The Main Problem with Fighters


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

2,151 to 2,200 of 3,805 << first < prev | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | next > last >>

Nicos wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

Why do fighters need more skills again? What theme do they not cover? The fighter is not a skill intensive class, and that's the beauty of it. Less work to do, and a simpler build. There are archetypes that give you 4+INT/level if you need it that bad. You want survival? UMD? The feat Cosmopolitan exists, the feat Additional Traits exists, you could take skill focus and get the same benefit as having it as a class skill until you get to 10 ranks

This is a terrible argument.

The fighter do not need more skill points to fight, but neither the barbarian, the cavalier or the gunslinger, nevertheless hose classes have more skill points.

Hose classes? There's the problem right there.


+5 Toaster wrote:
Quote:
Tell me more about what a great positive contribution he made there in replacing Kirth's post with that.
well considering they are on the same side of the argument, I took that as humor.

They aren't; Kirth believes Fighters should be improved, Markthus has opposed him throughout the thread.

If didn't catch that, you might want to re-read the last several pages (I do not mean this sarcastically or snidely. I mean: I think you got confused. Though perhaps I might be the confused one and Markthus has just been pretending to be completely opposed to beefing up Fighters, in the name of preserving caster advantage (in which case he's trolling the other side making deliberately lame counter-arguments against Kirth et al in order to discredit Kirth's opponents by association).

Quote:
ED-209 on the other hand seemed to not be kidding. though maybe he was playing along too, and if so I apologize for my comment.

ED-209 is always kidding. He exists for lame jokes and lightheartedness.

Unfortunately he got too carried along with the moment for about a page, though, and is taking a break.

ED-209 doesn't exist to lock threads or derail them. He overstepped his bounds and is taking a "time out."


master_marshmallow wrote:
Nicos wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

Why do fighters need more skills again? What theme do they not cover? The fighter is not a skill intensive class, and that's the beauty of it. Less work to do, and a simpler build. There are archetypes that give you 4+INT/level if you need it that bad. You want survival? UMD? The feat Cosmopolitan exists, the feat Additional Traits exists, you could take skill focus and get the same benefit as having it as a class skill until you get to 10 ranks

This is a terrible argument.

The fighter do not need more skill points to fight, but neither the barbarian, the cavalier or the gunslinger, nevertheless hose classes have more skill points.

Hose classes? There's the problem right there.

How dare other classes be fun!

You probably think the rogue works just fine too and all those OP rogue replacement classes are the problem.


MrSin wrote:
Caligastia wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:

Climb becomes obsolete at 3rd level, when levitate comes on line.

So your stance is that the fighter class is exactly 2 levels long?
What do I do after that?
Would if the spellcasters aren't around? With Climb, you can get it *regardless*!
Without casters a take 10/20 usually solves it. If your fighting a creature with a climb speed on a wall your usually pretty screwed to begin with aren't you? Of course the fighters 2 skill points per level means he may not actually have enough skill points for climbing whatever.

. . . and that's what the problem is: Fighters' don't get squat to spend on skills. What about a trait for Fighters which signifies he's come from a Fighting School? This would up 2 to 4 skill points. I also still think Combat Style Feats and henchmen/followers at 8th level+ would be more reflective of the Fighter's fame improving as word gets around. . . .


master_marshmallow wrote:
Nicos wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

Why do fighters need more skills again? What theme do they not cover? The fighter is not a skill intensive class, and that's the beauty of it. Less work to do, and a simpler build. There are archetypes that give you 4+INT/level if you need it that bad. You want survival? UMD? The feat Cosmopolitan exists, the feat Additional Traits exists, you could take skill focus and get the same benefit as having it as a class skill until you get to 10 ranks

This is a terrible argument.

The fighter do not need more skill points to fight, but neither the barbarian, the cavalier or the gunslinger, nevertheless hose classes have more skill points.

Hose classes? There's the problem right there.

He meant "those classes," but the "T" dropped out; typo.


Nicos wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:


What skills does a fighter need?
You aren't the scout, why do you want perception?
You aren't the face, why do you want diplomacy?
You aren't the pokedex, why do you want knowledges?

Wow, just wow. This is like the wors arguemnt in the entire thread.

Asuming the fighe spend his 2 +int skill points in swim, ride, climb acrobatics and perception the answer to your question are:

a)The reason the fighte is not the scout is because he do not have more skill points to invest in stealth. you know, with armor training a fighter could be a good scout in full plate.

b) Te reason the fighter is not the face is because he do not have the skill points to invest in diplomacy and sense motive.

c) The reason the fighte is not a pokedex is because he do not have 4+int skill per level to have 2 knowledges skills.

That doesn't answer any of the questions. Why do you want your fighter to do these things, not why don't you do these things.

You just want things from the fighter that it does not have, because you have a game style that would benefit from it. That's fine, but barring ignoring game mechanics in favor of everyone having and maxing perception, fighters can do a lot of useful things. Intimidate is a very good skill in and out of combat.


master_marshmallow wrote:
I would take a fighter in combat over a barbarian any day. Give me armor, give me armor training. Weapon spec. evens out with the bonus damage from rage.

