Only with a fighter have I experienced holding onto a wounded dragon's tail while it's in mid-flight, crying out my family name "Bearhold!" that echo's through the snowy mountain range. That is a moment to be proud about!
Only with a fighter have I experienced holding onto a wounded dragon's tail while it's in mid-flight, crying out my family name "Bearhold!" that echo's through the snowy mountain range. That is a moment to be proud about!
I had a similar story about a barbarian once actually. I also once suplexed a worm with a gorilla, but that's a bit of a noodle incident to be honest.
|
To be fair, everyone kills stuff, and some people killify things better than fighters and then come with other cool things.
TO be even more fair, most of the classes that "killify" things better than fighters only do so conditionally. Yeah, the paladin out-shines against devils, demons, and evil dragons. But when the party is fighting stuff that can't be smited, he's a fighter that sucks at his job and can provide a few minor magics. Same with rangers against their favored enemies, barbarians out of rage rounds, etc.
What the fighter brings to the table is consistency. He's good at killing stuff, and he stays just as good at killing stuff against WHATEVER he's killing, and he stays as good at killing it all day long.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with you if you say that a class that nova is neccesarily better than a class liek a fighter with a sustained combat prowess.
I don't think they're necessarily better, but in practice they have a few advantages. First, the "nova" classes tend to have resources that they can spend to help other party members. Paladins, for example, can heal others and can give others the ability to smite. Fighters don't have anyway to give back like this. They consume the resources of others, but don't give anything in return.
Second, they have the option to nova. If necessary, they can blow through their resources to get ought of a tight spot. You'll probably want to rest afterward, but you got through it. This also has the effect of making dramatic fights more dramatic. We're fighting the BBEG? Instead of just using the slumber hex on everyone, the witch can use some of her high level spell slots. The paladin can give everyone the ability to smite. The alchemist can distribute infusions beforehand. It makes climactic encounters more climactic when the party adjusts tactics in this way in response.
Finally, having options is just more fun, at least in my opinion. It adds a layer of tactical decision making to the game. If you're playing a fighter, you don't have to think "does this encounter need me to pull out my big guns?" The fighter has only one speed to approach every encounter, which removes some of the choice from the player.
Fighters are really under-rated. By most measures, they edge out other combat classes in most scenarios. That said, they require a fair amount of skill and knowledge to play effectively, will never grab the spotlight in the way a spellcaster does, and in the core rules, are punishingly short on things to do outside of combat. They also have a very low ability to "alpha" compared to a caster, semi-caster, or barbarian. Still, up to 12th level or so, they can be effective as well as versatile, two words that don't usually go together unless you are talking about a wizard, cleric, or druid.
Full attacks are the apex of the fighter's damage output, but doing damage should not necessarily be their first aim. A fighter should really be looking at ways to interfere with or neutralize opponents. Often a single arrow can stop a caster from casting, and a readied move can block a charger from reaching your party's caster. A fighter can crush things, and can act as a "meat shield," but spells and summoned creatures can and should do those things, too. A fighter should really be thinking about reach, cover, readied actions, maneuvers. The full attack is the fighter's "fireball"; situationally useful, and numerically impressive, but rarely the first and best option.
Still, up to 12th level or so, they can be effective as well as versatile, two words that don't usually go together unless you are talking about a wizard, cleric, or druid.
The alchemist, bard, inquisitor, magus, oracle, sorcerer, summoner, and witch would like to have a word with you.
Still, up to 12th level or so, they can be effective as well as versatile, two words that don't usually go together unless you are talking about a wizard, cleric, or druid.The alchemist, bard, inquisitor, magus, oracle, sorcerer, summoner, and witch would like to have a word with you.
Of course they would.
....
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.
....
I think we play very different games. In ouer game we are not in battle 70-80% of the time. We can have sessions without battle. But even if you figth all the time and there littel room for talking and romance in the adventure. The figther still most likely dosent have more than 3 different valid options on his turn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue exists in the fighter, but is broader than the fighter.
DnD/PF is a game which was rooted in providing a set of rules around miniatures. It has a high combat focus, which affects its design philosophy. We saw this with the recent playtest--most of the comments and discussion focused on "what does this class do in combat?" Or, "how well does this kill?"
To offer significant options and abilities outside of combat, PF released Ultimate Campaign. That is, an entirely new rules system.
