The Main Problem with Fighters: They aren't Rangers.
You specialise, you are mocked for specialisation, those you save and protect are happy you specialised.
You are shaped to fill a role, you fill that role, some mock you for for only being able to fill that role.
It is a vicious cycle with some relief.
What I meant is that the fighter would have the fighter only feats, making him better at fighting with shields specifically, not other things.
He has 3 specific feats for shields I know of. Which ones are you thinking of? I mean, I'm not arguing shields can't be awesome, but to my knowledge the only shield specific fighter only feats is greater shield focus(+1 ac with shields), and Shield specialization and its great form(+2 ac against critical confirmation). Those aren't the best feats.
One of the downsides to having feats as your class feature is everyone gets them.
The Main Problem with Fighters: They aren't Rangers.
The main problem with fighters so far is that they aren't magus, barbarian, paladins, or rangers. Well then... So... his problem is he's a fighter?
The Main Problem with Fighters: They aren't Rangers.You specialise, you are mocked for specialisation, those you save and protect are happy you specialised.
You can only specialize so much with feats, there are a finite number. You specialize in just killing someone with just one weapon. Everyone kills someone with weapons, everyone saves someone, everyone is happy to be saved(usually...).
Is that supposed to be a legitimate perk?
What I meant is that the fighter would have the fighter only feats, making him better at fighting with shields specifically, not other things.
You make the claim that fighters are better than rangers at "fighting with shields". I disagree, and claim that while the fighter has some advantages in this regard, the ranger also has some unique advantages.
By level 6, a ranger can have many features that help her fight with shields. She will have 2 favored enemies, giving +2/+4 attack and damage to these types. She will have a favored terrain, gaining initiative in combats there. She has spells, like Lead Blades and Longstrider, that are particularly useful in combat. She has a Hunter's Bond. By this level, this ranger can have Shield Master! She will likely choose TWF, Imp. Shield Bash, and WF: Shield and still have a feat (or 2 if human) to spend. Also, Endurance and better Reflex saves.
The fighter has Weapon Specialization, Armor Training 1 and Weapon Training 1, as well as Bravery and all the feats the ranger has (except, notably, Shield Master). At this level the Fighter will have 2 more feats than the ranger.
I hope this explains why I think that both classes have unique advantages when it comes to fighting with shields, but I must disagree when someone says the fighter is "better at it".
On only one weapon, weapon training and bonuses to one back up weapon (or the second weapon in a TWF combo), and later more.
What I meant is that the fighter would have the fighter only feats, making him better at fighting with shields specifically, not other things.
I don't think a fighter specialized in shields is the most effective class at wielding shields.
However... that doesn't really matter too much. He can definitely reach attack and damage levels that qualify as good enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I meant is that the fighter would have the fighter only feats, making him better at fighting with shields specifically, not other things.I don't think a fighter specialized in shields is the most effective class at wielding shields.
However... that doesn't really matter too much. He can definitely reach attack and damage levels that qualify as good enough.
People don't complain about the fighters ability to fight that much though, most of his issues with fighting are ones shared by the other classes(though his saves could be better...). He's a little boring maybe, but if he's full attacking he does great.
Now, once you get out of combat, that ranger is looking a lot more attractive... Which is one of the reasons I don't like giving fighter to newer players. You do a lot of things out of combat! And it can be hard to keep someone engrossed with so few things to do out of combat, especially when they don't do a lot well outside of it.
What I meant is that the fighter would have the fighter only feats, making him better at fighting with shields specifically, not other things.I don't think a fighter specialized in shields is the most effective class at wielding shields.
However... that doesn't really matter too much. He can definitely reach attack and damage levels that qualify as good enough.
People don't complain about the fighters ability to fight that much though, most of his issues with fighting are ones shared by the other classes(though his saves could be better...). He's a little boring maybe, but if he's full attacking he does great.
Now, once you get out of combat, that ranger is looking a lot more attractive... Which is one of the reasons I don't like giving fighter to newer players. You do a lot of things out of combat! And it can be hard to keep someone engrossed with so few things to do out of combat, especially when they don't do a lot well outside of it.
Have to agree on that point. The only issue most people see with the Fighter's in combat abilities is the often-espoused line that the fighter is supposed to be weak out-of-combat because he's incredibly powerful in-combat. Frankly, the numbers just don't back that up.
Fighters are good in combat, but I'd be hard-pressed to say they're so much better than most other martial classes that they need non-existent out-of-combat to compensate. If one has a choice of a guy who can only fight, or someone who can fight, scout, cast spells, and act as a skill monkey...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think Fighters ever had that much of an advantage in DPR and AC anyway... At least, not enough of an advantage to justify their complete lack of out of combat class features (other than having Intimidate and Knowledge(Dungeons) as class skills, which doesn't really help since they lack the skill points to make good use of it) and those way-too-common extra-long feat chains hurt them more than anyone else.
