|
What does everyone else do when Spellcraft and Knowledge Arcana are needed from the Wizard?
What does everyone else do when locks need to be picked?
What does everyone else do when there needs to be a Heal check?
What does everyone else do when a Knowledge Nature check is called for?
There are some classes that over shadow all other classes when it comes to skills. If you have a Bard or Rogue in the party then nobody else really needs to worry about making skill checks.
If you want to build a skilled fighter then go ahead but don't make false claims that a fighter isn't viable outside of combat because he can be but it makes more sense to let a class that has a higher skill rank make the roll. This is one of those cons to being in a group and the way the skill system works.
A fighter is there to fight, that is what he does and that is what he was designed to do.
Increasing it to 4 + Int skill points really doesn't do much more.
I am now convinced you don't even read my posts. The only part of my post mentioning skills was the first sentence, and that sentence stated that I didn't think that skills was the issue.
In fact, most of my post was about having more variety in combat as much as anything.
my suggestions.
increase base skill points to 4+int (6+int for lore warden and tactician)
more class skills, at the very least, perception, heal, sense motive, diplomacy, and knowledge (history).
|
Here is really what happens in game:
DM: Okay lads, you see a chest in the corner and find out it's locked.
Player 1: "Alright, who's got the highest Open Locks?"
Now each player will look at their sheet and see who has the highest bonus while second place will aid. Now the other three or four will just stand there and wait but that's okay because that's how teamwork works. Same with Diplomacy and any other social skills. When you have a bard or a rogue in the party then generally the other players don't even need to worry about doing skill checks unless it's one of those situations where everyone needs to make it, for example Swim.
Of course when the Bard/Rogue fails the check by 6 or more...
I have yet to play a game where the Bard/Rogue takes care of every skill check ever and never ever fails one so we need a backup guy.
Now it's already been proven you can have a skilled fighter...If you sacrifice a large chunk of in-combat efficiency.
so all this talk about lack of out of combat usefulness is b~%%*+~~ but of course some people like to close their eyes and ears so their argument will remain valid in their own mind.Oh come on now you're just FEEDING me these "Pot, kettle, black" lines.
Actually you don't have to give up much at all and it's already been proven.
Bluff:
Diplomacy:
Heal:
Knowledge:
Sense Motive:
Spellcraft: (Identify Spell)
Now with the above skills, there is not much of a retry so being backup is really pointless. I would say some of those would by the most used skills out there besides Perception.
|
|
my suggestions.
increase base skill points to 4+int (6+int for lore warden and tactician)
more class skills, at the very least, perception, heal, sense motive, diplomacy, and knowledge (history).
I would say give all classes 5 + Int skills points and grant more skill points to certain classes through a class feature.
Actually, the FIghter cannot take Skill Focus with any of his bonus feats, either. So that's a moot argument, too.
==Aelryinth
Okay so he uses one of his regular feats to take it and still has all his bonus feats to use.
Still doesn't change my argument.
Yes, it does, because now you're talking General feats, which have nothing to do with the weaknesses of the fighter class, or any class at all. You might as well be saying "This orc can take skill focus, and so can this human."
The fighter class has nothing to do with it.
I personally believe you could easily add a non-combat bonus feat every level on a fighter where they don't get a bonus combat feat, so they could TRULY be feated out, and things like the save feats, skill feats, and so on could be part of their 'non-combat pool', and that would round them out pretty good. It would also make up for their skill point discrepency to some degree...Perception doesn't need to be a class skill so much if you've Skill Focus and Alertness for +10 at level 10.
==Aelryinth
Actually, the FIghter cannot take Skill Focus with any of his bonus feats, either. So that's a moot argument, too.
==Aelryinth
Okay so he uses one of his regular feats to take it and still has all his bonus feats to use.
Still doesn't change my argument.
Yes, it does, because now you're talking General feats, which have nothing to do with the weaknesses of the fighter class, or any class at all. You might as well be saying "This orc can take skill focus, and so can this human."
The fighter class has nothing to do with it.
==Aelryinth
I disagree a bit with this. While it's true that everyone can grab General feats, and that being a Fighter doesn't give you any special access to them, the fact that Fighters get so many Combat feats means that they can afford to use their regular ones on other stuff.
A Paladin has no bonus feats, so he has to spend his regular feats to increase his combat skills. A Fighter can just use his bonus feats for that, and still have about as many feats to do whatever he want.
A Ranger, even with his bonus feats, probably won't get Iron Will, and they have the same weak will saves present on Fighters (well, except they are rewarded a bit more for having higher Wis), while a Fighter can easily afford it.
A Barbarian doesn't have enough feats to be a real switch hitter. He can do it, but it'll take a long while and seriously delay the growth of his melee capabilities.
It's the difference between earning $500 and earning $500 plus another $500 that must be spent on food. Since you'd be buying food anyway, you're basically getting $1000. Unfortunatelly, "feat food" is not as nutritive as "real class feature food".
Feats are most often not nearly as strong as actual class features, Fighters end up being much, much less versatile than all of those classes. And this cripples them much beyond what their feats can fix.
Weapon finesse DO work with disarm/trip attemps and with most dirty trick.
- Weapon Finesse bonus applies to Disarm and Dirty Trick combat maneuvers (so high-Dex rogues can still do these high-finesse moves)
Doesn't say anything about that directly in the manual itself, but the errata clears it up:
Manual says:
"Benefit: With a light weapon, elven curve blade, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.
Special: Natural weapons are considered light weapons."
and the errata says:
"If I have Weapon Finesse, can I apply my Dex bonus to my combat maneuver checks instead of my Strength bonus??
It depends on what combat maneuver you're attempting. Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon to perform the maneuver, and therefore the weapon’s bonuses apply to the roll. Therefore, if you're attempting a disarm, sunder, or trip maneuver, you can apply your Dex bonus instead of your Str mod on the combat maneuver check (assuming you're using a finessable weapon, of course). For other combat maneuvers, you use the normal rule for determining CMB (Str instead of Dex).
The Agile Maneuvers feat applies to all combat maneuvers, not just disarm, sunder, and trip, so it is still a useful option for a Dex-based creature that uses combat maneuvers."
