But in a world where people brag about not reading, I guess I shouldn't really care enough to try. :(
Never give up hope on intelligence. The most powerful class has it as his main stat.
Its hard to give evidence for what isn't there however. Mechanically a fighter can do quiet a bit out of combat but compared to the other classes he falls far behind. He lacks class features. Its been his problem for some time now.
My own anecdotal evidence suggest that fighters are far on the weak side of things, and require some degree system mastery to actually make them good at something. Many of the players I've met who say their fighter is great actually fall far behind, but they still have fun and that's all that matters in a game. Though I am still a bit peeved if I feel like I'm being dragged or carrying them ever. Happens quiet a bit when you like buffing and debuffing, but not everyone remembers someone is actually doing that for the.
As to skills, at the same level The Figher will get -3 to ACP, which is functionally a +3 to those skills.
Does that mean when the barbarian wears mithral he gets a +2 to all his stats? Fighter armor training is cheap, especially if your not going for the heavy armor version. I don't want to bring up any arguments over gear again. They always look messy.
Posting builds is a pain. Lots of variables and not everyone has a character builder on their desktop just waiting to ask that question. Worse yet, if you misrepresent you have the community to come down on you, and your open to judgement.
I think you're missing the point, ciretose...
We can all post Human Lore Warden Trip-Monkey #97644 or whatever. What we can't do is make a vanilla Fighter who is any better out of combat than a commoner who invested the same resources.
Posting builds is fun, sure... But it doesn't so much prove the strengths and limitations of class as much as it proves how a skilled player can work around them, which has more to do with player skill than good class design.
There are way too many situations where the Fighter class simply doesn't do anything for your character. This includes basically any situation where killing stuff with your sword is not a viable answer.
And IMHO, Fighters re not all that good at fighting, either, unless all your enemies are Ogre-with-class-levels type of enemy.
Fighters are basically a Warrior with somewhat higher numbers and, maybe, a second combat style.
|
No I'm making the point that theorycraft in the abstract is all fine and dandy but means nothing outside of context.
There are way to many assumptions and not enough tests on here. And frankly, whenever we seem to get people to post build, it generally becomes obvious that the assumptions aren't based on fact.
If you want to proclaim something, keep it up.
If you want to find out something, test it. Set criteria and a hypothesis and test it.
I've shown I can get to combat effective less than half of the feats spent, what is your criteria and lets see if we can meet it.
Otherwise you are just saying "Obviously the world is flat and heavy things fall faster than slow things, what are you dense?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Testing a given criteria and hypothesis...
We tried that before, remember?
1st - We didn't really find practical way to do it in this forum.
2nd - You were against every proposed test because they were "straw men".
So forgive me if I'm not exactly excited with the idea of running tests here...
Now, as much as you curse "theorycraft" and love talking about "moving goal posts", I've never seen any build that proves that Fighters don't have those problems. Just builds that show me a player can work around them.
Fighters get ZERO out of combat class features... Well, let's say they get half a class feature, as Armor Training technically makes them better at skills. And maybe a few bonuses to Intimidate here and there... So add it all together and maybe it counts are real class feature... And that's it.
Do I really need a build to prove that? You can see it on your CRB!
Now I can build Fighters who can contribute out of combat just fine... But the means which they used to do so are not at all related to their class.
Unless of course, it's one of the very few archetypes that get extra skill points or something like that...
|
|
Does that mean when the barbarian wears mithral he gets a +2 to all his stats? Fighter armor training is cheap, especially if your not going for the heavy armor version. I don't want to bring up any arguments over gear again. They always look messy.
Facts can tend to muddy assumptions.
Mithral will mean they have -2 to ACP, meaning that armor is basically +3 higher on skill checks with strength and dex checks than armor with out it.
Full plate is -6 ACP. Mithral -3, so the fighter can wear mithral platemail with no ACP and a max dex of + 6 and still have full movement.
+9 base to AC with no ACP and max dex of +6 for about 10,500k, without any magical enhancements, meaning adding more AC or armor special qualities starts at the bottom of the pricing chart.
|
|
Testing a given criteria and hypothesis...
We tried that before, remember?
1st - We didn't really find practical way to do it in this forum.
2nd - You were against every proposed test because they were "straw men".
Not true, and I defy you to cite and link to it.
There are very practical ways to do it, you just need to lay down what the goal posts are, demonstrate other classes can meet those goal posts, and then see if the Fighter can.
The problem is too many people on here are more interested in showing how right they are than finding out if it is actually true.
If the fighter can be combat viable using less than half of their feats, what would you like for them to accomplish with the other half of their feats.
The reason these discussion keep circling around and around is your side of the argument refuses to lay out definitions by which they can be potentially proven wrong.
But instead, all we get is walls and walls of text saying "Clearly we are correct, just look at the size of our wall of text..."
Yes, let's ignore the one thing that Fighters have over all the other classes; namely a feat every level.
What can you do with all those extra feats?
Well, if you're like some people, you plow them back into a second combat style and then complain that fighters can't do anything out of combat.Or maybe, just maybe, you invest in some skill focus and some overall skill boosters to get the most out of your small allotment of skill points.
All those extra feats are Combat feats. They don't get any more Skill Focus feats than any other class. And most of those get class features that are most likely better than most feats.
And speaking of skill points, why no large outcry about Clerics only getting 2 skill points a level? Or Sorcerers getting only 2 skill points a level?
Do I really have to explain why 2-skill points are not nearly as much of a problem for them as it's for Fighters? Do I? Really?
Or Rangers and Rogues also sucking on Will saves?
Yeah, Rogues have the worst saves in the game. Fighter are better than Rogues! That's amazing! After all, we all know Rogues are oh-so-powerful!
