They moved towards "Everyone is capable of helping someway or another here if they put the skill points into it.
And fighters have skill points, so they should be capable of helping. They cannot help everybody do everything. I'm sorry that is seen as a flaw.
They moved towards "Everyone is capable of helping someway or another here if they put the skill points into it.And fighters have skill points, so they should be capable of helping. They cannot help everybody do everything. I'm sorry that is seen as a flaw.
Gimping yourself is a bonus in life? Since when?
No sir, I do not. (And I would ask you to watch your language. Children live in my house.) if you only see combat as "I hit it with my sword" then I can see why you don't like fighters. The argument that everybody has to be able to do something at all times are there not balanced just strikes me as everyone has to be the same.
Hah, you saying that bolded line is pretty ironic. You think Fighters are okay because they can fight "and that all they're supposed to do", but then you say this.
The irony, of course, is that it's only when one sees combat as more than "standing still and hitting things with my sword" that one realizes Fighters are not the best warriors around. Not even close.
And yet, they are reduced to commoner-level of suckiness in every situation where smacking things with your sharp metal stick is not a viable solution.
Everyone doing something at all times is not the issue. The issue is everyone but one class doing something more than at one time. Really the fighter might be able to do 1-3 other things okay if they are dex or str based. But everyone else is probably as good or better at those things. Casters might lag behind in swimming or climbing the first few levels then suddenly it's simply a matter of having scrolls.
Really though why the in the darkest depths of Chuck Norris' beard do fighters not get perception but commoners can......... Commoners for crying out loud.
The elusive commoner is always on the lookout for predators... with his 2 skill points, he can afford a trade for food and the chance to watch for goblins. Woe to the commoner who decided he wanted to learn to talk to others.
Human commoners manage that okay. And there are the few with a +1 or rarely a +2 Int.
That's it really. There are other classes that fight plus. If you want to do multiple things choose a class that does multiple things (or, Heaven forbid, multiclass).Why don't you think the Fighter needs out of combat abilities? That's the million dollar question, really.
And it better be something a bit more solid than "Well, they're called the FIGHTER, they fight, that's it".
It's amazing how after hundreds of posts, this thread has come full circle back to my very first post, which even I admit was a bit of tangential rant and only barely "on topic" at the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
a fighter should at least be able to contribute to the following encounter types, but they really can'tAnd fighters have skill points, so they should be capable of helping. They cannot help everybody do everything. I'm sorry that is seen as a flaw.
They moved towards "Everyone is capable of helping someway or another here if they put the skill points into it.
- a negotiation of some kind of treaty between nations or similar social encounter
- scouting before combat to gather reconnaiscance
- solving puzzles pertaining to labor or physical prowess, such as an obstacle course
- negotiating to commision a magic item essential to their build
- guerilla skirmishes
- teaching soldiers at a military academy
- combat on non-featureless terrains, such as ship to ship, underwater, in an egyptian tomb, or even while climbing a mountain
- combat against foes that are either incorporeal, capable of flight, able to ignore armor, able to target saving throws, or damage resources besides hit points, such as negative levels or ability damage
- leading an army, naval fleet, brigade, or similar force
- using a combat ability that isn't "I Full Attack with my signature weapon"
they suck at all of these things
No sir, I do not. (And I would ask you to watch your language. Children live in my house.) if you only see combat as "I hit it with my sword" then I can see why you don't like fighters. The argument that everybody has to be able to do something at all times are there not balanced just strikes me as everyone has to be the same.Hah, you saying that bolded line is pretty ironic. You think Fighters are okay because they can fight "and that all they're supposed to do", but then you say this.
The irony, of course, is that it's only when one sees combat as more than "standing still and hitting things with my sword" that one realizes Fighters are not the best warriors around. Not even close.
And yet, they are reduced to commoner-level of suckiness in every situation where smacking things with your sharp metal stick is not a viable solution.
