Spell on bow string. Acid splash--magic missile--heck--fireball the area--why would the bow still be capable of firing at that point? Nah--I'm just banning the transmutation school spells. They turn the wizard into the freaking x-men. It's easy--spells are still powerful--but no flying laser beam shooting superheroes in my heroic fantasy thank you. But I'm playing a different kind of game than the standard. So. it fits.Fighters are so dependent on magical gear that the fighter becomes ridiculously vulnerable in an antimagic field too. To say nothing of how rare and limited antimagic fields are.They are far, far less vulnerable than mages. If you take away the magic on their armor and weapon, it's still armor and a weapon. He is still very capable of fighting, grappling, and defending.
It's not easy to grapple a wizard who is flying, or invisible, or shielded by Mirror Images. And even then, Freedom of Movement lasts a long time.And what about a wizard that's surprised? What if something just pops out of a nook and grabs him? Wizards are great when they are prepared, but they do require that preperation. And, yeah, flying things can still grapple and there are things that have invisible sight.
Potions are cheap. So are wands. And, everyone stops when they're dead, so I don't see how this is a valid point anyway.Do you house-rule that fighters automatically regain all HP for free after every combat?
If not, then the fighter stops quite abruptly.
Agreed.
I still think it's hilarious that people continue to use the flying fallacy as their defending argument. Why don't they understand the concept of the bow?
By RAW, you cannot target a bow string, you can only target the bow (the weapon as a whole). Equiped items and weapons are not affected by AoE spells unless the defending character rolls a 1 on his saving throw. You can only target a weapon that his currently wielded with a sunder attempt, which can't be performed at range unless you're an archer (fighter archetype). However, some spells can specifically target a equiped weapon, like grease, heat metal, telekinesis, etc.
Nah--I'm just banning the transmutation school spells. They turn the wizard into the freaking x-men. It's easy--spells are still powerful--but no flying laser beam shooting superheroes in my heroic fantasy thank you. But I'm playing a different kind of game than the standard. So. it fits.
Heh... That flying wizard really got on your nerves, huh?
look up the gamemastering section of your core rulebook
when you read about enviromental hazards, weather rules, flight DCs, flight is no longer so easy to accomplish.
flying upward above a specified height requires a DC30 fly check. (think like 30 feet or something.)
in fact, enforcing cieling heights limits flight too. most dungeons that would stop a horse from entering, would also stop or limit the power of flight.
you don't need to ban transmutation spells. somebody might want to play a shapeshifter, and banning transmutation requires you to replace half the bonus spells provided by the elemental bloodline.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fighter isn’t a crappy class. It is one of the most powerful damage dealers in the game if built right.
But that’s pretty much only it.
Mechanically it doesn’t have any “non-hitting-people problem-solving schticks” (as AMIB put it once). On top of that it isn’t even the best damage dealing class. All full BAB core classes can match or outmatch the fighter and have a lot of cool powers and/or non-hitting-people problem-solving schticks. I think the main problem lies in lack of good fighter only feats and the feats chains, and for a class that doesn’t get spells (or rage powers) it is anything but self-sufficient. By self-sufficient I mean the fighter should get better will saves, more skills more class skills.
As Covent put it: The Fighter is just a warrior with extra gold and bigger numbers.
True fighters get more feats and and armor training/weapon training but none of this lets fighters do anything that normally can’t be done, they just improve what you already can do. Most feats are also like that. Feats, unlike spells and rage powers, doesn’t let you do stuff that normally can’t be done.
As Ashiel once put it: "they kind of fail as a generic "build it yourself" class."
The reason is simple [edit]:
Another problem with feat chains (as pointed out by Mok) is that they, unlike spells or rage powers, force a character down a path of specialization. They get better and better at one particular thing, and thus keep being left behind in their capacity at versatility (or damage). Meanwhile the spell system and rage power system is built for expanding options.
Also pointed out by Mok: The nature of feats and spells is also different. Feats tend to be an exception to an existing rule, whereas spells tend to be an addition to the rules. In this context I think that rage powers fall somewhere between feats and spells.
For me the bottom line is that the other full BAB core classes are more sexy, powerful and versatile.
As for feats vs. Rage powers? Rage powers are more sexy, fun, versatile and powerful than most feats. That also include fighter only feats. And unlike feats they let you do stuff you normally can’t do. They let you do amazing stuff. I’m not saying amazing have to be powerful but at least it should be stuff that normally can’t be done. And it along with the barbarians class skills and 4 skills per level offers “non-hitting-people problem-solving schticks.
My major beef with feat chains is that they play right into the linear martial vs. quadratic caster disparity.
The feat chain system is built so that a character is forced down a path of specialization. They get better and better at one particular thing, and thus keep being left behind in their capacity at versatility.
Meanwhile the spell system is built for every expanding options, and thus they continue to grow in their ability to have a variety of solutions to problems.
In terms of how this plays out in additional content. We get more and more feats to choose from, but because feat selection locks feats in place you become more and more limited in what you can do. However when new spells are released they are just added to the class lists, all of which allows for daily adjustment.
