|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not like there aren't plenty of examples in the literature of fighters who aren't particularly called out as something else. Boromir or Gimli, since you mentioned Aragorn. John Carter, since I now have "fighting man" on my mind.
Boromir is an excellent example of what the Pathfinder Fighter represents, but do you really want to emulate the guy who failed his Will save, getting himself killed by an archer he had no defenses against and splitting the party?
The current Pathfinder Fighter is not a good representation of John Carter.
John was intelligent and charismatic, fought without armor, was highly mobile, etc. If anything, John Carter is closer to a monk than a fighter.
I think that's the biggest problem with the fighter. Most "fighters" in fantasy are more than just sword-swingers. They're tactical geniuses, charismatic leaders, skilled members of a specialized squad, etc. The Fighter doesn't encompass any of those ideas well, and even the archetypes do a poor job of helping fill in the gaps. They mostly just heighten his specialization in a particular combat style at the expense of other options.
|
Do you think there's a role for being good at fighting, but not fitting into some other specific niche? Being a good fighter, but not a woodsman or a holy warrior (or a raging force of destruction or a mounted knight or whatever other classes I'm forgetting). No other weird powers or anything.
It's not like there aren't plenty of examples in the literature of fighters who aren't particularly called out as something else. Boromir or Gimli, since you mentioned Aragorn. John Carter, since I now have "fighting man" on my mind.
But we're probably off topic for this.
All those examples have enough skills that they'd be better made as Slayers than Fighters, IMO. Which takes us right back on topic, doesn't it? ;)
|
|
Except without the sneak attack and other class features.
What other class features? Slayer's got Sneak Attack...and something that lets you target opponents to fight. Often as a Swift Action. And Track.
That's all they've got, and none of it is really inappropriate for any warrior (what fighting man doesn't pick targets to fight in the midst of melee and take advantage of opponent's weaknesses?). They can have other things, certainly, but they can also burn basically everything else on Feats.
Just giving the Fighter more skill points would fit them better.
Low skills isn't a problem with the concept of fighter, just with the execution. I'd argue that saves are pretty much the same way.
This is probably fair, though.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
This is the point the Optimizers seem to ignore. Whether or not the Fighter is a good choice or not many players want to play a Fighter for just those reasons. In our 13th level RotRL game, our fighter is far and away our most dangerous party member- altho he has little other utility- which is what he wants.
Some players WANT a plain vanilla DPR dealer. It's fine that theory crafters can show complicated builds than can even outdo a Fighter in DPR - but that's NOT what those players want.
It's perfectly OK to that type of player that a fighter has little out of combat utility.
Look, we now have what-some three dozen classes? There's then plenty of room for a simple, plain vanilla Fighter. That class is still very popular and it can contribute. Why do the optimizers want to take that choice away from the Players who want to play that way? No one is forcing the Optimizers to play a Fighter- there are now around a dozen "martial" classes. If THEY don't want a plain vanilla Fighter- then fine- run a Slayer or a Bbn or a Paladin or a cavalier or a.....
Why must the optimizers decide THEY are the arbiters of Fun, and any class that isn't Optimized to their liking is thus Badwrongfun?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why must the optimizers decide THEY are the arbiters of Fun, and any class that isn't Optimized to their liking is thus Badwrongfun?
Because those people aren't real and there isn't a faction that calls themselves that optimizers who thinks that they are the arbiters of fun and that not optimized is badwrongfun?
So much fallacy. So much hate.
For what its worth, I think the option to do fun and interesting things can only help.
Edit: lets not walk this road. Only leads to unhappy mods and posters.
This is probably fair, though.Just giving the Fighter more skill points would fit them better.
Low skills isn't a problem with the concept of fighter, just with the execution. I'd argue that saves are pretty much the same way.
Pretty Much. I would wish taht paizo finally realize this, but they ahve the tendency of not caring.
Look, we now have what-some three dozen classes? There's then plenty of room for a simple, plain vanilla Fighter. That class is still very popular and it can contribute. Why do the optimizers want to take that choice away from the Players who want to play that way? No one is forcing the Optimizers to play a Fighter- there are now around a dozen "martial" classes. If THEY don't want a plain vanilla Fighter- then fine- run a Slayer or a Bbn or a Paladin or a cavalier or a....
