A simple +1 to any stat could mean the difference between life and death. At ANY level.Especially if that +1 turns a BAB to +6 instead of +5.This is true, but I think we forget the importance of minor stat boosts to combat stats at high levels because an +2 looks less important when it's next to a base +30 modifier. I hold that the +3 to a skill from something being a class skill is ultimately inconsequential, but I'm not sure that's the case for attack rolls at armor class. Skill DCs are pretty much static, except for opposed rolls (but those numbers get really crazy at high levels anyway), attack bonuses and armor class are not.
Let's compare a level 5 character, with a +10 (5 BAB, +4 Str, +1 weapon) to attack and a level 15 character with a +23/+18/+13 (15 BAB, +6 Str, +2 weapon) to attack. You'd think that a +2 bonus to attack wouldn't matter as much at a higher level, but that's not necessarily the case.
CR 5 monster AC, per Bestiary monster creation rules: 18
CR 15 monster AC, per Bestiary monster creation rules: 30The level 5 character needs an 8 to hit the monster without the modifier, and a 6 with the modifier to hit the creature. That's a +10% swing
The level 15 characer needs a 7 to hit the monster without the modifier, and a 5 with the modifier. That's still a +10% swing. That extra 10% chance follows through to the other iterative attacks, so in ways that +2 is actually more valuable to a higher level character than a level 1 character.
The problem is that your numbers kinda lowball it a smidge (partly because you're assuming only a +2 weapon at 15th...why?). Most people (including the Fighter) have some other way to raise attack bonus so the +2 from Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus is inconsequential when you're hitting at, say, +35/+26/+21 (plus a +22 Bite), like my level 14 Barbarian does.
Raging Power Attack, unbuffed.
Even the Fighter should be hitting at something like +31/+22/+17 (+15 BaB, +7 Str, +5 Weapon Training, +4 weapon). That extra +2 is pointless on the first hit, only helps a little on the second, and is admittedly pretty good on the third.
It's hardly a reason to all the class as a whole desirable.
(I'm assuming Furious Focus since I have that on my Barb, for fairness.)
I'm assuming that's the +2 you were talking about, forgive me if I'm wrong.
The problem is that your numbers kinda lowball it a smidge (partly because you're assuming only a +2 weapon at 15th...why?). Most people (including the Fighter) have some other way to raise attack bonus so the +2 from Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus is inconsequential when you're hitting at, say, +35/+26/+21 (plus a +22 Bite), like my level 14 Barbarian does.
Raging Power Attack, unbuffed.
Even the Fighter should be hitting at something like +31/+22/+17 (+15 BaB, +7 Str, +5 Weapon Training, +4 weapon). That extra +2 is pointless on the first hit, only helps a little on the second, and is admittedly pretty good on the third.
It's hardly a reason to all the class as a whole desirable.
(I'm assuming Furious Focus since I have that on my Barb, for fairness.)
I'm assuming that's the +2 you were talking about, forgive me if I'm wrong.
They probably do lowball it. I only assume a +2 weapon because I'm the kind of person that prefers to get a bunch of abilities (flaming/shock/ghost touch) on my weapon as opposed to more flat enhancement modifiers. The +2 I brought in was just an ambiguous/made up bonus for sake of showing the math. It could be from anything.
Not a single person who favors the ranger over the fighter will ever claim that fighters are good at filling certain roles. It just won't happen.
Hey Bob,
I think the ranger is a stronger mechanical class than the fighter by at least one long shot. I've been posting on the topic of wished for fighter improvements on these boards for over a year (which is about half of the time since in play discontentment with the limits of the class reached a point where I felt difficulty brushing it aside).
BUT
I'm also willing to grant that the fighter is good at fulfilling certain roles. Alexandros has already cited the archer tank.
I think he might be even better than the ranger at that particular role. I dunno. I suspect that a ranger archer tank might be a more proficient overall character than a fighter archer tank, whilst a fighter archer tank remains better within the specific role of archer tankery. If that makes sense. I admit that, having played neither a fighter nor a ranger archer tank in a long term campaign, I probably have less to say on this specific subject than others though.
Anyway. Thought I would share my 2c on the topic and perhaps, if possible, strike a blow against the practice of lumping the opinions which I do share in with the ones which I do not.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Blegh.
Seeing some major blinders on people here.
I don't see why the Fighter couldn't be improved to have better narrative options while also remaining simple. Heck a second good save would do wonders.
This is mainly why Rangers are so much better. Skill points and spells do wonders for letting him solve problems other than SMASH!
Plus they do combat equally well. It's just Rangers do more out of combat.
Design Manager
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like I mentioned earlier in this thread, the biggest issue is that the potential of the Fighter's feats is weighted far more heavily than those feats can possibly deliver.
The Fighter has 5 more feats than a Ranger gets. If we say that Favored Enemy is the rough equivalent of Weapon Training, and Favored Terrain is the rough equivalent of Armor Training, then Improved Quarry and Master Hunter basically equate to Armor Mastery and Weapon Mastery. The Ranger's extra good save is equivalent to the Fighter's superior armor proficiency, and I'd say that Bravery has roughly the same value as 5 additional class skills (that's +15 in total to relevant skills vs. the +5 to saves vs. fear. I'm willing to call that a fair trade.)
That leaves us with a situation where the Fighter's 5 extra feats are weighted equally to: Track, Wild Empathy, Hunter's Bond, Woodland Stride, Swift Tracker, Evasion, Quarry, Camouflage, Improved Evasion, Hide in Plain Sight, 4 additional skill points per level, and 4 levels of spellcasting.
