Let's look at what the fighter actually has going for it now


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Secret Wizard wrote:
hiiamtom wrote:
I'd still say Fighter is lagging behind in a tier with a lot of more interesting options... and they still can't get first party Dex to damage in a meaningful way.
Why on Gozreh's green earth would anyone want DEX-to-damage?!

Because dex is a save/initiative and AC stat, so having it to hit and damage makes your character much more SAD

Edit: That said, dervish dance, slashing grace, and fencing grace are all paizo stamped feats from paizo books so i'm not sure what the comment about not getting dex to damage is all about.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Fighters need more int based options, that are not bad. Taking a level in wizard should not be so tempting. (prescience school power, true strike, anticipate combat, knowledge is power discovery)

Hopefully advanced armor training allows for some smart options.
Free ranks in knowledge skills
Mobility options
Evasion with a shield
Defending allies around you
Making armor options more interesting

Armor tricks: catching weapons (improved disarm), swift action movement (spring attack), immediate action Total defense (combat expertise, becomes staggerd).
Armor spike tricks: bleed damage to attackers (combat reflexes), steeling spells they disrupt (disruptive), moral bonus when droping a foe (bravery)

Heavy Armor combat styles (im tired of prancing fighters)
Geometric style: int and engineering focus
High Tower style: reduces penelties from using a tower shield, offensive and defensive use of the tower shield.
Enduring style: combat stamina focused style.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
hiiamtom wrote:
I'd still say Fighter is lagging behind in a tier with a lot of more interesting options... and they still can't get first party Dex to damage in a meaningful way.
Why on Gozreh's green earth would anyone want DEX-to-damage?!

Because dex is a save/initiative and AC stat, so having it to hit and damage makes your character much more SAD

Edit: That said, dervish dance, slashing grace, and fencing grace are all paizo stamped feats from paizo books so i'm not sure what the comment about not getting dex to damage is all about.

AC is a non-issue because a Heavy Armor Class can always keep up considering they have a +2 AC bonus over Light Armor classes. And they can use Heavy Shields.

Regarding REF/INITIATIVE... you can just get Fighter's Reflexes and Improved Initiative when a a DEX-based would be getting those feats (and skip Weapon Focus altogether).

And, in the end, you end up with a stronger damage output (due to the nature of Power Attack, which even Finesse 2H classes need 13 STR on, reducing their point-buy advantage; and Two-Weapon Rend and Double Slice).

Plus, the strongest damage-oriented archetype for Fighters, the Mutation Warrior, greatly discourages DEX-mutagens by penalizing your Will saves.

Even Finesse builds are better served with Trained Grace and a DEX/STR split.


Maybe there should be a "Fighter" forum.


Secret Wizard wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
hiiamtom wrote:
I'd still say Fighter is lagging behind in a tier with a lot of more interesting options... and they still can't get first party Dex to damage in a meaningful way.
Why on Gozreh's green earth would anyone want DEX-to-damage?!

Because dex is a save/initiative and AC stat, so having it to hit and damage makes your character much more SAD

Edit: That said, dervish dance, slashing grace, and fencing grace are all paizo stamped feats from paizo books so i'm not sure what the comment about not getting dex to damage is all about.

AC is a non-issue because a Heavy Armor Class can always keep up considering they have a +2 AC bonus over Light Armor classes. And they can use Heavy Shields.

Regarding REF/INITIATIVE... you can just get Fighter's Reflexes and Improved Initiative when a a DEX-based would be getting those feats (and skip Weapon Focus altogether).

And, in the end, you end up with a stronger damage output (due to the nature of Power Attack, which even Finesse 2H classes need 13 STR on, reducing their point-buy advantage; and Two-Weapon Rend and Double Slice).

Plus, the strongest damage-oriented archetype for Fighters, the Mutation Warrior, greatly discourages DEX-mutagens by penalizing your Will saves.

Even Finesse builds are better served with Trained Grace and a DEX/STR split.

