What's wrong with the fighter


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

401 to 450 of 1,354 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doomed Hero wrote:

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."

DISCLAIMER: I don't get tired of posting this g~$&@&ned link. Still waiting for a reply.

And the whole "YOU ARE SACRIFICING CLASS FEATURES JUST TO EVEN OUT WITH OTHER DUDES" argument doesn't work. They are sacrificing class power budget too. If you can sacrifice a feat to obtain a scaling bonus, like the Fighter can, then you are doubling down on an investment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
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.

It could be possible that there were challenges thrown at the party that the fighter's player could handle that didn't require dice rolling.

I know on the internet that everything that could possibly happen must bee represented numerically, but in a real game it may not.

Also, at low levels high AC saves parties completely with the right tactics like providing cover and making yourself the biggest threat to the enemies which should draw the enemy tactics.

Also, the fighter's niche is 'armor & weapon guy' and no one does it better. Fighters get the best nonmagical AC in the game bar none. May require DEX, but all AC does.

I really don't understand how it can be super difficult to make a decent fighter due to requirements of system mastery and still complain about the lack off options. They have options, they can do stuff out of combat. They even get magic now, in a limited form.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:


I really don't understand how it can be super difficult to make a decent fighter due to requirements of system mastery and still complain about the lack off options. They have options, they can do stuff out of combat. They even get magic now, in a limited form.

A great deal of the better 'fixes' are not available in PFS.

A great deal of the better 'fixes' are not available in PFS Core.

If a class relies on a series of 'fixes' and they are not available in a campaign, then that class is unplayable for that campaign.

A 'simple class' should not require a system mastery PhD and two dozen splatbooks.


Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:


I really don't understand how it can be super difficult to make a decent fighter due to requirements of system mastery and still complain about the lack off options. They have options, they can do stuff out of combat. They even get magic now, in a limited form.

A great deal of the better 'fixes' are not available in PFS.

A great deal of the better 'fixes' are not available in PFS Core.

If a class relies on a series of 'fixes' and they are not available in a campaign, then that class is unplayable for that campaign.

A 'simple class' should not require a system mastery PhD and two dozen splatbooks.

1. All my builds are PFS legal.

2. A lot of classes are useless in PFS Core. (Cough, Monks and Rogues)

3. A lot of classes are terrible without those "fixes" -- Monks, Rogues, Barbs without Raging Vitality, etc. This is not a problem of game design. This is a problem of content release structure.

4. A simple class shouldn't require those things for sure. And those are the design issues of the fighter. But people here keep trying to conflate those issues into mechanical issues, which they are not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doomed Hero wrote:

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.

Halfling

Warslinger Alternative Racial Trait

Classes: Vanilla Fighter 14

Feats: Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Weapon Focus: Sling, Slipslinger Style, Rapid Shot, Startoss Style, Weapon Style Mastery: Startoss Style, Startoss Comet, Startoss Shower, Deadly Aim, Advanced Weapon Training: Armed Bravery, Weapon Specialization: Halfling Slingstaff, Advanced Weapon Training: Focused Weapon [Halfling Slingstaff], Greater Weapon Focus: Halfling Slingstaff.

Advanced Weapon Training Options: Armed Bravery, Trained Throw, Trained Initiative.

Deals 1d8+StrMod+6+1+6+2+4 on each of 4 attacks each round, which is respectable.

Now certainly you can build a better archer than this, but can you build a better halfling sling-staff user? The "halfling with a sling staff" is iconic, but does any class do it better than the fighter? This isn't even fully optimized, but does require a boatload of feats and a bunch of AWT.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

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.

Halfling

Warslinger Alternative Racial Trait

Classes: Vanilla Fighter 14

Feats: Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Weapon Focus: Sling, Slipslinger Style, Rapid Shot, Startoss Style, Weapon Style Mastery: Startoss Style, Startoss Comet, Startoss Shower, Deadly Aim, Advanced Weapon Training: Armed Bravery, Weapon Specialization: Halfling Slingstaff, Advanced Weapon Training: Focused Weapon [Halfling Slingstaff], Greater Weapon Focus: Halfling Slingstaff.

Advanced Weapon Training Options: Armed Bravery, Trained Throw, Trained Initiative.

Deals 1d8+StrMod+6+1+6+2+4 on each of 4 attacks each round, which is respectable.

Now certainly you can build a better archer than this, but can you build a better halfling sling-staff user? The "halfling with a sling staff" is iconic, but does any class do it better than the fighter? This isn't even fully optimized, but does require a boatload of feats and a bunch of AWT.

as long as you can find a deity with halfling sling staff a paladin could do it if they were a tempered champion


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:


I really don't understand how it can be super difficult to make a decent fighter due to requirements of system mastery and still complain about the lack off options. They have options, they can do stuff out of combat. They even get magic now, in a limited form.

A great deal of the better 'fixes' are not available in PFS.

A great deal of the better 'fixes' are not available in PFS Core.

