| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the fighter problems are much exaggerated by people who don't play fighters.Which would be false. Most of us have played fighters, and monks, and rogues. We've been at this a very long time throughout multiple iterations of the system and have a working knowledge of the game. As a general rule I don't think those discussing the classes for their failures are inexperienced with those classes.
As a rule, if someone won't put up a build they are here for attention and not discussion.An unsubstantiated rule. This discussion has been going on for a long time (pre-Pathfinder in fact) and the Paizo boards are particularly volatile (unlike forums like Giant in the Playground which are much kinder and more heavily modded). We've done the whole build thing. It just creates fights. It has not once, ever, resulted in any sort of agreement. It's just a waste of time and a form of mechanical masturbation as people try to doctor up their statblock to be a shimmering as possible with certain racial combinations or highly specific archetypes and the like.
Or someone whines about someone's build and infers that it's not how they play even when the rules say it's fine. Or leads to people whining about DPR threads until their faces is blue, starting Roleplay vs Rollplay fights and more.
There are plenty - and I do mean plenty - of posters on these boards who have noted a problem with X or Y class that do not post builds. TriOmegaZero is a wonderful poster and someone who is more than passingly familiar with the issues in the game. Same with Kirth Girsen but I haven't seen a build.
Lemmy was on board with the build Bandwagon and he loves building stuff (he even has a very nice thread for martial builds), but even he has acknowledged that posting builds is a fairly futile waste of time.
In short, posting builds tells you very little about how the game plays. It is valuable in certain discussions, for a certain style of play sure. It's certainly more objective, but objectivity only gets you so far in a game that is played overwhelmingly by subjective groups.
You actually have to sit down and watch groups play to gain any sort of perspective on the whole game.
Almost nobody does that, or even could do that. And the findings of those few who do often seem at odds with people's individual game experiences.
It's a big ship.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
my sass tends to come to the forefront in threads like this because they often completely throw player skill, player knowledge and character level completely out the window
patiently explaining to me how at level 16 my build is going to hurmph durmph up and be less than fresh is pretty much just the equivalent of postcount+1 because I am most likely off crushing a burrito instead of reading it
one because burritos are just the best and two because I am playing a level 4 PFS character
and four because it is also the exact opposite tone from how I will sit with new players and draw them in with enthusiasm and setting a good example of cogenial friendly play while helping them with the concepts that will allow them to grow to be better players, both in the attitude they bring to events and in their enjoyment/knowledge of the game
there was a three I think but I am going to go get coffee
|
In short, posting builds tells you very little about how the game plays.
I fundamentally disagree for the following reasons.
1. Every PC is a build. It is the core of the game.
2. When you read many people's builds you learn instantly a great deal about what is allowed at the table they play at and therefore the root of their experience. If they post a Drow Noble Lich with scores below 7, that tells you a great deal.
3. The only stop gap on Schrodinger's "X" is to actually pin it down.
It isn't a panacea, but IMHO is an ingredient in any serious conversation on what classes can and can not do.
Also Toz is here to make people laugh, not generally to be taken seriously.
Aww...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lemmy also said your partially filled wands to get around WBL were fine.
That's because the rules say it is fine. You didn't like the rules and you haven't shut up about it since. You like taking pot shots at me and my games - which you have never been part of - because we follow the rules and you don't like the rules. Your answer is that if it's not your cup of tea then naturally the GM will veto it.
Many people don't want to post a build because it exposes their campaign, such as when you posted partially filled wands to get around WBL. That says a lot about what is allowed in your game and in your philosophy on gaming.
You don't like that you can purchase used wands according to the rules for buying items and you insist GMs would shoot you down for it. I laugh at you because if that's the case you can't sell partially charged wands either (if you can't buy them, you sure as hell aren't going to find anyone to sell them to).
If you won't post a build, you aren't interested in a serious discussion for one simple reason.
Every PC is, at root, a build entered into a campaign.
While every PC has a build, PCs are not at root a build. A build is just a mechanical representation of an idea that you have for a character. Now talented builders can get around certain problematic limitations due to experience and understanding of the system. If I want to make a Fighter who has respectable saving throws then I can make a dwarf and take a feat that grants me a flat +4 bonus on saves vs poison & magic. That shows up in a build, but when discussing classes is horribly dishonest.
