Ok this is not meant to be a rage thing or a hate thread or whatever, I am legitimately curious of this.
What concept does the fighter cover tjat other classes just don't do better? Between Cavalier, Brawler, Slayer, Ranger, Barbarian, and swashbuckler I dont see what he has. Oh and even worse, thematically a magus does the whole "warrior with sacred weapon thing" better tha the fighter as well...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He makes a really good flexible Feat user who can down a Mutagen to make himself buff and then throw down alongside his Familiar in tag team combat.
Of course, really, it's debatable whether a Fighter who trades EVERY SINGE ONE of his class features away is still a Fighter...
There's a neat archetype in Occult Adventures that lets Fighter fill the very interesting niche of being the martial class with Combat Precognition.
But for the base Fighter? Nothin'. Not a damn thing.
Core fighter makes a great NPC combatant class...
The archetypes are what make it unique. Rynjin made this point very well. I'm looking forward to the Sensate.
Just for the sake of discussion, which archetypes make it unique?
Looking at the d20pfsrd page, I see Lore Warden, Mutation Warrior, Eldritch Guardian, and...Martial Master seems kinda interesting. Apparently there might be an occult archetype to add to that list. That's about it. AFAIK most of the other archetypes sit between "bland and only marginally better than a stock fighter while forcing a lot more specialization" and "terrible".
I didn't say all the archetypes. :/
True, but "The archetypes" implies that there are a fairly large group of archetypes that make the fighter unique. 3-5 out of 40+ archetypes isn't really that large. I would use the term "handful".
The reason I am being so picky on this is that I enjoy playing around with the class options when I build NPCs. The majority of PC classed NPCs I throw at the party have some sort of archetype, and the same goes for friendly NPCs too. However, when I looked at the fighter archetypes I felt really underwhelmed, and I ended up sticking with stock Fighter for the NPC I was building despite spending a substantial amount of time digging through the fighter archetype options. So when I see "unique archetypes" I can't help but get annoyed at how untrue that is for most of them.
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't say all the archetypes. :/True, but "The archetypes" implies that there are a fairly large group of archetypes that make the fighter unique. 3-5 out of 40+ archetypes isn't really that large. I would use the term "handful".
The reason I am being so picky on this is that I enjoy playing around with the class options when I build NPCs. The majority of PC classed NPCs I throw at the party have some sort of archetype, and the same goes for friendly NPCs too. However, when I looked at the fighter archetypes I felt really underwhelmed, and I ended up sticking with stock Fighter for the NPC I was building despite spending a substantial amount of time digging through the fighter archetype options. So when I see "unique archetypes" I can't help but get annoyed at how untrue that is for most of them.
I'm very much the same way. ^_^
I personally like Ustalavic Duelist as well... I don't care if it's not the best at rapier, it's at least doing something kind of unique. I like Brawler as well. Probably a couple others, but i don't have Herolab open to review...
The ones from the APG are pretty much all "meh" though. Even the Mobile Fighter, for me, is outclassed by the Dawnflower Dervish. The Weapon Master is at least trying to fill the role of "best at weapon".
I would say a generic weapon expert without any extraneous stuff that pigeonholes him into a different box.
I don't think I have ever played an Archetype on any Fighter I made... and I have played probably a dozen since starting Pathfinder.
The base Fighter is fairly solid, IMO, if a bit dull. :D
I kept looking for a way to make the Unarmed one work... then Brawler got published and now I'm happy.
I would say a generic weapon expert without any extraneous stuff that pigeonholes him into a different box.
The Slayer does this as long as you don't let the name of the Sneak Attack mechanic bother you too much.
The Slayer does this as long as you don't let the name of the Sneak Attack mechanic bother you too much.
The slayer seems more like a tracker/ranger/hunter/assassin than a fighter to me.
I'd say the Dirty Fighter archetype for Orcs/Half Orcs/Racial Heritage users is pretty much king of mundane lock down, so there's one more archetype that's not both overly specialized and terrible.
