I have a stupid amount of fun playing fighters. Granted the highest level fighter I played was 14 back in 3.5.
My personal experience is that they are a blast to play. I understand how they theoretically have problems, but it just hasn't come up for me personally.
For example, I use to defend rogue to death, but after playing one for awhile in an AP, the problems everyone talked about became more apparent. This has not been the case for me when playing a fighter.
When I admit that the fighter has problems, I'm just giving the forums the benefit of the doubt. Granted other classes basically are fighter+ more *cough barbar*, but unlike the rogue I don't find the fighter dysfunction or lacking either in combat or out of combat.
Maybe I'm just missing something?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since the majority of playing time is spent in combat in most games, fighters are usually fun to play. Out of combat, a decent roleplayer can often have fun regardless of the actual capabilities of the character.
Therefore fighters are fun to play. Rogues can be too. Fun is not the same as 'balanced' in terms of game rules.
|
A properly designed fighter for both socisl and regular combat can be fun. Roleplaying can only gert you so far if your int and cha are 8 or less. I`m not saying someone who has low attrbutes can`t roleplay. He should not have the same chances say as a Bard to be as effective in certain social encounters.
I've had a lot of GMs. The only game where the fighter faltered was my own. But I did things like, not hand out gear and throw CR+5 encounters at the party. True Resurrection was free though.
I have a stupid amount of fun playing fighters. Granted the highest level fighter I played was 14 back in 3.5.
My personal experience is that they are a blast to play. I understand how they theoretically have problems, but it just hasn't come up for me personally.
For example, I use to defend rogue to death, but after playing one for awhile in an AP, the problems everyone talked about became more apparent. This has not been the case for me when playing a fighter.
When I admit that the fighter has problems, I'm just giving the forums the benefit of the doubt. Granted other classes basically are fighter+ more *cough barbar*, but unlike the rogue I don't find the fighter dysfunction or lacking either in combat or out of combat.
Maybe I'm just missing something?
Well...you actually might be. Rogue's problems are pervasive across game types; that is, Rogue's flaws are difficult to compensate for just with play style. Fighters, on the other hand, have niches in which they shine and shine brightly. Humanoid opponents with no flying? Call a Fighter. Gigantic melee brutes without tripping capacity? Call a Fighter. One of your party members loves buffing? Call a Fighter.
Where Fighters begin to display difficulties is when problems start reaching beyond combat, or when problems in combat begin reaching a certain point of complexity. Teleportation, flight, incorporeality, mental ability score damage, non-AC defenses, and the like make Fighters have very bad days. Outside of combat, you get situations like the one described here where a campaign that has a significant non-combat element has little to offer a Fighter unless the group's style de-emphasizes mechanics for non-combat encounters.
TL;DR Fighters can be 'fixed' by specific play styles, which makes seeing their problems difficult if you've never experienced other game styles.
I have a stupid amount of fun playing fighters. Granted the highest level fighter I played was 14 back in 3.5.
My personal experience is that they are a blast to play. I understand how they theoretically have problems, but it just hasn't come up for me personally.
For example, I use to defend rogue to death, but after playing one for awhile in an AP, the problems everyone talked about became more apparent. This has not been the case for me when playing a fighter.
When I admit that the fighter has problems, I'm just giving the forums the benefit of the doubt. Granted other classes basically are fighter+ more *cough barbar*, but unlike the rogue I don't find the fighter dysfunction or lacking either in combat or out of combat.
Maybe I'm just missing something?
That's a pretty funny story. I've had the same experience with rogues, obviously we're both doing something wrong. As you can see, Prince of Knives has described the only few situations where you should enjoy playing a fighter. If you like fighters it's only because you haven't been in a campaign that is designed for fighters to be ineffective.
That's a pretty funny story. I've had the same experience with rogues, obviously we're both doing something wrong. As you can see, Prince of Knives has described the only few situations where you should enjoy playing a fighter. If you like fighters it's only because you haven't been in a campaign that is designed for fighters to be ineffective.I have a stupid amount of fun playing fighters. Granted the highest level fighter I played was 14 back in 3.5.