So the fighter has issues with few to none noncombat abilities being baked in, but that's also inherit to the system overall. PF is slowly transforming, and including greater focus on these options, though it will likely always be a combat-oriented and focused game.
That Pathfinder is so combat-oriented, however, leads to a second issue. That is, it becomes a requirement for a class to be "combat effective" in order to be fun and contributive...if the focus of the game is combat.
This is the same as saying: if the game is about combat, then whatever I play should be able to contribute to combat.
Consequently, there is a lot of toe-stepping.
It may be that the fighter is too much of a concept, as opposed to a class, when placed within a game where combat is so primary. There needs to be a better way to express that statement, but at least I tried.
Still, up to 12th level or so, they can be effective as well as versatile, two words that don't usually go together unless you are talking about a wizard, cleric, or druid.
Man, somewhere in me it feels like a grammar Nazi is screaming... Pretty sure you can be versatile and effective. Pretty sure the point of being versatile is to be effective and that if you aren't effective you aren't being versatile if your trying to be versatile, if that makes any sense at all. And none of the things you mentioned are things specific to the fighter, its just more of the same thing really.
In other news, wasn't this thread asking if fighters were boring? Not if they were effective?
Still, up to 12th level or so, they can be effective as well as versatile, two words that don't usually go together unless you are talking about a wizard, cleric, or druid.Man, somewhere in me it feels like a grammar Nazi is screaming... Pretty sure you can be versatile and effective. Pretty sure the point of being versatile is to be effective and that if you aren't effective you aren't being versatile if your trying to be versatile, if that makes any sense at all. And none of the things you mentioned are things specific to the fighter, its just more of the same thing really.
In other news, wasn't this thread asking if fighters were boring? Not if they were effective?
I just said they were versatile and effective. Aside from the implication that being versatile and effective is generally considered interesting, I also listed some ways in which fighters could excel at combat by being tactical.
Versatile and effective aren't separate categories; they are two desirable goals, and sometimes seeking one means a tradeoff in the other. Although the fighter has other deficiencies, a fighter can achieve both with relatively light costs.
The issue exists in the fighter, but is broader than the fighter.
DnD/PF is a game which was rooted in providing a set of rules around miniatures. It has a high combat focus, which affects its design philosophy. We saw this with the recent playtest--most of the comments and discussion focused on "what does this class do in combat?" Or, "how well does this kill?"
To offer significant options and abilities outside of combat, PF released Ultimate Campaign. That is, an entirely new rules system.
So the fighter has issues with few to none noncombat abilities being baked in, but that's also inherit to the system overall. PF is slowly transforming, and including greater focus on these options, though it will likely always be a combat-oriented and focused game.
That Pathfinder is so combat-oriented, however, leads to a second issue. That is, it becomes a requirement for a class to be "combat effective" in order to be fun and contributive...if the focus of the game is combat.
This is the same as saying: if the game is about combat, then whatever I play should be able to contribute to combat.
Consequently, there is a lot of toe-stepping.
It may be that the fighter is too much of a concept, as opposed to a class, when placed within a game where combat is so primary. There needs to be a better way to express that statement, but at least I tried.
And i think you Said it well.
I even think the thing can be expanded to all 4 Classic classes. The wizard becoming the sorcerer, the witch and now the arcanist. The cleric becoming the druid, the oracle and now the warpriest. The rogue getting obsolete in his own way and the figther ending up being the option for the figthing man that isent Holy, Wild, knigthly, Nature themed, swasbucklery or any of the new themes that get there own class.
Mine isn't.
It's easy to build a boring fighter, a character with few combat options and no abilities relevant outside of combat. To avoid that mistake, try to avoid advice from the "DPR" optimization crowd: The most entertaining fighters are more eclectic than optimized.
Fighters get lots of bonus feats. It's very worthwhile to consider, by mid-levels, spending at least one feat on a combat style other than your primary optimization, and one general feat on something not exclusively combat-related.
Fighters get lots of bonus feats. It's very worthwhile to consider, by mid-levels, spending at least one feat on a combat style other than your primary optimization, and one general feat on something not exclusively combat-related.
Unfortunately feats tend to be weaker than class features(such as rage powers or lay on hands), and the best ones tend to be ones other people grab or probably could've been built into all classes because everyone grabs them if they're doing things that way(ex. power attack, deadly aim, weapon finesse). It also feels like something of a tax.
