Preconceived roleplaying notions are a player issue not a game issue.
Barbarian 'rage' can be a samurai's combat focus (No Mind) or a gladiator getting in the zone, or an Archer switching from 'cheekbone' drawing style to 'ear level' drawing style, or any number of other things.
A ranger could just as easily be a frontline soldier or a holy warrior as he could be a woodsman.
EDIT: in fact I've played a 'paladin' (the class) who had no affiliation to a church or god whatsoever, and was instead just a common soldier turned officer with a heart for justice and an iron hand against the wicked.
Barbarian archers can be great fun.
I think the point is that the spellcaster can buff himself instead of relying on someone else and/or significant amounts of dosh to do it for him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it is a cooperative game. That does not mean that some classes should be mostly self sufficient and other classes are reliant on the rest of the group. Either ever class needs to be self-sufficient (my preference) or every class needs to be dependent on others, or more problems are just going to spring up.
BTW, I still don’t understand why fighters only have 2 skills per level since “everyone else with 2 skill point is ridiculously loaded with supernatural powers and abilities” (as pointed out by Proftobe).I don't really mind if the Fighter has only 2 skill points per level. However, I do mind that he has only 2 skill points per level while not being a better FIGHTER than the Barbarian/Paladin/Ranger.If he's NOT a considerably better fighter than the other martial classes, it would have to be because he's traded off his....
Armor Training (watch the Paladin plod along at 20 foot movement.}
Weapon Training (The Fighter is effectively one BAB tier ahead of the other martials once he hits his capstone levels)And left his bonus fighter feats at home somewhere.
I hear you, but I don't think that those class features are enough to make the Fighter ''considerably'' better than the other martials.
Armor Training - Sure, moving 30ft in heavy armor is kewl, but once the party has a reliable access to the Haste spell (which can be as soon as level 4 with a summoner in the party), movement speed becomes less of an issue. Also, a Barbarian can move at 30 ft when wearing a mithral full plate. However, a mithral full plate cost a sh*t load of money (roughly 10k gp) and heavy armor proeficiency for the Barbarian, which means that the Fighter remains the real ''armor master'' until higher levels where 10k gp becomes trivial.
Weapon Training - Does less damage than Rage, Favored Enemy, Smite Evil and Challenge, but it does last all day and on every opponents that you can hit, which is about as good, but not considerably better, as these other class features.
Feats - Back when I first read the CRB, I thought that the Fighter was considerably better than the Barbarian, since most Rage Powers in the CRB were underwhelming IMO. But with the coming of the APG, it seems that some of the ''new'' Rage Powers totally blow Feats out of the water. Luckily, Rage Powers can only be used when raging, which can't be all day at low-levels. During higher levels, however, the limited number of rounds you can rage per day becomes less of an issue and Rage Powers become almost ''always on'' abilities, just like Feats, but better, because most of them give you scaling bonuses instead of fixed bonuses.
So, his the Fighter considerably better than the other martial classes from level 1-20? I would say no, he's about the same, and he got less skill points than those other classes (except for the Paladin, who's definitely more resilient than the Fighter). I would say the sweet spot for playing a Fighter vs ''other martial classes'' is from level 4 to 10, which turns out to be my personal sweet spot for playing D&D, so I still like the Fighter even if I think that he's a bit lacking compared the the other martial classes.
You mean Mithral breastplate? Mithral Fullplate is Medium Armor and therefore STILL screws movement for some reason >_<
You're right, I edited my post (40 ft > 30 ft).
So is this the argument now? Fighters are bad because they can't do magic?
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.
No, you missed the point by a mile.
(remember skills don't count, anyone can have skills)?I never said skills don't count. I even suggested new feats that grants more skills, so stop putting words in my mouth.
I never said skills don't count. I even suggested new feats that grants more skills, so stop putting words in my mouth.
Didn't mean for that to apply specifically to you, more for the thread in general.
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
I downloaded his pregen stats for a introductory game I was going to be running. He sucks so much that I felt bad about giving him to anyone at the intro game.
I know it's a strange concept for people to grasp... but this is a COOPERATIVE game. Just as the fighter keeps things off the wizard by hacking them to bits, the wizard uses spells to help the fighter succeed at the tasks put before him, whether it's hacking a monster or getting something else done.
