How to make the fighter and monk in my group feel less useless?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 309 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

chaoseffect wrote:
Tels wrote:
Even that alchemist with 2 vestigial arms, a parasitic twin and a tumor familiar needs love.
Easy solution here. Improved Familiar: Lyrakien. Awwww yeah. If it's technically your tumor, does that make it masturbation? The world may never know.

That's a real life Bewildering Koan. But it has more to do with the horrifying mental picture.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terokai wrote:
if you are playing a non society game i highly recommend upping your fighters skill points level 4+int a level or even 6+int depending on how much more utility you want them to have.

I've been looking at making changes to the Fighter class, and instead of just adding blanket "more skills", I've written a class ability that kind of tailors the skill benefits.

Applied Training:

Applied Training (Ex): A fighter is able to find ways to apply his in combat training in an out of combat career. A fighter must choose his career upon taking his first level. Once this choice is made, it cannot be changed.
.
Craftsman: Reliable weaponry and equipment is the staple of any warrior. This fighter knows his way around tools, and is able to craft and repair items with great skill. The fighter gains a skill rank per level of fighter in craft (armor), craft (bows), craft (weapons), and one additional craft skill (metalwork, clothing, stone, jewelry, woodwork, etc). If the fighter has or gains the Gunsmithing feat, he includes craft (firearms). The fighter measures progress in gold instead of silver when using these skills.
Additionally, the fighter gains the Craft Wondrous Item at 3rd level and Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat at 5th level, using his fighter level as his caster level for purposes of item creation prerequisites, and must use a craft skill in place of spellcraft for creation checks. The fighter can only craft wondrous items that can be created using craft skills (gained by this career or from normal skill points).
.
Engineer: Tools of combat expand easily to tools of war, including creation of siege weapons or vehicles. The fighter gains a skill rank per level of fighter in craft (siege engines), knowledge (engineering), profession (siege engineer) and profession (driver). If the fighter has or gains the Gunsmithing feat, he includes craft (firearms). He also gains the Siege Engineer feat if campaign applicable.
At 5th level, the fighter is treated as having the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat and a caster level equal to his fighter level for purposes of crafting magical siege engines, and magically treating buildings, gates and walls. The fighter can also now make any driving checks using his fighter level in place of skill ranks no matter the vehicle used (he still uses the appropriate ability score modifier for the skill he replaced).
.
Exploiter: Knowledge is a powerful tool, and knowing your enemy can be critical in combat. This fighter keeps abreast of crucial information on those he seeks to conquer or kill, be it monster or organization. The fighter gains a skill rank per level of fighter in knowledge (local) and treats it as a class skill. He also gains a bonus equal to half his fighter levels (minimum 1) towards gather information checks, and knowledge checks to identify a monster or organization, and can make those checks untrained.
.
Guard: Guarding key objects, protecting important people, or simply keeping lookout, all require training beyond the martial. The fighter gains a skill rank per level of fighter in perception and sense motive, and treats sense motive as a class skill. The fighter does not suffer penalties for being distracted or asleep and can wake himself in reaction to a sound. He also requires only 2 hours of rest to recover from fatigue, does not become exhausted by performing further action that would cause fatigue, and can sleep in any armor without becoming fatigued.
Lastly the fighter gains a bonus equal to half his fighter level (minimum 1) towards initiative checks for surprise rounds, and the first round of combat.
.
Survivalist: Staying alive is paramount, and a smart fighter looks beyond just the next fight. Self-reliance and staying alive in the harshest environs is this fighter's focus. The fighter gains a skill rank per level of fighter in knowledge (nature), knowledge (geography), and survival, and treats knowledge (nature) and knowledge (geography) as class skills. The fighter also ignores armor check penalties for climb and swim checks, and gains a bonus equal to half his fighter level (minimum 1) towards both climb and swim checks, checks to avoid getting lost, as well as saves against any environmental effects.
.
Trainer: Animals are often a great asset, however they can have a greater application outside of battle. The fighter gains a skill rank per level of fighter in Handle Animal, and can train animals far quicker than normal, measuring time in days rather than weeks.
In addition, the fighter can grant special training that can boost a specific animal beyond it's normal capabilities. The fighter gains a training pool equal to 3 plus his fighter level. By spending a week training a specific animal, he can grant that animal the Elite Training ability, which allows an additional 3 tricks known and allows the animal to be granted additional class levels by the fighter. The fighter must spend 1 hour per day training with the animal to assign the class levels, and to maintain the animal's training. The fighter can assign a single level of warrior or expert to an elite trained animal per training pool point (up to his fighter level). The fighter can have as many elite trained animals as he wants, but he must divide the training pool class levels amongst all the animals.
The animal keeps the extra levels for 24 hours, and loses elite training if not maintained for 1 week.
Creatures that can be trained in this way are those that can normally be trained by the Handle Animal skill to gain tricks (creatures with Int 1 or 2).

These have only been slapped together really, I've had no chance to playtest any of it. However, considering how little the Fighter class contributes outside of combat, I suspect that it's not going to overshadow anyone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
aboniks wrote:
gamer-printer wrote:
Monks only need to be lawful, not lawful good.
Or they can be Martial Artists, and have any alignment.
Or you can talk to your GM, 'cause I've never met one that didn't think that was a stupid rule.

And now you have.


Question wrote:
Fighters are good at what, climbing and swimming? These are not exactly skills that come up often unless your DM loves running adventures where you have to climb and swim all over the place. The last time our party had to use the swim skill, we had no fighter types or good swimmers and we spent more than half an hour IRL just trying to swim past this part until the DM gave up and handwaved it as us using ropes to get past this part successfully. In a typical party, the fighter would swim through this part and the rest of the party would get stuck, or the wizard would be forced to cast multiple fly spells for the other party members.

A better idea is to find uses for those type skills and abilities that allow for interaction with NPCs. Have the local arm wrestling champ challenge the fighter to a arm wrestling match. Get to know the grappling rules better by having a wrestling challenge or two, with the winner gaining local prestige and favor with the locals, making it easier for the party to get the items/information/help that they need from the otherwise reluctant locals to move the adventure along. Let the fighter challenge the locals, and guards as it is appropriate, to competitions that reflect his fighting prowess and physical strength rather than simply depending on diplomacy or intimidate checks, giving both him and the party a boost in the locals' views should he win. If there's a river or a cliff nearby, or if on a boat, a tall mast, have climbing and swimming competitions. Similar things could be done with the monk's skills and capabilities; if he has acrobatics, have the party encounter local competitions that utilize that skill.

