You mentioned it with paladin and rangers, I wonder why you do not tell that barbarian self buff do not help much for ranged attacks.The barbarian seems to fall behind with only +6 on Str...until he uses a rage power to increase it to +8, and then has a Furious/Courageous weapon, for effectively +12 to Str and +2/+2...or +8/+8. Oh, hey, don't forget he can take weapon focus, and if it's a 2h weapon, that's +8/+11.
Furious and Courageous are weapon enhancements, but he's +6/+6 with any melee weapon, and gets the damage on any missile weapon
Adaptable longbow or urban barbarian isn't out of the norm for archers. Mind you barbarian's never been my first pick for archer, but eh.
I am disagreeing with the fact that hte fighter need WF/WS. He can take other combat feat instead tha helps in others things. and that (always on) those +6/+6 is good enough.
"Need" is of course a point of view, and extremely dependent on the optimization level and difficulty of the campaign. I cannot tell you how much difference it makes at that high level, but if we look at the DPR Summer Olympics Thread we have a 10th level two-handed fighter here. Her DPR is ~63, from this calculation:
(.95*30.5)+(.3*.95*30.5)+(.6*33.5)+(.3*.6*33.5)=63.79If we switch Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, and Weapon Specialization to Skill Focus (Basketweaving, Appraise, Perform (String)), the damage would instead be:
(.90*28.5)+(.3*.90*28.5)+(.5*31.5)+(.3*.5*31.5)=53.82
So, they lose 16% of their damage by skipping those feats at level 10. Whether 53 DPR is enough for a full-attacker with limited other options (of course, three feats spent at other stuff will give them some kind of not-completely-useless option, my examples above where hyperbole) at that level depends on how the campaign works - but that's about the numbers we're looking at. A 16% drop is quite noticable.
Not talking about dedicated archers but as a back up weapon where the fighter have a +5/+5 in his example.Adaptable longbow or urban barbarian isn't out of the norm for archers. Mind you barbarian's never been my first pick for archer, but eh.You mentioned it with paladin and rangers, I wonder why you do not tell that barbarian self buff do not help much for ranged attacks.The barbarian seems to fall behind with only +6 on Str...until he uses a rage power to increase it to +8, and then has a Furious/Courageous weapon, for effectively +12 to Str and +2/+2...or +8/+8. Oh, hey, don't forget he can take weapon focus, and if it's a 2h weapon, that's +8/+11.
Furious and Courageous are weapon enhancements, but he's +6/+6 with any melee weapon, and gets the damage on any missile weapon
I wasn't either. Adaptable longbow. Getchu' one!
*Puffs in*
I love lore warden archetype. 14 int + human + favored class skill point = 8 skills per level with all knowledge skills. Multiclassing with duelist is a great synergy too, but work just as great with single class, maybe a whip to trip too
*Puffs out*
The fighter class is no more inherently boring than any other class. I have a few players that find wizards and clerics boring because once they run out of spells, they don't have anything to do. They don't like sitting out of most combats waiting for an opportunity to use one of their limited spells. They like being involved in every combat. Swinging a weapon is the best way to do that.Which, like fighters, is a case of people not actually bothering to play the character correctly.
Buy a crossbow. Light crossbow with 50 bolts of ammunition is cheap, and gives you combat capability long after you've run out of spells. Combine with a morningstar for melee in case you absolutely need it. The crossbow also allows you to save spells while still managing to deal damage.
Once you get up in levels, replace the crossbow with wands and scrolls you made. If you're carrying around five wands at full charge and a few scrolls for contingencies, you can easily keep casting long after most people would have ran out of magical power, sat down, and died.
The fighter is the same way. If you make an effort to cover your weaknesses, you can actually build a fairly decent character that will last into the upper levels.
No. The fighter is not the same way. He does good damage consistently for the expenditure of an item he will continually use.
No one plays a wizard to shoot crossbow bolts. That tactic is only effective for maybe the first three levels. With cover and the penalty for melee, you're wasting your shots the majority of the time.
Scrolls and wands cost money. They are used up. They cast at minimum level unless you spend more money that can be better used on permanent items that can help more or spells.
Casting at minimum level means 1d4+1 magic missiles and 1st level casting. 5d6 fireballs and 5th level casting. Quite useless when you run into magic or energy resistance.
Then there is the idea of wasting coin when the fighter-types can easily dispatch creatures without your help. Why waste the coin when you can save it to boost your stats or buy a ring or staff?
Suffice it to say there is not a lot of money wasted on expendable items. If they pick up some of them on the way, they might use them some. They might also sell them and save the coin to buy a permanent item.
The wizard style that is most effective is the player that sits on his spells until he has an encounter where he is needed. Some players find that boring.
I don't mind that at all because that is generally how wizards are in the books. Some players don't like that style, some find it fun. I enjoy that style. I don't mind letting the fighter-types do the general killing, while I get to take out the big bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fighter class is no more inherently boring than any other class. I have a few players that find wizards and clerics boring because once they run out of spells, they don't have anything to do. They don't like sitting out of most combats waiting for an opportunity to use one of their limited spells. They like being involved in every combat. Swinging a weapon is the best way to do that.Which, like fighters, is a case of people not actually bothering to play the character correctly.
Buy a crossbow. Light crossbow with 50 bolts of ammunition is cheap, and gives you combat capability long after you've run out of spells. Combine with a morningstar for melee in case you absolutely need it. The crossbow also allows you to save spells while still managing to deal damage.
Once you get up in levels, replace the crossbow with wands and scrolls you made. If you're carrying around five wands at full charge and a few scrolls for contingencies, you can easily keep casting long after most people would have ran out of magical power, sat down, and died.
The fighter is the same way. If you make an effort to cover your weaknesses, you can actually build a fairly decent character that will last into the upper levels.
No. The fighter is not the same way. He does good damage consistently for the expenditure of an item he will continually use.
No one plays a wizard to shoot crossbow bolts. That tactic is only effective for maybe the first three levels. With cover and the penalty for melee, you're wasting your shots the majority of the time.
Scrolls and wands cost money. They are used up. They cast at minimum level unless you spend more money that can be better used on permanent items that can help more or spells.
Casting at minimum level means 1d4+1 magic missiles and 1st level casting. 5d6 fireballs and 5th level casting. Quite useless when you run into magic or energy resistance.
Then there is the idea of wasting coin when the fighter-types...
I hear this all the time... but in practice, my Wizard/Sorcerer/Witch/whatever never really ever runs out of spells... I mean, really? Never have I heard of a wizard outside levels 1-3 "saving his spells for later"... Even if you cast a spell a round, with the typical adventuring day having about 4 encounters a day, with each combat lasting about 3-4 rounds, that is a total of 16 spells. A level 5 wizard who is not a generalist and with 18 int can do this pretty simply. Most casters can do that pretty easily... Especially with things like Pearls of Power, rings of Wizardry, and headbands to increase INT (or whatever your primary caster stat). I mean... It is rare for a wizard to ever really run out of spells. I mean... really? Try and use a better arguement...