Is a Dirty Trick using a "natural weapon"? I would probably argue that given the current rules, you need "Agile Maneuvers" to get Dex to apply to Dirty Tricks, which IMO is just a feat tax on Rogues.
I personally believe you could easily add a non-combat bonus feat every level on a fighter where they don't get a bonus combat feat, so they could TRULY be feated out, and things like the save feats, skill feats, and so on could be part of their 'non-combat pool', and that would round them out pretty good. It would also make up for their skill point discrepency to some degree...Perception doesn't need to be a class skill so much if you've Skill Focus and Alertness for +10 at level 10.==Aelryinth
I wonder if the problem isn't with the Fighter class and its skill selection, but with the skill mechanics as a whole.
Way above in this thread, someone pointed out that before skills even existed in D&D, you just made an ability check. When skills came along, your ability didn't matter nearly as much as your skill rank. This increase in bonus meant that suddenly, to give meaningful challenges to skilled characters, the unskilled characters couldn't do it except with a very-exceptional roll, if at all! THEN, they decided to have "class skills", so that anyone could train any skill, but you got an even BIGGER bonus if it was your class skill!
This means that anyone with few class skills and few skill points really can't do much with skills, even if your ability score was decent (e.g. Dex on a Fighter).
Also - why armor check penalties on skills? Isn't the movement speed penalty enough? Whose skills are penalized the heaviest? Fighter. Who needs heavy armor the most? Fighter. Who has the least skill points to try and offset this big penalty? Fighter. Why? Just because we don't want people to be able to acrobatics/swim/climb/sneak in heavy armor? How is this any fun? (okay, it's realistic, but it still sucks in gameplay).
Zrog
I wonder if the problem isn't with the Fighter class and its skill selection, but with the skill mechanics as a whole.
Way above in this thread, someone pointed out that before skills even existed in D&D, you just made an ability check. When skills came along, your ability didn't matter nearly as much as your skill rank. This increase in bonus meant that suddenly, to give meaningful challenges to skilled characters, the unskilled characters couldn't do it except with a very-exceptional roll, if at all! THEN, they decided to have "class skills", so that anyone could train any skill, but you got an even BIGGER bonus if it was your class skill!
This means that anyone with few class skills and few skill points really can't do much with skills, even if your ability score was decent (e.g. Dex on a Fighter).
I actually like the skill system. I like that my training and investment matters more than my ability scores. Precisely because raising skills is easier than ability scores.
If I want an Acrobat Cleric, I can have one, even with his low-ish Dex. A 10th level Cleric is a legendary warrior-priest, if he invested in Acrobatics, he should be better than the 2nd commoner with slightly higher Dex.Some skill checks DC may be a bit off sometimes, but nothing too bad. A bigger problem is that said DC are all over the place. Some skills can be safely ignored after investing 1 or 2 ranks (Climb, Swim, Ride, etc) while others need lots and lots of investment before you can actually use them (Acrobatics and UMD)
Also - why armor check penalties on skills? Isn't the movement speed penalty enough? Whose skills are penalized the heaviest? Fighter. Who needs heavy armor the most? Fighter. Who has the least skill points to try and offset this big penalty? Fighter. Why? Just because we don't want people to be able to acrobatics/swim/climb/sneak in heavy armor? How is this any fun? (okay, it's realistic, but it still sucks in gameplay).
Zrog
I hate ACP. Hate it. This is another instance of "realism" screwing over martial characters while caster can fly around shooting lasers.
Most of the time, the ACP is too high. And sometimes it doesn't even make sense! (e.g.: Ride).Honestly the one thing the ACP is actually reasonable, is Stealth, because armors are not only noisy, but also easier to spot. For all other skills, ACP could easily be halved.
In my games, ACP and speed reduction only apply if you're not proficient with your armor. This means Fighters "lose" a class features (because now everyone has the ACP reduction from armor training), but they get extra skill points and more class skills. They algo get to add the bonus from Bravery to all saving throws made against charm and compulsion effects.
King Frederick I Barbarossa drowned crossing a riven in a full plate.
If you think a caster have an unnecessary mobility advantage then force a concentration check (violent movement) if the try to move + cast.
King Frederick didn't live in a world with dragons and ghosts. And I think he wouldn't belong to any PC class even if he did. Maybe a 2nd level warrior/aristocrat.
Again, it's not that casters have too much mobility. It's that martials have too little. They also depend more on skills, since they lack spells, so why punish them for using their only option?In my games, ACP and speed reduction only apply if you're not proficient with your armor. This means Fighters "lose" a class features (because now everyone has the ACP reduction from armor training), but they get extra skill points and more class skills.I do not like it. I think extra skill should be on top of armor training.
They still get the increased max Dex bonus to AC, which is much more valluable than a small bonus to Climb/Swim.
Also, they don't suffer ACP at all, since they are proficient with their armor/shield. So while I say "lose a class feature", it's more like part of it is maxed from beginning. It just happens that other classes have the same feature, although Fighters still benefit much more from it (not everyone is proficient with heavy armor and/or tower shields).I still enforce the spell-failure chance, though. Even if the caster is proficient with whatever armor he's got, unless he has a class feature that lets him ignore it, like Bards and Magi.
|
|
You aren't going to fix a disparity by creeping everyone elses power level up to what you percieve is equality. And you are going to further break they game if you try.
If you find casters are overpowered in the game, the answer isn't to give everyone more stuff anymore than if you think one kid is fat, the answer isn't to make everyone else eat candy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You aren't going to fix a disparity by creeping everyone elses power level up to what you percieve is equality. And you are going to further break they game if you try.
If you find casters are overpowered in the game, the answer isn't to give everyone more stuff anymore than if you think one kid is fat, the answer isn't to make everyone else eat candy.
No offense, ciretose, but you often give me the impression that you think pretty much any improvement to any class ever is power creep. In fact, sometimes you also give me the impression you're so afraid of said power creep that you take stances againt anything new or different from the norm, like during the argument about TWFing with a two-handed sword and armor spikes.
