but the only thing fighters have going for them is DPR...you play really bad fighters then
Well that's not nice.
but the only thing fighters have going for them is DPR...
And maneuvers, and several styles of combat if they wish. Fighters are actually good at fighting, surprisingly enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but the only thing fighters have going for them is DPR...And maneuvers, and several styles of combat if they wish. Fighters are actually good at fighting, surprisingly enough.
Of course, none of those are actually fighter class features.
Of course, none of those are actually fighter class features.but the only thing fighters have going for them is DPR...And maneuvers, and several styles of combat if they wish. Fighters are actually good at fighting, surprisingly enough.
Yeah this.
Jeez I just pointed out one instance in where the Fighter actually has a bit of coolness, and it happened to be getting auto crits.
They're pretty terrible otherwise.
|
a lorewarden trip fighter with a reach weapon is an amazing tank. it prevents targets from getting to your casters and ranged characters while providing flanking buddies for your melee damage characters. it controls the field by using bull rush to move targets into melee with your melee damage classes to allow for full attack actions. i dont have the character with me, but he has a 22 will save by level 20 which is more then enough and improved iron will. reflex and fort are even higher.
its a character that you cant quantify, because his value is in control of the battlefield, not dpr numbers. let the reciever catch the ball for his touchdowns while you play QB and defensive line with pindown, stand still, and combat patrol. he scores the points, sure but he wouldnt be anything at all without his play makers and point stoppers.
if i find him i will post him so you can see what i mean.
|
I don't think people are getting the rules here. So limiting it to what I believe the OP was talking about, we have:
Barbarian
Cavalier/Samurai
Fighter
Gunslinger
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue/Ninja
Zen Archer
(Man, there aren't a lot of these guys, are there?)
So, from my personal experience, and based on absolutely no scientific evidence or mathematical breakdown but only my own anecdotal knowledge, here's how I would rank them:
Paladin - Everybody likes to point out how "Smite Evil" is limited, but I've never seen a Paladin come across as completely useless. (Save one sword and board Pally who went light armor and wielded a buckler/rapier combo.) And let's face it, almost everything you're going to fight in this game once you get past the animals is going to be evil. All of the big bads for sure. If you want to make a decent evil outsider campaign, you'd better ban Paladins or else your Glabrezu is going to suddenly become much less impressive.
Barbarian - Best offense, decent defense, and actually some of the most useful class skills in the game. I once had a Barbarian wreck - I mean wreck - a low magic game I was running. Didn't even have god stats. Just a decent INT and good STR and CON. The only reason I would rank the Paladin above the Barbarian is because healing yourself as a swift action can make you damn near invincible and the Pally has a way to overcome DR the Barbarian doesn't.
Ranger - This will somewhat depend on how kind your GM is. If they're pretty forward about a good FE choice and favored terrain (or if s/he lets you take Boon Companion for your wolf), this can easily compete with or even surpass a Barbarian. Either way, you'll make the fighter cry.
Zen Archer - Almost tied with the Ranger. I know this is technically a monk archetype, but it and the core monk are so far apart they may as well be different classes. I played an Oread Zen Archer that easily kept pace with the archer ranger and even had some tricks he didn't. A solid choice if you want a switch hitter, considering it gets point blank master earlier than any other class. The bonus feats rock, Ki is actually useful, it's a solid archer with all good saves.
Gunslinger - For taste purposes, I'd rank this the lowest tier. But getting past my hatred of guns in high fantasy, it's pretty solid. Hitting touch AC is pretty sweet. And it solves the one major issue with an Archer fighter (making an incredibly SAD class somewhat MAD) Can turn dragons into a joke.
Cavalier - In its role, it can be absolutely devastating. But it's simply too easy to shut down. A shot-on-the-run mounted archer basically gets pounce for free; but I guarantee after one or two combats your GM will suddenly find lots of excuses why you can't bring that mount with you - even if you're small. Decent skill points, and few cool class abilities that bolster your allies. Kind of a stronger Paladin until Level 5, then a much weaker Paladin Level 5 and after.
