| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being "Right" is very important to a lot of people.
Since this is all preference and opinion, you can't ever be "Right".
A lot of people make the illogical step that they must then show that opposing opinions are Wrong. Note that there is less of this going on in this thread than I have seen elsewhere.This is getting near very near some core beliefs about what the basis of fantasy role play is, people hold up the Fighter as the one of the last "Pure" classes left. Often the same ones that are so disappointed with them, or will never actually play one. Now this next bit is going to come off rather Snarky, but necessary. That "Pure" fighter has not existed since Feats were brought into the game. It really has never existed except in the lowest levels where magic items did not play a powerful role. (This is probably where a lot of interest in low magic settings comes from.). I have to mention, that in a game that demands higher and higher levels of specialization and optimization, the "Pure" fighter concept is really unplayable without additions to combat rules that take away from the "simple" feel of the fighter.
I fear that there is no real way to address this.
My whole point in starting this was to find out folks opinions on why the Fighter should (or should not) have magic. Part of the reason was not only because of the Magus but also because in 5E there's a variant of the Fighter that incorporates magic.
In addition, at some point Fighters generally end up using magic in a second-hand way via armor and weapons that are enchanted or potions that increase their stats, heal them, or so on. There's nothing particularly wrong with wanting low-magic settings except where it basically become punishing magic-users for being magic-users. I feel the opposite is true as well. If one is running a high-magic campaign there ought to be a way of addressing no-magic characters/classes that doesn't amount to sadistic glee at their inability to do anything useful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously I agree Indagare, to a point.
There is a concept that is demonstrably true, and is hated by many. There are character concepts that are inappropriate for some settings. Inappropriate characters tend to be disadvantaged, disruptive or both. Calling it being punished implies malice when it is just a natural consequence of the character not being appropriate for the setting.
A dedicated "pure" magic user Should do poorly in a low magic setting. He is reliant on resources that just aren't there. This is not punishment.
In a similar way, the purely non-magical character does poorly in a setting dominated by magic. That character is blocked from using commonly available resources, which is a disadvantage. This is also not punishment.
These are both just reasonable consequences of playing a character that fits poorly in the setting. Whether this is a challenge or a deal breaker varies by Player and Table.
So, there are some campaigns where it is heavily encouraged that you do not use certain character classes, if they are not outright banned. The example that springs to my mind is paladins being discouraged from playing in a pirate campaign likes Skulls and Shackles.
In a game where high magic is brought to the forefront as a theme of the game, is it okay to ban non-magical classes like fighters and rogues?
So, there are some campaigns where it is heavily encouraged that you do not use certain character classes, if they are not outright banned. The example that springs to my mind is paladins being discouraged from playing in a pirate campaign likes Skulls and Shackles.
In a game where high magic is brought to the forefront as a theme of the game, is it okay to ban non-magical classes like fighters and rogues?
If the GM feels that a class/concept will interfere with his game, then Of Course it is OK for him to ban it. Counter-question, do you believe that a GM Must get his players' permissions for all of his choices?
Not all of his choices, but at least some.
If the GM just did stuff all willy-nilly without any of the players' input, I imagine he won't have much of a table for very long...
Being "Right" is very important to a lot of people.
Since this is all preference and opinion, you can't ever be "Right".
A lot of people make the illogical step that they must then show that opposing opinions are Wrong. Note that there is less of this going on in this thread than I have seen elsewhere.This is getting near very near some core beliefs about what the basis of fantasy role play is, people hold up the Fighter as the one of the last "Pure" classes left. Often the same ones that are so disappointed with them, or will never actually play one. Now this next bit is going to come off rather Snarky, but necessary. That "Pure" fighter has not existed since Feats were brought into the game. It really has never existed except in the lowest levels where magic items did not play a powerful role. (This is probably where a lot of interest in low magic settings comes from.). I have to mention, that in a game that demands higher and higher levels of specialization and optimization, the "Pure" fighter concept is really unplayable without additions to combat rules that take away from the "simple" feel of the fighter.
I fear that there is no real way to address this.
My whole point in starting this was to find out folks opinions on why the Fighter should (or should not) have magic. Part of the reason was not only because of the Magus but also because in 5E there's a variant of the Fighter that incorporates magic.
In addition, at some point Fighters generally end up using magic in a second-hand way via armor and weapons that are enchanted or potions that increase their stats, heal them, or so on. There's nothing particularly wrong with wanting low-magic settings except where it basically become punishing magic-users for being magic-users. I feel the opposite is true as well. If one is running a high-magic campaign there ought to be a way of addressing no-magic characters/classes that doesn't amount to sadistic glee at their inability to do anything useful.
You have similar options in Pathfinder
You've got the Child of Acavna archetype which gives the fighter spellcastingyou've got the Eldritch Guardian which gives him a combat familiar
you've got Mutagen Warrior which gives him alchemical transformation
you've got the Relic Master who gets a magical bond with one of his items
there are plenty of magic focused options for the Fighter to pursue
Not advocating a purely arbitrary game, just pushing back against the idea that it might Not be OK for the GM to Upfront declare that some options are not available for his game. This is not the PFS Forum, heck, this is the Homebrew Forum for goodness sake.
|
Because, along with a few other classes, fighters are one of the few non-magical options available. Unfortunately, to the developers, that means taking an NPC class and bolting a few extra feats onto it. What they SHOULD do is have a bunch of (EX) options for fighters. But even if they did that, Paizo's rule for the game seems to be that magic should always trump non-magic. So any powers they gave fighters would undoubtedly be mirrored by spells, probably more effectively and available at a much earlier level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because, along with a few other classes, fighters are one of the few non-magical options available. Unfortunately, to the developers, that means taking an NPC class and bolting a few extra feats onto it. What they SHOULD do is have a bunch of (EX) options for fighters. But even if they did that, Paizo's rule for the game seems to be that magic should always trump non-magic. So any powers they gave fighters would undoubtedly be mirrored by spells, probably more effectively and available at a much earlier level.
It goes back to 3rd edition (as an aside, it was interesting to read the argument that the huge jump in caster power in 3rd edition came from Wizards of the Coast making spellcasters operate more like they did in Magic: The Gathering than in OD&D). It's parallel to the realism and verisimilitude argument of why crossbows sucked so bad for so long. To paraphrase: "Crossbows are just not as good as longbows, period. Not every fighting style has to be made as good as all the others. Using weapons is just plain better than using water balloons. A Fighter who can see is just plain better than a Fighter who's blind." To extend that logic a little further: Having magic is just plain better than not having magic. Under so-called Ivory Tower Game Design, as Monte Cook later named it, there were supposed to be a lot of bad-to-mediocre options with a few good ones mixed in, in order to reward players who knew more about the game. Under the above logic, or plain pro-caster bias, or whatever, 3rd edition casters were the "correct" options while martials were the "incorrect" ones. Pathfinder tried to fix this but it's too closely tied to 3e (which was its whole raison d'etre) to get too far away from it.