To be honest most of these discussions about optimization of classes don't concern me. I'm fortunate enough to have GMS who are great at giving everyone spotlight and dont construct their worlds around the most optimal caster builds.

What matters most to me is "can my character meaningfully contribute in combat, and does he have a hook inside and outside of it that my dm can use to make him shine now and then" Something as simple as high ranks in profession (cook) has been used as plot points in my GM's campaigns. Fighters can do all that easily enough so i'm usually happy.


Same here. Doesn't mean that I want DEX-to-damage or that I could see that as an improvement :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I said DEX to damage in a meaningful way. Dervish Dance, Fencing Grace, and to a lesser extent Slashing Grace are very limited and worse than taking a few levels of Unchained Rogue. You want DEX to damage to have small sized fighters in melee without severe handicaps more so than just making fighters less MAD.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
That's not correct. It has significantly more non-combat options than it did previously.

Significantly is an exaggeration. They are not as useful out of combat as other martials - let alone a 2/3 caster. They are also not the clear best choice in combat either. I'm also curious how many more combat tricks or AWF options will be printed in later books.


Mudfoot wrote:
The skill AWT is a crude, arbitrary and jarring fudge trying to cover up for the fighter not having enough skill points. If it doesn't come in for 8 levels, it might as well not exist for most characters. Not to mention that you suddenly, out of the blue, get another 18 skill points at that level. Why? Where did that come from? Just give the poor sod the extra points at 1st level and forget this egregious hack.

I'm pretty okay with Fighters suddenly getting a bunch of skill ranks at certain level thresholds. After all, it already happens with Bards.


hiiamtom wrote:

I said DEX to damage in a meaningful way. Dervish Dance, Fencing Grace, and to a lesser extent Slashing Grace are very limited and worse than taking a few levels of Unchained Rogue. You want DEX to damage to have small sized fighters in melee without severe handicaps more so than just making fighters less MAD.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
That's not correct. It has significantly more non-combat options than it did previously.
Significantly is an exaggeration. They are not as useful out of combat as other martials - let alone a 2/3 caster. They are also not the clear best choice in combat either. I'm also curious how many more combat tricks or AWF options will be printed in later books.

I'd list move 20 as a bit bigger issue for small fighters than the 2-3 damage per hit they lose for small size and str penalty.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:

I'd list move 20 as a bit bigger issue for small fighters than the 2-3 damage per hit they lose for small size and str penalty.

Why does nobody remember that halflings have a trait to boost it back to 30?


HyperMissingno wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:

I'd list move 20 as a bit bigger issue for small fighters than the 2-3 damage per hit they lose for small size and str penalty.

Why does nobody remember that halflings have a trait to boost it back to 30?

Exactly how specific do we have to get then? Its like wondering why int penalty races don't have options to make them better wizards.


Ryan Freire wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:

I'd list move 20 as a bit bigger issue for small fighters than the 2-3 damage per hit they lose for small size and str penalty.

Why does nobody remember that halflings have a trait to boost it back to 30?
Exactly how specific do we have to get then? Its like wondering why int penalty races don't have options to make them better wizards.

Well, I mean, the small race problem is mostly a thing for core races. Monkey Goblins, Orang Penaks and Wayangs make perfectly good fighters.


Ryan Freire wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:

I'd list move 20 as a bit bigger issue for small fighters than the 2-3 damage per hit they lose for small size and str penalty.

Why does nobody remember that halflings have a trait to boost it back to 30?
Exactly how specific do we have to get then? Its like wondering why int penalty races don't have options to make them better wizards.

It's more of a pet peeve of mind with every guide I've read redmarking halfings for their speed when they have a freaking trait that speeds them up.


I still rate the speed penalty a larger issue with small martials who aren't using ranged (which is generally a pretty decent niche for small fighters) than the stat penalty and small weapon damage combined.


Ryan Freire wrote:
I still rate the speed penalty a larger issue with small martials who aren't using ranged (which is generally a pretty decent niche for small fighters) than the stat penalty and small weapon damage combined.

