The Main Problem with Fighters


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1,151 to 1,200 of 3,805 << first < prev | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | next > last >>

Kwizzy wrote:
I'm pretty sure our Gunslinger wouldn't be happy about my Fighter running around with Grit.

In Kirthfinder, the Gunslinger would simply be rebuilt as a fighter with the appropriate talents and feats. Just as the cavalier and samurai are also fighters with appropriate talent/feat selections. You can do a lot with the fighter!


The problem with a fighter is that when he loses he doesn't have a thermonuclear core to self detonate.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
The problem with a fighter is that when he loses he doesn't have a thermonuclear core to self detonate.

They should contact their local alchemist!


Oh yes, I'm sure our Gunslinger wouldn't mind the power upgrade, but our casters struggle enough with spell selection and such already -- a Witch and a Psion -- and the Gunslinger is already terrifyingly effective. I'm the malcontent here who stays awake at night trying to make sure the single melee heavy in the party pulls her weight.


Ashiel wrote:

Yet ironically the Fighter is still a dipping class since 3.x. As of the Weaponmaster Archetype it's even more of a dipping class. They added gloves of dueling to up the Fighter's pitiful weapon training, and yet it only encourages people to multiclass out of Fighter ASAP. The moment you have weapon training you can grab dueling gloves and bolt, getting 50-75% of all the weapon training in your favorite weapon group as you'll ever want.

For archers a fighter dips is golden. For example, a barbarian, paladin, or even ranger can take 3 levels of Weaponmaster {Longbow}, grab gloves of dueling and for giving up 3 levels from their main class they just got a permanent +3/+3 to hit and damage with their bow, 2 bonus combat feats, and a +3 bonus to Fortitude and +1 to Reflex and Will.

Even more ironically. One level fighter is actually not all that uncommon. Especially you are a battle Cleric, Ranger, Bard and Rogue. Although If I played rogue I would probably dip into ranger for spells (wands), skills and weapon and armor prof, two good saves, etc.

Even Barbarian can pick one level fighter for heavy armor prof and also get the bonus feat for free :-)

Yep, fighter is a great dip class.


Zark wrote:

Yep, fighter is a great dip class.

That is why every try to fix the fighter should start after second level (unless it is just adding skill points)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not seeing "dippability" as a real problem, personally -- but then again, I don't share the visceral loathing of multi-classing that most people seem to be infected with.

It makes perfect sense to me that if you wanted to be a better fighter, you'd take a level in fighter. People who stay in fighter for their careers should be awesome fighters, so, yeah, fixes past 1st level are definitely needed, too.

A dip into fighter for a cleric or bard seriously hurts their casting, channeling, inspiration, etc. -- regardless of how many "goodies" they're picking up that way. A dip into fighter by a ranger or rogue means they're not giving up as much, but a ranger doesn't really gain a whole lot by dipping, either. A rogue probably gets the most out of it, but on the whole I think the rogue needs fixing as much if not more than the fighter does.


The problem is not that some people dip fighter. The problem is that fighter is a good class to dip into but a weak class to stay. So changes meant to make single class fighters better should not mak fighter dips better, too.


Umbranus wrote:
The problem is not that some people dip fighter. The problem is that fighter is a good class to dip into but a weak class to stay. So changes meant to make single class fighters better should not mak fighter dips better, too.

I wholeheartedly agree, up until you get to the last sentence. Making dips better is irrelevant; the real issue is providing incentive for people to stay.


Starbuck_II wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Still leaves a shield carrying paladin screwed because it's one or the other.
Do Bucklers not exist to you?

Spoken by someone who has obviously never actually used a buckler--but recognizing that the rules were written by folks who have also never actually used a buckler either.


Xexyz wrote:

The fundamental problem with the fighter - and the source of the class's perceived weakness - is that Pathfinder (and by extension D&D) is a resource management paradigm, and the fighter class, as presently designed, doesn't fit into that paragdigm. Every other class has an exhaustable resource that determines a significant part of their combat ability, so adventuring is designed around management those resources - a.k.a. the party adventures until they run out of spells/rage rounds/smites/etc. then rests.

Thus the fighter's unique strength, that its abilities are inexhaustable, are never able to be put into play, except for very rare circumstances. Since the fact that the fighter's abilities more or less work all the time regardless of the circumstances, they are by necessity of game balance weaker than abilties that have finite use.

The way I see it, the only way to truly balance the fighter against other characters is to give the class some resource mechanic that would allow it to utilize truly powerful abilities, on par with what other classes get.

To be perfectly honest though, I'm not sure that's a good thing. My greatest fear in the neverending quest to achieve class balance is the convergance toward class homogenization. If I had to choose, I'd rather have some classes mechanically weaker than others if the alternative was that all of the classes were more or less the same.

They call that Runequest.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
, I don't share the visceral loathing of multi-classing that most people seem to be infected with.

I'm guilty of that viceral loathing. Only because it stinks of the training montage scene where the plucky rogue learns enough in a week of training to outfight a character who has spent years learning to move and attack and be tough enough to actually be a fighter.

It just kind of devalues the whole thing for me. But each to his own taste. I'm not a gamist.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rocketman1969 wrote:
I'm guilty of that viceral loathing. Only because it stinks of the training montage scene where the plucky rogue learns enough in a week of training to outfight a character who has spent years learning to move and attack and be tough enough to actually be a fighter.

Presuming the "years of training" guy is staying a fighter, then how is a rogue 1/fighter 1 consistently able to outfigtht a fighter 2? A: He can't -- or if he can, there's even more wrong with the fighter class than people realize.

On the other hand, if Mr. Years-of-Training is remaining at 1st level, and it bothers you that a 2nd level character can outfight a 1st level character? Then maybe a level-based system isn't the game for you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've never had a problem with even the most random of mult-classing arrangements in my games. For me, it's not so much 'years of training' as 'a few weeks to months of dedicated Basic Training in something in which the character already had a natural knack for.'

Now if the player wanted to highlight a lack of affinity for a class in his character and take it anyway, when a lull rose in the campaign's action we might flash-forward 6 months or so IC to allow him the extra time it took his character to acquire those skills.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Rocketman1969 wrote:
I'm guilty of that viceral loathing. Only because it stinks of the training montage scene where the plucky rogue learns enough in a week of training to outfight a character who has spent years learning to move and attack and be tough enough to actually be a fighter.

Presuming the "years of training" guy is staying a fighter, then how is a rogue 1/fighter 1 consistently able to outfigtht a fighter 2? A: He can't -- or if he can, there's even more wrong with the fighter class than people realize.

On the other hand, if Mr. Years-of-Training is remaining at 1st level, and it bothers you that a 2nd level character can outfight a 1st level character? Then maybe a level-based system isn't the game for you.

