth is that you can easily increase skill points across the board as well as increase the combat effectiveness of the rogue an not break the game. I'd venture that increasing skillpoints is one of the most common houserules in the game and there really was no reason not to fix in PF other than maintaining backwards compatibility with 3.5 statblocks.
|
|
Needing human skill point bonus and favored class bonuses and masterwork tools/magic competency items is just papering over the cracks though guys.
Fighters end up either sacrificing combat effectiveness or sacrificing utility to a degree that many other classes don't.
Fundamentally there is absolutely no reason why any class should be stuck with a 2+Int skill point value and mediocre skill list.
It was a design built around making the skillmonkey feel useful but the truth is that you can easily increase skill points across the board as well as increase the combat effectiveness of the rogue an not break the game. I'd venture that increasing skillpoints is one of the most common houserules in the game and there really was no reason not to fix in PF other than maintaining backwards compatibility with 3.5 statblocks.
Favored Skill points is something that everyone gets anyway so it's not like you are having to go outside the norm.
As long as you are hitting the DC's then who cares how high your score on your sheet needs to read?
Fighter's are at a point where they can sacrifice some combat, still kick ass at it and be able to go the skill route if need be.
What's the difference between really kicking ass and really really kicking ass?
Ashiel,I am well aware of what GM-Fiat means and I even say so. I don't need you to give me a dictionary definition. GM-Fiat is being used improperly here. It has traditionally been used to mean that the GM is railroading the players or is in a constant state of fudging to the point that the players actions have little to know meaning.
No, that's what you are insisting it means. It doesn't. Railroading, bad GMing, and perhaps GM fiat can indeed describe all of those things in more or less degrees of accuracy, but fiat is fiat, whether used for good or for ill. When you have to specifically mod the expectations of the game to suit a particular class then that is GM fiat used as a patch.
Example
Let's pretend that Rogues could only sneak attack with daggers. Just daggers. Now if I, as a GM, saw this and upped the availability of daggers in the game (such as choosing them for enemies instead of say axes, longspears, maces, greatswords, etc) then I'm using GM fiat to help patch a weakness that Rogues have.
It is not GM fiat to allow +3 or better weapons to be available. They are. They have price tags. They can be bought and sold or traded.
No, it really is. Standard is that only 16,000 gp weapons are readily available. Alternatively you may be running high or low magic (so you might double or halve this value) or you may decide you hate the rules and to throw them out entirely or mod them with optional rules.
NOTICE: Also, magic item prices mean more than just giving you a purchase number. The value of a magic item determines how much you can sell one for, how much money and time it takes to craft them, and is an indicator as to what sort of enemies can reasonably be expected to possess such an item (based on their treasure values). For example, the Ghaele Azata wields a +2 holy greatsword (a +4 equivalent weapon) which fits into her treasure value (32,000 / 34,800 gp).
They can be commissioned. They can be stolen. They exist therefore the party has a way of getting them if they want them. If you're going to allow casters access to higher level scrolls while denying martials access to higher level gear, you are favoring the casters. Or do you follow the randomness completely and sometimes there just aren't scrolls available?
Yes, I do follow the rules. You're not finding high level wands and scrolls just anywhere. You're not finding more than a 1st level scroll or potion in a thorpe unless it's one of the 1d4 minor items generated (good luck with that). Likewise, even going to a large town (2,000 gp limit) won't reliably find you 7th level spell scrolls (2,275 gp) even though they are cheap consumables.
Wizards aren't even required to use scrolls anyway. A wizard is allowed to purchase the right to copy spells from existing casters in a town (see Magic chapter) at a rate of 1/2 the amount to scribe the spell into your book. But again I follow the rules. You're not going to reliably find someone to learn from (someone capable of NPC spellcasting) unless the community supports it (see below).
In addition, not every town or village has a spellcaster of sufficient level to cast any spell. In general, you must travel to a small town (or larger settlement) to be reasonably assured of finding a spellcaster capable of casting 1st-level spells, a large town for 2nd-level spells, a small city for 3rd- or 4th-level spells, a large city for 5th- or 6th-level spells, and a metropolis for 7th- or 8th-level spells. Even a metropolis isn't guaranteed to have a local spellcaster able to cast 9th-level spells.
As for my comment about human fighters, you completely ignored the fact that I said he can get by with groups of weapons and if he's human he can be more versatile. A human fighter is still a fighter. He just has options not available to other fighters. Just like an elven archer has options not available to others elven fighters. By ignoring the options in a thread that specifically asks "What's so bad about fighter bonus feats?" seems like a way to weaken the class when we could be looking at what's available that strengthen it.
The critical term in this paragraph is "get by". And no, races do not make a class stronger. They may have synergy, but I've made dwarf wizards before, halfling rangers, and orc paladins before, and those classes still were good (even though the -2 Penalty to Charisma hurt on that Paladin, it just swung my stats around differently).
ALSO
I'm not going to argue with you or anyone else about "commissions". That's between a PC and an NPC and the GM. It's not assured, it's not in the rules, and it's about as valid to the argument as me statting a Paladin with a holy avenger at 8th level under the assumption that he convinced an NPC to make it for him for a down payment and pay for it in installments.
Fighter's are at a point where they can sacrifice some combat, still kick ass at it and be able to go the skill route if need be.
What's the difference between really kicking ass and really really kicking ass?
Mostly the fact that the other martials do so and don't have to sacrifice any combat.