And Rangers still have better saves than Fighters. And 6 skill points per level. And a bunch of other out-of-combat utility stuff.Maybe the Fighter just suffers from a lack of imagination in his uses?
Of course. You're obviously a much more skilled player than everyone who complained about Fighters in this thread. Can I have your autograph?
|
|
Yes, let's ignore the one thing that Fighters have over all the other classes; namely a feat every level.
What can you do with all those extra feats?
Well, if you're like some people, you plow them back into a second combat style and then complain that fighters can't do anything out of combat.Or maybe, just maybe, you invest in some skill focus and some overall skill boosters to get the most out of your small allotment of skill points.
All those extra feats are Combat feats. They don't get any more Skill Focus feats than any other class. And most of those get class features that are most likely better than most feats.
And speaking of skill points, why no large outcry about Clerics only getting 2 skill points a level? Or Sorcerers getting only 2 skill points a level?Do I really have to explain why 2-skill points are not nearly as much of a problem for them as it's for Fighters? Do I? Really?
Or Rangers and Rogues also sucking on Will saves?Yeah, Rogues have the worst saves in the game. Fighter are better than Rogues! That's amazing! After all, we all know Rogues are oh-so-powerful!
And Rangers still have better saves than Fighters. And 6 skill points per level. And a bunch of other out-of-combat utility stuff.Maybe the Fighter just suffers from a lack of imagination in his uses?Of course. You're obviously a much more skilled player than everyone who complained about Fighters in this thread. Can I have your autograph?
HALF of a fighter's feats are combat feats. The whole other half...as many as many classes get in total...can be used on other things.
Seriously.
Does that mean when the barbarian wears mithral he gets a +2 to all his stats? Fighter armor training is cheap, especially if your not going for the heavy armor version. I don't want to bring up any arguments over gear again. They always look messy.Facts can tend to muddy assumptions.
Mithral will mean they have -2 to ACP, meaning that armor is basically +3 higher on skill checks with strength and dex checks than armor with out it.
Full plate is -6 ACP. Mithral -3, so the fighter can wear mithral platemail with no ACP and a max dex of + 6 and still have full movement
You left out what it was a response to. It is exactly the same by that logic. Regardless I don't actually see ACP come up that often as a hindrance unless theres a lot of it. ACP can be mutable depending on the build. Its not hard to hit 0 because a mihtral breastplate with comfort or the armor mastery trait hits 0 ACP and can be worn by anyone without incurring a penalty.
Yes, let's ignore the one thing that Fighters have over all the other classes; namely a feat every level.
Feats are less valuable than class features. Feats do not replicate class features, or at least not usually or not very well. This is one of the big arguments I remember from 3.5. No amount of feats is going to give you free casting per day or an animal companion or such. Fighters bonus feats are also from a select list.
I'm not sure if using feats to shore up what you probably should've had in the first place is the best. I hate feat taxes myself.
And speaking of skill points, why no large outcry about Clerics only getting 2 skill points a level? Or Sorcerers getting only 2 skill points a level?
I'm actually not big on this myself. I'd rather they get 4+ skillpoints. Its hard to complain about full casting though. Full casting is powerful in its own right.
Maybe the Fighter just suffers from a lack of imagination in his uses?
Lets not insult everyone. Fluff can be anything, but mechanics are hard coded. Imagination will apply to everyone. Imagination is not a fighter class feature. Its a player class feature if anything isn't it?
Fighters aren't even the kings of combat, they are the kings of hitting straw training dummies with their signature weapon. things a fighter lacks, but should have recieved
- all good saving throws
- 5+int skill points per level, maybe 6+int
- a much better skill list
- pounce
- wuxia style permanent flight
- a resistance to such things as ability damage and negative levels, whether the ability to rapidly recover from them, or a form a DR against them
- superhuman martial skills that breach into anime/mythology territory
- adaptability to all weapons, from a club to a sword and even fist
- an ability to end conditions at will, Iron Heart Surge FTW
|
|
Does that mean when the barbarian wears mithral he gets a +2 to all his stats? Fighter armor training is cheap, especially if your not going for the heavy armor version. I don't want to bring up any arguments over gear again. They always look messy.Facts can tend to muddy assumptions.
Mithral will mean they have -2 to ACP, meaning that armor is basically +3 higher on skill checks with strength and dex checks than armor with out it.
Full plate is -6 ACP. Mithral -3, so the fighter can wear mithral platemail with no ACP and a max dex of + 6 and still have full movement
You left out what it was a response to. It is exactly the same by that logic. Regardless I don't actually see ACP come up that often as a hindrance unless theres a lot of it. ACP can be mutable depending on the build. Its not hard to hit 0 because a mihtral breastplate with comfort or the armor mastery trait hits 0 ACP and can be worn by anyone without incurring a penalty.
But a fighter can do it for free. Hell, looking again I don't even need Mithral to get rid of the ACP if it is masterwork.
So the fact you can spend a trait and a lot of gold to get to the same level shows...well...nothing.
And yes, it is mutable. All skills are mutable. The Fighter doesn't have to spend the trait or the money to get to the same ACP. And they can wear full plate while doing it, moving at full speed.
You show me how the Barbarian gets a +9 to AC with no ACP for the cost of Masterwork Platemail and it will be the same.
Until then, it isn't.
easiest way to fix the fighter (though not the best)
merge the fighter and rogue into one class ala gestalt, give the fused class the ninja's Ki pool (based off Con instead of Cha) at 2nd level with a different name, and call it the "badass normal" remember to remove armor restrictions on rogue features
drop the fighter, rogue, monk, gunslinger, and ninja off the face of the planet.
