Bullrush him into what? Or I as a fighter with reasonably rounded stats and a bow proceed to shoot flyer full of arrows until he lands. Then proceed to melee its face. To say a fighter can't be effective in combat requires goal post moving friend.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This statement laughable at several levels.Your DM is being a dick if he forces the party to keep going when every party member has used up all their resources...Fighter has limited party members. You don't seriously expect to be out adventuring when your wizard has used up his spells and your barbarian has spent her rounds of rage, do you?Your DM may have a diferent set of expectations.
The game is about having fun... and I doubt the wizard is gonna be having fun with 0 spells and the barb is probably worn out if he actually manages to run out of rage.
Oh and if the wizard is out of spells, the party cleric is probably too...
So yeah, cool story bro, fighter being able to go all day...
This statement laughable at several levels.Your DM is being a dick if he forces the party to keep going when every party member has used up all their resources...Fighter has limited party members. You don't seriously expect to be out adventuring when your wizard has used up his spells and your barbarian has spent her rounds of rage, do you?Your DM may have a diferent set of expectations.
I wouldn't go that far. But I will say that the GM is under no obligation to stop combat just because the PCs blew their resources.
This statement laughable at several levels.Your DM is being a dick if he forces the party to keep going when every party member has used up all their resources...Fighter has limited party members. You don't seriously expect to be out adventuring when your wizard has used up his spells and your barbarian has spent her rounds of rage, do you?Your DM may have a diferent set of expectations.The game is about having fun... and I doubt the wizard is gonna be having fun with 0 spells and the barb is probably worn out if he actually manages to run out of rage.
Oh and if the wizard is out of spells, the party cleric is probably too...
So yeah, cool story bro, fighter being able to go all day...
Last time here in paizo forum DM grimmy rolled a random encounter that distupted the party rest. The spellcaster had used most of their tricks. Nobody whined about it.
EDIT: Not sure how you are even trying to use the subjetive term "fun" to demostrate a general point.
Bullrush him into what? Or I as a fighter with reasonably rounded stats and a bow proceed to shoot flyer full of arrows until he lands. Then proceed to melee its face. To say a fighter can't be effective in combat requires goal post moving friend.
No one stated he isn't effective in combat. What I stated is that he is barely better than the other martials, but lacks just about everything else they have...
Again also, the brawler is a good archer. Why? Because he is a powerful meleer, and can use his Martial Maneuver ability to get Archery feats. He is actually very versatile, which is extremely useful in alot of situations.
This statement laughable at several levels.Your DM is being a dick if he forces the party to keep going when every party member has used up all their resources...Fighter has limited party members. You don't seriously expect to be out adventuring when your wizard has used up his spells and your barbarian has spent her rounds of rage, do you?Your DM may have a diferent set of expectations.The game is about having fun... and I doubt the wizard is gonna be having fun with 0 spells and the barb is probably worn out if he actually manages to run out of rage.
Oh and if the wizard is out of spells, the party cleric is probably too...
So yeah, cool story bro, fighter being able to go all day...
Last time here in paizo forum DM grimmy rolled a random encounter that distupted the party rest. The spellcaster had used most of their tricks. Nobody whined about it.
EDIT: Not sure how you are even trying to use the subjetive term "fun" to demostrate a general point.
Well a Random encounter like that is a bit different then say:
sending in not so random encounters to pressure the party for days on end is a bit rough though...
This statement laughable at several levels.Your DM is being a dick if he forces the party to keep going when every party member has used up all their resources...Fighter has limited party members. You don't seriously expect to be out adventuring when your wizard has used up his spells and your barbarian has spent her rounds of rage, do you?Your DM may have a diferent set of expectations.The game is about having fun... and I doubt the wizard is gonna be having fun with 0 spells and the barb is probably worn out if he actually manages to run out of rage.
Oh and if the wizard is out of spells, the party cleric is probably too...
So yeah, cool story bro, fighter being able to go all day...
Do barbarians ever run out of rage?
Fighters going all day isn't a real issue and no one really brought that up. Acting like Instant enemy and smite are equal to weapon training is the issue. Not even shortest dungeon with make those resources seem plentiful enough such that they cover every foe like weapon training.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Fighters can go all day" - I see this misconception a lot. Fighters rely on limited resources just as much as any other class. The difference is that the limited resources the fighter relies on comes in the form of his party members, not his own class features.
Ironically a party with a fighter, a wizard and a cleric are going to run out of resources faster than a party with a paladin, wizard and cleric, since the casters have to dedicate more spells to keeping the fighter going.
