|
This argument is heard a lot and this is a thread dedicated to fighter builds who can retain their combat effectiveness while contributing to out of combat challenges. When I get home I will post some of my builds but feel free to post your own and discuss them. Please keep the builds in spoiler tags.
Cheers.
It's not that they're completely useless. It's that the class: Fighter, adds nothing to your out of combat ability. The closest they get is Armor Mastery, which reduces the armor check penalty to skills. I'd love to hear the argument that Armor Mastery is somehow equal footing outside of combat compared to even a Paladin's non-combat spells.
Anything a Fighter can do with feats and skills can also be done by any other class with feats and skills.
|
|
It's not that they're completely useless. It's that the class: Fighter, adds nothing to your out of combat ability. The closest they get is Armor Mastery, which reduces the armor check penalty to skills. I'd love to hear the argument that Armor Mastery is somehow equal footing outside of combat compared to even a Paladin's non-combat spells.
Anything a Fighter can do with feats and skills can also be done by any other class with feats and skills.
Then show us some proof to validate your last statement because I don't believe you at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The party face/UMD fighter:
Take two traits, one which gives a +1 and UMD as a class skill. The other that gives a +1 and Diplomacy as a class skill. Start your fighter out with at least a 14 (+2) in charisma (horrors! A fighter who doesn't charisma dump!).
Now put your 2 skill points per level into UMD and Diplomacy. Take a skill point for your favored class bonus. Put that into perception if you want.
Now, with no further investment in skills your fighter will have a +10 to each of these skills at level 4. Buy some wands. CLW and guidance are great choices. Many parties buy the party UMD specialist wands and scrolls out of the party general fund, no reason not to do that if the UMD dude just happens to be a fighter. Outside of combat what can you use diplomacy for? Pretty much any interaction with other sentient beings.
Want more? Sacrifice a single feat to get a +3 to one of your skills. Now you are at +13 at level 4 with guidance wands pushing you to +14.
Or instead sacrifice a feat to make two more skills class skills and spread your skills a bit but you'll have four skills you excel in now.
You could do the same to be a sneak if you want. Or pretty much anything else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A fighter doesn't get many skill ranks, true. However, a fighter doesn't really have any "must have" skill requirements, either; you're pretty much free to customize your skill selection based on concept, rather than class.
Then again, 2 skill ranks isn't absolutely horrible unless you feel the "need" to dump Int to make a stereotypical "dumb brute" fighter. Because a fighter gets so many stackable bonuses, they actually have a bit more leeway to spread out into other aspects instead of focusing on becoming the "ultimate" in just one.
As an example, look at the cad archetype: it adds some class skills (like Bluff and Stealth) as well as the combat bonuses. Since the archetype is for the most part geared around the dirty trick maneuver, a 13 Int to qualify for Combat Expertise and Improved Dirty Trick boosts the effectiveness of the cad's class features; that's three skill ranks per level. Human gets you another skill rank (and an extra feat) for four. If you use the favored class bonus on skill ranks instead of hit points (or take the Fast Learner feat to gain both), you have five.
Basically, instead of a 18 Str (10 pts for 16 +2 race), 8 Int (-2 pts) fighter you have a 16 Str (5 pts for 14 +2 race), 13 Int (3 pts) fighter. You give up +1 on your Str mod for two or three extra skill ranks per level; this lets you be much more effective outside of combat. Forgive me if I don't see how "horribly gimped" starting with 16 Str instead of 18 Str is in combat, especially after picking up Weapon Focus, Power Attack, and Weapon Specialization.
|
|
The party face/UMD fighter:
Take two traits, one which gives a +1 and UMD as a class skill. The other that gives a +1 and Diplomacy as a class skill. Start your fighter out with at least a 14 (+2) in charisma (horrors! A fighter who doesn't charisma dump!).
Now put your 2 skill points per level into UMD and Diplomacy. Take a skill point for your favored class bonus. Put that into perception if you want.
Now, with no further investment in skills your fighter will have a +10 to each of these skills at level 4. Buy some wands. CLW and guidance are great choices. Many parties buy the party UMD specialist wands and scrolls out of the party general fund, no reason not to do that if the UMD dude just happens to be a fighter. Outside of combat what can you use diplomacy for? Pretty much any interaction with other sentient beings.
Want more? Sacrifice a single feat to get a +3 to one of your skills. Now you are at +13 at level 4 with guidance wands pushing you to +14.
Or instead sacrifice a feat to make two more skills class skills and spread your skills a bit but you'll have four skills you excel in now.
You could do the same to be a sneak if you want. Or pretty much anything else.
What about bluff, disguise and intimidate?
