| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've had a blast playing a fighter.
Again, if you don't, it's not for you...but no amount of whining here and now makes it any less interesting for those of us who do enjoy them.
If you don't enjoy them...don't play one...is that so hard?
Because people here are whining and trying to make it less interesting and totally play things they don't like?
Yeah, I get that :). I honestly do think fighters would be more fun with 4 skill points rather than 2... its either an oversight when advancing the class from 3.5, or the devs reaaallly values that extra bit of combat power. To be fair, a difference of 2-4 to attack can make a huge difference.Against their favored enemies a ranger can match a fighter - against others they will fall behind.I always wonder why this sort of equilbrium only applys to fighter. I nths case the favored enemy is situational, good, but the fighter NEVER match the ranger in out of combat utility, ever. How can be a balance there. (not actually annswering to your post, just commenting about a reality of PF)
I houserule all classes to have at least 4 skill points per level, and give fighters extra class skills:
Acrobatics - because jumping, and not all fighters are heavy armor tanks.Bluff and Diplomacy - It's also important to know when NOT to fight.
Perception - Guard duty, yo.
Sense Motive - Counters feinting, good for sizing up opponents.
|
I hear they do nothing except try and full attack all day in combat and out of combat they dont really have the skills for anything useful (combined with the fact that almost all of their skills use dump stats for modifiers...).
None of the combat maneveurs seem useful unless you are fighting predominantly humanoid enemies. Trying to disarm a dragon or trip a hydra generally does not work well.
Grapple a hydra then. That shouldn't be boring.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I houserule all classes to have at least 4 skill points per level, and give fighters extra class skills:
Acrobatics - because jumping, and not all fighters are heavy armor tanks.
Bluff and Diplomacy - It's also important to know when NOT to fight.
Perception - Guard duty, yo.
Sense Motive - Counters feinting, good for sizing up opponents.
Too bad your not one of the devs. I would like to see Fighters get this. As well much better advice than "it's not the class it's you" BS that seems to be prevalent in this thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
[snip]
Your argument is that fighters can spend
- A trait, a feat, and 1/3 to 1/2 their skill points to be competent at one social skill;
- 2 feats and money on equipment to be able to attack flying enemies;
- Money on magical items to be able to fly;
- The spellslots of other members of the party to be better in combat.
This is a team game, and some classes are very good at supporting others.
Yes, it is a team game. The problem is that fighters aren't very good team players. While they certainly like other classes spending resources to make them better, they don't contribute much back. They can't heal or remove status conditions. They don't have anyway to buff. They lack useful utility abilities. They don't have the skill points to contribute much there. When playing, fighter is about the last class I want someone else at the table to pick. I'd rather they pick something that's a little worse or just as good at killing things with pointy sticks, but can contribute to the rest of the party. They could roleplay exactly the same but with, say, ranger levels instead.
When I play fighters, I always grab a couple skill-related traits so that I can add some new skills to my class skill list. I'm particularly fond of Diplomacy and Sense Motive, so those are usually my first choices, but having an extra Knowledge skill is never a bad option.
As a human, you get that extra skill point per level, so if you have a decent Intelligence (say 13 to qualify for Combat Expertise, Improved Disarm, and Improved Trip) you're looking at least 4 skill ranks per level. Can boost that number to 5, which isn't half-bad, by investing your favored class bonus into skill ranks.
Also, with the number of feats you get as a fighter, you can always afford to take Skill Focus or one of those +2/+2 skill feats, or hell, even a couple of 'em.
So, in short: fighters can be decent at skills, which is alright, cause they'll always be good at fighting, too. You don't have to be the best at skills; pick a couple you like and invest some resources into 'em, and you'll be fine (helps distinguish your fighter from other fighter characters, too). Have a religious fighter? Grab Knowledge (religion) via Child of the Temple (Faith Trait), for example, and make sure to purchase a holy symbol--might make for a more memorable character than, say, "Falchion Guy". Oh yea, "Falchion Guy"--he's really good at hitting things with a falchion, right? Now, that's boring.
