Yes, because Warblades were broken.Yes, because a dm allowing good third party will /clearly/ let you use any third party, even the broken ones. /sarcasmI dunno, I got some third party stuff and ever since my fighters have been pretty beast. They aren't creating demiplanes but will about murder anything 30ft away from them.If I'm going third party, I'm grabbing a Warder or maybe I'll go back to 3.5 and get me a Warblade.
...You wanna run that by me again, in, say, detail?
|
As someone said earlier don't play your fighter the flat way, maybe back story and an imagination of something heroic they could do would be best.
I can see how in PFS they might lag behind because there is no "house" rules system there you follow a system pre designed to put casters first. It is a system that is designed to make magic the biggest and best. We can't blame them because in real life people can't just conjure up a fire ball. In real life though people can (and do) kill people with swords.
If you want you fighter more like a Cavalier then mash the two classes together, People complain about how the Cavalier is limited by their mount and such. Make the Fight more like a Cavalier and the Cavalier more like a fighter, if that suits the idea you have for the fighter in your head.
They can be played many different ways to give examples from GoT:
Bronn is a light armored long sword and dagger weilding fighter, relies on speed and intimidation to win the day.
The Mountain is a heavy armored, great weapon weilding fighter who relies on brute strength to win the day, if he can't smash it it isn't worth his time.
I guess if you want it all you want Jamie Lanister post losing his hand but the skills prior. Or maybe a Jon Snow.
TL/DR
Play them how you want, if you don't like the class House rule it, if you play PFS don't play a fighter. Paizo will never change what they have done now so house rules are your way to go.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You could take the base fighter as it is now and fix it by having feats that are actually worth being called class features. You know, equal to rage powers.
Since those don't exist, Fighters suck.
Fighters should be the Master of feats (more then anyone by a significant #, unlike it is now), the Sage of Feats (mastering them with little problem) and the Lord of Feats (getting more out of feats then any other class).
They fail to qualify on all 3 counts. Hence, they suffer.
Fighter feats should reference fighter class abilities, just like feats for specific other classes do (rage powers, mercies, sneak attack, etc). And Fighters should be able to scale feats without spending more feats to do so.
Until there's a feat re-write, fighters are going to suck. that's just how it is.
==Aelryinth
They can be played many different ways to give examples from GoT:Bronn is a light armored long sword and dagger weilding fighter, relies on speed and intimidation to win the day.
The Mountain is a heavy armored, great weapon weilding fighter who relies on brute strength to win the day, if he can't smash it it isn't worth his time.
I guess if you want it all you want Jamie Lanister post losing his hand but the skills prior. Or maybe a Jon Snow.
TL/DR
Play them how you want, if you don't like the class House rule it, if you play PFS don't play a fighter. Paizo will never change what they have done now so house rules are your way to go.
Problem is, Bronn is better done as a Slayer, Swashbuckler, or even a Ranger with all his Favored Enemy picks in Human. The Mountain is better done as a Barbarian, with one level of Cavalier. Jaime Lannister, with or without his hand, is better done as a Swashbuckler.
So you're stating that your casters don't know how to play casters and that fighter is ok because the casters are incapable of playing to their potential?No-no, he's not just "ok", he's full on leathal against everything that can move and even more so against anything that can't. He decides what lives and what dies.
But sure, the casters are not the best. In my game, even the rogue is more usefull than 2/3 of the casters But even if they where better, they would by no means be able to live without the figther. He casually shoot monsters full with arrows for at least 60dmg each round at level 5. Now it's even worse when the casters have learned to cast buff spells and he has a threat range with multiple AoO.
Is he better than the barbarian in the group? Yes, yes he is. My alchemist is the only one who probably could stand more than two rounds against him.
Sure you can find a better barbarian and paladin, probably even a better ranger than this fighter. But that doesn't make him suck. His numbers are good, not just "ok".