Show me 5 feats a Fighter can take that are equal in power to that package. Show me five feats that are worth-
A scaling bonus up to +10 to Survival checks
A special type of Diplomacy that works on animals and automatically gets a point invested every level without costing you resources.
An animal companion or the ability to share his Favored Enemy bonus with the entire party.
The ability to bypass difficult terrain and avoid damage due to natural hazards.
The ability to cut penalties for Tracking at full speed (that's an effective +5 - +10 on your checks in addition to the +1-+10 from the Track ability, effectively a free +20 to a very relevant class skill).
The ability to completely negate damage when you succeed on a Reflex save that would otherwise deal 1/2.
The ability to add a +2 insight bonus to your attack rolls and auto-succeed on critical hits against a specified opponent (at level 11 no less).
The ability to use Stealth without benefit of cover or concealment.
The ability to take only 1/2 damage against attacks that allow a Reflex save even if he fails the save. Note that this would be equivalent to the Fighter having an ability that allowed him to just make most Reflex saves automatically.
The ability to hide even while someone is watching you. That's like pseudo-invisibility with no round limitation.
4 additional fully fleshed abilities to interact with the world outside of combat, ranging from treating wounds to activating magic items as though you were a wizard.
The ability to do any of the numerous things you can do with spells, including: creating areas of entangling terrain, boosting your weapons by an entire size category, summoning creatures or spirits to fight for you, healing wounds, walking on water, teleporting from tree to tree, etc.
There are no 5 combat or Fighter specific feats that equal all of that. The Fighter has room for either some much better feats that he alone can qualify for, or an entire additional packet of abilities. Since the extra packet of abilities is something that is unlikely to happen in this edition of Pathfinder, my vote would be for feats like the Fearsome Reputation one I proposed on the previous page, or other similar feats that give strong scaling bonuses to skills in situations relevant to the class and grant the Fighter additional narrative power.
I find it oddly amusing that the ones that "hate" the Fighter are the same ones trying to improve him.
Really? How, exactly? Where's been the actual useful suggestions made, those that would NOT entail a 2nd ED?
Two Good saves? Nice, but needs a 2nd Ed. 4SkP same.
|
A better mechanical package does not have to make it a radically different mechanical package.
You could give the fighter 6 skill points/level, all good saves, replace bravery with some other +1 bonus that actually matters, and you have not increased the complexity but massively improved the versatility.
6 skill points and all good saves, why would anyone play a bard, rogue, or monk...
tis a silly thing you ask for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
6 skill points and all good saves, why would anyone play a bard...
Because in a team game, inspire courage alone is priceless; when combined with 2/3 casting, the package is VERY attractive in comparison. Monk and rogue have their own problems, as attested to by the many threads about them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only fighter fix you can really do in this edition are the following.
1. New feats
2. New Archetypes
3. New base class
We will only ever might get is 3. The devs have made it very clear that they have no intention of making something that is better than what is in CRB or existing material. So that means no feats, or fighter archetypes can be better than CRB feats and the core fighter. Fighters will only ever get worse and worse abilities as new books are published that do nothing to address their problems.
This also means that there will be no fixes for the Rogue or Monk.
Anything that does seem good was done so by mistake and you can bet errata will fix the "problem" eventually (see crane wing).
The devs are very adamant that they have no intention of addressing any of the class balance problems in Pathfinder.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only fighter fix you can really do in this edition are the following.
1. New feats
2. New Archetypes
3. New base classWe will only ever might get is 3. The devs have made it very clear that they have no intention of making something that is better than what is in CRB or existing material. So that means no feats, or fighter archetypes can be better than CRB feats and the core fighter. Fighters will only ever get worse and worse abilities as new books are published that do nothing to address their problems.
This also means that there will be no fixes for the Rogue or Monk.
Anything that does seem good was done so by mistake and you can bet errata will fix the "problem" eventually (see crane wing).
The devs are very adamant that they have no intention of addressing any of the class balance problems in Pathfinder.
Anytime the martial/caster disparity is brought up to the devs, I feel like they assume the goal is all classes to be at the same level, but for me at least, that's not the goal. I'd like all martials to be on the same level, all 2/3rds casters to be on the same level, and all full casters to be on the same level. Fighters are not equal to any of their full BAB class friends since feats just aren't as good as real class abilities. Or more to the point, there aren't good enough to be class abilities.
One of the FEW things the base Fighter does better than anyone else is crits, since they don't have a limit on crit feats. So a TWF Kukri Fighter rules the roost on debuffing crits, and the Lore Warden can actually land CMB checks.
Me personally, I think we need more Fighter only feats, an easier path to Whirlwind Attack, and blows that debuff opponents and their speed. Maybe make them usable only once a combat, but then you get a ton of them, like one sickens, one entangles, one fatigues. Make the Fighter able to hold the line with some style.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think narrative and skill abilities necessarily need to touch any of the Devs issues. Paizo isn't going to make a feat called Advanced Weapon Training that gives a +1 to attacks with all weapons from a particular weapon group, +1 every 5 levels, because that's going to obsolete Weapon Focus. That shouldn't stop them from introducing feats that give the Fighter narrative powers and abilities like the one I talked about earlier, because you can't make a feat that's better than something that doesn't exist.
A Fighter only feat like this:
"
Prerequisites: Fighter level 3, Bravery class feature, Charisma 11+
The Fighter's fearsome reputation goes before him, lending him added powers of persuasion.
