Again, Fighters have NO feats that help them out of combat. They only have combat feats.Well... Intimidating Prowess is a Combat feat, and it does help out of combat.
And I still think having bonus combat feats (mostly) counts as having bonus normal feats.
After all, earning $500 + health care is basically the same as getting $500 + the money necessary to pay for health care... Not exactly as good, of course, but it's pretty close, since you most likely want that health care anyway.
We'll assume everyone gets $500. That's the general feats.
The Fighter gets Healthcare. Everyone else gets another $500 they can pay for Healthcare. And they get free room, board, gas money and if they choose healthcare, they get their deductibles all paid for and a Medical Savings Account. If they are spellcasters, they get four weeks paid vacation, too.Fighters, staying happy with Healthcare.
==Aelryinth
That's a different problem. I agree that bonus feats are not nearly as good as real class features. My point is just that since character will most likely grab Combat feats anyway, getting bonus combat feats isn't very different from getting bonus feats.
And it's not true. Actually, they don't need to get Combat feats.
I'm guessing a Barb will get 2-3, and then focus on Extra Rage Powers.
Rangers already get a combat tree.
Paladins are likely as not to focus on things that up paladin abilities, like Extra Mercy and Channeling, once they get Power Attack.
Casters won't get combat feats at all.
Rogues will probably split the difference
So, meh. Feats are already 1/2 a class feature for most feat categories. Combat feats take that down even further.
=============
Oops. That was a typo.
Fighters should never have been restricted to 2 skill points per level. Ahem. My wishful thinking was hitting my fingers.
==Aelryinth
And it's not true. Actually, they don't need to get Combat feats.
They don't need to. But they most likely will do it anyway.
I'm guessing a Barb will get 2-3, and then focus on Extra Rage Powers.
Rangers already get a combat tree.
Rage-related feats are Combat feats in all but name... They are feats devoted to combat. The only reason they are not classified as such is because it doesn't make any difference, since Barbarians don't get bonus feats.
Rangers' bonus feats are also limited to combat feats.
Paladins are likely as not to focus on things that up paladin abilities, like Extra Mercy and Channeling, once they get Power Attack.
I've seen many Paladins take a great variety of combat feats.
Casters won't get combat feats at all.
Arcane Strike, Improved Initiative and Defensive Combat Training are Combat feats (oddly enough, Combat Casting isn't). Not to mention that Clerics, Druids and other medium BAB casters will likely take even more combat feats.
So, meh. Feats are already 1/2 a class feature for most feat categories. Combat feats take that down even further.
I'm not disagreeing with this. But getting bonus Combat feats is basically the same as getting bonus feats.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but saying a Fighter has no easier time getting, say Iron Will or Toughness, than any other class because they only get Combat feats is not completely true. A Ranger or Cavalier benefits just as much from that any of those feats, but they don't have as many feats to invest...
I'm not saying Fighter is a good class or that Combat feats is are as good as real class features... I'm merely pointing out that getting extra Combat feats is basically the same thing as getting general feats for most classes. Even more so for full-BAB classes.
Fighter can often afford to grab general feats and feat chains that other classes can't. They can also complete feat chains much earlier. Unfortunately, this is not enough to make them an effective class, but it is something they can do.
I don't know why you're so eager to say getting bonus Combat feats doesn't help with getting more general feats. It does. Unless you don't plan to take any Combat feat at all... And I don't remember the last time I saw a character without at least 1 Combat feat.
I think the first (and maybe simplest) step I'd do is is give them some kind of thing akin to bardic knowledge but applies to all skill rolls relating to war, combat, military, and tactics. Bonuses for finding the best place for tactics favoring you, choke-points, that sort of thing.
Lemmy, you know the same way I do that the same reason paladins, rangers and barbs will take combat feats is because their class features provide for their defenses. Between Superstition, Cha to Saves, evasion, and spellcasting, those classes need to devote very few feats to defense or mobility.
