So don't take warrior spirit if you don't like the fluff of it? It's far from mandatory.
I mean you say:
Well, I'm not trying to say that anyone that wants their fighter to be able to make any sword light afire is having wrongbadfun,but then you go on to act as though the option merely existing is bad.
I see it more of, "having it exist and be called the answer to the fighter's problem and it's the GM's fault for not allowing it since it's the fix" as wrongbadfun
I guess my contention is that there needs to be some preconceived fighter fluff to begin with.
The fighter is just a bundle of mechanics and already one of the most blank slate chassis in the game. Mechanics you can use to build whatever character you want. If that character's concept falls in line with what Warrior Spirit provides you? Awesome, take it. If not, it's far from a required option so you can just take something else instead.
Similarly, I can take a Barbarian and build a nonmagical warrior who eschews arcane ability for physical might by taking certain options, or I can build a mystical warrior who can use their emotional focus to sprout wings and shoot lightning. That the second concept exists doesn't in the slightest invalidate the first one and arguing that it somehow does just doesn't make sense to me.
I feel like the problem with Warrior Spirit in terms of a "my character is not overtly magical" perspective is that you can use it to put enhancements on weapons that are clearly supernatural (i.e. it bursts into flames). An ability that, a limited number of times per day, lets you be more accurate and hit harder is entirely valid from a "mundane fighter" perspective.
So it's conceivable that simply limiting the enhancements the fighter can put on it is a solution. I run a setting where magic items are extremely rare, so I'm thinking of a variation on it that grants a player a combat feat (i.e. the "training" enhancement) and an enhancement bonus for one minute.
It feels like there's an acceptable crunch answer to "How do we make the fighter work", and all I'm asking is that the crunch matches the fluff.
Except the crunch your asking it to match are all low-level characters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see it more of, "having it exist and be called the answer to the fighter's problem and it's the GM's fault for not allowing it since it's the fix" as wrongbadfunSo don't take warrior spirit if you don't like the fluff of it? It's far from mandatory.
I mean you say:
Well, I'm not trying to say that anyone that wants their fighter to be able to make any sword light afire is having wrongbadfun,but then you go on to act as though the option merely existing is bad.
I just don't think "the gm might not allow it" is particularly useful input in a discussion like this. "Sucks to be you" is the only real response available there. Some GMS don't allow monks. If they don't want to use it fine, but you kind of lose rhetorical standing to complain about a class, if fixes are offered and you refuse them. There's not even a 3rd party stigma hovering over em.
And to be frank, im all for GMS having a great deal of control over their game and their word being it. They put in the work. But at the same time, you aren't banning it cause of balance, cause the base fighter is pretty weak, and this stuff just manages to bring it up to upper martial/bad archetype 3/4 caster tier. So yes, if a fix exists and the GM says no (AS IS THEIR COMPLETE RIGHT TO DO IN THEIR GAME) it is their fault fighters remain borked without house rules at that table. If you take the privilege of choice in whats allowed you have to take responsibility for balance issues that arise, over OR underpowered.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only way to have a completely non-magical, simple martial class actually achieve level 17 is if they basically become Saitama from One Punch Man. [Albeit equipped according to the player's style preference]
More complex martial artists [similar to Path Of War by way of Dreamscarred Press] is also an option.
The Fighter haters will just claim that Saitama has magical/supernatural/spell-like abilties, because they refuse to let the Fighter do anything to out of place for our reality which has no one above 5th level at best. Basically, they want the Fighter to be a glorified real world person in a game where everyone else progresses to beings that would put the gods of our worlds myths to shame. Which would be fine if the class were labelled as such and those who wished to play it would not complain when they end up being a glorified real world person while everyone is else is making reality cry.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Saitama does have supernatural abilities. Doing 100 push-ups, 100 sit-ups, 100 squats, and then running 10km?