Fighters are not boring, no class is boring really. What matters is being a roleplayer instead of a roll player if you don't want to feel bored.
Im trying to think of a way to make a fighter that will be interesting to play, not just full attacking in combat, and can do useful stuff outside of combat that doesnt require the DM to specifically tailor situations to my one character for skills like climb or swim. Im hitting a wall.Anyone?
.
Need a little more specifics. What else do you want to do? PF is such a huge system that nearly anything is possible. (Just don't say you want to do everything or I'll smack you upside the head with a slimy fish.).
I don't think fighters are necessarily boring. However, I do think the way I see most of them built is kinda boring. Just as an example, I recently talked to a guy that was finding his fighter boring. He had a wis 10, int of 8, and cha of 7. Every single feat was straight damage dealing or saving throw enhancing. He felt he had little to do other than attack in combat. Anytime he tried anything else it was either a null effect or made the situation worse. Yes, anytime he did get in range to full attack in melee, he turned things into pulp. Doing sometimes 3 times their hit point in a round. Yes, he was very hard to kill. Said he had not been below 2/3 of his hit point total in several levels.
.
The fighter has a tremendous amount of combat potential. In most campaigns, he has way more than he needs. Did the guy mentioned above really gain all that much? He has defensive capability beyond necessary since he has not recently been in any danger. Most of his offensive capability is going to waste blenderizing a dead foe.
.
Many/some people do find repeated, "I attack with my falchion and do (ever increase number of damage)" to be boring. Many/some do not. They find that a blast.
.
There are many different things you can do in your build that will give you many option both in and out of combat. Don't try all of these on 1 PC, but some possiblities are:
.
Back to my frst sentence. Tell us what you want to do. Almost certainly someone can help you build it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters are not boring, no class is boring really. What matters is being a roleplayer instead of a roll player if you don't want to feel bored.
Remember kids, its not the class with no flavor or interesting qualities fault its boring, its all on you! Nope, can't be the class. If its boring you just don't have imagination.
More seriously, every class uses imagination. Mechanically the fighter does end up going "I full attack!" A lot though. Its not a rollplayer vs. roleplayer argument. No need to turn it into one. Plenty of the people who think its boring roleplay just fine.
Im trying to think of a way to make a fighter that will be interesting to play, not just full attacking in combat, and can do useful stuff outside of combat that doesnt require the DM to specifically tailor situations to my one character for skills like climb or swim. Im hitting a wall.Anyone?.
Need a little more specifics. What else do you want to do? PF is such a huge system that nearly anything is possible. (Just don't say you want to do everything or I'll smack you upside the head with a slimy fish.)
.
I don't think fighters are necessarily boring. However, I do think the way I see most of them built is kinda boring. Just as an example, I recently talked to a guy that was finding his fighter boring. He had a wis 10, int of 8, and cha of 7. Every single feat was straight damage dealing or saving throw enhancing. He felt he had little to do other than attack in combat. Anytime he tried anything else it was either a null effect or made the situation worse. Yes, anytime he did get in range to full attack in melee, he turned things into pulp. Doing sometimes 3 times their hit point in a round. Yes, he was very hard to kill. Said he had not been below 2/3 of his hit point total in several levels.
.
The fighter has a tremendous amount of combat potential. In most campaigns, he has way more than he needs. Did the guy mentioned above really gain all that much? He has defensive capability beyond necessary since he has not recently been in any danger. Most of his offensive capability is going to waste blenderizing a dead foe.
.
Many/some people do find repeated, "I attack with my falchion and do (ever increase number of damage)" to be boring. Many/some do not. They find that a blast.
.
There are many different things you can do in your build that will give you many option both in and out of combat. Don't try all of these on 1 PC, but some possiblities are:
Use some of your huge number of feats for combat maneuvers. No, they can't be used on every foe. But...
So bassically to make an not boring figther dont rely on things provided by the figther class?
|
...The fighter class is no more inherently boring than any other class. I have a few players that find wizards and clerics boring because once they run out of spells, they don't have anything to do. They don't like sitting out of most combats waiting for an opportunity to use one of their limited spells. They like being involved in every combat. Swinging a weapon is the best way to do that.Which, like fighters, is a case of people not actually bothering to play the character correctly.
Buy a crossbow. Light crossbow with 50 bolts of ammunition is cheap, and gives you combat capability long after you've run out of spells. Combine with a morningstar for melee in case you absolutely need it. The crossbow also allows you to save spells while still managing to deal damage.
Once you get up in levels, replace the crossbow with wands and scrolls you made. If you're carrying around five wands at full charge and a few scrolls for contingencies, you can easily keep casting long after most people would have ran out of magical power, sat down, and died.
The fighter is the same way. If you make an effort to cover your weaknesses, you can actually build a fairly decent character that will last into the upper levels.
No. The fighter is not the same way. He does good damage consistently for the expenditure of an item he will continually use.
No one plays a wizard to shoot crossbow bolts. That tactic is only effective for maybe the first three levels. With cover and the penalty for melee, you're wasting your shots the majority of the time.
Scrolls and wands cost money. They are used up. They cast at minimum level unless you spend more money that can be better used on permanent items that can help more or spells.
Casting at minimum level means 1d4+1 magic missiles and 1st level casting. 5d6 fireballs and 5th level casting. Quite useless when you run into magic or energy resistance.
Then there is the idea of
My wizard...an enchanter...ran out of spells completely once, and useful spells for the combat we were in, pretty regularly... and he carried scrolls for the utility spells he could, and wands, too.
That happens when you've totalled less than a month in town during eight months of campaign.
Mileage varies.
... So bassically to make an not boring figther dont rely on things provided by the figther class?
.
Uhmm... No... That's pretty much exactly not what I said. You might want to read it again..
What the fighter class (and to a slightly lesser extent the barbarian class) provides is exceptional combat potential. Since that is likely more than is needed in most campaigns, APS, and PFS; you can afford to take some stuff that is not directly related to just doing damage.
.
If you incredibly overspecialize any build, odds are some people would find that boring. Fighter or not.
.
I'm not sure why, but most of the fighter builds I've seen actually used, specialize more than any other. And I think they actually need to the least. If you have twice the feats of most any other class, does every single feat need to be devoted to just the hugest possible mondo two handed critical strike? Personally, I don't think so.
What I hear is:
Fighters have low skill points, I'm dumping intelligence.
Fighters have low will saves, so there's no point in trying to increase it.
Fighters don't have charisma class skills, so I'm dumping it.
Fighters can only hit, so I'm putting everything into hitting harder.
.