The nature of feats and spells is also different. Feats tend to be an exception to an existing rule, whereas spells tend to be an addition to the rules. Feats tend to not scale, whereas spells do. Feats have very specific prerequisites, particularly with attributes, which if you don't have basically shuts you out of them for the whole life of the character. Meanwhile spells are far more forgiving in terms of their prerequisites. You just need the class, and have high enough in the attribute that goes with that class to get access to a huge number of options, AND that attribute yields even more spells for you. You can't get more feats by just having a high attribute.
Feats have a profound lack of granularity, and due to that what you end up picking for your feats has a huge impact on your character's performance if your a martial character. Spells however, because they can be reset each day, and you can utilize them via magic items means that you can afford to utilize very specialized and situational spells that you'd otherwise be crazy to take as a permanent slot.
The devs have been very specific over the life of 3.x that they want to avoid making magic items that basically give a feat to the character, which once again deepens the problems of feats vs. spells.
Ultimately, in a world where you're facing off against a wide range of challenges, many of which are against other intelligent creatures, it's going to be adaptability which is the most important factor in success. Being able to find the right tool for the job is where you leverage your power the best.
The way feats are designed and placed within the overall system doesn't encourage adaptability, but rather specialization, and so ultimately they fail at delivering the kind of heroic "rising to the challenge" results that one would expect from the milieu.
edit:
*BTW, A good fighter feat doesn’t have to be a damage dealing feat, it could just as well be a feat that grant the fighter a new class skill (or two) of her choice and 4 skills + int per level instead of 2 skill + int.
imo fighters should get weapon specialization and weapon focus for free at the levels they become available, and gain the earlier feats for other weapons at the levels they gain the next feat
e.g. lvl 1 pick your first weapon, get weapon focus for free
lvl 4 get weapon specialization on the first weapon, get weapon focus on a second weapon, all for free
lvl 8 get greater weapon focus on first weapon, weapon specialization on the second, and weapon focus on a third
lvl 12 get greater weapon specialization on the first weapon, greater weapon focus on the second, weapon specialization on the third, and weapon focus on the fourth
lvl 16 you get greater weapon specialization on the second, greater weapon focus on the third, weapon specialization on the fourth, and weapon focus on a fifth weapon
finally at lvl 20 you get greater weapon specialization on the third weapon, greater weapon focus on the fourth, weapon specialization on the fifth, and weapon focus on a sixth
and all of that would be extraneous feats that the fighter gets for free, and he ends up with 3 weapons maxed out for damage, and up to weapon specialization for 2 more, and all of this would just be part of fighter progression, rather than fighter only feats
then we could have more feats for the fighter to play with for combat style choices and whatnot, and he can specialize in multiple forms of combat like no other class possibly could, giving them an edge without making them not fighters
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, the last half of 2012 seemed to be about WHY MONKS SUCK.
December 2012 and most of January seemed to be about WHY PALADIN ALIGNMENT REQUIREMENTS SUCK, and ways to make it not suck.
Early February had 2 or 3 good threads about WHY ROGUES SUCK.
Now, here we are talking about WHY FIGHTERS SUCK.
I wonder what the next "___________ R TEH SUXORZ" thread will be about.
Anyone care to wager upon it?
|
On the topic of high AC.
This:
2) An offensive bonus is more valuable than a defensive bonus of the same number.
The game favors offense over defense. Attack bonuses increase faster than AC bonuses, and that's intentional so higher-level fights don't become stale (you hit more often at higher levels, and your iteratives are at least somewhat viable). So if you take away a class ability that gives +X to AC or saving throws and replace it with an ability that gives +X to attack rolls or DCs, that is a powerup.Perhaps a fighter can get higher AC than a Barbarian, but silly high AC really doesn't matter.
I don't agree with a lot of Sean's opinions and this time it's no different. Attack bonuses don't mean squat if you can't hit the AC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, the last half of 2012 seemed to be about WHY MONKS SUCK.
December 2012 and most of January seemed to be about WHY PALADIN ALIGNMENT REQUIREMENTS SUCK, and ways to make it not suck.
Early February had 2 or 3 good threads about WHY ROGUES SUCK.
Now, here we are talking about WHY FIGHTERS SUCK.
I wonder what the next "___________ R TEH SUXORZ" thread will be about.
Anyone care to wager upon it?
There's not really any other classes that have significant balance issues in a southerly direction.
Next month's likely going to be either back to Paladin Alignments or "Teh Barbarian is teh raep machine pls help me kill mah PC".
A simple 'fix' that would give Fighters the numbers they're expected to have, while freeing them up to use the diverse swath of weapons and feats a fighter should use, would be as follows.
Weapon Focus, Specialization, Greater Focus, and Greater Specialization are granted to the Fighter for free at the levels where they become available, and apply to all weapons in which the Fighter is proficient. Furthermore, Weapon Training loses 'weapon groups' and becomes a simple all-around bonus.
Now, this fails to fix a few other issues with the fighter, but he's got 4 more feats to play with over 20 levels compared to the average fighter build currently seen and can use them to fill in a few gaps. (Also being able to freely switch weapons opens up a healthy amount of versatility as well, and the Fighter regains its place as the Fighter instead of the guy who's only good at fighting with a few specialized weapons.)
Unless you make the feats freed up that way noncombat only that's just a step in the wrong direction. With this limitation it still doesn't fix the problem. because fighters are strong enough during combat.