A large part of the problem tends to be that a lot of people tend to isolate physical skills and combat abilities to just pure combat, and social skills to pure non-combat; this really wasn't the reality in real life, and it shouldn't be in a reasonably well portrayed campaign. Have fun with the types of competitions/interactions you come up with, and be creative in the lore behind them, and both the fighter and the monk should be able to find ways to keep involved outside of combat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Makarion wrote:

I may be fighting a losing battle here, but what is left for the rogue if the fighter has a base of 6+int? Even at the current state of the game a rogue can barely hold his own, and mainly outside of combat.

Not sure how the existence of a gimped class can be a justification for to have another gimped class.


Makarion wrote:
See, that's the problem: players that optimize for combat complain that not everything is combat. There may just be a miss-match between the campaign and the players, which has next to nothing to do with the actual character classes.

Not really. The magus can optimize for combat and still have for free a lot of out of combat utility in the form of skill points and spells. The same for almost every other class out there. Only the fighter have to sacrifice in combat prowess in order to have something to do out of combat.


To the OP, with some effort and system mastery you can have fighters and monsk that do well enough in and out of combat, It would help to actually have more information about the entire group. Like at least some idea of the builds and intended roles.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

AM NOT "AM BARBARIAN," BUT AM OTHER BARBARIAN, AND AM SAY NOT ENOUGH BARBARIAN FOR FIGHTY AND "KUNG-FU MAN" BE GOOD OUTSIDE OF SMASH-TIME. BARBARIAN AM GET MORE "SKEE-ULZ" THAN FIGHTY AND "KUNG-FU MAN."

AM "OH-PIN-YUN" THAT SMASH ONLY IMPORTANT THING TO HAVE, AS IF AM NOT SMASH GOOD, AM NOT GOOD AT ALL. BUT AM FEEL FOR FIGHTY AND "KUNG-FU MAN," AS FIGHTY AM ONLY GOOD AT SMASH, AND "KUNG-FU MAN" NOT AS GOOD AT SMASH. FIGHTY AND "KUNG-FU MAN" NOT AS GOOD AT SMASH AS BARBARIAN, BUT AM CAN STILL SMASH.

AM THINK FIGHTY AND "KUNG-FU MAN" NEED "SKEE-ULZ" THAT GOOD FOR SMASH-TIME AND NOT-SMASH-TIME. AM KNOW BARBARIAN GOOD AT SCARY-LOOKING, AND AM THINK FIGHTY AND "KUNG-FU MAN" ALSO GOOD AT IT, BUT NOT AS GOOD AT SCARY-LOOKING AS BARBARIAN, BUT AM BETTER THAN NOTHING.

AM ALSO THINK FIGHTY AND "KUNG-FU MAN" NEED BUY SMART THINGIES SO AM BETTER AT NOT-SMASH-TIME. BARBARIAN AM TAKE SMART THINGIES AND RUN CIRCLES AROUND SMART CASTIES, AM THINK FIGHTY AND "KUNG-FU MAN" BE AS GOOD AS SMART CASTIES AT NOT-SMASH-TIME.

AM HOPE FIGHTY AND "KUNG-FU MAN" BE AS GOOD AT NOT-SMASH-TIME AS BARBARIAN AM WITH BARBARIAN NOT-SMASH-TIME SMASHING!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pomkin wrote:

I've got a group with a druid, a magus, a fighter, a monk, and a rogue.

The monk and fighter are complaining about feeling totally useless for anything out of combat, but I don't know how to rectify this for them.

What could I do for them that the other classes couldn't do better?

I agree w/ Aboniks and Static Hamster. the best idea I can think of is not to roll dice and provide those players w/ what I call a "positive social situation". Give them something to like, something to increase their buy-in to the campaign. If a fighter does their job well they'll earn reknown through deeds, not words, and the bar patrons/townsfolk will love them even more as time goes on.

I don't care how high a charisma you have, if you continue to act like a total jerk the town won't like you. they won't say it to your face, but they'll talk behind your back to be sure. Meanwhile the fighter w/ the 7 charisma who is always there for the village won't have to roll any diplomacy dice because he's the Thane of Whiterun and he doesn't need to since he's carrying the Battleaxe of the Jarl's on his back and people tell him "it's a fine day with you around".

It's all about proper Table Dynamics. When your players demonstrate buy in and react favorably to the foundation of the world you have assembled, they in turn become fellow world-builders. The campaign keeps building from that synergy.

If your fighter and monk do their level best to avoid any kind of spotlight or reject potential social situations, then you've got a problem. Hopefully this isn't the case. Hope you can turn them around!


"He may not talk very much, and may be a little gruff or rude when he does, but you can be sure that if you ever need help, you can depend on Rayloth being there."

Seriously how many "bad boy with a heart of gold" personalities exist in film or literature? A Cha 7 fighter could fit this image exactly. Hey may not be the best guy to talk with, or he may not be the most handsome, but the guys a hero and he deserves the respect he's earned.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Question wrote:
Fighters are good at what, climbing and swimming?
Core Rulebook wrote:
The fighter's class skills are Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (dungeoneering) (Int), Knowledge (engineering) (Int), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Survival (Wis), and Swim (Str).

Solution: Don't dump Int and Cha to 7. You'll be as good at class Int skills (like Craft (Armor), Craft (Bowmaking), Craft (Weapons), Knowledge (Dungeoneering)*, or Knowledge (Engineering)**) as the cleric is at Knowledge (Religion), and can already track about as well as any non-ranger or Wis-based caster. With a trait (or more, with the Additional Traits feat), the fighter can easily add more class skills.

*-Used to identify aberrations and oozes
**- For analyzing structures for sound construction, weak points, and age/architectural style, as well as constructing/using siege engines

Question wrote:

You want fighters to be useful out of combat, theres a few things you can do :

-Give them more skill points

See my polearm tripping fighter above with 17 Str, 5 Skill Ranks per level, and +3 hp per level.

