Pretty sure no archer ignores Point Blank Shot just because everything needs it. The only archery Rangers that do that are switch hitters. No, the real benefit of the Ranger feats are ignoring things like BAB requirements for early access and not needing tons of Dex for two weapon fighting, though skipping useless feats is nice too, but that seems mostly for the shield style.
Ok then.
Ok. SHow it. FOr example the entire hamatula strike build that ends in rapid grapple before level 10.
Or the whirlwind strike + greater trip chain.
The fighter’s rapid access to those feat chains remains unrivaled.
Personally, I wouldn’t build a ranger to do combat maneuvers. If I wanted my enemies prone, I’d get a wolf companion. If I wanted my enemies grappled, I’d get a constrictor companion.
With Boon Companion, a ranger’s constrictor pet gets Grab and Constrict by level 5. Also, a strength in the mid-20s. And it’s Large. And it shares the ranger’s favored enemy and terrain bonuses. Even if the GM isn’t willing to let it take the Greater Grapple feat chain, that scaly monster approaches the power of a hamantula strike fighter or tetori monk of comparable level.
(Just noticed that constrictors aren’t on the list of companion animals available through the Nature Bond -> Animal Ally feat chain. Hmm.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because maybe you don't have time to go fishing in your backpack for your wand to cast Instant Enemy when you're already in a grapple?Just a query, why are Rangers sucking at Combat manuvers when their FE bonus applies for CM, and Instant Enemy still allows them to pick their highest FE bonus? I'm thinking +4 to +10 on all CM bonuses is better then a Lore Warden of the same level?
==Aelryinth
Uh, I said CM, not CMD. In other words, someone who has bonuses already on a specific CM form. Which assumes he's going to attack with it, right? I mean, anyone who uses CM has to have at least the Improved version so as not to provoke AoO.
By the logic you're using, Instant Enemy is a useless spell, because you can only use it when you're already being attacked by an enemy and thus would never cast it.
And who needs wands when you have Pearls of Power?
==Aelryinth
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ssalarn, that spell won't be used in PFS it's lvl 13 ranger.
It's just an example of something the class can do.
The time you spend creating terrains, boosting yourself or using wands, it's time that the fighter, who doesn't have these kind of resources just charges against the enemy or puts himself betwen him and the party.
Which is useless from a tanking perspective. Ranger also had a much better chance of seeing the enemy coming, because you know, skills, so odds are pretty good he can pre-buff at least a little (and it won't take much). And that one casting of Entangle to slow enemies down and keep them off my teammates is generally going to be way more useful than me charging off and getting myself killed.
Here's the thing- DPR is the least meaningful and useful way to contribute to a group. If I wanted a guy who could charge in with a reasonable expectation of dropping the enemy in one fell blow I'd play a mounted warrior, and that's a niche where the Fighter is pretty low on the list of classes that can do it competently.
What's more helpful, a Fighter charging off and separating himself from the group to tangle with one enemy, or a Ranger who slows down an entire group of enemies, making them all easier to hit to boot, buying the casters time to drop AoEs and other nasty effects? If I need to play bodyguard, am I a better bodyguard for having 2 more points of AC, or am I a better bodyguard if I can literally put a whole additional body on the field to share the responsibility of protecting my allies?
So here's the thing- the Fighter can complete feat trees faster than anyone else. That doesn't necessarily make him better in any particular role than anyone else.
|
Pretty sure no archer ignores Point Blank Shot just because everything needs it. The only archery Rangers that do that are switch hitters. No, the real benefit of the Ranger feats are ignoring things like BAB requirements for early access and not needing tons of Dex for two weapon fighting, though skipping useless feats is nice too, but that seems mostly for the shield style.
I have a 3rd party Scout I'm testing without Point Blank Shot. He got Precise Shot via Scout Talent.
Does the lore warden is numerically better than the fighter in AC?The Lore Warden is numerically better than the Fighter by a large margin.Pfff, the lore warden is not good to not to take. I would say that if an abilityis so pointless that basically you can forget it ever existed that is poor design, *cough* bravery *cough*
Due to the way armor and Dex to AC works, he'll have about the same AC as a fighter of equal level and Dex, with the advantage of Expertise to up his AC, AND a combat buff of +2/+2 that he can use to offset the Expertise.
Oh, and Defender of the Society for +1 AC, I think. Hah!
His net advantage is maybe +1 or +2, assuming Expertise which the fighter can't afford to put Int points into to purchase.
==Aelryinth
|
*Sigh*
No, you're right Deth. SKR is infallible.
