Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Phasics 11-18-05, 02:17 AM	Has anyone ever made a Straight Lv20 Fighter ? is their any benefit at all to it ? as far as I can see even Fighter 19 / 1 anything else will end up being slightly better (versatility wise) than Fighter lv20. or am i simply missing something ?
Lotus Crane 11-18-05, 02:27 AM	If it were fighter 18/anything 2, then yes, you'd be correct in that it would almost certainly be better than fighter 20. However, fighter 19/anything 1 might not necessarily be better than fighter 20, because 20th level of fighter actually provides a benefit. The key to multi-classing with fighter, is to alway take an even number of levels in it, because fighters get bonus feats at every even class level, plus 1st level. The most common version is fighter 2/anything (barbarian is a popular choice) 18, followed by fighter 4 (for Weapon Specialization)/anything 16. There is also one other important thing to consider. If you don't mind the fact that fighters are usually less powerful and less useful at levels 7-20 compared to spellcasters, or at levels 1-20 compared to the barbarian or ranger, and if you're actually going to play into epic levels, like 30 or higher, then being straight fighter might be a viable choice just because they will be able to take more epic feats than anybody else. Especially if I'm interpreting the rules correctly in saying that if you're a level 20 barbarian and decide to dip into 2 levels of fighter, you can't use those fighter bonus feats to take epic feats, because only 21st level and up of the fighter class allow you to take epic feats as epic fighter bonus feats. Yeah, having 9 epic feats instead of just 4 (assuming they multiclassed and/or PrCed so much that they don't qualify for epic levels of any single class) by 30th level, not a bad deal.
MindWandererB 11-18-05, 02:31 AM	If you can come up with 18 feats that you want, 11 of which are fighter feats (which you qualify for- many of them have minimum Str, Dex, and Int requirements), then I say go for it. The funny thing is, such a character is such a strategic combatant that it tends to totally defy the brute fighter stereotype.
WolfHati 11-18-05, 02:41 AM	20 levels of fighter wouldn't be good for a brute melee combatant, but rather someone who could do decently in melee and ranged fighting, and be able to do it well while riding something, presumably something pretty awesome by 20th level. Anyone, fighters have never been brutes, that goes to barbarians. Fighters are well trained and practiced expert soldiers.
caeruleus 11-18-05, 03:05 AM	Especially if I'm interpreting the rules correctly in saying that if you're a level 20 barbarian and decide to dip into 2 levels of fighter, you can't use those fighter bonus feats to take epic feats, because only 21st level and up of the fighter class allow you to take epic feats as epic fighter bonus feats. That's right. And you make a good point. If you're gonna have a 20th level fighter, you can typically expect to be playing into epic levels (unless you've agreed to end the campaign at 20th level), so the point about epic feats is a good one.
Maraxus 11-18-05, 05:20 AM	Well, if you are - let's say an Elf, Fighter/Barbarien, Fighter/Ranger or Fighter/Rogue is only an option, if you really plan it and go even-leveled. Core, 20th level fighter is not really worth it. That's like having a wizard, who increases in power untill he can cast 4th level spells and then starts again at the botom, getting another set of 1st-4th level spells. They simply forgot the high end feats. Those that are fighter-only by the sheer number of requirements. Look at whirlwind attack. A human fighter can have this by level 4, another fighter at 6, a barbarien, even if human only at level 9, else 12. But where is the feat, that fighter can take at level 15 and non-fighters not befor 30? I think more feats and deeper feat chains are the key. Take knock-down, or improved manyshot for examples. Even better, look at the weapon-style feats from complete warrior. And it needs feats that do a little improving on top of that. Like improved rapid shot. - With some expansions, you can really build Fighter 20 that are worth it. But even better, it an get, when you make your own stuff. Supream weapon focus/specialisation, improved whirlwind, greater two-weapon defence, supream two-weapon fighting, greater rapid shot and improved power attack - insert mechanics as you (and your dm, of course) see fit.
niesl 11-18-05, 05:40 AM	They simply forgot the high end feats. Those that are fighter-only by the sheer number of requirements. Look at whirlwind attack. A human fighter can have this by level 4, another fighter at 6, a barbarien, even if human only at level 9, else 12. But where is the feat, that fighter can take at level 15 and non-fighters not befor 30? I totally agree with this, it would really make it more attractive to play a straight fighter Besides this, playing a fighter up to lvl 20, means you can get a lot of interesting feats other characters can't take because they need their feats to get ino PrC X as soon as possible. There a lot newly published books out there and a lot of them have new feats, and I'm sure there are some nice fears for everybody :) (If you play core books only, then you can always use you regular feats to improve you craft(basketweaving) and profession(farmer) skills :P)
runestar 11-18-05, 06:55 AM	Well, the epic feat progression of the fighter sure is tempting.....
Waylander 11-18-05, 07:35 AM	Honestly... Fighter 20.... 18 feats... + 1 if you are human. Can you make a cool series of feat combinations with 18 feats? If you can.. then fighter 20 is for you.. otherwise... let the prestige classes dictate for you how to use the feats by giving you abilities instead. LEts say you wanna use the two handed style for a great axe with a 20 fighter. Obviously take the basics... WF Greataxe, WS Greataxe, GWF, GWS... Improved Critical Great axe. Done with basics... now take the feats that help you do serious damage with the great axe.... Power Attack, Cleave, Leap Attack, Monkey Grip (go 1 size larger), grab some armor spikes and take Axespike feat.... And now you want to protect your butt... Improved Buckler Defense (pick up a buckler), Iron Will, Heavy Armor Optimization, Greater Heavy Armor Optimization, Parrying Shield, Quick Recovery. Heck you can even pick up Wild Talent and start picking up some the cooler protect psionic feats. This is just 1 style... you can do so many styles... the reach weapon style... the two weapons style... the ranged shooter style... the thrower style. The fighter is a superior flexible class...
T.R.I.P. 11-18-05, 07:36 AM	In 3.5 a fighter also has the option to chose greater weapon focus at 8th and greater weapon specialisation at 12th level. If could make a fighter at this level I would make a 18 fighter/2 exotic weapon master (complete warior). You can specialize i a lot of different styles and you can learn to throw your bastard sword and deal double strength damage when wielding it 2-handed. In combination with feats like whirlwind attack or great cleave this is very effective. Also the combat style feats in complete warior are very good choices for a high level fighter.
Mirikon 11-18-05, 09:15 AM	My god, all those feats! Of course it is worth it, if you're smart. Don't listen to the people who complain about the lack of high end feats. You can chain together many low level feats to great effect. Picking up improved trip, improved bull rush, etc. feats, maybe an EWP if you come across something nice, Weapon Focus/Specialization, TWF, PBS. Lots of things you can do to play a good tactical fighter. The only problem is that you have to rely on your equipment, a lot.
Thorak 11-18-05, 01:11 PM	Core, 20th level fighter is not really worth it. That's like having a wizard, who increases in power untill he can cast 4th level spells and then starts again at the botom, getting another set of 1st-4th level spells. They simply forgot the high end feats. Those that are fighter-only by the sheer number of requirements. Look at whirlwind attack. A human fighter can have this by level 4, another fighter at 6, a barbarien, even if human only at level 9, else 12. But where is the feat, that fighter can take at level 15 and non-fighters not befor 30? The trick isn't single feats. It's the synergies between feats. Take Defensive Throw and Karmic Strike, from the CW. Can't recall exactly, but I think one requires 3 feats as prereqs, and the other 2. So that's 7 feats to get those two. And for anyone else, you're now level 15. With no other feats. This isn't a good option for a Barbarian or Ranger, there are better feats out there. For a Fighter, it's not a big deal. And now, you've got a Fighter who gets an AoO every time someone hits or misses him in melee. And that's just one example. There are lots of 3-4 feat chains. Any other character might have one, since they'll have other feats they want. The fighter can get 3+ with ease. With extra feats mixed in. The trouble with Fighters is that, IMHO, they are the most complex and difficult class to play well in the book. The other classes all hand you a nice, pat set of class features, which are already set to work well together. Picking feats with a fighter is vastly more critical than picking spells for a sorceror. The sorceror gets to swap em out if he wants, later. And he gets more of them. The Fighter has to be very careful picking feats, and should have a 20+ level gameplan for what he's taking and why. You can't spare even one of those feats. The problem is, people think you can. If you just think of him as a thumper with more choices than most, of course you're going to make him sub-par. The same way a poorly designed Sorceror can suck horribly. That doesn't make the class underpowered; the strength and synergy of your choices is at least as, if not more, important than the individual powers each provides.
Maraxus 11-18-05, 03:41 PM	The trick isn't single feats. It's the synergies between feats. Take Defensive Throw and Karmic Strike, from the CW. Can't recall exactly, but I think one requires 3 feats as prereqs, and the other 2. So that's 7 feats to get those two. And for anyone else, you're now level 15. With no other feats. This isn't a good option for a Barbarian or Ranger, there are better feats out there. For a Fighter, it's not a big deal. And now, you've got a Fighter who gets an AoO every time someone hits or misses him in melee. (...). No, it's not the synergies between feats, it's the feats as individuals. There are almost no synergies between feats? How does it synergiese that you can take one AoO on every attack (...from a threatened square...) against you? - Sure it is cool, but the word "Synergy" means, that it is better that the two feats together. And in fact, in this example, it is worse than the two feats together, since you can run out of AoO more easiely. (Combat reflexes and Karmic Strike / Defencive throw is an example for synergy. A rare one.) Plus: Find one synergy among the core feats. Well maybe skill focus: Bluff and improved feint. There are other feats, that work together quite well (manyshot and shot on te run), so you can at least increase your power lineary (while other classes, like casters increase power to the square, or cubic, or in any case: faster then linear. Yes, synergies would be nice - it would be perfect, but you don't get this even with non-core materials. On another note: There is no defencive throw. :) At least not in a fantasy-setting where melee is more common than gunfights.
Thorak 11-18-05, 03:57 PM	No, it's not the synergies between feats, it's the feats as individuals. There are almost no synergies between feats? How does it synergiese that you can take one AoO on every attack (...from a threatened square...) against you? - Sure it is cool, but the word "Synergy" means, that it is better that the two feats together. And in fact, in this example, it is worse than the two feats together, since you can run out of AoO more easiely. (Combat reflexes and Karmic Strike / Defencive throw is an example for synergy. A rare one.) Plus: Find one synergy among the core feats. Well maybe skill focus: Bluff and improved feint. There are other feats, that work together quite well (manyshot and shot on te run), so you can at least increase your power lineary (while other classes, like casters increase power to the square, or cubic, or in any case: faster then linear. Yes, synergies would be nice - it would be perfect, but you don't get this even with non-core materials. Weapon Focus adds +1 to all opposed attack rolls, thus improving Improved Disarm and Improved Sunder as a result. Point Blank Shot applies to every ranged attack within 30', meaning it synergizes with Rapid Shot nicely. Synergy means making each feat better than it would be alone. And this happens all the time with feats. Some more than others. Another example; Shock Trooper, I believe, gets the Directed Bull Rush option, which moves the creature 5' to the left or right for every 5' they go back. And Combat Brute's Advancing Blows gets +1 to hit and damage in the following round, for every 5' they were moved. Shock Trooper just doubled that ability's effectiveness. Sure, most people ignore this stuff. Because most characters don't get the feats to really make much out of it. Fighters, however, do. On another note: There is no defencive throw. :) At least not in a fantasy-setting where melee is more common than gunfights. Hey, I didn't name the feat.
Tony Vargas 11-18-05, 04:24 PM	Has anyone ever made a Straight Lv20 Fighter ? is their any benefit at all to it ? It depends on what you're going for. If you character concept calls for more 7 feats, some of which are fighter-bonus, you're going to need some fighter levels to pull it off. If it calls for a lot more than seven - like 18 feats, at least 11 of which are fighter bonus, then, yeah, fighter 20 is for you. I honestly doubt a lot of concepts call for that many feats, and also don't call for any abilities that could be had by multiclassing out of fighter (like skills such as bluff or tumble, or abilities like Uncanny Dodge). Of course, a flip side of that is that it's pretty easy to multiclass as a fighter without missing out. Casters for instance, are really only fully contributing as casters if they're full-caster-level, and able to cast the top spells for that level. If your caster level lags the CRs you're up against you won't be able to punch through SR, if you don't have the top spell levels (basically spell level = 1/2 CR), you might not be able to cope with the challenge effectively at all. Conversely, as long as a warrior type like a fighter keeps his full BAB, and is properly equipped, he's fine. It doesn't matter which full BAB class or combination of classes he's chosen, he can still do his basic job. Fighters have multiclassing even easier, since they get to choose their premier class ability (thier feats), both what those feats are, and what order they get them in. You don't /need/ to wait for fighter 20 for anything, so you can multiclass without sacrificing your fighter-20 ability (just choose it at an earlier level).
philippe willaume 11-18-05, 04:53 PM	The problem with the fighter is that it is too versatile and not versatile enough. With other classes, as Thorack says it is all done for you so you know what you are going to get but and there is a big but with fighter. The fist one and that it is very abities demanding So you probably need to select the feat you will be able to take according if their require strength or dex (or to a lesser degree Int or wisdom.) As a guy that is going to mix it you need const. as well. So that is basically a 3 high ability requirement class unless you give up completely ranged or melee but then you are not that flexible any more and you still pay the price of flexibility. And that is precisely the paradox with the fighter; people use the versatility to create a no versatile character. Once you have decided what fighter to play you are paying the price to have been able to design the fighter you have chosen. And I think this is what people are complaining about the fighter. If you can play out with class construction system designed by Magecraft. A fixed fighter with a set and non-changeable feats The fighter would be 3 best save, high attack, 20 feats (plus the 7 you get normally) And that what the other classes are a set of fixed feat (or feat like) And I think this is what people are complaining about the fighter the y fell king of short changed. The other “annoying” bit is that he fighter has noting else that weapon specialization to fuel power attack and expertise. So you see a high strength fighter, with greater spec in great axe and powered attack, about as damaging as a raging barbarian +6 in strength with power attack (and he is not going to stop because he is tired anytime soon.) the barbarian will be better eventually with +8 in strength rage. If that have the same strength before the rage The barb gets +3/+3 and the fighter+2/+4 And it is fine, the barbarian are there to dish out damage on biblical proportion. In fact I think it is quite good tat the fighter can follow up so closely but the fighter (i.e. on the strength path) and if someone nicks his specialized weapon or worse the weapon to kill the baddy is not your spec weapon, the fighter is pretty much buggered and the barbarian can do it with any weapon he has. So that is what can be seen as limiting as well To be honest, the fighter has it is just need a bit of tweaking like weapon spec applying to a group of weapons Or having it as a class feature and working like the favored enemy (may be two weapons each time) And that’s it. the one woks the vbest is the weapon spec like range fav enemy and being a class feature it does not break anything, and it makes happier fighter. (and you need less prestige class)
Thubby 11-18-05, 04:55 PM	you can only go pure brute with fighter if you use supliments. otherwise your stuck taking toughness 138702891375689123 times. i like it, because i play strategic fighters, with a good mix of brute/dex/ranged, you can be very destructive. a spartan type, sword/shield works surprisingly well.
Ront Iron-Roar 11-18-05, 05:19 PM	Originally, I was going to have Ront go to 20th till I bought the Unearthed Arcana, as well as storyline factors went into play for character build. But, anywho usually in my group we used to see the fighter as the newbie class and such. But, we also soon figured out how complex the fighter truly was. To me the fighter is a "seed" class. What you start out with in the beginning can either make or break you from 1-10. Picking Random feats isn't necessarily a good idea. Synergies bolster a fighter and the right feats take him a greater distance. So I support the synergy thing. There are some pretty good racially aligned feats as well out there that can stack. I mean Dodge, Titan-Fighting, Underfoot Combat, and etc. Can make a pretty good character that can pretty much defend himself well against most things larger then him. That is if you don't mind being a Gnome at least. Exotic Weapons also seem to be a deciding factor in feat builds. Especially, in the case of a Bastard Sword and Spiked Shield combo.
Sunrider 11-18-05, 07:31 PM	Try using a two-handed weapon with Karmic Strike, Power Attack, Shock Trooper, Leap Attack, Combat Brute, Elusive Target, Sidestep, Hold the Line, Improved Trip, Combat Reflexes, Stand Still and Jotunbrud in combination with each other - that's eleven feats already, not counting prereqs (Stand Still, Jotunbrud and Hold the Line aren't essential, but very nice to have). Max ranks in Jump for Leap Attack - items which improve Jump are also good. You need good scores in Str, Dex, Con and Int but, if you can pull it off, it's very powerful. Round 1: Charge an enemy (using Leap Attack, of course - whether you interpret it as x3, x4, x6 or x8 damage, it's good anyway) and Power Attack for your full BAB. Transfer the entire attack penalty to AC (Shock Trooper). If the enemy is still alive after this, assign it as the target of your Dodge ability in order to use the Negate Power Attack ability of Elusive Target to minimise the damage you will take from the inevitable full attack to follow. If the enemy is dead, assign the most dangerous melee opponent as your Dodge target. If the enemy survived, you will probably be full-attacked. This is a good thing - your enemy won't benefit at all from Power Attack (due to Elusive Target), and every time you are hit, you'll be hitting back at full power attack with no loss of attack bonus (due to your use of Shock Trooper and Karmic Strike). Anyone else who closes in and attacks will suffer similarly - if they charge you, you even get to make two AoOs against them (Hold the Line for charging, Karmic Strike for hitting). Round 2: Charge a different enemy. If your first target died during your first charge or from Karmic Strike, you don't have much choice anyway. If your first target didn't die, you're usually still better off charging someone else to take full advantage of all your feats - take the AoO for leaving a threatened square (hitting back using Karmic Strike), then charge another target as per the first round. Difference being, you can now use the Momentum Swing ability from Combat Brute to boost your damage even higher... If you are Large sized and can get Rage while still having enough feats (gestalt?), throw in Knockback and Rampaging Bull Rush for even more fun - charge an enemy, bullrush and trip for free, then charge the same enemy again the following round with the bonus from Combat Brute. Weapon of choice: Two real choices here - bastard sword or spiked chain. Bastard sword deals more damage per hit, but gives you less AoOs and leaves you more vulnerable to opponents with reach. Also, it requires a 2-level dip into Exotic Weapon Master (for Uncanny Blow and Trip Attack). Spiked Chain lets you skimp on Str (only 13 needed - lets you emphasise Dex to get you more AoOs), but you need at least 13 Wis (for Unbalancing Blow) as well as two extra feats (Weapon Finesse, Unbalancing Blow. It also gains you more AoOs (hence, more Karmic Strike opportunities) and makes you less vulnerable to opponents with reach. On the downside, however, it both looks and sounds ridiculous (which is why I always envision mine as an extra-long flail... kind of like a 'bastard flail' which gains more reach rather than more damage). Bastard Sword (32 point buy): Str - 16 (10 pts - maximise at every opportunity) Dex - 16 (10 pts - try to get Gloves of Dexterity, for up to three extra AoOs) Con - 14 (6 pts) Int - 14 (6 pts) Wis - 8 (0 pts) Cha - 8 (0 pts) Use your AoOs from Karmic Strike to hit back as hard as you can (since you will have full power-attacked and probably have the bonus from Momentum Swing, this will be pretty hard...). On your second-last AoO (better to keep one in reserve, just in case), trip your opponent (getting the free hit anyway from Improved Trip), then use the free 5-foot step from Sidestep to get out of the way - no point getting hit if you have no AoOs left. Spiked Chain (32 point buy): Str - 13 (5 pts) Dex - 16 (10 pts - maximise at every opportunity) Con - 14 (6 pts) Int - 14 (6 pts) Wis - 13 (5 pts) Cha - 8 (0 pts) You won't be doing as much damage per hit as with the bastard sword (although, percentage-wise, the difference won't be that great, since most of the damage is from Power Attack rather than Strength) but have many more AoOs. Also, you have the option of using Stand Still to prevent enemies from getting closer than 10' (for instance, if they have a nasty level-draining ability) and can score three attacks against a charging enemy (once from Hold the Line, once for leaving a threatened square and once from Karmic Strike). Be sure to take Unbalancing Blow (Dragon #295) in order to use Dex instead of Str for tripping.
MistWolf 11-18-05, 09:20 PM	There are other feats, that work together quite well (manyshot and shot on the run) Unfortunately, you cannot combine Shot on the Run with Many Shot. Shot on the Run only allows you to take an attack action. Many Shots is defined as a Standard Action although it is counted as a single attack. However, you can move up to your speed either before making a Many Shot Attack, or after
Thorak 11-18-05, 09:50 PM	Unfortunately, you cannot combine Shot on the Run with Many Shot. Shot on the Run only allows you to take an attack action. Many Shots is defined as a Standard Action although it is counted as a single attack. However, you can move up to your speed either before making a Many Shot Attack, or after Not directly, but they still work well together. Having both makes for a decently strong mobile ranged Fighter. One's good for staying somewhat mobile and getting, essentially, a full attack, the other for popping out from cover for one good shot, then ducking back so you're protected again. What doesn't synergize directly often does so indirectly, by ensuring you've always got a good option at hand, unlike some classes which can get very one-sided and thus open to being screwed. A Barbarian typically isn't any good if the enemy spots you 1000 feet away. They can fire their bows at you, and you've got a good 6 or so rounds at a dead run before you can even hope to be useful. A Fighter just unstraps his bow and returns fire. Since he's got so many feats, he probably took a few ranged ones. Or he takes out the tower shield, and advances slowly under complete cover. Or, or, or. Fighters are about direct feat synergy, and tactical options. Sure, a barbarian can do a bit more damage in melee. So what? Damage isn't the only factor to the game.
Sunrider 11-18-05, 10:02 PM	A Barbarian typically isn't any good if the enemy spots you 1000 feet away. They can fire their bows at you, and you've got a good 6 or so rounds at a dead run before you can even hope to be useful. A Fighter just unstraps his bow and returns fire. Since he's got so many feats, he probably took a few ranged ones. Or he takes out the tower shield, and advances slowly under complete cover. Or, or, or. A barbarian can do exactly the same thing - both classes have full BAB and, as far as archery is concerned, the barbarian's damage reduction and greater hp easily make up for the few feats a fighter not dedicated to archery will spend on ranged combat. Also, the barbarian moves faster and can cover the 1000' in less time and will often have a higher Dex for archery. As for the tower shield option, a barbarian can do the same thing - even without tower shield proficiency, anyone can use it to gain full cover. And, again, it takes less time for the barbarian to cover the distance. After all, it's not as if the barbarian will be attacking or using skills while advancing...
scienceman47 11-19-05, 04:54 AM	In the chapter on making new classes its states that when everything is weighed the fighter is a better combatant than the barbarian. This is probably true. I don't see anything wrong with the RAW fighter. Fighters are great for humanoids, sunder their stuff, knock them on the ground, disarm their weapons,grapple the weaklings, then trip . Fighters need to be strategic, barbarians are the rush and crushers. Fighters can also get away with heavy armor, channeling needed attribute points into other things. And the reason feat chains arent larger is so that other classes can get them.
Quirriff 11-19-05, 05:56 AM	The only thing I find sucky about Fighers is their skills. A Fighter can wear any armor, any shield or any Non-Exotic weapon without spending a feat. I find the Feats are like Bonus Talants, all I care about when i'm a fighter is fighting, and thus spend ability scores on abilities that focus on fighting, a fighter can be a good warrior regardless. It's a customisable class, but even a fighter who doesn't spend any feats on archery and has decent dex, or is a good level, can still fire a bow better than most other characters.
q'afuu 11-19-05, 06:37 AM	as far as I can see even Fighter 19 / 1 anything else will end up being slightly better (versatility wise) than Fighter lv20. That applies to most classes really. Barbarians get Mighty Rage at level 20, that's a big plus. Other than that, there's maybe Perfect Self for the monk and Wildshape (Huge Elemental) for the druid, but neither of those strikes me as really great. Most of the benefits of Perfect Self don't mean much for a monk, who is hard to affect with spells anyway (and being hit by something non-magical is the exception at that level, not the norm), and Huge Elementals aren't really better than a number of other Wildshape options the druid has at levels 18-20. Rogues don't get anything, the full casters just get extra spells slots (and I'm not knocking extra spells lots, especially high-level ones, but that's not something to get excited about at that point)... Obviously I'm glossing over some (relatively minor) other benefits here (caster levels, the monk's unarmed damage, animal companion/familiar/paladin mount benefits, etc.) but I really don't see many 20th level benefits that are really worth it aside from Mighty Rage. Just about any non-divine caster will get more out of a cleric level for instance, just to be able to use items to cast divine spells with, than out of the 20th level of his regular class. Divine casters would benefit a lot from a single wizard or sorcerer level.
q'afuu 11-19-05, 06:39 AM	As for the tower shield option, a barbarian can do the same thing - even without tower shield proficiency, anyone can use it to gain full cover. And, again, it takes less time for the barbarian to cover the distance. After all, it's not as if the barbarian will be attacking or using skills while advancing... No, but he'll need a round to get rid of the shield and one to get it equiped in the first place, unless he wants to risk running around with it all the time. I wouldn't recommend this.
Derren S. 11-19-05, 06:54 AM	20 lvl fighter are only viable when the DM allows all or the majority of the supplement books. The you can fully exploit the many broken feats that have accumulated over the time and their synergies. But when your DM is carefull about the books he allows then no.
Sunrider 11-19-05, 06:58 AM	No, but he'll need a round to get rid of the shield and one to get it equiped in the first place, unless he wants to risk running around with it all the time. I wouldn't recommend this. Applies equally to the fighter. Even with tower shield proficiency, the -10 armour check penalty isn't something you want to be running around with all the time. The 45lb weight of the shield can also be a problem if you're trying to stay lightly encumbered.
Sunrider 11-19-05, 07:04 AM	20 lvl fighter are only viable when the DM allows all or the majority of the supplement books. The you can fully exploit the many broken feats that have accumulated over the time and their synergies. But when your DM is carefull about the books he allows then no. What makes these feats 'broken'? Even with all the splatbooks, the fighter (and other melee classes) only begins to approach the power of a core-only full spellcaster, if even that. All they do is balance the scales a little against magic and Wildshape, not surpass it.
nastynate 11-19-05, 07:17 AM	The cool thing about fighters is that they are very flexible when it comes to what kind of character you are trying to build. A fighter with a high dexterity and low strength might go for weapon finesse, and the two weapon fighting chain, and still have the feats to be pretty dangerous with a heavy repeating crossbow. Alternatively you could have a fighter, who is really strong with a low dexterity who goes with monkey grip, and a large two handed weapon with power attack, cleave, great cleave etc, who can also utilize feats to pick up a mighty composite long bow, and be good with that too. All barbarians are pretty much statistically the same; they may vary in background, alignment, and personality, but they all do the same dang thing. I do agree though that it would be nice if there were some chains of feats that lead up to more potent abilities. If there were a chain that took 8-12 feats, that let your fighter do something that no other class could, people would certainly be more inclined to invest the time and levels into fighters. As it stands, many people will continue to just dip into fighter for a few levels to get the proficiencies, and a few bonus feats, or to open up access to the prestige class they are really interested in. It's kind of funny how some classes seem to discourage you from multiclassing, like soulknives, and others encourage you to multiclass like fighters. I personally believe that every class should have their best abilities back loaded to force players to choose between an interesting prestige class or the best abilites of their core class. Since fighters have no abilities, they need powerful feats, with lots of prerequisites, or high level requirements. As it stands the only feat with a high level requirement (epic excluded) is greater weapon specialization, and who's going to stick with the fighter class for an extra ten more levels when they can prestige into a frenzied berserker long before that point?
Thorak 11-19-05, 07:52 AM	A barbarian can do exactly the same thing - both classes have full BAB and, as far as archery is concerned, the barbarian's damage reduction and greater hp easily make up for the few feats a fighter not dedicated to archery will spend on ranged combat. Also, the barbarian moves faster and can cover the 1000' in less time and will often have a higher Dex for archery. The Barbarian's DR and HP don't directly boost his combat ability. And the Fighter's AC is going to be better, almost certainly. Especially when the Barbarian uses his Rage, which is his only real offensive advantage. As for the tower shield option, a barbarian can do the same thing - even without tower shield proficiency, anyone can use it to gain full cover. And, again, it takes less time for the barbarian to cover the distance. After all, it's not as if the barbarian will be attacking or using skills while advancing... And the Barbarian has now spent yet another of his feats for Tower Shield proficiency. And while the Barbarian gets there first, he gets there alone, unless there's another Barbarian in the group, most likely. I see a lot of barbarians get their tails handed to them for this exact reason. Getting there faster isn't always better. 20 lvl fighter are only viable when the DM allows all or the majority of the supplement books. The you can fully exploit the many broken feats that have accumulated over the time and their synergies. But when your DM is carefull about the books he allows then no. I fail to see how any feat in the CW or CA is "broken". And those two books are really all you need to make a very viable Fighter.