The Slayer does this as long as you don't let the name of the Sneak Attack mechanic bother you too much.The slayer seems more like a tracker/ranger/hunter/assassin than a fighter to me.
Everything about Slayer screams "mercenary sellsword" to me, which is super convenient as most PCs tend to be one of those in spirit if not in name.
|
Contributor
|
I'd say the Dirty Fighter archetype for Orcs/Half Orcs/Racial Heritage users is pretty much king of mundane lock down, so there's one more archetype that's not both overly specialized and terrible.
Some of the race-locked archetypes annoy me. This one, in particular, doesn't feel unique to orckind at all.
The Slayer does this as long as you don't let the name of the Sneak Attack mechanic bother you too much.The slayer seems more like a tracker/ranger/hunter/assassin than a fighter to me.
All of the stuff that puts it in one of those niches is entirely optional, you can take bonus feats instead and just be a Fighter with better saves and more skill points.
All of the stuff that puts it in one of those niches is entirely optional, you can take bonus feats instead and just be a Fighter with better saves and more skill points.
I imagine you could make a lot of classes feel like other classes by flavoring mechanics in one way or another. That's bound to happen when there's so many published classes and a limited number of niches.
The descriptions of the classes certainly guide them to certain concepts though.
They get TOWER SHIELDS and prance around in Full-Plate as if it were a tutu. They stand in doors and let NOBODY through.
Not that anybody utilizes these things in practice, what with people being afraid of tower shield's -2 attack and that Armor Expert is usually traded out for some archetype.
They get TOWER SHIELDS and prance around in Full-Plate as if it were a tutu. They stand in doors and let NOBODY through.
Not that anybody utilizes these things in practice, what with people being afraid of tower shield's -2 attack and that Armor Expert is usually traded out for some archetype.
To be fair anyone can stand in a door so only allies can pass. That's just how Pathfinder works; allies can pass through your square, enemies can't without a check. Also AC has nothing to do with your attempts at door blocking as CMD is what acrobatics/bull rush would be targeting to defeat your door standing tactic unless you decided to go Stand Still, in which case your tower shield would also make you less effective in keeping people out as you would be taking a -2 to your check.
A tower shield allows you to get total cover, so you can stand in the doorway without fear of being hit, because nobody can touch you, nor even see you.
Bonus if you are the Tower Shield Specialist, and you end up getting your shield bonus to touch attacks, negate the attack penalty, and again prance around in all the encumbrance like it was nothing.
"As a standard action, however, you can use a tower shield to grant you total cover until the beginning of your next turn. When using a tower shield in this way, you must choose one edge of your space. That edge is treated as a solid wall for attacks targeting you only."
So you use your turn to stand in the door and the enemy shoots past you as literally only you have total cover?
"The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding."
Or they cast a spell on you?
Really I think the issue here is that we are saying a door is an upgrade to a Fighter.
Well, try addressing the other thing that fighters do, armoured mobility.
Or consider feats such as Covering Defence, Antagonize, Ray Shield, Pin Down which all aid in accomplishing defensive play.
Part 2, enemies tend not to be able to cast spells, launch arrows and swing a big stick. Some enemies are wizards, some enemies are trolls, and you can change what you do based on what you fight. If you want to ignore spells, be a monk, sure it won't save your friends. If you want to stand up to a gorilla, be a fighter. If you want to CONTROL an enemy casting spells, you ready an attack. Incidentally, there is are feats only fighters can get, Disrupting Shot, Disruptive and Spell Breaker, which are specifically designed to do this.
Except plenty of other classes can get those Feats.
Barbarian, notably, who already does everything the Fighter can do, but not suck at them.
Before you go "But uhhhhh Rage is limited per day doe" stop.
Disruptive/Spellbreaker are rather dubious as concentration checks are trivial for casters after a couple levels even with an extra +4 on top of it, plus it also requires lock down investment to keep the caster in your threatened area, assuming you can reach the caster to begin with.
