|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Gunslingers don't even need a magic gun to murder everything ever hitting Touch AC and adding Dex to damage is ridiculous. It's not unbeatably good, and nowhere near as good as spells, but Fighters don't tend towards the best Touch ACs ever...
And there's this thing called the squeezing rules that make Large Companions very workable in any dungeon that isn't entirely made of 5 foot-wide corridors. Battles tend to take place in rooms, even in the most cramped dungeons, and you can move through ally's spaces, including Animal Companions...making the space they take up more of a hindrance to your enemies than your allies.
And if they can take him in a straight fight...that's a pretty good indication that they're more effective at fighting enemies, too, given that damage and combat maneuvers are pretty much all Fighters can do.
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?
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.
The thief was very popular in my 2e days, It was the class that I played the most. Still, I was very happy witht he 3e changes.
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.
Gunslingers don't even need a magic gun to murder everything ever hitting Touch AC and adding Dex to damage is ridiculous. It's not unbeatably good, and nowhere near as good as spells, but Fighters don't tend towards the best Touch ACs ever...
And there's this thing called the squeezing rules that make Large Companions very workable in any dungeon that isn't entirely made of 5 foot-wide corridors. Battles tend to take place in rooms, even in the most cramped dungeons, and you can move through ally's spaces, including Animal Companions...making the space they take up more of a hindrance to your enemies than your allies.
And if they can take him in a straight fight...that's a pretty good indication that they're more effective at fighting enemies, too, given that damage and combat maneuvers are pretty much all Fighters can do.
So maybe there is a problem with gunslingers then. You haven't really shown that a fighter isn't more than enough for dungeon combat. Pointing to classes that do more, may just be pointing to things that are broken.
Squeezing is a significant penalty.
Massive doubt on taking out a fighter in a straight up slug fest. Regardless it's irrelevant since this is not a PVP game.
A Fighter's ability to be always on is negligible(Not to mention false since his presence drains more party resources than most
I woudl argue tha this is not the case.
1) You do not neccesarily know when to nova. The fight seemed scary then you nova but in fact the fight was easy and you lost resources. The fight seems to be easy and 3 rounds later you realize how dangerous it reaslly is.
2) In my experience the barbarian drain just more resources than fighters. Particularly healing.
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.
Fighter's get up to +6/6 without feats and only 15K gold (less than a +3 weapon). More likely than not your fighter is rocking a +4/4 by mid levels.
Not getting into Fighter's lack or out-of-combat, just pointing out that anything out fighting a fighter in dungeon combat may be the problem, not the fighter being too weak.
Probably not, but the bard won't be as good in combat.Indeed, bards are BETTER in combat. They can either buff the entire party (which is more worth than the fighter can bring to the party with all his bonus feats combined), or if they feel like picking an archetype, they can be terrifying straight combatants on par with just about any fighter.
With 6 level spellcasting, 6 skill points and 2 good saves on top.
Bard, on par with fighter. LoL
I swear, people forget that someone actually has to do the hitting, and it would be better if they didn't need 3 buff rounds to do it.
Bards replace rogues not fighters.
A Fighter's ability to be always on is negligible(Not to mention false since his presence drains more party resources than mostI would argue that this is not the case.
1) You do not neccesarily know when to nova. The fight seemed scary then you nova but in fact the fight was easy and you lost resources. The fight seems to be easy and 3 rounds later you realize how dangerous it reaslly is.
2) In my experience the barbarian drain just more resources than fighters. Particularly healing.
Considering a Barbarian can get an AC higher than Fighters, have DR, and have much much more HP than Fighters, I think your Barbarians may have a problem with Reckless Abandon looking so good.
Considering a Barbarian can get an AC higher than Fighters, have DR, and have much much more HP than Fighters, I think your Barbarians may have a problem with Reckless Abandon looking so good.A Fighter's ability to be always on is negligible(Not to mention false since his presence drains more party resources than mostI would argue that this is not the case.
