|
EX: I am playing a fighter, I have been doing a reach build.
*Super awesome magical sword drops around level 11*
me: Sorry DM, we're gonna have to sell that, you see my Fighter does more damage with this less powerful Polearm and that sword is useless to our group.
Also, while we're on the subject: this argument comes up not infrequently in fighter discussions, and every time it seems completely insane to me.
Okay, sure - you're 11th level, and you just beat the BBEG, who dropped a +2 holy greatsword - but you're a polearm specialist. But then you look around at the rest of your party: the dervish dancing magus, the dwarven cleric of Torag, the slayer archer and the elven conjurer. None of you want it, really - why is it the fighter's fault it's going to get sold?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also *guy who uses pointy stick* or *guy who uses sword* are not enthralling concepts.To you.
Long traditions of fantasy and mythology suggest otherwise, however.
When I think of Heracles I don't think of a Bow. When I think of Perseus I don't think of a shield. When I think of Conan I don't think of his weapon. When I think of Luke I don't think of his lightsaber. I don't think of Odysseus and his bow.
In most cases the fantasy characters are capable with any weapon, even their fists!
The weapon fetishization you describe I see mostly in anime and manga, not traditional myths.
EX: I am playing a fighter, I have been doing a reach build.
*Super awesome magical sword drops around level 11*
me: Sorry DM, we're gonna have to sell that, you see my Fighter does more damage with this less powerful Polearm and that sword is useless to our group.Also, while we're on the subject: this argument comes up not infrequently in fighter discussions, and every time it seems completely insane to me.
Okay, sure - you're 11th level, and you just beat the BBEG, who dropped a +2 holy greatsword - but you're a polearm specialist. But then you look around at the rest of your party: the dervish dancing magus, the dwarven cleric of Torag, the slayer archer and the elven conjurer. None of you want it, really - why is it the fighter's fault it's going to get sold?
Why wouldn't that switch hitting Slayer want that Sword?
You know who could use that sword and not care that it isn't "their weapon"?
Barbarians
Paladins (even a switch hitting Palladin)
Rangers
Slayers
Str build Magus
Hunter
The only classes reliant on "muh weapon" are Fighters, Warpriests, and Battle Oracles.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why wouldn't that switch hitting Slayer want that Sword?EX: I am playing a fighter, I have been doing a reach build.
*Super awesome magical sword drops around level 11*
me: Sorry DM, we're gonna have to sell that, you see my Fighter does more damage with this less powerful Polearm and that sword is useless to our group.Also, while we're on the subject: this argument comes up not infrequently in fighter discussions, and every time it seems completely insane to me.
Okay, sure - you're 11th level, and you just beat the BBEG, who dropped a +2 holy greatsword - but you're a polearm specialist. But then you look around at the rest of your party: the dervish dancing magus, the dwarven cleric of Torag, the slayer archer and the elven conjurer. None of you want it, really - why is it the fighter's fault it's going to get sold?
Because costing the group 16K gold for the chance to use his Str 14 instead of his Dex 24 (and all the archery feats that go with it) is stupid as ****?
You know who could use that sword and not care that it isn't "their weapon"?
Barbarians
Paladins (even a switch hitting Palladin)
Rangers
Slayers
Str build Magus
HunterThe only classes reliant on "muh weapon" are Fighters, Warpriests, and Battle Oracles.
And...
clericsanyone using Weapon Finesse
anyone with EWP
frontliners with only simple weapon proficiencies
And for that matter, rangers and slayers pretty much always have combat styles, so only switch-hitter builds wouldn't care - and there are lots of slayers and rangers that aren't switch hitters.
Frankly, the characters that don't care are very much in the minority.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I think of Heracles I don't think of a Bow. When I think of Perseus I don't think of a shield. When I think of Conan I don't think of his weapon. When I think of Luke I don't think of his lightsaber.Also *guy who uses pointy stick* or *guy who uses sword* are not enthralling concepts.To you.
Long traditions of fantasy and mythology suggest otherwise, however.
Okay, I was kinda buying it until this one, but if you're actually serious, you're probably the only person on the planet.
I don't think of Odysseus and his bow.