If a class relies on a series of 'fixes' and they are not available in a campaign, then that class is unplayable for that campaign.

A 'simple class' should not require a system mastery PhD and two dozen splatbooks.

1. All my builds are PFS legal.

Your builds might be PFS legal, but your gear is very vague and missing some vital pieces. Are all that don't list armor supposed to be in normal fullplate?

Also, why do you like courageous so much? Do you really value the bonuses to fear that much?
It's really hard to compare to your builds when so much of the gear info is missing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quintessentially me wrote:
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.

I would go further than that:

Weapon Training: At level 1 the fighter chooses a weapon group, gaining a +1 to hit / damage / cmd / cmb with weapons in that group. Every 4 pevels thereafter these bonuses increase by 1. In addition every 4 levels after level 1 the fighteray choose an additional weapon group to apply his weapon training bonus to. Alternatively, the fighter may choose to take any feat that requires the wielder to choose a specific weapon instead of expanding his weapon groups. Any feat that normally only applies to a given weapon instead applies to all weapons the fighter applies his weapon training to.

Then, add a feat that a fighter may take multiple times to add a new weapon group to his list that he has wrapon training in. Bam, specialist fighters are rewarded (extra feats for their chosen weapon) and generalist fighters are enabled (no diminishing weapon training effect, no need to take weapon focus 4 times).

Yes, there are stamina abilities for (some) of these, but stop locking unique fighter behavior behind superfluous feats & subsystems. Make the chassis actually interesting & relevant. Add this, put the fighter at 6 skill points (and remove versatile training), translate bravery into something akin to the paladin's aura of courage. And give them stamina innately, and let it be used for athletic skills (like 1 point of stamina for a +2 bonus in a check or something, up to spending 5 points). Fighter isn't amazing, but now is much more usable & interesting of a chassis. And hey, what about improving action economy? Not that fighters need swift actions, but spend 5 stamina to take an extra swift (or immediate) action in a round.

Also, what Chess Pwn said last page. A lot of these fixes (versatile training the main example) go against natural character progression. In a system like this, characters should not have drastic changes in power from level to level. Gaining 18 skill points at level 9 feels bad. If fighters should have more skills, give them more skills. None of this "only arbitrarily chosen skills based on your weapon training" requirements.


I agree with the posters that say the Fighter would be fine as "the class that fights" as long as he can fight very well and in multiple different ways.
To increase his combat versatility I'd give the Fighter a Fighter archetype for free (in addition to his default features) at 1st level and every 3rd level thereafter (or something like that).
I'd also give the Fighter Advanced Armor and Advanced Weapon Training for free whenever they get Armor Training and Weapon Training respectively. And when the Fighter gains Armor Mastery and Weapon Mastery, he'd get all the Advanced Armor and Weapon Training thingies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

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."

DISCLAIMER: I don't get tired of posting this g@%~*@ned link. Still waiting for a reply.

And the whole "YOU ARE SACRIFICING CLASS FEATURES JUST TO EVEN OUT WITH OTHER DUDES" argument doesn't work. They are sacrificing class power budget too. If you can sacrifice a feat to obtain a scaling bonus, like the Fighter can, then you are doubling down on an investment.

I'll give you that the Siegebreaker is an interesting build that I can't readily replace with another class.

I think the Hoplite (Vigilante, Slayer, UC Rogue, Cavalier), Hunter (Slayer, Juggler Bard, Ranger), and Marksman (Ranger, Slayer, Zen Archer) are fairly replaceable and I'm up in the air about the Marauder (Arcane bloodline Bloodrager, perhaps?). While not necessarily the same numeric values, I think the role you're trying to fill with the Hoplite, Hunter, and Marksman builds are all reasonably easy to fill with other classes.


Sure, you can fill them with other classes, just as the Vigilante can fill the Slayer, the UC Rogue and Cavalier roles for the Hoplite.

The thing is that the Fighter offers unique stuff to the kit and its own approach. All things can be filled with other classes. The matter is none of these builds are strictly worse than any of the options you listed. That's what most people here say - that you cannot make a Fighter that wouldn't be better off in another class, and here I am proving that there are many options that are powerful and unique enough to justify being Fighters over other stuff.

Chess Pwn wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:


I really don't understand how it can be super difficult to make a decent fighter due to requirements of system mastery and still complain about the lack off options. They have options, they can do stuff out of combat. They even get magic now, in a limited form.

A great deal of the better 'fixes' are not available in PFS.

A great deal of the better 'fixes' are not available in PFS Core.

If a class relies on a series of 'fixes' and they are not available in a campaign, then that class is unplayable for that campaign.

A 'simple class' should not require a system mastery PhD and two dozen splatbooks.

1. All my builds are PFS legal.

Your builds might be PFS legal, but your gear is very vague and missing some vital pieces. Are all that don't list armor supposed to be in normal fullplate?

Also, why do you like courageous so much? Do you really value the bonuses to fear that much?
It's really hard to compare to your builds when so much of the gear info is missing.

All builds list the armor they use.