It doesn't bother me so much as it makes the whole preparation and back story--um--looking for neutral language here--fluff. Hey i just become a wizard cuz I feel like maximizing my character--just rubs me the wrong way. But as I said--in a more gamist approach that's fine. It just isn't something I'm going to enjoy GMing...it doesn't fit in my gameworld context--to be clear--it is neither right or wrong--it is simply something I loathe. Personal preference.


Figured it would be relevant to pimp my homebrew fighter tweaks here, as it is relevant to the discussion at hand. These are changes I've been using for several months, even before I started reading this thread (which I haven't seen until today, somehow).


Personaly, I don't have any problem with multiclassing. I usually don't do it because I hate getting cool stuff later than I have to, but it doesn't botter me at all if other people do it.

Usually, when I plan on multiclassing, I try to roleplay the character in a wat that it makes sense (e.g.: My Gunslinger is a really religious and righteous guy, who makes a point of defending the weak and fighting evil, so when he gets those Paladin levels, it feels more natural), but I don't demand that my players do the same, just like I won't bother with it if I don't want to.

Besides, some times, multiclassing is not even that much of a departure from the character's focus. A Cleric who takes a level in Summoner might be weird, but a Barbarian who takes levels in Ranger is not exactly "learning new stuff out of nowhere" as much as he's focusing more into a specific part of what he already does. If a Paladin who takes a level of Fighter, it just that specific Paladin spent a bit more time on his martial training than in his religious one. And who knows when the powers of a Sorcerer might awaken?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rocketman1969 wrote:
Hey i just become a wizard cuz I feel like maximizing my character--just rubs me the wrong way.

Excapt that any multiclassing -- especially if it involves caster levels -- is the easiest way to WEAKEN your character. Multi-classing hurts you so badly in Pathfinder, from loss of scaling class features (never mind favored class bonuses), that the few extra tricks you pick up can't come close to making up the difference. It's the exact opposite of "maximizing" your character.

On the other hand, there are some compelling role-playing archetypes (the knight-troubador comes to mind) that are hard to do properly without multiclassing. A bard 4/paladin 4 is far weaker than an 8th level bard, and far weaker than an 8th level paladin, for example, but it would make for a fun character if it weren't so crippling in play.


You'd see less dipping if feats were better designed I think. People dip around the early bonus feat classes because they can't put together their concept in a timely fashion otherwise.

For example if you want a heavily armored cleric with a martial weapon other than his deity's preferred it's dip time. If you could get two or three martial or armor proficiencies from one feat you might stay in cleric and spend a feat.

Then there are the 1 BAB prerequisite feats. Nothing promotes dipping like not being able to get an important feat until level 3 unless you dip a martial. Especially for humans or those who don't particularly want any no prereq feats.

Nothing like 2 levels of ranger for a swashbuckler (especially of a small race) because you can't fight effectively without power attack and can't meet the prerequisites without dislocating your stats unless it's from a ranger combat style.

Similarly style feats with ridiculous prerequisites promote many styles monk dips. The 75% unarmed damage die increase and the bonus feats promote regular monk dips for anyone wanting to grapple.

To stop dipping you need to get rid of useless prerequisites, make feats good enough non-fighters can fill out a simple concept other than two handed weapon, and get rid of prerequisites that can be bypassed with a dip.


Here's my question: does the Fighter succeed as advertised in the class description?

Paizo wrote:
Role: Fighters excel at combat—defeating their enemies, controlling the flow of battle, and surviving such sorties themselves. While their specific weapons and methods grant them a wide variety of tactics, few can match fighters for sheer battle prowess.

The fluffier aspects in the description before the condensed Role section aside, does the Fighter class itself accomplish and deliver all that it says it does?

Let's break it down. Fighters:

A) Excel at combat.

Full BaB, extra combat feats over what other classes get, proficient in all weapons and armor (though not exotic), and bonuses/penalty negation via Weapon and Armor Training. I'd say so far so good, at least on par on paper with other martials.

How do they excel? Subcategories:

I) defeating their enemies

Okay, sure. As long as that enemy isn't physical immune, fair enough. Fighters also get access to Weapon Specialization and Focus feats others don't. I'll check this one off, though with a few notes.

To take advantage of Fighter-only feats one has to take said feats, diminishing their pool of bonus feats. It doesn't help if you never plan on using it, and you can't trade out for something else. But the same could be said of meta magic or channeling feats. Weapon Training is a nice class feature boost, but all of this is dependent on the Fighter's weapon. So, yes the Fighter does do this as advertised, with the potentially problematic caveat of proper weapon in hand and feats. Fair enough -- weapon-based class doesn't fare as well without weapons. The overwhelming need for specific weapons is where I worry.

II) controlling the flow of battle

This is where I stop the train. The only advantage a Fighter has over other classes in this category is the extra feats. No class feature really gives them this. The Knight from 3.5 does this with their class features, but not the Fighter. Yes, one can choose battlefield control feats that other classes won't ever have room for, but a Fighter who only takes combat feats when they are bonuses (reserving level feats for noon-combat feats) will have nothing tactically-speaking over the other guy who spends all their feats on the same. Last I checked, there aren't any combat control feats that are Fighter-only besides the caster lockdown chains, which are admittedly situationally fabulous. So, I see this as on shaky ground. A Fighter *might* control the battlefield, but is not guaranteed to based solely on class features and it might not be anything over and above what others can do with their level feats (and keep in mind these classes have class features of their own).

III) survive sorties

d10 hit die, and armor proficiency is all that I think I can apply here. Again, yes they can take armor/shield-centric feats that give them bonuses, and they have access to the Greater versions of these feats where others don't. But that's it. Armor Training only removes penalties, it doesn't give a bonus. There's not a whole lot that separates the Fighter here from their fellow melees except that they don't have to sacrifice non-combat feats for combat effectiveness so they might have extra room for Toughness, Endurance/Diehard etc, if they choose. But then it's a choice that isn't built-in or guaranteed to the class. It isn't like Lay on Hands.

When it comes down to it, (A) provides a list of "or" options rather than an inclusive list of "ands" that the class will provide whether you like it or not. Even with all the bonus feats it would be difficult to fulfill two of those simultaneously, let alone all three. And again, to do it requires the right feat selection at the right time.

And once we get to B) weapons and methods grant them a wide variety of tactics, we see a similar exclusivity, which may or may not be the point.

No two Fighters need be anything close to similar, and if that's all it means then great, we're done, but if it means one Fighter is capable of that, that's different. One Fighter can pull off maybe two varieties of tactics. Weapon Training can give them a boost in using two different weapons, absolutely, but by design one will lag behind the other. And again, they need to pick the right feats to pull off tactics other than shooting/attacking the bad guy. If they neglect to pick the right ones or if the right situation never presents itself...