My personal experience is that they are a blast to play. I understand how they theoretically have problems, but it just hasn't come up for me personally.
For example, I use to defend rogue to death, but after playing one for awhile in an AP, the problems everyone talked about became more apparent. This has not been the case for me when playing a fighter.
When I admit that the fighter has problems, I'm just giving the forums the benefit of the doubt. Granted other classes basically are fighter+ more *cough barbar*, but unlike the rogue I don't find the fighter dysfunction or lacking either in combat or out of combat.
Maybe I'm just missing something?
There's no need to be snide. I didn't make a value judgment on either class or, indeed, state anything about them being unfun to play. I made a listing of the areas where Fighter is mechanically weak.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well...you actually might be. Rogue's problems are pervasive across game types; that is, Rogue's flaws are difficult to compensate for just with play style. Fighters, on the other hand, have niches in which they shine and shine brightly. Humanoid opponents with no flying? Call a Fighter. Gigantic melee brutes without tripping capacity? Call a Fighter. One of your party members loves buffing? Call a Fighter.
Where Fighters begin to display difficulties is when problems start reaching beyond combat, or when problems in combat begin reaching a certain point of complexity. Teleportation, flight, incorporeality, mental ability score damage, non-AC defenses, and the like make Fighters have very bad days. Outside of combat, you get situations like the one described here where a campaign that has a significant non-combat element has little to offer a Fighter unless the group's style de-emphasizes mechanics for non-combat encounters.
TL;DR Fighters can be 'fixed' by specific play styles, which makes seeing their problems difficult if you've never experienced other game styles.
Eh if you milk intimidate correctly, you can be quite the warlord with 10 cha.
Tywin Lannister is a great example of someone who, without any social skills, can manipulate whole kingdoms. He's not diplomatic. He omits the truth, he doesn't lie. He can't even intimidate his won children. He rocks social encounters through sheer cleverness and managing information flow.
A fighter with intimidating prowess could be Robert Baratheon with the ruthlessness and wit of Tywin Lannister if he so chooses.
Well...you actually might be. Rogue's problems are pervasive across game types; that is, Rogue's flaws are difficult to compensate for just with play style. Fighters, on the other hand, have niches in which they shine and shine brightly. Humanoid opponents with no flying? Call a Fighter. Gigantic melee brutes without tripping capacity? Call a Fighter. One of your party members loves buffing? Call a Fighter.
Where Fighters begin to display difficulties is when problems start reaching beyond combat, or when problems in combat begin reaching a certain point of complexity. Teleportation, flight, incorporeality, mental ability score damage, non-AC defenses, and the like make Fighters have very bad days. Outside of combat, you get situations like the one described here where a campaign that has a significant non-combat element has little to offer a Fighter unless the group's style de-emphasizes mechanics for non-combat encounters.
TL;DR Fighters can be 'fixed' by specific play styles, which makes seeing their problems difficult if you've never experienced other game styles.
Eh if you milk intimidate correctly, you can be quite the warlord with 10 cha.
Tywin Lannister is a great example of someone who, without any social skills, can manipulate whole kingdoms. He's not diplomatic. He omits the truth, he doesn't lie. He can't even intimidate his won children. He rocks social encounters through sheer cleverness and managing information flow.
A fighter with intimidating prowess could be Robert Baratheon with the ruthlessness and wit of Tywin Lannister if he so chooses.
Eh, part of Tywin's genius is also his knowledge of people (Sense Motive, Know: Nob & Roy), his talent for political action, and his ability to frighten not just people but populations. The writing of the Rains of Castemere wasn't just to scare one guy, it was to flaunt the unstoppable might of the Lannisters before all who would doubt them.
Gilarius pretty much nailed it. People dis fighters and rogues, but they aren't really bad classes or nothin'. The fact that they're weaker will not really come up in most groups, since most of the optimization on these boards is fairly hypothetical.
Also, is Robert Baratheon really a good example of a formidable ruler?