My point is that Fighter isn't a s!!*ty class. They do not suck. And they won't always be out-shined by casters. It really does depend on the table and what type of game.
Often, when the fighter class is judged, it is not by anecdotal evidence taken from gaming experience but based on the assumption that he has no money to invest in magic items and that he is alone in the adventuring party so there is no one else who can do party face or other skill related things. When comparing the naked class features table, he falls short compared to other classes, but in game is still a playable class.
Most people's issue with the fighter is that his class abilities are all about static figures, and the feats he takes are feats that anyone else could also take.
Martial Flexibility is a nice start to giving him something unique in changing his configuration for different types of combat.
As for skills, I understand people wanting acrobatics and perception added as class skills. My own fix, based on the Brawler added some skill usage out of Profession Soldier, as it is also something I feel the fighter should have more use out of when it comes to things like Mass Combat.
That is a grade A strawman argument right now..... Or in this case a Marshmallow Man....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me, it looks like they've declared the fighter and rogue lost causes and are essentially replacing them rather than repairing them.
That is a grade A strawman argument right now..... Or in this case a Marshmellow Man....
How so? Most of the judgments about the fighter I have seen are that he relies on magic items to be effective and that he lacks skills to do anything outside of combat.
In game, one might actually get to enjoy a fighter for the sake of playing a fighter and not for the mechanical benefits of the class.
Not trying to misrepresent information.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if you weren't trying and unintentional, you did set up a misrepresented argument and refuted it obtaining a "victory." That is the definition of a strawman logical falacy. If you would like to research actual arguments used by the "fix the Fighter" camp I know their are plenty of other threads.
All of these options give the melee characters things that are fantastic in nature. And this is what melee characters should have had from the beginning, the ability to do fantastic things, because this is a fantasy game.
WotC solved this issue in 4e too.
How you give them the ability to do fantastic things is very important. Just doing it is not enough.
Just to brainstorm, what if mundanes attracted artifact weapons and armor? You could effectively give the classes all the fantastic stuff you want and as long as the artifacts only work for the given class, you have made the class something worth pursuing.
DSP is trying to update Tome of Battle to pathfinder. That may turn out really great, like their work with psionics.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Held to reality.....Bwahahahahaha.
How far can you fall and survive?
Can you fight a squad of 30 troops and walk away unscathed?
Can you one shot a rhinoceros after running 30 ft in armour?
Can you pump out 6 or more arrows in under 6 seconds, at 3 or more targets and hit them?
All of those happen with fighters at mid to high levels, the point at which magic users "begin to bend reality".
Well played fighters are great.
Fighters have the flexibility to mitigate some of the "issues" people have with them through feats and class abilities. (Skill focus if you want a skill, iron will for defense etc).
Archetypes for fighters out there can be amazing.
The fact you have weapon spec as a class ability means you don't need to put feats in to weapon focus etc, nor do you need the + mod on magic weapons as high as other classes do for the same benefit. This frees up more wealth for specialised gear to shore up weaknesses if needed. It also frees feat slots for more diverse builds if you want.
The problem with fighters is that people build them as one trick ponies, when they can be anything you want.
Anyway, no one in this thread will be convinced so....good gaming to you.
Cheers
Just to brainstorm, what if mundanes attracted artifact weapons and armor?
I've always disliked things like that and castles/guilds to make martials work. The class should be things they do, not things the plot gives them. They should get nothing more than what the game 'gives' everyone else and still work well, or they're not really balanced at all.
Held to reality.....Bwahahahahaha.
How far can you fall and survive?
Can you fight a squad of 30 troops and walk away unscathed?
Can you one shot a rhinoceros after running 30 ft in armour?
Can you pump out 6 or more arrows in under 6 seconds, at 3 or more targets and hit them?All of those happen with fighters at mid to high levels, the point at which magic users "begin to bend reality".
Well played fighters are great.