I've said the point of the class is to fight and that they can fight. Now I have since been told they cannot fight because they are not Raging, Smiting Rangers armed with wands of Instant Enemy. I have said you can have fun outside of combat without being "good" at something. I have since been told this is not about having fun this is about doing something. I have said they can do some things but not everything. I've since been told if you can't do everything then you're a commoner.
How you read what I've written and thought I like boring combat is beyond me. My group has fun in and out of combat. But of course we are playing wrong because we don't "one-shot" enemies, our fights usually last more than three rounds, and we rarely play at 20th level.
Anyways, I'm not a game designer. I'm not PR for Pathfinder. It's not my job to convince you anything so I'm gonna go back to listening to the Pod F Tompkast. Everyone have a good night
those are all things expected of a professional soldier to be reasonably skilled at. number 8 applies to a fantasy setting mostly. but if fighters were essentially the equivalent to top of the line mercenaries, they suck at 10 of the tasks a professional soldier is good at, which a top of the line mercenary is supposed to excel at.
there is only 1 thing the fighter is good at.
Full attacking a foe who enters his reach with his signature weapon. which due to their poor ability to close the distance, requires their foe to come to them. it also requires the foe to be unable to mitigate the damage of his signature weapon, and assumes both, that foes will never destroy his signature weapon, and that he can always find an exact perfect upgrade to his signature weapon.
|
Who ever said fighters weren't fun to play? My last character WAS a fighter. My group has moved on pf for a while and we're currently running torg and I refused an invitation to join a rise of the runelords group but my next character was going to be a polearm based tripmaster or perhaps even a spear thrower. I also had one for a hand crossbow dual wielder.
Well, I certainly never did, Thomas Long. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've said the point of the class is to fight and that they can fight. Now I have since been told they cannot fight because they are not Raging, Smiting Rangers armed with wands of Instant Enemy.
Please show me where I, or anyone else, said Fighters can't fight.
I have said you can have fun outside of combat without being "good" at something. I have since been told this is not about having fun this is about doing something.
Please show me where I, or anyone else, said Fighter players can'y have fun.
I have said they can do some things but not everything. I've since been told if you can't do everything then you're a commoner.
Please show me where I, or anyone else, said anything even remotely close to that. What we did say is that if can't do anything better than a commoner, then you're a commoner.
How you read what I've written and thought I like boring combat is beyond me.
I didn't. I just pointed out that if DPR/AC is not how you measure "combat effectiveness", then Fighter's are not all that effective.
My group has fun in and out of combat. But of course we are playing wrong because we don't "one-shot" enemies, our fights usually last more than three rounds, and we rarely play at 20th level.
Let me show you a little post of mine...
Weapon focus is like the feat tree for fighters. I would take any advice contrary to that with a grain of salt.Personaly, I hate this feat chain. It's effective, sure, but it's so freaking boring... And they add literally zero options to the Fighter repertoire (in fact, it kinda reduces your options, as you're now basically restricted to a single type of weapon).
Fighter have to go out of their way to get some cool (and useful) abilities, and Weapon Focus/Specialization only makes them even more likely to repeat "I stand still and full attack" over and over again.
I'm not against "numerical bonus" feats, but grabbing 4 of those is just to bland for my tastes...
You can see a bunch of other similar posts where I always say how I avoid taking feats such as Weapon Focus/Specialization. How I'd rather take a feat that gives me a gool ability than one that simply raises my damage... I even made a thread where I focused on unconventional martial builds instead of UBER-DPR-GUY-WITH-A-FULL-PLATE.
But of course, I'm just deluding myself... We all know that anyone who sees any flaw in any class (especially Fighters and Rogues) is a DIRTY MUNCHKIN WHO ONLY CARES ABOUT DPR AND HATES EVERY THING THAT MIGHT RESEMBLE ROLE PLAYING!
