The Main Problem with Fighters


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1,801 to 1,850 of 3,805 << first < prev | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | next > last >>

ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
For the Full Plate remark, I've known games where the GM gives very high 1st level gold because the campaign was unfair so he wanted to balance out the High CR with Higher quality equipment. Rangers are alright, I'll admit that rangers can be much more effective, but the favored enemy is a weakness as well as a strength because I know people who build more effective casters than melee expecting to always fight favored enemy which is not a class problem just like people building skill trick pony fighters which takes away from the class. Also my argument that the campaign is more important than the class isn't to say that class isn't important, it just says that you can make fighters that can fight better at low level and get through more of the campaign are often more effective than arcane casters that have spells all over the place which takes away from your class. Also when I talk about two weapon vs tank I mean two different characters, not one that is really versatile. I'm saying that sometimes a fighter is equal to or even greater than a caster. Also the fact that you can take a level of fighter and give any class automatic proficiencies and a combat feat that can be used to increase martial efficiency for whatever martial class, even ranger if taken at the right level. And as for your elves and gnomes killing dragons and demons, do you really think that its hard to belive? Because elves and gnomes are often used for the spellcasters and rangers that you like so much. I want to know why fighters are given a bad rap because they aren't as magical as wizards or as versatile as summoners. Also for paladins, their saves aren't the problems I hear about them, I hear its that they are terrible at doing some of the things like tricking that others need

They get a bad rap because while they are very good at hitting things and not getting hit, a large portion of the game doesn't depend on +hit and AC.

If you compare them to other weapon users, those classes are almost as good at those things while being much better at everything else.

For instance, a ranger gets good fort and reflex plus his class features benefit from wisdom. He has 4 more skill points per level and he has spells that are useful out of combat.

He does get fewer feats, but he is allowed to skip prereq feats and doesn't need to invest into skill points or boosting his saves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
Or are we allowed to cast spells like color spray?

Dood! If my fighter could square off against 4 guys who were 15 ft. away, at 1st level, and have a chance to knock all 4 of them unconscious? Now THAT would be one bad-ass fighter! Even if I could only do it once per day, I'd happily trade in my bonus feat for that. Or even ALL my bonus feats!

Oh, but wait, I can instead get +1 to hit with one specific weapon. But I can do it all day long... or at least until I run out of hp, which honestly really doesn't take very long at 1st level.


ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
For the Full Plate remark, I've known games where the GM gives very high 1st level gold because the campaign was unfair so he wanted to balance out the High CR with Higher quality equipment.

I've known where fighters could cast Wish at will. That doesn't mean they can normally, and is of no help at all when we are talking about balance in the game.

Quote:
I'm saying that sometimes a fighter is equal to or even greater than a caster.

Assuming both players have a similar level of skill in the game system, no.


ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
So you think a first level wizard is better than a 1st level fighter?

Yes.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
So you think a first level wizard is better than a 1st level fighter?
Yes.

Ask again when the 1st level fighter can switch out his bonus feat every day. And when he can KO four warriors with that feat. Until then, yes.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Or are we allowed to cast spells like color spray?
Dood! If my fighter could square off against 4 guys who were 15 ft. away, at 1st level, and have a chance to knock all 4 of them unconscious? Now THAT would be one bad-ass fighter! Even if I could only do it once per day, I'd happily trade in my bonus feat for that. Or even ALL my bonus feats!

My first level gnome sorcerer can do 5d4+5 in 15ft cone 4 times per day.

That means he totally wipe out 4 1st level encounters per day, regardless of saving throw. My first level fighter would kill for something like that


gustavo iglesias wrote:
My first level gnome sorcerer can do 5d4+5 in 15ft cone 4 times per day.

Unless there's something I'm missing, he can't do that until 5th. At 1st, he does 1d4+1, save for half. Either way, KO is better, because it essentially deals infinity points of damage, when you walk up and coup de grace the little sleepy-heads.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
My first level gnome sorcerer can do 5d4+5 in 15ft cone 4 times per day.
Unless there's something I'm missing, he can't do that until 5th. At 1st, he does 1d4+1, save for half. Either way, KO is better, because it essentially deals infinity points of damage, when you walk up and coup de grace the little sleepy-heads.

