Besides, to be fair, the spell also potentialy totally wste the ranger sntadard action with his low DC.
It has some merits. Despite the low DC, its an AoE, and if your already fighting foes you have your favored enemy bonus you shaken them, which is good for the rest of your party. Downside being its limited, the ranger is a prepared caster, and that its a standard so you lose your chance to attack. Mind affecting fear effect means a lot of foes could be immune to it(namely undead...) and it doesn't stack with other things that shaken(like you know, a ton of spells, cornugan smash, dazzling display, intimidate, enforcer, etc). Really short duration too, probably could've been minute per level and still been fair. Of course you might've just wanted to full attack and kill them in the same turn...
Probably off topic in a fighter thread, unless your talking about how the fighter has nothing like it...
Hardly anything is off topic in a 72 pages long fighter thread.
Challenge accepted.
We should discuss why there aren't any giant mecha superclass with rocket powered lazer swords and pretend its on topic by saying "Fighter should totally get one" because who doesn't want to fight in one!
Of course we all know its rockets would allow it to be mobile in combat, and that's a nono for fighter. At least not without giving up his best BAB attacks. Mobility, the strange and intangible enemy of all martials!
We should discuss why there aren't any giant mecha superclass with rocket powered lazer swords...Crossing fingers for the technology guide.
You can only use it if you pay for the item as slotless magical gear and take a feat called 'cybernetic graft' that requires 15 con, 13 str, 17 int, toughness to survive the procedure, fast learner to actually reap benefits of the feats, and if you roll a one the item explodes with the limb its in. Inb4 you lose your cerebral implants on a knowledge check.
Be careful what you wish for...
Actually I was thinking up a few this weekend. Cybernetic claws as implants, bodysuits for enhancement bonuses, and the ability to share bonuses for weapons by using a graft. Lots of cool monsters too, because cyberpunk with some high fantasy mixed in is beautiful for that sort of thing and can really create some variance, let your inner mad scientist run wild! Plus, chicks dig giant robots you know?
So uhh... yeah. Fighters. He should get a jetpack? Nah, he's already got expensive boots or armor on his to buy list to make sure he can fly. Unless he expects the wizard to be a bro, but then he has to hope he doesn't one day bother the wizard too much and the wizard cast baleful polymorph instead, because not every one really likes a beggar or carrying the party.
While a 'giant mecha' class wouldn't really fit into the 'dungeoneering' environments of typical play...
|
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
And?
Resource consumption is made into the design of the game. You are expected to use resources, you don't get anything extra by saving resources.
|
|
The point being made, is that the Fighter burns resources without bringing any. 49 out of 50 campaigns you'd have been better off having any other class (except Rogue) in that slot, or playing one man down in a campaign built for one fewer PCs.
LOL!
And I'm afraid that is the most bogus claim I have ever heard of. I have never in my life seen a fighter who didn't do his job, unless the player didn't know what he was doing.
Let's see some actual stats on a fighter, in a party, against CR appropriate monsters, seeing aa that's what should be focused on. Fighters do not lack damage unless built that way, they also don't lack the ability to hit.
|
|
Nah, of course you get something extra by saving resources. If you are using refreshing resources you get extra encounters in a day or whatever the refresh period is. If you are using non-refreshing consumables you get extra gold or whatever currency you used to acquire the consumables.And?
Resource consumption is made into the design of the game. You are expected to use resources, you don't get anything extra by saving resources.
LOL!
Not really because in order for these other classes to be viable in a standard adventuring day, they need the 5 minute work day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thought experiment
If someone wanted to run this they could feel free, but I wont be because I play with groups in person.
Assumptions
-Standard adventuring partyesque design of 2 full casters, a "rogue", and a "fighter"
- Traps actually matter
-dungeon that can not be left and has unlimited encounters and does not allow a 5 minute work day. The party is guaranteed to die at some point and the exercise is to see which party completes more encounters.
Optional rules
-Skill/non-combat challenges exist that can get the party additional resources, such as scrolls for spells like "lesser restoration" "Cure X wounds" "restoration"
Party with
*Wizard
*Cleric
*Archeologist Bard/Urban Ranger/ Trap Breaker Alchemist
*Fighter
vs.
Party with
*Wizard
*Cleric
*Archeologist Bard/Urban Ranger/ Trap Breaker Alchemist
*Paladin/Beast totem Barbarian/Wildshape focused Druid/Summoner/Warpriest/Magus/Battle Oracle
Party number two would likely last for more encounters than party number one because
-Paladin requires less resources to keep alive because of similar AC and better saves. Also Paladin brings resources to keep the party going for longer.
