Say no archetypes and all 20 levels in Fighter.
If said fighter started at level 1 with a 20 in each stat and gained every feat (within Paizo material) that it qualified for, would it be OP for all 20 levels?
Yes, at higher levels still easily dispatched by a regularly built wizard, but it would be OP.
Compared to?
A commoner, yes.
A Rogue, yes.
A Monk, probably.
Full casters, doubtful.
Other classes, maybe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If by overpowered do you mean they are capable of outputting enough damage a round that it causes problems for a GM to balance battles without an ever increasing risk of TPK'ing the party?
Because if so then absolutely. Almost all classes are capable of this if build by a player with system mastery. However, damage output is one of the few things that is "easier" to deal with than other things. You can simply add more HP and DR. But negating the wizards colorspray or hold person becomes a lot more obvious.
But for instance a 20th level fighter automatically confirms critical hits and a probably built fighter can set himself up to score at least 1 a round with fairly hefty bonuses to damage. He should be dealing enough damage to kill most things in a single round as hp of enemies just doesn't scale enough.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A 20th level fighter has excellent DPR, mostly from auto confirming critical hits and adding one t the multiplier. In combat they kill things very quickly. They still have almost no ability to bypass any obstacle that can't be solved by hit with pointy stick until dead.
'Gains every feat it qualifies for' is a strange idea. By the time you add up the hundreds of feats you might end up with quite a monstrosity. Certainly such a character would be absolutely ridiculous at 1st level. Depending on how many feat trees grant SLAs it may maintain a reasonable level of power. Still won't beat a full caster at 20th, but will certainly end every combat in one round.
Good luck sifting through all those feats though.
If said fighter started at level 1 with a 20 in each stat and gained every feat (within Paizo material) that it qualified for, would it be OP for all 20 levels?
Well, every feat is quite extreme. In combat he could switch between ranged, offensive melee and defensive melee at will - thanks to Quick Draw and all the feats. Full-attack is always available since you can go ranged without much penalty. If necessary, there are like a dozen maneuvers to pick from.
Add in good skills (Int 20, Skill Focuses, probably Human only skill friendly feats), some low level magic (Psychic Disciple etc.), good move speed (armor training, Fleet) and excellent defense (high AC, good saves including rerolls, high hitpoints), and you get a monster.
But what for? If you pick your ability scores, feats etc. carefully, a fighter can be versatile and powerful at the same time.
That is arguably getting closer to the same level of versatility that a cleric of wizard can possess however. And that is everyone's complaint about Fighter, isn't it? That Fighters have 1 option; Kill
That is arguably getting closer to the same level of versatility that a cleric of wizard can possess however. And that is everyone's complaint about Fighter, isn't it? That Fighters have 1 option; Kill
and that's their job. Just like a Cleric's job is to Heal.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure a lot of cleric players want to do other things then heal. And I know that my fighter players always want to do more then just fight; fight often, but still have abilities when there is no fighting.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, a Cleric's job is to end fights by calling down armies of (fill in the blank divine or profane beings here), while also being able to heal, teleport, and basically be another form of Wizard.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is arguably getting closer to the same level of versatility that a cleric of wizard can possess however. And that is everyone's complaint about Fighter, isn't it? That Fighters have 1 option; Killand that's their job. Just like a Cleric's job is to Heal.
Cleric's aren't bandaids and often resent being treated as such. They can do far more, and should. Since in combat healing is generally a waste of resources compared to other things they could (there are exceptions to this but lets not go into details).
However the fighter is accomplished at only one thing. Dealing damage.
Take off "gets every feat it qualifies for" and the answer is still yes.
TxSam88: I see what you did there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
However the fighter is accomplished at only one thing. Dealing damage.
Hmm, fighter's AC can be quite good if you go for it. A full plate with higher Dex bonus than usual (armor training), easy access to AC feats (Dodge, Artful Dodge, Combat Expertise, Shield Focus) and access to Greater Shield Focus.
