|
This was an archer you were talking about, which anyone competent knows is extremely feat heavy. Squandering any feat is a severe price to pay.
Do me a favor. Read this post and then come back and tell me that again.
I love ya and all RD but I haven't seen any of this proof you're mentioning. Even your Fighter Marcello (who's a good fighter as far as Fighters go) is not very impressive. He has some skills, but his combat ability isn't really singing me any songs here, and his saves are pretty horrid. Also, is the build actually standard 15 point buy (I could probably attempt to reverse engineer it but I'm being lazy)?Some people simply refuse to see anything that conflicts with their world view. It is a common problem with society today.
Some people act like they are enlightened and privy to the true path while others are skeptical because they are not yet convinced by weak evidence.
Also, it's not generally a good idea to lump literally everyone together. When you have three people commenting on something as critics and three singing its praises, rebuking one critic is not the same as rebuking all; especially when they are criticizing different things.
From what I've seen, there are three major complaints with the fighter.
1) It suffers from lack of versatility and/or other classes offer more for less.
2) It's mechanically inept and suffers from flaws when trying to be well rounded, making it more difficult to play effectively in a game where the rules are followed and encounters aren't easy.
3) The fighter is made of absolute failure and is entirely unplayable.
Now I'm primarily the 1st, and sometimes feel the 2nd. Given that I've played and have helped build fighters, I know the 3rd is not true, though in recent times I've more or less abandoned the fighter since other classes provide much the same with more perks.
I haven't seen a well rounded fighter yet in this thread. Ravingdork's fighter is a one-trick-pony / glass cannon lockdown, and most of the other builds that didn't catch my attention more than skimming them tended to either sacrifice much that made them noteworthy as fighters or had glaring weaknesses that would easily lead to their dooms in a game with a varied encounter base. Such is my opinion based on observation.
I hold no ill will towards the fighter. If anything I'd like to see the fighter improved to get his own fair shake.
Great post DQ.
This was an archer you were talking about, which anyone competent knows is extremely feat heavy. Squandering any feat is a severe price to pay.
Severe you say? How so? Said archers can destroy most anything 5 CR over them single-handedly*. Losing 1-4 feats might mean they can easily destroy anything of their CR or lower single-handedly (which is still a little overpwoered).
In a game where most things you face are your CR+1 or lower, I'm not seeing how this changes anything other than to make you better at other things.
In short, what difference does it make that you can deal 250 damage/round when the enemy only ever has 100 hit points? Give me a guy who can average 100 damage/round AND do other things any day of the week in a situation like that.
Some people act like they are enlightened and privy to the true path while others are skeptical because they are not yet convinced by weak evidence.
Saying evidence is weak doesn't make it so. You need to explain what is weak about it, especially when not everyone is seeing it that way.
I haven't seen a well rounded fighter yet in this thread. Ravingdork's fighter is a one-trick-pony / glass cannon lockdown, and most of the other builds that didn't catch my attention more than skimming them tended to either sacrifice much that made them noteworthy as fighters or had glaring weaknesses that would easily lead to their dooms in a game with a varied encounter base. Such is my opinion based on observation.
There it is. Thank you. Unlike some posters, at least you put up a decent argument instead of baseless claims to muddy the waters.
* This may be a mild exaggeration.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, any proof in this thread?
I was just thinking the same thing. Where's the beef?
Now, as a side note, I think fighters also make great multiclass options. And I think you can make some very effective and fun well-rounded skill/combat characters by multi-ing a fighter with another class. I know the cool kids don't talk about multiclassing but it's there, it's not unbalanced, and its value for multiclassing I think is a legitimate aspect of why the class can be a good class. I don't think "because you feel you MUST stick with the class through to level 20" is necessarily why a class is good either (it can make it attractive depending on what you're looking for, sure, but I think it's a small factor IMO).
+1 to this. It's ironic that in 3.x people complained about classes and being front-loaded, yet in PF people sing its praises, but it is what it is!
And while I think some of the core classes have some terrible issues, it's hard to argue that Fighter and Monk don't make for great dipping classes. Heck, the moment the weaponmaster archetype came about they became even more dip-worthy. 1 level for +1 BAB, +2 Fort, and +1 feat and proficiency in almost everything? Sure! 2 levels for another +1 BAB, +1 Fort, and +1 feat? Don't have to twist my arm! Trade 2 levels of monk for +1 BAB, +3 to all saves, some nifty class skills, and a crapload of prerequisite ignoring feats? Ahhh, monks never looked so good! ^.^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dr. Buzzard. Every claim made by the opposition has been met with evidence and examples showing them to be untrue or highly exaggerated. It doesn't help matters that they have not stuck to their original claim, but have altered it repeatedly.
