| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So there have been endless threads on how to fix the fighter. Personally, I don't think it's as bad as some people think. It's certainly not where I would like it to be either. So I have a simple fix that I would like some feedback on.
What if all fighters had to take an archetype but they gave up none of their class abilities?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fails to fix 99.9% of the problem.
For the most part, the archetypes don't really provide you with any narrative abilities -- with any ability at all to do anything outside of swing and/or shoot a stick. That inability is the fighter's main problem.
There's a lot of different ways to improve the fighter. The question is "how?" Most homebrewers just give them boring passive or statistical buffs that don't really do anything to make them more fun. Or even more bonus feats. Or let them cheat feat prerequisites. Nothing that makes playing them more interesting.
The Weapon Master Handbook doesn't have a "patch" archetype, but it does introduce new option systems, like advanced weapon training and item mastery feats. The content in that book is pretty cool and interesting and the fighter gets easy access to it all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a lot of different ways to improve the fighter. The question is "how?" Most homebrewers just give them boring passive or statistical buffs that don't really do anything to make them more fun. Or even more bonus feats. Or let them cheat feat prerequisites. Nothing that makes playing them more interesting.
I have to agree about the first part because my own fighter homebrew include such things, but what a person finds interesting about their character is subjective. That's a different discussion though. I think we all agree that the fighter needs a dynamic aspect that is either not present, or just doesn't exist with how most of us play the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I used to think that fighters had a major problem. Then we went through skull and shackles, where the fighter was the top damage per day character and quite useful out of combat with intimidation, climb, swim, and profession(sailor).
In out current game, Frog God's Lost City of Barakus, I'm an Eldritch guardian. I'm the party's top damage per day character and with climb, swim(from a trait), use magic device, and perception, I always have stuff to do outside combat. I have a parrot familiar the can use wands on me mid-combat and scout for us too.
Since 3d edition, we have almost always had a fighter in the party and they are never the dead weight of the group, that dishonor usually goes to the rogue or un-optimized wizard.
Fighters may not have any game breaking OP builds, but they really do feel like a pretty solid class. And in the opinion of my whole gaming group, they only suck out of combat, if you build them to suck out of combat.
I once posted almost the same post and got poor feedback. While my biggest issue with fighters is giving them out of combat options, almost all suggestions were just to give them more bonus combat feats, higher numbers, or better resistances/immunities. Suggesting they get more skills or skill related feats got the complaint that it was making them too rogue-like. Giving them various magical abilities got the complaint that it was making them too ranger,paladin, or magus like. The only thing that the paizo community can agree that they should be able to do is swing a sword or shoot a bow, unfortunately, then we are back to the (potentially) boring fighter we have now.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Probably worth noting, Paizo just released a great replacement for the Fighter. It's called the Vigilante (Avenger). The Avenger can effectively have many more feats than the Fighter, since many of his talents actually either give multiple feats or serve as direct replacements for entire feat chains, can ignore some prereqs on key fighting styles like Two-Weapon Fighting (Sword and Board), has a wealth of social options so he can participate in and out of combat, 6+Int skills with a great skill list, full BAB, two good saves, and can even pick up a version of the Fighter's Armor Training.
While I do have a few issues with several aspects of Ultimate Intrigue, in many ways it does deliver the martial that people have been asking for for quite some time, and the Avenger contains almost everything I've seen people say they would want out of an improved Fighter, other than a good Fort save and some of the more optimistic high level combat abilities (no mountain cleaving that I've found).
The vigilante (avenger) is by no means a "replacement" for the fighter. He has his own niche, which is being the "Batman" of the community in which he resides. Outside his community, he's just an average combatant with a bunch of useless social class abilities.
The vigilante is a class useful in urban campaigns which rarely move outside the main city base, while a true fighter is boundless and can function at his fullest everywhere. Also, not every vigilante is an avenger; that's just one of his specializations, much like a wizard's school.
The biggest problem I see with the fighter is players who want to have their cake and to eat it too.
The fighter is the master of combat. He shines in combat. He longs for combat. He lives for combat. He gets some skills, but he's basically a fighting machine.
If you choose to play a fighter, you have to accept that your character will be mostly a death dispenser, unless you invest some feats and skill points to give him some other areas of expertise (and in Pathfinder there are also archetypes and other options).
If you want him to be able to do other things, just multiclass it: a fighter/rogue or fighter/bard has all the skills he needs (and a lot of extras too), while a fighter/alchemist or fighter/sorcerer gains some nasty magic to add to his arsenal. Giving him a good Int score will also help: maybe if it's not built like a moron, it will have some other perks up his sleeve.
A lesser problem is that there are many feats, especially those coming from 3.5 which were not properly updated, that are poorly written and/or obsolete, while some combat rules, especially those tied to the weapon types and their functioning, are somewhat inadequate or inconsistent.
Maybe, fixing those things would help (and not just the fighter).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest problem I see with the fighter is players who want to have their cake and to eat it too.
The fighter is the master of combat. He shines in combat. He longs for combat. He lives for combat. He gets some skills, but he's basically a fighting machine.
If you choose to play a fighter, you have to accept that your character will be mostly a death dispenser, unless you invest some feats and skill points to give him some other areas of expertise.
Now make the Fighter make sense in a world where Rangers exist.
It's the same thing as with the vigilante: he's a circumstance-bound combatant.
The ranger is a hunter and an explorer. He's a fine light combatant or archer, very able when following and engaging a single enemy or some specific kind of creatures on a familiar terrain, but rather average in basically any other combat situation and usually low on defense.
He has some good array of survival and exploration-themed skills and some druid-like spells to make up for his combat limits, so it's balanced in the end. I like more the spell-less skirmisher ranger, though.
Now make the Fighter make sense in a world where Rangers exist.The biggest problem I see with the fighter is players who want to have their cake and to eat it too.
The fighter is the master of combat. He shines in combat. He longs for combat. He lives for combat. He gets some skills, but he's basically a fighting machine.
If you choose to play a fighter, you have to accept that your character will be mostly a death dispenser, unless you invest some feats and skill points to give him some other areas of expertise.
Full BAB that can now have level scaling damage with any weapon in the game. + isn't reliant on high dex to still have access to good ac
It'd be nice... But not enough. Although, there are some archetypes that are really cool, like the one that gives you mutagen.
I have a few ideas, but maybe it's in bad form to promote my own homebrew...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The vigilante (avenger) is by no means a "replacement" for the fighter. He has his own niche, which is being the "Batman" of the community in which he resides.
I think the Stalker is supposed to be Batman, actually. And I disagree about the Avenger not being a replacement for the Fighter, which I'll elaborate a bit more on throughout my response.
Outside his community, he's just an average combatant with a bunch of useless social class abilities.
The social abilities can grow into new communities, and the key purpose they serve is expanding the class' narrative influence (something the Fighter is utterly lacking). As to being an "average" combatant-
The Avenger can easily have more combat feats than the Fighter (since most of his talents are worth multiple feats or just explicitly are multiple feats), has access to a pounce option, can easily exceed the Fighter's AC, and has several options for skipping prereqs that allow him to achieve and excel at combat styles (like Sword and Board) much more efficiently than the Fighter. He also has two good saves to the Fighter's one, and they're both saves that make the Avenger better at avoiding removal or control effects.
The vigilante is a class useful in urban campaigns which rarely move outside the main city base, while a true fighter is boundless and can function at his fullest everywhere.
We're talking about a theoretically improved Fighter here, yes? Because the Pathfinder Fighter definitely doesn't match the description you've given him. Neither does the Vigilante (Avenger). The Avenger is useful in most any environment, doubly so in his home territory.
Also, not every vigilante is an avenger; that's just one of his specializations, much like a wizard's school.
No one said the Avenger wasn't a Vigilante specialty, just that he's better at pretty much everything than the Fighter. And why does Fighter need to be a class anyways? Isn't every single class in the game capable of fighting? And most of them do it better and more efficiently than the Fighter currently does, primarily because a class can only be so good at fighting and still be balanced to the core game. The Vigilante (Avenger) essentially has two disadvantages compared to the Fighter; lower Fortitude, and fewer hit points. The advantages of the Avenger far outweigh this though; he's less likely to be removed from the fight or turned against his party, he gets options to attack at full efficacy when moving, he has far more skills to participate in the game beyond hitting things, his stats aren't spread as thin, the list goes on.
So, you've got a class with more narrative power than the Fighter, who is arguably a superior combatant to the Fighter.... Sounds like a replacement for the Fighter to me! And honestly, I think moving away from the current idea of the Fighter, or that the Fighter even needs to be its own class, is far from a bad thing. When the game is already full of characters who can do the Fighter's thing as well as or better than the Fighter, while also doing numerous other things, it makes you wonder why it's even necessary to try and shoehorn Fighters into the game at all. In many ways, they're relics of a simpler and more compartmentalized game than the game that Pathfinder has become.
It's the same thing as with the vigilante: he's a circumstance-bound combatant.
