A fighter's job is to fight, not rewrite reality. Who said anything about fair trades? If you want to rewrite reality, play a wizard. Better yet, GM. : )"I can fight"
"I can rewrite reality"
Yeah, sure, that really seems like a fair trade to me.
A fighter's job should be to fight so amazingly that his fighting is of comparable value to the Wizard's reality rewriting. Where the Fighter CAN contribute on his own, where he doesn't have to spend precious money and non-class-granted-feats to hopefully not be forced to turn on his party.
At the very least give the man (or woman) a good will save and easy access to a decent Touch AC dammit.
My Fighter rewrite greatly fixes the bolded issues, not to mention possibly helps shore up Reflex Saves, as well as other goodies during certain situations. And the best part? That Fighter doesn't have to expend a thing to if he really doesn't want to, to be decent at not biting the pillow when it comes to the big bad Will Save effects.
Methinks I should post it so everybody could use it as a very nice hotfix...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters are good at fighting, and resisting all forms of attacks - that's why they are martial combatants. Except they aren't good at resisting attacks - that's a bug, not a feature.
The feature is that Fighters use absolutely no magic. Except that's a bug, too, because Fighters don't get anything to make up for it.
==Aelryinth
Fighters are good at resisting all forms of attacks? Since when? Maybe we have a very different idea of what a fighter is.
Fighters absolutely get something for not using magic--they get to be good at fighting. Which is kind of the point of being a fighter rather than, say, a wizard.
You're correct on the first point; Fighters have never been good at resisting attacks, so since never have they been able to do that. Wizards always could though...
So for losing magic completely, they get worse features than classes who have similar, superior features, can still cast spells, have just as much if not more survivability than them, and all of the other goodies under the sun? Why have a Fighter class then?
It's the Rogue and the Ninja all over again; no reason to play a Rogue when a Ninja takes everything from the Rogue and then some. Paraphrasing that, no reason to play a Fighter when a Paladin/Barbarian/Ranger/Inquisitor/Cleric/Alchemist/Monk takes everything from the Fighter and then some.
**EDIT**
When you pull that kind of crap designing things, there are only a few options left to fix the problem you create:
1. Remove the problem children. This is a very easy fix for the Rogue, since the Ninja is its superior in every way. Everyone else would still be superior too, so that's not it. This solution also doesn't work so much for the Fighter, since nerf-batting the Paladin/Barbarian/Ranger/Inquisitor/Cleric/Alchemist/Monk/Whatever takes so much more time and game material.
2. Rewrite the class. A much better idea that doesn't mess with nearly as much game material, takes a lot less time, plus allows...
What if I want to play a classic Western warrior with plate and blade who doesn't cast spells, channel divine powers, go nuts, hug trees, or ride a weird, semi-sentient not-horse?
What if I want to play a backstabbing bastard who doesn't know a wakizashi from a washbin but can smell a deadfall from ten feet without even paying attention?
Fighters and rogues are great at what they were intended to be great at. Most of the time when a player calls a class underpowered or useless, they really want it to do something it wasn't intended to do. If a fighter doesn't represent your caharacter's intended skill set, well, that's why we have other classes, archetypes, multiclassing, prestige classes, even homebrew.
But ban the fighter? Ban the rogue and make everybody play ninjas? Well, have fun if that's what you like, I guess.
A fighter's job is to fight, not rewrite reality. Who said anything about fair trades? If you want to rewrite reality, play a wizard. Better yet, GM. : )"I can fight"
"I can rewrite reality"
Yeah, sure, that really seems like a fair trade to me.
A fighter's job should be to fight so amazingly that his fighting is of comparable value to the Wizard's reality rewriting. Where the Fighter CAN contribute on his own, where he doesn't have to spend precious money and non-class-granted-feats to hopefully not be forced to turn on his party.
At the very least give the man (or woman) a good will save and easy access to a decent Touch AC dammit.
Again, this measuring of a fighter's worth by the wizard's metric. He will always come up short by that measure, no matter how many thousands of posts whine about it.
What if I want to play a classic warrior with plate and blade who doesn't cast spells, channel divine powers, go nuts, or ride a weird, semi-sentient not-horse?
What if I want to play a backstabbing bastard who doesn't know a wakizashi from a washbin but can smell a deadfall from ten feet without even paying attention?
Fighters and rogues are great at what they were intended to be great at. Most of the time when a player calls a class underpowered or useless, they really want it to do something it wasn't intended to do. If a fighter doesn't represent your caharacter's intended skill set, well, that's why we have other classes, archetypes, multiclassing, prestige classes, even homebrew.
But ban the fighter? Ban the rogue and make everybody play ninjas? Well, have fun if that's what you like, I guess.
First one has Barbarian written all over it. He gets stronger when he's mad, he does cool stuff when he's mad, and does more damage than that pitiful excuse of a fighter.
Second one has Ranger written all over it. He gets bonuses hiding from goobers, he can use more than just Japanese Swords, can get Scent and track like a fiend. Plus is a great assassin when it comes to great stuff.