Rangers get a very handy spell list for both defense and combat. Paladins can get a better one.
Rage Powers are at least twice as powerful as combat feats are, because they scale.
And I'm not saying people won't take combat feats. It's more along the lines of, they don't have to spend their combat feats on defenses and mobility, because their class resources provide for those. And in addition, their class resources provide for a great deal of offensive power, so they are not dependent on Combat feats for their versatility or edge in combat.
The fighter is, he NEEDS the feats since they are the majority of his class features, but he also needs the other stuff which other classes get, and he does not.
==Aelryinth
Lemmy, you know the same way I do that the same reason paladins, rangers and barbs will take combat feats is because their class features provide for their defenses. Between Superstition, Cha to Saves, evasion, and spellcasting, those classes need to devote very few feats to defense or mobility.
Rangers get a very handy spell list for both defense and combat. Paladins can get a better one.
Rage Powers are at least twice as powerful as combat feats are, because they scale.
And I'm not saying people won't take combat feats. It's more along the lines of, they don't have to spend their combat feats on defenses and mobility, because their class resources provide for those. And in addition, their class resources provide for a great deal of offensive power, so they are not dependent on Combat feats for their versatility or edge in combat.
The fighter is, he NEEDS the feats since they are the majority of his class features, but he also needs the other stuff which other classes get, and he does not.
==Aelryinth
One more time: I'm not disagreeing with you!
What I'm saying is this: Getting bonus Combat feats is pretty darn close to just getting bonus feats (for a martial class, that is).
Back to my past analogy... The Fighter is getting 500 bucks + health care... Which helps them save money to buy stuff they like. That's a fact. It's just not enough to make them a good class.
Other classes are still better because even though they don't get free health care, they are earn 500 bucks + a bunch of diamonds that are worth far more than the price of the best health care plan ever!
This means Fighters are not as effective as other classes, but it still doesn't change the fact that getting free health care is basically the same as getting the money to pay for health care, since most characters will invest in health care anyway.
Improved Initiative is a combat feat...but the only great one for full arcane casters I can think of.
Power Attack for any caster who wants to melee. If they don't...eh! And they MIGHT take a Weapon Focus.
==Aelryinth
I like Furious Focus for characters with medium BAB... Cornugon Smash, Intimidating Prowess and the new Hurtful feat from the Monster Codex are pretty good and have great synergy.
(And I think Defensive Combat Training is really good for full arcane casters).
This complaint about fighters is one of things i adressed in my upcoming fighter nuances including one that expands the use of profession(soldier) for fighters.
If your party expects your Fighter to do everything (combat, social, healing), you need to find a new group to play with.
Fighters are meant, primarily to hit things hard. The Fighter is not meant to be a well-rounded class; it is a beatstick. No matter your stats, or your background, the Fighter is intended for combat.
It doesn't require fixes for out-of-combat scenarios. It needs fixes to do the job that it was designed to do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your party expects your Fighter to do everything (combat, social, healing), you need to find a new group to play with.
No one wants the Fighter do everything. We just want it to eb able to do something when hitting stuff with a sword is not a viable option. All other martial classes are (at least) just as good as Fighters in combat and far more versatile.
Being able to hit things really hard shouldn't require the class to be completely useless at everything else!
In other words...yes, you want it to be able to do a bit of everything.
If you're not hitting (or trying to hit), you're healing (or assisting in combat in other ways).
If you're not healing or hitting, then you're out of combat.
If you're out of combat, then you're socialising.
If you want versatility, you shouldn't be playing a Fighter. Unpopular as an opinion as that may be, the Fighter class has a defined purpose (even though it may not be particularly good at it).
I'll concede that 2+Int skill points is far too low - other than that, why does a Fighter, who for all intents and purposes is the big stick of the party, need a heap of skills?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because the class is so one dimensional that it actually breaks verisimilitude?
