What's wrong with the fighter


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 1,354 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Stop acting like fighters have mechanical issues. With the right amount of splatbooks, they don't.

It's 100% an issue of class design. Those splatbooks shouldn't be needed (which also makes me think of the UnMonk's reliance on Style feats).

And casters need to be brought way down. 5E nerfed them in subtle but meaningful ways (cut down bonus stacking, limited scope of spells) while also boosting non-spellcasters (by boosting applicability of skills and giving martials fun stuff). It worked very well for them.

This isn't an online game. There's no need for constant class balancing. But you need balanced systems.


Frosty Ace wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

sooo nerf casters then?

Im just not sure what your motivation is? what are you wanting? are we pushing for a second edition? unchained? unchained for what you guys are wanting would have to be bigger then just overhauling one class it would have to effect every martial in the game. I mean until pathfinder makes a second edition (which doesn't seem like a thing any time soon) I don't see the point in rehashing this argument every week.

Nah. Boost everyone up to par with a well-played wizard/cleric/druid at all levels.
You may as well make a new game at that point.

I have. It runs against the bestiaries and Adventure Path's very well. The extra power is accommodated with one fewer baseline party memeber.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
why is the Ranger a better TWF fighter than the fighter? wouldn't you get more feats faster with a fighter? am I missing something?

The ranger doesn't need an absurd amount of dexterity to make their build work: they can stip the dexterity prerequisites and pump strength at dice/pointbuy and only need one stat boost. All dexterity does on melee is up their AC, which is the cheapest thing in the game to up.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
tony gent wrote:
Isn't that why you have a party everyone has what they are good at so you have to work together to cover all the bases

Well, this is a great plan, if everyone has something to give to the party. It's just that some classes usually take resources but don't have any of their own to contribute with.

Like a 4 man party, rogue, wizard, cleric, fighter. Sure they have all their bases covered, because of cleric and wizard. They'd have them better covered if they didn't have to make up for the rogue and fighter not adding anything but also needing the casters to help them. A wizard, wizard, cleric, cleric would be a more versatile and have better coverage of their bases than adding rogue and fighter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Starting around level 5 or so, I would much prefer a three person party of a Wizard or Witch, and two of Cleric, Druid or Shaman as opposed to two martials and two full casters.

I would also prefer a group of four partial casters [Bard, Alchemist, Magus, Kineticist, Warpriest, Inquisitor, Summoner.....] as opposed to the group of two and two.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
why is the Ranger a better TWF fighter than the fighter? wouldn't you get more feats faster with a fighter? am I missing something?

The ranger doesn't need an absurd amount of dexterity to make their build work: they can stip the dexterity prerequisites and pump strength at dice/pointbuy and only need one stat boost. All dexterity does on melee is up their AC, which is the cheapest thing in the game to up.

To be fair I can build a fighter who is better than a ranger at TWF with 3 lvl dip in un rogue. Requires a bit of system knowledge though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Would this help with fighter issues? (shameless plug of my own idea)


haha, yeah, the fighter is better, if it's not a pure fighter. Gee, that really shows that the fighter is winning this fight. And I'm curious if it really beats a ranger that is built with equal system knowledge.


The Fighter destroys the Ranger.

Sure, the Fighter needs DEX. But the Ranger needs DEX and WIS or fall behind on AC and spellcasting ability.

Grab any of these Fighters here and find a Ranger that can do their job better.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
haha, yeah, the fighter is better, if it's not a pure fighter. Gee, that really shows that the fighter is winning this fight. And I'm curious if it really beats a ranger that is built with equal system knowledge.

I'd say a lvl 03 unRogue/lvl 17 fighter(mutation warrior) should count as a fighter.

That said it's true this fighter will probably just be better at TWF and nothing more and the build takes a long time to get going. In terms of raw power and defenses it is quite impressive tough.


Rogar Valertis wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
haha, yeah, the fighter is better, if it's not a pure fighter. Gee, that really shows that the fighter is winning this fight. And I'm curious if it really beats a ranger that is built with equal system knowledge.

I'd say a lvl 03 unRogue/lvl 17 fighter(mutation warrior) should count as a fighter.

That said it's true this fighter will probably just be better at TWF and nothing more and the build takes a long time to get going. In terms of raw power and defenses it is quite impressive tough.

It'd count like a strictly worse Fighter than a LVL 20 Mutation Warrior that goes STR/DEX.