Sometimes the Fighter is the better choice to survive when those buffs don't fully serve you. Or has particular knowledge to navigate an area the wizard does not. (Many the downfall of an overconfident invisible wizard who went to far, was that cleric with pre cast True Seeing and Flame Strike prepared.)
I know that if I was trying to build a party around cooperation and teamwork, it would never include a Fighter. Other classes just have too much to bring to the party in terms of cooperation, teamwork, and resources. Fighters are nothing but buff and heal-sinks. They completely and utterly lack any sort of method of helping their party out other than punching something in the face (and any martial can punch somebody in the face).
(Anti)Paladin and Ranger bring something to the party that is cooperative. Paladins can help heal, remove status conditions, tank, fight, be a party face, buff / ward themselves and others. Rangers have a great mixture of good spells, area of effect options, defensive wards, an expendable minion (a Ranger who trains his pet to guard can have it guarding a weak flank for the party because an AC is easier to replace than a PC), and can solve problems like energy damage and poison. Barbarians are the other "mundane fighter", but unlike Fighter they are capable of more right out of the box, have better saving throws, better AC at higher levels, are more mobile, and are incredibly sturdy. If it came to buffing the martial, I'd rather buff a barbarian than a Fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
my martial class priorities including DSP psionics
from highest at the top to lowest at the bottom
1. Switch Hitter Spellcasting Ranger
2. Archery Paladin
3. Non-Archery Paladin
4. Non-Switch hitter spellcasting ranger
5. archery focused eldritch knight
6. magus
7. combat oriented oracle w/ human favored class bonus
8. other combat oriented oracle
9. melee eldritch knight
10. melee druid
11. rage prophet
12, Dragon Disciple
13. melee cleric
14. archery inquisitor w/ conversion inquisitition
15. archery bard
16. other martial inquisitor
17. other martial bard
18. martial psionic tactician
19. psionic warrior
20. psionic marksman
21. manifesting soulknife archetype
22. psionic aegis
23. switch hitter non-spellcasting ranger
24. other non-spellcasting ranger
25. barbarian switch hitter
26. other barbarian
27. nonmanifesting soulknife
28. noncasting archery paladin
29. noncasting other paladin
30. archery samurai w/ flying mount
31. archer cavalier w/ flying mount
32. archery samurai w/ other mount
33. archery cavalier w/ other mount
34. melee samurai w/ flying mount
35. melee cavalier w/ flying mount
36. melee samurai w/ other mount
37. melee cavalier
38.Zen Archer/Archery Sohei Monk
39. switch hitter fighter
40. archery fighter
41. non archery fighter w/ takes a bow as backup
42. STR monk w/ 2hander
43. str monk w/ dragon style
44. STR rogue w/ trapfinding
45. STR ninja
46. Dex rogue w/ trapfinding*
47. Dex ninja*
48. Dex rogue w/o trapfinding*
49. Dex monk w/ crane style*
50. dex monk w/o crane style*
*=requires a reliable form of dex to damage.
I think the point is that the spellcaster can buff himself instead of relying on someone else and/or significant amounts of dosh to do it for him.I know it's a strange concept for people to grasp... but this is a COOPERATIVE game. Just as the fighter keeps things off the wizard by hacking them to bits, the wizard uses spells to help the fighter succeed at the tasks put before him, whether it's hacking a monster or getting something else done.
That's true, but not a point about fighters being good or bad.
Yes, this is a cooperative game. That doesnt mean all classes are able to contribute to that cooperation equally. Fighters can ccontribute, but less than other classes. That's the point. Fighters hsve NOTHING to add cooperatively in a cooperative game.
Yes they can hack monsters and keep them out of the wizard. But a Magus can do that too, and also cast invisibility, fly or haste. A Sythesist summoner can fo that too, and also summon monsters, cast hadte or dimrnsional door. A paladin can do that, while he cast protection from evil, heal and remove diseases and curses. Even the purely mundane cavier can do that, and give the other PC free teamwork feats.
That's the fighter problem. This is a copperative game, but they have nothing to add cooperatively. Except "can hack and keep the monsters out from the wizard". Which every other melee character in the game can do as well, often better than him, while most of them are potent casters (magus, summoners, melee druids, melee clerics) or have cool stuff (paladins, rangers)
That's the fighter problem. This is a copperative game, but they have nothing to add cooperatively. Except "can hack and keep the monsters out from the wizard". Which every other melee character in the game can do as well, often better than him, while most of them are potent casters (magus, summoners, melee druids, melee clerics) or have cool stuff (paladins, rangers)
Agreed.