Sometimes I wish I could know the love that some people seem to have for the infallible devs.
Lore Warden aside, Fighters aren't good any any role that they should be at. Lore Warden at least gives them a niche in being CMB/D superstars and having skillpoints that aren't mocked by most other classes.
Sometimes I wish I could know the love that some people seem to have for the infallible devs.*Sigh*
No, you're right Deth. SKR is infallible.
I'm just getting 1984 vibes all over this. I'd watch out for what you wish for.
*Sigh*
No, you're right Deth. SKR is infallible.
Sometimes I wish I could know the love that some people seem to have for the infallible devs.
It's really easy. Try doing it yourself once. Once you do, you'll find yourself very much in awe at what they do. Walk a mile in their moccasins, then tell me about it.
Generally, you'll find that devs support other devs- because they have walked that mile. Am I happy with every call SKR has done? Heck no. But I disagree politely, with all due respect. Sean is a great designer. Better than I ever was, anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*Sigh*
No, you're right Deth. SKR is infallible.
Sometimes I wish I could know the love that some people seem to have for the infallible devs.
It's really easy. Try doing it yourself once. Once you do, you'll find yourself very much in awe at what they do. Walk a mile in their moccasins, then tell me about it.
Generally, you'll find that devs support other devs- because they have walked that mile. Am I happy with every call SKR has done? Heck no. But I disagree politely, with all due respect. Sean is a great designer. Better than I ever was, anyway.
Understanding what they do and respecting their work, and agreeing that everything they say is absolutely correct are entirely different things.
But I've already gotten one post deleted for pointing out all the questionable balance calls I think Sean has made so I guess I'll save any actual discussion for until the "Don't speak ill of the person who's leaving" fervor is gone.
The Lore Warden is numerically better than the Fighter by a large margin. He's poor design in that he ignores the core chassis of the class and flips it the bird as he disappears into the distance(the same way that the Musket Master and Pistolero are poor design because they're vastly better than the core Gunslinger). It doesn't mean that they're not good additions to the game (at least the Lore Warden's not), but it means that they don't belong in the same discussion as the class they used to be. When you're talking about what a Fighter can do, the Lore Warden isn't a valid point of comparison because it outstrips every other Fighter archetype, gets capstone abilities early, trades defensive for offensive abilities, etc. The Lore Warden undermines how badly balanced to its peers the core Fighter chassis is; people can point at it and say "OH, I don't think Fighters are so bad, we had a Lore Warden in our group who was great". That has nothing to do with the Fighter, that has to do with the Lore Warden who is really a completely different class all together. If you lay the Lore Warden side-by-side with the Fighter he's actually more different from the Fighter than the Ninja is from the Rogue, and the Ninja got his own class entry (which really, the Lore Warden should have, but they don't want him in the core product line).Pfff, the lore warden is not good to not to take. I would say that if an abilityis so pointless that basically you can forget it ever existed that is poor design, *cough* bravery *cough*
So the argument is,
"the Lore Warden would probably be balanced pretty okay as its own independent class, but is seriously unbalanced as a Fighter archetype?"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the argument is,"the Lore Warden would probably be balanced pretty okay as its own independent class, but is seriously unbalanced as a Fighter archetype?"
Basically? Yeah. It's a Fighter archetype, but it isn't balanced to the Fighter. That makes it a bad point of comparison in any conversation about "The Fighter can do X". The Fighter can't do X. This extremely advanced archetype that broke away from the core chassis in some pretty severe ways and has very little in common with the core class can do X. It's like saying that Rogues are fine because they can all use poison, wield kusari-gamas, and turn invisible.
Does the lore warden is numerically better than the fighter in AC?The Lore Warden is numerically better than the Fighter by a large margin.Pfff, the lore warden is not good to not to take. I would say that if an abilityis so pointless that basically you can forget it ever existed that is poor design, *cough* bravery *cough*
Due to the way armor and Dex to AC works, he'll have about the same AC as a fighter of equal level and Dex, with the advantage of Expertise to up his AC, AND a combat buff of +2/+2 that he can use to offset the Expertise.
Oh, and Defender of the Society for +1 AC, I think. Hah!
His net advantage is maybe +1 or +2, assuming Expertise which the fighter can't afford to put Int points into to purchase.
==Aelryinth
1) defender of the society only work wieth medium or heavy armor, so the actually gap is +6 between a chain shirt and a full plate.
2) Who use combat expertise anyways? and when you use it your CMB falls and your DPR falls so the vanilla fighter get the advantage here, without losing the AC advantage.
