Some take up arms for glory, wealth, or revenge. Others do battle to prove themselves, to protect others, or because they know nothing else. Still others learn the ways of weaponcraft to hone their bodies in battle and prove their mettle in the forge of war. Lords of the battlefield, fighters are a disparate lot, training with many weapons or just one, perfecting the uses of armor, learning the fighting techniques of exotic masters, and studying the art of combat, all to shape themselves into living weapons. Far more than mere thugs, these skilled warriors reveal the true deadliness of their weapons, turning hunks of metal into arms capable of taming kingdoms, slaughtering monsters, and rousing the hearts of armies. Soldiers, knights, hunters, and artists of war, fighters are unparalleled champions, and woe to those who dare stand against them.
So many have mentioned that the fighter is no master of war. They are decent themselves but beyond that... they are negligible in the sense of a Warlord. So my question to you:
Who IS the true master of war?
Lets keep this limited to Mostly martial types as well. So, while yes I know the first answer will be "wizard because Battle field control" but we looking at the guys who are focused on fighting.
Personally I see it as a Toss up between:
Cavalier
Cavalier+Bard VMC into Battle Herald
Brawler
Bard (flavoring him as a motivating general of armies)
The reason I am thinking Brawler also because he can shift up his abilities as he needs to, adapting to the battlefield and being what the combat needs him to be (guy with big sword? DIsarm feats. Lots of guys far away? Archery feats, ect.) at that moment. Sure not as motivating as the Cav or Bard but he is adaptable, which a War Master needs to be (cant depend on CHARGE!!! all the time...)
So what do you guys think? Who is the true master of the Battlefield?
Oh and I am looking for a person who is good on an every changing battlefield.
For instance:
A fighter is a good combatant, but he is vunerable to many tactics (like... archery) and has no ways to really compensate. He is almost more like a Massive weapon than a master of the battlefield. The master needs to be adaptable/capable of handling scenerios or being able to brush them off like a barbarian. He is not as vunerable to say... arrows beccause he can shrug off the damage and with pounce, can close the distance quite easily. Also, because Rage has many good abilities, he is not as feat dependent so he can be a decent switch hitter and with Strenght Surge or whatevs he can be a decent Sunder hitter with minimal investment.
I addressed these kind of issues in a post a while back. let me copy and paste it.
========================
Post 2: The Roles of the Martial Classes (reposted)
Champion
Guardian
Master/Teacher
Warlord
Hunter
Soldier
The Champion role is also the role of the Gladiator and the Duelist. Basically, it is the ability of the fighter to go out there and defeat his enemy in single combat, be it before cheering crowds, tilting at the lists, or one-on-one combat in a formal duel.
The current fighter takes a nod to this role with his weapon mastery. With a weapon in hand that he loves and has trained with, a fighter is a superb champion in the martial world.
HOWEVER …this is a magical world, and so a proper champion must be able to take on magical threats. He must be able to evade magical attacks and withstand magical assaults on mind and body.
He does not have this capability as part of his class. All he is, is tough. Champions are generally focused on Strength, and Power Attack is their hallmark feat.
The class iconically best filling the Champion role is the cavalier, who can simply pick an opponent and make himself dangerous against them. The barbarian can do the same, his rage powers and rage giving him a natural buff against any foe, and Superstitious granting defense against magic.
The ranger and the paladin can also serve as superb champions, the one using FE and the other using Smite, to become the best of their kind against their specific enemies. The paladin also brings great saves and even immunities to the field, and if it's an Evil enemy, there's nobody better. In a city-based 'civilized' campaign against human opponents, there is also likely nobody more suitable then a FE:Human centered Ranger.
The Fighter tends to bring little to the table to be excellent against a particular kind of foe, he simply has constant ability, and below average to very poor defenses.
--------------------------------------
The Guardian role is equal parts sentry, bodyguard, vanguard and scout. It requires alertness, attentiveness, readiness, the ability to stave off boredom, quick reactions and intercession.