What PF really needs is a 64 page softcover 'martials revised' with text strongly suggesting GMs who own it use it wholecloth.

Within these pages are badasses of flesh and steel every bit as valuable an asset as a full caster, with as much simplicity and ease of use [read: minimal resource tracking and tremendous theoretical stamina] as the classes they're replacing.

Must be PFS legal.


Rogar Valertis wrote:


To be fair I can build a fighter who is better than a ranger at TWF with 3 lvl dip in un rogue. Requires a bit of system knowledge though.

if you're starting at level 4 and don't mind being really terrible until then or retraining a bunch of feats...


kyrt-ryder wrote:

What PF really needs is a 64 page softcover 'martials revised' with text strongly suggesting GMs who own it use it wholecloth.

Within these pages are badasses of flesh and steel every bit as valuable an asset as a full caster, with as much simplicity and ease of use [read: minimal resource tracking and tremendous theoretical stamina] as the classes they're replacing.

Must be PFS legal.

Ughhhh yuzz.

- UnBarbs but with some tweaks here and there (standardization of Stances, a couple of utility features thrown here and there to separate it more from the Bloodrager).

- Fighters with an engaging fighting style customization system.

- UnMonks, but with the Style Feat system integrated (so no more mandatory Dragon/Jabbing) and less mandatory choices like Barkskin or Flying Kick. Also, remove amulet of mighty fists for a simple handwrap that functions exactly as a weapon and doesn't penalize the neck slot. Also make weapons a more natural option.

- Rogues that aren't tied down to Weapon Finesse but instead delve into the paradigm of Sneak Attack that goes beyond mere precision damage.

- Cavaliers with more build depth and options. I'd say I'd merge them with Swashbucklers for a single CHA-based class that can be both a knight or a piccaroon.

- Gunslingers that aren't a class and are integrated into the Fighters. Let's face it, they are just Fighters with gun stuff.

- Ninja that aren't a class and are integrated into UnMonks. Let's face it, they are just Monks with katanas.

- Samurai that aren't a class and are integrated into Cav/Swash. They are basically Cavaliers with a proto-panache pool anyway.

- Brawlers that aren't a class and are integrated into UnMonks. Let's face it, they are just Monks without spiritual flavor. Can be easily added.

- Slayers that aren't a class and are integrated into Fighters. Let's face it, they are just Fighters with medium in armor in exchange for sneak attack and skills.

- Swashbucklers that aren't a class and are integrated into Cav/Samurai/Swash. Daring Champion proves there isn't much of a distance anyway.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:


To be fair I can build a fighter who is better than a ranger at TWF with 3 lvl dip in un rogue. Requires a bit of system knowledge though.

if you're starting at level 4 and don't mind being really terrible until then or retraining a bunch of feats...

You are certainly less effective until you get dex to dmg with those kukris, but you are not terrible. You have skills and you can still be useful as a flanker. Then yes, when you get dex to dmg and a bunch of the right feats things change.

@ secret wizard: I don't think so. Dex to dmg is huge when you can get yourself at dex 40+ because you can do a bunch of extra things with dex besides fighting. Str has its uses of course, but for sheer dmg and defense Dex is better imo (some maneuvers can ruin your day so you should be aware of that when playing).


Quote:
@ secret wizard: I don't think so. Dex to dmg is huge when you can get yourself at dex 40+ because you can do a bunch of extra things with dex besides fighting. Str has its uses of course, but for sheer dmg and defense Dex is better imo (some maneuvers can ruin your day so you should be aware of that when playing).

DEX adds nothing to defense. Getting DEX to 40 is cute as a wet dream, but it's not something that affects 99% of the players out there playing PFS, APs, or regular old campaigns that don't get to level 20.

DEX adds nothing to damage either because you are giving away 3 Fighter levels. You are actually subtracting quite an enormous amount of damage by removing yourself from the light of Weapon Mastery.

This character would be way gimped compared to the full 20 Fighter, Mutation Warrior or otherwise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Secret Wizard wrote:
Quote:
@ secret wizard: I don't think so. Dex to dmg is huge when you can get yourself at dex 40+ because you can do a bunch of extra things with dex besides fighting. Str has its uses of course, but for sheer dmg and defense Dex is better imo (some maneuvers can ruin your day so you should be aware of that when playing).

