They get way more feats. Plus, they get fighter specialization feats which increase their damage and hit by 4 when you get all of them. Plus they have weapon training which helps them hit things even better. Also, armor training really helps a DEX based fighter.
Design Manager
|
They get way more feats. Plus, they get fighter specialization feats which increase their damage and hit by 4 when you get all of them. Plus they have weapon training which helps them hit things even better. Also, armor training really helps a DEX based fighter.
They get 5 more feats. And the advantages of Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization, which apply to a single weapon, are immediately offset by a single casting of Lead Blades or Gravity Bow. The Fighter's bonus to hit can be matched through similar means. The Fighter's advantages (feats) are weighted far too heavily. Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus are not equivalent to an Animal Companion any more than the Specialization feats are equal to 4 levels of spellcasting.
Advantages that the Fighter gets through dedicated, hyper-focused and situational feats and abilities are almost entirely emulatable with a single spell. The few feats a Fighter gets over the Ranger do not come anywhere near to giving him an edge. Simplicity of play and breadth of options in a single build (two things that don't actually synergize with each other) are probably the only true "advantages" the Fighter can be credited with.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To make a class comparison, you need to make a class comparison, not a race comparison, a 'who can spend WBL best on consumables ahead of time for an encounter' comparison, a 'general feats' comparison, a 'pick the spells ahead of time' comparison, an "I can assign stats on point buy better then you" comparison.
You need to break down what the class, and the class alone, can do. ANYTHING else, race, general feats and WBL, is something BOTH classes can do, and so is NOT a class comparison.
This is where class comparisons fall down...they continually move to things outside the class.
Bob Loblaw, bless his even temper, is the poster boy for this. He continually resorts to non-class comparisons to make his point on comparing classes.
Here's your class comparison questions for melees:
Offensive:
1) What's your BAB?
2) What's your hit die?
3)Do you have class features that increase damage?
4) Are they surge or constant? Are they limited in target or universal?
5) Do you have spells? (if yes, make note: Easier time making magic items)
5a) Do those spells include buffs? Offensive spells?
6) Do you have movement bonuses or modes of any kind? Are these cheaply subbed for?
7) Do you have stat dependency for your class features? (ex. Wisdom for casting ranger spells; stats for combat bonus feats)
8) Can you move and attack at full effectiveness?
9) Are you as effective at range as you are in melee?
10) Do you have a fighting partner?
11) Do you have non-casting combat enhancements?
12) Do your offensive abilities scale (increase by level) or are they flat bonuses?
13) Can you gain extra attacks/offensive power?
14) How does your offensive ability fare in anti-magic?
Defensive
1) What good saves do you have?
2) Do you have any enhancements to saves you get from your class?
3) Can you cast defensive spells or use defensive powers?
4) How good are you at dealing with traps?
5) can you heal yourself?
6) can you remove status conditions from yourself?
7) How do you handle flanking/sneak attack conditions?
8) How do you handle flying foes?
9) Do you have any immunities? Resistances? SPell Resistance?
10) How good are you at defending against combat manuvers?
11) Do you have to trade off being good at offense and defense?
12) Do you have bonuses to AC from class that are not spells?
13) Any good news for Touch AC?
14) Do your defensive abilities that are numbers scale, or are they flat bonuses?
15) Do you have stat dependency for any of your class features?
16) How good are you at stealth?
17) Do you have useful defensive spells to cast that you would employ regularly?
18) How does your defensive ability fare in anti-magic?
Utility
1)How many skill points do you have?
2) How many class skills do you have?
3) Is it a 'good' class list? Specifically, does it handle Perception, a social skill aspect, and/or some combat usage (such as sense motive or Knowledge skills?)
4) Do you gain a bonus to any skills from class abilities?
5) Do you have any miscellaneous class features that would be called utility features?
6) Do you have spells that have a 'downtime' use? Utility usage when adventuring?
7) Do you gain bonuses from high statistics for non-standard purposes not covered elsewhere? (i.e. primarily bonus spells from stats)
8) Would you style yourself MAD or SAD as a class (i.e. requiring 16+ in 2+ stats to function normally, or 14+ in 4 or more stats)
9) How does your utility ability fare in anti-magic?
THIS is a melee class comparison. No general feats, no racial abilities, no WBL, no min-max on stat builds. It's a straight up class comparison, everything else gets added on afterwards, and what's good for one is good for the other.
And when you start looking at it this way, Fighters start coming up...poorly.
Note: If we're going to include primary casters, then you'd include things like prepared spells, spontaneous, surprise situations, size of spell list/spells known, etc.
==Aelryinth
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters are the blank slate martial class of pathfinder. They can be whatever you want them to be. They get fairly generic class abilities, and bonus: pick extra abilities that are available to everyone. Fighters get generic bonuses that make them decent all the time.
Rangers are a specific defined fantasy archetype. You can always ignore that archetype and pretend they are something other than a nature loving lone wanderer, but that's what your class abilities make you.
Rangers get specific bonuses that make them situationally superior.
That's what I see as the design intent at least.
In practice the ranger can always be better, but with preparation. Yes you can cast lead blades or gravity bow, but it does take a round. Which can make a huge difference. Take a fighter and a ranger, build them both as level 10 archers. Ranger casts gravity bow round one, fighter full attacks and kills ranger. Of course, if the fight was against something tougher and took more than 3 rounds, then the ranger is superior. And since most combats will take more than 3 rounds, that means it's the fighter who is situationally better, and the ranger better most of the time.
I think the big complaint about the fighter is they have no boosts. They are always the same. If built well they will always be good, but they can never drink that mutagen, rage, spend a grit, ki point, or cast a buff spell, and become better. They are static.
Interesting note: the two classes that players complain about the most, rogue and fighter, are the only two static classes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The monk is probably complained about as much as the fighter, and is not a static class.
The rogue gets complained about because as far as Medium BAB combatants go, it is the absolute worst; skills are trumped by magic in nearly all situations; and its class abilities are given away to so many other classes. Add in lack of both save-or-die saves, and things get bad.
the fighter is complained about because it's a glass cannon. It can inflict damage. That's all it can do. it can't defend, it can't lead, it can't do out of combat stuff, it has little to no skills to back it. Complaints about fighters aren't complaints about inflicting damage...they are defense and utility complaints.