(Which isn't to say your fighter can't also be good at wielding a falchion--only that it's often funner to have a bit more characterization than that.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Too bad your not one of the devs. I would like to see Fighters get this. As well much better advice than "it's not the class it's you" BS that seems to be prevalent in this thread.
I houserule all classes to have at least 4 skill points per level, and give fighters extra class skills:
Acrobatics - because jumping, and not all fighters are heavy armor tanks.
Bluff and Diplomacy - It's also important to know when NOT to fight.
Perception - Guard duty, yo.
Sense Motive - Counters feinting, good for sizing up opponents.
To be honest, if it were purely my call, I'd do away with the idea of class skills en toto. Let the player give his character the skills he wants without being penalized for thinking outside the proverbial box.
|
|
To be honest, if it were purely my call, I'd do away with the idea of class skills en toto. Let the player give his character the skills he wants without being penalized for thinking outside the proverbial box.
Exactly. Give players a sst number of skill points. Make a few skills restricted such as Spellcraft or Knowledge Arcana to the approraite classes. Yet allow access to all skills.
The problem is that fighters aren't very good team players. While they certainly like other classes spending resources to make them better, they don't contribute much back. They can't heal or remove status conditions. They don't have anyway to buff. They lack useful utility abilities. They don't have the skill points to contribute much there. When playing, fighter is about the last class I want someone else at the table to pick. I'd rather they pick something that's a little worse or just as good at killing things with pointy sticks, but can contribute to the rest of the party. They could roleplay exactly the same but with, say, ranger levels instead.
Killing things is contributing to the party. Fighters are perfectly viable "team players". They attract a lot of "aggro" by presenting themselves as a threat. They demand the enemy's attention as they harry 'em with blow by blow. Worst case scenario, the bad guy is forced to at least address the fighter by wasting a couple actions on 'em, buying the party a bit of time to work out a strategy. Most of the time, though, a fighter's damage is simply too great to ignore. Give credit where credit is due.
|
|
Because people here are whining and trying to make it less interesting and totally play things they don't like?I've had a blast playing a fighter.
Again, if you don't, it's not for you...but no amount of whining here and now makes it any less interesting for those of us who do enjoy them.
If you don't enjoy them...don't play one...is that so hard?
Fighters aren't boring.
Some people get bored playing fighters.
Some people get bored watching Lord of the Rings...but that doesn't make LotR boring.
...no matter how much whining takes place.
Picking traits that offer social skills is good advice. Except again it also highlights the weakness of a lack of skill points and skills of the fighter imo. The other melee classes don't have to take traits to make up for a lack of skills. They should except they don't have to.
The other classes also don't have nearly as many feat slots available to 'em as does the fighter. If you want to build a decent sword-and-board/shield-bashing character, for example, you'll be hard pressed to find a better class to accommodate that build than the fighter. Similarly, building a character around combat maneuvers is pretty demanding. Granted, a ranger can pull it off better than, say, a paladin, but still not as well as a fighter can. Every bonus feat counts.
I think the figther can contribute just fine but i have played several great Fighters and i can say that the rule mechanics of the class gives very littel to play with when it is not about hitting stuff.
Some folks dosent find that boring and some do. Some try to cover the holes with traits and feats and tell them self that is a great thing a figther can do. And by admitting to cover the holes is admitting they are there.
|
|
Because people here are whining and trying to make it less interesting and totally play things they don't like?I've had a blast playing a fighter.
Again, if you don't, it's not for you...but no amount of whining here and now makes it any less interesting for those of us who do enjoy them.
If you don't enjoy them...don't play one...is that so hard?
Fighters aren't boring.
Some people get bored playing fighters.
Some people get bored watching Lord of the Rings...but that doesn't make LotR boring.