DEX adds nothing to defense. Getting DEX to 40 is cute as a wet dream, but it's not something that affects 99% of the players out there playing PFS, APs, or regular old campaigns that don't get to level 20.

DEX adds nothing to damage either because you are giving away 3 Fighter levels. You are actually subtracting quite an enormous amount of damage by removing yourself from the light of Weapon Mastery.

This character would be way gimped compared to the full 20 Fighter, Mutation Warrior or otherwise.

It does as long as you don't wear armor but bracers of armor.

Then yes, as with everything else much depens on the game you are playing and this is theorycrafting. If you can keep up with wealth per level, are not playing PFS and get to high levels then this is a formidable build imo.
That said I'm not claiming this solves every fighter issue. It clearly does not. I was just saying you can do a fighter that is better than a ranger at TWF.


Rogar Valertis wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Quote:
@ secret wizard: I don't think so. Dex to dmg is huge when you can get yourself at dex 40+ because you can do a bunch of extra things with dex besides fighting. Str has its uses of course, but for sheer dmg and defense Dex is better imo (some maneuvers can ruin your day so you should be aware of that when playing).

DEX adds nothing to defense. Getting DEX to 40 is cute as a wet dream, but it's not something that affects 99% of the players out there playing PFS, APs, or regular old campaigns that don't get to level 20.

DEX adds nothing to damage either because you are giving away 3 Fighter levels. You are actually subtracting quite an enormous amount of damage by removing yourself from the light of Weapon Mastery.

This character would be way gimped compared to the full 20 Fighter, Mutation Warrior or otherwise.

It does as long as you don't wear armor but bracers of armor.

Then yes, as with everything else much depens on the game you are playing and this is theorycrafting. If you can keep up with wealth per level, are not playing PFS and get to high levels then this is a formidable build imo.
That said I'm not claiming this solves every fighter issue. It learly does not. I was just saying you can do a fighter that is better than a ranger at TWF.

And I'm saying it doesn't require a Rogue dip or anything. Just put points into STR and DEX. The Ranger is also spending points into WIS. Balance from the get go.


I don't think the ranger is putting more points into wis than a fighter is just to get the will save boost. A ranger can easily start with a 12 wis and only needs the +2 headband to have all spells. a lot of fighters start with a wis 12 just for the will save boost.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


The 2 skill points per level is also horribly crippling in a skill-based system.
.

If the fighter could.. well.. fight, it would at least be fullfilling its core function.

It really doesn't though. When you go to make your character do what you want your character to do out of all the options out there something else probably does it better or just takes a fighter dip.

One handed fighter? Swashbuckler

Unarmed fighter? Monk/brawler

Sword and board? Sword and board ranger

Two weapon fighting? two weapon fighting ranger

Mounted combat? Cavalier

Archer? Ranger archery style

Lobolusk wrote:


why is the Ranger a better TWF fighter than the fighter? wouldn't you get more feats faster with a fighter? am I missing something?

Two handed weapon? B b. barbarian.

yes rangers can bypass the dex requirements to use twf thus making them better at it as they can take double slice for 1x main hand and 1x off hand str damage have a massive str and not really need dex all to much


Secret Wizard wrote:

- UnBarbs but with some tweaks here and there (standardization of Stances, a couple of utility features thrown here and there to separate it more from the Bloodrager).

only good thing i see in unchained barb is it gets temp hitpoints when raging that go away 1st instead of actual hit points which can lead to the barbs death if he stops raging other than that it sucks in my opinion

Secret Wizard wrote:


- UnMonks, but with the Style Feat system integrated (so no more mandatory Dragon/Jabbing) and less mandatory choices like Barkskin or Flying Kick. Also, remove amulet of mighty fists for a simple handwrap that functions exactly as a weapon and doesn't penalize the neck slot. Also make weapons a more natural option.

i agree with getting rid of AoMF but i think people should just be allowed to enchant their bodies with a 1-10 enhancement system that would apply to all unarmed strikes and natural weapons


getting rid of AoMF and making the body enhance-able means the cost is still quite high for upgrading your attacks. The only benefit of this idea is freeing the neck slot.


At the very least the ability to magically enhance a body should be something which can be acquired, either by class [Monk, Brawler, Certain Fighter Archetypes...] or by feat.


Chess Pwn wrote:
getting rid of AoMF and making the body enhance-able means the cost is still quite high for upgrading your attacks. The only benefit of this idea is freeing the neck slot.

