The Main Problem with Fighters


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

3,201 to 3,250 of 3,805 << first < prev | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Specially after paizo delivered the spellguard bracers and gloves of elvenkin.

Scarab Sages

MrSin wrote:
VampByDay wrote:
1) fighters are basically the most versifier melee class. Sheild missile, shield ray, disruptive, spell breaker. I can run up to the Mage, ignore his disintegrate, and make sure he never casts a spell again. Plus penetrating strike lets me straight up ignore damage reduction, what other class gets that?
That's a joke right?

Oh, I'm sorry, I meant prismatic ray, or polar ray, or any other ray spell that doesn't require fort saves. Obviously my entire point is invalidated because I said the wrong spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, your entire point was invalidated by the 5-foot step mechanic. And the fact that the caster is probably hitting your will save with a mind control spell to turn that big stick against your allies.


1) So the spellcaster is actually casting the only kind of spell where that given fighter is sstrong against

2) In a thread with 3000+ post that kind of argument have been examined multiple times. Without taking into account htat barbarian are just flat out better agaisnt spellcaster, I would say that there is decent enough concensus that the fighter problem is not his capability to murder his foes.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Whatever, my point was just that a fighter should NOT be judged solely by his ability to murder his foes. I just wanted to throw that out there. I'm sorry I didn't have time to read 65 pages worth of posts.

I just, it's a pet peeve of mine when everyone jumps on the 'fighters are terrible bandwagon' because X class or Y class are better at murdering on a flat salt plain where everything is set up perfectly in someone's favor. Sure, fighters have their problems. They can be mind controlled. Wizards can be sneaked up on and poisoned with red mantis poison. Clerics can be taken down any number of ways. etc.

I just wanted to throw in my two copper. I'll bow out now before anyone else wants to yell at me.


ok...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's really the Fighter who has to have everything set up in his favor to expect high DPR. A Fighter that can't full attack every round is going to be outdamaged by a long shot by any Beast Totem Barbarian.

DPR isn't really the issue, though. It's the fact that the Fighter can't do anything else, and doesn't even do that better than everyone else. A Barbarian can AM SMASH through most situations, but can also put together a respectable debuffing build with Intimidate (suboptimal but workable) because the Barbarian isn't given bread crumbs for skills.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

VampByDay wrote:

Whatever, my point was just that a fighter should NOT be judged solely by his ability to murder his foes. I just wanted to throw that out there. I'm sorry I didn't have time to read 65 pages worth of posts.

I just, it's a pet peeve of mine when everyone jumps on the 'fighters are terrible bandwagon' because X class or Y class are better at murdering on a flat salt plain where everything is set up perfectly in someone's favor. Sure, fighters have their problems. They can be mind controlled. Wizards can be sneaked up on and poisoned with red mantis poison. Clerics can be taken down any number of ways. etc.

I just wanted to throw in my two copper. I'll bow out now before anyone else wants to yell at me.

The answer to your original questions is simple:

Any other character that wants to be able to do that. And in some cases, like the ranger, before the fighter can!!!

Any barbarian, paladin, ranger or rogue can learn to take Penetrating strike and ray shield, or disruptive. It costs feats.

EVERYONE GETS FEATS.

Feats are half-strength class abilities. The fighter gets half his levels in feats, so half of his levels are half-strength class abilities.

The wizard can take precautions via his class against fort saves or getting hit, namely casting spells. THe fighter has nothing for his class that helps him with Will or reflex saves (the save feats? They aren't combat feats, TYVM.)

he is forced, in the end, to rely on magic items. Which have nothing to do with class.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:
Any barbarian, paladin, ranger or rogue can learn to take Penetrating strike and ray shield, or disruptive. It costs feats.

except those are fighter only...


Well, to be fair, there's no real way for any of those classes to get Ray Shield, and only Barbarian can snag Disruptive. Those Feats are Fighter only.

Because only a Fighter can act real threatening towards a skinny man who wiggles his fingers for a living, and only non-magical vanilla man can magically block spells with his shield.


VampByDay wrote:
Whatever, my point was just that a fighter should NOT be judged solely by his ability to murder his foes.