Well yes, if the player has eliminated every other possibility before even starting, then of course they can only do one thing and many people will find them boring.
|
|
Fighters are not boring, no class is boring really. What matters is being a roleplayer instead of a roll player if you don't want to feel bored.Remember kids, its not the class with no flavor or interesting qualities fault its boring, its all on you! Nope, can't be the class. If its boring you just don't have imagination.
More seriously, every class uses imagination. Mechanically the fighter does end up going "I full attack!" A lot though. Its not a rollplayer vs. roleplayer argument. No need to turn it into one. Plenty of the people who think its boring roleplay just fine.
And your answer to those of us that DO have a blast playing fighters, while you're telling us how wrong that is?
If you're missing out...logic says...maybe it's something you are missing.
Fighters are not boring, no class is boring really. What matters is being a roleplayer instead of a roll player if you don't want to feel bored.Remember kids, its not the class with no flavor or interesting qualities fault its boring, its all on you! Nope, can't be the class. If its boring you just don't have imagination.
More seriously, every class uses imagination. Mechanically the fighter does end up going "I full attack!" A lot though. Its not a rollplayer vs. roleplayer argument. No need to turn it into one. Plenty of the people who think its boring roleplay just fine.
And your answer to those of us that DO have a blast playing fighters, while you're telling us how wrong that is?
If you're missing out...logic says...maybe it's something you are missing.
He said nothing there even close to "telling us how wrong that is" to have fun playing a fighter.
He said it is not a role play vs roll play issue and that particular insult is not really applicable or helpful in this discussion.
You mentioned it with paladin and rangers, I wonder why you do not tell that barbarian self buff do not help much for ranged attacks.The barbarian seems to fall behind with only +6 on Str...until he uses a rage power to increase it to +8, and then has a Furious/Courageous weapon, for effectively +12 to Str and +2/+2...or +8/+8. Oh, hey, don't forget he can take weapon focus, and if it's a 2h weapon, that's +8/+11.
Furious and Courageous are weapon enhancements, but he's +6/+6 with any melee weapon, and gets the damage on any missile weapon
I'm naturally assuming the adaptable longbow, but kindly note that I specifically noted he gets the DAMAGE for ranged attacks.
He doesn't get the to-hit bonus, unless you take that feat or whatever letting you use Strength for TH with thrown weapons...in which case it comes back in full force.
The fighter gets decreasing utility with weapons outside his main weapon group. I noted that +6/+6 with his main weapon group was largely irrelevant, because he's already specialized in a weapon. There's no need for him to grab another Large Sword when he's already GWS in longsword...it would be damage going DOWN, now up.
The fighter, paladin and ranger all have basically the same utility with any weapon, and the barb with any that rely on strength.
This is especially relevant at low levels, because the fighter doesn't get a damage buff until level 4, and doesn't have enough funds for his gloves of dueling until level 10. So, unless he blows those feats for a mid-level TH/damage buff, he's even further behind the curve.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Fighters are not boring, no class is boring really. What matters is being a roleplayer instead of a roll player if you don't want to feel bored.Remember kids, its not the class with no flavor or interesting qualities fault its boring, its all on you! Nope, can't be the class. If its boring you just don't have imagination.
More seriously, every class uses imagination. Mechanically the fighter does end up going "I full attack!" A lot though. Its not a rollplayer vs. roleplayer argument. No need to turn it into one. Plenty of the people who think its boring roleplay just fine.
And your answer to those of us that DO have a blast playing fighters, while you're telling us how wrong that is?
If you're missing out...logic says...maybe it's something you are missing.
He said nothing there even close to "telling us how wrong that is" to have fun playing a fighter.
He said it is not a role play vs roll play issue and that particular insult is not really applicable or helpful in this discussion.
So...what is he missing, then? He keeps mentioning totally mechanical issues, and that's the point behind 'rollplaying'.
Please, fill us in.
Fighters are not boring, no class is boring really. What matters is being a roleplayer instead of a roll player if you don't want to feel bored.Remember kids, its not the class with no flavor or interesting qualities fault its boring, its all on you! Nope, can't be the class. If its boring you just don't have imagination.
More seriously, every class uses imagination. Mechanically the fighter does end up going "I full attack!" A lot though. Its not a rollplayer vs. roleplayer argument. No need to turn it into one. Plenty of the people who think its boring roleplay just fine.
And your answer to those of us that DO have a blast playing fighters, while you're telling us how wrong that is?
If you're missing out...logic says...maybe it's something you are missing.
He said nothing there even close to "telling us how wrong that is" to have fun playing a fighter.
He said it is not a role play vs roll play issue and that particular insult is not really applicable or helpful in this discussion.
So...what is he missing, then? He keeps mentioning totally mechanical issues, and that's the point behind 'rollplaying'.
Please, fill us in.
The way a fighter is typically built they do say I full attack alot. They don't have to be built that way, but they often are. That does not mean the player is incapable or unwilling to role play.
For example:
In a pick-up game I was given a ftr/barb that was completely focused on going for the crit with a falchion. It had no social skills, no knowledge skills, no rage powers or feats other than getting a couple more points of damage. Yes, he did huge amounts of damage and had an excellent chance to kill anything he faced. But the adventure was mostly a murder mystery.
To me, that build was kinda boring. I was told to 'Just role play it man!'
Ok, but if I were actually in that role would I really jump into every social situation even though my -3 on every action pretty much means I will make the situation worse? Would I really try to tell everyone what to do against X creature knowing I am literally the least knowledgable character in the group? Would anyone realy want me putting in my opinion on whether we are being decieved when I am clearly more gullible than a basset hound puppy? If they were really role playing their characters, why would they have me around at any point other than we-expect-to-be-hitting-things time. If everyone was really role playing they would probably tell me to just go sit in the tavern and drink, we will come get you when we find where the bad guys are hiding.
So yes, I can role play as a dumb ash hat that makes everything worse and just irritates my fellow players (and possibly cause a mission fail) or I can role play as someone that realizes he's not very bright and keep my mouth shut most of the time. Since I didn't want to tork-off the other players, I kept my mouth shut.
So to me role-playing that build was boring. I don't see much way it could have been anything else.
However, I disagree that the problem is the class. The problem was the build (at least for that adventure). I see many extremely focused build on these forums that I might consider boring (at least part of the time). I see them in all classes (but probably a bit more often in straight fighter builds than anything else).
Is the fighter boring to play?
No, if you're playing a fighter you're playing Pathfinder and odds are you are having a blast because Pathfinder is awesome :).
That said, I personally find the Fighter class limiting. Combat is great fun (if a little simplistic), but when I'm not in combat I find that the lackluster class skills, the woeful lack of skill points, and the absence of any utility abilities means I'm not really helping out my party. Quite often I find myself wishing I'd played a Paladin (with a spell list and better class skills) or Ranger (with a spell list and six (!) skills per level instead of 2) in order to better help pull my weight.
