|
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?
It depends. They vary per character...and per campaign. Most feats have some value..
It depends. They vary per character...and per campaign. Most feats have some value..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?
OK, lets say you were going to be playing a pure Fighter in Tomb of Horrors converted for Pathfinder.
What are some of the Fighter bonus feats you would pick? Not 1, 3, 5 etc. feats, but bonus fighter combat feats?
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.
I asserted and continue to assert that fighters are not very good at fighting. They are good at killing. There is a huge difference. Your examples (paladin smites, ranger favored enemy, etc) are only about attack and damage. Fighters are fine with attack and damage. I've said this and acknowledged - nay praised - their attack and damage.
But combat in D&D/Pathfinder is exceptionally varied and Fighters are not good at combat. They are good at killing, but they have some of the worse defenses in the game, and have difficulty adapting to different situations that are outside their usual comfort zone. They are often easily CC'd and have few methods of adapting to problems short of throwing lots of gold at the problem (which every class can do with an over abundance of wealth).
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.
Agreed. Unfortunately as you note Fighters have poor usefulness outside of combat as well. Since their usefulness inside of combat is limited to "hit it until it stops moving" they are an underwhelming class that typically shines through sheer system mastery by the user (knowing exactly which items to purchase to marginalize the class's innate problems, or access something to do by going outside their class; such as when Bob_Loblaw insisted Fighters weren't grounded to their specced weapon because HUMANS have an option to apply them to a weapon group, as if that was somehow a feature of FIGHTER rather than HUMAN).
This reason is specifically why when I posted an answer to the OP's question (OP+response) I didn't specify a race (race is not important), nor did I go into major detail on items (items are not directly important as it's understood by all that more items is better but relying on items to do your job usually indicates a an expensive gimmick outside your class). Instead I explained how - by virtue of class and a few feats - a Paladin is better suited to his endurance quest (which is exactly what the OP asked for).
I feel this is a more honest approach. It is far easier to be deceitful by insisting on a build challenge, because good builders understand how to polish and hide flaws that are inherent in their medium. This shows off the skill of the builder but diminishes the value of the example (for example, virtually every "functional" fighter build you see on these boards will be using a specific ioun stone + wayfinder combo :P).
Then there is the factor of variance through build. A perfect example is Shallowsoul's fighter. He posted in some class A vs class B, C, D, and beyond threads that actually did include builds and then got really upset because his example of a "great fighter" was seen as really underwhelming by the community (which led to a rather long anti-DPR thread afterwards, which ironically DPR was like the only thing the build wasn't criticized for). So the builder and their expectations play very heavily into these sorts of things and often doesn't reflect the class' potential.
Contrast, there was a simplistic ranger 20 build posted on the boards that without really trying is competent at 3 styles of combat (melee, ranged, mounted) and could out-fight a monk with his fists (because just for poops and giggles he also had Improved Unarmed Strike just because the build was meant to be comical and he still gets all his stuff like quarry when using his fists). Said build was meant to be "competent" in a silly wide variety of things and even wastes a few feats and is still perfectly viable and can contribute to a party and is good in combat (actual combat, not just the one facet of combat that involves hitting things with a stick).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And before someone rehashes this argument that my posts are entirely within the realm of theorycraft - it's not theory. I've been running 3.x/PF since its launch in 2000. Fighters have continued to be plagued by the same types of problems since the system was released and they are still plagued by these problems today. I have seen countless fighters in my tabletop games, public games, online games, and all suffer from the same problems. The most optimized over them can kill things really well. In 3.5 you could at least make a very competent martial-lockdown through the usage of spiked chains, enlargements, tripping emphasis (in 3.5 you can trip flying enemies causing them to fall prone), stand still (stand still was much stronger in 3.5 and turned a fighter's high damage into a CC ability), etc. However everything listed above was nerfed in Pathfinder so GG guys.
In my years of playing, I've seen 1 Fighter who was actually really exceptional at fighting (not just killing). That was played by a friend of mine who both had an avid love for fighters and exceptional optimization skills and he carefully picked which magic items he would try to acquire to work in tandem with his fighter (he and I frequently discussed interesting strategies, many of which are detailed in my adventuring guidebook). He squeezed out every benefit he could from items, feats, and race, and even at the end of the day he admitted that as much as he loved fighters that he was getting his pro-killing from his fighter and making up the rest through pure system mastery. But he felt it was a nice challenge and enjoyed it.
And before someone rehashes this argument that my posts are entirely within the realm of theorycraft - it's not theory. I've been running 3.x/PF since its launch in 2000. Fighters have continued to be plagued by the same types of problems since the system was released and they are still plagued by these problems today. I have seen countless fighters in my tabletop games, public games, online games, and all suffer from the same problems. The most optimized over them can kill things really well. In 3.5 you could at least make a very competent martial-lockdown through the usage of spiked chains, enlargements, tripping emphasis (in 3.5 you can trip flying enemies causing them to fall prone), stand still (stand still was much stronger in 3.5 and turned a fighter's high damage into a CC ability), etc. However everything listed above was nerfed in Pathfinder so GG guys.