I do not want martials to be as powerful as casters currently are. But I do want martials, specially Fighters, to be more versatile than now.
If a class is too weak, then it should be buffed. If a class is too strong, it should be nerfed.
It's not about making everyone fat. It's about making the fat kids eat less candy, but also making sure the malnourished ones get a decent meal, so everyone can meet at a healthy middle ground.
|
|
I played 3.5 before creep. I played it after creep. It started to suck at the end, because you couldn't play a common concept without being aquaman.
I don't want the game to reach a point like that again. Neither did the Devs when they started it, which is why all the core classes got a bump.
Also, if you recall, I was one of the loudest voices in the monk threads...for adding things.
I don't think fighters are too weak, unless schrodingers Wizard with liberal readings of all spells and 15 minute workdays happen. I think you can make a fighter who does a ton of damage, while still taking skill focus with one of the non-combat feats.
I think Rogues need a bump, and I think time will show the monk bump was a touch low for unarmed and a touch high for two handed flurry monks. I think fighters are about where they should be.
They are fighters. They fight. That is what they do.
I played 3.5 before creep. I played it after creep. It started to suck at the end, because you couldn't play a common concept without being aquaman.
I don't want the game to reach a point like that again. Neither did the Devs when they started it, which is why all the core classes got a bump.
I played 3.X too, you know. From the very beginning, in fact. There is a difference between making something better and making it too good. I don't think there's much risk of the latter with Fighters. Or any martial, actually.
Also, if you recall, I was one of the loudest voices in the monk threads...for adding things.
I do remember. Doesn't change my mind, though. Specially since Monks' weaknesses were so glaring that it was pretty hard to ignore. They're still the weakest base class in the game, IMO, but Paizo did give it a nice boost.
I don't think fighters are too weak, unless schrodingers Wizard with liberal readings of all spells and 15 minute workdays happen. I think you can make a fighter who does a ton of damage, while still taking skill focus with one of the non-combat feats.
I think Rogues need a bump, and I think time will show the monk bump was a touch low for unarmed and a touch high for two handed flurry monks. I think fighters are about where they should be.
This is where we disagree. I think Fighters are subpar and you think they're perfectly fine. We have different ideas of "what is balanced".
I have yet to see a PF character with so much g##~#% damage that it breaks the game.They are fighters. They fight. That is what they do.
Indeed. I just don't think this should come at the cost of doing anything else.
Every class can fight. Every single class. IMO, Fighters are not more effective at it than any other Full BAB class, or even mroe than most of the ones with medium BAB.Fighters just (usually) deal more damage.
But as you can see in my OP in this thread, I don't think "more damage" is good enough.
|
|
Indeed. I just don't think this should come at the cost of doing anything else.
Every class can fight. Every single class. IMO, Fighters are not more effective at it than any other class, they just (usually) have more damage.
But as you can see in my OP in this thread, I don't think "more damage" is good enough.
I agree with this sentiment. In fact, I would argue that the weapon training bonuses could be halved (min 1) and the extra replaced with some other features along with adding new options for bonus feats (or rather, allowing fighters to take some kind of "Fighter Talent" in place of a bonus feat).
It doesn't matter how much damage you do if you run up against an incorporeal creature with a non-magical weapon. If doesn't matter how much damage you do if you are mind-controlled, or the enemy is an illusion, or they have mirror image and/or displacement, or if they are an astral projection. It doesn't matter how much damage you do if it has regen or if it's a bloodied skeleton and you don't have fire damage or holy water (respectively).
If you want to make the fighter a better class, tone down their "+x to attack, +Y to damage" and turn up the other stuff. Give them a talent that lets them automatically disable the regeneration of foes no matter what damage type they deal (as long as the regen *can* be disabled, of course), give them abilities that let them deal full damage to incorporeal and insubstantial (hey, they can damage air elementals, why not ghosts?). It doesn't really matter how much damage they can deal if you don't give them abilities that let them deal with a foe that isn't simply a bag of HP. These abilities don't have to be automatic, but they should be available choices.
PS: Leave magic items out of it for now. Classes should be balanced and have options prior to magic items coming into play. The items should be there to shore up the weak spots, not replace functionality outright. I mean, it's okay for magic items to add a new capability or two, but you should see a comparable number of capabilities in each class *before* the items come into play, not just after.
The only fighter I played in PF retired at level 9 and was a spiked chain trip-focused build who had a cohort with a "wand of enlarge" so that he turned into a 30' radius tripping machine.
He was also a divorced drunken lout with a gambling problem and a daughter he was desperately trying to get married to a wealthy young man.
In the end he became the Sultan of a small desert city.
I thought he was a lot of fun to play. Never ran into anything where I thought "this sucks."
sorry AD but any time now that I read a post and see 'spiked chain' I just stop reading because that ship has sailed and is over the horizon my friend
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe you mean "Wand of Embiggen Person". It's a common mistake.
sorry AD but any time now that I read a post and see 'spiked chain' I just stop reading because that ship has sailed and is over the horizon my friend
LOL, well in PF "spiked chain" doesn't mean anything like it did in 3.5... Sadly.
|
|
The only fighter I played in PF retired at level 9 and was a spiked chain trip-focused build who had a cohort with a "wand of enlarge" so that he turned into a 30' radius tripping machine.
He was also a divorced drunken lout with a gambling problem and a daughter he was desperately trying to get married to a wealthy young man.
In the end he became the Sultan of a small desert city.
I thought he was a lot of fun to play. Never ran into anything where I thought "this sucks."
That's because all of the things you mention that made him fun can be done by anyone. About the only thing in there that can't be done 100% by every class without any investment is the tripping and the cohort. The latter can be done easily with 1 feat by anyone, while the former is the only thing you mention that a fighter might actually be best at, but could still be done by others with enough effectiveness to be fun.
The difference between fighter and every other class option for that character is that the other classes can do something *other* than hit it with a stick (or chain) with their class abilities.
No-one's arguing that the fighter can't be fun. They're arguing that the fighter has nothing specific to them that makes them fun.
The only fighter I played in PF retired at level 9 and was a spiked chain trip-focused build who had a cohort with a "wand of enlarge" so that he turned into a 30' radius tripping machine.
