I've said in an older thread and will repeat here. If your argument is the fighter should have 4 skill points instead of two, that's fine with me (although is easily house ruled and I don't think it warrants a change to the CRB). If you want 20th level Fighters to be wizards, then I disagree.
The fighter is a great intro class. It does what it says and say what it does. When I introduce Pathfinder to somebody new (which I've done less than a dozen times) then I recommend the fighter class to play as they're learning the rules.
Fighters make a good "dip" class or multiclass. Their abilities are very basic and any class can improve their combat ability by taking a few levels of fighter without breaking verisimilitude. (Rogues do well in this regard too.)
I think the tendency of these boards (and the Internet in general) is to take everything to the extremes. I think a lot of the problems discussed here are not that common for the average or casual gamer (they certainly were/are not for me). I come from the philosophy that, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
But I'm too old and too poor to be buying new books anyways. Since I seem to be the only hold out then just ignore me. Change anything you like. Make everything anything or don't. I don't care. I really need to ban myself from these boards. They are destroying my love of the game but I seem to lack the willpower to just leave.
That's because there's something holding you here.
Perhaps...a subconscious agreement with our stance that you would never admit, even to yourself?
That's because there's something holding you here.
Perhaps...a subconscious agreement with our stance that you would never admit, even to yourself?
No, that isn't true! That's impossible! I'll never join you!
Have a paladin smite, a ranger instant enemy, or a barbarian pounce and compare damage. The fighter, if he comes out ahead at all, will just barely be ahead of the curve. They can do it with all weapons.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.
Then take a step back, relax, and realize its just a game.
No, that isn't true! That's impossible! I'll never join you!That's because there's something holding you here.
Perhaps...a subconscious agreement with our stance that you would never admit, even to yourself?
Yes join us resistance is futile against the will of lord Wraithstrike.
...That amounts to nothing more than a bit more critting and an inability to be disarmed.
You automatically confirm criticals - off the top of my head I'd expect that means roughly 20% more criticals. You also improve the crit rating, which overall I'd expect increases their damage by at least as much. The disarming thing is a thematic freebie.
Fighters could be a bit better outside of combat - and depending on the archetype, some are. Their lvl 20 ability strikes me as pretty handy, in a subtle, statistic way. Yes, you don't have a special mojo attack that once per day may kill someone if they fail a DC 20-something will save.
You will kill them with hit point damage and possibly crit effects.
Fighters make a good "dip" class or multiclass. Their abilities are very basic and any class can improve their combat ability by taking a few levels of fighter without breaking verisimilitude. (Rogues do well in this regard too.)Not to kick an old bear when he's down, you do realize that rogue is a terrible dip for any form of combat. They're arguably the worst combatants in the game.
No, sorry. I wasn't saying dip rogue for combat just that they are easy to dip without breaking the theme of a character.
I also agree you shouldn't "dip" classes (a term I learned here) but I do like to multiclass. Losing "capstone" abilities are not that big of a concern for me as my group rarely gets to 20th level (its rare we get above 12 really if we start from 1st).
Who said anything about 1/day. A paladin with oath of vengeance and a 16 charisma before items could have up to 15 smites/day. Considering that every "extra lay on hands" is another free smite, removal of all kinds of conditions and/or healing, and the fact that the core rule book itself recommends 4 combats a day of 4 combatants each, you could arguably on a regular basis have a smite running on every single person in a day....That amounts to nothing more than a bit more critting and an inability to be disarmed.You automatically confirm criticals - off the top of my head I'd expect that means roughly 20% more criticals. You also improve the crit rating, which overall I'd expect increases their damage by at least as much. The disarming thing is a thematic freebie.
Fighters could be a bit better outside of combat - and depending on the archetype, some are. Their lvl 20 ability strikes me as pretty handy, in a subtle, statistic way. Yes, you don't have a special mojo attack that once per day may kill someone if they fail a DC 20-something will save.