The problem is that most things that would fit a fighter is something another class already has and thus would step on some toes.
I'd go the direction of giving them a half level skill bonus of some kind like a lot of other classes get. Perhaps profession soldier. That's worth more than another class skill because this bonus stacks with class skill bonus and rank and lets the fighter (if he wants) be above the norm in his knowledge about soldiering. Making him special. If only in something less important. Same as the ranger can be the best survival specialist.
In addition, because he is the weapon expert you could give him a bonus to appraise checks refering to arms and armor and allow him to recognize quality and presence of magic in a weapon he wields again, this bonus could be half his level. Sure as cantrips are unlimited the mage has, most likely already cast detect magic. But at least le fighter could wield it and they: "That feels different than it should. I guess it has some magic in it."
Those would be two little boons which will not break any game. But it will give the fighter something nice.
That's what I think about when I talk about giving the fighter something. Sure, he could just take skill focus. But everyone can do that. And those bonuses proposed would stack with skill focus.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
A couple of people have hinted at what I think the problem is, and that's power creep from the other 'invented' classes.
Back in the day, there were a handful of builds. The fighter, ranger and caster all fulfilled basic roles. As a player you wanted to be either melee, wizardy or shooty. Then we had a rogue which fulfilled a unique niche too.
Then people, quite rightly, thought that it limits the game. There's so many other types of thing we would like to be. So as a gaming community we evolved other characters who sacrificed some magic ability to be able to wear armour and wield a mace. And that too was OK. It was well balanced enough, and quite thematic.
For some though, that wasn't enough. Some wanted the Warcraft Win Button. I want to be the best fighter in the game and fight one handed with no shield and cast combat magic with my off hand with limited concentration penalty. All of a sudden, the fighter understandably becomes less attractive.
I don't see it as a problem with the fighter. Just some of the 937 other classes that have turned up since it was first imagined.
...
The fighter has had the lion's share of its problems since 3E debuted in 2000 (before World of Warcraft was released I might add {>.<}). The answer to the fighter's problem has thus far been to throw bigger numbers at it and hope it goes away. Except it doesn't. It just becomes a fighter with the same issues and bigger numbers which at least make it decent at the hit/damage portion of the game (whereas in 3.x you really didn't pump damage nearly as efficiently until later in 3.x when certain combos like Shock Trooper + Pounce came along, but I rather hated that mechanic because either you used that one build option and brought ruin to your foes or you didn't and failed at everything; but Barbarians could do that better too).
Also, people need to stop using Warcraft as some sort of derogatory phrase. Especially when they use it in a way that clearly demonstrates a gross ignorance of the subject matter of both D&D and Warcraft in their doing to anyone who is actually familiar with both subjects.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think fighters suck, I almost always play fighters, but I think Fighters could use some sparkle.
What I would like to see:
1. Fighters get a second save. Personally, I think the fighter should get reflex. My level 7 fighter can move around the battlefield at full speed in full plate an unleash 4 attacks of opportunity, I think that's pretty nimble :)
2. Fighters get a class feature similar to stalwart for inquisitors or evasion for rogue/rangr. Base it on fort and it's perfect.
3. 4 skills, and don't say (lol) lore warden, I want full plate w/out a feat, I can read in armor.
4. I shouldn't need to be level 12 to get shield master, I should get it at 6, just like the ranger.
5. Access to feats, not class abilities in the form of feats, I'm looking at you weapon focus, spec and shield focus. I want awesome blow, snatch, knockdown (I know it's a rage power lol) I want ray shield without needing 5 other feats.
I'd prefer adding fighter level to ability scores when determining feat prereq qualifications myself. So my high level Str fighter can dual wield with a low Dex.
Cool. I will grab that house rule.
Any other advice/house rule you can share?
The main problem with fighter is saves. I think 1 good save and two bad is wrong for the fighter and the rogue for that matter. I think a floating good save would be better. The fighter can choose Reflex or Wil once chosen you are stuck with it for any fighter levels you take.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I've always liked the idea TOZ mentioned above that fighters can ignore stat prereqs to get feats more easily.
There are also classes of feat chains that get progressively less valuable as the chain progresses,and don't introduce expansion of ability, but force focusing too much on one thing (i.e. Two Weapon Fighting, Vital Strike). I think each new feat should offer a new option, not just another +1 to something - I think that might help with the "sexy" factor for fighters.
I will say, rangers' ability to ignore stat requirements for class feats is a huge reason to go ranger. Offering the fighter similar abilities open up feats like Combat Expertise and Two Weapon Fighting to stat starved fighters.
I also feel fighters should have more skill points, and maybe bonuses to athletic skills like swim and climb such as inquisitors, rangers and rogues get on skills important to their class.
I like the discussion of saves too. Even expanding Bravery to cover compulsions and charms would be a very nice boost.
|
|
Was it my idea? I've forgotten. I've always been against stat prereqs, but Kirth's idea of 1/2 fighter level to ability scores for prereqs was an excellent compromise.
well, you brought it up in this thread. :) I've forgotten where it originated for sure, I can't even eliminate myself as the source in Kirthfinder. :)
Any other advice/house rule you can share?You've read Kirthfinder, right? :)
No, but I just Googled it. Are you referring to the Google doc?
I will download it and begin reading it tomorrow. Looks very interesting.