Depends, are you talking about defining an enhanceable body as 'slotless'? Because I certainly am not.

Same price as a weapon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Fighter was fixed successfully awhile ago, it's called Path of War.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
jeremiah dodson 812 wrote:
The Fighter was fixed successfully awhile ago, it's called Path of War.

But what if you don't want weeaboo fihtan magic?

And before you respond...yes, I know damn well exactly how "weeaboo" PoW is. But I am not the one you need to convince.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
jeremiah dodson 812 wrote:
The Fighter was fixed successfully awhile ago, it's called Path of War.

Getting closer!


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
getting rid of AoMF and making the body enhance-able means the cost is still quite high for upgrading your attacks. The only benefit of this idea is freeing the neck slot.

Depends, are you talking about defining an enhanceable body as 'slotless'? Because I certainly am not.

Same price as a weapon.

The reason amulet is so expensive is because it scales with attacks.

you have 1 bite, it's twice as expensive as normal.
you have 2 claws, it's as expensive as getting 2 +1s.
you have 2 claws and a bite, It's now giving you 1 free +1 weapon.
You have 2 claws, 2 wings, a bite, a tail, a gore and US. It's now giving you 6 free +1 weapons.

So enhancing your body once to apply to ALL natural and unarmed attacks has to cost more because it potentially gives a lot more than upgrading one weapon would.
And since unarmed strike is any attack, you'd still potentially get twice the value if you could enhance all unarmed strikes. You'd need some split enhancement plan that enhanced each attack you could make separately to have the price be the same as a weapon. Having Main IUS be +4 and Secondary IUS be +2 be possible to buy. THEN it's can be priced normally.


I'd simply make a handwrap that functions like a cestus and only applies to unarmed strikes. Natural attack builds can suck up the amulet slot since they are unbound from BAB. Unarmed strike builds aren't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The answer is allowing the 'unarmed strike' to be enhanced.

Chess Pwn wrote:
And since unarmed strike is any attack, you'd still potentially get twice the value if you could enhance all unarmed strikes. You'd need some split enhancement plan that enhanced each attack you could make separately to have the price be the same as a weapon.

No.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Being born.


Fighters are great at lower levels but one you move into high level play you find that the fighters specialized with all it's intensive feats "only during X can you perform Y if you hold Z".

This makes a fighter very narrow. A way to fix this is to give the fighter cool weapons and nifty armour but really they're able to do very little outside of combat.

Just remember GMs, give your fighters the benefit of the doubt outside of combat, don't make them roll skills too much.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

The answer is allowing the 'unarmed strike' to be enhanced.

Chess Pwn wrote:
And since unarmed strike is any attack, you'd still potentially get twice the value if you could enhance all unarmed strikes. You'd need some split enhancement plan that enhanced each attack you could make separately to have the price be the same as a weapon.

No.

By default, no special abilities, TWF with IUS would get you twice the benefit from an enhancement if you just enhanced IUS and got it for all attacks. Thus the price increase.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

The answer is allowing the 'unarmed strike' to be enhanced.

Chess Pwn wrote:
And since unarmed strike is any attack, you'd still potentially get twice the value if you could enhance all unarmed strikes. You'd need some split enhancement plan that enhanced each attack you could make separately to have the price be the same as a weapon.

No.

By default, no special abilities, TWF with IUS would get you twice the benefit from an enhancement if you just enhanced IUS and got it for all attacks. Thus the price increase.

Unbalanced in theory, pretty balanced in practice because Unarmed Strikes are the s++@tiest imaginable weapon. If you are an UnMonk or Brawler, you don't have any other accuracy boosts so why not?

If you are, say, a Rogue, you'd still go for TWF daggers because of better crit rates, slashing and piercing, thrown capacities, ability to slap sneaky on both of them, and so on.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

When twf becomes a simple combat option useable any time someone makes an attack [much like two-handing] we shall talk about balance.


Chess Pwn wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

The answer is allowing the 'unarmed strike' to be enhanced.

Chess Pwn wrote:
And since unarmed strike is any attack, you'd still potentially get twice the value if you could enhance all unarmed strikes. You'd need some split enhancement plan that enhanced each attack you could make separately to have the price be the same as a weapon.

No.

By default, no special abilities, TWF with IUS would get you twice the benefit from an enhancement if you just enhanced IUS and got it for all attacks. Thus the price increase.