You will kill them with hit point damage and possibly crit effects.
With that one specific build.
@ Thomas Long - in my post before that, which Rynjin quoted a part of, I was replying to Berenzen about how rangers can kill anyone with one shot, and fighters get just a bit better with one weapon. The ranger capstone about killing someone is a 1/day per certain favored enemy category, which that thing has to fit.
The oath of vengeance is a specialized combat paladin, and the initial debate was that fighters aren't good enough out of combat. If we include archetypes, though, fighters do have options to get better in areas they are not normally that great it (i.e. the tactician). Fighters - most of them, at least - are very good in combat and not so good out of it - OaV paladins are pretty much in the same boat there.
I run dpr even on my builds that don't auto attack or cast damaging spells :P I RUN DPR ON EVERYONE MWAHAHAHA
I hate that I even know what DPR means.
|
I see one thread after another ranking on fighters...most of them seem to me to be threads started and perpetuated by people that really don't get fighters...at all.
Let me introduce you to what fighters actually DO.
This is a bit of a challenge...as of now, freeform.
The Fighter's Challenge:
For the fighter, I will assume a reasonably optimized fighter, well-rounded and conversant with melee, ranged, and close combat...carrying a decent array of weapons, and in good appropriate heavy armor, at level 12.
He meets random encounters, none higher than CR8. They come at him every 2d6 rounds, showing up at varying ranges as he traverses varied terrains.
What class survives longer than him at level 12, assuming they have to deal with each encounter?
Here is why this won't work.
1. Schrodinger's Wizard magically appears at 12th level. He didn't have to to go through the awkward phases of wizard life picking up all those feats and pre-magic item min/max scores, often dying in the process, he appeared fully formed. And he always has the exact right spell at the exact right time, and plenty of time before and after to buff. Hence, he is undefeated.
2. Assuming anything is begging for the goal posts to be moves.
3. Some people on here seem married to beliefs to the point of religious fervor.
I'm not even reading the posts, how right am I?
|
|
I hate that I even know what DPR means.
I run dpr even on my builds that don't auto attack or cast damaging spells :P I RUN DPR ON EVERYONE MWAHAHAHA
DPR is similar to people who obsess about Batting Average in baseball, while everyone who is serious about the game knows it is a fairly misleading stat.
DPR assumes a lot of things do and do not happen. It has value, but not nearly as much as people say.
I proposed an alternative that never really got off the ground that was more useful, but still flawed.
There are too many variables for a simple formula.
Here is why this won't work.1. Schrodinger's Wizard magically appears at 12th level. He didn't have to to go through the awkward phases of wizard life picking up all those feats and pre-magic item min/max scores, often dying in the process, he appeared fully formed. And he always has the exact right spell at the exact right time, and plenty of time before and after to buff. Hence, he is undefeated.
2. Assuming anything is begging for the goal posts to be moves.
3. Some people on here seem married to beliefs to the point of religious fervor.
I'm not even reading the posts, how right am I?
Wizard hasn't been brought up in a few pages I don't think. :P
3 is correct.
My ears are burning...
I hate that I even know what DPR means.
I run dpr even on my builds that don't auto attack or cast damaging spells :P I RUN DPR ON EVERYONE MWAHAHAHADPR is similar to people who obsess about Batting Average in baseball, while everyone who is serious about the game knows it is a fairly misleading stat.
The fact you compared it to baseball makes me hate it even more.
You know why there are no instant replays in baseball? Because no one was watching the first time!
If you watch baseball in slow motion you can go back in time!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is why this won't work.1. Schrodinger's Wizard magically appears at 12th level. He didn't have to to go through the awkward phases of wizard life picking up all those feats and pre-magic item min/max scores, often dying in the process, he appeared fully formed. And he always has the exact right spell at the exact right time, and plenty of time before and after to buff. Hence, he is undefeated.
