Post/Author/DateTime	Post
aelryinth 05-08-07, 12:34 AM	Clerics aren't played because people think they have to be WoW and EQ healers. Once you start looking at what the class can really do, you learn otherwise. Dispels should be standard tactics of any caster. the problem with dispelling most clerics is Necklace of Prayer Beads buffing up the caster level bonus to make dispelling very difficult, and other caster level tricks. Your fighter there was kept alive by his buffs. Ergo, to kill him, the cleric should have simply removed his buffs. Far more efficient then throwing save or dies he's almost bound to make at him. ===Aelryinth
Flan 05-08-07, 01:09 AM	How does that work? Mage Slayer doesn't work if you don't threaten them, if they tumble out of the way, you don't threaten them, nor do you get an AoO. Even untrained a wizard with gear will have a 50% to tumble away, realistically they'll be much higher. Mage Slayer really is more of a joke of a feat than an effective one, but it's better than nothing. When used by the BBEG instead of the party it's totally worthless as a 5 foot step behind another party member, animal companion, whatever, negates it as well. I wouldn't bother giving it to a BBEG for that reason. Hmm... trivial damage? What about Sunder staff/wand/rod/component pouch and cleave into wizard. Drawing those is part of the move so you won't be able to sunder them. Component pouches cost nothing so you'll have multiples if not eschew anyway. Damage triggers knockdown, which provides another attack. On some builds. If you hit, which you probably won't. And Mage Slayer doesn't work on quickened spells either, like a quickened dimension door etc. Now, the Concentration check to cast that spell is 10 plus the damage from 3 different attacks. No it isn't, not unless you used a readied action to interrupt casting. Mage Slayer doesn't replace readied actions, it merely forces wizards to use their move action or use quickened spells or risk the AoO. Sometimes forcing them to use their move action is enough though. Further, the wizard is grappled, meaning he can only cast spells without somatic components. Absolute worst case, in the unlikely event this happens, the wizard uses his heart of water and gains freedom of movement as a swift action. And if the fighter sundered the component pouch, that's even fewer available spells. Sundering the pouch is a waste of an attack. Next round, pin the wizard and prevent him from speaking. Freedom of Movement. You'll need to dispell his heart of water and sleight of hand his ring of free action first. Mage Slayer needs to be much better.
Judging Eagle 05-08-07, 01:17 AM	AHAHAHA, just read the feats for Complete Champion. Why is it a feat for melee do something like... +2 damage while a feat for casters doubles their damage, or allows them to do infinite amounts of healing? :rolleyes: If Night Sticks aren't banned in your game already, heres a couple more feats which they make broken. Not even. The 550 HP you get for 750 gp with the wand of lesser vigour (doled out in 11 HP blocks, no less) is actually cheaper than the feat. Mostly b/c you get 750 gp easier than you get a feat. The real problem with clerics is that only the rogues play them to their maximum potential; I'm talking actual players who are rogues. So, they're overpowered, but only in the hands of someone that could make a level 12 straight fighter that can solo anything save an SLA (ab)user or a full-caster (The AoO Junkie (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=11613262#post11613262)) . The brutes try to play fighters, but do better with barbarians. While the 'clever' people think that playing a 'rogue' is being crafty.
navar100 05-08-07, 02:33 AM	Clerics tend to be better on fewer targets, but DMM Twinspell is pretty effective. That plus a max wand is 180 damage no save to two targets at level 15, not crippling in itself but combined with damage from the wizard and things die. Wizards like single targets too because of orbs, sound lance, disintigrate etc. but their damage doesn't drop using AEs as much as the opponent's HPs drop, so they do just fine on multiple targets. Things like Scorching Ray, Chain Lighting, or AEs like Meteor Swarm, or multi-rounds like Many Jaws (which combines well with concentration trick from complete scoundrel) or Ball Lighting don't suck. I see. So every single cleric that exists who does not take Divine Metamagic Twinspell is "not even trying"? Where's the Divine Metamagic Persistent Spell that everyone crows about? You know nothing of my group's last campaign. Not only did I benefit from Divine Metamagic Persistent Spell for my cleric, but I also had the fortune to benefit when it was only a +4 level cost. Yes, I had Persistent Divine favor and Persistent Divine Power. I even had Persistent Greater Visage of the Deity. When it came to melee I was the bomb, though our War Mind was the tripmaster. As for our wizard, she had spells up the wazoo. She had Feeblemind, Chain Lightning, Prismatic Spray, Weird, etc. However, we did not fight one opponent. We fought many opponents. We fought small armies. At a bit lower level we fought 12 beholders, at once, but our rogue had an artifact that could call a contigent of golems, so maybe that's not the best example. At one point we had to fight a pit fiend, 4 vrocks, 4 horned demons (the demons and devils were united for awhile), and a very large eight-armed construct. Once we did fight just one lone monster. We were around level 16. The monster we fought? A Devastating Beetle, an epic monster. The DM admittedly even lowered its power a bit. There was no way my uber divine powered cleric was going anywhere near it. I knew for certain to do so would be suicide. My job was clear - let our War Mind do the grunt work and keep him alive. I casted Shield Other on him then healed and healed and healed and healed. The Devastating Beetle did so much damage on the War Mind, we both had to make 50+ hit points at once system shock rolls. Shield Other literally saved the War Mind's life. The wizard buffed as best she could (she wasn't really into buffing spells) but hoped for the best trying to get through the monster's spell resistance. The rogue knew he couldn't fight the thing so he looked for the NPC bad guy controlling it. We didn't win the battle. The DM gave a deus ex machina of the tarrasque showing up to take care of it. The DM was testing the party to see what we could do; it was never meant to be a TPK. We couldn't kill it, but we held our ground. We fought very well. Why? For my part, despite being uberbuffed persistent up the whazoo cleric, I knew being such meant absolutely nothing. I knew my job was not to win the battle myself because I'm uberclericoverlord of the multiverse. My job was to be the healing robot "everyone" hates about playing a cleric. I buffed the dedicated warrior then healed. The party as a whole played as a team. No one tried to hog the glory. Give us a couple of levels, even if still below epic, and we'd have a good chance of killing the thing. Oh yeah, it took more than "2 rounds".
Leo 05-08-07, 08:41 AM	Fighter suscks...yet lots of people play them, or at least use a few levels in their builds. Cleric rocks...Yet most people will only play one if not given any other choice. Isn't something wrong here? How the "bad" class is as popular, if not more played, than the "uber-broken" class? Like someone said earlier, we can't use as a scale what the optimizers are able to do. We have to use what the common player does. Otherwise Pun-Pun pwns them all, as he is the ultimate build.
Otto the Bugbear 05-08-07, 09:04 AM	Fighter suscks...yet lots of people play them, or at least use a few levels in their builds. Cleric rocks...Yet most people will only play one if not given any other choice. Isn't something wrong here? How the "bad" class is as popular, if not more played, than the "uber-broken" class? People play fighting classes (fighter, barb, pally, etc.) because they love stabbing things in the face with an ax. I'm not sure why, but I'd bet it has a little to do with daily frustration (traffic, work, kids, significant other, house repairs, car repairs, etc.) and a means to vent that frustration. Having an imaginary character you are playing the role of stabbing faces is a better release than flinging bat poo. (And certainly a better release than doing the actual face stabbing yourself. Well, at least more conductive to avoiding incarceration.) People avoid playing the healer because nobody likes being the party's b:censored: . On a leash. Is something wrong there? Absolutely. The class everyone loves to play shouldn't be so much worse than because of it. It's almost like the game designers, perhaps subconsciously, thought they could get away with that crap because people like being the fighting types so much. Like someone said earlier, we can't use as a scale what the optimizers are able to do. We have to use what the common player does. Otherwise Pun-Pun pwns them all, as he is the ultimate build. Yep. And a lot of people out there just want that extra for the fighting classes to boost them up a little bit, while at the same time putting limits on the casters to bring them down a little bit. The first bit (boost fighting classes a bit) is the easier of the two to accomplish. Trimming the casters by a little bit, well, that's a pretty big project, even when only considering the amount of material that needs to change just in the SRD. Unfortunately, that first part (boost fighting classes), has to start with the concept that they are weaker. That concept gets so much friction and spite that it makes me wonder why.
Flan 05-08-07, 09:58 AM	Oh yeah, it took more than "2 rounds". Ah, a CR 50 fight for a level 16 party. Yes, thats... a pretty typical encounter. Thanks for shareing that with us... very... time wasting. :rolleyes: Although they don't fly admittedly so it should be a pretty easy fight. But the 72 AC might take a while.
Clawhound 05-08-07, 10:00 AM	Hooray for stupid specific examples that don't actually show anything! :cheer: The barbarian is as bad or worse off than the fighter, as I've said or agreed with time and again. There are a few things the barb does better, like built in flavor and having a few more hit points and having fast movement and having uncanny dodge. big whoop. Now replace the word "barbarian" with the word "cleric" or "paladin" or "warblade" or "knight". I dare say that using the exact items Khan chose for his great builds, but placing them instead on a cleric will yield a much more powerful character. Or it means that you make comparisons using the same items among several classes, instead of only picking the one that supports your argument. Which is more important to a cleric: an item that enhances strength or an item that enhances caster level. Why? Which is more important to a fighter: an item that enhances strength or an item that enhances caster level. Why? My point here is that equipment choices are greatly shaped by class. With limitations, you players will make choices for their characters that best benefit their characters. Let's assume that you want a cleric able to DMM. You take the feat/class combo that allows you to do that at level 1. Great! Meanwhile, the fighter has chosen a longspear, a greatsword, a longsword, a longbow, power attack, cleave, and combat reflexes. Great! Can they switch equipment? No, not really. Now, let's move on to 10th level. Can the cleric switch equipment? Most likely, no. He chose to take turning feats as the old DM (with a new baby) ceded the game to another DM, who suddenly changed the course of the game into an undead-heavy game. For four levels, the party fought evil clerics and undead. This new DM also thought that certain items were broken, and the cleric was not able to buy them. Meanwhile, the fighter bought ghost touch enhancements to his weapons and psionic tatoos to enhance his touch AC. After that, the cleric player became the DM, and so he moved his DMPC into the background. (It's a so-so example. I admit that. Choices were chosen for clarity, not fairness.) This illustrates the big factors in character optimization. - Class - Build - Environment - DM Only two of them are fixed. The other two are not. Could the cleric have taken another build? Sure, but then he would not have had the DMM ability until the later levels. Even so, the campaign may still have derailed his decisions.
crashlogic 05-08-07, 01:51 PM	let's see, Fighter on horse with bow, Warblade on foot. Warblade activates Winged boots. Races up and sunders bow. Or kills horse. Or flies away. Fighter is now on foot. Rest of unbalanced scenario plays out as normal. Or even better, Warblade with his extra skill points purchases a few ranks of Ride and also has a horse. While Fighter is using bow, Warblade is using Lance. Hilarity ensues when Ruby Nightmare blade combined with Lance Attack on a Charge hits home. ===Aelryinth assuming horses of equal speed the warblade would never get near the archers horse, with 200 feet between them. and no, you cannot use ruby nightmare blade with a charge, Sorry. winged boots. maybe, depends on the distance. Are TOB stances and mauvers useable with bows? And, a few ranks in ride are nowhere near the equivalent of the mounted archey chain..the fighter can make a full attack, with an extra, while his horse is moving a double move, or running, depending on how much of a penalty the fighter wants to take.
Flan 05-08-07, 03:12 PM	Not even. The 550 HP you get for 750 gp with the wand of lesser vigour (doled out in 11 HP blocks, no less) is actually cheaper than the feat. Mostly b/c you get 750 gp easier than you get a feat. I don't know about that. 5 skill point item is 2500 GP, thats a feat and costs about 3 wands of vigor. Monks belt is a feat AND a pair of class features and thats only about 11k, or 15 wands. Night Stick is 7500 and give extra turning feat. Although the price for a feat isn't consistent, I have to say, it's consistently low.
Judging Eagle 05-08-07, 03:58 PM	I meant that you get a Feat every 3 HD. You get more than 750 GP before 3rd lvl most of the time. I was talking about the economics of the healing reserve feat compared to picking up say wands of lesser vigour, or heck, craft wands and getting all sort of crazy crap in wand format.
Kresalak 05-08-07, 04:16 PM	assuming horses of equal speed the warblade would never get near the archers horse, with 200 feet between them. and no, you cannot use ruby nightmare blade with a charge, Sorry. You can't Run when firing a bow, not that it matters.
Flan 05-08-07, 05:40 PM	I was talking about the economics of the healing reserve feat compared to picking up say wands of lesser vigour, or heck, craft wands and getting all sort of crazy crap in wand format. So was I, I was pointing out it's cheaper to buy a feat's effects on (permanent) magic items then it is to keep buying wands of lesser vigor.
Khan the Destroyer 05-08-07, 05:58 PM	To others, the question is 'can the fighter do his job?' (Whatever that might be.) :rolleyes: Whatever that might be? Well, I suppose it is the same thing that every other class is doing so easily to the point that the fighter is no longer needed. Don't claim that so many classes can do the job so easily, and then try and pretend as if the term 'fighter job' is some sort of abstract undefined concept. Especially when you just used it like three times before this question. Maybe it wasn't your intent, but it's been tried before. Of course he can. A commoner can do the fighter's job, albeit poorly. No, a commoner can't. Doesn't this bring us right back around to ignoring the "in my games" scenario in favor of only looking at the mechanics? Doesn't only looking at the mechanics show us the fighter is very capable at being a fighter? Mage Slayer doesn't work if you don't threaten them, if they tumble out of the way, you don't threaten them, nor do you get an AoO. Even untrained a wizard with gear will have a 50% to tumble away, realistically they'll be much higher. No, I know that you can tumble to avoid AoO's. I was curious about the 'bright wizards can tumble' part. Since you can't tumble without being trained, we're talking about spending cross-class ranks. Ok. Then, we have a specific item (I don't know what item). Fine. Then, you say 'realistically, they'll be much higher.' What does that mean? I wasn't aware that wizards optimized their tumble checks. And I frequent the CO Board. Again, after bashing fighter builds for being 'specific', we run into the same scenario on the wizard side. Drawing those is part of the move so you won't be able to sunder them. Component pouches cost nothing so you'll have multiples if not eschew anyway. So now we assume the wizard doesn't carry wand or staff in hand, ever. Ok, no problem. The sundering isn't needed, only icing on the cake. On some builds. Most of mine. Before this silly cast spell/AoO scenario. If you hit, which you probably won't. A couple of things: 1. It would be ridiculous for a DM to pit enemies against the PC's that they could not hit. Same goes for DC's that are too high to save against, or attack roll modifiers too great to avoid. Sorry, but that's not how the game is expected to be played. The more and more we go through this, the more it turns into CO. And CO is a horrible representation of actual gameplay (at least, in my experience). 2. You said 'they don't care about the trivial damage'. Meaning, the mage got hit. I was demonstrating that the damage didn't have to be trivial, that a mage can't always hand wave the AoO away. Backing out now and saying 'assuming you hit...' is pointless, because you assumed it in the first place. And Mage Slayer doesn't work on quickened spells either, like a quickened dimension door etc. Right. And mages don't always cast quickened spells. No it isn't, not unless you used a readied action to interrupt casting. Mage Slayer doesn't replace readied actions, it merely forces wizards to use their move action or use quickened spells or risk the AoO. Sometimes forcing them to use their move action is enough though. Again Flan, you already assumed the wizard was hit, by the AoO, that it was forced to take (in your scenario) because of Mage Slayer. To quote the SRD... Also, damage stemming from an attack of opportunity or readied attack made in response to the spell being cast. The damage stemming from that AoO would be the combined total of all three attacks. That check may not be as easy as you'd like. Absolute worst case, in the unlikely event this happens, the wizard uses his heart of water and gains freedom of movement as a swift action. Worst case? Yeah, for the wizard. I fail to see how it isn't likely. Why? Because of one spell in Complete Mage that the wizard may or may not know and may or may not have prepared that day and may or may not have already cast? Meh. Even still, the wizard likely lost his spell. I'm sure you understand Flan that a wizard *can* have a counter for pretty much *anything* someone can think of to throw at them. If the DM plays them that way... well, what's the point? Against a wizard like that... what does a rogue do? The wizard will obviously have concealment to avoid sneak attacks, and since your PC casters do not craft items for party members ever, UMD is at best unreliable. And the healer? Well, dispel is a standard tactic apparently, and so is raising your caster level. So, I guess the healer's out of buffs. And, there's no one to heal because no one will take damage, they just die from SoD's. The caster would do something, but the enemy mage is protected by an antimagic effect, one that he shaped to allow himself to continue casting while avoiding enemy effects. And everything that he gates in to avoid the AMF has to fight with the small army of uber monsters the wizard would have obviously binded into his service with the time and power to do so. Golly. That sucks.
Flan 05-08-07, 06:07 PM	Again Flan, you already assumed the wizard was hit, by the AoO, that it was forced to take (in your scenario) because of Mage Slayer. To quote the SRD... Also, damage stemming from an attack of opportunity or readied attack made in response to the spell being cast. The damage stemming from that AoO would be the combined total of all three attacks. That check may not be as easy as you'd like. Damage done on the AoO from moving isn't added to concentration as per the SRD you just quoted. So no, you don't get 3 attacks worth of damage on the wizard. You get none, because he moved out of the way. As for tumble, why wouldn't a wizard put a couple points into it? It's a skill that can actually do something for you as opposed to being utterly worthless like all the skills fighters get that are easily replaced by 1st and 2nd level spells. Worst case? Yeah, for the wizard. I fail to see how it isn't likely. Why? Because of one spell in Complete Mage that the wizard may or may not know and may or may not have prepared that day and may or may not have already cast? Trying to say those spells might not be cast by the wizard is like saying the fighter might not have power attack. Yeah, it'll happen in core-only since it's a non-core spell, but it's pretty damn unlikely outside of it.
Argaud 05-08-07, 06:23 PM	I'm sure you understand Flan that a wizard *can* have a counter for pretty much *anything* someone can think of to throw at them. If the DM plays them that way... well, what's the point? Against a wizard like that... what does a rogue do? The wizard will obviously have concealment to avoid sneak attacks, and since your PC casters do not craft items for party members ever, UMD is at best unreliable. And the healer? Well, dispel is a standard tactic apparently, and so is raising your caster level. So, I guess the healer's out of buffs. And, there's no one to heal because no one will take damage, they just die from SoD's. The caster would do something, but the enemy mage is protected by an antimagic effect, one that he shaped to allow himself to continue casting while avoiding enemy effects. And everything that he gates in to avoid the AMF has to fight with the small army of uber monsters the wizard would have obviously binded into his service with the time and power to do so. Golly. That sucks. I am pretty sure it is possible to counter all the wizard's contingencies too. Fighter: I am enlarged and wield an Extended, Binding spiked chain, so with my Aberrant Reach feat I have 40' reach. I move near the wizard and then I hit him with Pierce Magical Protection feat dispelling all his AC buffs, I can see through his defense spells thanks to my Pierce Magical Concealment feat. Then I use the Scorpion feat to grapple. Wizard: Bah, Mageslayer is useless, reach is useless, fighters are useless. Look: Quickened Dimension Door! Fighter: Sorry, I said Binding weapon, no teleporting for 10 minutes. Wizard: Bah, I activate Heart of Water, I am out of your grapple. Now I tumble away with my Item of +15 tumble. Then I cast my Kill Fighter spell. Fighter: Sorry, I have 40' reach and mageslayer, you can't tumble far enough not even with a double move. Wizard: hrm... then I will do <insert something here>! I am sure a wizard expert can find a solution to the problem, but I am also sure the fighter can find another counter. We can do this all the day. Bottom line, as Khan said, neither wizards or fighters have all the right spells, all the right feats or all the right items.
Khan the Destroyer 05-08-07, 06:26 PM	Damage done on the AoO from moving isn't added to concentration as per the SRD you just quoted. So no, you don't get 3 attacks worth of damage on the wizard. You get none, because he moved out of the way. So... what trivial damage were you referring to then? If no attacks are made, how did the wizard take damage? You said the wizard tumbles *or* doesn't care about the taking the AoO and the trivial damage. My point was simply that the damage doesn't have to be trivial. The AoO can be very costly. Then you say "That would never happen because the wizard would never provoke." Ok, not a problem. I'll leave it here... Provoking an AoO for casting a spell can have serious consequences for the caster. They cannot always assume they will be able to ignore the damage, or that the AoO will result in only a single attack and do nothing more than deal hit point damage. There, now we don't have to switch scenarios. As for tumble, why wouldn't a wizard put a couple points into it? By all means. I've never seen it is all. It's a skill that can actually do something for you as opposed to being utterly worthless like all the skills fighters get that are easily replaced by 1st and 2nd level spells. What does it matter what spells can replace them if helping your teammates in any fashion other than pretending to be a fighter is the last thing on your wizards mind? Trying to say those spells might not be cast by the wizard is like saying the fighter might not have power attack. Yeah, it'll happen in core-only since it's a non-core spell, but it's pretty damn unlikely outside of it. *shrugs* You said it was unlikely, and a worst case scenario, as if all wizards will scribe and prepare and have had cast that particular spell whenever they get grappled. On the flip side, even without the feats I mentioned, a fighter optimizes his attacks. Because that is what he does. So, an AoO may still be dangerous. I agree with the comparison, but not with the ascertion that it is 'damn unlikely' outside of core. But of course, it's not a big deal. I don't mind specific builds with specific spells and items and feats. There is really no other way to gauge power. But other people do mind. At least, when it comes to the fighter. I'm pointing out the difference that doesn't exist ;). It's sort of like how people pretend that the fighter (or warriors in general) is the only class that fails against perfectly prepared wizards. Yeah, right.
archcomponent 05-08-07, 06:46 PM	How is this debate still going on? All of these so-called "examples" of the fighter being underpowered are a combination one of three things. First, a DM allowing idiotic noncore material. Second, a DM metagaming against the fighter when desinging encounters. Third, that same DM failing to supply intelligent opponents with the basic common sense to deal with magic and pose a threat to spellcasters. That is not a problem with the fighter, that is a problem with the DM. Going on like some of the people here are is pretty much like announcing that you have no idea how to run a game. 1. It would be ridiculous for a DM to pit enemies against the PC's that they could not hit. Not to hear some people tell it. They act like it is good DMing to metagame against the fighter like that and completely ignore any threat from a spellcasting character.
Otto the Bugbear 05-08-07, 06:57 PM	:rolleyes: Whatever that might be? Well, I suppose it is the same thing that every other class is doing so easily to the point that the fighter is no longer needed. Don't claim that so many classes can do the job so easily, and then try and pretend as if the term 'fighter job' is some sort of abstract undefined concept. Especially when you just used it like three times before this question. Maybe it wasn't your intent, but it's been tried before. My bad. I should have clarified. I didn't mean in the abstract undefined. In this cast, fighter's job = filling something with arrows, or absorbing blows, or hitting things really hard in melee, or battlefield control. Not the ridiculous, but rather the accepted things the class is geared toward doing. No, a commoner can't. Sure he can, poorly. Doesn't only looking at the mechanics show us the fighter is very capable at being a fighter? Doesn't only looking at the mechanics show us the [replacement class] is very capable at being a fighter?
Belgian Waffle 05-08-07, 07:34 PM	How is this debate still going on? All of these so-called "examples" of the fighter being underpowered are a combination one of three things. First, a DM allowing idiotic noncore material. Second, a DM metagaming against the fighter when desinging encounters. Third, that same DM failing to supply intelligent opponents with the basic common sense to deal with magic and pose a threat to spellcasters. That is not a problem with the fighter, that is a problem with the DM. Going on like some of the people here are is pretty much like announcing that you have no idea how to run a game. 1) Trust us when we say that the Fighter needs to go beyond non-core way more than the casters do. 2) DM's don't metagame against fighters, they don't need to, D&D does it for them. And I've seen way more instances of where the DM has to metagame against the casters for encounters to be considered a challenge or else things are ended in the first two rounds and the fighter types are just like, "I didn't get to hit nothing. :( " 3) So, I guess that running "intelligent" (maybe more intelligent than they should be?) NPC/Mobs that will target the caster first doesn't fall under the aforementioned DM metagaming? Way to go with the double standard, dude.
Argaud 05-08-07, 07:43 PM	What metagaming are you talking about? If you have already decided the fighters/warrior types are useless most times or a minor threat at best... how is making your NPCs optimized to slay casters metagaming? By your reasoning it is perfectly logical to ignore warriors in a fight and go straight for the casters armed with all the feats, weapons and tactics to destroy them. It makes absolutely no sense to have NPCs equipped to deal with fighters or otherwise make them even less effective than you know they are, does it? So why are casters memorizing Quickened Dimension Doors and Heart of Water spells, and taking crossclass ranks in Tumbling? Are they trying to be unoptimized or something? Or maybe they are afraid of something they shouldn't be afraid?
Leo 05-08-07, 08:07 PM	People play fighting classes (fighter, barb, pally, etc.) because they love stabbing things in the face with an ax. I'm not sure why, but I'd bet it has a little to do with daily frustration (traffic, work, kids, significant other, house repairs, car repairs, etc.) and a means to vent that frustration. Having an imaginary character you are playing the role of stabbing faces is a better release than flinging bat poo. (And certainly a better release than doing the actual face stabbing yourself. Well, at least more conductive to avoiding incarceration.) People avoid playing the healer because nobody likes being the party's b:censored: . On a leash. Is something wrong there? Absolutely. The class everyone loves to play shouldn't be so much worse than because of it. It's almost like the game designers, perhaps subconsciously, thought they could get away with that crap because people like being the fighting types so much. Yep. And a lot of people out there just want that extra for the fighting classes to boost them up a little bit, while at the same time putting limits on the casters to bring them down a little bit. The first bit (boost fighting classes a bit) is the easier of the two to accomplish. Trimming the casters by a little bit, well, that's a pretty big project, even when only considering the amount of material that needs to change just in the SRD. Unfortunately, that first part (boost fighting classes), has to start with the concept that they are weaker. That concept gets so much friction and spite that it makes me wonder why. Youhave some good points there: Ok, I'll put it this way: WOTC secret heaquarters, making 3.0: 1-Someone needs to heal the party. 2-Wizards creates a guy who will receive the cure spells, dispel magic, restoration, raise dead, etc, etc. Hmm, a guy who only heals, sucks as hell, and it's pretty weak. 3-Give him decent hit dice, saves and armor so he doesn't need to worry too much about himself. Ok, now it's decent. But still, very far away from "sexy". 4-Give him decent weaponry and BAB. Give him plenty of buff spells to suport the party. We're geting somewhere here. Playable, but dull. Seems worthy of a DM NPC or cohort, but few people will play it. People want to hit things. In the face. 5-Give him some really good buffs and decent attack spells, so he can also take the spotlight sometimes. Also give him chooseable domains so they don't all look the same. And thus the cleric was born. Now for the fighter: Armor and weapon proefeciency was an automatic choice. Then wotc gave him feats. And they found out the fighter could start smashing face very early. Better than that, you don't need to think about how to spend limited resources such as spell slots or rage uses or low hit points or AC. You have plenty of life, you have high AC, you can charge in the middle of the enemies and laugh maniacally as you cleave trough them with your"insert favorite weapon here". The perfect thing after an exhausting day of work. You may die. But heck it was relaxing to hit the dragon in the face. You can also make plenty of diferent builds depending of your vision of a medieval warrior. Now let's see an alternate world. One where the fighter gets as amzing stuff as 9th level spells. WHO WILL PLAY THE CASTERS THEN? Everybody likes taking a pointy stick and stabbing the enemies with it. Few people like to be forced to prepare spell lists and be forced to pour trough hundreds of pages and rules just for one ablity of your class, then worry about such things as concentration, components... Playing melee it's much easier, and it feels just as good, even if it may be not as effecient. And isn't that what D&D is all about in the deep? Having fun?
Otto the Bugbear 05-08-07, 08:39 PM	Youhave some good points there: Ok, I'll put it this way: WOTC secret heaquarters, making 3.0: 1-Someone needs to heal the party. 2-Wizards creates a guy who will receive the cure spells, dispel magic, restoration, raise dead, etc, etc. Hmm, a guy who only heals, sucks as hell, and it's pretty weak. 3-Give him decent hit dice, saves and armor so he doesn't need to worry too much about himself. Ok, now it's decent. But still, very far away from "sexy". 4-Give him decent weaponry and BAB. Give him plenty of buff spells to suport the party. We're geting somewhere here. Playable, but dull. Seems worthy of a DM NPC or cohort, but few people will play it. People want to hit things. In the face. 5-Give him some really good buffs and decent attack spells, so he can also take the spotlight sometimes. Also give him chooseable domains so they don't all look the same. And thus the cleric was born. To be perfectly fair to WotC, clerics already had the armor and HD, nor did they have suck-ass THAC0. Now let's see an alternate world. One where the fighter gets as amzing stuff as 9th level spells. WHO WILL PLAY THE CASTERS THEN? Everybody likes taking a pointy stick and stabbing the enemies with it. Few people like to be forced to prepare spell lists and be forced to pour trough hundreds of pages and rules just for one ablity of your class, then worry about such things as concentration, components... See, nobody that feels the fighting classes need a little bit of a boost has ever gone that far. In fact, from what I've seen, those people that feel the fighting classes need that little boost also feel the casters need to be toned down a little. (Well, casters, the spellcasting system, or spells. Or all three.) And, letting everyone in on a little secret, many (most? all?) of the people that feel the fighting classes need/deserve a little boost also like playing characters that smash things in the face with an ax.
Clawhound 05-08-07, 09:17 PM	I do think that the fighter needs some love. Let's look at the early books. The melee centric books often contained more spells than feats!!! They contained few new magic weapons, few new fighting options, and few new magic items for fighters. As for prestige classes, melee tended to get prestige classes that were bland, had strange requirements, or had no place in an adventuring game. Quite honestly, WotC simply had not supported the melee classes in any adequate fashion. It's only in the last few years that melee has gotten love. They got two books (PHBII, and ToB) which helped them. Thank god for the new MIC. In comparison, casters literally got a dozen books to help them, if that few.
Otto the Bugbear 05-08-07, 10:06 PM	I do think that the fighter needs some love. Let's look at the early books. The melee centric books often contained more spells than feats!!! They contained few new magic weapons, few new fighting options, and few new magic items for fighters. As for prestige classes, melee tended to get prestige classes that were bland, had strange requirements, or had no place in an adventuring game. Not that I'm about to double check that claim, but that's pretty f:censored: up. Quite honestly, WotC simply had not supported the melee classes in any adequate fashion. It's only in the last few years that melee has gotten love. They got two books (PHBII, and ToB) which helped them. Thank god for the new MIC. In comparison, casters literally got a dozen books to help them, if that few. MIC is amazing. If anyone out there is reading this monstrosity of a thread, and wondering about buying MIC or not, do it.
Khan the Destroyer 05-08-07, 10:14 PM	Sure he can, poorly. If poorly means 'never strikes, dies in one hit, never poses enough of a threat to distract a foe, etc' then he can't. Doesn't only looking at the mechanics show us the [replacement class] is very capable at being a fighter? Yeah. I've seen examples of casters being capable of melee combat. Now, you can go ahead and answer my question ;). 1) Trust us when we say that the Fighter needs to go beyond non-core way more than the casters do. Trust me when I say that this has yet to be shown. Or when I say that no evidence has really been provided to demonstrate how fighters consistently fail at fighting. Only lots of talk about casters and spells. And big monsters. What metagaming are you talking about? If you have already decided the fighters/warrior types are useless most times or a minor threat at best... how is making your NPCs optimized to slay casters metagaming? By your reasoning it is perfectly logical to ignore warriors in a fight and go straight for the casters armed with all the feats, weapons and tactics to destroy them. It makes absolutely no sense to have NPCs equipped to deal with fighters or otherwise make them even less effective than you know they are, does it? So why are casters memorizing Quickened Dimension Doors and Heart of Water spells, and taking crossclass ranks in Tumbling? Are they trying to be unoptimized or something? Or maybe they are afraid of something they shouldn't be afraid? Argaud, don't bother. You'd need Slippers of Spider-climbing to traverse the webs of double standards and inconsistencies that get woven here to 'prove the fighter sucks'.
Bob Loblaw 05-08-07, 10:27 PM	As for tumble, why wouldn't a wizard put a couple points into it? It's a skill that can actually do something for you as opposed to being utterly worthless like all the skills fighters get that are easily replaced by 1st and 2nd level spells. Why are the skills useless for the fighter and not the wizard? This makes no sense. Trying to say those spells might not be cast by the wizard is like saying the fighter might not have power attack. Yeah, it'll happen in core-only since it's a non-core spell, but it's pretty damn unlikely outside of it. What's funny is that I have played more fighters with power attack than wizards with those spells you mentioned. I don't even know what they do. With the number of spells far outnumbering the number of feats, I think it is more likely that the fighter will have Power Attack (a common prerequiste) than any single spell except read magic. 2) DM's don't metagame against fighters, they don't need to, D&D does it for them. And I've seen way more instances of where the DM has to metagame against the casters for encounters to be considered a challenge or else things are ended in the first two rounds and the fighter types are just like, "I didn't get to hit nothing. :( " This is something I disagree with. The DM should be providing balanced encounters so that everyone can have fun. If he is not doing this, then he has failed. Sometimes it takes more work than others, but that is the nature of the beast. If the DM is only using stock monsters from the MM without considering that maybe he should change things up a bit, then he is being a bit lazy. I am very tempted to make a list of 25 different encounters for each Encounter Level using only the SRD to show that the DM has more options than people seem to think. To be perfectly fair to WotC, clerics already had the armor and HD, nor did they have suck-ass THAC0. This is true. Sometimes people forget that the cleric was good in all editions, it's just better in this one. See, nobody that feels the fighting classes need a little bit of a boost has ever gone that far. In fact, from what I've seen, those people that feel the fighting classes need that little boost also feel the casters need to be toned down a little. (Well, casters, the spellcasting system, or spells. Or all three.) This is actually where many of the pro-fighters are at. We see that the fighter could use a bit more. We also think that the casters too easily steal the spotlight. MIC is amazing. If anyone out there is reading this monstrosity of a thread, and wondering about buying MIC or not, do it. I have to agree with you 100%. I really hope they do another one. I would like to see an annual compendium of the new stuff every year. I know this won't happen, but I still want it.
NineInchNall 05-08-07, 10:39 PM	If poorly means 'never strikes, dies in one hit, never poses enough of a threat to distract a foe, etc' then he can't. I believe it was shown that a Warrior can do pretty well (relative to a Fighter) against high level threats, inasmuchas the Warrior was about 20% slower at killing things. One can only assume that by spending a few ranks on UMD, a Commoner can do similarly well against threats by using a wand of divine power to bring his BAB up to the appropriate level.
Argaud 05-08-07, 11:04 PM	I believe it was shown that a Warrior can do pretty well (relative to a Fighter) against high level threats, inasmuchas the Warrior was about 20% slower at killing things. One can only assume that by spending a few ranks on UMD, a Commoner can do similarly well against threats by using a wand of divine power to bring his BAB up to the appropriate level. I'd like to see those demonstrations, could you give us a link. I am not saying it is not possible, after all warrior is just one CR less than a fighter the same level. It is just I don't remember to see that, and I have been following the fighter threads for over a year. I'd like to see those wands, too, since they need to be of high CL to be useful, they are going to be stupidly expensive. (Btw, wouldn't a wand for Divine Power at CL20 give the user bab+20 regardless of the user actual level? Wow! But they cost 105k gold each wand).
Flan 05-09-07, 12:50 AM	So why are casters memorizing Quickened Dimension Doors and Heart of Water spells, and taking crossclass ranks in Tumbling? Are they trying to be unoptimized or something? Or maybe they are afraid of something they shouldn't be afraid? Wildshaped druids are something to be afraid of.
NineInchNall 05-09-07, 01:20 AM	I'd like to see those demonstrations, could you give us a link. I am not saying it is not possible, after all warrior is just one CR less than a fighter the same level. It is just I don't remember to see that, and I have been following the fighter threads for over a year. I think it was in some thread on the CO board about PHB2's feats. Or not. It was somewhere, so I'll see what I can do. Hrm. I'd like to see those wands, too, since they need to be of high CL to be useful, they are going to be stupidly expensive. (Btw, wouldn't a wand for Divine Power at CL20 give the user bab+20 regardless of the user actual level? Wow! But they cost 105k gold each wand). Only if the user had a good UMD check. Divine power sets BAB equal to character level, and UMD allows you to emulate a class level when you activate magic items, so ... Your base attack bonus becomes equal to your character level (which may give you additional attacks), you gain a +6 enhancement bonus to Strength, and you gain 1 temporary hit point per caster level. So duration would still be limited by caster level, as would the temp HP, but BAB will always be equal to character level.
Bob Loblaw 05-09-07, 01:41 AM	I believe it was shown that a Warrior can do pretty well (relative to a Fighter) against high level threats, inasmuchas the Warrior was about 20% slower at killing things. One can only assume that by spending a few ranks on UMD, a Commoner can do similarly well against threats by using a wand of divine power to bring his BAB up to the appropriate level. 20% is rather significant. That means he may not be able to last long enough against many threats. Also, the commoner is going to need more than BAB. He's going to need to know how to use his gear. Use Magic Device is a cross class skill. He's going to need to put everything into this. With is average 10 Intelligence and Charisma (he shouldn't get the elite array since he is common and not elite), that means every skill point into UMD. Let's make him Human. At level 20, he has +11 maximum skill points. He can take Skill Focus (UMD), Magical Apptitude, Diligent, and Skill Focus (Decipher Script). He's going to need Concetration for using scrolls. He should take Skill Focus (Concentration) and Combat Casting. This leaves him with one feat. Let's take Skill Focus (Spellcraft). Let's have him put 2 points into Intelligence and 2 points into Charisma so he can get more skill points and bonuses. He should do Intelligence first so at level 8, he gets 1 more skill point per level. This brings his skill points up to 82. Use Magic Device: 11 ranks Decipher Script: 11 ranks Spellcraft: 11 ranks Concentration: 11 ranks Leaving us with 38 skill points to spend as he sees fit. Totals: Concentration: +14 (+18 when casting defensively) Decipher Script: +18 Spellcraft: +18 (+20 for scrolls) Use Magic Device: +18 (+22 for scrolls) So what can he do with this? He can cast any 4th level or lower spell from a scroll 100% of the time while in a threatened area. Every level above this reduces the chance by 5% down to a 75% chance of casting a 9th level spell from a scroll. He can identify a 1st level spell on a scroll with 75% accuracy. This drops by 5% for each level down to 35% for 9th level spells. He can identify potions with 80% accuracy. He can Use Wands and Emulate Class Features with 90% accuracy. He can use 3rd level scrolls with 100% accuracy, minus 5% per level after 3rd down to 60% chance of accurately casting 9th level spells from scrolls. Failure means that 50% of the time there is a mishap. Chance of mishap for each level: 4 2.5% 5 5% 6 7.%5 7 10% 8 12.5% 9 15% He can Emulate a Race with 70% accuracy. He can Emulate an Alignment with 45% accuracy. He can Blindly Activate with 70% accuracy. He can't suffer a mishap. He can emulate an ability score of 1d20+3. He will need this to cast spells from scrolls. This means that he has a 65% chance of success. This decreases by 5% for each level of spell he wants to cast so that he only has a 25% chance of casting the 9th level spell. This makes scrolls very difficult for him to use. I was trying to prove that the commoner couldn't really be useful with UMD, but I think I may have proved he can be useful. The only real problem is that much of what he can use effectively are the lower level items.
navar100 05-09-07, 01:59 AM	Yep. And a lot of people out there just want that extra for the fighting classes to boost them up a little bit, while at the same time putting limits on the casters to bring them down a little bit. The first bit (boost fighting classes a bit) is the easier of the two to accomplish. Trimming the casters by a little bit, well, that's a pretty big project, even when only considering the amount of material that needs to change just in the SRD. Unfortunately, that first part (boost fighting classes), has to start with the concept that they are weaker. That concept gets so much friction and spite that it makes me wonder why. That's your error. We are not saying the fighting classes are not weaker than the spellcasters. We agree they could use a boost and by doing so the game will not break into unplayability, including the fighter. Alternatively, some say the better solution is to weaken the spellcasters, and for that a possible solution is some spells need to be toned down or go away. What we are saying is that the fighter class, as it is now, does not suck.
navar100 05-09-07, 02:11 AM	Ah, a CR 50 fight for a level 16 party. Yes, thats... a pretty typical encounter. Thanks for shareing that with us... very... time wasting. :rolleyes: Although they don't fly admittedly so it should be a pretty easy fight. But the 72 AC might take a while. The point was to show exactly what I've been saying, different DMs have different campaigns and thus there will be different results in the effectiveness of spellcasters such that you cannot say any spellcaster who does not end a battle in 2 rounds is not being played correctly, as you are claiming. The Devastating Beetle was the only lone opponent our party faces. We always faced bad guys who out number us. The Boss is a couple of levels higher. The mooks are a couple of levels lower. The lieutenants are our level. It was impossible to end a combat in 2 rounds. Just last game session our party of 8 of 6th level characters, including NPC party members we treat and are treated as equal to PCs, had to fight bad guys numbering 23 spread out in a cavern roughly 75' in radius. There was an ogre magic leader, his ogre lieutenant, and the human grunts. I cannot say what level the grunts were, but they were definitely higher than 1st level. That also took a bit more than "2 rounds".
Archangel62 05-09-07, 03:16 AM	That's your error. We are not saying the fighting classes are not weaker than the spellcasters. We agree they could use a boost and by doing so the game will not break into unplayability, including the fighter. Alternatively, some say the better solution is to weaken the spellcasters, and for that a possible solution is some spells need to be toned down or go away. What we are saying is that the fighter class, as it is now, does not suck. Might I interject that part of the problem is that while we all may have proven points to each other the problem seems to be that each of us is arguing using different definitions of suck, unplayable, tone down, boost up, overpower, underpower, etc.
Argaud 05-09-07, 07:05 AM	Wildshaped druids are something to be afraid of. How so? Wildshaped druid comes. He can't fly unless he takes a sub-par form. He can't hit the AC60+ unless you give him 10 rounds to buff, and maybe not even then, so he is no threat. He can't grapple because Heart of Water or Freedom of Movement. If the druid is very lucky and rolls a 20, he still does little damage because Stoneskin (or Heart of Stone - cheaper). Moreover he has no feats to waste in stuff like trip, bullrush or combat styles. What can a Wildshaped druid do that a fighter can't do, exactly, so he is a threat when a fighter wouldn't? He can still SoD/blast the wizard, of course, but that has nothing to do with Wildshape. Of course the anti-fighter wizard is liable to get killed by spells easily, since he is spending too much energy making fighters ineffective against them - even though they are no threat! Which means the wizard is a moron and deserves to die. Natural selection and all that. :D
Belgian Waffle 05-09-07, 08:13 AM	So why are casters memorizing Quickened Dimension Doors and Heart of Water spells, and taking crossclass ranks in Tumbling? Are they trying to be unoptimized or something? Or maybe they are afraid of something they shouldn't be afraid? Because they can. Because it's playing the class intelligently (like you're supposed to). Casters who don't take measures to keeping themselves alive and covering their weaknesses and taking the time to craft contingencies and make the scrolls for JUST IN CASE are like fighters who walk outside with a 10 AC. It's stupid and I wouldn't it expect it either way. That's all there is to it. Argaud, don't bother. You'd need Slippers of Spider-climbing to traverse the webs of double standards and inconsistencies that get woven here to 'prove the fighter sucks'. That's what I said.
Clawhound 05-09-07, 09:24 AM	Here's a (hopefully) fair summary of the "pro" fighter side: - The fighter does his basic job (whatever that is). - The fighter class does have design issues. - Most nasty melee issues actually apply both to non-casters and casters who are in melee. - Casters need to be toned down vis-a-vis melee. - There is nothing holy about a fighter's job. Any number of classes can act as tank.
Clawhound 05-09-07, 09:54 AM	Because they can. Because it's playing the class intelligently (like you're supposed to). Casters who don't take measures to keeping themselves alive and covering their weaknesses and taking the time to craft contingencies and make the scrolls for JUST IN CASE are like fighters who walk outside with a 10 AC. It's stupid and I wouldn't it expect it either way. That's all there is to it. That's great for PC casters. For NPC casters, you are working with a different dynamic. A DM designs an encounter with a target CR in mind. Yes, this does set up the villain as a fall guy. That's the job of a villain in an adventure. If you tweak out the villain too much, you make him a higher CR. In general, I create villains with three spellcasting tactics. Once those are exhausted, the villain is pretty much beat. I find that this works very well in actual play. The fights have good twists, I can keep track of what is going on, and the fights don't drag out forever. I usually try to throw in different spells then the typical spells, as the players are not prepared to encounter those and the enjoy the inventiveness of the combos. When creating a villain's defenses, I design it for three levels: shmucks, competent shmucks, and real threats. Guards at the door and random encounters are there to get the shmucks. Some level of reactionary attack is there to deal with the competent shmucks. If the invaders get through that, the villain himself will have to face down his opponents using different tactics than the previous battles have used. That's been a nice mix. Note that I, as DM, could easily create an Unhittable Kobold, CR1, AC 100, BAB +1, Dagger +1 (1d4), DR20/-. I can easily make melee useless. However, this approach does not yield the fun game that I prefer to run, so I don't do it. The ability to optimize something out the wazoo does not translate into a fun encounter.
Bob Loblaw 05-09-07, 09:54 AM	Here's a (hopefully) fair summary of the "pro" fighter side: - The fighter does his basic job (whatever that is). - The fighter class does have design issues. - Most nasty melee issues actually apply both to non-casters and casters who are in melee. - Casters need to be toned down vis-a-vis melee. - There is nothing holy about a fighter's job. Any number of classes can act as tank. I can agree with this. I think the main problem people have with the fighter is the last statement. Nearly every argument seems to stem from that.
Argaud 05-09-07, 12:42 PM	I can agree with this. I think the main problem people have with the fighter is the last statement. Nearly every argument seems to stem from that. I agree too, I would add something that I think it is important, even if it has nothing to do with the class mechanics but is very basic: - The fighter is fun to play Oddly enough it seems it is more fun to play than the more powerful cleric.
NineInchNall 05-09-07, 12:57 PM	Oddly enough it seems it is more fun to play than the more powerful cleric. That probably derives more from perception of class function and role than anything else.
Flan 05-09-07, 01:14 PM	Oddly enough it seems it is more fun to play than the more powerful cleric. Vanceian spell system and a billion trillion gazillion unique sets of rules, er I mean spells to choose from and keep track of and change every time the party rests truely blows goats.
Argaud 05-09-07, 02:13 PM	Vanceian spell system and a billion trillion gazillion unique sets of rules, er I mean spells to choose from and keep track of and change every time the party rests truely blows goats. They are only slightly worse than the overcomplex grapple, trip and feat mechanics, honestly. Slightly off topic. I have the MIC (at last) and I have been skimming over the new items and weapon/armor properties. Besides much questionable stuff (honestly, is this an improvement with respect what we had? And they have basically admitted there are no real rules to create magical items. Lazy!) I found a way for an archer to get through Windwalls and any DR. Even cheaper than Shadow Striking for meleers: the Force (+2) property turns every arrow of a bow into a force attack. Since that is force, you don't even need Serren Wood to hit ghosts. Archers, grab your +1 (+5) Split, Force Elvenbow of Doom. Go kill.
Flan 05-09-07, 03:13 PM	Archers, grab your +1 (+5) Split, Force Elvenbow of Doom. Go kill. Since magic items are basically access to the brokeness that is the magic system of DnD for non-casters, MIC can only be a good thing, lol. There are a few nice things in there for casters, but overall it's more of a boon to meleers.
Leo 05-09-07, 04:02 PM	Ok, quick pause:What's a tank in D&D? Someone with high attack, AC and HP? Can a sorceror with summon monster be considered a tank if he provides a continuous meat wall? Guy with reach and combat tricks such as trip like the chain wielding figher who makes a billion AOO per turn? Do you need to deal good damage? Or is it enough to just hold your ground and act as a portable wall?
crashlogic 05-09-07, 05:06 PM	You can't Run when firing a bow, not that it matters. Um actually, you are ignoring the mount. A fighter, on a mount, with mounted archery can take a full round attack action while the horse is running (triple move) albeit at a -4 penatly. Even if you don't have mounted arrchery, you are able to do this but the penalty is -8
aelryinth 05-09-07, 05:56 PM	Ok, quick pause:What's a tank in D&D? Someone with high attack, AC and HP? Can a sorceror with summon monster be considered a tank if he provides a continuous meat wall? Guy with reach and combat tricks such as trip like the chain wielding figher who makes a billion AOO per turn? Do you need to deal good damage? Or is it enough to just hold your ground and act as a portable wall? The clinical definition of a tank is anyone who can engage a foe, pin him in place, and keep him occupied basically indefinitely without getting killed. The sorceror above is not a tank, because any smart opponent will go for the controller and ignore the summoned beasts if at all possible. It will be actively trying to avoid the summoned creatures, which is not what you want a tank to do. The AoO tripper might be a tank, but more then likely what he is is an obstacle that creatures will go around, rather then bother to engage, or will flat out engage him in missile combat. Seriously, any time you see someone swinging a spiked chain, rushing into melee to draw AoO's is not the first thing that comes to mind...killing the silly bastard without a shield from range is. Technically, you don't need to do good damage. What you must be is a viable threat and someone that the enemy WANTS to melee engage, and not just go around. If he gets ignored, a Tank should punish those involved. If they engage him at range, it should be fruitless. If they engage him in melee, they should feel they are grinding on a rock, but can't break away or they'll really be punished for it. ===Aelryinth
Leo 05-09-07, 06:19 PM	The clinical definition of a tank is anyone who can engage a foe, pin him in place, and keep him occupied basically indefinitely without getting killed. The sorceror above is not a tank, because any smart opponent will go for the controller and ignore the summoned beasts if at all possible. It will be actively trying to avoid the summoned creatures, which is not what you want a tank to do. The AoO tripper might be a tank, but more then likely what he is is an obstacle that creatures will go around, rather then bother to engage, or will flat out engage him in missile combat. Seriously, any time you see someone swinging a spiked chain, rushing into melee to draw AoO's is not the first thing that comes to mind...killing the silly bastard without a shield from range is. Technically, you don't need to do good damage. What you must be is a viable threat and someone that the enemy WANTS to melee engage, and not just go around. If he gets ignored, a Tank should punish those involved. If they engage him at range, it should be fruitless. If they engage him in melee, they should feel they are grinding on a rock, but can't break away or they'll really be punished for it. ===Aelryinth Not all combats are in open space. Inside dungeons space is pretty limited and even a guy whitout reach can threaten a 15 feet large corridor. A 5 feet corridor will simply be blocked Threatening a 10 feet radius circle is already going to make plenty of enemies waste one turn to go around, unless you are using enemies with realy high movment or tumble, both of wich are very rare, even more than anti caster monsters. And honestly, then the fighter is a better tank than the druid at low and mid levels. He can get a really high combat AC thanks to heavy armor, shield and feats, wich is always active, plus has more HP. the druid can wildshape, but that hardly improves your defense capabilities whitout throwing some very good magical gear in there.
NineInchNall 05-10-07, 01:45 AM	They are only slightly worse than the overcomplex grapple, trip and feat mechanics, honestly. Nothing's worse than the grapple rules. Nothing. I'd rather read through and use every spell ever printed for 3.5 than try to use the grappling rules. Seriously.
NineInchNall 05-10-07, 01:49 AM	Ok, quick pause:What's a tank in D&D? Someone with high attack, AC and HP? Can a sorceror with summon monster be considered a tank if he provides a continuous meat wall? Guy with reach and combat tricks such as trip like the chain wielding figher who makes a billion AOO per turn? Do you need to deal good damage? Or is it enough to just hold your ground and act as a portable wall? To answer the question more precisely, ask yourself what the purpose of the tank is. Is it to hurt the enemy, or is it to prevent enemies from engaging certain allies in a manner that would be overly dangerous for those allies? The former is just damage, and everyone can do damage. The latter, on the other hand, is a purpose that can be filled only by a select few. Unfortunately, most of those who can fill that role are casters.
navar100 05-10-07, 03:10 AM	Might I interject that part of the problem is that while we all may have proven points to each other the problem seems to be that each of us is arguing using different definitions of suck, unplayable, tone down, boost up, overpower, underpower, etc. Possibly :)
Ezell Pike 05-10-07, 08:05 AM	Nothing's worse than the grapple rules. Nothing. I'd rather read through and use every spell ever printed for 3.5 than try to use the grappling rules. Seriously. With the exception of Evards black tentacles. Wizard: I cast maximise grapple, or is it Evards hideously painful game stall.
Nephlite 05-10-07, 08:25 AM	Not all combats are in open space. Inside dungeons space is pretty limited and even a guy whitout reach can threaten a 15 feet large corridor. A 5 feet corridor will simply be blocked Threatening a 10 feet radius circle is already going to make plenty of enemies waste one turn to go around, unless you are using enemies with realy high movment or tumble, both of wich are very rare, even more than anti caster monsters. And honestly, then the fighter is a better tank than the druid at low and mid levels. He can get a really high combat AC thanks to heavy armor, shield and feats, wich is always active, plus has more HP. the druid can wildshape, but that hardly improves your defense capabilities whitout throwing some very good magical gear in there. At low levels the Animal Companion tanks for the Druid. He has better/equal AC of the Fighter. Plus you get a Druid free with the order of the Animal Companion.
Argaud 05-10-07, 08:26 AM	Nothing's worse than the grapple rules. Nothing. I'd rather read through and use every spell ever printed for 3.5 than try to use the grappling rules. Seriously. The grapple rules are neat and clear... ...when compared with the polymorph rules, I mean.
Khan the Destroyer 05-10-07, 08:48 AM	I believe it was shown that a Warrior can do pretty well (relative to a Fighter) against high level threats, inasmuchas the Warrior was about 20% slower at killing things. One can only assume that by spending a few ranks on UMD, a Commoner can do similarly well against threats by using a wand of divine power to bring his BAB up to the appropriate level. I believe that the thread you are referring to is 'Fighter 20 now viable' or some such, concerning the PHB 2 feats. In that thread, a fighter was built to one-shot a balor through archery. And I believe a warrior was built to do the exact same thing. But optimizing damage is something the CO Board has been doing since its inception I would imagine. My sample fighters focus more on tactical maneuvers, and one focuses on both ranged and melee full attacks, with two-weapon fighting. If we were to draw a comparison between the fighter and the warrior at each level, I would be very surprised if the warrior was close to the fighter each time. At level 1, the fighter has 3 feats, the warrior has 2. At level 2, the fighter has 4 feats, the warrior still has 2. At level 3, the fighter has 5 feats, the warrior has 3. And next level the fighter has 6 while the warrior has 3, and at level 6 the fighter has 8 while the warrior has 4. Four more feats is another feat chain, or that extra edge in the primary feat chain, or defensive measures to shore up your weaknesses. Also, Otto said commoner ;). Wildshaped druids are something to be afraid of. That's odd. What does a wildshaped druid do? Well, he can grapple, like a fighter. His grapple may be a little higher (depending on form and fighter build), but to the wizard, the difference is negligible. Full BAB, high strength, and item boosts is no different to medium BAB, high strength, and size bonuses when your grapple is modified by your poor BAB and low strength. So why fear one' grapple over the other? What else can a druid do? He can simply attack. Well, the fighter can do that as well. The druid may or may not deal more damage, but the fighter's attack can trip, or bull rush, or even grapple (like the druid). The druid may have more attacks, which only comes into play if the enemy isn't mobile. In which case, the fighter may full attack as well. I don't see any particular reason to fear a druid's attack over a fighter's attack. So, what is it that the wizard is really afraid of? Especially considering that an antimagic ray shuts down the druid's wildshaping and spellcasting completely. As I said before, there is no reason to assume that the enemy caster is prepared only for the fighter, especially given the notion that the fighter is so sucktastic. That's great for PC casters. For NPC casters, you are working with a different dynamic. A DM designs an encounter with a target CR in mind. Yes, this does set up the villain as a fall guy. That's the job of a villain in an adventure. If you tweak out the villain too much, you make him a higher CR. In general, I create villains with three spellcasting tactics. Once those are exhausted, the villain is pretty much beat. I find that this works very well in actual play. The fights have good twists, I can keep track of what is going on, and the fights don't drag out forever. I usually try to throw in different spells then the typical spells, as the players are not prepared to encounter those and the enjoy the inventiveness of the combos. When creating a villain's defenses, I design it for three levels: shmucks, competent shmucks, and real threats. Guards at the door and random encounters are there to get the shmucks. Some level of reactionary attack is there to deal with the competent shmucks. If the invaders get through that, the villain himself will have to face down his opponents using different tactics than the previous battles have used. That's been a nice mix. Note that I, as DM, could easily create an Unhittable Kobold, CR1, AC 100, BAB +1, Dagger +1 (1d4), DR20/-. I can easily make melee useless. However, this approach does not yield the fun game that I prefer to run, so I don't do it. The ability to optimize something out the wazoo does not translate into a fun encounter. Agreed. Simply because it is possible within the rules doesn't mean it should be expected in every game.
NineInchNall 05-10-07, 10:45 AM	The grapple rules are neat and clear... ...when compared with the polymorph rules, I mean. What could possibly be confusing about polymorph?
Leo 05-10-07, 01:27 PM	What could possibly be confusing about polymorph? Wait, you have trouble with the grapple rules, yet you perfectly understand polymorpphrules, despite being the mechanic in the game with more errata over it?
cactot 05-10-07, 05:32 PM	Wait, you have trouble with the grapple rules, yet you perfectly understand polymorpphrules, despite being the mechanic in the game with more errata over it? it is the errata that obfuscates the rules, not the original spells. Hence why many people don't pay attention to the errata. It makes it even more amusing that the errata does not affect the existing polymorph spells at all, just the new ones they print with the (polymorph) subschool.
Fabius Maximus 05-10-07, 09:37 PM	it is the errata that obfuscates the rules, not the original spells. Hence why many people don't pay attention to the errata. It makes it even more amusing that the errata does not affect the existing polymorph spells at all, just the new ones they print with the (polymorph) subschool. I assume you did read page 96 in Player's Handbook II?
cactot 05-10-07, 10:56 PM	I assume you did read page 96 in Player's Handbook II? PHB2, like UA is alternate rules, not errata. Also, even if you took that as pre-eminent, you might note that on the last paragraph, left hand side of the page it clearly states: "the spells' existing rules text takes priority over that of the subschool" Which, given the rather explicit nature of the polymorph text, renders the vast majorty of the polymorph subschool changes worthless.
cactot 05-10-07, 11:08 PM	I assume you did read page 96 in Player's Handbook II? wait.... what was your point again? I am afraid I do not understand, were you saying that because of the PHB2 polymorph is too complex? If so that "existing rules text" thing should basically be taken as "ignore than except for spells that are explicitly written with "polymorph" as the subschool (which nobody will use, as the old spells work fine) You will also notice that the PHB2 optional rules have been unsupported by all the further WOTC releases, you will not find a polymorph subschool spell in the spell compendium even with spells like "fiendform" which would clearly qualify. What this means to me is that it is clearly a conscious decision if you want to make polymorph complicated (in a rather lame attempt to nerf it).
Fabius Maximus 05-11-07, 11:02 AM	PHB II is not optional like UA. It expands the existing core rules. It's quite logical that the spell Polymorph belongs to the subschool with the same name. And that the fixes presented in PHB II apply for it, too. The description of the subschools says "Any polymorph spell takes on all the statistics..." It would be dumb not to change Polymorph. You will also notice that the PHB2 optional rules have been unsupported by all the further WOTC releases, you will not find a polymorph subschool spell in the spell compendium even with spells like "fiendform" which would clearly qualify. I believe that has something to do with the PBH II being published about 6 months after the Spell Compendium. You find the same paragraph about the subschool in Complete Mage and Complete Scoundrel on page 91.
Judging Eagle 05-11-07, 11:22 AM	PHB II is not optional like UA. It expands the existing core rules. It's quite logical that the spell Polymorph belongs to the subschool with the same name. And that the fixes presented in PHB II apply for it, too. The description of the subschools says "Any polymorph spell takes on all the statistics..." It would be dumb not to change Polymorph. I believe that has something to do with the PBH II being published about 6 months after the Spell Compendium. You find the same paragraph about the subschool in Complete Mage and Complete Scoundrel on page 91. Two words: "Original Source" Unless the originating source itself is changed via an errata, it doesn't matter what bull is concocted in any of the poorly written books that have come out within the last year.
Pyke_Moonshadow 05-11-07, 11:30 AM	Two words: "Original Source" Unless the originating source itself is changed via an errata, it doesn't matter what bull is concocted in any of the poorly written books that have come out within the last year. Well, then I am glad my group uses the creedo of "they wouldn't have bothered wasting the print space if it didn't need fixing" I like the changes they made to the crappy line of spells that were polymorph.
Archangel62 05-11-07, 06:02 PM	Well, then I am glad my group uses the creedo of "they wouldn't have bothered wasting the print space if it didn't need fixing" I like the changes they made to the crappy line of spells that were polymorph. Then again there are also a lot of unneeded erratta and nerfs like what was printed in complete psionic.
Argaud 05-11-07, 06:18 PM	However, I think most of us all can agree Polymorph needs nerfing. This is something even WotC has quite clear. What is astonishing is that they seem unable to do it without muddling the rules even more. Or without being consistent about it.
Judging Eagle 05-11-07, 08:25 PM	The problem is that they didn't actually fix anything in the PH2. They simply obfuscated stuff more, instead of admitting that the original sources were wrong and errataing those. I'm not saying that the Poly line of spells is bogus, it is. What I'm saying here is that the poly bull that has been written recently is just that. You're paying for it too. You shouldn't have to pay for patches to stuff that you already paid for. That's what the free downloadable errata's are for. Patching crap like polymorph. Of course doing so is expensive, so they sell that stuff in newer books. Then again, who know... maybe the poly line of spells was left a mess the same way that the fighter was left pretty much the same, b/c someone at WoTC used 3rd party material in their game and thus it wasn't unbalanced to use said material in 3.0. Yeah, that's seriously why nearly every class got a re-vamp, while fighters for intimidate. Someone at WoTC commited the Oberroni fallacy and stated: "fighters are fine b/c you can use this 3rd party material PrC to make them as good as they're supposed to be." Which is an illogical reason to not repair the PHB fighter from 3.0 to 3.5. In any case guys, this stuff isn't an issue for my gaming group anymore. I throw monsters that will kill them if they're not geniuses and are both effective and can work as a team. Then again, this is a group that only need 4 level 6 PCs to kill a hamatula (only the Wiz had broken into Wheel of Noble Djinni; and he didnt' have any damage spells, no not even wands, so they had to think, they had me thinking though so it was all good). Took them nearly 7 or or so rounds to figure out to all aid the hulked out barbarian and Grapple->Pin then let the rogue CdG to deal precision damage over and over again. The devil had no chance b/c of lack of actions really, it was the only thing summoned by the trap. He woulda killed the Barb who set off the trap, if she couldn't break down the force cage that kept her in w/ the hamatula.
WizO_Shadow 05-12-07, 12:44 AM	Here we are!
WizO_Shadow 05-12-07, 12:51 AM	Notice the new mini thread? We hit the 1000k post limit on the old thread but I saved the last 68 or so posts and created a new thread so that the discussion... may... continue on. Locking the old thread and here's a link to it. Ok, I'll edit one back in as soon as I find it. Here's the link to the old one: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=788907 WizO_Shadow
navar100 05-12-07, 02:05 AM	Tee Hee "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." - Oscar Wilde Love or hate the fighter, we love to talk about him. Go fighter! :fight!: :fight!:
scienceman47 05-12-07, 02:36 AM	"Hey ranger, what ya doin" "Nuthin. Everyone's busy talking bout the fighter, and I got forgotten." "That sucks" "Man, they don't know, but I'm really cool and stuff. I can cast spells. I got this bow here, and I'm pretty good at shooting it. Not really good, but pretty good.... I can track. I got this dog here. He's cool right? Look out, lucky here is overpowered! Lets have a conversation about rangers now. The cool class." "yep. I'm leaving."
Belgian Waffle 05-12-07, 02:42 AM	"Hey ranger, what ya doin" "Nuthin. Everyone's busy talking bout the fighter, and I got forgotten." "That sucks" "Man, they don't know, but I'm really cool and stuff. I can cast spells. I got this bow here, and I'm pretty good at shooting it. Not really good, but pretty good.... I can track. I got this dog here. He's cool right? Look out, lucky here is overpowered! Lets have a conversation about rangers now. The cool class." "yep. I'm leaving." Kind of weird that you bring this up since I just changed my signature regarding a conversation we had tonight about rangers. We had a good laugh over it. Though, I'd need to check out the spell compendium before I make any actual judgments.
Leo 05-12-07, 07:47 AM	How much power and coolness is needed for a class to be worth playing is a very loose concept in the boards. For example, lots of people at one thread think ALL clerics should get the animate dead spell, wich in the right hands is quite powerfull, plus created lots of prestige classes where the cleric gets full caststing plus rebuking/turn progression plus lots of powerfull abilities. So I get myself thinking what those people would consider overpowered. Pun-Pun maybe? And we're here discussin if the fighter is good enough or not, while they assume the cleric himself(wich many people consider to be in the top 2) is still not good enough.
Judging Eagle 05-12-07, 11:58 AM	"Hey ranger, what ya doin" "Nuthin. Everyone's busy talking bout the fighter, and I got forgotten." "That sucks" "Man, they don't know, but I'm really cool and stuff. I can cast spells. I got this bow here, and I'm pretty good at shooting it. Not really good, but pretty good.... I can track. I got this dog here. He's cool right? Look out, lucky here is overpowered! Lets have a conversation about rangers now. The cool class." "yep. I'm leaving." No one talks about rangers, b/c, surprise, surprise; they're a fairly balanced class that's both effective and doesn't intrude into anyone elses gameplay niche. Seriously, the lvl 11 ranger can solo most things his CR, even if they're not his favoured enemy. Sure, it takes him time (as much as 20-odd rounds to solo a stone golem with just adamantine arrows), but he's got the skills to do his trick, the spells to ensure that he can do them better than expected and a fighting method that ensure that his enemies aren't beside him to stab him in the face. Clerics aren't played because people think they have to be WoW and EQ healers. Once you start looking at what the class can really do, you learn otherwise. Good point. The problem is that WoW Priests are amazing DPS classes and are considered one of the top PvP classes in WoW. Also, being a druid/priest in WoW means one thing: you'll never have to look for a party. Either you go soloing, or you find a player your lvl who's got good gear (better if you know it's someone who knows what they're doing) and they'll have no problem with a priest asking to party with them. Being "lazy healer" is dead simple (it's even more so if you've got a pile of effective plug-ins that help speed up casting), plus you get to roll on all sorts of loot. If you're a practised player, you can also control the flow of the group your with, since many players do stupid **** that will get a group killed and that's no fun.
Bob Loblaw 05-12-07, 11:01 PM	No one talks about rangers, b/c, surprise, surprise; they're a fairly balanced class that's both effective and doesn't intrude into anyone elses gameplay niche. Seriously, the lvl 11 ranger can solo most things his CR, even if they're not his favoured enemy. Sure, it takes him time (as much as 20-odd rounds to solo a stone golem with just adamantine arrows), but he's got the skills to do his trick, the spells to ensure that he can do them better than expected and a fighting method that ensure that his enemies aren't beside him to stab him in the face. Actually, the ranger suffers from many of the same problems as the fighter. His combat styles are actually weaker than the fighter's ability to customize while still taking those styles. The ranger's animal companion is half as powerful as the druid's. The ranger's spell list is only so-so. His spells do a wonderful of helping him fill his niche, but they aren't really all that great overall. He does have some nice ones, but I really don't see anything spectacular. His Will save is the same as a fighter's. He can boost it, but not really until level 8 at best. Most likely 10th. Of course, this is when it starts to really matter more, but he only gets +2 out of the boost. His last ability, the favored enemy, is completely in the DM's control. If the fighter needs DM intervention to be viable, the ranger needs it even more if he wants to be able to use this important ability. This doesn't mean that the ranger sucks. Quite the contrary. I say that if the ranger is viable, then the fighter must be as well.
NineInchNall 05-13-07, 01:14 AM	This doesn't mean that the ranger sucks. Quite the contrary. I say that if the ranger is viable, then the fighter must be as well. With the exception of his skill list, the Ranger isn't viable. (Unless he has a splitting bow of doom, in which case he's barely viable.) I really don't know why people are so on about Rangers. They're seriously just as bad as Paladins.
Argaud 05-13-07, 07:48 AM	With the exception of his skill list, the Ranger isn't viable. (Unless he has a splitting bow of doom, in which case he's barely viable.) I really don't know why people are so on about Rangers. They're seriously just as bad as Paladins. Bob summarized pretty well the "problems" of the ranger. Paladins do not have them, though. The combat styles of the paladin work fine at all levels. Mounted combat never gets old because the paladin's mount is very powerful. The tanking power of the paladin never gets old because it scales with his Cha, which only grows and grows. The paladin fails at causing massive damage enough times per day (not so much with Divine Might), but makes it up by having huge AC (through Divine Shield) and long staying power (through self-heal). The paladin's mount is more powerful than the druid's. The paladin's spell list is so-so, but he gets twice the bang than the ranger because his spells affect the mount, and the mount (which always remains at 5' from him, contrarily to most druid's companions) truly kicks ass. Paladin saves are the highest of all classes. Evil enemies are 75-90% of the enemies the PCs will face.
Snazzomancer 05-13-07, 10:03 AM	The paladin's mount is more powerful than the druid's. Really, this is not necessarily true at all. While the paladin’s mount does get some nice kicks (Share Saves, Spell Resistance at higher levels, Auto-heals when dismissed) a druid companion can make the paladin cry. Druid Companions get more HD (More optimization), stronger progressive bonuses, I much wider variety of mount types. The paladin can also only summon his mount once per day, while the druid can have his wherever he wishes (For the most part). This topic however is for another thread.
Argaud 05-13-07, 10:16 AM	Really, this is not necessarily true at all. While the paladin’s mount does get some nice kicks (Share Saves, Spell Resistance at higher levels, Auto-heals when dismissed) a druid companion can make the paladin cry. Druid Companions get more HD (More optimization), stronger progressive bonuses, I much wider variety of mount types. The paladin can also only summon his mount once per day, while the druid can have his wherever he wishes (For the most part). This topic however is for another thread. Nope, you are completely wrong here. Read DMG pages 204-205. For instance, a paladin can have a T-Rax as a mount at level 11, and it will be a 20HD T-Rex with int 6. The Druid needs to be far higher level and the T-Rex is weaker and dumber.
Bob Loblaw 05-13-07, 10:35 AM	Nope, you are completely wrong here. Read DMG pages 204-205. For instance, a paladin can have a T-Rax as a mount at level 11, and it will be a 20HD T-Rex with int 6. The Druid needs to be far higher level and the T-Rex is weaker and dumber. This all comes down to choices. There are some animal companions that are going to be more powerful than the paladin's mount. There are some mounts that are more powerful than the druid's animal companion. One of the major problems I have with the paladin's mount is that he can summon it only once per day. Not all mounts are suited for city folk, such as the T-rex. There are times when this can be a major inconvenience.
Argaud 05-13-07, 10:46 AM	This all comes down to choices. There are some animal companions that are going to be more powerful than the paladin's mount. There are some mounts that are more powerful than the druid's animal companion. One of the major problems I have with the paladin's mount is that he can summon it only once per day. Not all mounts are suited for city folk, such as the T-rex. There are times when this can be a major inconvenience. I don't see how an animal can be more powerful considering the paladin can have magical beasts or dragons as mounts, and is limited by CR, not HD. You need to pick a very crappy mount so it is weaker than a druid's companion :) The trouble with unsuitability is one that affects the druid much more than the paladin, since the paladin can easily dismiss the mount and is not limited to spend any time in the companion favored terrain (which the druid needs to, according to the DMG). Also, most cities would be much more likely to accept... say, a talking Half-Celesital T-Rex (mount of a level 15 paladin) than the normal T-Rex (companion of the level 18 druid). Of course the paladin can also have even more powerful and accepted mounts, like gold or silver dragons.
scienceman47 05-13-07, 04:45 PM	Actually, a ranger is not too shabby when you realize he's not a actual warrior, but a warrior skill monkey hybrid. Lots of skills, tracking, and he just happens to be a better sneak than the rogue is (camoflauge plus hide in plain sight means non-magical invisibility combined with full BAB rapid blitzing, its almost like sniping with an axe) The spells aren't good, and the animal companion is near worthless (if you have to, pick up a bugger with scent. He can help you track, and he can detect invisibility), but its not a bad class. But they don't offend, so nobodys talks about em.
Judging Eagle 05-15-07, 03:58 PM	Of course, I was talking about a ranged ranger myself. A TWFing ranger isnt't really a character that lets you use your hide and move siletnly ranks in a viable manner.
Bob Loblaw 05-16-07, 01:10 AM	Actually, a ranger is not too shabby when you realize he's not a actual warrior, but a warrior skill monkey hybrid. Lots of skills, tracking, and he just happens to be a better sneak than the rogue is (camoflauge plus hide in plain sight means non-magical invisibility combined with full BAB rapid blitzing, its almost like sniping with an axe) The spells aren't good, and the animal companion is near worthless (if you have to, pick up a bugger with scent. He can help you track, and he can detect invisibility), but its not a bad class. But they don't offend, so nobodys talks about em. What can the ranger do that someone else can't do better? I'm not really directing this at you personally. This is one of the arguments for why the fighter sucks. Honestly, I can build a ranger just fine without using the class (favored enemy would be the hardest part, but I'm sure I can come up with something). The ranger is about as special as the fighter yet there seem to be few problems with the class. The biggest problems with the fighter are the same problems that the ranger has, yet it's the fighter that sucks and not the ranger. Why?
Khan the Destroyer 05-18-07, 01:37 PM	Probably because the ranger has skills and spells. Nevermind that as a combatant, it is truly nothing special. Generally, when someone says the ranger is good, they are referring to the stealthy archer ranger. But since that requires a specific build with specific skills, specific combat styles, and specific spells, it's pretty much worthless here. Right? I mean... we don't look to specific build examples to demonstrate anything I thought.
crashlogic 05-18-07, 01:50 PM	well I don't worry much about tossing away a feat to gain leadership, and frankly at twentieth level, my fighters dragon cohort, properly equipped, with pretty much kick the living bejeezus out of any druid's animal companion. and while that is happening I will stroll in and work the druid like the choir boy he wants to be. :)
Muktar 05-18-07, 02:15 PM	With the exception of his skill list, the Ranger isn't viable. (Unless he has a splitting bow of doom, in which case he's barely viable.) I really don't know why people are so on about Rangers. They're seriously just as bad as Paladins. Paladins are one of the cheesiest classes out there. If you go charisma based paladin you are dealing out damage and have saves higher than even a monk and even have insanely high AC. If you think paladins are wimpy then you need help making one.
Evicmar 05-18-07, 02:38 PM	Guys and girls, Remember that in this game there are such things as magic dead zones and antimagic spells. So when the all buffed up cleric goes there he sucks again, when the buffed up druid get out there he's nothing more than a over rated zoo keeper, and our arcane buds are well dressed nerds with some skills that do them no good. Who is left to clear out the monsters? You really do need the warriors. Just cause your DM hasn't thrown magic dead areas or antimagic shell spells at you that doesn't mean that he won't. I guess where this discussion should be focused is in comparison between fighter, paladin, barbarian, and ranger(The warriors). Fighter: full BAB, D10 hit die, 2+ skills per level, feats 1st level and every even after, ALL armor and shields, simple and martial weapons(What all the classes compared have I will not repeat) Barbarian: D12 hit die, 4+ skills per level, [rage(better than weapon spec with 2 handed weapons), uncanny dodge, fast movement, and trap sense are these comparable to feats?], medium armor and non-tower shields(character needs higher dex to make up for lacking armor but get's better saves for it) Paladin: D10 hit die, 2+ int skills, [Smite evil, detect evil, immune to poison and disease, charisma mod to all saves, healing touch of charisma mod times level, and special mount are these worth feats?], all armor and shields except tower Ranger: D8 hit die, 6+ skills per level, [tracking, favored enemy, combat style, evasion, hide in plain sight, and endurance a couple of times are these worth feats?] light armor and non-tower shields, and 2 good saves For comparison's sake all the characters are the same race and same stats. The barbarian is better with two handed weapons than the fighter because of the 1.5 str bonus of those weapons and the fact that weapon spec doesn't care if it's a great sword or a toothpick(dagger). Also the higher hit die and bonus hit points from rage make him a greater presence on the battle field. The paladin is a not going to do as well as the fighter in way of damage. He does however get much better saves than any other class listed since most paladins have a high charisma, and his other powers can not be matched by feats at any level. The ranger can only catch up to the fighter's damage if the favored enemy is what you are fighting and the smaller hit die make him a shorter fight. However, with 2 good saves and choice skills available many fights can be avoided(providing the group is sneaky) What it boils down to for me is what style warrior are you playing your character as? Your choices are two handed weapon of frothing destruction(barbarian), religious champion of the realm(paladin), stealthy strategic hunter(ranger), or mercenary/soldier looking for a better life for himself(fighter)? What the fighter really needs is feat trees that go up to 18th and 20th level. Feats that only the fighter can achieve. No one seams to want to release this cause it appears broken by itself; however, when compared to ascending and you become a lich for free, it's not that broken.
Khan the Destroyer 05-18-07, 02:52 PM	Paladins are one of the cheesiest classes out there. If you go charisma based paladin you are dealing out damage and have saves higher than even a monk and even have insanely high AC. If you think paladins are wimpy then you need help making one. I suspect that the paladin makes a pretty good tank as well, though I haven't played one. Off the top of my head, I think a paladin is a decent damage dealer, given abilities and feats such as Divine Might, Smite Evil, and Spirited Charge. That covers damage on full attacks, single attacks, and mobile mounted attacks. The paladin will have great saves if you optimize charisma (which in turn optimizes damage and attack rolls with Divine Might and Smite Evil respectively). I'm not sure about AC though. Does he attain a higher than normal AC through spells? Nevermind, I just remember Divine Shield.
Flan 05-18-07, 03:22 PM	Guys and girls, Remember that in this game there are such things as magic dead zones and antimagic spells. Thats how far I got in your post. Anyway, if you feel it is REQUIRED for a DM to jump through hoops like that then magic is obviously broken. If the only way to deal with casters is to completely strip them of the main ability of the class in order to play the game then something is definetly wrong. How many "anti-swing weapons or shoot weapons or punch or grapple" zones are there in the game to put meleers in their place?
Bob Loblaw 05-18-07, 04:58 PM	I managed to build a level 20 Core Only Fighter using 25 point buy. He can contribute well to the party's overall success with little assistance from the rest of the group. His only real problem is the Tarrasque and possibly dragons, but with the rest of the group involved, I doubt he'd have any real issues. Here is he: This is a 25 point buy level 20 core only fighter. Race: Dwarf Stats (Starting/Current) Str: 16/22 Dex: 14/14 Con: 12/18 Int: 14/14 Wis: 14/20 Cha: 8/8 Fort: 27 (v poisons or magic +2) Ref: 21 (can use tower shield for total cover: +2, v poisons or magic +2) Will: 24 (v poisons or magic +2) HP: 207 (average) Initiative: 6 AC: 32 (with total cover, cannot be attacked, +4 v giants) Movement Rate: 20, 60 flying Attacks (+1 v orcs and goblins, +3 to hit with bow against sworn enemy): Cold Iron Wounding Greatsword +5: +37/+32/+27/+22 (2d6+18) Oathbow (+6 composite): +32/+27/+22/+17 (1d8+13 or 1d8+2d6+16) Sunder/Disarm: +45 (37 + 4[feat] + 4[2-handed]) Grapple: +36 When Enlarged: Cold Iron Wounding Greatsword +5: +37/+32/+27/+22 (3d6+20) Oathbow (+6 composite): +30/+25/+20/+15 (2d6+13 or 2d8+2d6+16) Sunder/Disarm: +50 (38 + 4[feat] + 4[2-handed] + 4[size]) Grapple: +41 Feats: Character 1 Weapon Focus (Greatsword) Fighter 1 Weapon Focus (Longbow) Fighter 2 Power Attack Character 3 Lightning Reflexes Fighter 4 Weapon Specialization (Greatsword) Fighter 6 Weapon Specialization (Longbow) Character 6 Combat Expertise Fighter 8 Greater Weapon Focus (Greatswrod) Character 9 Iron Will Fighter 10 Improved Initiative Fighter 12 Greater Weapon Specialization (Greatsword) Character 12 Improved Sunder Fighter 14 Improved Unarmed Strike Character 15 Improved Disarm Fighter 16 Improved Grapple Fighter 18 Greater Weapon Focus (Longbow) Character 18 Skill Focus Tumble Fighter 20 Greater Weapon Specialization (Longbow) Skills (+2 Stonecunning, +2 appraise metal/gems, +2 craft metal): Ranks Ability Synergy Extra ACP Total Take 10 Take 20 Appriase 1 2 6 9 19 Balance 2 2 6 -12 -2 8 Bluff -1 6 5 Climb 3 6 6 -12 3 13 Concentration 4 6 10 Craft 2 2 6 10 20 Diplomacy -1 6 5 Disguise -1 6 5 Escape Artist 2 6 -12 -4 6 16 Gather Info -1 6 5 15 25 Handle Animal -1 6 5 15 25 Heal 4 5 8 17 27 Hide 2 6 -12 -4 6 Intimidate 15 -1 6 20 Jump 5 6 2 6 -12 7 17 Listen 5 5 6 16 26 36 Move Silently 2 6 -12 -4 6 Ride 2 6 8 18 Search 2 6 8 18 28 Sense Motive 3 5 6 14 24 Spot 5 5 11 21 31 41 Survival 5 6 11 21 31 Swim 16 6 6 -24 4 14 Tumble 5 2 2 9 -12 8 Use Rope 2 6 8 18 28 Gear: Item Cost Full Adamantine Plate Mail +5 41500 Animated Heavy Fortification Mithril Tower Shield +3 49170 Cold Iron Wounding Greatsword +5 Int: 17, Wis: 17, Cha: 10, Speech, Telepathy, Ego: 19 120' darkvision and hearing Cure Moderate Wounds on wielder 3/d Faerie Fire 3/d Knowledge (arcana) 10 ranks (+13) Haste 3/d 138300 Cloak of Resistance +5 25000 Belt of Strength +6 36000 Periapt of Wisdom +4 16000 Vest of Health +6 36000 Tome of Understanding +2 55000 Ring of Greater Heroism 208000 Stone of Good Luck 20000 Boots of Flying 16000 Pale Green Ioun Stone 30000 Ring of Enlarge Person (3/day) 1080 Silversheen x4 1000 Oathbow (+6 composite) 26000 Efficient Quiver 1800 Eyes of the Eagle 2500 Gauntlet of Rust 11500 Bracers of Greater Archery 25000 Potion of Rage x2 1500 Potion of Keen Edge x2 1500 Potion of Displacement x2 1500 Potion Cure Critical Wounds CL 10 (3d8+10) x2 3000 Potion of Resist Fire 30 x2 2200 Potion of Resist Electricity 30 x2 2200 Potion of Resist Cold 30 x2 2200 Potion of Resist Acid 30 x2 2200 Heward's Handy Haversack 2000 Merchant's Scale 2 Magnifying Glass 100 Healer's Kit 50 Arrows x60 Remaining Money: 1695 gold What can he do with his skills? Appraise: Can appraise up to rare metal/gems with 100% accuracy and exotic ones with 83% accuracy Balance: With a pole or some other balancing object, can walk across a 7-10” beam Craft: Can make masterwork items with ease. Gather Information: Can get information on specific rumor, or a specific item, or obtain a map, or do something else along those lines Handle Animal: Can train the animal with anywhere from 75-100% success, most are 100% Heal: Can stop any poison or disease with 100% success. Jump: Can jump a 20 foot chasm 85% of the time (but doesn’t need to since he can fly) Listen: +16 Ride: Can perform all ride tricks with 100% success. Search: Can hit up to DC 20 Sense Motive: +34 against feint in combat Spot: +21 Survival: Can feed self and 5 others, can grant +2 or +4 bonus on Fortitude saves against inclement weather for a party of 6, doesn’t get lost, avoids natural hazards, predict weather 2 days in advance Swim: Can handle Calm water 95% of the time. Rough water 50% of the time. Stormy water 25% of the time. Swimming may not be his best choice. Dropping the shield improves his chances significantly (100% chance for all water). Tumble: Can treat a fall as 10 feet lower 55% of the time. Can avoid attacks of opportunity when moving with 55% success on the first opponent (this decreases by 10% for each opponent after the first so he can, if he is lucky enough, move through 7 threatened areas). Can move through an enemy with a 10% chance of success. Many of these skills can benefit from Aid Another, or he can use Aid Another to help someone else who is better with few problems. He can take on the dreaded balor with very little to worry about. With his Will save at +26 against the spamming of blasphemy or dominate monster he has little to worry about. He can move in, disarm or sunder that vorpal sword and whip in the same round leaving two more attacks. Teleporting away is a sign of defeat. The pit fiend needs to be able to hit AC 37, which is within his capabilities, but he is at about 50/50 to hit. With the DR I have, I can stop 18 points of damage per round and I have no fear of his poison or disease (my save is +29/+27 respectively). I can get behind my tower shield to quaff a potion if needed. My grapple check is better so I have a good chance to avoid being grappled. I have little fear from this CR 20. Dragons can be a bit more problematic, however I can make my saves just fine. The breath weapon damage is scary, but if I time things right, I can use my tower shield to have total cover against the breath. The spells aren't too much of an issue either. I can get into melee or fight at ranged. Melee can be a bit scary, but the dragon needs to deal with my DR. If the rest of the party works as a team, there is no reason why the dragon will remain a threat for long. That just leaves the tarrasque. I can't deal enough ranged damage to even make it notice me. I can deal enough melee damage, but I'm not looking forward to the swallow whole. This beast will take the whole party. No matter how much damage I do, I would still need either a cleric or wizard for the final killing blow anyway.
Kalarus 05-18-07, 07:35 PM	Looks decent. Was wondering about a few things till I saw you were making a 20 level Core fighter. I just wonder, is his gear Core as well? I can't find my DMG right now but some of those items seem very unfamiliar.
Bob Loblaw 05-18-07, 07:56 PM	Everything is core. I used the item creation rules for a few items, but they are still core. The only thing I might do is increase the cost for the ring of enlarge person. The bonuses aren't all that big of a deal, but I think the ring should cost about 2500 gold because it affects so many things (skills, reach, etc and still has a few penalties such as AC and skills). Some items use the SRD name (efficient quiver for example).
Muktar 05-18-07, 08:00 PM	Please get the phb2. There are now several feats that will actually make you do a lot more damage. Also, the cost of the ring is low. In the MiC, the cost of a belt of enlarge 1/day is that price
Kalarus 05-18-07, 08:05 PM	Please get the phb2. There are now several feats that will actually make you do a lot more damage. Also, the cost of the ring is low. In the MiC, the cost of a belt of enlarge 1/day is that price I believe the entire idea of the build was to keep it core. I am fairly sure he has access to PHB2 and likely MiC as well. The price of the enlarge person ring I believe was created using the table in the DMG on page... 285 I think it was? Speaking of which, why not make enlarge person continuous? Only makes the ring twice as expensive I think, well within your remaining budget. Also, what's the duration on this ring? CL1 for 1 minute? (Reasons I am asking is because I am currently looking at having such an item made myself right now)
Bob Loblaw 05-18-07, 10:31 PM	Please get the phb2. There are now several feats that will actually make you do a lot more damage. Also, the cost of the ring is low. In the MiC, the cost of a belt of enlarge 1/day is that price I have nearly every book. The goal was core only. As DM , I would increase the cost of the ring to 2500gp. Note that the duration for the ring is 1 minute while the belt you mention is 10 minutes. I believe the entire idea of the build was to keep it core. I am fairly sure he has access to PHB2 and likely MiC as well. The price of the enlarge person ring I believe was created using the table in the DMG on page... 285 I think it was? Speaking of which, why not make enlarge person continuous? Only makes the ring twice as expensive I think, well within your remaining budget. Also, what's the duration on this ring? CL1 for 1 minute? (Reasons I am asking is because I am currently looking at having such an item made myself right now) The reason I didn't make the ring continuous is because I didn't want to have to put it on or take it off just to grow. There are plenty of places that I would not be welcome as a Large dwarf (that sounds weird). Now that I think about it, it wouldn't be bad to have to change out the ring with a continuous effect. The ring is currently at CL 1. I felt that if the battle lasted more than 10 rounds, the party might be in enough trouble and we should consider a tactical advance to the rear.
Evicmar 05-18-07, 10:47 PM	Thats how far I got in your post. Anyway, if you feel it is REQUIRED for a DM to jump through hoops like that then magic is obviously broken. If the only way to deal with casters is to completely strip them of the main ability of the class in order to play the game then something is definetly wrong. How many "anti-swing weapons or shoot weapons or punch or grapple" zones are there in the game to put meleers in their place? I see you've never run an epic game. And you never got to the points made later in the post. *sigh* Try completely reading a post before replying to it. I was giving an example of a situation were everyones gear becomes normal and there is a fight. There are planes where the same thing happens too. If you are going to post please do so more diplomatically in the future.
Argaud 05-18-07, 10:49 PM	He can take on the dreaded balor with very little to worry about. With his Will save at +26 against the spamming of blasphemy or dominate monster he has little to worry about. He can move in, disarm or sunder that vorpal sword and whip in the same round leaving two more attacks. Teleporting away is a sign of defeat. Just mention Blasphemy has no save. Not that it matters much since even a cleric with a will save of +500 would be affected.
Bob Loblaw 05-18-07, 11:09 PM	Just mention Blasphemy has no save. Not that it matters much since even a cleric with a will save of +500 would be affected. At least I'm only dazed :). I didn't catch that, thanks for noticing. This is where having a party helps greatly. The balor now needs to start making some harder decisions. Who's actions to stop? The fighter who can take him out in 2 rounds? The cleric who can just banish him? The wizard who can Power Word: Kill me after the fighter or rogue hits me? He's got choices and none of them are going to be fun for him.
runestar 05-18-07, 11:33 PM	This is where having a party helps greatly. The balor now needs to start making some harder decisions. Who's actions to stop? The fighter who can take him out in 2 rounds? The cleric who can just banish him? The wizard who can Power Word: Kill me after the fighter or rogue hits me? He's got choices and none of them are going to be fun for him. Or try all of them by playing around with its feat selection...:P Give it extraordinary concentration so it can maintain implosion as a move action. It can use its standard action to use a SLA, and quicken another SLA as a free action. So quickened telekinesis or greater dispelling, followed by implosion on a creature with a poor fort save, and finally blasphemy or an appropriate SLA. And don't forget the 2nd balor it can summon in. That too should be doing something.:)
Bob Loblaw 05-18-07, 11:57 PM	Or try all of them by playing around with its feat selection...:P Give it extraordinary concentration so it can maintain implosion as a move action. It can use its standard action to use a SLA, and quicken another SLA as a free action. So quickened telekinesis or greater dispelling, followed by implosion on a creature with a poor fort save, and finally blasphemy or an appropriate SLA. And don't forget the 2nd balor it can summon in. That too should be doing something.:) The purpose of this build was to stay core. How would maintaining Concentration be a move-action? Sticking to Core, it's a standard action. The second balor would be challenging, but not impossible either. Remember that this is a team effort. The fighter is not in a vacuum. I think it's interesting that the best way to take on this core-only build is to change the opponent. Maybe the fighter does work. Is there any real problem with the build? Does he work as written?
runestar 05-19-07, 12:55 AM	Extraordinary concentration is a feat from complete adventurer which lets you maintain a spell's concentration as a move or swift action if you succeed at a concentration check. But since you are sticking to core, I shall oblige.:) Your fighter seems okay (I doubt I can manage better), but the balor does not seem to be run all that smartly. First off, why would teleportation be seen as a sign of surrender? He can port away to heal, spy on the party, then port in to take them on when they are at their weakest. Or simply to maintain his distance while the balor continues spamming SLAs. This is extremely important as it should be noted that neither the balor or pit fiend is meant to be used as a melee combatant. It is a spellcaster first and foremost, and its tactics should involve wearing down the party with SLAs and summons first before moving in to finish them. Having one square off with a fighter in melee is about one of the dumbest things it can do, IMO. Or in the very least, before the pit fiend enters combat, I might have it replicate an AMF with its wish SLA first to weaken the dwarf. But that is a risky move (almost a death sentence), but I would not use it so frivolously). But at least the option is there if I ever so desire. For example, the summoned balor could concentrate on spamming blasphemies in conjunction with quickened telekinesis while the real balor hangs back and pelts the PCs with other SLAs. Since it has been factored into the balor's cr, I see no reason not to summon one for use against the PCs. As for the pit fiend, I will probably have it summon 2 horned devils (having the highest cr by far), buff with unholy aura and use them to tie down the fighter. Second, your foes seem to lack eq. I do not know how many people share my sentiments, but I believe that they should use any magic eq they get as part of their treasure to their advantage. Given their high wis scores, the benefit of a monk's belt is just too good to pass up, given its paltry price of just 13,000gp. Some scrolls and other consumables can work well too, given the balor's good UMD score. Tarrasque is slightly trickier, because to be honest, there are a ton of things I am just itching to replace those 6 toughness feats with. Dragons have spellcasting, which throws a very big variable into the fight, so I doubt I can comment effectively either. For example, it can start off with timestop, then dimension lock the fighter/wizard (taking care to exclude the cleric if possible), maze the cleric, forcecage the fighter, then proceed to attack the wizard (ignoring the rogue unless it proves to be a greater than expected nuisance). It will be a titanic battle, with one side finally taking over slowly but surely when the other runs out of options to counter the opponents, simply because of the sheer amount of resources each side has (dragon spellcasting, hoard etc). You may be right that as a team, your party can probably overcome any challenge. However, I still do not see your fighter necessarily having as easy a time as you are making it out to have, or contributing all that effectively. At least using just core material.
Muktar 05-19-07, 01:14 AM	I was gonna say just have permanency cast on you while you are enlarged but you said you don't want to be large. And I see your point about staying core
runestar 05-19-07, 01:25 AM	Permanent enlarge is very problematic mechanics wise, so I can see the benefit of just relying on the mage to cast enlarge on you prior to battle (its duration is long enough anyways).:)
Bob Loblaw 05-19-07, 01:36 AM	Extraordinary concentration is a feat from complete adventurer which lets you maintain a spell's concentration as a move or swift action if you succeed at a concentration check. But since you are sticking to core, I shall oblige.:) Thanks for letting me know where to find the feat. I may want to consider it for another character. Your fighter seems okay (I doubt I can manage better), but the balor does not seem to be run all that smartly. First off, why would teleportation be seen as a sign of surrender? He can port away to heal, spy on the party, then port in to take them on when they are at their weakest. Or simply to maintain his distance while the balor continues spamming SLAs. I meant that if he needs to run, he is defeated. This is extremely important as it should be noted that neither the balor or pit fiend is meant to be used as a melee combatant. It is a spellcaster first and foremost, and its tactics should involve wearing down the party with SLAs and summons first before moving in to finish them. Having one square off with a fighter in melee is about one of the dumbest things it can do, IMO. The fighter should be trying to get the balor or pit fiend into melee. Even if the fighter keeps them on the run, they are limited in actions so the fighter would be doing his job. Or in the very least, before the pit fiend enters combat, I might have it replicate an AMF with its wish SLA first to weaken the dwarf. But that is a risky move (almost a death sentence), but I would not use it so frivolously). But at least the option is there if I ever so desire. It's a viable option, and one that could win the fight. The pit fiend can function in the AMF much better than my fighter. In fact, I become dangerously weak. For example, the summoned balor could concentrate on spamming blasphemies in conjunction with quickened telekinesis while the real balor hangs back and pelts the PCs with other SLAs. Since it has been factored into the balor's cr, I see no reason not to summon one for use against the PCs. I would do the same thing as a balor. This is where the casters need to really be on the ball and keep the battle focused where we need it. As for the pit fiend, I will probably have it summon 2 horned devils (having the highest cr by far), buff with unholy aura and use them to tie down the fighter. Not bad options at all. They will hold the fighter for a little bit. Again, with the rest of the group, I see the horned devils are more of a nuisance than anything. Second, your foes seem to lack eq. I do not know how many people share my sentiments, but I believe that they should use any magic eq they get as part of their treasure to their advantage. Given their high wis scores, the benefit of a monk's belt is just too good to pass up, given its paltry price of just 13,000gp. Some scrolls and other consumables can work well too, given the balor's good UMD score. When I run monsters, they quite often have there treasure as part of their gear. I agree with you 100%. I believe that their gear should be representative of the creatures. Monk's belt is a great choice, but I wouldn't give it to all balors. Tarrasque is slightly trickier, because to be honest, there are a ton of things I am just itching to replace those 6 toughness feats with. I agree. I would actually get rid of all the toughness feats, give it Improved Toughness. That would be 30 more hit points and 5 more feats to play with. Dragons have spellcasting, which throws a very big variable into the fight, so I doubt I can comment effectively either. For example, it can start off with timestop, then dimension lock the fighter/wizard (taking care to exclude the cleric if possible), maze the cleric, forcecage the fighter, then proceed to attack the wizard (ignoring the rogue unless it proves to be a greater than expected nuisance). It will be a titanic battle, with one side finally taking over slowly but surely when the other runs out of options to counter the opponents, simply because of the sheer amount of resources each side has (dragon spellcasting, hoard etc). Too many variables as you mentioned. This is another good example of where the whole party needs to work together. I can see the casters doing very well here. I think with 25 point buy, they won't be as powerful as in many examples given by others. You may be right that as a team, your party can probably overcome any challenge. However, I still do not see your fighter necessarily having as easy a time as you are making it out to have, or contributing all that effectively. At least using just core material. My fighter can handle out-of-combat situations. He can vary his tactics as needed in combat. He isn't the heaviest hitter he can be, but he is definitely not the pushover that many people on the boards think he is. For the record, I think I might have fun playing in your games. I like when the opponents are not simply ripped from the MM. I like things modified. It keeps the players on their toes and makes the world feel more real.
Bob Loblaw 05-19-07, 01:38 AM	Permanent enlarge is very problematic mechanics wise, so I can see the benefit of just relying on the mage to cast enlarge on you prior to battle (its duration is long enough anyways).:) I had thought about this. I was trying to avoid asking the party to help me too much. Too often people complain the fighter needs the rest of the group. While I may feel that isn't a problem, it is for some.
runestar 05-19-07, 02:03 AM	At higher lvs, a spellcaster should have no problems devoting his lower lv slots for buffing purposes. Like providing a casting of vampiric touch for the fighter's spell storing weapon, enlarge when needed, greater magic weapon etc. Or in the very least, spend a little gold on pearls of power to "compensate" the wizard for expending resources on you. Though I still feel the wizard will probably oblige willingly. There isn't really much use for lower lv slots at higher lvs anyways. The reason I am a little leery about permanent enlarge is its vulnerability to dispel. While your eq expands with you when you are enlarged, they shrink back to normal when you release your grip on them, meaning that you will probably have to expend more resources resizing all your eq appropriately. And if your enlarge is then dispelled in combat, another problem arises - your eq suddenly being too big for you. None of these problems arise when enlarge spell is being used. For the record, I think I might have fun playing in your games. I like when the opponents are not simply ripped from the MM. I like things modified. It keeps the players on their toes and makes the world feel more real. To be honest, about half of them are just theoretical thought exercises in my free time.:embarrass I like playing around with their stats and seeing how they can be modified to offer a unique challenge/experience. University has kept my group extremely busy the past year (with 2 going overseas), so we don't really game much these days.:(
Argaud 05-19-07, 07:39 AM	Is there any real problem with the build? Does he work as written? I think the only major problem I can see, playing devil's advocate here, is that you use a few custom items. Custom items are the exclusive domain of the DM, and therefore completely houseruled. The DMG tables do not work at all, and WotC finally admitted so in the MIC. Of course if you use the gear from the MIC the fighter is far more powerful :D
Archangel62 05-19-07, 08:16 AM	Looking over your build Bob I have to admit that it isn't half bad, if you want to save that sucker I'd love to see it in my gauntlet if you're willing (for that matter you'd be done before Khan). I say again, to all of you who feel the fighter is fine as is feel free to partake in my little gauntlet challenge, remember neither victory nor survival is needed to prove me wrong.
Leo 05-19-07, 09:12 AM	Looking over your build Bob I have to admit that it isn't half bad, if you want to save that sucker I'd love to see it in my gauntlet if you're willing (for that matter you'd be done before Khan). I say again, to all of you who feel the fighter is fine as is feel free to partake in my little gauntlet challenge, remember neither victory nor survival is needed to prove me wrong. Adn where exactly is that gauntlet going to take place? It will be fun to see a battle between epic level characters and monsters both optimized to the max.
Bob Loblaw 05-19-07, 09:31 AM	I think the only major problem I can see, playing devil's advocate here, is that you use a few custom items. Custom items are the exclusive domain of the DM, and therefore completely houseruled. The DMG tables do not work at all, and WotC finally admitted so in the MIC. Of course if you use the gear from the MIC the fighter is far more powerful :D I thought about that while I was working on those items. The only reason I kept working on them is because their costs were pretty high (the ring of Greater Heroism costs more than 200,000 gold). I did try to make sure I kept body slot affinities when I made changes (vest of health). There are a lot of things I would do differently in an actual game. The ring of greater heroism would probably go away. The ring of giant growth would go away. I would improve my armor or sword.
Bob Loblaw 05-19-07, 09:38 AM	Looking over your build Bob I have to admit that it isn't half bad, if you want to save that sucker I'd love to see it in my gauntlet if you're willing (for that matter you'd be done before Khan). I say again, to all of you who feel the fighter is fine as is feel free to partake in my little gauntlet challenge, remember neither victory nor survival is needed to prove me wrong. What exactly would be needed to prove you wrong? How well does the fighter have to do to prove his worthiness? The only real problem I have with gauntlets is the same problem I have with PvP demonstrations, the build only shows that it can handle that particular encounter. It doesn't really show how well the class works overall in actual play. I also would need more information. 1) How far apart do the combatants start? 2) How much advanced notice would either party have of the other? 3) What is the terrain like? 4) What constitutes victory? I'm not trying to be a pain in the butt, however these questions are important as they determine the tactics I would use.
Flan 05-19-07, 10:53 AM	Or in the very least, spend a little gold on pearls of power to "compensate" the wizard for expending resources on you. Though I still feel the wizard will probably oblige willingly. There isn't really much use for lower lv slots at higher lvs anyways. Not really, the slots can all be put to use somehow. 4+ you're looking at assay, dimension door etc. As a wizard I've never had "too many" spell slots I didn't want to stick stuff in. As a cleric yeah, I've run out of spells I actually want to take, but those slots can get used as a cure anyway.
Archangel62 05-19-07, 12:05 PM	What exactly would be needed to prove you wrong? How well does the fighter have to do to prove his worthiness? The only real problem I have with gauntlets is the same problem I have with PvP demonstrations, the build only shows that it can handle that particular encounter. It doesn't really show how well the class works overall in actual play. I also would need more information. 1) How far apart do the combatants start? 2) How much advanced notice would either party have of the other? 3) What is the terrain like? 4) What constitutes victory? I'm not trying to be a pain in the butt, however these questions are important as they determine the tactics I would use. 1) 30 feet outside the maximum reach of your foe (if foe is airborn they are 30 feet distance, 30 feet up) 2) Fighter will know what they are facing, but no bane weapons for this exercise to as to avoid extraneous variables and the arguments of gear beating the creature. 3) We will assume flat open terrain with both sides having proper visibility barring SLAs or other such features. 4) Victory in combat constitutes defeating or driving off the creature, if you can lock it down definitvely that works too but is harder to prove logistically. The goal is I want to see what the fighter can do, the fighter can die in each encounter but if the fighter is able to honestly affect the opponent, force reaction and cause them difficulties then I will admit that I may have been wrong about the fighter and the design issues thereof. other rules can be posted later, all who are interested can PM me and I can give them the list of foes and the ground rules.
Scion of Coldshard 05-19-07, 02:19 PM	Is there any real problem with the build? Does he work as written? It looks like there are a lot of little things wrong all over the place with the numbers. Since it takes quite a bit to make a 20th level guy that is probably why.
Bob Loblaw 05-19-07, 02:33 PM	It looks like there are a lot of little things wrong all over the place with the numbers. Since it takes quite a bit to make a 20th level guy that is probably why. Can you be specific? I spent quite some time working on the numbers and had them checked by a few people before I posted.
Scion of Coldshard 05-19-07, 04:06 PM	Like I said, there are a lot of numbers there. It could be that I missed something in the mix as well but here are some of the things I saw. Can you be specific? I spent quite some time working on the numbers and had them checked by a few people before I posted. Avg hp 10+19*5.5+80 = 194.5 +13 from the item should be listed separately since this custom item will need custom rules for how it works. Saves are listed as 'vs poison or magic' but if the effect is both poison and magic then they both apply which should likely get a special note. AC 31 = 10 +13(adamantine full plate +5) +7(animated heavy fort mithral tower shield +3) +1(dex, limited by full plate) Total cover can only be used if you give up all attacks and it does not protect against targeted spells. For movement I am assuming that you are using the winged boots for flying which grant the wearer the fly spell. Under the fly spell you would fly at 40' instead of 60' since you are in heavy armor. Attack bonus with the greatsword without shield +38 = +20(BAB) +6(str) +5(enhancement) +2(greater weapon focus) +1(competence) +4(moral). Attack routine with greatsword and shield +36/+31/+26/+21. The oathbow should have two listed attack routines along with the two damages. It is also a specific magic item and so cannot be changed so the damage part is wrong. Attack with oathbow (unsworn) without shield +30 = +20(BAB) +2(dex) +2(enhancement) +4(morale) +2(competence). The shield would impose a -2 penalty if used in conjunction. Damage of d8+9 = d8 +2(str) +2(enhancement) +1(competence) +4(greater weapon spec). Attack with Oathbow (sworn) +33 = +20(BAB) +2(dex) +5(enhancement) +4(morale) +2(competence). With shield an extra -2 of course. Damage of d8+2d6+12 = d8 +2(str) +5(enhancement) +1(competence) +4(greater weapon spec) +2d6. Sunder/Disarm are at normal attack +8 so +44 when using the shield. Your grapple mod is 30 = 20(BAB) +6(str) +4(improved grapple) before enlarging. Some DM's might allow the green ioun stone and the ring to modify this but it should be mentioned separately as it is questionable. If they were allowed that would make the check 35 = 20(BAB) +6(str) +4(improved grapple) +4(greater heroism) +1(green ioun stone) with an extra -2 if the shield is also currently being used. While enlarged your AC would decrease by 1, which should be noted. While enlarged your damage should increase from 2d6+18 to 3d6+19 (+18 = +5 enhancement +6str*1.5 +4greater weapon spec; +19 = +5 enhancement +7str*1.5 +4weapon spec). While enlarged sunder/disarm should only increase by 4 from the nonenlarged version. Skill ranks used look like the following: Appraise (2 ranks used), Climb (3), Craft (2), Heal (8), Intimidate (15), Jump (5), Listen (10), Sense motive (6), Spot (10), Swim (16), Tumble (10) = 87. If this is correct then I see the following. If you started with the 14 int then you would have 4*23 = 92 skill points which means that you still have 5 to spend. If you started with a 13 int and then boosted it up to 14 at level 4 then you would have 3*6+4*17 = 86 skill points and so spent 1 too many. Jump gets an extra -6 penalty because you have a base move of 10' less than 30'. On tumble you have 5 ranks +2(dex) +2(synergy) +1(luck) +1(competence) +4(morale) +3(skill focus) = +18. 18-12=6, not 8. Gear: First off, a tower shield cannot be made of mithral and gain any bonus since it is primarily made out of wood, not metal. If it could be done the price would be: Animated Heavy Fortification Mithral Tower Shield +3 101,030gp = 30 (base) +100,000 (+10 = +5 heavy fort +2 animated +3 enhancement) +1000 (mithral) Cold iron weapons require 2000 gp extra per enhancement. Depending on how the DM reads this the price of this weapon could be 22,000 gp higher than you have it listed as. Ring of Greater Heroism 5(spell level)*13(bard level to cast it)*2000(continuous)*2(duration) = 260,000 gp. Which method were you using to create this? There were a few other things but that is all I have time for right now.
Bob Loblaw 05-19-07, 05:08 PM	Like I said, there are a lot of numbers there. It could be that I missed something in the mix as well but here are some of the things I saw. First, thanks for all the comments. Avg hp 10+19*5.5+80 = 194.5 +13 from the item should be listed separately since this custom item will need custom rules for how it works. Caster Level 13 is 13 hit points. If I were actually using this in a game, I would actually remove this as well as the immunity to fear portions. Saves are listed as 'vs poison or magic' but if the effect is both poison and magic then they both apply which should likely get a special note. There aren't too many times when this matters but it isn't a stretch to apply them both. AC 31 = 10 +13(adamantine full plate +5) +7(animated heavy fort mithral tower shield +3) +1(dex, limited by full plate) Total cover can only be used if you give up all attacks and it does not protect against targeted spells. You are correct. I had another Ioun Stone and forgot to remove the bonus when I dropped the stone. For movement I am assuming that you are using the winged boots for flying which grant the wearer the fly spell. Under the fly spell you would fly at 40' instead of 60' since you are in heavy armor. I used to have the wings of flying but opted for the boots and forgot about the flying rates being different. Attack bonus with the greatsword without shield +38 = +20(BAB) +6(str) +5(enhancement) +2(greater weapon focus) +1(competence) +4(moral). Attack routine with greatsword and shield +36/+31/+26/+21. Only off by 1. Not bad. I didn't add in the competence bonus. The oathbow should have two listed attack routines along with the two damages. It is also a specific magic item and so cannot be changed so the damage part is wrong. There is no reason why I can't make it a better composite bow other than DM fiat. I paid the requisite costs. Attack with oathbow (unsworn) without shield +30 = +20(BAB) +2(dex) +2(enhancement) +4(morale) +2(competence). The shield would impose a -2 penalty if used in conjunction. Damage of d8+9 = d8 +2(str) +2(enhancement) +1(competence) +4(greater weapon spec). You missed my bracers of greater archery. It grants +2 to hit and +1 damage. Sunder/Disarm are at normal attack +8 so +44 when using the shield. Noted, thanks. Your grapple mod is 30 = 20(BAB) +6(str) +4(improved grapple) before enlarging. Some DM's might allow the green ioun stone and the ring to modify this but it should be mentioned separately as it is questionable. If they were allowed that would make the check 35 = 20(BAB) +6(str) +4(improved grapple) +4(greater heroism) +1(green ioun stone) with an extra -2 if the shield is also currently being used. I can see it as questionable now that you bring it up. Personally, I think if the DM isn't going to allow it, then he is just making it that much harder for fighters. While enlarged your AC would decrease by 1, which should be noted. Fair enough. While enlarged your damage should increase from 2d6+18 to 3d6+19 (+18 = +5 enhancement +6str*1.5 +4greater weapon spec; +19 = +5 enhancement +7str*1.5 +4weapon spec). I rounded wrong with Excel. Thanks for catching this. While enlarged sunder/disarm should only increase by 4 from the nonenlarged version. My Strength also went up so I should get a total of +5 (size and strength). Skill ranks used look like the following: Appraise (2 ranks used), Climb (3), Craft (2), Heal (8), Intimidate (15), Jump (5), Listen (10), Sense motive (6), Spot (10), Swim (16), Tumble (10) = 87. If this is correct then I see the following. If you started with the 14 int then you would have 4*23 = 92 skill points which means that you still have 5 to spend. If you started with a 13 int and then boosted it up to 14 at level 4 then you would have 3*6+4*17 = 86 skill points and so spent 1 too many. I started with the 14 Intelligence. How often do you think you'll say: "Fighter, you have 5 points left to spend." I'll add them in. Jump gets an extra -6 penalty because you have a base move of 10' less than 30'. Thanks for catching that. I did have a speed boost at one point and forgot to fix jump. On tumble you have 5 ranks +2(dex) +2(synergy) +1(luck) +1(competence) +4(morale) +3(skill focus) = +18. 18-12=6, not 8. I had removed a feat and didn't account for it. Thanks. Gear: First off, a tower shield cannot be made of mithral and gain any bonus since it is primarily made out of wood, not metal. If it could be done the price would be: Animated Heavy Fortification Mithral Tower Shield +3 101,030gp = 30 (base) +100,000 (+10 = +5 heavy fort +2 animated +3 enhancement) +1000 (mithral) I never noticed that it was made of wood. I'll have to make some adjustments. Cold iron weapons require 2000 gp extra per enhancement. Depending on how the DM reads this the price of this weapon could be 22,000 gp higher than you have it listed as. Fair enough catch. Personally, I would say that the Intelligence portion is a single enhancement, but that would be for the campaigns I run. I will make the adjustment to assume that everything counts against it. The idea is that I did not make rules that favored the fighter. Ring of Greater Heroism 5(spell level)*13(bard level to cast it)*2000(continuous)*2(duration) = 260,000 gp. Which method were you using to create this? Here's the math I used: Spell Level 5 (Brd) * Caster Level 13 * 2000 * 2 = 260000. At one point I have 206000. Looks like a typo that gave me quite a bit of extra cash. I was starting to think that I had a lot more money than normal but I couldn't find out where. There were a few other things but that is all I have time for right now. I would like to see more if you find them. I really do want to show that the fighter is not worthless and can contribute. I need to have all the math right otherwise this exercise is pointless.
Scion of Coldshard 05-19-07, 05:35 PM	First, thanks for all the comments. No problem. There is no reason why I can't make it a better composite bow other than DM fiat. It would take DM fiat to actually allow the change. Those items are preconstructed with a specific price. Adding on extra abilities to them is not defined by the normal guidelines. Plus, having to deal with the extra problems of the penalties to attack rolls and whatnot is just a hassle. A +3 composite (+6) longbow is only about 19,000 and you dont have to worry about the oathbow penalties. It gives a much larger bonus whenever you are not fighting someone with the oath on and you dont have the penalties when you are fighting someone with the oath on but not with the bow. And you save a bit of cash that could be used elsewhere. You missed my bracers of greater archery. It grants +2 to hit and +1 damage. Not so much, they give a competence bonus just like the green ioun stone and so do not stack. I can see it as questionable now that you bring it up. Personally, I think if the DM isn't going to allow it, then he is just making it that much harder for fighters. It looks like it only effects your fighter because he has a green ioun stone and a custom made magic item. If the DM also does not allow the ring is that also the DM being hard on fighters? My Strength also went up so I should get a total of +5 (size and strength). You also get a -1 size penalty to attack rolls for being large size. +4 total (+1 str +4 weapon size -1 your size) I started with the 14 Intelligence. How often do you think you'll say: "Fighter, you have 5 points left to spend." I'll add them in. I rarely see fighters with a starting int score as high or higher than their starting physical scores so it is unlikely to happen often ;) Here's the math I used: Spell Level 5 (Brd) * Caster Level 13 * 2000 * 2 = 260000. At one point I have 206000. Looks like a typo that gave me quite a bit of extra cash. Same math that I used, good enough. 260,000 gp is a pretty big sum of money! Of course it boosts up just about everything the fighter could possibly hope to do as well. I would like to see more if you find them. I really do want to show that the fighter is not worthless and can contribute. I need to have all the math right otherwise this exercise is pointless. I will look it over again once the new version of it is put up.
Khan the Destroyer 05-19-07, 07:39 PM	In regards to cunning opponents that use magical gear... remember that Bob Loblaw (and even myself with my fighter builds) assumed a 25 point buy spread. This goes hand in hand with an 'average' game. Meaning, average opponents. Equipping monsters with magical gear beyond the stuff listed in their statistical information, or using exceptionally difficult tactics (such as summoning another balor to spam blasphemy) constitutes a tougher campaign and would call for a higher point buy spread as per the DMG. This isn't really a problem. We can just use a higher point buy. But, at least in my case, I use a 25 point buy to remain safe, and avoid accusations of favoring the fighter from the beginning with higher ability scores. And for that, we should expect that the enemies will not be so over the top that the PC's will have such a huge problem defeating them. Remember, a creature with a CR equal to the party's level should take about 25% of their resources to defeat, not almost wipe them out in a titanic struggle. Although, titanic battles of life and death can happen every so often. It's not a problem. But we shouldn't assume that every monster will be significantly tougher than it has to be, especially when we're judging a class' balance. At least, not in my opinion.
Kalarus 05-19-07, 08:02 PM	...using exceptionally difficult tactics (such as summoning another balor to spam blasphemy) And for that, we should expect that the enemies will not be so over the top that the PC's will have such a huge problem defeating them. Remember, a creature with a CR equal to the party's level should take about 25% of their resources to defeat, not almost wipe them out in a titanic struggle. Although, titanic battles of life and death can happen every so often. It's not a problem. But we shouldn't assume that every monster will be significantly tougher than it has to be, especially when we're judging a class' balance. At least, not in my opinion. I agree, and especially when it is used with an example that seems rather poor to me. Given the Balor's personality given in the MM: "They are the masterminds of schemes to seize power and destroy the innocent. Even among their own kind, Balors are feared, as they motivate their kindred to spread terror and misery." Does it make sense for such a creature to, as the first action in combat, summon an equally powerful creature to enlist its aid, unless its eternal life was in actual permanent danger? Round 1: Balor1 wins initiative, and summons Balor2. Balor1 (speaking as a free action): Balor2! Aid me in defeating these adventureres! Balor2 (speaking as a free action): Pathetic weak excuse for a demon! I'll save your miserable life, after which you can spend it being my ***** for all eternity! Now, since I can already hear the complaints about "That's just fluff, fluff is completely mutable and therefor can be ignored!", I'd like to point out that ignoring fluff like this (which is only an assumption which seems prevalent on these boards, stemming from the idea (which actually does seem right to me) that crunch has priority over fluff. That doesn't make fluff "pointless".) is going to have an impact on the game, and therefor cannot be ignored without consequence. Since that's likely going to be too fluffy a reasoning for the crunch-eaters though, let's just take a look at the stat block: Organisation: Solitary or troupe (1 balor, 1 marilith, 2-5 Hezrous) Even in the company of other demons, this demon is not generally in the company of other Balors, unless it can't avoid it or genuinely believes it has something to gain (or prevent from losing) by the company of another Balor. From the Tactics Round-by-round part: Round 1: "If the Balor does not deem itself seriously threatened, it conserves abilities usable once per day and uses blasphemy instead." Abilities usable once per day. Like, for example, summoning that other balor. A demon of this magnitude's first reaction in combat with a group of adventurers shouldn't be "Omg wtf adventurers, someone save me save me!", it should be "Puny mortals, today you have met your doom!". So please, do forget the 2nd Balor it can summon in. It shouldn't be doing something. It shouldn't be doing anything at all, other than perhaps scry one of its rivals and laugh while he watches him get his butt kicked in 2 rounds by an adventuring party, meanwhile plotting to keep himself from meeting a similar doom while at the same time tricking the goody-two-shoes into serving him.
navar100 05-19-07, 09:29 PM	You mean, Fred the Solar doesn't have to punch the time clock today? He can take the day off from his "waiting to be Gated by a wizard" job? :P
Argaud 05-19-07, 09:33 PM	You mean, Fred the Solar doesn't have to punch the time clock today? He can take the day off from his "waiting to be Gated by a Candle of Invocation" job? :P Fixed for you, since we are talking about fighters ;)
runestar 05-19-07, 10:10 PM	Equipping monsters with magical gear beyond the stuff listed in their statistical information, or using exceptionally difficult tactics (such as summoning another balor to spam blasphemy) constitutes a tougher campaign and would call for a higher point buy spread as per the DMG. Though this may not be the best avenue to do so, I would still like to argue that the creature's cr ultimately includes proper outfitting with gear, as explicitly mentioned by the MM here. This means that if you roll any appropriate magic eq for a balor using the tables, it should get to use them. Treasure This line reflects how much wealth the creature owns. In most cases, a creature keeps valuables in its home or lair and has no treasure with it when it travels. Intelligent creatures that own useful, portable treasure (such as magic items) tend to carry and use these, leaving bulky items at home. And I feel that ultimately, you are meant to use its special abilities to the best of your capabilities. And by best usage, if it means hovering above the PCs (say via the hover feat) and spamming attack spells until the PCs cave in, then so be it. The MM has already stated that the cr for summoning a fiend has already been factored into its calculations. This implies that for a balor, it is expected to summon another demon to aid it in combat (or for it to boss around). Even if you argue that it would not summon another balor, the next best thing - a marilith, should be fair game. And as a summon, this means the summoned balor is supposed to listen to all the 1st balor's commands. I see no reason why the latter has the beseech the former to aid it. It will order it to do so. Because the former has no choice but to obey, as per the definition of summoning in the PHB. Plus, I do not know how many of you just throw balors at your PCs like they were run-of-the-mill bandits, but I would play them as overlords, revealing himself only after the PCs have fought their way through his minions. During this time, he would have had ample time to observe their prowess, and given his phenomenal intellect, realized that he would be very much threatened by them indeed. After all, by defintion, a cr20 challenge is only supposed to drain 25% of a lv20 party's resources. He may be played as arrogant, but he would not be overconfident or underestimate their true capabilities. Does it make sense for such a creature to, as the first action in combat, summon an equally powerful creature to enlist its aid, unless its eternal life was in actual permanent danger? Yes. Because as per the definition of cr, the balor's life would be in very much danger. And of course, I would summon the balor prior to combat and both of them buffed with unholy aura (it is usable at will after all), so when the PCs encounter it, both of them can dive down straight to business rather than waste precious time summoning.:) Otherwise, given its none-too-stellar stats, I don't see it sufficiently challenging a lv20 party.:(
Clawhound 05-19-07, 10:33 PM	And that's the difference between a Role-Playing game and a wargame. In a role-playing game, everyone, even the DM, plays roles. The creatures portrayed are not just a set of rules, but exist within a context of the game. This includes the biases and the preferences of the portrayed creature. This is different from a wargame, where the players are looking to capitalize on the most optimal tactics. He who plays best wins. Please remember that this is a role-playing game. The DM is contriving encounters based on the nature of their creatures, including both knowledge and ignorance.
runestar 05-19-07, 10:44 PM	And apparently, the balor I envisioned does not fit with the concept of "rp" simply because it happens to differ from your utopian vision? :P
Kulthos 05-20-07, 01:50 AM	A lot depends on the optimization level of the party. An optimized fighter is on par with sub-optimized clerics and wizards. Serious number crunchers with a lot of experience won't play a fighter for power, but a well-built fighter can do well in a casual group. That said, an optimized cleric or druid will annihilate an optimized fighter.
Kalarus 05-20-07, 06:55 AM	You mean, Fred the Solar doesn't have to punch the time clock today? He can take the day off from his "waiting to be Gated by a wizard" job? :P No he can't. Divine Slavery Administration reported that Fred does not have enough vacation days left this year so he better fill in for Bob if he doesn't want his holy buttox demoted to a Deva.
Kalarus 05-20-07, 07:17 AM	as explicitly mentioned by the MM here. OK, explicit mention of MM, let's keep that in mind. And I feel that ultimately, you are meant to use its special abilities to the best of your capabilities. And by best usage, if it means hovering above the PCs (say via the hover feat) and spamming attack spells until the PCs cave in, then so be it. Depends a bit on the type of game you play, in some cases this is really asking for a partywipe while the DM sits there and grins "Nyah, you can't touch me while I kill you". Though I agree that by L20 a DM can fairly expect that the players are powerful and ingenious enough to find a working solution for anything despite their class choice, and since we're talking L20 encounters I agree with you here. The MM has already stated that the cr for summoning a fiend has already been factored into its calculations. This implies that for a balor, it is expected to summon another demon to aid it in combat (or for it to boss around). Even if you argue that it would not summon another balor, the next best thing - a marilith, should be fair game. Yes, it would be, for a balor can toss that Marilith down to the 2491st layer and back up to 1057 if he wanted to, which makes a world of difference, both RP and powerwise. And as a summon, this means the summoned balor is supposed to listen to all the 1st balor's commands. I see no reason why the latter has the beseech the former to aid it. It will order it to do so. Because the former has no choice but to obey, as per the definition of summoning in the PHB. There is no reason to assume the summon ability of a devil works the same as a Conjuration(Summoning) spell from the PHB. Especially when the MM explicitly states under Tanar'ri traits: Summon (SP): Tanar'ri share the ability to summon others of their kind, (the success chance and type of Tanar'ri summoned are noted in each monster description). However between their arrogance and their disdain for owing favours to one another, tanar'ri are often reluctant to use this power until in obvious peril or extreme circumstances. Plus, I do not know how many of you just throw balors at your PCs like they were run-of-the-mill bandits, but I would play them as overlords, revealing himself only after the PCs have fought their way through his minions. During this time, he would have had ample time to observe their prowess, and given his phenomenal intellect, realized that he would be very much threatened by them indeed. After all, by defintion, a cr20 challenge is only supposed to drain 25% of a lv20 party's resources. He may be played as arrogant, but he would not be overconfident or underestimate their true capabilities. Yes. Because as per the definition of cr, the balor's life would be in very much danger. And of course, I would summon the balor prior to combat and both of them buffed with unholy aura (it is usable at will after all), so when the PCs encounter it, both of them can dive down straight to business rather than waste precious time summoning.:) Otherwise, given its none-too-stellar stats, I don't see it sufficiently challenging a lv20 party.:( You're right, they are overlords. Which means that the Balor choosing to fight without cannonfodder/distractions to aid him is a Balor that made a really dumb mistake. They aren't likely to wait till all the minions are dead, and then say "Hahaa pathetic adventurers, here I am, your CR20 encounter, but since I extensively researched your powers (read: opened the DMG and read about appropriate CRs) and I just witnessed you tearing through my minions without breaking a sweat, I will now summon another of my kind who will never let me forget that I owe my life to him to defeat you!" Remember the Balor summons another creature for aid because he expects it will increase his chances of winning this fight, which means he'll be alive and kicking after the fight, from his perspective. You are absolutely right when saying Balor aren't run of the mill bandits. This is the overlord, this is the big battle and to the victor go the spoils. That means it's alright to put a CR 20 Balor and various minions (effectively increasing the ECL) against a L20 party. This isn't a random fight that is supposed to drain 20% of the party resources. This is the big one, and it's perfectly fine to push your players to the point where they nearly cry "Mommy help" before appropriately achieving victory.
runestar 05-20-07, 08:36 AM	There is no reason to assume the summon ability of a devil works the same as a Conjuration(Summoning) spell from the PHB. Well, there is this clause in the MM... Summon (Sp): A creature with the summon ability can summon specific other creatures of its kind much as though casting a summon monster spell, but it usually has only a limited chance of success (as specified in the creature’s entry). It is thus not unfair to assume that the demon summoned this way to subject to all the same limitations as any creature summoned via summon monster. For example, it can be dispelled, may be blocked out by magic circle, winks out in an AMF or Globe of Invul (if its effective lv is low enough), cannot use its own innate summon/teleport abilities etc. But likewise, it is bound to serve the summoner's every whim. Barring that, I admit I cannot really deny that your own points do make sense. I am simply saying that you can from the RAW, you are saying that it typically would not from a flavour POV (which is not wrong). I feel we could go on forever debating over this (and I entirely see your logic), so lets just leave it at "you play your game, I play mine" and part amiacably, aye?:)
Clawhound 05-20-07, 10:51 AM	And apparently, the balor I envisioned does not fit with the concept of "rp" simply because it happens to differ from your utopian vision? :P It's the "how" of design. Just because you can do something does not mean that you should do something. Pun-pun is CR9. Really. Look at the rules. He's CR9. I kid you not. Do you think my Level 12 players can handle him? It is easy for the DM to design encounters that are more difficult their their CR indicates. One of the jobs of the DM is to determine when this occurs. He can then either adjust the CR upward or adjust the encounter downward. Synergies can really kick up CR's. Blasphemy spamming is a classic example. This is a favorite tactic exactly because it is far more effective than any other tactics. But why stop there? The first balor can have a ring of three wishes, and use that ring to gate in another balor who also has a ring of three wishes. Pretty soon, you've got eight balors at CR20. Then you have a contradiction: Eight balors are CR26, but if one balor chain summons seven balors, they are only CR 20 because he used a magic item???? Even if I did choose the chain summon tactic, would my players buy into this or call it horse-hockey??? In the end, it's the DM's job to provide encounters appropriate for his players and his world setting. Appropriate means challenging enough to be a meaningful, but not murderous or unwinnable.
Bob Loblaw 05-20-07, 10:55 AM	A lot depends on the optimization level of the party. An optimized fighter is on par with sub-optimized clerics and wizards. Serious number crunchers with a lot of experience won't play a fighter for power, but a well-built fighter can do well in a casual group. That said, an optimized cleric or druid will annihilate an optimized fighter. I'm actually a serious number cruncher. I do make mistakes at times, but I am serious. I also play casually. I have never played a single character for his power. I only play the character for the fun I can have. To me the fun lies not in the numbers but in the adventures the DM has set up and the rest of the group. The purpose of this thread and the build I put up is not to see who wins in PvP. The purpose is to show that the fighter is a viable member of a group. He doesn't have to be the best, but he must be useful.
Leo 05-20-07, 10:58 AM	Remember, altough they can summon powerfull allies, most demons only do this as a last resort, acording to the MM, since when they call other demons to aid them they stay in debt. After all, I don't think the nine hells are filled with demons just waiting to be called instead of being out there doing something evil.
Bob Loblaw 05-20-07, 11:01 AM	You're right, they are overlords. Which means that the Balor choosing to fight without cannonfodder/distractions to aid him is a Balor that made a really dumb mistake. They aren't likely to wait till all the minions are dead, and then say "Hahaa pathetic adventurers, here I am, your CR20 encounter, but since I extensively researched your powers (read: opened the DMG and read about appropriate CRs) and I just witnessed you tearing through my minions without breaking a sweat, I will now summon another of my kind who will never let me forget that I owe my life to him to defeat you!" What if the balor that is summoned is the one how owes the favor? Maybe balor-1 doesn't care if balor-2 is killed in the process of balor-1 preparing for his escape.
Leo 05-20-07, 11:28 AM	What if the balor that is summoned is the one how owes the favor? Maybe balor-1 doesn't care if balor-2 is killed in the process of balor-1 preparing for his escape. I think if a Balor gains reputation of summoning comrades as expendable cannon fodder he may as well find himself executed by his own brethern
Bob Loblaw 05-20-07, 11:55 AM	I think if a Balor gains reputation of summoning comrades as expendable cannon fodder he may as well find himself executed by his own brethern I don't think you are entirely wrong. I was thinking that balor-2 had done something similar in the past and now is repaying the favor. If it only happens to those who are in debt, I doubt that the rest of the balors would care. After all, they shouldn't get themselves into this situation.
Argaud 05-20-07, 12:08 PM	I don't think you are entirely wrong. I was thinking that balor-2 had done something similar in the past and now is repaying the favor. If it only happens to those who are in debt, I doubt that the rest of the balors would care. After all, they shouldn't get themselves into this situation. Which leads us back to step 1: the balor won't use the summon ability unless he is desperate. Which, coincidentally, is what the MM says. Nevertheless, I keep reading in the boards how summoning it is the first thing the balor will do. Yes, from the mechanical standpoint it is the most efficient tactic, but from the RP standpoint is it only last resort. So what are we playing, D&D the RPG or D&D the wargame?
Otto the Bugbear 05-20-07, 04:32 PM	What if the balor that is summoned is the one how owes the favor? Maybe balor-1 doesn't care if balor-2 is killed in the process of balor-1 preparing for his escape. Killed? Hey Number Cruncher, better check up on that "killed" bit.
navar100 05-20-07, 04:59 PM	Fixed for you, since we are talking about fighters ;) :D
Leo 05-20-07, 05:07 PM	Killed? Hey Number Cruncher, better check up on that "killed" bit. Well, being hacked, biten, fingered of deathed, hold monstered and coup de graced, magic missiled or whatever the party throws at the summoned balo gotta hurt a lot one way or another.
Bob Loblaw 05-20-07, 05:45 PM	Killed? Hey Number Cruncher, better check up on that "killed" bit. Hmmm...did I make a mistake? I could have. I know that somewhere I mentioned that I have the capacity to make them. It may have been in the same post too. No need to read everything. Oh well. If the balor-2 isn't going to actually die, even more reason to have him hold off the party while balor-1 escapes. Balor-1 can die. If you ignore the killed part, my statement about balor-2 repaying his debt to balor-1 stands. There is no reason why this scenario must be balor-1 getting into debt every time.
Otto the Bugbear 05-20-07, 05:54 PM	It's not that the mistake was made. It's that the mistake was made, and then the thread started running with it. No need to spread disinformation.
Khan the Destroyer 05-20-07, 07:20 PM	There are simply too many magical items of varying power levels to dismiss the idea that it might increase a creature's CR. And summoning? Effectively getting more actions, more special attacks, and more HP? That doesn't increase CR? So, adding a random balor to another balor increases the difficulty of the encounter, but when a balor summons another balor, it doesn't get any tougher? Doesn't make sense. Likewise, CR is determined by things like HD, HP, saves, AC, attack bonus and damage, special abilities, etc. Thinking that you can change those around with magic items and not affect the CR is also questionable. Despite the fact that I don't think a balor would summon another balor immediately, the example is still bogus. It's basically a TPK. If one balor spams Blasphemy every round while the other casts Implosion or full attacks every turn, the party dies. If the rebuttal to a sound fighter build is 'Well, the monster is being played poorly because technically, you should have no chance.' we might as well call it a wrap. And that's ignoring the fact that a balor is chaotic and evil and very powerful in its own right and likely has minions to couple with its impressive array of offensive power outside of its summoning abilities. And that summoning another demon let alone a balor is said to be unlikely in the first place. No need to spread disinformation. No need to tell us. We fight the spread of disinformation every time we post in one of these threads.
Kalarus 05-20-07, 07:58 PM	So, adding a random balor to another balor increases the difficulty of the encounter, but when a balor summons another balor, it doesn't get any tougher? Doesn't make sense. Sure it does (assuming D&D the wargame). Having a Balor summon another Balor is not tougher or even equal to adding a random Balor to another Balor. Because a Balor and a Balor will both gate in Balors, which means we now have a whopping quad of Balors! :D Runestar, yeah of course mate, we all play our own games. However, looking back at the topic of this thread, reasons to have a fighter in D&D the wargame, are different from reasons to have a fighter in D&D the RPG. I am sure many people here play in many different ways here. Bob Loblaw's fighter would do great in many Core D&D RPG or even D&D mix-RPG-wargame games. In a D&D every supplement you can buy Wargame type, he's probably not so hot. So it's not a reason for anyone to go play fighters in their game, but it is a reason to play a fighter. Anyways, since I like a good debate in which good points are presented, a bit more on the Balor. I'll admit that RAW lets you interpret the Balor's summoning ability as a summon spell, and that Balor2 will be Balor1's slave for the duration of the summon (btw, where is that duration listed?? I lent my MM to a friend tonight but I don't remember seeing the duration of the summon in the statblock...). Wow. Imagine how ****** off Balor2 is going to be, after he gets butchered by the adventurers and sent back to the Abyss (since this is what would happen to a summoned creature, isn't it?). If I were a chaotic evil fiendish overlord, I'd dedicate a few centuries of my immortal lifespan to ruin Balor1 for all eternity for using me as an enslaved meatshield. Bob Loblaw: Yes it is possible that Balor2 already owes Balor1 and this is why Balor1 can summon and use Balor2. If Balor2 owes a debt due to a similar action, the oddness stands: Balor2 would not have summoned Balor1, thereby incurring the initial debt, for all the aforementioned reasons. It is possible that Balor2 owes Balor1 for a different debt, and this is where things get more foggy. I think that a Balor would (literally) move the hells to prevent himself from being indebted to another Balor. It would make the situation an exception, not a frequent occurrence. You'll end up in a situation similar to how the example of Drizz't turned the "entire" Drow race into chaotic good outcasts because everyone likes playing the exception. Other than that, if you want to run the pure wargame, and having one Balor summon another Balor because this is for the Balor optimized tactics and you fully expect your optimized maxed out party to employ equally optimized tactics, I sincerely wish you a lot of fun.
not Yoda 05-20-07, 08:08 PM	I don't think you are entirely wrong. I was thinking that balor-2 had done something similar in the past and now is repaying the favor. If it only happens to those who are in debt, I doubt that the rest of the balors would care. After all, they shouldn't get themselves into this situation. Actually balor-1 sold balor-2's debt to Balor Banking & Trust and used equity from his Abyssal Stronghold to put a lift kit and spinners on his ride. :devil:
Khan the Destroyer 05-20-07, 08:58 PM	Sure it does (assuming D&D the wargame). Right. It makes sense when we throw common sense out the window :). It's really not even about wargame vs. RPG. D&D is a blend of both. It's more about extremes and ignoring consequences. We see wizards with all the right spells, with all the right preparation, and all the right foresight. We see monsters with great item/ability synergy or unbeatable tactics. We see a very narrow list of enemies. We see a very poor representation of the adventuring party and party dynamics. And not only do we pretend that these are the norm and not really the extremes, but we go ahead and ignore the fact that a party that doesn't work together may indeed fail. That a player who defeats everything alone may find himself out of a game. That monsters that can and do easily wipe out the party might make players lose interest. That vacuum is the real issue.
Kalarus 05-20-07, 09:16 PM	Right. It makes sense when we throw common sense out the window :). It's really not even about wargame vs. RPG. D&D is a blend of both. It's more about extremes and ignoring consequences. We see wizards with all the right spells, with all the right preparation, and all the right foresight. We see monsters with great item/ability synergy or unbeatable tactics. We see a very narrow list of enemies. We see a very poor representation of the adventuring party and party dynamics. And not only do we pretend that these are the norm and not really the extremes, but we go ahead and ignore the fact that a party that doesn't work together may indeed fail. That a player who defeats everything alone may find himself out of a game. That monsters that can and do easily wipe out the party might make players lose interest. That vacuum is the real issue. Just like I recently in another thread argued against someone who saw D&D as just a math/numbers/wargame, I also have to say here: claiming that D&D is a mix of both is just one interpretation of D&D. That I happen to agree with you doesn't change that. If people just want to run the numbers game, let them, they'll likely get very bored when everything ends up looking exactly the same. Are they the norm? Doubt it. They may not be so extreme however as you (seem to) suggest, apparently a lot of devoted D&D players on these boards seem to enjoy just such a thing. In all likelyhood however the RPGers are underrepresented, since they are less likely to join discussions on character class abilities. These discussions indeed do not seem to accurately represent party dynamics, or even D&D sessions that I play in (and I am guessing, that you play in) at all. I keep seeing fighter bashing threads, but I really enjoy my dwarf fighter character, whom I have tried to optimize but regularly ends up doing things he isn't specifically built for (but can handle). He's a chain tripper/disarmer, today I've had a great time wrestling a bugbear frenzied berserker who, after being disarmed by me (41 over 40 :D) decided the next best tactic was grappling me instead, preventing me from using that chain. He had a cleric behind him boosting him even further (and a bugbear cheerleading squad, sort of), I had a 10 ft. square 60 ft. deep pit behind me. Party cooperation (about as far as possible from optimized at that time) made sure I ended up alive. My character would've been dead without them. Without me disarming and wrestling that bugbear, it's very likely he'd have killed a partymember less able to stand there and take it (He has, in fact. This bugbear NPC was responsible for our former party's TPK). Could we form a party that more easily takes care of such an opponent (e.g. in 1-2 rounds, instead of the 7 it took)? Probably. Would we have as much fun doing it? Probably not.
runestar 05-20-07, 10:42 PM	It is kinda funny now that I look back at it. The sample strategy listed for pit fiends have them summoning devils to their aid and buffing everyone with unholy aura prior to battle, but the balor makes no such provision. In light of this, I will temporarily rescind my earlier statements about dual-balor spamming SLAs until I have more relevant information.:) There are simply too many magical items of varying power levels to dismiss the idea that it might increase a creature's CR. And summoning? Effectively getting more actions, more special attacks, and more HP? That doesn't increase CR? It is not so much that it should increase cr, but that it has already been factored into the cr of the final challenge. Though I admit that it is slightly problematic, since by RAW, the ice devil is a cr13 regardless of whether it lucks out and summons 12 bone devils to its side, or fails altogether. Mind you, I am simply interpreting the rules as they are presented, I have not houseruled or brought in anything of my own creation so far. Still, for the pit fiend at least, its cr would have taken into account the possible contributions of the 2 extra devils it has summoned (since success is more or less affirmed, meaning less variability - ie: it will always have 2 devils by its side prior to combat, no need to even fudge any rolls). Thus, if you opt to have it not summon anything, its cr should actually decrease instead. Plus, as per the DMG wealth guidelines, both the balor and pit fiend get 1d4 medium magic items (average market price of 10,000gp each) or 1d3 major magic items (average market price of 40,000gp each). In addition, the MM even states that intelligent monsters will use any portable magic gear they may have. Hypothetically, if the pit fiend lucks out and rolls a monk's belt or bracers of armour, why should it not use it?:confused:
Argaud 05-20-07, 11:44 PM	Plus, as per the DMG wealth guidelines, both the balor and pit fiend get 1d4 medium magic items (average market price of 10,000gp each) or 1d3 major magic items (average market price of 40,000gp each). In addition, the MM even states that intelligent monsters will use any portable magic gear they may have. Hypothetically, if the pit fiend lucks out and rolls a monk's belt or bracers of armour, why should it not use it?:confused: He should use them, yes. Against that particular balor the warriors are going to have problems. On the other hand he might also luck out by getting a Ring of Spellturning. Or a Cloak of Resitance +5 and a Periapth of Wisdom +6. Or a Rod of Absorption. In that case the casters are screwed. It tends to balance out. It is also very likely all he gets are a bunch of scrolls and a rod he can't use, though. How much sense does it make that a member of the Abyssal nobility has just a pile of unusable junk in his treasure chest? Truth is, not much. Yet the rulebooks are quite clear monsters do not get equipment, just random treasure. It is a dumb rule. But there are far dumber rules in D&D.
runestar 05-21-07, 12:29 AM	Well, the balor has a very high UMD score (but sadly not the pit fiend)...:P I am curious as to what those treasure is supposed to represent for the demon in question. Gold and goods will probably be sitting in its lair (since they are typically too bulky to bring around due to teleport limitations), but what about those magic gear? Do they represent the belongings of foes vanquished in ages past? Is the fiend hanging on to them as means of rewarding/bribing people if he feels there is a need to? So what are we playing, D&D the RPG or D&D the wargame? Well, in theory at least, there is no reason why it cannot be both, or why they have to be mutually exclusive. But I admit I am digressing, perhaps too far even for my own liking. Where were we again?:P :embarrass
Kalarus 05-21-07, 06:43 AM	It is kinda funny now that I look back at it. The sample strategy listed for pit fiends have them summoning devils to their aid and buffing everyone with unholy aura prior to battle, but the balor makes no such provision. In light of this, I will temporarily rescind my earlier statements about dual-balor spamming SLAs until I have more relevant information.:) I believe it has to do with the inherent chaotic nature of Tanar'ri, and the inherent lawful nature of Baatezu. Let's pick up a few possibilities and (what I deem) appropriate reactions: Balor: 1) Summon a Balor. Balor1: Kill them for me! Balor2: Fine, but you are *so* screwed when we get home! 2) Summon less powerful Tanar'ri. Balor1: Kill them or die trying or I will suck the marrow out of your bones! Minions: Eeek! Chaaaarge! Pit Fiend 1) Can't summon another Pit Fiend... what's the deal there? Only one scenario: Pit Fiend summons less powerful devils. Pit Fiend: Prepare to assault the party on my command! Devils: Sir yes sir! While Pit Fiends stand as undisputed lords (it's the order of things), the Balor will likely have to constantly assert his position as overlord. Let's say the devils/demons win. The Pit Fiend's minions go drink a beer in the local pub in Baator, relating stories about how their general brilliantly outmaneuvered a group of pathetic mortals. The Balor's minions sneak off to a rival, relating to said rival how critical their presence was for their master's survival, how useful they could be to said rival if properly rewarded, and how weak the Balor really is for needing their aid in the first place. Now that I think about it, that's likely why a Pit Fiend can't summon another Pit Fiend. He would. Potentially losing a Pit Fiend due to pride doesn't serve the greater cause of Evil. Both Pit Fiends will realize this, no debt will incur since they are both fighting for the same cause. It is also very likely all he gets are a bunch of scrolls and a rod he can't use, though. How much sense does it make that a member of the Abyssal nobility has just a pile of unusable junk in his treasure chest? Truth is, not much. Yet the rulebooks are quite clear monsters do not get equipment, just random treasure. Actually it makes a good deal of sense. Adventurers can't typically use everything they come across, likely neither can demons. So you sell the items, hold onto them in case a situation comes along in which they'll be useful or hold onto them till you can get a better deal. Sure the Balor might have wanted a monk belt instead of a scroll of dismissal. Does that mean he's going to get it? Not necessarily. He'll probably need to trade for it, and here we're back to DM fiat deciding that every Balor in existence can and will trade for a Monk belt. Runestar: D&D the wargame and D&D the RPG aren't mutually exclusive of course, most people play something in between. However it is possible to play one of the extremes. The entire point of this, as related to the thread, is that Balor1 summoning Balor2 immediately does not do any justice to D&D the RPG, so it does not do justice to mixes either. It only does justice to D&D the wargame. In D&D the wargame, it's mostly numbercrunching and it could even be reasonable to put a fighter 1vs1 against a wizard. Why's this happening? Who cares, we're only doing battles. In D&D the RPG, not only do things have consequences and consistencies in the world, but there's also a heavy influence of party dynamics in which "even" a core fighter can shine.
Clawhound 05-21-07, 09:44 AM	Still, for the pit fiend at least, its cr would have taken into account the possible contributions of the 2 extra devils it has summoned (since success is more or less affirmed, meaning less variability - ie: it will always have 2 devils by its side prior to combat, no need to even fudge any rolls). Thus, if you opt to have it not summon anything, its cr should actually decrease instead. Incorrect. If the balor does summon a demon, but then isn't able to [i]blasphemy[i], then he doesn't use all his powers, and his CR should be lower? Is that correct? By that reasoning, every time a creature hasn't used a power that it has, it should be a lower CR. That's nonsense. The balor has more powers than he is likely to use in a single combat. It is not the powers that he has, but the overall assessment of a creature that gives its CR. Summoning is not important to the balor. The balor has a default script that does not include summoning. Clearly, not summoning does not decrease his CR. So using the default script results in the default CR. Changing the script, or adding in items that synergize well with the balor's abilities, will up the CR if this new combo is clearly better or worse than the default script.
runestar 05-21-07, 10:20 AM	Summoning is not important to the balor. The balor has a default script that does not include summoning. Clearly, not summoning does not decrease his CR. Then how do you explain the following line...?:confused: Round 1: Fire storm or implosion and quickened telekinesis, or summon additional demons. If the balor does not deem itself seriously threatened, it conserves abilities usable only once per day and uses blasphemy instead. I realize that there is the caveat of just what constitutes "seriously threatened", but in the very least, it does not rule out the possibility of a balor using its innate summoning capabilities from the get go, much less summon another balor if the situation seems dire enough (though I admit that a marilith or some other lesser demon seems more probable). And by definition, a cr20 challenge should feel very challenged by a lv20 party Note: This is a reversal to a statement I made earlier about the balor exhibiting no such tactics. I goofed up and glossed over the relevant parts.:embarrass I believe the default balor attack routine in the MM was simply to give people a rough idea of how it should be played (considering that its many special abilities can make it quite complex to run). It does not mean that it is a cr20 only when run in that particular manner, and suddenly the equivalent of a cr22 if run any other way. This is very unfair if the PCs are aware of its sample tactics and have buffed accordingly to counteract this. Naturally, if the PCs have taken the effort to protect themselves with mindblanks, the balor has no reason to use power word: stun or insanity. Ditto with blasphemy if the fighters have silence or greater spell immunity active. Or at least not until it has had some success with greater dispelling. The DM is not a moron, nor is he under any compunction to follow the script to the letter. He will naturally adjust the balor's tactics to suit the PCs' overall strategy accordingly. In the end, it may be tougher. It may be trickier. Bottom line is that I doubt it would be sufficient to raise the final cr anyways. If the balor does summon a demon, but then isn't able to [i]blasphemy[i], then he doesn't use all his powers, and his CR should be lower? Is that correct? By that reasoning, every time a creature hasn't used a power that it has, it should be a lower CR. That's nonsense. The balor has more powers than he is likely to use in a single combat. It is not the powers that he has, but the overall assessment of a creature that gives its CR. I was simply quoting the part where defeating a summoned fiend does not earn the PCs any xp (unless under extenuating circumstances) since it has already been factored into the cr of the actual encounter itself. It did not seem unreasonable to arrive at the same conclusion as I did, but in hindsight, your reasoning is not without its merits. I will look more into it.:)
Clawhound 05-21-07, 12:06 PM	What I meant by "the script doesn't include summoning" is more, "The script allows for non-summoning." My wording was bad there. :D I agree, the DM is not forced to use the script. It's there to help the DM to run the balor in an appropriately vicious manner.
runestar 05-21-07, 01:22 PM	On a side note, it should be becoming pretty obvious that I am not really interested in returning to the original discussion (it does not really interest me that much, to be honest), so if you are all willing to humour me, at least for the moment...:P :D I remember where I got the idea that no summoning capability (or at least opting not to use it) should result in an xp decrease. It was in CoTSQ module, where the BBEG summoned a demon to attack the PCs at night. It was mentioned that the PCs should not be awarded full xp for defeating it as it did not have full access to all its powers, namely its innate summoning capabilities. It's there to help the DM to run the balor in an appropriately vicious manner. I dunno - it does not seem all that vicious...For example, imagine this scenario involving a sample Pit Fiend. This was the result of a previous discussion in another thread which was looking for unique ways of running his pit fiend. He didn't exactly end up using all the suggestions, but here are some of the more interesting ones which turned up.:) One unique aspect is that he has had a special agreement with 2 special horned devils, who serve as his enforcers. They were specially picked because of their unique skills, which he feels complements his style of battle very well. He has had extensive training with both of them and as a result, they are all very familiar with one another's tactics in combat. As per the variant summoning rules in DMG, his innate devil summoning ability will always summon that particular horned devil, though it takes 24 hours to reform if killed in combat. In game terms, these horned devils have swapped out their feats for combat expertise, improved trip, multiattack, improved disarm, combat reflexes and quicken SLA: fireball. I swapped out improved sunder since they cannot sunder with their spiked chains anyways, and well, one thing just led to another... however, I am still undecided between improved disarm or power attack (to help their low damage output).:( Ssurchur is very precise in meting out his orders in combat, ordering the horned devils to quickly fill up any gaping holes in his defense. Though the horned devils are so well-trained that they are typically able to second-guess his would-be commands and compensate accordingly. As such, a typical showdown with Ssurchur and his 2 summoned horned devil retainers would be as follows... Prior to combat: summon 2 horned devils, unholy aura everyone, horned devils activate their own dispel evil SLAs. Round 1: Triple Quickened SLA: fireball, hoping to catch as many PCs in the blast radius as possible (but they do not bother with any likely rogues, trying to focus more on those with poor reflex saves - starting with wizard, then cleric and hopefully fighter in that order based on typical depictions of such roles). At this point in the game, the fireballs are not expected to do much damage, if at all, between evasion, decent reflex saves and likely fire resistance. However, it does serve to help in weeding out the stronger PCs from the weaker ones. The 2 horned devils fan out, hoping to control as large an area as they can with their spiked chains, and threaten as many PCs as they can using a combination of their ability to stun, improved trip and combat reflexes. This is to prevent the fighters from reaching the pit fiend, and provide as much disruption as possible so that the pit fiend can use his SLAs unmolested. One favourite tactic of theirs is to use improved trip on a PC, then use improved disarm to relieve him of his weapon, followed by subsequent attacks with their spiked chain (though they almost always use their 3rd attack to trip another PC within reach due to its low to-hit rating). Meanwhile, depending on how well the PCs faired against the initial onslaught, the pit fiend hangs back and either uses a targeted greater dispelling on a PC who seems particularly well protected, mass hold monster to aid the horned devils or power word: stun on a seemingly pesky rogue or spellcaster. Round 2: Another serving of tri-quickened SLA: fireball on the PC who seemed most affected the previous round (remember the devils' innate immunity to fire). They are not above performing CDGs on anyone paralyzed by hold monster. Pit fiend follows up with meteor swarm, then moves towards the PCs (using tumble if need be). Round 3: Final dosage of tri-quickened SLA: fireball (if PCs have proven unusually resilient to fire damage, they hold back on this). Pit fiend uses tumble to maneuver into an ideal spot where it can use blasphemy, or grapple a rogue. Bear in mind that its concentration check is high enough to succeed on any casting defensively check on a 5 or higher (or you might want to swap out great cleave for skill focus: concentration). Round 4+: If the PCs are proving to be exceptionally tough, teleport away to plan for another day. If the area has been locked down with dimensional lock, the pit fiend can replicate AMF using its innate wish SLA in a pinch (though I admit it might be unwilling to do so since it can only use wish 1/year - use dm discretion here, grapple a PC, and try to fly away (you might want to replace another feat - perhaps iron will? with hover). There it stays in the air, and bites the grappled PC repeatedly, hoping for its potent poisonous bite to do its job, while staying out of range of the archers. If the PCs seem unable to counter this tactic (since AMF makes it nigh impossible to overcome its regeneration), it slowly repeats this strategy, working its way down from the PC with the most likely lowest fort save (rogue, followed by wizard....) How is that?:cool:
Argaud 05-21-07, 02:15 PM	I remember where I got the idea that no summoning capability (or at least opting not to use it) should result in an xp decrease. It was in CoTSQ module, where the BBEG summoned a demon to attack the PCs at night. It was mentioned that the PCs should not be awarded full xp for defeating it as it did not have full access to all its powers, namely its innate summoning capabilities. Actually what the BBEG does, scrying and summoning fiends with Summon Monster, then ordering them to teleport to attack the PCs shouldn't, by the rules, be worth anything, since the spells are just part of the BBEG arsenal of tricks and are part of her CR. The modules recommends to give the PCs some xp, since they aren't facing the BBEG until much later, but less than for the normal creatures because they are around just a few rounds and can't use their summon abilities. But by the rules the fiends are worth 0 xp :(
Clawhound 05-21-07, 04:55 PM	I generally use the dividing line, "Did the creature use any of its precious time IN COMBAT to summon?" If Yes, then that was one of the opponent's actions, and counts as part of his difficulty. No additional XP. If No, they were summoned before combat, and I treat the summoned creatures as giving XP.
Khan the Destroyer 05-21-07, 05:48 PM	Are they the norm? Doubt it. They may not be so extreme however as you (seem to) suggest, apparently a lot of devoted D&D players on these boards seem to enjoy just such a thing. I don't know. Consistently disregarding anything that points to a viable non-caster because any caster can likely one-hit kill a monster seems pretty extreme to me. Consistently denying that non-casters are viable because enemy casters can dominate the game through spell combos seems pretty extreme to me. Consistently assuming that the party faces only huge+, mobile, spellcasting monstrosities seems pretty extreme to me. Consistently denying that a party can and will work together seems pretty extreme to me. Also, it may seem like a lot of people play that way, but I doubt it. The people on these forums represent a small portion of D&D players, and of those people, I don't think most of them play this way. I think the ones that do may be more vocal, since they generally assume that to play differently is to 'play monsters dumb' or 'coddle the fighter' or any other sort of arrogant bs. That may discourage others from posting to the contrary and make it seem as though the extreme gameplay is the norm. All speculation of course :). These discussions indeed do not seem to accurately represent party dynamics, or even D&D sessions that I play in (and I am guessing, that you play in) at all. Agreed. 'How good is the fighter with no help from the party members and no magic items up against a wizard that knows all the right spells for this PvP encounter and has prepared them today?' 'Ummm... who cares?' Plus, as per the DMG wealth guidelines, both the balor and pit fiend get 1d4 medium magic items (average market price of 10,000gp each) or 1d3 major magic items (average market price of 40,000gp each). In addition, the MM even states that intelligent monsters will use any portable magic gear they may have. Hypothetically, if the pit fiend lucks out and rolls a monk's belt or bracers of armour, why should it not use it? Go ahead and use it. But as an argument against a fighter build? No. I don't think so. The argument becomes 'Well, I guess your fighter build would hit the balor, assuming he didn't roll a Monk's Belt and an Animated Tower Shield for his treasure rating. If he did, he would use it, therefore the fighter is underpowered because you can't hit him.' As I said before when this came up the first time, there is no end. You can continue optimizing with what you have and refuse to set a standard. Switch the feats around for the Balor. Give him Leadership and build a cohort. Up all his saves and AC with magic gear. Get that summoned Balor in there and spam Blasphemy. Have the Balor start out with his army of demonic minions. In the end (assuming it gets reached), anyone going this route is essentially conceding the fact that the fighter build works. If you have to start adding items, swapping out feats, or aiming for a TPK to prove the fighter build is lackluster, you're working against yourself.
runestar 05-21-07, 06:34 PM	Actually, as mentioned earlier, I am not really arguing anything about the fighter anymore...:P And to be honest, I am not exactly sure what it is I am trying to prove, but it clearly has nothing to do with the fighter thread at the moment...:embarrass
Kalarus 05-21-07, 06:53 PM	I don't know. Consistently disregarding anything that points to a viable non-caster because any caster can likely one-hit kill a monster seems pretty extreme to me. Consistently denying that non-casters are viable because enemy casters can dominate the game through spell combos seems pretty extreme to me. Consistently assuming that the party faces only huge+, mobile, spellcasting monstrosities seems pretty extreme to me. Consistently denying that a party can and will work together seems pretty extreme to me. Also, it may seem like a lot of people play that way, but I doubt it. The people on these forums represent a small portion of D&D players, and of those people, I don't think most of them play this way. I think the ones that do may be more vocal, since they generally assume that to play differently is to 'play monsters dumb' or 'coddle the fighter' or any other sort of arrogant bs. That may discourage others from posting to the contrary and make it seem as though the extreme gameplay is the norm. All speculation of course :). I think you might have misinterpreted what I tried to say since I agree fully with you here. I meant to say that people who frequent these boards, arguing strongly on class and OP boards, are likely to be people who focus on the numbers aspect of the game. That their arguments can and have taken extreme positions is something I don't deny. I meant to say that they aren't extremely representative for the great amount of D&D players out there. In the end (assuming it gets reached), anyone going this route is essentially conceding the fact that the fighter build works. If you have to start adding items, swapping out feats, or aiming for a TPK to prove the fighter build is lackluster, you're working against yourself. Hear hear! Go Fighter, it's your birthday! :fight!: :cheer: P.S. I am fine arguing both for fighters and about Balor tactics. However the opposition remains omniously silent :D
Argaud 05-21-07, 07:28 PM	I dunno - it does not seem all that vicious...For example, imagine this scenario involving a sample Pit Fiend. This was the result of a previous discussion in another thread which was looking for unique ways of running his pit fiend. He didn't exactly end up using all the suggestions, but here are some of the more interesting ones which turned up.:) One unique aspect is that he has had a special agreement with 2 special horned devils, who serve as his enforcers. They were specially picked because of their unique skills, which he feels complements his style of battle very well. He has had extensive training with both of them and as a result, they are all very familiar with one another's tactics in combat. As per the variant summoning rules in DMG, his innate devil summoning ability will always summon that particular horned devil, though it takes 24 hours to reform if killed in combat. In game terms, these horned devils have swapped out their feats for combat expertise, improved trip, multiattack, improved disarm, combat reflexes and quicken SLA: fireball. I swapped out improved sunder since they cannot sunder with their spiked chains anyways, and well, one thing just led to another... however, I am still undecided between improved disarm or power attack (to help their low damage output).:( <Snip> How is that?:cool: Gee, I dunno. Is this Pit Fiend part of the Hellish Bureau of Screwing Over Adventurers, perchance? :) Because his tactics and his minion's tactics seem geared exclusively to destroy medium-sized humanoids with class levels that are bothered by tripping. Which aren't usually what Pit Fiends fight. Those high level fiends should probably be optimized to fight powerful outsiders like balors, mariliths and planetars, and to survive the cut-throat intriges of Hell. Changing the feats and skills to neuter PCs actually makes them easy victims of their real enemies, I can't see it happen very often.
Kalarus 05-22-07, 06:31 AM	Gee, I dunno. Is this Pit Fiend part of the Hellish Bureau of Screwing Over Adventurers, perchance? :) Because his tactics and his minion's tactics seem geared exclusively to destroy medium-sized humanoids with class levels that are bothered by tripping. Which aren't usually what Pit Fiends fight. Those high level fiends should probably be optimized to fight powerful outsiders like balors, mariliths and planetars, and to survive the cut-throat intriges of Hell. Changing the feats and skills to neuter PCs actually makes them easy victims of their real enemies, I can't see it happen very often. There are classes that are not bothered by tripping? I mean other than to be able to withstand the attempt, if it succeeds, it's a pain in the arse. Other than that I agree, that Pit Fiend scenario was written exclusively to neuter PCs. I couldn't help thinking, "If this is not vicious, I wonder what *does* qualify as vicious."
Argaud 05-22-07, 09:58 AM	There are classes that are not bothered by tripping? I mean other than to be able to withstand the attempt, if it succeeds, it's a pain in the arse. Other than that I agree, that Pit Fiend scenario was written exclusively to neuter PCs. I couldn't help thinking, "If this is not vicious, I wonder what *does* qualify as vicious." Most PC classes are bothered by tripping... unless they are using wingless flight, in which case they aren't. At level 20... that is most PCs, by the way. However there are many monsters that are not bothered by tripping. Monsters that threaten Pit Fiends are usually not bothered. They are too big to be tripped, or they have slas that do not require them to stand (and they can teleport at will anyway).
Zelck 05-22-07, 05:06 PM	In response to the Fighter character, I've made a Cleric to fill the same tank and attack role, and possibly do it better. It's here (http://www.thetangledweb.net/profiler/view.php?id=15656). I haven't done the spells or the post-buff stats yet (greater magic weapon and magic vestments are already factored in), but with a Quickened Divine Power alone, we're looking at +8 to attack and 5 extra damage, resulting in a +34/+34/+29/+24 full attack sequence for 1d8+15 damage each hit. Quickened Divine Favor adds +3 to attack and damage, and a Righteous Might adds a net of +1 attack and +6.5 damage I think? Oh, and un-buffed, this guy has 1 less AC than the fighter, and has a defending weapon if extra AC is needed. And I haven't even done much with spells!
Kalarus 05-22-07, 06:25 PM	In response to the Fighter character, I've made a Cleric to fill the same tank and attack role, and possibly do it better. It's here (http://www.thetangledweb.net/profiler/view.php?id=15656). I haven't done the spells or the post-buff stats yet (greater magic weapon and magic vestments are already factored in), but with a Quickened Divine Power alone, we're looking at +8 to attack and 5 extra damage, resulting in a +34/+34/+29/+24 full attack sequence for 1d8+15 damage each hit. Quickened Divine Favor adds +3 to attack and damage, and a Righteous Might adds a net of +1 attack and +6.5 damage I think? Oh, and un-buffed, this guy has 1 less AC than the fighter, and has a defending weapon if extra AC is needed. And I haven't even done much with spells! Does anyone have a club for me? I think it's time to beat that dead horse again. And again. And again. By the way, stop using quickened spells if you want to do it "properly", you completely forgot about 20 nightsticks in a backpack and divine metamagic on persistent spells.
Zelck 05-22-07, 07:29 PM	By the way, stop using quickened spells if you want to do it "properly", you completely forgot about 20 nightsticks in a backpack and divine metamagic on persistent spells. The point was Core only, Kalarus.
navar100 05-22-07, 08:07 PM	The point was Core only, Kalarus. Which is still irrelevant because it doesn't matter how good a dedicated warrior a cleric can be; the fighter is a capable dedicated warrior himself.
Bob Loblaw 05-23-07, 12:23 AM	In response to the Fighter character, I've made a Cleric to fill the same tank and attack role, and possibly do it better. It's here (http://www.thetangledweb.net/profiler/view.php?id=15656). I haven't done the spells or the post-buff stats yet (greater magic weapon and magic vestments are already factored in), but with a Quickened Divine Power alone, we're looking at +8 to attack and 5 extra damage, resulting in a +34/+34/+29/+24 full attack sequence for 1d8+15 damage each hit. Quickened Divine Favor adds +3 to attack and damage, and a Righteous Might adds a net of +1 attack and +6.5 damage I think? Oh, and un-buffed, this guy has 1 less AC than the fighter, and has a defending weapon if extra AC is needed. And I haven't even done much with spells! I haven't looked at the cleric. I'm sure it's a fine build. It does nothing to show that the fighter is incapable of doing his job. You can make a character of every class able to tank and would still not be able to show that the fighter can't tank. I will be putting my fighter back up with corrections hopefully over the weekend. I have a long work week and threw my back out so concentrating enough to redo the magic items has been difficult.
Kalarus 05-23-07, 07:51 AM	The point was Core only, Kalarus. Well I am sorry if I wasn't obviously sarcastic enough in that post, next time I'll try to overdo it even more. The point was that this thread isn't about "classes that can do things that fighters do", it's about making a viable fighter. The sarcasm was meant to stop the reptition of the endless discussion about "other classes that can tank" and it'd only be a matter of time before someone ignored the Core requirement and started whining about ToB again. Simply trying to smother something that doesn't need to be revived for the thousandth time.
Ghenesh 05-23-07, 11:56 AM	The post is called "Any reason to have a fighter... 2!", I guess its fine to post a build of a class who does a better job than the fighter, cause that's a reason not to have a fighter, which is pertinent to the thread. The main issue with the Fighter is that it's imposible for it to be great at fighting, cause the whole game is based on combat, most feats, spells and class features are used during combat, so every single character is supposed to fight. You can make a good build out of a Warrior if you want to, but mechanically the point is: there is no point on the Fighter, cause everything else in DnD is good at fighting, if at least the class were good at something else... but that's not the case.
Argaud 05-23-07, 12:12 PM	In response to the Fighter character, I've made a Cleric to fill the same tank and attack role, and possibly do it better. It's here (http://www.thetangledweb.net/profiler/view.php?id=15656). I haven't done the spells or the post-buff stats yet (greater magic weapon and magic vestments are already factored in), but with a Quickened Divine Power alone, we're looking at +8 to attack and 5 extra damage, resulting in a +34/+34/+29/+24 full attack sequence for 1d8+15 damage each hit. Quickened Divine Favor adds +3 to attack and damage, and a Righteous Might adds a net of +1 attack and +6.5 damage I think? Oh, and un-buffed, this guy has 1 less AC than the fighter, and has a defending weapon if extra AC is needed. And I haven't even done much with spells! Several questions come to mind. For instance: How does this guy work before he can quicken Divine Power (he can't before level 15) or Righteous Might (he can't before level 17)? Why is level 20 interesting to know if a build is useful? The game is over at level 20, what count are the 19 levels before. Even if we are talking of levels over 15, how many times a day can he cast all three buffs? Most days will have more than one fight, and those are a lot of level 8 and 9 spells. He might be able to do it at level 20, when he has 4-5 level 8 and 9 spells, but who cares about level 20? He can't even at level 17 (he better pack Rods of Quicken!). How many level 20 battles last the 3 rounds he needs to fully buff while fighting? Because before the 3 rounds he is inferior to a fighter even before considering feats. I can't see your build right now, I get a "This Account Has Exceeded Its CPU Quota" message, but I suspect the lack of feats is going to mean an all around lack of melee options. Can the cleric attack at range? Can he grapple, sunder, disarm or tumble out of an enemy's reach? How is his initiative? I bet his will save is good, but what about the others?
Clawhound 05-23-07, 12:17 PM	At this point, folks have shown, reasonably well, that the fighter is able to adequately perform in a party context. The fighter is a solid choice. We do acknowledge that other classes can be tweaked out "better". We think that's great. The ability of another class to be better in any area does not make the fighter bad. The fighter is one good choice among a continuum of good choices. As long as the fighter is able to perform solidly, and the class has something that attracts a player to choose that class given multiple choices, then the fighter is a worthwhile class. Let me re-emphasize that last point: if there is something about the class that attracts a reasonably educated player, and the class is a appropriate choice chosen from among other choices for what it offers, that class is worth having. I believe that the fighter fits that description.
Archangel62 05-23-07, 12:37 PM	The point was that this thread isn't about "classes that can do things that fighters do", it's about making a viable fighter. *reads title* actually it brings up the question of if there is any reason to have a fighter and since if there are other classes that can do the fighters job as well as or better and offer more to the group then that would seem to be just slightly relevant.
Kalarus 05-23-07, 05:00 PM	*reads title* actually it brings up the question of if there is any reason to have a fighter and since if there are other classes that can do the fighters job as well as or better and offer more to the group then that would seem to be just slightly relevant. Not really. Only if you assume the appeal in any class lies only in doing the numbers. It doesn't. The Fighter can do his job, that has already been shown. The Figher class has appeal to people regardless of wether or not another class might be better at what he does. Pun-Pun can do better than a Fighter at being a tank, but nobody really wants to play Pun-Pun. If I am the kind of person that just likes grabbing a weapon and placing it forcibly in another's face without having to keep track of spells, actions displeasing to my deity (or "cause" if you want to insist on that route), buffing/healing the party/self, etc., I have a very good reason for wanting to play a Fighter. Playing a Cleric or Druid is ALWAYS going to give me a different kind of roleplay experience than playing a Fighter. At the end, a Cleric isn't a Fighter. A Druid isn't a Fighter. They can do the fighter's job if built that way, that is all. I base my character choices on what I like to play, not what I want to add to the group. My fighter is a damn lot of fun. Wouldn't want to play a Cleric for all the power in the world.
Leo 05-23-07, 06:48 PM	Any reason to be a fighter? 1-You just love feats 2-You want to be a warrior in heavy armor and with a sword. A big one at that. And then wave it around in crazy ways that would make a warblade blush of shame. 3-You want to be a melee and have a relaxing time whitout bothering about spells or limited use abilities. I could think of more.
Bob Loblaw 05-23-07, 07:29 PM	*reads title* actually it brings up the question of if there is any reason to have a fighter and since if there are other classes that can do the fighters job as well as or better and offer more to the group then that would seem to be just slightly relevant. When we gave dozens of reasons, those reasons were either hand waved away or we were told that we were wrong. It may seem strange to some people, but not everyone likes the added complexity of casters or the ToB maneuvers. So if the fighter can do his job, whatever it is he is designed to do, without adding to the complexity, then there is a reason to play a fighter.
Archangel62 05-23-07, 08:27 PM	Not really. Only if you assume the appeal in any class lies only in doing the numbers. It doesn't. The Fighter can do his job, that has already been shown. The Figher class has appeal to people regardless of wether or not another class might be better at what he does. Pun-Pun can do better than a Fighter at being a tank, but nobody really wants to play Pun-Pun. If I am the kind of person that just likes grabbing a weapon and placing it forcibly in another's face without having to keep track of spells, actions displeasing to my deity (or "cause" if you want to insist on that route), buffing/healing the party/self, etc., I have a very good reason for wanting to play a Fighter. Playing a Cleric or Druid is ALWAYS going to give me a different kind of roleplay experience than playing a Fighter. At the end, a Cleric isn't a Fighter. A Druid isn't a Fighter. They can do the fighter's job if built that way, that is all. I base my character choices on what I like to play, not what I want to add to the group. My fighter is a damn lot of fun. Wouldn't want to play a Cleric for all the power in the world. Yes, but again we're back to player choice. Also, RP view is somewhat subjective, as has been pointed out, and apparently ignored, RP is a non-factor. I can RP a character as anything, RP is entirely based on the individual not on the mechanics. The same is true for player preference. The question is only able to be logically debated if you look at it mechanically.
Khan the Destroyer 05-23-07, 09:15 PM	Yes, but again we're back to player choice. Also, RP view is somewhat subjective, as has been pointed out, and apparently ignored, RP is a non-factor. I can RP a character as anything, RP is entirely based on the individual not on the mechanics. The same is true for player preference. The question is only able to be logically debated if you look at it mechanically. This then spirals into nonsense. Mechanics become meaningless when they represent something that will never see use in a regular game.
Bob Loblaw 05-23-07, 10:13 PM	Yes, but again we're back to player choice. Also, RP view is somewhat subjective, as has been pointed out, and apparently ignored, RP is a non-factor. I can RP a character as anything, RP is entirely based on the individual not on the mechanics. The same is true for player preference. The question is only able to be logically debated if you look at it mechanically. Let me check the title of the thread again..."Any reason to have a fighter?" So why isn't that a viable reason? It is a reason and fits the criteria of the thread. For what it's worth, I agree to a point. However, mechanics cannot be the only reason to play a class. What about the viable builds that are out there? What about the reasons that have been given? Why are those reasons not good enough?
Archangel62 05-24-07, 12:28 AM	Let me check the title of the thread again..."Any reason to have a fighter?" So why isn't that a viable reason? It is a reason and fits the criteria of the thread. For what it's worth, I agree to a point. However, mechanics cannot be the only reason to play a class. What about the viable builds that are out there? What about the reasons that have been given? Why are those reasons not good enough? I can agree that mechanics alone aren't the only reason to be a class, but RP is too much of an X factor, it depends more on the player than on anything else. With mechanics we can be fairly impartial.
Zelck 05-24-07, 01:47 AM	EDIT TO ADD: Something pretty important here. The Ring of Greater Heroism costs over 200,000 gold, which makes it epic and multiplies its price by 10. You could substitute a Ring of Heroism, however. How does this guy work before he can quicken Divine Power (he can't before level 15) or Righteous Might (he can't before level 17)? Why is level 20 interesting to know if a build is useful? The game is over at level 20, what count are the 19 levels before. At lower levels, the Cleric can use Divine Favor and later Quickened Divine Favor to bridge most of the gap between the attack bonus. Also, if there's a round to buff, stuff like Bless and a normally cast Divine Power can take care of the rest. I'd also like to point out that at low levels, the Fighter suffers from a low Will save. The Cleric is much less likely to get taken out of the fight or worse be turned against his friends. They can also provide crucial backup healing in emergency situations, or use their remaining spell slots for offense or divinations. They have excellent AC coming out of the gate, which can be even higher than the Fighter's. Even if we are talking of levels over 15, how many times a day can he cast all three buffs? Most days will have more than one fight, and those are a lot of level 8 and 9 spells. He might be able to do it at level 20, when he has 4-5 level 8 and 9 spells, but who cares about level 20? He can't even at level 17 (he better pack Rods of Quicken!). At level 15 with 26 Wis (16 base +4 level +6 item), the Cleric gets 2 level 8 slots and one domain slot. Ignoring the domain slot, that's enough for 2 quickened Divine Powers. They also get 6 normal level 5 slots, good for 2 Righteous Mights and 3 quickened Divine Favors, and 7 level 4 slots which can hold 3 or 4 Divine Powers. They'd take one round to move into position and buff with either a quickened Divine Power + Righteous Might for tough fights or Divine Power + quickened Divine Favor for normal fights. Alternatively, they could cast a quickened buff and lead off with some attack spell. By the way, we're comparing adding a Fighter vs. a Cleric to a party. We assume there's another divine caster that's taking more of a healing/party support role. Thus, the Cleric's lack of party support spells is no drawback, just like how the Fighter's lack of party support spells is no drawback. How many level 20 battles last the 3 rounds he needs to fully buff while fighting? Because before the 3 rounds he is inferior to a fighter even before considering feats. Round 1: Quickened Divine Power, Righteous Might, move. Round 2: Quickened Divine Favor, full attack. Compare with the posted fighter's sequence: Round 1: Activate Ring of Enlarge Person, move. Round 2: Full attack. If that for some reason doesn't work, there's always the Cleric's fall-back plan: Round 1: Gate. Round 2: Win. Much more elegant, no? ;) I can't see your build right now, I get a "This Account Has Exceeded Its CPU Quota" message, but I suspect the lack of feats is going to mean an all around lack of melee options. Can the cleric attack at range? Can he grapple, sunder, disarm or tumble out of an enemy's reach? How is his initiative? I bet his will save is good, but what about the others? Sorry about the hosting, it gets finicky sometimes. Anyway, it's true that the Cleric has fewer melee options, although this is primarily because I built it to be similar to Loblaw's Fighter posted a few pages back, who also lacks these options. On the other hand, grappling and disarming are fairly situational, and sundering is usually a bad option because it destroys your treasure. Indeed, if you really want them, I left 3 open feats for customization. The cleric I built can't tumble, although that's easily remedied by moving those 23 skill points from Spellcraft to Tumble. Unlike the Fighter, the Cleric lacks a ranged weapon. However, I assumed that he could use spells to fight at range. Additionally, even the best archers are bested by spellcasters at ranged combat, especially if the archers are built to be tanks. The Cleric has a +1 Dexterity modifier and Improved Initiative, along with stuff like Luckstones and the ability check-boosting Ioun Stone. His saves are also excellent, with the lowest being Reflex in the high teens. Fortitude is in the high 20's, and Will is in the 30's.
Bob Loblaw 05-24-07, 10:29 AM	EDIT TO ADD: Something pretty important here. The Ring of Greater Heroism costs over 200,000 gold, which makes it epic and multiplies its price by 10. You could substitute a Ring of Heroism, however. As far as I can tell, this only applies to weapons. I'd also like to point out that at low levels, the Fighter suffers from a low Will save. The Cleric is much less likely to get taken out of the fight or worse be turned against his friends. They can also provide crucial backup healing in emergency situations, or use their remaining spell slots for offense or divinations. They have excellent AC coming out of the gate, which can be even higher than the Fighter's. The low Will save only starts to really become an issue starting at about level 12 or so. My fighter's Will save at that level should be +7 plus gear. While not as good as the cleric's obviously, it is still not bad either. I noticed that AC starts to really become an issue for all the non-casters quickly after level 12 or so. Unless the non-casters really focus on improving their AC they aren't going to keep up. Unfortunately, for every area they focus on, another gets left behind. Such is the nature of non-casters. By the way, we're comparing adding a Fighter vs. a Cleric to a party. We assume there's another divine caster that's taking more of a healing/party support role. Thus, the Cleric's lack of party support spells is no drawback, just like how the Fighter's lack of party support spells is no drawback. I was building my fighter under the assumption that the party is fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard. This is the standard party that the designers used. If that for some reason doesn't work, there's always the Cleric's fall-back plan: Round 1: Gate. Round 2: Win. Much more elegant, no? ;) No because your cleric had to call for help ;). Just kidding. It is a viable tactic. When the casters have to start bringing in reinforcements though, it shows that they can't handle the problem on their own. I would say that the fighter would probably need reinforcements as well in the same situation and would be up a creek if so. Anyway, it's true that the Cleric has fewer melee options, although this is primarily because I built it to be similar to Loblaw's Fighter posted a few pages back, who also lacks these options. Actually, your cleric would have more options available to him than you think. Because of his higher base attack, he can afford to take penalties if necessary. I haven't looked at the build, but even if you have Power Attack or Combat Expertise, you have 5 to 10 points more to play with than the druid, rogue, wizard, etc. You might be able to afford to fight defensively. The higher your base attack, the more you options you have available if you have the right feats. On the other hand, grappling and disarming are fairly situational, and sundering is usually a bad option because it destroys your treasure. Sometimes it's the best option. You'll notice that my sunder and disarm are equal chances so I can use whatever I need at the time. The only reason I took Improved Grapple was because there are plenty of ways to grapple. The balor's whip, spells, the pit fiend has improved grab, dragons have Crush and Snatch, etc. Grappling can remain a serious issue so I needed to deal with it. I was going to get a ring of freedom of movement (and I still might) but I was tight on cash. Indeed, if you really want them, I left 3 open feats for customization. The cleric I built can't tumble, although that's easily remedied by moving those 23 skill points from Spellcraft to Tumble. I wouldn't move them from Spellcraft to Tumble. Instead, see if you can improve things in other ways. Can you change the armor to mithril? Can you use your 2 of your three feats to get +5 to Tumble? Can you shift only a couple points instead? Can you get some gear that adds bonuses to your skill checks? Your cleric should be able to use Spellcraft so you can counterspell and use some other options as well. Unlike the Fighter, the Cleric lacks a ranged weapon. However, I assumed that he could use spells to fight at range. Additionally, even the best archers are bested by spellcasters at ranged combat, especially if the archers are built to be tanks. My ranged weapon is actually secondary. You'll notice that I didn't take any of the archery feats. I could have and may make some adjustments. Your spells should be your ranged option.
Khan the Destroyer 05-24-07, 10:48 AM	...stuff about a cleric...Yeah, we know how melee clerics work. Bob made a core-only fighter to discount the claims that you *need* supplements other than Core books to be a viable fighter. Sure, it seems a little off-topic to the OP, but that's been the nature of this thread for ages now. Is a fighter viable? Yes. Oh, but you need splat books to do it. Is a core-only fighter viable? Yes. Oh, but a cleric is too. Point being? There is no reason to play a fighter. There's that pro-caster logic again.
Argaud 05-24-07, 11:46 AM	At lower levels, the Cleric can use Divine Favor and later Quickened Divine Favor to bridge most of the gap between the attack bonus. Also, if there's a round to buff, stuff like Bless and a normally cast Divine Power can take care of the rest. At what levels and how many times each day? I'd also like to point out that at low levels, the Fighter suffers from a low Will save. The Cleric is much less likely to get taken out of the fight or worse be turned against his friends. Dominate Person is not a low-level spell. I think by the time it appears the fighter Will save is decent. No comments in the backup healing (and utility spellcasting) that is where the cleric really shines. I still think he is inferior to the fighter in combat until the very last levels. If that for some reason doesn't work, there's always the Cleric's fall-back plan: Round 1: Gate. Round 2: Win. Much more elegant, no? ;) Ooooh, lets abuse broken mechanics ;) Fighter's Round 1: Use Candle of Invocation Fighter's Round 2: Win Gold is cheaper than xp. Sorry about the hosting, it gets finicky sometimes. Anyway, it's true that the Cleric has fewer melee options, although this is primarily because I built it to be similar to Loblaw's Fighter posted a few pages back, who also lacks these options. Are we looking at the same fighter? I'd swear he had all those feats when I wrote my comment.
Clawhound 05-24-07, 11:47 AM	Reasons to play a fighter: Fighter fits your fluff conception better than a caster. You are tired of playing casters. Your DM is enforcing clerical ethics to your disadvantage. Your DM banned the best builds because he wanted some diversity in the game. Your DM is good at designing encounters to challenge the party, so no matter how powerful you get, the encounters are always the same effective difficulty. You like a challenge. You want to irk the powergamers in your group. You've never played a fighter and want first hand knowledge of the class. Well, not a perfect list, but good enough to show some real world examples of why you may pick a fighter.
Otto the Bugbear 05-24-07, 12:22 PM	My :twocents: Reasons to play a fighter: Fighter fits your fluff conception better than a caster. Yes. And on the opposite side of that penny, if you fluff is to play a caster that's awesome at fighting, you could do that too and fill the same role, while still have spell powah. You are tired of playing casters. Yes. Your DM is enforcing clerical ethics to your disadvantage. Yes. Though this has vast potential to contradict the "your fluff conception" you mention above. Your DM banned the best builds because he wanted some diversity in the game. Yes. Thought the DM should realize two things if this is happening. 1) My character. Get your filthy stinking paws off it. 2) "In fact, the highest, subtlest, most effective form of powergaming of all is to play the character your DM wishes he were playing." -- Tony Vargas Which, in reality, isn't fighter specific anyway. The DM could do that exact thing with rogues, bards, clerics, druids or, yes, fighters too. Your DM is good at designing encounters to challenge the party, so no matter how powerful you get, the encounters are always the same effective difficulty. The most important part of this post. In fact, good DMs will do this, while poor ones will just wave the ban-stick around and come up with half-assed justification afterward. Sometimes after coming to their message board of choice and perusing the most popular anti-whatever sentiments that swirl around the topic at hand. See the "Is ToB to anime" thread. You like a challenge. Again, could apply to any class. Players that are challenged by managing huge spell lists will take wizard, cleric or druid. Players that are challenged to find better ways to be more useful outside of combat will take a rogue or ranger. Players that are challenged by pure combat, well, they make combat monks. ;) You want to irk the powergamers in your group. :confused: How does that work. They want to be the most powerful, so you taking a class that isn't as powerful as what they've taken -- spell powah again -- should please them to no end. You've never played a fighter and want first hand knowledge of the class. Yes. And, really, you could replace the word "fighter" with "non-casting melee character". Fighter 20 is a fighter Ranger 2 / Fighter 2 / Cobra Strike Monk 2 / Shou Disciple 4 / Dervish 7 / Exotic Weapon Master 1 is also a "fighter". As in, he fights in the same style of 'Stabbing things. In the face. With a sword." So, in that context, yes, there are reasons to play a fighter. If the context is changed to "Is there a reason to play a fighter when you can accomplish the same thing, and still have full or nearly full casting to fall back upon", it gets a little tougher. My favorite fighter right now? Fighter 2 / Cleric 4 / Prestige Paladin 5 / Hospitaller 9 (or Fist of Raziel 9 if BoeD is allowed). Chop things up and still a great backup caster.
Kratch 05-24-07, 12:29 PM	At lower levels, the Cleric can use Divine Favor and later Quickened Divine Favor to bridge most of the gap between the attack bonus. Also, if there's a round to buff, stuff like Bless and a normally cast Divine Power can take care of the rest. Divine Favour only starts to bridge the gap if the fighter doesn't use the spec line (a likely option in a core only build, i will admit). But then, if he isn't taking the spec line, he's taking other feats instead that give him options that Divine favour doesn't account for (such as extra attacks from things like TWF, Cleave, Combat reflex's, improved trip, etc). At level 15 with 26 Wis (16 base +4 level +6 item), the Cleric gets 2 level 8 slots and one domain slot. Ignoring the domain slot, that's enough for 2 quickened Divine Powers. They also get 6 normal level 5 slots, good for 2 Righteous Mights and 3 quickened Divine Favors, and 7 level 4 slots which can hold 3 or 4 Divine Powers. They'd take one round to move into position and buff with either a quickened Divine Power + Righteous Might for tough fights or Divine Power + quickened Divine Favor for normal fights. Alternatively, they could cast a quickened buff and lead off with some attack spell. After accounting for all those buffs, your left with a handfull of level 1-3 spells, good for healing and some utility, but very limited in combat usfulness (the level 3's might be useful, but generally these are all rarely useful against level 15 opponents, due to lower DC's and other), wheras the fighter has all his feats (also sometimes a feat or 2 aren't useful in a situation, but most are), and once used, the fighter still has all his feats and if he fails on a first try, can try again, If the cleric fails on his first try on hold person, he may not have a second chance. By the way, we're comparing adding a Fighter vs. a Cleric to a party. We assume there's another divine caster that's taking more of a healing/party support role. Thus, the Cleric's lack of party support spells is no drawback, just like how the Fighter's lack of party support spells is no drawback. Agreed. I also believe the cleric would offer more out of combat options, but would be little more then a warrior with limited healing in combat and even fewer feats (warriors don't need quicken metamagic). Round 1: Quickened Divine Power, Righteous Might, move. Round 2: Quickened Divine Favor, full attack. Compare with the posted fighter's sequence: Round 1: Activate Ring of Enlarge Person, move. Round 2: Full attack. Well, as an item takes 1 standard action or the time to cast the spell to activate (if memory serves, i admit i could be wrong on this), an item of activated enlarge is a poor idea. Better options would include a persistent item, permancied Enlarge, a friendly wizard ally with a bonus spell item (ring of wizardry, pearl of power, etc) (if he's the sort willing to cast a first level spell on an ally if that will end the encounter rather then burn a 9th level spell so he can have the glory), a cohort with enlarge, a stack of potions, etc. I prefer a combination of the friendly wizard and potions (for when the wizard feels he needs to cast other spells) In all but the case of potions, that first round is more then Likely going to include a charge attack, posibly a rather nasty one if he's chosen the feats for it. There's also the issue of dispels. You didn't appear to activate a prayer bead to up your caster level in the example above. If that for some reason doesn't work, there's always the Cleric's fall-back plan: Round 1: Gate. Round 2: Win. By your example spell list above (granted, it didn't include 9th level spells due to only being level 15 (at which point your fall-back is ineffective cause you don't have it), but you set a precedent), you've shown your likely to fill up your top level slots with quickened buffs over level appropriate spells. But it is entirely possible you'd have a gate or 2 in memory. This is why i hate debating the caster argument. Dispite the fact spell lists need to be set up before the player begins an encounter, in these debates, the debater simply assumes he has whatever spell is required or desired to prove their point, with little consideration to other spells required/prepared/already used. Sorry about the hosting, it gets finicky sometimes. Anyway, it's true that the Cleric has fewer melee options, although this is primarily because I built it to be similar to Loblaw's Fighter posted a few pages back, who also lacks these options. On the other hand, grappling and disarming are fairly situational, and sundering is usually a bad option because it destroys your treasure. Indeed, if you really want them, I left 3 open feats for customization. The cleric I built can't tumble, although that's easily remedied by moving those 23 skill points from Spellcraft to Tumble. grappling is actually very common. I'm sure there are more grapplerers in the MM then creatures immune to trip (as a comparison to those who claim fighters suck cause tripper builds become usless (note: not an accusation)), and as you've slotted all your spells on melee buffs, you don't appear to have freedom of movement (unless on an item). And if you get grappled before casting your buffs (such as on a surprise round), you are going to be WAY behind the fighter on your opposed checks EDIT: In response to the Fighter character, I've made a Cleric to fill the same tank and attack role, and possibly do it better. It's here (http://www.thetangledweb.net/profiler/view.php?id=15656). I haven't done the spells or the post-buff stats yet (greater magic weapon and magic vestments are already factored in), but with a Quickened Divine Power alone, we're looking at +8 to attack and 5 extra damage, resulting in a +34/+34/+29/+24 full attack sequence for 1d8+15 damage each hit. Quickened Divine Favor adds +3 to attack and damage, and a Righteous Might adds a net of +1 attack and +6.5 damage I think? That "5 extra damage" from Divine power (plus some of that to hit) and the "+6.5 damage" (how do you get that? size modifier to weapon damage i assume?) (and to hit bonus) from Rightious might are for the most part from the str bonus's those spells give, which are generally used to play catch-up to the fighters str, which he hasn't bee slushing off for increased wisdom. And I haven't even done much with spells! Not many spells left to do much with, based on the buff choice breadown i responded to above.
Kratch 05-24-07, 12:52 PM	My :twocents: Thought the DM should realize two things if this is happening. 1) My character. Get your filthy stinking paws off it. The DM could then follow up with, "get your filthy stinking powergaming *** out of my game". It's the DM's who set the rules, and if that includes restrictions on builds, as abhorent as i may find that, it's his game, deal with it or start your own. Which, in reality, isn't fighter specific anyway. The DM could do that exact thing with rogues, bards, clerics, druids or, yes, fighters too. None of his reasons were intended to be fighter specific. So long as they apply to figher (reguardless if they allply to another class), then they appropriately answer the threads question. Why is it you seem to be discounting these as viable reasons to play a fighter simply because they can be applied to other class's too. Is someone who wants to play a wizard because he finds it fun going to find himself with no reason to play a wizard anymore because he finds rogues fun too? :confused: How does that work. They want to be the most powerful, so you taking a class that isn't as powerful as what they've taken -- spell powah again -- should please them to no end. Some powergamers are so obsessed with the power that even their party needs to be optimized, and those are often the people who think fighters suck and having one in they're party is destroying the optimization. If the context is changed to "Is there a reason to play a fighter when you can accomplish the same thing, and still have full or nearly full casting to fall back upon", it gets a little tougher. It's also a rather more specific, tailored against non-caster context, isn't it? I could always put it into the context of "Is there any reason to play anything other then a cleric when you can accomplish the same offensive/defensive things, and still have healing, turning, armour, better saves and better BAB and full or nearly full casting to fall back on." now we've also eliminated wizards, sorcerers, druids, bards, fighters, barbarians, paladins, rangers, etc, etc, etc. as being viable to play.
Clawhound 05-24-07, 01:27 PM	What we're getting into is: by what criteria does a player choose a character class? Where the criteria changes, so does the answer. Here are some normal criteria for character creation: Some criteria is DM imposed. (No warforged in Forgotten Realms.) Some criteria is player imposed. (I want to play an X). Some criteria is group imposed. (The players prefer X type of game.) Some criteria is objective. (Who is the best at X?) Some criteria is subjective. (I don't enjoying X aspect of the game.) Some criteria is exploratory. (I want to do something new, and not just rehash a build.) Some criteria is irrational. (I only want to play halflings.) Some criteria is optimizing. (What's the best?) Some criteria is practicality. (It's a pickup game, so I'll go with what I know.) Some criteria is party dynamics. (We already have an X, so I'll make a Y.) As you can see, optimizing is one point of many criteria. Even if an option is an objective "best", it may fall by other measures. The reason to have a fighter is that it meets the most points of your criteria. For that matter, the reason to have any character is that it meets the most points of your criteria. I dare say, that's the measure of all character classes in every book. Do not confuse your priorities with the priorities of others. Yours may seem like the most sensical way to do things, but others think that their priorities are just as sensical. Good sportsmanship says that you should accept the decisions of your teammates and work with what you've got.
Scion of Coldshard 05-24-07, 01:43 PM	It has been mentioned before but it might be time to mention it again. Different people in this thread are argueing different points of view with the same, or similar, terminology. In effect, people are argueing past one another because of differences in how they are using the terms. For some people, if there is a class that can do the fighters job and do other useful things to help the party as well then there is no reason to have the fighter who can only do the fighter bit. For others, as long as the fighter is doing something then he is ok in their book. There look to be several different encampments all lobbing bits of different topics at one another over and over again. Some of these lobs are justified, others are based on either questionable or flat out wrong rules interpretations. Taking a few examples from this page: Is a fighter viable? Yes. There is the word 'viable' which different people would use differently. With the two ways I mentioned above one person could say that he is not viable since other character builds could do the fighters job plus more while another person could say that he is viable because he can fight. There is no reason to play a fighter. There's that pro-caster logic again. This looks to be purposefully inflammatory. If someone likes the ranger or barbarian more than the fighter and feels that they can perform the fighters roles does that make them 'pro-caster'? What about any number of the other primary fighting type base classes out there? A person could even love the basic idea of the fighter class but feel that it was poorly implimented and thereby making the fighter nonviable as written. Does that make them 'pro-caster' as well? This hypothetical person might even hate magic users, but you have still lumped them in with a group that they do not like. When the casters have to start bringing in reinforcements though, it shows that they can't handle the problem on their own. What is up with this bob? Summoner type casters are not 'handling the problem on their own'? Why not? They are using their resources in a certain way, it is just as valid as if they were blasting directly. Fighter's Round 1: Use Candle of Invocation Fighter's Round 2: Win Gold is cheaper than xp. I would agree that gold is usually easier to come by than exp. Of course the candle of invocation costs gold to buy, time to set up, and then it allows you to cast gate (which means that you have to pay the exp). So in this case the character with the candle is definately the lesser option of the two. Reasons to play a fighter: None of those are reasons to play a fighter though. Except possibly, 'wanting first hand knowledge' but one could get that by making a build and running it through what you feel would be an appropriate game, but you dont have to take it to a real game to do that. If your only reason to play a fighter is because you havent before then I hope your party is very understanding when you bring in the Commoner 15 because you have never played one of those before either. But all of this thread in both of its parts really seem to come down to an interpretation of the question that is being asked. If you feel that someone doing the fighters job plus more means that the fighter is obsolete then there is no reason to play a fighter. If you feel that as long as the fighter is able to fight then there is more than enough reason to play a fighter then there is reason to play a fighter. So one could answer either way depending on where they drew the line that they felt was most important. Argueing that someone else is wrong about the fighter because you drew your line at a different place than the other person seems nonsensical ;)
Zelck 05-24-07, 02:03 PM	Bob made a core-only fighter to discount the claims that you *need* supplements other than Core books to be a viable fighter. Sure, it seems a little off-topic to the OP, but that's been the nature of this thread for ages now. Here's the problem though. Balance is a comparative thing, and if you want to see if the fighter is viable you have to compare it to the other classes. If another class can do everything the fighter can do and other things as well, then the fighter is not viable. In a sense, it comes with the opportunity cost of losing everything a melee cleric would bring to the table. At what levels and how many times each day? Let's say the Cleric has the Strength and War domains with a deity who has the Longsword as his favored weapon. We can do some comparisons. At level 1, the Fighter has 16 Str, +1 BAB, and Weapon Focus for a total of +5 attack and +3 damage. We'll suppose he uses a Longsword so the damage is easy to compare. He can use a Greatsword for +3.5 damage, but he loses out on his shield for -2 AC. At level 1, the Cleric has 13 Str, +0 BAB, and Weapon Focus from the domain for a total of +2 attack and +1 damage. He can cast Divine Favor twice a day for another +1/+1, for a total of +3 attack and +2 damage. Additionally, he can cast Enlarge Person from his domain spell for +0 attack, +1 damage, and reach. Note that if the Cleric puts one extra point in Str, the new base total becomes +3/+2, and the buffed total only loses +1 attack to the Fighter. At level 6, the Fighter has 17 Str, +6 BAB, Weapon Focus, and Weapon Specialization for a total of +10 attack and +5 damage, along with an extra attack in a full attack. He also has another bonus feat. At level 6, the Cleric has 13 Str, +4 BAB, and Weapon Focus for a total of +6 attack and +1 damage. He can cast Divine Favor (up to 4/day) or Bull's Strength (up to 4/day) for +2/+2, or Enlarge Person (up to 1/day) for +1 damage and reach, or Spiritual Weapon for an effective +4.5 damage. At level 8, the Fighter has 20 Str (2 enhancement), +8 BAB, Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, and Weapon Specialization for +15 attack and +7 damage. He gets two attacks on a full attack. He also has some extra bonus feats. At level 8, the Cleric has 4 castings of Divine Power per day (one from the domain slot). The buffed Cleric gets 19 Str, +8 BAB, and Weapon Focus for +13 attack and +4 damage. He also gets 2 attacks on a full attack, along with access to Magic Vestments for +2 AC. At level 12, the Fighter has 23 Str (4 enhancement), +12 BAB, Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and Greater Weapon Specialization for +20 attack and +10 damage. He has some extra bonus feats too. At level 12, the Cleric has up to 5 castings of Divine Power per day and up to 3 castings of Quickened Divine Favor, as well as Greater Magic Weapon (+3, of which +1 is wasted). Buffed, it gets 19 Str, +12 BAB, and Weapon Focus for a total of +21 attack and +9 damage. So it looks like until level 12, the Fighter usually has a +2/+2 advantage over the Cleric, although much of this is due to the Cleric's lower Strength score. Dumping Dexterity to 9 and boosting Strength to 14 narrows that down to around a +1/+1 advantage to the Fighter.
Bob Loblaw 05-24-07, 03:21 PM	What is up with this bob? Summoner type casters are not 'handling the problem on their own'? Why not? They are using their resources in a certain way, it is just as valid as if they were blasting directly. It's one thing to summon something with Summon Monster IX and another to call in a being with 40 HD to handle the problem for you. There are some spells that are simply not comparable to each other of the same level. Gate and Summon Monster IX are 9th level spells and yet I have never seen anyone mention that they'd Summon an Elder Fire Elemental (CR 11) instead of using Gate. Notice that with Gate the assumption is that the caster wins. You'll also notice the sentence before where I mention that it is a viable tactic. I think the problem is with Gate more than anything else. None of those are reasons to play a fighter though. Except possibly, 'wanting first hand knowledge' but one could get that by making a build and running it through what you feel would be an appropriate game, but you dont have to take it to a real game to do that. If your only reason to play a fighter is because you havent before then I hope your party is very understanding when you bring in the Commoner 15 because you have never played one of those before either. Those are reasons though. Personally I think some are kinda weak reasons, but they are still reasons. Personally, I think that many people who like fighters like the consistent simplicity compared to casters. So one could answer either way depending on where they drew the line that they felt was most important. Argueing that someone else is wrong about the fighter because you drew your line at a different place than the other person seems nonsensical ;) I agree. This is something that many of us have been trying to say since the beginning. What works in one campaign does not automatically work in another. When people start to realize this, fighter sucks threads will diminish. Here's the problem though. Balance is a comparative thing, and if you want to see if the fighter is viable you have to compare it to the other classes. If another class can do everything the fighter can do and other things as well, then the fighter is not viable. In a sense, it comes with the opportunity cost of losing everything a melee cleric would bring to the table. To determine if the fighter is viable, you need to see how well it does in a game. Using your criteria, there is only one class to play and that would be artificer. The fighter can handle himself just fine. You know that your cleric is giving up stuff to be the tank. If the fighter does the tanking, your cleric can focus on other things instead. Let's say the Cleric has the Strength and War domains with a deity who has the Longsword as his favored weapon. What if the cleric is actually a follower of a god that doesn't allow those domains? What if the cleric is on his second fight of the day? His Strength Domain power is already used. To determine if the class is viable, we need to look at the role intended. The PHB gives us some information: Fighter Role: In most adventuring parties, the fighter serves as a melee combatant, charging into the fray while his comrades support him with spells, ranged attacks, and other effects. Fighters who favor ranged combat can prove very deadly, though without other melee support, they can find themselves in front-line combat more often than they might prefer. Can the fighter fill this role? If the answer is "yes," then the class is viable. For the record, the cleric is meant to be supportive (PHB): Cleric Role: The cleric serves as a typical group’s primary healer, diviner, and defensive specialist. He can hold his own in a fight but usually isn’t well served by charging to the front of combat. The cleric’s domains and spell selection can greatly affect his role as well. While he can fill other roles as well, the designers did not mean for him to be the party fighter. Even if the cleric can fill the role, it does not mean that the fighter cannot also be a primary combatant. One of the things I learned a long time ago is that there is always someone better than me at my job. Does this mean that I am not viable?
Argaud 05-24-07, 03:32 PM	I would agree that gold is usually easier to come by than exp. Of course the candle of invocation costs gold to buy, time to set up, and then it allows you to cast gate (which means that you have to pay the exp). So in this case the character with the candle is definately the lesser option of the two. Uh? No. The experience was paid for the one that crafted the item, the user does not spend any xp by using it. Just as with a scroll. It is difficult to beat that as first action in a round. Gate is a ridiculously broken spell.
Kratch 05-24-07, 03:43 PM	Let's say the Cleric has the Strength and War domains with a deity who has the Longsword as his favored weapon. We can do some comparisons. ...Clip... what i see in your examples is something i see in a great deal of comparisons. You acknowledge you have a limited number of spells (for the level 1 comparison), then continue on the comparison ignoring that factor. You also seem to have dismissed the fighters feats beyond weapon focus line in the same way you ignore the spell per day limit, you acknowledge it then ignore them (and though you don't use many spells, you do choose to point out some extra's like enlarge person which is domain specific and magic vestment for convenience of equipent), making it a comparison of a cleric and warrior with weapon focus. You also seem to have dismissed the cast time for your comparisons, especially considering they're all lower level where quicken isn't viable.
Clawhound 05-24-07, 04:10 PM	:eek: If you aren't Pun-Pun, you aren't viable. What's better than Pun-Pun? :eek: At some point, you either have the DM putting a cap on power, or the players put a cap on themselves. At some point, the good of the game itself is more important than your character. Otherwise, the game becomes something other than the experience that you want. One of the problems with optimizing is that you can find a true optimization. That reduces the complexity to a few right answers. If anyone here had a DM who limited them to 4 to 5 character classes, they would scream in outrage. Are you are willing to let optimization limit you to 4 to 5 classes? Are you willing to limit yourself to the handful of builds of those classes that are the most powerful? If so, we can just publish the best builds, and get rid of all those other classes. The game gets far simpler and easier to balance. From there, do you reduce the game to the One Best Build(TM)? At the end of that, are we willing to play such a restrictive game?
Scion of Coldshard 05-24-07, 04:17 PM	It's one thing to summon something with Summon Monster IX and another to call in a being with 40 HD to handle the problem for you. I disagree. It is still using a spell to call in a buddy either way. I feel that gate is too powerful for what it does, but that is neither here nor there. Either calling in a buddy through your magical abilities is a valid tactic or it is not. Saying that the guy is not handling things on his own is either true or false regardless which of those two methods were used. Those are reasons though. Sure, they are 'reasons' but they are not 'reasons to play a fighter' anymore than they are reasons to do anything else. If the question is asked, 'why play a fighter?' and you say, 'He isnt a spellcaster!' you havent answered the question asked, you have answered a question that was not asked. I agree. This is something that many of us have been trying to say since the beginning. What works in one campaign does not automatically work in another. When people start to realize this, fighter sucks threads will diminish. Will they though? Why would they? Certain campaign styles do indeed favor different kinds of characters, but if you assume a general campaign that has a relatively equal playing ground and because of how you determine 'viable' the fighter still comes up lacking why would knowing that in someones game somewhere fighters rule supreme make you not ask how to make fighters better for the hypothetical level playing field that you have made? To determine if the class is viable, we need to look at the role intended. The PHB gives us some information: Can the fighter fill this role? If the answer is "yes," then the class is viable. I agree that the intended role must be considered. But the 'viable' response again is still being determined by more than that for many people. For the bit that you quoted, who cant fill that role? It seems obvious from your posts that asking such a question would represent a shift in topic and yet for many others that 'is' the topic so there has been no shift. Uh? No. The experience was paid for the one that crafted the item, the user does not spend any xp by using it. Just as with a scroll. If the exp had been paid when the item was crafted then the item cost would be much, much higher than is there given what it does. Plus, the candle gives the user the ability to 'cast' gate, not have the item itself cast it. That is different than most other items which usually are activated in some way for the spell to take effect. It is difficult to beat that as first action in a round. Sure, if you already had the candle burning before combat started. Otherwise you have to light it and then cast the gate spell. Of course Gate is incredibly powerful, as is the candle of invocation for that matter. Better to just get rid of the calling part of the spell.
Otto the Bugbear 05-24-07, 05:35 PM	The DM could then follow up with, "get your filthy stinking powergaming *** out of my game". It's the DM's who set the rules, and if that includes restrictions on builds, as abhorent as i may find that, it's his game, deal with it or start your own. Holy crap! This is the part where Jules telling Ringo to "Chill that :censored: [Honey-bunny] out!!" gets inserted. That part I quoted of Clawhound, where you're getting all bent about, didn't say anything about powergaming! It said "diversity", and they ain't the same thing. Where did you get "powergaming" from "diversity". Where did you get the idea that it's "'my' character = automatic powergaming" and the DM should butt out? Are you really trying to say that a DM forcing "diversity" upon you by telling you what class you'll be playing is a good thing? None of his reasons were intended to be fighter specific. So long as they apply to figher (reguardless if they allply to another class), then they appropriately answer the threads question. Why is it you seem to be discounting these as viable reasons to play a fighter simply because they can be applied to other class's too. Is someone who wants to play a wizard because he finds it fun going to find himself with no reason to play a wizard anymore because he finds rogues fun too? Uh, you'll notice that I was agreeing with that point. At no point did I "discount" (you mean dismiss there?) that point as viable. I merely pointed out that that point applies across the board, regardless of class. Some powergamers are so obsessed with the power that even their party needs to be optimized Yep. Some are, some aren't. and those are often the people who think fighters suck and having one in they're party is destroying the optimization. Yep. Some do, some don't. Though I guess in the context Clawhound was speaking, it would basically only be toward those players that would get annoyed that I want to play a fighter 5 / bard 5. :smirk: Or by "some" are you trying to imply "all", thereby allowing you to argue against something I didn't say or mean? It's also a rather more specific, tailored against non-caster context, isn't it? I could always put it into the context of "Is there any reason to play anything other then a cleric when you can accomplish the same offensive/defensive things, and still have healing, turning, armour, better saves and better BAB and full or nearly full casting to fall back on." now we've also eliminated wizards, sorcerers, druids, bards, fighters, barbarians, paladins, rangers, etc, etc, etc. as being viable to play. Yes, you could. And that's one of the fundamental problems with threads like this, as we've seen over the last 10000 posts on this very subject. (Across multiple threads, of course. ;) )
crashlogic 05-24-07, 06:05 PM	Hmmm Lets just open this by saying that out of the box, un-buffed, the cleric is a decent melee fighter, especially at low level. So the cleric can make an important contribution to melee without ever casting a spell. However, the clerincs spell list, even at low levels contains a diversity of spells that are all useful for the party. This includes a wide range of offensive spells that can do decent damage. So why would a cleric spend three rounds casting buff spells on himself, when he can just contribute to fight directly. It boild down to this. The cleric wastes a lot of time and spellpower trying to bridge the gap with the fighter. Its much more efficient if the cleric contributes to the fight directly. A cleric casting a buff spell on a fighter means that the fighter can attack with the benefit of that spell this round, whereeas the cleric can only cast the spell. Thus its better for the cleric to buff a fighter than it is for a cleric to buff himself. Secondly and more obviously, taking the heal factor out of the equation, a cleric has many more usefull things to do with his spell list than cast buffs to make melee attacks, especially at high levels. Finally, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, you have a limited selection of spells available each day, and they dwindle as you use them. Thus its highly unlikely that the cleric would forgo useful non-combat spells just to have some bridge the gap buffs. So ultimately this boils down to yes, the cleric can do what the fighter does, sort of, with the right spells, but why would you? Clerics should do cleric things and not worry about being a fighter. Buffing a cleric to fill a melle role is just downgrading the cleric. So a cleric optimized for melee, is nothing like an optimized cleric.
Kalarus 05-24-07, 07:45 PM	Here's the problem though. Balance is a comparative thing, and if you want to see if the fighter is viable you have to compare it to the other classes. If another class can do everything the fighter can do and other things as well, then the fighter is not viable. In a sense, it comes with the opportunity cost of losing everything a melee cleric would bring to the table. I'm sorry, but do you have anything, anything at ALL, to base this huge assumption on? You're basically saying "The fighter is not viable because I define viable in such a way as not to include the fighter." Let's create a job, a relatively simple job, as an example, that many people can do but is required for a process to function. The job is pushing a button. Now you can hire Joe Buttonpusher. Joe is a simple guy, he has some skills but not too many, and Joe is a good buttonpusher. He's qualified for the job, heck if Joe puts his mind to it, he's maybe even a little overqualified. Also, there's John Manager. John has studied hard, can do a lot of things, in fact he can do more than John Buttonpusher, and if he puts his mind to it, John can be about as good as Joe at pushing buttons, and has the potential to be much more. However, John is a lot more complex (and possibly expensive) to deal with. John comes with demands that must be met, because he has a wife back home whom he wants to keep happy, and she has certain demands about his behaviour. Also, John would be a lot better managing things rather than pushing buttons because John is versatile enough to do that. Just because John can do everything Joe can, doesn't mean that Joe is out of a job. Joe can push buttons just fine, there's really no need to bring a complex manager in to push buttons. Why'd you want, or even worse, NEED to hire John Manager, instead of Joe Buttonpusher? John Manager brings a lot more to the table than the ability to push buttons and more. He also brings a lot of complexity that is certainly not required, and in many cases, not wanted for the job. I am sure you can figure who's who in the comparison. Have fun with it.
Zelck 05-24-07, 08:24 PM	You know that your cleric is giving up stuff to be the tank. If the fighter does the tanking, your cleric can focus on other things instead. A cleric casting a buff spell on a fighter means that the fighter can attack with the benefit of that spell this round, whereeas the cleric can only cast the spell. Thus its better for the cleric to buff a fighter than it is for a cleric to buff himself. Secondly and more obviously, taking the heal factor out of the equation, a cleric has many more usefull things to do with his spell list than cast buffs to make melee attacks, especially at high levels. Finally, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, you have a limited selection of spells available each day, and they dwindle as you use them. Thus its highly unlikely that the cleric would forgo useful non-combat spells just to have some bridge the gap buffs. Let me reiterate something. For the purposes of this comparison, we're comparing adding a fighter vs. adding a cleric to a party of 3. The other 3 is probably the iconic skill monkey, divine caster, and arcane caster, i.e. Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. So, what we're comparing is not Cleric vs. Fighter, but Cleric, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard vs. Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. So, there are two possibilities regarding the argument that clerics give up a lot to be a tank. The first possibility is that tanking is more important than those other stuff, in which case the argument doesn't matter since I've shown the cleric can tank almost as well as fighters (although I'll grant fighters are a bit better...), and the other divine caster can cover the other stuff. The second possibility is having redundancy or more flexibility in the other stuff is more important than tanking, in which case the fighter loses in the comparison because he never even gets the option to do the other stuff. It boild down to this. The cleric wastes a lot of time and spellpower trying to bridge the gap with the fighter. Its much more efficient if the cleric contributes to the fight directly. A cleric casting a buff spell on a fighter means that the fighter can attack with the benefit of that spell this round, whereeas the cleric can only cast the spell. Thus its better for the cleric to buff a fighter than it is for a cleric to buff himself. The cleric wastes 1 round casting a buff spell and moving into position. That's one charge, which in core isn't worth more than maybe 20-ish damage at the low to mid levels. Again, we're not comparing the cleric buffing himself up vs. the cleric buffing the fighter up. In the party situation, we would compare a cleric buffing himself up and being buffed by another cleric, and a fighter buffed by another cleric. Alternatively, we could compare the cleric buffing himself and thus allowing the other cleric to prepare other spells, vs. the fighter being buffed by the cleric. So ultimately this boils down to yes, the cleric can do what the fighter does, sort of, with the right spells, but why would you? Clerics should do cleric things and not worry about being a fighter. Buffing a cleric to fill a melle role is just downgrading the cleric. So a cleric optimized for melee, is nothing like an optimized cleric. Then we should get an optimized cleric over an optimized fighter because an optimized cleric is way better than melee ever could be? what i see in your examples is something i see in a great deal of comparisons. You acknowledge you have a limited number of spells (for the level 1 comparison), then continue on the comparison ignoring that factor. At level 6, the Cleric has 13 Str, +4 BAB, and Weapon Focus for a total of +6 attack and +1 damage. He can cast Divine Favor (up to 4/day) or Bull's Strength (up to 4/day) for +2/+2, or Enlarge Person (up to 1/day)... And for the rest, I noted the buffs could be used usually 4 or more times per day, which should be enough for all the encounters. You also seem to have dismissed the fighters feats beyond weapon focus line in the same way you ignore the spell per day limit, you acknowledge it then ignore them (and though you don't use many spells, you do choose to point out some extra's like enlarge person which is domain specific and magic vestment for convenience of equipent), making it a comparison of a cleric and warrior with weapon focus. Sure, it was a tank cleric vs. weapon specialization fighter. I could make it a tank cleric with versatile and powerful spells in the other spell slots vs. a tactical feat tree fighter, but a) that would be very complicated and b) I thought we wanted to focus on tanking. You also seem to have dismissed the cast time for your comparisons, especially considering they're all lower level where quicken isn't viable. I assumed 1 round for buffing. Basically, buff + move instead of charging.