No, they have been met with examples of how you can sacrifice the only thing a fighter is good at (his numbers in combat) to have utility in non combat which any other class can do just as easily because the tricks are not particular to fighters. Hence they do not constitute an argument in favor of fighters any more than commoners.
Also, your new claim that a fighter's non-combat utility (hereafter referred to as just "utility") is outmatched by a simple commoner is not only NOT FACTUAL IN THE SLIGHTEST, but completely laughable! The ONLY things a commoner has to its advantage over a fighter is a different class skill list. Gaining new class skills takes minimal investment, however, generally a feat. Well wouldn't you know it? The fighter has PLENTY OF THOSE.
Oh really? The fighter gets intimidate and two knowledge skills over a commoner. A commoner gets perception over the fighter? Which is a better deal? I said meet or exceed. If you happen to value perception (which every rational player does) you might well say the commoner has a better skill selection. Both classes get a while 2 skill points per level, so that is a wash. Also I have pointed out that the type of feats needed to apply to skills are universal. You can't devote combat feats to those, and thus the commoner package once again matches.
And yes, you might get more utility out of other PC classes, but they aren't as good at fighting as the fighter, or at least not as consistently good.
Yes, but every time someone here makes a fighter to try and match those other classes out of combat, they give up their edge in combat. In that case you end up with a fighter that fights poorly, and still does not match those other classes out of combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In that case you end up with a fighter that fights poorly
Yep, right on schedule. Give up a +1 here or there to be more versatile and you are "poor".
I think I'm going to start calling this the "non-optimal = sux" fallacy.
This was an archer you were talking about, which anyone competent knows is extremely feat heavy. Squandering any feat is a severe price to pay.
Do me a favor. Read this post and then come back and tell me that again.
Giving up a feat on an archery build is a high price to pay.
See, that was easy. Got an argument yet?
Once again, while I have cited commoners as being of comparable out of combat utility, I certainly am not making the case that they are comparable overall. They are an NPC class so obviously they will not be.
However if you build a ranger, barbarian, or paladin, you will get more. That is evinced by a simple perusal of the class abilities.
Fighters are not completely gimpy. They are devastating in combat when built right. They just happen to be pure combat monkeys. If you give up some of that combat monkey focus, you lag the other martial (core) classes. Every trick used here to make a versatile fighter can easily be adopted by the other martial classes (or more likely doesn't even need to be). Yes, the fighter has more feats to spare (in theory), but those feats are needed to shore up the comparable lack of class abilities so as to keep up in combat.
The fighter gets intimidate and two knowledge skills over a commoner. A commoner gets perception over the fighter? Which is a better deal? I said meet or exceed. If you happen to value perception (which every rational player does) you might well say the commoner has a better skill selection. Both classes get a while 2 skill points per level, so that is a wash. Also I have pointed out that the type of feats needed to apply to skills are universal. You can't devote combat feats to those, and thus the commoner package once again matches.
Except you can't look at it in a vacuum like that (well, you can, but it never does anything).
A fighter will always be better than a commoner because he can use his additional resources to make Perception (or other skill) into a class skill AND be good at combat.
Tell, me what exactly is the point of looking at JUST THE SKILLS in a vacuum? Where does that lead exactly? All I see are false conclusions and misleading rhetoric.
In that case you end up with a fighter that fights poorlyYep, right on schedule. Give up a +1 here or there to be more versatile and you are "poor".
I think I'm going to start calling this the "non-optimal = sux" fallacy.
My thoughts exactly. Peoples' apparent perceptions on what sucks and what doesn't is weirdly skewed.
If you give up some of that combat monkey focus, you lag the other martial (core) classes. Every trick used here to make a versatile fighter can easily be adopted by the other martial classes (or more likely doesn't even need to be). Yes, the fighter has more feats to spare (in theory), but those feats are needed to shore up the comparable lack of class abilities so as to keep up in combat.
See drbuzzard, this is precisely where you and I disagree. While giving up too much combat focus to gain versatility will potentially reduce your combat effectiveness marginally compared to other martial builds, the sheer number of feats available to fighters means they can give up a couple without "gimping" themselves.
