The Main Problem with Fighters


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

3,501 to 3,550 of 3,805 << first < prev | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | next > last >>

Nicos wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Nicos wrote:
MrSin wrote:
A barbarian is just as good with his weapon, his backup weapon, his ranged weapon, a stick he picked up(club) that ranseur that dropped, and even gets a bonus to an improvised weapon.
Not surehow that is conciliated with the furius corageous weapon of the lst post. Not to mention his ranged weapond o not benefit from str bonus to hit.
Nope, but it will give him a bonus to damage! Adaptable bows aren't the least common things in the world for a backup weapon either.
So he is not that good with his ranged back up weapon. Anf if the barbarian have a furious corageous weapon the barbarian will certaily dnot want to change it forsomething else most of the times.

I think your adding in extra information. When raging, you get a bonus to strength. This same bonus to strength, applies to all the weapons I listed. There is no additional information beyond that. This is opposed to the fighter's weapon training, which only applies to weapon groups he's trained in.


I don't know how people with any sort of basic understanding of arithmetic could possibly be making the arguments you are Khrysaor, but here we are.


MrSin wrote:
Nicos wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Nicos wrote:
MrSin wrote:
A barbarian is just as good with his weapon, his backup weapon, his ranged weapon, a stick he picked up(club) that ranseur that dropped, and even gets a bonus to an improvised weapon.
Not surehow that is conciliated with the furius corageous weapon of the lst post. Not to mention his ranged weapond o not benefit from str bonus to hit.
Nope, but it will give him a bonus to damage! Adaptable bows aren't the least common things in the world for a backup weapon either.
So he is not that good with his ranged back up weapon. Anf if the barbarian have a furious corageous weapon the barbarian will certaily dnot want to change it forsomething else most of the times.
I think your adding in extra information. When raging, you get a bonus to strength. This same bonus to strength, applies to all the weapons I listed. There is no additional information beyond that. This is opposed to the fighter's weapon training, which only applies to weapon groups he's trained in.

The bonus to damage, not to attack. Weapon training 2 plus gloves of dueling make the fighter better with the back up bow than rage for the barbarian. And it is doubtful the barbarian will have furous and corageous in his main and his back up weapon.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Favored Enemy: This one is the most legitimate 'limited circumstance' you've provided, but it neglects the Ranger's other qualities, such as 2 strong saves, having an in-class reason to invest somewhat in wisdom (meaning for the same price as a Fighter trying to mitigate his poor save, the Ranger gets more benefit), 6 skill points per level, bypassing prerequisites on bonus feats, and and an animal companion.

I'd also note though, that the Ranger, starting as soon as he gets 1st level spells, has options to apply some or all of his FE bonus against any target, and can share that bonus either with all of his teammates, or with an animal companion. That bonus then applies to all weapon attack and damage rolls of the benefitting character (not to mention skill bonuses and other benefits!) regardless of what they happen to be wielding. Fighter loses his bonus if he loses access to his preferred weapon type, which also results in the "Wow, that is cool, but it's not a polearm/heavy blade/bow/etc. so toss it" results you see when it comes to loot. Fighters are frequently tossing amazing unique weapons so they can go use the cash to buy a cookie-cutter weapon that matches their feat and Weapon Training spread. This can also cause problems in extended adventures where the Fighter may go 2-3 levels without hitting a town he can trade in, and spend the whole time stuck with a sub-par weapon if he doesn't get what he built for. That's a problem very unique to the Fighter; he's actually more limited in what weapons he can use than any other full BAB class, and that's not theorycraft, that's what I see at the table every time we run an AP or module. The GM either has to adjust the loot specifically to accommodate the Fighter, or the Fighter starts falling behind quick. Why am I spending money to have someone prebuild an adventure for me to save time if I have to turn around and spend that time scrubbing every book to verify if I have to add or change loot to keep one member of the party viable in combat, especially when that guy's only damn schtick is combat?


Nicos wrote:
MrSin wrote:
I think your adding in extra information. When raging, you get a bonus to strength. This same bonus to strength, applies to all the weapons I listed. There is no additional information beyond that. This is opposed to the fighter's weapon training, which only applies to weapon groups he's trained in.
The bonus to damage, not to attack. Weapon training 2 plus gloves of dueling make the fighter better with the back up bow than rage for the barbarian. And it is doubtful the barbarian will have furous and corageous in his main and his back up weapon.

Which still is missing my original point, imo. Yes, the fighter at 9th can pick a ranged weapon for his weapon training 2, and with his gloves of dueling gets +3/+3, finally doing better than the barbarian in raw damage with an adaptable bow. Meanwhile, the barbarian's bonus also applies to chairs in a bar fight, and his fist and natural weapons if he has any, a stick he picked up off the ground(club), that polearm the BBEG dropped, that nodachi he BBEG's minion dropped, and that scimitar you got a mile back.

The point was that rage applies to darn near anything, but weapon training is selective. If the barbarian has a +2 Courageous Furious Nodachi, he loses the Courageous and Furious if he switches to a +4 Bardiche, but he keeps his rage and rage powers. A fighter who switches to the Bardiche and doesn't have weapon training however, loses a main class feature effectively, and any feats that applied to his nodachi won't apply to his new weapon and he doesn't have much to help that. Beyond that, the barbarian doesn't just get a numerical bonus from rage like the fighter gets a numerical bonus to attack/damage with his weapon training(and some feats), but the barbarian gets rage powers, none of which aren't weapon specific.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Khrysaor wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
the average AC of monsters increases by 25. Fighter gains more bonus than enemies for a good challenge for a party. The average attack increases by 29. Fighter gains a bonus on par with the enemies for a good challenge for a party. [etc.]
And if your entire campaign consists of monsters lining up on the ground in front of you waiting to be full attacked, one after another, with nothing else, the fighter is awesome. But if there's anything else -- nonstandard combat, or a domination spell, or anything at all outside of combat -- your fighter has zero ability to participate. That, to me, is his problem. Not his DPR or whatever, but the fact that he sits out large portions of the game while the rest of the party gets to play.

Wizards are useful in an anti magic field? Vs creatures with magic immunity? Barbarians excel against flying opponents? Is any class useful when dominated? Or useful when pushed to participate outside of their general function? What skills did you want your fighter to have? He gets 2+INT a level. Give him 12 INT and use your level bonus for skills. Now you have 4 per level. Take traits to make skills class skills. Use a standard feat to boost a skill with all your many bonus feats to combat.

