The Main Problem with Fighters


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

3,701 to 3,750 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.
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.

This just inspired my new house rule.

Barbarians now suffer a -1 DEX penalty if they wear pants.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
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.

I think there are a few homebrew/3pp fixes out there. Just not much is really mainstream because when you open your CRB that isn't exactly what you see.

MagusJanus wrote:
Perhaps give fighters some kind of martial magic?

What if we gave them extraordinary powers that weren't magical in nature but helped make them more useful and capable in their role? More than just numbers.

Matt Thomason wrote:
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.

This just inspired my new house rule.

Barbarians now suffer a -1 DEX penalty if they wear pants.

You can take my pants, but you can never take my Kilt!


MrSin wrote:
QUOTE="MagusJanus"] Perhaps give fighters some kind of martial magic?
What if we gave them extraordinary powers that weren't magical in nature but helped make them more useful and capable in their role? More than just numbers.

So... Martial magic? :P


6 people marked this as a favorite.
MagusJanus wrote:
MrSin wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
Perhaps give fighters some kind of martial magic?
What if we gave them extraordinary powers that weren't magical in nature but helped make them more useful and capable in their role? More than just numbers.
So... Martial magic? :P

Shh... if we call it than then the weaboo hunters will get us! Its like a witch hunt, but geekier and more vindictive.


MagusJanus wrote:
MrSin wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
Perhaps give fighters some kind of martial magic?
What if we gave them extraordinary powers that weren't magical in nature but helped make them more useful and capable in their role? More than just numbers.
So... Martial magic? :P

Doesn't have to even remotely resemble magic, just be awesome martial s#+~.

(That being said, I'm not opposed to certain expressions of magical Martialness either)


I tend to define magic very loosely when it comes to fantasy settings. Any ability that can be described as "so strong/fast/etc. she can X" isn't magic, no matter how out of reality X is.


kyrt-ryder wrote:


Doesn't have to even remotely resemble magic, just be awesome martial s~@*.

(That being said, I'm not opposed to certain expressions of magical Martialness either)

I'm all for giving people choices here.

Fighter one dices their opponent up with a display of extreme swordsmanship. Fighter two focuses their will on their sword, which splits into three whirling mirror images of itself to surround the opponent. Fighter three goes *BAMF* and repeatedly reappears in different positions to strike at their opponent from every angle. Fighter four just shrugs at the displays the others put on and cleaves his opponent in two with a single mighty swipe of his axe.

As long as those four abilities are balanced together, you can have them all available and let players decide for themselves.

The important thing is to remember different people like different things in their fantasy, and to cater for as many as possible without forcing a single style on everyone. I think that's an achievable goal.


Just to throw another example in, to look at things from the "all fighters can do is hit the thing in front of them" problem.

Fighter one learns to throw his weapon with accuracy, ensuring balanced damage to his opponent at range as well as having it return to him (If Captain America can bounce his shield off a dozen different targets, a high level fighter can do this :P)

Fighter two instead learns the ability to run along walls, skirting the pit and placing a blow on his opponent en route.

Fighter three goes for the option to concentrate for a moment and teleport across the room.

Fighter four just carries a bow on his shoulder, and invested in the ability to use ranged weapons more effectively.

Pretty certain the majority of players would be able to find a choice (especially given three or four more alternatives) that fits the idea of their character thematically, without having to resort to "He stands there and growls ineffectively while the casters and ranged members of the party take up the slack." - and nobody has to feel either mundane to the point of uselessness or that they've had magical abilities forced onto their character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:
Fighter one learns to throw his weapon with accuracy, ensuring balanced damage to his opponent at range as well as having it return to him (If Captain America can bounce his shield off a dozen different targets, a high level fighter can do this :P)

Fighter one type B learns to throw his weapon at his opponent and launch himself in the same action before ripping it out of them, tearing up his foes armor, tactically placing himself, and possibly even killing the foe with raw damage in the same move.

Lots of awesome options that aren't magical but display skill and can be used tactically.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A system wide buff to feats would do wonders, but no such thing is currently possible in this generation of Pathfinder.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
A system wide buff to feats would do wonders, but no such thing is currently possible in this generation of Pathfinder.

Well you could always just release quality feats instead of something like acrobatic stunt.


Unfortunately the problem with releasing quality feats is that they have to release more and more feats in order to make money.

As you release more feats, it becomes much more likely there is an unknown broken combo of feats, and also becoming much harder to balance.


