I don't see why the fighter would have problems with those groups.What I've generally found from the Fighter end of this equation goes like this:
- Undead and their massive love for ability damage hurt. Corporeal undead are often fine (except for the castery types) but unholy hell do the incorps hurt. Even after you've got flying and ghost touch weapons they've got this bad habit of attacking and then retreating into walls.
- Elementals combine superior mobility, often superior size, solid HP, and numbers. Admittedly these are some of the least problematic, but they can still create difficulties, especially when you start talking about Earth Elementals using Earth Glide and reach to wreck your day.
- Dragons. This should not need an explanation.
- Golems are tough, mean, often come packing special abilities and are more than willing to trade blows with fighter all day long. Superior size & modifiers mean that combat maneuvers against them are a chancy proposition at best.
- Demons come locked and loaded with SLAs, a host of immunities, flight, teleportation, summons, and a bad attitude.
- Devils are like demons, except smarter.
- Necromancers and cultists fall into the 'maybe not as problematic' section but at the end of the day you're doing Fighter vs. Caster and that ends poorly.
You can have decent saves as a fighter. Especially by mid levels with a heroism buff (which your casters should be casting on everyone and is something the other martials can't bring to the table either).
Fighter vs dragon is the combat you wrote the character for. Catch them in their lair and go to town.
Fighters tend to have magic weapons which work quite well against incorporeal undead.
As for earth elementals, I'm not sure how legit it is to punch with reach from the ground, but I knew I wasn't crazy when I grabbed Strike Back.
The fighter should be the group member that has the least trouble with golems.
As for demons and devils, you just need to build decent saves and then apply your "SR no" greatsword to their face.
I don't think anyone but you has ever suggested cutting down the fighter's combat abilities as part of the changes involved in bumping up his out-of-combat ability. That's pretty much your exclusive strawman.He'd have less feats, thus less options. Adding 40 SkP mean they'd have to balance that out by a reduction in Combat capability, and yes he would then dislike his fighter.
Hrm. I don't think having more options would suddenly make him dislike his Fighter. More choices=/=Ranger. I was pretty sure the big draw of the Fighter was getting a bunch of feats and options to choose from there to diversify yourself.Heck getting 4 skill points per level isn't going to change those Fighters that much. Getting Perception added to their skill list isn't going to change them that much. Being able to fulfill the conceptual image...
pretty much yes. Note that 4skp per level would only give more balance to the class, not the contrary.
- Golems are tough, mean, often come packing special abilities and are more than willing to trade blows with fighter all day long. Superior size & modifiers mean that combat maneuvers against them are a chancy proposition at best.
Whatever fighter that is remotely optimized for maneuvers would not have problem with the CMD of golems.
For example, If you build a trip specialist you will have problem with flying things, nothing more. and I am not even talking about lore wardens.
Fighter vs dragon is the combat you wrote the character for. Catch them in their lair and go to town.
What sort of worlds do you play in that fighting a non-baby dragon inside its lair is a good idea? Because any competent dragon (and even the dumber ones are) is going to straight-up murder you with a home-field advantage. I wouldn't want to take most spellcasters into a dragon's lair without a large amount of planning and prep time.
Maybe your DM just goes easy on you?
In this forum I alwyas wanted to compare fighter combat utility agaisnt the others. Unfortunately the only time it was taken remotely seriously it becames a flamewar.
Fighter vs dragon is the combat you wrote the character for. Catch them in their lair and go to town.What sort of worlds do you play in that fighting a non-baby dragon inside its lair is a good idea? Because any competent dragon (and even the dumber ones are) is going to straight-up murder you with a home-field advantage. I wouldn't want to take most spellcasters into a dragon's lair without a large amount of planning and prep time.
Maybe your DM just goes easy on you?
Exactly, your casters hate the idea of being in close spaces with a dragon. For fighters, the closer the better.
Casters go in with mirror image and invisibility up after buffing the fighter, and then they just cast support spells or summons (and make things EVEN MORE CRAMPED!).