I've outright said I hate the class in this very thread and even I don't think they're not fun to play. :)
I think PF did a lot to make them less fun to play by nerfing the combat maneuver system, but I've played Fighters (usually multiclassed with other stuff, granted) many times, nothing unfun about the class.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
a fighter should at least be able to contribute to the following encounter types, but they really can'tAnd fighters have skill points, so they should be capable of helping. They cannot help everybody do everything. I'm sorry that is seen as a flaw.
They moved towards "Everyone is capable of helping someway or another here if they put the skill points into it.
- a negotiation of some kind of treaty between nations or similar social encounter
- scouting before combat to gather reconnaiscance
- solving puzzles pertaining to labor or physical prowess, such as an obstacle course
- negotiating to commision a magic item essential to their build
- guerilla skirmishes
- teaching soldiers at a military academy
- combat on non-featureless terrains, such as ship to ship, underwater, in an egyptian tomb, or even while climbing a mountain
- combat against foes that are either incorporeal, capable of flight, able to ignore armor, able to target saving throws, or damage resources besides hit points, such as negative levels or ability damage
- leading an army, naval fleet, brigade, or similar force
- using a combat ability that isn't "I Full Attack with my signature weapon"
they suck at all of these things
> Knowledge geograpy lets you know about where people come from. In negotiations, that's actually pretty important. Most DMs just tell everyone, but if the skill is there, why not use it. Fighters get knowledge geography.
> Perception is a skill fighters get. If you want to be the scout, take a feat to enhance it. Fighters get more feats than anyone.> Obstacle course are built around strength and dex. Fighters deal with these easily.
> Guerilla skirmish is the fighters forte. Again, build to deal with it, including feat use to lock opponents down or move and do lots of damage.
> There are no rules for teaching. All you need is the skills or feats that the person needs to learn. Fighters have more feats than anyone, so they can teach more special maneuvres and tricks than anyone.
> Buy gear. Use party buffs. Saving throws can be built to be fine. everyone sucks when levels or stats are drained.
> There are no rules for this either. So, anyone can do this as long as they give orders. I believe there is a rule book coming out with rules for this type of thing though. (Kingmaker has some I believe, but haven't read them in a long time)
> Read the feats again. There are so many feats out there that allow for verstile actions in combat that its just not funny. Again, fighters get more feats than anyone.
In every situation you suggest, fighters can contribute.
With every out of combat situation, there are situational modifiers set by the DM. Those modifiers affect how good anyone is at a situation.
Here's an example that's going to upset lots of you. Age of Worms, towards the end had a town the characters had to go to for a good section of the AP. The town hated mages, and any one really who used arcane magic. The default situation was that people if this ilk were hunted down, or driven from town or treated with scorn and disgust.
Fighters were the mutts nutts though. The default treatment for folks who looked like they could fight and could back this up with actual displays of battle prowess was treatment as friendly.
In this situation, the negatives against any casty type were so damn bad, that your diplomacy, bluff etc didn't mean squat. A fighter with no ranks in diplomacy was far better at all social situations than all of those classes.
This is what most of you are ignoring. It's what EldonG has been hinting at, but using poor examples for I believe.
Any social interraction has a base setting determined by the GM. It has modifiers determined by the GM. Those modifiers can change dependent on the players actions. Remember the rules say increase in increments of +/-2, it doesn't limited to. In some cases, a players actions can negate the need for rolls at all. There's more than one way to skin a cat in other words.
If you cant think of ways for your fighters to contribute to any situation then your fighters are lazy or you're being ridiculously harsh.
Eldon spoke about finding a ranger earlier. His fighter may not know the town at all. However, he knows enough that if he goes to a bar and buys a few rounds of ale, he can get someone to point him in the right direction. He makes up for his lack of diplopmacy by plying ale.
Think outside the square folks, or in this case, outside the dice roll. We all know dice rolls are only as good as the modifiers you add to them, there's plenty of ways to add to them outside the raw number on your sheet.
Fighters are fantastic in combat, and can be as useful as the player wants them to be outside of that.
Cheers
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This has also already been covered.
"Fighters are useful if the GM caters the game to their non-skillage" =/= "Fighters are useful".
