The Main Problem with Fighters


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

3,651 to 3,700 of 3,805 << first < prev | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:

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.

You can't cast spells into or out of an AMF. This effectively makes casters useless. Outside or inside. Your counter argument will be that now the melee can bash the wizard instead of the wizard nuking him, yet everyone is so quick to slander the fighter who relies on his allies to help in circumstances not designed for him to handle. Or maybe the summoned monsters will walk in, but any caster using AMF will have thought of this and have his own summoned creatures or sentinels to protect him in such circumstances.

Summons are also very weak vs most CR appropriate encounters. They provide fodder hp and utility through spells or abilities. Their to hit is subpar and summoning multiples by calling from the lower level lists only compounds this unless using them to mob monsters.

A barbarian isn't even as good as a fighter who uses their second weapon training on bows. Their dex will be argued the same as the fighter and raging provides no bonus. Weapon training now puts the fighter ahead. As to barbarians flying it takes 3 rage powers and the one for flight is at level 10 so no ranks in fly until level 10 as per RAW with your whopping fly skill of 4-6. Any weather controlling spells knock you from the sky. It also affects action economy.

Cavaliers also share the bad will saves. Rangers are only slightly better with due to a wisdom caster stat which only needs to be 14 to gain full spells. As to this continual barbarian rant in this thread all of the rage powers from 1-10 have been accounted for to make the barbarian better than the fighter at these continual arguments. Unfortunately two of them are from two separate totem trees which makes them incapable to take along with both trees actually taking up your 5 rage powers and leaving superstition out entirely.

The continual argument of "this class is better than that class because X" is never valid unless you can actually make it work as per the RAW. So now the barbarian who has higher AC due to beast totem and going for the pounce route will make him better at DPR than the fighter against ground enemies when the fighter can't full attack. The fighter is still better at ranged assault and keeps close enough against melee enemies. The barbarian that goes dragon totem can deal with flying enemies through melee efforts where the fighter is still a better ranged assailant. The fighter can full attack with a bow at a long range where the barbarian has to fly there first. They're both fairly on par against usual melee combat.

2+INT is enough to make an effective character at whatever you intend it to be as long as you aren't looking to be a skill monkey. A fighter can easily get 4 skills a level with minimal investment and put into whatever they intend to be outside of combat. Clerics also get 2+INT and they have less need of INT than a fighter who should be taking combat expertise and needs the 13 INT to qualify. An elven fighter can have a 14 INT with a 2 point buy. There's also several archetypes that give more skill points.

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

This thread has never been about the main problem with fighters. It's been "This class does X better than the fighter so fighters suck."


The main problem with fighters is that they exist.


This is probably my fault for not being able to explain myself in english.

As I stated before I'm not saying fighters are stronger than barbarians. I'm not even saying they are in the same League. If a barbarian wants to build like a "tank", he will be a better tank then the fighter.

You guys can just read "Oh, that 9 point difference!" from my posts?

A CRB Fighter will usually have a better AC than a CRB Barbarian. Am I so wrong?

For the third time I will repeat myself. A fighter will usually have 5 more AC than a Raging Barbarian.


Mr. Dodo wrote:
You guys can just read "Oh, that 9 point difference!" from my posts?

The problem is you started with a pretty biased example, especially when you involve reckless abandon. Saying "Hey, at low levels with no optimization it could be 5 points because rage is -2 and full plate is +3!"

Even just saying CRB only is a pretty biased way of doing things because its trying to put a choke on all those options that make barbarian nice to make the fighter look nice. Sucks that the fighter didn't get much later on to help that, or even make up for his chasis.


Khrysaor wrote:
You can't cast spells into or out of an AMF. This effectively makes casters useless.
Good luck catching a caster in one, tho. That was Anzyr's point 2) and 3).
Quote:
Clerics also get 2+INT and they have less need of INT than a fighter who should be taking combat expertise and needs the 13 INT to qualify.
There are many things I could say about this. Since I don't want to get banned from these forums, I'll just note that's only your opinion.
Quote:
There's also several archetypes that give more skill points.

I count two. Are two of anything "several"?


Instead you infer derogatory comments. Good job.


Insain Dragoon wrote:

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Khrysaor wrote:


You can't cast spells into or out of an AMF.

(The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.)


Aelryinth wrote:

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

Barbarians have a d12 vs the d10 for fighter and DR scales as you level starting at level 7 so any comparison has to start there. The barbarian will likely have a 16 con over the fighters 14, but they could easily be the same. The fighter will have more dex if the con is lower and will have a higher AC.

Level 7 Barbarian with a mithral breastplate +2, beast totem +2, ring of protection +1, amulet of Natural armor +1, raging (-2 AC), dex 12; has an AC of 20. 12+3+9.5*6 = 72 HP and DR 1

Level 7 Fighter with Full Plate +2, ring of protection +1, amulet +1, dex 14; has an AC of 25. 10+2+7.5*6 = 57 HP

No shields included but I can't say I've seen a barbarian ever use one. No con belts to alter HP but the effects would be the same on either.
No level bonus to hp as its also equal to both.

Lets assume either could handle a single average CR 5 creature solo. BAB +10, damage 20 per hit average. The creature needs a 15 to hit the fighter or a 10 to hit the barbarian. The fighter evades 750of the attacks where the barbarian evades 45%. So let's just say that each attack is a hit but the fighter takes 70% reduced damage and the barbarian only 45% reduced. So each swing is 6 damage to the fighter or 10.5 against the barbarian. 57/6 = 10 hits before the fighter goes down. 72/10.5 = 6.9 which we'll round to 7 hits before the barbarian goes down.