What if we considered an Unarmed Strike to be a single weapon that a person could possess? That is, making a punch with your left and right arms would be considered attacking with the same weapon twice? That way, a person could never TWF with just unarmed strikes since you need two different weapons to get extra attacks from two-weapon fighting.

The exceptions would be Monks and Brawlers, but that just makes sense anyway considering they're the unarmed fighting classes.


Short form answer to the original thread question: nothing.

Long form answer: how good one class does vs. another depends entirely on what type of campaign someone is playing in. In some campaigns, the enemies consist almost entirely of undead. Someone playing in that campaign for the first time will look at a ranger with favored enemy and go: wow, that guy is pretty powerful. In a campaign that someone like me creates, people with power attack are not as good because I tend to value defense over offense and will build my combatants accordingly.

I think that alot of the criticism about fighter can really be boiled down to 3 things:

- Nothing to do out of combat/not enough skill points

- Not a wizard/spellcaster

- Boring

To the first point I would say: really? one of the things the fighters do well is versatility. It's really their bread and butter. (well, them and rogues). You can cover all of your combat feat needs using just your fighter bonus feats, and then take your general feats for "things to do outside of combat" (whatever that frankly nebulous statement means).

As to skills/skill points, 2 + int base is rough. fortunately there are several archetypes for fighter that bump them up to 4 + int, including one of my favorite (lore warden). Even setting that aside, however, the fighter can do skills well, if you're willing to be not as aggressively focused on combat. Get a 14 int, be human, and used favored class for skills. that gives even a base fighter 6 skill points a level. Throw in some traits to gain bonus skills (hell, fighter can afford to take additional traits, unlike most characters) and you have a fairly skilled character. Not a high int rogue, but what is?

As to the second point, I would say that comparing fighters to wizards is like comparing soldiers to CEOs. Both are going to excel in their field, but they don't work in the same field. And, by the way, a properly built fighter can make a wizard's day pretty dicey. It all depends on how you build your versatility machine.

On the final point, I would like to note that the same argument that people make about fighters being boring would apply to wizards too: all they do is cast spells. from level 1 to 20. cast spells.

Sorry about ranting, but I think fighter is the most typecast class that doesn't need to be (and frankly being typecast doesn't help it's reputation).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vrog Skyreaver wrote:


To the first point I would say: really? one of the things the fighters do well is versatility. It's really their bread and butter. (well, them and rogues). You can cover all of your combat feat needs using just your fighter bonus feats, and then take your general feats for "things to do outside of combat" (whatever that frankly nebulous statement means).

In the same way that a barbarian can spend just their rage powers on combat, and their feats on everything else. Or a wizard can spend just their spells on spells, and their feats on everything else. Or a slayer can spend just the slayer talents on combat and general feats on everything else (and they get 6 skill points!). It's not actually different for the fighter, it's just more straightforward.

Vrog Skyreaver wrote:


As to skills/skill points, 2 + int base is rough. fortunately there are several archetypes for fighter that bump them up to 4 + int, including one of my favorite (lore warden). Even setting that aside, however, the fighter can do skills well, if you're willing to be not as aggressively focused on combat. Get a 14 int, be human, and used favored class for skills. that gives even a base fighter 6 skill points a level. Throw in some traits to gain bonus skills (hell, fighter can afford to take additional traits, unlike most characters) and you have a fairly skilled character. Not a high int rogue, but what is?

Or, build the same, play a slayer, be happy that you can take ranger combat styles to skip prerequisites for your lower points in standard attributes, and have 4 more skill points per level than equivalent fighter. Or be a wizard, be aggressively focused on your main ability, and get skills as a side boon.

Vrog Skyreaver wrote:
As to the second point, I would say that comparing fighters to wizards is like comparing soldiers to CEOs. Both are going to excel in their field, but they don't work in the same field. And, by the way, a properly built fighter can make a wizard's day pretty dicey. It all depends on how you build your versatility machine.