Now, admittedly you can work around these issues. You can pick up traits to add two skills to your class list, you can put more points in intelligence to get 3 or even 4 skillpoints per level, and you can use your feats to improve what skills you choose to focus on.
The problem is that these options are also available to every other class, and so doesn't really change the status quo. If I play a Ranger with 13 int I'm still 4 skill points and a spell list ahead of a fighter with 13 int. If I play a fighter who picks up UMD as a class skill with a trait I'm still behind the paladin who does the same thing since he has real incentive in place to make Charisma a good ability score, and still has a better skill list and a spell list to boot.
The fighter is perfectly viable in combat and with the right selection of feats can rival most other martial archery/melee/mounted/AC builds, if not out-perform them. However, if you compare a ranger archer and a fighter archer, their combat numbers might look similar but the ranger still has a host of options (through his class features) for dealing with problems the fighter does not.
I'm wondering if Paizo deliberately left the Fighter underwhelming out of combat to try and keep the class "beginner-friendly". From a rookie player's point of view, playing a fighter is dirt easy. You have no limitations on how often you can use your class features (like Smite Evil), no buffs to note duration on (like Rage), no class features that alter your numbers that aren't permanent or only work in specific situations (like Favored Enemy). The majority of the fighter-specific feats either give you constant bonuses (like greater weapon focus) or in some cases actively make the game easier by removing limitations(like point blank master).
You're fighting a flying monster? No problem, the fighter picks up PBS, Rapid Shot and Precise Shot and is a passable if not excellent archer.
You're fighting something that relies on extreme reach and attacks of opportunity? The fighter grabs Mobility, Lunge, and Step Up.
You're fighting a pack of wights that struggle to hit but use aid another to get a good attack in? The fighter laughs and drops into Crane Style, where he effortlessly deflects the clumsy strikes of his opponent.
You're fighting a Spellcaster? The fighter prepares for combat by grabbing Iron Will, Improved Iron Will and Disruptive.
You're fighting a Duelist? Power Attack, Improved Sunder, and Greater Sunder predicts a short fight.
What the above class concept does not share with the original fighter is simplicity. It requires a decent amount of system mastery to realize what are good feat choices for any given fight, and to accurately remember what bonuses the feat gives or what book/page to find it in. Much like playing a summoner specialist or a (3.5) shapeshifter, you need to keep track of and be able to present a lot of information quickly to avoid slowing down the game immensely.
Anyway, back on topic - I still think the Fighter (and every other non-intelligence focused class in the game) would benefit from having at least 4 skill ranks as a baseline instead of 2. While their class list could do with quite a few changes, fighters should really get Perception as a class skill. It's the primary skill for any kind of Guard duty, a role you'd think the Fighter would excel at.
... The problem is that these options are also available to every other class, and so doesn't really change the status quo. If I play a Ranger with 13 int I'm still 4 skill points and a spell list ahead of a fighter with 13 int. If I play a fighter who picks up UMD as a class skill with a trait I'm still behind the paladin who does the same thing since he has real incentive in place to make Charisma a good ability score, and still has a better skill list and a spell list to boot. ...
I would put forth that your fighter, due to the huge number of feats, can take a few of those options and still have enough feats left over to be a very good combatant.
Many people would say that your 'feat starved' paladin can not afford to take a skill focus feat. Your ranger since he is more MAD he will be even more in need of dumping intelligence and will actually have about the same skill points as a reasonably capable figher.I've seen a fighter with the human 3 skill focus race trait, intimidating prowess, dangerously curious, and int of 14. He was actually a better at diplomacy or intimidation than the paladin. He was not quite as good at two handed sword fighting as the smiting paladin (he was better than the paladin without smite) but still took down most creatures just as fast. He just didn't have a lot of wasted damage. He was not nearly as good an archer as the ranger, but he could still pull his own weight when missile fire was the only choice (and much better than the paladin). Neither of the others had put a single point into UMD, where as he had a decent chance to activate a wand to buff himself. They had the spells to buff themselves or twice. If he wanted to, he could use a wand every single fight.
... I'm wondering if Paizo deliberately left the Fighter underwhelming out of combat to try and keep the class "beginner-friendly". From a rookie player's point of view, playing a fighter is dirt easy. ...
Certainly a possiblity.
... So bassically to make an not boring figther dont rely on things provided by the figther class?.
Uhmm... No... That's pretty much exactly not what I said. You might want to read it again.
...
This is a copy paste of your suggestions
"There are many different things you can do in your build that will give you many option both in and out of combat. Don't try all of these on 1 PC, but some possiblities are:Use some of your huge number of feats for combat maneuvers. No, they can't be used on every foe. But so what. Sometimes they can be used and they are alot of fun. Plus sometimes you might need to take someone alive.
Don't take just damage dealing feats. Dazzling display, step-up, teamwork feats, etc... can all be fun at times. And you have lots of feats.
If you are human, don't take the extra feat. Take the human only race trait to get a bunch of skill focus.
Don't dump your mental stats (or at least only 1 of them).
Keep you charisma up and take eldritch heritage for some wierd ability and you have the charisma to be a middlin decent diplomat (especially with one of your human extra skill focus) and make better use of your intimidate.
Keep your wisdom up and have better saves and perception in addition pumping some points into sense motive. When your blissfully unaware paladin friend is bargaining, you can step up to let him know the other guy is lying.
Keep your intelligence up for more skill points. It actually gives you more benefit than the others. A 12 int for a +1 gives you a 50% increase in skill points. A rogue with a 12 int for a +1 gets only a 12.5% increase in skill points. Especially helpful if your group doesn't have a wizard or inquisitor for monster knowledges. Can be paired with the lore warden archtype for more boost.
Take a 1 or 2 level dip in some other class for some startling benefits. "
Only 2 of are even relatet to it being figther we are talking about.
And take a level dip is great advice but it kind of seems to admitting that there is a problem. Dont you agree?
It's not clear to me why the Fighter gets less skill ranks than a barbarian. There is a big of a dead zone between 10th level and the upper teens in terms of abilities that scale well for damage and effects; after that you have crit feats plus enough magic items to shore up your weaknesses. They could use something better than bravery to shore up their Will save. Fighter could use a little help.
That doesn't translate into "boring" or "don't play a fighter." Playing a fighter is challenging. If you think a fighter's job is to full attack or nothing, and then you complain about fighters being "boring," the issue is that you've painted a no-win situation. If a fighter is designed with the notion that maybe they won't be full attacking all the time, they won't be boring. Sure, a fighter is less effective when they can't full attack. A wizard is less effective against high SR foes, a rogue is less effective in darkness or against heavy hitters or oozes, a cleric is less effective against NPC fighters, among other things.