Meanwhile, the paladin has excellent saves, provides Lay on Hands for condition removal and healing, and even a modest spell list with some real gems - all making him much better able to take care of himself than the fighter.
The paladin contributes to the pool of party resources. The fighter drains it.
This statement laughable at several levels.Your DM is being a dick if he forces the party to keep going when every party member has used up all their resources...Fighter has limited party members. You don't seriously expect to be out adventuring when your wizard has used up his spells and your barbarian has spent her rounds of rage, do you?Your DM may have a diferent set of expectations.The game is about having fun... and I doubt the wizard is gonna be having fun with 0 spells and the barb is probably worn out if he actually manages to run out of rage.
Oh and if the wizard is out of spells, the party cleric is probably too...
So yeah, cool story bro, fighter being able to go all day...
Do barbarians ever run out of rage?
Fighters going all day isn't a real issue and no one really brought that up. Acting like Instant enemy and smite are equal to weapon training is the issue. Not even shortest dungeon with make those resources seem plentiful enough such that they cover every foe like weapon training.
Except most mooks don't need to have smite wasted on them. You save your smite on the big guy, the one which your bonuses will actually matter... Aind if you take the Oath of Vengeance you are golden...
To the OP - marginalise? Perhaps. Overshadow? Perhaps. Negate? Perhaps.
I don't have a problem with that.
As has been stated above - new ACG classes. Yay! 'Nuff said. Batdude =/= Supes. Mean GM forcing players to have different fun is mean. Thread over.
This statement laughable at several levels.Your DM is being a dick if he forces the party to keep going when every party member has used up all their resources...Fighter has limited party members. You don't seriously expect to be out adventuring when your wizard has used up his spells and your barbarian has spent her rounds of rage, do you?Your DM may have a diferent set of expectations.The game is about having fun... and I doubt the wizard is gonna be having fun with 0 spells and the barb is probably worn out if he actually manages to run out of rage.
Oh and if the wizard is out of spells, the party cleric is probably too...
So yeah, cool story bro, fighter being able to go all day...
Last time here in paizo forum DM grimmy rolled a random encounter that distupted the party rest. The spellcaster had used most of their tricks. Nobody whined about it.
EDIT: Not sure how you are even trying to use the subjetive term "fun" to demostrate a general point.
Well a Random encounter like that is a bit different then say:
sending in not so random encounters to pressure the party for days on end is a bit rough though...
Only if you assume the other encounter is just because. For example I remember a writted adventure. A cave filled with orcs. If the party go to the cave by day the orc woudl be there resting, if they go by night the orc woudl be out hunting. The party went by day, cleaned the cave and then start resting, a few hour later the orc start returning to the cave and did not let the spellcaster regaing their spells. Nobody complained.
The moral is that the party not always have control about their fights. Of course if you party always have the time to rest whenever they want ( a valid but definitely not the only one valid playstyle) limited resources are better always.
That's a better point Kudaku. Better than saying the other martial are better at hitting things than the fighter. I'm skeptical of any claim that x class out combats the fighter.At least easily or consistently. Sure he's not a skill guy or spell guy but he CAN fight and do it WELL.
That's a better point Kudaku. Better than saying the other martial are better at hitting things than the fighter. I'm skeptical of any claim that x class out combats the fighter.At least easily or consistently. Sure he's not a skill guy or spell guy but he CAN fight and do it WELL.
Idk... the RAGELANCEPOUNCE barbarain is pretty scary... or CAGM Barb. Yes, the fighter may do a slight amout more damage, but the barbarian has DR, more HD, better saves (getting a flat buff ot will saves and a con bonus to fort saves from rage instead of a puny bonus to saves vs fear) the ability to dispel magic, and the ability to pounce. All in all, the barb is actually better in combat because he can survive combat better and can get around obstacles better than the fighter, which makes up alot of actual combat, not just standing next to each other full attacking,
That's a better point Kudaku. Better than saying the other martial are better at hitting things than the fighter. I'm skeptical of any claim that x class out combats the fighter.At least easily or consistently. Sure he's not a skill guy or spell guy but he CAN fight and do it WELL.Idk... the RAGELANCEPOUNCE barbarain is pretty scary... or CAGM Barb. Yes, the fighter may do a slight amout more damage, but the barbarian has DR, more HD, better saves (getting a flat buff ot will saves and a con bonus to fort saves from rage instead of a puny bonus to saves vs fear) the ability to dispel magic, and the ability to pounce. All in all, the barb is actually better in combat because he can survive combat better and can get around obstacles better than the fighter, which makes up alot of actual combat, not just standing next to each other full attacking,
The "barbarian" is too general, a specific (and very reduced) subset of barbarians is the right way to say it. That barbarian also is basicaly useless if not in melee. But yeah, overal that barbarian is stronger than the fighter.
