Hello, my elegan/tg/entlemen. The story for the creation of this thread is quite simply, I decided to play a fighter in a Pathfinder game and, as you would imagine, I'm slowly getting behind my partners (ALL of them are casters. Druid, Wizard and Cleric). We are currently a lvl 6 party and I already see my grim future.
I used to play a lot of D&D 3.5 but I don't know a lot about Pathfinder so it would be great if you guys could share your knowledge about good builds, feats, weapons, strategies and everything fighter related.
Any book is welcome.
TL;DR: Help me to build a decent fighter character.
Why anons give answers like this one sometimes?
Can't you see it's not going to the point of the thread?
Anyway, thanks for your reply. I don't want to be a caster but that Path of War shit sounds neat, what's that? Like I said I don't know a lot about this game.
That goes as far as... 2 feats, maybe 3, right?
The one that makes it harder for them to cast defensively (by harder I mean it's actually possible, rare but possible, for them to waste a spell).
The one that gives me an AoO when they lose the spell.
And there's other that gives me an AoO when someone teleports.
Also is Cleave a good feat in Pathfinder? It's worse than D&D version.
So I will preface this by saying that fighters are simply one of the worst classes in Pathfinder. They are linear, get few skill points, and drop off in usefulness rapidly after level 6-7 or so. You will be much better served going into a different class like barbarian or cleric at this point and leveling up in that class instead. You got it? Still interested in a fighter? OK then, I will do my best.
Firstly some resources:
Thats a list of all the guides available. You should take a look and see what advice they give you.
Firstly, you have to choose what kind of fighter you are. Are you a sword-and-shield heavy armor fighter? A two-weapon specialist? An archer? 2-handed power attacker? What combat style you choose greatly impacts what feats are good for you and what you should be doing with your stats, skills, and magic items. Before we go much further we need to know what kind of fighter you are trying to be.
For example, a shield fighter should look at the Phalanx Soldier and Tower Shield Specialist archetypes. They should be looking to get shield bash and the associated feats (if not using a tower shield) or focusing on weapons and combat maneuvers that let them control the battlefield (if they are). Things like trip and bull rush can keep an enemy from simply walking away from the slow, hard to kill fighter and going after the squishy and dangerous mage.
Fine, this isn't an anti-caster, but it's still a fighter with 3pp and 3.5 sources. You're still a fighter and you will be disappointed.
Thanks for your help, anon! I will check that.
Well, the thing is I want to fight. I want to fight and do it well. I don't want to cast any other fucking thing, I'm kind of tired of casters already.
Barbarian is just not my style, besides the druid is going for barbarian as well (can he use his rage powers while in wild shape???).
So far I'm going for a two-handed fighter. Power attack, combat reflexes, trip, sunder... but all feats are negotiable.
I wouldn't mind going TWF but I wonder if it sucks as much as it did in D&D. Just went the THF path because it was the only good one in said game.
>if you guys can't make a fighter work nobody can
That's the idea we're getting at. There's not a way to make Fighters "work." Not at the level you want them to anyway.
A straight Fighter will never measure up to a caster in PF, regardless of feats or skills or whatever. It is a thousand times easier to just reroll a Wizard or something.
I don't mind multiclassing if it's necessary.
and if a fighter can't be as good, at least let's make it as good as possible. After all my team is playing to have fun so they are not terribly powerful.
But of course I got kind of disappointed when the wizard summoned a boar that was almost as strong as my character.
>I got kind of disappointed when the wizard summoned a boar that was almost as strong as my character
Get used to it, that's only the beginning. I had a bag of tricks once and tossed out a honey badger to defend a bridge. That honey badger killed several werewolf invaders with ease. It was just as effective as some of the martials in the party and more effective than the witch who only used her hair to punch people every turn instead of casting.
>can we take this seriously?
No, no we can't. Fighters are hilariously bad, and yet you refuse to listen to that fact.
If you want to be good at combat and keep up with the rest of the party, just follow this handy dandy advice.
