So far the answer seems to be that a Fighter with magic is a Magus or Cleric or similar and the class concept of the Fighter is a mundane warrior. No one's yet discussed what a Fighter with psionic abilities counts as, though.
A fighter with psionic powers as a class feature is not mundane.
Depends on the narrative to be driven.I mean, a fighter can't exactly teleport on a whim like spellcasters can. And when that is required to drive the narrative, what's a fighter to do? Bum a teleport from some random spellcaster? Be shoehorned into using Boots of Teleportation?
Neither of those are very palatable for a class like the fighter, and since magic is frowned upon, he's kind of in a bind in regards to that narrative...
About the same bind the naked wizard is in while chained between two pillars.
Not that Samson ever drove the narrative or anything.
/s*Nice strawman though. Lacking a specific feature of a specific class does not make one better or worse at driving initiative in the general sense, only better at using a specific solution to resolve a specific problem.
Even the betting man would say the Wizard has a better chance in comparison to the Fighter under those odds. But even that likening is equally a strawman, since the point is a Fighter relies on magic to drive the narrative just as much as everyone else does, and expecting them to do it without magic is equally as ridiculous as a Wizard to do it.
Especially when, in this game, magic is the meta, and therefore anything that's not magic doing the same stuff that magic does is frowned upon.
Also, who the heck is Samson?
@ Master_Marshmallow: Just because Fighter has toys doesn't mean that A. He'll make use of them, or B. They're as good as the Wizard's. Armor Training, since the Core Rulebook, is a prime example of a toy Fighters usually got that they didn't always make the greatest use of, especially if we assumed Heavy Armor and 12 Dexterity like the classic Fighter usually took.
Samson wikipedia entry, in particular:
Later, Samson travels to Gaza, where he stays at a harlot's house. His enemies wait at the gate of the city to ambush him, but he tears the gate from its very hinges and frame and carries it to "the hill that is in front of Hebron".
Part of the problem with Fighters in 3e is that a uniform XP scale was adopted. The problem lies in that not all classes are particularly well-balanced with each other. This remains true in Pathfinder.
"Magical fighters" are other classes and, lately, a few archetypes. Nature-magic fighters are hunters and rangers. Divine-magic fighters are paladins and war-priests. Arcane magic fighters are magus and similar classes.
Classes that are less-than-inspiring choices when all XP is equal could be addressed by reinstating the old school different XP costs for different classes, perhaps modeled on the so-called 'tiering' system-thingamajigger.
Top tier classes and mid-tier classes using especially effective archetypes advance using Slow XP progression. Mid-tier classes and bottom-tier classes using especially effective archetypes advance in levels using Medium XP progression. Bottom-tier classes advance in levels using Fast XP progression.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A fighter with psionic powers is a Psychic Warrior from ultimate psionics by dreamscarred press =) heh.
Because not everyone can do magic, as a matter of fact MOST people can not do magic. I am not saying there is not a MECHANICAL imbalance between magic and non-magic classes. But from a world building/role play perspective not everyone can do magic. Unless you had a setting/world were ABSOLUTELY 100% of everyone was some kind of spell caster you will have people who can NOT do magic. I have yet to see/read/etc of any fantasy setting were absolutely everyone was able to use magic. Usually it is the exact opposite with magic being extremely rare.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?
If everyone could use magic it would be like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01xasUtlvw| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want to thank everyone that's participated so far in this. I want to reemphasize that this thread is just to find out why folks think the Fighter shouldn't (or should) have magical abilities, not a thread to "fix the Fighter". One can't shake an undead stick without hitting a "fix the Fighter" thread around here.
So far the answer seems to be that a Fighter with magic is a Magus or Cleric or similar and the class concept of the Fighter is a mundane warrior. No one's yet discussed what a Fighter with psionic abilities counts as, though.
In a way I think your initial question is flawed. You're close to the problem, but instead of looking at the problem it is examining a solution to the problem.
The reason there are so many threads about why the fighter has difficulties is not that they don't have magic, though the problem is often framed as one of magic vs. non-magic. The problem is one of utility vs. non-utility.
Lets frame our party as the Mission Impossible team. Ethan Hunt is clearly superior to everyone else. He's got all the social skills, athletic skills, combat skills, and while not a technical expert displays a lot of know-how in that area as well. If we were making a game, we might divide up some of his skill set to other characters, but even as is, the group is playable, because the other characters have valuable contributions to aid in the success of the party's goals.
Right now, I think the fighter is someone limited in his combat role, but he can find ways to contribute even at high levels. The fighter has good and reliable damage, can be good at surviving, and generally provides a baseline of stability for classes like the wizard and cleric to rely on.
The problem is that once you move away from combat, there's a sudden giant chasm of lacking ability that the fighter cannot address. More skills can help, but aren't completely a solution because there are only so many skills and a party can usually cover them all right now anyways. I contend that it is this lack of out of combat utility that people sense, they know it is there and they can feel it, but because the game is combat focused they don't necessarily address first.