"Fighters can go all day" - I see this misconception a lot. Fighters rely on limited resources just as much as any other class. The difference is that the limited resources the fighter relies on comes in the form of his party members, not his own class features.
Ironically a party with a fighter, a wizard and a cleric are going to run out of resources faster than a party with a paladin, wizard and cleric, since the casters have to dedicate more spells to keeping the fighter going.
Meanwhile, the paladin has excellent saves, provides Lay on Hands for condition removal and healing, and even a modest spell list with some real gems - all making him much better able to take care of himself than the fighter.
The paladin contributes to the pool of party resources. The fighter drains it.
The only resource I've seen the fighter drain is HP. Which you heal with wands. Paladin lay-on-hands is primarily for touching themselves to make up for the con they don't have.
It's also wrong to say a party minus the fighter would have more resources. A party that swaps out a fighter for something else may net resources, but a party that just loses a fighter is out his contributions and has to expend resources to make up for that loss.
Saying a fighter is a drain on party resources is ridiculous.
That's a better point Kudaku. Better than saying the other martial are better at hitting things than the fighter. I'm skeptical of any claim that x class out combats the fighter.At least easily or consistently. Sure he's not a skill guy or spell guy but he CAN fight and do it WELL.
The following is based on my personal experience running 3.x tables over the past fourteen years and a fair few Pathfinder campaigns over the last couple of years. It's a very limited sample size, so feel free to take it or leave it:
I find that in a fight with no special circumstances and where the party expend no resources (no smite, no rage, not facing favored enemy etc) the fighter will generally be a few points ahead of the other classes when it comes to attack rolls, damage, and Armor Class.
In fights where the party spends some resources (barbarian goes into rage, paladin/ranger uses a buff spell), their offensive potential is about equal.
In fights where the party goes all out (Paladin and Ranger pre-buff, declare Smite, burn LoH, use Instant Enemy) the fighter will have to burn WBL, expend party resources, or really struggle to keep up.
In fights that have a particular mechanic or interaction required (flying enemies, creatures with DR, ranged creatures, heavy spellcasting etc), the fighter (and to a lesser degree the barbarian) will generally fall behind unless it's a challenge specifically designed to work with the their specialization. I find that Paladins and Rangers frequently have a bit more flexibility since these classes don't reward specialization to the same degree.
As far as saves go, the fighter generally has or is tied for having the worst saves in the party.
Outside of combat all the martial classes perform better than the fighter - the barbarian moderately better, the paladin and the ranger significantly better.
Your DM is being a dick if he forces the party to keep going when every party member has used up all their resources...Fighter has limited party members. You don't seriously expect to be out adventuring when your wizard has used up his spells and your barbarian has spent her rounds of rage, do you?Your DM may have a diferent set of expectations.
I actually can't agree with this. You should try playing an Atlus game, it'll normalize that behavior for you real quick.
Still, even if the DM has put you in a situation where you need to stay in combat focus despite running low on resources your priority is going to be getting out of that situation, not pressing forward when the only person still doing their thing is the Fighter.
Your DM is being a dick if he forces the party to keep going when every party member has used up all their resources...Fighter has limited party members. You don't seriously expect to be out adventuring when your wizard has used up his spells and your barbarian has spent her rounds of rage, do you?Your DM may have a diferent set of expectations.I actually can't agree with this. You should try playing an Atlus game, it'll normalize that behavior for you real quick.
Still, even if the DM has put you in a situation where you need to stay in combat focus despite running low on resources your priority is going to be getting out of that situation, not pressing forward when the only person still doing their thing is the Fighter.
True. Fighter or not, nobody wants to be low on party resources.
The only resource I've seen the fighter drain is HP. Which you heal with wands. Paladin lay-on-hands is primarily for touching themselves to make up for the con they don't have.
Resources drained by the fighter include Lesser Restoration to restore ability score damage, Protection from Evil to avoid him getting charmed, Dispel Magic to remove his blindness, healing spells for HP, Buff spells to keep him relevant etc.
It's also wrong to say a party minus the fighter would have more resources. A party that swaps out a fighter for something else may net resources, but a party that just loses a fighter is out his contributions and has to expend resources to make up for that loss.
I do not believe I ever said that a party minus the fighter would have more resources than a party with a fighter.
I did however say that a party with a fighter will have less resources available than a party who replaced the fighter with a paladin. Perhaps I phrased my post poorly, since I do not believe you understood the intent behind it.