Impossible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only way to have a completely non-magical, simple martial class actually achieve level 17 is if they basically become Saitama from One Punch Man
I've had several break 17. They did fine and were crushing things all the way til the end. Unless you mean with no magical gear either. That would be unwise.
Saitama does have supernatural abilities. Doing 100 push-ups, 100 sit-ups, 100 squats, and then running 10km?
Maybe he started off doing less and built up? ;)
Ironically some of the people holding the fighter down love the concept, they juat lack understanding of how the game changes over the levels and what a level really represents.
(note: this part isn't just responding to this kyrt-rider comment, but some others as well)
Not everybody's games change over the levels the same way. I run mainly APs nowadays and their tone doesn't change much, nor has the effectiveness of any of my PCs. Given, I had no full fighters, but I've had multiple no-casting, no-supernatural classes. The fighter doesn't need to become an anime character or classic greek demi-god to be effective.A typical Core fighter's job is to do some combination of giving and taking damage and they can do that for all 20 levels. A wizard may be creating their own demiplane and the fighter isn't, but neither is the rogue, monk, barbarian, inquisitor, paladin, brawler, bloodrager, gunslinger (etc. etc. I'm not listing all 50 classes lol).
The fighter just needs to be on a more level playing field with those classes and I think creativity is needed more than some (su) tagged abilities. If the answer to a weak fighter is that high levels he becomes an anime character, or wukong, or someone from crouching tiger, we've failed the [admittedly limited] flavor of the class. I don't think that's holding the fighter down; it's trying to keep them on concept, especially since those characters tend to make better monks, brawlers, or ninjas. I don't believe in badwrongfun, so I have absolutely no problem with those being options in the game or for the fighter; I just don't think they should be the default.
I think it's actually more exciting that some "real world" person is able to fight, through skill, luck, and gumption, with these other supernatural classes. The mechanics just need to support it.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ironically some of the people holding the fighter down love the concept, they just lack understanding of how the game changes over the levels and what a level really represents.
Unfortunately, there's quite a bit of truth to this. If the fighter had been printed originally so that he started out as the fighter, around 7th level he suddenly became more like a "warlord" or "guardian" who gained expanded thematic abilities, and then at 12th level he became a "hero" or "colossus", you would have something that covers what pretty much everyone wants. The problem is often (I won't claim always) that people who want "heros" get upset for being perpetually stuck at "fighter", but other people are worried that their "fighter" will get replaced by the "hero" entirely. If that all makes sense. One side generally just wants the Fighter to scale better, the other is afraid that they'll lose the fighter entirely to "crazy anime zaniness that doesn't fit in the classic fantasy world I enjoy".
Not to shamelessly plug, but that's something we talked about quite a bit in the early stages of designing Spheres of Might; for us, the solution was to create versatile and strong martial options that let you do things like snipe someone and knock them over or disarm them while leaping and dodging about, but then gate really over-the-top stuff that is kind of necessary at high levels but also potentially very immersion breaking for some groups into Legendary Talents. That way there's an easy on/off switch dependent on the game you're running; you've got cool martial options and versatile fighters at all levels, but if you want Lord of the Rings to represent what martial characters look like throughout the game, you won't find too much that breaks out of that in the base abilities. If however, you're okay with things like someone kicking their legs so hard the force of it allows them to air walk, or being so good at swimming that they can effectively burrow by swimming through things that aren't water, or swinging a sword so hard reality briefly ruptures and they can teleport to somewhere else, all that stuff is available at the appropriate levels in the Legendary Talents.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the answer to a weak fighter is that high levels he becomes an anime character, or wukong, or someone from crouching tiger, we've failed the [admittedly limited] flavor of the class.what are you declaring the flavor of the class to be?
The not-magic guy?
The not-doing-anything-but-stabbing-things guy?
The not-possessing-unique-and-useful-class-features guy?
The not-using-more-than-one-weapon guy?
I think I just noticed something.