That's not including the ACG that's going to be published eventually.
And no, they aren't. Ninja is better at stealth than a Rogue because of the abilities they get that Rogues cannot, as well as have the same abilities as a Rogue. All other Martials (Ninjas/Rogues not included, they're too much a joke to be a Martial) are better than Fighters because all other Martials don't become drooling bags of pus when combat starts, or your encounter-within-an-encounter.
A fighter's job is to fight, not rewrite reality. Who said anything about fair trades? If you want to rewrite reality, play a wizard. Better yet, GM. : )"I can fight"
"I can rewrite reality"
Yeah, sure, that really seems like a fair trade to me.
A fighter's job should be to fight so amazingly that his fighting is of comparable value to the Wizard's reality rewriting. Where the Fighter CAN contribute on his own, where he doesn't have to spend precious money and non-class-granted-feats to hopefully not be forced to turn on his party.
At the very least give the man (or woman) a good will save and easy access to a decent Touch AC dammit.
My Fighter rewrite greatly fixes the bolded issues, not to mention possibly helps shore up Reflex Saves, as well as other goodies during certain situations. And the best part? That Fighter doesn't have to expend a thing to if he really doesn't want to, to be decent at not biting the pillow when it comes to the big bad Will Save effects.
Methinks I should post it so everybody could use it as a very nice hotfix...
So, who does that leave who's bad at Will saves? Maybe we should fix them, too. Then we can just toss out all the spells with Will saves now that they don't work on anybody.
I can continue this thought experiment if you like, but I trust you see where it leads.
Methinks I should post it so everybody could use it as a very nice hotfix...Yes please.
Here it is. I tried to stick to the original, but I tweaked the Bravery feature a lot (and gave it its own capstone), adjusted the Weapon and Armor Training, as well as the Armor Mastery and Weapon Mastery slightly.
First one has Barbarian written all over it. He gets stronger when he's mad, he does cool stuff when he's mad, and does more damage than that pitiful excuse of a fighter.
Second one has Ranger written all over it. He gets bonuses hiding from goobers, he can use more than just Japanese Swords, can get Scent and track like a fiend. Plus is a great assassin when it comes to great stuff.
That's not including the ACG that's going to be published eventually.
And no, they aren't. Ninja is better at stealth than a Rogue because of the abilities they get that Rogues cannot, as well as have the same abilities as a Rogue. All other Martials (Ninjas/Rogues not included, they're too much a joke to be a Martial) are better than Fighters because all other Martials don't become drooling bags of pus when combat starts, or your encounter-within-an-encounter. Encounterception, I'd like to call it.
Did you even read the two character descriptions? How is barbarian going to work for a character who doesn't rage and wears heavy armor? What if that character is lawful? How is ranger going to work for a backstabber who doesn't care a whit for traipsing through wilderness, casting spells, or talking to bears but can find hidden traps without burning a move action every round forever?
Don't work on anybody? Excuse me?
Fighters still don't have any reason to massively invest in Wisdom. Lets assume a Fighter has a 12 wis.
At level 1 that's +3, a Sleep Spell from a typical Wizard with a 20 int is going to have a 65% chance of success. At level 2 this falls to 60%. Level 3 it stays the same, level 4 it drops to 55%, but by then the mage has 2nd level spells (Hi Glitterdust) which have a 60% chance.
As levels go up, the Wizard has every reason to pump his Int, but the Fighter has very little reason to pump his Wis. Sure he'll buy a Headband for it as money allows, but he'll never put stat ups into it, nor is he likely to ever get an inherent bonus to it (especially at the levels which usually see play.)
After accounting for Cloaks of Resistance, the Wizard is unlikely to ever fall much below a 40% chance to affect the Fighter with a Will Save (unless he's a dwarf, but that's kind of their thing, considering the whole +Wis and +2 saves vs magic)
EDIT: to answer your question more directly though, that leaves Fighters and Barbarians and Rangers with middling will saves, and Warriors and Cavaliers with Poor will saves, along with a ton of monsters.
I guess I was wrong. You don't see where the thought experiment leads.
Those classes would inevitably get "fixed" too.
|
At level 1 that's +3, a Sleep Spell from a typical Wizard with a 20 int is going to have a 65% chance of success. At level 2 this falls to 60%. Level 3 it stays the same, level 4 it drops to 55%, but by then the mage has 2nd level spells (Hi Glitterdust) which have a 60% chance.
ummm... what npc has a 20 int caster stat before level 8?
elite array says 15 is top stat, and with a racial boost you're looking at a 17, then maybe a wasted round for fox cunning to get a 21.
|
|
That +22 again has nothing to do with being a fighter. It has everything to do with being anything, especially NOT being a fighter.
If it was a barbarian? The Will save would be, what, +31? 37 raging? Paladin? +34 all the time? Even a Ranger, since they'll have a higher Wisdom to cast spells, will be at +2 higher, while also not having to be a dwarf, take a trait, and take two subpar feats.
And why is that? Because Pals and barbs have class features that directly impact will saves, and Rangers indirectly.