The Fighter picks a region where he is well known; this region is a settlement or settlements with a total population of 1,000 or fewer people, and he gains a +2 competence bonus on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks to influence people in that area. As his reputation grows, additional areas learn of him (typically places where he has lived or traveled, or settlements adjacent to those where he is known) and his bonuses apply to even more people. At 6th level, the region is a settlement or settlements with a total population of 5,000 or fewer people, and the modifier on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks is +4. At 10th level, the region is a settlement or settlements with a total population of up to 25,000 people, and the modifier on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks is +6. At 14th level, the region is a settlement or settlements with a total population of up to 100,000 people, and the modifier to Diplomacy and Intimidate is +8. At 18th level and above, his renown has spread far, and most civilized folk know of him (GM's discretion); the modifier on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks is +10."
can't make anything in the CRB obsolete, because there's nothing like it in the CRB. Things like this would start to give the Fighter a chance to actually compete with other classes in bringing something to the table other than DPR, and it fits in with what a Fighter should be and the kind of narrative power he should have. I would love to see (and am currently considering pitching to my bosses at Dreamscarred Press) an entire line of "Reputation" feats for the Fighter that open a world of social interactions and battlefield command that the Fighter should have, but doesn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You forget things like rumormonger.
Narrative power feats will most likely only give access to things a player can already do.
|
Design Manager
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You forget things like rumormonger.
Narrative power feats will most likely only give access to things a player can already do.
I don't forget Rumormonger. Rumormonger was a poorly designed ability that gave no mechanical bonuses to do something people would have assumed you could do anyway. Had Rumormonger just given bonuses to the Bluff checks in those circumstances, it would have been fine. A good narrative feat dictates a set of circumstances and gives you bonuses to do things under those circumstances, like the reputation feat I mentioned above. Feats like that would be excellent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anytime the martial/caster disparity is brought up to the devs,
They have stated that in the normal levels of game play, they do not see any significant disparity. Most of any disparity differs more table to table and player to player than design mechanics. I agree. I have seen that exact thing. So far, in my 3 PF campaigns, martials are doing just fine, and in fact in our 13th level M1 game the Fighter is far and away the most dangerous PC.
They do not dismiss it as a "myth" as some have claimed. They just say that it's not that significant compared to player competence and campaign discrepancies.
Do note that in general that they are not talking about games where 9th level spells come into play commonly. As you may note, most Ap's end before then.
Even in my many 3.5 campaigns, where caster/martial discrepancy is higher due to so many "splatbooks" (and some spells that have been nerfed in PF), I saw that martials are better levels 1-4 and that spellcasters didn't really rule until level 17 or so. Mind you, after level 13, spellcastes certainly had a edge. However, once spellcasters got 9th level spells, martials (even BoNS) were completely superfluous. Once a caster has Shapechange (with other spells of course) he can be a better Tank than the best tank in the biz- and still be a spellcaster. My super-tank only had a superiority in HP. In Attacks, saves, ER, DR, AC, etc-the buffed spellcaster was better.
YM will almost certainly V. The discrepancy gets worse the more open your DM is to allowing source material (but you can still have issue even with just core). It's also really bad if the spellcaster player is an experienced optimizer- the martial player is a "I just wanna hit things with my sword' player and the skill monkey player is a Roleplayer first. And, note, those types of players TEND to gravitate to those roles. Not even close to always, but there I have noted a definite trend.
So taking high levels out, the discrepancy isn't significant, really.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't forget Rumormonger. Rumormonger was a poorly designed ability that gave no mechanical bonuses to do something people would have assumed you could do anyway. Had Rumormonger just given bonuses to the Bluff checks in those circumstances, it would have been fine. A good narrative feat dictates a set of circumstances and gives you bonuses to do things under those circumstances, like the reputation feat I mentioned above. Feats like that would be excellent.You forget things like rumormonger.
Narrative power feats will most likely only give access to things a player can already do.
Moreover, where Rumormonger limited things you could already do, such feat would expand them. It's not a given that a DM would allow any particular non-RAW usage of a skill. Rumormonger gets brought up for its absurdity, as most DMs would allow that sort of thing, but there are plenty of things not as clear cut, such as uses of the profession skill (beyond sailor). By giving bonuses for certain actions not specified in the rules for that skill, people who would already allow it get a boon if they take the feat, while people whose DMs are more stringent on that sort of thing would now be able to point to the feat as evidence that the action is doable.
This also means that there will be no fixes for the Rogue or Monk.
Hey now, that's just mean. I happen to think the Sohei and Zen Archer are great fixes to the Monk. Dragon Ferocity and some of the other Style Feats as well.
And some cool magic items occasionally slip through as well, like Blade of the Sword-Saint.
But rogues still suck.
|
|
They have stated that in the normal levels of game play, they do not see any significant disparity. Most of any disparity differs more table to table and player to player than design mechanics. I agree. I have seen that exact thing. So far, in my 3 PF campaigns, martials are doing just fine, and in fact in our 13th level M1 game the Fighter is far and away the most dangerous PC.
They do not dismiss it as a "myth" as some have claimed. They just say that it's not that significant compared to player competence and campaign discrepancies.
Do note that in general that they are not talking about games where 9th level spells come into play commonly. As you may note, most Ap's end before then.
Even in my many 3.5 campaigns, where caster/martial discrepancy is higher due to so many "splatbooks" (and some spells that have been nerfed in PF), I saw that martials are better levels 1-4 and that spellcasters didn't really rule until level 17 or so. Mind you, after level 13, spellcastes certainly had a edge. However, once spellcasters got 9th level spells, martials (even BoNS) were completely superfluous. Once a caster has Shapechange (with other spells of course) he can be a better Tank than the best tank in the biz- and still be a spellcaster. My super-tank only had a superiority in HP. In Attacks, saves, ER, DR, AC, etc-the buffed spellcaster was better.