Because a class should not be required to be a certain race to function. Same with archetypes. If I want to make a Rogue, I should be able to make a rogue that functions decently regardless of what race I choose. If I want to make a dwarf sorcerer, I can do that and it will still be a viable character. If I want to make a halfling ranger, I can do that and it will still be a viable character. If I want to make a gnome barbarian it will still be a viable character.
Because those classes are all solid within their classes themselves. Builds only show a snapshot of a lot of different stuff. But the only way that anyone will get anywhere in these discussions is through the experimentation of different facets of their potential and examining how much you have to tip the scales in a given field. I've done this before several times when discussing things like DPR of the monk.
It doesn't help that most of the build-nuts always insist on posting overpowered builds. The standard game uses 15 point buy, no traits, no hero points, no optional rules like piecemeal armor, massive damage, words of power, etc.
Also Toz is here to make people laugh, not generally to be taken seriously.Aww...
Don't worry TOZ. I take you seriously. :)
So people seem to be dumping on the fighter, rogue and monk pretty hard.
Rogue I get why.
Monk I get why.
Fighters though... They fight, they do it well.
So my question to the people listing fighter as less than stellar is what specificly do they want out of the class that they aren't getting?
Genuinely confused here, not trying to throw fuel on the fire.
- Torger
So people seem to be dumping on the fighter, rogue and monk pretty hard.
Rogue I get why.
Monk I get why.
Fighters though... They fight, they do it well.
So my question to the people listing fighter as less than stellar is what specificly do they want out of the class that they aren't getting?
Genuinely confused here, not trying to throw fuel on the fire.
- Torger
The short version is there's not really a problem with the fighter's ability to kill. IMHO they are not very good at fighting. Combat in Pathfinder is complex and grows more complex as levels advance. Fighters are excellent for to-hit/to-damage but then again so is literally every other martial character in Pathfinder and quite a few of the 3/4 BAB classes as well. The catch is everyone else actually tends to be good at fighting (often having counters to things that are bad and special tricks they can use beyond just hitting stuff). Meanwhile in other areas of the game (including exploration and general adventuring) they usually bring more to the party.
Fighters are good at killing. Not so good at fighting. And that's pretty much all they are.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In short, posting builds tells you very little about how the game plays.
I fundamentally disagree for the following reasons.
1. Every PC is a build. It is the core of the game.
2. When you read many people's builds you learn instantly a great deal about what is allowed at the table they play at and therefore the root of their experience. If they post a Drow Noble Lich with scores below 7, that tells you a great deal.
3. The only stop gap on Schrodinger's "X" is to actually pin it down.
It isn't a panacea, but IMHO is an ingredient in any serious conversation on what classes can and can not do.
Conversely, no amount of build review tells you what's going on in the campaign, what the pacing of encounters is like, how well the GM knows the rules and executes NPC actions.
And it's often classes like the rogue, which depend heavily on these factors, that get singled out.
Builds usually come with X amount of gold, but WBL approximations tell you very little about how the game plays over 12-16 levels. They're a snapshot of a theoretical character at that level. If you actually play and GM a lot, you know that most PCs spend most of their time over or under WBL. And that some items create synergies, etc etc.
I'm not saying that build-posting is useless in all cases, I'm saying that this conversation about class balance cannot have recourse to builds alone. It requires a broad analysis of campaigns in play, of which specific builds are a relatively minor aspect. That kind of analysis is a truly immense undertaking, and only Paizo or some other organized play entity could hope to turn up meaningful results. Even that is fraught with bias and confounds.
Focusing too much on builds leads inexorably to an adversarial analysis of PC classes, which is extremely unhelpful in generating meaningful insights to campaigns. Even wise analysts who know better still succumb to an "X-is-better-than-Y" perspective. You *do* know better, or you wouldn't talk about Schroedinger's Wizard.
The antidote for that little aberration is a campaign, not a statblock. The statblock will tell me all about how this wizard player *thinks* he's protected his spellbook and has a sack of scrolls. The campaign tells me exactly what happens to all that stuff, which of the player's plans work, and which don't.
