Why is the Pathfinder Fighter Tier 5? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

View Full Version : Why is the Pathfinder Fighter Tier 5?

Iwasforger03

2014-03-12, 04:53 PM

I'm curious why all I ever see about him is that he is Tier 5, why nothing pathfinder added to him has made any differences.

I've played straight fighters and kept them very effective. I find they have a massive variety of tactical and strategic options in terms of combat and builds. The variety and wealth of feats they have access to allows them to get up to a massive number of different approaches. I understand that all the fighter is generally going to be useful for is combat, but what I have not understood is why they are not considered good at it.

I am merely looking for someone to help me understand that, and while I disagree currently (and may disagree afterwards) I appreciate any and all assistance in understanding what seems to be the majority opinion on that subject.

I'm also interested in discussing some of the other classes and their tiers, but right now i'm mostly focused on the poor maligned fighter.

Feint's End

2014-03-12, 05:27 PM

Well the PF Fighter can be t4 with proper knowledge of the system and the proper archetypes (looking at you Two Handed Fighter). Sadly there are still a lot of poor options and a Fighter is definitely not great at fighting out of the box. IF you know how to build the Fighter you will have very little proplems reaching t4 damagewise but I doubt you'll be able to have a lot of other things speaking for you (interestingly enough that pretty much defines t4).

As for pure combat versatility I'd say you are OK but there are some stronger t4 classes with similar roles. Barbarian (Assuming you have the right archetypes why can't the barbarian?), Soulknife (bordering to t3 with Gifted Blade), Aegis (which actually can reach t3 with enough itemsupport and special interactions with them ... DM dependant though), Paladin (bordering to t3 as well) all come to mind.

The main problem I see with the Fighter is the chassis doesn't do what it is supposed to namely making you a solid fighter. Nothing stops you from actually being one (in fact the class is much better for that than in 3.5) but the floor is just very low.
As an example on how a class should work take the Inquisitor. A class which is out of the box a strong fighter type with great out of combat utility and damage which can be further optimized to deal more damage (I actually ran through some damage calculations for fun today and a strength Inquisitor beats pretty much all of the other classes on damage per hit and to hit).

edit: 2 more things:
-the tier system specifically states that players can shift classes in tier with enough knowledge and proper archetype/acf choices (look dungeoncrasher)

-I'd also like to hear about the other classes you have questions about ... maybe I can try to answer them

BWR

2014-03-12, 05:29 PM

Feint's End

2014-03-12, 05:33 PM

As I understand it, the changes didn't add enough to bump it up a notch. The extra feat taxes for certain staple feats (splitting up combat maneuver feats) and CMD generally being a lot better than CMB hurt them badly. Fighters are still focused on one thing and need a lot of work to do it well.

I wouldn't go so far and call it a lot of work really :smallamused::

>pick 2H Archetype
>Pump strength
>Pick Power Attack
>???
>profit

Doorhandle

2014-03-12, 05:35 PM

I wouldn't go so far and call it a lot of work really :smallamused::

>pick 2H Archetype
>Pump strength
>Pick Power Attack
>???
>profit

Still very useful, but just not quite as powerful as it was.

Iwasforger03

2014-03-12, 05:40 PM

See, now that actually does help it make more sense. I can tell out of the box that some of the fighter archetypes are downright better than stock fighter, because they straight up provide about 90% of what's good about the fighter + making whatever focus they have even more effective. A two weapon fighter with the archetype is probably dramatically more effective than a two weapon fighter that used standard fighter.

So what I'm essentially seeing is that the fighter's improvements were overmatched by the improvements of the other classes that were carried over? Is that what I'm seeing here? (forgive me if I ignore psionics, i'm utterly unfamiliar with them and don't have much interest, so they'll prove bad examples for me at least, though i can't speak for others)

Would it be too much to say that it wasn't that they did not, comparatively, move up a tier from their 3.5 days? Rather, it was that everything else did as well and thusly resulting in the appearance of no change whatsoever? (or almost no change, see below)

As to other questions: The last list I saw for 3.5 ranked the Ranger as a tier 3 class. The last list I saw for pathfinder tiers put the ranger as a tier 4. I'm unaware of anything, whatsoever, that the ranger lost in the move from 3.5 to PF, and I know they gained two extra feats, a host more options, some new spells, improved class abilities AND improved animal companion, as well as a great many archetypes.

Why then, would that seemingly drop the ranger a tier?