Fighters have the flexibility to mitigate some of the "issues" people have with them through feats and class abilities. (Skill focus if you want a skill, iron will for defense etc).Archetypes for fighters out there can be amazing.
The fact you have weapon spec as a class ability means you don't need to put feats in to weapon focus etc, nor do you need the + mod on magic weapons as high as other classes do for the same benefit. This frees up more wealth for specialised gear to shore up weaknesses if needed. It also frees feat slots for more diverse builds if you want.
The problem with fighters is that people build them as one trick ponies, when they can be anything you want.
Anyway, no one in this thread will be convinced so....good gaming to you.
Cheers
You've missed the point entirely.
I don't think his bubble can be burst........
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meh, this argument has been around since 3.0 started.
Fighters are still there, fighters are still played by massive numbers of people, and in my neck of the woods are the most common and preferred class by a long shot. That's both home groups and the PFS folks I know and talk to.
There's no issue to be seen. It's usually just a group of folks who like magic stuff and therefore don't like non magic stuff. Play paladins or rangers instead.
Given everything Paizo has done for this game in terms of releasing feats, erratas, updates between printings and everything else, if there was truly this gaping issue that seems to be prevalent on the boards, they would have addressed it. The fact they haven't speaks far more than the numerous threads by essentially the same people.
Squeaky wheel and all that.
I just thought I'd throw in the alternative view that many, many folks share.
However, this is not a thread for "convincing people" ( they never are to be honest).
I now return you to your brainstorming house rules.
Cheers
Just to brainstorm, what if mundanes attracted artifact weapons and armor?I've always disliked things like that and castles/guilds to make martials work. The class should be things they do, not things the plot gives them. They should get nothing more than what the game 'gives' everyone else and still work well, or they're not really balanced at all.
Except that artifacts aren't made by casters.
If we go with Warehouse 13 logic, then mundanes could make the artifacts. Not only could, but are more likely too.
Given everything Paizo has done for this game in terms of releasing feats, erratas, updates between printings and everything else, if there was truly this gaping issue that seems to be prevalent on the boards, they would have addressed it. The fact they haven't speaks far more than the numerous threads by essentially the same people.
Speaks more of skilled GMs or low level play, less that the problems are non-existent.
Anyway, no one in this thread will be convinced so....good gaming to you.
Just wanted to disagree without the burden of being convincing, or what?
I'm somewhat of a loss as to what is your aim by posting a bunch of arguments, then following it up with something that seems to indicate disdain for convincing argumentation and that you don't want anyone to actually respond to any of your points.
Anyway, no one in this thread will be convinced so....good gaming to you.Just wanted to disagree without the burden of being convincing, or what?
I'm somewhat of a loss as to what is your aim by posting a bunch of arguments, then following it up with something that seems to indicate disdain for convincing argumentation and that you don't want anyone to actually respond to any of your points.
He just wanted to express that there still exist people who don't buy all this theorycraft to the quiet lurkers of the future.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are we all theorycrafters or something then all of the sudden?
Damnation. I've been playing all this time for nothing.
|
|
Given everything Paizo has done for this game in terms of releasing feats, erratas, updates between printings and everything else, if there was truly this gaping issue that seems to be prevalent on the boards, they would have addressed it. The fact they haven't speaks far more than the numerous threads by essentially the same people.Speaks more of skilled GMs or low level play, less that the problems are non-existent.
Or maybe I'm just seeing more skilled players?
Or maybe the issue people see with the fighters is poor DMing through Mage love, or monster targeting issues or other things.
And the groups of people I play with and discuss this with all play campaigns into the high teens to level cap of 20.
PFS folks don't have that option though.
However, the point i made that you quoted was about Paizo not "fixing" the fighter (as per thread title).
I think it highly unlikely they haven't drawn on vast amounts of data, anecdotes and personal experience when looking at these issues. They regularly respond to and participate in discussions on the forums. Yet the changes to the Fighter haven't come along. That would indicate to me that the data doesn't support the claims of "some" people on these threads.