And I may be missing something, but weapons by themselves don't seem varied enough for me to represent vastly differing tactics. Broadly between categories, yes, but within two-handed and one-handed and ranged it doesn't seem too terribly varied. And does anyone else think it might be challenging to convince their DM that your character carries a polearm, a shield, a one-hander, and a bow all at once? Assuming that's not a problem, how do you squish in all the feats to take advantage of each of those weapon's unique properties without coming out with less effectiveness than if you had just focused on one weapon? Brace and reach are great, but is it worth the time to pull out the polearm when you're getting less of a bonus because you picked something else for your Weapon Training? Or is the feat you spent in Weapon Focus (glaive) to keep up worth it? Are you really gaining all that much by spreading out?

I'm not even going to go into the nightmare of keeping those weapons competitively enchanted.

And what makes a Fighter any better than another class at doing this? Weapon Training can sometimes cross the right boundaries, I guess, and extra feats certainly don't hurt.

These are honest questions. I don't know the answers.

I'm not going to argue with sheer battle prowess. That's a little subjective but I feel Weapon and Armor Training fit the bill.

I'm not saying Fighters fail to live up as advertised. I don't know. It's just not all built-in and all inclusive. You can't really have everything advertised all at once, which can be somewhat frustrating. "Yes, my Fighter can take out a Giant's kneecap with a single blow, but has about as much control of the battlefield as a cat-herder." On top of all that, you can fail at advertised features by failing to pick the right feats or pursuing an expensive chain that makes it impossible to do much else.

Is it reasonable to expect discretion and thoughtful choices on the part of the player? Of course. But why not just build in to the class a few features that guarantee a Fighter will do what it says instead of pointing to combat feats and saying "grab the ones of those that do those things we said your class does"? Or toss in specific, non-negotiable bonus feats that display abilities you'd expect any generic Fighter to have?

Say, Combat Expertise (survival), Power Attack (defeat enemies), and Combat Reflexes (battlefield control)? Since those are prerequisites to just about every combat feat anyway?

Just some thoughts. I really don't know the answer to my own question. I'm trying to think of this in relation to just the Fighter, but it's hard not to wonder if other classes do the Fighter's role description better. Maybe the Fighter is supposed to be the gray middle area between Barbarian (damage), Cavalier (control), and Paladin (survivability)?

And I'm sad to say nothing in that role description leads me to believe the Fighter has out-of-combat utility.

Sorry for the length.


I know this is beat to death, but I've always seen the fighter as a ball carrier.

I've never been comfortable with his skill list or skill points, but besides that, I love the class as written.

Assuming PF is a team game, and this is how I put it to my players (and I say this as someone with no experience with the game past 9th level or so), is that while a Wizard can do a lot of different jobs, there are better and worse ways of doing them.

For example, a Summon Monster 3 is pretty cool, but haste on the party fighter is almost always better. Summoning a flying monster is ok, but getting the party fighter in the fight with a fly spell is better again.

There will be a lot of times when the fighter can get in their and do damage without help, but sometimes he needs help from the casters. The casters could probably do something without him, but getting him in there is usually better.

The types of games where the fighter is the worst are games where the encounters are so easy that one caster can handle them. Like, you are fifth level and a bunch of flying monkeys, CR 5 or something, float over. The wizard could make you fly but instead he just kills them all with lightning.

If the fights are hard enough that victory CAN'T be assured by the wizard alone (the enemy swats down your crappy summon and ignores your charm or drops though the ground to avoid your sleet), sometimes the BEST and only way to win is to make sure the guy with the +16 to strike and +12 to damage gets in there and does some hitting.

Know what I'm saying?


Anyone see a problem with allowing the Fighter's Weapon Focus/Specialization feats affect all weapons with which they are proficient, rather than having to select a weapon?

The idea (fluff) being that they are not specializing as in "this weapon over that weapon" but instead specializing as in "weapons as opposed to diplomacy, spellcasting, stealth, etc.". They are weapons masters. They become so fluent in the language of weaponry that they are capable of applying the whole of their training to any weapon they are proficient with.

For sword and board and THF styles, it would not have an effect beyond allowing them to be able to immediately upgrade without having to worry about the new weapon not being within their specialty.

For TWF style, it would result in increasing precision and damage with one of their weapons. Imbalancing?


I'm not really a fan of the fighter as written. His bonuses are all numerical +1 to this or that, or reducing a penalty(which is argueably worse). 2+ skillpoints and one of the worst class skill list ingame. In my last game I actually did better than the fighter with my wizard becuase I had so many skillpoints per level I was able to become a better climber and acrobat than him through pumping them. Come to think of it I started out as a better acrobat becuase his dex wasn't as high and he was taking more penalty.

Even with all his bonus feats he still can't emulate the power of class features. Feats won't get him an animal companion, nor the saves of superstition, nor the damage from witch hunter, not the healing of lay on hands, and not a pounce or burst. At best he can use his general feats to pump umd to pretend to be a spellcaster, but at the cost of not dumping charisma and spending gold which other classes can take for granted on wands and potions. Every other class can do that though, so its not even a fighter only feature. A sorcerer UMDing or scouting is going to beat him any day. That sorcerer won't have to roll for some of those items and could possibly craft for half price them if he dropped a feat into it. He has spells, he has an expendable resource that can end fights in a round with a might flash and tactical show. When was the last time you said "oh no a fighter!". Its not something I say often. Now a high level Cleric or Wizard...(hilariously, I've never said oh no a druid either, but I fight far more fighters and rogues than druids.)

Its hard for me to pick the fighter over any other class. Rangers get bonus feats without prereqs, spell casting, 4 more skills, and a best buddy animal friend. Fighters just can't emulate any of those. He can work to get feats sure. He can pump skills with his general feats I guess. I don't think thats fun, or something I should have to do though. Through doing how much of that do I have to go through to be as good as the ranger? If he's played by someone just as good and optimized as me he might turn out better still.

Even with all his feats he's often going to be limited. Feat chains and the like really force him into a few positions in life and don't give him many options. Having to be with a specific weapon forces him into a limited position still. Yes, I would love if he could disarm, trip, use archery, use an obscure exotic weapon, and swing a chain that devastates foes at a distance. He's not going to do all that at once mostly likely though.(wait, did I just describe a spiked chain? Oh well, doesn't do all that anymore. Pretend I'm talking about a vague super weapon with spikes if you have to. or replace trip with grapple)

I can't see a fighter doing more than full attacking during a round. He doesn't have a special spell sunder he can perform. He can't learn to break down walls and be a juggaurnaut on the field. He's just a man who full attacks. He takes feats to full attack better or make up for his losses. He doesn't gain more options. Feats that give you options are hard to find, there aren't tactical feats that let me use weapons in new and creative ways. Not many that I know of anyway. Rangers on the other hand get spells, and animals. Barbarians have rage powers which can make him a juggernaut who blows up spells and even fly. Paladins come with an adorable pony or divine weapon, spells, that smite is pretty nifty and can heal the sick and even raise the dead if they choose that path in life.