Lets imagine a world where paizo give sthe fighter two mor skill points per level, better and customizable calss skill list and better saves. What choise is exactly being taken away from those players according to you?
My current answer is no, the acg will not marginalize the existing classes.
That being said some of them (arcanist, warpriest and swashbucler are the biggies I've seen) do seem to marginalize at least one of their parent classes, at least at fulfilling a role it previously filled. The parent classes still fulfillroles differently than the acg class, for iinstance the cleric is still a much better caster, though he is now very suboptimal for a battle cleric.
I would say we really need to wait and see archetypes, as that could have a giant effect on classes.
for iinstance the cleric is still a much better caster, though he is now very suboptimal for a battle cleric.
Erm... not sure if that's totally true. The cleric still gets access to higher level spells faster and he gets access to 7-9 casting, which has bestow grace of the champion and frightful aspect, 2 of what I've always thought are among the most powerful self buffs. There are a number of buffs they just won't get access too.
One of the big things about the warpriest is that he's not just a battle cleric, but one of many divine caster/fighters. Cleric and oracle, paladin, ranger and hunter and druid, and inquisitor, are all divine casters who beat things up pretty well, and in a different way.
It's perfectly OK to that type of player that a fighter has little out of combat utility.
Why must the optimizers decide THEY are the arbiters of Fun, and any class that isn't Optimized to their liking is thus Badwrongfun?
I don't care if the Fighter remains the same for the most part. The issue I have is that there are no options available for those of us who want a more versatile and interesting Fighter. Currently the only available Fighter is the one who gets his seat pulled out by his party, pushed in, and then a bib is tied around his neck and is hand fed his contribution.
Why do you think it's okay to deny others what they want despite it having no effect on how YOU play YOUR Fighters?
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.
Well said.
Look, we now have what-some three dozen classes? There's then plenty of room for a simple, plain vanilla Fighter. That class is still very popular and it can contribute. Why do the optimizers want to take that choice away from the Players who want to play that way? No one is forcing the Optimizers to play a Fighter- there are now around a dozen "martial" classes. If THEY don't want a plain vanilla Fighter- then fine- run a Slayer or a Bbn or a Paladin or a cavalier or a....Lets imagine a world where paizo give sthe fighter two mor skill points per level, better and customizable calss skill list and better saves. What choise is exactly being taken away from those players according to you?
How about FOUR more skill points, etc- that's called a "Ranger".
What choice is being taken away? No choices, but that's just power creep. Fighter doesn't need a increase. It's popular and powerful enough as is.
Want more skill points? Play a Ranger. Or a Slayer.
Look, we now have what-some three dozen classes? There's then plenty of room for a simple, plain vanilla Fighter. That class is still very popular and it can contribute. Why do the optimizers want to take that choice away from the Players who want to play that way? No one is forcing the Optimizers to play a Fighter- there are now around a dozen "martial" classes. If THEY don't want a plain vanilla Fighter- then fine- run a Slayer or a Bbn or a Paladin or a cavalier or a....Lets imagine a world where paizo give sthe fighter two mor skill points per level, better and customizable calss skill list and better saves. What choise is exactly being taken away from those players according to you?How about FOUR more skill points, etc- that's called a "Ranger".
He said 2 more. Not 4.
Imagine a world where you could also select 2 class skills to be added to the Fighter's skill list without paying a tax of some sort. Man, all those concepts the Fighter could fulfill better.
*Sigh*
I understand you fear power creep like some kind of boogeyman, but it's not always a bad thing. A Fighter is only good at dealing damage. He can't close distances well, deal with magic, deal with out of combat issues or handle different terrain well.
It's okay for a class to have weaknesses, but it has so many. Why deny the option to shore up some of these?
You've basically said that because you like Hamburgers and Hamburgers are delicious and popular, we should never have cheese Hamburgers, despite you being perfectly able to continue eating Hamburgers.
for iinstance the cleric is still a much better caster, though he is now very suboptimal for a battle cleric.Erm... not sure if that's totally true. The cleric still gets access to higher level spells faster and he gets access to 7-9 casting, which has bestow grace of the champion and frightful aspect, 2 of what I've always thought are among the most powerful self buffs. There are a number of buffs they just won't get access too.
