The Main Problem with Fighters


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

2,851 to 2,900 of 3,805 << first < prev | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | next > last >>

Caligastia wrote:


This is a pretty good system, and looks more appropriate to Fighter-based skills than the 4+Int system. It helps Fighters become the masters of the physical skills they should be.

It helps everyone get appropriate skills for their characters. It even helps rogues since they have the most general type skill points.


I never got an answer as to why each class had the amount of skill ranks that it does. That's the standard or logic being used when determining these things? This question may go to other stats like Saves and class skills.


Malwing wrote:
I never got an answer as to why each class had the amount of skill ranks that it does. That's the standard or logic being used when determining these things? This question may go to other stats like Saves and class skills.

Its roughly associated with other base values like Base attack, save progression and Hit die. There are outliers like the ranger, but it is fairly consistent otherwise.

Grand Lodge

Trogdar wrote:
Malwing wrote:
I never got an answer as to why each class had the amount of skill ranks that it does. That's the standard or logic being used when determining these things? This question may go to other stats like Saves and class skills.
Its roughly associated with other base values like Base attack, save progression and Hit die. There are outliers like the ranger, but it is fairly consistent otherwise.

I dot really see it. The 2+int classes are cleric, witch, wizard,paladin, fighter and maybe magus? Those pretty much span the spectrum. And specifying HD and BaB as two separate factors is wrong because hit die is completely dependent on BaB(barbarian excluded). As far as saves go, rogue and fighter both have a single save, yet again opposite extremes for skills. Cavalier has the exact same statistics as fighter except skills, which they have more of.

I think skills were determined solely by the devs and how they thematically envisioned the classes.


Kiinyan wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
Malwing wrote:
I never got an answer as to why each class had the amount of skill ranks that it does. That's the standard or logic being used when determining these things? This question may go to other stats like Saves and class skills.
Its roughly associated with other base values like Base attack, save progression and Hit die. There are outliers like the ranger, but it is fairly consistent otherwise.

I dot really see it. The 2+int classes are cleric, witch, wizard,paladin, fighter and maybe magus? Those pretty much span the spectrum. And specifying HD and BaB as two separate factors is wrong because hit die is completely dependent on BaB(barbarian excluded). As far as saves go, rogue and fighter both have a single save, yet again opposite extremes for skills. Cavalier has the exact same statistics as fighter except skills, which they have more of.

I think skills were determined solely by the devs and how they thematically envisioned the classes.

Thats why I said "roughly". You'll find exceptions to most rules, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. If you look at most 3/4 bab classes, you'll find that they have two good saves fairly consistently. That said, rogues and oracles don't. I can't comment on the thought process regarding exclusion of rogues and oracles... maybe they thought their respective class features were too good? (I know, I know... lol)


And the Paladin gets two high saves, and a number of advantages, albeit he can only keep to one alignment. I agree with Kiinyan, it was purely dev and, in retrospect, should have been expanded to 2. That's why threads like this are around. . .


I'm going to write a table for each class and their base statistic and see if I can find a pattern. I'll report back when I'm done.


There doesn't seem to be much logic as to why a Fighter should get only one good save, when Paladins get two. Is a Fighter stronger than a Paladin?
I think they just couldn't decide what the other good save should be, so the Fighter got . . .stuck.


I'm halfway done with my table and I don't see much of a pattern at all. It doesn't seem like there's a real standard. Perhaps when I finish it'll make sense.


I think Kiiryan's got the right idea with giving the Fighter some of the Gunslinger's pizzazz with the Drive thing. . .

Give a Fighter his choice of good Will or Good Reflex save, along with good Fort
Give Fighter decent skill points. There are a number of ways to do this :
4+Int skill points
Allow a Fighter to gain half his level on physical skill checks
Add the bonuses granted by high ability scores to the number of points he gains, but only for skills involving that ability. Of course, penalties also apply. . .

Implement Drive in Fighters, to encourage heroics in the Fighter. There could also be Drive abilities based on Will/Reflex save, depending on which one the Fighter chose. . . .


I assume that the baseline is HD; 8, BAB 0.75, Fort; bad, Ref; bad, Will; bad, skills; 2 and spell level; zero

Sorcerer looks like a copy pasted wizard and while Oracle looks to Cleric what Sorcerer looks to Wizard, it actually looks like it has 2 more skills and a worse Fortitude save. By this logic 2 skill points per level = a good save. There fore these four clases have a Save+Skill score of 2 skills. 2 skills to either raise skills by 2 or make a save good.

A Ranger has 6 skills, two good saves but also has good BAB and HD but only has 4 spell levels so (5 spell levels)=(good BAB)+(good HD)+ (8 skills)

Compare to fighter and I think that some there is a curve to things getting good bumping up to a good level but I'm not sure which.

