stuff
Apology accepted and I apologize too if you found my remarks out of line. And yes, some of them were ;-)
I agree with most of the things you say, but obviously not all of them.
To me the problem isn’t going to my GM and ask for house rules.
I want a Pathfinder 1.01 fighter.
I just want more flexibility and some more feats, some more skills and perhaps a boost to will saves. I don’t want Pazio spamming the game with more archetypes. If there is a class that really could do without archetype it’s the fighter. Let players swap abilities as they please.
I think the fighter, unlike the rogue, is good at his job, which is killing things. So boosting his killing abilities isn’t what I want (with the exception of being able to create a dex fighter that does damage). Nor do I think that granting him 4 skills per level will fix all the non-hitting-people problem-solving schticks. Main reason are that skills usually aren't very good. Although I certainly wouldn’t mind 4 skills per level since it helps with flavor and versatility. At least at lover level
Feel free to ignore the rogue part, although I agree with it.
Anyway. Rogues are in kind of a weird place in Pathfinder, even moreso than in 3.5. They're not supposed to be as good at martial combat as...uh... all the other classes, so they aren't. What they get in return for this is out-of-combat problem-solving utility. Thing is, almost all (and indeed all, using non-core material) of this out-of-combat utility is redundant with other non-magical classes. That isn't even taking into account spellcasters, who by and large get more out-of-combat schticks, while having comparable or better in-combat schticks.
The rogue's schtick is skills and skills aren't very good. They certainly aren't good enough to explain why a class whose only real combat schtick is "stab a dude" is weaker at stabbing than pretty much everyone else. Skills are not only often nonfunctional (Diplomacy, original-version Stealth), they're also almost always hardcapped at what's "realistic" or "humanly possible" (Stealth again, all of the movement skills).
In return for this schtick, the rogue is worse at fighting. It's not just that the rogue is less capable and more-situational than a fighter, barbarian, or paladin: she's also weaker when it comes to wrecking some jerk than the ranger and (non-core) monk, who also rely on skill-based schticks (albeit skill-based schticks supplemented with class abilities), not to mention the alchemist, cleric, druid, and oracle. All of these classes have class abilities or spellcasting to do more than what's "humanly possible", and can still fight in addition to solving problems that don't require murder.
I’m well aware that I can play a ranger or other classes and play it as some sort of fighter. My wish is however that Paizo in the future make some minor adjustments to the class, but I still think the fighter can be “fixed” just by adding some new feats.
I for one think that the number of feats that fighter gets isn’t enough to create some of the more popular concepts. I once tried to build a Zorro/Errol Flynn pirate kind of a swashbuckler fighter. I gave it up.
Slightly off topic.
Here are some problems I ran into.
My thought was a fighter with one or possibly two levels Duelist.
Class skills other than I wanted: Acrobatics, Climb, Bluff, Profession sailing, Perception, Sense Motive, Swim and perhaps also diplomacy, Escape Artist and stealth.
I needed 13 str (power attack) and 13 int (skills and Improved disarm). At least 10 char but 12 would be better. Con 14 and wis 10 meant 17 dex (15+2).
I wanted him to have improved disarm. Not the whole chain just improved disarm because it is cool. And I wanted him to be able to do some damage even though he was a dex based fighter so Dervice dance, Power attack and weapon specialization was necessary since he only use a one handed weapon. He didn’t need heavy armor, but there is no feat for trading heavy armor for something else.
In order to get a level Duelist (which has a lot of the class skills I wanted) I needed Dodge, Mobility, Weapon Finesse. On top of that I needed Dervice dance, Power attack and weapon specialization, weapon focus to be able to some damage, combat expertise and improved disarm. Extra trait would probably also be necessary.
This meant I wasn’t going to get where I wanted until level 9 (or even later), and by that time I wouldn’t be god at anything really, certainly not dealing damage, and my will saves would suck. If I wanted Improved crit and Iron will I had to wait even longer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters are just meat shields for casters to hide behind, that's the main problem.