The fighter seems to be defined by what it shouldn't be, not what it should be. That is probably a large part of the reason why it is a bland and underpowered class. It is largely defined by its limitations, not its capabilities, and so its limitations take center stage because those are all that makes the fighter distinctive.
If the answer to a weak fighter is that high levels he becomes an anime character, or wukong, or someone from crouching tiger, we've failed the [admittedly limited] flavor of the class.what are you declaring the flavor of the class to be?The not-magic guy?
The not-doing-anything-but-stabbing-things guy?
The not-possessing-unique-and-useful-class-features guy?
The not-using-more-than-one-weapon guy?
I think I just noticed something.
The fighter seems to be defined by what it shouldn't be, not what it should be. That is probably a large part of the reason why it is a bland and underpowered class. It is largely defined by its limitations, not its capabilities, and so its limitations take center stage because those are all that makes the fighter distinctive.
I think you hit on a good point here. The original intent was to leave the fighter open-ended so it could be just about any style of martial combat specialist, but because it's so open-ended it doesn't have any real defining flavor. Which means that, more than any other class, it's defined purely by what it can (and more often, can't) accomplish mechanically.
Also, I am always darkly amused when someone feels the need to explain how a fighter concept is badwrong by heavily implying "The problem is that it takes inspiration from something that wasn't made by white people!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With all due respect, the GM and/or group was coddling the fighter. Either enemies weren't being played to their potential, or the GM deliberately structured encounters [and possibly gear distribution] to favor the fighter.The only way to have a completely non-magical, simple martial class actually achieve level 17 is if they basically become Saitama from One Punch ManI've had several break 17. They did fine and were crushing things all the way til the end.
Or they are creative players that understand how the rules work.
It's really not that hard to succeed at high levels, even as a fighter.
If the answer to a weak fighter is that high levels he becomes an anime character, or wukong, or someone from crouching tiger, we've failed the [admittedly limited] flavor of the class.what are you declaring the flavor of the class to be?The not-magic guy?
The not-doing-anything-but-stabbing-things guy?
The not-possessing-unique-and-useful-class-features guy?
The not-using-more-than-one-weapon guy?
I think I just noticed something.
The fighter seems to be defined by what it shouldn't be, not what it should be. That is probably a large part of the reason why it is a bland and underpowered class. It is largely defined by its limitations, not its capabilities, and so its limitations take center stage because those are all that makes the fighter distinctive.
The fighter is a blank slate. He can have any flavor I, as the player, choose to give him.
The only limitation on flavor is the creativity of the player.
It's a definitive statement on setting, and that's what I have an issue with. Why are we making so many definitive statements on setting in a non-PFS thread? If your world is medium/high magic, then that's great, but outside of PFS that isn't a necessary assumption.
When 8 out of 11 classes in the CRB use save and reliable magic, then it is simply impossible do doubt that widely aviable, save and reliable magic is part of the setting.
"Here, take these three classes to build Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Boromir, Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin, Bilbo, Thorin, Fili, Kili, Balin, Dwalin, Oin, Gloin, Dori, Nori, Ori, Bifur, Bofur, and Bombur. And now take these eight classes to build Gandalf."
Magic in LoTR is not widely available, safe, or reliable. I'm a little fuzzy on the exact details (he's very vague on what is specifically "magic") but I seem to recall that magic was basically an angel-only thing. That meant pretty much nobody had magic.
I wouldn't call them angels, but basically yes. What most peoplem don't know is that Gandalf is not at all human - he's a maia (lesser god) and at least 11.000 years old, presumably over 40.000 years IIRC. All seven wizards (yes, that's the amount of explicit spellcasters in the entire setting) are maia, as is Sauron. Dwarves, elves, and even some humans do have magical abilities, but those are magic item creation abilities and not combat abilities.
Edit: The balrog in Moria did use a "counter-spell" to break Gandal's Hold Portal, but balrogs are (corrupted) maia, too.