One of the big things about the warpriest is that he's not just a battle cleric, but one of many divine caster/fighters. Cleric and oracle, paladin, ranger and hunter and druid, and inquisitor, are all divine casters who beat things up pretty well, and in a different way.
Very suboptimal was an overstatement, but I still believe the warpriest is an overall better candidate for combat cleric. I have a battle cleric and a warpriest in a game i run now and the warpriest is leaps and bounds better here at level 5. The multiple buffs in short succession, full bab and better weapons and armor really makes up for spells. Granted early access to things like divine power may flip flop things at those mid levels and I may very well change my mind, but I'm suspecting I won't. Not saying the cleric can't still be a good (even great) warrior role, and he's more versatile than the war priest outside of combat to boot.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about FOUR more skill points, etc- that's called a "Ranger".What choice is being taken away? No choices, but that's just power creep. Fighter doesn't need a increase. It's popular and powerful enough as is.
Want more skill points? Play a Ranger. Or a Slayer.
One wonders if you see the hypocrisy in (falsely) accusing others of wanting to mess with the way you want to play, and then blatantly telling them that if they don't like something they should play something else.
It's perfectly OK to that type of player that a fighter has little out of combat utility.
Why must the optimizers decide THEY are the arbiters of Fun, and any class that isn't Optimized to their liking is thus Badwrongfun?
I don't care if the Fighter remains the same for the most part. The issue I have is that there are no options available for those of us who want a more versatile and interesting Fighter. Currently the only available Fighter is the one who gets his seat pulled out by his party, pushed in, and then a bib is tied around his neck and is hand fed his contribution.
Why do you think it's okay to deny others what they want despite it having no effect on how YOU play YOUR Fighters?
(1) You already have what you want. It just isn't called "fighter".
(2) If that's not good enough, house it and move on.
It's perfectly OK to that type of player that a fighter has little out of combat utility.
Why must the optimizers decide THEY are the arbiters of Fun, and any class that isn't Optimized to their liking is thus Badwrongfun?
I don't care if the Fighter remains the same for the most part. The issue I have is that there are no options available for those of us who want a more versatile and interesting Fighter. Currently the only available Fighter is the one who gets his seat pulled out by his party, pushed in, and then a bib is tied around his neck and is hand fed his contribution.
Why do you think it's okay to deny others what they want despite it having no effect on how YOU play YOUR Fighters?
(1) You already have what you want. It just isn't called "fighter".
(2) If that's not good enough, house it and move on.
Thanks for telling me to houserule it or play something else.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know it's going to be hard to break away from this, as several threads have clearly shown, but lets try to avoid getting into another "The Fighter is bad/good and you're dumb for thinking otherwise" thread that's going to go on for a 1000 posts before getting locked due to dangerously high levels of vitriol and try to focus on the impact of the ACG and direct overlap.
We've all had this particular conversation way too many times and even if we're not sure how it ends we know what the 999 posts in the middle are going to be.
Look, we now have what-some three dozen classes? There's then plenty of room for a simple, plain vanilla Fighter. That class is still very popular and it can contribute. Why do the optimizers want to take that choice away from the Players who want to play that way? No one is forcing the Optimizers to play a Fighter- there are now around a dozen "martial" classes. If THEY don't want a plain vanilla Fighter- then fine- run a Slayer or a Bbn or a Paladin or a cavalier or a....Lets imagine a world where paizo give sthe fighter two mor skill points per level, better and customizable calss skill list and better saves. What choise is exactly being taken away from those players according to you?How about FOUR more skill points, etc- that's called a "Ranger".
What choice is being taken away? No choices, but that's just power creep. Fighter doesn't need a increase. It's popular and powerful enough as is.
Want more skill points? Play a Ranger. Or a Slayer.
This is just an awful response. Well, this horse have already been beaten to death so many times, there is no point in keep talking about it.
|
|
I think the high focus of the ACG classes means there probably won't be a lot of overshadowing, except possibly in instances where the parent class is also highly focused. The Swashbuckler is only going to overshadow very particular types of builds; Gunslingers in general and most Fighters who aren't trying to swash their buckles aren't going to notice anything has changed. Similarly, the Bloodrager isn't going to be putting core Barbarians or Sorcerers out of business because they're just so different.