Fighters have nothing. So, SideKick, your argument isn't a fighter argument. It's an 'everybody including a Fighter who only build their characters a certain way' argument.
And what you basically did there is state that anyone who didn't build (I.e. is forced to ) their character the same way you did sucks. Glad to know everyone has to play the same cookie cutter fighter.
==Aelryinth
1. that +22 has nothing to do with being a fighter, but its still a +22 at level 20. give your character a base wisdom of 12 and a 50k investment in inherent bonuses to wisdom you can knock that up to a 24, making your will save a 95% success against the best dragon and demon spells in the game.
2. i agree 100% that Paizo screwed the pooch giving the barbarian so many awesome rage powers, but that doesn't change that fact that a anything above a 28 is overkill seeing as though a 30 is the highest save in the first 3 bestiaries, until you introduce mythic tiers.
3.is it cookie cutter to have a +5 generic enhancement to a sword? and why do you keep harping on the "dwarf is the best fighter" comment?! do you not realize i stopped talking about that a LONG time ago?! now i will agree that Dwarves are such a great fighter race that it should be your tier one race when playing a Fighter.
4. in no way shape or form did i say "anyone who didn't build (I.e. is forced to) their character the same way you did, sucks".if you ignore the options presented then you have no right to b**@+ about fighters not being good enough. you want a high will save you need to expend your resources to make it happen. want to be good at killing casters? you have to expend resources. see how this works?
5. i honestly feel like im arguing with someone at a disadvantage
4. in no way shape or form did i say "anyone who didn't build (I.e. is forced to) their character the same way you did, sucks".if you ignore the options presented then you have no right to b$~** about fighters not being good enough. you want a high will save you need to expend your resources to make it happen. want to be good at killing casters? you have to expend resources. see how this works?
You clear don't understand the argument. . .
Its this-- Wizards rule, fighters drool.
Wizards get to use all the spells, never fail any save, never fail SR checks in all arguments.
Fighters must be presented with no magic items and are not allowed to put any feats in anything that is not melee combat-- that's right there in the core rulebook-- it says "Fighters can only swing sword; fighters not allowed to use bows; fighters get -1000000000000000 on all diplomacy checks; fighters self combust and auto die and you must flush all your dice down the toilet if fighter attempts Use Magic Device"
In order to counteract this-- fighters should be give every wizard spell in the game as an at will Ex ability at 1st level, be given d100 hit dice, all good saves, and never miss at all. . .
Really don't know why Paizo put all that stuff about fighters not being allowed to take non melee combat feats in the book. . .
The OP suggested a fix by investing two levels to shore up a weakness of the fighter (will save) and was immediately told that because that marginally reduced his effectiveness in melee combat "no fighter ever would do that" and then that we should just give fighters who don't invest anything in it better will saves. . .
If you want to pick apart my sarcastic exaggeration point by point, I would suggest its more revealing to the arguments in this vein that have been made (repeatedly) throughout the boards that there's a fatal flaw in the game and we need PF 2nd edition with a "fixed" (super powered) fighter and a "fixed" (neutered) Mage. . .
If Wizards in your game really never fail SR checks, then your GMs need to use creatures with higher SR;
If the enemies in your games always fail every save to the Wizards spells then your GMs need to use creatures with higher saves.
Mages do have weak saves; again if the mages in your party never fail any saves then your GMs need to use creatures with higher DCs on their saves (and to target Wizards with Reflex and Fort saves).
Fighter doesn't need to be given good will save to be a worthwhile class in the game; if you are building a fighter you want to specifically have a high will save there are options-- dips (the Inq dip mentioned or any number of other 1-2 level dips) which will only marginally reduce your combat prowess (1-2 points of attack, maybe a feat) in exchange for that.
And asking if I'm high is offensive-- even if you say "I don't mean this offensively"-- that does not give you the go ahead to insult me. . . "No offense but" is always paired with something which is meant to be offensive (kind of like "I'm not a racist/sexist/homophobe but . . . it doesn't actually make it ok to make the racist/sexist/homophobic statement you are about to make)
Meanwhile, your own offensive posts don't bother with mealy-mouthed disclaimers.
Also, there are debilitating spells with no Save and/or no SR, and Wizards have the Knowledge chops to know which spell to use on which enemy. And when in doubt, Summon Monster.
Forget DPR, forget weak points, this is the essence of the martial-caster disparity: Spells are synonymous with Solutions, and Wizards can access all th spells. Clerics can access almost as many, on top of being tough combatants. Sorcerers and Oracles can still access a respectable number, and have no need to prepare.
Meanwhile, the Fighter can only solve three types of problem:
- Those that can be solved by hitting them.
- Those that can be solved by skills, which Fighters still aren't great at. And for the most part, spells still do them better.
- The Fighter spending resources (traits, skill ranks, raising Charisma) on UMD, to use an item which does the same job as spells but with severe restrictions. And uses up a ton of WBL. And he'll only meet the DC reliably at high levels, which are firmly caster territory. And if the item wasn't given by the DM or purchased with gold, it was made by a caster. And the caster made it for half what the Fighter spent to purchase it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meanwhile, your own offensive posts don't bother with mealy-mouthed disclaimers.
