Martial Mastery (Ex): At 2nd level, a fighter gains a +1 bonus to his Base Attack Bonus. This bonus increases by +1 for every four levels beyond 2nd. This bonus allows a fighter to gain “iterative attacks” and to qualify for certain feats sooner than other characters. (This would replace the Bravery class feature).
Making the fighter break the BAB limit would be way over the top. He's already good at fighting and gets a slow attack/damage increase.
More numbers are basically what the fighter class is.
Also part of the problem. Numbers don't solve that many problems. I don't think throwing more numbers at the fighter will actually help them.
And condensing feat trees is probably something that should help everyone, not just the fighter. Its not just a problem for the fighter.
How about these changes to the fighter?
Skill points per level: 4 + Int modifier
Martial Mastery (Ex): At 2nd level, a fighter gains a +1 bonus to his Base Attack Bonus. This bonus increases by +1 for every four levels beyond 2nd. This bonus allows a fighter to gain “iterative attacks” and to qualify for certain feats sooner than other characters. (This would replace the Bravery class feature).
Fighter Exploits: Any time a fighter would gain a bonus combat feat (level 1, 2, 4, 6, etc.), a fighter may instead gain a fighter exploit. Unless otherwise noted, a fighter cannot select an individual exploit more than once.
** spoiler omitted **...
Battle Scarred should give Natural Armour.
Add in one that gives them Improved Initiative Feat.
|
Random thought on new fighter abilities.
Martial training: at fighter level 2. gain +1 skill point for each combat feat you have. (Max equal to your fighter level)
dedication: @ fighter 6 gain a dedication pool with 1 point for each combat feat you have. Before rolling a save or to stabilize you may spend any amount to add to your roll. Refreshes at dawn. (Max amount = to fighter level).
Maybe add in that the +1 Skill Point can only be spent on Fighter Class Skills.
*double post*
Magus with Dex and scimitar have better AC than fighters right from the begining ( with shield spell), and once they can cast stuff like mirror image, displacement, etc... they are way beyond fighters in frontline tankingOh really? with 12 dex, a suit of banded mail and a heavy shield, a fighter can have 20 AC starting at level 1 all the time. Your best is 22 for 1 minute. with 13 dex I can even take dodge for 21 AC. If I was a halfling with 16 dex, a breastplate, a heavy shield and dodge, I now have a 23 AC. Also I don't NEED Int, so my Con can be higher than the magus'. combine that with my d10 hit die over your d8, and the ability to fight all the time, I think I have you beat as a frontline fighter. By the way, how's that scimitar+dex trick helping you at level 1 I wonder?
THis is a bit old, but as it was directed to me, I should answer.
First, 21 < 22. Second, the magus can take dodge too. Third, at first levrl you just use a short sword. 4th, first level gets old reaaaaaaly quick. In Rise if Runelords it last a bit longer than the goblin assault. You have 5 other full books to rock. And fifth, once the magus can use arcana points to recover first level spells, he can keep himself shielded in every encounter until he level up to get another level without even going to sleep.
Now factor in Mirror image, blur, interposing hand, and similar spells...and also add the ability to dimensional door out of problems, fly, stoneskin, etc...
|
I know this will get me jumped all over, but the main reason people complain about this class or that class being useless for this role or that role is not because the class is boned, it's because they lack the experience or the imagination to figure out how to make it work.Totally in agreement here. Its just like at my gaming table, we have 6 players (including me) and after 3 Adventure Path Campaigns, my characters are the only ones these guys talk about. (not just because of damage)
I remember my GM telling me after we completed second darkness that I could not ever run a monk again in one of his campaigns...
My reply, "just wait till I run a wizard."