This is precisely why I think being defined as a Fighter is outdated. Everyone fights now, but people expect the class called "Fighter" to be good at nothing but fighting.
If your party expects your Fighter to do everything (combat, social, healing), you need to find a new group to play with.
Fighters are meant, primarily to hit things hard. The Fighter is not meant to be a well-rounded class; it is a beatstick. No matter your stats, or your background, the Fighter is intended for combat.
It doesn't require fixes for out-of-combat scenarios. It needs fixes to do the job that it was designed to do.
@Wasted, I see your point. Fighter character design shouldn't move too far away from class function. Fighter's fight, that's what they do.
I'm also in agreement with Aelyrinth, Atarlost and Lemmy.
They have recognized that bonus combat feats are a weak substitute for class abilities. Class abilities like Smite and Lay on Hands are noticeably more powerful than the feats- Dodge and Power Attack.
A fighter character should have the same diversity as a cleric or wizard character.
Just because you are playing a character that has no magical abilities doesn't mean they should be a one trick pony.
The 'fighter character' has a profound and grand tradition within fantasy literature. The Pathfinder game needs to facilitate that tradition, give agency to the stories of Aragorn, Beowulf, Fafhyrd, Sir Galahad, and Oberyn the Red Viper.
@Petty Alchemy, the 'fighter' has too much history to be considered something 'outdated.' Too much to live up to.
Yeah, I would love to give the fighter a kind of free archetype that gives the fighter an angle to shoot from. By that I mean bonuses to social situations and class features that give you a social point of reference. A knight might travel well and carry influence in different regions(his sphere of influence could expand as he leveled)... Anywho, something like that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In other words...yes, you want it to be able to do a bit of everything.
In other words, I don't want to be completely useless just because standing still and full attacking is not an option. Slayers, Barbarians, Rangers and Paladins can all contribute fairly well out of combat, and they are not even close to being capable of "doing everything". And even though they might have lower AC and DPR, they are at least as good as Fighters when it comes to combat.
If you're not hitting (or trying to hit), you're healing (or assisting in combat in other ways).
If you're not healing or hitting, then you're out of combat.
If you're out of combat, then you're socialising.If you want versatility, you shouldn't be playing a Fighter. Unpopular as an opinion as that may be, the Fighter class has a defined purpose (even though it may not be particularly good at it).
I'll concede that 2+Int skill points is far too low - other than that, why does a Fighter, who for all intents and purposes is the big stick of the party, need a heap of skills?
Literally every other class has more versatility than the Fighter. And most of them are just as good in combat as well. Why is the Fighter the only one that can't do anything other than hit stuff with a pointy stick?
"Having a role" should mean "Having something you're really good at" not "The only thing you can do".
Fighters are not even very good at fighting... They are good at standing still and full attacking, but since combat usually involves more than that, Fighters are at best mediocre at fighting.
If your party expects your Fighter to do everything (combat, social, healing), you need to find a new group to play with.
Fighters are meant, primarily to hit things hard. The Fighter is not meant to be a well-rounded class; it is a beatstick. No matter your stats, or your background, the Fighter is intended for combat.
It doesn't require fixes for out-of-combat scenarios. It needs fixes to do the job that it was designed to do.
@Wasted, I see your point. Fighter character design shouldn't move too far away from class function. Fighter's fight, that's what they do.
I'm also in agreement with Aelyrinth, Atarlost and Lemmy.
They have recognized that bonus combat feats are a weak substitute for class abilities. Class abilities like Smite and Lay on Hands are noticeably more powerful than the feats- Dodge and Power Attack.
I never disputed this. Fighters need fixes to the job they are designed to do. As a combatant, they are inferior and have no place in a thought out party - their job and even their entire character is accomplished by other classes.
A fighter character should have the same diversity as a cleric or wizard character.
Clerics can be almost anything they want to be. Frontline melee, party face, healer, caster, any mix of these. Let's be careful when we use the term "diversity".