Guardians tend to have Wis as a useful stat. Combat Reflexes, Skill Focus (Perception) and Improved Initiative are probably as key as you’re going to get here.
The best Guardians tend to be barbarians and rangers, the former because they get Uncanny Dodge and the latter because they get crucial skills and skill bonuses (trying to sneak up on a ranger in favored terrain is perhaps unwise).
The Fighter has no such ability to be a guardian as part of his class. His class skills do not include something as basic as being able to perceive an enemy or assess opponents, and he certainly can’t intercede on such things.
-----------------------------------
The Master is the Melee who learns many skills…and then passes them on to others. The ability of fighters to teach martial skills to another is the key part of this, finding eager students who share their love of martial ability. The Master is a font of martial knowledge, a cunning and dangerous enemy who knows his art inside and out, and from many angles, discovers new techniques and passes them on. Expertise is their hallmark feat.
Masters tend to favor a high Int. Yet, there is very little for a Master style fighter to do in the standard class.
There is no class that truly satisfies the Master paradigm, although a Ranger’s skill points and broad list dovetails best with the idea of an intellectual warrior. The Slayer also works as sort of an intelligent warrior, using cunning via Sneak Attack and Studied opponent.
-------------------------------------------------
Where the Master is teacher, the Warlord is leader. The brilliant general, cunning strategist, and superb tactician are all hallmark roles of the fighter. The ability to guide, inspire and lead others effectively has also been a standard of the martial classes. In times of peace, they are statesmen and cunning preparers. In times of war, kings and countries turn to them to lead the way.
The Warlord maps to Charisma. But there are no fighter skills that map well to Warlord abilities. Leadership would be the closest equivalent, or the 3.5 Marshall class with its auras.
The closest PF class to a Warlord is the cavalier, who can give away teamwork benefits. The Ranger’s guide power to give away FE benefits also qualifies, as does the Paladin's Aura of Courage and ability to give away Smites. Both of these are quite limited in usefulness in mass combat scenarios.
But the Fighter has absolutely nothing to contribute, even Charisma synergy.
----------------------------------------------
The Hunter is equal parts hunter, assassin, and infiltrator. His job is to find the enemy and kill them, preferably via stealth or at minimal risk, often via use of missile weapons. They are the commandos and snipers of martial roles.
Hunters tend to focus on death via bows and crossbows. Alas, many of the supporting skills they need are not a part of the fighter class, including stealth. Deadly Aim is probably their hallmark skill, and Dexterity their key stat.
The best PF martial class for this is naturally the ranger, who can track, locate, stalk, and deliver the damage. THe Stalker also does the job, of course.
The Fighter? Not so much.
------------------------------------------------
Lastly, the Soldier. While Warlords are about leading troops, the soldier is all about teamwork and fighting alongside others as part of a greater whole. The only nod to this archetype are the Teamwork feats, most of which don’t function well unless everyone you’re fighting with also knows them.
The Soldier tends to map to Constitution. The job tends to endorse being tough as nails, dogged and persistent more than cleverness, agility, or brute strength. As long as you can endure, you can fight. Armor Training, Endurance and the Teamwork feats would be the hallmark of soldiers. The Fighter makes a better soldier than any other martial role…but then, so does a standard NPC Warrior.
Both Fighters and Cavaliers make great soldiers…the former because they can take Teamwork feats, and the latter because they can give them away.
Stalwart, if it worked for those without Expertise, is probably the best feat for Soldiers. Brace for it! Improved Aid Another and many Teamwork feats would also qualify.
Alas, no good Will save means that easy will save effects send our low-morale Fighters fleeing for the hills. I suggest bringing paladins.
=========================================
the role the Fighter seems able to fill is to tromp after the other martial classes, and then run away from whatever they are fighting.
If you are doing a fighter build, I suggest fixing this so they can excel in a meaningful role.
==Aelryinth
The fighter is actually good at "war". But Pathfinder isn't really a war game. It's an adventuring game. The fighter isn't good at adventuring.