Question wrote:
-Give them more class skills

See earlier in this post about the Additional Traits feat.

Question wrote:
-Add stats to some skills, so for example intimidate can function off strength OR charisma.

You mean like the feat Intimidating Prowess that a fighter can even select as a bonus Combat Feat?

Don't complain that "fighters don't have options" to do all/any of the above when you refuse to make the character development choices that are already in the system to let you do just that.


So your solution is for the fighter to make sacrifices to get things that most other classes have by default or can at least do equally well, if not better?

Any class with survival as a class skill can by default track better than fighters who do not have it a class skill. Sure the fighter can find a trait that lets him have it as a class skill...then again another class could be using that trait on something else too. A cleric has 9 levels of spells that lets him have tons of out of combat utility that the fighter simply cannot match no matter what traits he takes.

Its a common misconception that fighters have lots of feats to burn, given how feat tax heavy most fighter feats are. Weapon focus and specialization is 4 feats alone. Combat expertise by itself is crap and tripping fails on most higher level monsters (feel free to try and trip a flying lich, or a dragon).

I dont see why fighters need to take a feat to be good at intimidating when thats something they should be able to do right out of the gate, and which would give them built in social utility. Its like forcing wizards to take a feat to cast level 1 spells and then saying "WELL YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO DO THAT STOP COMPLAINING WIZARDS ARE WEAK".

All your arguments can be copy pasted to make the NPC commoner class look balanced, just change the names around a bit and say that commoners can do X, Y and Z to be better...

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Feeling worthless outside of combat sounds like a roleplay issue to me. Tell them to brush up on their imaginations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pomkin wrote:

The monk and fighter are complaining about feeling totally useless for anything out of combat, but I don't know how to rectify this for them.

What could I do for them that the other classes couldn't do better?

Hope that they learn their lesson for next time? If you build your character for nothing but combat then thats what you'll be left with. If you're concerned with the numbers, use traits to add to your skill list and move some points around. Not enough skill points? Stop dumping intelligence. Of course you could always simply make a character you like role-playing. You don't need to be trained in diplomacy to talk to someone. The alternative of course is to make a shallow character and be stuck complaining about it.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Makarion wrote:
See, that's the problem: players that optimize for combat complain that not everything is combat. There may just be a miss-match between the campaign and the players, which has next to nothing to do with the actual character classes.
Not really. The magus can optimize for combat and still have for free a lot of out of combat utility in the form of skill points and spells. The same for almost every other class out there.Only the fighter have to sacrifice in combat prowess in order to have something to do out of combat.

I can NOT comprehend this. This is what ROLE PLAY is all about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Not enough skill points? Stop dumping intelligence.

This would be an argument if the point-buy system didn't necessitate stat dumping in order to get the requisite stats. Even Dragonchess' Fighter build (which fails to get a base Strength of 18 OR a 16 Dex OR a 16 Con OR a 14 Wis (I would not expect the same character to have all four of those (or even all three of the physical stats), but to fail to acquire any of them is in my opinion bad form for a Fighter) dumps Cha to 8.

EDIT: I will say, however, that I agree with Don- dependent on the GM. There are GMs out there who call for dice rolls during any roleplay interaction involving NPCs for whom roleplaying a low cha or low int (or god forbid both) character without the skill points to support said interactions outside the party in any way becomes an exercise in failure.


DonKeebals wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Makarion wrote:
See, that's the problem: players that optimize for combat complain that not everything is combat. There may just be a miss-match between the campaign and the players, which has next to nothing to do with the actual character classes.
Not really. The magus can optimize for combat and still have for free a lot of out of combat utility in the form of skill points and spells. The same for almost every other class out there.Only the fighter have to sacrifice in combat prowess in order to have something to do out of combat.
I can NOT comprehend this. This is what ROLE PLAY is all about.

If the DM ask you to make a DC 30 diplomac check no rolpelay help you with that.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
DonKeebals wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Makarion wrote:
See, that's the problem: players that optimize for combat complain that not everything is combat. There may just be a miss-match between the campaign and the players, which has next to nothing to do with the actual character classes.
Not really. The magus can optimize for combat and still have for free a lot of out of combat utility in the form of skill points and spells. The same for almost every other class out there.Only the fighter have to sacrifice in combat prowess in order to have something to do out of combat.
I can NOT comprehend this. This is what ROLE PLAY is all about.
If the DM say to roll to beah the DC 30 diplomac check no rolpelay help you with that.

Then you roleplay the consequences of it, find another way around it, bribe, bluff, something. The notion that if my character isn't optimized I am useless is absolutely appalling to me. My character is more than a set of stats, he's a projection of my imagination and a character I birthed in to a fantasy world that I intend to see him through. I don't care that he isn't pretty, healthy, smart or strong.

I play Pathfinder the roleplaying game, not a tactical war game.


DonKeebals wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
DonKeebals wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Makarion wrote:
See, that's the problem: players that optimize for combat complain that not everything is combat. There may just be a miss-match between the campaign and the players, which has next to nothing to do with the actual character classes.
Not really. The magus can optimize for combat and still have for free a lot of out of combat utility in the form of skill points and spells. The same for almost every other class out there.Only the fighter have to sacrifice in combat prowess in order to have something to do out of combat.
I can NOT comprehend this. This is what ROLE PLAY is all about.
If the DM say to roll to beah the DC 30 diplomac check no rolpelay help you with that.

Then you roleplay the consequences of it, find another way around it, bribe, bluff, something. The notion that if my character isn't optimized I am useless is absolutely appalling to me. My character is more than a set of stats, he's a projection of my imagination and a character I birthed in to a fantasy world that I intend to see him through. I don't care that he isn't pretty, healthy, smart or strong.

I play Pathfinder the roleplaying game, not a tactical war game.

There are several things in your post.

FIrst and foremost the reason you play pathfinder are fine, but extrapolate them to others is not adviceable.

Second, as I say a post afther the one you quoted, the fighter could indeed be good out of combat but lets face it it take more system mastery and more resources to do it.

A fighter need int 14 to have the same skill of a int 10 barbarian. But that does not come for free, what does the fighter sacrifize?