I'm not seeing any argument in this entire thread that's not applicable in some way to every other class. Don't use all your build points to max out your strength. Leave it at 14 or 15+2 and use those other 3-5 build points more effectively. I see it too often that you NEED an 18 starting stat to be relevant. This is an outright lie and propagates all the sensationalism on these boards.

Lets start from the top shall we?

1. Antimagic Field is a spell and thus requires a caster to nerf themselves (bad idea) or a martial to pick up an expensive magic item (Equalizer Shield) that is extremely limited in duration.

2. The person who has AMF on will require a means of Ex Flight if they want to actually engage an enemy caster.

3. The person who has AMF on will require a means of Ex See Invisibility if they want to actually engage an enemy caster. (Note that the spells required for 2 & 3 are much lower then AMF itself.)

4. The person who has AMF on has nerfed their HP, AC, To hit, and saves. This is a bad idea.

5. Conjuration spells will work just fine provided they are cast outside the field.

6. Any Animated/Called minions will work just fine.

Magic Immunity can be easily overcome by casters who can use Conjuration spells and minions (summoned or otherwise).

Babarians work just as well against Flying opponents as non-primary archers and classes that can't inherently fly. Better than most since you can technically get Flight in class.

Any class that has a good Will Save or Save Booster (Oh Hai thar Superstition!) is going to be better then a Fighter at being dominated. In fact the only class the comes close to being at weak against domination as the Fighter is the Rogue and that's the other class that is generally regarded as weak.

2+INT skills is worthless. Everyone is going to do this better then Fighter, because the options you suggest are open to other classes and they will do better. Any other class that is that bad at skills at least has spells which can replace or obviate the need for many skills.

I'm afraid your points are invalid for the above reasons.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Eirikrautha wrote:


Back on topic, Ashiel's got a strong point. Relative to other classes, the fighter is at his peak at first level. HP and defenses of CR appropriate monsters scale faster than a fighter's ability to hit and do damage. So, without other narrative power, the fighter does get weaker as he grows, relative to the challenges he faces.

I disagree heavily!

This is just theory craft that actually doesn't happen in a real game. Fighter's are consistent damage dealers while other classes rely on certain circumstances (Favoured Enemy, Evil, 5 minute work day).

Actually, yes, it does happen in a real game. It happens in every game. It's not complex, and you'll be hard pressed to argue with it, because the effect shows up very strongly in actual play, so much so that anyone who plays for more than 1 level can tell you that this is true. Allow me to explain...

The Observation
Fighters are more apt to deal with opponents relative to their CR at 1st level than any other level. This is a fact, and can be demonstrated here.

1. At 1st level, a Fighter with a 16 Strength, 14 Dex, and 14 Con, wielding a greatsword and wearing chainmail has a +4 to hit, deals 2d6+4 damage, and has an AC of 18, no feats or anything invested.

2. At 1st level, a Fighter has 1 bonus feat to invest, which could provide a tactical advantage, a +1 to hit, a -1 to hit but a +3 to damage, or +1 to AC easily enough.

3. The fighter's minimum damage is 5 points, with a maximum damage of 16. The fighter can move up to his full speed and attack at full strength. If he charges, he attacks at more strength because he gets a +2 to hit, giving him a +6 at 5-16 damage.

4. A CR 2 enemy has an average of 20 HP and 14 AC. The fighter can hit his opponent 55% of the time, 65% of the time if charging, and his average damage per hit halves his foes HP (10 average damage). A CR 1 enemy usually has around 15 HP, which means that he usually deals around 2/3 of the foe's HP on a successful hit, with a chance to one-shot it on a normal hit. A CR 1/2 foe has an average of around 10 Hp, which means he's probably going to one-shot it on a successful attack. Anything CR 1/3 or below is likely to be slain by his minimum damage on a successful attack. If the fighter gets a critical hit, almost all of these foes are certain to die.

5. That means that the Fighter can move AND attack and deal about 2/3rds of his foe's HP in damage against a foe 2-3 CRs above his own (a 1st level Fighter is only CR 1/2 as PC fighters begin with less WBL than NPCs).

6. Fast forward to 2nd level. What's changed? He got +1 to hit. However, enemies that are +2 CR above him now have 30 HP and 15 AC average, so his chances of hitting are still equal but he only deals 1/3rd their HP now.

7. Fast forward to 6th level. The fighter scores his 2nd attack at +6/+1, but what happens? Well if he moves + attacks now, he still does about the damage damage. Assuming that at 6th level he's got his Strength up to 18, took weapon focus, and specialization, and weapon training +1, and has a +1 weapon, his damage is now 2d6+9 or 12-22 with a +13/+8 to hit. Enemies that are +2 CR above him now have 100 HP and 21 AC. On his best roll he can't do more than 1/5th the enemy's HP. Against an equal-CR opponent he still can't do more than 1/3rd the foe's HP. He cannot even reliably 1-shot an enemy that is 4 CRs below his own.

Those are facts. Fighter damage does not scale as fast as enemy HP, and fighters become less mobile as their levels advance, which further exacerbates the problem.

Compared to other Martials
Other martials have reasons to keep them around. The Fighter's primary rival is the Barbarian, the other "not really magic guy", who suffers from the exact same problem (while being stronger than the Fighter at 1st level), but he can get pounce that helps to recover some of his lost combat ability, and gets a wide assortment of strong tactical options and a superior defense.

The Ranger compares to the Fighter's martial prowess at pretty much every level (ESPECIALLY if the Fighter doesn't dump all his feats into Weapon Specializations). However he also brings far more utility to the party in the form of spells, skills, and a whole other combatant (the animal companion). At high levels, in-class access to freedom of movement, ranger's quarry, and instant enemy bring a lot of their utility back as primary combatants when he's beginning to slow down. Especially since Ranger's quarry eventually can be used every 10 minutes and grants auto-crit on every threat.

The Paladin compares to the Fighter's martial prowess at most levels (being the weakest of the three martials at 1st level), except the Paladin is basically built for marathon running and party support. Out of the three the Paladin quickly becomes an indomitable tank who shrugs off attacks both physical and magical, has a wide variety of party support, immunities, and tactical options. Whereas the Fighter loses steam as he goes up in level, the Paladin becomes harder to kill or nullify, so while his damage is slowing down like the Fighter's (until he starts smiting) his other pros (like his resilience) are doing to enemies what enemies are doing to the fighter.