A ranger has less AC, roughly the same hit points, no DR, but spells to compensate. The ranger probably has 14 wisdom and that's where the benefits cap at that level until 20 wisdom. He has 2 first and 1 second level spell. Cure light wounds is a second level spell for a ranger netting him 1d8+4 hp at level 7 for an average of 8.5 hp. Not much else helping the ranger from his first level spells for hit points or AC. So he's getting hit about as much as the barbarian with less hp than the barbarian.

Level 7 Ranger; breastplate +2, amulet +1, ring +1, dex +2; has an AC of 22. 10+1+6.5*6= 50 HP + 8.5 CLW

The ranger will be hit 15% more than the fighter increasing the 6 damage to about 7 per hit. The ranger can take 8.4~9 hits and the fighter still wins.

A paladin will have less AC or less HP depending on stat array due to its MAD issues. It also can't keep up with the AC of the fighter through armor training, but he gets spells and swift action cures for himself during combat. So more than likely he keeps dex at 12 max to cap for full plate and invests in the hp from con. So maybe the fighter only has 1 more AC from his dex bonus. They get 3 lay on hands for 3d6 each, 2 cure light wounds and that's about it from spells for healing. Overall they get an additional 31.5 hp from lay on hands and another 17 from CLW for 48.5 hp.

Level 7 Paladin; Full plate +2, amulet +1, ring +1, dex +1; has an AC of 24. 10+2+7.5*6 = 57 HP + 48.5 HP from spells and abilities.

The paladin will be hit 5% more damage than the fighter, but gains massive staying power from abilities. The paladin will be able to take 16.7~17 hits out playing all other classes of those listed.

So it seems the paladin has an 8.5 minute work day, the fighter 5, the ranger 4.5, and the barbarian 3.5.


Khrysaor wrote:
Instead you infer derogatory comments. Good job.

I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about. Was it about that bit with the skill points? Because it's not an inference when you quote someone.


I love these biased comparisons! We need to do a pantless barbarian one sometime because lets face it, barbaric people don't use pants.

More seriously, biased comparison is biased. Ranger numbers didn't involve hunters bond, and the barbarian for some reason has no defensive powers or archetypes. Its pretty barebones.


Nicos wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:


You can't cast spells into or out of an AMF.

(The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.)

So what spells under a single school with an instantaneous effect are harming the caster again?

Acid Splash (Lvl 0)
Breath Of Life (Lvl 5)
Create Water (Lvl 0*)
Cure Critical Wounds (Lvl 4*)
Cure Critical Wounds, Mass (Lvl 8*)
Cure Light Wounds (Lvl 1*)
Cure Light Wounds, Mass (Lvl 5*)
Cure Moderate Wounds (Lvl 2*)
Cure Moderate Wounds, Mass (Lvl 6*)
Cure Serious Wounds (Lvl 3*)
Cure Serious Wounds, Mass (Lvl 7*)
Dimension Door (Lvl 4*)
Gate (Lvl 9*)
Heal (Lvl 6*)
Heal Mount (Lvl 3)
Heal, Mass (Lvl 9)
Neutralize Poison (Lvl 4*)
Planar Ally (Lvl 6)
Planar Ally, Greater (Lvl 8)
Planar Ally, Lesser (Lvl 4)
Planar Binding (Lvl 6*)
Planar Binding, Greater (Lvl 8*)
Planar Binding, Lesser (Lvl 5*)
Plane Shift (Lvl 7*)
Raise Dead (Lvl 5*)
Regenerate (Lvl 7*)
Remove Blindness/Deafness (Lvl 3*)
Remove Disease (Lvl 3*)
Remove Paralysis (Lvl 2*)
Restoration (Lvl 4)
Restoration, Greater (Lvl 7)
Restoration, Lesser (Lvl 2*)
Resurrection (Lvl 7*)
Stabilize (Lvl 0*)

There's the list of instantaneous conjurations.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Stuff about fixing fighters before a PF 2.0 style complete revamp.
You keep talking like that, people are going to start expecting you to produce a 3PP that does it, instead of Paizo. :)

Let it never be said that I b!~+@ed about a problem without at least attempting to provide a solution.

Here's a few of the types of feats I think would go a long way towards fixing the current core Fighter without making the kinds of changes Paizo has indicated they're unlikely to make:

Battlefield Commander
Your voice rings out the clarion call of battle, fortifying the hearts and minds of those who follow you.
Prerequisites: Cha 13, Bravery class feature
Benefit: As a swift action, you may grant all allies who can hear your voice the benefits of your Bravery class feature for a number of rounds equal to 1 + your Charisma modifier. If you have any feats that modify your Bravery class feature, such as the Stubborn Bravery feat, you share those benefits as well.

Daring Bravery
Your fearless disposition leads you to push the line when it comes to safety, running through hell’s own fires if that’s what the situation demands
Prerequisites: Fighter level 3, Bravery class feature
Benefit: You gain a bonus on Reflex saves against spells and abilities that target an area of effect, such as a fireball spell, equal to the bonus granted by your Bravery class feature. In addition, you gain a +2 competence bonus on Acrobatics checks made to move through a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity.