Let's try an analogy instead. Think of party resources as a joint bank account. At the start of the day each character makes a deposit:
The wizard deposits $50 in resources in the form of spells, school powers etc.
The cleric deposits $50 in resources in the form of spells, channel energy etc.
The paladin deposits $50 in resources in the form of being able to fight on the frontline as well as LoH, spells, channel energy etc.
The fighter deposits $20. Like the paladin he has the ability to fight on the frontline, but he brings nothing else to the party.
As the party fights and explores, they withdraw money from their joint bank account in the form of healing, condition removal, crowd control, buffs, blasting.
Assuming the fighter party and the paladin party make an equal amount of withdrawals, the fighter party has to stop earlier. Why? Because their bank account runs out faster.
"Fighters can go all day" - I see this misconception a lot. Fighters rely on limited resources just as much as any other class. The difference is that the limited resources the fighter relies on comes in the form of his party members, not his own class features.
Ironically a party with a fighter, a wizard and a cleric are going to run out of resources faster than a party with a paladin, wizard and cleric, since the casters have to dedicate more spells to keeping the fighter going.
Meanwhile, the paladin has excellent saves, provides Lay on Hands for condition removal and healing, and even a modest spell list with some real gems - all making him much better able to take care of himself than the fighter.
The paladin contributes to the pool of party resources. The fighter drains it.
The only resource I've seen the fighter drain is HP. Which you heal with wands. Paladin lay-on-hands is primarily for touching themselves to make up for the con they don't have.
It's also wrong to say a party minus the fighter would have more resources. A party that swaps out a fighter for something else may net resources, but a party that just loses a fighter is out his contributions and has to expend resources to make up for that loss.
Saying a fighter is a drain on party resources is ridiculous.
Um what????
The fighter is a horrid drain on resources. Don't believe me? Look at nearly every "Fighters are weak/underpowered/broken/whatever" thread. More than a few times people always say that the fighter is assumed to have things like haste, fly, prot from X, whatever on him to shore him up. Those are spells that the wizard/cleric are not casting to more directly influence combat. Honestly, as a caster player, I hate seeing a fighter in a small group because they pretty much require you to buff them for them to do their thing. Without buffs, a blaster caster is more effective in combat*.
*do note how I said MORE EFFECTIVE, not more damaging. They have less weaknesses, are better at shoring them up, and can shut down enemies much easier
Better than saying the other martial are better at hitting things than the fighter. I'm skeptical of any claim that x class out combats the fighter.At least easily or consistently. Sure he's not a skill guy or spell guy but he CAN fight and do it WELL.
Honestly, does it matter if the Fighter does 10 points of damage more than the other martials maybe? The biggest issue to me is that the Fighter isn't good at combat in general, just dealing damage. It lacks the options available to other martials to deal with the rapidly changing battle conditions. Closing Distances, Avoiding AoO, Terrain, MAGIC.
Considering all the extra stuff Rangers, Paladins and Barbarians get instead, a bit more damage looks really silly.
*Paladins can easily have enough smites through Oath of Vengeance, it only loses Channeling.
**Rangers double dip their Favored Enemy bonus since their Animal Companion gets it as well, so against their Favored Enemy they're doing MUCH more damage than the Fighter whereas for general combat they're only dealing slightly less.
P.S 1,500 gold for a useful Wand of Vanish is kinda steep. (750 gold only gets you 1 round which ends before the start of your turn, therefore no sneak attack)
Better than saying the other martial are better at hitting things than the fighter. I'm skeptical of any claim that x class out combats the fighter.At least easily or consistently. Sure he's not a skill guy or spell guy but he CAN fight and do it WELL.Honestly, does it matter if the Fighter does 10 points of damage more than the other martials maybe? The biggest issue to me is that the Fighter isn't good at combat in general, just dealing damage. It lacks the options available to other martials to deal with the rapidly changing battle conditions. Closing Distances, Avoiding AoO, Terrain, MAGIC.
Aye, there's more to combat than hitting things. Fighter has awful saves, skills, and little in the way of actually doing something about anything. That tends to hurt you pretty badly in combat. In pathfinder he's even got one of the curse's of being a martial character and no way to help it, he gets to play like there's glue on his feat.