YM will almost certainly V. The discrepancy gets worse the more open your DM is to allowing source material (but you can still have issue even with just core). It's also really bad if the spellcaster player is an experienced optimizer- the martial player is a "I just wanna hit things with my sword' player and the skill monkey player is a Roleplayer first. And, note, those types of players TEND to gravitate to those roles. Not even close to always, but there I have noted a definite trend.
So taking high levels out, the discrepancy isn't significant, really.
Well at least this time you're not slamming my design credits...
Casters have a huge edge on everything, especially non combat. That's my biggest issue, although for this it's more about in combat. I want Fighters to have something besides "swing sword/fire bow", and at least if they could tactically inflict penalties on opponents, that'd give them a bit more flair. At least without needing to crit, which basically removes any non high crit range weapon (read: axes/spears/bows) from being used to do it.
And as is the case, the most broken stuff is in Core. Find me a better third level buff spell than Haste outside of Core. A better spell for cloning one's self outside of Simulacrum. Everything broken is in Core, and it gets tiring to mention that. Paizo for the most part has done a good job of keeping away 3.5 levels of broken with most of their new material, as it errs on the side of caution. Which is why if I wanted to make a broken caster and you only gave me spells from one book to do it, I'd pick Core and laugh as I exploited one of the dozens of ways to destroy the game using only those.
As for WHAT level things break, that's debatable. By level 5, casters can do just about anything better, but not that many times per day. I'd say it's about level 9 that the breakdown is obvious, since by that point you're almost playing different games.
Although aside from a few rare exploits (Blood Money), can you tell me how going past Core gives casters much more than it does mundane? Hell, most mundane actually gets better with splats due to things slipping through the cracks (Lore Warden, Zen Archer, and nothing for the Rouge...maybe Scout?), so I'm not seeing why splat for Paizo helps casters so much. Maybe you're just bringing over a 3.5 bias and assuming it stands true.
|
|
Anytime the martial/caster disparity is brought up to the devs, I feel like they assume the goal is all classes to be at the same level, but for me at least, that's not the goal. I'd like all martials to be on the same level, all 2/3rds casters to be on the same level, and all full casters to be on the same level. Fighters are not equal to any of their full BAB class friends since feats just aren't as good as real class abilities. Or more to the point, there aren't good enough to be class abilities.
crb fighter is better then a barbarian, by a wide wide margin. so i think the bolded is a fallacy that needs to be eradicated.
the real issue is that once the advanced players guide came out they stopped giving the fighter the tools it needs, aka feats, to stay above the barbarian. while the barbarian got better and better abilities with every book that was released.
|
Design Manager
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
crb fighter is better then a barbarian, by a wide wide margin. so i think the bolded is a fallacy that needs to be eradicated.
I would disagree with that statement. CRB Barbarian still has Superstition, Rage is still better than Weapon Training for anything other than ranged characters, the Barbarian still has twice as many skill points, his bonuses to Will and Reflex via Rage, Trap Sense, and Indomitable Will are much better than the Fighter's Bravery, and he has abilities that allow him to perform at full strength in situations that might be crippling to the Fighter (Night Vision, Raging Swimmer).
And we come back to the fact that you're stating "If we only use one book from all the materials available, the Fighter and the Barbarian are equal". Not only is that not true, it wouldn't be terribly relevant even if it was since Pathfinder does not consist of exactly one book.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anytime the martial/caster disparity is brought up to the devs, I feel like they assume the goal is all classes to be at the same level, but for me at least, that's not the goal. I'd like all martials to be on the same level, all 2/3rds casters to be on the same level, and all full casters to be on the same level. Fighters are not equal to any of their full BAB class friends since feats just aren't as good as real class abilities. Or more to the point, there aren't good enough to be class abilities.crb fighter is better then a barbarian, by a wide wide margin. so i think the bolded is a fallacy that needs to be eradicated.
the real issue is that once the advanced players guide came out they stopped giving the fighter the tools it needs, aka feats, to stay above the barbarian. while the barbarian got better and better abilities with every book that was released.
Yeah, I'm not seeing it. CRB Barb got 2+ more skill points, better class skills, actual class features that didn't requite them to become MAD (Armor Training should have been a straight +X to AC, not increasnig the Max Dex bonus) and in case we're forgetting there's quite a few good Rage Powers that were CRB. Specifically Strength Surge, Superstition, Unexpected Strike, Animal Fury (to give reach weapon wielders a closer range option), Knockback (not great, but good), and No Escape. Let's not pretend Barbs only got good in the APG, as they were solid CRB, but everyone just likes to cry APG for their turning point. They got A LOT better APG+, but even CRB, I'd have taken a Barb over a Fighter any day of the week.
I already stated Fighter only feats need to be better, and exclusive to Fighters, but not to require Bravery, or as it's known in archetype speak, "the first damn thing you get rid of because it's horrible." We need Fighter Feats that let us do fun things, maybe one that gives us a pool that we can draw from to do something awesome. All the best class features are based on some kind of pool, so let's stop having Fighters wade around in the shallow end while everyone else steps up to the diving board.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
They do not dismiss it as a "myth" as some have claimed. They just say that it's not that significant compared to player competence and campaign discrepancies.
James.
Surely someone have asked a couple of this before but
1) What do you think in a paizo AP for evil characters?
2) Waht do you think of an AP placed in the mwangi expanse?