Fearsome Reputation
Your deeds have earned you acclaim both far and wide, and men are apt to listen when you speak.
Prerequisites: Fighter level 3, Bravery class feature, Charisma 11+
Benefit: You may pick a region where you are well known; this region must be a settlement or settlements with a total population of 1,000 or fewer people, and you gain a +2 competence bonus on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks to influence people in that area. As your reputation grows, additional areas learn of you and your bonuses apply to even more people. These new areas must be in or adjacent to an area where you performed some heroic deed, such as defeating bandits, slaying a dragon, or some other act of note. At 6th level, the region may be a settlement or settlements with a total population of 5,000 or fewer people, and the modifier on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks is +4. At 10th level, the region may be a settlement or settlements with a total population of up to 25,000 people, and the modifier on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks is +6. At 14th level, the region may be a settlement or settlements with a total population of up to 100,000 people, and the bonus to Diplomacy and Intimidate is +8. At 18th level and above, your renown has spread far, and most civilized folk know of you (GM's discretion); the modifier on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks is +10.

Old Soldier
You’ve climbed mountains, swam rivers, and then fought all day at the end of it.
Prerequisites: Str 13, Fighter level 3, Bravery class feature
Benefit: You gain a bonus on climb and swim checks equal to the bonus granted by your Bravery class feature. This bonus is doubled if you are you making the check as part of an attempt to catch a falling character while climbing or when making a swim check to avoid nonlethal damage from fatigue.

Stubborn Bravery
When someone tries to tell you what to do, your instinct is to do the opposite.
Prerequisites: Fighter level 3, Bravery class feature
Benefit: The bonus to Will saves granted by your Bravery class feature applies to spells and effects with the (compulsion) and (charm) descriptors, as well as the DC for an enemy to use the Intimidate skill to demoralize you.

Weaponmaster’s Sunder
You’re willing to test the limits of your weapon far beyond what any normal warrior might try, proving that it’s not the quality of your steel that matters, but the strength of the arm that wields it.
Prerequisites: Str 13, Power Attack, Improved Sunder, base attack bonus +1, Bravery class feature
Benefit: You gain a bonus on attempts to sunder an item currently wielded by an enemy equal to the bonus granted by your Bravery class feature. In addition, any weapon wielded by you adds a bonus equal to your Bravery class feature to its hardness. This benefit ends if the weapon leaves your possession.


Khrysaor wrote:

Gate (Lvl 9*)

Planar Ally (Lvl 6)
Planar Ally, Greater (Lvl 8)
Planar Ally, Lesser (Lvl 4)
Planar Binding (Lvl 6*)
Planar Binding, Greater (Lvl 8*)
Planar Binding, Lesser (Lvl 5*)

If you can't harm an enemy caster with any of these, you're doing something incredibly wrong.


Justin Sane wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:

Gate (Lvl 9*)

Planar Ally (Lvl 6)
Planar Ally, Greater (Lvl 8)
Planar Ally, Lesser (Lvl 4)
Planar Binding (Lvl 6*)
Planar Binding, Greater (Lvl 8*)
Planar Binding, Lesser (Lvl 5*)
If you can't harm an enemy caster with any of these, you're doing something incredibly wrong.

Ahh man, careful that stuff. Can smell the reek of cheese from here.

Imo, its not fair to compare any class in a situation where you neuter their class features, though the fact they can still function in some of those cases is nice I guess.


MrSin wrote:

I love these biased comparisons! We need to do a pantless barbarian one sometime because lets face it, barbaric people don't use pants.

More seriously, biased comparison is biased. Ranger numbers didn't involve hunters bond, and the barbarian for some reason has no defensive powers or archetypes. Its pretty barebones.

And the fighter isn't barebones? The fighter has archetypes? The fighter has feats for defensive power? The barbarian isn't using beast totem that gives him an AC bonus?

Feel free to do your barbarian without pants though. Considering there's no slot that provides anything in pathfinder. It's a good comparison though. Thanks for coming out.

The only bias in this thread is all the talk about this class being worse than that class because I said so. None of you post any numbers to validate anything you say. You just say so we're supposed to listen? Sure thing, bud.


MrSin wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:

Gate (Lvl 9*)

Planar Ally (Lvl 6)
Planar Ally, Greater (Lvl 8)
Planar Ally, Lesser (Lvl 4)
Planar Binding (Lvl 6*)
Planar Binding, Greater (Lvl 8*)
Planar Binding, Lesser (Lvl 5*)
If you can't harm an enemy caster with any of these, you're doing something incredibly wrong.

Ahh man, careful that stuff. Can smell the reek of cheese from here.

Imo, its not fair to compare any class in a situation where you neuter their class features, though the fact they can still function in some of those cases is nice I guess.

So lets complain about how a fighter can't do anything outside of combat because you didn't design him to do so. Let's complain about how the fighter can't deal with flying enemies because you didn't design him to do so. How much hypocrisy do you need in one thread?


Justin Sane wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:

Gate (Lvl 9*)

Planar Ally (Lvl 6)
Planar Ally, Greater (Lvl 8)
Planar Ally, Lesser (Lvl 4)
Planar Binding (Lvl 6*)
Planar Binding, Greater (Lvl 8*)
Planar Binding, Lesser (Lvl 5*)
If you can't harm an enemy caster with any of these, you're doing something incredibly wrong.

So why didn't the wizard that threw up the AMF not use one of those spells long before using a strategy to stop other casters from affecting him? Why is one side supposed to be so smart that they can use some spells and the guy who cast the AMF just standing there doing nothing because he had no intelligence to think up this strategy? Everyone loves to argue for the stupid guy standing in the AMF waiting to die.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Khrysaor, when doing comparisons always use same stats.