You are correct in that PF overvalues the ability of a static class. Unfortunately, as long as you have a burnable resource in hit points, everyone is a non-static class, the fighter and the rogue just don't get anything to make up for it.
==Aelryinth
|
Design Manager
|
In practice the ranger can always be better, but with preparation. Yes you can cast lead blades or gravity bow, but it does take a round. Which can make a huge difference. Take a fighter and a ranger, build them both as level 10 archers. Ranger casts gravity bow round one, fighter full attacks and kills ranger. Of course, if the fight was against something tougher and took more than 3 rounds, then the ranger is superior. And since most combats will take more than 3 rounds, that means it's the fighter who is situationally better, and the ranger better most of the time.
***
In practice the Ranger with his high Perception and Stealth is far more likely to anticipate or initiate combat, and Gravity Bow and Lead Blades have durations of minutes per caster level. In practice, I personally cannot recall having seen a Ranger in a situation where he was losing actual combat rounds to buff.
For a 10th level encounter, it's more like:Pre-combat: Ranger knows enemy is somewhere close and casts Gravity Bow, which will last for the next 70 rounds.
Surprise Round: Ranger makes Perception to detect enemy ambush and makes one attack during surprise round with enhanced bow. Fighter fails Perception check, does not act in surprise round.
Round 1: Ranger and Fighter recognize that the enemy they are confronted with are the half-dragon killers they've been tracking. Ranger swift action casts Instant Enemy (I would assume a ranger who hunts people for a living probably already has them as an enemy, but we can pretend this is necessary), and then full attacks with enhanced bow.
By round 1 the Ranger is already an attack action ahead of the Fighter with a bow dealing 2d6 to the Fighter's 1d8. Not only is the ranger tromping the Fighter in combat, he's also the one who (presumably) tracked the enemy up to this point and detected them. Yes, it's a "created" scenario, but it's the one I see most often played out in APs, modules, and home games.
I think this thread makes Rangers out to be more than they really are.In 3.5 Rangers where the class that never panned out, and they haven't gotten much since the transition,their casterlevel is improved and..... well thats all that comes to mind really.
Instant Enemy is a huge boost and with a little GM help you can surely pick favoured enemies that come up often but its nothing like the reliability of a fighter.
Also Lead Blades and Gravity Bow are like a 5% increase in DPR when the difference between a Fighter and a Ranger who doesn't fight his favoured enemy is more like 50%.
I think the Brawler's mechanics in the ACG playtest would be a very nice thing to transpose onto a new fighter archetype come this year.
Hint hint
Second, spells are locked in for several classes (sorcerers, summoners, magus, bards, etc.) and are certainly locked in at least for the day for all casters. If you choose the wrong spells in the morning, then you are going to be rather ineffective. If you can't acknowledge that, then this conversation is going to go nowhere really fast.
Whoa, whoa, whoa...are you really making this argument Bob? How "unlocked" are Fighter options again? If I'm playing a Ranger, yes, I'm locking in X spell in my 1st level slot at 4th level. That spell may do one of many things such as increase my land speed by 10 ft. for an hour, or give me energy resistance 10 for a good while, or allow me to shoot unlimited quantities of special-material arrows for a bit, or make it so animals cannot perceive me (good for sneaking since it hoses scent), let me avoid leaving a trail (similar usage), or make someone immune to poison for 1 hour.
I get to choose 1 of those things for that day. All of those are pretty good options but they won't be ideal for all situations even if they are good in most situations. But here's the funny thing...all things considered, I can change them. If I pick up an amulet that makes me immune to poison 24/7, then I can switch to a different thing. If the we're going to be in a situation where I don't need more landspeed (say I'm riding my animal companion around) then I can use a different spell.
When was the last time a Fighter really got to switch his feats out? You took Improved Trip + Greater Trip and end up spending a lot of time fighting flying creatures? You took stuff for mounted combat and ended up inside narrow dungeons? You invested in Two-Weapon Fighting but everything kites you? Which of these feats are you switching out the next day?
Perhaps a better question would be, which of these feats are you able to buy in any thorpe-sized town or bigger to use when you really need to? Which of these feats are allowing you to adapt to circumstances? Which of these feats aren't "locked in" in a much bigger way than spells?
|
Design Manager
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this thread makes Rangers out to be more than they really are.In 3.5 Rangers where the class that never panned out, and they haven't gotten much since the transition,their casterlevel is improved and..... well thats all that comes to mind really.
Instant Enemy is a huge boost and with a little GM help you can surely pick favoured enemies that come up often but its nothing like the reliability of a fighter.
Also Lead Blades and Gravity Bow are like a 5% increase in DPR when the difference between Fighter and Ranger who doesn't fight his favoured enemy is more like 50%.
Lead Blades and Gravity Bow take an average dice roll of 4.5 on 1d8 and increase it to an average dice roll of 7. So the spell is already better than Weapon Specialization, but goes a step further in that it applies to any weapon. The Fighters feats have to be all chained to a single weapon. If you're running an AP or module with a GM who doesn't have the skills to go off book and wing it, the Fighter can end up screwed by picking the wrong weapon. Player's Guides always have suggestions for what favored enemies a Ranger should consider, but they almost never have recommendations for what weapon Fighters should pick.
The Fighter has no advantage at all until 5th level. At 5th level, the Ranger is picking up his 2nd Favored Enemy to the Fighter's first instance of Weapon Training, and the Ranger has Hunter's Bond, which either allows him to share his Favored abilities with his teammates or gives him an animal companion. A flanking buddy with its own set of actions kicks the tar out of +1/+1 with a single weapon group.The Fighter never has a 50% lead over the Ranger at any point in direct damage. Never. Not even close, and not even beforeyou start calculating in the Ranger's situational or expendable abilities.
the fighter is complained about because it's a glass cannon. It can inflict damage. That's all it can do. it can't defend, it can't lead, it can't do out of combat stuff, it has little to no skills to back it. Complaints about fighters aren't complaints about inflicting damage...they are defense and utility complaints.