The ranger is a hunter and an explorer. He's a fine light combatant or archer, very able when following and engaging a single enemy or some specific kind of creatures on a familiar terrain, but rather average in basically any other combat situation and usually low on defense.
Ranger can easily match the Fighter's AC, and has several options for controlling the circumstances and triggers for his abilities. With even a reasonable degree of system mastery, the Ranger is a better combatant who can contribute in numerous areas the Fighter simply doesn't have the resources for.
He has some good array of survival and exploration-themed skills and some druid-like spells to make up for his combat limits, so it's balanced in the end. I like more the spell-less skirmisher ranger, though.
To a certain extent, I think you're conflating flavor and mechanics. The Skirmisher is far weaker than the core Ranger for example, though probably simpler to play.
If you look at the flavor text for the classes, you start to see some of the issues with the class balance; most classes have mechanics informed by but not limited by their descriptions; for example, I traditionally am much more likely to use Rangers with favored terrain (Urban) and favored enemy (some kind of humanoid) as guild leaders and assassins, because Rogues don't do those things well. The Fighter, however, is restricted by some parts of his flavor while simultaneously failing to meet others; he isn't particularly good at taming kingdoms or rousing the hearts of men as described in his class entry. That is something one might look more to the Cavalier for.
Why even have a "Fighter" class at all? What character in halfway decent fantasy is so one-dimensional that you can't describe him or her as more than just "a skilled combatant"?
You seem to miss all the hindrances of the avenger talents, which make them no more valuable than rogue talents or barbarian's rage powers.
None of them is worth multiple feats, just because of that.
For example, the "pounce option" you cited is just a very dangerous form of charge which leaves the avenger with a -6 to AC until his next turn. This leaves him very open to heavy retaliation, if his foe survives or if there are multiple foes.
Also, most of the best talents he gets only give good results against unaware foes, so basically only at the start of combat and only when the vigilante acts first. This is the very definition of "circumstancial".
Regarding the home community, the vigilante has only a couple CITIES in which to use many of his class abilities, and that's a fact. He can attune himself to a new city, but only by renouncing to one of the older ones and only if he spend a week doing so, which means that his overall efficiency doesn't change that much and he's unable to adapt rapidly.
Same with the ranger: outside his favored terrains and with no one to hunt for he's pretty average and can rely only on spells and skills to have an edge on his foes.
A fighter is a very good combatant in every place, against every foe, with no real limitation apart his selection of feats and weapon trainings.
His perk is just that: being very good at fighting in basically all possible occasions, instead of being really good in some limited occasions and fairly average or below average in all the rest.
The classes which have "bursts" of afficiency have some other skills or ability to make up for their limitations, but this doesn't make them "better fighters", just playable characters instead of crappy characters (do you remember the old 3.5 paladin, very good at hitting the first evil enemy he encountered and then completely useless or underpowered?)
What you can argue upon, maybe, is that there are some rather inefficient feat trees or underperforming weapons in the game, which ultimately can hinder some builds of the fighter, but that doesn't mean that the fighter class as a whole is underpowered or useless.
The class represents the master of weapons, armors and armed combat (hence his trainings and loads of feats), not the kings, nobles, diplomats, knights or such very specific kind of characters.
He's just as varied as other classes, especially in Pathfinder, where you also have archetypes to tweak his abilities. No other class is as varied as him in what regards combat, though, because that's what the fighter is built for.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to miss all the hindrances of the avenger talents, which make them no more valuable than rogue talents
Not even remotely true.
or barbarian's rage powers.
Most barbarian rage powers, other than the 1/rage ones, are regarded as being better than most feats, and justifiably so.
None of them is worth multiple feats, just because of that.
Provably untrue, because many of them just are multiple feats. Shield of Fury grants Two-Weapon Fighting and Improved Shield Bash, and removes the DEX requirements for other TWF feats, allowing the Vigilante to more easily qualify while still keeping his STR (and thus his damage) high. Signature Weapon is Weapon Focus + Weapon Specialization. Cunning Feint gives you the benefits of Improved Feint, Greater Feint, and Improved Two-Weapon Feint, with the added benefit of not requiring you to actually TWF unless you want to. So, yeah, there are quite a few that are 100% legitimately worth multiple feats.
For example, the "pounce option" you cited is just a very dangerous form of charge which leaves the avenger with a -6 to AC until his next turn. This leaves him very open to heavy retaliation, if his foe survives or if there are multiple foes.
You get to charge and full attack. There's not a lot that's going to survive that, and for bonus points you can combo Mad Rush with Cunning Feint to heavily debuff the enemy if it does survive. There are other defensive talents (like Close the Gap and Shield of Blades) which also stack with this ability to negate its downsides and make the Avenger even more powerful when he doesn't use Mad Rush.
Also, most of the best talents he gets only give good results against unaware foes, so basically only at the start of combat and only when the vigilante acts first. This is the very definition of "circumstancial".
Pretty sure none of the talents I've mentioned so far require the foe to be unaware. Neither do Armor Skin, Combat Skill, Expose Weakness... Really, the Avenger doesn't have that many talents that do require the foe to be unaware. That's more of a Stalker thing.
Regarding the home community, the vigilante has only a couple CITIES in which to use many of his class abilities, and that's a fact.
You mean those narrative tools that have nothing to do with combat and for which the Fighter has no analogue? Yeah, they're limited to a few locations, but those are icing on a moist and delicious cake.
He can attune himself to a new city, but only by renouncing to one of the older ones and only if he spend a week doing so, which means that his overall efficiency doesn't change that much and he's unable to adapt rapidly.Same with the ranger: outside his favored terrains and with no one to hunt for he's pretty average and can rely only on spells and skills to have an edge on his foes.
Fortunately, the Ranger's spells include options for raising his AC, making any enemy his favored enemy, making any terrain his favored terrain, etc. Instant Enemy is a swift action that doesn't interfere with his turn at all and allows him to consistently outperform the Fighter. For bonus points, the Ranger's options also work with any weapon he wields, instead of a specific selection
A fighter is a very good combatant in every place, against every foe, with no real limitation apart his selection of feats and weapon trainings.
Very debatable. The Fighter has no tools beyond "hit it" and many situations either prevent "hitting it", or provide other hindrances that the Fighter simply can't deal with. The Fighter is a blender, only as useful as the party's ability to actually stick stuff into reach of the blades (and most classes can easily be better at being blenders, particularly after 5th level).
His perk is just that: being very good at fighting in basically all possible occasions, instead of being really good in some limited occasions and fairly average or below average in all the rest.
Except that's not really how it plays out. The Fighter is generally capable of dealing decent damage when the foes have no tactical tools, and otherwise nearly useless.
The classes which have "bursts" of afficiency have some other skills or ability to make up for their limitations, but this doesn't make them "better fighters", just playable characters instead of crappy characters (do you remember the old 3.5 paladin, very good at hitting the first evil enemy he encountered and then completely useless or underpowered?)
3.5 paladin has pretty much nothing to do with Pathfinder. It was a weak class from a similar but also very different game. Compare to the PF paladin, which is one of the strongest martially oriented classes in the game. Ashiel ran a pretty cool adventure simulation showing how a paladin thrust into an adventure lacking even a single evil creature (full of oozes and constructs and dubbed "Paladin Hell") still outperformed the Fighter. I'll see if I can dig it up.
"The Fighter can go all day" (paraphrasing your arguments regarding the Fighter's consistency) is also a pretty flawed argument, for several reasons-
1) He still has a hit point pool. When this runs out, it's game over, and the Fighter has a harder time replenshing this pool on his own than any other class.
2a) The Fighter may actually lower the expected duration of the adventuring day since he is drawing on other party resources without contributing resources of his own; while Avengers or Rangers can pull double duty and cover many skill based challenges and in some instances even cover their own healing, as well as being more mobile and versatile, the Fighter has draw his buffs and healing from other party members resource pool, lowering the group's overall longevity.
2b) The Fighter has poor Reflex and Will saves; these are the two saves you'll most commonly face for damage and control effects. The Fighter is thus more likely to take full damage from area effects, and more likely to be turned against the party or removed as a factor from combat entirely. This means damage and tanking isn't happening, or is happening to the wrong people, and once more the party is actually having their longevity negatively impacted by having the Fighter over another martial option.
3) Very few adventures are non-stop combat slogs. Grab any Paizo AP and the average day is 1-4 combat encounters and 1-3 social/exploration encounters. That's nearly half the day that the Fighter is not participating effectively, and nowhere near enough encounters to cause resource based classes to fall behind in effectiveness.
What you can argue upon, maybe, is that there are some rather inefficient feat trees or underperforming weapons in the game, which ultimately can...
Feats in general are weaker than most class features, and even with the Fighter's free retraining, they represent a much larger and less flexible expenditure of character resources. When the Avenger is getting entire feat trees for a single talent and the Ranger can leap straight to the most beneficial feats without having to take tax feats or meet prereqs, the Fighter's bonus feats become an even sadder "benefit".
I will not quote every single passage, since it would become rapidly a mess, but I'll try to reply as clearly as I can.
