What's wrong with the fighter


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 1,354 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowlilly wrote:
Serisan wrote:
Isonaroc wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
AC scales another 11 points in 5 levels (Ring bumps AC to 58 vs. single opponent at will). A red great wyrm needs a natural 20 to hit, with room to spare.
Assuming the dragon has no gear or spell boosts to hit. Still, that's pretty boss.

Given that we don't have an official bestiary entry for Great Wyrm Red Dragons (we have charts and Ancient, which is 2 categories lower), it's hard to say for certain, but I will definitely say that casting spells as a 19th level Sorc (HD-10 = CL across the board, and Great Wyrms have 29HD) and possessing Quicken Spell (since the Ancient does, I suppose the Great Wyrm will, too) means that you are unlikely to fight an unbuffed, ungeared Great Wyrm. Still, based on what I'm seeing, a full attack routine would be +41/+41/+41/+39/+39/+39 unbuffed (4 more BAB and 4 more strength from aging up). The dragon thus needs 15s on primary attacks and 17s on secondaries to hit. Not good, but much better than Nat 20 Only.

Barring better uses of spell slots (and there are many, including Limited Wish at a minimum), that Great Wyrm could reasonably cast Quickened True Strike every round.

  • 1. We do have a site that has applied the appropriate calculations: SRD. That is a +37 to-hit on primary attacks.
  • 2. Assuming a full attack, with a quickened True Strike, the great wyrm will have 1 reliable hit; assuming the fighter does not fight defensively. If fighting defensively, the great wyrm needs a 10+ to hit with True Strike. (4d8+24/19-20/x2)
  • 3. The fighter, without buffs, using combat expertise, hits on a 2+ with her first attack (1d10+50/15-20/x3) and auto confirms crits. Her first iterative hits on an 11+
  • 4. The fighter is unlikely to fight defensively unless unable to full attack. She deals far more damage than the great wyrm on a full attack.
...

That is not an official bestiary entry, but point taken. I missed the table entry that increases the size to colossal, providing a -4 penalty on attack that I hadn't accounted for. That said, the dragon can remove a minimum of 21 AC from you and provide relative immunity to your party with Antimagic Field. Granted, that's the "cheap" way of addressing your character, but we're talking about a critter with Time Stop in its stat block.

Edit: lol Grapple. It might not be able to hit you consistently, but it only fails a grapple on a nat 1 and you can't attack with a nodachi while grappled in your listed build.


Bandw2 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

Fighters get the best AC from armor and shields in the game.

Either from a high dex, or if you don't have a high dex take armor specialization. It's that simple.

The notion that fighters have bad AC is preposterous to me, they even get tower shields.

Plus there's master armorer again....

onto the actual listed builds...

also I noticed the listed character's still have horrible touch AC, you boosted AC at the expense of other defenses...

The character I posted, at level 20, has a baseline 22 touch, going to a 33 touch AC as needed (ring + fight defensively + combat expertise). Opponents using touch attacks tend to have a much lower AC, for one reason or another. You can afford the to-hit penalties.

Quote:
though, I will note, I think they made this new feat shield brace a requirement, it let's you THF with a shield out with no real drawbacks. At the same time, this really only applies to the Nodachi and was intended to pretty much be used with the lame short spears or a reach weapon, NOT just a big sword that has the brace feature.(I never did understnad why they made a slashing sword in the same group as polearms.)

The nodaci was already on the optimized list. Now, even more so.

Quote:
so I feel like this is pretty much the ONLY case, where a fighter can get AC and do damage. use a non-eastern weapon and you're not getting a weapon like the nodachi.

There are several polearms with decent profiles. Not quite as optimal as the nodachi, but close.


nodachi is refered to as a horse killing sword. I think it was meant for after battle but it had a reputation as useful against calvary somehow.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I just dislike how many of these "fixed" or "cool" fighters are using all this stuff that isn't PFS legal. I see a build about huge AC and see that they are using many PFS illegal options to get good AC while keeping damage good.


Serisan wrote:
That is not an official bestiary entry, but point taken. I missed the table entry that increases the size to colossal, providing a -4 penalty on attack that I hadn't accounted for. That said, the dragon can remove a minimum of 21 AC from you and provide relative immunity to your party with Antimagic Field. Granted, that's the "cheap" way of addressing your character, but we're talking about a critter with Time Stop in its stat block.

You know it's bad when the dragon is considering using Anti-Magic Field to stop the fighter instead of the wizard.

Quote:
Edit: lol Grapple. It might not be able to hit you consistently, but it only fails a grapple on a nat 1 and you can't attack with a nodachi while grappled in your listed build.

True: probably should add a few more offensive options for the shield. She can bash, it's just not very effective as it stands.

She's not built for specific encounter, just a projected growth for one of my current characters.


I think the Dragon would still win that fight near 100% of the time in any scenario that wasn't the Wyrm and Fighter straight up wailing on one another.