Slayer may overshadow Fighter and/or Rogue a bit in a wider array of areas because he's very good at filling in a lot of the holes some people would like to see filled in those class' chassis (in some circles it's a common joke that Fighter + Rogue = 1 functioning class), but it won't do everything those classes do as well as they can, at least not at the same time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you think there's a role for being good at fighting, but not fitting into some other specific niche? Being a good fighter, but not a woodsman or a holy warrior (or a raging force of destruction or a mounted knight or whatever other classes I'm forgetting). No other weird powers or anything.It's not like there aren't plenty of examples in the literature of fighters who aren't particularly called out as something else. Boromir or Gimli, since you mentioned Aragorn. John Carter, since I now have "fighting man" on my mind.
But we're probably off topic for this.
I dont think its off topic. In discussing the marginalization of a class you have to discuss it's role, and what its good at. I think there is definately room for such a character. And its particularly why none of the ACG classes actually marginalize the fighter as it stands.
But it does present a very specific design challenge. If you just look at what they should be able to do, a fighter has basically one thing. Fight. Other classes must be able to fight, and do something else to fufill their concept.
Lets say you need X combat power to be an effective frontliner. The fighter must then have at least X combat power. But so must a paladin. However conceptually a paladin also needs divine powers, healing powers, and possibly powers that bolster an ally. Lets Call that other stuff Y. So to function a paladin MUST have at least X+Y. A fighter only needs X. So you give him say X plus a little bit so he is a bit better at pure fighting then most others. But that leaves you sort of lack luster. So what if you are a little bit better numerically but this other guy is sufficient numerically, and you get all this other cool stuff.
In my mind 'fighter' shouldnt exist. It should be several separate classes. A warlord, who is good at fighting, and has leadership/tactical abilities that bolster his allies. Maybe a gladiator who is an expert at performance combat, and fighting with unique and exotic weapons. A knight (possibly unnecessary now that we have the cavalier) a warrior in heavy armor normally mounted on horseback that follows a code of ethics/behavior. A dirty fighter that is a skilled weapon user but also knows how to get in kidney shots (slayer). A bare knuckle boxer who fights unarmed and unarmored (brawler).
You might say you can do this with archetypes, and you sort of can. But by making them individual classes, you gain more design space, and you dont have to deal with the one-for-one trades of abilities that archetypes in pathfinder require.
As an example. I think boromir isnt a fighter. He certainly was skilled at arms, but he also was a profound leader, who's presense bolstered the morale of his men when they were ready to fall in Osgilliath. You can sort of do that with the fighter. But a 'warlord' class would do it better in my mind. And it would still leave room for cool stuff the character could do that isnt hiting things with a sword.
This is the point the Optimizers seem to ignore. Whether or not the Fighter is a good choice or not many players want to play a Fighter for just those reasons. In our 13th level RotRL game, our fighter is far and away our most dangerous party member- altho he has little other utility- which is what he wants.
Some players WANT a plain vanilla DPR dealer. It's fine that theory crafters can show complicated builds than can even outdo a Fighter in DPR - but that's NOT what those players want.
It's perfectly OK to that type of player that a fighter has little out of combat utility.
Look, we now have what-some three dozen classes? There's then plenty of room for a simple, plain vanilla Fighter. That class is still very popular and it can contribute. Why do the optimizers want to take that choice away from the Players who want to play that way? No one is forcing the Optimizers to play a Fighter- there are now around a dozen "martial" classes. If THEY don't want a plain vanilla Fighter- then fine- run a Slayer or a Bbn or a Paladin or a cavalier or a.....
Why must the optimizers decide THEY are the arbiters of Fun, and any class that isn't Optimized to their liking is thus Badwrongfun?
I ofcourse agree with you. Not sure if you got that. My whole point is the fighter isnt marginalized. Because the fighter's current niche isnt covered by any of the ACG classes. That straight simple character who is stupid amounts of good with a weapon, is untouched.