Fighter vs dragon is the combat you wrote the character for. Catch them in their lair and go to town.What sort of worlds do you play in that fighting a non-baby dragon inside its lair is a good idea? Because any competent dragon (and even the dumber ones are) is going to straight-up murder you with a home-field advantage. I wouldn't want to take most spellcasters into a dragon's lair without a large amount of planning and prep time.
Maybe your DM just goes easy on you?
Exactly, your casters hate the idea of being in close spaces with a dragon. For fighters, the closer the better.
Casters go in with mirror image and invisibility up after buffing the fighter, and then they just cast support spells or summons (and make things EVEN MORE CRAMPED!).
In what world do you want to be staring down the dragon's spread of natural attacks, reach, spells, and traps inside its own lair? Why would you want to go to the place where it's had all the time in the world to define the battlefield?
In what world do you want to be staring down the dragon's spread of natural attacks, reach, spells, and traps inside its own lair? Why would you want to go to the place where it's had all the time in the world to define the battlefield?
Fighter vs dragon is the combat you wrote the character for. Catch them in their lair and go to town.What sort of worlds do you play in that fighting a non-baby dragon inside its lair is a good idea? Because any competent dragon (and even the dumber ones are) is going to straight-up murder you with a home-field advantage. I wouldn't want to take most spellcasters into a dragon's lair without a large amount of planning and prep time.
Maybe your DM just goes easy on you?
Exactly, your casters hate the idea of being in close spaces with a dragon. For fighters, the closer the better.
Casters go in with mirror image and invisibility up after buffing the fighter, and then they just cast support spells or summons (and make things EVEN MORE CRAMPED!).
I suppose it depends. If you can focus fire on teh dragon it probably woudl not last that much.
It depends on how many traps, minions and routes of scape does the dragon have, and the party composition of course.
If you do not have a dedicated archer then fly by attack dragon is pretty scary in open space.
In what world do you want to be staring down the dragon's spread of natural attacks, reach, spells, and traps inside its own lair? Why would you want to go to the place where it's had all the time in the world to define the battlefield?Fighter vs dragon is the combat you wrote the character for. Catch them in their lair and go to town.What sort of worlds do you play in that fighting a non-baby dragon inside its lair is a good idea? Because any competent dragon (and even the dumber ones are) is going to straight-up murder you with a home-field advantage. I wouldn't want to take most spellcasters into a dragon's lair without a large amount of planning and prep time.
Maybe your DM just goes easy on you?
Exactly, your casters hate the idea of being in close spaces with a dragon. For fighters, the closer the better.
Casters go in with mirror image and invisibility up after buffing the fighter, and then they just cast support spells or summons (and make things EVEN MORE CRAMPED!).
The pathfinder one!
The fighter spear heads the assault while the rest of the party lays down the needed support after throwing buffs at the fighter because that dragons SR is a pain in the arse.
|
Literally no one else has suggested this. The thrust of the suggestion, in point of fact, is to bump Fighter's skill points and available class skills without changing almost anything else.He'd have less feats, thus less options. Adding 40 SkP mean they'd have to balance that out by a reduction in Combat capability, and yes he would then dislike his fighter.
Hrm. I don't think having more options would suddenly make him dislike his Fighter. More choices=/=Ranger. I was pretty sure the big draw of the Fighter was getting a bunch of feats and options to choose from there to diversify yourself.Heck getting 4 skill points per level isn't going to change those Fighters that much. Getting Perception added to their skill list isn't going to change them that much. Being able to fulfill the conceptual image...
Word yo. I went over this in another thread, but if you were to break the classes down and assign a point value to their class features with the average point value of a class being around 500, you'd discover that the Fighter falls around 200 points short of any other class. For example, when comparing the Fighter and Ranger, the 5 additional feats that a Fighter has over a Ranger are given the same weight as 1/2 progression spellcasting, an animal companion, Evasion, Quarry, and numerous other conditional abilities like Track, Swift Tracker, Woodland Stride, Camouflage, and Hide in Plain Sight.