Keep in mind the ranger gets a bonus spell from 14 Wisdom. Add Barkskin to the mix (+3 Nat AC), or a 2nd CLW. Then throw in a CLW wand. Healing ceases to be a problem.

giving someone a mithral BP without the Dex to make use of it is kind of counter productive. Although the Barb will have his 40' move.

Note that Full Plate works out to +10 AC and BP to +9. That's a 1 pt difference as soon as you max Dex. The barb needs a 16 to do so, 20 With Mithral. The fighter gets his Full move in plate at 7th, so that's nice.

His AC advantage keeps going down from there, and prior to 7th, he's poking along at 20' while the ranger and the barb are at 30' and 40' respectively. THe ranger's barkskin will advance, his dex will, too, and the barb's nat armor bonus and DR also increase.

And we won't even get into Celestial Plate.

You're just basically confirming that a Fighter is okay with other classes at low levels. It just gets worse from there.

And now, how are you going to handle the discrepancy in saves, skill points and potentially magic?

==Aelryinth


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Khrysaor wrote:
And the fighter isn't barebones? The fighter has archetypes? The fighter has feats for defensive power? The barbarian isn't using beast totem that gives him an AC bonus?

I'm saying its not fair to use a totally barebones comparison because its the value of the options given to you. If barbarian was just a guy with D12 hit dice, rage, and medium armor then it would be fine, then the two classes wouldn't be that different and there wouldn't be that many variables. The thing is that the fighter only really gets feats. Its the fact the barbarian has options like superstitious, flesh wounds, raging vigor and beast totem that make him amazing. Those abilities are so amazing when stacked next to normal feats. Fighters on the other hand don't get nearly the potential.

Its not just your options, but the value of those options.


Khrysaor wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:

Gate (Lvl 9*)

Planar Ally (Lvl 6)
Planar Ally, Greater (Lvl 8)
Planar Ally, Lesser (Lvl 4)
Planar Binding (Lvl 6*)
Planar Binding, Greater (Lvl 8*)
Planar Binding, Lesser (Lvl 5*)
If you can't harm an enemy caster with any of these, you're doing something incredibly wrong.

Ahh man, careful that stuff. Can smell the reek of cheese from here.

Imo, its not fair to compare any class in a situation where you neuter their class features, though the fact they can still function in some of those cases is nice I guess.

So lets complain about how a fighter can't do anything outside of combat because you didn't design him to do so. Let's complain about how the fighter can't deal with flying enemies because you didn't design him to do so. How much hypocrisy do you need in one thread?

Apples and oranges. Don't compare them. A wizard without spells is nothing like a fighter who isn't built to do something. You want to compare a wizard who can't cast spells to a fighter who can't fight.


Khrysaor wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:

Gate (Lvl 9*)

Planar Ally (Lvl 6)
Planar Ally, Greater (Lvl 8)
Planar Ally, Lesser (Lvl 4)
Planar Binding (Lvl 6*)
Planar Binding, Greater (Lvl 8*)
Planar Binding, Lesser (Lvl 5*)
If you can't harm an enemy caster with any of these, you're doing something incredibly wrong.
So why didn't the wizard that threw up the AMF not use one of those spells long before using a strategy to stop other casters from affecting him? Why is one side supposed to be so smart that they can use some spells and the guy who cast the AMF just standing there doing nothing because he had no intelligence to think up this strategy? Everyone loves to argue for the stupid guy standing in the AMF waiting to die.

Because antimagic field uses the same level slots as planar binding?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

I'll try to propose some possible "fixes" that I have seen or thought up.

Bravery (Ex): Starting at 2nd level, a fighter gains a bonus on Will saves against fear equal to half his fighter level rounded down.

Weapon Training (Ex): Starting at 5th level, a fighter learns more advance ways to wield weapons. He gains Power Attack, Deadly Aim, and Combat Expertise as bonus feats even if he does not meet the prerequisites for them. If a fighter already has one of these feats or gains one of them he can choose to reduce the penalty to as little as 1 or increase it to as much as his base attack bonus and gain appropriate amount of benefits as outlined in the feat.
At 9th level, whenever a fighter makes an attack roll he rolls two d20s and uses the die with the higher value for his attack. This does not include combat maneuver checks.
At 13th level, the critical range of the weapons a fighter wields that he is proficient in increases by one (a range of 20 becomes 19-20, a range of 19-20 becomes 18-20, and so forth).
At 17th level, the weapons a fighter wields that he is proficient in have their critical damage multiplier increased by 1 (×2 becomes ×3, for example).

Vital Strike(Ex): At 6th level, a fighter gains vital strike as a bonus feat. At 11 level, he gains improved vital strike. At 16 level, he gains greater vital strike. If a fighter already has one of these feats or gains one of them he can perform a vital strike anytime he can make only one attack (like at the end of a charge or an attack of opportunity), and the extra damage is multiplied on critical hits.

Heroic(Ex): At 10th level, a fighter learns how to better overcome dangers. Whenever the fighter rolls a saving throw, he rolls two d20s and takes the better result.
In addition, a fighter’s heroic presence adds greater weight to his words. He is treated as having ranks in diplomacy equal to his class level and diplomacy becomes a class skill that scales off of strength instead of charisma.

Maneuver Training(Ex): At 14 level, a fighter...

1) The save, even if it comes to +10, is still wholy inferior to a paladin's immunity and boost to other people's save.