Just back away for your own sanity's sake. Better men have tried and failed to move this one long long ago.
Meanwhile, your own offensive posts don't bother with mealy-mouthed disclaimers.Just back away for your own sanity's sake. Better men have tried and failed to move this one long long ago.
I'm never going to jump on the "this game is awful because wizards; need PF 2.0 now without wizards" bandwagon. . . I happen to enjoy the game a lot the way it is.
I'm also never joining the "Anyone whose not Divination Wizard abusing every possible corner case is wrong" club.
I guess you can add me to disagreeing that a Fighter investing part of his character creation into something other than melee combat is wrong as well.
If you want to pick apart my sarcastic exaggeration point by point, I would suggest its more revealing to the arguments in this vein that have been made (repeatedly) throughout the boards that there's a fatal flaw in the game and we need PF 2nd edition with a "fixed" (super powered) fighter and a "fixed" (neutered) Mage. . .
If Wizards in your game really never fail SR checks, then your GMs need to use creatures with higher SR;
If the enemies in your games always fail every save to the Wizards spells then your GMs need to use creatures with higher saves.
Mages do have weak saves; again if the mages in your party never fail any saves then your GMs need to use creatures with higher DCs on their saves (and to target Wizards with Reflex and Fort saves).
Fighter doesn't need to be given good will save to be a worthwhile class in the game; if you are building a fighter you want to specifically have a high will save there are options-- dips (the Inq dip mentioned or any number of other 1-2 level dips) which will only marginally reduce your combat prowess (1-2 points of attack, maybe a feat) in exchange for that.
If a GM wants to throw a creature with high SR, then fine. SR as 11 + hit dice is the strongest SR in Pathfinder as far as natural SR is concerned, and it scales. But there are so many ways to bypass SR that it's a joke. Not to mention, SR itself doesn't play nice with friendlies.
Oh, and there are spells that don't need to bypass SR to work! Imagine that!
The highest saves are creatures with a very high Dex/Con/Wis and good saves of the respective sort. Adding buffs helps, but again, there are spells with no saving throws that accomplish the same thing as a spell that does require a saving throw.
And guess what? Their WBL isn't spent trying to make sure their + to hit and damage is good, or increasing their limited class feature. Sure, they can spend their WBL to make themselves even more powerful in regards to saves, but at the same time the WBL that isn't spent is spent on that stuff, something a Fighter (or perhaps other Martials) has(/have) no luxury for. Also, spells shoring up saves or making them immune to effects supersedes any need to naturally have a good save.
And you're right; they don't need a Good Will Save, but they need an ability that helps them deal with the most problematic of spells: Domination/Hold/Charm spells are the most common (and most powerful) take out of fights/turn you against friends abilities in the game, of which most classes laugh at.
If you haven't read my fixed Fighter, it solves that #1 problem child, and gives their current features some much needed boost while not making it a completely different class. It is still the same flavor; a martial who is brutal and naturally skilled in combat.
**EDIT** Removed a second paragraph that was a copy of another one.
It creates a hemispherical wall of force around you, sealing you off from the outside.
A spread effect can indeed spread around corners.
A dome has no corners.
It can't materialize on the other side of a wall.
The Dome is a wall.The text is posted right there. It creates a sealed dome with you inside. You care to explain how you're going to spread right through something that has no openings in it, nor corners to go around? Because I'm listening, and want to hear this fascinating explanation.
I wasn't wrong on the mechanics of the armor training/mastery thing, I was wrong on the titles. Yay, I called it the wrong name. My argument was totally correct. And I'm still sure they used to be separate abilities at some point...meh.
I was wrong on the name/AoE of the spell effect. Guess what? I am still perfectly correct on the mechanics.
I am absolutely correct on what a spread cannot do vs a sealed dome. I think you need to practice some visualization exercises and get back to me. When you find those corners and ability to spread through solid walls and floors that have no openings, get back to me.
The dome is not sealed if hte wizard is flying, there is no ground below his feet.
What high level scrodinger wizard is not flying? oh right, the ones that already know a whail of banshee /whatever another spread effect was in their near future, like every good scrodinger wizard, my bad.
No ground below it, huh? So what? Do Spread effects go vertical as well as horizontal in their travel? Doubtful. In addition, the God Wizard will probably have it either cast twice, becoming a full sphere (and therefore practically impenetrable), or use some other catch-all to have that base covered. So where exactly is the problem of the spell?
Even so, there are better spells to choose from than that which accomplishes the same purposes, so talking about it when we're talking about the God Wizard, AKA Batman, does nothing.
What...
The point is that the spell is and inmediate action if the wizard have it casted twice he have blocked his own line of effects without any guarantee that a spreaad effect was in their near future.
It is not that the spell have problem, it is a great spell, but it have beeen threated as "I win" button when it is not.