3) What do you think of an AP (or just a couple of aventures) based on the colonization of arcadia?
4) What are your favorites arhetypes? and, lest say, your less favorites arhetypes published by paizo?
5) what do you think abut the martial/caster disparity at high levels?
6) IF someday there is a PF 2.0, would you support giving the fighter more out of combat options?
1) Skull & Shackles works great for an evil party. We may well do one that requires an evil party some day.
2) We did that. Serpent's Skull.
3) I'd love to do an AP like that... although I'd likely end up presenting it with the colonists as being the bad guys.
4) I like the scout archetype for the rogue a lot, and the bard Dawnflower Dervish (which I designed, so I'm biased there). I generally pick archetypes not because I like them but because they just fit the character. And sometimes I don't pick one at all. I do have ones I don't like, but it's not classy for the Creative Director of the company to publicly badmouth the hard work of the people that company hires to do work for them, so I'm not gonna answer that one. ;P
5) I think it's a myth propagated by people with agendas.
6) I think the fighter has plenty of combat options already. I would STRONGLY push to dump the iterative attacks though so fighters could move about and use their feats more freely without feeling like they're playing the game wrong by not five-foot-adjusting so they don't lose their invaluable full attack action.
*snip*
Would you be kind enough to link that post?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ya, my "agenda" is trying to point out the disparity between martials/casters so it can be fixed, since I feel it is a legitimate issue that really sucks the fun out of the game, once you realize how wide the gap is.
But they haven't revoked my Illuminati membership so... Oh no I've said to much...
No offense to JJ, but he's the Creative Director. Design questions are better directed to Jason Bulmahn.
Personally, I'm fine with killing the Fighter as a class. I don't see what niche it's trying to fill that all the other classes don't. Everything in Pathfinder fights. Everything has an interesting/thematic way of going about it that lends them some talent in other areas as well. "Fighter" lacks definition.
(I also advocate cutting off the ridiculous prereqs on many martial feats)
The thing is, it doesn't NEED to be that way.
I think there is a niche for the non-supernatural fighting man, career soldier, who boosts himself to inhuman levels via Charles Atlas Superpower.
The problem is that this niche is not filled mechanically by "I can use some weapons good and get lots of Feats I guess".
I dunno, isn't that the barbarian that avoids Su rage powers, or a Ranger that trades out spells and the animal companion? What would be the interesting niche of the Fighter?
I would be cool with a Warlord/Tactician to replace the Fighter. Sort of like the Cavalier, but not married to horses.
The Fighter doesn't need a new niche, it already has one. It should be the master of combat, and in some ways it is, though other martial classes have overtaken it. Ability to fight was never the problem, defenses (especially against spells) and out-of-combat usefulness is.
If you're playing D&D your characters live in a magical world and fight on magical battlefields. Anyone who isn't a caster had better be damn good at resisting magic and fighting mages. Paladin and Barbarian are undeniably more resistant to magic than the Fighter is, and offensive options against casters have always been very limited.
To that end, it'd be nice to see more and better "Spell Breaker" feats exclusively for the Fighter, like the old Mage Slayer line. Your experience fighting mages gives you better odds against their illusions, for example, because you know all the little telltale signs of which Mirror Image is the real one, for example. Likewise, you know how to take cover from Fireballs or Scorching Rays or what have you.
As for out-of-combat usefulness, as long as the Fighter has to be mundane, there's not much that can be done except give the Fighter more skill points, more class skills, and to buff skills across the board.
Someone mentioned a while back that mashing the Fighter and Rogue together in gestalt would actually be a well-balanced fix for both classes. I haven't thought about the implications for multiclassing (three bonus feats in two levels comes to mind) but I'm starting to like the idea more and more.
Here. I took a stab at rewriting the fighter.
I'll have to look at it in more detail tomorrow morning, but I like the Heroic ability and later similar effects. What if, instead of (or on top of) the Fighter being the mundane class that got by in a magical world on sheer competence, he was the "lucky" class too?
crb fighter is better then a barbarian, by a wide wide margin. so i think the bolded is a fallacy that needs to be eradicated.
At least the barbarian is not useless out of combat.
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.Incorrect. There are fighter options available only to certain races. There are fighter options that grant more skill points and access to more skills.
The reason I mention that people are saying that "people shouldn't play fighters" is because this thread alone is meant to say just such a thing. It's a loaded question. It isn't meant to elicit information. It's meant to start an argument.
And for the record: liking the idea of the fighter is not the same as liking the fighter.
Firstly...
Hey Bob! I haven't seen you around in a while and honestly I was missing your posts. You've always been one of the best posters on the boards IMHO and I think of you often. Glad to see you around again. ^_^
Now back to our regularly scheduled nerd-discussion. :P
===================
I was bemoaning (yep, I'm moaning about it, it really gets old and it makes me groan) that most of the fighter stuff I see touted about rarely has anything to do with actually being a fighter, and no, racial options that synergize with a class will never in my mind be features of that class, because they are divorced from the class and don't come with the class they come with the race. So that should clear up my frustration with the race argument.
I don't want to hear someone say: "I need help playing a fun and effective *class*, what should I do?" and then get "Be X race with Y racial-only feat/spell/favored class bonus/etc". In the same regard, I don't like it when people say "Barbarians are the hax because the human favored class bonus..." which is something that has been tossed around.
