We'll see which one lasts longest, OK?You say that like UMD isn't the factor that is making the characters versatile.
Let's just do it Tri. You bring your UMD using commoner (starting at level 1) into, say, Rise of the Rune Lords and I'll bring a UMD using fighter. No rhetoric. No semantics.
Let's just play the characters and see which one is "more versatile".
LOL, OK, a Pathfinder one then. Carrion Crown then.
One final thought. One thing the fighter brings to the table that I personally think is being totally ignored in this discussion of the "superiority" of the other martial classes is that unlike every other martial class, the fighter brings no preconceived role playing notions with him.
Nobody is going to say, "Oh, you're a fighter, track this villain for me." Or "Oh, you're a fighter, rage for me." or "Oh, you're a fighter, detect evil for me."
I personally find a lot of value in this "blank slate" potential for fighters because I tend to like unusual characters and I find the class system to be too constraining and cookie-cutter.
Playing a fighter with skills means I can pretty much pick whatever I want to do and surprise everyone when I can do it, instead of people assuming what I should be doing.
I think that's a very big advantage from a pure role playing perspective. And this is, as I recall, a ROLE PLAYING game.
Adamantine, the fact that other classes are better is perfectly relevant.
Perhaps, somewhere in this game there is one class that is better than all the rest, but that class is obviously imperceptibly better than the other classes on par with it since it has yet to be shown what class that could possibly be, so that doesn't matter.
The problem with Fighters is that they are measurably and demonstrably worse than other characters at anything but fighting. A lesser investment from another class gets the same effect a heavy investment from the Fighter gets when trying to do skills. A heavy investment from another class outstrips said Fighter. And other than fighting and skills, the Fighter doesn't have access to much else. He's not got even minor spellcasting, he's got no class features that help out of combat, and his main class feature (Bonus Feats) only adds to his combat ability.
That's an issue.
A Fighter should be able to be a skilled character without being a Lore Warden, and without relying on Traits, just like pretty much every other class in the game.
This is just like the problems with Rogues (they're measurably and demonstrably worse at anything but not-fighting) and Monks (they're second best at a lot of things, but personally I like that).
I'd argue that while it isn't a bad feat, Dodge isn't a good prerequisite simply because it's forcing you to burn a feat you might not otherwise take to get one that you do want more.
What if a wizard couldn't learn Summon Monster IV unless he had SM I-III in his spellbook? What if he couldn't cast it unless he had SM I-III prepared for the day first?
What if you did the same with, say, Burning Hands - Scorching Ray - Fireball?
Sure, it would make logical sense, but it would also make those spells a much bigger drain on resources, even if the earlier spells were still something that could be handy, a Wizard may well rather have a Haste or Prot From Evil prepared/known instead.
What you are describing here looks a lot like the Shadow Caster class from the 3.5 era.
Rynjin and kyrt:
Again, I am not convinced that fighters are worse in every case than some other contrived martial class build.
And also again, even if that is true, I believe it has been demonstrated that the gap that would exist is far, far smaller than originally asserted, and that in fact a well built fighter/UMD build will likely be superior to a mediocre paladin/UMD build.
And then there's the actual game play.
Now, let's assume that you are right and that there is a gap, even if it is a small gap.
Should that be addressed?
Meh. Maybe. I personally think that the game has far, far more serious issues than the supposed "fact" that a fighter/UMD build might be a little bit behind a paladin/UMD build. That's because I am quite certain that we have demonstrated that a decently built, well-played fighter/UMD build will be a perfectly viable party member and should be quite fun and engaging to play. Which is supposed to be the point of the game.
As I said before, not all of us players agonize over the prospect that "if only I had built a paladin/UMD I'd have a +X compared to my +Y!"
Some of us just want to play the game and the flavor is as important as the mechanics. Well, to a point. And that point is more than reached by fighters.
But if Paizo were to address some of the "deficiencies" of the fighter, perhaps by granting more skill points, perhaps by creating some soldier based flavor that gave fighters some role-based edge over other martial classes, sure, I wouldn't complain.
