I've seen a lot of people claim that sorcerers are weak too, Ashiel.
The fighter haters around here are very stubborn...There are no fighter haters in this thread. Just very frustrated fighter lovers. :)
Agreed.
...I'm confused. So many people here complaining about how bad they think fighters are...and now I'm supposed to believe those complaints are driven by a love of fighters?
mmmmkay
...I'm confused. So many people here complaining about how bad they think fighters are...and now I'm supposed to believe those complaints are driven by a love of fighters?
mmmmkay
We think they're in a poor state as is. But because we like them, we want them to be better. :)
I mean, what else would talking about their shortcomings accomplish? The entire point of discussing the issues fighters have is finding a good way to solve their problems. Otherwise this would all be a colossal waste of time. :P
I've seen a lot of people claim that sorcerers are weak too, Ashiel.
I don't think I've seen that particular brand, and it's certainly not a commonly held opinion or there'd be more threads/posts about it.
Now I HAVE heard it said that spontaneous casters are less versatile, and therefore weaker than prepared casters in general, which may or may not be true (I personally like being able to keep on chugging for most of the day).
...I'm confused. So many people here complaining about how bad they think fighters are...and now I'm supposed to believe those complaints are driven by a love of fighters?
mmmmkay
Yup, just like Monk threads were always populated by Monk lovers.
Why would we complain if we disliked Fighters or didn't care about them?
e.g.: I don't care about Cavaliers at all. Neither does any player in my gaming group, so I don't give a damn if they are weak or OP. (They seem pretty weak to me, BTW)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen a lot of people claim that sorcerers are weak too, Ashiel.
Well that's pretty rare. I've never seen anyone other than complete newblets think that any of the full casters aren't at least decent. I can't recall the last time I saw a sorcerer on anyone's tier list below 2nd place in the power scheme of things. I don't see lots of 900+ page threads about sorcerers being underpowered. I have seen threads lamenting that wizards are more or less better. I agree with those threads as well. It's why sorcerers have been modified in my home games to not have delayed casting and to get their bloodline spells as soon as they can cast them (giving them a bit more versatility and keeping them more on par with pacing).
And please, don't mistake this as an appeal to popularity, but we seriously don't see countless threads about sorcerers being weak. We don't see sorcerers popping up low on tier lists. One of the biggest reasons that we DO see such threads popping up constantly over Fighters, Monks, and Rogues is because those classes are having trouble and people see it. They see it and they speak out about it. They look through the rules and they see them lacking. They see that there's not much if anything that really makes them ideally useful or bring to the party that other classes don't while bringing more to the table as well.
I mean nobody can even put up an argument for the fighter that doesn't involve "look at this fighter that I built, he's cool right?" (and they're always possessing some glaring weakness or mediocre capabilities) or yelling about how with enough $$$ you can patch them up. I haven't seen anything except the same repeated argument. "But...we can throw our non-fighter feats at...", "We can hemmorage money because it's endlessly in supply...", "We can devote 4/10 of our bonus feats trying to rival generic martial damage with 1 weapon...", "We can go forever if we could clerics with infinite spells...", "We have more endurance, but we can't show you why...", "We are masters of skills with the lowest skill point count in the game...", "We can do everything with fifteen archetypes that require us to trade away the only good class features we get...", "We can trade all our feats out except that we can't really...", "We are really versatile because we can hit things with one sword, or hit things with two swords...", and so on and so forth.
Seriously. This is what I hear when I read these things.
...I'm confused. So many people here complaining about how bad they think fighters are...and now I'm supposed to believe those complaints are driven by a love of fighters?
mmmmkay
Basically. We care enough to be involved. Just as how most of the most vocal people about monks sucking were those who just wanted nothing more than to love and play monks and be able to contribute (many of which had great understanding of the system and were milking the monk for all you could).
I don't really give a damn about a lot of the classes. Frankly I've more or less abandoned the monk in favor of something that works as advertised. Rogue doesn't really interest me either since he had nothing that made him special other than sneak attack (which all sneak attack means is damage under a condition). Fighter? Well I still have some interest in him but that interest and hope is fading as the waning moon since between the Barbarian, Paladin, and Ranger there's not really anywhere that the Fighter fits in that wouldn't be better suited as either one of those classes or a multiclass of those classes (Barbarian/Ranger is a pretty solid option for pretty much whatever martial stuff you want).