...no matter how much whining takes place.
Or walking.
Or tweaking the story to make Aragorn look good at the expense of other characters.
The biggest weakness of the fighter class is their Will save.
Aside from that, there isn't much else. Skills? Well, fighters aren't supposed to be incredibly versatile in terms of skills. They can excel at a couple skills, but not all of 'em. This is intentional.
It can certainly be frustrating trying to build a 1st-level fighter that has enough skill ranks to cover everything in his/her backstory, I'll grant you that, but by 2nd/3rd-level this problem is mostly dealt with.
...I'd be wary of any class that combines the fighting prowess of the fighter class with the skill prowess of the bard or rogue classes.
Killing things is contributing to the party. Fighters are perfectly viable "team players". They attract a lot of "aggro" by presenting themselves as a threat. They demand the enemy's attention as they harry 'em with blow by blow. Worst case scenario, the bad guy is forced to at least address the fighter by wasting a couple actions on 'em, buying the party a bit of time to work out a strategy. Most of the time, though, a fighter's damage is simply too great to ignore. Give credit where credit is due.
Antagonize feat aside, aggro isn't a thing in Pathfinder. NPCs aren't obligated to stand still attacking the fighter while ignoring the squishies in the back. Your DM can certainly run encounters so that NPCs focus on whoever is hitting them with a big stick. That's specific to that DM, however, not inherent in the rules.
Also, lots of monsters have ways to get around the fighter standing next them. Maybe they just move past and take the attack of opportunity. Maybe they can fly or teleport. Maybe they can dominate the fighter. Maybe they have aoe attacks that can hurt the fighter as well as the other members of the party. As the party gets higher level, such tactics become increasingly common. If the fighter has difficulty contributing in such encounters, they aren't very useful and they won't be very fun to play.
Killing things is contributing to the party.
That's not quite what I meant by contributing. All classes have limited resources. Most classes have a way to spend those limited resources on the behalf of others or on behalf of the party as a whole. An alchemist can give a barkskin infusion to the barbarian. A life oracle can spend their hitpoints to take damage for others. A wizard can cast teleport to transport the party. A druid can cast scrying to get the party useful intelligence. A bard can spend rounds of performance to make the ninja better at picking a lock.
Fighters don't have anyway to do that. They don't contribute any limited resources to the party but they want others to spend limited resources on them. If the newcomer to the table rolls up a fighter, then everyone else's resources get spread thinner as the fighter doesn't contribute anything back.
The one place the fighter does contribute is in killing things. The problem is that everyone can do this to some extent. Pathfinder is a game centered around combat. Most class abilities, feats, rules, etc. are focused on how to kill things and killing things more efficiently. Hence, killing things is only a significant contribution if you are significantly better at it than others. If you aren't so good at killing things that you save the rest of the party a significant amount of limited resources, you aren't contributing back to the party.
I'd much rather have the newcomer roll up a paladin than a fighter. The paladin will be just as good, if not better, at contributing to most combats. Additionally, they can heal and remove status debuffs. Their spells give them some utility and buffs. Their defenses mean that they aren't a liability to the party. If the paladin gets hurt in combat, no one has to waste a turn healing them; they can heal themself as a swift action. I don't have to worry about the paladin getting charmed or dominated. Fighters get a bonus to fear saves; paladins get immunity to fear.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I've enjoyed playing a fighter. I played a fighter all the way through Carrion Crown and felt effective both in and out of combat the entire time. The other players seemed to enjoy my contributions as well. Personally I would have found a ranger or barbarian less fun - both are more "wildernessy" than I wanted, rangers depend a lot on fighting their favored enemy, and I can't keep a barbarian alive (for me at least rage = die when you inevitably hit 0 hp).
Sometimes your concept is just a no-frills guy who is good with weapons. Also, several fighter archetypes are really good.
If you want to build a decent sword-and-board/shield-bashing character, for example, you'll be hard pressed to find a better class to accommodate that build than the fighter.