I do. It's such a massive part of the Odyssey I don't know how you couldn't.
Also, there's this, one of my favorite passages from the Odyssey: "And she [Athena] took her heavy spear, great and strong, with its tip of sharpened bronze, with which she destroys the ranks of men, and heroes, when that daughter of a mighty father is angered."
In most cases the fantasy characters are capable with any weapon, even their fists!
Capable? Sure. But there are lots and lots of examples of them being a lot better with one particular weapon than any other.
Like this bow specialist.
Or these guys, known for fighting with a hammer, a shield and a bow, respectively.
Or this archer.
Or this fairly well-known rapier specialist.
The weapon fetishization you describe I see mostly in anime and manga, not traditional myths.
Even if that were true - and I really don't think it is - why does that make it an invalid concept for a player to want to make?
|
|
They might be a master swordsman, but they aren't "a master of the sword." It's a key distinction. Consider two characters, a 9th level barbarian (the lowest level she's going to have Improved Crit) and a 9th level fighter. Both have Weapon Focus (longsword) and Improved Crit (longsword), but the fighter also has Weapon Spec, Greater Weapon Focus and weapon training (heavy blades +2). Both started with 18 Strength and have, through levels and magic belts, gotten up to Str 22. The barbarian is unquestionably really good with a longsword, but she also has this phenomenal, almost supernatural ability to increase her strength, and her speed and the ferocity of her attacks increases commensurate with that uncanny power. That remains true even if you take away her longsword and give her, say, a greataxe. Mere mortals literally cannot compete with the force she can deliver.
Agreed...but Barbarian isn't the only Class that can equal the Fighter as a swordsman. Take Slayer. He actually winds up -1 to hit and -2 damage behind the Fighter at 9th (at 10th, he pulls up to only -1 damage), but also gets +3d6 Sneak Attack. That makes him a more opportunistic swordsman than the Fighter is, and a fair bit of his prowess comes from reading their opponent...but thematically, those are both essential and integral parts of swordsmanship, and come from raw skill, not some sort of inhuman physical ability. So, thematically, that works fine.
Except. This fighter here, if you hand him a greataxe, is painfully outclassed by the barbarian's rage. She's too strong, too fast. But give him a longsword, and just because of how much time he's spent mastering that weapon, he can not only match her speed and power but actually exceed it, if only slightly. (Raging gives her +2 attack and +3 damage, while his Weapon Spec, Greater Weapon Focus and two levels of weapon training give him +3 attack and +4 damage.) Yes, he needs that sword to compete, and in a mechanical sense it's a weakness as a result. But the topic at hand is thematics, and for this concept, no other class can manage it.
You're saying the essential concept that Fighters embody is the idea that they're basically helpless without their weapon? That has a certain amount of truth...but it really goes back to the problem that if the only thing that defines your class thematically is it's weaknesses, then your Class has a serious problem.
Now, I'm not saying this concept doesn't have a place, I think it does...but if you're gonna accept a weakness like that, you should get some real advantages to compensate...which Fighters are very light on comparatively.
But you can't get the other piece I just described, and you can only get it on weapons that fall within the bounds of the combat styles. You have to be a fighter to fully realize the concept. Consider, for example, someone who wanted to be a whip specialist. There's no combat style for that*. A human ranger would have to be 3rd level before they could even do lethal damage with a whip, 7th level before they could add Slashing Grace to the mix. A slayer would be able to do it by 4th, but the fighter is either already got Weapon Spec (better damage than the slayer even after focused study) or has picked up Combat Expertise to move toward Imp Trip and Imp Disarm. (And I'm talking a straight fighter here. A lore warden would already have one or the other, and an irreplaceable scaling bonus on CMB to boot.)
Uh...the Ranger could get Whip Mastery at 3rd, like you say, but Slashing Grace at 5th. The Slayer gets Whip Mastery at 2nd (same as the Fighter) and Slashing Grace at 3rd (same as the Fighter)...without need for the Calistrian style. And Weapon Specialization at 4th will get the Fighter +2 damage...while the slayer's Focused Study grants +1 to hit and +1 damage...so the Slayer hits at +1 for -1 damage. That's a trade in the Slayer's favor, IMO.