I don't think that you should have to be X race to play an effective class. I believe that there are certain races that have strong synergy with certain classes (orc barbarians for example) or not-so-great synergy with certain classes (orc wizard for example) but you shouldn't feel like you need X race to make your class not look so bad (as is most commonly done on these boards with dwarfs with steel soul for fluffing saving throws, or humans to make Weapon Training look better because of their racial-only addition to the class, etc).
To me that's about as honest as taking a pit fiend, slapping a level of Commoner on it and shouting "look how amazing my commoner is! Commoners are such a great class". Extreme example? Yes. Logically analogous? Very.
ALSO...
I really don't agree that people who aren't fans of the fighter will never be fans of the fighter (or something like that). I once was a fan of the Fighter (they looked a hell of a lot better back in 3.0 when their feats worked in tandem, keen + improved critical stacked, they could full-attack in the same round as moving if hasted, could whirlwind attack + great cleave at the same time, etc). Perhaps unfortunately I feel it hasn't aged very well.
And it's not just because it doesn't have "cool class features". "Bonus feat" is generally a feature I like to see. When I'm building classes for my own uses, bonus feats (especially themed ones) are a really good way to offer a lot of player-friendly variety in their characters. This is seen both in my psychic monk rewrite (they get a small set of feats that are themed around unarmed combat, and one of the options for their selectable class features lets them take a psionic feat instead). I absolutely love d20 modern's class system and those classes read like the following:
Talent
Bonus Feat
Talent
Bonus Feat
Talent
Bonus Feat
Talent
Bonus Feat
Talent
Bonus Feat
So it's not that I don't find them flashy enough or anything. Please don't get me wrong. My concerns lie more in the whole package really. I want the Fighter to be more robust and worthy of its own class, and I also believe it's possible for multiple classes to fill similar niches as long as they do it in drastically different ways. Just currently nobody in my campaign (including myself as the GM) has been using the Fighter class (a friend of mine admittedly recently that he only makes NPC fighters when he wants to throw XP at the party) because other classes do "it" better ("it" being tanking guy / nonmagical damage guy / soldier guy / etc).
I'd like to make a more effective fighter-type and I've got some ideas. Some keeping it very similar to the current Fighter, some being a complete rebuild of the class from the ground up with a nod to adventure being a primary goal. The only thing is, I'm not sure which option to go ahead with and I've been so busy running my campaign that I haven't had any time to work on side projects for the hell of it (especially since Barbarian/Paladin/Ranger fills in pretty much covers anything we'd need the fighter to for). Unlike the psychic monk which was born from a friend's desire to play a monk and still be interesting the "guy who hits people with a sword" hasn't been quite as important as a roleplaying concept in anything we've been doing to warrant spending the time working on it.
Do not forget that a lot of times is just not a +30 but a +30/+25/+20. that +3 make the DPR to falls. How much? not sure, somebody shold made the calculation.A simple +1 to any stat could mean the difference between life and death. At ANY level.I don't see how heavy armor really means anything.
3 more AC wont save you enough from a monster swinging at +30.
Well here's a funny thing. Every +1 is as good at 20th level as it is at 1st level as far as d20s are concerned. I know it sounds crazy but bear with me for a moment and I'll explain.
When dealing with a d20 roll, a +1 is effectively read as +5% chance for success. Every -1 or +1 to the DC is effectively read as -5% chance for success. In the case of attack rolls and armor class, hit and evasion can never exceed 95% in either direction (you cannot obtain a greater than 95% evade chance from AC alone, nor can you reach more than 100% accuracy).
All things being equal, that +1 to hit or AC is the exact same benefit that it was at 1st level. If you've got +30 AC (effectively +150% evasion, caps at 95%) and your opponent has a +30 to hit (effectively +150% accuracy, caps at 95%) the result is a 55% chance to hit (they only need to roll a 10 on their d20). If you have a +31 to hit, then you have a 60% chance to hit and so forth.
The same is true at 1st level. If you have an AC of 15 and a +5 to hit, you still have a 55% chance to hit. Add that +1 and the % chance increases to 60% again. Same deal. So the value of a +1/-1 stays the same for all levels but that value is capped based on relative values.
For example, if AC was capped at 30, then to-hit modifiers would rapidly lose value after you achieved a 95% hit probability vs AC 30. Anything extra is wasted - or in the case of D&D/PF you might try to push your iterative hits into higher % chances.
It does bug me a little bit when I hear people say "People are swinging with +30s so a +2 to hit doesn't matter anymore!" which is only true if all your enemies have AC values in the gutter. >_>
|
Do not forget that a lot of times is just not a +30 but a +30/+25/+20. that +3 make the DPR to falls. How much? not sure, somebody shold made the calculation.A simple +1 to any stat could mean the difference between life and death. At ANY level.I don't see how heavy armor really means anything.
3 more AC wont save you enough from a monster swinging at +30.
Well here's a funny thing. Every +1 is as good at 20th level as it is at 1st level as far as d20s are concerned. I know it sounds crazy but bear with me for a moment and I'll explain.
When dealing with a d20 roll, a +1 is effectively read as +5% chance for success. Every -1 or +1 to the DC is effectively read as -5% chance for success. In the case of attack rolls and armor class, hit and evasion can never exceed 95% in either direction (you cannot obtain a greater than 95% evade chance from AC alone, nor can you reach more than 100% accuracy).
All things being equal, that +1 to hit or AC is the exact same benefit that it was at 1st level. If you've got +30 AC (effectively +150% evasion, caps at 95%) and your opponent has a +30 to hit (effectively +150% accuracy, caps at 95%) the result is a 55% chance to hit (they only need to roll a 10 on their d20). If you have a +31 to hit, then you have a 60% chance to hit and so forth.