Just because you are playing a character that has no magical abilities doesn't mean they should be a one trick pony.
The fighter class is almost by definition, a one trick pony. They may be grunts, they may be lords, knights, gladiators, executioners, or enforcers of the law. No matter their background, they have one job - to hit things. That is all.
The 'fighter character' has a profound and grand tradition within fantasy literature. The Pathfinder game needs to facilitate that tradition, give agency to the stories of Aragorn, Beowulf, Fafhyrd, Sir Galahad, and Oberyn the Red Viper.
These characters can all be created within the Pathfinder system, and some arguably fall outside of the "Fighter" class.
Aragorn is the oft-cited patron of the martial switch-hitter, for crying out loud. Fighter or Ranger, pick your poison, either can accomplish the role.
Fafhrd is by definition and design, a barbarian.
Beowulf, Galahad, Oberyn, sure. All of these can be created within the Fighter class already.
Clerics can be almost anything they want to be. Frontline melee, party face, healer, caster, any mix of these. Let's be careful when we use the term "diversity".
I agree. We don't need more full casters...
That said... Most fantasy "Fighters" are not limited to hit stuff (and many of them are low level too).
Fighters should at very least be able to:
- Navigate the battlefield with ease.
- Identify the weaknesses, strengths and tactics of their opponents
- Inspire/Guide their allies in combat.
- Intimidate/Demoralize their enemies (this can actually be done pretty well. Intimidating Prowess, Cornugon Smash and a few other feats make Intimidate builds really good!)
- Scout ahead (they don't have to be as good as Ranger, but at very least, they should have Perception and Sense Motive)
- Use their weapons in a variety of ways and be really good with all weapons (although not as good as they are with their main weapon)
- Move 10ft without losing most of their effectiveness. (actually, every martial class should have this ability!)
At high level, Fighter should be able to do fantastic feats of strength and skill as well, such as deflecting rays, breaking magic barriers, kill multiple mooks with a single swing of his blade, etc.
Points taken, however, not all of those things are relevant to most kinds of fighters.
*Battlefield navigation, certainly. They should be skilled at getting to the enemy, and getting away as well.
*Not all fighters exist to inspire or guide. Leave that to classes or archetypes designed to do so, like Cavaliers or Guide Rangers.
*Intimidate/Demoralize, absolutely.
*Scouting, is also not the role of all fighters. Not all soldiers are skilled at scouting. This is something best left to Rangers or Fighter archetypes.
*Weapon tricks, undoubtedly. Being superlative with certain weapons is what Fighters do.
*Movement restrictions, agreed again. This ties into battlfield navigation to an extent.
But, these things don't really make a diverse character, and they're mostly still related to combat/improving the ways in which Fighters hit things.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Points taken, however, not all of those things are relevant to most kinds of fighters.
*Battlefield navigation, certainly. They should be skilled at getting to the enemy, and getting away as well.
*Not all fighters exist to inspire or guide. Leave that to classes or archetypes designed to do so, like Cavaliers or Guide Rangers.
*Intimidate/Demoralize, absolutely.
*Scouting, is also not the role of all fighters. Not all soldiers are skilled at scouting. This is something best left to Rangers or Fighter archetypes.
*Weapon tricks, undoubtedly. Being superlative with certain weapons is what Fighters do.
*Movement restrictions, agreed again. This ties into battlfield navigation to an extent.
But, these things don't really make a diverse character, and they're mostly still related to combat/improving the ways in which Fighters hit things.
Just because something is not used by all members of that class, doesn't mean it shouldn't part of the class.
e.g.: Not all Fighters use heavy armor, but that doesn't mean they should lose Armor Training.
e.g.: Not all Paladins are diplomats, but that doesn't mean they should lose Diplomacy as class skill.
e.g.: Not all Monks fight unarmed, but that doesn't mean they should lose IUS.
If something is moderately common and expected from a class, it should be part of it.
