|
Cavaliers rock! GREAT NPCs. ;)Meh... I can't even disagree with you... I haven't seen any of them in actual play nor have I spent any significant time tinkering around with them like I do with all other classes.
I don't know much of an advantage "GREAT NPCs" is, but since I have little information and even less interest on the class, I'll just take your word for it.
I gotta say, though... The coolest "Knight" build I've ever seen was a Ranger.
If you wanna build a bunch of heavy mounted knights, they're the way to go. Not much good for PCs unless you run a game for heavy mounted knights, though.
|
|
So what're we doing again exactly?
The plan was start a new thread.
In that thread people would start at 1st level making a class of their choice based on whatever criteria for point buy or race chosen by who creates the thread.
So for example, 20 point buy, human, PFS rules go.
Each level stop after you post and ask if it is competitive with other builds of the same level based on whatever criteria the person creating the thread chooses. If so, level that same character up.
|
|
So what're we doing again exactly?The plan was start a new thread.
In that thread people would start at 1st level making a class of their choice based on whatever criteria for point buy or race chosen by who creates the thread.
So for example, 20 point buy, human, PFS rules go.
Each level stop after you post and ask if it is competitive with other builds of the same level based on whatever criteria the person creating the thread chooses. If so, level that same character up.
One per level?
Eek.
I'd consider 1st, 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, 16th, and 20th, maybe...
So what're we doing again exactly?The plan was start a new thread.
That appears to be Ciretose's plan, thought I'm unsure about others. I wanted to talk about fighters myself, but its been a while since fighters came up hasn't it?
there is no reason for me to attempt to build. a full build would fail to show the merits of the class.
If the disparity is as egregiousness as you claim, it shouldn't matter.
If it isn't, then you are wrong.
a build shows not of the classes merits, but the skill of the builder at milking numerical bonuses. and some things, simply cannot be measured in numbers alone.
a lot of fighter builds i have seen on these boards gravitate to the following things
Lore Warden Trip Monkey
Lore Warden/Tactician Archer
Guy with an extremely massive curved blade from the eastern hemisphere who hacks stuff up and shows off his 30% crit rate. the blade is usually a falchion, nodachi, or katana. usually maximizes the damage of his massive weapon
guy with 2 spiked shields who tries to do a combination of damage and control through bull rush manuevers
guy with 2 kukris who focuses on inflicting debilitating status effects by scoring critical hits
I like Eldon's better, much like the Build Thread. 1st, 3rd, 6th, and 10th sounds about right as benchmarks to start off. Maybe just jumping to 15th and 20th if there's still any big doubt.
I'll make a thread with Da Rules but I don't really have time to make a char right now.
|
|
there is no reason for me to attempt to build. a full build would fail to show the merits of the class.
If the disparity is as egregiousness as you claim, it shouldn't matter.
If it isn't, then you are wrong.
a build shows not of the classes merits, but the skill of the builder at milking numerical bonuses. and some things, simply cannot be measured in numbers alone.
a lot of fighter builds i have seen on these boards gravitate to the following things
Lore Warden Trip Monkey
Lore Warden/Tactician Archer
Guy with an extremely massive curved blade from the eastern hemisphere who hacks stuff up and shows off his 30% crit rate. the blade is usually a falchion, nodachi, or katana. usually maximizes the damage of his massive weapon
guy with 2 spiked shields who tries to do a combination of damage and control through bull rush manuevers
guy with 2 kukris who focuses on inflicting debilitating status effects by scoring critical hits
Absolutely. That's why this thread wasn't about builds to begin with.
What's more, conventional wisdom says tripping effectiveness drops off at higher levels...but...if 90% of the campaign is humanoids, it just ain't so. Situations vary, depending on so many factors.
Come and Get Me generates Attacks. Attacks are always very, very nice. You only invoke it when you are in melee mode, but it turns you into a meatgrinder when you invoke it.
==Aelryinth
Huh, with improved snapshot would come and get me work for 15 feet?
Anyways, the problem with comparing builds is how different builds can be. It could've been built as a guy who focused on full attacking or AC, but instead its built for come and get me with a bow. Also, 7 int could've been 12 and it would've had 3 more skill points per level over the fighter. Another thing is judgement, in that the DR and saves are great for a tank I think, but someone else might prefer the specific CMD and AC. Different people make wildly different builds, and optimization can be very relative. The article from which we get the 1-6 tiers explains it better than I do I think.