Lawl what? Explain by drawing comparisons to encounters not other classes.
|
|
Hmm, several people seem to have read one line of my post and took it wildly out of context, and it wasn't even the same line =p.
andreww: keep reading, that's what they are intended to be. You can make a fighter that is a noble knight or a nature loving lone wanderer. They are a jack of all martials; not as good as a specific class designed to do that (paladin, ranger).
Ssalarn: you quoted me saying fighters are only situationally better than rangers, then gave an example of one of the many situations where fighters aren't better. So... yeah.
Aelryinth: to me the ultimate combat's style feats, coupled with numerous good archetypes fixed the monk class. I haven't heard anyone complain about the class, and currently see numerous monks played (all with some styles, which reiterates that as a fix to me). The only monk complaining I've heard was when they changed crane wing.
Aelryinth: to me the ultimate combat's style feats, coupled with numerous good archetypes fixed the monk class. I haven't heard anyone complain about the class, and currently see numerous monks played (all with some styles, which reiterates that as a fix to me). The only monk complaining I've heard was when they changed crane wing.
Is this how one summons dabbler?
I think this thread makes Rangers out to be more than they really are.In 3.5 Rangers where the class that never panned out, and they haven't gotten much since the transition,their casterlevel is improved and..... well thats all that comes to mind really.
Instant Enemy is a huge boost and with a little GM help you can surely pick favoured enemies that come up often but its nothing like the reliability of a fighter.
Also Lead Blades and Gravity Bow are like a 5% increase in DPR when the difference between Fighter and Ranger who doesn't fight his favoured enemy is more like 50%.
Lead Blades and Gravity Bow take an average dice roll of 4.5 on 1d8 and increase it to an average dice roll of 7. So the spell is already better than Weapon Specialization, but goes a step further in that it applies to any weapon. The Fighters feats have to be all chained to a single weapon. If you're running an AP or module with a GM who doesn't have the skills to go off book and wing it, the Fighter can end up screwed by picking the wrong weapon. Player's Guides always have suggestions for what favored enemies a Ranger should consider, but they almost never have recommendations for what weapon Fighters should pick.
The Fighter has no advantage at all until 5th level. At 5th level, the Ranger is picking up his 2nd Favored Enemy to the Fighter's first instance of Weapon Training, and the Ranger has Hunter's Bond, which either allows him to share his Favored abilities with his teammates or gives him an animal companion. A flanking buddy with its own set of actions kicks the tar out of +1/+1 with a single weapon group.The Fighter never has a 50% lead over the Ranger at any point in direct damage. Never. Not even close, and not even beforeyou start calculating in the Ranger's situational or expendable abilities.
Oh yes he does, at mid levels a Fighter Archer will lead a Ranger by about 50% DPR(but probably much more) FE and Animal Companions not included.
Wanna make a bet? I'll give you gravity Bow for free.:)
Because I have bad experiences with Animal Companions and I have heard bad things from others too especially from organized play.(Along the lines of players never getting to take them with them.)
Fighters are like a clockwork, they tick away their damage come rain or snow.Rangers? Not so much.
|
Design Manager
|
Ssalarn: you quoted me saying fighters are only situationally better than rangers, then gave an example of one of the many situations where fighters aren't better. So... yeah.
Only because your "situation" where the Fighter was better involved some kind of arena where the Ranger was blindfolded and handcuffed right until everyone rolled initiative.
A class is not "situationally better" if the situation in reference involves an incredibly unlikely series of events that end with the Fighter and Ranger both completely unprepared for combat, but somehow the Fighter still has his preferred weapon in hand and the Ranger has no idea what's going on. That's a fairy tale, not a situation.
Find a scenario that's actually going to come up in play where the Fighter can consistently out-perform the Ranger. The only thing I can think of is low level (like 1-3) Dark Sun-style arena fights where the Fighters edge in combat feats is actually relevant and the enemies can't cast spells without being burned at the stake by an angry mob or incinerated by immortal sorcerer kings.
Hey, I found answer to the thread's title question!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Misidentify an elk print for a boar track? Mistake poison ivy for a 'toilet paper' leaf? Get eaten by their 'animal companion' (I am sure Siegfried and Roy or that 'Grizzly guy' would have been better off as 'Rangers')?
I can think of lots of things fighters can do rangers don't.
|
Design Manager
|
Because I have bad experiences with Animal Companions and I have heard bad things from others too especially from organized play.(Along the lines of players never getting to take them with them.)
Fighters are like a clockwork, they tick away their damage come rain or snow.Rangers? Not so much.
Then players should be reporting the incidents to their local Venture Captains. PFS GM's should not be arbitrarily denying players access to their class features. Particularly a class like the Ranger whose animal companions are almost exlusively his size or smaller.
I have seen one or two legitimate situations where a horse was not going to make it through a small-sized entry. Since PFS allows effectively unlimited time between scenarios, I typically recommend keeping a "back up" animal companion on hand (they can be switched out with 24 hours of prayer). Then, if you're showing up for a scenario entitled "The Tiny Twisting Tunnels of the Terrible Troglodytes" you want to bust out the Badger and leave the horse to run free.
I would like to think the ranger is better at range combat.
OK, well the Kobold example is at level 1. An odd place to pick. Seems like charging Kobolds in a defensive and alert position AFTER avoiding a trap seems like a bad idea. I normally make a habit of carrying a tower shield, but sense this is level 1 we can't assume that. If I did have it though, I would use it to make cover then the player with perception could look for traps as a move action AND fire a ranger weapon with their standard. Without a tower Shield, I would just have draw a range weapon and then fired it, still letting the player with perception look for traps. At this level I have a +1 to hit with my javelins(-2 range
penalty), meaning I would only hit 35% of the time for 1d6+4 damage (which kills the kobold). Not great. If party scout can find a safe path, I can move in (not charging, because pfff) for a +5 to-hit which kills 55% of the time. But we know that there was no safe path. Now I probably have scale mail which puts my AC at 17, meaning the kobolds hit 35% of the time. If I have a wooden heavy shield, they could only hit 25% of the time.