The problem is that combat involves a lot more than to-hit and AC. What's the Fighter's DPR when he's paralyzed? Or when he has to move 10ft? Or when he loses his main weapon? Barbarians have better saves, better mobility and less-specific bonuses. This gives them a great advantage.

master_marshmallow wrote:

The best thing we can do for fighters that we can actually expect to see happen and published by paizo is to see some better fighter only feats that give them more than bigger numbers.

I could care less about skills, that's not why I'm playing a fighter. If you have a problem with it, it's on you and your playstyle.

I don't play Bards for their DPR and AC, but I'd never play them if they were worthless in combat. Nobody is saying Fighters should be skill monkeys, we just want them to be competent. You usually need 3~4 skills to be good at any role, so having just 2 is not enough. Fighters should be able to contribute in other situations as well. They don't need to be as good as Bards or Rogues, but they should definitely be as good as Barbarians.

I'd rather see less "Fighter only" feats and more scaling combat feats. They don't need to be Fighter exclusive, if they're great feats, Fighters will have a real advantage, and martial classes in general will be buffed.

master_marshmallow wrote:
I am a firm believer that every skill should see use at some point, and if everyone is too busy putting ranks into perception then the DM is only gonna throw perception challenges at you then we have this mindset going around that perception is the only thing that matters. Again it is a fallacy perpetuated by a game style that you want the developers to adapt to, rather than adapting yourself and the complexity of your games. It's sad.

Perception is not the most powerful skill in the game (I'd say that's UMD, actually), but it's the one most often rolled. I don't mind casters not getting it as a class skill. Unlike 3.5, not being a class skill is not that much of a problem, so losing that +3 when you can alter reality is okay. However, Fighter are completely dependent on mundane skills, so they should be good at it!

What kind of effective warrior learns how to shoot people and nothing else? And do every warrior ever has the exact same skills? It's really odd that a class that is supposed to be able to represent all sorts of warriors has such limited skill set.


Guys I have a suggestion too make:

Ignore Master Marshmellow. We will never get anywhere if we focus on him


Arguecat wrote:
+5 Toaster wrote:
Quote:
Tell me more about what a great positive contribution he made there in replacing Kirth's post with that.
well considering they are on the same side of the argument, I took that as humor.
They aren't; Kirth believes Fighters should be improved, Markthus has opposed him throughout the thread.

I oppose buffs to fighters that resemble homo-logy or are bad and don't address the real problems (lack of skill points isn't one of them). I am equally against nerfing other classes to make the un-fun classes relatively more fun.


Caligastia wrote:
What about a trait for Fighters which signifies he's come from a Fighting School? This would up 2 to 4 skill points.

I'm actually opposed to feats or archetypes or traits fixing a problem in the core class. I think that you should fix the class, not put a bandaid on it. The problem is then every one from that point on is supposed to take that trait/feat/archetype, and that messes up your other choices for trait/feat/archetype.

Small Rant:
Seperatist cleric for example gives you better domain choices and freedom, but I'd rather see clerics choices freed up anyway. Beast Rider gives you a choice of mounts! but locks you out of other archetypes and takes away some armor choice. Martial artist is a cool option, but I wish it wasn't the only nonlawful monk. Boon companion is great for getting your AC where he's supposed to be, but I wish my 5th level feat was freed up instead of being burned on something I should've had in the first place.


Porphyrogenitus wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Nicos wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

Why do fighters need more skills again? What theme do they not cover? The fighter is not a skill intensive class, and that's the beauty of it. Less work to do, and a simpler build. There are archetypes that give you 4+INT/level if you need it that bad. You want survival? UMD? The feat Cosmopolitan exists, the feat Additional Traits exists, you could take skill focus and get the same benefit as having it as a class skill until you get to 10 ranks

This is a terrible argument.

The fighter do not need more skill points to fight, but neither the barbarian, the cavalier or the gunslinger, nevertheless hose classes have more skill points.

Hose classes? There's the problem right there.
He meant "those classes," but the "T" dropped out; typo.

Indeed. Also, when you are so eager to score a point over the other guy that you don't stop to parse his sentence (it's fairly obvious that it could be nothing but a typo, when you take a second to consider the context), it is probably a sign that you should slow down.

There's really no reason this thread ought to be moving at a hundred miles an hour right now. It's not like fighters haven't been this way for thirteen years of 3.x.


Lemmy wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
I would take a fighter in combat over a barbarian any day. Give me armor, give me armor training. Weapon spec. evens out with the bonus damage from rage.

The problem is that combat involves a lot more than to-hit and AC. What's the Fighter's DPR when he's paralyzed? Or when he has to move 10ft? Or when he loses his main weapon? Barbarians have better saves, better mobility and less-specific bonuses. This gives them a great advantage.

master_marshmallow wrote:

The best thing we can do for fighters that we can actually expect to see happen and published by paizo is to see some better fighter only feats that give them more than bigger numbers.

I could care less about skills, that's not why I'm playing a fighter. If you have a problem with it, it's on you and your playstyle.