I wasn't having a go at Warcraft. I was referring to a certain type of player. I played Warcraft once 5 years ago, so know nothing of how it plays. What I do though know a number of MMO players who are only happy if their character can instakill everything, and are racing to get through the levels with little regard for narrative, fluff, feel, REAL character development or anything that involves anything other than bashing an ongoing sequence of ever bigger nasties. Of the MMO players I know, most say they can do this much easier than in Everquest for example.
Fair enough foolsjourney. I apologize for misunderstanding you. It's becoming a bit of a reflex as I keep seeing a ton of people who try to describe bad tabletop gaming as being "like Warcraft" or "4E = WoW the Tabletop RPG" and stuff like that, which always betrays a gross ignorance of the subject matter and/or the requirement of ignoring what was/is already present in the games. I thought you were doing much the same, but I see you were talking about a different phenomena.
To be fair though, that's also not really a WoW thing. That very gaming style has been alive and well in the tabletop scene for ages. Even the 3E DMG has a chapter discussing the running of the game and describes that sort of thing as the "kick in the door" style of play. Popular amongst dungeon delvers, where the game is played very similar to a fast paced adventure battle game where game balance is exceptionally important and action is the name of the game. Generally contrasted was the deep immersion RPing which borders on LARPing where entire sessions may go by with few if any rolls made, where you may not have any combat encounters and instead just talk at the table pretending to be different people at the Duke's ball or something. The book agreed that in general, most D&D games found a comfortable middle ground to both extremes (but acknowledged both extremes as being popular gaming styles in their own right).
This was I think 3 years before World of Warcraft was released. The concept of get "treasure, get levels, get bigger fights, raaaaaawr" was alive and well. If anything, games like Diablo II and WoW may have actually reduced the number of players like that you find in tabletop RPGs today because it's often easier to get that sort of gratification much faster from those mediums than in D&D/PF today.
I too have been playing AD&D for a lot of years (though am very new to Pathfinder) and have seldom had fighters who struggled in a mixed party. They all have coped very well, and the only ones that died have done so as a result of their own stupidity, not overpowered nemeses. And in general, a lot of other classes get killed a lot sooner than fighters.
That seems fair. I've "mained" 3.x/PF since its release back in 2000. I've researched some of the differences between 3.x/PF and pre-3E as much as I can, and it's come to my attention that relative to the rest of the game, Fighters were in a much better situation "back in the day". Their saving throws (relative to other classes) were arguably the best ones (in 3E this would be like the Fighter having triple saves like the Monk), their damage was more impressive vs monster HP, and since skills basically didn't exist in pre-3E the game wasn't much more than combat (non-weapon proficiencies are not exactly a "skill system") and combat was simpler.
Today our system is very robust. It is not merely a combat mechanic but a beautiful matrix of laws that describe a world. Characters of all shapes and sizes can interact with the world in consistent and expected ways, acquire skills, and do a lot without ever swinging a sword. The Fighter has been left behind for the most part. It doesn't even have the amazing saving throws it once had and it remains being a familiar stranger in a world that looks like the one it was used to but one that is very alien at the same time. It is the class that demands to be a PC class that has no mechanics or method of interacting with this large and beautiful existence unless it involves an attack roll.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I too have been playing AD&D for a lot of years (though am very new to Pathfinder)
Well obviously that means fighters are fine in Pathfinder because they're literally the exact same game with the exact same balance, right?
For all its roughness around the edges, 1e was probably best D&D edition before 4e in terms of balance between fighters and wizards. Since then, fighters have pretty much just gotten worse while wizards have just gotten better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters are DPR focused, in nearly all of there class tricks are damaged based but when it comes down to it they are not the best DPR in the game; barbarians, summoners, gunslingers, paladins and cavaliers can all out damage fighter with the right build whilst also having more out of combat utility (summoners and paladins) or cool tricks (barbarians, gunslingers and cavaliers).
Fighters either need a boost to their dps so they are the king of their specialization or they need a unique gimmick or set of tricks all to themselves preferably something with out of combat utility. So has anyone come up with some neat fighter gimmicks?
Remember before APG when barbarian fanboys would come on these forums and make threads about how fighters could achieve slightly higher DPR than the barbarian and so this made barbarians worthless? I guess Paizo listened given the huge power boost they gave to other melee classes (particularly barbarians) in later books. Can't fault them for not taking forum complaints to heart, I guess!
It's kind of a bummer that fighters aren't the best chassis for damage dealing anymore (because they sure aren't the best for anything else), but that's what you get I suppose when you come out with a core game in which fighters are the best at that, and people complain vociferously about that.
Not to say you can't have fun with a fighter, of course! I can, and do, regularly. Still, I kind of shake my head at the way the fighter has been kind of left behind by all the power ups given to other meleers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But feats are, outside of spells, probably the single most flexibility enhancing part of the game. Feats will allow a character to do many, many things, both in combat and out. And fighters get more feats to work with than anyone.
I don't think that flexibility is the right word for the power that feats - particularly combat feats - offer. They offer specialization. Now, a chassis with a lot of feats maybe offers you flexibility in what path you pick, that is true... but once you pick that path and make your character, you're on that path. The resultant character will not be a flexible character, he will be a specialized character. An archer fighter isn't flexible. He is most likely hyper-great at archery and a warrior at most other tasks.