Yeah, that I'm not contesting. I'd mention reach fighting but they have trouble with that since Pushing Assault is size dependent.


Still need to see what the Armor Master's Handbook will bring, but Classic Fighter is starting to look pretty decent. I looked at the Advanced Weapon Training options -- to use guide color-coded rating terms, they are mostly in the realm of the Green to Brilliant Blue feats, with a very light sprinkling of Orange options and maybe 1 or 2 Reds. To get that many feats of that quality is definitely better than average feats.

That said, the Fighter still needs a boost in skill ranks per level (Versatile Training helps but isn't really enough, and it is competing with an awful lot of very good Advanced Weapon Training other options). If the Armor Master's Handbook delivers equivalent quality to the Weapon Master's Handbook, then if base Fighter's skill ranks per level were increased from 2(*) to 4, I think we could call it good.

(*)Whoever thought it would be good to make Fighters get less skill ranks per level than a Barbarian, anyway?

While we're at it, the Weapon Master's Handbook also considerably improved VMC Fighter and Myrmidarch Magus (up to now much maligned), and again the upcoming Armor Master's Handbook may do the same.

Silver Crusade

Fighter has feats going for him now.

Am i the only one who wants 4+INT Ranks and would be happy?.

Liberty's Edge

MuertoXSky wrote:

Fighter has feats going for him now.

Am i the only one who wants 4+INT Ranks and would be happy?.

I'd certainly be pretty close to it.


A few archtypes give 4+INT Ranks (pack mule, child of Acavna and Amaznen). Lore Warden gives 2 more ranks of INT skills. And Advanced Weapon Training has Versatile Training to get ranks in 2 skills.


Ryan Freire wrote:
I'd list move 20 as a bit bigger issue for small fighters than the 2-3 damage per hit they lose for small size and str penalty.

I have never, ever had movement come up as a significant handicap to any character except for the rare corner case of a chase where any class with fly basically has the upper hand anyways. I like dwarven martial characters, and will keep using them and just not noticing any difference in combat between them and their human buddy.

Ryan Freire wrote:
Exactly how specific do we have to get then? Its like wondering why int penalty races don't have options to make them better wizards.

This is an extremely valid complaint to have, Golarion unless someone is making a setting where there are distinct racial advantages in society for certain races to be certain classes/professions. In fact, the development team is explicitly against that line of thinking; which makes the complaint all the more valid.

Secret Wizard wrote:
Well, I mean, the small race problem is mostly a thing for core races. Monkey Goblins, Orang Penaks and Wayangs make perfectly good fighters.

Monkey Goblins are a bestiary race, and are evil demon worshipers. They also live in deep jungle, making the primary locations of not-Europe a tough sell.

Orang-Pendak are another bestiary race, live in deep jungle, and can only speak common with INT of 12 or higher (or linguistics, but it's clear they're not built to be PCs). They also specifically avoid other races and stick to their local area.

Wayangs are probably the best choice (outside Wywoods and Gathlains and Skinwalkers, who can choose to be small if they wish, because they are also tough sells story-wise), but even then they live in secret communities in Tian Xia. Not only that, the plane of shadow represents unfair hatred to the race because of that whole Zon-Kuthon business (in Golarion at least).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I successfully ran a Lame Oracle/Paladin in heavy armor through Dragon's Demand. At a 15ft move speed because I misunderstood the curse and chose to live with it. It's a handicap, but not impossible to deal with.


hiiamtom wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
I'd list move 20 as a bit bigger issue for small fighters than the 2-3 damage per hit they lose for small size and str penalty.
I have never, ever had movement come up as a significant handicap to any character except for the rare corner case of a chase where any class with fly basically has the upper hand anyways.

I, on the other hand, have personally witnessed a 20 foot land speed character utterly fail to reach combat on numerous occasions, including one instance where a gnoll with a short bow was able to kite him for four turns and would've continued had I not intervened with my long bow.

I will never play a 20 speed character.