I just think I'd prefer Paizo deal with some of the totally and completely broken aspects of the game first.
If I was going for damage then there are other classes that are better at it (summoners spring to mind or rangers with instant enemy or barbarians with pounce).
Funny that all those things come from the APG. :)
I'm telling you, the APG is but one part of a greater and sinister plot to kill the Fighter!
The thing is, they don't really have to split their focus too much. They've got a decent sized staff, and this is an easy fix, the kind of thing somebody can hash out in the time between meetings (even less if they steal some ideas from the forums, I doubt anyone would complain).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am watching thread people in other threads tell horror stories of lawful stupid play and of nasty GMs who trick players into falling
then I watch them come here and talk about how the paladin is better than the fighter
then I make a sound low in my throat that sounds like pretty much every noise Saul Tigh makes in BattleStar Galactica
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Commoners are totally OP man. I mean look at this commoner I built!
=================================================
Commoner CR 20
XP 307,200
CG Large outsider (devil, evil, extraplanar, lawful) commoner 1
Init +13; Senses darkvision 60 ft., see in darkness; Perception +33
Aura fear (20 ft., DC 23)
Defense
AC 38, touch 18, flat-footed 29 (+9 Dex, +20 natural, –1 size)
hp 386 (20d10+1d6+252); regeneration 5 (good weapons, good spells)
Fort +24, Ref +21, Will +18
DR 15/good and silver; Immune fire, poison; Resist acid 10, cold 10; SR 31
Offense
Speed 40 ft., fly 60 ft. (average)
Melee 2 claws +32 (2d8+13), 2 wings +30 (2d6+6), bite +32 (4d6+13 plus poison and disease), tail slap +30 (2d8+6 plus grab)
Space 10 ft., Reach 10 ft.
Special Attacks constrict 2d8+19, devil shaping
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 18th)
At will—blasphemy (DC 25), create undead, fireball (DC 21), greater dispel magic, greater teleport (self plus 50 lbs. of objects only), greater scrying (DC 25), invisibility, magic circle against good, mass hold monster (DC 27), persistent image (DC 23), power word stun, scorching ray, trap the soul (DC 26), unholy aura (DC 26), wall of fire
3/day—quickened fireball (DC 21)
1/day—meteor swarm, summon (level 9, any 1 CR 19 or lower devil, 100%)
1/year—wish
Statistics
Str 37, Dex 29, Con 35, Int 26, Wis 30, Cha 26
Base Atk +20; CMB +34 (+38 grapple); CMD 53
Feats Cleave, Great Cleave, Improved Initiative, Improved Iron Will, Improved Vital Strike, Iron Will, Multiattack, Power Attack, Quicken Spell-Like Ability (fireball), Vital Strike, Toughness
Skills Appraise +17, Bluff +32, Diplomacy +31, Disguise +27, Fly +30, Intimidate +32, Knowledge (arcana) +30, Knowledge (planes) +31, Knowledge (religion) +31, Perception +34, Sense Motive +33, Spellcraft +31, Stealth +28, Survival +22, Use Magic Device +32
Languages Celestial, Common, Draconic, Infernal; telepathy 100 ft.
Ecology
Environment any (Hell)
Organization solitary, pair, or council (3–9)
Treasure double
Special Abilities
Devil Shaping (Su) Three times per day, a pit fiend can spend a minute to transform nearby lemures into other lesser devils. A pit fiend can transform one lemure for every Hit Die the pit fiend possesses. It can then reshape these lemures into a number of Hit Dice's worth of lesser devils equal to the number of lemures affected. For example, a typical 20 Hit Dice pit fiend could transform 20 lemures into two bone devils (10 HD each), or three bearded devils (6 HD each, leaving two lemures unchanged), or any other combination of lesser devils. Lemures to be reshaped must be within 50 feet of the pit fiend, becoming stationary and unable to move once the shaping begins. After a minute passes, the lemures reform into the shape of a new lesser devil ready to follow the orders of the pit fiend. Although pit fiends can, technically, elevate a mass of 20 lemures into a new pit fiend, most are hesitant to do so since they have no special control over a devil created in this manner.
