Should we, as either GM or player, accept the inherent class imbalances in the games we play...

>And remember, every time you mention "classless" some unspeakable horror with jagged talons gets closer and closer to ripping off your nipples.

Nippleless guy here, my games are great and don't have balance issues because I do not play with minmaxing autismos married to 3.x/PF

Broaden your horizons systemwise and don't post tired old troll threads

This is so simple but sensible

If levels are "levels" in the context of power, then they must each be a similar measure of achieving mastery over... whatever.

Exactly

And if wizards can do easy time manipulation magic and other fun nonsense, then fighters should be able to be Popeye.

Ah, I should say though, that if the system is supposed to span from low to high levels, then there should be alternate classes that sword users can get into which lets them take their swording further. So if your wizard is like Merlin or Circe, your martial type is Hercules or Rama.

Even using D&D (which is a poor example these days, as both times I have run a party past Tiamat, the Casters were borderline useless, and the fighter and Paladin pretty much took down Taimat without the help of the wizards. ) the general way you want to play it out, is to allow martials to be demigod tier. Want to go to some place that is essentially hell? You could use a fancy spell... or find a sacrificial site that lets you enter it by dying. And then fight your way back out of hell after finishing your business. Because fuck spells, the God of Death isn't dealing with an ordinary guy anymore.

The wizard without his spells is still just an ordinary man. But it gives it a nice balanace - the fighter is generally a lot more powerful, and it never "runs out" - He is awesome 24/7.

The wizard runs out of resources, and for all the "Wizards are OP" threads we've had, all we have proven is how difficult it is to be a wizard. You have to constantly check for enemies, scry on them, set up contingencies, and always be prepared, even for things that you aren't sure will happen. But best case scenario, the Wizard far outclassed the fighter.

But out strain on the wizard, or put him into a situation he couldn't have predicted and prepared for, and he will struggle, unlike the Fighter, who won't give a shit. Lost his weapon? Grab a stick (staff or club, won't matter) and he is good to go again. A wizard, not so much.

>inherent class imbalance
Anima.

No, you should not accept the class imbalances if your group does not want them. If your group is ok with having wizards or similar reign supreme, then it is your job to inform them of this in the beginning when they make characters and/or restrict character classes so everyone is a mage, non-mage players get multiple characters, nobody is a mage, etc.

If your players want to run a typical high/low fantasy adventure game with a group of inherently different but equally contributing to the goals of the game then you need to step in and provide balance.

There are plenty of ways to do it. And no, "just not playing D&D" will not automatically fix it, and you'll also have no players so there you go.

What?

As someone who has played Anima a ton, and is the go-to system for my group, Anima is a great example of good class balance.

Go for a mundane class, and just pump up your abilities with weapons and armour, to the point where you will be able to not give a fuck about half the things that are thrown at you, and can jop most people in half.

Go for a mage, real wizard guy, and you can become a God, literally create entire cities and castles out of thin air... if You are not interrupted, by some fast and unstoppable force, like...

Technicians. These guys are living bullets, but with all that entails. They strike ridiculously hard, and so fast that it can be impossible to stop them before they gey in the first strike, but after that first strike, they have a very real risk of getting killed, or at least taken out of action. It makes it really difficult to be a proper caster, unless you go for the more on-demand type of casting...

Which brings us to the other category of magic, psy power. You can use tuis pretty easily, but it generally has a fairly low amount of power. Up your points on powers a lot, and you risk becoming far too squishy to properly function outside of your limited spell selection. If you dont do it, you can use it as a supplementary kit, almost like a Gish, except the chance to fail exist, and if you fail, you risk exhaustion.

And finally, non-combat. Pump your points into skills, and you can get inhimanly good at the most stupid shit. Nothing in the world will stop a Zen Stealthed thief from taking that important artefact from you. Yeah, you could kick his ass, but he is breaking the laws of physics when he is sneaking around, so good luck finding him.

There are a few trap options, but that is solely because certain options require obscene amount of points, and just won't work properly if you are trying to split your points too many ways.

That was my point, but I didn't communicate it very well.

There is absolutely 0 reason to not have levels in an RPG between different classes be equally balanced and valued within the system.

Even if you're running a setting or a game where there's a God class and a Rock-Farmer class for some reason, you should at least be upfront about that and have the Rock-Farmer cap at level 2 and have God require a minimum level of 40 or something.