Consider getting an animal companion somehow. It's a second, less effective fighter and you can break the action economy by doing twice the stuff. Also, get leadership. Have an army follow you everywhere.
For fighters, 2-handed fighting is generally better than 2-weapon, so you are good there. Leave the weapon juggling to rogues, paladins, and gunslingers.
Power attack, weapon focus, greater weapon focus, and improved critical are your key feats here. You should be using a falchion or another high-crit weapon, because critting is the best damage strategy for melee classes and damage is about the only thing the fighter does well. I would also highly recommend the Dazzling Display/Shatter Defenses/Deadly Stroke path, as that gives you a powerful attack you can use after moving that also happens to do con bleed, one of the more dangerous status effects in the game. Finally, when you are high enough level, pick up critical focus and work towards stunning critical. Stun is possibly the best status effect for combat, and you can pretty easily get it for most combats you engage in.
Because you are a fighter, you will have a few feats left over, amazingly enough. Iron Will and Greater Iron Will are highly recommended, as it sucks to encounter your first vampire, and discover that your mage really was not ready to take your falchion in the face after you get dominated. Weapon specialization is nice for extra damage, but it is less important than the feats above. Dodge, improved initiative, and toughness all give you bonuses to things you want a lot of anyways.
As for equipment, obviously you need the basics: A good falchion, enchanted as heavily as possible. Go for basic + bonuses (+1, +2 etc) bonuses first, as those let you penetrate DR, then move on to holy, elemental, or speed weapons. Take a speed weapon only if your wizard doesn't understand why haste is amazing.
You will want to wear the heaviest armor you can, all the time. By 7th level there is not much penalty for you using plate mail, so do that. See if you can talk your DM into making adamantine DR stack with your class DR.
Play a polearm fighter archetype
I cannot guarantee that you will be constantly shining if you have a wizard who took spells that can make you pointless, but you will have some fun with it most likely, but I only speak from the experience of my group almost never plays wizards, witches or most spellcasters other than the occasional magus, druid, or cleric and the one magus while he was also a Suli who can make that class go crazy as fuck when he hits.
You will want stat boosters for all of your physical stats, and your wisdom, in the order of STR>CON>DEX>WIS>>>>>CHA>INT.
For a backup weapon, you will want to pick up a compound longbow. Its not great, but it will at least give you some options until the wizard can cast mass overland flight every day.
Here is the big one: get your party members to buff you to high hell. Enlarge person, the stat boosters (before you get magic items for them), haste, shield of faith, all of that. You have the best attack bonuses, and half of their class strengths come from making you amazing. Remind them that if they make you large, you will generally be able to do the equivalent of a fireball's worth of damage each round every round for a single spell slot.
As a fighter, you are consistently average rather than being usually good. So if you want to multiclass, look into other classes that do one or two things really well. Paladin, Ranger, and Rogue all give significant bonuses after a small dip.
Thats about the best advice I can give you. Like I said, fighter is just about the worst class in pathfinder because all they do is fight, and other classes can do aspects of fighting way better. Focus on the fact that you can dish out a lot of damage against any enemy while still being reasonably tanky, and then try to push that as far as possible.
The higher crit range is important as later on actually getting the crit is more important than the crit multiplier. This is because of feats like stunning critical. If that custom weapon does 2d6 or more damage, then it is a fine alternative, but understand you are probably going to want the highest crit range possible later on.
He's saying casters are the best things ever because even though they're broken in the game and martials are shit in the game the dm can fix it. Because the DM has to fix something it means it's shit, though.
No, because you loose attack bonuses, need a higher dex to qualify for the feats, and loose damage on attack.
This requires some explanation. Basically having a high crit only matters if you can confirm the critical. So you might make 2 attacks for each attack a 2-hand fighter makes, but you are making them at (at least) a -2 attack, and there is no way to really get around that. So you might get a few extra critical threats that way, but you will confirm fewer of them. Furthermore, going 2-weapon fighting means picking up 2-weapon fighting, improved 2-weapon fighting, greater 2-weapon fighting, double slice, and then probably something like 2-weapon rend as well. All of that ON TOP of what you need to make crits good as well. And you need to spend more of your point buy on dex, just to qualify for those feats. Two weapon fighting alone requires a 15 dex.