I'm going to stop right there so that I can be corrected on my logic here.


I'm tempted to say it's the Heavy Armor Proficiency, but that wouldn't explain Paladins getting Fort *AND* Will. . .
They should've given Fighters a choice of a second good save, and they needed better skills to compete with Rangers and Barbarians.. . .
3PP like Rogue Glory and The Talented Rogue help out the Rogue, but The Talented Fighter still leaves him with 2+Int skill points *AND* only one good save. . . .

If only there was a Fighter Glory out there . .. .


I don't like the whole, give the player the choice of what good saves and skills he wants... I would rather see them split the class so we get one that's our classic weapon master, with good will saves, and a swashbuckler like class for the good reflex saves and acrobatic kind of stuff.

Sczarni

There are not enough posts on this thread. More please.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You rang? ;-)

Some things I need to get off my chest before I leave this horse alone.

Anyone got a mobile phone? Anyone that doesn’t?
I remember when I bought my first mobile. It was in the summer of 2003. At that time I remembered all my friends phone number by heart. I remembered some of my friends addresses by heart and when it came to entry codes I remembered most of them.

Now I use an android where I have most of that information, and surprise! I now no longer remember such things. Well the memory isn’t as good anyway.

When I was younger I lived in a smaller town than now. It didn’t have any subway, and not that many busses. I didn’t own a car so when I went to work I rode my bicycle.
One summer my workplace was far from my home and it was almost a one hour ride to work and approximately the same time back. It’s amazing who healthy a riding a bike is. Health and fitness improves, perception, the ability to have split vision and your ability to focus/concentrate improves. Your strength, agility and reflexes improve. When you go to bed you have no problem sleeping. Both your physical and mental status Improves. Even you memory, ability to focus and ability to relax improves.

Now days I first take the bus then change to the subway. I’m not as healthy anymore.
Fighters are mundane. No magic. Spell casters, be it wizards or clerics, do magic.
If we could talk to anyone born 1600–1700 they would probably call my Android a magic item and planes, busses and subways would also be magical stuff.

I suck at math, but I don’t need my android to figure out what I save if I buy something with a 20 % discount. Perhaps that’s because when I grew up we weren’t allowed to use a pocket calculator. In fact when I was really young there wasn’t even such a thing as pocket calculators. Even If I suck at math I do get by in everyday Life when it comes to %, better than most of my younger friends or should I say better than most of my younger friends when they have access to their mobile phone.

Pen and paper or the bicycle are more mundane stuff.

When you start doing magical stuff you get worse at mundane stuff. That quite obvious, isn’t it?
If you do a lot of mundane stuff and you can only rely on your mundane abilities then you get better at mundane stuff.

Skills are mundane. That is why they for most part are so weak, especially compared to magic.

Fighters do mundane stuff. In fact they only do mundane stuff. He doesn’t use an android phone or drive a car, nor does he use lay on hands, cast spells or any other magical stuff. He relies on his mundane alibies and the help from his friends.

Now, I don’t think that 2 skills per level is one of the most important problems with the fighter. For most part skills aren't very good, but they can come in handy and are a very nice way of fleshing out your character. They are also the only mundane (non-magical) non-combat abilities in the game for the fighter. The main problem with the fighter may not be “not enough skills” but more skills would help, and I sure don’t get how/why people can say that letting a class that only do mundane stuff be good at mundane stuff is wrong.

And yes, I think fighters are feat starved. True they get more feats than other classes but they get more feat taxes than other classes. And what more out-of-combat schticks do they get in addition to feats? Skills. 2 per level and a weak list of class skills. How exactly is that making the fighter versatile?

Here are Valeros’ feats at level 12:

PRD wrote:


Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Double Slice, Greater Weapon Focus (longsword), Greater Weapon Specialization (longsword), Improved Initiative, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Toughness, Two-Weapon Defense, Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Rend, Vital Strike, Weapon Focus (longsword), Weapon Specialization (longsword)

Are we seeing some cool and versatile in combat options?

Are we seeing some out-of-combat schticks like skill focus? Yes I know skills focus is a ´bad example, but sadly it’s one of the few out-of out-of-combat feats in the game for the fighter.

Defenses? Dodge, but he doesn’t even have Iron will and improved Iron will.

The reason is obvious. If the fighter is going to be good at his job – killing stuff – he has to spend pretty much every feat on it. He is actually missing two of the most important feats: Improved Crit and Power attack.

I think a mundane class should be good at mundane stuff and there should be valid options that make you good at mundane stuff in combat and out of combat without losing the ability to do your job, and the job is killing stuff without getting killed.