Gnomes can get pyromaniac, which gives them +1CL with fire.

Loreseeker regional trait gives you +1 CL with 3 spells.
Gifted Adept magical trait gives you +1 with 1 spell

That's 4d4+4 with draconic bloodline, or 4d4+8 with crossblooded.

In order to do at first level 5d4+5, it needs to be human (spell focus + spell specialization). It's 5d4+10 with a human crossblooded draconic/orc sorcerer.

EDIT: ko is better if he fails the save. With 5d4+10, any first level CR dies regardless of saving throw.


Oy ve. You remind me of why, in my home game, I set a hard cap of CL </= HD. And made "immune to color spray" a racial trait choice!

Shadow Lodge

Colorspray is nice, but you lose value at higher levels, and when the enemy casts it. yes you have a nice will save, but if you fail and get coup de graced, you're less likely to make the fort save than the fighter. Still, I'll admit that going pure fighter is difficult to make useful at high levels. But you can easily augment them with levels of barbarian or ranger. For instance A titan mauler(barbarian)/2 two-weapon warrior/8 gets jotungrip and can now dual-wield greatswords, and penalties reduce over time, if you take improved critical greatsword, then you have a 17-20/x2 critical and if you build with higher strength then con, you still get rage for tougher fights and can now do effective damage. If you replace greatsword with earthbreaker, then a successful crit results in the damage equivalent of a low-level fireball thats not subject to energy resistance. I will admit it takes a ton of effort to make fighters as effective as wizards, it is worth the effort and the fighter class is easier to break than MOST spellcasters.


ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
So you think a first level wizard is better than a 1st level fighter? Or maybe a 4th level comparison? You can't buff the AC of the most effective casting classes until high level and you can't get effective melee until around 9th level at which point any wizard is just nasty.

Whoa Whoa Whoa. Its well known that Fighters are better than Wizards at lvl one.and the rest of your post makes no sense. Isn't Mage Armor a first level spell. so wizards can buff ac at level 1. also a lot of shooty type wizards have some good dex for the ranged touch attacks (Which they're able to do because hey are SAD) so they can easily get your AC towards twenty pretty fast. Also what in the world is a wizard going to do in melee when they have the ability to summon monsters?

At this point I'm not arguing against your main point, which I do have arguments against, but those sentences do not help your argument.


ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
I will admit it takes a ton of effort to make fighters as effective as wizards

"...to make fighters as effective as wizards in combat," you mean. And my #1 biggest issue with the system is that, at the levels you're talking about (>10th), combat can easily be bypassed/avoided/nova'd when needed -- if people are playing intelligently and ruthlessly, instead of politely following the story line. That would be fine if martials had the ability to do that as well, but the designers have seen fit to making sure that fighters are only useful if you're walking blindly into dungeons and strolling down the corridors, endlessly.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Oy ve. You remind me of why, in my home game, I set a hard cap of CL </= HD. And made "immune to color spray" a racial trait choice!

:)

Let's not talk about perfect spell feat then :)


Bruh, the Fort save is pretty just a formality for a Coup de Grace.

Even against something like a 10 Str Commoner with a Longsword you're looking at a Fort save of ~18. Even the Fighter will be hard pressed to make that at low levels, and doesn't have that much of a higher chance than the Wizard.

Fighters are easier to break than casters yeah.

If by broken you mean "made terrible and nigh unplayable", anyway.


ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
Colorspray is nice, but you lose value at higher levels

That's when I stop preparing it as a wizard, or swap it out as a sorcerer.

Titan mauler is a pretty meh archetype. It really doesn't do much more damage on hits, and it actually loses dpr to its attack loss. Regardless to any DPR, the strength of a wizard isn't in DPR. Its controlling the battlefield. I can make a really powerful evocation wizard sure, but its the fact he used a metamagic elemental/rime fireball that entangled the guys stuck in it and had a high save that really hurt. Damage is nice, but ending the encounter with a wave of my hand is amazing. Which is my point about colorspray. 4 guys is my record to date, but most DMs aren't kind enough to line them up for me...


ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
Colorspray is nice, but you lose value at higher levels,

You don't prepare color spray at high levels.


ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
P will admit it takes a ton of effort to make fighters as effective as wizards, it is worth the effort and the fighter class is easier to break than MOST spellcasters.

No way.

At high level, your two handed fighter wields a very impressive greatsword. My wizard can Gate for a Solar, which has a very impressive greatsword that dances and fight alone, while the Solar can use a very impressive composite bow which fires slaying arrows, being a 20th level cleric that can cast Wish as a spell like ability.

It's comparing a guy with a bicycle with someone who can summon angels

Shadow Lodge

By breaking a class, I mean making it 100x more effective than high level classes that are similar. The only thing you can do with wizards, sorcerers, and plenty of other arcane casters is think of ways to combine spells. For fighters, you merely look for archetype combos with fighters and rangers or barbarians to make you more effective than other classes. The main reason most people don't like fighters is because they don't see cool, useless class features that can make combat more interesting, and see them as dumb, brutish goons.


Fighters don't get cool class features.

Plenty of useless ones, certainly, but not cool, and not particularly powerful on average.

Even the archetypes that get something neat give up the things most people say is what supposedly makes Fighter better than other classes: Armor and Weapon Training (though I find that laughable).


ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
By breaking a class, I mean making it 100x more effective than high level classes that are similar. The only thing you can do with wizards, sorcerers, and plenty of other arcane casters is think of ways to combine spells.

Not true. You have an example a few post above this, where I posted an example of a sorcerer that can do 5d4+10 at level 1 with Burning hands, using feats and traits.

The reason I don't like the mechanic of fighters is because they can't do anything special. They do same things everybody do, but with a +2 here or a +1 there. They are utterly useless out of combat too. I love the fighter concept (the martial character, like Conan or Beowulf). They just suck too much in Pathfinder.


ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
By breaking a class, I mean making it 100x more effective than high level classes that are similar. The only thing you can do with wizards, sorcerers, and plenty of other arcane casters is think of ways to combine spells. For fighters, you merely look for archetype combos with fighters and rangers or barbarians to make you more effective than other classes. The main reason most people don't like fighters is because they don't see cool, useless class features that can make combat more interesting, and see them as dumb, brutish goons.

I remember prepping up for a game where one of the players had planned out a Spellslinging wizard that would eventually start wielding dancing guns that shoot way too many times in one round. I didn't see that come through because the game broke down at level 3 but in other instances Ive seen casting classes do absurd things with spell combinations so saying that its 'the only thing you can do' is like saying 'the only thing you can do is destroy the planet at level 6'


gustavo iglesias wrote:
No he doesn't. At level 1, a Magus can have more AC than a fighter, with just Shield Spell+chain shirt. From there, the gap is bigger each level. Specially once you have Mirror Image and displacement. You can do that, and still have enough first level +10d6 shocking grasps to be using one per round every round of combat during the entire day. If you can't, that's because you aren't creative enough to make a magus.

I am curious about this magus thing. Can you post a build in lemmy´s Build thread to prove your point?


How do you get 10d6 Shocking Grasps at 1st level?


Kirth Gersen wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
So you think a first level wizard is better than a 1st level fighter?
Yes.
Ask again when the 1st level fighter can switch out his bonus feat every day.

It is not like wizrads have balzillions of spells at first level.


Nicos wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
So you think a first level wizard is better than a 1st level fighter?
Yes.
Ask again when the 1st level fighter can switch out his bonus feat every day.
It is not like wizrads have balzillions of spells at first level.

Wizards can have like 10 spells known (not including Cantrips) at 1st level, though they can only use like 2-3, and can swap 'em out every day.

Fighters only get up to 3 Feats at 1st level, and can only swap one every 4 levels.