In my years of playing, I've seen 1 Fighter who was actually really exceptional at fighting (not just killing). That was played by a friend of mine who both had an avid love for fighters and exceptional optimization skills and he carefully picked which magic items he would try to acquire to work in tandem with his fighter (he and I frequently discussed interesting strategies, many of which are detailed in my adventuring guidebook). He squeezed out every benefit he could from items, feats, and race, and even at the end of the day he admitted that as much as he loved fighters that he was getting his pro-killing from his fighter and making up the rest through pure system mastery. But he felt it was a nice challenge and enjoyed it.
I'm sure that fighter was exceptional, but don't you think maybe you're overstating things just a bit? there are a few things that come to mind for me when I read your post.
1, Just how high is the bar set if you have only seen one really good Fighter? I think that part of the issue is not that certain classes are too weak, but that others are simply too good. The ranger in particular stands out to me in this regard.
2, Combat is two things, dealing damage, and enabling damage. there is nothing else. Will saves? enables damage by "keeping you in the game". Ditto for every other Defense. Locking down the enemy? you're enabling the rest of the party to continue dealing damage. Etc. In short, good at killing is good at combat.
3, In regard to you earlier post, and your "simplistic Ranger", Rangers may be leagues ahead of fighters out of combat, they can't really do anything truly different from the fighter in combat. It's not like they get full spellcasting or anything. They typically just hit stuff and shoot stuff, kind of like the fighter no? Now, since Paizo went absurdly, ridiculously too far in buffing them for Pathfinder, they hit and shoot stuff just as well or better than the Fighter, which is a problematic, but separate issue.
It may seem like I'm splitting hairs here, but I just really take issue with this statement:
(actual combat, not just the one facet of combat that involves hitting things with a stick).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1, Just how high is the bar set if you have only seen one really good Fighter? I think that part of the issue is not that certain classes are too weak, but that others are simply too good. The ranger in particular stands out to me in this regard.
Well, if we're at the point where every other martial class would need to be nerfed to be on par with the fighter, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to just bump the fighter up their level instead?
Exactly.
If 4 classes are better than 1 class, you don't nerf the other 4 to the one class' level.
1, Just how high is the bar set if you have only seen one really good Fighter? I think that part of the issue is not that certain classes are too weak, but that others are simply too good. The ranger in particular stands out to me in this regard.Well, if we're at the point where every other martial class would need to be nerfed to be on par with the fighter, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to just bump the fighter up their level instead?
Maybe. I don't believe Paizo will ever nerf any class (except maybe the monk, out of sheer perversity -_-), But I think that would actually be the best course of action. The core 3.5 chassis Pathfinder is built on is extremely complex and deep in actual play. Contrary to popular opinion, as long as you stuck strictly to the Player's handbook, 3.5 was actually a very well balanced game imo. Most of the perceived balance issues simply arose from incompetent DMs who didn't know how to enforce the value of expendable resources by pushing the party past the "5 minute workday". As soon as any content beyond the phb opened up it all went to hell though.
Anyway, what I'm saying is that I don't think that paizo really has what it takes to balance the game with additional coontent, the best that can be done is probably to move closer to 3.5, not farther away. That said, it won't happen.
|
|
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.
You keep saying and you keep failing to show.
They are less shoehorned to a weapon than other martial classes thanks to weapon training and the sheer number of feats. Are they better with their primary, yes. Are they useless with a secondary (or a range of secondaries) no.
Either produce a basis of comparison or please stop making broad assertions you are unwilling to test.
|
|
It depends. They vary per character...and per campaign. Most feats have some value..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?
OK, lets say you were going to be playing a pure Fighter in Tomb of Horrors converted for Pathfinder.
What are some of the Fighter bonus feats you would pick? Not 1, 3, 5 etc. feats, but bonus fighter combat feats?
Most feats that matter in the ToH (not the new one, I'm making the assumption that it's similar enough) are defensive feats...lightning reflexes, iron will, skill focus: perception...other than that, I'd build whatever fighter I wanted to, with whatever focus I wanted. That's making the assumption that I was building a character specifically for it.
In that place, it's not the combat...it's the traps. :p
|
|
And before someone rehashes this argument that my posts are entirely within the realm of theorycraft - it's not theory. I've been running 3.x/PF since its launch in 2000.
With tons and tons of house rules and "interesting" readings of how spells and rules work and interact.
Which gets demonstrated nearly every time you have to produce a build, and absolutely every time that you have to show the work of the build by starting at first level.
Schrodinger remains undefeated, and untested...
|
|
1, Just how high is the bar set if you have only seen one really good Fighter? I think that part of the issue is not that certain classes are too weak, but that others are simply too good. The ranger in particular stands out to me in this regard.Well, if we're at the point where every other martial class would need to be nerfed to be on par with the fighter, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to just bump the fighter up their level instead?
Or maybe we could test to see if this is actually true before we assume it as fact...
It depends. They vary per character...and per campaign. Most feats have some value..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?
OK, lets say you were going to be playing a pure Fighter in Tomb of Horrors converted for Pathfinder.
What are some of the Fighter bonus feats you would pick? Not 1, 3, 5 etc. feats, but bonus fighter combat feats?