:D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with your argument is that it seems to assume that Fighters are the only class that can't optimise while building. Fighters who are optimised for damage will beat down everyone else for steady consistent damage. They don't rely on limited resources like rage, situational conditions like alignment, or terrain. The best archer for damage will be a fighter. And a fighter who chosses to specialise in a technique will be nigh unstoppable in that field.Fighters are DPR focused, in nearly all of there class tricks are damaged based but when it comes down to it they are not the best DPR in the game; barbarians, summoners, gunslingers, paladins and cavaliers can all out damage fighter with the right build whilst also having more out of combat utility (summoners and paladins) or cool tricks (barbarians, gunslingers and cavaliers).
He will have a better DPR by a largely insignificant amount.
And yet he will lack the out of combat abilities of other classes, and some neat in-combat tricks (Pounce + 100 DPR > No Pounce + 105 DPR).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with your argument is that it seems to assume that Fighters are the only class that can't optimise while building. Fighters who are optimised for damage will beat down everyone else for steady consistent damage. They don't rely on limited resources like rage, situational conditions like alignment, or terrain. The best archer for damage will be a fighter. And a fighter who chosses to specialise in a technique will be nigh unstoppable in that field.Fighters are DPR focused, in nearly all of there class tricks are damaged based but when it comes down to it they are not the best DPR in the game; barbarians, summoners, gunslingers, paladins and cavaliers can all out damage fighter with the right build whilst also having more out of combat utility (summoners and paladins) or cool tricks (barbarians, gunslingers and cavaliers).
the problem is that the balance between steady and "spendy" isn't balanced if you can spend more than you need.
a knife "might" be balanced vs a grenade, because you have only 1 grenade, which is spendable. But a Knife isn't balanced with a box full of grenades, if the box has more grenades than you need.
A few posts ago, I commented that a Magus 9th level magus can spend a spell per round for 25+ rounds a day. That's 8 encounters with 3 rounds per encounter (average combat length). More than enough to level up.
Same goes with Rage. Rage is limited, only if you spend all of it. If you have more Rage than combat rounds, it's bassically limitless. And, at a given level, that's true. You can't fight enough encounters a day to make a 9th level barbarian lose all his rage. Before you do, he'll be a 10th level barbarian.
An Inquisitor can use Greater Bane pretty much in every combat against every major enemy too. Same goes with Judgments, and he has spells to further boost his abilities.
Favored enemy is situational, but a scroll of Instant Enemy cost 525g.
And so on.
Plus the problem is not that the fighter isn't capable in combat. The problem is he is inefficient in everything else.
So, to summarize:
The main problem with fighters is that they're consistent?
I know this comment was meant to be in jest but I do kind of think this is the problem with fighters. Most of a fighter's abilities are always on, and they're good abilities (often undervalued even) but they are just so... boring. The fighter doesn't need fixing as much as he needs a PR makeover.
The problem with your argument is that it seems to assume that Fighters are the only class that can't optimise while building. Fighters who are optimised for damage will beat down everyone else for steady consistent damage. They don't rely on limited resources like rage, situational conditions like alignment, or terrain. The best archer for damage will be a fighter. And a fighter who chosses to specialise in a technique will be nigh unstoppable in that field.Fighters are DPR focused, in nearly all of there class tricks are damaged based but when it comes down to it they are not the best DPR in the game; barbarians, summoners, gunslingers, paladins and cavaliers can all out damage fighter with the right build whilst also having more out of combat utility (summoners and paladins) or cool tricks (barbarians, gunslingers and cavaliers).
the problem is that the balance between steady and "spendy" isn't balanced if you can spend more than you need.
a knife "might" be balanced vs a grenade, because you have only 1 grenade, which is spendable. But a Knife isn't balanced with a box full of grenades, if the box has more grenades than you need.
A few posts ago, I commented that a Magus 9th level magus can spend a spell per round for 25+ rounds a day. That's 8 encounters with 3 rounds per encounter (average combat length). More than enough to level up.
Same goes with Rage. Rage is limited, only if you spend all of it. If you have more Rage than combat rounds, it's bassically limitless. And, at a given level, that's true. You can't fight enough encounters a day to make a 9th level barbarian lose all his rage. Before you do, he'll be a 10th level barbarian.