Disease (Su) Devil Chills: Bite—injury; save Fort DC 32; onset immediate; frequency 1/day; effect 1d4 Str damage; cure 3 consecutive saves. The save DC is Constitution-based.
Poison (Ex) Bite—injury; save Fort DC 32; frequency 1/round for 10 rounds; effect 1d6 Con damage; cure 3 consecutive saves. The save DC is Constitution-based.
=================================================
I mean, commoners have all these spell-like abilities at will because they're commoners! And regeneration! And damage reduction! And huge bonuses to natural armor! And like, they get auras! And can cast wish once per year and meteor swarm once per day! And they can just swallow most enemies between CR 1/8 and 20 into a little gemstone and compel services from outsiders they catch like pokemon!
Commoners are the hax!
Prerequisites are OK as long as they make you better in what you're trying to accomplish.
Dodge is a good prerequisite for Mobility, because both feats stack and beef up your AC.
Combat Expertise is a bad prerequisite for Improved Trip, because it doesn't help you in your trip attempts.
Prerequisites are okay as long as they're individually feats you'd want anyways.
Power Attack is an okay prerequisite for Improved Sunder because it's actually a feat any viable sunder build will want anyways even if only for when actually killing your enemy after you've sundered everything sunderable.
Spell Focus Conjuration is an okay prerequisite for Augment Summoning even though it doesn't help Summoning because it's a good feat. There is only one class that gets summon spells that doesn't get loads of worthwhile conjurations that have saving throws and that class makes for lousy summoners because it's a 6 level caster without early entry on the summon spells.
Dodge is not an okay prerequisite. It's not a feat anyone takes except as a prerequisite. Mobility's almost as bad, though it's worth something if you expect to face enemies with more reach than you as a melee build.
Agreed, except for one thing. Dodge is a OK prerequisite for Mobility, but Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility and Spring Attack are NOT OK prerequisites for Whirlwind Attack, which doesn't even allow you to move! In other words, Dodge is a ''must have'' if you're planning on maximising your AC, but if that's not your goal, then sure, it's a waste of a feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
a Fighter can be useful at stuff besides hitting things as long as they take investments and considerations outside of the fighter chassis to do those things. it isn't the fighter doing those things, it's the other investments the character made that is doing them.
for example, if a fighter chose to play a human, take a 14 int, take the focused study alternate racial, and the fast learner feat at 1st level.
it isn't the fighter who has a lot of skills, it's the fact he is a human with a 14 int, a human exclusive alternate racial ability, and a human exclusive feat.
in other words, it's the human portion doing the heavy lifting, not the fact he is a fighter.
if that same fighter rolled up a dwarf with the steel soul feat and the glory of old trait. it isn't the fighter who gets darkvision and +5 on 80% of the saves he makes. it is the fact he is a dwarf who took a feat and a trait, both exclusive to dwarves.
if the fighter was an onispawn tiefling with the armor of the pit feat and prehensile tail alternate racial. it isn't the fighter who is getting darkvision, a prehensile tail, and a +2 natural armor bonus, it's the fact he is a tiefling with an alternate trait, a feat, and variant heritage, tailored to improving his combat prowess, not the fact he is a fighter.
if that same fighter maxed out diplomacy with skill ranks, a trait, and a feat. it isn't the fighter portion doing the heavy lifting, it's the fact that he invested skill ranks, and burnt both a feat, and a trait.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Commoners are totally OP man. I mean look at this commoner I built!
People who complain about commoners being weak just don't know how to properly build commoners. Any race can be a commoner, that's crazy flexibility right there.
a decent race choice can compensate for several class based shortcomings. in fact, that is Ashiel's point with the pit-fiend commoner.