I don't play Bards for their DPR and AC, but I'd never play them if they were worthless in combat. Nobody is saying Fighters should be skill monkeys, we just want them to be competent. You usually need 3~4 skills to be good at any role, so having just 2 is not enough. Fighters should be able to contribute in other situations as well. They don't need to be as good as Bards or Rogues, but they should definitely be as good as Barbarians.

I'd rather see less "Fighter only" feats and more scaling combat feats. They don't need to be Fighter exclusive, if they're great feats, Fighters will have a real advantage, and martial classes in general will be buffed.

Some Fighter-only feats can be a problem because - by the same logic - certain other classes would logically learn the same thing. Take Weapon Specialization - is there any good reason why certain other martial classes - if they're martial enough - would not be able to do this? Make Fighters into the masters of armed combat ( monks for the other ), with a variety of fighting options, and give them the option to go from 2 to 4 skill points per level for those times when there's no fighting going around. . ..

master_marshmallow wrote:
I am a firm believer that every skill should see use at some point, and if everyone is too busy putting ranks into perception then the DM is only gonna throw perception challenges at you then we have this mindset going around that perception is the only thing that matters. Again it is a fallacy perpetuated by a game style that you want the developers to adapt to, rather than adapting yourself and the complexity of your games. It's sad.
Perception is not the most powerful skill in the game (I'd say...


Lemmy wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
I would take a fighter in combat over a barbarian any day. Give me armor, give me armor training. Weapon spec. evens out with the bonus damage from rage.

The problem is that combat involves a lot more than to-hit and AC. What's the Fighter's DPR when he's paralyzed? Or when he has to move 10ft? Or when he loses his main weapon? Barbarians have better saves, better mobility and less-specific bonuses. This gives them a great advantage.

master_marshmallow wrote:

The best thing we can do for fighters that we can actually expect to see happen and published by paizo is to see some better fighter only feats that give them more than bigger numbers.

I could care less about skills, that's not why I'm playing a fighter. If you have a problem with it, it's on you and your playstyle.

I don't play Bards for their DPR and AC, but I'd never play them if they were worthless in combat. Nobody is saying Fighters should be skill monkeys, we just want them to be competent. You usually need 3~4 skills to be good at any role, so having just 2 is not enough. Fighters should be able to contribute in other situations as well. They don't need to be as good as Bards or Rogues, but they should definitely be as good as Barbarians.

I'd rather see less "Fighter only" feats and more scaling combat feats. They don't need to be Fighter exclusive, if they're great feats, Fighters will have a real advantage, and martial classes in general will be buffed.

master_marshmallow wrote:
I am a firm believer that every skill should see use at some point, and if everyone is too busy putting ranks into perception then the DM is only gonna throw perception challenges at you then we have this mindset going around that perception is the only thing that matters. Again it is a fallacy perpetuated by a game style that you want the developers to adapt to, rather than adapting yourself and the complexity of your games. It's sad.
Perception is not the most powerful skill in the game (I'd say...

Again, there are archetypes for that.

I'm saying give them a fighter only feat that gives me access to punce, or rather bring back bounding assault etc. from PHB2.

So what does a fighter need to be able to do? Even if they got perception and 4+ skills people would still complain.
Are 22 feats really not enough for you to come up with something to do out of combat? Hell, Master Craftsman lets you make your own magic gear, using craft, which is a class skill...

My point is, the fighter class isn't the problem, the problem is people wanting the game to change to accommodate their play style. Same thing with people who want paladins to be able to be CN, or magi to be able to use spell combat with a 2 handed weapon. This is no different. You have something you want to do, the game doesn't have the mechanics for it, and you want the devs to cater to it.


ujjjjjjjjjj wrote:

Guys I have a suggestion too make:

Ignore Master Marshmellow. We will never get anywhere if we focus on him

Where are you trying to get?

Everyone here agrees that they should get perception and 4+ skills.
Other people want a big list of different training that fighters can have that determine other class skills, cuz no one complained when they did that for cavaliers.


Ignore Master Marshmellow. We will never get anywhere if we focus on him


Coriat wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
No force field, but why not give them the ability to use their sword and/or shields to deflect rays?
Well, not to nit pick but....
Nice feat. If only it wasn't locked behind a wall of terrible prerequisites...

This is just a personal anecdote, but reading this very feat was one of the most influential events in disenchanting me with Pathfinder's approach to combat feats.

Because I thought the feat would be kind of cool for my fighter. I wanted it. But it took five feats to get it that one kind of cool effect.

Five!

Great feat for Fighter (Brawler).


Hum, I'm getting the impression that the one with a nickname that looks like the cat stood on your keyboard is the one trolling. Master Marshmellow is doing fine, as are most people here...


MrSin wrote:
Caligastia wrote:
What about a trait for Fighters which signifies he's come from a Fighting School? This would up 2 to 4 skill points.
I'm actually opposed to feats or archetypes or traits fixing a problem in the core class. I think that you should fix the class, not put a bandaid on it. The problem is then every one from that point on is supposed to take that trait/feat/archetype, and that messes up your other choices for trait/feat/archetype.

Okay, then just give the Fighter 4+ skill points per level, and Perception. If you're not envisioning a perceptive Fighter, don't allocate skill points to it . . .