The best that anyone has come up with is requiring the fighter take a specific feat, get a specific magic item, spend 1 hour per day using said item to change 2 skill points to something that will be relevant that day. It is useful and interesting, but the limitations and requirements to me are too much for the limited benefit.
Anyways, I would argue that the question shouldn't be "should fighters get magic or not?", but rather "what role should fighters play out of combat?" Once the nature of that role is determined, you can ask "would magic fit the theme of the fighter?" to figure out the specifics of the mechanics of the class.
In a way I think your initial question is flawed. You're close to the problem, but instead of looking at the problem it is examining a solution to the problem.
The reason there are so many threads about why the fighter has difficulties is not that they don't have magic, though the problem is often framed as one of magic vs. non-magic. The problem is one of utility vs. non-utility.
Lets frame our party as the Mission Impossible team. Ethan Hunt is clearly superior to everyone else. He's got all the social skills, athletic skills, combat skills, and while not a technical expert displays a lot of know-how in that area as well. If we were making a game, we might divide up some of his skill set to other characters, but even as is, the group is playable, because the other characters have valuable contributions to aid in the success of the party's goals.
Right now, I think the fighter is someone limited in his combat role, but he can find ways to contribute even at high levels. The fighter has good and reliable damage, can be good at surviving, and generally provides a baseline of stability for classes like the wizard and cleric to rely on.
The problem is that once you move away from combat, there's a sudden giant chasm of lacking ability that the fighter cannot address. More skills can help, but aren't completely a solution because there are only so many skills and a party can usually cover them all right now anyways. I contend that it is this lack of out of combat utility that people sense, they know it is there and they can feel it, but because the game is combat focused they don't necessarily address first.
The best that anyone has come up with is requiring the fighter take a specific feat, get a specific magic item, spend 1 hour per day using said item to change 2 skill points to something that will be relevant that day. It is useful and interesting, but the limitations and requirements to me are too much for the limited benefit.
Anyways, I would argue that the question shouldn't be "should fighters get magic or not?", but rather "what role should fighters play out of combat?" Once the nature of that role is determined, you can ask "would magic fit the theme of the fighter?" to figure out the specifics of the mechanics of the class.
Um, well, as you pointed out, basically all the "fix the Fighter" threads are about whatever things folks think will help the Fighter class be "better". The whole reason I am asking about magic specifically is because it can become very prevalent in some settings. Also because Fighters seem to lack the "tricks" other fighting classes tend to have (like Ki and Panache).
But there are a number of folks here that don't see there being a problem with the Fighter at all or who wouldn't like to see a Fighter "tricked out" in any way.
The problem is that once you move away from combat, there's a sudden giant chasm of lacking ability that the fighter cannot address. More skills can help, but aren't completely a solution because there are only so many skills and a party can usually cover them all right now anyways. I contend...
This is why I wish Item Creation would be tweeked a little to allow non-casters to make things other than mundane items. I put ranks in crafting and profession in my fighter to represent the blacksmithing he learned prior to adventuring, but no matter how good he gets, his weapons will be mundane and inferior to the +1 weapon. Don't need the fighter to make enchanted armor or weapons, but it would be cool for him to make basic enchancement to his gear without the use of magic. Something like adding a +1 enhancement bonus to damage the whetstone gives to edge weapons, but longer term.
lol We have a running gag in our group about my fighter because whenever we have 15 minutes to spare, my character takes a moment to sharpen his greatsword with his whetstone. According to my fellow adventurers, my sword has been sharpened so many times that it is as thick as paper :D
In a way I think your initial question is flawed. You're close to the problem, but instead of looking at the problem it is examining a solution to the problem.
Um, well, as you pointed out, basically all the "fix the Fighter" threads are about whatever things folks think will help the Fighter class be "better". The whole reason I am asking about magic specifically is because it can become very prevalent in some settings. Also because Fighters seem to lack the "tricks" other fighting classes tend to have (like Ki and Panache).
But there are a number of folks here that don't see there being a problem with the Fighter at all or who wouldn't like to see a Fighter "tricked out" in any way.
Your original question was an attempt to step back the issue to look closer at the core of the problem, I'm saying the more fruitful conversation is to step back even further.
The reason magic is a prevalent "solution" is because it is the one that is mechanically obvious within Pathfinder, because it is so abundant. That doesn't mean that it is the only option, nor that it is the best option.
I think a non-magical solution is very possible. I think a non-combat solution is very possible. I think a non-combat, non-magical solution would probably be most acceptable to the "fighter is fine as is" crowd and actually reduce the number of "how to fix the fighter" threads. It won't solve the issue for people who love one-punch man, nor will it solve the people who oppose any kind of change regardless of reason, but I think those are both pretty small subsets.
See, that would be a valid argument if other classes didn't also get a semblance of bonus feats, which can arguably be better depending on circumstances.
Swashbucklers, Cavaliers, Rogues, etc. All get bonus feats. As many as the Fighter gets? No. But the Fighter has to sink a good portion of those feats into things like Weapon Specialization and other Fighter-only feats to stay relevant in combat, compared to other classes who don't have to (and can't anyway), and actually have interesting features taking place straight from the get-go to supplement both their combat and out-of-combat capabilities.