Most feats that matter in the ToH (not the new one, I'm making the assumption that it's similar enough) are defensive feats...lightning reflexes, iron will, skill focus: perception...other than that, I'd build whatever fighter I wanted to, with whatever focus I wanted. That's making the assumption that I was building a character specifically for it.
In that place,...
You didn't answer my question. I know it's the traps that ToH is famous for, but it's also pretty close to what I see as the "default" adventure scenario. I specifically asked you not to pick any feats that you can't take as a fighter bonus feat, yet you listed 3 of that sort! Those would be on my list too, but they don't qualify as bonus feats for the fighter.
So, again, What are some of the Fighter bonus feats you would pick? Not 1, 3, 5 etc. feats, but bonus fighter combat feats?
So where can we test this theory. What are the builds, level by level, for the 4 classes that are clearly superior.Exactly.
If 4 classes are better than 1 class, you don't nerf the other 4 to the one class' level.
I posted a thread like 12 hours ago but nobody ever replied to it.
Well, actually, I guess Nicos and Shallowsoul posted.
You didn't answer my question. I know it's the traps that ToH is famous for, but it's also pretty close to what I see as the "default" adventure scenario. I specifically asked you not to pick any feats that you can't take as a fighter bonus feat, yet you listed 3 of that sort! Those would be on my list too, but they don't qualify as bonus feats for the fighter.
So, again, What are some of the Fighter bonus feats you would pick? Not 1, 3, 5 etc. feats, but bonus fighter combat feats?
That's a bit of a loaded question isn't it considering there are only like 4 Fighter only Feats to begin with, 2 of them being the Feats in question.
|
|
...Most feats that matter in the ToH (not the new one, I'm making the assumption that it's similar enough) are defensive feats...lightning reflexes, iron will, skill focus: perception...other than that, I'd build whatever fighter I wanted to, with whatever focus I wanted. That's making the assumption that I was building a character specifically forIt depends. They vary per character...and per campaign. Most feats have some value..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?
OK, lets say you were going to be playing a pure Fighter in Tomb of Horrors converted for Pathfinder.
What are some of the Fighter bonus feats you would pick? Not 1, 3, 5 etc. feats, but bonus fighter combat feats?
Again, it doesn't matter. I'd build the sort of fighter I wanted. You gave me an example where no particular combat style shines. *shrug* It depends on what I wanted to play, at that point.
...and frankly, if I was going into the ToH, I'd build a rogue, as my first choice. That's a heavy responsibility...and one I'd prefer to take personally.
Well, if we're at the point where every other martial class would need to be nerfed to be on par with the fighter, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to just bump the fighter up their level instead?
Exactly.
If 4 classes are better than 1 class, you don't nerf the other 4 to the one class' level.
What they said. Pathfinder core is actually really strong when it comes to balance. Martials were buffed a bit, casters were nerfed a bit (but made more rounded), and IMHO the following core classes are all well balanced amongst one-another: Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, Wizard. That leaves only Fighter, Rogue, and Monk as classes I don't believe are well-balanced (and these are also the classes that neither fit the class norms and frequently determined to have issues on the boards).
Humorously, virtually all concepts and roles can be filled without those three classes as well. The other more balanced classes tend to be able to fill virtually any shtick they had going for them while being more well rounded or can through very easy multiclassing (but multiclassing is rarely needed).
Maybe. I don't believe Paizo will ever nerf any class (except maybe the monk, out of sheer perversity -_-), But I think that would actually be the best course of action. The core 3.5 chassis Pathfinder is built on is extremely complex and deep in actual play. Contrary to popular opinion, as long as you stuck strictly to the Player's handbook, 3.5 was actually a very well balanced game imo. Most of the perceived balance issues simply arose from incompetent DMs who didn't know how to enforce the value of expendable resources by pushing the party past the "5 minute workday". As soon as any content beyond the phb opened up it all went to hell though.
Anyway, what I'm saying is that I don't think that paizo really has what it takes to balance the game with additional coontent, the best that can be done is probably to move closer to 3.5, not farther away. That said, it won't happen.
And I hope the thought of it happening never touches the minds of the developers. 3.5 was horribly balanced. Even less so than 3.0 (they actually issued a ton of nerfs to martials from 3.0 to 3.5 core). The most unbalanced book in 3.5 was the PHB, and I can personally attest that in a core-only game virtually every martial in the book has issues (paladins and fighters are worthless, rangers and barbarians are passable, bard, cleric, druid, wizard, and sorcerer were all the best period at everything).
It's not just my opinion either. Virtually anyone who has ever spent any time on gaming forums like Giant in the Playground (which still has a very active 3.5 community) will tell you that the popular consensus is that 3.5 was borked to hell and back, and most of those issues were born in and continued from the core rules.
Paizo has improved the games in leaps and bounds. Having considered it more, I'm perhaps sorry to say that the Fighter and Rogue are effectively obsolete but perhaps that's what was needed for the game to continue to evolve. The Fighter has been ailing since 3.0 and the Rogue (or thief) has been for longer and perhaps it's time that nature took its course.
And before someone rehashes this argument that my posts are entirely within the realm of theorycraft - it's not theory. I've been running 3.x/PF since its launch in 2000.With tons and tons of house rules and "interesting" readings of how spells and rules work and interact.