Now you get the following
Good Reflex and Fortitude
Full BaB
D10 HD
8+int skills
Martial Weapons, Heavy Armor, and tower shields
Full Sneak attack progression
Full Ki Pool 1/2 level +Con Mod
Rogue/Fighter Skill List
Full Bonus Feat Progression
Full Rogue Talent/Ninja Trick Progression
Full Weapon/Armor Training Progression
Full Trapfinding Progression
Full Uncanny Dodge/Evasion Line
now you have a fighter with out of combat options. and some in combat tactical perks.
Missed the point Ciretose. My point was that ACP doesn't come up that often, and that its not a big replacer for the 2+ skillpoints. Swim and Climb are easily replaced by spells. It doesn't help him be social, hold a job, and he's likely to put a point in(one of his precious few) because class skill bonus is nice for when you do need it and he doesn't have class skills anywhere else. I wouldn't say all skills are ignorable if that's what your getting at.
Fighter doesn't reach 0 ACP in masterwork fullplate. Fighters only take 4 off the ACP, and masterwork fullplate has 5.
Does that mean when the barbarian wears mithral he gets a +2 to all his stats? Fighter armor training is cheap, especially if your not going for the heavy armor version. I don't want to bring up any arguments over gear again. They always look messy.Facts can tend to muddy assumptions.
Mithral will mean they have -2 to ACP, meaning that armor is basically +3 higher on skill checks with strength and dex checks than armor with out it.
Full plate is -6 ACP. Mithral -3, so the fighter can wear mithral platemail with no ACP and a max dex of + 6 and still have full movement
You left out what it was a response to. It is exactly the same by that logic. Regardless I don't actually see ACP come up that often as a hindrance unless theres a lot of it. ACP can be mutable depending on the build. Its not hard to hit 0 because a mihtral breastplate with comfort or the armor mastery trait hits 0 ACP and can be worn by anyone without incurring a penalty.
But a fighter can do it for free. Hell, looking again I don't even need Mithral to get rid of the ACP if it is masterwork.
So the fact you can spend a trait and a lot of gold to get to the same level shows...well...nothing.
And yes, it is mutable. All skills are mutable. The Fighter doesn't have to spend the trait or the money to get to the same ACP. And they can wear full plate while doing it, moving at full speed.
You show me how the Barbarian gets a +9 to AC with no ACP for the cost of Masterwork Platemail and it will be the same.
Until then, it isn't.
Fighter who buys masterwork platemail at 12th level has the following
+9 AC, +4 max dex -2 ACP. -2 ACP is not 0. fighter still needs mithril. so fighter can't do it either, and fighter invested 12 levels worth of class features to get it.
|
easiest way to fix the fighter (though not the best)
merge the fighter and rogue into one class ala gestalt, give the fused class the ninja's Ki pool (based off Con instead of Cha) at 2nd level with a different name, and call it the "badass normal" remember to remove armor restrictions on rogue features
drop the fighter, rogue, monk, gunslinger, and ninja off the face of the planet.
Now you get the following
Good Reflex and Fortitude
Full BaB
D10 HD
8+int skills
Martial Weapons, Heavy Armor, and tower shields
Full Sneak attack progression
Full Ki Pool 1/2 level +Con Mod
Rogue/Fighter Skill List
Full Bonus Feat Progression
Full Rogue Talent/Ninja Trick Progression
Full Weapon/Armor Training Progression
Full Trapfinding Progression
Full Uncanny Dodge/Evasion Linenow you have a fighter with out of combat options. and some in combat tactical perks.
If we are suggesting merging two classes to fix those classes I suggest merging rogue with monk and fighter with magus.
Just what should the Fighter have as a class ability? What can you give the Fighter, that doesn't rob some other class of it's place?
Good question. I think it should be more than feats, I think feats are a nice bonus but they don't make up for class features very well and haven't. Some special maneuvers, or tricks or something more than whacking things with a stick would be nice. A rallying cry maybe. If you look at Lumiere's list she has her own opinion and warblade from 3.5 had his maneuvers, which were all non magical abilities that let him bypass DR or shrug off conditions. He even had the power to use his level + con as a swift action as the modifier to his save ensuring he wouldn't die. The three classes in the book all came with bonuses for a specific mental stat and the feats in the book almost always came with more than a +1 to attack. I of course cannot post the entire ToB here, but it comes with many snazzy abilities and none of the warblades abilities were magical in any way.
I do sort agree with having a few more skill points, which is why the cry of "Fighter's don't have enough skill points" bugs me. Either several classes are behind on skill points, or no one is.
In my opinion? Everyone else is too low. Everyone but intelligence based casters need to be put up to 4+, and Rogues need something to place them reasonably ahead in skill points beyond their 8+. Rogue talents are usually weaker than feats, and in some cases nerfs! Barbarians have more skill points than a fighter.
Every other Martial Class has their background built into the class.
This does limit where they come from, and what they are doing there.
Fighter? They don't have a set background, because they are every fighting type that does not have a special class.
And with no set background, no archtype to compare to, how do you set what are class features?
They don't. A character is who you want them to be. A fighter is someone who uses a weapon, and a gunslinger is someone with a gun. Paladin is the only one that has something you can't work around. Barbarians can be anyone and you can say the rage is whatever. You just need to follow the mechanics. Fluff is what you make of it.
A good example is the ninja and barbarian. Not all ninjas wear PJs, not all barbarians come from a barbarian tribe. Despite the name, the mechanics can reflect many things and your choices of powers and tricks and back story define who they are. Nothing is outside of your choice. Paladin on the other hand is always lawful good and has a straight jacket. He's got threads about him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP:
What would you think of approaching the question a little differently?
