A Hunter should not have a better Animal Companion than a druid. I don't see the reason to break not only the rules on animal companions but on the animal type itself to do this."Better than a multiclass" is really REALLY a bad argument.
A straight Ranger or a straight Druid is stronger in just about every situation a Hunter would be in.
In theory craft and actual play the Hunter in the ACG draft 2 is a bad class.
Once again this may change when the final version is released, but as it is currently the Hunter is a sad joke.
I feel they should have aimed to make the animal companion almost as strong as an Eidolan by using
-a new chart that doesn't skip AC hit dice
-by making the AC get a d10 and full BAB on the chartYou know, something to actually make this AC strong.
Why?
The Hunter character himself if weaker than a Druid, so why not have a stronger animal companion?
Druids are fullcasters
Hunters are "Beast Masters" (According to SKR himself)
A new chart to beef up the Hunters companion would make sense.
"Better than a multiclass" is really REALLY a bad argument.
It's not exactly the worst comparison one could make. A character with two levels of Druid for each level of Ranger would have a similar spell progression to a Hunter (That is, unlocking a new spell level every 3rd level). Such a character would have a better BAB than a straight druid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Hunter should not have a better Animal Companion than a druid. I don't see the reason to break not only the rules on animal companions but on the animal type itself to do this.Why?
The Hunter character himself if weaker than a Druid, so why not have a stronger animal companion?
Druids are fullcasters
Hunters are "Beast Masters" (According to SKR himself)
If I remember right, one of the ideas during the transition from 3.5 to pathfinder was giving the ranger animal companion full progression instead of partial. Boon companion was a real boon imo. Its sort of weird that one of the strongest classes, possibly the strongest in a lot of circumstances, gets full progression companion while the ranger, who being a martial really is weaker, gets the partial progression.
Right now the warpirest is so obviously superior to fighters, I wonder if the final version will be nerfed for htis reason.
I think these classes from core, APG, and Ultimate books still have a solid spaceEither you forgot Cleric or your priorities regarding who has a place in the game are weird.
And I'd argue that a Lore Warden Fighter and some Archetypes of Monk remain valid as well.
In regards to cleric I was thinking the same. BTW, a two handed fighter is better than any monk other than zen archer, better than any rogue period and weaponmaster Fighters are good too. I LIKE fighters, I feel they're actually only the third weakest class overall and maybe second best at ANY type of weapon based combat they focus on. THE best at melee damage in the two handed fighter archetype.
|
In regards to cleric I was thinking the same. BTW, a two handed fighter is better than any monk other than zen archer, better than any rogue period and weaponmaster Fighters are good too. I LIKE fighters, I feel they're actually only the third weakest class overall and maybe second best at ANY type of weapon based combat they focus on. THE best at melee damage in the two handed fighter archetype.
I might be willing to go with a few archetypes of Fighters as valid to go with the few archetypes of Monk (Lore Warden's just the only one that leapt to mind). But both base classes are...unfortunate.
And I'd argue that Barbarians do more damage than Two-Handed Fighters if built properly, and have better saves and more options to boot.
|
For the hunter: wouldn't it have been simpler just to make a ranger archetype that trades away spellcasting for the hunter's teamwork with the companion thing?A ranger archetype would've had full BAB and no casting. Hunter has 3/4 BAB and six level casting.
Yeah, that's my point. People have been looking for cool non-spellcasting rangers for a while, and a hunter who's great at teamworking with his AC would be a perfect fit, IF he had good BAB and enough feats to jump through all the feat chain hoops. Instead, you get less BAB than the ranger and more spellcasting.
The only thing I like about the hunter is teamworking with the AC. That's a really cool idea. Although we would need much more awesome teamwork feats for that, too.
I think these classes from core, APG, and Ultimate books still have a solid spaceEither you forgot Cleric or your priorities regarding who has a place in the game are weird.
And I'd argue that a Lore Warden Fighter and some Archetypes of Monk remain valid as well.
Oh nice catch, yeah Cleric is top tier. My list wasn't a tier list, just a list of viable classes off the top of my head.
You said "older classes", but didn't actually mention any old classes.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Alchemist, Gunslinger and Cavalier are all older than the ACG, are they not? My point was that there are plenty of interesting classes other than the new ones, and the archetypes for them only expand their interest for me. Now if I'd said Core classes, then yes, you'd be correct that I hadn't mentioned any of them, but if you really want a core example, fine, I had the option of playing any class for Reign of Winter but decided on a Bard because Bards are awesome.