So the cohort was either necessary or a veyr big part of his effectiveness... Yeah, that makes a good case for Fighters.
He was also a divorced drunken lout with a gambling problem and a daughter he was desperately trying to get married to a wealthy young man.
In the end he became the Sultan of a small desert city.
I thought he was a lot of fun to play. Never ran into anything where I thought "this sucks."
Those are very cool examples of role-playing and I commend you for that.
It has nothing to do with being a Fighter, though.I can have lots of fun roleplaying a Commoner. It doesn't change the fact that the Commoner class is much weaker than the others.
Stabbity, it's been a while, but I'm going to go back to that fighter.
Frequently the tripping was a poor option because the GM was throwing floating, flying or multi-legged critters at us. So in those cases he used a regular sword which his cohort would enchant with a "magic weapon" wand. He had a pretty solid AC and frequently he would fight defensively in large form and just bottle up the opposition so that the party spellcasters could take care of putting things down. He also had a tower shield and in large form he could block off an entire hallway if he needed to.
But in terms of 'non-fighter' roles, he did quite a bit.
Yeah, he had a pretty sucky skill list, but he still had skills. He didn't have a lot of skill ranks, but he still used his skills. He succeeded more than you might think, especially with skills that benefited from being large. It turns out that there's quite a few things that being large helps you with outside of combat.
He was built as a "combat reflexes" sort of dude, which meant a high dex. There's a lot of dex-based skills, so by putting a single rank he got at least a +4 in the skill. Some were even class skills (yeah, fighters get class skills) so in those he was at +7, plus whatever other ranks he put into it.
I think sometimes people take the position that if you can't optimize an option, you can't do it. That's actually not true. My fighter didn't have a lot of skill points, but by level 9 he had enough to put a single rank into a lot of them. And if he had a single rank, heck, he could at least TRY. His cohort could cast "guidance" and aid him, so that was a +3 on most skill checks right there. Sure, he failed sometimes, but that can be fun too.
I'm just not getting the "fighters can't do anything out of combat" vibe. I think it's true that fighters are not optimal, but optimal is not the only option. You know sometimes you roll that 15 or better and then your crappy little "skill-starved" fighter can even seduce that barmaid. It doesn't hurt to have the cohort and other party members aiding in that attempt, you know.
|
|
Stabbity, it's been a while, but I'm going to go back to that fighter.
Frequently the tripping was a poor option because the GM was throwing floating, flying or multi-legged critters at us. So in those cases he used a regular sword which his cohort would enchant with a "magic weapon" wand. He had a pretty solid AC and frequently he would fight defensively in large form and just bottle up the opposition so that the party spellcasters could take care of putting things down. He also had a tower shield and in large form he could block of an entire hallway if he needed to.
But in terms of 'non-fighter' roles, he did quite a bit.
Yeah, he had a pretty sucky skill list, but he still had skills. He didn't have a lot of skill ranks, but he still used his skills. He succeeded more than you might think, especially with skills that benefited from being large. It turns out that there's quite a few things that being large helps you with outside of combat.
He was built as a "combat reflexes" sort of dude, which meant a high dex. There's a lot of dex-based skills, so by putting a single rank he got at least a +4 in the skill. Some were even class skills (yeah, fighters get class skills) so in those he was at +7, plus whatever other ranks he put into it.
I think sometimes people take the position that if you can't optimize an option, you can't do it. That's actually not true. My fighter didn't have a lot of skill points, but by level 9 he had enough to put a single rank into a lot of them. And if he had a single rank, heck, he could at least TRY. His cohort could cast "guidance" and aid him, so that was a +3 on most skill checks right there. Sure, he failed sometimes, but that can be fun too.
I'm just not getting the "fighters can't do anything out of combat" vibe. I think it's true that fighters are not optimal, but optimal is not the only option. You know sometimes you roll that 15 or better and then your crappy little fighter can even seduce that barmaid.
This actually only reinforces my point. My point was that anything a fighter can do, so can anyone else. They may not have as big of a + on the "hit with stick", but they can still do it and can also do so many other things.
Everything you listed that you enjoyed was something anyone else could do and that most could do better. Sure, maybe they have a to spend a feat on tower shield proficiency, but they can do that. I doubt you could argue that the tower shield was a major part of the character, however.
About the only thing a fighter can do that other's can't is auto-confirm (@20th only, so not hugely relevant) and move faster in armor. Even the feats with "Fighter level X" aren't really exclusive since other classes are often treated as fighter for the purposes of qualifying for those (admittedly slightly slower, but they're there).
I guess I'm missing the point entirely then. I thought this particular tangent was about how fighters suck at everything except combat.
I think I've demonstrated that with a little thought and effort, that's not true.
Sure there are always ways to have a different character be better than your character at whatever you are doing.
But believe it or not, that's true of a wizard too. There's always that one wizard that's even better than you. That doesn't make your wizard useless.
I also don't get the point of saying "heck, every class can have a cohort, so you can't say that helps the fighter."
What? Well, it did help. A lot. A whole lot. And it specifically helped my fighter deal with non-combat situations pretty well.
Because you know what? My cohort had skills and abilities too. So I invested a feat into it.
Is there a class that has more feats to spare?
|
|
Basically, if it's something anyone can take as a general feat, it's not helping the fighter specifically, it's helping everyone.
What I (and I assume others) want to see out of fighter is a list of things that are truly class features, not just a pile of extra feats and +1 bonuses to hit. So far as I can tell that list includes Armor Training, Armor Mastery and Weapon Mastery, 2 of which occur at 19th level + (which not even the APs get to). Armor Training is the only thing on the list that is (mostly) exclusive to fighters and available at a reasonable level, and even that can be emulated by playing a dwarf that wears mithril. I admit that that's a bit more of a corner case, so I'll give fighters the Armor Training thing as a useful exclusive feature.
The kind of thing I'm talking about when I say "need more interesting features" can be shown by listing some class features available to other martial classes:
- Barbarian -> Can take rage powers that grant pounce, natural attacks, alternate sensory modes, ability to damage incorporeal as though ghost touch with all weapons, ability to break spells with their bare hands, etc.