For example, what if it focused on real-world examples from around the different tables which posters have been a part of? Say, ask the questions: 'Why I enjoyed this class during y campaign,' or 'Why I didn't enjoy this class during y campaign.' My personal thought is, like results from a playtest, this would be more relevant feedback.
Words on a board about 'why this class is bad' or 'this other one really stinks' are interesting, but I've found the experience can change when you sit down around the table...and changes the most depending on the group you're with.
To give a real-world example of my own, I remember encountering once, 'If your DM doesn't let you play a caster, s/he hates you!' and then the next day ran into someone who was making their characters, and happily told me: 'barbarians ftw!' Then there's the player who days ago told me how they couldn't wait to start on their fighter. The day before, 'I only play rogues and bards!'
No one can tell these players "you're wrong" or "you're stupid." These are, as far as I'm concerned when I'm DMing, my players. When I'm not, they're friends, even if they're only stopping by. I'm not going to let them.
In debates like this, there's going to be replies and debates like the ones above. Some folks are going to have some pretty cool things to say. Sometimes not. Other times they're going to say that the classes need eachother and do best when mixed.
It's one of those "popcorn debates." When it comes up...you should probably get some popcorn. This doesn't mean that it's a bad question or proposal. It just means it's one of "those topics" in the Pathfinder community.
Not unlike alignment.
The most important thing though, is to treat one another well and to enjoy the game.
|
|
Missed the point Ciretose. My point was that ACP doesn't come up that often, and that its not a big replacer for the 2+ skillpoints. Swim and Climb are easily replaced by spells. It doesn't help him be social, hold a job, and he's likely to put a point in(one of his precious few) because class skill bonus is nice for when you do need it and he doesn't have class skills anywhere else. I wouldn't say all skills are ignorable if that's what your getting at.
Fighter doesn't reach 0 ACP in masterwork fullplate. Fighters only take 4 off the ACP, and masterwork fullplate has 5.
Swim and Climb are two of the skills. Swim you are correct, not often. Climb...pretty often.
Did you forget Dex is also effected by ACP
Acrobatics, Disable Device, Escape Artist, Fly, Ride, Sleight of Hand, and Stealth.
9 Skills. More that 1/4 of the skill.
|
|
To the OP:
What would you think of approaching the question a little differently?
For example, what if it focused on real-world examples from around the different tables which posters have been a part of? Say, ask the questions: 'Why I enjoyed this class during y campaign,' or 'Why I didn't enjoy this class during y campaign.' My personal thought is, like results from a playtest, this would be more relevant feedback.
Words on a board about 'why this class is bad' or 'this other one really stinks' are interesting, but I've found the experience can change when you sit down around the table...and changes the most depending on the group you're with.
To give a real-world example of my own, I remember encountering once, 'If your DM doesn't let you play a caster, s/he hates you!' and then the next day ran into someone who was making their characters, and happily told me: 'barbarians ftw!' Then there's the player who days ago told me how they couldn't wait to start on their fighter. The day before, 'I only play rogues and bards!'
No one can tell these players "you're wrong" or "you're stupid." These are, as far as I'm concerned when I'm DMing, my players. When I'm not, they're friends, even if they're only stopping by. I'm not going to let them.
In debates like this, there's going to be replies and debates like the ones above. Some folks are going to have some pretty cool things to say. Sometimes not. Other times they're going to say that the classes need eachother and do best when mixed.
It's one of those "popcorn debates." When it comes up...you should probably get some popcorn. This doesn't mean that it's a bad question or proposal. It just means it's one of "those topics" in the Pathfinder community.
Not unlike alignment.
The most important thing though, is to treat one another well and to enjoy the game.
Good post.
I like fighters...and I've seen them excel any number of times...the reason this thread exists is I get tired of all the negativity about fighters...when they truly can excel. There is no class as flexible - not even the almighty wizard...and that's pretty incredible, to me. Brute force fighter can bring down mighty wizards...I've seen it any number of times, and actually played a fighter who thought it was his job...though he was more than brute force...by a shot.
Too many of us have good experience with fighters for them to be the 'crap class' they keep being made out to be. It wouldn't bother me in the least to see people mention that the fighter just wasn't their forte, or that maybe they've had bad experiences...or promote other classes...but people don't, so much, once they start going after fighters...and rogues (which I've also had a blast with)...and that's just sad.
|
|
Fighter who buys masterwork platemail at 12th level has the following
+9 AC, +4 max dex -2 ACP. -2 ACP is not 0. fighter still needs mithril. so fighter can't do it either, and fighter invested 12 levels worth of class features to get it.
Actually -3 ACP and -3 dex penalty before mithral -5 and -5 mithral. So I was correct the 1st time, it would be -3 Armor Training, -2 Mithral, -1 Masterwork for 0 wearing platemail with no enhancements as opposed to -3 for the Barbarian with the same stuff...that he can't wear because it is heavy unless they take a feat.
So the fighter has 3 less Dex penalty and ACP wearing the same armor.
My bad.
And the fighter didn't "invested 12 levels worth of class features to get it." They get it for being a Fighter.
That is like saying a Wizard invests levels of class features to get crafting feats.
but then, due to lacking a fly speed, a fighter can never invest in Fly in the first place. and with the exception of mounted fighters, next to none will invest in ride and the only class that really does so is the cavalier/samurai.
outside of a rank to gain the class skill bonuses, most fighters let their high strength and armor training work to carry their climb and swim bonuses to respectable levels
outside of jumping and balancing, few fighters use acrobatics because it just does not scale with level appropriate monster CMD.
escape artist is a skill next to nobody invests in, the classes most screwed by grapple, have a form of reactive "escape grapple free card" except noncasters, who usually use light weapons to get around this. Cestus/Spiked Gauntlet for the win, allows you to deal damage while grappled, even if your primary weapon is a bow, polearm, or greatsword. although it is damage from a lesser secondary weapon, but some damage is better than none.