Vigilante talents are circumstancial, and that's a fact. Everyone has either limited scope or has some narrow field of usefullness.
You cited Shield of Fury, but it does not all you stated: it gives you Improved Shield Bash as a bonus, true, but you count as having Two-Weapon Fighting only with a shield and it is the only requisite you satisfy for other feats of the tree, since nowhere it says that you satisfy also the Dex requirements of those other feats (so you still have to put high scores into Dex and have high BAB).
Even Signature Weapon restricts the character to the use of a single weapon (which is why I personally consider the whole specialization tree as garbage, even for the fighter). It gives you two feats, but removes almost all your versatility in weaponry.
I don't know the other you cited. I do not have the second playtest material, since I'm not really that interested in this new class (you can put all the icing you want on his cake, but it's still just a wannabe Batman in some kind of sword & sorcery blend), so I can't say if you are using them correctly or not. But I can say one thing: feints in Pathfinder fails pretty easily against high BAB foes, while the -6 to AC from Mad Rush is sure (or -4 with Close the Gap).
Charging, though, is still a pretty dangerous thing to do and it's not a reliable tactic, less so useful in every occasion. If the avenger spends 4 or more out of 10 talents to focus on this only tactic, he becomes even more circumstancial.
Ranger spells... Yeah... How many does he have in a day? On how many targets can he use them? At what level? Can he really cast them while engaging an enemy?
Take Instant Enemy, for example, which become available at best at 10th level (for a 16+ Wis ranger) and has a single target. Again, something circumstancial and limited in scope and uses.
At that level, having 6 spells total in a day is not really that big of a game changer, unless the circumstances are really favorable (read, the ranger has prepared exactly the six spells he needs for exactly the situations in which he finds himself that day).
That's why rangers have skills and other class abilities to make for their somewhat limited area of efficiency in combat. Personally, I find more useful things like Quarry, Camouflage and Hide in Plain Sight, even if they are still restricted to favored terrains.
Regarding the fighter, EVERYONE has a hp pool which is depleted in combat. Only a few classes can replenish that, mostly casters, while everyone else is just in the same situation as the fighter, only with less armor or less nimbleness while in armor.
A wizard can lower the duration of the adventure even more than the fighter, since he has half his hit points and has to replenish his spells too. And let's not speak about the healer/buffer: if he's taken out, the whole party is out of healing.
A wizard has poor Fortitude and Reflexes, which is even worse, since he can get poisoned by a low level cobold and die miserably even at high levels and can die from an AoE attack even if he saves, due to poor hp pool.
A fighter in Pathfinder can participate in every social interaction, if the player just uses a bit of sense into placing his scores and getting his skills. Buying ranks in social skills costs the same for the fighter as anyone else. He simply doesn't get the class bonus (but a lot of classes don't too). There are ways to get more skill points, so that's not an issue too.
Also, it's not that difficult to build a fighter so he can hit things without too many hindrances and overcome highly tactical enemies. Just don't stick to the one-trick-pony trends and stale stereotypes about the class that have been around since 3.5.
Master Craftsman can solve all his equipment problems, for example (even how to heal himself).
A fighter simply has no specialty areas outside of combat, while other characters have one but lack combat-specific perks (or have less, like ranger and avenger). That doesn't mean he's cut off from out-of-combat situations.
P.S. One way to nullify the charging/feinting avenger (but maybe also something else): ready an action so if he engages you, you disarm/sunder his primary weapon. If you succeed, he'll get only secondary attacks and he'll keep his full -6 AC, since he could not forego his first primary attack beacuse he'll have none. Also, you can add a 5-foot step to the readied action, if you have not moved in the turn you readied it (it's not an action), so maybe you can even get away from the charge line.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Vigilante talents are circumstancial, and that's a fact. Everyone has either limited scope or has some narrow field of usefullness.
This is utterly untrue.
You cited Shield of Fury, but it does not all you stated: it gives you Improved Shield Bash as a bonus, true, but you count as having Two-Weapon Fighting only with a shield and it is the only requisite you satisfy for other feats of the tree, since nowhere it says that you satisfy also the Dex requirements of those other feats (so you still have to put high scores into Dex and have high BAB).
It actually very specifically says it lets you ignore the Dex requirements. It does only work with a shield, but that's not exactly a huge hardship. And is exchanging one requirement (Dex) for another (shield use) not adding extra requirements.
Even Signature Weapon restricts the character to the use of a single weapon (which is why I personally consider the whole specialization tree as garbage, even for the fighter). It gives you two feats, but removes almost all your versatility in weaponry.
So...it gives you two Feats under the exact limitations a Fighter gets them under. Check.
I don't know the other you cited. I do not have the second playtest material, since I'm not really that interested in this new class (you can put all the icing you want on his cake, but it's still just a wannabe Batman in some kind of sword & sorcery blend), so I can't say if you are using them correctly or not.
Uh...the book is actually out and the final version Vigilante is available on the internet free at this point. You might want to take a look at it before engaigng in conversations about it.
But I can say one thing: feints in Pathfinder fails pretty easily against high BAB foes, while the -6 to AC from Mad Rush is sure (or -4 with Close the Gap).
The +4 AC at that level from Shield of Blades is also a sure thing, just for example.
Charging, though, is still a pretty dangerous thing to do and it's not a reliable tactic, less so useful in every occasion. If the avenger spends 4 or more out of 10 talents to focus on this only tactic, he becomes even more circumstancial.
Uh...you need one Talent to do it (Mad Rush). Close the Gap is handy, but not necessary in any way, and Shield of Blades is a +4 Ac all the time, not just when charging. So...that's two Talents on it at most.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Deadmanwalking covered a lot of it very nicely, but I'll touch on a few of the points he didn't.
Even Signature Weapon restricts the character to the use of a single weapon (which is why I personally consider the whole specialization tree as garbage, even for the fighter). It gives you two feats, but removes almost all your versatility in weaponry.
Deadmanwalking already responded to this, but just to reiterate - yes, he gets two feats under the exact same circumstances the Fighter does, but still comes put out ahead because he's spending a smaller amount of resource to gain them.
I don't know the other you cited. I do not have the second playtest material, since I'm not really that interested in this new class (you can put all the icing you want on his cake, but it's still just a wannabe Batman in some kind of sword & sorcery blend), so I can't say if you are using them correctly or not.
This kind of comes off as "I don't know what I'm talking about, so rather than give an informed response, I'll imply you're probably doing it wrong." Not cool. Also, I totally know what I'm doing. Also, Avenger isn't Batman; that's the Stalker.
But I can say one thing: feints in Pathfinder fails pretty easily against high BAB foes
Actually, skills in PF can easily outpace BAB. Starting out, an Avenger with a 12 CHA will have a +5 to Bluff, and the DC to Feint against a Fighter with 12 WIS would be 12. That's a 70% chance of success, and the Vigilante can easily boost that even further in his favor.
Ranger spells... Yeah... How many does he have in a day?
More than enough, particularly since he can easily supplement them with wands (which he can use much more easily and efficiently than a Fighter).
On how many targets can he use them?
"As many as it takes" is the answer I'm inclined to give. It's certainly never been an issue for me, and I've played in some pretty intense games.
At what level?
4th and up (one level before the Fighter gets Weapon Training).
Can he really cast them while engaging an enemy?
Could have sworn I covered this already, but yes, easily. Instant enemy is a swift action spell, barkskin has a duration of 10 minutes / level, etc. His spell list is specifically customized to complement a martial combatant.
Take Instant Enemy, for example, which become available at best at 10th level (for a 16+ Wis ranger) and has a single target. Again, something circumstancial and limited in scope and uses.
He can also pick up a wand (just as likely as the Fighter getting his hands on an appropriate weapon to match his feats and class features). It's also a no save, no SR spell, so I don't really agree with your characterization of it as "circumstantial".
At that level, having 6 spells total in a day is not really that big of a game changer
Spells vs. No spells is always a game changer.
, unless the circumstances are really favorable (read, the ranger has prepared exactly the six spells he needs for exactly the situations in which he finds himself that day).
This smacks of the ol' "Schroedinger's Wizard" argument. You don't need "exactly the right 6 spells" you need a couple wands of staple spells like barkskin and cure light wounds, then you dedicate your slots to spells that are best cast directly by the Ranger.
That's why rangers have skills and other class abilities to make for their somewhat limited area of efficiency in combat.
Rangers definitely aren't limited in combat. They're well rounded and generally a much better member of the team and more efficient combatant. We haven't even touched on the benefits their animal companion brings, particularly since their AnC also gains the full benefits of their Favored class features.
Personally, I find more useful things like Quarry, Camouflage and Hide in Plain Sight, even if they are still restricted to favored terrains.
See, those are circumstantial (though still really good) abilities. And fortunately, the Ranger eventually gets terrain bond to use its Favored Terrain abilities anywhere.
Regarding the fighter, EVERYONE has a hp pool which is depleted in combat. Only a few classes can replenish that, mostly casters, while everyone else is just in the same situation as the fighter, only with less armor or less nimbleness while in armor.