Holy crap, right?!? Since the precedent set by Paizo is that a Ranger's Animal COmpanion has the same value as two feats (via the Nature's Ally chain), that means that they're saying Ranger Spellcasting, Evasion, Improved Evasion, Quarry, Track, Swift Tracker, Woodland Stride, Camouflage, Hide in Plain Sight, and 4 extra skills a level are the equivalent of three feats (and that's if you assign the same value to Bravery that you do a Ranger's good Reflex save, despite the good save being better, both numerically and situationally).A Fighter with a good will save and 4+Int skills would be functional, but he'd still be playing with fewer advantages than every other full BAB class in the game, so there's absolutely no reason to take anything away in order to buff him up. I won't even touch how disadvantaged he is compared to the 3/4 and 1/2 BAB classes, because that starts a whole different argument about the value of full BAB (I think it's highly overrated and assigned way more value than it's really worth).
Fighters are more than enough for combat in dungeons. If they "suck" at fighting, that indicates problems with other classes.Perhaps, but there are many of us who prefer campaigns outside in the fresh air and wide open spaces. (With the occasional enclosed encounter, certainly, but not frequently.)
Idk, the flat open plane is a little boring to me without being filled with armies. I'd rather have fights in cities, dungeons, buildings, and forests.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters wreck in combat. If they suck comparatively IN COMBAT to other martial classes in a dungeon setting, that indicates the other martial classes are unbalanced.
Let me put that exact reasoning into slightly different wording and see if it still makes sense to you:
"I know I'm an awesome boxer! The fact that I lose all the time is because every other boxer in the world is cheating."
If the Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Cavalier, Gunslinger, and Samurai are all balanced to each other (and they pretty much are), and the Fighter is not capable of performing at the same total baseline, the problem is not with the 6 classes that are all operating at the same basic level of effectiveness, it's with the 1 guy who isn't.
It's a bit of a stretch to call Ranger, Cavalier, Gunslinger, and Samurai better than the fighter in dungeon combat.
Idk, the flat open plane is a little boring to me without being filled with armies. I'd rather have fights in cities, dungeons, buildings, and forests.Fighters are more than enough for combat in dungeons. If they "suck" at fighting, that indicates problems with other classes.Perhaps, but there are many of us who prefer campaigns outside in the fresh air and wide open spaces. (With the occasional enclosed encounter, certainly, but not frequently.)
Outdoors in a city is still a really bad place to fight a lot of these monsters. Dragons don't really care that you're between buildings; the breath weapon and spells still work just fine.
Outdoors in a city is still a really bad place to fight a lot of these monsters. Dragons don't really care that you're between buildings; the breath weapon and spells still work just fine.Idk, the flat open plane is a little boring to me without being filled with armies. I'd rather have fights in cities, dungeons, buildings, and forests.Fighters are more than enough for combat in dungeons. If they "suck" at fighting, that indicates problems with other classes.Perhaps, but there are many of us who prefer campaigns outside in the fresh air and wide open spaces. (With the occasional enclosed encounter, certainly, but not frequently.)
Yeah but the thousands of arrows and ballista from the town guard with the assistance of the Hellknights, makes fighting the dragon a lot easier. The dragon should land and use the buildings for cover. Where you and your fighter self race against all the forces that prevent adventurers from wrecking towns to kill the dragon.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter vs dragon is the combat you wrote the character for. Catch them in their lair and go to town.What sort of worlds do you play in that fighting a non-baby dragon inside its lair is a good idea? Because any competent dragon (and even the dumber ones are) is going to straight-up murder you with a home-field advantage. I wouldn't want to take most spellcasters into a dragon's lair without a large amount of planning and prep time.
Maybe your DM just goes easy on you?
Exactly, your casters hate the idea of being in close spaces with a dragon. For fighters, the closer the better.
Casters go in with mirror image and invisibility up after buffing the fighter, and then they just cast support spells or summons (and make things EVEN MORE CRAMPED!).
I... what... No. None of my characters want to be close to a dragon. A dragon's lair is filled with traps, hidden passages, dangerous magic effects, aggravating environments, and minions... Any dragon worth its salt will be able to go Tucker's Kobolds on you, in addition to having many escape routes.