Although with anti magic field on his list the Dragon still has an edge in that respect, granted in that scenario the fighter is doing better than most if not all Martial's.


Chess Pwn wrote:
I just dislike how many of these "fixed" or "cool" fighters are using all this stuff that isn't PFS legal. I see a build about huge AC and see that they are using many PFS illegal options to get good AC while keeping damage good.

PFS does not generally run to a level where most of those options are used or needed.


Snowlilly wrote:
Serisan wrote:
That is not an official bestiary entry, but point taken. I missed the table entry that increases the size to colossal, providing a -4 penalty on attack that I hadn't accounted for. That said, the dragon can remove a minimum of 21 AC from you and provide relative immunity to your party with Antimagic Field. Granted, that's the "cheap" way of addressing your character, but we're talking about a critter with Time Stop in its stat block.

You know it's bad when the dragon is considering using Anti-Magic Field to stop the fighter instead of the wizard.

Anti-magic field is fantastic vs's PC's in general though, shuts down most of a casters toys (spells) and most of a martials toys (gear).


Snowlilly wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
I just dislike how many of these "fixed" or "cool" fighters are using all this stuff that isn't PFS legal. I see a build about huge AC and see that they are using many PFS illegal options to get good AC while keeping damage good.
PFS does not generally run to a level where most of those options are used or needed.

Lv11 is high enough to run into many of the options you're taking.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
I just dislike how many of these "fixed" or "cool" fighters are using all this stuff that isn't PFS legal. I see a build about huge AC and see that they are using many PFS illegal options to get good AC while keeping damage good.
PFS does not generally run to a level where most of those options are used or needed.
Lv11 is high enough to run into many of the options you're taking.

I'm running a level 16 PFS table this weekend with the intent of getting our characters up to 20. These things can be used in PFS.


Serisan wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
I just dislike how many of these "fixed" or "cool" fighters are using all this stuff that isn't PFS legal. I see a build about huge AC and see that they are using many PFS illegal options to get good AC while keeping damage good.
PFS does not generally run to a level where most of those options are used or needed.
Lv11 is high enough to run into many of the options you're taking.
I'm running a level 16 PFS table this weekend with the intent of getting our characters up to 20. These things can be used in PFS.

Hence the "usually."


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

Fighters get the best AC from armor and shields in the game.

Either from a high dex, or if you don't have a high dex take armor specialization. It's that simple.

The notion that fighters have bad AC is preposterous to me, they even get tower shields.

Plus there's master armorer again....

shields aren't really on the optimization side of character's, also tower shields are horrendously not on the optimization side of characters.

it's 1 extra AC for -2 to-hit.

onto the actual listed builds...

also I noticed the listed character's still have horrible touch AC, you boosted AC at the expense of other defenses...

though, I will note, I think they made this new feat shield brace a requirement, it let's you THF with a shield out with no real drawbacks. At the same time, this really only applies to the Nodachi and was intended to pretty much be used with the lame short spears or a reach weapon, NOT just a big sword that has the brace feature.(I never did understnad why they made a slashing sword in the same group as polearms.)

so I feel like this is pretty much the ONLY case, where a fighter can get AC and do damage. use a non-eastern weapon and you're not getting a weapon like the nodachi.

This is nothing but fallacy.

Fighters still get the highest AC from armor possible in the game. Whether or not you personally feel shields are optimal (or that they even register as existing in the game) is irrelevant.

I won't disagree with you on that, just that I think pushing AC isn't generally a good goal to strive for, as it generally leaves you weak in other areas. I was surprised by the nodachi combo though.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
nodachi is refered to as a horse killing sword. I think it was meant for after battle but it had a reputation as useful against calvary somehow.

as far as my research tells me, it was simply used as a two-handed weapon, it was as effective against horses and cavalry as a claymore was, which is to say, it's a really long sword with a pointy tip and thus makes an decent spear. If a nodachi is a polearm, so is a greatsword.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
I just dislike how many of these "fixed" or "cool" fighters are using all this stuff that isn't PFS legal. I see a build about huge AC and see that they are using many PFS illegal options to get good AC while keeping damage good.

These are all PFS legal and keep great AC without going nuts on it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
I just dislike how many of these "fixed" or "cool" fighters are using all this stuff that isn't PFS legal. I see a build about huge AC and see that they are using many PFS illegal options to get good AC while keeping damage good.
These are all PFS legal and keep great AC without going nuts on it.

They list armored juggernaut as their choice of AAT, is that intentional for DR? Do they mean to take Armor Specialization? Not getting hit seems better than slightly reducing damage, and costs less.

Seems like the extra money could go into a Mithral Heavy Shield which has no ACP for the builds using a shield.


Snowlilly wrote:
John Mechalas wrote:


An unsolved problem with the fighter, though, is that your AC doesn't scale. You are on the front line, in melee, dealing heavy damage but eventually you are going up against monsters making attack rolls in the 30's. Literally everything hits you. You end up needing healing every few rounds. So you have one thing you can do, and that one thing literally gets you pounded constantly.
** spoiler omitted **...