An Inquisitor can use Greater Bane pretty much in every combat against every major enemy too. Same goes with Judgments, and he has spells to further boost his abilities.
Favored enemy is situational, but a scroll of Instant Enemy cost 525g.
And so on.
Plus the problem is not...
Inefficient?
With just a few feats and assigning your skill points into class skills, a fighter can be made great at intimidate and dungeoneering. That is two skills useful outside of combat, and both can keep you alive, one can reveal information.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll bite.
1a) Most feats are either effective and bland (See weapon spec) or ineffective. Sure, maneuvers are cool...if you're constantly facing humanoids. If you're fighting monsters, you're not going to be able to deal with their size, str, and higher HD. Plus size limitations stop you from even attempting some manuevers, as do other factors (natural weapons/armor can't be disarmed or sundered).
1b) How many truly cool feats are there? Dazing Assault is pretty cool, and so is Crane Wing. They can accomplish things you'd otherwise expect of magic. Go ahead and name any others as badass as these.
1c) Feats aren't even that special. Everyone gets them, the Fighter just gets twice as many. It's less feats than casters get spells, and weapon-users need the feats much more than casters do I never feel as I have too few feats as a caster. It's usually spent on Extra ____ if possible, maybe some spell focus, improved init. But you're pretty much set. The Fighter is compensated with his weapon/armor training, which is effective, but also boring. Weapon Training wouldn't be half as good without Gloves of Dueling in existence either, and that's gonna set you back 15k.
2) As has been mentioned, melee combat is not especially rich. There's 8 schools of magic (not counting universal) which all perform quite differently from each other, but a swordsman is the same as an axeman or a hammerman.
The only weapon that stands out from the herd is the Scimitar because of Dervish Dance. For everything else the difference is a class of damage die and a x3 crit vs a 19-20/x2. That doesn't feel particularly different in the rare cases it even comes up.
2b mini rant) Reach weapons at least play a little differently, but I find it crazy that only a Polearm Master archetype can figure out how to shorten his grip to use the weapon against opponents that get close to him. Even casters aren't that punished for letting someone get that close to them because of defensive casting, and their ideal range is usually 100ft or more away from their opponents, while spearmen are engaging someone at 10ft.
3) If I wanted to cast spells I wouldn't make a martial and max out ranks in UMD and sink tons of money into it. I'd make a caster. They should be able to stand alone and do cool things. But it's this dang attachment to realism that some people have that keeps these classes grounded. Partially why I'm excited for Rule of Cool's Legend system.
I do not see how your original steatement should hold. You said right from the begining, but the begining is frist level. when the magus is prety much weak. Second level the magus is still far behind the fighter in DPR. So you should reconsider your original statement or provide some build to prove your point.Magus with Dex and scimitar have better AC than fighters right from the begining ( with shield spell), and once they can cast stuff like mirror image, displacement, etc... they are way beyond fighters in frontline tankingOh really? with 12 dex, a suit of banded mail and a heavy shield, a fighter can have 20 AC starting at level 1 all the time. Your best is 22 for 1 minute. with 13 dex I can even take dodge for 21 AC. If I was a halfling with 16 dex, a breastplate, a heavy shield and dodge, I now have a 23 AC. Also I don't NEED Int, so my Con can be higher than the magus'. combine that with my d10 hit die over your d8, and the ability to fight all the time, I think I have you beat as a frontline fighter. By the way, how's that scimitar+dex trick helping you at level 1 I wonder?THis is a bit old, but as it was directed to me, I should answer.
First, 21 < 22. Second, the magus can take dodge too. Third, at first levrl you just use a short sword. 4th, first level gets old reaaaaaaly quick. In Rise if Runelords it last a bit longer than the goblin assault. You have 5 other full books to rock. And fifth, once the magus can use arcana points to recover first level spells, he can keep himself shielded in every encounter until he level up to get another level without even going to sleep.