Kalarus 05-24-07, 08:40 PM	Then we should get an optimized cleric over an optimized fighter because an optimized cleric is way better than melee ever could be? There's something strangely inconsistent about this kind of reasoning that constantly pops up, but somehow, it only ever applies to the Fighter. It seems to discriminately forget that magic can basically replace anything. It can find traps. It can buff. It can heal. It can hurt. It can make you fly. The whole shebang. Why is it only the Fighter class that gets the shaft in discussions like these? Perhaps they're at the bottom of the powercurve, but they're hardly the only class that is made redundant by Clerics, Druids and Wizards. Why play a rogue? Use magic to find your traps. Why play a Paladin? It doesn't add anything new. Why play a Ranger? Have an animal companion track for you. Why play a Barbarian? Every class can do damage, the aforementioned can certainly do more too. Etc etc. What's so special about the Fighter that people feel the need to constantly express that his job can be done by someone else, when he is in no way alone in that position? Is the idea that you may be wrong in how "horrible and worthless" the Fighter is so difficult to deal with that you feel a need to constantly try to emphasize a truly irrelevant trait?
Archangel62 05-24-07, 08:59 PM	The other thing to look at is what the party is facing. Non-modified monsters through different books have the creatures growing larger, gaining extra limbs, multiple forms of movement, personal SLAs, all kinds of unique powers and advantages. The casters are growing roughly in kind with their spells allowing for more versatile actions and more tactical tricks. The rogues don't have too much to worry about, most foes can still be affected by Sneak Attack and their star role 'trapbuster and locksmith' has them still at even keel. The fighter however has some issues, as mentioned before almost all of their combat techniques depend on opposed rolls, rolls that the monsters are more and more likely to make at higher levels. Even with all their gear, barring custom magic items, the fighter is going to have some difficulties unless the casters are throwing down a fair number of buffs on them to give them a better than average chance on those rolls. (this is before we even consider things like the giant having strength boosting items or other things that they could have as part of their treasure too). The problem is that if a class cannot do their shtick without another class propping them up then there are some design issues with that class. I honestly think that the fighter is a great conceptual idea, but the class itself is a poorly designed mess. One problem is that while every other class gives layers to the base character: Rogues: SA, evasion, UMD, Slippery mind, etc/ Wizard: Spells/ Cleric: Spells, turn undead/ Martial characters excepting fighter: stat boost options, combat manuevers, spells, etc. The fighter on the other hand has pretty much only the base stats and racial abilities of whatever it's put onto to work from. This is part of why we find that a fighter with a level adjustment race will almost always outperform a non-LA fighter of the same ECL. The fighter can be made effective if the DM alters encounters to keep from circumventing the fighters abilities, but that is the same sort of thing that many anti-casters out there would scream bloody murder about if the same idea was applied to spellcasters. The DM has to start throwing a lot of templates and class levels on the little monsters to make them a proper Cr but keep them from making the fighter feel impotent. Now, to those who argue that there is no rule that the DM HAS to use the higher end monsters, I agree but I think that those monsters are better as a standard for comparison than your classed or templated monsters. 1) Adding class levels adds more variables, but it reduces the game to an arena match again where initiative tends to matter more. Also, it seems to be a sign that a class isn't good enough if the DM has to jump through hoops to make it so that it isn't rendered useless. 2) Templates do not provide clean CR alterations, my CR article points out that often templates are below or above their theoretical alteration depending entirely on what was given the level adjustment. 3) With class levels DMs can also play to weaken other members of the party by giving all monsters Mage Slayer and other similar feats to ensure that while the fighter is fine, even strong, the others are weakened or knocked out by these monsters.
Archangel62 05-24-07, 09:18 PM	There's something strangely inconsistent about this kind of reasoning that constantly pops up, but somehow, it only ever applies to the Fighter. It seems to discriminately forget that magic can basically replace anything. It can find traps. It can buff. It can heal. It can hurt. It can make you fly. The whole shebang. Why is it only the Fighter class that gets the shaft in discussions like these? Perhaps they're at the bottom of the powercurve, but they're hardly the only class that is made redundant by Clerics, Druids and Wizards. Why play a rogue? Use magic to find your traps. Why play a Paladin? It doesn't add anything new. Why play a Ranger? Have an animal companion track for you. Why play a Barbarian? Every class can do damage, the aforementioned can certainly do more too. Etc etc. What's so special about the Fighter that people feel the need to constantly express that his job can be done by someone else, when he is in no way alone in that position? Is the idea that you may be wrong in how "horrible and worthless" the Fighter is so difficult to deal with that you feel a need to constantly try to emphasize a truly irrelevant trait? Because the fighter is one of the only ones that can be cheaply replaced. There is no persistent knock spell. There is no way to continuously offer trapfinding that isn't constantly eating up resources. Rangers and Barbarians offer a bit more and also they at least offer some idea as to how they are supposed to function to new players.
navar100 05-24-07, 09:57 PM	Let me reiterate something. For the purposes of this comparison, we're comparing adding a fighter vs. adding a cleric to a party of 3. The other 3 is probably the iconic skill monkey, divine caster, and arcane caster, i.e. Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. So, what we're comparing is not Cleric vs. Fighter, but Cleric, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard vs. Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. At least you're acknowledging there's a party. It's about time the anti-fighters stopped demanding the fighter defeat a name your monster solo. Anyway, maybe or maybe not the 4th man being a cleric instead of a fighter might be the "better" choice. It could be more of a player's personal preference. However, that the fighter could still be that 4th men is all the matters. Such a party will have different tactics than cleric, rogue, wizard, cleric, but the tactics of cleric, rogue, wizard, fighter will work just fine. The math is irrelevant. Whether the fighter has +2 over the cleric or the cleric has the +2 over the fighter doesn't matter. Whatever the fighter has, it works.
navar100 05-24-07, 10:01 PM	There's something strangely inconsistent about this kind of reasoning that constantly pops up, but somehow, it only ever applies to the Fighter. It seems to discriminately forget that magic can basically replace anything. It can find traps. It can buff. It can heal. It can hurt. It can make you fly. The whole shebang. Why is it only the Fighter class that gets the shaft in discussions like these? Perhaps they're at the bottom of the powercurve, but they're hardly the only class that is made redundant by Clerics, Druids and Wizards. Why play a rogue? Use magic to find your traps. Why play a Paladin? It doesn't add anything new. Why play a Ranger? Have an animal companion track for you. Why play a Barbarian? Every class can do damage, the aforementioned can certainly do more too. Etc etc. What's so special about the Fighter that people feel the need to constantly express that his job can be done by someone else, when he is in no way alone in that position? Is the idea that you may be wrong in how "horrible and worthless" the Fighter is so difficult to deal with that you feel a need to constantly try to emphasize a truly irrelevant trait? A new thread complaining of the alleged suckitude of the rogue has recently come out. Unfortunately, the anti-fighter and anti-paladin people who support the rogue don't help the cause.
Archangel62 05-24-07, 10:21 PM	At least you're acknowledging there's a party. It's about time the pro-logic stopped demanding the fighter contribute in a fight against a name your monster solo.. there, now it's more accurate.
Bob Loblaw 05-24-07, 10:43 PM	Let me reiterate something. For the purposes of this comparison, we're comparing adding a fighter vs. adding a cleric to a party of 3. The other 3 is probably the iconic skill monkey, divine caster, and arcane caster, i.e. Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. So, what we're comparing is not Cleric vs. Fighter, but Cleric, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard vs. Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. As I said before, you're comparing the fighter to the cleric. We are trying to say that the fighter works. We aren't trying to compare it to casters. In fact, if the rest of the thread was still present, you'd see that we all agreed that casters are more powerful (at least those of us who understand what's going on -- there were a couple who were scaring me). So, there are two possibilities regarding the argument that clerics give up a lot to be a tank. The first possibility is that tanking is more important than those other stuff, in which case the argument doesn't matter since I've shown the cleric can tank almost as well as fighters (although I'll grant fighters are a bit better...), and the other divine caster can cover the other stuff. The second possibility is having redundancy or more flexibility in the other stuff is more important than tanking, in which case the fighter loses in the comparison because he never even gets the option to do the other stuff. Clerics can tank well. In fact they are awesome tanks when built for it. The fighter can do more than just tank. My fighter was able to tank and handle some ranged combat. He was able to function outside of combat as well. He was versatile. Not as versatile as a caster, but still not worthless. The cleric wastes 1 round casting a buff spell and moving into position. That's one charge, which in core isn't worth more than maybe 20-ish damage at the low to mid levels. Again, we're not comparing the cleric buffing himself up vs. the cleric buffing the fighter up. In the party situation, we would compare a cleric buffing himself up and being buffed by another cleric, and a fighter buffed by another cleric. Alternatively, we could compare the cleric buffing himself and thus allowing the other cleric to prepare other spells, vs. the fighter being buffed by the cleric. I think you're missing the point though. Why have two clerics buff a sub-par tank to make him a good tank when you can have one cleric buff a good tank to make him a better tank? Because the fighter is one of the only ones that can be cheaply replaced. There is no persistent knock spell. There is no way to continuously offer trapfinding that isn't constantly eating up resources. Rangers and Barbarians offer a bit more and also they at least offer some idea as to how they are supposed to function to new players. They really don't though. They look like it on the surface, but the ranger is worse than the fighter. If we are going to complain about DMs having to work to make a class viable, the ranger is worse off than the fighter. Favored enemy is 100% dependent upon the DM. Barbarians suffer from the same problems as fighters overall. Yes, their Will saves get to be rather nice when raged, but they aren't always raged. The trapfinding may be an issue in some games, but I don't know any DMs that put so many traps in that the party can't survive without a rogue. there, now it's more accurate. The part about being pro-logic is actually insulting. I could say that you aren't being logical because you are discounting everything that actually does matter. Logically, if the fighter was unable to perform his duties, then there would be no fighters. Since we see fighters at all levels of play, then the issue is that different games see different encounters. Logically, if a character can defeat an equal EL opponent 100% of the time solo, the problem is that the character is too powerful. I do think that we would all be better served if the anti-this and pro-that titles went away. Many of us who think the fighter works still see the problems. Many of those who feel the fighter is too weak also see the same problems. What we don't agree on is how those problems affect play.
Archangel62 05-24-07, 10:53 PM	They really don't though. They look like it on the surface, but the ranger is worse than the fighter. If we are going to complain about DMs having to work to make a class viable, the ranger is worse off than the fighter. Favored enemy is 100% dependent upon the DM. Barbarians suffer from the same problems as fighters overall. Yes, their Will saves get to be rather nice when raged, but they aren't always raged. The trapfinding may be an issue in some games, but I don't know any DMs that put so many traps in that the party can't survive without a rogue. My view is in their arena. The barbarian is built for melee combat and it does it fairly well. The ranger, yeah, I can agree with you on the problem of the class needing the DM to cooperate to an extent. However, with some of the new substitution options (witch hunter) it gets easier. The part about being pro-logic is actually insulting. I could say that you aren't being logical because you are discounting everything that actually does matter. Logically, if the fighter was unable to perform his duties, then there would be no fighters. Since we see fighters at all levels of play, then the issue is that different games see different encounters. Logically, if a character can defeat an equal EL opponent 100% of the time solo, the problem is that the character is too powerful. True, but the question is how are they doing it. I'm sure that if you crammed enough buff spells onto a commoner they could solo certain encounters of equal CR because with that much augmentation ANYTHING could do it. I do think that we would all be better served if the anti-this and pro-that titles went away. Many of us who think the fighter works still see the problems. Many of those who feel the fighter is too weak also see the same problems. What we don't agree on is how those problems affect play. That I can certainly agree with.
Bob Loblaw 05-24-07, 10:58 PM	I disagree. It is still using a spell to call in a buddy either way. I feel that gate is too powerful for what it does, but that is neither here nor there. Either calling in a buddy through your magical abilities is a valid tactic or it is not. Saying that the guy is not handling things on his own is either true or false regardless which of those two methods were used. Calling in someone to help is different than calling in someone to actually do the work. When was the last time someone said that they'd gate in some help? They always say they'll gate in the being that will solve their problems. I see a huge difference between Summon Monster IX and Gate. Sure, they are 'reasons' but they are not 'reasons to play a fighter' anymore than they are reasons to do anything else. If the question is asked, 'why play a fighter?' and you say, 'He isnt a spellcaster!' you havent answered the question asked, you have answered a question that was not asked. That is a perfectly valid reason for some people. I know many gamers who dislike the number of spells they have to keep track of. A 20th level wizard has 45+ spells. That's a lot. While I don't have any problems with it, there are those that do. Why play a complex character that can do what the simple one can? In other words, look at the cleric builds and compare them to an equal level fighter. The fighter is a lot easier to use. Will they though? Why would they? Because I'm an optimist and I would like to be right. You're right, I'm delusional, but at least it's my happy place. Certain campaign styles do indeed favor different kinds of characters, but if you assume a general campaign that has a relatively equal playing ground and because of how you determine 'viable' the fighter still comes up lacking why would knowing that in someones game somewhere fighters rule supreme make you not ask how to make fighters better for the hypothetical level playing field that you have made? But what is a "general campaign?" This is part of the problem. What I see as general is not what others see. I don't see tons of dragons and demons running around my world. I try to keep plane-hopping to a minimum. Not because I think it's too hard but because I like to keep it mysterious. For the bit that you quoted, who cant fill that role? Does it matter? Can the fighter fill that role? That is the only thing that should determine viability. I'm not saying that others can't do the same thing. I'm just saying that the fighter can do his job just fine. It seems obvious from your posts that asking such a question would represent a shift in topic and yet for many others that 'is' the topic so there has been no shift. True, I guess. I think one of the problems is that many people are not trying to see if the fighter works. Instead, they just want to make something else than can also do the fighter's job. Then, rather than see what they gave up to be the fighter, they just say that they can do his job.
Bob Loblaw 05-24-07, 11:05 PM	My view is in their arena. The barbarian is built for melee combat and it does it fairly well. The ranger, yeah, I can agree with you on the problem of the class needing the DM to cooperate to an extent. However, with some of the new substitution options (witch hunter) it gets easier. I think the fighter gets screwed with the substitution levels most of the time. The fighter/other class feats suck too. Daring Outlaw is far superior to Daring Warrior. The only feature that fighters get is bonus feats. I think that these feats should do so much more for the fighter. I don't know what, but they currently don't do enough comparatively.
Archangel62 05-24-07, 11:18 PM	True, I guess. I think one of the problems is that many people are not trying to see if the fighter works. Instead, they just want to make something else than can also do the fighter's job. Then, rather than see what they gave up to be the fighter, they just say that they can do his job. Hence my gauntlet, like I said, I believe that the fighter as written is mechanically too weak to function. However, I am looking forward to Khan and a few others to see if they can show me that I'm wrong, Khan already has me curious and his builds were what made me wonder if I might have been wrong. I see it in the same area as I see the healer and warmage, advanced NPC classes, things that logically exist in a gameworld but are too weak for proper adventuring.
Archangel62 05-24-07, 11:21 PM	I think the fighter gets screwed with the substitution levels most of the time. The fighter/other class feats suck too. Daring Outlaw is far superior to Daring Warrior. The only feature that fighters get is bonus feats. I think that these feats should do so much more for the fighter. I don't know what, but they currently don't do enough comparatively. Once again we agree, part of the issue is that outside of Dragon the only really good substution option I've seen was in Dungeonscape because that was about the only thing I saw that could stand on its own, the others had to be part of a large feat chain.
Argaud 05-25-07, 12:09 AM	Because the fighter is one of the only ones that can be cheaply replaced. There is no persistent knock spell. Sure there is, it is called "adamantine dagger", and it costs almost nothing. Also, +skill items are very cheap too. There is no way to continuously offer trapfinding that isn't constantly eating up resources. Yes, there is. It is called item of +X search skill. Once you see the trap, there are 500 ways to avoid, harmless trigger or destroy it. Rangers and Barbarians offer a bit more and also they at least offer some idea as to how they are supposed to function to new players. Barbarians make weaker warriors than fighters after level 7. This is easy to demonstrate. Their skills are useless by the same reason a rogue skills are useless (only moreso). Same happens with the ranger skills. The ranger makes a weaker meleer than the barbarian or the fighter. As an archer, he is as good as the fighter, but since the fighter is sub-optimal, so is the ranger. The spells of the ranger are a joke, since they are 3-5 levels under the level of the spells of a pure caster for the same character level. Then we have the bard. Again, skills = usless. Spells, 2-3 levels behind the real casters. So the bard is unplayable too. The monk is worse fighting than the fighter or the barbarian. He has cool-sounding skills, but skills are pointless, as mentioned before. His slas and supernatural abilities are easily duplicated by the spells of pure caster several levels before he gets them. So the monk... useless too. That leaves the paladin. But it is pretty obvious the buffed cleric is a better paladin than the paladin. Except for the mount, which is very powerful... but seriously, are you going to play a paladin just for the mount. Nah... paladins? usless too. Clearly, thanks to some basic "logic" (they are not blanket statemente, of course not!) I have thusly demonstrated that anyone not playing a full caster is playing weak classes. Maybe even NPC classes! :rolleyes:
Kratch 05-25-07, 12:19 AM	That part I quoted of Clawhound, where you're getting all bent about, didn't say anything about powergaming! It said "diversity", and they ain't the same thing. Wasn't getting bent, was simply trying to use some of your own words in a turn around. It wasn't the use of diversity i was commenting on, it was the objection (in the form of "get your filthy stinking hands off my character") that i was addressing. Hence why i procceeded to use "filthy stinking" in my rebuttal. Where did you get "powergaming" from "diversity". Where did you get the idea that it's "'my' character = automatic powergaming" and the DM should butt out? As for using the term powergamer, i was trying to figure why someone would object to "a DM banning certain builds for the sake of diversity", a powergamer objecting to the "theft" of his tools was the least offensive explanation i could think of. Are you really trying to say that a DM forcing "diversity" upon you by telling you what class you'll be playing is a good thing? Firstly, noone said anything about forcing anyone to play a specific class, the issue on banning certain builds is what was brought up (note, banning a few builds IE combination of class's and feats, is not the same as telling someone what class they'll be playing), and then objected to. I believe I followed up the very quote your addressing with a line that specifically says I dislike the idea of restricting builds, but that it's the DM's rules. I do However believe it is well within a DM's right to say, i don't like this build, it makes use of too many abuses, grey areas and loopholes, so i am disallowing it (in part or in whole) and that, if thats the only option a DM can think to remedy the situation, then it is a good thing for him. Uh, you'll notice that I was agreeing with that point. At no point did I "discount" (you mean dismiss there?) that point as viable. I merely pointed out that that point applies across the board, regardless of class. You were saying yes, then following it up with a comment that usually seems like a "But" intended to deminish the value of that comment. Though I guess in the context Clawhound was speaking, it would basically only be toward those players that would get annoyed that I want to play a fighter 5 / bard 5. :smirk: I was simply trying to give an example of how someone playing a fighter might erk a powergamer. An attempt at answering your question "how would that work?" Or by "some" are you trying to imply "all", thereby allowing you to argue against something I didn't say or mean? I said "some" because i meant some. I think it is quite clear i say what i mean, and be damned with how others take to it. it was simple one possible example, and thus may only be applicable in some instances, with reguards to some powergamers.
Khan the Destroyer 05-25-07, 12:38 AM	There is the word 'viable' which different people would use differently. With the two ways I mentioned above one person could say that he is not viable since other character builds could do the fighters job plus more while another person could say that he is viable because he can fight. Yeah, some people will use the term differently. Or incorrectly I would say. It is not the fighter's job to be as balanced as every other class. That's not his purpose. He is there to fight monsters in combat, with weapons and tactics. If he can do that, he's viable. I don't see anywhere in any book that says 'Each class must have the same power levels, otherwise they're not viable.' So if you want the word 'viable' to mean 'I can do something you can't mimic' go for it. But I honestly don't see the point. This looks to be purposefully inflammatory. Ahh... something I don't have to define for you ;). In all honesty, I just use it for convenience, so people know who I'm referring to. If it doesn't refer to you, don't worry about it. If someone likes the ranger or barbarian more than the fighter and feels that they can perform the fighters roles does that make them 'pro-caster'? What about any number of the other primary fighting type base classes out there? A person could even love the basic idea of the fighter class but feel that it was poorly implimented and thereby making the fighter nonviable as written. Does that make them 'pro-caster' as well? This hypothetical person might even hate magic users, but you have still lumped them in with a group that they do not like. Ok, let me get this out of the way. Pro-Caster: Someone that bases the balance of everything else on the theoretical power and influence a caster character could wield in a game where the other players don't mind doing absolutely nothing and the DM doesn't mind all of his monsters getting trounced in Round 1. Pro-Fighter: Someone that feels the fighter class can function as a tank as-is, without 'fixing' it. Anti-Fighter: Someone that thinks the fighter class needs something more to make him capable of performing his role as a tank. (No, I don't think you're evil, or hate all warriors or even the concept of a fighter. Get over the term.) There, those are the terms as I see them. Feel free to disagree, ignore, or love them. But now you know what I mean, and we don't have to get our feelings hurt over them. Here's the problem though. Balance is a comparative thing, and if you want to see if the fighter is viable you have to compare it to the other classes. No, you don't. You have to know whether or not he can fight monsters. Can Batman take down thugs? Yeah. Can Superman take down thugs? Yeah. He also takes very little damage, can fly, and has super crazy speed and strength. Does that mean Batman can't take down thugs anymore? No, it doesn't. So, we need a guy to take down thugs, and we know that Batman can take down thugs. Is that any reason to add Batman to our team? Yes. If another class can do everything the fighter can do and other things as well, then the fighter is not viable. I just can't agree with that definition of 'viable'. It can go the other way. The cleric isn't viable because it can do too much. Or we can just use it against the cleric. The cleric isn't viable because the artificer is 100 times stronger and more versatile. Or, the rogue isn't viable because the bard can have more skill points and deal more damage, on top of having spells, 2 good saves, bardic music and knowledge, and better weapon proficiencies. Or the sorcerer isn't viable because the wizard is so much better. In a sense, it comes with the opportunity cost of losing everything a melee cleric would bring to the table. But why bring a melee cleric to the table when you can bring an artificer to the table? He has better skills, Trapfinding, can use divine AND arcane spells, and can outtank and outgun the cleric. The cleric simply isn't viable as a tank because the artificer is hands down better and brings more to the table on top of that.
Kratch 05-25-07, 12:45 AM	Sure, it was a tank cleric vs. weapon specialization fighter. I could make it a tank cleric with versatile and powerful spells in the other spell slots vs. a tactical feat tree fighter, but a) that would be very complicated and b) I thought we wanted to focus on tanking. Untill the later levels, you've filled up all your slots with buffs, so, no, you can't really have a tank cleric with versatility, otherwise your giving up your tanking ability I assumed 1 round for buffing. Basically, buff + move instead of charging. Enlarge person is a full round cast, so no move there. and you often list 2+ buffs, not quickened till the later levels (and then, still taking up your highest level spells, which causes you to lose out on the versatility options) The other thing to look at is what the party is facing. Non-modified monsters through different books have the creatures growing larger, gaining extra limbs, multiple forms of movement, personal SLAs, all kinds of unique powers and advantages. The casters are growing roughly in kind with their spells allowing for more versatile actions and more tactical tricks. The rogues don't have too much to worry about, most foes can still be affected by Sneak Attack and their star role 'trapbuster and locksmith' has them still at even keel. The fighter however has some issues, as mentioned before almost all of their combat techniques depend on opposed rolls, rolls that the monsters are more and more likely to make at higher levels. This i see often. first you say there aren't many sneak attack immune creatures, then you imply there are a lot of monsters resistent to fighter tactics. I can assure you the rogue has more sneak attack immune creatures in the MM (and supliments) then a fighter has creatures that can easily resist or are immune to his dedicated trip build. And more importently, even when the fighter is facing something immune to trip, he loses the use of 1 (ONE) feat, unlike the rogue who loses all his SA. Or are you adding up all the creatures that are immune to trip, plus disarm, plus grapples, plus bull rush, etc etc etc, lumping them all together and counting them all simultaniously against the fighter. IE, because a creature can make one particular fighter tactic ineffective, he can be counted as proof against all fighters everywhere? Or do you believe if a fighter build encounters something immune to it's trick that the fighter becomes a gibbering ball of goo... Fighter: "Prepare to die foul wizard" wizard: "I cannot be defeated like this, i'm a wizard, i'm too powerful to die" Backs up into his fishing gear, knocking over a can of bait. Fighter: " Oh No!!! Worms. how can this be. I was winning, but now i have encountered a foe immune to my trip attack, as such, i can no longer use my mage slayer feat, combat reflex's or power attack. And not only am i no longer specialized in my spiked chain, i'm not even proficient with it now. I can no longer even use a weapon for my BAB has disappeared compleatly. I am useless in the face (figurativly speaking) of those worms . Oh woe is me!" Curls into a little ball on the floor sucking his thumb and wishing the nasty worms would go away so he could once again fight. Wizard: Looks at the can of bait ..." wow, who'd have thunk?"
Khan the Destroyer 05-25-07, 12:52 AM	Fighter: "Prepare to die foul wizard" wizard: "I cannot be defeated like this, i'm a wizard, i'm too powerful to die" Backs up into his fishing gear, knocking over a can of bait. Fighter: " Oh No!!! Worms. how can this be. I was winning, but now i have encountered a foe immune to my trip attack, as such, i can no longer use my mage slayer feat, combat reflex's or power attack. And not only am i no longer specialized in my spiked chain, i'm not even proficient with it now. I can no longer even use a weapon for my BAB has disappeared compleatly. I am useless in the face (figurativly speaking) of those worms . Oh woe is me!" Curls into a little ball on the floor sucking his thumb and wishing the nasty worms would go away so he could once again fight. Wizard: Looks at the can of bait ..." wow, who'd have thunk?" :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Archangel62 05-25-07, 01:05 AM	This i see often. first you say there aren't many sneak attack immune creatures, then you imply there are a lot of monsters resistent to fighter tactics. I can assure you the rogue has more sneak attack immune creatures in the MM (and supliments) then a fighter has creatures that can easily resist or are immune to his dedicated trip build. And more importently, even when the fighter is facing something immune to trip, he loses the use of 1 (ONE) feat, unlike the rogue who loses all his SA. Or are you adding up all the creatures that are immune to trip, plus disarm, plus grapples, plus bull rush, etc etc etc, lumping them all together and counting them all simultaniously against the fighter. IE, because a creature can make one particular fighter tactic ineffective, he can be counted as proof against all fighters everywhere? Improved trip itself is one feat but it is usually part of a larger build, but actually the creatures that are immune to trip, disarm, bullrush etc. all tend to be the same creatures. Please note that I'm not necessarily saying immune, just their modifiers are high enough that the ability of the fighter, or a martial character focused on those types of tricks, to effect them in such a manner is severely in question. But to be fair you're probably right in terms of the number of foes that are immune to sneak attack, if the party is facing large numbers of golems or undead the rogue has an issue, however there are even substitution options that mitigate that, allowing half their SA dice or for them to impose AC penalties, while not as good as full SA neither is necessarily bad.
Zelck 05-25-07, 01:13 AM	Untill the later levels, you've filled up all your slots with buffs, so, no, you can't really have a tank cleric with versatility, otherwise your giving up your tanking ability At level 3, the two 2nd level spells can be filled with utility spells. Really, the important spell levels for tanking are 1 (Divine Favor), 4 (Divine Power), 5 (Righteous Might, Quickened Divine Favor), and 8 (Quickened Divine Power), along with one level 3 and one level 4 slot for Magic Vestments and Greater Magic Weapon. Other spell levels can be filled with different spells. Enlarge person is a full round cast, so no move there. and you often list 2+ buffs, not quickened till the later levels (and then, still taking up your highest level spells, which causes you to lose out on the versatility options) Then perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant for those to be options. For instance, at level 6 the Cleric can buff with either Bull's Strength or Divine Favor and achieve pretty much the same results. Good catch on the Enlarge Person though, I guess that's not as strong of an option. This i see often. first you say there aren't many sneak attack immune creatures, then you imply there are a lot of monsters resistent to fighter tactics. I can assure you the rogue has more sneak attack immune creatures in the MM (and supliments) then a fighter has creatures that can easily resist or are immune to his dedicated trip build. And more importently, even when the fighter is facing something immune to trip, he loses the use of 1 (ONE) feat, unlike the rogue who loses all his SA. Or are you adding up all the creatures that are immune to trip, plus disarm, plus grapples, plus bull rush, etc etc etc, lumping them all together and counting them all simultaniously against the fighter. IE, because a creature can make one particular fighter tactic ineffective, he can be counted as proof against all fighters everywhere? Well, large monsters with natural attacks are pretty much resistant to trip, grapples, and bull rushes due to size and disarm and sunder due to natural weapons. Additionally, dedicated trip builds (outside of core) often devote a significant number of feats to tripping, and lose a great deal of power when they can't do it.
Scion of Coldshard 05-25-07, 02:15 AM	Calling in someone to help is different than calling in someone to actually do the work. When was the last time someone said that they'd gate in some help? They always say they'll gate in the being that will solve their problems. I see a huge difference between Summon Monster IX and Gate. Whether they are using Gate or summon monster IX or summon elemental monolith it is still the same, they are bringing in help. The only difference here really is that gate is so over the top powerful that the help it brings can be better than the guy who is casting it. But, it is still calling in help either way. I have played a constructor before. Anytime there was a combat anywhere nearby his entire purpose was to make the biggest, baddest astral constructs that fit the situation. His own ability in combat? Effectively zero. He didnt even have a magic weapon! All he did was call in help for the battles to fight for him. That is what they were for. Summoning/calling/creating buddies are all the same. Some of the choices are stronger than others, but it is still the same effect, getting someone to handle what you want to be handled. That is a perfectly valid reason for some people. Sure, for not playing a caster. It is not a reason to play a fighter though, it is a reason to not play a caster. A fighter happens to be a noncaster if you choose to make him so (certain feats and items could make him a caster, avoid those) but that is not the same thing. The reason put forward sidesteps answering the question and attempts to answer a question that was not asked. That is no good for someone who actually wants an answer to the question that was asked. Because I'm an optimist and I would like to be right. Your answer to 'why would they stop?' is 'I like to be right'??? Again, not answering the question that was asked :( But what is a "general campaign?" In a general campaign you would be able to come across essentially every situation, monster, device, whatever. A good starting position is what is possible just in the core. There is a lot there but so much of it is effectively just more of the same that it can be narrowed down pretty quickly to some pretty basic things. If you want to make it really simple: Melee combat Ranged combat Flying Terrain Physical attacks Magical attacks Traps Status conditions It is late but off the top of my head that covers the basics pretty well. Pick and choose which you feel are most important, as everyone will be different, rate people according to that and then say how you feel they fit into each category and why. That is a whole lot better than, 'Fighters suck/rule!' or similar responses. Does it matter? Yes it does, that is what I have been trying to say here. It does indeed matter! At least to some people here, but not all, and therein lies a difficulty. If guy A feels that if the role can be filled then everything is fine while guy B feels that the role can be filled but if another character could fill the role and fill in decently on another role then the second guy should be used without something special being in the first guys court then we have an issue when they start argueing about whether or not the character is good to go. I think one of the problems is that many people are not trying to see if the fighter works. Instead, they just want to make something else than can also do the fighter's job. Then, rather than see what they gave up to be the fighter, they just say that they can do his job. Well, it is pretty easy to see what you give up by not taking the fighter: fighter bonus feats. Looking at just the core that is a pretty small list so that makes it even easier to see what is being missed. At the same time if someone looks at the ranger, sees it filling the same combat role that they would put the fighter in and then sees that the ranger gets extra stuff on the side why should he take the fighter? Extra feats that will do things he doesnt care about? joy. And there is another problem, some people have tried to see and have found it lacking in some way, hence why they complain about it. They would like to use the fighter, but why should they when they get what they want and more somewhere else? Of course I lump in taking only a small amount of levels in with this as well, if you take fighter for 2 levels only then move on to your 'real' classes that shows a failure in the fighter to me. I doubt anyone on either side of the main divide could convince anyone on the other side though, although some of the discussion is interesting. The side of 'why play fighter when I could get what I need and more by not playing the fighter' vs 'the fighter can fight, that is good enough'. Yeah, some people will use the term differently. Or incorrectly I would say. It is not the fighter's job to be as balanced as every other class. That's not his purpose. He is there to fight monsters in combat, with weapons and tactics. If he can do that, he's viable. I am sure that they would say you are using the term incorrectly as well, assuming that you are saying that others are using it incorrectly and not that you are using it incorrectly of course. Either way though, you have your definition of what the fighter needs to be 'viable', others have their own versions, but without actually saying what they are shouting at one another saying that he is or is not viable is basically watching a tug of war game with a group of people and a wall, funny for awhile and then kindof sad. No one said that the options had to be exactly the same, they pretty much explicitly cannot be and still have two different classes, but overall general power levels should average out. It is a game, having one option be roughly as effective as another for the same cost is a pretty good way to go. Why purposefully have it be otherwise? In all honesty, I just use it for convenience, so people know who I'm referring to. If it doesn't refer to you, don't worry about it. Your term for convenience for anyone who might not like a fighter, regardless of their position about casters, is that they are 'pro-caster'? And anyone who might point this out as being illogical shouldnt worry about it? I would like to point out again that your comment I quoted before is a little illogical and as such it demeans any good arguements that you make. Perhaps it would be best to rethink it? Ok, let me get this out of the way. Pro-Caster: Someone that bases the balance of everything else on the theoretical power and influence a caster character could wield in a game where the other players don't mind doing absolutely nothing and the DM doesn't mind all of his monsters getting trounced in Round 1. Pro-Fighter: Someone that feels the fighter class can function as a tank as-is, without 'fixing' it. Anti-Fighter: Someone that thinks the fighter class needs something more to make him capable of performing his role as a tank. Ok, pro-caster is someone who bases the balance of the game on about 70% of the core base classes and about 70% of the core prc's. Then you have a comment about players doing nothing and the DM being a moron which I am guessing is just you showing that you really dislike and trivialize anyone who you might put under this umbrella. pro-fighter is someone that feels that the fighter function as a tank. anti-fighter is someone who thinks that the fighter needs more to be able to perform a tanks role. Hmm.. These are neither mutually exclusive nor do they come even close to encompasing the thoughts shown in both incarnations of this thread. One could even fall under all 3 at once situationally. It is curious that those who want to improve the fighter are 'anti-fighter' and the number of people who would actually fit under 'pro-caster' looks to be zero. Going by these three terms, including the insults in the first, I fit under both 'pro-fighter' and 'anti-fighter'. Go me!
Bob Loblaw 05-25-07, 02:20 AM	At level 3, the two 2nd level spells can be filled with utility spells. Really, the important spell levels for tanking are 1 (Divine Favor), 4 (Divine Power), 5 (Righteous Might, Quickened Divine Favor), and 8 (Quickened Divine Power), along with one level 3 and one level 4 slot for Magic Vestments and Greater Magic Weapon. Other spell levels can be filled with different spells. Doesn't the game assume 4 encounters per day? If so, then you need to quadruple the number of slots you are using to out-tank the fighter. There are ways to deal with this I know, but honestly you are putting more work into being a better tank than should be necessary. Why not just let the fighter tank and you can use those 20 to 28 spell slots for something else that may be more useful?
Scion of Coldshard 05-25-07, 02:33 AM	Doesn't the game assume 4 encounters per day? It might be important to mention that not all encounters are fights ;)
Bob Loblaw 05-25-07, 02:54 AM	It might be important to mention that not all encounters are fights ;) Well then, it may not matter if the fighter can't tank all the time :P
Archangel62 05-25-07, 02:56 AM	Doesn't the game assume 4 encounters per day? If so, then you need to quadruple the number of slots you are using to out-tank the fighter. There are ways to deal with this I know, but honestly you are putting more work into being a better tank than should be necessary. Why not just let the fighter tank and you can use those 20 to 28 spell slots for something else that may be more useful? not necessarily, scrolls, pearls of power, and the like can cover many of these situations.
Bob Loblaw 05-25-07, 03:06 AM	Sure, for not playing a caster. It is not a reason to play a fighter though, it is a reason to not play a caster. A fighter happens to be a noncaster if you choose to make him so (certain feats and items could make him a caster, avoid those) but that is not the same thing. To those people it is the same thing. Personally, I think that people should take the time to understand the magic system even if they don't want to play a caster. There are so many things that matter as spells are being cast that you should know something about them to a point. Your answer to 'why would they stop?' is 'I like to be right'??? Again, not answering the question that was asked :( It was meant to be tongue-in-cheek and not taken seriously. In a general campaign you would be able to come across essentially every situation, monster, device, whatever. A good starting position is what is possible just in the core. There is a lot there but so much of it is effectively just more of the same that it can be narrowed down pretty quickly to some pretty basic things. If you want to make it really simple: Melee combat Ranged combat Flying Terrain Physical attacks Magical attacks Traps Status conditions It is late but off the top of my head that covers the basics pretty well. Pick and choose which you feel are most important, as everyone will be different, rate people according to that and then say how you feel they fit into each category and why. That is a whole lot better than, 'Fighters suck/rule!' or similar responses. I'm with you 100% on this. Too often we hear that the enemies get bigger as the EL gets higher, but that doesn't have to be true, even sticking to core and RAW. This is what I was talking about. What I see as a standard encounter for whatever level is not what others may see. Neither one is right or wrong, but it does have an affect on what classes can be effective. Yes it does, that is what I have been trying to say here. It does indeed matter! At least to some people here, but not all, and therein lies a difficulty. If guy A feels that if the role can be filled then everything is fine while guy B feels that the role can be filled but if another character could fill the role and fill in decently on another role then the second guy should be used without something special being in the first guys court then we have an issue when they start argueing about whether or not the character is good to go. That is actually answering a different question. The question isn't whether or not someone can do the job better but can the fighter do his job. And there is another problem, some people have tried to see and have found it lacking in some way, hence why they complain about it. They would like to use the fighter, but why should they when they get what they want and more somewhere else? Of course I lump in taking only a small amount of levels in with this as well, if you take fighter for 2 levels only then move on to your 'real' classes that shows a failure in the fighter to me. They should use whatever class(es) fits their concept. I don't play divine casters because I find them boring to create. I don't care how powerful they are, I just have never had fun making the character let alone playing one. I would never tell someone that they suck because I don't like them though. I doubt anyone on either side of the main divide could convince anyone on the other side though, although some of the discussion is interesting. The side of 'why play fighter when I could get what I need and more by not playing the fighter' vs 'the fighter can fight, that is good enough'. I think that most of us are pretty set in our ways, with the exception of Archangel62 who is willing to be proven wrong. I think most of us are debating for a couple reasons: 1) It's fun 2) We are learning more about how the game functions 3) Lurkers can see both sides and see things they may have not understood about the classes in question
Otto the Bugbear 05-25-07, 07:21 AM	Wasn't getting bent, was simply trying to use some of your own words in a turn around. But, my own words didn't use "powergamer" there. It wasn't the use of diversity i was commenting on, it was the objection (in the form of "get your filthy stinking hands off my character") that i was addressing. Hence why i procceeded to use "filthy stinking" in my rebuttal. I'm glad we agree that the DM shouldn't be dictating what classes a player takes, only what classes are available. Subtle difference, but important. I'm also glad we agree that if the class is open, and can be used in a multitude of ways (as all classes can), that the DM shouldn't be dictating which way it gets used. As long as is doesn't disrupt the harmony of the group. As for using the term powergamer, i was trying to figure why someone would object to "a DM banning certain builds for the sake of diversity", a powergamer objecting to the "theft" of his tools was the least offensive explanation i could think of. That's called a strawman. I mentioned nothing about powergaming there. You injected 'powergamer'. Then you proceded to argue against the 'powergamer' bit. In fact, until you brought it into the discussion, I couldn't really see it pertaining to the diversity comment at all. Diversity does not equal less power. Firstly, noone said anything about forcing anyone to play a specific class, the issue on banning certain builds is what was brought up (note, banning a few builds IE combination of class's and feats, is not the same as telling someone what class they'll be playing), and then objected to. I believe I followed up the very quote your addressing with a line that specifically says I dislike the idea of restricting builds, but that it's the DM's rules. I do However believe it is well within a DM's right to say, i don't like this build, it makes use of too many abuses, grey areas and loopholes, so i am disallowing it (in part or in whole) and that, if thats the only option a DM can think to remedy the situation, then it is a good thing for him. Look, I guess it comes down to You're saying the DM dictating what classes the player takes is a bad thing. I'm saying the DM dictating what classes the player takes is a bad thing. Neither of us is saying that disallowing a class(es) for the entire campaign is a bad thing. But disallowing classes isn't the same as promoting diversity, is it? Oh, and it's not the DM's rules. It's the group's rules. You were saying yes, then following it up with a comment that usually seems like a "But" intended to deminish the value of that comment. It doesn't diminish Clawhound's quote. It merely points out that quote's true place as applying equally to all classes. I was simply trying to give an example of how someone playing a fighter might erk a powergamer. An attempt at answering your question "how would that work?" I edited in that bit about the player Clawhound was talking about, so that response of mine does seem a bit jumbled. Players that get that over-annoyed I want to play a fighter 3 / bard 2 / cleric 3 in an 8th level party need to be smacked. I said "some" because i meant some. I think it is quite clear i say what i mean, and be damned with how others take to it. it was simple one possible example, and thus may only be applicable in some instances, with reguards to some powergamers. One possible example. Good. Not all. (Of course, 'some possible examples' would work there too, just not 'all examples'.)
Clawhound 05-25-07, 08:45 AM	When I referred to "enforced diversity", I was speaking about a DM banning builds, not because of power, but get players out of their comfort zone and into playing new or different things. The theory here is "let's have fun doing X" rather than, "You can't do Y." It's a subtle difference, but its the difference between "I got a cool idea" and "I don't like that." Players enjoy trying out cool ideas. These are concept games. Everyone has played in them. I am tempted to run an "all underpowered game" just to see how it runs. Pick any class at the bottom 1/3 of the most powerful class list. :) That does not mean that I'm being dictatorial. It doesn't mean that the game won't have problems. It just means that's I think it would be a way cool thing to try.
runestar 05-25-07, 09:10 AM	Well then, it may not matter if the fighter can't tank at all... Edited for truth...;)
Khan the Destroyer 05-25-07, 09:11 AM	I am sure that they would say you are using the term incorrectly as well Yeah. That goes hand in hand when someone thinks they are right and you are wrong. Either way though, you have your definition of what the fighter needs to be 'viable', others have their own versions, but without actually saying what they are shouting at one another saying that he is or is not viable is basically watching a tug of war game with a group of people and a wall, funny for awhile and then kindof sad. Then feel free to not participate. The rest of us don't seem to mind. [No one said that the options had to be exactly the same, they pretty much explicitly cannot be and still have two different classes, but overall general power levels should average out. Where did you come up with this conclusion? Also, how does it mean the fighter is underpowered as opposed to the casters being overpowered? Can you imagine a game where all classes are as powerful and versatile as a druid, cleric, or wizard? Your term for convenience for anyone who might not like a fighter, regardless of their position about casters, is that they are 'pro-caster'? Did I stutter? Did I not define the term for you? What are you trying to accomplish by asking me this question? And anyone who might point this out as being illogical shouldnt worry about it? Are you intentionally being obtuse here? I would like to point out again that your comment I quoted before is a little illogical and as such it demeans any good arguements that you make. Perhaps it would be best to rethink it? Thanks but no thanks. If I turned to you to determine what's logical, I wouldn't play anything short of Pun-Pun in my games. Ok, pro-caster is someone who bases the balance of the game on about 70% of the core base classes and about 70% of the core prc's. Don't stop there. Explain why this justifies the position. Then you have a comment about players doing nothing and the DM being a moron which I am guessing is just you showing that you really dislike and trivialize anyone who you might put under this umbrella. Really? That's the only conclusion you could muster? You even added your own part about the DM being a moron in there, which is something the anti-fighter's (gasp!) generally say to give their arguments clout. Perhaps the comment shows that I feel the scenarios a pro-caster throws out simply wouldn't work in your average game, unless you usually play with players that don't like doing anything and DM's that don't mind their monsters getting trounced in round 1. And I've said as much before. So please... stop pretending like you don't know what's going on. Hmm.. These are neither mutually exclusive Really? I assume you are adding some qualifier like 'poorly' in your head, or 'not better than a commoner'. That's the only way I see 'can function' and 'cannot function' as not being mutually exclusive. nor do they come even close to encompasing the thoughts shown in both incarnations of this thread. Yeah, right. Keep on pretending. I'll be here over in Reality waiting. (Scion will respond: I don't understand. So, because I disagree with you, I am not real? That seems a bit illogical.) :eek: One could even fall under all 3 at once situationally. Then maybe... just maybe... one doesn't use the term in those situations. It is curious that those who want to improve the fighter are 'anti-fighter' Curious or intuitive? We have the fighter as-is. A class. You are against the class as it stands, wanting something more, something presumably better. Why is it curious that you may be labeled anti-fighter if we use the term fighter to refer to the class? Maybe in a thread where you dicuss your l33t improved fighter class, you can be pro-fighter. But for now, when we disucss the fighter in the PHB, that's the term that's been coined for you. I didn't start it, but I use it, and I just defined it for you. and the number of people who would actually fit under 'pro-caster' looks to be zero. Then as I said before, don't worry about it. ;)
Bob Loblaw 05-25-07, 10:03 AM	not necessarily, scrolls, pearls of power, and the like can cover many of these situations. I alluded to those options, but it doesn't change the fact that the cleric is putting more resources into something that really isn't necessary. The cleric would be better served using his resources doing something other than emulating another class.
Clawhound 05-25-07, 10:34 AM	One of the things that MIC showed me is how different the this board perceive the wealth & power curve vs. how the designers see it. Here on the boards, we tend to see a much more aggressive equipment kit, resulting in a higher power curve. Look at the MIC recommendations to see how WotC perceives the power gear. With their curve, many builds loose their steam. You can't afford the same cool widgets until a higher, and sometimes significantly higher level.
Zelck 05-25-07, 10:43 AM	Doesn't the game assume 4 encounters per day? If so, then you need to quadruple the number of slots you are using to out-tank the fighter. There are ways to deal with this I know, but honestly you are putting more work into being a better tank than should be necessary. Why not just let the fighter tank and you can use those 20 to 28 spell slots for something else that may be more useful? Oh come on. I said those were the spell levels. You can fill up all of the slots in those spell levels with the important buffs, which is what I assumed in my comparison. Even if you do that, you're still left with all your 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, and 9th level spell slots. And again you make the fallacy that we could let the fighter tank to "save spell slots". We're seeing whether it's better to add a new cleric or a fighter to a party of "cleric, rogue, and wizard". The new cleric is going to be melee-focused, because there's another cleric that's support-focused. You really have two options. You can say that tanking is more useful than whatever you can put in those spell slots in place of buffs, in which case your argument doesn't hold. Or, you can say that the other stuff is more important than tanking, in which case the fighter loses big-time because they can't get access to those spells while the tank-cleric can (by sacrificing tanking). I alluded to those options, but it doesn't change the fact that the cleric is putting more resources into something that really isn't necessary. The cleric would be better served using his resources doing something other than emulating another class. Maybe I should put it this way. A fighter uses all of his resources to tank and fight. A cleric uses some (a good fraction, but not all) of his resources to come very close to the fighter's ability to tank and fight. And if you need a tank, who cares about the other stuff you gave up? And if you don't need a tank, why are you playing a fighter?
Khan the Destroyer 05-25-07, 10:52 AM	One of the things that MIC showed me is how different the this board perceive the wealth & power curve vs. how the designers see it. Here on the boards, we tend to see a much more aggressive equipment kit, resulting in a higher power curve. Look at the MIC recommendations to see how WotC perceives the power gear. With their curve, many builds loose their steam. You can't afford the same cool widgets until a higher, and sometimes significantly higher level. I was surprised at this as well. Spending so much time on the CO Boards, I took stuff like +10 weapons and armor and a score of 30 in a primary stat by level 20 for granted. But in reality (or at least, according to MIC), this is not how they intended the game to pan out. And again you make the fallacy that we could let the fighter tank to "save spell slots". We're seeing whether it's better to add a new cleric or a fighter to a party of "cleric, rogue, and wizard". The new cleric is going to be melee-focused, because there's another cleric that's support-focused. You really have two options. You can say that tanking is more useful than whatever you can put in those spell slots in place of buffs, in which case your argument doesn't hold. Or, you can say that the other stuff is more important than tanking, in which case the fighter loses big-time because they can't get access to those spells while the tank-cleric can (by sacrificing tanking). But this is all pointless, because the artificer is even better than the cleric. So, let's stop talking about the cleric, and let's compare the fighter to the artificer.
Flan 05-25-07, 12:04 PM	But this is all pointless, because the artificer is even better than the cleric. So, let's stop talking about the cleric, and let's compare the fighter to the artificer. Eberon? Lets not. The campaign book reads like it was written by an 8 year old. I'm also not conviced about your claim on the artificer.
Khan the Destroyer 05-25-07, 12:16 PM	Eberon? Lets not. The campaign book reads like it was written by an 8 year old. Is there anything else we should ignore based on your preferences? I'm also not conviced about your claim on the artificer. And yet, you don't want to talk about it. I can't see how to convince you. Just Google 'Optimized Artificer' and you'll get Caelic's thread on the CO Boards. That should be proof enough. Of course, if you want to ignore the artificer, we can just go with the druid. The melee cleric is obsolete because the druid does that job, plus healing, plus scout/stealth, plus battlefield control, plus blasting.
Argaud 05-25-07, 12:48 PM	Is there anything else we should ignore based on your preferences? Nah, let ignore the artificer, it is Eberron-only (no, I know it isn't, but lets say it is). Lets use the Archivist instead. It is a base class, no campaign-specific. He has access to all the cleric spells, all the druid's spells, all the paladin spells (cast at full level - they are not even designed to be cast at full level!) all the ranger spells (same) all the domain spells (good chunk of the wizard's list) all the spells of all the divine PrCs out there, plus all the spells of all the new divine base classes out there. Totally pwns the cleric, utterly. The cleric? Useless too! Barely a NPC class! :rolleyes:
Scion of Coldshard 05-25-07, 01:06 PM	To those people it is the same thing. They might accept it as an answer and go with it but it is certainly not the same thing, and since I am talking about the difference between how various people can and will see it the fact that it is not answering the question is important. The question isn't whether or not someone can do the job better but can the fighter do his job. That is the way you are interpretting the question, other people are interupretting it differently. Hence a lot of the problems that have come up in this thread. If someone else can do the job of the fighter better than the fighter then for a good number of people that means that the fighter is basically as pointless as the warrior. You dont see it that way, that is perfectly fine! But many people do see it that way and since people who see it in each way are participating in this thread calling attention to it is important. They should use whatever class(es) fits their concept. And that concept should be allowed to be mechanically sound if at all possible. But if the only reason to have a fighter is that so some builds can take a level or two in it for a quick fighter feat then I feel something has gone terribly wrong. ... So you have gone into just being incredibly insulting and ignoring helpful comments. Come on khan, you can do better than that! If the only way you can categorize people with opposing view points is in an insulting manner then there can be no real debate on the topic with you.
Scion of Coldshard 05-25-07, 01:09 PM	The cleric would be better served using his resources doing something other than emulating another class. By your own arguements throughout this thread why is that important to you? You said it does not matter if someone else can do the job better, just that the job can be done. So, from your perspective, why do you care if the cleric is emulating the job but not doing it as well as the fighter could? He is getting the job done after all.
Kratch 05-25-07, 03:16 PM	But, my own words didn't use "powergamer" there. then remove powergamer from what i said. The point still stands. You (or whoever it was i intially replied to), objected to the idea of a DM limiting options by saying "get your filthy stinking hands off my character sheet". The Dm is then well within his rights to say "then get out". You seem to have gotten hung up on the wrong part of my initial point. That's called a strawman. I mentioned nothing about powergaming there. You injected 'powergamer'. Then you proceded to argue against the 'powergamer' bit. I argued against the objection to restrictions, your the one hung up on my poor choice of inflamation. Look, I guess it comes down to You're saying the DM dictating what classes the player takes is a bad thing. I'm saying the DM dictating what classes the player takes is a bad thing. Neither of us is saying that disallowing a class(es) for the entire campaign is a bad thing. But disallowing classes isn't the same as promoting diversity, is it? Except, the objection i initially responded to ("get your filthy stinking hands off my character sheet") was effectively objecting to any kind of limitation. The DM is well within his rights to boot a player who refuses to accept the limitations he has set within his campaign. It doesn't diminish Clawhound's quote. It merely points out that quote's true place as applying equally to all classes. To what purpose? I edited in that bit about the player Clawhound was talking about, so that response of mine does seem a bit jumbled. Players that get that over-annoyed I want to play a fighter 3 / bard 2 / cleric 3 in an 8th level party need to be smacked. Or repeatedly erked by someone repeatedly playing a character they find fun but the annoyed person hates.
Kratch 05-25-07, 03:21 PM	Improved trip itself is one feat but it is usually part of a larger build, but actually the creatures that are immune to trip, disarm, bullrush etc. all tend to be the same creatures. Please note that I'm not necessarily saying immune, just their modifiers are high enough that the ability of the fighter, or a martial character focused on those types of tricks, to effect them in such a manner is severely in question. I believe Khan Made a build capable of tripping anything short of a gargantuan quadraped, disarming a titan and bullrushing the terrasque, all with exceptional ease. Granted, it used a relic which was called into question, but even with removing it, he was still able to consistently effect almost all creatures that weren't utterly immune. These sorts of generalizations are more based on bias then actual numbers. Perhaps if khan still has a link to that build, you can go through the MM and compare how many creatures would give it issues vs the number of creatures immune to SA (which, considering the substitution options, i shall also reffer to as issues, rather then immunity). I'm sure you'll discover the fighter is no worst off, yet it seems the fighter is percieved as worst off, i can only assume because of the generalizations and bias's that surround it. At level 3, the two 2nd level spells can be filled with utility spells. Really, the important spell levels for tanking are 1 (Divine Favor), 4 (Divine Power), 5 (Righteous Might, Quickened Divine Favor), and 8 (Quickened Divine Power), along with one level 3 and one level 4 slot for Magic Vestments and Greater Magic Weapon. Other spell levels can be filled with different spells. That leaves you levels 2, most of 3, most of 4, 6-7 and some of 9 to match against the fighters 11 bonus feats plus the feat you spent on quicken so you can match him. Generally, i see spells as more poweful, yet far more restricted (usually, not always) then feats. a feat generally (again, not always, depends on the feat) works almost all the time, where spells generally have to be used under more restricted circumstances (IE, is it against the right save? is the creature immune, do i have to worry about SR, etc.). So, if the cleric unexpectedly encounters numerous things of the same type, he may use up all the apllicable tricks (for that foe) and be left with nothing but his artificially attained warrior (not fighter) abilities. Additionally, unless the particular spell is quickened, (burning higher level slots for a low level effect), it takes a standard action to use those options, generally, feats are used as part of an attack sequence (thus not costing as much time/loss of momentum.) Well, large monsters with natural attacks are pretty much resistant to trip, grapples, and bull rushes due to size and disarm and sunder due to natural weapons. Additionally, dedicated trip builds (outside of core) often devote a significant number of feats to tripping, and lose a great deal of power when they can't do it. Care to show me a trip build that loses more then 2 feats (i'm actually currious if there's even a second feat he loses access to) from a creature immune to tripping? Perhaps you can then take that build and show me 5 creatures that, due to all that large/natural attack stuff, make it immune (based on the numbers in that build vs the monsters stats). (i'm sure you'll be able to find 5, mostly through immuneity (such as through wingless flight) rather then actual numbers on opposed rolls, but i think it will be educational for you.) If guy A feels that if the role can be filled then everything is fine while guy B feels that the role can be filled but if another character could fill the role and fill in decently on another role then the second guy should be used without something special being in the first guys court then we have an issue when they start argueing about whether or not the character is good to go. In general terms, what can a wizard do that a cleric can not? Blast? Clerics can do it. Divinations? nope, clerics do that too. Buff? Nope again, clerics do that. So wouldn't that mean, by your criteria, wizards suck? I know your gonna reply something to the effect "wizards have better and more options in their offensive magic", to which i will reply, fighters have better and more options in their melee offence due to they're feats, the cleric buffs only get the cleric up to warrior level, not fighter level. You'll then likely follow up with something along the lines of "a cleric has healing and his spells on top of the warrior stuff, putting him above the fighter". To which I can respond, the cleric has Armour, healing, turning, better HP's and decent melee over the wizard, which puts him over the wizard too. So tell me, how is it that you don't say wizards suck? Perhaps it's because, when you look into the specific spells you can see the potential, yet you don't seem to want to see the potential in fighters? not necessarily, scrolls, pearls of power, and the like can cover many of these situations. If scrolls and what not are being used for the extra utility ... "to cover many of those situations", and there is already another cleric (as well as a rogue.)in the group, ( We are discussing 4th member of a party, are we not? (although i notice those arguing against you have been saying the cleric is better off using his spells for more useful things as if he was the only cleric in the party, forgetting those more useful things are already being covered by the initial cleric)) whats the need for a second cleric in the group to use those? A fighter uses all of his resources to tank and fight. A cleric uses some (a good fraction, but not all) of his resources to come very close to the fighter's ability to tank and fight. And if you need a tank, who cares about the other stuff you gave up? And if you don't need a tank, why are you playing a fighter? Actually, A cleric uses some (a good fraction, but not all) of his resources to come very close to a warriors ability to tank and fight. Almost (if not entirly) all of those remaining spells are used to account for the fighters feats and they're consistancy (notice how many spells are required just to stay consistent with a warrior, do you really see 12 feats (11 bonus plus the one used on quicken) being that much easier to keep going consistenly?
Scion of Coldshard 05-25-07, 03:55 PM	So tell me, how is it that you don't say wizards suck? Who says that I dont? I am not here to be on either side of the for or against fighter debate directly. I am just here trying to make sure that peoples builds are legal and pointing out logical flaws so that a few arguements can be shored up and stop leaking liquid bad all over any good points that they are making.
Kratch 05-25-07, 05:13 PM	Who says that I dont? HMM. Then perhaps you'd care to clarify. Do you think wizards suck? or are you holding fighters up to a higher standard simply for your own (as yet unknown) reasons? I am not here to be on either side of the for or against fighter debate directly. I am just here trying to make sure that peoples builds are legal and pointing out logical flaws so that a few arguements can be shored up and stop leaking liquid bad all over any good points that they are making. Is that so? Your not on ether side? Then why is it only those argueing on behalf of fighters as is being viable who's logic you feel needs to be corrected? I've seen some pretty crazy things said by those debating against fighters or for clerics, your silence in those cases demonstraits a bias.
navar100 05-25-07, 05:42 PM	I am not here to be on either side of the for or against fighter debate directly. I am just here trying to make sure that peoples builds are legal and pointing out logical flaws so that a few arguements can be shored up and stop leaking liquid bad all over any good points that they are making. Is that so? Your not on ether side? Then why is it only those argueing on behalf of fighters as is being viable who's logic you feel needs to be corrected? I've seen some pretty crazy things said by those debating against fighters or for clerics, your silence in those cases demonstraits a bias. Indeed. When the whole fighter sucks threads started there were those who were aghast that a wizard would dare cast a buff spell on a fighter, calling it a waste of resources. They called fighters a drain on resources and claimed that if fighters must beg for a spell they should have to pay for it. I cannot recall if Scion was one of those people specifically, but I do remember Scion getting on my case about it when I argued against such nonsense.
Otto the Bugbear 05-25-07, 05:46 PM	then remove powergamer from what i said. The point still stands. You (or whoever it was i intially replied to), objected to the idea of a DM limiting options by saying "get your filthy stinking hands off my character sheet". The Dm is then well within his rights to say "then get out". You seem to have gotten hung up on the wrong part of my initial point. So, are you saying the DM should tell me what class to pick? I argued against the objection to restrictions, your the one hung up on my poor choice of inflamation. "Inflamation"? Uh, then don't make a poor choice of inflamation. Except, the objection i initially responded to ("get your filthy stinking hands off my character sheet") was effectively objecting to any kind of limitation. The DM is well within his rights to boot a player who refuses to accept the limitations he has set within his campaign. So, are you saying the DM should tell me what class to pick? How about more reasonably... Should I be allowed to pick what I choose within the overall campaign restrictions? As in, should the DM keep his filthy stinking paws off my character sheet if I'm within the campaign restrictions? Or should he change those around after-the-fact and then claim "it's for diversity" or some other such bull:censored: justification? To what purpose? Truth. Equality. Clarity. A statement like that can be used for all classes. To list it as a specific reason to have, specifically, a fighter, just isn't the case.
Scion of Coldshard 05-25-07, 05:47 PM	Then perhaps you'd care to clarify. Do you think wizards suck? Unimportant for this thread. Then why is it only those argueing on behalf of fighters as is being viable who's logic you feel needs to be corrected? Much of that was covered by other people. I saw a few things that needed to be pointed out directly but had been passed over for some reason or accepted as true, which was even crazier. Would you care to give me a few different post numbers to look at specifically?
Scion of Coldshard 05-25-07, 06:08 PM	When the whole fighter sucks threads started there were those who were aghast that a wizard would dare cast a buff spell on a fighter, calling it a waste of resources. They called fighters a drain on resources and claimed that if fighters must beg for a spell they should have to pay for it. I imagine that you are misrepresenting the opposing side but I could be wrong. Still, 'waste of resources' and 'beg for a spell' seem to be pretty hefty claims, what was the context? There was another thread not too long ago where someone was claiming that the monk was a good class because he could get mage armor cast on him by the party mage. I said that whether the monk was good or not could not depend on someone else in the party having just the right ability to help the monk out. I still stand by that, either a class is well made or it is not, assuming help from another character to prove that a class is well made is a failed arguement as far as I am concerned. If that was the kind of context that the arguement was presented in I could support it. But if one party memeber is using an ability on another then that would count for anyone sitting in that slot so it would all wash out in the end and so is probably not all that helpful to think about. Kindof like if you give everything in the game +1 to hit and +1 AC, what has changed overall? Basically nothing, so why worry about it?
Kratch 05-25-07, 07:04 PM	So, are you saying the DM should tell me what class to pick? Thats not what i said. not even close. If you can't tell the difference between "you can't play that particular build" and "you will play this class", there is no point discussing anything with you. I have made my point abundantly clear. So, are you saying the DM should tell me what class to pick? Again, not what I said. A DM "telling what class to play" is like a DM saying, "you will play a bard." I've never said anything like that. How about more reasonably... Should I be allowed to pick what I choose within the overall campaign restrictions? "Within the Campaign Restriction"? you mean, you restrict your players? you tell them what to play? /sarcasm off I thought this is what i've been saying, more or less, all along As in, should the DM keep his filthy stinking paws off my character sheet if I'm within the campaign restrictions? Or should he change those around after-the-fact and then claim "it's for diversity" or some other such bull:censored: justification? So, If Pun Pun fits into your initial "campaign Restrictions", he's allowed to play it? If you have 7 players, and each and every one of them wants to play a DMM + nightstick weilding cleric, you just bend over and take it? Unimportant for this thread. Unimportent? If the criteria you are using (and it was your wording, your criteria i was using) illiminates all class's but the cleric/druid (or singularlly, the artificer if it is allowed), would that not stand to reason... would it not be logical to conclude, the criteria are whats faulty, not the fighter? How can it be logical that if every class sucks except cleric/druid, that it is only the fighter that is to be held accountable? Admitting the wizard sucks by the very criteria you use to ... deminish(?)... the fighter would only stand to show how unreasonable those very criteria are. Therefore, it is far from unimportent what you think of the wizard, in fact, it is rather crutial. Your answer ether deems you a hypocrit or unreasonable. So I'l ask again: Do you think wizards suck? If yes, then how do you explain holding fighters solely accountable for not meeting your excessive criteria? If no, then explain to me, in general terms, what can a wizard do that a cleric can not? (I'd also like to point out, the fact you stand by that criteria, yet refuse to acknowledge it's impact on class's other then the fighter, is far from impartial. You clearly have taken a side.)
Scion of Coldshard 05-25-07, 07:15 PM	Unimportent? Yep, unimportant. Although I will say that something I dont care about the wizard is that d4 hd. Considering the sheer amount of damage that basically everything in the game does they are incredibly fragile. I also dont feel that any class should have a base amount of skill points less than 4, but then that would extend to the fighter and cleric as well, furthering reinforcing the unimportant bit ;) In which post did I make comparisons to clerics and druids and list criteria that eliminated all classes other than those?
Argaud 05-25-07, 07:38 PM	In which post did I make comparisons to clerics and druids and list criteria that eliminated all classes other than those? The problem is that by following your logical reasoning about the figher being a poor class choice, the wizard is also a poor class choice. The cleric can do what the fighter does, and more. The cleric can do what the wizard does, and more. So it seems to some of us that by your logic the wizard is also a pretty terrible class. Edit to add: OTOH both the artificer and the archivist can do all what the cleric does, and more. Does that means the cleric is a weak class?
Scion of Coldshard 05-25-07, 07:46 PM	The problem is that by following your logical reasoning Which logical reasoning are you talking about? The logical reasoning that people are interpreting the question at hand differently or that a person who finds X better than Y at doing job Z could find Y to not be necissary? As you are claiming to know all of the logical chains here would you care to string them together and show me what I am thinking? ;) And no, the few lines you wrote out in post which I am quoting here are no where near sufficient.
Kratch 05-25-07, 08:18 PM	Which logical reasoning are you talking about? If guy A feels that if the role can be filled then everything is fine while guy B feels that the role can be filled but if another character could fill the role and fill in decently on another role then the second guy should be used without something special being in the first guys court then we have an issue when they start argueing about whether or not the character is good to go. The Bolded part is the logic we're refering too. It is a criteria that has come up often. The logical reasoning that people are interpreting the question at hand differently or that a person who finds X better than Y at doing job Z could find Y to not be necissary? the issue is, if someone finds class Y to fail (AKA suck, is "not necissary") because class X can do class Y's primary duty, being job Z (almost) as well as class Y and offers more, Then it stands to reason if class X can also do Class W's primary duty's, being Job M, as well and offer more, then class W also fails/sucks/is "not necissary". ether that, or the criteria is lacking in consistancy or there is a double standard being implemented. As for doing it better, that has yet to be proven. Generally, clerics can match (potentially even surpass) warriors with more on top, and people just ignore the fact fighters have feats on top of warrior abilities, because they don't think feats are enough. Khan (i think it was Khan), has made numerous fighter builds
Scion of Coldshard 05-25-07, 08:24 PM	The Bolded part is the logic we're refering too. The hypothetical logic of an unnamed, but likely present, person based on other peoples responses? Ok.
Kratch 05-25-07, 08:30 PM	The hypothetical logic of an unnamed, but likely present, person based on other peoples responses? Ok. You repeat it here. ... or that a person who finds X better than Y at doing job Z could find Y to not be necissary? . and here; If someone else can do the job of the fighter better than the fighter then for a good number of people that means that the fighter is basically as pointless as the warrior. In this following post, you repeat the criteria numerous times. and Although you try to remain impartial, the fact that you are addressing only those on one side of the debate and arguing against they're logic places you at odds with that side. It's true, in this particular post, you don't say wether you subscribe to ether view, you just acknowledge both and argue against those who hold to one side; ... The fact that you continued to defend the criteria implies you support it.
Argaud 05-25-07, 08:30 PM	The hypothetical logic of an unnamed, but likely present, person based on other peoples responses? Ok. What Kratch posted: "but if another character could fill the role and fill in decently on another role then the second guy should be used" Are your words, not some unnamed's person. By those words the cleric shouldn't be played. Artificer and archivist can do all the cleric can do, and then some more stuff. This regardless the fact the cleric is probably the most powerful of the core classes, and more than able to do his job (as well as several others). That the fighter is good is not enough... because there is better. That the cleric is good is not enough... because there is better. Same logic.
Scion of Coldshard 05-25-07, 08:58 PM	You repeat it here. Yeah, I repeat it in a few posts that are responding to the same theme, glad you are catching on. A hypothetical person could interpret the question in a way different than a good portion of the way people are trying to answer it and bringing that up is important so that people might actually try to play the same game on the same field rather than playing a different game in a completely different field. It bears repeating because it is so very important and yet is so easily ignored.
Bob Loblaw 05-25-07, 09:23 PM	Yeah, I repeat it in a few posts that are responding to the same theme, glad you are catching on. A hypothetical person could interpret the question in a way different than a good portion of the way people are trying to answer it and bringing that up is important so that people might actually try to play the same game on the same field rather than playing a different game in a completely different field. It bears repeating because it is so very important and yet is so easily ignored. Actually it is a 100% fallacious argument. Just because someone is better does not automatically mean that the other person sucks. You are only targeting those of us who support the fighter. While I appreciate your input on my build, I have yet to see you even mention to one of those who think the fighter sucks that they are not paying attention to what we are saying. You can pretend to be impartial, but you are definitely taking sides. It helps me with my understanding, but I know where you stand.
Khan the Destroyer 05-25-07, 09:30 PM	So you have gone into just being incredibly insulting and ignoring helpful comments. Come on khan, you can do better than that! I didn't intend to be incredibly insulting ;). And I'm sorry Scion, but I don't find your comments to be all that helpful. It seems to me that you end up cluttering the (admittedly) already cluttered-up thread. Even now, you are explaining to 2 other people how you didn't actually claim what they have quoted you claiming. Generally, you ask questions like some sort of android new to the world, incapable of recognizing tongue-in-cheek and taking everything very seriously in an attempt to appear rational against your seemingly irrational target. Then, you answer questions with more questions, trying to appear impartial and remain slippery against the points brought up against yours. All the while, we go further and further from the topic as everyone tries to explain themselves. Not very useful in general. If the only way you can categorize people with opposing view points is in an insulting manner then there can be no real debate on the topic with you. Well, you've said as much about me before, so I'm not sure why it bears repeating. Defining a pro-caster as someone that judges class balance on the wizard/cleric when said wizard/cleric is used in a way that likely doesn't see actual gameplay doesn't seem insulting to me. Calling them out on their faulty logic doesn't seem insulting to me either. In fact, that's what you are doing right now. In regards to the definition of viable... if we use our definition, the fighter is viable. If we use your definition... oh, I mean... if we use the definition of the people that you do not necessarily agree with but whose cause you are championing... the fighter is not viable but neither is the cleric, because the wizard, artificer, and archivist can do that and more. *Shrugs* Who is viable?
Scion of Coldshard 05-25-07, 09:48 PM	Actually it is a 100% fallacious argument. 100% fallacious? So it is 100% logically unsound, misleading, and/or delusive. So you feel that my stating that someone could, and does given portions of this thread, interpret the question differently than you do is 100% logically unsound, misleading, and/or delusive? I disagree. Since people can and do interpret it differently I would say that it is right around 0% fallacious. You are only targeting those of us who support the fighter. I have already asked for the numbers of the posts that people feel I have ignored, what more than that can I do bob? If those of you who are claiming this wont even help in that simple way while they will go out of there way to point out that I repeat a basic premise that I felt was being ignored I dont know, that seems a little rude somehow. And I'm sorry Scion Frankly at this point khan you have lost all of my respect for you that you had gained in other places. if we use our definition, the fighter is viable Everyone gets this. Hopefully at this point every gets that if you use some other definition of it you can come up with the fighter not being viable. It would be nice to either move past that or simply drop the matter entirely. Why even try to discuss something when you turn such a blind eye to the opposing arguements? Your definitions given earlier of the various sides that you see demonstrates that you will give villainous descriptions of anyone who might go against the fighter. Has anyone on the opposing side given such harsh insults as well? If so this goes for them as well. I am sorry that some of you feel so strongly that the fighter is fine that you must insult even the very idea that someone might have a different opinion, or interpret a question in a different way than you do.
navar100 05-25-07, 10:00 PM	I imagine that you are misrepresenting the opposing side but I could be wrong. Still, 'waste of resources' and 'beg for a spell' seem to be pretty hefty claims, what was the context? There was another thread not too long ago where someone was claiming that the monk was a good class because he could get mage armor cast on him by the party mage. I said that whether the monk was good or not could not depend on someone else in the party having just the right ability to help the monk out. I still stand by that, either a class is well made or it is not, assuming help from another character to prove that a class is well made is a failed arguement as far as I am concerned. If that was the kind of context that the arguement was presented in I could support it. But if one party memeber is using an ability on another then that would count for anyone sitting in that slot so it would all wash out in the end and so is probably not all that helpful to think about. Kindof like if you give everything in the game +1 to hit and +1 AC, what has changed overall? Basically nothing, so why worry about it? Exactly as is. The fighter wasn't being defended by saying a wizard could cast Fly on him. The argument was that it was a team effort and a wizard who happened to cast Fly on the fighter might be the better choice than casting some attack spell or buff on himself for a particular combat. If you're going to cast a buff spell anyway it might be better in some cases to buff someone who is already a good combatant to make him a better combatant than to buff yourself into a combatant. People got on the fighter's case because the wizard had to cast a spell on him as proof the fighter sucks and others went further claiming the fighter should pay the wizard for all the scrolls he has to expend on him as well as pearls of power since the wizard is so obligated to prepare spells exclusively for him regardless of what the wizard wants. It's no big deal for a party as a whole to chip in when a spellcaster is crafting scrolls or other magic items for the party as a whole. It is a big deal to claim a fighter must pay for everything the wizard does for him because he just sucks so bad in effectiveness in combat and demands so much magical support from the spellcasters he's worse than a black hole (my words here to reflect the true sentiment of the time).
Bob Loblaw 05-25-07, 10:01 PM	Oh come on. I said those were the spell levels. You can fill up all of the slots in those spell levels with the important buffs, which is what I assumed in my comparison. Even if you do that, you're still left with all your 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, and 9th level spell slots. I was able to see that those were spell levels. I also was able to note that it would take 20 to 28 spells to fill all those slots if you wanted to be able to pull off the tank role 4 times in a single day. Perhaps I miscounted but I saw 7 spells being used. 7 x 4 = 28. That's quite a few of your spell slots. And again you make the fallacy that we could let the fighter tank to "save spell slots". We're seeing whether it's better to add a new cleric or a fighter to a party of "cleric, rogue, and wizard". The new cleric is going to be melee-focused, because there's another cleric that's support-focused. You really have two options. You can say that tanking is more useful than whatever you can put in those spell slots in place of buffs, in which case your argument doesn't hold. Or, you can say that the other stuff is more important than tanking, in which case the fighter loses big-time because they can't get access to those spells while the tank-cleric can (by sacrificing tanking). Actually I have made no fallacy. You are arguing that a cleric is better than a fighter. I have already conceded that many moons ago. I have said that the fighter can get the job done. That's all that matters. If you want extras, then the fighter is not the class for you. If you really want an uber party, why not just use 4 artificers, or 4 clerics if you wanted to stay core? There is no need for rogues or wizards with the clerics around. For 500 gold, the cleric can find traps as a rogue with a +10 bonus. He can scribe several of these scrolls. Combined with his own Search check, there should be no problems finding traps. Once he's found the trap, he can summon a monster to set it off or he can simply bypass the trap. Rogue is obsolete with a 2nd level spell and a feat. The cleric's spells are just as good as the wizard's (many are the same spell). He can be a blaster, diviner, or whatever role the wizard fills. Wizard is obsolete. Since the cleric can do anything, it actually is a bad choice to use as a measuring stick. Besides, we all agree that spells are more powerful than feats. That is not a bug, it's a feature. Maybe I should put it this way. A fighter uses all of his resources to tank and fight. Yup, that he does. What else does he need to do? That is the role the designers intended and he fills that role fine. A cleric uses some (a good fraction, but not all) of his resources to come very close to the fighter's ability to tank and fight. Actually, the cleric can do quite a bit. However, why waste your time emulating the fighter when you already have a fighter? This doesn't make sense to me. Why waste 20 spells to fill the role when you can do much more with those slots? Let the fighter fight. As a cleric you don't need to limit yourself to such a role. And if you need a tank, who cares about the other stuff you gave up? And if you don't need a tank, why are you playing a fighter? Why give up anything? If you are a cleric, you don't have to be a fighter. You can be so much more. They might accept it as an answer and go with it but it is certainly not the same thing, and since I am talking about the difference between how various people can and will see it the fact that it is not answering the question is important. It may not be to you, but it is answering the question. We can go round and round on this with no give on either side. You see it differently than I. That is the way you are interpretting the question, other people are interupretting it differently. Hence a lot of the problems that have come up in this thread. Hmmm, I wonder when you're going to let them know that they are interpreting it differently? They are adding so much more to the question. The question is very simple. Why play a fighter? Not, why play a cleric instead of anything else? If someone else can do the job of the fighter better than the fighter then for a good number of people that means that the fighter is basically as pointless as the warrior. And those people either don't know how to play a fighter or, more likely, want something with more pizazz. The fighter is not flashy. That is one of the problems that people have. They will often talk about summoning, wishing, fireballing, etc. without realizing that the fighter isn't meant to match those things. Casters have more pizazz than non-casters. This is just how spells compare to feats. You dont see it that way, that is perfectly fine! But many people do see it that way and since people who see it in each way are participating in this thread calling attention to it is important. And when are you going to let them in on this secret? You are quick to let me know that I am not understanding them, even when I make it very clear that I fully understand. And that concept should be allowed to be mechanically sound if at all possible. Mechanically sound will vary from campaign to campaign. In the games I run, the fighter is perfectly fine. I have never had any players complain that the fighter can't do his job. I run a combat heavy game. The fighter is always able to be a star. I also tend to run modules or at least run things right from the books. I don't have any custom monsters. I don't go out of my way to favor any classes or races. I do make sure that everyone is going to have fun. If there is a rogue, I add more traps and make sure he's got things to do. If there is a paladin, I add more evil creatures. If there is a ranger, I add his favored enemies. I make sure that everyone has a chance to shine. It's what the DM is supposed to do. But if the only reason to have a fighter is that so some builds can take a level or two in it for a quick fighter feat then I feel something has gone terribly wrong. That's your interpretation of how the class fits with your gaming style. I do agree that the fighter works better than most classes as a dip, but I don't see it as an only option. By your own arguements throughout this thread why is that important to you? You said it does not matter if someone else can do the job better, just that the job can be done. So, from your perspective, why do you care if the cleric is emulating the job but not doing it as well as the fighter could? He is getting the job done after all. I have a problem with any classes that eliminate the need for other classes. The cleric, druid, artificer, and a few others have design flaws as far as I'm concerned. Many spells should be removed or weakened. Divine favor, find traps, divine power, righteous might, gate, and several others are too potent. If these spells did not exist, would the cleric be able to tank or replace the rogue? Although I will say that something I dont care about the wizard is that d4 hd. Considering the sheer amount of damage that basically everything in the game does they are incredibly fragile. I also dont feel that any class should have a base amount of skill points less than 4, but then that would extend to the fighter and cleric as well, furthering reinforcing the unimportant bit ;) I'm with you on this one. I think all classes should have a minimum of 4 skill points per level. I also think that d6 should be the lowest hit die. I'm of the mindset that the classes with full base attack should probably have their hit die size reduced and then a static number added. For example, the barbarian should have 1d6+6 hit points. The fighter and paladin should have 1d6+4. The ranger should have 1d4+4. These classes are expected to be in the front lines and should have the hit points to back them up.
Scion of Coldshard 05-25-07, 10:03 PM	Figured I should call this out directly. Defining a pro-caster as someone that judges class balance on the wizard/cleric when said wizard/cleric is used in a way that likely doesn't see actual gameplay doesn't seem insulting to me. Khan, if you feel that this is what your description earleir was doing then you should definately try again. You might think you were saying something like what you have just said here but it was not even close. Here is what you said earlier: Pro-Caster: Someone that bases the balance of everything else on the theoretical power and influence a caster character could wield in a game where the other players don't mind doing absolutely nothing and the DM doesn't mind all of his monsters getting trounced in Round 1. Do you see the difference? If not I have no idea what to say to you. These statements are worlds apart. We can even break your latest statement into two parts: Defining a pro-caster as someone that judges class balance on the wizard/cleric when said wizard/cleric is used in a way that likely doesn't see actual gameplay The first part, while the name is a little odd considering, is a pretty decent definition. A little more meat on it and it would be very workable. The second part however goes back to what many have already agreed on, different game styles push different aspects of the game. As such it only promotes the idea that you are being insulting and it does not actually help the definition at all as beyond the insult it is meaningless. Calling them out on their faulty logic doesn't seem insulting to me either. In fact, that's what you are doing right now. That is true, I am pointing out faulty logic and trying to get people to see that both sides of the issue are completely valid sides but can easily come to opposite conclusions. 60 or 70 pages and people are still doing the same old arguement over and over again that simply amounts to which of the two loudest opinions you want to use about what the question means to you personally. Bah. Get over it already ;/
Kratch 05-25-07, 10:13 PM	100% fallacious? So it is 100% logically unsound, misleading, and/or delusive. So you feel that my stating that someone could, and does given portions of this thread, interpret the question differently than you do is 100% logically unsound, misleading, and/or delusive? That they interpret it differently? no, that is, as you say, 0% fallacious. The argument they use, that because class X can do class Y's job, means class Y sucks/is unneccessary, that argument is 100% fallacious. and thats what Khan said. I have already asked for the numbers of the posts that people feel I have ignored, what more than that can I do bob? If those of you who are claiming this wont even help in that simple way while they will go out of there way to point out that I repeat a basic premise that I felt was being ignored I dont know, that seems a little rude somehow. In this post: So, are you saying the DM should tell me what class to pick?... Otto is clearly misunderstanding/misinterpretting what is being said. At no point have I or clawhand said a DM should tell a player what class to play, simply that a DM is within his right to set limitations. You posted twice within this post and my responce. Everyone gets this. Hopefully at this point every gets that if you use some other definition of it you can come up with the fighter not being viable. But if that same definition renders the very class they are using as an evidence, also inviable, then the definition is flawed and should be reconsidered. That is what i've(we've) been trying to show. It would be nice to either move past that or simply drop the matter entirely. Why even try to discuss something when you turn such a blind eye to the opposing arguements? Your definitions given earlier of the various sides that you see demonstrates that you will give villainous descriptions of anyone who might go against the fighter. Has anyone on the opposing side given such harsh insults as well? If so this goes for them as well. The opposing arguements have not been ignored, they have been shown to be flawed. I am sorry that some of you feel so strongly that the fighter is fine that you must insult even the very idea that someone might have a different opinion, or interpret a question in a different way than you do. And i'm sorry that you can not see it is insulting to enter a debate, and place yourself above us by claiming our logic is flawed (and in turn, you, being the one to correct us, has impecable logic) because we chose to prove other arguments to be inefective.
Scion of Coldshard 05-25-07, 10:25 PM	The argument was that it was a team effort and a wizard who happened to cast Fly on the fighter might be the better choice than casting some attack spell or buff on himself for a particular combat. I guess I can see that. Do you want to do something yourself or use one of your few actions in combat to make someone else better at doing something. Sortof like the bard in that way. Pretty powerful class in the right group, but it can be really dull when your main thing is to buff people A party can and should work together if they want to overcome difficult obstacles. It might be a bad thing to say in this thread given what has been flying around but I have definately seen wizards at high levels essentially becoming buff bots since that is all they can do that is effective.
Kratch 05-25-07, 10:30 PM	That is true, I am pointing out faulty logic and trying to get people to see that both sides of the issue are completely valid sides but can easily come to opposite conclusions. No, your trying to get US (those of us arguing in favour of the fighter being viable as is) to see there is another side to the deabte and simultaniously claiming our logic is flawed, presumably in an attempt to convince us we've been wrong and give up. I think Bob, in his responce to several of you posts, pointed out several instances of this one sided attempt at educating people (being us). Sortof like the bard in that way. Pretty powerful class in the right group, but it can be really dull when your main thing is to buff people I'm actually quite enjoying the role. I'm playing a sorcerer in a group with a barb, fighter, rogue, ranger and cleric, I do a lot of buffing and am far more effective in the group because of it. Draconic breath (feat) and colour spray are the only offensive spells i have besides buffs/utility, and it's rare i find any need to use ether.
Khan the Destroyer 05-25-07, 10:45 PM	Frankly at this point khan you have lost all of my respect for you that you had gained in other places. I haven't lost a spec of respect for you, and I've accused you of no more than what you've accused me of in the past. Despite the fact that I don't like the way you present your points, you seem to have a better grasp of logic than the average person, and you're a fan of psionics and a good optimizer. *shrugs* Your definitions given earlier of the various sides that you see demonstrates that you will give villainous descriptions of anyone who might go against the fighter. Has anyone on the opposing side given such harsh insults as well? How can you ask that question when you are acting the vigilante against me and others that support the same viewpoint? Shouldn't you know what the opposing side has said? Does your radar only go off when someone that doesn't mind the fighter class as-is seems illogical or insulting? I don't mind that you come in here to pick apart every little thing I say because I don't think some of your points affect my position. But please stop the act that you are somehow impartial and equally judging of everyone's logic and demeanor, but simultaneously unaware of any instance where those that feel the fighter needs a boost have been illogical or rude. I am sorry that some of you feel so strongly that the fighter is fine that you must insult even the very idea that someone might have a different opinion, or interpret a question in a different way than you do. *shrugs* I'm sorry that this has to be your point. I'm not always rude or insulting. Sometimes I am. But that's not the point of the thread. So, let's move on. Defining a pro-caster as someone that judges class balance on the wizard/cleric when said wizard/cleric is used in a way that likely doesn't see actual gameplay The first part, while the name is a little odd considering, is a pretty decent definition. A little more meat on it and it would be very workable. The second part however goes back to what many have already agreed on, different game styles push different aspects of the game. As such it only promotes the idea that you are being insulting and it does not actually help the definition at all as beyond the insult it is meaningless. I don't see how the second part is insulting. It's my opinion that some people present the casters in such a way that typically wouldn't hold water in a game. It would be the same as me saying 'Fighters aren't viable because Pun-Pun is infinitely stronger.' So what? Likewise, that casters can one-shot stuff with save-or-dies and can theoretically have the right spell for any situation prepared, and can Gate and Bind super powerful allies to do the job for them, and replace whole other PC's so that other players don't have to participate, I don't think it would hold in an average game. And if doesn't happen in an average game, why base your argument on the fighter's balance on it? And I refer to the people that use arguments like this as pro-casters for ease of reference. That's not insulting either. But yes, sometimes I throw insults. But insults on these boards are not a rare thing, and they are not limited to me. In fact, on the same page where we started this latest clash, Archangel referred to his position as pro-logic. Yeah, it's an insult. Did my feelings get hurt? No. I think it's funny. Regardless, I didn't see you running to my rescue. That is true, I am pointing out faulty logic and trying to get people to see that both sides of the issue are completely valid sides but can easily come to opposite conclusions. Yes. I see where you are coming from. I just don't agree that both sides are valid. The cleric is not the end-all-be-all of optimization, versatility, and power. You can't stop there. As I said, you can show that the fighter is not viable against a cleric using that definition, but then the cleric remains not viable as well. And then whatever beat him out is also not viable to someone else. There really is no standard except how well you can optimize to beat someone else at their job. And that seems less like D&D than how well you can optimize to do your job in a party of 4 adventurers.
Scion of Coldshard 05-25-07, 11:03 PM	That they interpret it differently? no, that is, as you say, 0% fallacious. Glad we agree. Otto is clearly misunderstanding/misinterpretting what is being said. That was your and otto's side arguement that started from a list of things that were claimed to be reasons to play a fighter but were not. After that it was blown way out of proportion and you two were fighting back and forth about it. It looks like the sequence went something like this: -Reason to have play fighter: DM bans the best builds to promote diversity (poor logic) -Otto: My character! Bad DM! (the part I focused on was after this, 'the dm could do that exact thing with rogues, bards, clerics..) -Kratch: powergamer comment, similarly quoted to ottos, then talking about the power of the dm (I agree about the power of the dm, it is his game and can run it as he sees fit, just like a player is free to leave at any time) -Otto: reaction to powergamer comment, comment about dm forcing diversity and asking if it was a good thing (all of these points make sense, powergamer is a pretty loaded term around here) And then some other stuff, I got tired of reading that back and forth early on when it was evident it didnt have anything to do with the fighter at all. You posted twice within this post and my responce. I believe I only responded to the parts that quoted me and ignored the rest. But if that same definition renders the very class they are using as an evidence, also inviable, then the definition is flawed and should be reconsidered. That is what i've(we've) been trying to show. That is fine. But what about the other shoe I brought up earlier as well? If one arguement is taken and pushed to say that no classes are viable so it does not work and then take the other presented arguement and push it to say that any class is viable what have we accomplished? Both of these arguements are now gone. I have no problem with taking the arguement about the cleric being better and, if you can support it, taking it to the extreme that everyone should just play a cleric. I also have no problem with taking the arguement that anyone who can do the job sufficies and pushing that to the point where a commoner is good enough since he can do the job. Both arguements are broken, time to come up with a new one. And i'm sorry that you can not see it is insulting to enter a debate, and place yourself above us by claiming our logic is flawed (and in turn, you, being the one to correct us, has impecable logic) because we chose to prove other arguments to be inefective. Many of the arguements presented were themselves so flawed that they could not stand up enough to break down other very flawed arguements. Sorry if you feel that having the problems in your position pointed out is a bad thing, but after 60+ pages it simply had to be done. It probably doesnt matter though, another 500+ pages and people will still have the same two basic arguements neither of which stand on their own.
Scion of Coldshard 05-25-07, 11:09 PM	No, your trying to get US (those of us arguing in favour of the fighter being viable as is) to see there is another side to the deabte and simultaniously claiming our logic is flawed I have seen people on one side of the debate talk about there being two sides and acknowledging it, sorry you happen to be on the side which hasnt been doing that. I'm actually quite enjoying the role. Which is great, but not everyone does. Plus, even people who enjoy the role like to push out of it now and then. I am sure there is someone out there who loves playing a commoner in heavy armor trying to play a tank as well, but I doubt anyone is going to try to claim that a party who faces terrible death if he fails isnt wishing that he had picked a more durable class to do so with.
Bob Loblaw 05-25-07, 11:21 PM	100% fallacious? So it is 100% logically unsound, misleading, and/or delusive. So you feel that my stating that someone could, and does given portions of this thread, interpret the question differently than you do is 100% logically unsound, misleading, and/or delusive? So you are saying that if someone is better than you at something, you suck. That is the way it is being presented. There are only two options considered. Since this is more of a sliding scale, there is no way that only two answers are possible. I am not being misleading. I have been consistent. Many of those who are arguing against the fighter move the goal posts. They also completely ignore what is presented. Since people can and do interpret it differently I would say that it is right around 0% fallacious. Perhaps a refresher on logical fallacies is in order then. I have already asked for the numbers of the posts that people feel I have ignored, what more than that can I do bob? If those of you who are claiming this wont even help in that simple way while they will go out of there way to point out that I repeat a basic premise that I felt was being ignored I dont know, that seems a little rude somehow. Fine, here goes (to be fair, I will use only the ones since you started posting in this thread again): Post #191, you single out Khan's definition of viable. Post #191, you single out Clawhound's reasons for playing a fighter. Post #197 and others, you ignore the fact that we were actually talking about the cleric tanking rather than gating and instead want to focus on the fact that summoning a CR 11 creature is the same thing as calling a 40 HD creature. Post #197 You now focus on my definition of viable. Post #197 You do argue with Arguad on the candle of invocation Post #221, You get back to arguing about the definitions with Khan Post #221, You argue with me about what you feel is a good reason or answer to the question Post #223, You have no problem reminding me that not all encounters are combat yet you never seem to mention that not all encounters will need spells either. You don't seem to have any problems letting some people know that some encounters may be role-play heavy and need skills the cleric doesn't have Post #238, You continuously remind me that people see things differently Post #239, You ignore what I have actually said in this thread many times over. Posts that you missed when clarifying both sides: Post #125, You fail to mention that the balor's gear should not be chosen to work against a specific character but instead should enhance the balor overall. Post #145, You forgot to mention to Kalarus that the second balor can't summon another one. Summoned creatures can't summon other creatures. Post #162, You don't mention to Argaud that changing the feats of the stock monsters is no longer core and goes against the concept of the core fighter fighting the core monsters. Post #165, You forgot to mention to Zelck that I am not trying to build a core only fighter that compares to any other class. I'm trying to build one that can fill his core role. Post #171, Genesh mentions that creating a character than can fill the fighter's role is reasonable since Any Reason to Play a Fighter is the same things as Any Reason Not to Play a Different Class. Those are actually two different questions. Post #174, You failed to let Archangle62 know that I was able to create a viable fighter (yes it still needs some corrections, but it does work as a core fighter) and therefore the actual question was answered. Post #182, again Zelck's cleric is being compared to the fighter and yet this goes unchecked by you. You fail to mention that he is actually arguing from a different standpoint than myself, Khan, navar, and others are at. Post #187, You forgot to let Otto know that if we change the question then we are moving the goal posts. Post #192, You missed an opportunity to remind Zelck that many of us don't believe that all the classes are meant to be perfectly balanced against each other. You also failed to mention that the cleric's ability to tank has nothing to do with the fighter's ability to tank. Post #201, Again Zelck is using the term "we" for determining the cleric versus fighter viability. You seemed to have missed another opportunity to remind him that several of us have said that we are not making that comparison. We only want to know how the fighter can do. Post #203, You must have missed it, but Archangel62 makes some good points, but in so doing completely negates the fact that not all DMs and groups are the same, even using core and RAW. Post #207, you missed a great chance to let Archangel62 know that there are two types of logical reasoning. There are inductive and deductive. He was using inductive and assuming that it is actually deductive. Post #212, you forgot to mention to Archangel62 that all his gauntlet will prove is that the fighter can handle those specific 20 monsters with enough forethought on the player's part. It will do nothing to show how well the fighter contributes as a party member. Post #220, you forgot to mention to Zelck that there really aren't that many feats to dedicate to tripping builds so not much would really be wasted. Post #229, you forgot to mention to Argaud that putting words in someone's mouth is bad form. I took it as the jest it was meant to be, but since you took my jest seriously I figured that you should be impartial here too. Post #223, You missed a great opportunity to let Zelck know that if there is a fighter in the party, the cleric doesn't have to emulate that fighter and now has even more options available to help the whole party. Rather than casting Quickened Divine Power, he can cast Holy Aura and affect the entire party with one spell. Post #235, You had a chance to let Flan know that personal opinions on a writer's style has nothing to do with the mechanics of a class I haven't seen you go through Zelck's build and make corrections. I know that I asked, but in the spirit of not taking sides, you should have done this. It would be nice to either move past that or simply drop the matter entirely. Why even try to discuss something when you turn such a blind eye to the opposing arguements? Your definitions given earlier of the various sides that you see demonstrates that you will give villainous descriptions of anyone who might go against the fighter. Has anyone on the opposing side given such harsh insults as well? If so this goes for them as well. Let's define viable then. I'll use Merriam Webster as my guide: Pronunciation: 'vI-&-b&l Function: adjective Etymology: French, from Middle French, from vie life, from Latin vita -- more at VITAL 1 : capable of living; especially : having attained such form and development as to be normally capable of surviving outside the mother's womb <a viable fetus> 2 : capable of growing or developing <viable seeds> <viable eggs> 3 a : capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately <viable alternatives> b : capable of existence and development as an independent unit <the colony is now a viable state> c (1) : having a reasonable chance of succeeding <a viable candidate> (2) : financially sustainable <a viable enterprise> So, let's look at each definition and see how it applies to the fighter. 1. Obviously the fighter would qualify here 2. Is the fighter capable of growing or developing? Yes. It has been shown that he can do so. 3a. Is he capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately? Yup. How viable the cleric is has no bearing on this. 3b. Is he capable of existence and development as an independent unit? Sure is. 3c1. Does he have a reasonable chance of succeeding? Sure does. Been shown numerous times by Khan and at least once by myself. 3c2. Irrelevant. I am sorry that some of you feel so strongly that the fighter is fine that you must insult even the very idea that someone might have a different opinion, or interpret a question in a different way than you do. This is exactly what we were referring to. You don't seem to think that those who's opinions are different from ours is wrong. You only think that our opinions are wrong.
Scion of Coldshard 05-25-07, 11:41 PM	I've accused you of no more than what you've accused me of in the past. Whether or not I was guilty of those accusations at that time you have been deliberately guilty of them in this thread. That is a bad, bad thing. I say this because I know that you know you are doing it, you said as much in fact. But why demonize the side of the arguement that you are not on in such a way? That seems a little cold khan ;/ I know you can do better and I know you can give both sides of the debate a good showing. It might just be that this thread has gone one in two seperate threads continuously, the first of which was very long. a good optimizer. Well, thats not true, as my last two characters would show. ;) Warforged Bard 2/Divine Mind 2 Human Psithief 2/Ardent 2 How can you ask that question when you are acting the vigilante against me and others that support the same viewpoint? Against you and others? No, not against you and others, against any of the arguements which have had a sad showing for 60+ pages and yet keep on being brought up again. I have asked twice for posts that people would like me to look at that were for the 'other side' that I missed, but the only response so far was about a post which had nothing to do with the fighter debate! The two things that keep being brought up that I have pushed on the most were the two ways of reading the question. As I showed in my second to last post to Kratch, and in other posts earlier, the two main arguements fail when they are looked at too strongly. One says that effectively nothing is any good and the other says that everything is good enough. Those two main camps, good enough or not good enough, as I am presenting them here (it looks to me like there are quite a few sub camps) both logically fall apart. Yet they keep coming up, are reused, people argue about them ineffectually (how can they not? they are talking about two different things: Apples are great! no they arent, grapes are horrible.. you dolt, how can you say apples are horrible? etc etc). I don't see how the second part is insulting. It's my opinion that some people present the casters in such a way that typically wouldn't hold water in a game. Opinions can be insulting, I am sure you are aware of this. But the point here is that you are calling some peoples game experience poor in a back handed way. I know it is really tough to avoid this, everyone does this occasionally without meaning to, that is why I pointed it out. The second part also weakened the first part. What about people who have seen just those situations in play? Maybe they have seen nothing but those. Maybe their definition of your stance would be, 'wanting fighters to be better than they are and changes the game around in unlikely ways just to try to make them be able to cope'. Before people get all up in arms again, I woudnt say such a thing, again going with hypothetical person. But that was why I emphasized that the first part was good. But insults on these boards are not a rare thing, and they are not limited to me. Rise above Khan! Rise above!! I just don't agree that both sides are valid. I think both sides of the question are valid personally. Any reason to have a fighter... 1) Can he do his job? 2) If someone else does his job and more why bother? Or some variation thereof. I dont agree with some of the arguements though. If the fighter can do his job then he is fine... This leads to if anyone can do the same job are they fine for the same role? Commoners unite and take the field! If the cleric can do better then the fighter is gone.. This leads to if the cleric can do everyones job then why have other classes at all. Neither of those answers are logically sound as they lead to bad places. Both keep being used though, along with both questions above being interpreted and people argueing back and forth while having in mind two very different questions.
Kratch 05-25-07, 11:57 PM	Glad we agree. Nice ommission of the remainder of my comment on this. Who was ignoring things you say? That was your and otto's side arguement that started from a list of things that were claimed to be reasons to play a fighter but were not. After that it was blown way out of proportion and you two were fighting back and forth about it. so now your picking and choseing who's logic flaws you care to point out? I thought you were trying to be impartial? I thought you were here to show peoples logic flaws? Who says that I dont? I am not here to be on either side of the for or against fighter debate directly. I am just here trying to make sure that peoples builds are legal and pointing out logical flaws so that a few arguements can be shored up and stop leaking liquid bad all over any good points that they are making. Your own wards. If one arguement is taken and pushed to say that no classes are viable so it does not work and then take the other presented arguement and push it to say that any class is viable what have we accomplished? Both of these arguements are now gone. and yet, iy is only us whom your attempting to show a flaw in logic? unbiased? I have no problem with taking the arguement about the cleric being better and, if you can support it, taking it to the extreme that everyone should just play a cleric. I also have no problem with taking the arguement that anyone who can do the job sufficies and pushing that to the point where a commoner is good enough since he can do the job. Both arguements are broken, time to come up with a new one. again, you only feel compelled to correct our logic, leaving the other argument untouched. Sorry if you feel that having the problems in your position pointed out is a bad thing, but after 60+ pages it simply had to be done. I welcome the difference in opinions, I don't take kindly to people coming along, thinking they're better then everyone else because of some percieved superior logic, then justifying it as acceptable due to being impartial which, as bob's list demonstraits, couldn't be farther from the truth. It probably doesnt matter though, another 500+ pages and people will still have the same two basic arguements neither of which stand on their own. and yet, of the 2 basic arguments you claim neither of which stand on their own, you've only ever commented on one of those comments in your attempts to be imprtial.
Kratch 05-26-07, 12:06 AM	I have seen people on one side of the debate talk about there being two sides and acknowledging it, sorry you happen to be on the side which hasnt been doing that. I'm currious, how does dirrectly addressing the other side and showing it does not work translate into not acknowledging it? I also acknowledge the claim that just being able to do the job is enough to make the fighter viable. I don't personally agree with that, believeing that alone is not quite enough, so, as such, i don't dirrectly defend that point of view. instead i work against the opposing argument.
Scion of Coldshard 05-26-07, 01:32 AM	So you are saying that if someone is better than you at something, you suck. Way to go making up a strawman. A closer representation of what I have said is that it is possible for someone to believe, and be justified in saying so, that if someone else is better than them in all of the ways that they care about then they suck. Although that still isnt the same, at least it is closer to what has been said. Going further along this logic chain one could say that in a race everyone who comes in after the first guy sucks compared to the guy who came in first. That seems valid, if a little harsh. Of course I probably used the word suck earlier somewhere, I'd go back and check to see but at this point I am a little tired of bouncing around. Perhaps a refresher on logical fallacies is in order then. For you or me? If you can point out where it is a logical fallacy to say that people can interpret something in two different ways be my guest. Fine, here goes (to be fair, I will use only the ones since you started posting in this thread again): Ok, I'll delete the ones that are my own posts since I am unlikely to respond to my own responses given that I will feel that they are correct until someone proves otherwise, at which point I would respond to them and not me ;) Post #197 and others, you ignore the fact that we were actually talking about the cleric tanking rather than gating and instead want to focus on the fact that summoning a CR 11 creature is the same thing as calling a 40 HD creature. Oop, had to grab this one. You are misrepresenting my position rather a lot here dont you think? I said that using a spell to call a guy or summon a guy, either way to help you do something, is the same. Whether one of the two options is too powerful based on the resources used is immaterial, it is the same thing, you are getting a guy to help you. You disagree with that, although I am at a loss as to why really. I do not understand your position. Post #223, You have no problem reminding me that not all encounters are combat yet you never seem to mention that not all encounters will need spells either. And another, but this was not said earlier. I had no problem reminding people that encounters are not all combat since that is what many of the discussions came down to, what is going on in a fight. Why would I need to mention that not all encounters need spells? Not all fights need spells either after all! But I didnt mention spells either way, it wasnt important to the comment. Not all encounters are fights. But, to make you happy, not all encounters need spells. Not all encounters need skills. Not all encounters need feats. Not all encounters need poison. Not all encounters need warforged. Not all encounters need air. I know I missed a few but hopefully I covered enough of them this time. Posts that you missed when clarifying both sides: Finally! Lets go ;) Post #125, You fail to mention that the balor's gear should not be chosen to work against a specific character but instead should enhance the balor overall. Why would I? That is not part of the fighter debate plus it is in a gray part of the rules. Does changing the creatures gear change its CR? Does giving it gear not listed change its CR? Can you change its feats without changing its CR? Too much gray area and not enough about the fighter. Post #145, You forgot to mention to Kalarus that the second balor can't summon another one. Summoned creatures can't summon other creatures. Again not about the fighter. There was a bunch of balor talk about what it would and would not do or who it might or might not whatever and wargame talk or something, it wasnt interesting and I didnt read it the first time fully. Looking it over again I still see no reason to comment about it. The problem faced in an arena would be the same fighter or no, so it is neutral as long as it was the same against all parties. Post #162, You don't mention to Argaud that changing the feats of the stock monsters is no longer core and goes against the concept of the core fighter fighting the core monsters. And we return to that gray area of which I spoke earlier. Of course selecting feats could hose different characters based on the newly chosen feats, it might even make the fight easier for the fighter while harder for everyone else (somehow). Why would I get in on this? I could jump in and ask them to talk more about the fighter specifically I guess, but other people did that at other points. Post #165, You forgot to mention to Zelck that I am not trying to build a core only fighter that compares to any other class. I'm trying to build one that can fill his core role. ? Why would I? You did it yourself! You made a core fighter and so he made a core cleric to try to show that his guy could do better than yours. Your fighter was made for the way you are viewing the question and his cleric was made with his view of the question. Post #171, Genesh mentions that creating a character than can fill the fighter's role is reasonable since Any Reason to Play a Fighter is the same things as Any Reason Not to Play a Different Class. Those are actually two different questions. It looks like I missed several on that page on both sides of the fence actually. There was so much back and forth and I wasnt able to post until the next day that I just grabbed a few random ones which were the most pertinent and hadnt been covered sufficiently. But I should have grabbed a few more definately, it looks like I basically skimmed through a page and a half and grabbed the parts that werent yelling: 'viable', 'summoners cant handle problems on their own', 'list of reasons to be a fighter but arent', and 'candle of invocation is great because I ignore the exp cost'. Post #174, You failed to let Archangle62 know that I was able to create a viable fighter (yes it still needs some corrections, but it does work as a core fighter) and therefore the actual question was answered. Uh oh, viable? ;) I am waiting for the finished product at which point I will do my own acid tests to see if I feel it is up to snuff. If it makes you feel better there are a lot of builds that I dont feel make the grade, from every character class. I have been known to play characters who are way below the normal power level though as long as they are fun to play, but that is RP stuff not mechanics, two different boats. Oh and 'the actual question'? And what if the question that you think that you answered was not the question that he was putting the cleric up for? Your fighter answered your question for you, I went through and corrected a few minor math issues. Someone else makes a cleric build, I didnt even bother to check it because frankly I dont care if the cleric could beat the socks off of your fighter or not and felt it would prove nothing either way. If it is better than the fighter no one will care because people feel that clerics are stronger, if the fighter was better no one would care because the cleric can heal too. I commented on your build because people said a few times that it was fine and everything looked good. I didnt even bother to look at Zelcks as people said it was wrong. I didnt say anything either way about whether it was a good or bad build though, I merely tried to make it sound by the rules. Post #182, again Zelck's cleric is being compared to the fighter and yet this goes unchecked by you. You fail to mention that he is actually arguing from a different standpoint than myself, Khan, navar, and others are at. It was mentioned by about 3 other people it looks like, but I should have called it out specifically, that is true. Post #187, You forgot to let Otto know that if we change the question then we are moving the goal posts. Which goal posts is he changing? It looks like he is asking similar questions to what I asked. No goal posts are being moved at all, he is asking about context of the question. Post #192, You missed an opportunity to remind Zelck that many of us don't believe that all the classes are meant to be perfectly balanced against each other. You also failed to mention that the cleric's ability to tank has nothing to do with the fighter's ability to tank. Classes arent meant to be balanced against one another? Obviously we are not playing the same game ;) If classes arent meant to be at least somewhat balanced then the whole idea of CR goes away (no matter how loose it is now imagine if class balance wasnt taken into account) and there would be no need for a distinction between pc and npc classes. And it looks like both sides were already well presented in his post, except that his cleric build was pretty bad for a comparison. Plus, there was your post right afterwards that drew all of my attention as it again tried to make an artificial difference between casting and getting buddies with one spell and casting and getting buddies with another. Then there was the 'gate doesnt cost exp when I cast it' guy again. It was a busy spot! With his already having a good portion of both sides and the next post, yours, having the bit about different campaigns doing different things I felt all of the bases were covered in a decently small area and I could focus on other things. Post #201, Again Zelck is using the term "we" for determining the cleric versus fighter viability. You seemed to have missed another opportunity to remind him that several of us have said that we are not making that comparison. We only want to know how the fighter can do. Yeah that Zelck, I think after his cleric post I might've blocked his posts for awhile ;/ Post #203, You must have missed it, but Archangel62 makes some good points, but in so doing completely negates the fact that not all DMs and groups are the same, even using core and RAW. I dont see anything to comment on there really. How is he negating DM's and groups? I think that Khan demonstrated in a few different fighter builds that they were invariably better when taking the bruiser races with LA than not as long as that LA was at least somewhat justified. He did so in the last thread as well and in an even more remotely related thread. That discussion didnt seem to focus on either side of the debate I was worried about though. It actually looked to be trying to cover new ground! Post #207, you missed a great chance to let Archangel62 know that there are two types of logical reasoning. There are inductive and deductive. He was using inductive and assuming that it is actually deductive. Actually it was a bit simpler than that, he misquoted something on purpose and did not call the changed part out directly and left the name intact. Which earns a spot on the banned list for awhile. Post #212, you forgot to mention to Archangel62 that all his gauntlet will prove is that the fighter can handle those specific 20 monsters with enough forethought on the player's part. It will do nothing to show how well the fighter contributes as a party member. Being able to fight or hold off the monsters wouldnt show him contributing? I am at a loss with this one as well. I dont feel it would be helpful but other people might and it could show either side of the two main questions something. Why would I call him out on that? Of course he was also blocked when that post was originally made, but I still see no reason to call him out on it ;) He seems willing to cater to both sides and has said as much before, nothing there changed that. Post #220, you forgot to mention to Zelck that there really aren't that many feats to dedicate to tripping builds so not much would really be wasted. Why would I mention something that isnt true purposefully? Even if what you are saying here is true why would I bother to say anything either way anyway? Post #229, you forgot to mention to Argaud that putting words in someone's mouth is bad form. I took it as the jest it was meant to be, but since you took my jest seriously I figured that you should be impartial here too. 229 was runestar and the quote was not attributed to anyone. Plus it does not impact what my main points were at all. Post #223, You missed a great opportunity to let Zelck know that if there is a fighter in the party, the cleric doesn't have to emulate that fighter and now has even more options available to help the whole party. Rather than casting Quickened Divine Power, he can cast Holy Aura and affect the entire party with one spell. Why would I tell him that when his point was completely different? Looking back he said that his entire purpose with that was a group with 3 guys already and the extra guy being either a fighter or a cleric built to do fighter stuff. If the fighter is in the group then the cleric he is talking about 'isnt' in the group so it cant possibly cast anything at all, let alone have 'different' options. Post #235, You had a chance to let Flan know that personal opinions on a writer's style has nothing to do with the mechanics of a class Why should I care? Eberron and artificer are outside of the scope of the questions as far as I am concerned. I even like keeping the whole topic core only until some later point personally, 25 point buy even. I may not agree with his assessment but keeping eberron out sounds like a decent plan. Flashbacks to, 'monks are overpowered because warforged monks broke my game!' We dont need that sort of thing here. I haven't seen you go through Zelck's build and make corrections. I know that I asked, but in the spirit of not taking sides, you should have done this. You asked me to go through Zelck's build? I honestly dont remember that. Would it matter to the topic? It isnt a fighter so you and others in the same position as you wont care and whether it works or not people will just use 'its a cleric' as a fallback position. It doesnt sound like it is worth my time. Let's define viable then. I'll use Merriam Webster as my guide: Ok, so on one side we have some that say it is capable of growing and developing while on the other we have some that say it is not capable of developing adequately. That was refreshing, we are back to where I started ;) I could do more of them and some go either way, but with two showing opposing answers that is good enough. You only think that our opinions are wrong. If that is so it is only because you are so very, very wrong Bob. How could you be so very, very wrong?? ;) It looks like I did miss some posts to go the other way, but a couple were after I blocked certain people for bad posting and the rest were in a couple pages of squabbling and I basically ignored all of the posts through there. It does look a bit one sided, I blame it on Bob being so very, very wrong ;)
navar100 05-26-07, 01:33 AM	Fine, here goes (to be fair, I will use only the ones since you started posting in this thread again): Post #191, you single out Khan's definition of viable. Post #191, you single out Clawhound's reasons for playing a fighter. Post #197 and others, you ignore the fact that we were actually talking about the cleric tanking rather than gating and instead want to focus on the fact that summoning a CR 11 creature is the same thing as calling a 40 HD creature. Post #197 You now focus on my definition of viable. Post #197 You do argue with Arguad on the candle of invocation Post #221, You get back to arguing about the definitions with Khan Post #221, You argue with me about what you feel is a good reason or answer to the question Post #223, You have no problem reminding me that not all encounters are combat yet you never seem to mention that not all encounters will need spells either. You don't seem to have any problems letting some people know that some encounters may be role-play heavy and need skills the cleric doesn't have Post #238, You continuously remind me that people see things differently Post #239, You ignore what I have actually said in this thread many times over. Posts that you missed when clarifying both sides: Post #125, You fail to mention that the balor's gear should not be chosen to work against a specific character but instead should enhance the balor overall. Post #145, You forgot to mention to Kalarus that the second balor can't summon another one. Summoned creatures can't summon other creatures. Post #162, You don't mention to Argaud that changing the feats of the stock monsters is no longer core and goes against the concept of the core fighter fighting the core monsters. Post #165, You forgot to mention to Zelck that I am not trying to build a core only fighter that compares to any other class. I'm trying to build one that can fill his core role. Post #171, Genesh mentions that creating a character than can fill the fighter's role is reasonable since Any Reason to Play a Fighter is the same things as Any Reason Not to Play a Different Class. Those are actually two different questions. Post #174, You failed to let Archangle62 know that I was able to create a viable fighter (yes it still needs some corrections, but it does work as a core fighter) and therefore the actual question was answered. Post #182, again Zelck's cleric is being compared to the fighter and yet this goes unchecked by you. You fail to mention that he is actually arguing from a different standpoint than myself, Khan, navar, and others are at. Post #187, You forgot to let Otto know that if we change the question then we are moving the goal posts. Post #192, You missed an opportunity to remind Zelck that many of us don't believe that all the classes are meant to be perfectly balanced against each other. You also failed to mention that the cleric's ability to tank has nothing to do with the fighter's ability to tank. Post #201, Again Zelck is using the term "we" for determining the cleric versus fighter viability. You seemed to have missed another opportunity to remind him that several of us have said that we are not making that comparison. We only want to know how the fighter can do. Post #203, You must have missed it, but Archangel62 makes some good points, but in so doing completely negates the fact that not all DMs and groups are the same, even using core and RAW. Post #207, you missed a great chance to let Archangel62 know that there are two types of logical reasoning. There are inductive and deductive. He was using inductive and assuming that it is actually deductive. Post #212, you forgot to mention to Archangel62 that all his gauntlet will prove is that the fighter can handle those specific 20 monsters with enough forethought on the player's part. It will do nothing to show how well the fighter contributes as a party member. Post #220, you forgot to mention to Zelck that there really aren't that many feats to dedicate to tripping builds so not much would really be wasted. Post #229, you forgot to mention to Argaud that putting words in someone's mouth is bad form. I took it as the jest it was meant to be, but since you took my jest seriously I figured that you should be impartial here too. Post #223, You missed a great opportunity to let Zelck know that if there is a fighter in the party, the cleric doesn't have to emulate that fighter and now has even more options available to help the whole party. Rather than casting Quickened Divine Power, he can cast Holy Aura and affect the entire party with one spell. Post #235, You had a chance to let Flan know that personal opinions on a writer's style has nothing to do with the mechanics of a class Bob, I love you, man! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Scion of Coldshard 05-26-07, 01:43 AM	Nice ommission of the remainder of my comment on this. Who was ignoring things you say? The part I omited was a comment that was out of place. I was talking about one thing, you responded to it, and then put in something else right after it to make it look like they were connected when they were not. As such, I ignored it since I didnt want to basically redo a whole post I had made a short time ago. If it had been relevant to what I was talking about in the part you quoted or placed by itself in a new thought it might've gotten a comment. so now your picking and choseing who's logic flaws you care to point out? Yes, I havent commented on every single post in this thread, just a couple here and there. Otherwise I would have a few dozen extra posts that would be cut and paste to the next over and over again, that seems a little pointless right? Of course what we are talking about here is something that started on topic and then went off topic and fairly hostile almost immediately. As it was not on topic and I didnt find the side discussion interesting why should I comment on it? I commented on the side topic of summoners because I found it interesting but I did not link it back to the main topic, as an example. and yet, iy is only us whom your attempting to show a flaw in logic? unbiased? Hey now, I already said I missed a few in the post I was posting while you made this one, how could you miss it?? ;) The ones I have commented on were the ones that stuck out the most, sorry that they were mainly from your side of the debate. Sore thumb, tallest nails, something about a hammer, maybe tequila.. I lost the thread of the joke, sorry. again, you only feel compelled to correct our logic, leaving the other argument untouched. Untrue, and this time actually from posts that were up when you were making this one ;) I welcome the difference in opinions, I don't take kindly to people coming along, thinking they're better then everyone else because of some percieved superior logic, then justifying it as acceptable due to being impartial which, as bob's list demonstraits, couldn't be farther from the truth. Actually bobs list shows that I missed basically 1 poster and a couple of posts other than that one and has a bunch of side comments. As I had that one poster basically blocked I believe I have defended myself sufficiently ;) and yet, of the 2 basic arguments you claim neither of which stand on their own, you've only ever commented on one of those comments in your attempts to be imprtial. Hey now, I have deconstructed both in a few different posts. Maybe you stopped reading mine all the way through. Which is fine, but I call your bluff. ;p
Scion of Coldshard 05-26-07, 01:46 AM	I'm currious, how does dirrectly addressing the other side and showing it does not work translate into not acknowledging it? Many, many, many of the 'showing it doesnt work' has boiled down to, 'but the fighter can do his job' which is not the same as showing that it doesnt work. It is a type of not acknowledging the question ;) Much of the other side that is not acknowledging the other comes down to 'but I can build a cleric that is better than a fighter', which is doing the same but I failed to call it out properly unfortunately as I ignored the cleric build out of hand as a waste of time.
Johnny_Angel 05-26-07, 01:53 AM	Just to stir the pot, I have to ask: What happens when the fighter sunders the cleric's holy symbol? It's 2 in the morning, so maybe this comment seems totally stupid, but doesn't a cleric need a holy symbol in a similar manner to how a wizard needs a spell book? To address the question about whether or not there is a reason to have a fighter: Yes, there is. A lot of people seem to forget that D&D is a game which is created with flexibility in mind. So, what's my point? Well, perhaps I want to play a low-magic setting. It seems reasonable to me to use the fighter class instead of having to spend time modifying the other classes to create a "fighter class." Again, to address the question: Some people -believe it or not- enjoy playing the fighter class. Honestly, for a long time the fighter is pretty much the only class I ever played. There would be times when I would take a few levels of something else, but I would generally stick to the melee role in the group I was a part of. I will admit that I was a newer player, so part of the reason was that the fighter seemed easier to make, but -even after learning more of the game- I have still played many fighters. Then again, I'm one of those people who would rather play a sorceror than a wizard. My point being that I feel that having an option available (i.e. the fighter) that people enjoy is a good reason to have a fighter. I suppose you could say that most of what I said is based on flavor and fluff, but -IMO- D&D is intended to be a game which encompasses both the mechanic aspects of a game and the creative aspects of a game, so I personally feel that there are many reasons beyond simple game mechanics to have a fighter class.
Bob Loblaw 05-26-07, 01:59 AM	Many, many, many of the 'showing it doesnt work' has boiled down to, 'but the fighter can do his job' which is not the same as showing that it doesnt work. It is a type of not acknowledging the question ;) Much of the other side that is not acknowledging the other comes down to 'but I can build a cleric that is better than a fighter', which is doing the same but I failed to call it out properly unfortunately as I ignored the cleric build out of hand as a waste of time. First, I didn't know that you were intentionally ignoring certain people. That would explain quite a bit. However, I don't understand how you can't see that you only make comments that single out those of us who think the fighter works as is and still claim to be balanced. This defies logic. Showing that the fighter can do his job is directly dealing with the question. Perhaps you should tell us exactly what would deal with the question. If it isn't showing that another class is better and it isn't showing that the class works fine, then what is it? Are you just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative?
aelryinth 05-26-07, 02:00 AM	Um, generally speaking, the cleric pulls out his spare, summons another one, or just shrugs at the fighter wasting his attack and proceeds with his own offense. ===Aelryinth
Bob Loblaw 05-26-07, 02:08 AM	Just to stir the pot, I have to ask: What happens when the fighter sunders the cleric's holy symbol? This isn't a problem. The cleric will always have the appropriate spells ready that don't require his holy symbol. If he somehow manages to need that symbol, he can carve one as a free action. It's 2 in the morning, so maybe this comment seems totally stupid, but doesn't a cleric need a holy symbol in a similar manner to how a wizard needs a spell book? No. Wizards don't need their spellbooks either. A little known fact about wizards is that they always have Spell Mastery and every item creation feat necessary to deal with these problems. To address the question about whether or not there is a reason to have a fighter: Yes, there is. A lot of people seem to forget that D&D is a game which is created with flexibility in mind. So, what's my point? Well, perhaps I want to play a low-magic setting. It seems reasonable to me to use the fighter class instead of having to spend time modifying the other classes to create a "fighter class." Again, to address the question: Some people -believe it or not- enjoy playing the fighter class. Honestly, for a long time the fighter is pretty much the only class I ever played. There would be times when I would take a few levels of something else, but I would generally stick to the melee role in the group I was a part of. I will admit that I was a newer player, so part of the reason was that the fighter seemed easier to make, but -even after learning more of the game- I have still played many fighters. Then again, I'm one of those people who would rather play a sorceror than a wizard. My point being that I feel that having an option available (i.e. the fighter) that people enjoy is a good reason to have a fighter. Desire to play a fighter and enjoying the class are never reasons to play any type of fighter. This has been demonstrated many times on these boards. You either enjoy playing druids or clerics or you have to play parchissi. I suppose you could say that most of what I said is based on flavor and fluff, but -IMO- D&D is intended to be a game which encompasses both the mechanic aspects of a game and the creative aspects of a game, so I personally feel that there are many reasons beyond simple game mechanics to have a fighter class. DnD is only a mechanical game. You are not permitted to enjoy any class without first fully getting the mechanics of that class down and then compare them to clerics or druids. If at any time your mechanics are weak, if even for a second, then you are not permitted to play a fighter. Mechanics are the only reason that you should play this roleplaying game. For anyone who doesn't realize this, I meant this post to be sardonic and not directed at Johnny_Angel.
Johnny_Angel 05-26-07, 02:12 AM	I'm just glad there are still people on these boards with a sense of humor.
Scion of Coldshard 05-26-07, 02:17 AM	First, I didn't know that you were intentionally ignoring certain people. That is why I mentioned it, although it isnt really important. However, I don't understand how you can't see that you only make comments that single out those of us who think the fighter works as is and still claim to be balanced. I said: I am not here to be on either side of the for or against fighter debate directly. I am just here trying to make sure that peoples builds are legal and pointing out logical flaws so that a few arguements can be shored up and stop leaking liquid bad all over any good points that they are making. I dont have to comment on every arguement for this to be true. I dont even have to talk about both sides for this to be true for that matter. Although I should have said a couple of things about one or two posts you mentioned but it didnt seem that important. That hasnt changed. Showing that the fighter can do his job is directly dealing with the question. One version of it, if you assume what that job is (I am guessing you mean tanking in this case as that is what has come up the most before). Some people will feel that is sufficient, others wont. Perhaps you should tell us exactly what would deal with the question. 'The question'? Which question? And whichever question you mean have I claimed to be able to 'deal' with it? I can comment on peoples logical fallacies without having to make up a new position whole cloth just fine thanks ;) I have participated in enough threads like this before to know the futility of it all. As such I am content to simply try to help other people make whatever arguements they are trying to make stronger, unless I feel that they should just be ignored of course.
Kratch 05-26-07, 02:23 AM	Many, many, many of the 'showing it doesnt work' has boiled down to, 'but the fighter can do his job' which is not the same as showing that it doesnt work. It is a type of not acknowledging the question ;) And yet, i have never used the argument "but the fighter can do his job" as the basis of my argument. In fact, in the post you just quoted, i admit i don't entirely agree with the argument. It's not that i think it's wrong, i just think it's not enough (which i believe is what your also acknowledging). The only magor point i've debated (i will admit, i am prone to going off on side debates) was the idea that if someone can do a job almost as well, plus some more, that it obsoletes another. I don't appreciate the attempt at saying i refuse to acknowledge the opposite side. Generally, my arguments come down to two things. 1: that the idea a cleric can fill the role of a fighter is not sufficient proof that a fighter is unneccessary, because, by the same logic, a wizard is also unneccessary (and wizards are often considered among the more powerful class's)(which i believe you are also acknowledging). And 2: a cleric can match a warrior with more to it, but in turn, the fighter does the same thing, match's a warrior plus more, i do not believe i have seen a cleric build that completely match's a fighter plus more.
Scion of Coldshard 05-26-07, 02:34 AM	And yet, i have never used the argument "but the fighter can do his job" as the basis of my argument. I just looked through all of my posts to you in this thread and I dont see anywhere where I accused you of such. So, I guess you should feel better.
Kratch 05-26-07, 02:52 AM	I just looked through all of my posts to you in this thread and I dont see anywhere where I accused you of such. So, I guess you should feel better. Well, when i asked: I'm currious, how does dirrectly addressing the other side and showing it does not work translate into not acknowledging it? you answered with: Many, many, many of the 'showing it doesnt work' has boiled down to, 'but the fighter can do his job' which is not the same as showing that it doesnt work. It is a type of not acknowledging the question ;) I've underlined the parts that directly connect the coments (besides the fact that you directly quoted me prior to your responce). I then bolded the comment where your equating my argument to "but the fighter can do his job". If your "many, many, many" comment was speaking in general terms, then you have simply still not shown how i've failed to acknowledge the other side of the argument. An accusation i find rather offensive. An Accusation, you made very clear in this coment (bolded for clarity): I have seen people on one side of the debate talk about there being two sides and acknowledging it, sorry you happen to be on the side which hasnt been doing that.
Arem_K 05-26-07, 06:54 AM	Wow, are we even doing anything here anymore? I have not been reading this thing since Khan was arguing that an all caster party was impossible, but as of right now it looks like the title of thread needs to be "Any reason to have Scion of Coldshard."
Clawhound 05-26-07, 07:04 AM	Why not choose the class that is demonstrably better? Aye, there's the question. What's better? That is, by what metrics does a player use to choose a class? I was going to write a list to answer that questions, but then I realized that most of the items in that list were irrational. That's because players are very irrational about about their preferences. No amount of logic will make a player happy with a class that they irrationally do not wish to play. Using logic in the face of an irrational process is equally irrational.
Archangel62 05-26-07, 07:51 AM	I'll be honest, part of it is that I do have biases and I have noticed a few, I do admit them. However I also admit that at least some of the argument is moot, ToB did a lot for martial classes, did what I wanted them to do in fact. It made it so that they had more effective combat options, a better skill selection, and a greater variety of options. A warblade can be a weapon master, a swashbuckler, a leader, a spartan all fairly well dependant on manuever choice. The fighter irked me because while it is billed as the catch-all of martial classes the fact that classes like the swashbuckler and knight can perform their assigned roles better than the fighter as written caused me to question the system. I'll be honest, there are a fair number of broken spells out there and the entire casting system might well need to be rewritten, but the sheer number of moving parts in it is staggering. I can agree that we need to fix the casting rules but I also think that there are issues on the fighters end that need to be made apparent. I also realize that the problems that the fighter has are shared by most other martial classes, part of it is that the fighter is very mechanically bland, the fighter is chicken, rather bland but with the right preparation quite good (As Khan has shown). My argument isn't that the fighter sucks, it's that the fighter can't really do anything that another class can do equally well or better plus some of their own stuff. Also, I do believe that the CR system is hedged against the fighter, I'll probably end up dropping the gauntlet, Bob pointed out logically that it will depend more on the ingenuity of the creator but my goal was to see what each design could do in those encounters, how much was won by gear and how much by smart designing. Would the build that could topple a demon deal with a horrid gorilla? I do apologize for the times I've offended, been rude, or been snide, condescending, ok I'll just apologize for a large number of my posts. My big issue in this isn't to try to say that fighters are useless, but that they need an upgrade. The games mechanics are wired against them and, as Bob himself admitted, they tend to get shafted when it comes to substitution options and personal advantages (fighter only feats aren't doing enough). But I'm also honest enough that I don't know how to fix it short of something like the tome of battle which essentially crated a vancian combat system. I think part of it has to do with context, looking at D&D a large portion of the game seems to rest on the casting system, make too many changes and the balance can swing widely (possibly explaining the dislike of Incarnum, ToM, and Psionics). The combat system was either build independantly of it or as an afterthought because looking at most of the rules the casters stuff looks more complicated but they actually have a lot less to keep track of and remember than a fighter who focuses on combat tricks does. Part of the issue probably has to do with player interest too. Those of us who were around in the 80's might remember that there was a bit of a barbarian craze. During that time magic was only used by evil, weak, effete individuals. The concept was that magic was essentially a cheat, a shortcut, power gained through dark pacts rather than honest work to advance oneself. I also remember books from TSR that showed arcane casters and megalominiacal idiots who often let the enemy get in close and showcased all the weaknesses of casting. I also remember some really amazing barbarian and barbarian oriented kits and designs from back then (one of them gave you a huge list of social bonuses because barbarians were apparently loved by all). The major exception of the time was Elric, who was the anti-conan, weak pale, effete (arguably effeminate) and not only did he use magic he needed it to sustain his weak body, at least until he got the horrifically evil soul sucking sword that eventually drove him crazy. But now, many people think of the mage battle in Lord of the Rings between Gandalf and Saruman, plenty of kids read Harry Potter, magic is now the 'in' thing, the tool of heroes, the weapon of the mind. As a result more people look at casting characters as what they want to do so WotC wants to sell books so they make strong choices for casters. They create great spells, metamagic feats, and they crib heavily from books and MMOs to provide options to people who want to be able to do all the things that their favorite character or MMO avatar can do. If we want martial characters to get better we either have to find someone to create a combat equivalent to Harry Potter or wait for the next big wave. I'm sorta rambling so I'll try to sum it up, The problem that the fighter has is that the system gave him a job but didn't give him the right tools for it.
Bob Loblaw 05-26-07, 09:59 AM	However I also admit that at least some of the argument is moot, ToB did a lot for martial classes, did what I wanted them to do in fact. It made it so that they had more effective combat options, a better skill selection, and a greater variety of options. A warblade can be a weapon master, a swashbuckler, a leader, a spartan all fairly well dependant on manuever choice. The fighter irked me because while it is billed as the catch-all of martial classes the fact that classes like the swashbuckler and knight can perform their assigned roles better than the fighter as written caused me to question the system. I have been trying to use the ToB but every time I get to create a character I get to play for 1 session and then I have to DM again for months on end. That 1 session will have a single battle and both times I have managed to get 2 actions with neither one hitting. I would really like to be able to put the ToB to the test, but I just don't get the chance. I think that one of the problems with the fighter is that unless you really know how things work, I mean every feat, item, and spell, it can be really difficult to pull off the fighter of your dreams. I do believe that nearly every fighter archetype can be built with just the fighter; it just takes someone who knows what's going on. I think it should have been easier. I'll be honest, there are a fair number of broken spells out there and the entire casting system might well need to be rewritten, but the sheer number of moving parts in it is staggering. I know that one thing WotC can do is create fewer spells. Every supplement has dozens of new spells. I would like to see them focus on how to use the spells that are there. Some spells can be used in rather creative ways. I can agree that we need to fix the casting rules but I also think that there are issues on the fighters end that need to be made apparent. I also realize that the problems that the fighter has are shared by most other martial classes, part of it is that the fighter is very mechanically bland, the fighter is chicken, rather bland but with the right preparation quite good (As Khan has shown). I think this is one of the reasons why the fighter is targeted. He is bland. He has no smite, no rage, no combat style (he does, it just isn't labeled as such). My argument isn't that the fighter sucks, it's that the fighter can't really do anything that another class can do equally well or better plus some of their own stuff. Also, I do believe that the CR system is hedged against the fighter, I'll probably end up dropping the gauntlet, Bob pointed out logically that it will depend more on the ingenuity of the creator but my goal was to see what each design could do in those encounters, how much was won by gear and how much by smart designing. Would the build that could topple a demon deal with a horrid gorilla? I would still like to work on something like the gauntlet. Perhaps this still can be done. Maybe build a standard cleric, rogue, and wizard to travel with him and see how they do against 4 different CR creatures of each level. See how much each class contributes to the combat and who needs the support. I do apologize for the times I've offended, been rude, or been snide, condescending, ok I'll just apologize for a large number of my posts. I can't think of a time when this happened. Maybe months ago, but I doubt it. You have been nothing but polite and reasonable. You are able to agree with and disagree with an individual in the same post. Not everyone can do this. My big issue in this isn't to try to say that fighters are useless, but that they need an upgrade. The games mechanics are wired against them and, as Bob himself admitted, they tend to get shafted when it comes to substitution options and personal advantages (fighter only feats aren't doing enough). I would love to see all the fighting classes get a boost. I would like to see the hit dice change. The skill points need a bit of work. I think that feats that require BaB should be on par with spells of equal "level." The feats that require base attack +12 should be about as good as a 6th level spell slot (a lower level spell with metamagic boost could qualify). But I'm also honest enough that I don't know how to fix it short of something like the tome of battle which essentially crated a vancian combat system. I think part of it has to do with context, looking at D&D a large portion of the game seems to rest on the casting system, make too many changes and the balance can swing widely (possibly explaining the dislike of Incarnum, ToM, and Psionics). The combat system was either build independantly of it or as an afterthought because looking at most of the rules the casters stuff looks more complicated but they actually have a lot less to keep track of and remember than a fighter who focuses on combat tricks does. One of the things that fighters have to remember more than most is the various ways to maximize their combat options. The fighter player should really spend a lot of his time understanding the combat section of the PHB. He will use this more than most. With feats Power Attack and Combat Expertise, he will need to squeeze every bonus he can out of the situation. The cleric and wizard do not need this as much. Most of their combat spells are either touch attacks or area of effect. Most people who play fighters don't spend enough time with these basic options. Part of the issue probably has to do with player interest too. Those of us who were around in the 80's might remember that there was a bit of a barbarian craze. I hated that. There were either barbarians or cavaliers running around everywhere. Most cavaliers died off by 3rd or 4th level because they had to except every challenge even if they couldn't handle it. The barbarian was easier to use but seriously flawed in its design. During that time magic was only used by evil, weak, effete individuals. The concept was that magic was essentially a cheat, a shortcut, power gained through dark pacts rather than honest work to advance oneself. I also remember books from TSR that showed arcane casters and megalominiacal idiots who often let the enemy get in close and showcased all the weaknesses of casting. I never really thought about this, but it could be why I have to really think about alternate ways to play my casters. If I recall, this was one of the things WotC actually focused on changing. I also remember some really amazing barbarian and barbarian oriented kits and designs from back then (one of them gave you a huge list of social bonuses because barbarians were apparently loved by all). I remember the barbarian kit in the Complete Fighter, he had +3 bonus to social skills or a -3 bonus, depending on how well he did. He either did really well or really poorly. But it was only for social skills. He didn't really gain much in the way of combat. The major exception of the time was Elric, who was the anti-conan, weak pale, effete (arguably effeminate) and not only did he use magic he needed it to sustain his weak body, at least until he got the horrifically evil soul sucking sword that eventually drove him crazy. But now, many people think of the mage battle in Lord of the Rings between Gandalf and Saruman, plenty of kids read Harry Potter, magic is now the 'in' thing, the tool of heroes, the weapon of the mind. As a result more people look at casting characters as what they want to do so WotC wants to sell books so they make strong choices for casters. They create great spells, metamagic feats, and they crib heavily from books and MMOs to provide options to people who want to be able to do all the things that their favorite character or MMO avatar can do. If we want martial characters to get better we either have to find someone to create a combat equivalent to Harry Potter or wait for the next big wave. This may be more true than I would like to admit. Maybe we need someone to come along and write a few really good books focused on non-casters and still have it be fantasy based. I'm sorta rambling so I'll try to sum it up, The problem that the fighter has is that the system gave him a job but didn't give him the right tools for it. I think the system has given him the right tools, but gave the casters better tools. The fighter got the basic Target-brand ratchet set, but the casters get the Craftsman ratchet set that comes with a free, full toolbox. The fighter has to buy all his tools. He can afford them, but he needs to get exactly the right ones, and hopefully on sale.
navar100 05-26-07, 11:19 AM	I think this is one of the reasons why the fighter is targeted. He is bland. He has no smite, no rage, no combat style (he does, it just isn't labeled as such). Just before I joined these WOTC forums, this was exactly my "problem" with the fighter. I happened to be perusing my Player's Handbook and rereading the fighter. I kept thinking "How boring; all I get are feats". However, the feeling soon passed when I considered the character I was playing and have already played. They are not fighters. I enjoy the characters, of course, but I'm always thinking: "I just do not have enough feats". There are various feats I'd love for my character, but I can't get them soon enough or more often not at all. Then I think how lucky fighters are and my "annoyance" of fighters go away. When I joined these forums, I started to read the fighter sucks threads to settle once and for all for myself whether I like the fighter. Reading those who defended the fighter answered my question. The arguments against the fighter of comparing to spellcasters were part of my original annoyance of fighters, but reading how the fighter can be effective and remembering my actual gaming experience as opposed to the hypothetical kill a balor in one round had me reaffirm my likeness of the fighter. What got me into the debate were those who chastised the fighter for daring to want a spellcaster to buff them, calling fighters a drain on resources. That irked me because I had left a gaming group for exactly that kind of thoughtless reasoning, and I wasn't even playing a fighter. I was playing a rogue/order of the bow. I never played a rogue before. I never played an archer before. It was something new I wanted the fun in trying. The spellcasters kept buffing themselves, each other, and the NPC dedicated warriors. At first I said nothing. When I later asked for one just for the sake of having one because it would be cool and they were giving them out like candy to everyone else anyway, first I was given excuses for why I couldn't have one then later flat out denied. When we were fighting undead a lot, thus no sneak attack, and these undead had magic DR, thus my arrows did nothing, I asked specifically for a Greater Magic Weapon spell for my arrows. The chastisement I received for "demanding" the spell and wasting their resources such as asking for a Cat's Grace and insisting I just buy my own darn magic arrows (when we're far from civilization, won't be going back for awhile, we're fighting these undead now, and I don't have the couple of thousand gold pieces necessary to buy them) was unbearable. Yes, for this particular adventure, I was not very effective in combat. I handled the traps and other skill use needs quite well, but for combat all I could do was twiddle my thumbs. I didn't "need" a Cat's Grace. I didn't "need" a Bear's Endurance. I asked only because they were giving them out like candy to themselves and the NPCs anyway. I saw I really did "need" Greater Magic Weapon, and since it lasts hours per level, I figured it would be a more efficient use of the spell slot since I could use it for multiple battles instead of the cleric preparing yet another Divine Power or the wizard preparing yet another Empowered Magic Missile. When I played a cleric in another gaming group, I was more than happy to cast buff spells on others. I volunteered to cast Greater Magic Weapon on the ranger's arrows on a regular basis. The player was so grateful he literally had his character convert to my deity. (He originally hadn't committed to any particular deity.) I casted Protection From Evil on others. I casted Shield Other. I didn't "demand" recompense. I didn't "suggest" anyone pay for their own magical gear so I wouldn't "have" to cast a buff spell on them. I still had my Divine Power. I still had my Divine Favor. This contrast on party cooperation was grating. One group everyone looked after each other. Another group everyone looked after only themselves. I knew which one I preferred.
Fabius Maximus 05-26-07, 01:14 PM	I think the problem of the Fighter is not the class as such, but the lack of appropriate feats. The core feats are a joke, and you need various expansion books to build a decent Fighter. Also, the advent of tactical and combat style feats lessened the pain a bit, but there is a lack of feats that features scale with advancing class levels.
Argaud 05-26-07, 02:14 PM	I think the problem of the Fighter is not the class as such, but the lack of appropriate feats. The core feats are a joke, and you need various expansion books to build a decent Fighter. Hey, the core book gives us Combat Reflexes, Improved Initiative, Power Attack and several other feats that are cornerstones of many fighter builds. Also Quicken Spell, but I guess you mean fighter feats :)
Archangel62 05-26-07, 02:19 PM	Hey, the core book gives us Combat Reflexes, Improved Initiative, Power Attack and several other feats that are cornerstones of many fighter builds. Also Quicken Spell, but I guess you mean fighter feats :) I think he means mid to high level feats, I have a similar issue and this is where I say that the fighter isn't given the tools for their job. Most of their mid to high level feats simply aren't that great. Tactical feats are good but as mentioned before they are still on the lower levels (8 and below). The fighter needs better high level feats, or barring that better substitution options.
Archangel62 05-26-07, 02:23 PM	What got me into the debate were those who chastised the fighter for daring to want a spellcaster to buff them, calling fighters a drain on resources. That irked me because I had left a gaming group for exactly that kind of thoughtless reasoning, and I wasn't even playing a fighter. I was playing a rogue/order of the bow. I never played a rogue before. I never played an archer before. It was something new I wanted the fun in trying. The spellcasters kept buffing themselves, each other, and the NPC dedicated warriors. At first I said nothing. When I later asked for one just for the sake of having one because it would be cool and they were giving them out like candy to everyone else anyway, first I was given excuses for why I couldn't have one then later flat out denied. When we were fighting undead a lot, thus no sneak attack, and these undead had magic DR, thus my arrows did nothing, I asked specifically for a Greater Magic Weapon spell for my arrows. The chastisement I received for "demanding" the spell and wasting their resources such as asking for a Cat's Grace and insisting I just buy my own darn magic arrows (when we're far from civilization, won't be going back for awhile, we're fighting these undead now, and I don't have the couple of thousand gold pieces necessary to buy them) was unbearable. In that case you were playing with douches, no other way to put it. My argument on the buffing angle is more that plenty of people seem to argue that the augment spells are better cast on the fighter or use the idea of a buffed fighter as an example of what they can do. I dislike this argument because it seems to hold that the fighter cannot function without having the cleric of buffing attached to him and it also muddles comparisons between classes if one class gets its abilities plus the augments of another class. That being said, in more than one game the cleric finally said that unless the group started putting gold into the emergency ressurection fund some of their gear might be sold off to pay for the ressurection because he was getting killed on the reagents for bringing us back. (Luckily my artificer paid his tab by making items) Edit: Side note, I think that part of the anger at that might also be those of us who played clerics and got sick of the combat characters or others treating us like first aid kits with feet and got mad if we didn't prep enough buff spells for them or had the audacity to prepare personal augmentation spells for emergencies. So I would have to guess that some of it is also frustrated memories from both sides of this are also contributing to at least some of the anger and consternation in this debate.
Kratch 05-26-07, 03:30 PM	I would still like to work on something like the gauntlet. Perhaps this still can be done. Maybe build a standard cleric, rogue, and wizard to travel with him and see how they do against 4 different CR creatures of each level. See how much each class contributes to the combat and who needs the support. A gauntlet is a very difficuylt thing to make fair for both sides. A set terrain, that is reasonable to both while still being typical needs to be set. I would then suggest all characters be made, including spell lists, so that the builds could not be tailored to the specific encounters. An agreeable starting distance needs to be set for when combat begins (i'd recoomend something varriable, appropriate to the envirounment. say, if you'd agreed on a dungeon setting, 2D4x10 feet. In a dungeon setting, i'd also recomend variable room sizes for each encounter (after the encounter has been determined, so as to ensure it's sized appropriatly). These variables would remain consistant for both comparisons). Last thing, after the characters have already been made, i would use one of the random encounter generators (Dungeon one is on page 79 of the DMG) to determine appropriate encounters impartially (the same encounter of course should be used for both). I think the importent thing is to create the envirounment first so the characters can build they're spell lists and gear appropriately, build the characters (so they aren't building for specific encounters, just the general type they believe they would face in the appropriate envirounment), and lastly determine the encounters. Note, i used dungeons as an example only because i know there is a dungeon encounter by level table (can't seem to find any level appropriate ones for other envirounments). Envirounment caould also be staggered, such as 5 levels in a dungeon, then 5 outdoors in this place, then 5 in the plane of ***, then the last 5 in such and such. A gauntlet is a very difficult and time consuming thing to create impartially. I can honestly say, it's more work then i'd be willing to put in. But i would love to see the method and results if others were willing to do it.
Clawhound 05-26-07, 05:11 PM	One of the problem with fighter feats like Combat Expertise and Power Attack is that they are 0-sum abilities. They are cool and useful, but they are TOO balanced. I've been doing a major write-up of a deep feat tree. This tree would give the fighter some cool stuff, but it still isn't anywhere near casters. An example feat is the ability to shut down weapon enhancements and armor enhancements in order to recover the enhancement bonuses. I've never seen any class be able to do anything like that, but it makes sense for the fighter. At an even higher level, the ability to get both the full enhancement bonus and all the special abilities comes into play. This actually gives the fighter a reason to get armor and weapons with all those little enhancements on them. All that for the cheap price of 10 prerequisite feats. Those feat-intensive trees are a greatly under-explored area of the game. Simply requiring any nine feats as a prerequisite pretty much shuts down most classes from gaining such feats, which means that you can crank those feats up. I have no idea why such deep trees have not been developed. When I first saw the fighter class, this is what I expected in future supplements. In my mind, the problems of the fighter, and melee as a whole, is not one thing, but a sum of many smaller things that lie scattered about the entire system. They really did not sufficiently examine the question, "Is X as attractive as Y at Z level?" Let's face if, too often the answer is no.
Khan the Destroyer 05-26-07, 05:53 PM	Well, thats not true, as my last two characters would show. ;) Warforged Bard 2/Divine Mind 2 Human Psithief 2/Ardent 2 Wow. Fair enough. I didn't know what kinds of characters you bring to the table. But as far as I'm concerned, anyone that gave a try at LoP's (100^10) Elite Optimization Challenge and came close is pretty good at CO. If the fighter can do his job then he is fine... This leads to if anyone can do the same job are they fine for the same role? Commoners unite and take the field! Personally, I don't see a problem with this. If someone can build a commoner to function as a party tank, and someone wants to play that build, more power to them. I don't think this is a bad thing or that it somehow is a detriment to the point that if the fighter can do his job it is fine. Perhaps I don't understand the point. But why does a commoner have to be poor as a warrior in order for the fighter to be good as one? If the cleric can do better then the fighter is gone.. This leads to if the cleric can do everyones job then why have other classes at all. More importantly, by the reasoning they are using, the cleric becomes non-viable to some wizard, artificer, or archivist build. In which case, we would be basing the viability of the fighter on a class that is non-viable itself. How can the cleric class then set the standards if it doesn't even pass its own standards? Neither of those answers are logically sound as they lead to bad places. Both keep being used though, along with both questions above being interpreted and people argueing back and forth while having in mind two very different questions. I agree that the arguments are stale. But as I've admitted before, I'm argumentative. Stale arguments may be less of a problem for me than for other people ;).
Kalarus 05-26-07, 07:17 PM	Stale arguments hrm. I might've just missed this, since when a post by someone takes up more than three screens, I tend to skip over the last parts. Also, the discussion seemed to have taken a lighter turn so I wasn't going to post this, but Khan decided to just post some more stuff to keep the good ole discussion going, so I'll just butt in again with my poorly argumented points. So here goes. Let's look at the logic. I'll try to make a brief summary, though after more than a full bottle of whine.. I mean wine, I am not sure that I'll succeed. The thread is called "Any reason to play a fighter." This is a very broad question, as it calls upon both RP and non-RP reasons to play a fighter. Since RP reasons are impossible to discuss about, we're looking at non-RP reasons. The "objective" math of the matter. The question of "Can the Fighter do his job?" has been raised. Near as I can tell, this means a (partial) combination of: 1) The fighter can tank. This involves having good armor and hitpoints and probably good saves as well. 2) The fighter has battleground control. This involves having things such as reach, trip/disarm builds, and such. 3) The fighter can deal damage. Good strength, reach, appropriate bonuses to your favoured weapon, and generally being able to hit fairly hard. I believe throughout the discussion sufficient builds and suggestions have been posted to account for the Fighter being a strong enough class to match opponents of appropriate CR. Next the question went discussing the truth of "The Fighter is a viable class" and here's where the horror started. Generalizing a bit and ignoring the "neutral" parties, there's both support and opposition for the statement of "The Fighter is a viable class." Most of this involves how the word "viable" is interpreted. It seems that the support for the Fighter has a different interpretation that the opposition of the Fighter. Alright then. Let's put this into some logical formulas, since that seems to be what people want on these boards. For these logical arguments, I'll be using the following assumptions, and these assumptions are deliberately slanted in favour of the opposition of the subject matter. Why? Because I happen to like Fighters, I started reading this thread (while we're sharing such experiences) because my highest level and most fun character at this moment is a Dwarf Fighter on a trip/disarm build who spent last session wrestling (grappling) a Frenzied Berserker Bugbear. The point of this thought exercise is to emphasise an assumption which throughout the entire discussion I've never seen justified and and I don't want other assumptions distracting from this so I won't argue them. Oh and obviously, P is a premise, C is a conclusion. Assumptions: 1) These reasonings apply only to the Fighter. Even if the reasoning could be applied to other classes, that is irrelevant since we are only discussing the Fighter here. 2) The Fighter class is mathetmatically weaker than other classes up to the point that one could consider the Fighter to be "at the bottom of the power curve". 3) We're not using English in the sense that common people understand it, but in terms appropriate to D&D (This assumption is needed to allow people to legitimately re-interpret "viable" beyond dictionary definitions). 4) Magic spells, wether they be arcane or divine, overpower feats by far. The reasoning followed by the Fighter support group is as follows: P1) A fighter can fulfil his role in the party. This role can be either of the three mentioned above or a combination thereof. P2) A class is viable if the character class is able to fulfill a certain role in the party. -- C: The Figher is a viable class to play. P1 has been proven by various builds already, I doubt any side wishes to argue that. The problem seems to be in the second premise, outlying the definition of viability. So the opposition of the Fighter reasons as follows: P1) A fighter can fulfil his role in a party. This role can be either of the three mentioned above or a combination thereof. P2) A class is only viable if its role cannot be fulfilled by a potentially more powerful class. P3) The Fighter's job can be performed by a variety of classes which are potentially more powerful than the fighter. -- C: The Fighter is not a viable class to play. So, next up (dun dun dun!) the analysis. The arguments themselves are valid. The problem lies in the premises, while so far most of what I've seen are people debating each other's conclusions. P1 is generally agreed upon by both sides. P3 in the opposition's argument has been admitted by the Fighter support as well. The problem lies in P2. Fighter support basically says: If the Fighter can do his job, he is viable. Fighter opposition basically says: If the Fighter can do his job, but his job can be performed by someone else who is also more powerful, he is not viable. Bob Loblaw has already quoted a dictionary definition of viability. Why is this important? We are all using the same language here (which happens to be English). If you want to debate logic you can't have a shift in semantics. You can't just change the meaning of words to suit your argument, because you're no longer debating the same thing. Conclusion 1 of my analysis: Fighter opposition interprets "viable" differently than Fighter support. How is this done? They add an extra requirement to the word "viable" which is not explicit in its meaning. The result of this is that the Fighter is not viable, for the sole and only reason that you have interpreted the word "viable" in a way that does not include the Fighter. Your conclusion is foregone in your arguments, hence you're only reasoning in circles. Why can't you do this? Very simple. If you could creatively interpret "viable" to suit any definition you wanted, so could anyone else. I could interpret "viable" to exclude "any form of magic using class". Suddenly, by my new interpretation of "viable", which is just as good as yours, any class that uses spells or supernatural and/or spell-like abilities is no longer viable. For no better reason than that I chose to interpret the word that way. The question is, why slap that extra requirement on "viable"? Why does "viable" mean "cannot be replaced by any other potentially more powerful class"? So we have: Assumption 5) The Fighter can be replaced by class X because class X does all the Fighter does and more. This is the underlying assumption in all the statements. This assumption is constantly, repeatedly stated as being intuitively true. Yet in ALL the discussions I have, never, EVER seen a justification for this assumption. Even worse, I've seen people state that because others do not hold this assumption for intuitively true, these people must be idiots (or worse). Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the assumption is necessarily wrong. I am saying it is just that: an assumption. Not a truth. Second point. Yeah I actually have two tonight, must be the wine. The assumption that the Fighter can be replaced by class X because class X does all the Fighter does and more, rests on an even more basic and far more ignorant (yes I used that word) assumption: Assumption 6) The Fighter brings nothing to the gaming table that other classes do not. The problem with this assumption is in fact, confusion. Constantly people believe they reason from this basis, while they in fact use the following assumption which is probably true, and approximates P3 above: Assumption 7) The Fighter does not bring more power to the gaming table than other classes. However, assumption 7 does not imply assumption 6. Just because the Fighter does not bring more power to the gaming table, does not mean he does not bring anything to the gaming table that others do not. If you insist on doing "the math", in a mathemetical/logical form you are only discussing A > B or A < B, but you are ignoring A == B or A != B. The propositions that *are not expressed in power but are nonetheless part of the crunch of D&D*. At this point I can already hear some people thinking "Kalarus what are you whining at?" so it's about time I got to the point, this isn't nearly as short as I wanted it to be anyway. What does the Fighter bring to the gaming table, that other classes do not? If you've followed the reasoning you should understand that power is not an issue for this argument unless you can justify (objectively and mathematically, since that is apparently what people are looking for) assumption 5 and 6. 1) Simplicity. Especially on these boards, where classes are being discussed and optimized constantly, simplicity is an advantage easily overlooked. A Fighter brings simplicity to the table in fulfilling his job, without having to look at the spellcasting system. Not everyone has a head for numbers, most people here underestimate how many people appreciate things that do *not* scale. 2) Instant gratification. Related to the Simplicity point, a Fighter is simple to construct and generally, simple to use. I assume this is why WotC recommends the Fighter as a starting class. Building on the assumption that D&D is about vanquishing opponents, the Fighter gives you all you want: a good piece of steel and an opponent to use it on. I was an admin on a MUD a long time ago (for me anyway), we once did some research on what newbies were looking for. The consensus: No tutorials or helpfiles, but a sword, and a goblin to use it on. 3) The highest amount of feats in the game. Yes, feats may be weaker than spells as listed under the first assumptions. Does that mean that every spell can copy a feat? Some of them maybe, and some of those maybe even as effectively, but until there's a "Spoof Feat" spell, screw that. Feats have unlimited use, spells don't. Some feats do things that spells can't. Find me a spell that cleaves, to use a modest example. Please. 4) Good ole traction. Traction is basically the term used for something that sticks to the mind. Contrary to the Cleric, which already has a theme inherent to it, the Fighter is diverse. Its blandness has been mentioned before, but this this both strength and weakness as a Fighter can be *anything you want it to be*. Whatever your idea of the Great Warrior is, the Fighter can be it. He can be your Knight in shining armour, your stoic loyal Samurai, your dashing swashbuckler, your wrestler, your shiny barbarian. Fighters walk the fine line between fluff and crunch, and unlike other classes, they excel at it. Edit: My god, and I just said something about people writing 3+ screens of text?? Shame on me! I tried not to rant, didn't succeed completely, sorry.
Arem_K 05-26-07, 09:12 PM	Not a thorough review, just what jumped out at me. Stale arguments hrm. The question of "Can the Fighter do his job?" has been raised. Near as I can tell, this means a (partial) combination of: 1) The fighter can tank. This involves having good armor and hitpoints and probably good saves as well. 2) The fighter has battleground control. This involves having things such as reach, trip/disarm builds, and such. 3) The fighter can deal damage. Good strength, reach, appropriate bonuses to your favoured weapon, and generally being able to hit fairly hard. I believe throughout the discussion sufficient builds and suggestions have been posted to account for the Fighter being a strong enough class to match opponents of appropriate CR. I think one of the main sticking points between the parties is whether or not build A has any real bearing on the strength of class B. Yes, you can make a fighter who does not have a low will saves and/or controls the battlefield well. You can also make a wizard who is a really good grappler, even before he casts polymorph. That does not mean that one should conclude that wizards are able to: 1)Crowd Control 2)Buff 3)Debuff 4)Cast utility spells 5)Bodyslam a balor Just because one wizard build can do that, does not mean we should conclude that wizards are great grapplers. We should in fact conclude that wizards are bad grapplers, because that is what the class naturally lends itself toward, even if it was the complete opposite in that case. To put it another way, when I think of a fighter, I think of someone like Roy Greenhilt from Order of the Stick. I don't think Roy has a high will save. I know he runs around with a greatsword and feats like weapon specialization and great cleave. I think he probably represents the standard DnD fighter at least as well if not better than someone with Great fortitude and spiked chain who enlarges himself in every fight. What does the Fighter bring to the gaming table, that other classes do not? If you've followed the reasoning you should understand that power is not an issue for this argument unless you can justify (objectively and mathematically, since that is apparently what people are looking for) assumption 5 and 6. 1) Simplicity. Especially on these boards, where classes are being discussed and optimized constantly, simplicity is an advantage easily overlooked. A Fighter brings simplicity to the table in fulfilling his job, without having to look at the spellcasting system. Not everyone has a head for numbers, most people here underestimate how many people appreciate things that do *not* scale. This is what made me respond. The fighter is not simple. To say that the fighter is is simple is to be extremely ignorant or just plain lying. Let us look at what it takes to build a fighter. First you choose a race. Then you choose your starting feat and your bonus feat among the hundreds if not thousands of different feats that have been printed. You analyze these feats, all printed in different books, looking for ones that have synergy. In order to choose among these feats, you must also read the special combat maneuvers section. The grapple rules alone are enough to make grown men weep. Once the player has read all the books, or at least mainstays such as the player's handbook, the complete warrior, and the player's handbook 2, they will make their character. In my experience, these characters rarely have a solid enough base that they are able to contribute at higher levels. You are not going to see someone come up with a chain tripper by themselves. They probably have weapon focus greatsword and cleave. They might have also decided they are going to stack monkey grip and oversized two weapon fighting to wield huge dwarven urgoshes in each hand or something equally suicidal. The fighter as the simple class you give to the new guy is a myth. Building an effective fighter means knowing all the feats and how they work together and how monsters respond to them. The sheer number of feats he must choose from, which he has to stick with for at least a level and used to be forever, can be paralyzing. But you know all about high numbers of feats. You talk about it in your 3 point. Your point 2 is basically your point one. There also seems to be some suggestion that people like stabbing things with swords and thus the have fun when they get a class that does that. That's true, but it is not like the fighter has a monopoly on stabbing people with swords. 3) The highest amount of feats in the game. Yes, feats may be weaker than spells as listed under the first assumptions. Does that mean that every spell can copy a feat? Some of them maybe, and some of those maybe even as effectively, but until there's a "Spoof Feat" spell, screw that. Feats have unlimited use, spells don't. Some feats do things that spells can't. Find me a spell that cleaves, to use a modest example. Please. 2 things: 1) I am almost positive that there is a spell that gives you a feat. I can't recall what it is called right now. 2) You are assuming that just because an ability cannot be replicated by magic or another force it is necessarily valuable. It is very hard to make baskets without skill points invested in basketweaving. I don't think you can even do that. That does not mean that the class that is bringing more basketweaving than anybody at the table is actually helping the party meet its goals. 4) Good ole traction. Traction is basically the term used for something that sticks to the mind. Contrary to the Cleric, which already has a theme inherent to it, the Fighter is diverse. Its blandness has been mentioned before, but this this both strength and weakness as a Fighter can be *anything you want it to be*. Whatever your idea of the Great Warrior is, the Fighter can be it. He can be your Knight in shining armour, your stoic loyal Samurai, your dashing swashbuckler, your wrestler, your shiny barbarian. Fighters walk the fine line between fluff and crunch, and unlike other classes, they excel at it. I am not sure what to make of this. Honestly, I flavor the classes however I feel like. I will say that the fact that WotC has printed both a samurai and a knight suggests that not everyone agrees with you analysis here.
Johnny_Angel 05-26-07, 10:30 PM	Personally, I feel that the only way to effectively compare the cleric to the fighter is to build two characters: one lvl 20 fighter and one lvl 20 cleric. Neither character will have any gear, armor, magic items, or weapons at all. I feel that's the only way to accurately compare the two classes because all adding equipment does is show how powerful that equipment can make the character. The intent of the thread -or so I thought- was to judge how powerful each of those characters are in relation to one another; not how powerful their gear is in relation to one another.
Argaud 05-26-07, 10:38 PM	Personally, I feel that the only way to effectively compare the cleric to the fighter is to build two characters: one lvl 20 fighter and one lvl 20 cleric. Neither character will have any gear, armor, magic items, or weapons at all. I feel that's the only way to accurately compare the two classes because all adding equipment does is show how powerful that equipment can make the character. The intent of the thread -or so I thought- was to judge how powerful each of those characters are in relation to one another; not how powerful their gear is in relation to one another. The intent of the thread is not comparing the cleric with the fighter. Have you even read the thread? It is completely false comparing a naked fighter with a naked cleric shows anything. Gear is an integral part of the character, it is very clearly stated in the DMG. It is also completely unfair for the cleric to be asked to do anything without his divine focus (aka holy symbol) which he needs for all his spells.
Clawhound 05-26-07, 10:41 PM	Personally, I feel that the only way to effectively compare the cleric to the fighter is to build two characters: one lvl 20 fighter and one lvl 20 cleric. Neither character will have any gear, armor, magic items, or weapons at all. I feel that's the only way to accurately compare the two classes because all adding equipment does is show how powerful that equipment can make the character. The intent of the thread -or so I thought- was to judge how powerful each of those characters are in relation to one another; not how powerful their gear is in relation to one another. The trouble with that is ... almost nobody plays 20th level characters. I'd be far more interested in comparing 3,6, or 9. THOSE are the levels that most folks play at. I'd vote for 6th. As for the playgroups that require entirely self-contained characters: yes, the fighter is an unviable class in those circumstances. That is less of a commentary on the fighter, and more of a recognition that if you alter a game enough, something stops working. In this place, the players tossed out "cooperation", which is one of the foundations of the game.
Argaud 05-26-07, 10:42 PM	Stale arguments hrm. . . . Edit: My god, and I just said something about people writing 3+ screens of text?? Shame on me! I tried not to rant, didn't succeed completely, sorry. Well said, even if long :)
Bob Loblaw 05-27-07, 02:40 AM	Personally, I feel that the only way to effectively compare the cleric to the fighter is to build two characters: one lvl 20 fighter and one lvl 20 cleric. Neither character will have any gear, armor, magic items, or weapons at all. I feel that's the only way to accurately compare the two classes because all adding equipment does is show how powerful that equipment can make the character. The intent of the thread -or so I thought- was to judge how powerful each of those characters are in relation to one another; not how powerful their gear is in relation to one another. The purpose of the thread isn't to compare two classes. It is to determine if the fighter is a worthwhile character. Gear is such an integral part of all DnD characters that it cannot be ignored. If you don't allow the fighter his sword and armor but allow the cleric to cast his spells that don't have material/focus components, then you have shown favoritism to the cleric. It becomes an unbalanced comparison.
zzo38 05-27-07, 02:49 AM	The fighter should be fixed somehow, possibly by 3 things: You can select a exotic weapon proficiency at first level, and also gains a better base attack bonus (like +1 better than normal should be enough), +1 on Strength checks to break things, maybe this will work? You tell me And a fighter with no equipment against a cleric with no equipment isn't a problem, neither has armor, and maybe the fighter is specializing in unarmed fighting, and maybe also the dodge feat and other stuff possibly as well.
Bob Loblaw 05-27-07, 03:02 AM	The fighter should be fixed somehow, possibly by 3 things: You can select a exotic weapon proficiency at first level, and also gains a better base attack bonus (like +1 better than normal should be enough), +1 on Strength checks to break things, maybe this will work? You tell me You can already select Exotic Weapon Proficiency at 1st level. Increasing BAB will have more impact than you may at first think. Many feats and prestige classes use BAB as a prerequisite. Taking these even 1 level earlier can be disruptive. The +1 to break things has been considered in this article about dead levels (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061013a). Before you can really make changes to the fighter, you have to determine what the problems are. There are changes I would make, some would increase the power of the fighter, some would just make me happy with no real changes to balance.
Kalarus 05-27-07, 07:25 AM	Not a thorough review, just what jumped out at me. I think one of the main sticking points between the parties is whether or not build A has any real bearing on the strength of class B. Yes, you can make a fighter who does not have a low will saves and/or controls the battlefield well. You can also make a wizard who is a really good grappler, even before he casts polymorph. That does not mean that one should conclude that wizards are able to: 1)Crowd Control 2)Buff 3)Debuff 4)Cast utility spells 5)Bodyslam a balor Just because one wizard build can do that, does not mean we should conclude that wizards are great grapplers. We should in fact conclude that wizards are bad grapplers, because that is what the class naturally lends itself toward, even if it was the complete opposite in that case. To put it another way, when I think of a fighter, I think of someone like Roy Greenhilt from Order of the Stick. I don't think Roy has a high will save. I know he runs around with a greatsword and feats like weapon specialization and great cleave. I think he probably represents the standard DnD fighter at least as well if not better than someone with Great fortitude and spiked chain who enlarges himself in every fight. The class A vs class B discussion was problematised in the post by challenging the assumptions. Amusingly enough in your analogy, the cleric could never replace the fighter. Would be funny to see a cleric or wizard bodyslam a Balor though. :D This is what made me respond. The fighter is not simple. To say that the fighter is is simple is to be extremely ignorant or just plain lying. Let us look at what it takes to build a fighter. First you choose a race. Then you choose your starting feat and your bonus feat among the hundreds if not thousands of different feats that have been printed. You analyze these feats, all printed in different books, looking for ones that have synergy. In order to choose among these feats, you must also read the special combat maneuvers section. The grapple rules alone are enough to make grown men weep. Once the player has read all the books, or at least mainstays such as the player's handbook, the complete warrior, and the player's handbook 2, they will make their character. In my experience, these characters rarely have a solid enough base that they are able to contribute at higher levels. You are not going to see someone come up with a chain tripper by themselves. They probably have weapon focus greatsword and cleave. They might have also decided they are going to stack monkey grip and oversized two weapon fighting to wield huge dwarven urgoshes in each hand or something equally suicidal. The fighter as the simple class you give to the new guy is a myth. Building an effective fighter means knowing all the feats and how they work together and how monsters respond to them. The sheer number of feats he must choose from, which he has to stick with for at least a level and used to be forever, can be paralyzing. But you know all about high numbers of feats. You talk about it in your 3 point. Your point 2 is basically your point one. There also seems to be some suggestion that people like stabbing things with swords and thus the have fun when they get a class that does that. That's true, but it is not like the fighter has a monopoly on stabbing people with swords. It's a bit odd how you claim that point 2 is the same as point 1, yet point 2 is in no way affected by your arguments against point 1. However, the Fighter is in fact, simple, especially when we're still talking Core. Even if you wanted to bring out all the extra books though, the number of feats, probably in the hundreds, is *nothing* compared to the number of spells out there. Would you like to compare the size of the Feat chapter in the PHB to the size of the Magic chapter in the PHB? Even excluding the actual spell descriptions? You also have some strange assumptions about building a Fighter character. When I built my chain tripper (which I incidentally came up with by myself), I just looked at which feats I needed to achieve what I wanted, picked up Exotic weapon proficiency, focus and specialization, added improved disarm and hold the line, and I was already out of feats. Took me about 15 minutes. Of course, I am a fairly experienced D&D player, and I am assuming that when you described your Fighter building process you were referring to a new guy. Do you really believe that when someone goes to play D&D for the first time, he's going to spend hours and hours reading all the books, picking the best feats, when he doesn't even understand what he's reading? Do you think it's a good idea to let him start higher than level 1, which gives him 3 feats at best, which are likely spent on weapon focus, power attack and cleave? The new guy interested in D&D isn't interested in reading all your books when he comes to the table for the first time. He's interested in finding a big sword and a goblin to use it on. 2 things: 1) I am almost positive that there is a spell that gives you a feat. I can't recall what it is called right now. 2) You are assuming that just because an ability cannot be replicated by magic or another force it is necessarily valuable. It is very hard to make baskets without skill points invested in basketweaving. I don't think you can even do that. That does not mean that the class that is bringing more basketweaving than anybody at the table is actually helping the party meet its goals. 1) Please look it up, I'd like to know. 2) No I'm not. I am not assuming that, but I am stressing it because a lot of people do assume the opposite. You often hear "Magic is more powerful than feats, so you can just ignore feats if you want power." It's an invalid reasoning. What I said was: P1) The Fighter gets the most feats in the game. P2) There are feats which cannot be duplicated by spells. P3) (from P1 and P2) The Fighter gets the most feats in the game which cannot be duplicated by spells. P4) The Fighter is a viable class if he brings something to the table that other classes do not. -- C) The Fighter is a viable class. This reasoning is valid, and in fact fairly neutral about the power of feats and spells. You can say "There are feats that are not duplicated by spells that are useless at the gaming table." That's fine. It has no bearing on the reasoning presented here. However, it does not follow from that that "All feats are useless at the gaming table", which is a statement that *does* have bearing on the reasoning. It has bearing on premise 4. I am not sure what to make of this. Honestly, I flavor the classes however I feel like. I will say that the fact that WotC has printed both a samurai and a knight suggests that not everyone agrees with you analysis here. First, I was under the impression we're still talking Core, so no Samurai and Knights. Even then, both Samurai and Knight bring very few things to the game that you can't do with a properly built Fighter. However, until WotC published those optional books, the Fighter could be build and flavored to fill any of those roles. You'd have a much harder time doing it with a Cleric, Paladin or Ranger. As for reflavoring classes, that's fine. People who open up the PHB for the first time, see a lot of letters and numbers that they don't immediately understand. They also see pictures that they do immediately understand. Then they start reading about whatever peaks their interest, and they read the flavor that WotC published along with the mechanics. Most new players will not think "I'm going to reflavor that!" when they read it the first few times. Fighter is naturally bland. Fighter screams "Do whatever you want with me, I'm your flavor-slave!"
Kalarus 05-27-07, 07:27 AM	Well said, even if long :) Thanks :)
Eyeless Blond 05-27-07, 08:15 AM	1) Please look it up, I'd like to know.Heroics, from the Spell Companion. 2nd level spell that gives you a Fighter feat. 2) No I'm not. I am not assuming that, but I am stressing it because a lot of people do assume the opposite. You often hear "Magic is more powerful than feats, so you can just ignore feats if you want power." It's an invalid reasoning. What I said was: P1) The Fighter gets the most feats in the game. P2) There are feats which cannot be duplicated by spells. P3) (from P1 and P2) The Fighter gets the most feats in the game which cannot be duplicated by spells. P4) The Fighter is a viable class if he brings something to the table that other classes do not. -- C) The Fighter is a viable class. P3 is false, or at least incomplete, in part because Heroics can give you any Fighter feat, partly because the subset of Fighter feats has little overlap with the subset of feats which cannot be duplicated/overmatched by spells. P4: "If he brings something to the table that other classes do not, then the Fighter is a viable class" is also false, or at best problematic. Let me give a counterexample, swapping the Fighter for another class: "If he brings something to the table that other classes do not, then the NPC Adept is a viable class". The Adept has the (essentially) unique ability to cast Lightning Bolt as a divine spell, something that other classes cannot do. Does this make the NPC Adept a viable class? Of course not. Conclusion: bringing something unique is not necessarily enough; there's more to it than that.
Bob Loblaw 05-27-07, 11:32 AM	Heroics, from the Spell Companion. 2nd level spell that gives you a Fighter feat. Not entirely true. You still must meet the prerequisites for the feat. So there are some feats that you will not be able to duplicate with the spell. Also, he was talking core. I know that he only mentioned this in passing, but he did mention it. P3 is false, or at least incomplete, in part because Heroics can give you any Fighter feat, partly because the subset of Fighter feats has little overlap with the subset of feats which cannot be duplicated/overmatched by spells. Again, heroics cannot give you any fighter feat. It can only give you feats that you qualify for. Weapon Specialization, Greater Specialization, and Weapon Supremacy will never be available to the single classed cleric. There are also several feats that will not be available due to the number of feats required; Whirlwind Attack has quite a few feats as prerequisites and would be very difficult to attain without multiple castings of the spell which wouldn't be a very efficient use of the spell. P4: "If he brings something to the table that other classes do not, then the Fighter is a viable class" is also false, or at best problematic. Let me give a counterexample, swapping the Fighter for another class: "If he brings something to the table that other classes do not, then the NPC Adept is a viable class". The Adept has the (essentially) unique ability to cast Lightning Bolt as a divine spell, something that other classes cannot do. Does this make the NPC Adept a viable class? Of course not. Conclusion: bringing something unique is not necessarily enough; there's more to it than that. Actually, if the player can make the adept work, then it is a viable class. Personally I think it's too weak for most people to want to play (and it is designed that way). And for the record, there are several ways to cast Lightning Bolt as a Divine spell. Domains and Greater Anysspell can pull this off. I do agree that, on the surface, bringing something unique to the table is not enough. However, this is not what he said. He said bring something that other classes cannot. Can you build a non-fighter with 4 to 5 different, useful combat options that don't include spells? I doubt it. Can you build a non-fighter that can take 4 or 5 different tactical/weapon style feats giving him up to 15 new combat options? Unlikely. I can. This is what he is talking about.
Arem_K 05-27-07, 02:08 PM	However, the Fighter is in fact, simple, especially when we're still talking Core. Even if you wanted to bring out all the extra books though, the number of feats, probably in the hundreds, is *nothing* compared to the number of spells out there. Would you like to compare the size of the Feat chapter in the PHB to the size of the Magic chapter in the PHB? Even excluding the actual spell descriptions? Bad argument. Just because another class is more complicated does not make yours simple. There really is no simple class in DnD. Spellcasters get their power from carefully reading the spells and finding the ones that allow world domination. Melee types have to carefully select their feats with an eye not only for what they are going to do right now but also six levels from now. More if they want their prestige class. Still, if you want an easy class for DnD, why not take a barbarian, who has a scaling rage whether he likes it or not. Once you teach a rogue to flank, they reliable hit people with d6s. A support bard is real easy, all they have to do is sing. Of course, I am a fairly experienced D&D player, and I am assuming that when you described your Fighter building process you were referring to a new guy. Do you really believe that when someone goes to play D&D for the first time, he's going to spend hours and hours reading all the books, picking the best feats, when he doesn't even understand what he's reading? Do you think it's a good idea to let him start higher than level 1, which gives him 3 feats at best, which are likely spent on weapon focus, power attack and cleave? The new guy interested in D&D isn't interested in reading all your books when he comes to the table for the first time. He's interested in finding a big sword and a goblin to use it on. I am assuming that he is not going to do that and I am also assuming that he will be punished severely for his choice. Having a character build that is "I'm a big guy with a sword" works great for the first few levels. You are fighting things like orcs and goblins, who are going to die just about every time you hit them, and your armor class is good. After a little while, that slows down however. The fighter starts running into things that can fly, or charm him, or are just such mean melee monsters that only an optimized fighter can compete. I am not alone in thinking that fighter is not DnD EZ mode. I know at least Argaud has said that he prefers fighters to the people who have the spells that make you falldown because they are more tactical. 1) Please look it up, I'd like to know. 2) No I'm not. I am not assuming that, but I am stressing it because a lot of people do assume the opposite. You often hear "Magic is more powerful than feats, so you can just ignore feats if you want power." It's an invalid reasoning. What I said was: P1) The Fighter gets the most feats in the game. P2) There are feats which cannot be duplicated by spells. P3) (from P1 and P2) The Fighter gets the most feats in the game which cannot be duplicated by spells. P4) The Fighter is a viable class if he brings something to the table that other classes do not. -- C) The Fighter is a viable class. This reasoning is valid, and in fact fairly neutral about the power of feats and spells. You can say "There are feats that are not duplicated by spells that are useless at the gaming table." That's fine. It has no bearing on the reasoning presented here. However, it does not follow from that that "All feats are useless at the gaming table", which is a statement that *does* have bearing on the reasoning. It has bearing on premise 4. 1) Heroics 2) The reasoning is fine. The fourth premise is bunk however. We really should get away from the term "viable." A commoner is viable, it justs sucks more than pretty much everything. Assuming you meant something like valuable, that premise is simply speaking bad. If the only thing a class has to do to be a good class is to do something, anything, that no else can do, then a no spellbook wizard is a good class. They still have their familar and bonus feats. I don't know what those would actually do, but they are there. Understand, I am not saying that the fighter is the no spellbook wizard. I am saying that the logic presented here justifies the no spellbook wizard.
zzo38 05-27-07, 02:16 PM	You can already select Exotic Weapon Proficiency at 1st level. Increasing BAB will have more impact than you may at first think. Many feats and prestige classes use BAB as a prerequisite. Taking these even 1 level earlier can be disruptive. The +1 to break things has been considered in this article about dead levels (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061013a). Before you can really make changes to the fighter, you have to determine what the problems are. There are changes I would make, some would increase the power of the fighter, some would just make me happy with no real changes to balance. I meant selecting a exotic weapon proficiency in addition to another feat. And you are right about increasing BAB meaning too much, maybe just make it a attack bonus that isn't related to BAB (so it doesn't give you more attacks per turn, and it doesn't fulfil prerequisites of feats and prestige classes) And anyways, what do you think the problems are?
Dusk Argent 05-27-07, 02:27 PM	You can already select Exotic Weapon Proficiency at 1st level. Increasing BAB will have more impact than you may at first think. Many feats and prestige classes use BAB as a prerequisite. Taking these even 1 level earlier can be disruptive. The +1 to break things has been considered in this article about dead levels (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061013a). I want to thank you for posting the link to that article... this is similar to an idea I had posted about a year ago in regards to giving the Fighter core class something extra I felt was needed to make it worthwhile to stick with up into the higher levels. My original thought was a class ability that was gained at lvls 5, 7, 11, 13 and 19 that allowed the Fighter to choose one feat that he/she already possessed (and which grants a numerical +/- bonus, such as Dodge or Weapon Focus) and increase said bonus (or decrease a penalty) by 1. Every time this class ability is gained, it can be used on the same feat or spread out amongst multiple feats. For example: A 19th lvl Fighter might have opted to use all 5 bonuses on the Dodge feat to gain a total of +6 or used to decrease the penalties associated with the Two Weapon Fighting feat (taken 4 times it would, in effect, cancel out the total penalties for fighting with 2 weapons... assuming the off-hand weapon is light) down to 0/0. I do understand that his concept would need some tweaking in some areas (some feats might become too overly-powerful if boosted 5 times), but I would say that if the player in question chooses to put "all of his eggs in one basket" by applying all 5 bonuses for a total of +7 damage with his Weapon Specialization: Greatsword, for example, then it shows that the Fighter... through his single-minded devotion to his weapon of choice... has reached a level of mastery unmatched by any other class. My reasoning for only granting this bonus at the 5 lvls mentioned above was to keep this ability on-par with the (on average) 5-step progression with certain special abilities for other classes, such as the Ranger's Favored Enemy bonus increasing to +5 over 20 lvls, or the Damage Reduction of a Barbarian reaching -5 at lvl 20. I would be interested in hearing any feedback on this idea.
itwasntme 05-27-07, 02:56 PM	there are alot of post on any reason to have a fighter there are many reasons to have a fighter fighter or fighter types can be as powerfull as spellcasters at high level in the game (Though most games never get that high) the arguement was a 1on1 battle (Which never happins) The figher loses (Though it largely is based on who wins initive) Or the spellcaster uses most of there spells and is useless for the rest of the day (When high level games you need to go though 3-4 battles on adverage so 1 battle is not enough) or metagamed think or used/abused some rules and or items to break the game (Which fighter or fighter types could do) most people allways think of fighters as dumb ass's that wount do anything (Many people at first where claiming during the first 5 rounds of combat there character would be doing something and stated the fighter or fight type wasnt doing anything during this time which is just dumb) so yes there are many reasons to have fighter type people in the game they can be just as powerfull as spellcasters (Largely based on game rules and eveything but under normol games and situations they could win about 50% of the time) Fighter compared to other fighter types are usefull in the fact that you can do much more costimizeation with them Barbians useoly allways go with there rage along with a few other things a fighter is someone you can use to largely costimize a build in fact no two fighters can be the same (Inless someone just copyed your character) Paladin special mount i consider a waste considering the mounts you can get in arms and equipment guide which is why i consider useing the varient of Chargeing Smite in PHB 2 (Or complete Warrior) though High Charisma paladins are normol and should be used there turn undead however sucks but then again in most games turning undead is just saveing time if your fighting week undead monsters if your fighting something that is a worrie then more offtin then not your turn undead will not work considering they have High HD turn resistance which effect eveything on the turn attempts eta eta so the charisma paladins can do alot of damage better saves then the Monk half the time and can heal for ALOT of life that is if you made your charisma beefy and if your a grayguard you can do alot of damage with your touch Monks has nice speed and are GREAT Scouts but there abilitys may be nice but can be overcome (Face it your monk cant run in hit dragon run away considering most high level dragons have forcewall and spells and other creatures guarding there lair) Nice AC but can be Matched with Fighters Paladins Rangers Clerics or even beat and needs alot of high stats (Needs Dex Wis for AC Str for damage Con for HP though i guess you can leave one or more at a low enough point) Druids with the new rules made there shapeshift (and all polymorhping) not as beefy as it once was and is now somewhat adverage/week for abilitys pets or compions can be killed quickly with warrior type characters Fighter or Fighter types who have a High Con scor can have a Beefy Will saveing thorw via SteadFast Determination feat (if your a fighter you have more then enough feats later on in the game) Rouges require Stealth and cant go toe to toe with monsters but can be a nice help tho then again if you think rouges are the only characters who can disable traps without wasting spells your dead wrong anyone can detect traps and disable them (There are ways stateing how you can avoid some and disable some traps if you dont have a rouge and dont want to waste spells in the DM) or one of my more fav quotes / sayings A dwarf fighter's thief skills - Open Door: Boot. Pick Lock: Bash. Pick Pocket: Mug. Climb Walls: Rope. Hide in Shadows: No. Move Silently: As If. Find/Remove Traps: Ouch. with combat form feats or other type of feats warrior types with 13 wis at least can gain Fast Healing which will help heal wounds outside of battle Rangers can be dealy Archurs But at a cost of lower AC HP Fighters could be Archurs along with other things all in the same build If your looking for a class that can have multibol builds in the same character then fighter is your best bet Barbians can take damage and keep going even if that damage is Rediculusly high
Flan 05-27-07, 05:00 PM	Again, heroics cannot give you any fighter feat. It can only give you feats that you qualify for. Weapon Specialization, Greater Specialization, and Weapon Supremacy will never be available to the single classed cleric. There are also several feats that will not be available due to the number of feats required; Whirlwind Attack has quite a few feats as prerequisites and would be very difficult to attain without multiple castings of the spell which wouldn't be a very efficient use of the spell. Not so much. 4k for a pearl of power 2. For a mere 44k you can buy the entire class feature set of a 20th level fighter and a divine power or whatever will give you the full BAB.
Bob Loblaw 05-27-07, 05:22 PM	There really is no simple class in DnD. Spellcasters get their power from carefully reading the spells and finding the ones that allow world domination. Melee types have to carefully select their feats with an eye not only for what they are going to do right now but also six levels from now. More if they want their prestige class. All very true and something that most people forget when discussing how the classes function. Still, if you want an easy class for DnD, why not take a barbarian, who has a scaling rage whether he likes it or not. Once you teach a rogue to flank, they reliable hit people with d6s. A support bard is real easy, all they have to do is sing. The barbarian is rather simple and I feel even more bland than the fighter, but that's a personal opinion and has nothing to do with the usefulness of the barbarian. The rogue cannot reliably hit for extra d6's of damage just because he's flanking. There are several categories of creatures they cannot sneak attack at all. There are magic items and spells that also negate that entire feature. The rogue needs to be very careful when he gets into melee regardless due to his lower AC and hit points. The bard is actually a difficult class to play with a 4 person party. He can do quite a bit, but he really shines more when there are more than 3 others to boost. I have found that a well played bard is a huge asset, but he really doesn't do much on his own. I am assuming that he is not going to do that and I am also assuming that he will be punished severely for his choice. Having a character build that is "I'm a big guy with a sword" works great for the first few levels. You are fighting things like orcs and goblins, who are going to die just about every time you hit them, and your armor class is good. After a little while, that slows down however. The fighter starts running into things that can fly, or charm him, or are just such mean melee monsters that only an optimized fighter can compete. The barbarian, paladin, rogue, ranger, and bard also run into these problems. The casters have problems if they don't have the right spells prepared. If the group works as a team, there is no reason why any of the characters need to be optimized. The group is only truly effective when they work as a team. Individualism makes things harder for everyone. I am not alone in thinking that fighter is not DnD EZ mode. I know at least Argaud has said that he prefers fighters to the people who have the spells that make you falldown because they are more tactical. I think when people say easy, they are referring to the fact that you don't have to have a long list of things to refer to all the time. The fighter who takes Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Specialization, and Melee Weapon Mastery needs to simply add up all the numbers once. Casters, on the other hand, need to keep track of more options that they have. I can't think of anyone who has ever been in a situation where they didn't say, "damn, I forgot I had spell X ready. That would have been useful last round." The fighter doesn't have to deal with this. We really should get away from the term "viable." A commoner is viable, it justs sucks more than pretty much everything. Assuming you meant something like valuable, that premise is simply speaking bad. If the only thing a class has to do to be a good class is to do something, anything, that no else can do, then a no spellbook wizard is a good class. They still have their familar and bonus feats. I don't know what those would actually do, but they are there. Viable is actually the correct term to use. Considering that the fighter must fill his role as defined in the PHB as a PC class, he must be viable. The commoner is not viable as a PC class because he really can't fill the role as a PC the way the game is designed. Of course you can change the rules a bit, like give him PC wealth instead of NPC wealth, but he really isn't a viable PC class. I meant selecting a exotic weapon proficiency in addition to another feat. And you are right about increasing BAB meaning too much, maybe just make it a attack bonus that isn't related to BAB (so it doesn't give you more attacks per turn, and it doesn't fulfil prerequisites of feats and prestige classes) And anyways, what do you think the problems are? First, note that I think the fighter works as is. For my own reasons, I would like to see the fighter changed a bit. I would give him 2 more skill points per level and add Heal to his list of class skills. I feel that all the classes should have a minimum of 2 skill points per level. Keeping them low encourages more teamwork since not everyone can do everything so I can see why their list is short. I just don't like it. I would change his hit dice (and the other full BAB classes as well). The fighter would have 1d6+4. This would give him 5-10 points per level. Instead of having a 40% chance of having the same hit points as a wizard, he has a 100% chance of having better hit points. He is supposed to be in combat taking hits. His hit points should reflect this, in my opinion. I would give him a few special abilities that no one else can have. I don't know exactly what those would be yet, but Weapon Specialization isn't enough for me. I don't think giving him more weapons he is proficient with is useful because, honestly, how many fighters actually use a golf bag of weapons? How many fighters actually use more than 2 weapons? There are some that might use up to three, but then the cost of having them all be useful gets a bit prohibitive. I want to thank you for posting the link to that article... this is similar to an idea I had posted about a year ago in regards to giving the Fighter core class something extra I felt was needed to make it worthwhile to stick with up into the higher levels. My original thought was a class ability that was gained at lvls 5, 7, 11, 13 and 19 that allowed the Fighter to choose one feat that he/she already possessed (and which grants a numerical +/- bonus, such as Dodge or Weapon Focus) and increase said bonus (or decrease a penalty) by 1. Every time this class ability is gained, it can be used on the same feat or spread out amongst multiple feats. For example: A 19th lvl Fighter might have opted to use all 5 bonuses on the Dodge feat to gain a total of +6 or used to decrease the penalties associated with the Two Weapon Fighting feat (taken 4 times it would, in effect, cancel out the total penalties for fighting with 2 weapons... assuming the off-hand weapon is light) down to 0/0. I do understand that his concept would need some tweaking in some areas (some feats might become too overly-powerful if boosted 5 times), but I would say that if the player in question chooses to put "all of his eggs in one basket" by applying all 5 bonuses for a total of +7 damage with his Weapon Specialization: Greatsword, for example, then it shows that the Fighter... through his single-minded devotion to his weapon of choice... has reached a level of mastery unmatched by any other class. My reasoning for only granting this bonus at the 5 lvls mentioned above was to keep this ability on-par with the (on average) 5-step progression with certain special abilities for other classes, such as the Ranger's Favored Enemy bonus increasing to +5 over 20 lvls, or the Damage Reduction of a Barbarian reaching -5 at lvl 20. I would be interested in hearing any feedback on this idea. I like this. I would have to take some time with it to see if it would actually be a problem or not. How would this work with feats like Power Attack and Combat Expertise? Would you essentially have an extra 1 to 5 points to play with for free?
Bob Loblaw 05-27-07, 05:30 PM	Not so much. 4k for a pearl of power 2. For a mere 44k you can buy the entire class feature set of a 20th level fighter and a divine power or whatever will give you the full BAB. You are still putting a lot of extra work into getting some feats that you really don't need to focus on. You also will never be able to take the feats that have Fighter level X as a prerequisite. While there are really only 3 or 4 that I can think of, the spell will not allow you to take them. So heroics is not a perfect answer. You also need to be able to acquire quite a bit of the material component. "A bit of a weapon or armor that has been used in combat by a fighter of at least 15th level." Is a bit too vague for my tastes. Also, these acquired feats are now subject to dispels which is kinda funny.
Argaud 05-27-07, 05:36 PM	Not so much. 4k for a pearl of power 2. For a mere 44k you can buy the entire class feature set of a 20th level fighter and a divine power or whatever will give you the full BAB. Hmm, you have Divine Power (a divine spell) and Heroics (an arcane spell from Spell Compendium) in your list. What are you playing? A Mystic Theurge? A very powerful PRC, yes... indeed :rolleyes: Of course it took you 12 rounds to cast those, and the battle ended 7 rounds ago. Maybe you would like to Quicken some of those spells? They you are golden by round 7. Almost in time for the corpselooting. :rolleyes: You still don't have Weapon Specialization, by the way, unless you took 4 levels as fighter (or 6 as warblade). You don't have Weapon Supremacy either, since you know... it is not even a fighter bonus feat, although you need 18 fighter levels.
Kalarus 05-27-07, 05:49 PM	Not so much. 4k for a pearl of power 2. For a mere 44k you can buy the entire class feature set of a 20th level fighter and a divine power or whatever will give you the full BAB. That's great. At the cost of what other gear? Also, it should be pointed out that Heroics is a L2 Sorc/Wiz spell. It doesn't appear in any domains (at least not in Spell Compendium), so you'll be multiclassing at the least if you want to do this. Also, it must be noted, that the spell description reads that you can select any feat from the fighter bonus feat list, but "All prerequisites for the feat must be met by the target of this spell." Take weapon specialization for example. One of its prerequisites is "fighter 4th". This means that unless you're a 4th level fighter, this spell will never give you weapon specialization. Same goes for any other "fighter only" feat. Being able to pick from the Fighter bonus feat list just restricts the choices to Fighter bonus list, it doesn't allow you to pick feats you normally would not qualify for due to class or any other reason. Bad argument. Just because another class is more complicated does not make yours simple. I eagerly await your definition of "simple" and "complex" then, and to which apparently objective standard in D&D you compare them to. Complexity in D&D is relative, since D&D is simple enough for players to understand (though possibly not memorize) every aspect of it. There really is no simple class in DnD. Spellcasters get their power from carefully reading the spells and finding the ones that allow world domination. Melee types have to carefully select their feats with an eye not only for what they are going to do right now but also six levels from now. More if they want their prestige class. Still, if you want an easy class for DnD, why not take a barbarian, who has a scaling rage whether he likes it or not. Once you teach a rogue to flank, they reliable hit people with d6s. A support bard is real easy, all they have to do is sing. Sure, Barbarians, rogues and support-bards are fairly simple classes. Likely about as easy to understand as fighters. Provided you can have a decent head for numbers and can deal with conditional variables easily, which not everone can. Fighters are simple because most things you pick just work, they rarely change. Jot down the right numbers and go. Furthermore, every class, if you're going for a PrC or just optimizing generally, will be looking at what he'll be doing in 6 levels, or what their PrC requires, etc. This is not unique to the fighter but common to all classes, and so hardly an argument in a comparative situation. I am assuming that he is not going to do that and I am also assuming that he will be punished severely for his choice. Having a character build that is "I'm a big guy with a sword" works great for the first few levels. You are fighting things like orcs and goblins, who are going to die just about every time you hit them, and your armor class is good. After a little while, that slows down however. The fighter starts running into things that can fly, or charm him, or are just such mean melee monsters that only an optimized fighter can compete. There's that strange assumption again. The assumption that if you're not optimized, your DM is going to ruthlessly punish you for it by killing off your character. I never understand where that is coming from. I never understand why party dynamics and cooperation are so easily tossed aside. There's no class or character in D&D that can solo everything, any time, except Pun-pun. I am not alone in thinking that fighter is not DnD EZ mode. I know at least Argaud has said that he prefers fighters to the people who have the spells that make you falldown because they are more tactical. Possibly, but being tactical is no requirement to playing a Fighter. It is a way of playing a Fighter, it may even be a very efficient way of playing a Fighter, but it is no hard and fast requirement for playing a Fighter. 1) Heroics 2) The reasoning is fine. The fourth premise is bunk however. We really should get away from the term "viable." A commoner is viable, it justs sucks more than pretty much everything. Assuming you meant something like valuable, that premise is simply speaking bad. If the only thing a class has to do to be a good class is to do something, anything, that no else can do, then a no spellbook wizard is a good class. They still have their familar and bonus feats. I don't know what those would actually do, but they are there. Understand, I am not saying that the fighter is the no spellbook wizard. I am saying that the logic presented here justifies the no spellbook wizard. You didn't read what I wrote. The no spellbook wizard does not bring anything to the table that other classes cannot. A spellbook wizard brings the exact same things to the table. Bob got the right of it in post when he said: I do agree that, on the surface, bringing something unique to the table is not enough. However, this is not what he said. He said bring something that other classes cannot. Can you build a non-fighter with 4 to 5 different, useful combat options that don't include spells? I doubt it. Can you build a non-fighter that can take 4 or 5 different tactical/weapon style feats giving him up to 15 new combat options? Unlikely. I can. This is what he is talking about. The use of viable has been explained as well in the post you earlier admitted to not having read properly. Either way, if you're so eager to get away from the word "viable", provide an alternative for the discussion that is relevant to D&D in general, and we'll see where we go from there :) I do hope you're not thinking in terms of "powerful enough", though. If that were the case, you really haven't been reading.
Dusk Argent 05-27-07, 07:02 PM	I like this. I would have to take some time with it to see if it would actually be a problem or not. How would this work with feats like Power Attack and Combat Expertise? Would you essentially have an extra 1 to 5 points to play with for free? Those are two perfect examples of where problems arise with my idea. Another problematic feat would be Improved Critical. The simple solution I suppose would be to limit/apply this new class ability only to those feats that provide static, set numerical bonuses (i.e. Dodge, Weapon Focus, Lightning Reflexes, any skill feat such as Acrobatic etc...)
Arem_K 05-27-07, 07:09 PM	I eagerly await your definition of "simple" and "complex" then, and to which apparently objective standard in D&D you compare them to. Complexity in D&D is relative, since D&D is simple enough for players to understand (though possibly not memorize) every aspect of it. I will refrain from quoting the dictionary here. Look, if I understand the position of the fighter types, the fighter is good because he has a series of tactical options. The quote from Bob you got talks about how the fighter has four or five tactical options. Having four or five tactical options means having to make a tactical decision every round. Worse yet, these options are themselves complicated. There is a four part series of articles on this site to help people understand grappling. Those articles were later changed, presumably because the guy writing the articles did not himself understand grappling. And that's just grappling. Sure, Barbarians, rogues and support-bards are fairly simple classes. Likely about as easy to understand as fighters. Provided you can have a decent head for numbers and can deal with conditional variables easily, which not everone can. Fighters are simple because most things you pick just work, they rarely change. Jot down the right numbers and go. See, this is what we are arguing about on the simple thing. You believe that a fighter who just selects his feats randomly is going to be okay. I think he is going to get eaten by a troll. There's that strange assumption again. The assumption that if you're not optimized, your DM is going to ruthlessly punish you for it by killing off your character. I never understand where that is coming from. I never understand why party dynamics and cooperation are so easily tossed aside. There's no class or character in D&D that can solo everything, any time, except Pun-pun. Who said anything about party dynamics and cooperation? Look, we have a new fighter. He understands he is a tank. He understands his role is to run up and hit stuff. Now lets say he encounters a troll. It averages 41.5 points of damage if it hits with everything and it stands a pretty good chance of doing that. Assuming our fighter is 5th level and has a 14 in con he has 42 hit points. That means he tends to die if he stands next to it. In fact, it would be probably be best if does drop because there is no way he can take another full attack. If the rest of the party can't kill the troll before next round he is in deep trouble. It gets worse if this is an encounter with a monster that it is a higher CR that the party. An optimized fighter would have done better. A more experienced fighter would have done better. By the guy with a greatsword and a cursory idea of how to play won't. He would be better of playing a blaster sorc, where he would suck but still be alive. Possibly, but being tactical is no requirement to playing a Fighter. It is a way of playing a Fighter, it may even be a very efficient way of playing a Fighter, but it is no hard and fast requirement for playing a Fighter. How do you seriously contribute as a fighter if you don't understand tactics? You didn't read what I wrote. The no spellbook wizard does not bring anything to the table that other classes cannot. A spellbook wizard brings the exact same things to the table. Bob got the right of it in post when he said: Maybe I am not being clear. Let says that there is no wizard or sorcerer. There is only the rat man. He has a rat. Its called a familiar. No one else can do that. Is rat man viable? The use of viable has been explained as well in the post you earlier admitted to not having read properly. Either way, if you're so eager to get away from the word "viable", provide an alternative for the discussion that is relevant to D&D in general, and we'll see where we go from there :) I really don't get your definition of viable honestly. You first seem to be saying the fighter is viable because he can "fulfill a party role." 1) tank 2) do battlefield control 3) deal damage Later, a fighter is viable because 1)The Fighter is a viable class if he brings something to the table that other classes do not. And these things are: 1) Simplicity 2) Instant gratification 3) Lots o' feats 4) Little flavor text Which definition of viable are we discussing?
Otto the Bugbear 05-27-07, 08:16 PM	Hmm, you have Divine Power (a divine spell) and Heroics (an arcane spell from Spell Compendium) in your list. What are you playing? A Mystic Theurge? A very powerful PRC, yes... indeed :rolleyes: Of course it took you 12 rounds to cast those, and the battle ended 7 rounds ago. Maybe you would like to Quicken some of those spells? They you are golden by round 7. Almost in time for the corpselooting. :rolleyes: :uh-huh: Flan said something about gold, right? Yes. How much does heroics cost to cast? 0 gold. Doesn't that make what he was talking about magic items? Yes. How much would an always active, non-slotted item of heroics cost? 2000 x spell level x caster level x 2 2000 x 2 x 1 x 2 8000 each, so Flan was off by half if he was talking about purchase price, but spot on if talking about creation price. Unless of course we start adding in some of the "other considerations" found on DMG page 282, such as 'Item Requires Specific Class or Alignment to Use:'. Yes, the big difference is that they can be dispelled, unlike the fighter. Considering the exchange of actions involved, that sort of tactic is not always the best of ideas. Surprise rounds, absolutely. But when one side of the encounter opts to dispel, while the other side just continues to thrash them, that's not the best of ideas. Then, 6-24 seconds later, the items function again.
Bob Loblaw 05-27-07, 08:50 PM	I will refrain from quoting the dictionary here. Look, if I understand the position of the fighter types, the fighter is good because he has a series of tactical options. The quote from Bob you got talks about how the fighter has four or five tactical options. Having four or five tactical options means having to make a tactical decision every round. Worse yet, these options are themselves complicated. There is a four part series of articles on this site to help people understand grappling. Those articles were later changed, presumably because the guy writing the articles did not himself understand grappling. And that's just grappling. Nice how you picked one of the more complicated and convoluted options. If we're going to go with extremes, why not use something on the other end as well like two-weapon fighting? Not every option is confusing. Not every option includes grappling. Most, in fact, are not really all that complicated. Yes, having up to 15 more options is more complicated than not having those options. Did you know that the wizard has more than 44 options by 20th level to choose from? 44 is three times as many as 15. This is more complicated. Let's not even bring in scrolls, wands, staves, and more bonus spells. See, this is what we are arguing about on the simple thing. You believe that a fighter who just selects his feats randomly is going to be okay. I think he is going to get eaten by a troll. And you'd be right. However, if I used such a strawman argument as well, I could say that the fighter has a chance because we all know that the troll had just gotten pounded on by a fire elemental that was being gated by a wizard so he only has 2 hit points left. A well built fighter can take the troll. The last time this was brought up about 5 or 6 builds came out that were core only and trounced the troll. None of them were spectacular builds either. Who said anything about party dynamics and cooperation? The fighter is part of a group. There are 3 other characters according to the design assumptions. They need to be accounted for, even hypothetically. Look, we have a new fighter. He understands he is a tank. He understands his role is to run up and hit stuff. Now lets say he encounters a troll. It averages 41.5 points of damage if it hits with everything and it stands a pretty good chance of doing that. Assuming our fighter is 5th level and has a 14 in con he has 42 hit points. That means he tends to die if he stands next to it. In fact, it would be probably be best if does drop because there is no way he can take another full attack. If the rest of the party can't kill the troll before next round he is in deep trouble. It gets worse if this is an encounter with a monster that it is a higher CR that the party. And the other 3 people watched him die? What great friends. The cleric should have tossed some cures his way. The rogue should have flanked. The wizard should have use melf's acid arrow. An optimized fighter would have done better. A more experienced fighter would have done better. By the guy with a greatsword and a cursory idea of how to play won't. He would be better of playing a blaster sorc, where he would suck but still be alive. That's why Kalarus didn't mention anything about randomly picking feats. He is referring to the feats that the fighter does choose. Weapon Focus works. Your opponent doesn't matter. You don't need higher level feat slots to beef up Power Attack. With most fighter feats, you add in all the numbers and leave them in place on your sheet. How do you seriously contribute as a fighter if you don't understand tactics? You can build a fighter that just hits hard and often. You can build a fighter that hits from a distance and doesn't try to do anything fancy. The most basic tactic is frontal assault. The fighter can be built this way. Those with any sense of tactics knows that this is a very dangerous approach and will require more support. The fighter will need the cleric healing him more and will need the other casters summoning reinforcements if this is the only tactic he uses. Strangely enough, most people quickly move out of this and learn how to make adjustments. There are very few people who will use the same tactic over and over. Maybe I am not being clear. Let says that there is no wizard or sorcerer. There is only the rat man. He has a rat. Its called a familiar. No one else can do that. Is rat man viable? Perhaps we need to add a phrase for those who want to be intentionally obtuse: To be viable, the character must be able to fill the role as designated in the PHB according to his or her class in a meaningful way. Even without this clause, if you read the definition I provided for viable (here it is again for you): Pronunciation: 'vI-&-b&l Function: adjective Etymology: French, from Middle French, from vie life, from Latin vita -- more at VITAL 1 : capable of living; especially : having attained such form and development as to be normally capable of surviving outside the mother's womb <a viable fetus> 2 : capable of growing or developing <viable seeds> <viable eggs> 3 a : capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately <viable alternatives> b : capable of existence and development as an independent unit <the colony is now a viable state> c (1) : having a reasonable chance of succeeding <a viable candidate> (2) : financially sustainable <a viable enterprise> We can skip definitions 1 (all characters automatically qualify) and 3c2 (this isn't a financial situation). Your wizard example would not be able to fill number 2, 3a, 3b, or 3c1. I really don't get your definition of viable honestly. You first seem to be saying the fighter is viable because he can "fulfill a party role." No, he can fulfill his party role. Here it is according to the PHB: In most adventuring parties, the fighter serves as a melee combatant, charging into the fray while his comrades support him with spells, ranged attacks, and other effects. Fighters who favor ranged combat can prove very deadly, though without other melee support, they can find themselves in front-line combat more often than they might prefer. If the fighter can fill that role, then he is viable. Any comments to the contrary are changing the goalposts. It is very clear. Whether or not someone else can also fill this role is irrelevant to answering the question of can the fighter fill this role. Which definition of viable are we discussing? Pick one of the ones I mention from the dictionary. See how it applies. You can keep trying to pretend that you don't understand, but you're not fooling anyone. It is obvious you are trying to twist things to make yourself look right. It doesn't really help your case.
Arem_K 05-27-07, 09:25 PM	Pick one of the ones I mention from the dictionary. See how it applies. You can keep trying to pretend that you don't understand, but you're not fooling anyone. It is obvious you are trying to twist things to make yourself look right. It doesn't really help your case. Can we get away from this? I am seriously not sitting here attempting to bend logic in order to spread deliberate mistruths about the fighter. I honestly do not understand why you have to attribute some sort of bad faith to my part of this discussion. I got into this debate because I very much disagreed with the assertion that fighters are easy to play. This is an assertion that you yourself agreed with. I seriously have been many times confused as to what exactly is meant by viable. Also, please tell me how I have committed a strawman fallacy. I don't think I have misrepresented someone else's position, then showed refuted that position. I did say that a fighter with bad feats and little tactical awareness stand a very good chance of of dying in combat with a troll.
Argaud 05-27-07, 09:26 PM	:uh-huh: Flan said something about gold, right? Yes. How much does heroics cost to cast? 0 gold. Doesn't that make what he was talking about magic items? Yes. How much would an always active, non-slotted item of heroics cost? 2000 x spell level x caster level x 2 2000 x 2 x 1 x 2 8000 each, so Flan was off by half if he was talking about purchase price, but spot on if talking about creation price. He was talking about pearls of power, not custom-made items of Heroics, which you know they are not built using that formula. MIC clarifies this: The cost of the item depends on the usefulness, not spell levels or caster levels. If that is a valid formula and an item of 88,000 gold gives 11 fighter feats, then I am using an item of 88,000 gold to have all the spellcasting of a level 20 wizard. Fair is fair, and the full features of a class should be worth exactly the same than the full features of other class. Well, yes, my custom item of level 20 wizardly spellcasting can be dispelled, but I think I am going to keep it anyway. :D
Kratch 05-27-07, 11:24 PM	8000 each, so Flan was off by half if he was talking about purchase price, but spot on if talking about creation price. Unless of course we start adding in some of the "other considerations" found on DMG page 282, such as 'Item Requires Specific Class or Alignment to Use:'. Assumeing equal items, your still down by 12 feats (IE 2-5 combat options. This kind of bonus feat option could make a fighter a devistating ranged fighter on top of his primary build. So much for flight or begining distance being an issue.), as well as the weapon spec line, which, if you look in core, has only 4 or so options, but outside of core, there are in and around 11-12+. Yes, the big difference is that they can be dispelled, unlike the fighter. Considering the exchange of actions involved, that sort of tactic is not always the best of ideas. Surprise rounds, absolutely. But when one side of the encounter opts to dispel, while the other side just continues to thrash them, that's not the best of ideas. Then, 6-24 seconds later, the items function again. Actually, a chain dispell or that dispell that does damage per spell removed is a pretty decent choice part way into the fight if buffs are obviously in effect. Dismiss the option if you'd like, thats your mistake. Look, we have a new fighter. He understands he is a tank. He understands his role is to run up and hit stuff. Now lets say he encounters a troll. It averages 41.5 points of damage if it hits with everything and it stands a pretty good chance of doing that. Assuming our fighter is 5th level and has a 14 in con he has 42 hit points. That means he tends to die if he stands next to it. In fact, it would be probably be best if does drop because there is no way he can take another full attack. If the rest of the party can't kill the troll before next round he is in deep trouble. It gets worse if this is an encounter with a monster that it is a higher CR that the party. there is one problem with your argument, and that is that it is based on the ignorance of the player, which has nothing to do with it's simplicity. There is no other class that would function any better in the exact same situation (side by side with a troll), assuming the same level of ignorance/inexperience. (i will concceed that you are not the one who brought up the inexperienced player comments). The primary point is that, a fighter, much like a barbarian, given the options it provides in combat, is simple in comparison to other class's such as the various spellcasters, who can have 2-5 times the options, as well as the statisitics for those options (range, cast time, damage, area, etc, etc, etc.) An optimized fighter would have done better. A more experienced fighter would have done better. By the guy with a greatsword and a cursory idea of how to play won't. He would be better of playing a blaster sorc, where he would suck but still be alive. just for the purpose of clarity, the experience (or lack of) is not a factor of a class's simplicity. The fighter IS a simple class, it is not however, a novice class (To build and play,i'd deligait that roll to Barbarian, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Bard, generally in that order (different personalities may adjust the order). Just to play (assuming a more experienced player made the build), i'd go Sorcerer, Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, Bard, all relatively close, with the order being highly relevent to the player using it. Though this is personal opinion)
Eyeless Blond 05-27-07, 11:37 PM	He was talking about pearls of power, not custom-made items of Heroics, which you know they are not built using that formula. MIC clarifies this: The cost of the item depends on the usefulness, not spell levels or caster levels. If that is a valid formula and an item of 88,000 gold gives 11 fighter feats, then I am using an item of 88,000 gold to have all the spellcasting of a level 20 wizard. Fair is fair, and the full features of a class should be worth exactly the same than the full features of other class. Well, yes, my custom item of level 20 wizardly spellcasting can be dispelled, but I think I am going to keep it anyway. :D Okay, all the new or inexperienced posters take note, the above is pretty much a classical example of the strawman fallacy. Notice how the poster takes the original argument (88k gp can give you the equivalent of 11 fighter feats), ignored it, made up a new argument for the original poster (88k gp can give you 20 levels of class features) and proceeds to ridicule this fake argument in place of the real one. It's the setup that defines a Strawman fallacy. The poster above set up a straw man--the fake argument--and knocked it down--88k for 20th level wizard casting--all the while ignoring the real argument, hoping to distract the audience from the fact that the real argument was never addressed in the first place. Arem_K's mistake, on the other hand, wasn't in fact a strawman. It was possibly a missing the point fallacy, but I suspect the problem wasn't a logical error, so much as an error in interpreting the opposing side's argument. This isn't a logical fallacy, because it wasn't deliberate; it's just an error.
Bob Loblaw 05-27-07, 11:48 PM	Can we get away from this? I am seriously not sitting here attempting to bend logic in order to spread deliberate mistruths about the fighter. I honestly do not understand why you have to attribute some sort of bad faith to my part of this discussion. I got into this debate because I very much disagreed with the assertion that fighters are easy to play. This is an assertion that you yourself agreed with. I seriously have been many times confused as to what exactly is meant by viable. Also, please tell me how I have committed a strawman fallacy. I don't think I have misrepresented someone else's position, then showed refuted that position. I did say that a fighter with bad feats and little tactical awareness stand a very good chance of of dying in combat with a troll. You specifically mentioned random feats. No one would build a character with random feats, or spells, or skills, or anything else like that. They are meant to be carefully selected. This is what I meant by strawman. You created a situation that was not part of the argument and then argued against it. What is confusing about the definitions of "viable" and "role" that I gave? If there is honestly confusion, I can clear it up. If you are really confused, understand that we have been in these debates with many eloquent writers who intentionally twist what is said. If you are really having a difficult time understanding those definitions then I apologize for the accusation. I will also agree, to a point, that fighters aren't necessarily easy to play. They are easier than any of the casting classes, and I think that's what Kalarus was trying to say.
Bob Loblaw 05-28-07, 12:13 AM	As an aside, I have asked this before with little in the way of answers, what are the archetypes that the fighter should be able to fulfill and why? Note that certain things really aren't archetypes such as General. That's a job that requires more than simply fighting. It can still be built, but it's not really an archetype.