3) NOt suere what is the armor/dex argument, at level 7 that a vanilal afighter have a maxiun dex bonus of +3. How many dex does the lore warden actually have?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Sigh*
No, you're right Deth. SKR is infallible.
Sometimes I wish I could know the love that some people seem to have for the infallible devs.
It's really easy. Try doing it yourself once. Once you do, you'll find yourself very much in awe at what they do. Walk a mile in their moccasins, then tell me about it.
Generally, you'll find that devs support other devs- because they have walked that mile. Am I happy with every call SKR has done? Heck no. But I disagree politely, with all due respect. Sean is a great designer. Better than I ever was, anyway.
I have, I did some design work on ban list and other things for the Bandai DBZ/Naruto cardgame, some playtesting on that stuff as well as the Resident Evil CCG (god bless its soul), and as a guide writer I have knowledge of design application (although theory isn't included in that bubble) I've done it, and it's hard, but it's also a sign of good design to recognize when something doesn't work rather than claim it's a "feature." The Fighter is in almost all ways worse than any other full BAB class, and denying that is denying a mechanical fact. You can do that (obviously), but saying just because it's hard to design that you shouldn't question others is seriously messed up.
To me, I like the Lore Warden, as it's the CMB master of the full BAB crew, and if that was the Fighter's niche, I'd be fine with it. If you said "Hey, want to build a trip/disarm/dirty trick employing character? BAM!" That'd be fine. But aside from the confusingly dev maligned Lore Warden, the Fighter has no place in the game aside from being "generic fight person."
Ok. SHow it. FOr example the entire hamatula strike build that ends in rapid grapple before level 10.
Or the whirlwind strike + greater trip chain.
The fighter’s rapid access to those feat chains remains unrivaled.
Personally, I wouldn’t build a ranger to do combat maneuvers. If I wanted my enemies prone, I’d get a wolf companion. If I wanted my enemies grappled, I’d get a constrictor companion.
With Boon Companion, a ranger’s constrictor pet gets Grab and Constrict by level 5. Also, a strength in the mid-20s. And it’s Large. And it shares the ranger’s favored enemy and terrain bonuses. Even if the GM isn’t willing to let it take the Greater Grapple feat chain, that scaly monster approaches the power of a hamantula strike fighter or tetori monk of comparable level.
(Just noticed that constrictors aren’t on the list of companion animals available through the Nature Bond -> Animal Ally feat chain. Hmm.)
That sound as a good plan. perhaps the beast rider feat for a crocodile or soemthing (I have not checked).
I woudl like to see the ranger dedicated to it, it woudl be pretty could if somebody post a build in the martial build htread.
|
|
2) Who use combat expertise anyways? and when you use it your CMB falls and your DPR falls so the vanilla fighter get the advantage here, without losing the AC advantage.
Absolutely untrue. The Lore Warden gets huge bonuses to CMB, and Weapon Training, and the ability to boost an additional +2/+2. He's still way ahead of the Fighter even if he chooses to use Combat Expertise.
A mithral bp would count as both light and medium armor as required. With no ACP, you don't need to be proficient to wear it. The only way a vanilla fighter gets ahead of the Lore Warden is if the armor he wears lets him actually use his Armor Training, and the Lore Warden doesn't get something similar. As long as both of them can use their full Dex, and dex is equal, the fighter has to have better base armor. Generally, it's not even really doable until Armor Training 3, and if we're talking celestial armor, not even then.
With expertise, you can turn your +2 th/dmg into a +2 AC/+2 damage when you need it.
==Aelryinth
Absolutely untrue. The Lore Warden gets huge bonuses to CMB, and Weapon Training, and the ability to boost an additional +2/+2. He's still way ahead of the Fighter even if he chooses to use Combat Expertise.2) Who use combat expertise anyways? and when you use it your CMB falls and your DPR falls so the vanilla fighter get the advantage here, without losing the AC advantage.
THat +2/+2 is afther level 10 and requires and is situational. and at that point combat expertise give like a -4 to attack not enough to cover the AC of the vanilla fighter.
A mithral bp would count as both light and medium armor as required. With no ACP, you don't need to be proficient to wear it. The only way a vanilla fighter gets ahead of the Lore Warden is if the armor he wears lets him actually use his Armor Training, and the Lore Warden doesn't get something similar. As long as both of them can use their full Dex, and dex is equal, the fighter has to have better base armor. Generally, it's not even really doable until Armor Training 3, and if we're talking celestial armor, not even then.
With expertise, you can turn your +2 th/dmg into a +2 AC/+2 damage when you need it.