Fighters don't have the best saves either. He can only push them up with magic items and by spending those precious feats he got as a class feature. He doesn't have a special boost to CMD so he may be worse than the barbarian or Ranger at defending themselves against trip or grapple. The fighter doesn't get a special way to escape or fight this. He gets more feats. He can spend those feats on trying to make these defences nicer, but he gets no more AC than the barbarian or Paladin. He gets less effective health than the Barbarian and the Paladin.

TL;DR
Limited skills, boring numerical bonuses as class features, feats can't emulate class features, lack of protection, and the big one is limited options.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Quintessentially Me wrote:
Anyone see a problem with allowing the Fighter's Weapon Focus/Specialization feats affect all weapons with which they are proficient, rather than having to select a weapon?

I prefer the Warblade's Weapon Aptitude, where you pick which weapon you are focused with by practicing for an hour with it in the morning.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Quintessentially Me wrote:
Anyone see a problem with allowing the Fighter's Weapon Focus/Specialization feats affect all weapons with which they are proficient, rather than having to select a weapon?
I prefer the Warblade's Weapon Aptitude, where you pick which weapon you are focused with by practicing for an hour with it in the morning.

While weapon aptitude 'works', you run into the problem where the Fighter just isn't flexible in weapon choice.

Sure he can trade weapons for certain predictable scenarios, but when trading between, say, a Polearm vs a pair of shortswords mid-combat based on the events going on, he gets screwed out of his class feature (the Fighter Exclusive Feats.)

As far as this rule goes, I actually already use it and haven't found any problems with it. The numbers stay exactly the same, you just don't have to worry about them applying some times and not at others (in other words, it actually simplifies one small aspect of play while improving the fighter's reliability with a swath of weapons.)


I totally understand what you're saying Cranefist. I love playing a Fighter because I like to get in a monster's face so the casters are free to do whatever sadistic casting they can come up with. (I was trained in 4e DnD, and I found Defenders to be my game.) But sometimes this nagging doubt creeps into my head that the party would be better off if I'd played a Magus, Barbarian, Cavalier, Ranger, or Paladin.

Out of character, I know that as a player I'd be much better at a caster class in the Pathfinder environment. I only wish I could utilize my intellect more with the Fighter. As is, I make do with what I have.

Sometimes the effects that casters can conjure up are just so perfect in a situation. We had a mass battle where our Witch cast two Sleet Storms and turned the fight around. Of course that gave me the chance to run in and do what I do best without getting shot 10+ times (touch attacks, no less), but I'm not sure I can exactly reciprocate when its me that needs to do something terribly clever that will overturn the odds.

Even in my element, there's not a lot I can do to control the field, and certainly not counter swaths of enemies. Vast effects over 40+ feet are definitely not among the things my Fighter will ever be capable of. She's great, but she's not exactly "turn the tide of a battle far above our capability of handling alone by doing something only a non-caster can do at the right time/place" great. Seems like my skill set in its ideal situation -- say, a narrow bridge that I can Bull Rush to my heart's content -- can be replaced with a well-placed Wall of Force or somesuch. The Gunslinger out-damages me to a degree I'd call embarrassing if I actually cared about doing damage.

I desperately want to be useful to the party, but sometimes I feel like the plucky comic relief.

Though, maybe I just don't know my own strengths yet. I admit I'm still very much in a 4e mindset of "keep enemies from eating squishies, take damage like a champ." You don't know how shameful it is to me that just about everyone has more HP than me.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
As far as this rule goes, I actually already use it and haven't found any problems with it. The numbers stay exactly the same, you just don't have to worry about them applying some times and not at others (in other words, it actually simplifies one small aspect of play while improving the fighter's reliability with a swath of weapons.)

By this rule, do you mean 'all weapons he is proficient with' or 'weapon aptitude'?


I mean 'all weapons he is proficient with.'

In my games, if a Fighter chooses to invest feats into the Weapon Focus/Specialization/Greater Focus/Greater Specialization chain (and Improved Critical) he gets those benefits on every weapon with which he is proficient.


Kwizzy wrote:

I totally understand what you're saying Cranefist. I love playing a Fighter because I like to get in a monster's face so the casters are free to do whatever sadistic casting they can come up with. (I was trained in 4e DnD, and I found Defenders to be my game.) But sometimes this nagging doubt creeps into my head that the party would be better off if I'd played a Magus, Barbarian, Cavalier, Ranger, or Paladin.

Out of character, I know that as a player I'd be much better at a caster class in the Pathfinder environment. I only wish I could utilize my intellect more with the Fighter. As is, I make do with what I have.

Sometimes the effects that casters can conjure up are just so perfect in a situation. We had a mass battle where our Witch cast two Sleet Storms and turned the fight around. Of course that gave me the chance to run in and do what I do best without getting shot 10+ times (touch attacks, no less), but I'm not sure I can exactly reciprocate when its me that needs to do something terribly clever that will overturn the odds.

Even in my element, there's not a lot I can do to control the field, and certainly not counter swaths of enemies. Vast effects over 40+ feet are definitely not among the things my Fighter will ever be capable of. She's great, but she's not exactly "turn the tide of a battle far above our capability of handling alone by doing something only a non-caster can do at the right time/place" great. Seems like my skill set in its ideal situation -- say, a narrow bridge that I can Bull Rush to my heart's content -- can be replaced with a well-placed Wall of Force or somesuch. The Gunslinger out-damages me to a degree I'd call embarrassing if I actually cared about doing damage.

I desperately want to be useful to the party, but sometimes I feel like the plucky comic relief.

Though, maybe I just don't know my own strengths yet. I admit I'm still very much in a 4e mindset of "keep enemies from eating squishies, take damage like a champ." You don't know how shameful it is to me that...

Ha, well, it isn't your fault they wrote up the Gunslinger.

A part of the fighter's problem raw is the movement system. Back in 2e, a fighter could block for a wizard. All you had to say was, "I get in the way of anyone who comes at the wizard."

Now you have to hold an action to do it, and once you do it, you are stuck in place and can't move anymore. It is silly.

Wizards also used to lose their spells if they took a point of damage on their turn. Not any more. Now, to disrupt a wizard you have to give up full attack usually.

To add insult to injury, all fighters got back for it was the ability to jog in armor.