And it only takes a couple. In fact I think you can become quite effective outside of combat by devoting only a single non-combat feat to do so.
In that case you end up with a fighter that fights poorlyYep, right on schedule. Give up a +1 here or there to be more versatile and you are "poor".
I think I'm going to start calling this the "non-optimal = sux" fallacy.
How about you call it the "statement of reality"?
Or are you going to try to argue that a fighter that doesn't 'go versatile' will fight as well as a fighter that does?
There is no free lunch here. You're giving up something to get something.
Giving up a feat on an archery build is a high price to pay.
Would you please be so kind as to clarify this? What price is being paid? Give us an example or two.
Fighters are not completely gimpy. They are devastating in combat when built right. They just happen to be pure combat monkeys. If you give up some of that combat monkey focus, you lag the other martial (core) classes. Every trick used here to make a versatile fighter can easily be adopted by the other martial classes (or more likely doesn't even need to be). Yes, the fighter has more feats to spare (in theory), but those feats are needed to shore up the comparable lack of class abilities so as to keep up in combat.
For those other classes to be as good as a fighter it can take a fairly substantial amount of investment (since they don't have as many resources, and said resources aren't usually as modular as those of the fighter). However, they don't have to spend much of their resources on utility since it's practically given to them.
The fighter on the other hand has plenty of resources with which to invest into fighting. And with MINIMAL investment, he can also be quite good at utility as well.
Seems to me the fighter has the upper hand. Sure you could build a non-fighter with more utility, but I really don't believe you could do it easily while ALSO maintaining the level of combat ability of most fighters. I'm sure there will be exceptions to this on both sides of the fence, but I doubt very much those builds will be the common norm in most peoples' games.
Except you can't look at it in a vacuum like that (well, you can, but it never does anything).
A commoner will always be better than a commoner because he can use his additional resources to make Perception (or other skill) into a class skill AND be good at combat.
Tell, me what exactly is the point of looking at JUST THE SKILLS in a vacuum? Where does that lead exactly? All I see are false conclusions and misleading rhetoric.
And I'm just seeing poor analysis and weak logic.
Take a fighter. Subtract the commoner. What do you get? A pure combat monkey. Commoners don't fight worth a damn. That's a given. Thus saying that fighters have something to spare to exceed a commoner is a pretty backhanded compliment.
Unless I am insane, I will not be trying to make a commoner into a combatant. Thus I have every feat and skill point the fighter does to make him useful out of combat (since that's all he's going to do).
Will the PC have more money? Sure. Fine, the fighter wins by wealth alone.
Take another core martial class and subtract the commoner. There's a whole lot more left than in the case of the fighter. There will be more class skills, more skill points (except Paladins), and more interesting abilities (rage powers trump feats in most cases).
Now let's be clear here. I'm not saying you can't make a versatile fighter. It certainly is possible. What I am saying is that you give up part of the only strength the fighter really has (combat prowess) to do it. Doing a comparable thing with other martial classes has lower opportunity cost.
In that case you end up with a fighter that fights poorlyYep, right on schedule. Give up a +1 here or there to be more versatile and you are "poor".
I think I'm going to start calling this the "non-optimal = sux" fallacy.
How about you call it the "statement of reality"?
Or are you going to try to argue that a fighter that doesn't 'go versatile' will fight as well as a fighter that does?
There is no free lunch here. You're giving up something to get something.
Yes, at MOST I'm "giving up" an additional +1 on weapon specialization that no other class can get anyway, meaning my "poor" fighter will hit 1 fewer time out of 20 over the course of his entire career.
If you think that makes a fighter "poor" then you and I have remarkably different definitions of "poor."
Plus it ignores that if my fighter boosts his versatility into "UMD" he could well end up with the ability to buff himself to be even BETTER than he would have been with that single +1 to hit.
Giving up a feat on an archery build is a high price to pay.Would you please be so kind as to clarify this? What price is being paid? Give us an example or two.
Are you saying you don't know how to build an archer?
Feats you want as an archer:
Point blank shot
precise shot
rapid shot
manyshot
clustered shot
point blank master
improved precise shot
snap shot
improved snap shot
weapon focus box
Weapon specialization bow
Greater weapon focus bow
greater weapon specialization bow
It's debatable if you bother with criticals on bows, but that can eat even more feats.
Of course you also need iron will unless you like being a mannequin or puppet.