Flexibility in the character building part of the game is nice and all, but it sure isn't the same as flexibility in play. Flexibility in play is, IMO, typically much more valuable.
In actual play, fighter is the most specialized, least versatile class in the game. Now, specialization can be powerful, I'm not saying that the ability to specialize to a higher level in your chosen field of combat than other classes is necessarily a bad thing. However... your weapon focus is weapon-limited, your weapon specialization is weapon-limited, many of your feat class features make you better at a single narrow task, such as a single combat maneuver, using a single weapon or a single piece of equipment, etc.
An example may be in order. Say you are playing a) a fighter or b) a barbarian, and you want to play with combat maneuvers more. You're leveling up and you get a) a feat or b) a rage power.
The barbarian picks Strength Surge. Okay, cool! A nice flexible power. It works on any type of combat maneuver he wants. If he runs into a legless enemy, he can grapple them instead of trip them and still use his power.
A fighter gets to pick whatever combat maneuver he wants and take a feat boosting that maneuver. Great flexibility in build, he can choose whatever maneuver he wants to become better at and he will always be better at that maneuver.
However, in actual play, no flexibility. His feat only makes him better at that single maneuver and never at anything else. If he takes Improved Disarm and fights a non weapon using enemy, he is out of luck! So while the pre-built fighter might be flexible, once he steps out of Schrodinger's rulebook and into the game, that flexibility is gone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Coriat, feats can do both. They can specialize or they can expand flexibility. Sometimes they can do both at the same time. Taking TWF specializes a character towards fighting with two weapons, but it expands the character's options because they don't HAVE to fight that way, they can still fight the way they always have, but now they have the option to fight a new way if they want.
Taking feats that allow entirely new capabilities, such as crafting feats, feats which allow more skills or feats which provide certain proficiencies, pretty much are entirely feats which increase flexibility.
|
After some thought, if I had my way I would change the Fighter thus:
-More skill points ("worldly" experience)
-Armor Mastery at a much lower level, that scales with the character (Fighters train better, sooner, smarter with heavy armor than anyone else)
-An inherent DR reducing/bypassing ability that scales in the same fashion (no one uses weaponry as effectively)
-Limit Improved Critical and its derivitives to Fighters only (for the same reason)
-Grant +1 bonuses at certain levels (like the ability raises) that the Fighter can add to any of the three saves (survivability via adaptability)
This is based on my perspective of the fighter as a professional soldier/mercenary exposed to various stimuli during war campaigns that forces only the toughest, luckiest, most adaptable combatants to survive. The cradle to grave concept is roughly farmboy with rusty sword, to Madmartigan, to Deathstroke the Terminator at the end of his career.
Sort of...its late and I'm still on duty for 7 more hours.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Coriat, feats can do both. They can specialize or they can expand flexibility. Sometimes they can do both at the same time. Taking TWF specializes a character towards fighting with two weapons, but it expands the character's options because they don't HAVE to fight that way, they can still fight the way they always have, but now they have the option to fight a new way if they want.
Taking feats that allow entirely new capabilities, such as crafting feats, feats which allow more skills or feats which provide certain proficiencies, pretty much are entirely feats which increase flexibility.
"Fighters have versatility. For example, normally, they can hit things for direct hit point damage with a sword. But if they spend a feat (and then an additional feat every five levels), they can hit things for direct hit point damage with two swords. Or if they spend another feat, they can hit things for direct hit point damage with a Japanese sword. However, they can still hit things for direct hit point damage with one non-Japanese sword if they want to, so they really have a lot of options available."
"Fighters have versatility. For example, normally, they can hit things for direct hit point damage with a sword. But if they spend a feat (and then an additional feat every five levels), they can hit things for direct hit point damage with two swords. Or if they spend another feat, they can hit things for direct hit point damage with a Japanese sword. However, they can still hit things for direct hit point damage with one non-Japanese sword if they want to, so they really have a lot of options available."Coriat, feats can do both. They can specialize or they can expand flexibility. Sometimes they can do both at the same time. Taking TWF specializes a character towards fighting with two weapons, but it expands the character's options because they don't HAVE to fight that way, they can still fight the way they always have, but now they have the option to fight a new way if they want.
Taking feats that allow entirely new capabilities, such as crafting feats, feats which allow more skills or feats which provide certain proficiencies, pretty much are entirely feats which increase flexibility.
Wow, if this was an attempt to restate my comment, I don't know whether to be more impressed by your sheer brazen disingenuousness in selective quoting or to be deeply concerned about your reading comprehension Roberta. This was a direct response to the single example of combat feats, and completely ignores the larger and more comprehensive case I've been making for, oh, the last three or four pages, about using general feats for non-combat purposes to expand options. You know, that last sentence you quoted but decided to entirely ignore in your snark?
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Hits things with a sword" versus "Hits things with a funny-looking sword" is not versatility. It's not options, it's an insult. Even in combat, if that's the best you can offer fighters, because tripping is considered an advanced maneuver that requires multiple feats of investment just to acquire basic use and anything stronger than that is too anime to be given to non-wizards, then something has gone horribly wrong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What we've established across 3 threads is a few things that I think we can agree on:
1.) Making Fighters that do well out of combat is POSSIBLE, but requires a specific combination of at least archetype and most effectively race to be viable.