There is no arguing this. Fighters get weaker, relative to their challenges, with every passing level.

Grand Lodge

My fighter fix:

4+int skill points.
Weapon training becomes a flat bonus to all weapons.
All of the combat feats scale automatically. (So a fighter who takes TWF at 1st level gets ITWF for free once he meets the minimum requirements.)
Bravery becomes a flat bonus to Will saves.

I've found it to be pretty well balanced against a Barbarian. Still no idea what to do about the Rogue . . . but there are a dozen other threads for that.

Silver Crusade

Aelryinth wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Eirikrautha wrote:


Back on topic, Ashiel's got a strong point. Relative to other classes, the fighter is at his peak at first level. HP and defenses of CR appropriate monsters scale faster than a fighter's ability to hit and do damage. So, without other narrative power, the fighter does get weaker as he grows, relative to the challenges he faces.

I disagree heavily!

This is just theory craft that actually doesn't happen in a real game. Fighter's are consistent damage dealers while other classes rely on certain circumstances (Favoured Enemy, Evil, 5 minute work day).

You forgot 5 minute work day because the fighter ran out of hit points faster then the other classes. (Because barbs have more and DR, rangers and paladins can heal themselves).

==Aelryinth

Im afraid my group doesn't experience the 5 minute work day for the fighter, besides, what do you think healing is for? It's not something you hoard in order to be paid later. I don't see many rangers healing the hell out of themselves to the point where a cleric isn't needed.

Might want to find a better excuse.

Silver Crusade

Favoured Enemy is not something that always comes up, Instant Enemy is limited to a certain number of times per day and only affects one target, not one type of target.

Not sure about you but my games don't revolve around the 4th edition concept where the there is a big boss and he is always identified while everyone else is just a mook. Instant Enemy is great when you get the 5 minute work day and the BbEG is always easy to spot.


My groups tend to devote a small portion of the budget to having nigh-endless out of combat healing items like wands and potions. The cost is fairly minute, especially in high levels where people are talking about the struggles of the fighter.

The "running out of hit points" concern is more of an issue for in-combat. This is where classes like the paladin have the advantage by being able to heal as a swift action. But I don't understand the idea of the fighter "running out" of HP as the day goes on at higher levels.

Personally for fighter range options I go with the [Spears] weapon group. It has javelins, spears, and lances. That could even be your main weapon group but I take it for the second. Quick draw -> Distance Thrower -> Two-Handed Thrower -> Deadly Aim, make for a decent range option. I still grab [bows] for weapon training 3 for those ridiculously long range situations. Spears though also includes lances, which is great should you ever be fighting on a decent mount (wild-shaped druid, friendly dragon, leadership cohort).

What I like about thrown weapons is how if you finish off an opponent with your melee full-attack while using a two handed weapon before you use all of your attacks, you can use your remaining attacks to throw javelins (trick doesn't benefit from two-handed thrower).

Now I did list 4 feats there. That's not something many other martials besides the fighter can easily afford to do for a secondary option.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
But I don't understand the idea of the fighter "running out" of HP as the day goes on at higher levels.

Fighter on his own can't heal himself, and he tends to devour other peoples resources more than actually give to the party. That make sense? Though he might pack UMD and might push it up to the point he can use it all day, that really doesn't say much for his class. His class though? His class eats other people's resources in some way or another. You need to fly? You ask for a fly spell or eat some GP in the form of a magic item. You want healing? You ask for a spell, a channel, or you drink a potion or use a wand. Etc. Of course no matter how much healing you have its probably finite, though there are some options like boots of the earth now.

Most players devote some resources to a healstick I think. They also might be tempted to stop when the party starts running out of spells, even if one or two guys can keep going. Especially if those spells are really making those other guys effective at combat or keeping them from dying or taking damage anyway.


The fighter also however is the blunt instrument and meat shield that is why he consumes resources, because he is busy defeating the enemy. If he wasn't there, your resources consumed would be greater, I can assure you of that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
strayshift wrote:
The fighter also however is the blunt instrument and meat shield that is why he consumes resources, because he is busy defeating the enemy. If he wasn't there, your resources consumed would be greater, I can assure you of that.

Well, if he wasn't there, I might instead have a paladin, who is capable of contributing resources. Or a barbarian, who consumes less because of his ability to mitigate. You could also have a ranger or slayer, who can contribute in skills better than the fighter will. I mean, its not like the fighter is your only meatshield option. You can even summon a meatsheild.

I mean I guess you might just not have the player and any PC, but in that case you could argue the same for any character because your down a man. If you want to really get meta we could argue the GM could fix just about anything or set up the game for it, but I feel like that doesn't actually say much about a class's merits.


Ssalarn wrote:
Fighter loses his bonus if he loses access to his preferred weapon type, This can also cause problems in extended adventures where the Fighter may go 2-3 levels without hitting a town he can trade in, and spend the whole time stuck with a sub-par weapon if he doesn't get what he built for. That's a problem very unique to the Fighter; he's actually more limited in what weapons he can use than any other full BAB class, and that's not theorycraft, that's what I see at the table every time we run an AP or module. The GM either has to adjust the loot specifically to accommodate the Fighter, or the Fighter starts falling behind quick. Why am I spending money to have someone prebuild an adventure for me to save time if I have to turn around and spend that time scrubbing every book to verify if I have to add or change loot to keep one...

Very Good points, and yes I did edit your post down. So we take away the fighters weapon, lets take away the wizards spell book and the clerics holy symbol at the same time. it seems to me that the fighter can still pick up any martial weapon and be good or for that fact because they have a better base attack they can pick up an exotic weapon and still be okay. Since the wizard and cleric don't have a full base attack lets try the barbarian and ranger, what happens when you find amazing full plate in the treasure? they lose out because they lose most of there abilitys by putting it on so you run into the same problem with the fighter and his weapon if not worse because if the fighter finds a weapon that isn't his normal but is good enough to replace the abilitys he can still use it. So even though I agree that if you take away the fighters weapon it hurts them I don't think that it is worse than taking the primary items from other classes.


@MrSin
That means the fighter has a an eating resource problem, not a running out of HP problem.