If you can't spell rogue, and you think scouting ahead is a bad move, I don't think you should be talking about rogues, or anyone should listen to what you have to say.I apologize for my typo on the word “rogue”, because I don’t have English as my first language. On the other hand, “you can’t even spell the word so no one should listen to your opinion” is an argument downright stupid. Counter an argument with something relevant to the topic next time and try not to be so rude.
Back on to the topic on scouting. Scouting with a stealth rogue isn’t a good idea because it’s not reliable, and dangerous.
The unreliable part is because most monsters have good perception and there’s no way you can control your dice so unlucky rolls do appear. Maybe when your level goes higher can auto pass your opposing check, but at that level monsters start to have all kinds of senses and stealth becomes even less useful.
Then the part about dangerous. Scouting ahead means voluntarily separate yourself from the party and when things turn sour your mates aren’t with you. Rogue is weak in combat and doesn’t have many tricks to save his hide other than run. So once get noticed the poor rogue is facing more danger than an invisible fighter, or even invisible wizard.
So my point is the right way to scout is using the invisible spell instead of the skill, bet your life on a roll isn’t wise.
Scouting is wise, knowing what is ahead is wise. Risking a rogue, well, they should be taking risks and using all those skills they have.
On rogues being weak in combat, depends on the foe/foes and whether they counter the rogue, depends on the builds. On builds, a rogue that is excellent at stealth with the feats really sunk into it, will have no problem remaining undetected at a distance. Got to be careful about getting too close with tremorsense and scent, but D&D scouting isn't walking up and shaking the hands of many forward opponents.
If detected, use that nice initiative and flee back to the group. You should head out with a plan for the worst, and have already coordinated with the group for them to ambush any pursuers that follow you back. I've played rogues and done this. Think lad.
That is why your advice should be discounted, you think scouting is foolish and dangerous and you don't see how it can be mastered, successfully done to great benefit to the party. You see risk, I see gain.
Fighters are just meat shields for casters to hide behind, that's the main problem.
The fighter's feats don't have to go into meat or shields.
If you can't spell rogue, and you think scouting ahead is a bad move, I don't think you should be talking about rogues, or anyone should listen to what you have to say.I apologize for my typo on the word “rogue”, because I don’t have English as my first language. On the other hand, “you can’t even spell the word so no one should listen to your opinion” is an argument downright stupid. Counter an argument with something relevant to the topic next time and try not to be so rude.
Back on to the topic on scouting. Scouting with a stealth rogue isn’t a good idea because it’s not reliable, and dangerous.
The unreliable part is because most monsters have good perception and there’s no way you can control your dice so unlucky rolls do appear. Maybe when your level goes higher can auto pass your opposing check, but at that level monsters start to have all kinds of senses and stealth becomes even less useful.
Then the part about dangerous. Scouting ahead means voluntarily separate yourself from the party and when things turn sour your mates aren’t with you. Rogue is weak in combat and doesn’t have many tricks to save his hide other than run. So once get noticed the poor rogue is facing more danger than an invisible fighter, or even invisible wizard.
So my point is the right way to scout is using the invisible spell instead of the skill, bet your life on a roll isn’t wise.
You say use invisibility. I saw use climb to get height and go over difficult terrain, up walls, through windows; use stealth to remain hidden and keep your distance; and use acrobatics to jump or tumble as needed in your scouting. Lastly take some rocks, coins and meat for diversions. Three skills, think in three dimensions, be sure to use preparation and planning.
Fighters are just meat shields for casters to hide behind, that's the main problem.The fighter's feats don't have to go into meat or shields.
But if they don't then the fighter isn't a fighter they become a specialist trying to be some kind of other class.
A fighters main job is meat shield, it is a basic and fundamental part of the whole purpose of fighters. If you don't want to be a meat shield and be a melee person play a rouge or a monk or a ranger or a barbarian.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did anyone mention how useful fighters are when the party is attacked at night and nOne of the casters can cast due to lack of 8 hours of sleep?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did anyone mention how useful fighters are when the party is attacked at night and nOne of the casters can cast due to lack of 8 hours of sleep?