CWheezy wrote:

Unfortunately the problem with releasing quality feats is that they have to release more and more feats in order to make money.

As you release more feats, it becomes much more likely there is an unknown broken combo of feats, and also becoming much harder to balance.

On the other hand, if you don't have quality what do you have? Should galley Slave be what you strive for, or do you want to add new, viable, interesting, and most importantly fun options. I'd rather think of broken combos as outliers than something that should be feared so much you won't allow you game to strive for quality.


CWheezy wrote:

Unfortunately the problem with releasing quality feats is that they have to release more and more feats in order to make money.

As you release more feats, it becomes much more likely there is an unknown broken combo of feats, and also becoming much harder to balance.

So let their be a broken combo of feats and deal with it if it becomes a big problem. No one cares about broken combinations of spells afte rall.


MrSin wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
A system wide buff to feats would do wonders, but no such thing is currently possible in this generation of Pathfinder.
Well you could always just release quality feats instead of something like acrobatic stunt.

The problem I see is that there exist many feats that fill certain roles, that just need to be better.

I for one don't think deadly aim, power attack, and combat expertise shouldn't be feats and just a function of BAB and work like 3.5 power attack by being uncapped.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't mind powerful feats being released. Honestly feats should never have had a low power level to begin with.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can't just release feats. You have to release feats that are better FOR FIGHTERS ONLY.

Otherwise, great feats will be taken by the other classes, and the fighters right back to sucking again.

Fighter bonus feats are 1/2 class features. That's what the average feat is worth...half a class feature. Many aren't worth even that (compare the save feats to a Paladin's Cha to saves, for example).

So, you can't just shove new feats out there. You have to take the feats, and say,
"You all can take Power Attack, and it does -1/+2 every 4 levels.
But if you're a Fighter, at 6th level you take no penalty on the first attack each round. At 10th level, the damage bonus increases by +1 per -1.
If you have the Expertise feat, you can set the penalty and bonus anywhere from -1 to the Maximum, as you like."

That's a complete rewrite of existing feats, but it's what Fighters would need to stay relevant. The feats would have to improve, scale, synergize, and remain relevant.

YOu can take Iron Will for +2 to Will saves.
If you are a Fighter, the bonus improves by your Bravery Bonus. At level 10, you can reroll Will saves a number of times per day equal to your Bravery bonus (although no more then once per save instance).

Etc etc etc.

Improve the feats, and fighters start looking good.

My version of a fighter gets an extra skill point per level and extra class skill of his choice every time he gets his Bravery bonus. He ends up with a custom skill list and more points then a Ranger eventually. No need to give him 4/level...but that's an option for him if he gives up Heavy armor and Tower shield profs, too.

Customize, stay mundane, and don't rely on stats. That's the fighter. I give them EXTRA stuff for not knowing magic...they don't have that crutch to draw on, so they compensate.

THey TRAIN like no other class.

Weapon Training is also customized. It starts at level 1 with exactly two weapons. At level 4,8, etc, they add any weapon they want to their Primary Weapon Group. At 8,12, and 16 they can designate groups of weapons into their Secondary Weapon Groups.

So guess what? Their preferred weapons are all in the Primary Group, and other weapons they use left often are all secondary, i.e. -1 to primary.

Choice and customization. Not relying on stats.

==Aelryinth


Quote:
Otherwise, great feats will be taken by the other classes, and the fighters right back to sucking again.

To be fair. The monk and rogue and cavalier getting some love from having better martial feats wouldn't be that bad either.

Fighter specific feats should be getting their cues from things like Oracle Revelations, Magus arcana and Alchemist discoveries, because that's the model they share.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

You can't just release feats. You have to release feats that are better FOR FIGHTERS ONLY.

Otherwise, great feats will be taken by the other classes, and the fighters right back to sucking again.

Ish, fighter gets a lot of feats. If feats are better, they make everyone better, but the fighter benefits most by merits of there being a lot of quality options. If feats suck, then the fighter is probably going to suck too. Feats not being of great quality sucks for everyone. If you have a ton of options on par with rage powers or alchemist discoveries, then maybe it wouldn't be so bad that you get so many of them.


MrSin wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

You can't just release feats. You have to release feats that are better FOR FIGHTERS ONLY.

Otherwise, great feats will be taken by the other classes, and the fighters right back to sucking again.