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Coriat wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
No force field, but why not give them the ability to use their sword and/or shields to deflect rays?
Well, not to nit pick but....
Nice feat. If only it wasn't locked behind a wall of terrible prerequisites...

This is just a personal anecdote, but reading this very feat was one of the most influential events in disenchanting me with Pathfinder's approach to combat feats.

Because I thought the feat would be kind of cool for my fighter. I wanted it. But it took five feats to get it that one kind of cool effect.

Five!

Great feat for Fighter (Brawler).

Oh look people realizing the actual problem. FEATS

A human fighter gets 22 feats and all of the feat options kind'of suck when stacked up against anything else (rage powers, ninja tricks) Which is completely backasswards. Feats are what carries the fighter and makes him better at fighting than other people. The problem is that feats don't do that.

Weapon training plus 3.5 feats would make for a crazy fighter lord of combat.

Weapon training plus pathfinder feats nets you better than the 3.5 fighter, but still falls short.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Again, there are archetypes for that.

This is as good an argument as "There are better classes for you to play". An archetype being better than the vanilla Fighter doesn't mean the vanilla Fighter is not weak.

master_marshmallow wrote:
I'm saying give them a fighter only feat that gives me access to punce, or rather bring back bounding assault etc. from PHB2.

I don't see why good feats should be Fighter exclusive. The problem with bonus feats is not that anyone can get them, it's that feats are more often than not, extremely inferior to real class features.

master_marshmallow wrote:
So what does a fighter need to be able to do? Even if they got perception and 4+ skills people would still complain

Perhaps... There will always be people complaining... Does that mean we should give up trying to improve anything?

Fighters need to be able to meaningfully contribute in out of combat situations. 2 skill points per level is not enough to do that. And they don't have any other class feature that makes them more versatile either.

In combat, Fighters are useful. Not as useful as most other full BAB classes IMO, but still useful... Out of combat, they are worthless. No class should be worthless in such a common situation.

Should we give Bards 1/2 BAB and remove their spells because "What does a Bard need to do in combat? They are Bards, they sing, they don't need anything except Bardic Performance and social skills!"

master_marshmallow wrote:
Are 22 feats really not enough for you to come up with something to do out of combat? Hell, Master Craftsman lets you make your own magic gear, using craft, which is a class skill...

21. Not all Fighters are human. And Master Craftsman is a terrible feat.

master_marshmallow wrote:
My point is, the fighter class isn't the problem, the problem is people wanting the game to change to accommodate their play style. Same thing with people who want paladins to be able to be CN, or magi to be able to use spell combat with a 2 handed weapon. This is no different. You have something you want to do, the game doesn't have the mechanics for it, and you want the devs to cater to it.

WTF is this argument? So if the devs decide to remove Weapon Training and half of Fighters' bonus feats you'd have no problem with it? Why would you complain about it? Do you want the game to adapt to your play style instead of adapting yourself to the game?

Yes, we want the devs to change the game. We want them to make PF a better game, because we love PF and we'd like to see it improved.


if your looking for good fighter builds... i like range fighters... get all the weapon spec and stuff for longbow (or greatbow if you get it out of 3.5s complete warrior if you want d10 damage).... then get the feats that allow you to attack in melee with a bow and no attack of oppurtunity.... get some of the things that allow you to threaten the area around you... you have a fighter with decent damage (not always the highest) but can hit almost anything that is in the area... and can tank


Caligastia wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Caligastia wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:

Climb becomes obsolete at 3rd level, when levitate comes on line.

So your stance is that the fighter class is exactly 2 levels long?
What do I do after that?
Would if the spellcasters aren't around? With Climb, you can get it *regardless*!
Without casters a take 10/20 usually solves it. If your fighting a creature with a climb speed on a wall your usually pretty screwed to begin with aren't you? Of course the fighters 2 skill points per level means he may not actually have enough skill points for climbing whatever.

. . . and that's what the problem is: Fighters' don't get squat to spend on skills. What about a trait for Fighters which signifies he's come from a Fighting School? This would up 2 to 4 skill points. I also still think Combat Style Feats and henchmen/followers at 8th level+ would be more reflective of the Fighter's fame improving as word gets around. . . .

I'm not too keen on cohort class abilities since those get banned fast and I feel for a reason, but this does make me think of some abilities that reflects a sort of 'heroism' or social prowess gained from being a 'badass warrior'. Something that represent's awe over their courage (which has been granted to them as a class feature). crits that demoralize nearby opponents would be a use of Intimidate and give fighters a reason to use those skill ranks, get bonuses to diplomacy against people who saw you defeat an opponent, stuff like that.


Marthkus wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Coriat wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
No force field, but why not give them the ability to use their sword and/or shields to deflect rays?
Well, not to nit pick but....
Nice feat. If only it wasn't locked behind a wall of terrible prerequisites...

This is just a personal anecdote, but reading this very feat was one of the most influential events in disenchanting me with Pathfinder's approach to combat feats.

Because I thought the feat would be kind of cool for my fighter. I wanted it. But it took five feats to get it that one kind of cool effect.

Five!