In regards to Disruptive Shot/readying to interrupt in general, you are spending your turn to maybe counter an action you don't necessarily know is coming; scrolls, wand, or supernatural ability are all tricks casters also possess. Even if a spell is imminent, for all you know the caster could move so that your efforts are wasted before casting. Even if all goes according to plan, the caster might just make the concentration check. Disruptive Shot also begs the question that if you had a bead on a non-magically protected every which way caster to begin with, why are you readying a single attack instead of full attacking and maybe just killing him? That would seem to be a more efficient way to stop his spells.
Nobody is saying that.
And the key difference between a barbarian and a fighter is AC. Barbarians have low AC.
And if other classes can get into fighter feats, like the Swashbuckler and Warpriest do, then isn't that because they are stepping into Fighterness?.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"They may be called the Palace Guard, the City Guard, or the Patrol. Whatever the name, their purpose in any work of heroic fantasy is identical: it is, round about Chapter Three (or ten minutes into the film) to rush into the room, attack the hero one at a time, and be slaughtered. No-one ever asks them if they wanted to.
This book is dedicated to those fine men."
It's the class with enough feats to make Sword-and-Board work as a legitimate combat strategy, in a way the Paladin is too feat starved to do and the Barbarian is too smash-focused to accomplish.
It's the class that represents the normal guy, the chump kid who left his podunk town to find adventure and fortune in the big city. Sure he's often over his head, but while the wizard is staring at his character sheet trying to find the perfect magical solution to whatever predicament the PCs are in this week, and the rogue is arguing with the GM what constitutes cover, and the Barbarian is still fatigued after coming down from his frothing mad-on. The fighter knows what the deal is:
Pointy end, goes in the other guy.
Oh sure, it's not fancy, or flexible, nor does it have any of that sexy resource management so many other classes get, but while everyone else is playing solitaire on their character sheets, the fighter knows exactly what he's going to do on his turn. Roll a d20 and hit absurdly well.
And when the enemy dominates him, because of his low Will save, he will very carefully, and politely rip the nearest party member to shreds, before anyone can say:
"But fighters suck."
Nobody is saying that.
And the key difference between a barbarian and a fighter is AC. Barbarians have low AC.
And if other classes can get into fighter feats, like the Swashbuckler and Warpriest do, then isn't that because they are stepping into Fighterness?.
Barbarians wear Medium armor and can dropa Feat for Heavy. Given the prevalence of Beast Totem, they usually have a HIGHER AC than Fighters.
And no, they aren't. They're stepping into "I'm not a s~!+ty class-ness", though less true for Swashbucklers who manage to suck even worse at saves than a Fighter.
Nobody is saying that.
And the key difference between a barbarian and a fighter is AC. Barbarians have low AC.
And if other classes can get into fighter feats, like the Swashbuckler and Warpriest do, then isn't that because they are stepping into Fighterness?.
I am pretty sure that an Invulnerable Rager Urban Barbarian in Mithril Breastplate with Beast Totem is going to give the fighter a damn good run for their money, and they will be better in so many other ways too.
"They may be called the Palace Guard, the City Guard, or the Patrol. Whatever the name, their purpose in any work of heroic fantasy is identical: it is, round about Chapter Three (or ten minutes into the film) to rush into the room, attack the hero one at a time, and be slaughtered. No-one ever asks them if they wanted to.
This book is dedicated to those fine men."
It's the class with enough feats to make Sword-and-Board work as a legitimate combat strategy, in a way the Paladin is too feat starved to do and the Barbarian is too smash-focused to accomplish.
It's the class that represents the normal guy, the chump kid who left his podunk town to find adventure and fortune in the big city. Sure he's often over his head, but while the wizard is staring at his character sheet trying to find the perfect magical solution to whatever predicament the PCs are in this week, and the rogue is arguing with the GM what constitutes cover, and the Barbarian is still fatigued after coming down from his frothing mad-on. The fighter knows what the deal is:
Pointy end, goes in the other guy.