Somebody probably did, but it's a tired old argument that is heavily dependent on assuming a not-at-all-universal playing style that might (for example) assume that fighters are in armor 24/7 while assuming that the party only ever stops because the wizard is out of spells and not (say) because the cleric is out of heal spells for the fighter, or because the fighter needs to recover from those six negative levels he ate.
(Both of these situations have happened to our party. And last time we got attacked while sleeping, it was a fighter who got awoken by a full attack ripping into his sleeping unarmored flesh and who suffered for his lack of equipped gear, and the wizard who was battle ready as soon as her eyes opened. On the other hand, I don't even remember the last time we stopped just because the arcanists were out of spells).
Soooo... yeah. Not everybody's playstyle ever puts them in the situation you describe.
Speaking just to my own experience in the games I've played in with fighters (including the fighter I play right now), I have not ever found fighters to be any more the energizer bunny than any other martial class. In fact, I have found them to be typically less resilient to long adventuring days than the other martial classes which get, for example, class abilities that let them heal themselves.
Yeah, 'sleeping at night' isn't much of an argument. Rings of Sustenance are MANDATORY if you don't like being suprised, and that knocks your window down to 2 hours. People just take turns, and no more then 1-2 asleep at a time...or pile into the Rope Trick.
In 3.5 it sorta was, because Sustenance didn't help with getting spells back. in PF, it does.
And yeah, Fighters can now sleep in armor, but it costs 5k...probably not til 6th level +.
I actually advise that any form of heavy/medium armor includes padded armor underneath it as part of the original, so you can keep SOME armor when you hit the bed.
==Aelryinth
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Playing a fighter allows you to skip terrible paladin threads
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did anyone mention how useful fighters are when the party is attacked at night and nOne of the casters can cast due to lack of 8 hours of sleep?
None of this explains to me how the Fighter is better in that situation than any other martial class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did anyone mention how useful fighters are when the party is attacked at night and nOne of the casters can cast due to lack of 8 hours of sleep?None of this explains to me how the Fighter is better in that situation than any other martial class.
Well, presumably in the contrived scenario where all the casters have used up all their spells, the Paladin, Cavalier, and Barbarian would've used up their smites/challenges/rages for the day as well.
I'd say the Ranger is better than the fighter for a night-attack though. Endurance as a bonus feat is normally unimpressive, but being able to sleep in medium armor make it pretty useful for a night attack. Plus, the Ranger will almost always have better perception and other relevant skills, especially in favored terrain.
or the druid just saves campfire wall or hide campsite for the evening
Fighters are just meat shields for casters to hide behind, that's the main problem.The fighter's feats don't have to go into meat or shields.But if they don't then the fighter isn't a fighter they become a specialist trying to be some kind of other class.
A fighters main job is meat shield, it is a basic and fundamental part of the whole purpose of fighters. If you don't want to be a meat shield and be a melee person play a rouge or a monk or a ranger or a barbarian.
Where does it say in the official book fighters are meat shield and that is their fundamental purpose?
I understand meat shield to just be someone that soaks hits--they are a shield of meat that the enemy hits. If you want to soak hits, play a barb and burn a feat to get heavy armour proficiency, they have higher hp, get the hp boost from rage and get DR after all. The barb can be a better meat shield with heavy armour enabled and more rage points taken via feats.
If you want to do a lot of damage, it is greatsword or falchion two hander fighter time and whatever feats and options you can find that will up damage. Spec, etc. This is not being a meat shield.
If you want to spread the damage round, go a reach polearm, take combat reflexes, great cleave and make the enemy pay to move around and attack. Exploit enemy deaths to cause more damage. This is not being a meat shield.
If you want to focus your feats on maneuvers, tripping, disarming, grappling, then you give yourself more options than soaking hits. This is not being a meat shield.
Playing a fighter allows you to skip terrible paladin threads
Oh god yes. They can worry about their code and alignment, I'll just worry about my feat options and the build I am going for.
I liked the harvest description.
However they have botched it, and a credit to your research here, you could still make a fighter that takes this feat tree, and specialises in scything down opponents, when they stand just so.