Str - Now the barbarian is doing more damage, so my assertion stands.
Con - Now the barbarian have more hit points so my assertion stands
Dex - Now the fighter lost edge in AC and reflex saves
Wis - Oh hell no, never, ever.
Cha - Now the barbarian is better in social situation, who would say it?

So, to have the same number of skills as the barbarian the fighter does indeed need to sacrifize in combat prowess or cha (but the barbarian could also dump cha and now he recovers the skill superiority)

And, lets face it again, the fighter does not have and edge in combat over the barbarian.

So, how is my statement untrue?


DonKeebals wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
DonKeebals wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Makarion wrote:
See, that's the problem: players that optimize for combat complain that not everything is combat. There may just be a miss-match between the campaign and the players, which has next to nothing to do with the actual character classes.
Not really. The magus can optimize for combat and still have for free a lot of out of combat utility in the form of skill points and spells. The same for almost every other class out there.Only the fighter have to sacrifice in combat prowess in order to have something to do out of combat.
I can NOT comprehend this. This is what ROLE PLAY is all about.
If the DM say to roll to beah the DC 30 diplomac check no rolpelay help you with that.

Then you roleplay the consequences of it, find another way around it, bribe, bluff, something. The notion that if my character isn't optimized I am useless is absolutely appalling to me. My character is more than a set of stats, he's a projection of my imagination and a character I birthed in to a fantasy world that I intend to see him through. I don't care that he isn't pretty, healthy, smart or strong.

I play Pathfinder the roleplaying game, not a tactical war game.

Bluff- Good luck passing a bluff check as a fighter...

Bribe- Ok, so your suggesting that the fighter has to use his WBL to do what most other classes can do fairly well is kind of weak. Instead of forcing the fighter to waste his money, just let the Bard/Rogue/Caster with Charm/Inquisitor/Oracle/Sorcerer/Paladin/Cavalier take care of it..

Finding another way around it- Like WHAT? Tell me something, ANYTHING, that the fighter can do in a non-combat scenerio that the others cannot do? Do note that in the OP he asks for ways to make the fighter feel less useless out of combat IN A PARTY. I.e. tell me something for the fighter to do that just isn't easier for the Bard/Rogue/Wizard/Inquisitor/ whatever else to do? I mean, in a Party setting, the fighter literally brings NOTHING out of combat. Sure, you can try an force the Fighter to be able to do something, but in a party setting, there is very little reason for the fighter to do it over ANY other class...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Monk: Give him amulet of Dire Tiger transformation.

Fighter: Give him Amulet of Cloud Giant transformation.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

While it's slightly less of a problem for me since I give fighters the 4 + Int skill points, I have never had this issue, which leads me to believe that, yes, it's a problem with the players/campaign and not the classes.

My friends might just be weird, but sometimes it seems like they have as much—if not MORE—fun joking around about what their characters can't do as they do with succeeding at the things the characters excel at.

The amount of laughter the barbarian's horrible Diplomacy check, which usually expressed by a rediculous in-character comment, is remembered longer and more fondly than the 12th consecutive time the bard managed to lie the party out of a bad situation.

Sovereign Court

K177Y C47 wrote:
DonKeebals wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
DonKeebals wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Makarion wrote:
See, that's the problem: players that optimize for combat complain that not everything is combat. There may just be a miss-match between the campaign and the players, which has next to nothing to do with the actual character classes.
Not really. The magus can optimize for combat and still have for free a lot of out of combat utility in the form of skill points and spells. The same for almost every other class out there.Only the fighter have to sacrifice in combat prowess in order to have something to do out of combat.
I can NOT comprehend this. This is what ROLE PLAY is all about.
If the DM say to roll to beah the DC 30 diplomac check no rolpelay help you with that.

Then you roleplay the consequences of it, find another way around it, bribe, bluff, something. The notion that if my character isn't optimized I am useless is absolutely appalling to me. My character is more than a set of stats, he's a projection of my imagination and a character I birthed in to a fantasy world that I intend to see him through. I don't care that he isn't pretty, healthy, smart or strong.

I play Pathfinder the roleplaying game, not a tactical war game.

Bluff- Good luck passing a bluff check as a fighter...

Bribe- Ok, so your suggesting that the fighter has to use his WBL to do what most other classes can do fairly well is kind of weak. Instead of forcing the fighter to waste his money, just let the Bard/Rogue/Caster with Charm/Inquisitor/Oracle/Sorcerer/Paladin/Cavalier take care of it..

Finding another way around it- Like WHAT? Tell me something, ANYTHING, that the fighter can do in a non-combat scenerio that the others cannot do? Do note that in the OP he asks for ways to make the fighter feel less useless out of combat IN A PARTY. I.e. tell me something for the fighter to do that just isn't easier for the...

It's not about what the stats say a character can do, it's about what the player does. If a scene calls for a player to make DC X to achieve something and they roleplay it well, I drop the DC. Why punish the player? The game is supposed to be fun. I'm not saying fighters get to roleplay a disable device check or UMD. I am saying that it's up to the players to make themselves more useful. No point in complaining about not having something to do outside of combat if you aren't trying to do something.


The fighter can make suggestions for how other people can use their far-superior talents. That's about it.

I went for 4 skill points, and gave them Acrobatics, Bluff, Diplomacy, and Sense Motive added to the skill list.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DonKeebals wrote:
It's not about what the stats say a character can do, it's about what the player does. If a scene calls for a player to make DC X to achieve something and they roleplay it well, I drop the DC. Why punish the player? The game is supposed to be fun. I'm not saying fighters get to roleplay a disable device check or UMD. I am saying that it's up to the players to make themselves more useful. No point in complaining about not having something to do outside of combat if you aren't trying to do something.

You are blaming the player but in your example is you the DM who is lowering the DC.

But what about perception or stealth? or perhaps acrobatics, heal, and the knowledge skills? is there a roleplay that lower the DC of those?

And yeah, giving the fighter 4+int skill per level is in the top 10 more reasonable house rule ever.