Just a few more points I'd like to add:

1) Can we stop pretending that even Fighters have trouble filling out their concepts with feats? The last Fighter I played specialized in both a Whip and an Urumi, as well as Trip and Disarm feats, as well as the Human feats to make my WF and WS work for both my weapons. Oh, and I was taking feats to deal with being a pirate - you know, sea legs, skill stuff, etc.
I "completed my build" by level 17. Two exotic weapons, racial feats that most people don't bother with, and campaign-specific feats, and I still had feats to burn. Imagine if I picked non-exotic weapons!
tl;dr - Fighters have no problem filling out multiple combat concepts. The bonus feats make that extremely easy.

2) Can we stop saying that Rangers can be excellent TWFers and get Shield Mastery free of prereqs? No, they can't. They can do one or the other. They can be great at TWF by going the TWF Style and picking up the TWF feats without the awful Dex prereqs, OR they can pick up the first TWF feat and then pick up Shield Mastery early, but then not be able to ignore prereqs for ITWF and GTWF.
It's one or the other, not both.

And finally 3) - Can we admit that Fighters, as the class exists now, has no place in the game? It is the ultimate "sandbox" style class in a game filled with specialized class options. It has no identity of it's own - It's generic to the extreme. (Archetypes are the exception, but that's the point of archetypes.)
The only way the Fighter will ever get the "fix" it needs to fit in with the other classes, is with a complete, top to bottom, redesign... And we all know that's not coming. PF2 is the only way we'll see that, and I doubt we'll see a PF2.


Rynjin wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
So you think a first level wizard is better than a 1st level fighter?
Yes.
Ask again when the 1st level fighter can switch out his bonus feat every day.
It is not like wizrads have balzillions of spells at first level.

Wizards can have like 10 spells known (not including Cantrips) at 1st level, though they can only use like 2-3, and can swap 'em out every day.

Fighters only get up to 3 Feats at 1st level, and can only swap one every 4 levels.

Can have or do have? cana ranger swap one of his bonus feat? or a barbarian swap improve uncanny dodge the ay he need more DR and swap again the day he will figh an invisble opponent?


Nicos wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
No he doesn't. At level 1, a Magus can have more AC than a fighter, with just Shield Spell+chain shirt. From there, the gap is bigger each level. Specially once you have Mirror Image and displacement. You can do that, and still have enough first level +10d6 shocking grasps to be using one per round every round of combat during the entire day. If you can't, that's because you aren't creative enough to make a magus.
I am curious about this magus thing. Can you post a build in lemmy´s Build thread to prove your point?

I was under the impression that this is well known. I'm currently playing a Magus at level 5, I have 22 AC without buffs but can raise that to 26 with self buffing. later when I have the ability to wear better armor and have no spell failure chance I can get it higher, but I'm a dex build so I'll have less than a str build Magus.

My Shocking Grasp is at 5d6, and spend my arcane pool to keen my weapon, cast shocking grasp to get the the second attack to fish for crits since my scimitar is at a 15-20 crit range due to keen. Due to how all this works if I crit then my touch spell damage doubles so I hit for 10d6 plus my weapon damage and bonuses. I actually stopped using shocking grasp because there are two barbarians in the party so I wanted to focus on debuffing rather than fishing for shocking grasp crits.


Lemmy wrote:

He also missed

- "Class balance is the exact same thing as homogenization. No difference at all. No, sir. Balanced classes = sameness. Always."
- "It doesn't matter if this class/character/build sucks! The GM should design the game for it to always be awesome, even If I'm playing a blind retarded crippled commoner."

And, of course... My personal favorite stupid argument:

- "Classes shouldn't be even remotely balanced because that's not realistic, and I demand total realism in my game about elves and gnomes killing dragons and demons."

Ah, yes... That one's a classic...

Yeah. . . for the life of me, I can't remember the last time I ran into a *DWARF* in real life! In any case, character difference makes the game more fun. All the same, I can't see much point in playing a normal Fighter vs. a Talented Fighter ( SGG class ), but that's just me.