Although adventuring in of itself eats resources and not every party member could handle every situation, so it makes sense that sometimes other members have to pass resources to others for the groups to succeed. That means the fighter's problem is then further narrowed down to what they are contributing.

The odd feat, slightly higher AC, and DPR on the average are not as noticeable contributions to party resources as casting lay-on-hands.


Karyouonigami wrote:
So we take away the fighters weapon, lets take away the wizards spell book and the clerics holy symbol at the same time. it seems to me that the fighter can still pick up any martial weapon and be good or for that fact because they have a better base attack they can pick up an exotic weapon and still be okay.

A biased hypothetical eh? Lets take away the fighters arms and legs instead. Lets also compare an apple to cabbages in order to judge the value of that apple, rather than every other type of apple.

Or translated, lets compare fighters to barbarians and paladins rather than casters, and not used biased hypotheticals. Could've even have compared them to a sorcerer with eschew materials, or an oracle. Could've compared them to a cleric without a weapon too, but nope, apparently you want to take away spell casting entirely. A main class feature, and you even gave the fighter a replacement for his loss instead of saying "well the fighter goes unarmed!" or something.


MrSin wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
So we take away the fighters weapon, lets take away the wizards spell book and the clerics holy symbol at the same time. it seems to me that the fighter can still pick up any martial weapon and be good or for that fact because they have a better base attack they can pick up an exotic weapon and still be okay.

A biased hypothetical eh? Lets take away the fighters arms and legs instead. Lets also compare an apple to cabbages in order to judge the value of that apple, rather than every other type of apple.

Or translated, lets compare fighters to barbarians and paladins rather than casters, and not used biased hypotheticals. Could've even have compared them to a sorcerer with eschew materials, or an oracle. Could've compared them to a cleric without a weapon too, but nope, apparently you want to take away spell casting entirely. A main class feature, and you even gave the fighter a replacement for his loss instead of saying "well the fighter goes unarmed!" or something.

since it is also a biased hypothetical to take away the fighters weapon I thought that was fair and it is much more likely that someone tries to separate the Wizard from his spell book. If you read the whole post you would see that I did compare the barbarian and ranger, and since the fighters main class feature is his weapon it is a viable comparison.

By the way when people are comparing the fighter to the spellcasters in power and saying that the fighter is weak because they can't cast spells it makes sense to compare the fighter to a wizard without spell casting


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Karyouonigami wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
So we take away the fighters weapon, lets take away the wizards spell book and the clerics holy symbol at the same time. it seems to me that the fighter can still pick up any martial weapon and be good or for that fact because they have a better base attack they can pick up an exotic weapon and still be okay.

A biased hypothetical eh? Lets take away the fighters arms and legs instead. Lets also compare an apple to cabbages in order to judge the value of that apple, rather than every other type of apple.

Or translated, lets compare fighters to barbarians and paladins rather than casters, and not used biased hypotheticals. Could've even have compared them to a sorcerer with eschew materials, or an oracle. Could've compared them to a cleric without a weapon too, but nope, apparently you want to take away spell casting entirely. A main class feature, and you even gave the fighter a replacement for his loss instead of saying "well the fighter goes unarmed!" or something.

since it is also a biased hypothetical to take away the fighters weapon I thought that was fair and it is much more likely that someone tries to separate the Wizard from his spell book. If you read the whole post you would see that I did compare the barbarian and ranger, and since the fighters main class feature is his weapon it is a viable comparison.

By the way when people are comparing the fighter to the spellcasters in power and saying that the fighter is weak because they can't cast spells it makes sense to compare the fighter to a wizard without spell casting

The Wizard doesn't go adventuring with the spellbook in his hands, perfectly targetable (unless he's an idiot). The Fighter does. One of these objects thus is more vulnerable then the other and now which do you think that is?


The wizard/cleric get their book/focus automatically at first level. The fighter needs to keep upgrading his weapon.

It's not a matter of taking it away, it's a matter of being able to get it in the first place.


Karyouonigami wrote:
By the way when people are comparing the fighter to the spellcasters in power and saying that the fighter is weak because they can't cast spells it makes sense to compare the fighter to a wizard without spell casting

Not really. You play a spellcasting class to cast spells, and to be honest a wizard is pretty much all about spells. You play a martial to fight things, and fighter is all about fighting things. If anything you might take away the fighters weapon and feats, since you took about as much away from the wizard.


strayshift wrote:
The fighter also however is the blunt instrument and meat shield that is why he consumes resources, because he is busy defeating the enemy. If he wasn't there, your resources consumed would be greater, I can assure you of that.

I can pretty much guarantee that if you replaced the fighter with a barbarian, paladin or ranger your resources consumed would be roughly the same and they each bring more to the table. I you replaced him with a combat (rather than spell) orientated oracle, druid or cleric they would be significantly less impacted and you would have a much wider range of options to chose from. As the levels grow that disparity becomes more and more severe.

Put it this way, if you were looking for a new level 9 member of your group which would you prefer. Someone who can hit things well with a pointy stick or someone who can do much of the same while also being able to raise the dead, summon angels, fly all day, raise armies of zombies, cast a whole host of buff spells and remove a massive range of horrible disabling effects.

I know which one I would want to take with me if I was interviewing for the post of "adventurer to take with me into hideous dungeon full of monsters which want to eat me and traps designed to mildly inconvenience".


Anzyr wrote:


The Wizard doesn't go adventuring with the spellbook in his hands, perfectly targetable (unless he's an idiot). The Fighter does.

True, I would argue that the spell book is easier to destroy even on accident and much more likely for a bad guy to try and steal.

I could also point out that after a long day of adventuring and spell casting that the wizard needs to rest and regain spells and if he is interupted then he is considerably less useful than a fighter who is low on HP but still can swing a sword.

I guess what I am trying to say is that EVERY class has a weakness, and I agree that the fighter needs some help to keep up, I would love to see Weapon focus and specialization scale up based on level without needing more feats but that is just me. What do you think could be done to help the fighter?


andreww wrote:
strayshift wrote:
The fighter also however is the blunt instrument and meat shield that is why he consumes resources, because he is busy defeating the enemy. If he wasn't there, your resources consumed would be greater, I can assure you of that.