Which gets demonstrated nearly every time you have to produce a build, and absolutely every time that you have to show the work of the build by starting at first level.
Schrodinger remains undefeated, and untested...
Spout your filth somewhere else, Ciretose. I'm not in the mood. You know well that I leave my house rules at my table beyond conversational pieces and knowing what the rules say isn't exactly something I'm ever going to apologize for - even if you don't like the rules as they are written.
So where can we test this theory. What are the builds, level by level, for the 4 classes that are clearly superior.Exactly.
If 4 classes are better than 1 class, you don't nerf the other 4 to the one class' level.
I posted a thread like 12 hours ago but nobody ever replied to it.
Well, actually, I guess Nicos and Shallowsoul posted.
That's a bit of a loaded question isn't it considering there are only like 4 Fighter only Feats to begin with, 2 of them being the Feats in question.You didn't answer my question. I know it's the traps that ToH is famous for, but it's also pretty close to what I see as the "default" adventure scenario. I specifically asked you not to pick any feats that you can't take as a fighter bonus feat, yet you listed 3 of that sort! Those would be on my list too, but they don't qualify as bonus feats for the fighter.
So, again, What are some of the Fighter bonus feats you would pick? Not 1, 3, 5 etc. feats, but bonus fighter combat feats?
Not fighter only feats, Fighter bonus feats. Like you know, Power attack, or improved initiative.
|
I just want to mention something...I don't feel like getting deep into an argument or anything but I feel like I should say:
I have seen a few Pfinder fighters played in some campaigns over the last few years and I have never heard any of the players complaining about playing the fighter or seen any problems with damage output or had a big discrepancy between fighter abilities and other melee-types.
He is named a Fighter. Not a Weapons Master. Not a Rage Slammer. Not a Melee Tank. He may be able to look like some of those things but for the most part he is good at fighting. Not fighting with every weapon sometimes. Not doing more damage per round than a Barb. It really isn't his role. He is a good median melee dude who can pick up different tricks to make him really good at something while still being adequate at others.
I think people believe that a fighter should be the best in all forms of melee and I disagree. They should be good at most, but certainly there are more focused classes to get you a higher DPR or AC or whatever. That doesn't leave the fighter as a second class citizen. Their abilities are good across the board where most classes have to give in some areas and take in others.
|
|
I just want to mention something...I don't feel like getting deep into an argument or anything but I feel like I should say:
I have seen a few Pfinder fighters played in some campaigns over the last few years and I have never heard any of the players complaining about playing the fighter or seen any problems with damage output or had a big discrepancy between fighter abilities and other melee-types.
He is named a Fighter. Not a Weapons Master. Not a Rage Slammer. Not a Melee Tank. He may be able to look like some of those things but for the most part he is good at fighting. Not fighting with every weapon sometimes. Not doing more damage per round than a Barb. It really isn't his role. He is a good median melee dude who can pick up different tricks to make him really good at something while still being adequate at others.I think people believe that a fighter should be the best in all forms of melee and I disagree. They should be good at most, but certainly there are more focused classes to get you a higher DPR or AC or whatever. That doesn't leave the fighter as a second class citizen. Their abilities are good across the board where most classes have to give in some areas and take in others.
That's pretty much my stance...and regardless of what some people keep saying, limited abilities do show their limitations...and the fighter's limited abilities are...umm...pretty negligible.
|
|
Not fighter only feats, Fighter bonus feats. Like you know, Power attack, or improved initiative.
Having access to fighter bonus feats frees up regular feats to be picked as anything the fighter wants. I don't see that it matters what Fighter bonus feats you would take for ToHs, as you can use regular feats to help in the module while using the fighter ones to help supplement his combat ability. Making someone pick which Combat feats you would take in ToHs while ignoring his regular feats is like asking someone use only one hand to do a two-handed action. It's a worthless hobbling that serves no purpose other than to try to prove an invalid point.
...Most feats that matter in the ToH (not the new one, I'm making the assumption that it's similar enough) are defensive feats...lightning reflexes, iron will, skill focus: perception...other than that, I'd build whatever fighter I wanted to, with whatever focus I wanted. That's making the assumption that I was building aIt depends. They vary per character...and per campaign. Most feats have some value..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?
OK, lets say you were going to be playing a pure Fighter in Tomb of Horrors converted for Pathfinder.
What are some of the Fighter bonus feats you would pick? Not 1, 3, 5 etc. feats, but bonus fighter combat feats?
I see, you don't have any arguments, your just making excuses at this point. Weapon specialization/focus and their greater versions are the best feats Fighters get. No one has been able or even willing to present an argument otherwise.
Lemmy said earlier that he read my thread "A game of inches" and vehemently disagrees with it. Yet he didn't bother to post any evidence in my thread that refutes what I said. Why? Because he can't. Apparently, you can't either.
Not fighter only feats, Fighter bonus feats. Like you know, Power attack, or improved initiative.