Except that it would be impossible for a fighter to replicate most of the the abilities that make casters so powerful without flavoring them as magical. No amount of sword swinging or nonmagical physical prowess can summon a demon, turn an enemy into a toad, create a demiplane, stop time, or teleport to another planet, just to name a few examples.Don't limit your creativity by saying "it's impossible."
How would you fluff those abilities then?
Yes, because the class isnt meant to.
It is a simple class meant to be about just a completely normal guy, without any speacial powers, that is good at using weapons. That is it.
That is why it doesnt have ki or any other shenanigans.
The other problem with just leaving the Fighter as a total mundane, other than utility, is how do you justify the Fighter staying relevant in fights with demon lords, giant dragons, and Cthulhu? At some point, you have to throw up your hands and admit that the high-level martial is no longer "a normal guy". He is stronger and can take more punishment than even fantasy physics can allow, making him at the very least a superhero. That's why it's often argued that the Mundane Melee Fighter is a concept for low-level play only, and sometimes even that the Fighter class should only go up to level 6.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's parallel to the realism and verisimilitude argument of why crossbows sucked so bad for so long. To paraphrase: "Crossbows are just not as good as longbows, period. Not every fighting style has to be made as good as all the others. Using weapons is just plain better than using water balloons.
LOL, sorry, but I just cannot pass this up, you even cited water balloons. I just cannot resist popping this analogy.
Crossbows are bad because ALL bows are handled badly. To give an expurgated Gygax quote, "Bows are not heroic, no one wants his heroic warrior cut down easily by a half dozen guards with bows up on a wall." He has a point, the same one SCA heavies use, "I did not spend years becoming good enough to become King of Ansteorra just to be taken down by some darned archer who doesn't even..." These are understandable, but not universally valid arguments.
The ways D&D has chosen to empower archers really do stick to this concept. They keep the NPC archer pretty much irrelevant. How the bow, and pretty much all the lowly puncture weapons are handled is just wrong. They are just wrong in a way that suits a lot of people's sensibilities. How they should function is rather simple. They should have the low base damage they all do, but they should have a scaling, wider Crit range, and a scaling damage multiplier. Melee, and, to a lesser extent, missile, puncture weapons should be weak against active defenses like shields, dodges and parries. Full plate armor is also pretty effective, but not as much as that shield.
Now the advantages of the crossbow are mostly irrelevant to the rules. It is easy to learn to use (so it must be less effective...). It is easier to fire from cover, it is MUCH better to use at close to point blank ranges. It is much easier to shoot in Melee without "provoking". It can be braced while firing for greater accuracy vs. ranged and "apertured" targets. The reloading times presume heavier bows, but do not allow for strength bonuses of the weapon to apply, like for some reason they only do for composite bows. They utterly fail to even understand that different "reloader" options exist.
I feel better, done now.
The other problem with just leaving the Fighter as a total mundane, other than utility, is how do you justify the Fighter staying relevant in fights with demon lords, giant dragons, and Cthulhu? At some point, you have to throw up your hands and admit that the high-level martial is no longer "a normal guy". He is stronger and can take more punishment than even fantasy physics can allow, making him at the very least a superhero. That's why it's often argued that the Mundane Melee Fighter is a concept for low-level play only, and sometimes even that the Fighter class should only go up to level 6.
I'm not disagreeing with you on that. I just like to point out that you can circumvent this problem with relative ease. Not every campaign has to deal with "demon lords, giant dragons, and Cthulhu" and you can have high-level campaigns with more mundane opponents as well.
You just have to be aware of the little fact that in such a campaign, the spellcasters need to be heavily nerfed or simply be disallowed.
Which is one of the reasons why I like any form of tier system for the D&D/PF classes so much. Because those make it relatively easy to identify the classes that bring the most problems to such a game.
Because there has to be at least one non-magical 'I swing a sword at things' class. That originally was the Fighter. A fighter with Arcane Magic is the Magus, a Fighter with Divine Magic is a Paladin. But every fantasy game needs a basic none supernatural fighter/warrior type.Why? Why does every fantasy game "need" to have a non-magical person? Where does this assumption come from and what's wrong with challenging it?
Blame First edition D&D. It's starting classes were Fighter, Cleric, and Magic User.
Also, there are plenty of heroes that didn't need magic to kick ass and some folks want to replicate that person: Hiawatha, Beowulf, Siegfried, Cuchulain, Little John, Tristan, and Sinbad. Hell, even Conan, though considered a barbarian, didn't personally use magic to tear foes apart.
Not every swordsman needs to be Elric :/
Fighters can, of course, pick up 'magical' options easily enough. Elemental Fist and Shaitan Style/Skin is nasty stuff. Eldritch Heritage can grab Laughing Touch and Fleeting Glance. Touch of Serenity is straightforward, as is Stunning Fist and Mantis, and there's an AWT option for more uses/day. Eldrich Heritage can also grab Arcane Bond with an effective CL for magical crafting, and there's another way through feats to craft magic stuff as if a Fighter had a CL. And of course, a Fighter is in a good position to take racial SLA feats like Heavenly Radiance.
LOL, sorry, but I just cannot pass this up, you even cited water balloons. I just cannot resist popping this analogy.
I don't think crossbows are bad either. I should have mentioned that bit about the crossbows and water balloons was from a former 3.5/PF senior designer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My 2 cents: it's ok for the fighter to have magic as long as he has other options too.
It's IDEAL for the fighter not to have magic but to have exceptional abilities allowing him to keep up with other classes and be cool after lvl 5.
In D&D 3.X lvls from 1 to 5 represent a skilled human. From lvl 6 to lvl 10 you have the true experts in their field. From lvl 11 to 15 you get the best of the best, heroes so great there's only a few of them in the world. And then from lvl 16 to 20 you have beings who grow to become legends, whose abilities surpass the boundaries of what should be possible for mortals. Most classes try to reflect this process of growth, unfortunately, for entirely mechanical and dated design reasons the fighter can't.
In D&D the fighter is a MASTER of weapons and armor. It stands to reason his mastery and bond with such impements of war should grow as he increases his level, becoming capable of impossible feats as well. The system fails to deliver this. "Cool stuff" like Smash From the Air (which is not really powerful as its usefulness is actually very limited) makes a few people rage, the same people who are perectly ok with barbarians growing wings and pounching with greatsword in hand (when the rage power taht gives the ability was meant to work with the previously gained claws...).
Would it be possible to design fighters capable of flashy and cool stuff through the use of their growing bond with weapons and armor giving the exceptional and supernatural abilities unique to the class? Surely, and without reverting to spells, magic, divine intervention or animistic tutelage. Will it be done? Unlikely, for there are a lot of people who start foaming at the mouth whenever the fighter as a class gets something unique that allows him to do something different than swing a sword (after lvl 6, a good amount of the challanges one faces require to be able to fly or avoid encounter long incapacitation, which means fighters need access to similar abilities or party support just to do "their thing". This would be great but there's quite a lot of people claiming the fighter should be able to "carry his weight" and refuse to buff him preferring to cast spells on themselves instead, despite RPGs being collaborative games...)