I have the slight suspicion it is more the case that balors are OP, I am pretty certain that a paladin balor (lol) or a monk balor (double lol) would be much more effective.
that is exactly the point. just a little tongue in cheek.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
a decent race choice can compensate for several class based shortcomings. in fact, that is Ashiel's point with the pit-fiend commoner.
I think Ashiel's point is that the concept of a chaotic good pit fiend cabbage farmer is hilarious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pit Fiend: "My cabbages!!" Q.Q
"Oh you pesky adventurers, always running over my victory garden! Don't you guys have any idea how hard it is to grow deliciously leafy produce in HELL!?"
Pit Fiend: "My cabbages!!" Q.Q
"Oh you pesky adventurers, always running over my victory garden! Don't you guys have any idea how hard it is to grow deliciously leafy produce in HELL!?"
Pit Fiend: "My cabbages!!" Q.Q
"Oh you pesky adventurers, always running over my victory garden! Don't you guys have any idea how hard it is to grow deliciously leafy produce in HELL!?"
I'm so glad someone got it. ^.^
Tell you what Tri. We'll get in a campaign together. I'll play my UMD fighter and you can play your UMD commoner.
We'll see which one lasts longest, OK?
You really don't see his point, do you?
No, scratch that...
You really don't want to see his point, do you?
I see his point Lemmy. And yours. And all the "it's not a class feature" rhetoriticians.
I think it's a SILLY point.
MY POINT is that we are talking about creating actual characters, not theorycrafting the class system design.
Actual fighter characters can have UMD, and will be far more playable and survivable in actual gaming than a commoner with UMD. Theorycraft all you like about how a commoner could do the same thing out of combat. Then go play an actual campaign with the commoner or admit that it's pointless to argue that the commoner "can do the same thing."
Ah, but here is the thing, noone is saying that Fighters are useless, ony that other classes with similar roles are more useful.
If we could measure a utility/versatility in a numerical scale a la Dragon Ball Z's Power Level, noone would be saying that Figher have a value of 0, just that he has, let's say, a value of 5, while Rangers have a value of 8.
So if using traits gives you a +1 to your score, Fighters now have a value of 6, but Rangers have a value o 9. The gap remains the same.
So an advantage that benefit everyone is not a real advantage.
My point is:
Can you build a effective and versatile Fighter? Sure! But an equally optimized Paladin/Ranger/Barbarian will most likely be more effective.
BTW: "More effective" is not the same as "Higher AC and DPR"
What you're saying is Fighters are Krillin. They have 'just enough' use to be handy once in a while when they're resourceful, but they just aren't in the same league as everyone else.
LOL. Yeah, that's pretty much it.
Which makes Yamcha a Warrior or Commoner... lol
I would just like to say...
Matches the Pathfinder art pretty accurately. Seems like everytime I turn around Valeros is the whipping boy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We'll see which one lasts longest, OK?You say that like UMD isn't the factor that is making the characters versatile.
Word.
And you know what tragic? Use magic device. So he is versatile because he can use magic too.
Not because his non-magic fighter talent lets him walk on water, not because his non-magic fighter talent lets him use acrobatics to jump in the air and fly, not because his non-magic fighter talent lets him smash a wall of force, not because his non-magic fighter perception lets him see invisibility, not because his non-magic fighter talent lets him heal his friends after a battle, etc. Obviously there are so such talents.
Edit:
No, he versatile because he can use scrolls and wands.
What you're saying is Fighters are Krillin. They have 'just enough' use to be handy once in a while when they're resourceful, but they just aren't in the same league as everyone else.LOL. Yeah, that's pretty much it.
Which makes Yamcha a Warrior or Commoner... lol
I'd say Yamcha is a core-only monk. :P
I'd say Yamcha is a core-only monk. :PWhat you're saying is Fighters are Krillin. They have 'just enough' use to be handy once in a while when they're resourceful, but they just aren't in the same league as everyone else.LOL. Yeah, that's pretty much it.
Which makes Yamcha a Warrior or Commoner... lol
I don't know... Monks at least have fans. When was the last time you heard so many people complaining Yamcha doesn't get enough screen time?