In one game I am playing, one player is a straight 2handed fighter. He cant contribute in much of anything but combat, he often gets held up by simple things like difficult terrain or a short gap that needs jumping. But when he gets in sword reach, he's a monster and tears it up. Its simple, straight forward and he enjoys the character well enough. And thats fine. But at the same time, my ranger character fights nearly as well, and can contribute in a number of other situations as well as having significantly more flavor infused by his mechanics then the fighter does. Both have their place, but in many ways my ranger is objectively better, because he can still 'get the job done' in combat, AND is still useful in the woods, can participate in a chase, isnt crippled by a sit down dinner (he's a natural weapon ranger in light armor).
That isnt really theory crafting. Thats play at the table, and its a rational line of thinking. Again, I dont think the player is having badwrong fun. He likes it, go for it. But that doesnt mean there isnt an objective truth to the situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I ofcourse agree with you. Not sure if you got that. My whole point is the fighter isnt marginalized. Because the fighter's current niche isnt covered by any of the ACG classes. That straight simple character who is stupid amounts of good with a weapon, is untouched.
Yes, we are on the same page on this.
I certainly agree with the others that if the Fighter was the ONLY martial option, then there'd be issues. Since it is one of many options, and still a popular option AS IS, I see not need for any major changes,
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd really like to see a way a fighter wouldn't have to specialize. They get weapon training, focus, specialization, etc. I'd like to see the guy thats the special forces action hero. He fightes with pistols, SMG's, Assault rifles, knives, fists, a chain he finds on the ground, a book....thats what I'd like to see. Unfortunately massive specialization is almost a prerequisite in PF to not sucking.
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.
Perhaps, but if the only way for Barbarians to compete is using their most powerful build, then Bloodragers are a much stronger class. That's like saying Arcanists are not better than Sorcerers because of Paragon Surge. If a class has to put that much effort and use every cheesy trick they have just to avoid being completely overshadowed, then it's already obsolete.
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.
Don't misunderstand me, the concept for Swashbucklers is really cool, but I think it failed to deliver the basic premise. Instead of creating an mobile combatant, Paizo created yet another DPR-machine whose only real course of action is standing still and full-attacking. And for whatever reason, they also gave him bad Fort, despite that being a good save for both Fighters and Gunslingers. ¬¬'
While the trick to deny full attacks is good (too good, IMHO), what else can it do? Kip-Up is nice, but minor and Derring-Do is pathetic. They really should have made Swashbucklers a mix between Gunslinger and Monk, but based on Cha instead of Wis. Using Fighter are a parent class pretty much guaranteed the class would be as one-dimensional as possible.
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.Perhaps, but if the only way for Barbarians to compete is using their most powerful build, then Bloodragers are a much stronger class. That's like saying Arcanists are not better than Sorcerers because of Paragon Surge. If a class has to put that much effort and use every cheesy trick they have just to avoid being completely overshadowed, then it's already obsolete.
Several of the bloodrager options where mediocre too just like with barbarians. I hope the find a way to balance all bloodlines and mke everyone of them good but not too good.
By the way, If I am recaling correctly, a problem with bloodrager is that from level 1 to 3 they were just barbairans with less hit points and no rage powers.
Several of the bloodrager options where mediocre too just like with barbarians. I hope the find a way to balance all bloodlines and mke everyone of them good but not too good.
By the way, If I am recaling correctly, a problem with bloodrager is that from level 1 to 3 they were just barbairans with less hit points and no rage powers.
Yeah, but that's the basic no-archetype, no-expanded options playtest version. If with just that they can overshadow all but the most optimized Barbarians, that says something really bad about it.
Don't get me wrong, I really like Bloodragers (despite their class name sounding really childish and silly). In fact, it's possibly the best designed class in the ACG, IMO. I just think it should have less Barbarian class features. It's got pretty much everything but Trap Sense.
By the way, If I am recaling correctly, a problem with bloodrager is that from level 1 to 3 they were just barbairans with less hit points and no rage powers.
At level 1 you get a minor power. The less hit point thing is BRUTAL! It doesn't seem like a lot, but my bloodrager always feels like he's on deaths door, though Barbarian is probably the class I'm the least familiar with playing, so maybe thats normal. I'm hoping 20 foot reach next level helps that though.
At level 1 you get a minor power. The less hit point thing is BRUTAL! It doesn't seem like a lot, but my bloodrager always feels like he's on deaths door, though Barbarian is probably the class I'm the least familiar with playing, so maybe thats normal. I'm hoping 20 foot reach next level helps that though.