I don't think you calculated wealth right, you have more wealth at 8th than you should.

Secret Wizard wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
I just dislike how many of these "fixed" or "cool" fighters are using all this stuff that isn't PFS legal. I see a build about huge AC and see that they are using many PFS illegal options to get good AC while keeping damage good.
These are all PFS legal and keep great AC without going nuts on it.

These aren't all legal.

Siegebreaker has more feats than allowed. The archetype loses 1st level bonus feat, but the stats show 1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
I just dislike how many of these "fixed" or "cool" fighters are using all this stuff that isn't PFS legal. I see a build about huge AC and see that they are using many PFS illegal options to get good AC while keeping damage good.
These are all PFS legal and keep great AC without going nuts on it.

They list armored juggernaut as their choice of AAT, is that intentional for DR? Do they mean to take Armor Specialization? Not getting hit seems better than slightly reducing damage, and costs less.

Seems like the extra money could go into a Mithral Heavy Shield which has no ACP for the builds using a shield.

Armor Specialization isn't PFS legal


Starbuck_II wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
John Mechalas wrote:


An unsolved problem with the fighter, though, is that your AC doesn't scale. You are on the front line, in melee, dealing heavy damage but eventually you are going up against monsters making attack rolls in the 30's. Literally everything hits you. You end up needing healing every few rounds. So you have one thing you can do, and that one thing literally gets you pounded constantly.
** spoiler omitted **...

I don't think you calculated wealth right, you have more wealth at 8th than you should.

Secret Wizard wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
I just dislike how many of these "fixed" or "cool" fighters are using all this stuff that isn't PFS legal. I see a build about huge AC and see that they are using many PFS illegal options to get good AC while keeping damage good.
These are all PFS legal and keep great AC without going nuts on it.

These aren't all legal.

Siegebreaker has more feats than allowed. The archetype loses 1st level bonus feat, but the stats show 1.

Siegebreaker doesn't actually have the Siege Breaker archetype.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
I just dislike how many of these "fixed" or "cool" fighters are using all this stuff that isn't PFS legal. I see a build about huge AC and see that they are using many PFS illegal options to get good AC while keeping damage good.
These are all PFS legal and keep great AC without going nuts on it.

They list armored juggernaut as their choice of AAT, is that intentional for DR? Do they mean to take Armor Specialization? Not getting hit seems better than slightly reducing damage, and costs less.

Seems like the extra money could go into a Mithral Heavy Shield which has no ACP for the builds using a shield.

It's intentional for DR. It's not a small amount because it stacks with adamantine armor.


Starbuck_II wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
John Mechalas wrote:


An unsolved problem with the fighter, though, is that your AC doesn't scale. You are on the front line, in melee, dealing heavy damage but eventually you are going up against monsters making attack rolls in the 30's. Literally everything hits you. You end up needing healing every few rounds. So you have one thing you can do, and that one thing literally gets you pounded constantly.
** spoiler omitted **...
I don't think you calculated wealth right, you have more wealth at 8th than you should.

There was no wealth calculation. It is a current character I play with, that is her gear.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

i was hoping for more discussion on whether a nodachi should be removed from polearm or a greatsword should also be a polearm.

medieval fighting techniques with claymores and other greatswords I could easily see them being added to polearm. The weapons are large and sluggish and were often wielded with them pointed at the enemy and used to keep them away from you. You would have 1 hand on the hilt and the other on the "guard", this gave you a lot of control of the sword so it could be used to thrust, slash or simply to swing it around with you changing position to keep the sword between you.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Snowlilly wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
John Mechalas wrote:


An unsolved problem with the fighter, though, is that your AC doesn't scale. You are on the front line, in melee, dealing heavy damage but eventually you are going up against monsters making attack rolls in the 30's. Literally everything hits you. You end up needing healing every few rounds. So you have one thing you can do, and that one thing literally gets you pounded constantly.
** spoiler omitted **...
I don't think you calculated wealth right, you have more wealth at 8th than you should.
There was no wealth calculation. It is a current character I play with, that is her gear.

So, I started trying to make a version that did have proper WBL, but it appears your PB is off as well, it's either 16 or 18 or you spent your ability score improvements in some area that I don't understand. if I don't include ability score bonuses, the PB is 21.

on WBL, yeah, I wasn't even close to getting all your items, I tried grabbing what I felt was essential, also even with all all FCB in skill points you still had to many, I had to take them (2 in total) from perception, and since I also don't have the eagle eyes, the perception is much lower.