Fighter - What's to say? Always consistent, but rarely impressive. It would be hard to justify taking it over a Ranger or Barbarian. I always bump them up to 4+int skill points in my games to make it at least close to fair. Really, it's great for a dip to fill out feat trees and not much else.
Monk - No surprises that this would be so low. Last game we played our GM had to give the monk double WBL to make her a threat. (She needed Holy Cold Iron Brass Knuckles to do what the Paladin was doing for free and even with that still almost never hit, anyway.) The alignment restrictions and weak BAB make it hardly even worth a dip, except for perhaps a couple of archetypes. What saves it from being at the bottom is its awesome defenses, which brings us to...
Rogue - Bad, bad, bad. All of the offensive problems of a monk, with none of the defensive capabilities. You may as wade into battle with a character named "Sir Diesalot" who wears a giant target on his back. There's NO GOOD REASON to ever play a rogue. Even getting beyond that, most other classes mimic its abilities better than it does - and that's before we even take spells into account.
Vivisectionists are better all-around and still get to use SA and poison.
Bards in practice get 2 more skill points per level due to versatile performance. (Plus bardic knowledge!)
Rangers are better at stealth.
Inquisitors get more out of teamwork feats and flanking.
WHY WHY WHY does this class still exist?!
a lorewarden
A lorewarden might be a fighter, but is a fighter a lorewarden?
yesa lorewardenA lorewarden might be a fighter, but is a fighter a lorewarden?
All fighters have Know They Enemy, maneuver mastery, and Scholaristic? I didn't know that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
a lorewarden trip fighter with a reach weapon is an amazing tank. it prevents targets from getting to your casters and ranged characters while providing flanking buddies for your melee damage characters. it controls the field by using bull rush to move targets into melee with your melee damage classes to allow for full attack actions.
Battlefield control is really great. I think most people recognize this. The problem is, without heavy house ruling, really the only way to be effective at battlefield control through mid-to-high levels is to play a caster. As you increase in levels, monsters gain in HD and size. Increases to size directly increase CMD. Further, increases to size mean increases to Str, which increase CMD even more! Finally, there's the asinine rule that limits even attempting a lot of combat maneuvers if the target is too much larger than you. A lore warden gets enough bonuses to CMB that she can succeed on her checks up to decently high level, but she is still completely stuck against a large enough foe or a flying foe.
Compare this to a wizard, who gets ways to control the battlefield like grease, black tentacles, create pit, wall of force, etc.
|
|
All fighters have Know They Enemy, maneuver mastery, and Scholaristic? I didn't know that.yesa lorewardenA lorewarden might be a fighter, but is a fighter a lorewarden?
all fighters have "fighter" in their class heading, so does the lorewarden. its just another choice if you choose to take it.
now if you were asking are ALL fighters lorewardens no. but a fighter is a lorewarden if it chooses
|
|
Compare this to a wizard, who gets ways to control the battlefield like grease, black tentacles, create pit, wall of force, etc.
to the main body of your statement, no. you're absolutly wrong that you will be irelevant due to conditions changing at higher levels of play. you get magic which allows for you to adapt. from personal experience this is true.
and second i thought this thread was about martials, and casters were exempt from this discussion...
also hamatula strike with a bow will prevent flying creatures, by raw it works, but your gm may ban the feat due to how flipin powerful it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you get magic which allows for you to adapt. from personal experience this is true.
and second i thought this thread was about martials, and casters were exempt from this discussion...
Irony.
Their main problem is build them to be a a monster at mid - high level and suffer through low levels, and at low point buys they suffer.
Well that and god awful to hit and gear dependancy. Among other things.
Magic doesn't solve all the problems with combat maneuvers. Enlarge person may allow you to bull rush huge foes, but it won't let you bull rush gargantuan foes. Magic doesn't let you trip a flying creature. It doesn't let you disarm a dragon of her claws. It doesn't let you grapple someone with freedom of movement.
Edit: and if you do want to do combat maneuvers, there are ways to do that quite well.
Of course, none of those are actually fighter class features.but the only thing fighters have going for them is DPR...And maneuvers, and several styles of combat if they wish. Fighters are actually good at fighting, surprisingly enough.