Actually, almost every other class has access to some facility for restoring their hit point pool. The Fighter, Rogue, and Cavalier are kind of the odd men out, but the Fighter is the only one who doesn't have an easy way to close the gap with wands or something similar. His costs are almost universally greater than any other character.
A wizard can lower the duration of the adventure even more than the fighter,
There is a system mastery requirement for most casters, yes. But the ceiling for the wizard is much, much higher.
since he has half his hit points and has to replenish his spells too.
His spells are also great for mitigating damage in the first place, gaining bonus hit points that put him ahead of the Fighter, or yes, even healing. Wizards can do that now.
And let's not speak about the healer/buffer: if he's taken out, the whole party is out of healing.
Well, at least the Fighter. The other classes may very well be able to cover their own healing or damage prevention until they get the healer back on in his feet.
A wizard has poor Fortitude and Reflexes
Fortunately for the wizard, he had a deep tool box for covering up his weaknesses (unlike the Fighter, whose toolbox consists of one hammer, and possibly a nail).
and can die from an AoE attack even if he saves, due to poor hp pool.
The wizard has far leas reason to worry about AoEs than the Fighter. There are literally hundreds of spells for dealing with all kinds of AoEs, and the wizard only needs access to a couple of them at any given time. Before the inevitable "the Wizard has to have exactly the right spell memorized..." argument- no, he doesn't. He needs a suite of serviceable and versatile spells memorized in his spell slots, and a few scrolls/potions/wands of commonly used defensive and utility spells. It's really not super difficult to set up, and low level scrolls can be scribed even while on the road since they take a minimal amount of time and expense.
A fighter in Pathfinder can participate in every social interaction, if the player just uses a bit of sense into placing his scores and getting his skills.
So can a commoner, and with exactly the same effectiveness.
Buying ranks in social skills costs the same for the fighter as anyone else. He simply doesn't get the class bonus (but a lot of classes don't too). There are ways to get more skill points, so that's not an issue too.
The Fighter is spending resources in this scenario to get things everyone else is getting for free. He's trying to catch up in an area where he'll always fall behind, and in doing so he only allows the other classes to get farther ahead of him in the areas he's supposed to excel. Fighter wants to spend traits on additional class skills, boost his Int and spend his FCB tp gain more skill points? Cool, because the classes that started with 2-3 times the base allotment of skill points and class skills got to dedicate those resources at being even better instead of trying to play catch up.
Also, it's not that difficult to build a fighter so he can hit things without too many hindrances and overcome highly tactical enemies.
I would say that building a Fighter who can actually deal with flying/burrowing/teleporting/invisible/incorporeal/etc. enemies requires much less system mastery than playing any other class that was actually designed with the tools to be a multi-dimensional adventurer. Especially if the Fighter is also spending resources on trying to participate in out of combat encounters.
Just don't stick to the one-trick-pony trends and stale stereotypes about the class that have been around since 3.5.
Little presumptive there, don't you think? Those stereotypes exist for a reason; the Fighter is and has since 3rd edition been an underperforming and poorly balanced (and not in a favorable direction) class that struggles to match up to its peers.
Master Craftsman can solve all his equipment problems, for example (even how to heal himself).
That feat doesn't do what you think it does.
Emphasis added by yours truly. So you get one Craft skill to use, and anything you want to craft has to be covered by that skill. A Fighter couldn't, for example, use Master Craftsman to qualify for Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item and then make himself a set of +1 platemail and a pair of boots of elvenkind; those base items require two different Craft skills. He can't even use it to make a magic sword and suit of armor, since again, those are two different Craft skills (Craft (Armor) and Craft (Weapons), respectively). Plus, now we've spent 3 character feats and 5-20 skill points to do something other classes
Ccan do with class features alone (or at least 1 fewer feats and 5-20 fewer skill points). Once again, the Fighter is spending class resources like a mad cool to emulate abilities other people got for free.
A fighter simply has no specialty areas outside of combat, while other characters have one but lack combat-specific perks (or have less, like ranger and avenger).
Every class can be as good or better than the Fighter in combat. Very few of them lack the tools to participate elsewhere. Part of this is an evolution specific to the 3.x/PF editions; in older versions of the game the Fighter had the best or near the best saves, was substantially better at combat instead of marginally-fractionally-maybe a little bit better, got access to narrative resources like a keep full of artisans, soldiers, diplomats, etc. and was much harder to replace since spells were legitimately hard to use in combat. As I mentioned in an earlier post, in many ways the current Fighter is a relic of an earlier age and a different game, one where nearly everything about combat, inter-class balance, and social interaction was different. He's just not balanced to his current peers like the Paladin, Barbarian, and Ranger (let alone the 2/3 and full spellcasters), except perhaps at the very earliest levels where class choice has less overall impact on character performance.
That doesn't mean he's cut off from out-of-combat situations.
No, it just means he will have to spend a healthy dose of character resources to still be not as good as everyone else at them.
P.S. One way to nullify the charging/feinting avenger (but maybe also something else): ready an action so if he engages you, you disarm/sunder his primary weapon. If you succeed, he'll get only secondary attacks and he'll keep his full -6 AC, since he could not forego his first primary attack beacuse he'll have none. Also, you can add a 5-foot step to the readied action, if you have not moved in the turn you readied it (it's not an action), so maybe you can even get away from the charge line.
This assumes the Fighter or whomever will get to act before the Avenger (not guaranteed by any means), knows that the Avenger is even attacking them (Vigilante gets a lot of tools to prevent that), spent feats on disarm/sunder (as an aside, the Vigilante can get Favored Maneuver letting him also snag a boosted version of the Improved Combat Maneuver Feats), that the Avenger actually has weapons that can be disarmed (the "Captain America" shield and unarmed strike build is actually pretty damn good and immune to this tactic), and then actually succeeds at a combat maneuver check against a full BAB combatant. One, I think it's more than worth the fairly minimal risk, and two, right up until 20th level the Fighter can also be disarmed/sundered, and will suffer much more as a result.
Wizards tend to have great hit points, since they are an SAD class. They need to have a good int, and then everything is optional. It's not unusual for a wizard to have a higher Con then a typical fighter, because they don't have to spread themselves as thin.
Also, Wizards have a strong incentive to have a good Con. High HP means more likeliness to survive and AoE, and bolsters their poor fort save.
Fighters need Str, Con, Dex and Wis to do well. A Wizard needs Int, Con and Dex.
Also, Wizards tend to be less Feat-needy then wizards, having this little class feature called 'spellcasting' that helps cover things, so spending a general feat on Toughness is cool. Likewise, they have this high INt thing going, so they don't need to spend Favored Class benefits on Skill points. More Hp!
tack on one casting of False Life, and I would hazard to say a balanced wizard will be walking around with more hit points then the fighter much of the time.
======
The ONLY class that cannot heal itself is the fighter, and its subset, the cavaliar.
Even Rogues can get Minor Magic and take Infernal healing, if they so choose.
Bravery + Poor Will save < Good Will save.
=================
Class features are only usable when they are appropriate.
For a ranger, Quarry is only good in combat, useless out of combat, takes a move action to use, and helps a ranger's allies, not himself. Great teamwork feat for combat, if he can afford the move action.
Camoflage only works in favored terrain, which means less often then a fighter's weapon choice applies. It's good he has a spell that can mitigate this drawback!
Hide In Plain Sight is another way of saying "you don't have to use a potion of invisibility to use the Stealth skill." Like that? At 17th level, you finally get a class ability that grants you some of the power of a 2nd level spell!
Spellcasting is and always will be awesome, especially for divine casters...because you always get access to the full spell list. Today you can choose boss-slaying combat spells. Tomorrow you can monkeyfish and swim and climb better then the fighter. The day after, keep Barkskin in memory as you use Craft Wondrous Item with your Spellcraft skill to make an Amulet of Natural Armor that someone else crafted (and you can do boots, cloaks, helms, girdles, gloves, vests, shirts, headbands, quivers, scabbards...). The day after that you can step into an Oak Tree and out another one four hundred miles away, to greet the fighter who left for that place a week ago. The day after that, you have a few cure spells to accentuate the wand you can use without a UMD check to fix both of you up on the adventure you're having.
It doesn't matter if you just have a few spells. YOu are a prepared caster and have access to all of them. The reason Instant Enemy comes up is because it is ALWAYS RELEVANT in combat. You may choose not to spend it...either because you don't need to, or because your FE already applies. But otherwise, you can be prepped for any random enemy with JUST that one spell.
Even MINOR spellcasting is extremely powerful and versatile in PF, especially for the ability to leverage your gold and novabuff. The simple ability to use CLW wands without UMD is a godsend to any melee. To replicate that ONE ability, the fighter needs to invest huge amounts of skill points into UMD, OR spend twice the amount of money to carry around tons of heavy potions.
Fighters have just been kicked to the bottom of the pole in PF. It's a fact.
==Aelryinth
Again, I notice that you guys cannot see the inherent disadvantages of some presumed perfect class abilities, especially spells.