-Barbarian kills things faster than fighter, has only slightly less AC, and has much better saves. Depending on archetype also has DR. Bring no resources, but an enemy dying faster because of a round 1 pounce charge can save a lot. Needs similar support to a fighter.
-Wildshape focused druid. Does similar damage to fighter. Has similar AC. Has supporting spells that reduce party burden. Has good fort and wills saves.
-Summoner. You bring a spellcaster with a strong spell list and an eidolon who's almost as good as a fighter.
-Warpriest. Same as Paladin.
-Magus doesn't bring support spells, but does bring his own spells that keep him from leaching off the wizard/bard. May have a better will save than mr fighter. Has the same fort save.
-Battle Oracle is almost as good at beating face and has full spellcasting. Will have a worse fort save.
-Fighter-bring damage and fort saves! Needs support to engage a lot of CR appropriate enemies.
Optional rules:
Party two has the advantage here as all the alternate party members have more skill points and/or are capable of completing non-combat challenges without assistance.
All the the classes I listed for the "fighter" role bring damage, including the fighter. Guess what else all of them bring that fighter doesn't? The ability to contribute resources to the party.
Thought experiment
If someone wanted to run this they could feel free, but I wont be because I play with groups in person.Assumptions
-Standard adventuring partyesque design of 2 full casters, a "rogue", and a "fighter"
- Traps actually matter
-dungeon that can not be left and has unlimited encounters and does not allow a 5 minute work day. The party is guaranteed to die at some point and the exercise is to see which party completes more encounters.Optional rules
-Skill/non-combat challenges exist that can get the party additional resources, such as scrolls for spells like "lesser restoration" "Cure X wounds" "restoration"Party with
*Wizard
*Cleric
*Archeologist Bard/Urban Ranger/ Trap Breaker Alchemist
*Fightervs.
Party with
*Wizard
*Cleric
*Archeologist Bard/Urban Ranger/ Trap Breaker Alchemist
*Paladin/Beast totem Barbarian/Wildshape focused Druid/Summoner/Warpriest/Magus/Battle OracleParty number two would likely last for more encounters than party number one because
** spoiler omitted **...
How does a barbarian have better saves than a fighter? I just want to know what's behind that statement.
How does a barbarian have better saves than a fighter? I just want to know what's behind that statement.Thought experiment
If someone wanted to run this they could feel free, but I wont be because I play with groups in person.Assumptions
-Standard adventuring partyesque design of 2 full casters, a "rogue", and a "fighter"
- Traps actually matter
-dungeon that can not be left and has unlimited encounters and does not allow a 5 minute work day. The party is guaranteed to die at some point and the exercise is to see which party completes more encounters.Optional rules
-Skill/non-combat challenges exist that can get the party additional resources, such as scrolls for spells like "lesser restoration" "Cure X wounds" "restoration"Party with
*Wizard
*Cleric
*Archeologist Bard/Urban Ranger/ Trap Breaker Alchemist
*Fightervs.
Party with
*Wizard
*Cleric
*Archeologist Bard/Urban Ranger/ Trap Breaker Alchemist
*Paladin/Beast totem Barbarian/Wildshape focused Druid/Summoner/Warpriest/Magus/Battle OracleParty number two would likely last for more encounters than party number one because
** spoiler omitted **...
I imagine he assumed the barbarian would be using superstition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if not using superstition the Barb would have higher saves in fort and will while raging. Superstition only exacerbates the save difference.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
people who were saying "the Fighter is fine" absolutely ignored it.
...as they've been ignoring every other piece of evidence in the massive pile showing that he's not "fine" -- except of course in a game that is nothing but a lineup of monsters that obligingly step up to be full-attacked, round after round, encounter after encounter, with same-level casters acting as cohorts to buff and heal the fighter as their full-time job.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have yet to run a campaign without a fighter.
I have yet to have someone playing a fighter be unhappy or disappointed with their character or performance.
In that sense, I really have a hard time supporting the idea there's actually a problem with the class itself.
There may be a difference between "the fighter is fine" because his kit in a well balanced party is more than enough to handle CR appropriate foes, and "the fighter is fine" because he is as good or better than any other class.
I don't know about the latter, but the former is very much true in the games that I play.
I have yet to run a campaign without a fighter.
I have yet to have someone playing a fighter be unhappy or disappointed with their character or performance.
In that sense, I really have a hard time supporting the idea there's actually a problem with the class itself.