They are feats, and feats are fighter class features. Of course I suppose you could just fill those feats slots with random selections, but I find myself that's it's good to have a nice, all-round set: One combat "style", one maneuver that's easy to fit with it, plus some archery (if that's not their style) so that they have a ranged option. It's easy to do all of this and still have good DPR as well, especially if you select the right weapons.
That's the thing with fighters, you can make what you want of them, but you have to know what you want of them.
|
|
I still think people greatly downplay the monk.
Great skills, best saves in the game except Paladin, same to hit as any TWFer when flurrying, quite a few bonus feat even if some are not that useful, and MANY interesting class features.
With permanized greater magic fang and an amulet of mighty fists, it is not that expensive to outfit them.
Some of their archetypes are crappy but than again quite a few classes have those.
Zen archer is one of the best class / archtype combos in the game.
Their main problem is build them to be a a monster at mid - high level and suffer through low levels, and at low point buys they suffer.
I don't think anybody questions the monk's survivability. That's why it will ALWAYS outpace the rogue. But awesome defenses are nothing compared to having a great offense. You'll survive but be of no use to the party.
Flurry is not the same as TWF - most TWFs are full BAB classes, and the only for whom it is worth going TWF over anything else (Rogues) are the only class that are already worse than the vanilla monk.
Monks can be okay mid levels, but really to make that they HAVE to suck at low levels. And they WILL suck at high levels. Suffering through bad levels to make a mid-level monster is one thing. Suffering through bad low levels to make an OKAY mid-level build is definitely not worth it.
And I think most people see the value of some of the monk archetypes - Zen Archer, Tetori, Qinggong, etc. - but looking at the vanilla monk? So not worth it.
|
|
Magic doesn't solve all the problems with combat maneuvers. Enlarge person may allow you to bull rush huge foes, but it won't let you bull rush gargantuan foes. Magic doesn't let you trip a flying creature. It doesn't let you disarm a dragon of her claws. It doesn't let you grapple someone with freedom of movement.
if i cant bull rush you i can grapple you (or hamatula strike)
if i cant trip you i can grapple you (or hamatula strike) or bull rush youif i cant grapple you i can trip you, bull rush you, disarm you, reposition you. if i choose to have a spell storing cestus (+dispell) and punch you i can remove your freedom of movement or steal the ring (FoM) off your finger.
if you only have one maneuver available then thats your fault for choosing that path with no alternate options. but dont make it seem like every monster in the game past level 10 is immune to every maneuver available to your character.
in conclusion maneuvers work at level 20, bad builds dont.
Flurry gives you the effect of a full BAB class that dual wields.
Yes and no, it gives you TWF full BAB, and it doesn't give you the static bonuses to attack that every other full BAB class has(rage, favored enemy, weapon training, etc). In this way you end up 7ish behind the other classes in attack as a monk, and 10 as a rogue, with a bit of variance of course.
if i cant bull rush you i can grapple you (or hamatula strike)
if i cant trip you i can grapple you (or hamatula strike) or bull rush you
if i cant grapple you i can trip you, bull rush you, disarm you, reposition you. if i choose to have a spell storing cestus (+dispell) and punch you i can remove your freedom of movement or steal the ring (FoM) off your finger.if you only have one maneuver available then thats your fault for choosing that path with no alternate options. but dont make it seem like every monster in the game past level 10 is immune to every maneuver available to your character.
Well just being large enough makes you immune to a good chunk of combat maneuvers. Not carrying around manufactured weapons makes you immune to disarm, sunder, and steal. Having both of those is quite common among monsters at higher levels. So we're left with just dirty trick and grapple. And grapple is negated by freedom of movement. The problem is, that's not a lot of versatility in your repertoire.
Also, your spell-storing cestus is dependent upon having a caster in the party. It's a good trick, but the credit for that goes at least as much to the caster as it does to your fighter. If the wizard casts haste on you, you don't get to take full credit for the extra attack. Same deal here. As for stealing a ring of freedom of movement:
Steal ... Items that are closely worn (such as armor, backpacks, boots, clothing, or rings) cannot be taken with this maneuver.
|
|
Also, your spell-storing cestus is dependent upon having a caster in the party.
do you travel without casters? i dont,
i keep forgetting that non casters cant purchase a scroll and use that in the cestus. man silly me :P
also what youre saying is if i use trip for targets that can be tripped, grapple for targets that can be grappled, and disarm or sunder for targets that can be disarmed or sundered my character will work just fine? thanks for proving my point. because i dont think any class in the game has enough feats to make a build like that work, wait a fighter can? REALLY? ONLY A FIGHTER?!?!? man i guess fighters are higher on the ladder then people give them credit for.