Dont get me wrong, you can do a dual-weapon fighter, but you really have to invest in it early on, and you are far less tanky for roughly the same amount of damage until the end game. A 2-hand fighter is going to do more damage for most of the game, does nearly as good full-attack damage in the late game, and does pretty much everything that isnt a full attack better because his attack is higher. All while spending half the feats on it.
Who wants to play a fighter? Players that want to play a fighter.
Who should play druids?
1) players that want to play a druid?
2) players that want to play a fighter?
Roles. Learn them.
Wanna be the big tank guy? Why are you playing a fucking tree hugger?
WHY ARE THERE SO MANY BUCKLES.
LOOK AT THAT SHIT.
BOOTS, GLOVES, THE CHEST I CAN GET AS A HOLD FOR THE BOWS AND ARROWS BUT FUCKING HELL.
WHY DO ARTISTS NEVER THINK OF SHIT LIKE THAT.
HE LITERALLY JUST HAS BUCKLES HANGING OFF OF HIM FOR NO GOOD GODDAMN REASON
HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE HIM TO GET ALL THOSE BUCKLES SET UP, AND THEN AT THE END OF THE DAY HE'LL HAVE TO TAKE THEM OFF.
You can get an animal companion as a ranger. If you're adamantly anti-caster, they have ranger archetypes without spells. Or you can talk your DM into letting you play a homebrew fighter archetype that gets an animal companion.
>Wanna be the big tank guy? Why are you playing a fucking tree hugger?
Because the druid does do it better than the fighter. The fighter fails at their role, and that mainly hurts newer players who don't know the system as well. It's a damn shame that the fighter is trash, and helping people avoid those pit-falls isn't a bad thing.
Its the classic fantasy role of "big armored tough guy". The master of blades etc.
Oh. I'm sorry, I was talking about RPGs. You all are talking about some math and minmax game. My bad anon.
>Wanting a character who is actually competent at their supposed role.
Because muh superior casters. Druid is hilariously fucking broken.
>2 good saves
>4+INT skill points
>9th level spells
>Full animal companion progression
>Can wear armor
>Plus a host of other class features
But seriously OP, talk your DM into letting you play some archetype of fighter or ranger with full animal companion progression. I'd allow it but then, I want my players to have fun and be useful.
So what about Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, etc? They aren't supposed to be "Big Armored Tough Guys?"
I mean, "fighter" is kinda stupid. All the classes fight. What makes the fighter class a fighter?
How are cavaliers? Never played one, but seems like a better option.
>Full animal companion progression for your mount
>More skill points
>Actual class features
>Picking an order gives options beyond what feats to take
If your games go into dungeons then you'll have to play a small cavalier or else give up your charging and most of your damage. Being separated from your mount sucks, and is common enough in most games.
>barb= light armor berserk fighter
>ranger=light armor nature fighter
>paladin=hvy armor holy fighter
If you don't know the difference between a ranger and a fighter, without involving math...I can't help you anon.
So they're all just different versions of fighter then? So you're saying Fighter is just "I wear more armor, but I'm not holy fighter"?
Also, can't Barbarians and Rangers wear heavier armor though? Either by traiding in a class feature or just wearing mithril versions? The Paladin already can. So what does the Fighter do that makes him THE "fighter"?
Do you somehow believe it's impossible to a game designer to fail?
OP, play a Warlord from the Path of War. Here's the link. It's free. No excuse not to do it.
Well, the fighter needs a new role because he's completely outclassed at the thing he is literally named for. So really, the fighter doesn't have a role. All the other classes "fight", they just do good at other things as well. Sorry, the class is meant to be played by either the newbie to learn the ropes or the simple minded player who can't into actual class features.