Sorry for quote use. It's for emphasis bu reads a little like condescension. I can't do the fancy thread stuff typing on my iPad.
Cheers
|
|
He just wanted to express that there still exist people who don't buy all this theorycraft to the quiet lurkers of the future.Anyway, no one in this thread will be convinced so....good gaming to you.Just wanted to disagree without the burden of being convincing, or what?
I'm somewhat of a loss as to what is your aim by posting a bunch of arguments, then following it up with something that seems to indicate disdain for convincing argumentation and that you don't want anyone to actually respond to any of your points.
Actually, this is exactly what I was posting for. Thanks for understanding Marcus. I wasn't implying just theory craft either, some people come to this conclusion through game play experience and then consider their experience to be absolute.
I'm just pointing out other experiences exist, and a possible reason why Paizo hasn't done what the OP was asking in the main thread.
In summary, I guess I'm saying How much more experience in the system have the collective designers and creative team and management team at Paizo got in relation to the individual posters in any one thread. That might actually be the answer for many issues that pop up in these boards.
Cheers.
|
|
Anyway, no one in this thread will be convinced so....good gaming to you.Just wanted to disagree without the burden of being convincing, or what?
I'm somewhat of a loss as to what is your aim by posting a bunch of arguments, then following it up with something that seems to indicate disdain for convincing argumentation and that you don't want anyone to actually respond to any of your points.
Sorry Coriat, it does sound condescending when read in hindsight. I've been involved in these types of discussions for years. No one ever gets convinced of anything generally. Unfortunately they regularly degenerated into nastiness from one side or another, particularly during the play test for the core Pathfinder rules.
I'm not interested in getting into that kind of thing any more. If I could guarantee not being lambasted by posters and being able to keep it as a civil discussion, I'd throw more into it ( and maybe if I wasn't lying here half asleep typing on an iPad). Unfortunately this is the internet and eventually someone will come along and call me a stinky poo poo head and then the thread will get locked.
Cheers
fighters are fine. after playing them for 5 years. the only things i would want are more skill points and perception as a class skills.
bonus nice things.
some abiltity to move and attack and keep armor training*
automically upgrading from an improved to greater combat feat, if i have the lesser feat.
Putting martials on the same playing field as casters isn't broken, its fair.Yes, because a dm allowing good third party will /clearly/ let you use any third party, even the broken ones. /sarcasmI dunno, I got some third party stuff and ever since my fighters have been pretty beast. They aren't creating demiplanes but will about murder anything 30ft away from them.If I'm going third party, I'm grabbing a Warder or maybe I'll go back to 3.5 and get me a Warblade.
I'll accept your argument for this thread's purpose. Why does that matter?
they already made a system that will remain nameless, that put martials and casters on the same level, and it was not really success.
they already made a system that will remain nameless, that put martials and casters on the same level, and it was not really success.
Well they weren't on the same level, they were the same thing.
I like the caster vs martial comparison in Ultimate Psionics 10 base classes.
Aegis and soulknife do a great job at being non-casting martials.
they already made a system that will remain nameless, that put martials and casters on the same level, and it was not really success.
I'll name it: 4e Fallacy.
they already made a system that will remain nameless, that put martials and casters on the same level, and it was not really success.I'll name it: 4e Fallacy.
Amen.
fighters are fine. after playing them for 5 years. the only things i would want are more skill points and perception as a class skills.
bonus nice things.
some abiltity to move and attack and keep armor training*automically upgrading from an improved to greater combat feat, if i have the lesser feat.
This is exactly what I would want too. A baseline pounce for Fighters (at around level 11), 4+Int skill points per level, 1 or 2 more class skills (Acrobatics or Perception and something else like Knowledge (local)), and one feature that increases their effectivity depending on whether they are high on CHA, WIS, INT or CON, to create some sort of variety.