Hell, in 2e you could get a sword that let the PC fly for like 5000 gold. Not its about 10 times that amount, so cool fighter abilities are just gone.

And everyone in 2e days still thought wizards were still better than fighters (not everyone and I won't argue the point).

I will give them this credit though: I think PF's balance holds up ok up through level 8 or so, and I don't think the guts of the system ever had play higher than that in mind. In my opinion, the part of the game where fighters don't hold up was just tacked on and is a mess anyway.

My post about the fighter being the ball carrier is more for the first 8-9 levels, and only if the fighter's player is on point and the GM isn't letting splat book fever spoil the game.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:

I mean 'all weapons he is proficient with.'

In my games, if a Fighter chooses to invest feats into the Weapon Focus/Specialization/Greater Focus/Greater Specialization chain (and Improved Critical) he gets those benefits on every weapon with which he is proficient.

*strokes beard in ponderance*


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a traditional Sword and Boarder, I definitely can appreciate the weapon diversity problem. While a traditional Two-Weapon Fighter can use two of the same weapon (or go archetype) to avoid the issue, a S&B Fighter kinda just has to suck it up and decide whether the shield or the sword (or whatever) is priority for Weapon Training, Focus, Specialization, etc. Usually, the shield is the better choice since it's going to get all the goodies from feats and such. But then you have a main hand weapon that feels neglected because you don't get a free Bull Rush whenever you hit with it. Though, part of it is my fault since I refuse point-blank to dual-wield shields. Ever. Just. No.

If you want to read more frustrated Fighter ranting, try S&B discussions! :D

So, I agree that Fighters should be best with all weapons as their shtick, not just whatever one they choose to focus on.

Random idea -- what if on top of Weapon Training, Fighters got access to a "special effect" from a weapon group and/or weapon damage type? Like, for any given group, a Fighter is considered to have X Feat when using a weapon from that group, regardless of whether or not the Fighter would qualify normally for that feat. Maybe even something from the Improved Critical family. Or heaven forbid as the Fighter levels they get more and more "free" feats they are considered to have while using a particular type of weapon. If the Fighter already has the listed feat, they are considered to have whatever one they'd get next on the list.

This way, you avoid most of the problems with endless feat chains that become instantly useless once the Fighter picks up another type of weapon, and the Fighter can instead spend those Combat Feats on either specific Weapon Focus/Specialization if they want to be more reliable with one type of weapon or on more general combat feats that aren't weapon dependent (Step Up and Friends, Stand Still and Friends, etc.) Instead of having a few extra feats instead of class features, a Fighter is actually versatile and they get ALL THE WEAPON FEATS IN THE WORLD, mwa ha ha!

Something Like:

Weapon Type: Xth level "freebie", (X+Y)th level "freebie", etc. with probably the same progression as Weapon Training.

I threw in four feats for most, but there could be a fifth that you gain access to at 20th with Weapon Mastery -- I tried to make these tougher to reflect the capstone happiness. Keyword: tried.

Axes: Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Bleeding Critical, Improved Cleaving Finish
Blades, Heavy: Combat Expertise, Cleave, Cleaving Finish, Bleeding Critical, Improved Cleaving Finish
Blades, Light: Improved Feint, Vital Strike, Impaling Critical, Penetrating Strike, Imp. Impaling Critical
Bows: Deadly Aim, Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Manyshot
Close: Step Up, Improved Reposition, Tiring Critical, Repositioning Strike, Exhausting Critical
Crossbows: Rapid Reload, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Crossbow Mastery, Pin-Point Targeting
Double: Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Defense, Double Slice, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting
Firearms: Rapid Reload, Amateur Gunslinger, Point-Blank Shot, Shot on the Run, Parting Shot
Flails: Improved Trip, Improved Disarm, Tripping Strike, Disarming Strike, Critical Mastery
Hammers: Improved Sunder, Dazing Assault, Sundering Strike, Staggering Critical, Stunning Critical
Monk: Improved Disarm, Cornugon Stun, Scorpion Style, Gorgon's Fist, Medusa's Wrath
Natural: Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple, Improved Disarm, Stunning Fist, Punishing Kick
Polearms: Improved Reposition, Lunge, Monkey Lunge, Crippling Critical, Repositioning Strike
Siege Engines: Siege Engineer, Siege Commander, Siege Gunner, Master Siege Engineer, Leadership
Spears: Lunge, Let Them Come, Monkey Lunge, Impaling Critical, Rhino Charge
Thrown: Point-Blank Shot, Distance Thrower, Close-Quarters Thrower, Charging Hurler, Imp. Charging Hurler

Now that's a class that can confidently pick up any weapon, or get in a fist fight, and has a reason to keep around a variety and pick different weapons for different situations. I think it compensates option-wise for having no spells nicely.


@kwizzy: That's an interesting idea. You're going to increase the predominance of heavy blades and bows because they get the most advantage from their free feats, and you have abandoned 3.5 Paizo feats in there. Lots of chains get feats way too late (especially double, crossbow, and bow). I think the lists need to have probably at least 7 or 8 feats that you get in order if you don't already have them, or have lists at each level like monk and ranger bonus feats.

@everyone, really:
One thing that might help is better retraining.

* A fighter may retrain a bonus feat every time he levels up, rather than every 4 levels.
* A fighter may retrain any feat that applies to a specific weapon as if it were a bonus feat.
* A fighter may retrain a weapon specific feat into itself if all feats reliant on it can be switched to the new weapon. These dependent feats are retrained for free. better wording here would be great. I mean like taking a weapon focus tree and switching it from swords to axes, but not from eg. bows to axes if he has something bow specific like clustered shots.
* I'm not sure what exactly to do with weapon training. It's too big to just rearrange all the time, but it needs some way to respec.

Possibly instead of retraining on level up the fighter should be able to retrain after a week of training, and retrain weapon specific feats into themselves by using the new weapon. I'm going to pull three consecutive combats out of my hat as a good retraining trigger.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Quintessentially Me wrote:

Anyone see a problem with allowing the Fighter's Weapon Focus/Specialization feats affect all weapons with which they are proficient, rather than having to select a weapon?

There is a precedent for this with the Weapon Finesse feat. In D&D 3.0, that feat required you to select a weapon. In D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder, that feat was broadened to work with all "finessable" weapons.

This change makes the feat more flexible, but it is only more powerful in the case of somebody wielding two different weapons at the same time.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

I mean 'all weapons he is proficient with.'

In my games, if a Fighter chooses to invest feats into the Weapon Focus/Specialization/Greater Focus/Greater Specialization chain (and Improved Critical) he gets those benefits on every weapon with which he is proficient.

I should probably stat doing this as (also for the Fighter's Weapon Training), though I'd probably still leave a choice between ranged/melee.


