| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have been playing D&D since 1974. And, in my current 12th level PF campaign, I am playing a Fighter. Not boring.Good for you . Like I said, "Fun is subjective". However, the vast majority of players I know got bored quite easily with "simple" Fighters. And repetitiveness is almost universally considered a bad thing in entertainment of all kinds.
So I believe you're in the minority.
The vast majority I know enjoyed playing fighters very much, up thru the end of RotRL.
So I believe you're in the minority.
The vast majority I know enjoyed playing fighters very much, up thru the end of RotRL.
And those were "simple" Fighters? "basic charge-full-attack-repeat Fighter[s]"? "[A]ttack-and-nothing-else Fighter[s]"? If not (and I highly doubt it), you aren't actually adressing his point(s), just like you completely failed to adress mine upthread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have been playing D&D since 1974. And, in my current 12th level PF campaign, I am playing a Fighter. Not boring.Good for you . Like I said, "Fun is subjective". However, the vast majority of players I know got bored quite easily with "simple" Fighters. And repetitiveness is almost universally considered a bad thing in entertainment of all kinds.
So I believe you're in the minority.
I have always found the challenge in playing a fighter, or any other martial, is tactical.
Simply charging in a straight line and attacking is seldom the most effective solution. As a player grows, this simple strategy tends to get expanded upon as the player starts to learn more about positioning and exerting battlefield control.
The vast majority I know enjoyed playing fighters very much, up thru the end of RotRL.And those were "simple" Fighters? "basic charge-full-attack-repeat Fighter]s]"? "[A]ttack-and-nothing-else Fighter[s]"? If not (and I highly doubt it), you aren't actually adressing his point(s), just like you completely failed to adress mine upthread.
There is a world of difference between being simple to play and lacking complex tactical options. Fighters are simple for a new player to learn while allowing for growth as the player grows.
To use a related example: Checkers is simple to learn. Very difficult to master.
The vast majority I know enjoyed playing fighters very much, up thru the end of RotRL.
So I believe you're in the minority.
I believe repetitiveness makes character less fun to play, you seem to believe it doesn't... I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I have always found the challenge in playing a fighter, or any other martial, is tactical.
Simply charging in a straight line and attacking is seldom the most effective solution. As a player grows, this simple strategy tends to get expanded upon as the player starts to learn more about positioning and exerting battlefield control.
The problem is that there's only so much you can do to diversify your tactics when all your options are "hit and take the hits".
Sure... You can move into flanking position, or try to funnel the enemies into a tunnel or bridge...
However, everyone can do that, not only "simple Fighters".
You can also describe your attacks in a variety of ways... But at the end of the day, you're still not making any meaningful choice. A Wizard can simply say "I cast spell", he has to actually decide what spell he's going to use and where. A player using a "simple Fighter" character can pretty much say "I charge, flank when possible and full attack every enemy until they die. Repeat as necessary." and leave the table and have the character play in "auto-pilot".
Sadly, the Fighter class rewards specialization (and to a certain extent, pushes you into overspecialization) and punishes variety. Fortunately, that can be avoided to a certain extent, but "simple Fighter who does nothing but full attack" is not the way to do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The vast majority I know enjoyed playing fighters very much, up thru the end of RotRL.And those were "simple" Fighters? "basic charge-full-attack-repeat Fighter[s]"? "[A]ttack-and-nothing-else Fighter[s]"? If not (and I highly doubt it), you aren't actually adressing his point(s), just like you completely failed to adress mine upthread.
Yeppers.
However, I have no idea of what "point" you made I failed to 'adress'.
I didn't originally responded to it precisely because I didn't want to turn this into "another "bash the fighter" thread" and considered it ebst to let the matter rest, but here you go:
Will is easy to build up for a fighter. (...) Blindfight and blind fighting styles. (...) Pull out that bow. (...) Or dragon style, run over it.Yeah, I'm amazed at people saying that effective fighter is tough. Just give them 18 starting strength, a great sword, and Power Attack by level 4 or 5, and you'll be a very effective damage dealer.Useless when the enemy is not reachable via firm ground. Useless if the enemy has something nasty targetting Will. Weak if the enemy has a defense like DR, incorporeality, concealment, invisiblity, or swarminess (...). At later levels, weak if the enemy isn't already in melee range. (...)