Fighters are good at killing. Not so good at fighting. And that's pretty much all they are.
But! Some people do enjoy the fighter experience.
And it's really hard to win at chess when the enemy has pawns and you have none.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"so guys I rolled up a lore warden fighter"
"oh man what are you doing a bard will just own you on the skills anyway and there are like a ton of martial classes that can do better combat maneuvers and CMB anyway is just useless at high levels man, what are you thinking?"
"okay so what level are we starting at?"
"...1."
"and who else is in the party?"
"...uh, well, a sorcerer, a summoner and a magus."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The short version is there's not really a problem with the fighter's ability to kill. IMHO they are not very good at fighting. Combat in Pathfinder is complex and grows more complex as levels advance. Fighters are excellent for to-hit/to-damage but then again so is literally every other martial character in Pathfinder and quite a few of the 3/4 BAB classes as well. The catch is everyone else actually tends to be good at fighting (often having counters to things that are bad and special tricks they can use beyond just hitting stuff). Meanwhile in other areas of the game (including exploration and general adventuring) they usually bring more to the party.
Fighters are good at killing. Not so good at fighting. And that's pretty much all they are.
I for one feel there's value in simplicity. I think that the existence of a class whos answer for everything is sword -> face is a good thing. It's not everybodys cup of tea but there are some who really like it.
I'm trying to get a feel for the sort of things people wish fighters had an answer for but don't and I'm looking for specifics.
So could you give me two or three specific instances where you wish fighters had a counter to something that's bad?
Thanks
- Torger
"...uh, well, a sorcerer, a summoner and a magus."
Aaaarrrrr 15 minute adventuring day, AHOY!
yarrrrrrrr
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters are good at killing. Not so good at fighting. And that's pretty much all they are.But! Some people do enjoy the fighter experience.
And it's really hard to win at chess when the enemy has pawns and you have none.
Ouch. That's a bit backhanded don't you think Lincoln? :P
Even I like to think of the Fighter as more than a pawn at least (though I guess that does sum him up pretty well in a game that's played on a huge grid but you can only move in one direction >.>).
I'm also not arguing that some people wouldn't or do not enjoy playing a fighter. Not in the least. My brother enjoys playing NPC classes (warrior, expert, adept) but we hold no illusions that these classes are somehow on the same playing field or usefulness as the other classes.
One problem I think the fighter has is that he has nothing. At least nothing special. The barbarian pretty has the "I'm a powerful physical warrior without magic" on lockdown. He gets bonus points for also being heavily resilient vs magic, dealing exceptional damage, and even has some cool tricks to allow him to do bold and heroic things (he's also a better "tank" because he has more HP, more damage reduction throughout most levels, and more AC by mid to high levels).
Meanwhile the Paladin kind of has the whole "I'ma champion, awesome leader, feller of evil, unbreakable awesome guy" on lockdown. Best tank in the game, best at killing evil. Has lots he brings to the party in the form of auras, spells, and even has a few cool tricks (little spells like grace allowing him to ignore AoOs while moving are really cool abilities).
Rangers pretty much have the commando soldier thing down. They and Paladins are also the best horsemanship guys in the core rules (it's nice having a mount that doesn't suck at higher levels and die instantly). They have lots of mundane skills. They have great spells that are helpful in a wide variety of situations. They're also darn good at killing and incredibly at killing if their favored enemy shows up.
Fighters...well they have some bonus feats (rangers get more bonus feats, get them earlier, get them easier). They have some static modifiers to hit and damage. They have an armor buff but it requires them to have an incredibly high Dexterity and then by high levels other people can match them anyway. That's pretty much it until 19-20.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is intentionally backhanded.
I think a lot of people forget that for some, the appeal of the fighter is its non-wizardness. Not just avoidance of magic, but avoidance of bookish planning and daily variables.
There's a type of player that just can't identify with that need for simplicity. They're present in large numbers on the forums.
But if I were to "fix" the fighter in the ways so often requested, I can say with 100% certainty that I would frustrate and disappoint one of my players who just loves fighters.
They're straight-forward to the point of overspecialization. But they're still useful enough in the hands of another party member who likes playing the overcomplex wizard game.
There's that one guy who wants to roll his dice and get a really huge, impressive number, without arriving at that number a different way each combat.
