|
The threads that showed the problems with the monk involved numbers.
These threads are sorely lacking those numbers.
Probably because they don't help your argument.
Weapon Training and Gloves of Dualing mean Rangers are going to lag significantly in terms of damage, before you even get to the feats rangers don't have access to. Which is fine, they are ahead in skills and they get spells.
Add to that Armor training means fighters can get full mobility in heavy armor, and Rangers are sacrificing combat effectivness and mobility.
Which is fine, that is the trade off.
Saying something over and over doesn't make it so if the numbers don't bear it out.
Here's a number: 0 (zero). That's pretty much what a fighter can do as a class feature outside of combat. Discuss!
so do you all just not use archetypes
Here's a number: 0 (zero). That's pretty much what a fighter can do as a class feature outside of combat. Discuss!
If the number is 0 then there's nothing to discuss?
Anyways... I don't think the ability to devote non class features like class or general feats to skills really makes up for the lack of class features.
so do you all just not use archetypes
Which archetype? Most of the fighter ones are just a more focused fighter really. Or dip friendly.
The fighter has class features. They may be on the weak side, but they're his. The ranger plays Mommy May I.
Sean Reynolds, may I have a bonus feats I'm actually interested in?
GM, may I have enemies I can hurt more effectively than a warrior?
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?"
Lol?
"Man it sure does suck getting all these Feats I was gonna take anyway without needing the prerequisites for them!"
"Man it sure does suck getting +6/+4/+2 to-hit and damage against the three most common enemy types that I can pick out!"
And you mention the skills, and even the spells (ignoring Instant Enemy since it pretty much shatters your second point into a billion pieces), but not the better saves/Evasion, extra meatshield (or the other thing), and skill bonuses the Fighter does not get and can never match.
And exactly how is a Ranger more "generic" than a Fighter? The Fighter is doing the same thing: Taking Feats to make himself good at a role. That's it. He's just as generic as the Ranger is if that's your definition.
He gets a few more Feats to play around with, which are pretty great because he can use them to put papier mache over the gaping weaknesses he has (poor saves, poor skill points, poor everything except "I hit and damage good").
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.
A SELECT FEW HANDFUL OF ENEMIES?
Favored Enemy (unless you pick Humanoid) is not some tiny category of enemies.
Picking Undead, Monstrous Humanoids and X one of your choice is probably going to carry you through at least 60% of any given adventure if you have NO idea what's coming up.
If your GM is like most, or you're running an AP, you won't have to guess. He'll tell you a vague outline of the type of adventure it is (or hand you the Player's Guide) and you can make educated FE choices for the adventure ahead.
If your GM does not, well he's not likely to be nice to your Fighter either and make sure the weapon he uses always shows up in loot, so the point is moot really.
Play an AP. Problem solved.Also, people rave about really high level spells but those too, rarely see the light of day.
An AP?
Those things that only go up to level 16 at maximum?
Meaning capstone abilities will literally never show up?
Yeah, problem solved man, good work.
|
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.
This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. An awkwardly scaling bonus useful only against a specific subset of enemies is better than a flat bonus that applies to all attacks in all situations?
Not to mention the fact that the fighters bonus feats, so often derided, allow him to combat trees much earlier than any class could hope to. A human fighter can be TWF with Thunder and Fang, using a two-handed weapon one handed and keeing his shield bonus to AC when using it as a weapon, at level 2, 3 levels earlier than most other classes, 5 levels earlier than non-human non-fighters. Then he can take a quiock jump over to buff his ranged combat capabilities before jumping back into his TWF feats, and be a tougher more complete switch-hitter than any other martial class, except perhaps very specific cavalier builds.
As to out of combat utility, Intimidate is an out of combat skill. One with negative repercussions, but useful in most situations. And many fighter archetypes increase their utility at all levels even farther. The Viking archetype from People of the North gives you a fighter who maintains his feat progression and can cherry pick Barbarian Rage powers without alignment restrictions, the Lore Warden gets 4+Int skills and some cool abilities, the Archer archetype getsthe ability to perform combat maneuvers with a bow that no other class can emulate...
