| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi, I have seen a lot of caster vs martial threads but invariably its always a comparison to the fighter and almost always about fighter accuracy so I began to wonder if Fighters getting +2 proficiency to hit might be the issue. Doesn't help they get max proficiency at level 13 either in terms of comparisons.
As it is Fighters get +2 proficiency most of the game (only a single weapon group but can be expanded with archetypes like martial artist and mauler) which puts them way ahead of the curve (+10% to hit, +20% to crit) even compared to other martials. I was wonder if instead they were toned down - capped at master proficiency but had an ability that improved their subsequent chance to hit with their second and subsequent attacks.
Fighters still get flexible feat choices, strong defences and all their other perks but would feel more in line with other classes and be less the outlier they are now.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was wonder if instead they were toned down - capped at master proficiency but had an ability that improved their subsequent chance to hit with their second and subsequent attacks.
That's a flurry ranger.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the fighters power is a bit exaggerated. Most other martials get riders to damage of some kind that make their attacks hit harder, fighters lack that in exchange for the accuracy, an accuracy that is still affected by the dice rolls.
White room testing has its value but so does actual play, and from personal experience I've had combats or whole sessions where the fighters accuracy boost did not save it from bad rolls. This is a major outlier, but I do recall the time my level 5 fighter wiffed their entire turn and their friendly neighborhood paladin crit 3 times in a row.
The developers also feel as if fighters are qoeking as intended.
Or people could leave fighters out of that conversation. Why compare casters to fighters instead of the other martials? Fighters are an outlier when compared to other martials.
Why should we accept Fighters that are so far outside the normal that we can't even compare other classes to them? Fighter and Bard, at the very least, should eat some nerfs in the remaster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the fighters power is a bit exaggerated. Most other martials get riders to damage of some kind that make their attacks hit harder, fighters lack that in exchange for the accuracy, an accuracy that is still affected by the dice rolls.
White room testing has its value but so does actual play, and from personal experience I've had combats or whole sessions where the fighters accuracy boost did not save it from bad rolls. This is a major outlier, but I do recall the time my level 5 fighter wiffed their entire turn and their friendly neighborhood paladin crit 3 times in a row.
The developers also feel as if fighters are qoeking as intended.
Are you really going to sit here and use an anecdote to excuse the disgusting mess that is an Improve Knockdown Fighter? Show me any single action in the game as efficient as a Fighter knocking a boss flat on their back while dealing damage.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cool cool cool, already escalating things. As you can see in my post I mentioned that particular scenario was an outlier. I wasn't listing it as a grand piece of evidence but simply an amusing ancedote. The point still stands that the accuracy boost is what the fighter gets in place of damage enhancers such as rage or sneak attack. And that due to the nature of how accuracy works in 2e, it won't always matter. In actual play I've seen fighters have all sorts of days, ones where they turn the tides, ones where they whiffed, and turns where they put out consistent but not huge damage.
Also this particular conversation started with the accuracy and so I was bringing up a conversation about *the accuracy,* no one had brought up any feat combos at the time of my post. Improved knockdown 8s pretty strong. But fighters are by no means the only one who can access it and other classes have other ways to utilize such a feat. In partocular a giant barbarian can be quite powerful with it.
And finally with the monster versions of those avilities being adjusted, i could potentially the class feat versions may get adjusted as well.(but that isn't a gurantee obviously.)
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters are a well built class that does a single thing very well. The fighters niche is consistently high single target damage along with martial control abilities every martial (any class really) can take. I don't think that niche makes them overpowered.
Fighters still need plenty of help to win. Plenty of other classes outshine them all the time in group battles.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the fighters power is a bit exaggerated. Most other martials get riders to damage of some kind that make their attacks hit harder, fighters lack that in exchange for the accuracy, an accuracy that is still affected by the dice rolls.That's not strictly true since fighters get more bonus damage from Weapon Specialization than other martials as a result of their higher proficiency. They also benefit more from runes and weapon modifications with powerful effects on crit like Phantasmal Doorknob and Crushing Runes because as the class that crits most frequently they are most likely to proc those effects.
A grand total of a +1 additional damage over other martials is not a significant damage upgrade imo.