Having access to fighter bonus feats frees up regular feats to be picked as anything the fighter wants. I don't see that it matters what Fighter bonus feats you would take for ToHs, as you can use regular feats to help in the module while using the fighter ones to help supplement his combat ability. Making someone pick which Combat feats you would take in ToHs while ignoring his regular feats is like asking someone use only one hand to do a two-handed action. It's a worthless hobbling that serves no purpose other than to try to prove an invalid point.
Your point is irrelevant because the discussion (which is a generous way to describe me trying to coax something other than a blatant evasion out of EldonG) I'm having is about someone claiming that there are more worthwhile things to do with your fighter feats than pick up weapon focus/specialization and their greater versions.
|
|
Spout your filth somewhere else, Ciretose. I'm not in the mood. You know well that I leave my house rules at my table beyond conversational pieces and knowing what the rules say isn't exactly something I'm ever going to apologize for - even if you don't like the rules as they are written.And before someone rehashes this argument that my posts are entirely within the realm of theorycraft - it's not theory. I've been running 3.x/PF since its launch in 2000.With tons and tons of house rules and "interesting" readings of how spells and rules work and interact.
Which gets demonstrated nearly every time you have to produce a build, and absolutely every time that you have to show the work of the build by starting at first level.
Schrodinger remains undefeated, and untested...
Ashiel...I've read enough of your posts to respect your knowledge, but your experience with fighters has been that you've only seen one that was up to the task...and I've seen a half dozen. Not posted on boards, but in actual play, where it really counts. They weren't always the best character, but they were significant contributors that didn't get left behind as they rose in level...and some of them went through some damn tough situations.
As a quick example, when we encountered a nasty pit trap, my chain fighter informed the group that it really wasn't that big of a deal, he'd jump the pit and secure a rope on the other side, rather than the casters blowing spells...someone pointed out that it was a 20' wide pit, and very deep, with what looked like poison spikes in the bottom. I shrugged...I'd taken 'city fighter' for a reason - not only could I easily jump it, I could do it with flair. I did a nice little tumbling run...and ultimately, when I came down, I was a good 10' past the far side of the pit (It was a nat 20. I could count the number of times I rolled one of those on one hand...in 16 levels.).
People were rather in awe. I was a bit impressed, myself. I secured the rope...and performed my out-of-combat function for the day. :p
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think people believe that a fighter should be the best in all forms of melee and I disagree. They should be good at most, but certainly there are more focused classes to get you a higher DPR or AC or whatever.
This is getting somewhat frustrating at this point. Nobody has problems with the Fighter's DPR or AC. At least I do not and I don't recall anyone else mentioning these as problems. My personal problem with the fighter is that the value of a fighter as a potential party member is very low. They do not bring anything to the table that is not easily replaceable, have little diversity (even their "options" are usually just about hitting things), have poor defenses (physical attack vs AC is not the only means of harming someone by a very long shot), have little out of combat usefulness derived from their class (as the only class who gets absolutely no magical abilities at all they should at least be competent with nonmagical solutions for things).
Seriously. AC and DPR are not issues. But combat is way more than just to-hit and HP damage. Or perhaps other GMs just ignore a good 80% of the game or something. I dunno. (>.>)
That doesn't leave the fighter as a second class citizen. Their abilities are good across the board where most classes have to give in some areas and take in others.
Except they don't. Paladins, Rangers, Barbarians. All are good martial characters. They are all easily capable of filling out the party's martials. They are worth having multiples in the party even. Each has means and options both inside combat. Each can tank and damage, except doing so does not require them to give up a plethora of other options. The closest to giving up options is probably the barbarian who doesn't cast spells but has rage powers that do incredible things (including suppressing or breaking spells, supernatural abilities, and more).
It's not about DPR/AC. It never has been.
Ashiel...I've read enough of your posts to respect your knowledge, but your experience with fighters has been that you've only seen one that was up to the task...and I've seen a half dozen. Not posted on boards, but in actual play, where it really counts. They weren't always the best character, but they were significant contributors that didn't get left behind as they rose in level...and some of them went through some damn tough situations.
As a quick example, when we encountered a nasty pit trap, my chain fighter informed the group that it really wasn't that big of a deal, he'd jump the pit and secure a rope on the other side, rather than the casters blowing spells...someone pointed out that it was a 20' wide pit, and very deep, with what looked like poison spikes in the bottom. I shrugged...I'd taken 'city fighter' for a reason - not only could I easily jump it, I could do it with flair. I did a nice little tumbling run...and ultimately, when I came down, I was a good 10' past the far side of the pit (It was a nat 20. I could count the number of times I rolled one of those on one hand...in 16 levels.).
People were rather in awe. I was a bit impressed, myself. I secured the rope...and performed my out-of-combat function for the day. :p
...
Your example of a great contributor - in 16 levels - was jumping over a 20 ft. pit trap? Really?
|
|
Your point is irrelevant because the discussion (which is a generous way to describe me trying to coax something other than a blatant evasion out of EldonG) I'm having is about someone claiming that there are more worthwhile things to do with your fighter feats than pick up weapon focus/specialization and their greater versions.Not fighter only feats, Fighter bonus feats. Like you know, Power attack, or improved initiative.