DonKeebals wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
DonKeebals wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
DonKeebals wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Makarion wrote:
See, that's the problem: players that optimize for combat complain that not everything is combat. There may just be a miss-match between the campaign and the players, which has next to nothing to do with the actual character classes.
Not really. The magus can optimize for combat and still have for free a lot of out of combat utility in the form of skill points and spells. The same for almost every other class out there.Only the fighter have to sacrifice in combat prowess in order to have something to do out of combat.
I can NOT comprehend this. This is what ROLE PLAY is all about.
If the DM say to roll to beah the DC 30 diplomac check no rolpelay help you with that.

Then you roleplay the consequences of it, find another way around it, bribe, bluff, something. The notion that if my character isn't optimized I am useless is absolutely appalling to me. My character is more than a set of stats, he's a projection of my imagination and a character I birthed in to a fantasy world that I intend to see him through. I don't care that he isn't pretty, healthy, smart or strong.

I play Pathfinder the roleplaying game, not a tactical war game.

Bluff- Good luck passing a bluff check as a fighter...

Bribe- Ok, so your suggesting that the fighter has to use his WBL to do what most other classes can do fairly well is kind of weak. Instead of forcing the fighter to waste his money, just let the Bard/Rogue/Caster with Charm/Inquisitor/Oracle/Sorcerer/Paladin/Cavalier take care of it..

Finding another way around it- Like WHAT? Tell me something, ANYTHING, that the fighter can do in a non-combat scenerio that the others cannot do? Do note that in the OP he asks for ways to make the fighter feel less useless out of combat IN A PARTY. I.e. tell me something for the fighter to do that just isn't easier for

...

So what you are saying is that, in order to help the fighter, you are going to take away from the Rogue/Bard/Oracle/Sorcerer/Paladin/Inquisitor who put point in Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate and are actually GOOD at it? In order to make the fighter remotely capable to passing more social encounters requires you to either:

1)Drop the DC down to the point where classes that are actually GOOD at social encounters suddenly feel jipped.

2) Handwave the DCs and checks away, again punishing anyone who actually built a Socialite.

3) arbitrarily droppin the DC JUST FOR THE FIGHTER, which causes the skill classes to feel gimped because things are harder for them just because they are not in the "Special Ed" group.

None of these are legitimate things to do without pissing off everyone else...


And herein lies the difference between those of us who of us who think of this as a role-playing game, and those of us who think of this as a role-playing game.

I appreciate both views, but I hold tight to the first.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
aboniks wrote:

And herein lies the difference between those of us who of us who think of this as a role-playing game, and those of us who think of this as a role-playing game.

That is a weak argument. There is no difference. The game has Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate as skills for a reason. To do anything with social skills to influence people requires these rolls. That is THE BASE DEFAULT RULES. If you want to HOUSE RULE Other wise that is good for you. But as the game WAS DESIGNED AND MADE, the rolls are madatory and "RP reasons" fall into Rule 0.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ellis Mirari wrote:

While it's slightly less of a problem for me since I give fighters the 4 + Int skill points, I have never had this issue, which leads me to believe that, yes, it's a problem with the players/campaign and not the classes.

My friends might just be weird, but sometimes it seems like they have as much—if not MORE—fun joking around about what their characters can't do as they do with succeeding at the things the characters excel at.

The amount of laughter the barbarian's horrible Diplomacy check, which usually expressed by a rediculous in-character comment, is remembered longer and more fondly than the 12th consecutive time the bard managed to lie the party out of a bad situation.

"Learn to enjoy being useless" isn't very good advice. There's nothing wrong with playing an incompetent character (assuming the rest of the group is all for it and are okay with the consequences). However, it should be something you do on purpose, because you built your character that way, not because you accidentally picked the wrong class. Suppose there was a Fighter* class which was like the Fighter, except it could contribute out of combat. You could play a Fighter* who's bad at diplomacy or whatever while someone who wants to play a Fighter* but not be bored when out of initiative order could do so. Everyone wins.


DonKeebals wrote:
Feeling worthless outside of combat sounds like a roleplay issue to me. Tell them to brush up on their imaginations.

The skill system puts a limit on imagination. I mean no matter how much imagination you have, you are not going to make a DC 30 skill check without the required stats, ranks and modifiers unless your DM wants to handwave you as succeeding anyway. Just like how a level 1 character is not going to hit as hard as a level 20 no matter how much imagination the player has.


K177Y C47 wrote:
aboniks wrote:

And herein lies the difference between those of us who of us who think of this as a role-playing game, and those of us who think of this as a role-playing game.

That is a weak argument. There is no difference. The game has Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate as skills for a reason. To do anything with social skills to influence people requires these rolls. That is THE BASE DEFAULT RULES. If you want to HOUSE RULE Other wise that is good for you. But as the game WAS DESIGNED AND MADE, the rolls are madatory and "RP reasons" fall into Rule 0.

Actually it wasn't an argument at all. It's just an observation about players and ways they enjoy the experience, not a statement about mechanics.

However, you've pretty much made my point for me. Thank you kindly for doing it so clearly.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
DonKeebals wrote:
It's not about what the stats say a character can do, it's about what the player does. If a scene calls for a player to make DC X to achieve something and they roleplay it well, I drop the DC. Why punish the player? The game is supposed to be fun. I'm not saying fighters get to roleplay a disable device check or UMD. I am saying that it's up to the players to make themselves more useful. No point in complaining about not having something to do outside of combat if you aren't trying to do something.
You are balming the player but in your example is you the DM who is lowering the DC.

Only if the player is just going to act like a bump on a log outside of combat. A player that tries to have fun and roleplay a situation out I will absolutely help.

Quote:
But what about perception or stealth? or perhaps acrobatics, heal, and the knowledge skills? is there a roleplay that lower the DC of those?

Could be if the idea behind it is thought out enough and roleplayed well.

K177Y C47 wrote:
So what you are saying is that, in order to help the fighter, you are going to take away from the Rogue/Bar..blah blah blah blah....

No, what I am saying is I will help a PLAYER that is trying.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Core Rule Book Page 9 wrote:

The Most Important Rule

The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into
your characters and the world they explore. While they are
designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might
find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your
gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours.
You can change them to fit your needs.

Above all, have fun.