Barbarians are better at preventing enemies from hacking up the caster. They have uncanny dodge which allows AoOs before they've even acted in the round (which means that even during the surprise round the Barbarian can defend you by being in the way of enemies). The barbarian has more HP, can match or exceed a Fighter in AC at most levels while maintaining competitive edge in combat, and has better saving throws than the Fighter in combat.
"Meat Shield" can be done by any class. The NPC warrior class is even pretty decent at it it. However, most would prefer their meat with a few sides to make a well balanced meal.
"Meat Shield" can be done by any class. The NPC warrior class is even pretty decent at it it. However, most would prefer their meat with a few sides to make a well balanced meal.
some classes even have "meat shield" as a separate class feature. They call them "animal companion"
(Edit: or even worse, eidolon)
"Meat Shield" can be done by any class. The NPC warrior class is even pretty decent at it it. However, most would prefer their meat with a few sides to make a well balanced meal.
some classes even have "meat shield" as a separate class feature. They call them "animal companion"
(Edit: or even worse, eidolon)
Hahaha.
I heard you like meat shields so we gave meat shields to your meat shields so that you can shield with meat while shielding with meat. :D
Spells scale, don't require prerequisites, and by the book a wizard learns two every level. Feats have prerequisites, generally require more feats to be spent to scale, and although a fighter might get an extra one every other level, that's 20 for a lv 20 non human fighter while a wizard would know 50+their int modifier + all the cantrips. Of course that's assuming they never lost their spellbook, but then again, they can spend money to get more spells, unlike a fighter who can't spend anything to get more feats.
|
Spells scale, don't require prerequisites, and by the book a wizard learns two every level. Feats have prerequisites, generally require more feats to be spent to scale, and although a fighter might get an extra one every other level, that's 20 for a lv 20 non human fighter while a wizard would know 50+their int modifier + all the cantrips. Of course that's assuming they never lost their spellbook, but then again, they can spend money to get more spells, unlike a fighter who can't spend anything to get more feats.
That's also assuming the party stops every time the Wizard blows all his spells. Wizards are still limited to how many per day they can cast.
You can have millions of rounds of ammunition which is good but not as good as you make it out to be because your gun can only fire a certain amount at a time, the same goes for the Wizard. You may have tons of spells but you can only have a certain number of them memorized and you don't always know what kind of encounters you will be facing.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can have hundreds of HP which is good but not as good as you make it out to be because your can only heal a certain amount at a time, the same goes for the Fighter. You may have tons of feats but you can only have a certain number of them learned and you don't always know what kind of encounters you will be facing.
You can have hundreds of HP which is good but not as good as you make it out to be because your can only heal a certain amount at a time, the same goes for the Fighter. You may have tons of feats but you can only have a certain number of them learned and you don't always know what kind of encounters you will be facing.
TriOmegaZero for the win! :P
Most martials have enough feats to develop one style of combat well. The fighter can do that AND still have other feats to vary their style of combat and integrate it to battlefield control. That's his schtick, so to speak. A good fighter isn't just about whack a mole, he also contributes to battlefield control and has a feat or two extra for an auxillary mode of combat, such as archery if...
That's not really true.
A fighter gets 7 feats up to level. But they spend 3 of them in greater weapon spec, greater weapon focus and weapon spec. Which don't allow them to have any more battlefield contribution than your average commoner, just more average damage. A +1 to hit and +4 to damage more, which is on par with the +2 to hit and +3 to damage that rage gives.Also, whenever the fighter gets a feat, other melee also get stuff. A barb gets rage powers, a magus gets arcanas, sythesist get evolutions, cavaliers get bonus feats too, and companions, challenge, etc. As fighter, I'd love to spend a feat to add my level to damage and my charisma to attack, heal myself half my level in d6 as a swift action, and being inmune to fear for example. Those are the things a paladin gets instead of extra feats.
Compare a feat like Skill Focus in Climb with the Fly evolution from the summoner, for example. Compare a feat like dodge with being able to cast shield as part of your full attack like the magus.
I don't diminish the importance of being a meatshield. Some ody has to hack and keep the monsters off the wizard. But I don't see how a fighter can do that better than magi, summoners, druids, paladins, rangers, battle clerics or battle oracles. Which can all of them hack and keep the monsters off the wizard, AND contribute much much better to the cooperative side of the game.The only thing fighters bring, is flavor and nostalgia.