On the other hand, you used the word boss as an adjective.
Oh no! *GASP* you've discovered my deep, dark secret... I like to use somewhat outdated slang while commenting, clearly my entire point is invalid. I'm melting... meeeeeeeelting...
In all seriousness, what was the point of drawing attention to the fact that I use boss as a replacement for cool or awesome sometimes?
Yeah, that's my point. People have been looking for cool non-spellcasting rangers for a while, and a hunter who's great at teamworking with his AC would be a perfect fit, IF he had good BAB and enough feats to jump through all the feat chain hoops. Instead, you get less BAB than the ranger and more spellcasting.For the hunter: wouldn't it have been simpler just to make a ranger archetype that trades away spellcasting for the hunter's teamwork with the companion thing?A ranger archetype would've had full BAB and no casting. Hunter has 3/4 BAB and six level casting.
Yeah, when I first heard hunter I thought "Oh cool! Spell less ranger. I hope he gets something to make up for his lack of spells!" then I got spellful ranger. So uhh... yeah.
@Tinkergoth:
Just for fun. It was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Would a :) have helped?
In regards to cleric I was thinking the same. BTW, a two handed fighter is better than any monk other than zen archer, better than any rogue period and weaponmaster Fighters are good too. I LIKE fighters, I feel they're actually only the third weakest class overall and maybe second best at ANY type of weapon based combat they focus on. THE best at melee damage in the two handed fighter archetype.I might be willing to go with a few archetypes of Fighters as valid to go with the few archetypes of Monk (Lore Warden's just the only one that leapt to mind). But both base classes are...unfortunate.
And I'd argue that Barbarians do more damage than Two-Handed Fighters if built properly, and have better saves and more options to boot.
We hopefully agree to disagree on the thf / barb thing. Honestly I have plans for a thf19/bbn1, think it will do impressive melee damage :) even not factoring mythic into the theorycrafting( the actual character will be mythic though).
You said "older classes", but didn't actually mention any old classes.Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Alchemist, Gunslinger and Cavalier are all older than the ACG, are they not? My point was that there are plenty of interesting classes other than the new ones, and the archetypes for them only expand their interest for me.
Actually, cavalier and oracle ideally stole from what other classes could have had through feats and archetypes. For what its worth.
That depends on which class you'e talking about...
With the lastest playtest versions in mind:
Arcanist is broken as hell and pretty much obsoletes Sorcerers.
Brawler is a nice middle ground between Fighter and Monk, it might be objectively stronger than unarmed Fighter archetypes, but not by much, IMO.
Bloodrager is really cool, but at least for now, it seems like a better Barbarian.
Hunters seems extremelly underpowered. IMHO, it's a weak Ranger and an even worse Druid. I'm afraid it'll be the first 6-level spell-casting class to fall into Tier 4.
Investigator and Slayer obsolete Rogues, but Rogues have been obsolete from day 1, so nothing new on that front.
Swashbuckler is meh. It fails to deliver what was promised, but doesn't really step on anyone's toes. They are just a wasted ooprtunity.
I can't really comment on the other classes, since I barely read any of them.
@Tinkergoth:
Just for fun. It was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Would a :) have helped?
Yeah, it would have made much more sense. Blasted plain text commenting and its inability to convey intent...
Actually, cavalier and oracle ideally stole from what other classes could have had through feats and archetypes. For what its worth.
For the cavalier I agree, but I think making it a full class was a good call. The oracle... did we have a spontaneous divine full caster previously to base that archetype off? The curse, mysteries and revelations were a pretty big change to throw onto any class (most archetypes don't seem to change that much of the original class), and its spontaneous divine spellcasting covers a playstyle that didn't exist before. Unless I'm forgetting a class, which is possible... Pally doesn't count given that he's a 4 level caster.
Um, since when to animal companions benefit from favored enemy?
They always have, assuming you do not take an archetype that gets rid of it.
PS: I hope I have not been ninja'd.
I imagine the ones that would be marginalized are only the ones that have already been marginalized before the ACG. If a current class stands well on its own, I highly doubt it will be marginalized even if one of the ACG classes plays very similarly to it (like the Barbarian and the Bloodrager.)Agreed!