Wow, I'm glad to see this thread is moving! Thank you all!
I'm OP and sorry, I left for a little while.
The thing is I want to play a fighter and do what fighters are supposed to do, and that would be killing stuff really really well and being hard to kill himself.
I don't want to be wild or holy, I don't want a pet (not because I don't like the animal companion, I just don't want to get another creature to compensate my character), I don't want to use a bow or cast magic or anything like that.
I just want to be the guy with a cool armor, a sword and the ability to kill hundred of enemies in a bloody and spectacular melee battle.
Is that too much to ask? I just want to be.. a fighter.
You will be only OK at killing.
Take the dirty fighter feat:
You can then use the good combat maneuver feats without the bullshit.
Not too much at all m8.
Ignore these "Muh caster is best" faggots.
Play what you want to play. Enjoy it.
If the game seems out of balance, then speak to your DM. Or find a new one.
I've not tried pf, but done a lit of 3.5. And I usually stick to fighters.
Nothing because fighter is bad designed.
It should be the biggest source of physical damage in the whole game. A master of battle. So good in a fight that any other martial class shouldn't stand a damn chance without using all their special class powers.
Let's say... a rogue face to face? Dead.
A paladin without using his mouth and some magic? Dead.
A barbarian without using his rage and rage powers cleverly? Dead.
A monk not... doing.. what... monks do? Dead.
Of course this doesn't happen. Most of those classes can go just face to face to roll die and nothing else and still have a decent chance of winning a fight against a fighter.
Fight, fighter, get it? Fighters should win fights, because that's what they do.
I don't want to be ok at killing, I want to be a fucking meat grinder.
Is this game made for fucking nerd casters only? Nobody ever wants to go apeshit crazy with a sword??
I'm getting annoyed with all this shit. Fighter is a class so basic it should not be this weak. Don't even know why they tried to "balance" fighter in the ONLY thing he does.
You either let him do other stuff or you make him the fucking best class for fights in the game, it's not that hard.
But thanks for the help!
But why do you think that feat is any good? It depends of flanking the enemy.
Hey man, I get it. RPGs should be about playing whatever the fuck you want and I respect that.
But it feels a bit shitty to have to be talking with your DM to get free powers in some way or another just because your character class.
I mean, all my friends are cool guys and they buff me to fight, but I don't like to feel they have to do it to compensate I'd be pretty much one less character in the group for the fight.
>I just want to be the guy with a cool armor, a sword and the ability to kill hundred of enemies in a bloody and spectacular melee battle.
Then why did you pick fighter? :^)
But seriously, you can pump it up and focus on max damage, but that isn't what is really wrong with the class. Go with a good crit weapon like scimitar, take the feats to up the damage, raise your AC and saves, get the right gear, and try to keep up with everyone else. If they're cool they'll throw some spells your way to help.
I hate to break it to you OP, but the designers intentionally made the stuff they hate shit. Guess what the designers hate? Monks, fighters, crossbows, fighters, and martials in general. Guess what the designers love? Full casters.
I agree with you 100%, the fighter SHOULD be the best at what it does, but it just isn't. The only way to solve this is with houserules or simply playing a different game entirely.
Yeah sure, if you want to strawman and mix up the SU and EX disciplines. But if you're actually honest then you'll find out they're meant to fulfill different niches of fighting styles, super supernatural, some not.
Seems like your just a normal guy in a group of powerful freaks. Make your angle. An average Joe seems all the more impressive living along side such powerful people. You can be like scopedog.
Even if you end up being more of a Krillin it's not all bad. I mean look at his wife.
The thing is I want to do that but I want to be a fighter, a warrior, a mercenary, a knight, get the idea?
I don't want to be a holy figure or a loincloth-wearing illiterate savage.
You know, you can refluff one class as something else, right? Also, PF barbarians aren't required to be illiterate. I played a barbarian in one game with a 15 INT, smartest in the party once the magus left. I was super friendly and a bit of an amateur archeologist. I just had a bad temper.