The list goes on. Yes, a Ranger can take the same role as a Fighter in a party and do well at it. That definitely does not mean there aren't reasons to have a fighter instead.
TOZ explain this to me like I am five
what are you saying
that they should have ranger levels instead
or that they are good because they do not have more fighter levels
also why is that halfling giving me the el tigre look
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.This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. An awkwardly scaling bonus useful only against a specific subset of enemies is better than a flat bonus that applies to all attacks in all situations?
Except it doesn't apply to all attacks in all situations; it only applies to a specific subset of weapons. Meanwhile, the Ranger's favored enemy bonus applies to all attacks with all weapons he uses.
There are times when not being tied to the one weapon you've invested all the weapon-specific fighter class features and feats into can be a big advantage.
|
|
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,
You must be horrible at building characters.
I've only ever had one fighter come anywhere near your description, and that was a deliberate build/roleplay decision.
I currently have a sorcerer fulfilling the drooling moron role.
You seriously can't see the obvious advantages both in and out of combat other classes have over it, Artanthos?
"I can build a Fighter that does X with Y amount of input" is pretty irrelevant when other classes can do X with Y-1 amounts of input or X times 2 with Y input even.
Well this thread got away from me while I wasn't looking. And I understand a lot of your complaints about the fighter. Yeah he doesn't have a lot of use outside of combat in most games and a lot of people don't want specifically damage. But you know what there are people who play games like me and my home group. COMBAT IS NUMBERS. OUT OF COMBAT IS ROLEPLAYING. So maybe that's why the Ranger doesn't fulfill the role for me. In our games high or low numbers don't really mean much in diplomacy if you can't actually argue or convince. We play in a way where a low diplomacy score can be circumvented by just having an irrefutable argument. Also where shouting "Diplomacy check: 21" Will get you chased out of a shop, this actually happened in our game. So for the people who play more combat focused game like my group the fighter is just way more fun. You can't roleplay damage. Well you can but that would be weird. Anyway to the all martials just do the same thing and that thing is full attack argument. I understand that's how you see it. But you should also consider how I see casters. And old dude with a pointy hat standing on one end of the field looking at the problem before boringly checking off another daily use of "Solve problem" once their turn comes around. So yeah. Also roleplay wise when I think of a fighter I think of a soldier or a brawler but when I think ranger it's immediately an elf climbing out of a tree. Of course that one is a personal issue.
EDIT: I'd like to reiterate that I was talking about the way MY GROUP does things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you ignore the entire Skill usage portion of the game, yeah sure perhaps the Fighter will be as good as other classes. AS good since everyone is exactly on equal footing. Except the guy who wanted to play a Diplomatic character because he's not a very persuasive guy IRL. He's f~#@ed in that sort of system.
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.This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. An awkwardly scaling bonus useful only against a specific subset of enemies is better than a flat bonus that applies to all attacks in all situations?Except it doesn't apply to all attacks in all situations; it only applies to a specific subset of weapons. Meanwhile, the Ranger's favored enemy bonus applies to all attacks with all weapons he uses.
There are times when not being tied to the one weapon you've invested all the weapon-specific fighter class features and feats into can be a big advantage.
What is this I don't even.
How can anybody possibly think that a Ranger's FE bonus is more dependable than what a Fighter gets from weapon training and feats?
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.This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. An awkwardly scaling bonus useful only against a specific subset of enemies is better than a flat bonus that applies to all attacks in all situations?Except it doesn't apply to all attacks in all situations; it only applies to a specific subset of weapons. Meanwhile, the Ranger's favored enemy bonus applies to all attacks with all weapons he uses.
There are times when not being tied to the one weapon you've invested all the weapon-specific fighter class features and feats into can be a big advantage.
What is this I don't even.
How can anybody possibly think that a Ranger's FE bonus is more dependable than what a Fighter gets from weapon training and feats?
I don't know. I don't make a habit of losing my sword. Plus this is another reason unarmed fighters are great.
If you ignore the entire Skill usage portion of the game, yeah sure perhaps the Fighter will be as good as other classes. AS good since everyone is exactly on equal footing. Except the guy who wanted to play a Diplomatic character because he's not a very persuasive guy IRL. He's f#!#ed in that sort of system.