Its a class who's main gig is full attacking and getting less -1's from wearing armor. He doesn't exactly have much else going for him, and his saves and skills are both awful too boot. He doesn't have much if any better defenses or mobility than other martials, and he doesn't have much going for him out of combat, and feats are something everyone gets and few are just his and those that are tend to be meh, as feats in general tend to be. What else are you supposed to judge him on?

Just standing still and full attacking is one of the only things he actually does well.

VampByDay wrote:
Sure, fighters have their problems. They can be mind controlled. Wizards can be sneaked up on and poisoned with red mantis poison. Clerics can be taken down any number of ways. etc.

Yes, and a fighter can also be snuck on and killed a few dozen ways. Wizards have ways around it, as does the cleric, that the fighter does not, and their spells give them a variety of options aside from hitting things with a stick, including the ability to summon someone who's good at hitting things with a stick. Even by martial standards the fighter doesn't have many problem solving skills.

There really wasn't much given that says "Fighters are awesome!" in your post.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
darkwarriorkarg wrote:

So, to summarize:

The main problem with fighters is that they're consistent?

No, the main problem is that they're not particularly good at the one job they're supposed to be good at and can't do anything else.

VampByDay wrote:
Whatever, my point was just that a fighter should NOT be judged solely by his ability to murder his foes. I just wanted to throw that out there. I'm sorry I didn't have time to read 65 pages worth of posts.

Why shouldn't he? It's the class' main and almost only trick.

Quote:
Sure, fighters have their problems. They can be mind controlled. Wizards can be sneaked up on and poisoned with red mantis poison. Clerics can be taken down any number of ways. etc.

Those tricks work as well on the fighter as they do on the wizard... and the wizard has ways to prevent it from happening, the fighter doesn't.


Fighters are cool and feats are cool.

Some of us actually like to fullattack...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
Some of us actually like to fullattack...

Good news everyone! There are other classes than the fighter who can full attack. Some who can full attack even more! E-yes, so you can play more than just you fighter for full attack. Hurray! [/Farnsworth]


Marthkus wrote:

Fighters are cool and feats are cool.

Some of us actually like to fullattack...

Play a Barbarian. Congratulations, now you can full attack all the time!


Arachnofiend wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

Fighters are cool and feats are cool.

Some of us actually like to fullattack...

Play a Barbarian. Congratulations, now you can full attack all the time!

I find that fighters are better because I am not willing to use the cheese that makes barbars ridiculous.

*Greater Beast totem really should only work with natural attacks. That was a bad FAQ. Superstitious is also a really poor mechanic. Get +16 to all saves vs magic! Also resist friendly magic! It's too good not to grab!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Greater Beast Totem and Superstitious are what other martial abilities should be as strong as.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

"It's actually good" =/= "OMG WTF CHEEESE".


Arachnofiend wrote:
Greater Beast Totem and Superstitious are what other martial abilities should be as strong as.

God no, that would be an awful game IMO.

The game is just less fun with a superstitious human invulnerable rager come and get me pouncing barbarian. It's like playing with a synthesist...

Best defense, highest offense.

NOPENOPENOPE


IMHO, Come and get me is actully an awful mechanic that I despise wholeheartedly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Greater Beast Totem and Superstitious are what other martial abilities should be as strong as.

God no, that would be an awful game IMO.

The game is just less fun with a superstitious human invulnerable rager come and get me pouncing barbarian. It's like playing with a synthesist...

Best defense, highest offense.

NOPENOPENOPE

Yeah I know that's almost half as dangerous as a wizard and that would be dumb.


swoosh wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Greater Beast Totem and Superstitious are what other martial abilities should be as strong as.

God no, that would be an awful game IMO.

The game is just less fun with a superstitious human invulnerable rager come and get me pouncing barbarian. It's like playing with a synthesist...

Best defense, highest offense.

NOPENOPENOPE

Yeah I know that's almost half as dangerous as a wizard and that would be dumb.

Yeah wizards are dangerous, but their defenses are either weak, specific, or time limited.

It's not "Mythic God tier" defense all combat every combat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Because having decent saves = "Mythic god tier defense 24/7" but s!$# like Blur and Mirror Image don't factor in at all because they're time limited.