In any case, the more important question is how you're even getting to the dragon. They're smart, cunning, and their homes are designed to make your life hell.
For the sake of time, I'm going to just use Chromatic Dragons as examples, but let's start with the bare minimum for lair design, not including extra traps and minions:
- Black Dragons: You're looking at an underwater lair in the middle of a swamp, possibly filled with dangerous diseases, swamp monsters, and the like. It's likely to be dark and filled with branching tunnels that the dragon knows inside and out, in addition to being able to just exit to whatever body of water you're near. If you manage to find its hoard, it's likely to fight you, but even then, good luck if it decided to put its hoard underwater (which they normally do, according to the monster description).
- Blue Dragons: This is a lair in the middle of a scorching desert, and likely full of illusions. Parts of it might be filled with solid sand, as Blue Dragons have a burrow speed, and with their abilities, there will be illusions of some sort (less if you're fighting a younger one). In addition, Blue Dragons can come out of the (g*$+~$n) walls, and will definitely know the place better than you do.
- Green Dragons: Once they reach Adult age, they can't be tracked, so good luck even finding the place. If you do, a smart green dragon will have surrounded its lair with trees too dense to even see through, since it can move through them just fine. Even if it doesn't, a good amount of their lairs will likely also be underwater, and they can also sneak around through the woods surrounded it. Their penchant for mind-control magic means there will likely be minions to fight by default, and the fact that they live in forests that don't affect their movement at all means that it will always have an escape route.
- Red Dragons: Ironically, for the strongest chromatic dragons, I think I'm least scared of the Red ones. Their lairs are in mountains, so getting to and dealing with them is much easier than the others, but don't think that that makes it a simple fight. They're still exceptionally strong monsters, and everything about traps, misdirections, and minions still applies. In addition, you'll have to deal with the fact that it's really hard to approach their high-altitude lairs without being detected, so you might have stuff dropped on you, or have the dragon fly by and blanket you in flame while you climb or fly up.
Of course, when you reach the older ones, all of this is different. They probably live in an active volcano, and will actively swim through lava to deal with you. A big red dragon can grapple you and then drag you under the surface for tons of damage, and might just leave you there to die, since you're covered in molten rock.
- White Dragons: Humorously, I think that the hardest to deal with is probably the White, the "weakest" chromatic dragon. Their Ice Shape ability, burrow, and swim speeds make their lairs probably the hardest to deal with. From the time they're juveniles, they're just as smart as most humans, and they're very cunning, even though they have lesser intelligence than other dragons. In any case, their lairs are going to be a sprawling network of frozen tunnels, probably filled with sudden drops, frozen water, and more winding tunnels. Everything that a kobold mine could do, a white dragon can also do, and they can also straight-up ignore many of their walls because of Ice Shape and the burrow speed. Not only that, but they have Fog Cloud at will, so fights against them will likely start with obscuring the party's vision and screwing with their ability to fight, then snowball from there.
Of course, this is all DM-dependent. If the DM decides to play dragons as ignoring their abilities and mental scores, then there's not much I can say on that, other than "well, I could see why you think a fighter wants to be in a dragon's lair."
I don't think anyone but you has ever suggested cutting down the fighter's combat abilities as part of the changes involved in bumping up his out-of-combat ability. That's pretty much your exclusive strawman.
He'd have less feats, thus less options. Adding 40 SkP mean they'd have to balance that out by a reduction in Combat capability, and yes he would then dislike his fighter.
There's two ways to do this:
Either offsetting adjustments
Or
Power creep.
The fighter doesn't need more power.
Once you give the Fighter 4 SkP and two Good saves, then people will clamor for the Ranger to get three Good saves, etc.
What is with people automatically assuming everything already written in core is balanced and fixing things requires f&~+ing other things over?
Improving a class like the Rogue or the Fighter is not going to happen if you screw it over in another way at the same time.
Because otherwise it's power creep.