I mean, this would work if you don't have a party face and need someone to do the talking, but in my parties the guy with high charisma would be the one covering all the charisma based skills. Its inefficient to have multiple people who don't really use charisma each taking different skills.
A paladin could get away with this, as he is going to use the charisma anyway, but having a fighter do this doesn't make sense.
Why, because it's not the most optimal? Also, it's a good idea to find out what everyone else is playing before you make your choice because there is no sense in maxing those out if there are other classes who actually specialize in skills.
johnlocke, I have almost never had to use disguise as the party face. As the party sneak, sure, but not the face.
So to deal with bluff and intimidate, just sacrifice a feat and pick up a trait to make each one a class skill and then invest your favored class benefit into a skill point. You can then spread 3 skill points per level among four skills, meaning each will advance on a 3/4 progression so at level 4 each would be +9 instead of +10.
Which is perfectly adequate, especially with that guidance wand pumping you up a +1 every time, and the rest of the party backing you up with "aid another."
Easily done. Now you've got a full-blown party face, UMD, bluffer and intimidator and it cost your fighter a single feat.
Then show us some proof to validate your last statement because I don't believe you at all.It's not that they're completely useless. It's that the class: Fighter, adds nothing to your out of combat ability. The closest they get is Armor Mastery, which reduces the armor check penalty to skills. I'd love to hear the argument that Armor Mastery is somehow equal footing outside of combat compared to even a Paladin's non-combat spells.
Anything a Fighter can do with feats and skills can also be done by any other class with feats and skills.
I'm trying to figure out how to respond to this without being insulting.
The only ability I see that applies outside of combat is Armor Mastery. Do you disagree?
johnlocke, I have almost never had to use disguise as the party face. As the party sneak, sure, but not the face.
So to deal with bluff and intimidate, just sacrifice a feat and pick up a trait to make each one a class skill and then invest your favored class benefit into a skill point. You can then spread 3 skill points per level among four skills, meaning each will advance on a 3/4 progression so at level 4 each would be +9 instead of +10.
Which is perfectly adequate, especially with that guidance wand pumping you up a +1 every time, and the rest of the party backing you up with "aid another."
Easily done. Now you've got a full-blown party face, UMD, bluffer and intimidator and it cost your fighter a single feat.
The problem IMO, is that you haven't outlined anything specific to the Fighter. All of this is more easily done with other classes. The Fighter CLASS brings nothing to the table in regards to non-combat abilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem IMO, is that you haven't outlined anything specific to the Fighter. All of this is more easily done with other classes. The Fighter CLASS brings nothing to the table in regards to non-combat abilities.
Yes I have Irontruth. I have solved the "fighters can't do anything" problem exploiting the primary fighter class ability; their surfeit of feats.
Besides, even if I wanted to accept your premise here, what you are saying is "I don't care if you solved the problem at hand. It doesn't count because you didn't do it using a unique class ability."
To which my response would be "wtf? seriously?"
I understand, you solved the OP's proposition. But in other threads when talking about this issue, that isn't my problem.
Yes, a Fighter gets a couple skill points, if you're a human or a 14 Int, you get a few more and can have some skills. But as a Fighter, you still don't bring anything interesting to non-combat situations.
A wizard/cleric/druid/bard/witch/summoner/alchemist/ranger/oracle/paladin/inq uisitor bring a selection of spells that can help solve non-combat problems. A rogue gets the largest skill selection and a variety of Rogue Talents that can apply to non-combat situations. Even a Gunslinger brings a certain attitude and interest abilities that can be used outside of combat.
So, my problem, which may or may not be the origination of Shallowsoul's creation of this thread to counter, is that Fighter's as a CLASS bring nothing interesting to non-combat situations. Outside of combat, the class itself is dull, boring and relatively useless.
Your solution isn't actually a solution, because you're trying to work within the constraints of the problem to solve the problem. It's like being asked to solve the problem of a flat tire, using only said flat tire and nothing else.
Irontruth, Fighters, as a CLASS, bring all abilities that are inherent to characters not reliant on class. Such as exploiting skills and feats.
I can't understand this sort of argument. "Yeah, you can solve the problem but it doesn't count because I don't accept the WAY you solved it."
Yeah, whatever.
My problem is with the class itself. Your solution does not fix the class, does it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My problem is with the class itself. Your solution does not fix the class, does it?That would be what we call a personal problem and not one of the class itself.
That would be like saying apples suck because you don't like the taste.
The problem I am pointing out with the class is objective though, while taste of food is exceptionally subjective. For example, there is a genetic trait that causes cilantro to taste like soap to some people. Not exaggerating.