There's fourteen feats. Which ones are to be sacrificed for limited out of combat utility? I think I'd rather have the combat feats in about every case (I'll burn a train to get perception as a class skill, but that's about it).
|
|
The archer will have an AC of 10+4(wis)+1(dex)+1(monk)+4(mage armor)+3(bark-skin)= 23 or 27 with shield (cause hey he is specialized in use magic device). The fighter will have full plate +1 so 22 AC, 26 with shield (again use magic device specialist).
I'm going to assume the barkskin comes from being a qinggong monk, which you likely should have mentioned; still, at 5th level that's only a +2. Even so, where's the mage armor coming from? Because whether it's from a friendly party member or a wand, the fighter deserves the same access - which means the fighter will have shield of faith, and still be 2 points of AC ahead.
Also, I would generally recommend against over-specializing to the extent needed to have Dex 20; Dex 18 is probably good enough, and leaves you enough point buy room left that you don't have to gimp the rest of your stats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, at MOST I'm "giving up" an additional +1 on weapon specialization that no other class can get anyway, meaning my "poor" fighter will hit 1 fewer time out of 20 over the course of his entire career.
If you think that makes a fighter "poor" then you and I have remarkably different definitions of "poor."
Plus it ignores that if my fighter boosts his versatility into "UMD" he could well end up with the ability to buff himself to be even BETTER than he would have been with that single +1 to hit.
What are you talking about?
Weapon specialization is a +2 to damage (which no other class can get). It carries a prerequisite which is what you happen to be disparaging (weapon focus, which any class can get). Let's be honest, if weapon focus were not needed for specialization, who would take it? Not that many people I imagine. Specialization, however, is how a fighter keeps up with a raging barbarian.Be more careful with the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I would generally recommend against over-specializing to the extent needed to have Dex 20; Dex 18 is probably good enough, and leaves you enough point buy room left that you don't have to gimp the rest of your stats.
Have to agree with this. The opportunity cost of buying the 18 to go to 20 is not worth it. I've done it on one PFS character (and I knew it was not optimal, it was a lark), and I'm painfully aware the character could have been better with the extra 7 points devoted elsewhere.
Speaking of reach and lockdown builds and such, IMHO the best method is to just strait out abuse Dazing Assault. It's a high level tactic, but adding a DC 21-32 save vs Daze to all your attacks each round is pretty goofy good. If you combine it with lunge, reach weapons, whirlwind attack, and the like...well you end up with what amounts to an at-will massive AoE lockdown attack that deals fair damage. If you can combine it with Combat Reflexes, well you can keep foes useless for a while.
It's actually really sexy on a barbarian. By 11th level when you can get Dazing Assault you can naturally have Whirlwind attack and then pick up the feat. Combine with No Escape and Come & Get Me and you'll make many people sad pandas.
However, in spirit of the thread, a lore-warden dip could get you the necessary prerequisites really quick and save you some feats; and you'd more or less erase the downsides of the lorewarden by being a barbarian (which gets back most of your armor / shield proficiencies).
Yes, at MOST I'm "giving up" an additional +1 on weapon specialization that no other class can get anyway, meaning my "poor" fighter will hit 1 fewer time out of 20 over the course of his entire career.
If you think that makes a fighter "poor" then you and I have remarkably different definitions of "poor."
Plus it ignores that if my fighter boosts his versatility into "UMD" he could well end up with the ability to buff himself to be even BETTER than he would have been with that single +1 to hit.
What are you talking about?
Weapon specialization is a +2 to damage (which no other class can get). It carries a prerequisite which is what you happen to be disparaging (weapon focus, which any class can get). Let's be honest, if weapon focus were not needed for specialization, who would take it? Not that many people I imagine. Specialization, however, is how a fighter keeps up with a raging barbarian.Be more careful with the rules.
So, you are unaware that greater weapon focus gives you an additional +1 to hit and is restricted to fighters? Hmm... admonition about rules too...
I'd probably give up the +2 to damage before the +1 to hit, now that you mention it anyway, but snark aside, you've done nothing to rebut my argument which is that you can give up a tiny fraction of your fighter damage to become much more capable in another role and that tiny fraction just means instead of being a combat god, you're just a combat godling.
Anyway, at this point with you literally arguing that a fighter HAS TO HAVE fifteen specifically identified combat feats to be playable you've pretty much tipped your hand that you won't play anything but an optimized build.
You know what?