The fighter is a blank slate. He can have any flavor I, as the player, choose to give him.
Because I can't say it any better: "[The Fighter] actually terrible at being a generic fill in the blanks class. Pick virtually any character concept, even one as basic and generic as "farmboy picked up a sword" or "a soldier from an army" and the other classes will fill it better (thanks to skills and stuff)."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With all due respect, the GM and/or group was coddling the fighter. Either enemies weren't being played to their potential, or the GM deliberately structured encounters [and possibly gear distribution] to favor the fighter.
I appreciate the respect. Two things: it's a team game. In a one on one, you're right many high level enemies. For my high level games, each martial had fly and haste on them every fight at a minimum. They also commonly had shield other (barb) and greater invisibility (fighter/rogue), and things like that. A life oracle with every status removal spell and constantly absorbing more than half of the party's damage is very strong. 2nd thing: they weren't full fighters; you said non-magical simple martial class in this case.
When the supposed non-magic guy is hamstrung by AMF or Disjunction we have a big problem.
Those come up more often on forums than in games. I mostly do APs right now and those spells are maybe used once a campaign. Also, I don't really use Disjunction anymore anyway. The first few times I used it, it took over half an hour before we could start playing again. I haven't banned it yet, but I really don't like things that slow the game down like that.
The only AP I've read through the end is RotRL and the tone shift is huhe. Smaller than the levels suggest, but huge nonetheless.
It is. We finished that one. Our sorcerer and life oracle kept buffs on the martials pretty much constantly because of how many spells they had at that level. There were wind walls nullifying the archer and will saves setting the barbarian's sights on the party. In general though, the archer went first and took out the most powerful, or nearly did. Then fireballs and charges finished him off or went onto the next most powerful. The campaign already gives out good loot and I let the party craft what they wanted (within WBL) in that game so they were quite strong.
Also, if you have a chance, read or skim some more APs. They're good reading. You also may be surprised at how Paizo handles scope and adventure design. Runelords has a lot of wizards and the loot is clearly aimed at having a wizard in the party. But to take essentially the far opposite, Shackles is still just swashbuckling through to the end. Devils and krakens and whatnot show up, but even the highest level NPCs are planning on swashing some buckles, not opening with a timestop to set up a prismatic sphere, wind wall, and delayed blast fireball, and then out of time stop using two wails of the banshee to start things off, while his monsters he called earlier team up with his constructs to destroy you (that's pretty much the Karzoug fight). That said, many of the enemies have silly battle tactics as written so I do what's smartest instead, assuming the enemy has intelligence.
Only demigod? He's adbenturing with Jehova and Doctor Strange, demi-god dpesn't cut it. Odin and Zeus might make the cut, just barely.
I think that's a distinction without a difference. Also, I think Marvel Odin with the destroyer armor fights using the power of every Asgardian at once so he makes the cut just fine. Squirrel Girl would still beat him though.
A typical Core fighter's job is to do some combination of giving and taking damage and they can do that for all 20 levels.Wrong. They have hit points and potemtial damage at all levels but no ability to deploy them to the party's advantage without GM hand-holding or a Control Caster doing the real work for them.
Like I said, it's a team game. This is the way it is designed to work. And that doesn't mean I think the fighter is good enough as is. People in my games (besides me) don't dip more than 3 levels in fighter.
what are you declaring the flavor of the class to be?
I'm not the designer, though I am busy making more own set of rules. I defer to the core rulebook which starts with flavor. It's too big to post in this already long post, but here is the "role" entry:
Fighters excel at combat—defeating their enemies, controlling the flow of battle, and surviving such sorties themselves. While their specific weapons and methods grant them a wide variety of tactics, few can match fighters for sheer battle prowess.