Still, not a bad idea.
Right, the point is to not end up being the fighter who doesn't dance at the prom because he never learned how to waltz. Spending a feat on Skill Focus (Diplomacy or Intimidate) isn't going to turn you into a bard, but at least you can talk an NPC into casting a heal spell on the already unconscious bard.
Ultimately what it comes down to is if you are Playing a Fighter as "I full attack" every round then yes it's going to seem like a boring class. But that's because you haven't thought of him beyond swinging his weapon around.
I think the Key is to Define the character better before you start making him.
Mechanically you want to know how he fights before you start picking out Feats and weapons. Once you have a better idea of what he does in a fight, then you go looking at feats and combine that with archetypes or SSG's Talented Fighter to figure out the mechanics of it.
Role-Playing wise it always comes down to background first. Having a short paragraph of why he learned to fight and from who. What his goals are and what kind of personality he has. Skills, Traits and non-combat feats help round that out but knowing who your character is helps most.
Write things down, draw a picture, go looking for awesome fight scenes from movies or anime on Yutube. Get the character in your head before you stat him up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimately what it comes down to is if you are Playing a Fighter as "I full attack" every round then yes it's going to seem like a boring class. But that's because you haven't thought of him beyond swinging his weapon around.
Your suggestions still leave you with a guy who full attacks every round though, or your no longer a fighter.
Write things down, draw a picture, go looking for awesome fight scenes from movies or anime on Yutube. Get the character in your head before you stat him up.
Man, if the fighter could do what my anime could do...
By the other hand it is not like the ranger 90% of time is trying to full attack. Spells are done before the fight (mostly) or just enhace attack, The only esceoption I can think of are defensive spells like resist energy.
Most martials fall under always full attack and augment full attack then full attack unfortunately. Adds a bit of monotony for a lot of people. Fighter gets the worst of that imo, with the lack of skill pints and class features all about +1's and not -1's.
Well favored enemy add numbers. Smite evil just add numbers. The lack of skill sucks hard though.By the other hand it is not like the ranger 90% of time is trying to full attack. Spells are done before the fight (mostly) or just enhace attack, The only esceoption I can think of are defensive spells like resist energy.Most martials fall under always full attack and augment full attack then full attack unfortunately. Adds a bit of monotony for a lot of people. Fighter gets the worst of that imo, with the lack of skill pints and class features all about +1's and not -1's.
The only option besided full attacking the canonical barbarian have is spell sunder (wich a fighter dwarf can have a minor version of it BTW). Supperstition add numbers, invulnerable rager add numbers, beast totem add numbers, greater beast totem let you full attack more.
The other options for barbarian are reasonable good but still far from the canonical ones.
Smite and favored enemies are examples of augment full attack, as is instant enemy. In addition to smite though, the paladin also comes with a constant detect evil, auras to bolster his friends(just numbers, bleh), and some spells, and the divine bond and lay on hands. In addition to favored enemy, the ranger also comes with a bond of his own, spellcasting, and 4 more skill points per level. Barbarians get a lot of great passives, including one that lets them full attack with consistency(which is important for melee!), and they get spell sunder, eater of magic, and their passives are very powerful and creating a dominating character on the battlefield that actually doesn't have many problems that plague martials. I said fighter gets the worst, not that the other kids were much better.
On the other hand, spellcasting tends to get lots of options. 2 spells per level adds up to a lot of abilities and options. Open a hole in the ground, move the earth itself, summon up a friend or fiend to do whatever, and create and destroy at your whim. AoE save or dies don't hurt much either, and abilities like fly and invisibility are game changing, and they have a lot of problem solving. In 3.5 there was ToB to give martials options, but YMMV for 101 reasons.
Some people like simplicity, some people would argue its incredibly boring or monotonous. YMMV of course.
Man, if the fighter could do what my anime could do...
have you actually tried?
The Halfling I mentioned was based on a character from an anime called My Hime. It took 10 or 12 levels or so but I managed to get him to pretty much what I wanted.
Sure the fighter doesn't work for the blatantly magical swordsmen where they shoot energy slices that cut through mountains but what about shows Samurai Champeloo?
Pick something and try it. Ask yourself How would you actually copy that, what feats would you need, what archetype, what skills.
Instead of just assuming you can't do it, try and figure out how you can.