I will. And I'd be more than willing to go up against your characters drbuzzard, because it's been my experience that people that locked into one view of things aren't that great at dealing with real combat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose from a pure game-design theory perspective I might even agree with the argument that fighters could use some more love from the devs for non-combat versatility. I don't see it as a huge problem since any reasonably built fighter can have more role playing options than the vast majority of gamers will ever utilize, but it would be nice.
That is my point. I don't think Fighters suck. I've said as much since page 1 on this thread. My point is that the class of Fighter does not bring anything unique or interesting to non-combat situations, and having SOMETHING would be neat.
There's fourteen feats. Which ones are to be sacrificed for limited out of combat utility?Fighters, even nonhuman ones, have twenty-one feats over their 20 levels. They don't have to sacrifice anything. Which, if you have been paying attention, is rather the point of this entire thread.
Ok, but what if you want the critical feats? What if you want some utility with a melee weapon? What if you want to pick up improved iron will, and lightning reflexes? How about dodge mobility and shot on the run? You have to decide on what you want to give up. On the scale of a 5th level fighter (the example at hand), there's not much I'd be willing to give up in the way of combat prowess since that is what is expected of you.
Speaking of reach and lockdown builds and such, IMHO the best method is to just strait out abuse Dazing Assault. It's a high level tactic, but adding a DC 21-32 save vs Daze to all your attacks each round is pretty goofy good. If you combine it with lunge, reach weapons, whirlwind attack, and the like...well you end up with what amounts to an at-will massive AoE lockdown attack that deals fair damage. If you can combine it with Combat Reflexes, well you can keep foes useless for a while.
It's actually really sexy on a barbarian. By 11th level when you can get Dazing Assault you can naturally have Whirlwind attack and then pick up the feat. Combine with No Escape and Come & Get Me and you'll make many people sad pandas.
However, in spirit of the thread, a lore-warden dip could get you the necessary prerequisites really quick and save you some feats; and you'd more or less erase the downsides of the lorewarden by being a barbarian (which gets back most of your armor / shield proficiencies).
Please do not tell my players that. I DO NOT need one of these at the table.
|
|
Ok, but what if you want the critical feats? What if you want some utility with a melee weapon? What if you want to pick up improved iron will, and lightning reflexes? How about dodge mobility and shot on the run? You have to decide on what you want to give up. On the scale of a 5th level fighter (the example at hand), there's not much I'd be willing to give up in the way of combat prowess since that is what is expected of you.
It is about what you're willing to give up, and apparently you're willing to give up any noncombat utility. Which, frankly, is just fine. But it does mean you are going to find it hard to work within what's being proposed here.
What exactly does a ranger, gunslinger or cavalier can do out of combat that is unique (AKA can not be replicated by some other class)?
Ranger, a lot. The other two, I have no idea.
Although the ranger's out-of-combat abilities are shared with a couple of others, but not the fighter.
So, you are unaware that greater weapon focus gives you an additional +1 to hit and is restricted to fighters? Hmm... admonition about rules too...
I know this may come as a surprise, but I'm not living in your head and hence cannot make the leap of logic from 'specialization' to greater weapon focus without you actually saying something. Sorry, my ESP must be on the fritz.
I'd probably give up the +2 to damage before the +1 to hit, now that you mention it anyway, but snark aside, you've done nothing to rebut my argument which is that you can give up a tiny fraction of your fighter damage to become much more capable in another role and that tiny fraction just means instead of being a combat god, you're just a combat godling.
You give up that which gives you an edge over the other martial class. I know it is pointless to keep stating my point, but that's it. It's about opportunity cost. Yes, you can work to make the fighter OK and what it is not good at. Perhaps instead you should take a class which is suited to doing those other things and run with it. Do you often hammer nails with a screwdriver?
Anyway, at this point with you literally arguing that a fighter HAS TO HAVE fifteen specifically identified combat feats to be playable you've pretty much tipped your hand that you won't play anything but an optimized build.
You do have a great ability to put words in people's mouths (other than the ones you should be putting in your own so you can actually communicate). When did I say anything about playable?
It's really getting old having to say the same thing without it registering a dent. I listed the optimal feats for an archer. Are they all necessary? Of course not. Will they all make you a better archer? Yes. Will the out of combat stuff necessarily do you any good if you take it instead of an archery feat? Maybe. Perhaps instead someone with a better suited class will take up the task and do it better than you possibly could. Thus you will have not played to your strength and on balanced added less to the party than you could have.