Except that it would be impossible for fighter to replicate most of the the abilities that make casters so powerful without flavoring them as magical. No amount of sword swinging or nonmagical physical prowess...
Eh. I feel like that's one part lack of creativity, one parts magic does way too much. Honestly, flavoring and not replicating magic is just a matter of good writing and being willing to give martial/mundane characters powerful options that magic (Read: Casters) can't replicate. Though then you'd get people complaining that a Fighter is super human and actually extraordinary. As for options being too magical, well that's more a matter of perspective.
I'd talk about the magic does too much thing, but the Fighter is controversial enough.
There is no good reason that fighters should not have ANTI magical powers. If the GM feels magic is too prevalent, they can give fighters who have lived in that world all their lives, level appropriate magic resistance and a save bonus against magic. This would apply to incoming damage and not curing spells.
Fighters, Barbarians, Warriors, and Monks should be able to shift saves to fort. if the attack comes from a spell or a dragon. Non magic monsters such as Ogres or Hobgoblins should also have access to this.
I don't know if I'm ready to implement this in my home games. I have never played with people who think Fighters are getting boned. Most are happy with the concept of party solidarity. I'm more likely to allow spellcasters to cast shield on the fighter.
There is no good reason that fighters should not have ANTI magical powers. If the GM feels magic is too prevalent, they can give fighters who have lived in that world all their lives, level appropriate magic resistance and a save bonus against magic. This would apply to incoming damage and not curing spells.
Well, they can pick up several feats to become better caster hunters. Disruptive, Sunder Blessing, Spellbreaker, Teleport Tactician, Shatterspell and Pin Down come to my mind - they are all exclusive to fighters (and archetypes with fighter training). Step Up, Following Step as well as Step Up and Strike are not exclusive, but easier to take with bonus feats.
There is not so much when it comes to defense against spells, though. Ray Shield is a thing, otherwise you are (?) stuck with save feats (Improved Iron Will etc.) and Toughness. So it's up to items to cover the rest, meaning you have to rely on magic.
I feel that it's rather the monk who covers the 'resist magic' niche: Three good saves (Unchained: at least two), spell resistance, multiple immunities and high move speed. Well, if you want a combination of both classes, the martial artist archetype might be your thing.
Obviously I agree Indagare, to a point.
There is a concept that is demonstrably true, and is hated by many. There are character concepts that are inappropriate for some settings. Inappropriate characters tend to be disadvantaged, disruptive or both. Calling it being punished implies malice when it is just a natural consequence of the character not being appropriate for the setting.
A dedicated "pure" magic user Should do poorly in a low magic setting. He is reliant on resources that just aren't there. This is not punishment.
In a similar way, the purely non-magical character does poorly in a setting dominated by magic. That character is blocked from using commonly available resources, which is a disadvantage. This is also not punishment.
These are both just reasonable consequences of playing a character that fits poorly in the setting. Whether this is a challenge or a deal breaker varies by Player and Table.
Well, yes, there's not an appropriate way to have a Paladin in something based on any part of the world that's not Europe. However, if one is going to allow a class in a setting, then that class ought to be equally viable to others presented.
So, if one is allowing mages in a low-magic setting there are two ways to approach this:
The first is to basically make them a horrible choice - essentially they are included but not encouraged to the point that choosing one is basically setting oneself up for failure. That's what I mean by punishment. Someone has deliberately chosen to offer a class that is so unsuitable for a setting that anyone deciding to choose it is basically going to fail. If one doesn't want mages in a low-magic setting then the best thing to do is simply not offer the class. It is vindictive to offer a class but also make it a terrible choice. There's no particularly good reason to have a mage with a paladin's casting table, no ability to wear armor (without spells fizzling), low hit points, and no real fighting or other abilities and nothing else to serve it except for the fact that at some point the person will be able to cast a handful of low-level spells a few times per day.
The second is to offer a class but make it fit in with the parameters. So a mage in a low-magic setting isn't going to have a lot of magical powers - and that's fine - but there should be something to compensate for it: increased martial abilities, or maybe being able to find useful information more easily than anyone else or whatever. Similarly, in high-magic campaigns there's no particularly good reason that a fighter class shouldn't have magic or, if one wants, to only offer up classes like the magus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, yes, there's not an appropriate way to have a Paladin in something based on any part of the world that's not Europe. However, if one is going to allow a class in a setting, then that class ought to be equally viable to others presented.
I think that is the crux of the matter. Pathfinder wasn't built strictly for the world of Golarion. It is a base rule set that can be used in various different versions of whatever reality you want. The fighter has a place in worlds were magic is not as wide spread. He can be used in worlds that have higher magic content, but does have a bit of a disadvantage. Additional rules have been released to help alleviate the problem, but the problem remains with the game table and setting, not the rule set.
You make the most money from playing to a wider audience and the wider audience, apart from the vocal few who make themselves known on boards like these, appear to prefer to have a magic-less fighter as a base class. It's been that way since D&D inception.
So, how about we stop trying to change the BASE FIGHTER CLASS for everyone and instead release content that might appeal to different tables as an archetype? That plays to the wider audience. The same goes for every class in every different kind of setting. There is probably a class or archetype that will fit the form and function you are looking for, even if the mechanics are not spot on for your perceived mechanical advantage.
|
I think that is the crux of the matter. Pathfinder wasn't built strictly for the world of Golarion. It is a base rule set that can be used in various different versions of whatever reality you want. The fighter has a place in worlds were magic is not as wide spread. He can be used in worlds that have higher magic content, but does have a bit of a disadvantage. Additional rules have been released to help alleviate the problem, but the problem remains with the game table and setting, not the rule set.
And even if you're looking at Golarion, there are all kinds of countries from more low-magic ones to some real high-magic nations. So it's basically several different settings. On average, though, no matter which country an AP plays in, the groups of PC all looks the same. Meaning that the fighter has those disadvantages even in the sub-settings he actually would make more sense than the high-level wizard.
So, how about we stop trying to change the BASE FIGHTER CLASS for everyone and instead release content that might appeal to different tables as an archetype? That plays to the wider audience. The same goes for every class in every different kind of setting. There is probably a class or archetype that will fit the form and function you are looking for, even if the mechanics are not spot on for your perceived mechanical advantage.
That is something I would like very much. I wouldn't mind having a Tier 1-fighter variant in the game as long as I can get tier 4-versions of the tier 1 and 2 classes in exchange. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, how about we stop trying to change the BASE FIGHTER CLASS for everyone and instead release content that might appeal to different tables as an archetype? That plays to the wider audience. The same goes for every class in every different kind of setting. There is probably a class or archetype that will fit the form and function you are looking for, even if the mechanics are not spot on for your perceived mechanical advantage.
I think part of the issue is how the debate is framed, and I would propose a different way to look at it.
Too often the debate surrounds whether a fighter can beat a wizard in a fight. We all know that context can dramatically alter the outcome of any battle. There is no perfect vacuum to consider a class in, and as always, true parity can only be achieved by making them identical.