Courageous is awesome because it boosts Bravery. That means it boosts ALL saves affected by Armed Bravery/Improved Bravery and all the Improved Bravery line.

Gear info is purposely vague so you buy as you go. The only thing missing is enhancement bonuses and the typical rings and amulets.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Fighter would be a decent amount nicer if it got 4+INT skill points, other class skills, strong Fortitude and Reflex, Armor Training at 1st, Weapon Training at 3rd, option to pick non-Combat feats at 10+, and free Advanced Armor/Weapon trainings at later Armor/Weapon training increments, Armor Training providing a straight dodge boost to AC, Weapon Training applying equally to all weapons, Choose-a-weapon feats applying to an entire weapon group, and an in-class discount/way to make magic weapons/items for yourself. Oh, and a capstone that isn't negated by one of a dozen Oracle or Sorcerer capstones.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Serisan wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

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."

DISCLAIMER: I don't get tired of posting this g@%~*@ned link. Still waiting for a reply.

And the whole "YOU ARE SACRIFICING CLASS FEATURES JUST TO EVEN OUT WITH OTHER DUDES" argument doesn't work. They are sacrificing class power budget too. If you can sacrifice a feat to obtain a scaling bonus, like the Fighter can, then you are doubling down on an investment.

I'll give you that the Siegebreaker is an interesting build that I can't readily replace with another class.

I think the Hoplite (Vigilante, Slayer, UC Rogue, Cavalier), Hunter (Slayer, Juggler Bard, Ranger), and Marksman (Ranger, Slayer, Zen Archer) are fairly replaceable and I'm up in the air about the Marauder (Arcane bloodline Bloodrager, perhaps?). While not necessarily the same numeric values, I think the role you're trying to fill with the Hoplite, Hunter, and Marksman builds are all reasonably easy to fill with other classes.

That's pretty much what I was going to say.

As for the Seigebreaker, yeah that schtick is harder to replicate. I'm betting a Bloodrager could pull it off. There's a number of good spells and abilities that would synergize for a character who's deal is running people over for damage. A Mad Dog Barbarian could too, or a Cavalier, though they would do it with Trample-pets. Personally, if I were going to make a character who focused on running through walls and over people, I'd probably go with a Goliath Druid.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
The matter is none of these builds are strictly worse than any of the options you listed. That's what most people here say - that you cannot make a Fighter that wouldn't be better off in another class, and here I am proving that there are many options that are powerful and unique enough to justify being Fighters over other stuff.

You are misunderstanding what is being said.

There are a number of things Fighters are very good at. You've done a great job showing a few of them.

However, those things can also be done by other classes at roughly the same capability.

Those other classes will also have other things going of them. Tracking. Self healing. Social abilities. Skills. Spells. Lots of other abilities that give them a broader array of options than just their main schtick.

The issue with Fighters is that they are only ever their schtick.

(As an aside, the only way around that problem for fighters is to sink points and money into UMD and wands and scrolls, which is an option open to anyone. It doesn't count toward a discussion about versatility and build options.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

courageous doesn't boost bravery. What are you talking about? Courageous gives a morale bonus against fear or increases a different morale bonus against fear. Fighters just have an untyped bonus to fear. A bard's inspire courage does give a morale bonus against fear. And at high levels adding half the bonus to that gives a bigger bonus then the full the courageous normally gives you. But it in no way is interacting or boosting your bravery.

and my bad about the armor, was thinking the o-yoroi was a weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:


I really don't understand how it can be super difficult to make a decent fighter due to requirements of system mastery and still complain about the lack off options. They have options, they can do stuff out of combat. They even get magic now, in a limited form.

A great deal of the better 'fixes' are not available in PFS.

A great deal of the better 'fixes' are not available in PFS Core.

If a class relies on a series of 'fixes' and they are not available in a campaign, then that class is unplayable for that campaign.

A 'simple class' should not require a system mastery PhD and two dozen splatbooks.

Then you need to specify that your problem is with PFS fighters and not PFRPG fighters.

Moving goal post


3 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
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.

It could be possible that there were challenges thrown at the party that the fighter's player could handle that didn't require dice rolling.

I know on the internet that everything that could possibly happen must bee represented numerically, but in a real game it may not.

Also, at low levels high AC saves parties completely with the right tactics like providing cover and making yourself the biggest threat to the enemies which should draw the enemy tactics.

Well the Fighter in this example did such a good job at that all the other party members died.

Blackwaltzomega wrote:
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.

I remember a previous thread on the subject of caster/non-caster disparity in which I suggested that rather than make spells the best solution to mundane as well as magical problems, that they should be inferior to what the best non-caster could do in that situation. If you wanted to survive a long wilderness trip, a Ranger was more useful than a Cleric or Wizard; for a break-in, a Rogue was better than any spellcaster; for combat, no caster was as generally useful as a warrior.