You know what?I will. And I'd be more than willing to go up against your characters drbuzzard, because it's been my experience that people that locked into one view of things aren't that great at dealing with real combat.
You seem to love making assumptions about others. I can recommend a Benny Hill skit for you. It might help with this.
I suppose from a pure game-design theory perspective I might even agree with the argument that fighters could use some more love from the devs for non-combat versatility. I don't see it as a huge problem since any reasonably built fighter can have more role playing options than the vast majority of gamers will ever utilize, but it would be nice.That is my point. I don't think Fighters suck. I've said as much since page 1 on this thread. My point is that the class of Fighter does not bring anything unique or interesting to non-combat situations, and having SOMETHING would be neat.
Now this is something I understand.
That being said, I feel that giving the Fighter class non-combat options AS CLASS FEATURES would take away from the core concept of it being a fighter.
Expanding your options through general features, such as skills, feats, and magical items, on the other hand, doesn't impinge upon that.
It is about what you're willing to give up, and apparently you're willing to give up any noncombat utility. Which, frankly, is just fine. But it does mean you are going to find it hard to work within what's being proposed here.
Actually my point (if not stated clearly enough), is that a job should be done with a tool suited to it, not with a tool shoehorned into fitting somewhat.
Yes, you can make that versatile fighter. But couldn't you just do all that with a ranger instead without giving up your strengths?
I would like it if the fighter design had been better considered in the first place. I still play them as is, and I do try to be useful outside of combat with the tools available (though not to the extents here).
Fighters (IMO) need a larger skill selection, more skill points, and better saves. At the last local gaming con I was having a discussion with a buddy and he pointed out that in the 2nd to 3rd transition fighters went from having great saves to some pretty damned bad ones without any real commensurate increase in (relative)power to offset this.
I don't think a buff on the order of this would be huge, and it would certainly do a lot to bring them up to par (say 4 skill points, add in perception, acrobatics, and maybe bluff, and allow the fighter to select 2 of the 3 as good saves).
Please do not tell my players that. I DO NOT need one of these at the table.Speaking of reach and lockdown builds and such, IMHO the best method is to just strait out abuse Dazing Assault. It's a high level tactic, but adding a DC 21-32 save vs Daze to all your attacks each round is pretty goofy good. If you combine it with lunge, reach weapons, whirlwind attack, and the like...well you end up with what amounts to an at-will massive AoE lockdown attack that deals fair damage. If you can combine it with Combat Reflexes, well you can keep foes useless for a while.
It's actually really sexy on a barbarian. By 11th level when you can get Dazing Assault you can naturally have Whirlwind attack and then pick up the feat. Combine with No Escape and Come & Get Me and you'll make many people sad pandas.
However, in spirit of the thread, a lore-warden dip could get you the necessary prerequisites really quick and save you some feats; and you'd more or less erase the downsides of the lorewarden by being a barbarian (which gets back most of your armor / shield proficiencies).
No worries. It's actually my opinion that Dazing Assault is one of the most broken feats in the game, and yet it's one that gets very, very little attention. For the mere cost of -5 to hit (most martials have hit bonuses in spades) all your attacks force a massive save (DC 10 + your BAB plus Ability Focus if you take that feat too) or be dazed 1 round. Nothing in core (or anywhere else in Pathfinder that I know of) is immune to dazing. It's also not mind-affecting, not-magical, and functions inside antimagic fields just fine. It's literally save or lose your round. And since you can hit multiple times per round, you can force multiple saves per round.
It's particularly cruel on an Antipaladin who can deliver to dazing assault with his corrupting touch attack which deals damage, forces a save vs being dazed, can curse you, and you have to make all your saves at -2 for being inside his aura. Once you've got 'em dazed, full-attacking each round can pound them into dust (with each hit forcing more saves vs daze) until they cry uncle. EDIT: And cursing you gives a -4 to all further saves vs dazing. Or if you just wanna be a dick, a 50% chance to lose your turn each round, which means that you're stunlocking even when you're not stunlocking. One targets Fortitude and the other Will.
You seem to love making assumptions about others. I can recommend a Benny Hill skit for you. It might help with this.
LOL, pot, meet kettle.
Look buzzard, if you don't want people to think that you mean something, don't say it. You said that sacrificing anything for a fighter to be more versatile will make that a fighter who 'fights poorly'.