Instead, I would shift the focus to how classes can solve problems. For example... (not doing all the classes, but a few.
The wizard/cleric have a bevy of spells and abilities to apply to a host of situations. If they don't have the answer right now, there's a good chance they can prepare it tomorrow.
Then you have classes like the paladin and ranger, who specialize in niche problems they can solve. They have some general utility, but are easily outshone by other generalists classes, but have a ton of tools to bring to bear on their specialized problems.
Getting much lower on that problem solving spectrum, the rogue is capable of solving a lot of problems, but they can only pick a couple to be able to solve and must invest continuously to be able to do so.
Then you have the fighter. The fighter can hit things with a stick. If hitting things with a stick doesn't solve the problem, the fighter asks another party member if they can fix it. I'm being slightly hyperbolic, the fighter does get 2 skill points per level, so he can invest like a rogue, but doesn't get much to key off those skill points or enhance them.
A fighter can benefit from "having a good idea", but that is a thing that is entirely contingent on the DM's good grace and benefits all classes equally.
People would feel like the fighter is more useful if the fighter had more methods of problem solving. He doesn't need more combat abilities, there are enough to fill a niche and provide support to other classes. The fighter CAN play a role in combat. The problem is that that role can be someone limited AND it's the only role provided to them by the mechanics of their class. It's that "AND" that is vital. If a fighter had more out of combat utility, the in combat limitations wouldn't feel so constraining and vice versa.
The least disruptive method of improving the fighter would be to give it additional out of combat utility. Give the class a way to solve problems that are mechanically inherent to the class that is consistent with it's current nature (mundane but skilled) and you would have a much more complete feeling class. Right now it feels like an up jumped NPC class in a lot of ways.
The fighter doesn't need to be able to solve all of the problems, but they need to be able to solve more than they currently can.
some stuff
You seem to be quite knowledgeable on this matter. What would you propose a solution is to this? I personally feel it's gotta either be A) A new gaming system, or B) An Unchained Fighter is released that actually lives up to the standard of fantasy heroes, following that unchained mantra of ,"We are unbound by 3.x."
Solution A, in a "perfect" world, would remove about 60-70% of magic's ability to invalidate other PCs and just break the game, and also buffing skills significantly while making them much harder to access, with less magic = more skill points being a general rule. There actually needs to be cons to using a (full) caster other than making certain PCs feel useless at highish levels.
Solution B would actually be fairly simple to do and really fun. Just take "Equipment Tricks" and already attainable mundane options to their logical (and I use that term so loosely) extreme. This, however, requires a mentality of, "If someone had a superhuman level of strength, dexterity, adroitness, accuracy, precision, understanding or arms and armor, etc... would this be possible," and, let's be real, a lot of people don't want a Fighter to be fantastic It's like a part of the DnD culture at this point. Casters rool, martials drool.
Well, yes, there's not an appropriate way to have a Paladin in something based on any part of the world that's not Europe. However, if one is going to allow a class in a setting, then that class ought to be equally viable to others presented.I think that is the crux of the matter. Pathfinder wasn't built strictly for the world of Golarion. It is a base rule set that can be used in various different versions of whatever reality you want. The fighter has a place in worlds were magic is not as wide spread. He can be used in worlds that have higher magic content, but does have a bit of a disadvantage. Additional rules have been released to help alleviate the problem, but the problem remains with the game table and setting, not the rule set.
You make the most money from playing to a wider audience and the wider audience, apart from the vocal few who make themselves known on boards like these, appear to prefer to have a magic-less fighter as a base class. It's been that way since D&D inception.
So, how about we stop trying to change the BASE FIGHTER CLASS for everyone and instead release content that might appeal to different tables as an archetype? That plays to the wider audience. The same goes for every class in every different kind of setting. There is probably a class or archetype that will fit the form and function you are looking for, even if the mechanics are not spot on for your perceived mechanical advantage.
Reading the core rulebook I have always felt it was Golarion based whenever it had to choose. Golarion Gods, elemental planes, classes, ect. When they definitively place an oriental area on the globe, they will have to put out a book with all the variant gods, planes, classes, spells, ect.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I were designing the game from the ground up, I would personally make magic no more impactful than mundane means, but just make more things possible (example, an attack with magical lightning would do the same damage as someone with a bow and arrow, you'd just have cool lightning while you did it).
Again, I don't think the fighter needs new combat maneuvers, or bonuses to saves (though I'd rework their saves to some degree). What the fighter needs is new ways to solve problems outside of combat.
Two farmers are having an argument over a cow... what can the fighter do? Well, he can go King Solomon and cut the cow in half, but that's about it. He probably isn't that good at diplomacy, or Knowledge (Nature), or Handle Animal, or anything really, except cutting the cow (or one of the farmers) into smaller pieces. It's a silly example, don't dig into specifics too deep, but my point is that mechanically the fighter CLASS doesn't present any options on its own.
The Paladin has a spell to get to the truth.
The Ranger can probably find another cow (or a game animal to tide a family over).
The Cleric can use magic to divine the truth, or provide divine insight.
The Wizard can charm one into an agreement.
The Rogue can steal the cow from one farmer and give it to the other.
The thing is, they're all also capable of killing the cow and dividing it between the two farmers too. The fighter is left with nothing interesting about his CLASS to address the situation. Just the wits of the player, which can be interesting, but the player is going to have those wits regardless of class.
For all it's faults, I too can find things about the fighter appealing, but I have to strive for it. Usually it's because another class doesn't have the flavor I want and I'm creating my own flavor. The fighter doesn't bring anything inspirational to the process.
In my last campaign no one played a fighter. If someone had, I probably would have gone out of my way to provide them with unique feats that greatly expanded their non-combat options (we were playing E8, and the players had like 10-12 feats past level 8). Because of the situation, I would have customized them for that character. Outside of the context of that specific campaign I lean towards accentuating the fluff in the fighter's description. Either they're widely respected (cause people can understand and observe what a fighter does on the battlefield and aren't as fearful or distrusting as they might with a wizard), or I might highlight their honed skills of observing opponents and gaining useful information from that. For example, at the cost of 1 feat, I might have let a player substitute Perception for any knowledge skill to identify a monster and ask questions about it. Or let them use Sense Motive to be super accurate in predicting motivations and actions of NPCs (The bishop will be pleased if you say X, but mad if you say Y).
I could probably come up with more methods/paths if given time. The fighter doesn't need magic or super powers, he just needs interesting ways to be useful.
I don't personally design games, but I do alpha testing for a handful of ENnie winning authors. A pretty common thing is people are okay with imbalance as long as they have a cool thing they can do. A lot of people actually like asymmetry in game design, as long as it's clear why it is asymmetrical and each side is interesting and fun to play.
A great example is the bard. The bard can be a badass in their own right, but a lot of people actually enjoy playing the class as second fiddle to others. They want to be there to support and enable. Out of combat, wizards and clerics are pretty much gods who can do anything given enough time. The fighter doesn't need to be on par with them, he just needs to be able to contribute meaningfully.