Also, I think WOTC's latest attempt at balance is pretty successful from what I've seen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...Is fighter really that bad I have a lot more fun playing it than most other classes (especially casters) and usually outdo my who party in combat with rare exception (g&*+%$n incorporeal enemies)
It's not. Its a fun class that is really popular and can contribute to a party. In our 13th level game, our fighter is far and away the most dangerous member in the party.
True, it's not very adaptable and does just one thing very well. It's also not very complex.
But these are features not bugs to many players who just love a simple plain vanilla deadly melee monster.
I understand some of the issues- it has very poor skills, thus can;t do much out of combat- sure. Again- to many fighter players- this is a Good thing, this is a feature, not a bug.
Don;t get me wrong- I'd be in there clamoring for a "Fighter Fix" too if the Fighter was the only martial class. I like lots of skills, so I often play a Ranger. And there's the Paladin, the Cavalier, the Barbarian, the Magus, the Inquisitor and so forth, for those who want other Good Stuff in their particular favorite warrior form.
Which is exactly why the Fight doesnt need a "fix". If you want other variations on a warrior, Paizo has given us many many choices. Nothing is forcing you to play a Fighter. But for those who really truly LIKE the bare-bone warrior who is the Fighter- let them have what they want.
I know, I get it. I really like more skills and a few spells, etc myself. I mush prefer the Ranger. But just because I prefer the ranger and think it's the better class doesn't mean that means I want to take the option of playing the Fighter away from those who prefer it.
When it stops being one of *THE* most popular classes played- then maybe it'll need a "fix".
I understand some of the issues- it has very poor skills, thus can;t do much out of combat- sure. Again- to many fighter players- this is a Good thing, this is a feature, not a bug.
I don't want fighters to have grit-like powers - half the point of the fighter class is to keep it simple. But I've never heard of a fighter player saying, "I'm glad I don't have more skill points. I'd hate to be good at acrobatics and perception."
[
All of these options give the melee characters things that are fantastic in nature. And this is what melee characters should have had from the beginning, the ability to do fantastic things, because this is a fantasy game.
Well, they do. Check out the Barbarian, Ranger and Monk archetypes.
Look at what Mythic martials can do.
Now, I am a firm believer that some Mythic martial abilities should be available to even those who aren't mythic.
So: "Aerial Assault (Su): You can charge at creatures in the air, or leap across obstacles as part of a charge. When making a charge attack, you can expend one use of mythic power to include a single Acrobatics check made to jump, adding 10 feet per tier to the height or distance you jump. You take no falling damage from the height gained as part of this leap. If your attack hits, you may deal an amount of additional damage equal to the falling damage appropriate for the height you reached. Alternatively, you may replace your melee attack from this charge with a grapple check. If you successfully grapple a creature, you bring it to the ground with you at the end of your jump, and it takes an appropriate amount of falling damage for the height it was at when you grappled it."
Could be available for anyone with ten ranks in Acrobatics.
Mythic Weapon Training (Ex)= should be available for any with a 10+ BAB.
Etc.
The issue comes from high level fighters.
Most E6 campaigns fighters are still strong, that's before barbarians get pounce and 3rd level spells are only accessed by full spellcasters.
From a game design perspective, I don't necessarily think that the fighter needs fixing in the sense that not all the classes need to be balanced.
If balance at all costs is the goal, then sure we should re-do the fighter.
The main issue with that mind set is that Pathfinder is a 20 level game and fighter never really become better than they are at 6th or 7th level. Numbers get higher, and they get more attacks, but they really get very few abilities that add to their versatility in a game that demands such at those higher levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand some of the issues- it has very poor skills, thus can;t do much out of combat- sure. Again- to many fighter players- this is a Good thing, this is a feature, not a bug.I don't want fighters to have grit-like powers - half the point of the fighter class is to keep it simple. But I've never heard of a fighter player saying, "I'm glad I don't have more skill points. I'd hate to be good at acrobatics and perception."