David knott 242 wrote:
Quintessentially Me wrote:

Anyone see a problem with allowing the Fighter's Weapon Focus/Specialization feats affect all weapons with which they are proficient, rather than having to select a weapon?

There is a precedent for this with the Weapon Finesse feat. In D&D 3.0, that feat required you to select a weapon. In D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder, that feat was broadened to work with all "finessable" weapons.

This change makes the feat more flexible, but it is only more powerful in the case of somebody wielding two different weapons at the same time.

I like the image of a TWF fighting with finesse in one hand, like a delicate rapier, and beat sticking things with a hammer in the other.


^Light Mace is still Finesse anyway =D


kyrt-ryder wrote:
^Light Mace is still Finesse anyway =D

Could a monk do that with different hands so he could fight UFC style?

Jab jab jab OVERHAND RIGHT

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Access to Monster Combat Feats starting at level 7.

Think about these feats (Ignoring requirements for now)
Awesome Blow—I power attack someone and they go flying backward landing prone (assuming I take a negative to the attack)

Improved Natural Armor (duh)

Pounce (this is absolutely criminal that it's not part of the fighter feats)

Minotaur's Charge

Impaling Charge (I thrust my sword or spear through the guy I charged and can then try to pin him to the ground)

Roll With It (You add this to mobility and I'm shrugging off blows like crazy)

Snatch (I'm fighting you two handed, suddenly I just reach out and grab you by the throat, while holding my longsword or bastard sword in the other hand, stack this with reposition and I'm keeping my rogue behind me and moving fools into flank.

Make Ferocity a feat for fighters only.

Make these FIGHTER ONLY. Toss in a feat like "Retrain" which lets me burn a feat to retrain all my combat feats. Fighters would get that cool cinema-esque feel, without really getting overpowered. Add this to 4 skill points per level and you've got a solid class.


@Atarlost

It's just a draft of the concept, really. I'm not familiar enough with all the weapon feats and builds to do anything but the roughest estimation at the moment. And oops on the non-Paizo feats -- I was using a PF srd and that has all the non-core and 3rd Party. But thanks for the feedback!


Right. This is going to be my wall of text part 2. Sorry for my bad English and bad editing.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Not seeing "dippability" as a real problem, personally -- but then again, I don't share the visceral loathing of multi-classing that most people seem to be infected with.

It makes perfect sense to me that if you wanted to be a better fighter, you'd take a level in fighter. People who stay in fighter for their careers should be awesome fighters, so, yeah, fixes past 1st level are definitely needed, too.

I agree

Kirth Gersen wrote:


A dip into fighter by a ranger or rogue means they're not giving up as much, but a ranger doesn't really gain a whole lot by dipping, either. A rogue probably gets the most out of it, but on the whole I think the rogue needs fixing as much if not more than the fighter does.

I agree here too.

Kirth Gersen wrote:


A dip into fighter for a cleric or bard seriously hurts their casting, channeling, inspiration, etc. -- regardless of how many "goodies" they're picking up that way.

I actually disagree on this one. Now both the cleric and the bard 3/4 BAB classes so they are classes that are meant to be able to fight.

If you build a melee or archer cleric the focus won’t be on spells anyway so lagging one level won’t be a problem. Once you get divine favor or your 6 level spells (looking at you heal) you might as well pick one level fighter. Get that heavy armor prof and weapon prof and a bonus feat. The fact that clerics get all their stuff at odd levels makes it one of the most generic classes in the game. Picking one level fighter might actually make it more fun. With Magical Knack you won’t even get a hit on your caster level. The fact that cleric spell list is pretty weak the last 3 spell levels make it even more appealing.

The bard isn’t a full caster and if you play it that way you are going to suck. The Core bard really is tainted by its 3.x legacy, bards should suck. All other 6/9 spell casters get new wonderful abilities past level 7 or 8, but the core bard is stuck in doing the same stuff. At level 7 the bard can during one round offer the most powerful buff in the game: inspire courage (move action), Haste (quicken with rod), Good Hope (standards action).
With the exception of the Paladin’s Aura of Justice is the most powerful buff in the game.

The bard can do this at level 7. Yet 7 levels later it’s still the most powerful buff in the game. It doesn’t matter if the bard is level 7 or level 17. They still don’t get anything new that bets that combination.

Once you get Dirge of doom you might as well pick a level fighter. Inspire greatness is anything but great and the rest of the stuff is too little too late. A fighter level boost your fortitude saves, gives you some new class skills, a bonus feat, full weapon and armor training and some hit points.
In fact, once you reach level 13 (or 14 the latest) I can see no point what so ever staying bard if you play a core bard. Frightening tune is good but it is yet one more mind affecting ability that relies on you having a really high charisma score, just as a full arcane caster would have.
As a player I have given up on the Core bard, but that isn’t much of a problem since there are some really good archetypes out there.

I actually think the problem with some of the core classes have lot of in common. I would say it is legacy.

There is an old thread called “Why would anyone ever play a Separatist?” It has some great posts in in. Especially by SKR and AMIB (A Man In Black).
SKR and AMIB didn’t agree on some stuff, but both made some good points.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:


[…]I'm pointing out to you that "balance" in an RPG where you have healing classes and damage classes and support classes is an illusion. Is the cleric with the Healing domain "balanced" against one with the Travel or War domains? Is the healing cleric balanced against the fighter? Or the barbarian? Or the sorcerer? Or the bard? How do you rate how "balanced" they are against each other? By how much damage they do? By how much damage they prevent or cure? By their total skill point bonuses?

Yes, sometimes you're going to want to sacrifice balance in order to accomplish other goals, like having more options or supporting backwards compatibility. The problem is not so much that the Separatist is weaker, but why it is weaker. It's weaker because being able to play a way that the designers didn't intend is considered a value unto itself, when it's not. It's a weaker version of an extant option, differing only in that its flavor text is an exception to setting canon.

3e rests on the idea that there are lots of restrictive rules, and you can pay resources to get exceptions to these rules. It's important, though, to keep in mind the difference between rules that exist to encourage that the game be played a certain way, and rules that exist to make sure the game functions at all. […]

I think both SKR and AMIB has a point. Perfect balance is an illusion and I think a lot of the core classes suffer from their 3.x legacy and how you are expected to play them.