While I'm at it, why does everyone dislike the PF power attack? I'm not sure I disagree, but I want to make sure I understand where others are coming from, and since power attack is often a key feat for fighters, i felt it was a good place to ask.

The Grue

2014-03-12, 05:45 PM

That second-to-last paragraph has a lot of unnecessary commas making it difficult to follow, but I think the answer is "Yes".

EDIT: Second-to-last before edit. To be clear, this one:

Would it be too much to say that it wasn't that they did not, comparatively, move up a tier from their 3.5 days so much as everything else did too, resulting in the appearance of no change whatsoever? (or almost no change, see below)

Tentative "yes" if I understand you right.

Iwasforger03

2014-03-12, 05:50 PM

Editted for clarity. I apologize for my wanton abuse of the common comma.

Grod_The_Giant

2014-03-12, 05:57 PM

As to other questions: The last list I saw for 3.5 ranked the Ranger as a tier 3 class. The last list I saw for pathfinder tiers put the ranger as a tier 4. I'm unaware of anything, whatsoever, that the ranger lost in the move from 3.5 to PF, and I know they gained two extra feats, a host more options, some new spells, improved class abilities AND improved animal companion, as well as a great many archetypes.
I don't know what list you looked at, but the Ranger is T4 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14605210&postcount=5)-- they're decent at a lot of things, but aren't really *good* at any of them. They're on the high end of the tier, though, and it's pretty easy to get them to T3 if you know what you're doing-- Wildshape Ranger, Swift Hunter, Sword of the Arcane Order, class-specific spells, things like that.

As for the fighter, well... Pathfinder gave out a few minor numerical bonuses, but none of them are that powerful. So... yeah. Giving a fighter a good Will save, bonus attack/damage, and DR are nice things, but they're probably counterbalanced by the weaker and/or more drawn out feat trees.

Larkas

2014-03-12, 06:00 PM

Actually, Only Wildshaping Rangers are T3 in 3.5. Maybe Mystic Rangers too, but I don't know if the tier list takes Dragon content in consideration.

A lot of the metagame got better, yes, but that's not why the Fighter is still T5. He still needs a lot of work to be good at something that T4/3s will be good at without as much work, and while he got a few nice things (the armor stuff, for example), he got shafted at other things that were supposedly part of his niche (dismemberment of combat maneuver feats meaning the increased feat gain is effectively nullified, grappling and tripping being downright worse, and CMD scaling faster than CMB in general; there might be more stuff). The end result is that it didn't move much in the tier, let alone between tiers.

At least the Fighter is easy to explain. It's much harder to understand why the Rogue got more nerfed than buffed, for example.

khachaturian

2014-03-12, 06:01 PM

Feint's End

2014-03-12, 06:03 PM

Still very useful, but just not quite as powerful as it was.

It's easier to pick than what you had to do in 3.5 though and that's my mainpoint. A beginner player can think of the big strong fighter with a twohander and just pick this archetype ... then pump strength (obvious choice) and power attack. It's not that it's better than some of the stuff you could do in 3.5 but far easier to get and also right up there with the best damage dealers in pf (btw you beat barbarians damagewise).

So what I'm essentially seeing is that the fighter's improvements were overmatched by the improvements of the other classes that were carried over? Is that what I'm seeing here? (forgive me if I ignore psionics, i'm utterly unfamiliar with them and don't have much interest, so they'll prove bad examples for me at least, though i can't speak for others)

Would it be too much to say that it wasn't that they did not, comparatively, move up a tier from their 3.5 days so much as everything else did too, resulting in the appearance of no change whatsoever? (or almost no change, see below)

No I wouldn't say that ... as a matter of fact there are classes able to deal much more damage in 3.5 than in PF (look at the ubercharger which is one of the builds with the highest damage potential and still just low t4). T4 didn't become different from how it was/is in 3.5. The problem with the fighter is that out of the box the class is not t4 ... it just has too many traps built into the class. What if somebody wants to go Sword and Board? You will be crapy! There is no "but" and "if" about that unless you know how to optimize (and even then I doubt it).
Lets compare it again to the Inquisitor. Sure you can pick sword and board but you will still be a decent damagedealer thanks to selfbuffing (divine power) and judgements (that makes the Inquisitor t4). And that's only in combat without considering all the crazy stuff you can do out of it (that's why the Inquisitor is t3).
Same goes for the Paladin who has the smite mechanic or Barbarians with rage and rage powers. Not to mention Aegi and Soulknife (just short notice ... they are good out of the box at what they are supposed to do).