Having access to fighter bonus feats frees up regular feats to be picked as anything the fighter wants. I don't see that it matters what Fighter bonus feats you would take for ToHs, as you can use regular feats to help in the module while using the fighter ones to help supplement his combat ability. Making someone pick which Combat feats you would take in ToHs while ignoring his regular feats is like asking someone use only one hand to do a two-handed action. It's a worthless hobbling that serves no purpose other than to try to prove an invalid point.
If you think I'm evading, more fool you. I've already stated that fighters have numerable options for combat, and if you can't figure out what that means, let me explain it to you. The same fighter can easily learn tripping and disarming tactics, they're down the same line. Going the combat reflexes route, a fighter can get to combat patrol, and be battlefield control like a madman...especially when combined with other goodness like trip...and stand still...he can learn to bull rush and overrun...becoming a charge monster...and if he's a bull-rusher with a shield, why not go into 2-weapon, and learn how to bull-rush even in a full attack round? Yes, all these, and more, a fighter can do...what's more, he can choose 2-3...maybe 4 of these options and be damn good with them. NOBODY else fights with that kind of versatility.
If you think I'm evading, more fool you. I've already stated that fighters have numerable options for combat, and if you can't figure out what that means, let me explain it to you. The same fighter can easily learn tripping and disarming tactics, they're down the same line. Going the combat reflexes route, a fighter can get to combat patrol, and be battlefield control like a madman...especially when combined with other goodness like trip...and stand still...he can learn to bull rush and overrun...becoming a charge monster...and if he's a bull-rusher with a shield, why not go into 2-weapon, and learn how to bull-rush even in a full attack round? Yes, all these, and more, a fighter can do...what's more, he can choose 2-3...maybe 4 of these options and be damn good with them. NOBODY else fights with that kind of versatility.Your point is irrelevant because the discussion (which is a generous way to describe me trying to coax something other than a blatant evasion out of EldonG) I'm having is about someone claiming that there are more worthwhile things to do with your fighter feats than pick up weapon focus/specialization and their greater versions.Not fighter only feats, Fighter bonus feats. Like you know, Power attack, or improved initiative.
Having access to fighter bonus feats frees up regular feats to be picked as anything the fighter wants. I don't see that it matters what Fighter bonus feats you would take for ToHs, as you can use regular feats to help in the module while using the fighter ones to help supplement his combat ability. Making someone pick which Combat feats you would take in ToHs while ignoring his regular feats is like asking someone use only one hand to do a two-handed action. It's a worthless hobbling that serves no purpose other than to try to prove an invalid point.
Barbarian gets up to +20 to all CMBs because he feels like it. No feats expended (except perhaps Extra Rage Power). You wanna attack him? Your attack of opportunity provokes an attack of opportunity from her. GG.
|
|
Ashiel...I've read enough of your posts to respect your knowledge, but your experience with fighters has been that you've only seen one that was up to the task...and I've seen a half dozen. Not posted on boards, but in actual play, where it really counts. They weren't always the best character, but they were significant contributors that didn't get left behind as they rose in level...and some of them went through some damn tough situations.
As a quick example, when we encountered a nasty pit trap, my chain fighter informed the group that it really wasn't that big of a deal, he'd jump the pit and secure a rope on the other side, rather than the casters blowing spells...someone pointed out that it was a 20' wide pit, and very deep, with what looked like poison spikes in the bottom. I shrugged...I'd taken 'city fighter' for a reason - not only could I easily jump it, I could do it with flair. I did a nice little tumbling run...and ultimately, when I came down, I was a good 10' past the far side of the pit (It was a nat 20. I could count the number of times I rolled one of those on one hand...in 16 levels.).
People were rather in awe. I was a bit impressed, myself. I secured the rope...and performed my out-of-combat function for the day. :p
...
Your example of a great contributor - in 16 levels - was jumping over a 20 ft. pit trap? Really?
No. It was the one moment I remember rolling a 20...but he contributed regularly...in a group where he rarely got that much of a chance to do much of anything. There were 16 players. That happened when he was about 12th, IIRC. In combat, his first contribution was the first combat...at first level...when he wiped out 8 or 9 of the dozen or so kobolds we encountered, while others picked off one or two, here and there.
At 12th level a 20 ft. wide pit trap is not an obstacle to a party.
EDIT: And if you're killing a dozen kobolds at 1st level with no house rules then you should propose marriage to your GM because he or she obviously loves you very, very much.
|
|
Barbarian gets up to +20 to all CMBs because he feels like it. No feats expended (except...If you think I'm evading, more fool you. I've already stated that fighters have numerable options for combat, and if you can't figure out what that means, let me explain it to you. The same fighter can easily learn tripping and disarming tactics, they're down the same line. Going the combat reflexes route, a fighter can get to combat patrol, and be battlefield control like a madman...especially when combined with other goodness like trip...and stand still...he can learn to bull rush and overrun...becoming a charge monster...and if he's a bull-rusher with a shield, why not go into 2-weapon, and learn how to bull-rush even in a full attack round? Yes, all these, and more, a fighter can do...what's more, he can choose 2-3...maybe 4 of these options and be damn good with them. NOBODY else fights with that kind of versatility.Your point is irrelevant because the discussion (which is a generous way to describe me trying to coax something other than a blatant evasion out of EldonG) I'm having is about someone claiming that there are more worthwhile things to do with your fighter feats than pick up weapon focus/specialization and their greater versions.Not fighter only feats, Fighter bonus feats. Like you know, Power attack, or improved initiative.