- Ranger -> Gets an animal companion, cannot be tracked in their terrains, great at tracking in general, has many options available via spells, can eventually stealth in their favored terrains no matter what.
- Paladin -> Can enhance any random scrap of barely-usable weapon into a force of death, is immune to fear and disease, has various useful spells, can heal conditions and heal themselves as a swift action, can channel energy.
- Cavalier -> Can grant their allies teamwork feats to help people work together, grant bonuses to allies, get a nice (and intelligent!) animal companion.
- Gunslinger -> Arguably the most boring of the non-fighter full-bab classes, still has various deeds that allow them to do things like cause conditions via called shots, break open locks, and that sort of thing.
Note that all of the above is available before 10th level (with the exception of the ranger hiding in their favored terrains sans-cover, which is 12th). In fact, most of it is available by about 6th level.
PS: I'm actually not a big fan of gunslinger, either. I think the whole "touch AC" and "misfire" thing shouldn't have been tossed out to simplify it and replace the class abilities that mitigate the misfires into interesting class abilities like the kind of thing I listed under the other classes.
Stabbity, so getting all those extra bonus feats don't count then?
Man, I personally love feats. I think they are about the most powerful options in the game, barring certain spells. And of the feats, the best feats are typically the combat feats.
And the fighter gets TONS of extra ones.
Not only is that, to me, a great class feature, it's one of the most flexible and powerful ones.
There are certain builds that require both extensive feat prerequisites AND fighter only feats. Fighters can do those and still have feats left over for skill focus, cohorts, extra traits, etc.
I see what you are saying Stabbity, but I guess I think sitting on a boatload of the most flexible and powerful options in the game is a pretty nice class feature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, when it comes to "doing anything other than hitting stuff" Fighters have to invest much more than any other class to have equal of less return.
The restrictions that martialss suffer are particullary bad for Fighters.
I don't want Fighters (or any other matial class, actually) to be improved by raising their DPR or AC.
I want more versatility and variety, in and out of combat. It's a shame that no martial class can do the stuff I mentioned a while ago, like deflecting rays, tripping giants or bouncing shields like Captain America.
It's even worse that they can't walk 10ft without losing all their efficiency.
I always roll my eyes when people say Gunslingers, archers, Paladins or Barbarians are broken because the deal OMGWTFBBQ damage.
What can any of these classes do that would completely change a campaign? Or overshadow a specialist character on their main role? How good are they when they can't solve their problems by killing stuff? Or when said-stuff is more than a big pile of HP?
Paladins are very well balanced because they can do their main job effectivelly and still contribute a lot in many, many different kinds of situations. They heal, they buff, they talk. They can do all that, but never so well that they will outperform a specialist healer/buffer/party-face.
Same can be said about Bards and Inquisitors. They're awesome at their main job and can be built for many different roles. No matter what they choose to specialize, it won't be the only thing they can do effectively. They'll still be able to do a lot of stuff that is not their specialization, but they won't do it as well as characters focused on doing said stuff.
If there's a difference in power/versatily between these classes, it's pretty small.
If every other class was as well balanced as these 3. I'd be satisfied.
|
|
Stabbity, so getting all those extra bonus feats don't count then?
Man, I personally love feats. I think they are about the most powerful options in the game, barring certain spells. And of the feats, the best feats are typically the combat feats.
And the fighter gets TONS of extra ones.
Not only is that, to me, a great class feature, it's one of the most flexible and powerful ones.
There are certain builds that require both extensive feat prerequisites AND fighter only feats. Fighters can do those and still have feats left over for skill focus, cohorts, extra traits, etc.
I see what you are saying Stabbity, but I guess I think sitting on a boatload of the most flexible and powerful options in the game is a pretty nice class feature.
My problem with the bonus feats feature is that most such feats are decidedly "meh" compared to the talents that other classes get. I can take "+1 to attack with longswords" or "two claw attacks". I can take "bull rush without provoking" or I can take "pounce".
Sure, the feats can be effective, but they're also boring.
There also seems to be a stigma against giving feats anything that might be considered remotely supernatural. Causing bleed is considered a fine feat, but damage incorporeals is not. Causing bull-rushed foes to provoke is fine, but countering a foe's regen is not.
In the end, 90+% of the feat options available to fighter are either a flat bonus or provide a benefit that becomes largely irrelevant very quickly (e.g. nearly every combat maneuver feat).
If they started opening up the idea of having higher level (8+) combat feats be capable of being equivalent to (Ex) or even (Su) abilities then I might withdraw my complaint against fighters.
I disagree a bit with this. While it's true that everyone can grab General feats, and that being a Fighter doesn't give you any special access to them, the fact that Fighters get so many Combat feats means that they can afford to use their regular ones on other stuff.A Paladin has no bonus feats, so he has to spend his regular feats to increase his combat skills. A Fighter can just use his bonus feats for that, and still have about as many feats to do whatever he want.
A Ranger, even with his bonus feats, probably won't get Iron Will, and they have the same weak will saves present on Fighters (well, except they are rewarded a bit more for having higher Wis), while a Fighter can easily afford it.
A Barbarian doesn't have enough feats to be a real switch hitter. He can do it, but it'll take a long while and seriously delay the growth of his melee capabilities.It's the difference between earning $500 and earning $500 plus another $500 that must be spent on food. Since you'd be buying food anyway, you're basically getting $1000. Unfortunatelly, "feat food" is not as nutritive as "real class feature food".
Feats are most often not nearly as strong as actual class features, Fighters end up being much, much less versatile than all of those classes. And this cripples them much beyond what their feats can fix.
barbarians have Iron WIll+ built into their Rage. And they can get Superstitious on top of it for saves as good or better then a Paladin.
Rangers usually end up with a slightly better Wis score base and get their Will save up with that. Taking Iron WIll isn't all that uncommon among them, and they already have the good Reflex save that blows Lightning Reflexes out of the water.