Are you actually arguing that rogues are better than fighters?
Rangers get Combat Style feats, which, while limited, allow them to do things a Fighter couldn't normally do much earlier in the game while having a very similar level of power.
Remove all the nonsense from Ultimate Combat and you have Rangers getting locked into a single fighting style while Fighters get to excel equally well at both ranged and melee. What would you prefer: Being great at ranged (and decidedly subpar if you get stuck into melee) or great at melee (but sucking at ranged if the bad guys are out of reach)? Fighters don't have to make that choice.
Monks have an array similar to the Ranger as well, even if at the cost of super niche application and reduction in overall power.
Depends what sourcebooks you allow. Monks suck pretty bad if you don't allow archetypes from APG and Ultimate Magic and/or disallow feats from Ultimate Combat.
Hell, even Sorcerers and Wizards, the Full Spellcasters, get Bonus Feats, even if they are similarly restricted (Metamagic, Item Crafting, etc).
I don't think anyone would really notice if sorcerers and wizards lost their bonus feats. They're not anywhere near as character defining as they are on a fighter.
No, but it's not as relevant when there are Retraining rules.
This assumes every group allows retraining. Which they don't. They're an optional system. If you feel these rules take something special away from the fighter, don't use them.
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.
That wasn't how I interpreted the original post. I saw it as "why should there be a non-magical option in the game" and not "should there be a magical archetype for the fighter?".
I see nothing wrong with providing the fighter with an archetype that gives them limited spellcasting. It's an archetype, so it's optional. I, personally, would rather see the fighter be given tools where they are less dependent on magic items and can overcome problems without needing to resort to magic. Inherent bonuses is a good move towards that. But I'd rather it be an innate part of their class.
Wizards are nowhere near as beholden to magic items as fighters. I don't like that and would rather see the two classes equalised with fighters gaining non-magical abilities that can be as game defining as a wizards.
See, that would be a valid argument if other classes didn't also get a semblance of bonus feats, which can arguably be better depending on circumstances.
Swashbucklers, Cavaliers, Rogues, etc. All get bonus feats. As many as the Fighter gets? No. But the Fighter has to sink a good portion of those feats into things like Weapon Specialization and other Fighter-only feats to stay relevant in combat, compared to other classes who don't have to (and can't anyway), and actually have interesting features taking place straight from the get-go to supplement both their combat and out-of-combat capabilities.
Are you actually arguing that rogues are better than fighters?
Rangers get Combat Style feats, which, while limited, allow them to do things a Fighter couldn't normally do much earlier in the game while having a very similar level of power.Remove all the nonsense from Ultimate Combat and you have Rangers getting locked into a single fighting style while Fighters get to excel equally well at both ranged and melee. What would you prefer: Being great at ranged (and decidedly subpar if you get stuck into melee) or great at melee (but sucking at ranged if the bad guys are out of reach)? Fighters don't have to make that choice.
Monks have an array similar to the Ranger as well, even if at the cost of super niche application and reduction in overall power.Depends what sourcebooks you allow. Monks suck pretty bad if you don't allow archetypes from APG and Ultimate Magic and/or disallow feats from Ultimate Combat.
Hell, even Sorcerers and Wizards, the Full Spellcasters, get Bonus Feats, even if they are similarly restricted (Metamagic, Item Crafting, etc).I don't think anyone would really notice if sorcerers and wizards lost their bonus feats. They're not anywhere near as character defining as they are on a fighter.
The argument has never been about Core Only. Reverting this to Core Only arguments not only is a case of moving goal posts (because prior to this post hasn't been about Core Only, but now all-of-a-sudden it's an assumed application), but is also a strawman argument (because Core Only hasn't been mentioned up until this point).
Even if we're assuming Core Only, Rangers can go full TWF without having to meet ridiculous Dexterity requirements, meaning they're much more SAD than Fighters who TWF (remember, the Iconic Fighter goes TWF), or they can go Ranged while still maintaining their melee capabilities (the only melee feat that's actually required is Power Attack, they're otherwise comparable with a Fighter). The argument isn't that Fighters can't do it, the argument is that Rangers can do it earlier than Fighters can, and without as much issues as the Fighter has to deal with. In other words, convenience. Something that's greatly valued in the case of PFS. And in the case of TWF, being able to TWF without high Dexterity is inarguably something the Fighter can't do.
Of course they suck pretty bad in Core, practically half of the classes in Core are garbage (Monk, Ranger, Fighter, Rogue, Bard), and the other half function quite well with just Core abilities (Paladin, Sorcerer, Wizard, Cleric). The Barbarian is kind of the wild card here, depending on what rage powers he takes, but since we're assuming Core only, he'll probably end up in the garbage tier since a lot of his known power comes from the Advanced Player's Guide and onward.