Spells, for example, have a lot of hindrances: You have to know them, you have to prepare them, you have to successfully cast them, they have to succeed (hit, avoid SR, ST has to fail, no hard counters in place), they have to last enough, etc.
If some day you prepare some spells, you will not have access to all the other spells you know, especially if you are a divine caster, which has difficulties being flexible in preparing spells.
Wands and such can be useful, but you have to find or craft them and if the spell has effects based on CL or a save, it's at its minimum. Also, while in combat, you have to drag out the wand you want to use, cast the spell and then put the wand away or drop it, which means you lose actions and maybe run the risk of causing AoO. And wands can be disarmed, stolen or sundered too.
And no, if you have few slots, you do not have access to all your spells. You have only access to the few you can place into those equally few slots, and that's it. It doesn't matter what you can put into those slots tomorrow if today you die because you have made the wrong choices when preparing spells at the required time.
And if you as a combatant rely on your spells to fight better, that choice is always a hard one to make, since you cannot be sure of what you'll really need that day (especially with me as a DM).
And if you are a wizard, you have other kinds of problems, such as carrying around all the books you need to have access to your full repertoire, all the scrolls, wands, trinkets with your extra spells, all the components you need (especially the costly ones), while probably using Str as a dump stat, which means you'll probably won't be able to carry much.
No matter how many spells you can put together between slots and cheap magical objects: every choice you make will negate other choices, so you will be only ready for some dangers and not for the rest.
Also, charged objects sooner or later run out of charges, maybe not at the best of times too.
Besides, it's fairly IMPOSSIBLE to create magic items "while on the road" for it requires a suitable place, all the raw resources ready (not just money, you have to have bought or found what you need beforehand), and a minimum of EIGHT HOURS per day of undisturbed work.
Back to the Avenger/Fighter comparison (thanks for the link, I tend not to use that particular database for consulting and I did not know the book was out).
So, the point of the charging Avenger (12th level for the requirements) is that he has to get at least Mad Rush to pounce an enemy, with a +2 to hit and taking a -6 to AC until his next turn. This is really practical only against single, unaware enemies, since the risk of a really painful retaliation is very high otherwise. This maneuver is circumstancial (not just for the avenger) since you have to move to use it and you cannot repeat it at will against the same foe.
Taking Close the Gap reduces the penalty for Mad Charge to -4, but only if the enemy was really close (again, circumstancial).
Shield of Blades does not negates the AC penalty. It adds a shield bonus equal to the Power Attack penalty (-4 at 12th level), so it is not that good if the avenger also has...
Shield of Fury, which gives Two-Weapon Fighting (yes, they changed the Dex requirements since the playtest), but only if one of the weapons is a shield (and if you have a shield, you already have a shield bonus, which means you get a diminished return from Shield of Blades).
Finally, Cunning Feint allows you to deny the Dex bonus of the foe against your pounce, but he has to have such bonus otherwise you just wasted your best primary attack for nothing (if you can feint at all or succeed, which is not granted).
All these talents would give a charge attack for at least three attacks at -/+3/-2 with the primary weapon and +8 with the shield (plus Str modifier), each one dealing +8 damage, if primary, or +4 damage, if secondary and with an AC penalty of -1 or -2 (same as the shield bonus from his shield, which is substituted by the one from the talent) until his next turn. He could get better chances to hit if the enemy has a high Dex bonus and the feint succeeds.
Forgive me if I do not believe that this "build" can really be that deadly as you try to explain. It's either "spend half your resources to make a special attack which probably wouldn't hit a barn for a significant amount of damage" or "make a charge attack that can deal a bit more damage but leaves you open to heavy retaliation" and everything in between. There's no way a Vigilante can fell a foe with such a tactic, if not by critting all the attacks and having used up almost all his feats to patch up as many holes he could.
Yes, a Fighter is less endowed in skills and "social" class abilities, but I really can't see how a Vigilante, no matter what his talents, could compete with the Fighter as a combatant. Everything the vigilante has is either very limited in scope or very limited in use, very circumstancial, as I keep saying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people think that the fighter can only be fixed with an eraser and no matter what you say or do they have made up their minds. They presume that their group is representative of the whole. I chose not to defend my fix because I realized that, although it's really not any different than their's (more and varied bonuses while still allowing for customization), it's not really worth my time. The class works great as is in my campaigns. I don't need to change anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, I notice that you guys cannot see the inherent disadvantages of some presumed perfect class abilities, especially spells.
Spells, for example, have a lot of hindrances: You have to know them, you have to prepare them, you have to successfully cast them, they have to succeed (hit, avoid SR, ST has to fail, no hard counters in place), they have to last enough, etc.
If some day you prepare some spells, you will not have access to all the other spells you know, especially if you are a divine caster, which has difficulties being flexible in preparing spells.
Wands and such can be useful, but you have to find or craft them and if the spell has effects based on CL or a save, it's at its minimum. Also, while in combat, you have to drag out the wand you want to use, cast the spell and then put the wand away or drop it, which means you lose actions and maybe run the risk of causing AoO. And wands can be disarmed, stolen or sundered too.And no, if you have few slots, you do not have access to all your spells. You have only access to the few you can place into those equally few slots, and that's it. It doesn't matter what you can put into those slots tomorrow if today you die because you have made the wrong choices when preparing spells at the required time.
And if you as a combatant rely on your spells to fight better, that choice is always a hard one to make, since you cannot be sure of what you'll really need that day (especially with me as a DM).And if you are a wizard, you have other kinds of problems, such as carrying around all the books you need to have access to your full repertoire, all the scrolls, wands, trinkets with your extra spells, all the components you need (especially the costly ones), while probably using Str as a dump stat, which means you'll probably won't be able to carry much.
No matter how many spells you can put together between slots and cheap magical objects: every choice you make will negate other choices, so you will be only ready for some dangers and not for the...
Mad, I don't mean to be condescending, but have you kept up with the game?
First of all, buff spells...you either cast them before combat, or cast them when not threatened.
SWIFT spells...not an issue. Unless you are ALREADY in the middle of a fight, you just get them off and proceed with your turn as normal.
Instant Enemy is a Swift Spell. It's nigh impossible for an enemey to interrupt it. You can cast it before they threaten you, or after you kill them to do the next one, etc.
Preparing spells is always a balance, sure. But YOU control the balance. Ifyou want to be a skill monkey today, you are. If you want combat spells today, you have them. If you want to travel halfway across the continent, youd o that instead.
So they are 1/day abilities that YOU GET TO PICK. That's incredibly awesome and versatile. And, like Instant Enemy, can be incredibly powerful at the right moment.
Divine casters have far more flexibility in spells then arcane casters, because they don't have to maintain a spellbook. They always have access to the full list, without spending a dime. I'm not sure where this belief of yours comes from.
Divine casters can also leave open slots, to be filled in later if there is a need for them. Flexibility on demand, if desired.
What you're trying to argue is "Just having spells doesn't mean you're better off" and then you make poor examples, because 'Having spells means they might/can/probably will come in handy if I want them to.'
"Unexpected things happening which totally nerf my spellcasting" is NOT a friendly game. Truly, can you present to me a situation where having Barkskin up is NOT better then having no Nat AC option at ALL? either you're on par, or you're better off then the slob who is not a caster.
Example: We're going climbing today. I learn Monkeyfish. We may or may not actually climb. But Mr. Fighter over there with no climb or swim ranks doesn't have the option, does he?
We need to get to city X fast. I memorize Tree Walk. Mr. Fighter travels a week overland to do the same thing as I do taking ten steps.
I have those options. He doesn't. Unless you specifically go out of the way to make sure my spellcasting can't do jack, I will always have more resources and options then a non-caster.
Spellcasting is STRONG.
As for wands...wands are not used in combat. Wands are used before and after combat, OR for spells that don't deal with saves...like, say, HASTE for my guys. Instant Enemy in a wand can be a before combat buff, or a buff taken in the middle of a fight as you move into position next round.
I.e. wands are there to solve the slot problem. If you are saying they are worthless...then potions and scrolls are worth even less, because they take up more room, or cost more, each one has to be drawn independently, and are more fragile.
As for spells and books and stuff - hey, sorry, we talk the core campaign here, which assumes you can buy the core spells you want fairly easily. As soon as you deviate from that, you're into House Rules.
Secondly...weight of books? Hello? The mage will need one book until level 5, at which point he can make or buy a Blessed Book, and that is the ONLY spellbook he has to have, and it's no heavier then a normal hardback at one of our bookstores.
lastly, making magic items: You may not be aware of the rules changes on this, but you don't need 8 hours to make something that's not worth 1000 gp. It's now pro-rated. I think you can only work on one object a day, however.
Secondly, you can easily work on stuff on the road, at half the pace (i.e. you get 4 hours a day, taking twice as long.). Now, look at the costs of things like level 1 wands, scrolls, and potions. Yeah, you can pump out a CLW wand every 2 days, and make scrolls of level 3 or less, and potions of level 2 or less, every single day. If you want to make a permanent item, you can still do it, it just takes you twice as long...but 4 hours a day is a lot more then NO hours a day, right?