If I look at two classes of the same level, assuming the requirements to get them to that level are the same, then they should be roughly as able to contribute to the game. Even if in the context of the larger setting the best wizards beat the best fighters blindfolded any day of the week, then that just means you need to be upfront about the fact that Fighters have a lower level cap then Wizards.

And anyone who actually wants an imbalanced party can do the incredibly easy task of simply starting certain characters at a higher or lower level. But whatever the game assumes, it should at least be honest about it.

>stop Listening to Veeky Forums
>ALL Veeky Forums says is "don't play dnd"

From a lore perspective, it can make sense that a non-magical martial can't reach the power levels of a powerful magic user.

From a gameplay perspective, allowing both to be PCs is a terrible idea. If you want to make a high magic system/setting, then do that. Make every PC class magical in some way. Some, like wizards, sling spells directly. Others enhance their martial capability through magic. Don't waste everybody's time, including yours, writing a class that isn't worth playing.

If you want a setting where unmagical martials are a PC option, limit the power of the magic users to a point where they are balanced.

Now, if you really want players to have the option of choosing something really underpowered, go classless. Give players the option to avoid the useful abilities if they really want to.

This would be a good premise, except that in the edition in question, 3.PF, there are options upon options available to prevent running out of spells. Also, there is an inherent underestimation in your argument about the utility of some of the spells. Rather than needing a million options and precautions, you could cover a good 90% of situations with a strong summon spell, Fly, a reliable nuke/Save or Die, and Contingency+(teleport, time stop, etc).

It also ignores that wizard can get some ridiculous magic-related feats, and that they tend to benefit the most from the magic item budget that applies more or less evenly to all players (pearls of power, crafting wands, etc)

It is the issue with the old 2nd edition. Back then, you had a legit reason for having a disparity, hence a lot of old players have the idea that a level 20 wizard should be significantly better than a level 20 rogue.

A Rogue advanced ridiculously fast compared to a wizard. So despite easily being several levels up, it won't feel like it, because the wizard has the same experience.

This fell apart at higher levels, but that was because the writers had a massive hard on for casters, and were shit at balancing. But the theory was fine - the same level isnt necesarrily equally good, but the experience needed to get to that level, also reflects this disparity. When you reached the cap and suddenly was a level 20, you had to multiclass out of it to advance further. A level 20 wizard would indeed be better than a level 20 rogue, because the experience required was so much higher, that it really had to.

>3.PF
At no point was this edition "in question". We are not talking about a specific edition.

And 3.5/pf is shit, and horrendously unbalanced, especially if you used all splatbooks with no regard for quality of the material.

And you are still bringing up pointless drivel, which is whiteroom meta bullshit, that will never be relevant in a game.

I have never seen a GM let Fly be anywhere close to the gamebreaker that people think it is. I have also seen a lot of retard s think teleport is just such a good spell, which often ends up being "party gets exp, wizard doesn't, because he ran from the fight like a coward".

Most of the "save or die" spells also didn't work nearly as reliable as people think they would, and also count on the GM throwing a single mook they can one-shot at them, instead of several, who knew try were against a wizard, and were prepared to fight around that fact.

I cant even remember all these ivory tower wizard grognards thought they were Gods, only to get their shit kicked in by a medium CR encounter, because they expected to only face low CR which had no chance of working around their spells.

Wizards were good, but the God wizards only existed in games where the GM specifically allowed, and HELPED, you to be a God.

Except that, ideally, the Rogue would be level 20 long before the Wizard ever would, and didn't require multiple rounds of setup to do literally anything.

Baldur's Gate ruined 2e and begat 3e. People forgot how hard it was supposed to be to cast a spell, all the little drawbacks spells like Haste have if you keep relying on them (a year of your life, per casting, is a thing that will quickly add up if you lean on Haste), and that any shot to the face will instantly interrupt your spellcasting.

So they made 3e, which "streamlined" away those "problems" with "logic," like making everybody work off the same XP track and making spells have a maximum casting time of a full-round action.

Except they weren't problems. They were there to stop exactly the thing that people bitch about 3e and then try and retroactively apply to 2e. The fact of the matter is that it used to be hard to cast spells, and then somebody said "it shouldn't be hard to cast spells," and so everything got fucked.

Also just getting a wizard to higher-levels was a fucking challenge because you had d4 HD and you stood around waving your arms like a ninny for a round while the enemy archers shot you in the face for all of your HD because "hey look it's a wizard, kill it before it casts its damn spell."