I have never heard of ANY player saying "I'm glad I don't have more skill points." EVERY class would benefit by more skill points. Cleric is one of those, and that's a top tier class.
...Is fighter really that bad I have a lot more fun playing it than most other classes (especially casters) and usually outdo my who party in combat with rare exception (g&*+%$n incorporeal enemies)It's not. Its a fun class that is really popular and can contribute to a party. In our 13th level game, our fighter is far and away the most dangerous member in the party.
True, it's not very adaptable and does just one thing very well. It's also not very complex.
But these are features not bugs to many players who just love a simple plain vanilla deadly melee monster.
I understand some of the issues- it has very poor skills, thus can;t do much out of combat- sure. Again- to many fighter players- this is a Good thing, this is a feature, not a bug.
Don;t get me wrong- I'd be in there clamoring for a "Fighter Fix" too if the Fighter was the only martial class. I like lots of skills, so I often play a Ranger. And there's the Paladin, the Cavalier, the Barbarian, the Magus, the Inquisitor and so forth, for those who want other Good Stuff in their particular favorite warrior form.
Which is exactly why the Fight doesnt need a "fix". If you want other variations on a warrior, Paizo has given us many many choices. Nothing is forcing you to play a Fighter. But for those who really truly LIKE the bare-bone warrior who is the Fighter- let them have what they want.
I know, I get it. I really like more skills and a few spells, etc myself. I mush prefer the Ranger. But just because I prefer the ranger and think it's the better class doesn't mean that means I want to take the option of playing the Fighter away from those who prefer it.
When it stops being one of *THE* most popular classes played- then maybe it'll need a "fix".
The fact that one player in your group is better than the rest is anecdotal. Perhaps you are playing 4d6 drop one attributes, perhaps (s)he's got a better grasp of system mastery... it really does not add to the conversation when it is entirely possible to build a level 13th character that outstrips the Fighter of all its value, which is the core argument...
I would not mind it if the Fighter were the worst at skills if it got something in return. However, a Barbarian easily outdamages a Fighter at level 13th.
The point is that you don't play the Ranger because you like skills, you play the Ranger because you like being good at combat and skills.
Those who play a Fighter are in it for being good at combat and nothing else, as you say... but why would anyone do that when you are no better than a Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger or the like?
A properly built Ranger could easily go on par in damage with a Fighter at level 13th (this is math, not anecdotal information, I can back this up if you want), AND still have many more skills and some spellcasting ability.
Until the Fighter has its own niche that can take it from Tier 5 (that is, "Can do one thing well but other classes can do it better") to Tier 4 at least (that is, "Can do one thing really well but only that"), then the Fighter, one of THE most popular classes played, will need a fix.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well said DrDeath.
A note on the skills part. There are only so many skills out there. Often, someone in the party has it covered, sometimes into the point of overkill. This often means more than one player with the skill is superfluous to needs.
I find it frustrating when three folks roll a skill, only to have all three succeed but only need one success. That's not contributing, that's just rolling dice while someone else gets the answer.
Possibly, if skills became more than just roll and win situations, this would change.
An interesting note, knowledge engineering is a major factor in the latest AP (iron gods). Fighters have that one.
The one skill that seems to have the most impact on game play is perception. For things such as avoiding missing a surprise round. Anytime that's become an issue, fighters in our area just take it as a skill focus.
Of course, that's just the skill part. There are other things people disagree with for fighters.
Cheers
i play with an optimize ranger, he does not get close to my damage unless we are fighting his favored enemey, and when we arent, he is so much weaker. same with the barbarian hes not bad, but in general my fighter is way way way superior to him, because we are always in hostile terrority, so we can't rest.
alot of "balance" is how your GM chooses to run the game. in my experience i would consider the fighter by far the best martial class due to the hardcore nature of the campains my GMs run.