So I've given it a fair go and it looks really compelling if you simply go with the stamina rules on top of everything else you get something that looks pretty nice. I'll share one of the results when its done.

also, I'd never suggest a new player try a fighter.

Paladin or Ranger definitely.

Liberty's Edge

TarkXT wrote:

also, I'd never suggest a new player try a fighter.

Paladin or Ranger definitely.

Or Slayer, but yeah, not Fighter.


So here's one build.

20pt. buy, vanilla dwarf, assumed the free combat stamina rule, Eldritch Guardian, Mutation Warrior.

Pretty interesting overall. Not the hardest hitting fighter at the core but between mutagen and the mauler sharing in all your stuff it basically means you have two characters smacking, sundering and spell shattering things into oblivion.

I wanted to take advantage of Fighter tactics early on. Escape route seemed an easy pick since it gave me and the familiar free reign to move around crowded battlefields. Intercept charge seemed like a good thing to have particularly with stamina since it can give me a free move in the right situation. Useful for getting into back lines to get the anti-spellcaster stuff online.

The rhampy felt like a solid choice for the familiar. Being able to fly and get pretty beastly felt like a solid start.

Shatterspell is made better with abundant tactics and stamina since I can do it more and land it much more often. That makes this dwarf fairly ideal for smacking down walls.

I think I can do better if I focused more but overall this is the kind of thing I would play. Ima try something in the smaller race range and see what I can come up with.


nicholas storm wrote:
A few archtypes give 4+INT Ranks (pack mule, child of Acavna and Amaznen). Lore Warden gives 2 more ranks of INT skills. And Advanced Weapon Training has Versatile Training to get ranks in 2 skills.

Tactician also gets 4 + IntMod skill ranks per level, plus some additional class skills.

Tried to look up Child of Acavna and Amazneri, but I can't figure out what the name changed to on www.d20pfsrd.com, and Archives of Nethys hasn't been updated since 2015-12-15.


It's the archtype from Arcane Anthologies that gets spellcasting. I looked at it and wondered why one would take this over bloodrager.


I've got a build for fighter that gets bloody wasted.

Courage in a bottle gives +2 to bravery.
Drunken Brawler feat gives +2 to Fort/Will -2 to reflex as long as you have the temp HP it gives or for an hour. The penalty lasts the whole hour though.
Fortified Drinker trait gives +2 vs mind effects.

Tankard and Sword replaces my shield prof with the ability to use a tankard as a light mace and replace attacking with it, with using it for a dirty trick or drinking from it.

Taking armed bravery, my fighter is easily able to get "high" saves on his class due to having 4 bravery after he drinks. Then I take fighters reflexes to get the same for my reflex saves.


nicholas storm wrote:
It's the archtype from Arcane Anthologies that gets spellcasting. I looked at it and wondered why one would take this over bloodrager.

Because aberrant bloodragers are reach monsters.

Oh also rage powers and arcane bloodline getting buffs as free actions, but I don't really care that much about those.

Shadow Lodge

I think you answered the question backwards. :)


nicholas storm wrote:
It's the archtype from Arcane Anthologies that gets spellcasting. I looked at it and wondered why one would take this over bloodrager.

Strange that I can't find it on www.d20pfsrd.com -- most recent Fighter archetype they have is Relic Master, even though they have a bunch of Arcane Anthology archetypes in several other classes (including Enlightened Bloodrager). (And Archives of Nethys is out for now, since that site hasn't had an update since 2015-12-15.)


I had a thread going for it, but you give up Weapon Training and half your bonus feats for spellcasting like a paladin/ranger, using the Bloodrager spell list.

You also lose Weapon Training (which is painful considering the previous release) and Armor Training is "buffed" to include a version of Arcane Armor Training that scales.

They also get to use cantrips, admittedly not that big of a sell, but not awful either, and the 4+ skills plus being an INT based caster makes them pretty decent at skills as well.

Taking the VMC magus options turns it into a viable class that plays and functions differently from a bloodrager, VMC wizard into a less optimal, but still viable class.