Apparently that would mean there was no point playing a caster, because having abilities other classes can't do at all isn't enough when you can't also overshadow them in their niche.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:


I really don't understand how it can be super difficult to make a decent fighter due to requirements of system mastery and still complain about the lack off options. They have options, they can do stuff out of combat. They even get magic now, in a limited form.

A great deal of the better 'fixes' are not available in PFS.

A great deal of the better 'fixes' are not available in PFS Core.

If a class relies on a series of 'fixes' and they are not available in a campaign, then that class is unplayable for that campaign.

A 'simple class' should not require a system mastery PhD and two dozen splatbooks.

Then you need to specify that your problem is with PFS fighters and not PFRPG fighters.

Moving goal post

Just because people complaining about the fighter have different reasons doesn't make an individual person moving the goalpost.

PFRPG fighters are in the same boat. Take away unchained rules as that's "optional rules" and there goes a lot of the fighter's toys.
Ban or limit training enhancement or adding it to a weapon on the fly and there goes much of the fixes.

Cause like there are options like leadership or sacred geometry that get banned in MANY games.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Secret Wizard

Since I want this to be a good comparison I want you to approve my summary of the marauder. And I can't message you so here we go. You're welcome to change or tell me to change stuff before comparison.

the marauder:
THE MARAUDER
lv12 expected gold: 108,000 gp
Adamantine +1 ghost touch o-yoroi = 20,700 gp for 9 AC and 3 DR max dex 2
Gloves of Dueling = 15,000 gp
Sash of the War Champion = 4,000 gp
Belt of Physical Perfection = 16,000 gp
Cap of the Free Thinker = 12,000 gp
+1 courageous greataxe = 8,300 gp
total = 76,000 gp spent. 32,000 gp remaining

HP 125 includes FCB
Saves 11/12/11
AC = 24, DR 6/-

attack +1 courageous greataxe +23/+18/+13 1d12+14 19-20/3 DPR against CR 12 is 44
PA +19/+14/+9 1d12+26 DPR against CR 12 is 48.4

skills
4 per level till 5 then 6 per level.
Skills are perception, climb, sense motive, survival, and 24 points

build really improves by numbers last 4 levels
Goal is be a generic front liner that eventually can stay on casters to increase their defensive casting DC.

My compared build will leave 32,000 gp off and not buy cloak, ring, or amulet of natural armor.


The reflex boost and the will save boost of +4 seems like it'll be a harder thing to match, especially since these are solo class comparisons.

Comparison goal is either to have bigger numbers, Or close numbers and bringing more to the table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Secret Wizard

THE MARKSMAN:
THE MARKSMAN
lv12 expected gold: 108,000 gp
Armor is missing assuming mithral chain shirt +3 = 10,100 gp
Gloves of Dueling = 15,000 gp
Greater Bracers of Archery = 25,000 gp
Belt of Physical Perfection = 16,000 gp
Cap of the Free Thinker = 12,000 gp
+2 Adaptive composite longbow = 9,400 gp
total = 87,500 gp spent. 20,500 gp remaining

HP 101 includes FCB
Saves 10/14/6
AC = 23

attack+2 Adaptive composite longbow +25/+25/+20/+15 1d8+13 20/x3 DPR against CR 12 is 75.3
DA +21/+21/+16/+11 1d12+21 DPR against CR 12 is 82.2

skills
7 per level, 2 must be int based


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Hoplite,
Hurtful is not a PFS legal feat.

this is a reach build with a point at having good AC while sacrificing damage and 6 skills per level. The only unique thing is passing out +4 to mind affecting will saves.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Secret Wizard wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

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."

DISCLAIMER: I don't get tired of posting this g%&#%!ned link. Still waiting for a reply.

I don't believe any of those could reliably take down a nation state.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:


I really don't understand how it can be super difficult to make a decent fighter due to requirements of system mastery and still complain about the lack off options. They have options, they can do stuff out of combat. They even get magic now, in a limited form.

A great deal of the better 'fixes' are not available in PFS.

A great deal of the better 'fixes' are not available in PFS Core.

If a class relies on a series of 'fixes' and they are not available in a campaign, then that class is unplayable for that campaign.

A 'simple class' should not require a system mastery PhD and two dozen splatbooks.

Then you need to specify that your problem is with PFS fighters and not PFRPG fighters.

Moving goal post

it's not really a moving goal post, it's just that many of the options are simply unavailable to a large audience, this has always been said. Like you keep mentioning stamina, and yet i haven't sat at a table that allows them, not because they're too powerful or anything, but because it changes so many feats that it's hard to keep track of the changes.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:


I really don't understand how it can be super difficult to make a decent fighter due to requirements of system mastery and still complain about the lack off options. They have options, they can do stuff out of combat. They even get magic now, in a limited form.

A great deal of the better 'fixes' are not available in PFS.

A great deal of the better 'fixes' are not available in PFS Core.

If a class relies on a series of 'fixes' and they are not available in a campaign, then that class is unplayable for that campaign.

A 'simple class' should not require a system mastery PhD and two dozen splatbooks.