The fighter is a challenging and complex class to play. It's sad to me that so many people right it off as simultaneously easy and useless. If you think it's easy, of course it's going to be useless. Saying a fighter does nothing well but full attack is exactly the same error as saying wizards do nothing but blast stuff all day. You don't even have to optimize for that; when you are dealing with situations that are optimal, you just do what comes natural. If you don't want to be stuck on the sidelines, you need to think about what you're going to do when you're in a non-optimal situation. I feel for the falchion blender guy mentioned up thread; if his full attacks were so devastating, he probably could could have been just as effective with some of his resources devoted to something else. There's no prize for pushing your opponents into the negative hit points as far as you can.
So, your falchion guy might have to use a bow sometimes, or maybe just charge or use Vital Strike. Yes, it's a good idea to buy real equipment, not just bigger plusses. Yes, you need to respect the wizard and cleric's priorities; buy some potions, fighter. Yes, you need to figure out how to get your party's rogue and barbarian into position. Yes, you need to need the combat section inside and out.
Don't be a hydra. The hydra has a hideous full attack. It can easily kill plenty of "appropriate" level parties if it gets close. It's also not that hard to defeat it from a distance using archery. It just runs around being sad while you killinate it. If you are using the same tactics as a hydra, you have the same weaknesses, and might as well be playing an Int 2 magical beast, to boot.
If you don't want to play a boring fighter, try to figure out what you can do besides full attack. Don't dump all your mental stats and hyper-specialize in the falchion, and the wonder why you don't have a lot to do much of the time.
... Only 2 of are even relatet to it being figther we are talking about. ...
They are related to the fighter because he has the combat power and extra feats to do it and still perform his primary job of hitting things. They are arguabley more related than the same options for every other class specifically because of the extra.
... And take a level dip is great advice but it kind of seems to admitting that there is a problem. Dont you agree? ...
No. It is an option that is even more available than usual because the combat capability is already so extensive in the fighter.
You will often hear/read things like:Cleric or wizard shouldn't take a dip in X because it will hurt his spell progression too much. Oracle probably won't work taking a dip in bard and or sorcerer unless you are very careful because you will hurt your spell and revelation progression.
You don't hear/read that with a fighter since the lose of a single point of BaB and maybe a feat doesn't devestate your capability of doing your primary job.
...
What the fighter class (and to a slightly lesser extent the barbarian class) provides is exceptional combat potential. Since that is likely more than is needed in most campaigns, APS, and PFS; you can afford to take some stuff that is not directly related to just doing damage.
.
If you incredibly overspecialize any build, odds are some people would find that boring. Fighter or not.
....
No where did I say you need to take something from another class. The only possiblity I mentioned that was even close is eldritch heritage.
What you rely on that the fighter class provides you:
Extra combat feats
Full BaB
Armor Training
Weapon Training
The player can rely on those for your combat capability. The player does not necessarily need to use your generic feats which every single class gets for more of the same basic combat capability.
The player can learn to do something else in combat like a combat maneuver or dazzling display.
The player could learn to be decent at melee, archery, and mounted combat all at the same time.
The player could learn to activate a wand, take some non-combat related skills, or get some other wierd power.
Yes, every single class including fighter can take those same options. But the fighter can take them with out possibly crippling his basic combat capability due to the extra combat capability that is provided by his class. It is perfectly possible to rely on what the class has provided to open up more options.
I am not sure how I can write this more clearly.
...The fighter class is no more inherently boring than any other class. I have a few players that find wizards and clerics boring because once they run out of spells, they don't have anything to do. They don't like sitting out of most combats waiting for an opportunity to use one of their limited spells. They like being involved in every combat. Swinging a weapon is the best way to do that.Which, like fighters, is a case of people not actually bothering to play the character correctly.
Buy a crossbow. Light crossbow with 50 bolts of ammunition is cheap, and gives you combat capability long after you've run out of spells. Combine with a morningstar for melee in case you absolutely need it. The crossbow also allows you to save spells while still managing to deal damage.
Once you get up in levels, replace the crossbow with wands and scrolls you made. If you're carrying around five wands at full charge and a few scrolls for contingencies, you can easily keep casting long after most people would have ran out of magical power, sat down, and died.
The fighter is the same way. If you make an effort to cover your weaknesses, you can actually build a fairly decent character that will last into the upper levels.
No. The fighter is not the same way. He does good damage consistently for the expenditure of an item he will continually use.
No one plays a wizard to shoot crossbow bolts. That tactic is only effective for maybe the first three levels. With cover and the penalty for melee, you're wasting your shots the majority of the time.
Scrolls and wands cost money. They are used up. They cast at minimum level unless you spend more money that can be better used on permanent items that can help more or spells.
Casting at minimum level means 1d4+1 magic missiles and 1st level casting. 5d6 fireballs and 5th level casting. Quite useless when you run into magic or energy resistance.
Then there is the idea of
Use a better argument? What exactly do you think I'm arguing to begin with? The opinion of a couple of my players that wizards and clerics are boring? How do you argue against a player's subjective opinion based on their experience? The suggestions for overcoming this early level limitation were already tried by the player and did not improve their experience.
Pearls of Power and intel head items are not handed out like candy at low levels.
I've seen plenty of wizards and priests run out of useful combat spells during adventures. Maybe in one encounter a day modules like Kingmaker not so much, but in dungeon crawls and the like it is pretty easy for a caster that prepares spells in advance to run out during low levels. Not so much the case at higher levels when they have a huge number of spells at their disposal. The two players that don't like casters don't like the limitation even at low levels.
It's not as big a problem for witches because they use hexes. The player that doesn't like wizards did like the witch. He rarely used spells as a witch. He used his hexes over and over again. It was rare that he need a spell in the majority of encounters.
Sorcerer also doesn't run into this problem near as much. He may have fewer spells. He can cast them as needed, which is far more effective during encounter to encounter combat.
How about understanding that there isn't "better" argument to provide a player that doesn't enjoy the low level limitations of the class. Limited spells that must be preserved is a very real situation for wizards and priests below a certain level.
Hrm.
My problem with the Fighter is that in many cases you can play another class, achieve a respectable DPR AND contribute more out of combat. I just don't see what the appeal of the Fighter is over the Ranger or Barbarian. The Fighter gets bogged down by the feats that are technically part of his class features. Not taking Weapon Focus/Weapon Spec hurts you in the long run. You try to dip a little in a bunch of chains and find you can't make use of em when the next tier of feats opens up.
It's not clear to me why the Fighter gets less skill ranks than a barbarian. ...
Personally, I also think they should have more skill points or at least a few more class skills like perception (guard duty), escape artist (getting out of grapples), and acrobatics (moving around in combat).
But I would guess they felt the need to trade off against the potential of all those feats.
I would put forth that your fighter, due to the huge number of feats, can take a few of those options and still have enough feats left over to be a very good combatant.