Ish, fighter gets a lot of feats. If feats are better, they make everyone better, but the fighter benefits most by merits of there being a lot of quality options. If feats suck, then the fighter is probably going to suck too. Feats not being of great quality sucks for everyone. If you have a ton of options on par with rage powers or alchemist discoveries, then maybe it wouldn't be so bad that you get so many of them.

True, but one of the hidden downsides of improving feats in general is that non-fighter characters are already going to be grabbing the ten best feats they can. Thus, we get the problem of Fighter Bonus Feats being spent to buy the feats that weren't worth spending a general feat slot on. I've seen more than one fighter build that just ran out of good feats to take at higher levels.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
True, but one of the hidden downsides of improving feats in general is that non-fighter characters are already going to be grabbing the ten best feats they can. Thus, we get the problem of Fighter Bonus Feats being spent to buy the feats that weren't worth spending a general feat slot on. I've seen more than one fighter build that just ran out of good feats to take at higher levels.

This only happens if you have a shortage of great feats. I'm envisioning a gaming environment with somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 amazing Combat Feats, each and every one of them soul-wrenchingly difficult to choose from one another (assuming, of course, a lack of cohesive character theme driving feat choices) by virtue of their sheer awesome.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
True, but one of the hidden downsides of improving feats in general is that non-fighter characters are already going to be grabbing the ten best feats they can. Thus, we get the problem of Fighter Bonus Feats being spent to buy the feats that weren't worth spending a general feat slot on. I've seen more than one fighter build that just ran out of good feats to take at higher levels.
This only happens if you have a shortage of great feats. I'm envisioning a gaming environment with somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 amazing Combat Feats, each and every one of them soul-wrenchingly difficult to choose from one another (assuming, of course, a lack of cohesive character theme driving feat choices) by virtue of their sheer awesome.

Yeah, if there are enough really good combat feats, then getting more of them becomes a benefit. Other martial classes would still get the benefit of picking the best feats for themselves, but if the fighters #11-20 feat choices feel about on part with things like rage powers or the goodies other martials get...


Chengar Qordath wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
True, but one of the hidden downsides of improving feats in general is that non-fighter characters are already going to be grabbing the ten best feats they can. Thus, we get the problem of Fighter Bonus Feats being spent to buy the feats that weren't worth spending a general feat slot on. I've seen more than one fighter build that just ran out of good feats to take at higher levels.
This only happens if you have a shortage of great feats. I'm envisioning a gaming environment with somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 amazing Combat Feats, each and every one of them soul-wrenchingly difficult to choose from one another (assuming, of course, a lack of cohesive character theme driving feat choices) by virtue of their sheer awesome.
Yeah, if there are enough really good combat feats, then getting more of them becomes a benefit. Other martial classes would still get the benefit of picking the best feats for themselves, but if the fighters #11-20 feat choices feel about on part with things like rage powers or the goodies other martials get...

Alternatively, the Fighter might only want/need 11 combat feats for his build, but that allows him to take them with his class while taking other awesome general feats. Other classes can't do both at once to the same degree.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
True, but one of the hidden downsides of improving feats in general is that non-fighter characters are already going to be grabbing the ten best feats they can. Thus, we get the problem of Fighter Bonus Feats being spent to buy the feats that weren't worth spending a general feat slot on. I've seen more than one fighter build that just ran out of good feats to take at higher levels.
This only happens if you have a shortage of great feats. I'm envisioning a gaming environment with somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 amazing Combat Feats, each and every one of them soul-wrenchingly difficult to choose from one another (assuming, of course, a lack of cohesive character theme driving feat choices) by virtue of their sheer awesome.
Yeah, if there are enough really good combat feats, then getting more of them becomes a benefit. Other martial classes would still get the benefit of picking the best feats for themselves, but if the fighters #11-20 feat choices feel about on part with things like rage powers or the goodies other martials get...
Alternatively, the Fighter might only want/need 11 combat feats for his build, but that allows him to take them with his class while taking other awesome general feats. Other classes can't do both at once to the same degree.

Yeah, then the fighter could have the option of being a complete combat monster, or using his bonus feats to handle his combat while picking up general utility from his general feats. Which would also work just fine.


Khrysaor wrote:
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?

So you werer wrong and instead of acept it you provide a incomplete list of posible spells. Wellm dazing acid arrow still works.