2.) Everyone is on the same page with the "Even if we don't agree Fighters suck/aren't versatile, we agree that some improvements would not be out of place" thing.
3.) Feats are not nearly as good as spells, though that is somewhat mitigated by their generally "always on" nature. Whether that mitigation is enough is still up for debate.
4.) Fighters ARE slightly better at damage dealing than many classes ASSUMING they are not using their special ability/class features. Rage puts the Barbarian on par or slightly above damage/to-hit wise with some nifty unique powers, Rangers' Favored Enemy completely outstrips them but is more situational, and Paladins can open up a can of Grade A Pure Premium Whoopass™ on evil enemies a few times a day, beating all of them by a long shot.
5.) Fighters are fun to build.
6.) Fighters are the only viable class for some interesting/niche builds because of Feat intensiveness.
7.) Fighters still have very few unique class features which leads many to believe (rightly or wrongly) that they are bland/boring in actual play.
8.) Baseline (no archetype) Fighters are extremely hard to make effective in out of combat scenarios without heavy General Feat investment (Side note: This makes Fighters the polar opposite of what I think about Rogue, too much out of combat focus and not enough combat ability).
Did I miss anything? Any disputes to these claims?
The three main ideas I have floating around in my head about fighters are
1. If they're unbalanced, or they're so bad nobody would want to play them then why not just get rid of them. People are always talking about making a campaign with no casters or no magic items or no this-or-that... How about no fighters?
2. If i'm looking at why i'd want to keep fighters in the game then I want to be clear on what 'purpose' they serve... If everyone else can do everything better every time then whats the point of them. The question is what *do* they do better? I dont multiclass, but most of the time I see an npc with fighter as part of his build, its just that... part of his build. It almost seems like level dipping is what the fighter class is for... Is there a legitimate advantage to dipping fighter or is this jut a way to dumb down an npc so that it's less powerful but still in cr range? What makes a fighter special. What can they do that no other class can?
3. If the answer to that question is *absolutely nothing* then the only reason I can see them for being around is the possibility that its "area of excellence" is its simplicity: its a class specifically for people who are just starting out and just starting to get a feel for the rules might need that kinda class as a stepping stone to get used to the system, and move into something more nuanced and complicated when they're ready. Fighters could be like the training wheels of pathfinder.
As usual i'm not really about answers here. I'm more about questions. Why do we want to change them? What are they for? And if they're 'for nothing' then why are they still around? As written what can their purpose possibly be and has that purpose outlived its usefulness in the context of the table you're sitting at?
|
|
What we've established across 3 threads is a few things that I think we can agree on:
1.) Making Fighters that do well out of combat is POSSIBLE, but requires a specific combination of at least archetype and most effectively race to be viable.
2.) Everyone is on the same page with the "Even if we don't agree Fighters suck/aren't versatile, we agree that some improvements would not be out of place" thing.
3.) Feats are not nearly as good as spells, though that is somewhat mitigated by their generally "always on" nature. Whether that mitigation is enough is still up for debate.
4.) Fighters ARE slightly better at damage dealing than many classes ASSUMING they are not using their special ability/class features. Rage puts the Barbarian on par or slightly above damage/to-hit wise with some nifty unique powers, Rangers' Favored Enemy completely outstrips them but is more situational, and Paladins can open up a can of Grade A Pure Premium Whoopass™ on evil enemies a few times a day, beating all of them by a long shot.
5.) Fighters are fun to build.
6.) Fighters are the only viable class for some interesting/niche builds because of Feat intensiveness.
7.) Fighters still have very few unique class features which leads many to believe (rightly or wrongly) that they are bland/boring in actual play.
8.) Baseline (no archetype) Fighters are extremely hard to make effective in out of combat scenarios without heavy General Feat investment (Side note: This makes Fighters the polar opposite of what I think about Rogue, too much out of combat focus and not enough combat ability).
Did I miss anything? Any disputes to these claims?
In correct on number one. I'm on my phone so I can't snip the rest of your post. I created a perfectly good fighter who is a great scout using the vanilla class and an elf so I've debunked your theory that it takes a certain special combo to make a good out of combat fighter.
Have a nice day.
Got some words swapped around. "...And race to be most effectively viable". Didn't say it was impossible to do it without the archetype/race, but your Elf may or may not be as effective as the Human (that flat "+1 skill point" will always be at least on par with "+1 Int mod" as far as number of skills goes), and certainly won't be as effective out of combat as the Lore Warden given similar investments.
You might hop on down to number 8 by the way, where I say it's possible for a Baseline Fighter but requires a hefty General Feat investment most classes don't. Unless you somehow managed to make a Fighter that doesn't have Int as his highest stat with enough skill points to excel without a bunch of General Feats, in which case...I really need to see this build.
What we've established across 3 threads is a few things that I think we can agree on:
1.) Making Fighters that do well out of combat is POSSIBLE, but requires a specific combination of at least archetype and most effectively race to be viable.
2.) Everyone is on the same page with the "Even if we don't agree Fighters suck/aren't versatile, we agree that some improvements would not be out of place" thing.