Just make it a Will save bonus, doubled against fear, and he almost gets a good Will save out of it. IN my build for a fighter, that's what I do if he takes Iron Will.

2)Meh. A dedicated archer doesn't need Power Attack, and Expertise should mean something on its own, not just be another +/- feat. Expertise should mean you are An Expert. An alteration of the feats so they are worth a Feat would be better then dumping 3 on him at a given level. That becomes a target for dipping and leaving, then.
Weapon Training should be one primary group and then secondary groups at -1 to the primary. That's it.

3) Rolling two dice? I wouldn't agree with it. Nah, find something else. They don't need a combat buff like that.

4) Crit ranges are not applied evenly by weapons. An axe benefits more by this then a sword.
As an Alternative, all Martial Weapons in his Primary Weapon group wielded by the Fighter become 19-20/x3 weapons, or, if an 18-20/x2, increase in damage dice one size (d6 to d8).

5) Don't increase the crit multiplier unless all crit multipliers are the same. This now advantages high threat range weapons.
Instead, just give a bonus to iterative attacks (maybe they go off at -4) or to all attacks. NEVER make the benefit dependent on the weapon...it should be even across all weapons.

I really should post my fighter build. it had a lot of this give and take stuff, but the biggest thing was introducing Fighter Techniques (upgraded feats) and a feat pool he could swap out, which encouraged him to take a broader array of feats to change the situation.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:

Khrysaor, when doing comparisons always use same stats.

Keep in mind the ranger gets a bonus spell from 14 Wisdom. Add Barkskin to the mix (+3 Nat AC), or a 2nd CLW. Then throw in a CLW wand. Healing ceases to be a problem.

giving someone a mithral BP without the Dex to make use of it is kind of counter productive. Although the Barb will have his 40' move.

Note that Full Plate works out to +10 AC and BP to +9. That's a 1 pt difference as soon as you max Dex. The barb needs a 16 to do so, 20 With Mithral. The fighter gets his Full move in plate at 7th, so that's nice.

His AC advantage keeps going down from there, and prior to 7th, he's poking along at 20' while the ranger and the barb are at 30' and 40' respectively. THe ranger's barkskin will advance, his dex will, too, and the barb's nat armor bonus and DR also increase.

And we won't even get into Celestial Plate.

You're just basically confirming that a Fighter is okay with other classes at low levels. It just gets worse from there.

And now, how are you going to handle the discrepancy in saves, skill points and potentially magic?

==Aelryinth

Using the same stats is ridiculous. Each class needs different things. The barbarian needs more con to utilize his class skills, paladin needs cha, ranger needs wisdom, dex and str if he wants to switch hit, the fighter needs dex to max out armor training. They wouldn't all have the same stats at all or else the comparison changes again on how effective they are. A barbarian, fighter, or ranger stated to be a paladin wont make them effective much like the paladin stated as the ranger.

Barkskin and CLW are both 2nd level spells for a ranger. At level 7 the ranger gets 1 second level spell BECAUSE he has 14 wisdom. So what's it to be? A +2 to his natural armor since +3 doesn't happen for 2 more levels or the +1 from the amulet and the single casting of CLW?

Why would I include wands at all? A fighter can use wands. Why can't I put that wand on the fighter's item list? This is a moot point. Healing after combat is done by the person that can do so. If there's a cleric in the party they can use that wand on anyone.

The point of the mithral BP on the barb is so he CAN use his class ability to get 40' movement. Why else would it be there?

Full plate is AC 12 for the fighter only AC 10 for everyone else. Breastplate is AC 9. Still a +3 difference.

The entire comparison was done for everyone at level 7. Why would I include a comparison of the barbarian at level 17 and the fighter at level 7? Or any other classes at varying levels to give them an edge.


I think you used a pretty bad point buy on the Barb.

Human I run mine at
17 str
14 dex
16 con
10 int
12 wis
7 cha


MrSin wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
And the fighter isn't barebones? The fighter has archetypes? The fighter has feats for defensive power? The barbarian isn't using beast totem that gives him an AC bonus?

I'm saying its not fair to use a totally barebones comparison because its the value of the options given to you. If barbarian was just a guy with D12 hit dice, rage, and medium armor then it would be fine, then the two classes wouldn't be that different and there wouldn't be that many variables. The thing is that the fighter only really gets feats. Its the fact the barbarian has options like superstitious, flesh wounds, raging vigor and beast totem that make him amazing. Those abilities are so amazing when stacked next to normal feats. Fighters on the other hand don't get nearly the potential.

Its not just your options, but the value of those options.

The barbarian can be better suited to dealing with spells. A well built fighter should be better able to handle melee combat. Everyone on these boards thinks AC isn't worth the investment when one of the class features of a fighter is that he can use more dex than any other class with his armor. A high level fighter in full plate has a max dex of +5 or +7 with mithral. A fighter could reduce some of his overall hp to increase his chance to not be hit. Not being hit is the best form of damage reduction.


Magical Knack is fairly standard issue on Paladins and Rangers.

EDIT: also, you include wands because wand-use is part of the class. It's an option the class gives him, he doesn't need to invest skill points (of which the Ranger could FAR more easily afford than the Fighter, I might add) to use a wand.

EDIT 2: am I the only one whose starting to get the impression some of the people posting in these threads want UMD as a skill removed from the game and to let anybody use wands/scrolls freely? So many posters seem to assume burning skill points in UMD is automatic.