Boost any none Int Caster 2 Skill Rank Class by 2 up to 4 Skill Ranks per level.
Make Power Attack/Deadly Aim/Combat Expertise Scaling instead of a Flat Progression.
Open up Magic Item Crafting.
And it is amazing how much it boosts Fighters.
Nearly 900 posts and not one has convinced me that there is a serious problem with the fighter.There have been 900+ other posts, and 900+ posts before them about the fighter's handicaps. You haven't been convinced
So all those posts and no one has yet made an argument convicing enough to change minds, let alone to convincing enough to get Paizo to make a change? Perhaps the problem either doesn't exist, is not as bad as you think, or perhaps the fighter when used properly, is just fine as is.
Here's a quick fix to the Fighter class:
The Fighter's bonus feats (and only those) can now be chosen from D&D 3.X material in addition to PF material, including splatbooks, like Tome of Battle, and the 3.X version of updated feats, like Power Attack, Manyshot, Improved Trip, etc. :)
So all those posts and no one has yet made an argument convicing enough to change minds, let alone to convincing enough to get Paizo to make a change? Perhaps the problem either doesn't exist, is not as bad as you think, or perhaps the fighter when used properly, is just fine as is.
Or perhaps the 3 people who don't agree with the other 5 dozen just don't feel like being persuaded.
The main thing I've pulled from this thread is: fighters suck because they're not magic. Every other class has a spell/power/talent/arcana to let them do what the fighter does but the fighter cannot imitate the other classes. And I'm kinda fine with that. I like a mundane class and fighter seems a good class for that. I'm fine with giving the fighter more skill points or better saves but if your idea of fixing the fighter is letting them bend time or space then you've lost me.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
...I'm confused. So many people here complaining about how bad they think fighters are...and now I'm supposed to believe those complaints are driven by a love of fighters?
mmmmkay
I guess you think that people who volunteer at soup kitchens must hate the hungry because they keep trying to give them food?
Basically I allow them to use the Spell Slot thing from the Words of Power Subsystem. If they use Spellcraft instead of the Other Skill allowed then it is +5 DC except for Consumables like Wands, Potions, and Scrolls.
Crafting feats are instead based on Character Level/HD and MAster Craftsman is changed to Master Tradesman and gives a +2(+4) to all Craft and Profession Checks in the manner of Acrobatic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So all those posts and no one has yet made an argument convicing enough to change minds, let alone to convincing enough to get Paizo to make a change? Perhaps the problem either doesn't exist, is not as bad as you think, or perhaps the fighter when used properly, is just fine as is.Nearly 900 posts and not one has convinced me that there is a serious problem with the fighter.There have been 900+ other posts, and 900+ posts before them about the fighter's handicaps. You haven't been convinced
Nah. I don't think so. Because merely saying it's fine with no reasoning doesn't make it so. But plenty of people did that with the monk too. The monk which also had many 900+ page threads discussing it on the forums constantly. Paizo eventually acknowledged and has taken steps towards patching the monk up to an including officially changing the way that some of the monk's core mechanics work, and making adjustments to the cost of the Amulet of Mighty Fists to appease monk fans (though IMHO that probably just gives joygasms to druids and summoners moreso :P).
The Fighter's bonus feats (and only those) can now be chosen from D&D 3.X material in addition to PF material, including splatbooks, like Tome of Battle, and the 3.X version of updated feats, like Power Attack, Manyshot, Improved Trip, etc. :)
Humorously, yes, that would probably do a lot towards making them somewhat more useful and/or interesting. I'm not sure I'd want to see certain things coming back up but I did like that the Tome of Battle allowed Fighters to take martial maneuvers as feats.
Tome of Battle was a good book. It was the first time designers actually seemed to sit down and try to make martials somewhat balanced and giving them stuff to do other than trying spamming full-attacks over and over again. The mobility offered by the standard-action maneuvers was very welcome. And IIRC not one class in the book had less than 4 + Int modifier skills.
I guess you think that people who volunteer at soup kitchens must hate the hungry because they keep trying to give them food?
That was really an odd thing to say in a discussion about a fantasy role-playing game.
The main thing I've pulled from this thread is: fighters suck because they're not magic. Every other class has a spell/power/talent/arcana to let them do what the fighter does but the fighter cannot imitate the other classes. And I'm kinda fine with that. I like a mundane class and fighter seems a good class for that. I'm fine with giving the fighter more skill points or better saves but if your idea of fixing the fighter is letting them bend time or space then you've lost me.