Man, if the fighter could do what my anime could do...have you actually tried?
Hmm... Should I try to mimic DBZ, Guilty Crown, or Karas? How about Natsu or Haru? How about Yusuke from Yu Yu Hakusho?
Yeah, actually the best I've found to mimic anime is usually in casters or 3rd party. Battering Blast makes a great Ki Blast. Can't mimic a lot of the Shounen I watched as a kid though. Even Kenshin does things out of reach for a fighter.
Edit; Actually to be honest I think even spell casters come out on bottom when you compare them to some anime.
Samurai Champeloo? The main character is pretty much a *commoner,* of course a fighter has no problems simulating it...
But then, in most anime fighters are crap. The hero (yussha) usually has some form of magic while being able to weild sword like magus, charismatic personalities like the bard, utilities spells like the wizard (except the most powerful spell so wizzies still got a place in the party while "regular fighters" just don't exist there), or super power like the barbarian... sometimes they even get healing spells, and let's ignore the "protagonist plot armor that grants bloodline heritage powers" that could be from a sorcerer
Unless you mean some less popular manga like Sengoku Tenshouki or Hawkwood which pretty much has the main character as a fighter (or samurai/cavalier in more specific terms), or some old anime that are based on DnD like Record of lodoss where a fighter is a fighter, no more no less. Popular anime/manga tends to grant protagonist special power like guyver (can be emulated by synthesist), shapeshifting in Terra formars (could be done by beastmorph alchemist.. though they lack the mean to turn into insectoid despite the fluff ), blood heritage that grants phenomenal skills / spells / shifting, etc.
|
|
Vital strike is a terrible feat tax and inferior to full attacking. Well documented on the boards.Vital Strike is actually quite nice for a fighter who has uber-jillion feats. Everything that does damage other than a full attack is inferior to a full attack for most martial PCs. Its not a great feat for paladins or barbarians, its nice for fighters and rangers. Unless you are pouncing, you can't full attack all the time.
Saving shield requires you to use a shield, which is a trap, well documented on the boards.2 handed shield bash fighters are actually quite nice. Improved Shield Bash and Power Attack combined allow some nice damage to stack up. Of course, with d4 weapons, you really don't want vital strike unless you invest in bashing.
Why exactly are you taking feats to give enemies the shaken condition, when a wizard can cast a AOE save or lose spell, or you can full attack and kill an enemy per round? Most combasts last 3 rounds or less. Wasting one round intimidating the enemy isnt very useful.Because wizards have more options then debuff, and if the fighter takes that role, they can be focused on buff, control, summoning, or anything else they want to focus on. It only takes 3 feats for a fighter to intimidate in combat effectively, and it will give a decent option to the fighter.
Most of the archetypes are inferior to the base fighter (This applies to every class sadly). The tactician seems to rely on teeamwork feats, the problem being that teamwork feats are underpowered and rely on your party taking them (almost nobody will).First, a lot of teamwork feats are really nice, such as outflank. Yes your party has to take it, but its still really nice to have if there is also a rogue in the party. Second, there are some rather nice archetypes for fighters. Two-Handed Fighter, Shielded Fighter, Phalanx Soldier, and Weapon Master come to mind.
The problem here seems to be that every option the fighter has is simply inferior to full attacking
This is true for almost every melee-oriented class in the book. Like the Aid Another action, it isn't fighter unique.
As I said
Doesn't work for mimicing a Magical Swordsmen. But there are plenty of non-magical ones to pick from, and even some of the Magical ones have interesting styles when you look past the explosions. Live action movies have plenty of good stuff in as well particularly the Hong Kong ones.
But lets take Karas as an example. Take out the Magic attack and he still has an interesting fighting style. He's a high speed mobility fighter. Despite the armor he focuses on Parry for defense or dodging particularly at range. He switches between one and two hands on the sword but mostly it's two-handed Katana style. He's focused against foes that are usually larger than him, power hitters who's attacks he tends to avoid
good stuffWhile a lot of this is true, you are conveniently omitting a lot of things. First of, the Paladin's bonded weapon. Yes it is good. However:
- Takes a standard action to use, so not good in surprise situations.
- Only usable a very limited number of times per day - once at 5, 1 more for every 4 levels. So you don't want to activate it early and potentially waste a charge.