Sunrider 11-19-05, 08:08 AM	Did you even bother reading my post? In an archery battle at 1000', the barbarian is certainly not going to rage, so no further AC penalty there. And, since (most) arrows aren't particularly damaging individually, the DR 5/- and extra hp help a lot. Also, the fighter won't necessarily have an AC advantage - plenty of fighters go for the low AC, Karmic Strike or Reach builds. As for tower shield proficiency - who said anything about the barbarian spending a feat on that? You don't need proficiency to use a shield for full cover to advance 1000' to the archer, and since you won't be making any attacks or skill checks while doing so, nonproficiency penalties don't matter. Certainly not worth spending a feat on something you don't do very often - it's a last-ditch solution which just happens to work. Even better would be to use a Ring of Invisibility or get the wizard to cast Invisibility on you, then cross the open ground to the archer.
Yan-C-Bin 11-19-05, 08:52 AM	Fighter is a good class to take 20 levels as much as it is to multiclass. I made a BBEG who took an 18 level build with 12 fighter levels, and he could tackle a 23 CR dragon with no sweat. Besides, the epic bonus feats can be taken with sub-20th level bonus feats. But if youīre going for the barbarian-archer example, the barbarian is still worse. If he uses a tower shield to take cover, then he can be shot with Precise Shot, which negates anything under full cover. Or was it concealment? Also, his very shield can be shot to breakage, all it takes is a special arrow property to deal crushing damage. If the guy moves at 40 feet per round, is hasted, and has the run and dash feat, then he moves at a top 45 rate, for a total 225 feet per round. Heīll be there in 5 rounds, which is enough as to take 5 attempts at poisoning him (please, thatīs the best part of archery!) with black lotus extract, taking 5-2 rounds of rage from him. If he is invisible, a running, bloodthirsty, ultra-fast barbarian is usually loud enough as to hear. And reckless enough to trip over another invisible characterīs attack. Black lotus extract ainīt cheap, but you can cook it yourself for 1/3 the cost. Black lotus extract can also be used at the fighter, but heīll return you fire with even deadlier stuff; you canīt compare 3d6 CON to hold person spell storing. And he has a cleric with neutralize poison ready behind. SOLO-ing, heīs not as strong. But he can have a FAR higher AC than any barbarian, even as a heavy build. Thereīs another thing with fighters: they are about as versatile as ilithid savants. There are ULTRA-mighty melee combatant fighters, which can kill you by simply moving next to you and fully attacking for a round, and there are Uber-fast fighters who canīt be hit by anything. Etc. Nevermind, fighter 20 isnīt bad. But itīs nothing special: the progression continues, and you can take epic feats simply by attaining 21st level and meetin the prereqs. Even with nonepic bonus feats. So donīt feel bad for multiclassing; itīs no big loss. Whenever you want you can return to the way of the pure weapons. Using correctly a fighter, you can get a character like K. Dragonsbane, whom I created, who can tackle any dragon whose pride is enough as to stay for a couple rounds still. His damage output is awesome against anything, specially dragons and elves; I simulated a combat between him and a gold dragon great wyrm. He lost, but by really little. I degraded one age cathegory from the dragon, and he lost, but by less. A third degradation was enough for him to win, and it still was 4 CRs above him. Going pure fighter wouldīve lessened his raw damage output, but it might have allowed him to win against the wyrm gold dragon. Should retry the combat; now that I think about it, I misused the dragonīs Int. Uh, sorry, got carried away.
thinkhard 11-19-05, 09:13 AM	fighter 18 with one level of whatever to get rid of that empty level plus goliath is a really nice high-end fighter. You can get some nasty feats like combat brute or improved charge, things that just make you a nasty hulk. Power attack is your best friend, slap on things like dodge through whirlwind, exotic weapon proficiency to get a big weapon that's even bigger with powerful build, and then get monky grip if you feel like a butthole (and if you allow powerful build and monkey grip to stack), get the focus feats and specialization feats in 1 or 2 weapons.... that's an extremely powerful meleeist. And a high level fighter too. The only problem with being a fighter is that so many feats have high stat requirements that you become weaker with your stat spread when you try to take certain chains, like two weapon fighting. You're a fighter with low strength and high dex, how can you expect to do damage? Spell-less rangers are the only people who can do two weapon fighting right, though they lack a little bit in hitpoints but make up for it in skills and saves. Ranged fighters are better at ranged damage than rangers, but cannot compete in skills.
q'afuu 11-19-05, 09:16 AM	Applies equally to the fighter. Even with tower shield proficiency, the -10 armour check penalty isn't something you want to be running around with all the time. The 45lb weight of the shield can also be a problem if you're trying to stay lightly encumbered. Except that most of the time, spending a round taking a shield off is not that big a deal when you do so because you want to make a skill check. It is a very big deal when that round is a combat round and your opponents are all doing something worthwhile to make your life miserable (and shorter). The weight of the shield is a problem for everyone: if you stow it away on a pack animal when not using it, your encumbrance won't suffer but you'll require yet another round digging it out... You don't need proficiency to use a shield for full cover to advance 1000' to the archer, and since you won't be making any attacks or skill checks while doing so, nonproficiency penalties don't matter. Certainly not worth spending a feat on something you don't do very often - it's a last-ditch solution which just happens to work.Seriously, it doesn't. It might for a cleric who doesn't do melee, but that's about it. If your character is a melee regular, there's no point in bothering with a tower shield unless he's proficient.
Sunrider 11-19-05, 09:19 AM	But if youīre going for the barbarian-archer example, the barbarian is still worse. If he uses a tower shield to take cover, then he can be shot with Precise Shot, which negates anything under full cover. Or was it concealment? The barbarian is NOT an archer - it's just an example of what a barbarian could do if attacked by an archer from 1000'. Improved Precise Shot negates cover and concealment (but not full cover or concealment). A tower shield provides full cover - IPS doesn't help you there. Also, his very shield can be shot to breakage, all it takes is a special arrow property to deal crushing damage. A special property which doesn't exist... In any case, attacking a shield with a ranged weapon requires Ranged Sunder - this only works within 30'. Heīll be there in 5 rounds, which is enough as to take 5 attempts at poisoning him (please, thatīs the best part of archery!) with black lotus extract, taking 5-2 rounds of rage from him. The tower shield provides full cover. You can't attack the barbarian, and shields are somewhat resistant to poisons. Also, Fortitude is the barbarian's best save - good luck with the poison. All 22,500gp worth of it. If he is invisible, a running, bloodthirsty, ultra-fast barbarian is usually loud enough as to hear. Listen has a -1 penalty per 10' distance. From 1000' away, that's -100. Also, listen won't tell you any more than you already know unless you can beat the DC by enough to pinpoint the barbarian; presumably you already know he's there, so all another listen check tells you is that he's still there. Black lotus extract can also be used at the fighter, but heīll return you fire with even deadlier stuff; you canīt compare 3d6 CON to hold person spell storing. And why can't the barbarian do the same thing? Same BAB and, if the fighter is a 'typical' melee fighter, the barb will have a higher Dex. We're comparing melee barb to melee fighter against a ranged threat, not melee barb to archer fighter against a ranged threat. Generally as a barb I would shoot back - I simply mentioned closing the distance as an option (after someone else mentioned the fighter advancing behind the tower shield). And he has a cleric with neutralize poison ready behind. If the barb were shooting back, he'd have the same cleric standing there. SOLO-ing, heīs not as strong. But he can have a FAR higher AC than any barbarian, even as a heavy build. How? The fighter can use heavy armour, but the barb will probably make this up with a higher Dex. Magic items-wise, they can both use the same thing. The fighter has no special AC-enhancing class ability, and there are few feats worth taking that increase overall AC (as opposed to situational AC, e.g. Mobility).
Yan-C-Bin 11-19-05, 09:45 AM	The barbarian is NOT an archer - it's just an example of what a barbarian could do if attacked by an archer from 1000'. I mis-expressed myself. I said barbarian-archer? I meant Barbarian VS. Archer Improved Precise Shot negates cover and concealment (but not full cover or concealment). A tower shield provides full cover - IPS doesn't help you there. So am I covered by your shell from there. I can just ignore you until you come, and poison you then. A special property which doesn't exist... Heard of that little voice in the back of your head that transmits strange concepts that you can grasp but not track? Itīs called "imagination", or "creativity". Heard of what must you do to play the game, create the character, campaign, etc? Itīs called "imagination". If thereīs none, CREATE IT! Iīm not some kind of moron who couldnīt remember the property name, Iīm telling you to create it. In any case, attacking a shield with a ranged weapon requires Ranged Sunder - this only works within 30'. Okay. Then Iīll trap your shield with a tanglefoot bag, and have you trip over that. The tower shield provides full cover. You can't attack the barbarian, and shields are somewhat resistant to poisons. īKay. No one can argue with that... except perhaps an arcane archer. But weīll keep him out of the matter. Also, Fortitude is the barbarian's best save - good luck with the poison. All 22,500gp worth of it. Divide by 1/3 the cost. I assumed the barbarian would suceed in its save... still, 2 rounds of rage are lost with 3d6/2 of CON. Avg 10/2 CON, loss of 2 or 3 bonus. Listen has a -1 penalty per 10' distance. From 1000' away, that's -100. Also, listen won't tell you any more than you already know unless you can beat the DC by enough to pinpoint the barbarian; presumably you already know he's there, so all another listen check tells you is that he's still there. Thatīs all I need. If I know youīre there, Iīll get my co-archer friends and have them all shot your low AC to death. You say a higher Dex, but how much higher? To compare to a full-plated guy in your mithral breastplate, you need a 20 dex. And why can't the barbarian do the same thing? Same BAB and, if the fighter is a 'typical' melee fighter, the barb will have a higher Dex. We're comparing melee barb to melee fighter against a ranged threat, not melee barb to archer fighter against a ranged threat. A fighter can max his AC with a dex of 12. He puts on a dex +6 and maxes his mithral full plateīs AC, to 17. Generally as a barb I would shoot back - I simply mentioned closing the distance as an option (after someone else mentioned the fighter advancing behind the tower shield). Okay. As you word it, then the barbarian and the fighter are the same powerlevel. HEY, didnīt you say the vorbarion wasenot a narche r? īCuz the ftr can be. If the barb were shooting back, he'd have the same cleric standing there. Yep. But heīd be hit more times, and if the cleric is casting a spell, I can also aim at the healer. How? The fighter can use heavy armour, but the barb will probably make this up with a higher Dex. Magic items-wise, they can both use the same thing. The fighter has no special AC-enhancing class ability, and there are few feats worth taking that increase overall AC (as opposed to situational AC, e.g. Mobility). Adamantine full plate +5, hello. I can use this and keep all of myself, can you? While the barbarian wonīt be happy with it. A final advantage: Elso, I know ow ta riid an urite!1 U dontŋŋŋ
Thubby 11-19-05, 10:00 AM	another fun option, karmic strike, defensive strike, combat ref, round 1: run up, attack with carmic strike round 2: 1 attack with karmic strike, use full defense on 2nd action(hit or miss, you get an AoO, :D :D :D, also the karmic strike penalty and full defense cancel out)
malisteen 11-19-05, 10:06 AM	while the barbarian vs. fighter debate is interesting, sure, it doesn't really relate to the whole question at hand. I have seen fighters do well, although the ease with which other classes can be slotted into a fighter build make it hard to pass that option up. One to Two levels of Rogue, Barbarian, Ranger can be dropped in with ease, as can a few levels of any given PrC or Racial Paragon class. My favorite 'fighter' build includes one to three levels each of Rogue (for sneak attack & evasion), Human Paragon (for stat boost and UMD as a class skill for all classes), and Exotic Weapon Master (for neat tricks with spiked chain or bastard sword). You can go staight fighter, though, especially if you've got a lot of extra feats available to you thanks to extra material or DM's invention. I personally like to extend the focus/specialization tree all the way up to level 20 for +3/+6 total and let fighter characters work with me to develop their own tactical and combat style feats and feat chains.
Mandarbgrim 11-19-05, 10:07 AM	Joining the "Gripe about Fighters" posts... Fighter is a class that is supposed to be a generalist, yet if you don't focus all your feats for a specific build or type of warrrior then he starts becoming the weakest class in the game. I seem to see posts claiming the fighter as a generalist all the time, but I don't see how he qualifies. Most builds rely on a specific type of weapon, most require a specific type of warrior, and all seem to require specific equipment to be functional. He also seems to be shortchanged in the non-combat areas. Would it hurt to make the Fighter able to do stuff compentantly outside of adventuring and fighting? If you want to make a specific type of warrior build, and can generate a lot of feats toward that concept then Fighter 20 wouldn't be that bad at all.
Sunrider 11-19-05, 10:07 AM	Okay. Then Iīll trap your shield with a tanglefoot bag, and have you trip over that. The barbarian's no worse off than the fighter in that regard. Better, actually, since the barbarian can cover the distance in half the time compared to a full-plate-wearing fighter. Divide by 1/3 the cost. I assumed the barbarian would suceed in its save... still, 2 rounds of rage are lost with 3d6/2 of CON. Avg 10/2 CON, loss of 2 or 3 bonus. Poison is save negates, not save for half. Thatīs all I need. If I know youīre there, Iīll get my co-archer friends and have them all shot your low AC to death. No. You know I'm somewhere there, but can't pinpoint me. Even if you can deduce my location as being somewhere in, say, a 50' by 50' area (after all, a barbarian can move 160' in a run, or 80' in a double move), you still have 100 squares to choose from, and a 50% miss chance even if you happen to pick the right square. Then there's still the small matter of the tower shield, if I happen to be using it. You say a higher Dex, but how much higher? To compare to a full-plated guy in your mithral breastplate, you need a 20 dex. 2-3 points difference at the most. Less if the barb happens to have a Dex-bosting item. Against typical archers, DR 5 more than makes up for it. A fighter can max his AC with a dex of 12. He puts on a dex +6 and maxes his mithral full plateīs AC, to 17. I assume you're talking about Full Plate +5? Even so, you can only get a total AC bonus (armour and dex) of 16 - 8 (full plate) + 5 (enhancement) + 3 (max dex for mithral full plate). The barbarian with 14 Dex and a +5 mithral breastplate has 12 AC. Put on the +6 Dex item and the barb has a total of 15AC from Dex and armour - only one less than the fighter. Okay. As you word it, then the barbarian and the fighter are the same powerlevel. HEY, didnīt you say the vorbarion wasenot a narche r? īCuz the ftr can be. We're talking about melee builds here - obviously an archer-fighter will far outperform a melee barbarian against an enemy archer at 1000'. The fighter has a few ranged combat feats, the barbarian has DR 5, fast movement and all the other barbarian goodies. Yep. But heīd be hit more times, and if the cleric is casting a spell, I can also aim at the healer. He'd be hit more times (not a lot more - the AC difference is small, since both are using bows now) but the DR 5/- more than makes up for it. Assuming each incoming arrow does an average 20 damage, that's a 25% reduction in damage taken Adamantine full plate +5, hello. I can use this and keep all of myself, can you? While the barbarian wonīt be happy with it. Good luck to you then - enjoy your lower Dex-to-AC (which is now lower than that of the barbarian using mithral breastplate) as well as your run speed of 60'. My barbarian can move further than that in a double move.
Ander Spectacular 11-19-05, 12:46 PM	Fighter 20 can be viable, but it wouldn't be super awesome. The beauty of fighter is that if you dip into a couple of classes that offer goodies you vastly improve yourself. For example lets look at a fighter20 vs. Monk2/Paladin2/Fighter16. The second is obviously more well rounded. Better skills, 3 bonus feats, etc.. I would say that the best kind of mostly fighter build would involve between 14 and 16 levels of fighter. Also, just as an FYI don't waste feats on crap like weapon focus, weapon specialization, etc. They aren't worth it unless you need them as prereqs. You are better off picking up the elusive target, shock trooper, and 3 mountains style feats. Fighters are extremely difficult to play well, but super easy to play poorly. As for the barbarian/fighter talks...well fighter is better(not does more damage, or has better special abilities, better overall) but once again, it is tough to play a fighter and that is the problem. One of my more favorite builds is Ninja4/Monk2/Fighter14. You get loads of feats, special abilities that open even more feats, and then some plain old cool stuff. Another nice bonus is the better skillset. Without cross classing ranks at all, you can have 9 ranks in hide and move silently, assuming a dex of at least +2 and a +5 item, you are now a fighter who can be stealthy on top of everything else. So basically, you can do Fighter 20, but why bother? I wouldn't play any base class for a full 20 levels(except druid and then only barely.) -AS-
Lana "Silvertongue" 11-19-05, 01:02 PM	Actually, the scariest character I know has 20 levels of fighter then went into his prestige classes. Being 31's level now, he is back into his fighter class and being a dex based fighter, throwing daggers... we love him.
Derren S. 11-19-05, 02:53 PM	I fail to see how any feat in the CW or CA is "broken". And those two books are really all you need to make a very viable Fighter. So Mage Slayer (and followup feats) are not broken to you? And maybe the single feat is not broken, but the combination is and a good DM also looks after that, something WotC does not.
malisteen 11-19-05, 03:32 PM	So Mage Slayer (and followup feats) are not broken to you? Um.... No? Not really.
Thorak 11-19-05, 05:24 PM	So Mage Slayer (and followup feats) are not broken to you? And maybe the single feat is not broken, but the combination is and a good DM also looks after that, something WotC does not. I believe I was referring to the Complete Warrior and the Complete Adventurer, specifically, and there is no "Mage Slayer" feat in either. Besides, from what I recall of the feat, it isn't broken. Some other points; Adamantine armor means my Fighter now has DR 3/-. Suddenly, the Barbarian's DR isn't so big a deal. And, while you're talking about your higher dex, what attribute did you sacrifice to get it? If we use point-buy, there has to be something. Strength, so my Fighter's better in melee? Con, so your average +1 hp/level isn't a factor? Int, so you can't take Combat Expertise and the very handy feats, like Improved Trip, that bank off it? You're making a tradeoff, and the Fighter is going to get something to make up for it that you're not considering. As far as armor goes, nothing beats Full Plate, for AC. Padded ties, everything else is inferior. And for Padded to tie, you need a 26 Dex. The Barbarian in anything else will have an inferior AC, even before Rage drops that further. Sure, there are penalties to full plate, but that doesn't make it a bad choice. And as for mobility in plate, there's a fairly simple solution. A mount. Want one that'll survive a fireball? The Fighter takes Leadership as one of his many feats, and gets an Awakened Warhorse (light, heavy, pick what you like). We can ignore the other minions, just consider the cohort. And yes, these rules are right in the DMG, so I'm not getting creative or out on a limb. Tack on Horseshoes of Speed, and my Awakened Heavy Warhorse has a movement of 80. Twice as fast as your barbarian. For the cost of a feat, and a minor magical item. Which is the horse's, I might add, since cohorts get a share of treasure.
True Archon 11-19-05, 05:29 PM	Ugh, I so want to reply to the Fighter vs. Barbarian debates, but I must... reply.... to the original poster's... post.... BTW, Tony, Sunrider, Thorak, q'afuu, and Derren... good to see you all again. :D Hope everything's good for ya all. Who are we missing? Lion21, Aki Warren, Karalyn, Nyferto, Lina Inverse, Thievingrouge, Dark Watcher? I'm probably missing some... Anyways, yes, a 20th-level fighter has its benefits. The only problem is a lack of skills, if needed, or that ever-nagging feeling in the back of any true fighter fan's mind of "geez, if I only had one or two more feats!" Actually, there is another problem too, and it's already been mentioned. The need to actually make good feat choices to maximize benefits. Alrighty then, back to the Fighter vs. Barbarian debates.
Derren S. 11-19-05, 06:06 PM	I believe I was referring to the Complete Warrior and the Complete Adventurer, specifically, and there is no "Mage Slayer" feat in either. My mistake. CA = Complete Arcana for me and the Mageslayer feats are the only good fighter feats in there I can think of. I can't comment on CAdv as it appeared after I decided to not buy new supplements because of the lack of quality in the recent books (except the really interesting ones).
Kyuketsukiouji 11-19-05, 06:23 PM	The overwhelming advantage of a pure fighter is that you are no longer limited to focussing on one strategy. A fighter can specialise in two weapons, or take up two combat styles (or three). Very few other classes can set themselves up in such a way that if their primary focus doesn't work, they have something else to fall back on.
True Archon 11-19-05, 06:24 PM	Mageslayer feat isn't broken, IMO, Natural Spell is, and it's core. Debating tactics between how a Fighter and Barbarian is going to perfectly deal with a threat at a 1000 ft. is gonna lead nowhere. Especially when it's done in hindsight. That's like watching a sports game, seeing the end of the game, and then saying that a player who zigged, should have zagged, to win the game.
Sunrider 11-19-05, 07:31 PM	My mistake. CA = Complete Arcana for me and the Mageslayer feats are the only good fighter feats in there I can think of. I can't comment on CAdv as it appeared after I decided to not buy new supplements because of the lack of quality in the recent books (except the really interesting ones). So Mage Slayer and its associated feats - which simply allow a fighter to bypass some of the mage's protections, without granting any ability to actually get a spellcaster into melee range or preventing one from escaping - is broken, while all the core spells which completely screw the fighter over (and all the touch attacks which ignore most of the fighter's protections) aren't? The overwhelming advantage of a pure fighter is that you are no longer limited to focussing on one strategy. A fighter can specialise in two weapons, or take up two combat styles (or three). Very few other classes can set themselves up in such a way that if their primary focus doesn't work, they have something else to fall back on. Specialising in more than one weapon is a waste of feats - feats are all you have, so you can't afford to waste any. If you intend to use several different types of weapon regularly, you're better off getting feats that apply to all weapons rather than WF/WS/GWF/GWS etc. In any case, even with all the splatbooks out there, the fighter is not the master of versatility. Primary spellcasters are. Rogues and bards aren't bad either. Tripping, disarming, sundering, charging and just plain hitting aren't exactly 'different strategies' - they're all aspects of the same one (melee combat). It's not as if the fighter can choose really different strategies - blasting, summoning, sneaking, etc. All the strategies available are just different ways of causing direct damage. When a fighter tries to focus on several different strategies at once (e.g. unarmed, melee and ranged) he or she ends up mediocre at all of them. By concentrating on just one area (e.g. archery, or melee combat), the fighter can capitalise on the fact that no other class can take all the synergistic feats in that field (although there aren't that many synergistic feats for archery). Case in point - the build I presented earlier in the thread: Try using a two-handed weapon with Karmic Strike, Power Attack, Shock Trooper, Leap Attack, Combat Brute, Elusive Target, Sidestep, Hold the Line, Improved Trip, Combat Reflexes, Stand Still and Jotunbrud in combination with each other - that's eleven feats already, not counting prereqs (Stand Still, Jotunbrud and Hold the Line aren't essential, but very nice to have). Max ranks in Jump for Leap Attack - items which improve Jump are also good. You need good scores in Str, Dex, Con and Int but, if you can pull it off, it's very powerful. Round 1: Charge an enemy (using Leap Attack, of course - whether you interpret it as x3, x4, x6 or x8 damage, it's good anyway) and Power Attack for your full BAB. Transfer the entire attack penalty to AC (Shock Trooper). If the enemy is still alive after this, assign it as the target of your Dodge ability in order to use the Negate Power Attack ability of Elusive Target to minimise the damage you will take from the inevitable full attack to follow. If the enemy is dead, assign the most dangerous melee opponent as your Dodge target. If the enemy survived, you will probably be full-attacked. This is a good thing - your enemy won't benefit at all from Power Attack (due to Elusive Target), and every time you are hit, you'll be hitting back at full power attack with no loss of attack bonus (due to your use of Shock Trooper and Karmic Strike). Anyone else who closes in and attacks will suffer similarly - if they charge you, you even get to make two AoOs against them (Hold the Line for charging, Karmic Strike for hitting). Round 2: Charge a different enemy. If your first target died during your first charge or from Karmic Strike, you don't have much choice anyway. If your first target didn't die, you're usually still better off charging someone else to take full advantage of all your feats - take the AoO for leaving a threatened square (hitting back using Karmic Strike), then charge another target as per the first round. Difference being, you can now use the Momentum Swing ability from Combat Brute to boost your damage even higher... If you are Large sized and can get Rage while still having enough feats (gestalt?), throw in Knockback and Rampaging Bull Rush for even more fun - charge an enemy, bullrush and trip for free, then charge the same enemy again the following round with the bonus from Combat Brute. Weapon of choice: Two real choices here - bastard sword or spiked chain. Bastard sword deals more damage per hit, but gives you less AoOs and leaves you more vulnerable to opponents with reach. Also, it requires a 2-level dip into Exotic Weapon Master (for Uncanny Blow and Trip Attack). Spiked Chain lets you skimp on Str (only 13 needed - lets you emphasise Dex to get you more AoOs), but you need at least 13 Wis (for Unbalancing Blow) as well as two extra feats (Weapon Finesse, Unbalancing Blow. It also gains you more AoOs (hence, more Karmic Strike opportunities) and makes you less vulnerable to opponents with reach. On the downside, however, it both looks and sounds ridiculous (which is why I always envision mine as an extra-long flail... kind of like a 'bastard flail' which gains more reach rather than more damage). Bastard Sword (32 point buy): Str - 16 (10 pts - maximise at every opportunity) Dex - 16 (10 pts - try to get Gloves of Dexterity, for up to three extra AoOs) Con - 14 (6 pts) Int - 14 (6 pts) Wis - 8 (0 pts) Cha - 8 (0 pts) Use your AoOs from Karmic Strike to hit back as hard as you can (since you will have full power-attacked and probably have the bonus from Momentum Swing, this will be pretty hard...). On your second-last AoO (better to keep one in reserve, just in case), trip your opponent (getting the free hit anyway from Improved Trip), then use the free 5-foot step from Sidestep to get out of the way - no point getting hit if you have no AoOs left. Spiked Chain (32 point buy): Str - 13 (5 pts) Dex - 16 (10 pts - maximise at every opportunity) Con - 14 (6 pts) Int - 14 (6 pts) Wis - 13 (5 pts) Cha - 8 (0 pts) You won't be doing as much damage per hit as with the bastard sword (although, percentage-wise, the difference won't be that great, since most of the damage is from Power Attack rather than Strength) but have many more AoOs. Also, you have the option of using Stand Still to prevent enemies from getting closer than 10' (for instance, if they have a nasty level-draining ability) and can score three attacks against a charging enemy (once from Hold the Line, once for leaving a threatened square and once from Karmic Strike). Be sure to take Unbalancing Blow (Dragon #295) in order to use Dex instead of Str for tripping. You essentially have one option - melee combat - but you are so effective in it that, in any given round, you will either outdamage the barbarian and/or take much less damage in the process. Adamantine armor means my Fighter now has DR 3/-. Suddenly, the Barbarian's DR isn't so big a deal. OK, now you're 15kgp down (significant until higher levels) and move like a tortoise. In an open battlefield, all an archer has to do is keep firing and retreating. And, while you're talking about your higher dex, what attribute did you sacrifice to get it? If we use point-buy, there has to be something. Strength, so my Fighter's better in melee? Con, so your average +1 hp/level isn't a factor? Int, so you can't take Combat Expertise and the very handy feats, like Improved Trip, that bank off it? Combat Expertise and Improved Trip aren't exactly priorities for a Barbarian. Karmic Strike would be nice, but they don't have enough feats to take that and other useful feats anyway. Barbarians specialise in hitting really, really hard - and do a superb job of it (even without bonus feats, they still have more than enough for the Leap Attack/Shock Trooper/Combat Brute combo). Extra Dex (for AC, extra AoOs, etc.), extra Str or extra Con are a far better investment in a point-buy system. As far as armor goes, nothing beats Full Plate, for AC. Padded ties, everything else is inferior. And for Padded to tie, you need a 26 Dex. The Barbarian in anything else will have an inferior AC, even before Rage drops that further. Sure, there are penalties to full plate, but that doesn't make it a bad choice. Full plate is superior in core - by ONE point. Problem is, you're about as mobile as a beached whale while wearing it. If you include splatbooks, Full Plate is beaten out by several armours, both heavy and light. Also, as far as the archery battle is concerned, why would the barbarian Rage anyway? He's not a Frenzied Berserker - he doesn't Rage every time someone hits him. And as for mobility in plate, there's a fairly simple solution. A mount. Want one that'll survive a fireball? The Fighter takes Leadership as one of his many feats, and gets an Awakened Warhorse (light, heavy, pick what you like). We can ignore the other minions, just consider the cohort. And yes, these rules are right in the DMG, so I'm not getting creative or out on a limb. Tack on Horseshoes of Speed, and my Awakened Heavy Warhorse has a movement of 80. Twice as fast as your barbarian. For the cost of a feat, and a minor magical item. Which is the horse's, I might add, since cohorts get a share of treasure. Firstly, the barbarian can do exactly the same thing. Secondly, an awakened animal cohort doesn't always agree with its master - it has an alignment, is possibly wiser and more intelligent than the fighter and has its own agenda. You sometimes have to convince it to do things, and it may not always do what you want. Thirdly, can you afford to spend skill points in Diplomacy, Ride and Handle Animal, while still having points to spare for other skills (e.g. Jump if you want Leap Attack, Swim if you don't want to drown in that full plate)? Fourthly, spending feats on mounted combat means you aren't spending those feats somewhere else - are you going to be a specialised mounted fighter, or the type of fighter that does a bit of everything, but nothing particularly well? Even with 11 extra feats it can be difficult to be highly effective in more than one fighting style. Finally, there are many places you simply can't take the mount. In a dungeon? Indoors? And that's just physical attributes - the larger the mount, the fewer places it can fit. In any case, I never said the barbarian is better than a melee fighter when facing an archer at 1000', merely that the barbarian is comparable to the fighter in such a situation. I was responding to this post, where you said the barbarian was useless: Not directly, but they still work well together. Having both makes for a decently strong mobile ranged Fighter. One's good for staying somewhat mobile and getting, essentially, a full attack, the other for popping out from cover for one good shot, then ducking back so you're protected again. What doesn't synergize directly often does so indirectly, by ensuring you've always got a good option at hand, unlike some classes which can get very one-sided and thus open to being screwed. A Barbarian typically isn't any good if the enemy spots you 1000 feet away. They can fire their bows at you, and you've got a good 6 or so rounds at a dead run before you can even hope to be useful. A Fighter just unstraps his bow and returns fire. Since he's got so many feats, he probably took a few ranged ones. Or he takes out the tower shield, and advances slowly under complete cover. Or, or, or. Fighters are about direct feat synergy, and tactical options. Sure, a barbarian can do a bit more damage in melee. So what? Damage isn't the only factor to the game.