If you think I am objectively wrong, just quote the text from the PFSRD where Fighters get a useful ability out of combat, though I've already mentioned Armor Mastery.
Yes, a Fighter can put points into Diplomacy. So can a Barbarian, or Bard. So that has nothing to do with being a Fighter, does it? A Commoner can put points into Diplomacy as well.
A Fighter is essentially no better than a Commoner outside of combat. A Commoner even gets Perception as a class skill.
The problem is that that way works better for almost every other class in the game.
Those points in charisma only do the things outlined in your build. Those skills are already class skills for pretty much any other character who would build for them. All the options you have used are still open to everybody else.
Yes, the fighter has a ton of bonus feats, but taking the route you outlined also costs him more. His only skill points, his traits, multiple feats and even some of his ability score points are all used up by this method.
The same isn't true of other characters, including some that are perfectly competent front-liners and get non-combat features to boot.
It's not that this charismatic fighter doesn't work, or even that it's not cool, just that it's comparatively very impractical. It's something, but you'd still need a very compelling reason to go with the fighter if you wanted UMD and diplomacy. I, for one, can't think of such a reason.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're looking at it backwards, though. The point is not that the fighter gets class abilities to do stuff out of combat. The point is that the fighter gets all the resources they need to do stuff in combat from their class - so they have all their other resources free to do whatever they want with them.
Barbarians and bards have to dedicate some of their feats - you know, the things "everybody gets," including commoners - to their in-combat job. Fighters don't. You can make an extremely effective combatant with only the bonus feats a fighter gets and weapon training. So all the other stuff? That's resources they can put wherever they want.
Not really. Look at the paladin. Yes, he'll take a ton of combat feats using his non-class feat slots, but he doesn't need to take a traits just to add diplomacy to his list, he's already using his high charisma to fight, he gets healing stuff, bonuses against social attacks, detect evil and spells.
Sure, he can't lie, but overall he'll be much better out of combat while spending less on it and without noticeably hindering his in-combat prowess, even if he takes all the same skills.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not really. Look at the paladin. Yes, he'll take a ton of combat feats using his non-class feat slots, but he doesn't need to take a traits just to add diplomacy to his list, he's already using his high charisma to fight, he gets healing stuff, bonuses against social attacks, detect evil and spells.
Sure, he can't lie, but overall he'll be much better out of combat while spending less on it and without noticeably hindering his in-combat prowess, even if he takes all the same skills.
Spending less on it? Really? I don't recall paladins getting a class-based Charisma boost; assuming we're talking point buy, you're using the same set of resources that the fighter is, and he can get the same set of stats your paladin has too. And his non-class-based feats? Can do pretty much all the same things you're talking about. Iron Will, Alertness, Skill Focus: UMD - he's got the feats to spare, why not? Everything he needs to do his job, everything he needs to be a fighter, is already covered by the class stuff, so there's nothing stopping him.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, a Fighter can put points into Diplomacy. So can a Barbarian, or Bard. So that has nothing to do with being a Fighter, does it? A Commoner can put points into Diplomacy as well.
Well you could argue that the fighter, having much more feats than any other class, can use those feats to increase his Out-of-Combat abilities without sacrificing too much combat-wise. That's something other classes cannot and it's something which is class-inherent.
But the main point being made is that you can build such a fighter at all. So claims that the fighter is totally useless out of combat (a claim you didn't make in this threat but that can be seen all the time here or elsewhere) are simply wrong.
It's something, but you'd still need a very compelling reason to go with the fighter if you wanted UMD and diplomacy. I, for one, can't think of such a reason.
Well, in our games, I tend to be the one responsible for social skills simply because the other players don't care too much about it. And while I enjoy playing bards, it's still good to know that I can cover this area with other classes as well. Quite frankly, that reason's good enough for me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here, let me summarize:
"Fighters suck!"
"Why?"
"Because all they can do is fight."
"Well, they do that better than anyone else and that's a key part of the game."
"They don't have any special abilities that other classes don't already have."
"But they have one special ability which lets them take a LOT more feats than other classes."
"Doesn't count, feats are feats."
"But they can take twice as many as another class."
"Feats are still feats."
"But with those extra feats I can do lots of things other than fight."
"You can't do anything with feats that any other class can't do."
"Sure I can, because at level 10 I can spend five feats on combat and have five general feats left over. Any other class is out of feats."
"Doesn't matter. Feats are feats."
"So, the problem isn't that the fighter can't be flexible and do all sorts of things, the problem is that it doesn't matter because they do it with feats instead of with special class abilities."
"Yeah."
"Oh. Well. Carry on then."