The game is not always going to have random circumstance modifiers so the Fighter can pretend he's a diplomat. The game is not always (read: exceedingly rarely) going to be anti-caster. Coming up with random anecdotal evidence of how your GM one time did this to make Fighters better in his game, or how a singular adventure had this one thing once where Fighters were better for a while are really the exceptions that prove the rule.
If they need help to do what other classes can do with no issue, that's a problem on their end.
I don't think you're a dirty munchkin, Lemmy.
Well... I was just joking about Durngrun's inability/unwillingness to see/admit there is a problem with Fighters...
But thanks, Lamontia. You're very kind. ^^
In every situation you suggest, fighters can contribute.
Not any better than a commoner. They can't.
Sure, compared to commoners, Fighter are okay out of combat, but the fact that they have to be compared to the absolutely weakest class in the game says a ton about them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters are fantastic in combat when full attacking, and can be as useful as the GM allows them to be outside of that
Thought I'd fix something here.
Fighters lose most of their damage when they move more than 10 feet and mechanically they are inferior out of combat. Fiat is not a fix. Turning a blind eye to the problem and saying everyone else just can't think out of the box or can't role play is one of the worst arguments, and it only serves to insult. Most of the argument was fiat or poor excuses, many of them applying to all classes and not just the fighter.
|
|
I don't think you're a dirty munchkin, Lemmy.Well... I was just joking about Durngrun's inability/unwillingness to see/admit there is a problem with Fighters...
But thanks, Lamontia. You're very kind. ^^
In every situation you suggest, fighters can contribute.Not any better than a commoner. They can't.
Sure, compared to commoners, Fighter are okay out of combat, but the fact that they have to be compared to the absolutely weakest class in the game says a ton about them.
Oh, Lemmy, I disagree. There are MANY ways to archetype or customize a fighter to make them useful in so many of those situations. I get it, they are not Jacks of all Trade.. But they can be damned useful, and damned deadly.
Oh, Lemmy, I disagree. There are MANY ways to archetype or customize a fighter to make them useful in so many of those situations. I get it, they are not Jacks of all Trade.. But they can b damned useful, and damned deadly.I don't think you're a dirty munchkin, Lemmy.Well... I was just joking about Durngrun's inability/unwillingness to see/admit there is a problem with Fighters...
But thanks, Lamontia. You're very kind. ^^
In every situation you suggest, fighters can contribute.Not any better than a commoner. They can't.
Sure, compared to commoners, Fighter are okay out of combat, but the fact that they have to be compared to the absolutely weakest class in the game says a ton about them.
Sure, there is always the possibility to build yet another Lore Warden Trip Monkey or "guy who boosted Int to 'prove' that Fighters are awesome out of combat". Archetypes can boost Fighters' in out-of-combat utility a bit, but they still don't fix/hide/compensate for the fundamental problem of the class.
Mechanically, Fighters go something like this:- Can I hit it with my sword?
If the answer is "Yes":
- Awesome!
If the answer is No, go to the next question:
- Did I devote a disproportionately high amount of effort/resources, including traits, feats, archetypes and race selection be about as versatile/effective as a Gunslinger with Int 10?
If the answer is "Yes":
- Yay! I get to be mediocre!
If the answer is "No":
- Well... I guess I can play a commoner til I get another chance to hit things with my sword...
every fighter i have seen that is viable out of combat, has been a human who exploits certain human exclusive racial traits, human exclusive racial feats, the tactician or lore warden archetypes, and traits to get around their skill deficiency.
Well, I shouldn't but let's see if I can pull off all the copy and pasting (I hate to actually type!).
Please show me where I, or anyone else, said Fighters can't fight.
Really? Because I can't think of one thing that they do better than the other classes in their category.
Melee? Mounted Fury Rage lance pounce FTW.
Ranged? hmmm smite evil anyone? Screw that unbypassable DR that the fighter has to take 2 feats after level 10 in order to get past just 5 of it. Smite.