That wouldn't be a meat shield fighter, more an opportunist fine at taking down mooks quickly.
And Xabulba, we should not forget the archer fighter. Str and dex build. They've got the feats to take the entire feat tree, and the stacking of spec + weapon training makes them quite excellent archers. They won't quite match the ranger archer against their favoured enemy at mid to high levels, but for the fighter, the bonuses are against everything they shoot.
This is not being a meat shield.
In reply to Tarczan, I did check the fighter build. Even with the error shallowsoul made with the cloak of elvenkind and shadowed armor stacking, if we remove one, his fighter is still slightly better on stealth while yours was better on perception. Because you both exceeded wealth by level, I assumed the two of you had some gp value the two of you agreed upon and were not using wbl. Furthermore, the gp value of your gear exceeds his. Not the other way around. I also noticed the part on higher hp (16) for your ranger. It could indeed come in handy but what is even better than more hp is the improved ability to avoid hits. Played some defensive characters with 10 con in some games, the ones with alot of hp but mediocre ac tend to cop alot of punishment and have to rest/quaff potions/ use scrolls really often. Also, I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that I'm trying to find every hole in the argument. I merely pointed out the respective strengths , weaknesses and a bit of potential versatility of the two builds. When I stated which was more offensive, which was mix of offense and defense.... In no way did I state or imply that "build x is better than build y all round so class y sux." If you're annoyed because I didn't agree with everything you said then thats too bad since you clearly can't take criticism on your builds. If you want to measure every melee combatant by dpr, feel free to do so but thats a very linear, one dimensional view of martials. I recommend you step away from it since the game isn't run in a vacuum of martials standing opposite dpr dummies and going full round attack all day long, trying to win the grand prize of "most bland combatant."
Yeah, if one side says fighters are just about dpr, and one side says they are just about being a meat shield (high ac and hp), both sides are missing out on what you can easily do with a fighter.
A meat shield is high up there in the most bland combatant league, but the dpr bot is also a notable contender.
Then we all agree. The fighter should get 4 skill points, and perception should be a class skill. Why would a fighter not be wary?
There may be other skills that make sense, too, like acrobatics.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that all the classes are invaluable in their own respect, and it's largely up to the GM to make the PCs realize just how much they rely on each other. There's an infinite amount of possible scenarios that will make the fighter seem useless, and an equal amount that should make a spellcaster feel useless. I won't argue that certain scenarios are more common than others, but I really fail to see why people dislike the fighter so much.
What I see most people discussing in this topic is the potential damage output of a fighter character versus a spellcaster of the same level. Why not set up scenarios that will make the characters in a party appreciate each other regardless of damage output?
Scenarios that will make the fighter appear to be invaluable and the spellcaster useless:
-An enemy rogue stole the PC spellcaster's material components
-PC spellcaster is grappled or pinned
-PC spellcaster is taking consistent damage that is interrupting their spells (Concentration vs DC 10 + the damage taken + spell level cast)
-PC spellcaster is being counter-spelled by an enemy deep in enemy lines
-Enemy has spell resistance
-PC spellcaster suffers from a successful cast of a silence spell from an enemy
-PC Wizard's spellbook has been stolen by an enemy rogue or perhaps targeted for destruction by an enemy
Scenarios that will make the spellcaster invaluable and the fighter useless:
The fighter...
-can't beat a high AC
-is unable to reach target
-can't deal sufficient damage to high HP single target
-can't deal sufficient damage to multiple targets
-has limited mobility from environment or spell-effects
-has been disarmed
-is caught unarmored
With all this out in the open I have some questions to ask fellow GMs:
-Are you not actively challenging spellcasters to pass concentration checks like they should be?
-Are spellcasters NEVER receiving damage from enemies so that they HAVE to make a concentration check?
-Are enemies for some reason not targeting the spellcaster who is obviously a huge threat?
-Are spellcasters not being charged with the task of acquiring their material components?
-Are spellcasters not being targeted by enemy spellcasters?