I am of the opinion that both the Child of Acavna and Amaznen and the Eldritch Scoundrel were inspired by the Ultimate Intrigue play test iteration of the warlock where the vigilante essentially gave up half its class features for limited arcane spellcasting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:

(And Archives of Nethys is out for now, since that site hasn't had an update since 2015-12-15.)

Karui Kage is taking a small hiatus, he'll be back later this month (with a dreadful option to make the site BLACK on WHITE. Blech)


Ryzoken wrote:
hiiamtom wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
I'd list move 20 as a bit bigger issue for small fighters than the 2-3 damage per hit they lose for small size and str penalty.
I have never, ever had movement come up as a significant handicap to any character except for the rare corner case of a chase where any class with fly basically has the upper hand anyways.

I, on the other hand, have personally witnessed a 20 foot land speed character utterly fail to reach combat on numerous occasions, including one instance where a gnoll with a short bow was able to kite him for four turns and would've continued had I not intervened with my long bow.

I will never play a 20 speed character.

Its exceptionally fun when there's a swathe of difficult terrain between you and the person pecking at you from range.


archetypes that change names take longer to put up than ones that don't. They have to wait for someone to decide what the name will be.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Ryzoken wrote:
hiiamtom wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
I'd list move 20 as a bit bigger issue for small fighters than the 2-3 damage per hit they lose for small size and str penalty.
I have never, ever had movement come up as a significant handicap to any character except for the rare corner case of a chase where any class with fly basically has the upper hand anyways.

I, on the other hand, have personally witnessed a 20 foot land speed character utterly fail to reach combat on numerous occasions, including one instance where a gnoll with a short bow was able to kite him for four turns and would've continued had I not intervened with my long bow.

I will never play a 20 speed character.

Its exceptionally fun when there's a swathe of difficult terrain between you and the person pecking at you from range.

They're *usually* smart enough to pack a pot or two of featherstep. Usually...

But yes. "Fun."


TarkXT wrote:

So I've given it a fair go and it looks really compelling if you simply go with the stamina rules on top of everything else you get something that looks pretty nice. I'll share one of the results when its done.

also, I'd never suggest a new player try a fighter.

Paladin or Ranger definitely.

This i don't understand...

A core fighter is effective at combat with no book keeping. No pet stat blocks, no lay on hands or spell lists .

Building a basic switch hitter fighter will out dps a ranger and barbarian, well pretty much every class until 10th and is more flexible in combat then any other martial.

People complain about skills but even they can be offset now at later levels. When I play with a new person I ask " do you want to cast spells, swing swords or both?"

Caster= sorcerer. Straight forward spell caster almost no book keeping
Sword swinger= switch hitter fighter, no book keeping
Gish= paladin, smallest book keeping and generally powerful.

At any time they should be able to try a new class if they don't like it.


Jockston wrote:
TarkXT wrote:

So I've given it a fair go and it looks really compelling if you simply go with the stamina rules on top of everything else you get something that looks pretty nice. I'll share one of the results when its done.

also, I'd never suggest a new player try a fighter.

Paladin or Ranger definitely.

This i don't understand...

A core fighter is effective at combat with no book keeping. No pet stat blocks, no lay on hands or spell lists .

Building a basic switch hitter fighter will out dps a ranger and barbarian, well pretty much every class until 10th and is more flexible in combat then any other martial.

People complain about skills but even they can be offset now at later levels. When I play with a new person I ask " do you want to cast spells, swing swords or both?"

Effective at damage, not effective at combat.

"Oops, I forgot/underestimated the need to boost my will save and now I'm under the control of the enemy wizard. Sorry guys!"

A Paladin is effective while taking zero options other than Power Attack; everything that you really need comes baked into the class. Fighters require a ton of meta knowledge to know what feats you have to pick up to be truly viable and not leave huge holes in your gameplay.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Jockston wrote:
TarkXT wrote:

So I've given it a fair go and it looks really compelling if you simply go with the stamina rules on top of everything else you get something that looks pretty nice. I'll share one of the results when its done.

also, I'd never suggest a new player try a fighter.