Then you need to specify that your problem is with PFS fighters and not PFRPG fighters.

Moving goal post

it's not really a moving goal post, it's just that many of the options are simply unavailable to a large audience, this has always been said. Like you keep mentioning stamina, and yet i haven't sat at a table that allows them, not because they're too powerful or anything, but because it changes so many feats that it's hard to keep track of the changes.

That's the biggest problem with most of the fixes I've seen with systemic issues. Sure there's plenty of cool stuff out there (Spheres of Power is a personal favorite, stamina systems are useful too), but they require essentially complete excision or at the least heavy alterations of core concepts that both the players and the DM have to learn. 9 times of of 10 one of the people involved just throw up their hands.


Bandw2 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:


I really don't understand how it can be super difficult to make a decent fighter due to requirements of system mastery and still complain about the lack off options. They have options, they can do stuff out of combat. They even get magic now, in a limited form.

A great deal of the better 'fixes' are not available in PFS.

A great deal of the better 'fixes' are not available in PFS Core.

If a class relies on a series of 'fixes' and they are not available in a campaign, then that class is unplayable for that campaign.

A 'simple class' should not require a system mastery PhD and two dozen splatbooks.

Then you need to specify that your problem is with PFS fighters and not PFRPG fighters.

Moving goal post

it's not really a moving goal post, it's just that many of the options are simply unavailable to a large audience, this has always been said. Like you keep mentioning stamina, and yet i haven't sat at a table that allows them, not because they're too powerful or anything, but because it changes so many feats that it's hard to keep track of the changes.

I have used them and honestly, it just makes the fighter have a few notes like a wizard would. He has toys, and a lot of them. Some of them are really worth using and make certain feats functional (like bypassing the INT prereq on Combat Expertise which is huge for some builds).

Again, choosing to not use it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Continuing to complain about a problem that is solved by something you refuse to learn makes it really hard to sympathize with you. That's what my fallacy is all about.

Quote:
it's just that many of the options are simply unavailable to a large audience, this has always been said.

No, it's not available to one specific audience that you identify with. PFS is not the base of the game and people who play it really need to stop acting like they're more important than everyone else.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Isonaroc wrote:


That's the biggest problem with most of the fixes I've seen with systemic issues. Sure there's plenty of cool stuff out there (Spheres of Power is a personal favorite, stamina systems are useful too), but they require essentially complete excision or at the least heavy alterations of core concepts that both the players and the DM have to learn. 9 times of of 10 one of the people involved just throw up their hands.

Seconded. Not to mention not every DM allows third party support. I'm not even sure many third party are even PFS legal. As well telling me their no problem with a class and then point out that one has to buy other products beyond the core. Is telling me without telling me that their a problem with the class. Or to put it another way. It's like saying that a house you want to sell is perfect. As long as one fixes the pipes in the bathroom. The broken tiles in the basement.

Yes their a fixes to the issues the Fighter has. It does not mean that suddenly that class no longer has any issues.


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


No, it's not available to one specific audience that you identify with. PFS is not the base of the game and people who play it really need to stop acting like they're more important than...

PFS is the reason I play Pathfinder at the moment.

Even in the home campaign I was in, a lot of the 'fixes' were not made available *until* it became obvious how woefully under-powered our fighter was in comparison to our party, and even then it was just Stamina (which helped in some cases) but didn't change the 'only the one shtick' aspect of the character.

Thank goodness they had K: Engineering trained, at least!

I am considering joining a mostly CORE campaign.

How would you build a fighter, mostly CORE, and make them skill-viable, non-human, and not an archer (picture front-liner)?

Tactician and Lore Warden are not options in this case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:


No, it's not available to one specific audience that you identify with. PFS is not the base of the game and people who play it really need to stop acting like they're more important than...

PFS is the reason I play Pathfinder at the moment.

Even in the home campaign I was in, a lot of the 'fixes' were not made available *until* it became obvious how woefully under-powered our fighter was in comparison to our party, and even then it was just Stamina (which helped in some cases) but didn't change the 'only the one shtick' aspect of the character.

Thank goodness they had K: Engineering trained, at least!

I am considering joining a mostly CORE campaign.

How would you build a fighter, mostly CORE, and make them skill-viable, non-human, and not an archer (picture front-liner)?

Tactician and Lore Warden are not options in this case.

How Core? Just the main book or main book plus ACG and APG?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:


No, it's not available to one specific audience that you identify with. PFS is not the base of the game and people who play it really need to stop acting like they're more important than...

PFS is the reason I play Pathfinder at the moment.

Even in the home campaign I was in, a lot of the 'fixes' were not made available *until* it became obvious how woefully under-powered our fighter was in comparison to our party, and even then it was just Stamina (which helped in some cases) but didn't change the 'only the one shtick' aspect of the character.

Thank goodness they had K: Engineering trained, at least!

I am considering joining a mostly CORE campaign.

How would you build a fighter, mostly CORE, and make them skill-viable, non-human, and not an archer (picture front-liner)?