A fighter is a good combatant, but he is vunerable to many tactics (like... archery) and has no ways to really compensate.
Tower Shield.
Good at war. Bad at adventuring.
No, the fighter sucks at war, too.
Bring a Ranger with experience fighting the enemy, or a Paladin. The one will have the bonuses and skills, the other will have the Cha and leadership help.
==Aelryinth
No, the fighter sucks at war, too.
Bring a Ranger with experience fighting the enemy, or a Paladin. The one will have the bonuses and skills, the other will have the Cha and leadership help.
==Aelryinth
The ranger's bonuses are no better than the fighters against a large number of opponents. What skills do you need on a battle field? what leadership do you need to follow a leader?
The fighter can be super good at archery and being able to have all the feats to do archery in melee range. The fighter with archetypes, mutation warrior, eldrich guardian, Martial Master can make for a very adaptable and resilient character.
The thing is... a fighter will often lack the Cha to lead (so he is a bad motivator), lacks to knowledge or ability to adapt (like a brawler, range or bard), and lacks the ability to resist or ignore changes in tactics and abilities used on him (like a barbarian with superstition or a Paladin).
Heck, in ways the slayer is actually better on a mass battlefield.
No, the Fighter is bad at war.
He can't fly to position himself in a better place. Can't use some low-level magic to become immune to arrows. Cannot disable mobs very well because Whirlwind Attack sucks. Cannot mind-control his opponents to fight at his side. Cannot summon extraplanars, more powerful that most mortals, to fight at his side. Cannot transform himself in a more powerful creature.
The Full Casters are the masters of war.
The fighter can be super good at archery and being able to have all the feats to do archery in melee range. The fighter with archetypes, mutation warrior, eldrich guardian, Martial Master can make for a very adaptable and resilient character.
True. I forgot the monster combo those 3 make lol
No, the Fighter is bad at war.
He can't fly to position himself in a better place. Can't use some low-level magic to become immune to arrows. Cannot disable mobs very well because Whirlwind Attack sucks. Cannot mind-control his opponents to fight at his side. Cannot summon extraplanars, more powerful that most mortals, to fight at his side. Cannot transform himself in a more powerful creature.
The Full Casters are the masters of war.
In a war, you would have regiments devoted to doing those sorts of things for your soldiers. A war isn't about one guy. It's about very large numbers of people working together.
No, the Fighter is bad at war.
He can't fly to position himself in a better place. Can't use some low-level magic to become immune to arrows. Cannot disable mobs very well because Whirlwind Attack sucks. Cannot mind-control his opponents to fight at his side. Cannot summon extraplanars, more powerful that most mortals, to fight at his side. Cannot transform himself in a more powerful creature.
The Full Casters are the masters of war.
Note how I specifically mentioned how I said we will not look at Full Casters for this precisely BECAUSE i know the answer, if you include them, is "Wizard/Druid/cleric/sorcerer/arcanist/psychic/oracle/shaman/witch"
... dear gid there are a lot of full casters now...
No, the Fighter is bad at war.
He can't fly to position himself in a better place. Can't use some low-level magic to become immune to arrows. Cannot disable mobs very well because Whirlwind Attack sucks. Cannot mind-control his opponents to fight at his side. Cannot summon extraplanars, more powerful that most mortals, to fight at his side. Cannot transform himself in a more powerful creature.
The Full Casters are the masters of war.
The OP said we're limited to "Martial" characters. So it looks like 6th level casters as the highest. That they need to be a combat threat in their own right.
But really, unless the OP goes and define game mechanics for what a "leader" has to be able to do, most of what makes a leader is all about the roleplay.
In a war, you would have regiments devoted to doing those sorts of things for your soldiers. A war isn't about one guy. It's about very large numbers of people working together.
And the fighter in a large scale battle is incredible useless with the amount of magic stuff that will be flying around in the battlefield. Heck, he doesn't even have the necessary amount of skills to help him identify spell effects or to discern if the summoned creature can be attacked with blunt weapon only.