Kyuketsukiouji 11-19-05, 08:25 PM	Specialising in more than one weapon is a waste of feats - feats are all you have, so you can't afford to waste any. If you intend to use several different types of weapon regularly, you're better off getting feats that apply to all weapons rather than WF/WS/GWF/GWS etc. Maybe. But your sample superfighter is in trouble if you're facing a flyer, for instance. You could specialise with both a melee weapon and a range, and be above average with both. In the end, the fighter's greatest strength is that no two fighters have to be the same. There's just so much room for versatilty...
Thorak 11-19-05, 08:35 PM	OK, now you're 15kgp down (significant until higher levels) and move like a tortoise. In an open battlefield, all an archer has to do is keep firing and retreating. And I fire back. While shrugging off some of the damage of those arrows which hit, which will be fewer than those hitting the Barbarian. As for moving like a tortoise, see my point about mounts. Combat Expertise and Improved Trip aren't exactly priorities for a Barbarian. Karmic Strike would be nice, but they don't have enough feats to take that and other useful feats anyway. Barbarians specialise in hitting really, really hard - and do a superb job of it (even without bonus feats, they still have more than enough for the Leap Attack/Shock Trooper/Combat Brute combo). Extra Dex (for AC, extra AoOs, etc.), extra Str or extra Con are a far better investment in a point-buy system. CE and IT aren't priorities for Barbarians because they don't have the Int for CE. You point that KS would be nice but you don't have the feats is exactly my point. And I never said a Fighter was better than a Barbarian at dealing damage. Just that the trade they make is straight-up damage for tactical options and special abilities. All a Barbarian has is moving fast and hitting hard. Full plate is superior in core - by ONE point. Problem is, you're about as mobile as a beached whale while wearing it. If you include splatbooks, Full Plate is beaten out by several armours, both heavy and light. Also, as far as the archery battle is concerned, why would the barbarian Rage anyway? He's not a Frenzied Berserker - he doesn't Rage every time someone hits him. Because if he doesn't Rage, he's basically a faster Fighter with a tiny bit more DR and HP, and less than half the feats? I admit it's a bad tactical option in this case, but without it, the Barbarian doesn't have a whole lot going for him. Firstly, the barbarian can do exactly the same thing. Secondly, an awakened animal cohort doesn't always agree with its master - it has an alignment, is possibly wiser and more intelligent than the fighter and has its own agenda. You sometimes have to convince it to do things, and it may not always do what you want. Not with a cohort. "A cohort is effectively another PC in the party under the player's control" While I see your point, the metagame reality is that my mount is dedicated to my Fighter and trusts him, because my Fighter's proven himself a worthy leader. Thirdly, can you afford to spend skill points in Diplomacy, Ride and Handle Animal, while still having points to spare for other skills (e.g. Jump if you want Leap Attack, Swim if you don't want to drown in that full plate)? For one level 20 Fighter I had, I sure did. Didn't need Diplomacy, because I was using a Stone Horse, but a cohort-user wouldn't need it either, unless he's stupid and mistreats the cohort. Fourthly, spending feats on mounted combat means you aren't spending those feats somewhere else - are you going to be a specialised mounted fighter, or the type of fighter that does a bit of everything, but nothing particularly well? Even with 11 extra feats it can be difficult to be highly effective in more than one fighting style. For the above character, it was a core-and-complete comparison on the boards. And I made him mounted because I ran out of feats to bother taking. I had about 4 spare feats, at level 20, that could've been anything. I chose the mounted stuff. Already had great melee and ranged combat ability, mobilty seemed a good third. Finally, there are many places you simply can't take the mount. In a dungeon? Indoors? And that's just physical attributes - the larger the mount, the fewer places it can fit. That's a valid point. My most recent actual character is a halfling Ranger, and his wolf will be able to go anywhere the hulking half-orcs can, which neatly solves that problem. But, admittedly, that's not a build for a melee character, nor a fighter. I'm just making an anecdote. In any case, I never said the barbarian is better than a melee fighter when facing an archer at 1000', merely that the barbarian is comparable to the fighter in such a situation. I was responding to this post, where you said the barbarian was useless: Fair enough. I was exagerrating for effect. He's not useless. He's handier than a monk or rogue, at least. The situation doesn't play to his strengths, though.
Sunrider 11-19-05, 09:02 PM	And I fire back. While shrugging off some of the damage of those arrows which hit, which will be fewer than those hitting the Barbarian. Your opponent is a specialised archer. You aren't (since we are comparing how a melee fighter and a melee barbarian would fare in the same situation). You will lose. CE and IT aren't priorities for Barbarians because they don't have the Int for CE. You point that KS would be nice but you don't have the feats is exactly my point. CE wouldn't be useful to a barbarian even with 13 Int. It's useless outside of melee combat, and a barbarian will usually be Raging in melee anyway. And I never said a Fighter was better than a Barbarian at dealing damage. Look at the build I presented earlier. In any given round, it should outdamage almost any barbarian. Not in a single attack, mind you, but over the course of the round (using Karmic Strike/Combat Reflexes). Just that the trade they make is straight-up damage for tactical options and special abilities. Special abilities, yes. But not 'tactical options' (an ill-defined term if there ever was one). A melee barbarian can fight in melee well, or fight at range not-so-well. A melee fighter can do roughly the same thing. Bullrushes, trips, sunders, etc. are all part of the broader category of 'melee combat' and, in any case, a barbarian is better at two of them (Bullrush and Sunder), while not so good at the others (Trip and Disarm). Because if he doesn't Rage, he's basically a faster Fighter with a tiny bit more DR and HP, and less than half the feats? I admit it's a bad tactical option in this case, but without it, the Barbarian doesn't have a whole lot going for him. At 1000', a melee-focused fighter doesn't even have that. One or two archery feats, maybe, but any more than that and your feats are going to be so widely spread you won't have a focus on anything... you'll be able to do everything, but nothing particularly well. Not with a cohort. "A cohort is effectively another PC in the party under the player's control". While I see your point, the metagame reality is that my mount is dedicated to my Fighter and trusts him, because my Fighter's proven himself a worthy leader. Doesn't mean the mount will agree with you on everything. Read the articles on mounts on the WotC site. Diplomacy is essentially a must-have. For the above character, it was a core-and-complete comparison on the boards. And I made him mounted because I ran out of feats to bother taking. I had about 4 spare feats, at level 20, that could've been anything. I chose the mounted stuff. Already had great melee and ranged combat ability, mobilty seemed a good third. Possibly in core, but if you include splatbooks you won't run out of feats worth taking. And, if you don't take those feats, you'll end up subpar compared to another fighter who does. Sure, you can fight on horseback or on foot, but the other fighter will beat you on foot, and can probably also beat you when he or she is on foot and you're on horseback. Fair enough. I was exagerrating for effect. He's not useless. He's handier than a monk or rogue, at least. The situation doesn't play to his strengths, though. Nor does it play to the strengths of a melee fighter. They're in an equally bad situation.
Sunrider 11-19-05, 09:10 PM	Maybe. But your sample superfighter is in trouble if you're facing a flyer, for instance. You could specialise with both a melee weapon and a range, and be above average with both. That's 8 feats spent on the WF/WS tree alone. Sure, you'll be 'above average' in both fields, but a barbarian or specialist fighter (specialising in a single combat style) will be far better than you in one field, while not far behind you in the other. Feat synergies (at least for melee feats) work in such a way that the sum is greater than its parts - for instance, Sidestep, Karmic Strike and Combat Reflexes are indivually reasonable feats but, when combined, are far more powerful than each of the feats individually. Combine them with Shock Trooper, Combat Brute and Leap Attack and they become even more powerful. Combine it with Elusive Target and you can now safely use Shock Trooper without worrying too much about retaliation - normally, Elusive Target is a better-than-average feat but, in combination with all the other feats, it becomes much more powerful. By specialising in more thhan one field, you don't have the same option. Against a flyer, a melee-specialised fighter can still pick up a bow and shoot. Or use a flying mount. Or a Fly spell. Or any other piece of equipment that allows you to fly.
Votan 11-19-05, 09:47 PM	This is admittedly race dependent (I've often made the argument that Fighters should always be dwarves except under exceptional circumstances) but if Fighter is the favorite no prestige classes need to be included to improve the character. Fighter 12 has 7 bonus feats. Add Barbarian 2/Ranger 1/Hexblade 1 Compare to 4 levels of fighter. Fighter 16 2 extra feats 1 fewer hit point Base Saves F/R/W: +10/+5/+5 BAB+16 Fighter 12/Barbarian 2/Ranger 1/Hexblade 1 8 extra skill points (and ability to learn a skill like Survival) Rage 1/day Fast Movement (admittedly, I'll never use this normally) Uncanny Dodge Track Wild Empathy (also useless) Hexblade's Curse (almost useless given CHA) Base Saves F/R/W: +13/+6/+6 Those two feats are going to have to be pretty good at synergizing with the current options of the character to overcome the improved saves, better rage, option to get another useful modest class skill, and a few other nice options. This is possible but requires a very well thought out build. Assuming no epic levels, this could be a great option. Exotic Weapons Master could also go some amazing things as could levels in Swashbuckler or a couple more levels of hexblade to buff up the will save and acquire mettle (which would be a good feat).
Thorak 11-20-05, 12:48 AM	Your opponent is a specialised archer. You aren't (since we are comparing how a melee fighter and a melee barbarian would fare in the same situation). You will lose. That's an odd assumption. Maybe it's a bunch of orcs who know full well we'll chew them apart if we close to melee. How on earth are you assuming that all opponents firing at the PCs from range are specialised specifically to do so? CE wouldn't be useful to a barbarian even with 13 Int. It's useless outside of melee combat, and a barbarian will usually be Raging in melee anyway. I don't agree. Take a -2 to hit, and you offset the AC penalty. You still get the Str bonus to damage, and for opposed rolls, and the Con bonus, so Raging is still perfectly good, but now carries no actual penalty save the limit on types of skills useable. And if you don't think Improved Trip is useful with the boosted Strength, then you're nuts. Look at the build I presented earlier. In any given round, it should outdamage almost any barbarian. Not in a single attack, mind you, but over the course of the round (using Karmic Strike/Combat Reflexes). Depends on what your opponent does. If you get Tripped, or Disarmed, etc, you won't be able to take those AoOs. Same for reach weapon users, ranged attacks, etc, etc. Special abilities, yes. But not 'tactical options' (an ill-defined term if there ever was one). A melee barbarian can fight in melee well, or fight at range not-so-well. A melee fighter can do roughly the same thing. Bullrushes, trips, sunders, etc. are all part of the broader category of 'melee combat' and, in any case, a barbarian is better at two of them (Bullrush and Sunder), while not so good at the others (Trip and Disarm). A Barbarian would be better at Tripping than a Fighter. Rage boosts Strength, and that's the opposed roll for Trip, just like Bullrush. And, for those options, you basically need the feats, since most are very prone to being interrupted by AoO. And the Fighter's more likely to have those feats. Hence my point. At 1000', a melee-focused fighter doesn't even have that. One or two archery feats, maybe, but any more than that and your feats are going to be so widely spread you won't have a focus on anything... you'll be able to do everything, but nothing particularly well. Like I said, I had a decent mounted/ranged/melee build which had respectable ability in all categories. Admittedly not as good as a dedicated character concentrating on only one, but not off by all that much, and with the supporting capabilities to make up for it. Doesn't mean the mount will agree with you on everything. Read the articles on mounts on the WotC site. Diplomacy is essentially a must-have. Why should I read the articles on mounts, when the DMG says a cohort is controlled by me, the player, and would only become disloyal if I mistreated him/her/it? I'll stick by those primary source rules, thank you. Diplomacy changes their attitude. If you're nice to your cohort, there's little reason it should ever change from Helpful. Possibly in core, but if you include splatbooks you won't run out of feats worth taking. And, if you don't take those feats, you'll end up subpar compared to another fighter who does. Sure, you can fight on horseback or on foot, but the other fighter will beat you on foot, and can probably also beat you when he or she is on foot and you're on horseback. I'd included the Complete splatbooks. And I ran out. There were other possible options, but none that added anything that was tangibly better than branching out into mounted combat. Nor does it play to the strengths of a melee fighter. They're in an equally bad situation. The point being that a melee fighter is more likely to have spread his class features out a bit. I'm not saying all fighters will, or that they have to, or that they even should. Just that it's more likely.
True Archon 11-20-05, 04:48 AM	I don't agree. Take a -2 to hit, and you offset the AC penalty. You still get the Str bonus to damage, and for opposed rolls, and the Con bonus, so Raging is still perfectly good, but now carries no actual penalty save the limit on types of skills useable. The problem with this is that a barbarian can't use Combat Expertise while raging, unless I'm misunderstanding your point. A Barbarian would be better at Tripping than a Fighter. Rage boosts Strength, and that's the opposed roll for Trip, just like Bullrush. And, for those options, you basically need the feats, since most are very prone to being interrupted by AoO. And the Fighter's more likely to have those feats. Hence my point. Gotta agree with ya on this. Well, they'll be about the same for the +4 bonus purposes, but there's the provoked AoO without the feat. Now, if the barbarian has Improved Trip, he'll do it better during a rage, but the downside is the prerequisite of Combat Expertise. Besides the Int 13 prerequisite, it's also spending one of his very few in number feats on a Combat Expertise, which will probably not see much use because of the rage drawbacks. But hey, I'm not saying that his barbarian can't have Combat Expertise. :shrug: The point being that a melee fighter is more likely to have spread his class features out a bit. I'm not saying all fighters will, or that they have to, or that they even should. Just that it's more likely. Very likely. All said and done, Thorak and Sunrider, I'm getting the impression from both your posts that you both roughly agree that a fighters' and barbarians' strengths and weaknesses, and how well they are offset, is dependent upon their builds and the player's tactical/strategy ability, and not that one class is better than the other. Am I right? The only way that I can see certain classes dominating the game is by how the group plays the game. For example, I have a DM friend who doesn't like using expensive material component costs, scribing spells into a spellbook costs, and isn't too keen in letting certain powerful divination magic into the game (like legend lore). In one hand, it seems that spellcasters are getting some very good advantages by cutting costs, but on the other hand, they're losing access to some very useful magic. So, if another DM is constantly throwing challenges at the fighters and barbarians that spellcasters easily defeat, but not vice versa, then those classes are going to feel inferior. This is where the debate that X class sucks, and Y class rules, starts. It's all based on player perception on how their own groups are run.
q'afuu 11-20-05, 02:05 PM	Specialising in more than one weapon is a waste of feats - feats are all you have, so you can't afford to waste any. If you intend to use several different types of weapon regularly, you're better off getting feats that apply to all weapons rather than WF/WS/GWF/GWS etc. Specializing in more than one weapon doesn't necessarily involve taking several Weapon Specialization feats. A high level fighter can be a pretty good archer, cavalier and infantryman all at once: to me, that means he's to a certain extent a bow specialist, a lance specialist and a specialist in the melee weapon(s) of his choice, whether he has one or more WS feats or not.
Dangaard 11-20-05, 04:05 PM	high end fighter feats would be nice, infact they would be kick ass. but I still like the fighter as is, he is just as effective if not more so than the other fighter class( barbarian), yes the barb "may" be able to do more damage but I'll take the fighter any day of the week and twice on sundays. I like the flexability and ingenuity required to play the fighter class. what I'm saying is that with a barbarian its just role some dice every round to beat things up, now this may be what the game boiles down to but the fighter dos'nt just beat people up they drop em on the floor they disarm them they shoot em up froma distance, they ride em down from a horse. in short fighters have class they are more usefull in a pinch, they excell in all forms of combat. i dont agree with the weapon spec feats i think they suck supreamly and weaken the fighter, the fighter isnt meant to focus but to diversify, well thats my opinion anways :teach: :) in short to me atleast it is worth taking fighter all the way to the twentieth level. on another note: i have worked closley with my dm to fix the "problems" :rolleye2: of higher level high end fighter feats, essentially we are placing these feats at higher levels to prevent level dipping, all of them are basically higher than level 8 most of the time at level ten and up, when I feel that we have wotrked them to "perfection" :rolleye2: i will post them here or elswhere on the boards.
Votan 11-20-05, 08:19 PM	high end fighter feats would be nice, infact they would be kick ass. but I still like the fighter as is, he is just as effective if not more so than the other fighter class( barbarian), yes the barb "may" be able to do more damage but I'll take the fighter any day of the week and twice on sundays. I like the flexability and ingenuity required to play the fighter class. what I'm saying is that with a barbarian its just role some dice every round to beat things up, now this may be what the game boiles down to but the fighter dos'nt just beat people up they drop em on the floor they disarm them they shoot em up froma distance, they ride em down from a horse. in short fighters have class they are more usefull in a pinch, they excell in all forms of combat. i dont agree with the weapon spec feats i think they suck supreamly and weaken the fighter, the fighter isnt meant to focus but to diversify, well thats my opinion anways :teach: :) in short to me atleast it is worth taking fighter all the way to the twentieth level. This is the standard argument for doing things this way. I am not going say that this is a bad approach (it isn't) but, at a certain point, diversifying from pure fighter (assuming no epic) will tend to pay off. Compare Fighter 20 to Fighter 16/Exotic Weapons Master 3/Barbarian 1 for the number and diversity of feats that the character will have. If the character is a dwarf using a dwarven waraxe the cost to enter the prestige class is one feat (weapon Focus) and 3 skill points. It is hard to find 2 feats that beat 3 exotic weapon stunts plus rage 1/day. I think it might be doable but it is not easy at high levels to make this decision.
WizO_Cat 11-20-05, 09:34 PM	This is admittedly race dependent (I've often made the argument that Fighters should always be dwarves except under exceptional circumstances) but if Fighter is the favorite no prestige classes need to be included to improve the character. Fighter 12 has 7 bonus feats. Add Barbarian 2/Ranger 1/Hexblade 1 Compare to 4 levels of fighter. Fighter 16 2 extra feats 1 fewer hit point Base Saves F/R/W: +10/+5/+5 BAB+16 Fighter 12/Barbarian 2/Ranger 1/Hexblade 1 8 extra skill points (and ability to learn a skill like Survival) Rage 1/day Fast Movement (admittedly, I'll never use this normally) Uncanny Dodge Track Wild Empathy (also useless) Hexblade's Curse (almost useless given CHA) Base Saves F/R/W: +13/+6/+6 I guess my answer to the following would be: - Eight extra skill points: Yes, they would be nice, but as a fighter character, skills are a secondary thought. - Rage 1/day: For me, overrated. Actually, having a d10 for rage isn't my cup of tea - that's why a barbarian has d12. The best way to keep your hit points is to keep your armor class high. Lowering it, even for extra strength and hit points, doesn't sound like that great of an idea. - Fast Movement: Can be great if you're playing a small character. However, I'm in agreement to the point that it's not an overwhelming item. - Uncanny Dodge: Once again nice, but usually my fighter is dex-bonus poor and depending on his Armor Class due to his armor, no dexterity bonus. - Track: Once again nice, but if a 16th level party is depending on me to track things for this ability, they're going to be in for a rude awakening. - Wild Empathy: Yep, I agree. (Basically a *clap, clap* thing) - Hexblade's Curse: In agreement here. Chances are the Charisma is going to be the dump stat for my fighter. - Saving Throws: Better with the multi-class, but this can be balances by taking Lightning Reflexes and Iron Will. Frankly, I'd rather have the boost in reflex and will saves and take the hit in fortitude save. After all, my character's wisdom and dexterity scores probably aren't going to be setting the world on fire. As for constitution, that is another story. Just my thoughts. :)
Votan 11-20-05, 10:53 PM	I guess my answer to the following would be: - Eight extra skill points: Yes, they would be nice, but as a fighter character, skills are a secondary thought. - Rage 1/day: For me, overrated. Actually, having a d10 for rage isn't my cup of tea - that's why a barbarian has d12. The best way to keep your hit points is to keep your armor class high. Lowering it, even for extra strength and hit points, doesn't sound like that great of an idea. - Fast Movement: Can be great if you're playing a small character. However, I'm in agreement to the point that it's not an overwhelming item. - Uncanny Dodge: Once again nice, but usually my fighter is dex-bonus poor and depending on his Armor Class due to his armor, no dexterity bonus. - Track: Once again nice, but if a 16th level party is depending on me to track things for this ability, they're going to be in for a rude awakening. - Wild Empathy: Yep, I agree. (Basically a *clap, clap* thing) - Hexblade's Curse: In agreement here. Chances are the Charisma is going to be the dump stat for my fighter. - Saving Throws: Better with the multi-class, but this can be balances by taking Lightning Reflexes and Iron Will. Frankly, I'd rather have the boost in reflex and will saves and take the hit in fortitude save. After all, my character's wisdom and dexterity scores probably aren't going to be setting the world on fire. As for constitution, that is another story. Just my thoughts. :) Oh, these are fair points. However, I still think that these are competitive benefits compared to pure fighter instead of being only an afterthought. The rage, in particular, is useful in a situational sense. Most fo the time you aren't going to sue it but if an encoutner is going badly it is a great way to go "double or nothing" for that last little bit of Omph. It's not a non-brainer but the abilities of the multi-class scream "you need a solid plan for which feats" to me because these generic additions are deeply competitive (especially in terms of saves) with 2 random feats. Also note that Iron Will stacks with the improved save from the hexblade dip leading to a Fighter at level 20 having a +10 will save with both. This is not to be completely ignored. It's even nicer if you follow Hexblade long enough to pick up Mettle -- this requires something more like Fighter 12/Hexblade 3/Ranger 3/Barbarian 2 (granting a level 20 save profile of +15/8/11 vs 12/6/6) which is uniformly better and can be really improved with additional feats. This character could easily pick up 16 ranks fo survival from their ranger/barbarian levels (keeping their fighter skill set maxed) or get 23 ranks without a lot of difficulty by reallocating a bit more aggressively. This could make tracking an unusual but completely doable secondary specialization. Alternatively ranks could be obtained in something like spot. Now, as a complete aside, I actually look at things like Fighter 12/Scout 8 and become even more interested especially if you have access to the feat Able Learner.
Dangaard 11-20-05, 11:03 PM	I am not against multi classing the fighter, i'm saying that a pure fighter does not suck. i like to multi class it some times but i just prefur a pure fighter.
RadicalTaoist 11-20-05, 11:25 PM	Fighter20 is an awesome build. That is, if your high-level campaigns never force you to fight: High-level casters Monsters larger than Huge Numerous groups of monsters who are larger than Large Swarms Creatures with Burrow speeds Creatures with incorporeal, ethereal, or interplanar movement on the cheap Archers/ranged opponents with decent Hide/invisibility because any of those at the cr+15 range will humiliate a fighter unless they receive significant party resources from the party's casters, beyond what is sensible or efficient. If your party discovers it's an easier use of it's spell slots to summon/self-buff/whatever than buff you, then you're going to find yourself the versatile fighter with a bunch of tricks, and the majority of those tricks will be completely useless. Therefore, if your high-level campaign features those kinds of foes regularly, then I recommend playing a heavy combat PrC mix, Psychic Warrior, Bard, Hexblade, or arcane Gish build instead. Unless you really really wanna own. Then play a Cleric or Druid.
Thorak 11-21-05, 12:51 AM	Fighter20 is an awesome build. That is, if your high-level campaigns never force you to fight: High-level casters Monsters larger than Huge Numerous groups of monsters who are larger than Large Swarms Creatures with Burrow speeds Creatures with incorporeal, ethereal, or interplanar movement on the cheap Archers/ranged opponents with decent Hide/invisibility because any of those at the cr+15 range will humiliate a fighter unless they receive significant party resources from the party's casters, beyond what is sensible or efficient. If your party discovers it's an easier use of it's spell slots to summon/self-buff/whatever than buff you, then you're going to find yourself the versatile fighter with a bunch of tricks, and the majority of those tricks will be completely useless. Therefore, if your high-level campaign features those kinds of foes regularly, then I recommend playing a heavy combat PrC mix, Psychic Warrior, Bard, Hexblade, or arcane Gish build instead. Unless you really really wanna own. Then play a Cleric or Druid. Your argument equally applies to Barbarians, Rangers, Paladins, and Monks, and pretty much Rogues as well. You're arguing that magic is needed at higher levels. This has nothing to do with fighters, and everything to do with full casting classes vs melee classes.
deusxmachina 11-21-05, 04:30 AM	So Mage Slayer (and followup feats) are not broken to you? My group generally considers Defensive Casting to be broken in the first place, so Mage Slayer may just be making up for that. Even without a concentration check, mages can often just 5' step and cast anyway.
True Archon 11-21-05, 04:52 AM	Fighter20 is an awesome build. That is, if your high-level campaigns never force you to fight: High-level casters Monsters larger than Huge Numerous groups of monsters who are larger than Large Swarms Creatures with Burrow speeds Creatures with incorporeal, ethereal, or interplanar movement on the cheap Archers/ranged opponents with decent Hide/invisibility because any of those at the cr+15 range will humiliate a fighter unless they receive significant party resources from the party's casters, beyond what is sensible or efficient. If your party discovers it's an easier use of it's spell slots to summon/self-buff/whatever than buff you, then you're going to find yourself the versatile fighter with a bunch of tricks, and the majority of those tricks will be completely useless. Therefore, if your high-level campaign features those kinds of foes regularly, then I recommend playing a heavy combat PrC mix, Psychic Warrior, Bard, Hexblade, or arcane Gish build instead. Unless you really really wanna own. Then play a Cleric or Druid. Your argument equally applies to Barbarians, Rangers, Paladins, and Monks, and pretty much Rogues as well. You're arguing that magic is needed at higher levels. This has nothing to do with fighters, and everything to do with full casting classes vs melee classes. I'd even go so far as to say that if you're playing a spellcaster it'd be great so long as you're never forced to fight these in high-level campaigns: High level Monks High level casters with Improved Counterspell Monsters with High Saves, Energy Immunities, Anti-magic Properties, and/or Spell Resistance like: ---Any, and all, outsiders ---Beholders ---Dragons ---Golems ---Inevitables ---Mindflayers ---Various Intelligent Undead Monsters that with high BAB and that do very high amounts of damage in single hits. Creatures that burrow. Creatures that are incorporeal, ethereal, or have access to inter-planar/dimensional travel. Creatures with strong Grappling ability. Creatures that strike from surprise. ... because any monster in just the core MM with a CR 15 or higher has MOST, if not ALL, of the above factors that will humiliate a spellcaster as they watch most of their spells either fade away without effect, brought to reduced effect, and then seeing that same monster breeze past their lower ACs and devastate their low hit point totals in one or two attacks. The worst thing that can happen to ANY class at high levels is to believe that just because you've got all these cool powers that you're going to survive on your own. I hate to break it to spellcaster lovers out there, but if your PC's death is going to come about, it's gonna happen in a single round or two, and to me, that's just as humiliating at these levels. There's nothing like seeing the face of a player watching his character go from a completely healthy PC, with full hit points, to being dead in the blink of an eye. It's probably one of the most helpless looks that a player can have. :( :weep:
q'afuu 11-21-05, 09:20 AM	This is the standard argument for doing things this way. I am not going say that this is a bad approach (it isn't) but, at a certain point, diversifying from pure fighter (assuming no epic) will tend to pay off. I reiterate: the same goes for every other class out there, aside from (possibly) Barbarian.