That might be the case on the Sorcerer, depending on Bloodline choices and builds, but Wizards? Even if we assume a GM that doesn't permit item creation, Metamagic feats can change the game entirely, such as with Extend spell for buffs/summons, Silent/Still spell for situational purposes, Quicken for, well, everything...the list goes on as we add Hardcover RPG Rulebook sources. And if we include item creation, being able to make almost every item you need, at cost (instead of purchasing at price, which isn't guaranteed to happen at certain towns) is a feature only bested by Spellcasting itself, assuming Core Only (which apparently we are just now).
Fair enough on Retraining not being used at all tables. But I find Retraining a lot more permissible than, say, Armor as DR, Piecemeal Armor, Called Shots, and other optional Paizo-published rules, so it's a better assumption to say that Retraining is permitted in comparison to my examples.
Remove all the nonsense from Ultimate Combat and you have Rangers getting locked into a single fighting style while Fighters get to excel equally well at both ranged and melee. What would you prefer: Being great at ranged (and decidedly subpar if you get stuck into melee) or great at melee (but sucking at ranged if the bad guys are out of reach)? Fighters don't have to make that choice.Wasn't one of the most popular Ranger builds back at the start of Pathfinder the Switch-Hitter? A Ranger who took a bunch of ranged feats with their fighting style and supplemented them with the melee feats they needed using regular feats.
I don't think "sucks at one or the other" was ever really a danger for rangers.
The argument has never been about Core Only. Reverting this to Core Only arguments not only is a case of moving goal posts (because prior to this post hasn't been about Core Only, but now all-of-a-sudden it's an assumed application), but is also a strawman argument (because Core Only hasn't been mentioned up until this point).
Well I haven't participated in this thread up until this point. So I have moved no goal posts.
But what's more I'm not arguing core only. I'm simply defining parameters in which some of your assertions cease being true. If the goal is to give something nice to fighters, then playing in a game where the parameters are designed to provide this outcome seems like a sensible decision.
Even if we're assuming Core Only
I'm not assuming Core Only. I'm saying if we assume a game where the options to use your bow for every single situation is not possible, we have a situation where fighter's shine.
Rangers can go full TWF without having to meet ridiculous Dexterity requirements, meaning they're much more SAD than Fighters who TWF
Yup. How's that Ranger going to go when put in a situation where the enemy is out of reach though?
(remember, the Iconic Fighter goes TWF)
I don't see why that's relevant.
or they can go Ranged while still maintaining their melee capabilities (the only melee feat that's actually required is Power Attack, they're otherwise comparable with a Fighter).
We'll have to agree to disagree here. I do not agree that a Ranger whose sole investment into melee is power attack is going to be anywhere near close to a fighter of the same level.
The argument isn't that Fighters can't do it, the argument is that Rangers can do it earlier than Fighters can
My argument is that if we exclude some pretty silly options, fighters are better than the ranger at a wider range of situations. A ranger will be able to exceed a fighter at TWFing, but they'll fall way behind at ranged attacks. A ranger will be able to exceed a fighter at ranged attacks, but they'll fall way behind at melee.
Something that's greatly valued in the case of PFS.
If you're primary method of playing Pathfinder is PFS than I think this will definitely colour your perspective on the game.
And in the case of TWF, being able to TWF without high Dexterity is inarguably something the Fighter can't do.
A non-archetyped fighter gets a lot more out of having a high dex than a ranger does though.
Wasn't one of the most popular Ranger builds back at the start of Pathfinder the Switch-Hitter?
Dunno.
A Ranger who took a bunch of ranged feats with their fighting style and supplemented them with the melee feats they needed using regular feats.
I don't think "sucks at one or the other" was ever really a danger for rangers.
Will a ranger having the staying power of a fighter though? Will they be able to protect their allies just as well? Or lock down their opponents just as well? The reason I'm not arguing Core Only is because Fighters have gotten plenty of toys outside of the Core Rulebook that can help them excel at what they do. The ranger simply doesn't get enough feats in order to be able to keep up with all the styles a fighter can employ within the same build.
Also if you're building a switch hitter with the ranger, you're going to be pumping dex anyway so you lose out on one of the benefits of a ranger (which is not needing dex for TWFing).
The argument has never been about Core Only. Reverting this to Core Only arguments not only is a case of moving goal posts (because prior to this post hasn't been about Core Only, but now all-of-a-sudden it's an assumed application), but is also a strawman argument (because Core Only hasn't been mentioned up until this point).Well I haven't participated in this thread up until this point. So I have moved no goal posts.
But what's more I'm not arguing core only. I'm simply defining parameters in which some of your assertions cease being true. If the goal is to give something nice to fighters, then playing in a game where the parameters are designed to provide this outcome seems like a sensible decision.
Even if we're assuming Core OnlyI'm not assuming Core Only. I'm saying if we assume a game where the options to use your bow for every single situation is not possible, we have a situation where fighter's shine.
Rangers can go full TWF without having to meet ridiculous Dexterity requirements, meaning they're much more SAD than Fighters who TWFYup. How's that Ranger going to go when put in a situation where the enemy is out of reach though?