That's a pretty funny story. I've had the same experience with rogues, obviously we're both doing something wrong. As you can see, Prince of Knives has described the only few situations where you should enjoy playing a fighter. If you like fighters it's only because you haven't been in a campaign that is designed for fighters to be ineffective.I have a stupid amount of fun playing fighters. Granted the highest level fighter I played was 14 back in 3.5.
My personal experience is that they are a blast to play. I understand how they theoretically have problems, but it just hasn't come up for me personally.
For example, I use to defend rogue to death, but after playing one for awhile in an AP, the problems everyone talked about became more apparent. This has not been the case for me when playing a fighter.
When I admit that the fighter has problems, I'm just giving the forums the benefit of the doubt. Granted other classes basically are fighter+ more *cough barbar*, but unlike the rogue I don't find the fighter dysfunction or lacking either in combat or out of combat.
Maybe I'm just missing something?
To be fair, I find that rooms with corners tend to be scenarios tailored to make the rogue ineffective.
Fighters require a bit more work or a GM who demands dice rolls for all speaking (Although at that point I could just go "aid other" and have the high character say "meep!").
I'd also like to note that Intimidate wears off eventually, which makes it problematic when it comes to using it as a political tool.
Also, is Robert Baratheon really a good example of a formidable ruler?
Ask Stannis Baratheon, Robert was a social butterfly for all things War.
His rule only failed because he couldn't give an arse about it. Ned would have done a much better job and his only skill was knowledge(honor). Ned almost won his social battle.
Sense motive is overall a pretty weak skill for a PC, who are free to call BS whenever they want. Just like Tywin, who was terrible at reading people, but was well informed enough to be able to catch most people in their lies. Which being well informed doesn't require skill checks. Your subjects can just tell you things.
I'd also like to note that Intimidate wears off eventually, which makes it problematic when it comes to using it as a political tool.
You don't use intimidate to change their attitude. You use in to be imposing and to lend credibility to your threats.
Many of Robert's subjects held no love for him, but they feared his hammer enough to behave.
Eh, Ned pretty clearly had a decent Charisma, along with decent Wisdom.
Also, Robert was fairly beloved by the people. It was just, y'know, people who knew him. ;D
Eh, Ned pretty clearly had a decent Charisma, along with decent Wisdom.
Ned might'of had decent wisdom, but he had the cha of an attractive boulder. Better than Lightning from the last FF game, who's cha value rivaled a normal boulder.
|
|
One has to be careful though. If one allows characters with low int and cha to be as effective as one with high int and cha in social encounters. Then one has to allow the character with low str and con the ability to hit as well as a character with high str. As well as being able to survive as much damage. It`s only fair imo.
I dunno, Ned was pretty darn good at articulating himself. He just didn't have the chance to show his Charisma because most people he met were only worthy of Intimidate.
I have a stupid amount of fun playing fighters. Granted the highest level fighter I played was 14 back in 3.5.
Great. :)
My personal experience is that they are a blast to play. I understand how they theoretically have problems, but it just hasn't come up for me personally.
My personal experiences with Fighters are a mixed bag. I often have mentioned that they were more fun back in 3.0 where what feats they did have worked in conjunction with each other (whirlwind attack + great cleave meant that you could keep attacking for every enemy you felled in a whirlwind, which made things like having 1d4+1 weak summons spawned around you to provide bonuses to a more powerful big-bad didn't work so well on you), and haste allowed all martials to move + full attack (it granted an extra standard or move action, which was eventually nerfed supposedly because it let spellcasters cast too many spells per round, but they added quicken rods in 3.5 allowing spellcasters to continue throwing just as many spells per round but now martials were "stuck" in the 5ft. step trap), and the other martials were just bad (the Ranger in 3.0 was only good as a dip for free TWF feats, Barbarian wasn't very well put together, and Paladin was unplayable).