Really? Because its been a problem for me and people I know. Do my problems not count because you personally don't have a problem with it? Do you give out a survey to make absolutely sure and why?
|
If you've got some time, Read this.
Long story short, you are fighting a losing battle if you base your argument on things like "evidence".
I think that as a whole vaccinations do more good than harm, but like any treatment they have their risks. If people perceive even a small risk to their child up front vs. the potential to catching a disease which has for the most part been eliminated from our society people will asses the risk up front as too great or not worth it, especially if there is already a great degree of distrust of the medical community and pharmacological industry.
I don't see this as a black vs. white or right vs. wrong argument, I see it as a risk vs. reward argument based on available information.
-------
Back on point - for those who do run their games where the monsters mostly stand still and attack - the fighter may actually work ok for them. He's a resource drain but his damage given to taken ratio may work out for that group (especially if the other players are not taking as much damage). So selling the argument to player or groups who do not have as robust or dynamic combats could be a question of pushing the argument to the wrong people.
I don't think it's the class per se, I think its the edition (3rd) that has the problem. Fighter only feats should have made the fighter shine in this up powered, POS edition - break the BAB attack scheme, have feats or class abilities to break spell effects.
Same goes with the Rogue, once they opened up all his "special and unique" class abilities on the skill chart that class was dead in the water. Partially due to the binary success system and partially due to the "put a rank in it then buff it from the outside" effect of the d20 system. No skill protection (tiered results for trained PCs) means those classes are relegated to the useless bin.
This is all tied to the edition, not the classes. You can fix the changes from one edition to the next and you have fixed your classes.
If you've got some time, Read this.
Long story short, you are fighting a losing battle if you base your argument on things like "evidence".
I think it is applicable in this case. There are definitely people who have already made up their minds on the fighter issue before they read a single post of the debate. Or really, any discussion that starts with the base premise of "Pathfinder is not divinely inspired 100% perfection."
Really? Because its been a problem for me and people I know. Do my problems not count because you personally don't have a problem with it? Do you give out a survey to make absolutely sure and why?I have yet to run a campaign without a fighter.
I have yet to have someone playing a fighter be unhappy or disappointed with their character or performance.
In that sense, I really have a hard time supporting the idea there's actually a problem with the class itself.
Obviously our groups have different expectations for what we want from the class.
That's fine.
I guess what I'm wanting to suggest is this; perhaps the problem isn't that the class doesn't deliver what it needs to in order to be valid, but that it doesn't deliver what you want .
If you're sitting down wanting it to be more than it is, I can see you being unhappy with it.
The simplest solution to that, however, is not to change the fighter. It's to change your expectations of what the fighter should be capable of.
I personally find the idea that a fighter has to compete with wizards for 'power' ludicrous. There are plenty of character ideas I've had where a fighter works best to make a concept work.
If you've got some time, Read this.
Long story short, you are fighting a losing battle if you base your argument on things like "evidence".** spoiler omitted **
However, the massive danger is a question of how they're affecting viral evolution. We know viruses evolve; HIV is known to have evolved in the 20th Century. We don't fully know how this evolution actually works, and vaccines are a pretty massive selection pressure. There's been some rumblings about if the weird way H1N1 originated and spread is not a sign of viral adaptation to vaccination. Given how antibiotics have created a scenario where bacteria are increasingly immune to everything we can throw at them, this is a pretty legitimate worry, especially since it's doubtful we have the immune system strength to survive a major outbreak.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
saying that other classes can do more damage is not evidence
You're the only person who thinks that "more damage = more useful out of combat" (and in more dynamic combats that consist of more than stand still and full attack). Think on that a bit.
I guess what I'm wanting to suggest is this; perhaps the problem isn't that the class doesn't deliver what it needs to in order to be valid, but that it doesn't deliver what you want .
Your right in that it doesn't deliver what I want, I have a problem with the fighter being easily roasted by a dragon or dominated and lacking the ability to deal with problems and his lack of function out. I want the fighter to be good at fighting and participate when there's not fighting. I wouldn't think that's a bad thing. Its valid in that you can play it, but its just not a good class. That doesn't mean I need to change my expectations though, it might mean there is a problem with the class. Especially if me and people I know aren't having fun with it because of mechanical concerns.
It feels like your sort of downplaying other peoples needs when you say you don't have a problem so lets not change it, and its worse when you tell other people they need to change because that's just how things are.
I personally find the idea that a fighter has to compete with wizards for 'power' ludicrous.
