| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. Just no.
And fighter canbe the new rogue.
Talk to me when a Ranger can wear heavy armor, carry a tower shield, and wield a lance one handed while still having improved evasion. And providing it to teammates. Or when a TWF Ranger can Two weapon rend with a standard attack or an attack of opportunity. Or some other stuff I guess.
Hahahahahaha.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Tower shields.
Also, come back to me when a Fighter can TWF with 10 Dex.
And still that requires an archetype, so it's not even a Fighter thing per se, and it's certainly not a character concept.
And I'd think the Ranger tops Bravery by virtue of having a second good save, Evasion, and a way to actually use Wisdom. Bravery is also pretty lolworthy.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bravery sucks. Tower Shields too.
Fighters have higher AC and slightly higher DPR, but that's it. Rangers pretty much outshine them in all other areas...
IMHO, dealing a little more damage is not worth being useless out of combat and having some of the worst saves in the game...
Fighters, as they are right now, are obsolete. 99% of the time you'd be better off with a Barbarian, Ranger or Paladin...
Not to mention the mere existence of Fighters is a nerf to martial classes. Designers use "Fighter should be the best combatants" as an excuse to break any useful ability into huge feat chains with terrible prerequisites, as well as an arbitrary limitation to what other mundane classes can do.
Yes. The ranger has near tricks and has the TWF advantage in point buy games but it still doesn't have the same abilities as the fighter and that's what I'm getting at. The ranger doesn't fulfill the role I'm looking at when I play fighters. The tank in a crap ton of armor or the TWF that can effectively dual wield katanas or my personal favorite the brawler. And you don't have to convince me that the vanilla fighter leaves much to be desired but the archetypes do in fact exist so let's not go pretending they don't.
Hey I said effectively. A ranger can dual wield katanas but at a hefty penalty and barely anything to make up for it. I'm not saying the fighter is better than a ranger I'm saying it fulfills a fantasy role that t he ranger just doesn't. And since when is raging a bad thing?
I'm not saying the fighter is better than a ranger I'm saying it fulfills a fantasy role that t he ranger just doesn't.
What role is that? Guy who hits things? Problem is everybody hits things...
Hey I said effectively. A ranger can dual wield katanas but at a hefty penalty and barely anything to make up for it.
Barring a singular archetype, the Fighter will have that same hefty penalty.
And the Ranger has more to make up for it. A situation +6/+4/+2 to-hit vs one creature type, spells that boost damage/defense/make anything said specific creature type, the ability to TWF with a lower Dex (and therefore higher Str, offsetting the penalty to-hit and increasing the damage as well), and other such things.
I'm not saying the fighter is better than a ranger I'm saying it fulfills a fantasy role that t he ranger just doesn't.
Like what?
"Guy who swings sword"?
Ranger can do that.
"Guy who swings sword with no magic or Animal Companion"?
Ranger can do that too. There are archetypes that trade out spellcasting (ones I actually like a good bit too, actually), and the Animal Companion is always an option, not a given.
So what, pray tell, archetype does the Fighter fill that a Ranger cannot?
A wizard can fill almost all sorcerer roles, why to hae sorcerers?
Because they work entirely differently in spell preparation? Its an unfair comparison though. There's a huge difference in picking spells than choosing how to full attack. The difference is full attacking is always full attacking... The guy who picks spells is bending reality.
The bottom line is that I've been in groups where a Ranger was played instead of a Fighter, and they worked just fine. Like the Barbarian and Paladin, the Ranger is intended as a front line warrior, that can be used instead of a fighter, and all of those classes fulfill that role admirably.
The fighter and the ranger are mechanically diferent. Is the same thing.
No, its not. Its not the same at all. You just full attack. The difference is the ranger can full attack, then has more skill points, a pet, and spells. The only difference is the fighter might full attack better.
On the other hand, bloodlines and schools and how you prepare spells is entirely different in play style. You know what isn't different? Full attacking. All fighter gives you is numbers.
Besides the lack of skill points I do not see a problem with fighters.
The fact they have the 2+ skill points, awful saves, no use outside of combat beyond being drooling morons, can't do anything other people can't, specialize in feats which are weaker than class features, don't actually do much better than other classes at fighting, lack options in combat to overcomes obstacles(such as flying, rough terrain, saves, skill checks), a single good save makes them bait for will based save or dies, are boring because they only use full attacks(something everyone does!), have in past editions been entirely replacable(Divine metamagic-divine power!).