Tactician and Lore Warden are not options in this case.

I need more information.

Probably go human with a BFS and Furious Focus depending on what's banned.

Banning books doesn't disprove anything about the fighter though, I would talk to the DM or find a different group. OR, here's a crazy idea: DM yourself and let the players understand what a better game looks like and they'll never look back.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Third party exists and has fixes. Choosing to not use it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I could own and completely understand Every 3pp book, but if the GM doesn't approve of the source and material then it does me no good that I understand all these systems that fix classes.

The only advantage Paizo books has is that by being "official" they are more likely to be allowed than 3pp. But even then, there are things that are often banned. Words of power "fixes" a lot of issues, but with no further support and hardly any approval to play in games it isn't a fix.

So just because a solution exists, if it's not a main or popularly used subsystem or unbanned option, doesn't mean it's a viable fix to the problem.


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

List of Campaign Restrictions being worked with(for length):

PF Core
PF Bestiary
Council of Thieves Player's Guide
Crypt of the Everflame
Carrion Hill
Masks of the Living God
Realm of the Fellnight Queen
Princes of Darkness
Seekers of Secrets
Cities of Golarion
Classic Horrors Revisited
Dwarves of Golarion


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

Third party exists and has fixes. Choosing to not use it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I could own and completely understand Every 3pp book, but if the GM doesn't approve of the source and material then it does me no good that I understand all these systems that fix classes.

The only advantage Paizo books has is that by being "official" they are more likely to be allowed than 3pp. But even then, there are things that are often banned. Words of power "fixes" a lot of issues, but with no further support and hardly any approval to play in games it isn't a fix.

So just because a solution exists, if it's not a main or popularly used subsystem or unbanned option, doesn't mean it's a viable fix to the problem.

Can of Worms fallacy

Official Paizo material is what it is, as is 3rd party. Sure, you can make that statement as if all 3rd party was bad or make the case that rule zero trumps the existence of official material, and you're technically not wrong.

Good job. You win D&D

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Campaign Stuff

Definitely take Conspiracy hunter for Perception, since the only RPG line book I see is Core I would say stick to something like using a heavy shield as your two handed weapon, and rocking Power Attack and Improved Shield Bash.

Are you using point buy? If you really want help with a build you can PM me.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

Can of Worms fallacy

Official Paizo material is what it is, as is 3rd party. Sure, you can make that statement as if all 3rd party was bad or make the case that rule zero trumps the existence of official material, and you're technically not wrong.

Good job. You win D&D

Or you can make the statement that the fixes presented are either unwieldy or not commonly allowed (or both). Saying that because a fix exists there isn't a problem (regardless of whether the fix is practical) isn't helpful. It's like saying " I'm broke, therefore I should get a job that pays better." Sure, it's a fix, but it isn't necessarily an option.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Isonaroc wrote:


Or you can make the statement that the fixes presented are either unwieldy or not commonly allowed (or both). Saying that because a fix exists there isn't a problem (regardless of whether the fix is practical) isn't helpful. It's like saying " I'm broke, therefore I should get a job that pays better." Sure, it's a fix, but it isn't necessarily an option.

I like this one, better...

Bill: Ted, while I agree that, in time, our band will be most triumphant. The truth is, Wyld Stallyns will never be a super band until we have Eddie Van Halen on guitar.

Ted: Yes, Bill. But, I do not believe we will get Eddie Van Halen until we have a triumphant video.

Bill: Ted, it's pointless to have a triumphant video before we even have decent instruments.

Ted: Well, how can we have decent instruments when we don't really even know how to play?

Bill: That is why we NEED Eddie Van Halen!

Ted: And THAT is why we need a triumphant video.

Bill, Ted: EXCELLENT!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

How am I doing a slippery slope fallacy?

You say because a solution exists the problem is fixed, regardless of how accepted it's use is.

I'm saying that if something isn't often used or assumed to be used that's it's really not a good general fix to the problem.

Like I know there's lots of good balance 3pp. And some 3pp classes are more balanced than some paizo classes. But that doesn't help when I don't have any GMs or players that want to allow or use 3pp material. Lots of people discredit or don't use 3pp just because it's 3pp.
Similar to how lots don't use stamina, ABP, unchained combat actions, background skills, words of power, etc. just because they are not the basic rule but are optional rule systems.

PFS is brought up a lot as a bar to judge against because the rules are clear and available and the bar can't be changed. No moving goalpost if it's PFS legal. I do feel it's a little heavy handed in what it bans, but it's an easy bar to set for stuff that a GM might not allow.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If I wanna play a Fighter that can compete I need

Stamina > learn a new system
Read at least 4-5 books to find the things I need in order not to suck or TPK my party because of a Will Save
Replace all my feats and class features to have the same things other classes get for free. Of course I'm not getting any spellcasting, nor real class features
After all of this I can compete at a combat level, with some luck I might even be slightly better.