Now factor in Mirror image, blur, interposing hand, and similar spells...and also add the ability to dimensional door out of problems, fly, stoneskin, etc...
At first level it's behind the Fighter in DPR, but not in frontline tanking, which is the original statement. Also, at first level, most fights are against guys with really few hp. Take Rise of runelord example: goblins. Overkilling a goblin with 4d6+6 does not really translate into real DPS. At second level, the magus can Spell-strike and thus gets 2 attacks.
At first level the Magus can cast Shield twice per day, which means he'll have AC 22 right from the begining (buys a chain shirt with 100 of his 140 starting gold, doesn't need to buy a shield), 23 with dodge in the two most important fights of the day. At first level, a fighter will be able to buy Scale mail at best (he can buy chain mail, but then he has 25g for the whole gear, with a heavy wooden shield and a longsword costing 22g) That gives him 18 armor, 19 if he buys Chain Mail, 20 with dodge. The Magus have the same armor *without shield*, and much better when fighting the tough fights of the day.
Once the Magus starts to hide behind Displacement, Mirror Image, Interposing hand, Blink, and similar stuff, there's no contest.
Inefficient?
With just a few feats and assigning your skill points into class skills, a fighter can be made great at intimidate and dungeoneering. That is two skills useful outside of combat, and both can keep you alive, one can reveal information.
Fun fact: a Magus has Intimidate and Dungeoneering as class skills too, so he can be as good in those two as the fighter. But, as he has a greater sinergy with INT, is more than probable that the Magus will have more skill points, which mean he can complete his skill set with Knowledge Arcana, Knowledge Planes, Spellcraft, Use Magic Device or Fly. Which the fighter doesn't. And can do several out of combat stuff, like detecting magic, buffing the party, healing the group with infernal healing, scout through invisibility and fly, teleport the party around, dispel bad conditions like polymorph, or create buildings from nothing with Wall of Stone and doing all kind of things that defy the laws of physics
So have we moved on from fighters can't do anything but fight (which is false) into comparing the magus to the fighter?
The magus has no weaknesses, and gets given a hell of a lot. It is a fighter wizard, but better, with no costs to make the build work, no need to pick melee or spells as dominant, since they work together (spellstrike). It has pretty good spell progression, mixing many into the bladework. To my 3.5 eyes which care about balance, it is OP bulls***, and I have known people to complain about this all pro no cons class. Playing a magus is for those that like easy mode.
So are we talking about the fighter, or an OP class which the fighter isn't as good as? You see, the magus is newer than the fighter, and is simply the result of power creep, and far too much being given while weaknesses are tucked away and removed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Magus is OP and has no downsides?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
So, that fighter... He hasn't really moved far from 3.5 has he?
Magus is OP and has no downsides?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Your points, you had so many of them. Thank you for your contribution.
At first level it's behind the Fighter in DPR, but not in frontline tanking, which is the original statement. Also, at first level, most fights are against guys with really few hp. Take Rise of runelord example: goblins. Overkilling a goblin with 4d6+6 does not really translate into real DPS. At second level, the magus can Spell-strike and thus gets 2 attacks.
First, I would like to invite you to the martial build thread
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2piog?Build-Thread-3-Swinging-Swords-and-Kickin -Ass
there you can proof that your statement hold, and as numbers do not lie it would not be my interpretation against your but everyone would see it.
Second, there is a big diference between doing 2d6+6 and kill that goblin with one hit and doing 1d6+1 and posibly needing 2 or even three hits to kill that gobling. So the diference can be a lot.
Third, I am no expert in magus but I suppose you are using spell strike, spell combat and a cantrip to have that extra attack. You know have a -2 penalty on top of your medium BAB, have to make a conentration check, and you if you hit you are doing 2d6, far from the 2d6+9 of the full BAB.