Spoiler:
meep moop
Oni-spawn tiefling fighter 8 (Pathfinder Player Companion: Blood of Fiends 22, Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 264)
N Medium outsider (native)
Init +5; Senses darkvision 60 ft.; Perception +6
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 32, touch 14, flat-footed 29 (+11 armor, +3 Dex, +1 insight, +3 natural, +4 shield)
hp 68 (8d10+16)
Fort +9, Ref +6, Will +6 (+2 vs. fear)
Resist cold 5, electricity 5, fire 5
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft. (20 ft. in armor)
Melee +2 voidglass nodachi +13/+8 (1d10+22/15-20)
Ranged composite longbow +11/+6 (1d8/×3)
Special Attacks weapon training (heavy blades +1)
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 8th; concentration +7)
. . 1/day—alter self
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 20, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 8
Base Atk +8; CMB +13; CMD 27
Feats Armor of the Pit[ARG], Advanced Armor Training, Advanced Weapon Training, Combat Reflexes, Combat Stamina, Improved Critical (nodachi), Power Attack, Shield Brace, Shield Focus, Weapon Focus (nodachi), Weapon Specialization (nodachi)
Traits reactionary, vagabond child (urban)
Skills Acrobatics -1 (-5 to jump), Climb +8, Disable Device +11, Disguise +1, Intimidate +1, Knowledge (dungeoneering) +9, Knowledge (local) +2, Perception +6, Ride +5, Survival +4, Swim +8; Racial Modifiers +2 Disguise, +2 Intimidate
Languages Abyssal, Common, Infernal
SQ armor training 2, combat reflexes, improved critical, power attack, prehensile tail, shield brace, shield focus, weapon focus, weapon specialization
Combat Gear caltrops; Other Gear +2 dragonhide full plate, +1 shield spikes dragonhide heavy steel shield, +2 voidglass nodachi[UC], composite longbow, dusty rose prism ioun stone, amulet of natural armor +1, belt of giant strength +2, cape of free will +1/+2[MA], handy haversack, backpack, bedroll, belt pouch, chalk (10), flint and steel, grappling hook, hammer, mess kit[UE], mirror, piton (20), pot, silk rope (50 ft.), soap, thieves' tools, torch (10), trail rations (5), waterskin, 329 gp, 5 sp
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Advanced Weapon Training You are specially trained to use your weapon skills in new ways.

Prerequisites: Fighter level 5th, weapon training class feature.

Benefit: Select one advanced weapon training option, applying it to one fighter weapon group you h
Armed Bravery (+2/+4) (Ex) Add bravery bonus to will save, Intim. DC to demoralize you increases by amount shown.
Armor Training 2 (Ex) Worn armor -2 check penalty, +2 max DEX.
Armored Master (Ex) Gain an armor mastery or shield mastery feat.
Combat Reflexes (4 AoO/round) Can make extra attacks of opportunity/rd, and even when flat-footed.
Combat Reflexes [Combat Trick] 5 stamina points to make a second attack of opportunity at -5 for the same provoking action after missing.
Darkvision (60 feet) You can see in the dark (black and white only).
Energy Resistance, Cold (5) You have the specified Energy Resistance against Cold attacks.
Energy Resistance, Electricity (5) You have the specified Energy Resistance against Electricity attacks.
Energy Resistance, Fire (5) You have the specified Energy Resistance against Fire attacks.
Improved Critical [Combat Trick] 5 stamina points to roll another confirmation roll for double damage after a failed critical hit.
Power Attack -3/+6 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
Power Attack [Combat Trick] 2 stamina points to use Power Attack only until end of turn, instead of the start of the next turn.
Prehensile Tail Your tail can retrieve small objects on your person as a swift action.
Shield Brace Can use 2 handed spear/polearm with shield, but take the ACP of shield as pen to attack.
Shield Brace [Combat Trick] Use 1 Stamina, negate penalty on attacks for 1 rd.
Shield Focus [Combat Trick] Up to 2 stamina points to increase bonus to shield's AC bonus.
Weapon Focus [Combat Trick] 2 stamina points to gain Weapon Focus bonus on another weapon for 1 rd.
Weapon Specialization [Combat Trick] 2 stamina points to apply Weapon Specialization to another weapon.
Weapon Training (Blades, Heavy) +1 (Ex) +1 Attack, Damage, CMB, CMD with Heavy Blades


Bandw2 wrote:

i was hoping for more discussion on whether a nodachi should be removed from polearm or a greatsword should also be a polearm.

medieval fighting techniques with claymores and other greatswords I could easily see them being added to polearm. The weapons are large and sluggish and were often wielded with them pointed at the enemy and used to keep them away from you. You would have 1 hand on the hilt and the other on the "guard", this gave you a lot of control of the sword so it could be used to thrust, slash or simply to swing it around with you changing position to keep the sword between you.

You could break the great sword down into different versions the Scandinavian Svärdstav = Sword staff for sure is a pole-arm. Claymores maybe not and the mounted great swords possibly


Zweihanders are definitely non-reach polearms.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Zweihanders and the like were anti-pike formation weapons, they were designed with reach in mind so they could knock spears away and advanced. Fun fact about greatswords is they're a rather late invention being used primarily during the renaissance(the big pike era) and not medieval.

this I believe is largely the same purpose as nodachis.