Great feat for Fighter (Brawler).

Oh look people realizing the actual problem. FEATS

A human fighter gets 22 feats and all of the feat options kind'of suck when stacked up against anything else (rage powers, ninja tricks) Which is completely backasswards. Feats are what carries the fighter and makes him better at fighting than other people. The problem is that feats don't do that.

Weapon training plus 3.5 feats would make for a crazy fighter lord of combat.

Weapon training plus pathfinder feats nets you better than the 3.5 fighter, but still falls short.

So a page ago I guess I didn't say that it would be better for the game if we got rid of silly prerequisites for feats?

Oddly I think you and I are on the same page here in this thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
I would take a fighter in combat over a barbarian any day.

Well it's nice to know you're willing to take pity on the Fighter, but I don't see the relevance.


Marthkus wrote:
I am equally against nerfing other classes to make the un-fun classes relatively more fun.

For what it's worth, I'm against nerfing other classes, too, and for the most part (for the most part) others haven't said to do that, too.

I'm a fan of casters. There are several spells that probably should be addressed, but not for the sake of boosting other classes relatively, but just because there are several spells that probably should be addressed in-and-of-themselves. Likewise I'm not sure what I think about Summoners (which means exactly: I'm not sure what I think of Summoners). But, again, that's in-and-of-themselves.

Overall I think PF did a lot to fix things that were broken in 3.x. But that doesn't mean it fixed everything, or that the game is un-improvable.

I will add this, though: On the one hand we have designers who assure us that any disparity between classes is all in our minds, and on the other hand J.J. bans Summoners from his own home games. So in that respect even the Creative Director thinks there are things in the game that could at least be improved.

Overall I don't believe in taking away nice toys from any class, unless those things are broken. In which case they should be fixed because they are broken, irrespective of the affect on other classes. I do also think it's fair to be concerned about power creep. But improving the some Fighter won't cause power-creep. It'll just allow it to hang with other classes in a party without being "The Gimp" or "the guy who hits things with a sword, that's all he can do and that's all he should be able to do, it would be unreasonable to give him any role beyond that. And I can summon something better than him, or make my pet better than him, or. . .so he's 'The Gimp.'"


Marthkus wrote:

Oh look people realizing the actual problem. FEATS

A human fighter gets 22 feats and all of the feat options kind'of suck when stacked up against anything else (rage powers, ninja tricks) Which is completely backasswards. Feats are what carries the fighter and makes him better at fighting than other people. The problem is that feats don't do that.

Weapon training plus 3.5 feats would make for a crazy fighter lord of combat.

Weapon training plus pathfinder feats nets you better than the 3.5 fighter, but still falls short.

To be fair, complete lack of skills is a problem too.

But, yeah, the fact that feats are almost always completely inferior to real class features is a huge problem for Fighters. The fact that they usually have even worse prerequisites and often require heavy investment just to stay relevant doesn't help either...


Ok one thing that I need to nit pick on. 2 + int skill point per level is more than enough.

Human
18 strength
14 con
14 dex
10 int
10 wis
10 cha
Favored class bonus health

Take alternate race feature to give up bonus feat for skill focus at 1, 9, and 18. Grab skill focus Perception, UMD, and survival in that order.

Pretend you are playing in a gave without free traits

Take extra traits pick up Dangerously curious and lookout of the city watch(or something)

Both yeild a +4 to perception and UMD

Take your shiny 3 skill points per level and put them into perception, survival(already a class skill), and UMD

At some point invest 4K gold and grab an int item to give yourself full ranks in climb (fun rule difference from 3.5). When climb becomes useless you put a better item in that slot (by the time you are worried about item slots, you probably no longer need climb)

COST: No stat dumping, 4k gold and 2 feats out of 22.

You still have 20 feats to make up a fighter build and you have plenty of neat skill stuf to do.

The main problem I have is finding 20 or 10 feats that I actually want. When blindfight is the coolest feat I can find there is a problem.


Well I should do the good thing and Apologize too Master Marshmellow for being a prick.

I just mean that, I just find myself very frusturated with you Marshmellow.

Thing is, its one thing too be a simple class, its another too be one thats a one Trick pony that doesn't do any of its tricks well.

Sorry again for being a prick.


Marthkus wrote:

Ok one thing that I need to nit pick on. 2 + int skill point per level is more than enough.

Human
18 strength
14 con
14 dex
10 int
10 wis
10 cha
Favored class bonus health

Take alternate race feature to give up bonus feat for skill focus at 1, 9, and 18. Grab skill focus Perception, UMD, and survival in that order.

poor poor half elfs, half orcs, halglings and gnomes fighters?


Nicos wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

Ok one thing that I need to nit pick on. 2 + int skill point per level is more than enough.

Human
18 strength
14 con
14 dex
10 int
10 wis
10 cha
Favored class bonus health

Take alternate race feature to give up bonus feat for skill focus at 1, 9, and 18. Grab skill focus Perception, UMD, and survival in that order.

poor poor half elfs, half orcs, halglings an gnome fighters?

I like sorcerers, so I have come to terms with always playing human forever.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Being human" is not a Fighter class feature. Neither is "able to take skill points as favored your class bonus".