Ranger. Sure, you only have half as many bonus feats, but you get to ignore prerequisites. You get shield master a 5 levels before the fighter. You get shield slam 4 levels before the fighter. It's obnoxious at really low levels having to spend all your feats on sword-n-board, but by mid levels just about all you have to do is keep getting the next TWF feat. Besides, a fighter focused on sword-n-board would also spend all their low levels feats on it.
Further, favored enemy gives a nice attack and damage boost to TWF builds, such as sword-n-board. The spell instant enemy lets you apply that whoever you want, when it's important.
"Aggro", strictly speaking, doesn't exist. But, it does, practically speaking. Enemies are going to assess the battlefield and strategize accordingly. If the fighter keeps hittin' it for a lot of damage, the enemy is going to take notice. Often times, that means focusing their attention on that specific foe. So, the fighter has done his job of covering his allies. Even if the foe, on the otherhand, chooses to ignore him, it still provokes if moving past the fighter, allowing the fighter an attack of opportunity (a significant tactical advantage, I think). Combined with feats like Stand Still, the fighter's tactics can really bog down his enemy's actions in combat.
That said, other classes can excel at combat, too. There's no denying that. The thing that sets the fighter apart is their versatility and ability to pick up more feats than the others, faster than they can, meaning, the fighter takes less time to "grow" into his spec. A similarly-minded paladin will require more levels to pick up the same feats as her fighter ally, though she will receive all the other benefits of her class. It's an opportunity cost, and one that is, I think, "balanced" (if such a thing can truly exist).
If you want to build a decent sword-and-board/shield-bashing character, for example, you'll be hard pressed to find a better class to accommodate that build than the fighter.Ranger...
The ranger is a great choice, comparable to the fighter, but they're not the same. Ignoring pre-reqs, as you've stated, is definitely a boon (especially that pesky 15 Dex), but they still take a bit longer to acquire all of the feats needed to fulfill the build than their fighter counterparts. Waiting on your feats isn't very fun; I like playing fighters so I can get my feats as soon as possible (for me, that's fun).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest weakness of the fighter class is their Will save.
Yeah, I give fighters all good saves, too.
I can see giving them 2 good saves, but all? Poor monks :P
Personally I would have found a ranger or barbarian less fun - both are more "wildernessy" than I wanted, rangers depend a lot on fighting their favored enemy, and I can't keep a barbarian alive (for me at least rage = die when you inevitably hit 0 hp).
Rangers and barbarians don't have to be wildernessy. Some of their abilities are fluffed that way, but it's easy to refluff. There's also archetypes (e.g. urban barbarian and urban ranger) which go away from the wildnernessy fluff. I'm personally not a fan of the wildernessy fluff. I don't play rangers or barbarians that way. Even my druids are really non-wildernessy.
As for keeping your barbarian alive, raging vitality is pretty much an essential feat for barbarians. Another option is to play the above-mentioned urban barbarian archetype. Your rage only increases one of your physical stats. Not getting extra HP from a rage looks bad, but since they go away anyway when you stop raging, it's not as bad as it looks.
"Aggro", strictly speaking, doesn't exist. But, it does, practically speaking. Enemies are going to access the battlefield and strategize accordingly. If the fighter keeps hittin' it for a lot of damage, the enemy is going to take notice.
Sure, enemies can strategize. The thing is, there's often going to be a way to avoid getting hit in the face by the fighter besides focusing all your actions on attacking the fighter. Fly or teleport out of reach. Hit the fighter with dominate person or hold person. Many monsters can do more than just hit things, especially at higher levels.
Also, intelligent enemies will only focus on the fighter if the fighter is the biggest threat. That's not always going to be the case, especially at higher levels. In many cases, eating the attack of opportunity from the fighter to go bash the wizard is the better choice. (Assuming the wizard doesn't have their own defenses up.) Or they can just take a 5 foot step then use spells or ranged attacks.