Let me Rephrase that first paragraph for you:
I disagree a bit with this. While it's true that everyone can grab General feats, and that being a Fighter doesn't give you any special access to them, the fact that Fighters get so many Class Features means that they can afford to use their general feats on other stuff.
And that's why it doesn't make sense. Just because the Fighter gets Class features that are there to do the same thing as the barbarian and ranger's class features, doesn't make them a lick better or easier at taking Skill Focus with their general feats. And they don't get anywhere near the class features that a caster does, AND their class features tend to be equal to the power of feats...that is, worth half the class features of other classes.
Which is wrong.
==Aelryinth
Ah well, somehow I just get this feeling that no matter what the game designers do, SOME class is going to be less effective than other classes according to some players' definitions of effective.
I have played the following classes in Pathfinder:
Ranger
Fighter
Witch
Druid
I have also created and played as a GM the following PC classes in PF:
Wizard
Cleric
Rogue
Sorcerer
(Probably others I'm not remembering right now)
I have not come away with the feeling that any of them are "unplayable." Sure some are more flexible, some are more powerful some are more interesting to me personally. But I've done pretty much whatever I wanted to with all of them.
Don't get me wrong, Aelryinth, I see your point and mostly agree with you.
I just pointed out that since Fighter have more combat feats than they actually need, they can afford to spend feats to do different stuff.
All those 3 classes are IMO, better choices than Fighters. Rangers may have the same weak wll saves, but they get a lot more in many other areas, so it's not so much of a problem.
Just like Paladins also have only 2 skill points per level, exactly like Fighters, but since Pallies also get better class skills and spells, plus all their other goodies, the lack of skill points is not crippling.
Barbarians are share the big-hitter role with Fighters, but they also get lots of cool abilities to do all sorts of different stuff in combat.
All these classes share 1 ot maybe 2 weaknesses with Fighters. The difference is that they make up for it in other areas and/or are given a way to deal with their shortcomings.
I mantain that Fighters have an easier time getting whatever feats they wan, but more often than not, other classes don't need those feats and they don't suffer for not having them nearly as much as Fighter suffer for not having actual class features.
Ah well, somehow I just get this feeling that no matter what the game designers do, SOME class is going to be less effective than other classes according to some players' definitions of effective.
That's true. And not much of a problem, actually.
Even in computer games, where patches are very common and easy to implement, it's nearly impossible for all options to be balanced.
Hey, Street Fighter 4 is in its 4th version and it's still not perfectly balanced. And there are a lot less variables in it than in your average PF game.
I don't have a problem with that. What I have a proble with is:
- The power/versatility GAP between classes is huge! The difference between a Druid and a Rogues is not minor detail here and there, those classes operate in completely different scales of power.
- Not only that, but often classes lack options to even do their job without major investment, while others are oversaturated with too many options. Wizards aren't just more powerful", they are too powerful. The problem is not that Monks are weaker than Rangers, the problem is that they are too weak.
Here is sort of how I feel about the fundamental issue of "some classes are better than other classes".
First of all, to me that's a tautology. Balance is not only impossible, it's pointless to pursue in a game where some classes have magic and some don't. The only way to get there is to have every class be a wizard in all but name, and I've played that game and I prefer this one.
Second, the difference in effectiveness between classes is easily overshadowed by the difference in effectiveness between players building characters. In other words, even if wizards are better than fighters, I'm willing to bet I can build fighters that are more effective than some wizards in the game.
Third, all of this is predicated on the notion that power is more important than anything else, and in my opinion power is probably the least important part of the game, at least the way I play it.
When I think back on my characters from over the years, how "powerful" they were is not remotely the most memorable thing about them. In fact in all the years I've played this game I have had only a single character that I actually felt was so underpowered that I needed to retire and replace him. And that was a spellthief in 3.5 in a campaign where the GM rarely had us encounter spellcasters, so his primary ability was virtually never utilized and he just didn't have enough secondary abilities to keep up with the rest of the party.
My character memories are mostly like the following:
1. The wizard who went insane because his buddy died and every attempt to raise or resurrect him failed.
2. The ranger who devoted his life to fighting evil dragons and who raised a hippogriff from an egg to become his companion and mount.
3. The drug, alcohol, gambling and sex addicted witch with a god-complex who is secretly manipulating pretty much every power player in town.
4. The half-dryad/half-elf druid who avenged the destruction of her mother oak and dryad grove and who is rebuilding the forest and re-establishing a dryad family.
Etc. etc...
Some of those characters have been the most powerful characters in their respective parties, some have been the least.
I don't really care, because my goal is to create and play interesting, fun and engaging characters first and foremost.
In fact I find that being less powerful is sometimes a fun role-playing option itself.
First of all, to me that's a tautology. Balance is not only impossible, it's pointless to pursue in a game where some classes have magic and some don't. The only way to get there is to have every class be a wizard in all but name, and I've played that game and I prefer this one.
I disagree. Magic as it is in 3.X/PF is too powerful, but I've seen RPGs where magic is not nearly as broken.
Like I said, Paladins are very well balanced with Bards and Inuqisitors, and spll-casting is a significant, but stiill minor part of the class. I'm sure a competent and motivated designer can create a non-spell casting Paladin that is very close to the vanilla Paladin in terms of power.Second, the difference in effectiveness between classes is easily overshadowed by the difference in effectiveness between players building characters. In other words, even if wizards are better than fighters, I'm willing to bet I can build fighters that are more effective than some wizards in the game.
Maybe. Doesn't make a difference. No class should be so much more powerful than the others that its players should either gimp himself or play with much more skilled character builders to be competitive.
Third, all of this is predicated on the notion that power is more important than anything else, and in my opinion power is probably the least important part of the game, at least the way I play it.
Wrong. Read my OP again if you want.
It's not about having "more power" or even "more options". It's about having enough options.
I have fun despite the bad class balance. Never because of it. If I want to play a weaker character, I can do it without some classes being inherently superior to others.
When I think back on my characters from over the years, how "powerful" they were is not remotely the most memorable thing about them. In fact in all the years I've played this game I have had only a single character that I actually felt was so underpowered that I needed to retire and replace him. And that was a spellthief in 3.5 in a campaign where the GM rarely had us encounter spellcasters, so his primary ability was virtually never utilized and he just didn't have enough secondary abilities to keep up with the rest of the party.