Agreed on Rombilar's Gambit.. I liked tactical feats. Reckless Abandon is another one of those weird ones that's a rage power instead of a feat.
Pin Down should also be an anyone feat. And much lower level. It's sorta like 3E Stand Still, which was +1 BAB and amazing (PF Stand Still sucks and is useless for reach weapons, the very ones you would want such a feat for). Barbarian pounce at level 10 vs. level 1 in 3E is another big example.
PF basically took a ton of stuff available to martials in 3E and either:
1. Banned it entirely
2. Made it exclusive to only one class
3. Made it much higher level
Usually either #1, or #2 & #3 in tandem.
What's the historical/in-game justification for Barbarian having more skill ranks than the Fighter, anyway? Lots of formal training in the filth-ridden savage lifestyle?Life in the wilds would lead to quiet a bit of skill usage and intuition I would think. Formal training with weapons and armor wouldn't lead to learning how to speak with others or knowledge of the world or perception. That would be my guess anyway, though I'm not a fan of anyone but intellect casters getting 2+.
Life in civilization requires skill usage and definitely more social skills, and has the facilities to train people in these things. And the Fighter gets survival, so that's life in the wilds anyway. Seriously, I'm perplexed.
Not to sound classist, but the Barbarian shouldn't be able to read, let alone get more skill points than the wandering swordsman. I mean, their shtick is getting mad at things and chaotic-alignment. How do you train that kind of person to carefully search and be aware of their environment? And how does the sellsword not have that? Is that why Fighters are adventurers? They can't get a steady guard-duty job?
What gets me is a Fighter is "the most customizable class" when the concept proposed by the skill list is decidedly specific. Knows dungeons, but not where to get a good beer. Can train animals to guard but can't do so themselves. Can climb and swim but not jump. Can be scary, but can't tell when the waitress is flirting.
How about I decide how my Fighter was trained, huh? Maybe I was trained in a war academy where we had to fight on balance-beams while giving orders to human chess players. Maybe I'm from an agrarian commune and sold exotic flowers to travelers. Maybe I'm a knight trained in social morays and the who's who and can perform a sonnet on the spot. Why not have the Fighter be able to be all the things it says in that nice little paragraph describing all the diverse people who are Fighters should be able to do?
|
|
So what're we doing again exactly?The plan was start a new thread.
In that thread people would start at 1st level making a class of their choice based on whatever criteria for point buy or race chosen by who creates the thread.
So for example, 20 point buy, human, PFS rules go.
Each level stop after you post and ask if it is competitive with other builds of the same level based on whatever criteria the person creating the thread chooses. If so, level that same character up.
One per level?
Eek.
I'd consider 1st, 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, 16th, and 20th, maybe...
One per level prevents the skipping of weak levels.
|
|
there is no reason for me to attempt to build. a full build would fail to show the merits of the class.
If the disparity is as egregiousness as you claim, it shouldn't matter.
If it isn't, then you are wrong.
a build shows not of the classes merits, but the skill of the builder at milking numerical bonuses. and some things, simply cannot be measured in numbers alone.
a lot of fighter builds i have seen on these boards gravitate to the following things
Lore Warden Trip Monkey
Lore Warden/Tactician Archer
Guy with an extremely massive curved blade from the eastern hemisphere who hacks stuff up and shows off his 30% crit rate. the blade is usually a falchion, nodachi, or katana. usually maximizes the damage of his massive weapon
guy with 2 spiked shields who tries to do a combination of damage and control through bull rush manuevers
guy with 2 kukris who focuses on inflicting debilitating status effects by scoring critical hits
A build is what we all play with.
You argument seems to be that the fighter can't compete. What you consider competitive is best shown by comparison to what you believe in competitive. In other words, a build of another class that is superior.
Either put up the standard you feel the fighter can not meet, or cease the assertion.
|
|
I like Eldon's better, much like the Build Thread. 1st, 3rd, 6th, and 10th sounds about right as benchmarks to start off. Maybe just jumping to 15th and 20th if there's still any big doubt.