Edit: yeah, fighters do lot of damage. Not that it matters, though. The monsters can die only once. If other melees can kill them in a round, does it matter if you do more damage? (Which you dont, btw).
I saw last week a magus with lvl 9 killing a CR 13 dragon in one single round. Actually, it was dead in the first hit, a crit that was (2d6+38)x1.5+20d6, followed by another three attacks, with enough damage to nearly kill him again. So, lets suppose your fighter archer do more damage than that. So what? The dragon can only die once. And the magus can identify magic items, detect magic, fly, cast resist energy, has mirror image and invisibility...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can have hundreds of HP which is good but not as good as you make it out to be because your can only heal a certain amount at a time, the same goes for the Fighter. You may have tons of feats but you can only have a certain number of them learned and you don't always know what kind of encounters you will be facing.
TriOmegaZero hit the bullseye here. For someone who speaks soo much about "Schrondiger Wizard" , there is a lot of "Schrodinger Fighters" in this forum.
The Fighter who miracously have all the right feats, all the time. Said Fighter have all the feat chains to be great at combat maneuvers, archery, melee, social encounters. All of that by 6th level too, because "he gets TWELVE feats!"A one-trick pony is still a one-trick pony even if he gets to choose what trick he wants to learn.
I am not saying every Fighter is a one-trick pony, but when they try to be versatile, specially out of combat, they're fighting an uphill battle.
Huh... Maybe that's why they're called "Fighters" after all... Makes sense, since they're not any more effective in combat than Barbarians or Rangers.
Spells scale, don't require prerequisites, and by the book a wizard learns two every level. Feats have prerequisites, generally require more feats to be spent to scale, and although a fighter might get an extra one every other level, that's 20 for a lv 20 non human fighter while a wizard would know 50+their int modifier + all the cantrips. Of course that's assuming they never lost their spellbook, but then again, they can spend money to get more spells, unlike a fighter who can't spend anything to get more feats.That's also assuming the party stops every time the Wizard blows all his spells. Wizards are still limited to how many per day they can cast.
Wait... How does the amount of resting a party does affect how many spells a wizard has or how powerful they are?
Even in regards to durability, a wizard's cantrips are infinite and they often get a spell-like ability for their school focus until they get more spell slots. Oh and wizards along with a bunch of other classes also get bonus feats.
|
|
You can have hundreds of HP which is good but not as good as you make it out to be because your can only heal a certain amount at a time, the same goes for the Fighter. You may have tons of feats but you can only have a certain number of them learned and you don't always know what kind of encounters you will be facing.TriOmegaZero hit the bullseye here. For someone who speaks soo much about "Schrondiger Wizard" , there is a lot of "Schrodinger Fighters" in this forum.
The Fighter who miracously have all the right feats, all the time. Said Fighter have all the feat chains to be great at combat maneuvers, archery, melee, social encounters. All of that by 6th level too, because "he gets TWELVE feats!"A one-trick pony is still a one-trick pony even if he gets to choose what trick he wants to learn.
I am not saying every Fighter is a one-trick pony, but when they try to be versatile, specially out of combat, they're fighting an uphill battle.
Huh... Maybe that's why they're called "Fighters" after all... Makes sense, since they're not any more effective in combat than Barbarians or Rangers.
You're not comparing like for like so Tri didn't even hit the target. Certain feats are always active, nor do they need to be memorized. When you take Skill Focus it's always on. You can't take a load of feats at one time and change them from day to day.
Feats like Weapon Focus effects all creatures that you hit, it's not effected by monster type, saving throw etc. . Your feat always remains active. Now some feats require certain circumstances but others do not.
Arguing apples to oranges does not solve or end the argument like some of you think it does.
|
|
Spells scale, don't require prerequisites, and by the book a wizard learns two every level. Feats have prerequisites, generally require more feats to be spent to scale, and although a fighter might get an extra one every other level, that's 20 for a lv 20 non human fighter while a wizard would know 50+their int modifier + all the cantrips. Of course that's assuming they never lost their spellbook, but then again, they can spend money to get more spells, unlike a fighter who can't spend anything to get more feats.That's also assuming the party stops every time the Wizard blows all his spells. Wizards are still limited to how many per day they can cast.Wait... How does the amount of resting a party does affect how many spells a wizard has or how powerful they are?