1) You do not neccesarily know when to nova. The fight seemed scary then you nova but in fact the fight was easy and you lost resources. The fight seems to be easy and 3 rounds later you realize how dangerous it reaslly is.
2) In my experience the barbarian drain just more resources than fighters. Particularly healing.
At what level is that AC higher than fighters?, And I am not talking about reclkes abandon.
Barbarian also have a lot of hps and in my experience they rely on them to not get killed and that make them need more healing.
Dawnflower dervish bard tops out at +8/8, +10/10 with a courageous weapon.
Interesting. Can you show a build?
Considering a Barbarian can get an AC higher than Fighters, have DR, and have much much more HP than Fighters, I think your Barbarians may have a problem with Reckless Abandon looking so good.A Fighter's ability to be always on is negligible(Not to mention false since his presence drains more party resources than mostI would argue that this is not the case.
1) You do not neccesarily know when to nova. The fight seemed scary then you nova but in fact the fight was easy and you lost resources. The fight seems to be easy and 3 rounds later you realize how dangerous it reaslly is.
2) In my experience the barbarian drain just more resources than fighters. Particularly healing.
At what level is that AC higher than fighters?, And I am not talking about reclkes abandon.
Barbarian also have a lot of hps and in my experience they rely on them to not get killed and that make them need more healing.
About 6th level. Beast Totem gives you an AC comparable to that of a Fighter in Full-Plate whilst you're in a Breastplate. A Barbarian can also use a shield perfectly fine.
Fighter's get up to +6/6 without feats and only 15K gold (less than a +3 weapon). More likely than not your fighter is rocking a +4/4 by mid levels.
Not getting into Fighter's lack or out-of-combat, just pointing out that anything out fighting a fighter in dungeon combat may be the problem, not the fighter being too weak.
Probably not, but the bard won't be as good in combat.Indeed, bards are BETTER in combat. They can either buff the entire party (which is more worth than the fighter can bring to the party with all his bonus feats combined), or if they feel like picking an archetype, they can be terrifying straight combatants on par with just about any fighter.
With 6 level spellcasting, 6 skill points and 2 good saves on top.
Bard, on par with fighter. LoL
I swear, people forget that someone actually has to do the hitting, and it would be better if they didn't need 3 buff rounds to do it.
Bards replace rogues not fighters.
Dawnflower dervish bard tops out at +8/8, +10/10 with a courageous weapon.
Even vanilla bards get +4/4 (+6/6 courageous). But then he's more a force multiplier than a straight combatant.
It does eat up his swift action I guess...
Which translates to +3/8 and +5/10 or -1/+4 (+1/6)
You know because of 3/4 BAB.
And your power attack is lower because of that too
And are you a strength or dex bard? If strength where is your AC and so on and so on.
Aaand then there's the fact that this isn't Dungeons and Dragons anymore, and some of us are hoping to break free of the 'dungeon delving' mindset and believe in campaigns in the wide open spaces.
Sure why not, but I'm not talking about that.
I'm talking about, if a fighter is more than enough for dungeon combat, then maybe the martial classes better than the fighter at it are the problem, not fighters.
Aaand then there's the fact that this isn't Dungeons and Dragons anymore, and some of us are hoping to break free of the 'dungeon delving' mindset and believe in campaigns in the wide open spaces.Sure why not, but I'm not talking about that.
I'm talking about, if a fighter is more than enough for dungeon combat, then maybe the martial classes better than the fighter at it are the problem, not fighters.
I don't really think so. "Fighter" is sold as a generic martial class. If it can only excel in one or a tiny spread of martial scenarios, the problem is with Fighter. Going further, the other classes are balanced against bestiary & themselves just fine, with Fighter being the odd guy out. The problem's with Fighter.
