Rhedyn wrote:Frosty Ace wrote:Well whatever. My critique (And the fact I'd build a dwarf Fighter much different) just goes to prove my earlier point. Everyone is gonna build their Fighters differently, but as everyone, including yourself, has now said, shown or proven, different doesn't automatically equate to worse.
Oh we are very far from showing that Fighters have any sort of build diversity if they want to compete with a Cavalier or any of the other t4 martials let alone classes like Paladin, ranger, or spell sunder barbarian.
Fighter build diversity is a myth. Especially 1-20 builds.
But, there are plenty of decent classes out their that don't have real build diversity.
Eh, build diversity in combat style is kind of a myth. There are standard and required feats in a chain in order to make things like archery, two weapon fighting, thrown weapons, mounted combat or unarmed combat work.
But if your position is that the fighter is somehow less capable of fulfilling any of these roles you're profoundly wrong. In fact fighter may well be the only class that can pull off a decent thrown weapon build.
Nope. Barbarian is better because there is an entire chain of Rage Powers meant to make the process viable.
Those rage powers are mediocre at best, don't really synergize with startoss style, which is the single greatest feat chain for making throwing a viable fighting style that exists, and ricochet toss is a 3 feat investment for barbarian rather than 2 for fighter.
Pre Weaponmasters handbook yeah, probably barbarian. Afterward a fighter chassis is simply superior.
(*)Well, a certain archetype that has yet to be released -- maybe for Starfinder?
Dude, I may be reading this wrong since it's past midnight where I am right now, but...
1. This game needs a horse-punching archetype. And I mean archetype: we already have monk and brawlers.
2. Chintzy 80's Cyberpunk Pathfinder would be awesome. Can you just imagine doing lance charge attacks while hanging from the side of a DeLorean?