Dude. I won't even claim that. I just want, that if fighting is literally the only thing they can do, that they be viable for the top spot. But they don't even compare on the charts.
There's a couple.
Please show me where I, or anyone else, said Fighter players can'y have fun.
. But this conversation is not about fun. Fun is subjective.
There we are taking fun out of the equation.
Please show me where I, or anyone else, said anything even remotely close to that. What we did say is that if can't do anything better than a commoner, then you're a commoner.
And not to ignore you...
I'm asking elite warriors to have more skill points and overall versatility/utility than commoners!
Sure, compared to commoners, Fighter are okay out of combat, but the fact that they have to be compared to the absolutely weakest class in the game says a ton about them.
How's that? Not too choppy, maybe a little bit difficult to follow but it works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please show me where I, or anyone else, said Fighter players can'y have fun.. But this conversation is not about fun. Fun is subjective.There we are taking fun out of the equation.
You are aware of the major difference between "This conversation isn't about a subjective factor" and "Fighters can't be fun", yes?
Some people enjoy coffee enemas. That is a subjective feeling and has no bearing on the discussion about whether it is healthy or has any effect.
"It's ineffective and can lead to scalding of the intestines, which can be very dangerous"
"So are you saying it's impossible to enjoy a coffee enema?"
NO. I'm saying that the enjoyment of it has no bearing on the discussion.
Nice try. Now show me the part where we said we didn't have fun. Cause it still aint in there.....
Just gonna focus on that little snippet? Hmm?
Well, I shouldn't but let's see if I can pull off all the copy and pasting (I hate to actually type!).
Please show me where I, or anyone else, said Fighters can't fight.
Really? Because I can't think of one thing that they do better than the other classes in their category.
Melee? Mounted Fury Rage lance pounce FTW.
Ranged? hmmm smite evil anyone? Screw that unbypassable DR that the fighter has to take 2 feats after level 10 in order to get past just 5 of it. Smite.
Dude. I won't even claim that. I just want, that if fighting is literally the only thing they can do, that they be viable for the top spot. But they don't even compare on the charts.There's a couple.
They never said Fighter can't fight. Just that they aren't any/much better at fighting than other martial classes.
Please show me where I, or anyone else, said Fighter players can'y have fun.. But this conversation is not about fun. Fun is subjective.There we are taking fun out of the equation.
He never said Fighter players can't have fun. Rynjin simply stated this thread was about what Fighter can do, not about how fun they are. He is right.
Please show me where I, or anyone else, said anything even remotely close to that. What we did say is that if can't do anything better than a commoner, then you're a commoner.And not to ignore you...
I'm asking elite warriors to have more skill points and overall versatility/utility than commoners!Sure, compared to commoners, Fighter are okay out of combat, but the fact that they have to be compared to the absolutely weakest class in the game says a ton about them.
I never said if you can't do everything you're a commoner. I said that if you can't do anything better than a commoner, then you're a commoner.
How's that? Not too choppy, maybe a little bit difficult to follow but it works.
Yeah, reading your quotes I can definitely see no one ever said anything you claim we did.
Fighters lose most of their damage when they move more than 10 feet and mechanically they are inferior out of combat. Fiat is not a fix. Turning a blind eye to the problem and saying everyone else just can't think out of the box or can't role play is one of the worst arguments, and it only serves to insult. Most of the argument was fiat or poor excuses, many of them applying to all classes and not just the fighter.
Let me just say I don't think I'm avoiding problems. I think I don't suffer these "every thing has to be taken to extremes" problems that most people seem to complain about. And since I've already been accused of calling people "munchkins," if you are playing a RageLancePounce Barbarian then yes you are a munchkin. If you have run the DPR on a build then yes you are a munchkin. If you don't like that term then, I'm sorry? I guess.