As to other questions: The last list I saw for 3.5 ranked the Ranger as a tier 3 class. The last list I saw for pathfinder tiers put the ranger as a tier 4. I'm unaware of anything, whatsoever, that the ranger lost in the move from 3.5 to PF, and I know they gained two extra feats, a host more options, some new spells, improved class abilities AND improved animal companion, as well as a great many archetypes.

Why then, would that seemingly drop the ranger a tier?

The Ranger is probably best compareable to the Fighter in this regard. It's t4 out of the box but can be raised to t3 with the right spells and good usage of the animal companion.
The ranger you are referring to is the Wildshape Ranger and this ACFed Ranger is indeed t3 for the sheer versatility it offers. If you combine it with Master of Many Forms you can argueably reach t2 (making it the only "martial" class able to get there).

While I'm at it, why does everyone dislike the PF power attack? I'm not sure I disagree, but I want to make sure I understand where others are coming from, and since power attack is often a key feat for fighters, i felt it was a good place to ask.

Well for once the PF Power Attack is static and you can't decide how much bab you want to spend .... it's always a fixed number. The followup problem is that you can lack a lot of damage (even with the better multiplier) if the enemy has low ac or on the other hand the enemy has just so much ac you'd like to just take a -3 penalty but you are stuck with the -6.

Hope that answered some of your questions. It's not final though so feel free to poke holes in it.

edit: partially swordsage'd .... Grod the Giant and Larkas brought up some excellent points too I missed to adress. Namely loosing some of it's niches (if you want to call them that way) and that all the "buffs" in PF where just numerical boni which made the fighter somewhat better at ... well ... fighting but didn't solve the basic issues with the class (no access to pounce comes to mind ... or some way to move and attack .... anything ... please)

(Un)Inspired

2014-03-12, 06:10 PM

The problem is that pathfinder took away the only think fighters were kind good at.

In 3.5 fighter were moderate capable of doing damage in very specific situations. They also could be moderately effective battlefield controllers at low levels (Still basically only with wizard or cleric support) through tripping and Dungeoncrashing.

Pathfinder made it so power attack doesn't effect you damage in a meaningful way AND took away prestige classes that increase it AND didn't bother to include The numerous ways to stack other bonuses to damage.

Pathfinder also made improved trip less useful and split in into two feats, thus making the fighter invest further resources into a combat style that pays less dividends.

On top of the the CMB and CMD system, while easier to understand that 3.5's slightly more convoluted system for performing combat maneuvers, makes actually landing a grapple or a trip or a bullrush much more difficult.

Pathfinders extra attack and damage bonus' that the fighter accrues are drops in a bucket compared to the damage that a 3.5 fighter could dish out. This is also true for their armor bonuses. This isn't the main problem however.

The main problem is still that all a fighter can do is fight and even at that they tend to fail.

How does a fighter handle Miss chances?

Or Stealth opponents?

Or anything that can force a reflex or Will Save (or honestly a moderately high fort save?)

How can he Pick his way through a trap strewn dungeon?

How can he convince the peasants to join him in revolt?

Look at the three classic tier tests:

How well can your class make it's way through a trap filled Dragons cave and defeat the dragon? How would your character go about finding and joining a resistance movement and convince them to trust him? How can your character prepare a village for a siege against and invading army?

The pathfinder fighter can't reasonably do any of those things.

Feint's End

2014-03-12, 06:27 PM

(Un)Inspired

2014-03-12, 06:35 PM

OK I think I have to defend the PF Fighter here ... it is still pretty easy to deal respectable damage without going into deeper optimization.

Take Half Orc (or any +2 str race really) 2H Fighter starting at str 20 ->36 after items, inherent and levels (the typical stuff) ... lets strap on the weaponfocus line for the lulz

assuming a +5 twohanded sword (other enchantments don't matter for now)

you got a to hit of 20+13+5-6+2 = +34/+29/+24/+19 (not great but not too shaby neither)
damage would be 2d6+26(str)+24(pa)+5(weapon)+4 for an average of 66 per attack.
up to 264 dpr

That might be not comparable to 3.5 numbers of damage but it is definitely enough to keep up with level appropriate encounters and therefor qualifies as t4 (at least in my book).

The thing is, blasting is only good if you can finish off your opponents with one blast. That way they don't get another turn to blast you. In both pathfinder and D&D monsters don't get weaker as you damage them so your much better off finishing monsters off as opposed to just hitting them a little bit.