I can pretty much guarantee that if you replaced the fighter with a barbarian, paladin or ranger your resources consumed would be roughly the same and they each bring more to the table. I you replaced him with a combat (rather than spell) orientated oracle, druid or cleric they would be significantly less impacted and you would have a much wider range of options to chose from. As the levels grow that disparity becomes more and more severe.

Put it this way, if you were looking for a new level 9 member of your group which would you prefer. Someone who can hit things well with a pointy stick or someone who can do much of the same while also being able to raise the dead, summon angels, fly all day, raise armies of zombies, cast a whole host of buff spells and remove a massive range of horrible disabling effects.

I know which one I would want to take with me if I was interviewing for the post of "adventurer to take with me into hideous dungeon full of monsters which want to eat me and traps designed to mildly inconvenience".

Question: what Martial class can fly all day or summon angels? and I would still take the fighter with me since they would most likely die and I would get more treasure :)

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Eirikrautha wrote:


Back on topic, Ashiel's got a strong point. Relative to other classes, the fighter is at his peak at first level. HP and defenses of CR appropriate monsters scale faster than a fighter's ability to hit and do damage. So, without other narrative power, the fighter does get weaker as he grows, relative to the challenges he faces.

I disagree heavily!

This is just theory craft that actually doesn't happen in a real game. Fighter's are consistent damage dealers while other classes rely on certain circumstances (Favoured Enemy, Evil, 5 minute work day).

You forgot 5 minute work day because the fighter ran out of hit points faster then the other classes. (Because barbs have more and DR, rangers and paladins can heal themselves).

==Aelryinth

Im afraid my group doesn't experience the 5 minute work day for the fighter, besides, what do you think healing is for? It's not something you hoard in order to be paid later. I don't see many rangers healing the hell out of themselves to the point where a cleric isn't needed.

Might want to find a better excuse.

It's resource consumption.

The ranger and paladin can heal themselves and have just as many HP as the fighter. Ergo, they last longer. The fighter relies on OTHERS for the healing. If he wants to use a CLW wand, he even has to have someone else use it for him, or spend some of his minimal skill points on UMD for a chance at using such a thing erratically.

In short, the fighter's lack of ability to heal and function as a tank is one of the effects causing the 5 minute work day, because everyone else runs out of spells covering for his glaring weaknesses...and then the casters have to take a break, while the fighter who sucked up their spells wonders what the problem is.

==Aelryinth


MrSin wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
By the way when people are comparing the fighter to the spellcasters in power and saying that the fighter is weak because they can't cast spells it makes sense to compare the fighter to a wizard without spell casting
Not really. You play a spellcasting class to cast spells, and to be honest a wizard is pretty much all about spells. You play a martial to fight things, and fighter is all about fighting things. If anything you might take away the fighters weapon and feats, since you took about as much away from the wizard.

so what you are saying is that without a spell book the wizard is useless? that was the point I was making in reply to his "take the weapon away from the fighter" point.


Karyouonigami wrote:
What do you think could be done to help the fighter?

-More skill points.

-Less super long feat trees that only give minimal functionality per feat or delay basic abilities to really high levels.
-Better fighter specific feats that let him do powerful and epic things at higher level.
-Ability to generalize in weapons more effectively. A weapon specific specialist is fine, but feeling awful because the dragon has a sword and you're an axe specialist is no good and having so much trouble being versatile isn't any good either.
-A good will save.
-Some innate way to deal with magic (goes back to 3 and 5 a bit there)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Karyouonigami wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
By the way when people are comparing the fighter to the spellcasters in power and saying that the fighter is weak because they can't cast spells it makes sense to compare the fighter to a wizard without spell casting
Not really. You play a spellcasting class to cast spells, and to be honest a wizard is pretty much all about spells. You play a martial to fight things, and fighter is all about fighting things. If anything you might take away the fighters weapon and feats, since you took about as much away from the wizard.
so what you are saying is that without a spell book the wizard is useless? that was the point I was making in reply to his "take the weapon away from the fighter" point.

Humorously (or not), the Fighter is about useless when the Wizard is without his spellbook too. The Fighter doesn't really have any solutions to problems that can't be solved with "5-foot step and full attack" that don't rely on a caster buffing him.


Karyouonigami wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
By the way when people are comparing the fighter to the spellcasters in power and saying that the fighter is weak because they can't cast spells it makes sense to compare the fighter to a wizard without spell casting
Not really. You play a spellcasting class to cast spells, and to be honest a wizard is pretty much all about spells. You play a martial to fight things, and fighter is all about fighting things. If anything you might take away the fighters weapon and feats, since you took about as much away from the wizard.
so what you are saying is that without a spell book the wizard is useless? that was the point I was making in reply to his "take the weapon away from the fighter" point.

That seems like it is just reinforcing the argument against the fighter in favor of the paladin, ranger, or barbarian.


swoosh wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
What do you think could be done to help the fighter?

-More skill points.

-Less super long feat trees that only give minimal functionality per feat or delay basic abilities to really high levels.
-Better fighter specific feats that let him do powerful and epic things at higher level.
-Ability to generalize in weapons more effectively. A weapon specific specialist is fine, but feeling awful because the dragon has a sword and you're an axe specialist is no good and having so much trouble being versatile isn't any good either.
-A good will save.
-Some innate way to deal with magic (goes back to 3 and 5 a bit there)

I all for more skills points and the ability to generalize more effectively. What if they gave the Bravery bonus to all will saves, would that be enough to help there saves? Maybe just add UMD to the skill list to solve the healing issue? I don't think any of this would break the game and just might bring the fighter back into the same power level as other martials


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Karyouonigami wrote:
Question: what Martial class can fly all day or summon angels? and I would still take the fighter with me since they would most likely die and I would get more treasure :)

Clerics, Druids ad Oracles all fill the martial role perfectly well, often far better than actual martial classes, especially as you go up in level.