It is true that they can make better use of items that rely on crits but I see that as a feature not a bug. Afterall the barbaian damage from a crit would be greater typically.
I also want to say, I'm not saying fighters aren't strong. Just that from my experience fighters aren't so above the curve that they ruin the games balance or anything.
Edit: i forgot to include greater weapon specilization which brings the damage to... +2 more than other martials get
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fighter is very good, and it's very hard to make a martial character of another class do what the fighter does better than the fighter does it.
This is also fine. Some class needs to be the best at any given thing, and making "Human Fighter" easymode is a good on-boarding for new players.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
*grabs cat*
As I see it, the difficulty is that when people are comparing Fighter class characters to spellcasters, it is nearly always in the context of combat. And usually in the specific scenario of battling against a single target.
With that being what Fighter specializes in, it is certain that the Fighter is going to win the comparison. That is an effect of the system working as intended.
If instead class comparisons are done in the context of infiltrating secure locations, impersonating other people, doing research on nearly forgotten historical locations, preventing damage done by an enemy, or fighting against large numbers of lower level enemies, then in those cases perhaps Rogue, Bard, Wizard, Champion, or Kineticist would win the comparison.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As they say, when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters don't pay for their extra accuracy with any action cost or downsides.
Rangers get lower defences and need to hunt prey.
Barbs need to rage and take penalties for their damage.
Fighters get their accuracy and damage for free.
Even compared to other martials fighters are an outlier.
I prefer and think the design of the soldier is superior. It gives good offence but has a group support action built into the baseline of the class.
In group dynamics the fighter is in my experience the focus of most buffs and support actions because it pays off more due to the higher baseline accuracy and I am not sure that it is good for the fighter to be the obvious greatest beneficiary most of the time. I think giving them an offensive support (rather than defensive like suppressing fire) would make make it better group oriented and balance it as an outlier.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the Fighter's class budget is spent almost entirely on offensive combat and anything that's not is still directly related to combat. Something like the Barbarian deviates slightly and still compensates to coming close with their rage damage but it doesn't quite match the Fighter because they have a bit of utility and somewhat improved defenses (mainly in the form of higher HP, better fort saves and shrugging off conditions).
Ignoring archetypes, the only thing the Fighter will be able to excel at out of combat depends on what skills they have chosen, and their skills are baseline.
As many have said before, the Fighter fights. It's in the name.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ignoring archetypes, the only thing the Fighter will be able to excel at out of combat depends on what skills they have chosen, and their skills are baseline.
But why would we ignore archetypes? They're a fundamental part of the game.
Fighters are also especially good at investing in archetypes because so much of their class power is innate. Which means you can easily flip "fighters have nothing else to do" right on its head.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters are good, but not problematically so.
Perfect balance will never happen, and focusing on finding and flattening out any bump in the landscape of options is a wild goose chase. The point of diminishing returns past which further balance-seeking is not fruitful is somewhere around "pretty much all options can played at an average table and most everyone will have fun". In that regard, we are dramatically better off than prior editions, and it's good to not lose sight of that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe some of the fighter budget should be spent on offensive support like the playtest suppressing fire action for the Soldier.
Right now all numbers (buffs, enemy defenses etc) have to take the fighters extreme accuracy into account. Removing that and then giving fighters some support utility alleviates that.
All fighters do is fight... well there are many ways to fight and fighters are still the king of combat versatility with feats. They still get arguably more action economy help than most classes in feat choices and can switch between 2 handed and sword n board play baseline. They still get probably the best reaction in game baseline.
I actually think an offensive support buff (outside of improved knockdown which seems to be in most builds I see) baseline and then reduce accuracy would be better. First move should be damage and AC debuff, one that helped the rest of their party would be good since you know fighters also get amazing initiative so getting in their first and setting up the play for others could easily be there thing.
Also the fact so much of their power budget is baseline means they pay very little for spending class feats on archetypes as well as almost every combat focused archetype being better for them than other martials.
I think they need a little more balance between offense. If all you reckon a fighter has is +2 proficiency then you really are ignoring the fact their base chassis is probably the strongest in game. They get the same number of baseline skills and skill increases as most other classes in the game so its not really a negative. Also Athletics is probably the strongest skill in the game needing the least feat support and fighters can utilise it better than most other classes.