Barbarian and Bloodrager are similar, but both are viable.
Brawler and Monk are similar, but both do different things.
Slayer and Rogue are similar, but the Slayer wont become dead weight.
Shaman is a new full caster with a unique playstyle. Even though it uses the same list as the Druid its class features wont invalidate the Druid.
Not every thread needs to become a "fighters and rogues suck" thread.
To keep the status quo, it might need to.
.
.
.
.
.
.
;)
Has it already begun? Already, I see people throwing in bids for this or that from ACG when someone asks how to build a ranger, Oracle, sorcerer. I know people say these options are to further reduce multiclassing but I see a lot of unsolicited "be a x from ACG instead of y from older material". What gives? What are the implications going forward?
Define marginalize. Are they actually going to do some concepts better than existing classes? Yes but that is the entire purpose of the classes to start with.
Just because they will (and as new additions logically should) replace some other uses of existing classes does not mean they will make those existing classes totally negated.
Adding new classes invariably means some old class concepts/builds will be done better by the new classes. When that happens it does not mean old classes are no longer needed.
|
|
Bloodrager is really cool, but at least for now, it seems like a better Barbarian.
The lack of Pounce makes this a lot less true, IMO. Ditto a lot of other Rage powers. The Bloodlines are cool, but none seems to quite compare to Beast Totem/Superstition/Spell sunder for sheer power. Having spells makes up for some of that, but unlike Magus there's no action economy advantage there.
Swashbuckler is meh. It fails to deliver what was promised, but doesn't really step on anyone's toes. They are just a wasted ooprtunity.
I think Swashbuckler looks like it'll be pretty cool. I hope they make a few changes, but the basic setup isn't bad at all. Being able to just end melee Full Attacks is very nice, for example.
Um, since when to animal companions benefit from favored enemy?
They always have, assuming you do not take an archetype that gets rid of it.
PS: I hope I have not been ninja'd.
You have been, and Kolokotroni has acknowledge his not realizing that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right now the warpirest is so obviously superior to fighters, I wonder if the final version will be nerfed for htis reason.I'm hoping they upgrade the fighter rather than nerf the Warpriest. There are a lot of threads on that topic. The Warpriest fills a niche for non-LG paladin type and also as a combat cleric. 3E had variant alignment paladins that never worked for me, the Warpriest has a lot more flavor than CG or LE paladin.
I thought cleric was the combat cleric. And that oracle was the combat cleric. And that paladin was the combat cleric. And that inquisitor was the combat cleric. Its another flavor of combat cleric, one that has to wait longer on some of the buffs, and won't achieve spells like frightful aspect or grace of the champion. Warpriest flavor is pretty close to a cleric, but far more free compared to a paladin, though blessings are pretty restrictive, but not much more than domains(not a fan of either personally). I'm not sure if it has too much more flavor than a normal cleric or what a normal cleric was capable of. In my opinion anyway.
Not sure if fighter will ever get an upgrade so much as slowly pushed out of his niche by people who are him but better. I don't think its really the MO to actively try to improve or nerf classes so much as sometimes content being great or bad for a class.
Arcanist is broken as hell and pretty much obsoletes Sorcerers.Paragon surge might be able to keep up. Otherwise yeah, the Arcanist steps all over the sorcerer.
Not sure I mind that though because the Arcanist has cool class features and the sorcerer sort of doesn't.
Poor wizard. He almost doesn't have any class features!
The Warpriest will probably give the fighter some heavy competition. I mean, its basically full BAB with spellcasting and better saves. It just lacks armor training and on average, 1 hit point a level.This is pretty true except people who want to play a fighter dont do it because of its power. Usually they do it because their concept doesnt involve magic. If divine magic is ok for their concept, they are already playing a paladin, inquisitor or just cleric. The warpriest doesnt marginalize any of those.
The fighter's problem among the new classes is the slayer. For a lot of builds he is just a better fighter. The fighter problems most often stated are all things the slyer is better in. Like skills for example.
I would not say he gets marginalized by that. Only that lots of builds will work better with the slayer than the fighter.
|
|
The fighter's problem among the new classes is the slayer. For a lot of builds he is just a better fighter. The fighter problems most often stated are all things the slyer is better in. Like skills for example.