Further, other classes can fulfill the distracting beatstick role here just as well. A ranger or paladin would draw just as much attention in this case as a fighter. They might have fewer feats, but unless monsters are just choosing to attack whoever has the most feats, that doesn't really matter much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Waiting on your feats isn't very fun;
Which is why rangers are better at sword-n-board than fighters. Waiting until 6th level to pick up shield slam is lame. Waiting until 11th level to pick up shield master is lame. The fighter's extra feats will never get them the important sword-n-board feats 4--5 levels earlier than the ranger. The ranger might pick up at 5th level what the fighter picked up at 3rd. Big deal. I'd rather do that than pick up at 11th level what the ranger gets at 6th.
It is true that rangers can sword-and-board pretty well. I wouldn't burn my 2nd-level combat style feat on Shield Slam, though. I'd rather pick up Two-Weapon Fighting without needing 15 Dex. Getting Shield Master early, though, is pretty dang cool.
|
|
I get the feeling that some folks are missing my point...entirely.
I keep seeing blanket statements - "fighters are SO boring"...no. It's not a matter that fighters are boring to play, it's all a matter of personal preference... personal experience... and to some extent, the game and dm.
Low point buy is tough on fighters... most end up dumping mental stats, and feel constrained out of combat. Conversely, with high point buy, or generous rolls, fighters feel less constrained than clerics. My brother played a 9 Int cleric, for example. In some games, some dms require a roll for normal conversation. I imagine that's pretty rough on fighters... and most non-face characters, to be real about it.
They aren't skill monkeys. If you want a skill monkey, play something else. They aren't casters.
Any class can be as interesting as you make it, if it's suited for you.
Right now, I'm playing an urban ranger. He could be cookie-cutter standard, but he isn't. Physically, he's Quasimodo's clone...terrified of undead (his favored enemy )...
A fighter could be the same...my fighters have been.
One was a strapping big young man who'd grown up as a slave to giants, and was pretty sure there was a giant in his lineage...another was a tactical genius...a small, wiry man who'd been a soldier, and studied great battles...he was something of an expert on fine blades, though he'd never worked a forge...
Sure, enemies can strategize. The thing is, there's often going to be a way to avoid getting hit in the face by the fighter besides focusing all your actions on attacking the fighter. Fly or teleport out of reach. Hit the fighter with dominate person or hold person. Many monsters can do more than just hit things, especially at higher levels.
Also, intelligent enemies will only focus on the fighter if the fighter is the biggest threat. That's not always going to be the case, especially at higher levels. In many cases, eating the attack of opportunity from the fighter to go bash the wizard is the better choice. (Assuming the wizard doesn't have their own defenses up.) Or they can just take a 5 foot step then use spells or ranged attacks.
Further, other classes can fulfill the distracting beatstick role here just as well. A ranger or paladin would draw just as much attention in this case as a fighter. They might have fewer feats, but unless monsters are just choosing to attack whoever has the most feats, that doesn't really matter much.
Everyone knows high level play is dominated by arcane spellcasters. That doesn't mean that everyone should play wizards or that fighter are less important to the party or fun to play (especially at lower levels).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As others have said, what's fun and what is boring is gonna depend on who's doing the playing. That disclaimer out of the way, on to my opinion.
I would personally say that the baseline fighter is badly lacking in the realm of ways to solve problems that don't involve using a weapon to cause HP damage. Sure, with the right choice of feat, trait, race, and archtype someone can make a fighter who's passable at skills, but at that point quite a bit has been invested into shoring up weaknesses other classes don't need to deal with.
I'd say the secondary problem fighters have as far as being boring is that all of their class features tend to be very dry and mechanical. Weapon training doesn't offer much in the way of interesting beyond the way it bumps up your numbers. The bonus feats are nice, but to a lot of people a fighter getting extra feats also qualifies as not all that interesting. It's just more of what everyone else gets. Even with good feat selection, you'd be hard-pressed to make a fighter who can match the Barbarian or Paladin when it comes to really doing cool stuff.