I'll make a thread with Da Rules but I don't really have time to make a char right now.
Every level or I am not interested. To many ways to hide weak levels when you skip, particularly when a class like fighter has advantages at the side levels because they get feats between normal feat times. Not to mention keeping track of when casters acquired what spells, scrolls, etc...
Plus, in my experience it is actually easier going one at a time, as all you are doing is leveling up from the previous build.
Which is how we all actually play.
Which is what we should be testing.
Theoretically everyone on here makes builds for games constantly, that they also presumably level up.
This is no different.
Eh, whatever then. I guess Ranger and Paladin do have a few dead levels in there somewhere. Fighter and Barb get something every level though.
Not to sound classist, but the Barbarian shouldn't be able to read, let alone get more skill points than the wandering swordsman. I mean, their shtick is getting mad at things and chaotic-alignment. How do you train that kind of person to carefully search and be aware of their environment? And how does the sellsword not have that? Is that why Fighters are adventurers? They can't get a steady guard-duty job?
I'm not sure what classist is, but you have to be careful. Not being able to read reinforces the idea that all classes are a specific lifestyle, and can create a straightjacket. Barbarians don't have to come from barbarian tribes and they don't have to be chaotic. Alignment restrictions can be arbitrary, depending on who you speak with.
Like I said, I'm not in total agreement with the fighters skills myself. I wouldn't take it out on the barbarian though. A few of the homebrew I've seen do suggest giving fighters a bonus they choose to particular skills or allowing them to choose their class skills to show how they got their particular trainings in life.
A build is what we all play with.
Not everyone uses the same build or builds. There tend to be some trends such as barbarians grabbing superstitious, and the guides do make suggestions that do affect the community such as the switch hitter, but while everyone uses a build not everyone uses the same build. It shows system mastery and how good they are at building things. Thok for example chose not to dump charisma, but if he did and rose his intellect he would have had 2 skill points on the fighter and this affected his comparison. Someone else might've chosen entirely different equipment, or gone for something other than come and get me. I'm not sure if it will prove anything because its hard to measure someone's personal ability to make builds.
No need to goad. If someone's not interested they just aren't.
|
|
A build is what we all play with.Not everyone uses the same build or builds.
But everyone uses builds.
If you want to make an assertion, you need evidence to back it up.
If you are unwilling or unable to provide evidence...
Let me know where the thread is, I'll take whatever point buy and ground rules, posting one level at a time, then leveling it with a new post.
I suggest the build be under spoilers and what you think about the build be outside of spoilers.
I may do a couple of different builds for different classes if it goes well.
there is no reason for me to attempt to build. a full build would fail to show the merits of the class.
If the disparity is as egregiousness as you claim, it shouldn't matter.
If it isn't, then you are wrong.
a build shows not of the classes merits, but the skill of the builder at milking numerical bonuses. and some things, simply cannot be measured in numbers alone.
a lot of fighter builds i have seen on these boards gravitate to the following things
Lore Warden Trip Monkey
Lore Warden/Tactician Archer
Guy with an extremely massive curved blade from the eastern hemisphere who hacks stuff up and shows off his 30% crit rate. the blade is usually a falchion, nodachi, or katana. usually maximizes the damage of his massive weapon
guy with 2 spiked shields who tries to do a combination of damage and control through bull rush manuevers
guy with 2 kukris who focuses on inflicting debilitating status effects by scoring critical hits
A build is what we all play with.
You argument seems to be that the fighter can't compete. What you consider competitive is best shown by comparison to what you believe in competitive. In other words, a build of another class that is superior.
Either put up the standard you feel the fighter can not meet, or cease the assertion.
it's not that you can't build a fighter that deals extremely high DPR with one weapon. it is that they are shoehorned to that one weapon and to be guaranteed upgrades, they require one of the following
- a caster with crafting feats and the handwaving of time
- magic mart and complete ignoring of GP limits
- the ability to commission magic items on demand and ignore the time needed to produce them
- a DM who caters the magic item drops to accomodate the fighter PC's signature weapon
a fighter can deal quite signifficant damage with unrestricted access to any of the above to help them.
the barbarian, paladin, and ranger deal a little less damage, but they can do it with any weapon they feel like given they take neither weapon finesse, dervish dance, or any of the weapon specific feats such as weapon focus.
deny a 12th level fighter their signature weapon in any case and they lose anywhere from 2-6 points of attack bonus and 4-8 points of damage bonus from picking up a new weapon alone.
tis also why i don't like playing wizards, the spellbook is easy to steal. in fact, there is a reason i prefer sorcerers over wizards and psionicists over sorcerers. i hate it when i could be turned into an NPC class by somebody stealing an important piece of gear. a fighter without their signature weapon is a warrior with a few more feats and slightly bigger numbers.