Again, it's not about chracter power. I want my chracters to have enough power/versatility to pull different tricks and contribute in every situation.
They don't need to be the best at everything. But I don't want them to be so bad that their presence adds nothing to the group (e.g.:Fighter in a social encounter) or so powerful that the group adds nothing to his survival (optimized wizard at higher levels).I don't want classes to be the same, but I want them to be balanced. I'd hate Street Fighter if all I choose from was Ken and Ryu. But since I have not only those two, but also Guile, Zangief, Cammy and many others, all of them very well (although not perfectly) balanced, I love the game.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If things won't ever be 100% perfect then we shouldn't bother to try improving anything ever or expect anything to improve ever.
Now if you'll excuse me I need to go jump off a building. It's not like I'd be immortal even if I didn't jump so no real harm done.
Lemmy, my fighter was the most fun, most compelling and most important member of the party he was in. If he had not been there providing the shield for the spellcasters, the spellcasters would have been chewed up like popcorn.
I felt that was a pretty important role.
And outside of combat he did at least as much "non-combat" stuff as the rest of the party. Probably more. Because I like that stuff and I don't need a 95% chance of success before I'm willing to attempt something.
We'll just have to disagree about pretty much all of your points. If they "fix" the fighter to satisfy you, then others will just whine that the fighter is "broken! broken! broken!" and you or someone else will then just start complaining about some other class that is now the low class on the totem pole.
But that's what these boards are for.
Carry on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If things won't ever be 100% perfect then we shouldn't bother to try improving anything ever or expect anything to improve ever.
Now if you'll excuse me I need to go jump off a building. It's not like I'd be immortal even if I didn't jump so no real harm done.
Have a nice trip. Don't forget to write.
|
|
Any time you claim that balance is impossible or that "4e tried, so we shouldn't", all you're doing is giving up before you start. Sure, it's impossible for balance to be perfect, but it is perfectly possible for balance to be adequate.
While the classes may be close enough that a skilled optimizer could make the weakest class equal to what an unskilled player could make out of the strongest, that's not a very close gap at all. As a skilled optimizer myself, I find that the gap between "optimized" and "unoptimized" is often a factor of 3 or 4 in table attention. And, let's face it, table attention is the thing we should be balancing for here.
The key problem with the current state of balance is that any time I can think of a character that might be a fighter or rogue, I can think of another class that can accomplish the same role but better due to having more varied options. They may only be 90% as effective in the primary niche, but they are 100% more effective in a plethora of others.
Any time you claim that balance is impossible or that "4e tried, so we shouldn't", all you're doing is giving up before you start. Sure, it's impossible for balance to be perfect, but it is perfectly possible for balance to be adequate.
Not only is it perfectly possible for balance to be adequate stabbity, in my opinion that's already been achieved. Oh, what? You disagree? Then we have to try again? When will everyone agree? Oh, that's what I mean by impossible. Yeah.
While the classes may be close enough that a skilled optimizer could make the weakest class equal to what an unskilled player could make out of the strongest, that's not a very close gap at all. As a skilled optimizer myself, I find that the gap between "optimized" and "unoptimized" is often a factor of 3 or 4 in table attention. And, let's face it, table attention is the thing we should be balancing for here.
Not everyone cares as much as you do about this "problem". Many of us who might even agree that this is true don't see it as a "problem" either. That's because "combat power" is not the only thing that we feel drives "table attention."
The key problem with the current state of balance is that any time I can think of a character that might be a fighter or rogue, I can think of another class that can accomplish the same role but better due to having more varied options. They may only be 90% as effective in the primary niche, but they are 100% more effective in a plethora of others.
Then, by many, many people's definitions based on what I've seen on these boards, the ONLY class that really is balanced is the wizard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is sort of how I feel about the fundamental issue of "some classes are better than other classes".
First of all, to me that's a tautology. Balance is not only impossible, it's pointless to pursue in a game where some classes have magic and some don't. The only way to get there is to have every class be a wizard in all but name, and I've played that game and I prefer this one.
Except balance is not impossible, you simply believe it is or prefer to say it is so that the game will remain unbalanced. And the fact that some classes have magic is not what's holding that back. It's the fact that magic in this game is far too powerful. Not every game has magic that can do pretty much anything at any time if you have a spell slot high enough. They work just fine, and can be balanced when some classes have magic and some don't.
I don't know many tabletop games, but for all the scoffing and elitist sneering MMOs get on this forum, they do a pretty good job of making sure of that.
You're thinking only in one direction: Buffing every class to be on par with Wizard. Balancing UP being the only option in your eyes.
But it requires much more finesse than that to fix something. You have to balance some classes up, yes. But you have to balance some downward (nerf), and some even need to be balanced sideways (Not precisely more powerful or less powerful, just...different so they're not a one trick pony whose trick is ridiculously good but he's useless everywhere else or some such).
Second, the difference in effectiveness between classes is easily overshadowed by the difference in effectiveness between players building characters. In other words, even if wizards are better than fighters, I'm willing to bet I can build fighters that are more effective than some wizards in the game.
And that is not how you balance things. You do not balance for "This thing is really really good but if you suck with it it also sucks".
You may be able to build a Fighter that is better than Newbie Joe's Wizard, but I sincerely doubt you'd be able to build a Fighter that was more powerful than a Wizard that you tried to optimize.
Third, all of this is predicated on the notion that power is more important than anything else, and in my opinion power is probably the least important part of the game, at least the way I play it.
It's more important than quite a lot of things. As an exaggerated example, if you have one class who is literally omnipotent and can do anything with infinite power and efficiency, is that inconsequential? No, it isn't. It doesn't matter how well you optimize or how well you roleplay, the rest of the game becomes superfluous as long as that class exists.
hen I think back on my characters from over the years, how "powerful" they were is not remotely the most memorable thing about them. In fact in all the years I've played this game I have had only a single character that I actually felt was so underpowered that I needed to retire and replace him. And that was a spellthief in 3.5 in a campaign where the GM rarely had us encounter spellcasters, so his primary ability was virtually never utilized and he just didn't have enough secondary abilities to keep up with the rest of the party.