Having access to fighter bonus feats frees up regular feats to be picked as anything the fighter wants. I don't see that it matters what Fighter bonus feats you would take for ToHs, as you can use regular feats to help in the module while using the fighter ones to help supplement his combat ability. Making someone pick which Combat feats you would take in ToHs while ignoring his regular feats is like asking someone use only one hand to do a two-handed action. It's a worthless hobbling that serves no purpose other than to try to prove an invalid point.
You know, that 'Come and Get Me' can easily be the death of that Bbn. If you don't have reach, you're dead. Quick.
|
|
At 12th level a 20 ft. wide pit trap is not an obstacle to a party.
EDIT: And if you're killing a dozen kobolds at 1st level with no house rules then you should propose marriage to your GM because he or she obviously loves you very, very much.
Nonsense. Spiked Chain, EWP, Combat Reflexes, a very high Str and Dex, and a feat that gave me a big bonus to hit when I tumbled. (I can't recall what it was called)
They were skirmishers.
Their first mistake was to try to close with me. That failed. They withdrew, as the rest of the party came up, going around a corner...I tumbled into the midst of them, and they tried throwing javelins...
Barbarian gets up to +20 to all CMBs because he feels like it.You know, that 'Come and Get Me' can easily be the death of that Bbn. If you don't have reach, you're dead. Quick.
Yeah, which is why you use it when it benefits you. Like when you're trying to throw your weight around on a target. You don't use it if you're dealing with lots of ranged combatants for example. It's an option though, and a decent option to use to ruin your opponent's action economy when you're preforming combat maneuvers, grappling, or whatever.
What can also get you killed is humanoid enemies who are played like something other than frothing vegetables with XP-values pinned to their chests. Or in other words, 12 kobolds vs 1 1st level ANYTHING = dead if you're playing by the rules.
At 12th level a 20 ft. wide pit trap is not an obstacle to a party.
EDIT: And if you're killing a dozen kobolds at 1st level with no house rules then you should propose marriage to your GM because he or she obviously loves you very, very much.Nonsense. Spiked Chain, EWP, Combat Reflexes, a very high Str and Dex, and a feat that gave me a big bonus to hit when I tumbled. (I can't recall what it was called)
They were skirmishers.
Their first mistake was to try to close with me. That failed. They withdrew, as the rest of the party came up, going around a corner...I tumbled into the midst of them, and they tried throwing javelins...
See vegetable comment above.
|
|
Barbarian gets up to +20 to all CMBs because he feels like it.You know, that 'Come and Get Me' can easily be the death of that Bbn. If you don't have reach, you're dead. Quick.
Yeah, which is why you use it when it benefits you. Like when you're trying to throw your weight around on a target. You don't use it if you're dealing with lots of ranged combatants for example. It's an option though, and a decent option to use to ruin your opponent's action economy when you're preforming combat maneuvers, grappling, or whatever.
What can also get you killed is humanoid enemies who are played like something other than frothing vegetables with XP-values pinned to their chests. Or in other words, 12 kobolds vs 1 1st level ANYTHING = dead if you're playing by the rules.
You really think that a dozen kobolds are even that much of a challenge to a 16 person party? What rules are those, again?
You really think that a dozen kobolds are even that much of a challenge to a 16 person party? What rules are those, again?
My apologies. I misunderstood something you said. I thought you said you defeated about a dozen, but you mention 8-9, which still falls into dangerous territory if it was you versus those 9.
Of course given their described tactics, again, vegetables.
In all fairness, in that first encounter, I don't think there were but 8 or 10 of us...but I'm not intimidated by even close odds against a bunch of kobolds.
When the kobolds act like vegetables, of course you wouldn't be intimidated.
EDIT: Also, spiked chains don't have reach anymore. It's something I house-rule, but if we're talking about Pathfinder it is what it is. So Spiked Chain is nothing more than a waste of a feat. Unless this was a 3.5 game?
|
|
You really think that a dozen kobolds are even that much of a challenge to a 16 person party? What rules are those, again?My apologies. I misunderstood something you said. I thought you said you defeated about a dozen, but you mention 8-9, which still falls into dangerous territory if it was you versus those 9.
Of course given their described tactics, again, vegetables.
The rest of the party was there, but I took the lead, and the kobolds could not get past me, and only got 3 or 4 attacks against me before realizing that wouldn't work, as my minimum damage killed them (17 Str, 2d4+4 damage) and they retreated...around a corner and past a pit trap, interestingly enough...I followed, right past it, and positioned myself so that I got an AoO on almost all of them, if they threw, and several did. I'd used my attack to kill the one directly in front of me, so they'd have to close with me to melee...and for most, that was another AoO anyhow. The two or three that were out of my AoO range were taken down by other party members...while the casters mostly just watched and saved spells.