Argaud 05-28-07, 12:16 AM	Okay, all the new or inexperienced posters take note, the above is pretty much a classical example of the strawman fallacy. Notice how the poster takes the original argument (88k gp can give you the equivalent of 11 fighter feats), ignored it, made up a new argument for the original poster (88k gp can give you 20 levels of class features) and proceeds to ridicule this fake argument in place of the real one. It's the setup that defines a Strawman fallacy. The poster above set up a straw man--the fake argument--and knocked it down--88k for 20th level wizard casting--all the while ignoring the real argument, hoping to distract the audience from the fact that the real argument was never addressed in the first place. Arem_K's mistake, on the other hand, wasn't in fact a strawman. It was possibly a missing the point fallacy, but I suspect the problem wasn't a logical error, so much as an error in interpreting the opposing side's argument. This isn't a logical fallacy, because it wasn't deliberate; it's just an error. There is no fallacy in the argument at all. Not so much. 4k for a pearl of power 2. For a mere 44k you can buy the entire class feature set of a 20th level fighter and a divine power or whatever will give you the full BAB. Flan claimed that for the cost of 11 pearls of power someone could buy the "entire class feature" of the a level 20 fighter. (Btw, I am pretty sure Flan wasn't being 100% serious here. Knowing him a bit from past posts, I am pretty sure he was half-mocking the ridiculousness of the power of the Heroics spell, which basically steals the features of other class). Otto jumped in: How much would an always active, non-slotted item of heroics cost? 2000 x spell level x caster level x 2 2000 x 2 x 1 x 2 8000 each, so Flan was off by half if he was talking about purchase price, but spot on if talking about creation price. Unless of course we start adding in some of the "other considerations" found on DMG page 282 I am not sure if Otto missunderstood Flan's post, where he used Pearls of Power to get the 11 feats, thinking Flan meant permanent magical items, or he was just adding to the joke, but it does not matter. According to the guidelines of the DMG Otto is right, an item with Heroics is worth 8000 gold (actually 24k, see the sidenote), so with 11 of those (88k gold) anyone can have 11 fighter feats. Of course we know the guidelines are just guidelines, and few use them right out of the bat. Indeed, the newer book on magical items, the Magical Item Compendium (aka the MIC) completely disregards the DMG guidelines, saying that the utility/power of an item is what determine its cost, and recommending comparing a custom item with existing items. But if an item granting the features of a class costs X, then all items granting the features of a class have to cost X, since all classes are supposed to be equal. So if for 88k one gets "the entire class feature set of a 20th level fighter" (remember, Flan's words) the same cost will gives you "the entire class feature set of a 20th level wizard". Perfect logic. (Based in false premises that I am pretty sure Flan and Otto knew were false to start) As a side note Eyeless Blond is not being fallacious, but he (she?) is being mistaken thinking I was referring only about Otto's post, as the argument/irony comes from several posts before. "X gp can give you 20 levels of class features" comes from Flan's post, which defines 11 feats the "20 levels of class features" of the fighter. If his statement is correct then "20 levels of class features" are worth 88k... but again, only if you consider the DMG guidelines 100% valid. By the way, I think the fault is the Heroics spell, more than the definitions of "20 levels of class features" or the guidelines of the DMG. Sidenote: Otto's calculation of the cost of an unslotted item of heroic are off by a factor of x3. 2 (spell level) x 3 (caster level) x 2 (duration 10 mins/level) x 2 (non-slotted) x 1000 = 24,000 gold for each item. So the hypothetical item(s) of all level 20 features actually would be around 264,000 gold. Which is still broken, but not so cheap.
m00nd0gg 05-28-07, 12:20 AM	Man, I registered just to toss in my two cents on this. First off, lemme say, I don't wanna get pulled down into specific quoting of posters so im just lettin it flow in paraphrase...the following is my reasons why a fighter doesn't suck. First off, I am not going to sit here and try and tell you that a 20th level wizard with optimised custom made magic items isn't going to be able to out-damage/armor/move a fighter, especially if said wizard has a full spell rack. He does! But most people don't play that high level, and frankly, any DM worth his salt who lets players go into Ye Olde Magic Shoppe and order items like a hamburger at a drive thru isn't clear on his role in the game. Yeah, i am a grognard. Ben playing 20 years plus...well DMing mostly.But part of my role is to restrict magic item abuse, and letting players design their own, without even giving up xp by making it themselves, is not going to make my game any better. Okay , so you have the right feats to make it yourself...so i guess you're going to be 19th level then? Thats fine too. My point being, the gear dependent arguments about fighter obsolescence are so far off in the metagaming clouds as to be rhetorical in nature. It just isn't going to happen in 99% of campaigns. Anyways, seems like if were talking about designing a wizard to outfight a fighter, couldnt you easily design a fighter to kill a wizard? Im talking feats plus items here. if I know I am building a fighter just to mash a wizard, even a tank wizard, hell be equally deadly, wouldnt he? Secondly, regarding Core vs Splat. I would like to remind everyone that nefarious splat book marketing is WotC's attempt to turn tabletop into some retro form of MMO, collecting a monthly fee from us . It's no coincidence that the bulk of the monthly releases are player aimed. I think a lot of DMs like myself are content with our Core books, Guide and Manuals. The company is relying upon power hungry players to drive these purchases, to enhance their characters. When youre the DM, you dont NEED to try and make a Pun-pun. Frankly, anyone who thinks the fighter is useless probably hasnt played in a campaign from1st level up. That "big guy with sword" Cleave build I saw disparaged earlier is the freakin HERO in your first dungeon when he carves a swathe thru those goblins, keeping your casters free to pop their one cheesy magic missile at the shaman in the back. Clerics are a stickier wicket, in that they are IMO one of the more vesatile classes. I can prepare my cleric rackj to buff me up inot a tank, and if things go disastrously, i can still convert my psells to healing or direct damage...but once spells are gone, they are gone, period. Meanwhile, as long as he has 1 hp, the fighter's damage output and AC are just as good as when he first stpped into the dungeon. an the barbarian outdamage the fighter ? Yeah, for howeve rmany fights he rages. But he has crappier Ac. that means those couple of extra hits are pretty much spoken for.The paladin is mightier against certaine vil foes sure, but once again thats dependent on certain expendable powers he eventually uses up. Frankly, I thinkthe swiftness of leveling in this new ruleset is what leads people to see fighters as les ssueful, because they go into scenarios thinking "OK the GM can only throw so many encoutners at me" Every goblin a fighter cleaves is one you dont have to use magic to eliminate. As far as whether its a simple class or not, i would say rather, the learning curve for newbies with fighters is easier to grasp. And what heartless DM wouldnt let a true newbie twink his fighters feats a bit after he was more system savvy? Fighters offer instant gratification with minimal system knowledge. Can a veteran spend an hour analyzing feat trees to make the combat monster of his dreams? Sure. But my cousin bob can tke a default build 1st lvl fighter, cleave some orcs and feel useful even thoguh he barely knows what the heck hes doin. Even in old school D and d, this was the paradigm. Fighters shine at low levels, wizards emerge at high ones, rogues and clerics are pretty much the same throughout.t Part of the justification for arcane magics was, I thought, that they were hard to master, but mighty once mastered. Personally, if my wizard managed to make it to 20th level, Id turn to whatever loyal fighter walked that long road with me and say "couldnt have done it without ya, big guy....lemme make ya a nice spell resist cloak for yer troubles". Now i realise Ive let a lot of roleplaying biases tinge my arguments, and I am delibratley avoiding the "if I had a pearl of power 10 feat item blabla" arguments. I do this to lend a diffrent perspective and to remind us of the reason that D and D doesnt work as a pure wargame. I say don't overlook the contributions of the dependable, customisable workhorse that is the fighter. Caveat note: In a world that uses the 9 swords rules, fighters quickly become the equivalent of warriors. They become a victim of splat book arms race marketing. If you let players use those fun, crunchy melee systems, just accept that only your bandit and town guard NPCs will still be fighters, and move on. But the closer to Core your campaign ruleset is, the stronger the fighter class remains.
Archangel62 05-28-07, 01:56 AM	As an aside, I have asked this before with little in the way of answers, what are the archetypes that the fighter should be able to fulfill and why? Note that certain things really aren't archetypes such as General. That's a job that requires more than simply fighting. It can still be built, but it's not really an archetype. That was sort of what I was asking in a thread I made a few months ago that asked what the fighters purpose was. The thing that I saw was that in many cases either no one could really come up with a role or the 'tank' idea popped up a lot. Only problem I have with the tank idea is 1) The fighter has no method of getting a foe to stick to them which is problem 1 with the tank concept. 2) At higher levels varying degrees of range and battlefield control make the tank again unsuitable, either because too many foes are at range (thus not being stopped by his blocky power) or the caster/gluebomb/whathave you have pinned the enemies and thus the tank is not needed. 3) Due to increasing enemy size and reach (not always at the same time) the fighters methods of holding the enemy off of comrades has to change and there are few feats that allow for this so instead the fighter has to use outside help to continue his function. 4) In comparison to several martial and some casting classes the fighter role of tank (keeping enemies off of the team) can be done by them as well if not better with differing levels of resource consumption. 5) The holding them off concept works well if the party is facing one foe or a small number of foes, but if they are facing a swarm coupled with a few big foes the tank idea sorta goes out the window.
Archangel62 05-28-07, 03:03 AM	First off, I am not going to sit here and try and tell you that a 20th level wizard with optimised custom made magic items isn't going to be able to out-damage/armor/move a fighter, especially if said wizard has a full spell rack. He does! But most people don't play that high level, and frankly, any DM worth his salt who lets players go into Ye Olde Magic Shoppe and order items like a hamburger at a drive thru isn't clear on his role in the game. Yeah, i am a grognard. Ben playing 20 years plus...well DMing mostly.But part of my role is to restrict magic item abuse, and letting players design their own, without even giving up xp by making it themselves, is not going to make my game any better. The bolded parts show that you haven't read most of the arguments that have been brought forth. The damage thing is frankly a non-issue since at high levels damage isn't really that good. Hell, the best fighter builds are often ones that focus on denying the enemy actions or on being able to operate faster than they can (Jack-be-quick, Chaingun tripper, or one of Khans builds) Okay , so you have the right feats to make it yourself...so i guess you're going to be 19th level then? Thats fine too. My point being, the gear dependent arguments about fighter obsolescence are so far off in the metagaming clouds as to be rhetorical in nature. It just isn't going to happen in 99% of campaigns. Are we making from 20th level? Is there a finite amount of XP in the world? Using the CR charts the caster who makes items can actually get ahead of the party on XP if done correctly, that is if the DM follows the rules. Anyways, seems like if were talking about designing a wizard to outfight a fighter, couldnt you easily design a fighter to kill a wizard? Im talking feats plus items here. if I know I am building a fighter just to mash a wizard, even a tank wizard, hell be equally deadly, wouldnt he? Not really. The fighter would be good against casters, maybe, but he would have to focus heavily on it with both gear and feats. The mage slayer tree is a gimme here, as are some vestige things from ToM and possibly stuff from ToB. But even then they have to ambush the caster, time the fight so the caster has gone through a fair number of their spells already, have a series of items there to either curtail or remove the chance of teleporting. In short the fighter has to be built to fight a caster and probably is only really good against casters whereas a caster can prep spells for the day and be able to outfight the fighter. Secondly, regarding Core vs Splat. I would like to remind everyone that nefarious splat book marketing is WotC's attempt to turn tabletop into some retro form of MMO, collecting a monthly fee from us . It's no coincidence that the bulk of the monthly releases are player aimed. I think a lot of DMs like myself are content with our Core books, Guide and Manuals. The company is relying upon power hungry players to drive these purchases, to enhance their characters. Actually as a DM I prefer supplimental material as I find it more balanced and better designed than most of the stuff in core. The variant rules in UA help make specialist wizards feel more like specialists and also make players less interested in prestiging in some cases. In addition, DMs are a smaller market, assuming a standard arrangement you have 4 or more players to a DM, it makes more sense to market towards players than DMs as there are going to be more people in the player position than DM. That and the DM stuff is rules and fluff, rules also come in the player supplements and I can make my own fluff thank you very much. Frankly, anyone who thinks the fighter is useless probably hasnt played in a campaign from1st level up. That "big guy with sword" Cleave build I saw disparaged earlier is the freakin HERO in your first dungeon when he carves a swathe thru those goblins, keeping your casters free to pop their one cheesy magic missile at the shaman in the back. Clerics are a stickier wicket, in that they are IMO one of the more vesatile classes. I can prepare my cleric rackj to buff me up inot a tank, and if things go disastrously, i can still convert my psells to healing or direct damage...but once spells are gone, they are gone, period. Meanwhile, as long as he has 1 hp, the fighter's damage output and AC are just as good as when he first stpped into the dungeon. :rofl: I'm sorry I just find the idea of the first level spell magic missle, prepped at first level, and you thinking it's cheesy, are just incredibly funny. The smart caster focuses on spells like sleep, color spray, and other spells that either up their survivability profile or weaken their enemies by removing them from the fight or knocking them down to a point where they aren't threatening. Buffs are good too for that matter. an the barbarian outdamage the fighter ? Yeah, for howeve rmany fights he rages. But he has crappier Ac. that means those couple of extra hits are pretty much spoken for.The paladin is mightier against certaine vil foes sure, but once again thats dependent on certain expendable powers he eventually uses up. At low levels they are about equal, when a barbarian rages they hit harder, at low levels they are destruction incarnate compared to the fighter. At mid to high levels it actually peters out somewhat, however the barbarian also gets more rages a day than one and in most cases the rages last the duration of the battle. Frankly, I thinkthe swiftness of leveling in this new ruleset is what leads people to see fighters as les ssueful, because they go into scenarios thinking "OK the GM can only throw so many encoutners at me" Every goblin a fighter cleaves is one you dont have to use magic to eliminate. Yes, but any martial class can kill one of those things, hell a WARRIOR can fill that role at low levels because at those levels you are fighting commoners of the monster realm. The monsters have poor stats and low HP, of course the fighter is waxing them because they are easy to knock out and in most cases a spell is a waste on them anyhow unless they are swarm at which point color spray. As far as whether its a simple class or not, i would say rather, the learning curve for newbies with fighters is easier to grasp. And what heartless DM wouldnt let a true newbie twink his fighters feats a bit after he was more system savvy? Fighters offer instant gratification with minimal system knowledge. Can a veteran spend an hour analyzing feat trees to make the combat monster of his dreams? Sure. But my cousin bob can tke a default build 1st lvl fighter, cleave some orcs and feel useful even thoguh he barely knows what the heck hes doin. Simple in theory yes, in practice not so much, the barbarian offers a lot more in the simplicity of design and function package than the fighter does. Hell arguably a caster is easier to play properly than a fighter assuming that you are looking for the same degree of optimization. Even in old school D and d, this was the paradigm. Fighters shine at low levels, wizards emerge at high ones, rogues and clerics are pretty much the same throughout.t Part of the justification for arcane magics was, I thought, that they were hard to master, but mighty once mastered. Personally, if my wizard managed to make it to 20th level, Id turn to whatever loyal fighter walked that long road with me and say "couldnt have done it without ya, big guy....lemme make ya a nice spell resist cloak for yer troubles". The bold part almost sound like "Here's a nickle, get yourself a better class" sorry. But the thing is that I can make an all caster party from first level and we can still do quite well. The fighters problem is really that it lacks anything that distinguishes it greatly from its NPC counterpart the warrior. Now i realise Ive let a lot of roleplaying biases tinge my arguments, and I am delibratley avoiding the "if I had a pearl of power 10 feat item blabla" arguments. I do this to lend a diffrent perspective and to remind us of the reason that D and D doesnt work as a pure wargame. I say don't overlook the contributions of the dependable, customisable workhorse that is the fighter. And I say don't forget that a game has to have solid mechanics to make it workable. Roleplaying is a nice way to play a game, not balance it. The fighter class is given a job by the system but is given improper tools to do it, all the while the system itself is set against the fighter with foes that grow far faster than it can do. Caveat note: In a world that uses the 9 swords rules, fighters quickly become the equivalent of warriors. They become a victim of splat book arms race marketing. If you let players use those fun, crunchy melee systems, just accept that only your bandit and town guard NPCs will still be fighters, and move on. But the closer to Core your campaign ruleset is, the stronger the fighter class remains. Actually ToB is a lot better balanced than PhB, as to your odd belief that it was ToB that put them there, I'd have to say that you're mistaken. The fighter, along with the warmage, healer, marshal and several other classes occupies the advanced NPC class portion of the game in my opinion. These are classes that make logical sense in existing but are not powerful or versatile enough to really survive as proper adventurers due to the myriad of foes that they will face in their actions.
Kratch 05-28-07, 03:12 AM	The general roles within a group, for me, have often come down to; Physical offence (consistent, non-expendable damage), Magical Offence (buffs and attack spells), Attack absorbtion (taking the attacks, wether or not those attacks hit), Magical Defence (Defences Against magic, such as energy resistance and save bonus's), Battlefield Control (obsticles, action preventions, etc), Scouting skills (detections mostly, be it traps or enemies), Tactical Skills (knowledge, spellcraft, divinations, bypassing obsticles, etc), Social Skills (also includes forgery, disguise and the lot) and Healing. (Notes: When i say skills, i don't specifically mean skills, magic and even feat options can fill the role. I may have missed one or two, but i think this covers it more or less) What roles are filled by what class and to what degree depends highly upon the builds, the terrain and the opponents being faced. For example, a fighter built solely for doing damage with his greatsword, fighting an intellegent magic using foe in a large room, may find his only role in that combat to be physical damage, but to a much greater degree then any other member of the party.(EDIT:Come to think of it, this fighter would also be performing battlefield control (the wizard wouldn't want to remain within melee range, a few good hits would certainly cause him great harm, so he may not be placing the enemy where he wants, he's moving him away from where he doesn't want him, additionally, if he is persistent enough, he will start taking some of the attacks, cause a charge off a dedicated damge dealer each round can still be very deadly) While that same fighter, facing the low intellegence monster in a small room or cavern may find he has the opportunity to not only fill the damage dealer role, but also the attack absorbtion and the battlefield control. Perhaps he has intimidate which may also contribute marginally to social skills (especially if the DM uses the optional alternative stat modifiers for skills, allowing str to be used instead of cha). Alternatively, the typical trip build fighter offers a great deal more battlefield control, and due to that, attack absorbtion, and still offers the damage dealing (though likely to a lesser degree then the greatsword fighter), and perhaps he's taken animal handleing and climb/jump to assist (marginally) with some scouting and tactical (climbing up obsticles such as walls/jumping over obsticles such as palisades (sp?), thus saving on spells).
Eyeless Blond 05-28-07, 03:53 AM	There is no fallacy in the argument at all. Flan claimed that for the cost of 11 pearls of power someone could buy the "entire class feature" of the a level 20 fighter. (Btw, I am pretty sure Flan wasn't being 100% serious here. Knowing him a bit from past posts, I am pretty sure he was half-mocking the ridiculousness of the power of the Heroics spell, which basically steals the features of other class). Otto jumped in: I am not sure if Otto missunderstood Flan's post, where he used Pearls of Power to get the 11 feats, thinking Flan meant permanent magical items, or he was just adding to the joke, but it does not matter. According to the guidelines of the DMG Otto is right, an item with Heroics is worth 8000 gold (actually 24k, see the sidenote), so with 11 of those (88k gold) anyone can have 11 fighter feats. Of course we know the guidelines are just guidelines, and few use them right out of the bat. Indeed, the newer book on magical items, the Magical Item Compendium (aka the MIC) completely disregards the DMG guidelines, saying that the utility/power of an item is what determine its cost, and recommending comparing a custom item with existing items. But if an item granting the features of a class costs X, then all items granting the features of a class have to cost X, since all classes are supposed to be equal. So if for 88k one gets "the entire class feature set of a 20th level fighter" (remember, Flan's words) the same cost will gives you "the entire class feature set of a 20th level wizard". Perfect logic.Logic. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. The whole point that Otto and Flan were attempting to make is that the Fighter's set of 11 feats is not sufficient to be the total of a class's 20th level feature set because they *can* be emulated with 11 pearls of power, or a similar type of permanent magic item. In response, you are saying that it's not balanced to value a class's feature set at 88k because then someone could buy a 20th level wizard's feature set (his spells and bonus feats) for 88k. You're correct that this is not a straw man argument. It is, now that I'm reading it again, an argument from setting a precedent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_setting_a_precedent), a different but somewhat similar fallacy saying that you can't ever make argument X because someone else can use it as support for (erroneous) argument Y. The thing is, neither person is arguing that a Fighter's class feature set should be worth 88k gp. In fact they're saying the exact opposite: implying that no one's feature set should be had so cheap. Their claim is that the Fighter's feature set is lacking precisely because his whole class feature set is worth a grand total of 88k gp. As a side note Eyeless Blond is not being fallacious, but he (she?) is being mistaken thinking I was referring only about Otto's post, as the argument/irony comes from several posts before. "X gp can give you 20 levels of class features" comes from Flan's post, which defines 11 feats the "20 levels of class features" of the fighter. If his statement is correct then "20 levels of class features" are worth 88k... but again, only if you consider the DMG guidelines 100% valid. By the way, I think the fault is the Heroics spell, more than the definitions of "20 levels of class features" or the guidelines of the DMG.I do agree that the heroics spell is pretty problematic. By the way, I should note that I am not one of those claiming the Fighter is underpowered, or at least not one claiming that the Fighter needs any of the silly power boosts as proposed in many of the "quick/eacy fix" threads. The Fighter's problem isn't raw power so much as lack of versatility and range of in-combat/out-of-combat options, with power a distant third consideration, if it even needs to be considered at all.
Kalarus 05-28-07, 06:42 AM	I will refrain from quoting the dictionary here. Look, if I understand the position of the fighter types, the fighter is good because he has a series of tactical options. The quote from Bob you got talks about how the fighter has four or five tactical options. Having four or five tactical options means having to make a tactical decision every round. Worse yet, these options are themselves complicated. There is a four part series of articles on this site to help people understand grappling. Those articles were later changed, presumably because the guy writing the articles did not himself understand grappling. And that's just grappling. See, this is what we are arguing about on the simple thing. You believe that a fighter who just selects his feats randomly is going to be okay. I think he is going to get eaten by a troll. Who said anything about party dynamics and cooperation? Look, we have a new fighter. He understands he is a tank. He understands his role is to run up and hit stuff. Now lets say he encounters a troll. It averages 41.5 points of damage if it hits with everything and it stands a pretty good chance of doing that. Assuming our fighter is 5th level and has a 14 in con he has 42 hit points. That means he tends to die if he stands next to it. In fact, it would be probably be best if does drop because there is no way he can take another full attack. If the rest of the party can't kill the troll before next round he is in deep trouble. It gets worse if this is an encounter with a monster that it is a higher CR that the party. An optimized fighter would have done better. A more experienced fighter would have done better. By the guy with a greatsword and a cursory idea of how to play won't. He would be better of playing a blaster sorc, where he would suck but still be alive. How do you seriously contribute as a fighter if you don't understand tactics? Alright, going to deal with all this in one go since it's both general, and contradictory. 1) Combat options can apply to any class, not just the Fighter. You need to understand Grapple as much as a Wizard getting grappled, than as a Fighter doing the grappling. The same goes for any other special combat action, doesn't matter what you play, it can happen to you, and you can do it yourself. 2) Someone of ANY class who selects things randomly, is going to get eaten by a troll. Someone of ANY class who does not understand tactics, is going to have trouble contributing. 3) How can you claim nobody's talking about party dynamics and cooperation, and in the same post, use the word "contribute"? For the second time, no build of any class is going to be able to solo anything. 4) Anything that is optimized will always do better than anything not optimized. This is again, not unique to the Fighter class. Maybe I am not being clear. Let says that there is no wizard or sorcerer. There is only the rat man. He has a rat. Its called a familiar. No one else can do that. Is rat man viable? Is the rat man a PC class? What abilities does his rat have? Recently I read something about rat familiars in a thread, that make rats incredible scouts in dungeons. Do rat familiars have a role to play in D&D? Rat man might just be viable. Depends on if you can just add Rat man to the party, or have to give up another character that the party really needs. Either way. Introducing Rat Man to the discussion violates one of my intial assumptions in the post that you jumped in to discuss but did not fully read. I specifically stated we're talking about the Fighter, not about any other class. If you want to be able to substitute "Fighter" in the reasoning for class X, we get a very different discussion which leads to the conclusion that everyone must play Pun-pun. I really don't get your definition of viable honestly. You first seem to be saying the fighter is viable because he can "fulfill a party role." 1) tank 2) do battlefield control 3) deal damage Later, a fighter is viable because 1)The Fighter is a viable class if he brings something to the table that other classes do not. And these things are: 1) Simplicity 2) Instant gratification 3) Lots o' feats 4) Little flavor text Which definition of viable are we discussing? It's not a definition of viable, as much reasons why the Fighter is viable. That's a bit of semantic nitpicking though, which I don't mind doing since you eagerly use it ;) . If you read the argument fully, you'd understand that they are in fact the same, however the second form is more specific. I gave three examples of what a Fighter's job might be, there are possibly more but these seem to be the most common ones. Having his feats etc., are the means by which the Fighter does his job. It's not a different argument, it's a specification. You seem eager to argue that specific premise however, so I'll humour you. We're going to violate, as you seem to want, the assumption that this discussion is limited to the Fighter, and only to the Fighter. The apparent consensus is that "The Fighter is not viable because anything he does can be done by other classes." We'll ignore for a moment the minor point about Heroics and Fighter-only feats, and assume that this statement is in fact true. Now let's see which premises we need in order to reach such a conclusion. Here's a modest example: P1) There are specific roles to play in D&D. P2) Class X can fulfill role A. P3) A class is only viable if his ability to fill a role cannot be mimicked by another class. P4) Magic can mimic anything. (As examples throughout this thread have shown. If Magic can NOT mimic anything, the Fighter cannot be fully mimicked and is automatically viable) -- C) We should all play spellcasters as the only viable classes. Now, in order to get rid of silly ideas like Rat man and the Adept, which might bring things in a hypothetical situation (where we're not playing D&D apparently) that no other class can copy, we'll add in another premise, which replaces premise 3 and 4. P3.5) If class Y can do all that class X can *and more*, then class X is not viable. This gets rid of examples of Craft (underwater basketweaving), the Adept and Rat Man, since there are multiple ways of achieving the results that these skills/classes can produce. It also describes the apparent main complaint against the Fighter. Remember however that people wanted to bring in other classes as counterexamples against my arguments, so we're not talking solely about the Fighter anymore. We're talking about ALL classes. We also have deviated from Core, since in Core, things like Rat Man do not exist. So we get to add the next premise too. P4.5) Pun-pun can do all that class X can *and more* so class X is not viable. -- C) Everyone should play Pun-pun since he is the only thing that is viable. If you want to argue against this, find me an objective powerstandard in D&D that all classes have to meet in order to be "powerful enough to play". Oh wait, that's what the CR system was for, and we've already proven the Fighter is powerful enough for the CR system. Think the CR system is too problematic? Fine. Find me a better objective standard to compare the power of a Fighter to. So far most people only seem to state that "There is some power standard that the Wizard/CoDzilla meets but the Fighter doesn't."
Kalarus 05-28-07, 06:53 AM	The whole point that Otto and Flan were attempting to make is that the Fighter's set of 11 feats is not sufficient to be the total of a class's 20th level feature set because they *can* be emulated with 11 pearls of power, or a similar type of permanent magic item. In response, you are saying that it's not balanced to value a class's feature set at 88k because then someone could buy a 20th level wizard's feature set (his spells and bonus feats) for 88k. The thing is, neither person is arguing that a Fighter's class feature set should be worth 88k gp. In fact they're saying the exact opposite: implying that no one's feature set should be had so cheap. Their claim is that the Fighter's feature set is lacking precisely because his whole class feature set is worth a grand total of 88k gp. I do agree that the heroics spell is pretty problematic. I picked this as a quote since it seems to summarize the points of a few people about Heroics, Pearls of Power and permanent items pretty well. I took the liberty of looking up when a character first has access to 88k. It's level 12, and it is *exactly* 88k. That means he'll be walking around in his free set of clothes and 11 permanent magic items of Heroics, yet no weapon to use it with or armor to protect him/herself. So maybe the character in question gets the items later, or gets them one or two at a time, spreading out the cost over levelling. Which means that he'll be at least 1 level higher, but likely a few more, before he has 11 of the things. A character that emulates some of the Fighter feats in this way, is at least level 13. I can't help but wonder who was fulfilling the role the Fighter would've taken, the 12 previous levels. You might create a higher level character in this fashion, but nobody who levelled from L1 will end up in such a situation, nor can you pretend the first 12 levels didn't exist or aren't relevant to D&D. Given that you're supposed to level roughly every 13.33 encounters, with XP scaling appropriately to make sure you do, you're potentially ignoring 60% of a character's career. In fact you're ignoring 60% of the D&D game, probably more because it's been repeatedly brought forth as an argument (which I happen not to agree with but it's beside the point) that as you get higher in level, the choice of opponents becomes increasingly narrower. Edit: I just noticed a correction on the calculation of the item cost. 264k just for the permanent items. That's over L16, and then you only have these items. Who was being a Fighter for these 16 levels? We're not ignoring 60% of the game, we're ignoring 80% of the game! :D On a side note, I'd like to point out that you just devoted a character to mimicking a Fighter, when you could've just played a Fighter and be done with it. Especially given that this is an Arcane spell, a Wizard would need to use things like Tenser's Transformation to give him something close to the rest of the Fighter abilities. That means no spellcasting. You might toss all these items on the Cleric. Now the Cleric can approximate the Fighter even better, and still cast all his spells. Here's an idea. Throw it on the Fighter instead. There's never enough feats to choose from. The Fighter benefits as much from these items as the Cleric does. Since the boosted Cleric will only be fighting anyway (since he's now apparently a Fighter), you can have your other Cleric cast the spells he wants. If you boost your Fighter, you get an even better Fighter, and your Cleric can still cast all the spells he wants.
Kalarus 05-28-07, 07:21 AM	That was sort of what I was asking in a thread I made a few months ago that asked what the fighters purpose was. The thing that I saw was that in many cases either no one could really come up with a role or the 'tank' idea popped up a lot. Only problem I have with the tank idea is 1) The fighter has no method of getting a foe to stick to them which is problem 1 with the tank concept. 2) At higher levels varying degrees of range and battlefield control make the tank again unsuitable, either because too many foes are at range (thus not being stopped by his blocky power) or the caster/gluebomb/whathave you have pinned the enemies and thus the tank is not needed. 3) Due to increasing enemy size and reach (not always at the same time) the fighters methods of holding the enemy off of comrades has to change and there are few feats that allow for this so instead the fighter has to use outside help to continue his function. 4) In comparison to several martial and some casting classes the fighter role of tank (keeping enemies off of the team) can be done by them as well if not better with differing levels of resource consumption. 5) The holding them off concept works well if the party is facing one foe or a small number of foes, but if they are facing a swarm coupled with a few big foes the tank idea sorta goes out the window. Working these replies one at a time :D. Sorry for the many posts, I keep thinking I am done every time, then something else tickles my fancy to reply to. Anyways, keeps the arguments grouped together nicely. 1) I get WoW flashbacks here. The tank is only a good tank if he generates enough "threat". You really don't have much of a way of stopping something if it just decides to move around you. This goes for any "tank". However, ignoring the fully armored big weapon wielding combatant because you are trying to reach a spellcaster is fairly suicidal, and arguably metagaming. Generally speaking however, my spiked chain fighter has plenty options for making foes stick to him. 5 AoOs per round with 20 ft. reach if enlarged. Things trying to get past generally find themselves prone and without a weapon. Given that 95% of the encounters in any D&D group I have ever played in took place in dungeons, 20 ft. reach covers a pretty big area. 2) Well, assuming some encounters are actually at range etc., go play meatshield. Literally. Give your spellcaster cover. Works against all kinds of nasties. Of course those nasties are now affecting *you*, but that was kinda the point. 3) Other than the idea of party cooperation ("outside help") not being a bad thing, there are obviously ways to increase your own size and reach. Not every monster has Hold the line either. If it does, shrug. You're the tank, you're supposed to be able to take a blow, if you're facing something that instantly kills you, display your RL reach by soundly smacking your DM. I also wonder, am I the only one whose DM uses things like mobs, and monsters with class levels?? 4) See my first post of today. Follow the Pun-pun reasoning, and find yourself an objective standard. 5) Generally if you have an appropriate CR encounter, that swarm can be dealt with rather quickly (1 round, maybe 2) allowing you to focus on the BBEG and his lieutenant(s) easily. A well-placed Fireball works miracles on swarms of low level critters. Keep in mind that, unless the fight is meant to kill your PCs or exhaust their resources, adding a swarm of underlings will lower the BBEG's power proportionally. Something of equal CR should take about 20% resources. More difficult CRs could due to underlings could, for example, take 40%. That's fine. They just have to work harder, and better, together. Doesn't make the tank useless, he'll be holding off the big guys while the rest dispatches the swarms.
Archangel62 05-28-07, 07:25 AM	Here's an idea. Throw it on the Fighter instead. There's never enough feats to choose from. The Fighter benefits as much from these items as the Cleric does. Since the boosted Cleric will only be fighting anyway (since he's now apparently a Fighter), you can have your other Cleric cast the spells he wants. If you boost your Fighter, you get an even better Fighter, and your Cleric can still cast all the spells he wants. Biggest problem I have with this argument has to do with spell economy. The lowest level buff-another spells tend to be rather small for what you pay in opportunity cost. The self buffs however are much larger and tend to work better. A cleric can't give a fighter divine power or righteous might. The fighter that's even better is still consuming the spells regardless, so if the spells go on the cleric vs. the fighter what is the total better outcome. If we compare slots spent the answer might lay more strongly on the clerics side in terms to economics.
Kalarus 05-28-07, 07:31 AM	Biggest problem I have with this argument has to do with spell economy. The lowest level buff-another spells tend to be rather small for what you pay in opportunity cost. The self buffs however are much larger and tend to work better. A cleric can't give a fighter divine power or righteous might. The fighter that's even better is still consuming the spells regardless, so if the spells go on the cleric vs. the fighter what is the total better outcome. If we compare slots spent the answer might lay more strongly on the clerics side in terms to economics. You might be right in a general setting, but a Cleric with divine power and righteous might is not better than a Fighter at fighting. He is better because he's as good as a Fighter at fighting, and has his spells to use. However he will hardly be casting as he's, well, fighting. Either way, what I posted was regarding this specific example. Apparently someone (a PC in the party) thinks it is a good idea to pay 264k gold to buy 11 nonslotted magic items to turn someone into a Fighter. It's not a waste of spell resources, but rather a waste of gold. There are no spells consumed in this process.
Archangel62 05-28-07, 07:55 AM	1) I get WoW flashbacks here. The tank is only a good tank if he generates enough "threat". You really don't have much of a way of stopping something if it just decides to move around you. This goes for any "tank". However, ignoring the fully armored big weapon wielding combatant because you are trying to reach a spellcaster is fairly suicidal, and arguably metagaming.Generally speaking however, my spiked chain fighter has plenty options for making foes stick to him. 5 AoOs per round with 20 ft. reach if enlarged. Things trying to get past generally find themselves prone and without a weapon. Given that 95% of the encounters in any D&D group I have ever played in took place in dungeons, 20 ft. reach covers a pretty big area. The space thing is part of it, some of my games are in dungeons, others are in forests, some in open plains and a few in areas large enough for four dragons to manuever. Also, the big weapon wielder can do the spiked chain build and can fight with his opponents on the checks but odds are he's going to have lower and lower chances as the levels go up. Also, the tank concept only works if you can actually play that role, if the enemy ignores you in lieu of something actually threatening then you have a problem. The dragon looks at the warrior, looks at the guy in robes, oh yeah, guy in robes can do a lot more to harm me than guy in metal can, and I can pretty much ignore him since his chances of tripping me are abysmal and my HP is tremendous. 2) Well, assuming some encounters are actually at range etc., go play meatshield. Literally. Give your spellcaster cover. Works against all kinds of nasties. Of course those nasties are now affecting *you*, but that was kinda the point. Giving the casters cover doesn't always work, you can give them a +4 to their AC but smart enemies will go after the more dangerous target (casters) first. Also, there is a good tactical sense to deal with casters first since they have the largest potential of causing pain and panic to the recipients. The ranged attacks are everything from spells, to breath weapons, to archery. You might be able to cause trouble for an archer but for a caster or something with an attack that is cone or line, you're not worth much. Not to mention that all of your protections do nothing against a Save or Die spell. 3) Other than the idea of party cooperation ("outside help") not being a bad thing, there are obviously ways to increase your own size and reach. Not every monster has Hold the line either. If it does, shrug. You're the tank, you're supposed to be able to take a blow, if you're facing something that instantly kills you, display your RL reach by soundly smacking your DM. Yes, but many monsters do have great reach, and the attacks of opportunity they can visit on the fighter will tend to cause the fighter more hardship than anything else. I also wonder, am I the only one whose DM uses things like mobs, and monsters with class levels?? No, but I consider modified monsters irrelivant for general balance discussion because class levels alter the CR by greater and lesser degrees (see the link in my sig to my article on the subject) 4) See my first post of today. Follow the Pun-pun reasoning, and find yourself an objective standard. Not really, the crusader or knight is a better tank, both because of greater resiliency and the fact that they have the ability to actually make an enemy hit them, or at the very least find hitting them to be a preferable option. 5) Generally if you have an appropriate CR encounter, that swarm can be dealt with rather quickly (1 round, maybe 2) allowing you to focus on the BBEG and his lieutenant(s) easily. A well-placed Fireball works miracles on swarms of low level critters. Keep in mind that, unless the fight is meant to kill your PCs or exhaust their resources, adding a swarm of underlings will lower the BBEG's power proportionally. Something of equal CR should take about 20% resources. More difficult CRs could due to underlings could, for example, take 40%. That's fine. They just have to work harder, and better, together. Doesn't make the tank useless, he'll be holding off the big guys while the rest dispatches the swarms. Again, define appropriate CR, I have run games where the enemy uses good tactics, Hobgoblin warriors backed up by a pair of low level clerics, a warmage and a marshal can tear a party to shreds because of the ability to build on and support each other. The encounter might be theoretically at or even below their CR but the results might not show it. That and fireball is a fairly crappy spell all things considered.
Kalarus 05-28-07, 09:06 AM	The space thing is part of it, some of my games are in dungeons, others are in forests, some in open plains and a few in areas large enough for four dragons to manuever. Also, the big weapon wielder can do the spiked chain build and can fight with his opponents on the checks but odds are he's going to have lower and lower chances as the levels go up. Also, the tank concept only works if you can actually play that role, if the enemy ignores you in lieu of something actually threatening then you have a problem. The dragon looks at the warrior, looks at the guy in robes, oh yeah, guy in robes can do a lot more to harm me than guy in metal can, and I can pretty much ignore him since his chances of tripping me are abysmal and my HP is tremendous. What odds of lower and lower chances are there exactly? This is an unbased assumption about what kind of opponents you'll be fighting at higher levels. "If the enemy ignores you in lieu of something actually threatening" is an unbased assumption that tanks never threaten anything. Speaking from personal example, if you ignore my dwarf fighter to get to the caster you're going to provoke AoOs. If the caster is smart enough to stay near me when he sees something nasty going for him, the target could provoke up to 4, and then be in range of my full attack. If everything hits (and hitting everything is not that uncommon) and I'm not in fact raging (1 level of Barb) nor boosted (Cleric occasionally helps me with Valiant Fury, useful against BBEGs), I'm averaging 108.5 damage in that first round, and averaging 46.5 every round after. As many times as I like. Raging I average 122.5 and 52.5 respectively. Assuming everything hits is about as safe as assuming every spell works every time. Ignoring that the Dragon is a horribly debated example as an appropriate opponent, and that a dragon exclusively flying high and casting/breath weaponing the party to death is really asking for a TPK, dragons with an appropriate CR for me average about 190ish hitpoints, PLEASE, ignore me. Go beat on the guy in robes next to me. Either way, conditional specific examples in which a Fighter might have trouble with one type of opponent say nothing about the function of the Fighter as a tank in general. Your tank examples below would have as much trouble with tanking the Dragon as a Fighter. Perhaps the Wizard should tank instead? Giving the casters cover doesn't always work, you can give them a +4 to their AC but smart enemies will go after the more dangerous target (casters) first. Also, there is a good tactical sense to deal with casters first since they have the largest potential of causing pain and panic to the recipients. The ranged attacks are everything from spells, to breath weapons, to archery. You might be able to cause trouble for an archer but for a caster or something with an attack that is cone or line, you're not worth much. Not to mention that all of your protections do nothing against a Save or Die spell. There's an unbased assumption here that everything you fight is intelligent. Since apparently picking a single monster from the MM is a good counterexample as a blanket argument, Hydra CRs go up to 13 and have a whopping Int of 2. Cones or lines generally allow Reflex saves, cover gives an extra +2. It's not much, but it could be enough for something that doesn't have a good Reflex save. I also hear repeatedly from pro-casters that Reflex saves don't matter "because there's nothing significantly threatening that needs a Reflex save". Either way, ýou're protecting the caster, so you're tanking as much as any "tank" can at that point. Your own tank examples can't do any better in such a situation. Yes, but many monsters do have great reach, and the attacks of opportunity they can visit on the fighter will tend to cause the fighter more hardship than anything else. Yes, and many monsters do not have great reach. Charging a monster with reach provokes no AoOs from said monster, unless it has Hold the line. If you're going to give everything Hold the line, you might as well get rid of that Charge rule. Even then, I'd say my 20 ft. reach is a fairly respectable reach for a regular PC. It takes a Gargantuan (tall) creature just to *match* that, and a Colossal (tall) creature to outreach me. Why don't I just wait for the little monster to come to me (or try to reach my casters), provoking the AoOs and allowing me to full attack immediately? Oh it doesn't want to? Fine, I'll just stay between you and my casters, and let them blast you to death. Tanking job achieved. No, but I consider modified monsters irrelivant for general balance discussion because class levels alter the CR by greater and lesser degrees (see the link in my sig to my article on the subject) Monsters with class levels aren't necessarily modified monsters. They're regular PC or NPC races with appropriate class levels. Why should every DM at CR X toss in monster Y, when he could also toss in one or more regular races with class level Z to match a very easily calculable and constant CR? Not really, the crusader or knight is a better tank, both because of greater resiliency and the fact that they have the ability to actually make an enemy hit them, or at the very least find hitting them to be a preferable option. Pun-pun is a better tank than the Crusader or Knight. Here's that strange power standard again, that the Crusader and Knight apparently do match, but the Fighter does not. I never had trouble as a Fighter making things hit me, and they don't even get a Will save against it. It's more a "If I ignore that guy with the chain he's going to pound me to death" thing. Again, define appropriate CR, I have run games where the enemy uses good tactics, Hobgoblin warriors backed up by a pair of low level clerics, a warmage and a marshal can tear a party to shreds because of the ability to build on and support each other. The encounter might be theoretically at or even below their CR but the results might not show it. That and fireball is a fairly crappy spell all things considered. An appropriate CR encounter should take about 20% of the party's resources. That's a rather blank statement, and it in no way describes the difficulties the CR system has, nor do I want to suggest that CR is an "all equalizer". Thing is, that if the enemy uses good tactics, the players should be using good tactics as well. That includes cooperation, and not trying to hog the glory by trying to outshine the rest in a way that potentially gets people killed. Good enemy tactics might make predefined roles questionable. A battle plan is pretty much only good till the first shot has been fired, then all you can do is hope it works out for the best as you adjust your tactics to counter the enemy's. Fireball a crappy spell? Maybe. It certainly could've toasted those Hobgoblins and low level Clerics you mention though. Especially Clerics aren't famous for their Reflex saves. This frees up others to go after the Warmage and Marshal. A swarm of multiple opponents isn't going to consider Fireball a crappy spell when they're caught full blast. Of course we can go on debating hypothetical situations like this, but the idea that a tank idea goes out the window against a swarm of multiple opponents is just that, an idea. It might be possible however that suddenly the Fighter is no longer the tank because he didn't get swarmed. It does not follow from the thought that a tank does not always work, that a tank never works.
Otto the Bugbear 05-28-07, 09:15 AM	Wow. Big post. Computer crashed. Firefox failed to recover. :headexplo So, to sum up. Flan, or myself after that, was only talking about that money granting the 11 magic items that each grant 1 class feature of the fighter class. Since that was indeed what his post was about, twisting that to say that 88k gives you all the class features of any class of your choice is retarded. Oh, and it's a fallacy to, as Eyeless Blond points out. ... The issue mostly resolves itself with the 24k price. I can actually see it being better as something like: Slotted item, 3/day casts heroics as a swift action. (1800 x 3 x 2) / 1.666 = 6480 plus whatever it takes to make it activate as a swift action, instead of a standard action. (or double cost for unslotted) That'll bring the price down a bit, and make for some great versatility for any character. ... At level 12 (still using the 8k figure), that cleric wouldn't be trying to copy a 20th level fighter's 11 feats. He'd be trying to copy a 12th level fighter's 7 feats. Perhaps 6 due to a domain granting a feat. That still leaves him short of money, but it'll make your argument more sound if you go this route. Which is all pretty much moot due to it being 24k each instead.
itwasntme 05-28-07, 09:35 AM	First off Sleep can be saved agest more then 50% of the time color spray allso can be saved agest more then 50% of the time not only that but with color spray your up clouse and personol meaning ie it fails the monster starts spanking your clouse up no allies near you caster First off a Tank works you ALLWAYS need a tank your tanks must be dumb if they dont know how to work proberly sure the monster could run past the fighter/barbian and hit the wizard but that provokes AoO From that barbian/fighter which will hurt ALOT and can stop you dead in your tracks However you are admiting that your wizard has to be optimized to take on fighter or fighter types which im sure to be fair and even the fighter could be built around killing the wizard in high level games however who ever wins initive useoly has a very good chance of winning if you never beleve in a tank ever working and you never play with them then i would love to take you into all the games ive seen play and slap you in it and play without a tank ... and more then likly die right off the bat inless the DM was letting you meta game think but hey if he was letting you meta game think why isnt he letting the fighter or fighter type character metagame think? in short most purespell casters tend to think things will only work how they say it will work and never stop to think ... Well these are the ways that can beat my whole work build your smart wizard at level 1 useing sleep/color spray useoly never lives without a fighter sitting there going Cleave die Cleave Die or a cleric sitting there going ... ok buddie ill bring you back alive one more time ... and probly not the last time today sure the cleric heals eveyone but he more then offtin has to heal the spellcaster more from certain doom a fighter can take alot more beatings and like allready stated even if your on an adverage of 4 fights a day (Sometimes more sometimes less depends on the game and what type of things are going on in story) your pure casters are to used to the computer game verstion of D&D i fire fireball into the next room the monsters do nothing becouse im out of the Fod range ... oh how do i know there are there? becouse i ran in there and reloaded my game back hear ... this dosnt happin and the AI in the games are useoly MUCH better then the AI in the computer game besides you could just rest in the middle of the nme base and be fully healed in the computer game not in this game so if you beleve your wizard can leave rest and re heal then 1) What is the cleric rouge and eveyone eles doing this time? 2) Why shouldnt the monsters heal up get ready for your return when you come back? If you think eveyone going to stop just for you then newsflash there not at low levels the fighter/tank types can smack though the 10 enemy warriors while the spellcaster can only effect if hes lucky 4 whats the problem that you see on how fighter types suck? becouse they dont you seem to have metagameing thinking going on or "That player will play as a dumb brute" type of thinking
Bob Loblaw 05-28-07, 09:38 AM	Biggest problem I have with this argument has to do with spell economy. The lowest level buff-another spells tend to be rather small for what you pay in opportunity cost. The self buffs however are much larger and tend to work better. A cleric can't give a fighter divine power or righteous might. The fighter that's even better is still consuming the spells regardless, so if the spells go on the cleric vs. the fighter what is the total better outcome. If we compare slots spent the answer might lay more strongly on the clerics side in terms to economics. I see this quite often and I still have a hard time understanding how casting 3 spells on yourself is more economic than casting 1 spell on the fighter. It doesn't make any sense to me. Especially with the higher level spells, I pointed out to Zelck earlier that a quickened Divine Power is probably less effective than a Holy Aura, especially if there is already a fighter in the group. Giving the casters cover doesn't always work, you can give them a +4 to their AC but smart enemies will go after the more dangerous target (casters) first. Also, there is a good tactical sense to deal with casters first since they have the largest potential of causing pain and panic to the recipients. The ranged attacks are everything from spells, to breath weapons, to archery. You might be able to cause trouble for an archer but for a caster or something with an attack that is cone or line, you're not worth much. Not to mention that all of your protections do nothing against a Save or Die spell. Not every encounter is going to be with an intelligent creature. Common "problematic" monsters include: Worg: Intelligence 6 Troll: Intelligence 6 Dire Bear: Intelligence 2 Girallon: Intelligence 2 There are plenty of others, the hydra was pointed out already. Not every encounter is going to be with Intelligent opponents. Not every Intelligent creature is going to deal with the situation the same way. Again, define appropriate CR, I have run games where the enemy uses good tactics, Hobgoblin warriors backed up by a pair of low level clerics, a warmage and a marshal can tear a party to shreds because of the ability to build on and support each other. The encounter might be theoretically at or even below their CR but the results might not show it. That and fireball is a fairly crappy spell all things considered. If the party used this same level of teamwork, they would have fewer problems. Rather than a party being a group of 4 individuals all vying for glory, they can be a team that gets all the glory.
itwasntme 05-28-07, 09:43 AM	Wow. Big post. Computer crashed. Firefox failed to recover. :headexplo So, to sum up. Flan, or myself after that, was only talking about that money granting the 11 magic items that each grant 1 class feature of the fighter class. Since that was indeed what his post was about, twisting that to say that 88k gives you all the class features of any class of your choice is retarded. Oh, and it's a fallacy to, as Eyeless Blond points out. ... The issue mostly resolves itself with the 24k price. I can actually see it being better as something like: Slotted item, 3/day casts heroics as a swift action. (1800 x 3 x 2) / 1.666 = 6480 plus whatever it takes to make it activate as a swift action, instead of a standard action. (or double cost for unslotted) That'll bring the price down a bit, and make for some great versatility for any character. ... At level 12 (still using the 8k figure), that cleric wouldn't be trying to copy a 20th level fighter's 11 feats. He'd be trying to copy a 12th level fighter's 7 feats. Perhaps 6 due to a domain granting a feat. That still leaves him short of money, but it'll make your argument more sound if you go this route. Which is all pretty much moot due to it being 24k each instead. well if where just talking about a class replaceing other class by items then i could replace the cleric with a wand ... or an item ... i get the best buffs from it and it heals me as well and it can do all these nice little things items that replace class's or class features is just the DM being dumb and not knowing how to play the game or run it that or hes just being VERY friendly to the anti fighter characters
Archangel62 05-28-07, 10:10 AM	Not every encounter is going to be with an intelligent creature. Common "problematic" monsters include: Worg: Intelligence 6 Troll: Intelligence 6 Dire Bear: Intelligence 2 Girallon: Intelligence 2 There are plenty of others, the hydra was pointed out already. Not every encounter is going to be with Intelligent opponents. Not every Intelligent creature is going to deal with the situation the same way. All of whom are also melee based. Foes that have ranged capabilities tend to also be smarter. That and even a hydra can tell teh difference between 'soft skin' and 'hard shell'
Bob Loblaw 05-28-07, 10:59 AM	All of whom are also melee based. Foes that have ranged capabilities tend to also be smarter. That and even a hydra can tell teh difference between 'soft skin' and 'hard shell' I don't know if the hydra can tell the difference immediately. I'm sure it can tell the difference after the first round. Also, I'm not sure the lower intelligence creatures will stop attacking the fighter just because the caster is using ranged spells. But this is all moot anyway because for every creature you can say will ignore the fighter, I can find one that won't. It really doesn't support either one of our points.
Argaud 05-28-07, 11:03 AM	The space thing is part of it, some of my games are in dungeons, others are in forests, some in open plains and a few in areas large enough for four dragons to manuever. Also, the big weapon wielder can do the spiked chain build and can fight with his opponents on the checks but odds are he's going to have lower and lower chances as the levels go up. Also, the tank concept only works if you can actually play that role, if the enemy ignores you in lieu of something actually threatening then you have a problem. The dragon looks at the warrior, looks at the guy in robes, oh yeah, guy in robes can do a lot more to harm me than guy in metal can, and I can pretty much ignore him since his chances of tripping me are abysmal and my HP is tremendous. I agree trip will fail against very large creatures, however there are other options in a meleer arsenal. Stand Still (in the SRD) for instance, is a feat that makes the creature unable to move if it fails a save vs. the damage caused. A high level fighter will cause DCs in the 40s than even CR20 dragons can’t pass. Goad (Complete Adventurer) forces an opponent to attack you with melee attacks if he fails a will save. When facing multiple opponents swarming the party a reach weapon and Combat Reflexes will make them very sorry to have tried to get past you. Magical weapons and armors also help to tank and pin enemies, for instance, when enemies have teleport at will a binding weapon (MIC) will force them to stand and fight. When the enemy decides to stand at range or flying, and shot arrows and spells to the wizard, a simple Smokestick (PHB p. 128) will provide cover against him. The tools to build a good tank from a fighter are out there.
Kalarus 05-28-07, 01:07 PM	I agree trip will fail against very large creatures, however there are other options in a meleer arsenal. Stand Still (in the SRD) for instance, is a feat that makes the creature unable to move if it fails a save vs. the damage caused. A high level fighter will cause DCs in the 40s than even CR20 dragons can’t pass. Goad (Complete Adventurer) forces an opponent to attack you with melee attacks if he fails a will save. When facing multiple opponents swarming the party a reach weapon and Combat Reflexes will make them very sorry to have tried to get past you. Magical weapons and armors also help to tank and pin enemies, for instance, when enemies have teleport at will a binding weapon (MIC) will force them to stand and fight. When the enemy decides to stand at range or flying, and shot arrows and spells to the wizard, a simple Smokestick (PHB p. 128) will provide cover against him. The tools to build a good tank from a fighter are out there. It's just a pity that Goad is by itself a move action to use and the save DC is based on something that is just about every Fighter's dump stat. The idea has much potential, maybe it should've been a free action affecting everyone who can hear you... wait that's Knight's Challenge. Goad is... well... sad :weep: Smokestick's a great one though, the alchemical items in the PHB are so underappreciated. I already made a habit of walking around with tanglefoot bags, time to break out the smokesticks :D
Clawhound 05-28-07, 02:29 PM	I've been playing with a Level 6 fighter this morning, and comparing him to a Cleric. Wow. I forgot the nuggets buried in the system. I'll do a quick and dirty (and nowhere near perfect rundown) of what I see: I chose level 6 because that's an extremely normal level for games to be at. I choose to examine the game as played. It also eliminates Quicken, as that's a +4 level adjustments, and there's no DMM to get around that. Using the elite array (15,14,13,12,10,8) let's make characters. I'll use the "no race" simplification, just to speed things along. The fighter takes Combat Reflexes, Power Attack, Cleave, Combat Expertise, Blind Fight, and Point Blank Shot. The Cleric takes those, too. Well, three of them. These feats require a 13 or better in Strength, Dexterity, and Intelligence. The fighter and cleric are now left with a 12, 10, and 8 to put into Constitution, Wisdom, and Charisma. Ooops. The cleric shouldn't do that. He should give up some capability to get his wisdom score back up. Should he give up Combat Reflexes (and lose the ability to battlefield control via reach weapons), Power Attack (and all the offensive capabilities that this offers, including the very useful Cleave), or Combat Expertise (and the ability to pop up his AC)? The fighter is armed with a Tower Shield (instant cover, making it the most uber non-magic item that I know of), Full Plate, a Trident (one-handed reach), a sap (capture), a greatsword (whoop-anhk), and a longbow. The cleric has no martial weapons, so he'll have to choose a wargod to get some sort of martial weapon. All the good and neutral deities in the PHB with the War domain have one-handed weapons. After that, he's then stuck with a less useful domain. The cleric could go the non-deity route, but the war domain specifically cites the deity's weapon. Since there is no FAQ on Errata on this ability, the cleric is pretty stuck. He either choses a god with a martial weapon (and gets a limited pick for his second domain), or he gets no martial weapon. So just using the PHB, at level 6, as far as I see it, the fighter is a compelling choice against the cleric. His flexibility is off-the-scale compared to the cleric. Now, what breaks this? Losing the elite array, or the 25 point buy, breaks this. That is a major source of power, as suddenly, there is no compromise in character creation for that particular point. In a game with everything above 13, a character essentially has all options open. Given the popularity of 28 or 32 point builds, it is no wonder that things go wacky. I think that a misreading of Magic Vestment plays into this. This gives a cleric a +1 enhancement per four levels to a cleric's AC. The spell cites level twenty as the maximum, +5. That implies that Level 19 is +4. In equation form, Level/4, rounded down. At 6th level, magic vestment is NOT +2/+2, but +1/+1. So rather than a great bonus, it's just a nice bump. Front loading breaks this. The fighter gives so much good stuff at first level that a martial cleric only needs a one level dip to gain much of that flexibility. Even so, a clerics can't keep up with all those capabilities unless he starts casting in combat, which is not so easy to pull off and greatly reduces his damage output. DMM breaks the balance. The ability to start quickening spells at level 1 removes an entire layer of compromise. You should not see a quickened spell before level 9. You should not see persistent before level 13. Where they get included earlier, they are just too powerful. In addition, anything that removes a standard action is extremely powerful. Those abilities remove compromise. That's what both persistent and DMM do. They save you combat actions. To Summarize: Using the elite array, and just PHB stuff, the cleric can do anything the fighter can do, but he can't do everything that the fighter can do. A level 6 fighter is a compelling choice compared to a level 6 cleric to a player of average skill.
Arem_K 05-28-07, 03:19 PM	Alright, going to deal with all this in one go since it's both general, and contradictory. 1) Combat options can apply to any class, not just the Fighter. You need to understand Grapple as much as a Wizard getting grappled, than as a Fighter doing the grappling. The same goes for any other special combat action, doesn't matter what you play, it can happen to you, and you can do it yourself. Knowing grappling is more important for the fighter than the wizard. The fighter has to consider whether or not to grapple. The wizard, in almost all circumstances, does not. 2) Someone of ANY class who selects things randomly, is going to get eaten by a troll. Someone of ANY class who does not understand tactics, is going to have trouble contributing. Yes! Thank You! We are in agreement. The argument from you was that a fighter can pretty much have whatever they do work. The argument from me was that the fighter can make really poor feat and tactical decisions and find that their fighter is just not working. 3) How can you claim nobody's talking about party dynamics and cooperation, and in the same post, use the word "contribute"? For the second time, no build of any class is going to be able to solo anything. I really don't understand what you are talking about it here. I posted an example of a fighter getting eaten by a troll. You say I disregarded party dynamics. What party dynamics? What does it really matter what the rest of the party is doing? The example was of a fighter having trouble fulfilling the tank role. If I really have to fill in the other party roles then I will. The wizard casts fly on himself, because he is one those dudes who does not understand that his own personal longevity does not contribute a lot to meeting party goals. The rogue sees the fighter is down, and decides that he really doesn't want to go toe to toe with the big green thing, especially since he has no prospect of sneak attack. He hangs back, maybe pulls out his bow. The cleric, runs forward and heals the fighter so that he does not die. The fighter still seems to be in a lot of trouble the next round and still probably feels bad that something just dropped the tank in a single round. I think you mistyped on the second part. No build is able to solo anything? ;) 4) Anything that is optimized will always do better than anything not optimized. This is again, not unique to the Fighter class. Yes. Is the rat man a PC class? What abilities does his rat have? Recently I read something about rat familiars in a thread, that make rats incredible scouts in dungeons. Do rat familiars have a role to play in D&D? Rat man might just be viable. Depends on if you can just add Rat man to the party, or have to give up another character that the party really needs. One more time, what is you definition of viable. I am getting these three things. 1) Fulfills a party role. 2) Fulfills a party role in a unique way. 3) Is unique. I think you have said all of these. I was thinking you meant 2, but then you started talking about having to "give up another character that the party really needs." So now I don't know what to think. Either way. Introducing Rat Man to the discussion violates one of my intial assumptions in the post that you jumped in to discuss but did not fully read. I specifically stated we're talking about the Fighter, not about any other class. If you want to be able to substitute "Fighter" in the reasoning for class X, we get a very different discussion which leads to the conclusion that everyone must play Pun-pun. I have since read your post, but I don't understand the reasoning here. If I understand you, the definition of viability presented here applies to fighters and only to fighters. If we take this definition of viability and apply it to the another class, say the monk, not only does it not work but Pun Pun destroys everything. I find this extremely odd, not only because of the Pun Pun thing. It seems like all vans are viable under the same definition and that all player classes in the Phb should be as well. It's not a definition of viable, as much reasons why the Fighter is viable. That's a bit of semantic nitpicking though, which I don't mind doing since you eagerly use it ;) . Feel free. Language is important. It determines how I read everything you write. If you read the argument fully, you'd understand that they are in fact the same, however the second form is more specific. I gave three examples of what a Fighter's job might be, there are possibly more but these seem to be the most common ones. Having his feats etc., are the means by which the Fighter does his job. It's not a different argument, it's a specification. Three of your points have absolutely no bearing on the three party roles you listed. Simplicity does not make one a tank. Immediate satisfaction does not control the battlefield. Easily modified flavor text does not deal heavy damage. Feats can help with all of those things, so should have been the only thing listed here. You seem eager to argue that specific premise however, so I'll humour you. We're going to violate, as you seem to want, the assumption that this discussion is limited to the Fighter, and only to the Fighter. You seem to take personal offense every time I want to use a hypothetical example. As a philosophy graduate, I find the idea that hypothetical examples and possible worlds can somehow be taboo in a logical argument deeply shocking. The apparent consensus is that "The Fighter is not viable because anything he does can be done by other classes." We'll ignore for a moment the minor point about Heroics and Fighter-only feats, and assume that this statement is in fact true. Now let's see which premises we need in order to reach such a conclusion. Here's a modest example: P1) There are specific roles to play in D&D. P2) Class X can fulfill role A. P3) A class is only viable if his ability to fill a role cannot be mimicked by another class. P4) Magic can mimic anything. (As examples throughout this thread have shown. If Magic can NOT mimic anything, the Fighter cannot be fully mimicked and is automatically viable) -- C) We should all play spellcasters as the only viable classes. Now, in order to get rid of silly ideas like Rat man and the Adept, which might bring things in a hypothetical situation (where we're not playing D&D apparently) that no other class can copy, we'll add in another premise, which replaces premise 3 and 4. P3.5) If class Y can do all that class X can *and more*, then class X is not viable. This gets rid of examples of Craft (underwater basketweaving), the Adept and Rat Man, since there are multiple ways of achieving the results that these skills/classes can produce. It also describes the apparent main complaint against the Fighter. Remember however that people wanted to bring in other classes as counterexamples against my arguments, so we're not talking solely about the Fighter anymore. We're talking about ALL classes. We also have deviated from Core, since in Core, things like Rat Man do not exist. So we get to add the next premise too. P4.5) Pun-pun can do all that class X can *and more* so class X is not viable. -- C) Everyone should play Pun-pun since he is the only thing that is viable. So are you arguing premises 1 and 2 and therefore C? Or are you arguing 1,2,3 then premise 4 which is that magic can not do what feats do, then C. If the argument rests on premise 1 and 2, then it seems like the adept, aristocrat, expert, warrior, and my rat man example are all viable. Possibly the commoner as well. If it is the second argument, then the adept and my rat man example are viable. They both fulfill a party role and have something that other classes can't do. Their powers are incredibly limited compared to other classes, but I can't compare them without you invoking Pun Pun. So starting DnD with burning hands and cure light wounds makes a viable class. If you want to argue against this, find me an objective powerstandard in D&D that all classes have to meet in order to be "powerful enough to play". Oh wait, that's what the CR system was for, and we've already proven the Fighter is powerful enough for the CR system. Think the CR system is too problematic? Fine. Find me a better objective standard to compare the power of a Fighter to. So far most people only seem to state that "There is some power standard that the Wizard/CoDzilla meets but the Fighter doesn't." I don't have to find a new standard. I seriously don't. All I am doing is refuting your argument. In much the same way, I can refute Kant's arguments as to morality and it does not mean that I have to design a new, better moral system. Honestly, the main reason I think the fighter sucks is because I think he does not do what people want him to do. As said before, I don't think he is an easy class to play. With two skill points a level and the worst skill list, he makes a better dumb guy than the barbarian. I don't think that's what people want in their fighter. But hey, that's just my opinion. We could launch into a long discussion about how the fighter can't woo the princess, or rise to the rank of general, or become a pirate. But I am unlikely to convince you because you probably don't see him in the same way, and expecting anything more than fighting from a class called the fighter is probably illogical of me.
Kratch 05-28-07, 03:58 PM	The space thing is part of it, some of my games are in dungeons, others are in forests, some in open plains and a few in areas large enough for four dragons to manuever. Also, the big weapon wielder can do the spiked chain build and can fight with his opponents on the checks but odds are he's going to have lower and lower chances as the levels go up. Also, the tank concept only works if you can actually play that role, if the enemy ignores you in lieu of something actually threatening then you have a problem. The dragon looks at the warrior, looks at the guy in robes, oh yeah, guy in robes can do a lot more to harm me than guy in metal can, and I can pretty much ignore him since his chances of tripping me are abysmal and my HP is tremendous. Firstly, As someone else has mentioned, a dragon who chooses to ignore a fighter is lining himself up for a very unpleasent full round attack, and it is in my experience, that a fighter built for damage can deal a dragons HP in damage in 3-6 rounds (depending on level/build), while a fighter built for tactical options rather then damage, will often still deal that damage over 4-8 rounds, and make ignoring and getting around him very difficult. Secondly, The melee cleric everyone is touting as the reason fighters aren't needed don't have anything more to offer in this case, as far as "holding aggro". The are just as ignorable. So it seems your condemning the fighter for failing to fulfill a criteria that the cleric you praise can't fulill ether. That's a double standard, is it not? Giving the casters cover doesn't always work, you can give them a +4 to their AC but smart enemies will go after the more dangerous target (casters) first. Also, there is a good tactical sense to deal with casters first since they have the largest potential of causing pain and panic to the recipients. The ranged attacks are everything from spells, to breath weapons, to archery. You might be able to cause trouble for an archer but for a caster or something with an attack that is cone or line, you're not worth much. Not to mention that all of your protections do nothing against a Save or Die spell. Again, A melee oriented cleric can't do anything here ether. Your once again condemning the fighter for failing to fulfill a criteria that the cleric you praise can't fulill ether. And as many have pointed out, not everything is smart. In fact, almost all the things intellegent enough to know the wizard could be the greater threat over the shinny thing with the pointy stick in it's face is small enough that all the fighters tricks will work. The only exception i can think of at the moment is a dragon. I'd also like to point out, most of those intellegent things also have fairly decent saves (demons/devils, enemy Clerics, etc.), limiting the melee clerics options even more then the fighters. Yes, but many monsters do have great reach, and the attacks of opportunity they can visit on the fighter will tend to cause the fighter more hardship than anything else. If a monster with reach is continually moving away from a fighter so it gets a new AoO, then the fighteris still getting 2 attacks for each of the creatures one against him (and one other standard action, which may be a single attack to make it blow for blow, a single attack against another target, a spell, whatever). Just to explain the math, it's the fighters charge attck (wether he charges or not is beside the point)(this is the attack that erns the fighter the AoO against him), then the fighter gets his Own AoO when the creature moves and does something. Most melee builds can, over the course of 2 attacks, can earn a gain on damage over any monsters single attack. The only exceptions i can think of for this formula are hydras and cloackers, both of which can still get multiple attacks and still move fully away from the fighter. But then, a hydra isn't smart enough to ignore the nasty thing hurting it repeatedly over the skinny thing in the corner moaning and waving. No, but I consider modified monsters irrelivant for general balance discussion because class levels alter the CR by greater and lesser degrees (see the link in my sig to my article on the subject) I'll come back to this comment in a moment Not really, the crusader or knight is a better tank, both because of greater resiliency and the fact that they have the ability to actually make an enemy hit them, or at the very least find hitting them to be a preferable option. I've seen some fighter builds that, while not forcing the opponent to attack them, make it impoosible for them to get, or if they manage to get, stay, near any of that fighters allies. Granted, not all fighters will be built with that, but then, nether will all crusaders and knights be built with those particular stances, or, at the very least, use them all the time Again, define appropriate CR, I have run games where the enemy uses good tactics, Hobgoblin warriors backed up by a pair of low level clerics, a warmage and a marshal can tear a party to shreds because of the ability to build on and support each other. The encounter might be theoretically at or even below their CR but the results might not show it. That and fireball is a fairly crappy spell all things considered. I thought you "consider modified monsters irrelivant for general balance discussion ". Does the praised melee cleric offer anything against good enemy tactics that a fighter can not also provide? Is it possible a fighter could offer some tactical options the melee cleric couldn't provide? T think any form of reach, plus stand still and mage slayer could offer a great deal in this sort of fight, as could a well placed silence, though a melee cleric casting that on himself would be shooting himself in the foot IE, making him nothing more then a glorified warrior, since he no longer has all that "more, plus healing" you attribute to him. Though the primary cleric casting it on a fighter (even one without reach or mage slayer), though expending resources a melee cleric would require, offers an even better combination then a cleric plus melee cleric would offer.
Kratch 05-28-07, 04:22 PM	Yes! Thank You! We are in agreement. The argument from you was that a fighter can pretty much have whatever they do work. The argument from me was that the fighter can make really poor feat and tactical decisions and find that their fighter is just not working. Again, that is not a limitation of the fighter and thus, has no bearing on the discussion of the fighters balance (though, again, I concceed you were not the one to initiate that portion of the conversation). Any class, played with poor option choices and poor tactical decisions will find their class not working. I really don't understand what you are talking about it here. I posted an example of a fighter getting eaten by a troll. I'd like to point out again (i addressed your initial post earlier, but perhaps it was lost when at the end of page 11), no other class will perform any better in the exact same situation. A barbarian or melee cleric has little, if anything, to put them above a fighter in this circumstance. A fighter is actually more likely then any other class to have options to allow it to survive (combat expertise, the BAB to sacrific for fighting defencively, a trip build to reduce the trolls offence, all of the above, etc). Honestly, the main reason I think the fighter sucks is because I think he does not do what people want him to do. As said before, I don't think he is an easy class to play. With two skill points a level and the worst skill list, he makes a better dumb guy than the barbarian. I don't think that's what people want in their fighter. I'm currious then, what do you expect a fighter to do? Or did you just mean, you can't get it to do, in a general sence, what you want it to do, while you can get a melee cleric to fulfill that, somehow undescernable, criteria.
Zelck 05-28-07, 05:17 PM	I see this quite often and I still have a hard time understanding how casting 3 spells on yourself is more economic than casting 1 spell on the fighter. It doesn't make any sense to me. Especially with the higher level spells, I pointed out to Zelck earlier that a quickened Divine Power is probably less effective than a Holy Aura, especially if there is already a fighter in the group. :headexplo Alright, what about casting Holy Aura on a fighter vs. casting Divine Power and Holy Aura on a cleric? Because that's a better comparison. I really don't know how to spell it out any better. In the fighter vs. cleric comparison, there's another cleric in the party. The comparison is between Party 1: Fighter, Support Cleric, Rogue, Wizard and Party 2: Tank Cleric, Support Cleric, Rogue, Wizard. There's very little difference between Party 1: Support Cleric casts Holy Aura on Fighter and Party 2: Tank Cleric casts Divine Power, Support Cleric casts Holy Aura on Tank Cleric. So the fact that the Tank Cleric casts 3 spells on himself isn't a reason to prefer the fighter because it's not taking any resources from the other three members of the party. It's not like the Fighter even brings any spells to the table, so the Tank Cleric using 3 of his own spells is not a disadvantage for the cleric. Firstly, As someone else has mentioned, a dragon who chooses to ignore a fighter is lining himself up for a very unpleasent full round attack, and it is in my experience, that a fighter built for damage can deal a dragons HP in damage in 3-6 rounds (depending on level/build), while a fighter built for tactical options rather then damage, will often still deal that damage over 4-8 rounds, and make ignoring and getting around him very difficult. Secondly, The melee cleric everyone is touting as the reason fighters aren't needed don't have anything more to offer in this case, as far as "holding aggro". The are just as ignorable. So it seems your condemning the fighter for failing to fulfill a criteria that the cleric you praise can't fulill ether. That's a double standard, is it not? Here's the problem though. The fighter can kill the dragon in 3-6 rounds. The mage can kill or disable the dragon in 1-3 rounds. Who's more dangerous? The melee cleric can perform as about as well in melee as the fighter, which seriously calls into question whether the fighter is needed. Also, the melee cleric has options beyond just melee. For example, casting an Anti-life Shell can keep the dragon away from the squishier targets.
Kratch 05-28-07, 05:34 PM	So the fact that the Tank Cleric casts 3 spells on himself isn't a reason to prefer the fighter because it's not taking any resources from the other three members of the party. It's not like the Fighter even brings any spells to the table, so the Tank Cleric using 3 of his own spells is not a disadvantage for the cleric. It is a disadvantage in that it still takes time/actions to use (even if they are only swift actions, boots of haste can be activated in that time, and a few other usefull items as well i believe, if you use a standard action for rightious might or divine power, your now using a lot of time the fighter can ether be attacking in (if close enough) or to activate any number of items, including potions or say, rightious might himself (one cleric domain gets rightious might as a 4th level spell, and thus, can potion it)) and can be dispelled, not that it's taking extra resources from the party (that is a mistake i think bob is making). in the same note, the fact a fighter doesn't need to cast those 3 spells, because he has most, if not all, of what those spells offer by virtue of being a fighter should not be counted as a disadvantage of the fighter. Just because he doesn't bring any spells to make him equal to what he already is is not a disadvantage.
Argaud 05-28-07, 05:38 PM	The melee cleric can perform as about as well in melee as the fighter, which seriously calls into question whether the fighter is needed. Also, the melee cleric has options beyond just melee. For example, casting an Anti-life Shell can keep the dragon away from the squishier targets. Again with this argument? A melee artificer or a melee archivist can perform as about as well in melee as the cleric, which seriously calls into question whether the cleric is needed. Also, the melee artificer/archivist has options beyond just melee or clerical casting. For example, an archivist can cast spells from spell lists a cleric does not have access. Holy Sword, Rhino Charge, Hunter's Mercy, Barkskin, Stoneskin, Shapeshift, etc, etc. By your definition the cleric is not a good class.
Zelck 05-28-07, 05:43 PM	It is a disadvantage in that it still takes time/actions to use (even if they are only swift actions, boots of haste can be activated in that time, and a few other usefull items as well i believe, if you use a standard action for rightious might or divine power, your now using a lot of time the fighter can ether be attacking in (if close enough) or to activate any number of items, including potions or say, rightious might himself (one cleric domain gets rightious might as a 4th level spell, and thus, can potion it)) and can be dispelled, not that it's taking extra resources from the party (that is a mistake i think bob is making). in the same note, the fact a fighter doesn't need to cast those 3 spells, because he has most, if not all, of what those spells offer by virtue of being a fighter should not be counted as a disadvantage of the fighter. Just because he doesn't bring any spells to make him equal to what he already is is not a disadvantage. Right. That is a good point, and I just wanted to point out that we're not looking at casting Divine Power vs. Holy Aura. Potions, by the way, can only hold spells of up to the third level, and they can't hold spells of personal range. Granted, these spells would be cast in the first round followed by a move, where the Fighter would usually be charging. Chances are you're only missing out on around 31 damage at level 20 in core only, which isn't a huge deal.
Zelck 05-28-07, 05:52 PM	Again with this argument? A melee artificer or a melee archivist can perform as about as well in melee as the cleric, which seriously calls into question whether the cleric is needed. Also, the melee artificer/archivist has options beyond just melee or clerical casting. For example, an archivist can cast spells from spell lists a cleric does not have access. Holy Sword, Rhino Charge, Hunter's Mercy, Barkskin, Stoneskin, Shapeshift, etc, etc. By your definition the cleric is not a good class. Well, it's not perfect, but unless you make comparisons like this, you really can't judge whether a class is good or not. For instance, in core-only, a Warrior can probably do comparable melee damage to a greatsword-totting Fighter, losing out on +1 attack and +4 damage along with versatility. But they can deal good damage. Are Warriors a good class? How would you judge whether a class is good or not without making comparisons to other classes? Seeing whether they can contribute in encounters is good, but that doesn't capture the whole picture. Let's suppose, in core, there's a class called the Fighter+. The Fighter+ has 10 HD, the fighter's class skill list, 4 skill points per level, proficiency with all armor and shields and all simple and martial weapons, and one fighter bonus feat every level, along with being able to take the fighter-only bonus feats at the appropriate Fighter+ levels. Both would be able to contribute to equal CR encounters (let's suppose for now), but clearly the Fighter+ is strictly better than the fighter, and there's really no reason to play a fighter over a Fighter+.
Bob Loblaw 05-28-07, 05:56 PM	Alright, what about casting Holy Aura on a fighter vs. casting Divine Power and Holy Aura on a cleric? Because that's a better comparison. Holy Aura is an 8th level slot and will affect the entire party whereas the Quickened Divine Power is going to only affect the cleric. If you want to honestly be using your spells efficiently, a spell that affects the entire party with a great deal of power is going to be a better use of resources. I really don't know how to spell it out any better. In the fighter vs. cleric comparison, there's another cleric in the party. The comparison is between Party 1: Fighter, Support Cleric, Rogue, Wizard and Party 2: Tank Cleric, Support Cleric, Rogue, Wizard. There's very little difference between Party 1: Support Cleric casts Holy Aura on Fighter and Party 2: Tank Cleric casts Divine Power, Support Cleric casts Holy Aura on Tank Cleric. So why not just play a 4 cleric party? If the melee cleric is awesome, and a divine cleric is awesome, and a wizardly cleric is awesome, and a roguish cleric is awesome, why are there even 10 other classes? I don't think you understand when I say that you can play your melee cleric just fine. I just don't see why you would want to waste time pretending to be a fighter when you already have a fighter. So the fact that the Tank Cleric casts 3 spells on himself isn't a reason to prefer the fighter because it's not taking any resources from the other three members of the party. It's not like the Fighter even brings any spells to the table, so the Tank Cleric using 3 of his own spells is not a disadvantage for the cleric. First off, let me make sure I make myself clear. I do not think that casting spells on party members is a drain in resources. If anyone playing casters has this feeling, then they are not welcome in my game and should not be playing a team game. Now that's out of the way, let me also say that you spent more than 3 spells to take the fighter's job. You used 3 spells each combat. That's 12 spells. With the build you provided, it actually comes out to up to 28 spells for the day. That's a drain on your resources. The fighter allows you to save those spell slots for other things. Here's the problem though. The fighter can kill the dragon in 3-6 rounds. The mage can kill or disable the dragon in 1-3 rounds. Who's more dangerous? I don't know how you run dragons, but the wizards in my games are not able to kill the dragon in 1-3 rounds by himself. None of the characters are unless they get really lucky. You really haven't shown the fighter to be useless just because the wizard is useful. This isn't a binary equation. The melee cleric can perform as about as well in melee as the fighter, which seriously calls into question whether the fighter is needed. Also, the melee cleric has options beyond just melee. For example, casting an Anti-life Shell can keep the dragon away from the squishier targets. So if I can build a cleric that can replace the rogue or wizard would you feel the same way? I bet you I can. I bet you I can build a core only cleric that can replace every single other class in the PHB. So what does this really say? Does it say there is a problem with the fighter? No. Instead is shows that the cleric is actually too powerful. The nice thing about DnD (and most RPGs) is that you can a variety of classes that can do similar things and everyone can have fun. I would also like to see you build a cleric that can emulate the fighter without using spells. This is important because I mentioned before that not everyone has a head for magic and so would prefer to play a character that doesn't use spells. Remember that 45 spells that change daily is more complicated than 18 feats that are set in stone.
Kratch 05-28-07, 05:56 PM	Here's the problem though. The fighter can kill the dragon in 3-6 rounds. The mage can kill or disable the dragon in 1-3 rounds. Who's more dangerous? The melee cleric can perform as about as well in melee as the fighter, which seriously calls into question whether the fighter is needed. Also, the melee cleric has options beyond just melee. For example, casting an Anti-life Shell can keep the dragon away from the squishier targets. I think your intent was to say "It seriously calls into question wether the meleer is needed?" Saying fighter there is once again, condeming the fighter for failing to meet criteria the acceptable cleric also cannot meet. And the fact that there is one, and only one, creature who's large enough to resist some of the fighters tricks (not even all, just some) and smart enough to attempt to avoid him does not negate what he provides against the other 200+ pages of Monster manual, does it? Cause honestly, if one creature type can do that, i offer beholders and golems. They are single opponents that are capable of negating some of all casters tricks and are smart enough to use their abilities as needed against the PC's. does that mean we should seriously call into question the usefullness of casters? or are we willing to acknowledge that, even if the class isn't able to perform at their best against one or 2 opponents, so long as it is able to perform well (and taking down a dragon in 3 -6 rounds is still well, if the dragon was fool enough to ignor him till last, the fighter could very likely win, and with a teammate or 2 still standing, i suppose the fighter is a threat after all) As for your "other options", depending on the build, a fighter has "other options as well". Your anti-life shell will offer no protection to anyone outside the shell, and if you all croud together nicely inside, your gonna all earn yourself a toasty breath weapon.
Lord T Hawkeye 05-28-07, 06:06 PM	But the thing is that I can make an all caster party from first level and we can still do quite well. If you mean all cleric caster party sure. All squishies party, I seriously doubt that. As for the fighter, it's not a good pure class. But then again, nor is the sorceror yet I don't see anybody ragging on it for some reason. Or hell, the only non-spell progression that wizards get is...*gasp* more feats! So pure wizard is a little better than pure sorceror but not by a ton. All three classes are better suited to going for prestige classes as their main class offers little once you have the initial goodies. Yet why is only fighter getting stepped on here? Surely nobody's suggesting melees in general are useless?
Kalarus 05-28-07, 06:08 PM	Knowing grappling is more important for the fighter than the wizard. The fighter has to consider whether or not to grapple. The wizard, in almost all circumstances, does not. This is probably true. Where the Fighter might choose to grapple, the Wizard will probably not want to grapple. So how does not knowing the grapple rules enable a Wizard to escape grapples? "Damn I'm grappled. I'm not high enough level yet to have Freedom of Movement/Heart of Water or did not prepare them today. Uhm.... I don't know what to do?" Yes! Thank You! We are in agreement. The argument from you was that a fighter can pretty much have whatever they do work. The argument from me was that the fighter can make really poor feat and tactical decisions and find that their fighter is just not working. Not exactly. Though the Fighter can probably afford to mess up a little unless you're in a heavily optimized game, the simplicity of the Fighter lies in "Jot down numbers. Apply to dicerolls. When in doubt, just hurt something." Yeah you can expand this with tactical options and better feats and be a lot more efficient. If you don't however, you're not completely at a loss for what to do. A spellcaster with confusing spells and an utterly wrong selection is going to be in a far more leaky boat. I really don't understand what you are talking about it here. I posted an example of a fighter getting eaten by a troll. You say I disregarded party dynamics. What party dynamics? What does it really matter what the rest of the party is doing? The example was of a fighter having trouble fulfilling the tank role. If I really have to fill in the other party roles then I will. The wizard casts fly on himself, because he is one those dudes who does not understand that his own personal longevity does not contribute a lot to meeting party goals. The rogue sees the fighter is down, and decides that he really doesn't want to go toe to toe with the big green thing, especially since he has no prospect of sneak attack. He hangs back, maybe pulls out his bow. The cleric, runs forward and heals the fighter so that he does not die. The fighter still seems to be in a lot of trouble the next round and still probably feels bad that something just dropped the tank in a single round. I think you mistyped on the second part. No build is able to solo anything? ;) Regarding the mistype, it's not worded very clearly. "No build is able to solo anything you could throw at them." is probably worded better. If you're facing a monster that drops your tank in 1 round, it doesn't matter who's tanking so it has really no bearing on the discussion about the Fighter. If I had an optimized Fighter, who had in character never seen a troll in his life, and was used to tanking for the group, as a player I'd know that charging that troll will likely hurt. As a character, I'd let loose a battlecry and keep that thing focused on me till it's dead. The point of party dynamics is that if you face something that beats down the person with the most armor and hp in a round with impunity, you better work together and devise new strategies to beat it. This example has no bearing on the Fighter at all. One more time, what is you definition of viable. I am getting these three things. 1) Fulfills a party role. 2) Fulfills a party role in a unique way. 3) Is unique. I think you have said all of these. I was thinking you meant 2, but then you started talking about having to "give up another character that the party really needs." So now I don't know what to think. Looking way back at what I originally posted, what in fact I mean by viable would best be summarized by 1). Adding additional requirements are still unbased assumptions, created in most cases by how people play. Since then I have tried to find a justification for this assumption, and there is where the entangled mess started (up to the point that I occasionally get confused myself as to who's arguing what at some points). As for the exact definition of the word "viable", I've in the initial long post stated I used Bob's dictionary definition. I have since read your post, but I don't understand the reasoning here. If I understand you, the definition of viability presented here applies to fighters and only to fighters. If we take this definition of viability and apply it to the another class, say the monk, not only does it not work but Pun Pun destroys everything. I find this extremely odd, not only because of the Pun Pun thing. It seems like all vans are viable under the same definition and that all player classes in the Phb should be as well. "all vans"? Eh? The reason I added the assumption about referring to Fighters only, is so that the double standard used by people constantly is justified. The double standard is that they replace the Fighter by a more powerful Class X that can do the Fighter's job, and conclude that Class X is viable, but the Fighter is not. However, the reasoning that Class X is not viable because Class Y (or Pun-pun) is more powerful and can do the job of Class X is somehow not relevant to a lot of people who have been posting here. Within this double standard, I wanted to try to see if there was a place for the Fighter, since without the double standard, finding a place for the Fighter is as easy as finding a place for any class. Yeah, you can probably conclude from this that all PHB classes are viable. There's a very good reason for this: they have described roles in the D&D world and they're all capable of playing their part in the D&D combat system. If you have your basic division of tank, healer, skillmonkey and blaster, every class suitable to fill such a role is going to be able to survive the D&D world, provided they don't mess up due to stupidity (which happens, else you could scrap the Raise Dead/Resurrection spells). This includes the Fighter, though for some reason, the consensus seems to be it doesn't, which is why this thread has been going on for god knows how many pages. Three of your points have absolutely no bearing on the three party roles you listed. Simplicity does not make one a tank. Immediate satisfaction does not control the battlefield. Easily modified flavor text does not deal heavy damage. Feats can help with all of those things, so should have been the only thing listed here. Quite right. Power was excluded from those four points, though it might've been more clear if I'd left "Feats" out of there. However I felt it deserved a place in there because the choice of Feats define what kind of Fighter you're going to be. Maybe I wasn't clear when I wrote that part, given that I was under the influence of two bottles of red wine, there's a very good chance of that in fact :P. The point of that entire part was an attempt to find reasons to play a Fighter that have nothing to do with power (since that had been covered in the first point already), but rather why you might want to play a Fighter even if someone more powerful can fulfil his role. It had no direct bearing on the first point, being that the Fighter is viable just because he can do his job, and no extra requirements are needed. You seem to take personal offense every time I want to use a hypothetical example. As a philosophy graduate, I find the idea that hypothetical examples and possible worlds can somehow be taboo in a logical argument deeply shocking. As a philosophy student I find it deeply shocking that you assume I take personal offense at any of this and that you are capable of such sophistry as you have displayed :P. You misunderstand why I wrote the assumption and made hypothetical examples and possible worlds taboo. As I explained it above, you need it to discuss the Fighter in the context that it has been discussed. I do not support in any way that assumption, but I felt it an interesting challenge to see if I could justify the Fighter *even assuming that what was posted applied to the Fighter only and not to all classes*. You broke through this by posting hypothetical classes, which displays that apparently the discussion can't even be held while that assumption stands. So are you arguing premises 1 and 2 and therefore C? Or are you arguing 1,2,3 then premise 4 which is that magic can not do what feats do, then C. If the argument rests on premise 1 and 2, then it seems like the adept, aristocrat, expert, warrior, and my rat man example are all viable. Possibly the commoner as well. If it is the second argument, then the adept and my rat man example are viable. They both fulfill a party role and have something that other classes can't do. Their powers are incredibly limited compared to other classes, but I can't compare them without you invoking Pun Pun. So starting DnD with burning hands and cure light wounds makes a viable class. I tossed out 3 and 4 to replace with 3.5 and 4.5. This lifts the double standard mentioned above from the reasoning. I also needed to do that since else your Rat Man would be viable, as you assumed Rat Man in a world where there are no Wizards/Sorcerers, which means a lot of the spells needed to mimick things (such as Heroism) are not available. There are no other arcane spellcasting classes either, else they could just use a feat to gain a Familiar. The problem with your hypothetical world where Rat Man exists, is that if you use that world, P4 changes. Magic can no longer mimick everything, and you've shifted far too far away from D&D. The question is: in your hypothetical world, does Rat Man fulfil a role that a party there requires? If the answer is yes, then Rat Man might certainly be viable. So would the adept, since he can cast arcane spells... no wait he wouldn't exist, else Rat Man would not be the only class with a familiar. I think you misunderstood something: I am not arguing the validity of that reasoning, in fact I wrote the reasoning as to be valid (or at least, tried to). I simply disagree with the reasoning, because I do not agree with premise 3.5. You are right when you say that, if P3.5 does not exist, Rat Man and the Adept could potentially be viable, it depends on what role they are required to fulfill in the party. D&D however demands roles that Rat Man and the Adept are not likely to fulfill. They are the archetypes of tank, healer, skillmonkey, blaster. Rat Man cannot fulfill any of those roles. The NPC classes possibly can if you can optimize and play really well, so if you can do it have fun. You might however see your attempts reflected in your mortality rate. I don't have to find a new standard. I seriously don't. All I am doing is refuting your argument. In much the same way, I can refute Kant's arguments as to morality and it does not mean that I have to design a new, better moral system. What exactly are you refuting? I am trying to find a way why the Fighter is a viable class to play. The original reasoning of P1) A fighter can fulfil his role in the party. This role can be either of the three mentioned above or a combination thereof. P2) A class is viable if the character class is able to fulfill a certain role in the party. -- C) The Figher is a viable class to play. you have not refuted. The only things you are refuting, are my attempts to make the Fighter viable with all the prejudices against him assumed to be true. So fine, apparently with all the prejudices against him I have a darned hard time proving he's viable. Oh well. :P You want to use hypothetical situations and possible world examples, that's fine, so we can now generalize the above reasoning. P1) Class X can fulfil his role in the party. This role can be anything required for the party to have success achieving their goals in the D&D system. P2) A class is viable if the character class is able to fulfill a certain role in the party. -- C) Class X is a viable class to play. If you want to refute the more general form, you do have to find a new standard, for the simple reason that you need to justify any extra requirements you add to the reasoning. Else, I can always conclude that the only viable class is Pun-pun. Honestly, the main reason I think the fighter sucks is because I think he does not do what people want him to do. As said before, I don't think he is an easy class to play. With two skill points a level and the worst skill list, he makes a better dumb guy than the barbarian. I don't think that's what people want in their fighter. But hey, that's just my opinion. We could launch into a long discussion about how the fighter can't woo the princess, or rise to the rank of general, or become a pirate. But I am unlikely to convince you because you probably don't see him in the same way, and expecting anything more than fighting from a class called the fighter is probably illogical of me. As a philosophy graduate, you should be aware that people don't generally act only on logic, so it's fine to be illogical :P. The Fighter can woo the princess, rise to the rank of general, or become a pirate, same as any class can. Emphasise his Int and Cha stats, pick the proper feats, and you can go a long, long way fulfilling any of these roles. Sure your Str, Dex, Con and Wis will end up being lower, but who cares? As a Prince, General or Pirate (well maybe as Pirate but that one is by far the easiest to achieve) you won't be fighting a lot yourself. You have the Royal guard, your personal army or a battery of 48 cannons aboard your Ship of the Line to do your fighting for you. I'd be just as happy to argue things like that with you if you'd like, the reason I argue the Fighter from a fighting position is because the second you argue anything that has remotely to do with roleplaying here, a lot of people come down on you "because only the math is objective". A Fighter with high Int, Cha, Knowledge (army tactics) and Profession (Combat commander) and the Leadership feat is something that many of the "Math is everything" people will never accept, because that's not the way they play D&D. I doubt you've read the entire thread, as it's long, but take a look at the way people argue against the Fighter and you'll see why I've chosen to argue in terms of fighting power.
Kratch 05-28-07, 06:10 PM	I don't think you understand when I say that you can play your melee cleric just fine. I just don't see why you would want to waste time pretending to be a fighter when you already have a fighter. I think you intended to say, "i just don't see why you would want to waste time building a cleric to pretend to be a fighter when you already have the option to build a fighter". Cause in a group with Tank cleric, Utility cleric, wizard and rogue, you actually don't already have a fighter. They aren't talking about a group with fighter, Utility cleric, wizard and rogue having they're utility cleric pretend to be a fighter.
Bob Loblaw 05-28-07, 06:16 PM	Well, it's not perfect, but unless you make comparisons like this, you really can't judge whether a class is good or not. For instance, in core-only, a Warrior can probably do comparable melee damage to a greatsword-totting Fighter, losing out on +1 attack and +4 damage along with versatility. But they can deal good damage. Are Warriors a good class? The warrior will not compare to a fighter. There are some very important things to keep in mind. First, the warrior should have lower stats. Remember that PCs get a better base to begin with. Second, the warrior will be down 11 feats. This is significant. He simply will not be able to match the fighter in ability. Third, and this is also important, the warrior should have considerably less money. As an NPC class, he cannot afford to have the same gear. If you allow the warrior any changes to these, then you have changed the design intent behind the class and naturally things will change on his viability. How would you judge whether a class is good or not without making comparisons to other classes? Seeing whether they can contribute in encounters is good, but that doesn't capture the whole picture. Let's suppose, in core, there's a class called the Fighter+. The Fighter+ has 10 HD, the fighter's class skill list, 4 skill points per level, proficiency with all armor and shields and all simple and martial weapons, and one fighter bonus feat every level, along with being able to take the fighter-only bonus feats at the appropriate Fighter+ levels. Both would be able to contribute to equal CR encounters (let's suppose for now), but clearly the Fighter+ is strictly better than the fighter, and there's really no reason to play a fighter over a Fighter+. How one class compares to another is a horrible way to determine how it actually performs. Let me put your cleric in a situation and let's see how he does: Wizard 19 Casts Dimensional Lock. Lich, Wizard 17 Begins by casting Quickened Cloudkill, and Forcecage How do you think you're going to fare? These wizards are able to take care of you with no problems. Is the wizard better? They are equal to you according to the EL tables. What about if there is a fighter and wizard standing next to each other. Also both are level 19. Wizard starts with Mage's Disjunction. Fighter ends with your head on a pike. Your cleric is not the end-all-be all. The fighter can do what he is deigned to do just fine. Comparing one class to another doesn't serve any purpose unless you are trying to determine if it is balanced or if creating a new class to see if the role is already filled.
Kalarus 05-28-07, 06:19 PM	If you mean all cleric caster party sure. All squishies party, I seriously doubt that. As for the fighter, it's not a good pure class. But then again, nor is the sorceror yet I don't see anybody ragging on it for some reason. Or hell, the only non-spell progression that wizards get is...*gasp* more feats! So pure wizard is a little better than pure sorceror but not by a ton. All three classes are better suited to going for prestige classes as their main class offers little once you have the initial goodies. Yet why is only fighter getting stepped on here? Surely nobody's suggesting melees in general are useless? I wouldn't be surprised if they did in fact, due to the "Spells are so broken" consensus. Occasionally other classes get ragged on, but I doubt any of them get as much heat as the Fighter. However, they always use the same form of argument: P1) There are specific roles to play in D&D. P2) Class X can fulfill role A. P3) If Class Y can do all that class X can *and more*, then Class X is not viable. -- C) Class Y exists, so class X is not viable. Then they arbitrarily forget that Class Y can be filled in for Class X as well, and there's always Class Z that can get filled in for Class Y. The reasoning regresses endlessly until it reaches the absolute power cap in D&D, commonly called Pun-pun. Maybe we should just call this the Pun-pun fallacy and invoke it every time someone complains about the weakness of a class.
Bob Loblaw 05-28-07, 06:52 PM	I think you intended to say, "i just don't see why you would want to waste time building a cleric to pretend to be a fighter when you already have the option to build a fighter". Cause in a group with Tank cleric, Utility cleric, wizard and rogue, you actually don't already have a fighter. They aren't talking about a group with fighter, Utility cleric, wizard and rogue having they're utility cleric pretend to be a fighter. That is what I meant, thanks for clearing it up. Hopefully it will be understood.
Clawhound 05-28-07, 07:14 PM	Holy Aura doesn't show up until Level 15. Most games do not reach 15. No only that, but the support cleric should be casting that spell, so both the Fighter and the Melee Cleric gain the benefit equally. Divine Power doesn't show up until 7th level (15th level quickened). At 7th level, we can assume that the fighter has picked a better starting strength (+2 over the cleric), has put two points into strength starting at 8th level (+2 more over the cleric), and is using an item to enhance strength (+2 more). That adds up to +6. That means that divine power only puts a cleric on almost equal footing with the fighter, but without the feats, the equipment choices, the best martial weapons, and fewer tactical options. What this means is that the cleric has spent levels 1-6 falling behind, then getting a spell at 7th level that props them up for a bit. Just one round of not attacking means that even a non-optimized fighter can pump out more damage than the cleric. In other words, both those spells are not relevant and the cleric is still behind the fighter. (I purposely ignore DMM. Most reasonable DMs have either banned DMM outright, or nerfed it into reasonableness. Either way, it's not a quickened before 15th level, and isn't persistent until past 20th level.)
Argaud 05-28-07, 08:14 PM	Well, it's not perfect, but unless you make comparisons like this, you really can't judge whether a class is good or not. The cleric is not perfect? It is the most powerful core class! What is perfect for you? The most powerful, invulnerable and invincible class or combo of classes and PrCs? Is the DMM-persistent cleric good enough for you? The Cheater of Mystra? Fighter X? Pun-pun? Where do you draw the line between perfect and overpowered? For instance, in core-only, a Warrior can probably do comparable melee damage to a greatsword-totting Fighter, losing out on +1 attack and +4 damage along with versatility. But they can deal good damage. Are Warriors a good class? There is much more a warrior loses when compared to a fighter. However, remember the NPC classes are just one CR under the PC classes. Warriors, Aristocrats and even Adepts are no wimps (Commoners are, though, and calling a Commoner of N level a CR N-1 encounter is a bad joke). How would you judge whether a class is good or not without making comparisons to other classes? Seeing whether they can contribute in encounters is good, but that doesn't capture the whole picture. Let's suppose, in core, there's a class called the Fighter+. The Fighter+ has 10 HD, the fighter's class skill list, 4 skill points per level, proficiency with all armor and shields and all simple and martial weapons, and one fighter bonus feat every level, along with being able to take the fighter-only bonus feats at the appropriate Fighter+ levels. Both would be able to contribute to equal CR encounters (let's suppose for now), but clearly the Fighter+ is strictly better than the fighter, and there's really no reason to play a fighter over a Fighter+. Well, lets see. You have several kinds of characters you can play in a game, so what do you want? 1- You want classes that are balanced with the monsters, so that a party of 4 level X characters consistently wins against a CR X monster but loses 50% of the time against a CRX+4 monster. Fighter does fine, most classes are here at most levels. 2 - You want classes that are able to defeat CR X monsters by themselves and consistently defeat CRX+1, CR X+2 or even CR X+3 monsters when in a team of 4, as well as defeat even tougher encounters at least 50% of the time. Play clerics, as well as optimized wizards and druids and DMM-persistent dragon-riding paladins. 3 - You want classes able to walk over CR X encounters by themselves without blinking and able to tackle CR X+10 encounters as a team. Play DMM-persistent clerics, artificers, the Cheater of Mystra, the Twice-Betrayer of Shar, the King of Smack. 4 - You want to destroy greater deities at level 7 and “win the game”. Play Pun-pun. Me? I want the first kind of characters. As a DM I take a dim view of anything else. If a player or party manages to do better than average through good teamplay and clever tactics, more power to them. But judged individually, and from a purely mechanical standpoint, character classes shouldn't be more powerful than those in the first group.
Kratch 05-28-07, 08:31 PM	The cleric is not perfect? It is the most powerful core class! Think he was referring to the use of class comparisons not being a perfect way of judging a class, then follows it up with his "but ..." I really don't think his intention was to say clerics aren't perfect (although i do personally happen to think clerics aren't perfect, for a number of reasons; I think they have been granted far to much power, in the form of effective offensive and defensive spells plus effective melee defence and potentially plus effective melee offence (all this is obvious to most people) as well as, dispite this excessive power, if it was truely the "perfect" class, there wouldn't be a debate that a cleric can easily replace a fighter in every way (i still hold that a cleric can replace a warrior in every way, granted his spells, but that a fighter "potentially" offers too much to be completely replaced))
Zelck 05-28-07, 09:29 PM	Think he was referring to the use of class comparisons not being a perfect way of judging a class, then follows it up with his "but ..." I really don't think his intention was to say clerics aren't perfect Thanks. That's what I meant. The warrior will not compare to a fighter. There are some very important things to keep in mind. First, the warrior should have lower stats. Remember that PCs get a better base to begin with. Second, the warrior will be down 11 feats. This is significant. He simply will not be able to match the fighter in ability. Third, and this is also important, the warrior should have considerably less money. As an NPC class, he cannot afford to have the same gear. If you allow the warrior any changes to these, then you have changed the design intent behind the class and naturally things will change on his viability. The first and third points you raise don't apply, since we're comparing just the classes themselves and not PC vs. NPC stats/items. If this really a sticking point for you, we can pretend there's a core class called "PC Warrior" which has all the stats and progression of a normal Warrior but is a PC class. Being down 11 feats is rough, but that still leaves him with the following: Weapon Focus (Greatsword) Power Attack Combat Expertise Iron Will Improved Initiative Improved Unarmed Strike Improved Grapple Compared to your Fighter, it loses (from feats): - +1 attack and +4 damage with the Greatsword - +2 attack and +4 damage with the Longbow - +2 reflex saves - Sundering and Disarming - +3 Tumble Which isn't all that awful, and probably won't significantly hurt its ability to contribute in equal-CR encounters. So are Warriors viable? How one class compares to another is a horrible way to determine how it actually performs. Let me put your cleric in a situation and let's see how he does: See, that's not comparing one class to another. Comparing one class to another would be putting two or more classes in situations they would commonly face and compare their effectiveness. So you've presented some scenarios that a PC might face. You've asserted that a cleric can't succeed in those scenarios. Now the comparison part comes in when you see if other classes can succeed in those scenarios. Which you never did. There's also the weighing part, where more common scenarios are given more weight than less common ones. Your scenarios are pretty uncommon, I think. By the way, the Cleric has a slight chance in the Forcecage + Cloudkill + Dimension Lock scenario with a Greater Dispel Magic + a getaway spell (one of them quickened, possibly with a Rod of Metamagic), same with a Wizard. A Fighter, on the other hand, would be solidly toasted. All classes would be dead in the MDJ scenario, probably, since you said the fighter kills you before you can move. Except for the Wizard or Sorcerer, perhaps, with a good Contingency.
Argaud 05-28-07, 09:54 PM	Compared to your Fighter, it loses (from feats): - +1 attack and +4 damage with the Greatsword - +2 attack and +4 damage with the Longbow - +2 reflex saves - Sundering and Disarming - +3 Tumble Which isn't all that awful, and probably won't significantly hurt its ability to contribute in equal-CR encounters. So are Warriors viable? The warrior also loses 21 hp from having d8s instead of d10s. But you know what? They aren't so bad. Basically at level 20 a warrior is equivalent to a level 17 or 18 fighter. Which makes perfect sense since they are just one CR less then a fighter the same level, and in this case they have the same gear. Would a level 18 fighter with level 20 gear be of any help to a level 20 party? Yeah, he would, at least to some measure, just that he clearly is not as good as a level 20 fighter.
Khan the Destroyer 05-28-07, 09:56 PM	Again with this argument? A melee artificer or a melee archivist can perform as about as well in melee as the cleric, which seriously calls into question whether the cleric is needed. About as good? Again, I'll suggest for everyone to check out Caelic's thread. We're talking all the spells you'd imagine a melee cleric having, but instead they're persistent on the Artificer. Then we're talking persistent Sadism and Masochism. And not only divine buffs, but also arcane. Also, the melee artificer/archivist has options beyond just melee or clerical casting. For example, an archivist can cast spells from spell lists a cleric does not have access. Holy Sword, Rhino Charge, Hunter's Mercy, Barkskin, Stoneskin, Shapeshift, etc, etc. Not to mention the Archivist's Dark Knowledge or other class features. And, just to emphasize my point... again. The artificer has an expanded spell list as well relative to the cleric. And can also Trapfind, since level 1. And has more skills. Oh, and his infusions. By your definition the cleric is not a good class. A point they seem to be ignoring. As I said earlier in that post that got completely ignored ;)... If a class is not viable (or sucks, or is underpowered, or whatever term any of you might not need defined to understand) because another class can do his job and do something else, every class becomes non-viable. We know that given certain spells, feats, and even items, the casters (wizard, druid, cleric, sorcerer) can substitute in for a tank, making the barbarian, paladin, fighter, and ranger obsolete. We know that with certain domains, feats, or alternate class features, certain classes can expand their skill lists and also gain trapfinding, as well as contribute in whatever way they normally do. This makes the rogue obsolete. We know that a cleric can tank, heal, blast, and buff. But we also know that a druid can tank (with less investment), heal, blast, buff, and summon allies (with less investment than a cleric as well). The druid can even substitute in for the scout with wildshape forms or animal companions/summons. So now the druid makes the cleric obsolete. Unfortunately, the wizard's spell list is such that he can accomplish tanking, blasting, buffing, summoning, and stealth as well as the rest. Although he has few abilities to heal, according to some on this very thread, the wizard can end the fight in round 1, making healing a useless mechanic in D&D anyways. So now, the wizard has made the druid obsolete. Wow. Not only does this method of determining balance completely fail to mimic actual gameplay, it seems pretty endless as long as you can optimize a class to outperform another. What a seemingly arbitrary way to determine if a fighter is strong enough to be in a party. Again I ask, how does a cleric set a standard that the cleric itself does not meet? Also... what does it matter if a commoner can be viable? So I say... look at this fighter build. It can hurt/kill monsters and take hits, making this particular fighter a valuable ally in a group of adventurers. And you say... well by that reasoning, I can just make a warrior viable. ... so what? Again I ask... why does a warrior have to bad at fighting for a fighter to be good at fighting? Essentially, we are setting two standards. The first one is the cleric. Because the fighter can't offer as much as the cleric, it's underpowered. Alternatively, we have the warrior. We assume that the warrior should just suck right out of the box because it's an NPC class. If the fighter can be shown to do something, we'll just show what a warrior can do, and if it is similar, the fighter is underpowered. Again, we completely ignore the challenges that may be presented in an actual game. I haven't seen a single fighter build from the opposition to show they suck or not suck. Instead, we get all of these round about comparisons to show he sucks. 'If the warrior is good..., if the cleric does this..., if the druid's animal companion..., etc...'. And in regards to enemies... some will be clever, some will be stupid, some will be large, some will be small, some will have four legs, some will have two legs, some will be one creature of equal CR, some will be many enemies of lower CR's, etc... For every monster brought up to 'prove' a fighter sucks, we can bring up another to demonstrate a situation where he doesn't suck.
Zelck 05-29-07, 01:38 AM	Right, it's clear that the comparison method alone doesn't work. But I still think comparisons need to be used in some way, or else you're going to return the same amount of viability for Fighters and Fighter+'s. We could ask "Is there any reason to play a Fighter in a world where you could play a Fighter+?", and if we don't use some type of comparison, then you would say "Yes", which doesn't make seem to make sense. A Fighter+ is strictly better than a Fighter. Or, we could ask "Is there any reason to play a Warrior?" If we're just looking at whether the class can contribute their share in equal CR encounters, then the Warrior seems to be able to do that. Should people play Warriors now?
Khan the Destroyer 05-29-07, 05:49 AM	There is a comparison. The monsters. The bad guys that you should be fighting and your teammates will expect you to be fighting. The monsters that really determine whether you are underpowered or not. Or, we could ask "Is there any reason to play a Warrior?" If we're just looking at whether the class can contribute their share in equal CR encounters, then the Warrior seems to be able to do that. Should people play Warriors now? Why shouldn't they play warriors? Because it is labeled as an NPC class? What is the implication here? And you say 'seems to be able to do that'. But I haven't seen an optimized warrior build thrown out. We are so quick to say a cleric works, and a warrior works, and then say a fighter doesn't work in the same breath.
Clawhound 05-29-07, 07:40 AM	But the wardog works!!! It's uber. It's great. It's ... a warrior. Warriors are a unique NPC class. They are actually intended to see combat, where most NPC classes are not. Essentially, warriors are monsters without the uber stats. If warriors were completely ineffective, animals, dire animals, and magical beasts would be ineffective combatants as well. The core rules sets out power levels by example. PC classes, by example, are PC classes. NPC classes, by example, are NPC classes. You design classes to fit into each range as appropriate. Have you noticed how few of the new classes rank up there with wizard, cleric, and druid? Very few. Exactly. These classes define the upper tier of power. They do not define playability. What defines playability? Can the class, via their own abilities, flexibility, equipment, their party, and their ingenuity, overcome the obstacles before them? Can the party rely on them being the best in their niche inside the party? That's my notion of playable, anyhow. I can't think of any party where a fighter can't be tweaked into a unique niche.
Archangel62 05-29-07, 09:27 AM	Just a few noted here: 1) The problem that some of us have with the buffing thing is this; Can the (Insert class here) do their thing, the job that they class is designed to do, pre-buff at a proper CR encounter? If the answer is that they can't then the person doing the buffing does have a right to complain about it because the buffee isn't being a contributing team member. 2) The tank stuff I had mentioned earlier is more my opinion that the 'tank' concept overall is a little off in this type of game. My argument for that is that the enemy is going to go after either the closest target or what it percieves as the greatest threat barring some sort of compulsion effect or other mitigating circumstance. (The knights class feature, or the crusaders Iron Guards Glare). The high HP/AC thing can be done by just about any class even a hireling or crafted ally (Summoned creature,golems, rune guardians, undead guard, etc) can do such a job. If the whole idea of the fighter is a 'tank' then why doesn't the fighter have class abilities supporting it? Why can other classes do the job just as easily and arguably even better than the fighter. (i find the pun-pun argument somewhat fallacious if only because the crusader and knight can do the job as well or better without telling the rules to bend over and grab their ankles) 3) My opinion of the fighter class is that it doesn't exist as a class per se, it's a template. The premise of the fighter was to be a template from which players could create the kinds of martial combatants that they wanted that weren't covered by the barbarian, paladin, ranger or monk. However certain ones just didn't work, the swashbuckler class is a better representation of the swashbuckler concept than could be gotten through fighter/rogue/prestige setup and is also far less convoluted. The knight is a bit lower on that in my estimation (most of the knights features sans the challenge and the ability to move freely in heavy armor could have been gained as a fighter). The problem is that feats alone don't do this very well, this is part of why I prefer the ToB classes, the manuevers give a lot to make it so that the warblade, swordsage, or crusader could fill almost any martial archetype out there that doesn't have to do with ranged weapons. 4) Part of it is that the system itself doesn't seem to like the fighter, the grapple, disarm, sunder, and trip rules all favor larger creatures, most of whom are in the Cr 8+ category which is about the same time that the fighters feats and substitution options start running out of steam. Even Bob, one of your best proponents of the 'fighters are fine' side agrees with me on the fact that the fighter is shafted in terms of abilities and substitution options. 5) The argument of teamwork or RP for usefulness is a big contention for me because technically teamwork can make a commoner or warrior or other NPC class a proper contributor depending on how many buffs or other augmentations you throw on them, and if the results aren't appreciably different then perhaps the problem is on the end of the martial characters. Trying to work out what a class can do in the context of a group is good, useful, but we shouldn't have our arguments hinging on the class being constantly boosted by its teammates doing so muddles the argument and demeans the rest of the group casting them as mere support staff for the argued class. It also makes it impossible to study the class on its own merits and weaknesses. 6) For the sake of both sides, let's stop with the 'sunder the material components pouches, eat spellbooks, never give the martial character magical gear, everyone stripped naked, no supplies' arguments because doing so does nothing to advance or augment the debate. On the area of magical item contribution it's a fairly large gray area, we know that all classes need some magical gear, but the question of individual dependance or reliance on certain aspects or all of the equipment (to say nothing of needing to buy/find it vs. being able to create it oneself) is too big an argument for something like this and can depend more on DMing styles than anything else.
Clawhound 05-29-07, 10:36 AM	There is a good point-of-view conflict to note: - Classes should be dependent on other classes. - Classes should not be dependent on other classes. Where you fall on this point greatly influences how you think about the fighter.
Batshido 05-29-07, 10:43 AM	There is a good point-of-view conflict to note: - Classes should be dependent on other classes. - Classes should not be dependent on other classes. Where you fall on this point greatly influences how you think about the fighter. The problem is that it's not an on or off kind of thing. It's a continuum. The Cleric and Druid are are maxed out on the side of self-sufficiency, with Fighter holding down the other extreme. That's not right. Every class should be equally dependent upon others. The Fighter is usually the least optimal party member because he has to depend on others for survival constantly. Keeping him alive and combat effective is a constant drain on the party.
Clawhound 05-29-07, 11:45 AM	The problem is that it's not an on or off kind of thing. It's a continuum. The Cleric and Druid are are maxed out on the side of self-sufficiency, with Fighter holding down the other extreme. That's not right. Every class should be equally dependent upon others. The Fighter is usually the least optimal party member because he has to depend on others for survival constantly. Keeping him alive and combat effective is a constant drain on the party. Is he a drain on the rogue? No. The rogue does not have resources. Is he a drain on the wizard? No. The wizard is going to do his do no matter who he does his do with. The fighter is not a drain on those resources. Is he a drain on the cleric? Sure. That is the game working as designed. You may not like it. You may think it foolish. Yet, that is the game working as the designers intended. The cleric gets all that extra power to back up the fighter. The cleric is benefiting from that dynamic. If you don't want that to happen, you need to cut down the cleric's power. As it stands, the rogue and the wizard greatly benefit from the fighter taking all those hits. I have frequently seen our fighters take 60-70% damage in one round. The fighters take so much damage that any less hardy class would be dead, let alone the common incidents of them taking enough damage to kill the rogue or the wizard. (A few games ago, the fighter took 112 hit points in one round. The cleric would have been paste.) I frequently contend that the main job of the fighter is not dying.
Argaud 05-29-07, 11:53 AM	Is he a drain on the rogue? No. The rogue does not have resources. Is he a drain on the wizard? No. The wizard is going to do his do no matter who he does his do with. The fighter is not a drain on those resources. Is he a drain on the cleric? Sure. That is the game working as designed. Correct. Actually, with two clerics in the party, the melee cleric becomes a drain of the resources of the support/healer cleric. The cleric is the best buffer/healer, therefore anyone that is taking damage or that needs buffs to stand the most powerful creatures in melee combat is going to be "draining" from him. Mind you, wizards can also provide nice buffs, but they can't heal much. Granted, some meleers might be a bit more self-sufficient than the fighter, but even a level 20 paladin needs help to tank against the Tarrasque.
Batshido 05-29-07, 11:54 AM	I frequently contend that the main job of the fighter is not dying. That is the worst job description I've ever heard. No wonder no one who wants to actually accomplish anything takes more than a couple levels. Seriously, by those qualifications the average Wizard can find/build/dominate/summon any number of things twice as good at being a Fighter as the party Fighter. As to your other examples, a Rogue depends on his teammates for protection (if ranged) or flanking, neither of which the Fighter is optimally set up to provide. The Rogue isn't consuming spell slots, but he's consuming critical actions to find defensible positions or ways to flank, all while being saddled with a teammate who is neither fearsome or mobile enough to fulfill what you're calling his role.
Zelck 05-29-07, 12:31 PM	There is a comparison. The monsters. The bad guys that you should be fighting and your teammates will expect you to be fighting. The monsters that really determine whether you are underpowered or not. Why shouldn't they play warriors? Because it is labeled as an NPC class? What is the implication here? And you say 'seems to be able to do that'. But I haven't seen an optimized warrior build thrown out. We are so quick to say a cleric works, and a warrior works, and then say a fighter doesn't work in the same breath. I don't think I made my point clear. My point is that unless you make comparisons between classes, how can you say we shouldn't play Warriors? They can clearly contribute and deal some pretty good damage. Especially in core-only, they're not that far from fighters power-wise. Can you give me a reason to play Fighters over Warriors that also isn't a reason to not play Clerics over Fighters? As for optimized Warrior Build, take Bob Loblaw's fighter build and subtract the following: - 21 HP - +1 attack and +4 damage with the Greatsword - +2 attack and +4 damage with the Longbow - +2 reflex saves - Sundering and Disarming - +3 Tumble And you have the build (I guess you could give up another +1 attack with the Greatsword for Improved Disarm or Sunder if you want). Warriors are a unique NPC class. They are actually intended to see combat, where most NPC classes are not. Essentially, warriors are monsters without the uber stats. If warriors were completely ineffective, animals, dire animals, and magical beasts would be ineffective combatants as well. The core rules sets out power levels by example. PC classes, by example, are PC classes. NPC classes, by example, are NPC classes. You design classes to fit into each range as appropriate. Have you noticed how few of the new classes rank up there with wizard, cleric, and druid? Very few. Exactly. These classes define the upper tier of power. They do not define playability. What defines playability? Can the class, via their own abilities, flexibility, equipment, their party, and their ingenuity, overcome the obstacles before them? Can the party rely on them being the best in their niche inside the party? That's my notion of playable, anyhow. I can't think of any party where a fighter can't be tweaked into a unique niche. Well, then I can't think of any party where a Warrior can't be tweaked into a unique niche. How are you to say we shouldn't play Warriors?
Saragon42 05-29-07, 12:31 PM	The problem is that it's not an on or off kind of thing. It's a continuum. The Cleric and Druid are are maxed out on the side of self-sufficiency, with Fighter holding down the other extreme. That's not right. Every class should be equally dependent upon others. The Fighter is usually the least optimal party member because he has to depend on others for survival constantly. Keeping him alive and combat effective is a constant drain on the party. I've been wanting to jump into this argument for a while, and this seems like a pretty good place to start. What Batshido (and many others over the past dozen pages) is ignoring is the temporal element involved in D&D - which is to say, the progression of characters and the number of encounters through the day. Wizards (and sorcerors) start off pretty darn weak. Fighters start off pretty strong, relative to threats their level. Thing is, if you graphed out the power progression for these classes, the wizard's power-gain curve is very steep -- he goes from "I can make you go to sleep!" to "I can manipulate the energies that power the multiverse!". The fighter doesn't; he's got a power gain curve that's much flatter, and unquestionably ends up below the wizard. However, if that wizard wants to make it to those high levels, he's going to have to depend on a fighter to stand in front of him through the low levels. Sure, he can fireball a goblin pack or color spray a charging bruiser; but he can't keep that up all day, whereas the fighter can and will. It's only once the wizard gains his intermediate spells that he becomes relatively independent; and even then, his most powerful spells have to beat saves or spell resistance, and usually both. The fighter might need to drink a potion or two after the fight; but unless the party is resting for eight hours between every encounter, those cure potions or heal scrolls/castings get the fighter back to full fighting strength for the next encounter, whereas the wizard isn't. As the day progresses the wizard is forced to use less and less optimal spells; the fighter just keeps on truckin'. Clerics are considered overpowered because they have solid melee capabilities, and in some cases turning abilities, to fall back on once their spells have run out. I've no problem with that assessment, but as someone who's played too many clerics for his own good I have to say that they aren't horribly overpowered (unless your DM allows Divine Metamagic, a horribly broken set of abilities that should've earned their creators a solid kick in the rear.) After all, when the cleric runs out of spells, a cleric optimized for spellcasting can't do anywhere near so much in melee as a fighter (whose equipment is optimized for what they're best at), and a cleric optimized for melee will have run out of the things that make him "just as good" at melee as the fighter without having the base abilities of feats, BAB and physical stats to fall back on. That's my take on self-sufficiency. At the start of the day, and at high levels, there's no question that a cleric or wizard is much more self-sufficient than a fighter. But outside of that optimal situation, the fighter's power doesn't diminish much at all, whereas the cleric and wizard are significantly less powerful. (I would love to try to fit druids into this continuum, Batshido, but I haven't played or seen a druid played in 3.5, only 3.0. If you can shed some light on that, I'd be very grateful.) Batshido is right in that no class should be entirely self-sufficient and no class should be entirely reliant on others; but I don't think the fighter is quite so party dependent as he's sometimes made out to be. That he needs some healing through the day is good - it means he's taking hits the wizard isn't taking. Heals are a lot cheaper than resurrections.
Clawhound 05-29-07, 01:06 PM	That is the worst job description I've ever heard. No wonder no one who wants to actually accomplish anything takes more than a couple levels. Seriously, by those qualifications the average Wizard can find/build/dominate/summon any number of things twice as good at being a Fighter as the party Fighter. That is why the board loves summoning, gating, and planar ally. They generate more hit points than healing, and your help is disposable, so you don't need to heal poison, drained levels, etc. This is why summoners are called better tanks than fighters. In addition, you can summon creatures with special abilities that are useful to you, like acid against trolls, at no extra cost. Fighters use disposable resources. It's a very compelling argument to optimize that way. It also has its downsides, such as the spells being slow and the creatures generally lousy at offense. Gate and Planar Ally produce far more powerful summonses. These spells base their effect on hit die. The power difference between creatures of alike HD is astounding. These spells are highly favored because they are so abusable. As to your other examples, a Rogue depends on his teammates for protection (if ranged) or flanking, neither of which the Fighter is optimally set up to provide. The Rogue isn't consuming spell slots, but he's consuming critical actions to find defensible positions or ways to flank, all while being saddled with a teammate who is neither fearsome or mobile enough to fulfill what you're calling his role. If we substitute any other character class for "fighter", the rogue has the exact same problem. This is true even with summoning tactics. "Fighter" is not at fault. D&D simply does not have a MMORP tanking mechanism, nor should it. If it did, you could guarantee one character getting all the best defensive spells, attracting all the opponents, while the remaining party safely chewed up the monster. And then we'd have a really dumb game.
Kratch 05-29-07, 01:11 PM	Right, it's clear that the comparison method alone doesn't work. But I still think comparisons need to be used in some way, or else you're going to return the same amount of viability for Fighters and Fighter+'s. We could ask "Is there any reason to play a Fighter in a world where you could play a Fighter+?", and if we don't use some type of comparison, then you would say "Yes", which doesn't make seem to make sense. A Fighter+ is strictly better than a Fighter. Or, we could ask "Is there any reason to play a Warrior?" If we're just looking at whether the class can contribute their share in equal CR encounters, then the Warrior seems to be able to do that. Should people play Warriors now? Well, your fighter+ was an exact copy of the fighter, plus it had more, much like the fighter is a complete copy of the warrior plus it has more (and the warrior, by game design, is a non-player class). I can see where your arguement is coming from, but, as there is no other player class that is an exact copy of another plus has more, your whole fighter+ angle is moot. You can say the cleric is capable of copying everything a fighter can do, but you will never be able to account for the 11 bonus feats, nor will you be able to account for the ability to not worry about dispels and anti-magic field (reguardless how rare) to maintain your abilities, nor will you be able to account for the simplicity of play in comparison to a 40+ spells, as well as needing to know the combat options. Although, from what i'm reading, the archivist may very well be an exact copy of the cleric, plus more. so maby it's the cleric that should be debated here as obsolete instead of fighter.
Kratch 05-29-07, 01:47 PM	1) The problem that some of us have with the buffing thing is this; Can the (Insert class here) do their thing, the job that they class is designed to do, pre-buff at a proper CR encounter? If the answer is that they can't then the person doing the buffing does have a right to complain about it because the buffee isn't being a contributing team member. There are very few opponents (if any) where the fighter, even baring flight gear, cannot provide a significant contribution (and i'd rather my use of significant and contribution weren't whats debated here, rather then my actual point. (this isn't neccessarily directed at you Archangel)). Perhaps you'd care to offer a fighter build (just link to one if you wish) and an encounter where you feel he can't do his thing, and i'm sure you'll get any number of examples of things he could in fact do, perhaps even stuff a tank cleric, in a similar situation may not be able to provide. (Note: I'd rather you didn't use dragons flying about, as almost all dragon encounters are prepared for, and thus the fighter would presumably be prepared to fight the flying opponent, be it through gear, expendables or buffs) 2)... I thought fighters were able to take those stances as fighter feats? Anyways. Those books were provided years (YEARS!!) after the original fighter was created, presumably in an attempt to make melee's that appear more like those found in the MMO's. This is not a deffence for the fighter, just an explanation of why those other class's can do the "job" (defined by MMO's) better then the fighter (defined by 30(?) years of gameplay). And generally, the closest target will be the melee who runs in first, and the most threatening will usually be the one who is right up in your face waving a sharp pointy stick, unless it is intelligent enough to recognize one of the other creatures for a caster and again intelegent enough to understand what that intails.
Clawhound 05-29-07, 01:49 PM	As for fighters sucking down resources, I can easily design a fighter who gets to AC 40 at level 10. With only being damage occasionally, this means that the fighter will start sucking down the cleric's uber 1st level spells. Aside from heals, the fighter is actually be very self-sufficient. If anything, the fighter needs a skill-monkey far more than he needs spells.
Archangel62 05-29-07, 02:34 PM	Anyways. Those books were provided years (YEARS!!) after the original fighter was created, presumably in an attempt to make melee's that appear more like those found in the MMO's. This is not a deffence for the fighter, just an explanation of why those other class's can do the "job" (defined by MMO's) better then the fighter (defined by 30(?) years of gameplay). And generally, the closest target will be the melee who runs in first, and the most threatening will usually be the one who is right up in your face waving a sharp pointy stick, unless it is intelligent enough to recognize one of the other creatures for a caster and again intelegent enough to understand what that intails. There might be some truth to the MMO influence, but the fact of the matter is that your side said that the fighters role was tank. My own comment is that the idea of a 'tank' as it is being envisioned here isn't workable for the game as it exists due to the different governing rules. Also, if the fighters actual job was tanking one would imagine that such feats or abilities would exist, but such things only came in supplimental material so one could argue that the 'tank' idea as so many seem to have wasn't the fighters premise. I should also explain something here, my biggest beef with the fighter isn't a dislike, it's more a frustration. I see the fighter built as a martial template, something that was supposed to be able to make almost any martial character imaginable. It fails conceptually however because the feats aren't good enough, the skill list isn't wide enough and to support your design you either need to prestige or multiclass heavily, sometimes both to get what you need. I have said many times I don't have a problem with that but I do believe that a prestige class should be one way of playing your concept, not the ONLY way. And yes, the fighter can take the stuff as feats, but the fighter isn't getting the abilities until later and doesn't have the faster refresh time. The other advantage that the crusader has is the manuevers that can heal them and their ability to draw power off the damage inflicted on them. What I found wrong with the fighter was what I found right in the tome of battle, I saw martial classes that could be easily adapted to fulfill most martial concepts and archetypes without needing to prestige or multiclass, simply choosing the right maneuvers and feats was usually enough. This doesn't mean that the fighter isn't a workable class, or that it can't function, simply that I don't think that it fulfilled it's design premise. [Side note: Most of us are cross arguing, we seem to have many similar views and actually agree on many things (see most of the discussions between myself and Bob Loblaw, we're on opposite sides of the debate but we seem to agree in many areas too). Part of it is this, both sides are putting words into each others mouths based on what those on their side have said. Not all of us have done it, but I know I probably have and it is part of where some of the flaming and condescension come from. Just saying we might want to actually clarify our positions a bit]
Kratch 05-29-07, 04:01 PM	There might be some truth to the MMO influence, but the fact of the matter is that your side said that the fighters role was tank. My own comment is that the idea of a 'tank' as it is being envisioned here isn't workable for the game as it exists due to the different governing rules. Also, if the fighters actual job was tanking one would imagine that such feats or abilities would exist, but such things only came in supplimental material so one could argue that the 'tank' idea as so many seem to have wasn't the fighters premise. but the "tank", as it is being invisioned here is highly influenced by the MMO definition. If we look at the definition of "tank" in real world terms, the fighter actually fits it very well. A reall world tank is a large, heavily armoured construct, often sent in in advance of the more specialized troops (such as engineers, artiliary, etc) due to it's survivability and due to the offensive power it contains. It is not capable of garnering "agro" other then to be the biggest, nastiest looking thing on the field at that given time. A foot soldier with a laser targeting system to aid the artilary, bombers or surface to surface missle batteries is a far more lethal threat. This doesn't mean that the fighter isn't a workable class, or that it can't function, simply that I don't think that it fulfilled it's design premise. I think this here (much like you have said, people are arguing through each other) is importent. Many of the people arguing in favour of the fighter are indeed arguing that a fighter is a workable class, and that it can function, and because of that, it therefor does not suck. Wether it can fulfull some, MMO percieved, designed premise, or not, does not deem it to suck. If it is workable and can function, why then is it unuseable (this is something that has been said by some of those denouncing the fighter)? I think the greatest reason why it appears that we are arguing through each other, is because people on both sides aren't always considering that what they are currently refuting is intended as an argument against a slightly different argument. I always try to keep in mind that, when refuting an argment someone makes against one of Bob's points, that bob believes a fighter doing his duty in a group is enough to make the fighter viable, dispite the fact that I believe, although it is a solid start, it does need a little more then that. In the same manner, you need to consider when your debating against our points as proof the fighter is viable, that some of those argueing against the fighter honestly don't think the fighter is workable, and don't believe it functions (things i gather you don't agree with based on the above quoted sentance) and that may be what we are dirrectly refutting at the time, putting off till after it has been proven that the fighter does function and is workable to debate wether that is enough.
Archangel62 05-29-07, 05:45 PM	but the "tank", as it is being invisioned here is highly influenced by the MMO definition. If we look at the definition of "tank" in real world terms, the fighter actually fits it very well. A reall world tank is a large, heavily armoured construct, often sent in in advance of the more specialized troops (such as engineers, artiliary, etc) due to it's survivability and due to the offensive power it contains. It is not capable of garnering "agro" other then to be the biggest, nastiest looking thing on the field at that given time. A foot soldier with a laser targeting system to aid the artilary, bombers or surface to surface missle batteries is a far more lethal threat. Yes, but in the classic connotation a tank is designed to roll over enemy defenses, to be used as a sword rather than a shield. I'd argue that the 'tank' role isn't necessarily a reasonable one for the game as it is designed, and even if it is, that role isn't sacred or unique to the fighter.
Kratch 05-29-07, 06:27 PM	Yes, but in the classic connotation a tank is designed to roll over enemy defenses, to be used as a sword rather than a shield. I'd argue that the 'tank' role isn't necessarily a reasonable one for the game as it is designed, ... But i believe you have stated a few times, that you find the role of meleeist (in whatever incarnation that may be, be it fighter, paladin, melee cleric,) to be unneccessary, which is a different debate altogether, and again, one not relevent to the fighter (but rather, any melee based class/build). There are many here who would argue the fighter cannot even perform the meleeist role, reguardless of it's neccessity, and that is what most of us are currently trying to debate. We are trying to show that the fighter is indeed able to perform its role (tank, meleeist, whatever you want to call the role/s) and therefor is viable. though i supose, If the role itself isn't viable, then wether the fighter meets it or not is moot. Perhaps the whole melee vs caster debate should be addressed first after all, though i suppose thats for another thread. ... and even if it is, that role isn't sacred or unique to the fighter. Doesn't need to be. The role of healer isn't sacred or unique to the cleric, the healer class performs it (and arguably better). The druid also heals almost as well (in addition to offering more). Bard can heal too (though granted, a fair bitter worst off). then of corse, the archivist. This doesn't negate the fact that the cleric is still a good healer, and that it is quite capable of performing the role as intended. Therefor, if the fighter is quite capable of performing the role as intended (this is what many people on both side are argueing for or against), should that not be enough (at which point you can begin wether the meleeist role is viable)?
Kalarus 05-29-07, 06:41 PM	2) The tank stuff I had mentioned earlier is more my opinion that the 'tank' concept overall is a little off in this type of game. My argument for that is that the enemy is going to go after either the closest target or what it percieves as the greatest threat barring some sort of compulsion effect or other mitigating circumstance. (The knights class feature, or the crusaders Iron Guards Glare). The high HP/AC thing can be done by just about any class even a hireling or crafted ally (Summoned creature,golems, rune guardians, undead guard, etc) can do such a job. If the whole idea of the fighter is a 'tank' then why doesn't the fighter have class abilities supporting it? Why can other classes do the job just as easily and arguably even better than the fighter. (i find the pun-pun argument somewhat fallacious if only because the crusader and knight can do the job as well or better without telling the rules to bend over and grab their ankles) Regardless of your tank definitions being able soak damage, deal damage, and control the battlefield, I'd say any decent spike chain Fighter build does all three. I know mine does, I posted damage averages already. I *like* people who think they can ignore me. As for Pun-pun, Pun-pun is a legit (if admittedly cheesy) character. It was created using existing D&D rules, of which the sources were referred to repeatedly. Pun-pun may be broken, but according to many people on both sides of this discussion, so is CoDzilla, or for that matter the Wizard. If you think the Pun-pun argument is fallacious, provide me with a good argument, like for example why Pun-pun is "too broken" and CoDzilla/Wizard is "not too broken".
Archangel62 05-29-07, 06:54 PM	Regardless of your tank definitions being able soak damage, deal damage, and control the battlefield, I'd say any decent spike chain Fighter build does all three. I know mine does, I posted damage averages already. I *like* people who think they can ignore me. Yes, with that whopping 10 feet of reach, I'm sure that it's very useful. The spike chain design is cute, but basically locks the fighter into one style and the spiked chain isn't a damage machine. You can control a very small piece of a battlefield but unless the terrain or the group is boosting you, or the DM is only throwing easily trippable opponents at you (and none of his classed monsters have tumble or are ranged) then yes, I'm sure you can be effective. As for Pun-pun, Pun-pun is a legit (if admittedly cheesy) character. It was created using existing D&D rules, of which the sources were referred to repeatedly. Pun-pun may be broken, but according to many people on both sides of this discussion, so is CoDzilla, or for that matter the Wizard. If you think the Pun-pun argument is fallacious, provide me with a good argument, like for example why Pun-pun is "too broken" and CoDzilla/Wizard is "not too broken". Pun-pun is the result of a bit of rules twisting, it only works in the FR setting and while it does work it is a bit of arm twisting ruleswise. Pun-pun was also made as a thought experiment, not as a proper character. The druid and cleric are actual classes.
Kratch 05-29-07, 08:23 PM	Yes, with that whopping 10 feet of reach, I'm sure that it's very useful. The spike chain design is cute, but basically locks the fighter into one style and the spiked chain isn't a damage machine. You can control a very small piece of a battlefield but unless the terrain or the group is boosting you, or the DM is only throwing easily trippable opponents at you (and none of his classed monsters have tumble or are ranged) then yes, I'm sure you can be effective. Actually, 10 ft may not seem like much, but if you consider it as a 25 ft diameter, particularly in most dingeon settings, it actually is a very effective area of influence (AKA not altogether that small, certainly not "very"). add in enlarge (via permanancy, potion or *gasp* buff) and you now have a 50ft area of influence. As i've mentioned before, as common as large sized creatures may be, khan has shown a fighter built for one of the "size matters" tactics can still be very effective against all but the largest and best equiped to deal with that tactic (quadraped against trip, 2 handed against disarm, etc), and generally, those don't require that kind of battlefield control, since they're generally not smart enough to go after anything but the nasty little thing in it's face pokeing it with a scratchy chain (dragons being the only potential exception i can think of). Additionally, as i have also mentioned before, even if he can't trip his foe, he still has his other feats to rely on. Lastly, Stand still, an alternative to improved trip for battlefield control, has nothing to worry about with reguards to ether size or lack of limbs. and while it still has to worry about tumble, a caster still has to worry about spell immunitys, spell resistance, spell turning, etc. Now i do agree with you on one factor, not all fighters are spiked chain wielders, and those should not be held up as the standard, but they should also not be dismissed. Spiked chains are a method of sacrificing some damage (0-4 points per hit, tops) for increased battlefield control. Pun-pun is the result of a bit of rules twisting, it only works in the FR setting and while it does work it is a bit of arm twisting ruleswise. Pun-pun was also made as a thought experiment, not as a proper character. The druid and cleric are actual classes. I find a lot of the spell uses some people use to show the power of wizards (not neccessissarily in these fighter debates, just in general) to be just as much a twisting of the rules. but thats another debate.
Argaud 05-29-07, 08:27 PM	Yes, with that whopping 10 feet of reach, I'm sure that it's very useful. The spike chain design is cute, but basically locks the fighter into one style and the spiked chain isn't a damage machine. You can control a very small piece of a battlefield but unless the terrain or the group is boosting you, or the DM is only throwing easily trippable opponents at you (and none of his classed monsters have tumble or are ranged) then yes, I'm sure you can be effective. Damage of the spiked chain is 2d4 (average 5). The greatsword, the mightiest weapon in the game for a medium humanoid, is 2d6 (average 7). Two hp less. Two hp! Most of the damage a warrior does comes from strength, magic and feats, not the base damage. 2 points less is very little when compared with the benefits of a spiked chain over... well, over any other weapon. It is the only exotic weapon worth a feat, really. 10' reach does not seem much. Until you consider the size of most dungeon rooms and notice in the tactical map that now there is a huge area where enemy movement is impaired. It becomes better when it is 20', which is easily achieved with a cheap potion or a first level spell. It becomes even better when you consider how few creatures actually have tumble (read the skills of the monsters in the MM. Tumble is very uncommon!). When trips do not work, you can use Stand Still. When enemies are using magic to be invisible or use concealment, you can also use magic to counter that. You should be prepared for that eventuality, or you aren't a good tank.
Clawhound 05-29-07, 08:47 PM	A spiked chain wielder is locked into one style? I vehemently disagree. Does he mysterious forget how to use other melee weapons? No. Is he bad with these other melee weapons? A few plusses down, but he has full BAB, so he will his as well as a Divine Might cleric. So a spiked chain wielder is less a bad fighter and more like, at worse case, a fully buffed cleric. Odd how a fully buffed cleric can be effective while a fighter becomes ineffective.
Bob Loblaw 05-29-07, 09:33 PM	The problem is that it's not an on or off kind of thing. It's a continuum. The Cleric and Druid are are maxed out on the side of self-sufficiency, with Fighter holding down the other extreme. That's not right. Every class should be equally dependent upon others. The Fighter is usually the least optimal party member because he has to depend on others for survival constantly. Keeping him alive and combat effective is a constant drain on the party. If you believe that then you really shouldn't be playing fighters. I have yet to have a fighter that is a drain on the party. I don't ever need buffs from the party. Note that I don't turn them down, I just don't need them. Maybe you haven't looked at some of the builds put forth by myself or Khan. My build is core only. While I have to do some work on the magic items and cost still, the build is solid. It can handle ranged and melee combat. It has several tactical options. It works best in a group, but it certainly can handle itself when alone as well.
Khan the Destroyer 05-29-07, 09:42 PM	1) The problem that some of us have with the buffing thing is this; Can the (Insert class here) do their thing, the job that they class is designed to do, pre-buff at a proper CR encounter? If the answer is that they can't then the person doing the buffing does have a right to complain about it because the buffee isn't being a contributing team member. I know you're simply clarifying your position, but I'd like to answer it anyways :). I think that fighters can be built to avoid needing buffs. I think my fighter builds do very well without buffs. That said, I think buffs are great and should be used. That extra edge is awesome. And that's why the casters have the spells anyways. My tactical fighter can theoretically bull rush a tarrasque every round far enough away to keep it from the party, but my fighter can't actually bull rush the tarrasque because of size. He auto-fails. Now, since polymorphing the fighter into something large enough to succeed would allow him to keep the colossal regenerating grappling monster of doom away from the entire party while they do something to kill it, I can't imagine why providing that buff would be considered bothersome. But I understand the distinction you're making Archangel. Needing the buffs to do your job no matter the circumstance would be problematic (and in fact is what the cleric does, though his case is different because he provides them himself). But if the fighter needs something every now and then for certain cirumstances (like the legendary one-of-a-kind Tarrasque), I think that teamwork is great. 2) The tank stuff I had mentioned earlier is more my opinion that the 'tank' concept overall is a little off in this type of game. My argument for that is that the enemy is going to go after either the closest target or what it percieves as the greatest threat barring some sort of compulsion effect or other mitigating circumstance. (The knights class feature, or the crusaders Iron Guards Glare). The high HP/AC thing can be done by just about any class even a hireling or crafted ally (Summoned creature,golems, rune guardians, undead guard, etc) can do such a job. If the whole idea of the fighter is a 'tank' then why doesn't the fighter have class abilities supporting it? Why can other classes do the job just as easily and arguably even better than the fighter. (i find the pun-pun argument somewhat fallacious if only because the crusader and knight can do the job as well or better without telling the rules to bend over and grab their ankles) I don't see this as a problem. Creatures don't see stats. A guy wielding a dangerous weapon with skill standing right before you seems pretty threatening, *even* if there is a guy back behind him chanting. And what about his sneaky friend hoping to come around behind and stab you? Or the other guy decked out in full plate also wielding a weapon with skill? Or is he chanting as well? A threat is a threat. I just don't see all of the monsters thinking 'I can probably take like 7 hits from that guy's sword, but the wizard may throw something at me that only requires a ranged touch attack and no saving throw. I should just take the HP damage from the warrior and take down the wizard ASAP.' Frankly, if every enemy I faced ignored me and tries to walk by, even better. Let my AoO leave them prone and without a weapon. Or, let my full attacks eat half or more of their hit points as they stand with their back to me. Or let me pump arrow after arrow into them as they try to take down the all poweful caster. No sweat off my back. I don't think I made my point clear. My point is that unless you make comparisons between classes, how can you say we shouldn't play Warriors? I would never say someone shouldn't play warriors. But if I had to base it on something, it would be how well they perform in a party as the party takes on challenges. Consider this... How do you know that a cleric is powerful? It cannot be because the fighter is weak, because that would be circular reasoning (the fighter is weak because the cleric is strong because the fighter is weak...). No, we say things like 'The cleric can heal, buff, and tank.' Well, all of that is absolutely meaningless outside the context of monsters, challenges, and party dynamics. What good is healing without a party member to heal? Or without monsters to hurt you in the first place? Tanking? How so? Because of Righteous Might and Divine Power and all sorts of other spells. But what makes those good? Well, you get large size, full BAB, bonuses to strength and a bonus to constitution, DR, natural armor, etc. But how do we know those are good for combat? The rules. But how do we know that those particular stats are good? By comparing them to monster stats. Yeah, large size is great against large or smaller monsters, either negating a monster's large size or granting a bonus against smaller ones. DR is awesome for absorbing HP damage. Bonuses to strength make monster AC's easier to hit and help shave off more monster HP. The list goes on. But if this is not how you determine that a cleric is powerful, please explain to me how you determine it. If it is, I question why we don't use the same standard for the fighter. If it isn't, let me know what it is. Because if we compare the cleric to another class, like the druid or archivist or artificer or wizard... he seems sub-optimal as well. They can clearly contribute and deal some pretty good damage. In the sense that they have a good BAB and can wield certain weapons. Even still... how well does he do it compared to a fighter? How quickly can he do it compared to a fighter? Even a Fighter 4 can have Mounted Combat, Ride-by Attack, Spirited Charge, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, and Rapid Shot. That's mobile fighting, double to triple damage on mounted charges, firing into melee without penalty, and an extra attack. And the versatility of fighting in melee, fighting on horseback, and fighting at range. What does the warrior have? What can the warrior do? Not as much. But more importantly, what more do you expect from a warrior? Isn't it the fighter's role to fight? Also, I ask again... what does it matter if the warrior is in fact viable? I for one wouldn't really care if someone came here and showed a 20th level Warrior that can take down a balor. Cool. Still no affect on my fighter though. Especially in core-only, they're not that far from fighters power-wise. Where does this conclusion come from? From Bob's build? Can you give me a reason to play Fighters over Warriors that also isn't a reason to not play Clerics over Fighters? You honestly lost me with the double negative :(. I would play a fighter over a warrior for the better HD and the bonus feats. I would play a warrior over a fighter just to show what I can do with an NPC class.
Bob Loblaw 05-29-07, 09:45 PM	As to your other examples, a Rogue depends on his teammates for protection (if ranged) or flanking, neither of which the Fighter is optimally set up to provide. The Rogue isn't consuming spell slots, but he's consuming critical actions to find defensible positions or ways to flank, all while being saddled with a teammate who is neither fearsome or mobile enough to fulfill what you're calling his role. You're telling me that the fighter can't help the rogue flank? He can't set up protection so the rogue can use his ranged attacks? What kind of fighter do you play? Anyone can fill those roles. The fighter can probably do it better than most. All he has to do is get in melee and stay there. Flanking really doesn't require a lot of mobility. In fact it works best when not mobile. If the fighter places himself between the monster and the ranged rogue, the fighter can (with the right feats) take up to 3 or 4 attacks of opportunity on the monster as he tries to go after the rogue. If the beast lives long enough to hit the rogue, it only gets one attack. The rest of the party should be able to handle things just fine at this point.
Batshido 05-29-07, 10:09 PM	If you believe that then you really shouldn't be playing fighters. I have yet to have a fighter that is a drain on the party. I don't ever need buffs from the party. Note that I don't turn them down, I just don't need them. Maybe you haven't looked at some of the builds put forth by myself or Khan. My build is core only. While I have to do some work on the magic items and cost still, the build is solid. It can handle ranged and melee combat. It has several tactical options. It works best in a group, but it certainly can handle itself when alone as well. A Fighter is more of a drain on the party than any other pc class. He requires healing, tactical compensation by the rest of the party when he gets in over his head and magical support just to stay alive. In return he gives what? An extra round worth of attacks the BBEG has to waste before he finishes the party off, usually the last round since the Fighter isn't a big enough threat to worry about killing first and he's too heavily armored to effectively run away. You're telling me that the fighter can't help the rogue flank? He can, but not well. A Fighter "assisting" a Rogue in flanking requires the Rogue to position himself (since he's the one with tumble) and likely put himself farther from the safety of the rest of the party. Compare this to the Monk, who can likely Stun the foe (or at least try, as opposed to the Fighter) and move into position for the Rogue, instead of the other way around. He can't set up protection so the rogue can use his ranged attacks? What kind of fighter do you play? This is an even more far fetched example. At this point, the Rogue has dropped two feats (PBS and Precise Shot) into a fighting style that rarely lets him use his best combat ability and requires the presence of a meatshield and a complete lack of flying enemies or ranged attackers to function for more than one round. What kind of Rogues do you play, Bob? ;) Anyone can fill those roles. The fighter can probably do it better than most. All he has to do is get in melee and stay there. That's if your foe decides he wants to stay neatly flanked while you and your teammate wail on it. That's a pretty big if. Staying power in melee isn't even a very good example of something the Fighter can do, honestly. Better than the Sorcerer and Wizard? Yeah. Most others, marginally at best. Flanking really doesn't require a lot of mobility. In fact it works best when not mobile. If the fighter places himself between the monster and the ranged rogue, the fighter can (with the right feats) take up to 3 or 4 attacks of opportunity on the monster as he tries to go after the rogue. If the beast lives long enough to hit the rogue, it only gets one attack. The rest of the party should be able to handle things just fine at this point. Emphasis mine. This is patently false if you are up against any but the least organized, horribly misplayed, melee based foes. That's an awful lot of qualifiers, huh? Smart enemies move, evade, Fly or Tumble. The mere presence of a heavily armored person isn't going to do much stopping. Not to mention that the above tactic ties up two pc's, forces one of them to make sub-optimal combat choices (not that the Fighter's really doing any better, but we can dream, right?), and is again assuming the Rogue is taking two (or more) feats specifically for this type of occasion. Frankly, he'd be better off tumbling in and flanking. I want the Fighter to be good as much as anybody. Unfortunately, it's not. Acceptance is the first step. ;)
Khan the Destroyer 05-29-07, 10:16 PM	Yes, with that whopping 10 feet of reach, I'm sure that it's very useful. It is. Depending on the room size or the size of the fighter or the speed and AC of the opponent, it can be extremely effective. Even if there is room to manuever, you may be blocking the most direct way, costing the opponent movement squares. Or, you can threaten a 10' area while your ally (the rogue or cleric) threatens outside of that. Now we have you taking up a 5' square, threatening out to 10' on either side, plus an ally taking up another 5' square to the side of you and threatening another 5' square. The spike chain design is cute, but basically locks the fighter into one style The Spiked Chain can also disarm and is a two-handed weapon. It can also be finessed. Of all the weapons in the PHB, it is arguably one of the most versatile. My original tactical fighter used a Spiked Chain until someone pointed out that you cannot sunder with a piercing weapon. So I swapped it out for a heavy flail. But that was the only issue. And to be honest, I doubt many would have given up the reach for the option to sunder. and the spiked chain isn't a damage machine. It's a two-handed weapon that also facilitates AoO's and tripping. It is definitely a damage machine. You can control a very small piece of a battlefield Which may be enough. Dungeon rooms aren't typically enormous. Are we on a giant field and getting ambushed from far away or something? but unless the terrain or the group is boosting you I'm curious now who we are trying to emulate with the fighter class. Because a typical human warrior would be hard-pressed to even threaten 10' with a chain, let alone whatever you would deem suitable in D&D. or the DM is only throwing easily trippable opponents at you What, like medium humanoids? Blasphemy! (and none of his classed monsters have tumble or are ranged) The fighter doesn't have to be 100% functional at all times. The guy moves at half speed to tumble by? Move 5' on your next turn and full attack with your two-handed reach weapon with power attack. He is pinging you with arrows? Whip out your own bow and fire back. Further, the same argument works for the fighter. 'I'm sure if your DM only throws ginormous 16 legged mobile spellcasting monsters at the fighter, then he will suck.' Flanking really doesn't require a lot of mobility. This has always puzzled me. The rogue arguably has the most to gain from flanking. And the rogue isn't any more mobile than anyone else. I guess the only case you can make is heavy armor, but even at low levels the fighter can't afford it. So either the enemy is too far to trip... or he's just far enough away that only the rogue can reach him to flank?
Khan the Destroyer 05-29-07, 10:29 PM	A Fighter is more of a drain on the party than any other pc class. He requires healing, tactical compensation by the rest of the party when he gets in over his head and magical support just to stay alive. It's almost as if the game were designed to make the classes co-dependent or something, in an effort to encourage 4-player teams and cooperation. Almost as if this were a group game or something. In return he gives what? An extra round worth of attacks the BBEG has to waste before he finishes the party off, usually the last round since the Fighter isn't a big enough threat to worry about killing first and he's too heavily armored to effectively run away. How is lots of HP damage not threatening? Or losing your weapon? Or ending up lying on the ground? Or nauseated? Or dazed? Or sickened? Just because your fighters are not a threat doesn't mean they can't be. Just because your enemies are *so* smart they dismiss the heavily armored and dangerously armed guy that is obviously a competent warrior, doesn't mean all enemies will and should. Your really not playing your enemies intelligently if they all ignore the fighter and attack the wizard. You're really just metagaming on the assumption that the wizard has some uber die-now! spells prepared and the fighter can't deal damage. He can, but not well. A Fighter "assisting" a Rogue in flanking requires the Rogue to position himself (since he's the one with tumble) and likely put himself farther from the safety of the rest of the party. Compare this to the Monk, who can likely Stun the foe (or at least try, as opposed to the Fighter) and move into position for the Rogue, instead of the other way around. So the monk, with inferior damage and to-hit and HP and AC, would be better suited than the fighter for melee? It sounds like in your example the monk is only there to set up a flank. Also, Stunning Fist is a fighter feat. So the fighter could indeed try. This is an even more far fetched example. At this point, the Rogue has dropped two feats (PBS and Precise Shot) into a fighting style that rarely lets him use his best combat ability and requires the presence of a meatshield and a complete lack of flying enemies or ranged attackers to function for more than one round. What kind of Rogues do you play, Bob? ;) You mean you never face opponents that do not fly or use ranged weapons? This scenario could never pan out? And rogues can't be archers? Smart enemies move On their turn. Then they get flanked. If they move again, they may draw AoO's. evade What does this mean? Fly Smart enemies fly? Like... they just will themselves in the air and their superior intelligence makes it so? Why assume that any enemy can fly? or Tumble. What if they don't have ranks in tumble? It is more likely that they don't than that they do. Just like flight. The mere presence of a heavily armored person isn't going to do much stopping. No, it's the mere presence of his sword in your eye that does the stopping. Sorry for the double post.
Kratch 05-29-07, 10:42 PM	A Fighter is more of a drain on the party than any other pc class. He requires healing, tactical compensation by the rest of the party when he gets in over his head and magical support just to stay alive. Umm, the rogue fits the first three of those criteria as much, if not moreso, then the fighter, as does every other class, particularly those filling the melee role. The rogue requires even more tectical compensation from the rest of the party, simply so he can function, and is far more likely to get in over his head. The forth assumption, that the fighter requires magical support simply to survive, is a huge load of ****. khan has provided ample builds that prove otherwise. Those seem to all be very broad generalizations based on unfounded and blatently untrue assumptions. Begs to wonder if you've even read any of the posts that don't have your name in them. In return he gives what? An extra round worth of attacks the BBEG has to waste before he finishes the party off, usually the last round since the Fighter isn't a big enough threat to worry about killing first and he's too heavily armored to effectively run away. An obsticle that can punish any number of actions, consistent damage that is not easily ignored, any number of combat options based on the build, direct intervention to aid his allies, etc etc etc. This has all been addressed in earlier posts, though they haven't all been direct replies to you, so you may have missed them. He can, but not well. A Fighter "assisting" a Rogue in flanking requires the Rogue to position himself (since he's the one with tumble) and likely put himself farther from the safety of the rest of the party. Compare this to the Monk, who can likely Stun the foe (or at least try, as opposed to the Fighter) and move into position for the Rogue, instead of the other way around. Your monk can't stun and then move around unless he has spring attack or is standing beside his opponent at the start of the round. The fighter can just as easily have spring attack (more easily in fact, as he has more feat options), and if the fighter is standing beside the opponent at the start of the round, he can 5ft move to give the rogue a more desirable flanking position, followed by a full attack that generally will significantly outdamage the monk, which leads to a dead opponent faster. Thats saying nothing for the adaptive flanker line of feats (i think thats them), that allows a fighter to flank from any square he threatens, making it that much easier to help the rogue. But wouldn't using that sort of feat prove, by your logic, that the rogue sucks because he's forcing his allies to build to let him do his job? /sarcasm off That's if your foe decides he wants to stay neatly flanked while you and your teammate wail on it. That's a pretty big if. Staying power in melee isn't even a very good example of something the Fighter can do, honestly. Better than the Sorcerer and Wizard? Yeah. Most others, marginally at best. Well, most opponents who get flanked have a very difficult time getting unflanked. If the oppoentnt moves more then 5 ft without a withdrawel, he's getting an AoO from both the fighter and the rogue, while in the flanked position. If he only moves 5 ft, the Rogue simply delays till after the fighter and before the opponent (or goes normally if he's already after the fighter but before the flanked opponent). Fighter moves 5 ft, full attacks, rogue moves 5 ft back into the flank and SA's. Of course, a withdrawel will result in 1 or 2 non-flanking AoO's, but also results in no other action that turn. The only exception is flying opponents and those that tumble, but then, a monk isn't going to help flanking any better against those.
Argaud 05-29-07, 11:01 PM	A Fighter is more of a drain on the party than any other pc class. He requires healing, tactical compensation by the rest of the party when he gets in over his head and magical support just to stay alive. In return he gives what? An extra round worth of attacks the BBEG has to waste before he finishes the party off, usually the last round since the Fighter isn't a big enough threat to worry about killing first and he's too heavily armored to effectively run away. Jeez, you must have seen very awful fighter builds. Normal fighter do not require more healing than rogues or wizards, or more tactical compensation and magical support than any other tank. And if the fighter you have seen is unable to cause severe damage to the BBEG, then he is a poor build. Of course you might mean that the BBEG can miraculously avoid the fighter without expending any action and at the same time blast the rest of the party to tiny bits. How is this possible is beyond me, but it was an argument used 10 pages ago that since creatures like the balor could teleport, and the fighter couldn't, that somehow meant they could teleport and still use standard actions to use slas in the rest of the party. Of course we know this is false, since teleport is the standard action of the round, and the creature just wasted it to "easily" avoid the "unthreatening" fighter. He can also ignore the "unthreatening" fighter. But then the critter generally gets killed by a charge or full attack. So gosh, maybe the fighter wasn't so harmless after all.
Bob Loblaw 05-29-07, 11:18 PM	A Fighter is more of a drain on the party than any other pc class. He requires healing, tactical compensation by the rest of the party when he gets in over his head and magical support just to stay alive. So are all your other characters invincible or something? The fighter gets hit and needs healing. The rogue gets hit and needs healing sooner. The wizards gets hit and needs a res instead. The cleric gets hit and needs healing. I fail to see a point here. Every single class needs magical support to stay alive. Any other assumption and you don't really understand the system. In fact, the melee cleric needs far more magical assistance than the melee fighter. To prove it, make a melee cleric that does not cast a single spell to equal the fighter. In return he gives what? An extra round worth of attacks the BBEG has to waste before he finishes the party off, usually the last round since the Fighter isn't a big enough threat to worry about killing first and he's too heavily armored to effectively run away. Well, let's see. The BBEG spends a round attacking the fighter. That round that the BBEG did not attack the Wizard he was able to cast Gate. The cleric was able to cast Miracle. The rogue was able to get to a flanking position. If you think that getting hit (and that is part of the job) isn't contributing, then you haven't served in combat. That's someone's job. It was mine when I served. My job was to keep everyone else from getting attacked. If the bullets came my way, the medics had time to get to the wounded. The MI guys were able to spend more time getting us intell. That is a serious contribution in combat. He can, but not well. A Fighter "assisting" a Rogue in flanking requires the Rogue to position himself (since he's the one with tumble) and likely put himself farther from the safety of the rest of the party. Compare this to the Monk, who can likely Stun the foe (or at least try, as opposed to the Fighter) and move into position for the Rogue, instead of the other way around. To flank you only need to be on the opposite side of the target. Honestly, anyone can do this. The fighter has some great potential to do this for more than a couple of rounds. Your monk needs to first hit for the Stunning Fist to work. His attack bonus is going to be less than the fighter's. Probably by more than 5 (the base attack). The fighter could also take stunning fist and have a better chance than the monk at pulling this off. Also, what happens when the creature cannot be stunned? This is an even more far fetched example. At this point, the Rogue has dropped two feats (PBS and Precise Shot) into a fighting style that rarely lets him use his best combat ability and requires the presence of a meatshield and a complete lack of flying enemies or ranged attackers to function for more than one round. What kind of Rogues do you play, Bob? ;) First, I rarely play rogues. I prefer fighters and wizards. My fighters keep the monsters in place so that the rogue can use his ranged abilities if he so desires. Your PBS and Precise Shot are only getting you attacked if you are in a threatened area. My fighter can work at melee or range. He can specialize in two weapons. He can master 3 more tactical options. This is sticking with Core. If I leave Core, then I do even more. That's if your foe decides he wants to stay neatly flanked while you and your teammate wail on it. That's a pretty big if. Staying power in melee isn't even a very good example of something the Fighter can do, honestly. Better than the Sorcerer and Wizard? Yeah. Most others, marginally at best. Why isn't staying power valid? You brought up healing. If I have staying power, then I don't need healing as much. Problem addressed. This is patently false if you are up against any but the least organized, horribly misplayed, melee based foes. That's an awful lot of qualifiers, huh? Smart enemies move, evade, Fly or Tumble. The mere presence of a heavily armored person isn't going to do much stopping. If your DM plays every single monster the same way, I can see why you have problems. My DMs play the monsters by their intelligence, common tactics given, and how the party acts. Level 20 kobold wizards and dragons will not fight the same. Balors and level 9 barbarian hill giant dire wereboars will not fight the same. You have to keep in mind that not every opponent flies, tumbles, casts any spells, or has fighter-defeating options. In fact, many have ways to stop your rogue (lich?), deal with your cleric (lich?), handle wizards (lich?). Just to name 1. I could have just as easily said dragon. I could have brought up any number of other creatures. How would your rogue deal with the invisible stalker? Not to mention that the above tactic ties up two pc's, forces one of them to make sub-optimal combat choices (not that the Fighter's really doing any better, but we can dream, right?), and is again assuming the Rogue is taking two (or more) feats specifically for this type of occasion. Frankly, he'd be better off tumbling in and flanking. How is your rogue flanking if he's by himself. You brought up flanking, now you're arguing against it? If you can demonstrate how your rogue flanks solo, I will be greatly impressed. Remember that flanking requires two allies. Also, if you are tumbling in and out, who is the BBEG fighting while you do this? Is he just waiting for you or could the fighter be the one he is dealing with at the moment? I want the Fighter to be good as much as anybody. Unfortunately, it's not. Acceptance is the first step. ;) I have never, in almost 30 years of gaming, had any problems with the fighter. I have never seen any of the core classes fail to fill their roles. I have seen players fail to understand how to play the classes. I have seen DMs build things to make it difficult for certain classes. I have seen DMs use houserules or misinterpret rules in ways that favor or hinder classes, often unintentionally. This applies equally to all classes.
Kalarus 05-30-07, 08:27 AM	I see every point I might've wanted to refute has already been properly done so by various people here so I'll just throw in a few more things. 1) Pun-pun might work in FR setting only, if you stick to official sources. However, people constantly use and refer to setting/theme specific material to make points. PrCs, feats and items from setting-specific material like FR or Eberron. Base classes from setting-specific material. All material published can be optionally introduced into any system and people constantly do so. There's no reason to assume that "something is only balanced in its campaign setting" because every campaign setting shares the same Core rules. The Spell Compendium is FULL of spells from campaign settings, that were given more general names so they could suit any setting. Etc etc etc. Claiming something is setting-specific is really not an argument. 2) Let's try to refrain from creating specific combat situations designed to make class X useless. They're quite frankly a load of bull excrements. You don't hear people claiming that a Wizard is a useless class because he might be in an AMF. Stop designing specific situations where the Fighter does not shine, try to look at what actually happens in D&D. This means that for example: - Not everything is multilegged - Not everything is Large or larger - Not everything is wielding gigantic weapons - Not everything has an int of 5+ - Not everything that does have an int of 5+ necessarily understands combat tactics in general or the party's tactics specifically - Not everything is boosted to the extreme to make Fighters useless. Especially given the vaunted powers of Wizards and Clerics, I'd boost myself to protect myself from whatever *they* could throw at me, to go by some people's reasoning. - Not everything has tumble. This especially goes for supposed all-powerful Cleric opponents, or would you claim that they're walking around in light armor? Perhaps you forgot that you can't Tumble when wearing medium armor or heavier, or a medium load or heavier, so your Cleric really is NOT going to Tumble out of my reach (which incidentally is more often 20ft. on my Fighter build) to avoid my Mage Slayer feat, regardless of his +100 to Tumble. He's going to get his arse sat down on the ground. Forcibly. - Admittedly not every Fighter is wielding a spiked chain, but as stated it's a very versatile weapon and probably one of the best weapon choices in the PHB (I am curious, btw, what other weapons people consider good choices). If every Cleric is going to walk around boosted with DMM Persistent Divine Power, Divine Favor and Righteous Might and every Wizard has the same +Tumble magic item and collection of broken spells, then every Fighter has a spiked chain.
Argaud 05-30-07, 09:11 AM	- Admittedly not every Fighter is wielding a spiked chain, but as stated it's a very versatile weapon and probably one of the best weapon choices in the PHB (I am curious, btw, what other weapons people consider good choices). If every Cleric is going to walk around boosted with DMM Persistent Divine Power, Divine Favor and Righteous Might and every Wizard has the same +Tumble magic item and collection of broken spells, then every Fighter has a spiked chain. This is an interesting question, fact is... there aren’t many good weapons around in D&D. I will probably create a thread in the Equipment and Combat forum soon to toss some ideas about the subject. Meanwhile we have: The spiked chain: Reach, finessable, bonus to disarm, usable for trips. Likely the best weapon, even if requires a feat. The greatsword: because nothing tops the damage of the greatsword. The short sword: likely the best weapon for a two-weapon fighter that does not want to spend feats The morningstar: maybe the best simple weapon because the dual B/P damage. Armor spikes: good for emergencies Composite longbow: best weapon for archers And this is it. Other weapons are taken for flavor reasons or to use some specific feats of doubtful usefulness. I am a bit bothered by the limited choice. (Some would say the fighter is at disadvantage against other classes because the focus/supremacy tree limits them to just one kind weapon. But the truth is that magic weapons are very expensive and most warriors only use one all the time (maybe with backup ranged weapon). And when a warrior loses the main weapon... guess what happens? They pull a backup weapon that is not half as good, but that is usually the same kind of weapon that the first weapon, so all the feats they have for the primary weapon are still applicable.)
runestar 05-30-07, 09:16 AM	2) Let's try to refrain from creating specific combat situations designed to make class X useless. They're quite frankly a load of bull excrements. You don't hear people claiming that a Wizard is a useless class because he might be in an AMF. Stop designing specific situations where the Fighter does not shine, try to look at what actually happens in D&D. Perhaps, but the number of foes in the MM at higher lvs flat out resistant or immune to trip are so numerous it is not even funny, nor does the dm even have to go out of his way to "optimize" a foe against the fighter. The sheer disparities in sizes and physical scores alone (as in the case of the titan, balor or pit-fiend) or simple flight (for dragons) will more than suffice. Such scenarios are much more likely than say, every enemy clad in an AMF, which does not work for huge+ foes anyways. And even then, spellcasters have ample defenses against them, such as the damnable orb spells, gate and a myriad of other spells which eschew sr altogether.:) Conversely, I would find it extremely odd if tripping actually was a viable style of play at higher lvs. This among other things, can only mean that the dm is deliberately catering to the fighter's style of play. Which then does not make it a meaningful comparison anymore. - Not everything has tumble. This especially goes for supposed all-powerful Cleric opponents, or would you claim that they're walking around in light armor? Try no armour at all...:P At higher lvs, a cleric might opt to use a monk's belt instead of wearing fullplate instead if his wisdom score is high enough. This stacks with bracers of armour or a casting of mage armour (available via another arcane spellcaster or the spell domain), so it is actually quite a viable alternative. And I really only need to take the obligatory 1 skill point in it (since it is a trained-only skill), then rely on magic items which grant bonuses to tumble to boost it (since the check is a stagnant dc25). So the cleric's skill point deficiency is not necessarily a stumbling block either.:) - Admittedly not every Fighter is wielding a spiked chain, but as stated it's a very versatile weapon and probably one of the best weapon choices in the PHB (I am curious, btw, what other weapons people consider good choices). If every Cleric is going to walk around boosted with DMM Persistent Divine Power, Divine Favor and Righteous Might and every Wizard has the same +Tumble magic item and collection of broken spells, then every Fighter has a spiked chain. Then have every fighter carry around a spiked chain by all means. I do not deny that a chain-tripper build can be a fairly potent one (the closest the CO boards has come to an "optimized fighter" build is an AoO tripper build), but even that is not without severe limitations of its own. I do not see how a spiked-chain fighter is anywhere remotely near the same league as a properly optimized cleric...:confused:
Argaud 05-30-07, 10:10 AM	Try no armour at all...:P At higher lvs, a cleric might opt to use a monk's belt instead of wearing fullplate instead if his wisdom score is high enough. This stacks with bracers of armour or a casting of mage armour (available via another arcane spellcaster or the spell domain), so it is actually quite a viable alternative. To do that without losing AC the cleric needs at least 32 Wisdom. This likely only at leave 20. It requires starting with 16 (+5 levels, +5 book, +6 item). Starting with Wis 16 is already a bad way to build a melee cleric, it means you can't have high Str or Con at low levels. A cleric would need +11 wisdom to add the +1 of the monk's belt, using bracers of AC +8, to match a full plate +5 (+13 AC) and shield + 5 (+7 AC). Monk's Belt does not work with shields either. This is a dodge bonus, so won't work if the cleric is flatfooted (on the other hand it adds to touch AC). It also means the cleric is giving up using Magic Vestment for armor/shield, a trick that generally him to have the armor and shield full of interesting cheap protective properties beyond the usual +AC bonus.
runestar 05-30-07, 10:18 AM	Good catch on the inability to use a shield - it slipped my mind altogether. :embarrass I guess we will have to rely on dwarven clerics for tumbling, even as the distance sucks. Also - I would like to check on one thing. I seem to recall a spell which grants an insight bonus on your wis score. Does this spell ring a bell for anyone? :confused:
Argaud 05-30-07, 10:32 AM	Also - I would like to check on one thing. I seem to recall a spell which grants an insight bonus on your wis score. Does this spell ring a bell for anyone? :confused: Owls Insight. 5th level. Adds half your level to Wisdom as an insight bonus, for an hour. Broken, broken, broken :) It is a druid spell, though. Of course archivists can use it. Sucks to be a cleric, uh? :D
Bob Loblaw 05-30-07, 10:33 AM	- Admittedly not every Fighter is wielding a spiked chain, but as stated it's a very versatile weapon and probably one of the best weapon choices in the PHB (I am curious, btw, what other weapons people consider good choices). If every Cleric is going to walk around boosted with DMM Persistent Divine Power, Divine Favor and Righteous Might and every Wizard has the same +Tumble magic item and collection of broken spells, then every Fighter has a spiked chain. The rapier is interesting because you can use weapon finesse and power attack with it. The spiked chain is also power attack worthy while still being finessed, plus it's a two-handed weapon which gives it more damage. Bolas are interesting if you want or need ranged tripping without the risk of being tripped yourself. Flails of all types are good for disarming and can be used for tripping. A guisarme is a good choice for a reach weapon that is designed for disarming. The halberd is nice because it is useful against charges and can be used to trip. Gnome hooked hammer is a double weapon you can trip with. The net is nice for grappling without being grappled yourself. The nunchaku is another good choice for disarming. A ranseur is another reach weapon that is also good for disarming. The urgrosh is a nice double weapon that can be useful if used against a charging opponent. It also gives the wielder options against some types of damage reduction without needing a back up weapon (it deals two types of damage). The whip is interesting because it's a reach weapon that can be used against adjacent creatures, can be used to trip, gives bonuses for disarm attempts, and can be used with Weapon Finesse and Power Attack at the same time. The two biggest drawbacks are the attacks of opportunity you incur while using it (a feat or class feature may help overcome this) and the lack of damage especially against foes with armor or natural armor. Perhaps, but the number of foes in the MM at higher lvs flat out resistant or immune to trip are so numerous it is not even funny, nor does the dm even have to go out of his way to "optimize" a foe against the fighter. The sheer disparities in sizes and physical scores alone (as in the case of the titan, balor or pit-fiend) or simple flight (for dragons) will more than suffice. Ignoring the templates and advancing monsters, there are 38 Large Creatures CR 10 and higher, 61 Huge, 8 Gargantuan, and 4 Colossal. Size really isn't an issue since I would only need to find a total of +8 to overcome the size differences. I haven't gone through the Strength scores or looked at things that can't be tripped yet. I will find time though eventually. But since tripping isn't the only option for fighters, I'm not sure why it's brought up as if it is even a primary option. It should be noted that there are other ways to accomplish the same thing without needing to use the trip mechanics which would eliminate the size and strength issues. Such scenarios are much more likely than say, every enemy clad in an AMF, which does not work for huge+ foes anyways. And even then, spellcasters have ample defenses against them, such as the damnable orb spells, gate and a myriad of other spells which eschew sr altogether.:) There are other ways to stop casters as well. I'll admit that AMF is not common because most DMs don't want to go out of their way to target the casters. AMFs also tend to hurt the monsters as well. Some of the most dangerous creatures are more dangerous in an AMF field. Dragons in particular come to mind. Their damage, AC, and hit points don't change but the damage potential of the party certainly does. Casters are subject to the same spells that they cast. If the DM allows casters to use Orbs, then the enemy should use them as well sometimes. The enemy should Gate. The enemy should MDJ. The enemy should be trying to stop the casters rather than let them get their most powerful spells off all the time. Conversely, I would find it extremely odd if tripping actually was a viable style of play at higher lvs. This among other things, can only mean that the dm is deliberately catering to the fighter's style of play. Which then does not make it a meaningful comparison anymore. Why? What if the DM doesn't like using outsiders and dragons all the time to challenge the party? What if the DM prefers templates and advancing monsters? It's not catering, it's game style. If the DM does it just because he wants the fighter to excel, then it's catering. If the DM does it because of preferred game style, then it's not catering. I could say that DMs that allow wizards to scribe spells into their spellbooks without having to pay the 100gp per page are catering to wizards. I could say that DMs who give spellbooks as treasure but forget that the full spellbook is worth 5000gp is catering to the wizards. I could say that the DM that allows the cleric more spells to his list because the player spent $35 on a book instead of having the cleric find a way to get the extra power is catering to the cleric. (I know that the RAW says they know every spell on their list, but I believe that is way to much and unfairly favors the cleric and druid). Try no armour at all...:P At higher lvs, a cleric might opt to use a monk's belt instead of wearing fullplate instead if his wisdom score is high enough. This stacks with bracers of armour or a casting of mage armour (available via another arcane spellcaster or the spell domain), so it is actually quite a viable alternative. And I really only need to take the obligatory 1 skill point in it (since it is a trained-only skill), then rely on magic items which grant bonuses to tumble to boost it (since the check is a stagnant dc25). So the cleric's skill point deficiency is not necessarily a stumbling block either.:) This is something that the fighter can do as well. There is no reason why the fighter must have a low wisdom score. There is also no reason why the fighter must wear full plate. Also, the DC isn't really static. There is a +2 DC increase for each creature after the first you try to tumble past. Then have every fighter carry around a spiked chain by all means. I do not deny that a chain-tripper build can be a fairly potent one (the closest the CO boards has come to an "optimized fighter" build is an AoO tripper build), but even that is not without severe limitations of its own. I do not see how a spiked-chain fighter is anywhere remotely near the same league as a properly optimized cleric...:confused: I don't think anyone is trying to say that they are the same. I think that we are trying to say that the build is not useless. The fighter can be built to fill his role well. He doesn't have to be as all mighty as the cleric to still be a decent fighter.
Clawhound 05-30-07, 10:36 AM	You can add: Sap - nonlethal damage Trident - one-handed reach Javelin - at low levels, cheap way to add strength bonus to damage
Kalarus 05-30-07, 11:26 AM	Cool, didn't expect so many interesting responses this quickly. Sadly I have to run soon so just a quick post. I'll get into more some responses in a more detailed manner when I get back tonight. Now for being sarcastic. :P So far, every Cleric: 1) Uses the same broken spells 2) Has a crapload of Nightsticks 3) Uses persistent DMM on at least 3 boost spells 4) Is a dwarf 5) Has tumble item(s) 6) Has 11 nonslotted items to give most of the Fighter bonus feat set 7) Has a ring of freedom of movement to prevent grappling 8) Has a Monk's Belt 9) Has a +5 inherent bonus to his Wis due to book or Wish spells 10) Has a +6 enhancement to Wisdom item 11) Is never actually going to be your opponent because at high levels, all you face are large+ creatures with reach that are immune to trip and have only natural weapons. Did I miss anything? :P
Otto the Bugbear 05-30-07, 12:41 PM	Did I miss anything? :P Only the same sarcastic (:ayyyy!: ) list done for the fighter. You know... Spiked chain or that relic weapon Khan grabbed. Same enhancement and inherent bonuses except for Str. Mage Slayer, Steadfast Determination, and all those feats that get repeated in the argument, over and over and over. The custom item of enlarge person etc. If nothing else, it'll be fun to point out the ridiculousness on both sides of the fence. ;)
Scion of Coldshard 05-30-07, 01:21 PM	Gone for a few days and the thread explodes! ;) Lots of good stuff added in, along with some bad. Might spend some time later going over a bit of each. I did have a couple of immediate questions though. Trident - one-handed reach I cant find any reference making this true. It is a weapon that can be thrown and set vs charges, but where are you getting reach from? For the spiked chain though it makes for an interesting character build but that character definately takes a hit in the damage dealing department. It is a two handed weapon that is 2d4 20x2. You can get most of the same benefits with greater damage and less feat cost by simply using a normal reach weapon and good use of 5' steps and other movement tricks. Unless there are specific tricks or tactics in mind where moving is a problem just go with the less-costly-yet-strangely-more-damaging option ;)
Clawhound 05-30-07, 01:32 PM	12. Cleric gates in an Uber Creature and then goes to the pub for a pint.
Kratch 05-30-07, 02:08 PM	Perhaps, but the number of foes in the MM at higher lvs flat out resistant or immune to trip are so numerous it is not even funny, nor does the dm even have to go out of his way to "optimize" a foe against the fighter. The sheer disparities in sizes and physical scores alone (as in the case of the titan, balor or pit-fiend) or simple flight (for dragons) will more than suffice. care to list a few, see if the numbers actually stand up against those in one of the trip builds (ether from khan or the CO boards.). Cause the ones you listed don't cut it. balor and pit fiend are both easily trippable by any of the trip builds i've seen, and i think khans build was able to trip the titan fairly consistently (can find any of them, you don't happen to have links to your older builds, do you khan?). Also note, your dragon example is wrong, only limbless flight is immune to trip, dragons fly with the use of they're wings (AKA limbs) and therefor are trippable. This mistake may have something to do with your perception of tripping being useless. But then again, a trip based fighter who loses access to his trip tactic still has up to 18 other feats (20th level human) to work with. Such scenarios are much more likely than say, every enemy clad in an AMF, which does not work for huge+ foes anyways. And even then, spellcasters have ample defenses against them, such as the damnable orb spells, gate and a myriad of other spells which eschew sr altogether.:) Last i checked, the damnable orb spells working in AMF was still contested. (this may have since been resolved since last i was here. I skip out for several weeks at a time, then return for a while). If it is in fact still debated, then it can't really be argued as a reliable defence, as, for those in groups that fall on the don't allow it side of the debate, it isn't. As for gate, thats available for only 3 of the 9 (give or take) levels AMF is a potential threat. (Additionally, as it is used as a defence against almost any ecounter, got to wonder if you'll still have one when you need it) That also doesn't seem like a very reliable defence.
Scion of Coldshard 05-30-07, 04:44 PM	care to list a few, see if the numbers actually stand up against those in one of the trip builds Arguably either feather fall or catfall could save you from a trip (catfall much more explicitly than feather fall) in case that helps any. ;) Last i checked, the damnable orb spells working in AMF was still contested. The orb spells have so many issues over so many parts of the game it is silly ;/ I do believe that they are instantaneous creation spells though and thereby 'nonmagical' by the rules unless the spell says otherwise. Probably best to ignore them though, bah orbs ;/
Kalarus 05-30-07, 04:47 PM	Only the same sarcastic (:ayyyy!: ) list done for the fighter. You know... Spiked chain or that relic weapon Khan grabbed. Same enhancement and inherent bonuses except for Str. Mage Slayer, Steadfast Determination, and all those feats that get repeated in the argument, over and over and over. The custom item of enlarge person etc. If nothing else, it'll be fun to point out the ridiculousness on both sides of the fence. ;) Incidentally, where can I find Steadfast Determination? Yeah I'm sure it's fun to make a similar list for the Fighter but there's a strange difference here. Those things listed make the Fighter good at what he does. The things I listed for a Cleric, make a Cleric a Fighter with incidentally neverfailing broken spellcasting. To do so, the Cleric invests a load of cash to achieve two things: 1) Become a Fighter 2) Avoid Fighters. The second point seems most amusing to me. I don't really want to do the math right now but the 11 nonslotted items alone were 264k. Fighters suck so much that Clerics spend apparently a huge load of their cash to become one, and spend the rest of their cash trying to avoid Fighters. In order to become a drain on the Cleric's income, all a Fighter has to do is: Wield a spiked chain. Enlarge is optional. Have the Mage Slayer feat. Easy enough. Have combat expertise and improved trip. Possibly improved disarm. Alternatively improved grapple. Also easy enough. Let's say, one goes for the tripper. That's exotic weapon proficiency, mage slayer, combat expertise and improved trip. Which is to say that a Cleric has to spend a significant portion of cash (which he likely doesn't have) when the Fighter reaches... *Gasp*, L3 :P. At that point a Cleric has *grabs DMG* 2700 gp. The rest for the Fighter is expanding and optimizing his combat tactics. For the Cleric it is trying more and more to become a Fighter and some day getting truly broken spells. Really now, the Gate argument? *yawn*. I've played D&D since highschool, that's about... 12 years ago that I started. Want to know how many characters I've played of L15+? One. Because we decided it might be fun to each try to optimize a L20 character and slug it out in a "last man standing" combat session. The rest never made it high enough for various reasons. By the way, AMF is not SR. Orb spells working in AMF? I hope you have a really really good argument for that and not "It isn't affected by spell resistance so it isn't affected by AMF either."
Argaud 05-30-07, 05:00 PM	Incidentally, where can I find Steadfast Determination? PHB2 page 83
Kalarus 05-30-07, 05:03 PM	Arguably either feather fall or catfall could save you from a trip (catfall much more explicitly than feather fall) in case that helps any. ;) The orb spells have so many issues over so many parts of the game it is silly ;/ I do believe that they are instantaneous creation spells though and thereby 'nonmagical' by the rules unless the spell says otherwise. Probably best to ignore them though, bah orbs ;/ I am not familiar with Catfall, where's it from? Feather fall saving you from a Trip? My friend, if you believe Feather fall does that, *you're* on a trip and please give me some. A feather falling creature falls at 60 ft. per round. How high do you think you are when you get tripped by a Fighter? For that matter, there's nothing in the feather fall description that suggests you don't get yanked out of position when tripped. Tripped makes you prone on the ground, if you're not on the ground, you're falling in prone position. Either way you'll have to recover. As for the Orb spells, I read their type and reread the Conjuration(Creation effects). There's something inconsistent about Orbs and that paragraph: "If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence." 1) Orbs have no material component, so the elemental orb is in fact created through the spell, not assembled. The likely reason why Orb spells are instantaneous is so that people don't start thinking the spell does damage for multiple rounds when it hits. 2) Even though it is a Conjuration (Creation) effect, the Orb does not last indefinitely. You can't hold it, you can't put it in a jar. You can only toss it at an enemy, after which it vanishes. I don't know why the spells are Summoning to begin with, likely to provide alternatives for Evocation damage spells. The creation type is likely because the energy used is created on the spot, and using other Conjuration spell types would allow you to create an orb anywhere within range, rather than requiring it to hit on a ranged touch. and thanks for the Steadfast Determination reference, Argaud. Looks useful.
aelryinth 05-30-07, 05:13 PM	Incidentally, where can I find Steadfast Determination? Yeah I'm sure it's fun to make a similar list for the Fighter but there's a strange difference here. Those things listed make the Fighter good at what he does. The things I listed for a Cleric, make a Cleric a Fighter with incidentally neverfailing broken spellcasting. To do so, the Cleric invests a load of cash to achieve two things: 1) Become a Fighter 2) Avoid Fighters. The second point seems most amusing to me. I don't really want to do the math right now but the 11 nonslotted items alone were 264k. Fighters suck so much that Clerics spend apparently a huge load of their cash to become one, and spend the rest of their cash trying to avoid Fighters. In order to become a drain on the Cleric's income, all a Fighter has to do is: Wield a spiked chain. Enlarge is optional. Have the Mage Slayer feat. Easy enough. Have combat expertise and improved trip. Possibly improved disarm. Alternatively improved grapple. Also easy enough. Let's say, one goes for the tripper. That's exotic weapon proficiency, mage slayer, combat expertise and improved trip. Which is to say that a Cleric has to spend a significant portion of cash (which he likely doesn't have) when the Fighter reaches... *Gasp*, L3 :P. At that point a Cleric has *grabs DMG* 2700 gp. The rest for the Fighter is expanding and optimizing his combat tactics. For the Cleric it is trying more and more to become a Fighter and some day getting truly broken spells. Really now, the Gate argument? *yawn*. I've played D&D since highschool, that's about... 12 years ago that I started. Want to know how many characters I've played of L15+? One. Because we decided it might be fun to each try to optimize a L20 character and slug it out in a "last man standing" combat session. The rest never made it high enough for various reasons. By the way, AMF is not SR. Orb spells working in AMF? I hope you have a really really good argument for that and not "It isn't affected by spell resistance so it isn't affected by AMF either." Orb spells were designed specifically to give something for spellcasters to do against things with unbeatable SR (like golems). They do indeed ignore AMF fields...just like, say, Walls of Stone, they are non-magical once they come into existence. Not sure where you are going with the Spiked Chain argument. Sure, it's the only really useful exotic weapon out there. But most of the posters here can tell you the whole trip/disarm thing becomes less and less important as you level unless you get more and more size increases of your own to offset the advantages of the increasingly big/strong enemies you get...and focusing on trips means you aren't focusing on damage, where a cleric builds excels at damage. And all them feats you grabbed mean you need at least a 13 In Int, which takes down some other stat, you've spent skill ranks on cross-class skills, and you've got a sub-par damage weapon which is basically screaming to the enemy "Shoot me from back there!" And then you are arguing about the low level game...which is silly. No one has made the contention that the Fighter is crap at levels 1-5. Any melee class that gives full BAB and good armor is perfectly fine at levels 1-5. After that, however, the Fighter starts to rapidly lose his luster, and by level 10 is completely overshadowed by better career choices. ===Aelryinth
Kratch 05-30-07, 05:18 PM	Arguably either feather fall or catfall could save you from a trip (catfall much more explicitly than feather fall) in case that helps any. ;) Nether of those effects, wether they indeed help against tripping or not, help, in any way, support his assertion that the number of creatures that are virtually immune to tripping in the MM is numerous. In fact, there are few, if any creatures in the MM that have those abilities. I don't see why someone who apparently claims inpartiality felt the need to attempt to correct me with evidence that is in no way relevent. The orb spells have so many issues over so many parts of the game it is silly ;/ I do believe that they are instantaneous creation spells though and thereby 'nonmagical' by the rules unless the spell says otherwise. Hence why there is the side that says they work. However, there is also an argument for why they don't work (last i heard). I honestly think the side for 'they do work" is stronger by RAW, but there is enough to make the ruleing controvertial, as such, i feel it should be considered to a degree, but can not be held up as any kind of ample defence. Probably best to ignore them though, bah orbs ;/ It would be nice, but some gameing groups do allow them to be used as such, so they can be mentioned, just not relied apon. If the effects of something is in controversy, one should acknowledge both sides and rely on nether IMHO. EDIT: Orb spells were designed specifically to give something for spellcasters to do against things with unbeatable SR (like golems). They do indeed ignore AMF fields...just like, say, Walls of Stone, they are non-magical once they come into existence. Thats a debate for another thread (there was one a while ago, wether it actually got resolved, died out or is still going, i'm not entirely sure. If it indeed got resolved, so be it. I'd like to see what ever happened to that debate, shame about the no search feature)
Scion of Coldshard 05-30-07, 05:18 PM	I am not familiar with Catfall, where's it from? Expanded psionics handbook. 3.5 psionics. Feather fall saving you from a Trip? I did say arguably ;) Feather fall states: You can cast this spell with an instant utterance, quickly enough to save yourself if you unexpectedly fall. Catfall: You land on your feet no matter how far you fall Feather fall I feel could go either way, catfall however... There's something inconsistent about Orbs and that paragraph: The orbs are inconsistent and poorly made in a lot of ways ;) We could discuss this a lot here but this thread is more for other things.. but then it has gone so off topic in so many ways why not? Magic could pull the required stuff from other parts of the cosmos, or just create it wholecloth, the difference isnt very important here I think. But being instantaneous and creation effects they would indeed be sitting there afterwards. What does that mean? Who knows! It doesnt look to be very well defined. Give each of your kids a 'ball of force' to play with, at least they wont destroy it and need another toy later on. Be careful about 'unstoppable forces' and 'immovable object' type scenarios though, they can occasionally destroy the world. They definately look to fall under evocation a lot better than anything else though. And it isnt like evocation needs anything else to steal its abilities anymore than they already have :(
Scion of Coldshard 05-30-07, 05:25 PM	Nether of those effects, wether they indeed help against tripping or not, help, in any way, support his assertion that the number of creatures that are virtually immune to tripping in the MM is numerous. I wasnt trying to give or take away support from his position. I was merely presenting them as extra options that might be overlooked ;) At some point someone in this thread did mention giving lots of creatures various levels and templates and whatnot. I suppose it could easily fall under that. A couple levels of psychic warrior is a good addition to many monsters right? Hence why there is the side that says they work. I am afraid I havent seen many of the threads going over it. That was just what I remembered about the spells. Do you have a link to a good thread about them? I have no problem moving comments about them to a more appropriate place ;) It would be nice, but some gameing groups do allow them to be used as such, so they can be mentioned, just not relied apon. If the effects of something is in controversy, one should acknowledge both sides and rely on nether IMHO. Personally, I feel that most any fighter type build would be pretty well off picking up shield ward from the phb2. That would certainly help vs the orbs!
Kratch 05-30-07, 05:36 PM	... I did say arguably ;) ... If trip ever uttered the word "fall" in it's description, i may consider you having a point to argue. But as trip never mentions "fall" (not even in the form of, "the victom falls prome", they word it, "the victom becomes prone"), I don't think ether would work.
Kalarus 05-30-07, 05:38 PM	Orb spells were designed specifically to give something for spellcasters to do against things with unbeatable SR (like golems). They do indeed ignore AMF fields...just like, say, Walls of Stone, they are non-magical once they come into existence. Would you care to specify where you gained this knowledge about the intent of the designers? Orb spells are in no way similar to Walls of Stone or anything else. Or perhaps you'd like to seriously argue that you can spend a few days creating Orbs, stow them in your backpack (or perhaps create a special orb-scabbard-thinghy :P) to be retrieved later, because once created, they're permanent? Not sure where you are going with the Spiked Chain argument. Sure, it's the only really useful exotic weapon out there. But most of the posters here can tell you the whole trip/disarm thing becomes less and less important as you level unless you get more and more size increases of your own to offset the advantages of the increasingly big/strong enemies you get...and focusing on trips means you aren't focusing on damage, where a cleric builds excels at damage. That's been addressed so many times the only thing I can say is "read more previous posts". And all them feats you grabbed mean you need at least a 13 In Int, which takes down some other stat, you've spent skill ranks on cross-class skills, and you've got a sub-par damage weapon which is basically screaming to the enemy "Shoot me from back there!" Yeah, I have 13 in int, that's going to cost me heavily in my charisma... :confused:. Spent ranks on cross-class skills: a whopping 4 skill points for 2 ranks in spellcraft. I've heard it repeatedly stated that the Fighter has nearly no useful skills anyway, so why NOT invest in cross-class skills? Sub-par damage weapon? Compared to? The 2 extra average damage from a greatsword? :rofl: As for shooting from "back there", please provide me with melee classes that do not have the same problem. If you want to start yelling "Cleric!", it makes me wonder why some Clerics try so hard to be Fighters, when their spells are undeniably more powerful than anything the party gets. The "You should all play Clerics" argument has also been discussed in previous posts. And then you are arguing about the low level game...which is silly. No one has made the contention that the Fighter is crap at levels 1-5. Any melee class that gives full BAB and good armor is perfectly fine at levels 1-5. After that, however, the Fighter starts to rapidly lose his luster, and by level 10 is completely overshadowed by better career choices. ===Aelryinth People argue about the high level game, which is equally silly in that regard. My Fighter is level 10 currently, and performs very well. He's fun, versatile, and guess what, compared to equal level opponents/monsters, he's in fact powerful. That is all you really need. The Class X replaces Class Y argument has been so thoroughly refuted and shown to be inconsistent it's not even funny anymore.
Kalarus 05-30-07, 05:46 PM	Expanded psionics handbook. 3.5 psionics. I did say arguably ;) Feather fall states: Catfall: Feather fall I feel could go either way, catfall however... Nobody in my group(s) owns the Complete Psionics handbook, we don't use psionics. It's a bit difficult for me to comment on things I can't read up on ;). Well I suppose I could read the SRD apparently, glancing over your post again, but it's still not a relevant ability for any of the games I play in. No psi, no catfalling. Incidentally, you can trip a cat ;) Either way, Kratch is right, Trip (PHB 158) mentions nothing about falling. It simply states "If you win you trip the defender." and "A tripped character is prone." Feather fall might help, yeah, in the sense that the part about "saving yourself" regards the casting time, not the effect of the spell. The effects of the spell state you fall at 60 ft. per round and take no damage when falling. So be happy you had feather fall on, or you could've had a bruise when you got tripped! :P
Scion of Coldshard 05-30-07, 05:58 PM	Nobody in my group(s) owns the Complete Psionics handbook, we don't use psionics. It's a bit difficult for me to comment on things I can't read up on ;). Well I suppose I could read the SRD apparently, glancing over your post again, but it's still not a relevant ability for any of the games I play in. No psi, no catfalling. Free on the web does kindof defeat the 'cant read up on' arguement ;) Either way, Kratch is right, Trip (PHB 158) mentions nothing about falling. It simply states "If you win you trip the defender." and "A tripped character is prone." He has a reasonable interpretation as presented, but I have a different interpretation and so have a different conclusion. No matter how one goes about it there is some falling in there somewhere, it just isnt far enough to trigger the falling damage rules in most cases. Much in the same way that creatures who are 'knocked down' or have a rug pulled out from under them or other similar ways of getting into the prone position. I also dont allow people to be tripped usefully while using the 'standing up' option. If anyone feels that hoses fighters then so be it. Feather fall might help, yeah, in the sense that the part about "saving yourself" regards the casting time, not the effect of the spell. The effects of the spell state you fall at 60 ft. per round and take no damage when falling. I quoted part of the effect of the spell actually, the spell has more than a single line of effect after all ;) Ray of enfeeblement is another interesting example of a spell that is generally used for one thing but has an odd quirk that allows it to be used in a likely quite unintended way. I certainly do not fault my players for picking up on it and using it in the other way however. Speaking of ray of enfeeblement though, that is another good reason for shield ward for the fighter types ;/
Seerow 05-30-07, 06:12 PM	re: topic Yes there is, but only if the fighter is masterwork (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=728493) Btw I'm baaack. Who missed me?
Kalarus 05-30-07, 06:13 PM	He has a reasonable interpretation as presented, but I have a different interpretation and so have a different conclusion. No matter how one goes about it there is some falling in there somewhere, it just isnt far enough to trigger the falling damage rules in most cases. Much in the same way that creatures who are 'knocked down' or have a rug pulled out from under them or other similar ways of getting into the prone position. I also dont allow people to be tripped usefully while using the 'standing up' option. If anyone feels that hoses fighters then so be it. I quoted part of the effect of the spell actually, the spell has more than a single line of effect after all ;) Well if the cause of you falling is having your feet yanked from underneath you (which is what tripping seems to be to me) it seems strange that Feather Fall teleports you into an upright position again and then gently sets you down on the ground. I took the liberty of rereading Feather Fall again before I commented on it to make sure I missed nothing, so yes I did read the entire spell description. The paragraph you quote from exclusively deals with Feather Fall's casting time and casting timing. Your interpretation of Feather Fall makes the description contradictory, since, like I said, Feather fall gives you a falling rate of 60 feet per second and you take no damage on landing. Nowhere does it say that you actually save yourself by not falling in the first place. In fact it says the opposite: you fall 60 feet per round. You're absolutely right when the spell's description has more than a single line, it has also more than the "quickly enough to save yourself" bit. Ray of enfeeblement is another interesting example of a spell that is generally used for one thing but has an odd quirk that allows it to be used in a likely quite unintended way. I certainly do not fault my players for picking up on it and using it in the other way however. Speaking of ray of enfeeblement though, that is another good reason for shield ward for the fighter types ;/ Shield ward is probably a useful feat yeah, I am currently looking at investing some cash for an animated shield, extra touch AC is always useful. As for the Ray of Enfeeblement, I didn't see it before but taking a peek at it I am guessing you mean that the spell description states "You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to strike a target" instead of "You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to strike the target". Given the duration of 1 min/level, you could interpret the words in such a fashion that for 1 min/level you are wielding a ray allowing you to make touch attacks up to 25ft. + 5ft./2 levels, with each attack giving 1d6+1 per two caster levels of strength penalty to the target. I certainly would fault my players for reading this if I were the DM, because given that I would be the DM, I decide how things are to be interpreted, not they. The spell would obviously be ridiculously powerful for its level, even being above par with higher level stat reduction spells. Want to have fun with creative interpretations? Most living creatures are immune to Ray of Enfeeblement and in fact, pretty much every similar spell out there. The statblock says "Effect: Ray". Since we're creatively interpreting spell descriptions, I read that as "This spell only affects people named Ray". If you're not named Ray as a truename, you're immune. :P :D
Scion of Coldshard 05-30-07, 06:39 PM	Well if the cause of you falling is having your feet yanked from underneath you (which is what tripping seems to be to me) it seems strange that Feather Fall teleports you into an upright position again and then gently sets you down on the ground. No teleportation necissary, but magic does do some pretty weird things! A wall of pure flame that only projects heat in one direction? What is up with that? ;) The paragraph you quote from exclusively deals with Feather Fall's casting time and casting timing. Exclusively? No, but it does talk about what an immediate action is in the next line. The first part says you can cast it quickly enough to save yourself from an unexpected fall. I suppose one could say that it is expected to be tripped by a tripper, but that is cutting the hair a little too finely for me ;) Your interpretation of Feather Fall makes the description contradictory Why? It sounds like you are saying that if you cast it when you fall 5' then you are using it in a way that makes itself contradictory and I do not see that as being the case. You are not saving yourself from the fall itself, you are just saving yourself from some of its negative consequences. Which really, that is what the spell is for, to save you from a falls negative consequences. It can be used in a number of other utility ways though. I am fully aware that people could come to other conclusions and use it differently, but I see no reason to disallow this use of the spell. Shield ward is probably a useful feat yeah, I am currently looking at investing some cash for an animated shield, extra touch AC is always useful. Ahh animated shield, at some point this thread or another incarnation of it will get down to using every broken/overpowered item and feat in existance. I am all in favor of tossing out overpowered/broken spells along with overpowered/broken items and feats ;) Sadly enough, even though I recomend using shield ward it would probably be on the list of things that should go. As for the Ray of Enfeeblement, I didn't see it before but taking a peek at it I am guessing you mean that the spell description states "You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to strike a target" instead of "You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to strike the target". Given the duration of 1 min/level, you could interpret the words in such a fashion that for 1 min/level you are wielding a ray allowing you to make touch attacks up to 25ft. + 5ft./2 levels, with each attack giving 1d6+1 per two caster levels of strength penalty to the target. Nah, I wouldnt allow anyone to try anything like that. Rays are very particular in their use so it would not be allowed by the RAW anyway. For the actual bit I was talking about look at the last line. Notice that it is independent of the previous line plus it does not say something like, 'from this spell' or something similar. In essence, if one wishes you can give a creature immunity from being str drained to death via shadows! I am completely ok with that and encourage creative solutions to problems whenever I can.
Kratch 05-30-07, 06:45 PM	He has a reasonable interpretation as presented, but I have a different interpretation and so have a different conclusion. No matter how one goes about it there is some falling in there somewhere, it just isnt far enough to trigger the falling damage rules in most cases. Much in the same way that creatures who are 'knocked down' or have a rug pulled out from under them or other similar ways of getting into the prone position. by adding in the addition of "falling" to the equation of going prone, one can surmise that the person under the influence of ether spell is also immune to grease and any other effect (be it magical or simply a thin beam they are trying to cross) that requires a balance check, as, if they fail, they can simply save themselves with the effect and place themselves neatly back on they're feet. I also dont allow people to be tripped usefully while using the 'standing up' option. If anyone feels that hoses fighters then so be it. Thats within the rules. Standing up provokes an AoO. when an action provokes an AoO, the AoO is performs prior to the completetion of the action. If the AoO provoked by standing up is performed prior to the completion of standing up, the end result will be an attack, then the completion of the standing up motion, AKA you stand up. PS. Hey Seerow, Just came back a few days ago myself. Mostly same arguments, some new twists to the rebutales i think, though.
Kalarus 05-30-07, 07:20 PM	No teleportation necissary, but magic does do some pretty weird things! A wall of pure flame that only projects heat in one direction? What is up with that? ;) Difference with Feather Fall: the heat projection effect is unambigously described in the spell description, unlike weird teleporty effects in Feather Fall :P Exclusively? No, but it does talk about what an immediate action is in the next line. The first part says you can cast it quickly enough to save yourself from an unexpected fall. Operating word: "quickly". Descriptor of time-related effects. I suppose one could say that it is expected to be tripped by a tripper, but that is cutting the hair a little too finely for me ;) Eh? That's fine, I don't even need to contest that for any of my points to work. Why? It sounds like you are saying that if you cast it when you fall 5' then you are using it in a way that makes itself contradictory and I do not see that as being the case. Huh? I'm not saying that, that must be that miraculous creative interpretation talent of yours again :P . I'm saying that you should read the entire spell description as its effects, not a single part of a paragraph, which is something you agreed with (as per your own words). Let's take some more spell description lines from Feather Fall out of context and see what we get: "The affected creatures or objects fall slowly". So if you weren't falling before, you are now. Oh look, you just made your balance check. *casts "feater fall"* and now you're falling. "A Large creature or object counts as two Medium creatures or objects". Cast feather fall now to improve your trading rates in creatures or objects. Two for the price of one! "You can cast this spell with an instant utterance". The verbal component of Feather fall is "instant". In fact, you don't even need to memorize it, as the spell specifically describes you can cast it by saying "instant". "This spell has no special effect on ranged weapons unless they're falling quite a distance". So if you drop your magic composite longbow worth 100k gold down into a deep ravine, you can save it if you wait long enough for the object to be "quite a distance" away. If it doesn't fall long enough to qualify for "quite a distance" but far enough that it might break from the fall, tough cookie. "Feather fall works only on free falling objects". In other words, it doesn't work on free falling creatures. "You can cast this spell with an instant utterance, quickly enough to save yourself if you unexpectedly fall." So no jumping off a cliff and falling expectantly, because feather fall won't save you. The sillyness continues. ;) You are not saving yourself from the fall itself, you are just saving yourself from some of its negative consequences. Which really, that is what the spell is for, to save you from a falls negative consequences. It can be used in a number of other utility ways though. That's not what it says though. It says "You can cast this spell with an instant utterance, quickly enough to save yourself if you unexpectedly fall." This means that you can cast the spell quickly enough to save yourself, which means that if you want to save yourself, you can cast the spell and the spell effects will work. The spell effects (on a person) are described as a falling rate of 60 feet per round, and no falling damage when landing. The spell effects are not described as "protects from trip attempts". I am fully aware that people could come to other conclusions and use it differently, but I see no reason to disallow this use of the spell. Other than that the effect you believe it to have is nowhere described. But huh? Fine. Let's keep this one in mind for a second. Ahh animated shield, at some point this thread or another incarnation of it will get down to using every broken/overpowered item and feat in existance. I am all in favor of tossing out overpowered/broken spells along with overpowered/broken items and feats ;) Sadly enough, even though I recomend using shield ward it would probably be on the list of things that should go. If I would list one of the things that should go it would be interpretations of feather fall protecting from trip. However, reading broken feats/items, I do not consider them broken. I am fully aware that people could come to other conclusions and use it differently, but I see no reason to disallow this use of the spell.. err, I mean feat. Item. Thing. :P Nah, I wouldnt allow anyone to try anything like that. Rays are very particular in their use so it would not be allowed by the RAW anyway. Given your level of creative interpretation, I am surprised you actually claim that something like RAW exists. I stick by my interpretation of "spell grants ray attacks for one minute per level". I am fully aware that people could come to other conclusions and use it differently, but I see no reason to disallow this use of the spell. For the actual bit I was talking about look at the last line. Notice that it is independent of the previous line plus it does not say something like, 'from this spell' or something similar. In essence, if one wishes you can give a creature immunity from being str drained to death via shadows! I am completely ok with that and encourage creative solutions to problems whenever I can. Ah yes, that line. I missed that particular creative interpretation of the spell effect. Does such an effect constitute a L1 spell? Debatable. I assume you're the DM of your group by your choice of words, so if you want to allow it that's fine. I doubt you can expect much agreement on your method of interpretation however. Really now, all sillyness aside, deconstruction may be an interesting thing if you're studying Hermeneutics, but following that road there is no meaning left in words at all as nobody, not even the writers of the books, would know exactly what was meant when the words were written. I completely fail to see the need to introduce more ambiguity in a gaming system which is meant to be worked with consistently, when consistency has not been achieved and the game is ambiguous enough by itself without any deliberate attempts to add more.
Khan the Destroyer 05-30-07, 10:07 PM	This is an interesting question, fact is... there aren’t many good weapons around in D&D. I will probably create a thread in the Equipment and Combat forum soon to toss some ideas about the subject. Meanwhile we have: I would also add the Heavy Flail. It does decent damage, and is two-handed for power attack goodness. A decent crit range, and a bonus to disarm with the option to trip. I like it. My only gripe about the flail (all 3 versions) is that they only do bludgeoning type damage, when it seems to me that they should do both bludgeoning and piercing. I also like the rapier. It's finessable and has a great crit range. Also, you can power attack with it. Perhaps, but the number of foes in the MM at higher lvs flat out resistant or immune to trip are so numerous it is not even funny But they aren't immune. If the fighter can keep up with size changes, it's not so bad. A large fighter (Permanent Enlarge spell) can manuever Huge creatures or smaller (like the Titan, Blaor, Pit Fiend, and any classed NPC's). After getting that size, you just need an optimized modifier. And what player isn't going to optimize his character to do what he's supposed to do? nor does the dm even have to go out of his way to "optimize" a foe against the fighter. The sheer disparities in sizes and physical scores alone (as in the case of the titan, balor or pit-fiend) or simple flight (for dragons) will more than suffice. Titans, Balors, and Pit Fiends are truly nothing special when it comes to resisting trips or bull rushes (perhaps the Titan may give some resistance because of his mighty strength, but it can still be done). And dragons? Dragons are supposed to be incredibly difficult opponents. What fighter in his right mind is going to go into a dragon fight thinking he is going to trip it? Rogue: Fighter what do you think? Fighter: Well, I was thinking that I could go up first and trip the dragon with my chain. While it is sprawled on the ground, you guys can come up and hurt it. If he wriggles too much, I'll just hold him down with a grapple check. Rogue: :confused: You know... Spiked chain or that relic weapon Khan grabbed. It's a belt. And of all my fighter builds, only the tactical fighter has it. Half-Orc Brute 1. Weapon Focus (Morningstar), Power Attack 2. Improved Bull Rush 3. Improved Sunder 4. Weapon Specialization (Morningstar) 6. Shock Trooper, Combat Brute 8. Melee Weapon Mastery (Piercing) 9. Cleave 10. Brutal Strike 12. Greater Weapon Focus (Morningstar), Greater Weapon Specialization (Morningstar) 14. Driving Attack 15. Three Mountains 16. Combat Focus 18. Combat Vigor, Weapon Supremacy 20. Combat Stability Valenar Cavalryman 1. Weapon Focus (Double Scimitar), Bladebearer of the Valenar 2. Mounted Combat 3. Spirit of the Stallion 4. Ride-by Attack 6. Spirited Charge, Two-Weapon Fighting 8. Weapon Specialization 9. Weapon Mastery 10. Mounted Archery 12. Leadership, Improved Mounted Archery 14. Point Blank Shot 15. Precise Shot 16. Improved Two-Weapon Fighting 18. Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization 20. Greater Two-Weapon Fighting Build 1: Bull Rush/Trip/Sunder/Disarm/Power Attack/Charges/AoO's/Archery 1. Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Power Attack 2. Improved Bull Rush 3. Improved Disarm 4. Improved Sunder 5. 6. Combat Brute, Shock Trooper 7. 8. Combat Reflexes 9. True Believer: Kord 10. Knockdown 11. 12. Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot 13. 14. Robilar's Gambit 15. Knockback 16. Deft Opportunist 17. 18. Expert Tactician, Rapid Shot 19. 20. Leap Attack Build 2: Bull Rush, Sunder, Trip, Disarm, Power Attack, Charges, Weapon Mastery, Archery 1. Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Power Attack 2. Improved Bull Rush 3. Weapon Focus: Heavy Flail 4. Improved Sunder 5. 6. Combat Brute, Shock Trooper 7. 8. Weapon Specialization 9. True Believer: Kord 10. Knockdown 11. 12. Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot 13. 14. Melee Weapon Mastery 15. Improved Disarm 16. Greater Weapon Focus 17. 18. Greater Weapon Specialization, Weapon Supremacy 19. 20. Rapid Shot Build 3: Bull Rush, Trip, Sunder, Disarm, Charges, TWF, AoO's, Archery 1. Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Power Attack 2. Improved Bull Rush 3. Knockdown 4. Improved Sunder 5. 6. Combat Brute, Shock Trooper 7. 8. Two-Weapon Fighting 9. True Believer: Kord 10. Knockback 11. 12. Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot 13. 14. Improved Two-Weapon Fighting 15. Improved Disarm 16. Combat Reflexes 17. 18. Robilar's Gambit, Double Hit 19. 20. Greater Two-Weapon Fighting Build 4: Trip, Bull Rush, Sunder, Disarm, Charges, Mounted Combat, Archery 1. Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Power Attack 2. Improved Bull Rush 3. Improved Disarm 4. Improved Sunder 5. 6. Combat Brute, Shock Trooper 7. 8. Mounted Combat 9. True Believer: Kord 10. Knockdown 11. 12. Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot 13. 14. Ride-by Attack 15. Leadership 16. Spirited Charge 17. 18. Mounted Archery, Rapid Shot 19. 20. Greater Mounted Archery Elven Archer/TWF 1. Weapon Focus (Elvencraft Longbow), Two-Weapon Fighting, Point Blank Shot 2. Precise Shot 3. Rapid Shot 4. Weapon Specialization (Elvencraft Longbow) 5. 6. Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Buckler Defense 7. 8. Ranged Weapon Mastery (Piercing) 9. Melee Weapon Mastery (Bludgeoning) 10. Greater Weapon Focus (Elvencraft Longbow) 11. 12. Greater Weapon Specialization (Elvencraft Longbow), Greater Two-Weapon Fighting 13. 14. Crushing Strike 15. Pulverize Foe 16. Two-Weapon Rend 17. 18. Weapon Supremacy (Elvencraft Longbow), Improved Precise Shot 19. 20. Far Shot 1. Weapon Focus (Morningstar), Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush 2. Improved Sunder 3. Cleave 4. Weapon Specialization 5. 6. Combat Brute, Shock Trooper 7. 8. Melee Weapon Mastery 9. Brutal Strike 10. Three Mountains 11. 12. Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization 13. 14. Driving Attack 15. Combat Focus 16. Combat Vigor 17. 18. Combat Stability, Weapon Supremacy 19. 20. Combat Strike Dwarf Weapon Master 1. Axe Focus, Two-Weapon Fighting 2. Improved Shield Bash 3. Rapid Reload 4. Weapon Specialization 6. Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Point Blank Shot 8. Melee Weapon Mastery 9. Melee Weapon Mastery 10. Melee Weapon Mastery 12. Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization 14. Crushing Strike 15. Driving Attack 16. Greater Two-Weapon Fighting 18. Weapon Supremacy, Penetrating Shot 20. Precise Shot So, of the 9 fighter builds I just posted (and there are more, but I don't have links for them at the moment), 4 of them use the belt. And those 4 are just variations of the same fighter type. Of all 9, 1 uses a Double Scimitar, 1 uses an Elvencraft Longbow, 2 use a Morningstar, and the 4 tactical fighters use a Heavy Flail. The dwarven weaponmaster can literally use a Dwarven Waraxe, a Warhammer, an Urgrosh, or a Battleaxe with equal efficiency, and also has the option to attack with his crossbow or shield. He is a two-weapon fighter or a two-handed fighter depending on the circumstance. He can also bull rush and trip. So, I wouldn't say all of my fighters use spiked chains and belts of the champion. balor and pit fiend are both easily trippable by any of the trip builds i've seen, and i think khans build was able to trip the titan fairly consistently (can find any of them, you don't happen to have links to your older builds, do you khan?) I don't have a link to my original build. But... a titan gets a +24 to resist trips (+8 size and +16 strength). In order to even have a chance to trip the titan, you have to be large. So from size and Improved Trip you have a +8. From the Belt of the Champion you have +5. That's +13 total. Assuming a 30 strength by level 20, you already have +23. I'm not sure how many people actually boost their prime stat to 30 though, but it is assumed regularly on the CO Board. A half-orc with a starting strength of 14 can get it with a +6 belt and boosting his strength every 4 levels. A human can do it as well without the racial boost using Enlarge. A Sweeping weapon adds +2, and a Living Chain adds +4. Obviously, that is more than enough to trip the balor or pit fiend. Hmmm... so I noticed no one has answered my question yet. How do we determine how powerful a cleric is?
Kratch 05-30-07, 10:47 PM	If you get some of the combat focus feats, you can also add +8 to your resists on a counter trip, meaning you have less to worry about when it comes to potentially failing. As you noted, a starting str 14 can still get a decent final str bonus, meaning the MAD, although exsistent, isn't crippling (depending on what type of point buy or array your using)
Seerow 05-30-07, 11:03 PM	Titans, Balors, and Pit Fiends are truly nothing special when it comes to resisting trips or bull rushes (perhaps the Titan may give some resistance because of his mighty strength, but it can still be done). Sorry I may be rusty, but don't balors and pit fiends fly? They can't be tripped. if Im so rusty that that's wrong (cause I definitely remember that point being brought up just not the resolution) go ahead and shoot me.
runestar 05-30-07, 11:05 PM	What do you mean by limbless flight? I was under the impression that so long as a creature could fly, it could not be tripped. Meaning that all a balor or pit-fiend needed to do was to hover over the party (swapping out one of its less useful feats to get the feat) and there would be nothing the tripper can do...:confused: Titan is huge with a base str score of 43. An enlarged fighter with 32str and improved trip is still at a relative disadvantage when trying to trip it. What are these combat focus feats you are referring to?:confused:
WizO_Shadow 05-30-07, 11:42 PM	This now begins a test of the emergency netiquette system: BEEP!!! Netiquette reminder "I" & "You": Please watch carefully how the structure of your sentence reads. "I think you have crappy illogical builds," well let's just say that was as nice as having acid poured onto a wound. "The build that is listed above, I think, can be improved in this way..." Not only is it nicer to cope with, it's helpful. This test is now concluded... we now return you to your regularly posted thread... ~WizO_Shadow~
Kratch 05-31-07, 05:43 AM	Sorry I may be rusty, but don't balors and pit fiends fly? They can't be tripped. if Im so rusty that that's wrong (cause I definitely remember that point being brought up just not the resolution) go ahead and shoot me. There are no rules whatsoever in the books that grant anything immunity to trip, so technically, following RAW by the books a tripper can affect everything, including snakes, Ooze's and beholders. However, common sence governed a responce in the FAQ on the subject, where they state anything that uses limbs for it's locamotion (and that would include wings for flight) can be knocked prone through a trip (FAQ pg63). Taking that any further and ruling that anything that can fly is immune to tripping, as if their wings are somehow immune to getting twisted, forcing a crash landing (or at least a round of falling, really is DM's call on the dirrect results), is creating rules that happen to be detrimental to a specific kind of playstyle/build. Honestly, i have no idea where the whole "if it flies, it's immune" assumption came about, though i'm currious about it, considering how adamantly some people fall back to it in their arguments against fighters (no dirrect accusations intended, just a generalization). What do you mean by limbless flight? I was under the impression that so long as a creature could fly, it could not be tripped. Meaning that all a balor or pit-fiend needed to do was to hover over the party (swapping out one of its less useful feats to get the feat) and there would be nothing the tripper can do...:confused: I addressed most of this with my responce to seerow, i just wanted to point out that, once again, your trying to tailor an encounter specifically against a class/build in an attempt to make a point against that class/build (plus, as hover doesn't negate ones need for limbs to maintain ones flight ability, it doesn't work to make anything immune to trip). Titan is huge with a base str score of 43. An enlarged fighter with 32str and improved trip is still at a relative disadvantage when trying to trip it. What are these combat focus feats you are referring to?:confused: Combat focus is a feat from PHBII that leads to other feats within the chain. As you aquire more, the feats in the chain can become more powerful. Yjere is one, combat stability, that grants a +4 to resist all opposed combat manuver rolls. The bonus increases to +8 if you have 3+ combat focus feats.