He makes a great pawn. Just because you wouldn't want to be a pawn doesn't mean that nobody exists who enjoys that. If we revisit my definition of balance from page 1, there's definitely a great niche for the type of player who wants to contribute, but doesn't want to dwell on the monster types, or the alignment rules, or goddamn bardic performance.
This isn't a total apology for the perceived flaws of the fighter class raised in this thread. It's just an observation about players and player types that pertains to fighters, and why they're not so bad for the game's ecology.
I for one feel there's value in simplicity. I think that the existence of a class whos answer for everything is sword -> face is a good thing. It's not everybodys cup of tea but there are some who really like it.I'm trying to get a feel for the sort of things people wish fighters had an answer for but don't and I'm looking for specifics.
So could you give me two or three specific instances where you wish fighters had a counter to something that's bad?
Thanks
- Torger
Fighters generally lack any method of dealing with various forms of CC (crowd control). They have no ability to deal with ability damage. They have no ability to deal with energy damage. They have difficulty dealing with things are are mobile. They have generally poor saving throws. They have no method of pacing themselves which requires a very specific pacing for them to really excel.
Barbarians, Rangers, Paladins. These guys all have methods of alleviating at least some of these woes and supporting their party and they also can fight and kill stuff very well.
Additionally each of these classes can set their pacing depending on the needs of the campaign. If the GM decides to throw one really large encounter at the party they can begin expending their resources as needed to survive (a Paladin might end up burning a Lay on Hands every round while fighting to stay up, a Ranger might use his combat spells, quarry, instant enemy, etc). The Barbarian might rage the entire fight.
In contrast, if the GM likes to use multiple lesser encounters in a sort of marathon pace where the party is beset by many smaller encounters, each of these classes can ease up and only use a little of their juice as needed (Barbarians for example are actually still decent at killing stuff even when not raging).
The poor fighter basically has one single speed. Go. He can't choose to go slower or go faster. He also becomes a drain on the party's resources because he must have the support of another class to function at higher levels. Since he has no methods for healing himself, dealing with things like poisons, diseases, negative levels, ability damage, and so forth, and can't buff himself he needs support. He pretty much needs a cleric and wizard to support him, while other classes frequently lighten the burden of any party casters.
Arrrrrrrrrrrr A build is a magic item dat grants +1 to wins arguments!
yaaarrrrr
Stuff about Barbarians
Stuff about Paladins
Stuff about Rangers
I would say barbarians with the right build can have better AC mid to high levels. Without those specific powers though AC can be a real problem for them.
The only resource a fighter needs to spend to get his AC up is gold. The exact some gold the barbarian has to spend.
Also for some people the idea of auto death from loss of rage HP if you drop is a real turn off. I know there are ways to mitigate this but they all require the expenditure of resources and the higher level you get the worse the problem becomes.
Paladins, everything you said is true and yes smite evil is essentialy kill foe x times/day. But that's a resource that has to be conserved and used carefuly. When they're not smiting a Paladins damage is pretty meh.
Rangers, do stealth commando better than fighters no question but when they're not fighting their favored enemy their damage potential sinks hard.
And I'm not sure where you're getting "more bonus feats than fighter" by my count they get 5 (6 if you count endurance) a fighter gets 11.
All of these classes are good classes, no argument but while they're busy mucking around times/day resource management and pre buffing with spells the fighter is busy doing reliable, consistent, high end damage all day long.
- Torger
I've had a lot of success with using Ranger for the newbies. They're pretty much the ultimate learner class. They begin as competent martials and stay that way. They get enough skill points that players can dabble around and learn some different skills to play with. At 4th level they get a small number of simple spells to choose from to learn spell mechanics, and they can get a pet that can help them try out running a cohort too. I've never seen anyone overwhelmed by a Ranger.
In fact...I've never seen anyone who really needed or wanted the "simplicity" of a Fighter. Ever. This is compounded by the fact that Fighters are perhaps the easiest class to utterly ruin if you don't already know what you're doing. Due to the clusterhump that is feat chains, prerequisites, and so forth, picking the wrong feats for your fighter can lead down an inescapable road of suck. Especially in the case of players who don't know the metagame and see an option that looks really nice right now but becomes very underwhelming later on.