Oh sure, it's not fancy, or flexible, nor does it have any of that sexy resource management so many other classes get, but while everyone else is playing solitaire on their character sheets, the fighter knows exactly what he's going to do on his turn. Roll a d20 and hit absurdly well.
And when the enemy dominates him, because of his low Will save, he will very carefully, and politely rip the nearest party member to shreds, before anyone can say:
"But fighters suck."
Plese tell me you're being sarcastic by trying to spin "I have no options" as elegant simplicity and "Sometimes I kill my own teammates!" as a plus.
Also Slayers do everything a Fighter actually does, but better, especially sword and board, so they don't even have that going for them.
The fact that it requires investment doesn't stop it from being the fighter's domain. If every single one of the enemies your GM comes up with is an enchanter with nothing but sleep spells and combat casting, High AC is still the fighters domain. They are still the only ones who get automatic proficiency with tower shields, even if you don't like using them.
If you say "I ready to attack and disrupt if he casts spells!" and your GM turns around and says "Nu-uh!he pulls out a scrolls and casts off that! Doesn't Count" your GM is bad. If you prevent the enemy wizard from blasting a high level spell and make them shot of some school power, then that is a big success. If the enemy moves away, that's why you have step up and strike. Or a throwing axe. If they might just make the concentration check, well then maybe you might just crit, and maybe the paladin might just roll a 1.
The reason you ready to shoot instead of just shooting is that you'll shoot either way. Except in one instance you also stop them from casting a spell.
Ok this is not meant to be a rage thing or a hate thread or whatever, I am legitimately curious of this.
What concept does the fighter cover that other classes just don't do better? Between Cavalier, Brawler, Slayer, Ranger, Barbarian, and swashbuckler I dont see what he has. Oh and even worse, thematically a magus does the whole "warrior with sacred weapon thing" better than the fighter as well...
Well most of the classes you mentioned are really archetypes of the Fighter, just done with added feats and mechanics to make the concept "work". (They don't always.) They're all taking the basic model and adding more flash to it. It's like buying a car. You can get the basic model, or get the supped up "Sport" version!
Early Prestige Classes were attempts to multi-class the Fighter into more interesting versions. Then alternate classes and archetypes, and then hybrids. I think they all reflect an attitude of: "Yeah, well, it's alright - but can I get it to do this? Because that would be so much cooler!"
Tower Shields suck, is why nobody uses them. +2 AC isn't worth -2 to hit and effectively halved damage on a class whose only selling point is being able to hit and deal damage.
But I guess that doesn't really matter to you since you've relegated yourself to attacking only once per round in the hopes of maybe, just maybe, preventing one NPC from taking an action.
Relegated nothing. I've just provided one thing you might do in response to all the 'but what if they cast spell!'.
Even if you don't think that it is statistically worth it, do you at least aknowledge that it shows the theme of the class, that it has all it's own?
Relegated nothing. I've just provided one thing you might do in response to all the 'but what if they cast spell!'
Yes, that is a thing you might do. Might.
If they are on the ground.
If you are in melee range.
If you have all of those Feats.
If they don't have something like Mirror Image and can say "F~~~ it, I can take the AoO."
If they fail the Concentration check.
Then they might, just might, fail at casting their spell.
At least if you weren't using a Tower Shield you could Ready with a bow. Or even a Reach weapon, cutting out some of those maybes, with an added hit boost.
And what theme does it show? Nothing unique. You're a guy standing there with a useless hunk of metal strapped to his arm praying for the hail mary. Any class can do that, except without the useless hunk of metal.
The theme of the impenetrable fortress! The Iron Man!
With a starknife or chakram or pilum if he needs to hit something far away. It's not that hard.
Relegated nothing. I've just provided one thing you might do in response to all the 'but what if they cast spell!'Yes, that is a thing you might do. Might.