The fact that one player in your group is better than the rest is anecdotal. Perhaps you are playing 4d6 drop one attributes, perhaps (s)he's got a better grasp of system mastery... it really does not add to the conversation when it is entirely possible to build a level 13th character that outstrips the Fighter of all its value, which is the core argument...
Those who play a Fighter are in it for being good at combat and nothing else, as you say... but why would anyone do that when you are no better than a Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger or the like?
A properly built Ranger could easily go on par in damage with a Fighter at level 13th (this is math, not anecdotal information, I can back this up if you want), ...
Until the Fighter has its own niche that can take it from Tier 5 (that is, "Can do one thing well but other classes can do it better") to Tier 4 at least (that is, "Can do one thing really well but only that"), then the Fighter, one of THE most popular classes played, will need a fix.
Nope. 20 pt buy.
Nope.Why? Because that's what *THEY* want. Are you accusing them of badwrongfun?
Meh. "Math"? Math with Pathfinder builds is so subjective it's worthless. I'll leave that up to the many, many, MANY DPR competition thread- of which I point out Fighter has done very well.
Because, you see, you misquote JaronK. It's NOT "Can do one thing well but other classes can do it better" it's "Tier 5: Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well". The Fighter already is "Can do one thing really well but only that". Even it's detractors admit that, in fact that's their very complaint.
Niche protection is not part of Pathfinder. In PF, many classes can fill the same niche. Does the Sorcerer make Wizard obsolete? Does Oracle make Cleric useless?
If you want Niche protection, go back to OD&D. Despite my fondness for that game, I can't see it as superior.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we all agree that Cleric is one of the most powerful classes in the game?
Yet we have thread after thread here where DM's complain that no-one wants to run a cleric. But they always have plenty of folks lined up to play the Fighter.
Maybe, just maybe, since D&D is a Game, and the object of a Game is to have Fun- people wanna play what *THEY* have most Fun playing, rather than the class that some theorycrafter has said they should play?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Popularity has nothing whatsoever to do with class balance. DPR has little to do with it either. The reasons have been stated over and over again for literally years, and anyone hasn't been convinced by now never will be.
Image courtesy of /tg/.
Popularity has nothing whatsoever to do with class balance. DPR has little to do with it either. The reasons have been stated over and over again for literally years, and anyone hasn't been convinced by now never will be.
what?
if people are playing a class and are happy playing that class, then by definition the class is fine.the reasons why clerics were changed in 3e was because no one wanted to play them in 2E even though at that time they were pretty "balanced" no one wanted to play them, so they got a power boost for "play balance" reasons
if there are lines to play the fighter, and no shortage of players playing fighter, even with tons of other options, and they are having fun playing fighters (or else why would they keep playing fighters), then by definition they don't need a power boost for "balance" reasons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I pondered this quite a bit when designing my Nice Things for Fighters book. A lot of Fighter fixes and options focus only on increasing the numbers for combat actions without expanding the available options. And what good feats there are are often buried under feat trees requiring several levels to go through before you can do that one cool thing. All the while prepared spellcasters can switch out their spells and don't need to do the Character Optimization and Dumpster-Diving for Splatbook Dance to be versatile, effective combatants.
You know how Weapon Specialization requires a minimum Fighter level in order to take? We need more feats like that, because otherwise all [Combat] feats can be eventually taken by anyone.
Give fighters access to cool and powerful options and feats which don't require dumpster-diving through splatbooks and building feat trees in order to take. Spellcasters don't need Scorching Ray as a prerequisite for Fireball, for example.
Options which shore up where the Fighter lacks most is a definite step forward. Area of Effect attacks, negative status conditions (nauseated, ability damage, etc), alternate movement speeds, and others should be built-in class features or unique feats for martials. You can crank up weapon damage all you want, but there are too many ways around that and still keeps the Fighter as a One-Trick-Pony.