At first level the Magus can cast Shield twice per day, which means he'll have AC 22 right from the begining (buys a chain shirt with 100 of his 140 starting gold, doesn't need to buy a shield), 23 with dodge in the two most important fights of the day. At first level, a fighter will be able to buy Scale mail at best (he can buy chain mail, but then he has 25g for the whole gear, with a heavy wooden shield and a longsword costing 22g) That gives him 18 armor, 19 if he buys Chain Mail, 20 with dodge. The Magus have the same armor *without shield*, and much better when fighting the tough fights of the day.
the magus have 22 Ac a couple of time at day. With scale mail, a shield, defender of the society and 14 dex, we are talking about 20 Ac all day long.
I do not see how that make the magus...
Yeah, they only have so many spells. If their spellcasting is only put to ac/defence or teleport and wall of stone, not that many left. Of course, teleport and wall of stone are much later in level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your points, you had so many of them. Thank you for your contribution.Magus is OP and has no downsides?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Your points were so baffling I figured you were joking.
"Magus is a Fighter/Wizard with no downsides"?
He has less BaB than the Fighter, and less spells than the Wizard. He has a pretty limited amount of spell per day for a caster, and to even come close to the damage output of a Fighter he needs to burn said resource.
Once per day, if he's lucky, he gets the chance to use up the large majority of said resource to deal a hilarious amount of damage to a single target. And then he goes back to being a 3/4 BaB/d8 hit dice frontliner with little to no spellcasting ability left to him that day.
Your points, you had so many of them. Thank you for your contribution.Magus is OP and has no downsides?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Your points were so baffling I figured you were joking.
"Magus is a Fighter/Wizard with no downsides"?
He has less BaB than the Fighter, and less spells than the Wizard. He has a pretty limited amount of spell per day for a caster, and to even come close to the damage output of a Fighter he needs to burn said resource.
Once per day, if he's lucky, he gets the chance to use up the large majority of said resource to deal a hilarious amount of damage to a single target. And then he goes back to being a 3/4 BaB/d8 hit dice frontliner with little to no spellcasting ability left to him that day.
Yep. I think there is a communication fail here. By 3/4 bab I am meaning the bab is decent, but not great or weak, same applies to d8. It isn't the best, it isn't the worst and on top of this, they have their spells and spells through attacks. The magus has trouble over the long term, so that can be a weakness, if they run out of spells and it comes up, but any buffs would still have to run out before they become truly sub-par or weak. Casting spells through their attacks is pretty deadly, a lot can be done there, it makes them a bit different to just a fighter/wizard or a buff and fight cleric.
The thing is though, the vast majority of long term buffs are defensive, not offensive. Once he's burned his nova for the day (and don't get me wrong, by "hilarious amount of damage" I mean the GM either laughs or he cries) he runs into the same problem a defense focused Monk does, ie. "Forget the unhittable butterfly, attack the painful bumblebees!".
He's a solid class but I can't see ANY sort of argument for OP, any more than the Inquisitor or Bard is OP.
The thing is though, the vast majority of long term buffs are defensive, not offensive. Once he's burned his nova for the day (and don't get me wrong, by "hilarious amount of damage" I mean the GM either laughs or he cries) he runs into the same problem a defense focused Monk does, ie. "Forget the unhittable butterfly, attack the painful bumblebees!".
He's a solid class but I can't see ANY sort of argument for OP, any more than the Inquisitor or Bard is OP.
Well, the Magus' ability to nova can make him crazy in games where you don't have the recommended number/intensity/setup of combats in a day. They're arguably the best class in the game for exploiting a 15 minute adventuring day and or a GM who likes battles to always be One Big Bad Evil Guy.
I've always looked at the Magi's Spellstrike uses as the paladin of old's smites. You need to ration them and only use them when it counts. That said, throwing out a Shield notwithstanding, by the time you can get like 7+ lvl 1 spells per day you can usually hit pretty much everything.
I've found that a lot of people forget about the +3 to hit while using Shocking Grasp which is very important because it dwarfs the negative from using spell combat.