Insain Dragoon wrote:

I think you used a pretty bad point buy on the Barb.

Human I run mine at
17 str
14 dex
16 con
10 int
12 wis
7 cha

I don't normally dump below 8. Not a fan of buying more buy points to min/max. No class should be defined by its absolute optimization and I'm sure the devs feel the same.

So the barbarian has 1 more AC and it'll work out to one more hit. Still worse than the fighter.

Reverse the dex and con for the fighter and throw on a sash of the warchampion to increase his AC another 1 point with his hp the same.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
EDIT 2: am I the only one whose starting to get the impression some of the people posting in these threads want UMD as a skill removed from the game and to let anybody use wands/scrolls freely? So many posters seem to assume burning skill points in UMD is automatic.

Well you can hardly blame them. Spells are just so good that everyone wants spells, even the "non-magic" classes.


Khrysaor wrote:
The barbarian can be better suited to dealing with spells.

Well... Probably will be, especially if he takes superstitious. Bonus to fort and will? Yes please!

Khrysaor wrote:
A well built fighter should be better able to handle combat.

Which is why people don't like the fact he isn't all that great at it, and why this thread exist... A guy with terrible skills, saves, and problem solving skills and combat utility doesn't exactly scream great at combat. Pounce alone puts the barbarian a mile ahead in mobility.

Khrysaor wrote:
Everyone on these boards thinks AC isn't worth the investment when one of the class features of a fighter is that he can use more dex than any other class with his armor. A high level fighter in full plate has a max dex of +5 or +7 with mithral. A fighter could reduce some of his overall hp to increase his chance to not be hit. Not being hit is the best form of damage reduction.

Everyone? Guess you must think so too. Wait, are you arguing against it? never mind then. I don't think anyone said "AC Is worthless" in the past 200 post, but I guess I'll bite anyway.

AC has diminishing returns and requires an investment, and the game is built so that your bonus to attack goes up inherently, and your AC is dependent on magic items that for the most part to run on a treadmill. With enough investment, a player can get a respectable AC, but it may come from several items and places and your potential cap is going to be based on class. At higher levels a player is almost certainly going to hit an opponent on the first iterative because of the way it scales. Having other ways to block attacks is great though, and tbh because of that scaling AC isn't exactly your best bet. Actually spells like mirror images or displacement might actually be better. Spells themselves target saves or touch AC or still have debilitating effects on a save, and the fighter has 2 bad saves and not much to make them better. The fact other classes can get a better AC than the fighter in addition to those nice defenses might be what you call insult to injury. The fighter doesn't do that well in the way of defenses because AC is his only option, and he isn't even the best at it.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

Magical Knack is fairly standard issue on Paladins and Rangers.

EDIT: also, you include wands because wand-use is part of the class. It's an option the class gives him, he doesn't need to invest skill points (of which the Ranger could FAR more easily afford than the Fighter, I might add) to use a wand.

EDIT 2: am I the only one whose starting to get the impression some of the people posting in these threads want UMD as a skill removed from the game and to let anybody use wands/scrolls freely? So many posters seem to assume burning skill points in UMD is automatic.

And a fighter can take dangerously curious and put ranks into UMD if he so chooses. Or instead he lets the divine caster in the PARTY use it on him. This game is not a stand alone for solo play. Being able to use wands isn't something you bring to the table unless you're the only one that can do it. No divine caster in your groups and you'll probably be suffering more problems.


The divine caster probably has better things to be doing than bailing you out of hot water.

EDIT: also, I am seriously starting to want UMD removed from the game. It's kind of an interesting option, but at this point everybody's just waving it around saying 'I can use magic too I don't need real class features' and it's getting really f~##ing old.


Khrysaor wrote:
This game is not a stand alone for solo play.

Yeah, I don't get why so many people pretend its solo play. My commoner works great with the party! I mean, I could've played a wizard, but I wanted to be non magical n' stuff. I contribute to roleplay all the time and rose my int so I could do some skill checks.

People who talk about a class's merits on its own clearly don't understand teamwork...

On a more serious note, I don't think I saw anyone say the game was about solo play.


Khrysaor wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

I think you used a pretty bad point buy on the Barb.

Human I run mine at
17 str
14 dex
16 con
10 int
12 wis
7 cha

I don't normally dump below 8. Not a fan of buying more buy points to min/max. No class should be defined by its absolute optimization and I'm sure the devs feel the same.

So the barbarian has 1 more AC and it'll work out to one more hit. Still worse than the fighter.

Reverse the dex and con for the fighter and throw on a sash of the warchampion to increase his AC another 1 point with his hp the same.

It would have 22 AC dude. Also Beast Totem eventually scales to be better than Plate, not to mention the possibility of the Barb playing an Armored Hulk or Invulnerable rager.

10+2 beast totem+8 armor+1 ring+1 amulet-2 rage +2 dex=22

Aside from that, at this point the Barb has significantly better fort and will saves. While that fighter failed his his check against disease, hold monster, suggestion or whatever the Barb is still truckin.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Khrysaor wrote:


The barbarian can be better suited to dealing with spells. A well built fighter should be better able to handle combat. Everyone on these boards thinks AC isn't worth the investment when one of the class features of a fighter is that he can use more dex than any other class with his armor. A high level fighter in full plate has a max dex of +5 or +7 with mithral. A fighter could reduce some of his overall hp to increase his chance to not be hit. Not being hit is the best form of damage reduction.