Not all Fighters need to be inspiring, but the class should be able to do and be good at it that if the player chooses (even if they are not as good as more specialized classes). Same goes for scouting.
See... I don't mind that hitting stuff is their main schtick. My problem is that it's often all that they can do because trying to do something else requires heavy investment and/or is not very effective.
That's why I like feats that give Fighters more options, such as Cornugon Smash, Combat Reflexes, Lunge,maneuver feats (although many of them suffer from "crappy prerequisite" syndrome), etc.
Weapon Focus/Specialization are incredibly boring because they don't expand any of the Fighters options. I've literally seen 12th level Fighters who had exactly the same abilities they had at 1st level, only with higher numbers... And said build was considered "optimized" too! I don't think I've seen that happen with any other class in the game!
Focusing on hitting stuff is cool. Being only able to hit stuff is extremely limited and (IMO) incredibly boring. Even in fighting games, character who only have high damage and lots of hp are far more often than not considered weak. And this is in games where combat is literally the only thing involved, it's (almost) always 1x1 (or some version of tag teams) and stuff like difficult terrain is (almost) never something to worry about!
If those limitations are so severe even in fighting games, imagine how bad they are in a game where literally anything and everything the GM can imagine is possible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters are what you design them to be. They have 10 feats and 11 bonus combat feats which means you can use your 10 feats for anything you want. Other classes have 10 feats to use for combat AND other stuff.
Problem is... Most feats are not nearly as good as real class features. I'd take a Rage power over a bonus combat feat any day of the week and twice on sunday!
Fighters aren't a great class, but they still accomplish what they're intended to do with some thought.
...By investing far more resources than would be necessary for any other class.
Iron Will
Lightning Reflexes
Great Fortitude
Improved versions of all above
Additional Traits: +1 save traits/class skill traits with +1 bonus, Fate's favored.
Godless Healing
Fast Healing + wands of infernal healing
Fey foundling + wands of healing
Favored class bonus: +1 skill point
Ironically, none of these things can be acquired through Fighter class features... And Fighters are not particularly good or benefit any more from them than any other class. In fact, other classes would either benefit more from these options, not need them as desperately and/or have an easier time using them.
And it accentuates yet another problem with Fighters... While most other classes (save for Rogues, but they are not exactly a good class to use as a standard) can use feats to expand their repertoire, Fighters are forced to use their normal feats to (not really) compensate their weaknesses... And even then, they still aren't as effective as other martial classes...
For example... Let's take a look at Dr.Fighty McCharming here... Look how he is a darn good party face... Even though he is not Human, doesn't use any archetype and has low Cha.
Is it possible to make a versatile Fighter? Sure it is. I know that. But the amount of required investment is stupidly higher than any other class! A Barbarian or Paladin doing the same thing would have a much easier time and/or be better at it!
Taking gear into consideration just exacerbates how ineffective Fighters are compared to other classes. Fighters do not get extra WBL and are really bad at crafting/using magic items. They don't have skill points to assign to craft skills or UMD, they don't have spells to use wands without UMD, Int is a tertiary attribute at best and Cha is their most common dump stat.
If anything, they need more money than any other martial class.
And of course, if they use only their bonus feats to improve their combat prowess, then they lose any advantage they would have over other martial classes, making them even more easily obsoleted.
And yes, multiclassing can help them... But that's not really a good argument for the class is it? "Hey, this class is weak, but if you take levels in another class, your character gets better!". If anything it just goes on to show that Fighters only excel as a dip class.
I'm not here to contest the power of any other class to the fighter just stating that the fighter in its current incarnation can be made to be a functional and contributing member of an adventuring party providing whatever niche service you design it to be within its limitations.
The problem is that the same thing can be said about any class. Even Warriors.