I may be mistake but I don't think 264 damage is enough to finish off most 20 cr threats. Additionally, you're assuming that all of your attacks are landing which seems... unlikely given the low attack plus of your later attacks and the fact that a fighter can't ignore any of the numerous miss chances (blur, mirror image, blink, stealth etc. etc.)

On top of that you're assuming that a fighter can even find an enemy to fight. Without the ability to fly, or scry or follow tracks or see invisibility or teleport or really detect creatures and chase them down in any way I'm not sure how your fighter is even getting to monsters to be able to swing at them.

Gnaeus

2014-03-12, 06:38 PM

Also, power attack doesn't work that way in PF. It is only +50%, not double. Strength is also 150%. Subtract 13 damage per hit, or 52 for the full attack. 212 total. 212 damage WILL NOT drop most CR 20 threats, and if you factor in trivia like ACs in the high 30s to 40s (so the +19 will not hit, and the +24 very unlikely) you aren't likely to drop an equal CR enemy in 2 full attacks!

Feint's End

2014-03-12, 06:45 PM

The thing is, blasting is only good if you can finish off your opponents with one blast. That way they don't get another turn to blast you. In both pathfinder and D&D monsters don't get weaker as you damage them so your much better off finishing monsters off as opposed to just hitting them a little bit.

I may be mistake but I don't think 264 damage is enough to finish off most 20 cr threats. Additionally, you're assuming that all of your attacks are landing which seems... unlikely given the low attack plus of your later attacks and the fact that a fighter can't ignore any of the numerous miss chances (blur, mirror image, blink, stealth etc. etc.)

On top of that you're assuming that a fighter can even find an enemy to fight. Without the ability to fly, or scry or follow tracks or see invisibility or teleport or really detect creatures and chase them down in any way I'm not sure how your fighter is even getting to monsters to be able to swing at them.

Well first of all none of those things you need to be t4. You need to be good at doing one thing. A Barbarian in PF won't deal more damage then a 2H fighter ... he just won't. Still the PF Barbarian is considered to be t4 because they are good at doing damage They are not earthshattering, encounterending good but still good. Add some combat maneuver on top of that and you are good to go.

Maybe I am mistaken but except for the highest op games (and really .. why are you still playing t4 then) you don't need to be able to kill a cr appropriate encounter in one round.
Hell ... not even the king of smack can do that ... and it's considered a pretty solid build damagewise.

I've heard the very reasonable calculation somewhere that you should be able to deal about levelx10 damage in a round (if most attacks hit) to be considered effective. Add haste (a buff any melee should have up at level 20) and you got yourself pretty much that.

Another thing is ... do not compare PF classes to 3.5 classes! Judge them on their own merits and in their own system. And honestly? A 2H Fighter in PF is t4. He is comparable to all the other melee classes (Except maybe for an optimized Eidolon .... but those are another thing) when it comes to dealing damage and potentially better at Combat Maneuvers.

Feint's End

2014-03-12, 06:47 PM

Also, power attack doesn't work that way in PF. It is only +50%, not double. Strength is also 150%. Subtract 13 damage per hit, or 52 for the full attack. 212 total.

This (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo---fighter-archetypes/two-handed-fighter) ... I specifically mentioned the 2H Fighter Archetype a few times.

My bad ... damage is 7 lower all together (first attack only gets 150% strength)

Gnaeus

2014-03-12, 06:50 PM

Well first of all none of those things you need to be t4. You need to be good at doing one thing. A Barbarian in PF won't deal more damage then a 2H fighter ... he just won't.

He can deal VASTLY more damage. The barbarian can get Pounce. So he is running in the 200 damage range, and the fighter is at about 50. If you are comparing to a fighter with a good archetype, the barbarian will be picking optimized rage powers.

This (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo---fighter-archetypes/two-handed-fighter) ... I specifically mentioned the 2H Fighter Archetype a few times.

My bad ... damage is 7 lower all together (first attack only gets 150% strength)

You are right. My bad. He still can't kill a CR appropriate enemy in 3 rounds of attacks assuming that he has to move up on the first one and the enemy is kind enough to stand still. Pretty useless.

Iwasforger03

2014-03-12, 06:53 PM

I'm aware of the lack of pounce for a fighter in path, but since my party always uses case by case 3.5 conversions, we have access to Boots of Lion Charging, so anybody who wants to make a full attack on a charge can for just 2000gp. I guess since we have that, I never considered why it would affect the fighter vs the Barbarian.

