Psychic Warrior vs. Fighter

[Piratecat]

Scion, I respect your opinion, but it's definitely not the experience of most of the people on this site. Do you remember the bajillion "rangers got the shaft" threads? I don't think I've ever seen a "fighters got the shaft" thread; in my experience it's a fine and balanced class. It certainly doesn't end up being weak in any of the games I've played. Quite the opposite, actually.

 

[Darklone]

Pcat, once there were two threads at once active, one was called something like "3.5 fighters got the shaft!" and the other one "3.5 wizards got the shaft"...

Ok, the fightershaft thread complained more that multiclass combos were more efficient than singleclass fighters...

 

[Scion]

Ah, yeah, we did that, too, actually, back in 3.0 before we house ruled Haste to the modern version, which is like 3.5 but with a single target only, since it was still way too strong for our tastes.

But you also feel schism is too strong, so you will understand if I dont mind your group thinking haste is overpowered no matter how used I know people who feel that weapon focus is one of the most broken feats they know of, doesnt make them right though.

Yep, at higher level, they absolutely lose out to any kind of spellcaster. Well, everyone does.

Everyone does? not in a properly made campaign.

... and up to 20 psionic powers, direct access to psionic feats, ...

Which dont matter if you cant get them up, or have to spend rounds getting them up. Power unused is power wasted is not power counted towards being useful.

As I said, that's just your personal opinion and surely doesn't match that of the majority of gamers and the designers.

Some people are blinded by the pile of feats without realizing that there is little that they can really do power wise. You can only do so much to increase base power with them of a certain type and then you have to start picking up less useful feats.

Like I said, with a big enough feat base you can fake being a good class, but with a lower number it just doesnt work out.

Especially when we go down to just the core. What are they going to do? After a couple of levels they are out of feat choices that matter for what they want to do. Unless they just happen to pick up one of the few feat chains. But then the ones in the core arent very tough, especially considering the entry cost.


Like I have said multiple times, compare that melee fighter who is well made to a barb who is well made. Or to a well made ranger. Or to a well made Paladin.

Generally speaking the fighter will be able to match the fighting potential, but then be horribly outshone everywhere else. The fact that he can only 'match' in combat where everyone exceeds him by such a huge degree elsewhere is just bad. Plus, that is only when he can match. The barb would outdamage in melee, the ranger can out damage in melee or range depending against favored enemies (lesser use, but then they also get a list of special abilities, 6 skill points a level, 2 good saves, etc.. much more useful in and out of battle). The paladin can use his mount to good effect (better than a mounted fighter can), pretty good saves, turning which can be burned for various combat options. Whatever.

So the plain fighter is pretty dull as someone said before, but on top of that they have no real useful skills and no skill points, then their only class feature are feats, which are not powerful enough for what the fighter needs them to do.

 

[Scion]

Well, as I said, I have seen plenty polls here of various kinds, where pretty much always the fighter came out above average.

Plenty of polls that generally do not give the whole story. People later on clarify more often than not that the fighter is weak, but a few levels in it really helps out getting into prcs. Taking a couple levels of something to get into a prc or pick up that last feat you need does not a good class make. It has to be good on its own, not good because other classes can min/max with it for a very short time to get to where they really want to be.

Your experiences probably come mostly from 3.0, in 3.5 fighters got a lot better in comparison.

They are so much better because of greater weapon focus and weapon specialization? Nah.

So what got so much better for them that they are good now? The only thing that would make them better is better feats (since that is all they get) but the two I mentioned above do not cut it. Especially since long before the second weapon specialization is up the fighter has already been left behind by every other class.

 

[Scion]

Scion, I respect your opinion, but it's definitely not the experience of most of the people on this site. Do you remember the bajillion "rangers got the shaft" threads? I don't think I've ever seen a "fighters got the shaft" thread; in my experience it's a fine and balanced class. It certainly doesn't end up being weak in any of the games I've played. Quite the opposite, actually.

Hey cat, I respect your opinion as well But I definately think that many feel it is a weak class, or that it is only good for a few levels before going into your real class. Both of those say the same thing, just in slightly different fashions.

Rangers 'got the shaft' because all of their abilities happened at first level but gained almost nothing later on. Fighters are close to the same way in either edition, it just isnt as noticeable because people tend to dip into the class anyway.