They both historically were more ornamental than actual weapons, but did see use, usually against non-infantry targets.

realize that historically, longswords are weapons designed to be wielded in 2 hands, so to go beyond that makes it a sword that is VERY large, often 6-10 feet long.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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

Two handed weapon? B b. barbarian.

Imagine if the listed classes were weaker than the fighter at these fighting styles. Would there be any reason to play them? In my opinion fighter is a good class, because it is a "build whatever you want" kind of class, therefore by design it cannot be better than aforementioned classes in their areas of expertise. You can make fighter specialize at any weapon or fighting style and it is much easier to build character's background around this class than any other, because it gives you more freedom.

Also, comparing martial classes to casters is like comparing cars to helicopters. It is pretty logical that casters have more options, because magic by definition breaks the laws of physics and stands in opposition to technology.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Omernon wrote:
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

Two handed weapon? B b. barbarian.

Imagine if the listed classes were weaker than the fighter at these fighting styles. Would there be any reason to play them? In my opinion fighter is a good class, because it is a "build whatever you want" kind of class, therefore by design it cannot be better than aforementioned classes in their areas of expertise. You can make fighter specialize at any weapon or fighting style and it is much easier to build character's background around this class than any other, because it gives you more freedom.

Also, comparing martial classes to casters is like comparing cars to helicopters. It is pretty logical that casters have more options, because magic by definition breaks the laws of physics and stands in opposition to technology.

Except that the things that allow a Fighter to specialize enough to match one of his martial peers at what they do (i.e. be as good an archer as a Ranger using Archery style) requires spending most of the Fighter's resources a la feat selection in order to match that peer. Once you've done that, you don't have much left over on the Fighter chassis for "freedom". Yes, you were free to lock in your choice. Choosing Ranger at the outset just moved that decision one point back, from "Choose Fighter->Choose Fighter feats to become an archer" to "Choose Ranger". Plus, that Ranger *does* have other options that make *them* more flexible (e.g. animal companion, more skills, 1/2 caster).

I feel like the flexibility argument for Fighter is a false choice in that molding a Fighter to compete with another martial still locks you out of options.

That said, I understand your point: if you're going to be a martial and if a Fighter could be as good as any other martial at that martial's fighting style (e.g. 1h vs. 2h vs. S&B vs. Ranged vs. UAS vs...), then why be that martial?

My point would be... don't make it about the fighting style. Put another way, frankly, let the Fighter be capable of being as good as any other martial at their form of fighting. I would do this by improving Weapon Training so that the max bonus applies to all selected weapon groups. For giggles I would also alter the Weapon Mastery capstone to apply to all weapons in selected weapon groups. For a Fighter who sticks with their one weapon it would have literally zero impact, good or bad. For a Fighter wanting to be able to switch tactics on the fly, it puts them on par with their martial peers who don't have to rely on specific weapon selections to gain their bonuses (i.e. rage powers affect the Barbarian regardless of the wielded weapon as do Paladin smite bonuses, etc).

I would also change crafting so that weapon and armor crafting actually become easier for martials and in fact more advantageous for them to perform than for spellcasters. Maybe through feats, maybe through class abilities, but something that would be a sizable improvement over Master Craftsman.

And then I would like to introduce a set of abilities that do begin to give a Fighter more narrative power, whether it's through per-day abilities, through a point pool, or through something like the Item Mastery system, give Fighters something beyond simple hired-gun tactics. Yes, you may feel like I just splashed wuxia into your bowl of Fighter Puffs.


Quintessentially Me wrote:
Omernon wrote:
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

Two handed weapon? B b. barbarian.

Imagine if the listed classes were weaker than the fighter at these fighting styles. Would there be any reason to play them? In my opinion fighter is a good class, because it is a "build whatever you want" kind of class, therefore by design it cannot be better than aforementioned classes in their areas of expertise. You can make fighter specialize at any weapon or fighting style and it is much easier to build character's background around this class than any other, because it gives you more freedom.

Also, comparing martial classes to casters is like comparing cars to helicopters. It is pretty logical that casters have more options, because magic by definition breaks the laws of physics and stands in opposition to technology.

Except that the things that allow a Fighter to specialize enough to match one of his martial peers at what they do (i.e. be as good an archer as a Ranger using Archery style) requires spending most of the Fighter's resources a la feat selection in order to match that peer. Once you've done that, you don't have much left over on the Fighter chassis for "freedom". Yes, you were free to lock in your choice. Choosing Ranger at the outset just moved that decision one point back, from "Choose Fighter->Choose Fighter feats to become an archer" to "Choose Ranger"....

Archer rangers get to skip like... One feat.

They can use Weapon Focus instead of Weapon Specialization for point blank master. All the other ones you could skip you don't want to.