My character memories are mostly like the following:
1. The wizard who went insane because his buddy died and every attempt to raise or resurrect him failed.
2. The ranger who devoted his life to fighting evil dragons and who raised a hippogriff from an egg to become his companion and mount.
3. The drug, alcohol, gambling and sex addicted witch with a god-complex who is secretly manipulating pretty much every power player in town.
4. . The half-dryad/half-elf druid who avenged the destruction of her mother oak and dryad grove and who is rebuilding the forest and re-establishing a dryad family.
Etc. etc...
Some of those characters have been the most powerful characters in their respective parties, some have been the least.
I don't really care, because my goal is to create and play interesting, fun and engaging characters first and foremost.
In fact I find that being less powerful is sometimes a fun role-playing option itself.
Well bully for you and all that, but can you seriously sit there and tell me with a straight face that you wouldn't have more fun if each of your character concepts had the potential to be as powerful in its own way as any other character concept?
Sucking does not make things more fun. Just because you can have fun IN SPITE OF sucking does not mean that you cannot have fun once you stop sucking with the same concept.
|
|
Any time you claim that balance is impossible or that "4e tried, so we shouldn't", all you're doing is giving up before you start. Sure, it's impossible for balance to be perfect, but it is perfectly possible for balance to be adequate.Not only is it perfectly possible for balance to be adequate stabbity, in my opinion that's already been achieved. Oh, what? You disagree? Then we have to try again? When will everyone agree? Oh, that's what I mean by impossible. Yeah.
While the classes may be close enough that a skilled optimizer could make the weakest class equal to what an unskilled player could make out of the strongest, that's not a very close gap at all. As a skilled optimizer myself, I find that the gap between "optimized" and "unoptimized" is often a factor of 3 or 4 in table attention. And, let's face it, table attention is the thing we should be balancing for here.Not everyone cares as much as you do about this "problem". Many of us who might even agree that this is true don't see it as a "problem" either. That's because "combat power" is not the only thing that we feel drives "table attention."
The key problem with the current state of balance is that any time I can think of a character that might be a fighter or rogue, I can think of another class that can accomplish the same role but better due to having more varied options. They may only be 90% as effective in the primary niche, but they are 100% more effective in a plethora of others.Then, by many, many people's definitions based on what I've seen on these boards, the ONLY class that really is balanced is the wizard.
Oh good, let's disregard attempts at dialog by resorting to vitriol. I like that game. It usually ends with nothing getting done and people hurt, but why not.
You didn't say "making people agree it is balanced is impossible", you said "making it balanced is impossible". I responded to what you said, not what you are ret-conning that you said. You can disagree with me all you want about whether we are currently balanced, but what I see are classes without niches of their own.
And sure, combat power isn't the only determiner of table attention, which is why it sucks that fighters have the least non-combat power of any class while gaining only the tiniest fraction of extra in-combat attention in return. At least other classes get features that make them better in a wider variety of combat situations.
Either way, I never claimed this was a game-breaking problem (though others might have, I have not). I have simply claimed that it is a problem that is large enough to be worth looking into.
As to your seemingly pointless "make everyone a wizard" comment: I don't care what "most people on the forum" think, I care what those that are willing to discuss things in an honest and intellectual fashion think. The type that do not mistake "problem" as meaning "the game doesn't work" or confuse the statements made by different posters with each-other, allowing themselves to be misguided as to the actual opinions of those they are talking to.
Obviously there will always be those who say everything is unbalanced, and they might even be little pricks about it, but that doesn't mean that there isn't at least a minor problem that could be corrected.
I'm not saying the fighter should be redesigned, here, I'm just asking for options that tell those who think that 20th level fighters shouldn't even remotely resemble magical creatures to stuff it. I don't care how big the number gets next to your attack and damage, if you can't break physics in some way at that tier, you simply lose. Full stop. Heck, the fact that their numbers can even get that high should itself be an indication of being more than mere man.
And therein lies the essential problem with fighter. They, and the rogue, are the only classes that no-one is willing to give at least slightly supernatural-looking (even if Ex) abilities to. Barbarians, Paladins and Rangers all break physics in some way at that tier (and do so by 6th level, actually), but Fighters and Rogues for some reason cannot. You even mention it and people get upset.
If you want a world where a martial character can't break physics, then Pathfinder is not your game. Breaking physics at high levels is by design. Don't like it? Play E6 or find another game.
|
|
My Homebrew GMing rules to prevent Casters from obliterating Marial character's usefulness at higher levels.
1. Paladin and Fighters get 4-skills
2. Fighters and Barbs get full Reflex and Rogues get full FORT (these guys are physical specimens, this should be the case anyways.)
3. Arcane casters are even more restricted to their specialization school (Sorc & Magus have to take a school and no universalists, Bards & Summoners were excluded from this)
4. An arcane caster gets NO SPELLS from their opposition school.
5. An arcane caster only gets full spell progression in their school.
6. Every 3 spell levels, a caster may select 1 spell from outside of their school to learn that is 2 spell levels lower than their highest spell level.
7. Clerics & Druids had to maintain a prayer book, like a Wizard's Spell Book. They also were restricted to the same number of known prayers as a same-level Wizard 's known spells (using WIS instead of Int.
8. Druids were limited to Animal, Plant, Earth and Water domains if they chose to take a domain (A druid being able to cast entangle and fireball is B.S. lol)
9. Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, and Paladins can always take 10 and take 15 on any DEX or STR based skill they have at least 5 skill ranks in.
10. Fighters and Rogues are given Exotic Weapon Prof at level 1 as a free feat.
Did this fix all the problems, of course not, I'd have to rewrite the game significantly to "balance" it. But it did keep the non-Casters viable in the later levels. Sure the Evocation Wizard could blast things to oblivion, but now he had to get across that narrow ledge the same way as the fighter and the Rogue did. And that Transmutation guy was flying over the bridge and slowing creatures, but he didn't have acid pit to wipe out 4 bad guys at once.