Many people would say that your 'feat starved' paladin can not afford to take a skill focus feat. Your ranger since he is more MAD he will be even more in need of dumping intelligence and will actually have about the same skill points as a reasonably capable figher.I've seen a fighter with the human 3 skill focus race trait, intimidating prowess, dangerously curious, and int of 14. He was actually a better at diplomacy or intimidation than the paladin. He was not quite as good at two handed sword fighting as the smiting paladin (he was better than the paladin without smite) but still took down most creatures just as fast. He just didn't have a lot of wasted damage. He was not nearly as good an archer as the ranger, but he could still pull his own weight when missile fire was the only choice (and much better than the paladin). Neither of the others had put a single point into UMD, where as he had a decent chance to activate a wand to buff himself. They had the spells to buff themselves or twice. If he wanted to, he could use a wand every single fight.
I'm going to try and break down your post, and then refer you to the part of my previous post that dealt with what you are describing:
3 skill focus (human racial feature)
Intimidating Prowess (Feat, adds strength to charisma for intimidation)
Dangerously Curious (Trait, adds UMD to class skills)
INT of 14 (presumably for skill ranks?)
Wands (for buffs)
Any class can take the human racial feature.
Intimidating Prowess is a better feat for a paladin than a fighter, since he will most likely have positive modifiers in both ability scores.
Dangerously Curious is an excellent trait for any class, since UMD is excellent. The Paladin would get more mileage out of this since his charisma modifier will be higher.
INT of 14 is again, not class-specific. A ranger doesn't need this since he is by nature 8 points of intelligence ahead of the fighter when it comes to skills.
Wands are expensive (once you get past level 1), not on the Fighter's spell list (since he doesn't get one), and require skill investment for the fighter to use (unlike the ranger and the paladin, who have spell lists of their own).
Now, admittedly you can work around these issues. You can pick up traits to add two skills to your class list, you can put more points in intelligence to get 3 or even 4 skillpoints per level, and you can use your feats to improve what skills you choose to focus on.
The problem is that these options are also available to every other class, and so doesn't really change the status quo. If I play a Ranger with 13 int I'm still 4 skill points and a spell list ahead of a fighter with 13 int. If I play a fighter who picks up UMD as a class skill with a trait I'm still behind the paladin who does the same thing since he has real incentive in place to make Charisma a good ability score, and still has a better skill list and a spell list to boot.
My point was not, and is not that you can't make a fighter have some measure of utility. For instance, if you make a fighter with 14 INT he very well might make a decent job of playing a face. However, if you want to play a martial character who's also a decent face then you're better off picking a paladin or a ranger, or even a barbarian - a paladin gets more mileage out of his (most likely) superior charisma and already has the class skills, while the ranger doesn't need 14 INT to pick up the extra skills in the first place ~ an INT 14 fighter and an INT 6 Ranger get the same amount of skill points. Even the canonically savage and unlettered barbarian has the fighter soundly trumped in the utility department via rage powers, better class skill list, and more skill ranks per level.
You mentioned you had a fighter who actually had a better diplomacy modifier than the paladin in your previous party. Did they invest equal amounts into Diplomacy? If the fighter and the paladin in the party you mentioned had both tried to cover the traditional 'Face' role as a secondary task while still being viable combatants, who do you think would do the best job?
How about if the Fighter and the Ranger both tried to cover Knowledge checks, a skill that doesn't really come natural to either class (the ranger has 3 as class skills, the fighter 2, neither has much class-specific benefit from intelligence). Who do you think would have an easier time of it at level 1? level 5? level 10?
My point is that if the fighter wants to contribute outside of combat, he's very much playing with a handicap. He's playing catch-up.
...I am not sure how I can write this more clearly
I think i get your point. I dont think the figther is that superior in combat but i get your point.
Thanks for taking the time to clear it up for me.
The fighter class is no more inherently boring than any other class. I have a few players that find wizards and clerics boring because once they run out of spells, they don't have anything to do. They don't like sitting out of most combats waiting for an opportunity to use one of their limited spells. They like being involved in every combat. Swinging a weapon is the best way to do that.Which, like fighters, is a case of people not actually bothering to play the character correctly.
Buy a crossbow. Light crossbow with 50 bolts of ammunition is cheap, and gives you combat capability long after you've run out of spells. Combine with a morningstar for melee in case you absolutely need it. The crossbow also allows you to save spells while still managing to deal damage.
Once you get up in levels, replace the crossbow with wands and scrolls you made. If you're carrying around five wands at full charge and a few scrolls for contingencies, you can easily keep casting long after most people would have ran out of magical power, sat down, and died.
The fighter is the same way. If you make an effort to cover your weaknesses, you can actually build a fairly decent character that will last into the upper levels.
No. The fighter is not the same way. He does good damage consistently for the expenditure of an item he will continually use.
No one plays a wizard to shoot crossbow bolts. That tactic is only effective for maybe the first three levels. With cover and the penalty for melee, you're wasting your shots the majority of the time.
Scrolls and wands cost money. They are used up. They cast at minimum level unless you spend more money that can be better used on permanent items that can help more or spells.
Casting at minimum level means 1d4+1 magic missiles and 1st level casting. 5d6 fireballs and 5th level casting. Quite useless when you run into magic or energy resistance.
Then there is the idea of wasting coin when the fighter-types...
At the levels you are likely to run out of spells at, wands are generally casting at the same power level you are and those items to recover or extend your spell power are generally beyond the amount of wealth the entire party has. At higher levels, those wands can cover for spells you don't know or didn't prepare that you suddenly need. The same thing with scrolls; you have no idea how often I have run into scenarios where a spell I never thought I would need and didn't bother to prepare turned out to be the right solution.
A crossbow is also effective at those levels because, in general, the enemies you're fighting can be killed with a single shot. At higher levels, you shouldn't need it at all.
My apologies if my comment sparked a negative reaction. I simply meant that simple conversation amongst your fellow players helps liven the experience like a wise cracking monk who tends to make terrible puns in battle.
A fighter simply gets four skill points, bravery, bonus feats at first second and every two levels there after, armor training, weapon training, armor mastery, and weapon mastery. It is a great boon to have the various archetypes for the fighter which help make for different character builds.
At the levels you are likely to run out of spells at, wands are generally casting at the same power level you are and those items to recover or extend your spell power are generally beyond the amount of wealth the entire party has. At higher levels, those wands can cover for spells you don't know or didn't prepare that you suddenly need. The same thing with scrolls; you have no idea how often I have run into scenarios where a spell I never thought I would need and didn't bother to prepare turned out to be the right solution.
A crossbow is also effective at those levels because, in general, the enemies you're fighting can be killed with a single shot. At higher levels, you shouldn't need it at all.
It's also worth pointing out that there's a few cantrips which can actually be useful in combat at low levels. Not acid splash. 1d3 damage is rarely useful in combat. Daze, on the other hand, can be useful. Most humanoids you encounter at 1st or 2nd level will have a hard time making a DC 14 or 15 will save. Or just be a witch and completely sidestep the issue.