The list Khrys provided was all the spells with an instantaneous effect as listed in the spell. That's what an instantaneous conjuration is if I'm not mistaken. Also why summoned monsters are called out separately in the description of the spells function. You cast it and the effects happen instantaneously with no lingering effects. The effects of a CLW wouldn't be negated or suppressed. Spells without an instantaneous effect wouldn't get this benefit as the magic still exists. In this case in the form of a magical acid arrow. Same thing with a cloudkill spell that's a persistent magical fog that has a duration. The fog wouldn't push into the AMF as it's a magical fog with a duration above instantaneous.

Should probably stop responding to comments that don't add to the specific point of the thread as it only delineates the purpose. It doesn't add to the conversation or address the problems.

EDIT: As for the solutions being provided some of them are decent thoughts but this topic is now straying into the homebrew realm. This forum is for general discussion of the pathfinder rules not for solving the problems. If there is a general consensus that there's a problem the thread is pretty much over and new alternatives should be moved to a new thread in homebrew. 3726 posts seems a little overwhelming for the most basic class in the game.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Yeah, then the fighter could have the option of being a complete combat monster, or using his bonus feats to handle his combat while picking up general utility from his general feats. Which would also work just fine

A solution I was thinking of is just making feats work better for the fighter. By this I mean allow things like vital strike, two weapon fighting, other multiple tier feats that only boost the single thing you got in the start scale for free for the fighter. This then allows the fighter to use his bonus feats to get his combat prowess or use some of his level feats, but still frees up his level feats to gain more utility.

I'd also allow feats like weapon focus/specialization to work for entire groups of weapons that the player has weapon training in. There is feats for humans already like martial versatility that provide this, but it should be a fighter class feature. Along with critical versatility.

EDIT: Also don't think of bonus feats as "fighters get feats big deal since everyone can take feats". Look at it more of what you take as in fighters get the full two weapon fighting line for free which no other class gets. Fighters get the full vital strike line for free which no other class gets. Fighters get all the best bow use feats for free which some classes do get a few of but not as many as the fighter. Just seems a little dismissive to say that everyone can take feats when the fighter can take twice as many feats as most classes. I do get that many rage powers are better than many feats, but some are just a tax much like certain feat chains. The Beast totem is great for what the level 6 and 10 options are. The first one in the line is pointless if you're not a natural weapon user. Great as a back up if your main is gone, but you probably won't have the Amulet of Mighty Fists to make them effective as you level. You also need to squeeze superstition in which leaves only 1 other power to take by level 10. Superstition can also be a double edged sword if you're getting beaten to death and someone needs to heal you and from my experience barbarians are more of a spell sink for healing than fighters are. This can also be a problem with Come and Get Me which also comes with the problem of giving a large bonus to multiple enemies and needing combat reflexes and a decent dex to make it worth it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rightbackatya wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Yeah, then the fighter could have the option of being a complete combat monster, or using his bonus feats to handle his combat while picking up general utility from his general feats. Which would also work just fine
A solution I was thinking of is just making feats work better for the fighter. By this I mean allow things like vital strike, two weapon fighting, other multiple tier feats that only boost the single thing you got in the start scale for free for the fighter. This then allows the fighter to use his bonus feats to get his combat prowess or use some of his level feats, but still frees up his level feats to gain more utility.

Wouldn't that be the same solution as "Throw more feats at them!" which probably means there's something wrong with feats?


MrSin wrote:
Rightbackatya wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Yeah, then the fighter could have the option of being a complete combat monster, or using his bonus feats to handle his combat while picking up general utility from his general feats. Which would also work just fine
A solution I was thinking of is just making feats work better for the fighter. By this I mean allow things like vital strike, two weapon fighting, other multiple tier feats that only boost the single thing you got in the start scale for free for the fighter. This then allows the fighter to use his bonus feats to get his combat prowess or use some of his level feats, but still frees up his level feats to gain more utility.
Wouldn't that be the same solution as "Throw more feats at them!" which probably means there's something wrong with feats?

That's one way to look at it for sure. Same thing with many rage powers that provide scaling benefits though. Beast totem is scaling AC which is the same as having 6 feats that provide a +1 bonus. Superstition is the same as having those feats that boost saves except a larger bonus and only vs spells/SLA's, but even then there's the drawback of it affecting spells from the party.

The problem isn't that something is wrong with feats. Feats are the same feats for everyone right now. The trending problem I've seen in this thread is that feats aren't the equivalent of rage powers, spells, other classes abilities. Except the rogue of course where its the rogue talents that are worse than feats. So increasing the power of feats for a fighter would put them closer to par with rage powers and also have the added benefit of being better for a fighter vs regular leveling feats of other classes.