You should accept faults, because if you don't, you'd never play a game.

But this also doesn't mean you shouldn't strive for better.

Basically, don't commit Nirvana fallacy combined with False Dichtomy.

Thieves at their very highest point in levels only beat wizards by 2. That's it. And that's 2 Thief levels, which means like, 2% more chance to hide in shadows and climb. High level wizards catch up.

Unifying the XP tables was a legit good decision. They did absolutely nothing for balancing characters in the long run.

>(a year of your life, per casting, is a thing that will quickly add up if you lean on Haste)

Well, the Elven Fighter/Mage doesn't really give too many shits about that.

>Should we X
>Classes should this
>Systems should that
>Should this, should that

That's your problem right there. Classes should fulfill the exact needs of GM and players. If they can all agree that yes, the wizard will be simply stronger, but no, this doesn't mean the warrior, the rogue and the cleric won't have fun dicking around, then fine.

If your group can't agree on anything, don't GM it.
If some people of your group are lying in order to get things done, tell them to stop, and if they don't, stop GMing it.

Hell I don't even agree that the table should be fun for everyone: I can certainly envision serious gaming applied to trpgs.

He also never got more than what, 14 levels total?

You remember the level caps that non-human races had, right?

We need to give up on the idea that Gandalf and Aragorn are equally powerful.

They can have equal contributions to the narrative, but Gandalf is gonna beat Aragorn in a fight.

Gandalf is a DMPC who fucks off half the time and is used a DEM when needed.

Those 2 levels took forever, but yeah as I said, it kinda stopped working at higher levels, where the wizard caught up, hard, and made the Rogue largely redundant.

It often became a question of scaling. You had a Rogue and a Fighter for early game power, and you were there to make sure that the wizard got to level 10. Once he did, shit started getting real, and by level 15, the wizard was becoming an encounter ending monster, when properly defended by his party.

It didn't feel *that* bad when campaigns ran from 1st to 20th level. Wizards were largely useless for the first many levels, and when they finally caught up, they still relied a lot on the rest of the party to keep their paltry HP intact.

3e and the abominations it spawned, destroyed that party balance.

Of course, both myself and all other GMs I used to play with, had the "Hercules is a 20 level fighter" idea, so a Fighter at higher levels literally could walk through hell and be fine. GMs who forced martials to just be slightly better at swinging a sword, were just turbonerds who still suffer from PTSD after being bullied by jocks. Yeah we get it, you think brains should be better than brawns, but stop injecting this shit into your campaign. Most of us suffered through that shit, but we dont need to be reminded that your magical realm is 133t wizards zapping scrub fighters.

Okay, Rand al Thor and Matrim Cauthon then.
Luke Skywalker and Han Solo
Thor and Captain America

And on and on. If you're not willing to let the normies in your setting bend physics over their knee, then the wizards of your setting are going to be at an advantage in all situations. There's no way to fix that with system rules.

Elves can get to 15 in Mage and 12 in Fighter according to the AD&D DMG. That's the vast majority of the game. Unlimited in Mage like humans if they go Drow. Dargonesti Elves can also get Unlimited in Fighter AND Mage (Though on land they have the same limits as normal elves)

It's important to note that, by level 20, the warrior has an army loyal to him, and the thief has started his own guild, while the wizard is all by himself in his tower, unless he's collected an apprentice or two.

>while the wizard is all by himself in his tower, unless he's collected an apprentice or two

Well, unless he's actually done either of those things during the game itself. The others are certain but nothing stops the wizard doing his own on that front.

>Okay, Rand al Thor and Matrim Cauthon then.

I'm sorry, I don't know the source. I assume that's main character and sidekick?

>Luke Skywalker and Han Solo
Han saved his ass and he has a ship/smuggling experience/etc. There's also the whole "main character" power going on for Luke too. It works out pretty well in a bunch of SW games, where you are playing a party, and not simulating a main character.

>Thor and Captain America

They are treated as sorta equal in comics. You could easily run them in 4e as Warlord (for Cap) and some striker class with a divine bent for Thor.

Again, it works out in media where they are treated as equals (MCU, comic crossovers), despite one physically being stronger.

>Not even being a wizard-god-king of an empire spanning whole continents by lvl 20
>mfw

Addendum: I always found it hilarious that the Ogre Mage level limit for mage was lower than the limit they had for Fighter.