- Brilliant energy costs 4 bonus points. You won't have it until level 14. Ignoring armor/shield bonuses to AC is very nice, but not that earthshattering at level 14.
- Holy and axiomatic cost 2 each and give 2d6 damage each. So you won't have 1 of them until 8th, and not both until 14th.
I don't mean to bash on the bonded weapon - its a really nice ability. But it is very limited use and consumes an action.
The Ranger: you only get 1 3rd level spell (2 if you have a nice wisdom boosting item, which is reasonable) all the way from 10 to 15... the instant enemy argument is just not valid. You can do it once or twice a day, and thats it. Barkskin is the same: a ranger only has 2 or 3 2cd level spells all the way through 15th level... using barkskin in more than a few encounters and they are completely out! I love rangers, but those spells are very few.
Healing: the paladin has some decent self healing with lay on hands in combat as its a swift action. The ranger has no in combat healing options that are worth an action. For wands it does not matter as long as someone in the party can use one. Its out of combat, so the resource cost is the same (just gp cost).
Also, remember that fighters get armor training: they can move at full speed and have a higher dex bonus count towards their AC. Its just a few points, but it makes a nice difference.
Barbarians: Yeah, barbarians rock melee pretty hard - harder than fighters until fighters get their crit chains at upper levels. And they get plenty of rounds of rage per day. But then again they will be lacking...
You've got some minor errors here.
1) Sure, standard action to use, just like casting a spell. It's a buff.
2) You're confusing the paladin's weapon bond bonus with uses of the enhancement bonus. The uses is in MINUTES/DAY, which he can divide up as he likes. He starts off with five minutes, which is more rage rounds then a barb/20 gets. And you activate it if you think you need it, rather then saving it for something which might not happen.
3) Brilliant energy is 4 points and generally amounts to a +8 or higher bonus to Hit against an enemy. There is NOTHING the fighter has that is close.
4) Holy, Axiomatic and +2 means that the Paladin can instantly bypass silver, cold iron, and the most common alignment DR's with a +1 Sword. If his sword is adamantine, he can bypass them all. At level 8. the fighter needs to be wielding a +5 sword to do the same.
And that's without a smite, which bypasses ANY DR.
+2d6 is +7 damage each. Which is more damage then the fighter ever gets for EACH bonus.
Ranger: 1 3rd level spell, + Wisdom bonus, + Pearls of Power, + possible wand = usable as often as he likes.
Note that he only has to use it when facing an enemy that is NOT on his FE list, or going up against a boss.
Barkskin is 10 min/level buffs...it can easily last for an hour or two, and again, Pearls of Power. The fighter has to use a lower value amulet or suck the money up for a potion.
The Ranger doesn't heal in combat, true. But out of combat, by himself, he can heal HIMSELF or he can heal OTHERS. he or the paladin might be the only one in the party who can use those CLW Wands, which means just being able to cast the spell is a contribution to the party.
Standing alone, it's better then the fighter. And since he does have the option of healing spells, he doesn't have to use wand charges if he does not want to.
Any class in mithil breastplate moves at full speed. Net cost, +1 AC. If you're a Dwarf, you get that fighter ability as a RACIAL BONUS. Ugh.
The Dex bonus to AC is a non-issue. 1, you have to have the dex to take care of the bonus. 2, realistically, every class can get armor that allows them their full dex bonus. Mithral BP is +5. Celestial Plate is +5. Mithral Celestial Plate is +7. In real terms, everyone always gets their dex bonus, and pretty much everyone moves at full speed. The two abilities are basically of no value unless you are playing a pure Dex fighter build who can realistically hit a 32 Dex to max out his Armor Training. Come on, the first level of Armor Mastery and 2 levels of Armor Training are taken care of by being made of MITHRAL. When nothing you get before level 9 has value, it's not a class advantage. When a racial bonus at level 1 is as good as something at level 9, it's not a class advantage.
Armor Mastery is worth LESS THEN A FEAT.
============
Yes, the f/16 can crit and take the crit feats.
The ranger's bonus at 16 is now +8, he's got 4th level spells, he gets his bonus with his 2h sword OR his bow (and it's easier to get the full attack with the bow), and blah-blah-blah.
I'm not saying the fighter isn't effective in combat...he most certainly is.
But he lacks the staying power, has no clear superiority in melee over the other classes whose abilities work with missile and melee weapons without a problem, and he simply doesn't have the defenses or recovery options of the other classes.