Personally, I'd say a good part of the problem lies in how common and under-used feat chains have become. Most players are going to be wary of dropping multiple feats into a maneuver that a lot of enemies will be flat-out immune to. I also feats that feel like they're just giving characters abilities they ought to have naturally end up devaluing feats. Should it really take a feat to taunt an enemy into attacking you or ready an action to hit an enemy when he attacks you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see giving them 2 good saves, but all? Poor monks :P
Monks get some stuff too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are fighters really that boring to play?
No more so than anything else you play. One can be bored with any of the classes.
...I'd say the secondary problem fighters have as far as being boring is that all of their class features tend to be very dry and mechanical.
Now, this is a legitimate criticism of the class. To be fair, though, developing fun/interesting options for melee/ranged combat is hard. You really are just hittin' stuff, after all. How many different ways are there to hit stuff real-gud-like? Haha. You have to be imaginative with combat for it to be fun--which is why I often ask for details when my players deliver killing blows, sometimes even acting out the combat scenes so that everyone has a clear image of what happened.
Fighters have no magic. Even ROGUES can get 'some' magic.
Monks, have magic.
Having magic seems to be REQUIRED for most classes to get a good Will save...
Until you look at the expert and the noble, both of whom have no magic and get good Will saves.
As for combining fighter power with skill monkey stuff, that's basically what the Ranger is. In return, he gives up heavy armor prof.
Oh, and gets magic to boot. Makes up for a LOT of skill points.
There is NO BONUS in this game for NOT BEING MAGICAL. The whole 'anti-magic' path simply doesn't exist in Pathfinder...except to mark you as a schmuck.
And the fighter is the ultimate non-magic class. Except they gave it away to the Barbarian to be the 'anti-magic' class.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The next two are kind of the same point: you either want a magic item to fly (common) or someone to cast it on you. I agree that this is a resource cost, but the ability to support you is part of what makes those classes good. Its kind of weird, but buffing classes need someone to buff.
This runs into the issue I mentioned: other classes having to spend their resources to support the fighter. Spending your action in combat to cast fly on the fighter so that she can contribute isn't very fun. The alchemist gets around this somewhat by making the fighter take her own action to drink an infusion, but there's still the issue of the fighter needing others' resources.
You need someone to buff, but that someone can be yourself or someone who can contribute back in other ways. If the wizard casts haste on the cleric, bard, and inquisitor, she isn't getting much benefit from it herself. However, the cleric, bard, and inquisitor have other ways to contribute back to the party that the wizard benefits from. Meanwhile, when the bard uses inspire courage, she benefits as much as anyone.
Yup! I agree you are spending resources to match other classes - but those other classes are spending resources to match you in combat ability. I think it balances out.
The problem here is that the fighter still has to spend resources to be competent in combat. They need to spend feats on primary and secondary attack styles. They need to spend feats to shore up their defenses. A bard doesn't need to spend any feats to be a competent face. They could sink all their feats into being better at combat and not suffer in their non-combat competence. Fighters have to spend feats for both in-combat and out-of-combat competence. Most classes only have to spend feats for in-combat competence. Or, the feats that give them out-of-combat use (such as crafting feats) also make them better at combat.
I don't see how a newcomer rolling up a fighter spreads the resources thinner. I can see this being the case if, say, the only arcane spellcaster dies and decides to roll up a fighter - that would be a problem. But a new fighter contributes significant, universal killing power that lasts all day every day. The other party members already had their roles and abilities in combat and out - the new fighter just helps kill things faster without expending resources.
The way I view the limited resources argument: a fighters offensive output is an unlimited resource. They are a rock of solid damage output/maneuvers that the whole party can build around.