Even though grabbing those feats are not directly through a class feature the fact that fighters gain 11 combat feats which is more than many other classes can attain alone and then they get their regular 10 normal feats that can be used for whatever the like. As the ones I listed which was more the point as your class feature gives you all the combat prowess you need leaving your standard feats to shore up weaknesses.
Now, bow... Earlier in this thread I did say that getting bonus Combat feats is basically the same as getting bonus general feats if you are going to use them on combat feats anyway... And I stay by that statement.
However, if a Fighter uses only his bonus feats on combat feats, his combat prowess will be far bellow that of other classes (without having extra feats, all Fighters get are numerical bonuses, and as I said, those are useful, but not nearly as important as having actual options)... And he still won't be as versatile as them.
Everyone loves to argue that some other class can take feats too, but not every class can take as many feats and progress through as many different chains of feats as the fighter. Some classes can get bonus feats without prerequisites to further certain builds faster, but there will always be builds that are only attainable through a fighter and the sheer number of feats they get. Sure some other class may perform functionally 'better' with their own class features and arrangements of feats, but never in every facet.
The problem here is that most feats are not nearly as good as real class features. I'd much rather have Lay on Hands than an extra feat or 4.
The only thing that Fighters really excel are as switch-hitters, but even then, Rangers and Slayers are overall a far more effective character, despite the lower DPR.
Fighters have great build versatility, but lack too much character versatility. They very often have to be one or two-trick ponies to stay effective, and in this game, having just one or two tricks is just not good enough.
IMHO, the whole design philosophy for Fighters is flawed. No class can be effective when their whole point "Guy who is good at hitting stuff, therefore must useless at everything else" will never be a good class. Specially when the definition of "good" is "have an extra +2".
EDIT:
EDIT: Any class can take the Alluring trait and qualify for any item crafting feat. Many races come with SLA's which allow fighter's of that race to craft as well. And with the rules on crafting items even lacking the spell prerequisites and having a dumped intelligence you could pull off the DC's.
None of those things are Fighter-specific. Nor are Fighters particularly good at it... In fact, they are worse than literally every other PC class in the game.
The problem is that the same thing can be said about any class. Even Warriors.Then if that's the case the continual argument that the fighter isn't worth picking because it's not good is inherently false and only true in comparison to other classes and only in the cases that the fighter does not excel at such as any feat combination unattainable by any other class including investing 10 feats into non combat and 11 feats into combat.
My point is that saying "this class can contribute, but within its limits" doesn't say anything... You could say the same about a crippled commoner.
I just don't think a Warrior (or a Fighter) is good enough to be an adventurer... Unless the whole adventure is about standing still and beating up a sandbag. In that case, Fighters are awesome. Otherwise, they are a load. They drain too many resources... To the point where at high levels I'd rather be a lonely Wizard than have to share loot with a Fighter.
The fighters combat prowess will only be lacking by not choosing feats well.
If the Fighter is using his general feats to shore up his pitiful defenses, then he doesn't have any feat advantage over any other class... And feats are just not that good.
And I'd rather have lay on hands than any rage power or 4. A scaling swift action cure is pretty sweet.
Pretty sweet, yeah... but not worth 4 Rage Powers. Even more so considering that, unlike feats, Rage Powers actually scale with level.
But I'd trade Weapon Focus/Specialization and their Greater versions for LoH in the blink of an eye (I'm not even including Mercies here).
Fighters have the highest DPR of any class once they hit 20 due to the crit modifier AFAIK.
Once they hit 20th, yeah... During all other 19 levels, Barbarians and Slayers are better... But even if they are not, they are still far more effective, because at 20th level, a full attack will kill anything anyway... It doesn't matter if your full attack deals 300 damage or 300000000000. The result is the same. OTOH, at high levels, the Fighter's lack of options becomes even more crippling compared to other classes.