The Paladin has a spell to get to the truth.
The Ranger can probably find another cow (or a game animal to tide a family over).
The Cleric can use magic to divine the truth, or provide divine insight.
The Wizard can charm one into an agreement.
The Rogue can steal the cow from one farmer and give it to the other.
The Rogue and the Ranger are pretty much just using Skills, no different than the Fighter would be using except that they have more Skill Points than he does.
Ok the Ranger might back his skill use up with Animal Empathy but really he's just doing a handle animal test.Easiest solution there is let the Fighter have more skills.
Could also let the fighter have Free Skill Unlocks like the Unchained Rogue gets.
You can just give the fighter a free skill point in all class skills.
Maybe 3 points and all other classes 1 point in all class skills. This is at first level and will not repeat when someone multiclasses later.
If I were designing the game from the ground up, I would personally make magic no more impactful than mundane means, but just make more things possible (example, an attack with magical lightning would do the same damage as someone with a bow and arrow, you'd just have cool lightning while you did it).
Ah, we seem to have incompatible views on the matter. I wouldn't enjoy a game where the difference between magic and mundane abilities were blurred to that point. If that means leaving a pure mundane fighter at level six with the rest of what is humanly possible because they won't take up magic to become something greater, then so be it.
On a related topic, have you tried 4th D&D? I think it might scratch that itch for you.
If I were designing the game from the ground up, I would personally make magic no more impactful than mundane means, but just make more things possible (example, an attack with magical lightning would do the same damage as someone with a bow and arrow, you'd just have cool lightning while you did it).Ah, we seem to have incompatible views on the matter. I wouldn't enjoy a game where the difference between magic and mundane abilities were blurred to that point. If that means leaving a pure mundane fighter at level six with the rest of what is humanly possible because they won't take up magic to become something greater, then so be it.
On a related topic, have you tried 4th D&D? I think it might scratch that itch for you.
Even in 4e, there's stuff that only magic can do.
Of course, in 4e, anyone could also learn how to do magical rituals to do those things just by spending a feat (and finding ritual scrolls as loot or buying them). Stuff like using teleport circles and raising the dead.
The Paladin has a spell to get to the truth.
The Ranger can probably find another cow (or a game animal to tide a family over).
The Cleric can use magic to divine the truth, or provide divine insight.
The Wizard can charm one into an agreement.
The Rogue can steal the cow from one farmer and give it to the other.The Rogue and the Ranger are pretty much just using Skills, no different than the Fighter would be using except that they have more Skill Points than he does.
Ok the Ranger might back his skill use up with Animal Empathy but really he's just doing a handle animal test.Easiest solution there is let the Fighter have more skills.
Could also let the fighter have Free Skill Unlocks like the Unchained Rogue gets.
Please don't fall in the trap of debating the analogy. If you want to debate me, debate the intent of my analogy, not the specifics of the analogy. That is a rabbit hole in which only inane chatter resides. If you don't understand the analogy, I would be happy to try to clear it up for you. Otherwise debate the intent.
If I were designing the game from the ground up, I would personally make magic no more impactful than mundane means, but just make more things possible (example, an attack with magical lightning would do the same damage as someone with a bow and arrow, you'd just have cool lightning while you did it).Ah, we seem to have incompatible views on the matter. I wouldn't enjoy a game where the difference between magic and mundane abilities were blurred to that point. If that means leaving a pure mundane fighter at level six with the rest of what is humanly possible because they won't take up magic to become something greater, then so be it.
On a related topic, have you tried 4th D&D? I think it might scratch that itch for you.
I greatly dislike tactical grids. If I could banish them from all RPG's, I would.
I like them in wargames and skirmish games, but not in my RPGs.
4E goes down the road of too much sameness. Magic and not-magic are basically identical. Every class casts spells, they're just flavored differently. I think 13th Age goes in a much better direction, though I've found it lacking some essence I can't quite put my finger on lately.
A better example of what I'm talking about would be Swashbucklers of the Seven Skies. I recommend giving it a read if you haven't. The game system that is designed so that Batman can be punched in the Memory of Dead Parents. I learned a lot about gaming and game design when I stepped out of the D&D paradigm (even Shadowrun, CoC, GURPS, d6 Star Wars, Vampire and many others are still within the D&D paradigm).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Warpriest and magus do the fighter with magic thing pretty well.
DSP Aegis is a spell-less magic martial
Occultist makes for a decent martial.
Fighter with magic is basically another class. It's not so much that fighters shouldn't have magical powers as not having magical powers is their niche.
First level lightning arrow. Affects one projectile per level, for one round per level, and adds 1D6 electric damage to each arrow.
Make all non spellcasters gain skill unlocks for all their class skills automatically.
Have any feats spent on skill bonuses (skill focus/deceitful,etc) count as ranks for the purpose of skill unlocks.
This represents the non casters spending the time spellcasters are using praying/studying books/communing with their bloodline/etc mastering their own abilities.
The fighter and rogue still aren't flying around but the things they train in, they're significantly better at than people spending their time praying about it.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really the way that nonfighter players look at the fighter's (lack of) combat and noncombat options should serve as a roleplayer's 101-level overview of what privilege looks like. Nonfighter players - players who are not used to the lack of options in the fighter's game mechanics - not only think that the fighter's ability set or relative lack thereof is not a problem, but even when the problems with it are explained in detail they don't get that it's a problem.
To make the fighter not the second-weakest class in the game (after the Monk, which needed a total revamp - and I understand it got one in Pathfinder Unchained but I don't own that book), it needs:
A unique method of interacting with the combat rules. For all it was derided, Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords gave martial characters a unique game mechanic - one that's followed through into fighter design in each D&D iteration since then. Martial maneuvers were similar to magic, but they had their own mechanic (refresh) and they were more limited than magic. Generally speaking, I found the martial maneuver system to be useful in giving the fighter other things to do than "I hit it with a rock."
A USEFUL method of interacting with the noncombat rules. MANY people have noted that the fighter's downfall is its lack of tools in a noncombat scenario. Fighters have the smallest number of skill points in the game system (tied with wizards, but wizards have a plethora of magic spells to compensate), and that small number of skill points gives the fighter not just less to do in the noncombat game at first level than other classes, that disparity tends to increase as the game goes on because even if the fighter is sinking ALL of their limited stat increases into intelligence, they're just not keeping pace with the other classes in not only skill depth but skill diversity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please don't fall in the trap of debating the analogy. If you want to debate me, debate the intent of my analogy, not the specifics of the analogy. That is a rabbit hole in which only inane chatter resides. If you don't understand the analogy, I would be happy to try to clear it up for you. Otherwise debate the intent.
The Paladin has a spell to get to the truth.
The Ranger can probably find another cow (or a game animal to tide a family over).
The Cleric can use magic to divine the truth, or provide divine insight.
The Wizard can charm one into an agreement.
The Rogue can steal the cow from one farmer and give it to the other.The Rogue and the Ranger are pretty much just using Skills, no different than the Fighter would be using except that they have more Skill Points than he does.