Zark wrote:

Here are Valeros’ feats at level 12:

PRD wrote:

Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Double Slice, Greater Weapon Focus (longsword), Greater Weapon Specialization (longsword), Improved Initiative, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Toughness, Two-Weapon Defense, Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Rend, Vital Strike, Weapon Focus (longsword), Weapon Specialization (longsword)
Are we seeing some cool and versatile in combat options?

Are we seeing some out-of-combat schticks like skill focus? Yes I know skills focus is a ´bad example, but sadly it’s one of the few out-of out-of-combat feats in the game for the fighter.
Defenses? Dodge, but he doesn’t even have Iron will and improved Iron will.

Two weapon defense? Vital strike? Sacrilege! :P, that shoul have been iron will and ligthing reflexes.


I’m not saying they are doing it wrong, instead it actually shows that fighters are feat starved and that feat doesn’t really provide a lot of options.

Grand Lodge

The main problems with the fighter is he really only provides damage and hp. Thats /it/

Ranger vs Fighter
At level 10, the ranger has 9 feats to the fighters 11.

Ranger has 3 favored enemies. netting him a +6/+2/+2 vs those enemies on Attack bonus, Damage, Bluff, Knowledge, Perception, Sense Motive, and Survival checks against creatures. A fighter gets a +2 with one weapon group and +1 on another for attack/damage rolls.

Rangers get two favored terrians, and a bunch of other class abilities to provide things outside of combat. A fighter just gets a little better in armor.

Rangers get evasion and two good saves. Fighters get +3 vs fear and one good save.

Rangers get a companion. Fighter has kinda run out of things

Rangers get spells. Fighter like swords.

The main problem with fighters, is they just don't get much out side I is good with weapon, I is good with armor. Things a ranger pretty much beats out by simply casting the proper spell. And then rangers can provide so much out of combat ability too

Now in most shows, when you have a bunch of spell casters and a guy with a sword.. The guy with a sword learns fighting styles.

While a bit Wushi or whatever it is called.. I refer mostly to anime.

Fighters currently present only single target physical damage. While Wizards can do CC, AoE, or just save or get screwed effects, defensive buffs and the like. There is even a spell for wizards to become fighters for a short period of time, unless it got removed from 3.5 to pathfinder.

If a fighter is to really compete, I suggest some sort of 'spell' system for them as well. like the tomb of battle, sort of, but less magicky.

How one might ask then?

Well we have feats.. So why not use this

Here we have a feat that has a few basic uses. Then if you have X feat, X skill or some such, you get another ability.

So now we have an evolving feat, that gets better with more feats. If we do more of these.. possibly make some that are fighter only, then we start to create things for the fighter.

In the anime Slayers, we have a guy named Gourry, who while just a simple fighter, can pull all sorts of things out of his rump. He beats a monster in a single blow by flicking its tooth (causing it to break) he hurls acorns or some kind of seed with powerful expertise to cause holes in trolls. he is like the Iconic fighter, and what every PF fighter kinda inspires to be. Though be it some a bit smarter than others.

So lets go back to the feat.

We could have a feat called "Desert Rose Style" which is a fighting style feat (that functions a bit differently from the previous style feats that are unarmed.)

This style feat requires that you have two-weapon fighting.

While armed with two Piercing melee weapons that you have weapon focus in, you can cause your opponents bleed damage.

When armed with two Slashing weapons that you have weapon focus in, you can cause their AC to go down.

You can also mix the two, letting you have a P/S for a weaker effect on both sides, but could be stronger over all.

If you have the Dodge feat - you can ignore sand, dirt, gravel imposing difficult terrain on you.

If you have Unarmed Prof - you can sacrifice an off-hand weapon attack to preform a dirty trick to blind an opponent while in a place to kick sand, dirt, water etc. If you have 5 ranks in Dancing, you can make a skill check to not provoke AoO while performing this Dirty Trick

If you have Whirlwind attack and Unarmed Prof, in addition to the normal attacks given when using this feat, you can also perform a dirty trick to every applicable enemy before or after, to blind by kicking up sand, dirt, water etc. Like the previous trick, you can make a dancing check to do this without provoking.

If you have Armor training, increase dex bonus by 1 for light armor.

Acrobatics and Perform Dance now are class skills for taking this feat. So to recap

Desert Rose Style wrote:


Pre: +1 bab, two weapon fighting.

You gain Acrobatics, and Perform: Dance as class skills.

Weapon Focus: 1h or light slashing weapon - Any enemy you strike has their AC reduced by one, till the end of your next turn. This stacks for every time that you hit, but not with other individuals using this attack.