Archtyrant Terevoth 11-21-05, 10:22 AM	I'd even go so far as to say that if you're playing a spellcaster it'd be great so long as you're never forced to fight these in high-level campaigns: High level Monks High level casters with Improved Counterspell Monsters with High Saves, Energy Immunities, Anti-magic Properties, and/or Spell Resistance like: ---Any, and all, outsiders ---Beholders ---Dragons ---Golems ---Inevitables ---Mindflayers ---Various Intelligent Undead Monsters that with high BAB and that do very high amounts of damage in single hits. Creatures that burrow. Creatures that are incorporeal, ethereal, or have access to inter-planar/dimensional travel. Creatures with strong Grappling ability. Creatures that strike from surprise. You might think that... but no, it doesn't work out that way. A cleric, psion or druid is especially exempt from spellcaster counters because they have enough buffs to be not only a full caster but also a "fighter with spells" The thing is that spellcasters have so many potent abilities that they force the monsters to constant counter them, as opposed to the other way around. For instance a monster who can't fly and has no ranged attacks loses to a fly spell. If it can't see invisible, then improved invisibility beats it. If it can't teleport, then wall of force or forcecage take it out of action. Just because you can't fireball something to death doesn't mean you can't easily bypass it easily.
creepy drifter 11-21-05, 11:32 AM	I'd even go so far as to say that if you're playing a spellcaster it'd be great so long as you're never forced to fight these in high-level campaigns: High level Monks High level casters with Improved Counterspell Monsters with High Saves, Energy Immunities, Anti-magic Properties, and/or Spell Resistance like: ---Any, and all, outsiders ---Beholders ---Dragons ---Golems ---Inevitables ---Mindflayers ---Various Intelligent Undead Monsters that with high BAB and that do very high amounts of damage in single hits. Creatures that burrow. Creatures that are incorporeal, ethereal, or have access to inter-planar/dimensional travel. Creatures with strong Grappling ability. Creatures that strike from surprise. ... because any monster in just the core MM with a CR 15 or higher has MOST, if not ALL, of the above factors that will humiliate a spellcaster as they watch most of their spells either fade away without effect, brought to reduced effect, and then seeing that same monster breeze past their lower ACs and devastate their low hit point totals in one or two attacks. The worst thing that can happen to ANY class at high levels is to believe that just because you've got all these cool powers that you're going to survive on your own. I hate to break it to spellcaster lovers out there, but if your PC's death is going to come about, it's gonna happen in a single round or two, and to me, that's just as humiliating at these levels. There's nothing like seeing the face of a player watching his character go from a completely healthy PC, with full hit points, to being dead in the blink of an eye. It's probably one of the most helpless looks that a player can have. :( :weep: Wow. You apparently have never played optimized characters before. Sounds like you play spellcasters like the kind they roll-up as "average" NPC examples in the various WotC sourcebooks and modules. Tell you what True Archon, a significant amount of people play min-maxed and/or optimized characters. Not one of them will tell you that the above creature types you listed cannot be totally handled and owned by mid-to-high level spellcasters. Optimized spellcasters (creatively played, mind you) totally trash all those monster types. Yes, dragons, constructs, grapplers, etc. Spellcasters don't just sit there and load up on Fireballs and Cones of Cold. They optimize their spell lists and prepped spells to deal with all these contingency types. You are going to have prove your statement that fighter-types are more effective than spellcaster types for fighting those above creatures. Because as far as we can see, you are the only person who feels that way.
RadicalTaoist 11-21-05, 11:46 AM	Your argument equally applies to Barbarians, Rangers, Paladins, and Monks, and pretty much Rogues as well. You're arguing that magic is needed at higher levels. This has nothing to do with fighters, and everything to do with full casting classes vs melee classes. T'ain't necessarily so. Barbs are harder to kill (by about a round, up against CR 15+ monsters, but hey...), Paladins can support, and the other three have considerable value as harriers/skill users. The Rogue is useful in a million out-of-combat situations, and has UMD to fall back on. Monks are mobile and hard to kill. Rangers are like Swiss Army knives in a wilderness setting. Admittedly the full casting vs. melee imbalance is still there, but at least Paladin, Rogue, Monk, and Ranger have other seperate areas they can contribute in. I'd even go so far as to say that if you're playing a spellcaster it'd be great so long as you're never forced to fight these in high-level campaigns: I would assume you have never played a seriously optimized high-level caster. They're damn near invincible. I'll address them one by one. High level Monks - Nasty, yes, but not a guaranteed mage kill. Often can be bypassed by a savvy caster - no need for you to fight it for the hell of it, and no monk runs faster than a Dimension Door. High level casters with Improved Counterspell - Need a caster to fight a caster? A caster that has focused on fighting other casters? That should tell you something about caster balance...besides, Improved Invisibility + attacking from outside of True Seeing range negates this, as you can't counter spells from someone you can't see. Monsters with High Saves, Energy Immunities, Anti-magic Properties, and/or Spell Resistance like: ---Any, and all, outsiders - There are many ways to deal with outsiders, such as the Magic Circles, Dismissals, Banishment, etc. etc. Hell you can cal in your own outsiders if need be. Clerics can jack up their CLs so high Spell Resistance becomes a joke. ---Beholders - one of the anti-caster-focused monsters, and just as dangerous to everyone else but Monks due to dependence on magic items at high levels. But casters can pull out tricks to deal with these guys too. Summoning a bunch of monsters with ranged attacks to attack at different angles is a favorite of mine - the eye tyrant can only wink one out at a time, and he'll take damage from all. Hell, a gish build is the best to deal with beholders - they can't afford to take their antimagic off of the gish, but the gish is no pushover in combat either. ---Dragons - it is impossible to even consider fighting dragons without devoted casters in D&D. Casters can reshape their lairs with Stone Shape and Disentigrate. Casters can summon meat walls to block the dragon's minions, counteract the dragon's magic, disjoin it's items, block it's flight. You can't fight dragons without caster support. Period. ---Golems - another monster that is very anti-caster, but there are still options. Summons to wail on the thing. Battlefield shaping is highly effective against golems - a Rock to Mud under the iron golem's feet, let it sink in, and then Mud to Rock to trap it. Weak Reflexes means Forcecage. Golems are not guaranteed caster kills. ---Inevitables - extraplanar constructs. See Outsiders and Golems. ---Mindflayers - I certainly wouldn't mind having a caster's Will save vs. Mind Flayers. Mind Blank, anyone? ---Various Intelligent Undead - Can be dealt with. Clerics laugh at these. Really, unless they're also spellcasters (read - liches), there's nothing a full caster particularly has to worry about as far as high CR undead go that all the other classes don't worry about. Monsters that with high BAB and that do very high amounts of damage in single hits. - Every class doesn't worry about this - why? It matters not, since casters know how to bring up the miss chances (Blur, Blink, Darkness) or stay the hell out of the way of being hit at all. Creatures that burrow. - Please. Flying? Creatures that are incorporeal, ethereal, or have access to inter-planar/dimensional travel. - on the contrary, casters are the ones to call for these. Dimensional Anchor? Wall of Force? Transdimensional Spell? Creatures with strong Grappling ability. - Freedom of Movement. Contingencied Dimension Door. Creatures that strike from surprise. - This, again, can screw everybody. And again, the caster has options here in the form of divinations like Foresight, or spells that grant warning senses, such as Blindsight or Dragonsight. My personal favorite is the psion's Detect Hostile Intent, despite it's limited range. ... because any monster in just the core MM with a CR 15 or higher has MOST, if not ALL, of the above factors that will humiliate a spellcaster as they watch most of their spells either fade away without effect, brought to reduced effect, and then seeing that same monster breeze past their lower ACs and devastate their low hit point totals in one or two attacks. Except a strong caster is not humiliated. Just mildly worried. The worst thing that can happen to ANY class at high levels is to believe that just because you've got all these cool powers that you're going to survive on your own. I hate to break it to spellcaster lovers out there, but if your PC's death is going to come about, it's gonna happen in a single round or two, and to me, that's just as humiliating at these levels. There's nothing like seeing the face of a player watching his character go from a completely healthy PC, with full hit points, to being dead in the blink of an eye. It's probably one of the most helpless looks that a player can have. :( :weep: You're talking to a CO regular here. Yes, casters are not immortal. But they have viable options at the high levels. Fighters, for the most part, do not.
Votan 11-21-05, 02:36 PM	I reiterate: the same goes for every other class out there, aside from (possibly) Barbarian. Fighters are much more susceptable to this (diversification being advantageous) than other classes; even other melee classes. Barbarians have a set of nice pinnacle abilities from levels 17-20 that are lost with multi-classing and are probably not equal to the feats gotten from other sources. Paladins have stacking abilities (Smite Evil), more abilities (additional Smite Evil) and fourth level spells (which matter more now that splatbooks exist). Rangers aslo have a stacking ability (favored enemy) and 4th level spells. Fighter have feats which need to be weighed against abilities gained from diversification. The only case where diversification doesn't work is where there are enough synergistic feats across 20 levels that the fighter is always better off getting that one additional feat. How realistic is this? Well, in core it isn't (at all). Outside of core it really depends on how many sources you have (some really good feats are waiting out there and with enough books I think that the argument could be made). But nobody loses less than a fighter for multi-classing once they have picked up greater weapon specialization because nothing that they have stacks (with the possible exception of BAB depending on how you look at it but there are plenty of +1 BAB classes to visit).
Dangaard 11-21-05, 03:09 PM	Alright so instead of arguing the points of fighter versus caster and fighter versus other classes, i want to see some options or changes proposed for this. and i'm not talking about complete fighter rebuilds i'm talking about new feats that stack with older feats and just new feats in general. instead of complaining about the problem( and i'm not saying there is a problem) lets find some solutions, or atleast some options.
q'afuu 11-21-05, 03:59 PM	Barbarians have a set of nice pinnacle abilities from levels 17-20 that are lost with multi-classing and are probably not equal to the feats gotten from other sources. Paladins have stacking abilities (Smite Evil), more abilities (additional Smite Evil) and fourth level spells (which matter more now that splatbooks exist). Rangers aslo have a stacking ability (favored enemy) and 4th level spells. Fighter have feats which need to be weighed against abilities gained from diversification. The only case where diversification doesn't work is where there are enough synergistic feats across 20 levels that the fighter is always better off getting that one additional feat. How realistic is this? I beg to differ. Not about the Barbarian - I pointed out from the start that Mighty Rage is probably the only 20th level class benefit that is actually worth getting to that 20th level in a single class - but about the stacking abilities of Paladins and Rangers and especially about the fighter needing synergystic feats. People clamour for spell-less Rangers and Paladins all the time. Obviously this means not everyone is so impressed with those spells - in fact, the most commonly suggested replacement is a bonus feat every time a new spell level is gained. Besides, let's look at it objectively: once a paladin hits level 15 he's pretty much only got some minor power bumps to look forward to: extra slots, but not higher spell levels, 1 extra daily smite if he takes 5 more paladin levels, 1 extra remove disease if he takes 3 more and some small increases (+1 damage per level on a succesful Smite? At those levels, +1 is peanuts; his turning ability is too weak to be concerned about and the SR his mount gets too low) in benefits he already got. A single Extra Smiting feat is probably more useful than half of those taken together. Monks past level 16 are better off taking class levels that give full BAB, even if that increases their total by only a single point. They need any to hit bonus they can get, and four levels in another class can easily give equally good class benefits as the last 4 monk levels do. Rangers find more reason to stick with their class in Camouflage/Hide in Plain Sight than in the extra spell slots and certainly more than in a 5th favoured enemy, when they've already had 4. Every class who gets only 4 levels of spellcasting is really better off depending on wands than counting on level-based spell slots. At the level they get those slots, the price for the corresponding wands has become trivial. The slots are nice because they don't cost anything and can be used without needing to draw out a wand, but no more than that. For a Fighter (heck, for everyone), each extra feat is a chance to diversify if that's wanted. Fighters however have a wide enough array of available feats that they can pretty much stick with a single focus for 20 levels as long as that focus is broad enough. I've played several Fighters where all I wanted was for them to be good at fighting one-on-one: duelists, tourney fighters, champions, that kind of thing. Twenty levels worth of feats, with an extra one for being human, and I still didn't even run out of useful feats using nothing but core options and even ignoring Weapon Focus and Specialization. Heck, roll well enough on stats to not have to worry about Dex reqs too much and I could have cheerfully used half again as many feats as I got for core choices.
q'afuu 11-21-05, 04:01 PM	instead of complaining about the problem( and i'm not saying there is a problem) lets find some solutions, or atleast some options. If there is no problem, there are no solutions either. ;)
Dangaard 11-21-05, 05:22 PM	what i mean is that i find no problems with the current fighter in the PHB. what i'm saying is that all i hear is people complaining about the fighter not having enough high end high lvl feats. so lets make some up, we can edit change or make completely new feats/feat chains/class skills/ for the fighter.
True Archon 11-21-05, 07:10 PM	Alright, I'll reply in hopefully a easy to read format. -----Archtyrant Terevoth----- You might think that... but no, it doesn't work out that way. A cleric, psion or druid is especially exempt from spellcaster counters because they have enough buffs to be not only a full caster but also a "fighter with spells" Psions? Yeah, they're kinda a tricky lot. The problem with psions is many peoples complete lack of experience in fighting against them. However, they still tend to have low hp and AC. Now, druids, and especially clerics, usually aren't as concerned about hp or AC as other spellcasters (especially arcane ones). However, their problems revolve around the same issue that all spellcasters need to consider: the typical one spell per standard action (not considering Quickened ones). A cleric or druid who buffs themselves with a spell do so while the enemy is pummelling them. Thus, they are often playing "catch-up" to match a single monster's combat ability. Let's take for example, a balor vs. cleric. So, the cleric casts Righteous Might to become a better warrior comparable to the balor. Ok, now the balor rains damage on the cleric. Cleric casts some other buff spell. Balor rains damage on the cleric. Cleric cast some other buff spell. Balor rains damage on the cleric. The problem with buff spells is that you need to get them up in the first place. Your enemy isn't going to be sitting there doing nothing the whole time. The thing is that spellcasters have so many potent abilities that they force the monsters to constant counter them, as opposed to the other way around. For instance a monster who can't fly and has no ranged attacks loses to a fly spell. If it can't see invisible, then improved invisibility beats it. If it can't teleport, then wall of force or forcecage take it out of action. Just because you can't fireball something to death doesn't mean you can't easily bypass it easily. You're right. Thinking outside of the "damage vs. hit point" box is a good thing. Finding ways to maximize advantage against a monster's disadvantage is also a good thing. However, spellcasters run into this constant pesky situation of not having the right spell prepared, or known, when it's needed most. Likewise, a decent DM running CR 20 encounters against the party is likewise going to be thinking "outside the box" to counter or minimize spellcasters. Otherwise, why would half of these enemies even be CR 20 in the first place? -----RadicalTaoist----- I would assume you have never played a seriously optimized high-level caster. They're damn near invincible. I'll address them one by one. You know what they say about assumption, right? ;) I tease. However, let's just get this out of the way, though. Played D&D for roughly... I guessing... 15 years (give or take a year). I've played with probably about thirty different players and probably about a third of that number of DMs. So yes, I've seen, played, and DM'd against a number of optimized high-level casters. However, the issue isn't that it is known that there are "optimized, high-level casters" out there. The more often overlooked issue is that there are optimized, high-level non-spellcasters out there as well. The thing about D&D is that many players want to play spellcasters. They usually almost always play spellcasters. They get comfortable with playing spellcasters. As a result, these spellcaster players see spellcasters as the ultimate classes, and they often don't get to see an optimized, high level non-spellcaster at work. Oh, and quite often, and until recently, I've usually been the DM running the game, and not the player. Since, I've learned to run games that equally challenge the spellcasters, as well as the non-spellcasters, I've grown quite use to exploiting the weaknesses of spellcasting classes when, or if, needed. However, in my stint as a player, I've also shown other DMs the danger and power represented by the non-spellcaster classes, because I've observed, experimented with, and developed ways for non-spellcasters to not only survive, but thrive despite the opposition. But anyways, my replies to the next will be in italics. High level Monks - Nasty, yes, but not a guaranteed mage kill. Often can be bypassed by a savvy caster - no need for you to fight it for the hell of it, and no monk runs faster than a Dimension Door. ---Okay, nothings guaranteed. Savvy casters can be surprised, and bypassed by savvy monks. Likewise, running from a fight doesn't make you the winner, and on top of that, abundant step is a standard action away of pursuit, or being within melee range of a spellcaster. High level casters with Improved Counterspell - Need a caster to fight a caster? A caster that has focused on fighting other casters? That should tell you something about caster balance...besides, Improved Invisibility + attacking from outside of True Seeing range negates this, as you can't counter spells from someone you can't see. ---Well, there is that pesky situation of having those spells prepared (or known), and even if you do, having them counterspelled by a spellcaster with a spell of a similar school, that might not have been useful for the enemy spellcaster because of the spells they may have prepared as well. Let's say that the enemy spellcaster had phantasmal killer prepared, but realizes that the strong Will save of another spellcaster is probably gonna negate the usefulness of the spell. So, why not use it to counterspell the wizard's trump spell, instead? Also, what's to stop the other spellcaster from using improved invisibilty & true seeing as well? Monsters with High Saves, Energy Immunities, Anti-magic Properties, and/or Spell Resistance like: ---Any, and all, outsiders - There are many ways to deal with outsiders, such as the Magic Circles, Dismissals, Banishment, etc. etc. Hell you can cal in your own outsiders if need be. Clerics can jack up their CLs so high Spell Resistance becomes a joke. ---Once again, great if you have that stuff prepared, or it is known. Magic Circles require that you confine yourself to a small area, and work against "summoned" creatures. What if you're the non-native here? Likewise, the spell only prevents the outsider from entering the area, but they can rain all kinds of things on you from outside that area. Dismissals and Banishments both give saves (strong for outsiders) and are subject to SR (common for outsiders). How much faith are you willing to put into these spells when they have to push pass two different defenses that these monsters have? Jacking up CLs doesn't make the SR disappear, and a failed spell for a spellcaster can be the one failed spell that causes their downfall. Calling your own outsiders is great, but most outsiders can do the same. ---Beholders - one of the anti-caster-focused monsters, and just as dangerous to everyone else but Monks due to dependence on magic items at high levels. But casters can pull out tricks to deal with these guys too. Summoning a bunch of monsters with ranged attacks to attack at different angles is a favorite of mine - the eye tyrant can only wink one out at a time, and he'll take damage from all. Hell, a gish build is the best to deal with beholders - they can't afford to take their antimagic off of the gish, but the gish is no pushover in combat either. ---A warrior with a non-magical weapon and armor is still wielding a weapon and wearing armor. Thus, they are more likely better protected than an arcane caster would be under an anti-magic cone, and probably still have a better AC and damage potential than the beholder. Likewise, if the beholder is using his anti-magic eye on that person, it can't use it's other eyes on them either. Then, removing the anti-magic cone brings back the warriors magical protections to better resist the other eyes. Summoning monsters is a useful idea, but a smart beholder is more likely to remain focused upon the spellcaster who summoned those creatures with the anti-magic cone, because that spellcaster is still the larger threat, and deal with the summoned creature with it's other eyes. ---Dragons - it is impossible to even consider fighting dragons without devoted casters in D&D. Casters can reshape their lairs with Stone Shape and Disentigrate. Casters can summon meat walls to block the dragon's minions, counteract the dragon's magic, disjoin it's items, block it's flight. You can't fight dragons without caster support. Period. --- HA! You can't fight dragons without outdamaging them either! Dragons at this level are going to hit harder and deal out more damage than a spellcaster can put out. Stone shape and Disintigrate their lairs? You don't think that the dragon is going to notice this? Meat walls? Who cares! Kill the spellcaster first, then focus on the cannonfodder. Counteracting the dragon's magic, disjoining it's items, block it's flight? All of these need to be done individually and must bypass the dragon's strong saves and SR. So, what? The dragon isn't doing it's own attacks against you during this time? In your world of absolutes, I've gotta say... you can't fight dragons without warrior support. Period. ---Golems - another monster that is very anti-caster, but there are still options. Summons to wail on the thing. Battlefield shaping is highly effective against golems - a Rock to Mud under the iron golem's feet, let it sink in, and then Mud to Rock to trap it. Weak Reflexes means Forcecage. Golems are not guaranteed caster kills. --- Such summoned creatures better have adamantite weapons. Battlefield shaping is nice, but you better have those spells ready in the first place. Golems also have this nasty tendency to have their masters/creators lurking around somewhere, as well. Forcecage costs 1500 gp per casting. If you rely on this spell constantly, you're going to be a broke spellcaster before long, and if your DM doesn't enforce the expensive components rule, it's no wonder you believe spellcasters are the end all of classes. That type of campaign is spellcaster biased. ---Inevitables - extraplanar constructs. See Outsiders and Golems. ---Same still applies with outsiders and golems except one detail. Magic circles are alignment specific and inevitables will require the less often prepared Magic Circles against Law/Chaos. ---Mindflayers - I certainly wouldn't mind having a caster's Will save vs. Mind Flayers. Mind Blank, anyone? ---Yeah, but their "at will" special abilities and spell resistance make them quite deadly. Then adding in class levels like the sorcerer version in the MM make them more of a threat. Mind Blank, great if you have it (poor divine casters). ---Various Intelligent Undead - Can be dealt with. Clerics laugh at these. Really, unless they're also spellcasters (read - liches), there's nothing a full caster particularly has to worry about as far as high CR undead go that all the other classes don't worry about. --- Clerics laugh? Quite possibly, but Turn Resistance becomes quite common at these levels. Almost all high CR undead have class levels, and that's nothing to dismiss easily. Likewise, most are quite intelligent, and will have invested in magical protections on their lairs that improve turn resistance. Monsters that with high BAB and that do very high amounts of damage in single hits. - Every class doesn't worry about this - why? It matters not, since casters know how to bring up the miss chances (Blur, Blink, Darkness) or stay the hell out of the way of being hit at all. --- Every class needs to worry about this, but doubly so for the arcane spellcasters. Once again, you need those spells on your ready list, and many of those can be countered by most enemies at this level. Creatures that burrow. - Please. Flying? --- Any nonspellcaster at this level better have some means to fly, or counter this ability. Besides, the monster has to surface eventually. Creatures that are incorporeal, ethereal, or have access to inter-planar/dimensional travel. - on the contrary, casters are the ones to call for these. Dimensional Anchor? Wall of Force? Transdimensional Spell? --- Have those spells on speed dial? Likewise, Wall of Force is a blocked two way street. Spent the feat for this? I don't have the book with it handy nearby, but isn't it a metamagic feat and the spell needs to be prepared as such? I can't remember. Sorry. Creatures with strong Grappling ability. - Freedom of Movement. Contingencied Dimension Door. --- Prepared? Known? Creatures that strike from surprise. - This, again, can screw everybody. And again, the caster has options here in the form of divinations like Foresight, or spells that grant warning senses, such as Blindsight or Dragonsight. My personal favorite is the psion's Detect Hostile Intent, despite it's limited range. --- I'm feeling like a broken record. I know. I know. However, it's still valid. Do you have them prepared or known? As to them screwing anybody? Yes, it does. However, a most spellcasters have a greater likelihood of being kill, or maimed, outright because of lower hit point totals. Okay, now I want you to look at this list of spells that you've come up with for all of the above possibilities: Foresight Freedom of Movement Contigencied Dimension Door Dimension Anchor Wall of Force Fly (many times) Blur Blink Darkness Mind Blank Rock to Mud Forcecage Summon Monster (many times) Magic Circle against Good Magic Circle against Evil Magic Circle against Law Magic Circle against Chaos Stone Shape Disintigrate Dismissal Banishment True Seeing Improved Invisibilty Dimension Door Now I'm gonna ask. Are these spells always gonna be prepared or known to your spellcaster? Likewise, many of these spells are listed several times as counters, so are you going to have them multiple times before you rest again? The one constant type of spell that I see devoted to almost every spellcaster's list is the one that is reserved for escaping the scene (usually teleport of some sort). Afterwards, the spellcasters pat themselves on the back, and congratulate themselves for being "masters of the universe" because they learned when to run away, and when to keep a backup escape route handy. So, why can't the nonspellcasters keep this in mind. My point is that anyone can throw out spell names to show counters to arguements in theory, however, the realistic thing is that these options are not always going to be ready and available to you, and in the end, you still have the weaknesses that are more commonly known, broader in scope, and exploitable. Well, I've gotta go, but I'll try to respond to other posts later.