Given the many feats you have, investing a third to half of them into AC is viable. An example build (with conservative assumptions) would be:
15pt buy human fighter
Str 14+2, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 10
Level 1
* Dodge, two other feats
* scale mail, large shield
* AC 20 (+5 armor, +2 shield, +2 Dex, +1 Dodge)
* CR 1 creature high attack: +2 (10% hit chance)
Level 4
* Artful Dodge (usually +1 dodge AC), Shield Focus, one other feat
* full plate
* AC 26 (+9 armor, +3 shield, +2 Dex, +2 Dodge)
* CR 4 high attack: +8 (10% hit chance)
Level 8
* Combat Expertise, Greater Shield Focus, two other feats
* full plate +1, large shield +1, amulet of natural armor +1, ring of protection +1 (~7,500 gold, so ~25% of WBL 33,000)
* AC 31 (+10 armor, +5 shield, +1 natural, +2 Dex, +2 Dodge, +1 Deflection)
* +3 with Combat Expertise activated
* CR 8 high attack: +15 (25% / 10% hit chance)
Level 12
* two situation specific AC feats (e.g. Shield Specialization or Mobility) or saving throw feats, two other feats
* +2 armor gear, belt of physical perfection +2 (~41,500 gold, ~38% of WBL 108,000)
* AC 36 (+11 armor, +6 shield, +2 natural, +3 Dex, +2 Dodge, +2 Deflection)
* +4 with Combat Expertise activated
* CR 12 high attack: +21 (30% / 10% hit chance)
Level 16
* two more defense feats, two other feats
* +3 armor gear, belt of physical perfection +4 (~95,500 gold, ~30% of WBL 315,000)
* AC 41 (+12 armor, +7 shield, +3 natural, +4 Dex, +2 Dodge, +3 Deflection)
* +5 with Combat Expertise activated
* CR 16 high attack: +26 (30% / 5% hit chance)
Level 20
* CR 20 high attack is just 4 points above CR 16, can be easily compensated
Note that this is still a strength based fighter with roughly half of his feats and like 2/3 of his WBL left. Traits and help from allies are not included. Race choice, ability scores and item choices could still be optimized further.
By the way: I don't think fighter is intended to be the melee damage dealer class. From the Core classes, that's rather the barbarian. Fighter is more about being well-rounded in combat.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By the way: I don't think fighter is intended to be the melee damage dealer class. From the Core classes, that's rather the barbarian. Fighter is more about being well-rounded in combat.
Really? because the Fighter is much less well-rounded than the Barbarian. Barbarian has 4 skills per level instead of 2. Rage powers give the Barbarian more utility in and out of combat, while be more mobile (40 ft vs 30 ft speed) and being more survivable (More DR, Uncanny Dodge, and higher HP in addition to equivalent AC).
Until the Weapon Master's Handbook, the barbarian outclassed the fighter in every way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't believe the Core Barbarian was intended to be in rage for every combat of every day. But the reality is that fights are shorter than intended and combats per day are fewer than intended. So, the fighter comes out looking bad next to the barbarian, who may as well be perma-raged.
With 20 in everything and with every feat he could have from 1 to 20? Yes ofc he would be OP lols.
Hell despite what the forums will tell you , i already had a wizard (together with one other player at the table) crying that the normal fighter was OP because he could down pretty much any one target in a turn , dealing tons of damage.
And both other players (which also went for damage dealing) couldnt come close to him heh.
In the end mate , what is OP or not greatly varies from table to table and from person to person.
A regular Fighter can be OP. No cheese super-houserules needed for this.
He simply needs some System Mastery on knowing how to build a good fighter. When being in a group of plaers who are either new to D20 or dont care about combat competence, because that is "sooo munchkin".
It is all about group composition and competence in building a character capability.
Clericis a healbot, Rogue just sneaks around to steal stuff and disable traps, Wizard is a nuker - Fighter goes for two-handed DPS + one situational combat maneuver because he has the feats free
--> Fighter rocks the fights like it is noone'S business.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo recommends four encounters a day. If that guideline is followed, a Barbarian with Con of 18 starts out with enough rage for two rounds per battle at level 1. Every two levels gained allows you to rage for one more round per battle (assuming no Con increase or Extra Rage feat). So by level 7, you can rage for maybe five rounds per battle, and by level 13, eight rounds per battle. But nothing in the system makes higher level battles take longer - if anything they tend to become briefer, more 'rocket-tag'.