@Forrestfire
All of those fights sound fantastic! Water breathing is a useful spell for the underwater portions, that no other martial can bring anyways.
Fighting them in their lair also keeps the villagers safe, so win-win.
Because otherwise it's power creep.What is with people automatically assuming everything already written in core is balanced and fixing things requires f&~+ing other things over?
Improving a class like the Rogue or the Fighter is not going to happen if you screw it over in another way at the same time.
Power creep is not always a bad thing. Especially if one class is lacking.
I'm more interested in whether or not the fighter is actually lacking as far as fighting monsters in dungeons is concerned.
@Forrestfire
All of those fights sound fantastic! Water breathing is a useful spell for the underwater portions, that no other martial can bring anyways.
Fighting them in their lair also keeps the villagers safe, so win-win.
Well, "fantastic" in the sense that if you take a party into them without being either overleveled or very, very prepared, you will die.
@Forrestfire
All of those fights sound fantastic! Water breathing is a useful spell for the underwater portions, that no other martial can bring anyways.
Fighting them in their lair also keeps the villagers safe, so win-win.
Well, "fantastic" in the sense that if you take a party into them without being either overleveled or very, very prepared, you will die.
Dragon lairs are really fun to play through and DM for, though :D
Just play it smart and you will win, after a very long protracted battle.
Better than rocket-tag.
|
|
It's a bit of a stretch to call Ranger, Cavalier, Gunslinger, and Samurai better than the fighter in dungeon combat.
Not really.
The Fighter will have a very minor edge in combat, if any. Remember, Underground is a Favored Terrain type for Rangers, and it's easier to squeeze past a dude with a sword than it is to squeeze past a guy with a reach weapon on a combat trained monster that can make its own attacks. Similarly, the Samurai's Resolve stomps Bravery's teeth in.
The clincher is that every single one of those guys will have way more utility otuside of direct sword-clashing combat. The Cavalier can use Diplomacy to talk through encounters that don't have to turn hostile, the Gunslinger can "pick" locks with his firearm amongst other things, and the Ranger has a variety of options that all contribute to the Fighter's success.
Because otherwise it's power creep.What is with people automatically assuming everything already written in core is balanced and fixing things requires f&~+ing other things over?
Improving a class like the Rogue or the Fighter is not going to happen if you screw it over in another way at the same time.
Power creep is not always a bad thing. Especially if one class is lacking.
I'm more interested in whether or not the fighter is actually lacking as far as fighting monsters in dungeons is concerned.
What's a 'dungeon' to you, though? Because to me 'dungeon' is too broad to categorize so easily. I've fought in claustrophobic hellholes full of trap doors and murderholes from which tiny, vicious things attack. I've plunged into caverns hundreds of feet high where dark /things/ skitter across the ceiling and look down with amused eyes, in underground swamps full of undead naga and, in one case, a freaking hypercube. What is this 'dungeon combat' of which you speak and how does Fighter excel at it?
@OP
600 of damage in one hit
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because otherwise it's power creep.
What is with people automatically assuming everything already written in core is balanced and fixing things requires f&~+ing other things over?
Improving a class like the Rogue or the Fighter is not going to happen if you screw it over in another way at the same time.
It would have to constitute an overall rise in power for the average level of the game to be creep. Considering those two classes are currently underpowered, it's not an issue. You're making this more difficult than it is.
**EDIT** Note that when I say "power" I'm referring to overall narrative power. Obviously the Fighter is fine in combat, which is why no one is suggesting that he needs a big boost there, but rather an increase in his overall ability to perform in a role-playing game. If this were just a combat simulator, the Fighter would be fine, but seeing as how most games are designed to include 2-3 social/skill encounters for every 3-5 combat encounters, the Fighter is left with very little to contribute for 1/3 of gameplay.
|
|
The gunslinger is only barely above the fighter in his number of options; which makes sense, as its roots were that of a fighter archetype originally.Not really.
The Fighter will have a very minor edge in combat, if any. Remember, Underground is a Favored Terrain type for Rangers, and it's easier to squeeze past a dude with a sword than it is to squeeze past a guy with a reach weapon on a combat trained monster that can make its own attacks. Similarly, the Samurai's Resolve stomps Bravery's teeth in.