I am not sure how anyone can compare, say, a level 9 fighter to a level 9 druid wildshaped into a huge dinosaur, with a large dinosaur companion summoning more dinosaurs as a means of controlling the battlefield. There is little more effective at tanking/area denial than dropping many tons of angry dinosaur into the area.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
By the way when people are comparing the fighter to the spellcasters in power and saying that the fighter is weak because they can't cast spells it makes sense to compare the fighter to a wizard without spell casting
Not really. You play a spellcasting class to cast spells, and to be honest a wizard is pretty much all about spells. You play a martial to fight things, and fighter is all about fighting things. If anything you might take away the fighters weapon and feats, since you took about as much away from the wizard.
so what you are saying is that without a spell book the wizard is useless? that was the point I was making in reply to his "take the weapon away from the fighter" point.
Humorously (or not), the Fighter is about useless when the Wizard is without his spellbook too. The Fighter doesn't really have any solutions to problems that can't be solved with "5-foot step and full attack" that don't rely on a caster buffing him.

agreed, well mostly I never have played a fighter without a back up weapon but that is just me.

I guess the trouble I am having is that you(not just you) are thinking of characters as an indavidual and I think of them as one of a group so I do expect the fighter to get buffed by the Wizard and healed by the cleric and for the rouge to spot the bad guys and traps.


andreww wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
Question: what Martial class can fly all day or summon angels? and I would still take the fighter with me since they would most likely die and I would get more treasure :)

Clerics, Druids ad Oracles all fill the martial role perfectly ell, often far better than actual martial classes, especially as you go up in level.

I am not sure how anyone can compare, say, a level 9 fighter to a level 9 druid wildshaped into a huge dinosaur, with a large dinosaur companion summoning more dinosaurs as a means of controlling the battlefield. There is little more effective at tanking/area denial than dropping many tons of angry dinosaur into the area.

again we go back to comparing Fighters to Spell casters.

Other than Paladins and Rangers what non-spell casting class is better at filling the role of a fighter? I do agree that the ability to heal pushes the Paladin and Ranger over the fighter in usefulness.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

No, I'm definitely thinking of the characters as a group. I was raised on RPG's, the one-man-band game is foreign to me.

However, as someone who has been building parties all her life... When I look at a class that can do a lot of damage, and then I see another class that can do a lot of damage AND heal, or do a lot of damage AND dispel magic and just generally be hell for enemy casters, or do a lot of damage AND cover a number of important skill checks, then I really have to wonder why I should pick the first class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Karyouonigami wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
By the way when people are comparing the fighter to the spellcasters in power and saying that the fighter is weak because they can't cast spells it makes sense to compare the fighter to a wizard without spell casting
Not really. You play a spellcasting class to cast spells, and to be honest a wizard is pretty much all about spells. You play a martial to fight things, and fighter is all about fighting things. If anything you might take away the fighters weapon and feats, since you took about as much away from the wizard.
so what you are saying is that without a spell book the wizard is useless? that was the point I was making in reply to his "take the weapon away from the fighter" point.
Humorously (or not), the Fighter is about useless when the Wizard is without his spellbook too. The Fighter doesn't really have any solutions to problems that can't be solved with "5-foot step and full attack" that don't rely on a caster buffing him.

agreed, well mostly I never have played a fighter without a back up weapon but that is just me.

I guess the trouble I am having is that you(not just you) are thinking of characters as an indavidual and I think of them as one of a group so I do expect the fighter to get buffed by the Wizard and healed by the cleric and for the rouge to spot the bad guys and traps.

*sigh*

No one is talking about solo play. We are thinking of the character as a member of a group and what they contribute to the group. And guess what? The Fighter and Rogue don't contribute much to the group. The problem isn't solo play, its that that Fighters and Rogues are lousy at group play. The Wizard may get healed by the cleric, but he can buff the cleric in return or debuff his targets, *or* defeat enemies. The druid can heal, buff, *and* rip enemies faces off. All the Fighter can do is fight. Something that anyone can already contribute to the group. And if the Fighter wants to fight well, he's a parasite sponging off other members of the party for buffs, while contributing something they can already do.

Edit: Ninja'd but the fact that two people said the same thing is good proof that no for reals, no one is talking about solo here.


Karyouonigami wrote:
What do you think could be done to help the fighter?

More skills and better saves seems to be the most populars.

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


WWWW wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
By the way when people are comparing the fighter to the spellcasters in power and saying that the fighter is weak because they can't cast spells it makes sense to compare the fighter to a wizard without spell casting
Not really. You play a spellcasting class to cast spells, and to be honest a wizard is pretty much all about spells. You play a martial to fight things, and fighter is all about fighting things. If anything you might take away the fighters weapon and feats, since you took about as much away from the wizard.
so what you are saying is that without a spell book the wizard is useless? that was the point I was making in reply to his "take the weapon away from the fighter" point.
That seems like it is just reinforcing the argument against the fighter in favor of the paladin, ranger, or barbarian.

I am all for debating the value of Fighters vs Barbarians just not Fighter vs. All spellcasters. It's getting silly that every time I point out the weaknesses of classes we come back to spellcasters vs. fighters


Karyouonigami wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
By the way when people are comparing the fighter to the spellcasters in power and saying that the fighter is weak because they can't cast spells it makes sense to compare the fighter to a wizard without spell casting
Not really. You play a spellcasting class to cast spells, and to be honest a wizard is pretty much all about spells. You play a martial to fight things, and fighter is all about fighting things. If anything you might take away the fighters weapon and feats, since you took about as much away from the wizard.
so what you are saying is that without a spell book the wizard is useless? that was the point I was making in reply to his "take the weapon away from the fighter" point.
That seems like it is just reinforcing the argument against the fighter in favor of the paladin, ranger, or barbarian.
I am all for debating the value of Fighters vs Barbarians just not Fighter vs. All spellcasters. It's getting silly that every time I point out the weaknesses of classes we come back to spellcasters vs. fighters

Except that Fighters don't fight as well as spellcasters like the Druid, Cleric or Oracle. Thus spellcasters v. fighters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Frankly I would take a Magus, Bard, Inquisitor, Summoner or Alchemist over a fighter. All of them are more than capable of dealing with combat while also bringing a whole host of other options to the table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Karyouonigami wrote:
andreww wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
Question: what Martial class can fly all day or summon angels? and I would still take the fighter with me since they would most likely die and I would get more treasure :)

Clerics, Druids ad Oracles all fill the martial role perfectly ell, often far better than actual martial classes, especially as you go up in level.

I am not sure how anyone can compare, say, a level 9 fighter to a level 9 druid wildshaped into a huge dinosaur, with a large dinosaur companion summoning more dinosaurs as a means of controlling the battlefield. There is little more effective at tanking/area denial than dropping many tons of angry dinosaur into the area.

again we go back to comparing Fighters to Spell casters.