I feel like this thread is either making fighters unsung heroes, or people aren't using important core rules relating to spellcasting, or maybe both. GMs aren't limited to boring formulaic battles where the enemies all target the fighter while the spellcaster leisurely sits in the back. Make your encounters endanger the spellcaster, make them realize that without the fighter they would be turned into mincemeat.
Sorry for the long post, I hope people find this information agreeable.
Then we all agree. The fighter should get 4 skill points, and perception should be a class skill. Why would a fighter not be wary?
There may be other skills that make sense, too, like acrobatics.
I have always thought they should get sense motive. They should be able to sense aggression and killing intent, and since all warfare is based on deception, they should have a counter to bluff.
Then we all agree. The fighter should get 4 skill points, and perception should be a class skill. Why would a fighter not be wary?
There may be other skills that make sense, too.
Sense Motive (for sizing up power levels), Diplomacy (for commanding soldiers), Knowledge (History) (for warfare), Acrobatics (it was a class skill in 3.5), Stealth (Commando/Reconnaiscance missions) Perception (Commando Missions, scouting) Knowledge (Nobility) (For knowing the local nobles) Knowledge (Local) (For knowing the laws and customs of the land) Linguistics (For Undertstanding captured documents.)
Good points Blitzkriegbeard. I have wondered that myself because the games I have been in or witnessed pushes both the melee and the casters. Seen both types really pushed to the limit but for some reason some are really offended by the thought of their spellcasters being pressured.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a01QQZyl-_I
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blitz, to sum it up, here's the most common argument for casters so far.
I'll run one by one through the listed examples which make the caster useless.
"An enemy rogue stole the PC spellcaster's material components"
That won't happen since casters have 6 spell component pouches which they obtained easily. Despite certain spell components being greater basilisk's tooth and so on. Or, they have booby trapped thier spell component pouch but never risk accidentally setting the trap off.
"PC spellcaster is grappled or pinned"
Supposedly won't happen because they are guaranteed to win initiative and have cast freedom of movement or are already buffed and concealed.
"PC spellcaster is taking consistent damage that is interrupting their spells (Concentration vs DC 10 + the damage taken + spell level cast)"
Supposedly won't happen since as before, they are already buffed and have won initiative and have the right spells prepped to avoid such phenomena.
"PC spellcaster is being counter-spelled by an enemy deep in enemy lines"
Shouldn't happen, its supposedly viewed as a dick move on the part of the dm.
"Enemy has spell resistance"
Irrelevant. Supposedly most spells prepped are not subject to spell resistance ata all.
"PC spellcaster suffers from a successful cast of a silence spell from an enemy"
They will have burnt the right feat in silent spell as they do for almost every other metamagic feat.
"PC Wizard's spellbook has been stolen by an enemy rogue or perhaps targeted for destruction by an enemy"
Similar to the spell component puch argument. Also viewed as a dick move from the dm.
Above all, whenever the conditions of the situation are not ideal, the genral concensus is for casters to teleport away, prep their remaining "open" spell slots and get back into it x number of minutes later. The opponents do not pursue or gather reinforcements or sound the alert. They are supposedly just waiting at the same spot to get killed.
Even in other games like Skyrim, with powerful magic and dumb bots. You can still be rushed-and-crushed, hit and staggered, sniped or surrounded as a spellcaster.
D&D/Pathfinder can be a lot less forgiving.
The goblin rogue is made to ambush spellcasters hiding behind the infantry and summoned monsters.
If you're a hard hitting melee character, burn a feat in close quarters fighting. Nothing difficult about it.
Quite true, I agree, but there is also the solution of tactics and gear load-out.
So for instance if I took my nice pile of feat choices and made a bow cav fighter, a riding variant of the archer fighter, then getting up close and personal with opponents and getting grappled is going to be rare.
"It closes to grapple, it doesn't cover the separating distance, yet..."
"I ride off and shoot it."
Good old fighters.
Don't you just love how the solution to all a martial's problems is 'there's a feat for that'?
It's almost as if martials didn't have a limited number of them, with fighters getting a lot more but are still limited.
it's as if pathfinder seems to hate martial classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it's as if pathfinder seems to hate martial classes.Don't you just love how the solution to all a martial's problems is 'there's a feat for that'?