They don't need to bend time and space but they need SOMETHING special. Fighters may be the most mundane of the classes but that doesn't mean they should be baseline humans, it means they should be like Beowulf, unnaturally strong, inhumanly powerful warriors with no overt magical abilities in combat, but with a bit of tactical flair.
They should, basically, be the epitome of "Authority equals asskicking" having skills to back up their martial prowess, and being able to direct troops.
That Tactician archetype someone posted back there is just about perfect concept-wise. Get rid of the "oh it replaces Weapon Training 1 and Armor Training 3 as well as Heavy Armor proficiency because reasons" bit, give him an extra good save and Perception as a class skill on top of something like that that makes him synergize with the group a bit better both on the battlefield and off, and he's gold.
Nah. I don't think so. Because merely saying it's fine with no reasoning doesn't make it so.So all those posts and no one has yet made an argument convicing enough to change minds, let alone to convincing enough to get Paizo to make a change? Perhaps the problem either doesn't exist, is not as bad as you think, or perhaps the fighter when used properly, is just fine as is.Nearly 900 posts and not one has convinced me that there is a serious problem with the fighter.There have been 900+ other posts, and 900+ posts before them about the fighter's handicaps. You haven't been convinced
This game was quite thorougly beta tested before being released. A small handful of unhappy fighter-lovers saying so with partial and conditional arguments doesn't make the fighter broken either. I don't know how many people play Pathfinder, but it's alot. I see a small handful of maybe 20-30 people bashing-the-fighter, but the collective arguments have failed collectively.
I didn't just say-so without reasoning. The game was thoroughly beta-tested before release...they have made millions selling it...I have yet to see Paizo issue a correction, an apology, or refunds for selling a product with a broken class. The business success of Paizo speaks more than just "...merely saying it's fine...", which apparently you suggested I did.
I read all these posts trying to explain the weaknesses, and I am not convinced. The fighter was not meant to be the party caster, nor the party paladin, nor the party rogue. In all of this discussion, the role *in the party* is left out.
Meh. To Many Feats. I would rather collapse some of the Feats together. And make Power Attack, Deadly Aim, Combat Expertise scaling and Automatic. Maybe even make Shot on the Run and Spring Attack automatic as well.
Maybe make Dodge increase by level as well.
This game was quite thorougly beta tested before being released. A small handful of unhappy fighter-lovers saying so with partial and conditional arguments doesn't make the fighter broken either. I don't know how many people play Pathfinder, but it's alot. I see a small handful of maybe 20-30 people bashing-the-fighter, but the collective arguments have failed collectively.
I didn't just say-so without reasoning. The game was thoroughly beta-tested before release...they have made millions selling it...I have yet to see Paizo issue a correction, an apology, or refunds for selling a product with a broken class. The business success of Paizo speaks more than just "...merely saying it's fine...", which apparently you suggested I did.
I read all these posts trying to explain the weaknesses, and I am not convinced. The fighter was not meant to be the party caster, nor the party paladin, nor the party rogue. In all of this discussion, the role *in the party* is left out.
Then provide your counter point. We're here to discuss the fighter, and we enjoy it. We'll wait. :)
The main thing I've pulled from this thread is: fighters suck because they're not magic. Every other class has a spell/power/talent/arcana to let them do what the fighter does but the fighter cannot imitate the other classes. And I'm kinda fine with that. I like a mundane class and fighter seems a good class for that. I'm fine with giving the fighter more skill points or better saves but if your idea of fixing the fighter is letting them bend time or space then you've lost me.They don't need to bend time and space but they need SOMETHING special. Fighters may be the most mundane of the classes but that doesn't mean they should be baseline humans, it means they should be like Beowulf, unnaturally strong, inhumanly powerful warriors with no overt magical abilities in combat, but with a bit of tactical flair.
They should, basically, be the epitome of "Authority equals asskicking" having skills to back up their martial prowess, and being able to direct troops.
That Tactician archetype someone posted back there is just about perfect concept-wise. Get rid of the "oh it replaces Weapon Training 1 and Armor Training 3 as well as Heavy Armor proficiency because reasons" bit, give him an extra good save and Perception as a class skill on top of something like that that makes him synergize with the group a bit better both on the battlefield and off, and he's gold.
Everything you suggested is already do-able.