>We need to give up on the idea that Gandalf and Aragorn are equally powerful.

We should also give up on the idea that they should both be PCs in the same party.

Reread the original post: You can have reality warping wizards and reality obeying cucks work equally in a narrative. In a prewritten story, without "players", this is fairly easy to do. This becomes harder to do when you're playing a game where the players, by convention, fight the same fights with each other. That's where you run into Angel Summoner and BMX Boy problems, because the side that can bend physics over its knee is going to contribute more than the side that can't bend physics over its knee

Consider how bad star wars would have been if Luke, the reality warping space jesus had to fight next to Han Solo in the final fights of the OT. And then consider how much worse it would have been if han solo was expected to contribute just as much as Luke in the fight against Darth Vadar and the Emperor. There's a reason the script separates them.

>I'm sorry, I don't know the source. I assume that's main character and sidekick?

Wheel of Time. Both are main characters, one ends up being a wizard who can create mountains, and the other is pretty good with a spear. They get equal narrative contribution because the author has them face different challenges that are equally important to the plot.

Well, how about the "can't bend reality" guy gets "can bend narrative" points? Or the narrative just bends his way automatically, like, say, getting an army/castle at certain levels?

>because the side that can bend physics over its knee is going to contribute more than the side that can't bend physics over its knee

Shit like that is why the 4e Epic Destinies for Martial characters were stuff like 'Become the King Arthur figure who's leadership inspires people thousands of years after your death' or 'Personally guard a hole in reality from horrific extraplanar invaders for eternity, a living ward against all their armies' to match up with the Wizard buggering off to make his own plane of existence or becoming one with the fundamental forces of magic.

>Stop listening to Veeky Forums.
Only part of that post worth listening to tbqh

>No class's niche should override, invade, or invalidate another's niche.
But invading the niche of every other class without invalidating them is the niche of the bard.

>le magic guy is always going to be better then le pointy stick man
>le bend reality over his knee man

You people are fucking retarded. I don't know why this shit keeps getting brought up.

In a fantasy setting, where dragons and magic are real, the laws of physics are not the same. Somebody who trains their entire life could be a normal human but capable of hurling boulders or deflecting arrows with their sword, because they're just THAT good. Health points are meat points and mean that physically adept people can take ungodly amounts of damage and just walk it off.

Stop thinking every setting needs to be muh grim derp "realistic" low fantasy like game of thrones XD

Fantasy is Fantasy. Get with it already.

>implying psykers who use their powers a lot don't die horribly
Get out of here.

The bard's niche is dabbling in other's niches, not invalidating them.

Also, having his own niche as a slut.

>it's not defying physics
>when a character defies physics
You're kind of missing the point. These problems arise when people insist on their characters being grounded in our reality in some way, compared to characters who aren't grounded to our reality in that same way. Like in DnD5e, how about half of the rules for moving around and doing physical things are based on what Mearls' high school track team could do. The average martial can replicate the physical feats of a high schooler, while the wizard is just flying around summoning lightning.

What you've done is rephrase the argument to pretend that there is no problem. But the problem still exists, because people like mearls exist, and are probably the majority, given how feedback for 5e's playtest edition went..

>But the problem still exists, because people like mearls exist, and are probably the majority, given how feedback for 5e's playtest edition went..

The one that Mearls sabotaged?

No, seriously, it got brought up in another thread, anyone have source on what happened there?

Exactly. Invade, but not invalidate. After all, bards are known to like to invade things. Like body orifices.

As a GM i go for consistency.

If the wizard can bend reality around them, then "Martials" can as well, but on a more subtle and personal level.

A lot of it comes through descriptions. I know that triggers a lot of wizardfaggot, but that's a plus to my approach.

A 8th+ character that wants to bash open an ordinary wooden door with his 20 strength, wont be asked to roll. Neither will a Rogue with his tools. Yeah, a wizard could cast a spell and do it... But then but everyone is wondering why the autistic manchild is wasting resources and effort on something the Rogue or Warrior could have done with less effort.

If someone attacks the warrior and critfails, and the warrior is level 8+, the sword either breaks as character counters and smashes the enemys weapon, or automatically disarms them, either by making them drop their sword, or by blocking and holding it in their bare hand - without taking damage, because fuck you.

This obviosuly doesnt apply to the players. Their heroic willpower extends into their weapons, likely making their weapons magic innately, and unbreakable at least.

If they fall from terminal velocity, they can survive the fall.