Oh boy, here we go. ~_~
1. Anyone can use a tower shield in a hallway. Unless you're actually fighting with the tower shield, you don't care about the non-proficiency penalty. When fighting while wielding a tower shield, your attacks are all at a -2, meaning that tossing your Javalin is actually at -1. Further, your tower shield is pretty useless for protecting your party because it just means the kobolds shoot at someone else since your tower shield specifically provides total cover only to you. It's also completely useless when they start tossing alchemist fire (kobolds receive NPC gear y'know) and actually makes you more vulnerable to touch-attacks (because a tower shield has a maximum Dex cap of +1, which armor training never does anything about and it cannot legally be made of mithral according to the core rulebook).
2. Your math is a little off. You have less than a 35% chance to hit them because, again, the kobolds were hiding behind cover. Even the generic leather-armor kobolds would have 19 AC in this case, meaning your chances of hitting them are quite slim. If crouching (see Combat) they get a +2 AC vs ranged attacks, bringing your chance to hit them to a mere 5% (natural 20 only).
3. So in this case you're basically inching through the hallway in file while the guy behind you is spending his move action to search for traps each round (which he can't take 10 or 20 on since he's being shot at). Your Fighter in this case isn't really doing anything special other than just being the guy in front who isn't getting shot at (if he has a tower shield) or is soaking crossbow bolts if he doesn't (since the kobolds are each firing at +3 vs his AC 19 with a heavy shield, which means you're likely taking a hit each round you're inching through the corridor without a shield). If you are using a tower shield, then they're just going to shoot at the guys behind you (the ones who are apparently providing you with sweet spells like endure elements)...
4. If your party does not locate the trap, then it's your Reflex save vs the pit trap. At DC 20 and a 14 Dex, you have an 85% chance of failure, which doesn't look so good. Pretty good chance you end up in a pit, suffer some serious pain, and are effectively out of the fight for the combat (because climbing in medium armor is kind of a joke).
5. If you get past the pit trap and manage to close in near them, you're going to enjoy several alchemist fires vs your touch AC, and enjoy cooking in your own armor, and as long as they have cover you can't make AoOs against them, so they just move away from you and into their tunnels to wreck your face again in a little while (unless you want to crawl through tiny-sized tunnels, which the kobolds can move through just fine by squeezing but I doubt you want to try that).
Does any of the above sound mean, nasty, and unfair? Damn strait it does. That's dungeon combat for you. That's dealing with creatures that have a home-field advantage, in a place you don't know anything about. That's the rules and tactics getting used. But do you have anything that makes you better at it than any other class? No. Not really. A barbarian would have had more HP and the same AC and Perception as a class skill (so he could also be trying to find mundane traps while moving through the hallway). A Ranger would have had a better chance of surviving the pit (and if the party was anything short of freshly made 1st level PCs, may have laughed at their alchemist fires). A Paladin would have been in about the same amount of trouble at 1st level, but at 2nd level would have had more HP and better saves than you (further improving odds of surviving the encounter).
Literally nothing that you listed demonstrates an ability to "wreck" dungeon encounters. Hell, nothing you listed even made the fighter look appealing even when you know exactly what you're going to be up against because you're presented with a scenario that you know involves a hall, a trap, and kobolds behind cover firing at you.
Assuming I would look at this encounter and not bum rush the kobolds, the fighter could almost solo the encounter. With a party the fighter could take hits and in forward in the front, while the party scout checks for traps from behind the fighter. Cleric heals as needed. Wizard fires his crossbow to help out.
No. Just no. The fighter couldn't solo this encounter if he prayed really hard. I'm not saying that any other martial could either, but I'm calling this as the silly joke that it is. There are too many high % chances for the fighter to be invalidated, do nothing worthwhile, or simply die outright when he gets near the kobolds (because taking around 3-4d6 worth of fire damage and then another 3-4d6 fire damage on the next round is a dead Fighter, and you can't make AoOs vs the kobolds even if you close into melee with them since they have cover).
Which means if you're inching up in the dungeon while using your tower shield for a total defense, it'll take you 3 rounds to make it into melee-range with them. At which point you get BBQ'd.
If I just bum rush like the barbar did, I only have 1 less health because I took toughness at level 1. Meaning I would have survived MISTAKE 2 with 1 HP instead of 2.
Given that the barbarian raged and had +2 HP more on her HD to begin with and then raged for another +2 HP...
Now for your other points:
1) Traps is what the party scout is for, not the fighter type. Normally he couldn't spare a move action to search for traps anyways mid combat and depends on the scout for support.
So you're saying you bring nothing to the table when it comes to scouting or avoiding traps. Okay, that's what I said.
2-4) I feel like fighters handle these situations just fine.
This isn't a rebuttal.
5) I don't care for charging anyways. The hit to AC hurts and it's not like the fighter needs a bonus to-hit. Move + Throw weapon is a decent opener, specially if it convinces melees to move towards you so that you get the first full attack. If I can't use range, neither can they so a non issue. I should never need precise shot, since I should be the first one in melee.
In a dungeon environment it's very possible that ranged attacks can work for your enemies but not so well for you. Precise shot is a prerequisite for Improved Precise shot, which is important for getting around things like Cover later on, or for assisting your allies if you are ambushed and incapable of moving to intercept them (such as if you're a narrow area and there are no empty spaces).
6) Endure elements is a spell, and the fighter is in a party, so heat and cold are non issues.
Yes, a spell that must be used on you. You're a resource sink. It's not even a good spell for dealing with the types of environmental dangers that you can experience in fantastic dungeons, which literally includes heat and cold damage, not merely travel-style heat but actual fire and cold damage like gouts of fire, lava, steam, choking hazards (smoke does more than just provide concealment), and intense cold (like brown mold dealing 3d6 cold damage), acid pools, etc.
Umm you can just smack slime mold or throw range weapons at it if the fort save is that big of a deal.
I'm not sure how you're just going to "smack slime mold". Green slime for example falls on you when you pass beneath it and deals 1d6 con damage every round and destroys stuff you try to scrape it off with. Yellow mold forces fortitude saves every round for 5 rounds to avoid taking Constitution damage (which you cannot heal) and even with a +10 fortitude (implying you are in fact much higher than the mold's CR) you have a pretty solid chance of eating that Con damage. Brown mold fighters can do literally nothing to unless they have a frost weapon or alchemist frosts to throw on the mold, but they can cause the mold to spread (if they have a torch or other open flame such as a flaming weapon). Literally all the molds and slime hazards you find in dungeons cannot be dealt with by "smacking" them, though Paladins and Barbarians have things that can help to deal with/survive/recover from them.