Did you even read the two character descriptions? How is barbarian going to work for a character who doesn't rage and wears heavy armor? What if that character is lawful? How is ranger going to work for a backstabber who doesn't care a whit for traipsing through wilderness, casting spells, or talking to bears but can find hidden traps without burning a move action every round forever?
What I am getting from you is that fighters (and rogues) were made to fill a role in character concepts, that is all fine but it woudl be just much better if they coudl fill that role better.
You want to be a pure mundane character, too bad the fighters sucks at any mundane task that do not involde beaten something with pointy sticks.
Pretty much. Mages tend to be able to afford more constitution than martials so their Fort Saves tend to start out even, and need far less money to do their job which they can spend on other things amping their saves. That, and a Belt of Con costs 2/5ths as much as a Belt of Con and Strength or Dex of the same value.
Oh come on, wizards/sorcerer saves are medicore at best. Show the level 10 wizard with amazin saves that still have the power of a god wizard.
I guess you can add me to disagreeing that a Fighter investing part of his character creation into something other than melee combat is wrong as well.
Okay. You tell me how the Fighter is even able to invest in anything that puts him near par with spellcasters.
And you're right; they don't need a Good Will Save, but they need an ability that helps them deal with the most problematic of spells: Domination/Hold/Charm spells are the most common (and most powerful) take out of fights/turn you against friends abilities in the game, of which most classes laugh at.
Fighter doesn't need to be given good will save to be a worthwhile class in the game; if you are building a fighter you want to specifically have a high will save there are options-- dips (the Inq dip mentioned or any number of other 1-2 level dips) which will only marginally reduce your combat prowess (1-2 points of attack, maybe a feat) in exchange for that.
I'm going to ignore the arguments about spells that ignore SR, ect because this thread is primarily about Fighters i/r/t will saves. . .
What's wrong with them taking the Feat for the +2?
What's wrong with a dip like the one the OP suggested--
2 level dip in Inq for reroll;
or a 2 level dip in paladin to make Cha add to will (and fort and ref) effectively reducing MAD by putting all saves on one stat
or spending part of their WBL on items to reduce this weakness. . .
I don't see what's wrong with them making a few decisions instead of being focused on spending every single thing on one aspect of the game?
That would be like a Wizard who would ONLY cast Necromancy spells because he is a necromancer. . .
...I guess you can add me to disagreeing that a Fighter investing part of his character creation into something other than melee combat is wrong as well...
I'm now convinced of that myself. The dip in Inquisitor costs 1 point of BAB, one Fighter only feat, and delays some Fighter advances. The bonus is not ONLY defensive but includes and is not limited to a terrific Will save solution at no extra feat or gold expenditure, the acquisition to a Domain or other goodie, a judgement that gives +1 to make up a little for the BAB loss, access to divine spell wands (screw putting precious skill points in UMD, and whatever other fun from the Inquisitor class.
That seems like a great solution without undo sacrifice(s)- more like a beneficial trade than a sacrifice.
Okay. You tell me how the Fighter is even able to invest in anything that puts him near par with spellcasters.
I guess you can add me to disagreeing that a Fighter investing part of his character creation into something other than melee combat is wrong as well.
Nothing, particularly at higher levels. Like every other martial out there (perhap not the magus). But that is a bug of the game in general, and the best way to solve it is to nerf the absurd optiosn spellcaster have (IMHO).
That shoudl not be the point, since nothing seems to beposibble to do about it.
Okay. You tell me how the Fighter is even able to invest in anything that puts him near par with spellcasters.
I guess you can add me to disagreeing that a Fighter investing part of his character creation into something other than melee combat is wrong as well.
I/r/t Will saves?
+2 from the feat, a 1 level dip into a class with a +2, an item with wisdom on it to get +1-3, a cloak of resistance?
Or are you trying to broaden this out and have the same argument about Wizards "narrative power" yet again?
Its not a productive argument to have-- regardless what I say/do/show the first thing you will do is claim that all HP damage doesn't count and that no matter how well fighter can fight this doesn't count as well. . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meanwhile, your own offensive posts don't bother with mealy-mouthed disclaimers.Just back away for your own sanity's sake. Better men have tried and failed to move this one long long ago.I'm never going to jump on the "this game is awful because wizards; need PF 2.0 now without wizards" bandwagon. . . I happen to enjoy the game a lot the way it is.
I'm also never joining the "Anyone whose not Divination Wizard abusing every possible corner case is wrong" club.
I guess you can add me to disagreeing that a Fighter investing part of his character creation into something other than melee combat is wrong as well.
The point is that the spell is and inmediate action if the wizard have it casted twice he have blocked his own line of effects without any guarantee that a spreaad effect was in their near future.
It is not that the spell have problem, it is a great spell, but it have beeen threated as "I win" button when it is not.
I actually don't care about it; it's actually quite inferior to spells that fulfill the same purpose, but on a better scale.
It's really a damage-absorption barrier at best, and if you're flying, and if you're able to cast it twice to make it become a full sphere (which, I don't see why not since it still fulfills the criteria that it's centered on you), logic dictates you should be able to control the position of the hemisphere to have it cover your bottom, while still being able to bombard goobers.