Funny AMIB didn’t include the whole quote from SKR.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:


The game, dating all the way back to Basic D&D, isn't built for you to win, it's built for you to have fun. And if you're given different ways for you to have fun with your character, even if some of those ways mean you're not "balanced" against a character specialized purely in damage or healing or Diplomacy checks, you're still having fun. This isn't World of Warcraft where a bad talent tree for a class means you're overall damage is down 2.5% from the best spec and you get yelled at by trying to raid in that poor spec because you're making it harder to kill boss monsters. This is a cooperative game where the odds are stacked in the PCs' favor and you don't have to maximize a number to ensure survival of the group. You're allowed to make choices that suit the story of your character, even if those choices mean you're not the best at damage or healing or Diplomacy. The game has greatswords and longswords and short swords and daggers, and each has its place in terms of damage, utility, and character flavor. Yet I don't see you complaining that the dagger-specialized fighter isn't balanced against the greatsword-specialized fighter.
If you want every option to be mechanically equal, you need to play a different game.
Me, I'm going to write for, and play, a game where it's okay if you want to play a Indiana Jones-style wizard who starts with a 15 Dex and 12 Int and fights with a whip. And it's okay if you want to play a rapier-wielding swashbuckler rogue who multiclasses into fighter and cleric of luck because it suits his theme, even though it costs him BAB and access to some better feats. And it's okay if you want to play a dwarf fighter who's slow as hell, has a 20 Con and 100 hit points at level 7, and takes Great Cleave to finish off all the minions while his monk and barbarian buddies kill the leader. Because those are all fun character options. Even if the wizard is struggling to keep his Int in pace with the minimum needed for his higher-level spells... because sometimes the wizard pulls off an awesome move in combat that he couldn't do with a pathetic Dex. Even if the swashbuckler is always out-damaged by the lower-level paladin with a greatsword... because sometimes the swashbuckler crit-kills a beholder in one stab. Even if the dwarf only gets to use Great Cleave once in the entire campaign... because that one time he kills 8 foes in one round and convinces the campaign boss to surrender in the face of such might.
If you're not satisfied with your numbers, choose another options that makes you feel like more of a man. If you're not having fun, play something else.
To paraphrase my second post in this thread:
Basically, "worthwhile" is not solely defined as "something mechanically equal to other options."

My bold.

Now I really love this post by SKR and maybe we should have a more relaxed attitude when it comes the game, but at the same time I don’t think the rules back him up.
If balance doesn’t matter then why did they nerf simte evil and why not let bards re-assign their skill ranks when they get Versatile Performance? Why is the swashbuckler always out-damaged by the lower-level paladin with a greatsword?
Can a swashbuckler crit-kill a beholder in one stab? If yes, can’t also a Paladin crit-kill a beholder in one stab?
And if it is OK to play a wizard with int 12 and multiclass the like a madman why doesn’t the rules support that? Why is high stats so important and why is multiclassing (seen as) an inferior alternative where you lose caster level, BAB, Saves etc.

When AMIB says that: “The problem is not so much that the Separatist is weaker, but why it is weaker. It's weaker because being able to play a way that the designers didn't intend is considered a value unto itself, when it's not.”

Perhaps a bit snarky, but does he have a point? Is there such a thing as designers intend? I believe so.

James Jacobs wrote:
Wind Chime wrote:
Are the classes meant to be balanced with each other per level or is the fact that most of the time caster beat non-casters a feature rather than a failing.

"Balanced against each other" is something that's important for PVP games. Pathfinder is not a PVP game; it's a cooperative game.

Every class has a different role, and thus "balancing" them against each other is kind of not the point.

The idea of any one class "beating" any one other class is also relatively meaningless, since there are a LOT of different ways a class can excel.

Edit:

Again one of the devs points out to us that pathfinder is cooperative game – and yes it is - and he also points out that “Every class has a different role”.

So what is the fighters role and what happens when you play it a way that the designers didn't intend?
If you build a fighter as a skill monkey and a stealth character, basically trying to emulate a ranger you are going to end up being both a poor fighter and a poor ranger. Basically the rules doesn’t support that, because the intent isn’t that the fighter should be a ranger. The ranger is the ranger.

Thoughts?

In my next wall of text I will compare options the fighter has and options the paladin has, but before I post that I’d like to see you responses.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zark wrote:

My bold.

Now I really love this post by SKR and maybe we should have a more relaxed attitude when it comes the game, but at the same time I don’t think the rules back him up.

To be honest, his post doesn't back itself up, even if I did agree with his premise (balance doesn't matter) in the first place.

His example is a good example of balance. The Fighter outdamages the Swashbuckler, the Swashbuckler has a special thing to make up for (balance) it, his crits. Having never played the class I have no clue how well that works out, but the idea is there.

I think regardless of a cooperative game and "non-optimal not being the only way", everything needs to have something going for it, optimal or not.

No, the Fighter doesn't need to be a better Ranger than the Ranger. The Fighter however DOES need to be a better FIGHTER than the Ranger.

The problem being that the Fighter class is really just kind of a shell the other martial classes were built on, and not really having anything unique of his own to GIVE him that interesting niche ("balanced" or no) that almost every other class has.

Is the Wizard balanced with the Paladin? No, not in the grand scheme IMO.

Does the Paladin bring something unique to the table the Wizard does not? Yes, yes he does.

That's at least a semblance of balance, and I think SKR would agree (despite his post) that that is what is wanted in the game at the very least.

Now some classes don't fit that mold.

Is the Wizard balanced with the Rogue? No, not at all IMO.

Does the Rogue bring something unique to the table the Wizard does not? No, not really.

And that should set off some serious alarm bells regardless of your opinions on balance. Balanced or no, having a class that either fills an unneeded role or whose role can be filled by pretty much everyone is just a waste of paper/word count, and so should be rethought.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
SKR wrote:
The game, dating all the way back to Basic D&D, isn't built for you to win, it's built for you to have fun... This is a cooperative game where the odds are stacked in the PCs' favor and you don't have to maximize a number to ensure survival of the group. You're allowed to make choices that suit the story of your character, even if those choices mean you're not the best at damage or healing or Diplomacy.

If Pathfinder is a "cooperative game," then it's like a chess game in which players on the same team share control of one side... but one player gets one of the bishops (i.e., the fighter), a second player gets half the pawns (the rogue), a third player gets one knight (the monk), and a fourth player gets the remaining knight, the queen, and both rooks (a wizard). Sure, the "black team" and the "white team" are evenly-balanced, but the roles and responsibilities provided to each player on each time are capriciously and wildly mismatched, and that whole situation is glossed over by saying "Well, you're still playing chess, and it's cooperative anyway, so everyone is still having fun."

See, Mr Reynolds is advancing something of a false dichotomy here. Whether the game is made for fun, or for balance, are not mututally-exclusive options. They're not even opposite ends of a spectrum. Rather, they're largely independent of one another. It is quite possible to provide "fun" options that are also reasonably balanced: stronger in one area, weaker in another, but more or less equally effective at "doing their share" for the party overall (one player gets the queen, another gets one rook and one bishop, another gets both knights, or whatever -- not perfectly balanced, but at least an effort is made).