Yeah, beyond all that, nothing wrong. There is a whole thread if not a few on what is wrong with the fighter. Its not that its unplayable bad, its just that their only good at one thing that other people are also good at. Which is the point of someone asking why you can't replace them all with rangers. You know, that class that has a higher to hit/damage against his favored enemy, spells, 2 good saves, a pet, and 4 more skill points per level. I mean, fair comparison if feats could add up to that, but feats really can't.
I think there's value in having a "flavor neutral" option for most builds-- this is something that rogues, fighters, and wizards bring to the table. They're the classes that allow the players to put their personal stamp on them, story-wise, without a thematic tie to their abilities. If you want to hit somebody with a pointy stick but don't feel like playing a holy man, a raging lunatic, or a stalking nature-lover, you have the fighter waiting for you.
Now, fighters aren't as GOOD as the other options, but that's a mechanical problem. They took the "flavorless" aspect a little far and gave fighters almost nothing that other classes don't also get. Personally, I find they lack a certain "cool" factor and feats are kind of dull to work with. A +2 to damage, while mechanically solid, lacks a certain je ne sais quois. I think they need a re-working, but I think it's important to have a flavor-neutral build option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most classes are innately 'flavor neutral' to an extent. 'Raging lunatic' is a title you gave it, and description a lot of people would hate to have put on their barbarian.
I think there's value in having a "flavor neutral" option for most builds-- this is something that rogues, fighters, and wizards bring to the table. They're the classes that allow the players to put their personal stamp on them, story-wise, without a thematic tie to their abilities. If you want to hit somebody with a pointy stick but don't feel like playing a holy man, a raging lunatic, or a stalking nature-lover, you have the fighter waiting for you.
Now, fighters aren't as GOOD as the other options, but that's a mechanical problem. They took the "flavorless" aspect a little far and gave fighters almost nothing that other classes don't also get. Personally, I find they lack a certain "cool" factor and feats are kind of dull to work with. A +2 to damage, while mechanically solid, lacks a certain je ne sais quois. I think they need a re-working, but I think it's important to have a flavor-neutral build option.
+1 This. While I LOVE playing the druid, I'm not much of a tree-hugger myself so defining the character and making my personal mark on it is always a challenge. Perhaps this challenge is a big part of why I love playing the class but yeah, it's something most wizzies and fighters can do without.
Most classes are innately 'flavor neutral' to an extent. 'Raging lunatic' is a title you gave it, and description a lot of people would hate to have put on their barbarian.
The books describe em as fighters who rely more on brute force and emotion than on training and tactics. From the SRD "they are not soldiers or professional warriors—they are the battle possessed, creatures of slaughter and spirits of war". Of course you can stamp any flavor on them that you want. If you wanted to run a barbarian who rages in the name of a LG god and then settles down for tea and crumpets ("awfully embarrassed about my temper there, old chap"), that's perfectly ok. I've just seen a lot of discussion from people who like the fighter's flavorless aspect and cite it as a reason that they adore the class.
The books describe em as fighters who rely more on brute force and emotion than on training and tactics. From the SRD "they are not soldiers or professional warriors—they are the battle possessed, creatures of slaughter and spirits of war". Of course you can stamp any flavor on them that you want. If you wanted to run a barbarian who rages in the name of a LG god and then settles down for tea and crumpets ("awfully embarrassed about my temper there, old chap"), that's perfectly ok. I've just seen a lot of discussion from people who like the fighter's flavorless aspect and cite it as a reason that they adore the class.
The tea and crumpets thing is a little extreme. That said, you can make a raging LG character, but you can't do it with a barbarian oddly enough. Rage domain and anger inquisition.
Things have as much flavor as you give them really. The book descriptions are mostly just suggestive. It would actually be pretty weird that soldiers don't rage, or that all barbarians are all 'spirits of war' and 'creatures of slaughter'. By the same logic all fighters are " Lords of the battlefield" and "are a disparate lot". It blalently lies and says "capable of taming kingdoms, slaughtering monsters, and rousing the hearts of armies". They don't even get diplomacy or perform in class! Probably best left to another thread though.
More to the point, wouldn't the rangers combat styles and skills be better for building a particular character? You can skip prereqs and fill in skills to build your character. That's pretty nifty. In fact rangers who give up an animal companion may very well get an ability to boost teammates, giving a better feel for someone in a commanding position.