So I'm gonna ignore all the off-topic talk over the last 12 pages and just get straight to the skinny:
No one should be saying Fighters are bad at combat. They're not. They're actually really good at combat. Corner-cases have other classes beating them (Paladins vs Evil, Rangers vs FE, etc), but generally speaking, Fighters are great at killing things.
The reason Fighter's have trouble keeping up with other classes is that Combat isn't 100% of the game. Every class should theoretically be able to contribute in and out of combat in some way that is a built-in part of the class features. Take a Rogue for example - Their shtick is skills. Sneaking, thieving, etc. The Rogue's forte is non-combat. But they also get Sneak Attack, so that when they're thrown into combat, they don't feel useless compared to the combat-heavy classes.
The Fighter class should be the mirror opposite of the Rogue in this regard, except they're not. Every single part of the Fighter class is dedicated to combat, so when non-combat rolls around, they are left relying entirely on the party for all things. Skills are too low to invest in anything useful, and all the bonus feats you get *must* be Combat Feats.
Now, you may be thinking, "So what? It's a Fighter's job to fight, and he does it well, so why is relying on the rest of the party for other things bad?" The answer is it's not. It's not bad at all. But when you look at the other combat classes, they do just as well as the fighter does. Paladins are amazing defensively and against evil they are unstoppable killing machines. Rangers are anywhere from "just shy of" to "way better than" Fighters depending on what enemy is being faced or what spells are available to the Ranger. Barbarians tend to just out-do Fighters entirely, as the one thing that Fighters have a real advantage on (AC) becomes less important the higher level you get.
And all of these classes have contributions to the party outside of combat as well.
The Paladin and Ranger abilities are obvious as to how they benefit a party outside of combat, and while the Barbarian doesn't have class abilities that help him contribute, he does get twice as many base skill points and his class skills are much more beneficial to a group than a Fighter's are.
i never intended to say Fighters were useless.
i just dislike the fact that most of their damage comes from hyperspecializing in one weapon to the exclusion of all others.
a barbarian while raging gets fairly close in damage output to a fighter using his signature weapon. and rage powers do have their limitations, but a fighter's damage output is dependant on a signature weapon they hyperspecialized in using to the exclusion of most others.
and a lot of the fighters on these boards, try to go for the biggest weapon bonus they can and try to eschew the need for backup weapons. but unfortunately, a fighter needs multiple backup weapons, a small armory to fit in his golf bag, a set of light armor to sleep in and for naughtical combat, to accompany his heavy adventuring armor.
the problem is, DPR only does so much and full attacks are rather easy to negate when you have flying ranged opponents who can laugh at your underdeveloped archery skill.
overfocusing on DPR tends to cause the neglect of either defenses, skills, or both. by the time you can drop the nastiest villain in the entire campaign with one attack roll, you know your damage is too high.
i'm not intending to fight. but i dislike playing classes who are solely dependent on a difficult to replace central piece of equipment.
such examples include
Wizards
Fighters
Agile Weapon Users
Dervish Dancers, though i will utilize non-scimitar using variants if allowed
Witches, though i will cave in and play one eventually
and i am also not a fan of playing a class whose power can be stripped at a moments notice through sheer DM fiat unless that class has a means of playing a variant with a much looser moral code.
while i prefer to play a martially oriented oracle as my go-to divine caster
i tend to shy away from
clerics
paladins
inquisitor
unless the god has a code that doesn't interfere with my concept and won't cost me for it. and only if the alignment restriction is relatively flexible
if there were a magical girl class that required a transformation trinket. i wouldn't play it unless there were a way to ditch the trinket at first level. even if it were a feat tax.
i never intended to say Fighters were useless.