Fighter who buys masterwork platemail at 12th level has the following
+9 AC, +4 max dex -2 ACP. -2 ACP is not 0. fighter still needs mithril. so fighter can't do it either, and fighter invested 12 levels worth of class features to get it.
Actually -3 ACP and -3 dex penalty before mithral -5 and -5 mithral. So I was correct the 1st time, it would be -3 Armor Training, -2 Mithral, -1 Masterwork for 0 wearing platemail with no enhancements as opposed to -3 for the Barbarian with the same stuff...that he can't wear because it is heavy unless they take a feat.
So the fighter has 3 less Dex penalty and ACP wearing the same armor.
My bad.
And the fighter didn't "invested 12 levels worth of class features to get it." They get it for being a Fighter.
That is like saying a Wizard invests levels of class features to get crafting feats.
Barbarian at 12th level can have Greater Beast Totem. which Fighter cannot get.
Mithril Breastplate Grants +6 Ac, at -1 ACP. the ACP can be negated by the expenditure of a trait. Beast Totem at this level grants +4 AC. Barbarian doesn't need mithril full plate because they have beast totem and mithril breastplate.
in fact, +2 mithril breastplate is cheaper than +0 mithril full plate and +3 mithril breastplate is cheaper than +2 mithril full plate.
barbarian has similar AC higher speed, and pounce. at the cost of -1 ACP.
Maybe the discontent comes from the feeling that the Fighter can be really great in certain situations, but has a harder time generalizing while still remaining great in those certain situations. Not "why can't I beat everyone at everything?!" whining but, "gee, I sure hope we don't come across x, y, z, or anything really besides a, b, and c today." Yes, Rangers and Paladins have to worry about their specific type of target, but they still have plenty they can do otherwise. Gods help the tripper who fights many- or no-legged creatures. If the problem is people specialize and thereby hose their character in most situations, I'd say that you shouldn't design any class with the potential to hose itself.
I have builded several tripper fighters and when they face eemies that can not be tripped they just use the old tactic of do a lot of damage. A fighter have enough feats to be good a t tripoing and damage, and weapon focus /greater weapon focus add to the CMB for trip attempts.
Meanwhile all that trip investment is just sitting there when it could be more attack power/AC or actual class features or skill focus or... Never felt right to me when feats are pretty much all I get. I always try to go for the sure thing, and Fighters worry me with their overt item dependence. Trying to figure out something as simple as a shield bashing sword and board has been a personal nightmare for me. And lead me to all of these delightful discussions.
And I'm in a party with a Witch, a Psion, both 20+ INT. So, out of combat, I make aid another rolls and roleplay. Even as a human with 13 INT I just can't compete with that. In combat, I mostly yell "Look over here! I'm in plate! I must be scary!" as a distraction for the Gunslinger to turn them into red spray. (Okay, I do decent damage and I'm the only melee combatant, but nothing like what people in this thread say I should be able to do easy.)
I'm new to the system though. Don't mind me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why we must have a wizard?
it's not that your group must have a wizard. it's that your average group needs most of the following things a wizard provides
buffs (most of transmutation)
battlefield control (most of conjuration)
crowd control (AoE, Enchantments, Slow, etc)
a way to deal with swarms (AoE)
a way to divert excess damage from the tank (summons, undead hordes)
a means to deal with invisible foes (glitterdust, see invisibility)
a means to deal with enemy mages (dispel magic, feeblemind, etc)
someone to debuff the boss (enervation, slow, hold monster, etc)
a means to deal with utilitarian emergencies (unlocking a magically barred door with knock, using divination spells to scout, etc)
the wizard is one of the most flexible classes in this regard because it can change which spells to prepare on a daily basis based on the current situation.
Wow, you are sooooo smart.All those extra feats are Combat feats. They don't get any more Skill Focus feats than any other class. And most of those get class features that are most likely better than most feats.Yes, let's ignore the one thing that Fighters have over all the other classes; namely a feat every level.
What can you do with all those extra feats?
Well, if you're like some people, you plow them back into a second combat style and then complain that fighters can't do anything out of combat.Or maybe, just maybe, you invest in some skill focus and some overall skill boosters to get the most out of your small allotment of skill points.
Thank you. Very kind of you to say that.
So all those free combat feats that the Fighter gets means that his regular feats don't have to be combat feats, like everyone else has to take.
Twice as many feats is still twice as many feats.
But you just want to spend them on more combat feats, right?
Sure you can spend all your regular feats on non-combat stuff... And then Fighter is actually worse in combat than any other martial class.
Having extra combat feats are the only way Fighter can compete. Weapon Training won't take you very far on its own.Combat Feats are the class features of Fighters. Regular feats aren't.
Fighters can't ignore their regular feats and use only his class features (i.e.: bonus combat feats) any better than anyone else.
And speaking of skill points, why no large outcry about Clerics only getting 2 skill points a level? Or Sorcerers getting only 2 skill points a level?Do I really have to explain why 2-skill points are not nearly as much of a problem for them as it's for Fighters? Do I? Really?Yes, I do want you to explain it.
Particuarly since the Sorcerer is very limited in their spell selection, and won't usually spend their percious spell slots on some of the minor spells that w Wizard will have in their spellbook.
Detect Magic, Read Magic, Ghost Sound, Prestidigitation, Detect Poison, Dancing Lights...
Silent Image, Grease, Charm Person, Mount, Enlarge Person, Infernal Healing, Vanish, Obscuring Mist, Protection From Evil, Summon Monster 1...These are all cantrips and 1st level spell in the Sorcerer list. All of them pretty good, all of them useful in and out of combat. Soon enough they'll get Alter Self, Invisibility, Glitter Dust, Pyrotechnics, etc...