Weapon Focus: 1h or Light piercing weapon - any enemy you strike has a 1d4+1 bleed damage.

Unarmed Strike - You can use Dirty Trick maneuver during a full round attack, replacing one off hand attack at your highest BAB to blind an enemy while on Dirt, Sand, Water, or any other similar substance.

Dodge - Ignore difficult terrain for Dirt, Sand.. ???

Unarmed Strike and Whirlwind attack - In addition to the attacks given by using Whirlwind attack, you may also make a dirty trick maneuver against each enemy at any time during the attack to blind the enemy if on [terrain]

Dance 5 ranks - Whenever preforming a dirty trick maneuver by using a portion of this feat, you can make a skill check vs each enemies CMD to not provoke an attack of opportunity. Roll once and compare with each enemy's CMD that threatens you.


Hence why I think Ranger is a class feature stealing douche. he gets free feats without prerequisites, more skills, better class skills, druid stuff, the ability to be sneakier, the ability to dodge spells... In what way does this make him a huntsman. he gets to be a part Fighter, part Rogue AND part Druid! and he gets Hide in Plain Sight and Improved Evasion: Things that a Rogue should have but for some reason does not.


Zark wrote:
I’m not saying they are doing it wrong, instead it actually shows that fighters are feat starved and that feat doesn’t really provide a lot of options.

Everyone is feat starved if pursiung the TWF chain. Also it is clear that TWF only allow you to TWF, the fact that valeros is builded that way show nothing.

Digital Products Assistant

This is a reminder to keep personal sniping and passive aggressiveness out of the conversation. If it can't be kept out of the thread, then the thread will be locked.


Espy Kismet wrote:

The main problems with the fighter is he really only provides damage and hp. Thats /it/

Ranger vs Fighter
At level 10, the ranger has 9 feats to the fighters 11.

Ranger has 3 favored enemies. netting him a +6/+2/+2 vs those enemies on Attack bonus, Damage, Bluff, Knowledge, Perception, Sense Motive, and Survival checks against creatures. A fighter gets a +2 with one weapon group and +1 on another for attack/damage rolls.

Rangers get two favored terrians, and a bunch of other class abilities to provide things outside of combat. A fighter just gets a little better in armor.

Rangers get evasion and two good saves. Fighters get +3 vs fear and one good save.

Rangers get a companion. Fighter has kinda run out of things

Rangers get spells. Fighter like swords.

The main problem with fighters, is they just don't get much out side I is good with weapon, I is good with armor. Things a ranger pretty much beats out by simply casting the proper spell. And then rangers can provide so much out of combat ability too

My bold.

Great post although it’ actually: the ranger has 8 feats to the fighters 11.

Regardless you have proven a point.

The ranger don’t have to invest in the Weapon specialization chain so he is saving 3 feats: FW, WS, Gr WF (Gr WS at level 12). If the Ranger is a switch-hitter he saves 2 more feats (PBS and PS). This means that the ranger even if he takes heavy armor prof at level 11 or level 13 will have more feats than the fighter.


Nicos wrote:
Zark wrote:
I’m not saying they are doing it wrong, instead it actually shows that fighters are feat starved and that feat doesn’t really provide a lot of options.
Everyone is feat starved if pursiung the TWF chain.

Yes, that is obvious and I haven’t implied anything on the contrary. Although a ranger can still be versatile thank to spells, skills, pets, class skills, class features, etc. and still be good at doing his job as a TWF killing machine.

Nicos wrote:


Also it is clear that TWF only allow you to TWF, the fact that valeros is builded that way show nothing.

It shows that you can’t do your job and be versatile if you pursue the TWF route (even) if you are a fighter.

Feat chains are hard on all classes but harder on the fighter since feats is all the fighter has.

The way I see it, if the class that get one feat per level can’t be versatile and doing his/her job if he/she pursue the TWF route then something is wrong with the TWF chain or something is wrong with the fighter ……or both.


Zark wrote:


Nicos wrote:


Also it is clear that TWF only allow you to TWF, the fact that valeros is builded that way show nothing.

It shows that you can’t do your job and be versatile if you pursue the TWF route (even) if you are a fighter.

Feat chains are hard on all classes but harder on the fighter since feats is all the fighter has.

The way I see it, if the class that get one feat per level can’t be versatile and doing his/her job if he/she pursue the TWF route then something is wrong with the TWF chain or something is wrong with the fighter ……or both.

Maybe both, but TWF clearly is too much feat investment for little gain.

Grand Lodge

Zark wrote:
Espy Kismet wrote:

The main problems with the fighter is he really only provides damage and hp. Thats /it/

Ranger vs Fighter
At level 10, the ranger has 9 feats to the fighters 11.