Those are awful lots of feats. Besides reposition is really bad. I have my doubts of how much effective this character coudl be.
I mean, A lore warden specialized in trip and grapple (hamatula strike) can still be a more than solid DPR build. BUt when you add reposition, bull rush and disarm then I do not know how much feat you have for DPR and saves.
yes nicos you figured it out the point in the character was to take every single maneuver and us e them at every opportunity...
i didnt just point out those maneuvers to make the point that there are more then 2 maneuvers.
CAGM Barbarian wedged in a doorway is my vote.
also what youre saying is if i use trip for targets that can be tripped, grapple for targets that can be grappled, and disarm or sunder for targets that can be disarmed or sundered my character will work just fine? thanks for proving my point. because i dont think any class in the game has enough feats to make a build like that work, wait a fighter can? REALLY? ONLY A FIGHTER?!?!? man i guess fighters are higher on the ladder then people give them credit for.
My point is that many foes past a certain level are immune to most combat maneuvers. So I guess yeah, you can use dirty trick on foes that aren't immune to dirty trick. Good luck building an effective character with that...
Flurry gives you the effect of a full BAB class that dual wields.
Yes and no, it gives you TWF full BAB, and it doesn't give you the static bonuses to attack that every other full BAB class has(rage, favored enemy, weapon training, etc). In this way you end up 7ish behind the other classes in attack as a monk, and 10 as a rogue, with a bit of variance of course.
This. You do not get full BAB to qualify for feats, and you are ALWAYS -2 to hit on a full BAB class that can opt to NOT TWF - an option you don't have.
Basically, you are the best at the worst fighting style.
If your Monk is missing all the time you do not know how to build one.
No, actually, you are probably just a monk trying to hit a challenging AC. You see the fighter (for example) is getting full BAB plus feats you can't have and Weapon Training, for up to +5 to hit over you, as well as that 2 from TWF. Oh yes, and he's probably got a better hitting stat than the monk, because he isn't so MAD. That's around +8 better off to hit than the monk at the top end of the scale. So anything that the fighter can only hit 50% of the time, the monk can only hit 10% of the time.
Yes, you can build a monk that hits CR equivalent foes well enough...but in APs you face up to CR+4 foes, buffed and ready. If he can't hit them, what can the monk do to them?
I wouldn't put CMB builds near the top of my top 5 character list. Too many creatures tend to be immune to CMB. They just require so much investment, CMD scales so quickly against you, and monsters are immune to so many its just hard to justify it, imo.
This thread got me thinking about whether or not it's possible to make a Paladin/Barbarian build that was stronger than either individually. And yes, it is possible to do, but whether or not it's *worth* doing is another thing all together. I'd appreciate your input, so please let me know what you think:
Of course, none of those are actually fighter class features.but the only thing fighters have going for them is DPR...And maneuvers, and several styles of combat if they wish. Fighters are actually good at fighting, surprisingly enough.
Who said they have to be fighter features? Hitting things isn't a class feature and yet barbarians, paladins, and rangers aren't critiqued like this. Spells aren't overly unique either. There's a ton of crossover and yet wizards aren't critiqued for this. Skills can be had by anyone and it's only a critique for why the fighter sucks out of combat but not the paladin or the sorcerer or the cleric (spells are a limited resource so they can't be relied on to compensate nearly as often as people like to pretend).
The fighter can be built to utilize a variety of tactics or maneuvers, hit well at range and melee, and even have some decent out of combat utility.
you have not to take all DPR feat in the game in order that the fighter deals good damage.
This is true.
If you need 20 feat just to have the hope of using a single maneuver in a given encounter then that is certainly non functional.