DonKeebals wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
DonKeebals wrote:
It's not about what the stats say a character can do, it's about what the player does. If a scene calls for a player to make DC X to achieve something and they roleplay it well, I drop the DC. Why punish the player? The game is supposed to be fun. I'm not saying fighters get to roleplay a disable device check or UMD. I am saying that it's up to the players to make themselves more useful. No point in complaining about not having something to do outside of combat if you aren't trying to do something.
You are balming the player but in your example is you the DM who is lowering the DC.

Only if the player is just going to act like a bump on a log outside of combat. A player that tries to have fun and roleplay a situation out I will absolutely help.

Quote:
But what about perception or stealth? or perhaps acrobatics, heal, and the knowledge skills? is there a roleplay that lower the DC of those?

Could be if the idea behind it is thought out enough and roleplayed well.

K177Y C47 wrote:
So what you are saying is that, in order to help the fighter, you are going to take away from the Rogue/Bar..blah blah blah blah....

No, what I am saying is I will help a PLAYER that is trying.

You have a very particular way of DMing, if it help you and your group to have fun good for you.

But not sue how that adrees the mehcanical issues stated in the thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is why I have always STRONGLY encouraged all my player to come up with a little bit of a background for their characters. Why did your mage leave the library? Why did you pick up a sword and decide to fight trolls and dragons? what is your character's ultimate goal. That gives fighters and other melee characters TONS of out of character tasks. Do you make a fighter roll a Diplomacy check to seal the deal with an NPC for information? No. Have the NPC send the fighter off to beat someone up or have someone show up to kill the NPC and the fighter gets to be a hero by himself without rest of the party.


DTrueheart wrote:
This is why I have always STRONGLY encouraged all my player to come up with a little bit of a background for their characters. Why did your mage leave the library? Why did you pick up a sword and decide to fight trolls and dragons? what is your character's ultimate goal. That gives fighters and other melee characters TONS of out of character tasks. Do you make a fighter roll a Diplomacy check to seal the deal with an NPC for information? No. Have the NPC send the fighter off to beat someone up or have someone show up to kill the NPC and the fighter gets to be a hero by himself without rest of the party.

Or... you can just have any of the other characters just make a diplomacy check/RP (with the diplomacy check judging sccess or failure). Sounds a little easier to me.

As for the fighter "being the hero without the rest of the party." That is kind of a stretch... If the threat is simple enough for the fighter to solo, then it is not a real threat. Sadly, the fighter is PAINFULLY dependent on his party to do... well much of anything. Can the threat fly? If your not an Archer or don't have boots of flying your screwed (and if you do have boots of flying, chances are the flying creature is as fast/if not faster than you and can just keep flying circles until your magic wears off). The monster Capable of banging you around a bit? Sucks without a cleric. The enemy capable of dealing Neg Levs or Stat Damage/Drain? Well with no cleric/oracle/paladin/inquisitor/Alchemist you are kinda boned. Oh and god forbid you have to go up against something that has stupid levels of DR like Adamantine Golems (easily the biggest pain in the rear for martials predominately)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

AM SEE "PEE-PUL" WHINE ABOUT "SKEE-ULZ," AND AM LAUGH AT THE "PEE-PUL" FOR NOT TAKING BARBARIAN SMART THINGIES. AM WONDER IF SHOULD SMASH "PEE-PUL" FOR NOT BEING GOOD AS BARBARIAN AM GOOD AT THINGS, BUT AM FORGIVE "PEE-PUL," BECAUSE "PEE-PUL" AM WANT SMASH AS GOOD AS BARBARIAN, BUT WANT BE NOT-BARBARIAN. AM NOT CARE, AS AM SMASH, AND SMASH GOOD.

BUT AM HAVE GOOD "SKEE-ULZ" AS BARBARIAN, AND IF AM LACKING SOME "SKEE-ULZ" FOR BEING NOT-BARBARIAN, AM NO BIG DEAL WHEN YOU HAVE CASTIES AND NOT-BARBARIANS DO THE NOT-SMASH-TIME THINGS, FOR BARBARIAN KNOW AM REALLY GOOD AT SMASH-TIME. ALL BARBARIAN AM NEED TO BE GOOD AT, BECAUSE AM BARBARIAN, AND AM SAY IT ALSO GO FOR NOT-BARBARIANS.

NOT BEING GOOD AT NOT-SMASH-TIME AM LEAVE BARBARIAN TO BLAME NOT-BARBARIANS FOR NOT BEING BARBARIAN. AM SAY IT "CAHN-SEH-KHUWENZE" OF BEING NOT-BARBARIAN, SO AM WHY AM LAUGH AT "PEE-PUL" FOR BEING NOT-BARBARIAN.


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
DonKeebals wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Makarion wrote:
See, that's the problem: players that optimize for combat complain that not everything is combat. There may just be a miss-match between the campaign and the players, which has next to nothing to do with the actual character classes.
Not really. The magus can optimize for combat and still have for free a lot of out of combat utility in the form of skill points and spells. The same for almost every other class out there.Only the fighter have to sacrifice in combat prowess in order to have something to do out of combat.
I can NOT comprehend this. This is what ROLE PLAY is all about.

If the DM ask you to make a DC 30 diplomac check no rolpelay help you with that.

Sure there is; find some other skill, challenge, or approach that feeds off what you can roll the dice well on. Just because it needs to come down to a dice roll eventually doesn't mean that it always has to be the same skill all the time. Personally I find that Diplomacy tends to be way overused; players insist that by having that one skill high they can do absolutely anything, and DMs see it a quick and easy way to push through and otherwise ignore potentially complex social interactions. It has it's place, but it's not the only way to interact with NPCs and it's not an instant win for those who have a +(enter insanely high number here). Role play doesn't have to mean ignoring the dice rolls; it can also mean figuring out creative ways to get other dice rolls to work just as well.

If the DM insists that only Diplomacy will work, find a new DM that is willing to consider alternate approaches. On the flip side, if you were dumb enough to be truly a combat only specialist with absolutely zero capabilities outside of combat, go study history to see how the skills and knowledges used in combat were used outside of combat in real life and/or build your character a bit differently next time to include at least a few options outside of combat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Really this isn't a class issue....

It doesn't matter what class they play, or even mechanically how they are constructed.