You do realize they still get the same HP as a Fighter (or Ranger or Paladin) and that they get more HP while raging, right? They don't even have a disadvantage in AC, either, since at those levels, it's unlikely that anyone is donning full armor, since those cost a lot.
Several of the bloodrager options where mediocre too just like with barbarians. I hope the find a way to balance all bloodlines and mke everyone of them good but not too good.
By the way, If I am recaling correctly, a problem with bloodrager is that from level 1 to 3 they were just barbairans with less hit points and no rage powers.
Yeah, but that's the basic no-archetype, no-expanded options playtest version. If with just that they can overshadow all but the most optimized Barbarians, that says something really bad about it.
Well, I do not know, but what exactly is "they"?, I mean o many great bloodrages build are there? how many overshadows most barbarians?
At level 1 you get a minor power. The less hit point thing is BRUTAL! It doesn't seem like a lot, but my bloodrager always feels like he's on deaths door, though Barbarian is probably the class I'm the least familiar with playing, so maybe thats normal. I'm hoping 20 foot reach next level helps that though.You do realize they still get the same HP as a Fighter (or Ranger or Paladin) and that they get more HP while raging, right? They don't even have a disadvantage in AC, either, since at those levels, it's unlikely that anyone is donning full armor, since those cost a lot.
My AC is still like a 15 on average or so. Last time I played a fighter I was rocking a 21 by this point. 6 points makes a big difference.
My AC is still like a 15 on average or so. Last time I played a fighter I was rocking a 21 by this point. 6 points makes a big difference.
That's probably an issue of gear, though. The difference between Breastplate and Fullplate is, at most, a +3. And only when Fighters gets Armor Training 2 (i.e.: 7th level).
15 is pretty much the bottom of 1st level AC.
My AC is still like a 15 on average or so. Last time I played a fighter I was rocking a 21 by this point. 6 points makes a big difference.That's probably an issue of gear, though. The difference between Breastplate and Fullplate is, at most, a +3.
And bloodra for another -2, and no raging vitality cause bloodrage and rage are difrent beast (I think, not sure), so much less urvivality.
Bloodrage /= rage is the kind of thing that really should get cleared up before publication. I don't see any reason it shouldn't be treated as rage for the purpose of qualifying for feats and the like.And bloodra for another -2, and no raging vitality cause bloodrage and rage are difrent beast (I think, not sure), so much less urvivality.My AC is still like a 15 on average or so. Last time I played a fighter I was rocking a 21 by this point. 6 points makes a big difference.That's probably an issue of gear, though. The difference between Breastplate and Fullplate is, at most, a +3.
Agreed.
Thanks for telling me to houserule it or play something else.It's perfectly OK to that type of player that a fighter has little out of combat utility.
Why must the optimizers decide THEY are the arbiters of Fun, and any class that isn't Optimized to their liking is thus Badwrongfun?
I don't care if the Fighter remains the same for the most part. The issue I have is that there are no options available for those of us who want a more versatile and interesting Fighter. Currently the only available Fighter is the one who gets his seat pulled out by his party, pushed in, and then a bib is tied around his neck and is hand fed his contribution.
Why do you think it's okay to deny others what they want despite it having no effect on how YOU play YOUR Fighters?
(1) You already have what you want. It just isn't called "fighter".
(2) If that's not good enough, house it and move on.
You're welcome. Glad you took the advice to heart.
I'd really like to see a way a fighter wouldn't have to specialize. They get weapon training, focus, specialization, etc. I'd like to see the guy thats the special forces action hero. He fightes with pistols, SMG's, Assault rifles, knives, fists, a chain he finds on the ground, a book....thats what I'd like to see. Unfortunately massive specialization is almost a prerequisite in PF to not sucking.
Weapon focus is a trap. Weapon training + gloves of dueling is all you need.
Fighter's don't have to fight with their main weapon, much like how Wizards don't have to cast their highest level spells. Sometime your Greatsword fighter needs to pull out a bow.
People forget the in movie action sequences, the hero is mid level fighting low level mooks. Full BAB+more isn't really needed for mooks.