Rangers are not overpowered. They are one of the best balanced classes in the game (in fact they could use a boost, nothing major, just minor buffs here and there). The fault is in Fighters, who not only are not any better in combat than any other martial class, but are also completely useless in anything that doesn't involve stabbing people in the face.
to make things even worse in order to "reward" Fighters, devs often create unreasonably long feat chains with awful prerequisites... They still fail to realize that those things punish Fighters more than anyone else and basically rob them of their main class feature.
IMO, every martial class should have 2 good saves and at very least, 4 skill points per level. Fighters could even get 6, since they are all about non-magical training. Ever since 3.0 it's been pointed out that Fighters are underpowered, but the solution has always been throwing more numbers at it and hope it works... It's time the devs realize that just raising its numerical bonuses does not work!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This complaint about fighters is one of things i adressed in my upcoming fighter nuances including one that expands the use of profession(soldier) for fighters.
Your love for fighters is most welcome!
Your Compensative Specialization extraordinary ability addresses issues many players are having with the restrictions that fighter characters have to contend with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters should only beat things with a stick?
You're describing a WARRIOR.
Fighters are the OLYMPIANS of the melee set. They should be able to become excellent at every single role expected of a melee combatant, and stand shoulder to shoulder with every other melee class.
Do I expect them to be able to heal? NOt others.
But the Barbarian can heal himself (raging vitality).
The ranger can heal himself and others (spells, wands)
The paladin can heal himself and others (spells, wands, LOH, Channel?)
So, at least I'd
Do I expect them to be able to socialize out of combat?
Barbs have 4 skill points, the better to afford Intimdiate...or other skills, crafts or professions.
Rangers actually get bonuses against favored enemies in social situations. ANd 6 skill points.
Paladins have Charisma as a main stat, spells, and Diplomacy.
I'd like the Fighter able to stand with them.
The barb has 4 skill points a level, and can get rage bonuses to numerous skills, as well as souped up str bonus to skills.
The ranger has 6 skill points, excellent skill bonuses vs FE and for FT, stealth enhancements, and spells to supplement.
The paladin is the worst of these...but has a mental stat, Cha, as a prime stat that dovetails with spellcasting and Diplomacy. Oh, and spells.
I'd like the fighter to stand with them.
Relative power level should mean relatively equal, especially among characters with the exact same experience level and party function.
To I expect them to be able to Group buff?
The Barbarian can grant rage to other members of the party.
The Ranger can grant FE bonuses to other members of the party...and has spells.
The Paladin radiates courage, has spells, and can grant smite to every member of the party.
So, yeah, I'd like the fighter to be able to buff the party.
Do I expect something like a combat buff?
Well, aside from Rage? barbs get come and get me, Strength Surge, Reckless Abandon...as well as Dodge and Nat AC bonuses. And Superstitious.
Rangers get Instant Enemy and Gravity Bow and Lead Blades and Barkskin and Resist Energy and Evasion and Improved Evasion and great skill buffs against FE's or in favored Terrain.
Paladins get LOH, Sword Bonds, Smites, more immunities, and multiple useful spells. Did I mention Smites?
So, yeah, I'd like some sort of combat buff.
Do I expect Movement enhancements?
Barbs get Fast Move and Jump bonuses. ANd Pounce. And Pounce.
Rangers get Longstrider and can move over favored terrain easily.
Paladins can cast Grace and choose a Supermount.
So, yeah, I'd like a movement effect that can't be duplicated by Mithral Armor.
If the fighter cannot DO the things that EVERY OTHER MELEE CAN DO...then the class needs to be either brought up, OR the one-dimensional character should level up very, very quickly since that is all he does.
I'd like him to do that.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why does the adventure have to be about standing around beating sand bags and how is this any different from any other melee class. Everyone struggles with something. Claiming that a class like barbarian gets pounce is disingenuous. It gets pounce IF you take beast totem. Should you choose any other totem you don't get pounce. Same is said of the natural armor bonus. So under the logic perpetuated on these boards the barbarian is also a worthless class unless it takes beast totem. No beast totem, no pounce, stand around and beat sand bags.