...I guess you can add me to disagreeing that a Fighter investing part of his character creation into something other than melee combat is wrong as well...
I'm now convinced of that myself. The dip in Inquisitor costs 1 point of BAB, one Fighter only feat, and delays some Fighter advances. The bonus is not ONLY defensive but includes and is not limited to a terrific Will save solution at no extra feat or gold expenditure, the acquisition to a Domain or other goodie, a judgement that gives +1 to make up a little for the BAB loss, access to divine spell wands (screw putting precious skill points in UMD, and whatever other fun from the Inquisitor class.
That seems like a great solution without undo sacrifice(s)- more like a beneficial trade than a sacrifice.
I'm interested in how they end up going to with ACG classes-- for a figher a 1 level dip in Warpriest effectively gives them the power of three feats (a bonus feat, weapon focus, and +2 Will save) for the cost of only 1 BaB, while also giving them detect magic, a 1st level cleric spell and a blessing. . .
Pretty much. Mages tend to be able to afford more constitution than martials so their Fort Saves tend to start out even, and need far less money to do their job which they can spend on other things amping their saves. That, and a Belt of Con costs 2/5ths as much as a Belt of Con and Strength or Dex of the same value.Oh come on, wizards/sorcerer saves are medicore at best. Show the level 10 wizard with amazin saves that still have the power of a god wizard.20 point buy?
Human
20 Int (18+2 Int [17 points])
14 Con [5 points]
14 Dex [5 points]
9 Str [+1 points]
7 Cha [+4 points]
8 Wis [+2 points]Gear:
4000 Belt of Mighty Con +2
16000 Headband of Int +4
16000 Cloak of Resistance +426000 Budget for buying spells/scrolls/wands/miscellany.
Saves:
Fort: +10
Ref: +9
Will: +10
Oh come on. That are hardly stellar saves. Look at the build thread 3, there are like a dozen of 10 level figther with better saves.
Bult it completly (as a god wizard) to see what happens.
And you're right; they don't need a Good Will Save, but they need an ability that helps them deal with the most problematic of spells: Domination/Hold/Charm spells are the most common (and most powerful) take out of fights/turn you against friends abilities in the game, of which most classes laugh at.
Fighter doesn't need to be given good will save to be a worthwhile class in the game; if you are building a fighter you want to specifically have a high will save there are options-- dips (the Inq dip mentioned or any number of other 1-2 level dips) which will only marginally reduce your combat prowess (1-2 points of attack, maybe a feat) in exchange for that.I'm going to ignore the arguments about spells that ignore SR, ect because this thread is primarily about Fighters i/r/t will saves. . .
What's wrong with them taking the Feat for the +2?
What's wrong with a dip like the one the OP suggested--
2 level dip in Inq for reroll;
or a 2 level dip in paladin to make Cha add to will (and fort and ref) effectively reducing MAD by putting all saves on one stat
or spending part of their WBL on items to reduce this weakness. . .
I don't see what's wrong with them making a few decisions instead of being focused on spending every single thing on one aspect of the game?
That would be like a Wizard who would ONLY cast Necromancy spells because he is a necromancer. . .
That feat could be used for another equally useful one. So that's at least a single feat being wasted on making sure I'm not a drooling bag of pus.
That delays progression of my other abilities and (if) I hit the end-game, denies me from very good features (Capstones if you're lucky); another investment to make sure I'm not a drooling bag of pus.
Dipping 2 or more levels in a separate class such as the Inquisitor or Paladin means I might as well play that class, especially considering their features appear to be so much better than the Fighters. Even if you decide to stay as a Fighter afterwards, it's the same problem as the above.
And when they do that they fall behind the other classes who have those same luxuries without having to sacrifice WBL to make sure they have it. Yet another waste for the Fighter having to not be a drooling bag of pus.
The problem is that the class cannot afford it if they want to be good, if not the best, at what they're designed to do, which is hit things. And when a class isn't designed to be able to hold its own, like the Fighter appears to not to be able to do when it comes to a general scenario, the design has no meaning.
You don't get it; he can cast other spells besides Necromancy without sacrificing anything; infact, it's actually smarter to cast spells besides Necromancy (in addition to Necromancy spells) because it covers the bases that need to be covered. All the while, they don't have to sacrifice a thing, since it's all taken care of with their spellcasting feature.
Okay. You tell me how the Fighter is even able to invest in anything that puts him near par with spellcasters.
I guess you can add me to disagreeing that a Fighter investing part of his character creation into something other than melee combat is wrong as well.I/r/t Will saves?
+2 from the feat, a 1 level dip into a class with a +2, an item with wisdom on it to get +1-3, a cloak of resistance?
Or are you trying to broaden this out and have the same argument about Wizards "narrative power" yet again?
Its not a productive argument to have-- regardless what I say/do/show the first thing you will do is claim that all HP damage doesn't count and that no matter how well fighter can fight this doesn't count as well. . .
Anyone can take a feat. Fighters have more feats, but then again, they spend more of them making up for lack of class features. It doesn't help that so many martial feats are spread out into long chains.