Even a blaster/enchantment/summon/whatever-focused Sorcerer can easily afford a dozen utility spells. Spell have no prerequisites, you know?
Sorcerers only need their top 2 spell levels to be viable in combat, they can use the others for utility with no worries. And they get spell of other levels too, not just their highest.
If you honestly believe Fighters have the same versatility as any full caster, spontaneous or not, then there is no point in arguing with you.
Yes, and Rogues have all this out of combat skill ability that you want (which has meant that they have been replaced by other characters who can do their job better than they can, and they still suck in combat.) Really, are you asking for the Fighter to be another class that makes the Rogue useless?Or Rangers and Rogues also sucking on Will saves?Yeah, Rogues have the worst saves in the game. Fighter are better than Rogues! That's amazing! After all, we all know Rogues are oh-so-powerful!
And Rangers still have better saves than Fighters. And 6 skill points per level. And a bunch of other out-of-combat utility stuff.
Rogues have different problems from Fighters. That doesn't mean Fighters don't have problems. Fighters could have 4 or even 6 skill points per level, and they wouldn't break anything.
And if the Ranger isn't fighting his chosen foes, he's actually a bit behind the Fighter.
And will lack the AC of the Fighter, unless he spends a feat for Heavy Armor Prof.
He is a bit behind in AC and DPR. Maybe. Not in versatility. And as it was said before, that's not all that combat includes. I'd rather have better saves and a bunch of skill points than +3 AC.
And the Ranger tends to be a bit more MAD than the Fighter. (Who knows, maybe the Fighter could spend those points that the Ranger has to spend in various stats in other stats, like Int?)
Rangers simply get better rewards for investing in Wisdom. I don't think they're more MAD than Fighters in any significant way... And even if they were, A fighter would need Int 18 to have the same skills.
I know that you are speaking at the "class" but nobody play with a class everyone play with a build/character.
particulary with 20 pb and a stat distribution of str 16,dex 14,con 14, int 12, wis 12, cha 7, a fighter can max intimidate and Knowledge dungeonering), and have other kill point per level for something else.
That is two things to do out of combat. yeah, a barbarian will have more skill points but the fighter should still be capable of doing a couple of things out of combat.
I agree, Nicos, which is why I never said Fighters are absolutely useless and completely incapable of doing anything at all out of combat.
I'm discussing the merits of the class, though, not specific character builds, there are other threads for that.
easiest way to fix the fighter (though not the best)
merge the fighter and rogue into one class ala gestalt, give the fused class the ninja's Ki pool (based off Con instead of Cha) at 2nd level with a different name, and call it the "badass normal" remember to remove armor restrictions on rogue features
drop the fighter, rogue, monk, gunslinger, and ninja off the face of the planet.
Now you get the following
Good Reflex and Fortitude
Full BaB
D10 HD
8+int skills
Martial Weapons, Heavy Armor, and tower shields
Full Sneak attack progression
Full Ki Pool 1/2 level +Con Mod
Rogue/Fighter Skill List
Full Bonus Feat Progression
Full Rogue Talent/Ninja Trick Progression
Full Weapon/Armor Training Progression
Full Trapfinding Progression
Full Uncanny Dodge/Evasion Linenow you have a fighter with out of combat options. and some in combat tactical perks.
If you haven't, you may want to look up Kirthfinder. It's a similar solution.
|
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why we must have a wizard?it's not that your group must have a wizard. it's that your average group needs most of the following things a wizard provides
buffs (most of transmutation)
battlefield control (most of conjuration)
crowd control (AoE, Enchantments, Slow, etc)
a way to deal with swarms (AoE)
a way to divert excess damage from the tank (summons, undead hordes)
a means to deal with invisible foes (glitterdust, see invisibility)
a means to deal with enemy mages (dispel magic, feeblemind, etc)
someone to debuff the boss (enervation, slow, hold monster, etc)
a means to deal with utilitarian emergencies (unlocking a magically barred door with knock, using divination spells to scout, etc)the wizard is one of the most flexible classes in this regard because it can change which spells to prepare on a daily basis based on the current situation.
I've seen a rogue with UMD plus a sack full of scrolls and wands do the same thing, along with healing, raising the dead, restoration, and a few other things.
So again, why need a Wizard when a skill and some gold can take the place of the class?
A focus group discusses whether or not having more feats is better than having less feats:
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There aren't that many Wizards in Pazo material in the first place that I can think of.This is just wrong.
I wouldn't be surprised if the average was damn close to one per AP book and module.
Um, yeah, that's not a lot.
There's a lot of Druids and Clerics, comparatively, but very few Wizards that I've seen.
I've seen a rogue with UMD plus a sack full of scrolls and wands do the same thing, along with healing, raising the dead, restoration, and a few other things.
So again, why need a Wizard when a skill and some gold can take the place of the class?
Would you please stop talking about your Rogue with infinite cash like it makes any sort of difference? It makes you look silly.
they truly can excel. There is no class as flexible - not even the almighty wizard...
Just... no.
I've seen a rogue with UMD plus a sack full of scrolls and wands do the same thing, along with healing, raising the dead, restoration, and a few other things.
So again, why need a Wizard when a skill and some gold can take the place of the class?
Well, first off, this is a thread about fighters. Second, does it rain gold in your world and do they supply its inhabitants with gold catching unbreakable umbrellas? Third, why do we need a fighter if you can give any full BAB class a sword and armor? The fighter complains because he wanted an axe!
|
|
they truly can excel. There is no class as flexible - not even the almighty wizard...Just... no.