nnnnn 11-21-05, 07:48 PM	With high level PCs, it's all about who goes first. If the fighter goes first, and he's within charging range, he will probably win as he should be able to kill the wizard in one blow if he's optimized well. Conversely, if the wizard goes first it's over for the fighter. Any high level wizard should *always* have fly and dimension door ready. If the wizard goes first, he wins. If the fighter goes first, he usually wins. At 20th level, initiative is all important. nnnnn
RadicalTaoist 11-22-05, 01:48 AM	Alright, I'll reply in hopefully a easy to read format.It's very easy to read. Thanks! :thumbsup: You know what they say about assumption, right? ;) I tease. However, let's just get this out of the way, though. Played D&D for roughly... I guessing... 15 years (give or take a year). I've played with probably about thirty different players and probably about a third of that number of DMs. So yes, I've seen, played, and DM'd against a number of optimized high-level casters. I'd need a better idea of your game experience, but my assumption stands refuted. That said, we may differ on the idea of what constitutes 'optimized'. However, the issue isn't that it is known that there are "optimized, high-level casters" out there. The more often overlooked issue is that there are optimized, high-level non-spellcasters out there as well. The thing about D&D is that many players want to play spellcasters. They usually almost always play spellcasters. They get comfortable with playing spellcasters. As a result, these spellcaster players see spellcasters as the ultimate classes, and they often don't get to see an optimized, high level non-spellcaster at work. Oh, I play non-spellcasters more often really. The problem is that the casters can nearly do anything. When I play non-casters, I tend to go for the stealthy types as they can do something that still wows. I've played high-level melee types before, and they're fun in their niche, but unless they're caster hybrids they're crippled compared to the other classes. I suscribe to the Sereg school of thought, which can be roughly summarized as: a) In 3.5 (and 3.0 before it) the melee chars were jacked from Core on above level 12, and b) For every bit of supplemental material that helps melee types regain ground, there is twice as much released in the form of options for casters and new monsters that utterly outstrips whatever they were capable of even more. Oh, and quite often, and until recently, I've usually been the DM running the game, and not the player. Since, I've learned to run games that equally challenge the spellcasters, as well as the non-spellcasters, I've grown quite use to exploiting the weaknesses of spellcasting classes when, or if, needed. However, in my stint as a player, I've also shown other DMs the danger and power represented by the non-spellcaster classes, because I've observed, experimented with, and developed ways for non-spellcasters to not only survive, but thrive despite the opposition. Do you have to target the spellcasters disproportionately in order for the noncasters to shine? That would indicate there's a definite balance curve there. Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to argue that the casters are l337 invincible ub4r. They can be fought. But they almost never run out of options. Stealth/mobility/harrier types have less options but can still be effective over a wide variety of situations. The melee types are just jacked, though. That's my argument. But anyways, my replies to the next will be in italics. Since you can't Quote Quotes, I'll just respond to the topic (Dragons, Grappling, etc.) and your text will be bolded. Monks - Okay, nothings guaranteed. Savvy casters can be surprised, and bypassed by savvy monks. Likewise, running from a fight doesn't make you the winner, and on top of that, abundant step is a standard action away of pursuit, or being within melee range of a spellcaster. Running from fights is something the fighter can't often do, and abundant step is once per day. Monks are a threat, but do not humiliate casters. Counterspellers - Well, there is that pesky situation of having those spells prepared (or known), and even if you do, having them counterspelled by a spellcaster with a spell of a similar school, that might not have been useful for the enemy spellcaster because of the spells they may have prepared as well. Let's say that the enemy spellcaster had phantasmal killer prepared, but realizes that the strong Will save of another spellcaster is probably gonna negate the usefulness of the spell. So, why not use it to counterspell the wizard's trump spell, instead? Also, what's to stop the other spellcaster from using improved invisibilty & true seeing as well? Nothing. All valid points - but you're comparing apples to apples. And if this counterspell caster decided today he'd prepare spells to mess up a melee type, he'd be even more effective. Combatting casters is another option casters have. If you need a caster to humiliate a caster... Outsiders - Once again, great if you have that stuff prepared, or it is known. Magic Circles require that you confine yourself to a small area, and work against "summoned" creatures. What if you're the non-native here? Likewise, the spell only prevents the outsider from entering the area, but they can rain all kinds of things on you from outside that area. Dismissals and Banishments both give saves (strong for outsiders) and are subject to SR (common for outsiders). How much faith are you willing to put into these spells when they have to push pass two different defenses that these monsters have? Jacking up CLs doesn't make the SR disappear, and a failed spell for a spellcaster can be the one failed spell that causes their downfall. Calling your own outsiders is great, but most outsiders can do the same. See below about overlap. Plane Shift is as good as Forcecage is as good as Dismissal is as good as Magic Circle for dealing with outsiders. What I'm saying is that a caster has all these options, and it's a lucky outsider (or an outsider with the advantage of surprise) that can even hope to humiliate a caster - and again, he'll probably have a much easier time humiliating melee types. The caster can actually have beat in CLs than the SR of equivalent CR monsters by 5 or more in the high levels, turning SR from an advantage to a necessity to survive. Or SR can just be ignored by instantaneous Conjuration, summons, other effects. No caster will have all of these available to them. But the options are there. They're not for fighters. Beholders - A warrior with a non-magical weapon and armor is still wielding a weapon and wearing armor. Thus, they are more likely better protected than an arcane caster would be under an anti-magic cone, and probably still have a better AC and damage potential than the beholder. Likewise, if the beholder is using his anti-magic eye on that person, it can't use it's other eyes on them either. Then, removing the anti-magic cone brings back the warriors magical protections to better resist the other eyes. Summoning monsters is a useful idea, but a smart beholder is more likely to remain focused upon the spellcaster who summoned those creatures with the anti-magic cone, because that spellcaster is still the larger threat, and deal with the summoned creature with it's other eyes. Thus my comment on gishes. It's still doesn't guarantee humilation for the caster, and if the fighter type fails a will save then it can mean encounter over. The caster has Wall of Force that doesn't go away in antimagic, has offensive spells beyond the range of the eye, has options. The only option that a combat type has that a caster would not in the Beholder situation is archery, and there a Fighter is pressed to compete with Bards and Rangers. Dragons - HA! You can't fight dragons without outdamaging them either! Dragons at this level are going to hit harder and deal out more damage than a spellcaster can put out. Stone shape and Disintigrate their lairs? You don't think that the dragon is going to notice this? Meat walls? Who cares! Kill the spellcaster first, then focus on the cannonfodder. Counteracting the dragon's magic, disjoining it's items, block it's flight? All of these need to be done individually and must bypass the dragon's strong saves and SR. So, what? The dragon isn't doing it's own attacks against you during this time? In your world of absolutes, I've gotta say... you can't fight dragons without warrior support. Period. At the levels you are talking about, better to summon warrior support. Hell, better to Polymorph Any Object a rock into a mountain troll if you really need warrior support. Outdamage a dragon? How? With negative energy levels from Energy Drain? With Cha damage from a psion's Ego Whip? How is the fighter better than a summoned monster? He gets eaten, maybe picked up and thrown away. Just a speed bump. Those mighty fighters are meat after a few full attacks from the Dragon at best, and have a tough time leaving a dent in that 40 AC and hundreds of HP. A druid in some crazy strong form can do it, but not a fighter. The best a fighter can do is shoot arrows and hope the Dragon doesn't have Wind Wall, or that the caster dispels that wind wall. Arrows and swords are as likely to be noticed as stone shaping and disentigrating, and that remains options the caster has the fighter doesn't. I want warrior support against a dragon? Screw the Fighter. Give me a Cleric or a Paladin or a Ranger or a Monk or a Druid. Golems - Such summoned creatures better have adamantite weapons. Battlefield shaping is nice, but you better have those spells ready in the first place. Golems also have this nasty tendency to have their masters/creators lurking around somewhere, as well. Forcecage costs 1500 gp per casting. If you rely on this spell constantly, you're going to be a broke spellcaster before long, and if your DM doesn't enforce the expensive components rule, it's no wonder you believe spellcasters are the end all of classes. That type of campaign is spellcaster biased. The DM should enforce expensive components. He also needs to ban the ridiculous ways casters have of getting money insanely easy and being effectively rich (Wall of Iron + Fabricate, selling the result of Mount spells, Flesh to Salt from Sandstorm, etc.). It matters not since there are a bunch of other hindering spells that target Reflex or another area a golem is weak at that ignore SR. A Cleric can self-buff and go toe to toe with a golem if necessary. Not all golems have that DR. Druids can summon and become melee bruisers that can overpower even the most DR-entrenched golems, if they don't just bury them under Stone Shape and the like. None of this is a guarantee, but all of that means options, and all those options means no humiliated caster. Ditto for Inevitables. Mind Flayers - Yeah, but their "at will" special abilities and spell resistance make them quite deadly. Then adding in class levels like the sorcerer version in the MM make them more of a threat. Mind Blank, great if you have it (poor divine casters). Poor divine casters with their dirty high Wisdom and Will saves. More like poor Fighters if no one's around to supply them with Mind Blanks. Mind Flayers are a threat to casters, but casters are not out of options, casters are not humiliated unless they're real unlucky. Intelligent Undead - Clerics laugh? Quite possibly, but Turn Resistance becomes quite common at these levels. Almost all high CR undead have class levels, and that's nothing to dismiss easily. Likewise, most are quite intelligent, and will have invested in magical protections on their lairs that improve turn resistance. Clerics still laugh with Disrupting Weapon, Heal, and Death Ward. They laugh with Consecrate and Hallow. The casters don't lack options here either. Not seeing a caster pushover, not by any means, but not seeing the humiliation either. High BAB + Single attack damage - Every class needs to worry about this, but doubly so for the arcane spellcasters. Once again, you need those spells on your ready list, and many of those can be countered by most enemies at this level. I'm still not seeing the humiliation. The casters have all those overlapping options (see below), and they can't all be countered. 50% miss chance, staying the hell out of range - it's luck either way. Burrowers - Any nonspellcaster at this level better have some means to fly, or counter this ability. Besides, the monster has to surface eventually. So Fighters need magic items to catch up with the other classes, saving the casters money for crazy strong items like Metamagic rods. And still there are options like Stone Shape, Earthquake, Disentigrate, summoning monsters with tremorsense and burrow speeds of their own, etc. I see no humiliation. Extradimensional travel counters - Have those spells on speed dial? Likewise, Wall of Force is a blocked two way street. Spent the feat for this? I don't have the book with it handy nearby, but isn't it a metamagic feat and the spell needs to be prepared as such? I can't remember. Sorry. It is indeed a metamagic feat. I'm just listing all the options a caster has. On top, there's stuff like Detect Undead for incorporeal undead, Foresight to prevent surprises, a psion's Trace Teleport if they try to escape - again, few humiliated optimized casters. A Fighter's options? Ghost Touch Weapons. That's about it. Grappling - Prepared? Known? FoM lasts for a good duration. Contingencied D. Door is one of the best Contingency choices; it's only equal I'd argue is Contingencied Magic Jar. That's also not all the options. Druids can become beastly and grapple right the hell back. You have to catch an Improved Invisible foe to grapple them. Rogue-types get Escape Artist. You can't grapple a wizard under Gaseous Form. The options go on. Grappling is an awesome anti-caster tactic, but it's not a guarantee by any stretch, and it's not as humiliating when you get to the huge monsters with the 60+ grapple checks. It's sad when casters can escape grapples easier than Fighters - one of the reasons I love CW and it's Close-Quarters Fighting feat. Surprise - I'm feeling like a broken record. I know. I know. However, it's still valid. Do you have them prepared or known? As to them screwing anybody? Yes, it does. However, a most spellcasters have a greater likelihood of being kill, or maimed, outright because of lower hit point totals. I'm sorry for making you repeat yourself. But a valid anti-caster tactic is not a humiliation. Not with all the spell options available - Blindsight, Dragonsight, Embrace the Wild, Alarm, illusions, and the spells I've mentioned so far both core and from supplements. Surviving the surprise is harder for casters, yes, but they have many means to detect and prevent surprise. And if you're sleeping in a Rope Trick with a some antidetection and antiscry spells up, you can sleep easy. Okay, now I want you to look at this list of spells that you've come up with for all of the above possibilities: Foresight (Avoidance, Escape) Freedom of Movement (Anti-grapple, limited escape) Contigencied Dimension Door (anti-grapple, near perfect escape) Dimension Anchor (effective caster counter, mobility control) Wall of Force (mobility control) Fly (many times) (mobility enhancement, escape, simulated by a number of other spells such as Spider Climb, Levitate, and Air Walk) Blur (defense) Blink (defense, mobility enhancement) Darkness (battlefield control, stealth) Mind Blank (vital protection, stealth, effective caster counter) Rock to Mud (battlefield control) Forcecage (mobility control) Summon Monster (many times) (so freaking versatile it's not funny) Magic Circle against Good Magic Circle against Evil Magic Circle against Law Magic Circle against Chaos (all four above: effective caster counter, mobility control) Stone Shape (battlefield control) Disintigrate (battlefield control, single target offense) Dismissal (limited single target offense) Banishment (limited single target offense) True Seeing (detection, avoidance, effective caster counter) Improved Invisibilty (stealth, avoidance, escape, effective caster counter) Dimension Door (near-perfect escape, mobility enhancement) Now I'm gonna ask. Are these spells always gonna be prepared or known to your spellcaster? Likewise, many of these spells are listed several times as counters, so are you going to have them multiple times before you rest again? I've listed above in parentheses each of the areas in which they are useful to casters. See all that overlap? Most of those spells are not even on all lists (wizards can't cast freedom of movement, for example). Casters don't need all those options. That's an overabundance of options. They'll only need, say, half those spells. And that's for the prepared casters - for the spontaneous casters and manifesters, it's even easier. That's the options casters have. They're not guarantees by far, and can be fought as your DM experience I'm sure proves. What options do the melee types have? Hope the casters save their necks before they run out of HPs and die? The one constant type of spell that I see devoted to almost every spellcaster's list is the one that is reserved for escaping the scene (usually teleport of some sort). Afterwards, the spellcasters pat themselves on the back, and congratulate themselves for being "masters of the universe" because they learned when to run away, and when to keep a backup escape route handy. So, why can't the nonspellcasters keep this in mind. Why? Because the Sorceror can Dimension Door regularly, the Monk once per day, and the Barb and Fighter not at all. That means when the crap hits the fan, the Fighter and the Barb cannot escape without party support. They cannot outrun the flying dragon. The melee types just don't get escape routes. My point is that anyone can throw out spell names to show counters to arguements in theory, however, the realistic thing is that these options are not always going to be ready and available to you, and in the end, you still have the weaknesses that are more commonly known, broader in scope, and exploitable. The fact that I listed an overabundance of options, and didn't go for overkill and pull out what a dozen splatbooks could give me should hint that the casters will not really worry about running out of options unless you seriously harry them. Options that the melee types never had in the first place. It's hard to humiliate casters. It's very, very easy to humilate fighters and similar classes.
True Archon 11-22-05, 08:07 AM	Very well put. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that spellcasters suck. Far from it. I'm definitely not saying that someone who knows how to play a spellcaster well is guaranteed to die, either. What I am saying is that I've played fighters (and other nonspellcaster types) up to high levels, and I've had my run with frustration at the weaknesses that they have. However, I've also played spellcasters up until high levels, and I've had my share of problems with the weaknesses that they have (well, except for a particular cleric saint I played, but that's more due to the saint part than the cleric part... don't even get me started... :rolleyes: ). The thing is that not many people see when the nonspellcasters pull their weight at higher levels, because either they've rarely seen it happen (too few players who understand the rules of combat), or when they do, they're jaded after seeing the flashy effects done by a successful spell, but overlook the times when they fail. I'd need a better idea of your game experience, but my assumption stands refuted. That said, we may differ on the idea of what constitutes 'optimized'. It's very possible, but I doubt it. ;) No, I have a feeling our ideas of optimized aren't too far off. In fact, I understand and agree with a lot of your responses. However, optimization can be done with nonspellcasters as well, even the fighter. It all comes down to realizing your weaknesses, and trying to minimize them, all the while maximizing your strengths. Oh, I play non-spellcasters more often really. The problem is that the casters can nearly do anything. When I play non-casters, I tend to go for the stealthy types as they can do something that still wows. I've played high-level melee types before, and they're fun in their niche, but unless they're caster hybrids they're crippled compared to the other classes. .... I know the feeling, but in a different manner. I play spellcasters, but I'm almost always concerned with the innate frailness to them. Also, I mull over every failure that happens while casting spells. By the higher levels, it's very easy to see a spell skate by an enemy's SR, but then later seeing it diminished by a successful save. It's twice the difficulty just to get one thing accomplished. Spells are great when they work, but when they don't work is when things start to go downhill. It's a lost action, and an opportunity for the BBEG to put some serious hurt back on you. So, as a result, I often tend to sway towards the divine spellcasters so that I have that extra little buffer for hit points and armor, but then I run into a different dilemma with these spellcasters, too. That usually comes down to what spells to prepare for, what to use, and what to hold in reserve. Thankfully they have some measure of spontaneous casting to them. With nonspellcasters, and especialy fighters, it's simpler for me to minimize their weaknesses. I know that some of their worst weaknesses are as follows, but I'll show how to counter them: Low Reflex and Will saves: Invest in a decent cloak of resistance (at least +3), but even better, a vest of resistance if they're available (same costs, but non-core). By gaining the vest, you can keep open that slot for gaining another useful cloak option (I kinda like the displacement ones, but also the ethereal ones). Likewise, even by gaining gloves of dexterity, and a periapt of wisdom of a minor bonus (+2, or even +4), along with the resistance magic item, these numbers can easily increase your saves by +4 or +5 (unless you really invest in some more expensive equipment). Also, take some comfort that most Reflex saves result in damage, which you'll probably survive better, because of high hit point totals. Low movement in heavy armor: The ever popular boots of speed help here, but so do the often overlooked (and cheaper) boots of springing and striding. Ugh, flying: Flying is so often used at high level that it has to definitely be considered. However, many fighter players worry about getting magic items to fly because it often takes over another body slot for another item. The big one is boots of flying (especially after I've already mentioned two other magical boots), and potions become expensive. However, they forget that everything in the game comes down to actions. So, buy you're boots of flying without regret, because guess what? You can slide off your boots of speed, and put on your boots of flying in the same amount of time in a round that a spellcaster can cast fly, wind walk, or wildshape. However, do it wisely. Most monsters that fly cannot do it with perfect manueverability. So, when the bad guy is coming back around for another pass, take that opportunity to swap your boots. Poor skill choices: Let's face it. Fighters have the worst skill choices. I hate it, but they're there, and you have to just deal with it. You just have to realize that you're a fighter, and most skills aren't suppose to be your job. However, the big ones that affect your role as a combatant in the party are the ones you do have to worry about. Let's deal with a big one, Spot. Eyes of the Eagle are cheap, so break open your wallet and buy them. They're not overwhelming, but if you ever believed that you were going to see that 20th-level Rogue hiding, you'd have been a 20th-level Druid, Monk, Ranger, or Rogue with maxed Spot, instead. Take heart that you're not the only class that is blind as a bat to such things, and at least you can now halfway see the distant threats that aren't hiding (and can shoot them... hehehe). There are many other items that help in low skill checks, as well as feats, and if you have access to them, feats from supplements (gotta love Guerilla Scout and Heavy Armor Optimization). Do you have to target the spellcasters disproportionately in order for the noncasters to shine? That would indicate there's a definite balance curve there. .... I'm not sure by your meaning of "disproportionately?" When I speak of "exploiting the weaknesses of a spellcasting class" as a DM, it's not by anything not within the RAW. For example, I "exploit" a 20th-level sorcerer/wizard's low hit point total by having the Balor spending 10 points BAB towards Power Attack and using his longsword two-handed to deal an average of 46 damage per hit (hmmm, anyone ever notice that the balor's strength bonus for the weapon is off?). That type of damage to a sorcerer/wizard is devastatingly noticeable, and let's them know that they still have vulnerabilities. With a fighter in full plate and using a heavy shield, the balor has to think twice about investing in Power Attack in order just to hit (especially if the fighter is using AC enhancing feats). Plus that type of damage is less noticeable to the fighter. However, I also "exploit" other classes "weaknesses", including fighters (Will save attacks are a favorite). I'm hoping that you're not thinking that I change my games to give fighters and "edge" where there isn't one? .... Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to argue that the casters are l337 invincible ub4r. They can be fought. But they almost never run out of options. Stealth/mobility/harrier types have less options but can still be effective over a wide variety of situations. The melee types are just jacked, though. That's my argument. I understand what you're saying. I also don't disagree that spellcasters can have more options. However, I am saying that I see that spellcasters only have those options if they know specifics about what they are going up against. However, that's not always the case, especially at high levels. Balors, Pit Fiends, Liches, Dragons, and whatever other multitudes of monsters at this level, should have some ideas of tactics, how best to minimize their own weaknesses, how best to exploit an enemy's weaknesses, and how best to have an escape plan ready. They should also have some understanding on how to deal with spellcasters (especially the ones that they can see have done their homework). The DM should enforce expensive components. .... Ooohhhh I sooooo wholeheartedly agree! :w00t: I've seen so many DMs that don't always do this. I've seen them enforce xp costs, and costs involving bringing back the dead, but then, for some reason, they overlook a lot of the other expensive materials costs (as well as scribing spells into spellbooks). I've always wondered how far this mentality goes in other groups, but I've seen it enough to think "wow, I can't believe how many DMs do it this way..." He also needs to ban the ridiculous ways casters have of getting money insanely easy and being effectively rich (Wall of Iron + Fabricate, selling the result of Mount spells, Flesh to Salt from Sandstorm, etc.). .... Ban? Nah, think more fiendishly. Sick the Merchants' Guild on them, and bury them in bureaucratic tape. They usually will get bored of it eventually. If they don't take the hint... then ban it. Hehehe. ... The fact that I listed an overabundance of options, and didn't go for overkill and pull out what a dozen splatbooks could give me should hint that the casters will not really worry about running out of options unless you seriously harry them. Options that the melee types never had in the first place. It's hard to humiliate casters. It's very, very easy to humilate fighters and similar classes. I see what you're saying. I swear, I do. However, I don't see how you're missing the benefits of being a "melee-type." The problem with spells is that they are not full proof. Heck, in many cases, I'd even go so far as to say that they're not reliable enough to depend upon. For example: Say you cast an imprisonment spell against a random pit fiend you just encountered. The pit fiend has his SR of 32, which means that you have to roll at least a 12 or higher to get past his SR. That's a 60% chance of failure. Then you have to get past his Will save. Let's say that you start with a 16 Intelligence + 5 ability increases for level + 6 headband of intellect + 5 from wishes for an resulting intelligence of.... 32. Thats a +11 modifier. Ok, now the DC for this 9th-level spell is a 30. With the pit fiend's Will save of +21, he needs to roll a 9 to pass the save, or another 65% chance of failure for you. Overall, that's about a 32.5% chance of success that your spell works. I'm not sure if I should even get into the needed touch attack. But hey, if it does succeed, it's insta-win. If it doesn't, that's one round that he hits you with a meteor swarm for 24d6 fire damage (avg. 84 damage, 42 for successful Reflex save), AND if he makes his touch attacks with each sphere (avg. 28 damage) for about an average damage between 42-112 damage (depending upon whether you save or not, and if the spheres hit you or not). 20th-level Wizard with, let's say, a generous 20 Constitution = Average 151.5 hp. That, at best, leaves you with about 109.5 hp, but more likely, is gonna leave you with about 39.5 hp on the 32.5% hopeful chance that your spell succeeds. Well, if you decided to spend two feats to get Greater Spell Penetration, you could increase odds of success up to 52.5%. Hmmm, almost the flip of a coin? Hopefully the pit fiend doesn't get creative, or lucky... because to me, those odds suck. Mind you, this is just a single example with a 9th-level spell. The save DCs get worse with lower level magic... increasing likelihood of failed spells. Of course, that's why the wizard is with a party... to help pick up the slack when things go wrong (the rolls aren't in your favor), and vice versa. So what if your spell fails, the fighter just did 90 damage, and the cleric is healing damage from the meteor swarm.
Votan 11-22-05, 09:39 AM	Low Reflex and Will saves: Invest in a decent cloak of resistance (at least +3), but even better, a vest of resistance if they're available (same costs, but non-core). By gaining the vest, you can keep open that slot for gaining another useful cloak option (I kinda like the displacement ones, but also the ethereal ones). Likewise, even by gaining gloves of dexterity, and a periapt of wisdom of a minor bonus (+2, or even +4), along with the resistance magic item, these numbers can easily increase your saves by +4 or +5 (unless you really invest in some more expensive equipment). Also, take some comfort that most Reflex saves result in damage, which you'll probably survive better, because of high hit point totals. This helps somewhat but the bad will saves remain annoying for a fighter and are a significant class weakness even so. Base wisdom tends to be low because (in most games) fighters have to make tough choices about stat placement because of feat prerequisites. It's hard to abandon either strength or constitution as a fighter (certainly hard to dump either stat) while dex and int are required for many top tier feats. Will is the worst saving throw in terms of most frequent consequence. Reflex leads to being disabled or taking more hit points in damage. Fortitude is death or disability. Will often turns the character to the opposition. Since verybody knows this weakness of melee types . . . The basic idea of picking up saves that you emntion above actually works better for a wizard. Wizards have reasons to have decent con and dex scores (2nd and 3rd most important stats) and vests of resistence work just as well for them as anybody else. [Clerics are just embarrassing with a good fort save and their spellcasting attribute stacking with a good will save] At very high level play this will matter alot and constantly (to the point that it once dominated the only high level D&D game that I DMed -- the players were all figthers and they were unable to ever counter domination until they got a magic item that graned mind blank). In short, the fighter is pumping resources to shore up a weakness where most casters are building strength with the same strategy. I understand what you're saying. I also don't disagree that spellcasters can have more options. However, I am saying that I see that spellcasters only have those options if they know specifics about what they are going up against. However, that's not always the case, especially at high levels. Balors, Pit Fiends, Liches, Dragons, and whatever other multitudes of monsters at this level, should have some ideas of tactics, how best to minimize their own weaknesses, how best to exploit an enemy's weaknesses, and how best to have an escape plan ready. They should also have some understanding on how to deal with spellcasters (especially the ones that they can see have done their homework). True, but high level casters have the option of devoting a certain number of spell slots to dealing with surprise. Example, a quickened divine power is an 8th level spell (or requires a modest magic item). By the time a Balor could show up the cleric could melee with a significant percentage of the ability of a fighter with a single free action. Wizards have spells like teleport, quickened dimension door and contingency (or the freaky powerful "craft contingency") at these levels. That Pit Fiend is going to have to hit hard and fast to disable the wizard before the wizard can do something. And that is just with evasion (i.e. you really do catch him completely unprepared to duel with the creature) -- the wizard could counter-attack under most circumstances . . . Meanwhile, the fighter can be easily ambushed (spot check? what spot checK? see notes above on wisdom) and has far fewer mobility options. It's not absolutely decisive but pretty darn worrisome for the figther types.
Tony Vargas 11-23-05, 07:42 PM	Fighters are much more susceptable to this (diversification being advantageous) than other classes; even other melee classes. Really, diversification /is/ advantageous, period - if you take a barbarian level, you get rage and fast movement, no matter what your other classes may be. Fighters have an advantage when it comes to multiclassing in that they choose the order in which they gain thier class abilities (since they just choose from a list of feats), so they're a lot less likely to miss out on whichever fighter abilities they really wanted when they jump to another class. Unless, of course, you really, really want a total of 18 or 19 feats... in which fighter 20 is for you
Cathon 11-23-05, 08:39 PM	I have a hobgoblin fighter I'm planning on taking to Fighter 19, 20 if the DM lets me dump the LA at some point. He does two weapon fighting with shortswords, and he pretty much needs all his feats. There's TWF, Improved TWF, Greater TWF, TWD, Improved TWD, etc. Then there are the weapon focus and specialization feats. And Improved Critical, of course. Then he wants elusive target and was going for whirlwind, and that's a whole set of feats with the dodge mobility chain and stuff. I actually had his feats planned out and was lamenting not having Iron Will in there or Improved Toughness. Of course, now he has a weapon of legend and he had to take power attack (for a shortsword!) to unlock its first power, which threw off the entire feat pattern, and begs for him to fit in cleave now. I think whirlwind is probably gone, now and I may need to drop one of the two weapon feats. Obviously, this list is made possible by Complete Warrior, though Fighter 20 would also probably be a good choice if you are looking to do two weapon fighting with say, long sword and handaxe(2xWF, 2xWS, 2xIC, etc). How much fighter you want depends on how many feats you need for your concept, really.
Ander Spectacular 11-23-05, 10:13 PM	Just as an aside, RT mentioned above something about targeting spellcasters disproportionately and I laughed maniacally. What PC group doesn't always kill the spellcaster first? I thought this was a simple D&D caveat. Arcane spellcasters have puny hit point totals and can be dropped ridiculously easy regardless of all the counterspelling examples. Also, do enemies always fail saves? Last campaign I was in, our wizard was the most useless character because every spell he cast, the target saved, and more often than not, he was using his high level spells first. All optimization aside, SR and good saves are hell for a wizard. Maybe our DM just fudged his rolls, but i doubt it. More often than not a wizard has roughly a 50% chance at absolute most that his spells will work. Fighters obviously have to worry about hitting people, but you can always swing that sword again, whereas once that wizard casts his highest level spells....things go downhill. 7th level spells aren't that great against high CR creatures when your 8th and 9th level spells have all failed. Casters can be fun, and have the most potential power, but that potential is not absolute. All the discussions about how great individual classes are great and interesting, but they all prove the same point-> Nothing. Low fort save on a wiz is like low will save on a fighter. Any high CR creature should be able to deal out massive damage consistently. Wizards will fail that save, just like a fighter will fail that will save. -AS-
Gworraent 11-23-05, 11:09 PM	the great thing about the fighter is that there are so many different combinations. try some of those tactical feats( they have multiple reqs but mutliple special abilities are granted) or some weapon style feats.
Centauri 11-24-05, 12:13 AM	More often than not a wizard has roughly a 50% chance at absolute most that his spells will work. There are plenty of spells that don't require saves and don't impinge on resistance, most notably spells that summon creatures. Low fort save on a wiz is like low will save on a fighter. Any high CR creature should be able to deal out massive damage consistently. Wizards will fail that save, just like a fighter will fail that will save. Don't get me wrong, I love Fighters, but because of that I've read too many of this kind of discussion not to know that a Wizard that lets a Fighter get close enough to hit him has already done something wrong. The Wizard should be flying and invisible at the very least, and even if the Fighter can cope with that, he'll still have to cope with forcecages, charms, disjunction, summoned creatures, etc. Remember the Laws of Wizardry, folks: 1: Smart Wizards never lose. 2: If a Wizard loses, he was an idiot. 3: Idiots deserve to die. I don't like it, but that's how it seems to be.