If it does not wind up being weak in your games I'd love to know why. Do you pull in lots of sources for feats and allow pc's to create their own? That would help, although not quite enough. Do you give them skill points or something else to flesh them out more? I know that your game has a bit of intrigue here and there Must be really bad for fighters who have no skill points and whose abilities are all combat related, but are overshadowed by others. Unless of course the other pc's are generally not combat oriented in nature, which means comparing a weak pc who is combat oriented to those who are purposefully not combat oriented.. and that isnt useful.


Still though, this thread is about which the player should play. Psychic warrior all the way, there is still hope for him.

 

[Thanee]

But you also feel schism is too strong, so you will understand if I dont mind your group thinking haste is overpowered no matter how used I know people who feel that weapon focus is one of the most broken feats they know of, doesnt make them right though.

You actually know such people?

I can only say, that our vast experience with 3.0 Haste has proven, that it is overpowered, which is, by the way, also the opinion of the game designers (see 3.5 change) and the vast majority of gamers, so with that to back my opinion up, I can safely say, that I am right, I think.

Everyone does? not in a properly made campaign.

That's true for the fighter as well...

But still I doubt there is any class, which can keep up with one of the spellcasters at high levels. The spells are simply too powerful by then.

That doesn't mean a rogue, fighter or barbarian cannot be useful, of course.

Which dont matter if you cant get them up, or have to spend rounds getting them up. Power unused is power wasted is not power counted towards being useful.

Your viewpoints are kinda narrow.

How about powers, which are useful out of combat? How about those plenty combats, where you have the time to prepare.

It's only a "problem", if you come in a surprise situation with no time to prepare at all.

Especially when we go down to just the core. What are they going to do? After a couple of levels they are out of feat choices that matter for what they want to do. Unless they just happen to pick up one of the few feat chains. But then the ones in the core arent very tough, especially considering the entry cost.

By the core rules only, fighters rule supreme over psychic warriors, since they do not even exist.

And there are plenty good feats in the PHB already. Overspecialization is not the road to victory for the fighter, anyways. It is generalization and versatility where the fighter shines, with multiple combat styles to always adopt to the situation as much as possible without magic.

Like I have said multiple times, compare that melee fighter who is well made to a barb who is well made. Or to a well made ranger. Or to a well made Paladin.

Has been done plenty times on this board, and the figher came out on top together with the barbarian, with ranger and paladin slightly behind, unless they can make best use of their limited special abilites. The fighter's abilities are not limited to specific foes and such.

It's not like I do not agree, that especially at higher levels, they are lacking somewhat, since they still only get the same feats, but that doesn't make them weak, just dull.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

They are so much better because of greater weapon focus and weapon specialization? Nah.

They are better, because of opportunity costs.

Buffing magic is weaker now, as it should be, Haste is no longer broken, all this helps to let the fighter types be better now.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Scion]

They are better, because of opportunity costs.

Buffing magic is weaker now, as it should be, Haste is no longer broken, all this helps to let the fighter types be better now.

Old haste allowed fighter types to gain a psuedo pounce ability, new haste grants him an extra attack on a full round attack. fighter type definately took a hit there.

Casting haste on the fighter types was almost always a better bet than casting it on the casters anyway. Making the fighter types use up more of their unlimited resource vs the caster useing up more of their limited resource. The choice is clear.

 

[Thanee]

Now you have feats that allow pounce-like charges. Hey, fighters get lots of feats. Advantage for them, I guess.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Scion]

You actually know such people?

Yep, didnt say that they were right, but even people on this site have said the same. Crazy as that may be.

I can only say, that our vast experience with 3.0 Haste has proven, that it is overpowered, which is, by the way, also the opinion of the game designers (see 3.5 change) and the vast majority of gamers, so with that to back my opinion up, I can safely say, that I am right, I think.

The game designers and the vast majority of gamers? Well, then I will have to say that you are blatantly wrong.

So, now go out and check with the majority of the gamers to prove your point. Oh, and all of the designers (from 3.0 and 3.5). Along with asking what the actual problem was with the spell in question. In addition ask them if casters overpower their games, if so then their opinion is moot because in a properly run game that does not happen.