Even in regards to durability, a wizard's cantrips are infinite and they often get a spell-like ability for their school focus until they get more spell slots. Oh and wizards along with a bunch of other classes also get bonus feats.
Try to imagine having 5 battles in one given day compared to 5 battles across 5 days. Stopingg after every battle to recharge is a hell of a lot different than pushing through multiplebattles in one day.
Feats are only active when they apply is the point he's trying to make.
If you're shooting a bow, that weapon spec(sword) isn't 'on', and it's wasted.
If you're on horseback, that greater mobility in armor isn't on, and it's wasted.
If you only have 12 Dex, and armor training 3, the armor training is wasted.
The wizard can cast spells, which mean his class features apply at the moment he wants them to apply. That's considerably different then having a load of feats and class features that are on all the time, and don't apply for most of that time.
-----------
And no, Lazar, as Rynjin noted...I specifically used the language of 'class features' for the wizard. Fighters don't get to use class features to do that stuff, and casters do. It's not a Fighter thing, it's an anyone thing.
==Aelryinth
Try to imagine having 5 battles in one given day compared to 5 battles across 5 days. Stopingg after every battle to recharge is a hell of a lot different than pushing through multiplebattles in one day.
Presenting exhibit B in the "don't make assumptions about other people's playing styles" exhibit:
Our fifteenth level party recently had over twenty (I counted, but I forget, somewhere in the mid twenties exactly) separate combat encounters over the space of a day.
Guess who this didn't make shine any more than usual? The fighter (played by yours truly).
Guess who this didn't make shine any less than usual? Our three party arcanists (wizard, sorcerer, bard).
Nope, we were all shining about as much as usual I would say. If the wizard was not firing on all cylinders due to low spell juice, you'd better believe I was hanging back and playing it cautious rather than rushing in to advance my usual meat-choppery glory because there was no more healing left, going into fights wounded, lacking for buffs from the bard, etc. One thing I definitely wasn't doing was firing on all cylinders all day long.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Feats are only active when they apply is the point he's trying to make.
If you're shooting a bow, that weapon spec(sword) isn't 'on', and it's wasted.
If you're on horseback, that greater mobility in armor isn't on, and it's wasted.
If you only have 12 Dex, and armor training 3, the armor training is wasted.
The wizard can cast spells, which mean his class features apply at the moment he wants them to apply. That's considerably different then having a load of feats and class features that are on all the time, and don't apply for most of that time.
This is hilarious. The fighter can swim but if he's on a horse his swim skill is wasted, but the wizards spells, whether he can apply them to the situation at hand at all, "apply the moment he wants them to."
If swim is "wasted" if the fighter isn't swimming, then "fireball" is "wasted" if the wizard can't cast it in the current situation. If the wizard's situational SPELLS are not wasted, then neither are the fighter's situational FEATS.
Try to imagine having 5 battles in one given day compared to 5 battles across 5 days. Stopingg after every battle to recharge is a hell of a lot different than pushing through multiplebattles in one day.Spells scale, don't require prerequisites, and by the book a wizard learns two every level. Feats have prerequisites, generally require more feats to be spent to scale, and although a fighter might get an extra one every other level, that's 20 for a lv 20 non human fighter while a wizard would know 50+their int modifier + all the cantrips. Of course that's assuming they never lost their spellbook, but then again, they can spend money to get more spells, unlike a fighter who can't spend anything to get more feats.That's also assuming the party stops every time the Wizard blows all his spells. Wizards are still limited to how many per day they can cast.Wait... How does the amount of resting a party does affect how many spells a wizard has or how powerful they are?
Even in regards to durability, a wizard's cantrips are infinite and they often get a spell-like ability for their school focus until they get more spell slots. Oh and wizards along with a bunch of other classes also get bonus feats.
That's true, and irrelevant.
A fighter can swing his sword all day long. A magus can swing his sword all day long, AND use spells in the correct fights.The problem with the fighter is not that wizards are better. Wizards are a different class with a different role and completelly different mechanics and goals in combat. But Magus, Summoners, Druids, etc... can do the same thing that the fighter do (be a meatshield and fight all day long), AND have resources to "push" things.