Why would someone (unless it's a theory crafting exercise) take all that time when they can just play Ranger/Slayer/Almost anything that is not a figther?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The fighters do have a few tricks that are difficult or impossible for others to get, especially with some of their archetypes. No one else can have a familiar that knows as many feats as the fighter's can for example. Or to pull of crazy feat builds. Like the THE SIEGEBREAKER build, it's needing a lot of combat feats to really have everything working. And pulling something off 2 or more levels earlier can be a big deal when you're having to actually play those levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't understand the "trading feats and features for things other classes get for free". Like, isn't that a basic function of how the game mechanics are set up? Archaeologist trades bard stuff for rogue stuff, Ascetic Fist trades kineticist stuff for monk stuff, Spellslinger trades wizard stuff for gunslinger stuff, Daring Champion trades cavalier stuff for swashbuckler stuff, etc.

A basic strength of PFRPG itself is that the game is set up to allow you to trade things you don't like for things you want. The problem the fighter has is that most of its strengths are somewhat generic (feats, numerical bonuses, etc.) so you can't completely deny those things to other classes, but even when you give the fighter something other classes can't easily access (e.g. AWT) people kvetch that it's impractical for non-fighters to get that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
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.

20 pt buy; starting stats, after racial mods:

17
15
14
13
10
8

4th +1 str
8th +1 dex

I get a lot of people accusing me of using 21 point builds. I don't, it is more efficient to start with odd stats.

Some of her favored class bonuses went into skills.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
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.

With Armed Bravery, fighters will saves are equal to, or better than, a wizards.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I don't understand the "trading feats and features for things other classes get for free". Like, isn't that a basic function of how the game mechanics are set up? Archaeologist trades bard stuff for rogue stuff, Ascetic Fist trades kineticist stuff for monk stuff, Spellslinger trades wizard stuff for gunslinger stuff, Daring Champion trades cavalier stuff for swashbuckler stuff, etc.

A basic strength of PFRPG itself is that the game is set up to allow you to trade things you don't like for things you want. The problem the fighter has is that most of its strengths are somewhat generic (feats, numerical bonuses, etc.) so you can't completely deny those things to other classes, but even when you give the fighter something other classes can't easily access (e.g. AWT) people kvetch that it's impractical for non-fighters to get that.

Right, having 4 skill points per level is definitely "? stuff" that I'm trading to get. And having 2 good saves is "? stuff" that I'm trading to kinda get. a fighter getting a combat booster lv1 is "other martial's stuff" that I can't get.

Like that's the things. Skills and saves AREN'T other classes' features that we're trading to get. Skills and saves are basic class stuff that the fighter is having to use "actual class features" to eventually reach the base class start for skills or saves for many of it's competitors that got those "for free".

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowlilly wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
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.
With Armed Bravery, fighters will saves are equal to, or better than, a wizards.

With Wis 10

1st level - Fighter: +0, Wizard: +2
5th level - Fighter: +2, Wizard: +4
10th level - Fighter: +6, Wizard: +7
15th level - Fighter: +9, Wizard: +9
18th level (fighters max out here) - Fighter: +11, Wizard: +11
20th level - Fighter: +11, Wizard +12

Just armed bravery is enough to equal a wizard by level 15, falling behind again at 20. Don't get me wrong, it's a great ability, but wizard still beats it.


Having few skill points or two bad saves is not great, sure, but do other classes even have the options built into their classes to shore those up? Like what is the cleric supposed to do about the 2+INT skills/level or what does the sorcerer do to shore up its fort save? We don't worry so much about that since what those classes do is so strong that we put up with the downsides, but the fighter at least has options built in to shore up weaknesses in a way that other classes (with those same weaknesses) do not.

The problem with the fighter is not that its weaknesses are too weak, but that its strengths are (generally) not strong enough.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:

I have used them and honestly, it just makes the fighter have a few notes like a wizard would. He has toys, and a lot of them. Some of them are really worth using and make certain feats functional (like bypassing the INT prereq on Combat Expertise which is huge for some builds).

Again, choosing to not use it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Continuing to complain about a problem that is solved by something you refuse to learn makes it really hard to sympathize with you. That's what my fallacy is all about.

right, so, there's a famine, and a queen says completely legitimately let them eat cake. I think you know how the peasants reacted.

less metaphor, I think the large brunt of pathfinder players do not use optional rule systems. you simply exist in a group that does use them, congratz, but you can't hold your high standard of open content on everyone.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

Third party exists and has fixes. Choosing to not use it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I could own and completely understand Every 3pp book, but if the GM doesn't approve of the source and material then it does me no good that I understand all these systems that fix classes.

The only advantage Paizo books has is that by being "official" they are more likely to be allowed than 3pp. But even then, there are things that are often banned. Words of power "fixes" a lot of issues, but with no further support and hardly any approval to play in games it isn't a fix.

So just because a solution exists, if it's not a main or popularly used subsystem or unbanned option, doesn't mean it's a viable fix to the problem.