Feint's End

2014-03-12, 06:56 PM

He can deal VASTLY more damage. The barbarian can get Pounce. So he is running in the 200 damage range, and the fighter is at about 50. If you are comparing to a fighter with a good archetype, the barbarian will be picking optimized rage powers.

My point was that you don't need a lot of optimization to get the damage I showed but I grant your barbarian some nice rage powers like pounce. The only situation you will deal more damage as a barbarian is when the Fighter can't full attack. The advantage of a barbarian is you hit slightly better
If there are any rage powers directly increasing damage then please let me know ... Isn't there a rage which lets you increase size? This might tip it towards the barbarian damagewise.

You are right. My bad. He still can't kill a CR appropriate enemy in 3 rounds of attacks assuming that he has to move up on the first one and the enemy is kind enough to stand still. Pretty useless.

Well I was just going by damage now and not considering actual combat situations. As a matter of fact most melee classes in PF deal about the same damage as a 2H Fighter and cannot move and attack. Are therefor all of them useless by your definition?

Gnaeus

2014-03-12, 06:57 PM

(Un)Inspired

2014-03-12, 06:57 PM

Well first of all none of those things you need to be t4. You need to be good at doing one thing. A Barbarian in PF won't deal more damage then a 2H fighter ... he just won't. Still the PF Barbarian is considered to be t4 because they are good at doing damage They are not earthshattering, encounterending good but still good. Add some combat maneuver on top of that and you are good to go.

Maybe I am mistaken but except for the highest op games (and really .. why are you still playing t4 then) you don't need to be able to kill a cr appropriate encounter in one round.
Hell ... not even the king of smack can do that ... and it's considered a pretty solid build damagewise.

I've heard the very reasonable calculation somewhere that you should be able to deal about levelx10 damage in a round (if most attacks hit) to be considered effective. Add haste (a buff any melee should have up at level 20) and you got yourself pretty much that.

Another thing is ... do not compare PF classes to 3.5 classes! Judge them on their own merits and in their own system. And honestly? A 2H Fighter in PF is t4. He is comparable to all the other melee classes (Except maybe for an optimized Eidolon .... but those are another thing) when it comes to dealing damage and potentially better at Combat Maneuvers.

We may disagree on where a character's damage output should be to be effective in combat. That's fine, I could easily be wrong about expected values in that regard (although I think a THF barabrian will do more damage than a fighter and you're including Haste in your calculations which a fighter doesn't have access to on his own).

I still maintain that a fighter isn't good at fighting because he can't actually get to anybody to fight them.

If you look at the fighting dudes in tier four like the Hexblade or the ranger (the barabarian is a notable exception) you'll see that most of them have abilities for actually getting to attack their enemies. Whether this is spells that lets you shoot through miss chances or having spot and listen as class skills, or having access to UMD.

A fighter can just stand there and hope that someone picks a fight with them... and basically just stands their and lets the fighter wail on it...

Combat maneuvers, as I previously posted are kinda borked in pathfinder. The fighter can do them less easily than he could in 3.5

Gnaeus

2014-03-12, 06:59 PM

My point was that you don't need a lot of optimization to get the damage I showed but I grant your barbarian some nice rage powers like pounce. The only situation you will deal more damage as a barbarian is when the Fighter can't full attack. .

Indeed. The only time the barbarian will do more damage is when enemies are not stupid enough to stand next to you and let you full attack them. In other words, at CR 20, almost all the time.

Kraken

2014-03-12, 07:01 PM

Fighters are basically commoners outside of combat, so in my mind that puts their ceiling at tier 4 with optimization, possibly tier 3 with stratospheric optimization, though it's hard to imagine what that'd look like. In combat they still suffer all the same problems as in 3.5. While they gained some things in PF, they also got hurt in some ways, for essentially no net gain. Gains and losses have already been mentioned, so I won't repeat them, I just wanted to affirm their existence.

(Un)Inspired

2014-03-12, 07:05 PM

Well I was just going by damage now and not considering actual combat situations. As a matter of fact most melee classes in PF deal about the same damage as a 2H Fighter and cannot move and attack. Are therefor all of them useless by your definition?

I'd like to say yes... but my gut is telling me this might be rhetorical...

All joking aside the other melee classes in pathfinder tend to have other things the can fall back on outside of combat even if its nothing amazing (I mean even the Cavalier gets 4+int skill ranks and a pony. That's like the d&d version of 40 acres and a mule) or have some spells to back them up (like the ranger and the paladin).