:P
==Aelryinth
Wizards tend to have great hit points, since they are an SAD class. They need to have a good int, and then everything is optional. It's not unusual for a wizard to have a higher Con then a typical fighter, because they don't have to spread themselves as thin.
Also, Wizards have a strong incentive to have a good Con. High HP means more likeliness to survive and AoE, and bolsters their poor fort save.
Fighters need Str, Con, Dex and Wis to do well. A Wizard needs Int, Con and Dex.
Also, Wizards tend to be less Feat-needy then wizards, having this little class feature called 'spellcasting' that helps cover things, so spending a general feat on Toughness is cool. Likewise, they have this high INt thing going, so they don't need to spend Favored Class benefits on Skill points. More Hp!
tack on one casting of False Life, and I would hazard to say a balanced wizard will be walking around with more hit points then the fighter much of the time.
In nearly 30 years I have never seen a wizard with more HP than a fighter. Heard of one who managed it, but that's not personal experience. What you describe is completely possible, but certainly not the norm you imply. Fighters can take toughness and FCB HP just as easily as a wizard.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aelryinth covered pretty much everything I would have said regarding some misconceptions about the power of spells vs. no spells. I've already gone over (at some length) the fact that the Avenger's vigilante talents most definitely aren't "very limited in scope or very limited in use, very circumstancial", so I'm not going to continue arguing a point that I've already proven.
I would like to address this though-
Some people think that the fighter can only be fixed with an eraser and no matter what you say or do they have made up their minds.
This is a pretty gross mischaracterization of the people in this thread who are expressing that the current PF Fighter is fundamentally flawed and requires more than a band-aid fix.
I actually used to be of the opinion that the Fighter was fine as is. I argued that case on these very forums more than once. The thing is though, as I GM'd for more and more open tables and players, I began to see the many issues that had been more easily "swept under the rug" in private home groups. I wasn't entirely discouraged though; in fact, I wrote the highly reviewed supplement The Genius Guide to Bravery Feats (published by none other than renowned game designer Owen KC Stephens, whose many hats include head of Paizo's own Player Companion line) to provide the Fighter with more tools to shore up his weak points. Paizo has since published similar feats that are nearly identical to those I originally wrote, particularly in their recent Ultimate Intrigue release.
The Fighter still remains fundamentally flawed though, and while the feats are really cool and well-received (if I may say so), it was apparent to me that without changes to the core chassis the best you can do for the Fighter is try and give him the best exchange rate possible on his bonus feats. The class, at a fundamental level, simply gets less than almost any other class. Search my name plus Fighter and Ranger, and you can find some pretty in depth discussion on the imbalances between the two, and why the Ranger is just a better class overall. The Fighter is a great class for very low level dungeon crawls, and unfortunately not much else without some pretty extensive splat book diving, and will almost always come out behind his peers.
What I'm getting at here is that my opinion that the Fighter is an underperforming and negatively imbalanced class is an opinion I slowly came to based on extensive experience, including in PFS, home games, open table games at the game store, and Paizo APs in all the aforementioned settings, and I came to this belief kicking and screaming and defending the Fighter until math, experience, and a plethora of growing comparison points that consistently made the class less and less relevant forced me to acknowledge its issues.
They presume that their group is representative of the whole.
I personally believe that having run and played at tables in conventions all over the country, as well as running my own open table events using Paizo adventures and APs, has given me a fairly good perspective on how the game functions and what its issues are. I believe many groups use the Fighter without any issues, but I also believe that this is often a result of relatively low system mastery, imperfect rules knowledge/application, a focus on story over adherence to the rules, or some combination of the above. Just because the problems can be hand-waved away by a GM doesn't mean they aren't there to begin with, and on the fly fixes and such are much harder to implement in open groups than they are at a home table with friends you've known for years.
I chose not to defend my fix because I realized that, although it's really not any different than their's (more and varied bonuses while still allowing for customization)
No offense, but your "fix" reflected a fundamental lack of understanding of the issues with the Fighter I've seen most people frustrated by. The Fighter doesn't need bigger combat bonuses or the ability to slap on more combat techniques like he'd get from a free archetype; he needs better narrative impact, better non-AC defenses, and ways to successfully compete in a world where the enemies have access to spells, unique movement modes, and other magical options that can completely remove the Fighter's ability to effectively contribute.
it's not really worth my time. The class works great as is in my campaigns. I don't need to change anything.
Congrats! However, if the Fighter works fine for you as is, doesn't that maybe indicate that you haven't experienced the issues that others have had, and therefore probably don't have much insight into how to fix them? It's kind of like someone who doesn't get headaches suggesting that someone can cure their migraines by drinking some water and powering through. You simply can't fix a problem if you don't understand what it is, and why it is what it is.
If I recall correctly, Aelryinth's problems with the Fighter, like many people's, stem from the fact that he wants to like the class (or at least its premise), has played it frequently, and has been stymied enough times that he's attempted to address the issues he's experienced. He's actually made a large number of posts discussing the Fighter's issues and proposing fixes. I've done the same thing and even written products that were edited and published by some of the top names in the industry in the pursuit of resolving the issues I've seen Fighters struggling with. We're not stubborn "haters", we're gamers who've been at this for a long time, have a broad and deep knowledge of the game and its rules, and whose issues stem from a love of the game and repeated frustrations with certain mechanical elements.
In nearly 30 years I have never seen a wizard with more HP than a fighter. Heard of one who managed it, but that's not personal experience. What you describe is completely possible, but certainly not the norm you imply. Fighters can take toughness and FCB HP just as easily as a wizard.
In 30 years I've never seen the Great Wall of China, but I don't doubt it's there, given the number of eye witness accounts and such.
More on the point, I've seen plenty of wizards with more hp than the Fighters in the group. The point buy system simply encourages this since the wizard doesn't need to spread himself as thin. It's actually fairly debatable whether the Fighter can take Toughness "just as easily" as the Wizard, or whether this will serve to close any existing gap. The Fighter desperately needs his feats since that's what his whole chassis is built around, while you could take away all of a wizard's feats for character level without appreciably lowering his power. Also, the difference in their base hit die is only 2 hp on average, and the wizard has options the Fighter doesn't, like false life and some actual healing spells like the infernal/celestial healing spells. This doesn't even touch on the virtual hit points provided by the wizard's superior defensive options.
This time I have to quote to answer clearly, since there are too many points I have to address.
Mad, I don't mean to be condescending, but have you kept up with the game?
Yep, I have. And nothing really changed in the way feats and magic are used in it, unless you use some optional rule or variant.
First of all, buff spells...you either cast them before combat, or cast them when not threatened.
SWIFT spells...not an issue. Unless you are ALREADY in the middle of a fight, you just get them off and proceed with your turn as normal.
Instant Enemy is a Swift Spell. It's nigh impossible for an enemey to interrupt it. You can cast it before they threaten you, or after you kill them to do the next one, etc.
The point here is "unless you are ALREADY in the middle of a fight", which is a fairly common situation in my experience, far more common than the situation in which the caster has exactly the spell he needs or knows exactly what he's going to need and has plenty of time to prepare himself and the rest of the group.
Preparing spells is always a balance, sure. But YOU control the balance. If you want to be a skill monkey today, you are. If you want combat spells today, you have them. If you want to travel halfway across the continent, youd o that instead.
So they are 1/day abilities that YOU GET TO PICK. That's incredibly awesome and versatile. And, like Instant Enemy, can be incredibly powerful at the right moment.
Yep, but once you've picked, you're versatile NO MORE. That's what I deem important in a spellcaster. I don't care what you are going to pick tomorrow, because you have to make it alive to tomorrow.
It's only what you can do today that really matters, and you can do only what your prepared spells allow you to do.Also, you cannot prepare what you do not know.
What you're trying to argue is "Just having spells doesn't mean you're better off" and then you make poor examples, because 'Having spells means they might/can/probably will come in handy if I want them to.'
"Unexpected things happening which totally nerf my spellcasting" is NOT a friendly game. Truly, can you present to me a situation where having Barkskin up is NOT better then having no Nat AC option at ALL? either you're on par, or you're better off then the slob who is not a caster.
Not "if I want them to", but "if the situation at hand in game means they are handy". It happens pretty often in my games that half the spells a spellcaster prepares (or knows, for spontaneus casters) aren't useful at all in a specific situation. I never had to enforce situations to make them "not handy": players are not prescient beings and they tend to stick to their preferred spells when they do not know what to expect, which often leads to many cases of worthless spells in their repertoir.
Also, even useful spells fails, more often than a caster would like. And being fast to cast doesn't avoid AoO or to have to cast defensively.Regarding the use of barkskin, it's useless whenever a foe uses touch attacks or against most spells and supernatural abilities or against area effects which require ST (such as many traps). In those cases, it's just a wasted slot (or magic item charge).
Example: We're going climbing today. I learn Monkeyfish. We may or may not actually climb. But Mr. Fighter over there with no climb or swim ranks doesn't have the option, does he?