My group.
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.This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. An awkwardly scaling bonus useful only against a specific subset of enemies is better than a flat bonus that applies to all attacks in all situations?Except it doesn't apply to all attacks in all situations; it only applies to a specific subset of weapons. Meanwhile, the Ranger's favored enemy bonus applies to all attacks with all weapons he uses.
There are times when not being tied to the one weapon you've invested all the weapon-specific fighter class features and feats into can be a big advantage.
What is this I don't even.
How can anybody possibly think that a Ranger's FE bonus is more dependable than what a Fighter gets from weapon training and feats?
Well, nobody said anything about it being more dependable. Next time, try reading the post instead of strawmanning.
Fighter is locked into a single weapon for all their bonuses, but those apply against all enemies. Rangers get their bonuses on any weapon, but only against a limited number of enemies. Each setup has advantages and disadvantages.
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,You must be horrible at building characters.
I've only ever had one fighter come anywhere near your description, and that was a deliberate build/roleplay decision.
I currently have a sorcerer fulfilling the drooling moron role.
I'm not horrible at building characters, but I understand that the fighter is at a disadvantage for not having much in the way of class features that might help him out of combat. The build you posted has a variety of skills, but not many are that high. He has racial flight, but not every fighter will have that.
Also, saying I'm horrible at making builds is unnecessary and insulting.
I also understand a sorcerer can be a drooling moron outside of combat. Really you hope no one has that role imo. The difference between a sorcerer and fighter is pretty big though. The sorcerer might be able to afford higher intelligence, and can use spells as out of combat utility(spiderclimb, fly, charm person, etc.). The fighter on the other hand can... hope his 2 skill points can do something or he can find something to do RP wise, which can easily land in the GM fiat territory.
Also with the ignoring feat prerequisites thing the ranger does. It's very cool and very useful. But the fighter ignores his fair share of rules too. If a fighter wants to attack twice with 2 swords on an attack of opportunity, wield a lance in once hand while dismounted, shield bash and TWF with a buckler and a greataxe, use a reach weapon on adjacent squares, add 200% of his STR bonus on power attacks, he just picks the archetype and does those things. Thematically and aesthetically I just like the way the fighter...Fights...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not dependability. It's the player control aspect.
If you aren't using your best weapon, you are behind the curve.
At the level you're grabbing gloves of duelling, 10th, the Ranger has a +6 FE bonus he can apply 3 t/day to any enemy he is facing...which blows weapon training out of the water. ANd he can switch back and forth between his bow and his greatsword while he does it.
To be anywhere near competitive, the Fighter has to blow feats on spec for ONE weapon...and the others are still going to lag behind.
In short, the Ranger will always be better for the champion/boss fight then the fighter; will always be better with skills out fo combat; will be better with magic and magic item construction; can have a tough pet to help spread out the damage; and is a far more self-contained package.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Well, nobody said anything about it being more dependable. Next time, try reading the post instead of strawmanning.
Fighter is locked into a single weapon for all their bonuses, but those apply against all enemies. Rangers get their bonuses on any weapon, but only against a limited number of enemies. Each setup has advantages and disadvantages.
Straw men, much like the fallacy that every fighter can only use one weapon, ever.....
It's not like they have enough feats to cover two combat styles, and the ability to get weapon training on multiple weapon groups. Oh wait.....
Also with the ignoring feat prerequisites thing the ranger does. It's very cool and very useful. But the fighter ignores his fair share of rules too. If a fighter wants to attack twice with 2 swords on an attack of opportunity, wield a lance in once hand while dismounted, shield bash and TWF with a buckler and a greataxe, use a reach weapon on adjacent squares, add 200% of his STR bonus on power attacks, he just picks the archetype and does those things. Thematically and aesthetically I just like the way the fighter...Fights...
Except that isn't the fighter. That's specific archetypes. There are a number of things a ranger can do at core that a rangers can't. A ranger is skilled, a ranger gets a variety of pets, a ranger can cast spells. A fighter isn't all of those things at once, and he's only those things if he gives up his other class features.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How can anybody possibly think that a Ranger's FE bonus is more dependable than what a Fighter gets from weapon training and feats?Instant Enemy, usually.