This is true.
I would not say he gets marginalized by that. Only that lots of builds will work better with the slayer than the fighter.
Almost any build, really. Well, any that doesn't absolutely need more than 6 extra Feats or a specific Fighter Archetype, anyway. And that's most of them. I mean, c'mon, who needs more than 6 bonus Feats? Especially when all but one of the extras Fighters get comes at 14th level or higher (not that you couldn't delay the Slayer ones if you wanted to...).
The fighter DOES get armor training and heavy armor prof that could make him better at some builds based on this. But apart from that I don't see many.
The interesting thing about the slayer overshadowing the fighter is that, when I compare the slayer to the ranger, the ranger wins (at least for me). So if fighter < slayer < ranger, does that mean that fighter < ranger?
|
|
The fighter DOES get armor training and heavy armor prof that could make him better at some builds based on this. But apart from that I don't see many.
True, I suppose. The armor's just a Feat away, though...and Mithral Armor, I guess, given the Ranger Fighting Style thing.
The interesting thing about the slayer overshadowing the fighter is that, when I compare the slayer to the ranger, the ranger wins (at least for me). So if fighter < slayer < ranger, does that mean that fighter < ranger?
See, I don't see it as quite that simple. Ranger has spells, and potentially an Animal Companion, which are very nice...but Favored Target is just so much better than Favored Enemy (especially at 7th level plus), and Sneak Attack is solid, too, as is the ability to take a fair selection of the Rogue Talents.
They're both flat-out better than Fighter, IMO, though. Slayer's easier to argue as better because Favored Target is more generally applicable than Favored Enemy, and thus easier to compare to Weapon Training...but both are superior.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Easy fix for folks that think the hunter is weak: Spell-less Hunter archetype that seriously ups the animal companion. Sure tou lose some AC-buffing spells and Druid list craziness, but with an uber'd AC and some extra teamwork feats it should be filthy*. I'm sure the ACG will have a Spell-less Hunter. The whole Rangers and Hunters with spells thing really frustrates me, but I suspect that's my anti-caster bias...
*(just trying to outdo Tinkergoth on the outdated slang. Could have used "brutal", but that might not have come across as Birminghamesque, Lister from Red Dwarf inspired vernacular and been seen as just a regular adjective.)**
**(and yes I know filthy is an adjective, so there is a false equivalency*** between TG using "boss" as an adjective, and me totally not doing so...)
***(just wanted folks to know I'm like totally hip to the semantic**** groove)
****(ok, so it's not semantic, but who cares, this whole post is ACE!!!)
If you lose Hunter spells though, you lose Instant Enemy. This effectively lets you use your best Favored Enemy bonus against any foe as a swift action. The numeric bonus to everything but save DC is better for a Ranger's best FE than it is for an equivalent Slayer. Yes, Rangers only get access to Instant enemy at level 10 minimum and have limited uses per day, but it's nonetheless both useful and powerful.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Warpriest will probably give the fighter some heavy competition. I mean, its basically full BAB with spellcasting and better saves. It just lacks armor training and on average, 1 hit point a level.This is pretty true except people who want to play a fighter dont do it because of its power. Usually they do it because their concept doesnt involve magic. If divine magic is ok for their concept, they are already playing a paladin, inquisitor or just cleric. The warpriest doesnt marginalize any of those.The fighter's problem among the new classes is the slayer. For a lot of builds he is just a better fighter. The fighter problems most often stated are all things the slyer is better in. Like skills for example.
I would not say he gets marginalized by that. Only that lots of builds will work better with the slayer than the fighter.
But the kinds of things one would do with the slayer you cant do with the current fighter. Which is my point. Aside from the lore warden, fighters are simple, numerically based always on characters. You take feats, you add up numbers you have 3-4 things your character does, and thats it. Mind you, numerically those 3 things are about as good as it gets in the game, but thats it. Individual fighters are highly specialized simple to play characters. If you make a trip fighter with reach weapons, you pick your feats, pick a polarm with the trip property and you have your character. If it can be triped and then stabbed/slashed/smashed, you are totally on it. If you need to do something else...well you'll probably be offering aid anothers or something. Thats how current fighters function.