I don't know... Monks at least have fans. When was the last time you heard so many people complaining Yamcha doesn't get enough screen time?I'd say Yamcha is a core-only monk. :PWhat you're saying is Fighters are Krillin. They have 'just enough' use to be handy once in a while when they're resourceful, but they just aren't in the same league as everyone else.LOL. Yeah, that's pretty much it.
Which makes Yamcha a Warrior or Commoner... lol
I actually really liked Yamcha in DBZ, but he pretty much fell off the planet by the time everyone got to Namek. He was pretty cool in Dragon Ball from what I recall (but I saw a lot less of that series). I was sad when he and Bulma broke up. :(
|
The problem with Fighters is that they are measurably and demonstrably worse than other characters at anything but fighting.This is just like the problems with Rogues (they're measurably and demonstrably worse at anything but not-fighting)
Wasn't that the original point of both classes?
Fighters fight and Rogues (Thieves) sneak about. With the free for all multiclassing system of d20 if you want a fighter with skills then take a few levels in the skill monkey class. Sure you won't be as good of a fighter who stayed single class - its called choice.
I think sometimes there is a huge focus on each class having its cake and eating it too. If you get my meaning. By having glaring weaknesses in classes it means you need other members in your party to round out things to take on differing situations.
S.
Wasn't that the original point of both classes?
Fighters fight and Rogues (Thieves) sneak about. With the free for all multiclassing system of d20 if you want a fighter with skills then take a few levels in the skill monkey class. Sure you won't be as good of a fighter who stayed single class - its called choice.
I think sometimes there is a huge focus on each class having its cake and eating it too. If you get my meaning. By having glaring weaknesses in classes it means you need other members in your party to round out things to take on differing situations.
S.
It was the original point.
But the game has evolved. These classes have not. Skills used to work completely differently, magic used to be different, there were less classes that did less things, and it was all around a different scene.
The problem is that EVERY OTHER CLASS can "have their cake and eat it too" (which makes them more fun to play since they're not cripplingly overspecialized) but the Fighter and Rogue have no cake, and they can't really take anyone else' either.
90% of the classes don't have huge, gaping weaknesses, and they're better off for it.
|
the biggest thing about fighters that makes them under powered is that they are reliant on gear, and require more wealth be invested in them than other classes
*cough* wizard's spellbook *cough*
Without it, you're pretty much toast. I recall our wizard that was dumb and lost ALL his books for a time. Wasnt pleasant, and he was a deadweight for more then a few sessions, being higher level and limited to apprentice books( levels 1-3 in spells).
Not because his non-magic fighter talent lets him walk on water, not because his non-magic fighter talent lets him use acrobatics to jump in the air and fly, not because his non-magic fighter talent lets him smash a wall of force, not because his non-magic fighter perception lets him see invisibility, not because his non-magic fighter talent lets him heal his friends after a battle, etc. Obviously there are so such talents.
So is this the argument now? Fighters are bad because they can't do magic? Are the people who are so anti-fighter just anti-martial characters and fighters are the worst because they don't get magic (or powers)? What if I want to play a character that is the best at fighting? Do they still suck? If fighters are the same as commoners without their feats are wizards worse than commoners without their spells? For that matter are wizards versatile outside of combat without their spells (remember skills don't count, anyone can have skills)?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would just like to say...
Matches the Pathfinder art pretty accurately. Seems like everytime I turn around Valeros is the whipping boy.
That isn't an accident, btw.
Marketing says that D&D based games have to have a white male human fighter front and center. The 3.5 crew wanted a dwarven fighter as their iconic, and their marketing team came out of nowhere and dumped Regdar on them instead. They've loathed white male human fighters ever since.
Now, every single peice of art showing Regdar basically shows his ass getting handed to him because of that. He's totally the 3.5 whipping boy,
Valeros has inherited that mindset. The fact he might actually be 'competent' at his job just never gets into the art. Or story.Regdar's little brother, unable to do anything right.