So in my vast experience, along with talking with many people on this board and others, haste was not broken. It could have done away with the extra ac of course, but the extra partial action was not a big deal. You only break even on the third round on this short term buff. Woo.

That's true for the fighter as well...

False. Many special conditions have to be added to make the fighter even worthwhile, but they still arent worthwhile in most situations.

Unless you mean by 'properly run' as 'coddling the gimp character' then sure.

But still I doubt there is any class, which can keep up with one of the spellcasters at high levels. The spells are simply too powerful by then.

That doesn't mean a rogue, fighter or barbarian cannot be useful, of course.

This shows that you have a bias against casters to begin with and so conclusions are suspect. Spells are powerful yes, but then so are noncaster abilities. The fighter does get stronger of course, but at higher levels he is lumped into picking up weaker feats that just arent up to par. Whereas the classes with actual abilities keep getting stronger ones.

The barb winds up being able to shrug off 5 points of damage from each hit he takes. How many feats does it take to simulate that? (effectively 3.5 feats along with needing a con of 20+).

Your viewpoints are kinda narrow.

How about powers, which are useful out of combat? How about those plenty combats, where you have the time to prepare.

It's only a "problem", if you come in a surprise situation with no time to prepare at all.

Narrow? Since we are talking about the fighter, who has no out of combat uses, then talking about in combat uses as being more important is narrow? Hmm..

But even that doesnt cover all of what I was saying, simply that if you dont have time to do it (and you only have time when you are ambushing someone, elsewise spending a round in combat to buff up is very difficult to justify) then it doesnt count.

So it is only not a problem if you have a campaign where you always know whne you will be fighting, dont have to worry about durations, dont have to worry about limited resources, and ignore any sort of dispelling.

Still, in these situations where the psychic warrior is buffing the fighter can drink a potion. So that is mostly a wash.

By the core rules only, fighters rule supreme over psychic warriors, since they do not even exist.

Where is that rolling eyes icon? This comment definately calls for it.

And there are plenty good feats in the PHB already. Overspecialization is not the road to victory for the fighter, anyways. It is generalization and versatility where the fighter shines, with multiple combat styles to always adopt to the situation as much as possible without magic.

Ahh.. no overspecialization? then we are ignoring the very existance of greater weapon focus and greater weapon specialization. As, by definition, they are over specialization.

The fighter can pick up a couple of extra combat styles, sure, but this isnt helpful most of the time. If you have a couple of feats for melee, a couple for ranged, a couple for various combat manuevers then overall you have a bit of flexibility but your power level has dropped like a rock.

Specialization is how the game works. The reason that multiclassed spellcasters are bad (sans specially made prcs) is because of this. When you over generalize you lose power. D&d rewards specialization (hence the greater weapon focus/specialization, combat trees, whatever). So the fighter doesnt have the trees he needs to be powerful as he should be to begin with and then you want him to diversify further cutting away power. Not good for poor fighter, catch 22.

Has been done plenty times on this board, and the figher came out on top together with the barbarian, with ranger and paladin slightly behind, unless they can make best use of their limited special abilites. The fighter's abilities are not limited to specific foes and such.

Yep, plenty of times. With the fighter falling in behind. With the barb, ranger, and paladin all on top. I've seen the comparisons, most of them simply say it is good to have a couple of levels of fighter sometimes but bad to stick with the class because others do it better.

It's not like I do not agree, that especially at higher levels, they are lacking somewhat, since they still only get the same feats, but that doesn't make them weak, just dull.

So you agree that they are lacking and dull, and yet you are trying to say above that they are fine in power compared to other fighter types? Sounds like you were burned by a caster as a baby

The fighters only need a few thing to be a worthwhile class. More skill points, better skill selection, a couple more class abilities or extra feats (even if these extra feats are even more limited.. say to things like the save boosters, skill focus, and a few other things). How does one make a general? Not with a fighter, no skills. How does one make a combat specialist? Not with a pure fighter, possibly a couple of levels to flesh it out at best. How does one make a good fighter type who can handle many situations? Probably the psychic warrior, he has abilities enough to try. Or you can multiclass a fighter with some other classes to do it. Pure fighter doesnt cut it though. Effectively they have no nitch to fill. Even if they did they wouldnt be up to it without a whole lot of dm help (including piles and piles of feats).