If they are on the ground.
If you are in melee range.
If you have all of those Feats.
If they don't have something like Mirror Image and can say "F~%% it, I can take the AoO."
If they fail the Concentration check.
Then they might, just might, fail at casting their spell.
At least if you weren't using a Tower Shield you could Ready with a bow. Or even a Reach weapon, cutting out some of those maybes, with an added hit boost.
You forgot:
If they just say "F~%% it, I can survive the AoO. I am getting hit either way, and this way I deny the fighter their full attack next round"
Yes, the fighter can get around this with stand still, but then they are spending a painful amount of feats on trying to counter casters that have already screwed up or gotten unlucky. Step Up and Strike + Stand Still + Prereqs is 5 feats. And you need more feats to do your actual job of killing things, although I doubt you can actually be competent at that unless you forgo the tower shield and use a heavy shield and take the shield TWF feats. Even though the ranger is better at that(skips prereqs). Not to mention things like iron will so you don't become something's b****. No, this won't happen every combat. It doesn't have to. Once is enough to TPK (although this probably won't be a problem so long as your fighter is ineffectual at dealing damage). Even if the party survives without you, it still means that you are a liability/hostile combatant/just plain useless for an entire combat because you failed a save VS charm/hold/dominate person.
The theme of the impenetrable fortress! The Iron Man!With a starknife or chakram or pilum if he needs to hit something far away. It's not that hard.
Impenetrable fortresses don't crumble to a single will save. You are thinking of a Paladin. Now those make good tanks. Strong, fairly well rounded defences while still putting out the hurt.
Also, throwing weapons are a)weak as hell unless you specialize in them, b) require quick draw for you to not be destroying your action economy using them (yay, more feats wasted being barely able to do something), and c)require you to drop or sheath your sword.
A chakram is a d8. A bow is a d8. how are you going to get all this extra damage out of a bow without spending feats?
Extra feats which are, incidentally, what a fighter has in spades?
The main issue with the fighter is that an extra feat every even level is pretty much its class feature (weapon training is just a few +X numbers), and this is not adequate to base an entire class around.
Along with Rogue and (base) Monk, it is one of the three most commonly discussed "underpowered" classes in Pathfinder for good reason.
A chakram is a d8. A bow is a d8. how are you going to get all this extra damage out of a bow without spending feats?
Extra feats which are, incidentally, what a fighter has in spades?
Just want to add, Deadly Aim is only one feat, and there are class features that add quite a bit of damage to chakrams or longbows. Smite, for example, is pretty universal.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
hmm thought this would be a discussion about the fighters concept thematically, turns out to be another fighter sucks thread. Have fun
A chakram is a d8. A bow is a d8. how are you going to get all this extra damage out of a bow without spending feats?
Extra feats which are, incidentally, what a fighter has in spades?
You don't get all this extra damage out of a bow without spending feats. You get a little bit more due to being able to enchant it, but that's it. Without investing several feats in it, bows are a backup option for when you can't use melee effectively. They aren't actually very good. The one way they are still very good is their range increment. Chakrams have a 30ft range increment. If you are in a position where you need to engage at range you could easily be at more than twice that, so you are quite likely to be eating at least a -4 penalty (possibly on top of a tower shield penalty as well). Your accuracy will be terrible because of mediocre dex, huge penalties and no enchantements.
You are also doing the schrodinger fighter thing. Stop it. Post a reasonably low level build that can do what you do(try level 6, say). We only need ability scores+archetypes+feats+general type of equipment loadout (longsword+towershield+fullplate+chakram for example). Then we will see how many feats the fighter really has when they are blowing horrific amounts of feats on patching up their flaws.
For the fun of it, if you do a full level 6 build(20pt buy, 2 traits) I will stick up a barbarian build, and we will see which can handle themselves better in terms of damage, defenses (AC AND non-AC) and utility.