Your bias is showing, please put it away.


By the way I will leave this here

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qs56?Poll-What-are-the-changes-the-fighter-cla ss#1

just in case someoe wants to necro more fighter threads.


Rynjin wrote:

Because having decent saves = "Mythic god tier defense 24/7" but s#~! like Blur and Mirror Image don't factor in at all because they're time limited.

Your bias is showing, please put it away.

If by decent you mean being able to bork superstitious alone to +16, then I understand why the fighter is considered to have terrible unplayable saves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you play pathfinder under expert expectations then all martials have serious issues compared to casters. However, the fighter is poor even compared to the other martial characters because his "unique" powers are all terrible. Weapon specialization, armor training, and courage are all non-scaling powers. His other power is to have lots of feats.... but it doesn't even let him select feats he wouldn't otherwise qualify for and he cannot select any feat any faster than any other class.

No feat chain is long enough that only the fighter can master it, and few feats work well enough together to justify needing more than one chain.

The only way the fighter will ever matter is for the feats in the game to be a LOT better. Easy places to start:

1) The fighter does not need to meet the ability score requirements for any feat selected as a FIGHTER feat.

2) The fighter may add his strength bonus to his base attack bonus for determining if he meets of the base attack bonus requirements of any feat.

3) Weapon focus, shield focus, combat expertise, dodge, and any other feat that add a flat bonus adds a bonus that scales at the same rate as power attack.

4) Any feat that involves reducing your attack bonus scales in the same way as power attack. (with at least +2 for every -1 taken).

5) Add Armor specialization feats that provide damage reduction in quantities that are actually relevant at the levels they are earned [at least 3 points at level 5 growing to 15 or more points at level 20]

6) Weapon specialization needs to provide a scaling damage modifier starting out at 2 points and growing to 10 or 15 points of damage by level 20.


IthinkIbrokeit wrote:
The only way the fighter will ever matter is for the feats in the game to be a LOT better. Easy places to start:

The sad thing is bad and/or uninteresting feats hurt everyone, not just the fighter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
Yeah wizards are dangerous, but their defenses are either weak, specific, or time limited.

None of those are particularly true because a Wizard can rotate their defenses. An optimized wizard is more or less untouchable at all stages of the game in a normal game scenario.

Quote:
It's not "Mythic God tier" defense all combat every combat.

And that applies to the barbarian too. It's hard to take 'barbarians are broken" seriously. They're better than fighters and monks, sure, but those classes are terrible. The barbarian is really the only halfway decent martial class and it's still inferior to every single spellcaster in the game. So I'm not sure how the hell you get off calling being able to attack functionally and not be bent over a table by will saves "broken".


swoosh wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Yeah wizards are dangerous, but their defenses are either weak, specific, or time limited.

None of those are particularly true because a Wizard can rotate their defenses. An optimized wizard is more or less untouchable at all stages of the game in a normal game scenario.

Quote:
It's not "Mythic God tier" defense all combat every combat.

And that applies to the barbarian too. It's hard to take 'barbarians are broken" seriously. They're better than fighters and monks, sure, but those classes are terrible. The barbarian is really the only halfway decent martial class and it's still inferior to every single spellcaster in the game. So I'm not sure how the hell you get off calling being able to attack functionally and not be bent over a table by will saves "broken".

OK it easily smashes the ranger and paladin in performance. Really the only comparable class is the synthesist

This thread to continue tangent.


Marthkus wrote:


OK it easily smashes the ranger and paladin in performance. Really the only comparable class is the synthesist

Paladin and Ranger can definitely keep up by virtue of being more versatile... They can't keep up in DPR, but not much can and DPR doesn't make you strong (Gunslingers have absurd DPR and are still pretty awful overall). Yeah, the Synthesist can keep up too but I'm not quite sure why you keep singling out that archetype in particular.

Quote:
This thread to continue tangent.