The same is true at 1st level. If you have an AC of 15 and a +5 to hit, you still have a 55% chance to hit. Add that +1 and the % chance increases to 60% again. Same deal. So the value of a +1/-1 stays the same for all levels but that value is capped based on relative values.
For example, if AC was capped at 30, then to-hit modifiers would rapidly lose value after you achieved a 95% hit probability vs AC 30. Anything extra is wasted - or in the case of D&D/PF you might try to push your iterative hits into higher % chances.
It does bug me a little bit when I hear people say "People are swinging with +30s so...
Actually, the +1 plays a much greater role at 1st level. Because the range of effects is still very small. At 1st level, there is not much difference between the HPs of a wizard and those of a Fighter. Especially when compared with the base damage of a greatsword for example. And both can swing the sword with not that much difference between the damage they deal
But when you get to higher levels, all these ranges increase dramatically. A Fighter's HPs will be far above those of a wizard. And the damage he deals with his greatsword in a full attack will be also much higher than that of the wizard full attacking with the same weapon.
A +1 is great when the scale is 1-5. It is not so much when the scale is 1-20 ;-)
Which is BTW the reason why feats such as Power Attack scale with BAB.
Simple question, what do you see as the Fighter's niche that the Ranger is unable to imitate?
Provides constant high damage. The ranger mostly does decent damage until a favored enemy shows up.
Actually, the +1 plays a much greater role at 1st level. Because the range of effects is still very small. At 1st level, there is not much difference between the HPs of a wizard and those of a Fighter. Especially when compared with the base damage of a greatsword for example. And both can swing the sword with not that much difference between the damage they deal
But when you get to higher levels, all these ranges increase dramatically. A Fighter's HPs will be far above those of a wizard. And the damage he deals with his greatsword in a full attack will be also much higher than that of the wizard full attacking with the same weapon.
A +1 is great when the scale is 1-5. It is not so much when the scale is 1-20 ;-)
Which is BTW the reason why feats such as Power Attack scale with BAB.
Agreed on accounts of magnitude. Martial characters are on a decline starting at 2nd level. Killing power of all martial characters is more or less the same at 1st level (Paladins being on the lower end, Barbarians being the kings, but the gap is tiny), but every level thereafter killing power drops (enemy HP / AC goes up, damage doesn't increase as quickly and eventually requires you to give up movement to do meaningful damage).
However, I was discussing purely from the perspective of the +1/-1 to the d20 roll. This applies to spells as well. And to saving throws. One of the reasons that I am very fond of Paladins is because excess saving throw % provides a buffer against debuff bombs. For example, a Paladin at 15th level who has +150% chance to save against a bad thing might be capped at 95%, but when someone bombs him with with a limited wish to give his save a -7 (-45%) he's still at 95% success chance, while another class who had a 95% chance just got dumped down to a 50% chance to end up as a lawn ornament or a guest in someone's hamster cage.
...or not-so-great synergy with certain classes (orc wizard for example)...
I always thought orc was surprisingly decent choice for a wizard. Where's the not-so-great synergy? Does it have something to do with the alternate favored class bonuses or racial traits? Because I admittedly haven't paid attention to any of that jazz.
I always thought orc was surprisingly decent choice for a wizard. Where's the not-so-great synergy? Does it have something to do with the alternate favored class bonuses or racial traits? Because I admittedly haven't paid attention to any of that jazz.
...or not-so-great synergy with certain classes (orc wizard for example)...
Orcs have -2 go intelligence. That does not mean you can't make a decent orc wizard, just like being a halfing does not mean it can't be a decent barbarian, but they don't synergize.
Oh full-blooded orcs. Duh. I was thinking half-orcs ~_~
Never used orcs as a PC race.
I always thought orc was surprisingly decent choice for a wizard. Where's the not-so-great synergy? Does it have something to do with the alternate favored class bonuses or racial traits? Because I admittedly haven't paid attention to any of that jazz.
...or not-so-great synergy with certain classes (orc wizard for example)...
Well the not-so-great synergy comes from the fact orcs have a +4 Str and -2 Int/Wis/Cha. Since most people will tell you that more Int = Good and Str = Not Important, it means orcs don't usually jump out as go-to races for wizardry (and I don't even know if they have any favored class options for wizards, but they probably do in the Advanced Race Guide).
However, let it not be said that you can't make a good orc wizard. They're really great if you're not worried about the -1 to saving throw DCs from the Intelligence drop (and the -2 Wis is offset slightly by the Wizard's good Will saves). Their Ferocity racial trait means you are likely far less squishy than your average wizard (being able to keep acting even in the negatives is really good for an arcanist who can often retreat to safety with his standard/move action), and the +4 Strength makes them really good martial-wizard. And at the end of the day he's still a wizard and can go on to be a great wizard for doing wizardly things, even if he is something of an oddity.
But that's the beauty of it. You can totally make an orc wizard who works. Same with a halfling barbarian. Or an elven cleric. Or a dwarf paladin. You don't need to say be a specific race to be good at what your class does (though some may offer slightly more synergy to certain paths).
It just feels kind of irritating when some of us say "We'd like to see better saving throws on the Fighter. They used to have great saves back in the day, now they have nearly the worst and it shows", only to have someone be like "Fighter saves are fine because dwarf + steel soul". It leaves me facepalming because I'm like "that's not part of the fighter/maybe somebody wants to play a fighter who isn't a dwarf". :(
Does it have something to do with the alternate favored class bonuses or racial traits? Because I admittedly haven't paid attention to any of that jazz.