Can of Worms fallacy

you just did my favorite fallacy

The Fallacy Fallacy

you brought up a logical fallacy and then did not explain where the logical fault was, using it as if it's existence is all the proof you need. In fact, this isn't even a slippery slope fallacy, he's saying that you can't assume all material exists/is in use, at any given time, which is logically sound.

he's saying that because something exists, does not mean it can, or is, being used.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

Third party exists and has fixes. Choosing to not use it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I could own and completely understand Every 3pp book, but if the GM doesn't approve of the source and material then it does me no good that I understand all these systems that fix classes.

The only advantage Paizo books has is that by being "official" they are more likely to be allowed than 3pp. But even then, there are things that are often banned. Words of power "fixes" a lot of issues, but with no further support and hardly any approval to play in games it isn't a fix.

So just because a solution exists, if it's not a main or popularly used subsystem or unbanned option, doesn't mean it's a viable fix to the problem.

Can of Worms fallacy

you just did my favorite fallacy

The Fallacy Fallacy

you brought up a logical fallacy and then did not explain where the logical fault was, using it as if it's existence is all the proof you need. In fact, this isn't even a slippery slope fallacy, he's saying that you can't assume all material exists/is in use, at any given time, which is logically sound.

he's saying that because something exists, does not mean it can, or is, being used.

Ha! You've just fallen into my trap, and used the Fallacy fallacy Fallacy!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Poisons both cups and relies on improved greater fortitude


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I don't understand the "trading feats and features for things other classes get for free". Like, isn't that a basic function of how the game mechanics are set up? Archaeologist trades bard stuff for rogue stuff, Ascetic Fist trades kineticist stuff for monk stuff, Spellslinger trades wizard stuff for gunslinger stuff, Daring Champion trades cavalier stuff for swashbuckler stuff, etc.

Not really. First, the scope is different. An archeologist bard still has spells, bardic knowledge, and lore master. A fighter that spends all his feats on patching up his weaknesses has... weapon training and armor training.

Second, archetypes are specializations, where the fighter is trying to function at all. Normally, archetypes replace general abilities with specialized ones. Fightern is exactly the other way around.
And third, taking an archetype is a choice - if an archetype trades out too much, just don't take it. But a working will save and skills are vital to be a functioning adventurer.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
[W]hat is the cleric supposed to do about the 2+INT skills/level or what does the sorcerer do to shore up its fort save?

Cleric: Spells. Air Walk instead of Acrobatics, Cause Fear/Vision of Hell instead of Intimidate, Dispel Magic/Stone Shape/Summoning instead of Disable Device, and so on. Sorcerer: Again, spells. If you are flying around while invisible, or are protected by Blur and Mirror Image, you don't need to save against a ghouls palaryzing touch because it never hits you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

We put up with sorcerer's poor fort and reflex because full casters without access to domains only have 1 good save and it's will save. Plus they have access to heroism for a nice +2 to all saves, and other spells to make them immune or resist effects.

People complain about the cleric's and paladin's poor skills too. But they have spells, I don't need swim ranks since I have a spell to grant swim speed.

So I agree, if it's strengths were such that it made up for these weaknesses it would be less of an issue. It just feels really bad as a player to buy these things that others get for free. Because the fighter is now no longer the guy that can get many long feat chains done, but the one that can use it's feats to patch itself.

But no other class has the same nor as many weaknesses as the fighter does. And this is the other problem. The fighter starts behind his direct counterpoints, so that fixing some issues now puts him level with where the others started, but they've now moved up because of their class features.


Bandw2 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

Third party exists and has fixes. Choosing to not use it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I could own and completely understand Every 3pp book, but if the GM doesn't approve of the source and material then it does me no good that I understand all these systems that fix classes.

The only advantage Paizo books has is that by being "official" they are more likely to be allowed than 3pp. But even then, there are things that are often banned. Words of power "fixes" a lot of issues, but with no further support and hardly any approval to play in games it isn't a fix.

So just because a solution exists, if it's not a main or popularly used subsystem or unbanned option, doesn't mean it's a viable fix to the problem.

Can of Worms fallacy

you just did my favorite fallacy

The Fallacy Fallacy

you brought up a logical fallacy and then did not explain where the logical fault was, using it as if it's existence is all the proof you need. In fact, this isn't even a slippery slope fallacy, he's saying that you can't assume all material exists/is in use, at any given time, which is logically sound.

he's saying that because something exists, does not mean it can, or is, being used.

Enough, you're making the exact same case over and over again.

We get it, you don't like fighters. You don't like the optional rules designed for them.

You're allowed to not like it. We've had this thread a million times and I've proven your corner cases wrong repeatedly. YOUR problem with the fighter is not everyone else's.

Assuming that people do or don't use the systems doesn't prove anything, but they do exist and they are from official Paizo material. In the first page I was the one who said the real problem with fighters was the fact that its fixes came from supplemental materials, so if you're just frustrated with that fact then please do so without goading me into a spam war. I'm done saying it over and over again.

401 to 450 of 1,354 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What's wrong with the fighter All Messageboards