It's almost as if martials didn't have a limited number of them, with fighters getting a lot more but are still limited.
I don't think they hate them, I think they just do not want to upset the more ''conservative'' gamers by changing them too much.
Blitz, to sum it up, here's the most common argument for casters so far.
I'll run one by one through the listed examples which make the caster useless."An enemy rogue stole the PC spellcaster's material components"
That won't happen since casters have 6 spell component pouches which they obtained easily. Despite certain spell components being greater basilisk's tooth and so on. Or, they have booby trapped thier spell component pouch but never risk accidentally setting the trap off.
5 gp apiece is hardly a major drain on resources even at level 1. I agree with this one.
"PC spellcaster is grappled or pinned"
Supposedly won't happen because they are guaranteed to win initiative and have cast freedom of movement or are already buffed and concealed.
Most casters that have the spell that I've seen usually cast it before walking into a skeevy looking place.
That said, if they're ambushed they're probably screwed, yes. Especially since a surprising few of spellcasters I've seen invest in Escape Artist at all, so even their Bard buddy with Liberating Command or whatever isn't very helpful.
"PC spellcaster is taking consistent damage that is interrupting their spells (Concentration vs DC 10 + the damage taken + spell level cast)"
Supposedly won't happen since as before, they are already buffed and have won initiative and have the right spells prepped to avoid such phenomena.
Yes, most casters DO pre-buff with their long lasting (hour/level) spells, and cast their 10 min/level stuff before walking into suspicious areas (single buildings, anything described as "ominous").
It's a rare occurrence for any one caster to be attacked by a melee character because either their meatshields are taking the enemy's attention or there are enough casters that one being put out of commission is only a moderate setback.
"PC spellcaster is being counter-spelled by an enemy deep in enemy lines"
Shouldn't happen, its supposedly viewed as a dick move on the part of the dm.
Enemy spellcasters are pretty rare and counterspells only work if the spellcaster knows the exact same spell (barring, I believe, a certain Feat). Not a reliable tactic.
"Enemy has spell resistance"
Irrelevant. Supposedly most spells prepped are not subject to spell resistance ata all.
Conjuration and I believe Transmutation are the most common specialties. Transmutation is all about buffs, so no SR there (except the rare friendly SR) and Conjuration spells, even direct damaging ones, aren't affected by SR.
I agree with this one too.
"PC spellcaster suffers from a successful cast of a silence spell from an enemy"
They will have burnt the right feat in silent spell as they do for almost every other metamagic feat.
Silent Spell rods are a pretty common purchase in my experience. They're fairly cheap by the standards of Metamagic Rods too.
"PC Wizard's spellbook has been stolen by an enemy rogue or perhaps targeted for destruction by an enemy"
Similar to the spell component pouch argument. Also viewed as a dick move from the dm.
Bit more expensive than the pouch thing, yeah. There are quite a few creative ways to keep your spellbook safe floating around though.
One of the simpler and cheaper ways I've seen is buying a Bookplate of Recall (or just cast the spell Instant Summons, it's the same price if they know it) and stashing their book somewhere every day (inside a tree, buried underground, wherever) after preparing their spells. They then call the book to them the next day, rinse and repeat.
Also works if the rogue steals it since they can just summon it back later if he ever puts it down, or track him down if he keeps a hold on it.
Even in other games like Skyrim, with powerful magic and dumb bots. You can still be rushed-and-crushed, hit and staggered, sniped or surrounded as a spellcaster.
D&D/Pathfinder can be a lot less forgiving.
The goblin rogue is made to ambush spellcasters hiding behind the infantry and summoned monsters.
At least until you hit 50 (?) Destruction at around level 10 or so and get Impact.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
From my AD&D perspective, there's teo things that really need to be fixed about martial characters, particularly fighters:
1. Movement and Attacking. There was none of this nonsense about full attacks, fighters could move and make all of their attacks, and they were all at full value. So my fix is to say that a character can make a full move and do standard iterative attacks, or make a five-foot step and make all attacks at full value.