==Aelryinth
Ok, it is bad to state magic items for figters, except if they are lore warden, got it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that the biggest discrepancy is that people want the fighter to be a ranger or the ranger to be a fighter but they aren't the same thing. They are very similar but they aren't exactly the same. Both classes have their strengths and weaknesses. Those who dislike the fighter will never see the strengths of the fighter. It's never going to happen. This debate has gone on since 2000 and it's not going to change. Those who like the fighter will like the fighter and find ways to make the class do what they want. Those who don't like the fighter, and want it to cast spells and have an animal companion, will never like the fighter because it doesn't do those things. That's ok. Time and time again people have played the fighter and thoroughly enjoyed the class and their character. People have posted builds where the fighter was superior to the ranger and people have posted builds where the ranger was superior to the fighter.
One thing I've noticed is that the thread title is "What does a fighter do that a ranger doesn't" and whenever someone posts something that the fighter can do that the ranger can't, it's dismissed because it doesn't fit the narrative. Well that's too bad. The fighter can do plenty of things that the ranger can't. Maybe it takes an archetype or specific selection of feats or it just hits harder. That still meets the criteria. You don't get to ask a question and then dismiss the answer because it doesn't fit your narrative.
Those who don't want to play fighters, stop telling everyone else that their choices suck. Yes, that's exactly what's being said. These threads are only meant to draw people in arguments. There is never meant to be any resolution. This particular thread is a rhetorical question. Attempting to answer it definitively will only prolong the inevitable "nuh uh" and "uh huh" arguments we see far too often. Just let it go. Play what you want to play and don't worry about what a handful of people on a message board think.
Ok, it is bad to state magic items for figters, except if they are lore warden, got it.Mithral breastplates aren't magical.
Mithral breastplate does not cover the AC gap and they still have a -1 ACP that get translated to a penalty to attack. Unless the olrewarden take atrait but then a trait increase the vanilla fighter AC by 1 point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Simple question, what do you see as the Fighter's niche that the Ranger is unable to imitate?
Being super extra boring, having no base flavor, no out of combat utility, not having any important, exciting or really useful class features, being incapable of solving problems without resorting to violence, having to spend all their money and regular feats to ape what other classes get for free.
Am I missing any thing?Ah yes, doing a little more DPR than an unbuffed, no favored enemy ranger, but not so much more as to really matter.
Those who don't want to play fighters, stop telling everyone else that their choices suck. Yes, that's exactly what's being said. These threads are only meant to draw people in arguments. There is never meant to be any resolution. This particular thread is a rhetorical question. Attempting to answer it definitively will only prolong the inevitable "nuh uh" and "uh huh" arguments we see far too often. Just let it go. Play what you want to play and don't worry about what a handful of people on a message board think.
Good points, Bob, and as I said earlier :Right, the fighter does two things- DPR and tank, and does them well. It has cruddy skp no spells, and to me is a rather boring plain vanilla DPR/tanking machine. But- that's what some people want. And with some 17+ base classes, there's certainly room for a plain vanilla DPR/tanking machine. I mean, it's not like it's the ONLY full BAB class you have... So great- play a ranger. Or if you want a knight type play a cavalier, or a paladin- plain or with divine power knights. And there's the Bbn, which does take a lot of research to get a good build- but which is possibly the best full Bab class in the game.
So, just in full BAB classes you have at least five choices and endless archetypes. My two choices are Paladin or Ranger. I don't play fighters. But I have no objections to others playing one.
Why begrudge the guy who wants to play a plain vanilla fighter? I mean, no one is forcing anyone to play it. Let those who prefer this class have it. And I know many who complain about Fighter also complain about rogue, monk, and pretty much any class without decent spellcasting. Great- go ahead and play a spellcaster- who is stopping you?
Unhelpful comments that more or less just say "it sucks" are just that- unhelpful.
Fighters can soak damage, deal damage, intimidate, and put ranks into profession(engineer) for any other out-of-combat fun you need.
Plus they get to roll in feats.