Ok the Ranger might back his skill use up with Animal Empathy but really he's just doing a handle animal test.Easiest solution there is let the Fighter have more skills.
Could also let the fighter have Free Skill Unlocks like the Unchained Rogue gets.
no I get it, you're saying the class that is good at fighting is pigeon holed into being the guy who is good at fighting. You can say that about any class, they each have their nitch.
But nothing stops the player from giving him Ranks in Diplomacy and talking the two farmers down, you simply complain that it isn't "optimal". You are completely dismissive of Player agency while insisting that the fighter mechanics are the only aspect that is important. You also look at those mechanics entirely in a vacuum while ignore the many options that have been made available to the characters over the years.
An Armiger Archetype fighter invokes his authority as a hell knight to pass judgement on the case, the Seasoned Commander confiscates it for the army, The Child of Acavana solves the issue the same as the wizard would, the Viking kills both farmers, steals the cow and plunders the village.
Beyond that if he uses Versatile Weapon Training for one of his Masteries then he’s got plenty of ranks in Diplomacy because he gets ranks equal to his attack bonus. So he’s got no problem talking the two farmers down from the argument.
In addition because of it's large number of feats the Fighter is in a better possition than other classes to make use of some of the overlooked options available. Maybe add a VMC to your Fighter to give him a little bit of Druid Flavor. Giving up 5 feats for a few strange tricks isn’t a big deal since the Fighter has more than enough of them.
Or maybe you grab the Aspiring Noble Story feat and see this whole Cow incident as a chance to prove your worth. The class has more than enough feats to allow the room to get the stranger more role-playing focused ones without compromising it’s place in the group.
You complain that the fighter has nothing going for it mechanically beyond “Fights Good”. I say the Fighter is one of two classes that players have the Freedom to build from scratch into the character they want to create and it is in the best position to take advantage of all the options made available to it by the system.
|
|
Please don't fall in the trap of debating the analogy. If you want to debate me, debate the intent of my analogy, not the specifics of the analogy. That is a rabbit hole in which only inane chatter resides. If you don't understand the analogy, I would be happy to try to clear it up for you. Otherwise debate the intent.
The Paladin has a spell to get to the truth.
The Ranger can probably find another cow (or a game animal to tide a family over).
The Cleric can use magic to divine the truth, or provide divine insight.
The Wizard can charm one into an agreement.
The Rogue can steal the cow from one farmer and give it to the other.The Rogue and the Ranger are pretty much just using Skills, no different than the Fighter would be using except that they have more Skill Points than he does.
Ok the Ranger might back his skill use up with Animal Empathy but really he's just doing a handle animal test.Easiest solution there is let the Fighter have more skills.
Could also let the fighter have Free Skill Unlocks like the Unchained Rogue gets.
no I get it, you're saying the class that is good at fighting is pigeon holed into being the guy who is good at fighting. You can say that about any class, they each have their nitch.
But nothing stops the player from giving him Ranks in Diplomacy and talking the two farmers down, you simply complain that it isn't "optimal". You are completely dismissive of Player agency while insisting that the fighter mechanics are the only aspect that is important. You also look at those mechanics entirely in a vacuum while ignore the many options that have been made available to the characters over the years.
An Armiger Archetype fighter invokes his authority as a hell knight to pass judgement on the case, the Seasoned Commander confiscates it for the army, The Child of Acavana solves the issue the same as the wizard would, the Viking kills both farmers, steals...
With 2 skill points per level, unless you're sinking a LOT of your preciously rare resources into nonfighting abilities, you're not going to be particularly effective as a fighter out of combat.
To quote my post *immediately above:*
"Really the way that nonfighter players look at the fighter's (lack of) combat and noncombat options should serve as a roleplayer's 101-level overview of what privilege looks like. Nonfighter players - players who are not used to the lack of options in the fighter's game mechanics - not only think that the fighter's ability set or relative lack thereof is not a problem, but even when the problems with it are explained in detail they don't get that it's a problem."
With 2 skill points per level, unless you're sinking a LOT of your preciously rare resources into nonfighting abilities, you're not going to be particularly effective as a fighter out of combat.
To quote my post *immediately above:*
"Really the way that nonfighter players look at the fighter's (lack of) combat and noncombat options should serve as a roleplayer's 101-level overview of what privilege looks like. Nonfighter players - players who are not used to the lack of options in the fighter's game mechanics - not only think that the fighter's ability set or relative lack thereof is not a problem, but even when the problems with it are explained in detail they don't get that it's a problem."
If I need skill points I have archtypes that give me more skill points. Or I can take the Weapon Versatility training that gives me my attack bonus in ranks for 2 different skills (Light Blades for example gives me Bluff and Diplomacy, because as anyone who's played Monkey island will tell you, Light blades are about witty banter)
just because you want to ignore the available options doesn't mean they aren't there
Please don't fall in the trap of debating the analogy. If you want to debate me, debate the intent of my analogy, not the specifics of the analogy. That is a rabbit hole in which only inane chatter resides. If you don't understand the analogy, I would be happy to try to clear it up for you. Otherwise debate the intent.
The Paladin has a spell to get to the truth.
The Ranger can probably find another cow (or a game animal to tide a family over).
The Cleric can use magic to divine the truth, or provide divine insight.
The Wizard can charm one into an agreement.
The Rogue can steal the cow from one farmer and give it to the other.The Rogue and the Ranger are pretty much just using Skills, no different than the Fighter would be using except that they have more Skill Points than he does.
Ok the Ranger might back his skill use up with Animal Empathy but really he's just doing a handle animal test.Easiest solution there is let the Fighter have more skills.
Could also let the fighter have Free Skill Unlocks like the Unchained Rogue gets.
no I get it, you're saying the class that is good at fighting is pigeon holed into being the guy who is good at fighting. You can say that about any class, they each have their nitch.
But nothing stops the player from giving him Ranks in Diplomacy and talking the two farmers down, you simply complain that it isn't "optimal". You are completely dismissive of Player agency while insisting that the fighter mechanics are the only aspect that is important. You also look at those mechanics entirely in a vacuum while ignore the many options that have been made available to the characters over the years.
But that has nothing to do with the CLASS.
Yes, the rogue would also use skills, but in addition he would have CLASS abilities that enhance those skills and make him even better at it.
If you bring up a SKILL, that is open to anyone. We are talking about the CLASS.
Outside of combat, tell me what aspect of the fighter makes for mechanically interesting problem solving. Remember, I'm asking about the CLASS, so don't tell me what the player or GM can do to make it interesting, because again, those would apply to all characters. Tell me what makes the FIGHTER an interesting CLASS, specifically in regards to mechanical interactions outside of combat.
I don't care about the blank slate theory. That isn't what I'm asking about. My complaint about the fighter is very specific and people only ever answer by avoiding that specific complaint. I suspect because people know perfectly well that my complaint is real and they just don't want to admit it.