And while some might say that a fighter is simplicity, I've never really figured that simplicity was worth its cost in diamonds...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a lot of people forget that for some, the appeal of the fighter is its non-wizardness. Not just avoidance of magic, but avoidance of bookish planning and daily variables.
But if I were to "fix" the fighter in the ways so often requested, I can say with 100% certainty that I would frustrate and disappoint one of my players who just loves fighters.
OMG this, ten times over this.
Well put Evil Lincoln.
- Torger
On a side note, spellcasters were NERFED in Pathfinder. Not made more powerful. If anything Pathfinder is an incredibly step in the right direction.
That is so wrong... Only the druid was nerfed in Pathfinder. It is the only single class that have been nerfed between 3.5 and Pathfinder.
Even the wizard have been made way more powerful. People just use what they imagined about 3.5 wizard to compare with what they see in Pathfinder wizard.
Do you realize that out of the core classes in Pathfinder, only 3 of them are problematic? Fighter, Rogue, Monk. That leaves Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, and Wizard as being really good classes. 8/11 core classes well balanced. That is HUGE as an improvement.
And including the other official rulebooks (APG, UM, UC, ...), you have 4 classes that are problematic for a total of 21 classes.
Pathfinder has HUGELY improved the game, reduced imbalance and broken mechanics by a truly impressive margin, while opening up character options through free multiclassing and more forgiving cross-class skill rules.
I agree about the skill rules. But that causes the main problem about the rogue, who did not have such problems with 3.5 (as the rogue problems in 3.5 were the factotum, and it was not core rules anyway, and magic, but it hasn't changed in Pathfinder).
For the free multiclassing, not so much. I never see so little multiclassing since I went Pathfinder rules. In 3.5 EVERY SINGLE character was Multiclassed (with maybe some exceptions). In Pathfinder, Multiclassing is exception.
I would say barbarians with the right build can have better AC mid to high levels. Without those specific powers though AC can be a real problem for them.
The only resource a fighter needs to spend to get his AC up is gold. The exact some gold the barbarian has to spend.
Fact. At low levels when a barbarian is not raging he has the same AC as a Fighter who's not raging. Same damage potential as well (pre-4th, Fighters have no access to weapon specialization) while Barbarians can go on the offensive if needed.
Also for some people the idea of auto death from loss of rage HP if you drop is a real turn off. I know there are ways to mitigate this but they all require the expenditure of resources and the higher level you get the worse the problem becomes.
Fact. If the barbarian dies because his temporary HP wear off then the Barbarian was already dead. It doesn't deal more damage to the barbarian. It's not like "when your rage ends, you take X damage". If you "die" because you were raging and your rage ended then you were already dead if not raging.
This is one of the most common newbie mistakes.
Paladins, everything you said is true and yes smite evil is essentialy kill foe x times/day. But that's a resource that has to be conserved and used carefuly. When they're not smiting a Paladins damage is pretty meh.
I didn't mention smite evil because it's at the bottom of my list as to why you should play a Paladin. Paladins are just fine at dealing damage and they have a variety of those "limited resources" which makes them not so limited (they have a number of handy buffs too) and in Pathfinder you can reliably deal damage by virtue of just having a solid BAB.
And in many fights Paladins will outdamage fighters. Not because of their statistics but do to circumstances. See, Paladins have all these really cool immunities and abilities that let them shrug off status ailments, spells, diseases, poisons, you name it. Every fight that an enemy decides to use crowd-control spells or abilities or save or sucks or fear or sickening or intimidation or whatever...well that's a fight the Paladin is still going to be fighting in.
The fact that if you come across some big evil monster you can turn them into so much pudding is just icing on the cake. >.>
Rangers, do stealth commando better than fighters no question but when they're not fighting their favored enemy their damage potential sinks hard.
Again, not really. Before 4th level, Rangers have the same damage as fighters. Once they hit 4th level they have cool things that let them deal extra damage as it's needed (things like lead blade or gravity bow). At higher levels they have favored enemy and quarry (not counting any self-buffs they get). They also get access to some of the best combat feats without prerequisites and earlier than others have access.