RadicalTaoist 11-24-05, 01:25 AM	Very well put. Thank you. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that spellcasters suck. Far from it. I'm definitely not saying that someone who knows how to play a spellcaster well is guaranteed to die, either. What I am saying is that I've played fighters (and other nonspellcaster types) up to high levels, and I've had my run with frustration at the weaknesses that they have. However, I've also played spellcasters up until high levels, and I've had my share of problems with the weaknesses that they have (well, except for a particular cleric saint I played, but that's more due to the saint part than the cleric part... don't even get me started... :rolleyes: ). The thing is that not many people see when the nonspellcasters pull their weight at higher levels, because either they've rarely seen it happen (too few players who understand the rules of combat), or when they do, they're jaded after seeing the flashy effects done by a successful spell, but overlook the times when they fail. Fair enough. I agree with you entirely on 'fighter types'. I disagree on Fighter and Barbarian in particular. I've made optimized spellcasters, including fighter types. I've made them extremely freaking strong, and I've needed PrCs to do so. If you would like I can link you to a few of my CO boards achievements. I would not make them with Fighter 20 or Barbarian 20. It's very possible, but I doubt it. ;) No, I have a feeling our ideas of optimized aren't too far off. In fact, I understand and agree with a lot of your responses. However, optimization can be done with nonspellcasters as well, even the fighter. It all comes down to realizing your weaknesses, and trying to minimize them, all the while maximizing your strengths. Not with the Fighter at higher levels. Not without PrCs, and carefully chosen PrCs at that. Not with just the core material, and not at the rate the rest of the game is boosted by supplements. You could keep the level 13+ Fighter at balance par if you allowed all combat feats from a dozen supplements outside core, but introduced no new monsters, spells, or caster PrCs/classes outside of core. Seriously. Every new supplement adds new monsters beyond the Fighter's combat capability, meaning new Polymorph/Wildshape forms, new spells, and new ways for the Fighter to be left in the dust. Barb is not much better, but he tends to be a little faster and harder to kill. I know the feeling, but in a different manner. I play spellcasters, but I'm almost always concerned with the innate frailness to them. Also, I mull over every failure that happens while casting spells. By the higher levels, it's very easy to see a spell skate by an enemy's SR, but then later seeing it diminished by a successful save. It's twice the difficulty just to get one thing accomplished. Spells are great when they work, but when they don't work is when things start to go downhill. It's a lost action, and an opportunity for the BBEG to put some serious hurt back on you. So, as a result, I often tend to sway towards the divine spellcasters so that I have that extra little buffer for hit points and armor, but then I run into a different dilemma with these spellcasters, too. That usually comes down to what spells to prepare for, what to use, and what to hold in reserve. Thankfully they have some measure of spontaneous casting to them. Perhaps we use different tactics? You're right that it's often an all-or-nothing situation (as in, either the caster does well or he dies), but I've never felt 'frail' with a caster. Just felt I needed to stay the hell away from melee. With nonspellcasters, and especialy fighters, it's simpler for me to minimize their weaknesses. I know that some of their worst weaknesses are as follows, but I'll show how to counter them: Low Reflex and Will saves: Invest in a decent cloak of resistance (at least +3), but even better, a vest of resistance if they're available (same costs, but non-core). By gaining the vest, you can keep open that slot for gaining another useful cloak option (I kinda like the displacement ones, but also the ethereal ones). Likewise, even by gaining gloves of dexterity, and a periapt of wisdom of a minor bonus (+2, or even +4), along with the resistance magic item, these numbers can easily increase your saves by +4 or +5 (unless you really invest in some more expensive equipment). Also, take some comfort that most Reflex saves result in damage, which you'll probably survive better, because of high hit point totals. See Votan's post. Low movement in heavy armor: The ever popular boots of speed help here, but so do the often overlooked (and cheaper) boots of springing and striding. This still leaves fighter unable to outrun dragon, or exit Forcecage, or get up wall. Armor checks and not enough skill points to hit all the mobility skills is as big a problem here. At least a Barb has fast movement and the skills he needs, and the Psywar has Dimension Shift. Ugh, flying: Flying is so often used at high level that it has to definitely be considered. However, many fighter players worry about getting magic items to fly because it often takes over another body slot for another item. The big one is boots of flying (especially after I've already mentioned two other magical boots), and potions become expensive. However, they forget that everything in the game comes down to actions. So, buy you're boots of flying without regret, because guess what? You can slide off your boots of speed, and put on your boots of flying in the same amount of time in a round that a spellcaster can cast fly, wind walk, or wildshape. However, do it wisely. Most monsters that fly cannot do it with perfect manueverability. So, when the bad guy is coming back around for another pass, take that opportunity to swap your boots. Magic item investment much? I wouldn't complain, except casters' money saved goes to crazy stuff like prayer beads of karma and metamagic rods and pearls of power and so on. Also an issue is the relatively low CL and thus dispel-vulnerability of many items - you are better off with a buff from a caster. Did I mention annoyance at the dependence on buffs from casters? Poor skill choices: Let's face it. Fighters have the worst skill choices. I hate it, but they're there, and you have to just deal with it. You just have to realize that you're a fighter, and most skills aren't suppose to be your job. However, the big ones that affect your role as a combatant in the party are the ones you do have to worry about. Let's deal with a big one, Spot. Eyes of the Eagle are cheap, so break open your wallet and buy them. They're not overwhelming, but if you ever believed that you were going to see that 20th-level Rogue hiding, you'd have been a 20th-level Druid, Monk, Ranger, or Rogue with maxed Spot, instead. Take heart that you're not the only class that is blind as a bat to such things, and at least you can now halfway see the distant threats that aren't hiding (and can shoot them... hehehe). There are many other items that help in low skill checks, as well as feats, and if you have access to them, feats from supplements (gotta love Guerilla Scout and Heavy Armor Optimization). To be told, this wouldn't bother me so much if they had more ways around them, and this didn't cut into their budget for items that get around their other weaknesses (see above). Wizards have weak skills too, but they don't need to Hide. They've got Improved Invisibility and later Ethereal Jaunt. I agree with that last sentence wholeheartedly - love what Heroes of Battle and Races of Stone gives my fighters. I'm not sure by your meaning of "disproportionately?" When I speak of "exploiting the weaknesses of a spellcasting class" as a DM, it's not by anything not within the RAW. I didn't mean you bent rules to hold down the casters. I meant having enemies need to target the casters more than the other party members in order to keep the casters from dominating. For example, I "exploit" a 20th-level sorcerer/wizard's low hit point total by having the Balor spending 10 points BAB towards Power Attack and using his longsword two-handed to deal an average of 46 damage per hit (hmmm, anyone ever notice that the balor's strength bonus for the weapon is off?). That type of damage to a sorcerer/wizard is devastatingly noticeable, and let's them know that they still have vulnerabilities. With a fighter in full plate and using a heavy shield, the balor has to think twice about investing in Power Attack in order just to hit (especially if the fighter is using AC enhancing feats). Plus that type of damage is less noticeable to the fighter. However, I also "exploit" other classes "weaknesses", including fighters (Will save attacks are a favorite). I'm hoping that you're not thinking that I change my games to give fighters and "edge" where there isn't one? If the guy's playing straight-classed fighter in an optimized game at the higher levels, I hope that you do give him an edge. He'll need it. I understand what you're saying. I also don't disagree that spellcasters can have more options. However, I am saying that I see that spellcasters only have those options if they know specifics about what they are going up against. However, that's not always the case, especially at high levels. Balors, Pit Fiends, Liches, Dragons, and whatever other multitudes of monsters at this level, should have some ideas of tactics, how best to minimize their own weaknesses, how best to exploit an enemy's weaknesses, and how best to have an escape plan ready. They should also have some understanding on how to deal with spellcasters (especially the ones that they can see have done their homework). This argument is not as strong vs. the manifesters (who thankfully can be held in check rather easily) and spontaneous casters if they were smart with spells-known acquisition. Even for the preparatory casters it's not too big a deal at the high levels - see Votan's response and my earlier comments on overlapping caster options. The big question, though, is how come these monsters need to focus on the caster who's done his homework (and maybe the sneaky backstabby type quietly entering through the window) but not the prepared fighter? Ooohhhh I sooooo wholeheartedly agree! :w00t: I've seen so many DMs that don't always do this. I've seen them enforce xp costs, and costs involving bringing back the dead, but then, for some reason, they overlook a lot of the other expensive materials costs (as well as scribing spells into spellbooks). I've always wondered how far this mentality goes in other groups, but I've seen it enough to think "wow, I can't believe how many DMs do it this way..." They're morons. You'd think that would be a freaking given. :rolleyes: After all, it's obvious even Fighters would be overpowered with an unlimited budget for weapons. Ban? Nah, think more fiendishly. Sick the Merchants' Guild on them, and bury them in bureaucratic tape. They usually will get bored of it eventually. If they don't take the hint... then ban it. Hehehe. I personally like it if the setting has a deity of commerce. This type of cheese is the kind of smiting-bait god's don't take from uppity mortals. *KRAKOW*ZAP* I see what you're saying. I swear, I do. However, I don't see how you're missing the benefits of being a "melee-type." Melee type, yes. Straight Fighter, no. The problem with spells is that they are not full proof. Heck, in many cases, I'd even go so far as to say that they're not reliable enough to depend upon. For example: Say you cast an imprisonment spell against a random pit fiend you just encountered. The pit fiend has his SR of 32, which means that you have to roll at least a 12 or higher to get past his SR. That's a 60% chance of failure. Then you have to get past his Will save. Let's say that you start with a 16 Intelligence + 5 ability increases for level + 6 headband of intellect + 5 from wishes for an resulting intelligence of.... 32. Thats a +11 modifier. Ok, now the DC for this 9th-level spell is a 30. With the pit fiend's Will save of +21, he needs to roll a 9 to pass the save, or another 65% chance of failure for you. Overall, that's about a 32.5% chance of success that your spell works. I'm not sure if I should even get into the needed touch attack. But hey, if it does succeed, it's insta-win. If it doesn't, that's one round that he hits you with a meteor swarm for 24d6 fire damage (avg. 84 damage, 42 for successful Reflex save), AND if he makes his touch attacks with each sphere (avg. 28 damage) for about an average damage between 42-112 damage (depending upon whether you save or not, and if the spheres hit you or not). 20th-level Wizard with, let's say, a generous 20 Constitution = Average 151.5 hp. That, at best, leaves you with about 109.5 hp, but more likely, is gonna leave you with about 39.5 hp on the 32.5% hopeful chance that your spell succeeds. Well, if you decided to spend two feats to get Greater Spell Penetration, you could increase odds of success up to 52.5%. Hmmm, almost the flip of a coin? Hopefully the pit fiend doesn't get creative, or lucky... because to me, those odds suck. Mind you, this is just a single example with a 9th-level spell. The save DCs get worse with lower level magic... increasing likelihood of failed spells. Of course, that's why the wizard is with a party... to help pick up the slack when things go wrong (the rolls aren't in your favor), and vice versa. So what if your spell fails, the fighter just did 90 damage, and the cleric is healing damage from the meteor swarm. See my comments to Ander about luck. That still leaves a caster with lots of options that may fail. Beats having few options that are easy to counter. I would likely open with a Solid Fog, Waves of Exhaustion, or that lovely Dex-damage non-core spell (forget it's name at the moment). Assuming I'm not being uber munchy and smacking it down by Gating in or Shapechanging into some monstrosity I chose from any of the splatbooks that have included new monsters. Just as an aside, RT mentioned above something about targeting spellcasters disproportionately and I laughed maniacally. What PC group doesn't always kill the spellcaster first? Indeed. You pretty much have to if the caster knows what he's doing. Else he will smoke you. I thought this was a simple D&D caveat. Arcane spellcasters have puny hit point totals and can be dropped ridiculously easy regardless of all the counterspelling examples. Which is why a fair amount of their options should be spent on defense and staying out of the way. I'm not going to touch Polymorph & Co. for combat as that's an easy argument. Also, do enemies always fail saves? Last campaign I was in, our wizard was the most useless character because every spell he cast, the target saved, and more often than not, he was using his high level spells first. All optimization aside, SR and good saves are hell for a wizard. Maybe our DM just fudged his rolls, but i doubt it. More often than not a wizard has roughly a 50% chance at absolute most that his spells will work. Fighters obviously have to worry about hitting people, but you can always swing that sword again, whereas once that wizard casts his highest level spells....things go downhill. 7th level spells aren't that great against high CR creatures when your 8th and 9th level spells have all failed. Casters can be fun, and have the most potential power, but that potential is not absolute. All the discussions about how great individual classes are great and interesting, but they all prove the same point-> Nothing. Low fort save on a wiz is like low will save on a fighter. Any high CR creature should be able to deal out massive damage consistently. Wizards will fail that save, just like a fighter will fail that will save. -AS- Maybe you just had crap luck? Or misidentified the foe and targeted the wrong save? I can't say the casters I know always fail, and noncore material allows for some pretty sick spell DCs. Of course, I always like to open with effects that cause penalties to saves (Bestow Curse), preferably those that don't allow immediate saves at all (Enervation, Energy Drain, Waves of Fatigue/Exhaustion). Also great for openers are battlefield control effects, many of which (Reverse Gravity, Solid Fog and all the Fog spells, Evard's Black Tentacles, Otto's Irresistable Dance, Grease, Wall of Force, Pyrotechnics) allow no SR. Everything I've mentioned thus far is Core alone. You do not want me to leave core on this. Constructs and Undead are even more fun since their Fort saves are guaranteed to suck. This is not counting Summons or Illusions and the options they grant, mind you. All optimization aside? You can optimize any caster far more than a straight Fighter, and that's my concern.
q'afuu 11-24-05, 09:43 AM	There are plenty of spells that don't require saves and don't impinge on resistance, most notably spells that summon creatures. ... The Wizard should be flying and invisible at the very least, and even if the Fighter can cope with that, he'll still have to cope with forcecages, charms, disjunction, summoned creatures, etc. Summoned creatures get ignored until the wizard is taken out, just like the wizard's regular henchmen/party members get ignored. They're certainly useful, but usually don't provide a great deal of extra protection to the wizard (they'll increase the risks associated with attacking the wizard, but can almost never hold off an enemy) Charms are great spells, and you get some relatively soon, but they do offer saves and several races have bonuses against them on top of that. Forcecage, disjunction... The former doesn't become available (aside from through scrolls) until level 13, the latter is a 9th level spell. Both are costly (1K5 and the value of whatever it is that gets disjuncted respectively) too. That makes that neither is a spell that'll be available more than once a day until very high levels (and Disjunction a spell that's usually only cast as a last resort) and even then only if the player doesn't prefer other spells for those slots (possibly metamagically boosted ones). Spells are great, but the number a caster gets every day is limited.
philippe willaume 11-24-05, 09:45 AM	Hello Well I think RadicalTaoist is spot on. The versatility of the spell cater is that they can to a certain extend have a way to pick appropriate spell and with a fighter you are stuck in a way and that is kind of made worse by abilities requirement that limits the feats you can choose and the limitation of the feats. But as Tony Vargas said, fighter is good at multicasting because you can probably navigate you way through PrC or core class. And I think this is having a lot to do with the dilemma about pure fighter because it “pays” for the fact there is no restriction for fighter muclticlassing. And I think the balance is quite thin between the way the fighter is into something too powerfull. What do you think of that as class feature for the fighter. Half the level fighter as a usable bonus every round for a duration of your fighter level You can use it to to increase BaB , damage, AC, Save, movement (if single attack and spending 2 of those point = 5feet in heavy medium or 10 feet light or none, you can spend point up you reach your speed *2) or you can spend 2 point to gain an AoA
True Archon 11-24-05, 10:25 AM	Fair enough. I agree with you entirely on 'fighter types'. I disagree on Fighter and Barbarian in particular. I've made optimized spellcasters, including fighter types. I've made them extremely freaking strong, and I've needed PrCs to do so. If you would like I can link you to a few of my CO boards achievements. I would not make them with Fighter 20 or Barbarian 20. .... .... Not with the Fighter at higher levels. Not without PrCs, and carefully chosen PrCs at that. Not with just the core material, and not at the rate the rest of the game is boosted by supplements. You could keep the level 13+ Fighter at balance par if you allowed all combat feats from a dozen supplements outside core, but introduced no new monsters, spells, or caster PrCs/classes outside of core. Seriously. Every new supplement adds new monsters beyond the Fighter's combat capability, meaning new Polymorph/Wildshape forms, new spells, and new ways for the Fighter to be left in the dust. Barb is not much better, but he tends to be a little faster and harder to kill. Yes, most warrior types do well by multiclassing or going into a PrC, but I see it not that it's a weakness for them. Instead, I see it as better, because, unlike a spellcaster, they don't have to worry about missing out on the high level magic. Starting out as a spellcaster, then moving on to something else is generally frowned upon. Even if you go from spellcaster to spellcaster. However, if you went primarily with any class except cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard first, then dipped into these other classes, it's viewed as a minor boost. However, PrCs are generally preferred to enter, even beyond going wizard 20 or cleric 20, because PrCs are "supposed" to be more powerful or desired. Perhaps we use different tactics? You're right that it's often an all-or-nothing situation (as in, either the caster does well or he dies), but I've never felt 'frail' with a caster. Just felt I needed to stay the hell away from melee. Perhaps. Generally, the reason why I see them as "frail" (though that's kind of a strong word) is because of our group's tendency to not face singular opponents. Sure it happens, but more often than not, if we've got a 20th level party, we're more likely going to run up against a group like... a 19th Blackguard and his Old Black Dragon mount, for example. Either one of these two is capable of finishing off a 20th level wizard singularly, yet survive the wizard's first spells. When the rest of the group has to focus on more than one enemy, most of the enemies by this level are likely to at least dedicate some of it's might against a spellcaster. This still leaves fighter unable to outrun dragon, or exit Forcecage, or get up wall. Armor checks and not enough skill points to hit all the mobility skills is as big a problem here. At least a Barb has fast movement and the skills he needs, and the Psywar has Dimension Shift. Hehehe... It's funny, but one of the things my fighter's tend to have are an assortment of magic items. Fighting with my Boots of Springing and Striding? Ah geez a dragon... Well, fire a way with my bow on his first pass. As he flies by, and circles back for another pass (at least a round or two), spend a move action to retrieve my boots of flying out of my bag of holding, and another move action to put them on. Going up against a high level wizard? Put on my boots of teleportation. That way, if things start to go bad, teleport away. Why not, he probably will too. Magic item investment much? I wouldn't complain, except casters' money saved goes to crazy stuff like prayer beads of karma and metamagic rods and pearls of power and so on. Also an issue is the relatively low CL and thus dispel-vulnerability of many items - you are better off with a buff from a caster. Did I mention annoyance at the dependence on buffs from casters? Except that spellcasters have quite a bit of expenses, themselves. A fighter or paladin can get the equivalent of +5 Full Plate of Moderate Fortification (+13 AC) for the same price as a wizard or sorcerer can for Bracers of Armor +8 (+8 AC). Add in the cost of spell focuses (mirror for scrying), component costs (1500 gp of ruby dust for one forcecage or 1500 gp statuette for contingency which will eventually expire), expendible wands for those spells you don't want occupying your memorized spells, 100 gp per level spellbook scribing costs, rods of metamagic, and any other magic items that benefit a wizard that are quite costly. This was another problem I ran into with spellcasters (and in particular, sorcerers and wizards). You can offset some of this cost with item creation feats, and creating your own items, but you lose out on other feats. Yeah, Fighters definitely require the use of magic items, but so do the other classes (even the spellcasters). However, at least their items tend to take on a more permanent nature. To be told, this wouldn't bother me so much if they had more ways around them, and this didn't cut into their budget for items that get around their other weaknesses (see above). Wizards have weak skills too, but they don't need to Hide. They've got Improved Invisibility and later Ethereal Jaunt. I agree with that last sentence wholeheartedly - love what Heroes of Battle and Races of Stone gives my fighters. A fighter can afford to budget into those items. Outside of a good melee weapon, a decent range weapon, good armor, and a decent shield, a fighter is going to have a decent amount of money to invest in other magic items that will prove useful. Having about 100k in all four of the items (and that's a lot) already mentioned still leaves about 360k to play with by 20th level. Boots of teleportation, ring of invisibiltiy, cloak of etherealness, etc, etc, etc... What's the worst that'll happen? Disjunction? Antimagic? Dispel Magic? Captured with all your gear taken? No matter what class you are, you're screwed at this point. I didn't mean you bent rules to hold down the casters. I meant having enemies need to target the casters more than the other party members in order to keep the casters from dominating. If the guy's playing straight-classed fighter in an optimized game at the higher levels, I hope that you do give him an edge. He'll need it. ... .... The big question, though, is how come these monsters need to focus on the caster who's done his homework (and maybe the sneaky backstabby type quietly entering through the window) but not the prepared fighter? As I mentioned before, when facing multiple monsters of even lower CRs than your ECL is still a challenge. When there are more enemies, they can divide their resources to attack different members of your party, or even worse, focus on one at a time. Low hit points are low hit points for arcane spellcasters, no matter how you slice it. Divine casters definitely have it better, but even the designers said that beefing up those classes was their intent (to get people to play the party healer for once). Give a straight fighter an edge? Screw that!!! Dominate him, because of his weak Will Save, as much as use the wizard as a punting toy, because of his low hit points!!! ;) They're morons. You'd think that would be a freaking given. :rolleyes: After all, it's obvious even Fighters would be overpowered with an unlimited budget for weapons. Yeah, it kinda bothered me, but ah well. What can ya do? :shrug: I'll just have to keep enforcing it in my game until maybe it catches on... :D
Koga:The ninja trick 11-24-05, 11:18 AM	The Koga would say so, then again, he's a PK, often nicknamed "Judge Dredd" cause as long as you follow his law, we're good. You don't, you're dead.. Or atleast The Koga will putup a fight to kill your character. Rule #1: If the DM won't listen to The Koga's advise on how to weaken a cleric, then that cleric damn well better be a band-aid. Rule #2: If there is a druid, kill them, The Koga went so far as to be a druid just to insure another druid's demise. Rule #3: Multiclassing is frowned upon, but do to the exp penaltys he'll let it slide, prestige classes are policed very carefuly, and if you get too powerful too fast, you WILL be judged. Rule #4: There must be atleast one girl player in our group. Judges have needs too you know. Rule #5: You keep your opinions of rule #1-4 to yourself, or else you WILL face judgment.
Eyeless Blond 11-24-05, 12:38 PM	Back on the actual topic, RT's got a good point about how magic is inherently more versitile and powerful than fighting. True Archon's counter about fighters being able to make up the difference by using equipment falls a bit short, however. Sure the fighter can get an AC boost from items cheaper than a wizard can (though a daily casting of Mage Armor and a Quickened Shield are pretty good protectors as well), but he's got to pay for all those enchanted weapons that he needs as well. Regular melee weapons, reach melee weapons for dealing with larger enemies, weapons made of different materials (or a Metalline weapon) to deal with DR, a ranged weapon, a small weapon in case you get grappled. All of these need enhancing, or else they'll do no good against the majority of high-level monsters that have DR/magic. By this time it's a zero-sum, in my experience, actually somewhat skewed in the caster's favor because they tend to spend cash on displacement cloaks and such instead of AC boosts which are usually low anyway. Wizard costly material components balance by the fighter spending on arrows, which get awfully expensive if you want magic ones or ones made from different materials. So after all this, the fighter can start investing in items to counter each individual spell the wizard has. Meanwhile the wizard buys cheap scrolls, expanding is list of spells beyond what the fighter can compensate for. Wizard wins. Oh, and to the guy who thinks he can change boots as a move action? :cheer: :rofl: :cheer:
Dire Celestial Bonobo 11-24-05, 01:15 PM	Try using a two-handed weapon with Karmic Strike, Power Attack, Shock Trooper, Leap Attack, Combat Brute, Elusive Target, Sidestep, Hold the Line, Improved Trip, Combat Reflexes, Stand Still and Jotunbrud in combination with each other - that's eleven feats already, not counting prereqs ... Two real choices here - bastard sword or spiked chain. Bastard sword deals more damage per hit, but gives you less AoOs and leaves you more vulnerable to opponents with reach. I would consider using a greatclub or morning star in place of a bastard sword and picking up Three Mountains style-feat (which you already have the prereqs for, except Cleave. And you should have Cleave). The benefit there is that if the target of your charge hits you, your Karmic Strike hit will also force them to make a save vs. being nauseated (i.e., lose a round) with Str-based DC, potentially short-circuiting their full attack after one blow. Similarly, anyone who charges and attacks you will be subject to two AoO (from Hold The Line and Karmic Strike), opening them up to a save-or-lose-round as well. At 20th level the save won't be spectacular (Str 28 --> DC 29), but it'll be almost enough for a 50/50 on a Pit Fiend, or 30% on a melee Cleric or Old Red Dragon, and it can be tricked out significantly (to DC 33 for a Half-Orc, DC 37 for an F16 Half-Ogre/Half-Dragon, ...). If there's a feat or some ability which allows attacking once with each weapon on a Charge, this would go well with Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting and morningstars---then the character could force the save on his charge, rather than reactively, making it much more useful as an anti-mage tactic. (I don't know if such a thing exists in one of the splatbooks, though.)
Eyeless Blond 11-24-05, 04:48 PM	If there's a feat or some ability which allows attacking once with each weapon on a Charge, this would go well with Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting and morningstars---then the character could force the save on his charge, rather than reactively, making it much more useful as an anti-mage tactic. (I don't know if such a thing exists in one of the splatbooks, though.) Dual Strike, Complete Adventurer, P 108. Requires Improved Two Weapon Fighting. Oh, but it's a standard action, so I don't think you can do it on a charge.
Mr. Sarcastic 11-24-05, 08:31 PM	So. I can take fighter straight to 20 and get no fewer than 18 feats, or so I'm told. more if human. Yep, that's quite an amount all right. So what in the world is stopping me from taking 12 levels of fighter, gaining all the unique features of the class, and taking the rest of my levels as a Psychic warrior, gaining not only one more feat than usual but also snazzy utility psychic powers and skills and stuff? Just, y'know. Fuel to the fire and all that.
Centauri 11-24-05, 08:48 PM	So what in the world is stopping me from taking 12 levels of fighter, gaining all the unique features of the class, and taking the rest of my levels as a Psychic warrior, gaining not only one more feat than usual but also snazzy utility psychic powers and skills and stuff? The d8 Hit Die? A low Wisdom score? The fact that not everyone uses or even likes psionics?
Seerow 11-24-05, 08:49 PM	actually, Fighter12/Psiwar8 would get 4 bonus feats from Psiwar, exactly what would be gained by the fighter, not one more. Of course, that doesn't hurt the argument much. Because any way you look at it, that would actually be better.
Mr. Sarcastic 11-24-05, 08:49 PM	The d8 Hit Die? A low Wisdom score? The fact that not everyone uses or even likes psionics? Pfft. Details. 'Sides, a fighter with a low wisdom is in trouble already in my book. I can live with an average of 8 fewer hit points, gaining in return the power to heal myself in an emergency... amongst other things. EDIT; And good point Seerow. Still. -8 HP, a little lower BaB, a large amount of selectable power options to boost my capability as a warrior with no loss in feats... yep. Fighter needs some good love to beat this fella. I say he needs fixing, and I don't mean the feats, I mean the fighter.
Seerow 11-24-05, 08:55 PM	Damn, Im slow today =\
Asmodeous 11-25-05, 01:42 AM	One thing I didn't see anybody say about the fighter is the huge armor class a character can get with the two combat expert feats, combat expert and improved combat expert for CF. Add in reckless offense from the psycho book and power attack and with these four feats, the fighter can vary his damage/armor class/chance to hit as required. A 20th level fighter can take 20 points from his BaB and bolster his defence. Sure, he will only hit on a natural 20 (very likely), but with +5 plate, shield, rings and amulets, his defence will be in the 60's. Show me a ecl 20 monster that can hit that easily. Barbarians have damage reduction and higher hit points for survival and basically they go all out doing as much damage as they can as their defence, by killing their opponent before it can kill them. Fighters can stone wall an opponent taking few hits and getting a couple of hits in here and there while. Both strategies have their merits and perils. That is why a combination of the two is probably ideal. Enough fighter levels to get all the good feats. Level 12 for two focus's, two specuializations, power attack, reckless offense, two combat experts, cleave, improved critical etc. Use the fighter levels to get the feat slots. Then pad out 8 levels of barbarian for some rage super damage when required. Level 7 barb will get DR and then use some feat slots for more dr, I forget the name of the feat that lets you improve existing DR. Then when you move onto epic, legendry dreadnaught. OMG. DR, full bab, stink loads of hit points and +20 on strength for rage attacks and hope for a crit. You will be using a calculator for working out your single hit damage figures and make sure the DM is sitting down when you let him know his monster is dead in one round. (again)
Eyeless Blond 11-25-05, 03:51 AM	Combat expert... did you mean combat expertise? Sure, that's one way to go. Focusing on reactionary, defensive power, however, is a sure way to get yourself killed in D&D. The big problem there is while you're so busy parrying hits, the smart monsters and fighters will be targetting your abysmal Will save, beating you down with area spells that your AC doesn't help with, using battlefield control tactics and spells to push you out of the way to go after the people who are actually dangerous. In the end you're doing nothing that a Wall of Stone couldn't do better. The best defenses in D&D are about limiting the options your opponent has. Going against a fighter who specializes in bows? Wind Wall. A fighter who specializes in melee or reach weapons? Prismatic Wall. A grappler? Freedom of Movement. ANY fighter? Contingency teleport/dimension door, using Shadow Evocation at higher levels so you don't need to pay the material component cost. Enervation, several times, chainned and duplicated and quickened as needed. Damage an ability score until it hits zero. Dominate. In D&D you don't stonewall someone by making it harder to hit you; that just invites them to try, and work a way around your defenses. You stonewall someone by flat out preventing their ability to perform that action, or maybe any action at all. Wizards are powerful because they have so many ways to do this that it's difficult to prepare for all of them. Fighters have static feats; once you've built one chain it's hard to respond to things that are outside of the purview of that chain.