Clerics, druids, and oracles don't have any orisons that are too useful in combat. If you're built for hitting things with sticks, that's not a big deal. But spellcasting-focused divine casters are really terrible to play at low levels. They're just about the only spellcasters with that issue, however.
At the levels you are likely to run out of spells at, wands are generally casting at the same power level you are and those items to recover or extend your spell power are generally beyond the amount of wealth the entire party has. At higher levels, those wands can cover for spells you don't know or didn't prepare that you suddenly need. The same thing with scrolls; you have no idea how often I have run into scenarios where a spell I never thought I would need and didn't bother to prepare turned out to be the right solution.
A crossbow is also effective at those levels because, in general, the enemies you're fighting can be killed with a single shot. At higher levels, you shouldn't need it at all.
It's also worth pointing out that there's a few cantrips which can actually be useful in combat at low levels. Not acid splash. 1d3 damage is rarely useful in combat. Daze, on the other hand, can be useful. Most humanoids you encounter at 1st or 2nd level will have a hard time making a DC 14 or 15 will save. Or just be a witch and completely sidestep the issue.
Clerics, druids, and oracles don't have any orisons that are too useful in combat. If you're built for hitting things with sticks, that's not a big deal. But spellcasting-focused divine casters are really terrible to play at low levels. They're just about the only spellcasters with that issue, however.
It is also worth noting that Oracles tend not to run into much problems either due to ability to use their Mysteries, which depending on the Mystery and revelations, can be quite powerful.
As for Clerics, depending on the selected Domain, they can use their domain abilities to great effect.
Additionally, at low levels (the levels that divine casters tend to run out of spells) 3/4 BAB is not that much different than Full BAB, so they ca quite easily wade into combat without much issue.
...Any class can take the human racial feature.
Intimidating Prowess is a better feat for a paladin than a fighter, since he will most likely have positive modifiers in both ability scores.
Dangerously Curious is an excellent trait for any class, since UMD is excellent. The Paladin would get more mileage out of this since his charisma modifier will be higher.
INT of 14 is again, not class-specific. A ranger doesn't need this since he is by nature 8 points of intelligence ahead of the fighter when it comes to skills.
Wands are expensive (once you get past level 1), not on the Fighter's spell list (since he doesn't get one), and require skill investment for the fighter to use (unlike the ranger and the paladin, who have spell lists of their own).
...
Now, admittedly you can work around these issues. You can pick up traits to add two skills to your class list, you can put more points in intelligence to get 3 or even 4 skillpoints per level, and you can use your feats to improve what skills you choose to focus on.
The problem is that these options are also available to every other class, and so doesn't really change the status quo. If I play a Ranger with 13 int I'm still 4 skill points and a spell list ahead of a fighter with 13 int. If I play a fighter who picks up UMD as a class skill with a trait I'm still behind the paladin who does the same thing since he has real incentive in place to make Charisma a good ability score, and still has a better skill list and a spell list to boot.
...
I did not say the other classes don't have those options. I very clearly said they do have those options.
Yes the paladin could make better use of intimidating prowess if he took it. My point is that they usually don't. Most builds I have seen for paladins consider them to be feat starved so they won't 'waste' one on a non-combat feat. Fighter has them to burn.
Yes the paladin probably has a better charisma score and all else being equal should have a better diplomacy and intimidate score. However, all else isn't necessarily equal. Many paladin builds I have seen dump intelligence so don't have the skill points to put in there. They certainly won't 'waste' a feat on skill focus for diplomacy or intimidate.
Yes, if the ranger had tried to be a knowledge expert he would be better at it than any fighter except a lore warden. But I don't think I have ever seen a ranger try to be a knowledge expert. They probably need to get both their str and dex high, no matter which fighting style. They want their wis and con decent to have their spells and some hitpoints. Usually their int and/or cha are low if not domped. Then they put their skill points in perception, know nature, handle animal, stealthe, acrobatics, climb, swim, and survival so don't have any left over for any other knowledges.
I have however seen fighters try to be at least a second tier knowledge expert even before the lore warden came out.
Yes, the ranger has many more skill points and a better class skill selection. I happen to think ranger as written is one of the best classes. The ranger builds I usually see have other drawbacks. Usually they are lower AC and about 80% one style of combat. I don't think I've ever seen one that would 'waste' a feat on a combat maneuver. But yes, ranger is one of the best and I would say it usually has more options than a full attack fighter. But just because something is not as great as the very best doesn't mean it sucks hind teat either.
...I am not sure how I can write this more clearly
I think i get your point. I dont think the figther is that superior in combat but i get your point.
Thanks for taking the time to clear it up for me.
I don't think the fighter is necessarily "that superior in combat" either. I'm saying he doesn't need to be superior to everyone else.
Every character needs to be good enough to do their primary job, whether that job is hitting things or something else.
I'm saying the fighter is most likely to be good enough while still using a couple of feats, skills, traits, and/or ability scores for something not directly related to 'do more damage when hitting things' then the typical builds I see in another class.
I am not saying ther is only one way orthe fighter is the best class. I really don't think it is. (Personally, I'm kinda leaning toward magus or inquisitor as the best.) But I don't see fighter as necessarily boring either.
I'm not sure bored is the correct word. I think it's best to say that I've found achieving satisfaction in combat to be an increasingly inconsistent experience the higher in level my fighter has gotten, but that such has not ceased to happen overall.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, the ranger has many more skill points and a better class skill selection. I happen to think ranger as written is one of the best classes. The ranger builds I usually see have other drawbacks. Usually they are lower AC and about 80% one style of combat. I don't think I've ever seen one that would 'waste' a feat on a combat maneuver. But yes, ranger is one of the best and I would say it usually has more options than a full attack fighter. But just because something is not as great as the very best doesn't mean it sucks hind teat either.
I'm only quoting part of your post to avoid the wall of text phenomenon, but I did read all of it:
Are you familiar with JaronK's Tier system?
I think we agree, really. I agree with you in that the ranger is one of the better written classes (though not as good as the inquisitor or the Bard), what I'm arguing is that ideally I want the fighter to be on about an equal footing with the ranger both for combat and out-of-combat utility. At the moment, assuming equal optimization, he might be able to keep up with him in combat but he will be absolutely blown out of the water OUT of combat. The same goes for every other class in the game. The fighter is at the bottom of the barrel.
A good first step to try and solve that particular problem is to improve the class skill list and give the fighter four skill points per level. It's by no means a solution, but it is a start. However, considering the Lore warden (one of the best things to have happened to the fighter since it was released) is considered a poor archetype by Paizo I'm resigned to the fact that it probably won't happen, at least not until the system gets a major makeover.
Which is why I think people find the Fighter... Well, not boring, but less than fulfilling to play.