I have not put any words into your mouth at all. Since you stated that sacrificing anything would have that result, that means that sacrificing a single feat would have that result.
Now you are saying, well, maybe not.
Fine, then we agree. A fighter can devote a single feat into a non-combat purpose without "fighting poorly".
Now all we need to agree on is if a single feat can make a fighter versatile enough in out of combat situations to be an active non-combat participant. I have showed on a couple of threads now that a single feat devoted to gain two additional traits will give a fighter four potential class skills of his choice, and that by level 4 he can be at +9 in all four of them. That is in addition to any skills he is good at because they are already class skills and his ability scores give him bonuses in them. Like "climb" or "ride" or "swim".
I think that creates a character with several usable skills and at least four that are comparable to any "skill-monkey" character.
To those asking for evidence:
So far, I've seen 6 builds in this thread as evidence for the argument that fighters are useful outside of combat and 1 build to the contrary (aka, the argument that another class can do it better while still being just as good in combat).
So far, I'm inclined to side with those making the pro argument. Those who are arguing for the other side really need to step up their game and actually show some evidence that other classes can do non-combat stuff better than fighters while still being just as good in combat, rather than just stating it.
Speaking of reach and lockdown builds and such, IMHO the best method is to just strait out abuse Dazing Assault. It's a high level tactic, but adding a DC 21-32 save vs Daze to all your attacks each round is pretty goofy good. If you combine it with lunge, reach weapons, whirlwind attack, and the like...well you end up with what amounts to an at-will massive AoE lockdown attack that deals fair damage. If you can combine it with Combat Reflexes, well you can keep foes useless for a while.
I suppose it's all right, but it really doesn't impress me on paper. Maybe it's better in practice, but the DCs really are not that high compared to the opposition.
Try level 11 when you get it. The DC is 21.
Let's look at some CR 11 critters (which is low for your level, but we're taking it easy on the feat).
Hezrou Fort +16
Hamatula Devil +14
Adult Black Dragon +14
Cloud Giant +16
Naga (royal) +9 (finally a target)
For giving up +5 to hit, having a 30% chance of daze (or worse) in most cases doesn't seem like a bargain. Sure against things with weak fortitude saves, it is sweet, but how common are those really? It will play hell on arcane casters (certainly better than the gimpy disruption chain), but those will have tricks to avoid this in the first place.
When I first saw you advocate it here, I immediately looked it up, but honestly I don't really think it is that shiny.
You seem to love making assumptions about others. I can recommend a Benny Hill skit for you. It might help with this.LOL, pot, meet kettle.
Demonstrate my assumptions please. It's clear that you've stated that I'm a poor player because I build optimized characters, which cannot be more of an assumption since we've never played at a table. Hence you are blatantly making an (insulting) assumption.
If you are going to claim it is because I've said a fighter with the feats devoted to non combat abilities fights poorly, that is only in comparison to one which has focused the feats on combat. That is no assumption. You are not getting something for nothing. Now was poorly a strong word? Possibly too strong in fact. But there is no denying that you are not going to be comparable to someone optimized for combat.
To those asking for evidence:
So far, I've seen 6 builds in this thread as evidence for the argument that fighters are useful outside of combat and 1 build to the contrary (aka, the argument that another class can do it better while still being just as good in combat).
So far, I'm inclined to side with those making the pro argument. Those who are arguing for the other side really need to step up their game and actually show some evidence that other classes can do non-combat stuff better than fighters while still being just as good in combat, rather than just stating it.
You need a build in front of you to realize that if a class has 2 or 4 more skill points per level, a more diverse class skill selection, spells, and other non combat abilities they will be better out of combat? Really?
I suppose it's all right, but it really doesn't impress me on paper. Maybe it's better in practice, but the DCs really are not that high compared to the opposition.
Try level 11 when you get it. The DC is 21.
Let's look at some CR 11 critters (which is low for your level, but we're taking it easy on the feat).
Hezrou Fort +16
Hamatula Devil +14
Adult Black Dragon +14
Cloud Giant +16
Naga (royal) +9 (finally a target)For giving up +5 to hit, having a 30% chance of daze (or worse) in most cases doesn't seem like a bargain. Sure against things with weak fortitude saves, it is sweet, but how common are those really? It will play hell on arcane casters (certainly better than the gimpy disruption chain), but those will have tricks to avoid this in the first place.
When I first saw you advocate it here, I immediately looked it up, but honestly I don't really think it is that shiny.