A slayer is not that. It has talents that are potentially situational, it has sneak attack, it has targeting abilities that buff itself, it has skill points to play with. If someone intended to play a character that works in such a fashion they already would not be playing a fighter. The current rules offer significant alternatives if you are ok with fiddly bonuses, limited use abilities.
A paladin already is more versatile, and in many ways more powerful then a fighter. So is a barbarian. So is a ranger. In different directions, so is the magus, the cavalier, and these are only the mostly martial characters. If you are ok with the theme and the complexity of these other classes, you probably didnt make a fighter before the Advanced Class Guide. The existance of the slayer, the war preist and the brawler dont change that. Except perhaps fewer people will struggle unknowingly with trying to make a swashbuckling free hand fighter work somehow, because theres a class called the swashbuckler.
Honestly, both fighter, and rogue were always too general and too bland in concept to work in the modern game. They are holdovers. Since pathfinder classes actually have defining class features, and are not just 5 level place holders for prestige classes (3.5), base classes need theme and flavor. Conceptually, what is a fighter? A guy who is really good at fighting? Is there are more bland concept we could have put in there? I guess the d20 modern base classes?
Same goes for the rogue. What is a rogue? We see all sorts of variety in the archetypes for the rogue trying to achieve really different themes. Its kind of like the 3.5 bard. It tries to be too much, and ends up not doing any of it well. There is something said to having 'generic' base classes that gain their concept as you make choices. But so much of pathfinder isnt that. Inquisitor, samurai, ninja, oracle, wizard, barbarian, alchemist, these all invoke specific themes and ideas when you hear them. How much is actually achieved is debatable, but the design goal is clear.
Try to imagine a world without dnd. You are making the first fantasy RPG. You start by trying to think of what you want each class to be able to do.
Me: design me an alchemist.
You: He should make potions, and alchemical weapons, and be like dr jekyl and Mr Hide
The mechanics of the class flow from the theme.
Me: make me a ranger.
You: Oh yea, like aragorn, and tracking, and woodsman skills, and archery, and swift, nimble combat in the woods.
Me: make me a fighter.
You: (stares blankly)what do you mean like a ufc fighter?
Me: No, just a fighter.
You: What does that mean?
If you want to make more then a generic guy really good a swinging a sword fighter was never the answer. Its great to have around for new players, or players that want simple characters to play, but its not ok to use it as a yardstick to measure what other classes should be able to do.
I'm playing a Slayer in group filling the rogues role in the party when it comes to finding traps. As a trap finder I'm bring more to the party in terms of combat. The thing about the slayer is from rogue point of view it's a the combat rogue build only. It lacks all the social aspects of a rogue. So I'm better than that combat build of rogue.
If you lose Hunter spells though, you lose Instant Enemy. This effectively lets you use your best Favored Enemy bonus against any foe as a swift action. The numeric bonus to everything but save DC is better for a Ranger's best FE than it is for an equivalent Slayer. Yes, Rangers only get access to Instant enemy at level 10 minimum and have limited uses per day, but it's nonetheless both useful and powerful.
This could easily be tweaked as available as either an SLA, or a class feature of some other kind for the Spell-less Hunter…
The thing here is not so much the spell-less flavor (though that is obviously important to me personally) but the focus on making the Animal Companion beefy and worthwhile.
I'm playing a Slayer in group filling the rogues role in the party when it comes to finding traps. As a trap finder I'm bring more to the party in terms of combat. The thing about the slayer is from rogue point of view it's a the combat rogue build only. It lacks all the social aspects of a rogue. So I'm better than that combat build of rogue.
Rogue isn't actually inherently good at being social because the only thing really going for him socially is the fact he has skill points, they're in class, and he has a few (weak) rogue talents to boost it a bit(rerolls of course, don't actually make him good at it). He doesn't even sync well with charisma since he really wants wisdom to boost his weak will, his ki pool is wisdom based, and his skill mastery is int based. You might get some oomph out of traits to give him what little the rogue had he didn't. The bard of course, laughs at both of them. Mind you trapper ranger and vivisectionist and other archetypes probably already were a better combat rogue.
"Fighter" might be a little generic of a name, but not more so than some of the others.