(Please note not you specifically MrSin. I'm using "you" in the general sense.
every fighter i have seen that is viable out of combat, has been a human who exploits certain human exclusive racial traits, human exclusive racial feats, the tactician or lore warden archetypes, and traits to get around their skill deficiency.
Hey, I can help you with that!
Meet Dr.Fighty McCharming! The Half-Elf Fighter with no archetypes and Cha 7 who is nonetheless a very awesome Diplomat!
Of course, he had to invest an unreasonably high amount of effort/resources to do it, but he did do it!
Sure, a commoner could be just as good of a Diplomat, but no commoner will point that out to him!
I'm finding this hilarious. Durngrun is trying to pull logical fallacies or plow words into our mouths left and right and literally every other person in here is calling him on it.
All I'm trying to say is the fighter class is not the death nail for Pathfinder and all these "fighter lovers" just want to convince me how wrong I am. Same thing happens when I talk about monks. I think I'm just too old to argue on message boards. I'm much better in person. (On the other hand, my typing is getting much better!)
I'm finding this hilarious. Durngrun is trying to pull logical fallacies or plow words into our mouths left and right and literally every other person in here is calling him on it.All I'm trying to say is the fighter class is not the death nail for Pathfinder and all these "fighter lovers" just want to convince me how wrong I am. Same thing happens when I talk about monks. I think I'm just too old to argue on message boards. I'm much better in person. (On the other hand, my typing is getting much better!)
Please show me where I, or anyone else, said Fighters make PF unplayable.
Should I just add this to the previous quotes?
I can never win.
"We never said fighters are bad. We just said they can't fight. They can't do anything out of combat. Having fun is not justification to play a class. Anybody can do any thing better than them because combat is not a thing in Pathfinder. I'd rather play a commoner! But we love the class!"
I'm sure you all have a point. I've just lost the ability to care anymore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can never win.
"We never said fighters are bad. We just said they can't fight. They can't do anything out of combat. Having fun is not justification to play a class. Anybody can do any thing better than them because combat is not a thing in Pathfinder. I'd rather play a commoner! But we love the class!"
We NEVER said ANY of those things.
We DID say Fighters are bad. That's kind of our whole point!
Why must you insist on claiming we said thing we didn't? Hell, even the posts you quoted don't say what you claim they said.
Bah, to hell with this, I'm off to bed.
Yeah, at this point he's arguing against things that were never said, showing quotes that don't say what he claims they say, and just ignoring us when we tell him thats not what it says. This fight was over long ago and I believe he's been trolling for the most part.Why must you insist on claiming we said thing we didn't? Hell, even the posts you quoted don't say what you claim they said.
Bah, to hell with this, I'm off to bed.
Honestly at this point I don't even know what you are trying to say. I said fighters can do things outside of combat but that was not the point of the class. I then had every single statement I made attacked by several people. And so now I'm a "troll."
Lesson learned. Never defend a class in a thread talking about that class!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, at this point he's arguing against things that were never said, showing quotes that don't say what he claims they say, and just ignoring us when we tell him thats not what it says. This fight was over long ago and I believe he's been trolling for the most part.Why must you insist on claiming we said thing we didn't? Hell, even the posts you quoted don't say what you claim they said.
Bah, to hell with this, I'm off to bed.
Honestly at this point I don't even know what you are trying to say. I said fighters can do things outside of combat but that was not the point of the class. I then had every single statement I made attacked by several people. And so now I'm a "troll."
Lesson learned. Never defend a class in a thread talking about that class!
Holy $**t on a cracker from effin' heck. Dude, Listen very carefully, you are NOT defending the fighter. You are holding it back. We want to fix the Fighter. That is actually an option. Especially if people like you can just admit you are wrong so that we, as Fighter fans and PF players in general can present a unified front to Paizo, and get them to fix the issues with their system, regardless of whether those issues were inherited or mistakes on their part.
I don't want it changed. Sorry that breaks your unified front. I understand you think it is broken (or you don't, I don't know) but I disagree.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want it changed. Sorry that breaks your unified front. I understand you think it is broken (or you don't, I don't know) but I disagree.