This is not true, it only takes two feats to "specialise" in a maneuver (three if you include the base feat, but you probably got that for something else anyway). Some foes are susceptible and some are not. You can put a few feats into a maneuver to deal with those that are susceptible and leave DPR for the ones that are not.
Specilize in somethings that give few in return is a bad thing.
That's true, but in the case of maneuvers the problem is that you cannot rely on them, not that they do not work at all. You can keep one or two up your sleeve for when you can apply them and they will pay dividends. I agree, they are too situational for a character that depends only on maneuvers to function, but if you can do DPR and a maneuver or two, you can do very well indeed.
Hitting things isn't a class feature and yet barbarians, paladins, and rangers aren't critiqued like this.
Your right, how dare we judge classes based on having class features! Clearly we should just them based on total variables they all share, instead of things that set them apart like an animal companion or a unique spell list or rage powers. [/sarcasm]
More seriously, they can all hit things, so they get judged on how hard and how many ways and how to succeed, rather than just the fact they can hit things. Similarly, its not just the fact you have any skills at all, its how well you can utilize it. I was referring to the fact anyone can take it a feat and that its not a unique class feature to have a feat. Anyone can take a style or maneuver related feat, but feats don't give you rage powers or even the ability to mimic them, and extra rage power is something barbarians are willing to pounce on because rage powers and class features weigh more than feats.
This is not true, it only takes two feats to "specialise" in a maneuver (three if you include the base feat, but you probably got that for something else anyway).
I don't think a lot of fighters are taking combat expertise or improved unarmed strike for reasons besides qualifying for combat maneuver feats. The lore warden does get combat expertise for free, though. That helps, insofar as it lets you overcome a stupid feat tax. You still need 13 Int to qualify for the combat maneuver feats.
The problem is, just to get to where you don't provoke an attack of opportunity for any combat maneuver, you have to spend about a dozen feats. Sure, you can ignore the obviously useless maneuvers like reposition, but that only saves you a few feats. If you also want the Greater combat maneuver feats, you're going to be spending most of your feats on combat maneuvers. Even going only for trip, disarm, grapple, and bull rush is 11 feats to get Greater [whatever] for all of them. That's a really big investment.
I really think combat maneuvers should be more effective. I use house rules in my home games to that effect. But as written in Pathfinder, they take a lot of investment for not too much gain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is my opinion...
Needs of the party and how well the party works together determines which martial is the best.
Here is my opinion...
Needs of the party and how well the party works together determines which martial is the best.
So... probably paladin then? :P
To answer the OP: Magus
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hitting things isn't a class feature and yet barbarians, paladins, and rangers aren't critiqued like this.Your right, how dare we judge classes based on having class features! Clearly we should just them based on total variables they all share, instead of things that set them apart like an animal companion or a unique spell list or rage powers. [/sarcasm]
More seriously, they can all hit things, so they get judged on how hard and how many ways and how to succeed, rather than just the fact they can hit things. Similarly, its not just the fact you have any skills at all, its how well you can utilize it. I was referring to the fact anyone can take it a feat and that its not a unique class feature to have a feat. Anyone can take a style or maneuver related feat, but feats don't give you rage powers or even the ability to mimic them, and extra rage power is something barbarians are willing to pounce on because rage powers and class features weigh more than feats.
Not anyone can take some feats. Also, like you said it's about how well you can utilize them. I can make some pretty nasty fighters.
Rage powers are awesome and I'm glad that you find them useful. I do as well. Rage powers don't negate the usefulness that fighters find with their feats.
You can't argue about effectiveness and uniqueness at the same time. Being unique does not make one effective. Every character you build should be unique. The fighter is customizable and consistent. The barbarian is customizable but not as consistent. They are both able to fill the roles intended for them.
Not anyone can take some feats.
Are you sure about that? Because I'm pretty sure everyone gets like... 10. At least 10.
Rage powers don't negate the usefulness that fighters find with their feats.
I didn't say it negated the usefulness of feats, I said rage powers were better than most feats and that they could do more. Find me a feat that replicates eater of magic, CAGM, Beast Totem even! Meanwhile, there are very few fighter only feats, and what they do is usually not that amazing, and the rest of the feats are open to everyone else to take(prerequisites are still a thing mind you).
so I was wondering what everyone thoughts are on which martial classes are the "strongest" keep most casters out, IE, Magus, druid, ect. acceptable classes are anything that do not go above 4th level spells. (or, basically less than half total spell levels)
IMO, paladin is one of the strongest, if not THE strongest in this area. with inquisitor or ranger a close second.