You are using the word "versatile" when you really shouldn't be. Someone who can fight, even in a variety of ways, is not all that versatile, especially by comparison to someone who can fight in those ways AND do other things. Build an avenger vigalante, get comperable combat ability to the fighter, and a host of other talents to add versatility. Play a slayer or ranger, get similar combat prowess and additional benefits through extra skill points & casting. You cannot claim that 2 skill points per level and extremely limited choices at level up a versatile character make (you could take skill focus (bluff) as a feat, or just cast glibness for a multiple of the benefit. Also to clarify, that is that after making a choice out of the thousands of feats, the power of what was selected is extremely limited).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vrog Skyreaver wrote:
To the first point I would say: really? one of the things the fighters do well is versatility. It's really their bread and butter. (well, them and rogues). You can cover all of your combat feat needs using just your fighter bonus feats, and then take your general feats for "things to do outside of combat" (whatever that frankly nebulous statement means).

What feats, specifically, close the utility gap between martials and casters in any meaningful way? Are these feats exclusive to martial characters?

Quote:
As to skills/skill points, 2 + int base is rough. fortunately there are several archetypes for fighter that bump them up to 4 + int, including one of my favorite (lore warden). Even setting that aside, however, the fighter can do skills well, if you're willing to be not as aggressively focused on combat. Get a 14 int, be human, and used favored class for skills. that gives even a base fighter 6 skill points a level. Throw in some traits to gain bonus skills (hell, fighter can afford to take additional traits, unlike most characters) and you have a fairly skilled character. Not a high int rogue, but what is?

Consider the opportunity costs of 14 INT instead of 14 WIS, Skill Points instead of HP, Human instead of Dwarf, etc. Plus the Wizard gets exactly as many base skill points as the Fighter, and 99 times out of 100, the Wizard has a higher INT bonus too. Whatever their capabilities, Skills are utterly meaningless as a measure of "leveling the playing field" because both casters and martials get them in basically equal measure, and the best Skill characters all have 3/4 BAB and 2/3 casting anyways.

Quote:
As to the second point, I would say that comparing fighters to wizards is like comparing soldiers to CEOs.

I actually use this comparison all the time to show the disparity between the two classes. Who has more ability to influence the campaign world? Consider that the CEO can use his enormous wealth and influence to do a million things the soldier cannot feasibly do, including hire more soldiers. And nothing prevents the CEO from buying a gun.

Quote:
Both are going to excel in their field, but they don't work in the same field. And, by the way, a properly built fighter can make a wizard's day pretty dicey. It all depends on how you build your versatility machine.

They don't work in the same field because a Fighter has Combat + Skills and a Wizard has Combat + Skills + Utility spells. It frankly boggles me that anyone would put Wizard and Fighter in the same league as "versatility machines". One gets the Wizard Spell List and the other gets Bonus Combat Feats, which ought to be enough on its own to make this not even a debate, but somehow it still keeps happening. And if you're comparing classes via 1v1 cage match, you don't know what the argument is about to begin with.

Quote:
On the final point, I would like to note that the same argument that people make about fighters being boring would apply to wizards too: all they do is cast spells. from level 1 to 20. cast spells.

This is an absolutely disingenuous comparison to make.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
"things to do outside of combat" (whatever that frankly nebulous statement means).

What... I don't... How can you...

@_@
Pathfinder is not just combat every second. You must know that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Quote:
"things to do outside of combat" (whatever that frankly nebulous statement means).

What... I don't... How can you...

@_@
Pathfinder is not just combat every second. You must know that.

Seconded.

Things to do out of combat:
-Seduce the succubus so it doesn't start fighting you and grappling your monk
-Sneak around the guards as not to alert their evil overlord in the tower
-Not drown when you slip off the ship into the rushing river
-Keep an eye out so you don't get jumped by ninja legions
-Travel 100 miles to get to the dwarven city in a day
-Figure out the riddle written in a forgotten language to access a treasure room
-Not freeze to death while you camp outdoors during a snowstorm
-Avoid catching dysentery while trekking through the sewers
-Leap (or fly) over the 100-foot wide chasm
-Stumble around through the artificially magically darkened cavern
-Find out where your nemesis is hiding
-Object strenuously to your friend's conviction in a rigged court case
-Bust the CN Barbarian out of prison because he was convicted of murder
-Save the Cleric from accidentally dying of falling damage


Milo v3 wrote:
Quote:
"things to do outside of combat" (whatever that frankly nebulous statement means).

What... I don't... How can you...

@_@
Pathfinder is not just combat every second. You must know that.

i know its not every second of the game(god i wish it was though) it is the most fun for the majority of people.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:


i know its not every second of the game(god i wish it was though) it is the most fun for the majority of people.

Citation needed.