If they at the very least had 4 skill points per level, Perception as a class skill and, let's say, good Reflex saves, I could see the argument, but as things are right now, they simply can't compete.
Fighter make good combatants, but terrible adventurers. Their advantage in mobility is easily negated by a Barbarian's Fast Movement or a Ranger's Longstrider spell (which lasts hours per level, BTW).
Now, neither Rangers, Barbarians nor Paladins are OP because they outshine Fighters, the problem is that Fighters need some buffs. Not buffs to DPR or AC, mind you, they're pretty good at those. No, they need buffs to their utility and versatility.
Oh, and mobility too, but that's a huge problem that affects every non-caster in the game. Pouncing Barbarians are not so common because Pounce is OP (it isn't) but because mobility is such a huge problem for martial classes that anything that offers even the slightest help with that is highly valued. Doubt me? Look up threads of how people love Quick Runner Shirts! Look how so many players highly value a single extra move action per day just because it's one of the (very few) ways to move without losing most of your efficiency.
Have to agree on that point. The only issue most people see with the Fighter's in combat abilities is the often-espoused line that the fighter is supposed to be weak out-of-combat because he's incredibly powerful in-combat. Frankly, the numbers just don't back that up.
Even te Devs seems to think that. I think in core it was a more or less aceptable argument. But then every book since the APG have only increased the Ranger/Barbarian/paladin combat prowess, while the fihter remains basically the same. I wonder if the power creep* was intentional? either way the argument definitely do not holds.
** spoiler omitted **
I once asked james jacob about giving the fihter 4 +in skill per level, he said that is I wanted a skilled fighter I should play a ranger :/, so I think sadly the issue would never be corrected in PF.
I feel your pain here Nicos. The most interesting fighter I can remember playing was interesting mostly because of her motivations and story (she was an elf that was adventuring to find her half-elf daughter that was swept away by her human father). Mechanically she was boring unless she was full-attacking (and then that got pretty old too). I found myself trying to fit in stuff concerning her culture, weapon styles, etc.
Later I rebuilt the character for a new game except I used Ranger. Magically everything came together effortlessly and I didn't even have to try hard to throw skill points into everything that would suit her, had an easy time getting all my feats and stuff, etc.
Honestly I have no special dislike of Fighters, but when I'm sitting down to make a warrior character it basically becomes Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, or hybrid/multiclass, because anything I would have used the Fighter for I can use the other classes for while getting more for rounding out my character (because honestly I want to roleplay with real characters, not an HP pool and a weapon).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I once asked james jacob about giving the fihter 4 +in skill per level, he said that is I wanted a skilled fighter I should play a ranger
I don't think JJ gives a damn about game balance, to be honest, based on this and other quotes.
I could understand that, to an extent, if they ever acknowledged that these imbalances EXISTED instead of saying stuff like "Play a Ranger if you want a Fighter with skills" and "Caster/Martial disparity is a myth propagated by people with agendas".
I once asked james jacob about giving the fihter 4 +in skill per level, he said that is I wanted a skilled fighter I should play a rangerI don't think JJ gives a damn about game balance, to be honest, based on this and other quotes.
Yep.
I am a bit disappointed the barb is so much stronger. Oh yes, the fighter has generally better AC, but damn those barbs are strong and hit hard. Gone is the short term rage of 3.5, now its rage points out the wazoo.
Which I don't think is a problem.
Pathfinder's stated goal was to be "3.5 but balls to the wall on single classed characters, with some minor tweaks", no? And that makes it really fun.
There are just some weird throwbacks (Fighter, Rogue, Monk) that get the entire Nutcracker Suite played out on their testicles by the rest of the classes in the game, which if fixed would be both fun AND balanced.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Caster/Martial disparity is a myth propagated by people with agendas".What's your agenda?
I shall not reveal the glorious plan in full, but know that the hour of our triumph fast approaches. Only one final piece remains to fall into place... when fighters are balanced... then... It Shall Begin.
I shall not reveal the glorious plan in full, but know that the hour of our triumph fast approaches. Only one final piece remains to fall into place... when fighters are balanced... then... It Shall Begin."Caster/Martial disparity is a myth propagated by people with agendas".What's your agenda?
So the world is completely safe...
So the world is completely safe...I shall not reveal the glorious plan in full, but know that the hour of our triumph fast approaches. Only one final piece remains to fall into place... when fighters are balanced... then... It Shall Begin."Caster/Martial disparity is a myth propagated by people with agendas".What's your agenda?
for now...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And some options are designed to be crap. (Like 60% of all feats ever published, for instance).
Fixed it for you...
And some options are designed to be crap. (Like 60% of all feats ever published, for instance).Fixed it for you...
I think your being far too generous.