Why, Grug Howls At Mountains, Esq., takes umbrage at your dismissal of him as a person! He's so angry he shall serve you crumpets with tea, but you'll get no jam!
And yes, I'm a pretty big fan of rangers. A lot of flexibility there. I actually like the design for most of the PF martials over their 3.5 counterparts. A lot of Martials Getting Nice Things.
I actually like the design for most of the PF martials over their 3.5 counterparts. A lot of Martials Getting Nice Things.
Ahh, I've always thought they could use a little more in the way of options, but I do like that they get more nice things. Can't complain about how awesome it is to use rage powers like spell sunder or how paladin's don't feel subpar. Though actually I had a post long ago about how fighters didn't get much in the transition. They got more +1's and less -1's, while ranger got a more durable furry friend, barbarian got rage powers, and paladin actually looked attractive as a class, among other things for the latter 3.
Last martial I played in 3.5 was actually a warblade though, so I got a few nice things and options over the other kids. Also gives me a bit of bias. Pathfinder really doesn't have an analogue to the classes found in ToB, and I don't see it coming down the line.
Why, Grug Howls At Mountains, Esq., takes umbrage at your dismissal of him as a person! He's so angry he shall serve you crumpets with tea, but you'll get no jam!
No Jam? But they'll be dry! Tell him I'll have mine with a melted butter spread and a side of jam or I won't have any at all!... Though I will sit down for tea, a good gentleman never turns down a fresh brew.
I actually like the design for most of the PF martials over their 3.5 counterparts. A lot of Martials Getting Nice Things.Ahh, I've always thought they could use a little more in the way of options, but I do like that they get more nice things. Can't complain about how awesome it is to use rage powers like spell sunder or how paladin's don't feel subpar. Though actually I had a post long ago about how fighters didn't get much in the transition. They got more +1's and less -1's, while ranger got a more durable furry friend, barbarian got rage powers, and paladin actually looked attractive as a class, among other things for the latter 3.
Last martial I played in 3.5 was actually a warblade though, so I got a few nice things and options over the other kids. Also gives me a bit of bias. Pathfinder really doesn't have an analogue to the classes found in ToB, and I don't see it coming down the line.
Why, Grug Howls At Mountains, Esq., takes umbrage at your dismissal of him as a person! He's so angry he shall serve you crumpets with tea, but you'll get no jam!No Jam? But they'll be dry! Tell him I'll have mine with a melted butter spread and a side of jam or I won't have any at all!... Though I will sit down for tea, a good gentleman never turns down a fresh brew.
and i cannot find a DM willing to let me use my copy of TOB. i really want to play a warblade or swordsage. but a lot of the DMs in my area that allow 3.5 stuff, don't like the idea of Per Encounter casters hiding in martial guise.
I've played in 7+ player groups, where as a Ranger, I was one of the only actual full-BAB characters, and held up pretty well. Fighters are more front-line specialized, but Rangers can work in a pinch.
Rangers get a LOT more options, mostly for out of combat stuff(tracking, foraging, trailblazing, etc).
It's all up to what the player wants to do. Both classes shine in similar areas, but specialize in completely different ones. I don't think it's that big of a deal.
GM, may I have enemies I can hurt more effectively than a warrior?
Well, pretty much. But the thing is, the level of versatility that the Ranger's FE affords him is much greater than a Fighter's weapons training.
Having a diverse range of coverage on one's Favoured Enemies is great, but the same sort of coverage on weapons is... just underwhelming imo.
With that said though, I prefer having the Fighter in the party than the Ranger because the fighter seem to pull off better combat manoeuvres and thus seem to keep the bad guys on top of him quite easily.
But that's probably because I'm such a druid lover that I don't like competing for the team tracker/wilderness skill monkey spot >:3 Me be da caster/melee combatant/skill monkeh!
and i cannot find a DM willing to let me use my copy of TOB. i really want to play a warblade or swordsage. but a lot of the DMs in my area that allow 3.5 stuff, don't like the idea of Per Encounter casters hiding in martial guise.
If you want to know the truth it took me forever to find a GM to let me play it and the GM's immediate response to me rolling lots of dice(but doing less damage than the barbarian) was to drop a cursed item on me. Sometimes you just can't win. The second time I played it was a little better, but I actually had to buy a GM the copy of the book, and explain how they work several times, and wait through 2 campaigns to actually play them. In a solo game. Still working on psionic myself... the same GM who ran the second game said they can drop a crystal shard rain for 400D4. Finding the right DM may take work sometimes. Possibly several years of patience.