Aye, there's more to combat than hitting things. Fighter has awful saves, skills, and little in the way of actually doing something about anything. That tends to hurt you pretty badly in combat. In pathfinder he's even got one of the curse's of being a martial character and no way to help it, he gets to play like there's glue on his feat.Better than saying the other martial are better at hitting things than the fighter. I'm skeptical of any claim that x class out combats the fighter.At least easily or consistently. Sure he's not a skill guy or spell guy but he CAN fight and do it WELL.Honestly, does it matter if the Fighter does 10 points of damage more than the other martials maybe? The biggest issue to me is that the Fighter isn't good at combat in general, just dealing damage. It lacks the options available to other martials to deal with the rapidly changing battle conditions. Closing Distances, Avoiding AoO, Terrain, MAGIC.
There was a thread I came to one day a month or two back. It started in like 2009-10 and had a few revivals and ended in like 2012-13 and was thousands of posts. It was about fighter vs monk. At the beginning it was a pretty spirited debate. By the end of it with the addition of all the new monk friendly material nearly every person there was conceding that the monk is now a more optimal choice than a fighter. More damage, higher saves, AC (by a little) and many more in and out of combat options. Granted, these were level 20 builds, and there is a LOT of ground in between, but when the monk is beating you inside of combat...and actually useful outside of combat, that's saying something.
Your DM is being a dick if he forces the party to keep going when every party member has used up all their resources...Fighter has limited party members. You don't seriously expect to be out adventuring when your wizard has used up his spells and your barbarian has spent her rounds of rage, do you?Your DM may have a diferent set of expectations.I actually can't agree with this. You should try playing an Atlus game, it'll normalize that behavior for you real quick.
Still, even if the DM has put you in a situation where you need to stay in combat focus despite running low on resources your priority is going to be getting out of that situation, not pressing forward when the only person still doing their thing is the Fighter.
There are plenty of situations where its necessary to not nova out all your spells in a single encounter and then expect to be able to sleep the rest of the night.
If your GM never runs situations like that he is specifically bending the world to a specific set of strengths. Spellcasters and other classes with limited resources appear much more powerful in these campaigns and many people use this false baseline to adjudicate how powerful those classes are all the time.
This is a form of GM Fiat to specifically favor spell casting classes-- its fine if you want to play that way, but you need to acknowledge that it is being done and that those classes are artificially more powerful in that game than they are in a game where the entire gamut of situations comes up.
You don't like having to fight on limited resources? Learn to parcel them out and conserve so that you are capable of using just enough to get through and are always prepared.
You don't like having to fight on limited resources? Learn to parcel them out and conserve so that you are capable of using just enough to get through and are always prepared
That doesn't actually help someone who doesn't like to fight on limited resources. Its just telling them to deal with it isn't it? The fact they have to constantly conserve and think about it and try to always be prepared might be a part of why they don't like it, even if they know how.
Your DM is being a dick if he forces the party to keep going when every party member has used up all their resources...Fighter has limited party members. You don't seriously expect to be out adventuring when your wizard has used up his spells and your barbarian has spent her rounds of rage, do you?Your DM may have a diferent set of expectations.I actually can't agree with this. You should try playing an Atlus game, it'll normalize that behavior for you real quick.
Still, even if the DM has put you in a situation where you need to stay in combat focus despite running low on resources your priority is going to be getting out of that situation, not pressing forward when the only person still doing their thing is the Fighter.
There are plenty of situations where its necessary to not nova out all your spells in a single encounter and then expect to be able to sleep the rest of the night.
If your GM never runs situations like that he is specifically bending the world to a specific set of strengths. Spellcasters and other classes with limited resources appear much more powerful in these campaigns and many people use this false baseline to adjudicate how powerful those classes are all the time.
This is a form of GM Fiat to specifically favor spell casting classes-- its fine if you want to play that way, but you need to acknowledge that it is being done and that those classes are artificially more powerful in that game than they are in a game where the entire gamut of situations comes up.
You don't like having to fight on limited resources? Learn to parcel them out and conserve so that you are capable of using just enough to get through and are always prepared.
This would be true except for the following:
1. Spells aren't really all that limited except at very low (1-4) levels. And at those levels HP is even more limited (particularly at 1-2). At higher levels (10+) I've literally *never* seen a caster run out of spells even with 8+ encounters/day.
2. Spellcasters didn't get spells that let them rest in safety early on (Rope Trick), spells that allow them to return to an established base (teleport), or create their plane to hang out in (Create Demiplane, Greater).
3. Even with a cheap Wand of Cure Light Wounds or the more efficient Infernal Healing, a fighter is not going to be able to go as long as you'd think before they're seriously cutting into their WBL. (And honestly a wizard can get ways to extend his spellcasting for cheaper, Nap Stack anyone?)
So... Ya... if the above weren't true you may have had a point. Dem's da breaks though.