That thread gave me a good giggle, thanks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:


OK it easily smashes the ranger and paladin in performance. Really the only comparable class is the synthesist

Its arguable really. The Barbarian still has it's troubles(Difficulty circumventing battlefield control, mid-rage adaptability, beneficial spells get blocked by Superstitious thus making it difficult to get that crucial buff spell that lets you keep up with the encounter). The Ranger does more out of combat than most martials. The Paladin is still generally the toughest of the bunch with it's swift action heals and delicious set of immunities while maintaining comparable DPR.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Marthkus' clearly plays in a VERY low optimization game. That is fine, I generally RUN a low optimization game where players tend to stay away from save or sucks and they tend to fight combats by reducing things to 0 hit points with attacks .

Based on this forum and others Marthkus does not generally see pathfinder or d20 played in the for keeps that results in the fighter being so worthless. I wonder if he will hold his opinions firm when his fighter gets to higher level and the party casters decide its not worth babying him anymore.

I have had plenty of games where the fighters all quit because the even casters who stumbled on some of the more powerful save or sucks were able to instantly and effortless overcome major opposition because unless they were loaded down with anti-spell effects they would fail at least 50% of their saves.

The most dramatic version of this is when casters take the gloves off on purpose. I once was GM for a wizard and a druid who completed 2/3 of a published adventure for level 12+ characters without ever leaving a lemond's tiny hut. The very next session all the other players came back having rolled casters or B09S characters so that at least they were relevant.

The fight is near useless when Pathfinder is played with casters who use fly to remain at the exact optimal range for their spells while being untouchable to melee characters. The fighter is near unless when casters use the item creation rules to supercharge themselves but not the rest of the party. The fighter is near useless when the casters optimize Half of how much he does.

However, if you play pathfinder the way the original d20 devs did, without pushing every aspect to or past its break point the fighter is not so much useless as...boring.


IthinkIbrokeit wrote:
However, if you play pathfinder the way the original d20 devs did, without pushing every aspect to or past its break point the fighter is not so much useless as...boring.

There was a topic once about whether the fighter was boring or not because of his lack of utility and the fact his options were usually full attack and more full attack.

A lot of people jumped to the conclusion it meant they couldn't have personal fun with the fighter or their character's personality was a part of the class, rather than viewing the way a fighter actually played, which unfortunately, really is full attack spam and he really does fall short because of his absolute lack of options versus a wide variety of problems.


@IthinkIbrokeit

You would assume wrong.


MrSin wrote:
IthinkIbrokeit wrote:
However, if you play pathfinder the way the original d20 devs did, without pushing every aspect to or past its break point the fighter is not so much useless as...boring.

There was a topic once about whether the fighter was boring or not because of his lack of utility and the fact his options were usually full attack and more full attack.

A lot of people jumped to the conclusion it meant they couldn't have personal fun with the fighter or their character's personality was a part of the class, rather than viewing the way a fighter actually played, which unfortunately, really is full attack spam and he really does fall short because of his absolute lack of options versus a wide variety of problems.

Eh some people like vanilla ice-cream and plain oatmeal.

The fighter is like that just wrapped in plate mail and oozing martial prowess from every fiber of their being.

Nature powered? Nope
Divine powered? Nope
Rage powered? Nope

Just martial prowess. (Brawler and slayer might step on the toes of this theme)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:

Eh some people like vanilla ice-cream and plain oatmeal.

The fighter is like that just wrapped in plate mail and oozing martial prowess from every fiber of their being.

Nature powered? Nope
Divine powered? Nope
Rage powered? Nope

Just martial prowess. (Brawler and slayer might step on the toes of this theme)

I wish Martial prowess meant a little more than flavor of full attack though.

Distance closing, a degree of adaptability, terrain circumvention, battlefield control, and etc.

For all the fluff says about Fighters, they don't show much of that fluff.

Artists of war, full attack, rousing the hearts of armies, full attack, turning hunks of metal into arms capable of taming kingdoms, full attack, learning the fighting techniques of exotic masters, full attack, studying the art of combat, 2 skill points per level, methods grant them a wide variety of tactics, five ft step full attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
Eh some people like vanilla ice-cream and plain oatmeal.

Some people like to lick rocks. That's not say its wrong to lick rocks, or that vanilla ice cream shouldn't be an option, but that you may not want to cater to everyone.