He's at beast a mediocre, barely mobile, meatshield that can swing a weapon really, really well... Or a great (but not greatest) ranged guy. Man, sometimes I think why archery is so good in PF.
EDIT:
The OP said we're limited to "Martial" characters. So it looks like 6th level casters as the highest. That they need to be a combat threat in their own right.
But really, unless the OP goes and define game mechanics for what a "leader" has to be able to do, most of what makes a leader is all about the roleplay.
My bad. If we are allow 3.5 material, Crusaders are really good at this. Awesome saves, incredible resilience and durability, and also can lead his troops really well. Leading the Charge, Swarming Strike, Defensive Sweep...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fighter can go all day. In a true siege, the fighter is pretty good. Also in war most soldiers are mooks, making the fighter invincible. Adamantine Dr would cover the stray hit.
The fighter can go all day. In a true siege, the fighter is pretty good. Also in war most soldiers are mooks, making the fighter invincible. Adamantine Dr would cover the stray hit.
The Cavalier can also Last a VERY long time
The Barb has DR much sooner and a stronger DR
|
The master of war is not an individual. The master of war is a leader than can take a group of individuals and make them a cohesive unit. For that, I would want a group of slayers as my troops. Give them all Shield Wall, Gang Up, Outflank, Paired Opportunists, and Combat Reflexes, wielding Heavy Shields and Kukris. Give them Sword and Shield Style for free Shield Slam, Shield Master, and Bashing Finish. You'll have a pretty damn deadly unit, and once they get evasion they are able to deal with their main weakness, AoE effects.
A Ranger can also fight all day against mooks, and can use his spells if a greater threart comes by.
Same with The Barbarian.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All day
Then HPs run out
The master of war is not an individual. The master of war is a leader than can take a group of individuals and make them a cohesive unit. For that, I would want a group of slayers as my troops. Give them all Shield Wall, Gang Up, Outflank, Paired Opportunists, and Combat Reflexes, wielding Heavy Shields and Kukris. Give them Sword and Shield Style for free Shield Slam, Shield Master, and Bashing Finish. You'll have a pretty damn deadly unit, and once they get evasion they are able to deal with their main weakness, AoE effects.This is the main thing with me.
Phalanx formations and shield walls are great when you're dealing with groups of barbarians charging you and such, but for those tactics to hold up in a setting where fireballs happen regularly, you kinda need evasive characters to avoid turning shield walls into target practice for the enemy's mages.
that's the thing though, wizards aren't a dime a dozen like fighters are and eventually the wizard will run out of spells
|
|
There are a number of resources for making fighters useful as Leaders of Armies in The Very Last Book About War. If you're interested in a war campaign it's got a great system for large battle encounters.
Cavaliers and Vanguard Slayers make very good small unit tacticians, and can handle the "Fireball vs Shield Wall" problem handily with stuff like Shake It Off.
As for Ashiel's list, I'd argue the Sensei Monk makes a great Master archetype.
Of course with 3PP, Warlord or Warder hands down. Roll with Golden Lion and Silver Crane, with some Iron Tortoise action for the Warder and you have an excellent war leader.
A Ranger can also fight all day against mooks, and can use his spells if a greater threart comes by.
Same with The Barbarian.
not really a barbarian will run out of rage points eventually and become fatigued making him easier to kill while a fighter can keep on going like a certain drum beating bunny
not really a barbarian will run out of rage points eventually and become fatigued making him easier to kill while a fighter can keep on going like a certain drum beating bunnyA Ranger can also fight all day against mooks, and can use his spells if a greater threart comes by.
Same with The Barbarian.
A Barbarian operates at 150% efficiency for most of the day, and 100% the rest. Not exactly a downside.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True siege battles can last between 8-16 hours a day. A warlord could easily see upwards of 10 skirmishes each day. A single fighter could be the backbone of your army who personally moves the lines forward.
Adventures never face such taxing days. But in a true war like scenario, the fighter gets her moment in the sun.