Ok, at level 6, when the Barbarian gets Beast Totem. A fighter build in which I don't know what I'm trying to beat:
Human Fighter (Tower Shield Specialist)/6.
Str 18 (+2 belt)
Dex 16
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 10
Cha 10
Feats
1. Power Attack, Quick Draw, Point Blank
2. Rapid Shot
3. Antagonize
4. Combat Reflexes
5. Stand Still
6. Lunge
Traits: Reckless, Indomitable Faith
Class Features:
Burst Barrier: +1 reflex saves vs burst spells and effects
Tower Shield Training: While using a Tower Shield, -3 Armour Check and maximum dex +2
Tower Shield: While using a tower shield, he does not take -2 on attack rolls due to shields encumbrance.
Fort 8
Ref 6 (+7 Bursts)
Will 4
HP: 47
AC:30
or when fighting defensively
33
or when using total defense
36
CMD: 23
Attacks:
+1 Trident +11, 1d8+5 (for stand still)
+1 Trident +9, 1d8+9 (Power Attack)
2-Handed Trident +9 1d8+12
2 Chakrams +7each 1d8+4
Special:
Can increase range to 10ft
Can make 4 attacks of opportunity
can intimidate enemies into attacking
Equipment:
Level 6 Wealth by Level: 16000
Full-Plate+1 2500
Tower Shield+1 1180
Armor Spikes 50
Charkrams, 10 10
+1 Trident 2315
+1 Strength Belt 4000
+1 Amulet of Nat Armor 2000
+1 Ring of Protection 2000
+1 Cloak of Resistance 1000
Potion of Invisibility 300
Greatsword 50
Composite Bow-3 400
Total Gold 115805
Skills:
Skill:(ranks): Without Tower: Total
Acrobatics(4):7:0
Intimidate(6):9
Dungeoneering(3)7
Climb(3):6:-1
Swim(4):7:0
Engineering(3):7
Ride(1):3:-4
Handle Animal(1):4
You don't have +11 attack, or you don't have +9 damage when one-handing the trident. Furious Focus only applies to two handing a weapon.
oh, good catch. Thanks necromental
Right, here it is.
By the way, after seeing your build the only change I made was to swap in Antagonize and shuffle a few skill points around. Such a stupid feat.
Barry the Barbarian
Human Barbarian(Urban Barbarian, Invulnerable Rager) 6.
Note: all numbers are during an Urban Rage boosting Dex(meaning that Barry here can switch to a more offensive damage orientated slant should the situation require it)
Str 20 (+2 belt)
Dex 20(+4 when urban raging)
Con 14
Int 8
Wis 11
Cha 7
Feats
1. Power Attack, Furious Focus
2. Superstition
3. Antagonize(this is actually on the table as a non-banned option? I was going to take improved sunder, but OK...)
4. Witch Hunter
5. Extra Rage Power: Lesser Beast Totem
6. Beast Totem
Traits: Armor Expert, Dangerously Curious
Class Features:
Fort 8 (+13 against spells, supernatural abilities, and spell-like abilities.)
Ref 8 (+13 against spells, supernatural abilities, and spell-like abilities.)
Will 3 (+8 against spells, supernatural abilities, and spell-like abilities.)
HP: 59
AC:25(26 when next to 2 or more enemies)
CMD: 27(28 when next to 2 or more enemies)
Attacks:
+1 Greatsword +12/+5 (2d6+14)
or Ranseur +11/+4(2d4+3 plus Reach)
or 2 Claws +9/+4 (1d6+9)
Ranged: Composite Longbow(5 adj) +11/+6 (1d8+5)
On all attacks, +2 damage against creatures with spells or SLAs, +1 to attack rolls when next to 2 or more enemies
Special:
DR3/-(double that against non-lethal)
Antagonize
Immune to hot climates(as Endure Elements)
Fire Resist 1
Equipment:
Level 6 Wealth by Level: 16000
Spiked Mithril Breastplate +1 5250
+1 Greatsword 2350
+1 Strength Belt 4000
+1 Ring of Protection 2000
+1 Cloak of Resistance 1000
Composite Longbow (5 adj) 500
Ranseur 10(or another reach polearm)
Remaining Gold 840 (minus a little for cheap mundane junk, also maybe -750 for a wand of Shield if I want to get cute and match your AC for a minute while attacked by multiple enemies)
Skills:
Acrobatics(1):9
Diplomacy(1):2
Intimidate(6):7
Local(1):3
Perception(6):9
Climb(1):9
Swim(1):9
Use Magic Device(6):8
Right...comparisons...