Marthkus wrote:

The fighter is like that just wrapped in plate mail and oozing martial prowess from every fiber of their being.

Nature powered? Nope
Divine powered? Nope
Rage powered? Nope

Just martial prowess. (Brawler and slayer might step on the toes of this theme)

I wouldn't say they ooze martial prowess. Even keeping the flavor of martial prowess you could do a lot of small things to improve your abilities, in particular something's might be needed to actually function in combat, like a way to hunt your invisible foes, handle flying opponents, cross difficult terrain(or any terrain really, poor skill points stings that) or DR. This guy can't even figure out how to whack people with his reach weapon that well outside of an archetype that takes forever to master that ability. This game also really rewards full attacking, and the fighter doesn't have a way to reliably keep it up like a character with access to pounce might(alchemist, druid, barbarian, summoner, etc). More importantly, your saves. Does a guy who gets toasted by a dragon, even using a finesse build, really scream "Hi I'm good at martial prowess!" or a guy who gets dominated and forced to dance like a ballerina or dress like a maid really say "Hi, I'm the hero of the story, totally prepared for the threats of the world!". I don't think it does.

Also, oozing things sounds gross.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

If the Fighter was truly the class that claims victory through sheer martial badassery then it would be my favorite class.

Unfortunately anything even vaguely beyond what I could do with a few years' training is brushed off as weeboo fightan magic and made unavailable. And thus, I play the Barbarian.


IthinkIbrokeit wrote:

Marthkus' clearly plays in a VERY low optimization game. That is fine, I generally RUN a low optimization game where players tend to stay away from save or sucks and they tend to fight combats by reducing things to 0 hit points with attacks .

Based on this forum and others Marthkus does not generally see pathfinder or d20 played in the for keeps that results in the fighter being so worthless. I wonder if he will hold his opinions firm when his fighter gets to higher level and the party casters decide its not worth babying him anymore.

I have had plenty of games where the fighters all quit because the even casters who stumbled on some of the more powerful save or sucks were able to instantly and effortless overcome major opposition because unless they were loaded down with anti-spell effects they would fail at least 50% of their saves.

The most dramatic version of this is when casters take the gloves off on purpose. I once was GM for a wizard and a druid who completed 2/3 of a published adventure for level 12+ characters without ever leaving a lemond's tiny hut. The very next session all the other players came back having rolled casters or B09S characters so that at least they were relevant.

The fight is near useless when Pathfinder is played with casters who use fly to remain at the exact optimal range for their spells while being untouchable to melee characters. The fighter is near unless when casters use the item creation rules to supercharge themselves but not the rest of the party. The fighter is near useless when the casters optimize Half of how much he does.

However, if you play pathfinder the way the original d20 devs did, without pushing every aspect to or past its break point the fighter is not so much useless as...boring.

I can't find it right now, but he explained his group set up a bit.

7th level
Paladin with 18 cha and 15 str.
Druid who sits back and shoots flaming spheres, stays out of combat for the most part.
Archery Ranger who didn't take Improved precise shot and misses almost all his attacks
Then himself as a fighter who has more HP, deals more damage, and has higher AC than the rest of the party.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
and oozing martial prowess from every fiber of their being

Not so sure on this one. 3.5's Warblade oozes martial prowess. 4e's fighter oozes martial prowess. The Slayer oozes martial prowess. The barbarian oozes martial prowess. I'm not quite sure the 3.5/PF fighter does.

Part of the problem here is that the Fighter is billed as a versatile master of combat and the way Pathfinder strings out feat trees like it does you don't get to be that as well. Weapon specialization trees makes switching weapons hard, Combat maneuver trees makes specializing in a bunch of different maneuvers much harder than it should be.

If so many feats weren't "+2 to X" and core functionality wasn't hidden behind feat trees (the "Greater" trip/bullrush/etc. feats) and the fighter had some way to be flexible with his feats the class would be a lot better and (imo) a lot more fun.

As it is you have a "weaponmaster" who can only reasonable use one or two weapon styles effectively and a "master of martial combat" who really is only there to walk up to targets and attack them. Some people find that fun and I'm not blaming people who do, but I just find that not being exactly what the class advertises.


I'm honestly impressed you guys have been at this for this long.


