Hey Just looking through some nice Prc's
Besides Archetypes are fighter's just prc bait.
Used to be a problem in 3.5 with All classes. You would jump straight to Prc X.
Fighters however, don't have a ton of level based fighter only feats besides Gtr Weapon focus/spl and one or two others like pin down.
For me the breakpoint on the Core Fighter is level 9.
You just got gtr wpn focus, weapon training 2, and the all important armor training 2.
Duelist Gloves are soon to be affordable.
BESIDES wpn train 3 the rest of your abilities don't come till the game is nearly over.
Jumping into a good Prc like Student of War (saves, skills, know thy enemy etc) or a similar PRC that continues your BAB and offers a ton of class abilities seems to be a sweet deal.
Certain archetypes (Lore Warden) do offer better scaling powers that would better encourage staying single class but base level fighter?
Opinions?
Imo, fighter is an awful class and bailing on it isn't a bad idea.
|
Couldn't disagree more. The fighter class is flexible enough for you to build some really unique characters using all those extra feats. Yes, there are classes that may represent a particular idiom better, but if you have an idea for a martial character that isn't well served by the other classes, then straight fighter can usually get you there.
Imo, fighter is an awful class and bailing on it isn't a bad idea.Wow...
Yes? You have something to say? Preferably about fighters going into PrCs?
There are plenty of folks who have that opinion; MrSin is simply being their voice.
I only speak for myself really. To be more in detail...
Fighter doesn't have a lot of class features of its own, and what it does have isn't very unique. Its mostly simple numbers and having more feats, but everyone gets feats! PrCs are usually not that great in pathfinder, because you lose out on so much. The fighter however doesn't have much to lose out on because it doesn't scale much, and its main class feature happens to help it enter PrC's faster. I feel like if the fighter was more attractive in the first place, that might not be the case.
Well, one might tend towards this option with a vanilla fighter, but many of the archetypes have unique abilities that one not find until after level 10 (which means they might never experience a full PRC)
Mobile fighters, for example, have a pseudo pounce at level 11. Two weapon warriors will enjoy improved balance, for example, since it either reduces penalties from TWF or allow the use of two one handed weapons.
On second thought...my examples simply push back the lull a couple of levels. Still, I can find myself perfectly fine with continuing a fighter after that point.
|
|
Vanilla fighter doesn't offer much that is exciting, but Weapon training and Armor training is very useful above and beyond the feats. Not to mention the Fighter-Only feats are very attractive at all levels of play.
Fighter archetypes are usually very nice as well. Brawler Fighter, Two-Handed Fighter, Dragoon, Viking, and Lore Warden all give options that make default fighter much more interesting.
Use the super genius games Talented Fighter instead of the Core fighter. Makes the fighter alot more interesting without having to go prc or multiclass.
All good points. I think the desire to stay fighter until level 20 depends on how attractive certain PrC's are. You can drop out after level 10, and still do good damage.
Use the super genius games Talented Fighter instead of the Core fighter. Makes the fighter alot more interesting without having to go prc or multiclass.
What product is it in, please.
Fighter benefits a lot from dipping, once you get past a certain level (at least 4, maybe 7 or 8). Two levels of barbarian for skills, speed, rage and uncanny dodge, one level of cleric for more skills, spells, saves, wand use and some sweeeet domain powers like Travel. Then maybe try some ranger (skills! saves! FE!) or get back on the fighter bus.
A lot of this depends on how high you expect to play. In PFS you'll never see the really good stuff at 19 & 20 and even AT3 and Gtr Wpn Spec don't get much of a look in. So I'd be dipping out by 7th level unless I needed to tank in heavy armour.
So for PFS I'd be going for something like
1 Fighter
2 Fighter
3 Fighter (AT 1, stick with medium armour)
4 Fighter (wpn spec)
5 Barbarian (move, etc)
6 Fighter (want +6 BAB)
7 Cleric (lots of goodies but no BAB increase)
8 Barbarian (UD, rage power)
9 Ranger
10 Fighter
11 Fighter
12 Fighter
Sure you lose a few favoured class points but you'll get those back by having more skill points and being able to heal yourself. And the Will save bump from Cleric will help more than another point of Bravery ever will.
Prestige classes not required, unless you have something specific in mind.
Super Genius is a 3rd party company, but they make good stuff. 90% of my 3rd party purchases are from them.
It is good to not depend on specific magical items.
What is that supposed to mean? No one is depending on magic items. More so stating that the bonuses are easily replaced.
Caderyn mentioned two specific magic items.It is good to not depend on specific magical items.What is that supposed to mean? No one is depending on magic items. More so stating that the bonuses are easily replaced.
To get a +2/+2 and movement in armor that's replicated by mithral if your wearing medium. Not really dependency... Again, stating its easily replaced, but not dependent. Its a nice bonus to get +2/+2 though.
Use the super genius games Talented Fighter instead of the Core fighter. Makes the fighter alot more interesting without having to go prc or multiclass.