If this was in response to me, let me apologize. I wasn't trying to single anyone out - People just usually complain about Fighters not living up to other melee classes and I wanted to put that to bed. :)
As for your arguments about being tied to a specific weapon, I heartily agree. That's something that really should have been addressed in the conversion from 3.5 to PF. Unfortunately, the Devs just didn't go as far as they should have for some of their updates. :(
i never intended to say Fighters were useless.If this was in response to me, let me apologize. I wasn't trying to single anyone out - People just usually complain about Fighters not living up to other melee classes and I wanted to put that to bed. :)
As for your arguments about being tied to a specific weapon, I heartily agree. That's something that really should have been addressed in the conversion from 3.5 to PF. Unfortunately, the Devs just didn't go as far as they should have for some of their updates. :(
Even worse than being stuck hyperspecializing in one weapon type to deal the intended DPR, is the 3.5 Kensei Prestige Class, who instead of, for example specializing in "Katana", specialized in one very specific "Katana" he poured his soul into. one "Katana" that if destroyed, could permanently strip him not only of a weapon itself, but could cost him up to 10 potential class levels worth of class features invested into becoming the absolute master of that one "Katana" as well as a shipload of wasted experience points.
"Katana" is an example stand in for signature weapon, which could be anything, but most Kensei used "Katana" for the cool factor of such anime as Rurouni Kenshin and the like.
I don't think that fighters 'have to hyper-specialize'. They get a lot more effective with that one weapon if they do, but I...for one...think they're effective enough without hyper-specialization.
Without Hyperspecialization, they deal less damage than raging barbarians until level 17. in fact, hyperspecialization is what makes a fighter's swings hit harder than a barbarian's. it is what makes fighters into such lethal archers and dual wielders.
|
|
I don't think that fighters 'have to hyper-specialize'. They get a lot more effective with that one weapon if they do, but I...for one...think they're effective enough without hyper-specialization.Without Hyperspecialization, they deal less damage than raging barbarians until level 17. in fact, hyperspecialization is what makes a fighter's swings hit harder than a barbarian's. it is what makes fighters into such lethal archers and dual wielders.
Agreed...but they don't have to pour out *that much* damage to be reasonably effective...and if they don't hyper-specialize, they can have effectiveness by flexibility.
Not really. :/
A Fighter gets 11 Bonus Feats over the course of 20 levels (and most campaigning stops around the lvl 13 mark, so you don't even get to see all of your bonus feats in most games).
If you want to keep up with the Barb/Ranger/Pally then you have to take FOUR* feats that specialize in a single weapon (not a weapon class, but one specific type of weapon... that's lame.)
You can, of course, forgo these feat options but by doing so you're avoiding the one thing that makes the class worth taking over any other "heavy melee" class.
*Reg/Gtr Wep Focus/Spec
Agreed...but they don't have to pour out *that much* damage to be reasonably effective...and if they don't hyper-specialize, they can have effectiveness by flexibility.I don't think that fighters 'have to hyper-specialize'. They get a lot more effective with that one weapon if they do, but I...for one...think they're effective enough without hyper-specialization.Without Hyperspecialization, they deal less damage than raging barbarians until level 17. in fact, hyperspecialization is what makes a fighter's swings hit harder than a barbarian's. it is what makes fighters into such lethal archers and dual wielders.
But Archery on it's own doesn't deal the damage of a 2handed weapon, a dedicated archer will blow many feats improving their capacity to deal damage.
Combat Feats Generally Needed By Archers
Rapid Shot
Many Shot
Deadly Aim
Precise Shot
Improved Precise Shot
Clustered Shots
a viable ranged damage dealer can be built with deadly aim alone, if archery isn't their primary thing, but it takes special considerations to make archery a primary combat style.
Other Nice Feats for Archers
the weapon specialization tree
snap shot
improved snap shot
combat reflexes
point blank master
and these are generally the feats that perfect archery into the ultimate killing style
Come and Get Me should have remained a feat "Robillar's Gambit" because it is a fantastic move for a tank.