Paladin or Ranger definitely.

This i don't understand...

A core fighter is effective at combat with no book keeping. No pet stat blocks, no lay on hands or spell lists .

Building a basic switch hitter fighter will out dps a ranger and barbarian, well pretty much every class until 10th and is more flexible in combat then any other martial.

People complain about skills but even they can be offset now at later levels. When I play with a new person I ask " do you want to cast spells, swing swords or both?"

Effective at damage, not effective at combat.

"Oops, I forgot/underestimated the need to boost my will save and now I'm under the control of the enemy wizard. Sorry guys!"

A Paladin is effective while taking zero options other than Power Attack; everything that you really need comes baked into the class. Fighters require a ton of meta knowledge to know what feats you have to pick up to be truly viable and not leave huge holes in your gameplay.

This is fallacy, they are not sitting at the table without advice or players helping them. You trying to mc my fighter friend well I hit the group with pro evil mass before the fight oh and he has improved iron will so his will is better then everyone else's in the group technically.

*edit* don't want people dwelling on corner cases, derailing the topic as usual

So"with the exception of the paladin."


He doesn't have Improved Iron Will because he's an inexperienced player who didn't know he should take it.

That's my point. Paladins and Rangers practically build themselves, Fighters and Barbarians have a much higher skill floor because of the wealth of options available in which many of those "options" are basically required to perform.


Jockston wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Jockston wrote:
TarkXT wrote:

So I've given it a fair go and it looks really compelling if you simply go with the stamina rules on top of everything else you get something that looks pretty nice. I'll share one of the results when its done.

also, I'd never suggest a new player try a fighter.

Paladin or Ranger definitely.

This i don't understand...

A core fighter is effective at combat with no book keeping. No pet stat blocks, no lay on hands or spell lists .

Building a basic switch hitter fighter will out dps a ranger and barbarian, well pretty much every class until 10th and is more flexible in combat then any other martial.

People complain about skills but even they can be offset now at later levels. When I play with a new person I ask " do you want to cast spells, swing swords or both?"

Effective at damage, not effective at combat.

"Oops, I forgot/underestimated the need to boost my will save and now I'm under the control of the enemy wizard. Sorry guys!"

A Paladin is effective while taking zero options other than Power Attack; everything that you really need comes baked into the class. Fighters require a ton of meta knowledge to know what feats you have to pick up to be truly viable and not leave huge holes in your gameplay.

This is fallacy, they are not sitting at the table without advice or players helping them. You trying to mc my fighter friend well I hit the group with pro evil mass before the fight oh and he has improved iron will so his will is better then everyone else's in the group technically.

*edit* don't want people dwelling on corner cases, derailing the topic as usual

So"with the exception of the paladin."

I'll have a separate thread in a bit detailing my thoughts but I have fair arguments on why I'd never give a fighter to a new player. I'll get it up in a bit as it's rather involved and draws a lot from my game design experience.


Arachnofiend wrote:

He doesn't have Improved Iron Will because he's an inexperienced player who didn't know he should take it.

That's my point. Paladins and Rangers practically build themselves, Fighters and Barbarians have a much higher skill floor because of the wealth of options available in which many of those "options" are basically required to perform.

Are you playing elder scrolls? My first game consisted of me, a gm, and 4 other players who helped me and showed me good choices...

And as I said "CORE RULE BOOK ONLY FIGHTERS" don't have trap options as you put it. Skill cap is near zero, system mastery is near zero and effectiveness is extremely high.


If my choices are between a class that is functional without any outside assistance and a class that requires me to write your character sheet for you, then yes I am going to recommend you use the first class. First is teaching a man to fish, second is giving a man a fish.

Though if you honestly believe a splatbook-less Fighter is extremely effective I'm pretty sure there's going to be no fixing that disconnect.