The thread gets revived every once in a while. It's like a Lich who wakes up every few decades to see what's up.


VampByDay wrote:
MrSin wrote:
VampByDay wrote:
1) fighters are basically the most versifier melee class. Sheild missile, shield ray, disruptive, spell breaker. I can run up to the Mage, ignore his disintegrate, and make sure he never casts a spell again. Plus penetrating strike lets me straight up ignore damage reduction, what other class gets that?
That's a joke right?
Oh, I'm sorry, I meant prismatic ray, or polar ray, or any other ray spell that doesn't require fort saves. Obviously my entire point is invalidated because I said the wrong spell.

Create Pit works wonders...

Stone shape is funny if you ready an action

Any of the wall spells are REALLY funny

Reverse Gravity is hilarious if the fighter does not have fly active.

Greater Dispel Magic makes fighters cry...

Need I continue?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

Fighters are cool and feats are cool.

Some of us actually like to fullattack...

Play a Barbarian. Congratulations, now you can full attack all the time!

I find that fighters are better because I am not willing to use the cheese that makes barbars ridiculous.

*Greater Beast totem really should only work with natural attacks. That was a bad FAQ. Superstitious is also a really poor mechanic. Get +16 to all saves vs magic! Also resist friendly magic! It's too good not to grab!

Translation:

"Martials should never get awesome options that do not involve adding more +1s to your attack or damage bonus! They should also never be good at fighting magic! Because that is just wrong. Magic is obviously the only true way!"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Greater Beast Totem and Superstitious are what other martial abilities should be as strong as.

God no, that would be an awful game IMO.

The game is just less fun with a superstitious human invulnerable rager come and get me pouncing barbarian. It's like playing with a synthesist...

Best defense, highest offense.

NOPENOPENOPE

So pretty much, martials should never get nice things? Gotcha...


See, here is the thing, each class does certain things, it's up to your GM to make sure each classes get their chance to shine.

Wizard sucks early levels if you don't know what spells to pick, or your team is unreliable. However, you get to bend the world while still be what you are. You don't have to chance, the world change for you.

Sorcerer, not too much better than wizard in low levels, but you get to change into things that you like. Also each bloodline gives your different stuff. Elemental immune to critical hit, Draconic a little more AC and blasting power. And they don't get scared by monk as much.

Rogue is not the best at anything except sneak attack. But when your group got imprison in the dungeon with guards, only rogue can get you our. Bard can't kill all those guards in one hit without them alarming others, only the best rogue can.

Ranger sucks when not fighting his favorite enemies in his favorite terrains, but what if they do? Enough said. PS: one of the best tracing class out there.

Paladin only good when fighting evil things. But it got so much auras!!!! Immune to so many things with very good saves and some spells! Hardly anything evil can kill you.

Monk can't hit... What are you hitting? A full plate? Why would you even do that? Monk are one of the fastest, yet potentially the tankiest class there could be, only to be matched by few like Dragon Disciple with both Wings, class feat and bloodline. Have a monk charge 180ft and Quivering Palm you in the face is the scariest thing that could happen to any wizard. Also with those good saves and SR, how many spell can you use on them really?

Fighter sucks. Yea? When your team now trapped in the room in the dungeon with only one door way, no way out. Outside filled with thousands of goblins. How suck can a fighter be when he is the only class that can stand in that door way all day long? It's not very realistic but I guess in fantasy, fighters train so hard they don't feel tried from fighting.

Druid is not good in spell casting like Wizard. Wildshape at will plus level spells already allow you to be able to survive almost anything. Don't spellsling with the wizard, it's not your job. Shambler!

Cleric are only good as a healbot and their healing sucks. Really? Implosion, True Resurrection and Miracle. What can't you do?

Bard sucks at everything other than singing. Well, it's their job. Do a bit of this, do a bit of that. Just enough to survive so they can perform and make everyone better. By everyone, it's not just your team. Raise army, start war! Think bigger! Also counter song! If you GM never give you a chance to use it when you played a bard, you know he isn't very good.