TL;DR Not the best examples, after my various rogues defenses, I expected something more soul crushing.
I'm very disappointed. Not only did you demonstrate how poorly a Fighter "wrecks dungeons", but you also demonstrated that nothing he does is at all special. Literally every tactic that you presented can be done just as easily by literally any other martial - nay, almost any other character - and still be at least as effective. In most cases, those other martials could do the same thing but have better chances of dealing with the encounter's dangers (barbarians the same AC, similar HP to the fighter with Toughness, and better skill modifiers, Rangers with better skills, reflex saves, and potential to laugh at alchemist fire spam, Paladins with their saves and HP at level 2+, etc).
Nothing you said cannot be done as effectively by the Fighter as any other class. But plenty you said can be done more effectively by any other class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fighter is actually better at ranged combat.
Why? Because ranged combat is extremely feat-intensive, and doesn't hit the fighter's main weakness, i.e. relying on full attacks. Archers always make full attacks. The ranger can rival him with FE at full, but round to round, against all foes, Archery is the #1 fighting style for a fighter.
Which doesn't address the fact that nobody is complaining about the fighter's ability to deal damage. It's everything else. People defending the fighter because he can hit things are steadfastly ignoring the fact that we're not talking about hitting things. Hitting things is FINE. Everything else, not so much.
==Aelryinth
Because I have bad experiences with Animal Companions and I have heard bad things from others too especially from organized play.(Along the lines of players never getting to take them with them.)
Fighters are like a clockwork, they tick away their damage come rain or snow.Rangers? Not so much.
Then players should be reporting the incidents to their local Venture Captains. PFS GM's should not be arbitrarily denying players access to their class features. Particularly a class like the Ranger whose animal companions are almost exlusively his size or smaller.
I have seen one or two legitimate situations where a horse was not going to make it through a small-sized entry. Since PFS allows effectively unlimited time between scenarios, I typically recommend keeping a "back up" animal companion on hand (they can be switched out with 24 hours of prayer). Then, if you're showing up for a scenario entitled "The Tiny Twisting Tunnels of the Terrible Troglodytes" you want to bust out the Badger and leave the horse to run free.
Yah well.
My point is that "situational" is everything that is not always on your character.Saying stuff like "a fighter can be hosed if he chooses the wrong weapon" is nonsense.
I can conjure up scenarios and just make it so that one character magicaly knows everything and suceeds on every roll as well.
Pre-combat: Ranger knows enemy is somewhere close and casts Gravity Bow, which will last for the next 70 rounds.
Surprise Round: Ranger makes Perception to detect enemy ambush and makes one attack during surprise round with enhanced bow. Fighter fails Perception check, does not act in surprise round.
Round 1: Ranger and Fighter recognize that the enemy they are confronted with are the half-dragon killers they've been tracking. Ranger swift action casts Instant Enemy (I would assume a ranger who hunts people for a living probably already has them as an enemy, but we can pretend this is necessary), and then full attacks with enhanced bow.
By round 1 the Ranger is already an attack action ahead of the Fighter with a bow dealing 2d6 to the Fighter's 1d8. Not only is the ranger tromping the Fighter in combat, he's also the one who (presumably) tracked the enemy up to this point and detected them. Yes, it's a "created" scenario, but it's the one I see most often played out in APs, modules, and home games.
You have to be joking with this. Why exactly did the fighter fail his Perception check?And why did the Ranger know that there are enemies?This is what you "see most often"? I have seen it go very differently.
|
|
Ssalarn: you quoted me saying fighters are only situationally better than rangers, then gave an example of one of the many situations where fighters aren't better. So... yeah.
Only because your "situation" where the Fighter was better involved some kind of arena where the Ranger was blindfolded and handcuffed right until everyone rolled initiative.
A class is not "situationally better" if the situation in reference involves an incredibly unlikely series of events that end with the Fighter and Ranger both completely unprepared for combat, but somehow the Fighter still has his preferred weapon in hand and the Ranger has no idea what's going on. That's a fairy tale, not a situation.
Find a scenario that's actually going to come up in play where the Fighter can consistently out-perform the Ranger. The only thing I can think of is low level (like 1-3) Dark Sun-style arena fights where the Fighters edge in combat feats is actually relevant and the enemies can't cast spells without being burned at the stake by an angry mob or incinerated by immortal sorcerer kings.Hey, I found answer to the thread's title question!
Ahh Dark Sun, how I miss thee cannibal halflings.
Well I suppose it depends on GM as a lot of things do in PF. In PFS and in the home games I play in, about half the combats start without the chance for a surprise round. Both parties are aware of each other and roll initiative, have at it. As far as having your weapon in hand, since full attacking is all you got, by 6th level every fighter I've played took quick draw. So in my experience, it's not that far fetched of a situation. But again, it's not that common of a situation either.
I think it's pretty funny that I'm saying fighters aren't that good and you're arguing nuh-uh, they suck even worse!
the fighter is complained about because it's a glass cannon. It can inflict damage. That's all it can do. it can't defend, it can't lead, it can't do out of combat stuff, it has little to no skills to back it. Complaints about fighters aren't complaints about inflicting damage...they are defense and utility complaints.Lawl what? Explain by drawing comparisons to encounters not other classes.
1) It can't defend: Three dryads throw Charm Monsters at you to make you their boytoy for a year. What in your class abilities is going to help you?
A dragon breathes fire at you. What in your class abilities is going to help you?2) You are about to enter combat with friends/allies/an army. What in your class abilities is going to buff them to increase their combat effectiveness?
3) What in your class abilities lets you make magic items? Excel at some form of social interactions? WIn friends, influence people, and drive the narrative? Why would people respect/admire a fighter as much/more then other classes for mechanical reasons, not DM fiat?
4) You have two skill points a level. None of them are in combat related skills (particularly acrobatics and perception) with the exception of Intimidate, and mental stats are not your forte. You don't have Bluff, Sense Motive, or Diplomacy.
What class features do you have that enhance/leverage your mediocre skill points to make up for this, given that you don't have magic to leverage or replace skills like many other classes?