Your post is blatantly incorrect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:

Archer rangers get to skip like... One feat.

They can use Weapon Focus instead of Weapon Specialization for point blank master. All the other ones you could skip you don't want to.

Your post is blatantly incorrect.

We may also be talking past each other and what we're looking for in terms of builds/applications, and the like.

In terms of a 'home' campaign, where things can be 'tweaked' or 'adjusted' or even GM-managed to work to balance out the inconsistencies of say, the fighter class, that's one thing.

For PFS play, without that sort of flexibility, and very tight window of 'class opportunity', getting Precise without Point Blank relatively quickly is a sidestep of an unwanted Feat Tax. In addition to getting better skills per level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

Archer rangers get to skip like... One feat.

They can use Weapon Focus instead of Weapon Specialization for point blank master. All the other ones you could skip you don't want to.

Your post is blatantly incorrect.

Archer rangers get the most important feat (Improved Precise Shot) 5 levels earlier than fighters. That's kind of a big deal. The single biggest fighter advantage as an archer is at level 1, when you can get 2 archery feats (3 if human), while the ranger is waiting until level 2. Later on, rangers also get the ability to say "my favored enemy bonus is against you" even when it shouldn't be, meaning they're getting HUGE damage increases compared to the fighter who invested additional feats into hit and damage.

Sovereign Court

Quintessentially Me wrote:
I feel like the flexibility argument for Fighter is a false choice in that molding a Fighter to compete with another martial still locks you out of options.

--> It's a real choice, especially at low to mid levels.

Quote:
My point would be... don't make it about the fighting style. Put another way, frankly, let the Fighter be capable of being as good as any other martial at their form of fighting. I would do this by improving Weapon Training so that the max bonus applies to all selected weapon groups. For giggles I would also alter the Weapon Mastery capstone to apply to all weapons in selected weapon groups. For a Fighter who sticks with their one weapon it would have literally zero impact, good or bad. For a Fighter wanting to be able to switch tactics on the fly, it puts them on par with their martial peers who don't have to rely on specific weapon selections to gain their bonuses (i.e. rage powers affect the Barbarian regardless of the wielded weapon as do Paladin smite bonuses, etc).

--> A lot of the above is addressed via Combat Stamina feat and Combat Tricks.

For example: "Weapon Specialization (Combat): Once per round, you can spend 2 stamina points to gain your Weapon Specialization bonus on damage rolls with a weapon with which you don't have Weapon Specialization. This bonus lasts until the start of your next turn."

Quote:
I would also change crafting so that weapon and armor crafting actually become easier for martials and in fact more advantageous for them to perform than for spellcasters. Maybe through feats, maybe through class abilities, but something that would be a sizable improvement over Master Craftsman.

--> I agree with this. Signature Skill feat allows you to craft magical items via regular Craft ranks, but it only comes online at level 20 (when you have 20 ranks). We need a feat that lets someone double up on ranks at each level to address this i.e. would come online at level 10 when you have 20 ranks; this would also address the problem that a 10th level expert blacksmith should be able to craft wonderful things and gets rid of the silliness of requiring NPCs with 20 levels to do some things...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't find any reasons to play a fighter.
All of these "fixes" basically say "sacrifice this feat or class feature to get what others get for free".
Even if I wanted to play an Archer I'd chose ranger.
I get 6 Skill points, a lot of free feats for archery, AC that I can replace and even spell casting.

Why would someone play a Fighter is beyond my understanding.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

because the fighter gets feats that it can trade for skill points to eventually get as many or more skill points per level.
Then because you can take more feats to patch up your bad reflex save.
Then because you can take even more feats to patch up your bad will save but this is sacrificing your skill gains.
So if you use all your feats for your first X levels you can finally be equal to other classes that got everything from lv1.

... Yeah, this is why I'm not fond of the current fighter fix, your trading your "class features" of bonus feats to buy basic class features like skills. Yes you get a few for free, but they come so late. Lv7 for your first free armor training and lv9 till free weapon training.


I guess part of the issue is that for the first few levels, the fighter doesn't really need help, it's in the mid-late levels that the old fighter was largely unplayable, so that's where the fix was needed.

I mean, short of a "fighter unchained" (which would be a good idea) really the only way you could fix the fighter is "you trade stuff for other stuff."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the fighter needs help the first few levels. It loses out to every other martial lv1 and 2. 3 it finally gets something unique, and opens up a unique feat that is used to play catch-up to other classes.


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

So if you use all your feats for your first X levels you can finally be equal to other classes that got everything from lv1.

... Yeah, this is why I'm not fond of the current fighter fix, your trading your "class features" of bonus feats to buy basic class features like skills.

Didn't I say that on the first page?

What the fighter needs is a design baseline. Every class without spells should have two good saves (three for Monk), HD10 (12 for Barb), full BAB, and at least 4 skills/level. Every full caster should have only 1 good save.