My favorite magus build starts with Spell Focus and Specialization so by level 2 when I get Spellstrike I deliver 3d6 on top of weapon damage. Works out pretty nicely.
So have we moved on from fighters can't do anything but fight (which is false) into comparing the magus to the fighter?
The magus has no weaknesses, and gets given a hell of a lot. It is a fighter wizard, but better, with no costs to make the build work, no need to pick melee or spells as dominant, since they work together (spellstrike). It has pretty good spell progression, mixing many into the bladework. To my 3.5 eyes which care about balance, it is OP bulls***, and I have known people to complain about this all pro no cons class. Playing a magus is for those that like easy mode.
So are we talking about the fighter, or an OP class which the fighter isn't as good as? You see, the magus is newer than the fighter, and is simply the result of power creep, and far too much being given while weaknesses are tucked away and removed.
No, it was just a quick example because it was the example which was being used in context.
The thing is: you claim fighters can do things, because they can use 2 decent skills. My point is: every single class can use at least 2 decent skills, plus a ton of other things.
A ranger can intimidate and dungeoneering too. They also have 6 skill points, several gimmicks, and spells.
A barbarian can intimidate and dungeonerring too. They also have 4 skill points and much better skills than fighters (like perception)
And so on.
So it's not that fighters can't do things out of combats. It's just that everybody else is much better at doing them.
Once per day, if he's lucky, he gets the chance to use up the large majority of said resource to deal a hilarious amount of damage to a single target. And then he goes back to being a 3/4 BaB/d8 hit dice frontliner with little to no spellcasting ability left to him that day.
Once per day? You mean at level 1?
Because at level 4 you can schocking grasp 8 times per day if you want, no magic items used.With a ring of wizardry I, or pearls of power, you can shocking grasp like there's no tomorrow.
I also have to point out that the magus have to spend a standar action to cast the shield spell, and have to devote all his spell slot to his AC, that is not particulary useful for the party.
They do not, they do it as part of their attack if they want. That's the entire point of magus class. Also, having one spell less to be useful to the party is quite better than having none, which is what the fighter does have.
Some other stuff that you didn't consider about the Magus: his weapon is +1 right from the start so his BAB is similar to the fighter because of that, and he can cast a spell every round. So the level 1 Magus might be swinging for 1d6+2, while he forces his oponent to save for Daze for example. Or a Color Spray to win the entire combat if properly cast.
The difference between AC 22 and AC 20 in the hard fight, means the +4 to attack BBEG has double the chances to hit you (16+ instead of 18+). Also, the Magus will have much better saves, because he has Will as a good save too, and probably will keep higher DEX.
At 3rd level, the magus get Magus Arcana. That allow him to boost his to hit by his Int as a insight bonus for 1 round, for example. At higher levels (9) it can make all his attacks for a round to be touch attack. I think that's much better than 1 BAB every 4 levels.
The flexibility that spells give, specially out of combat, can't be compared to what fighters have.
And we are using the Magus because it was the example that got caught in the debate. A Synthesist summoner, a combat alchemist, even a Paladin or ranger also surpasse greatly the out of combat utility of a fighter, while being equally tough in melee combat
Once per day, if he's lucky, he gets the chance to use up the large majority of said resource to deal a hilarious amount of damage to a single target. And then he goes back to being a 3/4 BaB/d8 hit dice frontliner with little to no spellcasting ability left to him that day.Once per day? You mean at level 1?
Because at level 4 you can schocking grasp 8 times per day if you want, no magic items used.
With a ring of wizardry I, or pearls of power, you can shocking grasp like there's no tomorrow.
+1
and Magical Lineage makes it even easier and they ca use cantrips to get a bonus attack if they run out of slots.Sure they got their limitations, but they are mostly theoretical at higher levels.
edit:
The main thing with them is that they can go nova and be versatile.