Argaud 05-31-07, 05:54 AM	Sorry I may be rusty, but don't balors and pit fiends fly? They can't be tripped. if Im so rusty that that's wrong (cause I definitely remember that point being brought up just not the resolution) go ahead and shoot me. Consider yourself shot (with a split bow) ;) Fliers can be tripped. "Anything using limbs for locomotion can be tripped" is in the FAQ (in the latest FAQ in the page 57). A character can't trip snakes, beholders or gelatinous cubes, one can't trip a creature swimming or burrowing. Balors, pit fiends and dragons use wings for flight and can be tripped. Obviously tripping a big dragon is almost impossible, but Stand Still is deadly against dragons because they will fall 150' if unable to move the "minimum forward speed" required by their (usually crappy) maneuverability (DMG p 20).
Kalarus 05-31-07, 06:17 AM	If you trip a flying creature it is stalled. This was addressed in the FAQ, in a question about what can and cannot be tripped. It can be found on page 60 of the edition posted on 20/4/2007, bottom right corner. From p20 of the DMG about stalling: "If a flying creature fails to maintain its minimum forward speed, it must land at the end of its movement. If it is too high above the ground to land, it falls straight down, descending 150 feet in the first round of falling. If this distance takes it to the ground, it takes falling damage. If the fall doesn't bring the creature to the ground, it must spend its next turn recovering from the stall." DC20 reflex to recover, incidentally. It's a bit subtle as it isn't exactly written in a "stalling: a stalled creature blah blah", I guess it was assumed people knew what the word was for a situation when flight is impeded and the flyer falls. Now here's the complex part: Stalling occurs normally only to those creatures that have a minimum forward speed. If they cannot maintain this speed, they stall. Two interpretations are possible. 1) Only creatures of average maneuverability of worse can be tripped, as they cannot maintain minimum forward speed and will stall. Maneuverability of good and perfect can hover, so they won't stall and fall out of the sky. This makes for example the Balor immune to trip. 2) Tripping causes stalling even in creatures that would normally never stall, as you actively disrupt its flight or simply knock it out of the sky. Since the FAQ reads "A creature flying with wings can be tripped", and the Balor is depicted with wings, I'd find it reasonable to adopt interpretation 2. The Balor is skilled enough with his wings to hover, but entangle those wings or imbalance him (by "tripping") and he, too, stalls. However, "A creature with wings" is a bit vague, as there's generally not a "Bodyparts" entry in a MM statblock. I imagine there are people who see the pictures just as fluff, the Balor flies 90 ft (good), wings or no, so cannot stall. It's forcing the issue a bit in my opinion, but it's not entirely unreasonable to select by crunch of Maneuverability, rather than by physical description. Personally, I'd say the Balor has wings, and so, as per FAQ, can be stalled by tripping, regardless of its maneuverability. Alternatively, engage it in a cave, loudly scream "You cannot pass!" and shatter the stone bridge both you and the Balor are standing on. :P
Leo 05-31-07, 08:28 AM	If you trip a flying creature it is stalled. This was addressed in the FAQ, in a question about what can and cannot be tripped. It can be found on page 60 of the edition posted on 20/4/2007, bottom right corner. From p20 of the DMG about stalling: "If a flying creature fails to maintain its minimum forward speed, it must land at the end of its movement. If it is too high above the ground to land, it falls straight down, descending 150 feet in the first round of falling. If this distance takes it to the ground, it takes falling damage. If the fall doesn't bring the creature to the ground, it must spend its next turn recovering from the stall." DC20 reflex to recover, incidentally. It's a bit subtle as it isn't exactly written in a "stalling: a stalled creature blah blah", I guess it was assumed people knew what the word was for a situation when flight is impeded and the flyer falls. Now here's the complex part: Stalling occurs normally only to those creatures that have a minimum forward speed. If they cannot maintain this speed, they stall. Two interpretations are possible. 1) Only creatures of average maneuverability of worse can be tripped, as they cannot maintain minimum forward speed and will stall. Maneuverability of good and perfect can hover, so they won't stall and fall out of the sky. This makes for example the Balor immune to trip. 2) Tripping causes stalling even in creatures that would normally never stall, as you actively disrupt its flight or simply knock it out of the sky. Since the FAQ reads "A creature flying with wings can be tripped", and the Balor is depicted with wings, I'd find it reasonable to adopt interpretation 2. The Balor is skilled enough with his wings to hover, but entangle those wings or imbalance him (by "tripping") and he, too, stalls. However, "A creature with wings" is a bit vague, as there's generally not a "Bodyparts" entry in a MM statblock. I imagine there are people who see the pictures just as fluff, the Balor flies 90 ft (good), wings or no, so cannot stall. It's forcing the issue a bit in my opinion, but it's not entirely unreasonable to select by crunch of Maneuverability, rather than by physical description. Personally, I'd say the Balor has wings, and so, as per FAQ, can be stalled by tripping, regardless of its maneuverability. Alternatively, engage it in a cave, loudly scream "You cannot pass!" and shatter the stone bridge both you and the Balor are standing on. :P And then the balor screams back in infernal:P "Oh yeah? But you're coming with me! TRIP ATTACK FTW"
runestar 05-31-07, 10:04 AM	I addressed most of this with my responce to seerow, i just wanted to point out that, once again, your trying to tailor an encounter specifically against a class/build in an attempt to make a point against that class/build (plus, as hover doesn't negate ones need for limbs to maintain ones flight ability, it doesn't work to make anything immune to trip). Well, to be honest, I wasn't exactly tweaking it against the fighter specifically. However, regardless of what changes I try to make, it somehow seems to come across as anti-fighter. I wonder what's up with that...:embarrass Note that I am not trying to insinuate anything. I was simply making an observation about myself.:) I kinda got inspired by this "optimized monsters" thread in the CO boards and this got me thinking... Basically, the skinny is to bring in extraordinary concentration to let the balor maintain its implosion SLA as a move/swift action, and well, hover just seemed so common-sensical as it would allow the balor to keep out of reach of most of the PCs while making its full attacks, as well as protecting it from ranged attacks. I was a little puzzled as to why its whip's reach is just 20-ft (I thought being large should have doubled its reach to 30-ft), but nothing I can't work around. Like I said, it just seemed so tempting because by simply swapping out 2-3 feats, the balor's combat capabilities can be drastically improved. Is that so wrong?:weep:
Kalarus 05-31-07, 10:12 AM	Like I said, it just seemed so tempting because by simply swapping out 2-3 feats, the balor's combat capabilities can be drastically improved. Is that so wrong?:weep: The Balor as posted in the MM is a CR20. The Balor optimized to do a lot more, is CR20+X. It's not wrong, if you're looking to kill your party. It's not wrong, if your party is stronger than an average 20th level party. It's not wrong, if your players can be reasonably expected to come up with tactical countermaneuvers. Getting experience and learning tactics have no correlation whatsoever. Some players have insight in tactics, some have experience in tactics, some have both. Some have none. If you think your party can handle an improved version of the Balor, go ahead and have fun. It does not follow from that, however, that every party should be able to handle an improved version of the Balor, *that* is in fact, wrong. It also does not follow from that already wrong assumption, that if the party cannot handle an improved version of the Balor, there is something wrong with the party and they need to optimize better or play better classes. Remember the goal of D&D is to have fun. If your players have fun playing characters that aren't optimized and classes that aren't at the top end of the powercurve, improving a standard MM creature in such a way that it will be something the party can't handle, is arbitrarily punishing players because you apparently disagreed with how the game should be played. Keeping in mind our recent WizO's comment, I am not referring to "you personally" but "you whoever DMs". If you have such a disagreement about the nature and style of the game, you should resolve this *before* the first session starts. Else it's just asking for problems.
Argaud 05-31-07, 10:26 AM	Well, to be honest, I wasn't exactly tweaking it against the fighter specifically. However, regardless of what changes I try to make, it somehow seems to come across as anti-fighter. I wonder what's up with that...:embarrass Note that I am not trying to insinuate anything. I was simply making an observation about myself.:) I kinda got inspired by this "optimized monsters" thread in the CO boards and this got me thinking... Basically, the skinny is to bring in extraordinary concentration to let the balor maintain its implosion SLA as a move/swift action, and well, hover just seemed so common-sensical as it would allow the balor to keep out of reach of most of the PCs while making its full attacks, as well as protecting it from ranged attacks. I was a little puzzled as to why its whip's reach is just 20-ft (I thought being large should have doubled its reach to 30-ft), but nothing I can't work around. Like I said, it just seemed so tempting because by simply swapping out 2-3 feats, the balor's combat capabilities can be drastically improved. Is that so wrong?:weep: Well, the balor can already hover because he has good maneouverability. If you want to switch the feats to make him better, don't bother with melee. He is awful with melee and will still be awful because he has crappy gear (and abilities, at least when compared with a good CR20 meleer, like a 30+HD dragon). But switch Focus and Cleave for Iron Will and Great Fortitude, and make the party casters cry.
Khan the Destroyer 05-31-07, 03:32 PM	I don't think optimizing a monster to challenge an optimized part is 'wrong' at all. But optimizing monsters as a standard for class balance? To be honest, I don't have any problem saying 'Look, my fighter defeats a MM Balor, but not so-and-so's tricked out Balor.'
Archangel62 06-01-07, 11:24 AM	To possibly change the direction of the debate a bit, what purpose does the fighter serve. Not the character, but the class itself. The barbarian is the woodsman warrior powered by rage, easily adapted to the beserker or a brawler type. The ranger is the guardian of the woods, the paladin the holy knight. So, my question stands, what is the fighter supposed to be, what mechanical role does the class itself fill? And can that role be filled better (read as more efficiently) by different classes?
Kalarus 06-01-07, 12:26 PM	To possibly change the direction of the debate a bit, what purpose does the fighter serve. Not the character, but the class itself. The barbarian is the woodsman warrior powered by rage, easily adapted to the beserker or a brawler type. The ranger is the guardian of the woods, the paladin the holy knight. So, my question stands, what is the fighter supposed to be, what mechanical role does the class itself fill? And can that role be filled better (read as more efficiently) by different classes? I think this has been covered extensively already. The Fighter is like unspiced chicken. You can eat it, but you have to add some extra flavor to make it more interesting. Its feat selection allows it to perform a variety of functions and fighting styles. Fighters generally lean most towards: 1) Scaring people (intimidate ftw!) 2) Dealing damage 3) Battlefield control 4) Tanking Yes some or all of those roles can be filled better by different classes. If you think that means something, read the Pun-pun fallacy. ;)
Khan the Destroyer 06-01-07, 12:32 PM	To possibly change the direction of the debate a bit, what purpose does the fighter serve. Not the character, but the class itself. I see it as a guy that can fight, without being tied down to anything else. No woods, no holiness, no berserking or favored enemies. He is just good at combat. Also, depending on feat choices, he is a versatile combatant. If the barbarian is a woodsman, the paladin a knight, and the ranger a hunter, the fighter is a soldier. But then... he doesn't have to be. And that's the beauty. The barbarian is the woodsman warrior powered by rage, easily adapted to the beserker or a brawler type. Note I'm not denying the barbarian anything here. The fighter can be played as a berserker if someone wants to play him that way. You can two-weapon fight or use combat expertise or focus on AoO's or trips and disarms. But when you 'rage', you focus on charges, power attacks, sunders, and bull rushes. Sure, you don't get an actual bonus to strength, but you're still a berserker when you want to be. As for the brawler, again, the only thing the barbarian has is a bonus to strength. Which is great of course. But really no different than a fighter with Improved/Superior Unarmed Strike and Improved Grapple. I think these two examples are more of a character design thing than mechanics. So, my question stands, what is the fighter supposed to be, what mechanical role does the class itself fill? The fighter is a warrior. He is trained to fight. Feats represent this focus on combat. The other melee classes have a good BAB, but ultimately focus on something else to give them that edge in combat (rage, faith, favored enemy, or even magic). The fighter only has feats. He is the poster-child for a warrior. Or soldier. Or bodyguard. His role is to fight with the versatility and power gained through his feats, not gained through magic, or supernatural or extraordinary abilities. And can that role be filled better (read as more efficiently) by different classes? Not in my opinion. Everyone else relies on something else. No one is truly 'just a warrior'. The only thing I can think of that may come close (but not really) is the Feat Rogue variant.
Clawhound 06-01-07, 01:23 PM	To possibly change the direction of the debate a bit, what purpose does the fighter serve. Not the character, but the class itself. The barbarian is the woodsman warrior powered by rage, easily adapted to the beserker or a brawler type. The ranger is the guardian of the woods, the paladin the holy knight. So, my question stands, what is the fighter supposed to be, what mechanical role does the class itself fill? And can that role be filled better (read as more efficiently) by different classes? The fighter serves whatever role he serves. Take a four person party. We create the fighter last. Can the fighter find a unique role mechanical role, no matter what roles the other three characters picked? Yes, he can. That's the trick. There is no possible way that those three members of the party can dominate all niches in a standard four person party. There must be a gap. The fighter can take a remaining niche and get good at that niche.
Argaud 06-01-07, 02:13 PM	Not in my opinion. Everyone else relies on something else. No one is truly 'just a warrior'. The only thing I can think of that may come close (but not really) is the Feat Rogue variant. No, not really. The feat rogue knows the moves, but lacks the skills to pull them. The rogue has 2 hp/less level, medium bab, no access to specialization/mastery/greaterfocus and worse armor (he can compensate going for Dex, but then he loses even more "to hit" and damage). The feat rogue is still a great skill monkey and can use UMD to compensate a bit, but if he needs to use half a dozen wands before each fight to perform a as meleer, it does not work. At least the cleric buffs are cheap, hard to dispel and can be persistent (not to mention the cleric has more hp and better armor). The feat rogue is a pretty good class to combine with normal fighter, though. The fighter loses some bab and hp, but gains much needed skills. Fighter 16/feat rogue 4 will cost 8hp and 1 bab, giving 24 skill points in good skills as change. On the other hand, feat rogue 16/fighter 4 gives a ton of good skills for 34hp and 3 bab. And the character can still have Weapon Mastery.
navar100 06-01-07, 04:07 PM	To possibly change the direction of the debate a bit, what purpose does the fighter serve. Not the character, but the class itself. The barbarian is the woodsman warrior powered by rage, easily adapted to the beserker or a brawler type. The ranger is the guardian of the woods, the paladin the holy knight. So, my question stands, what is the fighter supposed to be, what mechanical role does the class itself fill? And can that role be filled better (read as more efficiently) by different classes? The fighter can be whatever you want him to be. Choose your feats appropriately. As to whether another class can also do it "plus more" that's Pun Pun Fallacy. This is nothing new, only more of the same anti-fighter garbage I thought we had left behind. A druid is a woodsman warrior powered by rage (i.e. wildshaping into an animal) A druid or cleric with Plant and Animal domains is the guardian of the woods. The cleric is the holy knight. They do the job "more efficiently". Pun Pun can do an even better job than the cleric or druid. Hence, everyone play Pun Pun because all classes suck. How about a nice game of chess?
Bob Loblaw 06-01-07, 05:37 PM	To possibly change the direction of the debate a bit, what purpose does the fighter serve. Not the character, but the class itself. The barbarian is the woodsman warrior powered by rage, easily adapted to the beserker or a brawler type. The ranger is the guardian of the woods, the paladin the holy knight. So, my question stands, what is the fighter supposed to be, what mechanical role does the class itself fill? And can that role be filled better (read as more efficiently) by different classes? Thanks for this. I have asked a few times in several threads for the archetypes that the fighter should represent and the only answers I get are General and Tank. Here's how see the fighter: 1) Sword-and-board. Classic shield and sword fighter with heavy armor. Easily pulled off with this class and easy role to fill. As a sword-and-board, he can fill the role of classic knight, hero-for-hire, bodyguard, front-line infantry, or any number of similar roles. His skills and feats work great for this 2) Brawler. The fighter can make a great unarmed combatant. Depending on where you want to go with things, he can be a street brawler, professional wrestler/boxer/martial artist, vigilante, or any other similar role. Again the feats work great for this. Some skill tricks might come in handy. If I went this route, depending on what I wanted, I might dip into rogue for some skills, but I think I could pull it off just fine without dipping. 3) Hulking Brute. This fighter prefers the two-handed weapons. He likes his weapons big and heavy. He prefers heavy armor. This type of fighter would be a great choice for thugs, mercenaries, professional gladiator, or other similar role. The key here is that he is usually focused on damaging his opponent brutally. 4) Mounted Warrior. This type of fighter prefers fighting from horseback (or whatever mount catches his fancy). He is usually armed with a lance, longsword, and bow. He tend to be very mobile on the battlefield and can bring the fight to the enemy quickly with some serious damage. He can often fill the role of cavalry, knight, professional soldier, mercenary, rapid responder, or similar role. 5) Ranged combatant. This fighter prefers light armor and ranged weapons. He tends to focus on attacking either from a distance or from a safe, hidden spot. He precise in his movements and tactics. Rarely does he just start firing randomly. I see this fighter as filling the role of modern-day mortar-men. He can also be an assassin, mercenary, bodyguard (think modern sniper for Secret Service), hunter, or other similar role. 5) Skirmisher. This type of fighter gets in and out of combat quickly. He tends to move in, hit, and move out. His attacks are precise and lethal. There is little room for error because he needs light armor for mobility. His weapons tend to have reach so he can be even more versatile. He works best as part of a unit. The Sword-and-Board fighters along with the Hulking Brutes deal with the enemy while the Skirmisher runs in, hits and moves on to the next. He can act as flanker for up to 3 other units if he chooses his feats carefully. The roles great for him would be scout, forward observer, small specialty units (like modern day ranger or special forces), or other similar role. He could also fill in as an advanced unit to determine information about the enemy (Size, Activity, Location, Units, Time, and Equipment) and be able to report back with little problem. 6) Skilled Dilettante. Think Errol Flynn, Zorro, or Inigo Montoya. He is flashy. He prefers light-to-no armor. He likes using light weapons such as the rapier. His primary goal is to woo the ladies and look good while doing it. He may have other motives, but it's all about style with him. This one is a bit harder to pull off, but certainly not impossible. This one may require a dip or two into another class for some of the skills, but I think it can be done as a straight fighter. 7) Man-at-Arms. This fighter is a master of whatever he does. The weapon doesn't matter, the person wielding it does. He is a master of tactics. There is nothing that surprises him. He has mastered several weapon styles or tactics. This fighter is a man-at-arms, drill sergeant, gladiator, or any other type that would use multiple weapons. He tends not to take Weapon Focus, and if he does, he takes Weapon Mastery. He is unlikely to go beyond that with the feat tree. He prefers small feat chains and tactical feats that give him 3 more options. He is likely to use his skill points for Skill Tricks, but only if it gives him a tactical advantage. 8) Exotic Warrior. This fighter either prefers unusual/unorthodox styles or prefers the more esoteric weapons. He can be found wielding two weapons, double weapons, climbing on larger opponents, is a mountain warrior preferring uneven terrain, uses exotic armors, or any other non-standard style or gear. This is usually a non-human character but need not be. Goliaths, dwarves, elves, and raptorians all have their exotic warriors who are usually great heroes or villains. I'm sure there are other types that I can't think of off the top of my head right now. Some types may fill more than one category, some may not fit any at all. As to the question of can these roles be filled by another class better, that's up to the player. Not everyone can handle the complexities of casters or the Tome of Battle. While I'm sure that I can make a great character for each role with any number of classes, in the end it boils down to player choice. Some of the roles will probably need a few levels of fighter because they can be rather feat intensive (Man-at-Arms comes immediately to mind), while others already have classes to fill those roles (Skilled Dilettante). None of them truly make the fighter obsolete in that role. It's just a different approach.
Khan the Destroyer 06-01-07, 09:14 PM	No, not really. The feat rogue knows the moves, but lacks the skills to pull them. The rogue has 2 hp/less level, medium bab, no access to specialization/mastery/greaterfocus and worse armor (he can compensate going for Dex, but then he loses even more "to hit" and damage). The feat rogue is still a great skill monkey and can use UMD to compensate a bit, but if he needs to use half a dozen wands before each fight to perform a as meleer, it does not work. At least the cleric buffs are cheap, hard to dispel and can be persistent (not to mention the cleric has more hp and better armor). The feat rogue is a pretty good class to combine with normal fighter, though. The fighter loses some bab and hp, but gains much needed skills. Fighter 16/feat rogue 4 will cost 8hp and 1 bab, giving 24 skill points in good skills as change. On the other hand, feat rogue 16/fighter 4 gives a ton of good skills for 34hp and 3 bab. And the character can still have Weapon Mastery. I agree. I appreciate the rogue for being another non-supernatural class (though some of the special abilities come close, luckily you can get a feat instead). The feat rogue to me is even better. It's just awesome. In my opinion, if one were to fuse the fighter and the feat rogue into 1 class, you'd have the perfect hero. (That's why if I ever have the option to play a gestalt character, it'd be Fighter/Feat Rogue, assuming the DM would let it go through.) That said, I do agree that even a feat rogue doesn't come close to matching a fighter as far as an every-man warrior.
Zelck 06-02-07, 01:07 AM	I think this has been covered extensively already. The Fighter is like unspiced chicken. You can eat it, but you have to add some extra flavor to make it more interesting. Its feat selection allows it to perform a variety of functions and fighting styles. Fighters generally lean most towards: 1) Scaring people (intimidate ftw!) 2) Dealing damage 3) Battlefield control 4) Tanking Yes some or all of those roles can be filled better by different classes. If you think that means something, read the Pun-pun fallacy. ;) Warriors generally lean towards: 1) Scaring people 2) Dealing damage 3) Battlefield control 4) Tanking Yes some or all of those roles can be filled better by different classes. If you think that means something, read the Pun-pun fallacy. ;) Don't you dare suggest people shouldn't play Warriors. Even though the comparisons argument degrades at the extremes, there has to be some form of comparisons or else you get that kind of logic. It could be argued that a fighter is strictly better than a warrior, but it could also be argued that a cleric could match 90% or more of what a fighter can do and bring along significant other benefits that totally eclipse that 10% difference.
Kalarus 06-02-07, 02:17 PM	Warriors generally lean towards: 1) Scaring people 2) Dealing damage 3) Battlefield control 4) Tanking Yes some or all of those roles can be filled better by different classes. If you think that means something, read the Pun-pun fallacy. ;) Don't you dare suggest people shouldn't play Warriors. Even though the comparisons argument degrades at the extremes, there has to be some form of comparisons or else you get that kind of logic. It could be argued that a fighter is strictly better than a warrior, but it could also be argued that a cleric could match 90% or more of what a fighter can do and bring along significant other benefits that totally eclipse that 10% difference. and the DM will match encounter difficulty appropriately no matter what you play. I won't argue that people can't pull a good warrior off, however if you keep downgrading a class potential it won't be able to perform adequately in the CR system anymore, even if you take the weakest creatures per CR. The Fighter can perform adequately in the CR system, and as far as viability goes, that's all you need. I am sure there is some point to be said for comparing classes, and I am sure that if you compare all the classes solely on power (however that's measured), the Fighter will end up somewhere at the bottom of the curve. The problem I have with most reasonings presented about that powercurve, is that the viability powerstandards are so damn arbitrary. People claim roughly the following powerline (top highest, bottom lowest) to be representative of D&D: Pun-pun Other cheese ---- Cheese barrier. Everything above this is cheese, everything below this is appropriate for D&D. Cleric/Druid Wizard/ Artificer here too? Don't know the class. Archivist problably as well. Rogue somewhere abouts here too Toss in most other classes in here as well. ---- Viability barrier. Everything above this and below Cheese barrier is viable and should be played in D&D. Fighter Warrior Commoner. The position of these barriers is constantly presented as being intuitively true, yet I'd wager that if you critically asked each individual who agrees (roughly) with this division why every barrier is there, and which skills/feats/abilities/whatevers should be above the Cheese barrier and which below, or for that matter, why every class is where they are, they will always end up giving an answer that compares the classes with each other, not with the barriers. I'm fine with people claiming that Clerics, Druids and Wizards are more powerful than Fighters. I have a problem with claims that imply this means one should never play Fighters. Nobody justifies why these barriers are where they are. Some try by claiming the Fighter for example cannot match CR appropriate opponents, but they will not allow any proof (such as builds) to count against their theory because they do not want to adjust their preconcieved conclusion. Instead, you get reasonings like this: Fighter-defender: Fighters perform fine in my game Anti-Fighter: Your DM must be coddling Fighters. Fighter-defender: Euh, he does not, what makes you say that? Anti-Fighter: Fighters suck, so your DM must be coddling Fighters. Fighter-defender: Why do Fighters suck? Anti-Fighter: Because Fighters can't survive without DMs coddling them. This is what you call a circular argument, the premises rely on the conclusion being true as well as the other way around, and it is by definition invalid reasoning. Yet it returns, again and again, every time someone makes a new thread about Fighters. Even more amusing, there are people who consistently claim the Fighter sucks, yet in the same breath admit the spell system is broken, but conveniently apply the arbitrary Cheese barrier to validate their way of playing. "Clerics are sooo broken. Let's not play Fighters, because Clerics are much more powerful!" It's like they believe that their admittance of the outrageous power of their class warrants their choice in playing it, not because it's powerful, but because they admit it's too powerful and by that admittance should be justified in playing it anyway. Then, when someone suggests options of how to bring a Fighter more up to the power of spellcasters with methods that exist in game, the Fighter is "being coddled" again. Not because these options are illegal, but because the Fighter is for some reason, in the minds of these people, not *allowed* to succeed in D&D because that again would count against the preconcieved notion that "weak Fighters" should not be played. I know I might appear to be painting a very harsh picture of some people's attitudes, but if you read the messages in this (and for that matter, the new Fighter sucks?) thread you'll find plenty examples that support what I mean. I know there are a lot of people who don't like Fighters and might feel offended that I suggest they're all part of the same bad group, that's not the intention of this post and for any inappropriate generalizations I apologise. Those who are described by the above notions will hopefully recognise themselves. It is simply the sheer tenacity, by which people adhere to the previously suggested powerline and claim this is an intuitive truth for anyone who plays D&D, that remains, still, a very big mystery to me.
Argaud 06-02-07, 03:01 PM	Fighter-defender: Fighters perform fine in my game Anti-Fighter: Your DM must be coddling Fighters. Fighter-defender: Euh, he does not, what makes you say that? Anti-Fighter: Fighters suck, so your DM must be coddling Fighters. Fighter-defender: Why do Fighters suck? Anti-Fighter: Because Fighters can't survive without DMs coddling them. Yes, although often it gets worse than that (we have been lucky in this thread, trolling has been minimum so far). Most of my experiences in these debates go like this: Anti-fighter: Fighters suck! Pro-fighter: why do you say that? They work fine for what I have seen Anti-fighter: Fighters suck. Do no bring your worthless anecdotic evidence into my holy and obvious statement. Everybody knows fighters suck. Pro-fighter: But why do you keep saying that? Anti-fighter: They suck when compared to the monsters they have to fight. Pro-fighter: They don’t, look at these builds (builds able to deal with the right level monsters are given). Anti-fighter: Bah! They work only because the gear. They should be able to work without any magic. Fighters can’t craft magical items anyway, so they can’t use them. Pro-fighter: Wealth, and magic items, are part of the character, it is said so in the DMG. Anti-fighter: That is crap, casters can defeat anything without items! Pro-fighter: That is not true. Anti-fighter: You are a dumb newbie. It is obvious for all smart players that fighter sucks. Compare them to clerics! Pro-fighter: What? Why should I compare them to the most powerful core class? They work fine against monsters. Anti-fighter: Compare them to an optimized DMM-Persistent using cleric! He does all the fighter can do plus open gates, stop time, wildshape into dragons and lower the taxes! Pro-fighter: So what? Anti-fighter: Fighters suck! They are obsolete and there is no reason to play them. No party would want a fighter among them when they can invite a cleric to join them. Pro-fighter: The artificer and the archivist can do all the cleric does and more. Does that means the cleric sucks and is obsolete. Anti-fighter: OMG! Strawman fallacy! Ad-hominem fallacy! I-learned-in-high-school-yesterday-this-fallacy fallacy! Etc, etc (Yes, I am exaggerating a bit, apologies to those that think the fighter is weak and do not really argue like this ;))
Scion of Coldshard 06-02-07, 05:16 PM	Most of my experiences in these debates go like this: Going through the two threads a good portion of the arguements have gone more like this: Guy 1: Fighters are great! Everyone who says they suck suck! Guy 2: Fighters suck! Every one says fighters are great suck! or Guy A: Fighters are horrible! Guy B: Fighters can do anything they want so they are great! With a lot of bickering and ignoring of what peoples actual points are along with not really caring enough to defend why they think a certain way. Unforunately, even when some do try to show why their why turns out to not show anything that the other side cares about. Cases in point trying to make a cleric that can do everything the fighter does but better and trying to make a fighter that can do enough different things well enough to be thought of as good. At least there are a few people around on each side that look to be trying to give the other side a chance and talk about things in a better manner. They are typically drowned out by the rest, but they are there ;)
Argaud 06-02-07, 05:32 PM	Guy 1: Fighters are great! Everyone who says they suck suck! Guy 2: Fighters suck! Every one says fighters are great suck! or Guy A: Fighters are horrible! Guy B: Fighters can do anything they want so they are great! Actually I don't think there are many people saying fighters are "great" (=powerful). I think that most of the pro-fighter crowd agrees that fighters aren't as powerful as clerics or wizards at high level. But the pro-fighters tend to think fighters can do well against monsters and make a good, solid contribution to a party. We also think the fighter is pretty fun to play, both in the tactical map and roleplaying. Sidenote: But I am annoyed by the fact fighters have too few skill points and almost no useful skills (arguable, but I lean to think so). They aren't very useful outside combat. My main "fix" for fighters would be giving them 4x skill points and a few more skills. I am a fan of the Cityscape rule that allows for characters to add skills to their skill lists depending of their background.
Scion of Coldshard 06-02-07, 05:41 PM	Actually I don't think there are many people saying fighters are "great" (=powerful). great != powerful. Great is that they like them and feel that they do their job very well. You dont have to be as powerful as a buffed up druid in full form to be great. I doubt that they are many who would disagree with that! Sidenote: But I am annoyed by the fact fighters have too few skill points and almost no useful skills (arguable, but I lean to think so). They aren't very useful outside combat. My main "fix" for fighters would be giving them 4x skill points and a few more skills. I am a fan of the Cityscape rule that allows for characters to add skills to their skill lists depending of their background. Note that if you 'fix' the fighters in any way, including giving them improved skills and skill points, then by at least a few peoples standards here you are either 'anti-fighter' or at least against the 'pro-fighter' side. Personally, I dont like anyone having only 2 skill points a level, I feel that is too much of a hit to too large a part of the game. If a player chooses to make his characters int low enough to get there that is their call and they will live with it, but being slapped with it right off the bat? bah.
Kalarus 06-02-07, 05:52 PM	Going through the two threads a good portion of the arguements have gone more like this: Guy 1: Fighters are great! Everyone who says they suck suck! Guy 2: Fighters suck! Every one says fighters are great suck! or Guy A: Fighters are horrible! Guy B: Fighters can do anything they want so they are great! With a lot of bickering and ignoring of what peoples actual points are along with not really caring enough to defend why they think a certain way. Unforunately, even when some do try to show why their why turns out to not show anything that the other side cares about. Cases in point trying to make a cleric that can do everything the fighter does but better and trying to make a fighter that can do enough different things well enough to be thought of as good. At least there are a few people around on each side that look to be trying to give the other side a chance and talk about things in a better manner. They are typically drowned out by the rest, but they are there ;) You are right, up to a certain point. The bad tend to drown out the good. I am going to butt in on one of your points though: defending why they think a certain way. Generally, there's agreement on both sides on the point of power division between classes. Few people who are critical and thorough enough to analyse the arguments will still come to the conclusion that the Fighter is not weaker than at least the three most often mentioned Core full spellcasting classes (Cleric, Druid, Wizard). Often this is done through fairly questionable class vs class combat examples, that never take place in any D&D session anyway. Either way, at least suggested Cleric builds have shown that the Cleric can do at least a lot of the Fighter can, and with a lot to spare. Wether he can always do this consistently mostly revolves around the use of DMM but that's okay, it'd be a bit inconsistent to build a non-Core Fighter and then complain about DMM Persistent or DMM Quicken. It always gets to the point that these three classes, or some other example, can do more or is at least the equal of the Fighter. It is said, this is why the Fighter is obsolete/not viable. However, this demands an extra premise in the reasoning, which remains, still, unfounded: the premise that if Class X can do everything that Class Y can do and more, Class X is not viable. I won't go as far as to pull Pun-pun in this time, since in doing that, I would basically need to accept the premise, and I don't. Basically, everyone who claims this is why the Fighter is not viable, still needs to show why this premise is in fact correct, and nobody has done so. I also have a good guess why that is. Generally speaking, you seem to be reasonably aware of some debating practices. I am sure you're aware of a very simple debating rule: If you demand people to accept X, you have to prove X. You don't demand the other side *disproves* X, else you're expecting people to accept something they have no reason to accept, and if you want to have an open debate that actually can address the issue, you need to argue your case, not state preconcieved notions and conclusions in the hope the other side cannot disprove them. The other side does not need to disprove them, whoever demands that any premise is accepted has the responsibility to prove the premise first. In any situation, it is not reasonable to demand people to accept your premise as you're basically stating "I have a greater authority than you regarding truth, so except my truth blindly." Oh, and the reason nobody wants to prove the non-viability premise? I would guess it has to do with a subtle implication of a fairly popular board fallacy that I recently learned about: the Oberoni fallacy. This fallacy, as far as I have understood it, states: It is fallacious to assume that just because a DM can houserule rule X, rule X is not broken. While I could on some level agree with this fallacy, this fallacy implies something in board discussions and every time discussions lean in this direction, the Oberoni fallacy is invoked. The fallacy implies that DM houserules have no effect on board discussions about D&D material (or interpretations thereof). The fallacy implies we're all working under the same set of rules, all playing the same game, else the discussion is pointless. Well guess what. The discussion is pointless, and this is the error in the fallacy. We are NOT all playing the same game. We use different interpretations of the rules. We use different styles of playing. We emphasise different aspects of the game (for example, I know people who play D&D and often do not roll a single die in a session). We have different priorities, regarding what needs to be brought into a D&D game. Nobody wants to try to prove the non-viability premise, because trying to prove it involves a blanket statement about how DMs should run gaming sessions and everyone is ready to admit *that* cannot be done.
Scion of Coldshard 06-02-07, 06:12 PM	Oh, and the reason nobody wants to prove the non-viability premise? I went over this earlier actually. If two people cannot agree what viable means then they cannot offer proofs based on proving or disproving the term. Attempts on each side have pushed people to make claims that lead to unreasonable places. Either no one is viable or everyone is. Neither of those positions make any sense however. the Oberoni fallacy. This fallacy, as far as I have understood it, states: It is fallacious to assume that just because a DM can houserule rule X, rule X is not broken. Pretty much. If there was a weapon that did 10d10 damage to everyone within 20' on each attack and didnt require anything special to use I think that most people would agree it is unbalanced/broken. Then if someone comes along and says that it is perfectly fine because in their game there is only one and it requires buying a whole feat chain to use. At that point people will invoke oberoni. Just because you can change something does not mean that it was balanced in the first place. There are of course points when it is valid to call on this and times when it is not. Care must be taken, but if someone was to say that fighters are fine because they add 4 skill points and double their bonus feats then that is definatley a time to call Oberoni.
Kratch 06-02-07, 06:13 PM	You dont have to be as powerful as a buffed up druid in full form to be great. I doubt that they are many who would disagree with that! Actually, that argument was in fact used a fair bit in the earlier days. I suspect the reason it isn't used nowadays is due to the fact that comparing one class's validity based on another class's who's main class feature (for the purpose of the comparison) is based on an admitedly broken mechanic, isn't a very convincing, nor stable argument. So instead they use the cleric. And you'll notice if you read back even a few pages (the ones just before where you last showed up and started arguing the use of the word validity), it was in fact being said that the fighter sucked because it wasn't as powerful as a buffed up cleric. Note that if you 'fix' the fighters in any way, including giving them improved skills and skill points, then by at least a few peoples standards here you are either 'anti-fighter' or at least against the 'pro-fighter' side. Acknowledging that some tweeks could be used does not mean one doesn't believe something works as is. Most of us arguing on behalf of the fighter argue that the class does not suck and is usable as is. We are not arguing that it is perfect and can't use some modification. Just because I think my car could use a better stereo and remote start-up, doesn't mean i think my car sucks. Personally, I dont like anyone having only 2 skill points a level, I feel that is too much of a hit to too large a part of the game. If a player chooses to make his characters int low enough to get there that is their call and they will live with it, but being slapped with it right off the bat? bah. I'd just like to point out, that, by a few peoples standards, you just said clerics and wizards suck, according to your earlier statment. But I generally agree with this. I also like argaud's mention of class skills based on background.
Khan the Destroyer 06-02-07, 06:17 PM	Well said Kalarus. And you too Argaud. What an accurate portrayal of the discussion. Personally, I think the fighter can use some bonuses. It certainly stands out to me as the class-most-wanting in the PHB. But the fact that it gets the fewest skill points and the fewest class features (counting spells and such) doesn't necessarily make it underpowered. The point I (and I think most of the pro-fighters) are trying to make is that fighters can be built to fulfill the fighter role in a party (fight stuff). The opposition is simply downright refusing to accept the possibility. That to me seems unreasonable. In light of anything throw their way, they will not accept the thought that a fighter may in fact be built to be a good fighter. I don't think anyone here thinks the fighter class is perfect. I'd give him more feats and skills to be honest, and add synergy bonuses between feats. (Like I said earlier, I think the fighter fused with the feat rogue would be the perfect warrior.) But that doesn't mean he simply *can't* work. That's illogical. When adventuring, the game doesn't check how many class features you have compared to everyone else. When you roll to hit a monster, the DM doesn't compare your attack modifier to the cleric's attack modifier and then decide if you hit or miss. Those standards are really irrelevant.
Scion of Coldshard 06-02-07, 06:22 PM	Actually, that argument was in fact used a fair bit in the earlier days. Oh? When and where? I am assuming that 'a fair bit' means 'a lot' rather than 'once or twice'. Acknowledging that some tweeks could be used does not mean one doesn't believe something works as is. Khan was one of the vocal ones who proposed what I suggested, although there were others. I suggest you take this up with him. I'd just like to point out, that, by a few peoples standards, you just said clerics and wizards suck, according to your earlier statment. Did someone make a statement that believing any change to wizards or clerics means that they suck? Either way, I dont care, I stand by my statement that having 2 skill points a level base is bad for the game.
Khan the Destroyer 06-02-07, 06:26 PM	Actually, I defined 'anti-fighters' as those that think the fighter *needs* changes to work properly. Argaud believes the fighter can work as-is, even though he wouldn't mind seeing changes to the class. Which also happens to be my position.
Scion of Coldshard 06-02-07, 06:32 PM	And you too Argaud. What an accurate portrayal of the discussion. I am continually amazed at how you feel about the opposing side to your arguement khan. Argauds portrayal is a very poor one of the overall discussion. It would be just as poor in general if the two sides had been reveresed. Really, such attacks do nothing to further the discussion at hand and do much to just make people attack one another. That is just plain bad :( Personally, I think the fighter can use some bonuses. So, by your own definition you are an 'anti-fighter', interesting. The opposition is simply downright refusing to accept the possibility. I remember someone saying something along the lines of, 'if you go out of your way to break anything if you try hard enough'. Oddly, for the fighter if you go out of your way and really push hard you get something that can be pretty tough, but if you had spent the same amount of time on a number of other classes you would get a monster so strong that it would only be good as a CO board 'thought process' as it would be too tough for a game. There is something to be said for that difference. If there are a half dozen significantly different builds for a fighter that are really good when you optimize enough does that mean that the fighter is good enough as written? With enough different feats from all over the place thrown together to build on synergies you are bound to get something good, but does that make the fighter good or does that mean that you are simply good at taking advantage of the system?
Kratch 06-02-07, 06:35 PM	Oh? When and where? I am assuming that 'a fair bit' means 'a lot' rather than 'once or twice'. You'll find it throughout this debate, but as i said, it was a while ago, and has been replaced with the cleric over druid. Do pure fighters suck? (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=703847&page=131) Did someone make a statement that believing any change to wizards or clerics means that they suck? Note that if you 'fix' the fighters in any way, including giving them improved skills and skill points, then by at least a few peoples standards here you are either 'anti-fighter' or at least against the 'pro-fighter' side. Or does the idea that giving a class improved skill points only count as a "fix" when it applies to fighters. I supposed i shouldn't have used suck. Instead i should have used something along the lines of saying, you, by some peoples standards, are anti-cleric and wizard. I was just trying to point out that, wanting to make adjustments to a class should not automatically anti-class.
Scion of Coldshard 06-02-07, 06:45 PM	You'll find it throughout this debate Which posts? Instead i should have used something along the lines of saying, you, by some peoples standards, are anti-cleric and wizard. If you had some people giving an example like that, sure. And really, I would be ok with that, except that I would take issue with their choice of a name as the name itself implies something negative where no negative should be. I was just trying to point out that, wanting to make adjustments to a class should not automatically anti-class. Talk to Khan then. I already said something along the lines of your comment here earlier ;)
Kalarus 06-02-07, 06:47 PM	Well said Kalarus. And you too Argaud. What an accurate portrayal of the discussion. Thanks :) Personally, I think the fighter can use some bonuses. It certainly stands out to me as the class-most-wanting in the PHB. But the fact that it gets the fewest skill points and the fewest class features (counting spells and such) doesn't necessarily make it underpowered. The point I (and I think most of the pro-fighters) are trying to make is that fighters can be built to fulfill the fighter role in a party (fight stuff). The opposition is simply downright refusing to accept the possibility. That to me seems unreasonable. In light of anything throw their way, they will not accept the thought that a fighter may in fact be built to be a good fighter. I don't think anyone here thinks the fighter class is perfect. I'd give him more feats and skills to be honest, and add synergy bonuses between feats. (Like I said earlier, I think the fighter fused with the feat rogue would be the perfect warrior.) But that doesn't mean he simply *can't* work. That's illogical. When adventuring, the game doesn't check how many class features you have compared to everyone else. When you roll to hit a monster, the DM doesn't compare your attack modifier to the cleric's attack modifier and then decide if you hit or miss. Those standards are really irrelevant. Full agreement here. I went over this earlier actually. If two people cannot agree what viable means then they cannot offer proofs based on proving or disproving the term. Attempts on each side have pushed people to make claims that lead to unreasonable places. Either no one is viable or everyone is. Neither of those positions make any sense however. Yes, you are right, if people cannot agree then nothing can be proven. However, where does the burden of proof lie? With people who have defined viable as Premise X, or with people who define viable as Premise X and Premise Y? Premise X is agreed on, so that needs not be argued. What about Premise Y? If you think the arguments suggest everyone is viable, I suppose you don't understand the premises. All Core classes will likely be viable under the simple viability argument (The argument that a class is viable if it can fulfill its role in D&D), because of how the Core classes were designed in the first place. NPC classes however, might be a different matter, and certainly most pets (someone has for example claimed Riding dogs to be better than Fighters) will not be viable, because they cannot fulfill the same role without perishing. That is not to say every NPC class *will* perish, but if it can be shown that trying to fulfill a D&D role will end up with them getting killed, they are obviously not viable. This is simply because one of the most important meanings of the word "viable" is capable of living. There is something to be said for that difference. You are right, there is something to be said for that difference. One of the things one could conclude is that the Fighter is much more balanced compared to the D&D system, than any of the classes that result in "thought process". A poorly built Fighter will get killed. A competently build Fighter will do well most of the time. An optimized Fighter will be able to handle most things his level. If I wanted to look for class balance within D&D, this would be what I was looking for.
navar100 06-02-07, 06:51 PM	great != powerful. Great is that they like them and feel that they do their job very well. You dont have to be as powerful as a buffed up druid in full form to be great. I doubt that they are many who would disagree with that! Plenty of people have argued even a druid's riding dog is more powerful than a 1st level fighter so why bother playing a fighter. Yes, it got that stupid. Note that if you 'fix' the fighters in any way, including giving them improved skills and skill points, then by at least a few peoples standards here you are either 'anti-fighter' or at least against the 'pro-fighter' side. Personally, I dont like anyone having only 2 skill points a level, I feel that is too much of a hit to too large a part of the game. If a player chooses to make his characters int low enough to get there that is their call and they will live with it, but being slapped with it right off the bat? bah. Wrong. Us "pro-fighters" would love for the fighter to have more skill points. Please, give him more class skills. (I personally prefer there be no such thing as cross-class skills, but that's beyond the topic.) We agree Tome of Battle makes playing a dedicated warrior quite fun to play. We also agree that non-Core sources, for some especially PHBII, do a great job in helping the fighter with feats than does just Core. We object to saying the fighter as he happens to be now "sucks". we object to saying you shouldn't play a fighter because another class is "better". We object to saying a fighter is a "drain" on a spellcaster's resources because he could do things by himself.
Scion of Coldshard 06-02-07, 07:01 PM	Yes, you are right, if people cannot agree then nothing can be proven. However, where does the burden of proof lie? Burden of proof? You cannot have a proof of this sort without defining your terms. Bards are more cluffunzyyiffical than anyone else! By far! Just look at how they wallosspy things, and they are at least twice as good as it at every level because of their class abilities. Obviously I just tossed in some random letters there but the point stands, how can you have a burden of proof about the terms when the terms have no common meaning? Still, I think that both sides have given proof for their sides, but for the most part neither side has given proof that is sufficient for 'both' sides of the arguement. It is especially tough when the two sides are essentially mutually exlusive and unyielding, and even more so when some of the arguements given as proof fall to logic. If you think the arguments suggest everyone is viable, I suppose you don't understand the premises. Some certainly do, such as the following: 'If the fighter is good enough to do his job then he is good enough' That falls down under simple scruitiny. It easily leads to everyone and everything being viable. One of the things one could conclude is that the Fighter is much more balanced compared to the D&D system, than any of the classes that result in "thought process". One could say that although I think you would have a very tough time proving it to any decent degree. Burden of proof is in your court on that one ;) I think that people who have the, 'easier to build other classes to meet the requirements of being competent and fitting their role in the group' for other classes are in an easier boat than you are though. A competently build Fighter will do well most of the time. An optimized Fighter will be able to handle most things his level. If I wanted to look for class balance within D&D, this would be what I was looking for. Those would be pretty nice things to look for of course. Although the difference between 'competently built fighter' and 'optimized fighter' seems to me to be very close to zero. Plus, which 'most' do you mean? Most combat situations? Most encounter situation? Most situations period? Also, 'hande' most things of his level? What does that mean? Defeat? Delay? Overcome? There have been a few builds proposed in the various incarnations of this thread which look to be decent to good while fighting but little else (no, having a +8 to a skill at level 20 is not an accomplisment, especially since most of that bonus comes from 3 different items instead of the class itself).
Khan the Destroyer 06-02-07, 07:10 PM	I am continually amazed at how you feel about the opposing side to your arguement khan. He summarized the discussion. And it was a good summary. It doesn't show anything concerning how I feel about those people in particular. I think the arguments that have been used against the fighter are mostly stupid. And I can't think of a better word because I don't know every fallacy in the book and I'm not as eloquent as my peers. That doesn't mean I think you or anyone else is stupid. I just think the arguments aren't sound. Further, the respones in Argaud's joke-post are pretty accurate. The blanket statement is made that fighters suck. Anecdotal evidence is dismissed right out (unless I ask for it, then it is holy text brought down the mountain by Moses). Builds are dismissed on various grounds, including wealth and the idea that specific builds are not enough to cover the whole class (the first inconsistent with the game, the second inconsistent with the cleric 'proof'). Implications are made that if you disagree, you don't know the game or your DM sucks at life. Also, casters can function without items. The only thing in Argaud's post that isn't a reflection of something that has actually been said is that cleric's can lower taxes. Regardless, I'm pretty sure you can pull it off in-game anyways. It would be just as poor in general if the two sides had been reveresed. I agree. But as I said earlier, I think it is reasonable to assert that the fighter can be built well. I think it is unreasonable to dismiss any sort of evidence on grounds that are contrary to fundamental game assumptions or are irrelevant to actual gameplay. Really, such attacks do nothing to further the discussion at hand and do much to just make people attack one another. That is just plain bad :( I know Scion, you think I'm a horrible person. At the very least, we're talking, which I thought would never happen again ;). So, by your own definition you are an 'anti-fighter', interesting. Unless you read my definition. Why ask for one if you are going to misinterpret it? :)
Scion of Coldshard 06-02-07, 07:17 PM	Plenty of people have argued even a druid's riding dog is more powerful than a 1st level fighter so why bother playing a fighter. I thought that arguement was more like, 'A riding dog is about as good at tanking as a fighter early on but doesnt take up a share of exp so why bother picking up a fighter for the group slot'. A first level druid by himself isnt all that tough and a riding dog looks to be the top of the heap as far as combat choices go though. While I can see the arguement I am not sure what to do about it personally. Wrong. It cannot be wrong as the definition was given earlier and there are a few people who have looked to agree with it by the looks of their posts. But that doesnt mean that there are not people who feel that the fighter is more or less ok but could use more anyway. That had nothing to do with my comment. we object to saying you shouldn't play a fighter because another class is "better". If you were a person in a world where every day could be a fight for your very survival and you found yourself in need for another companion plus you had a lot of knowledge about the various schools of training would you look for a guy who was good enough to get the job done or for a guy who was good enough to get the job done plus help out in some other ways? From that perspective I can see the arguement of not playing one class because they feel that another class is 'better' somehow. Lets assume for a moment that we are not talking about a fighter and move to a wholly new bit. A new character class has been made that is very much like the bard but it loses its bardic song ability and gains a d8 hd and full BAB progression. A player wants to play either the original bard or the new bard but cannot decide. One guy says, 'why play the new bard? the original bard gives you about the same attack bonus, or even better, plus it buffs up everyone for lots of extra attack and damage!' Another guy says, 'dont play the old bard, play the new one! More attacks on a full attack, more hp, you are a better tank!' Who is right here? Who would you object to? Going by the arguements here you have to pick one of the two sides apparently, which of those two arguements are you going to object to anyone putting forward? We object to saying a fighter is a "drain" on a spellcaster's resources because he could do things by himself. If I recall that 'drain' was in reference to having a cleric or druid instead of the Fighter. The Fighter could use the buffs that are being cast and sometimes needs them to do certain actions but in theory the cleric or druid could do it themselves. That sounds like a logical complaint to me. The Fighter is better unbuffed than the other two, but the other two can buff themselves. If the Fighter came into the party then he would take some extra resources now and then while the other two would not, although the Fighter might do better than the other two with those buffs. Depending on whether you are on the giving or recieving end will likely influence which is better. Plus, having to give up a round of combat to buff up someone else isnt everyones cup of tea. Whether or not the guy getting the buff would do better might be immaterial in the face of someone else getting the spotlight time. Reaonable premise, although the delivery might be wanting.
Khan the Destroyer 06-02-07, 07:18 PM	Some certainly do, such as the following: 'If the fighter is good enough to do his job then he is good enough' That falls down under simple scruitiny. It easily leads to everyone and everything being viable. I don't agree. The fighter's job is to fight. Which is, you enter into combat with the monsters. Deal hit point damage while absorbing hit point damage or keeping the enemy away from his teammates. If he can do this, he is viable. Which is not to say that anyone who can deal hit point damage and absorb hit point damage or keep the enemy away is viable. The job of a commoner is to justify the versimilitude of the world by representing the majority of people that aren't adventurers. If he does exactly that (however the game determines he should), he is viable. Not viable as a PC class mind you, or viable as an adventurer. Just viable as an NPC class. Because that is what he is and what we are hoping he can be. Essentially, the books give us a role for the class to perform. If the class can do it, it is viable. Does that work? (I'm not sure if I'm getting my point across clearly.) In regards to your bard example, it would really matter what kind of character the player was looking to play. But I would most likely suggest the old bard. Optimized bardic music would more than make up for the BAB loss and the lower HD. Of course, he may not want to use bardic music for hit points and attack bonuses. Further, that alone doesn't mean that the newer bard cannot function. I know you weren't responding to those 2 points in particular, but I wanted to throw them in before someone accused me of being a hypocrite or something.
Scion of Coldshard 06-02-07, 07:36 PM	He summarized the discussion. And it was a good summary. He summarized something, but it wasnt really much of the discussion here. Possibly a subsection of it, but that makes it a very poor summary of the thread overall. All it does is make people hostile. If you feel it is a good summary of the thread overall that is showing some very poor thoughts about the side that you are not on ;/ I think the arguments that have been used against the fighter are mostly stupid. Yes, I realize that. There have been bad arguements on both sides, but attacking the character of other people rather than the arguements doesnt help much for the discussion at hand. Anecdotal evidence is dismissed right out Which makes sense. If someone built a commoner and defeated a god with it what does that prove? If someone makes a character but cannot roll above a 4 throughout that entire characters life on any important roll does that mean that the character sucks? Builds are dismissed on various grounds A build in and of itself is perfectly fine. If someone builds a build that is completely, horribly broken does that mean that everything used in that build is also broken? If not, then why should any one build in particular mean that a class is under/over powered for all builds? If you can make 3 different builds out of a pure fighter that are decent does that mean that the fighter is a good class if someone else cannot even make one good build out of just a fighter does it mean that the fighter is a bad class? Many of the fighter builds I have seen that look to be decent pull a feat or item or whatever from here and there over half a dozen books or more, sometimes even different books which are for specific settings even. I understand that is basically what needs to be done and the larger the subset of feat choices there are the more likely you are able to get a powerful character I agree. But as I said earlier, I think it is reasonable to assert that the fighter can be built well. I think it is unreasonable to dismiss any sort of evidence on grounds that are contrary to fundamental game assumptions or are irrelevant to actual gameplay. The only Fighter builds that I have seen that even come close to being reasonable pull from so many sources that they become unreasonable because of it. Some of them work off of synergies that were not thought of and so a DM would be well within their rights to simply disallow it, and I could not blame them. So one could feel both ways at the same time. It is possible to build a fair fighter but at the same time that build is likely to be irrelevant as it works off of assumptions that would not really happen in a real game. I dont know any dm's that allow every book and every option in those books. I am the most linient dm around here and even I will look over each and every option that a player wants to bring into the game, no matter the book. I know Scion, you think I'm a horrible person. At the very least, we're talking, which I thought would never happen again I think you are a fine person Khan, and I know you can have discussions in a very reasonable way, right now I just dont have any respect for you. Generally I am pretty easy going, forgive and forget and all that, but for now your arguements on this thread have left me more than a little cold.
Scion of Coldshard 06-02-07, 07:55 PM	I don't agree. The fighter's job is to fight. Everyone can fight. Everyone can enter combat. Everyone can deal damage and absorb hits. Few classes have the ability to keep enemies from moving and/or attacking where they want though. Fighters have no special ability there. Which is not to say that anyone who can deal hit point damage and absorb hit point damage or keep the enemy away is viable. Oh? Then you will have to give a lot more info then. A whole lot more in fact, if a character is viable so long as they are able to do the job, which was the arguement, then anyone who can do the job is viable. A commoner, as an extreme example, is able to use weapons, can wear armor, and can hit things. They even get hp so can take hits. They are doing the job of 'tank', just not very well, but that doesnt mean that they are not doing it. If we get into 'how good is good enough' then we are again getting into the place where someone can say that the fighter is not doing it well enough because another class can do it better. You will have to be very careful about your definition of how and where to set the bar. Essentially, the books give us a role for the class to perform. People have mentioned bodyguard a few times. I personally would want to have a body guard that had spot, listen, and sense motive in their skill set at a minimum. I would also like them to have some ability to protect me, likely to be able to grab damage that would normally be given to me and take it themselves. I dont see the fighter doing this at all. Now a multi-class bodyguard might heve levels in fighter, but that does not a fighter make. I believe there is a feat somewhere that allows a character to take the damage of another, but even if that is true we are again butting up against the, 'how many sources from how many different places does it take to get the fighter to be able to do the job he is supposed to be doing' arguement. Further, that alone doesn't mean that the newer bard cannot function. Sure, the bard is a good class either way, although I feel that the bardic music bard is stronger both from a group standpoint and an individual character standpoint. But in regards to this thread a person is assumed here to be unable to choose more than one of the two and so either way saying the opposite will be objected to.
Kalarus 06-02-07, 08:10 PM	The only Fighter builds that I have seen that even come close to being reasonable pull from so many sources that they become unreasonable because of it. Some of them work off of synergies that were not thought of and so a DM would be well within their rights to simply disallow it, and I could not blame them. So one could feel both ways at the same time. It is possible to build a fair fighter but at the same time that build is likely to be irrelevant as it works off of assumptions that would not really happen in a real game. I dont know any dm's that allow every book and every option in those books. I am the most linient dm around here and even I will look over each and every option that a player wants to bring into the game, no matter the book. I am a little confused here about what you're looking for in this entire argument, really, because when making some statements, you're not just trying to point out flaws in arguments anymore. You have earlier claimed that Fighters could do with a boost of some kind. You give skill points as a decent example. Would my Fighters be more fun with more class skills and skill points? Certainly. Right now my skill prospects include being intimidating once in a while and generally failing spot checks. You freely admit that Fighters are weaker than spellcasters, following the general agreements of the discussion, quite frankly stating your agreement when you say that an optimized Fighter is something potentially useful while optimizing something else creates something which needs to be relegated to the status of "thought process". Yet if people draw from different official sources in order to try to balance this more, you call it "unreasonable". I'd appreciate it if you elucidated that a bit more, for it seems inconsistent to me. Few classes have the ability to keep enemies from moving and/or attacking where they want though. Fighters have no special ability there. You think 20 ft. reach, 5 AoOs per round, 3 attacks per round on full attack (nonboosted), having such high bonuses that you can leave virtually anything appropriate for your level lying on the floor without a weapon, constitutes "no special ability"? Oh? Then you will have to give a lot more info then. A whole lot more in fact, if a character is viable so long as they are able to do the job, which was the arguement, then anyone who can do the job is viable. A commoner, as an extreme example, is able to use weapons, can wear armor, and can hit things. They even get hp so can take hits. They are doing the job of 'tank', just not very well, but that doesnt mean that they are not doing it. If we get into 'how good is good enough' then we are again getting into the place where someone can say that the fighter is not doing it well enough because another class can do it better. You will have to be very careful about your definition of how and where to set the bar. Already been addressed. We're working with the D&D system. D&D system assumes CR system. A commoner in armor will have a high chance of perishing in the CR system. Something dead is not viable. I'd appreciate it if you started applying points that other people make to the poster you're replying to as well. Your objections are becoming increasingly inconsistent, doing nothing but trying to argue against the point itself without displaying much consistency. You freely ignore arguments given to an argument you might use to refute a poster's argument if you feel like doing so. It's slowly getting tiresome. You know what, I originally started this post to refute your points, again. To correct you and put my arguments in the proper context where they belong, again. I am not going to do so, again. Quite frankly it is getting tiresome arguing against someone who has no point to make, deliberately pulls anything out of context in order to refute his own interpretation of a sentence, and makes a habit of twisting the meaning of words and sentences in order to provoke an inconsistency that does not exist. You just don't read what people are saying, not because you can't, for I am sure you can. You just deliberately don't do it. Want to talk respect? Mine for yours plunged to unknown depths in the last 10 minutes.
Clawhound 06-02-07, 08:11 PM	I can address the whole issue of the "riding dog". Let's take a fighter with no feats. He only has a javelin, a longspear, and a two-handed sword. Let's take a riding dog. The enemy approaches. Fighter throws his javelin. He takes out his longspear. He gets an attack of opportunity against the advancer. He get an attack. Meanwhile, the dog waits. The dog waits. The dog attacks once an trips. In that scenario, the fighter attacked three times to the dog's one. Let's get more complicated. The enemy is behind a wall. The dog does nothing. The fighter uses his one javelin. Let's get more complicated. The fighter bought his own riding dog and has the cleave feat. Now he has all his advantages over the other riding dog, plus his dog's tracking, flanking, and tripping, and he will likely get cleaves against CR 1/6 and CR 1/4 creatures. The fighter could have five attacks to the dog's one attack. Tell me again how the riding dog is better than the blandest fighter build on this side of the planet? The mistake is comparing the dog to the fighter. They SEEM similar. If you compare the dog to the expected encounters, you will find that the dog is nowhere near as flexible. The fighter can fight at range, use reach, and really smack things around with the greatsword, just to name a few obvious advantages over the dog that matter in actual gameplay.
Khan the Destroyer 06-02-07, 08:34 PM	If you feel it is a good summary of the thread overall that is showing some very poor thoughts about the side that you are not on ;/ If you're into projecting my comments on other people. Yes, I realize that. There have been bad arguements on both sides, but attacking the character of other people rather than the arguements doesnt help much for the discussion at hand. Very true. Not making a fuss about it helps as well. Which makes sense. If someone built a commoner and defeated a god with it what does that prove? If someone makes a character but cannot roll above a 4 throughout that entire characters life on any important roll does that mean that the character sucks? Nothing and no. Which doesn't mean anecdotal evidence is without merits. It seems to me more helpful than the entire boards asserting how horrible the fighter is to any newb that comes here and mentions it. A build in and of itself is perfectly fine. If someone builds a build that is completely, horribly broken does that mean that everything used in that build is also broken? If not, then why should any one build in particular mean that a class is under/over powered for all builds? If you can make 3 different builds out of a pure fighter that are decent does that mean that the fighter is a good class if someone else cannot even make one good build out of just a fighter does it mean that the fighter is a bad class? Well then... why bring up the cleric? Or the druid? Or the warrior? If builds show nothing, why talk about *any* of them? Is it that builds show us something sometimes? When it proves our point (but not really)? The only Fighter builds that I have seen that even come close to being reasonable pull from so many sources that they become unreasonable because of it. Some of them work off of synergies that were not thought of and so a DM would be well within their rights to simply disallow it, and I could not blame them. I can't think of one off the top of my head (probably because I spammed several at one point). So one could feel both ways at the same time. It is possible to build a fair fighter but at the same time that build is likely to be irrelevant as it works off of assumptions that would not really happen in a real game. Again. Hop to the CO Board. Many many people include a book list that goes well beyond core. Which is not to say that core-only games don't exist. I have no way of knowing the ratio. But, let's not make the other games sound rare or something. I dont know any dm's that allow every book and every option in those books. I know DM's that allow every book. And I know 1 DM that likes to use only core. But what fighter build relied on allowing every option of every book? I am the most linient dm around here and even I will look over each and every option that a player wants to bring into the game, no matter the book. Then apparently you're not the most lenient ;). Everyone can fight. Everyone can enter combat. Everyone can deal damage and absorb hits. But it is not everyone's job to do so. And not everyone does it well. Few classes have the ability to keep enemies from moving and/or attacking where they want though. Fighters have no special ability there. If you say so. Exploiting AoO's and using options like Bull Rushing, Tripping, Grappling, Disarming, and Sundering can keep enemies from moving or attacking. Oh? Then you will have to give a lot more info then. A whole lot more in fact, if a character is viable so long as they are able to do the job, which was the arguement, then anyone who can do the job is viable. A commoner, as an extreme example, is able to use weapons, can wear armor, and can hit things. They even get hp so can take hits. They are doing the job of 'tank', just not very well, but that doesnt mean that they are not doing it. Scion, you ignored the whole rest of that thought, where I explain the role of a commoner is not to tank in an adventuring party and therefore the argument does not lead to the conclusion that commoners can tank therefore they are viable. You had to have read it. It was like... the next sentence. Essentially, the argument is 'If a class can be built to fulfill its role, it is viable (or whatever word you want to substitute in for viable, like not sucky, or balanced, or whatever).'
Clawhound 06-02-07, 08:45 PM	I find the use of "commoner" and "warrior" in these arguments as disingenuous. By default, these classes simply are not available to players. As such, they have no bearing on a player's choices. If a commoner or a warrior can do a fighter's job, then you accept the assertion that the fighter can do his job. You can not bring in the commoner or the warrior into the conversation without devfacto asserting that the fighter can do his job.
Scion of Coldshard 06-02-07, 09:12 PM	I am a little confused here about what you're looking for in this entire argument, really, because when making some statements, you're not just trying to point out flaws in arguments anymore. I am just making comments all over I guess ;) Generally I just try to bring up points that I consider important. This one here is pretty important. You freely admit that Fighters are weaker than spellcasters Did I? I will have to look over my posts to see which comment you mean exactly and see what the circumstances were. ,Yet if people draw from different official sources in order to try to balance this more, you call it "unreasonable". This arguement that I propose, and have before really, is an incredibly complicated one and is also very player/game dependent. In essence it is a meta-arguement about a meta-arguement. Where is it reasonable to draw the bounds for character creation? Each person has a different set of guidelines of course, hence the difficulty and the inherant meta part of my arguement. However, I think it is reasonable to put forward that most books that are made do not account for even the majority of other books that might be in a game. This means that there will be synergies and anti-synergies that pop up that were not intended. Lets look at a basic example: Book 1 has a feat that allows you to transfer your power attack penalty to AC instead of your attack roll Book 2 has a feat that whenever your AC is penalized through a feat or special ability you gain that penalty as a bonus instead. These were never meant to work together, they were made independently of one another, and yet when they are put together they become obscene! At level 20 a full BAB character could power attack for 20, get +40 to damage (2 handed weapon), and get a +20 to his AC! Not all combos are bad, but I put forward that the more different sources you pick through, especially ones with different assumptions (such as eberron and forgotten realms), the more likely you are to pick up something which has unforseen synergies and might be much too good for the cost. If someone is cherry picking through a half dozen books this can easily come up. Typically there are many concepts that you have to do this for just to be able to do what you want so it becomes a meta-meta-arguement. How do you tell the difference? If character build A is powerful is that because of synergies that were not thought of or something else? Are those synergies of an all right power level? There are still issues with things not thought of even in single books of course, but the arguement still stands that if you are going through many sources which were not looked at in conjunction it grows increasingly probably you will have interactions that were not thought of and could be unbalancing. As such, for the purposes of this thread, my thoughts have often gone to this: If someone feels that the fighter is weak and needs help how do they complain about certain feats being overpowered (either on their own or in conjunction)? Both can be true at the same time after all, just look at spells, some of those are worthless or broken, but that doesnt mean that the base class that casts it is either worthless or broken. You think 20 ft. reach, 5 AoOs per round, 3 attacks per round on full attack (nonboosted), having such high bonuses that you can leave virtually anything appropriate for your level lying on the floor without a weapon, constitutes "no special ability"? What about that is special exactly? What about that prevents other guys from doing what they want? Certainly little of that will force people to not do what they want and, again, none of it is special to the fighter vs the commoner. Already been addressed. I know I already addressed it, but apparently it didnt stick ;) A commoner in armor will have a high chance of perishing in the CR system. Something dead is not viable. But this wasnt actually important to the arguement that people were making. If the character could do the job it was good enough, regardless of if someone else could do the job better. Even if the Fighter was to die horribly so long as he was a shield for awhile he got the job done in fact. That was even part of the arena challenge earlier, the fighter didnt have to win any of the fights to be 'viable'. You know what, I originally started this post to refute your points, again. I would say that you have been unsuccessful in 'refuting' my points ;) I would have to look back to see if there were any that were successfully refuted but none spring to mind. With so many different people though there could have been some that I am just not remembering though. As an example from this post. If declaring that the fighter can have reach and aoo's is your way of refuting that the fighter has nothing special to bring to the table for preventing enemies from moving or targetting who they want then we might be using different definitions of 'refute'. Reach and aoo's are not special to the fighter and they can be remarkably ineffective at preventing enemies from doing what they want anyway. Want to talk respect? Sure, as an example, in most cases my respect for Khan is pretty high. He typically follows a topic well enough, presents good points, and things dont get all that personal. In this thread he has not really been doing that very well at all. If you feel that I am not responding to your points properly then you should go about saying that. It could be that I understand your points just fine but disagree with them and present options that you do not like though. I notice that you didnt even respond to my post to you but rather responded to a series of posts to someone else though, that is odd.
Scion of Coldshard 06-02-07, 09:14 PM	The enemy approaches. Fighter throws his javelin. He takes out his longspear. He gets an attack of opportunity against the advancer. He get an attack. So the fighter spotted the enemy with his low spot score, won initiative vs the enemy, and the enemy was stupid? How does this show anything again?
Argaud 06-02-07, 09:18 PM	I am continually amazed at how you feel about the opposing side to your arguement khan. Argauds portrayal is a very poor one of the overall discussion. It would be just as poor in general if the two sides had been reveresed. Really, such attacks do nothing to further the discussion at hand and do much to just make people attack one another. That is just plain bad :( Sadly, I had nothing to invent for my post, each and every of the arguments I mentioned has been used to "prove" fighters suck. Not by you, certainly, and not by the more reasonable debaters. But I have heard them all, and I am pretty sure so has Khan: -That fighters suck because feats suck compared to spells (this said by the people that exploits the most broken metamagic feats) -That the way to see if a fighter is good or not is to compare it with a cleric, at level 20, and assuming they are butt-naked (sometimes amended to "only non-magical gear" when people realize clerics need the holy symbol and components). -That the fighter has no right to use magical items when demonstrating fighting ability because he can't build them. -That the fighter will fail against the balor. -That the fighter will maybe beat the balor, but only if the DM does not give the balor magical items granting him +20 AC, which is what "logically" all balors have. -That the fighter sucks because the cleric does X better, the druid does Y better and the wizard does Z better. A.k.a. the "changing the goalposts all the time" fallacy, by which the fighter needs to be better than all the other classes put together to not suck. -That the fighter sucks because the wizard can gate 4 solars at level 20. I am gonna call this one the "So what?" fallacy. -That the fighter sucks because so-and-so said so in the CO boards. -That the fighter sucks because "just look the CO boards you n00b". (I am looking for a good name for this fallacy). -That the fighter sucks because in the CO boards the good builds at most they use 4 levels, and usually only 2. -That the fighter sucks because Class X is better, or Class1/Class2/PrC1/PrC2/PrC3 is so cool that an Ice Age is upon us. (This is also the "So What?" fallacy). -The "that is a fallacy, too" argument by which some guy that studied logic last year in high school accuses everybody that disagrees with him to be using fancy-named fallacies. Somehow that also means they are right and you are wrong. -The "only I understand the rules correctly" argument by which it is obvious class X can have AC50 at level 3, which somehow means the fighter sucks, too. And if custservice, or the Sage, or the Holy Spirit, contradict the debater, they clearly have no idea of what they are talking about. -My favourite: D&D was written by idiots and the houserules of this gang that hangs in "this other forum" is the real way of playing D&D. By the way, the fighter sucks. Except the fighter version they have created that is so mean that balors are paralyzed in terror when he shows up. This also means that the PHB fighter sucks, since he is like nothing when compared with that homebrew fighter. I think I will call this the Argaud Fallacy because I want to be as cool as Oberoni and Stormwind. (No, really!). -That a riding dog is better than a fighter. Also, a Fleshraker is better than a fighter. And a Dire Tortoise (or your favourite obscure animal) too! (A dire tortoise... Now I want a dire penguin in the next MM). See? This debate has been going for months. I have read all the dumb opinions of some of the most stupid, arrogant and conceited posters in the boards. So maybe I am now full of sarcasm that really has no place here (where everybody is being pretty nice) but... if you are feeling adventurous (or masochistic) you can search for past threads, and easily become as jaded as I am now ;)
Scion of Coldshard 06-02-07, 09:36 PM	If you're into projecting my comments on other people. You said that it was a good summary. The only way you could feel that it was a good summary is if you are being a very poor sportsman. At least, the only way that I see. You havent shown me any reason to think otherwise than saying that you arent thinking that. At this point however you are holding the smoking gun next to the bloody guy on the floor that you had been heard threatening earlier, you might be innocent but at this point the evidence is against you. Nothing and no. Which doesn't mean anecdotal evidence is without merits. Sure, but it has to be taken in context and a lot of data has to be given. We also have to assume that the rules were being used properly. We also have to assume that wealth guidelines are being paid attention to at least somewhat. We have to assume that the person telling us about it isnt leaving important bits out such as rolling 10 20's in a row to accomplish whatever it is they accomplished. There are certain anecdotal bits that are helpful and there are others that are not. If someone says that fighters are great because a fighter in their game killed 10 dragons all by himself I am going to likely ask for more info but my automatic assumption is that there were mitigating circumstances to not make that a feat worthy of talking about as far as a discussion about fighters go. A tale to tell of great daring and do? Possibly, but likely nothing to do with a balance discussion. Well then... why bring up the cleric? Or the druid? Or the warrior? If builds show nothing, why talk about *any* of them? I have to ask, you do know the difference between 'A' build, especially when in reference to the fighter who is essentially static once made, and a series of abilities that are either in common or easily changed yes? A single build cannot prove that a class is over or underpowered, although it can show that aspects of it might be or that a particular build is overpowered. If Guy A says that with a series of feats and items he can break the game with a fighter or cleric or wizard or commoner it says nothing about any of those classes in general. If you can show a trend, hence my request earlier to stay just in the core at first because the number of options is so much smaller, then that can indeed tell you something about the class. It takes more than 'A' build, it takes a holistic approach. Focusing on any one build in particular and drawing a reference to everything of that type is a sure way to gain no useful information. Hop to the CO Board. Many many people include a book list that goes well beyond core. Personally, I would prefer anyone who lists something should say where it is, and maybe even page number, unless it is in the Phb, Dmg, or monstrous manual 1. So how many pure fighter builds are on there for me to look at? I know DM's that allow every book. Everything from every book? He must assume that his players are not only not going to try to break his game but that they will actively try not to break the game. It could also be that he will smite anyone who does break the game, but that is just a version of the Oberoni fallacy in this arguement. Then apparently you're not the most lenient You know someone around here who is more lenient? But it is not everyone's job to do so. And not everyone does it well. Doing it 'well' was not part of the arguement and whether or not you consider it to be their job is also not part of the arguement. The arguement was that so long as a character can do the job then they are good enough. If a commoner is given some armor and a sword and told to defend something that is their job now. If you say so. Exploiting AoO's and using options like Bull Rushing, Tripping, Grappling, Disarming, and Sundering can keep enemies from moving or attacking. How are those special to the Fighter again? I know people can do it, at least somewhat, but how is it special to the Fighter? Anyone can use those options, so they are not limiting. It does not narrow the list of who can or cannot do the job. Scion, you ignored the whole rest of that thought, where I explain the role of a commoner is not to tank in an adventuring party and therefore the argument does not lead to the conclusion that commoners can tank therefore they are viable. I read it, it just wasnt relevant. I could say that the role of a fighter is not to tank in an adventuring party after all. You might disagree with that but then I disagree that a commoner could not be given the role of tank in a party. As you like anecdotal evidence, and this is a bit that might actually be helpful here, one of the parties I am currently in has army conscripts in it who were placed on the front lines. Know what they did a few sessions ago? Held a line against charging enemy forces so that the pc's could be heroes and go around casting behind the lines or patch up the lines with some spells or even jump full into melee. Many of those guys were commoner 1 or 2, a very few had managed to get a level of warrior. Their job? Take some hits, hold the line together, try not to die, keep people from getting through. Sounds familiar doesnt it? If the commoner can do the job, regardless of whether or not he does it the best, then he is viable according to the earlier arguement. How could he not be? He did the job!
Khan the Destroyer 06-02-07, 09:37 PM	See? This debate has been going for months. I have read all the dumb opinions of some of the most stupid, arrogant and conceited posters in the boards. So maybe I am now full of sarcasm that really has no place here (where everybody is being pretty nice) but... if you are feeling adventurous (or masochistic) you can search for past thread, and easily become as jaded as I am now That about sums it up for me as well.
Bob Loblaw 06-02-07, 10:32 PM	It takes more than 'A' build, it takes a holistic approach. Focusing on any one build in particular and drawing a reference to everything of that type is a sure way to gain no useful information. A very acceptable way to prove something is with a preponderance of evidence. One build is not enough. 20 builds is a good start. Every time someone says the fighter can't do X, we can build the fighter who accomplishes that. So, in this context, builds are a great way to show that the fighter does not suck. So how many pure fighter builds are on there for me to look at? There are tons of builds in this thread alone (some were part of the first 1800 posts that were dropped. There are some in other threads as well. How many builds are enough to show that the fighter does not suck? Everything from every book? He must assume that his players are not only not going to try to break his game but that they will actively try not to break the game. With the exception of third party stuff, I allow everything from every book. I look it over to make sure it fits in my game, and if so I allow it. I don't allow third party stuff because I don't have access to most of it. I do allow it on a case-by-case basis though. You know someone around here who is more lenient? There's no way to know for sure, but I'm pretty lenient. Doing it 'well' was not part of the arguement and whether or not you consider it to be their job is also not part of the arguement. The arguement was that so long as a character can do the job then they are good enough. If a commoner is given some armor and a sword and told to defend something that is their job now. This is a misrepresentation. The argument is that so long as the character can do the job that the designers designed it for then the character is good enough. Whether or not the character can accomplish anything else is not the point. The question is: Is the class viable within the role it was designed for? How are those special to the Fighter again? It's not that those are special to the fighter. It's that the fighter can maximize the potential for many of them at once. No other class can do that. Is casting spells special to the cleric? Nope. In fact many of the spells appear on multiple casters' lists. I could say that the role of a fighter is not to tank in an adventuring party after all. You might disagree with that but then I disagree that a commoner could not be given the role of tank in a party. The point is not what role you want to give them. The point is that the designers had certain roles in mind when the class was developed. Working outside that role is all fine and dandy, but it has nothing to do with how well the class fits within it's predetermined role. For example, can the wizard fill the role of an opportunistic combatant, using her speed to get into and out of combat quickly rather than engaging in prolonged melees while also making an excellent scout, particularly if she focuses her skill selection on stealth? (This is the role of the monk). If not, does this now make the wizard inviable? No. It means that he is trying to be something he was not designed to be. If he can, it doesn't address how well he can do the job he was designed to do. If the commoner can do the job, regardless of whether or not he does it the best, then he is viable according to the earlier arguement. How could he not be? He did the job! Just to reiterate, it has nothing to do with how well he can fill a role not intended by the designers but how well he can fill the role intended by the designers.
Krevon 06-03-07, 12:53 AM	I participated in some of the earlier dicussions but backed out and read for a while. I've seen many people throw out comparisons to commoner and warrior and such. I've yet to see anyone compare the Adept to any casters. I mean by the standards of warrior/commoner vs. fighter, then the adept should be compar to the casters. Adepts can fill the role of arcane or divine depending on your decision when creation, does that make the adept better than wizard or CoDzilla?
Kratch 06-03-07, 01:08 AM	Which posts? Why don't you go read through it. You'll indeed see where most/all of the points in argaud's summery come from.
Kratch 06-03-07, 01:16 AM	How are those special to the Fighter again? I know people can do it, at least somewhat, but how is it special to the Fighter? Anyone can use those options, so they are not limiting. It does not narrow the list of who can or cannot do the job. Why does it have to be special to the fighter to be accepted? You said: Few classes have the ability to keep enemies from moving and/or attacking where they want though. Fighters have no special ability there. and Khan and Kalaris both offered similar methods that someone could use to do just those things. At no point did they claim it was unique or limited to the fighter. As Being unique to a fighter wasn't a stipulation to your comment, I don't see why your so eager to dismiss it for that very reason. On the flip side, a fighters large number of feats does allow it to make use of more of those options, on top of other things, incomparison to most other class's You know what, I originally started this post to refute your points, again. To correct you and put my arguments in the proper context where they belong, again. I am not going to do so, again. Quite frankly it is getting tiresome arguing against someone who has no point to make, deliberately pulls anything out of context in order to refute his own interpretation of a sentence, and makes a habit of twisting the meaning of words and sentences in order to provoke an inconsistency that does not exist. You just don't read what people are saying, not because you can't, for I am sure you can. You just deliberately don't do it. Want to talk respect? Mine for yours plunged to unknown depths in the last 10 minutes. I would say that you have been unsuccessful in 'refuting' my points ;) I would have to look back to see if there were any that were successfully refuted but none spring to mind. With so many different people though there could have been some that I am just not remembering though. Nice way to prove his point. You've taking his first sentance, out of context with the rest of the paragraph, and then ignored the rest and began claiming he failed to do what you've interpreted him saying (being that he's refuting your points). But as, if you'll read the third sentance in that paragraph, he clearly said he wasn't going to do that, again, you only went and proved him right. Proven that you are taking things out of context and ignoring the rest. :thumbsup:
Scion of Coldshard 06-03-07, 04:19 AM	A very acceptable way to prove something is with a preponderance of evidence. Sure, that can be acceptable sometimes. Unfortunately in this case there are good and bad things on both sides along with quite a bit of information piled around which could go either way depending. Neither side has a preponderance without ignoring the other side. Every time someone says the fighter can't do X, we can build the fighter who accomplishes that. I havent seen a fighter build for every X that has been brought up, far from it actually. I fully expect there to be a lot of 'fighters should be able to but cannot do X' and 'fighters shouldnt be able to do that' arguements along with 'fighters cannot do X' then 'here is a fighter doing X' followed by 'that fighter is not doing X well enough to satisfy my feeling about the fighter doing X' which then goes into insults about one anothers mothers and such. How many builds are enough to show that the fighter does not suck? I have no idea, but apparently the number has not been reached yet. If there was a decent random sampling engine of all possible builds placed in all possible situations then we could get a decent idea about how many it would take though. Assuming that the number is countable then you would only need to randomly sample a few thousand. That isnt too bad right? ;) There have been a few fighters put up though. Most of them I would not count as really showing that a fighter is working against many of the complaints though. Being able to bull rush, trip, overrun, grapple, and a few other combat modes all pretty well doesnt really feel like all that much since there are all options anyone could do anyway, just not as many as the fighter typically. But since you can only use a couple in any given battle anyway having all of them tends to not be as good as specializing in just a couple of them. Of course, you avoided my question ;) From what I understand there are very few pure fighter builds on the CO boards to actually go and look at. With the exception of third party stuff, I allow everything from every book. I look it over to make sure it fits in my game, and if so I allow it. I don't allow third party stuff because I don't have access to most of it. I do allow it on a case-by-case basis though. I allow things on a case-by-cast basis as well, but then I would think that everyone does that to one degree or another. Even some of the 'core only' crowd will let in things they like enough now and then, especially if it is something that the character spent time researching. There's no way to know for sure, but I'm pretty lenient. It looks like you are not in my area and so wouldnt matter either way. The argument is that so long as the character can do the job that the designers designed it for then the character is good enough. That could certainly be an arguement, although it is not the one everyone has put forward nor that all arguements have pushed towards. But, under the 'role' option in the phb we find that the role fighters have is either charging into melee or being at range. If the fighters whole aspiration is to be a body that is somewhat more mobile than a rock on the side of the road I doubt anyone can argue about whether or not they are fullfilling that role color me unimpressed. The fighter doesnt need any of his feats to do that and actually the warrior npc class has a very similar description actually, except that it mentions that they are not as good as the fighter. If we set the bar that low it is no wonder that these types of threads come up so often with such heated debates, some people want to set the bar just below ground level and then any character able to jump over it passes the test. The question is: Is the class viable within the role it was designed for? 'Viable' begs for some sort of test however. If there is no test there is no way to check for viability. It's not that those are special to the fighter. Why not? I asked for something special so if it isnt special then how does it relate to what I said? It's that the fighter can maximize the potential for many of them at once. Oh? How? I guess that some could be combined but certainly many of them could not be used all at the same time. If you mean maximize in that the feat chains are very short so he can have them sure that is true, but not important in general. The point is not what role you want to give them. The point is that the designers had certain roles in mind when the class was developed. The point is not what job they can do but what someone might have intended when they were designed?? Why should I care one bit about what the designers had in mind? I have the rules and can use those but their inner thoughts are hidden from me so that is fairly unuseable, plus even if I did know exactly I am still uncertain as to why I should care. They might have intended the fighter to be the end all, be all of all combat situations that could ever possibly happen. If that is so then it could be anytime any other character possibly comes close it should be taken out back in shot in the head because doing that well cuts off the role of the fighter, after all, that character was infringing on what they had in mind. Still, that is an overstatement, but I see absolutely no reason at all to care what they had in mind when they were making the class. For example, can the wizard fill the role of an opportunistic combatant, using her speed to get into and out of combat quickly rather than engaging in prolonged melees while also making an excellent scout, particularly if she focuses her skill selection on stealth? Sure, spring attack + expeditious retreat does the combat bit. One of the scrying spells or invisible eye spells could work with scouting, failing that invisibility plus flying works decently sometimes. Alterself could help for both depending on the form. Far from optimal though in most cases though, but it could be done. If not, does this now make the wizard inviable? No. That is true, but the wizards role in simplistic terms is to cast spells and he was doing that just fine. If we set the bar low enough it doesnt even matter what spells he is casting, so long as he is casting them, that is his job after all. I am still not seeing any reason to care what the designers had intended while making classes any more than I care what they had to lunch on the day that they made them though.
Scion of Coldshard 06-03-07, 04:29 AM	Sadly, I had nothing to invent for my post, each and every of the arguments I mentioned has been used to "prove" fighters suck. Not by you, certainly, and not by the more reasonable debaters. But I have heard them all, and I am pretty sure so has Khan: Assuming that this is true it does not change what I said. There are good and bad on both sides. If you take a bunch of the bad of a single side, condense it down, and then put it up then it cannot be presented as an accurate representation of what has transpired. It was not a good summary, and I dont feel that you meant it to be. However, Khan said that it was a good summary and an accurate portrayal of the discussion. Since it was no where near either of those I felt the need to say as much. I did respond to your post once, but I only gave something that was a bit more accurate of the discussion without really insulting either side. I didnt say anything against you at all. This debate has been going for months. And it is unlikely to stop, especially when there are people who will go out of their way to make it not stop or that are unwilling to listen to what people are trying to say. There were quite a few pages where I tried to show people that they were talking about seperate things and argueing past one another just wouldnt do anything helpful. Who knows if it was helpful, but it is a bit annoying to see people argueing over and over and over when it is obvious that they have different assumptions and because of that they can have exactly the same information and yet come to different conclusions. If the bases that people are basing their thoughts on are different it is no wonder nothing is being resolved in any way.
Scion of Coldshard 06-03-07, 04:32 AM	Why don't you go read through it. I looked through about the first 5 pages or so and didnt see it then got bored with it. If you feel that the arguement I am asking about is there then feel free to post up the appropriate posts. I dont feel like searching through a thread with over a hundred pages to see if something you said is there or not. ;/
Scion of Coldshard 06-03-07, 04:41 AM	Why does it have to be special to the fighter to be accepted? You said: Yes, I said, 'Fighters have no special ability there'. So why does it have to be special to the fighter to be something that qualifies as special to the fighter? Is that a serious question? There is also that those combat tricks people have mentioned dont really prevent other creatures from doing what they want very well. Nice way to prove his point. Apparently you are failing at reading tonight. I would suggest you look over it again, in case that helps. I will note that what he was saying was false but I didnt feel like doing a few dozen cross referenced posts to prove it, I merely pulled out the important bit and commented a bit more directly then moved on. If you think what he said was true then you are obviously very guilty of selective reading. Given that, reading the thread again is unlikely to help, best just to save your time and believe me as I am telling the truth ;) Also, it is possible to read peoples entires posts and not quote all of the text in all of them. Sometimes points are not related and other times you simply dont need it all there. Cutting out the less relevant or redundant parts saves on space and reading. It is a common practice and generally a pretty good one. It is probably good to get used to such things, it happens all of the time in many different venues.
Kalarus 06-03-07, 04:58 AM	If you feel that I am not responding to your points properly then you should go about saying that. It could be that I understand your points just fine but disagree with them and present options that you do not like though. I notice that you didnt even respond to my post to you but rather responded to a series of posts to someone else though, that is odd. I did say just that. It could be that you don't. I wanted to respond to everything, but along the way I decided that at 3 am I was very tired of having to constantly repeat myself. I was looking at what you said. I was looking at what I'd need to say to directly counter what you said. I recalled having said it many times before. I decided not to do it again. Maybe I'll feel like responding to some things tonight but as I'm running a fever and have to work today, not likely. Every time you respond you give every impression of not critically reading what people are saying and just trying to pick apart a fraction of an argument as if it invalidates the coherency of the reasoning. Often you give the impression that you haven't read this thread at all, but just the single post you are referring to. D&D doesn't stand for "Derrida and Deconstruction". It's Dungeons and Dragons, which means we're talking about a game that has built in definitions and measures of balance. We're not freely arguing just to see where it'll take us, we're arguing in relation to D&D, and often you forward your points as if that connection doesn't exist at all.
Kratch 06-03-07, 05:27 AM	Yes, I said, 'Fighters have no special ability there'. So why does it have to be special to the fighter to be something that qualifies as special to the fighter? Is that a serious question? Khan and Kalaris both addressed your first comment "Few classes have the ability to keep enemies from moving and/or attacking where they want though.". Your second comment "Fighters have no special ability there", was sperate with reguards to they're comments, and in no way required them to show anything unique about the fighter to refute the generalization about most class's that you made in your first sentance. ... I merely pulled out the important bit and commented a bit more directly then moved on. Also, it is possible to read peoples entires posts and not quote all of the text in all of them. Sometimes points are not related and other times you simply dont need it all there. Cutting out the less relevant or redundant parts saves on space and reading. It is a common practice and generally a pretty good one. It is probably good to get used to such things, it happens all of the time in many different venues. It also leads to misinterpretations, misrepresentations, general confusion and obvious attempts to subvert a point in favour of a more easily disputed point. Something you have been doing a great deal of. Though I will give you props for actually stating your own oppinions now, rather then hiding behind the "some might say"'s, "it could be said"'s and "hypothetically speaking"'s you were using earlier so you could weasle out with "show me where i said that"'s when you were called on something. Not quoteing something in it's entirety is one thing, ignoring things within a paragraph because "you" feel it's irrelevent is another thing (something you have done almost every post of mine you've addressed, even going so far as to say as much). You are not the one making the point, how much importance you place on the things you ignore is irrelevent. If the person writing them thought them unimportent, they wouldn't have added them. To think you know whats importent to someones thoughts better then them is rather arrogent of you. there is a reason people put their ideas neatly into paragraphs, not just single lines. A paragraph is "a basic unit of prose. It is usually composed of several sentences that together develop one central idea. The main sentence in a paragraph is called the topic sentence." (The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition) note the bolded part. Given that, reading the thread again is unlikely to help, best just to save your time and believe me as I am telling the truth It's this arrogance that is making you so unliked, at the very least, by me, but i'm quite sure by others as well. It, along with much of the other things kalaris mentioned, (primarily your tendancy to take a single sentance within a paragraph long point, and argue that single sentance, twisted into what you want to percieve it to be, as if it was intended to be alone, without the other sentances within the paragraph as addendums, support or the actual premise of the point.), are not helpful to the debate. They are even more disruptive then the percieved "hostilities" you are accusing Khan of. Perhaps you should work on that.
Deep Blue 9000 06-03-07, 06:24 AM	I wanted to respond to this post Kalarus made a while ago since I seem to agree with all the beliefs Kalarus is railing against. I am sure there is some point to be said for comparing classes, and I am sure that if you compare all the classes solely on power (however that's measured), the Fighter will end up somewhere at the bottom of the curve. The problem I have with most reasonings presented about that powercurve, is that the viability powerstandards are so damn arbitrary. People claim roughly the following powerline (top highest, bottom lowest) to be representative of D&D: Pun-pun Other cheese ---- Cheese barrier. Everything above this is cheese, everything below this is appropriate for D&D. Cleric/Druid Wizard/ Artificer here too? Don't know the class. Archivist problably as well. Rogue somewhere abouts here too Toss in most other classes in here as well. ---- Viability barrier. Everything above this and below Cheese barrier is viable and should be played in D&D. Fighter Warrior Commoner. The position of these barriers is constantly presented as being intuitively true, yet I'd wager that if you critically asked each individual who agrees (roughly) with this division why every barrier is there, and which skills/feats/abilities/whatevers should be above the Cheese barrier and which below, or for that matter, why every class is where they are, they will always end up giving an answer that compares the classes with each other, not with the barriers. I'm fine with people claiming that Clerics, Druids and Wizards are more powerful than Fighters. I have a problem with claims that imply this means one should never play Fighters. If you accept these barriers as where they are, then this justifies not playing fighters. The reasoning is simple. Clerics and fighters are both playable choices (below the cheese barrier). Clerics are better than fighters in every way. Therefore there is no mechanical reason to play fighters. I believe you agree with this point but disagree as to the placement of the barriers. Yes? As for comparing class to each other instead of the barriers, that is a different issue at work. In order for a class to be playable it must be below the cheese barrier, above the viability barrier, and there can't be another class that's strictly better below the cheese barrier. Nobody justifies why these barriers are where they are. Some try by claiming the Fighter for example cannot match CR appropriate opponents, but they will not allow any proof (such as builds) to count against their theory because they do not want to adjust their preconcieved conclusion. I don't know how you can say this. The whole point of these threads is to discuss why the fighters are below the viability barrier. There are pages and pages of justification. As for not accepting builds contrary to their beliefs.. I believe many of these fighter builds are discarded because they are viewed to be "highly-optimized". However, since highly optimized builds are not representative of normal game play, the viability of highly optimized fighters is irrelevant. Unfortunately there is no objective criteria for how optimized a build is so its easy to see how this is a point of objection. Instead, you get reasonings like this: Fighter-defender: Fighters perform fine in my game Anti-Fighter: Your DM must be coddling Fighters. Fighter-defender: Euh, he does not, what makes you say that? Anti-Fighter: Fighters suck, so your DM must be coddling Fighters. Fighter-defender: Why do Fighters suck? Anti-Fighter: Because Fighters can't survive without DMs coddling them. This is what you call a circular argument, the premises rely on the conclusion being true as well as the other way around, and it is by definition invalid reasoning. Yet it returns, again and again, every time someone makes a new thread about Fighters. You need to understand this is a message board. That means many people can comment on one thread. Many different people with the same opinion even. It may seem like they are all of one mind committed to circular logic when they are just several different people who have the same thing to say. Even more amusing, there are people who consistently claim the Fighter sucks, yet in the same breath admit the spell system is broken, but conveniently apply the arbitrary Cheese barrier to validate their way of playing. "Clerics are sooo broken. Let's not play Fighters, because Clerics are much more powerful!" It's like they believe that their admittance of the outrageous power of their class warrants their choice in playing it, not because it's powerful, but because they admit it's too powerful and by that admittance should be justified in playing it anyway. I think you're misunderstanding what's going on. We're not trying to justify playing a cleric since we at least admit its too powerful. We feel its more powerful than it should be but not sufficiently broken to be cheese. That's why we get to play it. However, like all good D&D players, we love balance. So we bemoan the fact that clerics are not as balanced as other classes.
Argaud 06-03-07, 08:02 AM	Yes, I said, 'Fighters have no special ability there'. So why does it have to be special to the fighter to be something that qualifies as special to the fighter? Is that a serious question? There is also that those combat tricks people have mentioned dont really prevent other creatures from doing what they want very well. I'd say that being grappled, disarmed, prone or dead does indeed tend to prevent creatures from doing what they want. The fighter can do more of those tricks than most other classes because the tricks are boosted by feats, and the fighter has many feats. It is not unique, not. It is possible to find other classes that through a martial maneuvers, spells or feats can do each and any of those tricks as well or better than the fighter. Maybe even all of them. But it does not matter. It does not matter because it is false the fighter needs to do unique things unavailable to any other class to do its job well. If that would be true then the cleric is also a failure as class, as it has been shown that the cleric tricks can be done, and better, by other classes. And the wizard has the same problem.
Clawhound 06-03-07, 08:15 AM	So the fighter spotted the enemy with his low spot score, won initiative vs the enemy, and the enemy was stupid? How does this show anything again? This is a common, first level situation. Nothing amazing. Nothing even noteworthy. The opposition have no hide skill and and no bonus initiative. We're talking about CR 1/6 through CR 1. So yes, the fighter spots the enemy with bad hide scores, wins initiative against an opponent with no initiative bonus, and the enemy at that level is sometimes stupid. Look at the Int on an animal, undead, and vermin. Most creatures have no ranged attack, so they MUST close to be effective at all.
Archangel62 06-03-07, 08:59 AM	I find the use of "commoner" and "warrior" in these arguments as disingenuous. By default, these classes simply are not available to players. As such, they have no bearing on a player's choices. If a commoner or a warrior can do a fighter's job, then you accept the assertion that the fighter can do his job. You can not bring in the commoner or the warrior into the conversation without devfacto asserting that the fighter can do his job. Not quite, the argument is that if an NPC class can also fulfill whatever 'job' the fighter is assumed to have, presuming equal levels, then the truth is that the job is probably fairly simple given the , alleged, disparity between PC and NPC classes if they can do it as well as a PC class. The question has less to do with player choice and more to do with mechanical ability. This also presupposes that you agree that the fighters role is 'tank.' Following either view (Leo says tank simply means doing a lot of damage and lasting while others say it means having a strong AC, fairly high HP and keeping your teammates safe) it would be logical to think that the fighter was given class features that would give them damage reduction...no that's barbarian. What about the highest HD, barbarian again. Aha, heavy armor proficiency, which they share with clerics and paladins right out of the gate. The fighter only has feats and those feats must be used synergistically. One of the best builds I've seen in this debates was Khans, if only becuase he managed to make a fighter that could actually walk and chew gum at the same time in terms of martial abilities. He had built it in such a way that if the fighter needed to fight at range properly, it could, disarm or trip, yes, grapple...possibly a bit iffy, but the class could do most of what it was needed to and its progression was accurate.
Clawhound 06-03-07, 11:10 AM	Not quite, the argument is that if an NPC class can also fulfill whatever 'job' the fighter is assumed to have, presuming equal levels, then the truth is that the job is probably fairly simple given the , alleged, disparity between PC and NPC classes if they can do it as well as a PC class. The question has less to do with player choice and more to do with mechanical ability. l'll just limit this reply to why we should not speak of NPC classes. NPC classes can not do as well as a PC class because NPC classes are not valid choices to a player. They simply can not be chosen. Comparing an option to a non-option is a waste of time. Now, we can ask, "How well does a rogue tank or a wizard without spells tank?" The consensus here is that both are too fragile to be reliable. Even rangers and clerics sans spells are seen as inappropriate. The monk is ridiculed for its 3/4 BAB being "not enough to hit things." If all these things are true, then you want a tank with high base, high AC, high hit points and a full BAB progression. That gives you a DMM cleric, a fighter, a barbarian, a paladin, or some other full martial class. So when we go over what doesn't work in order to construct criteria of a good tank, the fighter meets those criteria.
Archangel62 06-03-07, 12:17 PM	l'll just limit this reply to why we should not speak of NPC classes. NPC classes can not do as well as a PC class because NPC classes are not valid choices to a player. They simply can not be chosen. Comparing an option to a non-option is a waste of time. Sort of like how you and several of your fellow fighter-is-fine side used pun-pun to claim that comparing the fighter to another class that can do their job better was invalid because of pun-pun?:rolleyes: The warrior comparison IS actually apt because if the warrior or commoner, things that are functionally far weaker than the fighter, at least in theory, can do the theoretical job the fighter has then that means either 1) The criteria being used to measure effectiveness (the job) isn't a proper benchmark. (this is more or less part of why I don't feel that 'tank' is a proper benchmark) 2) The gap in power between the classes shown isn't as great as we initially assumed and the class in question thus might not be as good as initially assumed. Now, we can ask, "How well does a rogue tank or a wizard without spells tank?" The consensus here is that both are too fragile to be reliable. Even rangers and clerics sans spells are seen as inappropriate. The monk is ridiculed for its 3/4 BAB being "not enough to hit things." If all these things are true, then you want a tank with high base, high AC, high hit points and a full BAB progression. That gives you a DMM cleric, a fighter, a barbarian, a paladin, or some other full martial class. So when we go over what doesn't work in order to construct criteria of a good tank, the fighter meets those criteria. The monks problem is that their flurry isn't good enough, their abilities gained are either rather unfocused or gained too late to be useful, and in general they are given a metric ton of class abilities to make up for the fact that a guy with an axe and a chainshirt can kick their asses. The bold part is where it gets tricky, the guys who feel the fighter is fine can set up a system where the fighter meets those criteria, whatever they are, and if other PC classes are better, so what? and if NPC classes are just as good, they aren't relevant. The guys who want to fix the fighter to make it a proper PC class set a different set of guidelines that the fighter either can't meet or can't reach efficiently. And this is assuming that we even consider 'tank' to be the purpose of the fighter or their sole domain. This is the other problem, every class has some sort of domain or area in which they are great. The fighter however does not have this same benefit, if versatility was to be their main focus then THAT is what we would need to measure.
Kalarus 06-03-07, 12:24 PM	I wanted to respond to this post Kalarus made a while ago since I seem to agree with all the beliefs Kalarus is railing against. If you accept these barriers as where they are, then this justifies not playing fighters. The reasoning is simple. Clerics and fighters are both playable choices (below the cheese barrier). Clerics are better than fighters in every way. Therefore there is no mechanical reason to play fighters. Not exactly the way I'd phrase it. I wonder for example to what extent Clerics are capable of battlefield control against multiple opponents. I'll agree with the idea that Clerics are more powerful as Fighters because they can do a lot of things a Fighter can, and have more powerful abilities to compensate for the Fighter things they can't. This still leaves a mechanical reason to play Fighters. It also leaves the mechanical reason that playing a Cleric has different mechanics than playing a Fighter. There is no *power* reason to play Fighters, if that is what your game is all about. I believe you agree with this point but disagree as to the placement of the barriers. Yes? See above, but yes I disagree with the placement of the barriers. As for comparing class to each other instead of the barriers, that is a different issue at work. In order for a class to be playable it must be below the cheese barrier, above the viability barrier, and there can't be another class that's strictly better below the cheese barrier. and here is where you went wrong. Why should I accept the premise that "There can't be another class that's strictly better below the cheese barrier"? I don't know how you can say this. The whole point of these threads is to discuss why the fighters are below the viability barrier. There are pages and pages of justification. Only if you assume, before the discussion starts, that the above premise is true. Every one of those justifications rests on it. If it is right, most of the classes, both Core and optional, are going to be relegated to below Viability barrier. Including the all-worshipped Cleric. Archivist anyone? As for not accepting builds contrary to their beliefs.. I believe many of these fighter builds are discarded because they are viewed to be "highly-optimized". However, since highly optimized builds are not representative of normal game play, the viability of highly optimized fighters is irrelevant. Unfortunately there is no objective criteria for how optimized a build is so its easy to see how this is a point of objection. Bob's Core build was outright straightforward as far as feat choice went. The items a bit less, but an experienced player who took the time to research the options would've found many of the same ones as the items emphasised the build's strengths. Perhaps the character would still not be "representative of normal game play", provided you'd first specify what that is because everyone here has a different view on that. For example, I do not consider DMM Clerics to be representative of normal game play. I do not consider Clerics and Druids taking on Fighter roles to be representative of normal game play. I do not consider every Cleric, Druid and Wizard to be using the same kind of spells in the same ways on the same opponents constantly, to be representative of normal game play. I do not consider singular monster/tactic examples that can defeat class X, to be representative of normal game play. Keep in mind that you start optimizing the second you think about the consequences of your choices. A Cleric who takes DMM Persist/quicken Divine Power/Divine Favor/Righteous might, is optimizing, in this case, optimizing to take on a Fighter role. Considering these Fighter builds to be too "optimized" to see play is just an arbitrary judgement. You need to understand this is a message board. That means many people can comment on one thread. Many different people with the same opinion even. It may seem like they are all of one mind committed to circular logic when they are just several different people who have the same thing to say. *gasp* this is a message board?? Seriously?? Man I thought it was a restaurant, no wonder my steak never arrived :P I addressed the generalization issue in that post already. Even then, the people who do not exactly follow the circular statement, still do not justify their statements any better. I am for example still looking for that explanation why everyone is prepared to deal with Fighters in some people's gaming worlds, when the Fighter is so weak he shouldn't be played or can be safely ignored. I think you're misunderstanding what's going on. We're not trying to justify playing a cleric since we at least admit its too powerful. We feel its more powerful than it should be but not sufficiently broken to be cheese. That's why we get to play it. However, like all good D&D players, we love balance. So we bemoan the fact that clerics are not as balanced as other classes. No, I don't misunderstand what's going on. I understand that you *feel* this way. However, if I *feel* that Fighters are viable, or if I simply *feel* like playing a Fighter for reason X, and I have the audacity to say it on these boards, I get a slew of people tossing me phrases and words like "objective math", "viability", "Warblade" and/or "Reason X is cow dung because of (preconcieved) notion Y". What makes your feelings about viability and cheese worth more than mine? If your beef with the Fighter is that he can't survive the games you play, that's fine. It doesn't matter what the reason is why that happens, you apparently have fun playing that way. Yet people who play a different game and whose experiences show that Fighters are both fun and effective, are deemed "wrong" at best and "idiots who shouldn't play D&D" at worst.
Kalarus 06-03-07, 12:40 PM	Sort of like how you and several of your fellow fighter-is-fine side used pun-pun to claim that comparing the fighter to another class that can do their job better was invalid because of pun-pun?:rolleyes: The warrior comparison IS actually apt because if the warrior or commoner, things that are functionally far weaker than the fighter, at least in theory, can do the theoretical job the fighter has then that means either 1) The criteria being used to measure effectiveness (the job) isn't a proper benchmark. (this is more or less part of why I don't feel that 'tank' is a proper benchmark) 2) The gap in power between the classes shown isn't as great as we initially assumed and the class in question thus might not be as good as initially assumed. There is no rule in any book that makes Pun-pun illegal to play. It is DM fiat, and a bit of sensibility because you might as well not play. However, I also feel it's a bit of sensibility not to allow people DMM in order to allow people to play a Cleric as a Fighter. However we can't be arguing sensibilities, because that'd mean this entire discussion is *gasp* subject to subjectivity. Every power comparison suddenly becomes meaningless, because all that matters is what is considered "cheese" in your gaming group. As for the Warrior/commoner comparison, if the classes may not be chosen and the DM never overrules that issue, there's no point in the comparison. If the DM does overrule that issue and allows people to play warriors, then I am just going to rephrase your conclusions a bit to make them more appropriate and a lot less biased. 1) The criteria is wrong. I wouldn't call "tank" as a criterium, I'd call it as an example role. It'd consider CR appropriate opponents a more proper criterium. Quite frankly it's the only one we have if we're all still playing the same game. There are a lot of criteria on this board for what classes should be able to do. So many in fact that talking about criteria is actually nearly impossible. Mostly what we do here is combat power comparisons, because "roles" are too subject to setting and game style. E.g., Rogues aren't measured by their combat capability, but rather by their skill abilities. In a game where the DM constantly runs straightforward combat sessions and never calls upon skills to be used, is there much point in playing a Rogue? Before you can talk criteria and compare it, you need to consider *all* possible criteria for *all* possible solutions for *all* possible classes involved. Have fun. I am in fact eager to hear what people believe the criteria for a Cleric are, and what the Cleric is in fact supposed to do. So far all I hear is "be powerful while being a Fighter". Interesting criterium for Clerics. 2) The gap in power between the classes shown isn't as great as we initially assumed and the classes in question thus might not be as good or bad as initially assumed. I changed the line just a little bit to take out the bias. If you compare two classes and you initially assume a large difference in matters of X, and you end up concluding that they have a small difference of X, it does not mean that the more powerful class is less powerful than initially assumed. It may also mean that the less powerful class is in fact more powerful than initially assumed. It may mean both. It may mean neither since you may realize they were both exactly where you thought they would be in terms of power, but your perspective on power changed.
Meyer_William 06-03-07, 01:24 PM	Ok ... just so I understand ... Fighters are not viable because most people only dip into them for 2-4 levels if at all. Sorcerors must not be viable as people jump ship as fast as possible (PrC's anyone?) however, they were ranked as the most fun class to play (forget the link) In fact most character builds jump ship as soon as possible ... I guess this means that no character class is viable? For people who say that a fighter's abilities are static, and can not change -- how can we be happy with all the favored souls/sorcerors/bards -- whose spell lists do not change (exception, whenever a new spell level is gained, they can swap an old one)? Now ... personally, I prefer not to play any single character class (even spellcasters) ... so for me, this thread could be renamed 'Any Reason to have any character class"
Bob Loblaw 06-03-07, 02:02 PM	Ok ... just so I understand ... Fighters are not viable because most people only dip into them for 2-4 levels if at all. Sorcerors must not be viable as people jump ship as fast as possible (PrC's anyone?) however, they were ranked as the most fun class to play (forget the link) In fact most character builds jump ship as soon as possible ... I guess this means that no character class is viable? For people who say that a fighter's abilities are static, and can not change -- how can we be happy with all the favored souls/sorcerors/bards -- whose spell lists do not change (exception, whenever a new spell level is gained, they can swap an old one)? Now ... personally, I prefer not to play any single character class (even spellcasters) ... so for me, this thread could be renamed 'Any Reason to have any character class" No confusing the issues with the facts. We can't have that around here. ;)
Scion of Coldshard 06-03-07, 02:09 PM	It's this arrogance that is making you so unliked, at the very least, by me Note to self: Everyone but me is allowed to make jokes. Thanks for clearing that up Kratch. If only I had thought ahead of time to put a smiley on that comment.... Oh, wait, I did!
Scion of Coldshard 06-03-07, 02:12 PM	This is a common, first level situation. I disagree. It is a situation that can occur but it is not common in my experience and looking over the challenges of CR 1/6 to 1 I dont see it as being all that common there either except through DM fiat.
Scion of Coldshard 06-03-07, 02:27 PM	Fighters are not viable because most people only dip into them for 2-4 levels if at all. I would say that if you are better off not taking more levels in a class and instead getting out of it that is a serious issue with a class. Sorcerers are certainly in that boat. What do you get for staying in sorcerer? Continued familar advancement, woo. What do you get if you get out of it? Possibly a lot, and very likely you wont lose any casting ability at all! If you are a fighter 4, have taken weapon specialization for your favorite weapon, and have enough exp to go up to level 5 what do you do? That 5th level of fighter looks kindof bleak right now. You get +1 BAB, a d10 hd, a couple of skill points for your small skill list and... that is it. Those dead levels are pretty rough to look forward to and level 5 is a hefty one. Why take the fighter any farther than 4? Why take the sorcerer any farther than it takes to get into the full casting prc of your choice? It is certainly an issue. I would like to see a few changes to the system to make such choices a little less easy. Going to the per encounter system instead of the per day system also might be a nice change for that matter.
Kratch 06-03-07, 03:51 PM	If you accept these barriers as where they are, then this justifies not playing fighters. The reasoning is simple. Clerics and fighters are both playable choices (below the cheese barrier). Clerics are better than fighters in every way. Therefore there is no mechanical reason to play fighters. I think he also objects to the repeated claim "clerics are better then fighters "in every way". I've seen a great many builds presented on these debates that allow a fighter options well beyond what a cleric can do. While the cleric, instead, does other things with the spells not dedicated to being a meleeist/tank. Generally, most of us agree to some degree or another the cleric is a more powerful class. Some of us do not accept, however, the claim of the cleric doing "everything" a fighter does plus more. I will agree a cleric can "mimic" everything a warrior does and more, but then, so does a fighter, and the fighters mimicing isn't subject to additional limitations (needs spells memorized) and vulnerabilities (dispels, antimagic). Fact is, a cleric can't mimic the 12+ (11 bonus, plus the one needed for quicken) feats the fighter has over him. Some people dismiss those feats as "worthless" then go on to quote various spells the cleric can cast, but that is simply ignoring the difference, not proving the cleric is performing those differences like they're claiming. Next, someone will quote heroics, but as that isn't a cleric spell, they can't actually make use of that. Once thats pointed out, the custom magic items of heroics are brought out, but assuming equal gear, the cleric is still down 12+ feats. As for comparing class to each other instead of the barriers, that is a different issue at work. In order for a class to be playable it must be below the cheese barrier, above the viability barrier, and there can't be another class that's strictly better below the cheese barrier. As kalaris pointed out, why does that last premise have to be in there? By placing that in there, you eliminate everything but the druid/cleric, and depending on your preferences/playstyle, maybe wizard (after all, in general terms, what can a wizard do that clerics can't, on top of their superior HP, armour prof, turning, BAB, domain abilities, healing abilities, ability to spontaniously change their spells to something useful prior to renewing them overnight, the ability to regain their spells dispite disruptions through the night, the very limited need for components in comparison, the all encompasing spellists, etc? Buff, nope, clerics do that too, Save or dies? nope. divinations? nope. Anything?).
Deep Blue 9000 06-03-07, 05:56 PM	I'm going to make the assumptions that clerics are better than fighters in every way for my post. For an argument on why this is true, see anywhere else in this thread. Not exactly the way I'd phrase it. I wonder for example to what extent Clerics are capable of battlefield control against multiple opponents. I'll agree with the idea that Clerics are more powerful as Fighters because they can do a lot of things a Fighter can, and have more powerful abilities to compensate for the Fighter things they can't. This still leaves a mechanical reason to play Fighters. It also leaves the mechanical reason that playing a Cleric has different mechanics than playing a Fighter. There is no *power* reason to play Fighters, if that is what your game is all about. See above, but yes I disagree with the placement of the barriers. and here is where you went wrong. Why should I accept the premise that "There can't be another class that's strictly better below the cheese barrier"? I'm saying there's no mechanical reason to play a fighter ie no mechanical advantage (power). You can still play fighters because you like the name or the flavor or whatever. But you *are* accepting that your character is going to be strictly worse than he could be. Only if you assume, before the discussion starts, that the above premise is true. Every one of those justifications rests on it. If it is right, most of the classes, both Core and optional, are going to be relegated to below Viability barrier. Including the all-worshipped Cleric. Archivist anyone? Actually, the fighter is the only core class that is so vanilla that he can be trumped by another class. All other core classes get unique abilities give them some special areas of expertise. Now there are a few optional classes which are below the viability barrier (hexblade, samurai, duelist) but, like fighter, it is due to the blandness of the class. They don't have any niche and aren't good in general. As for the archivist specifically, they suffer from MAD and expensive spell acquisition. Clerics also get turning, domains, better BAB, and better armor. Honestly, I think its a fair trade for all the other stuff archivists get. Bob's Core build was outright straightforward as far as feat choice went. The items a bit less, but an experienced player who took the time to research the options would've found many of the same ones as the items emphasised the build's strengths. Perhaps the character would still not be "representative of normal game play", provided you'd first specify what that is because everyone here has a different view on that. For example, I do not consider DMM Clerics to be representative of normal game play. I do not consider Clerics and Druids taking on Fighter roles to be representative of normal game play. I do not consider every Cleric, Druid and Wizard to be using the same kind of spells in the same ways on the same opponents constantly, to be representative of normal game play. I do not consider singular monster/tactic examples that can defeat class X, to be representative of normal game play. Keep in mind that you start optimizing the second you think about the consequences of your choices. A Cleric who takes DMM Persist/quicken Divine Power/Divine Favor/Righteous might, is optimizing, in this case, optimizing to take on a Fighter role. Considering these Fighter builds to be too "optimized" to see play is just an arbitrary judgement. Well, it is an arbitrary decision. But it is also a decision that must be made. If it doesn't represent normal game play, we don't care about it. So the best we can do is explain why we think X is so abnormal. If someone doesn't justify it, call them on it. *gasp* this is a message board?? Seriously?? Man I thought it was a restaurant, no wonder my steak never arrived :P I addressed the generalization issue in that post already. Even then, the people who do not exactly follow the circular statement, still do not justify their statements any better. I am for example still looking for that explanation why everyone is prepared to deal with Fighters in some people's gaming worlds, when the Fighter is so weak he shouldn't be played or can be safely ignored. That's easy. Fighters may suck but other melee types such as barbarians, rogues, ogres, and giants are still dangerous. So I prepare spells to counter them. And since fighters are also vulnerable to the same things as these guys, I'm always ready for fighters. No, I don't misunderstand what's going on. I understand that you *feel* this way. However, if I *feel* that Fighters are viable, or if I simply *feel* like playing a Fighter for reason X, and I have the audacity to say it on these boards, I get a slew of people tossing me phrases and words like "objective math", "viability", "Warblade" and/or "Reason X is cow dung because of (preconcieved) notion Y". What makes your feelings about viability and cheese worth more than mine? The whole point of these threads is to justify our beliefs to see which one better reflects reality. So I say what I feel and you say what you feel and then the both of us try and see who's right. So my feelings and beliefs are worth more than yours if they are better supported. If your beef with the Fighter is that he can't survive the games you play, that's fine. It doesn't matter what the reason is why that happens, you apparently have fun playing that way. Yet people who play a different game and whose experiences show that Fighters are both fun and effective, are deemed "wrong" at best and "idiots who shouldn't play D&D" at worst. Look, we're not trying to oppress you for playing a fighter. But when you say fighters are effective, we're going to challenge it. I think he also objects to the repeated claim "clerics are better then fighters "in every way". I've seen a great many builds presented on these debates that allow a fighter options well beyond what a cleric can do. While the cleric, instead, does other things with the spells not dedicated to being a meleeist/tank. Generally, most of us agree to some degree or another the cleric is a more powerful class. Some of us do not accept, however, the claim of the cleric doing "everything" a fighter does plus more. I will agree a cleric can "mimic" everything a warrior does and more, but then, so does a fighter, and the fighters mimicing isn't subject to additional limitations (needs spells memorized) and vulnerabilities (dispels, antimagic). Fact is, a cleric can't mimic the 12+ (11 bonus, plus the one needed for quicken) feats the fighter has over him. Some people dismiss those feats as "worthless" then go on to quote various spells the cleric can cast, but that is simply ignoring the difference, not proving the cleric is performing those differences like they're claiming. Next, someone will quote heroics, but as that isn't a cleric spell, they can't actually make use of that. Once thats pointed out, the custom magic items of heroics are brought out, but assuming equal gear, the cleric is still down 12+ feats. Sorry, this particular take on the topic has been done to death and I won't have anything new to say. You'll have to take this issue up with one of the other people in the thread or one of the many other threads on the subject. :p As kalaris pointed out, why does that last premise have to be in there? By placing that in there, you eliminate everything but the druid/cleric, and depending on your preferences/playstyle, maybe wizard (after all, in general terms, what can a wizard do that clerics can't, on top of their superior HP, armour prof, turning, BAB, domain abilities, healing abilities, ability to spontaniously change their spells to something useful prior to renewing them overnight, the ability to regain their spells dispite disruptions through the night, the very limited need for components in comparison, the all encompasing spellists, etc? Buff, nope, clerics do that too, Save or dies? nope. divinations? nope. Anything?). The difference between classes is much more than you think. Almost all classes have a niche ability that no one else gets, as well as several abilities related to their class role. As I say before, the fighter's blandness is unique. Almost nowhere else will you see one class strictly dominate another. As for wizard (or sorc) versus cleric, they each specialize in certain types of spells. Clerics get attack and AC buffs. Wizards get defensive buffs (blink, invisibility, fly). Clerics get fortitude save or dies earlier. Wizards get fort and will save or dies. Clerics get healing. Wizards get no-save attack spells. I could go on but you get the idea. Class differences are quite large.
Khan the Destroyer 06-03-07, 06:08 PM	You said that it was a good summary. The only way you could feel that it was a good summary is if you are being a very poor sportsman. At least, the only way that I see. You havent shown me any reason to think otherwise than saying that you arent thinking that. At this point however you are holding the smoking gun next to the bloody guy on the floor that you had been heard threatening earlier, you might be innocent but at this point the evidence is against you. At this point, you seem to not understand the futility in calling me out everytime I make a snide remark. I don't respect the arguments brought forth from the other side and I don't respect some of the attitudes either. Also, I am free to react as I wish. So if I choose to answer agnorance (arrogance and ignorance combined into a potent mix) with sarcasm or whatever, I'll do so. Likewise, you're free to react to that however you feel. But truth be told, the more you lecture me on my bad behavior, the less likely I will be to stop. Yes, I'm like that. So, we can stop acting like this is Nanny 911 and spanking me everytime I act up, and start acting like it is an internet forum where we sometimes just have to deal with people being asses every now and again. Sure, but it has to be taken in context and a lot of data has to be given. Sure, but it still works. Besides, you missed the real point entirely. Which is that the evidence is dismissed unless it works for the anti-fighters. I have to ask, you do know the difference between 'A' build, especially when in reference to the fighter who is essentially static once made, and a series of abilities that are either in common or easily changed yes? A single build cannot prove that a class is over or underpowered, although it can show that aspects of it might be or that a particular build is overpowered. If Guy A says that with a series of feats and items he can break the game with a fighter or cleric or wizard or commoner it says nothing about any of those classes in general. If you can show a trend, hence my request earlier to stay just in the core at first because the number of options is so much smaller, then that can indeed tell you something about the class. It takes more than 'A' build, it takes a holistic approach. Focusing on any one build in particular and drawing a reference to everything of that type is a sure way to gain no useful information. So then please riddle me this... How do you think we can determine the power of the fighter class? Also, what do you expect for a balanced class? For it to be balanced in any incarnation to perform any role? Because I can't grasp the concept of deciding how strong a build can be without building it first, and making choices to reflect what I want out of my character. So how many pure fighter builds are on there for me to look at? Probably 2. But my point is that non-core games are not as rare as you try to imply. My reasons for saying as much are not only from personal experience (gasp, heart-attack!), but also from time on the CO Boards, where people list the books they have access to and often times it goes beyond core. Everything from every book? He must assume that his players are not only not going to try to break his game but that they will actively try not to break the game. Yeah. Not everyone plays with people that try to dominate as many roles as possible and use the most optimized spell and feat combos in the universe. Some players resepct their friends and don't mind limiting themselves to reasonable characters. It could also be that he will smite anyone who does break the game, but that is just a version of the Oberoni fallacy in this arguement. I wasn't even arguing. Just making a comment. You know someone around here who is more lenient? Yeah, anyone who doesn't review a book before accepting it. Doing it 'well' was not part of the arguement and whether or not you consider it to be their job is also not part of the arguement. What argument are we talking about? The arguement was that so long as a character can do the job then they are good enough. If a commoner is given some armor and a sword and told to defend something that is their job now. Ok. That must be your argument (or whoever's) and I don't agree. If you claim that it is the argument I've been using, I have to ask how you interpreted it that way. If I say 'If the fighter can tank, he is viable', where do you make the leap that this argument also applies to the commoner? The same thing but in different words... 'If the fighter can fulfill his role in a party, he is not underpowered.' How do you get 'If a commoner can fulfill a fighter's role, he is not underpowered.' out of that? I may be having some sort of memory lapse, but I can't imagine myself saying something like 'If any class can wear armor and hold a weapon and make an attack or defend against one no matter how poorly, that class is viable.' How are those special to the Fighter again? He can do them better than most anyone else if built to do so. But the larger point is that there are indeed ways to prevent opponents from moving and/or attacking. I know people can do it, at least somewhat, but how is it special to the Fighter? Anyone can use those options, so they are not limiting. It does not narrow the list of who can or cannot do the job. I know you are reading the other thread "have you seen a fighter fail", and I'm assuming you read my response to this very topic. But let me repost it for you.... There are actually very few feats that give you "special moves", particularly in core. There's stuff like Spring Attack, Whirlwind Attack, and Stunning Fist --- which are almost always low priorities for most Fighter builds --- and, of course, the tactical feats in CW. But, most combat feats just give you a static bonus (or reduced penalty) to something that any character in the game could do already. In my opinion, it has a lot to do with feat synergy. Sure, someone may have the option to sunder or bull rush, but can they do it as well as the fighter? Can they: Charge with Power Attack, Leap Attack, and Heedless Charge to Sunder Weapon... Use Sundering Cleave to attack you after the Sunder with a higher attack bonus than usual... Use Knockdown to trigger a trip attempt with damage dealt and trip you... Use Improved Trip to get a bonus attack after making you prone... Deal more Power Attack damage on your Improved Trip bonus attack... Use Knockback to trigger a bull rush on that attack, sending you back x feet... Keep you away and on the ground after you stand up and move closer with an AoO triggering Knockback for more bull rushing and tripping (alternatively, you can get up and move away, or fire an arrow or whatever, in which case, skip this step)... Next turn, charge you again with bonuses to damage from Momentum Swing, Advancing Blows, and more Power Attack, as well as bonuses to attack from Advancing Blows and your Prone condition *or* in the event that you are adjacent somehow, Two-Weapon full attack with all of the previous bonuses to damage mentioned and the bonus to attack from Advancing Blows... So yeah, other characters have the same basic option. But they can't pull it off quite the same. Someone charging because it is open to every character is different than someone with Shock Trooper, Combat Brute, and Leap Attack charging. Your paladin can use his attack action to disarm someone. My fighter will use his to trip that same person, then use the extra attack to disarm them with a higher bonus. Then when they stand up, I'll get two AoO's thanks to my Double Hit feat, and maybe end up bull rushing them or something. Now, feel free to go beyond that example and just understand that his feats allow him to do stuff that other classes can't either accomplish or accomplish to the same degree. I think that example cost ~11 feats. And I'd say that opponent is not fighting on his own terms after meeting up with the fighter. I read it, it just wasnt relevant. I could say that the role of a fighter is not to tank in an adventuring party after all. You might disagree with that but then I disagree that a commoner could not be given the role of tank in a party. And I would say you're being unreasonable. The PHb says the job is to fight in melee or ranged combat. We have no reason to assume that your job is to do this poorly. In fact, the main rewards in D&D come when you overcome encounters. The two that stick out right now are XP and wealth. If we stick to what the PHB says (combat), and then assume we want to be good at it (party overcomes encounters), we'll try and build a good fighter. And if the fighter ends up fighting in melee and the party wins... I don't see a problem. If the commoner can do the job, regardless of whether or not he does it the best, then he is viable according to the earlier arguement. How could he not be? He did the job! If you show me a commoner that can tank, I would have to be insane to vehemently deny that a commoner cannot tank. And again, the only argument I am thinking of is the one you and others on your side have been invoking about the warrior and the commoner. I don't agree with it.
Argaud 06-03-07, 06:47 PM	As for the archivist specifically, they suffer from MAD and expensive spell acquisition. Clerics also get turning, domains, better BAB, and better armor. Honestly, I think its a fair trade for all the other stuff archivists get. Uh, I have to disagree. MAD? They just need a good Int. And they get Owl Insight for a +10 to Wis. Expensive spell acquisition? When has that bothered a wizard? They can get all the good spells and just the good spells. Turning? Turning is pretty crappy, unless used for DMM. If it is allowed it can be taken through PrCs or a 1 level dip into cleric. Better Bab? Irrelevant due to Divine Power. If melee clerics have Divine Power all the time, so do melee archivists. Better armor? Two words: mithril fullplate. (Also dozens of buffs the clerics can't get, starting at low level with things like barkskin). Domains? Archivist have access to the spells of ALL the domains. On top of that archivists have three bonus feats (in the case the cleric could claim some extra advantage from the domains), 4 skill points/level, a better skill list, bonus to knowledge skills, the Dark Secrets class ability (which can do several interesting different things) and a small bonus to save against enchantment spells. The archivist has 1 hp less per level, and can't turn (but only if he does not want to). That is all. In all other regards he is vastly superior to the cleric.
navar100 06-03-07, 07:47 PM	See? This debate has been going for months. I have read all the dumb opinions of some of the most stupid, arrogant and conceited posters in the boards. So maybe I am now full of sarcasm that really has no place here (where everybody is being pretty nice) but... if you are feeling adventurous (or masochistic) you can search for past threads, and easily become as jaded as I am now ;) With Bob's permission from another thread: "Me too!" ;)
navar100 06-03-07, 07:57 PM	It's this arrogance that is making you so unliked, at the very least, by me, but i'm quite sure by others as well. It, along with much of the other things kalaris mentioned, (primarily your tendancy to take a single sentance within a paragraph long point, and argue that single sentance, twisted into what you want to percieve it to be, as if it was intended to be alone, without the other sentances within the paragraph as addendums, support or the actual premise of the point.), are not helpful to the debate. They are even more disruptive then the percieved "hostilities" you are accusing Khan of. Perhaps you should work on that. Treed cautiously here. Though I don't think you are rude in tone, the Monitors aren't going to like this thread turning into a flame war. Regardless of whether they know the context, they will not like the results and close the thread. The same goes for Scion. Let's go back to why fighters are cool. :cool:
itwasntme 06-03-07, 08:29 PM	this tread and arguement has been going on for a long time Most players tend to MetaGame think alot and ive posted some post where the only answer the wizard players had involved metagame thinking which isnt allowed in games that or they break / bend the rules in other ways which allso isnt allowed Wizard Cast ForceCage Fighter counter - Teleport By the time the wizard is high enough level im sure the fighter will have many nice magicol items that will help him out dont state that fighters are only good becouse of there items i want to see Wizards without spell Compents or there spellbook ... there items just of a differnt type sure spellcasters could kill fighters but fighters could kill spellcasters with about the same Percentage most wizard players tend to over cost them selfs over 1 target which in just about all battles theres never just 1 person in 1 day ... there might only be 1 person in a battle but very rarely most of the time its multibol oppenants that need killing and if your wizard is sitting there summoning Demons/Devils (Becouse summoneing Solars and telling them to break there CoC To kill a good guy Fighter or paladin isnt going to happin) the fighter can use his turn to come up and smack the wizard dead ... ok time to run away from the demon army you summoned well thats where books of teleport can be handy Each game has its own little things that people find and tend to do Each person has there own play style in my Games the Turn Ability on Clerics are just lame and ignored for example level 1 cleric Turn ability with 16 Cha 1d20 + 3 (Cha) turning check adverage result 11 +3 = 14 = HD +1 Monste even if you get 20 +3 you get 23 = +4 HD Meaning 5 HD Zombie or Skelton 4 level 1 characters vs a CR 2 Zombie (its one zombie you can handle it easyoly just by takeing 5 ft step actions to beat its single move action) even with a natrual 20 and you turn 5HD of a monster you fail to do anything agest a BugBear Zombie which should be easy for any other class whos useing an attack considering you could just use 5 ft step actions to prevent it from useing its full abilitys considering it can only make a Single Action at best it can charge Even agest CR 1 monster The Troglodyte the cleric must have a result of 19-21 or in this case he must roll a 16 or higher which is 25% of the time to even effect it then you have your Turning Damage to see if you even did Turn the monster (2d6 + Level + Cha needs to get or beat the Same HD) so a HD 4 (Aka Cr 1 zombie) you need to get 15 on your 2d6 (Which you cant get the max you can get is 12 +1 level +3 mod = 16 which is only enough for a 3 HD zombie) This zombie is a CR 1 zombie going up agest a Level 1 cleric useing turning attempt agest it in short in most of my games our clerics never even bother to use turn attempts the only time they can win is useoly when the rouge could run up and take them on all by him self or at least a good deal of the zombies one post i posted on another Tread stated how a normol fighter could take on 10 Kobolts and how a normol wizard would have much higher time the answers i got where as the following 1) Before i even go and attack the kobolts i will go and Charm a fighter with Charm Person Spell Answer/Reply ) The whole post was a surprize attack you didnt even know the Kobolts excisted you are unable to MetaGame Think with the possible Answer you gave ... anyways thanks for stateing you had to have that fighter in order to beat the encounter 2) I Should be a Gray Elf and be a specilist wizard so i can have 1 extra Spell Reply) I Stated under normol Races (Core Races) And Normol (IE Not Spiffy or realy modified you noticed that my human fighter was only wielding a LongSword nothing big and fancy he didnt even have anything fancy in terms of armor the best thing he had on him was a bow with 20 aaron that he didnt have any feats or anything special about it just a simple bow) allso if your going to allow Non Core Races to be player character then i would like to make a level 1 WarForge Fighter with the Adimantine Body Feat and w/e you want your bonus feat to be grats i have fullplate body armor and DR 2 / Admantine my fighter no longer needs to spend his gold on armor all he needs ... well all the WarForge needs is a shild and a weapon backpack ... no food no water (He dosnt need it hes a WarForge) you can easyoly have 23 AC which Kobolts need a Nat 20 then they need to Conferm the crit Notised how things change when you allow none Basic things into a Game? Point is if your going to allow something special to happin for one class/race you should allow the same rule to apply to All Class's / Race if your going to be a none core race (Gray Elf) Then let me be a WarForge hey there both +0 LA and there allowed in a certain Campain Setting! In Short Many people tend to only state a certain arguement and not think of the answer/question they gave No im not stateing a Fighter is all powerfull and can win all the time But he is good enough in my books to keep around and have as a possible choice to play Allso if your Scor Level dips into the Fighter 2-4 Levels you do end up loseing about 1-2 higher spell levels and 2-4 spells perday casting ability there is the Varient Scor you can use that gets raid of the Familier Ability of a Scor Scor can be handy like the Wiz just in a differnt aspect i useoly tend to want to play a Scor over a Wiz but thats my play style
itwasntme 06-03-07, 08:35 PM	Clerics are better in my book by there ability to Heal alot better then any other class sure the Druid gets the same healing spells but not intell a higher level which kinda sucks in terms of healing only healing spell they get at the same time a cleric gets is Cure Light Wounds which is fine for low level games
Bob Loblaw 06-03-07, 08:57 PM	With Bob's permission from another thread: "Me too!" ;) Trying to get your post count up won't make you any more right :P
Scion of Coldshard 06-03-07, 09:29 PM	At this point, you seem to not understand the futility in calling me out everytime I make a snide remark. Because you enjoy being snide too much? Is it like one of those nervous ticks that some people have? I don't respect the arguments brought forth from the other side and I don't respect some of the attitudes either. Sure, that is incredibly evident. Since both sides have brought up good points I would say that your lack of respect might be blinding you to anything that might actually help further the discussion however.
Khan the Destroyer 06-03-07, 10:34 PM	Because you enjoy being snide too much? No. Because I don't bow down to someone else if I don't feel like it. No matter how persistent they are. I'm stubborn, and don't take well to someone telling me what I'm doing wrong (as if I don't already know) with their holier-than-thou attitude. In my opinion, you're making a big fuss over nothing. I don't see anyone complaining other than you. Also, I don't see you attacking anyone other than me. For me, it puts your motives under suspicion. Is it like one of those nervous ticks that some people have? No. It's like one of those things people do because they do it. I have nothing to be nervous about. Despite my heavy involvment in this thread, and your impression that I loathe everyone opposing my point of view, none of this (even your constant attacks) is very important to me. I enjoy the game, the rules, and debate. I also poke fun at the opposition if I feel they're being exceptionally silly. Sue me. But stop bringing it up here. Since both sides have brought up good points I would say that your lack of respect might be blinding you to anything that might actually help further the discussion however. Blinding me? I come from the other side of the fence Scion. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=731626&highlight=fighter+20+now+viable Post #56 on page 2 is my first post in that thread. I went into that thread spitting out some of the same stuff people are saying here. But I've had a change of heart. I'm not blind to the opposition, I just don't agree. As far as moving the thread along goes, I've contributed far more to this thread and its topic than you have. You seem more interested in picking at my personality and intentions than seriously discussing the issue. Even after my lengthy post, you responded only to the bits pertaining to my attitude. Instead of responding to your rebuttals of my previous points about this thread's topic, I have to instead reply to more of your off-topic comments about me. I'll note again that you have been the only one to make such a huge stink about it (or any stink at all I should say). If you're as worried about the integrity of this thread as you constantly say you are to justify your posts, stop championing the people that obviously don't care about what I say and focus on the fighter issues. If this is coming off as rude to you, I apologize. It's really not my intent, but at this point, I'm tired of coming back to the same issue. I said in my last post that it was pointless for you to continue and even admitted to being an ass (I've no illusions). But if you'll only focus on those bits, there's no point for me to continue responding to your posts. You ignored the whole rest of my post just to call me snide again.
Deep Blue 9000 06-03-07, 10:38 PM	Archivist is one of those classes that seems too good to be true. And in many ways it is. But its a class with a lot of hidden problems. Let me ask you this, have you ever played an archivist? I haven't. I was going to once for a campaign a friend was running. I had my character all made. But then I looked at what my character had and thought about what a cleric would have instead and decided the sacrifice wasn't worth it. I lost most of my tricks in order to become a wizard with an expanded spell list. So I rolled a cleric archer and was very happy with him. That's the perspective from which my critique of the archivist is coming. Uh, I have to disagree. MAD? They just need a good Int. And they get Owl Insight for a +10 to Wis. Archivists set save DCs with Int and get bonus spells from Wis. So they get no benefit from Owl's Insight. And since Clerics don't need INT at all, this *is* MAD. Expensive spell acquisition? When has that bothered a wizard? They can get all the good spells and just the good spells. Archivists can only get their spells from scrolls. If my wizard had to buy a scroll of every spell I wanted to learn I would kill myself. Its much more expensive than copying out of other people's spell books (wizard) or free (cleric). Frankly, I think this alone is enough to balance artificers. Turning? Turning is pretty crappy, unless used for DMM. If it is allowed it can be taken through PrCs or a 1 level dip into cleric. Well, a one level dip into a PrC can net a cleric another domain. And with Spontaneous Domain, knowing spells as domain spells is better than having them as spells known (like the archivist does). And once I get 4 or so domains, I really could care less if the archivist knows more spells than me. I have all the spells I need available spontaneously. And I dare you to take a level of cleric. Thou shalt not forsake caster levels. Better Bab? Irrelevant due to Divine Power. If melee clerics have Divine Power all the time, so do melee archivists. Melee clerics can sustain their divine power all the time via divine metamagic cheese which is powered by turning. And even then this trick is not available until 9th level. So for your first eight levels you're a wizard with crappy offense, stats wasted on physical attributes, and memorized cure spells. And excluding divine metamagic, Divine Power is painful to cast every battle. Losing a standard action every battle is freakin' brutal. And with wizard BAB its a cost they have to pay. Better armor? Two words: mithril fullplate. (Also dozens of buffs the clerics can't get, starting at low level with things like barkskin). Actually, shield is where the archivist doesn't need proficiency. Mithril fullplate still counts as heavy armor for proficiency so that's a no go. And natural armor bonuses are actually relatively easy to come by. Every caster but clerics can easily get them. Now of course that's a point against clerics but only if there's no arcane caster in the party. Domains? Archivist have access to the spells of ALL the domains. But you still need divine scrolls! This is perphaps the biggest problem I have with the archivist. Its completely reliant on the DM handing out magical items which don't exist, but probably could. Want to cast Greater Anyspell? Better hope your DM is feeling generous.
Kratch 06-04-07, 12:42 AM	I'm going to make the assumptions that clerics are better than fighters in every way for my post. For an argument on why this is true, see anywhere else in this thread. I see the claim made. I see points brought up that show the cleric is potent, I even see the potential for the cleric to be better, in a general sence. But "in every way"? That has not been shown as true, only claimed to be a truth. But you say bellow your unwilling to stand by your assertions, while still holding to them as truth for the sake of your own arguments... whatever. Sorry, this particular take on the topic has been done to death and I won't have anything new to say. You'll have to take this issue up with one of the other people in the thread or one of the many other threads on the subject. :p Actually, the fighter is the only core class that is so vanilla that he can be trumped by another class. All other core classes get unique abilities give them some special areas of expertise. Now there are a few optional classes which are below the viability barrier (hexblade, samurai, duelist) but, like fighter, it is due to the blandness of the class. They don't have any niche and aren't good in general. That's easy. Fighters may suck but other melee types such as barbarians, rogues, ogres, and giants are still dangerous. So I prepare spells to counter them. And since fighters are also vulnerable to the same things as these guys, I'm always ready for fighters. The difference between classes is much more than you think. Almost all classes have a niche ability that no one else gets, as well as several abilities related to their class role. As I say before, the fighter's blandness is unique. Almost nowhere else will you see one class strictly dominate another. So, you appear to place the barbarian as superior to the fighter, based on many of your claims of "all/no other class's", direct mention of barbarians being a threat and the blandness being unique to fighters. If i could show a Fighter build, using only the 11 bonus feats, that granted virtually everything a barbarian got, would that prove anything? Would that pull the fighter up to the level of "not suck" you've placed the barbarian? or would it pull the barbarian down to the level of suck you place the fighter? Or is it somehow acceptable for 2 class's, built to be virtually the same, to sit on opposite sides of the unviable boundry? If i can show this fighter can do virtually everything the barbarian can do, would it not stand to reason by your above assumption that a cleric is better then a fighter in every way, that a cleric is also better then the barbarian the fighter is mimicing, in every way as well? As for wizard (or sorc) versus cleric, they each specialize in certain types of spells. Clerics get attack and AC buffs. Wizards get defensive buffs (blink, invisibility, fly). Clerics get fortitude save or dies earlier. Wizards get fort and will save or dies. Clerics get healing. Wizards get no-save attack spells. I could go on but you get the idea. Class differences are quite large. Aren't AC buffs considered defensive? wouldn't wind walk, freedom of movement, Entropic shield, Prot from alignment, prot from energy, etc also be considered defensive buffs? Plane shift is often heralded as a will based save or die. Additionally you have the blasphemy/holy word spells or the various banishment/dismisal spells (for outsiders in any case) can be considered as such. as for the no save damage, are you refering to the wizard spells that generally require an attack roll instead of a save? Wouldn't a clerics abilitity to do phtsical damage with his supririor BAB count? I haven't even looked outside core. Lastly, there are a number of domains that grant some of those spells. Do you still want to say the cleric can't do everything a wizard can generally do and more, making it a "better class in every way"? or are you willing to acknowledge the subbtle differences for the wizard, but not for the fighter?
Argaud 06-04-07, 02:23 AM	So, you appear to place the barbarian as superior to the fighter, based on many of your claims of "all/no other class's", direct mention of barbarians being a threat and the blandness being unique to fighters. If i could show a Fighter build, using only the 11 bonus feats, that granted virtually everything a barbarian got, would that prove anything? Would that pull the fighter up to the level of "not suck" you've placed the barbarian? or would it pull the barbarian down to the level of suck you place the fighter? Or is it somehow acceptable for 2 class's, built to be virtually the same, to sit on opposite sides of the unviable boundry? If i can show this fighter can do virtually everything the barbarian can do, would it not stand to reason by your above assumption that a cleric is better then a fighter in every way, that a cleric is also better then the barbarian the fighter is mimicing, in every way as well? I would add the ogre, giant and melee cleric to the list of characters/creatures that have a fighting style exactly the same as the fighter and with very similar (usually inferior) numbers, and with less feats, so less options. Only the rogue has a genuinely distinctive style that requires fairly diferent kind of measures to counter.
Argaud 06-04-07, 02:47 AM	That's the perspective from which my critique of the archivist is coming. Archivists set save DCs with Int and get bonus spells from Wis. So they get no benefit from Owl's Insight. And since Clerics don't need INT at all, this *is* MAD. Fair enough. Although I still think it is possible to build a very strong melee archivist fairly easily. Archivists can only get their spells from scrolls. If my wizard had to buy a scroll of every spell I wanted to learn I would kill myself. Its much more expensive than copying out of other people's spell books (wizard) or free (cleric). Frankly, I think this alone is enough to balance artificers. Only the scrolls of high level spells are very expensive, and there are so many good (often broken) spells of level 7-9 that the cleric can't ever get that is worth grabbing them. Well, a one level dip into a PrC can net a cleric another domain. And with Spontaneous Domain, knowing spells as domain spells is better than having them as spells known (like the archivist does). And once I get 4 or so domains, I really could care less if the archivist knows more spells than me. I have all the spells I need available spontaneously. The archivist can also do that, without losing caster levels of CL. This is very much in the "whatever you can do I can do better" list. And I dare you to take a level of cleric. Thou shalt not forsake caster levels. Melee clerics can sustain their divine power all the time via divine metamagic cheese which is powered by turning. And even then this trick is not available until 9th level. So for your first eight levels you're a wizard with crappy offense, stats wasted on physical attributes, and memorized cure spells. Just one. That assuming there is no PrC that gives turning (I think there are, although I don't know the names out of memory, they are often used to give turning to the Favored Soul). It doesn't need to be until level 12 or so, when buying a ton of Nightsticks is fearsible. We already know the DMM-Persistent cleric is only good at high level, so there is no competition there. Are you saying a DMM-oriented cleric is crappy until well after level 10? No, really? And excluding divine metamagic, Divine Power is painful to cast every battle. Losing a standard action every battle is freakin' brutal. And with wizard BAB its a cost they have to pay. And yet this spell is why all those posters claim the cleric is so much better than the fighter in melee. If the archivist is failing, so did the cleric, so the cleric wasn't good in the first place. Interesting. Actually, shield is where the archivist doesn't need proficiency. Mithril fullplate still counts as heavy armor for proficiency so that's a no go. You just made all the barbarian fans cry. You are mean :( Except, I think you are wrong here. Mithril fullplate works as medium armor. I am pretty sure this has been confirmed by the sage already. And natural armor bonuses are actually relatively easy to come by. Every caster but clerics can easily get them. Now of course that's a point against clerics but only if there's no arcane caster in the party. Actually this is a strong point in the favor of the archivist. You can't expect the wizard buffing the cleric, to do so would mean the cleric is "leeching" the power of the wizard, that wizard exists only to "serve" the cleric and that the cleric cannon "hold on his own". Which are all the arguments used against the fighter. But you still need divine scrolls! This is perphaps the biggest problem I have with the archivist. Its completely reliant on the DM handing out magical items which don't exist, but probably could. Want to cast Greater Anyspell? Better hope your DM is feeling generous. Those scrolls exist, they are relatively cheap and therefore automatically available in large towns and cities. This is not an issue at all unless the DM is restricting magical items. Which would be a houserule and therefore irrelevant from the purely mechanical viewpoint. Deep Blue, do you realize most of your points favoring the cleric over the archivist come from the same arguments fighter defenders use to defend the fighter over the cleric? That spells take time to cast. That a wizard won't have all the spells he needs. That some magic items might be restricted. That a lower base bab is bad. That DMM-Persistent does not work until later levels. I am not saying you are wrong, but I find it amusing. You are basically defending the fighter by defending the cleric in comparison with the archivist :)
Deep Blue 9000 06-04-07, 04:15 AM	Only the scrolls of high level spells are very expensive, and there are so many good (often broken) spells of level 7-9 that the cleric can't ever get that is worth grabbing them. Well, yeah, you're not going to go without spells because you're too cheap. But the cost is significant. Learning a single 5th level spell will cost 1625 gold. That's 5% of a level 9 character's gold. The archivist can also do that, without losing caster levels of CL. This is very much in the "whatever you can do I can do better" list. If two classes both start learning new spells at the same rate, this is to the advantage of the class that knew less spells at the beginning. Just one. That assuming there is no PrC that gives turning (I think there are, although I don't know the names out of memory, they are often used to give turning to the Favored Soul). It doesn't need to be until level 12 or so, when buying a ton of Nightsticks is fearsible. We already know the DMM-Persistent cleric is only good at high level, so there is no competition there. Are you saying a DMM-oriented cleric is crappy until well after level 10? No, really? Sacred Exorcist grants turning but requires 4th level spells. So you get turning at 4th and then grab divine metamagic at 9th. You got extend spell and persistent spell at 3rd and 6th, respectively. A cleric on the other hand could start persisting spells as early as 3rd level, if he somehow had sufficient charisma. But the cleric also has heavy armor, shields, and medium BAB to fall back on at low levels. The archivist is totally powerless in melee without buffs. And yet this spell is why all those posters claim the cleric is so much better than the fighter in melee. If the archivist is failing, so did the cleric, so the cleric wasn't good in the first place. Interesting. Well, this is without divine metamagic. I'm pretty sure all the other posters are talking about the situation with divine metamagic. You just made all the barbarian fans cry. You are mean :( Except, I think you are wrong here. Mithril fullplate works as medium armor. I am pretty sure this has been confirmed by the sage already. The simplest answer— and the one that the Sage expects most players and DMs use— is that mithral armor is treated as one category lighter for all purposes, including proficiency. This isn’t exactly what the DUNGEON MASTER’s Guide says, but it’s a reasonable interpretation of the intent of the rule (and it’s supported by a number of precedents, including the descriptions of various specific mithral armors described on page 220 of the DUNGEON MASTER’s Guide and a variety of NPC stat blocks) So I guess you're right. But I'll be damned if that isn't the sage changing rules he doesn't like. Actually this is a strong point in the favor of the archivist. You can't expect the wizard buffing the cleric, to do so would mean the cleric is "leeching" the power of the wizard, that wizard exists only to "serve" the cleric and that the cleric cannon "hold on his own". Which are all the arguments used against the fighter. When the fighter casts 4 buffs on the wizard every session, then he can demand some buffs in return. Those scrolls exist, they are relatively cheap and therefore automatically available in large towns and cities. This is not an issue at all unless the DM is restricting magical items. Which would be a houserule and therefore irrelevant from the purely mechanical viewpoint. What book are they in? There certainly aren't any in the DMG. Deep Blue, do you realize most of your points favoring the cleric over the archivist come from the same arguments fighter defenders use to defend the fighter over the cleric? That spells take time to cast. That a wizard won't have all the spells he needs. That some magic items might be restricted. That a lower base bab is bad. That DMM-Persistent does not work until later levels. I am not saying you are wrong, but I find it amusing. You are basically defending the fighter by defending the cleric in comparison with the archivist :) Well, they really are the same arguments. Its not that the fighter's camps arguments are inherently wrong. They just aren't much of a mitigating factor to the cleric. But they apply in spades to the archivist.
navar100 06-04-07, 04:29 AM	Deep Blue, do you realize most of your points favoring the cleric over the archivist come from the same arguments fighter defenders use to defend the fighter over the cleric? That spells take time to cast. That a wizard won't have all the spells he needs. That some magic items might be restricted. That a lower base bab is bad. That DMM-Persistent does not work until later levels. I am not saying you are wrong, but I find it amusing. You are basically defending the fighter by defending the cleric in comparison with the archivist :) :dancin:
Deep Blue 9000 06-04-07, 04:37 AM	I see the claim made. I see points brought up that show the cleric is potent, I even see the potential for the cleric to be better, in a general sence. But "in every way"? That has not been shown as true, only claimed to be a truth. But you say bellow your unwilling to stand by your assertions, while still holding to them as truth for the sake of your own arguments... whatever. Kalarus argued why clerics dominating fighters doesn't prove fighters suck. I responded to that. So, yes, I get to assume clerics dominate fighters in order to prove how that would imply fighters suck. So, you appear to place the barbarian as superior to the fighter, based on many of your claims of "all/no other class's", direct mention of barbarians being a threat and the blandness being unique to fighters. If i could show a Fighter build, using only the 11 bonus feats, that granted virtually everything a barbarian got, would that prove anything? Would that pull the fighter up to the level of "not suck" you've placed the barbarian? or would it pull the barbarian down to the level of suck you place the fighter? Or is it somehow acceptable for 2 class's, built to be virtually the same, to sit on opposite sides of the unviable boundry? If i can show this fighter can do virtually everything the barbarian can do, would it not stand to reason by your above assumption that a cleric is better then a fighter in every way, that a cleric is also better then the barbarian the fighter is mimicing, in every way as well? Barbarians get pounce now. That alone makes them dangerous. But if you can make a fighter that equals the barbarian, I'd accept that fighters are OK. Aren't AC buffs considered defensive? wouldn't wind walk, freedom of movement, Entropic shield, Prot from alignment, prot from energy, etc also be considered defensive buffs? Plane shift is often heralded as a will based save or die. Additionally you have the blasphemy/holy word spells or the various banishment/dismisal spells (for outsiders in any case) can be considered as such. as for the no save damage, are you refering to the wizard spells that generally require an attack roll instead of a save? Wouldn't a clerics abilitity to do phtsical damage with his supririor BAB count? I haven't even looked outside core. Lastly, there are a number of domains that grant some of those spells. Do you still want to say the cleric can't do everything a wizard can generally do and more, making it a "better class in every way"? or are you willing to acknowledge the subbtle differences for the wizard, but not for the fighter? The subtle differences between wizards and clerics are pretty signifigant. Perphaps I shouldn't have said "defensive" but clerics don't get any ironclad defense spell like invisibility or blink. Cleric will saves all have some sort of terrible drawback if they don't outright suck. Planeshift doesn't kill them, gets rid of their loot, AND requires a touch attack. Dissmissal and Banishment outright suck. As for no save spells, I mean don't just mean attack roll spells. Wizards get a gambit of no-save spells. Otto's Irrisitible Dance, Evard's Black Tentacles, Scorching Ray, Solid Fog, Bigby's, and Illusions are just a few of the spells that can own you with an attack roll, grapple check, or nothing at all. I just don't see any meaningful differences between fighters and clerics the way dominate person, evard's black tentacles, and invisibility differentiate clerics from wizards.
Frikazojd 06-04-07, 04:47 AM	so...the fighter is a great class to multiclass...starting with the fighter is not that great because you dont get much skill points when multiplied, but you do get 10 HP + con so that is the good thing when starting a 1st level fighter...feats are also a big deal but its better to get 4+intX4 then 2+intX4 skill points..thats my opinion...
Bhaal006 06-04-07, 05:29 AM	I am the most lienient DM of all, as long as it was published by WotC, I'll allow it, I even encourage players to come up with custom content. And why are we arguing whether or not the cleric is better than the Archivist, go start a cleric/archivist thread. and I didn't know people actually watched Nanny 911.
Kratch 06-04-07, 06:45 AM	Kalarus argued why clerics dominating fighters doesn't prove fighters suck. I responded to that. So, yes, I get to assume clerics dominate fighters in order to prove how that would imply fighters suck. I was always under the impression his argument was more "reguardles of if a cleric dominated a fighter in melee, it doesn't mater cause it doesn't prove the fighter sucks.". I believe he started taking that stance, as, even with builds to support the fighter, people dismissed them and continued to claim a cleric offers "everything" a fighter offered, usually followed by mention of gate and similar (dispite already commiting a large number of 8-9th level spells for quickened rightious mights and divine powers). Barbarians get pounce now. That alone makes them dangerous. But if you can make a fighter that equals the barbarian, I'd accept that fighters are OK. What substitution option grants barbarians pounce? or are you talking a feat? This is old, but i'm confident it still stands; I'll offer a comparison, based solely on class features (no level feats, ratial bonus or equipment (with a single noted exception)). I know your talking core only, but it gets a little more difficult to offer a quantifiable comparison for core only, simply because the feats vs class features are so different. But do note this comparison only uses PHB2 as a non-core book. Fighter with weapon focus, spec, greater focus, greater spec and melee weapon master, blind fighting, Combat focus, Combat Vigor and Combat stability This grants a fighter +4/+6 on attacks/damage which equals a barbarians rage with a 2HW Doesn't lose dex when fighting blind (almost equals uncanny dodge, the heavy armour proficiency generally covers the rest.) +4 on will saves to equal the barbarians bonus while raging Fast healing 4 (potential 52 HP's per combat) to offset some of the bonus HP's a barbarian gets while raging/D12HD +8 on grapple, trip, overrun, bull rush and disarm resists, this not only offsets a barbarians bonus from rage str, but doubles it. is better able to hit concealed opponents (blindfight) to compare with a barbarians better able to find concealed oponents (maxed out listen skill, note this assumes the skill points are spent on listen, and so those skill points spent are taken into account below) generall has 1 more AC, 3 more then a barbarian in a rage unless specific armours come in this is my one exception (A barbarian can take mythril full plate to gain two points of AC on the fighter, though he still remains equal while in a rage, in exchange, the fighter can take adamantine full plate to get 3 DR/-, putting the barbarian only 2DR/- points up on him.) (note, i don't personally allow non-proficient armour to be worn without the penalty just because it's mythril, however, it is the general consensus of these boards that it's allowed, so i'll go by that interpretation) Fighter still has 2 feats left and +4 on most opposed combat checks vs the Barbarian's trap sence, 10 ft of move, 2DR, 1 skill point (the others been included into listen against the fighters blindfight), improved uncanny dodge and about 50 or so HP's. If the fighter were to take weapon supremacy and heavy armour specialization (trading out his adamantine armour for mythril too) as his last 2 feats, he would now have: Take 10 on any one attack/round, +5 to any itterative attack roll, +3 AC, +4 on most opposed rolls (+8 vs disarm) and the ability to attack while grappled vs the barbarians Trap sence, 1 skill point/level (or maxed survival skill), 10 ft of move, DR3/-, improved uncanny dodge and about 50 HP's ( i personally think the +3 AC of the fighter (typically 1 hit per round) equals out the DR3/- and some/all of those extra 50 HP's (depending on the legth of the fight)) So i don't really see where the barbarian is coming out on top, and note, this isn't an optimal fighter build, it is simply built to closely emulate a barbarian, but if i really wanted to be like a barbarian, i'd play a barbarian. You may choose to mention feats that synergize with the rage abilities, but the fighter has, in exchange for the option to get feats that boost a class feature, the virsitility to make any number of different builds that catter to any number of different combat or play styles. Thanks Khan for the spoiler block info. I just don't see any meaningful differences between fighters and clerics the way dominate person, evard's black tentacles, and invisibility differentiate clerics from wizards. so, your saying 11 bonus feats plus however many of the level feats the cleric needs to pull off his melee clone isn't a meaningful difference? There have been numerous builds presented on these discussions that a cleric couldn't mimic, but the claim "they still have other spells and healing, so what the fighter can do over the cleric doesn't matter" comes up to dismiss those builds. Wouldn't being able to perform various tactical manuvers significantly better and/or more consistently, and in greater numbers warrent a meaningful difference? or is getting into specifics only allowed in defence of the wizard? I don't mean to be rude here, but it seems like a double standard. _______________ Was it you that said being able to show a good fighter build wasn't enough to prove the entire class is good, but rather, just that one build (or something along those lines)? or was it someone else?
Kratch 06-04-07, 06:52 AM	I am the most lienient DM of all, as long as it was published by WotC, I'll allow it, I even encourage players to come up with custom content. And why are we arguing whether or not the cleric is better than the Archivist, go start a cleric/archivist thread. and I didn't know people actually watched Nanny 911. It's more they're debating the criteria used to prove the fighter fails/sucks. The criteria is, simply put, that a cleric can "presumably" do everything a fighter does, and more, so the fighter sucks. The counter claim is, that using the same criteria, the cleric can be shown to also fail to the archivist, who can "presumably" do everything a cleric can do, and more. So long as you generalize the class's (usually with a bias applied within that generalization) and not look into specifics (like costs of archivist scrolls or what can be done with up to 11 extra feats), these areguments both function.
Argaud 06-04-07, 07:04 AM	I was always under the impression his argument was more "reguardles of if a cleric dominated a fighter in melee, it doesn't mater cause it doesn't prove the fighter sucks.". I believe he started taking that stance, as, even with builds to support the fighter, people dismissed them and continued to claim a cleric offers "everything" a fighter offered, usually followed by mention of gate and similar (dispite already commiting a large number of 8-9th level spells for quickened rightious mights and divine powers). Actually the most reasonable folks arguing about the superiority of the cleric over the fighter don't say "the cleric is far better than the fighter" but that "the cleric matches the fighter + still has over half his spells". Matches means the cleric comes very close to the same numbers in straight attack and damage, and that the feats that allow the fighter trip, grapple, bum rush or hinder the monster actually do not matter because monsters are too quick, to large, teleport or use slas all the time. Some folks even admit the fighter is good as an archer (but only with a split bow) or uber-charger (but the barbarian is better). :rolleyes: What substitution option grants barbarians pounce? or are you talking a feat? New stuff from the Complete Champion. It is a substitution level for a first level barbarian. Give up fast movement. Gain pounce. Now all serious meleers need to take one level as barbarian. Even warblades do not get pounce until level 9.
Kalarus 06-04-07, 08:42 AM	I'm out of commission for an evening and look at all the stuff you people post! :P. Well start at the top I guess. I'm going to make the assumptions that clerics are better than fighters in every way for my post. For an argument on why this is true, see anywhere else in this thread. For arguments why this isn't, see anywhere else in this thread as well. Keep in mind Clerics can only match the armor, BAB, arguably hitpoints, and maybe get an equivalent weapon. They can *not* match the slew of tactical weapon options a Fighter has, unless you want to argue Heroism, and I think we've covered that extensively enough already. Their salvage in this case is "they get spells instead". I'm saying there's no mechanical reason to play a fighter ie no mechanical advantage (power). You can still play fighters because you like the name or the flavor or whatever. But you *are* accepting that your character is going to be strictly worse than he could be. Not all mechanics is power. Power is not all mechanics either (an example could be an organisation in the world backing you, your reputation in a city, a favour some Wizard owned you when you showed up when he was in a pickle, etc. etc.). As for not all mechanics being power: playing a Cleric means I have to deal with the mechanics and rules of the spell system. Possibly deal with a Church and deities though this is up to the DM. Playing a Fighter means I have to deal with the feat system, which I have to deal with no matter what I play, I just have to choose more and more often. It means having to deal with tactical precision and battlefield control since I have nothing (barring a bow) that can match the range of "25 ft. + 5ft./2 levels". It means that it's a completely different game. It has nothing to do with flavor. It's the mechanics of playing a class, that has access to the mechanics of certain abilities. That you end up (in theory) weaker with a Fighter than with a Cleric, is something you indeed have to accept, but so what? It's not like you can't play the game being "weaker". Actually, the fighter is the only core class that is so vanilla that he can be trumped by another class. All other core classes get unique abilities give them some special areas of expertise. Now there are a few optional classes which are below the viability barrier (hexblade, samurai, duelist) but, like fighter, it is due to the blandness of the class. They don't have any niche and aren't good in general. That's easy. Fighters may suck but other melee types such as barbarians, rogues, ogres, and giants are still dangerous. So I prepare spells to counter them. And since fighters are also vulnerable to the same things as these guys, I'm always ready for fighters. Grouping these two together since they have a common issue. I am not familiar with the phrase "so vanilla", I am guessing it either means "weak" or "generic". Given the context I'll go with "generic". I find it a bit odd how one of the Fighter's strengths and appeals can be made into a trait that makes him "weak". The Fighter has the unique ability of having the most feats in the game which, combined with a distinct lack of Core flavor, gives him the unique ability to fill any melee role you like. If you think that having 11 bonus feats is not an "area of expertise", you are letting your view be colored by the idea that feats are not nearly as useful or versatile as spells or *some* class abilities. This is as easily a problem of the Feat system, than it is of the Fighter. Other melee classes (barring Rogue which you mentioned) occupy the same "niche" as the Fighter, which apparently, is nothing. No reason to play any of them. They do exist in the world though because apparently NPCs aren't as smart as optimizing players and they make very poor class choices. Ogres and giants (which are far less dangerous than Fighters, trust me) are fairly onedimensional creatures that really made a bad race choice when they were born, they should've been born as spellcasting races! (/sarcasm) Let's toss out the individualism for a second though and look at a party situation, which includes a Fighter. Party enters room with BBEG. BBEG sees party, Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard. What's he going to think, if he's consistent with the idea that Fighters suck? "Damn, I need to take out that Cleric and Wizard first". But no, according to a lot of people who use these examples, he's going to be casting spells at the *Fighter*, completely ignoring the others. :rofl: By the way, my current Fighter: - went toe to toe with an equal level Barbarian and made him cry - disarmed and wrestled a Bugbear Frenzied Berserker who was being boosted by a Cleric until the rest of the party arrived - Soloed an Ettin easily at L8 (Ettins are CR6, which is aimed at a 4-person party) Just to toss in a few examples of Fighters coming out on top of your "dangerous" examples. Never soloed a Rogue though but really it's a poor example, the classes are way too different. Rogues could never replace Fighters, nor the other way around. As for the archivist specifically, they suffer from MAD and expensive spell acquisition. Clerics also get turning, domains, better BAB, and better armor. Honestly, I think its a fair trade for all the other stuff archivists get. What is this "MAD" anyway? I understand it has something to do with high ability scores, but what is it precisely? Abbreviation? Mighty Ability Dice? Anyways, Clerics require: 1) Wisdom. 2) Constitution. 3) Strength. 4) Charisma has some uses but not many, still not enough to qualify as "dump stat". Only Dex and Int are dump stats. Archivists require: 1) Intelligence. 2) Wisdom, though I don't recall the exact rules about bonus spell slots and boosted ability scores. 3) Constitution. 4) Strength. With the amount of long-term boosts you get, you may not even need phenomenal Strength. I dunno, it seems both these classes suffer from "MAD". Either way this could get *very* campaign-dependant, for example I play a low-treasure high-stat campaign, my Fighter has 3 base 18 scores and only charisma under 10 (dwarf penalty), but about a third of the DMG treasure to work with. I could do an Archivist easily. Now I never have a reason to play a Cleric, woot! :D Oh wait, turning. Very specific unless you allow DMM + stacking Nightsticks, else it's about as good as chewing on a reed. Domains: Are we talking about Domain granted powers, or Domain spells? The Archivist can get the second, the granted powers are useful but I never saw one that I went "omg!" about. Better armor: I think someone mentioned Mithral Fullplate. It counts as medium armor for *everything*, including proficiency. I recently had to look it up (was trying to get someone in Full plate with 0 armor check penalty, one of the options explored was Heavy Armor Optimization to get rid of that last -1. It didn't work, it was no longer heavy armor.) Well, it is an arbitrary decision. But it is also a decision that must be made. If it doesn't represent normal game play, we don't care about it. So the best we can do is explain why we think X is so abnormal. If someone doesn't justify it, call them on it. If you want to have a meaningful discussion regarding normal gameplay, then yes, such a decision must be made, but it must never be arbitrary. I haven't seen you justify (yet) why these Fighter builds should be considered "too optimized" unless I missed it in the slew of posts this morning. If I did please direct me to where you did. Keep in mind that if you want to justify this in the context of Clerics vs Fighters in normal gameplay you must do both: 1) Justify that the Fighter build is too optimized 2) Justify that the Cleric build is not. The whole point of these threads is to justify our beliefs to see which one better reflects reality. So I say what I feel and you say what you feel and then the both of us try and see who's right. So my feelings and beliefs are worth more than yours if they are better supported. Ok, now I understand you better. I keep a mile-wide seperation between feelings and beliefs. Feelings are internal to me, from my feelings flow my preferences and tastes in an expression, they need no justification other than that they are or are not desired by me. Beliefs however do need justification if you want other people to accept them. So in those terms: The belief that these barriers are where they should be is still an arbitrary decision. Keep in mind that these barriers aren't independant of each other: for example I believe, which you earlier agreed upon if I recall correctly, that D&D should be balanced. If a class X can do so many things another class Y can that people do not want to play class Y, there's obviously a balance problem. So I could be justified in my belief that anything class X brings that trumps class Y is broken. That means, for example, that if you drop Fighters below Viability barrier because Clerics can trump them, I am justified in saying that Clerics belong above the Cheese barrier. Wether the Cleric was built using WotC published material doesn't matter, Pun-pun qualifies for that criterium. Where do we place Pun-pun? Above Cheese-barrier. We all believe that this is right, but *why* do we believe that this is right? One reason might be because Pun-pun trumps all classes. Now, why is build 1 based on a Cleric that shares qualities with build 2 Pun-pun, below Cheese-barrier, but build 2 above Cheese-barrier? It is obviously "too-something". It does something to well. I wonder what that is, and why CoDzilla or even Wizards are allowed to get away with "doing things too well", but Pun-pun isn't. Look, we're not trying to oppress you for playing a fighter. But when you say fighters are effective, we're going to challenge it. Well *you* are not trying to oppress me for playing a Fighter, however other people do so. You can read the threads or take my word for it, up to you. You tickle an interesting point though: we say Fighters are effective, and you challenge it. That isn't exactly what we're saying though, we (being the people here who defend Fighters) claim the Fighter is effective because he can perform a role in the D&D combat system, which is generally objectively measured by CR. We do not claim the Fighter is effective because he's as powerful as other classes, however people argue against Fighters as if that is exactly what we're saying. We say the Fighter is effective because we aim at a lower but justified standard in D&D (regular MM opponents), without feeling a need to overshoot that standard by a fair margin. Claiming that Fighters should not be played because the Cleric reaches that standard a lot more easily and overshoots it is shifting the standard to something that is specific in some person's way of playing D&D, not in general D&D: it shifts the standard to a required level of power that the Cleric can match and the Fighter can't, but has nothing to do with the game as published. Sorry, this particular take on the topic has been done to death and I won't have anything new to say. You'll have to take this issue up with one of the other people in the thread or one of the many other threads on the subject. :p You're right, it has been done to death, mostly because people tenaciously hold to the idea that there is nothing the Fighter can do that cannot be fully and completely matched by class X. Usually Cleric but some amusing variants and requirements have popped up recently. A cute example was the Heroism issue, which was brought up as an argument how Clerics can gain equal Fighter bonus feats, at the cost of a price nobody has before L16 in DMG standards. If people refuse to be convinced by the Fighter builds that do things that no other class can do as efficiently, and/or believe the Heroism item idea is actually doable in a regular game, there's indeed no point in debating this any further. If you want to skip the point because tenacious people have asked people who defend Fighters to restate the argument over and over again, that's fine, but then you have the choice between conceding the point and admitting Fighters can do things that Clerics can't, or joining the group of tenacious people. The difference between classes is much more than you think. Almost all classes have a niche ability that no one else gets, as well as several abilities related to their class role. As I say before, the fighter's blandness is unique. Almost nowhere else will you see one class strictly dominate another. As for wizard (or sorc) versus cleric, they each specialize in certain types of spells. Clerics get attack and AC buffs. Wizards get defensive buffs (blink, invisibility, fly). Clerics get fortitude save or dies earlier. Wizards get fort and will save or dies. Clerics get healing. Wizards get no-save attack spells. I could go on but you get the idea. Class differences are quite large. It makes little to no sense at all to compare classes that do not share the same "niche". The "niche" that Fighters are in is melee combatants. They come without class abilities. That makes them "bland". That does not make them powerless. If you want to compare the Fighter you should compare it to other melee combatants, looking at Core classes alone for simplicity for a second, that means probably comparing it to Barbarians, Paladins, Rangers, melee-Clerics and Druids. Let's see what these classes have. Barbarians: Rage, bit of damage reduction and d12 hitdie which is compensated by slightly worse AC when raging. Paladins: Pesky code of conduct, minor Clerical abilities, good mount, low level spellcasting, evil radar, small save bonus and disease immunity Rangers: Better Reflex saves, d8 hit die, a few nature abilities, Archery/TWF styles, favored enemy, track, weaker animal companion, low level spellcasting Druids: Wild shape into anything appropriate to become a melee monster with Natural spell. Combine an Apache with a tank and you get the idea. Without spellcasting it's a poor substitute for a Fighter, so doesn't qualify as a melee class. You're not casting and meleeing at the same time, shoo, get out of the melee niche. Spellcaster. Clerics: Spellcaster, or otherwise built to compensate for lack of Fighter. Without DMM, spends 4 L8 slots and 8 L5 slots per day, just to be a Fighter. Given that you don't have 8 L5 slots, there's a few L6 slots to be used there. Else, spends 3 rounds boosting and can only match Fighters at L9+. Then, since at level 15+ (L8 slots) spellcasting is so much more powerful than melee, what the hell are you doing being a Fighter? Get out of the niche. Spellcaster. Seems like only Barbarians, Rangers and Paladins are in fact in the same niche. If you insist on putting Druid and Cleric in there anyway, one could wonder if D&D needs melee classes at all, since Spellcasting trumps anything. Barbarian rage bonus is +4 until level 11. That's a +2 modifier, which likely translates to +2 hit, +3 damage. A Fighter at L4 has +1 hit +2 damage from specialization and probably a tactical option the Barbarian lacks (1 bonus feat left after focus and spec). A Fighter has this all the time, a Barbarian only when raging. At L8 (3 levels before the Barbarian improves) the Fighter qualifies for melee weapon mastery, upping this to +3 hit +4 damage all the time. Pick up Greater Weapon Focus and GWSpec at L9 and 10, and you are at +4 hit +6 damage all the time. A Barbarian at L11 gets +6 on his rage, which is a +3 modifier. +3 hit and +4 damage. Finally as good as a L8 Fighter. When he reaches L20, the bonus ups to +8, which equals +4 hit and +6 damage. Finally, as good as a L10 Fighter. Of course the Barbarian has a lot more hitpoints, especially in Rage, but suffers the AC penalty. As one levels the bonus of course outweighs the penalty easily. Fighter has hitpoints equal to the Barbarians minus 1/level (average of hitdie difference), minus Rage con bonus. To compensate for that he has a large amount of tactical melee options at his disposal from his bonus feats which prevent him from getting hit in the first place. Exit Barbarian. Paladins: Don't even get the melee bonuses a raging Barbarian has. Mount is useless in dungeons. Code of conduct is outright annoying but can be worked with. They get a few useful spells at higher levels, but I can't think of one that trumps the bonus feats a Fighter has by then. Rangers: d8 hitdie, light armor, not exactly a frontliner. Needs high dex to compensate, but if you have high dex anyway, who cares about TWF style? It's only useful if you *don't* meet the requirements, else you can do it fine with Fighter bonus feats. Which leaves archery. Oops, wrong niche. It seems to me that the Fighter performs better than any of the Core melee classes that have any business meleeing in the first place. He might get trumped by ToB classes, I don't own the book so apparently everyone seems to agree on that. It certainly beats the point that the Fighter is the only class that gets "trumped" in what he's doing in D&D. Blah, been writing too much for too long. Continue later.
Archangel62 06-04-07, 10:03 AM	The problem I see when comparing cleric/archivist vs. class/fighter is simply that a lot of people don't seem to grasp the problem. Part of the fighters issue is that frankly it has nothing unique to it, the few fighter only feats really aren't worth it in terms of when they're gained and what they could be getting instead. The bigger part is this, the fighters whole shtick is combat, melee, ranged, tricks, whatever the case the fighter is supposed to be able to do it all and do it well. The issue is though that every class can fight, can do damage, can do the sorts of things the fighter is designed for, just differently. For damage a caster can either deal large amounts of damage or just wipe out foes entirely with Save or Die spells. Then there are the debuffs and battlefield control spells, ones that can reshape the combat arena to better benefit the party. The fighters battlefield control usually stops at the tip of their weapon. This is before you also factor in the things than an arcane caster can summon or bind creatures to also do their bidding. The cleric/druid can do much of the same, however they can also battle competently and also have generally equal or better armor class than the fighter, not to mention the self buffs and other personal and mass augmentations...and their healing and domain powers/wildshape. The rogue has their sneak attack and UMD, and the martial classes can all fight and all have different areas of expertise, the barbarian is a great charger and damage dealer, the paladin a sentinel and cavalier, the ranger a scout and master archer. The issue I see here is that the fighter can really only fight, their skill list doesn't let them expand too far beyond that and their best setups tend to be either archery or spiked chains, outside of that their capabilities are a bit lacking.
Argaud 06-04-07, 10:15 AM	Paladins: Pesky code of conduct, minor Clerical abilities, good mount, low level spellcasting, evil radar, small save bonus and disease immunity Paladins: Don't even get the melee bonuses a raging Barbarian has. Mount is useless in dungeons. Code of conduct is outright annoying but can be worked with. They get a few useful spells at higher levels, but I can't think of one that trumps the bonus feats a Fighter has by then. Honestly, I am not sure if you have been serious on this post or just tossing a few questionable broad statements (much in the style I have seen pro-caster toss... which is annoying to see, unless you were being mildly sarcastic). However, I just must defend the paladin :). I really think the paladin is the most powerful warrior class of D&D at mid-high level, even above the warblade. Perky code of conduct... which most good adventurers already follow. Good mount... will talk about this later. Small save bonus... SMALL?! They start with a +2 to all at level 2 and end with a +10 to all at level 20. That is not small. That is better than any other class, by a huge margin. Mount is useless in dungeons... you are kidding, right? Dungeons are full of large and the occasional huge+ creatures. Mounts are large or larger for medium paladins, medium or smaller for small paladins. They do perfectly well in dungeons and they are ridiculously powerful. The mount validity depends on the CR of the mount or if it flies or not. Level -3 is the monster CR available for a mount. Level -4 if the mount flies. A medium paladin starts with say... a heavy warhorse (CR2). Do you know there are no rules why a heavy warhorse cannot be in a dungeon? None at all. This is also an Int 6 warhorse. At level 6 the paladin the medium paladin can ride a dire wolf, which certainly will be perfectly at home in a dungeon. Or an hippogryff, which can fly. Or any other CR 3 landbound creature or CR 2 flying creature. It gets better and better. Celestial only adds +1 to CR. Half-dragon +2. Half-celestial +3. A T-Rex is CR8... and therefore is a valid mount for a level 11 paladin. Yes, a 20HD T-Rex. Dragons are available at level 11 too, the very young gold is large, with just CR 7. Since when are dragons hindered in dungeons? Small paladins have also some crazy options starting at level 5. Both the blink dog and the fleshraker dinosaur are medium and CR2! And of course medium dragons come much earlier than large ones.
Clawhound 06-04-07, 12:08 PM	Let me muse on game theory a bit. Each character represents a different way to play the game. In essence, each character is its own game. The character represents the game that the player most wants to play. There are many methods to getting a character. A popular method is to develop a concept, then pick the class(s) that best represent that concept. A temple guard could be a fighter, a paladin, or a cleric. Another popular method is to pick a class that you have not played, or seems interesting, or otherwise engages you, and building a character around that. A third tactics is to choose a tactic, then build a character around that. A fourth tactic is to start a character idea, then let gameplay determine the direction of your character. A fifth tactic is to determine what is most effective, and only choose among the most effective options. A sixth tactic is to give yourself a challenge. Now, do we actually see these tactics used to create character in the wild? Yes, we do. We see class builds, theme builds, and people determined to build the most deadly kobold ever. Now we can get back to "why choose a fighter." A fighter: - Best represents the character that you have in your head. - The class engages you favorably. - The class is the best for building a certain tactic. - Gameplay keeps you choosing fighter. This choice matches your character as played. - You determine that the fighter is the best class to take. - You determine that the class keeps you challenged. You will notice that most of the criteria that people choose characters by are not rational reasons. They are sensical, but not rational. We start with, "What does a player feel is important," which is usually fairly irrational, then continue onward in a logic fashion. If we pretend that there is only one criteria that motivates players, then we are fooling ourselves. What makes a class appealing is more than crunch, more than fluff, and more than potential.
Kalarus 06-04-07, 01:13 PM	Honestly, I am not sure if you have been serious on this post or just tossing a few questionable broad statements (much in the style I have seen pro-caster toss... which is annoying to see, unless you were being mildly sarcastic). However, I just must defend the paladin :). I really think the paladin is the most powerful warrior class of D&D at mid-high level, even above the warblade. Perky code of conduct... which most good adventurers already follow. Good mount... will talk about this later. Small save bonus... SMALL?! They start with a +2 to all at level 2 and end with a +10 to all at level 20. That is not small. That is better than any other class, by a huge margin. Mount is useless in dungeons... you are kidding, right? Dungeons are full of large and the occasional huge+ creatures. Mounts are large or larger for medium paladins, medium or smaller for small paladins. They do perfectly well in dungeons and they are ridiculously powerful. The mount validity depends on the CR of the mount or if it flies or not. Level -3 is the monster CR available for a mount. Level -4 if the mount flies. A medium paladin starts with say... a heavy warhorse (CR2). Do you know there are no rules why a heavy warhorse cannot be in a dungeon? None at all. This is also an Int 6 warhorse. At level 6 the paladin the medium paladin can ride a dire wolf, which certainly will be perfectly at home in a dungeon. Or an hippogryff, which can fly. Or any other CR 3 landbound creature or CR 2 flying creature. It gets better and better. Celestial only adds +1 to CR. Half-dragon +2. Half-celestial +3. A T-Rex is CR8... and therefore is a valid mount for a level 11 paladin. Yes, a 20HD T-Rex. Dragons are available at level 11 too, the very young gold is large, with just CR 7. Since when are dragons hindered in dungeons? Small paladins have also some crazy options starting at level 5. Both the blink dog and the fleshraker dinosaur are medium and CR2! And of course medium dragons come much earlier than large ones. Well since I wasn't being entirely sarcastic, I'd like to see a good paladin build that can convince me. Cancel that, I'd *love* to see one for I'd like to play a Cavalier some time but foresee plenty problems. There's a distinct possibility that the kind of campaigns I usually find myself in leave little to no room for a mounted character. Literally. Mounts don't work well in twisted (occasionally) slippery at best 10-ft. wide passages, especially if you want to charge on the thing. Large (not long) creatures will often find themselves with a need to squeeze, my enlarged dwarf fighter suffers that problem already and he's on foot. The second you reach something like a vertical shaft or a broken bridge you are going to have a problem, last I checked mounts can't climb ropes and wizards (provided you have one in the party) don't have unlimited fly spells. So, here are my questions/comments: How do you up that save bonus without suffering from a need for high ability scores? It seems to me that as a Paladin focused on fighting, you need str, con, 14 wis for your spells, and cha for special abilities. You appear to be adding 16 points to charisma along the way, isn't that going to damage your melee capabilities? Pesky code of conduct: well my group doesn't exclusively play good, nor does everyone in D&D. We regularly have neutral characters in the party, and even the good characters are rarely if ever lawful. There have been paladins, and the DM doesn't accept some of the behaviour the other goodaligneds display if it comes from the paladin. If you're good-aligned you can occasionally flirt with pure consequentialist actions. For a paladin, the end should never justify the means (like eating babies). However it's merely pesky, not a huge issue, so it's workable. More mount stuff: apparently the dungeons you end up in are a lot roomier than mine, but let's assume for a moment that "anything fits". Normal rules say a paladin gets a warhorse, other mounts are subject to DM approval. I don't think we have any dinosaurs in the campaigns I'm in, never seen any to be sure. On a more general point, I am occasionally surprised by how often people on the boards treat their pets and special companions (like mounts or familiars) as an extension of their character's will, rather than an individual animal. A warhorse, even as a paladin mount, remains a creature subject to animal instincts, fears and instinctual behaviour. It is not a rational being fully under player control. You could assume otherwise and say a paladin mount is as fearless as its master and never reacts in the fashion that an animal would, by bolting, whinnying, etc. There's a reason why Paladins have handle animal and diplomacy as class skills, and I know my DM will call checks regularly. Especially if I get ideas of charging in the middle of a dark narrow passage of a dungeon. Some things are not dictated by rules because they are relegated under "common sense", one of them being that an animal does not have the control over its fear that a human being (especially a PC) has. All of those mount examples are nice but based on the assumption (which is not a core rule) that the DM *will* allow Paladin mounts other than the standard ones. Sure a different kind of mount, especially a flying one such as a dragon, would solve many of the problems I might have dungeoneering on a mount. Last time someone in my group played a paladin he got a warhorse, even though he was high enough level to allow other creatures. The DMG may state that "a paladin can ride this", but the DMG is not the PHB. Players can't call on DMG rules to support their case, for the simple reason that those rules are Dungeonmaster guidelines, not hard and fast gaming rules. So, if I look at a Paladin, I am looking at a Paladin on a warhorse. A warhorse that will act like a warhorse, not as a PC fully aware of its stats. A mount that is only under my control, as long as I manage to keep it under my control. A mount that may or may not fit into the dungeon, if I can in fact convince it to go in in the first place. Frankly, the situations I am illustrating are as specific as yours, however the DM you play with apparently allows you a lot in picking your mounts, the DM I play with allows me (last I checked anyway, maybe I'll toss him an idea next time I replace my character for some reason) fairly little. Paladins can be powerful but a class that is dependent on selecting a proper mount? Meh.
Argaud 06-04-07, 01:33 PM	So, here are my questions/comments: How do you up that save bonus without suffering from a need for high ability scores? It seems to me that as a Paladin focused on fighting, you need str, con, 14 wis for your spells, and cha for special abilities. You appear to be adding 16 points to charisma along the way, isn't that going to damage your melee capabilities? A paladin does not need Wis 14. He can go onwards with 10 and use items to get the wisdom he needs to cast spells from Periapths of Wisdom. Good stats would be: 14 11 14 10 10 14 for a 25 points build. Cha is the primary ability, keep pumping it up. Read a tome at around level 18. It will be 30 at level 20 for a human paladin. It fuels all the paladin's abilities. Divine feats like Divine Might add to damage. Divine Shield enhances the paladin's AC beyond anything other warriors can get (without using cheese like PAO... which paladins can also use to raise the AC even more, of course). If Grand Cheese is allowed, by all means, go DMM-Persistent. Persist Divine Favor and Righteous Fury, for instance. Pesky code of conduct: well my group doesn't exclusively play good, nor does everyone in D&D. We regularly have neutral characters in the party, and even the good characters are rarely if ever lawful. There have been paladins, and the DM doesn't accept some of the behaviour the other goodaligneds display if it comes from the paladin. If you're good-aligned you can occasionally flirt with pure consequentialist actions. For a paladin, the end should never justify the means (like eating babies). However it's merely pesky, not a huge issue, so it's workable. It is workable. There are also good paladin variants in the Unearthed Arcana. They even make sense. A chaotic, rowdy party probably would be acceptable for a Paladin of Freedom. Empire builders might find a Paladin of Tyranny an excellent addition to the party. More mount stuff: apparently the dungeons you end up in are a lot roomier than mine, but let's assume for a moment that "anything fits". Normal rules say a paladin gets a warhorse, other mounts are subject to DM approval. I don't think we have any dinosaurs in the campaigns I'm in, never seen any to be sure. Pretty much everything is subject to DM approval. So if you want to play a paladin you might want to talk with the DM about possible mounts. If he says "just warhorses" then, by all means, do not play a paladin beyond level 5. If he says "no dinos and no dragons" that is alright. You can still have powerful mounts like dire tigers at level 11 (make it half-celestial at 15 ;)). On a more general point, I am occasionally surprised by how often people on the boards treat their pets and special companions (like mounts or familiars) as an extension of their character's will, rather than an individual animal. A warhorse, even as a paladin mount, remains a creature subject to animal instincts, fears and instinctual behaviour. It is not a rational being fully under player control. <skip> So, if I look at a Paladin, I am looking at a Paladin on a warhorse. A warhorse that will act like a warhorse, not as a PC fully aware of its stats. A mount that is only under my control, as long as I manage to keep it under my control. A mount that may or may not fit into the dungeon, if I can in fact convince it to go in in the first place. You are confusing the druids pet with the paladin's mount. The paladin's mount is not an animal. It is a magical creature from another plane, with an intelligence score (minimum 6. 6 makes it dumb, but not irrational. And it gets smarter). If you want to see a paladin build, I can show you one. Give the level and the level of cheese allowed. I assure you after level 6 it has nothing to envy from a fighter or barbarian. And after level 15, it is probably stronger than even a well-optimized warblade.
aelryinth 06-04-07, 03:31 PM	"So Vanilla' as a phrase is a reference to ice cream. The most common variety of ice cream is vanilla. So, if you're talking about ice cream, it's assumed you are talking about vanilla unless you specifically say otherwise. Also, vanilla is the root flavor for just about every 'additional' flavor. Strawberry fudge nut swirl is vanilla ice cream with strawberry jam, lumps of fudge and a few handfuls of nuts...but the base is still vanilla. Fighter is a 'vanilla' class. You just add stuff to it to become the good stuff. MAD stands for Multi-Ability Dependency. It means to have a character really shine, you need good stats in multiple scores. The classic build of this is the Monk, which requires Excellent Wisdom, Dexterity, strength and likely constitution to function well...or a substantial investment in feats to offset MAD. The paladin is another one, With Cha, Str, Con, and to a lesser extent Wis and Dex all being viable. The least MAD classes are first of all the Druid: High Wis is generally the only thing needed. Other stats, especially physical ones, are generally taken care of by wild shaping. Mages tend to require Int, Con and Dex, Sorcerors Cha, Con and Dex. Rogues can generally get away with Dex, Int and Con, maybe splashing Cha. Bards add Cha as a neccessity. Clerics tend to be Wis intensive, with secondary stats Str, Con and Cha, often depending on how many turn uses they want. Fighters are weirdly stat dependent, in that many of their feat trees basically require above average stats to take. A fighter needs 13 Dex and Int to take Combat Reflexes and Expertise, yet his primary investment generally needs to be his Str so he can hit stuff and Con so he can survive being hit. If he wants lots of AoO and a high AC, he wants a high Dex, too. He doesn't want to ignore his Will save because it screams the loudest abuse, either. His only real 'dump stat' is Charisma. And unlike, say, the Paladin, who can dump his Wisdom to a 10 and later acquire a 14 Wis via magic, the Fighter needs his at the start to acquire Expertise and Combat Reflexes early enough for all those wonderful tripping/tactical builds, which rather shafts his other core abilities somewhat. ===Aelryinth
Kratch 06-04-07, 05:22 PM	Actually the most reasonable folks arguing about the superiority of the cleric over the fighter don't say "the cleric is far better than the fighter" but that "the cleric matches the fighter + still has over half his spells". Matches means the cleric comes very close to the same numbers in straight attack and damage, and that the feats that allow the fighter trip, grapple, bum rush or hinder the monster actually do not matter because monsters are too quick, to large, teleport or use slas all the time. That (to some degree), is the point i'm trying to make. It was his use of "in every way" that i was objecting to. As for the "trip, grapple, bum rush or hinder not mattering due to quick, large, teleport and SLA's", I think that is a pretty weak argument in the face of some of khans builds. or in comparison to this build by CDB (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10325801&postcount=1694). If, when you say quick, you mean movement speed, then i say, by making him constantly move around, your denying things they're full round actions (and if you have charge build elements, your potentially getting some nice damage each round), if you mean tumble, well not a lot of things have tumble. Size i've addressed, Khans builds, the linked build, the fact, even if the creature is immune to the tactic, there are still 17-18 other feats to use, i think the whole "size" thing is a very weak argument. There are no free action teleports in the MM that i'm aware of, if they keep teleporting away from me, then 'm generally helping by denying actions. As for SLA's, well, not sure how those deny the fighter his options. I'm also not sure what the other melee class's offer against these particular issues that gives them viability while the fighter suffers? Or is there a higher standard put on fighters? Some folks even admit the fighter is good as an archer (but only with a split bow) or uber-charger (but the barbarian is better). :rolleyes: New stuff from the Complete Champion. It is a substitution level for a first level barbarian. Give up fast movement. Gain pounce. Now all serious meleers need to take one level as barbarian. Even warblades do not get pounce until level 9. Unfortunatly, I don't have that book, so i can't look through it to see what it offers to anyone, including fighters. Part of the fighters issue is that frankly it has nothing unique to it, the few fighter only feats really aren't worth it in terms of when they're gained and what they could be getting instead. Isn't this more a matter of personal preference then of actual balance? The bigger part is this, the fighters whole shtick is combat, melee, ranged, tricks, whatever the case the fighter is supposed to be able to do it all and do it well. The issue is though that every class can fight, can do damage, can do the sorts of things the fighter is designed for, just differently. The issue I see here is that the fighter can really only fight, their skill list doesn't let them expand too far beyond that and their best setups tend to be either archery or spiked chains, outside of that their capabilities are a bit lacking. And the barbarian shares this as well (and to an even more limited degree, they can't really do the archery route), yet it isn't claimed to suck, and, as deep blue has demonstraited, some people even use it as evidence against the fighter. Now, i'm pretty sure you think the barbarian sucks as well, but since you continue to only use the word "fighter" when you say things like this, i continue to feel the need to point this out. ---------------------------- As to the Optional paladin mount issue, my gaming group generally requires the use of leadership to get most of the optional mounts. It's a rather "in between" of the poles you guys are at. It allows optional mounts, yet it doesn't allow "free" use of optional mounts.
Leo 06-04-07, 05:58 PM	Well, acordin to the Co boards, every dungeon has lots of space so your Druid can wildshape at will, and that every monster ever published exists in every campaign, so the druid can wildshape into them and have them as friends, etc,etc. Much as every world has efreetis who do nothing but waiting to be enslaved and grant you wishes for free, or every world has gods that are willing to grant you powers for nothing in return, or that there are planes with diferent time rules your wizards can abuse but by coincidence are completely void of hostile life.
Archangel62 06-04-07, 06:31 PM	Isn't this more a matter of personal preference then of actual balance? Yes and no, earlier people were going into the 'the fighter is a tank and it fulfills its role etc' and I guess what bugs me is that the only one on your side of the fence that really tried to show a fighter working the way I figure they should (IE being able to switch gears in combat against multiple foe types with a decent chance of success) was Khan. Instead we get into these neverending circles of, Person 1: Class A can do (martially oriented feature) better than the fighter, therefore the fighter doesn't work. Person 2: Well, Class A can't do (other martially oriented feature or situational technique) as well as the fighter so the fighter is fine. or Person 2: Class A needs (X suppliment, monster to exist, certain material component) to do it. or Person 2: Pun-Pun can do it too and all that before, so then all classes suck by that logic. My problems with this are clarified somewhat and you actually gave me a good way to explain it. The thing is that the fighter gives no guidelines, this isn't bad necessarily but it makes me look at designs like the chaingun-tripper and jack-be-quick and at times I wonder if those builds (conceptually not literally) were what the designers had in mind or if they were created more out of an interesting combination of rules (a la pun-pun) Virtually all martial classes give some guidelines in design as to what they are supposed to do and how they are supposed to do it through skills and class abilities. And the barbarian shares this as well (and to an even more limited degree, they can't really do the archery route), yet it isn't claimed to suck, and, as deep blue has demonstraited, some people even use it as evidence against the fighter. Now, i'm pretty sure you think the barbarian sucks as well, but since you continue to only use the word "fighter" when you say things like this, i continue to feel the need to point this out. The barbarian does have problems, not denying it, however I feel the barbarian has a few saving graces that make it at least easier to work with. One thing is that the barbarians design shows that it is meant for melee combat, not ranged and that it isn't really meant for heavy armor. There are some substitution options but the thing is that the barbarian is a fairly simple class. Give a barbarian to a new player and to an experienced one, their designs likely won't be that different, the fighter is an entirely different matter however, as it is with casters and the like. -------- I have to make one other comment here because it is somewhat relevant to the post but not directly. To all those who feel that they are somehow clever for using the pun-pun argument, please please please honestly start thinking. Your reasoning seems to be to ridicule the idea of comparison, but let's turn the argument on it's head slightly, since pun-pun is by definition infinitely powerful then there is also no such thing as an overpowered class or race since no matter what pun-pun can do it's job better than it can and since you seem to argue that an objective comparison of abilities isn't useful then the whole idea of any kind of class balance sort of goes out the window. No spell is too powerful, no new ability too great because in the end pun-pun still trumps it. Now I know that if that same argument were used the people who currently champion the pun-pun flag would likely argue strongly against it. If you want to see what a class can do and how it does it comparisons are needed to work out where it lies on the power curve and what it can do in relation to something else. This is also part of why I ask what people think the job of the fighter class is, to determine how to test it to see if it can meet the requirements.
itwasntme 06-04-07, 06:42 PM	No. Because I don't bow down to someone else if I don't feel like it. No matter how persistent they are. I'm stubborn, and don't take well to someone telling me what I'm doing wrong (as if I don't already know) with their holier-than-thou attitude. In my opinion, you're making a big fuss over nothing. I don't see anyone complaining other than you. Also, I don't see you attacking anyone other than me. For me, it puts your motives under suspicion. No. It's like one of those things people do because they do it. I have nothing to be nervous about. Despite my heavy involvment in this thread, and your impression that I loathe everyone opposing my point of view, none of this (even your constant attacks) is very important to me. I enjoy the game, the rules, and debate. I also poke fun at the opposition if I feel they're being exceptionally silly. Sue me. But stop bringing it up here. Blinding me? I come from the other side of the fence Scion. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=731626&highlight=fighter+20+now+viable Post #56 on page 2 is my first post in that thread. I went into that thread spitting out some of the same stuff people are saying here. But I've had a change of heart. I'm not blind to the opposition, I just don't agree. As far as moving the thread along goes, I've contributed far more to this thread and its topic than you have. You seem more interested in picking at my personality and intentions than seriously discussing the issue. Even after my lengthy post, you responded only to the bits pertaining to my attitude. Instead of responding to your rebuttals of my previous points about this thread's topic, I have to instead reply to more of your off-topic comments about me. I'll note again that you have been the only one to make such a huge stink about it (or any stink at all I should say). If you're as worried about the integrity of this thread as you constantly say you are to justify your posts, stop championing the people that obviously don't care about what I say and focus on the fighter issues. If this is coming off as rude to you, I apologize. It's really not my intent, but at this point, I'm tired of coming back to the same issue. I said in my last post that it was pointless for you to continue and even admitted to being an ass (I've no illusions). But if you'll only focus on those bits, there's no point for me to continue responding to your posts. You ignored the whole rest of my post just to call me snide again. i have to agree his post seem to be mostly trying to call you snide and to make eveyone beleve that sense your "snide" (Not just stubborn like you said) You must be wrong and must be laughed at dont worrie pal im not going to laugh at you inless theres a good reason to
Leo 06-04-07, 06:42 PM	Yes and no, earlier people were going into the 'the fighter is a tank and it fulfills its role etc' and I guess what bugs me is that the only one on your side of the fence that really tried to show a fighter working the way I figure they should (IE being able to switch gears in combat against multiple foe types with a decent chance of success) was Khan. Instead we get into these neverending circles of, Person 1: Class A can do (martially oriented feature) better than the fighter, therefore the fighter doesn't work. Person 2: Well, Class A can't do (other martially oriented feature or situational technique) as well as the fighter so the fighter is fine. or Person 2: Class A needs (X suppliment, monster to exist, certain material component) to do it. or Person 2: Pun-Pun can do it too and all that before, so then all classes suck by that logic. My problems with this are clarified somewhat and you actually gave me a good way to explain it. The thing is that the fighter gives no guidelines, this isn't bad necessarily but it makes me look at designs like the chaingun-tripper and jack-be-quick and at times I wonder if those builds (conceptually not literally) were what the designers had in mind or if they were created more out of an interesting combination of rules (a la pun-pun) Virtually all martial classes give some guidelines in design as to what they are supposed to do and how they are supposed to do it through skills and class abilities. The barbarian does have problems, not denying it, however I feel the barbarian has a few saving graces that make it at least easier to work with. One thing is that the barbarians design shows that it is meant for melee combat, not ranged and that it isn't really meant for heavy armor. There are some substitution options but the thing is that the barbarian is a fairly simple class. Give a barbarian to a new player and to an experienced one, their designs likely won't be that different, the fighter is an entirely different matter however, as it is with casters and the like. -------- I have to make one other comment here because it is somewhat relevant to the post but not directly. To all those who feel that they are somehow clever for using the pun-pun argument, please please please honestly start thinking. Your reasoning seems to be to ridicule the idea of comparison, but let's turn the argument on it's head slightly, since pun-pun is by definition infinitely powerful then there is also no such thing as an overpowered class or race since no matter what pun-pun can do it's job better than it can and since you seem to argue that an objective comparison of abilities isn't useful then the whole idea of any kind of class balance sort of goes out the window. No spell is too powerful, no new ability too great because in the end pun-pun still trumps it. Now I know that if that same argument were used the people who currently champion the pun-pun flag would likely argue strongly against it. If you want to see what a class can do and how it does it comparisons are needed to work out where it lies on the power curve and what it can do in relation to something else. This is also part of why I ask what people think the job of the fighter class is, to determine how to test it to see if it can meet the requirements. This is D&D the roleplaying game, not dungeon and dragons the optimize to the max game. The whole game is based around 2 facts: 1-The players are more interested in roleplaying a party, aka living an adventure and doing impressive things togheter, rather than compete against each other to see who can make the uberest character. The purpose of the books isn't and never was to provide a balanced combat system. It was to provide tools so a world could be created and the players could interact with it. 2-Even if 1 happens, there's this guy, the DM, who can change rules at will, not to make the game balanced, but to make sure everyone is having fun. Also, even much more limited games like Wow are far away from balance, with people constantly complaining x and y are overpowered/underpowered. In D&D the number of variables is much bigger. Balance is nothing more than a frail illusion, and pun-pun is the ultimate example of that. So there is the Dm to close the holes the players may find.
Kalarus 06-04-07, 06:48 PM	<Vanilla & MAD explanations> ===Aelryinth Thanks for that explanation. I know what you mean with the Monk being horrible in that department, tried to play one once, my dislike for the character started with the ability scores. It was like "... darnit I need nearly *everything*!". This is in a group which allows ability scores that makes a 32-point buy character look jealous. Low treasure though, so it generally works out. <Paladin stuff> Argaud, you make want to play a Paladin :P. I suppose I could have a little chat with my DM regarding allowed mounts and such, see what he says. I can already see myself charging down a hallway on my mount and dropping down a pit trap... anyways. Flying mount please? :P The Leadership idea Kratch said might be a good one, I think that should convince him... Hrm, maybe I can make a dark-skinned Elf riding a Dire Tiger :dancin: :devil:. Give the WoW players in my group a chuckle. Let's see... level of cheese allowed... well as for books we can use, it's Core, PHB II, Complete <all of them>, Races of <all of them>, PHBII... think those are the most important ones we have and use. No ToB, no Complete Champion yet either. Cheesy stuff generally isn't going to get in, I might be able to pull off DMM, I never actually tried. No stacking Nightsticks though so it might not be worth it anyway. UA isn't used so no variants from there btw. I don't know what PAO is btw ;). Oh, no setting-specific material either. As far as cheese goes, just assume that cheesy stuff is not allowed, when in doubt just gimme options instead (unless that's too much work). The group isn't very good at character optimization so the cheese questions are never really raised... Well, acordin to the Co boards, every dungeon has lots of space so your Druid can wildshape at will, and that every monster ever published exists in every campaign, so the druid can wildshape into them and have them as friends, etc,etc. Much as every world has efreetis who do nothing but waiting to be enslaved and grant you wishes for free, or every world has gods that are willing to grant you powers for nothing in return, or that there are planes with diferent time rules your wizards can abuse but by coincidence are completely void of hostile life. :rofl: I really need to play a Druid some time, see what I can get away with :D
itwasntme 06-04-07, 06:48 PM	The Paladin dosnt even need a mount ive found plunty of uses for my paladin without mounts besides it means i can take up the chargeing Smite Ability and if i do want a mount later on ill take on out of the Arms and Equipment Guild 25 point buy allready said but if you want to know a 32 point buy (Which is more commen) 14 12 14 8 12 16 is nice if you wanted to cast spells but you dont even need wisdom that much as allready stated so wis and int can be dump abilitys
itwasntme 06-04-07, 06:56 PM	Ive only liked Druids back with the normol Shapeshift / wildshift rules now that its changed i kinda look down on Said Druid eh w/e its allright but it lost alot of its musturd but yes a game is so pose to be group (Ie around 4 players or maybe more as most adverage games seem to have 4-6 players in them) agest other groups of monsters not players evey game has differnt rules on PvP and PvM (Player vs monster or enviroment you could say) back with Diablo (The First MMORPG type game i beleve or something like that) there where differnt skills you needed for killing baal meph diablo and all the monsters and with players you didnt realy need any of thouse skills at all paladin chargeing build is nice agest 1 target though in single player mode your allways fighting at least 20 monsters (It seems like it at least half the times other times your just swarmed with monsters)
Archangel62 06-04-07, 06:59 PM	This is D&D the roleplaying game, not dungeon and dragons the optimize to the max game. The whole game is based around 2 facts: 1-The players are more interested in roleplaying a party, aka living an adventure and doing impressive things togheter, rather than compete against each other to see who can make the uberest character. The purpose of the books isn't and never was to provide a balanced combat system. It was to provide tools so a world could be created and the players could interact with it. As for the RP thing, it's BS and we should both know it by now. RP is an entirely different issue than mechanics and RP is immaterial. The people that play also likely play because they prefer the system or the theme, it isn't like D&D is the only system in existence. Or are you arguing that the rules literally mean nothing, since if they don't give 'balance' (an objective standard for comparison) then they aren't even really worth calling rules. Fine, then the rules themselves have no bearing, if the rules don't provide any balance (depending on perspective) then the rules themselves don't really give much of anything. The rules have to have some sort of structure, some sort of hierarchy with which they can compare and see that something is stronger or weaker than something else, hence balance. 2-Even if 1 happens, there's this guy, the DM, who can change rules at will, not to make the game balanced, but to make sure everyone is having fun. Yes, but that doesn't mean that the system itself isn't flawed or inaccurate. Also, even much more limited games like Wow are far away from balance, with people constantly complaining x and y are overpowered/underpowered. Those complaints often revolve around "X is more powerful than me" In D&D the number of variables is much bigger. Balance is nothing more than a frail illusion, and pun-pun is the ultimate example of that. So there is the Dm to close the holes the players may find. Yes, but pun-pun isn't something that everyone will create automatically with ease. Pun-pun requires at least some optimization skill, and also the idea of balance might be different here. I view balance as simply a class being able to meaningfully contribute on all levels without direct DM intervention for or against them.
Kalarus 06-04-07, 07:01 PM	Yes and no, earlier people were going into the 'the fighter is a tank and it fulfills its role etc' and I guess what bugs me is that the only one on your side of the fence that really tried to show a fighter working the way I figure they should (IE being able to switch gears in combat against multiple foe types with a decent chance of success) was Khan. Instead we get into these neverending circles of, Person 1: Class A can do (martially oriented feature) better than the fighter, therefore the fighter doesn't work. Person 2: Well, Class A can't do (other martially oriented feature or situational technique) as well as the fighter so the fighter is fine. or Person 2: Class A needs (X suppliment, monster to exist, certain material component) to do it. or Person 2: Pun-Pun can do it too and all that before, so then all classes suck by that logic. My problems with this are clarified somewhat and you actually gave me a good way to explain it. The thing is that the fighter gives no guidelines, this isn't bad necessarily but it makes me look at designs like the chaingun-tripper and jack-be-quick and at times I wonder if those builds (conceptually not literally) were what the designers had in mind or if they were created more out of an interesting combination of rules (a la pun-pun) Virtually all martial classes give some guidelines in design as to what they are supposed to do and how they are supposed to do it through skills and class abilities. The barbarian does have problems, not denying it, however I feel the barbarian has a few saving graces that make it at least easier to work with. One thing is that the barbarians design shows that it is meant for melee combat, not ranged and that it isn't really meant for heavy armor. There are some substitution options but the thing is that the barbarian is a fairly simple class. Give a barbarian to a new player and to an experienced one, their designs likely won't be that different, the fighter is an entirely different matter however, as it is with casters and the like. -------- I have to make one other comment here because it is somewhat relevant to the post but not directly. To all those who feel that they are somehow clever for using the pun-pun argument, please please please honestly start thinking. Your reasoning seems to be to ridicule the idea of comparison, but let's turn the argument on it's head slightly, since pun-pun is by definition infinitely powerful then there is also no such thing as an overpowered class or race since no matter what pun-pun can do it's job better than it can and since you seem to argue that an objective comparison of abilities isn't useful then the whole idea of any kind of class balance sort of goes out the window. No spell is too powerful, no new ability too great because in the end pun-pun still trumps it. Now I know that if that same argument were used the people who currently champion the pun-pun flag would likely argue strongly against it. If you want to see what a class can do and how it does it comparisons are needed to work out where it lies on the power curve and what it can do in relation to something else. This is also part of why I ask what people think the job of the fighter class is, to determine how to test it to see if it can meet the requirements. Just a small comment about the Pun-pun argument, since I am pretty much the one who formalized it. The argument is not to suggest that Pun-pun is playable. He's not, he shouldn't be. The argument is to illustrate the arbitraryness of people's judgements, as to what is broken/cheese, and what is viable. If D&D is meant to be balanced, no class should by definition trump another, yet that is what happens. Balance is shot to all hell in D&D, and the worst part of it is that it was *intentional*. WotC makes, in my opinion, one big flaw when they increase class power to stimulate people into playing that class more. They deliberately disrupt class balance in order to stimulate behaviour that is not going to happen anyway. I have three different D&D groups, nobody plays a Druid. It's a pain in the rear to see who will play the Cleric. I can't really account for the Druid, I suppose the Cleric is still seen as a healbot (Druid may be too, but just an less competent healbot). People who play powerful battle-Clerics because they are drawn to Clerics because of its power, don't diminish that idea, because these people are not going to be healing much at all. Their character isn't geared towards that kind of play, it's geared towards the power that it can potentially offer. All in all people won't play what they don't like, just because it's powerful. Power does not guarantee fun. In fact, a theoretical build like Pun-pun is a fine example of how power diminishes fun. Everything people consider "cheese", same deal. Did you ever notice that people only consider things "too powerful" when it diminishes the fun in playing, regardless of the actual power of the class/ability in question? It's subjectivity at its best, and that is all the Pun-pun argument illustrates.
Otto the Bugbear 06-04-07, 07:02 PM	Ive only liked Druids back with the normol Shapeshift / wildshift rules now that its changed i kinda look down on Said Druid eh w/e its allright but it lost alot of its musturd but yes a game is so pose to be group (Ie around 4 players or maybe more as most adverage games seem to have 4-6 players in them) agest other groups of monsters not players evey game has differnt rules on PvP and PvM (Player vs monster or enviroment you could say) back with Diablo (The First MMORPG type game i beleve or something like that) there where differnt skills you needed for killing baal meph diablo and all the monsters and with players you didnt realy need any of thouse skills at all paladin chargeing build is nice agest 1 target though in single player mode your allways fighting at least 20 monsters (It seems like it at least half the times other times your just swarmed with monsters) http://pics.livejournal.com/twoflower/pic/0001xekp
Kalarus 06-04-07, 07:07 PM	http://pics.livejournal.com/twoflower/pic/0001xekp :rofl: I was wondering about a way to bring it nicely. Humor always works :rofl:
Kratch 06-04-07, 07:10 PM	Yes and no, earlier people were going into the 'the fighter is a tank and it fulfills its role etc' and I guess what bugs me is that the only one on your side of the fence that really tried to show a fighter working the way I figure they should (IE being able to switch gears in combat against multiple foe types with a decent chance of success) was Khan. Instead we get into these neverending circles of, Yes, Khan has been doing a remarkable job of providing builds, and i am greateful for his efforts. I already waste to much of my study time reading these boards, i really can't afford more time to add more (not to mention 1: I don't think i could do much to improve on khans efforts. 2: The last book i was able to pick up was ToM. 3: most of khans builds are as quickly forgotten as they can be by many ... anti-fighters (for lack of a better term), and thus, adding my own builds would likely be a wasted effort). My problems with this are clarified somewhat and you actually gave me a good way to explain it. The thing is that the fighter gives no guidelines, this isn't bad necessarily but it makes me look at designs like the chaingun-tripper and jack-be-quick and at times I wonder if those builds (conceptually not literally) were what the designers had in mind or if they were created more out of an interesting combination of rules (a la pun-pun) Virtually all martial classes give some guidelines in design as to what they are supposed to do and how they are supposed to do it through skills and class abilities. So are you saying a class should be limited to the guidelines? cause that would eliminate the use of melee build clerics. Or are you saying a class has guidlines to help those who want to play by someone elses intentions, but a class that shows no real intentions is unacceptable in comparison to a class thats breaking away from that class's intentions? hmm that doesn't sound very clear. ... ok. Basically, why are you faulting a class for not having guidelines based on another the performance of class build thats actively breaks it's guidelines anyways? And again, I think it's a matter of personal prefference rather then actual balance. The barbarian does have problems, not denying it, however I feel the barbarian has a few saving graces that make it at least easier to work with. One thing is that the barbarians design shows that it is meant for melee combat, not ranged and that it isn't really meant for heavy armor. There are some substitution options but the thing is that the barbarian is a fairly simple class. Give a barbarian to a new player and to an experienced one, their designs likely won't be that different, the fighter is an entirely different matter however, as it is with casters and the like. Care to elaborate on those "saving graces"? And please do keep in mind the criteria being used against the fighter... that if someone else can do it almost as well, and more, then they in fact suck. I also don't agree that a barbarians ability to be pigionholed regaurdless of the players skills is an advantage over the fighter class. It is a benifit of the class that it is easier to pick up and use then a fighter, in the same way a fighter is easier to pick up and use as a caster, but that argument was dismissed out of hand earlier by those arguing against the fighter. -------- I have to make one other comment here because it is somewhat relevant to the post but not directly. To all those who feel that they are somehow clever for using the pun-pun argument, please please please honestly start thinking. ... If you want to see what a class can do and how it does it comparisons are needed to work out where it lies on the power curve and what it can do in relation to something else. This is also part of why I ask what people think the job of the fighter class is, to determine how to test it to see if it can meet the requirements. The general point of the pun pun argument, is to show the criteria being used against the fighter is insufficient, because when used (and in the case of pun pun, it's used to the extreme), only the most powerful class/build stands, all others fail. Some say that pun pun is a build and therefor doesn't qualify, then procceed to use the DMM-persist cleric build against the fighter (see the double standard there?). Some say Pun Pun is above the cheeze barrior (that i believe kalaris first mentioned), then procceed to use the DMM+ nightsticks against the fighter (who sets where the cheese barrior stands?). Generally I aggree with the premise (i believe i was one of the initiators), though i try to use things bellow the cheese barrior, often asking what a wizard offers (generally speaking) that a cleric can not. The only things i've gotten have been no save spells (i was under the impression the holy word line were no save, so thats not true) and some specific defence buffs (which are generally accessable by domains, plus, if we stick to the general concepts, clerics get defence buffs too). The arguments in favour of the wizard get into specific spells, not the "general concept" that is used against the fighter (such as the fighter can fight with full BAB, the cleric can do that too, so he can do everything the fighter can). The Specfic number and types of tactics any single fighter can provide are often dismissed, citing, clerics can other things besides to make up for the differences. But when i note clerics get other things besides spellcasting over the wizard to make up the the very small handfull of things a wizard can do better, i'm ignored or told i'm being to unreasonable (see the double standard here? the whole point of doing the wizard/cleric comparison is to show the criteria is unreasonable/insufficient). The pun pun fallacy is just this same argument, taken to an extreme
Alpha_Moose 06-04-07, 09:52 PM	Just a small comment about the Pun-pun argument, since I am pretty much the one who formalized it. The problem I have with the Pun-pun argument is that, by that logic, the Warrior is a perfectly viable class. So what if the Fighter can do what it can and more?