And all that you prove is that Fighters need to invest more resources than anyone else (traits, feats, favored class bonus) to be more useful than a commoner.

I'd rather Fighters didn't have to spend so many resources just to be mediocre.


Lemmy wrote:
This is as good an argument as "There are better classes for you to play". An archetype being better than the vanilla Fighter doesn't mean the vanilla Fighter is not weak.

If you want something with skills to contribute out of combat, then yes there are better classes. You want something the fighter doesn't offer from the fighter.

Lemmy wrote:
I don't see why good feats should be Fighter exclusive. The problem with bonus feats is not that anyone can get them, it's that feats are more often than not, extremely inferior to real class features.

Fair, including a lot of good feats that let fighters do more simply because they get more feats I agree is a better fix. I also think certain feat chains should not exist, i.e. TWF into Improved and Greater, there should be one feat that scales with BAB. Spring Attack, should offer more than one attack once your BAB gets high enough. Weapon Focus and Specialization should scale like the skill feats do, once you hit a certain BAB the bonus doubles. By cutting down the number of feats in this manner, we effectively double the fighter's options, and I'm all for it.

Lemmy wrote:

Perhaps... There will always be people complaining... Does that mean we should give up trying to improve anything?

Fighters need to be able to meaningfully contribute in out of combat situations. 2 skill points per level is not enough to do that. And they don't have any other class feature that makes them more versatile either.

What is a meaningful contribution? And why do fighters need to be able to do this? This is my problem, you want the class to do something that it doesn't do.

Lemmy wrote:

In combat, Fighters are useful. Not as useful as most other full BAB classes IMO, but still useful... Out of combat, they are worthless. No class should be worthless in such a common situation.

Should we give Bards 1/2 BAB and remove their spells because "What does a Bard need to do in combat? They are Bards, they sing, they don't need anything except Bardic Performance and social skills!"

Obvious strawman is obvious.

Lemmy wrote:
21. Not all Fighters are human. And Master Craftsman is a terrible feat.

I'm just saying a fighters options out of combat don't have to come from skills.

Lemmy wrote:

WTF is this argument? So if the devs decide to remove Weapon Training and half of Fighters' bonus feats you'd have no problem with it? Why would you complain about it? Do you want the game to adapt to your play style instead of adapting yourself to the game?

Yes, we want the devs to change the game. We want them to make PF a better game, because we love PF and we'd like to see it improved.

Did you even read what I said? I don't understand where you are going with this at all.


I'm sticking to my position: 4+ int is best for keeping a Fighter viable in those non-combat situations.

Do you play a Fighter?


master_marshmallow wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
This is as good an argument as "There are better classes for you to play". An archetype being better than the vanilla Fighter doesn't mean the vanilla Fighter is not weak.

If you want something with skills to contribute out of combat, then yes there are better classes. You want something the fighter doesn't offer from the fighter.

Well, yes.

The whole argument is that is bad desing to have fighter with so few out of combat utility, is bad that the fighter only offers 2+int skill per level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
What is a meaningful contribution? And why do fighters need to be able to do this? This is my problem, you want the class to do something that it doesn't do.

Well that's exactly the problem, what it doesn't do. If it did do, then it wouldn't be a problem! The fighter needs 4+ skill points to be a little more reasonable in non combat situations. 2+ isn't enough to get acrobatics, climb, and swim. Gosh Forbid if you want to know how to talk to people(like anyone would), perceive things or sense motive(again, like anyone would), intimidate(That's a class skill for them), understand dungeons or engineering(also class skills, and some of the worst). 2+ isn't even enough to hit all the physical ones, now what about all those other skills?

Anyways, sometimes I see people say that you should contribute without your skill points. How exactly do you plan to go about that and what exactly makes it unique to the fighter?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caligastia wrote:

I'm sticking to my position: 4+ int is best for keeping a Fighter viable in those non-combat situations.

I do not understand why people oppose to this. it only would bring the fighter to the same out of combat utility as the barbarian, they still are far from the ranger or any spellcaster.


Lemmy wrote:

"Being human" is not a Fighter class feature. Neither is "able to take skill points as favored your class bonus".

And all that you prove is that Fighters need to invest more resources than anyone else (traits, feats, favored class bonus) to be more useful than a commoner.

I'd rather Fighters didn't have to spend so many resources just to be mediocre.

Ha. Favored class bonus was health not skill points. What kind of sane fighter wouldn't take health?

Fighters aren't naturally good at skills. Neither are clerics or Sorcerers. *evil eyes at wizards*

Fighters get feats. Rogues get skills. Clerics get divine spells. Wizards get Arcane spells (and knowledge skills *more evil eyes*)

The problem with Fighters is that feats suck. The problem with rogues is that skills suck. Both are the core mechanics of these two classes and thus both are thrown into the abyss of sucking.

Fighters shouldn't need skills to get the job done and being good at skills isn't something that should be easy for them.

Useful skills tend to rely on the stats that fighters don't put a lot of points into, so just throwing skill points at them does little aside from make classes more alike.