I literally posted some generic stats that seem to never be looked at. A 28 strength by level 20 is good enough to be a solid melee combatant. Having a 20 in every other stat gives you all the versatility you need. You have 7 skills per level totaling 140 by 20. 160 if you used the favored class option. That's 8 skills to have 20 ranks in or being really good at 8 skills. You get a large bonus (+5) to all saving throws. It covers many of the weaknesses of the class, but since it's not a 30+ strength it gets disregarded. Sure the argument will be made that magic items fix class problems and that's the point. The game has magic items ingrained into it. It's a complete package. Again, disingenuous to claim that everyone takes magic items so magic items don't count. Even the level 10 stat array posted had an average to hit of 95%/70% with its two attacks and only an 18 strength with the lowest stat sitting at a 15. Not a single 7 to be seen. No dump stats at all. Level 10: +3 AC, +3 reflex saves, +3 dex skills, +3 hp/level, +3 fort saves, 4 skills per level(5 with favored class), +2 will saves, perception, sense motive, UMD, diplomacy, bluff. Sure you can't take everything and this is the point i was making with designing within your limits. It took no effort to make this character. He sacrificed a little bit of his damage to balance out his weaknesses a little. Within this constraint you make a well rounded character and not "hey I do damage...
And if you take those exact same stats, FC and whatever, and USE A DIFFERENT CLASS, it is better then the fighter.
i.e. bringing non-class stuff into a class comparison is a useless comparison on its face.
Every single other class will have a better Reflex save, for starters.
The barb and paladin will have better will saves, possibly tremendously so.
All but the paladin will have more skill points. The paladin will dump Wis in favor of Cha, and be loads better at Diplomacy because of it.
The game doesn't start at level 20 with a 20 Int.
They'll ALL be about equal in combat. Except the non-fighters will be that way with any weapon they bother to wield, not just one.
==Aelryinth
'superior' builds by their very definition are limited. It's a case of what way are they limited?
==Aelryinth
If every other class has a higher reflex save than a fighter you're doing something wrong. A class feature of fighters allows them to get more dex use while wearing armor. Why are you not using your class features and then claiming a class sucks. Max out your dex for your armor and see who has the lowest reflex save.
You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that max Dex from armor applies to Reflex saves. It does not. So, with the same stat array, the barbarian will have the same Reflex save, regardless of armor. The ranger's will be higher because of his good save progression, and the paladin's will be higher because of divine grace.
So again, why are you making a fighter with a lower dex than a barbarian? Why would you make comparison of two classes using the same stat array and call it fair comparison?
No one can afford to dump Dex, because it's a super-stat: Reflex saves, AC, and the all-important initiative. So, yes, I'd expect the barbarian's Dex to be just as good as the fighter's.
In this case, the relative importance of the stats for a melee fighter or a barbarian are more or less identical: Str > Con/Dex > Int/Wis >> Cha. However, the fighter actually needs a higher Int for Combat Expertise (since it's a prereq for so many other things), and he desperately needs a higher Wis to make up for his crippling Will save... so, in the long run, he has fewer points to put into Dex than does the barbarian.
So, unless your claim is that a higher point-buy for stat array is a fighter class feature, I think we're done with that line of argument.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
2+INT skills per level sucks when int isn't really a big stat for you. Fortunately things like combat expertise exist to a show you that a fighter can do well with a 13+ intReally? Combat expertise cannot be used in any serious defense of anything.What are you even talking about?
Combat expertise IS used for defense. That's the point of it. Combat expertise is also a prerequisite for combat maneuvers of which the fighter is capable of using. It requires a 13 intelligence. The end.
I think you misunderstood Nicos there. Combat Expertise is widely regarded as the WORST feat tax in the game and a general waste of design space, locking combat maneuvers (which a fighter should be able to excel at) behind a stat wall that makes no sense. Using it as a 'defense' of high-INT fighters is laughable.