Khan the Destroyer 06-04-07, 10:12 PM	In regards to the Pun-Pun argument, this is how I see it. The argument is that no one should play a fighter because there are classes that offer more powerful options to do what the fighter does and more. This premise assumes that power is the focus. From what I've seen of some arguments, people invoking it don't seem to mind one player dominating the game, and making encounters ridiculously easy to overcome. This essentially gives no regard to how the game was intended to play. Since instead of 4 people working together, you have 1 doing all of the work (arguments like 'Why buff the fighter when you can use 1 spell to end the fight?'). Further, instead of using 25% of your resources, you use 1 spell of 1 character. So, if someone is concerned with only power or optimization, and that person has no regards to game balance or limiting himself for the sake of the other players and the DM, that person might as well play Pun-Pun. That's how I see the argument. A less severe version, and perhaps one that is more relevant is simply to optimize a caster to stand-in any role other than caster, and then declare that only casters should be played. For instance, optimizing wizards to take the role of stealth/scout, trapspringer, battlefield control, tank, and blaster. If you have 3 of these guys, you'd only need a cleric. Alternatively, you can make them so good, you can forgo the cleric and just pwn everything before they can hurt you. But the conclusion would be that no one should play a non-wizard/druid/cleric. That seems absurd, given the amount of material dedicated to those very classes we would cease to use. @Kratch: {sblock}... insert text here... {/sblock} Replace {} with []. Here is another build based on the Valenar Elves in Eberron (I think I posted it earlier, but it was in a group of builds so it probably got overlooked). For anyone not familiar, they are essentially warmongerers, always looking for a battle wherever they can find one. They are famed mounted warriors and favor the double scimitar as a weapon. This build tries to capture that theme while remaining functional. Valenar Cavalryman 1. Weapon Focus (Double Scimitar), Bladebearer of the Valenar 2. Mounted Combat 3. Spirit of the Stallion 4. Ride-by Attack 6. Spirited Charge, Two-Weapon Fighting 8. Weapon Specialization 9. Weapon Mastery 10. Mounted Archery 12. Leadership (or Wild Cohort), Improved Mounted Archery 14. Point Blank Shot 15. Precise Shot 16. Improved Two-Weapon Fighting 18. Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization 20. Greater Two-Weapon Fighting Ideally, you want to fight from the back of your mount whenever possible. The obvious boost to charge damage is there with Spirited Charge, and you can also fire arrows from horseback at no penalty (double move, 160' for a Valenar Horse) or at a -2 penalty while the horse is running (400'). With a composite longbow's range of 110', you can get a full ranged attack at an enemy from as far as 509' away with only a -2 penalty on the attacks. I'm not sure when that would come up, but it's cool. At the very least, I'd say that's a pretty mobile warrior. If enemies close in or you catch up to one and enter melee combat, you can pull off 7 attacks with your double scimitar, taking advantage of your Weapon Focus/Mastery/Specialization feats. From the saddle, you have a total of +6 to attack and +8 to damage with your double scimitar. If your enemy keeps you at a distance, you can charge for double damage, or fire arrows, remaining mobile yourself. If your enemy likes to slug it out in melee, you can return the favor with 7 of your own attacks. If the enemy is somehow super duper mobile, you can most likely keep up the pressure with your mount's speed and your longbow. Leadership is there to boost up your mount. If that doesn't sit well with you, Wild Cohort is there instead. I know it may not matter to some people, but you can swap the feat out for something else if you'd like. I'm still not sure about the feat order. I wanted to get the combat feats in before the Weapon Spec. feats. Between the Bladebearer feat, the Mounted Combat rules, and Spirit of the Stallion, you have a +2 to attack and damage against medium foes while mounted by level 3. I figured that could stand in for the Focus/Spec feats while the combat feats were obtained.
xanadu 06-04-07, 10:24 PM	This is D&D the roleplaying game, not dungeon and dragons the optimize to the max game. The whole game is based around 2 facts:[behold, the TRUTH emerges] 1-The players are more interested in roleplaying a party, aka living an adventure and doing impressive things togheter, rather than compete against each other to see who can make the uberest character... 2-Even if 1 happens, there's this guy, the DM, who can change rules at will, not to make the game balanced, but to make sure everyone is having fun. I take it you never heard of the Oberoni fallacy...
Nephlite 06-04-07, 10:31 PM	Argaud, you make want to play a Paladin :P. I suppose I could have a little chat with my DM regarding allowed mounts and such, see what he says. I can already see myself charging down a hallway on my mount and dropping down a pit trap... anyways. Flying mount please? :P The Leadership idea Kratch said might be a good one, I think that should convince him... So, use your mount as a ally not a ridingh tool. Buy it: str/con boosting stuff/good armor. It should be as good as any warrior defensively/physically. It is a fighting ability. You don't have to ride it unless your guy wants to: it can be a flanking buddy even. Plus, why are you going first...the rogue should have been first to look for traps. Plus, pit trap has to be 10 feet long to trap horse (he isn't 5 foot).
Clawhound 06-04-07, 10:41 PM	I take it you never heard of the Oberoni fallacy... That does not apply in this case. It is an expressed job of the DM to provide this balance, as explained in the DMG, and explained in many other articles and publications. Additionally, the DMG explains that part of a DM's job is compensating for problem players. It gives some guidelines, but is, by no means, a definitive examination of the subject. Game designers are not subject to the Oberoni fallacy and may base the game on whatever criteria they see fit.
Argaud 06-05-07, 02:50 AM	So, use your mount as a ally not a ridingh tool. Buy it: str/con boosting stuff/good armor. It should be as good as any warrior defensively/physically. It is a fighting ability. You don't have to ride it unless your guy wants to: it can be a flanking buddy even. Plus, why are you going first...the rogue should have been first to look for traps. Plus, pit trap has to be 10 feet long to trap horse (he isn't 5 foot). Given the mount is not an animal but a god-given ally I'd say most paladins, being good guys, will treat this gift from their god with due respect. Of course a paladin might be an angry self-righteous prick too, and use the mount as a weapon. Some lawful good gods can be pricks (Pholtus comes to mind) and probably have no problem granting powers to that kind of paladin. Sometimes LG =! nice. YMMV :) Kalarus, DMM is "Major Royal Cheese". If your game avoids cheese I thinking asking your DM about it is going to get you smacked in the head with the DMG. Dragon mounts I'd call "mild cheese" because dragons are very overpowered for their CR. But consider these mounts (just from the SRD) for a level 6, 12 and 18 human paladin: Level 6. Dire Wolf. This baby has 26 strength and 8HD (60hp) for a level 6 paladin, it can trip almost anything. The paladin can give him a mithril chain barding for some extra AC so it will have AC22. It moves at speed 50 and has the Run feat, so it is very quick. It has Scent, so it can warn the paladin of hidden enemies, and Track, so it can follow trails. The flying option is the hippogriff, but it is a bit fragile at this level. Level 12. Celestial Dire Bear. Grappling Doom. 14 HD (122hp), 32 Str, improved grab. Don't forget to share Rhino Charge with him for double charging damage. Keep a few first level Pearls of Power so you can recover Rhino Charge after every battle. AC is a problem, so give him mithril chain and other protective items. He has elemental resistance 10 to almost everything. DR 10/magic, SR19 and one smite/day (+14 damage). At level 13 you can get a celestial dire tiger with 153 hp and combine pounce with Rhino Charge with improved grab, ouch. A flying option is the Lammasu, who comes with cool super-powers and is a level 7 cleric. Not a melee killing machine, but nothing to scoff at. Level 18. Celestial Half-Dragon Dire Tiger Lets see... 20HD (210hp), flight, Str 37, pounce, improved grab, SR 30, AC 27 base (get it up to 40, it is easy at this level). Now you have a Rod of Quiken and can quicken all your spells, sharing them. Go wild. Other players might even tell you the mount is more powerful than your paladin. Or... 12-headed Celestial Pyrohydra. Alas, this one is huge, not so good for dungeons, and your DM might smack you with the DMG for the cheeseness :)
navar100 06-05-07, 02:54 AM	Just a small comment about the Pun-pun argument, since I am pretty much the one who formalized it. The argument is not to suggest that Pun-pun is playable. He's not, he shouldn't be. The argument is to illustrate the arbitraryness of people's judgements, as to what is broken/cheese, and what is viable. If D&D is meant to be balanced, no class should by definition trump another, yet that is what happens. Balance is shot to all hell in D&D, and the worst part of it is that it was *intentional*. WotC makes, in my opinion, one big flaw when they increase class power to stimulate people into playing that class more. They deliberately disrupt class balance in order to stimulate behaviour that is not going to happen anyway. I have three different D&D groups, nobody plays a Druid. It's a pain in the rear to see who will play the Cleric. I can't really account for the Druid, I suppose the Cleric is still seen as a healbot (Druid may be too, but just an less competent healbot). People who play powerful battle-Clerics because they are drawn to Clerics because of its power, don't diminish that idea, because these people are not going to be healing much at all. Their character isn't geared towards that kind of play, it's geared towards the power that it can potentially offer. All in all people won't play what they don't like, just because it's powerful. Power does not guarantee fun. In fact, a theoretical build like Pun-pun is a fine example of how power diminishes fun. Everything people consider "cheese", same deal. Did you ever notice that people only consider things "too powerful" when it diminishes the fun in playing, regardless of the actual power of the class/ability in question? It's subjectivity at its best, and that is all the Pun-pun argument illustrates. The druid player in my group is another example. She's not into being a druid. If she bothers to cast a spell, it's Splinterbolt. She has used Entangle a few times. Otherwise, she likes to wage in battle wielding two scimitars. She will cast Barkskin on herself. She had a wolf companion for a few sessions but has left him behind and not bothered with another Companion. She doesn't like wildshape. It's just not her thing. The DM saw this and had her exchange giving up wildshaping for a dedicated warrior's BAB. I think there's more, but that's between her and the DM. The DM is calling it "druidic knight". I think it's because of game continuity she doesn't just retire the character and play something else. I know she can do so much more, but it's her character. It's not my place to tell her how to play it. When she was questioning wildshape I did mention the power and versatility it offers, but it didn't appeal to her. The fun she envisioned for playing her character did not allow for wildshaping.
navar100 06-05-07, 03:06 AM	The problem I have with the Pun-pun argument is that, by that logic, the Warrior is a perfectly viable class. So what if the Fighter can do what it can and more? That's misapplying the Pun-Pun Fallacy. Those who defend the Fighter do not say the Warrior does not make a good PC class because the Fighter is better. The Warrior is judged on its own merits. The Fallacy is against the Fighter because the anti-fighters are saying other classes can do what the Fighter does and more. There were arguments by some anti-fighters that judged the Fighter on its own merits as a sucky class. Though the pro-fighters disagreed and showed how the Fighter was good on its own merits, the argument against it was not Pun-Pun Fallacy. However, there was a reversal of Pun-Pun Fallacy in regards to the Warrior. Since it is accepted by fiat the Warrior is a sucky PC class, the anti-fighters were trying to prove the Warrior can do what Fighters do, Warrior = Fighters thus Fighters suck. The defenders of Fighters, by showing that Fighter > Warrior, were only proving Warrior != Fighter, thus Fighters are good. Warrior being a sucky PC classes was a Given of the Premise.
xanadu 06-05-07, 03:49 AM	That does not apply in this case. It is an expressed job of the DM to provide this balance, as explained in the DMG, and explained in many other articles and publications. Additionally, the DMG explains that part of a DM's job is compensating for problem players. It gives some guidelines, but is, by no means, a definitive examination of the subject. Game designers are not subject to the Oberoni fallacy and may base the game on whatever criteria they see fit. I don't know...the argument is certainly treading into Oberoni territory by claiming DnD is truthfully a roleplaying game [a fallacy in itself] and if this breaks down it is not a problem because the DM can magically fix things by rule 0 or whatever. It is still an asinine argument :rolleyes:
Kalarus 06-05-07, 05:04 AM	I don't know...the argument is certainly treading into Oberoni territory by claiming DnD is truthfully a roleplaying game [a fallacy in itself] and if this breaks down it is not a problem because the DM can magically fix things by rule 0 or whatever. It is still an asinine argument :rolleyes: "Oberoni territory"? Seriously, what IS that? Until I see the name "Oberoni" on the cover/inside of a D&D book where the writer's names are published, there is no such thing as "Oberoni territory". Logical fallacies have the quality of only functioning within the domain that the fallacy describes, and nothing more. Oberoni gets into severe problems if you expand its territory by implications and similar-situations. Oberoni Fallacy only states that just because the DM can houserule a rule, the rule is not broken by design. Nothing more. It says something about the brokenness of rules and the flaws in design, not about DM fiat. If Oberoni Fallacy tries to imply something about DM fiat then the Fallacy is wrong because one of the published rules is that the DM is master of the rules. Ignoring this is letting a logical fallacy limit the power a DM has over the game. Under this interpretation of Oberoni Fallacy, all cheese is by definition legal and should be brought into play, including thought experiments like Pun-pun. So what Oberoni does NOT say is: 1) DM power is limited because he can't houserule 2) Just because it isn't houseruled, doesn't make it appropriate for gameplay. Far too often when people rightfully remark that a rule/build/ability will not be played because any sensible DM will houserule it away, Oberoni is invoked... and for what? To suggest that the rule/build/ability should be in fact allowed? It's like people think it is a magic word to use to backup any possible argument regarding DMs. I could invoke Oberoni every time people claim that Pun-pun should not be played and thus the Pun-pun Fallacy never applies. I don't do this, because I agree that he should not be played. So here we have the unwritten rule of applying Oberoni: Oberoni is only invoked by person X when person Y suggest that DMs houserule things, that person X does not agree with. So when is Oberoni useful? Oberoni Fallacy is only useful when its exact fallacy is used: that a rule is not broken because a DM can houserule it. It is not properly invoked when people say a DM would be best off houseruling a rule, because it is broken. In the latter case, both the premise and the Fallacy are in agreement: rule X is broken. If it is agreed that rule X is broken, the conclusion of Oberoni Fallacy is false, and guess what: if a fallacy is false, that means the fallacy is not an appropriate counter-argument. The problem I have with the Pun-pun argument is that, by that logic, the Warrior is a perfectly viable class. So what if the Fighter can do what it can and more? That's misapplying the Pun-Pun Fallacy. Those who defend the Fighter do not say the Warrior does not make a good PC class because the Fighter is better. The Warrior is judged on its own merits. The Fallacy is against the Fighter because the anti-fighters are saying other classes can do what the Fighter does and more. There were arguments by some anti-fighters that judged the Fighter on its own merits as a sucky class. Though the pro-fighters disagreed and showed how the Fighter was good on its own merits, the argument against it was not Pun-Pun Fallacy. However, there was a reversal of Pun-Pun Fallacy in regards to the Warrior. Since it is accepted by fiat the Warrior is a sucky PC class, the anti-fighters were trying to prove the Warrior can do what Fighters do, Warrior = Fighters thus Fighters suck. The defenders of Fighters, by showing that Fighter > Warrior, were only proving Warrior != Fighter, thus Fighters are good. Warrior being a sucky PC classes was a Given of the Premise. In order for the Pun-pun fallacy's *logic* to be consistent, it does in fact have to apply to the Fighter/Warrior combination, else it cannot defeat the assumption that it was meant to defeat: the assumption that if Class X does all Class Y can and more, Class Y should not be played. It is perfectly reasonable to say that class X is Fighter and class Y is warrior, in this example. Navar is right, however, when he says that when the Fighter was proven to be with its own merits, instead of relatively to class X, this has nothing to do with Pun-pun Fallacy. Consequently, the Warrior is judged on its own merits. It is also true that people generally agree that the Warrior is a worse class choice than official PC classes because he is weaker. Agreement leads to the discussion Navar summed up. Given what people have posted in this thread lately, they do not all agree that the Warrior is a non-viable class choice. This is something different. Wether the Warrior is in fact viable, has not even been explored by either side of the fence, probably because it's not even a PC class to begin with. Funny detail. If warriors are not viable and should not exist, why are they deemed appropriate opponents for PCs? Why do they exist in the first place? Why not give everything Fighter levels and be done with it? Apparently there is something to say for the viability for a warrior, which would also lead to the conclusion that the warrior is not viable to be a PC class but only to be an NPC class. The Fighter's viability has been judged by how well it could perform in appropriate CR encounters, preferably under normal gaming circumstances. This has been done by a variety of example builds. We have not seen such builds yet for the Warrior, because well, there's not all that much to build with. The Warrior *might* be viable, it's not been tested. The Fighter has. So if we're working the Pun-pun Fallacy *down* the powerline instead of up, anyone who feels that by Pun-pun Fallacy the warrior is viable, is free to prove it. Show a Warrior build that can consistently perform the role of a Fighter, against appropriate CR opponents, and you'll not hear me for sure claim that the Warrior is not a viable class. So what happens if someone succeeds in doing just that? Will I start playing Warriors? Probably not. I like customizing my characters and I see no reason to limit my options within a given system (e.g. Feat system). Fighters give me more customization in the Feat department than Warriors, allowing me to create a more versatile and for me more fun character. That says nothing, however, about Warrior viability. Have fun, I'll see the build soon I hope. P.S., Argaud: more about Paladins when I get back from college ;)
Leo 06-05-07, 06:17 AM	I don't know...the argument is certainly treading into Oberoni territory by claiming DnD is truthfully a roleplaying game [a fallacy in itself] and if this breaks down it is not a problem because the DM can magically fix things by rule 0 or whatever. It is still an asinine argument :rolleyes: Google D&D. The first option has nothing to do with the game. The second one: Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page OMG google is a dumbass! I'll never trust it again! I'll rather believe in some random arrogant dude of the boards who gave his own name to a fallaccy rather than the game designers or the guys who made the best search engine of the world.
Otto the Bugbear 06-05-07, 07:04 AM	What the :censored: are you talking about Leo?
Leo 06-05-07, 09:12 AM	What the :censored: are you talking about Leo? I'm oposing the other guy's opinion on how D&D isn't a roleplaying game. When in the books, the site, and in all the oficial sources it says it's a roleplaying game. So, either there are a lot of ilogic but rich and powerfull people out there, or D&D is indeed a roleplaying game. Blah blah strategies are nice, but if I wanted a strategy board game I would play something else. I play D&D because it allows me to play a hero in great depth, not only to fight, but also to explore dungeons, solve mysteries, intrigues, choose my own path, diplomacy, romance, doing just random stuff etc, etc, aka roleplaying.
runestar 06-05-07, 09:29 AM	I dunno - my experience with dnd is that while there is some roleplaying involved from time to time, most of the time, it typically involves killing people and taking their stuff and justifying it. As such, I am inclined to agree that it tends more towards the "tactical wargame" genre. Heck, look at most of the material in any splatbook. They tend to cater to making your character more effective in combat then he already is, simply because combat is expected to make up a significant chunk of your game. I understand that there have been games which are predominantly story-driven with minimal combat, but those seem more the exception than the norm...:confused:
lord_xarallon 06-05-07, 09:29 AM	Google D&D. The first option has nothing to do with the game. The second one: Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page OMG google is a dumbass! I'll never trust it again! I'll rather believe in some random arrogant dude of the boards who gave his own name to a fallaccy rather than the game designers or the guys who made the best search engine of the world. This (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/welcome) page is the first I get... :D Re: Any reason to have a fighter... 2! No Any reason to have a cleric? No, have a artificer with healing wands. And reason to have a artificer with healing wands? No, have a cleric. See my point?
Lacyon 06-05-07, 10:39 AM	In order for the Pun-pun fallacy's *logic* to be consistent, it does in fact have to apply to the Fighter/Warrior combination, else it cannot defeat the assumption that it was meant to defeat: the assumption that if Class X does all Class Y can and more, Class Y should not be played. It is perfectly reasonable to say that class X is Fighter and class Y is warrior, in this example. Indeed. To formalize the Pun-Pun fallacy: Given: character choice [Feat, Class, Race, whatever] X is more powerful than [similar] character choice Y. (X > Y) The existance of X does not imply that Y is an "inviable" or "underpowered" character choice. Example: The existence of Pun-Pun does not imply that playing a human is an inviable character choice. The existence of clerics does not imply that fighters are underpowered. The existence of fighters does not imply that warriors are underpowered. Note: The fallacy does NOT say whether or not Y [be it fighter, warrior, human, or whatever] is viable. It only states that a certain kind of argument ("fighters are inviable because clerics exist") is invalid. -Lacyon
Leo 06-05-07, 10:39 AM	I dunno - my experience with dnd is that while there is some roleplaying involved from time to time, most of the time, it typically involves killing people and taking their stuff and justifying it. As such, I am inclined to agree that it tends more towards the "tactical wargame" genre. Heck, look at most of the material in any splatbook. They tend to cater to making your character more effective in combat then he already is, simply because combat is expected to make up a significant chunk of your game. I understand that there have been games which are predominantly story-driven with minimal combat, but those seem more the exception than the norm...:confused: Well, combat is fun and takes quite a notch of the game. But D&D combat is special, because it allows lots of room for personalization and showing your characters personality. In a game like, let's say, warhammer, you have a group of fixed limited units and weapons, wehreas in D&D I can go to the point of personalizing EVERY little detail of my character, from age, colour of the hair,backstory, weaponry and equipment, abilities etc, etc. And with more than an hunded classes, Prc, feats, skills and rule 0 the possibilites are bigger than in any other game, wich rewards greatly personalizing your character. Especially when 90% of those choices are suboptimal, yet people take them. For example monkey grip. It's far from effecient, but c'mon, wielding 2 greatswords at the same time, how cool is that? The main point of why D&D is a roleplaying game it's because you don't make your character's build choices because they're the most effecient, you pick them becasue you think they're cool and fit your character idea well. Otherwise everybody would just play druid and cleric. Booooring. people want to swing swords. People want to blast things. People want to be able to brag how their rogue killed the head mage with just a rusty dagger. Also, my group loves to roleplay in combat. The sorceror dedicates every fireball he throws to her goddes of death, the fighter screams to the party members to get ouf of the way so he can deliver some axe carnage, the cleric of Pelor wonders if it would be more correct to heal the teammates or the inocents caught in the crossfire,and so on. But we also roleplay a lot out of combat. Intrigues, diplomacy, finding out where to go next, going to the bar/church/castle or just trying to cover up our bloody trail from the local king, there's plent of things to do outside of combat in D&D.
Archangel62 06-05-07, 10:43 AM	Yes, Khan has been doing a remarkable job of providing builds, and i am greateful for his efforts. I already waste to much of my study time reading these boards, i really can't afford more time to add more (not to mention 1: I don't think i could do much to improve on khans efforts. 2: The last book i was able to pick up was ToM. 3: most of khans builds are as quickly forgotten as they can be by many ... anti-fighters (for lack of a better term), and thus, adding my own builds would likely be a wasted effort). I remember em at least and by most accounts I'm a member of that 'anti-fighter' camp. Part of my complaint on it is simply that to me the fighter is an ok heavy warrior, but for lighter warriors, swashbucklers, skirmishers, etc. We either need a large number of substitution options or a separate template class, or we have to keep making one-offs like the swashbuckler. But I also understand your point on not being able to keep up with the mechanics. So are you saying a class should be limited to the guidelines? cause that would eliminate the use of melee build clerics. Or are you saying a class has guidlines to help those who want to play by someone elses intentions, but a class that shows no real intentions is unacceptable in comparison to a class thats breaking away from that class's intentions? hmm that doesn't sound very clear. ... ok. Basically, why are you faulting a class for not having guidelines based on another the performance of class build thats actively breaks it's guidelines anyways? And again, I think it's a matter of personal prefference rather then actual balance. Not quite, what I felt was that most classes at least give some ideas as to what the class is capable of and how to work it. The barbarian is usually seen as a conan, a martial monster, as well as the fact that the class gives bonuses to hit and damage, as well as HP plus fast movement. The class makes a good charger, a better one with pounce. A lot of the defensive features are nice too, uncanny dodge, DR/-, d12 hd, as well as trapsense. The barbarian actually looks like a better frontliner for the average dungeon than say the fighter, ranger, or paladin. They even have spot and listen so they can be decent night guards for the camp. They are also very user friendly and easy to optimize. The Cleric and druid actually aren't straying too far outside their parameters, the DMM nightstick thing is an accident yes, but the fact is that the self buffs there do exist and clerics of a martial deity would fight. The fact is that clerics do have decent weapon selection as well as heavy armor and most will use shields as well so they do have a fairly good ac and HP. Druids can transform into just about anything and also have magic items that can meld their gear with their body to augment it even further, not to mention all the self buffs THEY get. The cleric as a healer only is more a product of a lot of games in which classes that can heal can't do much else, either due to limited options or not being able to heal properly if they go that route. A friend of mine likes playing the super-booster cleric, loves healing and augmenting the party, has never used Righteous Might or Divine power except once when the group pleaded with him to take it before they went to face a dragon (were concerned about him getting nuked by the dragon and them losing their good comrade). The fighter is listed as a martial character and when most people think martial character they tend to think of damage or defense, or of 300 recently. However most have seen that the best fighters aren't the damage ones, they're the ones who are trick based, tripping, disarming, etc. usually works better because it denies the enemy actions, the problem is that the range for these tricks is fairly small for 1 and 2 many are opposed rolls so unless facing a foe of roughly equal size (maybe one larger) their chance of success is rather diminished. Care to elaborate on those "saving graces"? And please do keep in mind the criteria being used against the fighter... that if someone else can do it almost as well, and more, then they in fact suck. I also don't agree that a barbarians ability to be pigionholed regaurdless of the players skills is an advantage over the fighter class. It is a benifit of the class that it is easier to pick up and use then a fighter, in the same way a fighter is easier to pick up and use as a caster, but that argument was dismissed out of hand earlier by those arguing against the fighter. As I mentioned above, I don't see it as being pigeonholed so much as easy to optimize. Yes, the barbarian has issues to, chief among them being that ranged isn't really their cup of tea unless you have one that does thrown weapon stuff (then an eberron halfling can be quite impressive) and even then there can be issues. I don't really see the fighter as the easy class you give to the new guy, in some ways it's harder, I have played casters and fighters and frankly the caster has always been easier, maybe it's how my brain works or something but the caster almost always works better in my hands. But as I mentioned before, while the barbarian might not have the same range of options it gives a fairly clear assessment as to what it is designed to do and can also do some good outside of combat too. On the flip side the fighter has no real guidelines, now you can attribute some stuff to system mastery (fighter learns tricks>damage just as caster learns Most other spells>damage) but the thing is that the fighter, and in truth most of the martial classes, have the system set against them. As the game gets to the higher levels you have monsters with SoD effects, ones that can easily keep moving out of the martial characters reach but keep said character in theirs. At higher levels range and mobility are the name of the game, casters have better defense options because while most martial characters can just up their AC a caster can give themselves a miss chance, make attacking them cause pain to the attacker, grant themselves a high DR, or have it look like there are dozens of them wandering around the battlefield. This is also why I have been against using the advanced monsters and groups as an argument for balance, the lower CR ones don't have the abilities or if they do the DCs are fairly low, at high levels the DCs grow higher and there are more dangerous options. The class levels can confuse things and swarms can alter how the fight works, one foe keeps the variables more controllable IMO, while I also admit that this can shape how the classes are analyzed and understood I just don't think we should do One unmodified monster, classed monster, swarm thereof, because the changes between shift too much and often are too low a CR boost to be meaningful. The general point of the pun pun argument, is to show the criteria being used against the fighter is insufficient, because when used (and in the case of pun pun, it's used to the extreme), only the most powerful class/build stands, all others fail. Some say that pun pun is a build and therefor doesn't qualify, then procceed to use the DMM-persist cleric build against the fighter (see the double standard there?). Some say Pun Pun is above the cheeze barrior (that i believe kalaris first mentioned), then procceed to use the DMM+ nightsticks against the fighter (who sets where the cheese barrior stands?). Generally I aggree with the premise (i believe i was one of the initiators), though i try to use things bellow the cheese barrior, often asking what a wizard offers (generally speaking) that a cleric can not. The only things i've gotten have been no save spells (i was under the impression the holy word line were no save, so thats not true) and some specific defence buffs (which are generally accessable by domains, plus, if we stick to the general concepts, clerics get defence buffs too). The arguments in favour of the wizard get into specific spells, not the "general concept" that is used against the fighter (such as the fighter can fight with full BAB, the cleric can do that too, so he can do everything the fighter can). The Specfic number and types of tactics any single fighter can provide are often dismissed, citing, clerics can other things besides to make up for the differences. But when i note clerics get other things besides spellcasting over the wizard to make up the the very small handfull of things a wizard can do better, i'm ignored or told i'm being to unreasonable (see the double standard here? the whole point of doing the wizard/cleric comparison is to show the criteria is unreasonable/insufficient). The pun pun fallacy is just this same argument, taken to an extreme I sort of see your point but I think the argument is actually a symptom of something else. EVERY CLASS CAN FIGHT. Also holy word is a bit dangerous if anyone in the group is nongood, or any innocents in the area. A cleric using holy word in your average town could end up wiping out many innocents. Arcane also generally has more debuffs, the clerics abilities make them normally more effective as second or first string brawlers than as ranged assault units the way a caster can be.
Archangel62 06-05-07, 10:52 AM	I'm oposing the other guy's opinion on how D&D isn't a roleplaying game. When in the books, the site, and in all the oficial sources it says it's a roleplaying game. So, either there are a lot of ilogic but rich and powerfull people out there, or D&D is indeed a roleplaying game. Blah blah strategies are nice, but if I wanted a strategy board game I would play something else. I play D&D because it allows me to play a hero in great depth, not only to fight, but also to explore dungeons, solve mysteries, intrigues, choose my own path, diplomacy, romance, doing just random stuff etc, etc, aka roleplaying. There are also those who call Warhammer an RPG, the same for Robotech, what most people are saying is that RPG doesn't somehow invalidate combat or the fact that 90% of the abilities of the classes have to do directly or indirectly with combat. Yes, people can roleplay and some games might be more RP than combat, but D&D is built heavily towards combat, not social interaction.
Clawhound 06-05-07, 11:04 AM	There are also those who call Warhammer an RPG, the same for Robotech, what most people are saying is that RPG doesn't somehow invalidate combat or the fact that 90% of the abilities of the classes have to do directly or indirectly with combat. Yes, people can roleplay and some games might be more RP than combat, but D&D is built heavily towards combat, not social interaction. I like to think of it as "fighting with style." Style is the element of fun and personality that you bring to the game. Style may not be as effective at optimizing, but greatly adds to the fun of the game, so most players find this worthwhile.
crashlogic 06-05-07, 02:44 PM	Well in contrast to what has been said, a dexterity based fighter makes one of the finest swashbuckler types in the game. Now this mix is improved by the later addition of about five levels of rogue, but even if this dip is not used, a fighter can make a spectacular light weapon specialist.
Kalarus 06-05-07, 06:32 PM	As the game gets to the higher levels you have monsters with SoD effects, ones that can easily keep moving out of the martial characters reach but keep said character in theirs. At higher levels range and mobility are the name of the game, casters have better defense options because while most martial characters can just up their AC a caster can give themselves a miss chance, make attacking them cause pain to the attacker, grant themselves a high DR, or have it look like there are dozens of them wandering around the battlefield. SoD effects usually work on Fort saves, which is fine for the Fighter. SoL/SoS spells are more annoying, since they often go on Will saves instead. Other than that, I am not sure what constitutes "higher levels" for you, but if it's 10+ we must not be playing the same game. Keep in mind that the higher you push this limit, the more of the game you're going to ignore. Since levels are aimed to be increased every 13.33 encounters on average, you should be levelling at a steady rate no matter what level you are. This means that if you only take high levels into account you ignore a significant portion of D&D, in which most of the gaming happens to take place. Only considering 10+ for an argument is ignoring 50% of the game, similarly only considering 10-. The higher you push this limit however the more of the game you ignore. If you play a high level range/mobility-based campaign, then the Fighter is probably not for you because the Fighter's abilities aren't geared towards that type of combat too much. He can take a bow and start shooting, he can even shoot fairly well, but that's about it. Not everyone plays these kind of campaigns though and I consider it fairly presumptuous to say that everyone does.
Archangel62 06-05-07, 07:34 PM	SoD effects usually work on Fort saves, which is fine for the Fighter. SoL/SoS spells are more annoying, since they often go on Will saves instead. Other than that, I am not sure what constitutes "higher levels" for you, but if it's 10+ we must not be playing the same game. Keep in mind that the higher you push this limit, the more of the game you're going to ignore. Since levels are aimed to be increased every 13.33 encounters on average, you should be levelling at a steady rate no matter what level you are. This means that if you only take high levels into account you ignore a significant portion of D&D, in which most of the gaming happens to take place. Only considering 10+ for an argument is ignoring 50% of the game, similarly only considering 10-. The higher you push this limit however the more of the game you ignore. If you play a high level range/mobility-based campaign, then the Fighter is probably not for you because the Fighter's abilities aren't geared towards that type of combat too much. He can take a bow and start shooting, he can even shoot fairly well, but that's about it. Not everyone plays these kind of campaigns though and I consider it fairly presumptuous to say that everyone does. I don't ignore the -10 levels, the fighter is fine for the first few but then a warrior would work about as well in such a situation as well because of armor proficiencies and weapon access. after level 4 the fighter starts an ever sharpening decline.
Archangel62 06-05-07, 07:36 PM	Well in contrast to what has been said, a dexterity based fighter makes one of the finest swashbuckler types in the game. Now this mix is improved by the later addition of about five levels of rogue, but even if this dip is not used, a fighter can make a spectacular light weapon specialist. Really? Care to explain and elaborate on this one a little. I'm rather skeptical of the abilities of a fighter as a swashbuckler type but I'm willing to be convinced.
Khan the Destroyer 06-05-07, 09:37 PM	Well in contrast to what has been said, a dexterity based fighter makes one of the finest swashbuckler types in the game. Now this mix is improved by the later addition of about five levels of rogue, but even if this dip is not used, a fighter can make a spectacular light weapon specialist. I'm not sure about the swashbuckling fighter. I'll try one out later and see what happens. Right now, my biggest concerns are AC and damage. The fighter has Jump and Climb as class skills, and I can get Tumble with the Cityscape web enhancement. Weapon Finesse seems obvious. For AC, I might consider focusing on the rapier and using that bonus to attack to dump into Combat Expertise. A buckler seems obvious ;). But also, you'll get more dex to your AC than an armored fighter. Maybe combining Combat Expertise, the buckler, Bracers of Armor, and your high dexterity will make up for the AC.
Nephlite 06-05-07, 10:39 PM	I'm not sure about the swashbuckling fighter. I'll try one out later and see what happens. Right now, my biggest concerns are AC and damage. The fighter has Jump and Climb as class skills, and I can get Tumble with the Cityscape web enhancement. Weapon Finesse seems obvious. For AC, I might consider focusing on the rapier and using that bonus to attack to dump into Combat Expertise. A buckler seems obvious ;). But also, you'll get more dex to your AC than an armored fighter. Maybe combining Combat Expertise, the buckler, Bracers of Armor, and your high dexterity will make up for the AC. Okay, now how you going to up damage?
Khan the Destroyer 06-05-07, 10:49 PM	If I knew, I wouldn't have said it was one of my biggest concerns ;).
Kratch 06-05-07, 11:12 PM	I remember em at least and by most accounts I'm a member of that 'anti-fighter' camp. I was very careful to use "many" in my sentance (didn't even use most, but enough to make it an issue). Your one of the few who have acknowledged them, i think they've even moved you a little, not over the line of fighter viability, but closer to accepting they could be. That they weren't as bad as you initially thought. Not quite, what I felt was that most classes at least give some ideas as to what the class is capable of and how to work it. The barbarian is usually seen as a conan, a martial monster, as well as the fact that the class gives bonuses to hit and damage, as well as HP plus fast movement. The class makes a good charger, a better one with pounce. A lot of the defensive features are nice too, uncanny dodge, DR/-, d12 hd, as well as trapsense. The barbarian actually looks like a better frontliner for the average dungeon than say the fighter, ranger, or paladin. They even have spot and listen so they can be decent night guards for the camp. They are also very user friendly and easy to optimize. I generally aggre with most of what you say here, and suspect that is were much of the assumption of barbarians being better then fighters comes from. The fact it's easier to see how they work. Fighters you really need to have your own concept for before building it, and need to do a little research on feats that would fit that concept, then you need to make a build plan. For this reason, people who just look quickly at the fighter see a warrior and a bunch of individual feats that are mediocer, they don't see the full package (as khan has built several of), and based on that incomplete look at the class, they condemn it as weak compared to the other class's who's abilities are obvious. I agree completely that the fighter is among the hardest to build for use in a full lvl 1-20 campaign, because it is also the least forgiving. I see it as an expert level class, as apposed to the novice level of the barbarian or ranger. It is however, one of the easier class's to play (the thing you do between leveling), and it is an effective novice class if the campaign has no intention of going past lvl 12 or the DM is playing a more causual game with mostly novice and reasonable players (AKA, no trying to sneak pun pun or DMM + nightstick clerics in). As for my objections, the barbarian may look like a better frontliner for the average dungeon, but overall the barbarian and fighter come out about the same. As some people are more then apt to point out, not all encounters are in dungeons. with the exception of the new pounce substitution Level, Barbarians have no benifit over the fighter for dealing with mobility or "holding aggro", and, as you say bellow, generally, it's the tricks > damage, and the fighter can easily do both as well as a barbarian, or tricks much much better. Secondly, barbarians, as far as the PHB goes, don't get spot as a class skill, just listen. Still makes them a better night watch, barring an animal handleing pet (which the barbarian can also get), but just wanted to correct you there. The fighter is listed as a martial character and when most people think martial character they tend to think of damage or defense, or of 300 recently. However most have seen that the best fighters aren't the damage ones, they're the ones who are trick based, tripping, disarming, etc. usually works better because it denies the enemy actions, the problem is that the range for these tricks is fairly small for 1 and 2 many are opposed rolls so unless facing a foe of roughly equal size (maybe one larger) their chance of success is rather diminished. ...clip On the flip side the fighter has no real guidelines, now you can attribute some stuff to system mastery (fighter learns tricks>damage just as caster learns Most other spells>damage) but the thing is that the fighter, and in truth most of the martial classes, have the system set against them. As the game gets to the higher levels you have monsters with SoD effects, ones that can easily keep moving out of the martial characters reach but keep said character in theirs. At higher levels range and mobility are the name of the game, casters have better defense options because while most martial characters can just up their AC a caster can give themselves a miss chance, make attacking them cause pain to the attacker, grant themselves a high DR, or have it look like there are dozens of them wandering around the battlefield. This is an argument that is far to frequent for my liking. Firstly, khans builds (at least 2 of them that weren't varrients), were easily able to deal with creatures 2-3 sizes larger them himself (barring abilities not usable on things 3 sizes larger, and with enlarge, that meant things up to collassal (or is gargantuan the second largest and collassal the largest?)). Now, if we keep that in mind, the only creatures that would give these builds issues with their tricks (gargantuan and/or collassal with 4 legs), none except the dragon are things that use mobility and ranged attacks. All things that fall into the "gives fighter tricks issues" are things that the fighter doesn't need to use his tricks on to keep them in place, they'll be keeping themselves in place anyways or they also lose out on their full attacks. Generally speaking, the things that do use mobility and ranged attacks to their advantage, are vulnerable (usually very easily vulnerable) to the fighters tricks, which generally deny those advantages (or cost the creature it's actions to correct itself, like using it's teleport to get away). The dragon is the only exception. It is the only creature i know of that has both the size to resist and the mobility/ranged options, and dragons aren't intended to be easy. Feel free to prove me wrong. Take the numbers from one of khans tactical builds (even remove the relic belt, though i think it would then be replaced with a str item), and find me as many monsters as you care to that have both a 50% or greater chance to resist at least 2 of the options (i say 2 because most will already have one by virtue of natural weapons not being disarmable, it's a freebie for most), and the mobility and ranged attacks you claim to be so prosperous. (not to mention, stand still ignores size, and thus, is a trick useable on anything.) As for your caster based defences, most of those options are available in the form of gear available to anyone. It is cheaper for a caster to do it themselves, but the options are always there for whoever wants to justify the expense. I will admit though, there are usually better options for those slots. This is also why I have been against using the advanced monsters and groups as an argument for balance, the lower CR ones don't have the abilities or if they do the DCs are fairly low, at high levels the DCs grow higher and there are more dangerous options. The class levels can confuse things and swarms can alter how the fight works, one foe keeps the variables more controllable IMO, while I also admit that this can shape how the classes are analyzed and understood I just don't think we should do One unmodified monster, classed monster, swarm thereof, because the changes between shift too much and often are too low a CR boost to be meaningful. I'm sorry, but are you saying your against using those options because they change how the combat goes? That they may create a combat scenario where some builds can really shine (such as the great cleaving barbarian/fighter, the chain tripper fighter or a whirlwind attacker)? isn't that sorta like saying you Don't like to use those scenario's because they don't immediatly support your side of the argument? Yah sure it's easier to debate single enemies due to the limited number of options compared to the vast assortment of mixed group options, but to dismiss them altogether, ...?Groups of enemies are as common, if not moreso, then single strong adversaries in most of the games i play. And they allow some class's to really shine (including most fighter builds). I honestly don't have much experience with giving things class levels other then humanoids, so i can't really say one way or the other. I sort of see your point but I think the argument is actually a symptom of something else. EVERY CLASS CAN FIGHT. Also holy word is a bit dangerous if anyone in the group is nongood, or any innocents in the area. A cleric using holy word in your average town could end up wiping out many innocents. Arcane also generally has more debuffs, the clerics abilities make them normally more effective as second or first string brawlers than as ranged assault units the way a caster can be. every class but 3 cast spells, Does that invalidate them? Combat is such a large part of the game, it's not suprising they made it such a redundant feature. But the fighter (barbarian, paladin, and melee based cleric) are the ones that excel at it, moreso then the other class's. And each does it in it's own seperate and unique (yes, you heard me say it, unique. No other class fights with the same style a fighter can be built to.) way
Khan the Destroyer 06-05-07, 11:31 PM	The fighter is listed as a martial character and when most people think martial character they tend to think of damage or defense, or of 300 recently. The spartans were basically higher level fighters against the slaves (which may not have even had warrior levels) and then the Immortals, which were probably warriors or maybe even fighters, but not to the extent of the spartans. In D&D, it is possible for a few very powerful characters to hold off a horde of weaker characters. This is essentially the movie '300'. However most have seen that the best fighters aren't the damage ones, they're the ones who are trick based, tripping, disarming, etc. For me, focusing on tricks isn't much of an issue because the option to attack and simply deal damage is always there. In my builds that have Weapon Mastery, the damage is even more. And many of my trick builds (if not all) have Shock Trooper and Combat Brute, which deal lots of damage on charges and Power Attack. Potentially forcing AoO's through disarming (picks up weapon), tripping (getting up), or sundering (no Improved Unarmed Strike) also deal damage. I just always keep in mind that a warrior isn't supposed to be super strong. In the books I read, the warrior doesn't slay dragons by his lonesome, or trip giants and toss them around. In one book, the party slays a dragon by ramming him with an airship, because they can't realistically hurt him any other way. Also, the warrior of the group goes up against a warforged titan, and can't win. With the help of his party, they take it down with distractions and a ballista. Which is fine by me. If I'm playing a human soldier, why would I expect to push warforged titans around, or swing my sword and kill a dragon? (Note, despite this attitude, I know that this is indeed achievable in the game. But I'm curious what would be an accepted power level for those that feel the fighter is inadequate. Bob's unarmed fighter can kill a balor in 6 seconds. What more would you want?)
Kalarus 06-06-07, 06:53 AM	I don't ignore the -10 levels, the fighter is fine for the first few but then a warrior would work about as well in such a situation as well because of armor proficiencies and weapon access. after level 4 the fighter starts an ever sharpening decline. Most Fighter builds I've played only benefitted from levelling further due to synergistic feat choices. Is it such a strange idea to pick your feats to enhance the power you already have? As for warriors, like I said before, if you want to play one knock yourself out. However I fail to see how the Warrior NPC class is an argument for not playing the Fighter PC class. Also, there's a very amusing argument reversal here: We started, due to Clerics mainly, with the premise that because Class X can do all that Class Y can and more, Class Y is not viable. Now we see an argument that because Class X can't do all that Class Y can, Class Y is not viable. :rofl: I mean really, by the same token a Cleric shouldn't take on a Fighter's role because a Fighter "would work about as well in such a situation".
Johnny_Angel 06-06-07, 07:44 AM	I think that for the sake of balance all classes except for the expert class should be done away with; also, all weapons except for the dagger should be done away with.
Alpha_Moose 06-06-07, 01:53 PM	As for warriors, like I said before, if you want to play one knock yourself out. However I fail to see how the Warrior NPC class is an argument for not playing the Fighter PC class. Also, there's a very amusing argument reversal here: We started, due to Clerics mainly, with the premise that because Class X can do all that Class Y can and more, Class Y is not viable. Now we see an argument that because Class X can't do all that Class Y can, Class Y is not viable. :rofl: I mean really, by the same token a Cleric shouldn't take on a Fighter's role because a Fighter "would work about as well in such a situation". When I mentioned Warriors, it was never meant as a reason to not play a Fighter. It was meant against the Pun-pun fallacy. According to the fallacy it is wrong to assume that the Warrior is not viable just because the Fighter is better. However that is one main reason why the Warrior is not considered viable for PCs, because there are other choices that can fill the same role and are mechanically better choices. My point was that those who used the fallacy were being selective in their choices as to who the fallacy applied to.
Clawhound 06-06-07, 02:26 PM	That brings us back to the game design issues that the designers must have wrestled with: What is balanced? What is the minimal functionality for a class at all levels for it to be an PC class? What is the maxim functionality over all levels for a class to be a PC class? How will NPC class compare to PC classes? The definition for PC classes is self referential. The PC classes define the PC classes. Yes, that is circular logic. A second definition for PC classes is a class able to reliably handle the challenges of an appropriate CR encounter. That gives us a few references to work from. The NPC classes resemble PC classes, except that they are clearly less desirable to play. An NPC class is a class unintended for PC play, usually less able than a comparable PC class. We need to review that to we can understand the function and the limits of the Pun-Pun fallacy. The Pun-Pun fallacy is that once you begin comparing two classes on a power-level in order to determine the best class, without some additional criteria, you must logically continue to compare options until you are lead to choose Pun-Pun. In comparison, the NPC argument only seeks to eliminate inappropriate classes. You eliminate them because they are not intended for PC play, and they are clearly less powerful to a player of average ability.
Alpha_Moose 06-06-07, 03:42 PM	We need to review that to we can understand the function and the limits of the Pun-Pun fallacy. The Pun-Pun fallacy is that once you begin comparing two classes on a power-level in order to determine the best class, without some additional criteria, you must logically continue to compare options until you are lead to choose Pun-Pun. The biggest problem with this is that Pun-pun is not a class. Indeed, he is not even limited to a specific class, race, or anything else short of having a high knowledge check by now. The fallacy, as it is in Navar100's sig, can only apply to specific builds, such as the chain-tripper or the omnificer. As for specific classes, the problem with the Fighter is very similar to the same problem faced by the Truenamer. In order to contribute meaningfully to a normal party the class must be optimized, and even then it can be outperformed by most other classes. This does not mean that either class is worthless or not viable, but it does mean that they both have problem rooted into the basic class mechanic, feats for Fighters and Truespeak for Truenamers.
Archangel62 06-06-07, 03:49 PM	Most Fighter builds I've played only benefitted from levelling further due to synergistic feat choices. Is it such a strange idea to pick your feats to enhance the power you already have? As for warriors, like I said before, if you want to play one knock yourself out. However I fail to see how the Warrior NPC class is an argument for not playing the Fighter PC class. Also, there's a very amusing argument reversal here: We started, due to Clerics mainly, with the premise that because Class X can do all that Class Y can and more, Class Y is not viable. Now we see an argument that because Class X can't do all that Class Y can, Class Y is not viable. :rofl: I mean really, by the same token a Cleric shouldn't take on a Fighter's role because a Fighter "would work about as well in such a situation". The actual question in both cases has to do with power levels and disparities. The cleric can do all that the fighter can do and much more besides, your side came up with a frankly idiotic pun-pun fallacy since following the fallacy it also means that there can be no logical comparison of classes since if we do that then all we would have is pun-pun. What you committed was an all or nothing, so people offered a counter, should we then say that warriors are viable? After all the fighter might be better than them but thanks to your fallacy the warrior could now be argued as playable. And there is a reasonable question of the difference in power level of fighter and warrior, is it really as vast as it should be for PC and NPC classes.
Clawhound 06-06-07, 04:07 PM	Double Post. Excuse me.
Archangel62 06-06-07, 04:39 PM	Double Post. Excuse me. what's the other post, I only see this one
crashlogic 06-06-07, 05:49 PM	Really? Care to explain and elaborate on this one a little. I'm rather skeptical of the abilities of a fighter as a swashbuckler type but I'm willing to be convinced. Limiting myself to a core human fighter and assuming str. 14, dex 23 (begins as 18 and every advance goes to dex) con 12, Int 13, wis 10 and cha 10 I'd do this (not optimized by any means just sketched: feats: Weapon finesse, dodge, mobility, tow weapon fighting, wepon focus rapier, weapon spec. rapier, combat expertise, spring attack, two weapon defense, improved critical rapier, improved two weapon fighting, weapon focus short sword, weapon specialization SS, whirlwind attack, GWF rapier, GWS rapier, Quick Draw, blind fight, Improved critical Shortsword, leadership. This feat build gives a nice and nasty two weapon fighting base that does a lot of critical hits, to make up for the lowered strength. These are all core feats, if you go beyond core, I'd consider dropping the GWS and GWF, and a couple others to pick up better feats. I did not account for magic items with this build, but it will rely on items for AC, and perhaps damage. Depending on what weapons your DM gives you (and How much say he allows in magical properties, keen wepons can eliminate the need for the improved criticals, freeing up two more feats). Also you will likely have some form of haste or a weapon of speed, so you are making an additional attack. You'll need the usual magical bulwarks against will a saves and such, but most fighters and swash bucklers need this. You are still more limited in skills, but usually I don't find tumble all that helpful with dodge and mobility. And leadership-well leadership is sort of the fighter's Animal companion or Familiar. My favorite build though drops the last five levels of fighter and goes with five leves of rogue. This gives sneak attack of +3d6 plus uncanny dodge and evasion. I lose the GWF feats on the rapier and pick up Improved critical. I drop the quick draw, the blind fight and pick up improved feint. I then dump as many of my rogue skill points as possible into bluff. There are lots of nifty class features for a duellist to be sure, but really nothing beats hitting fast and hard and moving on. I find the rouge to be a better topper to the fighter class than the duellist. Mind you, neither build takes advantage of the feats beyon the core. Once you add in Complete fighter and PHB II, etc. you get some very very dangerous options.
navar100 06-06-07, 06:02 PM	The biggest problem with this is that Pun-pun is not a class. Indeed, he is not even limited to a specific class, race, or anything else short of having a high knowledge check by now. The fallacy, as it is in Navar100's sig, can only apply to specific builds, such as the chain-tripper or the omnificer. As for specific classes, the problem with the Fighter is very similar to the same problem faced by the Truenamer. In order to contribute meaningfully to a normal party the class must be optimized, and even then it can be outperformed by most other classes. This does not mean that either class is worthless or not viable, but it does mean that they both have problem rooted into the basic class mechanic, feats for Fighters and Truespeak for Truenamers. The fact that Pun-Pun is not a class is part of the reason for its existance. It's an absurdity to demonstrate the absurd. As long as one argues you shouldn't play a particular class because another class is "better", with showing how it's done you ultimately end up playing Pun-Pun.
navar100 06-06-07, 06:15 PM	The actual question in both cases has to do with power levels and disparities. The cleric can do all that the fighter can do and much more besides, your side came up with a frankly idiotic pun-pun fallacy since following the fallacy it also means that there can be no logical comparison of classes since if we do that then all we would have is pun-pun. What you committed was an all or nothing, so people offered a counter, should we then say that warriors are viable? After all the fighter might be better than them but thanks to your fallacy the warrior could now be argued as playable. And there is a reasonable question of the difference in power level of fighter and warrior, is it really as vast as it should be for PC and NPC classes. It's ok to compare classes to show difference in power. The fallacy is to say you shouldn't play a class because another class exists that is more powerful. A particular class should be judged on its own merits to determine whether it is playable. The Fighter was shown to be playable on its own merits. It's only people who still harp on DMM clerics, wildshaping druids, and polymorphing/gating wizards who deny the Fighter is capable. It was the anti-fighters who first compared Warrior to Fighter. It was given as a premise that Warrior is not a playable PC; therefore by showing the Warrior is just the same as a Fighter the Fighter is not a playable PC class. The Fighter defenders only showed that the Fighter is much stronger than a Warrior, accepting the given premise the Warrior is not a playable PC class. Repeat: Warrior as an unplayable PC class was a Given of Premise. It was not suggested that the Warrior is an unplayable PC class because the Fighter was better. Should someone prove the Warrior is a playable PC class, that only disproves the Given of Premise. Should the attempt to prove the Warrior is a playable PC class happen to fail, thus showing the Warrior is not a playable PC class, then it's only because the Warrior was judged on its own merits and found wanting. The Pun-Pun Fallacy does not apply.
Alpha_Moose 06-06-07, 06:19 PM	The fact that Pun-Pun is not a class is part of the reason for its existance. It's an absurdity to demonstrate the absurd. As long as one argues you shouldn't play a particular class because another class is "better", with showing how it's done you ultimately end up playing Pun-Pun. But your argument doesn't make sense. The Pun-pun argument would only work with builds, and even then it falls apart. You trying to apply it to classes is like applying it to feats: "Well clearly Skill Focus (Concentration) is better than Combat Casting" "Well, Pun-pun is better than Skill Focus, so there's no reason to use that either"
Alpha_Moose 06-06-07, 06:27 PM	It's ok to compare classes to show difference in power. The fallacy is to say you shouldn't play a class because another class exists that is more powerful. A particular class should be judged on its own merits to determine whether it is playable. The Fighter was shown to be playable on its own merits. It's only people who still harp on DMM clerics, wildshaping druids, and polymorphing/gating wizards who deny the Fighter is capable. The problem is that you can't focus on something in a bubble. If you look at the Fighter class, and just the Fighter class, than of course it's fine. It's the only thing that exists! It was the anti-fighters who first compared Warrior to Fighter. It was given as a premise that Warrior is not a playable PC; therefore by showing the Warrior is just the same as a Fighter the Fighter is not a playable PC class. The Fighter defenders only showed that the Fighter is much stronger than a Warrior, accepting the given premise the Warrior is not a playable PC class. First off I'm not anti-fighter and I am the first to make the comparison, but only in the premise of the Pun-pun fallacy. I've agreed that the Fighter, while being mechanically underpowered, can still compete in combat. BUT I think that it should be fixed, or even scraped as a mechanical concept, because there can be something better. Repeat: Warrior as an unplayable PC class was a Given of Premise. It was not suggested that the Warrior is an unplayable PC class because the Fighter was better. Actually, it is. In the DMG they talk about PCs using NPC classes, and say that the Warrior is pointless because the Fighter is the same but better. They mention that the Expert or Aristocrat can work at the first few levels because of their skills/money/proficiencies. The Adept is also mentioned as pointless, even though it does have an interesting spell list.
Khan the Destroyer 06-06-07, 06:56 PM	Explain to me why the warrior is not viable and then you can use it as a counter to an argument. Until then, saying 'Then does that mean the warrior is viable?' is pointless. It gets repeated here as if you caught us red-handed and yet... I'm not seeing it. The DMG apparently says (I've not checked) to play a fighter over the warrior because of the stats (fighter has a better HD and more feats). But it doesn't say a warrior doesn't work. Period. Also, many here do not focus on the fighter in a bubble (though some do, denying allies, items, and just about everything else). We advocate comparing him to monsters, not to other classes. Regarding Pun-Pun... again. It's tricky. It doesn't really apply to class comparisons because *any* class can pull it off. It can get done by a commoner at level 1. The Pun-Pun argument has more to do with the level of power casters are assumed to have to justify the position of fighters being worthless. Just about everyone that has viewed Pun-Pun agrees no DM will ever allow him in the game. Pun-Pun can defeat anything short of DM fiat. Then we have the uber caster: ending encounters with 1 spell, essentially invulnerable to all forms of attack through careful spell preparation and casting, limitless wealth and resources, etc. Essentially, a character that can do anything short of DM fiat. Why assume that such characters exist in actual games while Pun-Pun would be disallowed? How can we stand back and say 'Yeah, Pun-Pun's purely theoretical, he'd never exist in a game.' and then say 'The fighter is useless because the party caster just kills stuff with his SoD and can't take any damage from his contingencies and buffs and then gets uber tanks with Gate.'? Again, it seems inconsistent.
Archangel62 06-06-07, 08:05 PM	Explain to me why the warrior is not viable and then you can use it as a counter to an argument. Until then, saying 'Then does that mean the warrior is viable?' is pointless. It gets repeated here as if you caught us red-handed and yet... I'm not seeing it. The DMG apparently says (I've not checked) to play a fighter over the warrior because of the stats (fighter has a better HD and more feats). But it doesn't say a warrior doesn't work. Period. Also, many here do not focus on the fighter in a bubble (though some do, denying allies, items, and just about everything else). We advocate comparing him to monsters, not to other classes. Regarding Pun-Pun... again. It's tricky. It doesn't really apply to class comparisons because *any* class can pull it off. It can get done by a commoner at level 1. The Pun-Pun argument has more to do with the level of power casters are assumed to have to justify the position of fighters being worthless. Just about everyone that has viewed Pun-Pun agrees no DM will ever allow him in the game. Pun-Pun can defeat anything short of DM fiat. Then we have the uber caster: ending encounters with 1 spell, essentially invulnerable to all forms of attack through careful spell preparation and casting, limitless wealth and resources, etc. Essentially, a character that can do anything short of DM fiat. Why assume that such characters exist in actual games while Pun-Pun would be disallowed? How can we stand back and say 'Yeah, Pun-Pun's purely theoretical, he'd never exist in a game.' and then say 'The fighter is useless because the party caster just kills stuff with his SoD and can't take any damage from his contingencies and buffs and then gets uber tanks with Gate.'? Again, it seems inconsistent. The point that the warrior/cleric folks are trying to make are the following. 1) If the 'role' assigned to the fighter can be done as well or better by another class and said class can do other things in addition then one would argue that the second class is better or that the fighter needs to be improved. 2) Some of the 'pro-fighters' argue that the fighter merely needs to meet the minimum standards to be considered acceptable. However establishing them is difficult and can be complex. (I'm also reminded of a comment in which it was said that rights enjoyed by citizens were beyond the constitutions minimums and could be trimmed back) 3) Following the aforementioned argument the argument is then made, well why not be a warrior then? After all, a warrior could theoretically do the same job and then they would also be 'viable'. The issue here is that the class comparison stuff helps us look at what each class can and can't do and have some sort of baseline. The warrior thing and the other NPC classes are used to show several possible flaws in the arguments being used. 1) If the NPC class can do the same job that the fighter is listed as (as can other PC classes) then perhaps the listed job is inaccurate or a poor marker of ability. 2) If the NPC class class can do it in the contexts listed it might show something else. One reason why I feel that the fighter has to be looked at outside of just the context of a team is that if the other classes are strong enough it might not matter who or what #4 is. To put it another way, the other classes might be covering the failures or weaknesses of class 4, class 4 can do things in the game to contribute but those things could also be done by just about anyone and there are many areas where class 4 can't. 3) The big thing is this, the PC classes are essentially marked as being for the exceptional, the people who are a cut above. The adept is the lay priest and the cleric is the divine emissary. The grunt is a warrior, the special forces guy is a fighter, etc. The basic concept is that if the NPC class can do the same things that the PC classes can then either the game itself is flawed or the classes we are comparing to are likely too low on the power spectrum.
Kalarus 06-06-07, 09:40 PM	The point that the warrior/cleric folks are trying to make are the following. 1) If the 'role' assigned to the fighter can be done as well or better by another class and said class can do other things in addition then one would argue that the second class is better or that the fighter needs to be improved. 2) Some of the 'pro-fighters' argue that the fighter merely needs to meet the minimum standards to be considered acceptable. However establishing them is difficult and can be complex. (I'm also reminded of a comment in which it was said that rights enjoyed by citizens were beyond the constitutions minimums and could be trimmed back) 3) Following the aforementioned argument the argument is then made, well why not be a warrior then? After all, a warrior could theoretically do the same job and then they would also be 'viable'. The issue here is that the class comparison stuff helps us look at what each class can and can't do and have some sort of baseline. The warrior thing and the other NPC classes are used to show several possible flaws in the arguments being used. 1) If the NPC class can do the same job that the fighter is listed as (as can other PC classes) then perhaps the listed job is inaccurate or a poor marker of ability. 2) If the NPC class class can do it in the contexts listed it might show something else. One reason why I feel that the fighter has to be looked at outside of just the context of a team is that if the other classes are strong enough it might not matter who or what #4 is. To put it another way, the other classes might be covering the failures or weaknesses of class 4, class 4 can do things in the game to contribute but those things could also be done by just about anyone and there are many areas where class 4 can't. 3) The big thing is this, the PC classes are essentially marked as being for the exceptional, the people who are a cut above. The adept is the lay priest and the cleric is the divine emissary. The grunt is a warrior, the special forces guy is a fighter, etc. The basic concept is that if the NPC class can do the same things that the PC classes can then either the game itself is flawed or the classes we are comparing to are likely too low on the power spectrum. People read far, far too much into the Pun-pun fallacy (and in other "named board fallacies", I've noticed). Logic, as I stated before, says nothing about things outside of its domain. That means the second you introduce another assumption (which is another premise) the argument changes, and the argument may become invalid because of it. Pun-pun Fallacy does not state: 1) That because Class X can do all Class Y can and that does not mean Class Y is not viable, it also does not mean that class Y is instead viable. That needs to be judged in another fashion 2) Classes cannot be compared. The Pun-pun fallacy does not deny that Class X is not more powerful because Class Y because Class X can do all that Class Y can and more. It simply means you cannot use that as a standard to judge things by, because you have no authority over deciding what is too cheesy for D&D. On a sidenote, please be careful about what you call "idiotic". If people think that because of the Pun-pun fallacy, the Warrior can be considered viable, that's fine. I really have no problem with that, and it has no bearing on the viability of a Fighter whatsoever. If the Fighter vs Warrior comparison is the main reason that people consider the Warrior to be not viable, then apparently the main reason is wrong and I really have no problem making such a claim. Both logic and truth are not affected by the opinion of the majority and mathematics is not a democracy. However, I will note that the Fighter vs Warrior raises a completely different question than Fighter vs Cleric. If Pun-pun fallacy has been used in a selective manner as to whom it applied to, that is a mistake. It uses variables of Class X and Class Y, not "Fighter" and "Cleric", those are simple possible logical possibilities. Anything, including warrior, can be filled in for X or Y and the fallacy will still hold. As for the entire "build" thing, here's a fun fact for you. Any class is automatically a build. Write up a first level character. Doesn't matter which class. You get a certain amount of skill points. You get to pick at least one feat. The skills you choose and the feat you choose are not inherent to the class, they are chosen, not given. The same goes for the spells you choose. DMM Cleric is a build. Natural Spell Druid is a build. Chain Trip Fighter is a build. SoD Wizard is a build. Pun-pun is a build. EVERYTHING in D&D is a build. Even then it's semantic nitpicking. You could substitute "build" anywhere it says "class" in the fallacy and the logic still holds. In fact, doing so only strengthens the power of the fallacy, because the fallacy now applies to everything in D&D for those people who did not understand that classes are builds by definition. The point that the warrior/cleric folks are trying to make are the following. 1) If the 'role' assigned to the fighter can be done as well or better by another class and said class can do other things in addition then one would argue that the second class is better or that the fighter needs to be improved. 2) Some of the 'pro-fighters' argue that the fighter merely needs to meet the minimum standards to be considered acceptable. However establishing them is difficult and can be complex. (I'm also reminded of a comment in which it was said that rights enjoyed by citizens were beyond the constitutions minimums and could be trimmed back) 3) Following the aforementioned argument the argument is then made, well why not be a warrior then? After all, a warrior could theoretically do the same job and then they would also be 'viable'. The issue here is that the class comparison stuff helps us look at what each class can and can't do and have some sort of baseline. The warrior thing and the other NPC classes are used to show several possible flaws in the arguments being used. 1) If the NPC class can do the same job that the fighter is listed as (as can other PC classes) then perhaps the listed job is inaccurate or a poor marker of ability. 2) If the NPC class class can do it in the contexts listed it might show something else. One reason why I feel that the fighter has to be looked at outside of just the context of a team is that if the other classes are strong enough it might not matter who or what #4 is. To put it another way, the other classes might be covering the failures or weaknesses of class 4, class 4 can do things in the game to contribute but those things could also be done by just about anyone and there are many areas where class 4 can't. 3) The big thing is this, the PC classes are essentially marked as being for the exceptional, the people who are a cut above. The adept is the lay priest and the cleric is the divine emissary. The grunt is a warrior, the special forces guy is a fighter, etc. The basic concept is that if the NPC class can do the same things that the PC classes can then either the game itself is flawed or the classes we are comparing to are likely too low on the power spectrum. Reasonable points, so here goes: 1) One would argue that the second class is better (in terms of more powerful but I assume that is what you mean here). However one only *could* argue that the Fighter needs to be improved, but one could also argue that the second class needs to be re-balanced (or nerfed if you will), or perhaps a little of both to try to find balance in the middle. Compared to other classes, the Fighter could do with some improvement. Compared to what the game asks of a class, the Fighter does not need improvement but I'm sure a lot of people like more power anyway. It is interesting to notice that power rebalancing in D&D is generally done by upscaling. 2) I think you are accidentally putting your finger on what the Fighter-defenders generally consider the root of the problem that triggers all these discussions. "If the other classes are strong enough". So what are we looking for in a D&D game? Most people who are into this discussion have intuitions about to what extent the classes are balanced. I think most people here will agree that they aren't, there are huge power disparaties (is that the proper English word? I'm tired). This is why Fighter-defenders don't compare classes with each other, there's nothing to discuss since we're in agreement about who is more powerful than who most of the time, so we instead try to see how a class performs in game. That the classes in comparison are far from balanced is a completely different issue, and one could, again, just as easily conclude that some classes are obviously too powerful for normal game play. There are (if I recall correctly) 11 PC classes in the PHB alone. These are classes that players can, and will, pick, regardless of balance comparisons. They should all be playable, from the simple assumption that they *exist to be played*, given that no rulebook states that one should play certain PC classes and one should avoid others. If example class choice 4 is so overshadowed by class choices 1, 2, and 3, that is not by definition class 4's problem. That is not by definition a problem of the CR system or the encounter design. It is not by definition a problem of classes 1, 2 and 3, but it darned well could be. 3) The Warrior argument does not show any flaw in any argument whatsoever. No argument presented here proves that the Warrior is by definition not viable, because as I said a few posts ago, that has never been addressed or examined. Pun-pun fallacy (which is why the Warrior was brought up) says nothing about the viability or non-viability of Warriors, ALL it says, is that the Fighter's existence says nothing about the viability or non-viability of warriors. Nothing more, nothing less, and as the one who originally formalized it I am starting to get mildly annoyed by people who claim otherwise. Fallacious reasonings show only that a certain reasoning is not true, it never says anything about its opposite yet for some reason people feel a need to treat it as such. If I look at the Fighter vs the Warrior, and the statement about PC classes supposedly being exceptional, then we have there a very good reason not to play an NPC class over a PC class. The Fighter has 11 feats more than the Warrior, therefor it is more exceptional than the Warrior. 11 feats are a significant power difference and apparently WotC decided that this power difference was so significant as to warrant a distinction between PC class and NPC class. This also means they believed the Fighter to be a suitable PC class. This means the argument is not necessarily subjective to Pun-pun fallacy, since it is not about characters but about a WotC decision between PC and NPC classes. Now, if you can build a Warrior that can perform the Fighter's role as stated by WotC in the PHB, then you've proven WotC wrong, and we can then conclude that quite obviously, the game *is* flawed (like we can't already). Pun-pun fallacy can now in fact come into play, and refute any claim that the Warrior would not be viable because the Fighter has 11 more feats. Given all that, I am *still* (and so, apparently, is Khan) waiting for that warrior build that is supposed to refute the argument. Which, incidentally, even if it were to be created, doesn't, because it refutes something that Pun-pun fallacy does not claim. On a sidenote, I earlier said I believe the Fighter vs Warrior thing to raise a different question than Cleric vs Fighter. The reason I believe this is because Fighters and Warriors follow the exact same mechanics and have the exact same RP/Flavor blandness, the only distinction in the two classes being hit-die, BAB (I think?) and Fighter bonus feats. The question is raised thus: Is there a reason to play a class that plays in every practical gaming session the same as another class, even though it is less powerful? Keep in mind the Stormwind fallacy if you want to try to answer this one. The distinction in comparisons is easy: if I want to bash people's heads in without dealing with spell mechanics/magic I won't play a Cleric, even if he could gain the same BAB and hit/damage bonuses as a Fighter. A Cleric might have (no matter how small) a different RP style than the Fighter (who is accused of being the "blandest" of all classes, so that RP distinction must be there). However, Warriors and Fighters use the same game mechanics (Hitrolls, weapons, armor, feats, skills). They have the same flavor (bland). See above question, have fun.
Alpha_Moose 06-06-07, 11:02 PM	Explain to me why the warrior is not viable and then you can use it as a counter to an argument. Until then, saying 'Then does that mean the warrior is viable?' is pointless. It gets repeated here as if you caught us red-handed and yet... I'm not seeing it. The DMG apparently says (I've not checked) to play a fighter over the warrior because of the stats (fighter has a better HD and more feats). But it doesn't say a warrior doesn't work. Period. That is true. My point was never on specifically the Warrior, Fighter, or Cleric. It was specifically just on how the fallacy was being used. "Viable" can have completely differing meanings depending on who is using it. Also, many here do not focus on the fighter in a bubble (though some do, denying allies, items, and just about everything else). We advocate comparing him to monsters, not to other classes. The thing is that it should be compared to other classes. This isn't on just the Fighter I know. By 'bubble' I mean lack of comparison (should have worded it better). If you don't compare all classes to each other then we should ignore trying to balance classes with each other. You might not view balance in that way, but that's a different argument. Then we have the uber caster: ending encounters with 1 spell, essentially invulnerable to all forms of attack through careful spell preparation and casting, limitless wealth and resources, etc. Essentially, a character that can do anything short of DM fiat. Why assume that such characters exist in actual games while Pun-Pun would be disallowed? How can we stand back and say 'Yeah, Pun-Pun's purely theoretical, he'd never exist in a game.' and then say 'The fighter is useless because the party caster just kills stuff with his SoD and can't take any damage from his contingencies and buffs and then gets uber tanks with Gate.'? Again, it seems inconsistent. It's not inconsistent. There are different levels of power that should be available to characters. Pun-pun is on the high end, and the commoner on the low. The problem is that many people can't agree on what should be available. Some will want their characters or players to be epic in power, others want it to be gritty realism. Again, that's a different argument. People read far, far too much into the Pun-pun fallacy (and in other "named board fallacies", I've noticed). Logic, as I stated before, says nothing about things outside of its domain. That means the second you introduce another assumption (which is another premise) the argument changes, and the argument may become invalid because of it. Pun-pun Fallacy does not state: 1) That because Class X can do all Class Y can and that does not mean Class Y is not viable, it also does not mean that class Y is instead viable. That needs to be judged in another fashion Some people think that classes should be judged that way. I bet (and this is an assumption) that many of the game designers tried to balance many things that way. 2) Classes cannot be compared. The Pun-pun fallacy does not deny that Class X is not more powerful because Class Y because Class X can do all that Class Y can and more. It simply means you cannot use that as a standard to judge things by, because you have no authority over deciding what is too cheesy for D&D. We can and should compare classes. If class X can completely replace an entire party then that class is too powerful, and if every class can replace class Y then that class is too weak. On a sidenote, please be careful about what you call "idiotic". Saying that an idea is idiotic is perfectly fine, and should not be assumed to be a personal insult. As for the entire "build" thing, here's a fun fact for you. Any class is automatically a build. This is wrong. Any class had the potential to be a build, but it is not a build in and of itself. DMM Cleric is a build. Natural Spell Druid is a build. Chain Trip Fighter is a build. SoD Wizard is a build. Pun-pun is a build. EVERYTHING in D&D is a build. No it's not. Every completed character is a build, but the individual things (class, feats, spells) are not. A class is like the skeleton. It's may be the most important part of a build, but it is still only part. We could just be using different definitions for builds, so that could be a problem. 3) The Warrior argument does not show any flaw in any argument whatsoever. No argument presented here proves that the Warrior is by definition not viable, because as I said a few posts ago, that has never been addressed or examined. Pun-pun fallacy (which is why the Warrior was brought up) says nothing about the viability or non-viability of Warriors, ALL it says, is that the Fighter's existence says nothing about the viability or non-viability of warriors. Nothing more, nothing less, and as the one who originally formalized it I am starting to get mildly annoyed by people who claim otherwise. Fallacious reasonings show only that a certain reasoning is not true, it never says anything about its opposite yet for some reason people feel a need to treat it as such. My main point is that this, the assumption that the classes cannot be compared or that one class cannot invalidate another, is wrong. The Commoner is an invalid choice for a PC, not just because it cannot compete in a normal game, but because every other class is better. If the entire game only had Commoners then they would be more valid, but then we'd be playing in a horribly balanced game. Again, my argument is never meant specifically against the Fighter. It is about how the game should be balanced in general. Each class should be able to compete in their own area of expertise while not taking another class's role completely. They should all have some ability to emulate the other roles to a degree, but in the end the class specialized in a role should be the best. And each class should not have to require complete knowledge of everything in the game to be played competently. This is not true in the game, and I think that it is something that needs to be fixed. On a sidenote, I earlier said I believe the Fighter vs Warrior thing to raise a different question than Cleric vs Fighter. The reason I believe this is because Fighters and Warriors follow the exact same mechanics and have the exact same RP/Flavor blandness, the only distinction in the two classes being hit-die, BAB (I think?) and Fighter bonus feats. The question is raised thus: Is there a reason to play a class that plays in every practical gaming session the same as another class, even though it is less powerful? This is a problem with the game though. A more difficult mechanic should not be way more powerful than something with a simpler mechanic. The Cleric should not be more powerful than the Fighter. The only choice that a player should have to make is what class fulfills the flavor requirement of their character. This is not true, and it should be.
Kratch 06-07-07, 12:01 AM	T We can and should compare classes. If class X can completely replace an entire party then that class is too powerful, and if every class can replace class Y then that class is too weak. You do have a valid argument here. If every other class was shown to be able to replace the fighter, one might be able to argue the validity of the fighter (though i'm still not sure simply replacing is enough, redundancy is often heralded as a good thing, so redundant melee options shouldn't be ether, so long as they all offer something different and are about equal (give or take, depending on preferences)). Problem is, no-one ever even tries. They make the claim that everyone replaces the fighter, that everyones better then the fighter, and then B-line streight to the cleric (and sometimes druid) when told to prove it. I've never seen anyone actually stand behind another class and try (with the exception of trying to prove a wizard can tank because he has gate). I've done an example build of a fighter that, more or less match's a barbarian(depending on the value you put to different aspects like improved uncanny dodge, take 10 on an attack, 10ft move, full attack with a weapon suppremacied weapon dispite being in a grapple, Extra AC vs DR, etc). Nether replaces the other, and as i pointed out in the comparison, the fighter has the advantage that he doesn't need to take that particular ability route. But that gets ignored, usually followed up within a page or two by someone claiming a barbarian is way better then a fighter. Most people dismiss the value of potential tricks a fighter can learn in spade because of mobility and size modifiers on opposed rolls, dispite the two are never found on the same creatures (with the singular exception of dragons), thus, when comparing the fighter to other class's, they assume they have 18 feets that can't be used because of size modifiers (as if improved trip took 18 feets, leaving them nothing like the weapon focus line, combat reflex's, combat expertise, etc) and thus compare a featless fighter to the other class (look back at how many people say a cleric can do "EVERYTHING" a fighter can, plus more through spells, if you don't believe me), which isn't a valid class comparison. Then they go touting the cleric as proof when their position starts to falter. If you want to prove the fighter fails compared to all class's, compare it to all class's, don't just fall back on the cleric. Otherwise, we are within our rights to claim, by using the same criteria, that nothing short of cleric/druid, archivists, punpun (depending on how far you want to take the argument) are valid for play. Using this same criteria, as well as the broad generalizations used with regaurds to fighters (figters fight and have HP's, everyone can do that), no-one has really been able to successfully defend the wizards validity without digging into specific spells, yet most of those people are unwilling to even acknowledge some of the specifics of what a fighter can do, presented within some of the many builds khan has provided. It is clearly a double standard.
Alpha_Moose 06-07-07, 12:14 AM	I understand and mostly agree. The main arguments against the Fighter are, like I said, the same ones against the Truenamer. It is hard to optimize, requires items to reach the same effects as many other classes, and even when optimized other classes can still perform better with much less optimization. I don't think that these things invalidate the Fighter or Truenamer, but I do think that they should be changed. And really, the Fighter's skills suck. It doesn't even have Profession, and yet the Druid nature hippy somehow gets it.
navar100 06-07-07, 12:46 AM	But your argument doesn't make sense. The Pun-pun argument would only work with builds, and even then it falls apart. You trying to apply it to classes is like applying it to feats: "Well clearly Skill Focus (Concentration) is better than Combat Casting" "Well, Pun-pun is better than Skill Focus, so there's no reason to use that either" You have to "build" to show how a class operates. Anyway, some people do argue Combat Casting is useless because of Skill Focus. However, I defend Combat Casting too and do encourage using both because it allows you to cast defensively for your highest level spell even if you roll a 1 starting at level 4 with a 14 CO. That can be an important tactic to have at level 4 instead of waiting for a higher level without having Combat Casting. Aside which, it's a matter of degree of saying a character class is useless and a feat is useless. The analogy doesn't work.
navar100 06-07-07, 12:51 AM	The problem is that you can't focus on something in a bubble. If you look at the Fighter class, and just the Fighter class, than of course it's fine. It's the only thing that exists! Ergo you need a "build". First off I'm not anti-fighter and I am the first to make the comparison, but only in the premise of the Pun-pun fallacy. I've agreed that the Fighter, while being mechanically underpowered, can still compete in combat. BUT I think that it should be fixed, or even scraped as a mechanical concept, because there can be something better. There's no "harm" in saying the fighter could be improved upon. It's saying it's useless as is that's the problem. I agree the fighter could be improved upon in the skills department. Actually, it is. In the DMG they talk about PCs using NPC classes, and say that the Warrior is pointless because the Fighter is the same but better. They mention that the Expert or Aristocrat can work at the first few levels because of their skills/money/proficiencies. The Adept is also mentioned as pointless, even though it does have an interesting spell list. NPC classes by design aren't defacto PC classes. They were never meant for players to use. The comparison to the PC classes is to inform the DM of the lower power/efficiency level that would result if a player wants to play such classes. However, it's not forbidden.
navar100 06-07-07, 01:09 AM	I understand and mostly agree. The main arguments against the Fighter are, like I said, the same ones against the Truenamer. It is hard to optimize, requires items to reach the same effects as many other classes, and even when optimized other classes can still perform better with much less optimization. I don't think that these things invalidate the Fighter or Truenamer, but I do think that they should be changed. And really, the Fighter's skills suck. It doesn't even have Profession, and yet the Druid nature hippy somehow gets it. Here is where I disagree with Bob, and I hate that I do :P . I actually do think Truenamer sucks, but I do so on its own merits, not in comparison to other classes. I say it sucks because it becomes statistically harder to do what it was meant to do as the levels increase. The DC to Speak Truename increases by a too great amount as the levels increase. In order to function, the Truenamer has to take Skill Focus (Speak Truename). He has to increase his intelligence. He has to have specific magic items to increase his Speak Truename skill roll. Any slight deviation from this path means he becomes less able to do what he was meant to do, defining "meant to do" as utilizing his game mechanics. However, I don't mean to derail this thread into Truenamer. The point is my opinion of Truenamer suckitude is based on the class itself and how it works, not what any other class can do.
Bob Loblaw 06-07-07, 01:41 AM	Here is where I disagree with Bob, and I hate that I do :P . I actually do think Truenamer sucks, but I do so on its own merits, not in comparison to other classes. I say it sucks because it becomes statistically harder to do what it was meant to do as the levels increase. The DC to Speak Truename increases by a too great amount as the levels increase. In order to function, the Truenamer has to take Skill Focus (Speak Truename). He has to increase his intelligence. He has to have specific magic items to increase his Speak Truename skill roll. Any slight deviation from this path means he becomes less able to do what he was meant to do, defining "meant to do" as utilizing his game mechanics. However, I don't mean to derail this thread into Truenamer. The point is my opinion of Truenamer suckitude is based on the class itself and how it works, not what any other class can do. The biggest problem with the Truenamer is that you either suck or rock. There is little middle ground. A skill-based caster is very hard to pull off in this system. I like the concept, but the execution failed. At least in my opinion. I also find the class to be incredibly boring. I really hate playing the fifth-wheel and that is how it works as far as I can tell. As for the fighter, I think that the class is actually a very good class. Of course it can use some work, but what class is actually perfect? I think Archangel mentioned one of the big problems with the class and that it doesn't really have any guidelines built in to help players. The better the player, the better the fighter. Casters have more room for error. The other classes all have a driving force. The fighter requires the player to be the driving force. I think that's part of the appeal for me.
Kalarus 06-07-07, 08:55 AM	That is true. My point was never on specifically the Warrior, Fighter, or Cleric. It was specifically just on how the fallacy was being used. "Viable" can have completely differing meanings depending on who is using it. Yes, and the entire point of the fallacy was to debate a premise people required in their definition of viability. It basically says "If you require this for viability then this happens". Viability-definition is included there, and using a different definition of viability doesn't matter except wether or not you include the debated premise. It's a difference between necessary requirements and sufficient requirements. The premise, wether you accept it or not, is not a sufficient requirement, but people claimed it was a necessary requirement for viability. Pun-pun fallacy illustrates the fallaciousness of that claim. The thing is that it should be compared to other classes. This isn't on just the Fighter I know. By 'bubble' I mean lack of comparison (should have worded it better). If you don't compare all classes to each other then we should ignore trying to balance classes with each other. You might not view balance in that way, but that's a different argument. Which is why you don't hear people claiming that the Fighter is not weaker than the Cleric. I am sure everyone here likes to see balanced classes. All the Fighter-defenders repeatedly are called to do, is refute the statement that "The Fighter is not powerful enough to see gameplay". That has nothing to do with class comparison, that has to do with Fighter and gameplay comparison. It's not inconsistent. There are different levels of power that should be available to characters. Pun-pun is on the high end, and the commoner on the low. The problem is that many people can't agree on what should be available. Some will want their characters or players to be epic in power, others want it to be gritty realism. Again, that's a different argument. Actually it is an argument that directly follows from the viability discussion, especially if you want to refute Pun-pun. I earlier posted 2 barriers: viability and cheese. Up to now the discussion has been mostly centered on viability barrier, with cheese-barrier being taken for granted. However, like you said, people can't agree on what is too powerful for gameplay. If you want to call it a different argument, that's fine, but then you can't call on the cheesyness of Pun-pun because it hasn't been objectively decided yet that Pun-pun is too cheesy. We just subjectively agree on it. Some people think that classes should be judged that way. I bet (and this is an assumption) that many of the game designers tried to balance many things that way. Which is why Pun-pun fallacy shows that reasoning to be fallacious. The fallacy incidentally does not require Pun-pun but it's a convenient example of all-powerfulness. One could put whichever classes are deemed most powerful at the top, and then rightfully say that the premise fails because these few class choices do not represent D&D gameplay at all. I also think your assumption is wrong, because the game designers did not try to balance classes. They tried to balance power and play frequency. The classes (and even races, Half-Elf and Half-Orc being so popular the designers felt they did not need as many bonuses as other classes) which were not as popular as others were deliberately given more power in order to increase their appeal. We can and should compare classes. If class X can completely replace an entire party then that class is too powerful, and if every class can replace class Y then that class is too weak. I get the impression you misread what I wrote but I might misunderstand you. Those two things are *not* stated by the Pun-pun fallacy, nor by me. This makes them possibly true or possibly false. I wrote them because people apparently believe Pun-pun fallacy makes these implications. Your conclusion is correct if the word "weak" is understood as "significantly weaker than other classes". Your conclusion is false if "weak" is understood as "too weak to see gameplay". The latter does not follow from the former. If someone plays significantly weaker class X and another players significantly stronger class Y, class Y might have to compensate for class X. If that player doesn't like that, you have a group disfunctionality, because your group cannot apparently decide on which level of power to play. People who enjoy powerplay have no right to decide for the entire group that the group should play at their level of power, if the rest of the group picks classes for different reasons. If that means the powergamers have to compensate for the others, that's their own problem. D&D allows for the choosing of 11 different Core classes, each of which are meant to see gameplay. No person has the right to decide for any other player which classes should and which should not see D&D gameplay. Saying that an idea is idiotic is perfectly fine, and should not be assumed to be a personal insult. Mamma always said, stupid is as stupid does. -- F. Gump. I am very happy to see you did not mean it as a personal insult, because one of the meanings of idiotic is exactly that: characteristic of an idiot. :P This is wrong. Any class had the potential to be a build, but it is not a build in and of itself. No it's not. Every completed character is a build, but the individual things (class, feats, spells) are not. A class is like the skeleton. It's may be the most important part of a build, but it is still only part. We could just be using different definitions for builds, so that could be a problem. Build: Any situation in which a player makes a selection from possible options that are not a necessary given by the situation. You cannot complete class stats without completing class choice. You can't play Class X, without choosing appropriate skills, feats and/or spells. They are granted by the class. They are not chosen by the class. You are right when you say that is not all that is a build, a build also encompasses race, stats, alignment, gear, etc. but that was not the point. The point is you start building the second you choose your class, so the distinction is in practice nonexistent. There's an odd consequence in claiming that we can only talk classes and not builds: it means that multiclass characters are by definition not part of the comparison, and that includes classes that mutliclass into PrCs. Every multiclass character, after all, is no longer just a class but multiple classes: a build. My main point is that this, the assumption that the classes cannot be compared or that one class cannot invalidate another, is wrong. The Commoner is an invalid choice for a PC, not just because it cannot compete in a normal game, but because every other class is better. If the entire game only had Commoners then they would be more valid, but then we'd be playing in a horribly balanced game. Prove it. We don't assume that it's not possible, we refute the idea that it is possible. Believing for yourself that one class can invalidate another is fine, claiming that other people should accept it requires that you prove it, not that the other party denies it. I can claim that grass is always blue. If people don't want to believe that it is up to me to display all grass in existance in all its blue glory. Which I can't, because a lot of grass is not blue. It's ridiculous for me to claim something unfounded, and then expect others to disprove it. It suggests I have a creater claim to truth than they do. Anyways, let's hypothetically accept your assumption and say that classes *can* invalidate each other. The next step required is to objectively decide what is too cheesy to see gameplay, else I could invoke Pun-pun at my leisure to invalidate any other choice of classes and abilities. Again, my argument is never meant specifically against the Fighter. It is about how the game should be balanced in general. Each class should be able to compete in their own area of expertise while not taking another class's role completely. They should all have some ability to emulate the other roles to a degree, but in the end the class specialized in a role should be the best. And each class should not have to require complete knowledge of everything in the game to be played competently. This is not true in the game, and I think that it is something that needs to be fixed. This is a problem with the game though. A more difficult mechanic should not be way more powerful than something with a simpler mechanic. The Cleric should not be more powerful than the Fighter. The only choice that a player should have to make is what class fulfills the flavor requirement of their character. This is not true, and it should be. Well I think you'll find most people here in agreement with you. So given that, this entire discussion should be seen from an opposite perspective. If the Fighter is weak compared to other classes, perhaps the other classes should be brought down a few notches, not the Fighter up a few. Then we get to answer the Thread Question in a new way: "Any reason to play a Fighter?" "Yes because Clerics, Druids and Wizards are too powerful."
Khan the Destroyer 06-07-07, 09:16 AM	Kalarus, if you were a Pokemon, I'd choose you every time. Nice post.
Archangel62 06-07-07, 11:28 AM	Prove it. We don't assume that it's not possible, we refute the idea that it is possible. Believing for yourself that one class can invalidate another is fine, claiming that other people should accept it requires that you prove it, not that the other party denies it. I can claim that grass is always blue. If people don't want to believe that it is up to me to display all grass in existance in all its blue glory. Which I can't, because a lot of grass is not blue. It's ridiculous for me to claim something unfounded, and then expect others to disprove it. It suggests I have a creater claim to truth than they do. Anyways, let's hypothetically accept your assumption and say that classes *can* invalidate each other. The next step required is to objectively decide what is too cheesy to see gameplay, else I could invoke Pun-pun at my leisure to invalidate any other choice of classes and abilities. This is the problem that a lot of us have, if for example every, or even a majority, of classes are better at fighting than the fighter then that would mean that the fighter is likely poorly designed. The method you mention below, lowering the power level till everything is that weak, is the communist method of equality. Well I think you'll find most people here in agreement with you. So given that, this entire discussion should be seen from an opposite perspective. If the Fighter is weak compared to other classes, perhaps the other classes should be brought down a few notches, not the Fighter up a few. Then we get to answer the Thread Question in a new way: "Any reason to play a Fighter?" "Yes because Clerics, Druids and Wizards are too powerful." Your idea actually does have some merits, as I mentioned earlier I do believe that the casting system is likely too strong, but fixing the casters is more than changing or removing spells, the casting system itself needs to be redone. The martial characters also need an upgrade, part of the problem I see is that frankly your average martial character is losing the race with the monsters. I look at the beholder for example, it can fight in three dimensions, has multidirectional sight, and a plethora of special abilities. Now this foe is a caster foe, but the principle is there for danger, a caster has many of these same features however. Look at the megapede, fast moving, quite large, decently deadly poison, and it has a burrow speed. (In most games I have played in a burrow speed tended to mean that the battles were a bit like extreme whack-a-mole.)
Argaud 06-07-07, 11:59 AM	This is the problem that a lot of us have, if for example every, or even a majority, of classes are better at fighting than the fighter then that would mean that the fighter is likely poorly designed. The method you mention below, lowering the power level till everything is that weak, is the communist method of equality. Your idea actually does have some merits, as I mentioned earlier I do believe that the casting system is likely too strong, but fixing the casters is more than changing or removing spells, the casting system itself needs to be redone. The martial characters also need an upgrade, part of the problem I see is that frankly your average martial character is losing the race with the monsters. So, what non-caster classes is stronger than the fighter? I think the warblade is the only that comes close to qualify, all the others are barely equal, and only if you think skills are very valuable. A paladin might be at high level, but only with dragon mounts and if DMM-persistent is used.
Archangel62 06-07-07, 12:31 PM	So, what non-caster classes is stronger than the fighter? I think the warblade is the only that comes close to qualify, all the others are barely equal, and only if you think skills are very valuable. A paladin might be at high level, but only with dragon mounts and if DMM-persistent is used. In utility I would argue rogue, ranger, swashbuckler, paladin, ToB classes, factotum, scout, monk (?) In damage: Barbarian, rogue, paladin/ranger (situational), ToB classes are a maybe here, scout In staying power: Knight, Barbarian (debatable), Crusader (my fave) (If anyone wants my honest opinion, I sorta think that monks are actually worse off than fighters, but fighter is easier to fix)
Drachasor 06-07-07, 01:08 PM	I've just looked at some of the things here, and I wanted to add something. The so-called Pun-Pun fallacy is technically true, but it is also misleading. It is true that Class A = Class B + Stuff Y doesn't mean Class B is deficient. However, this is only the case when Class A is overpowered (e.g. Pun-Pun). So on the other hand if Class C is balanced and Class C = Class B + Stuff X, then Class B is underpowered. Depending on what Stuff X is this might be a small or large issue. IMHO, for example, the Martial Adepts are balanced and also a Martial Adept can do the job of a fighter AND more. Similarly, a Barbarian can largely do a fighter's job, but do it better. Now the fighter still has some advantages as a dip class. It CAN help you get into some PrCs, but then we are just saying the first few levels of Fighter are worthwhile -- the class AS A WHOLE need a lot of improvement. I will say that I agree with others that spellcasting is too powerful, and fixing it is quite difficult. Things can be made better by getting rid of some spells (e.g. polymorph, and the like), but it needs a lot more than that. Save-or-dies are too numerous and anti-climatic and are an issue for the game as a whole, for example. Martial Adepts are generally not more powerful in terms of damage output than other good melee characters. They perform roughly as well as a Barbarian, for example. They do have more power in terms of versatility, which EVERY class needs imho (it just makes them more fun). I also think they model heroes of fantasy literatures a lot better than the Fighter and most other warriors. IMHO, Martial Adepts are a step in the right direction. So on the general issue of whether there is a reason to have the Fighter Class, I don't think there is if you have the Tome of Battle. All they are really good for dipping, and they are generally quite inferior to other options past level 8 or so (imho they are less fun because they have fewer combat options as well). It is certainly a fact that you don't need a Fighter to model pretty much any type of warrior, and also a fact that other classes, particularly martial adepts, can model almost any warrior better than a Fighter. Without the ToB, then I think they are needed, but they are a bad class to take more than 4 levels in if you don't have the PhB2. If you do have that book, they are OK, but not great. To sum up/closing thoughts: I think there are several reason to take one class over another. One is usefulness/power. 99.9% (made up number) of the D&D population wants to have a character that is effective (e.g. contributes his part to the party). Another is taking a class to fulfill a particular theme or archetype (e.g. Samurai, Swashbuckler, Roman Gladiator, Feral Warrior, etc). A third thing taking a class that is fun to play. On these three criteria, I think the fighter is generally far inferior to the other options available (assuming, in particular, that Tome of Battle is available). I also think that in general, the Fighter is less than what it should be (e.g. underpowered). Even with the PhB2 I think the fighter is inferior on archetype, general usefulness (not power), and fun compared to other balanced options. Sadly none of this is easy to fix, so from my perspective as a DM* it is easier to ban the fighter and give ToB classes as the alternative than to fix the fighter. -Drachasor *I am not running a game currently though.
crashlogic 06-07-07, 01:15 PM	Lets see. I like playing fighters as they are. I don't like playing any tome of battle classes. Thus there is a very good reason for playing a fighter. What reason is better than "I want to"?
Alpha_Moose 06-07-07, 01:16 PM	Ok Kalarus, I think that I get your point much better. Your saying that class comparison should not be the only factor when determining balance, and not even the main factor. I should mention that by build I mean complete build. Also when I say that one class can invalidate another, I mean that it makes it a weaker redundant choice. As for what the designers were thinking, I meant mostly for new classes. I can't find a specific example, but I remember a mention of balancing a new class by comparing it to pre-existing classes. I know that we on the boards certainly do that when making new classes. Edit* and I agree with Drachasor completely.
Argaud 06-07-07, 01:17 PM	In utility I would argue rogue, ranger, swashbuckler, paladin, ToB classes, factotum, scout, monk (?) In damage: Barbarian, rogue, paladin/ranger (situational), ToB classes are a maybe here, scout In staying power: Knight, Barbarian (debatable), Crusader (my fave) (If anyone wants my honest opinion, I sorta think that monks are actually worse off than fighters, but fighter is easier to fix) Hmm, no. Barbarian are worse than fighters after level 7. It is not a big difference, but it is noticeable. Rogues and Scouts are worse in fights, although if you value skillmongery they more than make it up. They have problems hitting anything, though, and they don't do more damage than a fighter when they do (11d6~38 hp, not impressive). Paladins have far worse to hit, although the AC is better, they are worse than fighters (or barbarians) at hitting and damaging anything but by burning all their smites in one scene. Knight seems to be there too, although I am not 100% sure. Rangers only match fighters as archers, they are a joke in melee. (Lightly armored warriors Swashbucklers here) just don't work in D&D. They do have skills, though. Monks are hard to kill skirmishers, but can't stand and fight, and therefore of doubtful value to a party. I am not sure about the crusader, I know the power of the warblade, tho :)
Khan the Destroyer 06-07-07, 01:38 PM	IMHO, for example, the Martial Adepts are balanced and also a Martial Adept can do the job of a fighter AND more. I'm not very familiar with ToB, so I can't comment. Though I do know you can't spam techniques. So, you're key abilities are useable, at best, every other round. Similarly, a Barbarian can largely do a fighter's job, but do it better. I don't agree. Since you can build several types of fighters, proclaiming that the barbarian can do the fighter's job but better seems disingenuous. The barbarian can likely take more hits from an enemy, with his Rage bonses and depending on if he has DR at the time or not. The barbarian will likely be quicker than a fighter, depending on what armor the fighter is wearing and if either of them uses a mount. And finally, the barbarian's will bonus is better than a fighter's when raging, depending on whether the fighter chose to boost his or not. The barbarian's rage also gives him a better bonus on tricks like Bull Rushing, Tripping, Disarming, and Sundering, but these bonuses come very slowly, and are limited each day. Also, he doesn't have the feats to get all the feat synergies that a fighter can, or develop several fighting styles like a fighter can. The barbarian has his own merits to be sure. But I don't think he is a fighter+. Martial Adepts are generally not more powerful in terms of damage output than other good melee characters. They perform roughly as well as a Barbarian, for example. The barbarian barely keeps up with the fighter so... (A barbarian needs Extra Rage to really try and outdo the fighter consistently in terms of damage, and even then, he is not the king. The fighter can equal or exceed the damage of a barbarian for most of his levels before 20 by focusing on a weapon.) I also think they model heroes of fantasy literatures a lot better than the Fighter and most other warriors. Except for non-mystical ones. Swordsages and Crusaders don't model common warriors or soldiers. Even warblades can get maneuvers and stances that are above and beyond what a traditional warrior could do. So on the general issue of whether there is a reason to have the Fighter Class, I don't think there is if you have the Tome of Battle. All they are really good for dipping, and they are generally quite inferior to other options past level 8 or so (imho they are less fun because they have fewer combat options as well). What do you mean by fewer combat options? I thought they had more than other warriors. Especially after level 8. It is certainly a fact that you don't need a Fighter to model pretty much any type of warrior, and also a fact that other classes, particularly martial adepts, can model almost any warrior better than a Fighter. I've just finished reading two Eberron series and the second book of a third series. I can't imagine how to model Daine, Kandler, or Geth* from those three trilogies as a barbarian, ranger, paladin, warbalde, crusader, or swordsage. Or duskblade, hexblade, knight, swashbuckler, or samurai. *(Geth may have some barbarian levels from his time in the Reaches. But with his Beasthide shifting, it's a little difficult to tell. He's certainly a fighter, having recieved extensive training from House Deneith while he was a member of the Blademarks company, Frostbrand.) What reason is better than "I want to"? Um... 'The boards do not want me to'?
Kratch 06-07-07, 01:50 PM	The so-called Pun-Pun fallacy is technically true, but it is also misleading. It is true that Class A = Class B + Stuff Y doesn't mean Class B is deficient. However, this is only the case when Class A is overpowered (e.g. Pun-Pun). So on the other hand if Class C is balanced and Class C = Class B + Stuff X, then Class B is underpowered. Depending on what Stuff X is this might be a small or large issue. First off, why is balance an issue here? If the criteria is "if class A= class B + stuff X, then Class A sucks (is poorly balanced).", how does the balance of ether class change that, or are you adding an additional stipulation to the criteria? Even if you are adding that stipulation, I ask you to examine my argument about the validity of wizards in comparison to clerics. Again, unsing the stipulation and the generalizations used against the fighter (you use it yourself in this post, see bellow), a cleric does everything a wizard does, and much, much more. Second. who determines what is overpowered? you? Will anything that shows the criteria fails when applied to other class's be considered overpowered? Pun pun was only an extreme to prove the point, it still stands that, by that criteria, the only viable character is the current most powerful class/build allowed in ones campaign. IMHO, for example, the Martial Adepts are balanced and also a Martial Adept can do the job of a fighter AND more. Similarly, a Barbarian can largely do a fighter's job, but do it better. The fighter can do the fighters job, and more too, or are you trying to imply all those other class's also get 11 bonus feats, and thus can do everything a fighter can do? This is the generalization that i was talking about above. If you ignore the 11 bonus feats, then the martial adepts and barbarian and cleric can all do what a fighter does, that is, fight with HP, AC and a full BAB. But thats if you ignore the bonus feats. Most people think "the feats just help you fight better, everyone gets them". But the trick is, almost all of the barbarian and martial adepts abilities also help them fight better, yet those abilities are added to the more while the fighter feats are sluffed off as unimportent. Everybody doesn't get them, everyone doesn't get 18+ feats over the course of they're 20+levels. They only get some of them, a very small, limited number of them in fact. Additionally, please prove the barbarian can do it better. The claim is made by almost every new person who comes in here, but i've shown the fighter can use his class features (11 feats) to pretty much match the barbarians class features (give or take, depending on preference more then actual power). You should back up your claim instead of expecting us to take it as truth. Same goes for the adepts I will say that I agree with others that spellcasting is too powerful, and fixing it is quite difficult. Things can be made better by getting rid of some spells (e.g. polymorph, and the like), but it needs a lot more than that. Save-or-dies are too numerous and anti-climatic and are an issue for the game as a whole, for example. So, because spellcasters are broken and overpowered, fighters suck? And doesn't this play into your argument above that state's, if a class is overpowered, then it doesn't fairly apply to the class =class + more argument? [QUOTE=Drachasor;12641131] clip [QUOTE] The rest all seemed like personal preference rather then balance issues, which i'm not going to argue, I don't find any melee class that fun to play. Doesn't mean i think they shouldn't be played though.
Alpha_Moose 06-07-07, 01:58 PM	I'm not very familiar with ToB, so I can't comment. Though I do know you can't spam techniques. So, you're key abilities are useable, at best, every other round. Which gives it more realism and more tactical options. Except for non-mystical ones. Swordsages and Crusaders don't model common warriors or soldiers. Even warblades can get maneuvers and stances that are above and beyond what a traditional warrior could do. The Swordsage is the only one that is strongly magical. The Crusader is less mystical than the Paladin, and the Warblade only gets semi-crazy maneuvers at level 10+, at which point arguing reality anywhere in D&D is pointless. Even then all three classes can be made completely non-mystical. The options to be magical are there, but it's very easy to just not choose them. Crusaders fit the 300 better than almost any other class, Achilles is perfect for the Warblade, and Li Mu-bai or Obi-wan fit Swordsage excellently.
Khan the Destroyer 06-07-07, 02:24 PM	Which gives it more realism In a game where people fling fireballs and can balance on clouds. and more tactical options. I fail to see how 'I can only use this strike every other round' equals 'I have more tactical options'. The Swordsage is the only one that is strongly magical. The Crusader is less mystical than the Paladin Which doesn't mean the Crusader is not mystical. and the Warblade only gets semi-crazy maneuvers at level 10+, at which point arguing reality anywhere in D&D is pointless. Arguing reality anywhere in D&D can be pointless. I don't see why my human fighter that stands at 5'10 and weighs in at 210lbs. should be able to tackle a dragon by himself and slay it. But to some people... that's how it should work. Even then all three classes can be made completely non-mystical. The options to be magical are there, but it's very easy to just not choose them. Correct. And fighters can be made to be very effective. Crusaders fit the 300 better than almost any other class Except fighter. You know, to get the Leap Attack, Formation Expert, Phalanx Fighting, Improved Shield Bash, Spring Attack, Cleave, etc. feats needed to pull off the stunts in the movie. I didn't see anyone healing anyone. Pretty much most wounds taken were fatal. All the soldiers seemed pretty capable of fighting (read: trained from birth), without someone inspiring them and suddenly giving them the power to fell a foe with one strike on a charge. And if they were using Stone Dragon, they would have lived. Period. No, I don't see Crusader. I see high level fighters against low level warriors. Achilles is perfect for the Warblade Achilles in Troy is a glory hog, so I can see the warblade's supposed motivation in Achilles' attitude. But what did he do? Spring Attacks (3 feats), Cleaves (2 feats), Leap Attacks (1 feat), Two-Weapon Fighting (1-3 feats), Phalanx Fighting (1 feat), Sunder (1 feat), Quickdraw (1 feat), Block Arrow (1 feat), Leadership (1 feat), Far Shot (1 feat), etc. I don't see anything in the movie that demands manuevers or stances. Just another high level fighter against low level enemies. and Li Mu-bai or Obi-wan fit Swordsage excellently. Not really actually. How would a swordsage compel people to do an action simply by speaking to them? Or will his sword to his hand from 20' away? Or block all incoming projectiles with his sword?
Drachasor 06-07-07, 03:43 PM	I'm not very familiar with ToB, so I can't comment. Though I do know you can't spam techniques. So, you're key abilities are useable, at best, every other round. Except you are commenting, now aren't you? It is true that any single maneuver can only be used once every other round. However, you can use one or more maneuvers one round, and the next round use one or more maneuvers, etc. Until you are out of maneuvers. So yeah, if you want very little variety in attacks, then the ToB isn't great at that. Fact is, ToB enforces variety and changing attacks by the maneuver system. One round you do one thing, the next round you do another. Like real fights, you don't do the some thing every round (in that sense it is more realistic than the traditional melee classes). In brief here's want ToB classes are like: Crusader: Has the least variety in maneuver selection. However, he has the best recovery mechanics. Every 3 rounds all of his maneuvers automatically refresh (if he takes the necessary "extra granted maneuver" feat, which all crusaders should take). His maneuvers have a lot of group-related abilities. He can boost the power of other melee guys, heal them, and protect them. He also has some great attacks. (Those are a list of the options available, a given crusader can't necessarily do all of those things). Swordsage: He has the largest selection of maneuvers, the most readied maneuvers, and the most learned maneuvers by far. He's the maneuver-monkey of the Martial Adepts (and the relative skill-monkey too). 3/4 BAB, but he has access to genuinely magical abilities (e.g. supernatural maneuvers). Worst recovery system -- full-round action to recover a maneuver. Almost required for him to take Adaptive Style which lets him re-ready maneuvers as a full-round action (technically not a recovery, but much the same for most cases). Warblade: He has a large selection of maneuvers. He knows about as many as the Crusader, and can ready a decent number. He can recover his maneuvers any round by spending a swift action followed by an attack (could be a full-attack) or a standard action to do nothing. He can't use any maneuvers the round he recovers. Sorta a compromise between the Swordsage and Crusader recovery (he can do it whenever he wants, but it isn't free). He has a lot of options for his maneuvers. Samurai and Swashbuckler abilities in Diamond Mind. Tough/Gritty warrior stuff in Iron Heart and Stone Dragon. Feral/TWF/maneuverability via Tiger Claw. White Raven gives him a lot of group abilities. In general then.... The Crusader class can be used to make: Knights, Holy Warriors, Battle Leaders, 'Paladins', Guards/Protectors, Champions of a Cause, and combinations of these concepts (probably some other stuff too). Swordsages can be used to make: Wise warriors, martial artists (grapplers/trippers), twf-fighters, ninja, gish-like supernatural warriors, Samurai-esque warriors and a number of other archetypes. Warblades are good for Knights, Elite Warriors, pretty much anything the fighter is good for, 'Barbarians', Samurai, Swashbucklers, and almost any classical warrior concept (save Holy Warriors). II don't agree. Since you can build several types of fighters, proclaiming that the barbarian can do the fighter's job but better seems disingenuous. I said the Barbarian can generally do the Fighter's job better than the Fighter. I meant that in the sense of the Fighter's role in the party. Typically that's damage dealer/melee specialist (e.g. generally that's the case). I didn't mean it in the sense that the Barbarian can be used to make the same warrior archetypes of the fighter -- though the Barbarian is can be pretty general, especially if you consider the Rage ability to be just a rush of adrenaline and focus (e.g. call it "Battle Focus"). He lacks some feats to do some of the archetypes a fighter can cover however. IThe barbarian can likely take more hits from an enemy, with his Rage bonses and depending on if he has DR at the time or not. The barbarian will likely be quicker than a fighter, depending on what armor the fighter is wearing and if either of them uses a mount. And finally, the barbarian's will bonus is better than a fighter's when raging, depending on whether the fighter chose to boost his or not. The Barbarian pretty much always has a better to-hit/damage than the Fighter. There's not much a Fighter can do here, given similar equipment. IThe barbarian's rage also gives him a better bonus on tricks like Bull Rushing, Tripping, Disarming, and Sundering, but these bonuses come very slowly, and are limited each day. Also, he doesn't have the feats to get all the feat synergies that a fighter can, or develop several fighting styles like a fighter can. Rage comes pretty quickly for the Barbarian. If you find yourself fighting 3+ battles each day then Extra Rage is a great feat (easily trumping things like Weapon Focus or Weapon Specialization). Per day limits don't matter if your daily uses cover all the fights you have. Generally any fighting styles the Fighter can develop are situational, and often no good against large or non-humanoid creatures (which covers a ton of enemies). The barbarian has his own merits to be sure. But I don't think he is a fighter+. The barbarian barely keeps up with the fighter so... (A barbarian needs Extra Rage to really try and outdo the fighter consistently in terms of damage, and even then, he is not the king. The fighter can equal or exceed the damage of a barbarian for most of his levels before 20 by focusing on a weapon.) I agree on extra rage, but let's take a look at the Barbarian. At levels 1-10, the Barbarian gain's a +4 bonus to Strength when he rages. Any Barbarian worth his salt is going to be using a two-handed weapon, have weapon focus, and power attack. So that +2 to hit and damage (from strength). Assuming our Barbarian took Extra Rage at 1st level and is non-human, this is still better than anything the fighter can manage here. At level 3 the Barbarian can pick up Power Attack, and choose to turn +2 hit/+2 damage into +1 hit/+4 damage, outdoing the Fighter even at level 4 (and before level 4). Greater Weapon Focus at level 8 helps the Fighter a tiny bit, but there's still the +2 damage from increased strength on the Barbarian's side. At level 11 the Barbarian gets his improved rage, going to +3/+3, outdoing the fighter even more. With Greater Weapon Specialization, the Fighter is only at +1 to hit/+4 to damage relative to the raging Barbarian's +3 to hit/+3 to damage from rage (and he can turn that into +2 to hit/+5 to damage with Power Attack). In short, the Fighter is generally inferior in terms of raw power without the PhB 2. With that book, the Fighter does a lot better, I'll admit. He can grab Melee Weapon Mastery at 8th instead Greater Weapon Focus, and get a +2 hit/+2 damage, giving him a +2/+4 compared to a Barbarian's +2/+2. So with that it's closer to neck and neck. However, a lot of this is negated if the Barbarian takes 4 levels in Fighter, because then he can grab Melee Weapon Mastery and Weapon Specialization. Beyond that, Rage and Greater Rage are better than alternatives. (At 12th level the Barb 8/Fight 4 has +2/+2 raging and the fighter just has a comparative advantage of +1/+2). So largely even the PhB2 just makes the Fighter into a dipping class. Which is highly problematic, imho. Except for non-mystical ones. Swordsages and Crusaders don't model common warriors or soldiers. Even warblades can get maneuvers and stances that are above and beyond what a traditional warrior could do. Crusaders can easily model knights and the like. You just don't choose healing maneuvers or use the flavoring that healing maneuvers increase the will and drive to fight in allies (based on the definition of hit points). There's nothing mystical or magical then (well, there's perhaps one other strike to avoid, but that's it). Alpha Moose handled this well though. What do you mean by fewer combat options? I thought they had more than other warriors. Especially after level 8. More options with other choices because Martial Adepts have more maneuvers than Fighters have feats. Barbarians have fewer options than Fighters, assuming the Fighter is picking feats for various combat styles. That doesn't do much to help the fighter with raw power, however (nor give him many options overall, really, just a few at BEST). I've just finished reading two Eberron series and the second book of a third series. I can't imagine how to model Daine, Kandler, or Geth* from those three trilogies as a barbarian, ranger, paladin, warbalde, crusader, or swordsage. Or duskblade, hexblade, knight, swashbuckler, or samurai. Maybe you should describe these guys, because I am not familiar with them. I find it odd you dismiss ToB when you don't even have it. First off, why is balance an issue here? I'm sorry, I thought the thread was on if they was any reason to play a fighter. Silly me thinking that issues like balance and fun come into play with this. If the criteria is "if class A= class B + stuff X, then Class A sucks (is poorly balanced).", how does the balance of ether class change that, or are you adding an additional stipulation to the criteria? I thought I was pretty clear. Class A = Class B + Stuff X DOESN'T inherently imply Class A or B sucks/is poorly balanced. It does mean that one of them is not balanced, however (depending on Stuff X, it might be poorly balanced). If A is balanced, then B is underpowered (lacks Stuff X). If B is balanced, then A is overpowered (has Stuff X beyond balance). However under- or over-powered depends on what Stuff X is, of course. My point was that the Pun-Pun fallacy ignores the fact that just because there is a class more powerful than all others, doesn't mean that some classes aren't underpowered or useless in their own right. The Pun-Pun build is overpowered to the extreme. Saying that because one build is stupidly overpowered, therefore we shouldn't compare any classes is silly. Even if you are adding that stipulation, I ask you to examine my argument about the validity of wizards in comparison to clerics. Again, unsing the stipulation and the generalizations used against the fighter (you use it yourself in this post, see bellow), a cleric does everything a wizard does, and much, much more. Yes, Clerics are overpowered (as are most full casters). Clerics in particular are overpowered, because of everything they get. A large part of why Wizards did this is a design problem -- it is hard to get healing. If healing was more common, then clerics could easily be toned down, because most people wouldn't think cleric = healbot. Assuming a Cleric = Wizard + Stuff, then we know that these classes aren't balanced relative to each other. It could still be the case that both classes are overpowered, however. Afterall, we have only compared the classes to each other and haven't stated either class is balanced. Second. who determines what is overpowered? you? Will anything that shows the criteria fails when applied to other class's be considered overpowered? Pun pun was only an extreme to prove the point, it still stands that, by that criteria, the only viable character is the current most powerful class/build allowed in ones campaign. Balance is easy. An equal CR encounter, on average, should drain 20% of the party resources and everyone should contribute about equally in the fighter (ON AVERAGE). That's the basic principle the system sets up, stated in the DMG. On that basis should balance be determined. Now, is it easy to exactly tell if something is balanced or not? No, but you can make some general conclusions such as full-casters being overpowered (too many combat-ending spells for instance). On this basis I think one can safely conclude the Fighter is underpowered generally speaking. The fighter can do the fighters job, and more too, or are you trying to imply all those other class's also get 11 bonus feats, and thus can do everything a fighter can do? This is the generalization that i was talking about above. If you ignore the 11 bonus feats, then the martial adepts and barbarian and cleric can all do what a fighter does, that is, fight with HP, AC and a full BAB. But thats if you ignore the bonus feats. Most people think "the feats just help you fight better, everyone gets them". But the trick is, almost all of the barbarian and martial adepts abilities also help them fight better, yet those abilities are added to the more while the fighter feats are sluffed off as unimportent. Class Abilities are generally more powerful than feats, by a good margin. A Fighter's feats don't equal the power of a Martial Adept's maneuvers. The martial adept gets more maneuvers than a Fighter gets feats. A Barbarian's class abilities are also quite solid, and again are more potent than any two feats of the Fighter. Feats just don't make up the deficit. Everybody doesn't get them, everyone doesn't get 18+ feats over the course of they're 20+levels. They only get some of them, a very small, limited number of them in fact. So they get to pick the really good ones. Martial Adepts additionally don't need feats to do many of the things a Fighter needs feats for. A Martial Adept can learn defensive maneuvers (e.g. counters) and not take Combat Expertise, for instance. Charging effects, better Bull Rushes, and better Trips are also achievable with maneuvers. So, in general, things fighters do with feats, martial adepts can do better with maneuvers. Additionally, please prove the barbarian can do it better. The claim is made by almost every new person who comes in here, but i've shown the fighter can use his class features (11 feats) to pretty much match the barbarians class features (give or take, depending on preference more then actual power). You should back up your claim instead of expecting us to take it as truth. Same goes for the adepts I demonstrated it above. At best the Fighter becomes a 4-level dip class for the Barbarian if you throw in PhB 2. Now, there are some battles a Fighter can do better than the Barb in, of course. A Spiked-Chain Fighter who trips a lot will be awesome at lower levels (e.g. justifies 4 levels of fighter). However, such tricks become less useful as you gain levels, due to spell effects, large and larger monsters, multi-legged creatures, and creatures that can't be tripped. There are plenty of places that have shown adepts about equal to Barbarians, so imho, I don't think I need to demonstrate that here much. If you really want me to, I'll do that later, but it would help if you gave me a fighter concept and a fighter build. Then I'll make an martial adept that generally outdoes the fighter (particularly past level 4). So, because spellcasters are broken and overpowered, fighters suck? And doesn't this play into your argument above that state's, if a class is overpowered, then it doesn't fairly apply to the class =class + more argument? My comment on casters was separate from my comments on fighters. I merely meant to express my agreement with others on this thread that casters need to be toned down (and imho, warrior-types need to be toned up a bit). -Drachasor
Drachasor 06-07-07, 03:46 PM	Which doesn't mean the Crusader is not mystical. A Crusader can very easily be made to not be mystical at all. He generally has no magical abilities. As I said above too, you can not do healing abilities if that chaffs you too much. Most Devoted Spirit stuff is not mystical in any sense. Half of this is just an issue of how you flavor your character. Beyond this, Fighters and Barbarians are the only non-mystical warriors in the PHB. Rangers and Paladins are both quite magical. Given that, it seems just fine the Warblade is distinctly non-magical, and the Crusader can go either way. Naturally the Swordsage is distinctly mystical. That's about the same ratio as the PHB. In short, if you want non-mystical, make a Warblade or build/flavor a Crusader properly. Don't play a Swordsage anymore than you'd play a Gish, Paladin, or Ranger. Except fighter. You know, to get the Leap Attack, Formation Expert, Phalanx Fighting, Improved Shield Bash, Spring Attack, Cleave, etc. feats needed to pull off the stunts in the movie. I didn't see anyone healing anyone. Pretty much most wounds taken were fatal. All the soldiers seemed pretty capable of fighting (read: trained from birth), without someone inspiring them and suddenly giving them the power to fell a foe with one strike on a charge. And if they were using Stone Dragon, they would have lived. Period. Give me a 4th and 8th level fighter build for the 300, and I'll give you 4th and 8th level Crusader and Warblade builds that do it better. I think your lack of knowledge about ToB is really throwing you off here. -Drachasor
Alpha_Moose 06-07-07, 03:52 PM	In a game where people fling fireballs and can balance on clouds. Well, yeah. Arguing that the ToB classes are less realistic is wrong and pointless. I fail to see how 'I can only use this strike every other round' equals 'I have more tactical options'. It's more "I have five strikes and two stances that I can use in this combat". It's the same reason why spells allow more tactical options. Which doesn't mean the Crusader is not mystical. No, but they can be easily made to be non mystical without any reflavoring. Arguing reality anywhere in D&D can be pointless. I don't see why my human fighter that stands at 5'10 and weighs in at 210lbs. should be able to tackle a dragon by himself and slay it. But to some people... that's how it should work. And ToB gives that option. It also lets you do realistic stuff. Correct. And fighters can be made to be very effective. I never said otherwise. Except fighter. You know, to get the Leap Attack, Formation Expert, Phalanx Fighting, Improved Shield Bash, Spring Attack, Cleave, etc. feats needed to pull off the stunts in the movie. Which can be replicated better with maneuvers. I didn't see anyone healing anyone. Pretty much most wounds taken were fatal. This doesn't mean anything. Read what the PHB says about HP damage. Inspiring people to fight on and ignore their fatigue can equal healing HP. All the soldiers seemed pretty capable of fighting (read: trained from birth), without someone inspiring them and suddenly giving them the power to fell a foe with one strike on a charge. THIS IS SPARTA!!! Of course they were inspired and well trained. And if they were using Stone Dragon, they would have lived. Period. And if they had Boots of Teleporting the battle would have been vastly different too. Plus there is nothing in Stone Dragon that makes you immortal against a million soldiers. No, I don't see Crusader. I see high level fighters against low level warriors. You admitted earlier that you don't know much about ToB, so of course you don't see Crusaders. Achilles in Troy is a glory hog, so I can see the warblade's supposed motivation in Achilles' attitude. But what did he do? Spring Attacks (3 feats), Cleaves (2 feats), Leap Attacks (1 feat), Two-Weapon Fighting (1-3 feats), Phalanx Fighting (1 feat), Sunder (1 feat), Quickdraw (1 feat), Block Arrow (1 feat), Leadership (1 feat), Far Shot (1 feat), etc. I don't see anything in the movie that demands manuevers or stances. Just another high level fighter against low level enemies. Nothing demands maneuvers, but all of it can be done easier with maneuvers. Not really actually. How would a swordsage compel people to do an action simply by speaking to them? High bluff check. That can make people do crazy things. Also, I meant their fighting style. Jedi are more Swordsages/Psions. Or will his sword to his hand from 20' away? Returning enhancement or again Psion. Or block all incoming projectiles with his sword? Wall of Blades, Baffling Defense, or just fighting defensively.
Khan the Destroyer 06-07-07, 05:11 PM	Except you are commenting, now aren't you? Yes, because there are some things I do know :). It is true that any single maneuver can only be used once every other round. However, you can use one or more maneuvers one round, and the next round use one or more maneuvers, etc. Until you are out of maneuvers. So yeah, if you want very little variety in attacks, then the ToB isn't great at that. Fact is, ToB enforces variety and changing attacks by the maneuver system. One round you do one thing, the next round you do another. Like real fights, you don't do the some thing every round (in that sense it is more realistic than the traditional melee classes). And yet it fails at realism in other ways. Likewise, who says that each attack a fighter throws is the same? The Barbarian pretty much always has a better to-hit/damage than the Fighter. There's not much a Fighter can do here, given similar equipment. Fighter 1: Weapon Focus (+1 attack) Fighter 4: Weapon Specialization (+2 damage) Fighter 8: Melee Weapon Mastery (+3 attack, +4 damage) Fighter 9: Greater Weapon Focus (+4 attack, +4 damage) Fighter 12: Greater Weapon Specialization (+4 attack, +6 damage) Barbarian 1: Rage (+2 attack, +2-3 damage) Barbarian 11: Greater Rage (+3 attack, +3-4 damage) Barbarian 20: Mighty Rage (+4 attack, +4-6 damage) It's all right there. The only thing that can throw a wrench in it is the feat Reckless Rage. But we're talking a difference of +1. I don't consider +1 to be such a huge bonus to damage that you can ignore all of the combat feats the fighter gets. Rage comes pretty quickly for the Barbarian. I meant the actual bonuses. You have a +2 to those checks I mentioned, and it doesn't increase until level 11, and then again at level 20. And per day uses go up every 4 levels, which isn't very fast either. Generally any fighting styles the Fighter can develop are situational, and often no good against large or non-humanoid creatures (which covers a ton of enemies). Generally, this is false :). Maybe you should describe these guys, because I am not familiar with them. I find it odd you dismiss ToB when you don't even have it. I own ToB. When I said I wasn't familiar, I meant enough to know whether it was balanced or not, and whether it can do the job of a fighter plus more. I haven't actually played a ToB character to surpass a fighter, though I know the system. And I am not dismissing ToB, I am contending that it does not easily cover every archtype as others claim it does. As for the guys in the books, it's really simple. They're just very good warriors. All soldiers that fought in the Last War. And ToB gives that option. A straight-classed Martial Adept can solo dragons? Which can be replicated better with maneuvers. Can you show me please. This doesn't mean anything. Read what the PHB says about HP damage. Inspiring people to fight on and ignore their fatigue can equal healing HP. I have read what the PHB says about HP, but didn't find what you are referring to. Can you give me a page reference? It mentions nothing about fatigue or inspiration. It really just talks about damage, 'how much damage you can take before dropping', 'take lethal damage', 'as you take damage, you subtract that damage from your hit points', etc. It says what hit points represent: 1. The ability to take physical punishment and keep going. Literally, how many hits you can take. A character with more hit points will take more hits than another character. 2. The ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one. In other words, that 6 damage from the level 1 orc warrior's falchion attack kills the commoner and the warrior. It's a serious blow. That 6 damage tickled my 14th level fighter. It's a less serious blow. It also says 'Damage gives you scars, bangs up your armor, and gets blood on your tunic, but it doesn't slow you down until your current hit points reach 0 or lower.' So, your hit points go down when you take damage, and damage is a very real thing that can scar you or damage your armor. Not so much an intangible thing that throws your warrior in despair and causes him to lose his will to fight. Also, the only Crusader maneuver I see that doesn't mention 'knitting, mending, healing, or cleansing wounds' is Martial Spirit. I have no problem with interpreting it differently, but as it stands, the crusader actually heals wounds with bursts of energy after striking an enemy in combat that has a part of its alignment different than the crusader. That doesn't sound very mundane. THIS IS SPARTA!!! Of course they were inspired and well trained. Correct. But not in the way that White Raven does it. Inspiration was long speeches in between battles, as opposed to shouting out something and having everyone's combat potential suddenly increased. At least, that's how I saw it. A whole bunch of really well-trained soldiers may need inspiration to fight overwhelming odds, but not necessarily to beat individual warriors in combat. 'Adelphos, remember we fight for our country! We fight for our families! We fight for each other! I know you can defeat these guys! Remember, use the shield to block attacks and force an opening, then strike with your spear!' 'Um... thanks. I guess you didn't notice the 400 dead bodies I left in my wake. Remember, we trained together? I know how to kill people. Especially slaves.' And if they had Boots of Teleporting the battle would have been vastly different too. Plus there is nothing in Stone Dragon that makes you immortal against a million soldiers. No, not immortal. But DR/Adamantine against a bunch of foes that have no adamantine weapons and most likely don't deal that much damage? You could probably take a lot of hits. And considering the way they were slicing through the opposition, my reaction is that they wouldn't need to spam it every round. You admitted earlier that you don't know much about ToB, so of course you don't see Crusaders. Let me reiterate again, since this sowed some confusion. I don't know enough to call it balanced or unbalanced. Nothing demands maneuvers, but all of it can be done easier with maneuvers. What do you mean by easier? Easier to use, obtain, or implement? Or something else? I guess if I saw a ToB build that replicated a mundane warrior and had more tactical options than a fighter and did the job better and easier, I'd be convinced. I could try it myself, though I have no interest to ;). Note: This doesn't mean an actual example would sway my opinion about fighters. I still don't think that a class doing something better means another class can't do it or does it poorly. But in the face of a build I would actually have something to go on than just someone's claim.
Argaud 06-07-07, 05:26 PM	The Barbarian pretty much always has a better to-hit/damage than the Fighter. There's not much a Fighter can do here, given similar equipment. Rage comes pretty quickly for the Barbarian. If you find yourself fighting 3+ battles each day then Extra Rage is a great feat (easily trumping things like Weapon Focus or Weapon Specialization). Per day limits don't matter if your daily uses cover all the fights you have. Generally any fighting styles the Fighter can develop are situational, and often no good against large or non-humanoid creatures (which covers a ton of enemies). I agree on extra rage, but let's take a look at the Barbarian. At levels 1-10, the Barbarian gain's a +4 bonus to Strength when he rages. Any Barbarian worth his salt is going to be using a two-handed weapon, have weapon focus, and power attack. So that +2 to hit and damage (from strength). Assuming our Barbarian took Extra Rage at 1st level and is non-human, this is still better than anything the fighter can manage here. At level 3 the Barbarian can pick up Power Attack, and choose to turn +2 hit/+2 damage into +1 hit/+4 damage, outdoing the Fighter even at level 4 (and before level 4). Greater Weapon Focus at level 8 helps the Fighter a tiny bit, but there's still the +2 damage from increased strength on the Barbarian's side. At level 11 the Barbarian gets his improved rage, going to +3/+3, outdoing the fighter even more. With Greater Weapon Specialization, the Fighter is only at +1 to hit/+4 to damage relative to the raging Barbarian's +3 to hit/+3 to damage from rage (and he can turn that into +2 to hit/+5 to damage with Power Attack). In short, the Fighter is generally inferior in terms of raw power without the PhB 2. With that book, the Fighter does a lot better, I'll admit. He can grab Melee Weapon Mastery at 8th instead Greater Weapon Focus, and get a +2 hit/+2 damage, giving him a +2/+4 compared to a Barbarian's +2/+2. So with that it's closer to neck and neck. However, a lot of this is negated if the Barbarian takes 4 levels in Fighter, because then he can grab Melee Weapon Mastery and Weapon Specialization. Beyond that, Rage and Greater Rage are better than alternatives. (At 12th level the Barb 8/Fight 4 has +2/+2 raging and the fighter just has a comparative advantage of +1/+2). So largely even the PhB2 just makes the Fighter into a dipping class. Which is highly problematic, imho. This analysis was mostly correct until PHB2, but it is now obsolete. At level 8 the fighter can have Weapon Mastery and outclasses the barbarian in battle. The barbarian can't catch up until level 20. See. Lets assume a fighter and a barbarian have the same stats and same gear. That is, they are designed to be two-handed wielders high damage meleers. Notice the barbarian basically can't be anything else and be competitive, while the fighter can make a career of archery, chain-tripping, battlefield control, etc, etc. At first level, thanks to Extra Rage, the barbarian has +2/+3 to hit and damage and -2 AC basically all the time. The fighter has +1/+0 with focus, and another feat. The barbarian is clearly better. At level 4 the barbarian still has +2/+3 and -2AC, but the fighter now has +1/+2 and +2 to AC thanks to full plate (the barbarian can't afford mithril yet, so he uses a breastplate). 4 points more of AC kinda make the fighter look better already, but lets see a few levels late. At level 8 the barbarian still has +2/+3 and -2AC, and now he has DR 1/-, which helps a little. But the fighter has Weapon Mastery and is +3/+4, and still 4 points ahead in AC. The barbarian never catches up. By level 12 both have mithril fullplate and the barbarian closes the AC gap a bit, he also gained Greater Rage, but the fighter has Greater Focus and Greater Specialization and several other feats over the barbarian. It is +3/+4 -2AC with DR2/- against +4/+6 and 3 feats. Only at level 20 the barbarian catches up with Mighty Rage, but the fighter has Supremacy and 3 more feats. By level 20 the barbarian has been worse than the fighter for 12 levels out of 19. And this is just a brute fighter using a normal thw. The fighter can be much more. Class Abilities are generally more powerful than feats, by a good margin. A Fighter's feats don't equal the power of a Martial Adept's maneuvers. The martial adept gets more maneuvers than a Fighter gets feats. A Barbarian's class abilities are also quite solid, and again are more potent than any two feats of the Fighter. Feats just don't make up the deficit. I disagree. Some class features are powerful, like rage (which is actually 3 class features, since it scales twice) and are worth 4 or 5 feats. Other class features are basically feats, and others are useless and nobody would pick them as feats (trap sense... without search... giving bonus just to the weak ref save... in a class with so many hp). I demonstrated it above. At best the Fighter becomes a 4-level dip class for the Barbarian if you throw in PhB 2. Yeah, Barbarian 16/Fighter 4 is good. However Barbarian 2/Fighter 18 is far better, just check the numbers. So does that mean barbarian is a 2 level dip for fighter? I mostly agree with you in the ToB stuff, though. Those guys are the best meleers. The warblade in particular. However the warblade has some weak points: no ranged attack for one. Sucks when the enemy flies or can somehow stay out of melee. Not much of an issue at high level, when flight is easily available, but not nice earlier.
Alpha_Moose 06-07-07, 05:47 PM	A straight-classed Martial Adept can solo dragons? Well if they're wyrmlings, than yes. Can you show me please. Anything in White Raven or Devoted Spirit really. I remember that Tempest basically answered all of these questions in this thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=845366). I have read what the PHB says about HP, but didn't find what you are referring to. <snip> That doesn't sound very mundane. Again, Tempest answers these questions (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12367216&postcount=7)better than I could. Correct. But not in the way that White Raven does it. Inspiration was long speeches in between battles, as opposed to shouting out something and having everyone's combat potential suddenly increased. At least, that's how I saw it. A whole bunch of really well-trained soldiers may need inspiration to fight overwhelming odds, but not necessarily to beat individual warriors in combat. It can also be aids or commands shouted in the middle of a battle. "There's an opening over there! Strike Fast! No, not immortal. But DR/Adamantine against a bunch of foes that have no adamantine weapons and most likely don't deal that much damage? You could probably take a lot of hits. And considering the way they were slicing through the opposition, my reaction is that they wouldn't need to spam it every round. The DR only works after a strike, so there will be openings to hit them. Also, that's only higher level maneuvers. Beyond that, what says that they're not also using normal melee attacks? Also, the way that Crusaders recover can basically let them use the same 4 maneuvers over and over again. What do you mean by easier? Easier to use, obtain, or implement? Or something else? Easier in this sense is more for the player rather than the character. It requires less optimization and less books to obtain the same result. For Fighters you would need 3+ in order to do the things that ToB classes can with just their own +core. It also doesn't force you to plan out your entire character ahead of time. And you could just end up choosing maneuvers that seem cool, but you'll still be a competent party member. I guess if I saw a ToB build that replicated a mundane warrior and had more tactical options than a fighter and did the job better and easier, I'd be convinced. I could try it myself, though I have no interest to ;). Note: This doesn't mean an actual example would sway my opinion about fighters. I still don't think that a class doing something better means another class can't do it or does it poorly. But in the face of a build I would actually have something to go on than just someone's claim. I'm pretty sure that Tempest made a couple builds in the thread that I linked to. I might be able to make something, but really many maneuvers, even higher level ones, just amount to hitting harder, better, or faster.
Kratch 06-07-07, 05:47 PM	The Barbarian pretty much always has a better to-hit/damage than the Fighter. There's not much a Fighter can do here, given similar equipment. Barbarian holds a To hit advantage till level 8 at best. When Fighters have Weapon focus and melee weapon mastery (or are you talking about core only, where the martial adepts don't exsist as an alternative option to the barbarian, if your looking for a more tactical build?) Generally any fighting styles the Fighter can develop are situational, and often no good against large or non-humanoid creatures (which covers a ton of enemies). Take a look back at some of khans builds, there are a couple that can easily trip/bullrush/disarm things like the terrasque and titans. The whole, "size negates the fighters combat options" is not a solid fact as many would believe. Yes, size does give those builds hard times if they don't also adjust their gear for those purposes, but a dedicated tripper is gonna have gear to help him trip, he's dedicated. but let's take a look at the Barbarian. First off, I'd like to point out your comparing a barbarian with 3 feats against a fighter with 4. Last i checked, feats weren't class features of the barbarian and they were of fighters. Not saying you shouldn't use feats in your example, but don't pretend like the fighter doesn't have anything beyond weapon focus. At levels 1-10, the Barbarian gain's a +4 bonus to Strength when he rages. Any Barbarian worth his salt is going to be using a two-handed weapon, have weapon focus, and power attack. last i checked, weapon focus was pretty rare for a barbarian who wasn't multiclassing fighter4. but you don't actually use it in the bellow comparison, so it's a moot point. So that +2 to hit and damage (from strength). Assuming our Barbarian took Extra Rage at 1st level and is non-human, this is still better than anything the fighter can manage here. How about we say the fighter took power attack and cleave to get an extra attack every round or so. Or weapon focus and combat reflex's (again for more attacks per round. or maybe we can take combat expertise and improved trip, granting a +4 to hit and an AoO extra attack on almost anything we would encounter at level 1. Yup, Rage is definately a better option by far /sarcasm off PS: Your using a 2 handed weapon, you get +3 damage from that str (1.5 str bonus on 2HW) At level 3 the Barbarian can pick up Power Attack, and choose to turn +2 hit/+2 damage into +1 hit/+4 damage, outdoing the Fighter even at level 4 (and before level 4). Except our trip fighter took power attack at level 2 to turn some of that bonus to hit into bonus damage, say +2 of that into +4 damage, for a +2/+4 over the barbarians +2/+3. Seems by level 2 this fighter has the damage advantage. At level 3, when your taking PA, He'll Take weapon focus to make it +3/+4 to your +2/+3 (i'm asuming your using 2 handed weapon, your math was off). And virtually everything we face at this level is still easily vulnerable to trip. At level 4 he adds an additional +2 damage for +3/+6. Most things are still vulnerable, though we may be ecountering the occasional large +biped creature, though it's rare. Greater Weapon Focus at level 8 helps the Fighter a tiny bit, but there's still the +2 damage from increased strength on the Barbarian's side. Actually, level 8 has weapon mastery (which you acknowledge bellow). Unless we're talking strictly core, at which point i have to ask, without the martial adepts, does your argument on the fighters ability still stand?). At this point the fighter also has cleave and 1 other feat (Likely combat reflex's. you never said what your barbarian took at level 6 or 9, so it could go several ways, i'll assume weapon focus (you said it's a given) or cleave). So he has +5/+8 and an AoO+ over your +2/+3 (if you took cleave) or he has +5/+8 and potentially 2+ extra attacks every round or so over your +3/+3. granted, the barbarian has other things he can do... wait, not really, he does have a few other abilities, but they aren't really things he can do so much as modifiers (speed, trap sence, uncanny dodge). Oh, and at level 9 our fighter will take greater focus (i'll assume you take the other option you didn't take at 6) At level 11 the Barbarian gets his improved rage, going to +3/+3, outdoing the fighter even more. With Greater Weapon Specialization, the Fighter is only at +1 to hit/+4 to damage relative to the raging Barbarian's +3 to hit/+3 to damage from rage (and he can turn that into +2 to hit/+5 to damage with Power Attack). At this point, i'll assume the trip tactic isn't working so well and he hasn't been able to use it effectively and consistantly (it's not something i personally aggree with, but i don't need to, the fighter still holds his own without it now), his total bonus's without trip result in +4/+6 to the barbarians +4/+4.5 (assumeing weapon focus), and without retraining, both have a feat thats more or less useless (extra rage will rarely be needed, and improved trip is never usef... oh wait, thats still usefull some of the time. Sometimes PC's fight NPC's and large or smaller bipeds) In short, the Fighter is generally inferior in terms of raw power without the PhB 2. With that book, the Fighter does a lot better, I'll admit. He can grab Melee Weapon Mastery at 8th instead Greater Weapon Focus, and get a +2 hit/+2 damage, giving him a +2/+4 compared to a Barbarian's +2/+2. So with that it's closer to neck and neck. However, a lot of this is negated if the Barbarian takes 4 levels in Fighter, because then he can grab Melee Weapon Mastery and Weapon Specialization. Beyond that, Rage and Greater Rage are better than alternatives. (At 12th level the Barb 8/Fight 4 has +2/+2 raging and the fighter just has a comparative advantage of +1/+2). So largely even the PhB2 just makes the Fighter into a dipping class. Which is highly problematic, imho. I'd rather go fighter18/ barbarian2. Get weapon sup (and all the goodies it provides), +4/+6 from the fighter and +2/+3 more, for a total +6/+9, all in exchange for 1 feat (for level 20) and 1 feat (for extra rage) (plus he gets mobility and uncanny dodge and 3 more fighter feats on top of all his level feats). On the flip side, a Barb 16/ fighter 4 has +3/+4.5 from barb and +3/+4 from fighter for a total of +6/+8.5 (but no weapon sup goodies). Yes, Clerics are overpowered (as are most full casters). Clerics in particular are overpowered, because of everything they get. And yet, your the first person to really debate the fighter without jumping almost immediately to cleric. As you said earlier, just because one class is overpowered, doesn't mean another is underpowered or useless. I give you credit, your debatinging from a melee class vs melee class standpoint, which is a good thing. Your debating using multiple class's rather then a single one with 1 to 4 specific feats, which is a good thing. If the fighter is going to be proven inviable, it requires more then just the cleric argument, which is all that was ever used. That is why the pun pun fallacy came up (as a general aside, I personally don't think using the term pun pun fallacy is a good idea. it has caused a lot of confusion, and by using such an extreme, by way of the pun pun build, it has people focusing more on the use of pun pun then on whats actually being said by that fallacy. One ends up spending more time trying to explain it then actually deabating it's core meaning) Assuming a Cleric = Wizard + Stuff, then we know that these classes aren't balanced relative to each other. It could still be the case that both classes are overpowered, however. Afterall, we have only compared the classes to each other and haven't stated either class is balanced. In the same manner, assuming a cleric = fighter + stuff, we know that these class's aren't balanced relative to each other. but it could still be that nether of these class's is ether overpowered or underpowered.... Up until you, the only comparisons people would acknowledge were the comparisons between cleric and fighter, and usually they assume, with nothing but the comparison to support it, that the cleric is balanced and the fighter is not (that it's not even viable). The comparison is a poor method of determining a class's worth. Thats what we're trying to show (again, thats what the pun pun fallacy is trying to show, but everyone gets hung up on the pun pun and ignore the fallacy part) Balance is easy. An equal CR encounter, on average, should drain 20% of the party resources and everyone should contribute about equally in the fighter (ON AVERAGE). That's the basic principle the system sets up, stated in the DMG. On that basis should balance be determined. Now, is it easy to exactly tell if something is balanced or not? No, but you can make some general conclusions such as full-casters being overpowered (too many combat-ending spells for instance). On this basis I think one can safely conclude the Fighter is underpowered generally speaking. Your safe conclusion is not as safe as you'd like. Khan and Bob have been arguing from that very standpoint since "Any reason to have a fighter... Part1!", and they have made ample builds that are more then capable of dealing with, in one of several method (each of the builds has about 5-7 different options in combat), almost all potential encounters. numbers are almost always given in comparison to appropriate CR encounters. These comparisons are usually ignored for various reasons including gear (they generally have nothing special gear wise, just methods any melee class would need to shore up weakness's such as flying mobs, saves and stat boosters. 1 exception, one of the builds uses a relic, but khan later made a variant that didn't use it, and functioned more then adaquatly (think it lost +2-+3 on opposed rolls, tops)), not core, or assumptions that, dispite the numbers shown, it would fail to perform it's tricks because everyone says they can't, or that a cleric can function against those same CR encounters, and can do everything a fighter does and more (and we start right back at the begining). Class Abilities are generally more powerful than feats, by a good margin. A Fighter's feats don't equal the power of a Martial Adept's maneuvers. The martial adept gets more maneuvers than a Fighter gets feats. A Barbarian's class abilities are also quite solid, and again are more potent than any two feats of the Fighter. Feats just don't make up the deficit. I'll offer a comparison, based solely on class features (no level feats, ratial bonus or equipment (with a single noted exception)). I know your talking core only, but it gets a little more difficult to offer a quantifiable comparison for core only, simply because the feats vs class features are so different. But do note this comparison only uses PHB2 as a non-core book. Fighter with weapon focus, spec, greater focus, greater spec and melee weapon master, blind fighting, Combat focus, Combat Vigor and Combat stability This grants a fighter +4/+6 on attacks/damage which equals a barbarians rage with a 2HW Doesn't lose dex when fighting blind (almost equals uncanny dodge, the heavy armour proficiency generally covers the rest.) +4 on will saves to equal the barbarians bonus while raging Fast healing 4 (potential 52 HP's per combat) to offset some of the bonus HP's a barbarian gets while raging/D12HD +8 on grapple, trip, overrun, bull rush and disarm resists, this not only offsets a barbarians bonus from rage str, but doubles it. is better able to hit concealed opponents (blindfight) to compare with a barbarians better able to find concealed oponents (maxed out listen skill, note this assumes the skill points are spent on listen, and so those skill points spent are taken into account below) generall has 1 more AC, 3 more then a barbarian in a rage unless specific armours come in this is my one exception (A barbarian can take mythril full plate to gain two points of AC on the fighter, though he still remains equal while in a rage, in exchange, the fighter can take adamantine full plate to get 3 DR/-, putting the barbarian only 2DR/- points up on him.) (note, i don't personally allow non-proficient armour to be worn without the penalty just because it's mythril, however, it is the general consensus of these boards that it's allowed, so i'll go by that interpretation) Fighter still has 2 feats left and +4 on most opposed combat checks vs the Barbarian's trap sence, 10 ft of move, 2DR, 1 skill point (the others been included into listen against the fighters blindfight), improved uncanny dodge and about 50 or so HP's. If the fighter were to take weapon supremacy and heavy armour specialization (trading out his adamantine armour for mythril too) as his last 2 feats, he would now have: Take 10 on any one attack/round, +5 to any itterative attack roll, +3 AC, +4 on most opposed rolls (+8 vs disarm) and the ability to attack while grappled vs the barbarians Trap sence, 1 skill point/level (or maxed survival skill), 10 ft of move, DR3/-, improved uncanny dodge and about 50 HP's ( i personally think the +3 AC of the fighter (typically 1 hit per round) equals out the DR3/- and some/all of those extra 50 HP's (depending on the legth of the fight)) So i don't really see where the barbarian is coming out on top, and note, this isn't an optimal fighter build, it is simply built to closely emulate a barbarian, but if i really wanted to be like a barbarian, i'd play a barbarian. You may choose to mention feats that synergize with the rage abilities, but the fighter has, in exchange for the option to get feats that boost a class feature, the virsitility to make any number of different builds that catter to any number of different combat or play styles. I also am not very familiar with the martial adepts. But i'm pretty sure you've said along the way, barbarian and adepts are about on par, so if my above comparison shows the fighter and barbarian about on par, it stands to reason that ether the fighter and adept are also on par, or you were incorect about the barbarian adept. I demonstrated it above. At best the Fighter becomes a 4-level dip class for the Barbarian if you throw in PhB 2. Now, there are some battles a Fighter can do better than the Barb in, of course. A Spiked-Chain Fighter who trips a lot will be awesome at lower levels (e.g. justifies 4 levels of fighter). However, such tricks become less useful as you gain levels, due to spell effects, large and larger monsters, multi-legged creatures, and creatures that can't be tripped. Khan has built several builds that don't suffer many/if any problems from many huge + multilimbed creatures (or collassal bipeds) or smaller. Against the gargantuan/collassal+multilimbed/immune creatures, the fighter loses use of 1 (ONE) feat. He still has the rest of his 17/18 feats to make use of. There are plenty of places that have shown adepts about equal to Barbarians, so imho, I don't think I need to demonstrate that here much. If you really want me to, I'll do that later, but it would help if you gave me a fighter concept and a fighter build. Then I'll make an martial adept that generally outdoes the fighter (particularly past level 4). Khan has about 6-10 earlier in this thread. Does he then get the chance to go through your build and make a fighter that outdoes your adept that outdoes him?
Bob Loblaw 06-07-07, 06:49 PM	I keep reading how people think the barbarian is better than the fighter until you go outside Core. Here are two very similar builds. I even made sure that they had similar armors and weapons (pick whatever two-handed weapon you like, I like greataxes). They both look very similar to each other. Fighter Level Feat C1 Weapon Focus F1 Power Attack F2 Dodge C3 Toughness F4 Weapon Spec C6 Iron Will F6 Cleave F8 Greater Weapon Focus C9 Toughness F10 Improved Critical Str: 16 Dex: 14 Con: 14 Int: 12 Wis: 10 Cha: 8 Attack: +10+2+3=15 Damage: +5+2=7 AC (Adamantine Full Plate): 10+9+1=20, DR 3/- HP: 10+5.5*8+Con+Toughness=85.5 Fort: 7+2=9 Ref: 3+2=5 Will: 3+0+2=5 Barbarian (values in parentheses are raged) Level Feat C1 Weapon Focus C3 Power Attack C6 Cleave C9 Improved Critical Str: 16 (20) Dex: 14 Con: 14 (18) Int: 12 Wis: 10 Cha: 8 Attack: +10+3+1= +14 (+16) Damage: +5 (+7) AC (Mithril Full Plate): 10+9+1=20 (18), DR 2/-- HP: 12+6.5*9+Con=90.5 (110.5) Fort: 7+2=9 (11) Ref: 3+2=5 Will: 3=3 (5) They are about the same. The only difference is the Fighter has better AC and Damage Reduction and the Barbarian has more hit points. Those two should balance each other out.
navar100 06-07-07, 07:15 PM	I am not sure about the crusader, I know the power of the warblade, tho :) With Stone Dragon discipline the Crusader can dish out good damage. Even Devoted Spirit has a few damage maneuvers and not just against opposing alignment. Warblades outdamage Crusader because other maneuvers allows better damage. They can deal +100 damage at the upper end, but Warblade can also use two-weapon the way they were "meant" to be, i.e. use both weapons without penalty to hit and use both even when had moved. Crusaders, though, outlast Warblade. Warblade have d12 HD, which is good, but Crusaders have generally a better AC because of armor and shield (if desired) as well as their steely resolve. Devoted Spirit provides healing while damaging bad guys. Crusader and Warblade both have access to the DR manuevers of Stone Dragon I consider Crusader=Warblade in overall strength of power. Warblade is more popular, though.
Scion of Coldshard 06-07-07, 07:36 PM	Since apparently looking at builds is what I do lately ;) Fighter Level Feat C1 Weapon Focus F1 Power Attack F2 Dodge C3 Toughness F4 Weapon Spec C6 Iron Will F6 Cleave F8 Greater Weapon Focus C9 Toughness F10 Improved Critical Str: 16 Dex: 14 Con: 14 Int: 12 Wis: 10 Cha: 8 Attack: +10+2+3=15 Damage: +5+2=7 AC (Adamantine Full Plate): 10+9+1=20, DR 3/- HP: 10+5.5*8+Con+Toughness=85.5 Fort: 7+2=9 Ref: 3+2=5 Will: 3+0+2=5 Looks decent. I am glad you left off race as well. I could just be missing it but why is the damage +5+2? Str +3*1.5=+4, +2 weapon spec, did I miss something? AC is 10 +8 (adamantine full plate) +1 (dex) = +19, +1 for dodge target Skill points: 3*13 [Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Ride (Dex), and Swim (Str)] Movement: 20' Armor check penalty: -5 Barbarian (values in parentheses are raged) Level Feat C1 Weapon Focus C3 Power Attack C6 Cleave C9 Improved Critical Str: 16 (20) Dex: 14 Con: 14 (18) Int: 12 Wis: 10 Cha: 8 Attack: +10+3+1= +14 (+16) Damage: +5 (+7) AC (Mithril Full Plate): 10+9+1=20 (18), DR 2/-- HP: 12+6.5*9+Con=90.5 (110.5) Fort: 7+2=9 (11) Ref: 3+2=5 Will: 3=3 (5) Damage: +4 (+7) AC (Mithral full plate): 10 +8 (mithral full plate) +2 (dex) = 20 (18) Skill points: 5*13 [Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Listen (Wis), Ride (Dex), Survival (Wis), and Swim (Str)] Movement: 30' Armor check penalty: -2 I would personally switch the int and the wis on the barbarian though. He already has 4 a level so the extra point of will-power along with increased wisdom based skill checks is a better option. The fighter is also currently spending 6,000 gp more than the barbarian which should be accounted for in some way. At level 10 each character is only supposed to have 49,000 gp worth of gear so 6,000 is a significant fraction of that (about 12%).
Kratch 06-07-07, 07:48 PM	Scion, the barbarian doesn't have the dodge feat, but you gave him the dodge bonus.
Scion of Coldshard 06-07-07, 07:56 PM	Scion, the barbarian doesn't have the dodge feat, but you gave him the dodge bonus. edited out ;) I was converting the 19's over and forgot to recheck.
Bob Loblaw 06-07-07, 07:59 PM	Looks decent. I am glad you left off race as well. Making them as close to identical as possible seemed like they should have the same race. I could just be missing it but why is the damage +5+2? Str +3*1.5=+4, +2 weapon spec, did I miss something? Yes, you forgot to account for my bad math skills. If you use your math, then everything comes out the way it's supposed to. The good news is that I did the same thing on the barbarian so everything is still the same. AC is 10 +8 (adamantine full plate) +1 (dex) = +19, +1 for dodge target That's what I did. Sometimes I just put the Max Dex in with the Armor so I don't forget it as I'm adding things up. Skill points: 3*13 [Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Ride (Dex), and Swim (Str)] I skipped skill points since the previous posts were all about combat. Movement: 20' If we account for movement, then everyone only gets a single attack action each round. That's going to bring us right back to where we were. Armor check penalty: -5 Since I have no skills, I have no penalty ;). I skipped this part on purpose. Damage: +4 (+7) AC (Mithral full plate): 10 +8 (mithral full plate) +2 (dex) = 20 (18), +1 dodge target See above. Skill points: 5*13 [Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Listen (Wis), Ride (Dex), Survival (Wis), and Swim (Str)] See above. Movement: 30' See above. Armor check penalty: -2 See above. I would personally switch the int and the wis on the barbarian though. He already has 4 a level so the extra point of will-power along with increased wisdom based skill checks is a better option. I was making them as close to identical as possible for the arguments given above. If I were building either one for actual play, I would make several changes. The fighter is also currently spending 6,000 gp more than the barbarian which should be accounted for in some way. At level 10 each character is only supposed to have 49,000 gp worth of gear so 6,000 is a significant fraction of that (about 12%). True, but for the sake of the comparison, I was assuming they would have similar combat gear.
Scion of Coldshard 06-07-07, 08:19 PM	Making them as close to identical as possible seemed like they should have the same race. Different races can favor different classes though. Leaving them out entirely from a class comparison is generally a good thing. That's what I did. Sometimes I just put the Max Dex in with the Armor so I don't forget it as I'm adding things up. But they had different max dex's while your numbers were the same. I find it easier to write out each along with the source and type, that makes it easier later on to see where the bonuses are coming from and see which apply to what. Checking for touch AC is a lot easier that way although I didnt put it up and should have. Fighter touch AC: 11 (12 vs dodge target) Barbarian touch AC: 12 (10 while raging) I skipped skill points since the previous posts were all about combat. Skills can be important in combat and before combat though. The difference between your opponents having a surprise round or not could come down to a listen or spot check. Being able to charge an enemy might mean making a balance or jump check, which can be very important. If we account for movement, then everyone only gets a single attack action each round. That is certainly not true. Movement is important in combat for seeing what you can and cannot do in a given round. For instance, the Fighter here can charge up to 40' while the Barbarian can charge up to 60'. That can mean the difference in one round of getting up to the enemy and standing there or getting up to the enemy and attacking them. I was making them as close to identical as possible for the arguments given above. If I were building either one for actual play, I would make several changes. I understand that but moving those two stats around could be done for both if you like. It will mean 2 skill points a level for the fighter and 4 for the barbarian but you could put the numbers up for each still. The barbarian has little to no reason to put the 12 in int while the fighter might want it there to get combat expertise someday or to get those extra skill points. True, but for the sake of the comparison, I was assuming they would have similar combat gear. Which is very good, I definately approve! But at this level 6,000 gp worth of gear is a very large difference so their gear isnt really the same. If it was only a few hundred I would mind a whole lot less, but 6,000 gp is not pocket change here. With the extra money the barbarian could get a +2 dex boosting item and a least iron ward diamond (MIC) and make his weapon masterwork and still have money left over. I know with full gear it would not be as easy to get bonuses like that for as cheap because they would already be bought but the point still stands. At the very least the fighter is unlikely to get a +2 dex boosting item while the barbarian might and it still puts the barbarian under the amount of gold that the fighter used so it should be a reasonable addition.
Bob Loblaw 06-07-07, 08:28 PM	Scion, in the end though, do you agree that there is really little difference between the 10th level barbarian and 10th level fighter built in a similar manner sticking to Core? I know that I can do quite a bit more to make the classes operate differently, I was just trying to use the same feats and similar build that they were discussing. Personally, I don't think I'd build either character like that.
Scion of Coldshard 06-07-07, 08:33 PM	I'd rather play the barbarian. He moves faster, is more able to pick up a random new weapon and use it about as effectively before, has more skills and skill points, plus if I really need some feats I still have the option of levels 1 and 2 of fighter which grant the most feats in the quickest amount of time (core only). Oh, and I dont have to worry about the stupid dodge feat ;/ But of course that is only my personal opinion about which of these two guys I would pick to play ;)
Khan the Destroyer 06-08-07, 12:10 AM	Well if they're wyrmlings, than yes. That's more like it ;). Anything in White Raven or Devoted Spirit really. Well, I guess I'll go flip through the book then and check on your unsubstantiated claims ;). I remember that Tempest basically answered all of these questions in this thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=845366). I read a little of that thread and it was basically touching on historical stuff, explaining how ToB draws on varying elements of different cultures and isn't limited to anime influence. I didn't see anything explaining 300 though, and I'm not motivated enough to wade through that thread to find it. Again, Tempest answers these questions (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12367216&postcount=7)better than I could. Well, with all due respect to Tempest, he doesn't determine how the game is played. What he describes is certainly a part of the hit point mechanic, but not all of it. You don't get scars from blocking attacks. Again, I don't think his interpretation is false, but simply incomplete. Consider this example: With conviction guiding his hand, Sir Varic struck the dreaded lich with his holy blade, crying 'To Victory!!' Ten paces away, Sir Leoric, having recently been downed by an orc, stirred back to consciousness, grabbed his longsword, and re-entered combat. 'My', he says to Varic, 'your words are moving.' It can also be aids or commands shouted in the middle of a battle. "There's an opening over there! Strike Fast! Agreed. The DR only works after a strike, so there will be openings to hit them. Also, that's only higher level maneuvers. What level crusaders would you consider them? Beyond that, what says that they're not also using normal melee attacks? Also, the way that Crusaders recover can basically let them use the same 4 maneuvers over and over again. I do think they're using normal attacks. I'm pretty sure that Tempest made a couple builds in the thread that I linked to. I might be able to make something, but really many maneuvers, even higher level ones, just amount to hitting harder, better, or faster. Well, that thread is 47 pages long. I guess I'll just have to take your word for it.
Alpha_Moose 06-08-07, 12:29 AM	Well, I guess I'll go flip through the book then and check on your unsubstantiated claims ;). Well, my point was that the whole schools basically did that. Well, with all due respect to Tempest, he doesn't determine how the game is played. What he describes is certainly a part of the hit point mechanic, but not all of it. You don't get scars from blocking attacks. But even then it's still weird. A commoner can be stabbed to within an inch of his life, and then pop back (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/skillsAll.html#heal) within two days of rest. You don't heal from scars with no lasting effects that quickly. Again, I don't think his interpretation is false, but simply incomplete. Consider this example: With conviction guiding his hand, Sir Varic struck the dreaded lich with his holy blade, crying 'To Victory!!' Ten paces away, Sir Leoric, having recently been downed by an orc, stirred back to consciousness, grabbed his longsword, and re-entered combat. 'My', he says to Varic, 'your words are moving.' Yeah, well of course that sounds weird if you say it that way. I mean, this guy over here jumps up and down while eating bat guano, then suddenly another enemy bursts into flames. Or the Rogue can stand in a 5ft room and dodge a 50ft blast radius. Or the Ranger can pimp-slap you without you being able to see him, but only if your standing on grass. What level crusaders would you consider them? I do think they're using normal attacks. Well that movie was weird in general. Good, but not at all realistic. They might be level.... um setefifteen? Well, that thread is 47 pages long. I guess I'll just have to take your word for it. Yeah, I'm not willing to go back though that thread either... meh.
Leo 06-08-07, 06:32 AM	Is it too hard to believe that Sir Vaarick has 3 arrows in his kidneys, 3 cuts of axe over his body, a javelin over his left arm and he's still standing and fighting? It makes things that much simple(and funny). Like in the other day my character was struck with over 50 arrows from low level enemies, 14 hit me, 3 were critical and I still had half my life, so everyone joked how my character claimed that it wasn't as bad as it looked when I had arrows pointing out of every inch of my body(can't forget the ones that were blocked by armor). Or when the fighter with insane HP charged against said group of low level enemis and after a few rounds and some critical hits from the oponents the Dm declared that the enemies would run away because he seemed more like a bloody dripping flesh golem than anything else.
Khan the Destroyer 06-08-07, 10:00 AM	But even then it's still weird. A commoner can be stabbed to within an inch of his life, and then pop back (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/skillsAll.html#heal) within two days of rest. You don't heal from scars with no lasting effects that quickly. The idea of getting wounded and healing naturally at least makes more sense to me than the idea that my warrior very rarely gets hit in combat but nonetheless can come close to dying simply by participating. Yeah, well of course that sounds weird if you say it that way. I mean, this guy over here jumps up and down while eating bat guano, then suddenly another enemy bursts into flames. Or the Rogue can stand in a 5ft room and dodge a 50ft blast radius. Or the Ranger can pimp-slap you without you being able to see him, but only if your standing on grass. Well then how would you explain it so it doesn't sound weird? Explain how a crusader's healing isn't actually mending wounds when he brings back one of his friends from the Dying condition with his attack. Or when he heals someone who's only damage is 17 points of acid damage from a black dragon's breath attack. Or, as Leo points out, explain how 7 successful arrow attacks against you is really just battle weariness and not actual injury. The idea has merits, but I don't think it's the only way we can treat hit point damage.
Scion of Coldshard 06-08-07, 10:24 AM	Or, as Leo points out, explain how 7 successful arrow attacks against you is really just battle weariness and not actual injury. If they were truly successful then you wouldnt be standing there anymore. What Hit Points Represent Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one. So a character is hit by 7 arrows and still standing. Some of those arrows were dodged just in time, leaving just a scratch and maybe a hole in your shirt. Others put a dent in the armor, possibly sticking there and poking you a little. A really big damage dealing hit might have hit and gone clean through you, but through sheer determination, training, experience, and a bit of luck it missed anything really important and you are able to keep going without it being a problem. In d&d land large wounds have a tendency to close on their own rapidly (ie escaping from a creatures stomach through its back closes up pretty quickly as long as it isnt dead). I will note that regeneration is an extraordinary ability so having a guy who looks a bit roughed up but is actually at a decent hp level (say via the crusaders aura) is not out of the question in line with d&d's idea of extraordinary abilities.
Clawhound 06-08-07, 12:21 PM	The game itself is a little contradictory on this. On one hand, the game says that hp are virtual, on the other hand, your curing spell are "cure wounds", which encourages the idea of physical damage. It works just as well to believe that you have divine favor. Your divine favor protects you. Your cleric uses "cure wounds" to give you more divine favor. When you are out of divine favor, you take lethal damage and go down.
Zilvar 06-08-07, 12:33 PM	The game itself is a little contradictory on this. On one hand, the game says that hp are virtual, on the other hand, your curing spell are "cure wounds", which encourages the idea of physical damage. It works just as well to believe that you have divine favor. Your divine favor protects you. Your cleric uses "cure wounds" to give you more divine favor. When you are out of divine favor, you take lethal damage and go down. I just failed my will save to avoid getting dragged into another hit point argument! :) No, it doesn't work just as well. It's not internally consistent, and it does nothing to address the need to make saving throws when you take damage. Nor does it fit the text the Scion posted in any fashion.
Khan the Destroyer 06-08-07, 12:57 PM	It really isn't consistent. It seems easier to consider successful weapon attacks as grazes and the like (though I disagree that's what they always are), but what about other types of damage? Like a breath weapon, or a wizard's lightning bolt, or any other sort of extraordinary damage? What about sneak attack damage? You're hitting a vital spot. If a punch to the face deals me nonlethal damage, how does blocking an attack deal me lethal damage?
Scion of Coldshard 06-08-07, 01:12 PM	While nonlethal damage is kindof crazy I dont see anything inconsistant with regular damage. A more experience character is able to shrug off lesser blows to a greater degree, they know just how to move to minimize the impact, they get better at knowing where good places are to be to take less damage from the opponents fireball (some even get so good at it that they can avoid the damage entirely, now that is talent!). I dont care much for how quickly characters in the early levels gain this ability though. I would greatly prefer everyone to start off with a lot more hp than they do now if they are going to gain as much as they do per level and to work the system around that. All in all though, a 20th level guy getting 'hit' by a sword and a 1st level guy getting 'hit' by a sword is going to have a very different result from an in game perspective. Both characters take 20 points of damage, the 1st level guy just cant soak that kind of a hit and is knocked unconscious and bleeding while the higher level guy has had that sort of wound before, he moved his softer bits just off to the side far enough to not have to worry as much about what did get hit and he was able to move a little farther out of the way than a person of lesser skill could have. Result: 1st level guy goes from 12 to -8, 20th level guy goes from 250 to 230, the 20th level guy is likely smiling at such a pitiful showing of force while the 1st level guy is wishing he had been a librarian instead of an adventurer.
Zilvar 06-08-07, 01:29 PM	IMO, Scion's on the right track. The trap I've seen a lot of people fall into is assuming that X points of damage should describe a specific type of wound and that said wound should be specific across all characters. Damage doesn't appear to work like that. From the PHb section on hit points, damage and hit points represent proportional chunks of life. Honestly, one of the few places I see as being inconsistent is the naming of the cure spells. A LIGHT wound isn't one that can take a commoner from -9 to 4 hp in a single cast. He was nearly dead! :)
xanadu 06-08-07, 02:29 PM	You've got to hand it to the pro-fighter crowd. They love to tout the fighter's versatility and adaptability to whatever unexpected combat situation they find themselves in because of their Feats. Yeah! We're Great! Yet, when they feel threatened by the barbarian's seemingly obvious rage bonuses, they throw all that versatility and adaptability out the window by tying themselves down to a single weapon to squeeze out an equivalence. So the barbarian can damage, sunder, trip, etc. just as well as the fighter by picking up a large stick from the ground as the fighter can with his unique special weapon he has 8 feats invested in?
Clawhound 06-08-07, 03:00 PM	Please design me a barbarian that's a comparable archer, light weapon fighter, or defensive fighter. I am sure that you can. Now, design one that does all three. I don't think that you can do this, but I could always get surprised. If a fighter puts four feats into each of these area, he still has six feats to allocate.
Drachasor 06-08-07, 05:12 PM	Well, I'll concede that with the PhB 2 the fighter can do comparable damage to the Barbarian (and in some cases better). The Barbarian is more versatile however, in that he can use more weapons without suffering a significant (or perhaps any) hit in combat ability. A Fighter, to be effective, has to tie himself to one particular weapon. So the Fighter then can't be used for some concepts such as a weapons master (of multiple weapons) effectively. Other classes do that better (Barbarian and Warblade), generally speaking. I will say that the Fighter's choices of skills is awful, and a built fighter DOES lack versatility. You have lots of options when creating a fighter, but once you build him you have trimmed your options down tremendously. It is also bad design, for the fighter, to require you to shift through many, many books to make the character you want. I don't believe anyone showed an example of a 300-esque fighter, and that's probably because it would take a long time to find all the right feats. Here's an example of a Warblade that's 300-esque: Warblade Level 4 AC: 20 (minimum) 21 when in White Raven Stance and adjacent to ally 22 when in White Raven Stance and adjacent to ally in White Raven Stance Typical AC: 22 Attack: +8 1d8+3 Str: 16 Dex: 14 Con: 14 Int: 12 Wis: 10 Cha: 8 Equipment: Breastplate, Heavy Shield, MW Longsword, MW Shortspear* (or 'rapier' that looks like a spear, given that D&D spears are crap compared to 300 spears, imho) *There's a problem here, admittedly. IMHO, White Raven should have some spears or similar weapon as a discipline weapon. Only because as written, it is always better to use a longsword, which doesn't fit with the movie (especially since White Raven Defense works with longswords). Feats: Stone Power, Cleave, White Raven Defense (+1 AC when White Raven Stance and adjacent to ally, allies get +1 AC if you are also using white raven weapon -- longsword) Special Abilities: Int Bonus to Reflex Saves, Weapon Aptitude, Uncanny Dodge, Int bonus to confirm criticals Maneuvers 1st Level Leading the Attack (Allies gain a +4 bonus on attacks against foe you strike) Sapphire Nightmare Blade (Opponent Flat-Footed, +1d6 damage with concentration check) Stone Bones (Gain DR 5/adamantine) 2nd Level Wall of Blades (Replace AC with attack roll, counter) Emerald Razor (Turn melee weapon strike into touch attack) Stances Leading the Charge (Allies deal +1 damage/initiator level on charge attacks) Blood in the Water (Gain +1 bonus on attacks/damage for each critical hit) Typical Weapon Used: Longsword (sadly, since spears are awful) Typical Stance readied: White Raven stance typically, since this enables White Raven Defense. Maneuvers readied: Wall of Blades, Emerald Razor, Steel Wind, Leading the Attack This build has huge defensive abilities, so they can easily outlast the enemy. Stone Power used for 4 each round means they have 8 Temporary Hit Points each round to soak damage. They take a -4 penalty to attacks. However, Emerald Razor is a touch attack, and Leading the attack gives allies a +4 bonus to hit an enemy. This allows them to recoup or mollify the penalty on Stone Power. Level 4 "grunts" won't do a lot of damage here (except when charging), but they do outlast the enemy. I suppose Power Attack might make some sense, though with a one-handed weapon it isn't so great. There are some other ways to set this up, but this basically works. You could change things around a bit so they deal more damage (replace Emerald Razor with Tactical Strike -- +2d6 damage, adjacent allies move 5 ft). A level 4 Crusader can also work even better: Crusader Level 4 AC: 20 (minimum) 24 effective against melee attacks (Iron Guard's Glare) 30 (shield block used on ally) Attack: +8 1d8+3 +9 1d8+4 (Steely Resolve has damage in it) +10 +1d8+5 (Steely Resolve has more than 5 damage in it) +8 +1d8+3+2d6 (Mountain Hammer) Str: 16 Dex: 14 Con: 14 Int: 12 Wis: 10 Cha: 8 Equipment: Breastplate, Heavy Shield, MW Longsword, MW Shortspear* (or 'rapier' that looks like a spear, given that D&D spears are crap compared to 300 spears, imho) *There's a problem here, admittedly. IMHO, White Raven should have some spears or similar weapon as a discipline weapon. Only because as written, it is always better to use a longsword, which doesn't fit with the movie (especially since White Raven Defense works with longswords). Feats: Stone Power, Cleave, Extra Readied Maneuver Special Abilities: Furious Counterstrike (up to +2 attack/damage depending on damage in Steely Resolve pool), Steely Resolve 10 (10 points of damage each round is delayed until the end of the next, with Stone Power, this means damage can be soaked up by temporary hitpoints), Indomitable Soul (Charisma to will save), Zealous Surge (reroll a save 1/day). 1st Level Vanguard Strike (Allies gain +4 bonus on attacks against target) Stone Bones (Gain DR 5/adamantine) Leading the Attack (allies gain +4 bonus on foes you strike) Charging Minataur (Bull Rush, deals damage, ignores AoO) 2nd Level Mountain Hammer (+2d6 damage, overcome DR and hardness) Shield Block (grant shield bonus +4 as an ac bonus to an ally, counter -- stacks all ac bonuses) Stances Iron Guard's Glare (opponents you threaten take -4 penalty on attacks on allies) Leading the Charge It is incredibly hard to hit these guys. They have a basic AC of 24 (10 + 6 (Breastplate) + 2 (Dex) + 4 (Iron Guard's Glare) + 2 (Heavy Shield). It can go up to 30 when the shield block counter is used against an attack. Also, they can stone power if appropriate, and have a lot of ways to gain bonuses to-hit. And the Warblade/Crusader can be built in totally different ways. Generally a lot more flexible than the Fighter, and it can easily fill a lot more archetypes (without a lot of work). So, is the fighter useless? Certainly not. Especially with the PhB 2, he can do well. Is the fighter needed? IMHO, the class is not needed at all, provided you have ToB. (I'd add that the Barbarian isn't needed either). The various archetypes are generally done better by other classes, particularly ToB ones. -Drachasor
Scion of Coldshard 06-08-07, 05:44 PM	Please design me a barbarian that's a comparable archer, light weapon fighter, or defensive fighter. I am sure that you can. Now, design one that does all three. I don't think that you can do this, but I could always get surprised. Wolf totem, whirling frenzy, brutal throw, 5 ranks in tumble ;) The only problem is getting decent thrown weapons. I am not sure why WotC seems so incredibly against decent thrown weapon abilities.
navar100 06-08-07, 05:48 PM	You've got to hand it to the pro-fighter crowd. They love to tout the fighter's versatility and adaptability to whatever unexpected combat situation they find themselves in because of their Feats. Yeah! We're Great! Yet, when they feel threatened by the barbarian's seemingly obvious rage bonuses, they throw all that versatility and adaptability out the window by tying themselves down to a single weapon to squeeze out an equivalence. So the barbarian can damage, sunder, trip, etc. just as well as the fighter by picking up a large stick from the ground as the fighter can with his unique special weapon he has 8 feats invested in? The fighter doesn't have to tie himself down with one weapon. It is true if he uses a weapon he's not specialized in he'll have a little less to hit and damage than a barbarian, but the fighter can also be a very good archer, and a very good charger, and very good cavalry. The barbarian can take feats to make himself a good archer, or a good charger, or a good cavalry too. What he can't to, like the fighter can, is be able to have all of them. The fighter can have more combat tactical options than the barbarian.
Kalarus 06-08-07, 06:41 PM	Kalarus, if you were a Pokemon, I'd choose you every time. Nice post. Hehe, I doubt I'd like living in a pokeball, but thanks ;) Anyways, since I spent a night with my girlfriend I missed the oppertunity to reply to a few things, so here's an attempt to catch up. This is the problem that a lot of us have, if for example every, or even a majority, of classes are better at fighting than the fighter then that would mean that the fighter is likely poorly designed. The method you mention below, lowering the power level till everything is that weak, is the communist method of equality. Dear gods this one made me laugh. "The communist method of equality"? Is that supposed to cast the comment into some preconcieved negative light? This is D&D, not an economic system. You don't gain some form of objective wealth by upping everything to CoDZilla powerlevel. You don't lose some form of objective wealth by degrading everything to Fighter level. That prevalent notion of "more powerful is better" shines through here again. I thought we were beyond that by now. My bad. Let's play Pun-pun! The so-called Pun-Pun fallacy is technically true, but it is also misleading. It is true that Class A = Class B + Stuff Y doesn't mean Class B is deficient. However, this is only the case when Class A is overpowered (e.g. Pun-Pun). Since we're looking for some idea of balance, this can be assumed as true. However, who decides what is overpowered? For "Pun-pun", I could easily fill in "Cleric", since I feel that a PC class that can suggest another PC class to be fully deficient, is definitely not balanced in a class-comparative situation. It might be balanced in a monster-comparative situation, but that's no problem for Pun-pun Fallacy (since it doesn't touch that at all). IMHO, for example, the Martial Adepts are balanced and also a Martial Adept can do the job of a fighter AND more. Similarly, a Barbarian can largely do a fighter's job, but do it better. Now the fighter still has some advantages as a dip class. It CAN help you get into some PrCs, but then we are just saying the first few levels of Fighter are worthwhile -- the class AS A WHOLE need a lot of improvement. Most of the people I see here posting about Wizards claim that the Wizard class is 6 levels long, then you go into some PrC that gives spellcasting advancement every level. So why don't I hear people saying that Wizards "as a whole" need a lot of improvement? I hardly think PrCing is a good measurement for any class, very few good builds refrain from any multiclassing whatsoever. I even multiclassed my Fighter. I dipped a level of Barbarian. The answer to the question, by the way, is only that people are in agreement that Wizards are a powerful class even without PrCing and that they do not agree on this concerning the Fighter. It is exactly that idea which people here are trying to dispel. I can't comment on Martial Adepts still because I don't and likely never will own the ToB. The games I am in have too many options for me to try as it is and I really don't think some of the less rule-minded people in my groups need more mechanics to understand. Given that Fighters have no trouble contributing either, ToB might even be overkill. To sum up/closing thoughts: I think there are several reason to take one class over another. One is usefulness/power. 99.9% (made up number) of the D&D population wants to have a character that is effective (e.g. contributes his part to the party). Another is taking a class to fulfill a particular theme or archetype (e.g. Samurai, Swashbuckler, Roman Gladiator, Feral Warrior, etc). A third thing taking a class that is fun to play. On these three criteria, I think the fighter is generally far inferior to the other options available (assuming, in particular, that Tome of Battle is available). I also think that in general, the Fighter is less than what it should be (e.g. underpowered). Even with the PhB2 I think the fighter is inferior on archetype, general usefulness (not power), and fun compared to other balanced options. Sadly none of this is easy to fix, so from my perspective as a DM* it is easier to ban the fighter and give ToB classes as the alternative than to fix the fighter. 1) Effectiveness. I noticed an interesting thing recently with my DM. As characters began to be more effectively designed, he increased the challenges to match. This for the reason that D&D becomes a lot less fun if you generally succeed at everything but the toughest challenges without breaking a sweat. If I were to play a Warblade instead of a Fighter (this seems to be the most common ToB/PHB comparison) the DM would simply make the encounter more difficult and we probably wouldn't even get more xp from it, since being more powerful myself I wasn't challenged more than usual either. He'd likely also have a chat with me about how my character effectively puts a lot of other partymembers on the spectator bench which isn't really contributing to the fun of the group. He'd be right, too. 2) Theme/Archtype. Good reason to pick a class really. I'm not sure why a Fighter is inferior here, given his bland flavor and high customization potential he can be build to fit any archetype you want. 3) *blinks* Fighters are less fun than other classes?? There's a lot of subjectiveness shining through here, I think Fighters are great fun. Apparently, you think they're not and that other options are more fun. That's fine, but that is not a problem inherent to the Fighter class. It isn't even a problem at all :) Ok Kalarus, I think that I get your point much better. Your saying that class comparison should not be the only factor when determining balance, and not even the main factor. Quite true. We shouldn't forget that we're not comparing classes in thin air, we're comparing classes that are part of a gaming system, and it is that system which makes demands of a class, rather than other classes. I should mention that by build I mean complete build. Also when I say that one class can invalidate another, I mean that it makes it a weaker redundant choice. As for what the designers were thinking, I meant mostly for new classes. I can't find a specific example, but I remember a mention of balancing a new class by comparing it to pre-existing classes. I know that we on the boards certainly do that when making new classes. I'm actually not that good at comparing classes, especially new ones, which is why I leave the build-proofs to more competent people like Khan or Bob and then rudely use them as examples in my arguments ;). I can run the numbers if I want to, I just... can't be bothered. If I design something I just get an idea in my head, pick skills/feats/abilities/spells that appeal to that idea and that seem most useful, end up with far too much, make a selection, and then see how it does in a game. Designers comparing classes to existing classes for balance has a nasty tendency to gradually increase the power level of a game. E.g., first we had PHB, then we got the first Complete series (Arcane, Divine, Adventurer, Warrior), which made many options in the PHB seem like kid's toys. Now we get the new Complete series (Mage, Scoundrel, Champion) that makes the old Complete series look like kid's toys. Every time new things are balanced against what was published before, and every time it's "a bit more powerful but still close enough to be balanced". Compare it to what we started out with instead, and it's not all that balanced at all. E.g., ToB as I understand it pretty much trumps the entirety of PHB melee classes. Am I now to believe that ToB was designed to be balanced with, e.g., the Fighter? Obviously homebrew does not have this problem, as homebrew is generally not compared to other homebrew but to published material, thus it does not experience this power growth. We're not discussing homebrew though, it wouldn't be doable and somebody's going to yell "Oberoni!" before we manage to have fun :P <Barbarian vs Fighter stuff> Going to be brief on this one: having ran the numbers myself recently a pure Barbarian only outshines the Fighter in pure hit/damage till the Fighter gets Melee weapon mastery, then the Fighter takes an advantage that only increases over time, as well as having more feats. So people counter this by saying the Barbarian could take 4 levels of Fighter to gain it instead. Of course this means you 1) Give up Mighty Rage but who cares about L20 anyway 2) Apparently feel that a Barbarian does not trump the Fighter because the Barbarian has to multiclass into Fighter to match a pure Fighter. Even then with matching numbers I'd consider a Fighter more practical and efficient because I believe feats to be more useful than most Barbarian class abilities. Only things I'd want from the Barbarian is DR (which is delayed by the 4+ Fighter levels the Barbarian took, so what gives?) and Indomitable Will (which, with at least 4 Fighter levels, the Barb would get at a whopping L18). So instead of dipping a Barbarian into Fighter, I dipped a Fighter a level of Barbarian. Now I have +10 movement and can rage against the BBEG. Good times. Anyways, it seems that a Fighter/Barbarian multiclass generally will do better than a pure Fighter or pure Barbarian. I don't really see a problem with this, in fact is is *nice* to see non-PrC classes actually have a good synergy that makes a multiclass character worth playing. I thought I was pretty clear. Class A = Class B + Stuff X DOESN'T inherently imply Class A or B sucks/is poorly balanced. It does mean that one of them is not balanced, however (depending on Stuff X, it might be poorly balanced). If A is balanced, then B is underpowered (lacks Stuff X). If B is balanced, then A is overpowered (has Stuff X beyond balance). However under- or over-powered depends on what Stuff X is, of course. You forgot the possibility that both are not balanced. What you say here really has nothing to do with balance, it just means that one class is more powerful than another and that the difference may or may not be significant. Given that we are working in the D&D gaming system, what is over- or underpowered is not merely decided by class balance. My point was that the Pun-Pun fallacy ignores the fact that just because there is a class more powerful than all others, doesn't mean that some classes aren't underpowered or useless in their own right. The Pun-Pun build is overpowered to the extreme. Saying that because one build is stupidly overpowered, therefore we shouldn't compare any classes is silly. I was with you till you started using the words "useless in their own right". The Pun-Pun fallacy ignores nothing, it does not ignore that classes might be underpowered because that was not the issue it was made to address. Or rather I suppose you could say that does mean that it ignores that issue, however that does not make the Pun-pun Fallacy false. The Pun-pun Fallacy is not the answer to every argument against the Fighter posted here. It is only the answer against the continual powerhunger that people seem to display. Pun-pun Fallacy does not claim the Fighter is not weaker than (some) other classes. It claims, effectively, that being weaker does not make a class useless in its own right. It does not claim the opposite is true, it does not say classes should never be compared, it simply rejects the silly assumption that a power comparison between classes is the end of it all. Yes, Clerics are overpowered (as are most full casters). Clerics in particular are overpowered, because of everything they get. A large part of why Wizards did this is a design problem -- it is hard to get healing. If healing was more common, then clerics could easily be toned down, because most people wouldn't think cleric = healbot. Assuming a Cleric = Wizard + Stuff, then we know that these classes aren't balanced relative to each other. It could still be the case that both classes are overpowered, however. Afterall, we have only compared the classes to each other and haven't stated either class is balanced. *reads up and is amused* That's not what you said a paragraph ago :D However since you already have the insight I refuted your earlier statement with we need not return there. Apparently you do agree that class comparison does not say anything about balance, only about their relative power. So, using a little substitution: Assuming a Cleric = Fighter + Stuff, then we know that these classes aren't balanced relative to each other. It could still be the case that both classes are overpowered, however. Afterall, we have only compared the classes to each other and haven't stated either class is balanced. So, by this reasoning, you are in agreement with the purpose of Pun-pun fallacy: you reject the assumed truth of the premise that if Class X does all Class Y can and more, Class Y is not viable. Balance is easy. An equal CR encounter, on average, should drain 20% of the party resources and everyone should contribute about equally in the fighter (ON AVERAGE). That's the basic principle the system sets up, stated in the DMG. On that basis should balance be determined. Now, is it easy to exactly tell if something is balanced or not? No, but you can make some general conclusions such as full-casters being overpowered (too many combat-ending spells for instance). On this basis I think one can safely conclude the Fighter is underpowered generally speaking. "Everyone should contribute about equally in the fighter"? :rofl: Freudian slip? :P I fully agree with your assesment of how we should try to balance classes. I just disagree with your conclusion. Bob's Core Fighter build handled paragon high level encounters admirably. Various other builds by Khan and Bob do even better, refuting all the standard "This is the only stuff you encounter at high levels and the Fighter does not work against this" claims. Even accepting that ridiculous statement, the claim it makes was disproven. Maybe you just play different games, in which the statement and its claim hold true. That's fine on a personal level, but not as a blanket statement about the Fighter's performance in D&D. <hitpoint discussion> Eh, this is still about the ToB class interpretations right? 'cause if it is I'm not touching this one... might not on a general principle :P Hitpoints is one of those things that generate headaches if you think too much about them. On one of the threads in the Classes forum someone recently mentioned the hp inconsistencies of bleeding. Basically, bleeding wounds would suggest that higher level characters have many times as much blood in them as lower level characters (compare how long it takes for a L15 fighter to bleed to death at 1 hp/round, while recieving a bleeding wound from the same source, compared to a commoner losing 1 hp/round). You've got to hand it to the pro-fighter crowd. They love to tout the fighter's versatility and adaptability to whatever unexpected combat situation they find themselves in because of their Feats. Yeah! We're Great! Yet, when they feel threatened by the barbarian's seemingly obvious rage bonuses, they throw all that versatility and adaptability out the window by tying themselves down to a single weapon to squeeze out an equivalence. So the barbarian can damage, sunder, trip, etc. just as well as the fighter by picking up a large stick from the ground as the fighter can with his unique special weapon he has 8 feats invested in? You've got to hand it to xanadu... no wait you don't. Specializing in a weapon does not automatically make a Fighter not versatile. In fact, pick a versatile weapon (spiked chain anyone?) and it makes a Fighter in fact more versatile. Oooh look, reach, trip weapon and disarm bonus, all in one go! Non-versatility my arse. Add to that that the Melee Weapon Mastery feat gives that additional +2 hit/+2 damage bonus to *every* weapon of the same type, including the ones the Fighter does not have focus/spec in. Single weapon my arse. The numbers (read them before you comment) show the Barbarian only catches up to a L12 Fighter bonuses when said Barbarian reaches level 20. Equivalence my arse. A Barbarian can't pick up a large stick from the ground and be the equivalent of a Fighter since said stick is by definition an improvised weapon which gives a -4 hit penalty. For those people who want to yell "club!", here's the Club description from the PHB (italics mine): Club: A wooden club is so easy to find and fashion that it has no cost. So no, the Barbarian can't just pick up anything and do everything the Fighter can just as well. He does in fact do a lot worse. Also my rear end is very versatile as you can tell from this post :P There, I'm up to date again :D
Drachasor 06-08-07, 06:48 PM	Kalarus, you are reading into my statements a bit overmuch. For example, when I said... I thought I was pretty clear. Class A = Class B + Stuff X DOESN'T inherently imply Class A or B sucks/is poorly balanced. It does mean that one of them is not balanced, however (depending on Stuff X, it might be poorly balanced). If A is balanced, then B is underpowered (lacks Stuff X). If B is balanced, then A is overpowered (has Stuff X beyond balance). However under- or over-powered depends on what Stuff X is, of course. The part with "It does mean that one of them is not balanced" is the minimum amount of information we can know to be true (excluding other sources of info). I was not attempting to detail all possibilities, but rather briefly go over everything. -Drachasor
Kalarus 06-08-07, 06:54 PM	Kalarus, you are reading into my statements a bit overmuch. For example, when I said... The part with "It does mean that one of them is not balanced" is the minimum amount of information we can know to be true (excluding other sources of info). I was not attempting to detail all possibilities, but rather briefly go over everything. -Drachasor Sorry, I read "It does mean that one of them is not balanced" with an emphasis on "one", as if you suggested that only one of them would not be balanced but the other one would be by definition. I understand now, thanks :) Also explains why you seemingly said something different one paragraph later ;)
Bob Loblaw 06-08-07, 10:17 PM	You've got to hand it to the pro-fighter crowd. They love to tout the fighter's versatility and adaptability to whatever unexpected combat situation they find themselves in because of their Feats. Yeah! We're Great! Yet, when they feel threatened by the barbarian's seemingly obvious rage bonuses, they throw all that versatility and adaptability out the window by tying themselves down to a single weapon to squeeze out an equivalence. So the barbarian can damage, sunder, trip, etc. just as well as the fighter by picking up a large stick from the ground as the fighter can with his unique special weapon he has 8 feats invested in? The fact that it can be done at all shows that the fighter has the versatility to match another combat oriented class. And since the fighter can match the barbarian, and do more, is the barbarian necessary?
Kratch 06-08-07, 10:21 PM	Here's an example of a Warblade that's 300-esque: *There's a problem here, admittedly. IMHO, White Raven should have some spears or similar weapon as a discipline weapon. Only because as written, it is always better to use a longsword, which doesn't fit with the movie (especially since White Raven Defense works with longswords). Last i checked, the warblade wasn't made to fit the movie. I thought we were talking about creating a build to fit the movie. If you can't do it without reworking the movie, or rebuilding the class, then you're not really succedding. Feats: Stone Power, Weapon Focus, Cleave, White Raven Defense (+1 AC when White Raven Stance and adjacent to ally, allies get +1 AC if you are also using white raven weapon -- longsword) I'm a little disappointed scion didn't feel the need to correct your build, considering how quickly he usually tries to correct Bob's and khans and how glaring this mistake was (though i admit, considering you had been considering power attack, it is an easy mistake to make, just hard to miss if it's someone else looking over it). First off, you can't have cleave without power attack, it's a pre-req. But thats ok, because, as it is, you have 1 feet too many (assuming your human, 2 feats too many if your not) ------------ Using LVL4, the same stats and general equipment (shortsword rather then longsword, which was more to the flavour of 300 i believe) Using Complete warrior Phalanx Fighter Combat Reflex's Hold The line Weapon Focus Shortsword Weapon Specialization Shortsword and Later get formation fighting This build functions by sticking together, reciving attacks with a shortspear (or better yet, a trident (though you'd have to flavour it back into a barbed spear type weapon, though thats easier done then flavouring a rapier or longsword into a spear) so you can set it against a charge, getting both the readied action and the hold the line AoO at a bonus damage for the set (at least, thats a possible interpretation, it says "on a successful hit", not, "if the readied action hits")), then switching to a shortsword and benifiting from the phalanx fighter AC benifit. AC:19, 20 when using the shortsword 22 when fighting beside a phlanx fighting ally fighting with a shortsword Attack: Shortspear (or trident)+8/D6+3 (+8/D8+3 x2 on a set vs charge) Shortsword: +9/D6+5 (comparable to yours, but only because your using a longsword for the manuver benifits it provides rather then shortsword for the flavour of the build) or, using PHBII Shield specialiation Active Shield defence Combat Reflex's Vexing Flanker Adaptable flanker and later get Hindering Opportunist and Stalwart Defence This build are solid fighters who back each other up, flanking opponents dispite being side by side, so they can't be flanked themselves, able to fight defencisivly, but still take full advantage of their opponents mistakes, and the penalty for fighting defensively is offset by the constant flank bonus's. Later, they're even covering each other with aid another AC bonus's when their allies are attacked. He can fight with ether a shortspear (or better yet, trident) or shortsword. AC:20 22 when fighting defensively (23 if 5 ranks in tumble are taken, though thats not available till lvl7) Attack: +8/ D6+3 (D8+3 if using a trident) +12 when flanking (easily done with adaptable flanker) +4 when fighting defensively +8 When fighting defensively and flanking +8 When fighting defensively on AoO's +12 When fighting defensively and flanking on AoO's or Weapon Focus ShortSpear Shield Specialization Agile Shield Fighter (or 2WF if you get a dex bonus item or rearange your stats a little) Improved Shield Bash Weapon Specialization ShortSpear and later take the TW Pounce/rend spells This is more focused for the 300 player who wants to be the one the one cleaning up. He fights well with his shortspear (or you could trade that out for shortsword) and shield simultaniously. Later feats could include shield slam and improved trip AC:20 Attack: Shorts +9/D6+5 Shield +8/ D4+3 (D6 if spiked) Spear and Shield +7/+6 D6+5/D4(D6)+1 Notice none of these are limited to human characters, if you want to go human, you could take endurance (helps with those forced march's and long nights awake). each of these options pulls from only a single book besides core, so as not to get the typical "fighters require too many books to do anything. If I was to take from multiple books, the first build would likely drop the spec for vexing and adaptable flanker. I think all three offer more of a 300 flavour then your longsword weilding builds. If i was to build an army of/for 300, i would use a combination of all 3 of these builds, using the first to recieve charges, then they fall back behind the second line, waiting to fill in any holes that may be made and benifiting from the pahalanx fighting bonus's granted by those behind him. Lastly, i'd have the third build for clean-up, charging out of the formations to finish off straglers, or to move about in smaller packs to take out archer placements.
Scion of Coldshard 06-08-07, 10:50 PM	I'm a little disappointed scion didn't feel the need to correct your build, considering how quickly he usually tries to correct Bob's and khans and how glaring this mistake was (though i admit, considering you had been considering power attack, it is an easy mistake to make, just hard to miss if it's someone else looking over it). First off, you can't have cleave without power attack, it's a pre-req. But thats ok, because, as it is, you have 1 feet too many (assuming your human, 2 feats too many if your not) I stopped reading when he started mentioning needing houserules to do what he wanted since this would yet again be a build that no matter how well it fit the theme otherwise people would point out the mistake at the top and so ignore the rest of it. But, as you are so keen on it, I went and borrowed the book to look some stuff up. It looks like he does not qualify for Stone power as he does not have a stone dragon maneuver and also point out that stone power specifically states that it counts as power attack for the purposes of feats, prestige classes, or other special abilities so it can help to qualify for cleave just fine. Drachasor, if you could write out when you picked up which ability that would be great, otherwise it is tough to tell what you qualify for and when. It also makes it easier to check back and see where you are getting which feats and how, perhaps you originally made your build thinking level 5 where warblade gets a bonus feat? A rewrite on all of them like that would be very helpful in telling what is and is not legal with the build. Also, there is some book I saw recently, I am sorry I dont remember which, that had weapon equivalencies such that certain exotic weapons also counted as a less exotic weapon for certain purposes. Perhaps there is something on that chart that is spear like enough for the movie but still qualifies as one of the white ravens weapons.
Drachasor 06-09-07, 01:13 PM	I fixed the above and I am reposting the Crusader build below. It is the superior build for a 300-esque warrior. I wouldn't get worked up over the whole "ooo, house rule' thing regarding weapons. Spears suck in the game, and that's a bit messed up in the context of Ancient Greece (that whole era of history, where the Spear was THE heroic weapon). It doesn't really matter anyhow, as nothing I proposed regarding the spear affects the overall build. I found it especially annoying coming from Kratch, who proposed reflavoring the Trident into a Spear (and let's be honest here, since the Rapier and Trident are BOTH piercing weapons, there's no mechanical difference here AT ALL). I did miss the one thing regarding Stone Power, and I did mess up and have one too many feats originally. My mistake, and apologies for that. That said, Stone Power works like Power Attack for qualifying for feats, so it lets you get Cleave. Anyhoo, everything is from the Tome of Battle or Player's Handbook. Crusader Level 4 AC: 20 (minimum) 24 effective against melee attacks (Iron Guard's Glare) 30 (shield block used on ally) Attack: +8 1d6+3 +9 1d6+4 (Steely Resolve has damage in it) +10 +1d6+5 (Steely Resolve has 10 damage in it) +8 +1d6+3+2d6 (Mountain Hammer) Str: 16 Dex: 14 Con: 14 Int: 12 Wis: 10 Cha: 8 Equipment: Breastplate, Heavy Shield, MW Shortsword, MW Shortspear Feats: Stone Power (ToB, can replace power attack for all prerequisites for anything) Cleave (PhB) Extra Readied Maneuver (ToB) Special Abilities: Furious Counterstrike (up to +2 attack/damage depending on damage in Steely Resolve pool) Steely Resolve 10 (10 points of damage each round is delayed until the end of the next, with Stone Power, this means damage can be soaked up by temporary hitpoints) Indomitable Soul (Charisma to will save) Zealous Surge (reroll a save 1/day) 1st Level Vanguard Strike (Allies gain +4 bonus on attacks against target, Devoted Spirit) Stone Bones (Gain DR 5/adamantine, Stone Dragon) Leading the Attack (allies gain +4 bonus on foes you strike, White Raven) Charging Minataur (Bull Rush, deals damage, ignores AoO, Stone Dragon) 2nd Level Mountain Hammer (+2d6 damage, overcome DR and hardness, Stone Dragon) Shield Block (grant shield bonus +4 as an ac bonus to an ally, counter -- stacks all ac bonuses, Devoted Spirit) Stances Iron Guard's Glare (opponents you threaten take -4 penalty on attacks on allies, Devoted Spirit) Leading the Charge (+Initiator Level to Damage on Charge Attacks to you and allies, White Raven) This guy can do Mountain Hammer every 3 rounds on average. That ups his DMG/round (if he hits) by a bit over 2 damage/round. Which makes up for him not having Weapon Specialization. (Completely ignoring Steely Resolve, which helps damage). Similarly, the +4 bonus to hit for allies maneuvers helps compensate for his lack of Weapon Focus. He also blows any Fighter Build out of the water regarding his defensive capabilities. Having an effective AC against melee attacks of 24 in Phalanx.
navar100 06-09-07, 01:57 PM	Iron Guard's Glare does not improve the Crusader's own AC nor give an opponent a minus to hit the Crusader himself (same effective result). If two Crusaders had it, that would work for each other. Same with Shield Block. It helps allies, not the Crusader himself.
Kratch 06-09-07, 02:03 PM	He's discussing an army of clones using a particular build. Alla 300.
Argaud 06-09-07, 02:05 PM	I wouldn't get worked up over the whole "ooo, house rule' thing regarding weapons. Spears suck in the game, and that's a bit messed up in the context of Ancient Greece (that whole era of history, where the Spear was THE heroic weapon). Historical note: Spears kinda suck when compared with large swords and big axes. But in the classical Greece spears (and short swords) were the height of weapon technology, since nobody had yet figured out how to forge anything like a longsword. D&D is a medieval-flavored game, the weapons of a pre-Christian era look puny in comparison. It took the Romans many centuries of weaponcrafting to manage anything resembling a functional longsword (the spatha, for cavalry... which eventually took over as main melee weapon for all the legionaries). Spartan hoplites as Crusaders... no, just no. A Crusader is "a warrior dedicated to good, evil, law, chaos or some other cause", a Crusader "seeks out and destroys the enemies of her chose faith", a Crusader is "strengthened by prayer or absolute devotion" and "armored by unshakable faith". The 300 were soldiers. They were very tough soldiers, being the royal guard of the king of a city of warriors, but there was nothing remotely religious in what they did. Crusader fluff is all about them being generally devoted to a god, or at least a religious principle. They can't even be neutral because the -must- stand for something. Not terribly relevant either, since Crusaders can't fight very well with tower shields, no armor, leather loincloth and a red cape. You can't really put the movie's 300 in D&D terms. Lightly armored warriors suck too much in D&D. Please, give up already, there have been like 500 threads about that silly movie :)
Scion of Coldshard 06-09-07, 02:18 PM	Looks like a fun guy drachsor ;) Had a comment about steely resolve and furious counterstrike though. Furious counterstrike gives you a bonus of the damage in the pool divided by 5 rounded down to a minimum of +1. This means that you would only get +2 when your current damage pool was full at 10 points of damage. It also means that if you take it literally as it says you always get at least the +1 (0/5=0, min 1).
Judging Eagle 06-09-07, 02:46 PM	Sigh. I dont' see why you people keep screwing up your history and believe that a movie will be 'true'. Such are the sheep of the world; I seriously had to argue with a friend of mine (a supposed 'history' buff) that Hoplites were heavily armoured troops when he thought that they were all of a sudden lightely armoured; since the movie had them lightly armoured. :rolleyes: Greek Hoplites were some of the heaviest armoured troops in the classical world. Why? B/c that's what the word meant. Hoplite (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hoplite) In any case, Spartan Hoplites were the heaviest armoured soldiers in all of Greece. Want to know why? Easy, each one was, ahem.... super rich because all of them relied on a massive slave economy to keep them rich. They, unlike most others, could afford to wear and maintain the heaviest armour possible. Seriously, Spartan Hoplites packed armour that was so heavy that it was considered exotic by the standards of the day. They wore 50 to 70 pounds in armour. According to Victor Davis Hanson, Classics scholar and professor at California State University in Fresno, estimates of a hoplite's panoply (his shield, helmet, breastplate, sword, spear, and greaves as seen on the left) weight range from fifty to seventy pounds (Hanson, The Western Way of War 56) As for the "spear" being the heroic weapon of the day... it was the weapon of the Phalanx, but swords were used when fighting got close in, and with all that superior nutrition, intensive training and excellent equipment, Spartan troops could easily mow down lesser men. Also, the spear that the Phalanx used was anywhere from 8 to 10 feet long; far too long for what was shown in that movie. The 16 foot long spears wouldn't come later until Philip the Macedonian (and his son Magnus Alexander, aka Alexander the Great) decided to create uber-phalanxes. Remember, the movie 300 is based on Frank Miller's interpretation of what looks cool. You can't really see 300 six-packs and 600 pecs if they're all covered in bronze breastplates. Thus the armour was removed to look cooler. In any case, spear + sheild + sword using fighters in massively heavy armour are viable.
navar100 06-09-07, 02:52 PM	He's discussing an army of clones using a particular build. Alla 300. Oh, sorry. Lost the train of thought.
Kalarus 06-09-07, 02:54 PM	Oh, sorry. Lost the train of thought. Looks like someone needs more railroading :P
navar100 06-09-07, 02:55 PM	Oh, sorry. Lost the train of thought. Looks like someone needs more railroading :P :rofl:
Drachasor 06-09-07, 03:59 PM	Spartan hoplites as Crusaders... no, just no. A Crusader is "a warrior dedicated to good, evil, law, chaos or some other cause", a Crusader "seeks out and destroys the enemies of her chose faith", a Crusader is "strengthened by prayer or absolute devotion" and "armored by unshakable faith". The 300 were soldiers. They were very tough soldiers, being the royal guard of the king of a city of warriors, but there was nothing remotely religious in what they did. Crusader fluff is all about them being generally devoted to a god, or at least a religious principle. They can't even be neutral because the -must- stand for something. The cause can be a country, certainly. In the context of 300 though, you could say they were champions of freedom and/or reason. (That's not historically accurate, but that's how it is presented in the movie). They certainly were portrayed as having unshakable faith in these regards. Side Note: As far as the build goes, you'd probably have guys in different stances. If "G" represents someone in Iron Guard's Glare Stance, and "X" is some other stance, then XGGXGGXGGXGGX Is a formation where everyone benefits from Iron Guard's Glare and other stances. So that's pretty neat, imho. On Spears: It was the heroic weapon of the day, certainly. As such, in the context of 300 or a 300-esque game (or any ancient era-themed game) the spear would need a boost to become a martial weapon. Otherwise you have to either break with doing the period properly (use better weapons) or no one really needs a martial proficiency.
Drachasor 06-09-07, 04:13 PM	Looks like a fun guy drachsor ;) Had a comment about steely resolve and furious counterstrike though. Furious counterstrike gives you a bonus of the damage in the pool divided by 5 rounded down to a minimum of +1. This means that you would only get +2 when your current damage pool was full at 10 points of damage. It also means that if you take it literally as it says you always get at least the +1 (0/5=0, min 1). Fixed the Steely Resolve problem. (I also fixed another problem. Maneuvers refresh every 3 rounds, so the average time between two uses of the same maneuver is 3 rounds). Anyhow, I think the ToB vs. Fighter comparison does demonstrate one thing very well. That is that the ToB classes when played give more variety in combat. The 300 Crusadaer above is doing something different each round because of his maneuvers. As he gains levels, he gets more options for each round. This means that even with the same basic tactic (phalanx fighting here), what he does each round can vary a good deal. A Fighter build on the other hand is much more static to play. IMNSO, that variety makes the ToB class more fun and interesting to play. It adds an increased level of tactical depth at the very least. It also means you have a greater ability to change your strategies each day. The above Crusader can only ready 5 of his 6 maneuvers, for example, and as he gains levels he has more maneuvers he can't ready -- though he total readied goes up. 5 out-of-combat minutes gives him change to change those readied maneuvers, letting him adapt in a much greater manner to new combat scenerios than a fighter. It's a great thing, and lets the warriors have some of the same tactical depth as casters (not as much, necessarily, but still a greater amount than pre-ToB). He's also more mobile at higher levels, since a lot of strikes are standard actions (meaning he has a move action to use for free). Anyhow, imho, I think I demonstrated that the ToB Crusader makes a superior 300 Spartan than a Fighter does. Unless someone can dramatically improve that fighter. -Drachasor
Kalarus 06-09-07, 04:40 PM	Remember, the movie 300 is based on Frank Miller's interpretation of what looks cool. You can't really see 300 six-packs and 600 pecs if they're all covered in bronze breastplates. Thus the armour was removed to look cooler. They kept the loincloths though :( Anyhow, imho, I think I demonstrated that the ToB Crusader makes a superior 300 Spartan than a Fighter does. Unless someone can dramatically improve that fighter. Woot, now we can play D&D: Attack of the Clones :D. A new reason to play Fighters also just occurred to me: Any reason to play a Fighter? Yes, they're less versatile than comparable classes (assuming ToB anyway). At this rate, playing a Fighter is like... an elite status symbol. You need to read through a lot of books to make a character that still isn't as powerful as more recently published options. It like... playing D&D in a "Hard" difficulty setting. Some day, when I tell my grandchildren about my Fighter characters, they'll stare up at me wideeyed and go "Oh my god grandpa, you managed to play D&D as a Fighter?? You are soooo cooool! You are like, the ultimatest D&D grandpa *ever*".:cheer: :dancin: :ayyyy!: One more night of sleep and I get to play Fighter again, it's been three weeks :( :weep:
xanadu 06-09-07, 05:20 PM	The fact that it can be done at all shows that the fighter has the versatility to match another combat oriented class. And since the fighter can match the barbarian, and do more, is the barbarian necessary? Nope. What if those 8 feats the fighter sinks into is to be really good with a longsword and it happens to be a trident of destiny that you need to use against the deadly death dragon? All of a sudden that vaunted versatility gets lost by sinking feats in a narrow attempt to compensate for barbarian class features.
Argaud 06-09-07, 05:55 PM	The cause can be a country, certainly. In the context of 300 though, you could say they were champions of freedom and/or reason. (That's not historically accurate, but that's how it is presented in the movie). They certainly were portrayed as having unshakable faith in these regards. There is a couple mentions of that, no more. Frankly, it would have been cool if at least they mentioned Ares and Zeus a few times. No, the movie (or the comic) has little in the realism department. But if you keep the leather loincloths and red capes, you can't have fighters or crusaders, they can't do much without their heavy armors. You need some class or combo of classes able to fight almost naked except for a big shield, like a... right, nothing in the D&D. If put some historical stuff in the 300, you give them breastplates, often made of bronze. That is how far the armor gets in classical Greece. Also, you need a fortification in the Thermopiles. Yes, the Greeks had a freaking castle there, that is why they stood a huge army. If you want to get into the D&D ideal 300, you need fighters, with spiked chains, in full plate, and longbows of strength. Or warblade/fighters. None of that works. Either you aren't capturing the movie, or you are not playing D&D. And in no way you are being anything near historical :rolleyes: On Spears: It was the heroic weapon of the day, certainly. As such, in the context of 300 or a 300-esque game (or any ancient era-themed game) the spear would need a boost to become a martial weapon. Otherwise you have to either break with doing the period properly (use better weapons) or no one really needs a martial proficiency. I agree. Exotic weapon proficiency: hoplite spear. Hoplite spear This thing is almost as long as a longspear and behaves as a longspear unless you have the Exotic Weapon: Hoplite Spear proficiency. With the proficiency It has 10' reach and causes 1d10 (x3 in a critical hit) damage, but it can be used at 5' too. It can be also used as with just one hand. Moreover it can be thrown like a normal spear. Simple :p Fixed the Steely Resolve problem. (I also fixed another problem. Maneuvers refresh every 3 rounds, so the average time between two uses of the same maneuver is 3 rounds). Anyhow, I think the ToB vs. Fighter comparison does demonstrate one thing very well. That is that the ToB classes when played give more variety in combat. The 300 Crusadaer above is doing something different each round because of his maneuvers. As he gains levels, he gets more options for each round. This means that even with the same basic tactic (phalanx fighting here), what he does each round can vary a good deal. A Fighter build on the other hand is much more static to play. Wait! Repeating every 3 rounds the same maneouvers, again and again, is having variety? :rolleyes:
Drachasor 06-09-07, 05:59 PM	Wait! Repeating every 3 rounds the same maneouvers, again and again, is having variety? :rolleyes: The order isn't the same, and you probably don't use every maneuver before a refresh as a Crusader, some maneuvers will be for a particular tactical moment, in all likelihood. Anyhow, it is variety, not as much as a caster, but a heck of a lot more than a Fighter. Especially since between combats you can change out maneuvers. Also, as you gain more and more levels, the amount of variety and options increase a lot quicker than a Fighter could manage. I mean, compare what the Crusader does in 6 or 9 rounds to what the Fighter build does in the same time. Who has the larger variety of actions? The fighter is the main point of comparison, afterall, and the martial adepts certainly beat the snot out of the fighter in the variety department. They beat the Barbarian too. Granted, I am hedging a bit regarding armor. From that I AM adding a historical twist. That said, the Crusader can handle himself without armor a lot better than the fighter (because the Crusader build I made has a much higher effective AC). That said, a Fighter without armor has the same relative problem as the Crusader without armor (compared to ones with armor). This is a Fighter to Crusader comparison afterall. I only aimed to show the Crusader did a better job of emulating 300 warriors than a Fighter, both in power and variety. -Drachasor
Argaud 06-09-07, 06:24 PM	Nope. What if those 8 feats the fighter sinks into is to be really good with a longsword and it happens to be a trident of destiny that you need to use against the deadly death dragon? All of a sudden that vaunted versatility gets lost by sinking feats in a narrow attempt to compensate for barbarian class features. So, if the DM throws a bone to the barbarian by introducing a contrived plot in which some idiot (that obviously never checked the CO boards) made a superweapon of some odd weapon no warrior would ever use because it is generally not very effective... The barbarian is vindicated! He has a +4 to hit on the fighter with the superweapon at level 20! Yay! Right. Sure. What if... the weapon is a spiked chain? Or... coincidentally the weapon the fighter is specialist? Can you hear all those ubermelee-clerics crying bloody murder? Shrieking the DM is coddling the fighter? Because I can hear them clearly. :rolleyes:
Scion of Coldshard 06-09-07, 06:57 PM	So, if the DM throws a bone to the barbarian by introducing a contrived plot in which some idiot (that obviously never checked the CO boards) made a superweapon of some odd weapon no warrior would ever use because it is generally not very effective... Why does it have to be an odd weapon? If d&d has 50 weapons and the fighter specializes in one then the 'superweapon' just has to be any of the 49 other weapons that he did not specialize in for the fighter specialization to be wasted. I know that there are people who carry around 3+ weapons for different situations as well. For those types of people specializing in any one weapon is a bad plan in general. As an example, it is typically good for a character that plans to use weapons to have a weapon of each basic damage type plus a few different material types. If you plan well these fall back weapons can be pretty decent while not costing a huge amount, relative to the level, but they are still different weapons and so specializing in one is going to hurt elsewhere.
Argaud 06-09-07, 07:07 PM	Why does it have to be an odd weapon? If d&d has 50 weapons and the fighter specializes in one then the 'superweapon' just has to be any of the 49 other weapons that he did not specialize in for the fighter specialization to be wasted. Because actually the number of weapons that are effective and used is quite small. For warrior types you have the greatsword (barbarian favorite, also used by many fighters and paladins), the composite longbow (archer's best) and the spiked chain (only exotic weapon worth a feat). Sometimes you will see a low level dwarf with a waraxe, but that is because they got the proficiency for free. More often you see someone with a flavorfull weapon, but they are uncommon. I know that there are people who carry around 3+ weapons for different situations as well. For those types of people specializing in any one weapon is a bad plan in general. No, it is the only valid plan. The problem with weapons is that good weapons are very expensive. Warriors actually spend a serious amount of their cash in just one weapon, the primary weapon. They will have backups, but they won't be very good. So if the warrior loses the main weapon, he goes to the backup. And guess what kind of weapon is the backup one? Right. It is exactly the same weapon, only that with less magic. So what you have is that the barbarian has a main&mean greatsword, a cold iron greatsword, a silver greatsword and a masterwork backup greatsword. He does not have a greatsword, a morningstar, a battleaxe and a dagger. Why should he? To do even less damage when he loses the greatsword? And the fighter? He carries 7 freaking spiked chains in his pockets. Both have a bow, but neither is very good with it.