I don't really think so. "Fighter" is sold as a generic martial class. If it can only excel in one or a tiny spread of martial scenarios, the problem is with Fighter. Going further, the other classes are balanced against bestiary & themselves just fine, with Fighter being the odd guy out. The problem's with Fighter.Aaand then there's the fact that this isn't Dungeons and Dragons anymore, and some of us are hoping to break free of the 'dungeon delving' mindset and believe in campaigns in the wide open spaces.Sure why not, but I'm not talking about that.
I'm talking about, if a fighter is more than enough for dungeon combat, then maybe the martial classes better than the fighter at it are the problem, not fighters.
I disagree. It seems like the fighter can handle the bestiary just fine.
It seems like the other classes are the problem (barbarians, paladins, gunslingers"maybe"). I don't really think the ranger is a problem. At most it's on par with a fighter in dungeon combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really think so. "Fighter" is sold as a generic martial class. If it can only excel in one or a tiny spread of martial scenarios, the problem is with Fighter. Going further, the other classes are balanced against bestiary & themselves just fine, with Fighter being the odd guy out. The problem's with Fighter.Aaand then there's the fact that this isn't Dungeons and Dragons anymore, and some of us are hoping to break free of the 'dungeon delving' mindset and believe in campaigns in the wide open spaces.Sure why not, but I'm not talking about that.
I'm talking about, if a fighter is more than enough for dungeon combat, then maybe the martial classes better than the fighter at it are the problem, not fighters.
I disagree. It seems like the fighter can handle the bestiary just fine.
It seems like the other classes are the problem (barbarians, paladins, gunslingers"maybe"). I don't really think the ranger is a problem. At most it's on par with a fighter in dungeon combat.
Come on Marthkus. If one person has a crutch and everyone else is running fine, you don't break everyone's legs. You look into getting that guy with a crutch reconstructive bone surgery.
The Fighter doesn't handle the Bestiary just fine at all. Anything that requires a Will save, any kind of movement beyond a land speed, uses terrain, or casts spells is something he has difficulty with.
Which is 60% of the bestiary. He does good against Giants and other big dumb creatures who do exactly what a Fighter does: Stand still and full attack, and nothing else.
The Fighter sucks at combat. He's great at dealing damage, but that's it.
Come on Marthkus. If one person has a crutch and everyone else is running fine, you don't break everyone's legs. You look into getting that guy with a crutch reconstructive bone surgery.I don't really think so. "Fighter" is sold as a generic martial class. If it can only excel in one or a tiny spread of martial scenarios, the problem is with Fighter. Going further, the other classes are balanced against bestiary & themselves just fine, with Fighter being the odd guy out. The problem's with Fighter.Aaand then there's the fact that this isn't Dungeons and Dragons anymore, and some of us are hoping to break free of the 'dungeon delving' mindset and believe in campaigns in the wide open spaces.Sure why not, but I'm not talking about that.
I'm talking about, if a fighter is more than enough for dungeon combat, then maybe the martial classes better than the fighter at it are the problem, not fighters.
I disagree. It seems like the fighter can handle the bestiary just fine.
It seems like the other classes are the problem (barbarians, paladins, gunslingers"maybe"). I don't really think the ranger is a problem. At most it's on par with a fighter in dungeon combat.
The fighter is running just fine. It seems like others are on steroids though. Specially the one with anger problems.
The Fighter doesn't handle the Bestiary just fine at all. Anything that requires a Will save, any kind of movement beyond a land speed, uses terrain, or casts spells is something he has difficulty with.
Which is 60% of the bestiary. He does good against Giants and other big dumb creatures who do exactly what a Fighter does: Stand still and full attack, and nothing else.
The Fighter sucks at combat. He's great at dealing damage, but that's it.
You can have a decent will save.
Maybe in a vacuum, not so much so in a dungeon with a party(bringing things none of the martial classes could anyways.)