The clincher is that every single one of those guys will have way more utility otuside of direct sword-clashing combat. The Cavalier can use Diplomacy to talk through encounters that don't have to turn hostile, the Gunslinger can "pick" locks with his firearm amongst other things, and the Ranger has a variety of options that all contribute to the Fighter's success.
The Gunslinger still has twice as many skills, several utility abilities, and two good saves. Considering that two of those 3 are the primary changes people are advocating for the Fighter, I think that does more to prove the point than it does to undermine anything I was saying.
I don't think anyone but you has ever suggested cutting down the fighter's combat abilities as part of the changes involved in bumping up his out-of-combat ability. That's pretty much your exclusive strawman.
He'd have less feats, thus less options. Adding 40 SkP mean they'd have to balance that out by a reduction in Combat capability, and yes he would then dislike his fighter.
There's two ways to do this:
Either offsetting adjustments
Or
Power creep.The fighter doesn't need more power.
Once you give the Fighter 4 SkP and two Good saves, then people will clamor for the Ranger to get three Good saves, etc.
What power creep does exactly fighter have recieved? I can tell you power creep for everyone else.
|
It's a bit of a stretch to call Ranger, Cavalier, Gunslinger, and Samurai better than the fighter in dungeon combat.
Uh...all of those do better than a Fighter in that situation. Hell, any of them can casually murder a Fighter in that situation. At any level above 5th or so, anyway. Gunslingers are scary and Animal Companions one of the most damaging class-features in the game.
It's a bit of a stretch to call Ranger, Cavalier, Gunslinger, and Samurai better than the fighter in dungeon combat.Uh...all of those do better than a Fighter in that situation. Hell, any of them can casually murder a Fighter in that situation. At any level above 5th or so, anyway. Gunslingers are scary and Animal Companions one of the most damaging class-features in the game.
Honestly don't know much about gunslingers aside from dependence on a weapon set that just doesn't drop in most APs. Mounts are hard to do in dungeons if not a small character, large animal companions are a pain in dungeons. Medium ones are less impressive.
Also, not PVP so who cares about that? As in not worth arguing about anyway, not that I am conceding your point or anything.
It's a bit of a stretch to call Ranger, Cavalier, Gunslinger, and Samurai better than the fighter in dungeon combat.Uh...all of those do better than a Fighter in that situation. Hell, any of them can casually murder a Fighter in that situation. At any level above 5th or so, anyway. Gunslingers are scary and Animal Companions one of the most damaging class-features in the game.Honestly don't know much about gunslingers aside from dependence on a weapon set that just doesn't drop in most APs. Mounts are hard to do in dungeons if not a small character, large animal companions are a pain in dungeons. Medium ones are less impressive.
Also, not PVP so who cares about that?
See my previous "What is a dungeon?" question.
Cramped.
It would have to constitute an overall rise in power for the average level of the game to be creep. Considering those two classes are currently underpowered, it's not an issue.
That's just your opinion. The popularity of the class, and the fact it performs very well in our games, not to mention JJ games, seem to indicate otherwise. Of course, in your games it may be different. Perhaps them, a houserule for your games?
That's just your opinion. The popularity of the class, and the fact it performs very well in our games, not to mention JJ games, seem to indicate otherwise. Of course, in your games it may be different. Perhaps them, a houserule for your games?
You talking about the rogue? Because thinking about rogues makes me want to stab someone. Heaven forbid in a dark alleyway!
Cramped.
See, that seems pretty narrow to me. What about environments like Undermountain, where every stretch is different? What about the Underdark? What about a wizard's space-shifting lair where the layout doesn't obey conventional or even sane physics? Massive labyrinths composed of pieces stolen from other planes? The corpse of a murdered god, whose body still spawns monsters? Are these not 'dungeons' to you?