1 |Toughness, Intimidating Prowess, Combat Reflexes
2 |Bravery, Power Attack
3 |Armor training, Cleave
4 |Great Cleave
5 |Weapon training(Blades, Heavy), Blind-Fight
6 |Bravery, Lunge
7 |Armor training, Iron Will
8 |Quick Draw
9 |Weapon training(Thrown), Step Up
10|Bravery, Vital Strike
11|Armor training, Improved Vital Strike
12|Strike Back
13|Weapon training(Bows), Improved Iron Will
14|Bravery, Stand Still
15|Armor training, Deadly Aim
16|Greater Vital Strike
17|Weapon training(Close), Disruptive
18|Bravery, Spellbreaker
19|Armor mastery, Great Fortitude
20|weapon mastery(GS), Improved Critical(GS)
Mythic Feats: Power Attack, Toughness, Vital Strike, Quickdraw, Spellbreaker
Mythic Path Abilities: Longevity, Armored Might, Adamantine Mind, Ever Ready, Parry Spell, Mythic Resolve, Shrug it off, Borrow Elements, Mythic Sustenance, Sleepless
Personally, I can't stand the head-ache that is favored enemy. So if I hard to choose between playing a fighter or being dependent on a 3rd level spell in a 4 level spell progression class, I would pick the fighter.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I might be wrong, don't think anyone is saying "I hate fighters."
I'm pretty sure no one is saying "You can't have fun playing a fighter."
I think people are saying, "I like the idea of the fighter, but the execution is flawed in some respects -- the rules don't live up to the billing."
That's STILL not to say you "shouldn't" play a fighter, or that you "can't have fun" playing a fighter, so please stop attacking those strawmen. What's being said is that the design of the fighter class mechanics doesn't live up to the billing that the fighter receives -- and that other classes' mechanical packages can, in many cases, do the fighter's job more efficiently than his actual mechanical package allows.
Say I want to play "a skillful character," so I read names and descriptions, and decide to play an Expert. I can have a lot of fun playing an Expert, but the rogue's mechanical package is actually a lot better for what I'm trying to do. Likewise, if I want to play a hedge magician with a familiar, I can have a lot of fun playing an Adept, but the Witch class, mechanically, is a much better choice for the role I'm trying to pull off. If I want to play an armored combatant who kills enemies and protects my allies, I can play a warrior or a fighter, but those choices aren't necessarily the best choices to accomplish that goal.
This has all been explained ad nauseum, of course, but the same people keep erecting the same tired old strawmen .
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I might be wrong, don't think anyone is saying "I hate fighters."
I'm pretty sure no one is saying "You can't have fun playing a fighter."I think people are saying, "I like the idea of the fighter, but the execution is flawed in some respects -- the rules don't live up to the billing."
That's STILL not to say you "shouldn't" play a fighter, or that you "can't have fun" playing a fighter, so please stop attacking those strawmen. What's being said is that the design of the fighter class mechanics doesn't live up to the billing that the fighter receives -- and that other classes' mechanical packages can, in many cases, do the fighter's job more efficiently than his actual mechanical package allows.
Word yo. I like the Fighter and have played one many times. That doesn't prevent me from acknowledging the fact that there are many options for other classes to do what he does better or more efficiently while still being able to do lots of other cool stuff that the Fighter just can't.
|
Word yo. I like the Fighter and have played one many times. That doesn't prevent me from acknowledging the fact that there are many options for other classes to do what he does better or more efficiently while still being able to do lots of other cool stuff that the Fighter just can't.
but that goes both ways, fighters can do things other classes cant do.
Word yo. I like the Fighter and have played one many times. That doesn't prevent me from acknowledging the fact that there are many options for other classes to do what he does better or more efficiently while still being able to do lots of other cool stuff that the Fighter just can't.but that goes both ways, fighters can do things other classes cant do.
We've only been comparing the class to the Ranger, where the Fighter does seem to have some advantages.
- More proficient with maneuvers with the Lore Warden archetype
- Dwarf Fighters can Sunder Spells like the Barbarian with a feat.
- Higher AC and more maneuverability, on foot, in heavy armor.
- Archetypes that allow for something approaching movement+full attack
- Raw damage?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but that goes both ways, fighters can do things other classes cant do.
Word yo. I like the Fighter and have played one many times. That doesn't prevent me from acknowledging the fact that there are many options for other classes to do what he does better or more efficiently while still being able to do lots of other cool stuff that the Fighter just can't.
Not really. A Fighter can hit stuff better more consistently. Other classes can still hit stuff, and often better.
If you take archetypes out of the equation there isn't anything a Fighter can do that another class can't.
With archetypes in the equation, the Fighter has a few cool niche tricks that he can own up on, like the Two Weapon Warrior, the Dirty Fighter, and maybe one or two more. But even in the instance of the TWW, his "trick" still boils down to "hit things harder". He can maybe do something in a particular way that is unique to him, like swinging two weapons as a standard action, but it isn't actually any better than a cavalier using the same action economy to charge and hit with a lance, or a Barbarian just landing one regular attack with a two-handed weapon.