And, again, the Lore Warden is not a god basis for comparison, being better than standard Fighter in so man ways as to not be meaningfully comparable.
And once the slayer has Slashing Grace, then what? The fighter has several more ways to focus their skill on the whip, and the slayer is just about done.
You're forgetting Improved and Greater Whip Mastery. And maneuver Feats, which (as you note) are cool. Still, you have something of a point with some other weapons (which have fewer additional enhancement Feats)...but there's still a lot you can do to focus on a particular style of combat (picking the right maneuvers and other supplementary Feats, for example). Really, I can make a Whip focused Slayer whop definitely uses pretty much all his Feats for whip-relatted stuff if you like.
They really don't, and warpriests - while definitely a valid approach to the idea - come with a lot of other religious baggage that "master of [weapon]" doesn't need or maybe even want. If I'm using spells to keep up with the fighter, then I'm not "a master of the weapon," I'm a caster with a weapon focus, and that's a very different theme.
*EDIT: Technically, this isn't true - I forgot the deity-specific combat styles in Inner Sea Combat. But there you wind up with the same baggage that the warpriest has: your whip specialist might not want have anything to do with Calistria...
I agree that it's a different concept...I was just referring to your claim that you can pick a weapon at rangdom and focus on it as a Fighter, and noting that Warpriests were better at that very specific trick.
Also, while we're on the subject: this argument comes up not infrequently in fighter discussions, and every time it seems completely insane to me.
Okay, sure - you're 11th level, and you just beat the BBEG, who dropped a +2 holy greatsword - but you're a polearm specialist. But then you look around at the rest of your party: the dervish dancing magus, the dwarven cleric of Torag, the slayer archer and the elven conjurer. None of you want it, really - why is it the fighter's fault it's going to get sold?
As InsainDragon notes, many Classes (indeed, two-thirds of actual martial classes...6/9 classes with full BAB) don'tusually care a whole lot (not beyond whether it's a melee weapon or bow, anyway). And those other than Fighter who care get a lot more out of their focus than the Fighter does, IMO (since those two Classes are Swashbuckler and Gunslinger).
The only classes reliant on "muh weapon" are Fighters, Warpriests, and Battle Oracles.
Well, and Swashbucklers and Gunslingers. But yeah, there are more Classes that don't care than do. Especially among full martial classes.
The lightsaber was merely Luke's weapon and a reminder of his Father, not a character trait.
You've moved the goalpost, you were looking for characters who have their weapon as a primary defining trait, such as Kenshin Himura. If you wanted to build Kenshin, then Fighter fits, he was LITERALLY useless at everything but using his Katana.
Can a Fighter emulate Leonidas? No, he doesn't make an effective leader. Perseus? No, not enough skill points or class skills and way too restrictive. I could go on, but I think I've made my point to most.
Additionally
Weapon finesse? That describes a lot of weapons. At that point it's "that weapon is too heavy" not "but it's not a Falcata/greatsword/scimitar"
Clerics? I didn't realize they were weapon masters! I guess those 9 levels of spells tricked me.
EWP? I didn't realize that was a class feature.
Simple weapon frontliners? Yeah that one I can sort of give you. I honestly think the Simple/martial divide is just there to make it easier for DMs to allocate loot.
|
|
You've moved the goalpost, you were looking for characters who have their weapon as a primary defining trait, such as Kenshin Himura. If you wanted to build Kenshin, then Fighter fits, he was LITERALLY useless at everything but using his Katana.
Uh...Kenshin was a skilled assassin, and a charming guy when he wanted to be. Also, clearly Dex-based. I'd build him as a Swashbuckler so he can finesse a Katana with Slashing Grace.
Building him with Fighter really doesn't work very well.
|
|
You're saying the essential concept that Fighters embody is the idea that they're basically helpless without their weapon? That has a certain amount of truth...but it really goes back to the problem that if the only thing that defines your class thematically is it's weaknesses, then your Class has a serious problem.
Now, I'm not saying this concept doesn't have a place, I think it does...but if you're gonna accept a weakness like that, you should get some real advantages to compensate...which Fighters are very light on comparatively.