Is every solution you throw out 3rd party content? Do you even like Pathfinders? Probably this is not a fair statement, mostly fueled with personal frustrations in real life at the moment, but it does voice a true sentiment I've had with your posts on the advice forum. Paizo provides many different methods of altering the fighter for specific needs and playstyles, and there is always regular theorycraft as seen in the dips into ranger and fighter.
Plus, some are just not comfortable with 3rd party content. I've seen some games that ask for PFS legal since it tends to make a general assurance to some semblance of balance. I'll admit though, this might just be me voicing a fear of change. If I had the time, I'd look more into the general content from this 3rd party. But that is then, and now is for just a couple minutes of comment as stress relief.
We can asume that in build threads. In real campaings things could not be that easy
Splitting hairs, I think that is what they call it.
Anyways, I've always found fighters a bit on the boring side. I'm not sure if PrC bait is a good thing. If I remember correctly most PrCs are pretty meh in pathfinder, and pathfinder has a hate-on for multiclassing.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters are, in my opinion, one of the better classes for going into PrCs, but that's less about getting out of the class and more of having a lot of resources to move around. For example, while I COULD make a Cavalier Hellknight, or a Bard Duelist, I prefer to have fighter go into those. Also, the Hellknights's Hellknight Armor ability synergizes so well with Armor Training!
|
|
The core CRB fighter is quite strong, particularly when you've plotted out Armor Training and dexterity bumps in advance (in conjunction with WBL calculation) to keep ahead of the AC curve. The payoffs from Weapon Training and weapon feats steadily rack up once you're in the low teen levels.
That said, fighters can benefit quite a bit from dips into other classes. Two levels of paladin are obvious if your CHA and alignment permit, and ranger for skills and other front-loaded benefits. Barbarian is obvious for power, although you can easily get yourself into trouble as a "dipper" running out of scarce rage rounds while severely wounded due to lowered rage AC (barbarian in many ways is the antithesis to that tactical fighter who tries to minimize injury).
I pretty much agree with STR Ranger, Archetypes certainly help, but vanilla-Fighter-wise you really not only have PrCs to consider but all the other base classes (and their archetypes). Now, if ALL of those are just not in line with your character concept, OK, but that is an awful lot of variety, and continuing with Fighter just because it doesn't have any particular 'flavor' feels dubious (especially when many classes' 'flavor' is not really inherent to their mechanics). But hey, there's nothing wrong with having a fall-back class that's simple and customizable... There's plenty of PrCs/etc that AREN'T worth taking vs. more Fighter levels too.
|
I think vanilla fighters ARE PRC bait, straight out. I actually think they are outdated; as I think "straight from the core book" rogues are outdated. The core rulebook was Paizo attempting to take 3.5 DND and do as minimal changes as possible; and you end up with a very plain fighter. At least there are reasons to take them beyond 2nd level; unlike core 3.5 (where multi-classing was "The Thing"). In PFS, it's still tempting to multi-class them (sadly PFS has NOT made good PRCs, but they have made great "PRC-like" kits for the existing classes).
Even many of the archtypes should eventually be multi-classed; often sooner than 9th. For my PFS fighter (polearm-tripper, polearm specialist), I took him to Inquisitor @ 6th level to get the growth domain and some other options. Even my Lorewarden is a Lorewarden/Manuever Master Monk.
So yes, fighters play much nicer than other classes in multi-classing, and often benefit more from it than any other class. I don't think that's a bad thing though; it makes for more fun builds. On the other hand, Paizo really should have thought a little more about high levels for fighting-types giving more abilities. I guess they just wanted to "keep things simple" for newer players (who tend to be the fighters and rogues of the party); which doesn't scale well for high levels.
|
|
I like fighters and think they are viable but as a player I do have an issue with their saves (will especially) and so I often multi-class them to boost the saves/add a bit of colour.
3 options to supplement the Fighter (bearing in mind I play low-level mainly):
1. 2 few levels of Barbarian - Rage and rage powers which don't duplicate fighter feats (like Scent) and good stat synergy. Downside - slightly slows your fighter development.
2. 2 levels of Paladin - massively boosts saves and you get smite evil. Downside - makes you a bit more MAD and slightly slows your fighter development.
3. 3 or more levels of Cleric - Spells, domain, chanelling and will saves. Downside - makes you slightly more MAD, slight hit to your BAB, and it can slow your fighter development.Overall though I do have a few 'pure' fighters as well, but they have taken steps to increase their saves.