I said it a little earlier in the thread. The Fighters schtick is that he can, potentially, complete feat trees faster. And that's cool, love me some level 2 Thunder and Fang action. But feat trees don't actually do enough to actually separate the Fighter from any other class. Oftentimes you'll have things like "Haha! My Fighter gets +2/+2 with all attacks!" compared to "Darn, my Paladin/cavalier only gets +3/+10 4 times a day...."
|
|
Not really. A Fighter can hit stuff better more consistently. Other classes can still hit stuff, and often better.
If you take archetypes out of the equation there isn't anything a Fighter can do that another class can't.
one dimensional thinking...
What actual goals/effects can the fighter produce/do that other classes can't?
many many things. more then just "i hit harder", things like... wait ive had this same debate 5 times now...
i dont care anymore, i feel like im in a monk thread all over again!! same points over and over, no one willing to see that they are being to harsh and that the fighter has value outside of "i hit things hard.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I might be wrong, don't think anyone is saying "I hate fighters."
I'm pretty sure no one is saying "You can't have fun playing a fighter."I think people are saying, "I like the idea of the fighter, but the execution is flawed in some respects -- the rules don't live up to the billing."
That's STILL not to say you "shouldn't" play a fighter, or that you "can't have fun" playing a fighter, so please stop attacking those strawmen. What's being said is that the design of the fighter class mechanics doesn't live up to the billing that the fighter receives -- and that other classes' mechanical packages can, in many cases, do the fighter's job more efficiently than his actual mechanical package allows.
Say I want to play "a skillful character," so I read names and descriptions, and decide to play an Expert. I can have a lot of fun playing an Expert, but the rogue's mechanical package is actually a lot better for what I'm trying to do. Likewise, if I want to play a hedge magician with a familiar, I can have a lot of fun playing an Adept, but the Witch class, mechanically, is a much better choice for the role I'm trying to pull off. If I want to play an armored combatant who kills enemies and protects my allies, I can play a warrior or a fighter, but those choices aren't necessarily the best choices to accomplish that goal.
This has all been explained ad nauseum, of course, but the same people keep erecting the same tired old strawmen .
This has to be the most passive aggressive thing I've ever read. I'm sorry Kirth, but we just don't agree here.
This has to be the most passive aggressive thing I've ever read. I'm sorry Kirth, but we just don't agree here.
Can I ask if you have specific point(s) to rebut, or is this a general, "I don't like your tone, therefore anything you say is wrong" thing?
Word yo. I like the Fighter and have played one many times. That doesn't prevent me from acknowledging the fact that there are many options for other classes to do what he does better or more efficiently while still being able to do lots of other cool stuff that the Fighter just can't.but that goes both ways, fighters can do things other classes cant do.We've only been comparing the class to the Ranger, where the Fighter does seem to have some advantages.
When we expand the comparison to other classes, almost all of those unique strengths are probably going to go away.
- More proficient with maneuvers with the Lore Warden archetype
- Dwarf Fighters can Sunder Spells like the Barbarian with a feat.
- Higher AC and more maneuverability, on foot, in heavy armor.
- Archetypes that allow for something approaching movement+full attack
- Raw damage?
Quicker access to several feat chains.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This has to be the most passive aggressive thing I've ever read. I'm sorry Kirth, but we just don't agree here.Can I ask if you have specific point(s) to rebut, or is this a general, "I don't like your tone, therefore anything you say is wrong" thing?
#5 actually made me angry.
You can fix ALL of the Fighter's problems while still being completely within the rules of Pathfinder. Saying that people who don't have problems with the fighter are not playing Pathfinder is just being an arse.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can fix ALL of the Fighter's problems while still being completely within the rules of Pathfinder. Saying that people who don't have problems with the fighter are not playing Pathfinder is just being an arse.
Let's separate "rule zero" from "the rules of Pathfinder," and that might change your opinion. Generally fighters are made to feel like they contribute at higher levels because the DM warps eveything around that goal. I've done it myself, in many campaigns. But with a DM who acts as a referee rather than as a story writer, invoking RAW rather than plot points -- and with casters not pulling their punches or adhering to elaborate gentlemen's agreements -- then that feeling is very quickly diminished.
TL/DR: If fighters contribute extremely well because of DM intervention, that's a feature of the DM, and not a feature of the fighter class mechanics.
Quicker access to several feat chains.We've only been comparing the class to the Ranger, where the Fighter does seem to have some advantages.
When we expand the comparison to other classes, almost all of those unique strengths are probably going to go away.
- More proficient with maneuvers with the Lore Warden archetype
- Dwarf Fighters can Sunder Spells like the Barbarian with a feat.