Let's go back to your 5 battles in a day example. It's quite probable that not all the 5 battles are against 5 different BBEG. It's much more normal that you have 4 encounters with different grades of henchmen, and then you go for the epic final fight. A magus can just swing his sword in those 4 battles, and then explode against the boss in the final fight. He could even spend 1 or 2 spells per fight, actually, without running out of them. And he can actually contribute to the cooperative side of the game, as his "haste" also affect the party druid and his companion, the party's rogue and the party's summoner's eidolon, and he can help finding clues with Knowledge arcana, detect magic, and prevent damage to the party using resist energy, communal.
Most combats have a 2-3 round duration. Even a wizard could cast a spell every round, 5 battles in a day, without going out of resources. That's 10 to 15 spells. A 5th level wizard has 12 spells, not counting scrolls. A 9th level wizard has 24 spells, not counting scrolls or wands. 24 spells mean 8 battles in a row, with three spells per battle. The theorical "lack of endurance" of wizards is a myth, based on low level play. Yes, at 1st to 3rd level wizards have few spells. At 10th, that's no longer true.
Feats are only active when they apply is the point he's trying to make.
If you're shooting a bow, that weapon spec(sword) isn't 'on', and it's wasted.
If you're on horseback, that greater mobility in armor isn't on, and it's wasted.
If you only have 12 Dex, and armor training 3, the armor training is wasted.
The wizard can cast spells, which mean his class features apply at the moment he wants them to apply. That's considerably different then having a load of feats and class features that are on all the time, and don't apply for most of that time.
This is hilarious. The fighter can swim but if he's on a horse his swim skill is wasted, but the wizards spells, whether he can apply them to the situation at hand at all, "apply the moment he wants them to."
If swim is "wasted" if the fighter isn't swimming, then "fireball" is "wasted" if the wizard can't cast it in the current situation. If the wizard's situational SPELLS are not wasted, then neither are the fighter's situational FEATS.
The difference is that a 12th level fighter has 13 feats (14th if human). While a Wizard has an absolute minimum of 24+INT bonus, and by the basic rule assumption, easily much more (as he can copy scrolls, which are cheap to buy using Base Value for settlements). Not only that, but if the party at lvl 10 is contracted to go to a dungeon-heavy mission in the middle of a deep cavern, the Mounted Archery fighter is hosed. The Fireball-using wizard just need to sleep and memorize something different and more appropiated.
Then we could start discusing about how a feat isn't as powerful as a spell, comparing "spider climb" with "skill focus climb" for example.
You're not comparing like for like so Tri didn't even hit the target. Certain feats are always active, nor do they need to be memorized. When you take Skill Focus it's always on. You can't take a load of feats at one time and change them from day to day.
Feats like Weapon Focus effects all creatures that you hit, it's not effected by monster type, saving throw etc. . Your feat always remains active. Now some feats require certain circumstances but others do not.
Arguing apples to oranges does not solve or end the argument like some of you think it does.
That's true. But every Magus, paladin and Synthesist summoner I've seen also have weapon focus. So there's no advantage for the fighter with weapon focus. Magus, Paladins and Synthesist can also heal themselves with spells, bump their damage to huge levels in hard battles, contribute out of combat, buff themselves and others in the party.
I don't understand why Weapon Focus/"Specialization" wasn't just renamed and given to the fighter flat out. That is a big time feat tax. Just give them +2/+4 with the weapons. Is it THAT big of a deal at level 12 compared to spells and Animal Companions and Feats Sans Requisites of the Ranger or Smite Evil and Divine Bond of the Paladin or Barbarian Rage and Rage powers? At 12th level, people are casting 6th level spells. +2/+4 is not that big of a deal. Just give it outright to the Fighter and stop feat taxing them on the only reason people are playing them, taking feats.
What baffles me is that again, Brawler kind of does that. Only with Close weapons, yes, but Brawler gets +1 attack and +3 damage at 3rd level, which then advances like regular weapon training. So he effectively DOES have Weapon Specialization right off the bat instead of the +1/+1 of the base Fighter.
Seriously, combine Lore Warden's skill points with Brawler's class features (minus the "limited to one weapon group" bit) into the base Fighter and you have just about the perfect Fighter. Good at combat maneuvers (which people are clamoring for), has a decent number of skills (ditto), has Weapon Specialization rolled up in his class (which I've seen a few times), has a decent status effect when you're near him (-1 attack and concentration checks, scaling) and hard to escape from (can make AoOs on a Withdrawing target, Stand Still as a Bonus Feat).