All a martial needs to do good damage in this game is Power Attack & Deadly Aim.
And I'm not sure where you're getting "more bonus feats than fighter" by my count they get 5 (6 if you count endurance) a fighter gets 11.
I'll come back and give a more detailed response because this one requires a little more explanation than I'm going to have time for right now.
All of these classes are good classes, no argument but while they're busy mucking around times/day resource management and pre buffing with spells the fighter is busy doing reliable, consistent, high end damage all day long.
This is also a myth. They only do it as long as it takes for their party to run out of juice supporting them.
|
But if I were to "fix" the fighter in the ways so often requested, I can say with 100% certainty that I would frustrate and disappoint one of my players who just loves fighters.
Truth.
I've played with a lot of fighters, monks and rogues lately who were wearing big grins on their faces when they charged into combat or when they snuck in somewhere and sneak attacked.
They were having so much fun, they teared up laughing.
I don't think they would've found the game as fun if they had arcane pools, or were actually a "tactician" who had to pick a specialization. The game would've hurt their heads.
Speaking of... remember a monk can kill someone with their forehead.
Their forehead.
That's totally imbalanced, even if they have max ranks in Acrobatics.
Stuff about pacing, and other fighter problems
First off thank you for getting specific.
Fighters and their inability to fix damage of any sort.
- I have no problem with this. The non-magic guy requiring either magical healing or lots of time to get better, that feels right to me.
Pacing.
- Interesting, the idea that fighters "have one speed" is a certainly true and I can see why people might want to "fix" it. But again to some people that's part of the appeal I think.
Needs a cleric or wizard
- To some extent sure. A thoughtful fighter will take care of many of his own short comings through the purchase of potions and magic items and what not but sure a spell caster makes him better. But a spell caster makes everyone better. Barbarians, Paladins and Rangers included.
Anyways. Thank you for explain your position, I think I understand it now. I disagree with it but I understand it.
- Torger
In fact...I've never seen anyone who really needed or wanted the "simplicity" of a Fighter. Ever.
I know at least four without even putting much thought into it and that's wanted the simplicity not needed.
- Torger
That is so wrong... Only the druid was nerfed in Pathfinder. It is the only single class that have been nerfed between 3.5 and Pathfinder.
False. What was overpowered about the wizard in 3.x was their spells. Spells have been hit incredibly hard. There aren't even a fraction of the abuses throughout 3.x. All shapeshifting was nerfed into the ground by comparison, save or dies were nerfed hard, many of the save or suck spells were nerfed hard. Many of the no-save-just-lose spells were nerfed hard. Wish was hit with the nerf factory. Shapechange was hit with Nerf's Comet. Disjunction sings the hymn of the nerf from dawn until dusk. In 3.5 you could absolutely RUIN almost any encounter with some combination of grease and glitterdust regardless of the level.
Anyone who thinks that the Pathfinder wizards aren't weaker than the 3.5 wizards really have no idea what a real 3.5 wizard was like. Try asking on the Giant in the Playground forums or something. They can probably steer you in the right direction.
Even the wizard have been made way more powerful. People just use what they imagined about 3.5 wizard to compare with what they see in Pathfinder wizard.
Wizards in PF were given class features and +20 Hp over 20 levels. They were steamrolled with the nerfbat from 3.5 to Pathfinder and are still strong. Wizards have had their bottom raised and their top lowered.
Do you realize that out of the core classes in Pathfinder, only 3 of them are problematic? Fighter, Rogue, Monk. That leaves Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, and Wizard as being really good classes. 8/11 core classes well balanced. That is HUGE as an improvement.And including the other official rulebooks (APG, UM, UC, ...), you have 4 classes that are problematic for a total of 21 classes.
Even better. :P
Pathfinder has HUGELY improved the game, reduced imbalance and broken mechanics by a truly impressive margin, while opening up character options through free multiclassing and more forgiving cross-class skill rules.I agree about the skill rules. But that causes the main problem about the rogue, who did not have such problems with 3.5 (as the rogue problems in 3.5 were the factotum, and it was not core rules anyway, and magic, but it hasn't changed in Pathfinder).