3.) Feats are not nearly as good as spells, though that is somewhat mitigated by their generally "always on" nature. Whether that mitigation is enough is still up for debate.
4.) Fighters ARE slightly better at damage dealing than many classes ASSUMING they are not using their special ability/class features. Rage puts the Barbarian on par or slightly above damage/to-hit wise with some nifty unique powers, Rangers' Favored Enemy completely outstrips them but is more situational, and Paladins can open up a can of Grade A Pure Premium Whoopass™ on evil enemies a few times a day, beating all of them by a long shot.
5.) Fighters are fun to build.
6.) Fighters are the only viable class for some interesting/niche builds because of Feat intensiveness.
7.) Fighters still have very few unique class features which leads many to believe (rightly or wrongly) that they are bland/boring in actual play.
8.) Baseline (no archetype) Fighters are extremely hard to make effective in out of combat scenarios without heavy General Feat investment (Side note: This makes Fighters the polar opposite of what I think about Rogue, too much out of combat focus and not enough combat ability).
Did I miss anything? Any disputes to these claims?
In correct on number one. I'm on my phone so I can't snip the rest of your post. I created a perfectly good fighter who is a great scout using the vanilla class and an elf so I've debunked your theory that it takes a certain special combo to make a good out of combat fighter.
Have a nice day.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with shallowsoul on this one. I recently built and posted 2 Fighter builds that were pretty good diplomats and still very effective in combat. None of them was human or used any archetype. One was a Half-elf and the other a half-orc.
OTOH, being a good diplomat took a lot more effort and resources than if I had tried to do the same with any other class (well, except Monk).
Coriat, feats can do both. They can specialize or they can expand flexibility. Sometimes they can do both at the same time. Taking TWF specializes a character towards fighting with two weapons, but it expands the character's options because they don't HAVE to fight that way, they can still fight the way they always have, but now they have the option to fight a new way if they want.
Taking feats that allow entirely new capabilities, such as crafting feats, feats which allow more skills or feats which provide certain proficiencies, pretty much are entirely feats which increase flexibility.
"Fighters have versatility. For example, normally, they can hit things for direct hit point damage with a sword. But if they spend a feat (and then an additional feat every five levels), they can hit things for direct hit point damage with two swords. Or if they spend another feat, they can hit things for direct hit point damage with a Japanese sword. However, they can still hit things for direct hit point damage with one non-Japanese sword if they want to, so they really have a lot of options available."
So, you're complaining that a Fighters feats, in the end, are about him hitting stuff with sharp / blunt / pointy objects in slightly different ways. It's kind of what they do. They fight.
This is kind of like complaining that the Wizards and Sorcerors spells and feats mostly all end being about magic. Damn, what a shock.
I think the sarcasm in your post is having a negative effect on me...
If you want to make a point about something, restating someone elses post is not, imo, a good way to go about it. Quote them, and just say what you do / don't like about an idea. Below the "submit post" button there's a little rule: "Don't be a jerk".
Could their use of feats to kill stuff have been a bit more inventive? Yes. Would they still end up killing stuff? Yes. Dress it up how you want.
If there is a problem with Fighters (and Rogues for that matter) it's a design issue with the classes in 3.x. They gave away too much iconic territory of these classes to other classes rendering them not as necessary / cool as they could have been. To fix this for the Fighter you would need to either reclaim some stuff that's been spread to other classes for the Fighter (a complete re-design of the classes which is well the other side of PF territory), and / or come up with some new stuff that is Fighters only. And keep it that way. No giving the cool new Feats / class abilities / Archtype stuff to any body else. Period.
In the end, the Fighter will still be killing stuff with sharp / blunt / pointy objects though... even if it looks "cooler" and he has some neat ways to do it.
Wow, if this was an attempt to restate my comment, I don't know whether to be more impressed by your sheer brazen disingenuousness in selective quoting or to be deeply concerned about your reading comprehension Roberta. This was a direct response to the single example of combat feats, and completely ignores the larger and more comprehensive case I've been making for, oh, the last three or four pages, about using general feats for non-combat purposes to expand options. You know, that last sentence you quoted but decided to entirely ignore in your snark?"Fighters have versatility. For example, normally, they can hit things for direct hit point damage with a sword. But if they spend a feat (and then an additional feat every five levels), they can hit things for direct hit point damage with two swords. Or if they spend another feat, they can hit things for direct hit point damage with a Japanese sword. However, they can still hit things for direct hit point damage with one non-Japanese sword if they want to, so they really have a lot of options available."Coriat, feats can do both. They can specialize or they can expand flexibility. Sometimes they can do both at the same time. Taking TWF specializes a character towards fighting with two weapons, but it expands the character's options because they don't HAVE to fight that way, they can still fight the way they always have, but now they have the option to fight a new way if they want.
Taking feats that allow entirely new capabilities, such as crafting feats, feats which allow more skills or feats which provide certain proficiencies, pretty much are entirely feats which increase flexibility.
The snarky but was unnecessary, but she is still right.
Feat chains, unlike spells or rage powers, force a character down a path of specialization. They get better and better at one particular thing, and thus keep being left behind in their capacity at versatility (or damage). Meanwhile the spell system and rage power system is built for expanding options.
TWF chain does let you improve a two handed fighting style, but it does not grant you any bonus if you want to swing you long sword in one hand.