Well, first off, this is a thread about fighters. Second, does it rain gold in your world and do they supply its inhabitants with gold catching unbreakable umbrellas? Third, why do we need a fighter if you can give any full BAB class a sword and armor? The fighter complains because he wanted an axe!I've seen a rogue with UMD plus a sack full of scrolls and wands do the same thing, along with healing, raising the dead, restoration, and a few other things.
So again, why need a Wizard when a skill and some gold can take the place of the class?
Just...yes.
A fighter can be almost anything a martial character can be. He can fight like a monk, without the limitations. He can be a pit fighter. He can be a tactical genius, or a lumbering brute that's never seen a city. He can be a swashbuckler or a knight with the heaviest armor imaginable. If it's any sort of combat character, the fighter can fulfill that role.
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why we must have a wizard?it's not that your group must have a wizard. it's that your average group needs most of the following things a wizard provides
buffs (most of transmutation)
battlefield control (most of conjuration)
crowd control (AoE, Enchantments, Slow, etc)
a way to deal with swarms (AoE)
a way to divert excess damage from the tank (summons, undead hordes)
a means to deal with invisible foes (glitterdust, see invisibility)
a means to deal with enemy mages (dispel magic, feeblemind, etc)
someone to debuff the boss (enervation, slow, hold monster, etc)
a means to deal with utilitarian emergencies (unlocking a magically barred door with knock, using divination spells to scout, etc)the wizard is one of the most flexible classes in this regard because it can change which spells to prepare on a daily basis based on the current situation.
I've seen a rogue with UMD plus a sack full of scrolls and wands do the same thing, along with healing, raising the dead, restoration, and a few other things.
So again, why need a Wizard when a skill and some gold can take the place of the class?
the answer, Cash isn't as Renewable as daily spell slots are. and i don't wish to hear about your UMD rogue with infinite cash.
the drawbacks to this are
- the rogue is blowing a mountain of money to mimic what a wizard gets with merely class features.
- the rogue is still dependant on a caster to produce the wands and scrolls he requires
- scrolls and wands don't scale, you need spell slots and a real caster level for that
- cash doesn't resupply as quickly as daily spell slots do
- your sack of consumables can be used against you, the wizard's spellbook, though crippling if stolen, isn't likely to be turned against you unless within the use of an enemy wizard
- does the mountain of cash you blow on items fully restock itself with 8 hours of rest?
Just...yes.
A fighter can be almost anything a martial character can be. He can fight like a monk, without the limitations. He can be a pit fighter. He can be a tactical genius, or a lumbering brute that's never seen a city. He can be a swashbuckler or a knight with the heaviest armor imaginable. If it's any sort of combat character, the fighter can fulfill that role.
Build versatility is completely different from character versatility.
While build versatility is nice, it doesn't mean a class is effective, only that it can be equally awesome/mediocre/terrible in different ways.
Fighters have huge build versatility, but very little character versatility.
they truly can excel. There is no class as flexible - not even the almighty wizard...Just... no.
Well, first off, this is a thread about fighters. Second, does it rain gold in your world and do they supply its inhabitants with gold catching unbreakable umbrellas? Third, why do we need a fighter if you can give any full BAB class a sword and armor? The fighter complains because he wanted an axe!I've seen a rogue with UMD plus a sack full of scrolls and wands do the same thing, along with healing, raising the dead, restoration, and a few other things.
So again, why need a Wizard when a skill and some gold can take the place of the class?
Just...yes.
A fighter can be almost anything a martial character can be. He can fight like a monk, without the limitations. He can be a pit fighter. He can be a tactical genius, or a lumbering brute that's never seen a city. He can be a swashbuckler or a knight with the heaviest armor imaginable. If it's any sort of combat character, the fighter can fulfill that role.
Right, he can fill any mundane combat role. but you compared him to wizards. Who's mechanical versatility includes turning invisible, flying, summoning outsiders, bending time and space, instantaneous transportation, transmuting objects into just about anything, granting wishes, returning life to the dead, animating corpses and objects, colorspray, creating mirror images, giving himself concealment, climbing up vertical walls without a roll... etc. Feats don't do that.
He cannot flurry, slow fall, become immune to anything, hit as though his fist were bigger, gain spell resistance, nor gain an enhancement speed to his movement. He cannot become a monk without limitations.
Barbarian and Ranger can do many of the things you listed. The Fighter himself is far from a tactical genius with his skill points.
|
|
they truly can excel. There is no class as flexible - not even the almighty wizard...Just... no.
Well, first off, this is a thread about fighters. Second, does it rain gold in your world and do they supply its inhabitants with gold catching unbreakable umbrellas? Third, why do we need a fighter if you can give any full BAB class a sword and armor? The fighter complains because he wanted an axe!I've seen a rogue with UMD plus a sack full of scrolls and wands do the same thing, along with healing, raising the dead, restoration, and a few other things.
So again, why need a Wizard when a skill and some gold can take the place of the class?
Just...yes.
A fighter can be almost anything a martial character can be. He can fight like a monk, without the limitations. He can be a pit fighter. He can be a tactical genius, or a lumbering brute that's never seen a city. He can be a swashbuckler or a knight with the heaviest armor imaginable. If it's any sort of combat character, the fighter can fulfill that role.
Right, he can fill any mundane combat role. but you compared him to wizards. Who's mechanical versatility includes turning invisible, flying, summoning outsiders, bending time and space, instantaneous transportation, transmuting objects into just about anything, granting wishes, returning life to the dead, animating corpses and objects, colorspray, creating mirror images, giving himself concealment, climbing up vertical walls without a roll... etc. Feats don't do that.