Then you want the Path of War warlord. The Book of 9 Swords was a great supplement and the Path of War is even better.
Or check this out - reskin a different class!
Pick druid, call yourself a 'nature knight defender'.
Animal companion? No, that's your mute squire and general dogsbody.
Wildshape? No, that's your Rage Mode. You get beefy like a bear.
Spells? Surely you jest. That's just your knowledge of nature, knowing how to heal wounds, pick the finest berries, goad your foes into tripping over roots... and at high levels, crack the heavens and call lightning with your shout.
there. now you're a good fighter.
Well, if your GM lets you have maybe 300 or 500k gold worth of magic and wondrous items, you might be able to keep up. I say might because it's not a guarantee. That is the *only* thing that can actually help you, no archetype, no multiclass, no feat tree is going to put you on par with the casters.
The way to be a fighter is to talk to your DM into allowing Path of War, Then go here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tbBIinA90VQW8eriM0TZTZCbHsSU6cdv7_44J8w564s/edit
and find the "Myrmidon" archetype, if you want to be even better also go here http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo---fighter-archetypes/lore-warden and apply that to your character. You will have less feats, but a lot more class abilities. I would suggest you put points in acrobatics, take the combat reflexes feat and use the mithral current discipline as your main discipline. (Mithral Current found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dKCPPIpRoR9CZv0A35gLDnXl5itgRufjWTq83BIsMfs/edit) If you use the right combination of moves you will be able to spin attack every other turn and the turns in between you tank by making anyone who tries to hit you miss, and hit them back for their trouble. You also end up with 6 skill points/lvl so you will very easily be useful out of combat for knowing stuff about monsters and etc.
I know, but it feels quite fake to refluff blind rage as martial tactics.
and, in general, I need certain amount of.. realism in the game. I need system and RP to mix together in something coherent.
>can take two-handed weapon style
>gets skills to be useful out of battle too
>can trade in or just not use spells/animal companion
>has enemies they even favor to slaughter
Actually it's not a bad idea.
Instead of an animal companion, you can form a bond with your allies gaining bonuses for being around them and giving them bonuses in turn. There's also an archetype called skirmisher that trades spells for combat and non-combat tricks.
Fighters got some decent buffs recently, actually. Aside from Lore Warden which has been the go-to halfway useful fighter archetype for a long time, one should also consider looking into the Pathfinder Unchained stamina system for making fighter feats better, and the Weapon Master's Handbook for some new fighter toys.
Hottest. Wife. Seriously though being the underdog of the group makes you way more interesting. D&D was made to emulate classic fantasy stories.You just need a classic hook. Someone mentioned magic items. Why not a cool magic sword? Something fun and different like 'returns to owners hand when called'. Or maybe you can fashion yourself more as a tactician, calling the shots and motivating the troops. It may be a game but that's only half the fun.
>Seriously though being the underdog of the group makes you way more interesting.
Bullshit, having fun is the most interesting thing. If you want to have fun by being a competent killing machine then Fighter isn't the way to go.
But Anon fun is subjective. Though admittedly OP made the thread because he was worried about being underpowered. I just wanted to try and point out that might make an interesting role playing angle.
Maybe OP should share his character's background. That could help focus peoples suggestions and give people ideas.
Would would fighters fare if they got +2 skill points per level and had all good saves? If certain feat trees were condensed into fewer feats for the same effect? If they added 1/2 their level to all physical skill checks? If they had a brawler's martial flexibility? If they got proficiency with all exotic weapons for free?
More skill points is nice, the saves will help them not try (and fail) to kill their companions, the feat taxes in pathfinder are awful anyways and should be removed. All that may bolster them a little, and provide them a bit more flexibility in combat, but I can't see it actually doing anything great for them.
Just stuff that popped into my head. I've only played a few sessions of pathfinder in the last 3 years. Both DMs were really relaxed about the rules and I myself have only been running a homebrew system. If I were to run another game of pathfinder, I wouldn't hesitate to give fighters all that stuff though. If nothing else, it should make them better at the one thing they're supposed to do.