The extra 2 skill point that other melees get is suppose to help balance the shear awesome that is the 10 fighter bonus feats. Problem is feats kind of suck.


master_marshmallow wrote:

Fair, including a lot of good feats that let fighters do more simply because they get more feats I agree is a better fix. I also think certain feat chains should not exist, i.e. TWF into Improved and Greater, there should be one feat that scales with BAB. Spring Attack, should offer more than one attack once your BAB gets high enough. Weapon Focus and Specialization should scale like the skill feats do, once you hit a certain BAB the bonus doubles. By cutting down the number of feats in this manner, we effectively double the fighter's options, and I'm all for it.

What about the option to 1. increase your bonus on your existing Weapon Specialization weapon, or 2. gain Weapon Specialization with a new weapon ( longsword and shortbow, for example ). Or both!!

I like your ideas .. .


Nicos wrote:
Caligastia wrote:

I'm sticking to my position: 4+ int is best for keeping a Fighter viable in those non-combat situations.

I do not understand why people oppose to this. it only woul bring the fighter to the same out oc bomtat utilit as the barbarian, they still are far from the ranger or any spellcaster.

The same reason rogues are the only ones with 8+int skills per level. Skills are not suppose to be what a fighter needs. Clerics have 2+int per level and no one complains. Clerics fill their role and have a strong core mechanic.

Those of us against a 4 + int skill/lvl fighter want his core mechanics fixed, not just slapping on more skill points and saves and abilities until its no longer a fighter anymore.


Marthkus wrote:
Fighters shouldn't need skills to get the job done and being good at skills isn't something that should be easy for them

Fighter do not need skill to do the job, if the job is hit things wth pointy sticks.

if the job is some other thing then fighter suffer more than all other classes.


Of course I want Fighters to do something they are not capable of... Because IMO, they're not capable of doing enough.

Every class should be able to contribute both in and out of combat. And IMO, Fighters simply do not do that. Sure, it doesn't have to be through skill points, but skill points are easy to fix.

I honestly think every player class should get at least 4+Int skill points per level. Well... Not exactly every class, Wizards and Witches don't need it, but I'd not mind they getting +2 skill points if that meant Fighter get the same benefit.

And "Bards only need Bardic Performance and social skills, they shouldn't get anything else" makes as much sense as "Fighters only need feats and Weapon Training, they shouldn't get anything else"

It's a straw man because your argument was a straw man. I merely used the same reasoning for another class.


Caligastia wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

Fair, including a lot of good feats that let fighters do more simply because they get more feats I agree is a better fix. I also think certain feat chains should not exist, i.e. TWF into Improved and Greater, there should be one feat that scales with BAB. Spring Attack, should offer more than one attack once your BAB gets high enough. Weapon Focus and Specialization should scale like the skill feats do, once you hit a certain BAB the bonus doubles. By cutting down the number of feats in this manner, we effectively double the fighter's options, and I'm all for it.

What about the option to 1. increase your bonus on your existing Weapon Specialization weapon, or 2. gain Weapon Specialization with a new weapon ( longsword and shortbow, for example ). Or both!!

I like your ideas .. .

I second these ideas!


MrSin wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
What is a meaningful contribution? And why do fighters need to be able to do this? This is my problem, you want the class to do something that it doesn't do.

Well that's exactly the problem, what it doesn't do. If it did do, then it wouldn't be a problem! The fighter needs 4+ skill points to be a little more reasonable in non combat situations. 2+ isn't enough to get acrobatics, climb, and swim. Gosh Forbid if you want to know how to talk to people(like anyone would), perceive things or sense motive(again, like anyone would), intimidate(That's a class skill for them), understand dungeons or engineering(also class skills, and some of the worst). 2+ isn't even enough to hit all the physical ones, now what about all those other skills?

Anyways, sometimes I see people say that you should contribute without your skill points. How exactly do you plan to go about that and what exactly makes it unique to the fighter?

Well, myself, I have issue with the number of skills. Climb/Swim/Jump should be together, Tumble/Balance/Fly should be together into Athletics and Acrobatics, respectively.

And it's not like the fighter can't put ranks into those skills, they just aren't something that a fighter's training covers.

Define for me please, this meaningful contribution that fighters need to be able to provide. I'm just not seeing it.


Marthkus wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Caligastia wrote:

I'm sticking to my position: 4+ int is best for keeping a Fighter viable in those non-combat situations.

I do not understand why people oppose to this. it only woul bring the fighter to the same out oc bomtat utilit as the barbarian, they still are far from the ranger or any spellcaster.

The same reason rogues are the only ones with 8+int skills per level. Skills are not suppose to be what a fighter needs. Clerics have 2+int per level and no one complains. Clerics fill their role and have a strong core mechanic.

Those of us against a 4 + int skill/lvl fighter want his core mechanics fixed, not just slapping on more skill points and saves and abilities until its no longer a fighter anymore.

Well, that is a terrible supposition.

The most mundane of the classes, the class with zero out of combat class feature, It is pretty obvious to me that fighter need skills.

Cleric have 2+int skill and FULL CASTING. spells help a lot in non combat situations.


Caligastia wrote:
Do you play a Fighter?