Also note, I specifically am not advocating turning the fighter into one-punch man, the Incredible Hulk, or Thor. He doesn't need to be a super hero with mystical powers (though I'm not opposed to that either at very high levels). All I'm suggesting is that the fighter needs methods of interacting with the campaign world that are interesting and unique to the fighter. That's it. If you are arguing against me, that means you think the fighter SHOULDN'T have interesting or unique ways of interacting with the campaign world, but are fine with other classes that do.
I'm not asking for parity with spells like Create Demiplane. I'm just saying "something interesting".
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
just because you want to ignore the available options doesn't mean they aren't there
The corollary being that just because there are other options doesn't mean that there can't be more options or that the lacklustre base chassis shouldn't be improved.
But that has nothing to do with the CLASS.
Yes, the rogue would also use skills, but in addition he would have CLASS abilities that enhance those skills and make him even better at it.
If you bring up a SKILL, that is open to anyone. We are talking about the CLASS.
Outside of combat, tell me what aspect of the fighter makes for mechanically interesting problem solving. Remember, I'm asking about the CLASS, so don't tell me what the player or GM can do to make it interesting, because again, those would apply to all characters. Tell me what makes the FIGHTER and interesting CLASS, specifically in regards to mechanical interactions outside of combat.
I don't care about the blank slate theory. That isn't what I'm asking about. My complaint about the fighter is very specific and people only ever answer by avoiding that specific complaint.
because you might as well be complaining about "Why is my Wizard stuck being the magic guy" or "why can't my cleric be an atheist"
Archetypes expand on the options of the class. The Weaponmaster and Armormaster books also expand on the Fighter's mechanical options.
The Archetypes are a part of the Class altering Class Abilities to help fit your character concepts.
Weapon Training and Armor Training specialties are a part of the Class, giving you new ways of using those Class abilities.
just because they are options that have been added to the game post-core doesn't mean they aren't there
|
|
But that has nothing to do with the CLASS.
Yes, the rogue would also use skills, but in addition he would have CLASS abilities that enhance those skills and make him even better at it.
If you bring up a SKILL, that is open to anyone. We are talking about the CLASS.
Outside of combat, tell me what aspect of the fighter makes for mechanically interesting problem solving. Remember, I'm asking about the CLASS, so don't tell me what the player or GM can do to make it interesting, because again, those would apply to all characters. Tell me what makes the FIGHTER and interesting CLASS, specifically in regards to mechanical interactions outside of combat.
I don't care about the blank slate theory. That isn't what I'm asking about. My complaint about the fighter is very specific and people only ever answer by avoiding that specific complaint.
because you might as well be complaining about "Why is my Wizard stuck being the magic guy" or "why can't my cleric be an atheist"
Archetypes expand on the options of the class. The Weaponmaster and Armormaster books also expand on the Fighter's mechanical options.
The Archetypes are a part of the Class altering Class Abilities to help fit your character concepts.
Weapon Training and Armor Training specialties are a part of the Class, giving you new ways of using those Class abilities.just because they are options that have been added to the game post-core doesn't mean they aren't there
See, this is literally every conversation I've ever had about privilege, put into a form that is slightly less tear- and headache-inducing.
Wizards and clerics have a LOT of options for interacting with the system. They are full-progression casters which means that they can selectively alter the rules of the game. Wizards complaining about being pigeonholed as "the magic guy" or clerics complaining about being pigeonholed as "the religion guy" are missing the point: They get to (selectively) make the rules. The player that the GM fears isn't the fighter who's exhaustively combed every single rulebook to find every scrap of advantage within the rules of the game to make her character better, the player that the GM fears is the wizard who can use his power over the rules to alter the game to his advantage.
This isn't meant to revive the Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards thing. I see this more on the lines that there are magic-like abilities being given for Monks in the form of Ki and Panache for Swashbucklers. (Rogue Talents can also run along these lines). So I wondered why someone might chose a Fighter over a Magus or if there was a good reason for Fighters not to have abilities that would help them keep on par with other classes.
I don't count feats here because there are a number of useful feats that have a long tree line or which do not quite seem to be equal.
1. There are fighters that have (SU) abilities.
2. Any well built fighter has the (EX) ability to death touch anything they can get close to. Save: No Spell Resist: No
But that has nothing to do with the CLASS.
Yes, the rogue would also use skills, but in addition he would have CLASS abilities that enhance those skills and make him even better at it.
If you bring up a SKILL, that is open to anyone. We are talking about the CLASS.
Outside of combat, tell me what aspect of the fighter makes for mechanically interesting problem solving. Remember, I'm asking about the CLASS, so don't tell me what the player or GM can do to make it interesting, because again, those would apply to all characters. Tell me what makes the FIGHTER and interesting CLASS, specifically in regards to mechanical interactions outside of combat.
I don't care about the blank slate theory. That isn't what I'm asking about. My complaint about the fighter is very specific and people only ever answer by avoiding that specific complaint.
because you might as well be complaining about "Why is my Wizard stuck being the magic guy" or "why can't my cleric be an atheist"
Archetypes expand on the options of the class. The Weaponmaster and Armormaster books also expand on the Fighter's mechanical options.
The Archetypes are a part of the Class altering Class Abilities to help fit your character concepts.
Weapon Training and Armor Training specialties are a part of the Class, giving you new ways of using those Class abilities.just because they are options that have been added to the game post-core doesn't mean they aren't there
Are you having difficulty with understanding my point? If so, feel free to ask questions and I can try to explain it better, because your reply tells me you don't understand what I'm saying. Perhaps try repeating my stance back to me, without snark or sarcasm. Don't try and reduce it to absurdism, just give it an honest summation and I'll let you know if it's correct or not.
because you might as well be complaining about "Why is my Wizard stuck being the magic guy" or "why can't my cleric be an atheist"
Given that only campaign rules require clerics to have deities and any sufficiently developed philosophy can provide divine spells by default, that really wasn't your best choice of words.
|
|
Are you having difficulty with understanding my point? If so, feel free to ask questions and I can try to explain it better, because your reply tells me you don't understand what I'm saying. Perhaps try repeating my stance back to me, without snark or sarcasm. Don't try and reduce it to absurdism, just give it an honest summation and I'll let you know if it's correct or not.But that has nothing to do with the CLASS.
Yes, the rogue would also use skills, but in addition he would have CLASS abilities that enhance those skills and make him even better at it.
If you bring up a SKILL, that is open to anyone. We are talking about the CLASS.
Outside of combat, tell me what aspect of the fighter makes for mechanically interesting problem solving. Remember, I'm asking about the CLASS, so don't tell me what the player or GM can do to make it interesting, because again, those would apply to all characters. Tell me what makes the FIGHTER and interesting CLASS, specifically in regards to mechanical interactions outside of combat.
I don't care about the blank slate theory. That isn't what I'm asking about. My complaint about the fighter is very specific and people only ever answer by avoiding that specific complaint.
because you might as well be complaining about "Why is my Wizard stuck being the magic guy" or "why can't my cleric be an atheist"
Archetypes expand on the options of the class. The Weaponmaster and Armormaster books also expand on the Fighter's mechanical options.