The question the OP posed was, "Is there an archetype that the fighter does that isn't covered by any other class?" My answer is yes, and that's it, and I think I've made my case. (Yes, you can do versions of that concept with other classes. I can also make rangers, rogues, cavaliers, and even barbarians with fighters. The point is which one hews to the concept the closest.) The question of how mechanically advantageous or not it might be is a related but distinct issue.
That said, I think the fighter's problem is what I sometimes call the PL problem, after Mutants & Masterminds' Power Level mechanics. Basically, at level X, the game is only designed to handle offensive output of level Y. A fighter who could, for example, match a ranging barbarian's offensive potential before bonuses from weapon specialization would too powerful - so basically (fighter baseline) + (weapon specialization) can't exceed (every other martial's baseline) + (whatever their trick is). But it's a lot easier to subtract (weapon) from the fighter equation than, say, (rage) or (favored target). (Favored enemy) used to be pretty easy to remove, but we have spells for that these days.
All of which is to say, I don't really disagree with the idea that the fighter has weaknesses. But that's not the point under discussion.
You've moved the goalpost, you were looking for characters who have their weapon as a primary defining trait, such as Kenshin Himura. If you wanted to build Kenshin, then Fighter fits, he was LITERALLY useless at everything but using his Katana.Uh...Kenshin was a skilled assassin, and a charming guy when he wanted to be. Also, clearly Dex-based. I'd build him as a Swashbuckler so he can finesse a Katana with Slashing Grace.
Building him with Fighter really doesn't work very well.
i'm sorry, i cant hear you over kenshin shattering several peoples' arms. and ribs, and faces, and weapons, and so on.
were i to build kenshin i'd go with blue rose daring champion cavalier.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
MAybe later in life. Early years place him most certainly in the Slayer category, that it does.
|
|
The question the OP posed was, "Is there an archetype that the fighter does that isn't covered by any other class?" My answer is yes, and that's it, and I think I've made my case. (Yes, you can do versions of that concept with other classes. I can also make rangers, rogues, cavaliers, and even barbarians with fighters. The point is which one hews to the concept the closest.) The question of how mechanically advantageous or not it might be is a related but distinct issue.
This is true, I just feel like 'Not competent in situations other than X' is very much one of the concepts that should either be avoided or paired with advantages that compensate a great deal for those flaws.
That said, I think the fighter's problem is what I sometimes call the PL problem, after Mutants & Masterminds' Power Level mechanics. Basically, at level X, the game is only designed to handle offensive output of level Y. A fighter who could, for example, match a ranging barbarian's offensive potential before bonuses from weapon specialization would too powerful - so basically (fighter baseline) + (weapon specialization) can't exceed (every other martial's baseline) + (whatever their trick is). But it's a lot easier to subtract (weapon) from the fighter equation than, say, (rage) or (favored target). (Favored enemy) used to be pretty easy to remove, but we have spells for that these days.
I'm familiar with M&M. :)
And while I agree with your definition of the issue, I feel like the Swashbuckler (for all its flaws) is an excellent example of a weapon specialist who gets something (indeed, several somethings) in exchange for its focus on a specific weapon. That was easier due to the style of fighting emphasized being sub-par normally, but there are certainly things you can do to make a particular style more workable.
All of which is to say, I don't really disagree with the idea that the fighter has weaknesses. But that's not the point under discussion.
I'll conceed that particular point. :)
|
|
i'm sorry, i cant hear you over kenshin shattering several peoples' arms. and ribs, and faces, and weapons, and so on.
were i to build kenshin i'd go with blue rose daring champion cavalier.
I didn't say he lacked Str, I said he had more Dex. :)
And Daring Champion Cavalier definitely works...probably better than Swashbuckler, but only because it's like Swashbuckler only mechanically better.