Ranger has 3 favored enemies. netting him a +6/+2/+2 vs those enemies on Attack bonus, Damage, Bluff, Knowledge, Perception, Sense Motive, and Survival checks against creatures. A fighter gets a +2 with one weapon group and +1 on another for attack/damage rolls.

Rangers get two favored terrians, and a bunch of other class abilities to provide things outside of combat. A fighter just gets a little better in armor.

Rangers get evasion and two good saves. Fighters get +3 vs fear and one good save.

Rangers get a companion. Fighter has kinda run out of things

Rangers get spells. Fighter like swords.

The main problem with fighters, is they just don't get much out side I is good with weapon, I is good with armor. Things a ranger pretty much beats out by simply casting the proper spell. And then rangers can provide so much out of combat ability too

My bold.

Great post although it’ actually: the ranger has 8 feats to the fighters 11.

Regardless you have proven a point.

The ranger don’t have to invest in the Weapon specialization chain so he is saving 3 feats: FW, WS, Gr WF (Gr WS at level 12). If the Ranger is a switch-hitter he saves 2 more feats (PBS and PS). This means that the ranger even if he takes heavy armor prof at level 11 or level 13 will have more feats than the fighter.

I know its not a really good feat.. but Endurance is still a feat. That is the ninth one.


OK. So I want a versatile fighter that isn’t a TWF fighter. Let’s take a look at her at level 12.

I want her to be the party face so I don’t want to dump int or charisma. And I want a boost to perception. I ‘m gonna play a half elf with skill focus UMD. As a diplomat I don’t have to be beautiful, but I don’t want to be ugly.

There is no feat that grants me more skills so I pick Toughness. This let me put all my favored class points into skills.

Traits:
Suspicious: Sense Motive as a class skill
Dangerously Curious UMD as a Class skill

There is not diplomacy trait that fits my backstory so I pick I’m Cosmopolitan that grants me 2 more languages and that grants me two more class skills that are based on wis, int or char. I choose Diplomacy and perception as class skills.
Stats 20 PB:
Str: 16 (15+2), dex 14, con, 14, int 13, wis, 12, char 10.
I could also go with dex 13 and boost char to 12.
Skills: I will spread them out and only max out UMD although many ranks go into diplomacy, perception and sense motive. Some rank will go into Climb, Swim, Ride and the two knowledge skills she has.

Feats:
Cosmopolitan
Weapon Focus
Power Attack
Toughness
Iron Will
Weapon Specialization
Improved Iron Will
Step Up
Improved Critical
Blind Fighting
Greater Weapon Focus
Greater Weapon Specialization

She hasn’t started with str 18 or even 17 nor has she picked “must have feats” as “Critical Focus“ and “Furious Focus”. With dex 14 she don’t have to pick dodge and she can use a bow. Improved disarm or trip and Deadly aim would have been nice but she doesn’t have the feats to spare. Especially since any she has to pick the WS chain to compensate for slightly lower str score.

Also even if she decided to pick improved trip or disarm she still have to pick Combat Expertise. Also only picking the first feat in the chain won’t really make her good at it. She could pick Combat Expertise at level 13 and improved Disarm or trip at level 14, but by that level combat maneuvers are not that good even if you have specialized in them.

One option could be to remove Blind Fighting and instead pick deadly aim or to play human remove Blind Fighting and pick Combat Expertise and improved trip or disarm, but at this level if you don’t specialize you might as well not do it at all.

But I like Blind Fighting, Step Up and quick draw. They make the character more versatile. And yes. I couldn’t afford quick draw.

If I had to remove a feat it would probably be Greater Weapon Specialization. Perhaps I could remove Gr WS and Blind Fighting and pick Combat Expertise and improved trip, but as pointed out before at level 12 only picking one feat in a combat maneuvers chain is a choice.

The tragic thing is if you do build a balance character you are even more forced to focus on damage dealing feats and the more specialized you need to be.

No. I’m gonna stick with Blind Fighting. At higher levels she pick some crit feats instead and pick some more feats in the step up chain.


Nicos wrote:
Zark wrote:


Nicos wrote:


Also it is clear that TWF only allow you to TWF, the fact that valeros is builded that way show nothing.

It shows that you can’t do your job and be versatile if you pursue the TWF route (even) if you are a fighter.

Feat chains are hard on all classes but harder on the fighter since feats is all the fighter has.

The way I see it, if the class that get one feat per level can’t be versatile and doing his/her job if he/she pursue the TWF route then something is wrong with the TWF chain or something is wrong with the fighter ……or both.

Maybe both, but TWF clearly is too much feat investment for little gain.