Scion of Coldshard 06-09-07, 07:38 PM	Because actually the number of weapons that are effective and used is quite small. I would say that the number of effective weapons is certainly above 10, but lets assume that there are only 3 effective weapons. With 3 effective weapons I will assume that 90% of the great magical weapons out there are of these types with the remaining 10% all of the rest. If each one of the effective weapons are 30% then that still means a guy specialized in one weapon still has a 70% chance of getting a weapon that is not the one he specialized in. That is still pretty tough! If we assume more than 3 effective weapons then it can get even harder. I will make a short list of possible effective weapons: Dagger, Longspear, Spear, Light Crossbow, Sling, Kukri, Armor Spikes, Longsword, Rapier, Scimitar, Falchion, Glaive, Greatsword, Lance, Composite Longbow (each different str bonus would be a different weapon), Composite Shortbow (again with the str bonus), Bastard Sword, Spiked Chain After that, we have to worry about if the weapon is the correct size. Medium would be the most common in the core but we would still have to worry about small and large pretty often. Further, if the weapon is of a type that is harmful for you it cannot be used very well. But this is a different issue entirely than specialization. No, it is the only valid plan. The only valid plan is to have many weapons? I disagree. So if the warrior loses the main weapon, he goes to the backup. And guess what kind of weapon is the backup one? Right. It is exactly the same weapon, only that with less magic. So what you have is that the barbarian has a main&mean greatsword, a cold iron greatsword, a silver greatsword and a masterwork backup greatsword. He does not have a greatsword, a morningstar, a battleaxe and a dagger. Why should he? To do even less damage when he loses the greatsword? I think you are missing the point of having different weapons for different situations. The point of having different weapons is for the different damage types along with different material types. That way you maximize the amount of situations you are ready for. I have no problem with someone just maxing out a single weapon and running with that, basically just hoping to overcome things like DR through brute force instead of planning, but why bother to have so many different weapons like that which are essentially the same? And the fighter? He carries 7 freaking spiked chains in his pockets. I guess int is a dump stat for fighters. 7 spiked chain in the pocket is a good representation of having a 6 int and wis.
Kratch 06-09-07, 07:54 PM	Care to provide us with a sample golf bag of weapons, including materials and enhancements (and thus, costs), that demonstraits the barbarians advantage through weapon choice versatility?
Scion of Coldshard 06-09-07, 08:12 PM	Care to provide us with a sample golf bag of weapons, including materials and enhancements (and thus, costs), that demonstraits the barbarians advantage through weapon choice versatility? This isnt a 'fighter vs X' bit, this is a 'specialized on one weapon guy vs people who arent'. I remember some post a long while back which had the most perfect 3 weapon combo that used all 3 damage types and the 3 most common substance types so that he would be able to effect just about everything at full strength. I wonder if I can find that post..hmm.. I also wonder how it would compare with MM2, MM3, and others as he made it using just the MM1.
Argaud 06-09-07, 08:23 PM	I have no problem with someone just maxing out a single weapon and running with that, basically just hoping to overcome things like DR through brute force instead of planning, but why bother to have so many different weapons like that which are essentially the same?. What DR? Damage type DR? (E.i. blunt, slashing and piercing) All the other DR can be pierced by Shadowstriking weapons (Force weapons for bows and crossbows). That leaves very few reasons to wield more than one kind of weapon, since creatures with significant DR/type are quite rare. Liches come to mind, so maybe keeping a magical mace or morningstar makes sense. Liches shouldn't be common, though. If they are, fighters can add the Aptitude (ToB) trait to the backup morningstar. Now all their weapon-specific feats will apply. They can also do that to a bow, becoming super-archers for very little cost. Barbarians can't benefit from Aptitude unless they have Focus or Improved Critical, and then the benefit is small.
Kalarus 06-09-07, 08:28 PM	Of course it makes sense to have different weapons for different situations, however a situation in which your specialty weapon does not work at all is not exceedingly common. If they are, I'd really have a talk with the DM and ask why he insists on creating situations that deliberately make my character useless, because those situations are *not* by definition the norm. Not every creature has DR, and certainly not every creature has DR I can't overcome and the Barbarian can. E.g., I have as much access to Good-aligned weapons as the Barbarian. As for the "Omg uber trident your longsword sucks now" situation, I can only interpret this as two possible situations. 1) The DM introduced a regular magic weapon into the campaign that is so ridiculously powerful and unbalanced for wealth-by-character-level guidelines he is obviously favouring the Barbarian, 2) The DM introduced an adventure-specific artifact in order to defeat the BBEG. Given that the example called this in fact a "Trident of Destiny", this practically SCREAMS "plot artifact" at me. So the "What if" situation gets a very simple answer: if the Barbarian benefits more from the weapon than I do, thus giving the party a greater chance of defeating the BBEG, I, Fighter, voluntarily toss the Trident of Destiny to the Barbarian and say "Alright, I'll draw his attacks, you use my full-plated arse for cover and stick that thing where it really, really hurts." The BBEG dies a painful death, the party ('cause that's who won, not just the Barbarian) stands triumphantly over the BBEG's corpse, and the Trident of Destiny mysteriously vanishes, never to be seen again except in distant legends. Either way, there's really no reason for people to deliberately aim to deny fellow players a shining role in an adventure. ALL the players win by completing the adventure, and unless the DM is so immature that the rest of the party essentially becomes henchmen for the one favoured player, there's no trouble there. Few DMs are that immature and most of those go through players like a swarm of locusts through a cornfield. Next adventure, the Trident of Destiny won't be there, or will be reduced to a rather common magic item which is actually appropriate for the party treasure gains, or it will be a blatant display of favouritism because the DM felt the Barbarian needed an artifact in order to match the Fighter, which basically proves the entire point to begin with. If we assume more than 3 effective weapons then it can get even harder. I will make a short list of possible effective weapons: Dagger, Longspear, Spear, Light Crossbow, Sling, Kukri, Armor Spikes, Longsword, Rapier, Scimitar, Falchion, Glaive, Greatsword, Lance, Composite Longbow (each different str bonus would be a different weapon), Composite Shortbow (again with the str bonus), Bastard Sword, Spiked Chain Looks good. Let's group these together a bit. Slashing melee weapons: Dagger, Kukri, Longsword, Scimitar, Falchion, Glaive, Greatsword, Bastard Sword Piercing melee weapons: Longspear, Spear, Armor Spikes, Rapier, Lance, Spiked Chain Blunt melee weapons: Uhm......... Ranged weapons: Dagger, Light Crossbow, Sling, Composite Longbow, Composite Shortbow Reliable critical weapons (weapons with better crit range): Dagger, Light Crossbow, Kukri, Longsword, Rapier, Scimitar, Falchion, Greatsword, Bastard Sword Powerful critical weapons (x3 crits): Longspear, Spear, Glaive, Lance, Composite Longbow, Composite Shortbow Reach weapons: Longspear, Spiked Chain I am not entirely sure why I did that but it gives a better overview of what was picked so far. Wanted to get into this anyway. Anways, I believe the point is that a Fighter specialized in weapon X has a relatively low chance of finding a token of type X as a random treasure, even assuming that some efficient weapon types are more common than others. I fail to see how this is a problem. A Fighter can just buy what he needs instead, or improve his existing weapon. How does he get the cash? He sells the inappropriate random weapons that he finds. A DM has two general options regarding treasure: 1) Random. The DM randomly rolls treasure using the appropriate tables. 2) Customized. The DM picks the treasure judging on what he believes the party needs, or wants. If a DM uses option 1, he will very likely generate weapons that the Fighter is not optimized with, and will not want to use in favor of his specialty weapon. This means the Fighter will sell the excess weaponry (provided no other party member has interest, let's assume a standard treasure division of equal shares). This generates income, giving selling rules this generates half as much wealth than what the Fighter would have had had he found a weapon of the appropriate type. Which means that if you as DM do not hand out the other half of the treasure in some other way so that character wealth matches the wealth by level guidelines, you are effectively playing a low treasure campaign. If you want to play by wealth by level guidelines, the Fighter will have enough redundant weaponry to sell to buy the proper weapon that he wants. If the DM uses option 2 there is no problem to begin with, the Fighter will get what he wants, and both DM and player save themselves some effort, though they sacrifice the logical laws of probability. Either way, you get to pick between playing a low treasure campaign, or giving enough wealth to let the player buy his desired weapon if you do not hand it to him as part of the treasure. I realize a counterpoint could be that a redundant weapon with a market value of e.g. 8000, which the party likely sells for 4000 (since nobody wants to use it), might be useful to a Barbarian, and thus worth the full 8000. That's fine. If you believe this is a problem, I have a newsflash for you: magic item value is not only determined by RAW calculations, but also by the fluxuations of supply and demand. In fact, a DM is encouraged to determine magic item prices depending on supply and demand, rather than plain magic item price guidelines. This is why you cannot get away with cheap items of continual True Strike. This is why a Ring of Invisibility costs 20k gp. Prices are determined by how desirable an item is, and it is that final price, not market value, which determines actual wealth by level guidelines. If a weapon is only worth 4k to a Fighter, even though it might be worth 8k to a Barbarian, it is no reason to deny the Fighter that additional 4k to match Wealth-by-level.
Bob Loblaw 06-09-07, 09:38 PM	Nope. What if those 8 feats the fighter sinks into is to be really good with a longsword and it happens to be a trident of destiny that you need to use against the deadly death dragon? All of a sudden that vaunted versatility gets lost by sinking feats in a narrow attempt to compensate for barbarian class features. First of all, I would only lose a whopping +2 to hit. Not really all that much. Second, honestly we can't use hypothetical situations like that as they mean nothing. The barbarian is useless if he is forced out of his rage in combat and can only fight with a suit of adamantine spiked armor. Third, most of the time the fighter keeps the same weapon type he's used for his whole career. I have yet to see the golf-bag of weapons people assume the fighter should be carrying with him. He has his trusty melee weapon and a backup (probably no feats dedicated to this weapon since it's a backup), then possibly a ranged as well. I also mentioned, at least three times, that I would not actually play that fighter or barbarian. All I was doing was showing that they are not as dissimilar as people claim. In order to accomplish that, they had to be similar in build.
Kalarus 06-09-07, 10:22 PM	Third, most of the time the fighter keeps the same weapon type he's used for his whole career. I have yet to see the golf-bag of weapons people assume the fighter should be carrying with him. He has his trusty melee weapon and a backup (probably no feats dedicated to this weapon since it's a backup), then possibly a ranged as well. My Fighter actually has a golf-bag of weapons with him. Initially I had him with a Spiked Chain, a Scythe, a Greatclub and a Composite Longbow. When my DM questioned how I saw my Dwarf carrying that round, I changed it to a Spiked Chain, a Halberd, a Heavy Flail and the Composite Longbow, after which my DM gave up trying to convince me :P. Well the point is, he started at L8, he's now L10, coming fairly close to 11. He hasn't had to pull the Halberd, Heavy Flail or Longbow since character creation. So really, you can likely afford to leave that golf-bag at home.
Khan the Destroyer 06-09-07, 11:41 PM	So, let's say you have a piercing weapon and it can't overcome the DR of the monster you're fighting. Your mastery in that weapon still gives you the advantage in disarming and sundering, as well as overcoming DR through bonus damage alone. Also, you get the bonus to-hit on a trip attempt touch attack. These are all valid options for a fighter. You could also use that extra to-hit for Power Attack to have an even bigger chance of punching through that DR. That's a +6 bonus to damage from mastery and then a +8 bonus to damage from two-handed power attack. So a total of +14 damage, added to base weapon damage, magic enhancements, and 1.5x strength... who knows? Maybe it's not that big of a deal. And I haven't even mentioned spells that allow you to overcome DR or magic item enhancements. At the most, you're losing a +2 to-hit and +4 damage. Yes, it is a decrease in effectiveness. I don't think the few times you might decide to switch weapons really outweighs the rest of the time when you gain the advantage of mastering a weapon. I am failing to see how swapping weapons severely hampers the fighter's combat ability, or how this situation will even occur in any sort of regular frequency. The fighter at least has other feats that he uses in combat on top of his weapon mastery. A barbarian without rage is so many hit points.
navar100 06-10-07, 02:32 AM	Nope. What if those 8 feats the fighter sinks into is to be really good with a longsword and it happens to be a trident of destiny that you need to use against the deadly death dragon? All of a sudden that vaunted versatility gets lost by sinking feats in a narrow attempt to compensate for barbarian class features. That would be the DM purposely screwing over the character.
Clawhound 06-10-07, 07:53 AM	I don't know why we are even arguing the point. The corner case is not your typical battle. If DR creatures are common, then the fighter will equip himself to deal with such creatures. If such a creature is rare, then the party will change tactics when running into such creatures, or more often, just take a little longer to hack them apart. Most DR is DR/magic, and one magic weapon usually solves the problem. Either way, this has no great impact on the average fight. DR matters for a few battles, which is what is supposed to happen. That's the trick about rare things: you keep them rare so that when they do happen, they actually factor into the encounter.
runestar 06-10-07, 10:49 AM	That would be the DM purposely screwing over the character. I fail to see why that is the case. The fighter can still use the weapon, just that he will not get all the benefits he would like. I doubt that at the time of crafting said weapon, its creator would have bothered considering what sort of specialization its future wielder might be taking...:P Likewise, just because the fighter is specialized in greatswords does not mean that there is a shiny magical greatsword waiting for him in every treasure chest. Also, given the many possible weapon enhancements available today, how relevant is the whole "golf bag of weapons" scenario? PGTF/CA has gloves which makes your weapon count as magic silver. Simply double its cost if you need the glove slot for something else. PGTF has the sure-striking weapon property, which at +1, lets you weapon overcome any alignment-based dr. PGTF also has a battleaxe where half its blade is made of cold iron, and the other half made of adamantine, thus letting you overcome either dr/cold iron or dr/adamantine using the same weapon. The metalline weapon property (Underdark) and morphing property are pretty much self explanatory. These are just the few I am aware of. I am sure more yet exist. Thus, it does not seem impossible to simply obtain a single weapon which can deal with virtually any scenario.:)
Argaud 06-10-07, 11:05 AM	Shadow Striking (ToM, pag 155) will get through all material and alignement DR. Metalline got somewhat nerfed in the MIC. But Surestrike is still a good deal for just a +1 enhancement. Quite frankly, most times the weapons PCs get from treasure chest are crap. Using the random treasure tables in the DM you get an 80% of weapons nobody would have crafted in the first place, because they are so sub-optimal from any viewpoint that is not even funny. Of the rest, counting wrong weapon sizes, wrong weapon choices and strange ability combos, PCs end up keeping like 1 in 4 after the low levels (when any magic weapon is needed in the case something immune to normal weapons shows up - but those weapons end up being sold later). This means only about a 5% of the random weapons. The rest gets sold and the cash goes to buy the weapons they really need. Now, superweapons dropped in plots for plot reasons are different. As posted before they tend to break the rules of wealth by level and aren't supposed to be around for long. No, sorry, saying the barbarian is better than the fighter because he can use the superweapon a bit better then the fighter is like saying a level 2 expert halfling gardner is good in a team of level 15+ characters because the One Ring might show up in the adventure. Sorry, the halfling is not there unless the party is going to destroy the damn thing and the NPC wizards and sages says he is needed. ;)
Scion of Coldshard 06-10-07, 01:19 PM	Remember, this is not a 'fighter vs X', it is a 'specialized in a single weapon guy over guy who isnt'. If you have a lot of downtime and can sell off/trade off extra stuff pretty easily having only a single weapon becomes easier. If you pick up weapon enhancements so that the weapon will bypass more DR it is easier to have a single weapon but your single weapon is less directly powerful overall than it would have been otherwise. If you are in the middle of an adventure and dont have much downtime though you are in a completely different boat. Having your weapon go from +6 equivalency to +8 takes about 56 days! If you come across a +X widget of Y but you are specialized in sprockets and have a +X sprocket already then the guy who can freely switch over immediately has an advantage for now. If you have some downtime and can sell the +X widget of Y, for half of the gold value of course, you might not get enough money to increase your sprocket to the same power that the widget was, although that only happens in some of the cases, I believe far from a majority even. It can come down to time and availability (of a person capable and willing to boost the old weapon and someone to buy the old weapon). If someone who focuses on a single weapon vs someone who does not are about equal then the non focused guy is clearly ahead. If the single focus guy is a bit ahead it is tough to call until the single focus gets to be way ahead. So we have any-weapon guy and single weapon guy. The single weapon guy is strong when using his weapon of choice but a lot less when not. The any-weapon guy can use whatever comes along that is better than what came before. Focusing makes one strong, but it is also a weakness. Catering to the strong side or the weak side only is probably not all that great of a plan though. If a weakness is never exploited then it isnt really a weakness, it just artificially buffs that choice.. just like a strength that can never be brought to bare is not really a strength, it is just a wasted slot of resources potentially making the rest weaker because of it.
Argaud 06-10-07, 02:02 PM	Remember, this is not a 'fighter vs X', it is a 'specialized in a single weapon guy over guy who isnt'. If you have a lot of downtime and can sell off/trade off extra stuff pretty easily having only a single weapon becomes easier. If you pick up weapon enhancements so that the weapon will bypass more DR it is easier to have a single weapon but your single weapon is less directly powerful overall than it would have been otherwise. If you are in the middle of an adventure and dont have much downtime though you are in a completely different boat. Having your weapon go from +6 equivalency to +8 takes about 56 days! If you come across a +X widget of Y but you are specialized in sprockets and have a +X sprocket already then the guy who can freely switch over immediately has an advantage for now. If you have some downtime and can sell the +X widget of Y, for half of the gold value of course, you might not get enough money to increase your sprocket to the same power that the widget was, although that only happens in some of the cases, I believe far from a majority even. It can come down to time and availability (of a person capable and willing to boost the old weapon and someone to buy the old weapon). If someone who focuses on a single weapon vs someone who does not are about equal then the non focused guy is clearly ahead. If the single focus guy is a bit ahead it is tough to call until the single focus gets to be way ahead. So we have any-weapon guy and single weapon guy. The single weapon guy is strong when using his weapon of choice but a lot less when not. The any-weapon guy can use whatever comes along that is better than what came before. Focusing makes one strong, but it is also a weakness. Catering to the strong side or the weak side only is probably not all that great of a plan though. If a weakness is never exploited then it isnt really a weakness, it just artificially buffs that choice.. just like a strength that can never be brought to bare is not really a strength, it is just a wasted slot of resources potentially making the rest weaker because of it. I am amazed, trully. Half the arguments here are arguments about issues that pro-casters always claim it never happen. That there is not enough downtime between adventures to craft or write scrolls becomes that there won't be enough time to sell and buy the weapons the PC needs. That the DM could arbitrarily deny the PCs of spells or components becomes that the DM will arbitrarily deny the PCs the chance to upgrade their weapons by giving them less gold that they should have. And it goes on :rolleyes: See, the guy that is specialized in one weapon has not a weakness. No, really, there is none. You are seeing things. Because it is not one weapon, but one type of weapon, and nothing forbids the fighter specialized in sprockets from carrying 10 sprockets in his backpack. He does not need a sword, an axe, a dagger and a spear as backup for the sprocket. He uses his best sprocket, but falls back to the backup spockets if he loses the best one. Meanwhile, the non-specialist can have a spocket, a sword, a spear and a widget, but it does not matter, because if he loses his spoket, which was his expensive and cool weapon, he is down to backup weapons, which aren't as good as the main weapon. There is no weakness. None at all. If the DM keeps throwing enemies immune to sprockets and weapons that the barbarian can use but not the figher, he is favoring the barbarian and being a jerk. It is like forcing a rogue to fight only undead and golems. It is going out of the way to make a class less useful.
Scion of Coldshard 06-10-07, 02:35 PM	I am amazed, trully. Good thing it is all true then ;) That there is not enough downtime between adventures to craft or write scrolls becomes that there won't be enough time to sell and buy the weapons the PC needs. There could very well not be enough time to do any of these things, where is the ambiguity there? Sometimes you will have it, sometimes not. Sometimes you are in the middle of an adventure and cannot just skip out for a few weeks, other times you have years between the difficult jobs. If you have a lot of downtime whenever you like that caters to certain builds, if you have no downtime ever that caters to other builds. This is all true, where is the problem? I would say that there is a problem with there being too much of either one. That the DM could arbitrarily deny the PCs of spells or components becomes that the DM will arbitrarily deny the PCs the chance to upgrade their weapons by giving them less gold that they should have. No one said either of these, strawman much? Although, going with your comment. A DM could say that certain spells are not in his game, or that the pc is not able to access them in whatever city they are in. A 5,000 gp diamond might just not be available in a town of 50 people either. Upgrading items takes decently high level spellcasters, a lot of money, and a lot of time. It could be that unless the pc's make contacts (uh oh, social skills!) they will have a tough time with it. If they dont have the time that will make it tough as well. Plus, it is entirely possible to have more than your normal alloted amount of gear yet still not have your big, bad weapon. A guy I know going through the Castle Ravenloft module had nearly twice the recommended gear for his level but because of the nature of it he wasnt as powerful as a guy with a normal amount of gear but a little more custom designed. One party member wound up making a few friends and placing bribes so that my friends character could trade in a few +1 weapons and a few other items in order to have his weapon and armor upgraded. It was pretty tough for him though, he had to go through a mini-adventure on the side with virtually no gear. These things can and do happen, especially in a world that is not built to cater specifically to the pc's. This isnt even a 'do magic item shops exist or not' debate for the most basic bit. See, the guy that is specialized in one weapon has not a weakness. Specializing in one thing is not a weakness? If that is true, which I disagree with, then the specializing option is overpowered by default. Spending resources in one area should mean that you lose out in other areas. If a dm chooses to not let the weakness ever happen then I would say there is a problem. At that point I would say that it would be proper for people to say that the dm is coddling that type of character. Because it is not one weapon, but one type of weapon, and nothing forbids the fighter specialized in sprockets from carrying 10 sprockets in his backpack. So, you are going to carry a bag full of the same weapon of various flavors? How is this not a weakness vs the guy who is carrying a bag full of different weapons of different flavors who is able to bypass more types of damage reduction? Or that has a ready to use light weapon for grapples where more of his feats will apply than the guy who specialized in the weapon that cannot be used in the grapple? There is no weakness. None at all. D&D has no weaknesses? Nothing? No where? None of the builds have any options that are weaker than any others? No one has a spot that can be exploited for greater gain? No weaknesses at all???? I have no idea what you are talking about, it makes absolutely no sense.
navar100 06-10-07, 02:45 PM	I fail to see why that is the case. The fighter can still use the weapon, just that he will not get all the benefits he would like. I doubt that at the time of crafting said weapon, its creator would have bothered considering what sort of specialization its future wielder might be taking...:P Likewise, just because the fighter is specialized in greatswords does not mean that there is a shiny magical greatsword waiting for him in every treasure chest. Also, given the many possible weapon enhancements available today, how relevant is the whole "golf bag of weapons" scenario? PGTF/CA has gloves which makes your weapon count as magic silver. Simply double its cost if you need the glove slot for something else. PGTF has the sure-striking weapon property, which at +1, lets you weapon overcome any alignment-based dr. PGTF also has a battleaxe where half its blade is made of cold iron, and the other half made of adamantine, thus letting you overcome either dr/cold iron or dr/adamantine using the same weapon. The metalline weapon property (Underdark) and morphing property are pretty much self explanatory. These are just the few I am aware of. I am sure more yet exist. Thus, it does not seem impossible to simply obtain a single weapon which can deal with virtually any scenario.:) I agree except in the intent the original proposal was intended.
xanadu 06-10-07, 03:55 PM	My point in pointing out the dubiousness of comparing the barbarian rage bonus w/ weapon specialization that the pro-fighter is it is a hypocritical line of argument that is self serving and completely dependent on circumstance...the same type of argument anti-fighters use. If you are going to tout the amazing versatility of the fighter as a great feature, then don't be inconsistent and use weapon specialization as a way to make the fighter better than the barbarian. So, if the DM throws a bone to the barbarian by introducing a contrived plot in which some idiot (that obviously never checked the CO boards) made a superweapon of some odd weapon You have zero concept of probability. If the weapon of destiny, out of 50 some odd choices, just happens to match the Fighter's 8 feat of choice weapon, then that would be contrived. Because actually the number of weapons that are effective and used is quite small...greatsword...composite longbow...and the spiked chain I won't dignify this with a response. All the other DR can be pierced by Shadowstriking weapons (Force weapons for bows and crossbows)....That leaves very few reasons to wield more than one kind of weapon I'll be sure to remember to get that +3 enhancement for my 8th level fighter's flavorful and ineffective longsword. :rolleyes: As for the "Omg uber trident your longsword sucks now" situation, I can only interpret this as two possible situations. Right, because it is the DM who screws the fighter, not the limitation of the class or the narrow focus the PC choose. Two scenarios with being presented with weapon X better than what the fighter specializes...really? You've never been captured? Never had to hand over your weapons at the city gates? Never had your weapon sundered/disarmed/stolen? Never had a DM who doesn't happen to make treasure random? Never been in an environment that made either your weapon impractical or others better (underwater, Underdark w/ drowcraft, another plane w/ alien traits, etc.)? That magicshop to get that shadowstriking enhancement has always been there and available, huh? First of all, I would only lose a whopping +2 to hit. Not really all that much. Nope, at least +4 to hit and +6 damage and that is just Weapon focuses, weapon specializations, and weapon mastery. I am failing to see how swapping weapons severely hampers the fighter's combat ability, or how this situation will even occur in any sort of regular frequency. It doesn't. That is supposedly the point behind Mr. Versatile Soldier that is the fighter. I am merely pointing out that the pro-fighter crowd cant have the cake and eat it by lauding the fighter's versatility where he is *not* hampered by switching weapons and matches the barbarian damage output by using a specific weapon. That would be the DM purposely screwing over the character. Yeah...because the big magic weapon in the dragon's treasure hoard has to be a Jovar or I am "screwing" the fighter :rolleyes:
Argaud 06-10-07, 04:11 PM	There could very well not be enough time to do any of these things, where is the ambiguity there? Sometimes you will have it, sometimes not. Sometimes you are in the middle of an adventure and cannot just skip out for a few weeks, other times you have years between the difficult jobs. If you have a lot of downtime whenever you like that caters to certain builds, if you have no downtime ever that caters to other builds. I don't see why this is an issue. Sure, an adventure can last for two or three levels. But then everybody in the party suffers. Nobody can upgrade gear, get new consumables, copy spells or craft anything. Although, going with your comment. A DM could say that certain spells are not in his game, or that the pc is not able to access them in whatever city they are in. A 5,000 gp diamond might just not be available in a town of 50 people either. Upgrading items takes decently high level spellcasters, a lot of money, and a lot of time. It could be that unless the pc's make contacts (uh oh, social skills!) they will have a tough time with it. If they dont have the time that will make it tough as well. Although a 50 people hamlet won't have much of anything, the game is designed so there are also 25,000+ towns in some places where purchasing goods and services up to 100,000 gold is possible without the need of "social skills". Items over 100,000 gold require special DM/player arrangements, but that is not an issue for the fighter, since even raising a weapon from +9 to +10 (which is a bad idea, to start) costs only 38,000 gold. It is harder for the casters looking for Rods of Greater Quicken. Plus, it is entirely possible to have more than your normal alloted amount of gear yet still not have your big, bad weapon. A guy I know going through the Castle Ravenloft module had nearly twice the recommended gear for his level but because of the nature of it he wasnt as powerful as a guy with a normal amount of gear but a little more custom designed. Yes, it is also possible in some game to duel wield Excalibur and Stormbringer. Or play in the stone-age and have nothing but hide armor and stone spears. Those games are exceptions and the whole game sistem needs major houseruling. The game is designed to work within certain parameters. If you step out of them, you are playing with variant rules. Nothing wrong with that, mind you, but it has no weight in this discussion, which is about the official rules. Specializing in one thing is not a weakness? If that is true, which I disagree with, then the specializing option is overpowered by default. Spending resources in one area should mean that you lose out in other areas. in this context it is not. Spending feats to be able to wield a weapon exceptionally well is rewarded by... being able to we weild the weapon very well. Not just ONE weapon, but all the weapons of that kind. It is NOT a weakness, since it is perfectly possible to carry multiple copies of the same weapon. So, you are going to carry a bag full of the same weapon of various flavors? How is this not a weakness vs the guy who is carrying a bag full of different weapons of different flavors who is able to bypass more types of damage reduction? Or that has a ready to use light weapon for grapples where more of his feats will apply than the guy who specialized in the weapon that cannot be used in the grapple? How is it a weakness? What kind of argument is "it is a weakness because another guy can do the same with different weapons"? And by the way, a real specialist fighter can use his good weapon in a grapple too, he is not restricted to a light one. Fighter > Barbarian in this issue. D&D has no weaknesses? Nothing? No where? None of the builds have any options that are weaker than any others? No one has a spot that can be exploited for greater gain? No weaknesses at all???? Wow, retardation at the best. Let me spell it slowly for you, if you insist in being dumb: Being able to specialize in one weapon is not a weakness because the character can carry many copies of the same weapon. It is not an advantege to be able to raise strength with rage and being able to grab any weapon from the floor because it is normal for characters to carry many weapons on them. Clear enough for you?
Argaud 06-10-07, 04:41 PM	Right, because it is the DM who screws the fighter, not the limitation of the class or the narrow focus the PC choose. Two scenarios with being presented with weapon X better than what the fighter specializes...really? You've never been captured? Never had to hand over your weapons at the city gates? Never had your weapon sundered/disarmed/stolen? Never had a DM who doesn't happen to make treasure random? Never been in an environment that made either your weapon impractical or others better (underwater, Underdark w/ drowcraft, another plane w/ alien traits, etc.)? That magicshop to get that shadowstriking enhancement has always been there and available, huh? You are falling in the "lets imagine contrived and weird situations to prove a point". I am sure it has a fancy fallacy name, but since English is not my native tongue I have no idea of what it is. Look. The PCs can be captured by a bad guy, sure. It might happen once or twice in a long campaign. It is a very contrived situation that leads to the PCs being in a very bad position, since without the gear they can't perform at their expected level. That the barbarian can do a bit better than the fighter means absolutely nothing. The cleric is screwed without the divine focus, does that means his class is weaker than the barbarian? Oh, look, the monk really shines under these circumstances, does that means it is a very powerful class? No and no. Weapons sundered, stolen or disarmed harm fighter and barbarian equally. Both lose their main, most powerful weapon. The fighter will have to draw his backup weapon, which will be the same kind of his main weapon, but weaker. The barbarian will do the same, and it might be it is a different kind of weapon, but it is irrelevant because both backup weapons are comparable in efficience. Yes, the shop with the weapons is usually available. Often enough so the wealth-by-level rules can be used. It is stated so in the damn DMG. The same shop where the figher goes to puchase his shadow striking spiked chain, his holy cold iron spiked chain, and his silver squirrelbane spiked chain, is the shop where the barbarian goes to purchase his shadow striking greatsword, his holy cold iron halbard, and his silver squirrelbane greataxe.
Scion of Coldshard 06-10-07, 04:47 PM	I don't see why this is an issue. Sure, an adventure can last for two or three levels. But then everybody in the party suffers. Nobody can upgrade gear, get new consumables, copy spells or craft anything. Two or three levels? I didnt mention levels, I mentioned 'time'. And you dont see an issue? Not everyone needs to upgrade gear, some people can just make do on whatever can be found or bought along the way. Cheap things are easiest, such as consumables. You honestly do not see a difference between having a few days here and there vs having months to years of downtime? Pacing is very important in d&d. It can be the difference between a class being overpowered or useless. To ignore pacing, or to heavily favor one type over another, can have very serious impacts on the game. Although 50 people hamlet won't have much of anything, the game is designed so there are also 25,000+ towns in some places where purchasing goods and services up to 100,000 gold is possible without the need of "social skills". And this has what to do with not being in or near one of those large towns exactly? Plus, just because a town can have items up to a certain level does not mean that they will have every item of up to that level. On the chart in the dmg for generating random towns a metropolis that can even afford a 100,000 gp item only occurs 1% of the time! Along with that, even in such a large town there is still a pretty good chance that a caster of sufficiently high level to do what you want isnt even available. These are all real pieces of the game. Some dm's choose to simplify it in some way such as ignoring that there might be a problem while others choose to over complicate it and thereby making it essentially impossible. If we go just by what they book says though it looks to be pretty tough. Those games are exceptions and the whole game sistem needs major houseruling. Since you are responding to my quote I will assume that you are saying a game where characters have a pile of useless and redudant gear is the exception rather than the norm? Going by the dmg, plus looking at various monsters, along with seeing just how many different items (magical and mundane) are out there I will have to say that such things as I said in my quote are closer to the norm than the exception. Getting items which are not all that useful to you sometimes is how the game works. Being specialized makes such a system harder for that character while a more generalized character doesnt worry as much. This is where the weakness of being specialized comes in. That is how the game is designed. Stepping outside of that set up is indeed a variation. As such, it is possible for a dm to take away the inherant disadvantage. But doing so should be acknowledged as such with the realization that it is covering up a disadvantage rather than saying that the disadvantage simply doesnt exist. in this context it is not. Spending feats to be able to wield a weapon exceptionally well is rewarded by... being able to we weild the weapon very well. Not just ONE weapon, but all the weapons of that kind. Taking weapon focus (longsword) gives you an advantage for all swords? I disagree. Spending a feat to wield a single weapon better does not mean that you are at a disadvantage compared to a more general feat which would work with multiple weapons? I disagree. It is a weakness and a strength. That is the whole point of specialization. You get stronger in one area but other areas suffer. Take a look at the fighters saves as an example. Taking more levels in fighter causes your fort save to go up, it is tough to hit a fighter with anything that gives a fort save. However, at the same time his reflex and will saves suffer, that is a weakness of taking levels in fighter, your other two saves progress very slowly. If that fighter takes great fortitude he becomes even harder to effect with a fortitude save, he is building up his specialization in making those fort saves. However, since he did not take something like 'luck of the heroes' for a +1 to all saves, or Iron will for a +2 to will saves he suffers in those other areas. If fighter 1 spends 6 feats to make himself incredibly good at wielding a longsword then he is at a disadvantage to fighter 2 who went more general when they need to use something that is not a longsword. Fighter 1 may very well be much better than fighter 2 in a fight when fighter 1 is using a longsword though, but that is again the point of specialization. Strength while in it, weakness when not. How is it a weakness? What kind of argument is "it is a weakness because another guy can do the same with different weapons"? The other guy isnt doing the same, the other guy is doing 'more' because the first guy cannot use some of his abilities and the other guy picked up things that could be used. And by the way, a real specialist fighter can use his good weapon in a grapple too, he is not restricted to a light one. I am guessing that you mean a straight fighter 18 who picked up the feat from phb2. Forgive me if I am not impressed by a feat that is so far up the chain such that only a very few games will ever even get to see it. Especially since at that point you are so incredibly specialized in a single weapon that if you were to not be able to use that weapon for some reason you are essentially out 6 feats! That is a hit even for a pure fighter. Plus, if that character takes even a single level of anything that is not fighter at any level from 1 - 18 he wont be seeing that feat pre-epic anyway. Being able to specialize in one weapon is not a weakness Being able to? Certainly not, having the option is an advantage. Actually doing so? That is where you give yourself a weakness in other areas so that you gain a strength in a single area. That is how the game works, it is even how the real world works so it should be easy enough to relate to. It is not an advantege to be able to raise strength with rage and being able to grab any weapon from the floor Sure it is, how could it not be? Guy 1 uses weapon X very well but all others to a much lesser degree. Guy 2 uses every weapon above the level of guy 1 except for weapon X, guy 1 uses weapon X better than guy 2 can use any weapon. Each has an advantage and a disadvantage. Each has an area of strength and weakness. Does this make sense to you?
Scion of Coldshard 06-10-07, 04:57 PM	You are falling in the "lets imagine contrived and weird situations to prove a point". So, for you, any situation that might possibly put a specialized character at a disadvantage is contrived and weird? That is certainly interesting. Not useful for the thread, or d&d for that matter, or life in general, but interesting anyway. Now I personally hate capture scenarios in general, although they do happen. Once you get above a certain level they tend to be highly contrived without a very good dm, but very good dm's do exist! Weapons sundered, stolen or disarmed harm fighter and barbarian equally. Both lose their main, most powerful weapon. As you seem to have missed it I will put it up again: Not everyone has a single, most powerful weapon. A character can indeed have a few different weapons which are all pretty powerful which are useful for different tasks. Plus, you are still assuming that all of a characters weapons will be exactly the same, even though that makes something pretty close to zero sense. Either way though, the guy who can use any weapon found roughly equally and the guy who can use one weapon very well to the general exclusion of all others each have strengths and weaknesses. To ignore the weakness of one and compound the weakness of the other looks like a sign of a bad dm to me.
Kalarus 06-10-07, 05:51 PM	My point in pointing out the dubiousness of comparing the barbarian rage bonus w/ weapon specialization that the pro-fighter is it is a hypocritical line of argument that is self serving and completely dependent on circumstance...the same type of argument anti-fighters use. A fighter wielding his specialty weapon is not exactly "circumstance", it is common gameplay. If you are going to tout the amazing versatility of the fighter as a great feature, then don't be inconsistent and use weapon specialization as a way to make the fighter better than the barbarian. Why not? The Fighter can pull it off and have feats to spare. That makes him still more versatile than the Barbarian. The Fighter can choose to specialize in a versatile weapon. That makes him still more versatile than the Barbarian. It's not inconsistent. It's optimization. You have zero concept of probability. If the weapon of destiny, out of 50 some odd choices, just happens to match the Fighter's 8 feat of choice weapon, then that would be contrived. Sure it would. The weapon of destiny however is a specific purpose artifact. Meant to slay that one thing, used in that one adventure. If it's not, it's a common magic item conforming (if you do not want to play favorites) to common magic item rules. That means the Fighter's specialty weapon has a good chance of being equally powerful. Handing out supremely powerful weapons that no character of that level should wield by DMG guidelines, which never is the Fighter's chosen specialty weapon, is contrived as well. Contrived against the Fighter. Regardless, such weapons should not be handed out in regular game play unless they are needed for a specific purpose. Artifact anyone? I'll be sure to remember to get that +3 enhancement for my 8th level fighter's flavorful and ineffective longsword. :rolleyes: Yeah, because every opponent at L8 has DR that cannot be overcome by fairly common ways. High and difficult DR (e.g. requiring two types to beat) occurs most commonly only when you reach higher levels. Even then the Fighter and Barbarian are in the same boat, they both need alternative weapons to beat the DR. For a Barbarian that can be any type he wants, but typically he will settle on the most efficient token of the type that he likes (like those examples you "would not deign with a response") and get multiple materials/enchantments on them. For a Fighter it means multiple tokens of his specialty weapon. Right, because it is the DM who screws the fighter, not the limitation of the class or the narrow focus the PC choose. Two scenarios with being presented with weapon X better than what the fighter specializes...really? You've never been captured? Never had to hand over your weapons at the city gates? Never had your weapon sundered/disarmed/stolen? Never had a DM who doesn't happen to make treasure random? Never been in an environment that made either your weapon impractical or others better (underwater, Underdark w/ drowcraft, another plane w/ alien traits, etc.)? That magicshop to get that shadowstriking enhancement has always been there and available, huh? Captured: Sure. Happened, once. So what? It's a specific plot hook which should not be repeated constantly, players get really bored of being constantly captured and having their gear taken away. It makes them feel railroaded into the DMs sadistic pleasureschemes. Weapon sundered... no. My primary weapon tends to be adamantine. It's a significant but valuable investment, making it difficult to sunder. Even then, player weapons should not be sundered/stolen constantly, as you effectively lower their treasure. That doesn't matter though if you hand out equivalent treasure later again, the player in question can just replace his lost specialty weapon and be on his merry way. If you constantly make it impossible for people to hold on to their weapons, you are being a jerk. Just like you never use a certain monster again the second the Ranger picks it as favored enemy. Just like using only magic-immune monsters against spellcasters or turning the entire world into a dead magic zone. Just like outlawing armor from your games. etc etc etc. You are arbitrarily denying people to play a very normal game choice by this behaviour. Weapon disarmed: Good luck, please try. I have very good disarm rolls. You may want to remember that weapon focus stuff also gives bonuses to this little thing. Failing to disarm me even gives me a free disarm attempt, without costing me an AoO. PLEASE try. Not everything out there is a disarm build so I'll end up with a lot of free, easy disarms this way. Random treasure: my DM does not do otherwise. Occasionally he chooses not to place a random item, but then he rolls again. Often he lets the players roll at the table while he checks the result. So we have someone use diplomacy to haggle, sell what we dislike and buy what we do like. It's called trading. You should introduce it into your games some time. Underwater: Yes, use Freedom of Movement Underdark and Drow: We don't *gasp* play FR, nor use FR material. Another plane with different traits: Hasn't happened yet. I am also curious what the reason for the existance of a plane that nerfs weapon specialists would be. Magicshop: In a large city with the proper max wealth value (see DMG)? Whe the hell would it be a problem to allow people to buy what they want? Craft feats aren't uncommon. Meeting craft prerequisites is not uncommon in fact it's usually easy as they use common, sensical spells. If there's demand for something, if it is not inappropriately expensive for the situation, there's no good reason to deny someone his wish other than arbitraryness. He might need to have it custom made. It might be a bit more expensive that the guidelines because it's hardly a standard request. E.g. today my Fighter placed an order for an animated mithril heavy shield. It had to be made especially for him, preferably fast, so the DM upped the price a bit. Nothing unfair there. Outright denying people things just because you feel people should not be able to get what they want is ridiculous. It doesn't. That is supposedly the point behind Mr. Versatile Soldier that is the fighter. I am merely pointing out that the pro-fighter crowd cant have the cake and eat it by lauding the fighter's versatility where he is *not* hampered by switching weapons and matches the barbarian damage output by using a specific weapon. Fighters have 11 bonus feats over the Barbarian. We can damn well have our cake and eat it. I also wonder which 8 feats I "have" to take for my specialty weapon. If I only have WF, WS and MWM, I have +3 hit +4 damage on my spec weapon. Regular Rage Barbarian has +4 str, so that's +2/+2. Fighter wins. At L11 Barbie finally trumps that with +4/+4. I could take weapon focus and equal it but pft, I won't die from losing the +1 bonus. Let's say I do though just to be even, I have now used only 4 of my feats to equal the Barbarian and I will continue equalling him until L20 (when the campaign usually ends), when his rage *finally* outdoes me unless I pick more weapon spec feats. Meanwhile, the Fighter can dip 1 level of Barbarian and look at that, Barbie never trumps him at all, while Barbie needs to dip 4 levels of Fighter to achieve the same effect. 4 feats suffice for matching the Barbarian of which 1 is arguably only wanted if you are going to take GWS anyway. 5 feats keeps him ahead of the Barbarian constantly. Depending on personal desires, that leaves 6-8 feats for building a versatile Fighter. Mmm, cake. Yeah...because the big magic weapon in the dragon's treasure hoard has to be a Jovar or I am "screwing" the fighter :rolleyes: Just out of curiousity: what's a Jovar? Like I said before though: you should really introduce trading into your game. Social in-game events of which trading is a common one really enrich games. Gather information to find the merchant/crafter you need. Bluff/intimidate his guard/clerk into viewing your visit/order as a top priority. Diplomacy to haggle for a better price. It involves one of the key elements of the D&D game: letting players use their abilities to achieve the goals they set for their characters. Have fun with it.
Kalarus 06-10-07, 06:39 PM	Two or three levels? I didnt mention levels, I mentioned 'time'. And you dont see an issue? Not everyone needs to upgrade gear, some people can just make do on whatever can be found or bought along the way. Cheap things are easiest, such as consumables. You honestly do not see a difference between having a few days here and there vs having months to years of downtime? Pacing is very important in d&d. It can be the difference between a class being overpowered or useless. To ignore pacing, or to heavily favor one type over another, can have very serious impacts on the game. And this has what to do with not being in or near one of those large towns exactly? Plus, just because a town can have items up to a certain level does not mean that they will have every item of up to that level. On the chart in the dmg for generating random towns a metropolis that can even afford a 100,000 gp item only occurs 1% of the time! Along with that, even in such a large town there is still a pretty good chance that a caster of sufficiently high level to do what you want isnt even available. These are all real pieces of the game. Some dm's choose to simplify it in some way such as ignoring that there might be a problem while others choose to over complicate it and thereby making it essentially impossible. If we go just by what they book says though it looks to be pretty tough. Grouped this all together since it deals with a common concept: players not having the time/ability to get to a sufficiently large settlement to trade for the items they want. A standard game, per DMG guidelines, will offer sufficient downtime for PCs to make the travels they need to get the gear they need. Merchants do it all the time, they travel from town to town in order to peddle their wares, see where what is in demand. Players can do the same thing as buyers. It is possible for a campaign to run in a fashion that this is not feasable for a time. If players do not level in this time, it's not a problem, wealth by level guidelines should still be adhered to (else we are no longer playing a standard game) so the Barbarian will never pick up a significantly more powerful weapon than the Fighter, barring plot equipment. The Fighter will get a lot of milage out of his chosen weapon. If players do level in this time it *might* be possible that the Barbarian finds a more powerful weapon which happens to be not the Fighter's specialty type. However the situation the players are in is not permanent (else we are no longer playing a standard game) so eventually the party will be able to travel to an appropriately sized settlement again to get the items they want. The Barbarian had a few shining moments possibly outmeleeing the Fighter, now the Fighter happily trumps Barbie again with his spec weapon. And yes, really, a metropolis allowing items up to 100,000 gp will have the items of choice available though they may need to be specially made. People who can make these items will be present, that is what the entire 100,000 gp number is supposed to represent in the first place. A large sized metropolis will house a few powerful wizards (or a wizard guild perhaps), large temples, and what have you. Craft item feats and item creation prerequisites uses so bloody common spells it's nearly impossible not to find them. Incidentally, 1% of 25000 towns is 250 metropolises. 1% does not mean "never happens", it means there's a shitload of smaller cities, hamlets and villages likely centered around a powerful economic centre with good infrastructure leading to and from that centre. This makes said economic centre a powerful economic centre to begin with: it can be reached and it offers the goods that people demand. Since you are responding to my quote I will assume that you are saying a game where characters have a pile of useless and redudant gear is the exception rather than the norm? Going by the dmg, plus looking at various monsters, along with seeing just how many different items (magical and mundane) are out there I will have to say that such things as I said in my quote are closer to the norm than the exception. Getting items which are not all that useful to you sometimes is how the game works. Being specialized makes such a system harder for that character while a more generalized character doesnt worry as much. This is where the weakness of being specialized comes in. That is how the game is designed. Stepping outside of that set up is indeed a variation. As such, it is possible for a dm to take away the inherant disadvantage. But doing so should be acknowledged as such with the realization that it is covering up a disadvantage rather than saying that the disadvantage simply doesnt exist. DMs should not take away that disadvantage by only placing usable magic items in treasure hoards, that would not make sense and is indeed not representative of a standard game. However the DM should also not actively prevent players from reaching economically strong settlements where they can conceivably trade for the items they do desire. Doing so is also not representative of a standard game. Never giving players downtime to do so is railroading of a kind that obviously disfavors specialists and is not representative of a standard game at all. This does not mean they should always get the downtime to get what they want, sometimes they'll have to practice a little patience and *maybe* during that time a Barbarian may outdo a weapon specialist Fighter. So what? It does not make specialization a strange weakness. Taking weapon focus (longsword) gives you an advantage for all swords? I disagree. Spending a feat to wield a single weapon better does not mean that you are at a disadvantage compared to a more general feat which would work with multiple weapons? I disagree. It is a weakness and a strength. That is the whole point of specialization. You get stronger in one area but other areas suffer. Take a look at the fighters saves as an example. Taking more levels in fighter causes your fort save to go up, it is tough to hit a fighter with anything that gives a fort save. However, at the same time his reflex and will saves suffer, that is a weakness of taking levels in fighter, your other two saves progress very slowly. If that fighter takes great fortitude he becomes even harder to effect with a fortitude save, he is building up his specialization in making those fort saves. However, since he did not take something like 'luck of the heroes' for a +1 to all saves, or Iron will for a +2 to will saves he suffers in those other areas. If fighter 1 spends 6 feats to make himself incredibly good at wielding a longsword then he is at a disadvantage to fighter 2 who went more general when they need to use something that is not a longsword. Fighter 1 may very well be much better than fighter 2 in a fight when fighter 1 is using a longsword though, but that is again the point of specialization. Strength while in it, weakness when not. Argaud was likely referring to Melee Weapon Mastery when he said "all weapons of that kind". +2/+2 across the board. Not even just "swords" if you use slashing, but every slashing weapon out there. As for the rest, you're talking about oppertunity cost, not weakness. Improving on what you can do does not make your previous skills worse, it just does not make them better. It also does not make them worse than someone who likewise does not improve them. Continuing in the sphere of class comparison, where this entire argument started from, a Fighter who takes Lightning Reflexes is not weaker than a Barbarian of the same level who has not taken Lightning Reflexes. In fact he is exactly the same, and stronger in certain situations (that require Reflex saves). If you want to insist on calling this "weakness", I'd say the Barbarian is far, far weaker than the Fighter because he does not even have the option to choose. His class abilities are chosen for him so he can never choose to be as strong as the Fighter in all the areas the Fighter chooses to be strong in. There is no such thing as "specialize: everything". Your example Fighter 1 is better than Fighter 2 with a longsword. Depending on what Fighter 2 chose (in other words, *specialized in*, like e.g. tripping, disarming, grappling, what have you), there's a good chance Fighter 1 is in fact equal to Fighter 2 in a fight with maces. If Fighter2 instead starts to use his preferred combat feats, Fighter 2 is in fact using his specialization to be more effective. This means that Fighter 1 is simultaneously more powerful and weaker than Fighter 2 and vica versa. Not all weapons are steel, not all specializations are weapons. The other guy isnt doing the same, the other guy is doing 'more' because the first guy cannot use some of his abilities and the other guy picked up things that could be used. Where'd the idea come from that the first guy in a standard game is in a situation where he cannot use some of his abilities? Benefitting from your specialization is so bloody easy this situation only comes up as a plot device. I am guessing that you mean a straight fighter 18 who picked up the feat from phb2. Forgive me if I am not impressed by a feat that is so far up the chain such that only a very few games will ever even get to see it. Especially since at that point you are so incredibly specialized in a single weapon that if you were to not be able to use that weapon for some reason you are essentially out 6 feats! That is a hit even for a pure fighter. Plus, if that character takes even a single level of anything that is not fighter at any level from 1 - 18 he wont be seeing that feat pre-epic anyway. He'll see it at L20, you know, where the Barbarian finally gets his Mighty Rage and finally equals the hit/damage bonuses of a L10 Fighter with his specialty weapon. Incidentally, a Fighter not being able to use a specialty weapon of that type is about as common as a Barbarian running out of Rage per day. Weapons don't just spontaneously disappear. Situations in which that weapon becomes fully unusable are at best uncommon. Sure you might get grappled while wielding your twohander, next round break the grapple and slash the bastard. Get Close Quarters Fighting (CWar)and give yourself a huge bonus on your opposed grapple check or prevent the grapple attempt in the first place. CQF has a whopping requirement of Base Attack Bonus +3. Part of weapon specialization is making sure you will be able to use your weapon all the time. Being able to? Certainly not, having the option is an advantage. Actually doing so? That is where you give yourself a weakness in other areas so that you gain a strength in a single area. That is how the game works, it is even how the real world works so it should be easy enough to relate to. The real world might work that way, D&D does not. Forgoing the use (and effectively, the practice) of other weapons than the specialty in real life will mean you get out of practice and will be less efficient in weapons other than the one you train in. In D&D, forgoing the use and practice of other weapons than the specialty means exactly nothing for your skill in other weapons, it remains at the level that it has always been. BAB + strmod. Sure it is, how could it not be? Guy 1 uses weapon X very well but all others to a much lesser degree. Guy 2 uses every weapon above the level of guy 1 except for weapon X, guy 1 uses weapon X better than guy 2 can use any weapon. Each has an advantage and a disadvantage. Each has an area of strength and weakness. Does this make sense to you? Agreed it *is* an advantage to be able to pick up any weapon and use it at the same level of proficiency as someone who only has that proficiency with weapon X. Assuming that: 1) You actually have the same level of proficiency, which you don't in the Barb/Fighter comparison, a specialized Fighter beats the Barbarian at any level over 10. 2) You are always able to reach this level of proficiency (have uses of Rage left per day). One might claim that a Barbarian almost never runs out of Rage per day in a standard game with standard encounters. One would probably be right. One might also claim that a Fighter almost never loses his specialty weapon's use. One would also be right. So, for you, any situation that might possibly put a specialized character at a disadvantage is contrived and weird? One certainly would not say it never happens, but one would certainly also say it is not the status quo. A player should be able to count on being able to use his character's strengths. A Barbarian should be able to count on being able to rage. A Ranger should be able to count on seeing favored enemies. A Spellcaster should be able to count on casting spells. A Fighter should be able to count on using his weapon specialization. As you seem to have missed it I will put it up again: Not everyone has a single, most powerful weapon. A character can indeed have a few different weapons which are all pretty powerful which are useful for different tasks. Plus, you are still assuming that all of a characters weapons will be exactly the same, even though that makes something pretty close to zero sense. Either way though, the guy who can use any weapon found roughly equally and the guy who can use one weapon very well to the general exclusion of all others each have strengths and weaknesses. To ignore the weakness of one and compound the weakness of the other looks like a sign of a bad dm to me. It makes perfect sense for a Fighter specialized in Longswords to carry multiple Longswords. It makes sense because the Fighter is specialized in Longswords and not specialized in the 50 other weapons he could consider carrying around. Very few creatures above midlevels have damage reduction types like /bludgeoning, /slashing or /piercing. Most have /alignment or /material type damage reductions. Should one still face such a creature despite its infrequencies, the Barbarian will probably do a little better for this encounter. Well boo fuggin hoo, we now have one specific situation in which Barbie actually outperforms the Fighter.
Argaud 06-10-07, 07:15 PM	Argaud was likely referring to Melee Weapon Mastery when he said "all weapons of that kind". +2/+2 across the board. Not even just "swords" if you use slashing, but every slashing weapon out there. I actually meant to the specific kind of weapon. Because as you mention later there is no reason why the fighter won't carry several copies of his chosen weapon. As you seem to have missed it I will put it up again: Not everyone has a single, most powerful weapon. A character can indeed have a few different weapons which are all pretty powerful which are useful for different tasks. Do you realize how incredibly inefficient is that? Spreading the gold you need to have a potent weapon among several weapons does not make you better or more versatile. You just shot yourself in the foot.
Khan the Destroyer 06-10-07, 08:07 PM	I am failing to see how swapping weapons severely hampers the fighter's combat ability, or how this situation will even occur in any sort of regular frequency. It doesn't. That is supposedly the point behind Mr. Versatile Soldier that is the fighter. I am merely pointing out that the pro-fighter crowd cant have the cake and eat it by lauding the fighter's versatility where he is *not* hampered by switching weapons and matches the barbarian damage output by using a specific weapon. It seems that I should at least clarify something. Without speaking for anyone else, when I say a fighter is versatile, I am not referring to the fact that he has martial weapon proficiency with every martial weapon. I am referring to the several combat options he can have available through the number of feats he obtains. I didn't just make this build up. I've posted it before (though a while back in the first half of this mighty thread). 1. Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Power Attack 2. Improved Bull Rush 3. Point Blank Shot 4. Improved Sunder 5. 6. Combat Brute, Shock Trooper 7. 8. Weapon Focus: Flail 9. True Believer: Kord 10. Knockdown 11. 12. Precise Shot, Rapid Shot 13. 14. Weapon Specialization: Flail 15. Improved Disarm 16. Melee Weapon Mastery 17. 18. Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization 19. 20. Weapon Supremacy This fighter specializes in the flail. His options when attacking include disarming, tripping, sundering, and bull rushing. He can increase his damage with power attack and combat brute, or increase his AC with combat expertise. The shock trooper and combat brute feats both synergize very well with sundering/disarming/bull rushing/power attack/charges if you know what you're doing. The weapon mastery chain not only increases his attack and damage for regular 'hit the bad guy' attack rolls, but also boost his chances when using his disarm and sunder attack routines, as well as his power attack and combat expertise options. Finally, he can fire into melee with a bow at no penalty and can make an extra ranged attack on a full attack. (In my opinion, archery is usually about the bow. Archery feats generally leave me underwhelmed.) The weapon of choice is the flail, which deals bludgeoning damage, can trip, and grants a bonus on disarm. You can also get the two-handed bonus damage from it if you wanted to, or use it with a shield. If for whatever reason he finds himself without his trusty flail, he'll have to make do without the bonuses to attack and damage. But his combat options still remain. So I ask, genuinely, keeping D&D warriors in general in mind, with regards to versatility what would someone find lacking in this build?
aelryinth 06-10-07, 08:37 PM	Khan, build the Fighter with JUST the Fighter feats for his levels, not the 1/3 from characters, and we'll be comparing class benefits. In other words, you really have to line up 11 feats against the class abilities of the Barbarian to make the comparison. The other 7 or 8 feats the Barbarian gets, too...and nobody has really posted a level 20 Barbarian build. the feats required for Weapon Supremacy actually take ALL a normal character's character feats. Ouch! ===Aelryinth
Kratch 06-10-07, 09:32 PM	Either way though, the guy who can use any weapon found roughly equally and the guy who can use one weapon very well to the general exclusion of all others each have strengths and weaknesses. To ignore the weakness of one and compound the weakness of the other looks like a sign of a bad dm to me. But the original point was to show a fighter, if he so chose to be built in such a way, was capable of matching, more or less, based more on personal prefference, the power of a barbarian. It was an attempt to show the barbarian was not the supperior class as some were trying to make us believe. The fact remains, a fighter can (again, if he so chose to be built in such a way) match a barbaian for power overall. The barbarian has the slight (and i'll get to that momentarilly) advantage that he isn't restricted to a particular weapon. The fighters advantage is, he isn't restricted to that particular build. So to start arguing about a fighter losing out on the versatility due to specializing on a specific weapon really doesn't prove anything ether way about wether a fighter is or isn't approximately equal in power. If the fighter can, using a general build, match the abilities of a barbarian (without bringing campaign specific issues in like, the exsistance of ye ol' magic shop and capture scenario's and wether the DM will grant enough downtime to upgrade their gear), then i think the general claim that barbarians are by far a superior class is shown to be false. Though they may or may not remain to be marginally superior (although i find the remaining differences to be a matter of personal taste over actual power). Now, as to how large an issue it actually is, I see the fighters specializing in a weapon to be no more or less of a disadvantage as a wizard and his/her spellbook. Both rely on the item to do what they do best. Both rely on the DM to provide the means to upgrade it, in the form of granted treasure or ye o'l magic shops with casters high enough level to create the effects (and i'd like to point out, with the exception of granting the +5 bonus or the higher level spell scrolls, the caster level of the creator doesn't need to be that high). Both rely heavily on the downtime needed to upgrade it (IE scribe scolls or add enhancments). Both are expensive and time consuming to replace. The only difference is, a wizard is usually more justified in spending that cost pre-emptively, because otherwise, it will be excceedingly more expensive and time consuming (not to mention, reliant on the DM's allowing the replacement spells to be found) then a fighters weapon replacement(and i might add, the GM often forgets or ignores the back-ups in the wealth by level charts, something the DM will rarely do for a melee class's back-up weapon, but thats an issue of double standards). You can argue a barbarian can pick up any weapon and use it just as well as the one he was using, while the fighter has to stick with his specializaed one. But generally, anytime you find a weapon, it will have random enhancements, not all of which you might find useful, and generally, found upgrade weapons are at best, +1-2 higher total enhancement over what your using anyways. As a specialization fighters weapon will be tailored to him, since he's likely been conscripting people to create/upgrade it over walking in and buying a new random enhancement, off the rack one, the loss of +1-2 on an entirely random weapon usually isn't an issue (not to mention that new found weapon may lose out on overall damage cause it's a different weapon (light maces aren't the same as greatswords, so even a barbarian may not be willing to switch his favoured +7 greatsword for this +9 random ability light mace, but you all knew that). You can argue a barbarian can use any weapon apropriate for penitrating DR, But as a greatsword fighter can have 3 (or more) greatswords, one silver + good, one cold iron + good and one magic adamantine (any one can be his main), he can also benifit from having multiple weapons for penitrating DR, and still get the benifit of his weapon spec line. The only type of DR that remains is damage based (blunt, piercing, slashing), which is generally pretty rare, but i'll still address it. As you weren't willing to give me an example of a golf bag a barbarian would use to make use of this percieved advantage, i'll have to guess what you mean (see how what you think isn't relevent can actually be relevent?). In order for a barbarian to take full advantage of all the possible material/alignment/damage combinations (and i'm only assuming from a good aligned character point of veiw, as they will almost never be fighting good outsider things. if the characters are evil, they will likely be fighting both good and evil outsider things and thus need to consider even more alignments), the barbarian would need about 9 weapons. 1 each for each of the 3 damage types of each of the 3 main materials. To make sure they were all magic and good aligned would make creating this golfbag very expensive (or at least, cut largely into the wealth by level allowance). This means that most of the back-up weapons won't be any better then +1 and aligned. So, when the fighter and babrarian comes across something with damage based DR, the fighter would likely decide to stick with his +5 whatever, while the barbarian switchs weapons, losing a total of +4/+4. If we assume the fighter is specializard in a weapon that is one handed, then the damage based DR needs to be greater then 8 for the barbarian to start coming out ahead. If the fighter is speced in a 2handed weapon, the damage based DR needs to be greater then 12. The only creatures i can think of that match this measure (damage based DR over 12) are lich's and ooze's with split (technically not DR, but it is damage type relevent). The advantage over the lich is extremely minor (depending on the AC, the barbarians loss of to hit from using an inferrior enhancement weapon may well offset any potential damage advantage he has, or should the fighter have used the remainder of his feats to build a tactical fighter, the lich's is likely susceptable to those tactics which once again, closes the gap (i'd like to note, lich's are not huge or larger and don't naturally fly, though they do have spells). As for ooze's, if the barbarian has enough back-up blunt weapons to kill the ooze's dispite all the ones that get desolved, then i grant you that, barbarians are better at killing ooze's then fighters not specialized in a blunt weapon. congratz, you've just proven fighters suck :rolleyes: /sarcasm off Of course, if you want to go that route, a tactical fighter then has an advantage against all humanoids and monstrous humanoids over the barbarian, so i think it works out.
navar100 06-10-07, 09:53 PM	Khan, build the Fighter with JUST the Fighter feats for his levels, not the 1/3 from characters, and we'll be comparing class benefits. In other words, you really have to line up 11 feats against the class abilities of the Barbarian to make the comparison. The other 7 or 8 feats the Barbarian gets, too...and nobody has really posted a level 20 Barbarian build. the feats required for Weapon Supremacy actually take ALL a normal character's character feats. Ouch! ===Aelryinth Double standard. Other classes are permitted to use their character feats to show how good they are. The same should be allowed the fighter.
Bob Loblaw 06-10-07, 10:18 PM	My point in pointing out the dubiousness of comparing the barbarian rage bonus w/ weapon specialization that the pro-fighter is it is a hypocritical line of argument that is self serving and completely dependent on circumstance...the same type of argument anti-fighters use. If you are going to tout the amazing versatility of the fighter as a great feature, then don't be inconsistent and use weapon specialization as a way to make the fighter better than the barbarian. I know that I mentioned this before. I know that at least one person caught it (thanks Kratch). The purpose was to show that there is little difference in damage output. It was not meant to demonstrate anything else. Why not specialize? Again, I think it should be mentioned that the build is not something that I would use. I don't know how else to make it clearer. Maybe I'll change the font size and color if it's still confusing. Honestly what fighter is carrying around his greatsword, heavy mace, longspear, composite longbow, and bola just so he can have some options for damage types and various ranges? What fighter (or character for that matter) is carrying around five of each of those weapons made of different materials, just in case he needs to deal with Damage Reduction? None. I have never seen it and I doubt I ever will. There is little reason not to specialize as a fighter, but it certainly isn't necessary. Since weapon specialization is a fighter-only feat (at least in Core), then it is fair game since it is unique to the fighter when it comes to comparisons. If you can find a Core-only class that can take Weapon Specialization, then you'd have a point. Besides, the barbarian is able to use his class abilities, why not the fighter? For the record, bonus feats are class abilities. There is no reason to ignore them. You have zero concept of probability. If the weapon of destiny, out of 50 some odd choices, just happens to match the Fighter's 8 feat of choice weapon, then that would be contrived. So let's talk probability. If I choose longsword as my weapon of choice, there is a 0.084% chance that a random magic weapon will be what I am waiting for. The Spear of Destiny (I am assuming longspear) has a 0.003% of showing up randomly. In other words, I am 28 times as likely to find a magic longsword than magic longspear. Since an item like the Spear of Destiny is probably an artifact the way you described it earlier, there is now a 100% chance that it will be available in the campaign. Of course, it's only useful against that one opponent that it was designed to defeat. The next opponent I fight, the spear loses it's usefulness. I am still better off using my trusty longsword. Right, because it is the DM who screws the fighter, not the limitation of the class or the narrow focus the PC choose. Two scenarios with being presented with weapon X better than what the fighter specializes...really? You've never been captured? Never had to hand over your weapons at the city gates? Never had your weapon sundered/disarmed/stolen? Never had a DM who doesn't happen to make treasure random? Never been in an environment that made either your weapon impractical or others better (underwater, Underdark w/ drowcraft, another plane w/ alien traits, etc.)? That magicshop to get that shadowstriking enhancement has always been there and available, huh? Have you ever had a time when those situations did not happen? If so, then they can't be used as a way to show weakness. Besides, what is your barbarian going to do in the same situation? His weapons have been taken away so he's up the same creek as the fighter. Sorry, but this argument really only shows that weapon use may not always be possible. It demonstrates absolutely nothing on the effectiveness of Specialization v Rage. I would also ask you about the unarmed fighter? Since he will always have his weapons, and will be able to deal lethal damage, is he now far superior to the barbarian? What if he doesn't choose Specialization, but can still deal lethal damage? It doesn't. That is supposedly the point behind Mr. Versatile Soldier that is the fighter. I am merely pointing out that the pro-fighter crowd cant have the cake and eat it by lauding the fighter's versatility where he is *not* hampered by switching weapons and matches the barbarian damage output by using a specific weapon. I can certainly have my cake and eat it too. I prefer mine as Boston Creme, but I can settle for a good German Chocolate. Realistically, how often does the fighter need to worry about more than one weapon? Yeah...because the big magic weapon in the dragon's treasure hoard has to be a Jovar or I am "screwing" the fighter :rolleyes: The point was that you specifically chose a weapon that the fighter would not be able to use as well to prove your point (not that it would prevent any of his combat tactics from working, he would just deal a whopping 2 points less damage). When someone points out that clerics can't cast spells in anti-magic fields, it is pointed out that the situation is contrived. The same holds true here. As I mentioned earlier, it is 28 times more likely that the weapon found in the dragon's hoard is a longsword over a longspear.
Bob Loblaw 06-10-07, 10:22 PM	Double standard. Other classes are permitted to use their character feats to show how good they are. The same should be allowed the fighter. Only if they are bonus feats like metamagic or item creation. If they are feats that anyone can take like Specialization, Greater Specialization, or Supremacy, then they are fair game.
Kratch 06-10-07, 10:45 PM	1. Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Power Attack 2. Improved Bull Rush 3. Point Blank Shot 4. Improved Sunder 5. 6. Combat Brute, Shock Trooper 7. 8. Weapon Focus: Flail 9. True Believer: Kord 10. Knockdown 11. 12. Precise Shot, Rapid Shot 13. 14. Weapon Specialization: Flail 15. Improved Disarm 16. Melee Weapon Mastery 17. 18. Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization 19. 20. Weapon Supremacy I agree with pretty much everything you said, just wanted to point out an error on the build before you got hammered for the mistake. Weapon sup is not a fighter feat, as much as it should be. Likely your best bet is to delay one of your archery feats till level 20 and shift everything down to the next earliest feat level. Khan, build the Fighter with JUST the Fighter feats for his levels, not the 1/3 from characters, and we'll be comparing class benefits. In other words, you really have to line up 11 feats against the class abilities of the Barbarian to make the comparison. The other 7 or 8 feats the Barbarian gets, too...and nobody has really posted a level 20 Barbarian build. the feats required for Weapon Supremacy actually take ALL a normal character's character feats. Ouch! ===Aelryinth I actually did that, not with the intention of out -tatacl manuvering the barbarian, but simply matching the barbarians abilities. Overall, they worked out about even in the end, with minor advantages and disadvantages to both, depending more on prefference then anything else. Being restricted to one weapon for the fighter was one disadvantage over the barbarian, but it is such a small one, that it is easily offset by some of the advantages of the fighter. In the end, it basically came down to about improved uncanny dodge, +10 ft movement, trap sence, feats geared to rage being available and generally easier to upgrade/replace weapons overal (though, with far less control over the specifics of those upgrades). In exchange, the fighter had take 10 on attack, +5 on a secondary attack, superior tactical manuver resistance, blindsence 5ft, his attacks being unhampered by being in a grapple and the fact he's not limited to using that exact build (or anything even remotely close if he so chose). generally speaking, the only advantages one holds over the other is based on how you percieve these differences. Some would feel the abillity to fight in a grapple worth more then everything else, due to the number of creatures with improved grab. Others would say it's redundant due to freedom of movement and that the barbarians move is better for charging, then someone can say that that is redundant due to boots of striding and springing and/or haste. the arguments can go round in circles for a long long time, because, at this point, it's all just a matter of personal preference, and even giving that, the differences are relatively mild (I've posted the comparison twice in this thread already, once within the last 3 or so pages). If khan chooses to make a more tactical oriented build (using only fighter bonus feats), I'm sure someone will start using the things he didn't focus on against his build (like will saves or uncanny dodge benifits). PLus they will likely ignore the fact that, without the level feat extra rage (thats not a class feature of barbarians but a feat taken for leveling), the level 1-8 advantage people often claim the barbarian has over the fighter (and even us pro-fighters admit to it) disappears to the lack of enough rages to continue for multiple encounters throughout the day.
Scion of Coldshard 06-10-07, 10:47 PM	A standard game, per DMG guidelines, will offer sufficient downtime for PCs to make the travels they need to get the gear they need. Eventually. Not continuously or on demand. A very important point. People who can make these items will be present It is possible for there to be no characters of any class above level 15 in the metropolis by the dmg rules, which means that by definition it is possible that there is no one in the city that could make the desired item. Incidentally, 1% of 25000 towns is 250 metropolises. Yes, I brought this up earlier, it is even in the bit you quoted. It could easily be that the nearest metropolis is several hundred miles away which would require quite some time to get to, potential danger, and it eats into whatever amount of down time you might be having. That they can exist is not the issue. Access to them and the proper powerful folks and time and other such issues however are. DMs should not take away that disadvantage by only placing usable magic items in treasure hoards, that would not make sense and is indeed not representative of a standard game. And there you have it, when you find some bit of weapon treasure it could potentially be both better than what your fighter guy has right now and be outside of what he is specialized to use thereby requiring the use of downtime in order to change it over to something in his specialty. Argaud was likely referring to Melee Weapon Mastery when he said "all weapons of that kind". +2/+2 across the board. Not even just "swords" if you use slashing, but every slashing weapon out there. He already said that he wasnt, he actually meant the same weapon over and over again, but even if he had meant it the way you said it would still be incorrect. Either way, there are weapons outside of the scope of whichever set of specific weapon and weapon type feats the character happens to hvae. Improving on what you can do does not make your previous skills worse, it just does not make them better. It also does not make them worse than someone who likewise does not improve them. So, wait, taking a feat to make you better at one thing while someone takes a feat at something else better does not make you worse at the thing that the second person took than the second person? I disagree. If one character takes weapon focus (x) while another takes power attack then the first will be better at striking with weapon focus (x) while the second guy will be better at doing what power attack does with weapons in general. It is clear that each has different areas of strengths and weaknesses here. Where'd the idea come from that the first guy in a standard game is in a situation where he cannot use some of his abilities? That was one of the situations that was being discussed. He'll see it at L20, you know It isnt a fighter bonus feat and you dont get a feat from hd at level 20 so he wont be getting it at level 20 without some special circumstances. The real world might work that way, D&D does not. Ah, you must be playing a special version of d&d then. Luckily, many of the rules for the version I am talking about are free on the web! Feel free to check them out here: http://www.d20srd.org/ Agreed it *is* an advantage to be able to pick up any weapon and use it Very true, glad you agree ;) The rest of your comment was nonsense though so I cut it off. It makes perfect sense for a Fighter specialized in Longswords to carry multiple Longswords. Sure, but nothing else of use? He will carry no bludgeoning weapons or piercing weapons? And of course it makes sense for a specialized person to carry what he is specialized in. Of course, the more general guy could carry weapons with a wider variety of effects and properties while the other guy is apparently stuck with only longswords. Hmm.. back to the original arguement again.. Very few creatures above midlevels have damage reduction types like /bludgeoning, /slashing or /piercing. Campaign dependent, but it does suck to be caught unawares doesnt it? You really must get over this hatred of the barbarian though, it is no good.
Scion of Coldshard 06-10-07, 10:52 PM	But the original point was to show a fighter, if he so chose to be built in such a way, was capable of matching, more or less, based more on personal prefference, the power of a barbarian. That was actually not the original thrust of my arguement. Nice try though. It looks like the rest of your post tries to expound on this point or yet again try to make this a fighter vs barbarian debate or goes over points that have been over too many times as is.
Kratch 06-10-07, 11:29 PM	Very true, glad you agree ;) The rest of your comment was nonsense though so I cut it off. I've been seeing this form of selective editing a lot lately. It's a real shame. media does it a lot to misrepresent people and stir up tensions to make more tabloid news or to fit the ideas represented by the story into the veiws of the media outlets owners. Sure, but nothing else of use? He will carry no bludgeoning weapons or piercing weapons? Why? to what purpose? Why does he need all these other weapon damage types for? you keep saying it is an advantage to have access to them, back that statement up. And of course it makes sense for a specialized person to carry what he is specialized in. Of course, the more general guy could carry weapons with a wider variety of effects and properties while the other guy is apparently stuck with only longswords. By "wider variety of effects and properties", what do you mean? are you trying to say someone who carries more weapons of different types are going to also benifit from more a better enhancement options? a guy who carries one main longsword and 2 back-up longswords isn't entitled to as many and as varried weapon enhancements as the guy who has a longsword, a mace and a pick? doesn't sound right to me, that sounds more like your granting suprior wealth to the non specialized person. Or are you talking about weapon properties like bonus's to disarm and trip? things a fighter would ether, not be using often because he didn't choose to take that particular manuver as a specialty and would rather not take the AoO's, or he would have taken some of those options and also specialized in a weapon that provided those bonus (after all, i highly doubt your gonna find a trip or disarm build specializing in longswords). That was actually not the original thrust of my arguement. Nice try though. It looks like the rest of your post tries to expound on this point or yet again try to make this a fighter vs barbarian debate or goes over points that have been over too many times as is. But it was the original intent of myself and bob. It was then the original intent of the one who began this debate to use the specialized fighters limit on weapon use as a reason why the barbarian was superior. Your responces, wether it was intended to, or wether it was a coincedence brought on by your tendancy to ignore people, fell into the vein of support for those people arguing the barbarians superiority. Perhaps, if you didn't make such an effort to conceal your stance, it wouldn't so easily get mixed up with the stance of those arguing with similar points. Reguardless, as you acknowledge, the rest of my post is an effort to expound my first point, which i never claimed was your stance, but rather mine. I originally created a fighter build to match the barbarian (bob did likewise), and we were told we were wrong about them being equal because barbarians aren't limited to a specific weapon. We then defended our position, you started refuting our defence, and from there, your original stances (which remains hiden still) means jack diddly to us, your now questioning our defence of our point. Just for the record, if this isn't a fighter vs barbarian thing, what is it? Cause last i checked, this all began and has remains in the vein of "a fighter is not equal to a barbarian because the fighters specialization restricts him to a single weapon". As i'm certain i'm not the only one under the impression that that is what is being debated at this moment, perhaps you can help the rest of us catch up to you. If there is indeed a second argument going on here, 1: please show me with a quote or link to the posts where this second argument began/ is prevelent (though i'm sure you'll back out of this with some comment about, if i can't see it, there's nothing you can do to help me). 2: why are you compounding the confusion by arguing a sepperate point without reguards to the original one, something you argued against for 15 odd pages (give or take), given the use of different variations of the interpretation of terminology used.
xanadu 06-11-07, 04:02 AM	Kalarus - My point is that if you place all your eggs in a single melee weapon basket, this is specialization not versatility. Yes you can go the weapon specialization tree and it is common gameplay, but you limit your versatility because you dont want to drop that +2 flail and pick up the +2 silver ghost touch guisarme to fight the wraiths and vampires in the graveyard. You could and perhaps you will, but you aren't going to be as effective as the other fighter in battle against the enemy who selected iron will and combat focus as his feats instead of weapon whatever (flail). I suppose you are going to tell me that you'll have some sort of magic item on hand to magically make your flail fully effective against the vamps and wraiths or you'll have a bag full of +1 cold iron, +1 silver, +1 adamantine, +1 ghost touch, and +1 undead bane flails on your person without realizing you are still not as versatile since you are using resource and/or actions to match the other fighter. That's all I have been trying to say. That's the way logic works. If you select options that are applicable only when using a particular type of weapon, you are not as versatile as the fighter who selected a feat that can be used either all the time (such as iron will) or allows him to be effective in a different context (such as precise shot). Yes you can sink feats into your weapon of choice, have such a wonderful build that it is impossible to disarm you, and full party freedom of movement at level 6. There is this type of specialized fighter and there is the jack-of-all-trades who can use any type of weapon in almost any type of scenario effectively. Pro-fighter types tend argue both exist at the same time in the same character when abstractly comparing the fighter to clerics, barbarians, warblades, or what not.
Argaud 06-11-07, 06:20 AM	Just for the record, if this isn't a fighter vs barbarian thing, what is it? Cause last i checked, this all began and has remains in the vein of "a fighter is not equal to a barbarian because the fighters specialization restricts him to a single weapon". As i'm certain i'm not the only one under the impression that that is what is being debated at this moment, perhaps you can help the rest of us catch up to you. If there is indeed a second argument going on here, 1: please show me with a quote or link to the posts where this second argument began/ is prevelent (though i'm sure you'll back out of this with some comment about, if i can't see it, there's nothing you can do to help me). 2: why are you compounding the confusion by arguing a sepperate point without reguards to the original one, something you argued against for 15 odd pages (give or take), given the use of different variations of the interpretation of terminology used. And you know why is that "a fighter is not equal to a barbarian because the fighters specialization restricts him to a single weapon"? Apparently because the DM will give the party superweapons that are better than anything the party already have, regardless of how unlikely that is considering the investment a warrior makes in the main weapon. AND they will have to use those superweapons right there, with no time to go to a city to trade them. Now, really... How many times is that going to happen in a campaign? Someone (I think it was me) also mentioned the need to pierce the DR/type of some rare monsters. But see, it are many weapons with dual damage type. So if the fighter main weapon is slashing, he can use a morningstar to cover for the other two types. And make it of Aptitude (ToB) so all his weapon feats can be applied to it. And then have a bow of Aptitude too, so he is also an archer specialist, which a barbarian can hardly be. The original statement "a fighter is not equal to a barbarian because the fighters specialization restricts him to a single weapon" is false.
Bob Loblaw 06-11-07, 09:47 AM	Kalarus - My point is that if you place all your eggs in a single melee weapon basket, this is specialization not versatility. How many weapon-specific feats are there in the game? There really aren't that many. The fighter is not limited to his preferred weapon. While he will lose some bonus to hit and damage, he retains all of his other options. The barbarian in the example Drachasor gave took Weapon Focus. Is he also limited and now stuck with problems? That's all I have been trying to say. That's the way logic works. If you select options that are applicable only when using a particular type of weapon, you are not as versatile as the fighter who selected a feat that can be used either all the time (such as iron will) or allows him to be effective in a different context (such as precise shot). Actually, this is not how logic works. Unfortunately you ignored 2/3 of the fighters feats by focusing only on weapon specific ones. Earlier in this thread I had a fighter who was good with both the bow and greatsword, could handle grapples, disarms, and sunders. Here is his feat list (note that it is Core-Only): Character 1 Weapon Focus (Greatsword) Fighter 1 Weapon Focus (Longbow) Fighter 2 Power Attack Character 3 Lightning Reflexes Fighter 4 Weapon Specialization (Greatsword) Fighter 6 Weapon Specialization (Longbow) Character 6 Combat Expertise Fighter 8 Greater Weapon Focus (Greatswrod) Character 9 Iron Will Fighter 10 Improved Initiative Fighter 12 Greater Weapon Specialization (Greatsword) Character 12 Improved Sunder Fighter 14 Improved Unarmed Strike Character 15 Improved Disarm Fighter 16 Improved Grapple Fighter 18 Greater Weapon Focus (Longbow) Character 18 Skill Focus Tumble Fighter 20 Greater Weapon Specialization (Longbow) So tell me how I lose out just because I specialized in two weapons? Yes you can sink feats into your weapon of choice, have such a wonderful build that it is impossible to disarm you, and full party freedom of movement at level 6. There is this type of specialized fighter and there is the jack-of-all-trades who can use any type of weapon in almost any type of scenario effectively. Pro-fighter types tend argue both exist at the same time in the same character when abstractly comparing the fighter to clerics, barbarians, warblades, or what not. That is actually not even close to what we are saying. We will never make the claim that fighters (or any other non-full caster) is going to have more options than full casters. The fighter does have more options than the barbarian. Count up the number of combat options the barbarian has and the number the fighter has. You'll find that the fighter can do more than the barbarian. As for the warblade (or any other ToB class), they appear to have more options because each of there maneuvers are individually named. As a player you now say "I initiate maneuver X while in stance Y." There is really no reason why the fighter can't do the same thing. The end result is swing-deal damage. The ToB classes cannot use every one of their maneuvers all the time. They are still limited. Don't get me wrong, I think the book is great. I just don't see it as the all mighty Tome of Perfection touted by many. Also, what is your warblade going to do when he needs to use a bow? He is so specialized in melee that he is now worthless (this is the argument you are using comparing fighters to barbarians).
Drachasor 06-11-07, 10:00 AM	As for the warblade (or any other ToB class), they appear to have more options because each of there maneuvers are individually named. As a player you now say "I initiate maneuver X while in stance Y." There is really no reason why the fighter can't do the same thing. The end result is swing-deal damage. You're kidding right? The different maneuvers actually do DIFFERENT THINGS. It is far different from a fighter naming each swing he does. One is an actual difference, the other is make-believe. ToB classes genuinely have a lot more variety in melee combat than the Fighter. Also, what is your warblade going to do when he needs to use a bow? He is so specialized in melee that he is now worthless (this is the argument you are using comparing fighters to barbarians). The Warblade can get maneuvers so that he can rapidly close the distance with the enemy. He can also use throwable melee weapons. If he really wants to use a ranged weapon, he has a few options. He can either take the Exotic Weapon Proficiency, and use Weapon Aptitude to switch it to an Exotic Ranged Weapon when needed, or he can take a level or two in a class that gives him such a proficiency (such as Crusader). He could also be an Elf. In any case, not having a bow is not a big deal in my experience. Also, from what I saw that's not the argument used when comparing Fighters to Barbarians. The argument used was that a Fighter who is built to deal out Barbarian-level Damage (or more) has to heavily specialize in one particular weapon. He has less flexibility when changing weapons. The Warblade trumps the Fighter in this regard for melee weapons. -Drachasor
Clawhound 06-11-07, 10:30 AM	What I think is that you missed was the main thrust of the argument: that melee classes (even To9S classes) have limits. There is always some trade-off to be made. This is not bad. This keeps one character from dominating all options, which is a great thing for a group game. One thing that unites all of melee is that multi-classing greatly benefits them. I consider this a feature. It is good that fighter can multiclass into cleric just to pick up wands of ''cure light wounds'', then pick up a level of warblade. This gives melee a considerably different feel than spellcasting.
Bob Loblaw 06-11-07, 10:31 AM	You're kidding right? The different maneuvers actually do DIFFERENT THINGS. It is far different from a fighter naming each swing he does. One is an actual difference, the other is make-believe. ToB classes genuinely have a lot more variety in melee combat than the Fighter. I'm going to spend some time on this one later, I have to work soon and I have 2 long days ahead so don't expect much until Thursday. The Warblade can get maneuvers so that he can rapidly close the distance with the enemy. He can also use throwable melee weapons. If he really wants to use a ranged weapon, he has a few options. He can either take the Exotic Weapon Proficiency, and use Weapon Aptitude to switch it to an Exotic Ranged Weapon when needed, or he can take a level or two in a class that gives him such a proficiency (such as Crusader). He could also be an Elf. In any case, not having a bow is not a big deal in my experience. What about when the creature remains out of reach? Flying or teleporting away would cause the same problems for the warblade as it would for the barbarian or fighter without ranged weapons. The taking of feats is something the fighter can do as well so I don't see it as an advantage for the warblade. Also, from what I saw that's not the argument used when comparing Fighters to Barbarians. The argument used was that a Fighter who is built to deal out Barbarian-level Damage (or more) has to heavily specialize in one particular weapon. He has less flexibility when changing weapons. The Warblade trumps the Fighter in this regard for melee weapons. The build I threw out wasn't heavily specialized. In fact, he took Toughness twice and Iron Will. Four of his feats were dedicated to his weapon. The remaining 3 feats were not dedicated to his weapon. Dodge, Power Attack, and Cleave are not dedicated to any weapon, and in fact can be used with quite a large variety of weapons. The barbarian had half of his feats dedicated to his weapon. I didn't give him Extra Rage, but if I did then he would probably lose out on Improved Critical. So 25%-50% of the barbarian's feats were dedicated to his weapon and 40% of the fighter's feats were dedicated to his weapon. Not really as much as the claims being made. Dropping Improved Critical from the fighter would open up another option like Improved Trip or Disarm (and now only 30% of his feats dedicated to a single weapon). The best part is that my fighter doesn't have to worry about how often he can do this, unlike rage. My fighter need not worry about spells like Calm Emotions. My fighter can fighter just fine while fatigued.
Kratch 06-11-07, 12:54 PM	Kalarus - My point is that if you place all your eggs in a single melee weapon basket, this is specialization not versatility. Yes, it is specializing (thats name name of some of the feats). It doesn't immediatly mean a loss of versatility to the degree your trying to demonstrait. Yes you can go the weapon specialization tree and it is common gameplay, but you limit your versatility because you dont want to drop that +2 flail and pick up the +2 silver ghost touch guisarme to fight the wraiths and vampires in the graveyard. You could and perhaps you will, but you aren't going to be as effective as the other fighter in battle against the enemy who selected iron will and combat focus as his feats instead of weapon whatever (flail). Where did this +2 silver ghost touch guisarme come from? Was it something the non specced fighter was carrying around? or was it placed at the opening of the graveyard by the DM, specially tailored for the encounter. Additionally, even if he did use the guisarm in this encounter, losing out on a reletively small to hit and damage bonus in exchange for the effectiveness, he will be a little behind the guy who too iron will and combat focus this fight, but in all the other fights where he is able to use his flail and doesn't have to worry about will saves, he now has the advantage. It's a trade off. But i really have to ask, whats the ratio of encounters vs creatures with will save attacks and specific weapon resistances vs creatures that don't have will saves and can be effected by any weapon. Your trying to prove the wizard is vulnerable because of anti-magic fields (something i was guilty of in my earlier days, i'll admit.)
Kalarus 06-11-07, 01:47 PM	Eventually. Not continuously or on demand. A very important point. Not really, since if you consistently prevent it you are actively working against a certain type of character. So it's just a very minor point of an uncommon situation. It is possible for there to be no characters of any class above level 15 in the metropolis by the dmg rules, which means that by definition it is possible that there is no one in the city that could make the desired item. It is also possible for platinum pieces to fall out of the sky but that does not mean it's going to happen does it. Even then having a bunch of 15+ characters who can possibly craft is going to net you everything but the most powerful of items. You might have to have those specially commissioned elsewhere. The point is there's no reason to actively deny characters such items because they exist to be used in gameplay. Yes, I brought this up earlier, it is even in the bit you quoted. It could easily be that the nearest metropolis is several hundred miles away which would require quite some time to get to, potential danger, and it eats into whatever amount of down time you might be having. An extensive dangerous travel is not down time. It's an adventure. Assuming the party wizard has in fact no clue about how to cast Teleport. That they can exist is not the issue. Access to them and the proper powerful folks and time and other such issues however are. Which is only an issue because you insist on making it so. It is not something inherent to the game, it is something inherent to a style of play you insist on defending. And there you have it, when you find some bit of weapon treasure it could potentially be both better than what your fighter guy has right now and be outside of what he is specialized to use thereby requiring the use of downtime in order to change it over to something in his specialty. And this is a problem how? The weapon might in fact be more powerful in magic but worse in base stats. There's no reason to assume a weapon that is not useful for the Fighter is automatically useful for the Barbarian. Think the Barbarian is going to exchange his +2 keen Greatsword for a +4 dagger? Not likely. He already said that he wasnt, he actually meant the same weapon over and over again, but even if he had meant it the way you said it would still be incorrect. Either way, there are weapons outside of the scope of whichever set of specific weapon and weapon type feats the character happens to hvae. You must be reading posts backwards in time. I posted my reply before he specified what he meant, not after. I am mildly curious what about my statement is "incorrect". So, wait, taking a feat to make you better at one thing while someone takes a feat at something else better does not make you worse at the thing that the second person took than the second person? I disagree. If one character takes weapon focus (x) while another takes power attack then the first will be better at striking with weapon focus (x) while the second guy will be better at doing what power attack does with weapons in general. It is clear that each has different areas of strengths and weaknesses here. That isn't what I said. "Strawman much"? That was one of the situations that was being discussed. Not an answer to the question. It isnt a fighter bonus feat and you dont get a feat from hd at level 20 so he wont be getting it at level 20 without some special circumstances. My bad, apparently it isn't. Plenty of alternatives. I already mentioned CQF. Ah, you must be playing a special version of d&d then. Luckily, many of the rules for the version I am talking about are free on the web! Feel free to check them out here: http://www.d20srd.org/ Yes, I am sure all those rules, skills, feats and abilities all work exactly in the game as they work in the real world. It's not that we're not playing the same game of D&D, but you apparently do not live on Earth. Very true, glad you agree ;) The rest of your comment was nonsense though so I cut it off. Of course in a discussion one needs not specify why one thing is nonsense, one just claims it is hoping to be believed. You have no superseding claim to truth. I suppose in your game, everyone's a commoner because you don't get to use your class strengths anyway. Sure, but nothing else of use? He will carry no bludgeoning weapons or piercing weapons? My characters always carry them around, however at some point the weapon which use I favor, no matter what class I play, will always be outright better than the backup weapons I do not invest in. Since one does not have infinite money, there's no reason to upgrade those weapons when the favored weapon works fine. And of course it makes sense for a specialized person to carry what he is specialized in. Of course, the more general guy could carry weapons with a wider variety of effects and properties while the other guy is apparently stuck with only longswords. Hmm.. back to the original arguement again.. "Stuck with Longswords". The horror. One would hate to have a good singlehanded weapon at one's disposal that works fine 95% of the time. I am very eager to learn what "variety of effects and properties" are so useful that it is not only beneficial to carry them around, but also beneficial Campaign dependent, but it does suck to be caught unawares doesnt it? You really must get over this hatred of the barbarian though, it is no good. Wouldn't know, I generally am not. I don't hate the Barbarian by the way, I consider it a good dipping class for my Fighters. It's fine to play one to 20 if that's your thing. It isn't mine. The only thing I dislike is that people claim Barbarians are always better than Fighters because they create situations in which Fighters are arbitrarily denied the use of class strengths, and then even claim those situations are common in any D&D game. I suppose you are going to tell me that you'll have some sort of magic item on hand to magically make your flail fully effective against the vamps and wraiths or you'll have a bag full of +1 cold iron, +1 silver, +1 adamantine, +1 ghost touch, and +1 undead bane flails on your person without realizing you are still not as versatile since you are using resource and/or actions to match the other fighter. Don't be silly. Of course I am not going to tell you that. I am going to tell you that I have mundane alchemical items on hand that makes my magic flail fully effective against vamps and wraiths. It's called a triple weapon capsule retainer with Ghostblight and Quicksilver capsules. They can be found on p122 of the Complete Adventurer. Swift action to activate. Weeee. Only in my Fighter's case it's not a magic flail, it's an adamantine magic spiked chain. I suppose I could carry an extra cold iron weapon around just for when the spiked chain doesn't work, that's really the only thing I'm missing. The vamps and wraiths will fall quickly enough. Pro-fighter types tend argue both exist at the same time in the same character when abstractly comparing the fighter to clerics, barbarians, warblades, or what not. Much like anti-Fighters tend to argue that no matter what the Fighter can do, the opponent always has just the right preparation to counter it? Maybe. Looking at the builds that have been posted though, I see some weapon bonus feats in there, along with combat actions that are versatile. Something does not need to do everything in order to be considered versatile, he has to do more than one or two things. No class can always do everything, nor does anyone here claim that to be true.
Scion of Coldshard 06-11-07, 01:55 PM	I've been seeing this form of selective editing a lot lately. Selective in looking at a single arguement rather than picking up lots of pieces which are irrelevant and/or incorrect? That sort of editing is pretty refreshing as opposed to a lot of the news and political discussions that are on. 'Today there was a fire on second street which could have been prevented if only the city had not made the leash laws, story at 11!' An exaggeration? If only ;/ I had to stop watching one news station because every story was like that, half or more of the information about a topic wasnt actually about the topic at all but a slam on something they disagreed with instead while making it sound like they were related by having them in the same news segment. Why? to what purpose? Why does he need all these other weapon damage types for? you keep saying it is an advantage to have access to them, back that statement up. Damage reduction, weapon type immunity (generally in the form of objects), special abilities which can ruin certain weapon types (always good to carry around a club), easy subdual damage weapons (sap is high up there), special movement restrictions (such as underwater, if you are focused heavily on a bludgeoning weapon this could be an issue), and so forth. Having the ability to respond well to any given threat can be pretty nice! Especially if that is your job in the party. Isnt that what the fighters job is? By "wider variety of effects and properties", what do you mean? I mean 'wider variety of effects and properties'. Some weapons give bonuses to certain combat maneuvers, different weapons have different base damage types, some weapon modifiers can only be placed on certain types of weapons. If you specialize in one and refusing to carry anything else you are, by definition, cutting yourself off from those other options. In some ways it is like overspecializing as a mage. If all of your spells come from a single school and all of your feats go towards that school you are going to have some problems when that school is less useful or useless. But it was the original intent of myself and bob. Then you should talk with yourself and him about that intent. My original statement and intent was something else. If you wish to talk with me about what I said and intended then bringing up something that you said at some other time might or might not be relevant at all ;) Your responces, wether it was intended to, or wether it was a coincedence brought on by your tendancy to ignore people, fell into the vein of support for those people arguing the barbarians superiority. Since I went out of my way several times to explain that it was not a fighter vs barbarian issue at all I believe you are simply ignoring my points. Perhaps your ignoring my points is why you think I am ignoring others? It could also be that you feel I ignore people when I dont respond to comments I feel were not relevant to what I was talking about, or have already been discussed a half dozen times and am tired of it, or the text simply omited to save on space but were still discussed. In any event, specialist vs generalist is not the same thing as fighter vs nonfighter. A fighter can be either as can other classes. A specialist is stronger in his area of specialty and weaker in others because of the choices that he made. My point is that if a dm chooses to make it so that the specialist never feels the pinch because of those specialization choices then that heavily favors certain types of builds and it should be acknowledged as such.
Kalarus 06-11-07, 02:14 PM	Selective in looking at a single arguement rather than picking up lots of pieces which are irrelevant and/or incorrect? Selective in lifting a specific line out of context and refuting a different interpretation of it that has no bearing on the discussion at all, or selective in refuting only what you think you can refute while ignoring the rest because you can't refute it while possibly brushing it off as "nonsense" when you are simply too tenacious to accept the proposition. Damage reduction, weapon type immunity (generally in the form of objects), special abilities which can ruin certain weapon types (always good to carry around a club), easy subdual damage weapons (sap is high up there), special movement restrictions (such as underwater, if you are focused heavily on a bludgeoning weapon this could be an issue), and so forth. Having the ability to respond well to any given threat can be pretty nice! Especially if that is your job in the party. Isnt that what the fighters job is? I mean 'wider variety of effects and properties'. Some weapons give bonuses to certain combat maneuvers, different weapons have different base damage types, some weapon modifiers can only be placed on certain types of weapons. If you specialize in one and refusing to carry anything else you are, by definition, cutting yourself off from those other options. In some ways it is like overspecializing as a mage. If all of your spells come from a single school and all of your feats go towards that school you are going to have some problems when that school is less useful or useless. Can do that with my specialty weapon, a few mundane alchemical objects which are infinitely cheaper than additional weapons (see above), using alternative methods to capture something other than subdual, etc.. There are plenty ways to solve these problems that do not involve other weapons, ways that tend to be cheaper. For a few cases you might need that one alternative material type or that one magic enchant, and maybe, rarely, you actually need to knock someone out. In one of those rare cases, and if a party member cannot provide a good solution, you might have to buy an item to make up for it. Creating situations as a DM that the party cannot solve because of their class choices are a waste of your (and their) time and effort. If the party decides to ignore the problem and move on, you just stabbed yourself in the back. If you force the party to face the problem they can't overcome, you stabbed yourself in the back with a thirty foot rusty longspear. Then you should talk with yourself and him about that intent. My original statement and intent was something else. If you wish to talk with me about what I said and intended then bringing up something that you said at some other time might or might not be relevant at all ;) Since I went out of my way several times to explain that it was not a fighter vs barbarian issue at all I believe you are simply ignoring my points. Perhaps your ignoring my points is why you think I am ignoring others? It could also be that you feel I ignore people when I dont respond to comments I feel were not relevant to what I was talking about, or have already been discussed a half dozen times and am tired of it, or the text simply omited to save on space but were still discussed. In any event, specialist vs generalist is not the same thing as fighter vs nonfighter. A fighter can be either as can other classes. A specialist is stronger in his area of specialty and weaker in others because of the choices that he made. My point is that if a dm chooses to make it so that the specialist never feels the pinch because of those specialization choices then that heavily favors certain types of builds and it should be acknowledged as such. You're making points in a Fighter vs Barbarian discussion. Yeah, really, expecting your points to have any bearing on the discussion at all is so completely unreasonable, I can't believe people might think such a thing. Specialist vs Generalist discussion followed from the "Fighters have to specialise" argument. Any points made about specialists vs generalists have bearing on the discussion that distinction flowed from because apparently it is relevant to the discussion, as long as they pertain to the argument that a Fighter must specialise. Any other discussion of generalist vs specialist that does not pertain to the Fighter vs Barbarian discussion is a discussion that only one person is having, since everyone actively or passively ignores his points.
Kratch 06-11-07, 03:26 PM	Damage reduction, weapon type immunity (generally in the form of objects), special abilities which can ruin certain weapon types (always good to carry around a club), ... I've pretty much said what i feel needed to be said on these topics, in an early post on this page or the one before. ...easy subdual damage weapons (sap is high up there), Are you recomending getting a sap, likely non-magical, for the purpose of subdueing someone? The way i see it, in the early levels, the fighter hasn't put enough feats into his specialization enough that using another weapon for rare occassions hurts him to any degree. By the level is does make a difference, they usuually have +3 or greater enhancement modifiers to they're weapons. even ignoring the fact that, with the 5 mastery/spec feats alone, the fighter can take the -4 to hit on his weapon to make it subdual, and still have a +6 bonus on damage, we still have to account for the loss of the enhancment bonus. If the main weapon is a +4 weapon, he again can take the -4 to do subdual damage with his speced weapon, and still be up 4 damage over using the non-magic sap (and this is all ignoring the actual weapon damage, for example, the greatsword + Str x1.5 vs the sap that can't even be power attacked with). Or perhaps your suggesting infesting in a magic sap for this one rare occassion? you can try to pretend that this is a situation where versatility will come in handy, but even a none specialized melee type would likely stick with his primary weapon for subdual. special movement restrictions (such as underwater, if you are focused heavily on a bludgeoning weapon this could be an issue), and so forth. I've been looking for the rules on underwater combat, where can i find them? I've got to wonder, is this a surprise encounter, where, for this one encounter the PC's were unprepare, or are you assuming the PC's are going into an underwater encounter knowingly, yet unprepared? Helm of underwater action and freedom of movement are both effective against this type of thing. The wizards and clerics are weak off in encounters with anti-magic fields, most people choose to dismiss it as rare enough to be dismissed, and easily enough to overcome with a modicomb of preperation. Same can be applied to a fighter underwater fighting. take your pick where you want to stand, but i'll hold you to it if it comes up again later. I mean 'wider variety of effects and properties'. Some weapons give bonuses to certain combat maneuvers, different weapons have different base damage types, some weapon modifiers can only be placed on certain types of weapons. Again, i've already said my piece on those, with the exception of weapon modifiers. For the most part, the modifiers that are weapon type dependant are a variation between ranged and melee. If your trying to argue a fighter focused in a melee weapon is worst off using a ranged weapon then a fighter based on archery... well DAH! I don't see the point of emphasising that. Otherwise, perhaps some examples might help, instead of just general, unfounded, broad statements expected to be taken as true If you specialize in one and refusing to carry anything else you are, by definition, cutting yourself off from those other options. It comes down to, are those benifits worth the loss of specialized benifits, the loss of the benifits of the current weapon i'm using and the expence of the substitution weapon. Additionally, do i have the ability to make use of the benifit this substitution weapon provides. Giving up my +trip weapon for a +disarm weapon is poitless if i don't have any desire to take AoO's to disarm, don't have the feats to negate that AoO as well as to resist the counterdisarm, and my opponent is too big and/or has natural weapons, making him virtually immune to my disarm manuvers (recognize that argument?) In some ways it is like overspecializing as a mage. If all of your spells come from a single school and all of your feats go towards that school you are going to have some problems when that school is less useful or useless. Except a mage who is overspecializing in that way is actually cutting himself off from the other options. A fighter specializing in a particular weapon is simply making himself better with that weapon, and remaining generally the same with everthing else. A better analogy would be a wizard who focused all his feats on improving one school of magic, but who still used all the other schools. Because he spent his feats to boost the one school, it will be his preference, he will use it better, he will use it more often, he is not worst off in the other schools however for that specialization. Then you should talk with yourself and him about that intent. My original statement and intent was something else. If you wish to talk with me about what I said and intended then bringing up something that you said at some other time might or might not be relevant at all ;) Except, we made our point prior to your attempts at a rebuttal, then xanadu replied in a rather fighter vs barbarian maner. This set that as the nature of the debate. Last i checked, that means if you wish to talk to us, you should keep what we said and intended in mind, as that is where we are going to be debating from, being what the debate began and progressed as. To think you can change the nature of the argument after it has already begun, simply to better suit what you feel is an easier position to defend (or whatever your motivations were)... well, i really shouldn't say what i think about that. I'm sure you'll ask me to quote where this began. It started with 2 fighter builds created to illustrait that a fighter can match a barbarian, more or less. One by myself, the other by bob. Xanadu then responded (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12654308&postcount=647) and thus began the debate, in a vary barbarian vs fighter manner.
Scion of Coldshard 06-11-07, 03:43 PM	Selective in lifting a specific line out of context and refuting a different interpretation of it that has no bearing on the discussion at all, or selective in refuting only what you think you can refute while ignoring the rest because you can't refute it while possibly brushing it off as "nonsense" when you are simply too tenacious to accept the proposition. I had already refuted the rest in a different post and didnt feel like reposting it. But then, the part I cut out didnt even relate to the other part so they were already placed together incorrectly in an attempt to make them seem like they were talking about something similar. If had had left them together I would have been guilty of continuing that problem and so I fixed the problem ;) Can do that with my specialty weapon, a few mundane alchemical objects which are infinitely cheaper than additional weapons (see above), using alternative methods to capture something other than subdual, etc None of these actually do what I said so that 'etc' had better be incredibly good. Creating situations as a DM that the party cannot solve because of their class choices are a waste of your (and their) time and effort. I believe this moves us back into 'coddling' the characters. The world does not necissarily revolve around them. If the group chooses to have no one in the party that can spot or search then that is going to have some serious consequences... except apparently in your games where it means that no one will ever hide from the party and there will never be anything hidden (at least nothing hidden that cannot be found by any charater with no skill at searching). You're making points in a Fighter vs Barbarian discussion. Actually, I am making points in a 'any reason to have a fighter...2!' thread. There are many, many, many, many subdiscussions under that broad banner. If you choose to respond to my arguements then you should also choose to stick to the premise that they are based under ;) Specialist vs generalist can easily be fighter vs fighter.
Argaud 06-11-07, 03:43 PM	Specialist vs Generalist discussion followed from the "Fighters have to specialise" argument. Any points made about specialists vs generalists have bearing on the discussion that distinction flowed from because apparently it is relevant to the discussion, as long as they pertain to the argument that a Fighter must specialise. Any other discussion of generalist vs specialist that does not pertain to the Fighter vs Barbarian discussion is a discussion that only one person is having, since everyone actively or passively ignores his points. Barbarians, by the way, are very narrowly focused specialists. They are melee brutes and it is hard to make them into anything else. Fighters can also be melee brutes. Even better melee brutes than barbarians (for 12 out of 20 levels). This being just one of the areas of combat the fighter can specialize. Being a melee brute is quite effective, so many fighters are melee brutes. This does not mean fighters have to be melee brutes. But if the -choose- to be melee brutes, they are usually better than barbarians, who -cannot- choose. And yet now we have some guys claiming that the fighter is worse because the fighter -can- specialize. :banghead:
Alpha_Moose 06-11-07, 03:53 PM	Character 1 Weapon Focus (Greatsword) Fighter 1 Weapon Focus (Longbow) Fighter 2 Power Attack Character 3 Lightning Reflexes Fighter 4 Weapon Specialization (Greatsword) Fighter 6 Weapon Specialization (Longbow) Character 6 Combat Expertise Fighter 8 Greater Weapon Focus (Greatswrod) Character 9 Iron Will Fighter 10 Improved Initiative Fighter 12 Greater Weapon Specialization (Greatsword) Character 12 Improved Sunder Fighter 14 Improved Unarmed Strike Character 15 Improved Disarm Fighter 16 Improved Grapple Fighter 18 Greater Weapon Focus (Longbow) Character 18 Skill Focus Tumble Fighter 20 Greater Weapon Specialization (Longbow) I'm not going to argue on whether this is a good build (it is), but it still doesn't address one of the main problems of Fighters and most all melee classes. How do you make an opponent attack you and not the squishies behind you? Again this is not just a problem of the Fighter, but in what way can this be fixed? Using just core it doesn't seem possible. Any ideas?
Scion of Coldshard 06-11-07, 04:24 PM	Not really, since if you consistently prevent it you are actively working against a certain type of character. You are advocating that the party is always able to take however much downtime they want and not suffer any consequences from that? I disagree. In fact, I would expect characters who walk away like that to have some very, very serious problems when they get back from their downtime. Sometimes you have downtime, sometimes not. The pacing is up to the dm but sticking to one of the two all of the time is going to cause problems. It is also possible for platinum pieces to fall out of the sky but that does not mean it's going to happen does it. And this has what to do with the discussion at all? Is there a chapter in the dmg talking about when and how often platinum pieces fall out of the sky? Even if there is, again I have to ask, how does this relate to what we are talking about? The dmg gives rules on creating those cities. Under those rules it is decently probable that no one will be above level 15, which would mean that certain items simply could not be made there. I would say that a decent dm would make even those guys generally unaccessible without some work as well, but that isnt really here nor there, just a side comment. An extensive dangerous travel is not down time. It's an adventure. Assuming the party wizard has in fact no clue about how to cast Teleport. So, during your down time you go on more adventures? Why is traveling from one town to another an adventure again? If it is a tough 'adventure' to get from town to town the party might not want to even try in the first place. If it is easy then what is so adventuring about it? I would assume that most travel between cities, especially going to a major metropolis, will be reasonably safe. Especially for a group of heavily armed people such as a party or perhaps they could even hop on a caravan. No matter which option is chosen though if the characters are on some sort of time crunch, even if that time crunch is something like 6 months of downtime the traveling, searching, crafting, and buying could wind up taking more than the amount of time that they have to spend. These things can and do happen. And since my point here is that they 'can' happen it isnt important that it happens 1% of the time for dm 1 and 99% of the time for dm 2. Also, teleport when you first get it allows the caster to go up to 900 miles and bring along up to 3 more medium (or smaller) creatures. It requires a decent amount of knowledge of the place you want to go to (scrying can help, depending on the place). Plus, there is typically a very small chance of taking damage (which involves an even more unlikely chance of eventually hurting you enough to kill you). These can all limit its usefulness, along with it only being available once you hit 9th level or higher and even then only if a person in the party is both capable of casting it and selects it. It is a very nice tactic, the only big problem tends to be high enough level to cast it. Which is only an issue because you insist on making it so. Yeah, I know, I want to use the rules that the game are made from which causes these sorts of problems when people want to ignore those rules. Sucks. And this is a problem how? A problem? It is one of the drawbacks to specialization. That is the whole point, sometimes specialization will hurt. You must be reading posts backwards in time. I read both your post and his post before responding. It is kindof like a super power I guess. I am mildly curious what about my statement is "incorrect". Weapon focus (longsword) does not make a person better with all swords. A single feat out of several which works on many while the rest works on one does not mean that they all help on all swords. That isn't what I said. "Strawman much"? You said:It also does not make them worse than someone who likewise does not improve them. This was in the line of topic about one guy taking a feat to specialize in something while another guy takes a feat to do a more general effect. So far as I can tell my rephrasing is correct unless you were talking about an entirely different subject at which point you quoted the wrong thing earlier. If you quote the wrong thing and then talk about something different while having it still sound like the same thing how am I supposed to know that you actually meant some other topic? Not an answer to the question. It tells you that the idea came from a discussion in this thread, which is an answer to the question but it might not be as exact as you would like. Yes, I am sure all those rules, skills, feats and abilities all work exactly in the game as they work in the real world. Since you know the word strawman let me point to this comment of yours. This is a strawman arguement. I said that in both d&d and the real world when you specialize in something it means that you are giving yourself a weakness in another area. (true by default, so far as I know nothing aside from pun-pun allows specialization in everything at once) You responded by saying that d&d does not work like that. To which I said you must be playing a special version of d&d. Then you came back with this arguement which is an arguement that was not made at all. "Stuck with Longswords". The horror. Another pretty useless comment which has nothing to do with what you quoted. That must be your super power. I don't hate the Barbarian by the way If we had a d&d barbarian who had been taught to read pop out of d&d land and read through this thread I'd be surprised if he didnt want to bash you to death with your own skull ;)
Scion of Coldshard 06-11-07, 04:52 PM	Are you recomending getting a sap, likely non-magical, for the purpose of subdueing someone? So you are unable to have a magical sap? Interesting.. Sometimes a sap is a decent weapon to have around. You dont have to worry about the -4 penalty on your attack roll, it is possible to take them into places that do not normally allow weapons, and you can have a lot of fun with certain weapon enhancements on it. I would hope that even the most gung-ho adventurer with his trusty whatever weapon that never leaves his side plus its 6 clones would at least carry a few other weapons 'just in case'. I've been looking for the rules on underwater combat, where can i find them? DMG. You can check this out as well: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/wilderness.htm#aquaticTerrain I forget if other books went into more detail but I am pretty sure a couple did. I've got to wonder, is this a surprise encounter, where, for this one encounter the PC's were unprepare, or are you assuming the PC's are going into an underwater encounter knowingly, yet unprepared? Helm of underwater action and freedom of movement are both effective against this type of thing. Either way. Helm of underwater action does nothing to help and costs 24,000 gp plus takes up a slot. Freedom of movement does help but the ring is 40,000 gp and the spell is fourth level. The solutions you list vary from mid levels to high levels to be feasible at all. Of course, it is just a single situation out of many possible where the specialization might cause a need for extra resources to be spent because of it. The wizards and clerics are weak off in encounters with anti-magic fields, most people choose to dismiss it as rare enough to be dismissed, and easily enough to overcome with a modicomb of preperation. Same can be applied to a fighter underwater fighting. Are we assuming that water hazards are as common as antimagic? I can go with that. A wizard specialized in magic to the detriment of other areas. See how specializing comes back to bite you sometimes? For the most part, the modifiers that are weapon type dependant are... So you admit that there are some which are specialized by weapon type? Then we are in agreement. Yes, I cut off the rest of it again. The rest was not relevant to my point which was that different types have special ones whether it be damage type or weapon type or whatever. It comes down to, are those benifits worth the loss of specialized benifits, the loss of the benifits of the current weapon i'm using and the expence of the substitution weapon. Not at all. It comes down to did you have to give something up to get what you have. If so, my point stands. A better analogy would be a wizard who focused all his feats on improving one school of magic Actually, that is the same analogy with a different amount of emphasis on the main point. As long as the point go through though that is good enough. Except, we made our point prior to your attempts at a rebuttal My super power is not to rebute points that are going to be given at some future time before anyone else, even the person who will someday write it, has a chance to see. Some points were made, I brought up an issue, and apparently you want to talk about some other issue that is only indirectly related to what I said while still quoting me and making it look like you are talking to me. I'm sure you'll ask me to quote where this began. Why would I care where a side debate that I am not part of began? Just because you want me to be part of it does not mean I will agree to it ;/
Kratch 06-11-07, 05:35 PM	So you are unable to have a magical sap? Interesting.. I said likely non magical, I gave reasons (including cost vs frequency of use) why it was likely non magical, then I even addressed the opint as if it was magical. Nice try. Sometimes a sap is a decent weapon to have around. You dont have to worry about the -4 penalty on your attack roll, it is possible to take them into places that do not normally allow weapons, and you can have a lot of fun with certain weapon enhancements on it. Nothing i haven't already addressed. I would hope that even the most gung-ho adventurer with his trusty whatever weapon that never leaves his side plus its 6 clones would at least carry a few other weapons 'just in case'. Thats the point, just in case what. I can carry around a life preserver everywhere i go, Just in case. if i never leave the desert, it's just a waste of my time and energy. If there is no real need, other then someone elses insistance for flavour, why should i consider it a disadvantage? Are we assuming that water hazards are as common as antimagic? I can go with that. A wizard specialized in magic to the detriment of other areas. See how specializing comes back to bite you sometimes? And now your confusing me about the intent of this discussion? How is a fighters option to specialize in a aparticular weapon or tactic relevent to the current discussion, or the general thread at large? Everyone is specializing to some degree, some more then others. A cleric who focus's on melee combat is specialized to the exclusion of other things. Wizards, as you say, are specializing in magic to the exclusion of other things. rogues specialize in their skills, sneak attacks and/or mobility to the exclusion of other things. barbarian, paladin, monk, druid, sorcerer, etc etc etc. It seems your arguing the blatently obvious as if noone knew that. Noone has said that specializing in a particular weapon doesn't mean you didn't give up some option or other. At least, no-one arguing on behalf of the fighter. We are arguing that, by specializing in a weapon, you aren't giving up enough to put the fighter in an inferior position in comprison to a barbarian, as some have said. So you admit that there are some which are specialized by weapon type? Then we are in agreement. Yes, I cut off the rest of it again. The rest was not relevant to my point which was that different types have special ones whether it be damage type or weapon type or whatever. But it was relevent to my point. You seem to be under the impression that only you matter. Not at all. It comes down to did you have to give something up to get what you have. If so, my point stands. No, it comes down to "did you have to give something worthwhile up to get what you have." If i have to give up a bowl of dirt in order to get steak, and i have absolutly no use for that bowl of dirt, I don't really care how much someone else can use it, as far as i'm concerned, i'm not giving anything up for that steak. Actually, that is the same analogy with a different amount of emphasis on the main point. As long as the point go through though that is good enough. Then you really are arguing a different argument then the rest of us. There isn't much point debating with you. Some points were made, I brought up an issue, and apparently you want to talk about some other issue that is only indirectly related to what I said while still quoting me and making it look like you are talking to me. Apparently, the rest of us are all debating the same thing, and it's only you who are arguing a completely different point, that is only indirectly related to whats been said. Why would I care where a side debate that I am not part of began? Just because you want me to be part of it does not mean I will agree to it ;/ Your absolutely right, why should i care about a side debate, Your just mistaken about which debate is the side one.
Khan the Destroyer 06-11-07, 05:49 PM	So, the barbarian isn't the supreme damage king necessarily because it's been shown that a fighter specializing in a weapon will have better melee bonuses for 11 levels out of 20. But, because the fighter may not be able to bypass certain types of DR that may come up every now and then, this demonstration is meaningless? Are we to assume that the non-specialized character carries around a weapon of each type? So, he's not specialized in a weapon, but rather specialized in overcoming DR. Is the ability to overcome DR better than hitting more consistently in every battle (even those against monsters without DR) and dealing more damage? Especially when you can cover many types with a single weapon or even all of them with magic enhancements? I don't think so. Further... how do we know what we need to bypass DR? Is the idea that the warrior instinctively pulls out his adamantine greatsword when the iron golem crashes through? And then when the rakshasa appears he tosses his adamantine greatsword and pulls out his holy rapier? But he just knows that won't work against the lich, so he swaps it out for his +1 warhammer. Good thing he knew that cold iron hurts succubi, as opposed to just pulling out his holy rapier instead. Or recognizing the rakshasa as just that instead of pulling out his silvered weapon on what he thought was a weretiger. Knowing what bypasses the defenses of these monsters would require knowledge checks. I argued before that some things may be learned in game, but others countered that skill ranks should represent that in game knowledge. Either the warrior knows already what to do and has the right weapon (unlikely), or he spends a few rounds trying to hurt the thing, realizes it's not working so well, and then what? Experiments? Asks the wizard and hopes he specialized in the relative field of knowledge? As opposed to a specialized fighter, who would essentially reduce all DR by 6 points, or even 14 points if you power attack that +4 bonus to attack into damage with a two-handed grip. He may not need to know, because he can punch through it. He may not need to punch through it, because he has other options that don't rely on damage. But attack rolls and damage dealing happen much more often than DR. It seems to me that the benefits of specializing outweigh the benefits of having the perfect weapon for the job each time you come across DR. Especially considering you don't automatically know which weapon is the right weapon for the job.
navar100 06-11-07, 08:48 PM	Only if they are bonus feats like metamagic or item creation. If they are feats that anyone can take like Specialization, Greater Specialization, or Supremacy, then they are fair game. One of us misunderstood, either you from what I mean or me for the post I was responding to. When I'm talking about feats for any character, I mean the feat slots characters get merely for reaching specific levels. I was under the impression it was suggested a fighter could not use them to prove his worth because they aren't "class features". I think it's fine for these character level feats to be considered to help a class do its job.
navar100 06-11-07, 09:15 PM	You're kidding right? The different maneuvers actually do DIFFERENT THINGS. It is far different from a fighter naming each swing he does. One is an actual difference, the other is make-believe. ToB classes genuinely have a lot more variety in melee combat than the Fighter. The Warblade can get maneuvers so that he can rapidly close the distance with the enemy. He can also use throwable melee weapons. If he really wants to use a ranged weapon, he has a few options. He can either take the Exotic Weapon Proficiency, and use Weapon Aptitude to switch it to an Exotic Ranged Weapon when needed, or he can take a level or two in a class that gives him such a proficiency (such as Crusader). He could also be an Elf. In any case, not having a bow is not a big deal in my experience. Also, from what I saw that's not the argument used when comparing Fighters to Barbarians. The argument used was that a Fighter who is built to deal out Barbarian-level Damage (or more) has to heavily specialize in one particular weapon. He has less flexibility when changing weapons. The Warblade trumps the Fighter in this regard for melee weapons. -Drachasor A warblade can multiclass to get range weapon proficifiency so he's ok. A fighter multiclasses to get something he wants thus he sucks because he's no longer a full fighter. (Not that you particularly made such a claim about a fighter who multiclasses).
Clawhound 06-11-07, 10:50 PM	I'm not going to argue on whether this is a good build (it is), but it still doesn't address one of the main problems of Fighters and most all melee classes. How do you make an opponent attack you and not the squishies behind you? Again this is not just a problem of the Fighter, but in what way can this be fixed? Using just core it doesn't seem possible. Any ideas? In order to "fix" this, you do harm to the game. The DM controls the opponent, and hopefully controls the opponent in such a way as the opponent would behave. Abilities which take that from the DM ... I don't even want to go there. As with all abilities, the DM can use that against you. "Cleric, you MUST target this person over here." Do you think that this is a good place to go? I do not.
xanadu 06-12-07, 12:22 AM	And now a discreet exit needs to be made because people are arguing that by specializing in something they are just as versatile as ever. I think the Department of Defense might be hiring...maybe you should send them you resume or something. That whole specializing-versatility zero sum game had bedeviled military thinkers for thousands of years. You might consider lending them your expertise.
Bob Loblaw 06-12-07, 12:40 AM	I'm not going to argue on whether this is a good build (it is), but it still doesn't address one of the main problems of Fighters and most all melee classes. How do you make an opponent attack you and not the squishies behind you? Again this is not just a problem of the Fighter, but in what way can this be fixed? Using just core it doesn't seem possible. Any ideas? The same way that everyone else does. You have to be a threat. The player of the fighter needs to use the combat section of the PHB to it's fullest potential. Every bonus he can eek out to hit is more that he can use for other options. One of us misunderstood, either you from what I mean or me for the post I was responding to. When I'm talking about feats for any character, I mean the feat slots characters get merely for reaching specific levels. I was under the impression it was suggested a fighter could not use them to prove his worth because they aren't "class features". I think it's fine for these character level feats to be considered to help a class do its job. I was trying to be facetious for the sake of others. I am in total agreement with you. Sometimes my sarcasm doesn't come across so clearly.
Archangel62 06-12-07, 12:59 AM	I won't go into the specialization vs. versatility thing, not because I don't have an opinion on it but because at this point I don't think it would add anything constructive. The problem I have instead is simply effectiveness. Please note that I'm a bit more of a centrist on this, I feel that the fighter is underpowered, woefully so, but I also realize that this is more a function of outside mechanics than being the entire fault of the fighter class. The AC system, the feat system, and the CR system all sort of land on the fighter. AC is a problem of AC is sort of a strange roller coaster, at low levels the right armor can make you nigh untouchable, at mid levels it's about 50/50, at high levels the enemy will almost always have much better AC, touch and otherwise, than you. The feat thing is a bit more general but it has to do with the fact that since feats are the fighters only real ability it would stand to reason that there would be good ones, not so much sadly. The issue is that in many cases while you can use all the feats available to make a good build (chaingun tripper, jack b. quick, etc.) you often aren't getting the feats fast enough to really do what you need to do. Either you are getting some feats so late that they, while useful, would have been infinitely more helpful about 5 levels ago, or you need to start pulling from setting specific stuff like Jotunbrund or other things like that. The CR system is simply that as the CR goes up, aka as the group advances in levels, unmodified creatures are getting bigger, stronger, and more unique powers. The melee oriented foes are at a level that is already outstripping a standard martial character and that's before you think of adding gear, templates, or class levels. Not to mention that many of these creatures have abilities which circumvent the fighters combat tricks. Now, all of this doesn't quite go into the feats thing or specialization, so I'll try to explain it quickly and concisely. The weaponmaster fighter might do passable damage, but look at an AoO specced one and compare them, then tell me which one is overall more useful to the average team.
Argaud 06-12-07, 07:08 AM	I feel that the fighter is underpowered, woefully so, but I also realize that this is more a function of outside mechanics than being the entire fault of the fighter class. The AC system, the feat system, and the CR system all sort of land on the fighter. AC is a problem of AC is sort of a strange roller coaster, at low levels the right armor can make you nigh untouchable, at mid levels it's about 50/50, at high levels the enemy will almost always have much better AC, touch and otherwise, than you. Hey, how is that? Most monsters at levels 18-20 have ACs in the 35-40 range and a to hit a few points below. For instance: Balor AC 35, 39 with Unholy Aura. To hit +33 with vorpal sword. Pit Fiend AC 40, 44 with Unholy Aura. To hit +30 with claws. Titan AC 38. To hit +37 with warhammer. Tarrasque is an exception with AC 35, but to hit +57 with bite. Gargantuan wyrm black dragon AC 39, 43 with mage armor. To hit +34 bite. Huge old red dragon AC 33, 37 with mage armor. To hit +28 with bite. Nightcrawler AC 35. To hit +29 bite. Now, a level 20 warrior (or by that matter, almost any level 20 character) can easily have AC 40 and +35-40 to hit with his primary weapon. This means he is very much competitive with the monsters here. Consider: Barbarian 20. Str 30. +20 to hit (bab) +10 (str) +4 (rage) +5 weapon = +39 Fighter 20. Str 30. +20 to hit (bab) +10 (str) +4 (feats) +5 weapon = +39 AC (both) Mithril full plate +5 (+13 AC), animate shield +5 (+7 AC), amulet of natural armor +5 (+5 AC), ring of protection +5 (+5 AC), Dex 16 (+3 AC) = AC43. The barbarian loses 2 when in rage, but he has DR5/-. And this is before feats! This is also before crazy buffs like Polymorph Any Object. If it is cast in the barbarian and the fighter to turn them into planetars, for instance (which lasts weeks) they will have AC around 60, and most monsters can't even touch them. The feat thing is a bit more general but it has to do with the fact that since feats are the fighters only real ability it would stand to reason that there would be good ones, not so much sadly. The issue is that in many cases while you can use all the feats available to make a good build (chaingun tripper, jack b. quick, etc.) you often aren't getting the feats fast enough to really do what you need to do. Either you are getting some feats so late that they, while useful, would have been infinitely more helpful about 5 levels ago, or you need to start pulling from setting specific stuff like Jotunbrund or other things like that. Have you checked Khan's builds recently. They can disarm titans, push the Tarrasque 30' back, etc, etc. That stuff works well even at level 20. The CR system is simply that as the CR goes up, aka as the group advances in levels, unmodified creatures are getting bigger, stronger, and more unique powers. The melee oriented foes are at a level that is already outstripping a standard martial character and that's before you think of adding gear, templates, or class levels. Not to mention that many of these creatures have abilities which circumvent the fighters combat tricks. As you can see in the comparison of AC/to hit, warriors remain competitive with the monsters. And as Khan (and others) has show many times, fighter tricks still kill, disable, immobilize or force the monsters to keep running from them in fear of death. Magic weapons are made available that enhance the fighter abilities or negate the monsters advantages (rings of spellturning, items that give see invisible or true seeing, binding weapons, adamantine weapons, surestrike weapons, shadowstriking weapons, etc, etc). Now, all of this doesn't quite go into the feats thing or specialization, so I'll try to explain it quickly and concisely. The weaponmaster fighter might do passable damage, but look at an AoO specced one and compare them, then tell me which one is overall more useful to the average team. I don't understand you, Archangel, you keep repeating more or less the same arguments with which you started. Arguments I thought had been satisfactorily refuted 50 pages ago :( What would convince you the fighter can keep up and that monsters are not "outstripping a standard martial character" or actually have those "abilities which circumvent the fighters combat tricks"?
Kalarus 06-12-07, 07:15 AM	None of these actually do what I said so that 'etc' had better be incredibly good. It is. It's called teamwork. I believe this moves us back into 'coddling' the characters. The world does not necissarily revolve around them. If the group chooses to have no one in the party that can spot or search then that is going to have some serious consequences... except apparently in your games where it means that no one will ever hide from the party and there will never be anything hidden (at least nothing hidden that cannot be found by any charater with no skill at searching). The world does in fact revolve around them: the world of the gaming table. One of the parties I currently play in has no Wizard. Sure there are situations in which I think "Would've been nice to have a Wizard now", but between the Sorceress and Warmage we manage just fine. The point of the matter is that if you create situations as a DM that your players cannot overcome, that part of your prepared adventure will not get played and you have wasted your effort into making something nobody will get to enjoy. If you force your players to face a situation they cannot possibly overcome they have no choice but to suffer the consequences. For the only reason the DM decided that people should invest in what the DM feels important, not in what they thought was important or enjoyable. If nobody has ranks in search and you put something in the game that cannot be found unless someone has ranks in search, that thing might just as well not be there. Nobody's going to find it, nothing is going to happen to it. Actually, I am making points in a 'any reason to have a fighter...2!' thread. There are many, many, many, many subdiscussions under that broad banner. If you choose to respond to my arguements then you should also choose to stick to the premise that they are based under ;) Specialist vs generalist can easily be fighter vs fighter. Funny how you don't stick to your own rule. Your arguments of generalist vs specialists were in response to arguments posted under the premise of a Fighter vs Barbarian discussion that took place within the Any reason to play a Fighter thread. So please, next time you choose to respond, do it under the premise that people's arguments are based under.
ORC_Paradox 06-12-07, 07:26 AM	Any reason to have a fighter? Yes, because they are a great basic class to teach new people about D&D. It's the Vanilla of the classes (and who doesn't like vanilla?), which is pretty darn awesome.
runestar 06-12-07, 07:46 AM	Any reason to have a fighter? Yes, because they are a great basic class to teach new people about D&D. It's the Vanilla of the classes (and who doesn't like vanilla?), which is pretty darn awesome. No offense, WizO, but I feel that the fighter class is anything but basic...and definitely not for beginners...:P
Kalarus 06-12-07, 07:50 AM	You are advocating that the party is always able to take however much downtime they want and not suffer any consequences from that? I disagree. In fact, I would expect characters who walk away like that to have some very, very serious problems when they get back from their downtime. Sometimes you have downtime, sometimes not. The pacing is up to the dm but sticking to one of the two all of the time is going to cause problems. Nope, that was not what I said at all, in fact earlier I claimed that in fact they would not always have all the time they need. I said that players can reasonably expect for their characters to have sufficient downtime in order for them to regularly trade in order to get the proper gear for their chosen strengths. And this has what to do with the discussion at all? Is there a chapter in the dmg talking about when and how often platinum pieces fall out of the sky? Even if there is, again I have to ask, how does this relate to what we are talking about? The dmg gives rules on creating those cities. Under those rules it is decently probable that no one will be above level 15, which would mean that certain items simply could not be made there. I would say that a decent dm would make even those guys generally unaccessible without some work as well, but that isnt really here nor there, just a side comment. It illustrates a simple point: probability isn't everything. DMs generally do not roll up worlds, they think about them, think about what might be there and what might be available. Some things they decide on the spot if it comes up. Sure it's not unreasonable for a DM to suggest that in order to get some items they have to locate and request an audience with a specific specialist, but we're talking end-game levels for that. Levels that most parties in fact, don't often reach. L15 characters with craft magic arms and armor can make up to +5 weapons, if I recall right from memory. That's sufficient for most campaigns. So, during your down time you go on more adventures? Why is traveling from one town to another an adventure again? If it is a tough 'adventure' to get from town to town the party might not want to even try in the first place. If it is easy then what is so adventuring about it? I would assume that most travel between cities, especially going to a major metropolis, will be reasonably safe. Especially for a group of heavily armed people such as a party or perhaps they could even hop on a caravan. No matter which option is chosen though if the characters are on some sort of time crunch, even if that time crunch is something like 6 months of downtime the traveling, searching, crafting, and buying could wind up taking more than the amount of time that they have to spend. These things can and do happen. And since my point here is that they 'can' happen it isnt important that it happens 1% of the time for dm 1 and 99% of the time for dm 2. Also, teleport when you first get it allows the caster to go up to 900 miles and bring along up to 3 more medium (or smaller) creatures. It requires a decent amount of knowledge of the place you want to go to (scrying can help, depending on the place). Plus, there is typically a very small chance of taking damage (which involves an even more unlikely chance of eventually hurting you enough to kill you). These can all limit its usefulness, along with it only being available once you hit 9th level or higher and even then only if a person in the party is both capable of casting it and selects it. It is a very nice tactic, the only big problem tends to be high enough level to cast it. You are the one who suggested the road to the metropolis was potentially dangerous, so now you're just contradicting yourself. 6 months of downtime should be enough to accomplish most things, really. Medieval caravans did not travel for months in national travel, this would be far too costly. Weeks would be far more appropriate. The only reason why a trader would travel for months is if he traded for specific often exotic goods that are not availble anywhere else. Given how easy it is to get craft item feats and the required magic spells, magic items hardly fall in this category. Furthermore, the frequency at which these problems arive is in fact important. If it does not happen frequently it is reasonable to assume the specialist will get to upgrade the items for his chosen specialization. In any other scenario specialization is not nearly the problem you proclaim it to be. Yeah, I know, I want to use the rules that the game are made from which causes these sorts of problems when people want to ignore those rules. Sucks. Could you please refer to the rules page where it says "DMs are required to prevent specialists from optimizing their specialty by railroading them into situations that prevent them from doing so"? I'd be much obliged, I might actually cede the point if you do. A problem? It is one of the drawbacks to specialization. That is the whole point, sometimes specialization will hurt. Specialization won't hurt. It's a flat bonus that makes you better at something you can do, at no cost at the other things that you could do other than oppertunity cost. Since you never could have selected everything to get better at, you always suffer the oppertunity cost. Barbarians can get better at melee because they've already suffered the oppertunity cost. They never got to choose in the first place. Here, have some damage, now be a good Barbie. I read both your post and his post before responding. It is kindof like a super power I guess. Must be, you constantly try to do things that at times amaze me for a few reasons. It's funny that you read my post, then his post, and then post a reply to my post as if I could've read his post before posting my post. Weapon focus (longsword) does not make a person better with all swords. A single feat out of several which works on many while the rest works on one does not mean that they all help on all swords. That's funny, I never in fact said that. So what part of MY statement is incorrect? You said: This was in the line of topic about one guy taking a feat to specialize in something while another guy takes a feat to do a more general effect. So far as I can tell my rephrasing is correct unless you were talking about an entirely different subject at which point you quoted the wrong thing earlier. If you quote the wrong thing and then talk about something different while having it still sound like the same thing how am I supposed to know that you actually meant some other topic? Feats give bonuses to specific combat abilities, that's why they're called feats to begin with. There's no feat choice "improve everything". Every feat choice is a specialization in a certain area. It tells you that the idea came from a discussion in this thread, which is an answer to the question but it might not be as exact as you would like. Anyone can answer anything to any question, that doesn't make it a relevant or even coherent answer. Since you know the word strawman let me point to this comment of yours. This is a strawman arguement. I said that in both d&d and the real world when you specialize in something it means that you are giving yourself a weakness in another area. (true by default, so far as I know nothing aside from pun-pun allows specialization in everything at once) You responded by saying that d&d does not work like that. To which I said you must be playing a special version of d&d. Then you came back with this arguement which is an arguement that was not made at all. Not made at all? You equalize the functions of D&D with those of the real world. I disagreed with that. Since we're playing by the same D&D rules, your real world must be different from mine. Then again maybe we aren't playing by the same D&D rules, maybe in your D&D, someone who takes weapon focus (longsword) gets a -1 in all other weapons instead because of lack of training. Another pretty useless comment which has nothing to do with what you quoted. That must be your super power. Yes, because quoting what you said has nothing to do with what I quoted. Amnesia must be your superpower, you constantly forget what you wrote, even if I quote it for you WITHOUT deliberately leaving parts out. If we had a d&d barbarian who had been taught to read pop out of d&d land and read through this thread I'd be surprised if he didnt want to bash you to death with your own skull ;) Bring it Barbie, I'm a specialist :P
Kalarus 06-12-07, 08:05 AM	I'm not going to argue on whether this is a good build (it is), but it still doesn't address one of the main problems of Fighters and most all melee classes. How do you make an opponent attack you and not the squishies behind you? Again this is not just a problem of the Fighter, but in what way can this be fixed? Using just core it doesn't seem possible. Any ideas? It's a bit hard to answer that question as this is very situation dependent. E.g., last session I played with my Spike Chain fighter, the Warmage got pelted by Frost Giants so he started Fireballing back. Starting at 200 foot range, he blew one Giant to instant death on the first Fireball, the other made its save and got burned a little. It ran. Best I could do was grab my bow and start shooting. At such ranges wading through snow there's not much one can do. Session before that, my Fighter was a wall of adamantine death against anything trying to get past. We were inside, which leaves a lot less room to maneuver around and get to the squishies, who, if you (and they) position themselves right, get cover from any possible archers. Something might get past anyway, but luckily the Fighter's not alone, plenty of teammates capable of dealing with the few things that slip past. Spellcasters might be problematic, depends again a bit on range. At long ranges, it's a spell battle, not much you can do there except maybe ready your magic bow and invest in a few adamantine arrows (That covers protection from arrows and stoneskin, which I think are the most common defenses other than illusions). Or be a fast Fighter and reach the enemy asap. On close range/indoors, you're threat enough to the caster, depends a bit on your build. Knock him down, make him use a move action to stand up so he can't take a 5-foot step and cast, meaning he suffers your mage slayer feat effects. Basically your task here becomes reducing actions. Fighter building is challenging because if you want to play the heavy tank role, you'll have to balance mobility and good armor, and find ways to ensure that people can never afford to ignore you. Make them waste time dealing with you, even if you hardly hurt them, then you can leave the hurting to others.
Kalarus 06-12-07, 08:15 AM	Now, all of this doesn't quite go into the feats thing or specialization, so I'll try to explain it quickly and concisely. The weaponmaster fighter might do passable damage, but look at an AoO specced one and compare them, then tell me which one is overall more useful to the average team. So what do you consider an AoO specced one precisely? My Fighter dishes out 2d4+11+1d4+1d6 damage per hit (spiked chain, str/spec bonuses, sonic and acid damage bonuses), without PA. He does this either at 10 foot reach with 6 AoOs per round, or at 20 foot reach with 5 AoOs per round when enlarged, upping damage a bit in the process. He can make AoOs against creatures that have cover (but not total cover). He can flurry for an extra attack at highest BAB, though at the penalty of -2 on all attacks. He can trip and disarm, and for an extra boost, dipped him 1 level of Barbarian for a basic rage 1/day and better movement. Sure he lacks GWF and GWS, so he's not the weaponmaster of weaponmasters. However he's far better with his spiked chain than with anything else, with levels in Exotic Weapon Master giving him nifty special abilities with that weapon. Maybe I'll pick those two up later but right now there's other things to get. I think he does fine in both the weapon mastery as the AoO department, but what more would you suggest for an AoO build?
runestar 06-12-07, 08:24 AM	Well, you have 6 AoOs each round, but it seems unlikely that you will get to use them all at any one time. Perhaps he means taking those feats which cause your opponent to provoke AoOs when they fulfill certain actions?:P
ORC_Paradox 06-12-07, 09:56 AM	No offense, WizO, but I feel that the fighter class is anything but basic...and definitely not for beginners...:P None taken. :) The fighter was the first character class I learned on with the red boxed set. And I do believe on many of the other "Teach yourself how to play D&D" games, they show the basics using a fighter. My DM is a big time Character Optimizer. He's insisted I multiclass my fighter, AND take a prestige class. I decided just for fun to re-make him as if I did things my way and went with 10 levels of fighter. Old Character: 4th level fighter/3rd level ranger/3rd level Exotic Weaponmaster. New Character: Level 10 fighter. There are house rules, and the DM gave out a number of "DM Bonus feats". So, I've got a total of 6 bonus feats. Re-doing my character to play it the way I'm playing him now, do you know what I've lost? 1 feat. That's it. And since it's a feat I would have just picked up as that multi-classed character and hadn't been using it all this time, my fighter as just a fighter is just as good, and not different from the optimized version at all. And when I say play it the way I'm playing him, I mean I'm not using most of the abilities that the other baggage has piled on. I don't use the ranger's tracking, for example. Ever. Combat style? What the heck is that? My Eberron halfling uses Talenta weapons. I can't use two of them, as they're both two handed weapons. Favored enemy? Haven't seen one yet. Those special things I can do with the exotic weaponmaster? Never used them. (I admit, I think I used one ability once... but that was only recently.) If I reach level 4 in ranger, my animal companion is only going to be good for a stew. I don't plan on getting or using one. I have no interest in it. I'm a fighter, not Dr. Dolittle. So... just one feat seperates a multi prestige classed character and a straight fighter.
Argaud 06-12-07, 10:11 AM	None taken. :) The fighter was the first character class I learned on with the red boxed set. And I do believe on many of the other "Teach yourself how to play D&D" games, they show the basics using a fighter. OMG, the red box! Someone is showing his/her age ;) Fighter were pretty simple back them, hmm? Not like now, when you need to know the feat synergies, the feat/gear synergies and know really well all those fighting tricks like grapples, trips and bullrushes. That said, at level 1, a human fighter is simple. You pick Focus, Doge and Power Attack (likely at the suggestion of your DM) and go around killing goblins happily until you run out of hp. Then you go back to the village to rest a couple days. Unless the barbarian player is a veteran, he has just Dodge and Power Attack, and not Extra Rage. So he is better than you once a day and the rest of the day you and him can have headhunting contests and have a laugh when one rolls a critical hit and splatters the goblin all over the room. But at level 10... man, you need to study and plan the build as hard as any wizard, or more. :D Old Character: 4th level fighter/3rd level ranger/3rd level Exotic Weaponmaster. New Character: Level 10 fighter. There are house rules, and the DM gave out a number of "DM Bonus feats". So, I've got a total of 6 bonus feats. Er... before someone jumps to your neck. Houserules kinda do not count in this kind of thread. We are arguing about fighters by the RAW, the official rules and all that. Some leeway might be give to DM styles as long as the books are respected, but bringing any kind of houserules tends to have you crucified, with rusty nails. :(
ORC_Paradox 06-12-07, 10:38 AM	Okay, dumping the extra feats- Deft Opportunist- Never really get to use it. Quick Draw- For my boomerangs. Not used often enough. Dazing shot- If I don't use my boomerangs, I don't need to daze anyone. Improve Trip- I never really bothered with tripping. Combat Expertise- Never used it. Boom. No bonus DM feats. I just don't use my ranged weapon- pretty much like I do now. (There have been exceptions, but I don't need to from now on.) So, I can not only get along without the multiclassing, I can get along without the bonus feats. The character is still the same.
Clawhound 06-12-07, 10:41 AM	We've found that many "ohmygod ... you need this!" abilities are very situational, and quite often, of no real impact. One school of thought goes like this: do damage fast. The best defense is a good offense. In that school, who cares what you special abilities are!!! If your job is to end the combat one round faster due to raw DPS, then you've done your job by saving the party one round of resources, or more if you hit hard enough. Often enough, in an adventure, the toughest battle is the last one. Often enough, you need to fight to get there. That means that the more you conserve your best magic, the better your chances in the final fight. You do this by throwing melee at the opponent. The advantage of this is that the side-effect of melee is damage, and damage is easily accounted for. Damage gets filled in using your cheapest 1st and 2nd level spells. What else will you use them for?
Kratch 06-12-07, 12:29 PM	And now a discreet exit needs to be made because people are arguing that by specializing in something they are just as versatile as ever. Actually, We were arguing that, by specializing, we were no less versatile, overall, then a barbarian, and that a fighters versatility came from the fact he didn't need to specialize if he didn't want to (unlike the barbarian not having a choice about his rage and trap sence). We weren't areguing we weren't giving up any versatility, over say, a different build fighter. Now, all of this doesn't quite go into the feats thing or specialization, so I'll try to explain it quickly and concisely. The weaponmaster fighter might do passable damage, but look at an AoO specced one and compare them, then tell me which one is overall more useful to the average team. This (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10325801&postcount=1694) is one of the nicer AoO builds i've seen, and it actually makes use of the spec line, so i'm not entirely sure what your talking about. Although if you've got a better AoO build in mind, that doesn't use the spec line, please, do post it.
Scion of Coldshard 06-12-07, 12:37 PM	Nice try. Nothing i haven't already addressed. Sure, you are repeating and going over things I have already addressed and I am going over things you already have. Of course, my points actually make sense whereas many of yours in this post simply dont. Either by the rules or your repeated attempts to strawman or your simple confusion over what is being discussed. But, all of those points were already put down earlier by myself and others, there is little to be gained by doing so again. A warblade can multiclass to get range weapon proficifiency so he's ok. A warblade can multiclass to pick up a ranged proficiency, or spend a feat on one, but the warblade abilities are almost entirely useless on those ranged attacks. A fighter multiclasses to get something he wants thus he sucks because he's no longer a full fighter. A fighter who multiclasses is now a multiclass character instead of a pure fighter. If a class is used basically exclusively as a dip then that does not a good class make. At this point I am not sure that there would be much of a difference for most campaigns out there if the fighter class only had 4 levels. At this point multiclassing a fighter is a good plan though. A Ranger 1/Fighter 4/Barbarian 1 (6th level character) is pretty tough. With extra rage picked up at level 6 this guy has BAB +6, Hp 8+4*5.5+6.5+6*con mod, F+8, R+3, W+1, 36 +6*int mod skill points, 1 favored enemy, track, wild empathy, 3 fighter bonus feats (qualifies for feats that require 4 fighte levels), fast movement, rage 3/day. His will save kindof sucks but at least it is at +3 while raging and there are those single save boosting items in MIC. My point is though that once you multiclass the fighter into something else the build no longer really speaks to how good or bad the fighter is. You might have left it because of a certain concept that the fighter could not give, or maybe you just dipped in for a couple of feats, or who knows what else. If the fighter is only good as a dip class then to me that means the fighter is in need of retooling. And now a discreet exit needs to be made because people are arguing that by specializing in something they are just as versatile as ever. I know what you mean ;/ what is up with that?? It is. It's called teamwork. Ok, long ago I lost count of how many times you have quoted a portion of my text and then talked about something that had no bearing on it. You might have some good arguements somewhere but right now it is like a retarded monkey is shuffling up your responses and then posting them for you. At some point you might want to get a new trained monkey to do your posting for you. The world does in fact revolve around them: the world of the gaming table. The 'world of the gaming table' may have little or no bearing on the game world that the dm is using. Some do, some do not. I would say that most do not until decently high level, if they ever do. Being level 1 does not make you much of a mover and shaker of the world generally. The point of the matter is that if you create situations as a DM that your players cannot overcome, that part of your prepared adventure will not get played and you have wasted your effort into making something nobody will get to enjoy. If you force your players to face a situation they cannot possibly overcome they have no choice but to suffer the consequences. This means that I was correct in saying that in your group if no one takes spot or search then no one will ever be hiding and nothing will ever be hidden. Isnt that nice. Make sure no one takes diplomacy either, that way the dm is forced not make any tough social interactions either. Hmm.. actually, being all commoners might be best. Low BAB means that a lot of enemies just wouldnt be fair for him to throw in anymore, all bad saves means that most spells and traps wouldnt be fair, low hp means that just about anything that might hurt you would be off limits.. I am not sure what would be allowed, but it would certainly be a very minimalist game. Episode 1: Watching the paint dry. Your arguments of generalist vs specialists were in response to arguments posted under the premise of a Fighter vs Barbarian discussion that took place within the Any reason to play a Fighter thread. Actually, it started from when Argaud said that something about throwing in a not very effective weapon, which I responded to by asking why the weapon could not be one of the many decent weapons out there that a character in the party happened to not be specialized in. The conversation went on from there but the original point was me responding to a point in someones post that was about there not being very many weapons that are any good so a specialist will apparantly always get more new weapons of the type he is specialized in or the dm is some sort of idiot. So, in actuality, I am doing what I asked you to do. When people tried to mix up the topic under discussion with a different topic I even made several posts which said that it was not a 'fighter vs barb' topic but rather a specific topic that had popped up as a side discussion. That sort of thing does happen, it isnt like there arent a few dozen topics floating around in this thread. I claimed that in fact they would not always have all the time they need. Since that is what I said earlier what is the problem? It illustrates a simple point: probability isn't everything. Your simple point is made of nonsense. What does it even mean? Probability isnt even a real thing or substance, it is just a way of describing how likely something is to happen. Probability is pretty important when trying to make decissions about what to do though. Plus, we are going over the rules here. A dm is free to change them of course but in essence all that is going on is a different sort of probability engine is going on. If you take a dm's created world and break it up into grids then for each grid you can say what the likelyhood is of hitting a metropolis if you choose a town at random. More probability. But, in this case, we are using the raw as a baseline for comparison. If the rules do state something then chances are good that is a decent thing to use in the comparison. If your dm lets all characters teleport without error at will it has no real bearing on a general discussion. You are the one who suggested the road to the metropolis was potentially dangerous, so now you're just contradicting yourself. Contradicting you does not mean contradicting me, especially when you are wrong and I am not ;) A journy being potentially dangerous does not make it an adventure. A journy through the wilderness could have a random encounter rolled once or twice a day, but it still isnt an adventure, it is just traveling that could have some hazards along the way. Travel can be 'part of' an adventure though. But just traveling from town X to city Y to get some supplies isnt an 'adventure'. With a plot hook somewhere it might turn into one, but that isnt the same thing. Otherwise we get down to things like, 'the adventure of ordering a meal at the inn!' 'the adventure of peeing in the latrine!' 'the adventure of taking a breath!' and so on. 6 months of downtime should be enough to accomplish most things, really Assuming that this is true, most != all so my point stands. There is an issue of what 'most' entails though. Most things overall? Most things that are important to a group of a certain level? Most things that you personally care about? (maybe you dont like the apparatus of the crab so the bunch of days it takes to find people who can craft it plus all of the construction and enchanting time is unimportant to you) Medieval caravans did not travel for months in national travel Putting aside that d&d and our own medieval world only have passing similarity... You are saying that caravans/traders did not travel around to small towns in some sort of circuit that could keep them out of the super cities of the time for potentially months? Folloing this, was a new set of them leaving so often and going to major cities pretty much directly that the delays were unheard of? Could you please refer to the rules page where it says "DMs are required to prevent specialists from optimizing their specialty by railroading them into situations that prevent them from doing so"? Since I made no such claim why should I look for your pet project? Specialization won't hurt. It's a flat bonus that makes you better at something you can do, at no cost at the other things that you could do other than oppertunity cost. You just said that specialization wont hurt except where it hurts you. Up is down! Black is white! Paying an opportunity cost is by definition a cost, which means that it hurts you in some other area. That's funny, I never in fact said that. So what part of MY statement is incorrect? Since I did not say that your statement in that segment was incorrect I had assumed you made a typo and were actually talking about his statement still. So was it a typo or were you asking me to explain something that wasnt there? Not made at all? You equalize the functions of D&D with those of the real world. Not made at all. You were making up a strawman arguement. I said that in d&d when you specialize in something it means that you are giving yourself a weakness in some other area and then I said it worked the same way in the real world. Nothing about that says that 'power attack' works in the real world. Nothing about that has anything to do with your strawman. Yes, because quoting what you said has nothing to do with what I quoted You quoted an arguement about A and then you made a response that talked about F. Just because you put them in a certain order does not mean that they relate by default and since it was clear that they were unrelated I called you on it, again.
Kratch 06-12-07, 12:53 PM	A warblade can multiclass to pick up a ranged proficiency, or spend a feat on one, but the warblade abilities are almost entirely useless on those ranged attacks. A fighter who multiclasses is now a multiclass character instead of a pure fighter. If a class is used basically exclusively as a dip then that does not a good class make. At this point I am not sure that there would be much of a difference for most campaigns out there if the fighter class only had 4 levels. Navar was responding to a claim that a warblade can multiclass out to pick up ranged proficciency (much like, but admitadly, not exactly like, what you said above, although, had i snipped everything after the first comma, i could have made it look that way. guess it's a good thing i address peoples thoughts as a whole instead of cherry picking), but if a fighter does it, it's proving the fighter sucks. He was simply pointing out a double standard. Please keep in mind the intent of the original poster that your quoting.
Drachasor 06-12-07, 01:48 PM	Navar was responding to a claim that a warblade can multiclass out to pick up ranged proficciency (much like, but admitadly, not exactly like, what you said above, although, had i snipped everything after the first comma, i could have made it look that way. guess it's a good thing i address peoples thoughts as a whole instead of cherry picking), but if a fighter does it, it's proving the fighter sucks. He was simply pointing out a double standard. Please keep in mind the intent of the original poster that your quoting. I don't think anyone has said a Fighter dipping into another class for a level or four sucks. I think that if the only decent Fighters are those that only have 4 or so Fighter levels, then the Fighter sucks, imho. Honestly, looking at things, I don't see that taking 10+ levels of Fighter gets you much more than taking just 4 levels. Most of the goodies for 'fighters' in the PhB 2 can be taken with only 4 Fighter levels. Of course, Warblades don't need any Fighter levels at all to get these things, and can then use their class abilities on things that are much cooler and more effective than feats. I'd note that Navar was responding to me, but I never claimed a Fighter dipping into another class sucks (which Navar noted). I am not sure there's evidence of anyone having a double standard in this regard. In any case, there are multiple ways for a Warblade to handle opponents that are far away. Spending a feat or multi-classing are two of them. Using a thrown weapon (that's also a melee weapon) can also work. However, the Warblade also has the ability to move very quickly, much faster than say, a Fighter, so the Warblade has less of a need for ranged attacks (which usually aren't all the necessary to begin with). -Drachasor
Clawhound 06-12-07, 02:20 PM	A Fighter 4/Cleric 1 (Luck, Knowledge)/Barb 1 is a great little combo. Does that mean that Cleric and Barb are both awful classes because they are worth only one level in a dip? I suspect that assessing a class by its dip-reward is a poor way to assess a class.
Kratch 06-12-07, 02:47 PM	I don't think anyone has said a Fighter dipping into another class for a level or four sucks. Poor wording on my part. I should have said, people are claiming if a fighter multiclass's in any way, he is no longer a fighter and cannot be used to show fighters is "viable". The double standard remains. What Navar said was, "a fighter multiclassing to get what he wants" (at no point does this mean the fighter is only taking 4 levels in fighter and multiclassing to something else, if that were the case, i'd agree completely. It is quite likely a fighter can take a single level of barbarian to get what he wants AKA rage and movement/pounce) is being deemed unacceptable while a warblade doing the same seems to be perfectly fine. Now, i don't entirely disagree with the argument, a fighter who is dipping isn't proveing anything about the fighter class on it's own merits alone. Navars point was (and it was substantiated by what i previously quoted of scion's, and what navar quoted of yours), that it seems perfectly acceptable for a warblade to multiclass, and at no point does it discredit the warblades claim of supreriority over the fighter, but if the fighter multiclass's, he is discredited from being used to defend the class. Do you not see the double standard? Nether of us are trying to say fighters should be allowed to multiclass as proof of the fighters "viability".
Khan the Destroyer 06-12-07, 05:20 PM	So... it seems like my questions either get lost in the shuffle or are purposely ignored. I'll reask... How does your golfbag warrior know that a special weapon is needed and precisely what special weapon that is?
windscar18 06-12-07, 05:22 PM	Simple. He asks the wizard, who proceeds to cast some stupid spell or make a stupid knowledge check to find out :P
Archangel62 06-12-07, 05:34 PM	(http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10325801&postcount=1694) is one of the nicer AoO builds i've seen, and it actually makes use of the spec line, so i'm not entirely sure what your talking about. Although if you've got a better AoO build in mind, that doesn't use the spec line, please, do post it. This build is not mine, it belongs to the talented snowsavant. Gattling Chain Gun Tripper (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=163005&highlight=chaingun+tripper) But looking at it it has more general use to a party than the big damage. Now, before anyone reminds me, yes I do think that tripping is rather situational as you go up in levels and yes I do think that there are better tactics out there, but I also have to say that if you're building a fighter to be a damage machine then you aren't really using the class to its full potential, similar to making a caster a pure blaster.
Kratch 06-12-07, 05:49 PM	This build is not mine, it belongs to the talented snowsavant. Gattling Chain Gun Tripper (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=163005&highlight=chaingun+tripper) But looking at it it has more general use to a party than the big damage. Now, before anyone reminds me, yes I do think that tripping is rather situational as you go up in levels and yes I do think that there are better tactics out there, but I also have to say that if you're building a fighter to be a damage machine then you aren't really using the class to its full potential, similar to making a caster a pure blaster. I meant to add a link in the original post you quote, but it must have gotten lost (adding the link back in after this). Here is the build i was reffering to when i said it was a nice AoO build that also used the spec line. Originally by CDB (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10325801&postcount=1694) CDB's build offers a lot to a party as well, in addition to big damage. but he can go for huge damage against some opponents (the robilar's gambit plus overwhelming attack)
Khan the Destroyer 06-12-07, 05:50 PM	AoO builds are damage machines. Even looking at the archaic Gatling Chain-Gun Tripper, you see that on 1 AoO, she gets two attacks, plus one for tripping you, plus one for when you get up. That's 4 attacks on the enemy's turn. Then you get your own 7 attacks on your turn. I would switch out Dodge, Karmic Strike, Mobility, Spring Attack, Jotenbrud, and Hold the Line for Robilar's Gambit, WF, WS, MWM, GWF, and GWS. Stack those modifiers to make sure all of those attacks hit and deal damage. And that's not even counting on Overwhelming Attack.
Archangel62 06-12-07, 11:27 PM	AoO builds are damage machines. Even looking at the archaic Gatling Chain-Gun Tripper, you see that on 1 AoO, she gets two attacks, plus one for tripping you, plus one for when you get up. That's 4 attacks on the enemy's turn. Then you get your own 7 attacks on your turn. I would switch out Dodge, Karmic Strike, Mobility, Spring Attack, Jotenbrud, and Hold the Line for Robilar's Gambit, WF, WS, MWM, GWF, and GWS. Stack those modifiers to make sure all of those attacks hit and deal damage. And that's not even counting on Overwhelming Attack. The dodge, mobility, and spring attack are probably to help keep movement in the battle and give more chances for AoO, also I might actually want more defensive stuff, Elusive target for example.
navar100 06-12-07, 11:43 PM	I was trying to be facetious for the sake of others. I am in total agreement with you. Sometimes my sarcasm doesn't come across so clearly. Whew! Disagreement over Truenamer is enough for me. ;)
Scion of Coldshard 06-13-07, 12:39 AM	Navar was responding to a claim that a warblade can multiclass out to pick up ranged proficciency He responded to something that was not really there. The warblade was not claimed to be ok because it could multi-class, merely that if a certain type of warblade wanted to have a ranged proficiency one of several options was to take a level in another class. I dont think anyone has a problem taking warblade from 1 to 20 while I doubt anyone would actually do so with a fighter. Why should they? 4 levels in it gets you the vast majority of the good stuff anyway and other classes get bonus feats that they might want anyway. (much like, but admitadly, not exactly like, what you said above, although, had i snipped everything after the first comma, i could have made it look that way. guess it's a good thing i address peoples thoughts as a whole instead of cherry picking) Since I have seen you repeatidly fail to do this through this entire thread you'll forgive me for laughing. but if a fighter does it, it's proving the fighter sucks. Mixing and matching arguements. If a character is better off getting out of fighter after 4 levels or so, and that is only if the build really needed the fighter feats to begin with, instead of sticking with it what does that mean? It could mean that prc's are too good for the fighter, but I havent seen that claimed, just that the fighter is more than good enough on his own and can be a powerful class. I feel that a first level of ranger or barbarian is a lot better than taking fighter at first level, you simply get more out of it. If you are able to trade some class features for something more appropriate (not more powerful, that is important, some of the books have fighter sub abilities which are much, much more powerful than they are giving up which is just a tacit admission that they feel the fighter is too weak) you can fit in many of the character concepts pretty early on. Barbarian 20? I can see it happening, even knew a guy who was going for that. Ranger 20? Looks like fun to me, and I have seen several people who went for that. Fighter 20? Why bother? Fighter 4 gets you 3 bonus fighter feats, if you keep going the ratio of levels to bonus feats just goes down. If you really want more bonus feats I would recommend psychic warrior 2 after that. While I wouldnt do it Ranger 2/Fighter 2/Psychic warrior 16 is a 9th level guy with a ton of feats nets you track, first combat style feat, 2 fighter bonus feats, and 6 bonus feats that can be fighter or psionic feats. Paladin 20? I dont know, I am iffy on the paladin.. lots of restrictions but obscenly powerful sometimes and their mount is just insane. Although I think that devoted tracker combined with halfling outrider might pull some people away from that. mmm.. 20+ hd mount.. He was simply pointing out a double standard. It looks like there is no double standard here.
navar100 06-13-07, 01:39 AM	A warblade can multiclass to pick up a ranged proficiency, or spend a feat on one, but the warblade abilities are almost entirely useless on those ranged attacks. A fighter who multiclasses is now a multiclass character instead of a pure fighter. If a class is used basically exclusively as a dip then that does not a good class make. At this point I am not sure that there would be much of a difference for most campaigns out there if the fighter class only had 4 levels. At this point multiclassing a fighter is a good plan though. A Ranger 1/Fighter 4/Barbarian 1 (6th level character) is pretty tough. With extra rage picked up at level 6 this guy has BAB +6, Hp 8+4*5.5+6.5+6*con mod, F+8, R+3, W+1, 36 +6*int mod skill points, 1 favored enemy, track, wild empathy, 3 fighter bonus feats (qualifies for feats that require 4 fighte levels), fast movement, rage 3/day. His will save kindof sucks but at least it is at +3 while raging and there are those single save boosting items in MIC. My point is though that once you multiclass the fighter into something else the build no longer really speaks to how good or bad the fighter is. You might have left it because of a certain concept that the fighter could not give, or maybe you just dipped in for a couple of feats, or who knows what else. If the fighter is only good as a dip class then to me that means the fighter is in need of retooling. Navar was responding to a claim that a warblade can multiclass out to pick up ranged proficciency (much like, but admitadly, not exactly like, what you said above, although, had i snipped everything after the first comma, i could have made it look that way. guess it's a good thing i address peoples thoughts as a whole instead of cherry picking), but if a fighter does it, it's proving the fighter sucks. He was simply pointing out a double standard. Please keep in mind the intent of the original poster that your quoting. Thanks. I really did not want to respond with just ":rolleyes: ".
navar100 06-13-07, 01:55 AM	I don't think anyone has said a Fighter dipping into another class for a level or four sucks. I think that if the only decent Fighters are those that only have 4 or so Fighter levels, then the Fighter sucks, imho. Honestly, looking at things, I don't see that taking 10+ levels of Fighter gets you much more than taking just 4 levels. Most of the goodies for 'fighters' in the PhB 2 can be taken with only 4 Fighter levels. Of course, Warblades don't need any Fighter levels at all to get these things, and can then use their class abilities on things that are much cooler and more effective than feats. I'd note that Navar was responding to me, but I never claimed a Fighter dipping into another class sucks (which Navar noted). I am not sure there's evidence of anyone having a double standard in this regard. In any case, there are multiple ways for a Warblade to handle opponents that are far away. Spending a feat or multi-classing are two of them. Using a thrown weapon (that's also a melee weapon) can also work. However, the Warblade also has the ability to move very quickly, much faster than say, a Fighter, so the Warblade has less of a need for ranged attacks (which usually aren't all the necessary to begin with). -Drachasor It was your post I was responding to but not you specifically. I even wrote in my response that I acknowledged you weren't the one who made such a claim. I suppose "necessarily" allows that possibility, but the truth is it wasn't a recent claim. It's rather old and goes back nearly to when these anti-fighter threads started. I can't say who specifically made such a claim. The point to you, though, is that you can't justify a warblade by multiclassing to overcome a deficiency because of the double standard. As soon as any fighter build would be proposed to show even just a one level dip into another class to overcome some deficiency, it will be harped on as proof the fighter sucks because you can't go to Fighter 20 pre-epic. It's a double standard because saying the warblade can just multiclass for range proficiency means the Warblade doesn't suck even though such a character can't go to Warblade 20 pre-epic. Now I agree the Warblade does not suck. Not being proficient in range weapons can be problematic. That deficiency does not take away the greatness that is the Warblade. He can take a Feat for it. He can multi-class. He can just lump it, suffer the consequences, and hope his party members can help him out even if it just means they deal with the situation while he does something else. Fighters aren't allowed such a luxury for a deficiency they may have; skills for example.
navar100 06-13-07, 01:58 AM	A Fighter 4/Cleric 1 (Luck, Knowledge)/Barb 1 is a great little combo. Does that mean that Cleric and Barb are both awful classes because they are worth only one level in a dip? I suspect that assessing a class by its dip-reward is a poor way to assess a class. No, it would be used to show fighters suck because you didn't stick with fighter all the way. It would also be used to say "See! I told you so that fighters are only good for a 2 or 4 level dip." ;)
Archangel62 06-13-07, 03:58 AM	If I might ask a silly question, how do we define the fighters job? If that 'job' can be done well or incredibly by multiple classes then I would think that it would be reasonable to ask ourselves if we can consider this a job of the fighter class or a general party role that the fighter can fill. Maybe I'm just being silly in this but might it not be an idea to instead of looking at what jobs the fighter has, instead we make a list of jobs that a party needs and see how many the fighter can fulfill versus that of the other classes.
Argaud 06-13-07, 07:55 AM	Now I agree the Warblade does not suck. Not being proficient in range weapons can be problematic. That deficiency does not take away the greatness that is the Warblade. He can take a Feat for it. He can multi-class. He can just lump it, suffer the consequences, and hope his party members can help him out even if it just means they deal with the situation while he does something else. Fighters aren't allowed such a luxury for a deficiency they may have; skills for example. Not true, a fighter can also take a feat to help the problem with skills (like Able Learner, or Cosmopolitan) or substitution levels (tumble instead of ride, sure!) or variant rules (Cityscape anyone?) or a level or four of rogue (feat rogue even better). He can also "just lump it, suffer the consequences, and hope his party members can help him out" but then the anti-fighters will come screaming "fighters suck, fighters suck!" while remaining strangely silent about the shortcomings of other classes.
Clawhound 06-13-07, 09:23 AM	If I might ask a silly question, how do we define the fighters job? If that 'job' can be done well or incredibly by multiple classes then I would think that it would be reasonable to ask ourselves if we can consider this a job of the fighter class or a general party role that the fighter can fill. Maybe I'm just being silly in this but might it not be an idea to instead of looking at what jobs the fighter has, instead we make a list of jobs that a party needs and see how many the fighter can fulfill versus that of the other classes. If there is only one role that a fighter can fill, then I think that you have a reason to choose a fighter, even if it only for that one role. In the new Star War edition, the designers wound up benchmarking all character classes against the Jedi. In many ways, I think that you are getting to that here. Where do we set the benchmark? How do classes stand against that benchmark? I would be a fool to think that the player base does not use the Big Four as the benchmark. They do. There is a very strong argument for using them as the measure of all classes. By that measure, most classes fail to perform correctly. The Bo9S authors certainly used this benchmark when they designed that book. Melee must be as cool at 18th level as a Wizard in order to be attractive. We need to be careful of benchmarks. For instance, how do we bring all the below-average classes to be above average? That sounds good, but it is a nonsense question, as somebody will always be below average by definition. Average is a really problematic benchmark. The benchmark here is only for "what is a compelling choice?" It does not answer whether a class can be usable or workable. It does not measure fun. I am not sure that measure the # of roles is a good benchmark. The main issue is that spellcasters can take on all roles. If there is a role that a caster can't take on, wait a few sourcebooks. All classes besides casters inherently take on fewer roles. We know this even before the comparison starts. We also need to rank those roles as frequent, occasional, and rare. For example, Tracking is an occasionally to rarely useful. Perception skills (Spot, Search, Listen) are frequently useful. We should really stick to those things that are frequently used if we are to compare roles. Jack-of-all-trades is a party role, as he does all those things that no one else is willing to invest in, and by sheer number of abilities, is actually useful. If you set up some really sharp benchmarks, I think that you will find that the fighter has problems, but you know that. By the same token, most of the classes in D&D have problems. On the other hand, if you cut out all full-spellcasting classes, the fighter does pretty well. That really points out that we have two benchmarks in the 3.x design, which causes all sorts of issues. I think that Bo9S recognized this, and eliminated the original melee benchmark.
Scion of Coldshard 06-13-07, 11:07 AM	It's a double standard because saying the warblade can just multiclass for range proficiency means the Warblade doesn't suck even though such a character can't go to Warblade 20 pre-epic. I think that you are making up this doublestandard all on your own though. Warblade 20 is a fine way to go for a character, I dont think I have seen anyone say otherwise at all actually. The warblade has several options for getting other things, multi-classing is one of them, but the warblade itself is fine as is. Once it is fine as a base class that is all we are caring about here, multi-classing classes that are fine shows nothing, multi-classing a class that might not be fine so that it can be shown to be fine however it very, very bad. That is not a double standard at all. At that point the classes are already in two different boats. If you want to put them back in the same boat then show why you think that Warblade 20 is an undesireable path at which point anyone showing multi-classing to prove you wrong would be out of line. Fighters aren't allowed such a luxury for a deficiency they may have; skills for example. Yes, the Fighter is not allowed to take a level of something with good skills to show that a Fighter can have good skills. That is both true and not a double standard.
Bob Loblaw 06-13-07, 01:01 PM	At that point the classes are already in two different boats. If you want to put them back in the same boat then show why you think that Warblade 20 is an undesireable path at which point anyone showing multi-classing to prove you wrong would be out of line. Or show that the fighter does fine on it's own for all 20 levels of play. You are taking the assumption that the fighter is not a playable or viable class which is actually a faulty premise. This is an example of when the premise must be proven. To navar and several others, the fighter works for all 20 levels.
Drachasor 06-13-07, 02:30 PM	Or show that the fighter does fine on it's own for all 20 levels of play. You are taking the assumption that the fighter is not a playable or viable class which is actually a faulty premise. This is an example of when the premise must be proven. To navar and several others, the fighter works for all 20 levels. It is important to state this fully in context. The Fighter does fine for 20 levels IF you use the PHB 2. Without that book, then it doesn't measure up compared to the competition. By "doing fine" we mean it can deal damage and take hits. The Class itself does have some large design problems, however. For one, you have to know what you are doing to build a good fighter. You have to know what feats to pick (and have the PHB 2), and you need a coherent build strategy from level 1. That's a lot of work, especially for people new to the game (almost any class besides a full caster is better for a new player). Also, most of what makes a Fighter viable is obtained by just taking 4 Fighter Levels, and spending the other levels to get class abilities (such as Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, Spellcasting, or other things not obtainable through feats -- which are all the great abilities in the game). I stand by my statement that the ToB contains superior classes. They don't deal more damage, overall, but they are extremely well-designed classes. You don't have to do anything fancy or tricky to make a ToB warrior, and it doesn't require looking through a bunch of books for the right feats. They are also extremely flexible. They have the Fighter's flexibility regarding a huge number of build possibilities, but a given build is also more flexible than a fighter (generally speaking). True, they are overall a bit weak in the ranged attack department, but that's easily fixed if it is a real problem. So again I say there's no real reason to have a Fighter if you have ToB. The class doesn't bring much to the game and is horribly designed. Other classes can deal damage just as well, and a ton of other classes can take damage better and defend others better. -Drachasor
Bob Loblaw 06-13-07, 02:59 PM	It is important to state this fully in context. The Fighter does fine for 20 levels IF you use the PHB 2. Without that book, then it doesn't measure up compared to the competition. By "doing fine" we mean it can deal damage and take hits. That's your interpretation of how the class works in the games that you play in. I have not had nor seen the same issues that others are so quick to complain about. For me, the fighter need not only focus on dealing damage and taking hits. He can do many other things depending on the concept the player has in mind. The Class itself does have some large design problems, however. For one, you have to know what you are doing to build a good fighter. You have to know what feats to pick (and have the PHB 2), and you need a coherent build strategy from level 1. That's a lot of work, especially for people new to the game (almost any class besides a full caster is better for a new player). Also, most of what makes a Fighter viable is obtained by just taking 4 Fighter Levels, and spending the other levels to get class abilities (such as Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, Spellcasting, or other things not obtainable through feats -- which are all the great abilities in the game). I don't deny having a good strategy for building the character is fundamental to having a playable character. This holds true for all classes. I also agree that new players will have a harder time planning ahead. The casters gain new spells every level or when they decide to spend money. This can be seen as an advantage for some. All those abilities are great to have. I won't deny that. However, not every character needs to have them. Does the barbarian or paladin have evasion? Does the barbarian have spellcasting? Does the paladin or ranger have uncanny dodge? Does the cleric, druid, wizard, or sorcerer have Evasion or Uncanny Dodge? These abilities are not required to have a playable character. Some character concepts will require multiclassing. Not all will though. A 4 level dip is what you (and a few others) feel is all the fighter is good for. And that's fine. What about those of us who have actually managed to build and play fighters for all 20 levels of play? Why are our experiences completely discounted while the nay-sayers' experiences are considered canon? I stand by my statement that the ToB contains superior classes. They don't deal more damage, overall, but they are extremely well-designed classes. You don't have to do anything fancy or tricky to make a ToB warrior, and it doesn't require looking through a bunch of books for the right feats. They are also extremely flexible. They have the Fighter's flexibility regarding a huge number of build possibilities, but a given build is also more flexible than a fighter (generally speaking). True, they are overall a bit weak in the ranged attack department, but that's easily fixed if it is a real problem. They ToB classes are interesting, no doubt about that. I would like to point out that the book does require the player to put as much work into future planning that the fighter does. Many of the maneuvers have prerequisites. There are some feats that work best with those maneuvers. The player needs to be up on all those options. I know that there are fewer maneuvers than feats and those maneuvers are all in one location, but there are still quite a few options. Combine this with learning a new system for how you get to use your maneuvers and the ToB classes are not necessarily all that much easier to use. In fact, I would say the fighter is easier to play. So again I say there's no real reason to have a Fighter if you have ToB. The class doesn't bring much to the game and is horribly designed. Other classes can deal damage just as well, and a ton of other classes can take damage better and defend others better. No class is without it's design flaws. Every class has ways to deal damage, some more direct than others. Every class has ways to reduce the amount of damage coming at them. Breaking things down to damage dealing and defending doesn't really mean anything since this is what everyone is supposed to do in some way.
Scion of Coldshard 06-13-07, 04:11 PM	Or show that the fighter does fine on it's own for all 20 levels of play. Sure, if you can do so under assumptions that people will agree with. Maybe another thread should be started asking, 'why should anyone take Fighter beyond 4?' You are taking the assumption that the fighter is not a playable or viable class which is actually a faulty premise. Am I? Where exactly? This To navar and several others, the fighter works for all 20 levels. For some the commoner works fine for all 20 levels. I dont find their arguements very persuasive though ;)
Khan the Destroyer 06-13-07, 05:36 PM	This is astonishing. How many times will we hear people gripe about having to plan ahead for the fighter? That you somehow have to 'know what you're doing' to make a fighter worthwhile. I can easily show you a wizard that would be considered very sucky by the CO's standards (which are pretty much the same standards people here are using). You just have to know the wrong spells to pick, and the least advantageous items, and the worst prestige classes to go into. I can do the same with a fighter, or a barbarian, or any class. No class is just good by itself. You need to have a build. Even if you think the build is so simple, it cannot be taken for granted. Obviously, many of us build differently, since some of us have no problem with fighters while others do (DM and gamestyle also factor in). But to think that the fighter requires any more game knowledge than a ToB class is just being biased. Just because you read something on the boards and it seems like everyone agrees with how awesome it is doesn't mean it's blatantly obvious to anyone else and pretty much the standard for how a class should be played. Seriously. We need to stop pretending that these 'problems' exist only with the fighter. We're all pretty much biased because we know so much about the game and we know how much can be accomplished through optimization. It skews our perception and expectations. And I really enjoy how my questions repeatedly go unanswered :rolleyes:. I guess the best way to quash a silly argument on this thread is to just ask a tough question. Then the place goes silent on the issue :eek:.
navar100 06-13-07, 09:04 PM	If I might ask a silly question, how do we define the fighters job? If that 'job' can be done well or incredibly by multiple classes then I would think that it would be reasonable to ask ourselves if we can consider this a job of the fighter class or a general party role that the fighter can fill. Maybe I'm just being silly in this but might it not be an idea to instead of looking at what jobs the fighter has, instead we make a list of jobs that a party needs and see how many the fighter can fulfill versus that of the other classes. Been there. Done that. Got the Pun-Pun Fallacy.
navar100 06-13-07, 09:06 PM	Now I agree the Warblade does not suck. Not being proficient in range weapons can be problematic. That deficiency does not take away the greatness that is the Warblade. He can take a Feat for it. He can multi-class. He can just lump it, suffer the consequences, and hope his party members can help him out even if it just means they deal with the situation while he does something else. Fighters aren't allowed such a luxury for a deficiency they may have; skills for example. Not true, a fighter can also take a feat to help the problem with skills (like Able Learner, or Cosmopolitan) or substitution levels (tumble instead of ride, sure!) or variant rules (Cityscape anyone?) or a level or four of rogue (feat rogue even better). He can also "just lump it, suffer the consequences, and hope his party members can help him out" but then the anti-fighters will come screaming "fighters suck, fighters suck!" while remaining strangely silent about the shortcomings of other classes. That's what I said. :)
Kalarus 06-13-07, 09:07 PM	I suppose I could do what I usually do and quote people and refute their arguments, lately while being deliberately misinterpreted. I could also refute the same old arguments and prejudices again. Why bother though, when all I need to post is :banghead: Khan, generally, the problem you are presenting (which happens to be a very real problem) is solved by outright metagaming or interpretation of rules that deliberately supports metagaming. Most commonly: 1) Metagame discussion of viable tactics resulting from player knowledge of MMX 2) Out of turn knowledge "checks" and speaking as a free action that can take place any time the player wishes. 3) Blatant beneficial assumptions of what the character knows. My DMs generally crack down on such behaviour, allowing no metagame tactics discussions, knowledge checks only to be made when it is your turn (as well as speaking on your turn only), and setting limits on what a character could reasonably know, usually related to the character's background. If the monster faced is not something the character has faced before and he has no appropriate knowledge skills, he knows very few things about it (basically, DC 10 knowledge only; hearsay, that kind of stuff). It might be that he knows a bit more depending on what's appropriate, e.g. a Fighter who has been part of an anti-undead campaign but only has personal experience with zombies might've picked up bits of info about mummies. On his/her turn, anyone with the appropriate knowledge skill can make a check and try to pass on relevant information usually as a free action. This takes the form of a specific question, e.g. "What are this creature's resistances and vulnerabilities"? Generally speaking identifying the creature is part of this process. In any of the games I play, if the character has no personal experience with the creature nor has knowledge skills regarding the creature he'll have to rely on the party's knowledge-based characters in order to provide him with information. If the knowledgeable character goes later in initiative, all characters before him will be fighting blindly for a minimum of one round.
Kalarus 06-13-07, 09:20 PM	If I might ask a silly question, how do we define the fighters job? If that 'job' can be done well or incredibly by multiple classes then I would think that it would be reasonable to ask ourselves if we can consider this a job of the fighter class or a general party role that the fighter can fill. Maybe I'm just being silly in this but might it not be an idea to instead of looking at what jobs the fighter has, instead we make a list of jobs that a party needs and see how many the fighter can fulfill versus that of the other classes. Let's see generally speaking what jobs we have in D&D: 1) Tank: Soak damage, battlefield control, etc 2) Problemsolver: Skillmonkeys, batman-type wizards, similar things 3) Healer: Yeah, people actually get hurt so they need new hitpoints 4) Blaster: All about the damage I might miss a few classes here, as I am pulling stuff from memory at 3 am and CBA to get them all, but let's see what we can place where. In category 1: Fighter, Cleric, Druid, Knight, Paladin, Monk(?), Barbarian In category 2: Rogue, Wizard, Ranger(?), Some Clerics, Beguiler, Ninja, Scout, Bard In category 3: Clerics, Druids, UMD Rogues, bits of Paladin/Ranger, Favoured Soul, bit of Bard (UMD again?) In category 4: Wizard, Warmage, Fighter, Rogue, ... well really there are few classes which *can't* do this so the list goes on. Well we can place Fighter in 1 and 4, if people want to come up with other categories, we might find a niche or two more. Most classes can fulfill more than one of those roles, a few classes can appear in most. I assume the conclusion that you're looking for is that the Fighter does not appear in any category that no other class appears in and that there are classes which appear in every category the Fighter is in. We already knew that though. Incidentally other classes are in the same boat, there is no unique niche for any class whatsoever. So what do people feel we can conclude from this (which hasn't been thoroughly refuted or proven to be fallacious)?
navar100 06-13-07, 09:26 PM	I think that you are making up this doublestandard all on your own though. Warblade 20 is a fine way to go for a character, I dont think I have seen anyone say otherwise at all actually. The warblade has several options for getting other things, multi-classing is one of them, but the warblade itself is fine as is. Once it is fine as a base class that is all we are caring about here, multi-classing classes that are fine shows nothing, multi-classing a class that might not be fine so that it can be shown to be fine however it very, very bad. That is not a double standard at all. At that point the classes are already in two different boats. If you want to put them back in the same boat then show why you think that Warblade 20 is an undesireable path at which point anyone showing multi-classing to prove you wrong would be out of line. Yes, the Fighter is not allowed to take a level of something with good skills to show that a Fighter can have good skills. That is both true and not a double standard. You're still not getting it. I am not saying a warblade is not a good character. However, a proof is demanded of pro-fighters to show that fighter is a good character. If said proof included a one level dip into some non-fighter class to overcome a perceived deficiency, then that act of dipping is used by anti-fighters as proof fighters suck. However, if a warblade just happened to include a one level dip into some non-warblade class to overcome a perceived deficiency, that act of dipping is not used to say warblades suck. That's the double standard. You can replace warblade with cleric, wizard, rogue, crusader, warlock, knight, druid, barbarian, rogue, pick your own. It doesn't matter. Anti-fighters demand a fighter 20 build, period. To avoid the double standard, pro-fighters demand a class 20 build, period, when an anti-fighter denfends or promotes some class that happens not to be the fighter, in this one particular example of a case, the warblade. A warblade has a deificiency in not being proficient with range weapons. The act of dipping into a non-warblade class to get it by an anti-fighter does not prove the warblade sucks. However, the double standard would come about if the anti-fighter demands the fighter is not allowed a one-level dip to overcome some perceived deficiency. If a fighter, in proof of his worth, is not allowed a one level dip into say barbarian for +10 ft movement and rage, then warblade is not allowed a one level dip into say ranger for range weapon proficiency and track. To say the warblade is allowed this but the fighter is not allowed, that's the double standard.
Archangel62 06-13-07, 09:45 PM	Been there. Done that. Got the Pun-Pun Fallacy. Which is still a complete load. The idea here is to see what classes, just in core initially, can cover with different areas of expertise and how efficiently they can do it. The pun-pun argument is poor because it effectively states that any real comparison is moot because of pun-pun, that rather than looking at what each class can do to see what it can and can't accomplish that instead we just say that all classes, PC and NPC are equally viable, pun-pun is the moral relativism of mechanical balance.
windscar18 06-13-07, 10:17 PM	You're still not getting it. I am not saying a warblade is not a good character. However, a proof is demanded of pro-fighters to show that fighter is a good character. If said proof included a one level dip into some non-fighter class to overcome a perceived deficiency, then that act of dipping is used by anti-fighters as proof fighters suck. However, if a warblade just happened to include a one level dip into some non-warblade class to overcome a perceived deficiency, that act of dipping is not used to say warblades suck. That's the double standard. You can replace warblade with cleric, wizard, rogue, crusader, warlock, knight, druid, barbarian, rogue, pick your own. It doesn't matter. Anti-fighters demand a fighter 20 build, period. To avoid the double standard, pro-fighters demand a class 20 build, period, when an anti-fighter denfends or promotes some class that happens not to be the fighter, in this one particular example of a case, the warblade. A warblade has a deificiency in not being proficient with range weapons. The act of dipping into a non-warblade class to get it by an anti-fighter does not prove the warblade sucks. However, the double standard would come about if the anti-fighter demands the fighter is not allowed a one-level dip to overcome some perceived deficiency. If a fighter, in proof of his worth, is not allowed a one level dip into say barbarian for +10 ft movement and rage, then warblade is not allowed a one level dip into say ranger for range weapon proficiency and track. To say the warblade is allowed this but the fighter is not allowed, that's the double standard. But you said yourself that Warblade 20 does not suck, so it should not matter either way.
aelryinth 06-13-07, 10:20 PM	That's what I said. :) Argaud's argument doesn't hold water with most people because now you are trying to use General Feats to overcome a major class deficiency. It might be different if you could spend Fighter bonus feats to do this...but then, the Fighter would become even more of a Dip class. Able Learner is a feat DESIGNED for dippers. By making all skills cost 1, it practically forces you to dip into classes with large skill lists. As for the Fighter/20, this comes down to the reasonable idea of is it worth it to go to Fighter/20, or will multi classing do the same job, but better? If it's feats you are looking for, then PsyWar/Fighter is a much better combo...and you get psychic powers which make up for any BAB loss. If you want the ability to take on multiple roles, building a tank cleric will do the job...your spell flexibility makes up for focusing your build as a tank, because Fighters can't change feats the way you can spells. There's also a lot of comparison on 20 level builds, especially ones that mature late. While there is a lot of fervent defense of the Fighters role, there's just way too much optimizer experience with a lack of a power curve for fighters vs. most other classes (with other melee being in almost the same boat, it must be noted). However, optimizers also like to play with later levels. You'll find few optimizers who say the fighter sucks at low levels. It's even bearable at middle levels. It's at late levels where it really starts falling behind the other choices you can make, especially sans dipping and prestiging out. Ergo, most Fighter sucks arguments are based on the fact that: 1) At low or mid levels, you can play just about any melee class and do all right. The generic fighter class tends to be the low man on the totem pole, but it's livable. 2) At later levels, all melee classes began to pale versus casters, but of all classes, the Fighter suffers most, because at the 'next level' there's almost always a better choice then another level of Fighter. Sure, if you just build a F/20 you can ignore all that...but level by level, the Fighter has it the hardest to NOT go somewhere else and get something. ===Aelryinth
Kratch 06-13-07, 10:27 PM	I had answered the "what roles are in a party" question earlier in the thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12524143&postcount=334), so i was reluctant to reply again (it was ignored or dismissed then, i figured repeating it would do no good), but i like how kalaris laid it out, so i decided to do the same with how i break down party roles.... "The general roles within a group, for me, have often come down to; Physical offence (consistent, non-expendable damage), Magical Offence (buffs and attack spells), Attack absorbtion (taking the attacks, wether or not those attacks hit), Magical Defence (Defences Against magic, such as energy resistance and save bonus's), Battlefield Control (obsticles, action preventions, etc), Scouting skills (detections mostly, be it traps or enemies), Tactical Skills (knowledge, spellcraft, divinations, bypassing obsticles, etc), Social Skills (also includes forgery, disguise and the lot) and Healing. (Notes: When i say skills, i don't specifically mean skills, magic and even feat options can fill the role. I may have missed one or two, but i think this covers it more or less) What roles are filled by what class and to what degree depends highly upon the builds, the terrain and the opponents being faced. For example, a fighter built solely for doing damage with his greatsword, fighting an intellegent magic using foe in a large room, may find his only role in that combat to be physical damage, but to a much greater degree then any other member of the party.(EDIT:Come to think of it, this fighter would also be performing battlefield control (the wizard wouldn't want to remain within melee range, a few good hits would certainly cause him great harm, so he may not be placing the enemy where he wants, he's moving him away from where he doesn't want him, additionally, if he is persistent enough, he will start taking some of the attacks, cause a charge off a dedicated damge dealer each round can still be very deadly) While that same fighter, facing the low intellegence monster in a small room or cavern may find he has the opportunity to not only fill the damage dealer role, but also the attack absorbtion and the battlefield control. Perhaps he has intimidate which may also contribute marginally to social skills (especially if the DM uses the optional alternative stat modifiers for skills, allowing str to be used instead of cha)." (Notes: When i say skills, i don't specifically mean skills, magic and even feat options can fill the role. I may have missed one or two, but i think this covers it more or less) Physical offence (consistent, non-expendable damage); Barbarians, melee Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue Magical Offence (buffs and attack spells); Bard, Cleric, Druid, Some Paladin, Some (UMD) Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard (fighter can also participate in this catagory with assistance feats suchs as adaptable flanker, formaton fighting, Stalwart defence). Attack absorbtion (taking the attacks, wether or not those attacks hit); Barbarians, melee Cleric, some Druid, Fighter, Paladin Magical Defence (Defences Against magic, such as energy resistance and save bonus's); Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard (if you want to include self only effects, you can add most class's back into this catagory, barbarians have save boosting abilities, fighters can afford the save boosting feats, rogues have slippery mind, etc, etc, etc.) Battlefield Control (obsticles, action preventions, etc); situationally Bard, Cleric, Druid, some Fighters, Sorcerer, Wizard (some of the battlefield control feats are also available to any of the other class's, placeing them under the fighter in this catagory. But a lot of fighter builds are based around those feats, rather then adding them in to fill a role after the fact) Scouting skills (detections mostly, be it traps or enemies); Bard, Druid, Monk, Ranger, Rogue, Some Sorcerer, Wizard (any class with handle animal could also be placed in this catagory, though in a limited degree) Tactical Skills (knowledge, spellcraft, divinations, bypassing obsticles, etc); Bard, Cleric, Druid, Rogue, occassionally Sorcerer, Wizard (bypassing obsticles could also include many of the fighter/barbarian skills like climb (cliffs), jump (palisades), swim (rivers, finding underwater passages), etc) Social Skills (also includes forgery, disguise and the lot); Bard, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard (clerics with they're very limited skill points and fighters/barbarians with intimidate can also be included in this one) Healing; Bard, Cleric, melee Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue Fighter fits snugly into only 3 of those, but can also participate in 4 more, leaving only 2 catagories he doesn't fit in. Additionally, 2 of the 3 solid catigories, he is among the top 3 participants. Many of the spellcasters can fit into several catagories, but is unlikely to be able to consistantly fill all roles at the same time, instead letting the rest of the party do what they are good at, and reserving they're resources for those roles left lacking.
aelryinth 06-13-07, 10:32 PM	Let's see generally speaking what jobs we have in D&D: 1) Tank: Soak damage, battlefield control, etc 2) Problemsolver: Skillmonkeys, batman-type wizards, similar things 3) Healer: Yeah, people actually get hurt so they need new hitpoints 4) Blaster: All about the damage I might miss a few classes here, as I am pulling stuff from memory at 3 am and CBA to get them all, but let's see what we can place where. In category 1: Fighter, Cleric, Druid, Knight, Paladin, Monk(?), Barbarian In category 2: Rogue, Wizard, Ranger(?), Some Clerics, Beguiler, Ninja, Scout, Bard In category 3: Clerics, Druids, UMD Rogues, bits of Paladin/Ranger, Favoured Soul, bit of Bard (UMD again?) In category 4: Wizard, Warmage, Fighter, Rogue, ... well really there are few classes which *can't* do this so the list goes on. Well we can place Fighter in 1 and 4, if people want to come up with other categories, we might find a niche or two more. Most classes can fulfill more than one of those roles, a few classes can appear in most. I assume the conclusion that you're looking for is that the Fighter does not appear in any category that no other class appears in and that there are classes which appear in every category the Fighter is in. We already knew that though. Incidentally other classes are in the same boat, there is no unique niche for any class whatsoever. So what do people feel we can conclude from this (which hasn't been thoroughly refuted or proven to be fallacious)? 1) Tank: ANy class that can acheive high HP, high AC, and high Melee Damage. That, well, includes most classes, especially at later levels. Rogue is probably an exception. 2) Skill guy: Specifically, 'traps guy'. Rogue-Scout centered. Social skills can be handled by clerics/bards/paladins, stealth skills by other classes, knowledge checks aren't Rogue at all. Skill guy is pretty facetious...skills can be spread out among a party easily, too. 'Skill Guy' can be any guy who has the 3 points to blow on Search, Disable Device, Open Lock, and has Trapfinding. 3) Healer: Any class that can provide a lot of healing if required. There's a bunch more then the cleric. The cleric is ideal for this spot because he can take on this role at any time...but he can take the role of other places as his primary job. 4) Blaster: This isn't about raw damage, this is actually about AoE and save-or-dies, and battlefield control. This generally is all spellcasters...whirlwind attack doesn't compare, and wizards are best at the job, tho clerics and the like are no slouches. Fighters can basically do one of the above jobs with their class skills. Clerics can probably do all of them, depending on the build. Wizards can do 2 of them...Rogues can pull off 1, tanking in a real pinch. And there's so many other classes that can do the Fighter role, and then others to at least some extent on top, it becomes really hard to justify staying a Fighter, level by level. Again, there's almost always a better choice for your next level, then another level of Fighter. ====Aelryinth
Argaud 06-13-07, 10:50 PM	4) Blaster: This isn't about raw damage, this is actually about AoE and save-or-dies, and battlefield control. This generally is all spellcasters...whirlwind attack doesn't compare, and wizards are best at the job, tho clerics and the like are no slouches. This can be raw damage too, if the raw damage is enough to quickly eliminate enemies. Fighters can do this role through archery, since it is relatively easy to build a fighter able to inflict up to hundreds of points of damage each round to any target of the right CR.
Kratch 06-13-07, 10:56 PM	4) Blaster: This isn't about raw damage, this is actually about AoE and save-or-dies, and battlefield control. This generally is all spellcasters...whirlwind attack doesn't compare, and wizards are best at the job, tho clerics and the like are no slouches. If that is how you choose to define the role, fighters still remain in the list. Perhaps not on top, but it has the battlefield control abilities (more limited in scope/range, superior in it's reusability). Chain gun tripper, CDB's Stand still/driving attack/overwhelming attack build, Khans bullrush/disarming/tripping build, they are all quite capable of battlefield control. Fighters can basically do one of the above jobs with their class skills. Clerics can probably do all of them, depending on the build. But any one build is unlikely to do more then 2 well, dropping significantly in all areas when they try to fill more then that? The fact they can choose what role they want to fill is a class advantage, but as you can also make that choice by picking any particuar class, i don't really see it as a point usable as proof against the fighter.
Kratch 06-13-07, 11:11 PM	As for the Fighter/20, this comes down to the reasonable idea of is it worth it to go to Fighter/20, or will multi classing do the same job, but better? If it's feats you are looking for, then PsyWar/Fighter is a much better combo...and you get psychic powers which make up for any BAB loss. If you want the ability to take on multiple roles, building a tank cleric will do the job...your spell flexibility makes up for focusing your build as a tank, because Fighters can't change feats the way you can spells. Some people may not feal the loss of that much BAB to be worth it, much like a loss of even a single caster level to a caster. Additionally, both of your options requires the use of an additional mechanic (psi or magic), which may not be desireable. If the fighter can, reasonably compare, and not have to sacrific BAB and use a new mechanic, why is it then inferior? You'll find few optimizers who say the fighter sucks at low levels. It's even bearable at middle levels. It's at late levels where it really starts falling behind the other choices you can make, especially sans dipping and prestiging out. You'll find few optimizers who say a caster class also doesn't start falling behind the other choices you can make. Ergo, most Fighter sucks arguments are based on the fact that: 1) At low or mid levels, you can play just about any melee class and do all right. The generic fighter class tends to be the low man on the totem pole, but it's livable. Which shouldn't count against the class's that can do it better then just, all right. Unfortunatly, it usually does. 2) At later levels, all melee classes began to pale versus casters, but of all classes, the Fighter suffers most, because at the 'next level' there's almost always a better choice then another level of Fighter. Sure, if you just build a F/20 you can ignore all that...but level by level, the Fighter has it the hardest to NOT go somewhere else and get something. I have to disagree. I have come into a lot of situations where staying with fighters for more feats, although sometimes a little painful for the dead levels, is still the best option available. A sorcerer on the other hand, I have never felt the need to stay with past whatever level i can meet the prereqs for my first PRC. I don't think i've ever felt the need to stick with wizard and only once have i wanted to stay with cleric (and only because elemental turning (from domains) doesn't raise without actual cleric levels, there are no PRC's that raise those abilities (yet))
Bob Loblaw 06-14-07, 01:03 AM	Sure, if you can do so under assumptions that people will agree with. Not everyone needs to agree. As these boards show, 100% agreement will never happen. It doesn't matter if we're discussing fighters, two-weapon combat, weapons of speed, shapechange, or any other topic that comes up once a week. We don't even need a consensus. It has been shown that the fighter can do well into the upper levels. It needs to be said that many people who play this game do so for the sheer fun of playing another character and being the hero. They don't view the character as a set of stats with a name. To those people, many of the things we see on the boards would never have even occurred to them as possibilities. While it doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist within the rules, it does mean that the problem isn't as pervasive as these boards might imply. As a side note, I hang out with tons of gamers (like many people here) and we discuss the game quite often. Not a single one of the people I know personally actually sees the fighter as a problem class. It's a small sample but I would say that it's about 20 to 30 people. Maybe another thread should be started asking, 'why should anyone take Fighter beyond 4?' This thread has managed to pull that off just fine. There have been plenty of builds thrown out there that have managed to show why the fighter can be taken well past 4th. Just because they are ignored does not mean that they do not exist. Am I? Where exactly? You said: If you want to put them back in the same boat then show why you think that Warblade 20 is an undesireable path... This is taking the assumption that the fighter is undesirable all the way to 20. Since that is not a factual statement, it is a faulty premise you are starting with. It is purely an opinion and cannot be logically used as a premise. For some the commoner works fine for all 20 levels. I dont find their arguements very persuasive though ;) The commoner is fine for all 20 levels, as an NPC-everyman. Honestly, there is no reason to play a commoner other than to play the underdog. It is not designed for use as a PC class. Anyone who honestly compares it to any PC class knows full well that they are being intellectually dishonest. No one will ever be able to convince me that having Spot on a skill list is going to be far superior to having 11 bonus feats or 9 spell levels or even Evasion.
navar100 06-14-07, 01:22 AM	Which is still a complete load. The idea here is to see what classes, just in core initially, can cover with different areas of expertise and how efficiently they can do it. The pun-pun argument is poor because it effectively states that any real comparison is moot because of pun-pun, that rather than looking at what each class can do to see what it can and can't accomplish that instead we just say that all classes, PC and NPC are equally viable, pun-pun is the moral relativism of mechanical balance. We've been through this already. Pun-Pun Fallacy says nothing about comparing classes to determine balance. It says that a particular class is not necessarily a bad class just because another class is "better". You are asking, again but differently worded, for what is a fighter supposed to do but then question whether another class can do it "better". It doesn't matter what other classes can do. It only matters what a fighter can do, and the fighter has been shown to be able to do fine.
navar100 06-14-07, 01:27 AM	But you said yourself that Warblade 20 does not suck, so it should not matter either way. That's irrelevant. If a fighter is not allowed to dip one level in another class to overcome something, then fairness dictates that warblade cannot dip one level into another class to overcome something. If you allow a warblade to dip into some class to gain range weapon proficiency to defend itself against a charge of something wrong with it, then you must allow a fighter to dip one level to defend itself against a charge of something wrong with it. To deny the fighter that same courtesy is the double standard.
navar100 06-14-07, 01:32 AM	1) Tank: ANy class that can acheive high HP, high AC, and high Melee Damage. That, well, includes most classes, especially at later levels. Rogue is probably an exception. 2) Skill guy: Specifically, 'traps guy'. Rogue-Scout centered. Social skills can be handled by clerics/bards/paladins, stealth skills by other classes, knowledge checks aren't Rogue at all. Skill guy is pretty facetious...skills can be spread out among a party easily, too. 'Skill Guy' can be any guy who has the 3 points to blow on Search, Disable Device, Open Lock, and has Trapfinding. 3) Healer: Any class that can provide a lot of healing if required. There's a bunch more then the cleric. The cleric is ideal for this spot because he can take on this role at any time...but he can take the role of other places as his primary job. 4) Blaster: This isn't about raw damage, this is actually about AoE and save-or-dies, and battlefield control. This generally is all spellcasters...whirlwind attack doesn't compare, and wizards are best at the job, tho clerics and the like are no slouches. Fighters can basically do one of the above jobs with their class skills. Clerics can probably do all of them, depending on the build. Wizards can do 2 of them...Rogues can pull off 1, tanking in a real pinch. And there's so many other classes that can do the Fighter role, and then others to at least some extent on top, it becomes really hard to justify staying a Fighter, level by level. Again, there's almost always a better choice for your next level, then another level of Fighter. ====Aelryinth Ergo Pun Pun Fallacy. The point is that Figther can do it.
Scion of Coldshard 06-14-07, 02:43 AM	Not everyone needs to agree. For a person to show that the fighter is fine at all 20 levels of play? Everyone in that arguement most certainly has to agree on what assumptions or being used or there can simply be no way to show that he is fine. If you cannot agree on the base line assumptions then there can be no demonstration of something being 'fine'. As these boards show, 100% agreement will never happen. Does everyone agree that a normal medium longsword does d8 damage base? Does everyone agree that a human from the phb gets an extra feat at first level? There are many levels people can disagree on but if you cant even agree on what game is being played or what dice to use then there really isnt much of a discussion anyway. It needs to be said that many people who play this game do so for the sheer fun of playing another character and being the hero. Highly irrelevant. Why would it need be said at all? It has no bearing on the topic, unless of course you find a null answer to the question important. It seems rather odd to accept that as useful for this type of debate. As a side note, I hang out with tons of gamers (like many people here) and we discuss the game quite often. Not a single one of the people I know personally actually sees the fighter as a problem class. It's a small sample but I would say that it's about 20 to 30 people. Cool, have them all make pure, core only fighters then. They can have their little party of whatever. I dont know anyone who does not see the fighter as being in need of a little bit of something. Even the guy who says he doesnt understand why people think the fighter needs some help gives the fighters a few extra skills known and 2 more skill points a level. Interesting that. Hence why he doesnt fit under the lable of 'guy who does not see the fighter as being in the need of a little bit of something', he does feel that they need a bit more, but he likes to say that he doesnt understand. Kindof a crazy guy ;) This thread has managed to pull that off just fine. Not yet. Unless it is for vanishingly small values of fine. There have been plenty of builds thrown out there that have managed to show why the fighter can be taken well past 4th. That wasnt the question. This is taking the assumption that the fighter is undesirable all the way to 20. Actually it is using the fact that it has not been proven that they are desireable all of the way to 20 while I dont recall ever saying anything similar or showing anything similar about the warblade. Hence, putting up something to show that the warblade is insufficient to pull him back since no one has shown enough to push the fighter forward. But, you said that I was: You are taking the assumption that the fighter is not a playable or viable class Which is not the same as: This is taking the assumption that the fighter is undesirable all the way to 20. So, it appears that from the quotes you provided I was not doing what you thought I was doing. Would you like to try again? The commoner is fine for all 20 levels, as an NPC-everyman. Honestly, there is no reason to play a commoner other than to play the underdog. It is not designed for use as a PC class. Anyone who honestly compares it to any PC class knows full well that they are being intellectually dishonest. No one will ever be able to convince me that having Spot on a skill list is going to be far superior to having 11 bonus feats or 9 spell levels or even Evasion. The fighter is fine for all 20 levels, as an NPC-everyman. Honestly, there is no reason to play a fighter other than to play the underdog. It is not designed for use as a PC class. Anyone who honestly compares it to any PC class knows full well that they are being intellectually dishonest. No one will ever be able to convince me that having Intimidate on a skill list is going to be far superior to having real class abilities that real PC classes have. Not all npc classes are of the same strength either. The expert is pretty tough when compared with the commoner as well, but that has no real bearing just like saying that because the fighter is better than the commoner then the fighter isnt an npc class. Although, I am not really sure why you keep saying things like this as it doesnt really relate to what I said. It is fun to pop out the parody bird sometimes, and that paragraph has about the same power either way as it holds essentially no useful information, does not further the topic, and it goes out of its way to insult a great number of people for no other reason than to insult them.
Bob Loblaw 06-14-07, 03:08 AM	I can see that you actually have no desire to actually read what is written and you enjoy twisting things to suit yourself and feel right. That's cool. I have had enough frustration trying to explain myself to a brick wall. I will continue the debate, but don't expect much in the way of answers to any of your questions/concerns. I have grown weary of your platitudes.
Scion of Coldshard 06-14-07, 03:20 AM	I can see that you actually have no desire to actually read what is written Given that you cant even seem to find quotes of mine to back up your accusations this is kindof a cute statement. Whenever you care to actually respond to my points instead of making up your strawmen feel free. It would be nice if you would actually respond to what I said instead of what you wish I had said so that you could knock it down in some way.
Kratch 06-14-07, 03:29 AM	If you cannot agree on the base line assumptions then there can be no demonstration of something being 'fine'. The reverse is then also true. "If you cannot agree on the base line assumptions then there can be no demonstration of something being 'not fine'." I would also like to note, that we have made a concerted effort to define where we are coming from, and instead of reffuting the points we propose, you quibble over the definitions of terms we use, dispite the fact we have also provided examples of how we define those terms. All i've seen from you is claims are definitions aren't good enough for you (dispite quotes from various dictionaries), broad and unsupported claims and criteria which are so open in scope and based on huge generalizations that, when applying those same criteria, tend to elliminate all but the single most powerful class/build allowable within any given campaign. You are just as responsable to provide acceptable base line assumptions, agreeable by both side, in order to prove the fighter is "not fine" as we are to do the reverse. We have made an effort, you seem to have just expected everyone to accept your opinions as truths. I dont know anyone who does not see the fighter as being in need of a little bit of something. Even the guy who says he doesnt understand why people think the fighter needs some help gives the fighters a few extra skills known and 2 more skill points a level. Interesting that. Hence why he doesnt fit under the lable of 'guy who does not see the fighter as being in the need of a little bit of something', he does feel that they need a bit more, but he likes to say that he doesnt understand. Kindof a crazy guy ;) "Need" and "can benifit from" are two completely different things. My brother doesn't "need" me to give him $1000, he makes enough money to pay all his bills, reduce his overall debt and enjoy some minor pleasures in life. This does not mean he can't use, or benifit from, me giving him that $1000. Not yet. Unless it is for vanishingly small values of fine. I suppose that really depends on how stubborn one wants to be. Archangle was an avid "fighters suck and are completely useless" advocate. To the best of my knowledge, he has since been convinced fighters can be made into usefull builds, though he still finds there are many issues with them, predominantly in the difficulty of makeing them useful, and the general lack of flavour and uniqueness he percieves them to have. Maybe another thread should be started asking, 'why should anyone take Fighter beyond 4?' There have been plenty of builds thrown out there that have managed to show why the fighter can be taken well past 4th. That wasnt the question. Sounds like he responded to the question you wanted to ask in the thread you suggested we create. Or are you gonna say, the only acceptable responce to that question was one responding to the creation of a new thread, the actual content of that thread being irrelevent to any responce to the above question?
Archangel62 06-14-07, 04:30 AM	We've been through this already. Pun-Pun Fallacy says nothing about comparing classes to determine balance. It says that a particular class is not necessarily a bad class just because another class is "better". You are asking, again but differently worded, for what is a fighter supposed to do but then question whether another class can do it "better". It doesn't matter what other classes can do. It only matters what a fighter can do, and the fighter has been shown to be able to do fine. Except you can't have a comparison without one group coming out as better or worse in the comparison. Now the degree might depend on the criteria used, but the fact is that if I show through comparison that class A can have any of the jobs that it is supposed to excel at be done better by several other classes and there is no area where class A really excels that wouldn't be a poor comparison (for example, I sneak better than the heavily armored guy or I can punch harder than than the quadruple amputee) then it could be argued that the other classes are better than class A and that in fact class A is not necessarily a valid class. And like it or not better or worse, more or less capable, all of that HAS to factor in to balance. Otherwise you have a sort of relativistic setup, I wouldn't object to a system designed on that principle so long as it functioned but you can't argue balance without comparison and you can't have comparisons without something being better or worse. To put it another way, A is supposed to be best at fighting, B is best at utility skills, C is best at enemy destruction spells and D is best at healing and augmentation spells. Now, they have other features but those are their main arenas, their alleged mastery points. Now, if basic classes all of them core based, are outperforming consistently A,B,C,D in their allegedly best arenas then you might argue that either the E,F,G,etc. is too strong or badly designed. But, if we show that A,B,C,or D trump them in other areas, then we can still show balance and ability. But if nearly every class can do the job that A,B,C, or D is supposed to be the best at, do it with comparatively little investment, and do it consistently as well as do their own thing, then maybe A,B,C or D just aren't quite good enough. Now, I will admit that a fighter can function, can fulfill the bare minimum, but that isn't really a ringing endorsement, it's a concern. As I mentioned earlier, the fighters problems are less their own fault and more the fault of the feat system, and the fact that the fighter gets very little. A new spell can be theoretically gained the minute the book hits the table, a new weapon or enchantment needs to be purchased in feats and in gold, the same is true of armor. Now, with retraining rules things can work better, but those rules aren't universally used and some decry them as unrealistic. (As a side note, the martial classes seem to get hurt the most when realism is used, just an observation.) Yes, the same things apply to other martial classes, but most other martial classes are fairly simplistic in what they need, a barbarian needs a good 2 hander, the ranger needs either a good bow or a good pair of light weapons, the same is true of a rogue. You'll notice that most of the people who use a fighter either give them a greatsword, longsword/shield, or a spiked chain. This isn't for looks, it's because those weapons are just about the only things that are practical and useful for the fighter without eating up too many feats for a style. The spiked chain is the closest thing that the fighters have to cheese and as it stands, it's velveeta to a wizards brie. The problem is that the mechanical system itself kicks martial classes, but the fighter gets kicked harder IMO. One reason is that bad advice is given, in the balance section of the DMG they explain that while a barbarian is powerful in rage a fighter with the right feats can outdamage them in rage. This gives the newbie the idea that damage is their prime focus, they ignore tripping, disarming, the few tactics that can work well for the fighter because of how feat intensive they are to properly pull off. Part of it is this too, the feats by themselves aren't worth much, the best feat that is only gained after 10th level would have to be Robilards Gambit and that sucker is highly situational but compared to its esteemed brethren it stands alone as a superior feat because comparatively it offers more tactical options and better designs. The Barbarian needs only a few feats to be really effective, power attack and leap attack work nicely, if you want a bit more oomph add in improved bull rush and shock trooper for some raw destructive power. The thing is that those feats don't require a large amount of rules mastery or tactical synergy to make functional. Add in the substitution where the barbarian gets pounce and things look even better. Now we look at the fighter, who only get good substitution options from Dungeonscape and an issue of dragon. The other options listed might be nice but they tend to be designed as part of an actual overall build rather than designed to be able to stand alone or as part of a full design, and in many cases the substitution options don't offer enough or require additional tradeoffs, often too little too late (complete champion). The only real design focus we seem to see is a strong emphasis on attacks of opportunity, so hello Chaingun, hello Jack B. Quick, goodbye any hope of true combat versatility because the game isn't giving it to the fighter, not without a lot of multi-classing. EDIT: Also, one other issue with the pun-pun fallacy, shall we stand it on its head for a moment. I can use that same justification that no matter how obscene a class or prestige class is that it's fine because it isn't as strong or stronger than pun-pun. The planar shephard, incantatrix, various other prestige classes that make people scream, none of it is really overpowered or too powerful since pun-pun is still the strongest thing. Now I think we could all agree that this would be a poor argument that the new class was fine. So my question is why is it fine to invoke the little infinity being for arguing a weak class is fine but not that an overpowered class is fine?
Nebosuke 06-14-07, 04:53 AM	The pun-pun fallacy relies on the hidden assumption that pun-pun (and other infinite loop builds) are actually valid build choices for the players. If they are, then yes, every single build aside from pun-pun is a mechanically poor choice--therefore the fallacy is incorrect. If they are not, as is usually the case, then the pun-pun fallacy is simply irrelevant. In either case, it is neither successful as a counter-argument to the claim that the fighter is a poor class, nor is it an argument against mechanical capabilities as a valid basis for objective comparison. The fighter is inferior to at least the druid and cleric at his core proficiency at most levels and has effectively nothing mechanical to contribute outside of combat aside from the occasionally lucky aid another roll. This makes the fighter a mechanically inferior choice for a party relative to other core classes. If you expand beyond core, it only gets worse. As has been said before, even the fighter's vaunted flexibility is overrated, as people are conflating the flexibility of the class (great) with flexibility of characters of that class (relatively nonexistent). If you wish to attempt to keep up with the power curve, the fighter class only gives you the flexibility to choose exactly how to lock your character into a rigid, hyper-specialized niche that is not only strictly confined to a subset of combat, but tends to grow increasingly useless past mid levels. All that being said, I've played (and had fun playing) many fighter characters, because mechanical considerations are not the be-all and end-all of D&D fun, and a good DM can do many things to help compensate for mechanical shortcomings in order to ensure that none of the party members is marginalized. DM fiat is not, however, a fighter class feature. The fact that the impact of the mechanical shortcomings of the class can be mitigated is not a valid argument in its defense--only a reason the class is occasionally saved from total irrelevance as nothing more than a 2-4 level dip for PrC qualifications.
Clawhound 06-14-07, 07:12 AM	I have already compared a Fighter 6 to a Cleric 6. The Cleric 6 did not fare well compared to the fighter. Note that this applied even with the cleric having DMM. Even with the cleric having DMM, he could not keep up with the fighter at this level. Even a small +25% damage increase due to cleave left the cleric behind. Without DMM, If the cleric cast for just one round, then did 150% more damage, by round 4, damage was a wash. I have yet to see a cleric build that does 150% of what a fighter does in melee per round. All "good" cleric builds center around: persistent spell and quickened spells. Without DMM, these spells are competing against spells 4 and 6 levels higher. Trust me, when you compare the spells, you wonder why you would use the combat enhancing spells when a Holy Word wold be far more beneficial. Do the comparison yourself. That's the crux of the cleric. You can eventually crank them to be acceptable meatgrinders, but with your spells available, your options are so much better by choosing spells. Your power is enhanced so much more by choosing feats to enhance being a cleric. You have so much competition for so many cool things that meatgrinder is not a compelling choice for you. With DMM, you begin by comparing a 6th level cleric with +8 and +16 level abilities against other classes. It's a no brainer to know that nobody can compete against this.
Argaud 06-14-07, 07:58 AM	The pun-pun fallacy relies on the hidden assumption that pun-pun (and other infinite loop builds) are actually valid build choices for the players. If they are, then yes, every single build aside from pun-pun is a mechanically poor choice--therefore the fallacy is incorrect. If they are not, as is usually the case, then the pun-pun fallacy is simply irrelevant. In either case, it is neither successful as a counter-argument to the claim that the fighter is a poor class, nor is it an argument against mechanical capabilities as a valid basis for objective comparison. Actually the core meaning of the Pun Pun fallacy is that comparisons of class X with class Y are the wrong way to go to evaluate the validity of a class. Let me illustrate with an example. Premise A, something 99% of the people agree. Clerics are a powerful class, they are excellent in core and even more potent with added material. Pun Pun fallacy in work. Artificers/Archivist can do all that clerics do and more, so clerics are not viable. The Pun Pun fallacy could have been named the "Omnificer fallacy" too, but since there is a chance that someone, somewhere, could defend the point that artificers are a perfectly balanced class and that indeed, clerics and wizards are weak classes, I think it was a good idea to go directly to Pun Pun, which nobody at all would call balanced or playable.