One more option that you overlooked: 2 levels of Master of Many Styles monk. At the cost of 1 BAB hit you gain two style feats that let you ignore prerequisites, monk unarmed strike, evasion, and much better will and reflex saves. This is a great option for Lore Wardens to add Kirin Style to add some extra damage and defense their knowledge checks, or for any fighter with a free hand to add Crane Style to negate one hit per round and then riposte. MoMS gives up flurry so there is nothing stopping you from wearing armor if you wish.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think vanilla fighters ARE PRC bait, straight out. I actually think they are outdated; as I think "straight from the core book" rogues are outdated. The core rulebook was Paizo attempting to take 3.5 DND and do as minimal changes as possible;<stare> ...fighter is generally regarded as one of the most greatly improved classes in the game (see below)
Even many of the archtypes should eventually be multi-classed; often sooner than 9th. For my PFS fighter (polearm-tripper, polearm specialist), I took him to Inquisitor @ 6th level to get the growth domain and some other options.Well, forfeiting a point of BAB for Swift Enlarge is more a testament to the broken cheese of that domain than the alleged suckiness of fighter. (This same argument applies to that rogue thread in which you counseled against a level of cleric.)
.Paizo really should have thought a little more about high levels for fighting-types giving more abilities.
The straight fighter is the class which eventually is highly mobile with the best all-around AC, dishes out amazing damage to any opponent, and whose iterative attacks have better bonuses to hit than most other characters' primary attacks.
Take the Valeros 12th-level iconic, rearrange his stats for a 22 DEX and Agile weapon, give him Gloves of Dueling and mithral full plate, and he'll be juicing every bit of that +6 dexterity bonus to AC in full-plate via Armor Training and be snarfing a theoretical +7/+7 attack/damage with his chosen Weapon Training group thanks to the gloves and the lesser and greater weapon Focus and Specialization feats. Instead of longsword+shortsword, give him a pair of shorts to collapse the feat/training spread (so instead of Weapon Training in heavy blades, light blades and bows, he he'd have WT+2(+2Gloves) in light blades and WF/GWF/WS/GWS in shortsword, and WT+1(+2Gloves) in bows. For even better kick ass, a trait for wakizashi proficiency, and go with those instead of shortswords; with Critical Focus, he'll be confirming crits on his -10 iterative at the same or higher attack bonus as most other PC's primary attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think vanilla fighters ARE PRC bait, straight out. I actually think they are outdated; as I think "straight from the core book" rogues are outdated. The core rulebook was Paizo attempting to take 3.5 DND and do as minimal changes as possible;<stare> ...fighter is generally regarded as one of the most greatly improved classes in the game
I disagree. They have the same problems they had in 3.5. Bad skill points, lack of class features, and feats still aren't as powerful as class features and tend to lag behind.
I have to agree with the fact that most of the class abilities of the Fighter are just math. I really want to like the Fighter, but it's just too vanilla for me. I usually end up going to Gish or Paladin it up.
I look at barbarian even and I can find all kinds of cool abilities and rage powers that I can mentally build a character with, but even with Fighter archetypes, I feel myself only trying to do mental math to weigh one against the plain fighter.
I personally feel a need to do more than just attack and move! I also like to feel integrated into the party so I like buffing or healing also, so maybe that's more of it.
Fghters can be builded to be jsut more than attack or move, the feats are for that if the players want.
I personally feel a need to do more than just attack and move!
Very few feats actually do that though, especially fighter only feats. There were a few in 3.5, tactical feats, but in pathfinder not so many I can find.
What product is it in, please.Use the super genius games Talented Fighter instead of the Core fighter. Makes the fighter alot more interesting without having to go prc or multiclass.
You can find it here and an expansion to the talents here. Its a great product and will pretty much replace the standard fighter in my game on a permanent basis.
Fighters don't have to be "just hit"; they actually make great battlefield controllers and such. CMB attacks give you a lot of options; sometimes it feels like you have more different things to do than the casters :).
The most intriguing Combat Manuever I see is trip, but it seems like at higher levels, almost everything gets freedom of movement, fly or HUGE size, it gets kinda ridiculous. Grapple feels the same, my buddy had to homebrew some feats off the Tetori Monk to keep up.
I love some of the disarm manuever ideas and sunder, but I'm just not sure how effective a lot of the Manuevers are in the long run. I also don't think my group would appreciate me breaking everyone's armor or weapons (the idea of critting through an enemy's weapon is awesome).
|
|
I disagree. They have the same problems they had in 3.5. Bad skill points, lack of class features, and feats still aren't as powerful as class features and tend to lag behind.I think vanilla fighters ARE PRC bait, straight out. I actually think they are outdated; as I think "straight from the core book" rogues are outdated. The core rulebook was Paizo attempting to take 3.5 DND and do as minimal changes as possible;<stare> ...fighter is generally regarded as one of the most greatly improved classes in the game
Did you even look at the numbers in my last post?
Armor Training and Weapon Training are two of the best class features in the game, and they scale with level. (I'd go so far as to say that any archetype which forfeits them is a munchkin-trap.)
And: nobody plays a fighter to make skill checks (you have a point per level for Perception, right?). Your job is to keep your pantywaisted, less capable allies alive. Sure, the Treamonk wizard might think he's god with his control magic and Kn:planes checks, but the simple fact of the matter is that the PCs (including him) lose without you killing things like a well-oiled machines with no uses-per-day limitations.