Fighters do have limited resources, mainly hitpoints and the like. They can't actually fight all-day-every-day because they need someone else to heal them, restore ability damage/drain, dispel curses, remove disease, etc. That is, everyone else has to spend resources for the fighter to have "unlimited" damage output. Besides that, the limited-use items that people suggest to shore up the fighter's weaknesses are, well, limited-use. Boots of fly only have 3 uses per day. After using that last charge, the fighter is as out of resources as the wizard who's out of fly spells.
Even then, the fighter's "unlimited" dame output isn't far beyond other classes. Without using smite, weapon bond, etc., a paladin can do most of the damage a fighter can. If the combat is difficult or important, she can start using limited-use abilities to become more powerful. She can also heal herself at the end (or in the middle!). The fighter only has one speed. For important or difficult encounters, other martial classes will perform as well or better. Hence, the only advantage the fighter has is at being a little better at unimportant or easy encounters. That's not a very big advantage.
The thing with Fighters is, outside combat, they're all roleplaying, no game.Exqueeze me? It's called a "Role-Playing Game" for a reason. If you don't understand that, you don't understand the game.
Yes. Role-playing Game. Word hyphen word space word. It's not
Magic Tea Party. What happens between the fights is not just singing at the Inn, it's planning, intel gathering, travel, resource gathering, scouting... all of which the entirety of the Fighters class contributes nothing to. I don't understand why you insist that it's not a problem. Reductio ad absurdam, your argument is that if Chuck wants to play Buttercup, a first level commoner and 6 year old girl for the entirety of the campaign, that's ok, because it's a roleplaying game, and his backstory is amazing.
Bean-counter who holds imagination in contempt = Clueless Johnny-Come-Lately Gamer Who's Better Off Counting Cards At A Blackjack Table Where They Might At Least Be Able To Make Money In The Land Of The Living (admittedly, gambling on RPGs could be interesting and has no doubt been done).
"Johnny-come-lately". Are you seriously going to argue from seniority? Also, are you seriously going to argue from seniority with me?
The D&D fighter got shafted hard way back in 3.0, and not fixing the known problem is b%*!+@*#. But I guess it's hard to do when people like you insist that there's no problem.
Yes. Role-playing Game. Word hyphen word space word. It's not
Magic Tea Party. What happens between the fights is not just singing at the Inn, it's planning, intel gathering, travel, resource gathering, scouting... all of which the entirety of the Fighters class contributes nothing to. I don't understand why you insist that it's not a problem. Reductio ad absurdam, your argument is that if Chuck wants to play Buttercup, a first level commoner and 6 year old girl for the entirety of the campaign, that's ok, because it's a roleplaying game, and his backstory is amazing.
I think the fighter's role or lack thereof in planning, intel gathering, travel, resource gathering, scouting depends largely on the players involved and less on the class. There are classes that may give advantages in those areas, but if the player isn't able to capitalize on them then they are contributing nothing as well. The fighter -- or any class -- is a framework to use to make your character. Being a fighter doesn't mean that you are just useless.
|
Out-of-combat, stats and skills just imply success ratio. You can roleplay a character however you want. I've had fun running 7 int and 7 cha characters; they may not be the best at skills, but I can amuse people and keep occupied and discuss tactics and play up the personality I put behind the character, even with these low stats.
Fighters are actually encouraged to have a solid int though; not CMB based characters are better off Barbarians or Rangers generally speaking (just not enough things to spend their 8 billion feats on). So they have a few skill points to throw around to make themselves decent at some social skills (really "Diplomacy" is enough to make ANY character OK out-of-combat).
And let's not forget, 90% of the rules are dedicated to combat, because 70-80% of most games are spent IN combat. Here, they have high flexibility on style and design. They get to wade to the front and try to deal massive damage or render an opponent worthless.