I still don't get why people feel this way. For the most part, what we want is for the fighter to have more narrative control over things, which is what skills (and spells, but that's a conversation in and of itself) do. And the fighter has barely any of them open to him, particularly if he's putting one of them into perception per level.
Then there's the problems of higher levels and what people become. The casters, particularly arcane ones, gain full mastery of magic, and basically have the power of gods.
The Paladin becomes a literal avatar of their god.
The Ranger becomes a dude that's so good at tracking that they can follow a dude to the ends of the earth, then kill them with a single arrow.
And the fighter- the class that includes the archetype of the man that can lead armies, command such attention that he's looked on in awe. The dude that legends get made of just when he walks through a town. What does the fighter get?
A little bit better with one particular weapon.
The thing is, this is specifically a D&D 3.0/2.5/PFism, and they are the only editions where I find playing a fighter more unfun than playing a paladin or a monk, or most any other class. And it's weird, as this phenomenon doesn't exist in any other edition of DnD. In 2e and before, as a part of his class, the Fighter got literal armies at his command. In 4e, many of the Paragon paths and Epic Destinies allow the fighter to have just as much narrative control as the rest of the classes.
My question is, why can't I properly build Hercules, or Cú Chulainn, or hell, even Achilles. Why can't I make Boromir, without taking a feat that DMs either ban or every other class can take, and can probably be better at than you. Why can't I make Ulysses, Thor or any of the other fighters of myth. Why can the 20th level wizard get the ability to change the aspects of reality just by thinking while the 20th level fighter still have to look for contracts with kings because he's just a good fighter.
The reason why the fighter is considered poor isn't because of his combat skill (and even there, the fighter still starts to get outstripped at higher levels), but because he does not have the ability to make changes to the narrative by making unexpected skill checks, or by getting abilities that allow them to bypass skill checks like every other class in the game gets to do.
Honestly, when porting over the monk/fighter from 3.5, they really should have just gone and made them more like the swordsage/war blade.
The Paladin becomes a literal avatar of their god.
The Ranger becomes a dude that's so good at tracking that they can follow a dude to the ends of the earth, then kill them with a single arrow.
And the fighter- the class that includes the archetype of the man that can lead armies, command such attention that he's looked on in awe. The dude that legends get made of just when he walks through a town. What does the fighter get?
A little bit better with one particular weapon.
No, s/he becomes the undisputed master of that weapon. Unless there is another lvl 20 fighter specializing with the same weapon, that fighter has mastered a weapon to a degree no one can. S/he is, literally, the best in the world.
You didn't say the paladin or the ranger get a bit better at what they are already plenty good at, so I might as well paint the fighter's bonus in the same light :) .
My question is, why can't I properly build Hercules, or Cú Chulainn, or hell, even Achilles.
Why indeed, apart from their supernatural heritage? Their martial skills are not the problem. A fighter of a higher level and good gear (or, again, feats) can wade through throngs of lesser skilled opponents. RP hubris and possibly a flaw or two can make them exhibit the heroic vices. I am curious, really - what is it you can't do with the mechanics or with RP?
Now, there can be things to make fighters a bit better. I'd give fighters an improved version of bravery that gives them +1 to all saves for every 6 levels, doubled for will saves vs fear, reflex vs splash weapons and fortitude to avoid fatigue to represent their superior conditioning, especially in matters pertaining to war. For SPs, I'd probably give fighters - alongside paladins, clerics, and sorcerers, who also have their reasons not to be that unskilled - +2 SP/level. Mind you, there is also the option in the PF campaign setting book that gives fighters more SP in exchange for their 1st level bonus feat - that should be pretty much a must if you are making a single class fighter.
No, s/he becomes the best with one particular weapon. Unless there is another lvl 20 fighter specializing with the same weapon, that fighter has mastered a weapon to a degree no one can match.
...That amounts to nothing more than a bit more critting and an inability to be disarmed.