I feel as though a lot of peoples concerns with fighters is more a consequence of the changes that feats underwent after moving to PF. If you look at the way feat taxing has skyrocketed due largely to the doubling of general feats, then it is easy to see why the fighter is lagging.
Combine this with the poor save scaling and skill point equivalent of a person with a learning disability, and you can see why there may be an issue.
Sorry peeps, I auto-posted a quote while I was AFK. I was moreover trying to get people more on track with offering suggestions to optimize fighters, 'cause it seems like almost everyone is arguing that fighters need a rework.
Someone earlier made the awesome speculation that fighters don't have to adhere to any kind of class rules or alignment, and can act however they want. This is obviously a huge benefit in a roleplaying game, and especially when you have new players who don't know how to properly play a paladin or cleric.
If people want fighters to be more "playable", isn't it just as easy as making some house rules? Obviously it's kind of a bummer to have to rework an entire class just so someone doesn't feel underpowered in a party with a sorcerer, wizard, and cleric, but players have responsibility too.
I could recommend a ton of ways to rework the whole fighter class to be more powerful, but most of my recommendations would be working in spells or spell-like abilities into the class and therefor becoming redundant with the fighter class dynamic. In a world where wizards can travel to different planes, shoot lightning from their hands, and fly, I always saw the fighter as the anchor point of "realism" in a fantasy universe. If there isn't an anchor, everything just becomes garbled make-belief. It can mean everything between the difference of fantasy and epic fantasy.
Maybe you agree, maybe you disagree, but I still think that the fighter (even underpowered) is essential to a successful non-cartoony fantasy universe.
Let me explain...
How many of you look back at the LOTR movies and think that Gimli was totally awesome, because he didn't have any gimmicks. He just hacked stuff to death with his beard swinging in the wind.
How many of you were completely taken out of the movie when Legolas slid down some stairs on a shield and pew pewd some orcs? Or how about when he climbed up a raging elephant, killed everyone, and killed the elephant?
Chances are, those scenes with Legolas doing ridiculous things didn't remove you from the experience as much as something similar to that in another movie. Why? Because Gimli grounded the experience with his awesome but "realistic" dwarven asskickery.
Yes, nearly everyone thinks magic is awesome, case in point Harry Potter, but don't some players want to be like Gimli?
Thanks for reading! =D
Maybe you agree, maybe you disagree, but I still think that the fighter (even underpowered) is essential to a successful non-cartoony fantasy universe.
Let me explain...
How many of you look back at the LOTR movies and think that Gimli was totally awesome, because he didn't have any gimmicks. He just hacked stuff to death with his beard swinging in the wind.
How many of you were completely taken out of the movie when Legolas slid down some stairs on a shield and pew pewd some orcs? Or how about when he climbed up a raging elephant, killed everyone, and killed the elephant?
Gimli is lvl 4, 5 at best, like the whole party. They fight orcs, and dire wolves, and they are almost TPK by a single (baby) Cave Troll. They have zero chances to defeat wraiths (Except gimmick "i have the light of anduril" plot-based single use items for Aragorn), much less able to defeat Balrogs, or Dragons. Gimli-like all mundane fighters- work in PF/D&D until they reach that level. Beyond that, they no longer do.
Gimli has no way to defeat a flying dragon that spit fire on him. He is unable to touch ethereal ghosts, can't properly defeat mirror image+displacement wizards that dominate him, and is utterly destroyed by a Wall of Force.
Gimli can only work in a ground-based low-level campaign. Beyond level 9, Gimli has to adapt, or is unable to hit anyone. Like 99.9999% of the monsters you find with double digit CR can fly, dimensional door, levitate, air walk or any other method that make axe-swinging useless. Gimli WILL look like an action comic cartoon superhero, PERIOD. Sure, he won't cast the Fly spell himself. He'll need some spellcaster to do so, or chunk potions of fly like if they were coke. But he either fly, superhero cartoon style, or he is absolutely unable to hit a single enemy, EVER.
I know, because we have a player that complain about cartoon-like fighters, and in Kingmaker my high level fighter/barbarian (16-17 when the campaign ends) was drinking Potions of Fly as if they were Kool-aid. Whenever we had to approach an encounter, I was like superman, flying with my +4 Cloak of Protection waving on the wind. Me, and every other fighter who wants to be able to defeat the botomless pit of flying monsters that high fantasy RPG are beyond mid-level
I'd like to point out something.