A Fighter has to

A) Survive long enough to get to the level where he gets to take advantage of the increased max dex from Armor Training
B) Have enough dex to actually gain the full benefits of Armor Training
and
C) Be in a situation where AC is the most relevant defense.

Frankly, out side of 5th level or so (+/- a couple), AC is probably one of the least relevant defenses. You start seeing domination effects, aoe's, various pit spells and devices, etc.

A Fighter who fails his Will save is a liability to the party. A Fighter who fails his Reflex save may not even be around to participate in subsequent rounds of combat.
All things being equal on the AC side of things, the Fighter either has no edge, or an edge so small it's negligible to the actual outcome of the fight. Saves make the real difference. If the Fighter fails a Will save vs. a dominate or hold effect, or a reflex save to avoid being toasted or dropped in a pit, it doesn't matter what his DPR or AC are, his participation ended that round. If a caster is spending a spell to put him back in the fight when another class would have likely made the save, he now needs to subtract the caster's lost potential from his contributions, because he's now a drag on party resources.

Unless you decide to go all out, AC is only as important as the second swing an enemy takes at you. If you do go all out, you're diverting resources from other fields to try and make this one thing worthwhile.
Your comparison was pointless and established nothing because it didn't look at the whole picture. It didn't take into account the variances of class features and feats, it didn't look at whether or not class A would have finished the fight long before class B's superior defense would have made a notable difference, it didn't look at varying action economy etc. All that was established is that there was some addition done completely outside of the context of the game, and now we all know that 7+2+1+1+1-2= 10, which most of us were already aware of.

It's worth noting that I generally don't dump stats to buy up others either, and that almost always works out worse for the Fighter than anyone else as they're less desperate for every stat point they can lay hands on.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
EDIT: also, I am seriously starting to want UMD removed from the game. It's kind of an interesting option, but at this point everybody's just waving it around saying 'I can use magic too I don't need real class features' and it's getting really f*+!ing old.

Yeah, that's why we had the commoner test back in the day. Admittedly "commoner test" is somewhat of a misnomer given the way class skills shook out but it's a sufficiently evocative name that one generally forgives the imprecision.

Digital Products Assistant

Just a brief note: let's try to dial back the hostility in this thread. It's fine if you want to debate or provide constructive criticism, but try to remember that this is a discussion of ideas, not other people in the discussion. Leave the personal jabs and attacks out of the conversation.


MrSin wrote:


Khrysaor wrote:
A well built fighter should be better able to handle combat.
Which is why people don't like the fact he isn't all that great at it, and why this thread exist... A guy with terrible skills, saves, and problem solving skills and combat utility doesn't exactly scream great at combat. Pounce alone puts the barbarian a mile ahead in mobility.

The problem is that you all want the fighter to be great in all forms of combat. You use combat as some blanket term not understanding that the fighter is designed for the mundane side of combat. Melee attacks or ranged attacks and dealing with things lashing out at you with melee attacks or ranged attacks. And they're great at it. I've seen builds on these boards with a fighter having 50+ AC. This requires average CR 20 creatures to roll a nat 20 to hit you and still they need another to confirm. Some have higher crit ranges and can hit you more often but still won't crit you often. I've already listed in a previous post how the fighter gains more bonuses to hit than enemies gain in AC so he must be good at that too.

Mr.Sin wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
Everyone on these boards thinks AC isn't worth the investment when one of the class features of a fighter is that he can use more dex than any other class with his armor. A high level fighter in full plate has a max dex of +5 or +7 with mithral. A fighter could reduce some of his overall hp to increase his chance to not be hit. Not being hit is the best form of damage reduction.

Everyone? Guess you must think so too. Wait, are you arguing against it? never mind then. I don't think anyone said "AC Is worthless" in the past 200 post, but I guess I'll bite anyway.

AC has diminishing returns and requires an investment, and the game is built so that your bonus to attack goes up inherently, and your AC is dependent on magic items that for the most part to run on a treadmill. With enough investment, a player can get a respectable AC, but it may come from several items and places and your potential cap is going to be based on class. At higher levels a player is almost certainly going to hit an opponent on the first iterative because of the way it scales. Having other ways to block attacks is great though, and tbh because of that scaling AC isn't exactly your best bet. Actually spells like mirror images or displacement might actually be better. Spells themselves target saves or touch AC or still have debilitating effects on a save, and the fighter has 2 bad saves and not much to make them better. The fact other classes can get...

Do a search on the forum for maxing out AC and you'll find enough threads that conclude AC is a diminishing investment just like you claim. Not worth the investment. This is the attitude that diminishes the fighter. The class has inherent abilities that allow it to maximize defense. Increased dex increases touch AC as well and can easily get his touch AC high enough to avoid many touch attacks and ranged touch attack spells if they invest in dex as well. Obviously there will be magic like true strike that can screw them over, but no one is casting true strike before another spell all the time. Fighters can also take deflect ray spell should they choose. The problem is most people choose to think that DPR is the only option and forgo everything else.

Digital Products Assistant

Removed a post. If you have an issue with our moderation policies, this isn't the appropriate place to discuss it. You can post to Website Feedback or email webmaster@paizo.com.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Khrysaor wrote:

I've already listed in a previous post how the fighter gains more bonuses to hit than enemies gain in AC so he must be good at that too.

[...]

The problem is most people choose to think that DPR is the only option and forgo everything else.

It's odd to me to see this because DPR calculations were exactly what you cited in your evaluation of high level fighter offense.