5) What bonuses akin to gaining extra spells for high stats do you gain as a non-magic user?
Keep in mind we're talking CLASS FEATURES. You may not resort to wealth, race, or general feats for these, because those are non-class options. Anyone else can do that, and we're focusing on what Fighters can do. Ain't no general feats on the Fighter's Bonus combat feats list.
==Aelryinth
|
Design Manager
|
When did the Fighter make his Perception check? You know, your guy with 2+Int skills who needs high STR and Con to be in the thick of things, and high Dex to make one of his primary class features function (see: Armor Training)?
And here's the thing; I'm not saying the Fighter can't be a little bit better in combat, I'm saying that he fails hard at everything else and that can bleed into combat easily. I'm rebutting the absolutely ridiculous and unsupported assertion that the Fighter is somehow doing 50% more damage than a Ranger ever.
The situation I put out there is the situation that the rules actually support. If you want, we can do the full 10th level builds on a 20 point buy (PFS and modern AP standard) and run them both through that exact scenario, or any other variety of scenarios that don't assume the enemy is standing in the middle of a 10 ft by 10ft room singing war songs so you know where to find him. I promise you, the Fighter fails before he ever even finds his targets unless he dumps major resources into things the Ranger gets for free, at which point he can't compete with the Ranger in combat, and still isn't as good at non-combat challenges.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, well the Kobold example is at level 1. An odd place to pick. Seems like charging Kobolds in a defensive and alert position AFTER avoiding a trap seems like a bad idea. I normally make a habit of carrying a tower shield, but sense this is level 1 we can't assume that. If I did have it though, I would use it to make cover then the player with perception could look for traps as a move action AND fire a ranger weapon with their standard. Without a tower Shield, I would just have draw a range weapon and then fired it, still letting the player with perception look for traps. At this level I have a +1 to hit with my javelins(-2 range
penalty), meaning I would only hit 35% of the time for 1d6+4 damage (which kills the kobold). Not great. If party scout can find a safe path, I can move in (not charging, because pfff) for a +5 to-hit which kills 55% of the time. But we know that there was no safe path. Now I probably have scale mail which puts my AC at 17, meaning the kobolds hit 35% of the time. If I have a wooden heavy shield, they could only hit 25% of the time.Oh boy, here we go. ~_~
1. Anyone can use a tower shield in a hallway. Unless you're actually fighting with the tower shield, you don't care about the non-proficiency penalty. When fighting while wielding a tower shield, your attacks are all at a -2, meaning that tossing your Javalin is actually at -1. Further, your tower shield is pretty useless for protecting your party because it just means the kobolds shoot at someone else since your tower shield specifically provides total cover only to you. It's also completely useless when they start tossing alchemist fire (kobolds receive NPC gear y'know) and actually makes you more vulnerable to touch-attacks (because a tower shield has a maximum Dex cap of +1, which armor training never does anything about and it cannot legally be made of mithral according to the core rulebook).
2. Your math is a little off. You have less than a 35% chance to hit them because, again, the...
You're confused, I never claimed that fighters were better than other martials or brought things to the table that they did not.
Overgeared kobolds do not make for a trivial encounter at lvl 1. No wonder your party had problems.
Point of interest: Since when is crouching a rule?
|
Design Manager
|
Ahh Dark Sun, how I miss thee cannibal halflings.Well I suppose it depends on GM as a lot of things do in PF. In PFS and in the home games I play in, about half the combats start without the chance for a surprise round. Both parties are aware of each other and roll initiative, have at it. As far as having your weapon in hand, since full attacking is all you got, by 6th level every fighter I've played took quick draw. So in my experience, it's not that far fetched of a situation. But again, it's not that common of a situation either.
I think it's pretty funny that I'm saying fighters aren't that good and you're arguing nuh-uh, they suck even worse!
Well, when you ut it that way....
I miss the cannibal halflings too. Eberron's dinosaur-riding halfling barbarians weren't bad either.
The fighter is actually better at ranged combat.
Why? Because ranged combat is extremely feat-intensive, and doesn't hit the fighter's main weakness, i.e. relying on full attacks. Archers always make full attacks. The ranger can rival him with FE at full, but round to round, against all foes, Archery is the #1 fighting style for a fighter.
Pretty much this, against non-FE.
Fighters are the best ranged damage dealers (barring a Smiting Paladin) because the confluence of their three class features actually supports that combat style very well.
Point of interest: Since when is crouching a rule?
See Table 8-6: Armor Class Modifiers of the Core Rulebook, specifically Kneeling or Sitting (-2 vs Melee, +2 vs Ranged).
You're confused, I never claimed that fighters were better than other martials or brought things to the table that they did not.
Overgeared kobolds do not make for a trivial encounter at lvl 1. No wonder your party had problems.
Point of interest: Since when is crouching a rule?
Err... isn't fighters being effective at dungeon combat the point of your argument?
NPCs receive a minimum of 260 gp of equipment, 390 gp if they have PC levels. See the "NPC Gear" table from the "Creating NPCs" section.
He probably means kneeling, which is about the same thing. See Table 8-6: "Armor Class Modifiers" in the Combat chapter.
the fighter is complained about because it's a glass cannon. It can inflict damage. That's all it can do. it can't defend, it can't lead, it can't do out of combat stuff, it has little to no skills to back it. Complaints about fighters aren't complaints about inflicting damage...they are defense and utility complaints.Lawl what? Explain by drawing comparisons to encounters not other classes.1) It can't defend: Three dryads throw Charm Monsters at you to make you their boytoy for a year. What in your class abilities is going to help you?
A dragon breathes fire at you. What in your class abilities is going to help you?2) You are about to enter combat with friends/allies/an army. What in your class abilities is going to buff them to increase their combat effectiveness?
3) What in your class abilities lets you make magic items? Excel at some form of social interactions? WIn friends, influence people, and drive the narrative? Why would people respect/admire a fighter as much/more then other classes for mechanical reasons, not DM fiat?
4) You have two skill points a level. None of them are in combat related skills (particularly acrobatics and perception) with the exception of Intimidate, and mental stats are not your forte. You don't have Bluff, Sense Motive, or Diplomacy.