Note Athletics is for climbing, jumping, swimming a a huge number of combat uses without feat investment which is why I think its a little too strong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My view on the fighter is that it is too strong in a way that warps the martial role and makes other martials feel bad to make outside of very specific niches (or champion as the only real defender) but also the way to adjust it is either a ground up rebuild or straight removing it and neither of those are going to happen, I mostly think it just straight shouldn't have been in the game because I think without it the three of champion (without a specific divine focus), barbarian and ranger make a good balanced base for combat martials
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really wish they would nerf Fighter in the remastered edition, my players just don't see a point in playing other martials, for example you can be a fighter with a martial artist/monk dedication instead of a monk who will never reach Legendary proficiency in unarmed strikes or grab the champion dedication and be a champion with the reaction, lay on hands and the +2 to hit from fighter.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters are in a funny place. They're genuinely excellent, and also constantly overrated in spite of that.
People saying fighters are really good? Definitely correct.
People saying fighters are so good there's no point to the other martials? Pure nonsense.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My view of the martial classes I have experience playing or running as a DM and tracking effectiveness:
Top Tier:
Fighter: 2hander fighter is the one everyone talks about. No one cares about the sword and board fighter dual weapon, or anything else. When you're talking the big damage fighter, it's the 2H weapon fighter often with a maul. They and they alone are the boss top tier damage dealer. So the fighter has basically one top tier damage build and I don't consider that overpowered as that also comes with costs.
Rogue: Thief and Ruffian, but is overall a nice, well rounded class.
Giant, Dragon Barbarian: Huge damage, nice abilities that synergize well.
Magus: Gish
Middle Tier:
Monk: Needs a damage booster to be Top Tier. Heaven's Thunder does this, but is too narrow. Needs an upgrade to a class feature
Ranger: Hunt Prey needs some modification. Works fine at low levels, has problems at higher level.
Bottom Tier:
Swashbuckler: Panache way too unreliable. Panache mechanic needs a rework.
Investigator: Built for a specific niche that will not often come up and severely lacking for almost any other type of campaign.
I don't think the fighter having one extremely strong single target build makes the class overpowered. It gives people a reason to play a fighter if you like that type of build. If the fighter didn't have that one strong build, not sure how often they would be played.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is 2-actions and requires two feats.
Yeah, my bad on the actions. It's still basically melee range Slow that does damage though. Could you imagine if a caster asked for Slow but it also does damage, has bonus accuracy, and is a cantrip that comes online at level 10?
Those feats that the Fighter can literally trade out each day like spell slots?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah next thing you know they are gonna be letting barbarians cast Enlarge as a 1 action unlimited effect.
. Although Funny enough a Giant Barbarian who also picks up improved knockdown, can use it from a much safer distance.
Also I would say doing damage is a perfectly fine trade off for being in melee range and thus more vulnerable to damage than a caster who casts slow. A level after a fighter can gety get improved Knockdown a, Wizard canuse Slow to slow up to 6 targets each up, each up to a minute in length potentially, and potentially slowed 2, and they don't have to keep spending actions to keep the person slowed. Now a wizard does need for the targets to fail or crit fail to get the longer length or the worse slow and the fighter does only need to hit, so that is a point towards the fighter I admit. A Fighter however, would have to continuously hit, spending 2 of their 3 actions each turn, and prone isn't even slowed. I get why you are saying it effectively is but there is a difference. A prone target can in theory still use their actions for something else beyond standing up, standing is usually the right call but the fact they can do something else is still significant because sometimes they might have a better option.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really wish they would nerf Fighter in the remastered edition, my players just don't see a point in playing other martials, for example you can be a fighter with a martial artist/monk dedication instead of a monk who will never reach Legendary proficiency in unarmed strikes or grab the champion dedication and be a champion with the reaction, lay on hands and the +2 to hit from fighter.
I see your players don't understand the value of Legendary AC and movement.