Most classes with limited-uses-per-day resources have something similar - high level casters get more spells and so on - so unless the GM works really hard to force high level parties to fight more longer battles, the Fighter's "can keep this up all day" advantage doesn't make much of a difference.
Paizo recommends four encounters a day. If that guideline is followed, a Barbarian with Con of 18 starts out with enough rage for two rounds per battle at level 1.
Except a Con of 18 is pretty hard to come across with the 15 point buy assumption the core rules were designed around. It'd be closer to assume a Con of 14-ish.
Really? because the Fighter is much less well-rounded than the Barbarian. Barbarian has 4 skills per level instead of 2. Rage powers give the Barbarian more utility in and out of combat, while be more mobile (40 ft vs 30 ft speed) and being more survivable (More DR, Uncanny Dodge, and higher HP in addition to equivalent AC).
Fighters are supposedly intended to go with Int 13+ which roughly neutralizes the skill rank difference. With so many feats fighters can more easily afford skill boosting feats. As soon as the barbarian carries medium armor, he becomes slower than a fighter with proper armor training, even with the +10 base speed. I am sceptical about equivalent AC, given rage's penalty, missing Greater Shield Focus and weaker armor.
Don't get me wrong, of course the barbarian has his advantages. But if we play a fighter barbarian-style (CHAAARGE with big weapon), it's not surprising he looks bad. Because he is no barbarian. The same would be true for most other classes. Why not accept a different class is different and better suited for a different playstyle? Fighters can be good with switching between styles, going for two weapons or specializing on maneuvers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo recommends four encounters a day. If that guideline is followed, a Barbarian with Con of 18 starts out with enough rage for two rounds per battle at level 1.Except a Con of 18 is pretty hard to come across with the 15 point buy assumption the core rules were designed around. It'd be closer to assume a Con of 14-ish.
The rules are actually designed around 20 point buy and the 15 point buy is a math error Paizo really wishes you would stop bringing up.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules are actually designed around 20 point buy and the 15 point buy is a math error Paizo really wishes you would stop bringing up.Paizo recommends four encounters a day. If that guideline is followed, a Barbarian with Con of 18 starts out with enough rage for two rounds per battle at level 1.Except a Con of 18 is pretty hard to come across with the 15 point buy assumption the core rules were designed around. It'd be closer to assume a Con of 14-ish.
That is not the case, James Jacob has posted that the APs and all the adventures they write are based on a 15 point build.
I'm pretty sure that isn't the only time that has been posted by himself or another Paizo employee.
Eh. I got turned off when 'no archetypes' was added as a rule, but somehow there are a million feats allowed.
It isn't hard to make an archetyped fighter that can break encounters. Eldritch guardian focused on dirty tricks- instantly, you can take out a character a round with your doubled action economy for dirty tricks that allows you to get enemies nauseated (which prevents them from attacking, using unquickened spells, or even removing the dirty trick).
That and the fact that it can take coordinted charge for a pseudo pounce.
A 20th level fighter is OP because he can trivially be Dominated and wipe out the rest of the party in 2 rounds. Or is that UP?
A 20th level fighter is OP because he can trivially be Dominated and wipe out the rest of the party in 2 rounds. Or is that UP?Did you read the rest of the first post? If it has, say, the right Deific Obedience, it might be immune to mind-affecting effects. It doesn't just get feats regularly, it gets all the feats. Including the metamagic feats, which have no prerequisites.
I don't think many people did read it.
This thought experiment is set up in a way that the fighter should be OP from 1-20 and if it isn't then that is a problem.
When it comes to combat power, I tend to take the view that sees stats as, while important, less important than how you utilize them. The bonuses are good and useful, but the player's sense of tactics is a sine qua non.
If you run the experiment with the right players, you could even see a character overshadowed by the exact same characer built at a lower level. That's how much a strong working understanding of the rules on the part of the driver matters to how effective the chassis will be.
So if the same character at a weaker level, why not a different character built as a weaker class?