In a world where wizards can travel to different planes, shoot lightning from their hands, and fly, I always saw the fighter as the anchor point of "realism" in a fantasy universe. If there isn't an anchor, everything just becomes garbled make-belief. It can mean everything between the difference of fantasy and epic fantasy.
We have a class for that. Several actually. Aristocrat, Expert, Warrior, and Commoner. Warrior is the grounded martial.
Gustavo...
You're missing the point entirely. Fighters make the game grounded, gritty, and more real.
Everyone is complaining that fighters don't have the abilities that wizards do. So what do you want to do about it, give fighters feats that make them able to do things comparable to spells? If you gave a fighter a feat of +20 acrobatics he's going to look stupid and cartoony as he jumps ridiculously impossible distances all the time. If it were due to a spell effect, sure you can jump that high or far, it's a freaking spell, but when your players are assuming that a character can jump 20 feet at will by the shear strength of his leg muscles, it sounds stupid. Get it?
If the point you're getting at is that a spellcaster can 1v1 a dragon but a fighter can't, I don't understand the problem. If you're playing as a fighter without a party to back you up, why are you even playing a roleplaying game with 2 people? For game mechanics to work properly you have to have a group, usually the recommended amount being 4 people.
The most enjoyable times I've had playing D&D or Pathfinder is when somebody solves a solution to the current combat scenario or problem via their wits. Yeah, it's easy to solve all problems in game via magic, but it's also boring.
You're faced with the challenge of scaling a 200 ft. cliff:
Fighter: I climb it...
Wizard: I cast fly...
You face an invisible foe:
Fighter: I run around the room kicking up dust and debris to try and see the outline of the figure, or perhaps hear him cough...
Wizard: I cast see invisibility...
You're surrounded, flanked by giants on all sides:
Fighter: Time to kick ass and chew barbarian chew...and I'm all out of barbarian chew...
Wizard: I cast teleport because I'm scared of giants...
The feats that fighters accomplish are insane and make them legends. The feats that spellcasters accomplish (saying a few words and moving their arms around a little) aren't exactly as impressive. It's all about the story, not necessarily the power level of the characters.
Word.
If you guys think that fighters should be less grounded, and more over the top, I think most people are open to suggestions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're not comparing like for like so Tri didn't even hit the target. Certain feats are always active, nor do they need to be memorized. When you take Skill Focus it's always on. You can't take a load of feats at one time and change them from day to day.
Feats like Weapon Focus effects all creatures that you hit, it's not effected by monster type, saving throw etc. . Your feat always remains active. Now some feats require certain circumstances but others do not.
Arguing apples to oranges does not solve or end the argument like some of you think it does.
Not my point, shallowsoul. I'm not talking about how situational feats (or spells) are. I'm talking about every Fighters apparently having all the right feats for all combat situations.
So many times I've seen threads go like this:
Poster A: Fighters can only be good at 1 or 2 tricks.
Poster B: Not true! *posts build that is goood at trick X and trick Y*
Poster A: That's just 2 tricks...
Poster B: Ah, but he could also be good at different stuff! *Post builds that is good at trick W and trick Z"
Poster A: That's just 2 tricks...
Poster B: Oh, but he could also be good at different stuff! *posts build that is good at trick M and trick N*
Poster A: Still just 2 tricks... -.-'
Poster B: YOU HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG! JUST GIVE UP AND ADMIT DEFEAT! FIGHTERS ARE THE MOST VERSATILE CHARACTERS EVER!!!
Build versatility is not the same as character versatility.
There is a HUGE difference between having potential to be good at any form of combat and actually being good at all forms of combat.
Even in combat Fighters have little versatility. They either target AC for HP damage or they target AC for HP damage. There's not much else...
You can throw a few maneuvers here and there, and little things like Cornugon Smash (which involves targeting AC for HP damage) for an extra versatility (which is what I usually do, as you can see in my builds), but by the end of the day, you still spend 90% of your time hoping for a chance to full attack, so you can target AC for HP damage multiple times.
Which is not a bad trick, but it's not any more versatile than Rangers or Paladins either. And those classes have much better stuff to do when not fighting.
A Barbarian is not that much better than Fighters out of combat (well, except for having more skills, better class skills and trap sense), but he has more in-combat versatility thanks to his increased movement speed, Uncanny Dodge and his many Rage Powers, which include Pounce, Spell Sunder, Scent, Strength Surge, Ghost Rager, etc...