Anyone can dip a class with good saves, though casters don't like doing it because it delays their casting progression. It's much easier for Fighters to swallow because they have less to look forward to.
Anyone can have items to boost their saves, and casters can make them at half price, and they aren't depending on them to drop randomly.
And after all that, if you seriously believe "narrative power" (read: having power and options) isn't important, then you are right about just one thing: There can be no productive argument with you.
I should have listened to TarkXT.
[
That feat could be used for another equally useful one. So that's at least a single feat being wasted on making sure I'm not a drooling bag of pus.That delays progression of my other abilities and (if) I hit the end-game, denies me from very good features (Capstones if you're lucky); another investment to make sure I'm not a drooling bag of pus.
Dipping 2 or more levels in a separate class such as the Inquisitor or Paladin means I might as well play that class, especially considering their features appear...
Seems to me you just don't like the Fighter class. . .
what if I t a ton of feats that a bunch of bonus feats will give me but want the first few levels of Paladin
Just because you take a dip doesn't mean the character you are tying to make is better of being straight that class.
Are you really going to argue that the last few levels of fighter are worth all that much that all fighters ever have to go straight fighter to get to them?
Lets assume your game even gets to 20, the "capstones" of fighter aren't inspiring that much-- but if you want them then it makes sense to go for them.
But you are choosing it instead of another choice which is just as valid (i.e. any of the afore-referenced dips)
And after all that, if you seriously believe "narrative power" (read: having power and options) isn't important, then you are right about just one thing: There can be no productive argument with you.
I believe that the game that most resembles Dungeons and Dragons as I have played it in variations over the past 20 years is the game I want to play.
I do not want to play a game where I or my friends who want to play Wizards in a similar form to what we have for the past 20 years are not capable of doing so.
I do not want to play a game where I or my friends who want to play Fighter in a similar form to what we have for the past 20 years are not capable of doing so.
So no; if your fixes require a new version of the game that disallows EITHER of those things, there's no point in arguing because we won't be playing it, we will keep laying this apparently "bad" version of the game. . .
Good for you and your friends. Pathfinder will still be around even if a better-designed PF 2e rolls around.
[
That feat could be used for another equally useful one. So that's at least a single feat being wasted on making sure I'm not a drooling bag of pus.That delays progression of my other abilities and (if) I hit the end-game, denies me from very good features (Capstones if you're lucky); another investment to make sure I'm not a drooling bag of pus.
Dipping 2 or more levels in a separate class such as the Inquisitor or Paladin means I might as well play that class, especially considering their features appear...
Seems to me you just don't like the Fighter class. . .
what if I t a ton of feats that a bunch of bonus feats will give me but want the first few levels of Paladin
Just because you take a dip doesn't mean the character you are tying to make is better of being straight that class.
Are you really going to argue that the last few levels of fighter are worth all that much that all fighters ever have to go straight fighter to get to them?
Lets assume your game even gets to 20, the "capstones" of fighter aren't inspiring that much-- but if you want them then it makes sense to go for them.
But you are choosing it instead of another choice which is just as valid (i.e. any of the afore-referenced dips)
Actually, D&D and Pathfinder doesn't like the Fighter class. I like the concept of the Fighter, but it is designed so poorly that it shouldn't even exist.
And why would you want only the first few levels of Paladin? Fighters are too counter-intuitive to take both a high Strength and a high Charisma. Their class features simply can't support both. If you're taking the first few levels of Paladin for their features, which are heavily Charisma related, and actually have the Charisma to make it a smart choice, you're better taking the full levels of Paladin instead of trying to multi-class Fighter and failing horribly.
That isn't to say there aren't smart dips or multi-classes, but they are few and far between to make such commitments worthwhile. For example, a Two-Shield Martial that goes 10 Witchguard Infiltrator Ranger/10 Invulnerable Urban Barbarian is going to have all of the necessary perks to pull it off, and laugh at the full Fighter who tries to do the same thing and fails horribly. Additionally, he's going to have abilities that the same Full Fighter could only dream of having.
Similarly, a Cleric who wants to be a walking tank who can cast high level spells would benefit greatly from a Fighter dip, as he gains an extra BAB, qualifying him for feats such as Greater Vital Strike (depending on when you apply the dip), every sort of proficiency he could ask for (Tower Shield proficiency for a Cleric tank is pretty sweet), a bonus combat feat, as well as a bit more Fortitude Saves and hit points. He could instead substitute this Fighter dip for something similar, such as Barbarian or Ranger if he doesn't want to use a Tower Shield. All the while, he has a Sorcerer-level progression for his spells and Channel Energy.
Good for you and your friends. Pathfinder will still be around even if a better-designed PF 2e rolls around.
Despite the loudness with which a small segment of these boards keep screaming for it; the vast majority of people who play this game do not want PF 2e.
And despite your claim that it will still be around (which is true) and your assertion that PF 2E will be "better-designed" speaking with experience of many edition changes its never a completely better upgrade with no downsides.