(remember, the Iconic Fighter goes TWF)I don't see why that's relevant.
or they can go Ranged while still maintaining their melee capabilities (the only melee feat that's actually required is Power Attack, they're otherwise comparable with a Fighter).We'll have to agree to disagree here. I do not agree that a Ranger whose sole investment into melee is power attack is going to be anywhere near close to a fighter of the same level.
The argument isn't that Fighters can't do it, the argument is that Rangers can do it earlier than Fighters canMy argument is that if we exclude some pretty silly options, fighters are better...
I'm pretty sure the Switch-Hitter employed a bow and a 2-handed weapon, rather than 2-weapon fighting. All Rangers don't have to be Drizzt.
The argument has never been about Core Only. Reverting this to Core Only arguments not only is a case of moving goal posts (because prior to this post hasn't been about Core Only, but now all-of-a-sudden it's an assumed application), but is also a strawman argument (because Core Only hasn't been mentioned up until this point).Well I haven't participated in this thread up until this point. So I have moved no goal posts.
But what's more I'm not arguing core only. I'm simply defining parameters in which some of your assertions cease being true. If the goal is to give something nice to fighters, then playing in a game where the parameters are designed to provide this outcome seems like a sensible decision.
Even if we're assuming Core OnlyI'm not assuming Core Only. I'm saying if we assume a game where the options to use your bow for every single situation is not possible, we have a situation where fighter's shine.
Rangers can go full TWF without having to meet ridiculous Dexterity requirements, meaning they're much more SAD than Fighters who TWFYup. How's that Ranger going to go when put in a situation where the enemy is out of reach though?
(remember, the Iconic Fighter goes TWF)I don't see why that's relevant.
or they can go Ranged while still maintaining their melee capabilities (the only melee feat that's actually required is Power Attack, they're otherwise comparable with a Fighter).We'll have to agree to disagree here. I do not agree that a Ranger whose sole investment into melee is power attack is going to be anywhere near close to a fighter of the same level.
The argument isn't that Fighters can't do it, the argument is that Rangers can do it earlier than Fighters canMy argument is that if we exclude some pretty silly options, fighters are better...
You've moved them, even if you don't realize you've moved them, when you made the assertion that Fighters don't have any problems in comparison to other classes.
Saying you're not arguing Core Only, but then proceed to state any other Hardcover RPG Rulebooks aren't allowed or even assumed to be used in an attempt to make your argument more palatable is the literal definition of arguing Core Only. That either makes your statement insincere and disingenuous, or it makes you a hypocrite. Neither of which paints your arguments in a good light.
Probably about as much as the Fighter who isn't a dedicated archer. Remember that just because the Ranger didn't take the Ranged Combat Style (which is certainly a possibility) doesn't mean the Fighter is going to sink his numerous bonus feats into an unorthodox combat style that he can easily shore up via magic items (the same as the Ranger probably would).
It's relevant to point out a published example of a TWF Fighter that will most likely be inferior to a Ranger who invested in TWF due to attribute allocation requirements (i.e. less MAD) and the lack of spending personal feats to improve his combat prowess.
Strength + Power Attack + Weapon Enhancements are going to be the main sources of damage between both classes. Criticals might be a factor, but it's not like Rangers can't use the same weapons a Fighter can, nor is it difficult for them to invest in Improved Critical to match that damage (or make their weapon Keen). Sure, a Fighter will pull out in the higher levels due to Weapon Training scaling and Greater Weapon Focus/Specialization feats, but in the lower levels the damage difference will be minimal since those investments aren't present. And if the Ranger is fighting a Favored Enemy, their scaling would still be pretty comparable.
You're going to need to expand on what you mean when you say "silly options," because that can include Traps such as Prone Shooter or Monkey Lunge (the former is just junk, the latter doesn't even function as written), or simply broken options that no sane GM would allow (such as Sno-Cone Wish Machines). Incorporating those such things, "silly options" have been around (and exist) since the Core Rulebook, meaning the Core Only argument just limits the number of "silly options," but doesn't eliminate them entirely.
No, I don't play PFS. I wouldn't want to play PFS for a number of reasons, both personal and objective to my station. But that doesn't mean that, for PFS players, a Ranger doesn't contain options more attractive for their purposes in comparison to a Fighter. Such as being limited to 12th level, and being able to take advantage of higher level options sooner than the Fighter could (some of which the Fighter never could).
The Fighter can benefit more with his Dexterity, from Armor Training, if he can finagle that stuff out, but that requires levels under his belt, and specific options that can make him weaker overall in the early game to compensate for his increased Dexterity.
snip
Wizards are nowhere near as beholden to magic items as fighters. I don't like that and would rather see the two classes equalised with fighters gaining non-magical abilities that can be as game defining as a wizards.
Don't make me whack you with these metamagic rods, cause I have a lot of them!:p
Man I can't stand when people break up responses like that. So annoying to read.
Man I can't stand when people break up responses like that. So annoying to read.
Sorry, I was trying to reply to too high a stack of quotes.
Man I can't stand when people break up responses like that. So annoying to read.
It's an issue with the quoting.