Lastly, barbarian. They do run out of rage, and they can't do much once it's out. Well, at level one, it's the strongest class of all. What do you expect? Beside, they still kick ass when they rage. Can fighter dodge those touch attacks? Don't think so. Can paladins? No. Can any class that that bad ass +8 morale bonus to strength? No!!!

So there you have it, that's what I think about each classes. They are not perfectly balanced but they don't suck, just that it's not your turn to shine, or your GM sucks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SiuoL wrote:
See, here is the thing, each class does certain things, it's up to your GM to make sure each classes get their chance to shine.

This is true, the value of each class is highly dependent on the GM. Fighters and Martials do a LOT better in low optimization games and honestly, they do a TON better if your GM doesn't play with a combat mat so that you can actually defend your allies, players can make use of aid another.

Quote:


Wizard sucks early levels if you don't know what spells to pick, or your team is unreliable. However, you get to bend the world while still be what you are. You don't have to chance, the world change for you.

This is just flat out wrong. The pathfinder wizard can use sleep to end pretty any much published level 1 encounter by himself. Low level adventures are usually set up with a large number of places where the party can rest because they don't have enough hit points or resources to do more than a couple of encounters each day. That means that the wizard.

Quote:


Sorcerer, not too much better than wizard in low levels, but you get to change into things that you like. Also each bloodline gives your different stuff. Elemental immune to critical hit, Draconic a little more AC and blasting power. And they don't get scared by monk as much.

The sorcerer is just like the wizard only you don't get to change your spell selection each day you just PICK the uberspells and use them to dominate the game. Also you can do it more often because you are a spontaneous caster.

Quote:


Rogue is not the best at anything except sneak attack. But when your group got imprison in the dungeon with guards, only rogue can get you our. Bard can't kill all those guards in one hit without them alarming others, only the best rogue can.

Bard can unlock the door with a spell and fascinate the guards while totally unarmed. Thats the basic bard out of the box with NO options selected. The rogue is really just a sneak attack delivery system and if your DM plays hardball then that is just NOT EFFECTIVE.

Quote:


Ranger sucks when not fighting his favorite enemies in his favorite terrains, but what if they do? Enough said. PS: one of the best tracing class out there.

Well that's BS. The Ranger can simply out perform the fighter with his combination of abilities, spells, free feats and sneaking. So if you pictured your fighter as anything except a guy who wears the heaviest armor the ranger is just better than you.

Quote:


Paladin only good when fighting evil things. But it got so much auras!!!! Immune to so many things with very good saves and some spells! Hardly anything evil can kill you.

The paladin is currently the games best heavy armored fighter (except the cleric and warpriest). Remember that the paladin gets his saving throw benefits, his lay on hands, his condition removal, his ability to add enchants to his weapon, and really everything except smite works against non-evil foes. Then you have smite which lets you devastate evil big bads. That's before spells.

Quote:


Monk can't hit... What are you hitting? A full plate? Why would you even do that? Monk are one of the fastest, yet potentially the tankiest class there could be, only to be matched by few like Dragon Disciple with both Wings, class feat and bloodline. Have a monk charge 180ft and Quivering Palm you in the face is the scariest thing that could happen to any wizard. Also with those good saves and SR, how many spell can you use on them really?

Monks used to suck, now they are at least better than the fighter. Still inferior but not so bad they need kid gloves from level 1.

Quote:


Fighter sucks. Yea? When your team now trapped in the room in the dungeon with only one door way, no way out. Outside filled with thousands of goblins. How suck can a fighter be when he is the only class that can stand in that door way all day long? It's not very realistic but I guess in fantasy, fighters train so hard they don't feel tried from fighting.

The crux of the matter. The barbarian is better than the fighter at EVERYTHING you describe to the fighter. A paladin who has expended EVERY SINGLE class ability for the day is still JUST AS GOOD at the fighter at standing in the doorway and exchanging hits. He will be better if people show up with spells because he has better saves and a save boost.

Perhaps if the fighter somehow had large extra bonuses to hit and damage you could give him this singularly crappy role (really good when everybody else is sucking) but he doesn't. He does not have more hit points or more attack bonus or more ANYTHING than the other +1 BAB classes. Further, the way feats work he can't actually get any of them faster or except for a really crappy damage bonus he can't get any feat that those other classes couldn't get as well. In the end there is no real benefit to being a fighter who can both trip AND disarm when you could be a paladin or barbarian who can trip OR disarm.