My fighter change gives them talents instead of feats. It's still early in design, but I want to give them more ways to deal with bad saves, more ways to move around beyond move actions, and unique abilities, like being able to use a shield to deflect a spell or block a breath weapon as if he had evasion, or use a sword to cut through a force effect. Basically, if you see "real world" guys doing it in novels or movies, I think it's fair game for a fighter.
I totally agree, hence my suggestion of Saitama for simple high level martials, or Path of War for skilled martial artists.
I think we agree on much of this actually, but are approaching it from different angles and different assumptions. I sadly don't know anything about Path of War. Is it like the upcoming Spheres of Might? I looked at Spheres of Power (for casters) a bit and that seemed really interesting.
Respect, and I'm sorry I talk too much lol
The fighter is a blank slate. He can have any flavor I, as the player, choose to give him.
The only limitation on flavor is the creativity of the player.
This is the point I think a lot of people skip right over. If you don't want Warrior Spirit to have magical fluff, then insert your own non-magical fluff and reject what's there. Instead of your fighter having a spiritual connection to the weapon, just say that he's using a kata that does more damage, or he's just really good with that particular weapon, or he's just bringing his A-game at that particular moment. Sure it might not be as exciting as magic, but that's what happens when you remove magic without going full anime (which would basically just be magic without saying so).
actually terrible at being a generic fill in the blanks class. Pick virtually any character concept, even one as basic and generic as "farmboy picked up a sword" or "a soldier from an army" and the other classes will fill it better (thanks to skills and stuff).
So what classes would you use for those concepts?
(There are good answers, but assuming you don't want ranger spellcasting or rage, a novice player would have to search quite hard to find them.)| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the end, though... if you don't like the fighter, don't play it?
Sure, it's not an overly constructive suggestion, but it does get right to the point.
Our group pretty much always had at least one fighter, sometimes more. Sometimes pure, sometimes multiclassing. The only thing they have in common is that these characters are pretty much never the worst party members.
If as a player, you want to be able to do as many things as the wizard... play a wizard. Fairly simple. There's even ways to multiclass into a martial/caster to pretty much have 9th level spells and 2/3 BAB (or better), if you want extra flexibility and more variety than "I full-round attack".
As a GM, if you want martials to have a greater spotlight... avoid the higher levels? Even full casters don't get that many spells per day at lowever levels, so you can easily run many encounters per day to force the casters into martial combat as we frequently see Gandalf doing. Rangers don't get spells for a while, neither do paladins. Barbarians and fighters don't get spells at all, nor do rogues and cavaliers. Bards get a whooping 1? Magus don't get many.
Then, there are the archetypes that either diminish or completely remove spellcasting. Vanguard for ranger, Archaeologist for bard, etc.
Tack on impeded magic planar trait on your material plain if you want to provide extra incentive without simply telling them what to pick.
I just named a few of the core, base, and hybrid classes, there are many more that either lack any spellcasting altogether, don't get any spells until level 4 (or later), or offer a spell-free archetype.
So what classes would you use for those concepts?
Depends on the exact character background and motivations. For instance, the if farmboy picks up a sword to avenge his family which got slain by <whatever>, he learns to fight out of anger, so Barbarian fits well. If he does so out of boredome and uses a non-serious, playful style, Swashbuckler. If he secretly trains while maintaining a facade towards his family, Vigilante.
Similar for soldier - shell shocked veteran who gets back "into the zone" when in uniform could very well be Vigilante, "if I make it through this hopeless battle alive, I devote my life to you, <deity>" could be Paladin (or Warpriest or Inquisitor or Cleric), old soldier who knows the land and people from decades of service could be Ranger (with spell-less archetype if desired).
Is not actually being able to do the things the flavour suggests you should a limitation?The fighter is a blank slate. He can have any flavor I, as the player, choose to give him.
The only limitation on flavor is the creativity of the player.