The Archetypes are a part of the Class altering Class Abilities to help fit your character concepts.
Weapon Training and Armor Training specialties are a part of the Class, giving you new ways of using those Class abilities.just because they are options that have been added to the game post-core doesn't mean they aren't there
I'm honestly not sure if you're trolling.
I'm honestly not sure if you're trolling.Are you having difficulty with understanding my point? If so, feel free to ask questions and I can try to explain it better, because your reply tells me you don't understand what I'm saying. Perhaps try repeating my stance back to me, without snark or sarcasm. Don't try and reduce it to absurdism, just give it an honest summation and I'll let you know if it's correct or not.But that has nothing to do with the CLASS.
Yes, the rogue would also use skills, but in addition he would have CLASS abilities that enhance those skills and make him even better at it.
If you bring up a SKILL, that is open to anyone. We are talking about the CLASS.
Outside of combat, tell me what aspect of the fighter makes for mechanically interesting problem solving. Remember, I'm asking about the CLASS, so don't tell me what the player or GM can do to make it interesting, because again, those would apply to all characters. Tell me what makes the FIGHTER and interesting CLASS, specifically in regards to mechanical interactions outside of combat.
I don't care about the blank slate theory. That isn't what I'm asking about. My complaint about the fighter is very specific and people only ever answer by avoiding that specific complaint.
because you might as well be complaining about "Why is my Wizard stuck being the magic guy" or "why can't my cleric be an atheist"
Archetypes expand on the options of the class. The Weaponmaster and Armormaster books also expand on the Fighter's mechanical options.
The Archetypes are a part of the Class altering Class Abilities to help fit your character concepts.
Weapon Training and Armor Training specialties are a part of the Class, giving you new ways of using those Class abilities.just because they are options that have been added to the game post-core doesn't mean they aren't there
In my experience there are many people who do seriously think a few more skill ranks gives your Fighter utility on par with a spellcaster. Never mind that spells do what skills don't, and that in any case spellcasters get skill ranks too.
just because you want to ignore the available options doesn't mean they aren't there
Just because you want to think a few more skill ranks per level compensates for a lack of magic doesn't mean you're right.
|
|
In my experience there are many people who...I'm honestly not sure if you're trolling.Are you having difficulty with understanding my point? If so, feel free to ask questions and I can try to explain it better, because your reply tells me you don't understand what I'm saying. Perhaps try repeating my stance back to me, without snark or sarcasm. Don't try and reduce it to absurdism, just give it an honest summation and I'll let you know if it's correct or not.But that has nothing to do with the CLASS.
Yes, the rogue would also use skills, but in addition he would have CLASS abilities that enhance those skills and make him even better at it.
If you bring up a SKILL, that is open to anyone. We are talking about the CLASS.
Outside of combat, tell me what aspect of the fighter makes for mechanically interesting problem solving. Remember, I'm asking about the CLASS, so don't tell me what the player or GM can do to make it interesting, because again, those would apply to all characters. Tell me what makes the FIGHTER and interesting CLASS, specifically in regards to mechanical interactions outside of combat.
I don't care about the blank slate theory. That isn't what I'm asking about. My complaint about the fighter is very specific and people only ever answer by avoiding that specific complaint.
because you might as well be complaining about "Why is my Wizard stuck being the magic guy" or "why can't my cleric be an atheist"
Archetypes expand on the options of the class. The Weaponmaster and Armormaster books also expand on the Fighter's mechanical options.
The Archetypes are a part of the Class altering Class Abilities to help fit your character concepts.
Weapon Training and Armor Training specialties are a part of the Class, giving you new ways of using those Class abilities.just because they are options that have been added to the game post-core doesn't mean they aren't there
Like I said, in a new edition of Pathfinder, there needs to be some SERIOUS thought put into how each class interacts with and outside of the rules - both "what kind of person is this in the world?" and "how does this person interact with the game?"
I'm honestly not sure if you're trolling.Are you having difficulty with understanding my point? If so, feel free to ask questions and I can try to explain it better, because your reply tells me you don't understand what I'm saying. Perhaps try repeating my stance back to me, without snark or sarcasm. Don't try and reduce it to absurdism, just give it an honest summation and I'll let you know if it's correct or not.But that has nothing to do with the CLASS.
Yes, the rogue would also use skills, but in addition he would have CLASS abilities that enhance those skills and make him even better at it.
If you bring up a SKILL, that is open to anyone. We are talking about the CLASS.
Outside of combat, tell me what aspect of the fighter makes for mechanically interesting problem solving. Remember, I'm asking about the CLASS, so don't tell me what the player or GM can do to make it interesting, because again, those would apply to all characters. Tell me what makes the FIGHTER and interesting CLASS, specifically in regards to mechanical interactions outside of combat.
I don't care about the blank slate theory. That isn't what I'm asking about. My complaint about the fighter is very specific and people only ever answer by avoiding that specific complaint.
because you might as well be complaining about "Why is my Wizard stuck being the magic guy" or "why can't my cleric be an atheist"
Archetypes expand on the options of the class. The Weaponmaster and Armormaster books also expand on the Fighter's mechanical options.
The Archetypes are a part of the Class altering Class Abilities to help fit your character concepts.
Weapon Training and Armor Training specialties are a part of the Class, giving you new ways of using those Class abilities.just because they are options that have been added to the game post-core doesn't mean they aren't there
I'm not trolling at all. From my perspective...
I complained that my soup is to hot.
He told me that not all restaurants are open on Mondays.
There's a fundamental disconnect between the two sides of this debate, and maybe I am not communicating my complaint very well. If he thinks he [i]does]/i] understand what my complaint is, then he should be able to summarize/rephrase it. If he can't, or is unsure, then he should ask questions so that I can explain it better.
I don't have a problem with the THEME of the CLASS. I have a problem with the scope of what the CLASS can do outside of combat. Telling me that I might as well complain that "wizards use too much magic" is a fundamental misunderstanding of what I am saying. By that, I mean that it is a lack of comprehension. He is correctly identifying the theme of these classes, but that is not what I talked about at all. The truth is that if he read my posts carefully there's a pretty obvious subtext in my view that most other classes actually posses a strong theme and I think that is a positive thing.
For example, I love the paladin and ranger classes, because their theme is so strong and that it informs how they mechanically interact with the world, both in combat and out of combat.
I think the fighter does kind of have a theme of an "everyman" to him, but that that theme is not translated into anything when it comes to out of combat interactions.
The fighter has a completely undeveloped side that has nothing to do with combat that is ripe to be developed, and would actually make most of these threads disappear if it existed. The linear v. quadratic argument would be exceptionally marginal if fighters just had SOMETHING that represented their theme in regards to how they interact with the world outside of combat. That SOMETHING would give the CLASS meaningful contributions to make to a party.
The problem is that the fighter class is on par with the warrior class, and below the expert class, when it comes to solving problems that don't involve combat. I'm not even asking for the fighter to be better than the adept, just better than the expert.