(I think Beowulf had some magical-dragon-blooded assistance IIRC)
I guess you think that people who volunteer at soup kitchens must hate the hungry because they keep trying to give them food?That was really an odd thing to say in a discussion about a fantasy role-playing game.
Only in that it assumes you capable of comparing and contrasting the statement relative to your own.
This game was quite thorougly beta tested before being released. A small handful of unhappy fighter-lovers saying so with partial and conditional arguments doesn't make the fighter broken either. I don't know how many people play Pathfinder, but it's alot. I see a small handful of maybe 20-30 people bashing-the-fighter, but the collective arguments have failed collectively.
I didn't just say-so without reasoning. The game was thoroughly beta-tested before release...they have made millions selling it...I have yet to see Paizo issue a correction, an apology, or refunds for selling a product with a broken class. The business success of Paizo speaks more than just "...merely saying it's fine...", which apparently you suggested I did.
I read all these posts trying to explain the weaknesses, and I am not convinced. The fighter was not meant to be the party caster, nor the party paladin, nor the party rogue. In all of this discussion, the role *in the party* is left out.
All games are tested.
All games have problems even after testing. This is a fact of life.
And a game being successful does not mean it is perfect in every regard (which is impossible) or that every class/character is balanced against each other (which is unlikely) or even that the game is good. It just means it is good enough and fun enough that people will buy it, or it has built a loyal enough fanbase that fans of the previous installment will just buy the newest version when it comes out.
Your premise is flawed and you STILL have yet to state a coherent argument on why you think the class is balanced beyond "I disagree".
Everything you suggested is already do-able.
Not particularly, it isn't. Not without sacrificing the strengths the class already has to shore up the multitude of weaknesses so he's just mediocre at every thing.
And even if all of those things were doable (and come to think of it...I never mentioned anything specific), he still doesn't have 2 good saves or 4+Int skills (well, without sacrificing a good chunk of what makes him supposedly superior to a Barbarian or Ranger, namely his higher AC and weapon damage with Weapon Training).
I read all these posts trying to explain the weaknesses, and I am not convinced. The fighter was not meant to be the party caster, nor the party paladin, nor the party rogue. In all of this discussion, the role *in the party* is left out.
Actually I've addressed the role of the fighter almost incessantly. Honestly, I'm beginning to irritate myself with how much I've brought up the fighter's role in the party. That is being a martial combatant for the party. Of course, that is also the role of Barbarian, Paladin, and Ranger (and now Cavalier and Samurai, and it can be done by other classes as well but the martial classes tend to be the guys who are the go-to).
The catch is all those classes mentioned do fighting better than fighter. Fighters don't really get much that gives them wide options in combat or diversifies them, nor does them any favors in the exploration and worldly interaction. All the other martials do.
Only in that it assumes you capable of comparing and contrasting the statement relative to your own.
I guess you think that people who volunteer at soup kitchens must hate the hungry because they keep trying to give them food?That was really an odd thing to say in a discussion about a fantasy role-playing game.
Why that tone Ninja? Please refrain from personal attacks, they serve no purpose in a fantasy role-playing game forum.
Statements in a tone like yours, twice now, do you, this game, and your whole argument about fighters a diservice.
Fighter and Rogues would strangely benefit from the same changes.
The biggest Problem? Paladins, Barbarians, and Fighters all share the same role in the party. Paladins & Barbarians are the better of the 3 at the 2 jobs. Albeit they are better at one than the other.
Fighter and Rogues would strangely benefit from the same changes.
The biggest Problem? Paladins, Barbarians, and Fighters all share the same role in the party. Paladins & Barbarians are the better of the 3 at the 2 jobs. Albeit they are better at one than the other.
So if the party Cleric goes down, and Paladin assumes his "backup" role as secondary healer...who fights up front?
Personally, I like to play barbarians, they are fun, but most professional soldiers won't be barbarians...and professional soldiers lead armies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Only in that it assumes you capable of comparing and contrasting the statement relative to your own.
I guess you think that people who volunteer at soup kitchens must hate the hungry because they keep trying to give them food?That was really an odd thing to say in a discussion about a fantasy role-playing game.
Why that tone Ninja? Please refrain from personal attacks, they serve no purpose in a fantasy role-playing game forum.
Statements in a tone like yours, twice now, do you, this game, and your whole argument about fighters a diservice.
Yes, I'm very sorry that I used a simple rhetoric device and then explained it to you when you questioned the purpose of the statement. What a vicious personal attack that was.