Example?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters fulfill their intended flavor pretty well:
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. Slightly 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 (though not as well as a bard could). Their skill with weapons and armor is matched only by their lack of any other skills, and their mighty fortitude is matched only by their slow reflexes and weak will. Soldiers, knights, hunters, and artists of war, fighters are unparalleled champions, and woe to those who dare stand against them, except for wizards and such who don't find them much of a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters fulfill their intended flavor pretty well:
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. Slightly 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 (though not as well as a bard could). Their skill with weapons and armor is matched only by their lack of any other skills, and their mighty fortitude is matched only by their slow reflexes and weak will. Soldiers, knights, hunters, and artists of war, fighters are unparalleled champions, and woe to those who dare stand against them, except for wizards and such who don't find them much of a problem.
I believe the internet parlance is "top kek". You really had me for a second there.
oh no Do the math kid the fighter with all of the feats and and class juju nothing out does the two-handed fighter for max damage except the Ranger because it only has the feat Lead Blades
, and even then not likely to be the tank at the front.
Fighters are good at dealing damage (when the enemy isn't invisible or whatever), but (according to many experienced players) not so good that it makes up for them being bad at everything else.
oh no Do the math kid the fighter with all of the feats and and class juju nothing out does the two-handed fighter for max damage except the Ranger because it only has the feat Lead Blades
, and even then not likely to be the tank at the front.Linear warriors quadratic wizards: the fighter is a martial in a d20 system. They start off great but they just don't scale. At higher levels melee fighters can either move into the fight or get their full damage, they can't do both. They're theoretically supposed to get the damage from full attacking and they generally dont: they move up and hit once, then move on and hit again. not getting their full attacks in nearly as often as predicated on paper.
Even compared to other martials they are in an odd spot. A fighter is a generic Chasis for building the fighter you want with feats. The problem is that this makes them like a multitool: they can theoretically do anything but they won't do anything nearly as well as a tool built for that specific purpose. This was a problem even in the core rules bumping into the ranger (who has more skill points and 2 good saves), but the class has pretty much imploded now that EVERY fighting style you could want to go into has a feat or archetype from another, stronger class to build the kind of fighter you want but only better. If you want a dex based fighter there's the swashbuckler. If you want a two weapon fighter there's the two weapon ranger who doesn't have to split strength and dex. if you want a shield fighter there's the shield ranger. if you want a two handed fighter there's the barbarian.
I would bet a whole lot of money that I could fairly easily make a build that out-does a two-handed fighter in max damage, and I wouldn't even have to use a Synthesist (though that would be the easiest go-to since it's one of the PFS bans that's actually been banned for a good reason).
The fighter is a blank slate. He can have any flavor I, as the player, choose to give him.Because I can't say it any better: "[The Fighter] actually terrible at being a generic fill in the blanks class. Pick virtually any character concept, even one as basic and generic as "farmboy picked up a sword" or "a soldier from an army" and the other classes will fill it better (thanks to skills and stuff)."
I am sorry some people lack to creativity to create their own flavor and the system mastery to mold an effective fighter to fulfill that flavor.
I also feel sorry for people unable to provide their own coherent arguments.
I mean, if you were going to design a "fill in the blanks" class from scratch, probably one thing you'd make sure to put in there is "gets a lot of feats" because otherwise you're not going to be able to throw axes or have access to full combat styles at levels where they'd define the character.
Fighters are good at dealing damage (when the enemy isn't invisible or whatever), but (according to many experienced players) not so good that it makes up for them being bad at everything else.
or when the opponent is within reach of their weapon at the start of their turns. That's why it's not just the fighter lacks narative power and edges into the fighter isn't particularly good at fighting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am sorry some people lack to creativity to create their own flavor and the system mastery to mold an effective fighter to fulfill that flavor.I also feel sorry for people unable to provide their own coherent arguments.
Well, you don't seem to give many arguments besides "I'm better than you"
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am sorry some people lack to creativity to create their own flavor and the system mastery to mold an effective fighter to fulfill that flavor.