EDIT: There really needs to be some baseline to power to make scaling comparison. Obviously feats have scaling utility but there should be some measure to use. Maybe using combat feats as the best level of feat with things compared to it. Or using a static bonus like +1 to AC = +1 to hit = +2 to a single save and so on and then considering the value of each element to a class.

Truly things like weapon focus and shield focus should scale as you level too or maybe just have that for the fighter based off his bonus from weapon training/armor training as well.

EDIT2: I'm not a huge fan of the domination argument against fighters either. It should be the players responsibility to deal with their classes weakness and with all the feats a fighter gets they should be investing in Iron Will, getting a small bonus from wisdom, and even taking a trait should they need it. +2 stat, +2 feat, +1 trait and that bad save is 1 less than it being a good save. Making it a class feature somewhere removes a need for those things and allows fighters to focus more on just strength, dex, or con.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is never going to be any kind of fullproof evidence as to the usefulness of the fighter class. It obviously works for some groups and not for others. We can go round and round all day long with each side refuting each others argument. Apparently the designers are happy with the class so I wouldn't expect a change. It seems to fit their vision of the fighter and that's cool. If you don't like the class then either don't play it, or homebrew the class to your liking. What you shouldn't do is go around telling people who like the class they shouldn't like it because of ABC. If you like the class then continue rocking it any chance you get.

Cheers.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
What you shouldn't do is go around telling people who like the class they shouldn't like it because of ABC.

Who's doing that?

I'm looking through post and not seeing "You shouldn't like fighter!" or "Quit having fun with fighters!" or anything like that.


Wow, someone must have cast Greater Animate Thread.

IMO - Fighters are fine, so long as you plan your build. The high level game (with flying, DR and other fun stuff) needs some serious care and consideration with a fighter, who sometimes gets built as a grounded goon who then can't participate in many combats. Some ranged capability, or even magic capability (UMD?) is needed by the mid to high levels, unless of course your race is something that can fly and shoot laser beams.

The more recent posts talk about fighter fixy... I like fighter fixy, and I have my own.

BEHOLD
This is meant to give mechanics to the idea that

  • The fighter was trained in a formal way, be it at an academy, or from a master/apprentice situation, or what have you. If you're looking for those who learned on their own, see the Warrior NPC class.
  • The fighter's training is in war and battle, in a world where they'll face monsters and wizards... not some mundane world which doesn't exist.
  • The training is not just about "swinging a sharp stick" but also strategy, a la Art of War. As a PC class, the fighter is elite, like an officer or a spec ops of today, and should be depicted as such.
  • High level fighters are not just "grizzled vet" versions of themselves, but the uber-warriors of legend, like Kratos, or Gilgamesh, etc.


shallowsoul wrote:

There is never going to be any kind of fullproof evidence as to the usefulness of the fighter class. It obviously works for some groups and not for others. We can go round and round all day long with each side refuting each others argument. Apparently the designers are happy with the class so I wouldn't expect a change. It seems to fit their vision of the fighter and that's cool. If you don't like the class then either don't play it, or homebrew the class to your liking. What you shouldn't do is go around telling people who like the class they shouldn't like it because of ABC. If you like the class then continue rocking it any chance you get.

Cheers.

That's the side I was seeing from some people in this thread with varying levels of vehemence, but it seems they gave up the argument to those in favor of change have been the only ones sticking around. Not that this means either side is right or wrong just that some people didn't feel it necessary to continue. This is what's lead to change ideas which is why I suggest this be moved to homebrew at this point as this forum is for general discussion of the current gaming system. I personally wouldn't mind seeing some changes, but I've yet to hear any player at my table complain about a fighters usefulness.

Paizo boards wrote:
This forum is for general comments about the Pathfinder RPG and discussing the system with other gamers.


Rightbackatya wrote:
I personally wouldn't mind seeing some changes, but I've yet to hear any player at my table complain about a fighters usefulness.

Everyday I play a game with my friends I go on about all the things I don't like about the game and play classes I don't like or enjoy or consider subpar because I think that makes it fun for everyone!

But uhh... Not really. I don't think anyone wants to hear that or play classes they don't like or have fun with. I know I'm not a fan of people going on and on about things they don't like when we all sat down to have fun playing a game, certainly don't do it at the table myself. Edit: I especially don't tell people their class, build, or character sucks. That would be pretty volatile.