However the fighter is accomplished at only one thing. Dealing damage.Hmm, fighter's AC can be quite good if you go for it. A full plate with higher Dex bonus than usual (armor training), easy access to AC feats (Dodge, Artful Dodge, Combat Expertise, Shield Focus) and access to Greater Shield Focus.
Note that this is still a strength based fighter with roughly half of his feats and like 2/3 of his WBL left. Traits and help from allies are not included. Race choice, ability scores and item choices could still be optimized further.
By the way: I don't think fighter is intended to be the melee damage dealer class. From the Core classes, that's rather the barbarian. Fighter is more about being well-rounded in combat.
While it's possible to build for a good AC it's not particularly advantageous to do so. As there isn't a good aggro mechanism in Pathfinder (which I'm grateful for) turtling up doesn't actually help the group much. It just means other people will be attacked instead of you.
And for what it's worth, a well built CRB fighter can deal more damage than a CRB barbarian. Keep in mind that Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec, and Greater Weapon Spec give a +2 to hit and a +4 to damage. Weapon training and dueling gloves give a +6 to attack and damage.
Barbarian's rage gives a +4 to attack and damage, or a +6 damage while two handing a weapon (since strength get 1.5).
Core rule book only the barbarian can't actually keep up with the fighter's damage, though it should be pretty close. Most of the barbarian's CRB rage power are actually pretty disappointing because they're only once per rage or once per round (the ones that would otherwise be really good).
We could do up the math, but I'm fairly certain the core fighter does deal more damage. The problem is the barbarian does almost as much damage, and gets a bevy of interesting abilities that are better than many similar abilities a fighter can get. A 12th barbarian is straight up immune to shaken and frightened if he wants to be. Bravery just doesn't even compare. Superstition gives a human barbarian amazing saves. Scent can allow you to find enemies that you might not otherwise be able to detect. I could go, but the ultimate point is that the main feature fighters get allow them to be good at dealing damage, but their other options (feats) just can't make up for the things that other classes get as class features. Although the Weapon Master's Handbook is helping to make up for that.
A 20th level fighter is OP because he can trivially be Dominated and wipe out the rest of the party in 2 rounds. Or is that UP?Did you read the rest of the first post? If it has, say, the right Deific Obedience, it might be immune to mind-affecting effects. It doesn't just get feats regularly, it gets all the feats. Including the metamagic feats, which have no prerequisites.I don't think many people did read it.
This thought experiment is set up in a way that the fighter should be OP from 1-20 and if it isn't then that is a problem.
The real answer is that the Fighter would likely feel OP whenever initiative is rolled but would not be meaningfully superior to a rules legal Fighter in out of combat situations. Feat based solutions for non-combat encounters are bizarrely terrible, all the best problem solvers are class features.
Let's not forget, we have every Eldritch Heritage. I can see that of being some use.
Honestly, a NPC class could be OP with 20 in all and every feat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While it's possible to build for a good AC it's not particularly advantageous to do so. As there isn't a good aggro mechanism in Pathfinder (which I'm grateful for) turtling up doesn't actually help the group much. It just means other people will be attacked instead of you.
I view tanking the same way I view being a skill monkeys: there must be a "AND" after it.
"I am a tank AND..."
It is a secondary role. Nice to have, and having people with a variety of different kinds and levels of defenses is good, but it must serve more to backup your primary role. DPS, maneuvers, debuff, buff, summoning, etc. SOMETHING that makes you a priority target- after that, you can then have your high AC or saves allow you to help maintain that role.
For something basic, a nice reach build with polearms is usually good- 2 handed damage that is the standard for good melee, acting as a 25' wide circle of pain that is an obstacle between enemies and the squishier party members, decent area where you can full attack allowing more effective DPS. And minimal set up to get started (power attack and combat reflexes- you can have it up at level 2), with options to truly expand the style (lunge, pushing assault, maybe maneuvers)
Heck, does the Fighter even add anything of value to the lvl 20 all feats build? I suppose his AC is slightly higher from the armor and his weapon (which is already insanely powerful) does slightly more overkill. Neither of which is important as he will already have pseudo pounce death machine from his familiar and animal companion.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is arguably getting closer to the same level of versatility that a cleric of wizard can possess however. And that is everyone's complaint about Fighter, isn't it? That Fighters have 1 option; Killand that's their job. Just like a Cleric's job is to Heal.