I'd really like to see a way a fighter wouldn't have to specialize. They get weapon training, focus, specialization, etc. I'd like to see the guy thats the special forces action hero. He fightes with pistols, SMG's, Assault rifles, knives, fists, a chain he finds on the ground, a book....thats what I'd like to see. Unfortunately massive specialization is almost a prerequisite in PF to not sucking.
Weapon focus is a trap. Weapon training + gloves of dueling is all you need.
Fighter's don't have to fight with their main weapon, much like how Wizards don't have to cast their highest level spells. Sometime your Greatsword fighter needs to pull out a bow.
People forget the in movie action sequences, the hero is mid level fighting low level mooks. Full BAB+more isn't really needed for mooks.
+1 to this-- Fighters get MULTIPLE weapons GROUPS that they get +to hit and damage with all of-- just because you are a Greatsword fighter and your first weapons group os the one that includes greatsword, your second can be bows and without spending any feats on it you are now more effective with bows as well.
Just because some people build hyper focused builds that become one trick ponies (and fighter isn't the only class people do this with) does not mean that the option to take just enough of several styles to be effective doesn't exist.
And if you want to be a guy who uses the greatsword first and then when needed is really good at archery do you know what class does this better than any other?
Fighter. Warpriest simply cannot do it-- not enough feats, not enough weapons training groups.
|
|
+1 to this-- Fighters get MULTIPLE weapons GROUPS that they get +to hit and damage with all of-- just because you are a Greatsword fighter and your first weapons group os the one that includes greatsword, your second can be bows and without spending any feats on it you are now more effective with bows as well.
Just because some people build hyper focused builds that become one trick ponies (and fighter isn't the only class people do this with) does not mean that the option to take just enough of several styles to be effective doesn't exist.
Weapon Training 2 doesn't kick in until 9th level. For many players, that means they don't have bonuses to a secondary weapon group until they're in the last third of their career. Even Paizo has stated a number of times that the bulk of play happens between 1-12. That has nothing to do with be being hyper-focused, that's part of the reality that the Fighter has one good class feature outside his feats and it comes online late in the game. A Fighter who chops up his feats before that point starts suffering from serious Rogue syndrome, or as I like to call it, crippling mediocrity, without even the benefit of knowing he has enough resources that he can still have an edge at at least one thing.
And if you want to be a guy who uses the greatsword first and then when needed is really good at archery do you know what class does this better than any other?Ranger. Warpriest simply cannot do it-- not enough feats, not enough weapons training groups.
I fixed that for you, you had a typo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me, the most important question is "will players have fun playing this class?" The question of "how well can the class be optimized and how does it compare to optimized versions of other classes" is discussed in about 40% of the threads on the Paizo boards, but as long as a class is fun and playable that's half the battle.
Well, I think only for monks that questions are heavily related, in low optimization you can play a rogue as a rogue (high Dex, stealth guy) and be just Ok, on the other hand a new player could see the monk and think "uh, I should max wisdom and then dex and have str 10" and then try to melee and fail misserably. I do not think any of the ACG classes have those problems.
On the other hand, the definition of fun is very subjetive, every class works in low optimization, why then not make all works in high optimization too?
On the other hand, the definition of fun is very subjetive, every class works in low optimization, why then not make all works in high optimization too?
Just because it is easier said than done, I think.
On the other hand, the definition of fun is very subjetive, every class works in low optimization, why then not make all works in high optimization too?Just because it is easier said than done, I think.
That is a very reasonable response, "not everything can be perfect" is more than enough. However, it is hard to believe in some cases. For example all the underpowerdness of rogues have been shown and paizo still relase awful rogue talents in inner sea combat dan then release the salyer to overshadow the rogue (again).
Without changing that, there's no way to give them things without giving them to other classes as well.
Well, you can, because there are feats that require a certain number of fighter levels (or levels in something that specifically pretends to be a fighter for the purposes of those feats.)
But at this point we can recognize the fighter-only feats as being 'fighter tricks' or whatever, that work exactly the same as 'rogue talents' or 'magus arcana' or whatever that are class-specific but roughly as powerful as a feat and can be exchanged on a 1:1 basis. E.g. a rogue can turn a feat into a talent by taking Extra Rogue Talent and can turn a talent into a feat by taking Combat Trick.