Because seriously, there should be at least some upside of not being able to reshape matter with your thoughts.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Omernon wrote:
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

Two handed weapon? B b. barbarian.

Imagine if the listed classes were weaker than the fighter at these fighting styles. Would there be any reason to play them? In my opinion fighter is a good class, because it is a "build whatever you want" kind of class, therefore by design it cannot be better than aforementioned classes in their areas of expertise. You can make fighter specialize at any weapon or fighting style and it is much easier to build character's background around this class than any other, because it gives you more freedom.

Also, comparing martial classes to casters is like comparing cars to helicopters. It is pretty logical that casters have more options, because magic by definition breaks the laws of physics and stands in opposition to technology.

What you call "their areas of expertise" is not meant to be fighting styles.

A Ranger focus is on being a widerness tracker with ties to nature that ALSO can fight well.

A barbarian's focus is about having a totemic connection to spiritual forces and being able to unleash savage punishment on your opponents (it was supposed to be for a short amount of time...)

A paladin is an holy warrior beholden to justice who fights with the supernatural help of his god.

All these classes can do more than fighting and they do while being also excellent with weapons, so NO THEY DON'T NEED TO BE STRONGER THAN THE FIGHTER AT FIGHTING.

The fighter's focus should be about fighting. That's his "field of expertise" so it should be better at his chosen style instead of being worse than other martials. For some reason this is not the case though.
Granted, the fighter CAN be as effective as most other martials given appropriate system mastery, but the cost is you can't do much of anything else.
For example you can build a fighter archer who can match a ranger archer but the ranger can do a lot more than just shooting arrows while the fighter can't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If all a class is designed to do is one thing then it should be unquestionably better at it than any other class, niche protection.

Example a swashbuckler is supposed to be the best at finesse fighting and a gunslinger the best at using firearms.

It's much the same idea with the fighter... except many would (and do) argue that it fails at being the best at fighting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Omernon wrote:
Also, comparing martial classes to casters is like comparing cars to helicopters. It is pretty logical that casters have more options, because magic by definition breaks the laws of physics and stands in opposition to technology.

I'm going to stop you right there because that's only logical if you assume magic by its nature must be an epic force that warps the universe around it, which is a rather different assumption than the game's mechanics seem to make about other kinds of power, which creates the double-standard that has dominated for a large chunk of D&D's life span.

It's not written anywhere that magic is logically superior to anything else. If it is powerful, useful, reliable, and safe, as it is in Pathfinder, that is because the design team decided it should be, not because that is how magic always is and ought to be.

Frankly, in a game where a double-standard is less keenly felt than Pathfinder, in any setting where a high-level fighter should by and large be expected only to be capable of what a skillful martial artist in the real world could accomplish, a high-level magician is probably about strong enough to dance around a fire for three days and nights to make someone fall down the stairs, or smearing bat guano on people's doors to give them bad luck the following day.

Not having all of the powers of superman, a planet in his back pocket, and the power to stop time and open a portal into heaven or hell or conjure an average of two tyrannosauruses from one of those places with a wave of his hand and some nonsense words.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think part of the issue is that things like "finesse swordplay" and "gunfighting" are subsets of "fighting" which is an incredibly broad category.

If the fighter were "the best at fighting" then the gunslinger and the swashbuckler couldn't be the best at what they do, because what they do is also "fighting". Probably the main problem is that "good at everything" is the suggested route for the fighter (who needs more than one weapon group anyway?) but specialists are better than generalists in this game.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
specialists are better than generalists in this game.

Depending on how you define "specialists"...spellcasters, on the whole, are generally less successful the more they specialize. Fighters are the opposite, mostly because most of their feats then to come with steep prerequisites and focus you into a single style/weapon. There are ways around it, but it requires a lot of system knowledge.

Sovereign Court

A lot of people no longer play with brutal GMs that try everything to gank the players. I recently had the (refreshing!) opportunity to step out of my usual "nurturing GM" role and play as a player with a... BRUTAL GM.

Whereas I was previously almost convinced that fighters were inferior to rangers or barbarian, I now hold great respect for that level 1 fighter with 3 feats plus heavy armor plus heavy shield... because the GM eradicated everyone with a low AC within the first 4 hours of the campaign (so my bard died, the rogue died, etc.)

If the fighter spot wasn't already taken, my new PC would be human fighter 2... (since it is, I'm gonna try halfling mouser 2 with max dex for AC 20)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

A lot of people no longer play with brutal GMs that try everything to gank the players. I recently had the (refreshing!) opportunity to step out of my usual "nurturing GM" role and play as a player with a... BRUTAL GM.

Whereas I was previously almost convinced that fighters were inferior to rangers or barbarian, I now hold great respect for that level 1 fighter with 3 feats plus heavy armor plus heavy shield... because the GM eradicated everyone with a low AC within the first 4 hours of the campaign (so my bard died, the rogue died, etc.)