This argument is heard a lot and this is a thread dedicated to fighter builds who can retain their combat effectiveness while contributing to out of combat challenges. When I get home I will post some of my builds but feel free to post your own and discuss them. Please keep the builds in spoiler tags.
Cheers.
Any specific parameters? As in, what point buy, any limits on Archetypes (might simplify matters, but losing Lore Warden for a test like this would hurt), and so on?
To try and prove my point, I'll look over your builds and then attempt to build a Ranger or Barbarian (or both) that can do it better without sacrificing too much combat effectiveness.
... The closest they get is Armor Mastery, which reduces the armor check penalty to skills. I'd love to hear the argument that Armor Mastery is somehow equal footing outside of combat compared to even a Paladin's non-combat spells...
I think you are overlooking something extremely important about armor training: It allows you to move in armor without impeding your speed. Thus fighters are the only class that can tumble (acrobatics) in medium and heavy armor, nobody else can do that.
Also, even small plusses can make the difference between making checks and, for example, NOT fall down the pit of hungry lions or NOT drowning :-)
Here, let me summarize:
"Fighters suck!"
"Why?"
"Because all they can do is fight."
"Well, they do that better than anyone else and that's a key part of the game."
"They don't have any special abilities that other classes don't already have."
"But they have one special ability which lets them take a LOT more feats than other classes."
"Doesn't count, feats are feats."
"But they can take twice as many as another class."
"Feats are still feats."
"But with those extra feats I can do lots of things other than fight."
"You can't do anything with feats that any other class can't do."
"Sure I can, because at level 10 I can spend five feats on combat and have five general feats left over. Any other class is out of feats."
"Doesn't matter. Feats are feats."
"So, the problem isn't that the fighter can't be flexible and do all sorts of things, the problem is that it doesn't matter because they do it with feats instead of with special class abilities."
"Yeah."
"Oh. Well. Carry on then."
Name one thing a Fighter can do outside of combat that a Commoner of the same level can't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Name one thing a Fighter can do outside of combat that a Commoner of the same level can't.
Polish their 60,000g sword while bragging about the dragon he cut down in a single round while the barmaids drool.
Polish their 60,000g sword while bragging about the dragon he cut down in a single round while the barmaids drool.
That's something the PLAYER can do.
I think you're constantly confusing "I can RP stuff" with "I can actually do something with the game mechanics".
Stahp it.
Hell, the Bard can do the same thing with a successful Bluff check so even the RP isn't something unique.
Polish their 60,000g sword while bragging about the dragon he cut down in a single round while the barmaids drool.That's something the PLAYER can do.
I think you're constantly confusing "I can RP stuff" with "I can actually do something with the game mechanics".
Stahp it.
Hell, the Bard can do the same thing with a successful Bluff check so even the RP isn't something unique.
Sigh... And here I was thinking RP was part of an RPG.
Oh well. Live and learn.
I think you're looking at it backwards, though. The point is not that the fighter gets class abilities to do stuff out of combat. The point is that the fighter gets all the resources they need to do stuff in combat from their class - so they have all their other resources free to do whatever they want with them.
Barbarians and bards have to dedicate some of their feats - you know, the things "everybody gets," including commoners - to their in-combat job. Fighters don't. You can make an extremely effective combatant with only the bonus feats a fighter gets and weapon training. So all the other stuff? That's resources they can put wherever they want.
Here's the thing for me.
Wizard/bard/sorcerer/cleric/paladin/ranger/rogue/oracle/inquisitor/summoner /druid/alchemist/witch all have class abilities that are very useful outside of combat. They also have combat abilities that are very potent. Some classes can even outshine a Fighter quite regularly, particularly if the combat presents special challenges that a Fighter can't overcome just by hitting it harder. At the very least, every other class has at least one ability that is useful in combat and one ability that is useful out of combat. And while these abilities aren't necessarily exclusive, they are often only obtainable by taking levels in a class that has access to them.
The Fighter does not have a niche. It's "niche" is combat, but every class has combat abilities.
Polish their 60,000g sword while bragging about the dragon he cut down in a single round while the barmaids drool.That's something the PLAYER can do.
I think you're constantly confusing "I can RP stuff" with "I can actually do something with the game mechanics".
Stahp it.
Hell, the Bard can do the same thing with a successful Bluff check so even the RP isn't something unique.
Sigh... And here I was thinking RP was part of an RPG.
Oh well. Live and learn.