Clawhound 06-14-07, 08:53 AM	To follow up: we are often confusing viability with attractiveness. If we put the logic in the correct order, this gets very apparent: Fallacy: The fighter is unattractive in comparison to other classes, therefore, it is unviable in play. [/fallacy] Not Fallacy: The fighter is unattractive compared to other classes, therefore educated players will choose more attractive options. [/not fallacy] To re-emphasize: attractiveness and viability are two different metrics.
Bob Loblaw 06-14-07, 09:14 AM	The fighter is inferior to at least the druid and cleric at his core proficiency at most levels and has effectively nothing mechanical to contribute outside of combat aside from the occasionally lucky aid another roll. This makes the fighter a mechanically inferior choice for a party relative to other core classes. If you expand beyond core, it only gets worse. This is actually very far from the truth. I have posted this before and I can bring it up again if you would like. I am assuming that you are referring to his skill list. I can't think of a time when my fighters do not contribute outside of combat. And using the druid and cleric as benchmarks means that the barbarian, bard, fighter, rogue, paladin, and ranger also are mechanically inferior. Since this is rarely an issue for those classes, it should not be used as an argument against the fighter either. It is inconsistent. As has been said before, even the fighter's vaunted flexibility is overrated, as people are conflating the flexibility of the class (great) with flexibility of characters of that class (relatively nonexistent). If you wish to attempt to keep up with the power curve, the fighter class only gives you the flexibility to choose exactly how to lock your character into a rigid, hyper-specialized niche that is not only strictly confined to a subset of combat, but tends to grow increasingly useless past mid levels. This is also not true. Khan and I have put builds up that are very flexible with their combat options. Each one has at least 3 or 4 different things they can do each round. I have even posted a Core-Only build that had specialized in both ranged and melee combat with several different options still available. Hyper-specialization is not what is required. Anyone who focuses too much in any class will find they have problems. The fighter is not unique here. Take for example a fire-based wizard. If he specializes too much, he may find his spells are not going to be useful, or at least only partially useful. Also the combat options do not become increasingly more useless past mid levels. The monsters get rather big for a bit but then they come back down in size. Flight should not be a problem for the fighter to deal with. Magic should not be a problem. All that being said, I've played (and had fun playing) many fighter characters, because mechanical considerations are not the be-all and end-all of D&D fun, and a good DM can do many things to help compensate for mechanical shortcomings in order to ensure that none of the party members is marginalized. Part of the DM's job is to make sure that everyone has fun. He must keep in mind all the characters and ensure that they each have a turn to shine. If someone plays a ranger, the DM should throw in some favored enemies. Why is this never considered a problem? DM fiat is not, however, a fighter class feature. The fact that the impact of the mechanical shortcomings of the class can be mitigated is not a valid argument in its defense--only a reason the class is occasionally saved from total irrelevance as nothing more than a 2-4 level dip for PrC qualifications. How often is the wizard played through all 20 levels? Most prestige classes give the wizard everything he had before and then some. Since the wizard is only used as a dip for prestige classes, does he now have shortcomings? Let's be honest, he does not. He just gets better with the additional focus. The same holds for the fighter, or the rogue, or the barbarian, or the cleric, or whatever class combinations fit the concept. Making sure that everyone has something to do is not DM fiat. It's the DM's job. Chapter 1 of the DMG covers this pretty well. What would a DM do if the party consisted of a bard, barbarian, rogue, and ranger? He would make sure that he doesn't overwhelm them with undead. He would make sure that there is more melee combat than ranged. He would throw in some favored enemies. He would throw in more situations where skill checks are required. He would have more social interactions for the PCs. None of these are considered DM fiat, yet would be required for these classes to remain mechanically sound. How many DM's actually make the casters use their material components? How many DM's pay attention to the cost of wizards' spells? How many DM's actually force the cleric or druid to roleplay their devotion? How many DMs assume that the casters are always perfectly precise with their area of effect spells? These actions change the dynamics of the casting classes, making them more powerful than they should be. This doesn't address problematic spells like Divine Power, Divine Favor, Gate, Wish, Miracle, etc. Some spells are just too powerful and need a nerf-bat. This isn't a problem with the fighter though. When players only make mechanical decisions, the game changes from an RPG to a table-top wargame. While this is not necessarily a wrong way to play, it certainly changes the environment. It changes everything about how the game is played which has a profound impact on how the characters perform.
Kratch 06-14-07, 10:11 AM	The fighter is inferior to at least the druid and cleric at his core proficiency at most levels It really bothers me how often this is accepted as truth. With the use of DMM, i would have to agree, but with the use of DMM, a cleric can leave every other class in the dust (especially with the nightstick abuse), making the game dungeons and clerics. And if a single class is cappable of obsoleteing every other class, it is a poor benchmark to use in these comparison. Now i know it keeps coming back to this argument, "that the cleric does it better". And i know many don't even think it's a valid argument, to which i agree to a point. In order for it to be shown that the "fighter" (not just melee's in general, since it is the fighter being picked on here) fails in comparison to other class's, all the other class's need to be shown to be better, and/or those other class's need to be shown to also not be replaced by the cleric. Cause if the cleric can also replace the barbarian, paladin and wizard, then the criteria being used against the fighter is ether to extreme or to broad/general in terms (as it elliminates many other class's as well, and thus is not an issue with the fighter specifically). Regaurdless, the assumption that a cleric is a superior fighter then a fighter is really unsubstantiated, as the only comparisons i've seen stopped at a fighter with only 5 feats against a cleric with 9th level spells (AKA 8th lvlfighter/12 level warrior vs 20th level cleric) Without DMM, it takes a cleric all his 5th, 6th and 8th level spells (as well as a round and a swift action) to match 5 of the most bland, and most easily replicated of a fighters feat options/choices. That leaves 6, far more flavourful and difficult feats to match, 6 more feats which are generally ignored in such comparisons. Thats asuming the fighter even takes the weapon spec line. Now, i don't have a doubt in my mind the cleric can't offer some comparable options, but they are almost always at the cost of a full attack option (some fighter options are as well, admitadly, but very few. alot are in addition to the full attack option, or at most cost a single attack), and they almost always require magic, which has a different set of limitations then feats. Clerics have an advantage in purchasing they're melee gear, but in exchange, have a plethora of caster gear to buy as well, thus closing the advantage. I have seen several fighter builds that could not easily be replicated by another class, including the cleric. That, combined with the fact that using magic and using feats combinations/synergies to accomplish tactics (even identicle tactics) both come with significantly different limitations/disadvantages and advantages, make both options a viable choice. To ignore these differences in favour of the end result is simply chosing to be ignorant. As for druid, I don't see how condeming the fighter because of the druid, which is based off an admitably broken mechanic, one so full of revisions, erratas, loopholes, grey areas, etc etc etc. that some people consider the class unplayable, is really fair. This makes the fighter a mechanically inferior choice for a party relative to other core classes. If you expand beyond core, it only gets worse. So, because another class can do the same thing, but in a more forgiving (as in, choices aren't permanent), but more convoluted manner (as in, riffling through 12 pages of spell options (my cleric character sheet's spell list is at least 12 pages, possibly more) to find the 30 odd spells you've memorized to see if you even memorized something that day that might be appropriate for the particular encounter, etc etc etc), the first class is mechanically inferior? It takes as much know-how to prepare a single days spelllist as an entire fighter build. Thats got to count for something.
windscar18 06-14-07, 12:25 PM	That's irrelevant. If a fighter is not allowed to dip one level in another class to overcome something, then fairness dictates that warblade cannot dip one level into another class to overcome something. If you allow a warblade to dip into some class to gain range weapon proficiency to defend itself against a charge of something wrong with it, then you must allow a fighter to dip one level to defend itself against a charge of something wrong with it. To deny the fighter that same courtesy is the double standard. No, it's not irrelevant, because all you have to do is change all the "dip for proficiency" to "Take Martial Weapon Proficiency". So, in other words, while people ARE making dips for convenience, it doesn't ACTUALLY matter. Whereas with the Fighter, there apparently is NO way for the fighter to substitute, without much greater effort, abilities he could have gotten through dipping.
Scion of Coldshard 06-14-07, 12:32 PM	The reverse is then also true. "If you cannot agree on the base line assumptions then there can be no demonstration of something being 'not fine'." Or the opposite, 'If there can be a demonstration of being fine then there has been an agreement on the base line assumptions' And of course I agree with your assessment here, I have been saying the same thing in a number of different ways for awhile now ;) I would also like to note, that we have made a concerted effort to define where we are coming from, and instead of reffuting the points we propose, you quibble over the definitions of terms we use, dispite the fact we have also provided examples of how we define those terms. So, as long as you make an effort it doesnt matter if the effort your are making isnt actually doing the job that you want? It is great to have an effort! But at the same time it is not guarenteed that just because the effort is being made that it will be successful, unfortunately :( I do feel that progress has been made though, and that is very good! Still, I have been trying to help you make the definitions stronger but anytime it is pointed out that some of them overlap (and so are not defined well enough) or something else that makes them not useful to the discussion the person who made them gets upset that someone would dare point out anything that might be wrong with them. Also, there have been many refutations to the points presented. Showing that the definition can be applied to both sides either trivially or to exclusion is a good refutation. Showing that your conditions do not apply or might not apply or are fullfilled trivially are more good refutations. If you dont like those types of refutations I dont know what to tell you, they are perfectly valid. "Need" and "can benifit from" are two completely different things. Yes they are. 'Need' implies that something is required or necissary. 'Can benefit from' is a pointless arguement because it leads no where, everyone can benefit from getting something extra that is beneficial, but why would you bother giving it to them unless there is a need? For your brother example, why would he randomly just give you $1000? If you ask it for him then you have expressed a need for it, you have something that you want to do/buy and to do so having more money is necissary. I suppose that really depends on how stubborn one wants to be. Since that line of statements is going to 'Fighter 20 has been shown to be a fine character build' when there have not been many, if any, builds which are showing characters who are, say, Fighter 4/Other 16 to compare them with. Which of course some people will say it doesnt matter because any such comparisons are pointless since if a guy can be made then he is fine. Which gets us back to the Commoner Fallacy or to your favorite flavor of the Pun-Pun Fallacy, both of which are dumb but apparently necissary for this thread as they tell you not to make your arguements such that anything or nothing are acceptable, which should be something that everyone agrees with as far as I am concerned. Sounds like he responded to the question you wanted to ask in the thread you suggested we create. Where did you put that thread? Do you have a link? Or are you gonna say, the only acceptable responce to that question was one responding to the creation of a new thread, the actual content of that thread being irrelevent to any responce to the above question? The question was, 'why should anyone take a Fighter beyond 4?' so a response of, 'plenty of builds take a Fighter past 4' is not an answer, it is a deflection. Just because someone can take levels after it does not say why you should. As an extreme example, if there was a 10 level prc that after level 5 stopped all progression, you did not get BAB, hd, saves, or special abilities, merely LA tacked on why would anyone take it past level 5? Sure, you 'could', but why? If there was a feat that gave you +1 to everything you had and did for each point of LA you had then sure, I could see it then, but that is a reason why. Just because something 'can' be done doesnt mean that it is a smart move.
Scion of Coldshard 06-14-07, 12:33 PM	No, it's not irrelevant, because all you have to do is change all the "dip for proficiency" to "Take Martial Weapon Proficiency". So, in other words, while people ARE making dips for convenience, it doesn't ACTUALLY matter. Whereas with the Fighter, there apparently is NO way for the fighter to substitute, without much greater effort, abilities he could have gotten through dipping. Very good post ;)
Scion of Coldshard 06-14-07, 12:44 PM	I have already compared a Fighter 6 to a Cleric 6. The Cleric 6 did not fare well compared to the fighter. Note that this applied even with the cleric having DMM. Do you mean this post (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12527986&postcount=351)? Or another? If it is that one then there might need to be a new comparison ;) All that one says is basically, 'fighters get more feats than clerics'
Khan the Destroyer 06-14-07, 12:52 PM	Why does everything have to be left to the pro-fighters to do for you? We provide fighter 20 builds to show their effectiveness. So, if you think it doesn't matter and feel we need to judge by comparison, throw up a fighter 4/XX 16 build to compare. If you think a fault of the fighter is that he has to multiclass to get class features, demonstrate why the fighter needs these class features to be effective. It's very simple. It's called backing up what you say. For the majority of this thread, only those arguing in favor of the fighter have been doing. Whether you think we've been doing it effectively or not is irrelevant. At least we provide. Much better in my opinion that constantly making claims without evidence, or ignoring the opposition's arguments. Too bad it's far easier and safer to avoid giving proof and simply assert your opinion, while refuting anything and everything your opposition says with inconsistent arguments and simple dismissal.
Bob Loblaw 06-14-07, 01:07 PM	No, it's not irrelevant, because all you have to do is change all the "dip for proficiency" to "Take Martial Weapon Proficiency". So, in other words, while people ARE making dips for convenience, it doesn't ACTUALLY matter. Whereas with the Fighter, there apparently is NO way for the fighter to substitute, without much greater effort, abilities he could have gotten through dipping. What abilities are you specifically referring to? I know that the following classes will need to dip to get evasion: Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Sorcerer, and Wizards. If someone wants Uncanny Dodge or Improved Uncanny Dodge, they cannot be 100%: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, or Wizard. If someone wants the ability to Turn Undead, they will need to dip one level of cleric or 4 levels of paladin (barring taking a feat which is 17% investment for most classes but only a 6% investment for the fighter, approximately 1/3 the investment). Need rage? No prob, but you're going to have to be a barbarian at some point. Want to smite? Paladin and cleric are your only two choices so dipping is needed. Sorry, but I just don't see the problem as being exclusive to the fighter. The fighter is not meant to be the perfect representation of every combatant. Some things will require multiclassing. This is how character development is supposed to be. You choose the classes that suit your character best. Sometimes it's the fighter all the way through. Sometimes it's not.
Khan the Destroyer 06-14-07, 01:11 PM	Bob, before someone invalidates your entire post, everything else you've said in this thread, and your unborn children, I'd like to point out that the Ranger actually gets Evasion and wouldn't need to dip for it unless he wanted it sooner.
Bob Loblaw 06-14-07, 01:22 PM	Bob, before someone invalidates your entire post, everything else you've said in this thread, and your unborn children, I'd like to point out that the Ranger actually gets Evasion and wouldn't need to dip for it unless he wanted it sooner. Do'h! I guess I should make that correction. Lord knows a single error is enough to condemn me. ;) Thanks Khan.
Argaud 06-14-07, 01:38 PM	Do'h! I guess I should make that correction. Lord knows a single error is enough to condemn me. ;) Thanks Khan. Unfortunately I can see someone fixing his attention in the 4th word of the second paragraph and dismissing your whole post because he disagrees with the definition/use of the word. Moreover you said "you're going to have to be a barbarian at some point" which means that you are actually pro-barbarian not pro-fighter. Context? What context? :D
Kratch 06-14-07, 01:41 PM	And of course I agree with your assessment here, I have been saying the same thing in a number of different ways for awhile now ;) No, you have been saying something similar, but to this point you have left it solely to us to set a baseline that is agreeable to you, and expecting us to accept your assumtions as fact and true. So, as long as you make an effort it doesnt matter if the effort your are making isnt actually doing the job that you want? It is great to have an effort! But at the same time it is not guarenteed that just because the effort is being made that it will be successful, unfortunately :( I do feel that progress has been made though, and that is very good! It shows a willingness to establish the baseline, but as all we've recieved in return is stonewalling, with the single exception of a criteria that is so braod, so generalized, that by it's standard, the cleric is the only playable class, provided archivists/pun pun are disallowed. And you can tone down the condesention. Still, I have been trying to help you make the definitions stronger but anytime it is pointed out that some of them overlap (and so are not defined well enough) or something else that makes them not useful to the discussion the person who made them gets upset that someone would dare point out anything that might be wrong with them. You claim thats what your doing here, but as your efforts have only been to correct or refutte those of us in defence of the fighter as is, that makes it difficult to believe. If you have been trying to establish a baseline, like you claim you've been trying to do from the begining, you have neglected my point in regaurds to it, that it requires both sides to establish that baseline, not just one. The fact you continue to argue as if your assumptions are correct, without ever having proven them or stated them openly for us to refutte or aggre upon, only shows that you are not trying to accomplish what you say, ether that, or believe yourself to be above everyone else. Ether way, nether attitude is taken kindly to. Additionally, it's not their points/definitions getting reffuted that has been upsetting people, it's your constant stonewalling, condesention, twinkle toes dancing around and never saying anything substantial that your willing to stand behind (The first 4 pages i responded to you consisted of you using hypotheticals and "someone might say"'s, which you could then claim "you never said that" because it was in the words of some theoretical someone or hypothetical case), among other, less appreciated traits you've displayed. It's only been a couple weeks and you've already managed to get on at least 2 ignore lists, archangle and seerow have been debating this topic for months and both are fairly respected. Now why is that? Also, there have been many refutations to the points presented. Showing that the definition can be applied to both sides either trivially or to exclusion is a good refutation. Showing that your conditions do not apply or might not apply or are fullfilled trivially are more good refutations. If you dont like those types of refutations I dont know what to tell you, they are perfectly valid. Insisting someone define a term as they are using it, then rejecting that definition, including the dictionary quotes provided, because it doesn't fit into how you want to define it is not a reffutation, it is stonewalling. It is being close minded and unwilling to accept anything that does not neatly fit into your method of debating. By providing how one defines a term, it should allow another to use that same term, with the same definition, to provide counterpoints to the main argument, instead you choose to disagree with how we defined the term, but still not provide an alternative definition, as if you were going to convince us to discount the dictionary definition and create something else more suitable for you. You were trying to (and still are) make us run around in circles for your amusment. Yes they are. 'Need' implies that something is required or necissary. 'Can benefit from' is a pointless arguement because it leads no where, everyone can benefit from getting something extra that is beneficial, but why would you bother giving it to them unless there is a need? For your brother example, why would he randomly just give you $1000? If you ask it for him then you have expressed a need for it, you have something that you want to do/buy and to do so having more money is necissary. Why did i just randomly buy him a DVD burner for his computer? He didn't need one, his wife has one in her computer and he has a cd Burner in his. But he could use one. So i bought him one. It truely is a sad sad world when nothing is ever given unless it's absolutly needed. Likewise, a fighter doesn't need more skillpoints and class skills. A generous DM could however still provide them (while simultaniously providing skill points to all 2/lvl class's). The bolded statement speaks VOLUMES about your character/personality. The question was, 'why should anyone take a Fighter beyond 4?' so a response of, 'plenty of builds take a Fighter past 4' is not an answer, it is a deflection. Just because someone can take levels after it does not say why you should. Would "because one might wish to use any of the many provided builds that take fighter beyond lvl 4" be more to your likeing. Likely not, you'll find a word out of place that doesn't precisly conform to your rigid interpretation of the question and harp on that rather then the intent of the answer. As an extreme example, if there was a 10 level prc that after level 5 stopped all progression, you did not get BAB, hd, saves, or special abilities, merely LA tacked on why would anyone take it past level 5? Sure, you 'could', but why? If there was a feat that gave you +1 to everything you had and did for each point of LA you had then sure, I could see it then, but that is a reason why. Just because something 'can' be done doesnt mean that it is a smart move. so your equating the fighter past level 4 to a LA with no BAB, HD, Saves or features? Hmm, you really do have a low oppinion of the fighter? but i'm sure even the most avid anti-fighters will give them more then that. Just because you don't think it's a smart move, doesn't mean it's not.
Scion of Coldshard 06-14-07, 01:48 PM	What abilities are you specifically referring to? I know that the following classes will need to dip to get evasion: Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Sorcerer, and Wizards. If someone wants Uncanny Dodge or Improved Uncanny Dodge, they cannot be 100%: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, or Wizard. If someone wants the ability to Turn Undead, they will need to dip one level of cleric or 4 levels of paladin (barring taking a feat which is 17% investment for most classes but only a 6% investment for the fighter, approximately 1/3 the investment). Need rage? No prob, but you're going to have to be a barbarian at some point. Want to smite? Paladin and cleric are your only two choices so dipping is needed. First off, evasion comes in ring form for anyone who wants it. There are also spells which grant it for that matter. Next up, are you saying that taking a feat to give the warblade a ranged proficiency or dipping into a class with the proficiency is the same as not allowing the Fighter to multi-class? That conversation was about whether or not the warblade could just grab a ranged weapon in some way being compared, apparently, to a Fighter being able to multi-class to get whatever it is that he wanted. And here I thought you were trying to keep things in context. I guess not ;) There is a difference between what needs to be done and a choice between what is convienient of course, but I think that you are taking your line of reasoning pretty far out of what was given. You should do better. :cool:
Kratch 06-14-07, 02:03 PM	First off, evasion comes in ring form for anyone who wants it. There are also spells which grant it for that matter. Next up, are you saying that taking a feat to give the warblade a ranged proficiency or dipping into a class with the proficiency is the same as not allowing the Fighter to multi-class? That conversation was about whether or not the warblade could just grab a ranged weapon in some way being compared, apparently, to a Fighter being able to multi-class to get whatever it is that he wanted. And here I thought you were trying to keep things in context. I guess not ;) There is a difference between what needs to be done and a choice between what is convienient of course, but I think that you are taking your line of reasoning pretty far out of what was given. You should do better. :cool: NO! The conversation was about people finding it acceptable for a warblade to dip into another class for something (ranged weapon or heavy armour proficiency in this case) while still remaining a warblade for the purpose of debate, meanwhile those same people finding it unacceptable for the fighter to dip into another (and by dipping into another class, it means 1 or 2 levels in that other class/s, not 16 like you appear to have assumed in an earlier post) class for something meaning the fighter is no longer a fighter, and thus is unusable for the purpose of debate. You should do better. :cool: Again, tone down the condesention, especially considering you know he's not responding to you, you've already commented when he declared as much.
Clawhound 06-14-07, 02:09 PM	Do you mean this post (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12527986&postcount=351)? Or another? If it is that one then there might need to be a new comparison ;) All that one says is basically, 'fighters get more feats than clerics' I showed that the allocation of attributes and feats make a material difference in the effectiveness of the two characters at level 6. The difference is enough so that the fighter is a compelling choice. I also show how various game choices and feats can place the favor back into the hands of the cleric.
Thawmus 06-14-07, 02:26 PM	First off, evasion comes in ring form for anyone who wants it. There are also spells which grant it for that matter. I fail to see how that was his point, or even invalidates it. So you invalidated Evasion. Congratulations. There's still Barbarian Rage, Animal Companions, Int+Wis bonuses to AC, Familiars, and all sorts of other class features that have to be done with class dips. There's no other way to do it. Next up, are you saying that taking a feat to give the warblade a ranged proficiency or dipping into a class with the proficiency is the same as not allowing the Fighter to multi-class? That conversation was about whether or not the warblade could just grab a ranged weapon in some way being compared, apparently, to a Fighter being able to multi-class to get whatever it is that he wanted. For one, if you're wasting a feat for proficiencies, then the Warblade is horribly unoptimized. If you're level dipping instead, you'd better be giving the Fighter the same benefit. But what does that mean for the Warblade? Does that mean he's stuck being unoptimized just to show up the Fighter in using a bow? Yup. As for multi-classing: There's no class that multi-classes or PrCs better than fighter. And before you go shaking your finger, NO, that does NOT mean that's their best option. A Wizard's best option is to hit up a full spellcasting PrC. A Cleric's best option is to hit up a full spellcasting and undead turning PrC. A Rogue's best option is to hit up a Sneak Attacking PrC, or multiclass into something else. The Fighter's best option is to do whatever the hell he wants. Whether that be Fighter 20, Fighter 19, or Fighter 2, the Fighter is the most dynamic and malleable class in the game. And here I thought you were trying to keep things in context. I guess not ;) Comments like these would be why nobody has an ounce of respect for you. I've been lurking this thread and its predecessor since it was made, and you are easily the biggest pariah to the entire discussion. There is a difference between what needs to be done and a choice between what is convienient of course, but I think that you are taking your line of reasoning pretty far out of what was given. You should do better. :cool: Words for you to take to heart fast, mister. You've been taking the convenient route from the beginning. What actually NEEDS TO BE DONE is for you to actually form a valid argument, or, dare I say it, actually come up with a line of reasoning that disproves what others say, instead of utilizing backwards semantics and, "You said Evasion, and there's rings that do that, so you're automatically wrong about everything else you said." You should do better if you're going to have a hope of convincing anyone of.........just what the hell is your point, anyways????? :rolleyes:
Scion of Coldshard 06-14-07, 02:42 PM	No, you have been saying something similar, but to this point you have left it solely to us to set a baseline that is agreeable to you, and expecting us to accept your assumtions as fact and true. The road goes both ways. I have presented some compromises but was stone walled pretty hard so until people are going to actually try to come to a compromise then I certainly see no reason to be easy on people and just assume that everything they say is true. And yes, what I have said was similar (in that the exact phrasing was different), but the meaning was the same each time. It shows a willingness to establish the baseline, but as all we've recieved in return is stonewalling, with the single exception of a criteria that is so braod, so generalized, that by it's standard, the cleric is the only playable class, provided archivists/pun pun are disallowed. If that is all that you have seen then I will put forward that you have not been reading the thread very carefully. Still, a good amount of the effort put forward has been such that the definitions dont mean anything or could mean everything. That is a problem. I have put forward a number of baselines but have been shot down each time, usually by something that would fall under the Commoner Fallacy. Apparently nothing can be compared to, nothing can be examined, and nothing can be ever found to be too good or too bad according to a few posters here. Any baseline presented they stonewall and the only reason I can think of at the moment is that they stonewall it because having a baseline might actually mean that something can be shown someday. And you can tone down the condesention. And many people on this thread could quit with theirs and with all of their insults. Of course, I started off pretty reasonable, at this point if it is a condescending tone that you are reading into my posts then it is likely a function of there being so many poor arguements tossed around over and over again as though they were true. You claim thats what your doing here, but as your efforts have only been to correct or refutte those of us in defence of the fighter as is This is false but at the same time it could very well be because those who are defending the fighter, to use your own terms here, are using logically unsound arguements? Could it be that others already point out a good portion of the flaws for those against the fighter, extending your terms, while people let the defending people slide? My guess is that many people dont want to point out any flaws in the logic because they are worried about being blasted by a half dozen posters, regardless of whether their points are valid or not. I cannot force people to use poor logic and then be here every second of the day to jump on it before anyone else does. If you have been trying to establish a baseline, like you claim you've been trying to do from the begining, you have neglected my point in regaurds to it, that it requires both sides to establish that baseline, not just one. And since I have been trying to get people on both sides to agree to a baseline how does this somehow neglect some point that you might have made after I started trying to get both sides to agree to something? Of course both sides have to agree, that is the whole point. But at this point what is left? We cannot compare classes, builds, monsters, campaigns, items, feats, singular class abilities, or skills. Various versions of each of these have been shot down time and time again. At this point the biggest two sides I see are: 1) We must compare to something to see how they relate 2) Nothing must be compared, nothing can be compared So again, what is left? If we have one side which wants comparisons and another for which comparisons are useless where is the middle ground? The fact you continue to argue as if your assumptions are correct, without ever having proven them or stated them openly Which assumptions are you refering to? There are many which I will argue are correct without attempting to prove them, such as: If there is a comparison then equal amounts of exp, gear, and such are expected We are going to use d&d rules If we are going to look at the Fighter class to see how it is then adding in extras such as multi-classing or substitution levels or the like (this one should be trivially true, although some people apparently disagree with it) and who knows what else.. I have put up arguements all over, you are just choosing to believe that they do not exist ;) (The first 4 pages i responded to you consisted of you using hypotheticals and "someone might say"'s, which you could then claim "you never said that" because it was in the words of some theoretical someone or hypothetical case) And what is the problem with this exactly? If I say, 'in a situation such as Y one person might think A' in response to someone saying that B is always true, no matter what, and then a guy comes along shouting at me for believing A and to defend it since I feel so strongly about it what does that mean? To me, it shows that they were not paying attention to the arguement provided, and if it continues that they are showing that they are a moron. There is a big difference between, 'I believe...' and 'what if someone believed ....' The first is the person talking while the second is a hypothetical and treating them as though they believed it does a disservice to both people and the topic in general. Insisting someone define a term as they are using it, then rejecting that definition, including the dictionary quotes provided, because it doesn't fit into how you want to define it is not a reffutation, it is stonewalling. Do you mean those dictionary definitions which showed two different entries could be used to make the meaning different? In those situations where one side is using word X with meaning 1 and another side is using word X with meaning 2 which leads to different conclusions you are saying that it is bad to point out that a problem is occuring there? Oh, and it also looks like you are saying that everyone should conform to whatever definition of the word it is that you want. If you are saying that I am stonewalling because I want to use meaning 2 rather than 1 then why is the other person not stonewalling since they want to use meaning 1 rather than 2? Other definitions included Khans list of terms, which were not mutually exclusive. Again I am apparently stonewalling by pointing this out and ask that they get refined a little more and to have the insults taken out of them if they are going to be useful to the discussion? Wow.. I guess that means that anything I do is stonewalling and anyone else who does exactly the same thing is a reasonable person. Careful there, I think your slip is showing. It is being close minded and unwilling to accept anything that does not neatly fit into your method of debating. Yeah, I know, it sucks that I prefer a method of debate which is a logical discourse that can lead to resolutions eventually. Bad me, no donut. I should do better I guess, I wonder if they have a random word generator somewhere.. I could just tap it a few dozen times and paste up whatever it came up with. Then we can have a truely random debate, that'll be fun. I am willing to be swayed, but that doesnt mean I am going to accept everything you say as being true automatically nor that you wont have an uphill battle. But so long as your methods are good and your arguements sound there shouldnt be a problem. Since there is a problem and many of the arguements presented on this thread are very much not sound.. well.. Why did i just randomly buy him a DVD burner for his computer? I really dont know anything about you and your family, but why didnt you buy one for some random guy on the street? Perhaps you wanted to get your brother something and so needed to go buy an object to express something, who knows? Examine every aspect closely enough and somewhere along the line there is something that could be called 'need'. It truely is a sad sad world when nothing is ever given unless it's absolutly needed. Is this hyperbole or do you not understand the basic point? Likewise, a fighter doesn't need more skillpoints and class skills. Sure he does. It would put him into the roles described in this thread without having to be either very poor at them or resort to some other alternative method. The bolded statement speaks VOLUMES about your character/personality. Yes, I recognize how the universe works in that on some level everyone works off of needs. We can disguise it with other words or thoughts but in the end everything comes down to the needs. This has nothing to do with good or bad, right or wrong, it is simply the way of the universe all the way down to quarks and all the way up to the universe itself and possibly beyond. I believe that you are trying to say that I am a bad person for these thoughts, which is unfortunate, but whether or not you think that I am a bad person I would suggest thinking it over. Why does something happen? Look at a random event, just choose one, and think about what had to happen to make that event happen. Cause and effect, but simple ones. Every complex cause is actually a set of simpler ones. Break it down, what was the basis for each cause? Where did it come from? Why? A base, simple cause that is always there is some form of need. Perhaps the word itself has a negative connotation to you, if so I am sorry about that. Would "because one might wish to use any of the many provided builds that take fighter beyond lvl 4" be more to your likeing. Likely not, you'll find a word out of place that doesn't precisly conform to your rigid interpretation of the question and harp on that rather then the intent of the answer. No, it does not answer the question. Again, just because you 'can' do something does not mean that it is good to do so. yes, there are builds which take fighter beyond 4, we have all seen them. But that doesnt answer the question. An inane story perhaps: When I was a kid we had a lego set. You could build all sorts of things out of this lego set of course, they were legos! Unfortunately my brother chewed on one a bit one day.. that piece didnt fit as well as it used to, everything on top of it was a little crooked or wouldnt fit onto it properly. Generally this meant either not using it or putting it on top so that it didnt matter if nothing could go above it. Sure, we 'could' put it at the bottom and try to build on it, but why bother? Just because we could did not mean it would turn out well. I am not saying that there are not builds that one could make with more than four levels of fighter, I am merely saying that if you are going for a certain build, lets say a real character, other than RP reasons (which are completely subjective) why should you? Many of the higher level, really good feats from the phb2 that require fighter levels only take 4 anyway (unless you can find a different way to get weapon spec), I think that the only exception is weapon mastery. Does that mean that the only reason to take Fighter above 4 is if you want weapon mastery? I could accept that as a viable answer to the question but then my follow up would be is that enough? Is a single feat taken at level 18 worth it? so your equating the fighter past level 4 to a LA with no BAB, HD, Saves or features? I know that there are a lot of people who simply refuse to actually read what I wrote but this is getting ridiculous, are you purposefully ignoring even the bit that you quoted? The first four words of the part you quoted are, 'as an extreme example', how does that change to 'equating' in your mind??? Just because you don't think it's a smart move, doesn't mean it's not. Of course, that is trivially true as well, but I was demonstrating a baseline, just because you can do something does not mean that the something is good. That is a way of showing that a person saying an idea is possible is not the same as saying that you should do it. Another extreme example, it is possible for a person to go jump off of a cliff. Most everyone can get to one, it is possible, and it is pretty easy. Freefalling for awhile actually feels good for that matter. Is it smart to do though? Generally no. And just to be extra, super clear, I am not equating taking a fighter level to jumping off of a cliff. Although if I could find a way to do so in a reasonable way that would be really funny, 'sure taking that level of fighter feels good for awhile, but then here comes the ground!' ;)
Khan the Destroyer 06-14-07, 02:52 PM	Who is arguing that fighter builds shouldn't be compared to anything at all? They shouldn't get compared to cleric builds, commoner builds, warrior builds, barbarian builds, wizard builds, druid builds, or any other build that represents another PC. They should get compared to monsters. That's what I've been saying this entire time. And I don't see where I left that standard anywhere.
Scion of Coldshard 06-14-07, 03:15 PM	He showed several different reasons why a 6th level fighter is better and more adverse than a 6th level cleric, and the best you can come up with is that? He showed something? Like what? He did a partial writup of one build, then said the cleric couldnt do anything, and then moved on to more unfounded claims, provided no backup, and finished with a conclusion that said that the two classes have a different set of abilities. I would love to try to put something up to work with what he had, but there just isnt anything there to work with other than, 'level 6' and 'fighters get more feats than a cleric' and ' I could start a whole new comparison but since I wanted to figure out where his comparison was I did a search for it. That post was the only one I found so I asked him if it was the right one but put up that it would need to be done again if it was as it didnt show much. The conversation was about people finding it acceptable for a warblade to dip into another class for something (ranged weapon or heavy armour proficiency in this case) while still remaining a warblade for the purpose of debate, meanwhile those same people finding it unacceptable for the fighter to dip into another (and by dipping into another class, it means 1 or 2 levels in that other class/s, not 16 like you appear to have assumed in an earlier post) class for something meaning the fighter is no longer a fighter, and thus is unusable for the purpose of debate. I think you are misinterpreting what the various players in that conversation were stating. That is pretty easy if you only read navar100's posts though, since he was making claims on things that were not there, repeatidly. Again, tone down the condesention, especially considering you know he's not responding to you, you've already commented when he declared as much. Well sure, he has already demonstrated that he will not read what he responds to and will answer questions not asked and then pretend that his answers somehow magically cover things that they simply cannot. I dont care if he will respond or not, if he wants to yell at me for something then he should at least try to do better himself. I dont expect him to though, he hasnt before, why should he start now? I showed that the allocation of attributes and feats make a material difference in the effectiveness of the two characters at level 6. The difference is enough so that the fighter is a compelling choice. You did not demonstrate any effectiveness nor actually finish the cleric build. There is no comparison of what their final stats would be or what situations each would be good for. There is so much missing from the comparison that all I can really see it showing is that the fighter gets more feats than the cleric. There just wasnt anything else comparison wise there. I would be happy to look over such a comparison if you had one or we could work on a mutual agreement of point buy, equipment costs, and then maybe even a few general situations to compare them. None of that was there though :( I fail to see how that was his point, or even invalidates it. ? He said that the only way those classes could get evasion was through multi-classing, I pointed out that a ring exists which can grant any character the ability. His overall point was not being invalidated or even addressed with that point, merely a clarification. For one, if you're wasting a feat for proficiencies, then the Warblade is horribly unoptimized. Why is that? Lets put it this way, do you feel that exotic weapon prof (bastard sword) is a bad choice for the warblade? If you do then that is cool, but the warblade can get that feat to use that when needed and can switch it over to exotic weapon prof (great bow).. I think that is what it is called.. then he can carry around both and use them as appropriate. That is really time consuming though, but it is a valid choice. Still, why is taking exotic weapon prof (great bow) such a horribly unoptimized thing? It grants the warblade a d10 ranged bow that can use his str bonus (assuming it is made properly) to use whenever things are beyond his range. That isnt too bad, although it certainly doesnt bring his strength to bear it can work. He is probably better off just specializing in throwing weapons and using those though. That way he can get a bunch of feats to work both in melee and at some limited range. Throwing weapons kindof suck in d&d though :( But the point wasnt that it was an unoptimized way to go, merely that it could be done. Still, which is more unoptimized, taking the feat or multi-classing just for a ranged weapon? Comments like these would be why nobody has an ounce of respect for you. It is just so hard to make jokes on here I guess. Apparently anyone can attack me all they like but if I make any sort of comment back at them, even a friendly knuckling, people decide it is a basis to attack me again. Well, that is too bad, people dont want to play nice then I will simply state the points. I will note that I am not being overtly bastardly like a number of people here, but given this comment from you that probably doesnt matter. What actually NEEDS TO BE DONE is for you to actually form a valid argument You say that you have been around from the beginning and yet you ignore the multitude of reasonings and barginings and original arguements that I have put forward that were stonewalled and griped often for reasons such as, 'the fighter is a warm body so he is fine as is'. Come on. Calling people on their faulty arguements makes them upset yes, but it still needs to be done. So, it looks like your line of reasoning is that because I pointed out that a ring could be used for an ability listed that I was saying that the whole arguement was invalid. How does that even follow?? It doesnt even relate to the overall arguement, it was just a side note about one of the things listed as it was incorrect. If he had said that toughness was a good feat because it granted 1 hp/level and improved toughness sucked because it only grants 3 hp and I had referenced him to the two books in question with page numbers and said that he had the names backwards would you also declare that I was somehow arguing against toughness being a bad feat? or that feats in general were bad? or something else that had nothing to do with what was said? Some people around here need some serious help in the logical arguement department. It is like debate club with 3rd graders and I feel like I am the teacher trying to show that just because you can poke out billies eye with a stick does not mean that he is wrong about sugar being sweet.
Clawhound 06-14-07, 03:36 PM	Just for grins, I'm going to crank out a Level 20 fighter, blandly optimized. He'll need to hit AC 35-40. He uses a +5 longsword. Starting with the elite array, he advances to 20, putting all points into strength. He has an item of strength, +6. He reads +5 worth of books. He wields a +5 sword. Strength 15 + 5 stat increases + 5 books + 6 item = 31 strength Strength 31 = +10 modifier For 20th level, BAB +20. His melee is +30. With his +5 weapon, he attacks for +35/+30/+25/+20/+15. His grapple is +30. So, a fighter using no class features can hit an AC40 75% of the time for 1d8+15 one handed, or 2d6+25 two handed. His ranged attacks are +21. His Con is 14 + 5 book + 6 object = 25 (+6). Average hit points are 5.5x19+10+6*20, or 214 hp. Let's assume that he has the ac of +8 armor + 5 enhancement + 5 ring + 5 natural = AC 33. In comparison, a titan hits for +37/+32/+27/+22 melee (4d6+27/x3), and +22 ranged. His average hit points are 370. Grapple +44. An average attack does 42. A full attack does 210. Let's compare him next to a pit fiend. Umm. He actually looks like he could take the pit fiend in a 1:1, pure melee fight, without any special equipment and without using any feats. What's an old red dragon look like? +36 to hit. 378 hp, +52 grapple, AC 33. The fighter does pretty well in everything except grapple and hit points. So obviously, he DM will always go after these things. After a few times of that, the fighter bought an item of Freedom of Movement and a Cloak of Displacement. You can't grapple him and only about 1/2 damage gets through. The Cloak of Displacement functionally gives him double the hit points, or 428 hp. He can now reliably outdamage his opponents in pure melee and can't be grappled. To account for energy damage, he has psionic tatoos to protect him. Cheap at the price. At this point, the fighter is by no means perfect, but on his own territory, he'll p0wn you. At this point, you just toss a few cheap heals afterward if you need them. Fortunately, he also bought a ring of regeneration, so he just sits around and uses no party resources at all. At this point, I need to stop. This is too easy. It's butchery from here on, whatever the build. Of course, you will tell me that it's all the magic items. Now, let's take a cleric (sans DMM) and do the same thing. His strength is a little less, as he has to put some points into Wisdom. His BAB is less. So his attack is closer to +28/grapple +22. His damage is 2d6+15. His hit points are 194. However, if he couldn't afford a +5 book because he invested in something clerical, he'll only be at 154. But hey, you can always quicken Divine Power to hit harder!!! After all, that +5 to hit and that +6 strength bonus that doesn't stack, and those 20 HP are worth more than a Greater Planar Ally. Right? Or Holy Aura, right? Or Dimension lock? You could also downgrade a Miracle into an 8th level slot. That's worth it, right? You could also cast Divine Power as a normal spell, but the fighter is now 100 hp damage output up on you, if not more. Is Divine Power DPS so good that you will catch up for that one round loss of damage? I don't think so. Of course, if you surprise something, you can pre-cast Divine Power. Not that that matters. At 20th level, if you prep, it's dead. A few gates and planar allies later, and you can have tea while the fight unfolds. So, what have I illustrated here? A blandly optimized fighter is effective with just a few standard items and gets lethal with a few "must have" items. A blandly optimized cleric can be made to be as formidable as a blandly optimized fighter. To do so, a cleric must give up better than he gets. But what is more obvious is that anyone interested in optimization will skip this route, as the cleric is stronger in another direction. If you take out DMM, the fighter is competitive. The cleric needs to give up significant firepower to raise that BAB. If you put in DMM, it's a no-brainer to take a cleric. It is important to note that without limits, there is no downside to the cleric. With limits, sooner or later, the cleric runs out of money, stat enhancements, or available feats. Sooner or later, the cleric must make a trade-off. Trade-offs matter. And no, there isn't a complete build. One is not necessary at this point. Once you reach the point where you are trading atom bombs for rifles, you are into the realm of vanity, and there's no way you can pull the optimization card on anybody.
Thawmus 06-14-07, 03:40 PM	I am not saying that there are not builds that one could make with more than four levels of fighter, I am merely saying that if you are going for a certain build, lets say a real character, other than RP reasons (which are completely subjective) why should you? Many of the higher level, really good feats from the phb2 that require fighter levels only take 4 anyway (unless you can find a different way to get weapon spec), I think that the only exception is weapon mastery. Does that mean that the only reason to take Fighter above 4 is if you want weapon mastery? I could accept that as a viable answer to the question but then my follow up would be is that enough? Is a single feat taken at level 18 worth it? I think Weapon Supremacy is a seriously underrated feat. Especially when you consider that a Fighter who wants to take it could, in fact, take it twice. A Fighter 18 who has Weapon Supremacy for both their Greatbow and Greatsword can be outright nasty for any DM to deal with. Because there's no more chance involved. And that may not seem like a big deal, until Power Attack and Combat Expertise get factored in. Because in a long battle, this character is King. He can effectively keep draining his attack bonus with Power attack, until his 10 rolls no longer hit. And then just keep it steady at that value. Or amp up his AC with Combat Expertise. Sure, it won't seem like a big deal in a 3 round encounter, or in a single battle. But over the course of 3 or 4 game session, he'll be clearly superior in combat.
Scion of Coldshard 06-14-07, 03:42 PM	Who is arguing that fighter builds shouldn't be compared to anything at all? They shouldn't get compared to cleric builds, commoner builds, warrior builds, barbarian builds, wizard builds, druid builds, or any other build that represents another PC. They should get compared to monsters. That's what I've been saying this entire time. And I don't see where I left that standard anywhere. Khan, if it was just two people discussing a topic, one on one, with one taking the 'pro' side and the other taking the 'con' side (regardless of their own personal feelings on the matter) then it would be easy enough. Unfortunately here there are dozens and dozens of different people. So, on a basic level, if you knock out all PC's, and another person says that they will not discuss comparisons vs monsters and any attempt to do either meets with someone crying foul then effectively that means the wall is up for comparisons of either type. If all of the people that represent the broad categories of this debate could agree with themselves what good guidelines were that would be cool, if they could then mesh those together with the opposing side that would be incredible. Luck with that though. A few people, including myself, have tried a few different avenues of approach to try to get that sort of thing done but even people on the same side do not all agree on exactly where the lines are. If a single side cannot get that nailed down then how can the two opposing sides, which are going to be looking at very different things most likely, even have a chance? You do good work in other places Khan so I really cant stay upset with you for too long at a time ;) I know that many threads over a lot of time have tried so many different ways of finding this sort of compromise and it rarely ever works out. I will tell you what. If you agree to come with me over to a new thread I will bow out of this thread entirely so that we can try something new. One of us will make the first post and the other the second. We will each pick a side, and update those initial posts with any conditions that are important. Other people can add, suggest, build, and whatever but the most important two posts will be the first two. We will set the basic ground rules and work up from there. My personal preference would be to start with 25 point buy, core only (normally I include psionics in core, your choice if it is in or not), core monsters only, core gear only. The goal will be to make as many different fighter builds as possible that can cover all of the basis. Other people should come in to present situations that they feel are important and the results will go up on the first couple of posts. The fighters goal? To do as much as possible. The cheering crowds goal? Build suggestions, tactic suggestions (both for monsters and the fighter), and to come up with new situations which they have come across directly. As it seems people feel that I am on the anti-fighter side while you are on the pro-fighter side how about we switch roles? I will try to make fighters that can do anything that is needed and you come up with builds of other classes, multi-class or not, that could do the same job. I know you feel that the other builds do not prove anything, and they are not meant to prove that the fighter is bad so much as to see if it can be done and how well. How about that? It is a game and it might turn out poorly in the end but if nothing else it will hopefully be interesting ;) No personal attacks though, if you feel that I am being too condescending pm me, if I feel you are doing the same I will pm you, hopefully we will edit out those parts.
Scion of Coldshard 06-14-07, 03:56 PM	Just for grins, I'm going to crank out a Level 20 fighter, blandly optimized. He'll need to hit AC 35-40. He uses a +5 longsword. Starting with the elite array, he advances to 20, putting all points into strength. He has an item of strength, +6. He reads +5 worth of books. He wields a +5 sword. Strength 15 + 5 stat increases + 5 books + 6 item = 31 strength Strength 31 = +10 modifier For 20th level, BAB +20. His melee is +30. With his +5 weapon, he attacks for +35/+30/+25/+20/+15. His grapple is +30. So, a fighter using no class features can hit an AC40 75% of the time for 1d8+15 one handed, or 2d6+25 two handed. His ranged attacks are +21. His Con is 14 + 5 book + 6 object = 25 (+6). Average hit points are 5.5x19+10+6*20, or 214 hp. Let's assume that he has the ac of +8 armor + 5 enhancement + 5 ring + 5 natural = AC 33. In comparison, a titan hits for +37/+32/+27/+22 melee (4d6+27/x3), and +22 ranged. His average hit points are 370. Grapple +44. An average attack does 42. A full attack does 210. Let's compare him next to a pit fiend. Umm. He actually looks like he could take the pit fiend in a 1:1, pure melee fight, without any special equipment and without using any feats. What's an old red dragon look like? +36 to hit. 378 hp, +52 grapple, AC 33. The fighter does pretty well in everything except grapple and hit points. So obviously, he DM will always go after these things. After a few times of that, the fighter bought an item of Freedom of Movement and a Cloak of Displacement. You can't grapple him and only about 1/2 damage gets through. The Cloak of Displacement functionally gives him double the hit points, or 428 hp. He can now reliably outdamage his opponents in pure melee and can't be grappled. To account for energy damage, he has psionic tatoos to protect him. Cheap at the price. At this point, the fighter is by no means perfect, but on his own territory, he'll p0wn you. At this point, you just toss a few cheap heals afterward if you need them. Fortunately, he also bought a ring of regeneration, so he just sits around and uses no party resources at all. At this point, I need to stop. Of course, you will tell me that it's all the magic items. Now, let's take a cleric (sans DMM) and do the same thing. His strength is a little less, as he has to put some points into Wisdom. His BAB is less. So his attack is closer to +28/grapple +22. His damage is 2d6+15. His hit points are 194. However, if he couldn't afford a +5 book because he invested in something clerical, he'll only be at 154. But hey, you can always quicken Divine Power to hit harder!!! After all, that +5 to hit and that +6 strength bonus that doesn't stack, and those 20 HP are worth more than a Greater Planar Ally. Right? Or Holy Aura, right? Or Dimension lock? You could also downgrade a Miracle into an 8th level slot. That's worth it, right? You could also cast Divine Power as a normal spell, but the fighter is now 100 hp damage output up on you, if not more. Is Divine Power DPS so good that you will catch up for that one round loss of damage? I don't think so. Of course, if you surprise something, you can pre-cast Divine Power. Not that that matters. At 20th level, if you prep, it's dead. A few gates and planar allies later, and you can have tea while the fight unfolds. So, what have I illustrated here? A blandly optimized fighter is effective with just a few standard items and gets lethal with a few "must have" items. A blandly optimized cleric can be made to be as formidable as a blandly optimized fighter. To do so, a cleric must give up better than he gets. But what is more obvious is that anyone interested in optimization will skip this route, as the cleric is stronger in another direction. If you take out DMM, the fighter is competitive. The cleric needs to give up significant firepower to raise that BAB. If you put in DMM, it's a no-brainer to take a cleric. It is important to note that without limits, there is no downside to the cleric. With limits, sooner or later, the cleric runs out of money, stat enhancements, or available feats. Sooner or later, the cleric must make a trade-off. That is definately a lot better than the last one ;) Perhaps the gear value used should be stated out though? At level 20 a character has 760,000 gp I believe. +5 book = 137,500 gp +6 to stat = 36,000 gp +5 weapon = 50,000 gp +5 armor = 25,000 gp +5 deflection ring = 50,000 gp +5 amulet natural armor = 50,000 gp Ring of freedom of movement = 40,000 gp Major Cloak of displacement = 50,000 gp Psionic tatoos = ? Healing items = ? 438,500 gp + the ?'s Still a huge amount of gear left to buy. What that is used for could be important here. I say that because the cleric could use magic vestment and greater magic weapon to make a nonmagical armor and weapon into +5's at this point which saves on a lot of gear cost. It might not matter since as you go up in pluses the costs grow very rapidly but maxing out the gear might be necissary for the final numbers to be looked at. If the cleric starts with a 12 wisdom and then gets a +2 inherant book and a +6 wisdom boosting item he wont be winning any saving throw contests but it is good enough to cast spells that dont need saving throws. So with the elite array both characters could start with the same stats unless the fighter wants that 12 for int rather than wis. After that the fighter will need to detail his feats so that we know what he is good at. If there are spells that can simulate it then the cleric will have to try to get something like that.
Scion of Coldshard 06-14-07, 03:58 PM	I think Weapon Supremacy is a seriously underrated feat. Especially when you consider that a Fighter who wants to take it could, in fact, take it twice. It is definately a very nice feat, but it comes very late in the game so it can duck under the radar. Also, how is the fighter taking it twice? Not only does the feat say that it can only be taken once but it is also not a fighter bonus feat.
Bob Loblaw 06-14-07, 04:12 PM	Here is a short list of logical arguments that are often used against the fighter and why they don’t work. Faulty Generalizations: Hasty generalization: The fighter does not work they way my group wants it to therefore it does not work for anyone. This is fallacious because no two groups will be run the same way. We can all use Core only and stick to RAW and yet no two of us will choose the same types of encounters. Biased sample: The Character Optimization Boards have concluded that the fighter is only good for a 1-4 level dip, and never an odd number except 1st level. This is fallacious because with additional abilities such as Dungeoncrasher (level 6), Counterattack (level 12), and Overpowering Attack (level 16) show that there are options waiting. With many feat trees being very short, the fighter can actually progress along more than one to increase his effectiveness in combat. Statistical special pleading: The fighter cannot use any of his special maneuvers like tripping or disarming as he goes into higher levels. This is fallacious because there are plenty of creatures that he can still use his abilities against. As the opponents move past mid levels, they tend to get smaller again averaging around size Huge. Half-Truth: The fighter’s saves and skills suck. This is fallacious because his Fortitude save is actually good. His other saves are not that hard to improve. He can accomplish plenty of things with his skills, even without investing any points, just like any other character. This requires the DM to understand how to set appropriate DCs. False Dilemma: The fighter sucks because I have seen him fail to take on a balor single-handedly. This is false because the game assumes that it takes a party to handle an appropriate challenge rating or encounter level, not individuals. Questionable Causes: Correlation Implies Causation: The fighter can’t use his trip attacks against some creatures due to size or number of legs. This is false because the fighter is not necessarily limited to trip attacks. He still has other options available to him. Circular: The fighter sucks because the cleric is so much better and we know the cleric so much better because the fighter sucks. Strawman: The fighter sucks because you can’t bull rush gargantuan creatures if you are too small. This is a strawman because bull rushing is not a feature of the fighter and is instead a feature of the combat options in the PHB. Argument from Ignorance: The fighter sucks because he doesn’t work in a Core-only environment or you can’t build an effective fighter that uses several combat options. This is false because Khan and myself have already put up several builds that can accomplish everything that the fighter has been claimed to be unable to do except the swashbuckler (which I will post later). Wishful Thinking: The fighter sucks because his bonus feats don’t compare to spells in power. The reason this is false is because feats were never meant to compare to spells in power. Feats were meant to be used more often and with increasing benefits as you stack them. Loki’s Wager: Since we can’t define “viable” or come to a common baseline, then the fighter sucks. This is fallacious because there are exact definitions of the terms (e.g. “viable”) and the common baseline has actually remained consistent with all of the pro-fighters. We all want the fighter to be able to contribute in and out of combat as he is built/designed for the group he is in. He need not be the best, but he cannot be useless either. It is the anti-fighter crowd that cannot determine where they want the fighter to be. Some want it to be equal to the cleric, some the druid, some the warblade, some the rogue, some the ranger, some the barbarian, some the balor, etc. There are plenty of other logical arguments I can bring up, but this should suffice. Some would say that those who argue logic should actually learn how logic works. I wouldn’t say that, but someone might. There is no stonewalling from the pro-fighter crowd. In fact, we have defined our terminology and premises from the beginning. We have remained consistent from the beginning. There has been no issue that we haven't addressed. There has been no "I'm the only one who knows what I'm talking about" ad hominem style attacks from us. We have yet to hand-wave away any arguments. And we most certainly don't twist other people's statements to make ourselves seem right.
Thawmus 06-14-07, 04:21 PM	He showed something? Like what? He did a partial writup of one build, then said the cleric couldnt do anything, and then moved on to more unfounded claims, provided no backup, and finished with a conclusion that said that the two classes have a different set of abilities. Oh please, his explanation was terribly thorough. You're being ignorant. I would love to try to put something up to work with what he had, but there just isnt anything there to work with other than, 'level 6' and 'fighters get more feats than a cleric' and ' Welcome to the world of being wrong. This is what it's like. You have nothing to stand on, and nothing to argue with. ? He said that the only way those classes could get evasion was through multi-classing, I pointed out that a ring exists which can grant any character the ability. His overall point was not being invalidated or even addressed with that point, merely a clarification. At least you're openly admitting that you're not contributing to the discussion at all. I guess we can't ask for much else. Why is that? Lets put it this way, do you feel that exotic weapon prof (bastard sword) is a bad choice for the warblade? If you do then that is cool, but the warblade can get that feat to use that when needed and can switch it over to exotic weapon prof (great bow).. I think that is what it is called.. then he can carry around both and use them as appropriate. 1. Yes, it's a waste of a feat. The bastard sword is good, but an extra 2 points of max damage is not worth a feat. 2. I fail to see anything in the SRD that allows you to rapidly switch the weapon you have the EWP for. Quite the opposite. I can see how you could do feat rebuilding at each level, but that's not exactly Quick Drawing, either..... That is really time consuming though, but it is a valid choice. Still, why is taking exotic weapon prof (great bow) such a horribly unoptimized thing? It grants the warblade a d10 ranged bow that can use his str bonus (assuming it is made properly) to use whenever things are beyond his range. That isnt too bad, although it certainly doesnt bring his strength to bear it can work. Because he's using a feat on utilizing a bow, when he's already feat starved as it is, compared to the Fighter. Sure, maneuvers and stances make up for a lot of that, and then some. But there are simply certain tactics and abilities he won't have, that the Fighter will. He is probably better off just specializing in throwing weapons and using those though. That way he can get a bunch of feats to work both in melee and at some limited range. Throwing weapons kindof suck in d&d though :( Sadly I have to agree. I had a friend who enjoyed his Master Thrower a tremendous deal until we got to higher levels and started fighting nothing but "boss" monsters. Nothing he did ever worked again. But the point wasnt that it was an unoptimized way to go, merely that it could be done. And the point we're trying to make is that making a point that it could be done, and then invalidating counter-points that a Fighter could do it more easily, is a double standard. Still, which is more unoptimized, taking the feat or multi-classing just for a ranged weapon? IMO, taking the feat. Warblade isn't as easy to multi-class as the Fighter, but it isn't far behind. With the way Initiator levels work, it'd be better to multiclass for the ranged weapon, and then pick right back up with Warblade at a higher initiator level. It's one of many reasons why, frankly, they got their ducks in a row with ToB. It is just so hard to make jokes on here I guess. Apparently anyone can attack me all they like but if I make any sort of comment back at them, even a friendly knuckling, people decide it is a basis to attack me again. You'd probably be better off if you made jokes that were actually funny, rather than sarcastic jokes aimed at the intelligence and courtesy of other posters. Well, that is too bad, people dont want to play nice then I will simply state the points. I will note that I am not being overtly bastardly like a number of people here, but given this comment from you that probably doesnt matter. Look, I'm not saying you're alone here, but you stick out like a sore thumb. And that has a lot to do with my reply in the above paragraph. You say that you have been around from the beginning and yet you ignore the multitude of reasonings and barginings and original arguements that I have put forward that were stonewalled and griped often for reasons such as, 'the fighter is a warm body so he is fine as is'. Then by all means, refresh my memory. I'm well known for being capable of admitting when I'm wrong. And, honestly, I'm wrong often. But I honestly don't remember that you ever had an argument other than challenges to other posters. Come on. Calling people on their faulty arguements makes them upset yes, but it still needs to be done. If that's what you were actually doing, I'd agree. But you admit yourself earlier in this same post that you're not. So, it looks like your line of reasoning is that because I pointed out that a ring could be used for an ability listed that I was saying that the whole arguement was invalid. How does that even follow?? It doesnt even relate to the overall arguement, it was just a side note about one of the things listed as it was incorrect. So you ignored his point because it WAS valid? :confused: If he had said that toughness was a good feat because it granted 1 hp/level and improved toughness sucked because it only grants 3 hp and I had referenced him to the two books in question with page numbers and said that he had the names backwards would you also declare that I was somehow arguing against toughness being a bad feat? or that feats in general were bad? or something else that had nothing to do with what was said? If you ignored what his actual point was and didn't actually address it otherwise? Yes.
Thawmus 06-14-07, 04:22 PM	It is definately a very nice feat, but it comes very late in the game so it can duck under the radar. Okay, but if you want a reason to take a Fighter past level 4, you now have a very good one. Was that not the idea? Also, how is the fighter taking it twice? Not only does the feat say that it can only be taken once but it is also not a fighter bonus feat. My mistake, I don't have the book in front of me.
aelryinth 06-14-07, 04:31 PM	Ya know, Clawhound, that's got to be about the most lopsided comparison of a Fighter to Cleric that I've ever seen. Kudos. Let's try some common sense. At the beginning of the day, said Cleric/20 uses Divine Metamagic and a higher spell slot to Persist Divine Power and Divine Favor. The only spell he casts pre-combat is Righteous Might, and that's if it's needed. Hey! His 14 starting Str means he's 6 pts behind the Fighter in Str, if we figure books and goodies. But, the Divine Favor neatly takes care of the TH/DMG penalty, and if he casts Righteous Might, the size bonus of +4 takes care of another four points...he's actually hitting for MORE then the Fighter is, and more often! Crazy. He's got a point less in Constitution (13 vs 14), but with Divine Power up, 20 hp less then the Fighter...but equal if he bothers to cast RM..which also gives him Reach and some pretty good DR, too! And of course, he can heal much much MUCH more easily mid-battle, or after battle, if required. He also has the option of casting Greater Magic Weapon and wielding a +1 Weapon of +9 otherthings, which the Fighter can't do with his class abilities...oh, and the Cleric can do it with his armor, too, with Greater Magic Vestment...beginning of Day stuff, CL prob 26+ to avoid any pesky dispelling, lasts for 20 hours. Or he could leave off +4 from his armor, to 'pay' for various Books/inherent bonuses, and let the Fighter think he's got better gear. Would you look at that. Not only does the cleric now hit just as often, with a better weapon, he has about the same hit points....and a MUCH better will save. He can cast ONE spell and do more damage, gain reach, and DR/Alignment...and that doesn't even figure in his real strong buffs, like Aspect of the Deity or something. Their AC is about the same thing...but the cleric potentially has better access to Shield/Armor buffs, and certainly doesn't need to blow money on energy resistance unless he wants to. The fighter is also going to blow 100k on a ring of fast healing/1 (keep in mind most of these rings have the very sensible restriction that they only work on wounds incurred while the ring is being worn), and is giving up his cloak of +5 protection for a Greater Cloak of Displacement that doesn't work against anything with blindsense, blindsight, tremorsense, or doesn't have to really target him with a melee attack. Hey, the cleric already has better saves, and can even cast shield of Faith so he doesn't need a Ring of Prot+5 (how IS the fighter wearing 3 rings, btw?), and can cast Free Action, too. The Cleric can also INSTANTLY leave his tanking role for a healing role, and has access to AoE spells and party-wide buffs to help out everyone. And I haven't even touched on domain powers/spells, which can really break this wide open...but then, you haven't compared his 11 Fighter bonus feats to a Cleric's Turning abilities and raw spellcasting power and domain powers/abilities/spells yet, either. I have had to dip into both to actually make the Cleric Tank...but, you know, I haven't had to cast 11 spells to let the cleric be the tank, and I still have plenty of versatility left in those spells...which I can change each and every day to emphasize different needs. Really, comparing a f/20 to a c/20 is not a good idea. Stick it around 1-10, and the Fighter does okay. ============ BTW, no pre-Epic fighter can take Weapon Supremacy twice. It's not a Fighter bonus feat, which means you have to take it with general feats, and you get one at 18, and the next one at level 21. ==Aelryinth
Bob Loblaw 06-14-07, 04:33 PM	Here's the swashbuckler I was toying around with. He is a dwarf because my buddy thought it would be funny to call him Don Juan Demarco, the Dwarven Champion of Love. I still need to figure out where I want to put his feats exactly, but like I said, this is preliminary. He's also stuck in core because of what I wanted. I was thinking of changing some of his feats out, but I don't know yet if I want to. He is built as a city slicker. His purpose in life is to woo the ladies. Sometimes he needs to make a daring escape. Sometimes he needs to defend his or their honor. Whatever he does, he does it with style. The point behind all of his actions to to look good while doing it. Keep in mind that swashbuckling fights tend to last a while so damage should not be high, staying power should be the focus (hence the AC). He is meant to battle similar opponents. Level Feat C1 Weapon Finesse F1 Weapon Focus (Rapier) F2 Combat Expertise C3 Two-Weapon Fighting F4 Weapon Specialization (Rapier) C6 Improved Disarm F6 Two-Weapon Defense F8 Greater Weapon Focus (Rapier) C9 Combat Reflexes F10 Dodge C12 Mobility F12 Improved Feint F14 Greater Weapon Specialization (Rapier) C15 Spring Attack F16 Lightning Reflexes C18 Persuasive F18 Acrobatic F20 Agile Stats (elite array) Str: 12 Dex: 15 +3 = 18 +6 +4= 28 Con: 10 +2 (race) =12 Int: 13 Wis: 8 +6+2=16 Cha: 14 -2 (race) +2 =14 +6 +4 = 24 Movement: 30 AC: 10 + 9 + 8 + 5 + 1 = 33 (to increase, can use Combat Expertise [+5], Fight Defensively [+3], Dodge [+1], Defending [+5] Mobility [+4] for a total of 51) Hit Points: 154.5 Saves: Fort: 12+2+5 = 19 Ref: 6+9+5+2 = 22 Will: 6+3+5 = 14 Attack: Primary Hand: +20 (bab) +9 (Dex) +5 rapier +2 (focus) -2 (two-weapon) = +34/+29/+24/+19 (1d6+6 +1 Con) Off-Hand: +20 (bab) +9 (Dex) +5 (dagger) -2 (two-weapon) = +32 (1d4+5) Skills Total Ranks Synergy Misc Stat Balance 13 2 2 9 Bluff 19 10 2 7 Climb 1 1 Dipl. 16 5 2+2 7 Esc Art 11 2 9 G. Info 12 5 7 Int. 11 2 2 7 Jump 17 7 2 5+2 1 Ride 9 9 S. Mot. 8 5 3 Tumble 17 6 2 9 UseRope 9 9 Gloves of Dexterity: +6 (36,000) Cloak of Charisma: +6 (36,000) Tome Charisma +4 (110,000) Manual Dex +4 (110,000) Bracelet of Friends (19,000) [used to keep 4 women available, party wizard is responsible to send her home, teamwork and all that] Boots of Striding and Springing (5,500) Elixir of Love x3 (150 each) Rapier of Puncturing (50,320) Dagger +5 of Defending (72,000) Bracers of Armor +8 (64,000) Ring +5 (50,000) Ring of Evasion (25,000) Immovable Rod (5,000) Rope of Climbing (3,000) Scabbard of Keen Edges (16,000) Vest of Resistance +5 (25,000) Periapt of Wisdom +6 (36,000) Tome of Wisdom +2 (55,000) =718270 I actually think he may be fun to play in a city or seafaring adventure.
Bob Loblaw 06-14-07, 04:35 PM	BTW, no pre-Epic fighter can take Weapon Supremacy twice. It's not a Fighter bonus feat, which means you have to take it with general feats, and you get one at 18, and the next one at level 21. That and the clause that states it can only be chosen once.
Thawmus 06-14-07, 04:45 PM	Just in case Thawmus didn't get this yet: Weapon Supremacy is not a fighter bonus feat, and you can only take it once.
Clawhound 06-14-07, 04:50 PM	That is definately a lot better than the last one ;) Perhaps the gear value used should be stated out though? You are into unnecessary crunch territory. I showed how a fighter (or any full BAB class), using only BAB and HD in their favor, and a 25 point buy, can be a lethal foe. Beyond that is style. I did that to establish a benchmark. I also showed that a cleric can make a good fighter, but he makes a better cleric. If you follow the logic, "What's best?", cleric can be better than fighter, so you choose cleric. Once you have a cleric, you continue asking "What's best", and you drop being a fighter because being a cleric is a whole lot more effective. Being a cleric means that your 9th level spells get that much more powerful, and you drop all that equipment that you really don't use. That gives you more money to be a cleric. Pretty soon, you don't resemble a fighter at all. In other words, 8th and 9th level spells are so good that it's a no-brainer to gear your cleric to that and forget the whole melee thing. The same logic that says "cleric is better than fighter" also says, "magic cleric is better than melee cleric." If a sub-optimal cleric is sufficient, that demonstrates that a less-than-optimal character is sufficient. If a less than optimal character is sufficient, then we must musts have a metric for what is sufficient. As I have shown that melee at 20th level is as good as a Cleric with a quickened Divine Power spell, Divine Vestments, and Greater Magic Weapon, if not better, then we must accept that melee is also acceptable.
Bob Loblaw 06-14-07, 04:52 PM	Sorry Thawmus, I wasn't trying to pick on you. If you notice, my posts are within minutes of each other. I didn't realize that you had been back on after Scion mentioned it to you. If you want, you can assume I was pointing out to aelryinth that he forgot to read the feat and his assertion, while correct, was based on a faulty assumption. I don't think he'll mind.
aelryinth 06-14-07, 04:57 PM	Here is a short list of logical arguments that are often used against the fighter and why they don’t work. Faulty Generalizations: Hasty generalization: The fighter does not work they way my group wants it to therefore it does not work for anyone. This is fallacious because no two groups will be run the same way. We can all use Core only and stick to RAW and yet no two of us will choose the same types of encounters. Biased samples: The Character Optimization Boards have concluded that the fighter is only good for a 1-4 level dip, and never an odd number except 1st level. This is fallacious because with additional abilities such as Dungeoncrasher (level 6), Counterattack (level 12), and Overpowering Attack (level 16) show that there are options waiting. With many feat trees being very short, the fighter can actually progress along more than one to increase his effectiveness in combat. Statistical special pleading: The fighter cannot use any of his special maneuvers like tripping or disarming as he goes into higher levels. This is fallacious because there are plenty of creatures that he can still use his abilities against. As the opponents move past mid levels, they tend to get smaller again averaging around size Huge. Half-Truth: The fighter’s saves and skills suck. This is fallacious because his Fortitude save is actually good. His other saves are not that hard to improve. He can accomplish plenty of things with his skills, even without investing any points, just like any other character. This requires the DM to understand how to set appropriate DCs. False Dilemma: The fighter sucks because I have seen him fail to take on a balor single-handedly. This is false because the game assumes that it takes a party to handle an appropriate challenge rating or encounter level, not individuals. Questionable Causes: Correlation Implies Causation: The fighter can’t use his trip attacks against some creatures due to size or number of legs. This is false because the fighter is not necessarily limited to trip attacks. He still has other options available to him. Circular: The fighter sucks because the cleric is so much better and we know the cleric so much better because the fighter sucks. Strawman: The fighter sucks because you can’t bull rush gargantuan creatures if you are too small. This is a strawman because bull rushing is not a feature of the fighter and is instead a feature of the combat options in the PHB. Argument from Ignorance: The fighter sucks because he doesn’t work in a Core-only environment or you can’t build an effective fighter that uses several combat options. This is false because Khan and myself have already put up several builds that can accomplish everything that the fighter has been claimed to be unable to do except the swashbuckler (which I will post later). Wishful Thinking: The fighter sucks because his bonus feats don’t compare to spells in power. The reason this is false is because feats were never meant to compare to spells in power. Feats were meant to be used more often and with increasing benefits as you stack them. Loki’s Wager: Since we can’t define “viable” or come to a common baseline, then the fighter sucks. This is fallacious because there are exact definitions of the terms (e.g. “viable”) and the common baseline has actually remained consistent with all of the pro-fighters. We all want the fighter to be able to contribute in and out of combat as he is built/designed for the group he is in. He need not be the best, but he cannot be useless either. It is the anti-fighter crowd that cannot determine where they want the fighter to be. Some want it to be equal to the cleric, some the druid, some the warblade, some the rogue, some the ranger, some the barbarian, some the balor, etc. There are plenty of other logical arguments I can bring up, but this should suffice. Some would say that those who argue logic should actually learn how logic works. I wouldn’t say that, but someone might. There is no stonewalling from the pro-fighter crowd. In fact, we have defined our terminology and premises from the beginning. We have remained consistent from the beginning. There has been no issue that we haven't addressed. There has been no "I'm the only one who knows what I'm talking about" ad hominem style attacks from us. We have yet to hand-wave away any arguments. And we most certainly don't twist other people's statements to make ourselves seem right. Huh, wow. Is this biased, or what? Hasty Generalizations: Aye, just stick in 'my group' to make the other guy seem to completely ignore the opinions of a whole lot of other people out there who have the exact same problem. I'll turn this right around and say "Fighters don't have problems because the way my group plays and the way my DM caters to Fighters they don't have any problems." And the Optimizers smirk and say "An intelligent DM playing NPC's fairly and intelligently really start exploiting all the weaknesses of the Fighters at later levels." Inability to realize what a sample really means: THE Char Ops board has nothing to do with Player Alternates. The alternate class solutions do nothing but get rid of a Fighter Bonus feat for a stated benefit, some of which are actually more useful then the Bonus Feat you can take. Ergo, we have a counter-erroneous sample and an eggregious judgement. The CharOp Boards doesn't care if you want to take your character to level 6...that's the GOAL, to get Dungeon Rusher. But to take your Fighter to 5...what? There's NOTHING there. IN other words, CharOpt is saying you either make an even Fighter level your Goal, or you get out of Fighter, because the NEXT level you take can be something other then a Dead level. Statistical Special Pleading: The Fighter's ability to build himself to be a powerhouse Tripper/Disarmer/AoO fiend is touted over and over as one of the great saving graces of the Fighter. Unfortunately, these abilities don't work in all cases, are fairly easy to neutralize by intelligent foes who don't want to play the Fighter's game, and in many cases start looking rather futile and ineffectual as the game goes up in level. Yet again and again the ability to make a Gatling Gun Tripper is trotted out as the reason why Fighters Are Cool. Special Statistics? On your ear. His Saves suck, as do his skills: They do. His pathetic will save means he can't stand his ground as is likely the best character to grab control of and turn against the rest of the party. His list of skills is small and generally not useful outside of combat...or even in combat, without changing things around. His pathetic Reflex save means that his bonus hit points, one of his great advantages, get eroded quickly and he has no way to replenish them. False Dilemma: This can be turned around. Just because the Fighter can take on X creature doesn't mean he's a great class either, and what's really strange is that combat at high levels often becomes a series of 1vs1 fights against specific monsters, with whoever can 'gang up' winning...but you still have to be able to hold your own. Correlation, et al - If he cannot apply his Trip attacks against everyone, then being a Uber Tripper is suddenly not so awesome, and other, basic options can be readily done by other classes. He has to be able to do something other classes cannot do, and uber Tripper is one of those. When and if it can't work all or even most of the time, it effectively is a useless combat option for the Fighter to be uber in, and nobody cares if you can trip well when tripping doesn't work at all. Circular: We all know that no one wants to play the cleric so the fighter is cool, and we all know the fighter is cool so no one is going to want to play a cleric. Strawman: If crowing that my Fighter is an uber bull rusher becomes less and less effective as they level, then it's a strawman to say that because I can bull rush better then anyone who resorts to other, better tactics, I'm cool and strong and you should play me to level 20. Argument from Ignorance: Ignoring the capabilities of other classes, and what multi-classing or PrC'ing can do to increase the effectiveness of a build over going straight Fighter is a pretty bad argument, indeed. ==Aelryinth
Clawhound 06-14-07, 05:00 PM	Ya know, Clawhound, that's got to be about the most lopsided comparison of a Fighter to Cleric that I've ever seen. Kudos. ==Aelryinth I was purposefully doing an extremely simplified comparison. I did the baseline to just demonstrate, that even before anyone did any more clever optimization, that you can build a character to butcher a titan. Once you do that, does it really matter who has the longer longsword? I always remove DMM, as DMM is such a game changer. I believe that I stated that. If I didn't, my bad. However, I think that I did conclude the comparison with, "If DMM, then Cleric for the WIN!!!" DMM is THAT GOOD. Even with DMM being good, Level 8 and 9 spells are BETTER. It's a no brainer to conclude that Casting & Melee (Gating) > Casting Or Melee.
aelryinth 06-14-07, 05:09 PM	Removing the core of making a melee cleric tank build by taking out Persistent mostly just forces the cleric into Prestiging into a class that gives divine spellcasting and Full BAB. (like Fist of Raziel, or the old Hospitalar, and so forth). These are usually BETTER options for the cleric, anyways. And, of course, we won't get into rule-twisting for Nightstick abuse. The problem is the key behind your premise is faulty. Of course the melee character makes a better routine melee then the cleric...he's designed for it. But it's basically ALL he can do. Whereas you can design the cleric to be a monstrously effective melee with the right spells and buffs...and he can abandon that role to be a healer INSTANTLY, or, with proper spells, a Blaster or Faceman. So...why be just a melee, when I can have my cake and eat it, too? As for the level 8 and 9 spells...yeah, broken spells beat underpowered feats any day. Oh, and Bob's right...forgot you can only be Supreme in one weapon. They really need to stick that in the SRD. ===Aelryinth
windscar18 06-14-07, 05:38 PM	I was purposefully doing an extremely simplified comparison. I did the baseline to just demonstrate, that even before anyone did any more clever optimization, that you can build a character to butcher a titan. Once you do that, does it really matter who has the longer longsword? I found your arguments to be very good until I saw that last line. So in other words, you're saying that a warrior is not underpowered because he doesn't need those feats to butcher a titan? :confused: :confused: Not trying to peg you or anything, but that doesn't make any sense to me.
navar100 06-14-07, 05:50 PM	Except you can't have a comparison without one group coming out as better or worse in the comparison. Now the degree might depend on the criteria used, but the fact is that if I show through comparison that class A can have any of the jobs that it is supposed to excel at be done better by several other classes and there is no area where class A really excels that wouldn't be a poor comparison (for example, I sneak better than the heavily armored guy or I can punch harder than than the quadruple amputee) then it could be argued that the other classes are better than class A and that in fact class A is not necessarily a valid class. And like it or not better or worse, more or less capable, all of that HAS to factor in to balance. Otherwise you have a sort of relativistic setup, I wouldn't object to a system designed on that principle so long as it functioned but you can't argue balance without comparison and you can't have comparisons without something being better or worse. To put it another way, A is supposed to be best at fighting, B is best at utility skills, C is best at enemy destruction spells and D is best at healing and augmentation spells. Now, they have other features but those are their main arenas, their alleged mastery points. Now, if basic classes all of them core based, are outperforming consistently A,B,C,D in their allegedly best arenas then you might argue that either the E,F,G,etc. is too strong or badly designed. But, if we show that A,B,C,or D trump them in other areas, then we can still show balance and ability. But if nearly every class can do the job that A,B,C, or D is supposed to be the best at, do it with comparatively little investment, and do it consistently as well as do their own thing, then maybe A,B,C or D just aren't quite good enough. Now, I will admit that a fighter can function, can fulfill the bare minimum, but that isn't really a ringing endorsement, it's a concern. As I mentioned earlier, the fighters problems are less their own fault and more the fault of the feat system, and the fact that the fighter gets very little. A new spell can be theoretically gained the minute the book hits the table, a new weapon or enchantment needs to be purchased in feats and in gold, the same is true of armor. Now, with retraining rules things can work better, but those rules aren't universally used and some decry them as unrealistic. (As a side note, the martial classes seem to get hurt the most when realism is used, just an observation.) Yes, the same things apply to other martial classes, but most other martial classes are fairly simplistic in what they need, a barbarian needs a good 2 hander, the ranger needs either a good bow or a good pair of light weapons, the same is true of a rogue. You'll notice that most of the people who use a fighter either give them a greatsword, longsword/shield, or a spiked chain. This isn't for looks, it's because those weapons are just about the only things that are practical and useful for the fighter without eating up too many feats for a style. The spiked chain is the closest thing that the fighters have to cheese and as it stands, it's velveeta to a wizards brie. The problem is that the mechanical system itself kicks martial classes, but the fighter gets kicked harder IMO. One reason is that bad advice is given, in the balance section of the DMG they explain that while a barbarian is powerful in rage a fighter with the right feats can outdamage them in rage. This gives the newbie the idea that damage is their prime focus, they ignore tripping, disarming, the few tactics that can work well for the fighter because of how feat intensive they are to properly pull off. Part of it is this too, the feats by themselves aren't worth much, the best feat that is only gained after 10th level would have to be Robilards Gambit and that sucker is highly situational but compared to its esteemed brethren it stands alone as a superior feat because comparatively it offers more tactical options and better designs. The Barbarian needs only a few feats to be really effective, power attack and leap attack work nicely, if you want a bit more oomph add in improved bull rush and shock trooper for some raw destructive power. The thing is that those feats don't require a large amount of rules mastery or tactical synergy to make functional. Add in the substitution where the barbarian gets pounce and things look even better. Now we look at the fighter, who only get good substitution options from Dungeonscape and an issue of dragon. The other options listed might be nice but they tend to be designed as part of an actual overall build rather than designed to be able to stand alone or as part of a full design, and in many cases the substitution options don't offer enough or require additional tradeoffs, often too little too late (complete champion). The only real design focus we seem to see is a strong emphasis on attacks of opportunity, so hello Chaingun, hello Jack B. Quick, goodbye any hope of true combat versatility because the game isn't giving it to the fighter, not without a lot of multi-classing. EDIT: Also, one other issue with the pun-pun fallacy, shall we stand it on its head for a moment. I can use that same justification that no matter how obscene a class or prestige class is that it's fine because it isn't as strong or stronger than pun-pun. The planar shephard, incantatrix, various other prestige classes that make people scream, none of it is really overpowered or too powerful since pun-pun is still the strongest thing. Now I think we could all agree that this would be a poor argument that the new class was fine. So my question is why is it fine to invoke the little infinity being for arguing a weak class is fine but not that an overpowered class is fine? It's only a matter of judging a class by its own merits. You say the fighter suffers greatly because of the feats. Spells trump feats. Feats don't scale with level, etc. You get agreement from pro-fighters that this is a problem and also agree with you that it is a problem with dedicated warriors in general not fighters uniquely. There's also agreement Tome Of Battle addresses these issues for dedicated warriors. Khan and Bob have provided builds, though, to show that despite your issue with feats, a fighter can be capable of holding its own during combat. He has versatility of combat tactics and durability. This is a counter-argument to the charge of fighter suckitude utilizing fighter judgement on its own merits. Despite the issue of spells trumping feats, a fighter using those feats still does fine. The cleric still has an easier time of it. The druid still has an easier time of it. The wizard doesn't have to worry about it. However, the fighter can still function well enough. That's all the debate should really be. It's still ok to say a particular class is more powerful/more versatile than another class. Pun-Pun Fallacy is not "violated". The violation comes when one says "Since the cleric/druid has an easier time of it, don't bother playing a fighter." This is claimed to be a fallacy not because the cleric/druid has an easier time of things but the assumption that that's all that matters. It does not allow for judging fighter on its own merits. A particular class doesn't have to be the "best" at something. What's important is if it can do what it does well enough to function as a PC class. Summary: You don't like feats not scaling and getting trumped by spells. Here's how fighters aren't doing a good job. Fair argument. The counterargument: Some feats don't need to, fighter gets lots of feats to utilize appropriate ones as the situation warrants, and no question spells are more powerful than feats but fighter just does things differently by obviousness of not being a spellcaster. Here's how fighters are doing a good job. Would it help if I change the name to CoDzilla Fallacy?
navar100 06-14-07, 06:26 PM	First off, evasion comes in ring form for anyone who wants it. There are also spells which grant it for that matter. Next up, are you saying that taking a feat to give the warblade a ranged proficiency or dipping into a class with the proficiency is the same as not allowing the Fighter to multi-class? That conversation was about whether or not the warblade could just grab a ranged weapon in some way being compared, apparently, to a Fighter being able to multi-class to get whatever it is that he wanted. And here I thought you were trying to keep things in context. I guess not ;) Uh, no, that was not the context. The context is: if in proving the fighter to be a playable class one must show it can function to level 20 without multiclassing, but if in showing that another class can function to level 20 yet with multiclassing, that's a double standard. The fact that a particular character who just happens to be a warblade given a choice of sticking with it all the way to level 20 or he chooses to multiclass are both fine choices and the player chooses to his heart's content is hip hip hoorah supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. :cheer: :cheer: :clap: :clap: . Go warblade! Go warblade! Multi-class. Get the range proficiency.
navar100 06-14-07, 06:43 PM	Here is a short list of logical arguments that are often used against the fighter and why they don’t work. Faulty Generalizations: Hasty generalization: The fighter does not work they way my group wants it to therefore it does not work for anyone. This is fallacious because no two groups will be run the same way. We can all use Core only and stick to RAW and yet no two of us will choose the same types of encounters. Biased sample: The Character Optimization Boards have concluded that the fighter is only good for a 1-4 level dip, and never an odd number except 1st level. This is fallacious because with additional abilities such as Dungeoncrasher (level 6), Counterattack (level 12), and Overpowering Attack (level 16) show that there are options waiting. With many feat trees being very short, the fighter can actually progress along more than one to increase his effectiveness in combat. Statistical special pleading: The fighter cannot use any of his special maneuvers like tripping or disarming as he goes into higher levels. This is fallacious because there are plenty of creatures that he can still use his abilities against. As the opponents move past mid levels, they tend to get smaller again averaging around size Huge. Half-Truth: The fighter’s saves and skills suck. This is fallacious because his Fortitude save is actually good. His other saves are not that hard to improve. He can accomplish plenty of things with his skills, even without investing any points, just like any other character. This requires the DM to understand how to set appropriate DCs. False Dilemma: The fighter sucks because I have seen him fail to take on a balor single-handedly. This is false because the game assumes that it takes a party to handle an appropriate challenge rating or encounter level, not individuals. Questionable Causes: Correlation Implies Causation: The fighter can’t use his trip attacks against some creatures due to size or number of legs. This is false because the fighter is not necessarily limited to trip attacks. He still has other options available to him. Circular: The fighter sucks because the cleric is so much better and we know the cleric so much better because the fighter sucks. Strawman: The fighter sucks because you can’t bull rush gargantuan creatures if you are too small. This is a strawman because bull rushing is not a feature of the fighter and is instead a feature of the combat options in the PHB. Argument from Ignorance: The fighter sucks because he doesn’t work in a Core-only environment or you can’t build an effective fighter that uses several combat options. This is false because Khan and myself have already put up several builds that can accomplish everything that the fighter has been claimed to be unable to do except the swashbuckler (which I will post later). Wishful Thinking: The fighter sucks because his bonus feats don’t compare to spells in power. The reason this is false is because feats were never meant to compare to spells in power. Feats were meant to be used more often and with increasing benefits as you stack them. Loki’s Wager: Since we can’t define “viable” or come to a common baseline, then the fighter sucks. This is fallacious because there are exact definitions of the terms (e.g. “viable”) and the common baseline has actually remained consistent with all of the pro-fighters. We all want the fighter to be able to contribute in and out of combat as he is built/designed for the group he is in. He need not be the best, but he cannot be useless either. It is the anti-fighter crowd that cannot determine where they want the fighter to be. Some want it to be equal to the cleric, some the druid, some the warblade, some the rogue, some the ranger, some the barbarian, some the balor, etc. There are plenty of other logical arguments I can bring up, but this should suffice. Some would say that those who argue logic should actually learn how logic works. I wouldn’t say that, but someone might. There is no stonewalling from the pro-fighter crowd. In fact, we have defined our terminology and premises from the beginning. We have remained consistent from the beginning. There has been no issue that we haven't addressed. There has been no "I'm the only one who knows what I'm talking about" ad hominem style attacks from us. We have yet to hand-wave away any arguments. And we most certainly don't twist other people's statements to make ourselves seem right. :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:
Archangel62 06-14-07, 06:47 PM	It's only a matter of judging a class by its own merits. You say the fighter suffers greatly because of the feats. Spells trump feats. Feats don't scale with level, etc. You get agreement from pro-fighters that this is a problem and also agree with you that it is a problem with dedicated warriors in general not fighters uniquely. There's also agreement Tome Of Battle addresses these issues for dedicated warriors. Khan and Bob have provided builds, though, to show that despite your issue with feats, a fighter can be capable of holding its own during combat. He has versatility of combat tactics and durability. This is a counter-argument to the charge of fighter suckitude utilizing fighter judgement on its own merits. Despite the issue of spells trumping feats, a fighter using those feats still does fine. The cleric still has an easier time of it. The druid still has an easier time of it. The wizard doesn't have to worry about it. However, the fighter can still function well enough. That's all the debate should really be. It's still ok to say a particular class is more powerful/more versatile than another class. Pun-Pun Fallacy is not "violated". The violation comes when one says "Since the cleric/druid has an easier time of it, don't bother playing a fighter." This is claimed to be a fallacy not because the cleric/druid has an easier time of things but the assumption that that's all that matters. It does not allow for judging fighter on its own merits. A particular class doesn't have to be the "best" at something. What's important is if it can do what it does well enough to function as a PC class. Summary: You don't like feats not scaling and getting trumped by spells. Here's how fighters aren't doing a good job. Fair argument. The counterargument: Some feats don't need to, fighter gets lots of feats to utilize appropriate ones as the situation warrants, and no question spells are more powerful than feats but fighter just does things differently by obviousness of not being a spellcaster. Here's how fighters are doing a good job. Would it help if I change the name to CoDzilla Fallacy? Fine, the CoDzilla fallacy then, whatever, but I do notice you didn't touch that last comment that I made about using the pun-pun/CoDzilla fallacy to argue in the reverse, just wondering on that note. The feats thing I realize affects more than the fighter, but the caster oriented ones either do scale or don't necessarily need to (metamagic feats, item creation, etc.) The other thing is that yes, a fighter can work, the problem is that the fighter, along with many martial classes, gets shafted by the combat system. (Btw, thank you for responding, I was wondering if I was being ignored)
navar100 06-14-07, 06:53 PM	Just for grins, I'm going to crank out a Level 20 fighter, blandly optimized. He'll need to hit AC 35-40. He uses a +5 longsword. Starting with the elite array, he advances to 20, putting all points into strength. He has an item of strength, +6. He reads +5 worth of books. He wields a +5 sword. <snippage for brevity> Now, let's take a cleric (sans DMM) and do the same thing. His strength is a little less, as he has to put some points into Wisdom. His BAB is less. So his attack is closer to +28/grapple +22. His damage is 2d6+15. His hit points are 194. However, if he couldn't afford a +5 book because he invested in something clerical, he'll only be at 154. But hey, you can always quicken Divine Power to hit harder!!! After all, that +5 to hit and that +6 strength bonus that doesn't stack, and those 20 HP are worth more than a Greater Planar Ally. Right? Or Holy Aura, right? Or Dimension lock? You could also downgrade a Miracle into an 8th level slot. That's worth it, right? You could also cast Divine Power as a normal spell, but the fighter is now 100 hp damage output up on you, if not more. Is Divine Power DPS so good that you will catch up for that one round loss of damage? I don't think so. Of course, if you surprise something, you can pre-cast Divine Power. Not that that matters. At 20th level, if you prep, it's dead. A few gates and planar allies later, and you can have tea while the fight unfolds. So, what have I illustrated here? A blandly optimized fighter is effective with just a few standard items and gets lethal with a few "must have" items. A blandly optimized cleric can be made to be as formidable as a blandly optimized fighter. To do so, a cleric must give up better than he gets. But what is more obvious is that anyone interested in optimization will skip this route, as the cleric is stronger in another direction. If you take out DMM, the fighter is competitive. The cleric needs to give up significant firepower to raise that BAB. If you put in DMM, it's a no-brainer to take a cleric. <snippage for brevity> Ya know, Clawhound, that's got to be about the most lopsided comparison of a Fighter to Cleric that I've ever seen. Kudos. Let's try some common sense. At the beginning of the day, said Cleric/20 uses Divine Metamagic and a higher spell slot to Persist Divine Power and Divine Favor. The only spell he casts pre-combat is Righteous Might, and that's if it's needed. Hey! His 14 starting Str means he's 6 pts behind the Fighter in Str, if we figure books and goodies. But, the Divine Favor neatly takes care of the TH/DMG penalty, and if he casts Righteous Might, the size bonus of +4 takes care of another four points...he's actually hitting for MORE then the Fighter is, and more often! <snippage for brevity> ==Aelryinth Ahem.
navar100 06-14-07, 07:38 PM	Fine, the CoDzilla fallacy then, whatever, but I do notice you didn't touch that last comment that I made about using the pun-pun/CoDzilla fallacy to argue in the reverse, just wondering on that note. The feats thing I realize affects more than the fighter, but the caster oriented ones either do scale or don't necessarily need to (metamagic feats, item creation, etc.) The other thing is that yes, a fighter can work, the problem is that the fighter, along with many martial classes, gets shafted by the combat system. (Btw, thank you for responding, I was wondering if I was being ignored) Let's call it a misinterpretation of perception. I include the reverse of CoDzilla Fallacy by the statement of judging a class by its own merits rather than comparing it to another class. In any case, I do agree. A particular character class is not broken just because it's "better" than another class. For now, I would support a comparison of classes to prove a class is not broken. For example, in other threads OPs have commented where their DM thinks a warlock is too powerful or a monk is too powerful. Warblade also had its share. Those class defenders compare them to other classes to show how they are less powerful or just equivalent, and it's not always cleric/druid/wizard being compared to. The arguments I don't care for, though, are the ones who say play CoDzilla to show what really can be done. Comparing an eldritch blast to horrid wilting is fine. Comparing warblade to DMM persistent nightstick wielding clerics I think is a bit much, but this is probably more just personal varying mileage opinion. I will address the Complete Warrior Samurai for a moment. It is said it is worse than the fighter. As a premise I'll accept that as a given. I would not accept that premise as an argument that samurai sucks. For one, it's used to imply fighters suck the same way the warrior=fighter argument does. That argument gives as a premise fighters suck such that since samurai is worse, it must suck too. To prove to me samurai sucks you must show by virtue of what it can do it is not playable. This is how I prove Truenamer sucks. The Truenamer's core ability is to make Speak Truename DC checks. However, as he gains levels, the DC becomes increasingly harder to do. The statistical chance of success declines. He will fail more often than succeed by virtue of just being who he is. In order to improve his chances, the Truenamer must, must: take Skill Focus Speak Truename feat, improve his Intelligence, and have very specific magic items. Any derivation from this, and he can't do what he's supposed to do. The solution, though, is very easy. Change how the Speak Truename DC functions. I suggest getting rid of the x2 multiplier.
Bob Loblaw 06-14-07, 07:44 PM	Huh, wow. Is this biased, or what? Nope. The way that the arguments work is very simple. To say that the fighter sucks all the time requires very little effort to disprove. The pro-fighters have never said that the fighter (or any other class) is always 100% great and uber. Hasty Generalizations: Aye, just stick in 'my group' to make the other guy seem to completely ignore the opinions of a whole lot of other people out there who have the exact same problem. I'll turn this right around and say "Fighters don't have problems because the way my group plays and the way my DM caters to Fighters they don't have any problems." The reason why this doesn't work for the anti-fighters is because the claim is that fighters suck, and it doesn't matter what anyone else's experience is. It is on the anti-fighter crowd's shoulders to prove that the fighter can never succeed at all levels of play. The pro-fighters can already show that the fighter can succeed. And the Optimizers smirk and say "An intelligent DM playing NPC's fairly and intelligently really start exploiting all the weaknesses of the Fighters at later levels." This is exactly what I was referring to. This seems to be only a problem reserved for fighters, yet every single class has the same problem. When the DM works against them, the class will fail. Inability to realize what a sample really means: THE Char Ops board has nothing to do with Player Alternates. The alternate class solutions do nothing but get rid of a Fighter Bonus feat for a stated benefit, some of which are actually more useful then the Bonus Feat you can take. Ergo, we have a counter-erroneous sample and an eggregious judgement. The CharOp Boards doesn't care if you want to take your character to level 6...that's the GOAL, to get Dungeon Rusher. But to take your Fighter to 5...what? There's NOTHING there. IN other words, CharOpt is saying you either make an even Fighter level your Goal, or you get out of Fighter, because the NEXT level you take can be something other then a Dead level. I think you missed my point. I mentioned the CO boards because that's where most of the optimization takes place. However, it doesn't matter if I pick these boards, ENWorld, or or any other board. The sample is biased to a certain type of player. In reality, most gamers are very casual and simply do not create characters the way we do here. Statistical Special Pleading: The Fighter's ability to build himself to be a powerhouse Tripper/Disarmer/AoO fiend is touted over and over as one of the great saving graces of the Fighter. Unfortunately, these abilities don't work in all cases, are fairly easy to neutralize by intelligent foes who don't want to play the Fighter's game, and in many cases start looking rather futile and ineffectual as the game goes up in level. Yet again and again the ability to make a Gatling Gun Tripper is trotted out as the reason why Fighters Are Cool. Special Statistics? On your ear. There are other things that are mentioned as well, but often ignored or hand-waved away. You might notice that many of the builds I've used don't focus solely on those tactics. It also needs to be noted (again) that the majority of monsters in the MM are size Large, well within the fighter (or anyone else's) ability to handle the size difference. In fact, here is a breakdown of all the sizes in the MM based on CR (1-20, no advancing, templates, or class levels): Diminutive: 7 CR # of Creatures >1 2 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 8 1 Tiny: 24 CR # of Creatures >1 14 1 3 2 4 3 3 Small: 59 CR # of Creatures >1 18 1 9 2 5 3 21 4 4 5 1 6 1 Medium: 165 CR # of Creatures >1 24 1 23 2 24 3 22 4 16 5 16 6 10 7 11 8 5 9 3 10 1 11 2 12 2 13 1 14 3 15 1 16 1 Large: 167 CR # of Creatures 1 7 2 9 3 20 4 16 5 22 6 9 7 15 8 18 9 12 10 10 11 11 12 4 13 5 14 1 15 1 16 2 17 3 20 2 Huge: 117 CR # of Creatures 2 1 3 3 4 3 5 5 6 5 7 15 8 8 9 13 10 4 11 10 12 4 13 6 14 5 15 5 16 7 17 4 18 6 19 7 20 4 Gargantuan: 14 CR # of Creatures 6 2 7 2 8 1 9 1 10 1 12 3 18 1 19 1 20 2 Colossal: 5 CR # of Creatures 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 1 20 1 His Saves suck, as do his skills: They do. His pathetic will save means he can't stand his ground as is likely the best character to grab control of and turn against the rest of the party. His list of skills is small and generally not useful outside of combat...or even in combat, without changing things around. His pathetic Reflex save means that his bonus hit points, one of his great advantages, get eroded quickly and he has no way to replenish them. Will saves are not the only saving throw, but it seems like that's the only one people want to talk about. Strangely enough, a low Will save is not considered a problem for the rogue who is in exactly the same situation. Skills are not a problem either. If your characters can't hit the DCs as listed in the PHB with regular ease, then I don't know what to say. I have posted more than once how the skills work and how many skill points are needed to actually be effective. Besides, almost all skills become useless once magic is involved and this is not seen as a problem for any other class. It is very one sided. False Dilemma: This can be turned around. Just because the Fighter can take on X creature doesn't mean he's a great class either, and what's really strange is that combat at high levels often becomes a series of 1vs1 fights against specific monsters, with whoever can 'gang up' winning...but you still have to be able to hold your own. This is a perfect example of the False Dilemma to help support my point. Thank you. Combat at high levels is not necessarily a series of 1 v 1 fights. I know that in the games I run, I like to use a lot of opponents. It makes the battle more interesting. The climactic battle to end my campaign was with two CR 20s and one CR 23 against 6 PC all level 20. This is 2 on 1. Most of the battles I run are like this. Correlation, et al - If he cannot apply his Trip attacks against everyone, then being a Uber Tripper is suddenly not so awesome, and other, basic options can be readily done by other classes. He has to be able to do something other classes cannot do, and uber Tripper is one of those. When and if it can't work all or even most of the time, it effectively is a useless combat option for the Fighter to be uber in, and nobody cares if you can trip well when tripping doesn't work at all. Why must the fighter be able to do something that someone else can't do? Since the cleric can replace all the other classes in the PHB, is it the only class that's playable? Circular: We all know that no one wants to play the cleric so the fighter is cool, and we all know the fighter is cool so no one is going to want to play a cleric. That is not what the pro-fighters are saying. In fact we tend to suggest that someone play the cleric. We would like the group to consist of 4 characters. If you look back at all my arguments, you'll see that I take the assumption that the group consists of fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue. It is the anti-fighters who change that dynamic and then use it as a way to show the fighter sucks. When the dynamics change, so does the outcome. Strawman: If crowing that my Fighter is an uber bull rusher becomes less and less effective as they level, then it's a strawman to say that because I can bull rush better then anyone who resorts to other, better tactics, I'm cool and strong and you should play me to level 20. The problem isn't with the fighter class in this case. The problem is with the rules for bullrushing and that particular build. Argument from Ignorance: Ignoring the capabilities of other classes, and what multi-classing or PrC'ing can do to increase the effectiveness of a build over going straight Fighter is a pretty bad argument, indeed. We don't ignore them. In fact, I'll bet if you did a quick informal poll, you'd find that many of us would rather multiclass or prestige class to match our concepts. I'm willing to wager that most people do not start their concept as, "I want to play a wizard for 5 levels, then prestige for 10, then wizard for 5 more levels." I bet people instead say that they would really like to play an Elemental Savant and then seek the best combination of options that bring them to the concept. So my logical arguments still stand. It is up to the anti-fighters to show that the fighter sucks in all situations at all levels of play. If even one example can be brought up to prove that wrong, then the anti-fighter crowd loses. That's basic logic.
crashlogic 06-14-07, 07:51 PM	Ya know, Clawhound, that's got to be about the most lopsided comparison of a Fighter to Cleric that I've ever seen. Kudos. Let's try some common sense. At the beginning of the day, said Cleric/20 uses Divine Metamagic and a higher spell slot to Persist Divine Power and Divine Favor. The only spell he casts pre-combat is Righteous Might, and that's if it's needed. Hey! His 14 starting Str means he's 6 pts behind the Fighter in Str, if we figure books and goodies. But, the Divine Favor neatly takes care of the TH/DMG penalty, and if he casts Righteous Might, the size bonus of +4 takes care of another four points...he's actually hitting for MORE then the Fighter is, and more often! Crazy. He's got a point less in Constitution (13 vs 14), but with Divine Power up, 20 hp less then the Fighter...but equal if he bothers to cast RM..which also gives him Reach and some pretty good DR, too! And of course, he can heal much much MUCH more easily mid-battle, or after battle, if required. He also has the option of casting Greater Magic Weapon and wielding a +1 Weapon of +9 otherthings, which the Fighter can't do with his class abilities...oh, and the Cleric can do it with his armor, too, with Greater Magic Vestment...beginning of Day stuff, CL prob 26+ to avoid any pesky dispelling, lasts for 20 hours. Or he could leave off +4 from his armor, to 'pay' for various Books/inherent bonuses, and let the Fighter think he's got better gear. Would you look at that. Not only does the cleric now hit just as often, with a better weapon, he has about the same hit points....and a MUCH better will save. He can cast ONE spell and do more damage, gain reach, and DR/Alignment...and that doesn't even figure in his real strong buffs, like Aspect of the Deity or something. Their AC is about the same thing...but the cleric potentially has better access to Shield/Armor buffs, and certainly doesn't need to blow money on energy resistance unless he wants to. The fighter is also going to blow 100k on a ring of fast healing/1 (keep in mind most of these rings have the very sensible restriction that they only work on wounds incurred while the ring is being worn), and is giving up his cloak of +5 protection for a Greater Cloak of Displacement that doesn't work against anything with blindsense, blindsight, tremorsense, or doesn't have to really target him with a melee attack. Hey, the cleric already has better saves, and can even cast shield of Faith so he doesn't need a Ring of Prot+5 (how IS the fighter wearing 3 rings, btw?), and can cast Free Action, too. The Cleric can also INSTANTLY leave his tanking role for a healing role, and has access to AoE spells and party-wide buffs to help out everyone. And I haven't even touched on domain powers/spells, which can really break this wide open...but then, you haven't compared his 11 Fighter bonus feats to a Cleric's Turning abilities and raw spellcasting power and domain powers/abilities/spells yet, either. I have had to dip into both to actually make the Cleric Tank...but, you know, I haven't had to cast 11 spells to let the cleric be the tank, and I still have plenty of versatility left in those spells...which I can change each and every day to emphasize different needs. Really, comparing a f/20 to a c/20 is not a good idea. Stick it around 1-10, and the Fighter does okay. ============ BTW, no pre-Epic fighter can take Weapon Supremacy twice. It's not a Fighter bonus feat, which means you have to take it with general feats, and you get one at 18, and the next one at level 21. ==Aelryinth A good lesson in how to utterly waste cleric spells trying to do something a fighter can do out of the box. Really, casting higher level spells is far superior to DMM, so why bother, other than to prove some silly point on the boards?
Clawhound 06-14-07, 08:14 PM	Let me get this clear: A fighter can smack a around a titan, even when demonstrably built so badly I'd get kicked off the optimization boards and sent an engraved note to never, ever return. A cleric (equally poorly built, etc.) can smack around a titan and cast spells. Therefore, why choose a fighter to smack around titans when a cleric does it better? Y'know what. I finally realized how utterly comedic this whole conversation is. Really. We've reached a level of such total out-of-touch-with-anything that I've changed my position. EVERYBODY WINS. YAY. (Yes, that means YOU!!! Yay!!!) :cheer: :w00t: :cheer: :w00t: :cheer: :w00t: :cheer: Go pick your favorite character class and have fun.
crashlogic 06-14-07, 08:18 PM	Let me get this clear: Go pick your favorite character class and have fun. Sublime Understanding at last.
Kalarus 06-14-07, 09:01 PM	Sublime Understanding at last. Wish it were that simple, really. For me, the only reason I have been defending the Fighter is not because I need to justify me playing one, but rather because I felt a bit of annoyance at people who publically proclaim the Fighter to be outright worthless and discourage people from playing the class. There are people on these boards who read these threads and get a vision of the Fighter which in my opinion is incredibly unaccurate and might discourage them from actually relying on their own experiences rather than go by what is being said here. After all if they did not care about other people's opinions, what are they doing here? As for the rest of the arguments that I've missed these past few days, hey look, a brick wall. :banghead: Fallacies and such aside, why do people still assume that: 1) Power is the only reason to pick a class, e.g. if picking a Cleric level nets you all a Fighter level will get you you therefor MUST pick a Cleric level? 2) You need to compare classes in order to understand a class? 3) Cheese-barrier is objectively and universally understood and accepted? People still whine about the Pun-pun fallacy because nobody will actually play Pun-pun yet nobody defines objectively why nobody will play Pun-pun. It's just something we arbitrarily agree upon but is not in any way justified. Every time we end up on the same unfounded assumptions. Every time people want to compare things because that is the way *they* look at classes, and the way *they* look at classes has to be a blanket form for D&D. Take a walk outside your cramped mind, there's more to D&D than you understand.
Bob Loblaw 06-14-07, 10:53 PM	Go pick your favorite character class and have fun. We have now come full circle. I mentioned this in the first response to the original question. Here it is again for those who are just joining in: There are plenty of reasons to play fighters. Consensus on the boards is meaningless in most games. Whether or not those who feel the fighter is underpowered, or sucks, or whatever are correct is meaningless. Not every game conforms to the standards that they use. If you want to play a fighter, and have fun doing it, then play the fighter. Ignore the nay-sayers and have fun. It's your character not theirs.
windscar18 06-14-07, 10:56 PM	There are plenty of reasons to play fighters. Consensus on the boards is meaningless in most games. Whether or not those who feel the fighter is underpowered, or sucks, or whatever are correct is meaningless. Not every game conforms to the standards that they use. If you want to play a fighter, and have fun doing it, then play the fighter. Ignore the nay-sayers and have fun. It's your character not theirs. Amen. Though, I do admit, I do still use remakes instead of the regular fighter, I still think that it isn't a bad idea to use the regular fighter.
Bob Loblaw 06-14-07, 11:09 PM	Amen. Though, I do admit, I do still use remakes instead of the regular fighter, I still think that it isn't a bad idea to use the regular fighter. As do I. I use whatever class combinations suit my needs. Some builds are feat intensive. Some are style focused. Some rely on magic. Some need stealth. I really like the multiclassing rules for 3rd edition and I doubt I would play any character without some sort of desire to use more than one class.
Red_Rabbit 06-14-07, 11:23 PM	Y'know what. I finally realized how utterly comedic this whole conversation is. Really. We've reached a level of such total out-of-touch-with-anything that I've changed my position. EVERYBODY WINS. YAY. (Yes, that means YOU!!! Yay!!!) :cheer: :w00t: :cheer: :w00t: :cheer: :w00t: :cheer: Go pick your favorite character class and have fun. I him he's silly Pick what you like, I'm not gonna put up argument, but Fighter is a better Fighter than a Cleric. Clerics are just a good back up Fighter. He's so silly
navar100 06-14-07, 11:27 PM	For the record, I never played a 3E pure fighter. I played a fighter/cleric once. I played a pure fighter in a 2E game but he dual-classed to cleric for roleplaying reasons. With my group's current game I'm playing a warlock. What have I played over the previous 5 real world years in the two earlier campaigns? A cleric. More, last campaign I did have Divine Metamagic Persistent Spell and used it, a lot. Libris Mortis and nightsticks didn't exist then, but the campaign started when Persistent Spell was only +4 levels and the DM let it stay that way when it "officially" changed. A member of our first campaign but not in the second came by and played a cameo of a hound archon fighter for a couple of sessions late in the campaign and thought he was being presumptuous. How little he knew ... :P Crusader will be my next character. I suspect back to cleric after that. I won't go the Persistent Spell route because I did that already and it will be lot tougher to pull off at +6 levels. However, DMM Quicken Spell sounds like fun. :cool:
Archangel62 06-15-07, 12:22 AM	For the record, I never played a 3E pure fighter. I played a fighter/cleric once. I played a pure fighter in a 2E game but he dual-classed to cleric for roleplaying reasons. With my group's current game I'm playing a warlock. What have I played over the previous 5 real world years in the two earlier campaigns? A cleric. More, last campaign I did have Divine Metamagic Persistent Spell and used it, a lot. Libris Mortis and nightsticks didn't exist then, but the campaign started when Persistent Spell was only +4 levels and the DM let it stay that way when it "officially" changed. A member of our first campaign but not in the second came by and played a cameo of a hound archon fighter for a couple of sessions late in the campaign and thought he was being presumptuous. How little he knew ... :P Crusader will be my next character. I suspect back to cleric after that. I won't go the Persistent Spell route because I did that already and it will be lot tougher to pull off at +6 levels. However, DMM Quicken Spell sounds like fun. :cool: On a somewhat related note, my players have threatened to string me up if I ever but them against another Cleric/crusader/Ruby Knight Vindicator that has minions. (if you want information on what happened I will explain in PM)
aelryinth 06-15-07, 01:12 AM	Nope. The way that the arguments work is very simple. To say that the fighter sucks all the time requires very little effort to disprove. The pro-fighters have never said that the fighter (or any other class) is always 100% great and uber. The reason why this doesn't work for the anti-fighters is because the claim is that fighters suck, and it doesn't matter what anyone else's experience is. It is on the anti-fighter crowd's shoulders to prove that the fighter can never succeed at all levels of play. The pro-fighters can already show that the fighter can succeed. This is exactly what I was referring to. This seems to be only a problem reserved for fighters, yet every single class has the same problem. When the DM works against them, the class will fail. I think you missed my point. I mentioned the CO boards because that's where most of the optimization takes place. However, it doesn't matter if I pick these boards, ENWorld, or or any other board. The sample is biased to a certain type of player. In reality, most gamers are very casual and simply do not create characters the way we do here. There are other things that are mentioned as well, but often ignored or hand-waved away. You might notice that many of the builds I've used don't focus solely on those tactics. It also needs to be noted (again) that the majority of monsters in the MM are size Large, well within the fighter (or anyone else's) ability to handle the size difference. In fact, here is a breakdown of all the sizes in the MM based on CR (1-20, no advancing, templates, or class levels): Diminutive: 7 CR # of Creatures >1 2 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 8 1 Tiny: 24 CR # of Creatures >1 14 1 3 2 4 3 3 Small: 59 CR # of Creatures >1 18 1 9 2 5 3 21 4 4 5 1 6 1 Medium: 165 CR # of Creatures >1 24 1 23 2 24 3 22 4 16 5 16 6 10 7 11 8 5 9 3 10 1 11 2 12 2 13 1 14 3 15 1 16 1 Large: 167 CR # of Creatures 1 7 2 9 3 20 4 16 5 22 6 9 7 15 8 18 9 12 10 10 11 11 12 4 13 5 14 1 15 1 16 2 17 3 20 2 Huge: 117 CR # of Creatures 2 1 3 3 4 3 5 5 6 5 7 15 8 8 9 13 10 4 11 10 12 4 13 6 14 5 15 5 16 7 17 4 18 6 19 7 20 4 Gargantuan: 14 CR # of Creatures 6 2 7 2 8 1 9 1 10 1 12 3 18 1 19 1 20 2 Colossal: 5 CR # of Creatures 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 1 20 1 Will saves are not the only saving throw, but it seems like that's the only one people want to talk about. Strangely enough, a low Will save is not considered a problem for the rogue who is in exactly the same situation. Skills are not a problem either. If your characters can't hit the DCs as listed in the PHB with regular ease, then I don't know what to say. I have posted more than once how the skills work and how many skill points are needed to actually be effective. Besides, almost all skills become useless once magic is involved and this is not seen as a problem for any other class. It is very one sided. This is a perfect example of the False Dilemma to help support my point. Thank you. Combat at high levels is not necessarily a series of 1 v 1 fights. I know that in the games I run, I like to use a lot of opponents. It makes the battle more interesting. The climactic battle to end my campaign was with two CR 20s and one CR 23 against 6 PC all level 20. This is 2 on 1. Most of the battles I run are like this. Why must the fighter be able to do something that someone else can't do? Since the cleric can replace all the other classes in the PHB, is it the only class that's playable? That is not what the pro-fighters are saying. In fact we tend to suggest that someone play the cleric. We would like the group to consist of 4 characters. If you look back at all my arguments, you'll see that I take the assumption that the group consists of fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue. It is the anti-fighters who change that dynamic and then use it as a way to show the fighter sucks. When the dynamics change, so does the outcome. The problem isn't with the fighter class in this case. The problem is with the rules for bullrushing and that particular build. We don't ignore them. In fact, I'll bet if you did a quick informal poll, you'd find that many of us would rather multiclass or prestige class to match our concepts. I'm willing to wager that most people do not start their concept as, "I want to play a wizard for 5 levels, then prestige for 10, then wizard for 5 more levels." I bet people instead say that they would really like to play an Elemental Savant and then seek the best combination of options that bring them to the concept. So my logical arguments still stand. It is up to the anti-fighters to show that the fighter sucks in all situations at all levels of play. If even one example can be brought up to prove that wrong, then the anti-fighter crowd loses. That's basic logic. See, this is what annoys me...the double standard. The anti-Fighter does not have to prove the Fighter sucks in 100% all the time...that's another logical fallacy AND a strawman. Anti-Fighters tend to love the Fighter concept and hate the execution. At least I do. Pretty much any melee class can do the core job of Melees well...get a High AC via armor and items; get decent Hit points; do decent damage with a full attack routine; and hit the enemy. The problem is, non-Melee classes can do all this, too. Then, they can do a lot more on the side. So, why play a character who can only do the one thing, when you can do two or more? And the answer to this question only gets more intense at Fighters go up. And now the Fighter types chime in that if you build the Fighter specifically to max out this combat option, he's Uber. Except he can't use that combat option all the time, so he's really not uber...he's just kind of average or less, against intelligent foes, and the 'combat option' can be ignored in favor of skill at core competency of melee. Intelligent foes can readily take apart any group of PC's? Not as easily as they can the fighter, because casters can cover their weaknesses MUCH better, and our dread cleric, for starters, comes with MUCH better saving throws, especially in the Will arena. It can take a lot of specific DM knowledge to rip apart a party of casters. Doing so to fighters doesn't take much at all...it just requires not catering to the way a Fighter wants things to happen. Furthermore, we don't argue Fighters are fine at lowest levels...because any melee class with good armor and a full BAB is. Warriors can do okay at low levels. that doesn't make a Fighter shine and stand out, however. It again reinforces the mundanity of the class...it certainly doesn't stand above it's peers at low levels for doing the melee job. As for Will saves and the Rogue, he gets a class ability that allows him two Will saves against a spell. That's similar to the class buff for the barbarian in and out of rage. Fighter? Nothing. Fort saves are nice, granted...but one of the problems is that their are ways to render them unneeded, starting with Slow Poison and Negative Plane Protection, and working up from there. Once you no longer have to make Fort Saves...who cares if its good? Casters have this option. Unless a melee can get ahold of a MInd Blank item at late levels, and once again showcase Magic Items replacing class abilities, they never have this defense. ---Bullrushing. Your example, not mine. Your build, not mine. So you bring up the tactic, we both agree it just doesn't work even if the Fighter is good at it, so it's a non-item for the Uber Fighter argument...which reinforces the Fighter suck argument, since again you close off an area they might excel at because of irrelevance. ---Since the Fighter can do something that is completely replaceable by another class that can also do more, why play a fighter? Your argument about it being able to do the job, so why play something else, is a smokescreen argument that has no weight to it. You use the word MUST...100%, again. I counter with why, when there are better options? I don't use MUST...you are putting words in our mouth again. ----Again, you put my words in my mouth with high level play...and then you do the CAMPAIGN FALLACY thing on top of it. YOU play 'some' of your combats this way. Well, bully for you. I used the word 'often'...where often doesn't refer to 1v1 as neccessarily one critter per PC, but one 'encounter group' per PC. So the fighter might get a bruiser, the MAge has to hold off the horde, the Cleric is grappling with multiple Undead, and the rogue is trying to keep the BBEG busy. All 1v1's, and it happens frequently...but did I say ALWAYS? no. But it happens enough to show that being able to pick up and demolish a foe in a 1v1 is a valid demonstration of neccessary ability...another fact you are letting lapse. Yay for size tables. And as was laboriously pointed out, size increases quickly with level, and it is at later levels where the Fighter starts to really suck. So this becomes one of your games of reading stats for what they really mean. I see it as 'Because the size of monsters tends to increase in the later game to the point where many Fighter Combat options are now not viable and focus has to be retained on the Core Melee tree, Fighters again get shafted and reduced to mundanity since they lose the benefit of their shticks again and again in routine encounters." The Defensive builds that have been shown all give up something, specifically a powerful stand on the Core Melee abilities, to shore up the Defenses of the Fighter...making him even less comparable to a spellcaster who can match his damage output or exceed it. They also require a lot of magical investment in defenses and away from the Core Melee Shtick that a caster doesn't have to put up with. And this is why the Fighter sucks. We are looking for the Fighter to stand up, being noticed, kick ass, take names, and NOT be so easily substituted, to be unique and irreplaceable somehow and somewhen, and to make multiclassing and PrC'ing AWAY from the Fighter a PAINFUL decision, not a routine one. We want people to think they are giving up something awesome and special, not going on to something better. And it's very, very hard to picture any form of the Fighter which does that for serious optimizers. ===Aelryinth
Khan the Destroyer 06-15-07, 01:33 AM	:banghead:
Bob Loblaw 06-15-07, 01:51 AM	See, this is what annoys me...the double standard. The anti-Fighter does not have to prove the Fighter sucks in 100% all the time...that's another logical fallacy AND a strawman. It's not a fallacy nor a strawman on our part. Here's why, we acknowledge that the fighter is not always going to be the best man for the job. The anti-fighters say he is never the best man for the job. Big difference. Never is an all-encompassing term. Anti-Fighters tend to love the Fighter concept and hate the execution. At least I do. Pretty much any melee class can do the core job of Melees well...get a High AC via armor and items; get decent Hit points; do decent damage with a full attack routine; and hit the enemy. You, Archangel, and a couple of others fall into this category. What I find most interesting about this category is that we all agree on the shortcoming, we just disagree on how pervasive those shortcomings are. There are plenty of others who just flat out say the fighter sucks because they have no idea how to build one properly. The problem is, non-Melee classes can do all this, too. Then, they can do a lot more on the side. So, why play a character who can only do the one thing, when you can do two or more? And the answer to this question only gets more intense at Fighters go up. This assumes that every player is of equal skill. What is easier to learn, the combat section of the PHB or the combat section of the PHB and the 100+ spells available to the cleric in the PHB? Sometimes too many options is just as bad as not enough. And now the Fighter types chime in that if you build the Fighter specifically to max out this combat option, he's Uber. Except he can't use that combat option all the time, so he's really not uber...he's just kind of average or less, against intelligent foes, and the 'combat option' can be ignored in favor of skill at core competency of melee. We have never made the claim the fighter is uber. If you can find any posts from those of us who have been here the whole time making that claim, I will concede immediately. We do claim that the fighter, with the right build and in the right campaign, can do very well or even better than others. This isn't the same as uber. Intelligent foes can readily take apart any group of PC's? Not as easily as they can the fighter, because casters can cover their weaknesses MUCH better, and our dread cleric, for starters, comes with MUCH better saving throws, especially in the Will arena. It can take a lot of specific DM knowledge to rip apart a party of casters. Doing so to fighters doesn't take much at all...it just requires not catering to the way a Fighter wants things to happen. If the party is full of casters and I have a party of intelligent casters against them, I would honestly do everything I can to eliminate their casting and deal with them in other ways. Intelligent opponents only seem to target fighters, who are also supposedly the weakest in the party. This doesn't seem intelligent to me. I know that I would not worry about the non-threat. If the fighter is targeted at all, he is either a threatening character or the opponent isn't very bright. Furthermore, we don't argue Fighters are fine at lowest levels...because any melee class with good armor and a full BAB is. Warriors can do okay at low levels. that doesn't make a Fighter shine and stand out, however. It again reinforces the mundanity of the class...it certainly doesn't stand above it's peers at low levels for doing the melee job. The question is "Any reason to have a fighter?" If someone says "no," then they are answering for all levels of play since they didn't clarify their position. Also, what part of the builds that I put out is mundane? I would actually like to try out the swashbuckler I built. He seems like a lot of fun. Not mundane at all. As for Will saves and the Rogue, he gets a class ability that allows him two Will saves against a spell. That's similar to the class buff for the barbarian in and out of rage. Fighter? Nothing. Fort saves are nice, granted...but one of the problems is that their are ways to render them unneeded, starting with Slow Poison and Negative Plane Protection, and working up from there. Once you no longer have to make Fort Saves...who cares if its good? Casters have this option. Unless a melee can get ahold of a MInd Blank item at late levels, and once again showcase Magic Items replacing class abilities, they never have this defense. The rogue's ability allows for a second, crappy chance at a save. If he had a hard time passing the first time, he will have a hard time the second. Nothing has changed. As for magic items replacing abilities, that's what they are supposed to do. If your caster uses a scroll or wand, then you are doing the same thing, just on a grander scale. The wand gives you 50 opportunities to use this class ability. How is that any different than the fighter using Mind Blank? It isn't. ---Since the Fighter can do something that is completely replaceable by another class that can also do more, why play a fighter? Your argument about it being able to do the job, so why play something else, is a smokescreen argument that has no weight to it. You use the word MUST...100%, again. I counter with why, when there are better options? I don't use MUST...you are putting words in our mouth again. Here's the argument: The cleric can outdo the fighter so there is no reason to play the fighter. Why does this only apply to the fighter? Why does it not work for the barbarian? The rogue? The bard? The wizard? The ranger? The cleric can outdo all of them. Since there is a place for them, there is no reason to assume there is no place for the fighter. ----Again, you put my words in my mouth with high level play...and then you do the CAMPAIGN FALLACY thing on top of it. YOU play 'some' of your combats this way. Well, bully for you. I used the word 'often'...where often doesn't refer to 1v1 as neccessarily one critter per PC, but one 'encounter group' per PC. So the fighter might get a bruiser, the MAge has to hold off the horde, the Cleric is grappling with multiple Undead, and the rogue is trying to keep the BBEG busy. All 1v1's, and it happens frequently...but did I say ALWAYS? no. But it happens enough to show that being able to pick up and demolish a foe in a 1v1 is a valid demonstration of neccessary ability...another fact you are letting lapse. Now that you have clarified this, it makes a bit more sense. However the Campaign Fallacy is not mine. I assume that we all play different games. You are assuming we all play the same game. I have not committed any fallacy. Yay for size tables. And as was laboriously pointed out, size increases quickly with level, and it is at later levels where the Fighter starts to really suck. So this becomes one of your games of reading stats for what they really mean. I see it as 'Because the size of monsters tends to increase in the later game to the point where many Fighter Combat options are now not viable and focus has to be retained on the Core Melee tree, Fighters again get shafted and reduced to mundanity since they lose the benefit of their shticks again and again in routine encounters." Wait, I showed that the opponents do not continuously increase in size to the point of eliminating options. In fact, I showed that the opponents tend towards size Large, which is easily overcome. The Defensive builds that have been shown all give up something, specifically a powerful stand on the Core Melee abilities, to shore up the Defenses of the Fighter...making him even less comparable to a spellcaster who can match his damage output or exceed it. They also require a lot of magical investment in defenses and away from the Core Melee Shtick that a caster doesn't have to put up with. Every build gives up something. Every choice you make to take a feat or spell or item is also a choice to not take tons of others. Casters are also not meant to deal with the problems of melee. Instead they need to make investments that make their spells more potent. I could say that the wizard sucks because his DCs are too low. He needs to put too much focus on his Intelligence and take 2 feats for each school just to make them dangerous. If he doesn't do this, then the monsters tend to be able to overcome his spells too easily. Take a look at the saving throws of the monsters in the MM. They get to be rather decent. This then leaves the wizard with using only spells that do not require saving throws, pigeon-holing him into the same two builds (summoner or orb caster). And this is why the Fighter sucks. We are looking for the Fighter to stand up, being noticed, kick ass, take names, and NOT be so easily substituted, to be unique and irreplaceable somehow and somewhen, and to make multiclassing and PrC'ing AWAY from the Fighter a PAINFUL decision, not a routine one. We want people to think they are giving up something awesome and special, not going on to something better. The come play in my games. Fighters rock. There is always a fighter in my games. I don't coddle them. I don't set up scenarios just to make sure they shine. My players don't try to one-up each other. They work as a team to enjoy the game. Every fighter that has been in my games has done well. And it's very, very hard to picture any form of the Fighter which does that for serious optimizers. This is something I brought up earlier and it's important to say again. Not everyone plays the game as a serious optimizer. I would venture to guess that most people don't try to optimize their characters as seriously as the people on these boards. Most of the people I play with want to just have fun. We min/max but we also make choices for the sheer fun of what happens to the character. Take a look at my swashbuckler above. He could be optimized much better. I could have branched out from Core. I could have actually dipped into other classes. I also think he'd be a blast to play. He is meant to work in a particular style of campaign. He will not do well as a planar traveler or dragon slayer. He would do well in a pirate campaign (maybe some skill choices would have to be changed).
Archangel62 06-15-07, 02:12 AM	If I could observe We seem to agree 1) The fighter class has several shortcomings, few (if any) are a fault of the class itself 2) The fighter needs better high level feats and needs more of them 3) The fighter needs more and better substitution options Where we seem to disagree 1) The level of the shortcomings of the class 2) The dependence on gear as opposed to other classes 3) Their support from supplimental material compared to other classes In other words we pretty much like the same song, we each just have a different view on how to play it.
Clawhound 06-15-07, 06:59 AM	I showed that a any full BAB class, with a few well selected items, can take the lunch money from a titan on a purely melee basis. I did this with half their wealth and none of their abilities. This includes clerics with Divine Might. I did not cover magic or other special effects. I only intended to show that melee can do what the designers designed it to do. I am sure, given another 400k gp and class features, that I can cover most of the remaining weaknesses. If there is still a weakness, there are another three party members. Any problem that you have beyond this point is with the original game design. Fighter: I can win on round 1 Cleric: I can win on the surprise round Wizard: I can win on someone else's surprise round Bard: I talk four saps into winning for me.
Argaud 06-15-07, 08:33 AM	See, this is what annoys me...the double standard. The anti-Fighter does not have to prove the Fighter sucks in 100% all the time...that's another logical fallacy AND a strawman. Uh? Are you saying the fighter does not suck all the time, then? Because if you are saying he does, you have to prove it. If you are saying he sucks often, you should at least tell us when and how often. So far all I see are generalizations. "If the enemies are smart" and vague comments. Anti-Fighters tend to love the Fighter concept and hate the execution. At least I do. Pretty much any melee class can do the core job of Melees well...get a High AC via armor and items; get decent Hit points; do decent damage with a full attack routine; and hit the enemy. The problem is, non-Melee classes can do all this, too. Then, they can do a lot more on the side. So, why play a character who can only do the one thing, when you can do two or more? And the answer to this question only gets more intense at Fighters go up. It seems here your problem is with all the non-casters vs. all the casters. Well, I can't really help you. If you think this the game is obviously broken for you and there is no reason to play a non-caster, since casters have the power supreme. And power supreme is clearly the most important thing for you. And now the Fighter types chime in that if you build the Fighter specifically to max out this combat option, he's Uber. Except he can't use that combat option all the time, so he's really not uber...he's just kind of average or less, against intelligent foes, and the 'combat option' can be ignored in favor of skill at core competency of melee. This statement is false and has been rebated many times. So what if the fighter can't trip a gargantuan dragon? He still has 17 other feats to spend in tricks against the dragon, as well as a very good to hit and a variety of magical items to boost his class abilities. Yes, smart enemies can protect themselves from warriors. But they can also protect themselves from casters. Actually since in your paradigm casters are so much more powerful intelligent enemies should spend most of their resources protecting from casters. If they protect themselves only from fighters and warriors they are not too smart, or the DM is a biased a-hole that likes casters and is out to punish the players playing warriors to stroke his own ego. Do not tell me it is harder to hinder the casters, because it is not, it is pretty damn easy. Intelligent foes can readily take apart any group of PC's? Not as easily as they can the fighter, because casters can cover their weaknesses MUCH better, and our dread cleric, for starters, comes with MUCH better saving throws, especially in the Will arena. It can take a lot of specific DM knowledge to rip apart a party of casters. Doing so to fighters doesn't take much at all...it just requires not catering to the way a Fighter wants things to happen. Powerful as is the cleric, there are many ways smart opponents can use to hinder him. Boost the saves through feats and items. Feats that hinder the casting (Mage Slayer, Pierce Magical Protection/Concealment, Spellcaster Harrier if enough HD). Tactics that hinder casting like grapple, ready actions, lingering damage, alchemical items blocking LoS, etc. There is also Dispel Magic and AMF to negate all those buffs, they are -not- rare if the smart enemy is out to hinder the casters. Furthermore, we don't argue Fighters are fine at lowest levels...because any melee class with good armor and a full BAB is. Warriors can do okay at low levels. that doesn't make a Fighter shine and stand out, however. It again reinforces the mundanity of the class...it certainly doesn't stand above it's peers at low levels for doing the melee job. So you don't think the low levels are interesting? If you do you need to accept the fighter/warriors can be interesting. And I consider awesome when a low level fighter breaks a charge of marauding orcs using his spiked chain to trip/kill several of them before they can attack. I get tired of people saying "casters win, because of Gate!" and ignoring the 16 levels before Gate. Or accusing warriors of having few options and then always going back to the same: Gate. Occasionally DMM, but only for clerics. Are those two tricks "many and varied tactics" or just two broken stupid abilities? As for Will saves and the Rogue, he gets a class ability that allows him two Will saves against a spell. That's similar to the class buff for the barbarian in and out of rage. Fighter? Nothing. Nothing? What about feats that can easily raise the will save over the wizards? What about the Resilience substitution level? And rogues? If they needed a 16 to pass the first save, they still need a 16 to pass the second save, and they will fail. That class ability is only good when the character had already a good chance to make it. Fort saves are nice, granted...but one of the problems is that their are ways to render them unneeded, starting with Slow Poison and Negative Plane Protection, and working up from there. Once you no longer have to make Fort Saves...who cares if its good? Casters have this option. Unless a melee can get ahold of a MInd Blank item at late levels, and once again showcase Magic Items replacing class abilities, they never have this defense. Again with the argument "characters should be considered without magical items"? How many times should that one statement be shown to be fallacious before you give it up? :( ---Bullrushing. Your example, not mine. Your build, not mine. So you bring up the tactic, we both agree it just doesn't work even if the Fighter is good at it, so it's a non-item for the Uber Fighter argument...which reinforces the Fighter suck argument, since again you close off an area they might excel at because of irrelevance. Actually it works. Even against the Tarrasque. As shown in previous builds. If it won't work once in a blue moon, the fighter still has many other combat options. ---Since the Fighter can do something that is completely replaceable by another class that can also do more, why play a fighter? Your argument about it being able to do the job, so why play something else, is a smokescreen argument that has no weight to it. You use the word MUST...100%, again. I counter with why, when there are better options? I don't use MUST...you are putting words in our mouth again. Again the Pun-Pun/CoDzilla/Omnificer fallacy. Asking again, is the cleric a weak class? Is the cleric something that nobody has a reason to play because the artificer or the archivist can do the same the cleric does and more? Because I have never been able to get an answer to get an answer to the question by the same guys that claim one of the reasons not to play a fighter is that the cleric can do the fighter's job and more. Now, that is a double standard! ----Again, you put my words in my mouth with high level play...and then you do the CAMPAIGN FALLACY thing on top of it. YOU play 'some' of your combats this way. Well, bully for you. I used the word 'often'...where often doesn't refer to 1v1 as neccessarily one critter per PC, but one 'encounter group' per PC. So the fighter might get a bruiser, the MAge has to hold off the horde, the Cleric is grappling with multiple Undead, and the rogue is trying to keep the BBEG busy. All 1v1's, and it happens frequently...but did I say ALWAYS? no. But it happens enough to show that being able to pick up and demolish a foe in a 1v1 is a valid demonstration of neccessary ability...another fact you are letting lapse. In the first place you can't ask anyone to play the way you do. Playing styles can be quite different. I could say that you seem to play in games where the DM coddles caster and is out to nerf warriors. But I am going to avoid that slippery slope. Instead I will say that the builds presented here have demonstrated beyond any doubt the fighter can handle 1vs1 encounters with high level critters pretty well. You lost an excellent chance to show Khan and Bob wrong when you abstained to comment the builds weaknesses. If you had, maybe you could say now that no, those fighters can't hold on their own or help the party. Without those pertinent comments all you are doing is blank statements and generalizations. "Fighters do not work because I say they are easy to neutralize" is not a good argument. Yay for size tables. And as was laboriously pointed out, size increases quickly with level, and it is at later levels where the Fighter starts to really suck. So this becomes one of your games of reading stats for what they really mean. I see it as 'Because the size of monsters tends to increase in the later game to the point where many Fighter Combat options are now not viable and focus has to be retained on the Core Melee tree, Fighters again get shafted and reduced to mundanity since they lose the benefit of their shticks again and again in routine encounters." Holy Cow! Have you even checked the tables? What those tables show is that most enemies are medium or large, not the other way around. And it is not as it is even hard for the fighter to be large too, and therefore perfectly able of handle even huge enemies. The Defensive builds that have been shown all give up something, specifically a powerful stand on the Core Melee abilities, to shore up the Defenses of the Fighter...making him even less comparable to a spellcaster who can match his damage output or exceed it. They also require a lot of magical investment in defenses and away from the Core Melee Shtick that a caster doesn't have to put up with. And this is why the Fighter sucks. We are looking for the Fighter to stand up, being noticed, kick ass, take names, and NOT be so easily substituted, to be unique and irreplaceable somehow and somewhen, and to make multiclassing and PrC'ing AWAY from the Fighter a PAINFUL decision, not a routine one. We want people to think they are giving up something awesome and special, not going on to something better. Change Fighter by Wizard and you can say exactly the same. All classes can be easily substituted (Pun-Pun fallacy) no class is unique and irreplaceable and multiclassing and PrCs is always better than stay on class.
Bob Loblaw 06-15-07, 09:26 AM	If I could observe We seem to agree 1) The fighter class has several shortcomings, few (if any) are a fault of the class itself 2) The fighter needs better high level feats and needs more of them 3) The fighter needs more and better substitution options Where we seem to disagree 1) The level of the shortcomings of the class 2) The dependence on gear as opposed to other classes 3) Their support from supplimental material compared to other classes In other words we pretty much like the same song, we each just have a different view on how to play it. I agree with this.
Leo 06-15-07, 10:31 AM	Well, that's a big improvement from the "fighters are a worthless pile of crap that no sane person will play" that some very popular people claimed in the last months.
Kratch 06-15-07, 12:58 PM	At the beginning of the day, said Cleric/20 uses Divine Metamagic and a higher spell slot to Persist Divine Power and Divine Favor. The only spell he casts pre-combat is Righteous Might, and that's if it's needed. He said at the end of his post that, when you allow DMM, the comparison goes to the cleric. Although i don't think it goes to the cleric quite as much as people say, not without nightstick abuse anyways. Hey! His 14 starting Str means he's 6 pts behind the Fighter in Str, if we figure books and goodies. But, the Divine Favor neatly takes care of the TH/DMG penalty, and if he casts Righteous Might, the size bonus of +4 takes care of another four points...he's actually hitting for MORE then the Fighter is, and more often! So, you gave him a str book? does he have a wis book too or are you sacrificing on number of bonus spells and on save DC's. Without save DC's your reducing your options for combat trick spells, though by using DMM persist, you'll make up for the loss of bonus spells. Also, since you need so much cha for turn attempts, do you have a book for that too? Perhaps you should show a little curtesy. A fighter build was provided, complete with a gear list, you should do the same instead of assuming you have everything you need. Cause as far as i see it, your 250,000gold over the fighter (an extr book over the fighter for wisdom and cha) at this point, but that'll change in a moment... Crazy. He's got a point less in Constitution (13 vs 14), but with Divine Power up, 20 hp less then the Fighter...but equal if he bothers to cast RM..which also gives him Reach and some pretty good DR, too! And of course, he can heal much much MUCH more easily mid-battle, or after battle, if required. So, now you've matched the stats and gotten some reach and DR (magic if memory serves, so pretty commonly penitraited by monsters, but it helps sometimes). He also has the option of casting Greater Magic Weapon and wielding a +1 Weapon of +9 otherthings, which the Fighter can't do with his class abilities...oh, and the Cleric can do it with his armor, too, with Greater Magic Vestment...beginning of Day stuff, CL prob 26+ to avoid any pesky dispelling, lasts for 20 hours. Or he could leave off +4 from his armor, to 'pay' for various Books/inherent bonuses, and let the Fighter think he's got better gear. By dropping your armour down to a +5 instead of +10, your saving 75,000 gold, thats 50,000 short of a book, let alone 2. But if you drop your weapon down to +5 as well, now your saving 200,000, still 50,000 short for 2 books, but you have enough to cover 1 book with 50,000 left over. BUT, as you also need a bead of karma 20,000 and an orange iuon stone 30,000 to protect against greater dispels (let alone the higher level ones), your now even granted one book and 100,000 behind if you grabbed 2 books or one and kept the +10 weapon. The Cleric can also INSTANTLY leave his tanking role for a healing role, and has access to AoE spells and party-wide buffs to help out everyone. So you didn't sacrific your wisdom. otherwise, your save DC's would be too low to be useful. Really, provide a build to support your claims. I don't think i've ever seen someone build a cleric to support their arguments. And I haven't even touched on domain powers/spells, which can really break this wide open...but then, you haven't compared his 11 Fighter bonus feats to a Cleric's Turning abilities and raw spellcasting power and domain powers/abilities/spells yet, either. I have had to dip into both to actually make the Cleric Tank...but, you know, I haven't had to cast 11 spells to let the cleric be the tank, and I still have plenty of versatility left in those spells...which I can change each and every day to emphasize different needs. Well, generally, at least one of the domain powers is used to help with DMM prereq's, the other often used for proficiency in a decent weapon, we'd know for sure if you provided a build. And as your using all your turns on DMM persist, thats already covered. And as your using at least 2 feats, maybe 3, for DMM persist, you only have 5-4 feats left, which means the fighter has 13-14 feats over you to match to your spellcasting. You have plenty of versatility in those spells yes, but they are limited in quantity and, although not always, can be limited situationally (so can some fighter feats, but generally not as much or as often). They are also vulnerable to dispells and counterspells (not the persisted, but other ones), which a fighters feats are not (some feats do have immunities to worry about, but then, so do some spells). Additionally, your extra versatility spells generally take longer to use then a fighters feats (spells usually take a standard casting, as you didn't provide a build, i can't be sure you have quicken or what spells are being quickened, but if you are quickening spells, then they are lower level ones, which, generally, feats can match or, when used in combination, feats can posibly outmatch). Although a spell-list would be nice with a build, it isn't really required beyond the required spells for the build to work (IE, Divine favour, rightious might, divine power). Really, comparing a f/20 to a c/20 is not a good idea. Stick it around 1-10, and the Fighter does okay. Well, you haven't done that really, as you've only compared a fighter to a clerics total combined abilities, not a cleric. ============ BTW, no pre-Epic fighter can take Weapon Supremacy twice. It's not a Fighter bonus feat, which means you have to take it with general feats, and you get one at 18, and the next one at level 21. ==Aelryinth No fighter ever can take weapon supremacy twice. It says as much in the feat description.
Clawhound 06-15-07, 03:01 PM	If I wanted to, I could tweak down the fighter build so that it fits into the lower-power curve MIC recommendations. That would be trivial for the build. You'd lose a few points, but the guy still could whoop the titan. I could also use the non-elite array. He'll get more fragile that way. I doubt that he would be a true CR20 at that point, but with a clever build, he should still be able to take the titan. Do you think that the cleric would be workable with the same restrictions?
navar100 06-15-07, 06:42 PM	See, this is what annoys me...the double standard. The anti-Fighter does not have to prove the Fighter sucks in 100% all the time...that's another logical fallacy AND a strawman. Anti-Fighters tend to love the Fighter concept and hate the execution. At least I do. Pretty much any melee class can do the core job of Melees well...get a High AC via armor and items; get decent Hit points; do decent damage with a full attack routine; and hit the enemy. The problem is, non-Melee classes can do all this, too. Then, they can do a lot more on the side. So, why play a character who can only do the one thing, when you can do two or more? And the answer to this question only gets more intense at Fighters go up. And now the Fighter types chime in that if you build the Fighter specifically to max out this combat option, he's Uber. Except he can't use that combat option all the time, so he's really not uber...he's just kind of average or less, against intelligent foes, and the 'combat option' can be ignored in favor of skill at core competency of melee. Intelligent foes can readily take apart any group of PC's? Not as easily as they can the fighter, because casters can cover their weaknesses MUCH better, and our dread cleric, for starters, comes with MUCH better saving throws, especially in the Will arena. It can take a lot of specific DM knowledge to rip apart a party of casters. Doing so to fighters doesn't take much at all...it just requires not catering to the way a Fighter wants things to happen. Furthermore, we don't argue Fighters are fine at lowest levels...because any melee class with good armor and a full BAB is. Warriors can do okay at low levels. that doesn't make a Fighter shine and stand out, however. It again reinforces the mundanity of the class...it certainly doesn't stand above it's peers at low levels for doing the melee job. As for Will saves and the Rogue, he gets a class ability that allows him two Will saves against a spell. That's similar to the class buff for the barbarian in and out of rage. Fighter? Nothing. Fort saves are nice, granted...but one of the problems is that their are ways to render them unneeded, starting with Slow Poison and Negative Plane Protection, and working up from there. Once you no longer have to make Fort Saves...who cares if its good? Casters have this option. Unless a melee can get ahold of a MInd Blank item at late levels, and once again showcase Magic Items replacing class abilities, they never have this defense. ---Bullrushing. Your example, not mine. Your build, not mine. So you bring up the tactic, we both agree it just doesn't work even if the Fighter is good at it, so it's a non-item for the Uber Fighter argument...which reinforces the Fighter suck argument, since again you close off an area they might excel at because of irrelevance. ---Since the Fighter can do something that is completely replaceable by another class that can also do more, why play a fighter? Your argument about it being able to do the job, so why play something else, is a smokescreen argument that has no weight to it. You use the word MUST...100%, again. I counter with why, when there are better options? I don't use MUST...you are putting words in our mouth again. ----Again, you put my words in my mouth with high level play...and then you do the CAMPAIGN FALLACY thing on top of it. YOU play 'some' of your combats this way. Well, bully for you. I used the word 'often'...where often doesn't refer to 1v1 as neccessarily one critter per PC, but one 'encounter group' per PC. So the fighter might get a bruiser, the MAge has to hold off the horde, the Cleric is grappling with multiple Undead, and the rogue is trying to keep the BBEG busy. All 1v1's, and it happens frequently...but did I say ALWAYS? no. But it happens enough to show that being able to pick up and demolish a foe in a 1v1 is a valid demonstration of neccessary ability...another fact you are letting lapse. Yay for size tables. And as was laboriously pointed out, size increases quickly with level, and it is at later levels where the Fighter starts to really suck. So this becomes one of your games of reading stats for what they really mean. I see it as 'Because the size of monsters tends to increase in the later game to the point where many Fighter Combat options are now not viable and focus has to be retained on the Core Melee tree, Fighters again get shafted and reduced to mundanity since they lose the benefit of their shticks again and again in routine encounters." The Defensive builds that have been shown all give up something, specifically a powerful stand on the Core Melee abilities, to shore up the Defenses of the Fighter...making him even less comparable to a spellcaster who can match his damage output or exceed it. They also require a lot of magical investment in defenses and away from the Core Melee Shtick that a caster doesn't have to put up with. And this is why the Fighter sucks. We are looking for the Fighter to stand up, being noticed, kick ass, take names, and NOT be so easily substituted, to be unique and irreplaceable somehow and somewhen, and to make multiclassing and PrC'ing AWAY from the Fighter a PAINFUL decision, not a routine one. We want people to think they are giving up something awesome and special, not going on to something better. And it's very, very hard to picture any form of the Fighter which does that for serious optimizers. ===Aelryinth No, it's only why you think fighters suck. For you they are not flashy enough. They don't do enough "cool" things. You can easily choose not to play a fighter without a second thought just as I can ignore the bard. You have entered the realm of personal taste.
Kalarus 06-15-07, 08:08 PM	---Since the Fighter can do something that is completely replaceable by another class that can also do more, why play a fighter? Your argument about it being able to do the job, so why play something else, is a smokescreen argument that has no weight to it. You use the word MUST...100%, again. I counter with why, when there are better options? I don't use MUST...you are putting words in our mouth again. And this is why the Fighter sucks. We are looking for the Fighter to stand up, being noticed, kick ass, take names, and NOT be so easily substituted, to be unique and irreplaceable somehow and somewhen, and to make multiclassing and PrC'ing AWAY from the Fighter a PAINFUL decision, not a routine one. We want people to think they are giving up something awesome and special, not going on to something better. And it's very, very hard to picture any form of the Fighter which does that for serious optimizers. ===Aelryinth You are, in fact, using "must", you're just using it as a concept and not a word. Fighter is a published class. Fighter uses certain game mechanics. The idea (not the build execution) of a Fighter is appealing. These are solid reasons for anyone who wants to play a Fighter. In fact they are solid reasons to choose any class. If you want to add extra requirements on class selection, which is what you are doing every time you claim that one must not play a Fighter because there are other classes that do what he does, you are the one who has to justify it. You avoid using the word, but simply speaking your argument follows the following formula: 1) If there are better options then one must choose the better options 2) If one must choose the better options then one must necessarily forego the worse option 3) There are better options than the Fighter -- C) One must forego the worse option that is the Fighter. The last line of your post is the gist of it. Apparently you play in a game where optimization and individual character power is an important part of play. Your arguments are not flawed as such, they are reasonable and justified within your style of play. The mistake is to believe they are reasonable and justified in D&D in general. While I find your enthusiasm for the appeal of the Fighter laudable, I do not see why a class has to "stand up, being noticed, kick ass, take names, and NOT be so easily substituted, to be unique and irreplaceable somehow and somewhen" in order for people to play it. One of the best reasons to play a Fighter is because I emotionally decide that the Fighter appeals the most to me for any reason whatsoever and I will get the most fun out of playing the Fighter class rather than another class that does the same thing by a different method. Nothing in the game requires my character to excel above and beyond the requirements of the system; nothing in the game requires that I optimize. Choosing classes in this fashion is not irrational. In fact, it is irrational to ignore one's emotions when making decisions based on a system focused on the subjective experience of enjoyment. If the Cleric is more powerful than me, why should I care? Power does not automatically equalize fun. I don't want to play a Cleric, no matter how powerful he is. In-game power does not have the ability to change that desire because the desire is not necessarily focused on power. If I could observe We seem to agree 1) The fighter class has several shortcomings, few (if any) are a fault of the class itself 2) The fighter needs better high level feats and needs more of them 3) The fighter needs more and better substitution options Where we seem to disagree 1) The level of the shortcomings of the class 2) The dependence on gear as opposed to other classes 3) Their support from supplimental material compared to other classes In other words we pretty much like the same song, we each just have a different view on how to play it. I don't think there's that much disagreement on the disagreed statement 3. Fighters got a few nice things from supplemental material (mainly PHB2 feats), but I think most people here will agree that other classes got a lot more love. There's no comparable new version of Complete Warrior (though I still have to get into Complete Champion in-depth, there might be a few useful things in there). Instead there's ToB, which pretty much replaces the Fighter class and the Feat-focused system in one go. Seems like WotC just gave up on trying to make existing things work and just tried to replace it with something "better" :( .
Bob Loblaw 06-15-07, 08:45 PM	I just have a quick question, what is the record on thread length with a controversial topic? This one has gone on for over 2,000 posts with only two or three times a moderator having to step in to keep us in line.
Clawhound 06-15-07, 09:40 PM	This post really started last year around this time with "Fighter" sucks ... and then kept going, and going, and going.
Nebosuke 06-15-07, 09:58 PM	Let's compare him next to a pit fiend. Umm. He actually looks like he could take the pit fiend in a 1:1, pure melee fight, without any special equipment and without using any feats. The pitfiend is primarily a caster. Having it wade into melee with a fighter is playing it as if it had 6s in its mental scores rather than 26s. In the normal case, even with a party backing him/her, a melee fighter would be lucky to get the opportunity to full attack anything but summoned creatures and/or minions. I did the baseline to just demonstrate, that even before anyone did any more clever optimization, that you can build a character to butcher a titan. You forgot to add the minor caveat that your example build can take the titan in pure melee combat only if the titan doesn't hit back and uses no SLAs. Furthermore, since the titan is a very strong SLA caster, reducing it to just melee combat is crippling it far more than your build is crippled due to lack of optimization. All you've shown is that practically any character can solo encounters appropriate for a party of his level as long as the DM applies character flaw (lobotomized) to all opponents. Which brings me to the next point... If the party is full of casters and I have a party of intelligent casters against them, I would honestly do everything I can to eliminate their casting and deal with them in other ways. Intelligent opponents only seem to target fighters, who are also supposedly the weakest in the party. This doesn't seem intelligent to me. I know that I would not worry about the non-threat. This is not only a straw man argument, but also relies on the assumption that neutralizing the fighter requires a significant expenditure of resources. As you progress in levels, it becomes increasingly easy to neutralize the fighter's contribution in combat--sometimes purely as a side-effect of measures taken primarily to mitigate the effectiveness of other members of the party. Intelligent combatants neutralize opponents whenever the return on the investment is favorable--and neutralizing an opponent practically for free is almost always favorable. If the fighter is targeted at all, he is either a threatening character or the opponent isn't very bright. False dichotomy, and, even when applicable, you make the opposite point from what you imply. When it's not easy to completely neutralize the fighter, basically ignoring him is usually a better tactical decision than engaging him. It still marginalizes his contributions to the fight, and completely negates his ability to fulfill the role of tank/damage sink/meatshield/whatever you want to call it. DMs who have opponents throw non-trivial amounts of resources at the fighter are, knowingly or not, usually making a huge tactical blunder. Having enemies make tactical decisions that are grossly out of line with their mental ability scores is one of the tried and true methods of compensating in order to keep weaker characters or characters played by inexperienced players relevant.
Otto the Bugbear 06-15-07, 10:28 PM	This post really started last year around this time with "Fighter" sucks ... and then kept going, and going, and going. Basically true, but I think it goes back even further than just a year. ;) The thread names have changed several times... posters come and go, with a few of the same ones sticking around for most of the threads... and it's been relatively civil for the vast majority of the threads, given the sheer volume of posts that have been made once all the threads are combined. This is just the regurgitation of a long-standing debate. I just have a quick question, what is the record on thread length with a controversial topic? This one has gone on for over 2,000 posts with only two or three times a moderator having to step in to keep us in line. As of right now... What's a DM to do: Paladins who go STAB in the night (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=819429): 2016 posts What's a Player to do: Best lines ever (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=304933): 3774 posts Character Optimization: ask a simple question, get a simple answer (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=570753): 5461 posts
Clawhound 06-15-07, 10:38 PM	What? I'm supposed to compare the fighter to the titan's spellcasting ability? How does that benchmark his melee ability? What benchmarks would you choose to assess a fighter's ability?
Argaud 06-15-07, 11:05 PM	The pitfiend is primarily a caster. Having it wade into melee with a fighter is playing it as if it had 6s in its mental scores rather than 26s. In the normal case, even with a party backing him/her, a melee fighter would be lucky to get the opportunity to full attack anything but summoned creatures and/or minions. This statement is completely false, it is very easy for a fully equipped level 20 fighter to manage a full attack on a pit fiend even without the help of the rest of the party. You forgot to add the minor caveat that your example build can take the titan in pure melee combat only if the titan doesn't hit back and uses no SLAs. Furthermore, since the titan is a very strong SLA caster, reducing it to just melee combat is crippling it far more than your build is crippled due to lack of optimization. All you've shown is that practically any character can solo encounters appropriate for a party of his level as long as the DM applies character flaw (lobotomized) to all opponents. Which brings me to the next point... This is not only a straw man argument, but also relies on the assumption that neutralizing the fighter requires a significant expenditure of resources. As you progress in levels, it becomes increasingly easy to neutralize the fighter's contribution in combat--sometimes purely as a side-effect of measures taken primarily to mitigate the effectiveness of other members of the party. Intelligent combatants neutralize opponents whenever the return on the investment is favorable--and neutralizing an opponent practically for free is almost always favorable. Another false statement. The titan main slas are Gate, Maze and Meteor Storm. The other slas have a pathetic DC that no level 20 character can take seriously. Who is the titan going to maze, the fighter or the cleric? If the titan gates a solar, to who is he going to command the solar to attack, the fighter or the wizard? And when he casts Meteor Swarm, is he going to target the fighter or as many characters as he can? Intelligent combatants are not going to waste one standard action trying to neutralize the lesser threat. If they do, they will die. If the fighter is the lesser threat, he is not going to be targeted. If a PC is targeted is because enemies are afraid of him. False dichotomy, and, even when applicable, you make the opposite point from what you imply. When it's not easy to completely neutralize the fighter, basically ignoring him is usually a better tactical decision than engaging him. It still marginalizes his contributions to the fight, and completely negates his ability to fulfill the role of tank/damage sink/meatshield/whatever you want to call it. DMs who have opponents throw non-trivial amounts of resources at the fighter are, knowingly or not, usually making a huge tactical blunder. Having enemies make tactical decisions that are grossly out of line with their mental ability scores is one of the tried and true methods of compensating in order to keep weaker characters or characters played by inexperienced players relevant. Considering most well built level 20 fighters can kill any CR20 enemy in 2 rounds (sometimes in one) I think I'd love to see those "tactical genius" creature-types ignoring them. :rolleyes: As a matter of fact, every time I post a fighter able to kill a CR20 encounter I have several "smart" players posting how the smart creatures would easily neutralize him without even checking the fighter feats and gear. All those "smart" tactics invariably fail, leading to the quick demise of the creature that it was "obvious" no fighter could defeat alone. Usually then they go how the creature should have the right to buy gear worth 100,000 gold so it can raise its AC in 15 points. That is when I point out the creature should be raising the saves and magic defense, since fighters are harmless and the threat are the casters. They don't get it either. :rolleyes: I have heard this argument a million times, and it has never advanced beyond being a blanket statement.
runestar 06-16-07, 12:50 AM	The pit fiend would trounce the fighter any time of the day. Use wish to replicate AMF, fly up to the fighter, grapple him, and keep biting with its poisonous bite until he fails his fort save and the death effect kicks in. The fighter simply does not stand a chance...:D According to the titan's entry, it does not use its gate save as a means of escape. So I suppose we can do away with the threat of solars or infernals being gated in or something. Evil titans also get crushing hand 1/day, which I suppose is best used on the fighter to keep him away. I agree that I too would use maze on the party cleric (spellcasters are simply too great a threat to ignore, and the cleric's likely lower int score makes him a more tempting target). It also has word of chaos 3/day, though its use seems fairly limited in this context. Meteor swarm is negligible, given the fire resistance the PCs likely have at this juncture. The titan gets quickened chain lightning 3/day, which we might as well use. Though I would personally bring in quicken SLA: greater dispelling. Nothing is more satisfying than bringing in a targeted greater dispelling against a PC to suppress all his gear and dispel his buffs prior to a full attack/sunder attempt. I am still not convinced that the fighter could take down the titan that readily though.
Bob Loblaw 06-16-07, 01:43 AM	The pitfiend is primarily a caster. Having it wade into melee with a fighter is playing it as if it had 6s in its mental scores rather than 26s. In the normal case, even with a party backing him/her, a melee fighter would be lucky to get the opportunity to full attack anything but summoned creatures and/or minions. I am not convinced that the pit fiend is primarily a caster. With 6 attacks per round and constriction, I think the pit fiend makes one hell of a melee combatant. His AC is 40 and he comes with decent damage reduction. The pit fiend is more of a "whatever is needed" combatant. He can do incredibly well in melee. He only has 12 spells he can use, and he will probably only use two or three of them. This doesn't sound like primarily a caster. It sounds more like a beast designed to take on several roles. All you've shown is that practically any character can solo encounters appropriate for a party of his level as long as the DM applies character flaw (lobotomized) to all opponents. Which brings me to the next point... Why must every creature act the way that a few people feel it should? When are these powerful creatures going to show some arrogance and actually have that be part of their downfall? Looking at the tactical suggestions that WotC has given, it appears that many of these intelligent, primary casters really enjoy getting into melee and using spellcasting as a supplement. This is not only a straw man argument, but also relies on the assumption that neutralizing the fighter requires a significant expenditure of resources. As you progress in levels, it becomes increasingly easy to neutralize the fighter's contribution in combat--sometimes purely as a side-effect of measures taken primarily to mitigate the effectiveness of other members of the party. Intelligent combatants neutralize opponents whenever the return on the investment is favorable--and neutralizing an opponent practically for free is almost always favorable. It is not a strawman. To be a strawman, I have to create an argument that is not being made and then defend against that. I did not bring up the argument, I continued with it. If the argument is worthless, then it should not be brought up by the anti-fighters. Since we continue to read that people feel the fighter is worthless and unable to be a threat, there is no reason to assume that the intelligent creature will waste his time. Why stop the fighter from attacking when the cleric is the problem? If the opponent can take out two, why not the cleric and wizard first? Sorry, but I would never take out the weakest guy first if the most powerful can be dealt with as effectively and will destroy me if I don't start with them. False dichotomy, and, even when applicable, you make the opposite point from what you imply. When it's not easy to completely neutralize the fighter, basically ignoring him is usually a better tactical decision than engaging him. It still marginalizes his contributions to the fight, and completely negates his ability to fulfill the role of tank/damage sink/meatshield/whatever you want to call it. DMs who have opponents throw non-trivial amounts of resources at the fighter are, knowingly or not, usually making a huge tactical blunder. I fail to understand why every creature focuses his attention on the least threatening opponent when the most threatening can defeat him in a single round. That is actually very poor tactics. I would also like to point out that not every encounter must be against the same 3 or 4 creatures people think can take out the fighter. My Monster Manual has literally thousands of options available. I would be very bored as both player and DM if the only things we ever used were balors, titans, and pit fiends. Having enemies make tactical decisions that are grossly out of line with their mental ability scores is one of the tried and true methods of compensating in order to keep weaker characters or characters played by inexperienced players relevant. Why must they conform to your idea of what an intelligent creature would do? These creatures have their own agendas and personalities. Just because pit fiend A would do something one way does not mean that pit fiend B would do it in the exact same manner. These creatures do not come preprogrammed. They can make their own decisions. As for what good tactics are, honestly there is no perfect tactic. If I played a pit fiend, I would probably start with my quickened fireball and then power word stun the wizard. That would take one of the two most lethal characters out of the battle for a bit. I would also fly up so that the rogue and fighter have a difficult time taking me on. Round 2, I would then take out the cleric with blasphemy and throw another quickened fireball. I would also fly some more so that the fighter and rogue don't get their full attacks. The wizard should be getting closer to dying at this point. Next round, I would blasphemy the cleric again and cast another fireball. I would continue these tactics until I need to switch to mass hold monster and fireball. Of course, I would have already been alerted to the presence of the party, I would have already used my summoning ability. I would have them readying their actions to disrupt any spells the casters may try. These tactics are just as effective, and show a high level of intelligence as well. There is no reason to assume that every creature will conform to what the boards have considered to be the best way to do things.
Kratch 06-16-07, 03:50 AM	In advance, sorry for the length, had a lot of catching up to do. Unfortunately, these abilities don't work in all cases, are fairly easy to neutralize by intelligent foes who don't want to play the Fighter's game, and in many cases start looking rather futile and ineffectual as the game goes up in level. Yet again and again the ability to make a Gatling Gun Tripper is trotted out as the reason why Fighters Are Cool. Care to back up some of these claims with examples and numbers. Khans already made a build, you can compare you numbers vs his. His Saves suck, as do his skills: They do. His pathetic will save means he can't stand his ground as is likely the best character to grab control of and turn against the rest of the party. And this very assumption allows some fighters (those that crank they're will saves up with many of the feats available) a very effective tool against casters. They will spend a round or 2 casting will save spells at the fighter to "control" him, giving the rest of the group a few free rounds to kill him. It's turning a weakness into a str. His list of skills is small and generally not useful outside of combat...or even in combat, without changing things around. His pathetic Reflex save means that his bonus hit points, one of his great advantages, get eroded quickly and he has no way to replenish them. His skills are only useless out of combat with the inclusion of expendable magic slots or items that replace those skills. Climb, intimidate, animal handleing (or the animal tricks it can produce) can all be made use of outside of combat. On the flip side, a cleric may have a better skill list, but the demands on his stats, particularly a melee build, leaves intellegence lacking, add this to the demand on certain skills (again, especially the melee cleric, who MUST have concentraition), leaves the cleric with even less skills then the fighter. You can claim magic, but the clerics spell list doesn't do very well on replacing skills and since it already has to replace the fighters basic melee abilities as well as the 11 bonus feats, he starts running low on options. Correlation, et al - If he cannot apply his Trip attacks against everyone, then being a Uber Tripper is suddenly not so awesome, and other, basic options can be readily done by other classes. He has to be able to do something other classes cannot do, and uber Tripper is one of those. When and if it can't work all or even most of the time, it effectively is a useless combat option for the Fighter to be uber in, and nobody cares if you can trip well when tripping doesn't work at all. Magic can doesn't "work all or even most of the time". You even give some examples yourself, i'll point them out as i go. What does a barbarian do that other class's can't readily do themselves? Rage? thats just a temporary bonus to stats, magic does that easy (in fact, rage is a 2nd level spell that can be put into a potion.). Rogue's sneak attack? thats just damage, everyone does damage, so lets look at a rogues trapfinding and evasion? Nope, at least 4 other class's get trapfinding, plus i'm sure there's a spell that grants it, and evasion comes in a ring. Ranger? nope, everything they do can be done by a druid, likely better. Paladin? cleric gets everything they get except a mount, but they can get one of those through gate or any of the planar spells. Wizard, nope, aside from the sorcerer being a near clone (thus making the sorcerer also not unique), the cleric does practically everything a wizard does (without actually getting into specific spells), but then they get so much more on top of all that. should i continue? Strawman: If crowing that my Fighter is an uber bull rusher becomes less and less effective as they level, then it's a strawman to say that because I can bull rush better then anyone who resorts to other, better tactics, I'm cool and strong and you should play me to level 20. You'd need to first show the assertion bullrushing becomes les and less effective as they level. this has not been done, just assumed to be true by some. Argument from Ignorance: Ignoring the capabilities of other classes, and what multi-classing or PrC'ing can do to increase the effectiveness of a build over going straight Fighter is a pretty bad argument, indeed. ==Aelryinth Same can be said of almost any class, does that mean all class's suck? in fact, there is more reason to stick with fighter then cleric, wizard or sorcerer For me, the only reason I have been defending the Fighter is not because I need to justify me playing one, but rather because I felt a bit of annoyance at people who publically proclaim the Fighter to be outright worthless and discourage people from playing the class. There are people on these boards who read these threads and get a vision of the Fighter which in my opinion is incredibly unaccurate and might discourage them from actually relying on their own experiences rather than go by what is being said here. After all if they did not care about other people's opinions, what are they doing here? Same, i really don't enjoy playing a fighter, i preffer more subtle characters, usually relying on stealth, enchantments/illusions and buffs, thus making me appear less of a threat then i really am. Anti-Fighters tend to love the Fighter concept and hate the execution. At least I do. Pretty much any melee class can do the core job of Melees well...get a High AC via armor and items; get decent Hit points; do decent damage with a full attack routine; and hit the enemy. And that hasn't even addressed the 11 bonus feats a fighter gets The problem is, non-Melee classes can do all this, too. Then, they can do a lot more on the side. And thanks to those 11 bonus feats, a fighter can do more too. Shame everyone seems to forget that part. So, why play a character who can only do the one thing, when you can do two or more? And the answer to this question only gets more intense at Fighters go up. Really, what does a barbarian do more then a fighter with his 11 feats, or are you ignoreing those feats? And now the Fighter types chime in that if you build the Fighter specifically to max out this combat option, he's Uber. Except he can't use that combat option all the time, so he's really not uber...he's just kind of average or less, against intelligent foes, and the 'combat option' can be ignored in favor of skill at core competency of melee. Quick corrections, it's usually "options" (plural), and no, we're not arguing he's uber, but he is providing something relatively unique, a consistent selection of combat options that will provide they're group an advantage or defence with little to no penalty (no AoO for the attempt meaning reducing the amount of damage needed to be healed later, thus saving resources. generally little to no loss of momentum, as most options are usable as an attack rather then as a standar action spell. others depending on option/s taken). I believe that is something you've been requireing of the fighter. You can claim it doesn't work at high levels, but without some numbers (or even just some example creatures so we can krunch the numbers if you really don't have the time or math skills), it's an unfounded, and might i add, already reffuted statement. And again, a caster can't always use his spells "all the time" As for Will saves and the Rogue, he gets a class ability that allows him two Will saves against a spell. That's similar to the class buff for the barbarian in and out of rage. Fighter? Nothing. Fort saves are nice, granted...but one of the problems is that their are ways to render them unneeded, starting with Slow Poison and Negative Plane Protection, and working up from there. Once you no longer have to make Fort Saves...who cares if its good? Casters have this option. Unless a melee can get ahold of a MInd Blank item at late levels, and once again showcase Magic Items replacing class abilities, they never have this defense. I bolded the examples you use of ways to negate a casters ability to use spells. you forgot death ward by the way. Additionally, there is anit-magic, counterspells, evasion, SR, Creatures spell immunities, etc etc etc. So, it looks like casters can't use spells all the time, does that mean they suck? it's a standard you've used against the fighter and his combat options. ---Since the Fighter can do something that is completely replaceable by another class that can also do more, why play a fighter? In comparison to a cleric, why play a wizard. What do they do that a cleric can't do? Don't use specific spells, as you generalize a fighter down to ... "get a High AC via armor and items; get decent Hit points; do decent damage with a full attack routine; and hit the enemy" (your words not mine), ignoring feat combinations, example builds etc when you condemn the fighter, it's only fair you do the same for the wizard. And this is why the Fighter sucks. We are looking for the Fighter to stand up, being noticed, kick ass, take names, and NOT be so easily substituted, to be unique and irreplaceable somehow and somewhen, and to make multiclassing and PrC'ing AWAY from the Fighter a PAINFUL decision, not a routine one. We want people to think they are giving up something awesome and special, not going on to something better. And it's very, very hard to picture any form of the Fighter which does that for serious optimizers. ===Aelryinth I can't think of a single class that match's those bolded criteria... my bad, Bard and druid, thats it. The pit fiend would trounce the fighter any time of the day. Use wish to replicate AMF, fly up to the fighter, grapple him, and keep biting with its poisonous bite until he fails his fort save and the death effect kicks in. The fighter simply does not stand a chance...:D Hope that fighter didn't have supremacy, cause then that pit find is taking a full attack, granted, a weaker full attack, but still likely to get a few hits in (assuming 14 str to start, then maxed, this fighter still has +32 and weapon sup boosts), and with the AMF up, he's without his DR. Add to that, the fighter gets to keep full attacking him each round, and the only way the pit fiend can get away is with an opposed grapple check, hope that fighter didn't have combat focus, stability and one other focus feat or the opposed check won't be an easy one (both would be at +35 assuming the fighter started with 14 str and maxed it out, and as the fighter has advantage being defender...). In the meantime, the pit fiend is denied his dex to the rest of the group and is unable to attack anyone else. If he chooses to take -20 on his roll, I'm sure the fighter won't mind spending an attack to pin him, and at -20, the fighter doesn't even need combat stability to resist the grapple attempts to get away. It's a poor tactic on the pit fiends case, you made the mistake of underestimateing what a fighter might be able to do, why is it so unreasonable the DM might do that too, or at least do it on behalf of the creature (otherwise he's using metagame knowledge to tailor the encounter against the fighter), like so many people claim (IE "if the opponent is played intellegently, there's nothing the fighter can do"?
runestar 06-16-07, 06:37 AM	I have no idea what this supremacy feat does, but I assumed the pit fiend would be at a natural advantage in a grapple compared to a fighter due to his larger size and superior str. Plus, any advantages from buffs such as freedom of movement, enlarge person, str-enhancers etc would be suppressed in the AMF. Also, my understanding of the grapple rules suggests that while the fighter can certainly strike back with his weapon, he will nevertheless be unable to hit the pit fiend at all unless he is wielding a weapon with reach, because the pit fiend has a reach of 10-ft while a typical greatsword-wielding fighter has only 5-ft reach. I am aware that its dr would be suppressed, but had hoped that its regeneration would suffice in taking the edge off any possible attacks it might receive (it is an extraordinary ability, and I doubt it would be suppressed in an AMF). Plus, the pit fiend is also free to fly away with the fighter in tow, and slowly take down the fighter at its own leisure. Though I agree that I would prefer to target a "softer" foe such as the party mage or rogue first. But the fighter would not be any less exempt from such a tactic. Is my thinking really as over-simplistic and flawed as you are making it out to be?:weep:
Argaud 06-16-07, 07:12 AM	The pit fiend would trounce the fighter any time of the day. Use wish to replicate AMF, fly up to the fighter, grapple him, and keep biting with its poisonous bite until he fails his fort save and the death effect kicks in. The fighter simply does not stand a chance...:D Wait, the pit fiend is using his wish-a-year against the guy that is not a threat? What logic is that? Also, how is that tactic particularly good against fighters? Can the wizard, the DMM cleric or the druid survive to a grapple of a pit fiend inside a AMF? This is like saying the balor beats the fighter through Blasphemy-spam, ergo the fighter is weak. It is a fallacy, the balor beats the cleric through Blasphemy-spam too, so it means the cleric is weak?
Kratch 06-16-07, 07:19 AM	I have no idea what this supremacy feat does, but I assumed the pit fiend would be at a natural advantage in a grapple compared to a fighter due to his larger size and superior str. Plus, any advantages from buffs such as freedom of movement, enlarge person, str-enhancers etc would be suppressed in the AMF. If the fighter has combat focus, stability and any of focus feat (such as vigor which grants fast healing), the pit fiend has absolutly no advantage in a grapple, without combat focus, the pit fiend does indeed have an advantage. Weapon supremacy grants several nice abilities, including granting +1 AC, take 10 on any attack, +5 on any attack but the first in a round, the ability to attack fully with the specialized weapon dispite being in a grapple (thus freedom of movement wasn't needed) and other stuff. Assuming 14 starting str, +5 for level and +5 inherant from a book, the fighter still has a 24 str, granting +7 on attacks, damage and opposed grapple checks, dispite the loss of str item. Also, my understanding of the grapple rules suggests that while the fighter can certainly strike back with his weapon, he will nevertheless be unable to hit the pit fiend at all unless he is wielding a weapon with reach, because the pit fiend has a reach of 10-ft while a typical greatsword-wielding fighter has only 5-ft reach. With grapples, under normal grapples, you must enter the targets square to initiate the grapple, in the case of improved grab, instead your target is drawn into the attackers square. Ether way, they share a square, so the fighter is within range and an attack (even if the pit fiend breaks free, the fighter is deposited directly beside the pit fiend) I am aware that its dr would be suppressed, but had hoped that its regeneration would suffice in taking the edge off any possible attacks it might receive (it is an extraordinary ability, and I doubt it would be suppressed in an AMF). Plus, the pit fiend is also free to fly away with the fighter in tow, and slowly take down the fighter at its own leisure. Though I agree that I would prefer to target a "softer" foe such as the party mage or rogue first. But the fighter would not be any less exempt from such a tactic. Is my thinking really as over-simplistic and flawed as you are making it out to be?:weep: Yes, it can be an effective tactive, it can even kill the fighter (DC27 fort isn't easy to make without the aid of resist and con gear, it's not hard ether, but not a sure thing, and without con gear, 1D6 con per failed save can whittle you away rather quickly), I just wanted to point out it was not the "sure thing" you had claimed it to be (IE "pit fiend would traunce the fighter any time of day"), and the fighter may even be able to survive it, especially with the 3 focus feats helping maintain grapples. The fact a fighter Can still potentially put up a fight, let alone actually have a chance against this tactic, as opposed to a cleric or wizard should actually say something to benifit the fighter.
runestar 06-16-07, 07:31 AM	Wait, the pit fiend is using his wish-a-year against the guy that is not a threat? What logic is that? There is nothing explicitly preventing the pit fiend from using its 1/year wish SLA as and how it wants (otherwise, each would be running around with +5 inherent bonuses to all its stats). True, you can argue that for such a precious and limited ability, it would typically reserve it for bribing mortals or for rainy days which may never come. :) The strategy was mainly against a typical lv20 party, not necessarily just against a solo lv20 fighter. The gist is that the pit fiend summons 2 horned devils, augments them with unholy aura, has them occupy the PCs, then cloaks itself in an AMF, grapples a PC, flies away, take it down, then repeats this method on each PC individually. Or perhaps as some sort of last resort if the PCs are buffed to the teeth and proving tougher to take on than anticipated. I am not sure if it was intentional or a design oversight, but the bugger is conspicuously missing ranks in diplomacy, sense motive and UMD (so no scroll of AMF for it, though I certainly could houserule in a 1-shot wondrous item). So in theory at least, a bard with maxed out ranks can easily convince it to just leave the party alone.:P Also, how is that tactic particularly good against fighters? Can the wizard, the DMM cleric or the druid survive to a grapple of a pit fiend inside a AMF? I didn't say it was particularly good against fighters. I was merely responding in kind to an earlier post about how easily a fighter could take down a pit fiend. I certainly was not implying that this tactic would not work or be any less efficacious against spellcasters or anything. As mentioned, it would be more effective against rogues and wizards (crap bab/str), but should still work against the fighter. Either way, my point was simply that the pit fiend is not such an easy prey for the fighter as some might like to believe, with no other implications or connotations whatsoever.:) This is like saying the balor beats the fighter through Blasphemy-spam, ergo the fighter is weak. It is a fallacy, the balor beats the cleric through Blasphemy-spam too, so it means the cleric is weak? Well, the cleric should in theory at least, be better prepared to handle blasphemy than the fighter. But that is irrelevant, since that was not the point I was trying to prove in the first place.:)
Argaud 06-16-07, 07:33 AM	I have no idea what this supremacy feat does, but I assumed the pit fiend would be at a natural advantage in a grapple compared to a fighter due to his larger size and superior str. Plus, any advantages from buffs such as freedom of movement, enlarge person, str-enhancers etc would be suppressed in the AMF. Actually a grappling fighter can beat the pit fiend in the grapple. I have to admit a grappling fighter would be unusual, since grappling is not a good tactic at level 20. But it can be done. The fiend has a grapple check of +35. A fighter with 24 strength and the feats Juttunbrud and Improved Grapple has a grapple check of +35 too, and there are several more pro-grapple feats. Weapon Supremacy allows a fighter to use his favored weapon in a grapple, even if the weapon is a bow! This means the typical level 20 fighter will still full attack the fiend, although without a silver weapon there is a DR15 to deal with, the material part of the DR does not go away in an AMF. I think the fiend would beat the fighter in the AMF, however I am pretty sure the fiend would have a far easier time defeating the cleric or the wizard using this tactic. Also, my understanding of the grapple rules suggests that while the fighter can certainly strike back with his weapon, he will nevertheless be unable to hit the pit fiend at all unless he is wielding a weapon with reach, because the pit fiend has a reach of 10-ft while a typical greatsword-wielding fighter has only 5-ft reach. You need to reread those rules (yeah, I know, they are confusing as hell) because when grappling both combatants are in the same square. When the fiend grapples the fighter he needs to move into the fighter's square. So no reach. Is my thinking really as over-simplistic and flawed as you are making it out to be?:weep: I don't think it is a flawed tactic in the sense it is extremely lethal against PCs, and fiends are smart enough to use this if they need to kill a very dangerous mortal. However nothing in the tactic makes it particularly good against fighters, so I don't think it is a good argument to show the fighter is weak.
runestar 06-16-07, 07:37 AM	Ooh...crap...:embarrass
Kratch 06-16-07, 07:58 AM	This means the typical level 20 fighter will still full attack the fiend, although without a silver weapon there is a DR15 to deal with, the material part of the DR does not go away in an AMF. Are you sure about that. Material DR's are ex abilities, Alignment DR's are SU's. As it's good AND silver (AKA all or nothing), requiring both, would that not mean that an AMF would negate it, all or nothing? I can't find any entry that tells what type the various DRs are. But I think it's really a minor point, chances are the fighter has a silver weapon (in all my arguments against "weapon spec line limits your ability to bypass DR" i advocate 3 weapons, Adamantine magic, Silver good and cold iron good, 1 being main, the others being minimum, just so people don't think i'm pulling the claim out of nowhere.). As the magic bonus's aren't being applied anyways, there is no harm switching to a secondary silver weapon, possibly even prior to getting grappled.
Kalarus 06-16-07, 08:13 AM	There is nothing explicitly preventing the pit fiend from using its 1/year wish SLA as and how it wants (otherwise, each would be running around with +5 inherent bonuses to all its stats). True, you can argue that for such a precious and limited ability, it would typically reserve it for bribing mortals or for rainy days which may never come. :) The strategy was mainly against a typical lv20 party, not necessarily just against a solo lv20 fighter. The gist is that the pit fiend summons 2 horned devils, augments them with unholy aura, has them occupy the PCs, then cloaks itself in an AMF, grapples a PC, flies away, take it down, then repeats this method on each PC individually. Or perhaps as some sort of last resort if the PCs are buffed to the teeth and proving tougher to take on than anticipated. I am not sure if it was intentional or a design oversight, but the bugger is conspicuously missing ranks in diplomacy, sense motive and UMD (so no scroll of AMF for it, though I certainly could houserule in a 1-shot wondrous item). So in theory at least, a bard with maxed out ranks can easily convince it to just leave the party alone.:P I didn't say it was particularly good against fighters. I was merely responding in kind to an earlier post about how easily a fighter could take down a pit fiend. I certainly was not implying that this tactic would not work or be any less efficacious against spellcasters or anything. As mentioned, it would be more effective against rogues and wizards (crap bab/str), but should still work against the fighter. Either way, my point was simply that the pit fiend is not such an easy prey for the fighter as some might like to believe, with no other implications or connotations whatsoever.:) Well, the cleric should in theory at least, be better prepared to handle blasphemy than the fighter. But that is irrelevant, since that was not the point I was trying to prove in the first place.:) I suppose that since we're dealing with a party, it isn't unreasonable that the party Wizard/Cleric uses an appropriate spell (like their own Wish/Miracle) to wink the AMF out of existence. Duplicating AMF seems like a poor investment of a 1/year ability. If you have a Fighter who PrCs and dips a bit, a good alternative for Weapon Supremacy to deal with grapples is Close Quarters Fighting. It gives you an AoO on the grappler no matter what, and unless it has Improved Grapple or Improved Grab, the grapple attempt fails if the AoO hits. Since the Pit Fiend has Improved Grab, he gets to go through with the grapple anyway even if the Fighter hits, however, the Fighter gets the damage dealt as a bonus on his Grapple Check. Since AMF is a 10 foot radius emanation (I assume he's using Wish to duplicate the spell) and the Pit Fiend has only 10 foot reach, all a Fighter needs to do next is take a 5-foot step, direction depending on circumstance. Greatswords don't do it for me but I guess you could take a 5-foot step forward and full attack the Pit Fiend, I read something about DR not working in AMF? If you're a Spiked Chain build with an enlarge person on you that got suppressed by the AMF, you just take a 5-foot step *away* from the Pit Fiend and go to town with a 20-foot reach full attack against a Pit Fiend that has no DR. Really the Pit Fiend is better off trying to grapple someone else. The consequences of losing the grapple are harsh.
runestar 06-16-07, 09:45 AM	Hmm...in retrospect, it seems like my strategy is somewhat over-simplistic in its thinking, and I have failed to take into account a variety of factors. Maybe I will hold it in reserve as a "when all else fails" trump, but not as an opening move, seeing how it can be so readily countered, and seems to take away as much from the pit fiend (it loses SLAs, dr) as it benefits it. :P If you have a Fighter who PrCs and dips a bit, a good alternative for Weapon Supremacy to deal with grapples is Close Quarters Fighting. It gives you an AoO on the grappler no matter what, and unless it has Improved Grapple or Improved Grab, the grapple attempt fails if the AoO hits. Since the Pit Fiend has Improved Grab, he gets to go through with the grapple anyway even if the Fighter hits, however, the Fighter gets the damage dealt as a bonus on his Grapple Check. That's odd. According to the FAQ, this does not work. :confused:
navar100 06-16-07, 10:10 AM	If you have a Fighter who PrCs and dips a bit, a good alternative for Weapon Supremacy to deal with grapples is Close Quarters Fighting. It gives you an AoO on the grappler no matter what, and unless it has Improved Grapple or Improved Grab, the grapple attempt fails if the AoO hits. Since the Pit Fiend has Improved Grab, he gets to go through with the grapple anyway even if the Fighter hits, however, the Fighter gets the damage dealt as a bonus on his Grapple Check. To be fair and avoid a "double standard", while in the general sense of just any player playing any character this is fine for the tactic, for purposes of defending the fighter let's not use prestige classes. We're still on the same side ;) , but after the recent warblade fiasco this was a personal out of proportion notice on my part. However, if the anti-fighters accept this in terms of "Ok, it's still a Fighter" regardless of their opinion of Fighters, then "double standard" no longer applies, with warblades multiclassing to gain range weapon proficiency and spellcasters prestige classing into a full spell progression prestige class. :D
Argaud 06-16-07, 10:17 AM	Are you sure about that. Material DR's are ex abilities, Alignment DR's are SU's. As it's good AND silver (AKA all or nothing), requiring both, would that not mean that an AMF would negate it, all or nothing? I can't find any entry that tells what type the various DRs are. You are correct and I was mistaken. In the FAQ (page 85 in the latest version) it is clarified that DR is supernatural in the cases of DR/silver, DR/cold iron, DR/magic and DR/alignment. So the pit fiend could get badly trounced by Weapon Supremacy. Only DR/adamantine, DR/weapon type and DR/- work in an AMF.
Clawhound 06-16-07, 12:44 PM	I am still not convinced that the fighter could take down the titan that readily though. Most likely, he can't take down the titan as readily as I made it seem. That does not invalidate the analysis. I made it very clear that I was only comparing them on melee grounds. What other grounds should I choose to compare him on? We know that the fighter has no spellcasting ability, so there's no need to address that. Skills don't win fights, so there's no need to compare them on that. That only left us melee.
Kalarus 06-16-07, 01:09 PM	That's odd. According to the FAQ, this does not work. :confused: I had to read what you were referring to and I guess I wasn't clear in what I meant. This indeed does not work if the Pit Fiend threatens you due to its reach and you don't threaten it due to a non-reach weapon (such as the ever popular greatsword). I am getting a bit too used to my Fighters having reach as generally, it's just beneficial. If you have a reach weapon, you could make the AoO from CQF and probably get a substantial bonus on the grapple check. That said, the houserule posted in that very same section of the FAQ makes too much sense for me to ignore. It just seems weird that a creature that grapples with a part of its body is by defintion out of reach of the character it physically touches. Of course it is, still, a houserule. To be fair and avoid a "double standard", while in the general sense of just any player playing any character this is fine for the tactic, for purposes of defending the fighter let's not use prestige classes. We're still on the same side , but after the recent warblade fiasco this was a personal out of proportion notice on my part. However, if the anti-fighters accept this in terms of "Ok, it's still a Fighter" regardless of their opinion of Fighters, then "double standard" no longer applies, with warblades multiclassing to gain range weapon proficiency and spellcasters prestige classing into a full spell progression prestige class. I seem to be very unclear today. Weapon Supremacy is a feat that requires Fighter level 18, and for some reason is not a Fighter bonus feat. That means that if you PrC or dip class levels, you will not be able to get the feat as in a 20 level game the last non-bonus feat you get is at level 18. The bonus feat at L20 only allows Fighter bonus feats, which Weapon Supremacy is not. Only by taking 18 straight levels of Fighter can you get the feat at all. Thus, my mentioning of PrCs/dip levels was not meant to add something controversial to the Fighter builds discussion, it was meant to say "If you do dip or take PrCs, you won't be able to get Weapon Supremacy, so you may want to consider Close Quarters Fighting as a substitute against grapples". E.g. my Spiked Chain Fighter with 1 dip in Barbarian and 3 levels in Ex. WM, will never be able to get this feat, having 10 ft. reach CQF is a great bonus against nasty grapplers.
Kalarus 06-16-07, 01:11 PM	You are correct and I was mistaken. In the FAQ (page 85 in the latest version) it is clarified that DR is supernatural in the cases of DR/silver, DR/cold iron, DR/magic and DR/alignment. So the pit fiend could get badly trounced by Weapon Supremacy. Only DR/adamantine, DR/weapon type and DR/- work in an AMF. Omg, I need to get myself an AMF ring. Munchkin awaaaaaaay! ;)
aelryinth 06-16-07, 01:44 PM	as far as AMF and Reach goes, Both parties involved must be outside the AMF for magic and such bonuses to apply. A fighter who tries to use Weapon Supremacy/Bow in a grapple is going to generate an AoO with every shot. Probably not a good idea. ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 06-16-07, 02:17 PM	In advance, sorry for the length, had a lot of catching up to do. Care to back up some of these claims with examples and numbers. Khans already made a build, you can compare you numbers vs his. Wonderful, another call for numbers. There are barbarian builds out there...go find them, don't have me doing your busywork. barbarians have very different builds from fighters...it comes down to benefits and costs. And this very assumption allows some fighters (those that crank they're will saves up with many of the feats available) a very effective tool against casters. They will spend a round or 2 casting will save spells at the fighter to "control" him, giving the rest of the group a few free rounds to kill him. It's turning a weakness into a str. Since there aren't any Fighter Bonus Feats that crank up Will saves, this is a moot argument. Will boosting feats are General Feats. And the vast majority of the boosting, if any, is done via magic items, not feats. Lastly, blowing feats to cover a glaring hole naturally shafts some combat ability...as does spending money on plugging holes which other classes do with class ability or by having a naturally good save. His skills are only useless out of combat with the inclusion of expendable magic slots or items that replace those skills. Climb, intimidate, animal handleing (or the animal tricks it can produce) can all be made use of outside of combat. On the flip side, a cleric may have a better skill list, but the demands on his stats, particularly a melee build, leaves intellegence lacking, add this to the demand on certain skills (again, especially the melee cleric, who MUST have concentraition), leaves the cleric with even less skills then the fighter. You can claim magic, but the clerics spell list doesn't do very well on replacing skills and since it already has to replace the fighters basic melee abilities as well as the 11 bonus feats, he starts running low on options. The cleric's skill list and needs therof don't change with his job...he's going to max concentration, anyways. Likewise his Diplomacy (far more useful then intimidation), vs. Animal Handling....right. Ride...useful only if you play mounted combat. Climb, swim...circumvented with any Fly effect. In short, all Fighter skills are low level skills, great at levels 1-5, and then rapidly losing any relevance. Knowledge/religion helps Turn checks and fighting undead at all levels. spellcraft identifies spells and magical effects. All of these are skills that profit by having extremely high levels. Fighter skills? Ride is pretty much it...and then only in wide open spaces outdoors. Magic can doesn't "work all or even most of the time". You even give some examples yourself, i'll point them out as i go. Oh, Please Do, and then ignore the fact that the spellcasters can just USE DIFFERENT SPELLS that DO work. What does a barbarian do that other class's can't readily do themselves? Rage? thats just a temporary bonus to stats, magic does that easy (in fact, rage is a 2nd level spell that can be put into a potion.). Rogue's sneak attack? thats just damage, everyone does damage, so lets look at a rogues trapfinding and evasion? Nope, at least 4 other class's get trapfinding, plus i'm sure there's a spell that grants it, and evasion comes in a ring. Ranger? nope, everything they do can be done by a druid, likely better. Paladin? cleric gets everything they get except a mount, but they can get one of those through gate or any of the planar spells. Wizard, nope, aside from the sorcerer being a near clone (thus making the sorcerer also not unique), the cleric does practically everything a wizard does (without actually getting into specific spells), but then they get so much more on top of all that. should i continue? And every single one of the above examples can replace a Fighter. Should I continue? You'd need to first show the assertion bullrushing becomes les and less effective as they level. this has not been done, just assumed to be true by some. Sigh. Do your own legwork. Same can be said of almost any class, does that mean all class's suck? in fact, there is more reason to stick with fighter then cleric, wizard or sorcerer LOL...okay, that's opinion, just don't state it as fact. Stick a little IMO on there. Same, i really don't enjoy playing a fighter, i preffer more subtle characters, usually relying on stealth, enchantments/illusions and buffs, thus making me appear less of a threat then i really am. Which is of no relevance for play style, but good for you. And that hasn't even addressed the 11 bonus feats a fighter gets His class abilities? Okay, I'm lost. And thanks to those 11 bonus feats, a fighter can do more too. Shame everyone seems to forget that part. How pretentious. Both mocking and absolutist. Really, what does a barbarian do more then a fighter with his 11 feats, or are you ignoreing those feats? First of all, it's usually 'ignoring', and no, I'm not. The barbarian has strengths in multiple categories without spending precious feats to do so, and can build to specific strengths readily. Quick corrections, it's usually "options" (plural), and no, we're not arguing he's uber, but he is providing something relatively unique, a consistent selection of combat options that will provide they're group an advantage or defence with little to no penalty (no AoO for the attempt meaning reducing the amount of damage needed to be healed later, thus saving resources. generally little to no loss of momentum, as most options are usable as an attack rather then as a standar action spell. others depending on option/s taken). I believe that is something you've been requireing of the fighter. You can claim it doesn't work at high levels, but without some numbers (or even just some example creatures so we can krunch the numbers if you really don't have the time or math skills), it's an unfounded, and might i add, already reffuted statement. Wow, corrects MY spelling, and then a whole paragraph with at least eight grammar errors, including multiple failures to capitalize, bad spelling, and lousy sentence structure. And then you not only use the word 'refuted' badly, since that assumes 'point disproved', when in actually what you have is 'point contested'. I think I'll just ignore this paragraph for politeness' sake. And again, a caster can't always use his spells "all the time" The odds of a typical caster running completely out of spells are the odds of the party wanting to suffer a TPK over the course of a day. Only at the very lowest levels is this a problem...and at the very lowest levels, amazingly, melee shines (including fighters). I bolded the examples you use of ways to negate a casters ability to use spells. you forgot death ward by the way. Additionally, there is anit-magic, counterspells, evasion, SR, Creatures spell immunities, etc etc etc. So, it looks like casters can't use spells all the time, does that mean they suck? it's a standard you've used against the fighter and his combat options. Negative Plane Protection was renamed Death Ward in 3E...I make the naming mistake frequently, I didn't forget it. Anti-Magic...keep a distance, use Orbs, or pick a different target. Counterspells...a very stupid tactic for most combats, and hardly ever seen, in all honesty. Evasion...don't use Reflex save spells (AoE is a bad thing for casters to use, anyways.) SR- plenty of no-SR spells, or Assay Resistance available to bypass. Spell Immunities - Knowledge check, use a different spell they are not immune to. ETc etc etc. I use it against the Fighter and his combat options because a caster can change his spells and his entire approach to combat. A Fighter cannot change his feats OR the ways Combat options work...a point you seem to be unaware of. In comparison to a cleric, why play a wizard. What do they do that a cleric can't do? Don't use specific spells, as you generalize a fighter down to ... "get a High AC via armor and items; get decent Hit points; do decent damage with a full attack routine; and hit the enemy" (your words not mine), ignoring feat combinations, example builds etc when you condemn the fighter, it's only fair you do the same for the wizard. Open up your PHB to the spell selection. Select all Wizard spells. Compare them against your choice of 11 feats for the Fighter. Go to the PHB II. Add all those spells to the list, replace any of the 11 Fighter feats you've chosen with those from the PHB II, assuming you qualify. Compare them against the Wizard. Rinse, repeat with every single book you like. Note that the cleric does not get access to all the Wizard spells, although they can make a decent pocket wizard if you don't want to play one. Actually, ignoring AoE's as the real strength of a wizard, clerics with specific builds have been made that effectively make a wizard unneccessary. But I thought we were talking about fighters. The cleric obviating Wizards belongs in a different thread. I don't 'have' to do anything with clerics vs. Wizards. I can't think of a single class that match's those bolded criteria... my bad, Bard and druid, thats it. Sigh. No comment. Hope that fighter didn't have supremacy, cause then that pit find is taking a full attack, granted, a weaker full attack, but still likely to get a few hits in (assuming 14 str to start, then maxed, this fighter still has +32 and weapon sup boosts), and with the AMF up, he's without his DR. Add to that, the fighter gets to keep full attacking him each round, and the only way the pit fiend can get away is with an opposed grapple check, hope that fighter didn't have combat focus, stability and one other focus feat or the opposed check won't be an easy one (both would be at +35 assuming the fighter started with 14 str and maxed it out, and as the fighter has advantage being defender...). In the meantime, the pit fiend is denied his dex to the rest of the group and is unable to attack anyone else. If he chooses to take -20 on his roll, I'm sure the fighter won't mind spending an attack to pin him, and at -20, the fighter doesn't even need combat stability to resist the grapple attempts to get away. It's a poor tactic on the pit fiends case, you made the mistake of underestimateing what a fighter might be able to do, why is it so unreasonable the DM might do that too, or at least do it on behalf of the creature (otherwise he's using metagame knowledge to tailor the encounter against the fighter), like so many people claim (IE "if the opponent is played intellegently, there's nothing the fighter can do"? Ignoring the fact that you don't metagame against the Fighter, you metagame against Melee Combatant, and shut the Fighter down pretty quick. And something with an Int/Wis of 26 that hasn't considered ways to shut down melee combatants has an effective score of 6, i.e. the DM is catering to the Fighters. ==Aelryinth
navar100 06-16-07, 02:22 PM	I seem to be very unclear today. Weapon Supremacy is a feat that requires Fighter level 18, and for some reason is not a Fighter bonus feat. That means that if you PrC or dip class levels, you will not be able to get the feat as in a 20 level game the last non-bonus feat you get is at level 18. The bonus feat at L20 only allows Fighter bonus feats, which Weapon Supremacy is not. Only by taking 18 straight levels of Fighter can you get the feat at all. Thus, my mentioning of PrCs/dip levels was not meant to add something controversial to the Fighter builds discussion, it was meant to say "If you do dip or take PrCs, you won't be able to get Weapon Supremacy, so you may want to consider Close Quarters Fighting as a substitute against grapples". E.g. my Spiked Chain Fighter with 1 dip in Barbarian and 3 levels in Ex. WM, will never be able to get this feat, having 10 ft. reach CQF is a great bonus against nasty grapplers. Okeydokey
Leo 06-16-07, 04:35 PM	Uuuh, then every single enemy is an expert at disabling melees, but they become complete morons when it comes to fight casters. We cater the fighters. You cater the casters. If the pit fiend has indeed a score of int/wis of 26 he'll also get some way to take down the casters quickly. And blashphemy makes them all fall in the floor and wait to die geez. It's not like blasphemy has a clause that it only afects noncaster classes.
Khan the Destroyer 06-16-07, 06:07 PM	... ... ... It's like they don't even hear themselves speaking. If the uber intelligent all-powerful Pit Fiend uses an AMF to grapple someone to death... why target the fighter? I'm not even claiming the tactic is sound vs. anyone. I'd like to know why he'd target the fighter. With his superior intelligence and many years of experience either being bound or summoned or hearing about it happening to other devils, the Pit Fiend should know that the wizard at the very least has means to call in allies completely unaffected by his AMF. This Pit Fiend, having most likely waged war against the demons for countless millenia in the Blood War, can probably appreciate the endurance a fighter possesses over a squishy caster. He even can guess that the fighter has a good chance to resist his grapple attempts, at the very least a much better chance than the wizard. Knowing that his AMF will last 20 rounds, and that the wizard can still harm him even with his AMF up and running, and that it will take longer for him to vanquish the fighter through constriction than the wizard, and that he may be wasting even more time trying to grapple the fighter in the first place considering the fighter's chances to resist, why does he target the fighter? He can finish the wizard off in 4-5 rounds of constriction, all the while preventing the wizard from using any of his spells whatsoever. The fighter might take 6-7 rounds to kill, assuming the Pit Fiend can even grapple him in the first place. Somehow, I doubt the Pit Fiend (with his amazing intelligence) would risk his chances against the fighter while the wizard gates something, or conjures energy orbs, or uses other indirect means to harm him. I mean, an AMF would completely nullify a wizard. And grappling would most likely kill him. The fighter on the other hand doesn't get shut down by the AMF and isn't as vulnerable to grapples. Where is this much-touted intelligence? This is like that dragon-strafing scenario where the fighter supposedly could do nothing because the dragon was mobile and flying. Why wouldn't the dragon Split Antimagic Ray the casters and then full attack the rogue in rounds 1 and 2? You just negated any chance of magical counterattacks. You just stopped two characters from participating meaningfully and killed another one. Now, do what you want with the fighter. You could even strafe and use your breath weapons. Or the Balor. I suppose he could use Blasphemy on the fighter. Or summon another Balor to tag-team the fighter. But... why not summon the other Balor to Blasphemy the entire party, and then focus on killing them one-by-one with Implosion or full attacks? Read the tactics of the Titan. Does that sound like a genius intelligence to you? Wouldn't you Maze the caster before they caused any trouble, knowing the degree at which you guys optimize wizards and clerics? Heck, there is a 'Prior to Combat' part. I'd use Invisibility to get right next to the wizard. Then full attack him, accompanied with a Chain Lightning for him and everyone else (enough damage to drop him, 10d6 to everyone else). Next turn, Maze the Cleric (and hit the fighter with another Chain Lightning, 20d6). Then use Hold Monster on the Rogue to set up another deadly full attack (don't forget that Chain Lightning for the fighter, 20d6). After full attacking the rogue and killing him (and then using Chain Lightning on the fighter, 20d6), you can do whatever you want to the fighter (at this point, he's taken 70d6 points of electric damage, reflex for half). I mean, how do you guys get away with claiming the fighter is such a non-threat, and then taking him out before anything else? How can you continue to tout the efficiency of 'intelligently-played' monsters, when in reality they can do far worse? Why are your monsters only smart enough to beat the fighter, but not smart enough to stop the caster, or smart enough to TPK? Do geniuses fail to grasp supernatural threats, when many of them are, in fact, supernatural threats? The only things consistent in these arguments are the inconsistencies.
Nebosuke 06-16-07, 06:56 PM	I am not convinced that the pit fiend is primarily a caster. With 6 attacks per round and constriction, I think the pit fiend makes one hell of a melee combatant. His AC is 40 and he comes with decent damage reduction. The pit fiend is more of a "whatever is needed" combatant. He can do incredibly well in melee. He only has 12 spells he can use, and he will probably only use two or three of them. This doesn't sound like primarily a caster. It sounds more like a beast designed to take on several roles. In a vacuum, yes, it seems to have decent melee capabilities. In any situation where it does not have clearly superior combat capability, it is highly questionable. Against an encounter that is overpowering for it (e.g., an ECL 20 party) melee is the absolute last thing it should be considering. Melee is basically the most suicidal tactic against any stronger opponent in general, for PCs as well as pit fiends. You spend at least 1 round approaching, spend the next realizing that you're actually boned, and then have to figure out how to extricate yourself from the mess when you're the closest to the threat. If you close to melee, you are basically committing yourself to a win or die situation. Ranged combat has generally lower damage output, drastically reduced save-or-die/serious stat attack options at further distances, and is far easier to withdraw from. Survivability even after defeat is much better, and it is therefore the preferred range of engagement against a stronger opponent. Why must every creature act the way that a few people feel it should? When are these powerful creatures going to show some arrogance and actually have that be part of their downfall? Maybe when they're actually powerful relative to the party, and the players are floundering and need some deus ex machina to bail them out. At ECL 20, on the other hand, the party is expected to be able to wipe out 4 pit fiends/day without breaking too much of a sweat, but each should take roughly 25% of their daily renewable resources. If the pit fiend stupid enough to close to within range of effect of a melee fighter, you'll be lucky if you force the party to burn 5%. Since we continue to read that people feel the fighter is worthless and unable to be a threat, there is no reason to assume that the intelligent creature will waste his time. Why stop the fighter from attacking when the cleric is the problem? If the opponent can take out two, why not the cleric and wizard first? Sorry, but I would never take out the weakest guy first if the most powerful can be dealt with as effectively and will destroy me if I don't start with them. There seems to be a persistent misunderstanding. The fighter is rendered totally useless purely as a side-effect of many tactics that are primarily targeted against the cleric, wizard, and druid. For example, keeping the fight at long range keeps you out of melee with CoDzilla, and effectively neutralizes any medium/shorter range spells that have been prepared by any of the party's casters. It is also a generally effective tactic at mitigating the effect of the imbalance in combat action resources inherent in a solo vs party scenario, because not only is the likelihood that every member of the party has an effective offensive option lower, but every round they have to spend trying to figure out where you are, what they're up against, and trying to approach is a round their actions have been neutralized. No one is spending extra energy to deal with the fighter here, yet he is, incidentally, rendered useless. The most significant change in combat, as you progress in levels, is that the size of the battlefield and range of tactical options available simply explodes. Scouts (any character filling the niche, not the class) start to become capable of detecting enemies at greater distances, and casters and ranged weapon attackers can follow through with the pain at ranges of half a mile or greater. For those with the skill on their list, UMD checks are guaranteed successes, and they can throw down as a third caster if the party runs into particularly nasty difficulties. Diplomacy becomes a viable combat action, as the -10 penalty for a rushed check is no longer an insurmountable barrier to success against hostile foes. The battlefield transitions from a plane to a sphere as the number of enemies who can maneuver both through the air and through the ground increases. The list goes on and on. Other classes develop a broadening array of options because their abilities, which tend to have a greater degree of flexibility, gain more and more viable applications to match the growth of combat. The problem with the Fighter is that the fighter's field of effect and range of tactical options granted by his class abilities are among the smallest of any class to begin with, and they do not grow to keep up with the range of influence/available tactics curve. The fighter's best feats and exclusive feat trees only serve to intensify his impact within his existing field of effect, and do little to broaden either its physical range or tactical depth. The entirety of his class abilities become more and more likely to be neutralized because his combat options are frequently part of a subset of tactics that is routinely neutralized at higher levels. Higher level combatants do not defeat opponents merely by swinging a bigger bonus around, but because they are frequently capable of taking the fight out of the opponent's effective range of physical and tactical effect, and shut down his ability to respond entirely. A sundering fighter does not (to pull an example out of my ass) gain something like the ability to 'stun' a target weapon and suppress/reduce its magical enhancements for a time rather than destroy it, giving him a qualitatively different tactical option at later levels. His bonus simply scales to keep his chances of success more or less the same with encounters of his ECL as it was for the last 10 levels. It is the same case with tripping, disarming, grappling, damage/attack bonus trees, and dodging/AC enhancements. In contrast to the above, the, e.g., hide skill starts as a scouting tool, progresses to include an espionage tool, then infiltration tool, then viable ranged combat tool, then a viable melee combat tool, ending up as perhaps the best tactical concealment ability in the game, as magic which replicates its effect becomes increasingly trivial to defeat. Abilities like the above have broad applicability, which naturally opens them up to a host of new options as they become reliable or powerful enough to be regularly employed in new ways both in and out of combat. That is what all fighter abilities lack, and is the core reason they fall so far behind the curve at later levels. While they bring bigger swords and swing both harder and faster, combat starts looking more and more like a gun fight.
Kratch 06-16-07, 07:44 PM	Wonderful, another call for numbers. There are barbarian builds out there...go find them, don't have me doing your busywork. barbarians have very different builds from fighters...it comes down to benefits and costs. You make a lot of claims about fighters and how their abilities become useless, but khan has shown several builds that can affect many of the creatures i assume your speaking about. Your making claims and not backing them up. I could say "the fighter is better at battlefield control then a cleric could hope to be", but without backing that up with some proof, no-one would believe me. And i wouldn't expect them to if i couldn't back it up. Since there aren't any Fighter Bonus Feats that crank up Will saves, this is a moot argument. Will boosting feats are General Feats. And the vast majority of the boosting, if any, is done via magic items, not feats. Lastly, blowing feats to cover a glaring hole naturally shafts some combat ability...as does spending money on plugging holes which other classes do with class ability or by having a naturally good save. Clerics don't get any bonus feats, yet DMM is held high against the fighter. Are you saying you can use the level feats to disprove a fighters use, but he must stand on his bonus feats alone? The cleric's skill list and needs therof don't change with his job...he's going to max concentration, anyways. Likewise his Diplomacy (far more useful then intimidation), vs. Animal Handling....right. Ride...useful only if you play mounted combat. Climb, swim...circumvented with any Fly effect. In short, all Fighter skills are low level skills, great at levels 1-5, and then rapidly losing any relevance. Knowledge/religion helps Turn checks and fighting undead at all levels. spellcraft identifies spells and magical effects. All of these are skills that profit by having extremely high levels. Fighter skills? Ride is pretty much it...and then only in wide open spaces outdoors. And you will rarely find a cleric with more then 2 skills, especially one built to replace a fighter. As one of those skills will be concentraion, even more useless outside of combat then any other skill in the game, fighter or not, that leaves a melee cleric a single skill vs the fighters 2 or more (if he chooses to go expertise). Diplomacy may be more usefull out of combat then intimidate or handle animal or climb or, or ,or. But is it more usefull out of combat then any 2 or more of them? As for replaceing climb and swim with spells, ar you seriously telling me it's better to blow a 4th or 6th level cleric spell then to let the fighter climb up a cliff or swim across a river with a rope? Sure, spells may be able to replace the skills, but having those skills available is still more ecconomical, and thus, still useful. Oh, Please Do, and then ignore the fact that the spellcasters can just USE DIFFERENT SPELLS that DO work. And the fighter can just use a different tactic that will work. The loss of the ability to trip against an opponent losses the use of 1 feat (maybe 2 or 3, but i can't think of any more then one), the fighter still has 17-18 more feats to use in other tactical ways. Same can be said for disarming, grappleing, bullrushing, etc. A caster may eventually run out of those spells that do work if they prepared to many of the spells that don't work and are thus, sitting uselessly in they're spell lists. A fighter doesnt have that problem And every single one of the above examples can replace a Fighter. Should I continue? I don't know about every one of them. But the barbarian can just as easily be raplced by the fighter, does that mean they cancel each outher out and both become useless? But the fact is, you specifically said "he has to be able to do something other classes cannot do", but you apply that criteria only to the fighter. Why is the fighter the only one who needs to do something unique? Sigh. Do your own legwork. You make a claim and expect us to ether believe it as fact or prove you right? I don't think so. It's your legwork to do. LOL...okay, that's opinion, just don't state it as fact. Stick a little IMO on there. Fighters get 1/2lvl bonus feats, access to greater weapon spec and focus, weapon supremacy, slashing furry, driving assult and a few others that can't be granted by going prestige. There is absolutely nothing a wizard or sorcerer gets by staying in the class that can't be attained with a PRC. A cleric does have a few domain abilities that scale with cleric level, but not a lot, certainly not as much as a fighter can get by sticking fighter. So, no, it's not really opinion, as i can support it. There is more reason to stay fighter then wizard or sorcerer, i suppose cleric is a matter of personally preference (all those feets vs a few scaling domain powers) His class abilities? Okay, I'm lost. Your assessment of a "melee's job" broke down to "get a High AC via armor and items; get decent Hit points; do decent damage with a full attack routine; and hit the enemy". As a fighter gets all that before he even looks at his feats, that means he can do a melee's job and more, the more provided by 11 bonus feats (plus his level feats). But when they compare the cleric and fighter, they say the cleric does the melee job and does more, so is better then the fighter, completely forgetting or ignoreing the fact the fighter also has more then just whats done in "the melee's job". First of all, it's usually 'ignoring', and no, I'm not. The barbarian has strengths in multiple categories without spending precious feats to do so, and can build to specific strengths readily. I assume your reffering to level feats, as a barbarian doesn't get bonus feats. So, that said, a fighter can also have "strengths in multiple categories without spending precious (LEVEL) feats to do so, and can build to specific strengths readily". Wow, corrects MY spelling, and then a whole paragraph with at least eight grammar errors, including multiple failures to capitalize, bad spelling, and lousy sentence structure. And then you not only use the word 'refuted' badly, since that assumes 'point disproved', when in actually what you have is 'point contested'. I think I'll just ignore this paragraph for politeness' sake. I didn't correct your spelling, I corrected your use of singular, hence the word "plural" in brackets. By claiming a fighter only has a single combat trick, your pigionholing it. Khan has provided many many builds, few, if any of which were limited to a single combat option. After a paragraph of condemning my spelling, any claim to ignoring my comments for politeness' sake is lost. The odds of a typical caster running completely out of spells are the odds of the party wanting to suffer a TPK over the course of a day. Only at the very lowest levels is this a problem...and at the very lowest levels, amazingly, melee shines (including fighters). Considering your burning 4th and 6th level spells to get over small walls and rivers, it's hard to believe you'll always have enough of those skill replacing spells and always have enough spells of appropriate saves (Will, Fort, Ref, No SR, No save, etc), plus buffs, for any encounter that may come up. You seem to be spreading your spell-lists pretty thin to cover a lot of different eventualities. But, since no-one bathers to provide a sample spell list to show it can be done... Negative Plane Protection was renamed Death Ward in 3E...I make the naming mistake frequently, I didn't forget it. Anti-Magic...keep a distance, use Orbs, or pick a different target. Counterspells...a very stupid tactic for most combats, and hardly ever seen, in all honesty. Evasion...don't use Reflex save spells (AoE is a bad thing for casters to use, anyways.) SR- plenty of no-SR spells, or Assay Resistance available to bypass. Spell Immunities - Knowledge check, use a different spell they are not immune to. ETc etc etc. I use it against the Fighter and his combat options because a caster can change his spells and his entire approach to combat. A Fighter cannot change his feats OR the ways Combat options work...a point you seem to be unaware of. Every option you provided to bypass spells was a change in tactics to bypass a limit placed on your ability. The fighter can do the exact same thing. Losing access to his improved trip feat because the creature is immune (which is actually more rare then finding a creature with 1 or more good saves, high enough to force the use of a different save type spell), does not negte the remaining feats he has access to. Many feats synergize well, and create a variety of tactics usable, even when some of those feats are limited as an option. Open up your PHB to the spell selection. Select all Wizard spells. Compare them against your choice of 11 feats for the Fighter. Go to the PHB II. Add all those spells to the list, replace any of the 11 Fighter feats you've chosen with those from the PHB II, assuming you qualify. Compare them against the Wizard. Rinse, repeat with every single book you like. None of that has anything to do with what i asked. Note that the cleric does not get access to all the Wizard spells, although they can make a decent pocket wizard if you don't want to play one. Actually, ignoring AoE's as the real strength of a wizard, clerics with specific builds have been made that effectively make a wizard unneccessary. And yet, no-one claims the wizards suck, dispite failing in the same criteria used against the fighter. But I thought we were talking about fighters. The cleric obviating Wizards belongs in a different thread. I don't 'have' to do anything with clerics vs. Wizards. It's showing the criteria used against the fighter is insufficient. It can be used to "obviate" a wizard as well, yet no-one claims a wizard sucks, so why do you believe it is sufficient to condemn the fighter? The wizard fails the criteria, it's fine, the fighter fails the criteria, it sucks. Ignoring the fact that you don't metagame against the Fighter, you metagame against Melee Combatant, and shut the Fighter down pretty quick. And something with an Int/Wis of 26 that hasn't considered ways to shut down melee combatants has an effective score of 6, i.e. the DM is catering to the Fighters. ==Aelryinth With few exceptions, any creature with an int/wis that high is small enough to be susceptable to a fighters tactics that shut down the enemy. At that point it becomes tactic vs tactic, and whill the creature is trying to shut down the melee, the rest of the group is getting free shots. Otherwise, the creature is trying to shut down another character, and the fighter is free to use his own tactics. Against the larger opponents that do give the fighters tactics some difficulty, they are more often then not ether a dragon, intended to be a challange for all class's, or it doesn't have the smarts you claim it to have and thus should act like a creature with it's appropriate int/wis. That being said, if your metagaming against melee, you should also be metagaming against casters, otherwise your biasing the battlefield against melee's.
Argaud 06-16-07, 07:54 PM	as far as AMF and Reach goes, Both parties involved must be outside the AMF for magic and such bonuses to apply. A fighter who tries to use Weapon Supremacy/Bow in a grapple is going to generate an AoO with every shot. Probably not a good idea. ===Aelryinth Generally just one AoO. Most monsters do not have Combat Reflexes. The pit fiend doesn't, for instance. Heck, the horned devil does not have the feat either, and he uses a spiked chain. Since there aren't any Fighter Bonus Feats that crank up Will saves, this is a moot argument. Will boosting feats are General Feats. And the vast majority of the boosting, if any, is done via magic items, not feats. Lastly, blowing feats to cover a glaring hole naturally shafts some combat ability...as does spending money on plugging holes which other classes do with class ability or by having a naturally good save. It doesn't matter they are not fighter feats. The fighter has 11 extra feats to take combat stuff. Other classes need to use their basic feats to cover up their weaknesses, and reinforce their strong points, and help combat. The fighter has 18 feats to work instead of 7, it is his advantage. But if you for some strange, irrational reason need a fighter-exclusive ability to crank up the will save, there is Resolute in the Complete Champion. Sigh. Do your own legwork. Why should he? You are the one dropping blank statements while the pro-fighters keep posting builds, offering numbers and giving examples.