'Strong' can be interpreted a number of ways... for my money, its between Barbarians and Paladins with Lay on Hands (swift action self-heal and condition removal) tipping the scales.
That is misleading. How many class can have the entire hamatula strike feat chain (including, of course, grearter grapple and rapid grapple), before level 10 and still rock at DPR?
The hamatula strike feat chain is only 5 feats (and hamatula grasp doesn't look too great anyway). The only issue is that you have feats with prereqs BAB +6, +7, and +9. For DPR, you just need your class features (classes that aren't fighter get those!), power attack and a two-handed weapon. So that's not a big deal. Any full BAB character could have everything but hamatula grasp at 9th level. They would have to delay that until 11th level. That doesn't seem a big deal. If it's really important you have it before then, you can take a one level dip in fighter.
I find Witch Hunter/Invulnerable ragers to be really fun.
Who needs feats? I mean other than "Extra Rage Power"?
Superstitious, Witch Hunter, Spell Sunder, Eater of Magic, Reckless Abandon, CAGM, 3 Beast Totems, Power Attack, Cleave, Cleaving Finish, and Combat Reflexes. All by 12th level. Yowzah!
This is not true, it only takes two feats to "specialise" in a maneuver (three if you include the base feat, but you probably got that for something else anyway).I don't think a lot of fighters are taking combat expertise or improved unarmed strike for reasons besides qualifying for combat maneuver feats. The lore warden does get combat expertise for free, though. That helps, insofar as it lets you overcome a stupid feat tax. You still need 13 Int to qualify for the combat maneuver feats.
True, but the same feat can qualify for several maneuver feats. Combat Expertise lets you trip and disarm, for example. Power Attack (which you almost certainly WILL take anyway) gives access to bull rush and sunder.
The problem is, just to get to where you don't provoke an attack of opportunity for any combat maneuver, you have to spend about a dozen feats.
Or use a reach weapon.
Sure, you can ignore the obviously useless maneuvers like reposition, but that only saves you a few feats. If you also want the Greater combat maneuver feats, you're going to be spending most of your feats on combat maneuvers. Even going only for trip, disarm, grapple, and bull rush is 11 feats to get Greater [whatever] for all of them. That's a really big investment.
Who needs to invest in all of them? If I want a fighter that uses maneuvers, I want to control the battlefield, so I'll use a reach weapon and apply the feats I want with that - mainly trip and disarm. I'm not going to grapple with it, and I don't care about bull-rushing. That's a five feat investment, easily manageable.
The thing here is I want extra arrows for my bow, not a whole new bow.
I really think combat maneuvers should be more effective. I use house rules in my home games to that effect. But as written in Pathfinder, they take a lot of investment for not too much gain.
They are situational. If you have the right maneuver in the right situation, it works just great. You don't need to be able to do all the maneuvers, you have DPR. You just want a few that will help if the situation comes up.
I did say including greater grapple and rapid grapple that highly increase the damage potential in using the hamatula strike feats. You disagree that those are part of the chain? fine I would reprhase.That is misleading. How many class can have the entire hamatula strike feat chain (including, of course, grearter grapple and rapid grapple), before level 10 and still rock at DPR?The hamatula strike feat chain is only 5 feats (and hamatula grasp doesn't look too great anyway). The only issue is that you have feats with prereqs BAB +6, +7, and +9. For DPR, you just need your class features (classes that aren't fighter get those!), power attack and a two-handed weapon. So that's not a big deal. Any full BAB character could have everything but hamatula grasp at 9th level. They would have to delay that until 11th level. That doesn't seem a big deal. If it's really important you have it before then, you can take a one level dip in fighter.
Oh, I missed rapid grappler. The 5 feats I was thinking of were improved unarmed strike, improved grapple, greater grapple, hamatula strike, and hamatula grasp. That gives us another feat we need to account for. So our paladin takes a 2 level dip of fighter then. Big deal.