AresNordwind 11-25-05, 04:11 AM	I've hadn't had the time to read the whole thread yet, but I played a great melee character who could tako on almost any spellcaster. A Half-Dragon Dwarf 6Fighter/5Occult Slayer/5Exotic Weaponmaster, hurling his readied returing bastard sword at any casting mage or sorcerer, dealing an average of 100 DMG (with the vicious strike ability) and the Hurl exotic weapon trick, forget the con-check, the mage lost the spell and the next round he was DEAD. Yes now you can list spells against that again, great, but if the initiative was won and a spell would have been cast on the Dragon before, it would have come right back (mind over magic). I thought it was a pretty interresting character. Being Immune to mind affecting spells having an elemental immunity (fire ;)) Just consider this as an option for a fun time against spellcasters and a good melee character at once. (wielding the Bastard sword twohanded against melee oponents)
Mr. Sarcastic 11-25-05, 05:23 AM	I think the fighter's advantage of being able to quit fighter for other classes sooner than almost anybody needs to be stated again, because it's a funny (but true) statement. Seriously. What an advantage. As for the number of feats at fighter 20, I can take 2 levels of monk and come out on top in that department, plus I get access to evasion. Useful if you want/need the Deflect Arrows feat, which is severely underrated. The average bastard sword wielder can use it by switching to one-handed at the end of each round if he wants to, or continue to wield it two-handed for a bonus on disarming checks- either way, you're literally immune to the first hit from a bow, no matter how high the attack bonus is, whenever you want to be. I know fighter twenties who take this combo without multiclassing at all. Other combos worth mentioning (feat-wise) are Ranger and Psychic Warrior. Ranger comes out even, Psychic Warrior comes out ahead and can pick from the fighter's list. And yes, he does count in a discussion because A) he's core now, and B) "not liking him" is not a valid deterrent. There are groups out there that do not like or use the fighter. Personal taste honestly has little to do with wether it's viable or powerful. And the fighter's Epic progression? I'd still take those 2 levels before level 20 as something else. It's no big deal; I'm getting a feat at 21 anyway, and am not likely to meet the prerequisites for any of the more powerful feats in Epic play anyway for quite a while yet. I can wait for another 2 levels before committing myself to epic munchery.
True Archon 11-25-05, 06:53 AM	Back on the actual topic, RT's got a good point about how magic is inherently more versitile and powerful than fighting. True Archon's counter about fighters being able to make up the difference by using equipment falls a bit short, however. .... More versatile? If you're smart about it. More powerful? Yes, if it works. As to making up differences by using equipment, it's something that applies to just about any class, possible short of the cleric, druid, or monk. Wizards and sorcerers need to make up for their lower hit point totals by gaining Constitution increasers. They need AC boosting items because of not only their lack of proficiency in any type of armor, but also because their increased chances of spell failure. They need displacement and concealment items to avoid being hit to avoid a quick death. Sorcerers need to invest in scrolls and wands to expand their magic in order to reach that "versatility" that you mentioned, and wizards need these items for those times when they happen to run across a situation that requires a spell that they just happened not to prepare that day (or not enough times). They need items that increase saves as much as a fighter does, because the saves that they happen to be weak with primarilly attack that which they are weakest at, hit points. Clerics and druids, with their versatility with combat and spellcasting, need to mix needed spellcasting items with weapons and armor. If a cleric wants to match a fighter in combat ability, he's gonna need those numerous weapons made of special materials and properties, just as well. The need for magic items is universal, with may be some leeway given to the monk, but only a little bit of leeway. .... Sure the fighter can get an AC boost from items cheaper than a wizard can (though a daily casting of Mage Armor and a Quickened Shield are pretty good protectors as well), but he's got to pay for all those enchanted weapons that he needs as well. Regular melee weapons, reach melee weapons for dealing with larger enemies, weapons made of different materials (or a Metalline weapon) to deal with DR, a ranged weapon, a small weapon in case you get grappled. All of these need enhancing, or else they'll do no good against the majority of high-level monsters that have DR/magic. Are you saying that for four encounters per day (the recommended max, and the total the player should be preparing for), that you want to spend four of your 5th level spells per day for a quickened shield spell, AND spend a round each encounter bringing up your defenses so that you can not only survive, but save money? Think about it. Buffing before entering combat can only go so far before you're so drastically behind the curve that defeat is imminent. I'm telling you that the biggest factor in this game is the number of actions you're using to accomplish your goal in the quickest, and shortest, manner possible. If you're casting Quickened shield and mage armor at the beginning of each battle, you're inviting disaster ("Boom! You've been meteor swarmed!"), as well as relying upon any other buffs. Even if you're more or less taking yourself out of the fight to buff yourself (invisibility or ethereal jaunt, for examples), that's one round that you're saving your own hide, one round buffing yourself to save your own hide some more, and one round to finally do something against the enemy with the hope that whatever you do gets pass spell resistances, saves, immunities, displacements, and whatever defenses that can, or have been, brought up. Where is everyone getting that the first five rounds of combat are going to be spent buffing while the rest of your party is either dying, or getting the job done? Thus, a spellcaster needs to have a decent start on his defenses in the forms of magical items before combat even begins, and thus, a spellcaster is just as dependent upon his items as a fighter. By this time it's a zero-sum, in my experience, actually somewhat skewed in the caster's favor because they tend to spend cash on displacement cloaks and such instead of AC boosts which are usually low anyway. .... My fighters tend to have displacement cloaks, as well (they get their save items from vests of resistance). Their AC boosts are started on an already strong base with armor and shields, so they don't need to invest heavilly in other AC boosting items. Why spend a lot money to get a single ring of protection +5 (50000 gp) when you can spend 8000 gp more to have a ring of protection +3 and a ring of freedom of movement? Or better yet! Spend 10k more for a ring of freedom of movement and a ring of invisibility! A wizard, however, seriously needs to consider getting that ring of protection +5, though. Especially if he wants to use his amulet slot for something very useful other than an amulet of natural armor. Also, a cloak of displacement is nice, but I certainly wouldn't rely upon it as my defense so that can I skimp elsewhere. .... Wizard costly material components balance by the fighter spending on arrows, which get awfully expensive if you want magic ones or ones made from different materials. .... Magic arrows are a thing of 3e, and are more or less moot in 3.5 where a magic range weapon shares it's properties with ammunition. As to ammunition made up of different materials, the most expensive thing that you're gonna run up against is adamantine, and that is 3000 gp for 50 arrows. The chances of someone going up against a creature with DR against adamantine is pretty rare in comparison to the many other DR types out there. Then, to deplete your whole store of adamantine arrows is still going to take some time. Not to mention that any fighter worth his salt will use a more permanent adamantine weapon in favor of adamantine ammunition those occasions when he does comes up against that DR type. So, in comparison to the wizard, a fighter who chooses to buy 50 adamantine arrows does so at the cost of two forcecage, or 24 stoneskin spells. It all comes down to the fighter who chooses to fire off his ammunition when needed, and secondary to a melee weapon, versus the spellcaster who starts their day of with divination or augury (25 gp a pop). .... So after all this, the fighter can start investing in items to counter each individual spell the wizard has. Meanwhile the wizard buys cheap scrolls, expanding is list of spells beyond what the fighter can compensate for. Wizard wins. Cheap scrolls? Scrolls are cheap when they are of low level. We're talking about 20th level characters here. Low level spells, with their inherently low DCs, are going to have minimum effect upon enemies at this level. Not to mention the caster level that you add into the scroll beyond that of the minimum standards. Likewise, most the items that a fighter should be choosing is not done out of the benefit of countering wizard spells. The items that he should be choosing should be done with the notion of benefiting his abilities, and that is to mix it up in physical combat with opponents. He's not buying winged boots to counter the wizard who is flying, he's getting them to combat flying creatures, or attacking non-flying creatures to put them at a disadvantage. Oh, and to the guy who thinks he can change boots as a move action? :cheer: :rofl: :cheer: Thank you. :tiphat: However, given that there isn't a specific reference that I can find that says, "putting boots on is a ---- action," the best thing that I can find that I'd rule on is the catch-all section of "Manipulate an Item" in the PHB on page 143 (which involves move actions). If you've got a better one, I'd like to hear your input.
AresNordwind 11-25-05, 07:35 AM	Who can slip out of heavy leather boots and into a new pair in 3 seconds? I would like to see that. I think it should be handled as two manipulate items action, so one full round action or two move actions. (one for putting em off and one for putting the new ones on)
q'afuu 11-25-05, 07:36 AM	As for the number of feats at fighter 20, I can take 2 levels of... So? Pretty much anything is better with 2 levels in something else than with 20 straight levels. To an extent that even goes for full casters (although I'd keep it at 19/1 instead of 18/2 there). And when you consider multiclassing penalties, being able to quit 'sooner' is often a dubious advantage at best. I'd rather suffer that penalty for one or two levels than for six or eight.
q'afuu 11-25-05, 07:40 AM	Are you saying that for four encounters per day (the recommended max, and the total the player should be preparing for), that you want to spend four of your 5th level spells per day for a quickened shield spell, AND spend a round each encounter bringing up your defenses so that you can not only survive, but save money? Correction: the recommended *average*. If you want to really be prepared, you'd best prepare for 5-6 encounters.
Mr. Sarcastic 11-25-05, 08:08 AM	So? Pretty much anything is better with 2 levels in something else than with 20 straight levels. To an extent that even goes for full casters (although I'd keep it at 19/1 instead of 18/2 there). And when you consider multiclassing penalties, being able to quit 'sooner' is often a dubious advantage at best. I'd rather suffer that penalty for one or two levels than for six or eight. I'd never do so for a Cleric, a Wizard, a Sorcerer, a Druid or a Barbarian, a monk and likely not for Ranger either. that's 7 out of 11 classes where I would not, in fact, contemplate taking 2 levels of something else, or approximately 64%. out of the remaining 4, only rogues and fighters do not lose any unique abilities in particular by multiclassing into another class for 1 level to gain different benefits, but the fighter is the only class that loses nothing but 1 feat by losing 2 full levels of the class. of those two the fighter loses a feat as opposed to gaining TWO feats by taking monk, or one feat by taking a Ranger. The loss is 1 point of base attack bonus and/or 1 hitpoint on average, with the additional benefits of more skills and skill points and better saves than the base fighter which IMO more than make up for it. Monk also allows Evasion. (if you don't mind the loss of the feat, the Barbarian takes a different track by giving you rage and on average 1 more hitpoint, equal base attack bonus, and better saves.) Therefore, the fighter remains the one class out of the base eleven in the PhB whose highest class abilities are superceded completely by taking two levels in a different class. My point stands; Fighters are simply better off not being fighters all the time. This is wrong and should have been rectified right at the start. For real feat maniacs, It's pretty good to be a human Fighter2/Psychic Warrior2/Monk 2, gain a feat every level, choosing from psionic feats, fighter feats and a choice of one of the monk's bonus feats (which include the ever great Combat Reflexes), for a total of 10 feats at level 6 (of which one will be Improved Unarmed Strike, 2 will be monk bonus feats, and from 2-4 can be fighter bonus feats). This incurs no XP penalty whatsoever; Just choose Fighter as your favoured class and advance that for 14 more levels and you will have gained a total of 7 bonus feats + 4 other feats, for a total of 21 feats at level 20. Only 1 of those is completely beyond your control, and you will have gained; -Evasion -Better saves -Several class skills not available to the fighter -Access to Psionic feats which boost your capabilities with Psionic Focus And that's not counting if you have a wisdom higher than 11, and any good fighter needs at least 12 so as to make sure he doesn't completely stink at will saves, in which case you can gain several psionic abilities which add to your options. your losses total to 4 hitpoints and 2 points of base attack bonus. I don't think anyone's power attack will suffer overmuch for it, nor will it likely affect your ability to tank. I would think hard about my concept before shaving off 4 full levels off any other base class. With the Fighter, I can't wait to do so.
True Archon 11-25-05, 08:52 AM	Correction: the recommended *average*. If you want to really be prepared, you'd best prepare for 5-6 encounters. Yeah, that's what I meant... my bad.... :( But you do bring up a good point.
Votan 11-25-05, 09:27 AM	And that's not counting if you have a wisdom higher than 11, and any good fighter needs at least 12 so as to make sure he doesn't completely stink at will saves, in which case you can gain several psionic abilities which add to your options. Depends on how rich your stat generation system is; wisdom ONLY helps will save for a fighter (unlike Barbarian where it helps a useful class skill -- listen -- or Paladin/Ranger were it helps with both skills and spells). Consider the very common 28 point buy: Strength 16 (10 points) Dexterity 10 (2 points) Constitution 14 (6 points) Intelligence 14 (6 points) Wisdom 12 (4 points) Charisma 8 (0 points) There is definitely a tradeoff here between the higher strength, a decent dexterity, inteliigence for combat expertise and a wisdom of 12. Even worse, consider an elite array character with the 12 in wisdom: Str 15 Dex 10 Con 14 Int 13 Wis 12 Cha 8 Is the +1 to will saves worth +1 to hit with ranged weapons, +1 AC, an attack of opportunity with combat reflexes and +1 Reflex saves? Or should one give up on combat expertise? Tough choices, I say!
Mr. Sarcastic 11-25-05, 09:47 AM	It depends on wether you're going to take Psychic Warrior or not, then :) Wis affects skills such as spot or listen, and the last thing you want there is a penalty. The fighter is screwed up enough. A bonus is just gravy. The +1 to AC is negligible at best, seeing as how you can wear armor that gives no bonus from dexterity to your AC and you really should be taking advantage of this fact- you are a fighter, heavy armor is one of your biggest advantages. Likewise, Reflex saves are among the least important in the game, so dropping that by 1 isn't too bad. I prefer a low save with a chance of completely avoiding, anyway, plus there's always the ever popular cloak of resistance. Will saves are far more critical to the fighter; Reflex saves do not include to my knowledge a SINGLE save-or-die effect. The +1 to hit with a ranged attack... is a +1. Good to have, far from necessary. About the only bit that hurts somewhat is the Attack of Opportunity from your Combat Reflexes, but not every build uses that; you only really get to use these consistently if you set them up yourself or if your DM is playing low INT monsters like they were crazy anyhow. I'd certainly play with your 28 point buy spread (which is very good btw) and I might even use the Elite Array with little difficulty. Dex is not critical for a fighter; resisting that one save-or-die will save that little better truly is. If the stat gen was 4d6 drop lowest 6 times (average result; 30.5 points), I'd consider it for the sake of Combat Reflexes. It's a choice, but I wouldn't call it a tough one by a long shot. EDIT; And if you're really adamant,just take 1 from int (lowering it to 13), move the 12 to Dex and add the point to Wis for a total of eleven. Voila, you now have access to Psychic powers and an excellent opportunity for raising your stats later on.
q'afuu 11-25-05, 10:49 AM	I'd never do so for a Cleric, a Wizard, a Sorcerer, a Druid or a Barbarian, a monk and likely not for Ranger either. that's 7 out of 11 classes where I would not, in fact, contemplate taking 2 levels of something else, or approximately 64%. out of the remaining 4, only rogues and fighters do not lose any unique abilities in particular by multiclassing into another class for 1 level to gain different benefits, but the fighter is the only class that loses nothing but 1 feat by losing 2 full levels of the class. of those two the fighter loses a feat as opposed to gaining TWO feats by taking monk, or one feat by taking a Ranger. Good for you, but not everyone will feel the same way. Barbarian is the only class I really want that 20th level for, because of Mighty Rage. Clerics: more spell slots, and a very slight benefit to turning/rebuking. Nice, but not as good as being able to cast arcane spells from wands, for instance. Wizards: same as Cleric, minus the turning/rebuking. Switch divine spells for arcane spells, same reason. Sorcerer: same as wizard. Getting access to an extra variety of spells through wands is even more important to a sorcerer though. Druids: spells slots and Huge Elemental wildshape. There are better options than Huge Elementals to wildshape in at that level, so the latter is hardly a benefit. Spell slots: see above. Monks: Empty Body, Perfect Self, Slow Fall any distance, an extra point of AC and 2d10 instead of 2d8 unarmed strike damage. Empty Body is entirely circumstantial. I'd rather pay money for an item than pay an entire level for this one. Perfect Self is really pointless for a 20th level monk: DR/magic doesn't mean anything anymore at that level, and with the saves and SR the character has the spells he's protected from through being an outsider would usually get shrugged off without effect anyway. Slow Fall any distance: entirely circumstantial. Damage and AC: the benefits of the first two levels of any other class will far outstrip these. Ranger: you really think a 5th favoured enemy, a slight increase in your Animal Companion's strengths and some extra spell slots suitable for spells you'd better get wands for are enough of a reason to stick with Ranger for 20 levels? The feats gained by Monk and Ranger are fixed (the monk gets to choose out of two twice), whereas the Fighter's bonus feat comes from a long list. Track especially is an iffy proposition: either you invest in Survival and get Track early on, so you can use it, or you don't get Track at all. Characters that are primarily Fighters have a pretty hard time investing in Survival. The monk feats are better, in that you don't need to take the prereqs. But even so, they might not be the ones you have good use for. The +1 to AC is negligible at best, seeing as how you can wear armor that gives no bonus from dexterity to your AC and you really should be taking advantage of this fact- you are a fighter, heavy armor is one of your biggest advantages. Of course, a heavily armoured fighter gains no benefit from having Evasion. Nor from Fast Movement, for that matter, but mithral might help out (if you're not more interested in adamantine). A Wis bonus to skills like Spot and Listen is meaningless at such high levels if you don't invest in a decent number of skill ranks as well. The Will save really is the only good reason for a character who's primarily a Fighter to invest in Wis (mechanically speaking, obviously: I enjoy characters with above-average mental stats just because of what these stats represent already).
Eyeless Blond 11-25-05, 10:51 AM	Correction: the recommended *average*. If you want to really be prepared, you'd best prepare for 5-6 encounters. Er, howso? From what I remember (3.0 DMG), CR is based on using up 25% of the resources of a party at that ECL. Thus, after 4 encounters at your CR in a day you're expected to be at 0%. Since resources include HP, in theory the average party should be dead after four encounters. Did this change in 3.5?
q'afuu 11-25-05, 11:11 AM	Er, howso? From what I remember (3.0 DMG), CR is based on using up 25% of the resources of a party at that ECL. Thus, after 4 encounters at your CR in a day you're expected to be at 0%. Since resources include HP, in theory the average party should be dead after four encounters. You're not quite remembering it right. Check pages 100 and following from the 3.0 DMG. CR is actually based on using up 20% of the party's resources if the EL is equal to the characters' level. That means rest is probably needed after 4 of these, but the party shouldn't be wiped out (a 5th would probably accomplish that). More to the point, the DMG never suggests all encounters should have an EL equal to the party level. Some can be higher, some lower. In the first case, they'll need to rest sooner, in the second they'll be able to keep going longer. Most importantly though, the number of encounters a party has to go through on a given day often depends on the party's decisions as well. It's not entirely up to the DM alone, unless he is willing to blatantly fudge his encounters to accomodate party stupidity (granted, there might be better reasons to do so too ;) ).
Votan 11-25-05, 01:54 PM	Good for you, but not everyone will feel the same way. Barbarian is the only class I really want that 20th level for, because of Mighty Rage. Clerics: more spell slots, and a very slight benefit to turning/rebuking. Nice, but not as good as being able to cast arcane spells from wands, for instance. Wizards: same as Cleric, minus the turning/rebuking. Switch divine spells for arcane spells, same reason. Sorcerer: same as wizard. Getting access to an extra variety of spells through wands is even more important to a sorcerer though. Druids: spells slots and Huge Elemental wildshape. There are better options than Huge Elementals to wildshape in at that level, so the latter is hardly a benefit. Spell slots: see above. :eek: Now I have a sequence question for the clerics, druids and wizards that you play: when do you take the level in the alternate spellcasting type? If it is before level 17/18 you are delaying the acquisition of better spells. That is entire levels you play through with (for example) 3rd level arcane spells plus 1st level divine spells instead of 4th level arcane spells. If it is after level 17/18 the addition of 9th level slots seems to be more important to me than it is to you! These spells are massive and have the ability to change the tide of battle instantly. However, I never have as many as I can see how to use and so I can always find room for one more at these levels. I need to weigh this minor flexibility (gaining access to divine spell magic items in a world where I have limited wish for emergencies) against another wail of the Banshee or Gate spell. Now, I can understand it (although still disagree with it) if you are going for a mystic theruge (or variant). At least then you have appreciable ability in both groups (although you play through a long period of being very weak from about levels 4 to 7 or so). Of course, the druid might have issues with losing HD applicable wildshapes . . . But, in general, the "do not multi-class primary casters" is very solid. Spells increase in power exponentially with level and giving this up for flexibility is usually a very bad trade (unless carefully planned for synergy). A Wis bonus to skills like Spot and Listen is meaningless at such high levels if you don't invest in a decent number of skill ranks as well. The Will save really is the only good reason for a character who's primarily a Fighter to invest in Wis (mechanically speaking, obviously: I enjoy characters with above-average mental stats just because of what these stats represent already). Agreed; the difference between a +1 wisdom bonus and a -1 wisdom bonus is pretty minimal -- you'll see very little actual difference in play.
Votan 11-25-05, 02:00 PM	EDIT; And if you're really adamant,just take 1 from int (lowering it to 13), move the 12 to Dex and add the point to Wis for a total of eleven. Voila, you now have access to Psychic powers and an excellent opportunity for raising your stats later on. Actually, with a 28 point buy this might be one of the few times that having 2 "odd" stats actually works out in practice. Fighter skills are nothing to be enthralled by but a point in wisdom at a later level (say 20) might be better than a point in strength . . .
Mr. Sarcastic 11-25-05, 05:17 PM	Good for you, but not everyone will feel the same way. Barbarian is the only class I really want that 20th level for, because of Mighty Rage. Clerics: more spell slots, and a very slight benefit to turning/rebuking. Nice, but not as good as being able to cast arcane spells from wands, for instance. Wizards: same as Cleric, minus the turning/rebuking. Switch divine spells for arcane spells, same reason. Sorcerer: same as wizard. Getting access to an extra variety of spells through wands is even more important to a sorcerer though. Druids: spells slots and Huge Elemental wildshape. There are better options than Huge Elementals to wildshape in at that level, so the latter is hardly a benefit. Spell slots: see above. Monks: Empty Body, Perfect Self, Slow Fall any distance, an extra point of AC and 2d10 instead of 2d8 unarmed strike damage. Empty Body is entirely circumstantial. I'd rather pay money for an item than pay an entire level for this one. Perfect Self is really pointless for a 20th level monk: DR/magic doesn't mean anything anymore at that level, and with the saves and SR the character has the spells he's protected from through being an outsider would usually get shrugged off without effect anyway. Slow Fall any distance: entirely circumstantial. Damage and AC: the benefits of the first two levels of any other class will far outstrip these. Ranger: you really think a 5th favoured enemy, a slight increase in your Animal Companion's strengths and some extra spell slots suitable for spells you'd better get wands for are enough of a reason to stick with Ranger for 20 levels? Wow. Seriously. You're deliberately delaying spell acquisition. You're setting yourself up for failure Vs. any high level spell resistance. You actually put little worth in high level spell slots. You are either very brave or... I don't know what, But it's not my usual brand of sanity. You must be getting yours from a different dealer. Then you find it not worth it to get the highest monk abilities (either you take 20 levels or you take three, there's really not too much leeway with that class in terms of useable abilities), you find the favoured enemy not worth taking (it doesn't have to be a fifth enemy you know. this IS 3.5...) and many of the ranger spells are incredibly good- freedom of movement is a prime example, plus their battlefield control magic is amazing for a "secondary" spellcaster. But as soon as you multiclass the Ranger, you instantly lose this flexibility because your caster level is simply too low. Druids... Jeez. You do realize that one of the most powerful builds in the system is a simple Druid 20, and it's largely due to wildshape... right? The standard optimization answer to a flexible but powerful spellcaster isn't a whacked out mage, it's a Druid 20. And it's like that for a reason; Wildshape. Yeah, I'm thinking we're not on the same page when it comes to deciding what's best for our characters. I am in fact pretty sure my library is located somewhere far away from yours, and I'm starting to wonder if everyone really is living in the yellow submarine. I wouldn't make any of those choices unless forced to by the DM, in which case I'd prefer to leave the group. Character building is one thing, completely undermining your power (and thus compromizing the entire party relying on your abilities) is something else entirely. Better to stick with 20. The feats gained by Monk and Ranger are fixed (the monk gets to choose out of two twice), whereas the Fighter's bonus feat comes from a long list. Track especially is an iffy proposition: either you invest in Survival and get Track early on, so you can use it, or you don't get Track at all. Characters that are primarily Fighters have a pretty hard time investing in Survival. The monk feats are better, in that you don't need to take the prereqs. But even so, they might not be the ones you have good use for. Exhibit A; Note that the bonus feats possible to get with a monk are feats that many fighters would take anyway. Getting them by way of the monk is no different than getting them from the fighter, except it's faster. Exhibit B; You yourself have already stated that a character interested in tracking would get it early; Therefore, the logical answer would be to take the ranger levels early (and get a class with Survival as a class skill while you're at it). I never said you had to take them last, mind you. Getting the Survival skill and some ranks in it by taking the ranger is a good answer to anyone interested, a much better one than the alternative. Therefore, point A has strength in the fact that it's feats are pretty useful to a fighter (improved grapple helps a lot, deflect arrows is about the only thing that can negate a successful attack after the fact that I know of, combat reflexes is literally ubiquitious), and point B gets a little something many people might easily be interested in without a huge drawback and in fact a slight advantage. either way, we win. Of course, a heavily armoured fighter gains no benefit from having Evasion. Nor from Fast Movement, for that matter, but mithral might help out (if you're not more interested in adamantine). Mithral don't help out with that, sorry. It's still heavy armor, it just weighs slightly less. (Don't ask me how that sentence even works, but it's true. Plate mail armor is plate mail armor no matter how you look at it.) And evasion or no... you still get the feats. Which are useful. And you can also function somewhat in the DM classic "let's strip them of their stuff and see what happens" scenario, which a base fighter could not. Just saying. A Wis bonus to skills like Spot and Listen is meaningless at such high levels if you don't invest in a decent number of skill ranks as well. The Will save really is the only good reason for a character who's primarily a Fighter to invest in Wis (mechanically speaking, obviously: I enjoy characters with above-average mental stats just because of what these stats represent already). a +5% chance is a +5% chance. and it's not a -5% penalty, which is also good. Let's not forget either that my proposed multiclass has, besides the 21 feats, access to Listen and Spot via the Monk. The good will save is a must. I tell you, a MUST. Mind Blank only goes so far, and that +5% chance can suddenly become a much more important number in a tight spot, like the Dodge feat. All in all, the fighter who isn't a fighter all the way seems to be doing fine in gaining the fighter's strength and avoiding his weaknesses. Besides what you termed as being "limited" choices, you get as many feats as you otherwise would and they can all be from the fighter's list if you feel so inclined. This is an advantage, not a drawback. And it's way too easy to do this too. That's my entire point; I couldn't do this with any other class, mixing the base classes to create a better cleric or rogue (to name some random examples). I can outdo the fighter's biggest attraction with less than 5 minutes of thinking. @ Votan; Actually, with a 28 point buy this might be one of the few times that having 2 "odd" stats actually works out in practice. Fighter skills are nothing to be enthralled by but a point in wisdom at a later level (say 20) might be better than a point in strength . . . So now we have interesting new choices to work with AND access to more skills that use the Wisdom stat! Perfect, I tell yeh. :D
Votan 11-25-05, 06:07 PM	Exhibit A; Note that the bonus feats possible to get with a monk are feats that many fighters would take anyway. Getting them by way of the monk is no different than getting them from the fighter, except it's faster. Exhibit B; You yourself have already stated that a character interested in tracking would get it early; Therefore, the logical answer would be to take the ranger levels early (and get a class with Survival as a class skill while you're at it). I never said you had to take them last, mind you. Getting the Survival skill and some ranks in it by taking the ranger is a good answer to anyone interested, a much better one than the alternative. One of the remarkable builds that is available if you arde human and have access to Able Learner is a Ranger 1/Fighter X (maybe followed by Barbarian 1 at some point). If you focus on combat expertise (a common trick for a fighter) then a human will end up with 4-5 skill points per level. Putting them into survival and spot is way better than climb and jump. It's unlikely that you will lose much besides the 2 hit points and the better saves will never be irritating. If you are willing to give up BAB (tough call) the ability to augment the fighter becomes insane. Monk has already been pointed out as has psychic warrior but a level of cleric (domains war and luck) can be thematically appropriate AND get you 2 feats for one level (including the ever useful reroll -- three if the weapon happens to be an exotic one like a bastard sword or a spiked chain).