For the free multiclassing, not so much. I never see so little multiclassing since I went Pathfinder rules. In 3.5 EVERY SINGLE character was Multiclassed (with maybe some exceptions). In Pathfinder, Multiclassing is exception.
The rogue's problem is that both the Ranger and the Bard share many of their more important class skills and both the Ranger and the Bard have methods that make them better. Rangers have things like pass without trace, lonstrider, can craft their own magic items, and have Hide in Plain Sight at higher levels and so forth.
Bards had all the rogue skills from the get-go except they are just strait up better at them while having a huge variety of ways to push their skills even further.
Both of these classes happen to also be good at more than just skills.
Stuff about pacing, and other fighter problemsFirst off thank you for getting specific.
Fighters and their inability to fix damage of any sort.
- I have no problem with this. The non-magic guy requiring either magical healing or lots of time to get better, that feels right to me.
Barbarian does it without being a liability though.
Pacing.
- Interesting, the idea that fighters "have one speed" is a certainly true and I can see why people might want to "fix" it. But again to some people that's part of the appeal I think.
This essentially means other classes can meaningfully support their parties when the poopoo hits the spinning air blades.
Needs a cleric or wizard
- To some extent sure. A thoughtful fighter will take care of many of his own short comings through the purchase of potions and magic items and what not but sure a spell caster makes him better. But a spell caster makes everyone better. Barbarians, Paladins and Rangers included.
Potions are downright unholy expensive. Spellcasters make everyone better. But most of the martials help to take the load off the casters so they CAN make everyone better. Every buff spell the healer didn't have to turn into a cure spell is a victory for the party.
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel: casters were nerfed!
Beckett/DA: no, only clerics were nerfed!
AvH: no, only druids were nerfed!
Shallowsoul: casters were always worse than martials anyway!
Anbody from The Den: PATHFAILURE = CASTER EDITION!
Ciretose: Since it's all Schroedinger, we will never know if those are nerfs or buffs.
3.5 Gitarist: Casters are fine, as long as you require the player to learn spells/pray/meditate 8h per day in real time, like we do. Honestly, does anybody even play this game in some other way?
TOZ: LOLWUT?
Kirth Gersen: My 235 pg PDF fixes everything.
Piccolo: Casters are fine, after all they need to rest 8h after casting each spell. What, that's not how it works? Really? Oh, must have been some obscure errata I missed.
Kthulhu: If you only reverted to 0E, all your problems would be gone. But no, you persist, mindless slaves of Monte Cook...
Gorbacz: American fascists! Errr ... wrong thread!
|
|
In fact...I've never seen anyone who really needed or wanted the "simplicity" of a Fighter. Ever.I know at least four without even putting much thought into it and that's wanted the simplicity not needed.
- Torger
It is also revealing as to the game he plays in and who he plays with...
The fighter generally does more damage than the ranger not facing a favored enemy, less damage than the barb when raging, generally more when not raging.
The fighter is more easily made a switch hitter than either. Yes either, as the fighter can use weapon training on a melee and ranged weapon group, not even going into feat choices.
The Fighter is the entry class of choice in my experience for new players in most groups. You don't have to turn rage on and off, you don't have to keep track of favored enemies and terrain...it serves a role in the game and in a party.
If anyone would like to cite a class, we can pick a GM and run an AP with you playing your uber class and me playing the "useless" class, each of us playing two characters to keep it simple and moving.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel: casters were nerfed!
Beckett/DA: no, only clerics were nerfed!
AvH: no, only druids were nerfed!
Shallowsoul: casters were always worse than martials anyway!
Anbody from The Den: PATHFAILURE = CASTER EDITION!
Ciretose: Since it's all Schroedinger, we will never know if those are nerfs or buffs.
3.5 Gitarist: Casters are fine, as long as you require the player to learn spells/pray/meditate 8h per day in real time, like we do. Honestly, does anybody even play this game in some other way?
TOZ: LOLWUT?
I love you Gorbacz. :P
level 4 ranger whirlwind attack build go
Gorby, no love?
Are my verbose and basically neutral posts not easily reduced to a one liner? Or do you merely hate me?
I've slightly expanded my Typical Paizo Forums Balance Thread Matrix above. And yes Ashiel and Ciretose, I love you both to bits.