What class features do you have that enhance/leverage your mediocre skill points to make up for this, given that you don't have magic to leverage or replace skills like many other classes?5) What bonuses akin to gaining extra spells for high stats do you gain as a non-magic user?
Keep in mind we're talking CLASS FEATURES. You may not resort to wealth, race, or general feats for these, because those are non-class options. Anyone else can do that, and we're focusing on what Fighters can do. Ain't no general feats on the Fighter's Bonus combat feats list.
1) Will save, iron will, cloak of resistance.
Dragon breath: You have HP2) I am the one who is buffed?
3) Why would I want to make magic items as a fighter? That's what loot is for or the party wizard. Social interaction: easy, you're a hero. Why respect the fighter? Because he kills bad guys.
4) Intimidating prowess, intimidate, Profession(engineer) [for giggles because I'm human and have the exta skill points with my 10 int]
5) High BAB, weapon training, feats, armor training.
I don't play games without gear, general feats, or races. So excluding those is irrelevant to me. Try comparing a class to challenges it is expected to go against not to other classes. (Like the damning arguments against the rogue.)
You claimed that fighters were glass cannons, which is silly**. You claimed that they cannot lead, which is also silly*. You claimed that can't do out of combat, which is ridiculous*. You also claimed that they have no utility, your wizard is kicking down the door?
*L2RP
**I still can't quite get were you are coming from? Do all martials need to be immune to magic or something?
See Table 8-6: Armor Class Modifiers of the Core Rulebook, specifically Kneeling or Sitting (-2 vs Melee, +2 vs Ranged).Point of interest: Since when is crouching a rule?
Neat.
The fighter is actually better at ranged combat.
Why? Because ranged combat is extremely feat-intensive, and doesn't hit the fighter's main weakness, i.e. relying on full attacks. Archers always make full attacks. The ranger can rival him with FE at full, but round to round, against all foes, Archery is the #1 fighting style for a fighter.
Pretty much this, against non-FE.
Fighters are the best ranged damage dealers (barring a Smiting Paladin) because the confluence of their three class features actually supports that combat style very well.
Except at high levels! When the feat advantage goes away since priority ranged feats run out after about 12th level.
But yeah they make solid ranged damage dealers. But I wouldn't say they're the best. They come online earliest and are completely solid in their function, but as you said, Paladins, Tricked out Horizon Walkers and I think the Zen Archer are all above the fighter in damage output at high levels.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have all that much fun playing rangers, but I like playing fighters. Some folks are gonna prefer the ranger, others the fighter. Multiple options are good.
When did the Fighter make his Perception check? You know, your guy with 2+Int skills who needs high STR and Con to be in the thick of things, and high Dex to make one of his primary class features function (see: Armor Training)?
And here's the thing; I'm not saying the Fighter can't be a little bit better in combat, I'm saying that he fails hard at everything else and that can bleed into combat easily. I'm rebutting the absolutely ridiculous and unsupported assertion that the Fighter is somehow doing 50% more damage than a Ranger ever.
The situation I put out there is the situation that the rules actually support. If you want, we can do the full 10th level builds on a 20 point buy (PFS and modern AP standard) and run them both through that exact scenario, or any other variety of scenarios that don't assume the enemy is standing in the middle of a 10 ft by 10ft room singing war songs so you know where to find him. I promise you, the Fighter fails before he ever even finds his targets unless he dumps major resources into things the Ranger gets for free, at which point he can't compete with the Ranger in combat, and still isn't as good at non-combat challenges.
Now your talking lets do this and I will show you that you are massively exaggerating the Rangers advantages out of combat and are underestimating the Fighters in combat advantages.
Do you have your scenario already written? If not I'm sure we can come up with something.
You're confused, I never claimed that fighters were better than other martials or brought things to the table that they did not.
Overgeared kobolds do not make for a trivial encounter at lvl 1. No wonder your party had problems.
Point of interest: Since when is crouching a rule?
Err... isn't fighters being effective at dungeon combat the point of your argument?
NPCs receive a minimum of 260 gp of equipment, 390 gp if they have PC levels. See the "NPC Gear" table from the "Creating NPCs" section.
He probably means kneeling, which is about the same thing. See Table 8-6: "Armor Class Modifiers" in the Combat chapter.
My mistake their stat block does include leather armor, so their starting AC is 15. Ashiel said their AC was higher than that for some odd reasons (17 with crouching).
the fighter is complained about because it's a glass cannon. It can inflict damage. That's all it can do. it can't defend, it can't lead, it can't do out of combat stuff, it has little to no skills to back it. Complaints about fighters aren't complaints about inflicting damage...they are defense and utility complaints.Lawl what? Explain by drawing comparisons to encounters not other classes.1) It can't defend: Three dryads throw Charm Monsters at you to make you their boytoy for a year. What in your class abilities is going to help you?
A dragon breathes fire at you. What in your class abilities is going to help you?2) You are about to enter combat with friends/allies/an army. What in your class abilities is going to buff them to increase their combat effectiveness?
3) What in your class abilities lets you make magic items? Excel at some form of social interactions? WIn friends, influence people, and drive the narrative? Why would people respect/admire a fighter as much/more then other classes for mechanical reasons, not DM fiat?
4) You have two skill points a level. None of them are in combat related skills (particularly acrobatics and perception) with the exception of Intimidate, and mental stats are not your forte. You don't have Bluff, Sense Motive, or Diplomacy.
What class features do you have that enhance/leverage your mediocre skill points to make up for this, given that you don't have magic to leverage or replace skills like many other classes?5) What bonuses akin to gaining extra spells for high stats do you gain as a non-magic user?
Keep in mind we're talking CLASS FEATURES. You may not resort to wealth, race, or general feats for these, because those are non-class options. Anyone else can do that, and we're focusing on what Fighters can do. Ain't no general feats on the Fighter's Bonus combat feats list.
1) Will save, iron will, cloak of resistance.
Dragon breath: You have HP2) I am...
And this is why you can't participate in a class discussion.
1) Poor will save, no class feature to accentuate it. You fail. Goodbye for a year.
Dragon Breath...you can't heal it, you can't resist it, you can't evade it, and he has unlimited dragon breath while you have very limited hit points. You fail.
Etc etc.
