Pathfinder 2E We need a damage on a miss forum again!!

Sunseeker · Apr 5, 2018

CapnZapp said:
Again, I don't think the Fighter is created badly for not being great at social or exploration.

It's already much more versatile than any edition before it, thanks to backgrounds. It can already be good at social or exploration, just not excellent. In many games that's good enough - social and exploration often being minor segments where no specialized abilities are really necessary.

And as I said, in combat-light social-heavy scenarios, it's okay for the fighter to feel out of place, and that you maybe shouldn't play one unless you're up for a challenge. (In many groups, you own personal ability to role-play a character is enough to carry a social game)

Likewise for exploring.

It's really only in combat you can't tell on your abilities as a player. Unless your DM is okay with you defeating her in actual combat you need numbers on the paper.

If you want every class to offer a build for every pillar, no thanks. As long as every class can be built for the combat pillar, I'm good.

AGAIN.

Nobody is particularly asking for the Fighter to get better at non-fighting areas of the game. We're asking for the Fighter to be one of the best classes at fighting. It isn't. It never has been. If the design remains the same it never will be. I don't mind if it's #2, or sometimes #3 when compared to a powerful build in another class, but it is routinely behind ALL of the other melee classes (maybe excepting the rogue) and behind several caster classes who do martial better.

So when the Fighter is #5 or 6 on the list of "best at fighting" out of 10 classes, and our demand is "Make the Fighter best at fighting!" telling us lies because that's what they are, they are non-true statements, isn't really going to make us take your argument better.

CapnZapp · Apr 5, 2018

shidaku said:
AGAIN.

Nobody is particularly asking for the Fighter to get better at non-fighting areas of the game. We're asking for the Fighter to be one of the best classes at fighting. It isn't. It never has been. If the design remains the same it never will be. I don't mind if it's #2, or sometimes #3 when compared to a powerful build in another class, but it is routinely behind ALL of the other melee classes (maybe excepting the rogue) and behind several caster classes who do martial better.

So when the Fighter is #5 or 6 on the list of "best at fighting" out of 10 classes, and our demand is "Make the Fighter best at fighting!" telling us lies because that's what they are, they are non-true statements, isn't really going to make us take your argument better.

You must mistake me for someone else. I am discussing the calls for better non-combat prowess of fighters.

Sunseeker · Apr 6, 2018

CapnZapp said:
You must mistake me for someone else. I am discussing the calls for better non-combat prowess of fighters.

No I know exactly who you are.

CapnZapp · Apr 6, 2018

shidaku said:
No I know exactly who you are.

Ok.

Bye now.

Arakasius · Apr 6, 2018

You did say your premise was it’s okay for fighters to be substandard in out of combat situations since they were so strong in combat and that combat is well more than 1/3 of the game. I agree with combat being more than 1/3, but you’ve done very little to show that fighters are actually above average combatants.

Pathfinder 2E We need a damage on a miss forum again!!

Sunseeker

Guest

CapnZapp

Legend

Sunseeker

Guest

CapnZapp

Legend

Arakasius

First Post

Similar Threads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Recent & Upcoming Releases