When a quoting ends mid-text-formatting due to letter-character limitations, it creates the messed up response.
For example[/quo...]
This right here
The more you know.
Neither of which paints your arguments in a good light.
I'm done responding to you. When you cherry pick what you respond to in order to come to this conclusion, I don't think any further discussion is going to be productive.
Neither of which paints your arguments in a good light.I'm done responding to you. When you cherry pick what you respond to in order to come to this conclusion, I don't think any further discussion is going to be productive.
I didn't cherry-pick anything in your quotes. I responded to each of your paragraphs fully and honestly. Whether you liked those responses is a whole different matter.
So, put in a more presentable fashion, I stated that you contradicted yourself when you say you aren't arguing Core Only, but then provide arguments that rely on denying most anything other than the Core Rulebook to create more situations where the Fighter can shine.
And you have at least two quotes that outright do just that:
Remove all the nonsense from Ultimate Combat and you have Rangers getting locked into a single fighting style while Fighters get to excel equally well at both ranged and melee.
For the record though, most of the common Ranger Combat Styles come from APG, not UC. I believe other ones come from Inner Sea Gods or whatever, but those are deity-specific (and therefore Golarion-specific), so...
Monks suck pretty bad if you don't allow archetypes from APG and Ultimate Magic and/or disallow feats from Ultimate Combat.
Did I jump the conclusion and stated that it was Core Only? I guess I did. But, if your argument is to say that classes don't have access to XYZ Hardcover RPG Rulebooks, then it's also a reasonable assumption that other Hardcover RPG Rulebooks would likewise be disallowed for the same reasons you'd disallow the ones you've already listed (because it further creates a gap between the Fighters and other martials). I think the only source you would permit aside from the Core would be the Master Handbooks and maybe the Tactics Toolboxes (AKA Splatbooks) if we were continuing down the theme of "Fighters should shine more," and if that's the case a lot of features would still not work since a bunch of the options in said books require the Rulebooks that you originally disallowed. (Ironic, really.)
Even if the intent of your posts was to present Fighters in more situations where they can shine, reducing source material and (effectively) purposefully nerfing other classes isn't exactly a palatable solution that most players (and posters on this forum) would deem acceptable or appropriate to do for their table. And I agree, especially since those other classes and their players aren't (presumably) being (overly) disruptive at their tables.
Not helpful. Edited out response.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When that nonmagical class is not allowed to be extraordinary.Magical is one thing, but how is the Fighter not allowed to be extraordinary? Consider what a high level human fighter can already do with trivial ease.
Let's start by having him jump out of an airship flying through the upper atmosphere, giving his fall enough time to reach full terminal velocity. Our Fighter can crash into the earth... then stand up (somewhat injured but not overly so and certainly in no risk of death) and dust himself off.
Just in time to see a charging elephant coming straight at him. Our Fighter does not have to take any particular defensive precautions, however; he can simply hold his ground (fresh off a terminal-velocity fall) let the elephant try to overrun him, and instead just straight-up stop the charging elephant dead in its tracks by just standing there.
Our Fighter can then return the favor by grabbing hold of the elephant, pinning it to the ground, and/or beating it to death with his bare hands.
Sounds pretty Charles Atlas to me. The problem, IMHO, is not this idea that the Fighter does not get any extraordinary Charles Atlas capabilities. It's just that those Charles Atlas superpowers are not always "super enough" for everybody.
And of course, what is "enough" completely depends on the tastes of the asker. You mentioned Fighters cutting mountains apart with their attacks as one example of what "enough" might look like. Other people I've talked to in similar debates have wanted Fighter weapon attacks to be obliterating entire continents with their swings, and that, apparently, was what constituted "enough" for them. And I'm sure there are people somewhere out there who won't be satisfied until Fighters can actually smash whole planets with their sneezes.
But the thing is, no matter how cool and flashy it would be for Fighters' attacks to be able to smash mountains or continents or planets (depending on who you're talking to) the power scale...
To be honest, I don't think "gritty" and "demon lord" can coexist in the same setting. The one exception being "the demon lord eats you."
If you want to fight demigods, you really do have to be a superhero. That's the way Pathfinder is set up.
snip
Well the real life mechanics of many things in the game don't make sense. You can Ricochet Toss a Greatsword.
"Enough" in general means 2 things. 1) The feelings of awesome, and 2) Useful to a party and narrative. The first is relative to the person, the latter is much easier to deal with.
@ John Lynch 106: Alright, that helps clear things up; I thought you were referring to the additional Combat Styles, which is actually a great source for the Ranger's added versatility in comparison to the Fighter. My bad on that. So, let me rebuttal your originally intended arguments:
Point Blank Master is effectively Fighter-only unless you take the Archery Combat Style as a Ranger due to the Weapon Specialization feat requirement, and even then switches that requirement to Weapon Focus, which a Ranger still has to meet. While both can possess them, it stands to reason that a Fighter with ranged capabilities will be more likely to invest in this feat than a Ranger would due to their ease of acquiring this feat compared to the Ranger. Also, Point Blank Master is APG, not UC.