Yes, I totaly agree :-)


Hiya.

IMHO, the main problem with fighters is how adventures/modules are written nowadays.

Go and pick up a BECMI or 1e AD&D module and run it as PF. When you have a dungeon with 30 rooms, and 20 of them have monsters/baddies in it...*and* you have a 1 in 6 chance of a random encounter every 10 minutes. Well, lets just say that the Fighter will ROCK. Your 'special shtick' PF classes with severely limited 'special tricks' will feel the hurt right quick. And the fighter? He'll be shining. After an hour of play, you'll hear all the wizards, witches, cavaliers, etc. whining about how they 'cant do anything'.

So, while the other classes were adapted to fit the current adventure/module design, the fighter wasn't. So, the fighter basically kicks ass, then has to "sit around" while everyone else complains that they need to rest up. When everyone is good to go again, they get to use all their neat-o tricks and special doo-hickys so the player of the fighter feels like he 'cant do anything'.

My fix? Don't run a campaign based on player character expectations of capability. In other words...random encounters, monsters that will press the attack, bad guys that don't wait around for two days doing nothing after the PC's just wiped out a third of their forces, etc. Yes, my campaigns in PF are deadly...and my players LOVE it. They know they can expect bad guys to act intelligently (well, as intelligently as their INT/WIS scores are). This lets the players plan and use tactics that don't involve only "numbers and bonuses".

-_-

Paul L. Ming


Espy Kismet wrote:


I know its not a really good feat.. but Endurance is still a feat. That is the ninth one.

I forgot about that feat. It’s not useless. I’ve seen it come in use. Especially if you sleep outdoors. Very common at lower and mid levels.

Although you could say it’s a class feature just like heavy armor prof is part of the fighter class so I guess we could say 9 - 12.
But true, Endurance is a bonus feat.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
pming wrote:
My fix? Don't run a campaign based on player character expectations of capability. In other words...random encounters, monsters that will press the attack, bad guys that don't wait around for two days doing nothing after the PC's just wiped out a third of their forces, etc.

And then the wizards and clerics bypass all the random encounters and chop off the head of the snake.

Grand Lodge

pming wrote:

Hiya.

IMHO, the main problem with fighters is how adventures/modules are written nowadays.

Go and pick up a BECMI or 1e AD&D module and run it as PF. When you have a dungeon with 30 rooms, and 20 of them have monsters/baddies in it...*and* you have a 1 in 6 chance of a random encounter every 10 minutes. Well, lets just say that the Fighter will ROCK. Your 'special shtick' PF classes with severely limited 'special tricks' will feel the hurt right quick. And the fighter? He'll be shining. After an hour of play, you'll hear all the wizards, witches, cavaliers, etc. whining about how they 'cant do anything'.

So, while the other classes were adapted to fit the current adventure/module design, the fighter wasn't. So, the fighter basically kicks ass, then has to "sit around" while everyone else complains that they need to rest up. When everyone is good to go again, they get to use all their neat-o tricks and special doo-hickys so the player of the fighter feels like he 'cant do anything'.

My fix? Don't run a campaign based on player character expectations of capability. In other words...random encounters, monsters that will press the attack, bad guys that don't wait around for two days doing nothing after the PC's just wiped out a third of their forces, etc. Yes, my campaigns in PF are deadly...and my players LOVE it. They know they can expect bad guys to act intelligently (well, as intelligently as their INT/WIS scores are). This lets the players plan and use tactics that don't involve only "numbers and bonuses".

-_-

Paul L. Ming

You still have Rangers, Paladines, Barbarians, Cavaliers, etc who can outfight a fighter. And a proper wizard, is much more /crafty/ than to sit around all day wanting to rest.

though, I kinda would like to take on your challenges.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Not mentioning the healing that Fighter will need, Paul?

Behind every Fighter that doesn't get worn out is a healbot cleric.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

you might be right but pming still has a Point. What makes wizards and clerics, and even barbarians, cavalier, Paladins most other classes powerful are their supposedly limited resources.

Problem is, they don’t have to care about resource management at a certain level.

On the other hand even if they had to deal with resource management, they fighter would be in trouble anyway because the cleric can’t heal or buff him and the wizard can’t buff him or cast protection against evil, fly or whatever on him.

When the resource end. The party goes home. The fighter as well.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Zark wrote:

When the resource end. The party goes home. The fighter as well.

Amen.


Zark wrote:
There is no feat that grants me more skills so I pick Toughness. This let me put all my favored class points into skills.

I know it's third party, but Open Minded looks like a nice feat.


Zark wrote:
She could pick Combat Expertise at level 13 and improved Disarm or trip at level 14, but by that level combat maneuvers are not that good even if you have specialized in them.