Neo2151 wrote:

And finally 3) - Can we admit that Fighters, as the class exists now, has no place in the game? It is the ultimate "sandbox" style class in a game filled with specialized class options. It has no identity of it's own - It's generic to the extreme. (Archetypes are the exception, but that's the point of archetypes.)

The only way the Fighter will ever get the "fix" it needs to fit in with the other classes, is with a complete, top to bottom, redesign... And we all know that's not coming. PF2 is the only way we'll see that, and I doubt we'll see a PF2.

I Utterly disagree.

First cause when a regular player play a regular fighter in a regular campaing odds are he would do it just fine.

Second cause fixing the fighter issues is much easier than fixing monk, rogues and cavalier issues. a little better at skill, better at saves and that is all.

Third, cause being generic is the fighter esence. I like that, it is a good idea for a class, if you remove that you are making completly diferent.


Malwing wrote:
Nicos wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
No he doesn't. At level 1, a Magus can have more AC than a fighter, with just Shield Spell+chain shirt. From there, the gap is bigger each level. Specially once you have Mirror Image and displacement. You can do that, and still have enough first level +10d6 shocking grasps to be using one per round every round of combat during the entire day. If you can't, that's because you aren't creative enough to make a magus.
I am curious about this magus thing. Can you post a build in lemmy´s Build thread to prove your point?

I was under the impression that this is well known. I'm currently playing a Magus at level 5, I have 22 AC without buffs but can raise that to 26 with self buffing. later when I have the ability to wear better armor and have no spell failure chance I can get it higher, but I'm a dex build so I'll have less than a str build Magus.

My Shocking Grasp is at 5d6, and spend my arcane pool to keen my weapon, cast shocking grasp to get the the second attack to fish for crits since my scimitar is at a 15-20 crit range due to keen. Due to how all this works if I crit then my touch spell damage doubles so I hit for 10d6 plus my weapon damage and bonuses. I actually stopped using shocking grasp because there are two barbarians in the party so I wanted to focus on debuffing rather than fishing for shocking grasp crits.

That is all fine but it is a little abstract. At taht level an archer fighter would have the same Ac just with a +1 breastplate, he could shot in melee and probably is doing more damage than the magus, all day long, at distance and at melee range.

But, Archer tanks are not all fighters, the same way all magus do not use your build that is wwhy I am asking.


Neo2151 wrote:


2) Can we stop saying that Rangers can be excellent TWFers and get Shield Mastery free of prereqs? No, they can't. They can do one or the other. They can be great at TWF by going the TWF Style and picking up the TWF feats without the awful Dex prereqs, OR they can pick up the first TWF feat and then pick up Shield Mastery early, but then not be able to ignore prereqs for ITWF and GTWF.
It's one or the other, not both.

Actually, the first time I really read Ranger, I was pissed about this ability. I was thinking "why the hell does the woodland racist serial killer (sorry for the harshness I hate a lot of things about rangers) get weapon style feats that ignore prerequisites and not the guy who has an ability called 'Weapon Training'? Who made this guy master at arms? he's master of hunting not weapon styles." And really I'm still mad about that because in APG he gets an option of weapon and shield, because the woodland hunter is totally the sword and board guy. Sure there are archetypes to do that, but he should have had it to begin with. He's 'the feat guy' if anybody is going to bypass any prerequisites it should be him.

Sorry I'm not contributing to the argument I just wanted to point out that some problems I had with flavor that I felt should have gone to fighters but went somewhere else.

I do disagree with #1 somewhat though. I can make multiple gimmicks but each gimmick typically comes with 3-5 feats which not only makes me feel like i'm going at a snail's pace when I'm leveling but feels like a waste of feat space when to do something simple I have a trail of feats I don't want or like and the feat switching doesn't help at all. Somewhere here I saw someone mention fighters having a feat slot that they can swap each day. I for one would love to see that.


Nicos wrote:
Second cause fixing the fighter issues is much easier than fixing monk, rogues and cavalier issues. a little better at skill, better at saves and that is all.

I'd really like to see some in-game versatility (as opposed to build versatility) added to the class as well tbh. Other than resiliency I still think that combat versatility is the huge hole in the fighter's fighting capabilities.