Rakaydos

2014-03-12, 07:07 PM

The Mobile Fighter architype gets it's own version of pounce at level 11 (Lose 1 attack to get all the rest as a standard, with bonuses for moving before the attack)

Feint's End

2014-03-12, 07:10 PM

We may disagree on where a character's damage output should be to be effective in combat. That's fine, I could easily be wrong about expected values in that regard (although I think a THF barabrian will do more damage than a fighter and you're including Haste in your calculations which a fighter doesn't have access to on his own).

I still maintain that a fighter isn't good at fighting because he can't actually get to anybody to fight them.

If you look at the fighting dudes in tier four like the Hexblade or the ranger (the barabarian is a notable exception) you'll see that most of them have abilities for actually getting to attack their enemies. Whether this is spells that lets you shoot through miss chances or having spot and listen as class skills, or having access to UMD.

A fighter can just stand there and hope that someone picks a fight with them... and basically just stands their and lets the fighter wail on it...

Combat maneuvers, as I previously posted are kinda borked in pathfinder. The fighter can do them less easily than he could in 3.5

Well it's pretty simple really (not calculating in rage powers now): barbarian is +4 ahead in to hit and +6 in damage through rage (compared to the basic str 36,bab 20, +5 weapon, pa) // fighter is +6 ahead in to hit and +21 in damage through weaponfocusline, weapon training, better pa and str scaling

We are talking about PF and not 3.5 though so Hexblade isn't a good example.

You might be right about the overall combat flexibility of a Fighter. I still think that it isn't too hard to get them to t4 even if it's just the lower spectrum of that tier because they are at least good at dealing damage and that should count for something.

edit: Just realised I forgot about weapon training

that boosts the to hit to 38/33/28/23 for an average of 63/70/70/70 damage

Feint's End

2014-03-12, 07:17 PM

I'd like to say yes... but my gut is telling me this might be rhetorical...

All joking aside the other melee classes in pathfinder tend to have other things the can fall back on outside of combat even if its nothing amazing (I mean even the Cavalier gets 4+int skill ranks and a pony. That's like the d&d version of 40 acres and a mule) or have some spells to back them up (like the ranger and the paladin).

You brought up some good points. I agree that Fighter looks pretty sad compared to other t4 classes. Does it put it lower than t4? I think the standard fighter probably is t5 with the 2H bringing it to low t4.

As a comparison look at the 3.5 t6 and compare samurai and commoner. The Commoner is a strictly worse classe (Handle Animal Shenanigans aside) but still considered same tier. It's similar with the Fighter. I feel like it is good at at least one part of what it is supposed to do namely being a combat monster. Even if it's just the damage ... that still might qualify them as t4 even though everybody else in this tier is better at "general combat" than him.

The Fighter might not reach Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, soulknife or Aegis but is still decent in it's own right.

edit: I also wanted to note that I very much enjoy discussing this topic with you. It's always interesting how much more you can learn about a system by sharing some thoughts.

(Un)Inspired

2014-03-12, 07:20 PM

Well it's pretty simple really (not calculating in rage powers now): barbarian is +4 ahead in to hit and +6 in damage through rage (compared to the basic str 36,bab 20, +5 weapon, pa) // fighter is +6 ahead in to hit and +21 in damage through weaponfocusline, weapon training, better pa and str scaling

We are talking about PF and not 3.5 though so Hexblade isn't a good example.

You might be right about the overall combat flexibility of a Fighter. I still think that it isn't too hard to get them to t4 even if it's just the lower spectrum of that tier because they are at least good at dealing damage and that should count for something.

edit: Just realised I forgot about weapon training

that boosts the to hit to 38/33/28/23 for an average of 63/70/70/70 damage

But you still haven't explained a way that they can actually get to someone to do damage to them. A gun is useless without eyes to aim it.

The fighter can do some damage (Not as much as I'd like but meh lets worry about that later). They still can't find anyone to fight. To be considered good at fighting you really should have at least ONE way of either getting to someone to fight them (teleporting, flying, pouncing, flying mounting etc. etc.) or at least one way of finding someone to fight (Divination, Perception, Tracking, etc. etc.).

EDIT: I included Hexblade just as an example of how a tier 4 could actually be effective at fighting because they can use their spells and familiars to actually reach enemies and use their curse and dark companion and spells to contribute in combat other than just damage.

Psyren

2014-03-12, 07:35 PM

Fighter was always high T5 anyway; it really doesn't take much to push them over that line. The damage potential is there and as more combat/style feats get released their power has nowhere to go but up.

Without subsystem archetypes they're unlikely to rise above T4 however.