Yeah because rangers are just rolling in 3rd level spell slots.
That and FE is only at a plus 6, if you are hyper-specializing into one kind of enemy.
Which is not the best decision unless you want to only be good for X number of 3rd level spell slots you have prepared.
So either the ranger is spending his best slot on FE or he is investing into an expensive wand, just to do what the fighter can do by virtue of wielding a weapon of his preferred type.
(oh and a fighter by 10th with gloves of dueling is 2WT + 2GoD + 2WF/GWF = 6. Which means the fighter does all day what a ranger needs a 3rd level spell slot for)
Also with the ignoring feat prerequisites thing the ranger does. It's very cool and very useful. But the fighter ignores his fair share of rules too. If a fighter wants to attack twice with 2 swords on an attack of opportunity, wield a lance in once hand while dismounted, shield bash and TWF with a buckler and a greataxe, use a reach weapon on adjacent squares, add 200% of his STR bonus on power attacks, he just picks the archetype and does those things. Thematically and aesthetically I just like the way the fighter...Fights...Except that isn't the fighter. That's specific archetypes. There are a number of things a ranger can do at core that a rangers can't. A ranger is skilled, a ranger gets a variety of pets, a ranger can cast spells. A fighter isn't all of those things at once, and he's only those things if he gives up his other class features.
I choose to acknowledge the existence of books other than the core rule book.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Rynjin - And for 15000 the fighter can get a +4 against every enemy over a Ranger with one weapon and a +3 against them with another weapon.
Not just for 3 of some 21 possible enemies.
And that isn't counting +2 damage from weapon specialization or +1 from greater weapon focus...
Aside from maybe the TWF builds thanks to the Ranger not needing the Dex, it really isn't close. And even then I suspect it isn't all that close.
|
|
Well, nobody said anything about it being more dependable. Next time, try reading the post instead of strawmanning.
Fighter is locked into a single weapon for all their bonuses, but those apply against all enemies. Rangers get their bonuses on any weapon, but only against a limited number of enemies. Each setup has advantages and disadvantages.
Straw men, much like the fallacy that every fighter can only use one weapon, ever.....
It's not like they have enough feats to cover two combat styles, and the ability to get weapon training on multiple weapon groups. Oh wait.....
Or the ability to retrain feats...
|
|
You're assuming Schrodinger's weapon.@Rynjin - And for 15000 the fighter can get a +4 against every enemy over a Ranger with one weapon and a +3 against them with another weapon.
Not just for 3 of some 21 possible enemies.
And that isn't counting +2 damage from weapon specialization or +1 from greater weapon focus...
Aside from maybe the TWF builds thanks to the Ranger not needing the Dex, it really isn't close. And even then I suspect it isn't all that close.
You mean the thing that exists in literally every published adventure, ever...
But keep it up, this line of argument is sure convincing...
Or the ability to retrain feats...Well, nobody said anything about it being more dependable. Next time, try reading the post instead of strawmanning.
Fighter is locked into a single weapon for all their bonuses, but those apply against all enemies. Rangers get their bonuses on any weapon, but only against a limited number of enemies. Each setup has advantages and disadvantages.
Straw men, much like the fallacy that every fighter can only use one weapon, ever.....
It's not like they have enough feats to cover two combat styles, and the ability to get weapon training on multiple weapon groups. Oh wait.....
I've put greater two weapon fighting and similarly high level feats in a first level bonus feat slot with retraining. It's actually rather nifty.
I choose to acknowledge the existence of books other than the core rule book.Also with the ignoring feat prerequisites thing the ranger does. It's very cool and very useful. But the fighter ignores his fair share of rules too. If a fighter wants to attack twice with 2 swords on an attack of opportunity, wield a lance in once hand while dismounted, shield bash and TWF with a buckler and a greataxe, use a reach weapon on adjacent squares, add 200% of his STR bonus on power attacks, he just picks the archetype and does those things. Thematically and aesthetically I just like the way the fighter...Fights...Except that isn't the fighter. That's specific archetypes. There are a number of things a ranger can do at core that a rangers can't. A ranger is skilled, a ranger gets a variety of pets, a ranger can cast spells. A fighter isn't all of those things at once, and he's only those things if he gives up his other class features.