Truly I am loving your insights wise sage toothy bagface. :P
level 4 ranger whirlwind attack build go
The first question that rises in my mind is "Why would you want to?"
The rogue's problem is that both the Ranger and the Bard share many of their more important class skills and both the Ranger and the Bard have methods that make them better. Rangers have things like pass without trace, lonstrider, can craft their own magic items, and have Hide in Plain Sight at higher levels and so forth.
Bards had all the rogue skills from the get-go except they are just strait up better at them while having a huge variety of ways to push their skills even further.
Both of these classes happen to also be good at more than just skills.
This is why I would like to see some more rogue talents that augment skills in a meaningful way, available in a timely fashion. NOT affecting only one skill, either. Maybe something like "Can use any CHA-based skill as a full-round action, regardless of time required" etc.
Obviously, I'm riffing, and that's got huge glaring issues, but I mean to illustrate the makeover that Rogues and Skills could get.
Fact. At low levels when a barbarian is not raging he has the same AC as a Fighter who's not raging. Same damage potential as well (pre-4th, Fighters have no access to weapon specialization) while Barbarians can go on the offensive if needed.
True, shy of finding heavy armor levels 1-3 favor the barbarian in most regards. Once the fighter gets his hands on full plate though the barbarian can only keep up by expending class resources.
Fact. If the barbarian dies because his temporary HP wear off then the Barbarian was already dead. It doesn't deal more damage to the barbarian. It's not like "when your rage ends, you take X damage". If you "die" because you were raging and your rage ended then you were already dead if not raging.
This is one of the most common newbie mistakes.
Yeah, no argument but if I'd been playing a fighter I'd have dropped a round or two earlier and might not be dead. My team might still win the fight, I might get healed, I might get evaced but my character wouldn't be dead.
P.S. throwing around the term newbie, kinda insulting.
I didn't mention smite evil because it's at the bottom of my list as to why you should play a Paladin. Paladins are just fine at dealing damage and they have a variety of those "limited resources" which makes them not so limited (they have a number of handy buffs too) and in Pathfinder you can reliably deal damage by virtue of just having a solid BAB.
To reliably deal damage sure. To reliably deal good damage no. For that you need some external bonus to hit, damage or both.
And in many fights Paladins will outdamage fighters. Not because of their statistics but do to circumstances. See, Paladins have all these really cool immunities and abilities that let them shrug off status ailments, spells, diseases, poisons, you name it. Every fight that an enemy decides to use crowd-control spells or abilities or save or sucks or fear or sickening or intimidation or whatever...well that's a fight the Paladin is still going to be fighting in.
This I have no answer for and will concede the point. The Paladin is a defensive phenom.
Again, not really. Before 4th level, Rangers have the same damage as fighters. Once they hit 4th level they have cool things that let them deal extra damage as it's needed (things like lead blade or gravity bow). At higher levels they have favored enemy and quarry (not counting any self-buffs they get). They also get access to some of the best combat feats without prerequisites and earlier than others have access.
All a martial needs to do good damage in this game is Power Attack & Deadly Aim.
You're talking about pre 4th level a lot. Do all your games focus on this small subsection of levels? Let's talk about 1st level then. Your ranger took power attack to as you say "do good damage". He also has a +2 to hit and damage very situationaly. My fighter also took power attack and his bonus feat is weapon focus. He's hitting 5% more often then you ranger in any no favored enemy fight. Boring? Perhaps. Mechanicly relevant? Definitely.
And that's how the progression goes the whole game. Your ranger keeps getting situational bonuses while my fighter keeps getting bonuses he can use every fight.
Please do explain your rangers get more feats logic at some point I'm genuinely curious.
This is also a myth. They only do it as long as it takes for their party to run out of juice supporting them.
Obviously, and is a couple of spells here and there seriously too much to ask in exchange for consistent high end damage output?
- Torger
level 4 ranger whirlwind attack build goThe first question that rises in my mind is "Why would you want to?"
as long as the second one is 'can you do so'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually just thought: "Now I must carefully consider how to be exxxtreme enough for Gorby while retaining perspective on the overall hobby and being inclusive enough that everyone will listen to me... Dangit"
EDIT: Actually, that might work for a one-liner.