... what I'm arguing is that ideally I want the fighter to be on an equal footing with the ranger both for combat and out-of-combat utility. At the moment, assuming equal optimization, he might be able to keep up with him in combat but he will be absolutely blown out of the water OUT of combat. The same goes for every other class in the game. The fighter is at the bottom of the barrel...
I would say that the way I see most people build them, the fighter is at the bottom of the barrel. But just barely below say a straight paladin or monk. Since most people that build them dump int and wis for the paladin or int and cha for the monk. The feeling is that you have to raise the combat ability scores as high as possible and you need every single feat for whatever combat method you have chosen. I have only seen one paladin actually used and no monk I've ever seen used that had anything at all devoted to non-combat usility except 1 or 2 points in the class skills.
But I think a fighter can easily afford to give up some combat ability score level and a couple of feats to something other than 'I hit it harder.' The weapon training, armor training, and bonus combat feats practically ensure you will still be decent at killing things.
When I look at a fighter who has devoted enough resources to be reasonably good at his primary job of hitting things and a paladin who has devoted enough resources to be reasonably good at his primary job of hitting things, the fighter has more resources remaining for something else. Usually more than a paladin or monk. Often more than a cleric, sorc, or oracle.
Yes, if you start by devoting everything to just hitting things then compare their versatility or non-combat utility, then it is worse. But you have put an unnecessary limit at the very start.
But I think a fighter can easily afford to give up some combat ability score level and a couple of feats to something other than 'I hit it harder.' The weapon training, armor training, and bonus combat feats practically ensure you will still be decent at killing things.
But the ranger and the paladin doesn't have to give up any combat ability in order to do something other than "I hit it harder". That's kind of the core of the problem.
ARE FIGHTERS REALLY THAT BORING TO PLAY?
Short answer: No
Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooo
HINT: take intimidating prowess at 1. Don't dump cha or int (10s). Suck it up and embrace the poor will save (wis 10).
ARE FIGHTERS REALLY THAT BORING TO PLAY?Short answer: No
Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooo
HINT: take intimidating prowess at 1. Don't dump cha or int (10s). Suck it up and embrace the poor will save (wis 10).
Except their roleplaying aspects are also kind of limited compared to their fellow marshals. Lets look at them one by one.
Barbarian- "When he wades into battle his anger and rage make him a hulking monstrosity. He is capable of taking blows that would severely harm another man with impunity (DR x/- and d12 HD and high con). His strength and power is so mighty that even the spells of wizards cannot stop it (witch hunter, superstition, and spell cleave). When he enters his rage, his becomes a monster and a beast and gains their aspects (Beast totem). " The barbarian has so much flavor in combat that is just juicy.
Cavalier- "When he strides into combat atop his majestic steed (his animal companion) with his great banner, all his companions felt the inspiration and power behind his banner and regained their conviction and strength (banner). With is years of experience he lead his troops through superior strategic maneuvering (tactics) then lead his fellows on the finishing charge, cutting through the ranks of his opponents his unstoppable force." The cavalier is hands down the best mounted combatant in the game and oozes with flavor from his banner and tactics abilities
Paladin- "This warrior of pure and undimished purity is a fearsome foe to behold! He leads the charge against the evil warlord with is mighty sword, glowing with holy rightousness (his divine bond). All his companions gaze on as he carves through the enemy ranks, even when mortal men would normally be frozen in fear from the aura the enemy exuded (fear immunity). Even as the diseased touch of the enemies minion strike the paladin, his holiness is incorruptable (disease immunity) and the wounds instantly heal from holy energy (lay on hands). When the paladin reachs the warlord, his divine fury becomes unleashed and he smited his with the force of all the heavens (Smite Evil)." The paladin is inspiration and a powerful RP character.
Yes a fighter can be RPed, but he just can't begin to replicate or match just the awesome ability that other martials can do with their class abilities.
Suck it up and embrace the poor will save (wis 10).
I'll admit: the scenario where your character gets dominated and the evil wizard tells you to kill the rest of the party can be very fun. It's a great chance to test out your PVP skills. It might be less than fun for the rest of the group, but it can certainly be fun for you!
On the other hand, not participating in the encounter because you were paralyzed, planeshifted, sleeped, etc. isn't very fun. So there's a downside.
Suck it up and embrace the poor will save (wis 10).I'll admit: the scenario where your character gets dominated and the evil wizard tells you to kill the rest of the party can be very fun. It's a great chance to test out your PVP skills. It might be less than fun for the rest of the group, but it can certainly be fun for you!
Aww man, your GM lets you play through that? Mine always take my mini away to keep me from having too much fun.
Aww man, your GM lets you play through that? Mine always take my mini away to keep me from having too much fun.Suck it up and embrace the poor will save (wis 10).I'll admit: the scenario where your character gets dominated and the evil wizard tells you to kill the rest of the party can be very fun. It's a great chance to test out your PVP skills. It might be less than fun for the rest of the group, but it can certainly be fun for you!
4,500 gp ties a nice knot on that problem.
I'll admit: the scenario where your character gets dominated and the evil wizard tells you to kill the rest of the party can be very fun. It's a great chance to test out your PVP skills. It might be less than fun for the rest of the group, but it can certainly be fun for you!Aww man, your GM lets you play through that? Mine always take my mini away to keep me from having too much fun.
As a GM, running the dominated PC yourself is the wrong way to do it. Your player knows their character much better than you do. They'll do a much better job of killing their allies than you will!
Also, telling your player to sit out a fight while you play their character is really lame.
*Puffs in*
Suck it up and embrace the poor will save (wis 10).I'll admit: the scenario where your character gets dominated and the evil wizard tells you to kill the rest of the party can be very fun. It's a great chance to test out your PVP skills. It might be less than fun for the rest of the group, but it can certainly be fun for you!
On the other hand, not participating in the encounter because you were paralyzed, planeshifted, sleeped, etc. isn't very fun. So there's a downside.
There was one time that my reach/trip fighter got dominated while the wizard was nearly out of spells. Killed half of the party and the baddies killed another one, we went from 6 to just me and the bard. Was funny as hell! (not for the dead ones though)
*Puffs out*
Yes a fighter can be RPed, but he just can't begin to replicate or match just the awesome ability that other martials can do with their class abilities.
lawl no.
"Some take up arms for glory, wealth, or revenge. Others do battle to prove themselves, to protect others, or because they know nothing else. Still others learn the ways of weaponcraft to hone their bodies in battle and prove their mettle in the forge of war. Lords of the battlefield, fighters are a disparate lot, training with many weapons or just one, perfecting the uses of armor, learning the fighting techniques of exotic masters, and studying the art of combat, all to shape themselves into living weapons. Far more than mere thugs, these skilled warriors reveal the true deadliness of their weapons, turning hunks of metal into arms capable of taming kingdoms, slaughtering monsters, and rousing the hearts of armies. Soldiers, knights, hunters, and artists of war, fighters are unparalleled champions, and woe to those who dare stand against them."