Now don't get me wrong, I fully agree that evaluations based merely on calculated DPR are often very shaky, and double secret shaky for high levels, but, I also feel that one cannot eat a cake and then still have it. Can you clarify how I am to understand your position here?

Silver Crusade

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Magical Knack is fairly standard issue on Paladins and Rangers.

EDIT: also, you include wands because wand-use is part of the class. It's an option the class gives him, he doesn't need to invest skill points (of which the Ranger could FAR more easily afford than the Fighter, I might add) to use a wand.

EDIT 2: am I the only one whose starting to get the impression some of the people posting in these threads want UMD as a skill removed from the game and to let anybody use wands/scrolls freely? So many posters seem to assume burning skill points in UMD is automatic.

Wand use can be a part of any class so let's not count that since anytime you see it used for Fighters and Rogues it gets shouted down since it isn't a part of their class abilities.

The problem with these arguments is the constant movement of goalposts. They move so much it makes me dizzy to the point where I want to throw up.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
The problem with these arguments is the constant movement of goalposts. They move so much it makes me dizzy to the point where I want to throw up.

That's what I keep saying.

But these deeply anti-fighter posters keep running in and spouting buzzphrases like "5 minute work day" and other such irrelevant nonsense to try to shift and twist the argument.

Khrysaor wrote:
So lets complain about how a fighter can't do anything outside of combat because you didn't design him to do so. Let's complain about how the fighter can't deal with flying enemies because you didn't design him to do so. How much hypocrisy do you need in one thread?

That's not hypocrisy. They're entirely different scenarios being discussed here.

Seriously I'm not even sure how you can compare the effects of a single spell to an entire section of the game, unless it's just more anti-fighter bias.

"Wizards suck in an AMF so it doesn't matter that fighters don't have good skills" has to be the most bizarre argument I've ever seen.

Khrysaor wrote:
The problem is that you all want the fighter to be great in all forms of combat.

Given that the fighter's only significant contribution to any campaign is fighting good that's not an unreasonable thing to ask for.

Quote:
The problem is most people choose to think that DPR is the only option and forgo everything else.

Except "DPR is all that matters" is the argument that people in this thread (including you) have been making while trying to argue that the fighter isn't terribe, because an optimized fighter has great DPR and basically nothing else.

The whole "barbarians don't obviate fighters" argument hinges on the fighter's minor DPR advantage being more important than pounce, supersitious, come and get me, etc.

The whole "fighters are better than wizards!" argument relies entirely on the supposition that the fighter's DPR is absolutely necessary to complete encounters effectively and that

Khrysaor wrote:
Peace out Paizo boards. You'll forever be in the annals of children's fantasy.

It gets kind of silly when you constantly insist you're running away from the thread only to show up again right afterwards.


anlashok wrote:
It gets kind of silly when you constantly insist you're running away from the thread only to show up again right afterwards.

If only this time it's for good, then this thread can rest in the sunken domain of R'lyeh, where it belongs.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Justin Sane wrote:
I remember someone made a comparison like that a while ago, Paladin vs. Fighter. He even included the "Neutral Gauntlet of Paladin-Hating DMs", or something like that. Paladin was waaay ahead of the Fighter, even when not fighting *anything* that was evil, so people who were saying "the Fighter is fine" absolutely ignored it.

The valley of God Hates Paladins and the Dreaded Gazebo, Slugs, and Jellies.


Nicos wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
I remember someone made a comparison like that a while ago, Paladin vs. Fighter. He even included the "Neutral Gauntlet of Paladin-Hating DMs", or something like that. Paladin was waaay ahead of the Fighter, even when not fighting *anything* that was evil, so people who were saying "the Fighter is fine" absolutely ignored it.

If I remember correctly tha person only run the paladin side and claim to have won. Some of the thing in there was like

"the rogue-like cahracter spend his turn usng oild of magic weapon on the paladin sword"

Totally ignoring hte fact that the posted fighter could start slashing things in the first round.

So, I think "ignore it" was not unjustified.

====================================

BUt I always have wanted to do a comparision like that again, unfortunately fighter threads tendt to end in flames. Not sure how this one have lasted so much.

More like people kept making the claim that Paladins weren't capable of fighting decently against non-evil foes, which is a laughable assertion. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
I remember someone made a comparison like that a while ago, Paladin vs. Fighter. He even included the "Neutral Gauntlet of Paladin-Hating DMs", or something like that. Paladin was waaay ahead of the Fighter, even when not fighting *anything* that was evil, so people who were saying "the Fighter is fine" absolutely ignored it.
The valley of God Hates Paladins and the Dreaded Gazebo, Slugs, and Jellies.

Heh, always a fun read. Thanks!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Justin Sane wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
I remember someone made a comparison like that a while ago, Paladin vs. Fighter. He even included the "Neutral Gauntlet of Paladin-Hating DMs", or something like that. Paladin was waaay ahead of the Fighter, even when not fighting *anything* that was evil, so people who were saying "the Fighter is fine" absolutely ignored it.
The valley of God Hates Paladins and the Dreaded Gazebo, Slugs, and Jellies.
Heh, always a fun read. Thanks!

Ditto.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Stuff about fixing fighters before a PF 2.0 style complete revamp.
You keep talking like that, people are going to start expecting you to produce a 3PP that does it, instead of Paizo. :)

If that were the case, it might get done, and might get done well.


Perhaps give fighters some kind of martial magic?

3,651 to 3,700 of 3,805 << first < prev | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The Main Problem with Fighters All Messageboards