I also feel sorry for people unable to provide their own coherent arguments.
The following is how that conversation sounds:
"I shall take this horrible material and use it make a sculpture, it may require tonnes of work to get it to work but whatever!""Why don't you use this other material which does that better without requiring tonnes of work and is right their on the table next to you and it will look the same as the much cruder material in the end?"
"Nah, if I did that I don't get to be smug."
I'll reiterate as it gets lost every few pages:
"What's wrong with the fighter?"
Answer: it's spread out over a large number of resources and there are many instances where the person asking the question is unaware that certain weaknesses have been amended, or simply refuses to use or read it.
actually terrible at being a generic fill in the blanks class. Pick virtually any character concept, even one as basic and generic as "farmboy picked up a sword" or "a soldier from an army" and the other classes will fill it better (thanks to skills and stuff).So what classes would you use for those concepts?
(There are good answers, but assuming you don't want ranger spellcasting or rage, a novice player would have to search quite hard to find them.)
Lets use Strider as an example. Sure, people associate Strider with the ranger class because, well, he calls himself a ranger.
Strider has no magic, does not run around with a pet, fights lots of different ways, and tends to avoid heavy armor.
In fact, there is nothing Strider does that a Lore Warden could not manage just as well, or better, than a character with the ranger class. The fighter is up four feats over the ranger at 6th level allowing him decent levels of proficiency with both TWF and archery. 8 skill points/level with a 14 intelligence (Strider was certainly intelligent) and perception and stealth picked up with traits.
With basic mechanics dealt with, everything else is roleplay. Dress and act appropriate to Strider, refer to yourself as a member of the Rangers, play smart. Try not to choke any annoying hobbits halflings.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll reiterate as it gets lost every few pages:
"What's wrong with the fighter?"
Answer: it's spread out over a large number of resources and there are many instances where the person asking the question is unaware that certain weaknesses have been amended, or simply refuses to use or read it.
I would add "Additionally the fighter benefits greatly compared to other classes by a couple of optional rules which are not necessarily widely used" since background skills and stamina go a long way for the fighter.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll reiterate as it gets lost every few pages:
"What's wrong with the fighter?"
Answer: it's spread out over a large number of resources and there are many instances where the person asking the question is unaware that certain weaknesses have been amended, or simply refuses to use or read it.
It costs around $60 to play a decent Fighter in PFS, last I looked. You can play a decent Barbarian or Wizard for free. That's a problem. The Fighter is, frankly, a bad class chassis, and to make him decent (not necessarily "good" in the broader comparative picture), you have to chase band-aids across multiple books. Many of his fixes are also very slow to come online, and force you to choose which hole you're going to patch first. Sure, you can be good at skills, eventually, as long as you don't mind suddenly becoming good at something you couldn't do for your entire career previously. Or you could play almost any other class and have room to do those things from level 1 and not spend your character resources on playing catch-up.
actually terrible at being a generic fill in the blanks class. Pick virtually any character concept, even one as basic and generic as "farmboy picked up a sword" or "a soldier from an army" and the other classes will fill it better (thanks to skills and stuff).So what classes would you use for those concepts?
(There are good answers, but assuming you don't want ranger spellcasting or rage, a novice player would have to search quite hard to find them.)Lets use Strider as an example. Sure, people associate Strider with the ranger class because, well, he calls himself a ranger.
Strider has no magic, does not run around with a pet, fights lots of different ways, and tends to avoid heavy armor.
In fact, there is nothing Strider does that a Lore Warden could not manage just as well, or better, than a character with the ranger class. The fighter is up four feats over the ranger at 6th level allowing him decent levels of proficiency with both TWF and archery. 8 skill points/level with a 14 intelligence (Strider was certainly intelligent) and perception and stealth picked up with traits.
With basic mechanics dealt with, everything else is roleplay. Dress and act appropriate to Strider, refer to yourself as a member of the Rangers, play smart. Try not to choke any annoying
hobbitshalflings.