Take what you said and add the ability to change his combat feats once per day with an hour of weapon practice... or it wouldn't even need to be all of them. Even just turning a few of the fighter's bonus feats into "floating" feats that could be reselected once a day with an hour's weapon training would be a boon to the class's combat toolbox for dealing with changing situations - and, IMO, a great boon to keeping combat fresh as a fighter as well.

It would still be a very simple and easy change as well ;)


Lemmy wrote:


"Fighters deal more damage than Wizards, so they are okay!"
"Fighters should suck at everything because of the class' name"
"You don't know how to play. I'm better than you"

It's been a while since I last saw so many stupid points in the same post... ¬¬'

*sigh* All right, before I get any farther in catching up in this dead horse beating par... uh thread, no doubt you and a half dozen other people will jump in and teach him the error of his opinion. That's fine. It could be done without "stupid" coming up though. Many people find that rather insulting. If you were in one of my classes I'd tell you to find you manners wherever you left them. Here I can only suggest you find them and remind you of the "don't be a jerk" rule of the board owners. Whatever a persons opinion and however well, or poorly, founded it is conversations can be civil. My 2 cp, ymmv.

Shadow Lodge

I am going to say that the "Main Problem with Fighters" is that we keep arguing about what the "Main Problem with Fighters" is. Some of us think casters are inferior because of less attacks and feats. Others think Casters are Superior because of more damage. I say that if we have such a problem with this, we try the type we disagree with as best we can then argue with some more perspective. Also Its ok that Lemmy insulted me because he made a good point and as Einstein once wrote the business of elegance should be left to tailors and shoemakers.


Nicos wrote:
Malwing wrote:
Nicos wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
No he doesn't. At level 1, a Magus can have more AC than a fighter, with just Shield Spell+chain shirt. From there, the gap is bigger each level. Specially once you have Mirror Image and displacement. You can do that, and still have enough first level +10d6 shocking grasps to be using one per round every round of combat during the entire day. If you can't, that's because you aren't creative enough to make a magus.
I am curious about this magus thing. Can you post a build in lemmy´s Build thread to prove your point?

I was under the impression that this is well known. I'm currently playing a Magus at level 5, I have 22 AC without buffs but can raise that to 26 with self buffing. later when I have the ability to wear better armor and have no spell failure chance I can get it higher, but I'm a dex build so I'll have less than a str build Magus.

My Shocking Grasp is at 5d6, and spend my arcane pool to keen my weapon, cast shocking grasp to get the the second attack to fish for crits since my scimitar is at a 15-20 crit range due to keen. Due to how all this works if I crit then my touch spell damage doubles so I hit for 10d6 plus my weapon damage and bonuses. I actually stopped using shocking grasp because there are two barbarians in the party so I wanted to focus on debuffing rather than fishing for shocking grasp crits.

That is all fine but it is a little abstract. At taht level an archer fighter would have the same Ac just with a +1 breastplate, he could shot in melee and probably is doing more damage than the magus, all day long, at distance and at melee range.

But, Archer tanks are not all fighters, the same way all magus do not use your build that is wwhy I am asking.

Archer fighter with a +1 breastplate wouldn't have the 26 AC with a +1 breastplate. I am curious as to how a lvl 5 archer fighter is dealing that much damage in one round.

After all the buffs and spells are gone a Magus is still essentially a fighter with less feats only that by the time those resources are gone and the magus is still alive everything that's threatening it is dead so considering the general rate of combat the fighter's stamina advantage is a well known fallacy.

Not all Magi use my build but 'Keen scimitar into shocking crits' seems very well known. I've almost never seen a magus not do it in PFS and I see it all the time online.


ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
I am going to say that the "Main Problem with Fighters" is that we keep arguing about what the "Main Problem with Fighters" is. Some of us think casters are inferior because of less attacks and feats. Others think Casters are Superior because of more damage. I say that if we have such a problem with this, we try the type we disagree with as best we can then argue with some more perspective. Also Its ok that Lemmy insulted me because he made a good point and as Einstein once wrote the business of elegance should be left to tailors and shoemakers.