The probem with maneuvers at high levels are not that the fighter ca not have the CMB (they can), the problem is that monsters tend to be inmune, particulary trip againstflying creatures.

At 12th level a Hamatula strke build coul probably grapple most things, if lore wardedn he probably grapple (reasonably) everthing with a 2.


Sorry, that last post was an accident. This thread seems to be slowing down; Seems like just about everything that there was to discuss *HAS* been discussed, and lots of solutions were offered.


Nicos wrote:
Zark wrote:
She could pick Combat Expertise at level 13 and improved Disarm or trip at level 14, but by that level combat maneuvers are not that good even if you have specialized in them.

The probem with maneuvers at high levels are not that the fighter ca not have the CMB (they can), the problem is that monsters tend to be inmune, particulary trip againstflying creatures.

At 12th level a Hamatula strke build coul probably grapple most things, if lore wardedn he probably grapple (reasonably) everthing with a 2.

this is so true. Consider a linorm.

Can't be disarmed.(no weapon)
Can't be triped (fly)
Can't be grappled, even if you can bypass the size (freedom of movement)
Can't be bull rushed (size)
Can't be blinded (blindsight)


Coriat wrote:
For my own part I have posted before about the lack of consistency I have encountered in dealing damage with my 15th level fighter.

Some updates. Four more combat encounters since last time I posted about this (one of three rounds, one of one round, one of two rounds, and one ongoing, in its fourth round at the end of our last session - the first two being light warmup encounters).

One more melee full attack (which did thoroughly dismember the two mooks it targeted), for a total of two in five encounters totaling 15 rounds of combat so far this IC day. Neither would have happened without using the mythic playtest power Fleet Charge, which we are wrapping up our own use of shortly when we finish this adventure and our temporary mythic power fades.

On the other hand it might be fair not to count the first two warmup fights (three rounds and one round) because neither I nor my fellow fighter were trying very hard. They both were against large groups of weaker foes that were already getting vaporized left and right by AoE spells from our casters, so we were both mostly just cleaning up. Call it two full attacks in eleven rounds of serious combat then.

The number of full attacks may (hopefully) rise as I think we are nearing the final boss encounter and I would probably spam mythic power for full attacks there. At least, assuming there are no more walls of force or anything else to block them... uh... heh...

However, overall, damage remains strikingly inconsistent round to round and encounter to encounter.


how is your damage inconsistant Coriat? how are other people you play with having consistant damage?

at a certain point static bonus damage outweighs lots of the time the weapons damage dice itself unless you take something like the vital strike chain.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Zark wrote:
She could pick Combat Expertise at level 13 and improved Disarm or trip at level 14, but by that level combat maneuvers are not that good even if you have specialized in them.

The probem with maneuvers at high levels are not that the fighter ca not have the CMB (they can), the problem is that monsters tend to be inmune, particulary trip againstflying creatures.

At 12th level a Hamatula strke build coul probably grapple most things, if lore wardedn he probably grapple (reasonably) everthing with a 2.

this is so true. Consider a linorm.

Can't be disarmed.(no weapon)
Can't be triped (fly)
Can't be grappled, even if you can bypass the size (freedom of movement)
Can't be bull rushed (size)
Can't be blinded (blindsight)

yeah, some restriction are just absurd. I can not bull rush him because the giant is too big? but the vivisecsionist surely can sneak attack his ankle.


Coriat wrote:
Coriat wrote:
For my own part I have posted before about the lack of consistency I have encountered in dealing damage with my 15th level fighter.

Some updates. Four more combat encounters since last time I posted about this (one of three rounds, one of one round, one of two rounds, and one ongoing, in its fourth round at the end of our last session - the first two being light warmup encounters).

One more melee full attack (which did thoroughly dismember the two mooks it targeted), for a total of two in five encounters totaling 15 rounds of combat so far this IC day. Neither would have happened without using the mythic playtest power Fleet Charge, which we are wrapping up our own use of shortly when we finish this adventure and our temporary mythic power fades.

On the other hand it might be fair not to count the first two warmup fights (three rounds and one round) because neither I nor my fellow fighter were trying very hard. They both were against large groups of weaker foes that were already getting vaporized left and right by AoE spells from our casters, so we were both mostly just cleaning up. Call it two full attacks in eleven rounds of serious combat then.

The number of full attacks may (hopefully) rise as I think we are nearing the final boss encounter and I would probably spam mythic power for full attacks there. At least, assuming there are no more walls of force or anything else to block them... uh... heh...

However, overall, damage remains strikingly inconsistent round to round and encounter to encounter.