Which, y'know, says something about the GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really wish they would nerf Fighter in the remastered edition, my players just don't see a point in playing other martials, for example you can be a fighter with a martial artist/monk dedication instead of a monk who will never reach Legendary proficiency in unarmed strikes or grab the champion dedication and be a champion with the reaction, lay on hands and the +2 to hit from fighter.I see your players don't understand the value of Legendary AC and movement.
Which, y'know, says something about the GM.
There is something to say for legendary in unarmored vs. full plate; the difference in AC between a Monk and a Fighter is not as wide as between a Champion and a Fighter, especially for a strength build.
but what if you never play high level characters?
High level characters can be quite a different fantasy, and if that doesn't suit you then that is fine. But it is there is you want something different. There is a progression in the game and the classes play differently at different levels.
Likewise Fighters. If they are choosing to play only Fighters then you are missing a lot of the game. I'd be encouraging them to explore the rest of the options.
One of my common campaign rules is don't repeat yourself, or anyone else for that matter. Play a different character concept and a different mechanical concept than your last game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I see it, the difficulty is that when people are comparing Fighter class characters to spellcasters, it is nearly always in the context of combat. And usually in the specific scenario of battling against a single target.
With that being what Fighter specializes in, it is certain that the Fighter is going to win the comparison. That is an effect of the system working as intended.
If instead class comparisons are done in the context of infiltrating secure locations, impersonating other people, doing research on nearly forgotten historical locations, preventing damage done by an enemy, or fighting against large numbers of lower level enemies, then in those cases perhaps Rogue, Bard, Wizard, Champion, or Kineticist would win the comparison.
So why don't we have a caster that is purely focused on battle? Like some sort of war mage, maybe it could focus on damage output and have boosted class DC and hit rate with their spells. Give them a penalty to any spell that doesn't deal damage and fewer spell slots so they aren't incentivized to cast buffing spells.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe some of the fighter budget should be spent on offensive support like the playtest suppressing fire action for the Soldier.
Right now all numbers (buffs, enemy defenses etc) have to take the fighters extreme accuracy into account. Removing that and then giving fighters some support utility alleviates that.
Isn't that what Snagging Strike, Combat Grab, Knockdown and Intimidating Strike are? All of them make enemies easier for your teammates to hit.
In tougher fights I often see the fighter as the can-opener that uses their high to-hit to actually land a debuff on a boss so that the rest of the party has a better time landing their tricks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is 2-actions and requires two feats.Yeah, my bad on the actions. It's still basically melee range Slow that does damage though. Could you imagine if a caster asked for Slow but it also does damage, has bonus accuracy, and is a cantrip that comes online at level 10?
Those feats that the Fighter can literally trade out each day like spell slots?
Why not have another feat at level 12 that allows you to use knockdown on 10 people? And have the ability to make them prone for a whole minute. Shesh, why not make the person waste 2 actions to stand up?
Stop comparing martials to spell casters.
Who's casting Slow on a horde of level -1 mooks? If there is a mass of enemies you should be kiting them and using cantrips like EA to whittle them down. If it's time-sensitive maybe fire off a Fireball or just block off their attack path by baring a door and just ditching them.
Any argument in favor of casters that touts how good they are against low-threat mobs of foes is worthless as those types of enemies are rarely of any consequence to the plot and can very often be bypassed at little risk.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My view of the martial classes I have experience playing or running as a DM and tracking effectiveness:
Yeah I'd make more or less the same list. I'd add in Thaumaturge at the top tier though. It overcomes a lot of pain points from other classes.
* They hit nearly as hard as a barbarian with about the same relative fragility. But they end up with more skill support.
* They do the one handed vibe much more easily than the swashbuckler. Compared to Panache, bosses with high DCs are not so likely to prevent you from getting Exploit Weakness going, since you still get some on a failure.
* They work particularly well against single enemies (Exploit Weakness), but if you have to fight a bag of mixed nuts you still have Implement's Empowerment. Compared to Hunt Prey that gives you more choice on whether you really really need to set up new targets all the time.
I'd also rate champions in top tier. As long as they have someone else to work together with in the front line they prevent a lot of damage while weakening enemies. Offense is middling but the efficient staying power is huge.
So yeah, pretty crowded top tier, which I think shows the health of the game.