2. Saves, saves, saves: in AD&D fighters had the best saves, and in general mages at high levels had trouble making save-or-die spells land. Saves in general need a massive overhaul, and fighters in particular need a boost.
That's the main things fighters need to be fixed. Extra skill points would be nice as well.
|
1. Movement and Attacking. There was none of this nonsense about full attacks, fighters could move and make all of their attacks, and they were all at full value. So my fix is to say that a character can make a full move and do standard iterative attacks, or make a five-foot step and make all attacks at full value.
this is a neat idea. how has this worked out for you?
So Schrödinger's fighter is an archer on a horse. Lovely little 15 hitpoint horse.
The evil monk outruns your horse and when he reaches you he drops it with either enough damage to knock it unconscious because he's built for strength or with stunning fist because he's built for wisdom.
The druid drops a blast on or charms your horse and then turns into something that moves at least 40' per round and has grab and rake.
The roc flies faster than your horse runs and grabs you right off your horse and you get the idea. This one works even if you switch to a cavalier.
The dryad uses suggestion or charm person to get you to come towards her so her pet {insert grappling plant or animal here} can yank you off and kill you.
The roper is underground where your horse refuses to come and possibly in a cave where you can't even manage to get line of sight on it without being in range of its strands.
The dragon throws up a wall or vision obstructing spell and kills the companions you abandoned.
You guys are doing the same thing you accuse wizard boosters of doing.
but for both sides, building doesn't show the merits of the class, only shows off the skills and knowledge of the builder constructing the character.
a skilled character builder can make any class look good, even the weakest of classes.
The bow cav fighter was a counter to up close grapplers. That was my point, not that it is invincible or can't be countered. This build is not tanking, not rushing in, no meat but all flying gristle.
Monks with deflect arrows would also be a wonderful counter. However, you missed something. When the monk reaches you means the monk is rushing a ranged opponent that can move away and keep firing. Rushing right at a full bab archer, which do some really impressive damage. Got to take deflect arrows to do it, or the str monk risks perforation en masse.
The bow cav fighter however does not exist in a vacuum. All those things that would kill or pursue them have to get through the other party members as well, in addition to being able to take arrows from a bow specialist as it circles, peppers with arrows, draws them off.
What they also really counter are the slow two-hander fighters which are loved so much, as they try to close in and chop allies, they are getting shot. If they drop draw and shoot, they are a round down on the getting shot, and the big chopper is not in the equation.
Now to other things. :)
Charm person is extremely close range, an archer specialist is not so limited. Dryads are quite vulnerable to being shot to death (they are not meat shields).
Suggestion has similar range problems, in that it is short, damn. That tactic requires you to be quite close to a circling horse archer, who, if your ac is low, can kill you from 300 away. Whoops.
Eric has some fine ideas.
Fighters are DPR focused, in nearly all of there class tricks are damaged based but when it comes down to it they are not the best DPR in the game; barbarians, summoners, gunslingers, paladins and cavaliers can all out damage fighter with the right build whilst also having more out of combat utility (summoners and paladins) or cool tricks (barbarians, gunslingers and cavaliers).
Fighters either need a boost to their dps so they are the king of their specialization or they need a unique gimmick or set of tricks all to themselves preferably something with out of combat utility. So has anyone come up with some neat fighter gimmicks?
Althogh Kirthfinder’s massive rewrite of the 3.X rules seem nice it’s more or less another game. Too much Work if you are a GM. But you could pick some of the stuff into your game.
If I GM any Campaign this year I will probably pick some of the stuff from Kirthfinder and add some stuff of my own.Rather than giving them a boost to DPR/DPS I’d give them some unique gimmicks and a lite more flexibility.
Edit:
Huh, a feat which grants the character who takes it ranks in a chosen skill equal to his hit dice (and makes that skill a class skill if it previously was not)...
I could get behind that.
Yes, something like that was my thought. Althogh you only get it when you level up in your favorite class. It will also grant one more language known.
You can take it multiple times.