Have you alreay posted your build here?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.
pming wrote:

Hiya.

IMHO, the main problem with fighters is how adventures/modules are written nowadays.

Go and pick up a BECMI or 1e AD&D module and run it as PF. When you have a dungeon with 30 rooms, and 20 of them have monsters/baddies in it...*and* you have a 1 in 6 chance of a random encounter every 10 minutes. Well, lets just say that the Fighter will ROCK. Your 'special shtick' PF classes with severely limited 'special tricks' will feel the hurt right quick. And the fighter? He'll be shining. After an hour of play, you'll hear all the wizards, witches, cavaliers, etc. whining about how they 'cant do anything'.

So, while the other classes were adapted to fit the current adventure/module design, the fighter wasn't. So, the fighter basically kicks ass, then has to "sit around" while everyone else complains that they need to rest up. When everyone is good to go again, they get to use all their neat-o tricks and special doo-hickys so the player of the fighter feels like he 'cant do anything'.

My fix? Don't run a campaign based on player character expectations of capability. In other words...random encounters, monsters that will press the attack, bad guys that don't wait around for two days doing nothing after the PC's just wiped out a third of their forces, etc. Yes, my campaigns in PF are deadly...and my players LOVE it. They know they can expect bad guys to act intelligently (well, as intelligently as their INT/WIS scores are). This lets the players plan and use tactics that don't involve only "numbers and bonuses".

-_-

Paul L. Ming

that's not what happens.

What happens is the casters say "I'm low on spells, it's time to go."

The fighter who has been healed multiple times by those spells at this point doesn't want to risk getting caught in fights where they aren't available...and they still have to get out of the place and past the random encounters and any night time encounters. If he doesn't have a few spare potions back, there could be real problem.

i.e. in places with that many encounters, you pull out earlier so you have reserves to deal with the walking xp randomly coming your way.

==Aelryinth


2 people marked this as a favorite.
w01fe01 wrote:

how is your damage inconsistant Coriat? how are other people you play with having consistant damage?

at a certain point static bonus damage outweighs lots of the time the weapons damage dice itself unless you take something like the vital strike chain.

Well, I consistently possess a high attack bonus and static damage bonus, sure.

I just don't consistently get to roll full attacks with them, because at 15th level there are a million things that can take away your melee full attack (wall of force thrown up to block your advance, mobile flying mirror imaged opponent, a friendly spellcaster KOing the thing before you even get to close with it, an environment that hampers your movement or visibility....) etc.

This is (IMO) the forest that people blind themselves to with the trees of build theorycrafting and DPR comparisons and all that stuff. At high level it's not just about having the highest numerical offense, it's about having the resiliency, flexibility and mobility to get to employ your offense. That is where the higher level fighter's lack has (for me) become so increasingly glaring. Poor flexibility to deal with obstacles or barriers, poor mobility (melee full attack requires not moving), and very poor resiliency (no save rerolls, poor saves overall, no ability to heal or mitigate status conditions). So you end up not getting to use your awesome full attack very often because you have few or no tools to overcome the challenges you must overcome to make melee full attacks. And thus, you end up with inconsistent damage, where sometimes when the stars align you get AWESOME FULL ATTACK but mostly you don't.


Nicos wrote:
Have you alreay posted your build here?

If you want to see it, I'll put up a profile with it sometime soon.


hmm, thats not a problem exlusive to fighters tho.

maybe go down vital strike chain if your having trouble?

but i agree that being a problem with melee in general


1 person marked this as a favorite.
w01fe01 wrote:

hmm, thats not a problem exlusive to fighters tho.

maybe go down vital strike chain if your having trouble?

but i agree that being a problem with melee in general

Yeah, I would agree; although fighters have more trouble with it than most. Paladins for example are great on resiliency and versatility at high levels, with saves, healing and some pretty formidable spells for a 4 level caster. Barbarians likewise have some more options for overcoming these things (someone shutting you down with a wall of force? Spell Sunder it!). Rangers don't excel at any one aspect but have a limited capacity in all areas, with access to some limited spells, animal companions, and some various other medium-strength capabilities beyond the baseline stuff.

Rogues in particular tend to have even sharper inconsistency issues than the fighter, though, I think, and perhaps some of the later book classes with which I am less familiar like cavaliers (but mostly speculation here due to said lack of familiarity).

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The main problem with fighters is that opinions on their issues have not been discussed in enough detail.


Well they have no issues so their is nothing to discuss.


Marthkus wrote:
Well they have no issues so their is nothing to discuss.

said post #2899 in yet another fighters thread, clearly no issues here.

2,851 to 2,900 of 3,805 << first < prev | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The Main Problem with Fighters All Messageboards