If a wizard sends them to another dimension, they can escape with no help from a wizard, in probably around a week.

Generally I apply the 15th level threshold to martials. Casters are awesome as they are, but by 15th level, most Gods begin to recognize martials as Demigods. Ordinary people can feel a presence of something great near them, and most people won't willingly mess it them, because they innately know that these aren't normal people. They could be running around in commoner clothes without weapons, and a simple glance would instantly tell those 2nd level bandits that they are worthless worms compared to this guy.

Wizards remain relatively "mundane" in this regard - mostly to their benefit, to be fair. They can show off and gain a greater effect than martials anyway.

Baseless rumor on the internet

Personally, I think that there is no game that has a "perfect system": if you look at reality, our world, it is deeply flawed. Many times, it doesn't make sense and many times it is the opposite of "just". Thus, any games that this world makes can't be one hundred percent good and satisfying to play, just like life can't be one hundred percent sunshine and rainbows.

The best way to deal with the flaws of the game, in my opinion, is to put your heads together as a group and agree on what to change in order to make the game as fun for you as it can be. Many times it's already said in the rulebooks but you know... as the romans say: "repetitia iuvat". Always remember: the rulebooks are guidelines to enjoy a game. You can follow them and change them on a whim, it's not something that you HAVE to do.

I played freeform RPGs for about 8 years before making the plunge into Tabletops and I do have fond memories of the time I played without rules: the reason for this being that I played with people with a similar mindset as me, who didn't powerplay and didn't minmax. We were all on the same page and boat for the game and we were mature enough to know what we could do and what we should do when playing with each other.

In the end, it's best that you find a game you want to play, grab a few friends and set up the sessions with them after making sure you are all on the same page. Miscommunication is the key to most problems in TTRPGs, just like many things IRL.

>And you are still bringing up pointless drivel, which is whiteroom meta bullshit, that will never be relevant in a game.
Three sentences in and you've already lost the argument. Good show.
>I have also seen a lot of retard s think teleport is just such a good spell, which often ends up being "party gets exp, wizard doesn't, because he ran from the fight like a coward".
So you play with shitty GM's who think that killing shit is the only way to earn EXP, gotcha.
>Wizards were good, but the God wizards only existed in games where the GM specifically allowed, and HELPED, you to be a God.
By that logic, good martials only exist in games where the GM goes out of their way to LET you be good.

Martials should shrine through magic items and boons from gods

>So you play with shitty GM's who think that killing shit is the only way to earn EXP, gotcha.
No, they play with the "exp for solving problems".

Running away isnt a solution. And if you actually think you should have exp for running from a fight, that your party members then had to clean up without you, you are retarded. Even more so if you think your fellow players would be okay with that. Which automatically makes you a That Guy.

>By that logic, good martials only exist in games where the GM goes out of their way to LET you be good.
Have you read literally any other posts in this thread? Have you actually played a game of D&D before 4th edition? Are you actually this much of a newfag? God damn dude, I hope you are trolling, otherwise, sorry man, but you are clinically retarded.

>Running away isnt a solution.
Spoken like a true shitter. I bet you try to solo Red Dragons on your own and then sperg out when it one shots you.
>Have you read literally any other posts in this thread?
I hope you're not stupid enough to cite random posts on a Chinese Knitting forum as proof that martials aren't shitty.

>Playing a system with classes
Found your problem.

>You people are fucking retarded. I don't know why this shit keeps getting brought up.
Nerds want to beat up jocks.

That's way too cliche for reality user.

It's the only explanation I can think of for why being a turbonerd should give you godlike powers. It's always Wizard versus Fighter, never Cleric versus Fighter.

Wot

Clerics have always been crazy stronk, way better than any other option.

Exactly, Clerics have always been crazy stronk, but nobody ever justifies how Clerics are way better than Paladins, but they're constantly justifying why Wizards are better than Fighters, since the latter better works as nerd versus jock than theformer.

D-, didn't read the post, or didn't understand more than 5% of it.

Try again.

You have to be joking, the disparity between clerics and paladins has been a sore topic since forever. Veeky Forums used to bitch about it constantly. It's literally holy wizard vs holy fighter.

I have never seen anyone bitch about it.

We acknowledge CoDzilla is a thing plenty of times. It's why it's called "Caster" Supremacy not "Wizard' Supremacy.

Yeah, but whenever there's an argument it's Wizards versus Fighters, "muh reality warping," not Clerics versus Paladins, "muh praying hard."