Okay? That... doesn't have anything to do with what I said though.
I should add that comparing the fighter to ranger in a DPR race isn't the best comparison. Fighter can fight, but he doesn't have many options in fighting like spells might give. On the other hand, ranger can do his job and quiet a bit more. The biggest complaint isn't about his ability to hit things, so much as his lack of options and lack of out of combat utility.
But without his specific fighter spec'd weapon(s) his DPR advantage takes a sharp nose dive. Also what 2 combat style are you referring to except for manuevers and possibly brawling(altough the natural attack ranger would probably be comparable) the ranger can do both as well. Once again its a 6 feat advantage 4 of them needing to be spent in a specific way to keep atop the DPR heap.Well, nobody said anything about it being more dependable. Next time, try reading the post instead of strawmanning.
Fighter is locked into a single weapon for all their bonuses, but those apply against all enemies. Rangers get their bonuses on any weapon, but only against a limited number of enemies. Each setup has advantages and disadvantages.
Straw men, much like the fallacy that every fighter can only use one weapon, ever.....
It's not like they have enough feats to cover two combat styles, and the ability to get weapon training on multiple weapon groups. Oh wait.....
Exactly. From what I've seen, Rangers are actually more likely to specialize in multiple combat styles; one of the first real popular ranger builds was the switch-hitter who can use a two handed weapon or a bow.
2 builds stolen from Lemmy over in his singing swords thread. THey both do the exact same thing and work on the exact same concept. http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2piog&page=11?Build-Thread-3-Swinging-Sword s-and-Kickin-Ass BASHING BILL
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2piog&page=10?Build-Thread-3-Swinging-Sword s-and-Kickin-Ass#467 BASHING BUZZ
followed by Lemmy's breakdown
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2piog&page=11?Build-Thread-3-Swinging-Sword s-and-Kickin-Ass2 builds for the exact same thing built by someone with equal system mastery that proves my point with the math. The fighter wins DPR and AC and the Ranger wins everything else. The EXACT same thing I said at the start of this post.
Let we hit the point in the discussion where Schrodinger's fighter is against Schrodinger's ranger, perhaps we can test some of these assertions? I'll point to proftobe's post about the excellent analysis that points out what we're talking about-- fighters win DPS, rangers win most other things.
I think a valid question to ask is how much DPR is enough DPR. If, say, my fighter is doing 110 DPR and your ranger is doing 100 DPR, my fighter is strictly better at damage-- but if we're fighting enemies that have 90 hp then my figther's advantage isn't really that important.
I choose to acknowledge the existence of books other than the core rule book.Also with the ignoring feat prerequisites thing the ranger does. It's very cool and very useful. But the fighter ignores his fair share of rules too. If a fighter wants to attack twice with 2 swords on an attack of opportunity, wield a lance in once hand while dismounted, shield bash and TWF with a buckler and a greataxe, use a reach weapon on adjacent squares, add 200% of his STR bonus on power attacks, he just picks the archetype and does those things. Thematically and aesthetically I just like the way the fighter...Fights...Except that isn't the fighter. That's specific archetypes. There are a number of things a ranger can do at core that a rangers can't. A ranger is skilled, a ranger gets a variety of pets, a ranger can cast spells. A fighter isn't all of those things at once, and he's only those things if he gives up his other class features.Okay? That... doesn't have anything to do with what I said though.
I should add that comparing the fighter to ranger in a DPR race isn't the best comparison. Fighter can fight, but he doesn't have many options in fighting like spells might give. On the other hand, ranger can do his job and quiet a bit more. The biggest complaint isn't about his ability to hit things, so much as his lack of options and lack of out of combat utility.
My biggest complaint is that everyone has a problem that the Fighter is true to his name. Now if the class was called the Guy-Can-Fight-Pretty-Well-But-Also-Has-A-Charming-Personality I would be annoyed that he doesn't have enough skills to support diplomacy. The fighter is a great Class for the rough kick in the door style of combat focused game play(which is mentioned in the CRB). The fighter is about DPR.