Other than Paladins and Rangers what non-spell casting class is better at filling the role of a fighter? I do agree that the ability to heal pushes the Paladin and Ranger over the fighter in usefulness.

Well you leave yourself with the Barbarian, Rogue, and the Monk to pick from. Two of these receive almost (Monk) or just as many (Rogue) complaints as the Fighter. The remainder can do just about as much damage as a Fighter and can do it more consistently with the ability to full attack on a charge, and on top of that has excellent defenses in the form of damage resistance and superstition. He also gets 2 more skill points per level so you have the capacity to play around with utility if you want.

The Barbarian and the Fighter essentially fill the same role, it's just the Barbarian does it so much better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:

No, I'm definitely thinking of the characters as a group. I was raised on RPG's, the one-man-band game is foreign to me.

However, as someone who has been building parties all her life... When I look at a class that can do a lot of damage, and then I see another class that can do a lot of damage AND heal, or do a lot of damage AND dispel magic and just generally be hell for enemy casters, or do a lot of damage AND cover a number of important skill checks, then I really have to wonder why I should pick the first class.

In my mind the fighter's failure in the one-man-band game is also a problem.

What are adventurers? Are they really these hobbled specialists who's only value is in the group?

I've always seen adventurers as heroes/explorers in their own rights, who group up to take on challenges beyond their own capabilities.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Khrysaor wrote:

Check the DPR Olympics to see what fighters are capable of in a round and note how impressive it is. Again a level 20 fighter is not meant to be a match for a CR 20 creature. It's a good challenge for a party of level 20s.

Fighters damage keeps up with hp increase for a good challenge for a party.

The only relatively predictable relationship that "DPR" and "actual average damage per round" have at high levels for a fighter is that the former is higher than the latter.


Karyouonigami wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
By the way when people are comparing the fighter to the spellcasters in power and saying that the fighter is weak because they can't cast spells it makes sense to compare the fighter to a wizard without spell casting
Not really. You play a spellcasting class to cast spells, and to be honest a wizard is pretty much all about spells. You play a martial to fight things, and fighter is all about fighting things. If anything you might take away the fighters weapon and feats, since you took about as much away from the wizard.
so what you are saying is that without a spell book the wizard is useless? that was the point I was making in reply to his "take the weapon away from the fighter" point.
That seems like it is just reinforcing the argument against the fighter in favor of the paladin, ranger, or barbarian.
I am all for debating the value of Fighters vs Barbarians just not Fighter vs. All spellcasters. It's getting silly that every time I point out the weaknesses of classes we come back to spellcasters vs. fighters

No, that was a complete list and thus does not contain any of the spell casting classes that are not the paladin and ranger. If I was unclear and that has led you to mistakenly take paladin and ranger to mean all spellcasting classes in the game then I apologize.


Khrysaor wrote:
Check the DPR Olympics to see what fighters are capable of in a round and note how impressive it is. Again a level 20 fighter is not meant to be a match for a CR 20 creature. It's a good challenge for a party of level 20s.

Wait... you think a CR = Level opponent is supposed to be a 'good challenge' for a party of 4?

Pftahahahahaha
Quote:
Fighters damage keeps up with hp increase for a good challenge for a party.

IF and only IF the Fighter is actually able to deliver a full attack, and ignores Miss Chance (and things like Mirror Image). This depends on being able to target the opponent, which Fighters are pretty horrible at, between being taken out of the fight, turned against their allies, or simply not able to reach/perceive/distinguish their enemy.


Anzyr wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
I am all for debating the value of Fighters vs Barbarians just not Fighter vs. All spellcasters. It's getting silly that every time I point out the weaknesses of classes we come back to spellcasters vs. fighters
Except that Fighters don't fight as well as spellcasters like the Druid, Cleric or Oracle. Thus spellcasters v. fighters.

Aye, I should add its not that your comparing to the druid and cleric and oracle as a spellcaster, so much as another guy that whacks things and takes hits. There are a lot of classes that can be a meatshield and do considerable damage up front. Almost every class with 3/4 BAB and more comes with the capacity to do it, though arguably fighter/rogue/monk fall behind in some areas. Spell casters tend to bring more to the party though. Even nicer, those spellcasters tend to bring other things to the party, have extra utility to defeat problems in and out of combat, and have other ways to defend themselves and their friends and take down the opponents, and certainly more ways to make it easier for their friends. Even a mundane like slayer or barbarian has their own advantages in the way of skill points or combat talents or having nicer saves.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:

Favoured Enemy is not something that always comes up, Instant Enemy is limited to a certain number of times per day and only affects one target, not one type of target.

Not sure about you but my games don't revolve around the 4th edition concept where the there is a big boss and he is always identified while everyone else is just a mook. Instant Enemy is great when you get the 5 minute work day and the BbEG is always easy to spot.

Instant enemy isn't the only way to get Favored Enemy bonuses. Hunter's howl is a first level spell. By 4th level this allows a Ranger to potentially apply double his current FE bonus (standard as of 5th) against all enemies in a 20 foot radius.

At the same level the Fighter's Weapon Training is coming online for a single weapon group, the Ranger can give himself and his Animal Companion, or himself and the rest of his teammates, double that bonus plus a packet of skill bonuses.

As his levels continue to go up, he also gets to mix in other spells like entangle to help control the battlefield, or gravity bow or lead blades to boost his damage. Really, by 6th level a Ranger is far better at defeating their enemies, controlling the flow of battle, and surviving sorties than any Fighter I've ever seen. Particularly the "controlling the flow of battle" part, as the Ranger's the one who can buff his allies, lay down terrain that changes the battlefield in his favor, gain an animal companion to help set up flanks and deal additional damage, etc.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Karyouonigami wrote:

I guess the trouble I am having is that you(not just you) are thinking of characters as an indavidual and I think of them as one of a group so I do expect the fighter to get buffed by the Wizard and healed by the cleric and for the rouge to spot the bad guys and traps.

Quite to the contrary, others are focused on the fact that the Fighter is the only class bringing jack to the table when it comes to playing in a group. This a tactical game with an emphasis on combat. Every single class in the game is capable of being good, or even great, at combat.