Cramped.See, that seems pretty narrow to me. What about environments like Undermountain, where every stretch is different? What about the Underdark? What about a wizard's space-shifting lair where the layout doesn't obey conventional or even sane physics? Massive labyrinths composed of pieces stolen from other planes? The corpse of a murdered god, whose body still spawns monsters? Are these not 'dungeons' to you?
Why wouldn't they be?
Why wouldn't they be?Cramped.See, that seems pretty narrow to me. What about environments like Undermountain, where every stretch is different? What about the Underdark? What about a wizard's space-shifting lair where the layout doesn't obey conventional or even sane physics? Massive labyrinths composed of pieces stolen from other planes? The corpse of a murdered god, whose body still spawns monsters? Are these not 'dungeons' to you?
Mostly because they don't fit the 'cramped' definition you gave me. Undermountain's first level is sorta-kinda cramped, but then it opens way up. The Underdark is known for its mind-blowing size shifts. The rest of them are kinda...trippy.
Mostly because they don't fit the 'cramped' definition you gave me. Undermountain's first level is sorta-kinda cramped, but then it opens way up. The Underdark is known for its mind-blowing size shifts. The rest of them are kinda...trippy.Why wouldn't they be?Cramped.See, that seems pretty narrow to me. What about environments like Undermountain, where every stretch is different? What about the Underdark? What about a wizard's space-shifting lair where the layout doesn't obey conventional or even sane physics? Massive labyrinths composed of pieces stolen from other planes? The corpse of a murdered god, whose body still spawns monsters? Are these not 'dungeons' to you?
Why are they not cramped?
Why are they not cramped?Mostly because they don't fit the 'cramped' definition you gave me. Undermountain's first level is sorta-kinda cramped, but then it opens way up. The Underdark is known for its mind-blowing size shifts. The rest of them are kinda...trippy.Why wouldn't they be?Cramped.See, that seems pretty narrow to me. What about environments like Undermountain, where every stretch is different? What about the Underdark? What about a wizard's space-shifting lair where the layout doesn't obey conventional or even sane physics? Massive labyrinths composed of pieces stolen from other planes? The corpse of a murdered god, whose body still spawns monsters? Are these not 'dungeons' to you?
- Undermountain just isn't. Check out the material on it sometime, it's a really cool place.
- Underdark likewise, shifts from generally broad-and-open tunnels to mind-blowingly huge caverns big enough to literally drop a city into.
- Physics place is Thinking With Portals.
- Planar labyrinth doesn't need to be cramped and, indeed, many planes are best suited to big spaces where you can play around with the Suddenly Different Physics.
- Gods are huge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He'd have less feats, thus less options. Adding 40 SkP mean they'd have to balance that out by a reduction in Combat capability, and yes he would then dislike his fighter.
Hrm. I don't think having more options would suddenly make him dislike his Fighter. More choices=/=Ranger. I was pretty sure the big draw of the Fighter was getting a bunch of feats and options to choose from there to diversify yourself.Heck getting 4 skill points per level isn't going to change those Fighters that much. Getting Perception added to their skill list isn't going to change them that much. Being able to fulfill the conceptual image...
What? In the Nine's name man, what are you smoking? Why would we nerf the Fighter when we're trying to make him overall better? The Fighter as a class is generally worse in actual play when compared to-
Paladin- Better Defenses(Saves, HP, Immunities), Social skill synergy, Party Resources, Fighting bosses
Barbarian- Better Defenses(Saves, DR, AC, HP), More Skills, Social Skill Synergy(Intimidate)
Ranger- Utility, same general fighting capabilities as the Fighter with situational boosts and Party Resources.
Nothing about the Fighter makes the Fighter more fun to play out of combat than these classes.
Marthkus, This parts for you.
A Fighter's ability to be always on is negligible(Not to mention false since his presence drains more party resources than most). A Fighter's extra +1 Hit and +2 damage is negligible. In 9/10 cases it wouldn't have caused much of a difference anyways.
Your ability to do damage is only meaningful in so far as the number of rounds to drop a creature. If both the Fighter and the Barbarian are dropping the monster in 3 rounds then all that extra class focus on combat the Fighter has is essentially wasted.