Which annoys me to no end, but hey, that's the way it rolls.
The fact that it so accurately reflects much of what a PF fighter is like doesn't really help.
==Aelryinth
No, Fighters are bad because people like to shoehorn 'not-magic' into a terribly narrow scope of semi-realistic things to produce a class that can't keep up.Except when designing rage powers.
Note that high level rage powers are supernatural.
==Aelryinth
So is this the argument now? Fighters are bad because they can't do magic? Are the people who are so anti-fighter just anti-martial characters and fighters are the worst because they don't get magic (or powers)? What if I want to play a character that is the best at fighting? Do they still suck? If fighters are the same as commoners without their feats are wizards worse than commoners without their spells? For that matter are wizards versatile outside of combat without their spells (remember skills don't count, anyone can have skills)?
Not because his non-magic fighter talent lets him walk on water, not because his non-magic fighter talent lets him use acrobatics to jump in the air and fly, not because his non-magic fighter talent lets him smash a wall of force, not because his non-magic fighter perception lets him see invisibility, not because his non-magic fighter talent lets him heal his friends after a battle, etc. Obviously there are so such talents.
If a wizard loses his spellbook he still has all his spells prepared. A spellbook costs less than a fighter's magic weapons and armor. If a fighter loses his weapon he's useless. If he loses his armor he's a dead man walking. If a wizard loses his spellbook he can afford to have another spellbook. Or two. If he spreads his spells around like a RAID he can have lots of books and lose any one or two without losing anything and in a pinch get by with any one.
A wizard who can't use his spells is a wizard in prison. Fighters suck there too.
Skills, though, well you're completely failing to get the point. The wizard has skill points because he has intelligence. A fighter with a wizard's intelligence will suck as a fighter unless constructed under ludicrously high point buy or with unbelievably high rolled stats.
A fighter is equal to a commoner or a humanoid that advances by racial hit dice with rarely more than 13 int. A wizard is equal to a commoner or humanoid...
That literally answered none of my questions.
BTW, exactly how many 'fighter-only' feats are there?
GWF and GWS from core...and I think that's it on core.
I know Critical Versatility is a 'human fighter' only feat...and a great Wild Card feat which should be a standard for all fighter classes.
Really, how many more are there outside of Archetypes? And how many compare favorably to Rage Powers?
==Aelryinth
Note that rage powers are unavailable to Fighters.No, Fighters are bad because people like to shoehorn 'not-magic' into a terribly narrow scope of semi-realistic things to produce a class that can't keep up.Except when designing rage powers.Note that high level rage powers are supernatural.
==Aelryinth
and fighter feats are unavailable to barbarians, as are metamagic feats.
I was noting that 'not-magic' is often assumed to include Rage powers, which are often Ex...but the higher level ones are not, and exactly why is the Barb the anti-magic class?
==Aelryinth
(...)and exactly why is the Barb the anti-magic class?
==Aelryinth
Because I fighter would have to follow a 3~4 feats long feat chain in order to still be mediocre at it. lol.
The caster arguments always end up being discussed in a vacuum. They always have thw right spell and creatures always fail their saves.
Meanwhile, in games that are actually played then the results differ a lot.
And, oddly when discussing fighters they always end up being discussed in a vacuum. They always have the right feats and equipment and they never fail their saves.
Meanwhile, in games that are actually played, the results differ a lot.
No, that is not my argument. Whatever fighter you make they will have strengths and weaknesses, as the bow cav fighter demonstrates.
They will not have the perfect coincidence of the right spell list, all the spells you need and the right amount memorised/un-memorised. I say un-memorised because some have argued they will leave their slots free to fill as need be during breaks. Yeah? Well what if you need them right now, but your load-out hasn't even been properly chosen and what you need isn't memorised right then and there?
So stop saying this is the same, because it isn't. Fighter builds have weaknesses, some spellcaster players refuse to acknowledge their weaknesses, the problems of spell lists and limited spells per day or that they can be caught at a disadvantage.