He cannot flurry, slow fall, become immune to anything, hit as though his fist were bigger, gain spell resistance, nor gain an enhancement speed to his movement. He cannot become a monk without limitations.
Barbarian and Ranger can do many of the things you listed. The Fighter himself is far from a tactical genius with his skill points.
You want me to show you the classic fighter tactical genius? I will.
Yes, we know that wizards cast spells. Lots of them. Yay. And they vary...almost as much as the fighters do.
|
|
actually any martial class can be built to be the things you're describing. I remember creating a paladin gladiator that had to use brass knuckels cause that's all he was allowed. While wearing heavy armor may cost a ranger class feats unless he spends a feat and pays for mithril, but it can be done. Monks make great duelists etc etc. You're letting the class name define the class. Its the same as if you think that every wizard is a conjuration specialist who wears a pointy hat and never enters melee while every cleric is a support charcter.they truly can excel. There is no class as flexible - not even the almighty wizard...Just... no.
Well, first off, this is a thread about fighters. Second, does it rain gold in your world and do they supply its inhabitants with gold catching unbreakable umbrellas? Third, why do we need a fighter if you can give any full BAB class a sword and armor? The fighter complains because he wanted an axe!I've seen a rogue with UMD plus a sack full of scrolls and wands do the same thing, along with healing, raising the dead, restoration, and a few other things.
So again, why need a Wizard when a skill and some gold can take the place of the class?
Just...yes.
A fighter can be almost anything a martial character can be. He can fight like a monk, without the limitations. He can be a pit fighter. He can be a tactical genius, or a lumbering brute that's never seen a city. He can be a swashbuckler or a knight with the heaviest armor imaginable. If it's any sort of combat character, the fighter can fulfill that role.
Other martial classes can half do it, while the fighter excels.
Wizards, as I've said, are very flexible. Almost as flexible as the fighter. There are dozens of ways to build a good workable wizard...but I daresay more ways to build a fighter.
Other martial classes can half do it, while the fighter excels.
Gotta disagree with this one... Rangers and Barbarians can do it just as well, if not better, depending on the role, than Fighters.
Wizards, as I've said, are very flexible. Almost as flexible as the fighter. There are dozens of ways to build a good workable wizard...but I daresay more ways to build a fighter.
This may be be true... Maybe... I dunno, I don't often tinker around with Wizard builds...
But once again, I must say that build versatility is not the same as character versatility. And the latter is much more significant to measuring the mechanical effectiveness of a class than the former.
|
|
Other martial classes can half do it, while the fighter excels.Gotta disagree with this one... Rangers and Barbarians can do it just as well, if not better, depending on the role, than Fighters.
Wizards, as I've said, are very flexible. Almost as flexible as the fighter. There are dozens of ways to build a good workable wizard...but I daresay more ways to build a fighter.This may be be true... Maybe... I dunno, I don't often tinker around with Wizard builds...
But once again, I must say that build versatility is not the same as character versatility. And the latter is much more significant to measuring the mechanical effectiveness of a class than the former.
Be that as it may, that's what I was referring to. The class is versatile, allowing you to build almost any type of martial under the sun.
|
|
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why we must have a wizard?it's not that your group must have a wizard. it's that your average group needs most of the following things a wizard provides
buffs (most of transmutation)
battlefield control (most of conjuration)
crowd control (AoE, Enchantments, Slow, etc)
a way to deal with swarms (AoE)
a way to divert excess damage from the tank (summons, undead hordes)
a means to deal with invisible foes (glitterdust, see invisibility)
a means to deal with enemy mages (dispel magic, feeblemind, etc)
someone to debuff the boss (enervation, slow, hold monster, etc)
a means to deal with utilitarian emergencies (unlocking a magically barred door with knock, using divination spells to scout, etc)the wizard is one of the most flexible classes in this regard because it can change which spells to prepare on a daily basis based on the current situation.
I've seen a rogue with UMD plus a sack full of scrolls and wands do the same thing, along with healing, raising the dead, restoration, and a few other things.
So again, why need a Wizard when a skill and some gold can take the place of the class?
the answer, Cash isn't as Renewable as daily spell slots are. and i don't wish to hear about your UMD rogue with infinite cash.
the drawbacks to this are
...
- the rogue is blowing a mountain of money to mimic what a wizard gets with merely class features.
- the rogue is still dependant on a caster to produce the wands and scrolls he requires
- scrolls and wands don't scale, you need spell slots and a real caster level for that
- cash doesn't resupply as quickly as daily spell slots do
- your sack of consumables can be used against you, the wizard's spellbook, though crippling if stolen, isn't likely to be turned against you unless within the use of an enemy wizard
- does the mountain of cash you blow on items fully restock
Here's the kicker when it comes to spell slots, when you go through the career of a campaign you will only see "needed" spell slots being used a lot less often than the ones that aren't needed.
You don't always need a fireball but they are fun to throw around. Most spells used in a Wizards career aren't really needed. While a Wizard can kill weak creatures that huddle together with a fireball, the fighter and barbarian could kill the same creatures but it may take them one more round to do so unless they are able to cleave through multiple opponents.
There is always more than one way to handle most situations all wizards do i go through their list of spells to try and find a way to do it. To be honest, what is the difference between a fighter flying to reach the top of a cliff and he climbing the cliff? Either way he is going to get to the top but one way may be easier.
A party doesn't "need" all those spell slots in all honesty and I've been playing long enough to know it. UMD and a few scrolls and wands can take care of the "needs" as well as the "makes the battles easier".
Edit: Let me also remind you that it doesn't take a lot of money, jack of all trades is a roguish type of concept anyway, and scrolls and wands are found as part of treasure. Let's not forget that magic shops do exist and so scrolls and wands can be purchased if need be.