As TarkXT notes, Slayer's also tempting, though personally, I don't feel it's really necessary. A Daring Champion Cavalier with the right Traits for Class Skills makes a perfectly good assassin. He presumably just switched Orders at some point.
|
|
The question the OP posed was, "Is there an archetype that the fighter does that isn't covered by any other class?" My answer is yes, and that's it, and I think I've made my case. (Yes, you can do versions of that concept with other classes. I can also make rangers, rogues, cavaliers, and even barbarians with fighters. The point is which one hews to the concept the closest.) The question of how mechanically advantageous or not it might be is a related but distinct issue.This is true, I just feel like 'Not competent in situations other than X' is very much one of the concepts that should either be avoided or paired with advantages that compensate a great deal for those flaws.
Rumors to the contrary notwithstanding, it really is possible to build a fighter who can do things other than fight. I realize this particular viewpoint is not terribly popular, but I feel like the fighter chassis has more going for it in this regard than it is generally given credit for - its admitted weaknesses notwithstanding. Because the fighter's class features are so monomaniacally fixated on combat, you can use everything else (skill points, regular feats) to do pretty much whatever you want. It's counterintuitive, but I've used it to good effect on several characters. You're still limited to what skills and feats can achieve, but it's fun to, for instance, make the wizard look stupid on the knowledge checks...
|
|
Rumors to the contrary notwithstanding, it really is possible to build a fighter who can do things other than fight. I realize this particular viewpoint is not terribly popular, but I feel like the fighter chassis has more going for it in this regard than it is generally given credit for - its admitted weaknesses notwithstanding. Because the fighter's class features are so monomaniacally fixated on combat, you can use everything else (skill points, regular feats) to do pretty much whatever you want. It's counterintuitive, but I've used it to good effect on several characters. You're still limited to what skills and feats can achieve, but it's fun to, for instance, make the wizard look stupid on the knowledge checks...
2+Int Mod skills with a poor list are a weak reed to hang non-combat stuff on.
A Slayer can also skip using anything but Class Features on combat (well, and maybe a Feat or two), and have 6+Int Mod Skills to boot, plus skill bonuses from Studied Target and Track.
|
|
Rumors to the contrary notwithstanding, it really is possible to build a fighter who can do things other than fight. I realize this particular viewpoint is not terribly popular, but I feel like the fighter chassis has more going for it in this regard than it is generally given credit for - its admitted weaknesses notwithstanding. Because the fighter's class features are so monomaniacally fixated on combat, you can use everything else (skill points, regular feats) to do pretty much whatever you want. It's counterintuitive, but I've used it to good effect on several characters. You're still limited to what skills and feats can achieve, but it's fun to, for instance, make the wizard look stupid on the knowledge checks...2+Int Mod skills with a poor list are a weak reed to hang non-combat stuff on.
True, but it really depends on what it is you want to be able to do. I can probably build any kind of warrior you want and still be able to squeeze at least 4 skills/level out of the build. That can go fairly far, especially with feat backup. One of my favorite (and often overlooked) feats in that regard is Cosmopolitan - great gas mileage to help fix a pretty terrible class skill list, and I can usually get some help out of the languages too. Traits help even more, but I don't normally include them in my class assessments since they're technically optional.
A Slayer can also skip using anything but Class Features on combat (well, and maybe a Feat or two), and have 6+Int Mod Skills to boot, plus skill bonuses from Studied Target and Track.
Very very true. I do very much like the slayer. (I have this idea for a Rahadoumi ex-Pure Legion special forces guy that I would love to play some day.) The problem I have the slayer as regards to the fighter is purely one of atmosphere - I have trouble making unsubtle, in-your-face slayers because they just feel wrong, with a rogue's class skill list and sneak attack and the like. In my head - and I can't emphasize enough that this is my opinion only and I freely admit that it's personal bias - fighters are heavy infantry and slayers are elite special tactics. Both very very skilled at what they do, and just the wrong fit if you put them in the other role. I say this even though I'm running an Emerald Spire game with a sword-and-board slayer who wants to be a Hellknight. The character is awesome, but I could never play him. :D
(Side note: that's one example of a slayer who'd cheerfully pass on the +2 holy greatsword.)
With that said I dont see a problem with overlapping a concept/niche as long as it is not two classes doing the exact same thing. I know the OP said dont bring mechanics into it, but if two classes can do the same thing in different ways, even if it is a small difference, then that class still has a place to some extent, even if it is in rare cases.Yes, but that's not really the problem.