Will increasing options are not included in "Just give them 18 starting strength, a great sword, and Power Attack by level 4 or 5". Blind-Fight et al. are not included in "Just give them 18 starting strength, a great sword, and Power Attack by level 4 or 5". Dragon Style is not included in "Just give them 18 starting strength, a great sword, and Power Attack by level 4 or 5". Not even carrying a bow is included in "Just give them 18 starting strength, a great sword, and Power Attack by level 4 or 5".
My entire point was that the 'you just need one weapon and one feat for a Fighter to be effective' was false in a significant amount of situations, and your reply was to... list options that can't possibly be included in 'one weapon and one feat'. You addressed the situations, but failed to adress the point I was making.
You stopped reading there and didnt see "this is a team game"? This IS a team game. Only complex caharcter can act on their own, and frankly solo D&D isnt much fun, as far as i am concerned.Stopped reading there. You basically just said that the Fighter is simple because he lets the other party members do the hard stuff.Also, this is a team game. Hopefully, someone else in the party can help with that.
Invisibility and concealment? Yup, you'll need a little help from teammates here and there.
My point was not that the game wasn't a team game, or that solo games should be used for measure, but that Fromper's example Fighter did rely on others so much while not giving anything back to the team that he ceases to be an effective character in the aforementioned situations. Ironically, your statement "[o]nly complex [characters] can act on their own" was kinda the essence of my point, so you repated it rather then adressing it.
Unchained barbarian. Simple, easy, and effective.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cleric is simplest. Pratically no build choices, all yhe archetypes suck anyways, you can prepare the same spells everyday, and spell cards help avoid having to memorize it all.
Power attack scales, which makes it harder to remember. There's also a mythic version to further confuse those who've played with those rules. The bonuses also vary according to whether you are two handing, one handing, or off-handing. Power Attack may be a staple feat, it's far from being the simplest.
As for the fighter being fun or not, to each their own. I preffer tactical decisions over fake diversity. Fighter might just be my favorite class. It also greatly depends on the GM. It might suck if he makes every challenge impossible for the fighter. But that's at least as much the GM's fault as it is the class's. Many old timers like myself have already expressed liking the class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't originally responded to it precisely because I didn't want to turn this into "another "bash the fighter" thread" and considered it ebst to let the matter rest, but here you go:
Will is easy to build up for a fighter. (...) Blindfight and blind fighting styles. (...) Pull out that bow. (...) Or dragon style, run over it.Yeah, I'm amazed at people saying that effective fighter is tough. Just give them 18 starting strength, a great sword, and Power Attack by level 4 or 5, and you'll be a very effective damage dealer.Useless when the enemy is not reachable via firm ground. Useless if the enemy has something nasty targetting Will. Weak if the enemy has a defense like DR, incorporeality, concealment, invisiblity, or swarminess (...). At later levels, weak if the enemy isn't already in melee range. (...)Will increasing options are not included in "Just give them 18 starting strength, a great sword, and Power Attack by level 4 or 5". Blind-Fight et al. are not included in "Just give them 18 starting strength, a great sword, and Power Attack by level 4 or 5". Dragon Style is not included in "Just give them 18 starting strength, a great sword, and Power Attack by level 4 or 5". Not even carrying a bow is included in "Just give them 18 starting strength, a great sword, and Power Attack by level 4 or 5".
M
Yes, and just about all that's all you need... by level 4 or 5. Obviously as you continue the Fighter will get a few more feats.
Toughness, dodge, weapon focus, Iron will. None of those need math. They all can be pre figured. So can Furious Focus and the ability which changes a Fighters Bravery to a bonus vs all Mind Effecting.
You can hand that sheet to anyone and say "you roll this and if you hit you roll this for damage".
The question here is not the Most Powerful class or the Best tier class or the Most Complex class- but the LEAST complex class. Yet, you wanna change the debate into yet another fighter bashing thread. Which frankly, we are all tired of.
I mean, would you give a wizard only one spell and a Int of 18 for his entire career?
I mean, would you give a wizard only one spell and a Int of 18 for his entire career?
Magic Missile?