And having an edition that is being supported with new material matters. . . if all Paizo is publishing are PF 2E material me, my group, and a large chunk of their current playerbase will not be buying.
And why would you want only the first few levels of Paladin? Fighters are too counter-intuitive to take both a high Strength and a high Charisma. Their class features simply can't support both. If you're taking the first few levels of Paladin for their features, which are heavily Charisma related, and actually have the Charisma to make it a smart choice, you're better taking the full levels of Paladin instead of trying to multi-class Fighter and failing horribly.
That isn't to say there aren't smart dips or multi-classes, but they...
It might SEEM counter intuitive to take a high Charisma and Strength, but as I said in a way (with the dip to Pal2) it allows lower Dex, Wis, and Con while increasing overall saves(yes, you still lose a bit in AC and HP but with full plate your AC isn't significantly lower and as fighter you have a lot of HP already)
But the argument could be made that a character with say Str 18 Cha 16 who wants to be a powerful melee war leader could be made a Pal 2 or 3/Fighter--
You are gaining feats slightly slower in exchange for using one stat for all saves (and immune to fear if you grab the 3rd paladin level)--
If you aren't interested in Paladin Spells or Diving Bond then those 3 levels give your character all the "hero of good" feel you need and you can progress into Fighter to get deeper into/ through more melee feat chains than you could as a single classed Paladin.
Enough people came over to PF from 3.5 to make it successful, including you and your like-minded friends.
I'm not saying PF 2E is needed immediately, but it's coming. Either that, or a revision like 3.5 was to 3.0. Especially if rumors about D&D Next being awful are true.
I have fun with this game too (though I don't play Fighters), otherwise I wouldn't be here. My criticism is meant to improve it. I've variously stated that Qinggong Monk, Ninja, and some of the newer options for Barbarian and Paladin are a step in the right direction. I'm saying they should go further in that direction.
Enough people came over to PF from 3.5 to make it successful, including you and your like-minded friends.
I'm not saying PF 2E is needed immediately, but it's coming. Either that, or a revision like 3.5 was to 3.0. Especially if rumors about D&D Next being awful are true.
Me and my friends came over to PF a year ago-- 5 years after 3.5 stopped being published and we had played through most of the ideas we wanted to in 3.5
We came to PF because it was not a radical departure from 3.5 and it offered options to expand into our 3.5 games.
We came of PF because it was a continuation of the old edition-- that does not mean if Paizo starts doing the same Edition updates every few years that Wizards was doing we would continue into those.
Have you read D&D next? If it is bad (and some think it is) then making PF 2E would be the WORST thing Paizo could do-- they would just take the entire audience they had built and give them an excuse to abandon PF for the mothership (well I have to learn a new edition anyways. . .)
Except that's not what happened with PF and 4e, just the opposite. Pathfinder has already lasted longer than any WOTC edition.
Instead of an official new edition, they might simply keep going and incrementally "patch" over classes like the Fighter, like they did with the Rogue -> Ninja. I'm not one of these people who whined about the Investigator being a straight-up better Rogue. The Investigator class is a chance to make the Rogue that should have existed all along, if they didn't have to stick so closely to 3.5.
|
|
Actually, D&D and Pathfinder doesn't like the Fighter class. I like the concept of the Fighter, but it is designed so poorly that it shouldn't even exist.
i disagree 100% with this post. i think the FEATS of pathfinder are so poorly designed that they make the fighter, which is a feat based bag of legos, suck as a result. fighters (and barbarians) had the occult slayer PrC class, and a few really great anti caster high DPR feat combos that blew the socks off npc casters. a shock trooper, power attacking, leaping carger, crazy mofo who could one hit a balor if he tried to use his SLA ability...
...but in this game its barbarians who are the crazy op anticaster high DPR class. fighters are SOL because of the poor decision to allow barbarians to use fighter only feats, and have access to better anticaster class features.
barbarians should be the ones who fail at magic, who can take a hit and keep going, who deal insane ammounts of physical damage to everything, but no they get all the tricks you could want in one bag of OP.
the fighter is actually better then the 3.5 version by 300%, but the lack of great feat choices make it a one trick, bland, "gate guard". a physical damage dealer with very little technique. when the discription states otherwise.
Except that's not what happened with PF and 4e, just the opposite. Pathfinder has already lasted longer than any WOTC edition.
Or they might simply keep going and incrementally "patch" over classes like the Fighter, like they did with the Rogue -> Ninja. I'm not one of these people who whined about the Investigator being a straight-up better Rogue. The Investigator class is a chance to make the Rogue that should have existed all along, if they didn't have to stick so closely to 3.5.
Because PF was closer to 3.5 than 4.0. . .
Honestly, do you think more people want PF 2E to come out instead of the next hardcover book for the current game we have?
I'd rather have the Advanced Class Guide, and then whatever they come up with after that than a revision-- and the further away from the core it goes with "fixed" fighters and "fixed" mages the less likely many people are to go along with it.
It further just opens up for someone else to publish their own core book without the fixes (or with less radical fixes) and take over. . .