You have to understand that the big reason most if not all the ACG classes or really ALL of the classes were written past the core book is that there were concepts that archetypes were insufficient to cover.
From a design and financial point this makes sense. Design wise archetypes are limited in that you cannot make them flat out better than the original class. So, you take the concept and rebuild from the ground up. This let's you produce a more mechanically viable set of numbers and abilities that fits the concept that the original failed to do.
This also makes sense from a financial standpoint. Afterall people love new classes especially if it covers new or relatively unexplored conceptual ground. IF you don't believe me check out this guy.
I agree with this. I like new classes also.
That humble lady has been described as printing money for the little 3pp I worked on it for despite it being available for free. And there's more coming to polish and expand it's ability that I don't doubt will do very well. It covers a niche that up until very very recently went fairly unexplored by Paizo.
But, there is a problem with this sort of model of putting out fresh things. And that is what to do with generic classes like the fighter and the rogue. Both are designed to work from many many angles of the concepts of "kills things with weapons" and "unconventional opportunist". And it works. I've never said they don't. For whatever mechanical problems they have it's undeniable that they fit the job of of the maskless character for the player to put a mask on.
However, when we start printing expansions on the concept, like say Barbarian, Paladin, Bard and Ranger the conceptual ground that those classes are meant to cover alone starts to shrink. Worse, we can make those concepts specialists or in plenty of cases twist around conventions to create a fresh take on a concept by dint of an archetype.
Where mechanics come in is that they take the concept and grant it life in the form of numbers and allowable actions. Take Trapfinding for example. Trapfinding is the clearest indicator that a class is designed for careful dungeon exploration. In our small corner of the rpgverse it's an instantly recognizable ability for everyone that says "I am like a rogue but different maybe even better."
Now the feature can be found in archetypes stretching over nearly every class and, yes, the key part of that ability has been reduced down into a trait for everyone.
This is why the question of uniqueness becomes important. Because if you can't provide a mechanical niche you should at least provide a conceptual one. And barring that at the barest minimum you should provide a different experience not "slightly" different but a real one.
So, the way I see it if we find an interesting conceptual niche covered by the fighter and no one else that should be the direction it needs to expand and fill. That's important because it's a chance, a good chance, to produce something mechanically viable. And if you can get both mechanical viability and conceptual uniqueness you grant players something to get excited over. That in and of itself is worth having.
I understand this, but do not fully agree for quiet a few reasons.
Being a maskless class allows the player to create or at least dip into the classes to create their own version if they don't agree with what Paizo has given them to make the concept. As an example I don't care for the PrC Assassin class, or the Red Mantis Assassin as an "assassin". I also don't like the ninja class, as a ninja. Maybe those classes allow a player to do what he wants better than what Paizo or any 3PP has put on the market.Basically what I am saying is that having a conceptual and mechanical ability to fill a niche does not mean it will be what everyone wants. The fighter(more so than the rogue) is a blank slate to make it like you want it or maybe do some modding.
Personally it is harder to defend the rogue because I view my concepts as "out of character" explanations as I mentioned before.
As an example if I want a warrior who is trained with armor, many weapons, and has a specific skillset that allows him manipulate people socially, as well as enter and leave an area unnoticed I am going with a slayer.
Now some will write their concept as "I want to get 14 skill points", which is a metagame concept. No, I am not saying that is bad. I am just saying that such as a concept that calls out skill points, weapon training, sneak attack, and so on mean the rogue and fighter will be desired.
|
|
True, but it really depends on what it is you want to be able to do. I can probably build any kind of warrior you want and still be able to squeeze at least 4 skills/level out of the build. That can go fairly far, especially with feat backup. One of my favorite (and often overlooked) feats in that regard is Cosmopolitan - great gas mileage to help fix a pretty terrible class skill list, and I can usually get some help out of the languages too. Traits help even more, but I don't normally include them in my class assessments since they're technically optional.
That's fair enough (and for the record, I too love Cosmopolitan). I just always tend to feel that almost any other Class would get more use out of a skill focused build. Maybe that's just a personal preference, though.