For what its worth, my first thought about what to name a class never would have been fighter. I also don't think simple or generic is inherently bad, but I think the execution can be flawed. Fighter as written is almost an npc class. You might even say its bad at being generic because its got poor saves and little way to handle any problem.
|
|
A slayer is not that. It has talents that are potentially situational, it has sneak attack, it has targeting abilities that buff itself, it has skill points to play with. If someone intended to play a character that works in such a fashion they already would not be playing a fighter. The current rules offer significant alternatives if you are ok with fiddly bonuses, limited use abilities.
Uh...the Slayer is very capable of being dead simple, you can spend literally all it's Talents for the first 12 levels on extra Feats, and aside from that it has two whole things. One is a flat bonus you apply against opponents you want to mess up (which is straightforward to do), and the other is Sneak Attack (which is simple conceptually, and straightforward to get since it's not essential...you just flank when you can). That's...not notably more complicated than Fighter, and like a Fighter you can do all that all day long. Also, you have skills...but that doesn't make a character more complex unless you want it to, just more effective.
And all that means that people who were playing Fighters because they didn't want to worry about situational bonuses or want to use magic, and who wanted lots of Feats, have a new class to use to get all that if they like. One that's much more mechanically effective. And that fact right there eclipses a whole lot of Fighter's usefulness.
And all that means that people who were playing Fighters because they didn't want to worry about situational bonuses or want to use magic, and who wanted lots of Feats, have a new class to use to get all that if they like. One that's much more mechanically effective. And that fact right there eclipses a whole lot of Fighter's usefulness.
Are we talking about the barbarian now? I thought this was about slayer! Oh!... yeah...
|
|
Are we talking about the barbarian now? I thought this was about slayer! Oh!... yeah...
Barbarians get neither bonus Feats nor unlimited use of Rage (their attack boosting power). They're still miles better than Fighters, but you can make arguments that the fighter has edges on them ("Fighter archers have the Feats to actually be good, unlike Barbarians." or "Sure, your Barbarian rocks for 23 rounds a day, but on the 24th the fighter's still going strong while the Barbarian gets left in the dust."). They aren't necessarily good arguments, but they exist. That's much less true of Slayers, who those arguments simply don't apply to for the most part.
Are we talking about the barbarian now? I thought this was about slayer! Oh!... yeah...Barbarians get neither bonus Feats nor unlimited use of Rage (their attack boosting power).
A few rage powers are bonus feats, and rage may as well be unlimited. The joke of course was that they were a really powerful choice for a perfectly mundane warrior.
I'm not sure I buy that argument. "Fighter" might be a little generic of a name, but not more so than some of the others.
Nor do the mechanics for many classes really flow from the names, once you strip the D&D assumptions out.
Even your ranger: Where does the spell casting come from?Wizards and sorcerers don't get you much more than "caster". Wizard might get you "scholarly" leading to spellbooks and thus sorcerer being different. Or it might not. There are plenty of fantasy examples of wizards without spellbooks.
Sorcerer certainly doesn't lead to bloodlines or even spontaneous casting. Most likely gets you "Isn't that the same as wizard?"Barbarian would be more likely to get primitive fighter, possibly overlapping with ranger, but largely due to Conan, with more emphasis on big and strong. Not likely to get Rage mechanics. Witness pre-3.x D&D Barbarians.
Cleric certainly gets you Holy Caster, possibly healer, though that's common to non-holy casters as well. I doubt it gets you armored, backup fighter, but that's been a large part of the class's role since OD&D.
Oracle gets you "Diviner". Not "spontaneous version of cleric".
Etc.
As I said, I wasnt trying to argue the merits of whether or not this is successful with the implementation of any other specific class. My point is that there is the possibility. There is the potential inspiration. And its that inspiration that often make the other classes more interesting to play, and give them more interesting options.
A fighter needs to be good at fighting. Any other martial class also needs to be good at fighting AND fill whatever theme they have. A paladin needs to be good at fighting, and it needs to be the embodinment of divine righteous fury on the mortal plane. Ranger needs to be good a fighting, and a skilled woodsman with a connection to nature.
So these other classes need to be capable combatants AND do something else, or several something's else. The fighter is left with being slightly better at fighting. Because there isnt some other evocative thing to add to it. Which is why its so easily marginalized.
A fighter needs to be good at fighting. Any other martial class also needs to be good at fighting AND fill whatever theme they have.
Ironically, being only good at full attacking means you kind of suck at actually fighting things and you can't deal with actual combat related problems.