Not directed at me, but I should note that when I first started playing I thought playing a caster was stupid. I would only play martial classes, and I avoided spell casting. If I could get rid of spell casting I took it first chance. I mean why would I want to stand in back when I could be up front where the action is?

As time grew on though I quickly found out casting was actually pretty awesome. Awesome enough that I felt like most of my melee characters early on were absolutely overshadowed by my first wizard and the casters I made after that. The only upside is that pathfinder makes martials look much more attractive, but still doesn't put them close to on par with casters. (I actually felt I found a good halfway point between the two with ToB, but YMMV.)

Anyways, I actually do like the idea of a mundane fighter. I like Charles Atlas superheroes who fight side by side with everyone else and are fully capable of pulling their weight and even matching everyone else. I though that was one of the best tropes really. That's why I would like to see the classes improved though. This is a team game where I would like a relative balance so it doesn't turn into "Wizard and friends!" I would like it if I could play a fighter next to a wizard and not feel like the latter is carrying the former.


Marthkus wrote:
The same reason rogues are the only ones with 8+int skills per level. Skills are not suppose to be what a fighter needs. Clerics have 2+int per level and no one complains. Clerics fill their role and have a strong core mechanic.

That's because full casting is extremely powerful. Having only 2 skill points sucks for every class (except Wizard and Witches), but when you get an overpowered class feature, that's not much of a problem...

Marthkus wrote:
Those of us against a 4 + int skill/lvl fighter want his core mechanics fixed, not just slapping on more skill points and saves and abilities until its no longer a fighter anymore.

How exactly does getting +2 skill points and better saves makes a Fighter not a Fighter anymore? I'd say it makes them better Fighters. It brings them closer to becoming the elite warrior they're supposed to be.


Lemmy wrote:

Of course I want Fighters to do something they are not capable of... Because IMO, they're not capable of doing enough.

Every class should be able to contribute both in and out of combat. And IMO, Fighters simply do not do that. Sure, it doesn't have to be through skill points, but skill points are easy to fix.

I honestly think every player class should get at least 4+Int skill points per level. Well... Not exactly every class, Wizards and Witches don't need it, but I'd not mind they getting +2 skill points if that meant Fighter get the same benefit.

And "Bards only need Bardic Performance and social skills, they shouldn't get anything else" makes as much sense as "Fighters only need feats and Weapon Training, they shouldn't get anything else"

It's a straw man because your argument was a straw man. I merely used the same reasoning for another class.

The fighter class should make one better at fighting. The class should not help you make yourself better in out-of-combat situations. The class should make you so good at fighting that you can invest more into out-of-combat activities.

Bard is a great example. Bards are so good at what they do that you can spend all of your feats on combat and still be a great bard. The bard class doesn't help you shoot things with a bow, but allows you to invest in the feats needed to shoot one.


Nicos wrote:
Caligastia wrote:

I'm sticking to my position: 4+ int is best for keeping a Fighter viable in those non-combat situations.

I do not understand why people oppose to this. it only woul bring the fighter to the same out oc bomtat utilit as the barbarian, they still are far from the ranger or any spellcaster.

I agree with this; The Fighter should be the best at his element, but with enough skillpoints for those combatless situations . . .

The Talented Fighter by SGG is mostly good, but they stuck with 2+Int Skill Points. There's more to the game than fighting. . . .


Lemmy wrote:

Of course I want Fighters to do something they are not capable of... Because IMO, they're not capable of doing enough.

Every class should be able to contribute both in and out of combat. And IMO, Fighters simply do not do that. Sure, it doesn't have to be through skill points, but skill points are easy to fix.

I honestly think every player class should get at least 4+Int skill points per level. Well... Not exactly every class, Wizards and Witches don't need it, but I'd not mind they getting +2 skill points if that meant Fighter get the same benefit.

And "Bards only need Bardic Performance and social skills, they shouldn't get anything else" makes as much sense as "Fighters only need feats and Weapon Training, they shouldn't get anything else"

It's a straw man because your argument was a straw man. I merely used the same reasoning for another class.

But what types of things would a fighter be doing? Do you want to give him Orders and Edicts like a cavalier giving you role playing options that give you access to different class skills? No one seems to like that mechanic.

Sure, you want perception, okay, but what does a fighter need to contribute meaningfully?


master_marshmallow wrote:
Define for me please, this meaningful contribution that fighters need to be able to provide. I'm just not seeing it.

He's a drooling moron with his 2+ skill points. My friend plays a paladin. He gets 2+ skill points. He puts them into intimidate and diplomacy. He doesn't have spare points for knowledge: Religion to make knowledge checks about his own deity, nor to jump, climb, or swim. It would be cool if he could say, do those physical things really well, but he's sort of limited. He doesn't even have sense motive to know if someone is lying to him, or perception to see if someone is in front of him(he can roll below a 0 with his 7 in wisdom.)

Anyways, meaningful should probably be more than stand there and ask what to hit next. His 2 points don't go very far to doing much else, much less meeting his character concept.

2,151 to 2,200 of 3,805 << first < prev | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The Main Problem with Fighters All Messageboards