The out of combat utility is what often, but not always, makes them superior to fighters at higher levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The out of combat utility is what often, but not always, makes them superior to fighters at higher levels.Well, it's a huge thing that makes them bring a lot more to the party. Fighters have nothing that can compare.
Obviously this is partly why arguments about how Fighters need a boost descend into mostly talking about single-target damage. As if Fighters being on parity in this one area somehow means their class is on parity with all others. In reality, it's the fact they just can't do all that much else, especially out of combat, that is their main problem.
I don't think fighters need a boost in combat. I had a fighter in Kingmaker, and he was able to do 300+ damage in one round, enough to kill Nyrissa (after the rest of the party has dispelled her, cast stuff and buffed me, of course) I don't really care if some other class can do 400+, it's just overkill. Fighters are perfectly good in DPR.
They problem is everything else. You can have skill points in Intimidate and dungeoneering... so what? Everybody else can too, they have more and better skills, and they can do things beyond skills, from mighty reality-warping teleports, to mundane favored terrain stuff, depending on the class. Out of combat, fighters can't do anything a *commoner* can't do.
Weaknesses aside, I do like the elegance and simplicity the class offers. We just brought a new guy into our game who needed to learn how to play, just teaching the basic d20 system for combat was enough, trying to get him to learn skills and their applications too would be disastrous (it was even when he had to use perception in combat).
Like it or not, the class is perfect for beginners.
Like it or not, the class is perfect for beginners.
Kind of, system mastery is a thing. Back in 3.5 I remember that was a big problem for the fighter, you had to know what feats to pick and so many were traps or such that you could very well make subpar build that you couldn't switch out. Meanwhile casters have a variety to choose from, and even warblades swapped maneuvers at intervals and had the nice ability to change weapon specific feats to other feats each day(not a fan of pathfinder's retraining personally.)
Heh, if I had the time, I'd join PFS just to play a fighter...
I play a fighter. Here are his stat's,
Tanix LVL 1 Human Fighter,Str, 18
Dex, 19
Con, 15
Int, 14
Wis, 14
cha, 11
Skill's, Acrobatics 5. Climb, 8. Disable Device, 5. Stealth, 5. Swim, 8
Hp 12
Fort 4
Ref 4
Will 4
Initiative 4
Melee att 5
Ranged att 5
Feat's, WF Longsword, Power Attack, Point blank shot.
Weapons Longsword, Shortbow.
Armor, Studded Leather, Heavy steal shield, Total AC 19.
I'm going to focus on archery, Duel Weilding Longsword's and a few skill's. All in all i feel like ive created my character to be just like me and i'm very happy with my result's.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Weaknesses aside, I do like the elegance and simplicity the class offers. We just brought a new guy into our game who needed to learn how to play, just teaching the basic d20 system for combat was enough, trying to get him to learn skills and their applications too would be disastrous (it was even when he had to use perception in combat).
Like it or not, the class is perfect for beginners.
I'd argue that Fighters are horrible for beginners if the player is expected to actually build their own character. They get a bunch of extra feats, which means that leveling up a Fighter is going to require the newbie to look through the entire section on feats and try to pick out a good one while having no frame of reference for what is or isn't good.
Building to strong feat options require meeting prerequisites and thinking multiple levels ahead when selecting feats.
I'd argue the Ranger as the best newbie class. D10 HD, Full BAB, bonus feats from a small, style focused list that allows ignoring prerequisites. Lots of skills with a good list (unlike the Fighter which may even trick newbies in to not investing in perception due to lacking it as a class skill). Spells that come on line at level 4, allowing the player to sample spell casting (again, from a smaller list of choices).
Heh, if I had the time, I'd join PFS just to play a fighter...I play a fighter. Here are his stat's,
Tanix LVL 1 Human Fighter,
Str, 18
Dex, 19
Con, 15
Int, 14
Wis, 14
cha, 11
Skill's, Acrobatics 5. Climb, 8. Disable Device, 5. Stealth, 5. Swim, 8Hp 12
Fort 4
Ref 4
Will 4Initiative 4
Melee att 5
Ranged att 5
Feat's, WF Longsword, Power Attack, Point blank shot.