Let me put it this way: I asked for an actual build because I couldn't see a way of shoring up non-AC defenses AND dealing level appropriate damage AND actually having a decent AC AND stopping casters from laughting at you by simply move actioning or 5 foot stepping away. Shockingly enough, you have a severe weak spot in the form of a bad will save and only OK other saves, you can't do anything near level appropriate damage unless you waste a move action tossing your shield and throwing away a big chunk of AC (13.5 average damage is really weak - CR6 creatures are expected to have 70HP so you take at least 3 rounds to kill one even if every single attack hits). You might catch a caster out for a single round with step up, but you have no way of stopping them from move action walking away. Even if you get an AoO hit with your mediocre attack bonuses, a typical caster at that level will still have a little under a 40% chance of just making the concentration check and casting anyway despite the situation being ideal for you. Not exactly stellar. Your non-touch/flat footed AC is good though (although that stops being true if you take off your tower shield to boost your damage or use a bow - Your AC drops to 25).
Compare to the barbarian. Better damage than what you do with your tower shield off, far better saves and better Touch. He still doesn't stop Casters from walking away, but if he has a Ranseur out he can certainly negate 5 foot steps and give them a rather painful smack for the privilege of moving out of the threatened zone(which works just as well as stand still for most purposes, by the way). Oh yeah, and I have a better skill distribution than your fighter (because decent UMD and perception is worth a lot).
I have always felt that a soldier or guardsman type character is best represented by the fighter class. I have had more than one character who was either military or ex-military. None of the other classes seem to fit the flavor of an infantryman quite so well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have always felt that a soldier or guardsman type character is best represented by the fighter class. I have had more than one character who was either military or ex-military. None of the other classes seem to fit the flavor of an infantryman quite so well.vanguard slayer
Eh, strikes me as more the squad leader than the squaddie.
I have always felt that a soldier or guardsman type character is best represented by the fighter class. I have had more than one character who was either military or ex-military. None of the other classes seem to fit the flavor of an infantryman quite so well.
Wouldn't cavalier be a far better fit for a professional soldier? They belong to an group of trained warriors (Order), know how to coordinate a team on the field of battle (Tactician), can inspires allies in combat (Banner), and are proficient in multiple forms of combat (Mount & charge abilities / Bonus Feats). For just a plain infantryman, there are non-mounted archetypes, especially sword saint samurai. Given that as a possibility, with errant knight/ronin working as an ex-soldier/mercenary, what archetype does fighter actually fill?
And when the enemy dominates him, because of his low Will save, he will very carefully, and politely rip the nearest party member to shreds, before anyone can say:
"But fighters suck."
That's not how dominate spells work.
Cavaliar makes a better officer, since they are usually mounted and can give teamwork feats away.
The only combat role the fighter excels in is soldier, so they can pick up weapon-centered feats and fill those classic roles very quickly, and a teamwork feat or two to shore them up and do group combat together.
However, they tend to suck at anything outside those roles, and honestly, there are so many advantages to using other classes in the role it is hard to justify a fighter UNLESS you need tons of feats quickly to be effective.
It does not help that a fighter gets no th/dmg bonuses from his class until level 5, the only melee type to not get a bonus at level 1. Even ROGUES and MONKS get SOMETHING at level 1.
==Aelryinth