All your arguments that you put up, every other class can use, because they do not rely on anything the fighter can do. Only, the barb has a bonus to will saves, the paladin has + Cha and immunities. The ranger is in the same boat as you.
For Dragon Breath, the ranger and paladin have resist spells and can heal themselves, and the barb can buy a rage power, + has more hit points then the fighter, the ranger has evasion, etc etc.
And that's why your arguments are failing. You're sucking up buffs as a fighter, but if you'd be a ranger, you'd be buffing yourself and it wouldn't be an issue...your class features could take care of it.
==Aelryinth
1) Will save, iron will, cloak of resistance.
1) It can't defend: Three dryads throw Charm Monsters at you to make you their boytoy for a year. What in your class abilities is going to help you?
A dragon breathes fire at you. What in your class abilities is going to help you?2) You are about to enter combat with friends/allies/an army. What in your class abilities is going to buff them to increase their combat effectiveness?
3) What in your class abilities lets you make magic items? Excel at some form of social interactions? WIn friends, influence people, and drive the narrative? Why would people respect/admire a fighter as much/more then other classes for mechanical reasons, not DM fiat?
4) You have two skill points a level. None of them are in combat related skills (particularly acrobatics and perception) with the exception of Intimidate, and mental stats are not your forte. You don't have Bluff, Sense Motive, or Diplomacy.
What class features do you have that enhance/leverage your mediocre skill points to make up for this, given that you don't have magic to leverage or replace skills like many other classes?5) What bonuses akin to gaining extra spells for high stats do you gain as a non-magic user?
Keep in mind we're talking CLASS FEATURES. You may not resort to wealth, race, or general feats for these, because those are non-class options. Anyone else can do that, and we're focusing on what Fighters can do. Ain't no general feats on the Fighter's Bonus combat feats list.
"Keep in mind we're talking CLASS FEATURES. You may not resort to wealth, race, or general feats for these, because those are non-class options. Anyone else can do that, and we're focusing on what Fighters can do. Ain't no general feats on the Fighter's Bonus combat feats list."
Pls read discussions suck when the other side doesn't read.
The fighter is actually better at ranged combat.
Why? Because ranged combat is extremely feat-intensive, and doesn't hit the fighter's main weakness, i.e. relying on full attacks. Archers always make full attacks. The ranger can rival him with FE at full, but round to round, against all foes, Archery is the #1 fighting style for a fighter.
Pretty much this, against non-FE.
Fighters are the best ranged damage dealers (barring a Smiting Paladin) because the confluence of their three class features actually supports that combat style very well.
Except at high levels! When the feat advantage goes away since priority ranged feats run out after about 12th level.
But yeah they make solid ranged damage dealers. But I wouldn't say they're the best. They come online earliest and are completely solid in their function, but as you said, Paladins, Tricked out Horizon Walkers and I think the Zen Archer are all above the fighter in damage output at high levels.
Paladins SMITING, maybe.
Pretty sure the Fighter's full BAB keeps him ahead of the Zen Archer in the damage race. Horizon Walkers applying Favored Terrain +10 to EVERYTHING are pretty hard to beat regardless.
==Aelryinth
Zen Archers might be on the edge since IIRC they can rock out with 3 attacks the Fighters can't get by end game.
But the Fighter will still be doing significantly more per arrow, so it evens out again.
Oh, he read it, Rynjin. He also noted that class discussions without all those other things weren't 'real', which kind of meant he was torpedoing his own arguments, since he couldn't keep all the stuff the OTHER classes benefited from out of it.
==Aelryinth
|
Design Manager
|
Except at high levels! When the feat advantage goes away since priority ranged feats run out after about 12th level.But yeah they make solid ranged damage dealers. But I wouldn't say they're the best. They come online earliest and are completely solid in their function, but as you said, Paladins, Tricked out Horizon Walkers and I think the Zen Archer are all above the fighter in damage output at high levels.
Don't forget the Luring Cavalier, whose challenge can be used in more situations than Smite with just as much damage!
1) Will save, iron will, cloak of resistance.
Dragon breath: You have HP2) I am the one who is buffed?
3) Why would I want to make magic items as a fighter? That's what loot is for or the party wizard. Social interaction: easy, you're a hero. Why respect the fighter? Because he kills bad guys.
4) Intimidating prowess, intimidate, Profession(engineer) [for giggles because I'm human and have the exta skill points with my 10 int]
5) High BAB, weapon training, feats, armor training.
1) These are not class features. The Fighter has no way of fighting this. He depends on outside resources to combat these.
2) Still wouldn't help you fight an Army.
3) He just said not DM fiat.
4) "With the exception of intimidate" To which I'll add, acting like a thug doesn't sound very heroic.
5) These effects aren't adding more options as opposed to gaining a new spell slot which is effectively greater power in combat or out of. Also none of these depend upon a high stat except Armor Training which is more of an anchor than a boost. You have to allocate more to Dex to make full use of your class feature. Dex doesn't synergize that well with Fighters.
Fighters ARE less durable than his fellows.
Barbarians) Everything, from AC, to HP, to Saves
Paladins) HP, Saves, comparable AC, immunities
Ranger) Saves(But to a degree less so), less Ambush prone(Could have spotted and disabled those traps you had trouble with), is an effective scout.
They have no ability to lead aside from GM Fiat.
Utility, I lol'd. A Fighter is good for opening the door for the Wizard atleast. Your words not mine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins SMITING, maybe.
Pretty sure the Fighter's full BAB keeps him ahead of the Zen Archer in the damage race. Horizon Walkers applying Favored Terrain +30 to EVERYTHING are pretty hard to beat regardless.
==Aelryinth
Fixed.
He kills Mountain things gewd.
|
Design Manager
|
Now your talking lets do this and I will show you that you are massively exaggerating the Rangers advantages out of combat and are underestimating the Fighters in combat advantages.
Do you have your scenario already written? If not I'm sure we can come up with something.
Almost missed this in all the other posts.
How about giving the Fighter homefield advantage and plunking them down in a level appropriate PFS scenario with solid reviews?
20 point buy, standard WBL, stick to options you can find in the Paizo PRD? If you want we can get the characters drawn up and I'll buy each of us a copy of the scenario (I've never played it).