Arachnofiend wrote:

If my choices are between a class that is functional without any outside assistance and a class that requires me to write your character sheet for you, then yes I am going to recommend you use the first class. First is teaching a man to fish, second is giving a man a fish.

Though if you honestly believe a splatbook-less Fighter is extremely effective I'm pretty sure there's going to be no fixing that disconnect.

To me your arguments are stemming from a biased of the fighter, and are oblivious to the point being made.

You don't learn to drive on a nas car. You learn on an old beater. Your parents help you they don't just hand you keys and let you take your test.

The fighter is the best no book work class to learn from, assuming you don't want magic, and is a better fishing tool then a harpoon. The more crap a new player has to remember the slower combats are and the more help they will need. If that's your idea of teaching a man to fish then you missed the point of that truism.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

My biases come from playing a Core Fighter as one of my first characters, and it being an awful experience that I wouldn't wish on anyone that I want to continue playing Pathfinder.


I agree with arachno.


Jockston wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:

If my choices are between a class that is functional without any outside assistance and a class that requires me to write your character sheet for you, then yes I am going to recommend you use the first class. First is teaching a man to fish, second is giving a man a fish.

Though if you honestly believe a splatbook-less Fighter is extremely effective I'm pretty sure there's going to be no fixing that disconnect.

To me your arguments are stemming from a biased of the fighter, and are oblivious to the point being made.

You don't learn to drive on a nas car. You learn on an old beater. Your parents help you they don't just hand you keys and let you take your test.

The fighter is the best no book work class to learn from, assuming you don't want magic, and is a better fishing tool then a harpoon. The more crap a new player has to remember the slower combats are and the more help they will need. If that's your idea of teaching a man to fish then you missed the point of that truism.

Generally speaking, I've found the Slayer does all of that way better than the fighter does. Particularly since you can level up a slayer way faster.

The fighter's main thing is you have to find a feat, every single time you level up, and feat trees are gigantic and needlessly overcomplicated. You have to check how your armor training is interacting with your dexterity, remember which weapon training bonuses you're using on which weapon assuming you don't just use a single weapon forever, what your bravery bonus is and when it applies.

Slayer's feats are prepackaged and easy to parse through with Fighting Style, you just need to remember what your studied target bonus number is and whether or not you turned it on against this foe and check if you can sneak attack. That's it.

Fighters are all about clambering around on the big bloated tree of feats and a bunch of fiddly little numbers that only apply in certain circumstances or with a specific weapon, while Slayers can bypass most of that nonsense with their fighting styles and get right to the whacking people part.


More importantly to me, is that fighters don't teach you how to play the game.

Liberty's Edge

Secret Wizard wrote:
I agree with arachno.

As do I.

Fighter, even with just the corebook, does nothing to hold a new player's hand, and since they are so many choices, you're very likely to screw up and have an awful time.

It's at least as bad to create as a Sorcerer or other spontaneous caster, if usually a little simpler to play.

Paladin, Ranger, and Slayer are all much better for a new player. Heck, a Gendarme Cavalier is better, too. So are lots of things.


Not gonna lie, with all the new awesome materials for fighters, I've had an idea for a thrown weapon fighter focusing on chakrams(Though daggers or starknives worm). All the star toss feats, dual minded half elf with the usual will boosting things. 14 STR and pump dex, since you can get a ridiculous amount of static bonuses on thrown weapons now, you don't need that much strength. With ricochet toss, you can have 1 or 2 badass thrown weapons that you can melee with. Your AC will be great if you remain core fighter as well.

Is it the most optimal DPR monster? No, but the damage is real, you got versatility in range in combat, and let's face it, we all wanna play the guy twiddling chakrams, juggling knives or flicking around starknives and lopping five heads off with one throw, only to have that weapon return. Swag.

Okay, maybe that's just me, but I'll be damned if it isn't cool. And it's thanks to the fighter and all its feats I can do that. Something cool and fun. I'd say that's a huge improvement.

51 to 100 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Let's look at what the fighter actually has going for it now All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.