Dawnflower dervish bard tops out at +8/8, +10/10 with a courageous weapon.Interesting. Can you show a build?There's no build, that's just what the archetype does. It doubles the inspire courage bonus, but it is only applied to himself (so the +4/4 becomes +8/8)
Which translates to +3/8 and +5/10 or -1/+4 (+1/6)
You know because of 3/4 BAB.
And your power attack is lower because of that too
And are you a strength or dex bard? If strength where is your AC and so on and so on.
Now that you ask, +5/10 makes up for the 1 less power attack compared to the +6/6 actually. In fact, it makes him a lot better archer, natural attacker, or TWF-er (in those styles he'd trade 1 point of attack bonus for 2 dmg at most where here he trades for 4).
DEX or STR is irrelevant. He has lighter armor, but that's worth maybe 2-4 points of AC at the very worst. More than made up for by spells like Blur and Mirror image.
You're looking at at least 5 points of AC without a dex focus. Which is life or death.
Without some splat armor you will hit the dex-max soon and have serious problems keeping up with a fighter in enchanted steel plate and adding his full dex bonus to AC because of armor training. Just with dex and armor a fighter can reasonably get up to +19 AC. 30 dex and bracers +8 cost far more and brings you to only +18. So you never catch up and can only get close very late game, not to mention dex doesn't add to damage normally and even then it's only x1.00 not x1.5, but if the fighter doesn't go two-handed he can match the damage and pick up a shield for EVEN MORE AC! Starting to get a +10 difference, which means your bard is super squishy.
The latter part of the post was the more important.
You've basically said that because some people want their fighters a certain way, other people who want some other stuff while still allowing the former people to have their Fighter how they like it have to suffer.
Why can't we both have it the way we like? Isn't that exactly the sort of thing archetypes were made for?
You are now comparing specific builds. Yes, if the fighter goes DEX focused he can actually get up to really high AC. But if the fighter goes DEX based he'll also suck major donkey balls. Armor training isn't worth crap because you need to have way too high DEX for most fighters to realistically benefit from it.You're looking at at least 5 points of AC without a dex focus. Which is life or death.
Without some splat armor you will hit the dex-max soon and have serious problems keeping up with a fighter in enchanted steel plate and adding his full dex bonus to AC because of armor training. Just with dex and armor a fighter can reasonably get up to +19 AC. 30 dex and bracers +8 cost far more and brings you to only +18. So you never catch up and can only get close very late game, not to mention dex doesn't add to damage normally and even then it's only x1.00 not x1.5, but if the fighter doesn't go two-handed he can match the damage and pick up a shield for EVEN MORE AC! Starting to get a +10 difference, which means your bard is super squishy.
Let me stop you right there. I was comparing a fighter that started with 14 dex. That's not a dex fighter. That's a standard fighter (18/14/14/10/10/10)
Your fighter has an array built with 27 point-buy. "Standard", according to the SRD, is 15, but I think that 20 is what's used by a lot of groups (and Pathfinder Society).
So no, that's not a standard fighter.
Right, I had forgotten. Apologies. Ah well. I pity the poor fighters who aren't allowed mental stats if they want to keep up.
Design Manager
|
Fighter's get up to +6/6 without feats and only 15K gold (less than a +3 weapon). More likely than not your fighter is rocking a +4/4 by mid levels.Not getting into Fighter's lack or out-of-combat, just pointing out that anything out fighting a fighter in dungeon combat may be the problem, not the fighter being too weak.
I mentioned this earlier, but saying everything is else is what's broken is typically not a good sign. If every other full BAB class is performing at one minimum, and the Fighter is performing at a different, lower, minimum, the problem does not lie with every class other than the Fighter, because the Fighter is the aberrant factor.
Your argument basically boils down to "I think the Fighter is great and every other class in the game should be dragged down to his level". That's a bad argument, and moreover, it's the least efficient way of addressing the issue. The Fighter's fix is simple and causes a minimal amount of bookkeeping to address; dropping every other class down to the Fighter's level would require a new edition be printed.