Depends on your view. Come & Get Me is actually amazingly good for the guy who isn't the tank. Mostly because a tank's job is to get attacked instead of the DPS, so giving enemies more reasons to not attack the tank is usually a bad thing. On a DPS class it's really cool though because it punishes your foe for not attacking the tank and punishes them with even more DPS.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Come and Get Me should have remained a feat "Robillar's Gambit" because it is a fantastic move for a tank.Depends on your view. Come & Get Me is actually amazingly good for the guy who isn't the tank. Mostly because a tank's job is to get attacked instead of the DPS, so giving enemies more reasons to not attack the tank is usually a bad thing. On a DPS class it's really cool though because it punishes your foe for not attacking the tank and punishes them with even more DPS.
the Following Things Should have been Combat Feats
Robilar's Gambit
Shock Trooper/Reckless Abandon
Pounce
Permanent Flight with perfect manueverability (For the Martials who need it)
Spell Sunder
Superstition (minus the drawbacks)
|
|
Not really. :/
A Fighter gets 11 Bonus Feats over the course of 20 levels (and most campaigning stops around the lvl 13 mark, so you don't even get to see all of your bonus feats in most games).
If you want to keep up with the Barb/Ranger/Pally then you have to take FOUR* feats that specialize in a single weapon (not a weapon class, but one specific type of weapon... that's lame.)
You can, of course, forgo these feat options but by doing so you're avoiding the one thing that makes the class worth taking over any other "heavy melee" class.*Reg/Gtr Wep Focus/Spec
Oh, how I disagree.
Those feats barely matter when it comes to hitting, and the amount of damage pales in comparison to other things you can do. Seriously. It's not that they're bad...but they are not make it or break it. Not at all.
Not really. :/
A Fighter gets 11 Bonus Feats over the course of 20 levels (and most campaigning stops around the lvl 13 mark, so you don't even get to see all of your bonus feats in most games).
If you want to keep up with the Barb/Ranger/Pally then you have to take FOUR* feats that specialize in a single weapon (not a weapon class, but one specific type of weapon... that's lame.)
You can, of course, forgo these feat options but by doing so you're avoiding the one thing that makes the class worth taking over any other "heavy melee" class.*Reg/Gtr Wep Focus/Spec
Oh, how I disagree.
Those feats barely matter when it comes to hitting, and the amount of damage pales in comparison to other things you can do. Seriously. It's not that they're bad...but they are not make it or break it. Not at all.
So what feats do make a difference then?
|
|
So what feats do make a difference then?Not really. :/
A Fighter gets 11 Bonus Feats over the course of 20 levels (and most campaigning stops around the lvl 13 mark, so you don't even get to see all of your bonus feats in most games).
If you want to keep up with the Barb/Ranger/Pally then you have to take FOUR* feats that specialize in a single weapon (not a weapon class, but one specific type of weapon... that's lame.)
You can, of course, forgo these feat options but by doing so you're avoiding the one thing that makes the class worth taking over any other "heavy melee" class.*Reg/Gtr Wep Focus/Spec
Oh, how I disagree.
Those feats barely matter when it comes to hitting, and the amount of damage pales in comparison to other things you can do. Seriously. It's not that they're bad...but they are not make it or break it. Not at all.
Where did you get that I claim they don't make a difference? They make a difference. It's a matter of degrees, and other feats can do that, too.
Where did you get that I claim they don't make a difference? They make a difference. It's a matter of degrees, and other feats can do that, too.So what feats do make a difference then?Not really. :/
A Fighter gets 11 Bonus Feats over the course of 20 levels (and most campaigning stops around the lvl 13 mark, so you don't even get to see all of your bonus feats in most games).
If you want to keep up with the Barb/Ranger/Pally then you have to take FOUR* feats that specialize in a single weapon (not a weapon class, but one specific type of weapon... that's lame.)
You can, of course, forgo these feat options but by doing so you're avoiding the one thing that makes the class worth taking over any other "heavy melee" class.*Reg/Gtr Wep Focus/Spec
Oh, how I disagree.
Those feats barely matter when it comes to hitting, and the amount of damage pales in comparison to other things you can do. Seriously. It's not that they're bad...but they are not make it or break it. Not at all.
I wasn't trying to imply that you said they don't make any difference.
To rephrase, What feats do you feel make more of a difference then?