We need to get to city X fast. I memorize Tree Walk. Mr. Fighter travels a week overland to do the same thing as I do taking ten steps.
I have those options. He doesn't. Unless you specifically go out of the way to make sure my spellcasting can't do jack, I will always have more resources and options then a non-caster.
Spellcasting is STRONG.
The fighter, even without ranks, can use ropes and tools for climbing, and also climb with his armor on, thanks to armor trainings. But there is no real reason why he should not have ranks in climb, in which case, he's far better than a druid with that spell (frankly, there are much better options for a druid to climb up something, unless he's really low level).
Also, how many druids would prepare that spell if not completely sure they will have to climb up something that day?I presume you intended "Tree Stride", cause I could not find any "Tree Walk" spell in the core books.
The ranger with that spell can only pass from a tree to another similar in range, but it's the DM who determines if a suitable tree is in range and in which direction it is. It's not granted you find the tree you want in the direction you want, and you surely cannot jump one week worth of travel with just one spell.
Also, the fighter can ride to his destination and bring along pack animals or carts, if he wants, while the ranger has to walk (since he cannot bring a mount or pack animal into the tree) once he's out of the trees.
The ranger can shorten the distance he has to walk by up to 3000 feet/900 meters per caster level, if he's lucky and there are plenty of oaks,each one in range of the last one along the intended direction (but probably far less than that). At 10th level, this means about 6.3 Km/4 mi at max per casting of the spell. For the rest of the voyage he has to walk (probably through trackless forests) or to cast the spell again.
Let's say our 10th level ranger has 6 spells (16+ Wis) per day and decides to use all of them for Tree Stride spells: he can jump, if he's really lucky, 24 miles ahead in the forest. and then he can walk for another 12 miles (8 hours walk through trackless forest terrain), for a total of 40 miles in a day.
The fighter on his heavy warhorse can also make 40 miles in that same day and he can use a comfortable trail through that same forest. This means both of them will arrive at destination at the same time (again, only if the ranger is really, really lucky in finding the right trees all along the path, otherwise, the fighter on his ride would be faster).
Yes, the ranger could have a wand of Tree Stride, but that would cost far more than the fighter's warhorse and its maintenance.
For that spell to really become more efficient than a normal horse the caster hast to be CL 10 or above and the forest has to be really large and with plenty of oaks. Just being in a jungle or a tundra means that that spell is far less efficient than you could think.
Speaking of bad examples of spell use...
I've learned on my skin to check the numbers before stating that a spell is good or bad. Most of the times it's not as good as players think and not as bad as I think. Most of the times that spell is just good for a few specific tasks, less than useful for some other tasks, and utterly useless in any other situation.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like a lot of your point's are just downplaying the usefulness of spell / marginalizing them while not really offing anything unique that the fighter brings to the table by saying in some cases that spell wont be helpful but in those cases the fighter has no advantage anyways.
Basically saying yes those classes have options but in some situations they aren't any better than this mundane thing that anyone can do. Which isn't a point in the fighters favor it's just saying he's exists at the same baseline as every other character.
Yep, but once you've picked, you're versatile NO MORE. That's what I deem important in a spellcaster. I don't care what you are going to pick tomorrow, because you have to make it alive to tomorrow.
It's only what you can do today that really matters, and you can do only what your prepared spells allow you to do.
Also, you cannot prepare what you do not know.
But a fighter doesn't even have this option at all.
Also you can leave spell slots open and fill them with utility during the day. Or Keep low level utility spells like spider climb / monkyfish in scroll form just in case.
Regarding the use of barkskin, it's useless whenever a foe uses touch attacks or against most spells and supernatural abilities or against area effects which require ST (such as many traps). In those cases, it's just a wasted slot (or magic item charge).
Armor is also useless against touch attacks, which comprises (in most cases) the majority of all character's AC.
Things that target saves also arn't favorable to the fighter as his only good save is fortitude. In the case of a ranger he even has evasion and eventually improved evasion which makes his reflex save even better than normal.
Also, even useful spells fails, more often than a caster would like. And being fast to cast doesn't avoid AoO or to have to cast defensively.
Actually it does
Casting timeThe fighter, even without ranks, can use ropes and tools for climbing, and also climb with his armor on, thanks to armor trainings. But there is no real reason why he should not have ranks in climb, in which case, he's far better than a druid with that spell (frankly, there are much better options for a druid to climb up something, unless he's really low level).
Saying the fighter can climb a rope or use a horse to travel isn't really a boon, every other class can also do those things. Oftentimes better as they have more skill ranks or class features that make them better at it beyond a -4 to acp at level 15.
... The fighter on his heavy warhorse can also make 40 miles in that same day and he can use a comfortable trail through that same forest. ...
So could the ranger, in fact he could just befriend a horse with wild empathy. Again the fighter isn't doing anything special here.
If his only real boon is that he can engage with systems that every other character in the game world can also engage. with no greater level of competency than then that's not a really a redeeming feature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In nearly 30 years I have never seen a wizard with more HP than a fighter.
You've been playing Pathfinder for nearly 30 years?
The problem is that fighters cant have nice things. The other problem is everyone has a different ideas to solve the problem, with some even seeing no problem. Every other week I see someone's idea on the boards shoot down, only to be replaced by another. The circle of life.
You've been playing Pathfinder for nearly 30 years?
In nearly 30 years I have never seen a wizard with more HP than a fighter.
You have a point?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have a point?You've been playing Pathfinder for nearly 30 years?
In nearly 30 years I have never seen a wizard with more HP than a fighter.
The length of time you've played is irrelevant if it exceeds the existence of the system you're discussing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have a point?In nearly 30 years I have never seen a wizard with more HP than a fighter.You've been playing Pathfinder for nearly 30 years?
He's posting under the "Sarcasm Dragon" alias... His point is to make funny sarcastic posts.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fighter is diseased. Rotten to the core. There's no saving it. We need to pull it out by the roots. Wipe the slate clean.
And from the ashes, a new fighter will rise, evolved but untamed! Free to live as he sees fit, he'll make Pathfinder great again!
*cough*
Not sure if I need more brandy or less.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff.
FIrewarrior already responded to most of this, but the gist of it is, you're reading the rules wrong, and your eyes are wide shut, Mad.
First: You're right on Tree Stride, I was mistaking it for Transport Via Plants, which is effectively teleport w/o Error for Druids. Tree Stride is merely a Dimension Door equivalent for rapid escape from enemies.
You're wrong on Barkskin. I cast it, get +3 Nat AC. Touch Attacks come flying in...the fighter is JUST AS BAD OFF as I am. IF it's normal attacks, I"m Better then the fighter.
So either you always fight with touch attacks, to make us equal, or I'm better off. Period.
On MOnkeyfish: You promptly Schroedinger'd and said the fighter will have climb ranks. Unfortunately, the fighter only gets 2 base skill points, and you can't retrain your skill ranks every day. If he doesn't have climb and swim ranks, he doesn't have them, period. Whereas I can acquire them ahead of time, or by sitting down for ten minutes and filling an empty slot.
as for him being able to climb...in armor...with pitons and ropes...who exactly is putting them spikes and ropes into place?
Oh, someone who can actually CLIMB...or fly. with spells he doesn't have.
Swift spells cast in combat don't provoke AoO's and you don't have to fight defensively. You simply cannot argue that having the ability to buff before combat, even if you don't use it, is WORSE then NOT having the ability to buff before combat.
Likewise, having the ability to buff DURING combat is NEVER, EVER a WORSE option then NOT being able to buff during combat. You are ignoring the fact that if you have the option, you can maneuver to allow you to make use of it. The Fighter does NOT have the option. ANd once the buff spell goes off, the entire fight can change VERY quickly.
As for 'losing versatility once you have the spell memorized' - so what? If the situation comes up, I'm prepped. Otherwise, I'm the same as the fighter, no better, no worse. If I leave a few spell slots free, I can BECOME PREPPED with ten minutes of time.
And I don't know if you know this, but some people take it as a challenge to find creative uses for spells in many situations. They also tailor their spell layout for maximum versatility from those spells so they DO apply. There is a REASON prepped casters are considered the strongest spell casters.
Or, they play spon casters, so the spells that are useful can be cast repeatedly, giving up their ability to customize their loadout against a foe.
Or, they can SPEND MONEY to become prepped, with scrolls or wands. Let's see the fighter do that with feats. And I can cut my costs in half compared to the fighter, and don't have to take ranks in UMD if he decides to want my versatility and prep-status, too.
A fighter does NOT have the option, and doesn't have the class resources to cover that lack easily. They don't have the skill points. Their entire class resources are combat feats which don't solve the problem. They can't customize for the day, the week or the month, without spending the maximum amount of money to buy potions to dup spells others can make for 1/2 or 1/4 the price.
The fighter can only do what ANYONE can do. And he doesn't even have any class skill bonuses to make him better at his skills then someone who can just magic up a solution. You know, like rangers have skill bonuses against their FE's, or in favored terrain.
----------
Lastly, the HP issue.