Ashiel, could you perhaps compile a list of links to your more thorough posts on the subject for Nobody Special?
There's a LOT of content in this thread, and skimming has a tendency to glaze past verbose (yet awesome) stuff like you tend to post.
Skimming also tends to glaze-past peoples user-names...Nobody IMPORTANT...
Sure, I'd love a list of Ashiels verbose threads. She (assuming she, sorry) seems to be a very good writer.
So if the party Cleric goes down, and Paladin assumes his "backup" role as secondary healer...who fights up front?Fighter and Rogues would strangely benefit from the same changes.
The biggest Problem? Paladins, Barbarians, and Fighters all share the same role in the party. Paladins & Barbarians are the better of the 3 at the 2 jobs. Albeit they are better at one than the other.
In a party a Paladin can fight up front AND he can be backup healer (including healing the martial -himself-). Fighter cannot. Fighter adds nothing.
Personally, I like to play barbarians, they are fun, but most professional soldiers won't be barbarians...and professional soldiers lead armies.
So you say. Nothing says barbarians can't be professional soldiers and fighters have absolutely nothing that lends itself to being a leader of anything.
Yes, I'm very sorry that I used a simple rhetoric device and then explained it to you when you questioned the purpose of the statement. What a vicious personal attack that was.Only in that it assumes you capable of comparing and contrasting the statement relative to your own.
I guess you think that people who volunteer at soup kitchens must hate the hungry because they keep trying to give them food?That was really an odd thing to say in a discussion about a fantasy role-playing game.
Why that tone Ninja? Please refrain from personal attacks, they serve no purpose in a fantasy role-playing game forum.
Statements in a tone like yours, twice now, do you, this game, and your whole argument about fighters a diservice.
Ninja, you forgot the [/end sarcasm tag]
And that falls to the Cavalier.
The Paladin is only going to be healing in an emergency. And not all Clerics are going to be Combat Medics.
Ashiel, could you perhaps compile a list of links to your more thorough posts on the subject for Nobody Special?
There's a LOT of content in this thread, and skimming has a tendency to glaze past verbose (yet awesome) stuff like you tend to post.
Skimming also tends to glaze-past peoples user-names...Nobody IMPORTANT...
Sure, I'd love a list of Ashiels verbose threads. She (assuming she, sorry) seems to be a very good writer.
Thank you. I'll see if I can compile a list of posts over the next day or so. A lot of the stuff gets left unsaid because a lot of it was said before, or is only referenced by people in the thread (Zark has referenced a comment I made about fighters from like 3 fighter threads back several times in this thread I believe).
So if the party Cleric goes down, and Paladin assumes his "backup" role as secondary healer...who fights up front?Fighter and Rogues would strangely benefit from the same changes.
The biggest Problem? Paladins, Barbarians, and Fighters all share the same role in the party. Paladins & Barbarians are the better of the 3 at the 2 jobs. Albeit they are better at one than the other.
In a party a Paladin can fight up front AND he can be backup healer (including healing the martial -himself-). Fighter cannot. Fighter adds nothing.
Personally, I like to play barbarians, they are fun, but most professional soldiers won't be barbarians...and professional soldiers lead armies.So you say. Nothing says barbarians can't be professional soldiers and fighters have absolutely nothing that lends itself to being a leader of anything.
A Paladin cannot do both at the same time methinks. She can heal herself as she fights but she cannot serve as the party cleric AND fight at-the-same time.
I see Barbarian leaders as horde leaders, not regiment leaders. Building a fighter as a commander would be quite easy. They have the same available tools to be a leader as everyone else...except at least in our real world, the military leaders come up from the ranks and have "been there and done that.." and thus have credibility. From a role-playing perspective, I think *that* is where the leadership feat back-story would come from.
A Paladin cannot do both at the same time methinks. She can heal herself as she fights but she cannot serve as the party cleric AND fight at-the-same time.
And yet he still has the option to swap between those roles if he wishes to do so.
The Fighter does not.
And hell, he can always spend a single turn just healing one guy and go right back to swinging next round (or do so just fine in a single round if he's the one that needs healing)
And that falls to the Cavalier.
The Paladin is only going to be healing in an emergency. And not all Clerics are going to be Combat Medics.
...and with a quick hand-wave you sure dismissed the Paladins Lay-on-Hands ability; an ability 2 or 3 pages ago that was central to the argument about *why* Paladins are so great over Fighters.