Silver Crusade

MrSin wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
What you shouldn't do is go around telling people who like the class they shouldn't like it because of ABC.

Who's doing that?

I'm looking through post and not seeing "You shouldn't like fighter!" or "Quit having fun with fighters!" or anything like that.

You have 75 pages of digging to do so I guess we won't hear from you for a while.


MrSin wrote:
Rightbackatya wrote:
I personally wouldn't mind seeing some changes, but I've yet to hear any player at my table complain about a fighters usefulness.

Everyday I play a game with my friends I go on about all the things I don't like about the game and play classes I don't like or enjoy or consider subpar because I think that makes it fun for everyone!

But uhh... Not really. I don't think anyone wants to hear that or play classes they don't like or have fun with. I know I'm not a fan of people going on and on about things they don't like when we all sat down to have fun playing a game, certainly don't do it at the table myself.

I'm sure our tables are different, but my group are friends and we actually discuss things beyond D&D at the table. Some of our sessions can be counterproductive to the actual gaming although its still fun. The merits and down falls of classes come up, but its not like many of the comments in this thread about the fighter sucks compared to this class or that class. Every class has its ups and downs.

If you state things factually instead of dropping a lot of sarcasm in your posts people might not take offense to you so often. You also just condemned the other poster for using the "you don't like fighter" argument that you just presented. It's just personal preference really.

That's all I have to say about this as it's counterproductive to this thread. Let's not delineate back into preferential arguments.


Rightbackatya wrote:
I'm sure our tables are different, but my group are friends and we actually discuss things beyond D&D at the table. Some of our sessions can be counterproductive to the actual gaming although its still fun.

Yeah, so do mine. There are games we've had almost no progress but had plenty of fun just hanging out.

Rightbackatya wrote:
You also just condemned the other poster for using the "you don't like fighter" argument that you just presented. It's just personal preference really.

I didn't 'condemn' anyone. I just questioned someone on where they saw someone say "You shouldn't have fun or like fighters!" because no one's saying that. Its okay to have fun. That is the point of the game. That doesn't mean you should overlook flaws or tell other people flaws don't exist though, or make the accusation people are saying those things.

Silver Crusade

MrSin wrote:


I didn't 'condemn' anyone. I just questioned someone on where they saw someone say "You shouldn't have fun or like fighters!" because no one's saying that. Its okay to have fun. That is the point of the game. That doesn't mean you should overlook flaws or tell other people flaws don't exist though, or make the accusation people are saying those things.

Here is the problem.

You assume you are pointing out flaws, but all you are pointing out is your subjective opinion. You are trying to claim fact when it is nothing but opinion.


Malignor wrote:

Wow, someone must have cast Greater Animate Thread.

This thread has been going since feb last year and is up to 3800 posts almost. It's been on for months then off for a couple the whole time. Not really much necromancy going on here.

Malignor wrote:


This is meant to give mechanics to the idea that
  • The fighter was trained in a formal way, be it at an academy, or from a master/apprentice situation, or what have you. If you're looking for those who learned on their own, see the Warrior NPC class.
  • The fighter's training is in war and battle, in a world where they'll face monsters and wizards... not some mundane world which doesn't exist.
  • The training is not just about "swinging a sharp stick" but also strategy, a la Art of War. As a PC class, the fighter is elite, like an officer or a spec ops of today, and should be depicted as such.
  • High level fighters are not just "grizzled vet" versions of themselves, but the uber-warriors of legend, like Kratos, or Gilgamesh, etc.

1&2) This can already be implemented through role playing, applying stats to your character appropriate to how you role play, and taking the applicable skills or feats to make it apparent. A fighter is a master of martial combat. They swing weapons, shoot bows, wear armor. If you want a knowledge of spells or to play as a tactician you should probably invest in spellcraft and intelligence which fits the role playing aspect. A wizard can't even cast level 1 spells with a 10 intelligence so a fighter shouldn't have any working knowledge of spells and magic other than it does exist.

3) Just like you stated about the Warrior NPC class the fighter already is like an officer or spec ops of today. They're not just a warrior, but an elite warrior.

4) It's hard to depict a class as some fixture in video games or fantasies. There's not a real parallel for comparison. Your examples could very well be designed as level 20 fighters or some form of dip multiclass.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
You assume you are pointing out flaws, but all you are pointing out is your subjective opinion. You are trying to claim fact when it is nothing but opinion.