The rest of the party was there, but I took the lead, and the kobolds could not get past me, and only got 3 or 4 attacks against me before realizing that wouldn't work, as my minimum damage killed them (17 Str, 2d4+4 damage) and they retreated...around a corner and past a pit trap, interestingly enough...I followed, right past it, and positioned myself so that I got an AoO on almost all of them, if they threw, and several did. I'd used my attack to kill the one directly in front of me, so they'd have to close with me to melee...and for most, that was another AoO anyhow. The two or three that were out of my AoO range were taken down by other party members...while the casters mostly just watched and saved spells.You really think that a dozen kobolds are even that much of a challenge to a 16 person party? What rules are those, again?My apologies. I misunderstood something you said. I thought you said you defeated about a dozen, but you mention 8-9, which still falls into dangerous territory if it was you versus those 9.
Of course given their described tactics, again, vegetables.
Vegetables.
|
|
In all fairness, in that first encounter, I don't think there were but 8 or 10 of us...but I'm not intimidated by even close odds against a bunch of kobolds.When the kobolds act like vegetables, of course you wouldn't be intimidated.
EDIT: Also, spiked chains don't have reach anymore. It's something I house-rule, but if we're talking about Pathfinder it is what it is. So Spiked Chain is nothing more than a waste of a feat. Unless this was a 3.5 game?
Yes, it was 3.5...when 3.5 was pretty new, actually. It was the second we played using the new rules.
|
|
Vegetables.The rest of the party was there, but I took the lead, and the kobolds could not get past me, and only got 3 or 4 attacks against me before realizing that wouldn't work, as my minimum damage killed them (17 Str, 2d4+4 damage) and they retreated...around a corner and past a pit trap, interestingly enough...I followed, right past it, and positioned myself so that I got an AoO on almost all of them, if they threw, and several did. I'd used my attack to kill the one directly in front of me, so they'd have to close with me to melee...and for most, that was another AoO anyhow. The two or three that were out of my AoO range were taken down by other party members...while the casters mostly just watched and saved spells.You really think that a dozen kobolds are even that much of a challenge to a 16 person party? What rules are those, again?My apologies. I misunderstood something you said. I thought you said you defeated about a dozen, but you mention 8-9, which still falls into dangerous territory if it was you versus those 9.
Of course given their described tactics, again, vegetables.
They didn't have any good options. They knew that if they retreated farther, their master would kill them, herself. That they grouped up like they did was a bit of a shocker to me, too, until we came to understand that they were still more afraid of her than they were of us.
Whatever their master was she was clearly incompetent to have such incompetent and abysmally stupid kobolds. Talking about how you diced up some vegetables does not really make for a good example of how a fighter stacks up. Nor does a 20 ft. pit trap at 12th level. These are laughable.
These are things NPC classes can handle without effort.
For the record, talking about how much you contributed by slaughtering humanoids who despise melee and want nothing more than to be away from melee because they are tiny with a strength penalty and absolutely abhor anything even resembling a fair fight - let alone fighting a huge party on even near-equal terms of "giants" - and also being played like they have the IQ of a rotting tomato is not very inspiring.
At least the fighter I mentioned actually adventured in a world where enemies weren't part of the cabbage-patch kids. :P
|
|
Let me be clear on this...they didn't use the best tactics, and I know they didn't. They were random nobody kobolds that had been pressed into combat and didn't know jack about it. They'd never had to face a significant threat, and all they knew to do was to try and stick invaders with their little spears...and if that didn't work, lead them into the pit trap.
The one that had pressed them into service was nasty, and proved to be a serious fight...she was through the door they were 'guarding', and terrified of. We almost lost two characters to her. I'm not sure what she was, by the way...a cleric, maybe...and not a kobold...not human, either...none of the standard races. She might have been human in the adventure as written, but the DM had boosted things quite a bit, because we were a big party.
|
|
Whatever their master was she was clearly incompetent to have such incompetent and abysmally stupid kobolds. Talking about how you diced up some vegetables does not really make for a good example of how a fighter stacks up. Nor does a 20 ft. pit trap at 12th level. These are laughable.
These are things NPC classes can handle without effort.
For the record, talking about how much you contributed by slaughtering humanoids who despise melee and want nothing more than to be away from melee because they are tiny with a strength penalty and absolutely abhor anything even resembling a fair fight - let alone fighting a huge party on even near-equal terms of "giants" - and also being played like they have the IQ of a rotting tomato is not very inspiring.
At least the fighter I mentioned actually adventured in a world where enemies weren't part of the cabbage-patch kids. :P
*sigh*...you do understand that had I not done what I did, there would have likely been significant damage to the party? We probably would have lost a squshy first level spellcaster or two, even with their bad tactics. I charged them alone on the first round, being the first in, and with a good initiative roll...they had no intentions of meleeing, but couldn't be far enough away to stop me.
|
|
Curiously when somebody say "Hey, fighters in my group do great" it is common that sombody else aswer "personal experiences do not matter"And before someone rehashes this argument that my posts are entirely within the realm of theorycraft - it's not theory. I've been running 3.x/PF since its launch in 2000.With tons and tons of house rules and "interesting" readings of how spells and rules work and interact.
...and it's my thought that ONLY personal experiences truly matter...as it's people playing the game, and enjoying it. It's people playing the fighter that saves the wizard from being pincushion #1...for example.