Weapons Longsword, Shortbow.
Armor, Studded Leather, Heavy steal shield, Total AC 19.I'm going to focus on archery, Duel Weilding Longsword's and a few skill's. All in all i feel like ive created my character to be just like me and i'm very happy with my result's.
41 point buy equivalent if using dual talent in STR and DEX
48 Point Buy equivalent if Pumping Dex
but my human lion totem barbarian ubercharger in tuesday tony's group, before gear, race or level. it also has the homicidal maniac and shaky flaws. (Homicidal Maniac demands a DC 20 will save to not attempt to murder a target, for each target. DC 30 will save for a highly specific grudge or fetish based on species, age category, gender, or profession, instant Chaotic Evil Alignment, gain 2 bonus feats instead of 1.)
STR 18
DEX 17
CON 15
INT 16
WIS 15
CHA 13
After level, but before the homebrew bleach shinigami template that isn't completed.
STR 18
DEX 18
CON 15
INT 16
WIS 15
CHA 13
it is equivalent to a PF 57 point buy but
tuesday tony uses the following rules for stat generation
Roll 4d6
Reroll 1s
Drop Lowest
Reroll anything below 10
Roll 9 eligible Sets
use the highest 6
if you have a 4th 6, the 4th 6 transfers to the next set
arrange as desired
i wouldn't honestly expect to play a PC with a 57 point allotment, but there are PCs with actually higher stats.
I would argue that MONK is actually best for beginners.
They also require a ridiculous amount of system mastery and min maxing to their stats to make good. If you want to argue exploring lots of features, I'd actually suggest wizard personally. Wizards are SAD, work well even if that SAD is a little low. They get to explore a variety of options through spells, and if you screw up spell selection you just get a new one the next day. Another 3rd party option is psionics for its power point system, but we probably shouldn't touch it.
Weaknesses aside, I do like the elegance and simplicity the class offers. We just brought a new guy into our game who needed to learn how to play, just teaching the basic d20 system for combat was enough, trying to get him to learn skills and their applications too would be disastrous (it was even when he had to use perception in combat).
Like it or not, the class is perfect for beginners.
I'd argue that Fighters are horrible for beginners if the player is expected to actually build their own character. They get a bunch of extra feats, which means that leveling up a Fighter is going to require the newbie to look through the entire section on feats and try to pick out a good one while having no frame of reference for what is or isn't good.
Building to strong feat options require meeting prerequisites and thinking multiple levels ahead when selecting feats.
I'd argue the Ranger as the best newbie class. D10 HD, Full BAB, bonus feats from a small, style focused list that allows ignoring prerequisites. Lots of skills with a good list (unlike the Fighter which may even trick newbies in to not investing in perception due to lacking it as a class skill). Spells that come on line at level 4, allowing the player to sample spell casting (again, from a smaller list of choices).
If you aren't helping a newbie learn which feats are good and the basics of combat, and instead expect them to figure out how to play a ranger/scout type character on their own then we have nothing to discuss.
Regardless of whether or not it's on the list of class skills, if they don't know how important perception is, they won't put ranks into it.I would never bring a new player in and expect them to make a character from the ground up.
I would argue that MONK is actually best for beginners. They have linear damage progression, don't have to min-max their gear (In the sense of armor and weapons and such), most of their options are specifically given to them rather than being things that they have to pick. It also allows the player to learn to do things like using special actions and maneuvers, but isn't entirely dependent on them so the player can ease into them at a comfortable pace. If a game starts at level 1, then by level 8 the player just might have learned the whole combat system.
Problem being Monks are even MORE dependent on gear than other classes and do require a HELL of a lot of system mastery to make effective.
Without a good bit of help a new player can easily become frustrated with the class, despite how fun they can be when built well.