- Higher AC and more maneuverability, on foot, in heavy armor.
- Archetypes that allow for something approaching movement+full attack
- Raw damage?
Right. Forgot about that. It's something that both they and the master of many styles monk can get. And while that's definitely a strength, the next question that has to be asked is, "what do those feat chains allow the fighter to accomplish."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This has to be the most passive aggressive thing I've ever read. I'm sorry Kirth, but we just don't agree here.I might be wrong, don't think anyone is saying "I hate fighters."
I'm pretty sure no one is saying "You can't have fun playing a fighter."I think people are saying, "I like the idea of the fighter, but the execution is flawed in some respects -- the rules don't live up to the billing."
That's STILL not to say you "shouldn't" play a fighter, or that you "can't have fun" playing a fighter, so please stop attacking those strawmen. What's being said is that the design of the fighter class mechanics doesn't live up to the billing that the fighter receives -- and that other classes' mechanical packages can, in many cases, do the fighter's job more efficiently than his actual mechanical package allows.
Say I want to play "a skillful character," so I read names and descriptions, and decide to play an Expert. I can have a lot of fun playing an Expert, but the rogue's mechanical package is actually a lot better for what I'm trying to do. Likewise, if I want to play a hedge magician with a familiar, I can have a lot of fun playing an Adept, but the Witch class, mechanically, is a much better choice for the role I'm trying to pull off. If I want to play an armored combatant who kills enemies and protects my allies, I can play a warrior or a fighter, but those choices aren't necessarily the best choices to accomplish that goal.
This has all been explained ad nauseum, of course, but the same people keep erecting the same tired old strawmen .
I dunno. I didn't see anything passive aggressive about it. He pretty much tells the truth. Most of us like the idea of the fighter but we're not impressed with the execution. When pro-Fighters talk about how much the Fighter can do do contribute anything other than making attack rolls their examples are always in spite of being a Fighter rather than benefitting from Fighter. Bob_Loblaw (who I like a lot as a poster) proved this rather succinctly in a previous thread where when some criticisms were levied against the Fighter's flaws her responded with racial-specific option packages and trying to make up for out of combat deficiencies with skill points.
1) Races are not a fighter feature.
2) Anyone can put points into skills but it's harder for a Fighter. My Psion is 9th level in my GM's Friday game. I've got skill points tacked around all over the place. She's got ranks in Stealth, Perception, Knowledge skills, Linguistics, Heal, Disable Device, Bluff, Diplomacy, the works. Little of this is because of her class however and just more because I like dipping and tend to try to get the most bang for my buck when it comes to investing skill points - because I have a lot of system mastery.
Again, I'm not seeing the passive aggressiveness. There's nothing wrong with saying that the Fighter is missing his spotlight. It's entirely true that when compared to all three of the martial characters in core he is without much of a niche save for filling feat trees earlier (and even then, if they're really anal about it a 2 level dip into Fighter will generally even that out but that's not even that common because most players would rather have their class' new or upgraded features sooner, which is quite telling).
There's also nothing wrong with enjoying a Fighter. Kirth is right, you can enjoy playing NPC classes. I've had a few players over the years who actually do (and a few campaigns where everyone just played NPC classes which has a surprisingly decent retro-feel). But there's a difference between enjoying something and being honest about its faults.
If you'll excuse me, I think I'm going to go work on a Fighter-remix now. I've had a lot of positive feedback on my monk fix so I think it might be time to tinker with the Fighter (the monk fix began because a friend of mine loves monks but was finding them mechanically sad).
|
|
And since I didn't make any part of this argument, I'm not sure why it's relevant. My point is this, and only this: fighters have the resources to duplicate some of the ranger's schtick if they care to, because the cost is a resource they have in abundance.
But then the Fighter isn't doing the things that make him a Fighter. He's being a poor Ranger. Meanwhile it takes almost no class resource for a Ranger to nearly anything the Fighter can do and still do all the cool Ranger stuff the Fighter can't.
As I said, the illusion of Fighters having feats in abundance is just that; an illusion. The Fighter has a little more room to nudge his moving parts around, but...
You know what, let me put this another way. If you were take the idea that every class is built on a 50 point spread and then compare the value of the Fighters feats in an actual build to what they actually give him, you'd discover that the Fighter is working with about 10 points less than everyone else. Try it some time. The potential of a Fighter's feats are weighted far too heavily compared to the reality of what he actually gets from his feats. There are a (very) few builds, some of them race specific, that allow him to start resembling something that looks like a class that stacks up next to his peers. It eve shows in the iconics. If you've been to enough events where people play as the iconics you start to notice some things about ol' Valeros and how he stacks up, and that's compared to other characters who are almost anti-optimized. Even the crossbow wielding dwarf with a badger has a tendency to make the Fighter look bad.