Let's not bring up 1 and 2E. Those were very different games. Not only did wizards have a d4, they were restricted to +2 hp/level from Con, and after 12th, gained only 1 hp/level.
3e came along and gave casters HUGE buffs. Unlimited Con bonuses were the first. Toughness/Improved Toughness was the second. False Life and Temp Hp was the third.
To be a caster, you need one stat...Int, Wis or Cha. That's it. If you have a starting score of 15, one Int booster and you can cast all the most powerful spells in the game. You don't NEED a 30 Int. It's nice for the bonus spells, but you don't NEED it.
To do his job well, a melee character needs Str, Dex and Con, in variable order depending on build. Fighters and Rangers also need wis to buff will saves, and the Ranger for spellcasting.
A ranger has 4 skill points more a level then a fighter. That's equal to a fighter with 18 Int. A ranger doesn't need skill points normally, so they are free to invest in Wis while the Fighter scrabbles for skill points.
A wizard having more HP then a fighter is EASY. The difference per level is 2 hp! That's two points of Con and a False Life. yes, the fighter can take Toughness as a General feat, and HP as a FC. However, the fighter NEEDS skill points. A wizard does not...he's got a high Int and it's going to get higher. A wizard taking skill points for FC is basically rather useless...he's going to invest in them with his class, and he's going to BUY them with an Int headband. He's better off getting less squishy. A fighter is much more likely to invest in, say, Iron Will to bolster his crappy Will save, then Toughness. He's already got tons of HP, after all.
In short, a wizard investing an extra point or two in starting Con, buying the Toughness feat, and using his FC benefit for extra HP while casting False Life is totally and completely reasonable, and will result in a caster with more HP then a fighter who does NOT specifically invest in his HP.
Let's not even get into classes like a Summoner, who doesn't need to get his casting stat higher then 16, and can just pump Con to the moon. Ditto orcish Witch Doctors with Con as a casting Stat.
Seriously, the starting Feat for Wizards tends to be either Improved Init or Toughness, in my recent experience, and FC to more HP. Con is usually the second most important stat, followed by dex, and so equal to the average fighter.
==Aelryinth
I think I got lost in the walls of text...
The fighter's job is to fight, it as a class was never meant to be anything more. Basically cannon fodder/unskilled foot soldiers. Do you have a pulse and can you swing a sword, great here is your equipment now go kill those other peons with a pulse and a sword. Given the time period most games fall in, the fighter is the average unskilled person. Because if they were skilled, they would likely do something with those skills.
Other classes are designed to do more. Why would you ask the fighter to go talk to those diplomatic people when the bard is standing right there? Sneaking and tracking are the rouge and ranger's job. Blowing stuff up, mind control and healing are the spell caster's thing.
If you want the fighter to do more, just give them a few more skill points to spend or just let them put a rank or two in diplomacy. Unless the character is supposed to be an ignorant fool, everyone has a little diplomatic ability.
For most role playing you don't need skill points or feats to interact with NPCs. I at least don't see any reason to ask the fighter to roll diplomacy to ask the bartender about a wanted poster or where something might be. Now asking about where the hidden entrance to the Duke's place is, wouldn't be the fighter's job in the first place. That would fall to bards, rouges or any more social skilled class.
He's posting under the "Sarcasm Dragon" alias... His point is to make funny sarcastic posts.You have a point?In nearly 30 years I have never seen a wizard with more HP than a fighter.You've been playing Pathfinder for nearly 30 years?
I know. I was returning the sarcasm, which was obviously (now) not obvious. I too often neglect to include a smiley or wotnot.
The length of time you've played is irrelevant if it exceeds the existence of the system you're discussing.You have a point?You've been playing Pathfinder for nearly 30 years?
In nearly 30 years I have never seen a wizard with more HP than a fighter.
I would agree if my opinions were binary, but I disagree based on how much Pathfinder incorporates the legacy of the gaming systems that came before.
I would agree if my opinions were binary, but I disagree based on how much Pathfinder incorporates the legacy of the gaming systems that came before.The length of time you've played is irrelevant if it exceeds the existence of the system you're discussing.You have a point?You've been playing Pathfinder for nearly 30 years?
In nearly 30 years I have never seen a wizard with more HP than a fighter.
The amount of HP a Wizard can get without sabotaging his ability to effectively engage in combat and adventuring is a matter of pure mechanics. The mechanical options available to a Wizard (and indeed, how much HP is needed to outdo a Fighter) have changed significantly in the last 10 years, much less the last 30.
So,
The length of time you've played is irrelevant if it exceeds the existence of the system you're discussing.
...
The amount of HP a Wizard can get without sabotaging his ability to effectively engage in combat and adventuring is a matter of pure mechanics. The mechanical options available to a Wizard (and indeed, how much HP is needed to outdo a Fighter) have changed significantly in the last 10 years, much less the last 30.
...
To illustrate this...
Wally the Wizard is a human with 14 Con, FCB HP and the Toughness feat (what else is he doing with his feats?). Wally gets 7.5HP per level.
Frederina the Archer Fighter is an Elven Fighter who is taking FCB skills to make up for her horrible base skill points. Frederina gets 6.5HP per level.
By level 4, those two characters have equal HP. After that, Wally leaves Frederina in the dust. It gets even worse if Wally picks up a Con belt, which is something Frederina can't really afford to do since she needs a Dex belt to keep her numbers up.
Note that neither of these are unusual builds. Archery characters can skimp on Con and HP a little, and Toughness is rated as green in the Treantmonk Wizard guide IIRC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
The amount of HP a Wizard can get without sabotaging his ability to effectively engage in combat and adventuring is a matter of pure mechanics. The mechanical options available to a Wizard (and indeed, how much HP is needed to outdo a Fighter) have changed significantly in the last 10 years, much less the last 30.
...
To illustrate this...
Wally the Wizard is a human with 14 Con, FCB HP and the Toughness feat (what else is he doing with his feats?). Wally gets 7.5HP per level.
Frederina the Archer Fighter is an Elven Fighter who is taking FCB skills to make up for her horrible base skill points. Frederina gets 6.5HP per level.
By level 4, those two characters have equal HP. After that, Wally leaves Frederina in the dust. It gets even worse if Wally picks up a Con belt, which is something Frederina can't really afford to do since she needs a Dex belt to keep her numbers up.
Note that neither of these are unusual builds. Archery characters can skimp on Con and HP a little, and Toughness is rated as green in the Treantmonk Wizard guide IIRC.
Terrible example, humans make great everything, and elves don't make particularly good fighters, especially with the con hit.
Here's a better one: Wally the wizard is a human with 14 con FCB hp and toughness, getting 7.5 hp a level.
Frederina the Archer Fighter is a HUMAN fighter with 14 con who takes FCB hp also because human skills, but also has the toughness feat Frederina gets 9.5 hp a level.
She has a good HP because it's just smart. Isn't that why the wizard has a good HP? This just illustrates the point that we don't all build characters the same way. The reasoning is not important. Most players make these choices based on personal preference, sometimes on their GM's tactics. Purely optimal builds represent a minority. We have a variety of priorities.
"Fixing" the Fighter apparently means to some taking it out back to the old tree and shooting it.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I got lost in the walls of text...
The fighter's job is to fight, it as a class was never meant to be anything more. Basically cannon fodder/unskilled foot soldiers. Do you have a pulse and can you swing a sword, great here is your equipment now go kill those other peons with a pulse and a sword. Given the time period most games fall in, the fighter is the average unskilled person. Because if they were skilled, they would likely do something with those skills.
That may be what the Fighter is, but according to his description, that's not what he's supposed to be.
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.
Emphasis added on relevant bits. What you've described is the Warrior NPC class, though admittedly there's not a lot of difference between the two.
Other classes are designed to do more. Why would you ask the fighter to go talk to those diplomatic people when the bard is standing right there? Sneaking and tracking are the rouge and ranger's job. Blowing stuff up, mind control and healing are the spell caster's thing.
Well, given that Fighters are described as knights and lords of the battlefield, I would assume that a certain amount of diplomacy and other tactical and classical skills would be part of their toolset.
The other issue is, all of those classes can fight as well, often as well as or better than the Fighter. So the question becomes "Why have a class that can only fight when I can have one that fights and still does other things?" The question becomes even more poignant when other classes whose purpose is to fight, like the Barbarian, still have more skills, stronger saves, and vastly more utility, with the added bonus of having abilities that work with just about any weapon they pick up, instead of having their class features make their options increasingly narrow.
And you can't even say that the Fighter has always been this way; in pre 3.x versions of the game casters were much more limited (necessitating the Fighter's presence), and the Fighter had stronger tools, including some of the best saves in the game and even a keep filled with followers! He literally got his own castle and army baked into his progression, and came much closer to resembling the class described in the CRB.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters and Swashbucklers are probably the classes that most miserably fail to live up to their class descriptions. :(
Fighters and Swashbucklers are probably the classes that most miserably fail to live up to their class descriptions. :(
And the Swashbuckler has at least received a patch via Noble Fencer that helps it out a bit.