Not since 1e, not really. The 3x cleric was one of the scariest characters I've ever had the pleasure to inflict on a poor, unsuspecting GM. ;-)
Heck, does the Fighter even add anything of value to the lvl 20 all feats build? I suppose his AC is slightly higher from the armor and his weapon (which is already insanely powerful) does slightly more overkill. Neither of which is important as he will already have pseudo pounce death machine from his familiar and animal companion.
Not really, since the fighter's primary mechanic is supporting feat chains, so the 'all feats build' basically rips out half of its mechanics.
At most, it qualifies you for those fighter only feats, some of which can be useful. But for the most part- this question is too loaded to really reflect properly on the fighter. At best, itis just hyperbole of the 'their primary mechanic is supporting feat chains' thing.
Although advanced weapon training does make them look better- since you have that feat that opens it up at level 5 with this scenario, that means you can have pseudo perfect saves and 4 skill points per level by level 13. So you can look like a monk without...well the problems of monks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed - the advanced weapon training from the Weapon Master's Handbook is exactly what the fighter needed. Can't wait for the Armor Master's Handbook in April :)
But for the most part- this question is too loaded to really reflect properly on the fighter. At best, itis just hyperbole of the 'their primary mechanic is supporting feat chains' thing.
It's more about the value of feats, using the class that is the most forced to make use of the feat system.
I find myself taking the extra class feature feats a lot. I began to wonder if even the entire library of feats was remotely equivalent to real class features. It seems a few of the repeatable feats taken infinitely make for a decent power at level 10+.
I would play this build.
I could go, but the ultimate point is that the main feature fighters get allow them to be good at dealing damage, but their other options (feats) just can't make up for the things that other classes get as class features. Although the Weapon Master's Handbook is helping to make up for that.
Hmm, you have a point there.
Keep in mind that this theoretical build would have Leadership (so a cohort that presumably had spellcasting) as well as an Animal Companion (at least as good as a Druids, possibly one level higher) and TONS of traits (additional traits feat).
If of a race with natural armor, then Improved Natural Armor feat would bump his AC up to ludicrous levels..
Skill focus in every skill would grant a +6 to every skill check...
I would say, yes, this type of build would be wildly OP at every level. It would have TONS of out of combat utility (2+ skills per level wouldn't matter with Skill Focus in every skill).
Some races would unlock options other races didn't have... I would gravitate towards something with a natural armor class... and natural attacks (for Improved Natural Attack).
A 20th level fighter is OP because he can trivially be Dominated and wipe out the rest of the party in 2 rounds. Or is that UP?
Advanced Weapon Training (Armed Bravery) with Sash of the War Champion and Improved Iron Will (because we can) would like a word with you. That's WILL +14 plus reroll before Wisdom and Cloak of Resistance.
A 20th level fighter is OP because he can trivially be Dominated and wipe out the rest of the party in 2 rounds. Or is that UP?Advanced Weapon Training (Armed Bravery) with Sash of the War Champion and Improved Iron Will (because we can) would like a word with you. That's WILL +14 plus reroll before Wisdom and Cloak of Resistance.
Also, due to getting Extra Traits feat (at every level?) chances are you could find some nice stuff in there to help resist stuff like that.
We have a pure TWF fighter in one of the campaigns I'm in that the GM needs to design encounters around, so yes.
I think the primary problem with this question is that we are trained by the feat system not to think about its nuances.
Because there are what? A thousand feats? And there are many that written off instantly as 'could be nice, but would never spend a feat on it' or 'very nice, but I would never spend 5 feats on the chain to get that'. There are just too many feats to remember all of them, which means we are unlikely to remember gems that could make this powerful and we certainly couldn't play this character (since you would always forget half of your niche abilities that would do things like invalidate difficult terrain or something)
It would probably have some solution to a vast number of problems. Too bad we can't have a very fruitful discussion of it. This discussion become a simple cliches of 'yes- go fighters!', 'no, fighters are never good', or 'Well, I've been digging through the list of feats AND...'.