They have strengths and they can be engaged on those strengths.

I've always believed that a characters backstory should be weaved in some way into the campaign itself to give each character specific hooks to immerse them more into your world.

This is a roleplay issue. Not a mechanical one.


K177Y C47 wrote:
DTrueheart wrote:
This is why I have always STRONGLY encouraged all my player to come up with a little bit of a background for their characters. Why did your mage leave the library? Why did you pick up a sword and decide to fight trolls and dragons? what is your character's ultimate goal. That gives fighters and other melee characters TONS of out of character tasks. Do you make a fighter roll a Diplomacy check to seal the deal with an NPC for information? No. Have the NPC send the fighter off to beat someone up or have someone show up to kill the NPC and the fighter gets to be a hero by himself without rest of the party.

Or... you can just have any of the other characters just make a diplomacy check/RP (with the diplomacy check judging sccess or failure). Sounds a little easier to me.

As for the fighter "being the hero without the rest of the party." That is kind of a stretch... If the threat is simple enough for the fighter to solo, then it is not a real threat. Sadly, the fighter is PAINFULLY dependent on his party to do... well much of anything. Can the threat fly? If your not an Archer or don't have boots of flying your screwed (and if you do have boots of flying, chances are the flying creature is as fast/if not faster than you and can just keep flying circles until your magic wears off). The monster Capable of banging you around a bit? Sucks without a cleric. The enemy capable of dealing Neg Levs or Stat Damage/Drain? Well with no cleric/oracle/paladin/inquisitor/Alchemist you are kinda boned. Oh and god forbid you have to go up against something that has stupid levels of DR like Adamantine Golems (easily the biggest pain in the rear for martials predominately)

You're assuming that everything has to be a life or death challenge for an NPC to be impressed and that impressing NPCs have the same hard and fast rules that combat has. The fighter could very easily be known as the wrestling champ of the region and not need the rest of the party to get respect, information, or aid from the village bartender. The first step of making the fighter more useful is not insisting that they must be able to kill everything they meet on their own with absolutely no help from anyone in order to be effective in combat or need to roll the exact same skills as the party bard outside of combat. The second is to realize that most of the existing combat mechanics, rules, and abilities work just fine for nonlethal combat scenarios where the fighter could show off their skill without the end goal being killing their foe. Wrestling matches, archery tournaments, races of pretty much all kinds involving all sorts of different skills, all of these are ways that non-charismatic, but physically capable, characters of all classes can secure the respect and attention of the NPCs the party needs to deal with.


Why does "out of combat" have to equal skill checks? And seemingly Cha based skill checks, to boot?

Also, it's not unrealistic for a fighter to have Profession: Soldier. That's an often under-utilized skill that is wisdom based, and can possibly move social situations along. For instance, the fighter uses his profession soldier skill to convince a merchant that he needs more bodyguards, or that the fighter is a good bodyguard. Maybe his profession soldier gets him a discount when dealing with prostitutes, because that is a common recreation for mercenaries...


- Fighters are men-at-arms, and thus display all those traits that common people really admire. The common man doesn't really know all of the PC classes, he just knows there are those who wear common garb, those who wear robes and don't HAVE to work and those who wear armor and carry weapons and slay monsters. That fighter is likely to be noticed as a man of power and accomplishment.

- Locals ask him to tell the stories of his adventures. They completely ignore the rest of the group, who appear as weirdos, and robe-wearing snobs.

- Merchants want to hire him for protection of their caravan. Even if he's not available, they tell him about local dangers (because he's a warrior, and knows how to handle such things).

- The local mob wants to hire him to "do jobs". It doesn't matter that he's not a rogue, it matters that he's big and tough.

- The local ruler wants to invite him for dinner, because it's politically advantageous to be seen with powerful adventuring warriors. (Especially those who may do favors for your enemies if you don't make friends first)

- Local men-at-arms and soldiers want him to join them, or small groups want to join with HIM. (Forget the leadership trait and treat them as loose followers, or "fans").

- A local ruler wants to hire him to train his men/guard his stuff/deal with a problem/return something somewhere risky/get a message to someone/take some troops and get something done.

Fighters...tend to become kings. Think about it. This is how a warrior grows and is seen by others. They become barons and lords and landholders. Leaders of thousands of men.

Monks? They are warrior-poets. Aesthetes. Watch Kung-Fu the series with David Carradine for some ideas.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My Monk took Crafter (painting) and Craft (sculpture) and makes art for his dojo and for others. He's recently acquired some Gloves of Shaping and uses them to make paintings out of different colored stones.


Pomkin wrote:

I've got a group with a druid, a magus, a fighter, a monk, and a rogue.

The monk and fighter are complaining about feeling totally useless for anything out of combat, but I don't know how to rectify this for them.

What could I do for them that the other classes couldn't do better?

I agree with those who have said not all RP requires a die roll. Just because they aren't great at Bluff and Diplomacy doesn't mean they can't have a personality and interact with NPCs. Besides, both the Fighter and the Monk have class skills that would make them useful, even fun, outside of combat; depending on resource allocation, and player imagination.

Feeling fulfilled outside of combat is largely about storyline and personal involvement. If they feel important and involved with the adventure, community, and campaign they should start feeling better about out of combat scenarios. That has to be a cooperative effort between GM and players.

Lastly, if your character is min/maxed to the point of gimpness and you have decided you would rather round him/her out... THERE ARE RULES FOR THAT.


Pomkin wrote:

I've got a group with a druid, a magus, a fighter, a monk, and a rogue.

The monk and fighter are complaining about feeling totally useless for anything out of combat, but I don't know how to rectify this for them.

What could I do for them that the other classes couldn't do better?

I'd need a LOT more detail to give a decent answer here, but the short version is: Ask yourself (or the players if you don't know) what the personalities and backstories of their characters are, and tailor stuff to that.

Heavy drinking womanizer fighter? Throw more elaborately detailed taverns in. Monk from some weird crazy foreign place? Play up more culture shock, or throw in some NPCs from the old country. Basic stuff like that. This isn't an issue you should be looking for a mechanical solution to at all, really.