Toppling Magic Missile for 2nd level slots
Empowered Magic Missile for 3rd level slots
Dazing Magic Missile for 4th level slots
Quickened Magic Missile for 5th level slots
Mix and match for spell slots 6th through 9th.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But Smilo, that's 4 feats. You only allowed the fighter one feat.
What? I did? Isn't the point of fighters all the feats?
Or are you saying in an example, the fighter only got 1 feat? But he could use all sorts of weapons: greatswords, lances, earth crushers, great axes, glaives, longbows, javelins, etc. etc.
Silver, cold iron, adamantine, wood.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you wanna change the debate into yet another fighter bashing thread.
No, you are, due to you inability to discern between Fighters in general and a specific type of Fighters. Tabernero and I were talking about the latter. But because you don't get that, your post is once again completely missing the point. You don't even notice that you're once again unintentionally supporting my argument.
Past mid-low levels, an archer is way less complex than a melee fighter, because the feats he gains decreases his complexity (by removing certain penalties) and the fact that an archer almost never needs to switch weapons. DR can be overcome cheaply with special material arrows. The odds of getting disarmed or sundered are infinitely smaller than the fighter's.
Past mid-low levels, an archer is way less complex than a melee fighter, because the feats he gains decreases his complexity (by removing certain penalties) and the fact that an archer almost never needs to switch weapons. DR can be overcome cheaply with special material arrows. The odds of getting disarmed or sundered are infinitely smaller than the fighter's.
That's true... And the heavy feat investment required means the character has little to no freedom to expand their repertoire...
That's why I don't play pure martial archers anymore. I do play archery-focused casters, though.
I would cast my vote for the Zen Archer Monk. It has almost as many feats as the fighter, but rather than having access to every combat feat as bonus feats, the class narrows your selection down to only relevant archery-related feats, which removes a layer of complexity (rather than make you search through every book released for archery-related combat feats, the archetype gives you a handful of specific feats from the Core and the APG to choose from). In my opinion, the class/archetype combination basically makes all your choices for you.
The Zen Archer Monk also avoids the basic problem that most other archers have: spacing, since as you don't provoke to shoot at level 5 and you threaten with a bow at 9 it really doesn't matter where you stand. The only tactical considerations are really "do I have line of sight to what I'm shooting at" (not necessary with Ki) and "am I okay with standing where that thing can hit me" (you should be, most of the time; you have good AC and good saves.)
Only possible downside is if the GM decides to pick on the archer by sundering bows.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Only possible downside is if the GM decides to pick on the archer by sundering bows.
In which case the Zen Archer doesn't even need to carry a backup weapon - unarmed strikes are built into the class (granted, an AoMF would come in handy, you no longer get flurry, and you are back down to functioning at 3/4ths BAB).
Other than that, there's absolutely no downsides to having your bow sundered ;)Anyway, it's the same problem the 2HW Fighter has when his greatsword gets taken and he's handed a sickle instead (to use an example mentioned upthread).
You might be able to borrow a friend's backup bow if your backup bow is sundered....
And staves and slings are free. Ish.
Or... You know... He could just carry a back-up weapon himself. No reason to have only one bow.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned that I think is important is that martials, regardless of class, generally have a lot of temporary modifiers that need tracking, often changing on a round-to-round basis. I've seen new players get a bit overwhelmed when they have to remember their +1 from haste, +2 for flanking, -3 for power attack, then on the next round recalculate things because they're no longer flanking but the bard started inspire courage. For that reason I tend to steer new players toward sorcerers, who are in my opinion the simplest class to play overall.
I've seen a player confused by buffs as well. Calculating size changes, damage increases from rage and hit chance can be complicated for them. There are more moving parts for martials the more bonuses get flung onto them. So I believe any build could theoritically get more complex the more another character will begin to alter them.
For instance, a mesmerist can really alter the abilities of their friends with their tricks. Lots of things that both the mesmer and the buffed character need to be aware of while the trick is implanted.
Clerics can throw out plenty of +1s, and so can bards. Keeping track of that can be a bit of a per round slog.
These are often more confusing for less experienced players though. I haven't had much issue with tracking buffs myself. But sometimes I have been caught out by not remembering a bonus or two that I had that actually would have changed the battle dramatically.