>What would you guys do to improve fighter ?
Take the Path of War/Book of 9 Swords.
Cross out 'Warlord'/'Warblade'.
Write 'Fighter' over the top. Done.
Or play 4e, a good game that doesn't have this problem.
people always seem to have nonsensical criticisms of 4e.
>You need a grid to play.
Yes, just like 3.5e.
>Fights take ages.
Correct, this was a major issue with the original core. Stop playing with the original Monster Manual, and use the Monster Vaults and MM3 instead.
>Everyone is a caster.
Not unless your fighters are making lightning fall from the sky or blowing fireballs at each other. Are you an idiot incapable of separating fluff from crunch?
>Everyone plays the same.
Only if you believe a 3.5e wizard and a 3.5e cleric play the same. In fact, those two play more alike than a Paladin and a Fighter in 4e do.
>Everyone's focused on combat.
Your class is what you do in combat. Your skills are for out of combat. If you want utility spells, learn rituals.
>Skill challenges suck.
Possibly. Don't use them if you don't want them.
In any other way it's superior to 3.5e without question, I'm not sure what the issue is.
Combat Expertise is the usual prerequisite for most for the combat maneuver feat.
Combat Expertise has the prerequisite of 13 INT, and it's pretty much useless in its application (-1 attack roll for +1 AC is not a good trade).
Dirty fighting let you bypass that 13 INT requirement and has more application than Combat Expertise.
4e's flaws are solved by "use the better books that they released, and be aware that this is how the mechanics work".
3e's flaws are solved by "literally ban many of the classes and several mechanics like item crafting".
What kind of GM would be dumb enough to use core classes instead of researching tier lists? It's Pathfinder, it's been out for years. Who'd be dumb enough to think 'core only' is a good idea?
i would've thought everyone by now with access to the internet would be capable of researching their purchases.
This power gamer in my group built a level 20 fighter that went as a archtype from ultimate combat called a two handed fighter, he was able to use its final ability to take a -5 on his swings but crit with every hit, and he used a x6 crit scythe. He also had mythic vital strike and mythic power Attack and a couple magic items that allowed him to deal around 2000 damage a swing minimum.
Fighters can be pretty viable, considering your gm is using stuff from bestiary books like I was. This guy could kill cthulu around 5 times over with every swing. Heck there where times he dealt over 4000. That's how you keep up with casters.
And hey if anyone can prove this wrong, fucking go for it, the guy who made this build keeps saying it's not op and I wanna know if he has something wrong so I can rub it in his smug face.
>mythic vital strike and mythic power Attack
Well it is mythic.
>And hey if anyone can prove this wrong, fucking go for it, the guy who made this build keeps saying it's not op and I wanna know if he has something wrong so I can rub it in his smug face.
How would someone go about proving it wrong when they can't even see the build?
What you're looking for is the 5e fighter. where one feat is equivalent to 4-5 PF feats, and you get actual class features beyond feats, and you get as many skills as everyone but the Rogue or Bard.
Sadly, it'd require far too much homebrewing to work in PF, and casters would probably benefit from it just as much.
Excuse you, faggot. ToB allows a player to control the field and/or dish a decent amount of damage without relying on retarded spells or shitty progression. It's one of those rare books that put martials on par with low-tier casters.
Fighters are only good in 2nd, 4th and 5th edition.
In the 2nd not as much, but they are way more resilient than the rest of the party. In 4th they are average. The edition shits on casters, so the Fighter can shine (for maximum overdrive go Ranger). In 5th edition the fighters are actually useful.
Fighters can do damage, yeah. That is absurd amount of damage,
At that point the game is over anyway.
There are other ways to deal with threats, and damage is one of the less viable later on - especially from fighter.
How does a fighter on his own deal with flying enemies, invisible enemies, intangible enemies, enemies that can attack from range and maintain range easily, target weak saves of the fighter or disable the fighter entirely?
Central woes of fighter are in PF and such:
> No out-of-combat utility.