I like mechanics that encourage and reward roleplaying. The fighter has no such mechanics. I know a lot of people on these boards are "old school" and seem to think that dice and mechanics are the antithesis of roleplaying, but I disagree and have found games/mechanics that reward and encourage roleplaying to be both highly effective and a lot of fun.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins get more health from charisma than from constitution. As such, a Paladin can comfortably put constitution at 10 or 12 in order to raise his charisma higher. The paladin is also better of dumping wisdom for charisma(as it adds to his saves, and sometimes even his AC and chance to hit).
So using a 15 point buy, a human paladin who uses charisma would be something like
cha:16 str:18 wis:7 int:10 con:10 dex:9
And he's going to need it, because he's going to get hit. A lot. With a Dex penalty and no shield? Maybe if we were comparing builds of a less suicidal nature?
I like mechanics that encourage and reward roleplaying. The fighter has no such mechanics. I know a lot of people on these boards are "old school" and seem to think that dice and mechanics are the antithesis of roleplaying, but I disagree and have found games/mechanics that reward and encourage roleplaying to be both highly effective and a lot of fun.
Yeah, so do I Iron. That's why I take feats that expand role playing options for fighters. Go read my description of my fighter on the "wizards are awesome" thread that has also become a "fighters suck" thread.
Anyway, this sort of thing goes nowhere. It sounds like what you are looking for are class abilities to guide you into things that you can do just as well with feats, but because you can do them with feats you turn your nose up at that approach.
Fine, play how you like. But just because you don't like the taste of apples doesn't mean I can't make a mean apple pie.
Sigh... And here I was thinking RP was part of an RPG.
Oh well. Live and learn.
It is, but the G is just as important as the RP part (more important I'd argue, an RPG without the G is just make believe with adults). When the G isn't supported by the RP and vice versa, there's a problem.
I like mechanics that encourage and reward roleplaying. The fighter has no such mechanics. I know a lot of people on these boards are "old school" and seem to think that dice and mechanics are the antithesis of roleplaying, but I disagree and have found games/mechanics that reward and encourage roleplaying to be both highly effective and a lot of fun.Yeah, so do I Iron. That's why I take feats that expand role playing options for fighters. Go read my description of my fighter on the "wizards are awesome" thread that has also become a "fighters suck" thread.
Anyway, this sort of thing goes nowhere. It sounds like what you are looking for are class abilities to guide you into things that you can do just as well with feats, but because you can do them with feats you turn your nose up at that approach.
Fine, play how you like. But just because you don't like the taste of apples doesn't mean I can't make a mean apple pie.
I like apples just fine.
I like feats overall as a concept, but they fall flat as a fix for a class. The reason they fall flat is because they help everyone equally, so they don't really fix the deficiency that is present. It also represents an opportunity cost, because you are fixing your deficiency you are making yourself weaker in this other area.
It also doesn't address why I find the Fighter CLASS boring, versus actual Fighter characters. I can make and play an interesting Fighter character, but what makes it interesting is almost entirely my doing and I have to work harder to make my character more interesting. The class could be made better to make more interesting characters to play naturally, without the extra effort/sacrifice from the player.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Iron, I find that how much effort I put into building a character has very little to do with the class and everything to do with the enthusiasm I have for the campaign.
I have not found that building a fighter character increases the effort of character building significantly, and I have found that the result of the effort can be just as compelling, rewarding, versatile and fun as any other class.
Which is why these constant "fighters SUCK!" threads just bewilder me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is, but the G is just as important as the RP part (more important I'd argue, an RPG without the G is just make believe with adults). When the G isn't supported by the RP and vice versa, there's a problem.Sigh... And here I was thinking RP was part of an RPG.
Oh well. Live and learn.
You have not presented any evidence that fighters remove the "G" from the "RP" or vice versa.
I, on the other hand, have provided multiple examples of how the fighter merges "RP" and "G" quite adequately.
Iron, I find that how much effort I put into building a character has very little to do with the class and everything to do with the enthusiasm I have for the campaign.
I have not found that building a fighter character increases the effort of character building significantly, and I have found that the result of the effort can be just as compelling, rewarding, versatile and fun as any other class.
Which is why these constant "fighters SUCK!" threads just bewilder me.
Well, if it's any consolation, I'm not saying "fighters suck". I'm saying that the class is dull compared to other classes. It's useful as a generic concept to be applied to a character idea you supply yourself, but the class itself is not evocative or thought provoking.
The Fighter CLASS brings nothing to the table in regards to non-combat abilities.That is true but it is also irrelevant for this thread. The Op asked not for a disccusion about the class but for especific builds. If people can make strong fighter with out of combat ussefulness then it is all that matters.
Except that any such build, you could replace Fighter with Commoner, and it would achieve those same ends with the same effectiveness.