2. Assuming anything is begging for the goal posts to be moves.
3. Some people on here seem married to beliefs to the point of religious fervor.
I'm not even reading the posts, how right am I?
Wizard hasn't been brought up in a few pages I don't think. :P
3 is correct.
Edit: I'm sorry i misspoke. The word wizard was used 3 times in the past 3 pages before you came in.
Speaking of Religion can I speak to you about the wonders of his Magnificance Lord Wraithstrike.
In short, hes not even really a combatant anymore. He's more of a support role now. He's lost a pretty good chunk of beef and he loses a good chunk of damage until level 9.
The fighter archetype that is better at support is not as good at fighting (though the remaining bonus feats and the initiative bonus should make it not terrible, either). I brought it up as an example that if we discuss archetypes, there are fighter archetypes that can shore up areas fighters are usually considered poor at. It happens at a cost - whether that cost is too high or low is another topic; I'd personally just remove the 1st level bonus feat like the PFCS fighter option does. Sadly, I can't find a paladin variant with more skill points, and they have a pretty decent list.
And yes, a ranger who dedicates part of his limited spells to buff his capstone will see it more useful, just like a fighter who uses his bonus feats to improve his criticals will get more mileage out of his capstone. Both are examples of good synergy.
At the end of the day, I was somewhat peeved by a rhetorical flourish to compare the capstones of 3 classes where the paladin and ranger ones were extolled but the fighter's - making more and nastier criticals with his weapon of choice (with not being disarmed as a thematic and mostly useless freebie) - was made to be all but pointless. What exactly are you arguing here? That combat-oriented archetypes who dedicate their other resources to being better at combat are also good at combat? I agree with that. Or that they are SO much better that fighters in that area and in general? That might take some persuading.
On point one, sorry, I had edited in a further point as I was not sure what exactly was the point we were arguing on.I had initially replied to a post about capstones, that is why I referred to them at some point. I can definitely agree that there are some areas - mostly out of combat, though - where the player of a fighter may be at a bit of a disadvantage compared to some other classes.
As for your other point, other martial classes generally focus on only certain enemies or modes of fighting (i.e. cavaliers being mounted, rangers with FEs until lvl 12 and then only with spells, paladins about evil foes etc). Fighters specialize in wide groups of weapons, become even better with certain weapons, and have a wide area of feats to help them set their own style. Sure, a paladin can expect +6 to hit and + 20 to damage (the fighter will have to pay for an item with a deflection bonus to AC, but there are plenty of those). The fighter gets a +4/3/2/1 to hit, CMB and damage with four respective weapon groups, and probably half his extra feats to get even better with them. He'll also likely have some bonus AC due to the higher max dexterity on his armor (if he has good dexterity, which is likely a given considering he doesn't really need that many attributes). Overall, I believe that in combat the fighter is pretty solid.
Can they be made somewhat better? Possibly, I have some ideas about that, but let's not get carried away here. Rogues, monks and possibly cavaliers need the help more imo.
I'd have to check when I'm home but I believe he was 3e stated with an 8-10 so average at best.
I hate that I even know what DPR means.
I run dpr even on my builds that don't auto attack or cast damaging spells :P I RUN DPR ON EVERYONE MWAHAHAHADPR is similar to people who obsess about Batting Average in baseball, while everyone who is serious about the game knows it is a fairly misleading stat.
DPR assumes a lot of things do and do not happen. It has value, but not nearly as much as people say.
I proposed an alternative that never really got off the ground that was more useful, but still flawed.
There are too many variables for a simple formula.
Well, the big problem I see with DPR as the be-all end-all of character building is that damage is only part of the equation. I'd gladly sacrifice a bit of damage for more versatility and better defenses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
> 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.
No they don't. Fighters get 2 knowledge skills as class skills, Dungeoneering and Engineering.
> 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.
Fighters do not get perception as a class skill.
> Obstacle course are built around strength and dex. Fighters deal with these easily.