The skills are nice and the spells have their uses, but there is no substitute for a modular class where you actually get to make interesting build choices rather than "will I be a generic archer or a generic TWFer or a generic sundermonkey?"
General feats aren't modular? Feats aren't a fighter only class feature. Feat chains happen to hurt everyone, especially the fighter. Feats aren't actually that modular anyway, secretly they put you on tracks of chains. Usually you don't need that many fighting styles anyway(Who goes full TWF and archery?), however class features such as favored enemy and spells end up being big choices. Also 2 skill points per level doesn't leave many options. Be good at one thing or suck at a lot.
Of course, the ranger gets more than enough feats in his career to get what he wants in my experience. YMMV?
|
GM, may I have enemies I can hurt more effectively than a warrior?Well, pretty much. But the thing is, the level of versatility that the Ranger's FE affords him is much greater than a Fighter's weapons training.
Having a diverse range of coverage on one's Favoured Enemies is great, but the same sort of coverage on weapons is... just underwhelming imo.
With that said though, I prefer having the Fighter in the party than the Ranger because the fighter seem to pull off better combat manoeuvres and thus seem to keep the bad guys on top of him quite easily.
But that's probably because I'm such a druid lover that I don't like competing for the team tracker/wilderness skill monkey spot >:3 Me be da caster/melee combatant/skill monkeh!
So let me get this straight, having a bonus to attack and damage to a SELECT FEW HANDFULL of enemies is more verstile than a bonus to attack and damage to EVERYTHING. Please, explain this to me.
Yes you get bonuses to intimidate, bluff, diplomacy, and survival to track, but honestly how often have you ever used that part of FE? In all my years of gaming I've never once seen them used.
I could see all of that with FE: Human. But yeah, FE can be pretty limited at times. Favored Terrain, on the other hand, is much more consistent. In my campaign, FT: Urban would basically be akin to a semi-permanent +2 on all of the FT bonuses. It's no more limited than having a fighter specialized to use axes come across a mace or having a paladin fight an elemental.
But the main draw, to me, is that FE, FT, Rage, Smite Evil, etc. have a certain "cool" factor to them. Feats are pretty bland to me-- they give static bonuses or remove penalties for things I should probably be able to do anyway (TWF, Bull Rush, etc.). Plus it just seems like lazy design. "Hmm. What do do with a fighter? Well, let's just take feats. And give the fighter MORE of them, right? And no other class abilities!". Honestly, the Combat Styles that a ranger gets should be fighter abilities.
|
|
Plus it just seems like lazy design. "Hmm. What do do with a fighter? Well, let's just take feats. And give the fighter MORE of them, right? And no other class abilities!". Honestly, the Combat Styles that a ranger gets should be fighter abilities.
Wait a second, so just giving a class feats is 'lazy and bland.' But Combat Styles, which grant you BONUS FEATS, is an awesome and "cool" because it has a different name? What?
Is anyone forgetting the high-level fighter capstone abilities? Those are pretty awesome.
Is anyone forgetting the high-level fighter capstone abilities? Those are pretty awesome.
They also almost never see the light of day.
Plus it just seems like lazy design. "Hmm. What do do with a fighter? Well, let's just take feats. And give the fighter MORE of them, right? And no other class abilities!". Honestly, the Combat Styles that a ranger gets should be fighter abilities.Wait a second, so just giving a class feats is 'lazy and bland.' But Combat Styles, which grant you BONUS FEATS, is an awesome and "cool" because it has a different name? What?
Is anyone forgetting the high-level fighter capstone abilities? Those are pretty awesome.
No, Spells, good skills, an animal companion, and FE/FT make a ranger awesome and cool.
What I'm saying is that, as designed, "feats" seem to be the purview of the fighter. The fighter is also the self-made combat specialist, the man who gets by with his skill and training. So if you're going to give a class a bevy of pre-packaged feats that allow them to specialize into any combat style they want, then doesn't that seem to fit the fighter's MO moreso than the ranger's?
|
|
But your fighters are supposed to be your man-at-arms type. And Weapon Training is the vehicle for this fighting style path. You choose the groups of weapons you're going to use, usually your primary weapon and then a ranged weapon, and you can be the pinch hitter much more successfully than a ranger will. Also, taking non-combat feats can be just as important as your combat ones. And can make your fighter just as cool. If you really want to break down feats as just granting you numbers to combat stuff, well then, so does everything else you named. It merely has an interesting name.