So stat up your strider and We'll stat up our striders and we'll see which has more.
I bet you our striders will mechanically out perform yours.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also feel sorry for people unable to provide their own coherent arguments.
The arguments are perfectly coherent. Yes, schrodingers fighter has a lot of versatility. There is a lot of potential places a fighter could go.But when you actually solidify a fighter into one character concept for the exact way that they fight there is most likely something better done by another class.
A good chunk of the fighters ability is a full bab letting it take multiple attacks when holding still, which is a problem when you need to move. most other ful bab classes have some way of compensating for this, the fighter doesn't.
Ad homming other people, especially for not being stuck in the trap of "i'm a guy that fights of course i want the class called fighter", isn't addressing the very clear concerns that have been raised.
There's a long running argument about whether Strider has magic. I tend to think he does (similar to lay on hands), but many say he simply knows lost lore and proper use of herbs for field medicine that was lost to modern men.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a long running argument about whether Strider has magic. I tend to think he does (similar to lay on hands), but many say he simply knows lost lore and proper use of herbs for field medicine that was lost to modern men.
"WASH your hands after scooping manure? WHAT SORCERY IS THIS!"
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a long running argument about whether Strider has magic. I tend to think he does (similar to lay on hands), but many say he simply knows lost lore and proper use of herbs for field medicine that was lost to modern men.
Much of the information on Aragorn/Strider implies that he is simply superior to the standard strain of humanity running around Middle Earth; while "magic" is debatable, there are definite indications that his abilities go quite beyond what someone who isn't Aragorn could do with the same knowledge. "Hands of a king" and all that. So basically, "magic by any other name" is still magic, and Aragorn has at least a splash.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It costs around $60 to play a decent Fighter in PFS, last I looked. You can play a decent Barbarian or Wizard for free. That's a problem. The Fighter is, frankly, a bad class chassis, and to make him decent (not necessarily "good" in the broader comparative picture), you have to chase band-aids across multiple books. Many of his fixes are also very slow to come online, and force you to choose which hole you're going to patch first. Sure, you can be good at skills, eventually, as long as you don't mind suddenly becoming good at something you couldn't do for your entire career previously. Or you could play almost any other class and have room to do those things from level 1 and not spend your character resources on playing catch-up.I'll reiterate as it gets lost every few pages:
"What's wrong with the fighter?"
Answer: it's spread out over a large number of resources and there are many instances where the person asking the question is unaware that certain weaknesses have been amended, or simply refuses to use or read it.
Sounds like yet another argument about how PFS is bad rather than the fighter being bad, given that all the rules that improve them are freely available online.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For anyone familiar with pre-3.0 D&D, the problem with the fighter is that it is no longer the easy, basic class that it was in earlier D&D baselines. Starting with D&D 3.0, the player of a Fighter needs to be knowledgeable about available feats, which is a non-trivial task for a novice to the game. The archetypes, advanced armor trainings, and advanced weapon trainings introduced in Pathfinder make the task of building a fighter character even harder.
Moving from fluff to mechanics, there's a lot of ways to houserule that. I have a whole set of Fighter mods, but the short of it is that there are a lot of subsystems that I think would be helpful to give the Fighter. Seriously - at level one, a Cavalier gets a mount, order, tactician, and the challenge ability. Did I mention he gets an entire horse? You know what the Fighter gets? A bonus Feat. One. They should, maybe, get a bit more.
What counts as that "more" is the line in the sand we're dealing with.
I've often wondered if the cavalier, samurai, and fighter shouldn't all just be one class called the "soldier". Conceptually, it fits; a tough, professional warrior who knows how to fight solo or lead a group and wins the day without using use any type of magical ability. Gestalt them all together and it'd address some of the issues with skill points, saves, and out of combat utility. It'd require some tweaking here and there, but it could work.