The Snap Shot feat chain (which is separate from Point Blank Master) isn't really that broken (or as broken as it used to be), and is open to Fighters just as much as it is to Rangers since it's locked behind BAB, and not listed in any Ranger Combat Styles (that I know of). So, it doesn't make sense as an argument when the Fighter and Ranger are equal in this respect if they so choose to invest in it, which means that a Fighter would lose out just as much as a Ranger would in this case.
---
That's a little difficult to discern when the first mention of such resorts to outright removal of options, and then the second post, while not of the same intent, follows a similar pattern of removing options, both of which outright mentioning entire sourcebooks.
I also never said that Fighters couldn't be fixed. What I have said, is that reducing options just to make the Fighter shine more often and nerfing other classes isn't a very useful or meaningful answer. I've also said in the past that trying to fix Fighters (or the Caster/Martial disparity as a whole) would require a whole new edition/rewrite of the system, since it's been very clear that Paizo will not republish entire classes.
Fighters get magical abilities... This happened, you guys are having an argument in the past.
Warrior Spirit (Su) adds magic to the fighter's weapon.
There's an Advanced Armor Training that gives you full ranks in Craft (armor) and the feats Master Craftsman and Craft Magic Arms & Armor.
You can get Item Mastery feats through Advanced Weapon Training and use your weapon bypassing item requirements.
Fighters are good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters get magical abilities... This happened, you guys are having an argument in the past.
Warrior Spirit (Su) adds magic to the fighter's weapon.
There's an Advanced Armor Training that gives you full ranks in Craft (armor) and the feats Master Craftsman and Craft Magic
Arms& Armor.You can get Item Mastery feats through Advanced Weapon Training and use your weapon bypassing item requirements.
We know you can be a fighter with magical abilities, you've said it like thirteen times in this thread alone.
Fighters are good.
Not good enough for some people. But that doesn't even matter because that's not what the thread actually was meant to discuss.
Don't make me whack you with these metamagic rods, cause I have a lot of them!:p
Those metamagic rods will let you grow even more powerful, but they're not actually necessary in order to keep up (the only necessary purchase is a headband).
I want to apologize in advance... I got through the first few comments and skipped to the end.
Fighters in a high magic setting do have access to magic. They adeptly and reliably make use of magic items. They may not innately cast magic like a sorcerer (saw someone upset at geni-kin mundane characters), but that is what sets them apart and makes them Fighters. There is literally nothing keeping you from choosing a full or half- magic class at character creation. Nor is there anything keeping you from choosing ATs, multi-class levels, or feats and races with SLAsto refine your heroic concept.
A base lvl 1-20 fighter is simply not that hero.
So, tangential subject:
If we want to emphasize the Fighter as the best user of magic items, how would be best go about representing that mechanically?
So, tangential subject:
If we want to emphasize the Fighter as the best user of magic items, how would be best go about representing that mechanically?
Well abilities that let you do cool things while still keeping up with the "must have" items. You could have an ability (either a feat or an add on ability) that gives you the boring bonuses on top of whatever magic item you're wearing. For example something that says "when wearing a belt that doesn't modify a physical ability score, you gain +2 to a single score of your choice. This increases to +4 at level 10 and +6 at level 14. These bonuses count as enhancement bonuses and you must be 6th level before selecting this ability." You could then have an additional ability that lets you apply this bonus to two scores and yet another one that lets you apply them to three.
No, other classes have mechanics baked into their CLASS that give them options to address challenges and problems that are non-combat related.
I want the fighter to have mechanics for non-combat situations as well.
Given this is the homebrew forum I figured I'd put together a houserule to help address this.
In another thread I proposed a new skill to allow fighters to succeed at monster lore checks (and even gets a bonus to them). Here's an alternative option that doesn't require the invention of a new skill:
Fighting Prowess: Starting at 2nd level, a fighter gain a +3 bonus to a single type of check owing to their skill at arms. In addition a fighter may spend a swift action to use their level in place of any skill points they have in the skill, still gaining the +3 class bonus if it is a class skill. They must select one of the following options.
Battlescarred (Ex): Having been through more than a few deadly battles, the battlescarred fighter doesn't stop for anything. They add their fighting prowess bonus to climb, run, swim and escape artist checks.
Reknowned Hero (Ex): Placing himself in harm's way, the reknowned hero has gained a reputation for selflessness and courage. They add their fighting prowess bonus to persuade people for aid, information or to do the right thing.
Seasoned Combatant (Ex): A seasoned combatant knows a fair few things about those who take to the batlefield. They add their fighting prowess bonus to any check related to identifying a creature's combat abilities.
This would not necessarily involve giving the fighter more skill points or extra class skills (if it seems too good of a feature, you could always remove bravery as well).
Fighters get magical abilities... This happened, you guys are having an argument in the past.
Warrior Spirit (Su) adds magic to the fighter's weapon.