Heh, in truth I don't pay much attention to those things either. Honestly the favored class things tend to be really unbalanced in comparison to each other (for example, humans getting +1 spell / 2 levels as a sorcerer is pretty much better than virtually any other option for a sorcerer) that I actually made the favored class bonuses options of the class instead of the race (exceptions being favored class bonuses that specifically modify a feature exclusive to the race).
As an example, if you're choosing to play a sorcerer, you can choose the +0.5 spell / level option even if you're a halfling or gnome or something. :)
But yeah in all honesty, I don't really bother with most of that stuff. I believe in keeping it simple. When it comes to writing NPCs (I make tons more NPCs than I do PCs) I don't even bother looking that stuff up. :P
Also, glad to see you again Grimmy. ^_^
In a similar vein, orcs make really scary clerics. Wow they are great clerics. Especially since clerics really don't need much Wisdom (Oh lawdy, listen to him speaking such language :o). I mean, many of your best cleric spells are going to be either buffs or things you want to cast on your friends (IE - saving throws be damned). This is doubly true for necromancer-clerics who really only care about caster level.
Rudimentary Orc Cleric Build (15 PB)
Str 18, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 5, Wis 13, Cha 8
Grab Heavy Armor Proficiency early on, wield 1 or 2 handed simple weapons in 2 hands when suitable. Pickup Strength + Liberation domains. Rock faces as you auto-free yourself from snares and wreck people with your martial prowess, surprisingly good saving throws, and general savage toughness.
A more savage cleric might even have base statistics like...
Str 22, Dex 10, Con 12, Int 5, Wis 12, Cha 5. You'll need to put your +1 at 4th into Wisdom to cast 3rd level spells (like animate dead), but you can probably get away with magic items for the rest of your Wisdom needs until high levels (grabbing a +2 Wisdom item around 6th-7th level, then upgrading it to a +4 at 10th-11th, then +6 at 15th-17th), which is enough to get your 9th level spells off without even counting your inherent mods. >_>
Meanwhile you're a holy terror at low levels with your massive +6 to hit and +9 to damage before buffs, and you can put your other level up points into whatever you want. At 8th level you get to add your Cleric level to Strength as an enhancement bonus with a non-action, which is really scary to see (8th level with a +10 hit / +15 damage for 8 rounds / day makes you look like a godbarian).
EDIT: Also despite the Int / Cha, I'd recommend investing in Spellcraft as a skill and picking up item creation feats. You can swing a +level spellcraft since it's a class skill if you invest well, and that's good enough to take 10 and make most of the items you'll want or need (at 3rd level you'll have a +5 with 3 ranks + masterwork tool). That's good enough to make things that are up to 5 caster levels higher than yourself as long as you can provide the spells (such as if you want to make cure wands or make your own cloaks of resistance).
Making your own headbands of intellect can also help you branch out in your skill points a bit if you're interested (it's also not a bad location to drop a few favored class levels if you want). Your wisdom alone means you're pretty decent at surviving in the wilds by taking 10 (and you have purify food & drink + create water to boot), making this an ideal character build for a sort of tribal war priest (keep in mind the low Charisma isn't that low by orc standards).
Ashiel it was a brain fart, I was thinking you were talking half-orcs (pretty good wizards imo despite it not being a very genre conventional pairing).
But yeah I definitely hear you loud and clear about your little pet peeve.
I feel the same way about the SLA's for pre-req's ruling. If you're going to acknowledge that prestige classes aren't viable anymore, why make a fix for just a few race/class combo's?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel it was a brain fart, I was thinking you were talking half-orcs (pretty good wizards imo despite it not being a very genre conventional pairing).
But yeah I definitely hear you loud and clear about your little pet peeve.
I feel the same way about the SLA's for pre-req's ruling. If you're going to acknowledge that prestige classes aren't viable anymore, why make a fix for just a few race/class combo's?
Sometimes I feel like the only person who appreciates prestige classes anymore. I mean there were mountains of useless / bad prestige classes from 3.5, but I'm not one to throw the baby out with the bath water. :P
One of my more recent PCs was a failed lich (custom race we called a lichling which was basically a sentient bloody skeleton with the +4 Charisma split into +2 Int / +2 Cha) going into mystic theurge. The idea was she was a priestess of Orcus (a chaotic evil deity) who was slain by some go-gooders. Her corpse was stolen from their temple by one of her students who was infatuated with her, along with some arcane tools and some notes on lichdom. He figured he would resurrect her as a lich and she would be super happy with him.
However being a not-11th level caster and trying to wing it during the ritual, he ended up bringing her back as a fractured version of herself. She was undead, and in a sense pretty close to immortal (bloody skeletons regenerate if not slain with positive energy / holy water), but she was 1st level and absent her memories. However, the absence of her experiences that led to her becoming an evil priestess led to her reason for adventuring after her former cult arrived and slew the guy who resurrected her for stealing their magic books and being an apostate.
She survived the encounter (bloody skeleton lady that she was) and went out to find someone to help her explore the ancient dungeon that her former student (who claimed to be her husband) had written about in his journal, in hopes of finding out who she really was. Over the course of the game she would recall memories from experiencing the dungeon and its sights and slowly working her way back up to a powerful arcanist/spiritualist.
She was fun to play, and the scene when the party realized she was undead (she had a decent Charisma and I invested in Disguise) was rather amusing. She basically got plowed for some pretty heavy damage in one of the fights and was nearly knocked out, and when the party was taking inventory after the fight and were passing out the heals, they found her wounds had closed on their own and were like okay, flesh does just grow on trees you know. :P