Fighters do not get acrobatics as a class skill so they are not especially good at jumping or balance.
> 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.
Without stealth to set up the ambush, they do not do particularly well in this area.
> 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.
No knowledge history is a pretty big hole in trying to teach military students.
> Buy gear. Use party buffs. Saving throws can be built to be fine. everyone sucks when levels or stats are drained.
Fighters have lousy saving throws. They have as bad a set of saves as all the martials. Buying gear and receiving buffs is hardly a fighter class ability (even if it is a mandatory requirement).
> 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)
Diplomacy is the skill by which people interact in a straightforward cooperative fashion (like leading). Fighters don't get this as a class skill.
> 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.
Now to some extent this is correct. They can climb the combat maneuver chains, but most of those are of fairly limited utility. A lot of them hit walls at high levels at that (trip, grapple).
Truth be told feats are weak sauce compared to things like rage powers or the spells available to rangers or paladins.
The paladin bonus to AC when Smiting is a deflection bonus, not untyped. Unless you are really, really twinking out Cha, it actually tends to provide a fairly static +1 to +3 bonus as you level, that's it.
==Aelryinth
Every time I see these threads I think its pretty funny. I have a fighter in my groups carrion crown campaign and I LOVE the dude. No archetype sword and board build.
We are at 14th level and my AC is 40 (41 with haste) and can easily pump out 100 damage in a full attack on average. TThenif I crit it can get pretty disgusting.
And im not even really totally optimized in terms of feats. Theres some i have that I wish I could switch to other things.
So I basically never get hit. Dish out damage. Have some battlefield control capabilities with my shield slam and after my gear investment my will save isnt even a huge issue most of the time.
Some of the gear available to fighters is awesome. Gloves of dueling and sash of the war champion just make our weapon and armor training that much better.
And if you bothered to read the thread, you would know nobody is complaining about the fighter being bad at fight. But let me ask you a question: What does that fighter do OUT of combat? What are his skills? That is the problem.
You had me until they don't need that many good stats :P A fighter will need a good strength, dex, con just for core. Possibly wisdom if you want even a relatively decent will save. Int if you want more skills.
The paladin needs those three and charisma. Well, not necessarily needs, just really likes ;) . Int is just as useful, considering that there are some pretty nice skills on the paladin skill list, so the only difference is wisdom, which the fighter values for the save and the paladin doesn't need as much. The ranger wants to have good stats in the physical abilities (more or less) and wisdom, too, so I'd say the fighter is among the less ability-intensive martial types*.
Smite gives a deflection AC bonus as far as I know. And while there are plenty of evil creatures in the bestiary, most campaigns I've been in have no lack of neutrals (humanoids, beasts and vermin, oozes, constructs etc) or just numerous opponents Smite is less than ideal against.
Edit: * - to clarify: I meant that the fighter is relatively less reliant on good attributes in different scores. In the end, the major benefit of high wisdom is +1 or +2 to one save - you can get that from a feat. Compared to the benefits other classes get from a high ability score - casting, higher saves on class abilities etc - it is fairly minor.
The paladin needs those three and charisma. Well, not necessarily needs, just really likes ;) . Int is just as useful, considering that there are some pretty nice skills on the paladin skill list, so the only difference is wisdom, which the fighter values for the save and the paladin doesn't need as much. The ranger wants to have good stats in the physical abilities (more or less) and wisdom, too, so I'd say the fighter is among the less ability-intensive martial types*.
Paladin also starts with 4 skill points instead of 2. Effectively 4 more INT for skills.
Umm, no.
Paladins get 2 per level just like the fighter. On the plus side for them, there is a synergy in buffing charisma to work with diplomacy since it also benefits class abilities.
On a slightly funnier note, just for giggles.Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess.aka. even if it isn't evil, smite still autobypasses DR.
While I can see how you can make that reading is is certainly not in keeping with the meaning of the sentence or the general understanding of Smite Evil. If the target in question is not evil, smite doesn't function at all, and you do not bypass DR.