And you get to roll dice and feel pangs of excitement. I actually tend to find casters more boring; usually you have a static plan on what spell to cast, and you're staying out of harms way. That means no rush of excitement, and generally you just announce and see if the GM rolls their save (or you give the fighter player a buff so they can roll more dice or roll them better).
So no, of my 3 characters, my Fighter-type (who, in fairness, is a Fighter/Monk) is probably one of my most fun to play, not least.
good stuffWhere I disagree with you is that it seems to me that you think that killing stuff isn't contributing - but the whole point of combat is to kill stuff and fighters are really good at it!
To be fair, everyone kills stuff, and some people killify things better than fighters and then come with other cool things.
Fighter Thread #2345 or so. Anything different this time?
Nicos,
The paladin has both spells and weapon bond to take over fights against minions, without needing to spend Smites. Some of the Litany's are as good as bardsong at buffing, i.e. he's as good as a fighter.
Some of the weapon buffs are crazy good. A brilliant weapon going up against a high armor enemy? Let's see a fighter match that. Holy and axiomatic on command? Potentially up to +5 enhancement, stacking with normal magic?
Yeah.
--
The Ranger isn't quite as good, but he gets some solid defensive stuff, Lead Blades, and, of course, Instant Enemy.
A Fighter with weapon training and Gloves of dueling at level 16 is the equal of a ranger with Instant Enemy at level 10.
Ranger, tons of skill points, spells, for which he gave up heavy armor. Mmmm.
Both of the above can go all day longer then a fighter. Why? They have healing magic. They can have the same Dex and so the same AC as a fighter, but Ranger gets Barkskin, which is 2-3 points higher then an Amulet of NAt Armor at the same level. They both can use CLW wands, which the fighter cannot without blowing skill points on UMD. The paladin is also good at removing debilitating conditions which the Fighter simply cannot cope with.
Oh, and both classes have better saves, the paladin incredibly so, and the ranger getting evasion to go with Reflex.
Lastly, we get to the barbarian.
Let's ignore the fact that rage powers are basically feats with the rage pre-req, and look at them.
Notice how they almost all get better over time? They scale? How come fighter feats don't do that?
And then look at the Favored class bonus. Yeah, fighter gets a bonus to his Combat Manuver defense against 2 attack types.
barbarians get a stacking save boost to superstitious against all magic types.
Paladins can BUY ENERGY RESISTANCE. 1 pt of fire, 1 pt of cold, immune to environmental damage!
Rangers get a bunch of weird stuff depending on race, but I love halflings...+1/3 to AC against Favored Enemeies. So, at level 9, +3 AC against Favored Enemy, meaning the boss I just made an FE with Instant Enemy...now I get a damage boost AND an AC boost against my target. Woot.
==Aelryinth
First: I will say that the fighter advantage in DPR is not just a small one if the other martial are not using their tricks.
The difference is only significant if it means enemies are dying faster. For encounters that aren't difficult enough to justify other martials using their tricks? Probably not that significant. Also, higher DPR only helps if you can full attack. This is where the barbarian can shine. Sure, it costs rounds of rage to be able to pounce. But by the time you're high enough level to do it, you can probably afford it.
Second: The paladin smite evil is against a single BBEG that can be out of reach, if he wants to use it against the minions he burn that resource pretty quick and if he dont the fight just becomen longer and longer, wich is not good for anyone in the party.
And the BBEG could be out of reach of the fighter. What of it?
I a not saying that the fighter have the advantage in combats (he does not) but pretending that fighter are not useful in combat is silly.
I don't think the fighter is useless in combat (at least, not useless in every combat...). The problem is that everyone is useful in combat. The fighter isn't so much better in combat to justify that being the only thing they are competent at. Especially since a common argument brought up in favor of the fighter is that other classes can spend their limited resources to make the fighter better in combat. The fighter is very limited outside of combat and doesn't contribute to the party's resources. They can't make others better in combat. They can't heal and remove status debuffs. Pathfinder is a team game and fighters aren't good at being part of a team.