In the campaigns I run, It would wreck the table %70 of the time, but that's the point. Everybody's style is different.
On tangent: Single-classed fighters tend to do poorly in my campaigns. The same players tend to do much better playing more balanced characters, as I have very few combats that single-target High-DPR is a solution to.
You seem to love making assumptions about others. I can recommend a Benny Hill skit for you. It might help with this.LOL, pot, meet kettle.Demonstrate my assumptions please. It's clear that you've stated that I'm a poor player because I build optimized characters, which cannot be more of an assumption since we've never played at a table. Hence you are blatantly making an (insulting) assumption.
If you are going to claim it is because I've said a fighter with the feats devoted to non combat abilities fights poorly, that is only in comparison to one which has focused the feats on combat. That is no assumption. You are not getting something for nothing. Now was poorly a strong word? Possibly too strong in fact. But there is no denying that you are not going to be comparable to someone optimized for combat.
You're doing it again buzzard. And no doubt my pointing it out will make you throw all kinds of insults my way again. But hey, that's what the Interwebz are for.
"you are not going to be comparable to someone optimized for combat."
We've already established that AT WORST the fighter will be at -2 to damage or -1 to hit COMPARED TO A FULLY OPTIMIZED FIGHTER.
Now you are saying that a fully optimized fighter with a -2 to damage OR a -1 to hit is not "comparable" to any other martial build of the same level.
To quote Inigo Montoya, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."
So, the answer is nothing really unique?.What exactly does a ranger, gunslinger or cavalier can do out of combat that is unique (AKA can not be replicated by some other class)?Ranger, a lot. The other two, I have no idea.
Although the ranger's out-of-combat abilities are shared with a couple of others, but not the fighter.
Why does the ability have to be unique? There are few out of combat abilities which are unique (especially in the face of archetypes).
The issue at hand is whether the fighter keeps up, or even if it can be made to keep up with other classes in terms of out of combat ability.
Ranger is massively better out of combat (tracking bonus, terrain bonuses, big skill selection and 6 skill points per level.
Gunslinger - 4 skill points per level, and more diverse skill selection
Cavalier - 4 skill points per level and more diverse skills.
You need a build in front of you to realize that if a class has 2 or 4 more skill points per level, a more diverse class skill selection, spells, and other non combat abilities they will be better out of combat? Really?To those asking for evidence:
So far, I've seen 6 builds in this thread as evidence for the argument that fighters are useful outside of combat and 1 build to the contrary (aka, the argument that another class can do it better while still being just as good in combat).
So far, I'm inclined to side with those making the pro argument. Those who are arguing for the other side really need to step up their game and actually show some evidence that other classes can do non-combat stuff better than fighters while still being just as good in combat, rather than just stating it.
Yup. Really. Show the evidence. Back your assertions.
You're doing it again buzzard. And no doubt my pointing it out will make you throw all kinds of insults my way again. But hey, that's what the Interwebz are for.
Don't play the aggrieved party here, you dipped into the ad hominems first and have stayed there.
"you are not going to be comparable to someone optimized for combat."We've already established that AT WORST the fighter will be at -2 to damage or -1 to hit COMPARED TO A FULLY OPTIMIZED FIGHTER.
Now you are saying that a fully optimized fighter with a -2 to damage OR a -1 to hit is not "comparable" to any other martial build of the same level.
To quote Inigo Montoya, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."
Let's try a dictionary since we're going to make accusations about accuracy in a statement:
1. Admitting of comparison with another or others: "The satellite revolution is comparable to Gutenberg's invention of movable type" (Irvin Molotsky).
2. Similar or equivalent: pianists of comparable ability.
I'm favoring definition 2 - equivalence. If you are hitting less often and doing less damage, you are not equivalent.
Is that not clear?
The reason that simply pointing out that one class has more skill points per level and some other non combat abilities doesn't "prove" that fighters can't compete with other classes for combat/non-combat functionality is that skills are not all equal.
I would say that six or seven skills make up probably 80+% of non-combat role playing. Among those are diplomacy, bluff, intimidate, use magic device and stealth.
Any character who can adequately perform four or more of those is going to be as active and viable outside of combat as pretty much any other character, even if the other character has a dozen more skills.
You simply get more out of those few skills, so investing in them has huge payback.
The ranger begins and ends with...
...the pet with Scent, which is overly in a lot of my campaigns (mystery/horror/suspense).
Edit: quote messed up.