Providing options requires a blatant sacrifice in balance only if the designers are either (a) inexperienced, or (b) lazy/apathetic.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

SKR is referring to his game with Monte Cook in Ptolus, where his multi-classed F/Rogue/Cleric won initiative in a big, important fight, ran up to a beholder, and proceeded to roll 3 20's and pull off an instant kill on it, dramatically changing the battle.

He took his levels as he needed certain abilities, and certainly wasn't optimized, didn't watch his BAB or saves, etc. Being he was in a big party, it didn't much matter.
=======
I think the problem balance wise is more: this class works great ina group game, how well does it do when solo, or when the group is made of solo people who don't fill roles (i.e. don't buff others?). It's an MMO mindset, where you have to be self-reliant to some extent.

And on that basis, spellcasters don't need melees...they do have options, from summoning to druid pets. Melees tend to have problems healing themselves, and the lack of magic buffs certainly hurts.

And it's that discrepency of being able to wean yourself off melees, to becoming ever more reliant on spellcasters, which rankles.

That, and downtime productivity.

==Aelryinth


It's also that all the divine casters can double as melee with the right build while still being casters and the magus is by default a front liner, the bard can easily be built as a front liner, and the summoner comes with a front liner as a class feature.


Aelryinth wrote:

SKR is referring to his game with Monte Cook in Ptolus, where his multi-classed F/Rogue/Cleric won initiative in a big, important fight, ran up to a beholder, and proceeded to roll 3 20's and pull off an instant kill on it, dramatically changing the battle.

He took his levels as he needed certain abilities, and certainly wasn't optimized, didn't watch his BAB or saves, etc. Being he was in a big party, it didn't much matter.

Edit:

I agree that not being optimized means less in a big group.
Thanks for the information. Interesting.
BTW, how do you know this stuff?
Do you know the stats of the character as well?
How many was in the party?

Aelryinth wrote:


I think the problem balance wise is more: this class works great in a group game, how well does it do when solo, or when the group is made of solo people who don't fill roles (i.e. don't buff others?). It's an MMO mindset, where you have to be self-reliant to some extent.

I don’t agree.

I do have some issues with some classes especially the rogue and the fighter and ‘not being able to solo’ isn’t one of them and Pathfinder isn’t WoW.

That’s said, I do think the fighter, in fact all classes, should be self-reliant to some extent or at least you should have the options to build them that way even if it comes with a cost. I’m not saying all classes should be like the Paladin, Ranger, Bard, Inquisitor, etc. but a little bit more options should be provided for the classes that don’t use magic.

Aelryinth wrote:


And on that basis, spellcasters don't need melees...they do have options, from summoning to druid pets. Melees tend to have problems healing themselves, and the lack of magic buffs certainly hurts.

And it's that discrepency of being able to wean yourself off melees, to becoming ever more reliant on spellcasters, which rankles.

I think you are oversimplifying things. If I had the choice of having a well-built fighter or a pet in our party we would gladly pick the fighter. Summon, pets etc. are never as powerful, versatile or useful as a well-built Melee character. That said I would rather play a Paladin or a Ranger (or Barbarian) than a fighter. A fighter/ranger would be cool though.

Aelryinth wrote:


That, and downtime productivity.

Looks like Ultimate Campaign will fix that.


Atarlost wrote:
It's also that all the divine casters can double as melee with the right build while still being casters and the magus is by default a front liner, the bard can easily be built as a front liner, and the summoner comes with a front liner as a class feature.

My bold.

If you mean the frontliner or a tank, No.
With light armor only, no. He is nothing near a full BAB class in heavy armor or a Barbarian. Same actually goes for the Magus until he gets medium armor prof and cam cast spells in medium armor.


Zark wrote:
I do have some issues with some classes especially the rogue and the fighter and ‘not being able to solo’ isn’t one of them and Pathfinder isn’t WoW.

Pathfinder has it WORSE than WoW, in that in a videogame one can always just start over at the last spawn point.

In Pathfinder (and other Tabletop games) a character who lacks the capability to be reasonably successful individually is always going to be tied down into groups.

Now, for actual gameplay that's not a big deal, but when you think about the fact that these are supposed to be heroic adventurers who have their own lives to live and do things between adventures, you start to wonder how memers of certain classes ever manage to get by.

(There's also the fact that I LIKE the idea of an occasional solo adventure, but I'm well aware that I'm in the minority here.)


Some posters along this thread brought up the "if you don't like the fighter, play something else" argument.
My problem with that is that I (and several others) like the fighter and would love to play it but it is just too weak* to follow through with it.

*in the "if you concentrate on combat you are useless out of combat, if you concentrate on out of combat you're not viable in combat any more" sense of things.

To the "how are damage dealers and healers balanced vs each other" question:
They don't need to be balanced that much because they don't step onto each other's toes unless one can do both his stuff and th other one's stuff.
So a life oracle who doesn't use weapons doesn't have to be very balances vs a fighter. But if a battle cleric is as good at melee as a fighter (I'm not saying they are) and is a full caster with channeling in addition to that is something that should be better balanced.
Same with the wild shape druid.
If class has more options it should be weaker at each option than the class who doesn't have other options.

Edit: As is the fighter is a great class for multiclassing but bad to stay in.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Zark wrote:
I do have some issues with some classes especially the rogue and the fighter and ‘not being able to solo’ isn’t one of them and Pathfinder isn’t WoW.

Pathfinder has it WORSE than WoW, in that in a videogame one can always just start over at the last spawn point.

In Pathfinder (and other Tabletop games) a character who lacks the capability to be reasonably successful individually is always going to be tied down into groups.

Now, for actual gameplay that's not a big deal, but when you think about the fact that these are supposed to be heroic adventurers who have their own lives to live and do things between adventures, you start to wonder how memers of certain classes ever manage to get by.

(There's also the fact that I LIKE the idea of an occasional solo adventure, but I'm well aware that I'm in the minority here.)

Well, it's not so much solo-ability as it is a matter of party resources. Sure, the casters could just buff the fighter/rogue to cover their weaknesses, but those are spells/actions that could have gone to something else.

If the fighter is blinded, the cleric needs to spend a turn and a spell fixing it. If the Paladin is blinded, he can swift-action cure himself while the cleric throws out an attack/battlefield control/summon spell.

Pathfinder is a game of teamwork, but if one character is doing half the work of the team by himself, while another needs constant help and support from their teammates to make any significant contribution...

Silver Crusade

Fighters are fine. It seems to be the mortals who play them that have the problems.

1,151 to 1,200 of 3,805 << first < prev | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The Main Problem with Fighters All Messageboards