Votan 11-25-05, 06:10 PM	@ Votan; So now we have interesting new choices to work with AND access to more skills that use the Wisdom stat! Perfect, I tell yeh. :D Fighter blends well with nearly anything. Full BAB is better but moderate BAB dips can be worth it in moderation. My only argument is that I tend to think that a psychic warror (pure class) works out better than a fighter with a few dip levels -- but that could just be me.
Seerow 11-25-05, 06:12 PM	Then you find it not worth it to get the highest monk abilities (either you take 20 levels or you take three, there's really not too much leeway with that class in terms of useable abilities), you find the favoured enemy not worth taking (it doesn't have to be a fifth enemy you know. this IS 3.5...) I personally like Monk 11(or 12 for the extra BAB and saves) for Greater Flurry. >_>
Mr. Sarcastic 11-25-05, 06:27 PM	I personally like Monk 11(or 12 for the extra BAB and saves) for Greater Flurry. >_> ...me too, but only in a build designed to max out the attacks :P Otherwise... nah. Fighter blends well with nearly anything. Full BAB is better but moderate BAB dips can be worth it in moderation. My only argument is that I tend to think that a psychic warror (pure class) works out better than a fighter with a few dip levels -- but that could just be me. Not just you, of course. I'd rather play a Psychic Warrior 18/Fighter 2 than the other way around if I could help it. That doesn't mean it's not viable, funnily enough. I also agree on your asessment of dipping into cleric there, except for the BaB thing. as long as you don't go below 18, you're perfectly fine as far as your attack bonus is concerned. Especially if you have Deep Impact with your multiclassed psychic warrior. :D
q'afuu 11-25-05, 09:57 PM	Wow. Seriously. You're deliberately delaying spell acquisition. You're setting yourself up for failure Vs. any high level spell resistance. You actually put little worth in high level spell slots. You are either very brave or... I don't know what, But it's not my usual brand of sanity. You must be getting yours from a different dealer. I am *not* advocating delaying spell acquisition. Do *not* branch out from a full caster class until you get to level 18, when you should have 2-4 9th level spell slots. A caster level 1 or 2 points lower isn't critical in overcoming SR, and caster level doesn't matter for saves. Then you find it not worth it to get the highest monk abilities (either you take 20 levels or you take three, there's really not too much leeway with that class in terms of useable abilities)... I clearly explained why: those abilities don't contribute much that isn't already taken care of by the lower level abilities or is so circumstantial that you're better off using magic to help out when you would use them. ... you find the favoured enemy not worth taking (it doesn't have to be a fifth enemy you know. this IS 3.5...) and many of the ranger spells are incredibly good- freedom of movement is a prime example, plus their battlefield control magic is amazing for a "secondary" spellcaster. But as soon as you multiclass the Ranger, you instantly lose this flexibility because your caster level is simply too low. For most of the ranger's spells, it doesn't really matter all that much whether they get cast through an item or from a spell slot, and you'll likely want them so often that you don't have enough slots by a long shot anyway. A higher caster level will be more better for a lot of those spells, but quite often the difference won't have much of an effect in practice (between lvls 17 and 20, the duration difference between spells won't matter one whit). FE? Whether you spread the benefits or focused on a single one, if you've gotten the FE benefits 4 times already the 5th isn't going to matter a heck of a lot anymore. Druids... Jeez. You do realize that one of the most powerful builds in the system is a simple Druid 20, and it's largely due to wildshape... right? The standard optimization answer to a flexible but powerful spellcaster isn't a whacked out mage, it's a Druid 20. And it's like that for a reason; Wildshape. Please show me some 20th level Wildshape options that are decidedly better than anything available at level 18, and we'll take it from there. Exhibit A; Note that the bonus feats possible to get with a monk are feats that many fighters would take anyway. Getting them by way of the monk is no different than getting them from the fighter, except it's faster. Exhibit B; You yourself have already stated that a character interested in tracking would get it early; Therefore, the logical answer would be to take the ranger levels early (and get a class with Survival as a class skill while you're at it). I never said you had to take them last, mind you. Getting the Survival skill and some ranks in it by taking the ranger is a good answer to anyone interested, a much better one than the alternative. Therefore, point A has strength in the fact that it's feats are pretty useful to a fighter (improved grapple helps a lot, deflect arrows is about the only thing that can negate a successful attack after the fact that I know of, combat reflexes is literally ubiquitious), and point B gets a little something many people might easily be interested in without a huge drawback and in fact a slight advantage. either way, we win. Exhibit A: we're talking about Impr. Grapple/Stunning Fist and Combat Reflexes/Deflect Arrows. Stunning Fist is useless for non-monks. A low Fort save DC isn't worth bothering with. Combat Reflexes is only worth it if you have a decent Dex mod (which becomes a pretty superfluous investment if you're going for the heavy armours), and Deflect Arrows requires you have one hand free (and that's for the duration of a round, letting go of your weapon with one hand at the end of your turn doesn't count) - what Fighter is interested in that? Impr. Grapple is a good one, granted, for a Fighter there are lost of others I'd give higher priority: anyone you want to grapple should be weak enough in that area that you wouldn't need the bonus, and against anyone who'd like to grapple you there are better defenses. Exhibit B: characters that are primarily Fighters get few enough HP as it is. I'll assume 4/level, 13 Int + Human, it's rarely going to be more than that: are you sure you want to spend 2 of those on cross-class ranks in Survival? I'd rather keep Ride and Intimidate maxxed out and spend the rest on non-opposed cross-class skills (Balance, some Knowledges, ) and maybe some flavour stuff. Leave tracking to a specialist, or hire a henchman if you don't have one in the party. Do something more useful with the few skill points you get. Mithral don't help out with that, sorry. It's still heavy armor, it just weighs slightly less. (Don't ask me how that sentence even works, but it's true. Plate mail armor is plate mail armor no matter how you look at it.)Mithral won't help much in the case of Evasion, but it does help with Fast Movement (that can be done in medium armour, and normally heavy armour made from mithral counts as medium for this purpose). Evasion requires light armour or less, but you can't get there with the heavy armours you said Fighters should take advantage of being proficient with. And evasion or no... you still get the feats. Which are useful. And you can also function somewhat in the DM classic "let's strip them of their stuff and see what happens" scenario, which a base fighter could not. Just saying. Feats you might not particularly care for. DM classic? Hust how often do you pull out this 'gem' of a scenario (which penalizes fighters more than anyone else) to confront your players with? a +5% chance is a +5% chance. and it's not a -5% penalty, which is also good. Let's not forget either that my proposed multiclass has, besides the 21 feats, access to Listen and Spot via the Monk. The good will save is a must. I tell you, a MUST. Mind Blank only goes so far, and that +5% chance can suddenly become a much more important number in a tight spot, like the Dodge feat. If your Spot/Listen mods pale in comparison to those of some of the other party members, that +5 chance is meaningless. It'll usually have no effect whatsoever. All in all, the fighter who isn't a fighter all the way seems to be doing fine in gaining the fighter's strength and avoiding his weaknesses. Besides what you termed as being "limited" choices, you get as many feats as you otherwise would and they can all be from the fighter's list if you feel so inclined. This is an advantage, not a drawback. And it's way too easy to do this too. That's my entire point; I couldn't do this with any other class, mixing the base classes to create a better cleric or rogue (to name some random examples). I can outdo the fighter's biggest attraction with less than 5 minutes of thinking. 'If you feel so inclined' - that doesn't make them the feats you actually want. Of course Fighter X/whatever 2 is in all likelihood a very good build. I never disputed that. But it's not necessarily all that much better than Fighter 20, and the same goes for lots of other classes. You name rogue: are you honestly telling me Rogue 20 is as good as Rogue 18/whatever 2 (I'm not even talking about Rog 20 vs Rog 19/whatever 1)?
Mr. Sarcastic 11-25-05, 11:24 PM	I am *not* advocating delaying spell acquisition. Do *not* branch out from a full caster class until you get to level 18, when you should have 2-4 9th level spell slots. A caster level 1 or 2 points lower isn't critical in overcoming SR, and caster level doesn't matter for saves. ...right. You're still losing out on spell slots, you know. Those ninth level spell slots can hold effects that can kill incredible threats in one blow. I honestly don't see myself losing one of those except for a very good reason, and multiclassing ain't it. I clearly explained why: those abilities don't contribute much that isn't already taken care of by the lower level abilities or is so circumstantial that you're better off using magic to help out when you would use them. Empty Body is more than worth it. You could do it with an item, but that would be redundant at best when you can simply gain a level and use the gold elsewhere. (and that's assuming melee types in your campaign have easy access to magic items at their choice.) As for the 20th level ability, well, try getting hold of Alter Self for your own personal use. It isn't easy, but the benefits are amazing now that you're an outsider. For most of the ranger's spells, it doesn't really matter all that much whether they get cast through an item or from a spell slot, and you'll likely want them so often that you don't have enough slots by a long shot anyway. A higher caster level will be more better for a lot of those spells, but quite often the difference won't have much of an effect in practice (between lvls 17 and 20, the duration difference between spells won't matter one whit). FE? Whether you spread the benefits or focused on a single one, if you've gotten the FE benefits 4 times already the 5th isn't going to matter a heck of a lot anymore. It does matter! Remember, gold is a factor of class balance, so to use gold on abilities you already have is highly redundant in more than one way. Caster level helps vs. creatures with spell resistance (you're not likely to have taken the Spell Penetration feat). And the FE bonus? that's a plus one on damage, attack, and skills that aren't even on your class list vs. a certain creature type- equivalent to a strength modifier that stacks with everything plus free skill points. And since you find that to be apparently worthless, you can spread it out over two different FE's; two on one, three on the other. There, now you're getting a bonus on two different creatures. Whatever floats your boat. Please show me some 20th level Wildshape options that are decidedly better than anything available at level 18, and we'll take it from there. Using core material, we have Huge Earth Elementals. The damage reduction makes it somewhat more enduring than any animals you can point out. at level 20 non-core, we have the Maulgoth from the Fiend Folio (available via the Aberrant wild shape feat from Lords of Madness) that allows you send enemies to the ethereal plane with a touch. I suggest you look this bad boy up. And, although it's a lvl 18 shape, there's the Moonbeast from Monster Manual II. 10 attacks + constrict, along with lots of other useful stuff. Lessee, then we have Draconic wildshape... I'm sure you can see where that leads. That includes anything from breath weapons to planar travel. Exhibit A: we're talking about Impr. Grapple/Stunning Fist and Combat Reflexes/Deflect Arrows. Stunning Fist is useless for non-monks. A low Fort save DC isn't worth bothering with. Combat Reflexes is only worth it if you have a decent Dex mod (which becomes a pretty superfluous investment if you're going for the heavy armours), and Deflect Arrows requires you have one hand free (and that's for the duration of a round, letting go of your weapon with one hand at the end of your turn doesn't count) - what Fighter is interested in that? Impr. Grapple is a good one, granted, for a Fighter there are lost of others I'd give higher priority: anyone you want to grapple should be weak enough in that area that you wouldn't need the bonus, and against anyone who'd like to grapple you there are better defenses. I'd contest you about Stunning Fist being useless for non-monks, but we're not talking about the rogue here. Combat Reflexes is, yes, useful for those who want it- and if you do, you just freed up a choice for later. Deflect Arrows mentions nothing about having to have held the weapon one-handed for an entire round, so I'll assume that's a houserule or misreading on your part for now. And Improved Grapple is in addition to the normal eighteen feats you could have picked. I specifically mentioned this before! So it's not high priority? that just makes it better that you got it as a bonus feat in addition to your normal choices, doesn't it? It's still a good choice, and the prerequisite of several interesting non-core feats which are very useful for a fighter. Exhibit B: characters that are primarily Fighters get few enough HP as it is. I'll assume 4/level, 13 Int + Human, it's rarely going to be more than that: are you sure you want to spend 2 of those on cross-class ranks in Survival? ...? Survival isn't a cross-class skill for the ranger. Exhibit B was about 2 levels of ranger, and he certainly has skills to spare. I'd rather keep Ride and Intimidate maxxed out and spend the rest on non-opposed cross-class skills (Balance, some Knowledges, ) and maybe some flavour stuff. Leave tracking to a specialist, or hire a henchman if you don't have one in the party. Do something more useful with the few skill points you get. ...I was talking about 2 levels of ranger. Survival isn't a cross-class skill with the ranger. I have no idea what you're on about, and frankly I find tracking to be a flavourful option. Mithral won't help much in the case of Evasion, but it does help with Fast Movement (that can be done in medium armour, and normally heavy armour made from mithral counts as medium for this purpose). Evasion requires light armour or less, but you can't get there with the heavy armours you said Fighters should take advantage of being proficient with. Meh. If you do have medium mithral armor, whatever. Otherwise, it's just a little flavour bonus on top of already stacking benefits... and if you choose not to have an okay WIS score, put it in dex instead and pick combat reflexes and wear mithral medium armor and all will be as sunshine and happiness. I never stated that what I would pick is the only possible option; Combat Reflexes is still a viable choice and you can get the benefits of evasion. That I choose not to and still manage to gain several more feats than the fighter and am happy about it should speak volumes. Feats you might not particularly care for. DM classic? Hust how often do you pull out this 'gem' of a scenario (which penalizes fighters more than anyone else) to confront your players with? Again; Feats in ADDITION to EIGHTEEN FEATS you can choose and would have gotten to choose from anyway. IN ADDITION. Completely Free. No loss involved on the hand of the fighter. Please, at least try attacking the point instead of acting like I'm saying that you're sacrificing your options. I have already shown several times that you are not in fact doing that! Also... I have yet to encounter a DM that I have gamed with (casually or in short adventures of mostly 3-5 sessions) who hasn't at some point pulled that exact scenario on his players. If yours hasn't, or if you're the DM and you haven't, power to you. seriously, I respect that. Also, for the record, I'm not a DM. I never said I was. So please... attack the argument, not my online avatar. I have never had the chance to pull that "gem" on anyone and I don't think I would, but I certainly have come across it literally dozens of times. If your Spot/Listen mods pale in comparison to those of some of the other party members, that +5 chance is meaningless. It'll usually have no effect whatsoever. Ahem. +5% chance, as in +1. Since the Monk has listen and spot as class skills, I assumed you were nice enough to assume that he'd take a few ranks in those exact skills, so that amounts to somewhat more of a bonus. Spotting and Listening often means the difference between a surprise round and instant readyness. I've had situations where only one player made his check an instant before an attack, and the rest of us were flat-footed. Sometimes, I failed that check by only one, and that's at high levels (as in 15+). It has an effect unless the DM somehow feels that no creature that doesn't have a +gazillion to hide and move silently would ever consider an ambush as a viable tactic. I've known of dragons with not too many points in those very skills attempt a preemptive strike against parties I've played with. It's not a pleasant experience to be flat-footed against that kind of opposition when a little skill would have made all the difference. 'If you feel so inclined' - that doesn't make them the feats you actually want. you have 21 feats! you still have an option of choosing from exactly the amount of feats you would have gotten if you had played a fighter! Those feats are in fact useful both for prerequisites and for certain specialized builds! Those feats are useful, and in one case by your own admission a "Good one"! No loss, all the gain, and you get more choices with your normal feats to boot! Of course Fighter X/whatever 2 is in all likelihood a very good build. I never disputed that. But it's not necessarily all that much better than Fighter 20, and the same goes for lots of other classes. You name rogue: are you honestly telling me Rogue 20 is as good as Rogue 18/whatever 2 (I'm not even talking about Rog 20 vs Rog 19/whatever 1)? Why, yes. Yes I will. level 19 for a rogue is a very interesting level, where he gains more sneak attack and a special rogue ability, most of which I wish I could take all at once because they are simply that much fun. And for both levels you gain 8+int skill points for a variety of class skills that most other classes don't even dare to dream of. I might exchange that last level, but hardly 2. That special ability is arguably equivalent to a feat, and we know that there is a feat that grants 5 skill points; by that logic, I'm coming out ahead of the game just by taking those 2 levels of rogue over, say, 2 levels of fighter as I gain not just a feat-equivalent ability but also more skill points than you could take with three feats. And a plethora of class skills to go with it. Oh, and a +3.5 damage to your average sneak attack damage, but that's just gravy. What are my options? gaining rage... hardly. spellcasting? only really need one level, and I have full access to Use Magic Device. Track? P'shaw, if I had wanted tracking I would have taken it a long time before that (and I can get it with my Special Ability if I so choose. I'm not exactly lacking for cross-class skill points.) Martial weapon and armor proficiencies from the fighter? what in the world would I do with them? Aura of Good, Detect Evil... Yes, I really need to be vulnerable to a form of detection magic, being the stealthy rogue that I am. Plus, a rogue has a difficult time reconciling himself with the Paladin's ethos at that point, methinks, although it would make an interesting progression. Bardic Music and Lore? Well, to put it bluntly, the second level of bard is pointless for multiclassing into, so only 1 level there. Monk is mostly redundant, although that stunning fist is looking good to deliver with sneak attacks, plus I can always take the Ascetic Rogue feat... Okay, I might do it with the monk, but it would have to fit the concept to do so. About the only ability I think a rogue could really from the Druid would be Trackless Step, which requires three levels, so no go. Did I miss any? out of 10 options, there's exactly 1 I would cheerfully consider taking 2 levels in, and that's the option of gaining a suckerpunch stunning kidney fist vibe from the Monk. Care to name any yourself?
Yan-C-Bin 11-26-05, 08:37 AM	Hmmm... Does anybody remember what were we arguing? And exactly what makes a better fighter? The fighter is supposed to fight. A fighter 20 is supposed to fight. If you need versatility, play a diversified build. To me, the fighter 20 can take anybody on, as long as they arenīt anti-fighter builds. Because you canīt measure somethingīs strength by comparing it to the things made to tactically nuke them specifically. If you want to know how strong the fighter 20 is, playtest it. Donīt just throw around each possible contingency and counter you can imagine; that works equally well for spellcasters, barbarians, and all crap around. Who is in for a bit of playtesting? Just one question: How do we playtest the strength of a fighter? I know itīs the way, but not how to do it. Sure, we can merely make them fight something their CR, but I feel somethingīs lacking...
Centauri 11-26-05, 12:49 PM	How do we playtest the strength of a fighter? I know itīs the way, but not how to do it. Sure, we can merely make them fight something their CR, but I feel somethingīs lacking... Yes, you're lacking the rest of the party. Playtesting a character by itself doesn't make for a meaningful test. I'm in the process of testing a fighter to 20, but it's going to take a LOOOONG time.
Lion21 11-26-05, 02:34 PM	How does this madness continue? The fighter is not worth it to a higher level party, everything they do, which is basically just fighting, is out done by other classes at those levels. He cannot however, do what those classes do on top of being better fighters than the fighter: Skill use and magic. Please, show me the Fighter who can challenge the dedicated magic users at higher levels, and the fighter who is not outdone or equaled in combat by the Barbarians and Paladins who also provide all sorts of other advantages to the party outside of fighting. P.S. I invite all of you to come try your hand at the Fighters challenge/ Fighters Deathmatch Challenge! It's not a "proving" of the Fighter types, but it certainly is fun! P.P.S. I have decided at long last, to actually sitting down and producing another myths of high-level combat and play thread.
RadicalTaoist 11-26-05, 05:03 PM	Pardon my absence...is True Archon still here?
Mr. Sarcastic 11-26-05, 05:06 PM	Will the true Archon please stand up. Sorry.
True Archon 11-26-05, 05:27 PM	Pardon my absence...is True Archon still here? Will the true Archon please stand up. Sorry. Still here. Sorry, just been a lil' busy. Haven't had a lot of time to catch up on where we left off, and I have to go in a minute. I'll have to read the rest of the post tonight. But, in the mean time, what's up? :D
Dire Celestial Bonobo 11-26-05, 07:18 PM	Please, show me the Fighter who can challenge the dedicated magic users at higher levels What options are you considering? Some builds (such as a Feral Half-Ogre Half-Dragon B1/F14 with Improved Trip or Improved Grapple who flies around in a permanent Anti-Magic Field) can be tricky for magic users to deal with. If said character has a few feats like Karmic Strike, Shock Trooper, Something Dodge (negates Power Attack), and Three Mountains Style (DC 32 Fort save-or-lose-round with no magical aid)---feats that no Barbarian or Paladin will have enough choices for---it can also be pretty effective against other melee fighters. (Against missile fighters, it can use Reach and a 200-ft flying Charge range to turn them into melee fighters.) Hmm - a thought that just occurred: IIRC, Awesome Blow (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsterFeats.htm) not only has a very high DC (DC = damage), but also knocks the target flying...which is movement through a threatened space...which provokes an AoO...which provides the opportunity for requiring the above DC 32 no-magic Fort save during a round in which the fighter moves. Hmm - prone, nauseated, damaged, anti-magic'd, and in range of a full attack sequence next round; probably not the best position for a high-level magic-user to be in... Strictly core, though, high-level Fighters have some real problems. There just aren't high-level feats for them the way there are high-level spells. ----- In retrospect, Half-Ogres are Giants, and so can't be Feral. That's sad, because it makes the character slower, and speed is good. (Of course, both Half-Ogre and Feral are overpowered, but that's kinda the point.) Using a Feral Half-Dragon Minotaur works, but only nets us B1/F7, and slightly misses the original intention of making a high-level Fighter. Still, with Pounce, Shock Trooper, Jump Attack, and DC 35 Three Mountains magic-free at high speed, he should be a reasonably viable high-level melee character.
Morrowner 11-26-05, 08:39 PM	Okay, as cool as being a LA'd templated creature is its not the point. Nothing fancy, just stuff the WOTC guys put out, no LAs or templates. Straight fighter 20 vs. staight any core class with a full BAB 20. Is it worth it? The paladin has him licked(Lay on hands, special mount, 4th level spells) the Barbarian is going to be raging like crazy and taking 5 less damage, the Ranger has 3 bonus combat feats, an animal companion and a boatload of other goodies not to mention a pantsload of favored enemies.
Dire Celestial Bonobo 11-26-05, 11:51 PM	Okay, as cool as being a LA'd templated creature is its not the point. Nothing fancy, just stuff the WOTC guys put out, no LAs or templates. Straight fighter 20 vs. staight any core class with a full BAB 20. Is it worth it? It still depends on what you allow. Off the top of my head, allowing only PHB races, Core stuff (PHB/DMG), and feats from the Complete books, the Fighter still has some tricks he can play: 1) Elusive Target (IIRC), from CW, can be used to negate Power Attack, removing much of the disincentive to using Shock Trooper and Leap Attack to dump AC for maximum damage (+60) 2) Karmic Strike (CW) synergizes nicely with that; while it's dirt-simple for the opponent to hit you (-26 to your AC...), he can't take advantage of that (no PA), and any hits he lands bring a full-BAB retaliation at +60 to damage. 3) Three Mountains style (CW) gives the Fighter a DC 30 Fort save attack if he hits twice in a round; in particular, any opponent who attacks back after being Charged will need to make the save (although, admittedly, it's only 10-15% for a Mighty Morph^H^H^H^H^HRaging Barbarian or a high-Cha Paladin; most monsters will have a harder time of it, though). Taking these feats would require, IIRC, 13 feat selections (Power Attack, Improved Bullrush, Shock Trooper (CW), Dodge, Mobility, Elusive Target (CW), Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Karmic Strike (CW), Three Mountains style (CW), Cleave, Leap Attack (CAdv), Weapon Focus), which is already significantly more than any other single-classed PHB character has access to. A Human Barb 20 would have 8 feats, allowing him to get Power Attack, Improved Bullrush, Shock Trooper, Leap Attack---to get the massive Power Attack damage on a Charge---and then either Dodge, Mobility, and Elusive Target---allowing full Power Attack on a Charge but preventing the target's Power Attack from adding extra damage---or Dodge, Combat Expertise, Karmic Strike, and Combat Reflexes---to retaliate with full Power Attack damage when hit---but could not have both. Accordingly, the Fighter in this scenario could Charge the Barbarian at +38 to hit for 1d10+20+60-5 damage, and retaliate with that much damage for every hit the Barbarian lands. If he lacks Elusive Target, the Barbarian is doomed. At best, the Barbarian would be able to negate that Power Attack damage, but then would be suffering two hits for every one he lands. 2d6+26 damage vs. 2x(1d10+20-5) is pretty even when you take into account the Barbarian's higher hit points, but there's also the DC 30 saves he'd have to make every round. For one more feat choice, the Fighter could have Spring Attack, allowing him to slow the fight down to one attack per round. Add in another (15 of 18) for Superior Combat Expertise (CW), and he can make the fight last as long as he likes by upping his AC essentially arbitrarily. Once the Barbarian's Rage expires (~12 rounds of attacks at +41 vs. AC ~60), he'll fail his save against Three Mountains ~30% of the time, meaning he'll not only be well behind in the two-for-one attack trade, he'll miss 30% of his rounds. Against other foes, the Fighter would be well-advised to spend his third-to-last feat on Improved Trip; that would allow him to Charge a non-melee enemy (Wizard, Ranger, Rogue, ...) and score one hit with the follow-up attack. Standing or (IIRC) crawling out of Reach would provoke an AoO (and hence trigger the DC 30 Fort save), as would trying to cast a spell if the Fighter took Mage Slayer(CArc) for feat #17. Essentially, the Fighter would be a three-trick pony: 1) Massive amounts of damage via Shock Trooper, Cleave, and Karmic Strike; Elusive Target prevents this from being suicidal. 2) High Fort saves to avoid losing a round due to Three Mountains style, Improved Trip, and Mage Slayer. 3) Protection and delaying actions via Superior Combat Expertise and Elusive Target (as well as Boots of Flying to prevent tripping and #18---Close-Quarters Fighting (CW)---to prevent grappling). He should be able to use at least one of these tricks reasonably effectively against most adversaries he can engage in melee, and should invest in good movement-enhancement magic to ensure he can get to melee (flight items, speed-enhancers, invisibility/see invis, ethereal travel if necessary). This being a build just off the top of my head from memory, it would be interesting to see if he really does have a trick for every melee contingency. He's lacking in ranged combat, but an Arrow Deflecting shield helps significantly there, and he can always use a tower shield to provide full cover until he manages to come up with countermeasures. He's also lacking in anti-magic, although he'd actually lose relatively little power inside an Anti-Magic Field, so a permanent-but-suppressable Anti-Magic Field item (like a Darkskull; it could be "suppressed" by throwing it away, if need be) would be valuable there. That was the whole point of the Half-Dragon, of course---a melee combatant with non-magical flight can always be inside an Anti-Magic Field, yet still reach flying enemies. If you're going to restrict to just the PHB, then I'll agree that F20 is very weak---there just aren't enough good feats available. Allow the most-widely-recognized supplements, though, and he gets a little bit better.
Morrowner 11-27-05, 12:20 AM	I'm convinced that the feats can create a solid to very good fighter non-core. Groovy. But it seems to underwhelm compared to the crazy stuff other classs could do(I'm looking at you Elder Elemental druid with Natural Spell!). Maybe instead of whining about the fighter's lack of power for the past two years (guilty as charged) I/We should have explored the feats better.