Failing that, you might want to consider throwing in more combat. Especially at unexpected times, when the casters aren't going to have their spells ready to go.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like the people in this thread who are just like "It's not the game's fault they feel useless out of combat, it's theirs/yours! You are not ignoring the out of combat mechanics! If you ignored half the rules and ran on fiat instead, your fighter/monk could contribute just as well as anyone else! This is not a fault with the game, and trying to change it means you are just not roleplaying hard enough!"

The "Well, maybe instead of trying to be good at their main thing, they should have spent resources on trying to be good at out of combat as well. No, splitting their attention wouldn't have made them terrible at both because of the limited scope of the class's abilities, what are you talking about?" guys are also fun though.


For those that are saying that the problem is with the player not roleplaying enough, I have a question:

Regarding the suggestions I put in my spoiler-ed post at the top of this page (linky in case you are lost and can't find me), would such changes make things bad in some way for the health of the game overall?
If not, then is it a poor suggestion for the OP who is asking for help for his player having trouble with his fighter outside of combat?

I can understand giving the advice of more input on the roleplaying side to make your character feel useful. I've played a fighter in a strict core rules only 3e game, and I made myself useful by having a normal Int/Wis score to justify giving tactical advice or being part of the discussions on what to do, where to go, etc.
I understand contributing without having to resort to "numbers".

However, I fail to see where that devalues mine, or others' suggestions with regards to mechanics changes.

See, there's contributing ideas and discussion and tactics; however, there's also a certain spotlight set for rolling the dice, and meeting DCs and being successful. Or having that unique ability that can solve the problem.

This spotlight is narrative control. Success hinged on someone having the right tool for the occasion. Be it a skill, or a spell, or an ability, or whatever. Fighters and Monks have a bit of a dearth of non-combat narrative spotlight.

Now combat is a HUGE narrative section of the game. Being able to withstand or conquer enemies is a major spotlight.
However, in most games that aren't just a big dungeon crawl (and even then, skills-based tests are typical), there's a lot of non-combat narrative going on that skills, and primarily SPELLS get the spotlight.

Giving the fighter a little more narrative spotlight outside of combat doesn't look like it would hurt a whole lot, especially if it's thematically appropriate (god, why there isn't a Knowledge Tactics skill don't understand, give the Fighter a die to roll with tangible mechanical consequences).

I think both advice options are good (insert yourself more in the roleplay, and here's some mechanics that give you some spotlight time).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
prong999 wrote:

Why does "out of combat" have to equal skill checks? And seemingly Cha based skill checks, to boot?

Not really but It would be unfair to start talking about magic if there is the fighter in the middle of the disccusion.


Owly wrote:

- Fighters are men-at-arms, and thus display all those traits that common people really admire. The common man doesn't really know all of the PC classes, he just knows there are those who wear common garb, those who wear robes and don't HAVE to work and those who wear armor and carry weapons and slay monsters. That fighter is likely to be noticed as a man of power and accomplishment.

- Locals ask him to tell the stories of his adventures. They completely ignore the rest of the group, who appear as weirdos, and robe-wearing snobs.

- Merchants want to hire him for protection of their caravan. Even if he's not available, they tell him about local dangers (because he's a warrior, and knows how to handle such things).

- The local mob wants to hire him to "do jobs". It doesn't matter that he's not a rogue, it matters that he's big and tough.

- The local ruler wants to invite him for dinner, because it's politically advantageous to be seen with powerful adventuring warriors. (Especially those who may do favors for your enemies if you don't make friends first)

- Local men-at-arms and soldiers want him to join them, or small groups want to join with HIM. (Forget the leadership trait and treat them as loose followers, or "fans").

- A local ruler wants to hire him to train his men/guard his stuff/deal with a problem/return something somewhere risky/get a message to someone/take some troops and get something done.

Fighters...tend to become kings. Think about it. This is how a warrior grows and is seen by others. They become barons and lords and landholders. Leaders of thousands of men.

Monks? They are warrior-poets. Aesthetes. Watch Kung-Fu the series with David Carradine for some ideas.

Just about every suggestion you give is a perfect example of how you can roleplay the effects of HIGH CHARISMA. See, that's the problem with the roleplaying vs. roll-playing divide. It is one thing to say that you can roleplay the results of some action when that action is not defined in the rules. But when you have an actual game mechanic that exists to represent a particular situation (and every situation you mention could be rolled using leadership, diplomacy, or straight charisma, among others), then you must purposely reject/suspend the rules in order to ignore the rolls available. This is any GM's option, but it is NOT RAW. It is the definition of houseruling. And the player doesn't control those. If your suggestion to the OP is houserule away the skill-checks, ok. Say so. But if a GM doesn't want to houserule that way, what other recourse, RAW, is there?


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Question wrote:

So your solution is for the fighter to make sacrifices to get things that most other classes have by default or can at least do equally well, if not better?

Any class with survival as a class skill can by default track better than fighters who do not have it a class skill. Sure the fighter can find a trait that lets him have it as a class skill...then again another class could be using that trait on something else too. A cleric has 9 levels of spells that lets him have tons of out of combat utility that the fighter simply cannot match no matter what traits he takes.

Its a common misconception that fighters have lots of feats to burn, given how feat tax heavy most fighter feats are. Weapon focus and specialization is 4 feats alone. Combat expertise by itself is crap and tripping fails on most higher level monsters (feel free to try and trip a flying lich, or a dragon).

I dont see why fighters need to take a feat to be good at intimidating when thats something they should be able to do right out of the gate, and which would give them built in social utility. Its like forcing wizards to take a feat to cast level 1 spells and then saying "WELL YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO DO THAT STOP COMPLAINING WIZARDS ARE WEAK".

All your arguments can be copy pasted to make the NPC commoner class look balanced, just change the names around a bit and say that commoners can do X, Y and Z to be better...

So, if you optimize exclusively for combat, it's the system's fault that you feel useless outside of combat? Shenanigans.

Tripping is extremely useful in low- to mid-level play, so just because it's less useful at high-level doesn't make it "useless." Double shenanigans.

And complaining that a non-spellcasting class lacks the versatility of a 9-level spellcasting class: Triple shenanigans and moving the goal posts.

51 to 100 of 309 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / How to make the fighter and monk in my group feel less useless? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.