You had me until they don't need that many good stats :P A fighter will need a good strength, dex, con just for core. Possibly wisdom if you want even a relatively decent will save. Int if you want more skills.The paladin needs those three and charisma. Well, not necessarily needs, just really likes ;) . Int is just as useful, considering that there are some pretty nice skills on the paladin skill list, so the only difference is wisdom, which the fighter values for the save and the paladin doesn't need as much. The ranger wants to have good stats in the physical abilities (more or less) and wisdom, too, so I'd say the fighter is among the less ability-intensive martial types*.
(...)
Edit: * - to clarify: I meant that the fighter is relatively less reliant on good attributes in different scores. In the end, the major benefit of high wisdom is +1 or +2 to one save - you can get that from a feat. Compared to the benefits other classes get from a high ability score - casting, higher saves on class abilities etc - it is fairly minor.
That's is true. Fighters and Paladins are decently SAD. They're not wizards, but they don't need 18s anywhere (although those always, help, of course)
Paladins can dump Wis and Fighters can dump Cha. Both benefit just the same from Dex and Int. Although I'd say Paladins don't need Con as much as Fighters, since they can self-heal and add Cha to their Fort saves.The only problem is that Fighters are (moderately) SAD for the same reason Warriors are.
They're not SAD because they get a lot from their main attribute, but because they get very little from all the others.
Paladins get a lot of mileage from Cha, so do Bards. Inquisitors get a lot from Wis, Monks too (although not enough to compensate for their MADness, IMO) and, of course, Wizards get a lot from Int.
Regardless of the targetIt specifically says it does not matter who the target is for that line. If being neutral or good could get you out of it then target wouldn't be irrelevant. You can rule however you wish on this, but the rule specifically states that target is irrelevant for purposes of autobypassing DR.
Yes, but that is completely taking the one sentence out of context.
The whole paragraph is:
Once per day, a paladin can call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil. As a swift action, the paladin chooses one target within sight to smite. If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite. If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses. Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess.
The reason for the sentence you cite is the "If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses. " because that can change the amount of damage done.
Smite Evil doesn't work on neutral or good. That's just common sense.
Imho the only problem with fighter is the number of skills. With 4+int skill per level, even with the same list of class skills, he would be at the level of barbarians/monks and cavaliers.
Even with only 2+int skill per level the problems are not as bad as people claim.
I don't think that's the only one... But it's certainly the most obvious one.
And the most incomprehensible too... Why would the guy who focus only on mundane skills not have any skills at all? Why did the devs think 2 skill points is enough for any class other than Wizards and Witches?
Personally, I'd give all classes at least 4 skill ranks per level. Well, maybe not Int-based full-casters, but if that's what it took to give Fighters and Paladins (and also Clerics and Sorcerers) more skill points, I'd have no problem with it.
Smite Evil doesn't work on neutral or good. That's just common sense.Which is why I find it funny that target is irrelevant for that line. It wouldn't be necessary for the previous line, because those are all evil anyways, so it would still apply to them.
The only logical solution is that the statement must apply to something the rest of the whole does not. Otherwise those 4 words are wasted word count. It is possible it is badly worded. But at this point in time you're saying that those words REGARDLESS OF THE TARGET have absolutely no meaning.
I already explained why the sentence is there. You can accept it or not. I guarantee you will not get past any GM I have ever met. I also know it will not fly at a PFS table.
I did read the thread...so thanks for being rude. Quite a bit of it was himming and hawing over combat abilities.But to answer your question my fighter is great at climbing and swimming.....like every other fighter...I also have ranks in survival and intimidate so im okay at those. Im also the best stealther in the party....in heavy armor.
I can also break the ever living hell out of anything that needs to be broken.
But who plays a fighter for skills? If your gaming group coordinates at all nobody would think about playing fighter if skills and non combat rolls werent already fulfilled.