Obviously any half caster or better would be a better master of war. Going all day is great but when you can decide a battle in 6 seconds, it's irrelevant.
Here's the thing: In a setting like this, there are basically two components to a war: The large set-piece battles and sieges, and "Battle by champion" between the powerful, high level combatants on each side.
Basically, like the Illiad. You have your nameless peons, and then you have Achilles and Hector tearing through large numbers of them until eventually they clash with the other titans of the battlefield.
The thing is: ANY high level martial can do the former. The Fighter has no real advantage here, since his always on bonuses are redundant in the face of targets that are killed by half that amount of damage.
But the Barbarian and the like have a bigger advantage in the latter. Which makes them better at war.
My vote is for Arcane Duelist bard.
The fighter can be super good at archery and being able to have all the feats to do archery in melee range. The fighter with archetypes, mutation warrior, eldrich guardian, Martial Master can make for a very adaptable and resilient character.True. I forgot the monster combo those 3 make lol
Although as far as the archetype combo goes I find it hard to describe something which has literally no Fighter class features until level 4 a "fighter".
Don't get me wrong, it's a sweet combination. But it's like improving a Ford Pinto by taking off the plates and the Ford badge and sticking them on an Audi. What you have is a hell of a lot better for the person driving it every day....but it doesn't say good things about the Pinto.
You need to decide what weighting you're putting on 'general leading tiny men' and what on 'champion'. A bard or skald does the first best (no, a cavalier can't match them), the field's kind of open on the second but won't be won by a bard or skald - they can be good but not the best.
Without some ground rules the question isn't really answerable.
|
|
You need to decide what weighting you're putting on 'general leading tiny men' and what on 'champion'. A bard or skald does the first best (no, a cavalier can't match them), the field's kind of open on the second but won't be won by a bard or skald - they can be good but not the best.
Without some ground rules the question isn't really answerable.
I'd say an exemplar brawler is better than a Bard or Skald here. They have performance, and can spontaneously learn and share teamwork feats.
Bards have multiple options to share teamwork feats, too...
Warning: product pimping in this post.
So, I'm kind of in love with this concept, having created the fairly popular inspiring commander cavalier archetype from Rite, the Exemplar brawler archetype already mentioned, the Vanguard slayer archetype, etc. The whole concept has been one of my favorite things since I got into PF.
Recently, Linda Zayas-Palmer and myself released the General class under Legendary Games, and as far as I know, it's the first class that actually gets a group of people under their command. In this case, it takes the troop mechanics from a certain Adventure Path module that takes place on the planet Earth and makes them work for a player-controlled entity.
They also do pretty well at the role of leader in mass combat, so I'd put that class forward as the master of war :)
The ranger's bonuses are no better than the fighters against a large number of opponents. What skills do you need on a battle field? what leadership do you need to follow a leader?No, the fighter sucks at war, too.
Bring a Ranger with experience fighting the enemy, or a Paladin. The one will have the bonuses and skills, the other will have the Cha and leadership help.
==Aelryinth
Large number of opponents? The Ranger's bonus will apply equally to ranged and melee combat against those enemies. The fighter gets to be one or the other.
Wars also tend to be against a specific KIND of creature, with others as throw-offs or accompanying champions. A ranger going up against orcs with FE: ORcs is a terrifying opponent to ANY orc, regardless of the weapon, and will be a master of skills used against them, and using the terrain against them.
As for barbarians, after they run out of rage points, they will have:
More hit points then the Fighter.
The same AC as the fighter. (or better)
DR built into them for taking less dmg then the fighter.
Run faster then the fighter.
Better saves then the fighter.(superstitious).
Potentially the ability to 'earn back' rage rounds.
Bonuses to damage spellcasters.
Uncanny dodge so they can't be flanked in mass combat.
So, yeah, I kinda think barbs are better off all around then the fighter even after they stop giving rage to their allies for the charge that breaks the enemy lines.
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Fighter sucks thread