Cool! Is anyone saying that the fighter should do so here? I mean, the game could probably use better balance both ways, but I don't see anyone saying that wizards and fighters should compete for power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but you don't need class abilit[ie]s to do things like move in combat.
If you still want to full attack, then yes, you do. Barbarians can get pounce, for example -- but fighters don't.
what can a Barbarian, Ranger, or Paladin do for skills that another class could not do as well or better?
Dangerous question, the right answer is: More than fighter :P.
but you don't need class abilit[ie]s to do things like move in combat.If you still want to full attack, then yes, you do. Barbarians can get pounce, for example -- but fighters don't.
Pfft, well what's moving and attacking going to help with? Its not like mobility in combat or the ability to deal with your opponents special abilities is part of fighting and contributing and would affect how much damage you do.... oh. wait.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It feels like your sort of downplaying other peoples needs when you say you don't have a problem so lets not change it, and its worse when you tell other people they need to change because that's just how things are.
Just gonna second this. That whole post basically boilled down to "Pathfinder is perfect, and there's something wrong with people who don't accept that." Which is not an attitude that makes any kind of discussion possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
what can a Barbarian, Ranger, or Paladin do for skills that another class could not do as well or better?
When you have a full caster like a cleric or druid that can also fight as well as one of the above three, then the game is seriously borked, and I don't want to even go there, so comparing the fighter to his nearest neighbors is enough for me.
It is sad to think that the only way you can role-play is limited by the numbers on the sheet :(what can a Barbarian, Ranger, or Paladin do for skills that another class could not do as well or better?Dangerous question, the right answer is: More than fighter :P.
Where in my post did I say that? You want to point it out for me?
one of the major arguments for other classes over fighters and rouges is that other classes such as wizards can replicate there skills/abilities with spells? so what I am asking is would you agree that the same replication could apply to the Paladin/Barbarian/Ranger?
Apples and oranges. Thread is about fighter.
what can a Barbarian, Ranger, or Paladin do for skills that another class could not do as well or better?All three of those classes can do the stand-still-and-fight thing, almost as well or equally as well as the fighter.
However, the ranger and barbarian also get more skills than the fighter. In addition:
The ranger and paladin can heal themselves (freeing up allies to do other stuff instead), and the barbarian just straight-up gets more hp.
The ranger and paladin get spells, allowing them to do exceptional things, and the barbarian gets rage powers.
The paladin can remove conditions and the ranger can share bonuses or bring an extra combatant as class features. When you have a full caster like a cleric or druid that can also fight as well as one of the above three, then the game is seriously borked, and I don't want to even go there, so comparing the fighter to his nearest neighbors is enough for me.
I'd also mention awesomeness of Barbarian Rage Powers. Fighters wish they could get easy in-class access to pounce, superstition, and the ability to sunder magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not arguing the numbers. Fighter is clearly disadvantaged in the mechanical sense.
In spite of that, it's still the go to favorite for martials at the tables I run and play at. And these are players who are full-well aware of 'the score' when it comes to class balance.
Why is that?
That's why I'm trying to share my entirely subjective opinion here. In spite of the mechanical problems, clearly the class does something right in the niche it fills.
I personally think it's because it let's you 'choose' something every level and has a no strings attached element where you can inherently describe it any way you like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not arguing the numbers. Fighter is clearly disadvantaged in the mechanical sense.
In spite of that, it's still the go to favorite for martials at the tables I run and play at. And these are players who are full-well aware of 'the score' when it comes to class balance.
Why is that?
That's why I'm trying to share my entirely subjective opinion here. In spite of the mechanical problems, clearly the class does something right in the niche it fills.
I personally think it's because it let's you 'choose' something every level and has a no strings attached element where you can inherently describe it any way you like.
Yeah, the Fighter's niche is definitely a popular one. The fighter itself needs a little help mechanically, but the core idea of it is and always will be pretty popular.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not arguing the numbers. Fighter is clearly disadvantaged in the mechanical sense.
Right, which is what the thread is about, right? Problems with fighters and fixes? You can improve it without killing what makes the fighter great for you. To be honest I don't think everyone even looks at the mechanics, which is okay, but saying its okay mechanically because of that and we shouldn't change anything ever isn't exactly the best way to handle things.
I personally think it's because it let's you 'choose' something every level and has a no strings attached element where you can inherently describe it any way you like.
You can do that with a lot of things in this game though. Every class can full attack. Ranger, barbarian, and slayer are all pretty mundane and leave a lot to your own flavoring and description. Even with spellcasting you can describe quiet a bit. It doesn't excuse the awful skill points or saves imo, or the lack of actual combat prowess.