So again, Fighters are cool and they're fun, but in the context of all the material that's out there, there's pretty much nothing they can do that someone else can't do better. Faster maybe, but I've already stated that I think Fighters rock socks during levels 1-5. In the context of the core only material, hit things consistently for reasonable damage is something they can make a claim to. In the comparison to the Ranger, they've got "have a higher AC without spellcasting" (a dubious claim to fame), and "do more maneuvers better". Keep in mind that for them to do any given maneuver competently and consistly, they end up spending almost 1/5 of their feats on that one maneuver, and there are very few maneuvers that will consistently work against all enemies. There's maybe one Fighter archetype that could make Tripping, for example, function reliably in the bulk of encounters past 10th level, whereas the Ranger will have multiple ways to apply some or all of his Favored Enemy bonuses in every combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know what, let me put this another way. If you were take the idea that every class is built on a 50 point spread and then compare the value of the Fighters feats in an actual build to what they actually give him, you'd discover that the Fighter is working with about 10 points less than everyone else.
I can vouch for this. It's more like ~80 points but the classes are built on a 120 point spread.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you'll excuse me, I think I'm going to go work on a Fighter-remix now. I've had a lot of positive feedback on my monk fix so I think it might be time to tinker with the Fighter (the monk fix began because a friend of mine loves monks but was finding them mechanically sad).
I did a Fighter archetype for the Magic of Incarna supplement I'm writing for Dreamscarred Press that should actually be up for public playtesting this weekend, and it's been super popular with the closed test groups. The cool thing is, I didn't actually change that much. I shifted him to the Essence system (check the Magic of Incarna thread in the Compatible Products forum for details on that), shifted his class abilities so that they're all Essence based, and gave him access to the Incarna feats. Suddenly there was this class that played and looked just like the Fighter, used an almost identical chassis, but has been hugely popular just because of the ability to control his bonuses more tightly and get scaling access to some skills, special movement tricks, or social abilities.
The FIghter's not actually missing all that much, but what he is missing is pretty key.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What actual goals/effects can the fighter produce/do that other classes can't?but that goes both ways, fighters can do things other classes cant do.
Word yo. I like the Fighter and have played one many times. That doesn't prevent me from acknowledging the fact that there are many options for other classes to do what he does better or more efficiently while still being able to do lots of other cool stuff that the Fighter just can't.
None, really, but so? What can the Wizard do that the Sorc can't? What can the cleric do that the oracle can't? In general- healing, but there are a couple of oracle builds (Life) which are even better at healing that cleric. PF is all about you being able to cover the traditional roles with more than one class. With archetypes you can make a rather ranger-like fighter even.
No longer will there be just ONE class for any role. What with archetypes, many class can not fill roles that previously one class had a monopoly on. This is a GOOD Thing. It allows to you have a trapfinder that does spells ala Archaeologist, etc.
The Fighter is there for the players who like a plain solid no frills build, that does two things (tank, dpr), does them well, and nothing weird going on. It's still a very popular class even tho there are other full BAB classes that can fill either role even better. But so? Maybe I don't WANT to play a barbarian or a Paladin. Maybe that's not my concept.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not really. A Fighter can hit stuff better more consistently. Other classes can still hit stuff, and often better.
If you take archetypes out of the equation there isn't anything a Fighter can do that another class can't.
one dimensional thinking...
What actual goals/effects can the fighter produce/do that other classes can't?
many many things. more then just "i hit harder", things like... wait ive had this same debate 5 times now...
i dont care anymore, i feel like im in a monk thread all over again!! same points over and over, no one willing to see that they are being to harsh and that the fighter has value outside of "i hit things hard.
And it's been five times you failed to show what else the fighter can do. Six now.
This has to be the most passive aggressive thing I've ever read. I'm sorry Kirth, but we just don't agree here.Can I ask if you have specific point(s) to rebut, or is this a general, "I don't like your tone, therefore anything you say is wrong" thing?
once you start telling people what they are and are not saying via broad brush strokes countered with a detailed argument complete with out of thread link to back your ideas up, you're not really having a conversation anymore, you're dictating both sides of the debate with a strong bias towards the one you favor.
That said I think I used the wrong term when I said passive aggressive. I think I'm wrong to make such a heavy accusation, I apologize.