The Fighter is good at combat.
Wizards bring lots of tricks to the table to resolve combat, can have deep depths of lore to help identify enemies or solve intricate mysteries, can scry, charm, buff, debuff, fly, etc.
Witch - see Wizard
Sorcerer - See Wizard, only less likely to have the range of skills, but probably one trick that he's noticeably better at.
Cleric- see Wizard, plus healing
Oracle - see Sorcerer, plus healing
Cavalier- Nearly as good as the Fighter in combat and can spike higher with challenge and order abilities, better at mounted combat, gets a full progression mount to help bring the hurt, gets a number of narrow but solid party buffs.
Paladin - see cavalier exchanging challenge and order for smite, plus healing and better saves, the option to trade the mount for a magic weapon, and some immunities to boot.
Barbarian - meets or beats the Fighter in damage without being tied to narrow weapon groups, has best hp in the game, can shrug off some damage, gains potent movement modes or other special abilities from rage powers.
Ranger - nearly as good as the Fighter in combat, can buff allies and/or bring an animal companion to the field, can boost base weapon damage, gets better saves, gets a variety of terrain related abilities, can manipulate battlefields, some healing, various other spells.

The list can go one with every other class. Everybody is capable of bringing "good at combat" to the field. Most of them bring other stuff as well though, which actually allows this to be a team game. "Everybody burn your actions so the Fighter can participate" is not being a team. It's the group providing community care to support the Fighter's special needs. I'd much rather have teammates I can rely on to uphold their end of things, like a Paladin using shield other and wading in to the fray, drawing damage to himself while simultaneously siphoning it off of a vulnerable teammate, and then healing it without breaking away from his primary role of kicking ass and taking names while shrugging off every vile spell and darksome ability brought against him. Or like a Cavalier, charging into the fray while providing buffs via Tactician and Banner and potentially even improved action economy with things like Coordinated Charge to all of his allies. Or the ultimate team player, the Bard, who makes everyone better at combat just by doing the things that will make him great at it, like casting haste or using his bardic performance, while also covering the skill side of things.

Being a leech on party resources is not being a team player. Stepping up and doing your job while helping everyone else do theirs is what being a team player is about, and the Fighter is worse at that than any other class.

Karyouonigami wrote:
Very Good points, and yes I did edit your post down. So we take away the fighters weapon, lets take away the wizards spell book and the clerics holy symbol at the same time. it seems to me that the fighter can still pick up any martial weapon and be good or for that fact because they have a better base attack they can pick up an exotic weapon and still be okay. Since the wizard and cleric don't have a full base attack lets try the barbarian and ranger, what happens when you find amazing full plate in the treasure? they lose out because they lose most of there abilitys by putting it on so you run into the same problem with the fighter and his weapon if not worse because if the fighter finds a weapon that isn't his normal but is good enough to replace the abilitys he can still use it. So even though I agree that if you take away the fighters weapon it hurts them I don't think that it is worse than taking the primary items from other classes.

Wizards aren't walking around swinging their spellbooks at their enemies. A smart Wizard usually keeps it secured in a safe place, and even if he loses it, that only prevents him from refreshing his spells, not from casting. There are tons of abilities designed to take weapons away, like sunder, disarm, heat/chill metal, grease, etc. There are far fewer designed to seek out and destroy spellbooks, and the spellbooks aren't offering themselves up to be targeted, plus the fact that they are typically benefiting from any protection the wizard is also.

Similarly, a cleric who loses his holy symbol may not be able to channel energy, but he still has his full complement of spells and it's not particularly easy to remove his ability to refresh those. You've removed a secondary class feature and maybe one or two spells that rely on it as a focus. Many clerics won't even notice the loss until they have to burn other resources on healing post-combat.

As to the full plate argument... Not equivalent. A caster doesn't give a s$@* about the full plate, he's probably got better defenses without it. Many clerics can wear it, as can quite a few martials, and not having it doesn't slow them down at all. They don't need that full plate to function like the Fighter needs his favored weapon. Not getting to use any of the weapons that drop because their not the right type can be crippling to the Fighter; not getting to wear a piece of armor that drops that you didn't want anyways is not a valid comparison.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Being a leech on party resources is not being a team player. Stepping up and doing your job while helping everyone else do theirs is what being a team player is about, and the Fighter is worse at that than any other class.

These two sentences sum up everything wrong with the fighter almost perfectly. Well said.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Being a leech on party resources is not being a team player. Stepping up and doing your job while helping everyone else do theirs is what being a team player is about, and the Fighter is worse at that than any other class.
These two sentences sum up everything wrong with the fighter almost perfectly. Well said.

I'm thinking everything is an exaggeration. Lots of things wrong with the fighter, its just one of the results. He also fails to live up to concept, is bad at combat mechanically, doesn't do much out of combat but is somehow expected to be fun, Weapon training may require you changing loot as a GM to fit his weapon scheme(and possibly bosses weapons because of it) and enforce an ideal of using one particular weapon(especially coupled with weapon focus line), etc.

Probably one of the biggest things might be that a lot of people think it would be a huge improvement if he even got 4=Skill points. You could allow him to retrain those weapon specific feats for free(but probably enough could use that...). You could do a lot of things to improve him, and to be honest even if you didn't give him cool powers he could get a bit of a boost without becoming gamebreaking, and some solutions are really simple. Hard to want to post a pile of them because it feels like things won't change.


Ssalarn wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

Favoured Enemy is not something that always comes up, Instant Enemy is limited to a certain number of times per day and only affects one target, not one type of target.

Not sure about you but my games don't revolve around the 4th edition concept where the there is a big boss and he is always identified while everyone else is just a mook. Instant Enemy is great when you get the 5 minute work day and the BbEG is always easy to spot.

Instant enemy isn't the only way to get Favored Enemy bonuses. Hunter's howl is a first level spell. By 4th level this allows a Ranger to potentially apply double his current FE bonus (standard as of 5th) against all enemies in a 20 foot radius.

At the same level the Fighter's Weapon Training is coming online for a single weapon group, the Ranger can give himself and his Animal Companion, or himself and the rest of his teammates, double that bonus plus a packet of skill bonuses.

I read the spell as only giving a +2 in attack and damage. It does not say you gain and aditional +2 upon the already +2 from the FE class feature.

Besides, to be fair, the spell also potentialy totally wste the ranger sntadard action with its low DC.

3,501 to 3,550 of 3,805 << first < prev | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The Main Problem with Fighters All Messageboards