They still had their problems. A thing I noticed when I watched a high level Fighter get torn apart by an enemy from the 3.0 Monster Manual that was intended to be little more than a speed-bump or the party. It was a speed bump for the rest of the party, but it's full attack destroyed the fighter (we were younger then and I guess the Fighter's player just didn't realize the importance of throwing way more gold at defenses).
All in all though, their problems stood out much less. Evidenced by the fact the 3.5 class update previews changed essentially nothing about the fighter. While the Ranger and Barbarian were overhauled dramatically and the Paladin's restrictions changed to make them playable, the Fighter was hailed as "just right". However it was crucified with stealth-nerfs throughout the system (by stealth-nerfs, I mean lots of changes that weren't made to the fighter's class, but changes to feats, magic items, staple buffs, staple combat options, etc).
For example, I use to defend rogue to death, but after playing one for awhile in an AP, the problems everyone talked about became more apparent. This has not been the case for me when playing a fighter.
When I admit that the fighter has problems, I'm just giving the forums the benefit of the doubt. Granted other classes basically are fighter+ more *cough barbar*, but unlike the rogue I don't find the fighter dysfunction or lacking either in combat or out of combat.
Maybe I'm just missing something?
When the Pathfinder Beta was out I rolled a Fighter. I was very excited to see all the new class features that were added. I had a great time with the character, though by even mid-levels I realized that my fighter levels weren't really doing anything to help my character interact with the world around her. Looking back on it and knowing what I know now, I should have played a Ranger so I could have had a class that lent itself to more than just hitting things.
Recently, in my current ongoing campaign, my brother has been playing a Paladin. During a rather big encounter, he suffered a rather large amount of damage that he had no real way of avoiding (AC didn't help in his case). During the combat one of the other players remarked that if he had been a Fighter he would already be dead (since what was keeping him aloft during the fight was Lay on Hands). In another portion of the game, he was ambushed by a fledgling vampire who attempted to dominate him, and he saved by a margin that would have resulted in failure had he been a fighter. In an even more recent battle, he participated in an encounter that had a high-DR enemy that he broke through DR with Smite, which he wouldn't have been able to do as a Fighter. When he suffered ability damage, he was able to rectify the situation (including in a situation where he allowed a vampire to feed on him so she wouldn't fall into a blood-frenzy). In another battle he was dropped to less than 0 HP and got to sack a spell as an immediate action to lay on hands and be like "I'm just kidding, eat my sword!". He is one of the primary damage dealers in the party (when not smiting) and a terror when he is (his to-hit rolls and AC skyrocket due to his strong Charisma).
Fighters are just resource sinks. They take from the party while giving back less than other classes would. Barbarians, Paladins, and Rangers are all very well balanced against each other. Fighter is simply lacking and it shows in some games. Not all, but it shows pretty regularly in games I've been part of. It shows from low levels and gets worse as levels rise (and I DO play the upper-tier frequently enough to care about it. In fact if my current campaign continues on its course then it's likely to end up going beyond 17th level, possibly past 20th).
More often "being a fighter" is a disability that may or may not become apparent during your game. It doesn't show up in every game, but it's there. You mention the rogue, so let me toss out one more little story before I go back to prepping my campaign for tonight's game.
A friend of mine ran a campaign back in 3.x that I played a rogue in (and 3.x rogues are even worse than PF rogues :P), and I had a blast with that rogue. The rogue was flavored as a Ninja in an Oriental-Adventures game. I had tons of fun with that rogue. I still look back on an encounter when my rogue beat the stuffing out of a monk she caught in a dark room and KO'd him with her own unarmed strikes (supplemented with sneak attack which landed against the monk handily since the monk who didn't have darkvision or low-light vision was having trouble keeping his Dex to AC vs the rogue). It was fun and I enjoyed the character lots. However if I was to recreate the character today I would probably use a class that would keep the character relevant in more than niche situations but could achieve the same thing.
In a similar vein, I've played NPC classes and my brother likewise has played NPC classes. One of his favorite characters was a goblin expert who abused the Handle Animal mechanics to wreck stuff with trained attack-oxen while riding around on a little mount he purchased and total defensing with his shield while giving commands as move actions.