When I play a fighter, what I want to be is a dude that is so amazing in the art of war, he can pick up a tree branch, give a rousing cry of battle, then lead an charge against the gates of hell and make demon lords cry like a little baby. Right now the fighter can't do that. Let's break down why not.
When it comes to picking up a tree branch, chances are it's not the fighter's chosen weapon, so it's suboptimal to fight as such, the fighter would be better off finding mook #437 and take his sword, giving him the tree branch. Not exactly heroic.
Assuming that the fighter is human and hasn't dumped int he has 3 skill points. One of those will go into perception, then he puts the rest of them into Diplomacy and Intimidate. So he's not good at climbing, survival, stealth etc. And he's probably dumped charisma, so suddenly the fighter is not as great at giving speeches than say a bard or a paladin.
Oh, you didn't dump charisma? Well, looks like you're no longer the god in combat that you think you are. The paladin, the Magus, or another melee archetype probably is beating you in damage now.
~*~
That's the issue with fighters, they're in this rut where they don't have a niche that isn't better fulfilled by other classes. Not taking account of spells- as they basically nullfiy every niche out there- the Bard is basically going to succeed in every way against the fighter. In combat, a Ranger or a Paladin can compete with the fighter when they're not against their chosen enemies, and against their chosen enemies, they surpass the fighter in combat. And if the Fighter loses his chosen weapon? Looks like you're the bottom of the totem pole in combat too.
Why can't the fighter be a dude that can beat an army with a tree branch, or command the highest respect from a king he's never met simply because he radiates such an aura of power and respect? Why can the fighter not be able to pick up a spear, then impale 13 men with it just by tossing it?
And roleplaying it isn't a valid response. Roleplaying is entirely subjective and conjecture. There should be a mechanical part to it so any fighter can step into the role of an undisputed master of war and isn't subject to DM fiat. As is right now, at every level the Fighter has no narrative control, while the wizard has basically an undisputed amount of it. That's a discrepancy that should not exist in any game where a story is being created by the players.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've said the point of the class is to fight and that they can fight.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's not get crazy here man. Fighters aren't really that good at fighting. They are arguably good at KILLING 1 enemy in short order, but they are absolutely horrible at FIGHTING.
fight
[fahyt] Show IPA noun, verb, fought, fight·ing.
noun
1. a battle or combat.
2. any contest or struggle: a fight for recovery from an illness.
3. an angry argument or disagreement: Whenever we discuss politics, we end up in a fight.
4. Boxing. a bout or contest.
5. a game or diversion in which the participants hit or pelt each other with something harmless: a pillow fight; a water fight.
In D&D, fighters are subpar at pretty much every instance of the word FIGHT except for #4 & #5 on the definition list. When it comes to engaging in Battle or Combat, Fighters just do not fight very well. Now before anyone gets angry, I'm going to explain why.
In a fantasy world there is a lot more to battle and fighting than attack rolls and AC. A lot, lot more. From open field military warfare to small adventuring-level skirmishes, battle and fighting is a very involved thing. Something virtually all other classes - including Bard - are better at overall.
See, fighting in D&D/Pathfinder involves dealing with a lot of stuff. We have lizards that have natural flamethrowers; alchemists throwing acidic superbombs; women who turn you to stone with their eyes; undead who drain your life away with a touch; giant bugs that eat your toys; living shapeshifters who glue you to the ground and devour you after appearing to be a harmless object; assassins who wear the faces of others; tyrannosaurs that fly and throw lightning bolts at you; wizards who induce comatose seizures on you like you were a Japanese kid watching that one episode of Pokemon; nocturnal predators who control your mind at will; tigers that ambush you from seemingly no-where; aquatic creatures that snatch you and drag you into the depths; flying lizards with poison tails; dogs that smell of sulfur and breath hot death; and countless creatures that can arrive anywhere on earth they want with a moment of thought.