They get 2 skill points, same as wizard, but have no reason to go for intelligence ( unless they want to purchase some specific feats ). It is painfully low, and they are not offered utilities like the wizard gets. Of course, fighter's job is to fight, but in roleplaying or non-combat situations it might get difficult to contribute as much.
> Get outdated in combat
Fighter can deal very good damage thanks to additional feats, high BaB and whatnot. Problem is such that just damage won't carry you later on. The HPs get bloated and casters get many alternative methods of circumventing the HP.
They lack essentials to deal with lot of various threats. Without specific magic items ( or specific, sub-optimal feat-purchases ) they will have problem with flying enemies, invisible enemies and intangible enemies.
Their weak saves make them vulnerable to enemies that target will, for example.
>No class abilities
Feats don't help themselves, since the feats are weak and designed to be chained. Some exist just as taxes.
Their 'class abilities' are just some passives that give them some minor benefits.
Some archetypes offer more interesting options, but they don't really elevate fighter from bottom tiers.
On default, everything but full-attacking is vastly sub-optimal, and makes fighter boring to play.
6+INT skill points.
Ability that gives you extra bonus to attack roll and damage roll equal to Bard's inspire courage.
Sneak Attack every 3 level.
Slayer Talent allows you to learn Ranger Combat Style, including the ability to ignore prerequisite. So you can go full STR TWF build.
You have gold right? Hire an army instead of improving your gear.
The very next feat you take should be leadership.
There. If no one else has cohorts or hirlings you'll be able to keep up with the sheer amount of actions you can bring to combat.
Party will hate you for diluting xp though.
This is totally wrong, though.
Those piddly level nothings that are your hirelings? They'll not be able to actually HIT anything, and will just get mulched.
Cohorts don't do much better. You got one high level, yes, but the rest are pathetic nothingfodder.
You're doing it wrong if you think you will bring an army into a dungeon.
Alternatively, if his cohort is a druid, cleric, or wizard they'll be strictly better than him and he'll only be 1 level behind the other players in capability.
If you're not USING that fucking army, why goddamn HAVE it? It's not going to matter against anything that actually matters. 200 attacks don't matter if none of them can fucking hit shit. He's just making himself even more useless by not spending that on himself.
And I did note that yes, that one cohort can do things. The REST aren't worth the shit on my boots with how the numbers scale.
Anon, have you seen any arts from Pathfinder? They are ridiculously overdone. Like over-the-top everything strapped everywhere mess of an equipment. Pic related style.
>Its the classic fantasy role of "big armored tough guy". The master of blades etc.
No, it's the generic class for above-average town guards, low ranking military officers and for when no other martial class can quite fit your concept.
>Nobody can save the fighter.
There are a few posts in the thread speculating what it would need to be upped a tier or two back into the "playable" category. Have you tried those out yet?
You can use the followers for things other than "WE ALL ENTER THIS DUNGEON!" and benefit ridiculously.
Get a cohort that crafts, get a small force of mages to research shit for you, etc. Someone call the Downtime God, so he can smite your bitch-ass
Classes exist on different levels of general capability.
These levels are generally called 'tiers'. Here's one attempt at a list for Pathfinder.
Everyone sane accepts these tiers. Arguing against them is idiotic.
Any sane GM will say "OK guys, we're playing in tier 1 and 2" or "we're playing in tier 3 and 4" and players will make characters as appropriate.
Politely request to rebuild your character as a Path of War character, keeping the same lore. Call it your characters awakening. Or, confront your GM and ask for a template that gives you more fluff options.
Nobody hated Tome of Battle. At best, there was an issue with one hilariously worded ability, Iron Heart Surge. It was basically "spend a swift action, and whatever is causing an effect on you ends".
Which meant that you could end a cloudkill spell...
But you couldn't stop being stunned, because you can't act while stunned.
Aside from a few other issues of poor wording, it's one of the best 3.5 supplements, making non-spellcasters viable without forcing a gimmick build.