The handful of homebrew classes I made were explicitly 3-5 levels (one had 5 epic levels), and one rebuild of Paladin was 10 levels. You just put into words what I've been trying to say for ages.

There is an upper limit to how fast someone can swing his sword, there is an upper limit to how much someone can disarm people. Even if there are no upper limits, there is no reason for a class' capstone to say "This class ability is now based on your character level rather than class level"

That's because they're oni, not some special ogre. They're an entirely different species with supernatural powers, but are ultimately warriors.

Casters should have a higher ceiling than martials because they have to spend a limited daily resource. If you're playing 3.PF Tome of Battle and Path of War bring martials pretty close to where they should be in terms of power.

I think we should be bringing that "daily resource" down to a max of 3 spells per level per day.

>The wizard runs out of resources
Past level 3 or so, any adventuring day long enough for the wizard to risk running out of spells is going to be murder on the fighters hit point total.

If you want them to be completely balanced why not remove the spells per day resource from casters and then balance martials and casters from there by bringing the caster ceiling down and the martial up to roughly the same point

ahemm

Hey you just posted the exact solution to this problem. Now we never have to have these threads again

Saving Veeky Forums, 1 stupid thread a time.

Oh user, so young and innocent

What? You mean this thread was just an elaborate ruse to get replies all along.. No, it couldn't be

>As a GM i go for consistency.
Thank you. One of the few good posts in this thread.

>whiteroom meta bullshit, that will never be relevant in a game.

White room theory crafting is where a fighter has the best odds of looking good though

The problem with this is it depends on the whims of the GM. Whereas the wizards get all of their game breakers baked in as basic class features

The issue is that many play for rules as written

...

>rules as written
>Still ignores the single most important rule highlighted in the rulebook
Okay. I mean, you are free to do whatever you want, so if you want to do retarded things, so you can complain about it, you are free to do so.

It's odd, but to each their own I suppose.

Not really.

Wizards "white room" bullshit relies on a multitude of information and preparation, as well as a GM that specifically avoids doing things the Wizard cannot deal with.

A fighter can do obscene amounts of damage with the 2 primary builds, which will make even Tiamat sweat in just a few turns. One relies on melee, the other does not, and the CBE is insane for a fighter, and makes him the single best nuker AND sustain damage dealer in the game, in pretty much any situation, as long as he gets a simple magic crossbow. Doesn't even have to be a + weapon, just enough to avoid resistances.

They do this, while also being the best armoured characters in the game, and with EK (and honestly, why not?) You will have a ridiculous AC and protection spells to make yourself even tankier.

No white room shenanigans needed. That's the difference between raw base power, compared to complex power, that requires a setup and at least a rough idea of what will happen in the near future.

If we are NOT playing in a whiteroom, the wizard can actually fuck off and build simulacra in peace that it can then true polymorph into whatever he wants.

He could even build a simulacra of the fighter, then true polymorph it into a dragon. So it has full 4 attacks, and all the abilities of the fighter, except it's also a dragon, with massively more powerful melee attacks.

Oh, and also, it obeys the wizards every whim.

I didn't even think of this, but if it's a baldesinger wizard and doubles himself, not only will he have 2 attacks, he can add the massive INT bonus to the dragon's AC to make it unhitable by anything.

Who is actually going to stop him? Are your campaigns such that you really don't have 13 hours downtime ever? Is your party fighter so autistic he wouldn't let the wizard double him?

And this is not even going into shit like chaining simulacras/snowcone wish machines.

In any situation that isn't "you just hatched from an adventurer egg, you are standing right in front of your enemy, GO!", the high level wizard is infinitely more useful.

You mean like swinging a sword so hard it creates a gap in a mountain?

It depends. If a class is garbage in combat, like completely useless, they better be a fucking masterwork at social or stealth or whatever.
However if a class is just garbage in everything, or just mediocre then I don't see why they would exist outside of an incredibly specialized "we are all peasants" game.

Assuming the enemy stands next to the fighter and makes no attempt to move away from him.

Unless your Fighter has the ability to kill everything they encounter in one round, they aren't doing enough damage.

>CBE
>only good assuming fighter stands next to the enemy
¿

I think you should get yourself checked, my retarded little friend.

Awh, user thinks this thread is about 5e and not 3.PF

I'm with this guy. High level fighters should be Hercules not Galahad.