Wait a minute, who thinks casters are inferior? I was under impression that Wizard was a tier 1 class and are one of the most if not the most broken class. One of the popular optimization guides for Wizard is called 'Becoming God'

Scarab Sages

gustavo iglesias wrote:


Gnomes can get pyromaniac, which gives them +1CL with fire.
Loreseeker regional trait gives you +1 CL with 3 spells.
Gifted Adept magical trait gives you +1 with 1 spell

That's 4d4+4 with draconic bloodline, or 4d4+8 with crossblooded.

In order to do at first level 5d4+5, it needs to be human (spell focus + spell specialization). It's 5d4+10 with a human crossblooded draconic/orc sorcerer.

EDIT: ko is better if he fails the save. With 5d4+10, any first level CR dies regardless of saving throw.

Are you sure that these stack? I thought that bonuses of the same type, with the exception of Dodge, do not stack if it is similar.

Lorekeeper, the one you are looking at, is the subset of the Outlander Campaign trait, which lets you do the +1 CL/DC of 3 spells. I am uncertain how you are going to roleplay out your "entering Sandpoint to persue Thassalonian artifacts inside Sandpoint" when you are in the Geb or Tian Xia or something.


ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
I am going to say that the "Main Problem with Fighters" is that we keep arguing about what the "Main Problem with Fighters" is. Some of us think casters are inferior because of less attacks and feats. Others think Casters are Superior because of more damage. I say that if we have such a problem with this, we try the type we disagree with as best we can then argue with some more perspective.

Erm, no. The main problem with fighters is they're hyperfocused on combat but don't get much out of being hyperfocused on combat(seriously, bad saves. Why!?) and suffer outside of combat horribly. Outside of combat he isn't that fun to me. 2+ skill points and nothing to really help him beyond that.

Who is arguing that the wizard is inferior because less attacks? The wizard shouldn't be doing melee in the first place. Damage isn't even the best race when I can at first level shoot out a cone that has a 50ish% chance of taking anyone caught in it out of the battle! The wizard gets cooler from there on.


Malwing wrote:

Archer fighter with a +1 breastplate wouldn't have the 26 AC with a +1 breastplate. I am curious as to how a lvl 5 archer fighter is dealing that much damage in one round.

After all the buffs and spells are gone a Magus is still essentially a fighter with less feats only that by the time those resources are gone and the magus is still alive everything that's threatening it is dead so considering the general rate of combat the fighter's stamina advantage is a well known fallacy.

Not all Magi use my build but 'Keen scimitar into shocking crits' seems very well known. I've almost never seen a magus not do it in PFS and I see it all the time online.

Afther all the buff are gone the magus is not comparable to a fighter.

But if you can prove me wrong I invite you to post your 5th level build here

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2piog?Build-Thread-3-Swinging-Swords-and-Kickin -Ass

Shadow Lodge

If everyone thinks fighters are inferior then why is there a 37 page argument that goes in circles about caster vs fighter?


Personally, I love Fighters. At low levels how does a wizard/sorceror survive without one? There are other martial classes, sure, but Paladins operate under serious restrictions ( one alignment allowed ONLY!! ), Rangers don't have the best armor and Barbarians, well. . . see Ranger. It would be better, however, if the Fighter could switch out certain feats for new ones ( kind of like Malhovac's Man-At-Arms ) periodically, but you can do so much damage each round, whereas a wizard/cleric/magic-using-class must keep an eye on how many spells he/she has left. . . . .

Would if the DM fools people into thinking a certain monster is the main boss they must beat, but there's really another? Would if the wizards/clerics/etc. expend their spells on the fake boss? Fighters can keep going . .. . .

Scarab Sages

It is like people saying which is better, Pepsi or Coke?


ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
If everyone thinks fighters are inferior then why is there a 37 page argument that goes in circles about caster vs fighter?

Denial.