Very very true. I do very much like the slayer. (I have this idea for a Rahadoumi ex-Pure Legion special forces guy that I would love to play some day.) The problem I have the slayer as regards to the fighter is purely one of atmosphere - I have trouble making unsubtle, in-your-face slayers because they just feel wrong, with a rogue's class skill list and sneak attack and the like. In my head - and I can't emphasize enough that this is my opinion only and I freely admit that it's personal bias - fighters are heavy infantry and slayers are elite special tactics. Both very very skilled at what they do, and just the wrong fit if you put them in the other role. I say this even though I'm running an Emerald Spire game with a sword-and-board slayer who wants to be a Hellknight. The character is awesome, but I could never play him. :D
Hey, just think of it this way: Conan (the book version anyway), is basically a Slayer (maybe with a Barbarian dip). And he's sneaky when he likes, but mostly an in-your-face type, and the Class with all its features represents him perfectly. :)
(Side note: that's one example of a slayer who'd cheerfully pass on the +2 holy greatsword.)
Yeah, but he could use any one-handed or light weapon. :)
|
|
I just always tend to feel that almost any other Class would get more use out of a skill focused build. Maybe that's just a personal preference, though.
No, it's the mechanics. :D Just because you can do it doesn't mean it's straightforward and simple - like I said, it's extremely counterintuitive, and it takes some work. But through a combination of perversity (everyone tells me something "can't be done," makes me want to do it just for spite) and just having character concepts that "feel" like fighters to me but still wanted some skills, I've found ways to make fighters-with-skills work in the past. And then that makes me even more inclined to butt my head into conversations where people insist it can't be done.
(Side note: that's one example of a slayer who'd cheerfully pass on the +2 holy greatsword.)Yeah, but he could use any one-handed or light weapon. :)
He could, but that still goes into my larger point. Most builds focus on certain combat styles and are loathe to shift out of them, no matter what the class. Your typical two-handed Power Attack barbarian isn't likely to be really excited over a +5 short sword. Your halfling cavalier who's specialized in lance-charge-murder doesn't really want the +5 heavy crossbow, even if it is Small. Might they hold onto them? Sure. But are they actually going to get all that much real use out of them? Or are they going to just stick with what they know and have built around? Fighters are the most explicit example of the trend because it's so thoroughly baked into the class, but the tables I've played at, there's not actually a whole lot of flexibility for anyone in how they fight.
Here's an actual, real-life example from last week. I was planning to run an Occult Adventures playtest with five pregens I'd made - one of each class but the mesmerist - and I was going to run them through Tears at Bitter Manor.
Class limitations, racial weapon proficiencies, feat choices, the image the player has for their character, even the mini they picked - all of that limits what a player is willing to adjust in a game for the sake of cool loot. I really don't think dumping the issue on the fighter is fair or a realistic reflection of how the game runs at the table.
He could, but that still goes into my larger point. Most builds focus on certain combat styles and are loathe to shift out of them, no matter what the class. Your typical two-handed Power Attack barbarian isn't likely to be really excited over a +5 short sword. Your halfling cavalier who's specialized in lance-charge-murder doesn't really want the +5 heavy crossbow, even if it is Small. Might they hold onto them? Sure. But are they actually going to get all that much real use out of them? Or are they going to just stick with what they know and have built around? Fighters are the most explicit example of the trend because it's so thoroughly baked into the class, but the tables I've played at, there's not actually a whole lot of flexibility for anyone in how they fight.(Side note: that's one example of a slayer who'd cheerfully pass on the +2 holy greatsword.)Yeah, but he could use any one-handed or light weapon. :)
Have to agree on this point. While the fighter is generally the most locked into using a single type of weapon, I've almost never seen a PC who frequently changes their weapon of choice. The game's mechanics encourage picking a single weapon and sticking with it, and roleplay-wise most people see the weapon of choice as an important part of their character's image.
|
i'm sorry, i cant hear you over kenshin shattering several peoples' arms. and ribs, and faces, and weapons, and so on.
As I recall, he paid a heavy price for those actions.
Agile Maneuvers works on Sunder too.