There's an Advanced Armor Training that gives you full ranks in Craft (armor) and the feats Master Craftsman and Craft Magic
Arms& Armor.You can get Item Mastery feats through Advanced Weapon Training and use your weapon bypassing item requirements.
We know you can be a fighter with magical abilities, you've said it like thirteen times in this thread alone.
Fighters are good.Not good enough for some people. But that doesn't even matter because that's not what the thread actually was meant to discuss.
It was meant to discuss whether or not fighters should have access to magical abilities... which they do... now with their class features.
"I don't have the book" or "I don't use the book" or "My DM doesn't want me to use the book" doesn't invalidate the option or prevent it from existing. I coined Marshmallow Fallacy on this very premise.
So, either we aren't talking about the point of the thread or the goal post has moved again.
Man I can't stand when people break up responses like that. So annoying to read.It's an issue with the quoting.
When a quoting ends mid-text-formatting due to letter-character limitations, it creates the messed up response.
The more you know.For example[/quo...]
This right here
No it's not. It's an issue with how people intentionally format their posts. Yes, the system automatically cuts off text, but when you put the text back in, you can either put it in one block (and respond in one block) or you can cut it into 15 sections and reply in 15 sections.
15 sections is annoying to read. I skip those posts every time.
Fighters get magical abilities... This happened, you guys are having an argument in the past.
Warrior Spirit (Su) adds magic to the fighter's weapon.
There's an Advanced Armor Training that gives you full ranks in Craft (armor) and the feats Master Craftsman and Craft Magic
Arms& Armor.You can get Item Mastery feats through Advanced Weapon Training and use your weapon bypassing item requirements.
Fighters are good.
I agree Fighters are good in combat. I disagree that Fighters bring anything interesting in terms of utility out of combat.
Maybe I'm missing something, does Warrior Spirit bring some amazing out of combat utility?
Fighters get magical abilities... This happened, you guys are having an argument in the past.
Warrior Spirit (Su) adds magic to the fighter's weapon.
There's an Advanced Armor Training that gives you full ranks in Craft (armor) and the feats Master Craftsman and Craft Magic
Arms& Armor.You can get Item Mastery feats through Advanced Weapon Training and use your weapon bypassing item requirements.
Fighters are good.
I agree Fighters are good in combat. I disagree that Fighters bring anything interesting in terms of utility out of combat.
Maybe I'm missing something, does Warrior Spirit bring some amazing out of combat utility?
Depends on the utility. There's a bunch of weapon enchantments they have access to that they otherwise wouldn't look at, one could get at a large number of abilities that may or may not solve the out of combat problems. Aren't there enchantments that help switch your weapon material or at least treat it as such? Doors/walls break. Need fire to light something? Flaming/igniting.
He gets all of them.
Want more skills? Pick up one of the abilities that's existed since the beginnings of the game and mix it with the new options to have variable skills as well as feats.
Fighters can do both.
Saying "fighters have no utility" then failing to disambiguate what utility you want when in fact fighters have specific and unique qualities and abilities that enable utility. Some of these are magical, some aren't.
What are you looking for? It probably exists.
I'm looking for ways for the fighter to engage in problem solving that is thematically unique to the fighter. So far, you've offered up magic items and skills, neither of which are thematically unique to the fighter class.
Don't debate the details of the example, because that's fruitless, but my simple example from a few pages ago...
An adventurer comes across two farmers arguing about a cow.
... a wizard charms one of the farmers to end the argument.
... a cleric determines who it belongs to, but consoles the other farmer with a divine blessing.
... a druid asks what the cow wants.
... a ranger gives the cow to one farmer and finds game to help the other feed his family.
... a paladin seeks out the truth and gives the cow to the rightful owner
... a rogue steals the cow from one farmer and gives it to the other.
I want the fighter to have an iconic and immediately identifiable method of problem solving. I want to be able to describe the fighter solving the problem (without combat) in a way that if I don't tell you it's a fighter, you might correctly guess the character is a fighter.
If I say my character came across the two farmers and used an illusion to convince each farmer he took the cow home, you'd guess that I might be a wizard/bard/sorcerer and have a pretty good idea of what kind of character I'm playing. You won't know everything.
I don't necessarily think ALL problems need to be solvable in class 'unique' ways, but the fighter should at least have one interesting method (beyond skills) or a way that makes skill use unique and identifiable.
Iron truth: what is the rogue's and ranger's ability to deal with the problem that doesn't involve skills. Feel free to select a different problem for the example.
Working off my earlier Fighting Prowess ability, there's the idea of an improved fighting prowess which grants additional abilities. These are intended to be minor story related abilities rather than combat ones.
Improved Fighting Prowess: Starting at 4th level a fighter gains one additional ability relating to their fighting prowess that they meet the prerequisites for. They can select one additional ability every even level thereafter.
Free lodgings (Ex): Due to their reputation, a fighter can almost always find quarter for himself and his companions with the blessing of the owner. At 6th level these lodgings will typically be the home of an ordinary commoner, farmer or hunter. At 13th level a fighter will typically be able to get free lodgings with a wealthy land owner or noble. A fighter must be 6th level before selecting this.