In my experience, while combat can be fun, the interesting narrative and character interactions are the things that tend to be the most fun for the most people.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Heck I'm frequently labelled a 'rollplayer' when the main reason I want my characters to be damned good at it is to make sure they survive to see another day.

Remember, the greatest victory is won without ever drawing a blade.


Isonaroc wrote:
Lady-J wrote:


i know its not every second of the game(god i wish it was though) it is the most fun for the majority of people.

Citation needed.

In my experience, while combat can be fun, the interesting narrative and character interactions are the things that tend to be the most fun for the most people.

pretty much every one i have ever met for gaming sessions find combat to be the most fun part(grant it that they also like interacting with other things combat is just more action packed) as for me personally the gm could have a massive rail road planed out on were we need to go and what not and i wouldn't really care so long as it leads to the words "ok every one roll initiative".


Ranishe wrote:


In the same way that a barbarian can spend just their rage powers on combat, and their feats on everything else. Or a wizard can spend just their spells on spells, and their feats on everything else. Or a slayer can spend just the slayer talents on combat and general feats on everything else (and they get 6 skill points!). It's not actually different for the fighter, it's just more straightforward.

Except that rage powers and spells are limited, and feats (for the most part) are not.

Ranishe wrote:


Or, build the same, play a slayer, be happy that you can take ranger combat styles to skip prerequisites for your lower points in standard attributes, and have 4 more skill points per level than equivalent fighter.

and still not have as any feats as a fighter.

Ranishe wrote:
You are using the word "versatile" when you really shouldn't be.

that's your opinion, but sure. Fighters can be archers, kings, assassins, holy warriors, merchants, and peasant heroes. That sounds pretty versatile to me.

Ranishe wrote:
Someone who can fight, even in a variety of ways, is not all that versatile, especially by comparison to someone who can fight in those ways AND do other things.

But that's based on the assumption that fighters can't do other things. there's even an archetype of fighter that casts spells now.

Ranishe wrote:
Build an avenger vigalante, get comperable combat ability to the fighter, and a host of other talents to add versatility. Play a slayer or ranger, get similar combat prowess and additional benefits through extra skill points & casting.

Vigilante combat capability is limited to 10 talents in 20 levels. I will grant that they are powerful talents, but they have rather limited talents. Vigilantes also have to deal with having a dual personality and juggling what can amount to 2 different lives that can conflict with each other.

Slayers have at best a limited selection of rogue and ranger class features, no spellcasting, and light armor proficiency.

Meanwhile, a fighter gets 19-20 feats, the ability to move full speed in heavy armor, the ability to resist fear (and now can have that bonus also apply to a host of other things), and additional combat capability with an increasingly large group of weapons. Or one group of weapons. It's really dependant on the type of fighter you're playing.

Ranishe wrote:
You cannot claim that 2 skill points per level and extremely limited choices at level up a versatile character make (you could take skill focus (bluff) as a feat, or just cast glibness for a multiple of the benefit. Also to clarify, that is that after making a choice out of the thousands of feats, the power of what was selected is extremely limited).

and you can not claim that having thousands of feats to choose from and having feat gain be one of the fighter's primary class features isn't versatile. Also, assuming that spells will always be available isn't a good assumption.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vrog Skyreaver wrote:
Ranishe wrote:


In the same way that a barbarian can spend just their rage powers on combat, and their feats on everything else. Or a wizard can spend just their spells on spells, and their feats on everything else. Or a slayer can spend just the slayer talents on combat and general feats on everything else (and they get 6 skill points!). It's not actually different for the fighter, it's just more straightforward.
Except that rage powers and spells are limited, and feats (for the most part) are not.

This is part of the problem. Feats are overvalued precisely BECAUSE they're 'not limited.'


2 people marked this as a favorite.

don't fighters only actually get like 5 or 6 feats more than other classes as a majority of them hand out 4-5 bonus feats(or feat equivalents)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To put this in perspective, I've playtested a Fighter hotfix that granted 2 bonus feats per level and it STILL didn't overpower the Fighter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
don't fighters only actually get like 5 or 6 feats more than other classes as a majority of them hand out 4-5 bonus feats(or feat equivalents)

I'm pretty sure I've seen people make Vigilantes who got more combat-feats from their class than a fighter get's from their class.

151 to 200 of 1,354 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What's wrong with the fighter All Messageboards