I suppose I could call his poor will save and amazing ability to be dominated into being a housemaid a feature instead?

Silver Crusade

MrSin wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
You assume you are pointing out flaws, but all you are pointing out is your subjective opinion. You are trying to claim fact when it is nothing but opinion.
I suppose I could call his poor will save and amazing ability to be dominated into being a housemaid a feature instead?

Well obviously if the designers wanted him to have a stronger will then they would have given him more Willpower.

What they did give was the option to take feats,traits,teamwork, and gear that would improve his Willpower if that's what the player saw fit.


MrSin wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
You assume you are pointing out flaws, but all you are pointing out is your subjective opinion. You are trying to claim fact when it is nothing but opinion.
I suppose I could call his poor will save and amazing ability to be dominated into being a housemaid a feature instead?

Every class can be dominated. Some are more susceptible than others and one class will actually be the worst at it. Another class will be the second worst at it and so on until you have the best class at resisting it. It doesn't make it a class feature for anyone; it's just inherent to each class on varying levels based on gaming systems. This is as silly as saying a wizard has a disintegrate weakness class feature or a getting beaten to death by martials class feature.

Fighters get lots of feats so Iron Will and Improved Iron Will shouldn't be a problem to get. Having a 12-14 wisdom isn't hard to get if you dump CHA. There's also traits to give another +1 boost to will saves. It's up to the player to make up for the weaknesses of the class and not so much the class which is a part of the challenge of playing.

20 pt buy; human;

STR 15+2
DEX 14
CON 14
INT 10
WIS 14
CHA 8

can even dump cha to 7 and get an extra skill point.

EDIT: I generally play casters when I'm a player. Nothing wrong with martials I just get bored not looking at a spell list. Every caster I've played and played with have prepared spells to buff players to help with things like this. Spells like prayer have versatility to everyone and become a staple for divine casters.

EDIT2: So instead of arguing that fighters have terrible will saves instead say all fighters get a free Iron Will at first level or whenever you choose to take it.

Paizo Employee Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Rightbackatya wrote:


Fighters get lots of feats so Iron Will and Improved Iron Will shouldn't be a problem to get.

This is that false equivalence thing again. "Fighters have lots of feats so they can spend feats to cover their weaknesses" is mutually exclusive to the "Fighters get more feats than everybody else to make up for their lack of class features" argument.

Already, the Fighter has spent two feats to still have worse saves than a Ranger, and he's down to a 3 feat lead.

Bad skills? Let's take Skill Focus (Perception). 1 feat lead, and he still has worse skills than all of his martial counterparts past 3rd level or earlier.

Needs all of his stats for stuff, like pumping Dex for Armor Training or Str for hit and damage, but still wants to participate in social encounters? We'll grab Intimidating Prowess so he can add his strength to his Intimidate checks and make up some of that lost ground.

Now your lead in bonus feats is non-existent, and you're still not as good in any of the areas you shored up as most classes can be out of the box. The Ranger and Monk get to skip prereqs on their bonus feats as well, so they might even effectively be a couple feats ahead of you if they jumped otherwise useless or uncommonly used prereq feats. The Fighter just doesn't have that many more feats than other classes, and his feats generally aren't as good as class features, so he's always working at a deficit. That doesn't mean you can't play one or even have fun doing so, but it does mean that you are demonstrably worse at being an adventurer than your peers. You get about 5 levels where you can bust out a feat tree and maybe slack a little on shoring up your weak points, and then things start going downhill fast. Or rather, everyone else gets on a plane to awesome town and you're still jogging along the same old country road in normalsville.


Ssalarn wrote:
Rightbackatya wrote:


Fighters get lots of feats so Iron Will and Improved Iron Will shouldn't be a problem to get.

This is that false equivalence thing again. "Fighters have lots of feats so they can spend feats to cover their weaknesses" is mutually exclusive to the "Fighters get more feats than everybody else to make up for their lack of class features" argument.

Already, the Fighter has spent two feats to still have worse saves than a Ranger, and he's down to a 3 feat lead.

Bad skills? Let's take Skill Focus (Perception). 1 feat lead, and he still has worse skills than all of his martial counterparts past 3rd level or earlier.

Needs all of his stats for stuff, like pumping Dex for Armor Training or Str for hit and damage, but still wants to participate in social encounters? We'll grab Intimidating Prowess so he can add his strength to his Intimidate checks and make up some of that lost ground.