So, the key is he's not really any better on offense, especially nova offense; he's much worse on defense; he's appalling on recovery; and doesn't have the out of combat flexibility with magic or skills.
He needs more. More bonuses in combat? No, probably not. But he needs something More. Defenses. Out of combat power.
NARRATIVE CHUTZPAH. Something that no other class can clearly get.
===Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But lets take Karas as an example. Take out the Magic attack and he still has an interesting fighting style. He's a high speed mobility fighter. Despite the armor he focuses on Parry for defense or dodging particularly at range. He switches between one and two hands on the sword but mostly it's two-handed Katana style. He's focused against foes that are usually larger than him, power hitters who's attacks he tends to avoid
So... If I dumb it down enough, I can totally make a fighter based on anime that doesn't do all the cool things that make it fun? All that awesome stuff that happens in the Karas finale is one of the big reasons to watch it. (That and art!). Misses the point of mimicking anime characters imo.
But lets take Karas as an example. Take out the Magic attack and he still has an interesting fighting style. He's a high speed mobility fighter. Despite the armor he focuses on Parry for defense or dodging particularly at range. He switches between one and two hands on the sword but mostly it's two-handed Katana style. He's focused against foes that are usually larger than him, power hitters who's attacks he tends to avoidSo... If I dumb it down enough, I can totally make a fighter based on anime that doesn't do all the cool things that make it fun? All that awesome stuff that happens in the Karas finale is one of the big reasons to watch it. (That and art!). Misses the point of mimicking anime characters imo.
Mimicing an anime character isn't my point,
Finding and interesting fighting style for my fighter is.
That's the challenge, picking the visual and technical aspects of the style and figuring out how to go about it with the class.
My halfling wasn't trying to be Mikoto but I was using her fighting style as the basis for what I wanted him to be like in a fight. He'd never be able to do things like cut a ship in half the way she dose in the show, but that wasn't what I was after. I wanted to be able to visualize an interesting fighting style and then I went about figuring out what Feats and abilities I'd need to apply mechanics to it.
He was a fun interesting character in a fight because I had a clear image of how he fought.
Get the visuals in your mind first and then go about figuring out the mechanics using the tools you've got.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mimicing an anime character isn't my point,
Finding and interesting fighting style for my fighter is.
That's the challenge, picking the visual and technical aspects of the style and figuring out how to go about it with the class.
Ahh, well in that case I'll say that it still turns into an I full attack fest. The game doesn't reflect cool fighting styles well. I attack over handed while dodging his sword and I take his blow and strike back when I have my chance are both just AC and full attack for the most part. The difference between weapons too is mostly just numbers, rather than options.
And again with the imagination thing. I can imagine no matter what game or class I play. It doesn't change what the fighter is. The fighter as is about as interesting as a commoner mechanically.
Mimicing an anime character isn't my point,
Finding and interesting fighting style for my fighter is.
That's the challenge, picking the visual and technical aspects of the style and figuring out how to go about it with the class.Ahh, well in that case I'll say that it still turns into an I full attack fest. The game doesn't reflect cool fighting styles well. I attack over handed while dodging his sword and I take his blow and strike back when I have my chance are both just AC and full attack for the most part. The difference between weapons too is mostly just numbers, rather than options.
And again with the imagination thing. I can imagine no matter what game or class I play. It doesn't change what the fighter is. The fighter as is about as interesting as a commoner mechanically.
...
..yeah, I'm suggesting that imagination is a big part of a role-playing game.
are you saying it isn't?
cause if you aren't using your imagination in a table top RPG you are kind of missing the whole point of playing the game and maybe you would be better off playing Warcraft
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really, it's up to you to breathe life and fun into your character AND to take advantage of rules that were put into place to make the game fun and enjoyable for everyone.
Disappointed in your combat options? You CAN do things other than full attack, you know. Do you use Vital Strike? Did you take feats that let you demoralize effectively? Did you take Saving Shield? Is there a rogue in your group? Why don't you take a 5-foot step so he can flank more effectively? Baddies moving toward the spellcaster? Did you take Stand Still and plant yourself between the baddies and your wizard?