Shadow Lodge

I agree Caligastia and a level of fighter can seriously upgrade divine casters like clerics because of new weapons in the same way a level of divine caster or other martial class can augment fighters. The only problem I see is people who perfer arcane not wanting to multi-class because of the magus class. Maybe some people just wanting to not vary their characters. But if we each try the other sides ideas then we can argue with more influence.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Caligastia wrote:


Would if the DM fools people into thinking a certain monster is the main boss they must beat, but there's really another? Would if the wizards/clerics/etc. expend their spells on the fake boss? Fighters can keep going . .. . .

This is a fallacy.

A Fighter is limited by the rest of his party. He won't survive long alone, even if he weren't dependent on buffs and heals to get through battles.

A Fighter that doesn't rest with his casters is a Fighter who dies quickly.


Nicos wrote:
Malwing wrote:

Archer fighter with a +1 breastplate wouldn't have the 26 AC with a +1 breastplate. I am curious as to how a lvl 5 archer fighter is dealing that much damage in one round.

After all the buffs and spells are gone a Magus is still essentially a fighter with less feats only that by the time those resources are gone and the magus is still alive everything that's threatening it is dead so considering the general rate of combat the fighter's stamina advantage is a well known fallacy.

Not all Magi use my build but 'Keen scimitar into shocking crits' seems very well known. I've almost never seen a magus not do it in PFS and I see it all the time online.

Afther all the buff are gone the magus is not comparable to a fighter.

But if you can prove me wrong I invite you to post your 5th level build here

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2piog?Build-Thread-3-Swinging-Swords-and-Kickin -Ass

It is unfortunately not a build I typed up or pre-build (I'm flying by the seat of my pants this game) so I'll have to decline. Also it's a terrible example because I somewhat nerfed myself for goofy abilities.

Shadow Lodge

One good application of fighter is cleric12/fighter1. then domains like sun domain that lets you add cleric level to channel when harming undead and alternate favored class option for aasimar and a phylactery of positive channeling. Then you can be in full plate with an earthbreaker and as a bonus feat improved crit earthbreaker. then you have feats like improved channel, extra channel, versatile channeler and channel smite. then on a smite you can do a total of 10d6+18 damage or 9+2d6+8d6/2 if they make their will save. Maybe fighters alone aren't great, but this way you can have better feats than armor and proficiency feats. For instance angel blood, angelic flesh, and angel wings for a flying cleric tank. And thats with just one level of fighter.


Rynjin wrote:
Caligastia wrote:


Would if the DM fools people into thinking a certain monster is the main boss they must beat, but there's really another? Would if the wizards/clerics/etc. expend their spells on the fake boss? Fighters can keep going . .. . .

This is a fallacy.

A Fighter is limited by the rest of his party. He won't survive long alone, even if he weren't dependent on buffs and heals to get through battles.

A Fighter that doesn't rest with his casters is a Fighter who dies quickly.

What about healing potions? Heavy armor can make it that much tougher to hit him, and he doesn't have the alignment restrictions of a Paladin (aka the other Heavy Armor proficient class )


1 person marked this as a favorite.
R_Chance wrote:
*sigh* All right, before I get any farther in catching up in this dead horse beating par... uh thread, no doubt you and a half dozen other people will jump in and teach him the error of his opinion. That's fine. It could be done without "stupid" coming up though. Many people find that rather insulting. If you were in one of my classes I'd tell you to find you manners wherever you left them. Here I can only suggest you find them and remind you of the "don't be a jerk" rule of the board owners. Whatever a persons opinion and however well, or poorly, founded it is conversations can be civil. My 2 cp, ymmv.

Saying something someone said is stupid is not the same as calling said person stupid. I'm sure even Eistein said a lot of stupid stuff at some point in his life.

I wasn't saying the poster or his opinion was stupid, only that the points he made were. I'll admit that I didn't need to use that particular word, but I'll also say that this is hardly something heart-breaking or incredibly offensive.

This is the internet, we all can use some thicker skins...

1,801 to 1,850 of 3,805 << first < prev | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The Main Problem with Fighters All Messageboards