Without weapon focus chain and weapon specialization chain the fighter is actually nothing but a warrior. So yes, the fighter can chose not to invest in these two chains that only let him be good at using One Specific Weapon and pretend he is a Bard, cleric or a ranger (or whatever) , but we all know he is isn’t.
As for Fighter vs. the other full BAB core classes. Without weapon focus chain and weapon specialization chain the fighter is actually worse off than the other full BAB core classes even when they are not using their special ability/class features (Favored enemy and smite evil). At least the Ranger and Paladin that both can boost the damage output with spells.
Ranger, Barbarian and Paladin can all outdamage the fighter when doing their thing and at higher levels the will be able to do it at every meaningful encounter. On top of they have more skills and/or more versatile abilities and more non-hitting-people problem-solving schticks than the fighter. This is especially true for the Ranger and the Paladin. True that the Paladin only got 2 skills per level, but she has great class skills and she also make up for it with all her other great abilities and her spell list. Also, with the exception of UMD, Perception (and a handful of other skills), skills becomes less useful or useless at mid/higher levels, one reason the rogue suck so bad.
Taking feats that allow entirely new capabilities, such as crafting feats, feats which allow more skills or feats which provide certain proficiencies, pretty much are entirely feats which increase flexibility.
Crafting only saves you gold and is not a fighter only feat, so nothing unique for the fighter only. There is nothing in the feat itself that grant you flexibility.
Feat which allow more skills? Can’t find any such Feat in the Core books (Core, APG, UC, UM, etc). If I have missed something I’ll be glad if you could link me to it.
Feats which provide certain proficiencies do not let you do something you could not already do. They only let you do it better and they are not fighter only feats, so being able to pick anyone of these feats is nothing unique for the fighter. And if you grab one of these feats there is nothing in the feat itself that grant you flexibility.
Feat which allow more skills? Can’t find any such Feat in the Core books (Core, APG, UC, UM, etc). If I have missed something I’ll be glad if you could link me to it.
I imagine he means things like skill focus, Deceitful, etc. They're still pretty far on the low end though, in my opinion.
2 extra skill points on a class, after 20 levels, would be the equivalent of about 5 comparative feats (40 more Skill Points to spend, compared to +4 to two skills each, and this is assuming you like the matchups) and that's not until after the fighter divvies up 10 skill ranks to each of those to allow for the doubling. Not to mention, they can't take these with their bonus feats, so they've got to use their normal ones. That would use up half of their non-combat feats if they wanted to match a character with just 4+ skill ranks.
|
|
Got some words swapped around. "...And race to be most effectively viable". Didn't say it was impossible to do it without the archetype/race, but your Elf may or may not be as effective as the Human (that flat "+1 skill point" will always be at least on par with "+1 Int mod" as far as number of skills goes), and certainly won't be as effective out of combat as the Lore Warden given similar investments.
You might hop on down to number 8 by the way, where I say it's possible for a Baseline Fighter but requires a hefty General Feat investment most classes don't. Unless you somehow managed to make a Fighter that doesn't have Int as his highest stat with enough skill points to excel without a bunch of General Feats, in which case...I really need to see this build.
Didn't require a heavy feat investment at all so that myth has been debunked as well. I was actually able to create a fantastic scout, have a nice AC, great to hit, good damage, and be able to play around with a concept of using a dueling sword. I still have a feat available with that build and I could swap a few things around to be better in other areas. I took Stealthy but I could easily give it up and drop my Stealth to a +29 instead of a 31 which still gets the job done. I could dropy Cha to am 8 and up my Str to a 13 so I can take Power Attack to add more damage. With my un chosen feat I could take Combat Expertise to add to my AC of things got rough.
I'm afraid you have been proven wrong and it's time to admit defeat.
So, you're complaining that a Fighters feats, in the end, are about him hitting stuff with sharp / blunt / pointy objects in slightly different ways. It's kind of what they do. They fight.
This is kind of like complaining that the Wizards and Sorcerors spells and feats mostly all end being about magic. Damn, what a shock.
The difference being that magic is MUCH less narrowly confined.
Hitting things is just hitting things. It works good if you need something dead. Not so much for anything else.
Magic on the other hand is anything from "I do electricity damage", "I summon an Angel to fight for me", "I take over his mind", "I create matter from nothing", "I teleport the party across the continent" and much much more.
It's like saying the guy who knows intimately the workings of a single type of wood shouldn't be jealous of the guy who has intimate knowledge of every type of existing material, including that type of wood because they're essentially the same thing.
Didn't require a heavy feat investment at all so that myth has been debunked as well. I was actually able to create a fantastic scout, have a nice AC, great to hit, good damage, and be able to play around with a concept of using a dueling sword. I still have a feat available with that build and I could swap a few things around to be better in other areas. I took Stealthy but I could easily give it up and drop my Stealth to a +29 instead of a 31 which still gets the job done. I could dropy Cha to am 8 and up my Str to a 13 so I can take Power Attack to add more damage. With my un chosen feat I could take Combat Expertise to add to my AC of things got rough.I'm afraid you have been proven wrong and it's time to admit defeat.
Show me this amazing scout then. And he better be able to do something BESIDES scout around (Just Stealth and Perception).