Now your lead in bonus feats is non-existent, and you're still not as good in any of the areas you shored up as most classes can be out of the box. The Ranger and Monk get to skip prereqs on their bonus feats as well, so they might even effectively be a couple feats ahead of you if they jumped otherwise useless or uncommonly used prereq feats. The Fighter just doesn't have that many more feats than other classes, and his feats generally aren't as good as class features, so he's always working at a deficit. That doesn't mean you can't play one or even have fun doing so, but it does mean that you are demonstrably worse at being an adventurer than your peers. You get about 5 levels where you can bust out a feat tree and maybe slack a little on shoring up your weak points, and then things start going downhill fast. Or rather, everyone else gets on a plane to awesome town and you're still jogging along the same old country road in normalsville.

Casters>Martials. This will always be true. Even reduced list casters are still casters. Arguing the fighter against a class that uses wisdom to cast spells doesn't make fair comparison. None of this changes that it's up to the player to accommodate the weaknesses of their class. Otherwise you put an 18 in your main stat and who cares about the rest.

Why are you wasting feats on boosting intimidate. It's the easiest de-buff to get in the game by just putting ranks into it.

One class cannot be good at everything. Every class has weaknesses. I've seen arguments like yours everywhere on these boards and every time someone posts a build that accommodates the weakness the goal posts change to incorporate another weakness not accounted for. This isn't a good representation. The will saves were the thing in question here and now you've turned it to incorporate reflex saves compared to a ranger.

EDIT: Using the stat array above the fighter with iron will has Fort +4, Ref +2, Will +4 at level 1. The Ranger has Fort +4, Ref +4, Will +2. REF +5 by switching dex and str if you use bows which also reduces damage.

EDIT2: Again, some class has to be the worst at certain things. This is inherent to all gaming systems. If every class were equal at every aspect there's no point in having different classes as they all do the same thing.

EDIT3: This thread has taken a bad turn as to what it's about. It's been established several times and admitted to by people that want change that the fighter is still likable and can be effective. The problem is that some want the fighter to be more on par with other classes. Not just on par with one other class, but all classes combined. A build can be posted to put in on par to another class only to have it compared to a different class.

If something can be effective then it works. If something can do it better doesn't change the fact that the former still works. It's like arguing that your windows keep the wind out, but a concrete wall would be more effective so windows are obviously an inferior choice and we should just build concrete boxes.


shallowsoul wrote:

There is never going to be any kind of fullproof evidence as to the usefulness of the fighter class. It obviously works for some groups and not for others. We can go round and round all day long with each side refuting each others argument. Apparently the designers are happy with the class so I wouldn't expect a change. It seems to fit their vision of the fighter and that's cool. If you don't like the class then either don't play it, or homebrew the class to your liking. What you shouldn't do is go around telling people who like the class they shouldn't like it because of ABC. If you like the class then continue rocking it any chance you get.

Cheers.

You were perfectly happy to make sweeping assertions before. I remember, I tried to discuss one of them but seem to have gotten no reply. Let's see...

shallowsoul wrote:


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).

But now it's all about how you can't have foolproof evidence about different groups, nothing can be shown to be true or false about the usefulness of the class, whatever.

It might be nice to pick one. Either quit posting assertions about how fighters are useful in such and such a way in 'real games,' or, perhaps, quit telling everyone else that there's no such thing as a valid assertion about fighter usefulness because every game is different?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Rightbackatya wrote:
Casters>Martials. This will always be true.

If CR 10 > CR 10, rather than CR 10 = CR 10, then the entire mathematical basis of the game is meaningless, and the mechanical rules are essentially without value. We'd be better off just making stuff up off the top of our heads -- which, as I've mentioned, is exactly what I think most people who "don't see a problem" actually DO.

An attempt to make CR 10 = CR 10 is an attempt to make the game work on BOTH levels: the mathematical underpinnings as well as the overlying story.


Supplementary reading.
Plus ca change...


A level 10 character < CR 10 creature. This still has no bearing on casters>martial. Disparity has always existed and it gets worse with level.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rightbackatya wrote:
A level 10 character < CR 10 creature. This still has no bearing on casters>martial. Disparity has always existed and it gets worse with level.

In pathfinder a level 10 character with full WBL is supposedly CR 10.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rightbackatya wrote:
A level 10 character < CR 10 creature.

That very much depends on the class. It is very simple to produce a variety of caster characters who can happily solo pretty much any CR10 enemy in the CRB or Bestiaries.

3,701 to 3,750 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