In short, FIGHTING is not two heavily armed individuals standing next to each other pummeling each other until one falls down (though if it is, Paladin is probably going to win unless the other guy can one-shot him a few times since he'll probably outlast him). There is a lot more to FIGHTING than just hitting things. Anyone can hit things. Commoners can hit things. Only real warriors can actually engage in Fighting, and unfortunately Fighter is not a real FIGHTER.
The other classes are well equipped for FIGHTING.
See Barbarians are good at dealing with the pummeling aspect but they also are excellent at resisting the deathly powers of the lich, the dark domination of the vampire, the death rays of the beholder, and can ferret out a wizard through a series of illusions. They also get Perception to avoid falling into ambushes. Barbarians also laugh at the attacks from unseen or invisible foes for they hold no advantage over them.
The Paladin is shielded in incredible resistances and immunities to many things and has a variety of spells and features that make them excel at battle, including the ability to resist energy attacks, block energy drain, or shield their allies from harm.
The Ranger is also good a pummeling and is better suited for dealing with the strains of battle. They have a variety of fighting abilities that allow them to deal with things like spells and traps, have spells like freedom of movement, resist energy, and delay poison that make them excel at fighting all manner of beast or mage. They are exceptionally keen at physical combat, often acquiring high-end combat techniques before anyone - including Fighters - ever had a chance of taking them.
The Bard is also adequate at fighting and functions as a leaderly figure who can use their powerful speeches to lift the hopes and swords of their allies while using tactical combat magic to make it through even the grizzliest of situations.
*continues on and on and on*
Fighters SUCK AT FIGHTING
Fighters do not suck at beating on target dummies with a stick (or sword, or axe, or bow, or whatever). Fighting in D&D/Pathfinder is leaps and bounds over hitting something with a stick. Fighters are horrible at fighting. They are passable - nay even pretty good - at one small facet of fighting in your typical D&D/Pathfinder campaign setting. They are poor at virtually all other aspects of fighting.
These are things you encounter in D&D/Pathfinder fights.
- Energy damage (Fireballs, lightning bolts, acid arrows, etc).
- Unavoidable attacks (ie - magic missile or "save for half" effects).
- Touch attacks (such as acid arrow, or a shadow's strength damage).
- Breath weapons (dragons, hell hounds, etc).
- Mind-affecting effects (charm person spell, a vampire's dominate, etc).
- Fear effects - most which still affect even on a successful save (cause fear, a mummy's aura of despair, a lich's aura of fear, etc).
- Poisons (a spider's bite, a wyvern's toxic sting, a pit fiend's unholy bite, drow weapons, etc)
- Terrain problems (the evil druid turned the ground into needles, your foes have a climb speed and you don't, water breaks line of effect, etc).
- Damaging bodies (an elemental's flames, a babau's acid, a black pudding's body, etc).
- Ambushers (a tiger in the grass, an invisible stalker, a wyvern flying in the clouds, goblins in the forest, etc).
- Summoned creatures (outsiders paging more outsiders, the cleric's summoned monster, the druid's natural allies, etc).
- Gaze attacks (a medusa's petrification, a basilisk's petrification, etc).
- "Unfair" tactics (dark stalkers and dark creepers using deeper darkness and sneak attacks, teleporting away to heal, etc).
- Physical brute enemies (orcs, ogres, hydras, giants, etc).
Ultimately there is not much that a Fighter has that's excellent in Fighting by virtue of being a Fighter in D&D/Pathfinder. Their saves are mediocre at best (actually very poor IMHO), their defenses are meh (all they really have is physical AC), their combat options are meh (they hit stuff and combat maneuvers get less attractive as levels rise), their ability to deal with ambushers is pretty weak (no perception, no special senses, etc), suffer terrible mobility problems (archery helps, as does mounted combat), and so forth, and so forth.
So once again, Fighters are good at hitting things. They are NOT good at FIGHTING.