Outside of combat .... did you take any feats or traits that make things more interesting? Cosmopolitan gives you two extra class skills. Intimidating Prowess makes sure everybody recognizes your mighty thews. If you're still feeling useless, why don't you aid another? RP it a little bit, roll a die semi-well, and you can give somebody else a +2 bonus to his next skill roll. Did you (again) explore archetypes? The cad and the tactician both bring something to the noncombat fighter.
Finally ... did you bother to give your fighter a personality? Is he a loud, boisterous bruiser? A contemplative weapon master? A sly, sneaky flanker?
You can have fun playing a fighter, and you can do things other than "full attack, full attack, full attack." But it takes a little effort on your part.
The problem with the fighter is, yeah, you can totally breathe life into your character and have lots of fun, but you can do this with any class you care to play. The argument isn't that you can't have fun playing a fighter, the argument is you can have just as much fun with a Magus, Inquisitor, Alchemist, Paladin, or Barbarian and get useful class features too.
yeah, I'm suggesting that imagination is a big part of a role-playing game.
are you saying it isn't?
No, I'm saying its part of everything in it so you shouldn't use it to say the fighter is an interesting class or say that I can totally do all the things I see in anime if I imagine it. Its literally such a big part and used with so much that you can't use it to say a class is actually interesting. Imagination isn't a class feature for fighter, its used with everyone, from the aristocrat to the wizard!
cause if you aren't using your imagination in a table top RPG you are kind of missing the whole point of playing the game and maybe you would be better off playing Warcraft
I never said you shouldn't use your imagination, and there is no need to attack other games.
The problem with the fighter is, yeah, you can totally breathe life into your character and have lots of fun, but you can do this with any class you care to play. The argument isn't that you can't have fun playing a fighter, the argument is you can have just as much fun with a Magus, Inquisitor, Alchemist, Paladin, or Barbarian and get useful class features too.
Craft said it too. Listen to the Craft! Though the name may make you a little hungry.
The fighter as is about as interesting as a commoner mechanically.
They can go very deep into feat chains. Strictly from a mechanics standpoint, they are one of the most complex classes in the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fighter as is about as interesting as a commoner mechanically.They can go very deep into feat chains. Strictly from a mechanics standpoint, they are one of the most complex classes in the game.
So can commoners. Commoners are really amazing actually, you can do whatever you want with them! They're a blank slate. I mean, at worst you won't reach the BAB for some of them, but if you wanted that you should've played a warrior.
They aren't that complex. They take skill to make up for what they don't have, and very few if any feats will give you options beyond smacking things, and very few are as good as actual class features or make up for not having skill points.
The fighter as is about as interesting as a commoner mechanically.They can go very deep into feat chains. Strictly from a mechanics standpoint, they are one of the most complex classes in the game.So can commoners. Commoners are really amazing actually, you can do whatever you want with them! They're a blank slate. I mean, at worst you won't reach the BAB for some of them, but if you wanted that you should've played a warrior.
A 20th level commoner has ten feats. A 20th level fighter gains eleven bonus feats. You made the claim that a fighter was as mechanically complex as a commoner. That is not true. The fighter is actually at the high end of mechanical complexity. If you were going to try to teach a computer program to build characters, the fighter would be one of the most challenging classes to shop for. Most character options have two or three tiers. A fighter can take two feat chains that are eight feats deep each and still have feats left over.
Compare that to a wizard, whose main customization is to select some spells, then decide how and if to apply one or metamagic feats to some of them.
They aren't that complex. They take skill to make up for what they don't have, and very few if any feats will give you options beyond smacking things.
They are called "Combat" feats for a reason. But no, it's not a good optimization plan to simply load up on numeric feats that improve your full attack.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A class with only bonus feats as a class feature. Truly complex and hard to understand and use.
They can go very deep into feat chains. Strictly from a mechanics standpoint, they are one of the most complex classes in the game.
Generally, class features are better than feats. Furthermore bonus feats have the very curious problem that the more bonus feats you have, the less valuable each additional one is because you're naturally going to pick the best feats first. Inevitably, there's going to be a point where you have all the feats you really want, and while you could benefit from more it's just not worth giving up or delaying class features to get them.
This is why it's generally not a good idea to take more than 2 levels of Fighter, unless the entire point of your build is "I want to make a Fighter 20."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uhh, YES. Much, much, much more complex! There are what, 200 combat feats a fighter can take? Something ridiculous like that? Lets say 100.
If you're going merely by raw number of options, there are much more spells than feats.
Just sayin'.