If the fighter spot wasn't already taken, my new PC would be human fighter 2... (since it is, I'm gonna try halfling mouser 2 with max dex for AC 20)

That's going to vary as well. My low-level campaign with a tough GM is the reason I will never play a character with a bad will save, Fighters included.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Build any fighter.

When you're done, bring it here. I bet that the folks on the forum could easily build a few characters using other classes that do your Fighter's schtick better than the fighter does, and has a bunch of other benefits as well.

Heck, the Avenger Vigilante is essentially just "Fighter, with a bunch of Bard stuff too."

Sovereign Court

My halfling mouser has Adaptable Luck 3/day (race) and Charmed Life 3/day, which can be combined together for +5 to any save 3/day, and the Fearless halfling race ability stacks with it for +7 to will save against fear. So +5 against mind-affecting and +7 against fear in particular (on top of his regular will save bonus)

My fix for fighter, if I would have gone that way, would have been:

Quote:

Courage in a Bottle

Prerequisite(s): Bravery class feature, worshiper of a deity of ale or celebrations.
Benefit(s): While you are intoxicated, the bonus you gain from your bravery class feature increases by 2. If this increase grants you a total bonus of + 6 or higher against fear effects, you become immune to fear instead.

Improved Bravery
Prerequisite(s): Cha 13, bravery class feature.
Benefit(s): Add your bravery bonus against all mind-affecting effects instead of just against fear.

--> When your class gives you Bravery +4, the feat makes you immune to fear, and +6 vs. other mind-effecting stuff.

And so on.
The combo is made even sicker with this. For a mere 4K gp! (as another posted pointed out to me in another thread...)

Quote:

Sash of the War Champion

Aura moderate abjuration; CL 9th
Slot chest; Price 4,000 gp; Weight 1 lb.
DESCRIPTION
This bright red strip of cloth, stitched with images of a cheering crowd throwing garlands toward a chariot, fits across the wearer's shoulders and then diagonally down his chest to reach his opposite hip.
The wearer treats his fighter level as 4 higher than normal for the purpose of the armor training and bravery class features.
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
Craft Wondrous Item, cat's grace, remove fear; Cost 2,000 gp


which 3 feats did he have that made him so amazing at lv1?

Sovereign Court

Just the armor itself saved his arse, but Improved Shield Bash and TWF were good too. He even forgot to take his third feat, just to add insult to injury to our deceased min/maxed bards, unchained rogues and rangers! :P

EDIT: you see, at level 1 and 2, most min/maxed builds are not there yet... as they depend on several levels before they are min/maxed... buddy fighter above (with missing feat) was 100% ready and functional, while the rest of us were waiting for other stuff to come online at 3rd or 5th level... :P (my squishy Chelish diva was AC 13 and not built for combat at all, just spellcasting...)


Chess Pwn wrote:
I think the fighter needs help the first few levels. It loses out to every other martial lv1 and 2. 3 it finally gets something unique, and opens up a unique feat that is used to play catch-up to other classes.

This is what Combat Stamina was designed for.

It's supplementary, but it gets the job done.

Once again, I feel like we're comparing low level fighters to high level everything else.

5th level fighters with weapon focus/specialization on a weapon in their chosen group gets more damage than rangers from favored enemy, period.

They also have more feats, and can be competent at pretty much whatever style they want by that level.

It's getting really hard to take people seriously who just ignore the fixes that Paizo published because it suits their argument better to ignore it. Marshmallow fallacy.

Fighters have choices, good ones now. Choosing to ignore them doesn't deny them those options. Most players used to complain that weapon training 2-4 were useless because they feel encouraged to focus on one weapon. Now that they can and get different choices it's considered a tax or a travesty upon the fighter. Nonsense ensues itt.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to say, it doesn't sound very brutal if the GM didn't kill the fighter. Just unimaginative, if attack and AC was all the party needed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Ignoring "fixes" that don't completely fix the problem or aren't commonplace enough to warrant them being official more than 3pp. PFS, no stamina so no fix for fighter. PFS, no armor specialization AAT so no super AC. PFS, no spirit AWT and no training enhancement so no cheezing into being able to do everything.

This is a similar situation to the 3pp feat deadly agility that gives dex to damage. For "mainline" pathfinder it's not an option so the fact that it exists did nothing to actually address the issue for "mainline" pathfinder.

Same for stamina or some of the OP AAT and AWT options or ABP or alternate combat actions. Having an option that is likely to not be included in a standard "mainline" campaign is fine to not always consider as an ACTUAL fix to the problem. It's a bandaid that MIGHT apply if you're lucky.

And we complain that some of these fixes are too slow. If only looking at the free AAT and AWT then just to get skill point parity with the ranger takes till lv11 using 2 AAT and 1 AWT, which is all of them. Many people don't see this as a fix to the fighter because it's reaching the base of the ranger class and taking till lv11 and using all of your choices to do so.

351 to 400 of 1,354 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What's wrong with the fighter All Messageboards