[quote
Druid is not good in spell...

This is really a P.S. but if this is what you think your players are unimaginative.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:


I can't find it right now, but he explained his group set up a bit.

7th level

Paladin with 18 cha and 15 str.
Druid who sits back and shoots flaming spheres, stays out of combat for the most part.
Archery Ranger who didn't take Improved precise shot and misses almost all his attacks
Then himself as a fighter who has more HP, deals more damage, and has higher AC than the rest of the party.

So, I would say this is the definition of a low optimization group. There is nothing wrong with that. In a lot of ways the published adventure paths play a lot better, a lot more fun with a group that is a little like this (although even low optimizers usually get things like precise shot because missing sucks)

On the other hand there are a lot of people who really like pathfinder masterclass play where combat takes place in the air between combatants exactly 16 ft. apart so that spell ranges are optimized and melee combat is impossible without help.

it sucks that so many classes are off limits in that kind of game.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
IthinkIbrokeit wrote:

Marthkus' clearly plays in a VERY low optimization game. That is fine, I generally RUN a low optimization game where players tend to stay away from save or sucks and they tend to fight combats by reducing things to 0 hit points with attacks .

Based on this forum and others Marthkus does not generally see pathfinder or d20 played in the for keeps that results in the fighter being so worthless. I wonder if he will hold his opinions firm when his fighter gets to higher level and the party casters decide its not worth babying him anymore.

I have had plenty of games where the fighters all quit because the even casters who stumbled on some of the more powerful save or sucks were able to instantly and effortless overcome major opposition because unless they were loaded down with anti-spell effects they would fail at least 50% of their saves.

The most dramatic version of this is when casters take the gloves off on purpose. I once was GM for a wizard and a druid who completed 2/3 of a published adventure for level 12+ characters without ever leaving a lemond's tiny hut. The very next session all the other players came back having rolled casters or B09S characters so that at least they were relevant.

The fight is near useless when Pathfinder is played with casters who use fly to remain at the exact optimal range for their spells while being untouchable to melee characters. The fighter is near unless when casters use the item creation rules to supercharge themselves but not the rest of the party. The fighter is near useless when the casters optimize Half of how much he does.

However, if you play pathfinder the way the original d20 devs did, without pushing every aspect to or past its break point the fighter is not so much useless as...boring.

I can't find it right now, but he explained his group set up a bit.

7th level
Paladin with 18 cha and 15 str.
Druid who sits back and shoots flaming spheres, stays out of combat for the most part.
Archery...

One group... and it's not even the only group I am playing in at the moment...

I've only played in a few dozen campaigns, it's not the hundreds many posters can boast, but there is no reason to assume a persons current group is their only experience with a class...


IthinkIbrokeit wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:


I can't find it right now, but he explained his group set up a bit.

7th level

Paladin with 18 cha and 15 str.
Druid who sits back and shoots flaming spheres, stays out of combat for the most part.
Archery Ranger who didn't take Improved precise shot and misses almost all his attacks
Then himself as a fighter who has more HP, deals more damage, and has higher AC than the rest of the party.

So, I would say this is the definition of a low optimization group. There is nothing wrong with that. In a lot of ways the published adventure paths play a lot better, a lot more fun with a group that is a little like this (although even low optimizers usually get things like precise shot because missing sucks)

On the other hand there are a lot of people who really like pathfinder masterclass play where combat takes place in the air between combatants exactly 16 ft. apart so that spell ranges are optimized and melee combat is impossible without help.

it sucks that so many classes are off limits in that kind of game.

I also had more social skills too!

But that was an example of how large a factor system mastery is. That isn't the only group I've played a fighter in nor is it even the only group I am currently in.

One of my other groups I am a rogue with an Inquisitor, synthesist summoner, druid, and wizard. Now that group is competitive. I couldn't bring a fighter in that group without it just being a worse synthesist.

3,201 to 3,250 of 3,805 << first < prev | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The Main Problem with Fighters All Messageboards