Khan the Destroyer 06-16-07, 08:00 PM	At ECL 20, on the other hand, the party is expected to be able to wipe out 4 pit fiends/day without breaking too much of a sweat, but each should take roughly 25% of their daily renewable resources. :rolleyes: Stop speaking like a DM and start speaking more like a flipping Pit Fiend. Don't you think his immunities, resistances, natural armor, DR, regeneration, massive hit points, 37 strength, 27 constitution, array of special abilities, and position as general of hell may skew his perspective a little bit? Sure, he most likely won't rush them and throw caution to the wind. He's intelligent and has a mind for sound tactics. But I don't think he'll look at 4 medium-sized mortals and consider the fact that his millenia-spanning life may come to an end in the next 24 seconds. He'll use his abilities to be sure, but I don't think closing into melee is out of the question either. A creature like that is bound to underestimate his opponents. The PHB races are not nearly as strong, dexterous, tough, intelligent, wise, or charismatic as the pit fiend. Not even close. They have no special powers on par with the devils, they're not immortal. They don't have an impressive slew of abilities that make them immune to virtually most attacks. And, they haven't been around as long. The influence this Pit Fiend may have had in a fraction of his entire life dwarfs anything the PC's might have done in their short stay here in the world of the living. Obviously, they have some strength to make it this far. To challenge a general of hell. Too bad for them. Because as far as the Pit Fiend is concerned, their efforts were wasted. Their journey is about to end, violently. Also, where are you drawing these statistics on ranged combat? How is it that your encounters consistently happen at such extreme distances? And... how do all of the players participate at that range? Do your casters always have long range spells prepared? Does your rogue specialize in some long-range fighting style that doesn't hinge on sneak attack? Perhaps all of your encounters happen on vast fields with perfect line of sight and effect. But for some other people, the party ventures into dungeons, ruins, the underdark, the sewers, etc. Places where you can't take the idea of avoiding melee for granted. To be honest, if melee was such a problem for monsters, and combat really did begin 400' away, I'd just have everyone ready an action to attack after the wizard teleports us adjacent to the monster (or something similar).
Bob Loblaw 06-16-07, 08:12 PM	Melee is basically the most suicidal tactic against any stronger opponent in general, for PCs as well as pit fiends. You spend at least 1 round approaching, spend the next realizing that you're actually boned, and then have to figure out how to extricate yourself from the mess when you're the closest to the threat. So the fighter is a threat then. Glad we can clear that part up. If you close to melee, you are basically committing yourself to a win or die situation. Ranged combat has generally lower damage output, drastically reduced save-or-die/serious stat attack options at further distances, and is far easier to withdraw from. Survivability even after defeat is much better, and it is therefore the preferred range of engagement against a stronger opponent. So to make this clear, any fighter that has not chosen to branch out a bit and use both melee and ranged weapons is not going to contribute. Both Khan and myself have managed to build effective fighters that use both ranged and melee. Maybe when they're actually powerful relative to the party, and the players are floundering and need some deus ex machina to bail them out. Strangely enough, some would call this a weakness rather than dues ex machina. I'm not talking about bailing the party out. I'm talking about roleplaying. At ECL 20, on the other hand, the party is expected to be able to wipe out 4 pit fiends/day without breaking too much of a sweat, but each should take roughly 25% of their daily renewable resources. If the pit fiend stupid enough to close to within range of effect of a melee fighter, you'll be lucky if you force the party to burn 5%. First, it's 20% per encounter. That's 1/5 of their resources. With 4 of these encounters, 80% of their resources is not easy. You also acknowledge that the fighter is actually enough of a threat to help the party save on resources. There seems to be a persistent misunderstanding. The fighter is rendered totally useless purely as a side-effect of many tactics that are primarily targeted against the cleric, wizard, and druid. So is every other character. Blasphemy is the biggest threat and it effects the party as a whole. For example, keeping the fight at long range keeps you out of melee with CoDzilla, and effectively neutralizes any medium/shorter range spells that have been prepared by any of the party's casters. It is also a generally effective tactic at mitigating the effect of the imbalance in combat action resources inherent in a solo vs party scenario, because not only is the likelihood that every member of the party has an effective offensive option lower, but every round they have to spend trying to figure out where you are, what they're up against, and trying to approach is a round their actions have been neutralized. No one is spending extra energy to deal with the fighter here, yet he is, incidentally, rendered useless. Unless the fighter has decided to do like the casters and not put all his eggs in one basket. My fighters are lethal at range and melee. The most significant change in combat, as you progress in levels, is that the size of the battlefield and range of tactical options available simply explodes. Scouts (any character filling the niche, not the class) start to become capable of detecting enemies at greater distances, and casters and ranged weapon attackers can follow through with the pain at ranges of half a mile or greater. For those with the skill on their list, UMD checks are guaranteed successes, and they can throw down as a third caster if the party runs into particularly nasty difficulties. Diplomacy becomes a viable combat action, as the -10 penalty for a rushed check is no longer an insurmountable barrier to success against hostile foes. The battlefield transitions from a plane to a sphere as the number of enemies who can maneuver both through the air and through the ground increases. The list goes on and on. This is where teamwork is supposed to come in. Not everyone needs to be good at everything. In fact, when a character is good at everything, it is considered to be too powerful and therefor broken. Also, the battlefield changes only based on opponent(s). Not all adventures are written the same way. I have run dungeon-crawl high level adventures as well as ones that take place on the Plane of Air. The battlefield did not change because of the level of the party. It changed because of the opponent. Since I have literally 1000s of opponents to choose from just from the MM, I fail to see why this is a given. Other classes develop a broadening array of options because their abilities, which tend to have a greater degree of flexibility, gain more and more viable applications to match the growth of combat. The fighter is not as limited as people think. My fighters are very flexible in what they can do. While they tend to focus on one style, they also branch out to other styles just so they can be able to handle a variety of circumstances. The problem with the Fighter is that the fighter's field of effect and range of tactical options granted by his class abilities are among the smallest of any class to begin with, and they do not grow to keep up with the range of influence/available tactics curve. The fighter's best feats and exclusive feat trees only serve to intensify his impact within his existing field of effect, and do little to broaden either its physical range or tactical depth. The entirety of his class abilities become more and more likely to be neutralized because his combat options are frequently part of a subset of tactics that is routinely neutralized at higher levels. Search for some of the builds that Khan and myself have put out there. Tell me why they would not work. They each have a variety of options. Higher level combatants do not defeat opponents merely by swinging a bigger bonus around, but because they are frequently capable of taking the fight out of the opponent's effective range of physical and tactical effect, and shut down his ability to respond entirely. Do you mean that the tarrasque is going to be the same type of opponent as a red dragon? What about a 12th level Stone Giant Barbarian? What about the Half-Fiendish Advanced (50HD) Colossal Monstrous Spider? All of these are CR 20 and will fight very differently than the classic pit fiend or balor. As DMs we should not limit ourselves to the status quo. A sundering fighter does not (to pull an example out of my ass) gain something like the ability to 'stun' a target weapon and suppress/reduce its magical enhancements for a time rather than destroy it, giving him a qualitatively different tactical option at later levels. His bonus simply scales to keep his chances of success more or less the same with encounters of his ECL as it was for the last 10 levels. It is the same case with tripping, disarming, grappling, damage/attack bonus trees, and dodging/AC enhancements. Strangely enough, this makes the fighter sound like the most balanced class. However, with the addition of Tactical Feats, your example no longer holds. The fighter can now do more things. Imagine Sundering and then Cleaving into your opponent with Improved Trip. You destroyed his weapon, knocked him down, and then took a third attack while he is at a disadvantage. That is what all fighter abilities lack, and is the core reason they fall so far behind the curve at later levels. While they bring bigger swords and swing both harder and faster, combat starts looking more and more like a gun fight. These may be reasons why they fail in the games that you play. However, in my experience, the fighter is a very useful member of the party. I have seen the fighter accomplish things that managed to surprise the party and DM.
Argaud 06-16-07, 08:21 PM	The most significant change in combat, as you progress in levels, is that the size of the battlefield and range of tactical options available simply explodes. Scouts (any character filling the niche, not the class) start to become capable of detecting enemies at greater distances, and casters and ranged weapon attackers can follow through with the pain at ranges of half a mile or greater. For those with the skill on their list, UMD checks are guaranteed successes, and they can throw down as a third caster if the party runs into particularly nasty difficulties. Diplomacy becomes a viable combat action, as the -10 penalty for a rushed check is no longer an insurmountable barrier to success against hostile foes. The battlefield transitions from a plane to a sphere as the number of enemies who can maneuver both through the air and through the ground increases. The list goes on and on. I have never seen that change in the size of the battlefield in any high level game I have played. I have never seen that change in the size of the battlefield in any official module I have read. Level 1-20 and combat encounters still happen indoors, in caves and in dungeons much more often than in huge fighting arenas, broad open fields and floating in the endless void of the astral plane (where now that I think about it I -do- remember an interesting combat encounter happening - once in 7 years playing 3E). It is irrelevant if the spells have 500 feet range when you are indoors, y'know? It is also irrelevant, although interesting, that an archer can have 200' range increments with a bow and hit stuff at stupid huge range with 5-10 arrows every round.
Kratch 06-16-07, 08:21 PM	Just to add to what khan said, A lot of the advantages of range can be lmited or nullified with simple cover bonus's due to terrain, forcing the attacking creature to remanuver and grant some members of the party a chance to spot him (the fighter doesn't do particularly well here, in general, but then, the wizard doesn't fair any better ether, and the cleric likely doesn't fair much better and has less then a wizard to offer to long range combat anyways), or it can choose to close.
aelryinth 06-16-07, 08:43 PM	:rolleyes: Stop speaking like a DM and start speaking more like a flipping Pit Fiend. Don't you think his immunities, resistances, natural armor, DR, regeneration, massive hit points, 37 strength, 27 constitution, array of special abilities, and position as general of hell may skew his perspective a little bit? Sure, he most likely won't rush them and throw caution to the wind. He's intelligent and has a mind for sound tactics. But I don't think he'll look at 4 medium-sized mortals and consider the fact that his millenia-spanning life may come to an end in the next 24 seconds. He'll use his abilities to be sure, but I don't think closing into melee is out of the question either. A creature like that is bound to underestimate his opponents. The PHB races are not nearly as strong, dexterous, tough, intelligent, wise, or charismatic as the pit fiend. Not even close. They have no special powers on par with the devils, they're not immortal. They don't have an impressive slew of abilities that make them immune to virtually most attacks. And, they haven't been around as long. The influence this Pit Fiend may have had in a fraction of his entire life dwarfs anything the PC's might have done in their short stay here in the world of the living. Obviously, they have some strength to make it this far. To challenge a general of hell. Too bad for them. Because as far as the Pit Fiend is concerned, their efforts were wasted. Their journey is about to end, violently. Also, where are you drawing these statistics on ranged combat? How is it that your encounters consistently happen at such extreme distances? And... how do all of the players participate at that range? Do your casters always have long range spells prepared? Does your rogue specialize in some long-range fighting style that doesn't hinge on sneak attack? Perhaps all of your encounters happen on vast fields with perfect line of sight and effect. But for some other people, the party ventures into dungeons, ruins, the underdark, the sewers, etc. Places where you can't take the idea of avoiding melee for granted. To be honest, if melee was such a problem for monsters, and combat really did begin 400' away, I'd just have everyone ready an action to attack after the wizard teleports us adjacent to the monster (or something similar). Khan, you just moved from a mechanics justification to a role-play justification. That isn't going to fly very well. I appreciate the work you've done on your builds for Fighters (and I find it amusing nobody's cross-posted a competing Barbarian build, although I know they are out there), but trying to bring in role play as a counter argument against what is basically weak mechanics isn't the way to do this. Barbarian/Fighter match-ups also suffer from lack of direct comparison. It's hard to evaluate Barb abilities vs. Fighter when a Fighter can't get anything comparable. How do you evaluate Uncanny Dodge vs. a bonus feat (like the inferior AC vs flankers feats)? 30% faster movement (base 40') vs a bonus feat? The ability to use any weapon to great effect vs specializing in one weapon? Indomitable Will and Will saves while raging against...well, no Fighter bonus feats except maybe Combat Focus give a Will save boost, and Combat Focus feats are strictly inferior to Rage because they don't start until you've actually hit something in melee (i.e. delayed trigger effect vs. Player choice). Even Barbarian DR is better then any single Fighter feat. Fighter builds tend to go after combat tricks that Barbarians ignore because they get a large general combat bonus with Rage. So a Fighter gets good at one specific tactic, while Barbs get decent at all of them...but both note that 'fancy tricks' like Trip, Bull Rush, Sunder and the like get less and less useful/viable at higher levels, either by inability to apply them to intelligent foes, or simply because the foes are too big to use them. So combat tends to come back down to the core role of melee....the tank and dmg dealer, and that's the role both are most easily subbed for. As for legwork with Bull Rushes...for the same reason as Trip, Overrun, Disarm and the like, which by broad consensus get less and less useful as you level, Bull Rush doesn't work as well. It comes down to Size and Str modifiers. Sure, you can build something completely around the concept with magic items and feats and everything, and it'll look really good...right up until you actually try to play the thing. A Bull Rush isn't the answer or even the question in every situation, and a good one trick pony doesn't prove the Fighter is great, or even that it doesn't suck. If the Fighter can only be good at one thing which only applies a fraction of the time...well... ==Aelryinth
aelryinth 06-16-07, 08:54 PM	Just to add to what khan said, A lot of the advantages of range can be lmited or nullified with simple cover bonus's due to terrain, forcing the attacking creature to remanuver and grant some members of the party a chance to spot him (the fighter doesn't do particularly well here, in general, but then, the wizard doesn't fair any better ether, and the cleric likely doesn't fair much better and has less then a wizard to offer to long range combat anyways), or it can choose to close. Cover bonuses are generally only effective against AoE's or ranged attacks...which is not what smarter casters use at range, or they employ something where cover simply won't matter. Tactical options like teleport, Flight and Walls become more and more viable at later levels...this is what he means by 'expanded tactical options'. Oh, and as for 'blowing a 4th-6th level spell' rather then having a Fighter climb or swim over an obstacle...climbing or swimming is very suboptimal in the middle of combat where movement is everything, and long-term flight spells can literally last all day. The spellcaster could CARRY the fighter if he had to, to speed things up, and flight has infinitely more combat applications. If the Fighter doesn't have the ability to fly, it's nearly as bad as not having ranged combat ability, especially at higher levels. ==Aelryinth
Kratch 06-16-07, 09:11 PM	Cover bonuses are generally only effective against AoE's or ranged attacks...which is not what smarter casters use at range, or they employ something where cover simply won't matter. Tactical options like teleport, Flight and Walls become more and more viable at later levels...this is what he means by 'expanded tactical options'. He was discussing how an opponent can maintain range and thus, as a side effect, neutralize the fighter/meleers. I just gave an example of how that range, in turn could also be neutralized. Cover also prevents Line of sight effects, including anything that specifically targets an opponent. If they begin flying, they reveal they're position, losing some of the advantage they gained by starting the encounter at range. They also lose any cover benifits they had against a ranged attack, from say a back-up magical bow or a wizards long range spells. Teleporting has little impact on addressing the issue of cover, unless your teleporting closer to the spot the PC's are hiding, at which point the teleporting creature has closed the range for the fighter to begin melee, precisely what the original poster was claiming they wouldn't do. Walls are better used to deny the benifits of range then to prevent the benifits of cover, as, after all, walls provide cover. Oh, and as for 'blowing a 4th-6th level spell' rather then having a Fighter climb or swim over an obstacle...climbing or swimming is very suboptimal in the middle of combat where movement is everything, and long-term flight spells can literally last all day. The spellcaster could CARRY the fighter if he had to, to speed things up, and flight has infinitely more combat applications. If the Fighter doesn't have the ability to fly, it's nearly as bad as not having ranged combat ability, especially at higher levels. ==Aelryinth You were discussing skills outside of combat.
Khan the Destroyer 06-16-07, 09:19 PM	Khan, you just moved from a mechanics justification to a role-play justification. That isn't going to fly very well. I appreciate the work you've done on your builds for Fighters (and I find it amusing nobody's cross-posted a competing Barbarian build, although I know they are out there), but trying to bring in role play as a counter argument against what is basically weak mechanics isn't the way to do this. It is not a counter to a weak mechanic. It is actually how it *should* be looked at. When someone says 'any intelligent monster would do X' what they are really saying is 'the DM would do X'. As a DM, you have to be able to draw the line between meta-gaming and roleplaying. I'm sorry that you think this is a poor justification. But in all honesty, looking only at mechanics isn't any better in my opinion. It leads to TPK's and possibly playing monsters against type (such as the powerful and chaotic entity, the Balor, immediately relying on help from an equal). In regards to bull rushes and stuff... I don't know. I wish I had the ambition to compile a huge list of builds and comparisons vs. monsters but... I'm apathetic. (I may be using that word correctly, *shrugs*.) Here's a build I made a while ago. Half-Orc Brute 1. Weapon Focus (Morningstar), Power Attack 2. Improved Bull Rush 3. Improved Sunder 4. Weapon Specialization (Morningstar) 6. Shock Trooper, Combat Brute 8. Melee Weapon Mastery (Piercing) 9. Cleave 10. Brutal Strike 12. Greater Weapon Focus (Morningstar), Greater Weapon Specialization (Morningstar) 14. Driving Attack 15. Three Mountains 16. Combat Focus 18. Combat Vigor, Weapon Supremacy 20. Combat Stability With Driving Attack, he can get a damage total of: 1d8 15 Strength (two-handed) 6 Weapon Feats 5 Damage 8 Power Attack That's ~38 damage. With Improved Bull Rush, that's a modifier of 42 on your check. Your attack bonus would be: 20 BAB 10 Strength 4 Weapon Feats 5 Magic -4 Power Attack +35 to attack. A Titan has a +24 to resist bull rushes and a 38 AC. You hit him on a 3 with your Driving Attack. Assuming both of you rolled a 10, you push him back 15'. But you really only push him back 5' and he falls Prone. When he tries to get up next turn, you use your AoO to attempt a disarm. The titan gets: 20 BAB 16 Strength +4 Two-Handed +8 Size -2 Size +3 Magic -4 Prone +45 The fighter gets: 20 BAB 10 Strength 5 Magic 4 Weapon Feats 4 Improved Disarm 1 Advancing Blows +44 Wow, pretty even. So, the fighter damaged this guy, knocked him down, and now has an even chance to knock his weapon out of his hands. *shrugs* PS: Aelryinth, I may post a barbarian build myself. My first character was a barbarian, and the new pouncing option in Complete Champion has me itching to try one out.
runestar 06-16-07, 10:22 PM	I'm sorry that you think this is a poor justification. But in all honesty, looking only at mechanics isn't any better in my opinion. It leads to TPK's and possibly playing monsters against type (such as the powerful and chaotic entity, the Balor, immediately relying on help from an equal). Well, its sample tactics does mention it using its innate summons ability. And using the description for monster summoning in the PHB, the balor is not so much relying on the 2nd summoned balor as he is summoning one in to boss around, and ordering it to do whatever he wishes. Quite befitting its "overlord" status if you ask me.:P If you wish to play it according to how you feel its flavour would portray it, you can (and nothing is certainly stopping you. We cannot possibly twist your arm one way and insist that you play the balor according to our visions). But then it might be weaker as compared when an enterprising dm plays it to its full strength, which suggests that the EL 20 encounter might not be a real cr20 challenge. After all, summoning is a very potent ability which has supposedly already been built into the balor's cr, so it seems like a real waste not to use it. However, I admit that I have little idea as to what its cr20 incorporates. I can only assume that the designers felt it was a decent cr20 when using the suggested attack sequence against a typical 4 member party.
Khan the Destroyer 06-16-07, 10:43 PM	No one is saying not to use the summoning ability. But the knee-jerk reaction to any fighter build is to suddenly argue that the balor would actually use some TPK tactics and the fighter would have no chance. My point is that more than numbers should be considered. The spirit of the game is a big factor in my opinion. Monsters don't know where they stand relative to PC's. The idea that a balor would immediately call for aid when faced with 4 humans seems strange to me. I mean... what does he do when faced with lesser demons? What does he do in the Blood War? Going to either extreme ends up being ridiculous of course. I can roleplay a balor that never uses any of his potent abilities because of whatever quirks I decide to give him and claim the fighter rocks the hizzouse. On the flip side, I can completely ignore the spirit of the game and consistently trounce the players with unbeatable tactics by sticking strictly to mechanics and hand-waving away their enjoyment. The DM always wins because his metagame and ability to optimize rocks. Ergo, the fighter sucks. There is a huge difference between summoning a nalfeshnee and summoning another balor. There is a huge difference between adding more hit points and attacks to your side, and shutting down the entire party with Blasphemy every round. More or less, I don't see your tactics as intelligent. I see them as paranoid. I see TPK tactics as intelligent. If you're going to summon another Balor and argue he's intelligent for it, you might as well spam Blasphemy and prove the point. Because in the end, if your Balor dies, it didn't matter how smart he was, he failed to survive. Since it is possible to TPK with some monster abilities, and your idea of 'intelligence' means to shut down a PC, wouldn't a genius use his abilities to the best and try and kill everyone as quickly and as efficiently as possible? I guess what I'm trying to say is... if we ignore the spirit of the game and any roleplaying mechanics, where do we draw the line as far as 'straight numbers' are concerned? Or are consistent TPK's alright? (Excuse this post if it seems incoherent or like I'm rambling. I'm tired. I'm going to bed. Good night :).)
runestar 06-16-07, 11:57 PM	I see and acknowledge your point, in that a foe that is role-played well can still make for a very memorable encounter for the PCs, even if not played to the best of its abilities. But where do you draw the line between paranoid "TPK", intelligent "TPK", spirit of the rules and letter of the game? One tactic is to spam blasphemy and daze the party every round, while a summoned marilith or balor takes them down. Where does this tactic stand and why? Basically, my point is simply that I do not necessarily see "role-play" as a suitable reason for gimping an encounter tactics-wise. You are right that in-game, monsters do not have some sort of "heads-up display" which tells them the stats of every creature they encounter. But it does not necessarily mean that a balor cannot infer that for himself. The PCs might not always just "run" into one who was trapped in a summoning circle and accidentally disrupted the conjuration process, thus freeing it. If it has sent other demons to fight the PCs earlier on and has been observing them in the process, it can roughly gauge how tough the PCs will be relative to itself. "Ah, they defeated my marilith general readily enough. This means that I cannot afford to underestimate their prowess". A balor can be confident in its might without being arrogant or overconfident. It might be proud of its capabilities, but not blind to its shortcomings. Likewise, I can also argue that given its chaotic alignment, it can easily switch tactics to suit any given combat scenario and adjust its plans accordingly to best take on the PCs. And perhaps it is my fault for derailing the thread somewhat, but I was talking about a balor facing off a standard party, not just a solo fighter (I think I stopped addressing that a long time ago, simply because I was sick and tired of the direction this thread was taking). :P
Nebosuke 06-17-07, 12:10 AM	But I don't think he'll look at 4 medium-sized mortals and consider the fact that his millenia-spanning life may come to an end in the next 24 seconds. In the end, regardless of specific tactic used, the litmus test for whether or not you played that CR 20 encounter at an appropriate level of difficulty for the ECL 20 party is whether or not you forced the party to expend roughly 25% of their daily renewable resources. I have yet to see this done while allowing the pit fiend to make tactical blunders. Also, where are you drawing these statistics on ranged combat? How is it that your encounters consistently happen at such extreme distances? And... how do all of the players participate at that range? Do your casters always have long range spells prepared? Does your rogue specialize in some long-range fighting style that doesn't hinge on sneak attack? Concrete examples: Ranger 4 with 12 wisdom using guided shot and a composite longbow: 1 attack at no distance penalty at 1,100'. By level 13 this becomes a 2,200' full attack range of effect ignoring all distance penalties and now miss chances as well thanks to a seeking enhancement on his bow. Uses/day grow at 1/1000gp invested thanks to pearls of power. This tactic is available to all ranged weapon combat specialists, and even more deadly with arcane caster ranged weapon specialists. Any caster with a long range spell scales from 440' at level 1 to 1,200' range of effect by level 20, or 2,400' including enlarged spell metamagic. AoE spells are easily unaffected by cover and concealment, and generally require no attack rolls anyway. Combat casters in all campaigns I have played/DM'd for always had long-range spells available because many of the better AoE damage spells (e.g., chain lightning) happen to be long range. Any UMD user lacking other class abilities has access to long range spells through scrolls, wands etc. These are of lower caster level, so he/she may not be able to participate optimally in a long-range combat. This is does not pose a particularly troublesome metagame problem for a DM concerned with player fun because these characters can usually shine outside of combat or provide substantial contributions to other aspects of play. Simply increasing the range of engagement is one of the most reliable and effective ways to pose a tactical challenge to your opponents, but a well-prepared enemy will still be just as capable of an effective (if not exactly optimal) response. It is not, therefore, a milder form of 'rocks fall, you die', but simply an aspect of combat that was unavailable until higher levels. The LoE/LoS-limiting effect of most terrains is negated with flight. The only conditions preventing long-ranged combat at higher levels tend to be an underground environment or buildings. The latter only has bearing as long as both sides elect to stay within the building for the entirety of combat, which is normally tactically unsound for at least one side. Even given the above, you are correct in that not all combats will occur and stay at range, but the sheer physical distances involved are only one aspect of combat that outgrows the fighter. Another very important dimension of combat that grows in importance is the pre-initiative period. As scouts become more skilled and the general sphere of active perception grows, this is likely to take place at longer distances and last longer as well. At lower levels, the advantage thus gained is usually limited to either the option of withdrawing unnoticed, or a standard action in the surprise round if you choose to engage. At higher levels, combatants can leverage every single pre-initiative action to great effect. CoDzilla lays on multiple stacking buffs. Combat/tactical control casters fine-tune their round-by-round tactics to the final situational details of the encounter, and often setup a tactical chain sequence with delay spell metamagic and/or using additional buffs. Sufficiently stealthy rogues, rangers, etc., use the time to position themselves for maximum effect, up to and including immediately adjacent to the target without alerting it (in some cases to prepare for a first strike, in others to setup an unexpected interruption for spellcasters). Fighters may benefit from this aspect of combat as the recipient of buffs, but they are once again unable to contribute and take advantage of this expanded aspect of combat to the same degree as other characters. At lower levels, the largest problem of combat is simply dealing more damage than you're taking, and stopping damage from being dealt to the wrong people. Fighters are well-suited to this. At higher levels, the problem becomes one of finding a way to bring your strengths to bear immediately and in spite of an ever-growing array of obstacles and challenging circumstances, and in a manner that further denies the enemy the use of his own strengths to the greatest degree possible. The increased level of lethality means that bodies start hitting the ground by round 2 if not round 1, so in-combat tactical adjustments become less of a factor. If you find that you've brought the metaphorical sword to a gunfight, the probability that you will reverse the tides after a tactical adjustment is vanishingly small compared to lower levels. Your success or failure at a given encounter becomes far more dependent on factors such as your ability to tailor your tactics prior to battle and to dictate the circumstances of battle such as the range of engagement and environment. In other words, the balance of power in D&D combat simply shifts outside of the fighter's sphere of influence.
navar100 06-17-07, 02:35 AM	It is not a counter to a weak mechanic. It is actually how it *should* be looked at. When someone says 'any intelligent monster would do X' what they are really saying is 'the DM would do X'. As a DM, you have to be able to draw the line between meta-gaming and roleplaying. I'm sorry that you think this is a poor justification. But in all honesty, looking only at mechanics isn't any better in my opinion. It leads to TPK's and possibly playing monsters against type (such as the powerful and chaotic entity, the Balor, immediately relying on help from an equal). In regards to bull rushes and stuff... I don't know. I wish I had the ambition to compile a huge list of builds and comparisons vs. monsters but... I'm apathetic. (I may be using that word correctly, *shrugs*.) Here's a build I made a while ago. Half-Orc Brute 1. Weapon Focus (Morningstar), Power Attack 2. Improved Bull Rush 3. Improved Sunder 4. Weapon Specialization (Morningstar) 6. Shock Trooper, Combat Brute 8. Melee Weapon Mastery (Piercing) 9. Cleave 10. Brutal Strike 12. Greater Weapon Focus (Morningstar), Greater Weapon Specialization (Morningstar) 14. Driving Attack 15. Three Mountains 16. Combat Focus 18. Combat Vigor, Weapon Supremacy 20. Combat Stability With Driving Attack, he can get a damage total of: 1d8 15 Strength (two-handed) 6 Weapon Feats 5 Damage 8 Power Attack That's ~38 damage. With Improved Bull Rush, that's a modifier of 42 on your check. Your attack bonus would be: 20 BAB 10 Strength 4 Weapon Feats 5 Magic -4 Power Attack +35 to attack. A Titan has a +24 to resist bull rushes and a 38 AC. You hit him on a 3 with your Driving Attack. Assuming both of you rolled a 10, you push him back 15'. But you really only push him back 5' and he falls Prone. When he tries to get up next turn, you use your AoO to attempt a disarm. The titan gets: 20 BAB 16 Strength +4 Two-Handed +8 Size -2 Size +3 Magic -4 Prone +45 The fighter gets: 20 BAB 10 Strength 5 Magic 4 Weapon Feats 4 Improved Disarm 1 Advancing Blows +44 Wow, pretty even. So, the fighter damaged this guy, knocked him down, and now has an even chance to knock his weapon out of his hands. *shrugs* PS: Aelryinth, I may post a barbarian build myself. My first character was a barbarian, and the new pouncing option in Complete Champion has me itching to try one out. Nitpick: Unless I misread or misunderstood some feat synergy, shouldn't the fighter get -4 because he used Power Attack? The penalty due to Power Attack lasts until the character's next turn, i.e. you have it if you take an AoO, or is the -4 already accounted for?
Bob Loblaw 06-17-07, 02:45 AM	Nitpick: Unless I misread or misunderstood some feat synergy, shouldn't the fighter get -4 because he used Power Attack? The penalty due to Power Attack lasts until the character's next turn, i.e. you have it if you take an AoO, or is the -4 already accounted for? Disarming does not seem to be affected by Power Attack penalties. At least I can't find anything that states otherwise. It's just opposed attack rolls. Even so, I read Khan's post as moving into the next round.
navar100 06-17-07, 02:50 AM	If true, I owe an NPC Orc some points back to my disarming him. :P Anyway, the fighter is using his AoO due to the titan getting up from prone to disarm.
Kratch 06-17-07, 04:12 AM	I believe, being an attack roll (opposed or otherwise), It takes any attack penalties (or bonus's) you may have garnered (such as from using PA/Fight Defensively/etc). If he was enlarged, It would be back to +45 each, dead even. On the plus side, you get +12 more to resist a counter disarm.
Bob Loblaw 06-17-07, 02:38 PM	That would make sense. That's what I get for trying to read rules when I'm so tired I can't really see the screen. I also thought this was a funny pic. It reminds me of how some people think all combats go past level 10 or for the bull rushing fighter: http://www.christian-faure.net/wp-images/Sumo.jpg I just needed a reason to show everyone. I thought it might lighten up the thread a bit but I needed it to be related somehow to the thread.
Kalarus 06-17-07, 05:19 PM	That would make sense. That's what I get for trying to read rules when I'm so tired I can't really see the screen. I also thought this was a funny pic. It reminds me of how some people think all combats go past level 10 or for the bull rushing fighter: http://www.christian-faure.net/wp-images/Sumo.jpg I just needed a reason to show everyone. I thought it might lighten up the thread a bit but I needed it to be related somehow to the thread. :rofl:
Khan the Destroyer 06-17-07, 05:44 PM	One tactic is to spam blasphemy and daze the party every round, while a summoned marilith or balor takes them down. Where does this tactic stand and why? That's a TPK, and therefore an unreasonable standarad to judge the balance of the class. The party is dazed every round. They cannot act. They *will* die. Just because you're doing it by the book doesn't mean it's different than simply saying 'The balor is uber. You all die.' If I say 'Look, my fighter build can trip the balor, bull rush it, disarm it, hurt it, and resist most of its attacks' and you respond with 'Yeah right, the balor would just TPK', then I haven't been proven wrong. You haven't demonstrated a fighter sucks. Basically, my point is simply that I do not necessarily see "role-play" as a suitable reason for gimping an encounter tactics-wise. I guess that is the difference in our opinions. I don't see this as gimping the encounter. A reasonable tactic as far as I'm concerned is one that challenges the party but still allows for them to succeed. An encounter that kills everyone without a chance of winning is not reasonable. It actually makes playing up to that point rather pointless. In the end, regardless of specific tactic used, the litmus test for whether or not you played that CR 20 encounter at an appropriate level of difficulty for the ECL 20 party is whether or not you forced the party to expend roughly 25% of their daily renewable resources. People say the fighter can't do anything but swing his sword at higher level. All I do when I present a build is show the relevant numbers. The fighter gets X to bull rush, the monster gets X to resist, he gets X to trip, the monster gets X to resist. His to-hit is X, the monster's AC is X. That's it. It's up to the DM, the players, and the gaming style to bring the rest together. I can't force people to engage in cooperative play. I can't force people to engage in melee combat in any sort of frequency at higher levels. I can't force people to play monsters as-is from the MM. But I can demonstrate a fighter's modifiers at some given level and compare them to a monster's modifiers. I'm not really concerned with the 20% stuff. I'm more concerned with the fighter's modifiers. If I make the claim that the fighter can indeed bull rush and trip opponents, then I need to show that the fighter can bull rush and trip opponents. I have yet to see this done while allowing the pit fiend to make tactical blunders. I have yet to see anything done to demonstrate a fighter's worthlessness. Welcome to this entire thread. Concrete examples: Ranger 4 with 12 wisdom using guided shot and a composite longbow: 1 attack at no distance penalty at 1,100'. By level 13 this becomes a 2,200' full attack range of effect ignoring all distance penalties and now miss chances as well thanks to a seeking enhancement on his bow. Uses/day grow at 1/1000gp invested thanks to pearls of power. This tactic is available to all ranged weapon combat specialists, and even more deadly with arcane caster ranged weapon specialists. Any caster with a long range spell scales from 440' at level 1 to 1,200' range of effect by level 20, or 2,400' including enlarged spell metamagic. AoE spells are easily unaffected by cover and concealment, and generally require no attack rolls anyway. Combat casters in all campaigns I have played/DM'd for always had long-range spells available because many of the better AoE damage spells (e.g., chain lightning) happen to be long range. Any UMD user lacking other class abilities has access to long range spells through scrolls, wands etc. These are of lower caster level, so he/she may not be able to participate optimally in a long-range combat. This is does not pose a particularly troublesome metagame problem for a DM concerned with player fun because these characters can usually shine outside of combat or provide substantial contributions to other aspects of play. I'll give you all that. I don't really care. I have never, ever, ever participated in combats at those ranges, let alone have the majority of combats happen at those ranges. Why do monsters even have natural attacks or abilities like swallow whole if combat is always a gun-fight? Simply increasing the range of engagement is one of the most reliable and effective ways to pose a tactical challenge to your opponents, but a well-prepared enemy will still be just as capable of an effective (if not exactly optimal) response. It is not, therefore, a milder form of 'rocks fall, you die', but simply an aspect of combat that was unavailable until higher levels. It's one thing to note that increasing the range of engagement is effective and another thing entirely to claim that the game is centered on it at higher levels. This is another point that has been gnawing at me since basically the conception of this thread. People argue that we should stick to core because not everyone includes non-core material, meaning any fighter using non-core material would be limited to specific games. Then, we pull a 180 and argue against the fighter's balance with these examples of very specific gameplay. How can someone note that not everyone uses core, and then assume that everyone plays with custom/meta-game/genius monsters, non-cooperative players, huge open battlefields and extreme range encounters, small pool of available enemies limited to mobile, spellcasting, gargantuan quadrapeds, etc.? @Navar and the rest: Good catch. See, I need to go to bed earlier. I forgot that the attack was made as an AoO, so the Power Attack still applies. On the flip side, I also forgot the bonuses for being Enlarged. This would add: +1 Strength -1 Size +4 Size That would keep the modifier at +44. However, his damage would actually be 2d6+35, for an average damage of ~42. With Improved Bull Rush *and* your new size, the modifier would be 50. That means you can push the Titan back 3 squares *and* make him prone. Now Advancing Blows grants you a +3 bonus to your attack. So, all in all, you'd have a +50 modifier to bull rush vs. the Titan's +24 to resist. To disarm the prone Titan, you'd get a +47 vs. his +45. This assumes the fighter is Large-sized (he has to be in order to bull rush) and that he overcomes the DR. (Even without overcoming the DR, the fighter's Bull Rush modifier would be +35, which is still better than the +24. The only difference is you'd likely lose the bonus from Advancing Blows, leaving the Disarm check at +43 vs. +45. Still very close.)
Kalarus 06-17-07, 05:56 PM	In the end, regardless of specific tactic used, the litmus test for whether or not you played that CR 20 encounter at an appropriate level of difficulty for the ECL 20 party is whether or not you forced the party to expend roughly 25% of their daily renewable resources. I have yet to see this done while allowing the pit fiend to make tactical blunders. Concrete examples: Ranger 4 with 12 wisdom using guided shot and a composite longbow: 1 attack at no distance penalty at 1,100'. By level 13 this becomes a 2,200' full attack range of effect ignoring all distance penalties and now miss chances as well thanks to a seeking enhancement on his bow. Uses/day grow at 1/1000gp invested thanks to pearls of power. This tactic is available to all ranged weapon combat specialists, and even more deadly with arcane caster ranged weapon specialists. Any caster with a long range spell scales from 440' at level 1 to 1,200' range of effect by level 20, or 2,400' including enlarged spell metamagic. AoE spells are easily unaffected by cover and concealment, and generally require no attack rolls anyway. Combat casters in all campaigns I have played/DM'd for always had long-range spells available because many of the better AoE damage spells (e.g., chain lightning) happen to be long range. Any UMD user lacking other class abilities has access to long range spells through scrolls, wands etc. These are of lower caster level, so he/she may not be able to participate optimally in a long-range combat. This is does not pose a particularly troublesome metagame problem for a DM concerned with player fun because these characters can usually shine outside of combat or provide substantial contributions to other aspects of play. Simply increasing the range of engagement is one of the most reliable and effective ways to pose a tactical challenge to your opponents, but a well-prepared enemy will still be just as capable of an effective (if not exactly optimal) response. It is not, therefore, a milder form of 'rocks fall, you die', but simply an aspect of combat that was unavailable until higher levels. The LoE/LoS-limiting effect of most terrains is negated with flight. The only conditions preventing long-ranged combat at higher levels tend to be an underground environment or buildings. The latter only has bearing as long as both sides elect to stay within the building for the entirety of combat, which is normally tactically unsound for at least one side. Even given the above, you are correct in that not all combats will occur and stay at range, but the sheer physical distances involved are only one aspect of combat that outgrows the fighter. Another very important dimension of combat that grows in importance is the pre-initiative period. As scouts become more skilled and the general sphere of active perception grows, this is likely to take place at longer distances and last longer as well. At lower levels, the advantage thus gained is usually limited to either the option of withdrawing unnoticed, or a standard action in the surprise round if you choose to engage. At higher levels, combatants can leverage every single pre-initiative action to great effect. CoDzilla lays on multiple stacking buffs. Combat/tactical control casters fine-tune their round-by-round tactics to the final situational details of the encounter, and often setup a tactical chain sequence with delay spell metamagic and/or using additional buffs. Sufficiently stealthy rogues, rangers, etc., use the time to position themselves for maximum effect, up to and including immediately adjacent to the target without alerting it (in some cases to prepare for a first strike, in others to setup an unexpected interruption for spellcasters). Fighters may benefit from this aspect of combat as the recipient of buffs, but they are once again unable to contribute and take advantage of this expanded aspect of combat to the same degree as other characters. At lower levels, the largest problem of combat is simply dealing more damage than you're taking, and stopping damage from being dealt to the wrong people. Fighters are well-suited to this. At higher levels, the problem becomes one of finding a way to bring your strengths to bear immediately and in spite of an ever-growing array of obstacles and challenging circumstances, and in a manner that further denies the enemy the use of his own strengths to the greatest degree possible. The increased level of lethality means that bodies start hitting the ground by round 2 if not round 1, so in-combat tactical adjustments become less of a factor. If you find that you've brought the metaphorical sword to a gunfight, the probability that you will reverse the tides after a tactical adjustment is vanishingly small compared to lower levels. Your success or failure at a given encounter becomes far more dependent on factors such as your ability to tailor your tactics prior to battle and to dictate the circumstances of battle such as the range of engagement and environment. In other words, the balance of power in D&D combat simply shifts outside of the fighter's sphere of influence. Concrete counter-examples: 1) Pit fiends have an int of 26. Its tactical behaviour involves physical approach to the worst injured enemy in round 2. This means it gets into melee range, which likely puts it in melee range of the Fighter. Getting a Pit Fiend into melee is not a "tactical blunder", it is appropriate behaviour for a Pit Fiend. Having it rely solely on its magical abilities is metagame behaviour because a DM with his all-encompassing vision knows that spells are more powerful than melee. The Pit Fiend is a powerful melee combatant and it knows this. It will use it, because it believes its melee abilities are strong enough to warrant use. 2) Adult white dragon. It has an int of 10, which people for some reason is the dividing line between tactical behaviour and non-tactical behaviour. It's combat behaviour reads "They loose their breath weapon, then try to knock out a single opponent with a followup attack." A dragon could just fly circles/hover, loosening breath weapons till the party is dead. It would avoid all melee fighting, making it effectively a magic battle. However the dragon has multiple powerful melee attacks per round. There's no reason for the dragon not to use these. This means the dragon will be acting appropriately if it gets close to melee characters, even though from an allknowing perspective (which the Dragon hasn't), it would be unwise to do this. I tripped me a Dragon today, dropping it right at the Paladin's feet to suffer some heavy smiting. The dragons flew in from long range. The party took cover in a barn. The dragon nearly literally attacked the broad side of the barn, charging in but instead of hitting the wall it took out a portion of the roof, allowing its mate to breathe in through the hole, hovering incidentally in range of my Fighter's full attack though its mate stayed out of reach. The dragon, on its next turn, used its own breath weapon, then flew off, provoking an AoO from my Fighter, who hit it with a trip and yanked it down. The way combat should appropriately go is decided by what is an appropriate tactic for the creature you're fighting. It doesn't matter for an objective discussion that you believe that a Int 26 Pit Fiend would never be "stupid enough" to get itself into melee range of the Fighter and suffering a full attack. Its specified tactics state that it does get in melee range, and apparently that is appropriate behaviour for an Int 26 creature. This is your typical Pit Fiend. Similarly your typical Balor who *loves* to get into melee combat will get itself into melee combat in round 3. Deviating from these tactics without an in-game reason (like experiencing how hard a full-attacking Fighter can hit) is a metagame decision which results in you not using the enemy as described, but using a variant of the enemy that you created. Commonly these things are called "house rules". Tailoring tactics before battle is NOT outside the Fighter's sphere of influence. This really sounds like some "Fighters are dumb" cliche. The dragon described above had to get itself in a pickle because it had to deal with something as simple as a barn. I do not see how you can claim that because a Fighter cannot attack at range as effectively as a spellcaster, this results in a Fighter's inability to create a situation in which the Fight actually does not take place at range. I remain curious which other "aspects of combat" other than sheer physical distance outgrow the Fighter, because really, that's the only one mentioned here that could, depending on the situation, be possibly substantial.
Khan the Destroyer 06-17-07, 06:23 PM	Concrete counter-examples: Not to mention the Titan, who has words like "charges, sunders, full attacks' in his tactics blurb. And dragons? Their strongest weapon is their full attack. The Tarrasque? Can you say 'No ranged attacks.'? How about boss minions? They don't fight in melee either? What about NPC meleers? Or do you only ever have 20th level caster bad guys? I wish I had something more tangible to argue against, instead of unbacked generalizations. I remain curious which other "aspects of combat" other than sheer physical distance outgrow the Fighter, because really, that's the only one mentioned here that could, depending on the situation, be possibly substantial. This extreme range claim also assumes that the enemy can even fight at that range. Or can fight effectively at that range. I mean, what will a dragon do while getting sniped by your ranger, pinged by the rogue, and blasted by the wizard at a distance of 2000'? He'll probably either retreat (depending on how effective the assault was) or close the distance.
Clawhound 06-17-07, 09:16 PM	Let use review the job of the DM, for just a moment. 1. The DM creates a scenario for the players appropriate to their level and ability. 2. The DM designs encounters in that scenario that the characters can win. 3. The default difficulty is an encounter that uses approximately 20% of a party's resources. The DM could create a scenario that is too hard or too easy for a party's level and ability. In these cases, the party is granted more or less experience. In extreme cases, the party is TPK'd or granted no experiences. Note here that "optimizing" for the DM is not making an encounter work to the limits of its potential. Optimizing is establishing what type of encounter the players will face, then correctly benchmarking that against the intended difficulty. Note that the system gives the DM flexability in determining the final CR of an encounter. It is up to the DM to include extraneous factors and other adjustments. For example, a well defended position will increase the CR of an encounter. A special term often used in this thread is "coddling". As best as I can determine, "coddling" is when a DM adjusts the difficulty of an encounter downward. For some, this is sinful. For others, this exact issue is about making the game fun for everyone. For example: A character is useful because the DM is coddling the him. VS A character is useful because the DM makes sure that every character gets to shine. In this particular matter, I remind you that the DM designs encounters that the players can win. By definition, this is coddling. Coddling is built into the rules and quantified into the CR system. A DM who does not wish to coddle his players can easily throw TPK's at the players. That is universally recognized as an un-fun game. You simply can not invoke "coddling" without recognizing that every character benefits from this action. Now, let's apply this to the examples at hand. The party will encounter something. The DM chooses a balor because he believes that the party can win the encounter. He knows that the party is getting too formulaic, so he designs the encounter to start with a twist to throw the party off balance. (He makes it an ICE balor). To add spice, the creature breaks off quickly, and instead, eight of his minions erupt from the ice floor, hitting the party from the rear (and giving the fighter a good offer of melee). The balrog leads the party through a cat-and-mouse game, weakening them through two more encounters before facing them. There are some cryptic runes to solve (so that the rogue gets to use his Decipher Script), something animated (which isn't an outsider), and a few arcane things for the wizard. Eventually, the DM knits this all together into a narrative that the players go looking for a missing spellcaster, and finding his summoning gone horribly wrong. This gets me to my most important point. An adventure is an artificial construct whose purpose is a vehicle that lets the characters be heroes. An encounter is a finitely dangerous part of an adventure that requires extraordinary effort to overcome. The creatures encountered have natures and limited knowledge, and they act by that nature and that limited knowledge. Only by recognizing these things can we begin to assess what a creature would do. To act as if the DM were a player, limited in scope by the rules, and only able to gain advantage by pushing rules and builds to the extreme is to completely miscomprehend the fundamental role of the DM. To act as if the DM were a foe in a wargame, whose entire purpose is to determine winners and losers in a "even" fight is to fundamentally miscomprehend the role of the DM.
Khan the Destroyer 06-17-07, 10:25 PM	Very well said Clawhound. I tried to say as much by referring to the 'spirit of the game', but you said it much better than I would have had I gone deeper. Excellent post. It seems like people are under the impression that the D&D game runs itself. Like it's some sort of video game or something, and we can come here to the boards for the Strategy Guide on how to beat it.
Bob Loblaw 06-17-07, 10:37 PM	Khan, maybe you should use Clawhound as one of your Pokemons too. You can't go wrong with two awesome pokemons. I think Clawhound said everything we've been trying to say for months now, only better. Excellent post.
Bhaal006 06-17-07, 10:53 PM	You are right that in-game, monsters do not have some sort of "heads-up display" which tells them the stats of every creature they encounter IT'S OVER 9,000!!!
Khan the Destroyer 06-17-07, 11:18 PM	Khan, maybe you should use Clawhound as one of your Pokemons too. You can't go wrong with two awesome pokemons. Come to think of it... I do want to be the very best. Like no one ever was. I think Clawhound said everything we've been trying to say for months now, only better. Excellent post. Where does that leave us? IT'S OVER 9,000!!! At first, I was like... WTF?!?!?!?! Then I got it :).
Bhaal006 06-17-07, 11:21 PM	I tried to restrain myself, but I just couldn't.
magmer2 06-17-07, 11:29 PM	IT'S OVER 9,000!!! I think your off by a factor of 10.
runestar 06-17-07, 11:29 PM	1) Pit fiends have an int of 26. Its tactical behaviour involves physical approach to the worst injured enemy in round 2. This means it gets into melee range, which likely puts it in melee range of the Fighter. Getting a Pit Fiend into melee is not a "tactical blunder", it is appropriate behaviour for a Pit Fiend. Having it rely solely on its magical abilities is metagame behaviour because a DM with his all-encompassing vision knows that spells are more powerful than melee. The Pit Fiend is a powerful melee combatant and it knows this. It will use it, because it believes its melee abilities are strong enough to warrant use. I could just as readily argue that the pit fiend is extremely comfortable with using either its SLAs or melee in combat, and will thus opt to rely on whichever will serve it best in any current given scenario. A tactical blunder occurs not when the pit fiend wades into melee, but when it does so at an inopportune moment. And I disagree that it is a form of metagaming. A pit fiend is expected to be fairly familiar with nuances of combat, and thus knows what the best option to take in battle usually is. Thus, it is not unreasonable to expect a pit fiend to know when using spells would be a more viable attack option as compared to melee, and vice versa, and act accordingly. I am not saying that the pit fiend should never enter melee combat, but ideally, it would do so only when its SLAs have sufficiently softened up the opposition, and victory looks fairly certain. :) Same for the titan, whose suggested tactics blurb is the complete opposite of how I would play him. He charges in combat first, then backs off to use his SLAs. I would have him use crushing hand and maze to tie down key PCs, distract them with SNA and word of chaos, weaken them with quickened chain lightnings and firestorms, then finally enter melee combat. And I would probably save sunder for its 4th attack (since that has the lowest bab, and thus least likely to hit), rather than open up with it. :)
Alpha_Moose 06-17-07, 11:53 PM	It seems like people are under the impression that the D&D game runs itself. Like it's some sort of video game or something, and we can come here to the boards for the Strategy Guide on how to beat it. Isn't that basically what more than half of the boards are about? I mean yeah the DM can do whatever and is supposed to make it work, but that doesn't mean some balance shouldn't exist in the game itself. I mean what do you think we're playing, Vampire the Requiem? Come to think of it... I do want to be the very best. Like no one ever was. Here's an HM so you can teach Fly to Kalarus.:gift:
Clawhound 06-18-07, 07:12 AM	Same for the titan, whose suggested tactics blurb is the complete opposite of how I would play him. He charges in combat first, then backs off to use his SLAs. I would have him use crushing hand and maze to tie down key PCs, distract them with SNA and word of chaos, weaken them with quickened chain lightnings and firestorms, then finally enter melee combat. And I would probably save sunder for its 4th attack (since that has the lowest bab, and thus least likely to hit), rather than open up with it. :) That's the difference between wargaming and role-playing. According to the creature description, the creature prefers to act one way, but according to effective play, he should really act another. If you read through the titan description, and the feats, the titan is a melee creature at heart. It is a martial being. This tell me, as a DM, what type of fight that the creature will present. Your description of tactics, although tactically superior, is dramatically inferior. The DM needs to ask additional questions, such as: What produces the more dramatic combat? What will psychologically intimidate the players more? Do the fights vary enough to keep the players interested? Have your characters had the opportunity to use the feats, items, and special abilities that they have earned during adventuring? Are you effectively nerfing any characters by denying those characters any reasonable chance to use their abilities? D&D contains many conceits that are not realistic, optimal, or even sensical. These are as artificial as the asides in a Shakespearean play. Yet, they serve a purpose to build an experience. If you are not serving that experience, then you can in no way consider your optimization optimal. You've gained challenge but lost genre.
Kalarus 06-18-07, 07:45 AM	I could just as readily argue that the pit fiend is extremely comfortable with using either its SLAs or melee in combat, and will thus opt to rely on whichever will serve it best in any current given scenario. A tactical blunder occurs not when the pit fiend wades into melee, but when it does so at an inopportune moment. And I disagree that it is a form of metagaming. A pit fiend is expected to be fairly familiar with nuances of combat, and thus knows what the best option to take in battle usually is. Thus, it is not unreasonable to expect a pit fiend to know when using spells would be a more viable attack option as compared to melee, and vice versa, and act accordingly. I am not saying that the pit fiend should never enter melee combat, but ideally, it would do so only when its SLAs have sufficiently softened up the opposition, and victory looks fairly certain. :) A pit fiend, much like any other creature, expects its powerful abilities, wether they be melee or spells/SLAs, to *work*. It doesn't see an adventuring party and thinks "I need to fly high and cast spells just in case that one in shining armor is a 20th level Fighter", it thinks "You may be able to defeat a few of my minions but now you are facing a General of Hell". Sure it will start with its SLAs as per tactics description. This will either work, or it will not work. 1) SLAs do not work, the party's hardly hurt, whatever it may be. Pit fiends have 6 melee attacks per round with added poison, disease and improved grab as well as a fear aura. Sounds like a very viable combat option when spells fail. 2) SLAs do work, the party is hurt. How is this an inoppertune moment to dive in and tear something apart with your claws and fangs for lunch? When you are a powerful melee combatant, you will get into melee combat because that is what you are good at. This goes for Pit Fiends as much as Fighters. The Pit Fiend doesn't think "Damn I have only +30 to hit at best with my claws, the rest is only at +28, and my AC is only 40. If that Fighter picked his feats and gear right he's going to hit me easily while likely avoiding most of my attacks." This is why such behaviour is metagame thinking, the Pit Fiend does not know its powerful melee options will fail until it gets into melee to use them. Who cares if the Fighter bashed a few lesser demons around, this is a General of Hell and they'll know it. Throw the Fireballs, Hold Monster and Meteor swarm, they're softened up now, melee time. The problem is that a lot of people's view of "certain victory" involves nothing but staying at range and pelting with SLAs. They read the Pit Fiend's stats, look at what a Fighter could have at L20, and conclude that the Pit Fiend would never get into melee because the Fighter can be better. If this isn't metagame thinking, I must not understand the concept. Same for the titan, whose suggested tactics blurb is the complete opposite of how I would play him. He charges in combat first, then backs off to use his SLAs. I would have him use crushing hand and maze to tie down key PCs, distract them with SNA and word of chaos, weaken them with quickened chain lightnings and firestorms, then finally enter melee combat. And I would probably save sunder for its 4th attack (since that has the lowest bab, and thus least likely to hit), rather than open up with it. :) Just boldfaced a word there. Like Clawhound pointed out, you play a Titan by looking at what it can do. The tactics blurb is playing a Titan by how a Titan behaves according to its nature. Here's an HM so you can teach Fly to Kalarus. Woot, I can fly now? What's an HM? Isn't that basically what more than half of the boards are about? I mean yeah the DM can do whatever and is supposed to make it work, but that doesn't mean some balance shouldn't exist in the game itself. I mean what do you think we're playing, Vampire the Requiem? Some balance does exist in the game itself. The mistake people make is assuming that that balance is accurately represented by creating situations in which a PC class becomes arguably useless.
Archangel62 06-18-07, 08:05 AM	A pit fiend, much like any other creature, expects its powerful abilities, wether they be melee or spells/SLAs, to *work*. It doesn't see an adventuring party and thinks "I need to fly high and cast spells just in case that one in shining armor is a 20th level Fighter", it thinks "You may be able to defeat a few of my minions but now you are facing a General of Hell". Sure it will start with its SLAs as per tactics description. This will either work, or it will not work. 1) SLAs do not work, the party's hardly hurt, whatever it may be. Pit fiends have 6 melee attacks per round with added poison, disease and improved grab as well as a fear aura. Sounds like a very viable combat option when spells fail. 2) SLAs do work, the party is hurt. How is this an inoppertune moment to dive in and tear something apart with your claws and fangs for lunch? The Pit Fiend isn't stupid either, now animatedly there are two ways to do this, one way is in the 'blind' battle in which the pit fiend and the party aren't aware of the other before the fight started. The pitfiend can look the party over and make some assumptions..."hmm, stave, also sensing waves of magic coming off of a few of them, some of their weapons or armor bear the distinct markings of X level equipment, alright presumably this is what they have to offer in the way of resistance." And work from there, it's a minor calculation, nothing indepth but it means that the pitfiend doesn't automatically ignore any threats. The thing is a general of hell, but it got there through centuries of warfare, intrigue, and tactical skill not by forgetting the fact that devils can get killed by adventurers. When you are a powerful melee combatant, you will get into melee combat because that is what you are good at. This goes for Pit Fiends as much as Fighters. The Pit Fiend doesn't think "Damn I have only +30 to hit at best with my claws, the rest is only at +28, and my AC is only 40. If that Fighter picked his feats and gear right he's going to hit me easily while likely avoiding most of my attacks." This is why such behaviour is metagame thinking, the Pit Fiend does not know its powerful melee options will fail until it gets into melee to use them. Who cares if the Fighter bashed a few lesser demons around, this is a General of Hell and they'll know it. Throw the Fireballs, Hold Monster and Meteor swarm, they're softened up now, melee time. Yes, but if the pit fiend is aware of the party and their capabilities beforehand and doesn't adapt its tactics to deal with it then I call that also metagaming, refusing to use the pit fiend in the most appropriate way because it would neutralize or destroy the party. Yes, if the pit fiend is not aware of the party it probably will blast the party then move in, but, as you mentioned it is a general of hell, it will also watch how the party functions and if it needs to call for more aid it will. The problem is that a lot of people's view of "certain victory" involves nothing but staying at range and pelting with SLAs. They read the Pit Fiend's stats, look at what a Fighter could have at L20, and conclude that the Pit Fiend would never get into melee because the Fighter can be better. If this isn't metagame thinking, I must not understand the concept. It can also be called intelligent tactics. If a pit fiend is summoned to deal with a party (long term in this case, maybe an enemy caster calls it in and tells it to destroy the PCs and that it has X period of time to do so) then it will find out what it is dealing with and what the party can bring to bear. For example, a good general doesn't ignore the chance to gather data and intelligence when the opportunities present themselves. The pit fiend isn't going to blindly assume that the party will always fall over to it, that sort of thinking has no place in a proper thought process. Of course the pit fiend 'knows' it will win, but it knows that it will win by superior tactics and ability, and that it will take the time to study foes and strike at their weakest. If the Pit fiend is a recurring foe, perhaps the power behind a few of the lower enemies the players have faced, each of them the pit fiends minions working to grant their patron ultimate power in some fashion. Whatever the case the pit fiend will be studying them, these are the fools who tried to topple him and he will know how to harm them in all areas personal and public, he will know their tactics and limitations and he will turn their strengths against them. Just boldfaced a word there. Like Clawhound pointed out, you play a Titan by looking at what it can do. The tactics blurb is playing a Titan by how a Titan behaves according to its nature. Yes, and my nature is to observe before I get involved in most cases if a fight is breaking out or something similar. However, if I see someone unable to defend themselves or something similar I say screw analysis and move in to help. And you're right, the tactics give how the titan typically works, but may I ask a question, do the PCs have a typical strategy or style for combat? If so do they ever abandon it if they realize that it is less likely to work given the current scenario? If so, then apparently by your definitions they're metagaming. Some balance does exist in the game itself. The mistake people make is assuming that that balance is accurately represented by creating situations in which a PC class becomes arguably useless. No, balance is represented by looking at where a class can function, where it cannot, and how common both are in a favorable, adverse, and neutral setting.
The_sleeper1 06-18-07, 08:06 AM	To the tinking of a pit fiend or balor I would tend to think that they have been in many fights and a fight between 4 lower level combatants with varried abilitys and one high level creature the higher level creatuer is at a massive disadvantage. He would also know the general power level of someone to get in to that area your not going to find level 3 groups planar traveling. Generaly only level 12-15+ and thats the level that groups of PC's start to get dangerous to single CR 20 monsters. Both of them would summon an ally at the very least.
runestar 06-18-07, 08:26 AM	You are right about the titan's "charge first, cast later" strategy as suggested in the MM. It slipped my mind altogether. I understand where you are coming from - basically, their love of battle encourages them to engage in melee, resorting to SLAs only when the opposition proves tougher than anticipated. Mia culpa...:embarrass
Clawhound 06-18-07, 08:53 AM	For me, part of the fun of being the DM is getting to play the monsters. Who is my general of the netherworld? What's is his attitude? How does he use his forces? How will he challenge my players? How does he fit into the storyline? What are his faults? Where does his demonic nature blind him? How do I best use him in the dramatic arc? This is quite different from, "I'm Wile E. Balrog, Super-Genius (TM)."
Kratch 06-18-07, 10:38 AM	The Pit Fiend isn't stupid either, now animatedly there are two ways to do this, one way is in the 'blind' battle in which the pit fiend and the party aren't aware of the other before the fight started. The pitfiend can look the party over and make some assumptions..."hmm, stave, also sensing waves of magic coming off of a few of them, some of their weapons or armor bear the distinct markings of X level equipment, alright presumably this is what they have to offer in the way of resistance." And work from there, it's a minor calculation, nothing indepth but it means that the pitfiend doesn't automatically ignore any threats. The thing is a general of hell, but it got there through centuries of warfare, intrigue, and tactical skill not by forgetting the fact that devils can get killed by adventurers. Your granting him Detect magic (an ability it doesn't have to begin with) thats usable at a longer range then any PC is ever capable. It's also a general of hell who's battles have all been against demons and mortals that died beneath his hooves. He has no reason to believe these will be any different. Yah, He's gonna use intellegent tactics. Yes, but if the pit fiend is aware of the party and their capabilities beforehand and doesn't adapt its tactics to deal with it then I call that also metagaming, refusing to use the pit fiend in the most appropriate way because it would neutralize or destroy the party. Yes, if the pit fiend is not aware of the party it probably will blast the party then move in, but, as you mentioned it is a general of hell, it will also watch how the party functions and if it needs to call for more aid it will. That is an assumption the pit fiend is aware of the PC's beforehand, but it is entirely possible the PC's know about the pitfiend beforehand and take precautions not to be discovered (most people claim wizards are taking precations against divinations anyways), And if it has all this foreknowledge, how is that a strike against the fighter alone? With all this foreknowledge, It's going to attack at the most opportune time, meaning when the wizard and cleric have used a large number of spells in the day, and knowing they are capable of 9th level spells, will target the casters first, likely the wizard with melee. Advance knowledge of the party is not a strike against the fighter, It's an increase in the CR of the encounter. TPK's are not proof against the ineffectiveness of a fighter, It is proof of the effectiveness of the tactic. It can also be called intelligent tactics. If a pit fiend is summoned to deal with a party (long term in this case, maybe an enemy caster calls it in and tells it to destroy the PCs and that it has X period of time to do so) then it will find out what it is dealing with and what the party can bring to bear. For example, a good general doesn't ignore the chance to gather data and intelligence when the opportunities present themselves. The pit fiend isn't going to blindly assume that the party will always fall over to it, that sort of thinking has no place in a proper thought process. Of course the pit fiend 'knows' it will win, but it knows that it will win by superior tactics and ability, and that it will take the time to study foes and strike at their weakest. That makes it a BBEG, not a simple encounter. The CR has to be adjusted accordingly. And i still don't see how this relates to a fighter? If the creatures are played to their personallity, a fighter is a very effective member of the party, If the creatures are played to negate the strength of the fighter, which seems to be, at the same time, playing into the stength of a caster, then it seems like there is a bias being created, in the name of "good tactics". I personally find it a good tactic to sit right beside the wizard, attacking with my high DC poisonous bite and improved grab tail to try and kill off his already low HP's and prevent him casting, meanwhile, my summoned minions are playing interception. And funny thing that, that happens to be closer to the way it say it'll be played then staying at long range and leaving the wizard relatively untouched to pelt it back with magic. Seems to me your all changing the tactics to protect it against the fighter and make it more vulnerable to the wizard, That would imply the fighter is a greater threat then the wizard, would it not? If thats the case, why is it people say fighters suck? If the Pit fiend is a recurring foe, perhaps the power behind a few of the lower enemies the players have faced, each of them the pit fiends minions working to grant their patron ultimate power in some fashion. Whatever the case the pit fiend will be studying them, these are the fools who tried to topple him and he will know how to harm them in all areas personal and public, he will know their tactics and limitations and he will turn their strengths against them. Again, that makes it a BBEG and thus, the CR should be adjusted appropriately. It also means the pit fiend will wait till the cleric and wizard have expendd a large selection of spells and resources, including the precious contingencies. No, balance is represented by looking at where a class can function, where it cannot, and how common both are in a favorable, adverse, and neutral setting. Favourable to who? and making yourself more vulnerable to casters in order to protect yourself from melee's doesn't sound very neutral to me, especially considering everyone says the greater threat is the caster to begin with, because thats supposedly "good tactics" doesn't seem very neutral to me.
Alpha_Moose 06-18-07, 04:55 PM	Woot, I can fly now? What's an HM? Some kinda pokemon thing. All I remember is that HMs can be used over again while TMs are a one time use. Some balance does exist in the game itself. The mistake people make is assuming that that balance is accurately represented by creating situations in which a PC class becomes arguably useless. No, balance is represented by looking at where a class can function, where it cannot, and how common both are in a favorable, adverse, and neutral setting. Favourable to who? and making yourself more vulnerable to casters in order to protect yourself from melee's doesn't sound very neutral to me, especially considering everyone says the greater threat is the caster to begin with, because thats supposedly "good tactics" doesn't seem very neutral to me. The Pit Fiend thing aside, there are good points here in both sides. Some balance exists in the game, but if a certain type of character can be replaced be virtually replaced by another then there isn't enough balance. The favorable scenarios are more specific, but if there are more favorable scenarios for one character then again there is not enough balance. As a kind of aside: I've never liked the Fighter not because it can't work, but it's too cumbersome. It's the same problem with the Truenamer or even the Wizard for me. The mechanic is awkward and even though it can be good or even powerful it's just not smooth. That's the reason why I like more spontaneous casters or psionics and ToB classes. That's all more personal preference though. This is quite different from, "I'm Wile E. Balrog, Super-Genius (TM)." I suddenly have the image of a Balor putting on rocket skates.
Shadow_Fox_Deepwood_Arche 06-18-07, 07:16 PM	This "debate" has been spinning its wheels in the mud for a long time. First off, Id like to state the FACT that its not the DM's job to defeat the players. His goal is not to pit "his" monsters vs the players in a battle royal to see who is victorious (like a Big Team Battle on Halo). The DM's job is to run the game, play the part of the bad guys, and present meaningful and challenging adventures for the players to embark on. The player's SHOULD win, but at the same time they need to feel the pain along the way; they may need to make sacrifices or even lose a good friend or two. Too many people are going into this argument with a min/max MMO mentality: "This tactic is superior, therefore, all other considerations mean nothing and should go flying out the window. I dont care what the monsters description says, the monster's 26 INT dictates that he pops out, blows all of his resources on killing the fighter, and all of his allies will magically tip over in the proccess. This proves fighters suck". That sounds like an INT of 2 to me. People want to ignore text that dictates how the monster behaves yet they want to quote text (INT of 26) to defend their own argument. Sounds like a bias to me. "Ill only aknowledge the text when it serves my purpose". Why on earth would that demon blow his wish on this one fight unless he was on the verge of death? If I lived in the pitts of hell, I sure would want to keep that thing ready for when I REALLY needed it. Or is he going to blow his wish and then go hide in a hole for a year so he can jump out and screw another fighter when the time is right? Feel free to ignore anything that is stated in any book. Thats your right as a D&D player. But dont come onto public forums and dictate to the community at large that they should also do things that way. At this point, several people are arguing tooth and nail just so they arent seen as wrong, not because they are stating fact and not opinion.
Kalarus 06-18-07, 08:25 PM	The Pit Fiend isn't stupid either, now animatedly there are two ways to do this, one way is in the 'blind' battle in which the pit fiend and the party aren't aware of the other before the fight started. The pitfiend can look the party over and make some assumptions..."hmm, stave, also sensing waves of magic coming off of a few of them, some of their weapons or armor bear the distinct markings of X level equipment, alright presumably this is what they have to offer in the way of resistance." And work from there, it's a minor calculation, nothing indepth but it means that the pitfiend doesn't automatically ignore any threats. The thing is a general of hell, but it got there through centuries of warfare, intrigue, and tactical skill not by forgetting the fact that devils can get killed by adventurers. D&D isn't some MMORPG where more powerful equipment looks progressively cooler. A magic sword looks similar to a masterwork sword, disregarding that that it might shed light. Even if it sheds light a +1 sword looks exactly the same when you upgrade it to a +5 sword. Magic jewelry looks like expensive jewelry wether it is worn by a L20 Fighter or a foppy L1 aristocrat. Masterwork items all look different because they are of exceptional quality. Tradesmen don't mass produce masterwork items, most make only a few in their lives, usually only on special order. The weapons created by a certain weaponsmith might be similar in design or bear the same mark, they might be completely different depending on what struck the maker's fancy. Just by regular sight, you can't determine anything at all beyond the masterwork quality of an object. Yes, but if the pit fiend is aware of the party and their capabilities beforehand and doesn't adapt its tactics to deal with it then I call that also metagaming, refusing to use the pit fiend in the most appropriate way because it would neutralize or destroy the party. Yes, if the pit fiend is not aware of the party it probably will blast the party then move in, but, as you mentioned it is a general of hell, it will also watch how the party functions and if it needs to call for more aid it will. In this case, if the alternative to metagaming is disruptive gaming (TPK), then please metagame. DMs shouldn't be out to wipe the party. For the sake of argument, let's assume the Pit Fiend does indeed observe the party beforehand and that the party apparently does nothing to prevent this. Let's assume the Pit Fiend has a legitimate tactical advantage (which is amusing, since the legitimacy as well as the information gaining is only done and justified in the DM's mind without any third party control whatsoever). It seems to me that the best thing to do is design a situation that neutralizes the party spellcasters, which may or may not neutralize the Fighter as people consistently claim spellcasters are far more dangerous no matter what. What would a Pit Fiend do? Greater dispel magic on the party wizard, grapple and fly off maybe? Seems reasonable enough but I am open to suggestions, as long as they are appropriately "Int 26" as well as completely negate the Fighter's influence. A Pit Fiend is NOT dumb enough to go into a spellbattle with multiple opponents that match or outdo it in spellcasting power, just to be safe from the party Fighter. It can also be called intelligent tactics. If a pit fiend is summoned to deal with a party (long term in this case, maybe an enemy caster calls it in and tells it to destroy the PCs and that it has X period of time to do so) then it will find out what it is dealing with and what the party can bring to bear. For example, a good general doesn't ignore the chance to gather data and intelligence when the opportunities present themselves. The pit fiend isn't going to blindly assume that the party will always fall over to it, that sort of thinking has no place in a proper thought process. Of course the pit fiend 'knows' it will win, but it knows that it will win by superior tactics and ability, and that it will take the time to study foes and strike at their weakest. If the Pit fiend is a recurring foe, perhaps the power behind a few of the lower enemies the players have faced, each of them the pit fiends minions working to grant their patron ultimate power in some fashion. Whatever the case the pit fiend will be studying them, these are the fools who tried to topple him and he will know how to harm them in all areas personal and public, he will know their tactics and limitations and he will turn their strengths against them. What's your point? This has nothing to do with Fighters, this has to do with TPK tactics. Show me a tactics example that matches your own criteria to take out the party, in which the Fighter is completely helpless. If spellcasters are so dangerous, a well-informed Pit Fiend is not going to create a situation in which it nullifies nothing but the Fighter. Yes, and my nature is to observe before I get involved in most cases if a fight is breaking out or something similar. However, if I see someone unable to defend themselves or something similar I say screw analysis and move in to help. And you're right, the tactics give how the titan typically works, but may I ask a question, do the PCs have a typical strategy or style for combat? If so do they ever abandon it if they realize that it is less likely to work given the current scenario? If so, then apparently by your definitions they're metagaming. Good for you. A Titan's nature isn't to observe. It's paragon chaotic. It wiels a gargantuan adamantine hammer. It will use said hammer appropriately. PCs may have a typical strategy. My Fighter does, anyways. It hasn't had a need to abandon it yet because it works. Tripped an adult white dragon last session, yanking it out of the sky for the Paladin to smite. The Warmage used mass chill shield to protect the party against breath weapons because contrary to what he usually does (blast things) it was a very useful thing to do. Why did he deviate? The dragonic-focused Sorceress provided the party with useful information about what white dragons can do, using an appropriate knowledge check. In-game information, in-game knowledge, in-game responses. No looking at the Monster Manual and going "It has a cold breath weapon, quick cast mass chill shield!" My definition of meta-gaming referred directly to reading monster vs Fighter stats and altering the monster's behaviour based on these stats, as if a monster has any in-game knowledge of the stats of a L20 Fighter. As if the monster is aware that it is a L20 encounter set up for an appropriate level party. As if you can see just by regular sight what level a party is, what they're wearing and what they're capable of. No, balance is represented by looking at where a class can function, where it cannot, and how common both are in a favorable, adverse, and neutral setting. So the Fighter is negatively unbalanced since it can't do everything and other classes can. We already knew this. Nothing about the Fighter follows from this knowledge. It does not mean it is too weak. It does not mean it is not viable. It does not mean it needs to be upgraded. It means it may be defeated by opponents it will never encounter, because consistently anti-Fighters here claim that at L20 you never encounter a medium-sized spellcaster to beat on, you only face huge+ monsters with multiple limbs. Of course, now someone is going to come with the L20 BBEG Cleric who can always avoid AoOs and spellcast at will because it's a adamantine full-plated dwarf with a tumble item. After all, all L20 BBEGs are. The Pit Fiend thing aside, there are good points here in both sides. Some balance exists in the game, but if a certain type of character can be replaced be virtually replaced by another then there isn't enough balance. The favorable scenarios are more specific, but if there are more favorable scenarios for one character then again there is not enough balance. You're right, there isn't enough balance between classes. We're just arguing that the Fighter is powerful enough to meet CR requirements, and that if this is true, the balance problem does not necessarily lie with the Fighter. Some classes can do nearly everything, some by design, some by accidental over-synergizing. It isn't the Fighter's fault, he's like the kid who gets less allowance than his classmates because nearly everyone else in his class is a spoiled brat. As a kind of aside: I've never liked the Fighter not because it can't work, but it's too cumbersome. It's the same problem with the Truenamer or even the Wizard for me. The mechanic is awkward and even though it can be good or even powerful it's just not smooth. That's the reason why I like more spontaneous casters or psionics and ToB classes. That's all more personal preference though. That's fine, I have similar problems playing most spontaneous casters :P. Some things just appeal to you, some don't. Same deal with alignments, I have problems playing lawful. I always find myself pushing the limits of its definition because it just doesn't agree with me. These days I just pick NG or CG to avoid the problem ;)
Argaud 06-18-07, 08:52 PM	Just by regular sight, you can't determine anything at all beyond the masterwork quality of an object. By the way, the pit fiend has no Appraise skill. Although with a +8 in an unskilled roll he can usually know when something is of exceptional quality, when he spends a minute examining the item, that is. Moreover nobody is forcing the party to wear polished, gleaming armors. Expensive noble robes and jewelled holy symbols on their chests. A +5 full plate of heavy fortification can be dented and battered, rusty along the edges, mudstained and bloodstained, an it is still a +5 full plate of heavy fortification. And only a minute of careful examination will reveal it is a masterwork armor. For the sake of argument, let's assume the Pit Fiend does indeed observe the party beforehand and that the party apparently does nothing to prevent this. Let's assume the Pit Fiend has a legitimate tactical advantage (which is amusing, since the legitimacy as well as the information gaining is only done and justified in the DM's mind without any third party control whatsoever). It seems to me that the best thing to do is design a situation that neutralizes the party spellcasters, which may or may not neutralize the Fighter as people consistently claim spellcasters are far more dangerous no matter what. What would a Pit Fiend do? Greater dispel magic on the party wizard, grapple and fly off maybe? Seems reasonable enough but I am open to suggestions, as long as they are appropriately "Int 26" as well as completely negate the Fighter's influence. A Pit Fiend is NOT dumb enough to go into a spellbattle with multiple opponents that match or outdo it in spellcasting power, just to be safe from the party Fighter. Honestly? If the pit fiend knows four optimized level 20 advanturers are going to fight him, he is -not- Int 26 if he does not immediately run away and hide in the darkest pit of hell. The fiend has no chance whatsover and he would be very lucky if he manages to kill even one of the four. Which is not even anything more than a minor inconvenience since Resurrection is readily available to them. Even four pit fiends against four adventurers would be extremely risky against the fiends. If the wizard can seize the initiative with a spell, Timestop and Gate in several solars, they have very little to do. Do they all try to take out the wizard? What about the two heavily armored warriors. What if one of them (or both!) are clerics? What if the other armorless guy is also a wizard? If the fiend has done research, he holds an unfair advantage on the party and is a higher CR encounter, unless the party has also done research, which means they will know the fiend's tactics. Wizard: Guys, that fiend always tries to fight a 300' or more. He never wades into melee. Fighter: Okay. Please put a Greater Magic Weapon in my bow every morning. Here you have a pearl of power for the spell level. Also, let me get a few silver arrows lawful outsider bane, evil outsider bane. 50 for 18,000 gold is a fair investment and I will hit him at 300 feet no problem.
The_sleeper1 06-18-07, 09:23 PM	A long long time ago the “pun pun fallacy” was coined to change this from a talk about balance to a talk about if a fighter can beat a set fight. Classes being balanced are all about RELATIVE power level and ability to cope with reasonable tasks your character is geared towards. I believe that the vast majority of people that play fighters are not playing well-built fighters towards tripping or other purpose builds. I built my fighter like many others to be an average guy that picks up 1-2 weapons and fights. Tripping, grappling and other special type maneuvers don’t really come in to it often. The vast majority of fighters to those people is all about the BAB and damage per hit. They are way too easy to copy. Fighters don’t suck, fighters don’t blow nor are they gimp but the dividing line between an average fighter and an average cleric/wizard/druid/insert other class is way too narrow so that the other classes can often effectively do everything an average fighter can so that there is no need for a fighter. Class comparisons are not the only way to determine a class’s viability but they should be the first and last step.
Bob Loblaw 06-18-07, 09:58 PM	I've been thinking about this a lot lately. If the fighter (or any other class for that matter) needs the rest of the four person party, doesn't that actually mean they are balanced? The game assumes that the adventurers are in a party of four so any class that can function outside that is actually more powerful. So is the problem the balanced fighter or the unbalanced cleric, druid, or wizard?
The_sleeper1 06-18-07, 10:44 PM	I've been thinking about this a lot lately. If the fighter (or any other class for that matter) needs the rest of the four person party, doesn't that actually mean they are balanced? The game assumes that the adventurers are in a party of four so any class that can function outside that is actually more powerful. So is the problem the balanced fighter or the unbalanced cleric, druid, or wizard? They are one in the same with a differant bias. If the majority of classes can solo the encounter then the guy that can not is underbalanced with in reason of course. A mixed group works best for a task but most times 4 druids will work better than 2 druids and 2 fighters and 4 clerics trumps 2 fighters a rogue and a druid. And I dont mean PvP I mean PvE. Not always for sure and special builds can bring a fighter on par at lower level fights or even better. The list of what a fighter brings to a fight is short, lacking and inflexable, what a cleric brings to a fight is huge varied and flexable.
Archangel62 06-18-07, 10:50 PM	D&D isn't some MMORPG where more powerful equipment looks progressively cooler. A magic sword looks similar to a masterwork sword, disregarding that that it might shed light. Even if it sheds light a +1 sword looks exactly the same when you upgrade it to a +5 sword. Magic jewelry looks like expensive jewelry wether it is worn by a L20 Fighter or a foppy L1 aristocrat. Masterwork items all look different because they are of exceptional quality. Tradesmen don't mass produce masterwork items, most make only a few in their lives, usually only on special order. The weapons created by a certain weaponsmith might be similar in design or bear the same mark, they might be completely different depending on what struck the maker's fancy. Just by regular sight, you can't determine anything at all beyond the masterwork quality of an object. True, but D&D for the 'standard weapons' stuff like the Holy Avenger and the like seem to have a typical design. Now the designs might not be perfect but generally it is always best to assume that the enemy is well prepared. IE if the party fought through hell to this point assuming potent gear is logical, if they fought through the defenses of guy who summoned it then again, assuming potent equipment is a reasonable conclusion. In this case, if the alternative to metagaming is disruptive gaming (TPK), then please metagame. DMs shouldn't be out to wipe the party. For the sake of argument, let's assume the Pit Fiend does indeed observe the party beforehand and that the party apparently does nothing to prevent this. Let's assume the Pit Fiend has a legitimate tactical advantage (which is amusing, since the legitimacy as well as the information gaining is only done and justified in the DM's mind without any third party control whatsoever). It seems to me that the best thing to do is design a situation that neutralizes the party spellcasters, which may or may not neutralize the Fighter as people consistently claim spellcasters are far more dangerous no matter what. What would a Pit Fiend do? Greater dispel magic on the party wizard, grapple and fly off maybe? Seems reasonable enough but I am open to suggestions, as long as they are appropriately "Int 26" as well as completely negate the Fighter's influence. A Pit Fiend is NOT dumb enough to go into a spellbattle with multiple opponents that match or outdo it in spellcasting power, just to be safe from the party Fighter. My point wasn't about the fighter, it was more generally about the way encounters are run. It could have been in regards to warlocks, wizards, any class. My problem is people arguing that certain types of tactics are illogical or wrong because of the 'feel' of the monster. As a side note, in my own games if they are facing an enemy caster with scrying abilities if they don't put up scrying wards or defenses against it they will be observed and I have had a couple games where they have gotten jumped by buffed enemies, after a near wipeout the wizard and cleric prepped and prayed for anti-scrying measures.
Kratch 06-18-07, 11:24 PM	They are one in the same with a differant bias. If the majority of classes can solo the encounter then the guy that can not is underbalanced with in reason of course. That would involve looking at the majority of class's then. I only ever see the cleric, druid and wizard (and lately, even the wizard has started disappearing), and of course the various sides of how a fighter would perform, based on the bias (i won't deny that both sides show a bit of bias, though, as has been argued, a lot of the "anti-fighter" bias' comes in the form of TPK encounters, with no examples of how any of the other "majority of class's" would perform in like situations.). I have yet to see an example of an encounter scenario that shows a fighter fails in that encounter while other class's succeed, that didn't go something like: Person 1: A "monster boo" would do X, Y, Z to a fighter, making him useless in the fight, meanwhile Cleric/druid/wizard can do U, V, W to win the fight with ease. Person 2: you forgot, a fighter could do A, B, C to help participate in that fight, therefor isn't so bad off as you'd think, additionally, U, and maybe V won't always work because of blah blah blah, and etc etc etc, and W can be offset by nawny nawny nah. Person 1 or 3: Well, Monster boo, having int 2k, would use intellegent tactic TPK to totally kill the fighter, he wouldn't stand a chance, so the fighter stiill sucks. Person 2 or 4: How does a TPK tactics proove anything about the fighter? Based on the written tactics and by not using metagame knowledge, the fighter would perform fine and so forth and so on into the endless spiral of argument we've recently found ourselves in again. Class comparisons are not the only way to determine a class’s viability but they should be the first and last step. Then compare the class's. Not just the fighter vs cleric. I have yet to see a comparison of a paladin or barbarian and cleric, to show they can still do something the cleric can't, and thus pass the criteria that the fighter is claimed to fail (if you can't prove that, then you need to reconsider using cleric as your standard, or get off the fighters back and start addressing melee in general, as some have done). I have yet to see a comparison show a barbarian or paladin outperforms the fighter, and thus makes him obsolete (i have seen several comparisons of a barbarian and fighter that shows them to be about equal, I have done one myself as well.) (If you cannot prove the fighter is inferior to all the other class's, who's to say which class should be tossed out as obsolete, or is it not reasonable to keep several comparable options that do their thing in different ways, granting a redundancy of options?
navar100 06-18-07, 11:29 PM	They are one in the same with a differant bias. If the majority of classes can solo the encounter then the guy that can not is underbalanced with in reason of course. A mixed group works best for a task but most times 4 druids will work better than 2 druids and 2 fighters and 4 clerics trumps 2 fighters a rogue and a druid. And I dont mean PvP I mean PvE. Not always for sure and special builds can bring a fighter on par at lower level fights or even better. The list of what a fighter brings to a fight is short, lacking and inflexable, what a cleric brings to a fight is huge varied and flexable. A cleric is more versatile. That is its strength, probably on purpose. A druid is more versatile. That is its strength, probably on accident. Neither fact takes away that the fighter can do what he's supposed to do well enough.
Bob Loblaw 06-19-07, 12:02 AM	They are one in the same with a differant bias. If the majority of classes can solo the encounter then the guy that can not is underbalanced with in reason of course. I want to make sure I understand you. You are saying that if a class can solo an encounter the problem is with the class that can't? This goes against the entire concept of a party of four being able to handle an equal Encounter Level. The problem then is actually the other classes are too powerful or the Encounter Level is not properly set. A mixed group works best for a task but most times 4 druids will work better than 2 druids and 2 fighters and 4 clerics trumps 2 fighters a rogue and a druid. And I dont mean PvP I mean PvE. You don't see this as a problem? This doesn't mean that the druids or clerics are too powerful? If they can do everything, and I do mean everything, the other classes can do, then how is this not wrong? Not always for sure and special builds can bring a fighter on par at lower level fights or even better. The list of what a fighter brings to a fight is short, lacking and inflexable, what a cleric brings to a fight is huge varied and flexable. The fighter at low levels is rarely in question. He can and does kick butt. He can deal more damage more often than the rest of the party. His AC tends to be better and he has more hit points. The fighter at low levels is not a problem. You should scroll back and take a look at some of the builds that have been thrown around. They can each utilize a minimum of 5 different tactical options each. If your argument is that the fighter can't do as many different things (i.e., cast spells), then you should make sure that you put barbarians, rogues, monks, rangers, paladins, ToB classes (none can do as much as the casters), and all other non-full casters in the same boat.
Von_Harbringer 06-19-07, 01:29 AM	My main character is a dwarven fighter (okay not a straight up fighter). He is a remake from a 2nd edition character. But fighters have their place (meat/steel shield), they take the hard hits while the others come in to do mass damage. I do agree that the mmoRPG element is taking away from the game that I got into. Strange since I am going to school to design video games. But I enjoy DnD for a good storyline and plot. Not kill monsters/villains to get treasure and xp. If I want to grind a character to Uber levels and gear I would play EQ or WoW (cold chill runs through the room brrr...)
Kalarus 06-19-07, 06:52 AM	I want to make sure I understand you. You are saying that if a class can solo an encounter the problem is with the class that can't? This goes against the entire concept of a party of four being able to handle an equal Encounter Level. The problem then is actually the other classes are too powerful or the Encounter Level is not properly set. I think what he meant to say was "when one class is more powerful than the other, it means the same to say that one is too weak or that one is too strong, you just acknowledge a power difference". So when classes are unbalanced, it does not follow from this that the Fighter is too weak. It does not follow from this that the other class is too strong. Both could be true, or one could be true. Both could even be false. Like you said though, the fact that some classes can do nearly anything strongly supports the interpretation that the problem lies with the classes that are more powerful, not with the classes that are weaker. Fighters don’t suck, fighters don’t blow nor are they gimp but the dividing line between an average fighter and an average cleric/wizard/druid/insert other class is way too narrow so that the other classes can often effectively do everything an average fighter can so that there is no need for a fighter. I own a PHB and I want to play a heavy armored warrior who hates any kind of spellcasting and would never consider casting spells of any kind. He is a free spirit who hates any kind of servitude or deferrence but rather makes up his own mind about what is the right course of action. Now, which class do I need? By the way, Pun-pun fallacy is only a few months old ;)
The_sleeper1 06-19-07, 07:58 AM	I think what he meant to say was "when one class is more powerful than the other, it means the same to say that one is too weak or that one is too strong, you just acknowledge a power difference". That is correct, if they’re not "equal" and I mean that in a very general way they are not balanced. Classes right now are not balanced but the average power level of classes is closer to where the big 3 are though adamantly under them. Most every classis balanced to be better than the fighter with few exceptions. The problem truly lies more so with the cleric/wizard & druid but the level of imbalance requires something to be done and while I would like to see a few limitations thrown in it is far more reasonable to rebalance the few classes that are under the current level instead of bringing the many classes that are too powerful down a notch. I think it is important to compare other classes for power to see where they lie power wise but classes like barbian are not the real problem. A fighter is proven weaker if he cannot do melee BETTER than classes that have meleey+R+S+T+U+V+W+X+Y+Z. After all 9 levels of spells is a lot of extra umph, Make casters uber for there casting abilities but they should NOT be able to copy a fighter while retaining their special ness.
Nebosuke 06-19-07, 08:39 AM	Not to mention the Titan, who has words like "charges, sunders, full attacks' in his tactics blurb. And dragons? Their strongest weapon is their full attack. The Tarrasque? Can you say 'No ranged attacks.'? How about boss minions? They don't fight in melee either? You are hurting the defense of the fighter class more than anything with these examples. Against high-level non-melee creatures, fighters are generally ineffective because these enemies have the ability to avoid melee altogether. Yes, the DM can have these monsters throw themselves at the fighter, and there are an infinite number of valid rationalizations for employing sub-optimal tactics, but this is the DM contributing to the party's success more than the fighter. Against melee-oriented opponents, getting into melee is the weakest and most dangerous tactic. To use your own example, the fact that the fighter gets the chance to attack the Tarrasque due to its having extremely short range of effect[1] is hardly a ringing endorsement of the fighter. Rather than contributing to the fight, he's more likely to end up setting the party back 25,000gp worth of diamonds and a 9th level spell when they could have just as easily killed it without even taking the risk of getting hit. Though it could be argued that the fighter has a good chance of survival with the right build and extensive party support, allowing the Tarrasque to attack him is essentially an unnecessary waste of party resources in the form of buffs/healing/protective spells and other characters possibly taking risks to bail him out. In this more extreme case, we're not looking at 2 clerics being better for the party than a fighter and cleric, we're looking at simply not having a fighter, with no one to replace him, being a net gain over having one and allowing him to enter into melee. Anyway, I think what I'm trying to say is being lost because people aren't seeing the forest for the trees. I've given specific examples, but specific examples don't seem to be doing the job of conveying the overall problem with the fighter class, so I'll try to stick to explaining from a more abstract point of view. At higher levels, everything is very specialized--or, even if not exactly specialized, has an absolutely enormous power/survivability differential between best and average tactics/abilities. This differential can often be large enough to swing the outcome from cakewalk to TPK. Also, as I said before, the player-controlled factors that have the largest impact on outcome of a combat all become external to combat, while the fighter's sphere of influence remains strictly within the confines of combat. This is simply a consequence of how D&D combat mechanics scale to higher levels. When you examine a high-CR encounter's stat block, the above becomes immediately apparent. They tend to have DR, possibly take lethal damage only from certain types of attacks, are probably resistant and/or immune to certain attacks and themselves have a limited but powerful range of offensive capabilities. These types of abilities are the primary mechanical means used to increase encounter difficulty in high-level D&D, and whether or not you have the capability to cope with the abilities of a given encounter has already been determined before you enter combat. Casters (e.g., wizards, clerics, druids) can cheaply and easily take proactive steps to outfit themselves to deal effectively with any high-CR encounter, up to and including staging a safe an timely retreat from unexpected encounters for which they aren't sufficiently prepared. They can, with the right spells, sidestep, bypass, or simply overpower DR, energy immunities, SR, other defensive special qualities, and practically any type of attack. Scouts expand a party's sphere of active perception by an order of magnitude at this point, proactively contributing by giving the party the initiative, and therefore hugely expanded tactical options. They should have sense bonuses in the high 40s, and most have even higher stealth mods, so being spotted before spotting the enemy is exceedingly rare, if even possible for non-overpowering challenges. If they have UMD, that turns them into pocket casters. Stealthy scouts also have unique tactical options and synergies with casters that casters have no way to replicate independently at higher levels. Fighters can bypass DR by having multiple weapons, but this is neither cheap, nor necessarily available in a timely manner. There are also some defenses that they are simply unable to effectively overcome. They are likewise extremely limited in their ability to adapt their defenses. It has been said before that a fighter can be built to have several options to choose from during each round in combat, but these choices no longer have the same ability to affect the outcome of combat that they had at lower levels. This does not mean that the fighter cannot contribute. That is a different argument, and besides the point. More importantly, what it means is that whether or not the fighter can contribute is decided, to individually varying degrees, by everyone except the fighter. This is not even a matter that is up to the DM alone in the form of deciding whether or not to throw the fighter a bone. For many higher CR monsters (e.g., the aforementioned Tarrasque), it is to the advantage of the party as a whole to engage at range, or with other tactics that the fighter is simply unable to participate in. It becomes increasingly common that the fighter is relying on the casters to dedicate slots to inferior spells for buffs, for the party to sacrifice the ability to leverage superior ranged combat capability, and for casters to patch him up after he takes otherwise easily avoidable damage. You can, of course, always have fun in spite of any degree of issues with game mechanics, but having a character turn into a resource and tactical black hole (for both the other players and the DM) rather than a proactively contributing member is indicative of a glaring problem in the mechanics, whether or not it is actually having an impact on your enjoyment of the game. On the other hand, the problem from the DM's side of the gaming table is that the fighter's abilities are a strict (if exaggerated) subset of the other characters', which makes it impossible for the fighter to make a unique contribution to the party in his sole sphere of influence without painfully contrived circumstances. The DM is faced with the problem of possibly boring the rest of the party with ridiculously simplistic and easy encounters, identical to low-level encounters with larger bonuses slapped on, in order to allow the fighter to participate, or boring them with contrived encounters specifically targeted to limiting everyone else as much as the fighter is normally limited at that level. Either way, even though the fighter may get to roll lots of damage dice, the most tactically significant decisions are being made for him rather than by him. That it is possible to successfully roleplay around mechanical deficiencies does not mean that the deficiencies are immaterial. This is especially the case in instances such as this, when the mechanical deficiencies result in the participation of a character being contingent on concessions from both the rest of the party and the DM with no comparable returns. On another note... That the examples given seem to have people thinking that the 'intelligent' tactics are DM sadism resulting in TPKs while the 'in-character' tactics result in the fighter being able to participate in a reasonably challenging encounter shows that most people have probably never played much at level 20. We are not looking at sadistic TPK vs. sub-optimal but challenging. We're looking at praying the encounter lasts at least 3 rounds vs encounter effectively over during the surprise round (or round 1, if the PCs were surprised) and not even justified as qualifying for an exp reward. Grapple the wizard? Wizards at that level automatically make the concentration check to cast in a grapple, and I've never seen a level 20 wizard in actual play without at least one stilled/non-somatic spell reserved specifically for use during a grapple. [1] The Tarrasque has a maximum reach of 35'-40' (depending on how you round it) above his normal standing height during a rush, making him incredibly vulnerable to attacks from flyers. It is also both amazing and amusing how many ranged save-or-die spells the wizard and cleric can memorize between the both of them, and how level 20 casters automatically overcome the Tarrasque's SR with assay resistance and spell penetration.
Leo 06-19-07, 09:01 AM	Well, the tarrasque is cr 20, so a party lv 20m is suposed to wipe the floor with him.
Wiseblood 06-19-07, 09:25 AM	You are hurting the defense of the fighter class more than anything with these examples. Against high-level non-melee creatures, fighters are generally ineffective because these enemies have the ability to avoid melee altogether. Yes, the DM can have these monsters throw themselves at the fighter, and there are an infinite number of valid rationalizations for employing sub-optimal tactics, but this is the DM contributing to the party's success more than the fighter. Against melee-oriented opponents, getting into melee is the weakest and most dangerous tactic. To use your own example, the fact that the fighter gets the chance to attack the Tarrasque due to its having extremely short range of effect[1] is hardly a ringing endorsement of the fighter. Rather than contributing to the fight, he's more likely to end up setting the party back 25,000gp worth of diamonds and a 9th level spell when they could have just as easily killed it without even taking the risk of getting hit. Though it could be argued that the fighter has a good chance of survival with the right build and extensive party support, allowing the Tarrasque to attack him is essentially an unnecessary waste of party resources in the form of buffs/healing/protective spells and other characters possibly taking risks to bail him out. In this more extreme case, we're not looking at 2 clerics being better for the party than a fighter and cleric, we're looking at simply not having a fighter, with no one to replace him, being a net gain over having one and allowing him to enter into melee. Anyway, I think what I'm trying to say is being lost because people aren't seeing the forest for the trees. I've given specific examples, but specific examples don't seem to be doing the job of conveying the overall problem with the fighter class, so I'll try to stick to explaining from a more abstract point of view. At higher levels, everything is very specialized--or, even if not exactly specialized, has an absolutely enormous power/survivability differential between best and average tactics/abilities. This differential can often be large enough to swing the outcome from cakewalk to TPK. Also, as I said before, the player-controlled factors that have the largest impact on outcome of a combat all become external to combat, while the fighter's sphere of influence remains strictly within the confines of combat. This is simply a consequence of how D&D combat mechanics scale to higher levels. When you examine a high-CR encounter's stat block, the above becomes immediately apparent. They tend to have DR, possibly take lethal damage only from certain types of attacks, are probably resistant and/or immune to certain attacks and themselves have a limited but powerful range of offensive capabilities. These types of abilities are the primary mechanical means used to increase encounter difficulty in high-level D&D, and whether or not you have the capability to cope with the abilities of a given encounter has already been determined before you enter combat. Casters (e.g., wizards, clerics, druids) can cheaply and easily take proactive steps to outfit themselves to deal effectively with any high-CR encounter, up to and including staging a safe an timely retreat from unexpected encounters for which they aren't sufficiently prepared. They can, with the right spells, sidestep, bypass, or simply overpower DR, energy immunities, SR, other defensive special qualities, and practically any type of attack. Scouts expand a party's sphere of active perception by an order of magnitude at this point, proactively contributing by giving the party the initiative, and therefore hugely expanded tactical options. They should have sense bonuses in the high 40s, and most have even higher stealth mods, so being spotted before spotting the enemy is exceedingly rare, if even possible for non-overpowering challenges. If they have UMD, that turns them into pocket casters. Stealthy scouts also have unique tactical options and synergies with casters that casters have no way to replicate independently at higher levels. Fighters can bypass DR by having multiple weapons, but this is neither cheap, nor necessarily available in a timely manner. There are also some defenses that they are simply unable to effectively overcome. They are likewise extremely limited in their ability to adapt their defenses. It has been said before that a fighter can be built to have several options to choose from during each round in combat, but these choices no longer have the same ability to affect the outcome of combat that they had at lower levels. This does not mean that the fighter cannot contribute. That is a different argument, and besides the point. More importantly, what it means is that whether or not the fighter can contribute is decided, to individually varying degrees, by everyone except the fighter. This is not even a matter that is up to the DM alone in the form of deciding whether or not to throw the fighter a bone. For many higher CR monsters (e.g., the aforementioned Tarrasque), it is to the advantage of the party as a whole to engage at range, or with other tactics that the fighter is simply unable to participate in. It becomes increasingly common that the fighter is relying on the casters to dedicate slots to inferior spells for buffs, for the party to sacrifice the ability to leverage superior ranged combat capability, and for casters to patch him up after he takes otherwise easily avoidable damage. You can, of course, always have fun in spite of any degree of issues with game mechanics, but having a character turn into a resource and tactical black hole (for both the other players and the DM) rather than a proactively contributing member is indicative of a glaring problem in the mechanics, whether or not it is actually having an impact on your enjoyment of the game. On the other hand, the problem from the DM's side of the gaming table is that the fighter's abilities are a strict (if exaggerated) subset of the other characters', which makes it impossible for the fighter to make a unique contribution to the party in his sole sphere of influence without painfully contrived circumstances. The DM is faced with the problem of possibly boring the rest of the party with ridiculously simplistic and easy encounters, identical to low-level encounters with larger bonuses slapped on, in order to allow the fighter to participate, or boring them with contrived encounters specifically targeted to limiting everyone else as much as the fighter is normally limited at that level. Either way, even though the fighter may get to roll lots of damage dice, the most tactically significant decisions are being made for him rather than by him. That it is possible to successfully roleplay around mechanical deficiencies does not mean that the deficiencies are immaterial. This is especially the case in instances such as this, when the mechanical deficiencies result in the participation of a character being contingent on concessions from both the rest of the party and the DM with no comparable returns. On another note... That the examples given seem to have people thinking that the 'intelligent' tactics are DM sadism resulting in TPKs while the 'in-character' tactics result in the fighter being able to participate in a reasonably challenging encounter shows that most people have probably never played much at level 20. We are not looking at sadistic TPK vs. sub-optimal but challenging. We're looking at praying the encounter lasts at least 3 rounds vs encounter effectively over during the surprise round (or round 1, if the PCs were surprised) and not even justified as qualifying for an exp reward. Grapple the wizard? Wizards at that level automatically make the concentration check to cast in a grapple, and I've never seen a level 20 wizard in actual play without at least one stilled/non-somatic spell reserved specifically for use during a grapple. [1] The Tarrasque has a maximum reach of 35'-40' (depending on how you round it) above his normal standing height during a rush, making him incredibly vulnerable to attacks from flyers. It is also both amazing and amusing how many ranged save-or-die spells the wizard and cleric can memorize between the both of them, and how level 20 casters automatically overcome the Tarrasque's SR with assay resistance and spell penetration. Many of these arguments against the fighter show that you have not given adequate consideration to the game. Unless of course you play without magic items. Most of the buff spells that benefit a fighter are 4th level and below. I'm not sure how that would be a waste or resource black hole for a caster above 17 where 3rd levels spells rarely come into play. Unless summon monster 3 was going to take that pesky tarasque down. Also even though this is the Fighter thread any martial character is in the exact same boat as the fighter in your scenarios. ToB classes are even worse off since they aren't even given proficiency with ranged weapons.
Clawhound 06-19-07, 09:41 AM	Many of the highest CR encounters are puzzle creatures. How the party approaches these battles is just as important as anybody's ability. Now, let's do some math on the Big-T. Assuming a full attack fully succeeds: Bit 4d8+17=36 Horns 1d10+8=13 Horns 1d10+8=13 Claws 1d12+8=14 Claws 1d12+8=14 Tail 3d8+8=21 Total for one round: 111 An example fighter would only last three rounds. Add in adamantine armor, that that drops 18 hp to 93. But wait!! There's more. No high level fighter would be without a cloak of displacement. Or, if his party wizard will part with a 3rd level displacement spell, or blink, he'll get the same effect. This effectively buys him 50% damage reduction. He's now down to 47 HP/round in damage. But wait! There's more. If there is a cleric nearby, they can share the damage by using an awesome 2nd level spell, reducing his damage down to 24 hp/round. At 24 HP/round, it would take the Big-T about 10 rounds to kill a fighter. That's not bad. For two cheap-angst spells, my fighter can tank a the Big-T. His AC isn't great against T. I'm sure that there are ways to increase it. But that doesn't matter. He just needs the best fortify that he can get on that armor. He's gotta keep those criticals down. If he were to use Combat Expertise and fight defensively, he could get average damage down another 50-70%. Yes, that is only 10-12 damage/round against a tarrasque, but he would nerf his damage. Now, we look at damage. I'll leave true optimizing up to someone else, as I'm not good at that. I will demonstrate to you how a fighter spams damage, even against a tarrasque. Even a simple calculation shows a fighter with a +35 to hit and a +5 greatsword, increased to large size, does about 3d6+5 enh+10 str x2 = 35 points/attack, or 20 above DR. (95%+75%+50%+25%+5%)=(19+15+10+5+1)=49 HP/round on average, or 9 more than T's fast healing. That's before we've done anything clever with feats. Add in a bonus attack from haste (another uber 3rd level spell) and he gets another 20 HP of damage. He's now doing 29 more hit points that its fast healing. Mr T. will now go down in 29 rounds. If the cleric only gives him a few heal spells, the fighter can last 40 rounds, and tank Mr. T by himself using only 2nd, 3rd, and a few 6th level spells. Add in a Rage spell to get him more damage and more hit points! In a real game, with limited wealth, this may not work so perfectly, but given the cheapness of this approach, any party should be able to pull this off with a little tweaking. Note that the fighter above has not been optimized, other than putting everything that he's got into strength. You could just Polymorph Any Object him into a Storm Giant, and he's doing 4d6+26. He doesn't even need good stats for that tactic. But wait, there's more: because the fighter is engaging Mr. T, the rogue can now flank and get at least two full BAB sneak attacks (haste) against it. That's another 1d8+10d6+5 (44 hp -15 DR)x2=58 hp per round over regen. Wow. They are up to 89 hp/round over regen. They will down Mr. T before the fighter runs out of hit points. This party cooperation thing sure does work well.
Bob Loblaw 06-19-07, 09:53 AM	That is correct, if they’re not "equal" and I mean that in a very general way they are not balanced. Classes right now are not balanced but the average power level of classes is closer to where the big 3 are though adamantly under them. Most every classis balanced to be better than the fighter with few exceptions. The melee classes have the same overall limitations that the fighter has. The rogue has many of the same problems that the fighter has. Here are the problems that many feel the fighter has: 1) Limited combat capability (little to no versatility) 2) Weak Saves (This is only partially true, they have 1 Good Save) 3) Limited to Melee Combat 4) Limited out of combat capability 5) Power level depends on gear Here are the classes that share those issues: 1) Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Bard 2) Rogue, Barbarian when not raging 3) Barbarian, Paladin, one type of Ranger, Rogue, Bard 4) Cleric (he only has 2 skill points per level and wants Concentration maxed so he really only has 1) 5) All You'll notice that the only classes that don't hit this list are the Wizard, Sorcerer, and Druid. The cleric is powerful enough that #4 can be forgiven. The problem truly lies more so with the cleric/wizard & druid but the level of imbalance requires something to be done and while I would like to see a few limitations thrown in it is far more reasonable to rebalance the few classes that are under the current level instead of bringing the many classes that are too powerful down a notch. I think it is important to compare other classes for power to see where they lie power wise but classes like barbian are not the real problem. I have yet to understand why the barbarian is acceptable while the fighter is not. People complain that the fighter has no versatility, yet build after build shows differently while the barbarian is even more limited. The barbarian really is a one-trick pony. I also would caution against increasing the power level to match the cleric or druid. This would change the CR of many monsters, probably lowering them by 2 to 3 points. A fighter is proven weaker if he cannot do melee BETTER than classes that have meleey+R+S+T+U+V+W+X+Y+Z. After all 9 levels of spells is a lot of extra umph, Make casters uber for there casting abilities but they should NOT be able to copy a fighter while retaining their special ness. So since it has been proven in this thread that fighters can do melee as well if not better than many other classes, does this now mean that the fighter is fine? He is better than the barbarian, paladin, ranger, bard, and rogue. That puts him in the top 50% now. What about non-melee combat? What if the fighter can do both melee and ranged better than those classes? Is he now a better class? Against high-level non-melee creatures, fighters are generally ineffective because these enemies have the ability to avoid melee altogether. Yes, the DM can have these monsters throw themselves at the fighter, and there are an infinite number of valid rationalizations for employing sub-optimal tactics, but this is the DM contributing to the party's success more than the fighter. I really hate to play under DMs who use this as a reason to play DM v Players. Not every creature should use the exact same tactics. Not even every pit fiend is going to use the same tactics. When did the opponents stop being interesting creatures with motivations and become a list of numbers to TPK the party? Against melee-oriented opponents, getting into melee is the weakest and most dangerous tactic. To use your own example, the fact that the fighter gets the chance to attack the Tarrasque due to its having extremely short range of effect[1] is hardly a ringing endorsement of the fighter. Rather than contributing to the fight, he's more likely to end up setting the party back 25,000gp worth of diamonds and a 9th level spell when they could have just as easily killed it without even taking the risk of getting hit. Though it could be argued that the fighter has a good chance of survival with the right build and extensive party support, allowing the Tarrasque to attack him is essentially an unnecessary waste of party resources in the form of buffs/healing/protective spells and other characters possibly taking risks to bail him out. In this more extreme case, we're not looking at 2 clerics being better for the party than a fighter and cleric, we're looking at simply not having a fighter, with no one to replace him, being a net gain over having one and allowing him to enter into melee. The barbarian, paladin, bard, and rogue also have this problem as do 50% of rangers. Why are they not problem classes? The fighter is singled out, yet he actually can take on the tarrasque. Here is my core-only list of feats for a fighter I had in this thread. Character 1 Weapon Focus (Greatsword) Fighter 1 Weapon Focus (Longbow) Fighter 2 Power Attack Character 3 Lightning Reflexes Fighter 4 Weapon Specialization (Greatsword) Fighter 6 Weapon Specialization (Longbow) Character 6 Combat Expertise Fighter 8 Greater Weapon Focus (Greatswrod) Character 9 Iron Will Fighter 10 Improved Initiative Fighter 12 Greater Weapon Specialization (Greatsword) Character 12 Improved Sunder Fighter 14 Improved Unarmed Strike Character 15 Improved Disarm Fighter 16 Improved Grapple Fighter 18 Greater Weapon Focus (Longbow) Character 18 Skill Focus Tumble Fighter 20 Greater Weapon Specialization (Longbow) Tell me how I'm worse off than the paladin, rogue, barbarian, and 50% of rangers? Anyway, I think what I'm trying to say is being lost because people aren't seeing the forest for the trees. I've given specific examples, but specific examples don't seem to be doing the job of conveying the overall problem with the fighter class, so I'll try to stick to explaining from a more abstract point of view. I could say the same thing. You are taking the assumption that the way you play is the only acceptable way. We provided examples of CR 20 creatures that do not have TPK tactics. Not every creature has an Intelligence/Wisdom 20+. Many actually do not. They are always conveniently ignored so that the fighter looks bad. At higher levels, everything is very specialized--or, even if not exactly specialized, has an absolutely enormous power/survivability differential between best and average tactics/abilities. This differential can often be large enough to swing the outcome from cakewalk to TPK. I would argue that the beasts become less specialized as the CR increases. Dragons and outsiders tend to have excellent combat capabilities as well as impressive spell selections. This is the opposite of specialization. Also, as I said before, the player-controlled factors that have the largest impact on outcome of a combat all become external to combat, while the fighter's sphere of influence remains strictly within the confines of combat. This is simply a consequence of how D&D combat mechanics scale to higher levels. Why? Why must the fighter be limited to combat? Since we're discussing combat, I fail to see this as a problem anyway. When you examine a high-CR encounter's stat block, the above becomes immediately apparent. They tend to have DR, possibly take lethal damage only from certain types of attacks, are probably resistant and/or immune to certain attacks and themselves have a limited but powerful range of offensive capabilities. These types of abilities are the primary mechanical means used to increase encounter difficulty in high-level D&D, and whether or not you have the capability to cope with the abilities of a given encounter has already been determined before you enter combat. Actually, few creatures have regeneration. Most of the Damage Reduction is easily circumvented. Bows are wonderful ranged weapons. Flight also makes melee possible even when bows are not available. Any character, fighter or not, that does not use more than one tactical option is going to have problems. Casters (e.g., wizards, clerics, druids) can cheaply and easily take proactive steps to outfit themselves to deal effectively with any high-CR encounter, up to and including staging a safe an timely retreat from unexpected encounters for which they aren't sufficiently prepared. They can, with the right spells, sidestep, bypass, or simply overpower DR, energy immunities, SR, other defensive special qualities, and practically any type of attack. This requires the caster to have the right spells prepared. For some reason, it is always assumed that the casters always have the right spells, but fighters are not permitted to have the proper weapons or feats. This makes the discussion a bit one-sided. Scouts expand a party's sphere of active perception by an order of magnitude at this point, proactively contributing by giving the party the initiative, and therefore hugely expanded tactical options. They should have sense bonuses in the high 40s, and most have even higher stealth mods, so being spotted before spotting the enemy is exceedingly rare, if even possible for non-overpowering challenges. If they have UMD, that turns them into pocket casters. Stealthy scouts also have unique tactical options and synergies with casters that casters have no way to replicate independently at higher levels. And that's the job of the scout. Since we are discussing a party of four, and three members have scouting capabilities, why does anyone care if the 4th does not? It is not the job of the infantry to handle military intelligence. You'll notice that the rogue can find the enemy, but may have some issues with dealing with said enemy. That is how the game is meant to work. It is, not surprisingly, how real world combat also works. You send out a Forward Observer who comes back with information. Then you send in those who can deal with the enemy. Fighters can bypass DR by having multiple weapons, but this is neither cheap, nor necessarily available in a timely manner. There are also some defenses that they are simply unable to effectively overcome. They are likewise extremely limited in their ability to adapt their defenses. It has been said before that a fighter can be built to have several options to choose from during each round in combat, but these choices no longer have the same ability to affect the outcome of combat that they had at lower levels. Why? I still do not understand why the fighter's tactics fail. Since most creatures in the Monster Manual are size Large, why does the fighter's ability to handle the enemy get reduced? Since the fighter can deal with mobility just fine, why is his ability reduced? Since the fighter can have multiple options, why is his ability reduced? Remember that not all opponents will be the same. If the DM only throws devils, demons, dragons, and the tarrasque at the party, this actually should make it easier for the fighter. He now knows exactly what to expect and can get the appropriate gear and retrain. This type of DM failure actually makes the fighter stronger, not weaker. This does not mean that the fighter cannot contribute. That is a different argument, and besides the point. More importantly, what it means is that whether or not the fighter can contribute is decided, to individually varying degrees, by everyone except the fighter. When you say everyone, do you include the barbarian and ranger? What about the paladin? This is not even a matter that is up to the DM alone in the form of deciding whether or not to throw the fighter a bone. For many higher CR monsters (e.g., the aforementioned Tarrasque), it is to the advantage of the party as a whole to engage at range, or with other tactics that the fighter is simply unable to participate in. One of the best ways to keep the fight at range is to keep the beast in one spot. The fighter and rogue can team up against the tarrasque to hold it in place while the casters do their thing. With the additional damage, I fail to see how the fighter is not contributing. Besides, in the end, it's going to be the cleric or wizard that lands the finishing blow in this case. Not even the dreaded druid can kill the tarrasque alone. It becomes increasingly common that the fighter is relying on the casters to dedicate slots to inferior spells for buffs, for the party to sacrifice the ability to leverage superior ranged combat capability, and for casters to patch him up after he takes otherwise easily avoidable damage. You can, of course, always have fun in spite of any degree of issues with game mechanics, but having a character turn into a resource and tactical black hole (for both the other players and the DM) rather than a proactively contributing member is indicative of a glaring problem in the mechanics, whether or not it is actually having an impact on your enjoyment of the game. What I find incredibly strange with this statement is that both Khan's and my builds do not require the casters to throw buffs on our characters. We won't turn them down, but the buffs are not needed. As for the healing, honestly why is this never a problem for the barbarian, ranger, or rogue? This is only ever an issue for the fighter. The wizard and sorcerer also have this problem. If they get hit, their limited hit points will need to be replaced even faster. As for tactical black hole, the fighter is not limited to the tactics of swing, hit, damage. He can do quite a bit. The right feats need to be chosen, but he can be a very useful member of the party. Since 75% of the party can handle the scouting, why does the party need the 4th to do this? What is stopping the fighter from just putting some ranks in skills that could help? The fighter need not fill the limited role you have put him in. In fact, with the incredible number of feats available, why is it assumed that the fighter can only swing his sword in melee? On the other hand, the problem from the DM's side of the gaming table is that the fighter's abilities are a strict (if exaggerated) subset of the other characters', which makes it impossible for the fighter to make a unique contribution to the party in his sole sphere of influence without painfully contrived circumstances. The DM is faced with the problem of possibly boring the rest of the party with ridiculously simplistic and easy encounters, identical to low-level encounters with larger bonuses slapped on, in order to allow the fighter to participate, or boring them with contrived encounters specifically targeted to limiting everyone else as much as the fighter is normally limited at that level. Either way, even though the fighter may get to roll lots of damage dice, the most tactically significant decisions are being made for him rather than by him. So if the DM does not run the game your way, he is now creating contrived circumstances? What if the DM does not like using outsiders because he feels that in his campaign, they don't have a place. What if the DM feels that using dragons too often cheapens the rarity he wants for them? What if the DM is running a long term campaign where the party is actually working on dealing with undead with a lich at the helm? Why is it when the DM wants an interesting campaign, it is seen as contrived or coddling? That the examples given seem to have people thinking that the 'intelligent' tactics are DM sadism resulting in TPKs while the 'in-character' tactics result in the fighter being able to participate in a reasonably challenging encounter shows that most people have probably never played much at level 20. Or, we have actually played quite a bit at high level play, but have used a wide variety of opponents against our party. I have a secret, we don't all use the same monsters. Some of us like to use templates and classes to advance our monsters. We are not looking at sadistic TPK vs. sub-optimal but challenging. We're looking at praying the encounter lasts at least 3 rounds vs encounter effectively over during the surprise round (or round 1, if the PCs were surprised) and not even justified as qualifying for an exp reward. Grapple the wizard? Wizards at that level automatically make the concentration check to cast in a grapple, and I've never seen a level 20 wizard in actual play without at least one stilled/non-somatic spell reserved specifically for use during a grapple. Remember the grapple was in an anti-magic field. I also have seen wizards without Still Spell. In fact, I have only played on wizard with the spell and I regretted taking the feat. I have also seen the wizard start to run out of defensive/emergency spells. It happens when the wizard ends up getting targeted because he is too much of a threat. [1] The Tarrasque has a maximum reach of 35'-40' (depending on how you round it) above his normal standing height during a rush, making him incredibly vulnerable to attacks from flyers. It is also both amazing and amusing how many ranged save-or-die spells the wizard and cleric can memorize between the both of them, and how level 20 casters automatically overcome the Tarrasque's SR with assay resistance and spell penetration. The tarrasque has some impressive defenses. His saves are actually pretty good. He is immune to a wide variety of spells. There is a chance that the caster's spells are reflected back, before spell resistance is even checked for. The tarrasque is meant to be a dangerous foe. It should not be a push over for anyone.
Von_Harbringer 06-19-07, 10:33 AM	An observation that I have, that not all encounters are big mean overpowering monsters. Most are villains that are humaniod (or once were in case of vampires, ghosts, liches). If a fighter (or fighter type) goes toe-to-toe with a spellcaster usually the spellcaster is screwed. I really don't prefer one class over another, all have their strengths and limitations. I mean I heard people complain that melee weapon mastery was too powerful. I mean an extra +2 to hit and +2 to damage at level 8 :P .
Kratch 06-19-07, 12:21 PM	Grapple the wizard? Wizards at that level automatically make the concentration check to cast in a grapple, and I've never seen a level 20 wizard in actual play without at least one stilled/non-somatic spell reserved specifically for use during a grapple. I know full well about the exsistance of escape spells. i also know about the limit on spells per day, as well as the desire to memorize enough of each type of spell, but not to much of any one that it may become a wasted slot because there are far to many other considerations for each slot available.
Argaud 06-19-07, 12:36 PM	You are hurting the defense of the fighter class more than anything with these examples. Against high-level non-melee creatures, fighters are generally ineffective because these enemies have the ability to avoid melee altogether. Yes, the DM can have these monsters throw themselves at the fighter, and there are an infinite number of valid rationalizations for employing sub-optimal tactics, but this is the DM contributing to the party's success more than the fighter. If you have been reading the thread you already know this has been proven false many times. You are making groundless blanket statement #426 Anyway, I think what I'm trying to say is being lost because people aren't seeing the forest for the trees. I've given specific examples, but specific examples don't seem to be doing the job of conveying the overall problem with the fighter class, so I'll try to stick to explaining from a more abstract point of view. Actually every specific example has been easily rebated by the pro-fighters, or pointed out as extremely contrived (in one of these treads I actually had to read that the first action of a balor in a battle was to cast Dispel Magic to the fighter's weapon!) or outright against the MM guidelines about the behavior of the monsters. When you examine a high-CR encounter's stat block, the above becomes immediately apparent. They tend to have DR, possibly take lethal damage only from certain types of attacks, are probably resistant and/or immune to certain attacks and themselves have a limited but powerful range of offensive capabilities. These types of abilities are the primary mechanical means used to increase encounter difficulty in high-level D&D, and whether or not you have the capability to cope with the abilities of a given encounter has already been determined before you enter combat. However all those defenses can be breached by a prepared PC at that level. For instance golems have magic immunity and high DR, but can be damage by adamantine weapons and indirect attack spells like Acid Arrow, Orbs, summoned critter, etc. Of course it is -much- better and efficient if in this kind of encounter the casters just buff the warrior. But I am assuming a party of gloryhound idiots here. Casters (e.g., wizards, clerics, druids) can cheaply and easily take proactive steps to outfit themselves to deal effectively with any high-CR encounter, up to and including staging a safe an timely retreat from unexpected encounters for which they aren't sufficiently prepared. They can, with the right spells, sidestep, bypass, or simply overpower DR, energy immunities, SR, other defensive special qualities, and practically any type of attack. So can anyone. Helmets of Teleportation are available at high level. So are numerous and cheap magical items to avoid encounters and increase preparation. Clerics or Druids generally do not have access to teleportation (Plane Shift is ****** in comparison) or Contingency yet somehow get dumped in the 'easy to escape troubles' camp, which is ridiculous. They are very vulnerable to the same spells that are mentioned again and again can neutralize fighters easily (Maze, Forcecage, etc, etc). Scouts expand a party's sphere of active perception by an order of magnitude at this point, proactively contributing by giving the party the initiative, and therefore hugely expanded tactical options. They should have sense bonuses in the high 40s, and most have even higher stealth mods, so being spotted before spotting the enemy is exceedingly rare, if even possible for non-overpowering challenges. If they have UMD, that turns them into pocket casters. Stealthy scouts also have unique tactical options and synergies with casters that casters have no way to replicate independently at higher levels. Skill items also allow anyone to have huge skill bonus. Spells like invisibility and silence (both very low level spells) make Hide and Move Silently useless. The usefulness of skillmonkeys is extremely questionable at high level. An item of +20 UMD can turn the most uncharismatic character into a "pocket caster". Fighters can bypass DR by having multiple weapons, but this is neither cheap, nor necessarily available in a timely manner. False. It is available and it is usually cheap (cold iron, silver and even adamantine weapons are cheap). If it is not available that is the DM nerfing meleers again. There are also some defenses that they are simply unable to effectively overcome. They are likewise extremely limited in their ability to adapt their defenses. It has been said before that a fighter can be built to have several options to choose from during each round in combat, but these choices no longer have the same ability to affect the outcome of combat that they had at lower levels. Another few blanket statements with no relation with reality. This does not mean that the fighter cannot contribute. That is a different argument, and besides the point. More importantly, what it means is that whether or not the fighter can contribute is decided, to individually varying degrees, by everyone except the fighter. Please explain how the barbarian, the rogue, the ranger and the paladin can contribute more than the fighter in those mythical situations. This is not even a matter that is up to the DM alone in the form of deciding whether or not to throw the fighter a bone. For many higher CR monsters (e.g., the aforementioned Tarrasque), it is to the advantage of the party as a whole to engage at range, or with other tactics that the fighter is simply unable to participate in. Actually the Tarrasque is a weird exception among the CR20 monsters. With a +57 to hit in its main attack it is 20 points above all other CR20 monsters. It has a glaring weakness to ranged attacks, though, so it does not matter much. The Tarrasque is the stereotypical "closet troll", dangerous only in small rooms underground. However, most other CR20 monsters are worse meleers than the fighter, yet in their written tactics in the MM it is clearly stated they will jump into melee. Having them playing a guerrilla/sniper game that only casters or dedicated archers can play is a DM metagaming and out to nerf meleers. On the other hand, the problem from the DM's side of the gaming table is that the fighter's abilities are a strict (if exaggerated) subset of the other characters', which makes it impossible for the fighter to make a unique contribution to the party in his sole sphere of influence without painfully contrived circumstances. And here we have the Pun-Pun/CoDzilla fallacy again. I remind you for the nth time that the cleric abilities are merely a subset of the archivist abilities, so your logic means the cleric is useless.
Scion of Coldshard 06-19-07, 02:25 PM	Gone for several days, come back, and still exactly the same shouting going on. At least some things are constant in the universe ;) Might as well go through another comparison or two though while I am here. Now, let's do some math on the Big-T. Assuming a full attack fully succeeds: Bit 4d8+17=36 Horns 1d10+8=13 Horns 1d10+8=13 Claws 1d12+8=14 Claws 1d12+8=14 Tail 3d8+8=21 Total for one round: 111 Average of d8 is 4.5, average of d10 is 5.5, average of d12 is 6.5 so: Bite: 4d8+17 = avg 35 Horns: 1d10+8 = avg 13.5 Claws: 1d12+8 = avg 14.5 Tail: 3d8+8 = avg 21.5 On a full attack it gets: Bite +57, 2 horns +52, 2 claws +52, tail slap +52 The bite has an augmented critical which can make it really hurt! I am guessing that every real Fighter in adamantine full plate will have heavy fortification though, right? ;) If all hit and no criticals go through then the average damage is 112.5 before applying adamantine, after that it is 94.5. Pretty close to your numbers, I just wanted to put in the extra half points that were left off. But wait!! There's more. No high level fighter would be without a cloak of displacement. Ignoring the, 'a party caster can put a short term buff on the Fighter' arguement, and especially ignoring the blink spell as it is range personal and hurts the guys offensive abilities, a cloak of major displacement is a great item against a pure melee tank such as the Tarrasque. Unfortunately though for the character being fought the Tarrasque has the Blind-fight feat and so instead of cutting the damage by 50% the damage is cut by 25%. Still nice though. Well worth the 50,000 gp, so long as you dont mind spending a standard action to get the effect up and dont need to have it running for more than 15 rounds a day. While active the adamantine Fighters average damage per taken per round ignoring criticals and miss chance is down to 70.875. If the Tarrasque uses power attack this amount of damage can go up pretty high though. A tanked out Fighter might look like this: +5 adamantine Full-plate, +5 large shield, +5 amulet of natural armor, +5 ring of deflection, +1 dex, +1 dodge, cloak of major displacement = AC 42 + 3/- DR + displacement Against this AC if the Tarrasque full attacks and power attacks for 20 then his average damage changes to: 55*0.8+2*33.5*0.5+2*34.5*0.5+41.5*0.5 = 132.75 (ignoring criticals), 114.75 (after DR), 86.063 (after displacement) If he were to use Combat Expertise and fight defensively, he could get average damage down another 50-70%. Without power attacking the Tarrasques attack bonuses are +57/+52/+52/+52/+52/+52. If the Fighter uses both combat expertise and fight defensively (with 5 ranks in tumble) then his normal AC goes up by 8 points. If those 8 points do not take his AC above 54 then the defensive maneuvers actually did nothing but put a sever hinderance on the Fighters offensive actions. In order to cut the damage by about 50% the fighters AC would need to go up to about 62/63. increased to large size Is the fighter getting this by having a party caster spend an entire round casting a first level spell? (1 round casting time, quicken spell does not apply to spells with that long of a casting time) Is he drinking a potion as a standard action? If so, does that mean no displacement? 3d6+5 enh+10 str x2 = 35 points/attack, or 20 above DR. 3d6 +5 (enhancement) +15 (+10 str*1.5) = 35.5 average damage. (95%+75%+50%+25%+5%)=(19+15+10+5+1)=49 HP/round on average After feats I would imagine that both the to hit and damage would be higher. Just make sure to take into account the Tarrasques' dodge feat. You could just Polymorph Any Object him into a Storm Giant, and he's doing 4d6+26. He doesn't even need good stats for that tactic. I would say that using a severly broken spell is not in the Fighters interest for this thread ;) It looks like right now you are using no feats though, so basically this is just a warrior until more is put into it. Oh, and your previous example a few pages back where I asked for a more fleshed out list of equipment and you waved any thoughts of gear off as being unimportant was a pretty bad show. The different choices for what gear must be bought is very important to comparisons like the one you were trying to make, especially when comparing to the cleric who might be spending 75% of the gear value for several key pieces of gear, which is an advantage that was not shown.
Kratch 06-19-07, 03:32 PM	Gone for several days, come back, and still exactly the same shouting going on. At least some things are constant in the universe ;) And what a nice few days it's been. Is the fighter getting this by having a party caster spend an entire round casting a first level spell? (1 round casting time, quicken spell does not apply to spells with that long of a casting time) Is he drinking a potion as a standard action? If so, does that mean no displacement? Are you countering everything Nebosuke has argued by claiming there is no time to prepare against an encounter, particularly one such as the lumbering terrasque and it's -13 hide check? If you disagree with his analysis, perhaps you should say something. Or are you objecting to the use of a 1st and 3rd level spell to augment the fighter, perhaps it's better used for magic missles and lightning bolts. I would say that using a severly broken spell is not in the Fighters interest for this thread ;) Hasn't stopped people from using the DMM + nightsticks abuse in the attempts to show a fighter sucks. At least clawhound just mentioned it as an aside, not the basis Oh, and your previous example a few pages back where I asked for a more fleshed out list of equipment and you waved any thoughts of gear off as being unimportant was a pretty bad show. The different choices for what gear must be bought is very important to comparisons like the one you were trying to make, especially when comparing to the cleric who might be spending 75% of the gear value for several key pieces of gear, which is an advantage that was not shown. Well, as no cleric builds have been provided to show this supposed advantage, It's hard to take it purely at face value. I did, however, do a quick comparison of the potential needs of a melee cleric vs those of a fighter (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12738080&postcount=860), and by my calculations, the cleric actually came out over 100,000gp behind.
Clawhound 06-19-07, 03:38 PM	Good catch on the mistakes. There's a few points for me to make note of. I tend to under-stat and under-equip characters. My builds are usually more interested in developing a sketch of a character's capabilities, and where that character has options. Once I hit the point where I am demonstrating a reasonable level of capability, and there are still character options remaining, then I have reached the point that I intended. In this case, I showed how to engage the juggernaut, but have not nearly expended all my options in doing so. Admittedly, there are folks very good at allocating feats and AC and who can blow my builds out of the water. If my half-baked build has enough potential to pull these things off, surely their good builds will do better. Melee is also less variable than casters. Unlike spellcasters, who are entirely dependent on the spells chosen to show their capability, a melee character's primary capabilities are in strength, con, BAB, weapon, and physical defenses, so much so that you can rip 90% of their class abilities off and still get a character that can hit the right numbers. I could easily place a paladin or a barbarian into these examples, and those classes would also work for the same exact reasons. My melee strategy to handle a terrasque centers around multiple ways to reduce or defray damage. "Blink" is the best way. As a custom item, it should be comparable to a cloak of displacement. These are useful enough items and equipment that they are likely to be on-hand should a tarrasque sow up suddenly. Another possible way is to turn ethereal and use a ghost-touch weapon to attack the tarrasque. (I just looked that up to be sure. Yes, that's as evil as it sounds.) That is extremely effective, but also cheesier. Polymorph Any Object is the cheesiest way.
Kharnov 06-19-07, 04:37 PM	Hello all. For the last few weeks now I have been a casual observer to these boards, and haven't really felt the need to say anything until now. I like to think of myself as a "casual gamer" I have played D&D off and on since I was first introduced to it in 1989. Over the years I have spent time on both sides of the DM screen as a player and as a dungeon master. As such I have learned what I like and don't like about the game. I have decided that for me I prefer melee types of characters due to the simplicty it takes to run them. I prefer not to have unlimited choices for spell casting (like the cleric offers) or to have huge spell lists to choose from (like the wizard) when planning what my character intends to do on any particular day. I just love being able to play a character that (once completed) I can just pick up at a moments notice run through a game session with as little confusion as possible. I have found that for me, melee types make the the best choice for this and more importantly the fighter is my preferred choice among them. Here is why: 1. I recognize that the fighter is not pretty. He doesn't have the razzel dazzel of spellcasting. That is ok with me. I like playing characters who have to "get their hands dirty." 2. Once your choices are set in feats, and you have your gear purchased. A players who plays a fighter's only job (besides roleplaying your toon) is to know how the combat section works and to know it well. You need to know about where you can get your bonus from flanking, terrain, cover etc. For me, this is easier than spending alot of time dealing with spell casting issues because its a focused area of knowledge. 3. Yes it would be nice to have more skills but I am not sure its really needed. I have seen lots of builds on these boards and for the most part fighters can get the job done with the skills provided as is. The only thing I would probably change is making the heal skill a class skill. In my opinion, fighters are usually the ones who are taking the most damage. It seems odd to me that if you spend most of your days getting hurt that you wouldn't at least know the basics of how to repair yourself. I mean almost all military branches teach basic first aid. But all in all, I am happy with the skills a fighter has and as I said before I think it gets the job done. 4. At the end of the day, I like the idea of bashing some bad guy's face in with a shield or charging on a horse into the fray swinging my weapon like a crazed fool. It makes me smile. I don't get the same feel when I play a caster, who casts one spell that blasts them into eternity in one round. Sure thats cool and all, but its not my preferred approach. So you all can argue until your blue in the face about if the fighter is viable or if it needs to be changed. I don't know if you all will ever come to an acceptable answer to that question for everyone involved. Here is what I do know though, I have fun playing him as he is now. Is he perfect? Nope. Is any class in this game perfect? Nope. Does the fighter need to be perfect? Nope. Am I having fun? Yes. I love that you all are so concerned about the mechanics of this game. I agree with you all that the mechanics are important, but please remember this is just a game we play to have fun. Its not rocket science, or brain surgery. Don't be so critical of it and remember to treat each other with respect. Thanks. PS: I read this quote and I wanted to say its great. Its very concise and in my opinion very accurate. Well done. This gets me to my most important point. An adventure is an artificial construct whose purpose is a vehicle that lets the characters be heroes. An encounter is a finitely dangerous part of an adventure that requires extraordinary effort to overcome. The creatures encountered have natures and limited knowledge, and they act by that nature and that limited knowledge. Only by recognizing these things can we begin to assess what a creature would do.
Scion of Coldshard 06-19-07, 05:11 PM	Good catch on the mistakes. There's a few points for me to make note of. Happy to help. I tend to under-stat and under-equip characters. My builds are usually more interested in developing a sketch of a character's capabilities, and where that character has options. Once I hit the point where I am demonstrating a reasonable level of capability, and there are still character options remaining, then I have reached the point that I intended. In this case, I showed how to engage the juggernaut, but have not nearly expended all my options in doing so. Admittedly, there are folks very good at allocating feats and AC and who can blow my builds out of the water. If my half-baked build has enough potential to pull these things off, surely their good builds will do better. I understand what you are saying here and I do agree to a certain extent. Unfortunately though, when comparing certain classes the minimalist approach does not show a very clear picture of what is going on. For the Fighter vs Cleric example if the Fighter used 60% of his wealth and other resources for that level to get to the point where you were happy with while the Cleric used 40% of his to get to a similar level at which point they are compared what has been shown (note, numbers are completely made up, they are simply asking a 'what if')? If we ignore the advantage of the cleric that I am pushing for this particular example, mostly just to get the original example to be more fleshed out and comparing overall ability to overall ability, then the only thing that has been proven is that a guy who is not allowed to use his abilities will be in worse shape than another guy who is allowed to use his abilities. As a very basic example lets say that both want a +10 effective weapon and armor (+5 enhancement, +5 other). The Fighter would spend ~200,000 gp on the weapon and ~100,000 gp on the armor. The cleric could spend only ~72,000 gp on the weapon and 36,000 gp on the armor and have the same benefit but using a different resource. I definately approve on taking out as many factors as possible and reducing the comparison to as basic a nature as possible but that still means giving each part of the comparison roughly equal factors in as much as possible (same character level, same point buy value, same amount of gear, etc). If we are at very high levels and have equal gear looking from the clerics perspective what is the difference in your comparison above between the fighter guy you were talking about and a cleric with a quickened divine power? Both have the same BAB, Str, weapon, and effective hp total. Melee is also less variable than casters. Unlike spellcasters, who are entirely dependent on the spells chosen to show their capability, a melee character's primary capabilities are in strength, con, BAB, weapon, and physical defenses, so much so that you can rip 90% of their class abilities off and still get a character that can hit the right numbers. I could easily place a paladin or a barbarian into these examples, and those classes would also work for the same exact reasons. You could indeed place just about any full BAB class in your example above as it looks like you accounted for no class abilities so far except for a martial weapon proficiency and full BAB progression. My melee strategy to handle a terrasque centers around multiple ways to reduce or defray damage. "Blink" is the best way. As a custom item, it should be comparable to a cloak of displacement. To me, custom magic items to prove a point basically pop up against the Oberoni Fallacy. I am not a really big fan of blink for most combatants either for that matter. Giving yourself an extra miss chance can really hurt sometimes. The Cloak of greater displacement would be a whole lot better if it did not take that activation time or have such a limited amount of rounds for use per day :( These are useful enough items and equipment that they are likely to be on-hand should a tarrasque sow up suddenly. Another possible way is to turn ethereal and use a ghost-touch weapon to attack the tarrasque. (I just looked that up to be sure. Yes, that's as evil as it sounds.) That is extremely effective, but also cheesier. Polymorph Any Object is the cheesiest way. Tarrasques are pretty slow moving most of the time, cannot fly, and have an int of 3. Overall I am not too worried about them, just dont get in its way ;) But, what will ethereal and a ghost-touch weapon do? You cannot attack anyone on the prime with it unless you go from being ethereal to incorporeal. Polymorph any object is simply too broken to be allowed in most games as far as I am concerned. If there was a feat that required a person to be fighter 12 and granted the fighter the ability to treat all weapons he held as being vorpal I wouldnt allow that either ;)
Clawhound 06-19-07, 09:13 PM	Looks like I mixed up ethereal and incorporeal. Drat it. Old edition confusion. At lower levels, I find it very important to be careful of custom magic items. The higher that you go, the more extreme the items get. Past a certain point, it is not whether you can have an item, but what the appropriate cost is. I think that comparing an item of blink to an item of displacement is very comparable. They are both ways to defray damage 50%, but each has issues and side effects that can limit their use. If there were any cost difference, I do not see that cost rising so high as to be unaffordable or inappropriate. As for saving on item enhancements, I presume that you mean using greater magic weapon on a +1 (+5 other bonus) item. I see this effect implemented two ways. One lets them stack. The weapon becomes +5 (+5 other bonus). The other way says that you use the total enhancement bonus of the weapon. So your +1 (+5) other weapon would be +6, and a +5 enhancement is not large enough to stack with it. I prefer that interpretation. It is harder to explain, but more self-consistent with the game.
Krevon 06-19-07, 10:22 PM	Many of the highest CR encounters are puzzle creatures. How the party approaches these battles is just as important as anybody's ability. Now, let's do some math on the Big-T. Assuming a full attack fully succeeds: Bit 4d8+17=36 Horns 1d10+8=13 Horns 1d10+8=13 Claws 1d12+8=14 Claws 1d12+8=14 Tail 3d8+8=21 Total for one round: 111 An example fighter would only last three rounds. Add in adamantine armor, that that drops 18 hp to 93. But wait!! There's more. No high level fighter would be without a cloak of displacement. Or, if his party wizard will part with a 3rd level displacement spell, or blink, he'll get the same effect. This effectively buys him 50% damage reduction. He's now down to 47 HP/round in damage. But wait! There's more. If there is a cleric nearby, they can share the damage by using an awesome 2nd level spell, reducing his damage down to 24 hp/round. At 24 HP/round, it would take the Big-T about 10 rounds to kill a fighter. That's not bad. For two cheap-angst spells, my fighter can tank a the Big-T. His AC isn't great against T. I'm sure that there are ways to increase it. But that doesn't matter. He just needs the best fortify that he can get on that armor. He's gotta keep those criticals down. If he were to use Combat Expertise and fight defensively, he could get average damage down another 50-70%. Yes, that is only 10-12 damage/round against a tarrasque, but he would nerf his damage. Now, we look at damage. I'll leave true optimizing up to someone else, as I'm not good at that. I will demonstrate to you how a fighter spams damage, even against a tarrasque. Even a simple calculation shows a fighter with a +35 to hit and a +5 greatsword, increased to large size, does about 3d6+5 enh+10 str x2 = 35 points/attack, or 20 above DR. (95%+75%+50%+25%+5%)=(19+15+10+5+1)=49 HP/round on average, or 9 more than T's fast healing. That's before we've done anything clever with feats. Add in a bonus attack from haste (another uber 3rd level spell) and he gets another 20 HP of damage. He's now doing 29 more hit points that its fast healing. Mr T. will now go down in 29 rounds. If the cleric only gives him a few heal spells, the fighter can last 40 rounds, and tank Mr. T by himself using only 2nd, 3rd, and a few 6th level spells. Add in a Rage spell to get him more damage and more hit points! In a real game, with limited wealth, this may not work so perfectly, but given the cheapness of this approach, any party should be able to pull this off with a little tweaking. Note that the fighter above has not been optimized, other than putting everything that he's got into strength. You could just Polymorph Any Object him into a Storm Giant, and he's doing 4d6+26. He doesn't even need good stats for that tactic. But wait, there's more: because the fighter is engaging Mr. T, the rogue can now flank and get at least two full BAB sneak attacks (haste) against it. That's another 1d8+10d6+5 (44 hp -15 DR)x2=58 hp per round over regen. Wow. They are up to 89 hp/round over regen. They will down Mr. T before the fighter runs out of hit points. This party cooperation thing sure does work well. Even though a couple of numbers are off, it shows how well the intended group tactics work. Good work showing the fighter doing his thing at high level.
The_sleeper1 06-19-07, 11:14 PM	The melee classes have the same overall limitations that the fighter has. The rogue has many of the same problems that the fighter has. Here are the problems that many feel the fighter has: 1) Limited combat capability (little to no versatility) 2) Weak Saves (This is only partially true, they have 1 Good Save) 3) Limited to Melee Combat 4) Limited out of combat capability 5) Power level depends on gear Here are the classes that share those issues: 1) Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Bard 2) Rogue, Barbarian when not raging 3) Barbarian, Paladin, one type of Ranger, Rogue, Bard 4) Cleric (he only has 2 skill points per level and wants Concentration maxed so he really only has 1) 5) All You'll notice that the only classes that don't hit this list are the Wizard, Sorcerer, and Druid. The cleric is powerful enough that #4 can be forgiven. In almost all of those cases your compareing each class as sepperate abilitys, sure a bards melee starts off rather pore but he has spells and a paladin can only melee but has insane saves. None of those classes have the same level of problems that a fighter does by far. I also would caution against increasing the power level to match the cleric or druid. This would change the CR of many monsters, probably lowering them by 2 to 3 points. Not if the big three were lowered in power it would balance out the power curve. theres no real reason that 75% of the power of a party needs to be in 25% of the partys control. So since it has been proven in this thread that fighters can do melee as well if not better than many other classes, does this now mean that the fighter is fine? He is better than the barbarian, paladin, ranger, bard, and rogue. That puts him in the top 50% now. What about non-melee combat? What if the fighter can do both melee and ranged better than those classes? Is he now a better class? If melee was the ONLY thing this game was about you may have something there but as is your just picking numbers out of your head based on your bias and saying the numbers add up to the fighter being a-ok, but its not and the fighter is and he does not have a large margin of effect when in melee so he needs more melee abilitys or out of melee abilitys to compensate.
Khan the Destroyer 06-19-07, 11:43 PM	The tactical fighters that I've presented have a couple of options against the Tarrasque. My 'mounted build' (dismissed because of Leadership) could charge the tarrasque and deal ~180 damage with Spirited Charge, remaining mobile and hopefully (depending on mount) outside of full attack range. Any fighter I've built with Bull Rush and Knockback can bull rush the tarrasque beyond its ability to full attack a party member. (This is assuming the fighter gets polymorphed into a gargantuan creature. *NOT* for a good enough modifier, but simply because that's how bull rush rules work.) Clawhound demonstrated how to reduce the effectiveness of a tarrasque's full attack, which would be considerably better given party cohesion and preparation (given the legendary and unique status of the creature in question, not unlikely). So, simply swapping full attacks while your party also pounded on the beast is a possibility as well. The damage he gave can be augmented with Power Attack, the Weapon Spec chain, and feat synergy like bull rush/advancing blows. So... what more do you want? These can come from the same fighter, but they don't have to. A mounted fighter can put the thing down in about a minute. A tactical fighter can keep the creature away while still damaging it. And a weapon specialist can just slug it out. How does this suck? How is this worse than a barbarian, monk, paladin, ranger, or rogue?
Bob Loblaw 06-20-07, 12:18 AM	In almost all of those cases your compareing each class as sepperate abilitys, sure a bards melee starts off rather pore but he has spells and a paladin can only melee but has insane saves. The problems that people claim the fighter has are shared by many classes. Personally, I don't care if the paladin's saves hit +1K, if he can't hit in combat he is as useful as a paperweight. The bard really isn't all that great as a melee character either. Of course he can be built that way, but then he really doesn't do as much barding yet. I also noticed you failed to address the fact that not a single melee character is going to be better than the fighter at fighter. All you did was hand wave away what I said. None of those classes have the same level of problems that a fighter does by far. What are the problems with the fighter then? Give us a list and we can address them. Blanket statements are meaningless without actually being able to back them up. Not if the big three were lowered in power it would balance out the power curve. theres no real reason that 75% of the power of a party needs to be in 25% of the partys control. You said that it would be better to increase the non-casters since that is where the problem lies. At least that's how I understood things. If melee was the ONLY thing this game was about you may have something there but as is your just picking numbers out of your head based on your bias and saying the numbers add up to the fighter being a-ok, but its not and the fighter is and he does not have a large margin of effect when in melee so he needs more melee abilitys or out of melee abilitys to compensate. Actually, these numbers are right from the books. There are 11 classes. If the fighter can fight better than half, then he is in the top 50%. Show us how the fighter cannot fight effectively. Oh, and for the out of combat stuff, I will be more than happy to show how this is very wrong, without using magic items.
navar100 06-20-07, 02:03 AM	Many of the highest CR encounters are puzzle creatures. How the party approaches these battles is just as important as anybody's ability. Now, let's do some math on the Big-T. Assuming a full attack fully succeeds: Bit 4d8+17=36 Horns 1d10+8=13 Horns 1d10+8=13 Claws 1d12+8=14 Claws 1d12+8=14 Tail 3d8+8=21 Total for one round: 111 An example fighter would only last three rounds. Add in adamantine armor, that that drops 18 hp to 93. But wait!! There's more. No high level fighter would be without a cloak of displacement. Or, if his party wizard will part with a 3rd level displacement spell, or blink, he'll get the same effect. This effectively buys him 50% damage reduction. He's now down to 47 HP/round in damage. But wait! There's more. If there is a cleric nearby, they can share the damage by using an awesome 2nd level spell, reducing his damage down to 24 hp/round. At 24 HP/round, it would take the Big-T about 10 rounds to kill a fighter. That's not bad. For two cheap-angst spells, my fighter can tank a the Big-T. His AC isn't great against T. I'm sure that there are ways to increase it. But that doesn't matter. He just needs the best fortify that he can get on that armor. He's gotta keep those criticals down. If he were to use Combat Expertise and fight defensively, he could get average damage down another 50-70%. Yes, that is only 10-12 damage/round against a tarrasque, but he would nerf his damage. Now, we look at damage. I'll leave true optimizing up to someone else, as I'm not good at that. I will demonstrate to you how a fighter spams damage, even against a tarrasque. Even a simple calculation shows a fighter with a +35 to hit and a +5 greatsword, increased to large size, does about 3d6+5 enh+10 str x2 = 35 points/attack, or 20 above DR. (95%+75%+50%+25%+5%)=(19+15+10+5+1)=49 HP/round on average, or 9 more than T's fast healing. That's before we've done anything clever with feats. Add in a bonus attack from haste (another uber 3rd level spell) and he gets another 20 HP of damage. He's now doing 29 more hit points that its fast healing. Mr T. will now go down in 29 rounds. If the cleric only gives him a few heal spells, the fighter can last 40 rounds, and tank Mr. T by himself using only 2nd, 3rd, and a few 6th level spells. Add in a Rage spell to get him more damage and more hit points! In a real game, with limited wealth, this may not work so perfectly, but given the cheapness of this approach, any party should be able to pull this off with a little tweaking. Note that the fighter above has not been optimized, other than putting everything that he's got into strength. You could just Polymorph Any Object him into a Storm Giant, and he's doing 4d6+26. He doesn't even need good stats for that tactic. But wait, there's more: because the fighter is engaging Mr. T, the rogue can now flank and get at least two full BAB sneak attacks (haste) against it. That's another 1d8+10d6+5 (44 hp -15 DR)x2=58 hp per round over regen. Wow. They are up to 89 hp/round over regen. They will down Mr. T before the fighter runs out of hit points. This party cooperation thing sure does work well. Blasphemy! How dare a party work together. How dare a spellcaster cast a spell on the fighter, let alone three. Don't you realize we're right back where we started a long time ago in a thread far far away where no fighter deserves any spell whatsoever from a spellcaster? If that fighter can't defeat that tarrasque single handedly without any help from others and no magic item, then that just proves he sucks. A party working as a team such that all contribute to defeat the enemy. Pshaw. What is this D&D world coming to? Next you'll be telling me 1st level characters can be created using a 4d6 drop lowest method such that they could possibly even get an 18 in an ability score. 1st level!
navar100 06-20-07, 02:17 AM	Gone for several days, come back, and still exactly the same shouting going on. At least some things are constant in the universe ;) And what a nice few days it's been. :rofl:
Von_Harbringer 06-20-07, 02:33 AM	What is this D&D world coming to? Next you'll be telling me 1st level characters can be created using a 4d6 drop lowest method such that they could possibly even get an 18 in an ability score. 1st level! Nah... Use 3d6 down the line, have minimum requirements for both class and race. shooka... shooka... shooka... (roll); :censored: An 11 strength, 9 dexterity, 13 constitution, 12 intelligence, 15 Wisdom, 5 charisma. He puts himself out of his misery, because he sucks so bad, by slitting his throat. Actually had a fellow player say that.
Kratch 06-20-07, 03:09 AM	Nah... Use 3d6 down the line, have minimum requirements for both class and race. shooka... shooka... shooka... (roll); :censored: An 11 strength, 9 dexterity, 13 constitution, 12 intelligence, 15 Wisdom, 5 charisma. He puts himself out of his misery, because he sucks so bad, by slitting his throat. Actually had a fellow player say that. Using the 3D6 method, that set of rolls can be dismissed. The total modifers need to equal up to more then a combined +1, this one equals +0 and thus, need not be used. But i know what you mean. I generally take point buy over rolls whenever i am given the option, as i usually roll less then the point buy i'm offered.
runestar 06-20-07, 03:12 AM	With regards to Clawhound's analysis as to how a typical fighter might fare against the tarrasque, I have some comments of my own. The tarrasque has blindfight, which brings the miss chance from displacement down from 50% to just 25%. Also, it has a to-hit score of +57 (and its secondary attacks have +52 to-hit, possibly higher if you bring in multiattack or even improved multiattack). Assume the fighter has an AC of around 43, this means the tarrasque can afford to power attack for at least 13-14 points of damage safely, and still miss only on 1 (it might opt to PA for up to 20 if it is willing to take the risk). You can use expertise to raise this to 48, but then, the fighter's chances of hitting in battle reduces. This means it can easily deal well over 200 damage with a full attack action, not factoring in miss chances or dr. A fighter might just survive the 1st round, but it will be likely be dead in the 2nd. And pray the tarrasque never decides to trip. Adamantine clearly is not going to cut it. Better have the mage cast stoneskin(it helps reduce the damage taken to a more reasonable 100+ damage), but even that delays the inevitable by just 1 round. Heal helps some, by restoring 150hp. So I guess one strategy is to have the mage continuously cast reach stoneskins, while the cleric keeps healing him. As for the fighter's to-hit rating, give him bab+20, +4 focus/supremacy, +5 weapon, +11str, +4 morale, +1insight, +1luck gives +46 to-hit. So you should be able to hit with all your attacks, or power attack and focus on your 1st attack to punch through its dr. But its regeneration is still very annoying. You are looking at what - 70-80 damage each round (after dr, but before regeneration)? Against its 888hp (assume toughness was swapped out for improved toughness)? Does anyone actually have any experience taking on the tarrasque? However I look at it, it seems to be a veritable death sentence for the fighter...:confused:
Argaud 06-20-07, 06:53 AM	I think the Tarrasque's DR/epic means it punches through all DR except DR/-. Stoneskin does not help. Meleeing the Tarrasque is highly suicidal, though. The best way to beat it is using ranged atacks. Still, if someone really wants to try, AC can go from 43 to 62 by using Polymorph Any Object to become a Planetar. That would prevent the Tarrasque from power attacking and delay death. Highly optimized fighters can still kill it very easily, of course. An optimized charger will hit it for over 900 hp of damage with a single charge. An optimized archer can hit it for ~350 hp of damage each round and kill it in 4 rounds while safely staying at 400'. Ah, in the case you think it is impossible, here you have the basic builds, they have been posted many times, but I guess it never hurts to see them once again: Uber charger Level 20 fighter. Str 30 (human) using heedless charge (from Shock Trooper) and Leap Attack. Use the Focus/Supremacy to get a better to hit. Add Fleet of Foot so he can turn during the charge. Add the martial maneuver Tiger Pounce (can be taken at level 18) that allows full attack at the end of the charge. Or one level of barbarian using the ACF of Complete Champion. (Or some other way to get pounce, it can be done with magic/psionic items). To hit: +20 (bab) + 10 (str) + 5 (magic) + 4 (feats) + 2 (charge) = + 41. Full attack with haste (boots or speed) +42/42/38/33/28. If the enemy has AC 40 (typical at level 20) the first 4 attacks hit with 2 (add +5 to the 4th attack using Supremacy). The 5th attack has a 45% chances to hit. Damage from greatsword 2d6 + 15 (str) + 20 (power attack + headless charge) * 3 (leap attack) + 5 (magic) + 6 (feats) = 73 (93 with leap attack). Multiplied by 2 with a Valorous weapon for 146/186 each hit. So the AC 40 target takes about 650 hp of damage even if the leap attack is not possible (for instance, the fighter and the enemy are flying). Over 800 with leap attack. And criticals are not factored. Minimum gear needed are a valorous greatsword +5, Tome of Str +5, Belt of +6 Str, Boots of Speed and something to fly. Uber archer Level 20 fighter. Dex 32, Str 22 (ideally, a wood elf). Important feats are Improved Rapid Shot and the Focus/Supremacy chain. To hit: +20 (bab) + 4 (feats) + 11 (dex) + 5 (magic) + 2 (bracers of archery) + 1 (haste from boots) + 2 (raptor arrows) = 45 Full attack with improved rapid shot, weapon supremacy, improved critical, a split bow and haste is +45/45/45/45/45/45/40/40/35/35/30/30. If the enemy has AC40 9 arrows will hit with 2s (the 9th having a +5 because of Supremacy), one hits with a 5 (80%) one hits with a 10 (55%) and the other hits automatically (take 10). So on average 10.9 hits. Damage per arrow is 1d8 + 6 (strength) + 5 (magic) + 2d6 (Raptor Arrows) + 2 (bracers) + 6 (feats) for a 30.5 average. Total average damage, before criticals, is 332. Minimum gear needed includes weapon is a +5 split force bow shooting Raptor Arrows (MIC), gear of +6 Dex and Str, Tome of Dex +5, bracers of archery and Boots of Speed. Notice the Tarrasque AC is just 35, so the average damage will be greater.
runestar 06-20-07, 07:40 AM	I think the Tarrasque's DR/epic means it punches through all DR except DR/-. Stoneskin does not help. I took it to mean that it can overcome dr/magic and dr/epic. But other dr, like dr/adamantine or dr/silver, should still succeed in blocking out some of the damage. I was at first curious as to why the designers would let it overcome dr/epic (since this would be practically non-existent amongst PCs), but concluded that it was probably just a side effect of its dr/epic, so the designers just carried it over for internal consistency.:)
Clawhound 06-20-07, 09:14 AM	I took it to mean that it can overcome dr/magic and dr/epic. But other dr, like dr/adamantine or dr/silver, should still succeed in blocking out some of the damage. I was at first curious as to why the designers would let it overcome dr/epic (since this would be practically non-existent amongst PCs), but concluded that it was probably just a side effect of its dr/epic, so the designers just carried it over for internal consistency.:) As a CR 20 creature, it can be encountered into the CR 21-25 range. They would encounter epic equipment there. I suppose that an evil DM could put two or more in a battle. Or maybe you would have a Balor team up with the Tarrasque. At CR26, you could encounter eight of these unique, one-of-a-kind monstrosities. Personally, I have full confidence that with enough collaboration, we can put together a firm tactic to take out the tarrasque in toe-to-toe melee. Simply because this tactic looks suicidal does not mean that the tactic is impossible. I've seen what players can pull off.
runestar 06-20-07, 10:06 AM	Personally, I have full confidence that with enough collaboration, we can put together a firm tactic to take out the tarrasque in toe-to-toe melee. Simply because this tactic looks suicidal does not mean that the tactic is impossible. I've seen what players can pull off. Yeah, and his name is "Frenzied Berserker"...:P
Kratch 06-20-07, 02:12 PM	I took it to mean that it can overcome dr/magic and dr/epic. But other dr, like dr/adamantine or dr/silver, should still succeed in blocking out some of the damage. I was at first curious as to why the designers would let it overcome dr/epic (since this would be practically non-existent amongst PCs), but concluded that it was probably just a side effect of its dr/epic, so the designers just carried it over for internal consistency.:) Players can gate in things to help fight the terrasque, things with DR epic, such as a solar. It means the solar can bypass that DR as well.
warforgedMonkey 06-20-07, 03:01 PM	in what book is Necklace of Prayer Beads?
Kratch 06-20-07, 04:18 PM	It's strand of prayer beads. DMG (I always have troubles finding it too)
Krevon 06-21-07, 12:31 AM	The tactical fighters that I've presented have a couple of options against the Tarrasque. My 'mounted build' (dismissed because of Leadership) could charge the tarrasque and deal ~180 damage with Spirited Charge, remaining mobile and hopefully (depending on mount) outside of full attack range. Any fighter I've built with Bull Rush and Knockback can bull rush the tarrasque beyond its ability to full attack a party member. (This is assuming the fighter gets polymorphed into a gargantuan creature. *NOT* for a good enough modifier, but simply because that's how bull rush rules work.) Clawhound demonstrated how to reduce the effectiveness of a tarrasque's full attack, which would be considerably better given party cohesion and preparation (given the legendary and unique status of the creature in question, not unlikely). So, simply swapping full attacks while your party also pounded on the beast is a possibility as well. The damage he gave can be augmented with Power Attack, the Weapon Spec chain, and feat synergy like bull rush/advancing blows. So... what more do you want? These can come from the same fighter, but they don't have to. A mounted fighter can put the thing down in about a minute. A tactical fighter can keep the creature away while still damaging it. And a weapon specialist can just slug it out. How does this suck? How is this worse than a barbarian, monk, paladin, ranger, or rogue? It must suck since the fighter is spending his resources "fighting". He should spend them trying to be like a spellcaster, duh.:P
Clawhound 06-21-07, 06:35 AM	Hmm. What are melee ways to eliminate full-attacks against you while you retain your own full-attack? Trip is the most well and most famous. What are the others?
Argaud 06-21-07, 06:49 AM	Hmm. What are melee ways to eliminate full-attacks against you while you retain your own full-attack? Trip is the most well and most famous. What are the others? Trip only does that if the creature decides to stand up. Full attacking from prone is possible, if unsafe (-4 to hit and AC). Slow spells are great to deny full attacks. Staggering Strike feat does too. I guess some combos of feats like Combat Reflexes and Evasive Reflexes (while having reach) might work.
Kalarus 06-21-07, 06:55 AM	Trip only does that if the creature devices to stand up. Full attacking from prone is possible, if unsafe (-4 to hit and AC). Slow spells are great to deny full attacks. Staggering Strike feat does too. I guess some combos of feats like Combat Reflexes and Evasive Reflexes (while having reach) might work. Evasive Reflexes is from where?
runestar 06-21-07, 06:58 AM	The tarrasque can easily trip as well. With its insane trip check, it will have no problems tripping with one of its natural attacks, then following up with all its other 5 natural attacks. On the other hand, trying to trip a tarrasque sounds like sheer insanity to me. Barring the impossibility unless you are somehow gargantuan in size (you can only trip foes up to 1 size larger than you). Slow spell seems somewhat possible, if you can beat its will save of +20 and penetrate its sr. I guess there is always heighten spell...:embarrass
Argaud 06-21-07, 07:25 AM	Evasive Reflexes is from where? Tome of Battle. Although it does not work as I thought, since 5' steps do not provoke AoO. However, when combined with Robilar's Gambit it makes possible avoid full attacks quite often. If someone swings at you, you can take a 5' step instead of making the retaliatory AoO, which pretty much ends the full attack of the enemy.
Bob Loblaw 06-21-07, 11:48 AM	Tome of Battle. Although it does not work as I thought, since 5' steps do not provoke AoO. However, when combined with Robilar's Gambit it makes possible avoid full attacks quite often. If someone swings at you, you can take a 5' step instead of making the retaliatory AoO, which pretty much ends the full attack of the enemy. Combine it with Thicket of Blades so that 5-foot steps now provoke attacks of opportunity. You could also take Exploit Adjustment from Dragon 340 to take an attack of opportunity if your opponent moves from one square to another that is adjacent to you.
Khan the Destroyer 06-21-07, 12:42 PM	Seriously, just lance the tarrasque every turn from the back of your hippogriff mount and let your wizard friend wish it dead when you're done. I mean, we're talking 3 feats here: Mounted Combat, Ride-by Attack, and Spirited Charge. No AoO provoked for charging, triple damage with lance, and enough mobility to stay out of the Big T's threatened area. Your party can pop out of hiding once the big monster is unconscious.
Scion of Coldshard 06-21-07, 01:23 PM	So the Tarrasque wont use its rush ability to get up to you and chomp down on your mount? Hippogriffs only have 25 hp after all. Average damage from the Tarrasques bite is 35 damage and if the Hippogriff happens to survive the hit somehow it will certainly be grappled. The Tarrasque is a pretty mean beast, and can be fairly easy to defeat with planning, but lets not pretend that it is completely inept. It might even ready an action sometime.
Argaud 06-21-07, 01:33 PM	So the Tarrasque wont use its rush ability to get up to you and chomp down on your mount? Hippogriffs only have 25 hp after all. Average damage from the Tarrasques bite is 35 damage and if the Hippogriff happens to survive the hit somehow it will certainly be grappled. Nah, just twink up the ride skill so it utterly crushes the Tarrasque +57 to hit and parry the bite using Mounted Combat. :) It might still be able to bite the fighter, but the mount is going to be untouchable.
Khan the Destroyer 06-21-07, 01:43 PM	A Hippogriff has a fly speed of 200' when charging, and that's before increasing speed with any items or spells available. Rush may work, or it may not be enough. You're right of course about attacking the mount. Which is why I always advocate Leadership or Wild Cohort for a mounted combatant. In either case, I'd say an optimized Ride check can reduce the chances of having your mount killed or grappled. But with an average attack roll of 67, that'd have to be a seriously optimized Ride check. In regards to readying an action... it might. Or it might not. Something described as 'rampaging engine of destruction' doesn't leave an image of adapting to enemy tactics to me. More like, he might continue chasing me around like the big dumb ravenous monster he is. And finally, I'll stop treating enemies as inept when other people stop treating fighters as inept ;). My example was intentionally simple, but can work barring the objections you brought up. Meaning, we just have to get around those simple problems (Rush, attack) and then we'll be golden. Actually, we would really just have to optimize that Ride check, and then Rush wouldn't even be a problem really. Keeping the Tarrasque's attacks to one a turn means we can keep avoiding them with Ride checks. Readying an action and using Rush to reach the fighter would both allow only 1 attack. EDIT: Argaud, I won't say you ninja'ed me because we're talking about a difference of 10 minutes. Instead, I'll just say I'm a slow typer.
runestar 06-21-07, 01:43 PM	We could assume that everyone has freedom of movement active to avoid being grappled. Heroes' feast to negate the fear. How is it attacking the mount? I though it would be safely in the air?
Bob Loblaw 06-21-07, 02:06 PM	Hmm. What are melee ways to eliminate full-attacks against you while you retain your own full-attack? Trip is the most well and most famous. What are the others? Anything that Confuses, Cowers, Dazes, Fascinates, Frightens, Nauseates, Panics, Paralyzes, or Stuns your opponent. Alternatively, you can force your opponent to remain more than 5 feet from you if it is restricted to melee. Here are just some of the ones I found. • Acheron Flurry (Planar Handbook): Opponent can only take a single standard or move action, only works with Unarmed Strikes • Anvil of Thunder (Complete Warrior): Dazes target for 1 round • Awesome Blow (Monster Manual): Moves opponent back and knocks it prone • Spring Attack/Bounding Assault/Rapid Blitz (PHB2): You can get up to 3 attacks on one target and still move away • Broken Fist Mastery I (Dragon 305): You are one size larger for tripping • Broken Fist Mastery II (Dragon 305): Gain a bonus on trip attempts equal to ½ your character level • Choke Hold (OA): Opponent may fall unconscious • Confound The Big Folk (Races of the Wild): Eliminate the size bonus to resist trips, you must be size Small or smaller. • If you take the Fighter Option from UA and take sneak attack instead of bonus feats, you might be able to use some interesting Ambush feats. • Dire Flail Smash (Champions of Ruin): Dazes opponent • Driving Attack (PHB2): Bull rush combined with trip • Fade into Violence (PH2): This could be interesting if more than one party member uses the feat. • Fling Enemy (Races of Stone): Throw enemy 10+ feet away. • Forceful Staff Style (Ghostwalk): You can stun people with your quarterstaff and push them around after you stun them. • Hammer's Edge (Complete Warrior): You are a master of the style of fighting with a hammer and sword at the same time, and have learned to hammer your foes into the ground with your tremendous blows. • Knockback (Races of Stone): Bull rush without moving • Melee Evasion (PHB2): Doesn’t change the number of attacks the enemy gets, but does reduce the number of attacks that hit you • Pain Touch (Complete Warrior): Stun becomes Nauseated next round. • Pharaoh’s Fist (Sandstorm): Stunning is an area attack. • Resounding Blow (Book of Exalted Deeds): Force opponent to Cower • Shield Slam (Complete Warrior): Dazes opponent • Shock Trooper (Complete Warrior): Bull rush multiple opponents • Southern Star Mastery (Dragon 315): Opponent makes Will save or is thrown back 10 feet. • Staggering Blow (Dragon Compendium): Critical Hit may Stun opponent. • Stunning Fist (PHB) • Terrifying Warrior (Dragon 343): When you Cleave, opponents within reach may become Panicked. • Three Mountains (Complete Warrior): Attack may Nauseate opponent. I’m sure that there are more out there. I know that there are probably some magic items that can help also.
Bob Loblaw 06-21-07, 02:26 PM	In regards to readying an action... it might. Or it might not. Something described as 'rampaging engine of destruction' doesn't leave an image of adapting to enemy tactics to me. More like, he might continue chasing me around like the big dumb ravenous monster he is. I can picture the tarrasque kinda like King Kong, attacking the incoming planes as they come close. I do think it'd be really easy to get the Ride check up there: Ranks: 23 Dex 14: +2 Skill Focus: +3 Military Saddle: +2 Handle Animal Synergy: +2 Animal Affinity: +2 Born in the Saddle (Dragon 307): +2 Saddleback (Forgotten Realms) or Steady Rider (WotC site): Take 10 even when threatened Saddleback (Ghostwalk/OA): +3 Saddleborn (Trait) +1 Skyrider: +2 =52 Simply taking Item Familiar would give +23 more brining us to 75, but I don't think it's a good investment with the limited skill point the fighter has to deal with. That's without magic items. You can make an item that grants up to +30, which would allow us to drop some of those feats (I didn't check to see which are fighter bonus). If we dropped one feat to take Item Familiar, we can have a Ride check of +105. That should be reasonable :D .
Scion of Coldshard 06-21-07, 03:59 PM	I do think it'd be really easy to get the Ride check up there: Ranks: 23 Dex 14: +2 Skill Focus: +3 Military Saddle: +2 Handle Animal Synergy: +2 Animal Affinity: +2 Born in the Saddle (Dragon 307): +2 Saddleback (Forgotten Realms) or Steady Rider (WotC site): Take 10 even when threatened Saddleback (Ghostwalk/OA): +3 Saddleborn (Trait) +1 Skyrider: +2 =52 I am not familiar with a lot of this but it looks like you are spending 5 feats and a trait to get up to +52. With the 3 feats that Khan mentioned that takes the character up to 8 feats spent. If we toss in wild cohort that makes it 9 feats spent. Dragon is kindof a questionable place to be pulling feats from as well. I think that we are out of the range of 'easy' and into 'very specialized' at this point. I dont think that hippogriff is a possible choice for wild cohort though, it isnt listed with a cohort level adjustment either so I am unsure if they may be taken with leadership either. It also looks like none of those feats, or at least the ones I am familiar with, are fighter bonus feats.
Argaud 06-21-07, 04:10 PM	I dont think that hippogriff is a possible choice for wild cohort though, it isnt listed with a cohort level adjustment either so I am unsure if they may be taken with leadership either. Go read DMG pages 204-206 It also looks like none of those feats, or at least the ones I am familiar with, are fighter bonus feats. Lets do it without feats: +23 (skill ranks) + 5 (Dex 20, 14 base + 6 gauntlets) + 2 (Animal Handling synergy) +30 (magic item of skill, costs 90,000 gold) Total: +60 Already more than the Tarrasque to hit. Conclusion: It is very easy to keep the mount alive when the enemy has only one attack/round.
Clawhound 06-21-07, 04:40 PM	It's tempting to call protecting your mount specialized, but when so much effectiveness rests in your mount, keeping that mount alive is a no-brainer. It might be a one-trick pony of a tactic, but it's a mighty nice trick.
Scion of Coldshard 06-21-07, 04:47 PM	Go read DMG pages 204-206 So it looks like no rules for getting it with the wild cohort feat and you cannot get it with leadership. +30 (magic item of skill, costs 90,000 gold) Lets do it without custom magical items.
Kalarus 06-21-07, 05:14 PM	So it looks like no rules for getting it with the wild cohort feat and you cannot get it with leadership. Lets do it without custom magical items. Why does one need those feats again to ride a Hippogriff? And why not custom magical items? If I knew I was going to ride constantly, I'd want one. It's a legitimate use of wealth and a common practice in a lot of D&D games.
Scion of Coldshard 06-21-07, 05:30 PM	Why does one need those feats again to ride a Hippogriff? They dont. I believe the point was that wild cohort would make the mount a bit more durable though, if it was allowed. 25 hp isnt very much at level 20. And why not custom magical items? Because not every item made according to the guidelines is balanced for the price that it gives? Even already priced items have poorly thought out prices, no need to add to the problem. Plus, in a discussion about existing mechanics adding in houserules isnt very helpful.
The_sleeper1 06-21-07, 05:39 PM	I thinght that item bonuses 30+ were epic in scale and subject to the X10 cost mod. I could be wrong though I dont play in epic.
Scion of Coldshard 06-21-07, 05:52 PM	I thinght that item bonuses 30+ were epic in scale and subject to the X10 cost mod. I could be wrong though I dont play in epic. I believe the cut off was +30 actually, but I am not sure if the epic rules were ever updated to 3.5 directly. Even with that however, custom items bring in a whole new ball of wax to deal with and should be avoided.
Bob Loblaw 06-21-07, 06:04 PM	I'm doing what I said I wasn't going to do, but... I am not familiar with a lot of this but it looks like you are spending 5 feats and a trait to get up to +52. With the 3 feats that Khan mentioned that takes the character up to 8 feats spent. If we toss in wild cohort that makes it 9 feats spent. Dragon is kindof a questionable place to be pulling feats from as well. I highly doubt that any DM is going to argue that the feat I chose from Dragon is going to be questionable (as in over powered and not play-tested therefore broken) in any sense. Besides, Dragon is still 100% official. While you can choose not to allow it in your games, if we are going to allow non-Core material then we should allow all WotC DnD material for these discussions. I think that we are out of the range of 'easy' and into 'very specialized' at this point. The riding bonuses are easy. The mounted warrior part is easy. The two combined is specialized. I see no problem with this since we are discussing a mounted fighter. I dont think that hippogriff is a possible choice for wild cohort though, it isnt listed with a cohort level adjustment either so I am unsure if they may be taken with leadership either. Skyrider is specifically for riding a hippogriff. However, the DMG (page 200) does state that Leadership cannot attract a cohort with an Intelligence less than 4 so we will have to find a way to overcome this. I don't think Awaken would work, but what about a simple Headband of Intellect +2? I think this gets a bit murky though. As for the Wild Cohort part, I'm sure there is a feat or option out there that would help deal with this. I don't know of one off the top of my head. It also looks like none of those feats, or at least the ones I am familiar with, are fighter bonus feats. I did mention that I didn't check to see if they were fighter bonus feats. I also made sure that I only used 6 feats so that it wouldn't be an issue.
Argaud 06-21-07, 06:17 PM	So it looks like no rules for getting it with the wild cohort feat and you cannot get it with leadership. Because it is in page 199, my mistake. The hippogriff is not specifically mentioned, but the far more powerful and faster pegasus, dragonne and griffon are perfectly acceptable. Lets do it without custom magical items. Skill items always have the same cost and they can't be abused like permanent items with low-level spells. There is no reason to ban them unless the DM wants to make skills more valuable, and at the same time neft the rogues' chances to sneak around.
Bob Loblaw 06-21-07, 06:43 PM	Because it is in page 199, my mistake. The hippogriff is not specifically mentioned, but the far more powerful and faster pegasus, dragonne and griffon are perfectly acceptable. I hate to be on Scion's side, but page 200 states that the cohort must have an Intelligence of at least 4. It's not hard to get the mount's Intelligence up there, though. Just by making it an 8HD creature, we can add the +2 it gets for extra hit dice to it's Intelligence along with some other nice bonuses since it will go up a size category (+8 Str, +4 Con, +4 Natural Armor, and damage increase). Or we can slap a template on it. Half-Celestial, Half-Dragon, Half-Fiend are all good enough right from the Monster Manual. I'm sure we can have some real fun if we branch out (would half-troll work?). Skill items always have the same cost and they can't be abused like permanent items with low-level spells. There is no reason to ban them unless the DM wants to make skills more valuable, and at the same time neft the rogues' chances to sneak around. I'm with you here. I don't see any difference between +5 to Spot and +5 to Ride. It's a way for the nay-sayers to be right. They get to ignore whatever parts of the DMG they wish so they can be right. The Magic Item Guidelines are just that, and they are listed in the Dungeon Master's Guide (which is in itself a set of guidelines). Little detail that is often overlooked or ignored by many on these boards.
Argaud 06-21-07, 06:52 PM	I hate to be on Scion's side, but page 200 states that the cohort must have an Intelligence of at least 4. It's not hard to get the mount's Intelligence up there, though. Just by making it an 8HD creature, we can add the +2 it gets for extra hit dice to it's Intelligence along with some other nice bonuses since it will go up a size category (+8 Str, +4 Con, +4 Natural Armor, and damage increase). Or we can slap a template on it. Half-Celestial, Half-Dragon, Half-Fiend are all good enough right from the Monster Manual. I'm sure we can have some real fun if we branch out (would half-troll work?). Eh? I am not sure if you are taking his side. Hell, forget cohort, just buy a hippogriff for 3,000 gold pieces and train it. They are not even expensive at level 20. And we save another feat. Or use a figurine of wondrous power, they won't die even if the Tarrasque bites them. And if you don't want to use a skill item, just feed the mount a potion of invisibility. It is not really attacking, and the Tarrasque is too dumb to attack an invisible mount when it can see and hit a flying guy smacking it repeatedly with a lance. There are many tactics to kill the Tarrasque with a flying mount. I am quite certain Khan was just giving a simple example. Trying to nitpick the example is pretty stupid since it is extremely easy to greatly improve the tactic.
Bob Loblaw 06-21-07, 07:00 PM	And if you don't want to use a skill item, just feed the mount a potion of invisibility. It is not really attacking, and the Tarrasque is too dumb to attack an invisible mount when it can see and hit a flying guy smacking it repeatedly with a lance. There are many tactics to kill the Tarrasque with a flying mount. I am quite certain Khan was just giving a simple example. Trying to nitpick the example is pretty stupid since it is extremely easy to greatly improve the tactic. I didn't even think about invisibility. That would be fun. I agree that nitpicking the example is stupid. Just change hippogriff to pegasus and the problem fixes itself.
Kratch 06-21-07, 07:24 PM	And I'm still waiting to see how these examples are singley applicable to the fighter. The various tqactics that have been offered for a fighter to use have been, apparently rejected for insignificant reasons (such as .5 damage per hit mistake on math, using hypogryph instead of pegasus, template or griffon in the example, nuymber of non fighter feats used, etc.), yet, I still haven't seen what other class's are doing that put them above the fighter. It's easy to say something sucks because you don't want it to succeed in a particular encounter and then nitpick any arguments to the contrary, but unless you can show most everyone else can function in that same encounter under the same conditions, your proving nothing but the fact you can deny a few options with metagame tactics (in the case of the pit fiend/balor comparisons) or that you can notice easily corrected (and usually insignificant) mistakes in someones off-the-top-of-their-head example builds (which i might add, is still more then anyone else has provided).
navar100 06-22-07, 01:59 AM	And I'm still waiting to see how these examples are singley applicable to the fighter. The various tqactics that have been offered for a fighter to use have been, apparently rejected for insignificant reasons (such as .5 damage per hit mistake on math, using hypogryph instead of pegasus, template or griffon in the example, nuymber of non fighter feats used, etc.), yet, I still haven't seen what other class's are doing that put them above the fighter. It's easy to say something sucks because you don't want it to succeed in a particular encounter and then nitpick any arguments to the contrary, but unless you can show most everyone else can function in that same encounter under the same conditions, your proving nothing but the fact you can deny a few options with metagame tactics (in the case of the pit fiend/balor comparisons) or that you can notice easily corrected (and usually insignificant) mistakes in someones off-the-top-of-their-head example builds (which i might add, is still more then anyone else has provided). You're forgetting the rules. Anti-fighters are allowed to make blanket statements and grand assumptions. Pro-fighters have to dot their i's, cross their t's, and calculate to the 10th decimal point, 12th for Scion.
Leo 06-22-07, 04:19 AM	You're forgetting the rules. Anti-fighters are allowed to make blanket statements and grand assumptions. Pro-fighters have to dot their i's, cross their t's, and calculate to the 10th decimal point, 12th for Scion. Oh god how I expected someone else to say this. Also, don't forget how casters can have all the money in the world and handy merchants to sell them raw materials for crafting, but the noncaster can't have a single magic item.
runestar 06-22-07, 04:20 AM	Also, don't forget how casters can have all the money in the world and handy merchants to sell them raw materials for crafting, but the noncaster can't have a single magic item. Where is this coming from?:confused:
Leo 06-22-07, 07:13 AM	Where is this coming from?:confused: There was a time in the fighter discussions where the antifighters claimed that in the fighter vs caster battles the fighters weren't allowed for magic equipment, since they couldn't craft it themselves The casters, however, were allowed to be fully loaded with magical stuff due to being able to craft the stuffs themselves, and full of money due to fabricate and wish loops cheese.
Clawhound 06-22-07, 07:19 AM	The dual standard is as old as the game. I remember the following arguments from 1st and 2nd edition: "Fighter's can't do X, that's not realistic." At the same time, because its magic, it is okay for wizards to be stopping time and making wishes. Yes, I really did have conversations like that. You really can't be both realistic and fantastic in the same game. You must choose. Sadly, even in this edition, they did not choose for too long.
The_sleeper1 06-22-07, 07:47 AM	A cleric on a pegasus could do the same things as a mounted fighter, theres no fighter advantage. There for that example shows a fighter at a disadvantage because the cleric is mounted combat + casting.
Argaud 06-22-07, 08:14 AM	A cleric on a pegasus could do the same things as a mounted fighter, theres no fighter advantage. There for that example shows a fighter at a disadvantage because the cleric is mounted combat + casting. The Pun-Pun fallacy strikes again! Every day, every time. :rolleyes:
Bob Loblaw 06-22-07, 08:54 AM	A cleric on a pegasus could do the same things as a mounted fighter, theres no fighter advantage. There for that example shows a fighter at a disadvantage because the cleric is mounted combat + casting. Really? He can? Let's see, Khan threw out a few feats and then I added a few more. As Scion pointed out, we were at 9 feats. How many does your cleric have again? Let's assume we are using the same rules and he has 6 feats. Of course the cleric can summon a mount so he can save a feat. That's going to bring us to 8, still more than 6. Let's assume he uses Argaud's method of getting his Ride check up. Since Ride is a cross-class skill, you're going to need 11 ranks in Ride, putting your skill at +48. A little shy of the fighter's +60. What other skill did your cleric focus on? Probably Concentration, but it certainly isn't maxed out because he had to put 10 points into Handle Animal. This leaves him with 11 ranks in Concentration. He can probably cast defensively, but can he handle the other Concentration checks, like if he is dealt damage while casting? Also, why is your cleric even wasting time dealing with a flying mount when he can just fly (there are plenty of options here). From your "example" it doesn't seem that the cleric is actually trying to get his hands dirty. He is going to sit back and cast spells. Sounds like the fighter may have a tactical advantage if someone is going to get their hands dirty. I would also ask, if the wizard can take on the tarrasque, or the druid, or the artificer, or any other class, then does that mean that your cleric no longer has a tactical advantage, and therefore has no purpose? If you fail to answer to answer "yes," then you are simply arguing against the fighter because you simply want the fighter to be "useless" despite the facts.
Khan the Destroyer 06-22-07, 09:49 AM	I can picture the tarrasque kinda like King Kong, attacking the incoming planes as they come close. Perhaps. But I imagine King Kong is more intelligent than the Tarrasque, and doesn't have the whole 'I sleep for a long time and then awaken to carve out a path of destruction' thing going for him. Also, King Kong was on a skyscraper. He really had no choice. The rest of the time, he was running from attacks or actively fighting back. I would imagine the tarrasque would either keep running and eating stuff, or try and jump at the fighter and bite him. I do think it'd be really easy to get the Ride check up there: Isn't there a magic saddle that adds a +10 bonus or something? I'll have to add to the list here :). I dont think that hippogriff is a possible choice for wild cohort though, it isnt listed with a cohort level adjustment either so I am unsure if they may be taken with leadership either. That was my bad. My original mounted fighter acquired a Pegasus through Leadership. But for this simple demonstration, Hippogriff was the 1st thing I turned to in the MM. Laziness swept over me at that time and I just went with it. The Pegasus is statistically better though, so I'll assume that. In the end though, if the fighter's modifier is high enough to assume he can keep his mount safe through mobile fighting and excellent riding, he might just buy a random winged mount for this battle and we can forget about the issue of Wild Cohort and Leadership (though I personally have nothing against using Leadership to acquire a durable mount). And if you don't want to use a skill item, just feed the mount a potion of invisibility. It is not really attacking, and the Tarrasque is too dumb to attack an invisible mount when it can see and hit a flying guy smacking it repeatedly with a lance. Wow. Good call. In that case, we'd have to make sure that the fighter can resist the grapple check that follows a successful Bite attack. To be precise, he'd have to resist a +81 grapple modifier. Now, I'm optimistic when it comes to fighters, but optimizing for that short of Freedom of Movement seems unlikely. There are many tactics to kill the Tarrasque with a flying mount. I am quite certain Khan was just giving a simple example. Trying to nitpick the example is pretty stupid since it is extremely easy to greatly improve the tactic. Correct, my example was meant to be simple. Scion's points about Rush and readying an action are valid in my opinion, though. But I left a lot of room to expand on the idea. A cleric on a pegasus could do the same things as a mounted fighter, theres no fighter advantage. There for that example shows a fighter at a disadvantage because the cleric is mounted combat + casting. Thank you for your opinion. I'll toss it in the bin labelled 'One day, they'll give us more.' It's getting full again. I'll need to empty it out soon. Now, a cleric that uses DMM has Extend Spell, Persistent Spell, Extra Turning, and Divine Metamagic as feats. That's 1/2 his feats (assuming human). Then he takes Mounted Combat, Ride-by Attack, and Spirited Charge. He has 1 feat left over. I don't really care what it is. Point being... He didn't get Ride-by Attack and Spirited Charge until levels 12 and 15 respectively. The fighter has been dealing triple damage from horseback as early as level 1. Then he has other feats to improve his combat options. So, while we're discussing 3 specific feats for a specific encounter in this scenario, don't presume that this is all the fighter can do or that he's only able to do it now. On the other hand, if you'd like to tell me that not all clerics use DMM and I'm clinging to it just to prove a point with feats... that's ok. But I'll have to point out the opportunity costs involved with that choice. Not that I particularly care for the argument of opportunity costs, but since it is the very argument you are invoking in your 'the cleric does it better' sentence, I figured I should bring it to light. In other words, your clerics *have* to use DMM, otherwise your own argument ends you. And if you do use DMM, you'll have to wait until mid-high levels to do what the fighter has been doing since the start in regards to Mounted Combat feats. Which seems rather pointless. Your own position is that the cleric is superior because he has spells while mounted. So then why focus on dealing triple damage on a charge if you're casting spells? I don't know.
Argaud 06-22-07, 09:59 AM	In that case, we'd have to make sure that the fighter can resist the grapple check that follows a successful Bite attack. To be precise, he'd have to resist a +81 grapple modifier. Now, I'm optimistic when it comes to fighters, but optimizing for that short of Freedom of Movement seems unlikely. Very dumb is the adventurer that fails to have Freedom of Movement at level 20 (or Contingency Teleport/DD) :) I think it is a give the fighter will have a ring of Freedom of Movement. Against other cases a fighter with Supremacy (or Wolverine Stance) could care very little of being grappled. But... we are talking about the Tarrasque here. A cleric on a pegasus could do the same things as a mounted fighter, theres no fighter advantage. There for that example shows a fighter at a disadvantage because the cleric is mounted combat + casting. And a paladin would be riding a huge gold dragon at level 20, skewering the Tarrasque with holy relish (and x6 lance damage). So the paladin is show a cleric at a disadvantage because the paladin is a mounted combat + CR16 gold dragon + double casting.
The_sleeper1 06-22-07, 10:30 AM	I would also ask, if the wizard can take on the tarrasque, or the druid, or the artificer, or any other class, then does that mean that your cleric no longer has a tactical advantage, and therefore has no purpose? If you fail to answer to answer "yes," then you are simply arguing against the fighter because you simply want the fighter to be "useless" despite the facts. Yes, that is right the cleric would not have a tactical advantage, unless we are talking about fighter versus cleric, in this case it does not matter what a wizard can do because were talking fighter or cleric. A cleric has other ways to get there ride skill up besides the ones listed. I did not say that the fighter would be worse ONLY that the cleric can do similar, look at the differance in abilitys between what a cleric and fighter can do. Is that worth 9 levels of spells?
Argaud 06-22-07, 10:46 AM	I did not say that the fighter would be worse ONLY that the cleric can do similar, look at the differance in abilitys between what a cleric and fighter can do. Is that worth 9 levels of spells? So what? So who the hell cares if the cleric is the most powerful class in the PHB? What impact does it have in the fighter's ability to defeat challenges? Answer: absolutely nothing. It is not relevant. Please stop bringing up yet again this stupid, fallacious argument. The artificer is better than the cleric, far better, actually. It can do all the cleric does and million other things. So can the archivist to a lesser degree. Again, it does not make the cleric a weak class or anything. Actually, it has no bearing at all in the cleric ability to be effective and deadly.
crashlogic 06-22-07, 12:01 PM	Yes, that is right the cleric would not have a tactical advantage, unless we are talking about fighter versus cleric, in this case it does not matter what a wizard can do because were talking fighter or cleric. A cleric has other ways to get there ride skill up besides the ones listed. I did not say that the fighter would be worse ONLY that the cleric can do similar, look at the differance in abilitys between what a cleric and fighter can do. Is that worth 9 levels of spells? the cleric needs to spend time and spells to buff himself up to the level of the fighter. even so, there are few cleric spell that duplicate feats like mounted combat or ride by attack, etc. And chances are your cleric does not have them (you give up a lot of good cleric feats to do so). So the cleric, even with his spells is a bit short in this contest, but yes, can do what the fighter does. The question is whether time and enegery a cleric spends to make himself like a fighter is worth it, when the fighter can do it out of the box. There is no bigger waste of 9 levels of cleric spells than buffing a cleric up like a fighter and sending him to be the tank.
Scion of Coldshard 06-22-07, 12:06 PM	In the end though, if the fighter's modifier is high enough to assume he can keep his mount safe through mobile fighting and excellent riding, he might just buy a random winged mount for this battle and we can forget about the issue of Wild Cohort and Leadership (though I personally have nothing against using Leadership to acquire a durable mount). Is the Fighters, or any characters, modifier high enough to assume that he can keep the mount safe? Assuming a foe that can use area effects or can get more than one attack in a round that would not seem to be the case. Against the Tarrasque example the only two that have been presented so far were a pile of feats from a variety of settings and that used up all of the characters feats by level just to get up to +52 vs the Tarrasques +57(+59 while charging) which is not a sure bet and the other used a custom item. Getting the bonus up high enough legitimately and taking into account resource use would be great though. Especially if there was a way to make the mounted combat feat apply more than once a round, that way the mount could be protected vs a number of assaults. Using wild cohort is likely a necissary option though just to get the extra hp and abilities, just in case. If there was a feat that allowed a character to take all of the damage that the mount would take that might be pretty good for the Fighter if he doesnt want to, or is unable to, get wild cohort. I am not a big fan of using leadership in any of these comparisons though. By its very nature it is spending a feat to bring in a buddy with a whole set of abilities.. as such, it immediately renders the whole topic useless because no matter how bad the character so long as they get a good enough buddy with leadership they can do anything. And if you don't want to use a skill item, just feed the mount a potion of invisibility. It is not really attacking, and the Tarrasque is too dumb to attack an invisible mount when it can see and hit a flying guy smacking it repeatedly with a lance. This is an interesting view on abilities. The Tarrasque does only have a 3 int, but it has a 14 wis. That is a wisdom way above the normal human and might just be important in deciding what it does ;) I did not say that the fighter would be worse ONLY that the cleric can do similar, look at the differance in abilitys between what a cleric and fighter can do. Is that worth 9 levels of spells? So what? You might have noticed by now that different people are interpretting the question differently. For some it is completely relevant while for others it is not.
Argaud 06-22-07, 12:24 PM	You might have noticed by now that different people are interpretting the question differently. For some it is completely relevant while for others it is not. If it has any relevance to you, please explain already why do you think there is any reason to play a cleric when you can play an archivist or an artificer. I am still waiting for an explanation from any of the guys that say "there is no reason to play a fighter because we can play a cleric".
The_sleeper1 06-22-07, 12:39 PM	If it has any relevance to you, please explain already why do you think there is any reason to play a cleric when you can play an archivist or an artificer. I am still waiting for an explanation from any of the guys that say "there is no reason to play a fighter because we can play a cleric". I think there is great reasons to play the fighter but they are not mechanical they are role playing (for the most part). I think that classes need to be balanced so everyone can contribute. The question of is a fighter balanced has nothing to do with the question of is class XYZ more powerful than a cleric. Reletive ability to contribute is a VERY important capicty. Lets take a look at an example if every class but fighter has the capicty of a god in the game and can destroy any creature with a light slap or use crazy magical powers to destroy there foes in a most gruesom way and have lots of ability out side of combat with all skill checks at +1000 or higher. What use is a fighter then? At level one or even level 20. It is not that bad but that shows that major differances in power can negate a classes ability to function what use is a fighter if there is no advantage to useing them.
Scion of Coldshard 06-22-07, 12:42 PM	If it has any relevance to you, please explain already why do you think there is any reason to play a cleric when you can play an archivist or an artificer. It really isnt relevant to me. There are a lot of little broken things in the system, once you take out the broken bits I havent seen any problems with the cleric or artificer, I have no experience with the archivist. Being able to break something isnt the point however, which is why the pun-pun arguement fails to apply pretty much whenever people try to apply it. I am still waiting for an explanation from any of the guys that say "there is no reason to play a fighter because we can play a cleric". There have been lots of different explinations from a lot of different angles as to what people are thinking, where they are coming from, and why they think the way that they do. But of course they are hard to accept. For example, I am still waiting for a good reason why to play a fighter at all when you could play any other class or combination of classes, or even failing that, why play with more than 4 levels of fighter ever. People have tried their ways of explaining it and why they feel it is ok but to me the explinations have always rang more than a little hollow. Which of course is the difficulty. It is hard to even grasp all of the sides of the arguement when any given persons standpoints are effectively alien territory to another given person. Personally, I just play whatever I find fun at the time. Sometimes it is powerful, although I try to stay away from that, and sometimes it is horribly weak. That is my call however, and each player can make the same call, but regardless of that the basic choices should be similar enough in power that there arent any huge disparities. In some game systems you have to literally try not to pick the bits that are obviously so over the top or under everything else that it gets silly. D&D has some things like that, but relatively few and many are very easy to houserule in a simple change which negates that bit.
Argaud 06-22-07, 12:59 PM	It really isnt relevant to me. There are a lot of little broken things in the system, once you take out the broken bits I havent seen any problems with the cleric or artificer, I have no experience with the archivist. Among other things artificers can be omniscent at level 4. I am not kidding. Being able to break something isnt the point however, which is why the pun-pun arguement fails to apply pretty much whenever people try to apply it. There have been lots of different explinations from a lot of different angles as to what people are thinking, where they are coming from, and why they think the way that they do. The Pun-Pun argument is that there is no reason to play Class A when Class B can do all Class A does and more. This is the only argument I have seen people like The_sleeper1 brandish against the fighter. Since you claim there has been "lots of different explanations" would you please post a few in the thread instead of making yet more blanket statements? But of course they are hard to accept. For example, I am still waiting for a good reason why to play a fighter at all when you could play any other class or combination of classes, or even failing that, why play with more than 4 levels of fighter ever. People have tried their ways of explaining it and why they feel it is ok but to me the explinations have always rang more than a little hollow. Spell that backwards. Why would someone play "any other class or combination of classes"? Personally, I just play whatever I find fun at the time. Sometimes it is powerful, although I try to stay away from that, and sometimes it is horribly weak. That is my call however, and each player can make the same call, but regardless of that the basic choices should be similar enough in power that there arent any huge disparities. Right. That very same reason. How dense can you be? Very much, since you keep going and going around the same arguments and nitpicking about the definition of words and minor mistakes in the builds you see. In some game systems you have to literally try not to pick the bits that are obviously so over the top or under everything else that it gets silly. D&D has some things like that, but relatively few and many are very easy to houserule in a simple change which negates that bit. Sure, you can houserule DMM out and suddenly the cleric is no longer the most powerful character in the PHB. But houserules have no bearing in threads about official rules.
Clawhound 06-22-07, 01:21 PM	The cleric is good, but you run into a resource limitation problem. You are limited in feats, funds, abilities, and money. This means that in having a cleric that acts like a dedicated melee character (fighter, paladin, barbarian), your character winds up having to gimp one side of the character or the other. Let's look at DMM. It takes four feats. The earliest that a Cleric will see four feats is as a human, 6th level. Six levels before you can even start being useful. That means the earliest that the cleric will have any martial feats is 9th level. At 9th level, a fighter has 10 feats allocated entirely to melee. Given that the average game ends around levels 10-13, waiting until level 9 to get your character going is a pretty poor investment. Compare this to a fighter who is useful at level 1.
Scion of Coldshard 06-22-07, 01:25 PM	Among other things artificers can be omniscent at level 4. Whether true or not it has no negative bearing on what I said before ;) There are parts of the game that can be broken. A few simple changes and that no longer occurs. I am not one of those who claim that the game is perfect as is after all. The Pun-Pun argument is that there is no reason to play Class A when Class B can do all Class A does and more. Not quite, it actually tries for a bit more than that and it uses an example which is completely absurd. We have the Pun-Pun arguement on one side and the Commoner/Warrior arguement on the other. If one brings up the pun-pun then the commoner/warrior is brought up as a foil. While either arguement is being used nothing is going on except people getting upset. Hence why I feel it is best to just leave those aside and actually get to the parts that are important to people. Since you claim there has been "lots of different explanations" would you please post a few in the thread instead of making yet more blanket statements? I already have, so very many times. As have others. I am not interested in spending time digging right now though, perhaps later, until then though maybe you would like to go back digging through to look for them? As I said in my last post though, I think that the reason you have not seen any is because you choose not to see them. If a person feels that the fighter is not worth playing because the character concept they want could be made by not using the fighter then they have to choose between the two, what is going to push them over to one or the other? For some people the question has no meaning, for others it is all important. Spell that backwards. taht Or, I suppose more appropriately, 'that backwards'. Right. That very same reason. How dense can you be? And again with the insults? Again for no reason other than someone said something that you apparently disagree with. Especially insults on a part that is a complete side issue that merely talks about different people having fun in different ways. It would be appreciated if you could keep away from the hostilities. Very much, since you keep going and going around the same arguments and nitpicking about the definition of words and minor mistakes in the builds you see. This whole thread in all of its incarnations are nothing but people going around and around and around with the same arguements with people simply not giving any other side any ground at all to stand on. That is something that you are doing yourself, along with most of the people here. If going through and making sure that any examples given are legal is the only thing that people will pay attention to then I have no problem doing it. After all, if the examples are incorrect then they are not very helpful are they? If you dislike someone correcting rules mistakes then you are likely in the wrong place since this is a board where people go to talk about the rules and this is a thread about certain aspects of the rules specifically. Sure, you can houserule DMM out and suddenly the cleric is no longer the most powerful character in the PHB. DMM isnt even in the PHB, but really who cares about DMM anyway? The cleric and druid are still both very powerful without it. And yes, it can be houseruled, so can everything for that matter. Again, I am not a person who is saying that d&d is perfect or even that any class in particular is perfect. Although some here are trying to say that the Fighter is perfect, which I find very odd. But houserules have no bearing in threads about official rules. Which is why I said that custom items should not be allowed. Of course, at the same time there is no place here for talking about builds which, while technically legal, are completely unplayable in a normal game because of their sheer power. Being able to eat gods for breakfast is fun and all I guess, but why should it be in this thread?
Scion of Coldshard 06-22-07, 01:29 PM	The cleric is good, but you run into a resource limitation problem. You are limited in feats, funds, abilities, and money. This means that in having a cleric that acts like a dedicated melee character (fighter, paladin, barbarian), your character winds up having to gimp one side of the character or the other. Every character has limited resources. Has it actually been shown that the cleric must 'gimp' one side of the character in order to do the other? The example you put up before does not show this, in fact it didnt even use a fighter at all just a guy with good BAB. The simple counter cleric used a single spell and then matched everything that was put up. Which means to me that the example would need to be fleshed out more to be of use. Compare this to a fighter who is useful at level 1. Are there any pc classes that are not useful at level 1?
Argaud 06-22-07, 01:47 PM	I already have, so very many times. As have others. I am not interested in spending time digging right now though, perhaps later, until then though maybe you would like to go back digging through to look for them? Since you are the one that claims they exist you are the one that has to show them. Otherwise you are not backing your statements and they are worthless. If a person feels that the fighter is not worth playing because the character concept they want could be made by not using the fighter then they have to choose between the two, what is going to push them over to one or the other? For some people the question has no meaning, for others it is all important. However if a person feels the character concept is best fulfilled through playing a fighter, that is a good reason to play a fighter, correct? So you agree there are at least one good reason to play a fighter now? taht Or, I suppose more appropriately, 'that backwards'. Do you realize that every time you do this you lose a few IQ points? It is called missing the point repeatedly. It makes you look dumb even when you do it purposeful to make some point only you can see. It would be appreciated if you could keep away from the hostilities. Although I might deserve this comment I will point that you usually come up as very argumentative, very dense and very childish in most of your posts. Truth is you aren't obviously rude or insulting, thank god, but by nitpicking on minor points, posting about sarcastic comments as if you didn't get them, arguing about the definition of words, dismissing whole posts by taking sentences out of context and a slew of other annoying practices you have more than earned comments like: And what a nice few days it's been. Regarding your days-long absence of this thread. DMM isnt even in the PHB, but really who cares about DMM anyway? The cleric and druid are still both very powerful without it. For instance. I was taking about the cleric being in the PHB, not DMM. You deliberately missunderstood to take out of context one of the sentences of my post. Moreover DMM is the only reason people keep saying the cleric is better in melee than the fighter. And I am sure you know this. And I am sure you are going to nitpick this comment too. And yes, it can be houseruled, so can everything for that matter. Again, I am not a person who is saying that d&d is perfect or even that any class in particular is perfect. Although some here are trying to say that the Fighter is perfect, which I find very odd. Another false, blanket statement. Please find one person in the whole thread that has argued the fighter being perfect. Which is why I said that custom items should not be allowed. Except the rules for skill items are in the DMG, which is not a house rule and has nothing to do with house rules. Of course, at the same time there is no place here for talking about builds which, while technically legal, are completely unplayable in a normal game because of their sheer power. Like DMM clerics? Artificers? Pun-Pun? Because one thing leads invariably to the other. And this is the core of the problem. Most of the anti-fighters (including The_sleeper1) claim the fighter is weak. Even if the fighter performs against balors, the Tarrasque, anything. They claim the figher is weak because... the cleric! (Or insert your favorite class here). You? I don't even know what are you arguing for, or against. You seem to like to argue and nitpick about minor points, word definitions, minor details of builds and other irrelevant details. And keep going for days and days.
Kratch 06-22-07, 02:09 PM	A cleric on a pegasus could do the same things as a mounted fighter, theres no fighter advantage. There for that example shows a fighter at a disadvantage because the cleric is mounted combat + casting. Oh, goody. A cleric again. Apparently, the cleric, druid, wizard and fighter are the only class's in the PHB, and since the fighter is the only one that doesn't have 9th level spells, we should all write him off out-of-hand, cause he can't p[ossibly compete with 9th level spells, so why even try. Just for the record, what spells is your cleric casting? Hope your not trying to depend on it failing a fortitude save, especially against disintigrate. Yes, that is right the cleric would not have a tactical advantage, unless we are talking about fighter versus cleric, in this case it does not matter what a wizard can do because were talking fighter or cleric. I was under the impression that the argument was wether a fighter was useful at all. Therefore, if the standard with which some (acknowledgely, not all) determine usefulness is based on class compparison, should not all class's be compared? To say the fighter fails against a cleric is meaningless if nether has been compared to other class's. Could it simply be that the fighter is on par and the cleric is overpowered? Could it be that, although the cleric appears more powerful, it is not somuch as you believed as to make ether inappropriate for gameplay? or perhaps it is that the fighter is useless? none of these has been proven. in fact, the barbarian has even been shown to be on par with a fighter, slightly more useful outside of combat (as much more useful as the listen and survival skills can be), but clearly weaker in combat until 20, when the barbarian is only marginally weaker in combat. I'm currious why the double standard? Wizard has tactical advantage over cleric, cleric is fine. Cleric has (imaginary) tactical adavantage over fighter, fighter sucks? A cleric has other ways to get there ride skill up besides the ones listed. By all means, back that statement up. I'm sure if there are any, they aren't limited to just the cleric. Khan and bob could add those to the fighters list of ways to get their skills up. But untill you back it up, it appears as nothing more then blind fanatasism for the cleric, believeing it can do anything in the face of what a fighter can do. I did not say that the fighter would be worse ONLY that the cleric can do similar, look at the differance in abilitys between what a cleric and fighter can do. Is that worth 9 levels of spells? Similar hmm. The cleric can do similar things to what a wizard can do, plus so much more. Are 5 bonus wizard feats and a familiar worth half the HP's, Turning (and the potential for DMM abuse it provides), domain powers, 50% better BAB (and the potential to get full BAB without losing spellcasting), heavy armour proficiency, better weapon selections, am i missing anything? When I look at the differences between what a fighter can do and what a cleric can do, I see completely different abilities. I see the cleric is cappable of matching the foundation on which the fighter is built, but I also see that the finished build of a fighter can often be something a cleric can't match in what it does, so the cleric does other things instead. The value of what a fighter provides and what a cleric provides is highly dependant on the encounter, the terrain, the prep time before the encounter and several other factors, but i honestly don't see anything on the cleric list short of gate that seriously overshadows a fighter. Every character has limited resources. Has it actually been shown that the cleric must 'gimp' one side of the character in order to do the other? As no-ones willing to provide a cleric build to support their blanket statements, the answer is no, it has not been shown that a cleric is gimping one side in order to do the other. But then again, It has also not been shown that the cleric is even cappable of performing the tactic in anything more then theory, given stat/mad, gear cost and limilted spells per day/turning attempt limitations.
Kratch 06-22-07, 02:27 PM	If going through and making sure that any examples given are legal is the only thing that people will pay attention to then I have no problem doing it. After all, if the examples are incorrect then they are not very helpful are they? The problem arises when you give no actual commentary on the actual point and just pick appart the minor errors. It is an attempt to devalue the point, not on the merits (or lack thereof) of the point, but on the math skills or laps in memorizing the dozens of source materials available. And the fact that noone is willing to provide a counterbuild (to show they can in fact do what they say they can, given considerations, that we can in turn pick appart and debate) to the argument (and instead, just use blanket statements, assumptions and bias's instead), makes it seem like we're the only ones making an effort to actually debate this topic. It makes it look like your just getting us to run through hoops (and the fact you have continually asked people to dig through pages (and even threads) to post quotes that show you proof of something that someone else has said, yet your not willing to go back and find your own posts that shows you've said what you claim you've said, only supports the idea that you don't actually want to debate, but rather, "see the monkeys jump") DMM isnt even in the PHB, but really who cares about DMM anyway? The cleric and druid are still both very powerful without it. Without the use of DMM, it is increasingly difficult to support the cleric can, with any consistantcy, match a fighters melee capabilities (including the feets). The cleric still is a powerful class, but without DMM, the claim it is the fighters replacement is severly damaged. We'd know for sure if anyone actually provided a build example.
Scion of Coldshard 06-22-07, 02:27 PM	Since you are the one that claims they exist you are the one that has to show them. Sure, I can see where you are coming from with that. Of course I have asked for similar things in the past in this thread and have not been given a proper response so I am just putting it in the queue for now. When the others are cycled through its time slot will come up. Until then, it is enqueued. Since I believe that you would claim to have read the thread already though you could go looking yourself. I know it isnt the same, but it might be faster than waiting for the queue to shift up. However if a person feels the character concept is best fulfilled through playing a fighter, that is a good reason to play a fighter, correct? A good enough reason for that person to play a fighter? Sure, and they can give reasons why they feel as such. Someone else might come along to show them differently however ;) I havent said differently in the past myself, perhaps you are getting up in arms because you are assuming arguements not in evidence? Each person has their own guage, which is what I have been saying from the beginning. There are many ways to look at the question, look at the data, and then come up with contradictory answers because of the initial assumptions. But, just because one person feels that it is good enough does not mean it is good enough for everyone just like if one person feels it is not good enough it does not mean it is not good enough for everyone. Still, some sort of agreed upon baseline would need to be established for a general concensus. There are so far no grounds that everyone will agree on however, not even close. Do you realize that every time you do this you lose a few IQ points? Are you incapable of being civil? It is called missing the point repeatedly. Since your comment had nothing to do with what I said then I agree you missed the point entirely. Although I might deserve this comment I will point that you usually come up as very argumentative This is a message board, arguementative is the whole point. Openly hostile is different. People have different ideas. The problem arises when people are going about with strawmen and such or are being incredibly offensive simply because they cannot support their points. Another problem comes up when a person responds to hostility with hostility. For myself, my problem is that if a person is being hostile with me I do occasionally respond in kind. There isnt much else to do, it comes down to that, blocking them, or trying to be reasonable which as is shown in this thread being resonable with many of the people here just makes them feel that they are free to insult others randomly. Truth is you aren't obviously rude or insulting, thank god, but by nitpicking on minor points, posting about sarcastic comments as if you didn't get them, arguing about the definition of words, dismissing whole posts by taking sentences out of context Minor points such as a feat not being able to be taken or a particular tactic not working as described? Those are pretty major items really. Minor points such as a number being off by one or two here or there can be pretty minor, but if we are seeing who is better at what then each point is important and the whole build should be correct otherwise it is a useless comparison point. Sarcasm is often responded to with sarcasm or feigned innocence since the orginal comment deserved no better. I am not sure why you would say either of those is worse than the original but you didnt call out the orginal sarcasm as being bad so that might imply that you feel sarcasm is ok.. so long as it isnt given back in kind. The definition of words is all that we have to work with here. If an arguement comes down to two people argueing about a word and saying that the other is wrong but they are both using valid parts of the definition what would you suggest doing? Apparently asking them to define which part of the word they are using is something you disagree with, pointing out that each is using a different definition of the same word would likely fall under the same disagreement, and I personally would like to help in some way. So, what should a person do that doesnt depend on talking about the definition that is under arguement? For the quotes out of context, I am not sure I have done that anywhere at all. I have cut parts that were not relevant to what I was talking about or focused on a specific example, but that is not the same thing. Just because two sentences are in the same paragraph does not mean that they are on the same topic. For instance. I was taking about the cleric being in the PHB, not DMM. You deliberately missunderstood to take out of context one of the sentences of my post. You misread what I wrote. I do not know if it was deliberate or not. You said that taking away DMM and the cleric is no longer the strongest class in the PHB, I responded by saying that DMM was not in the PHB (which is true, plus if we are talking about the PHB cleric it does not have DMM, that would be PHB cleric + non-PHB material) but that DMM wasnt really important anyway. There was more than one comment there. If you choose to focus on a part and take it out of context not only from its own text but the attatched text in order to claim I am posting out of context then there is a word for that.. but it isnt a nice one. Moreover DMM is the only reason people keep saying the cleric is better in melee than the fighter. I disagree. There were threads about the cleric being better in melee before the book that DMM came out in 'even existed'. Another false, blanket statement. Please find one person in the whole thread that has argued the fighter being perfect. It is a true statement, as far as I can tell. If the fighter does not need any changes at all then it is, by definition, perfect. If a person things that it could use some fixing up or needs a change here or there then that side has been set to the 'anti-fighter' side of the debate. And of course that is the point, to me it should not be claimed that the fighter is perfect, it isnt. There are definately some changes that need to be made so that it can fit the more common archtypical roles. Except the rules for skill items are in the DMG, which is not a house rule and has nothing to do with house rules. Those are guidelines, not rules, and even those guidelines say that the prices that they give may not reflect what the item is actually worth. As an extreme example, true strike with every attack. Using some of those guidelines you can get that pretty cheap. Like DMM clerics? Without nightsticks what builds with DMM are broken? Artificers? What about them? Pun-Pun? A theoretical build that relies on some questionable rules interpretations and manipulations that winds up with something that destroys the game? Yeah, that probably shouldnt be allowed in a discussion about balance. Because one thing leads invariably to the other. The old 'slippery slope' arguement? Note that I have been trying to set an upper and lower bound. Of course too many people here just do not want any bounds set and anytime anyone tries it is met with stonewalling and/or open hostility. You? I don't even know what are you arguing for, or against. I am argueing for a civil discussion and for people to actually look at the people that are 'against' them. I think that the fighter needs a few more class skills and 2 more skill points a level. That, along with making a comprehensive list of all feats in an easily accessible location plus peoples commentaries on what feats should 'not' be mixed with what other things, would make a much better time for those who want to play the fighter. You seem to like to argue and nitpick about minor points, word definitions, minor details of builds and other irrelevant details. Irrelevant to you, not to everyone. If the character cant actually take improved trip because they dont meet the int requirement or cant use it because they are not using a weapon that is allowed to trip these are very important details. Treating monsters with godlike intelligence as morons is just as stupid as treating all feats that a fighter can get as useless. Finding out what sort of mount a character can actually have looks to be pretty important as well. Some bits are larger than others, but it is still important to know that a characters attack routine is +32/+27/+22 and not +31/+28/+22. After all, someone might actually want to use that build someday, no point in starting them off with faulty info.
OravennasBrother 06-22-07, 02:32 PM	DO these threads never end? What about levels 1 to 4? MY personal experience has been more than half of all campaigns END before you reach level 4. And at levels 1 to 3 a fighter is VERY Valuable. Cleaving at level 1? Works well against a lot of enemies. Reach weapons and combat reflexes also are hard on low level opponents. Further, even at high levels the fighters can stand toe to toe with a lot of enemies; expertise and defending can stack with good base AC to render a fighter almost untouchable by most CR appropriate opponents; even giving the Wizard of the party one free round can be a battle winner, and the fighter can last better than any other class. Of course all the lame DM's who facilitate Spellcasters going Nova make it SEEM like they have it all. But that is a DM flaw, not a fighter flaw.
Scion of Coldshard 06-22-07, 03:30 PM	As no-ones willing to provide a cleric build to support their blanket statements Actually, I offered to help Clawhound (pretty sure that was the guy) with that earlier but I was rebuffed pretty strongly for even suggesting that more detail might be necissary in any way. The problem arises when you give no actual commentary on the actual point and just pick appart the minor errors. You will have to help me out here. Why is it important to give commentary on a build when my goal is to make sure that the build is put together properly? Once the build is put together properly 'then' a commentary can be made, but until then, it is incorrect so why comment? It is an attempt to devalue the point I dont care if the build gets more or less powerful because of the changes, it is not an attempt to devalue the point it is an attempt to 'increase' the value of the build by making sure it is done properly.
Clawhound 06-22-07, 03:46 PM	How would a DMM cleric look? [Edited per below's noted mistakes - we make them]. He needs a good strength for melee. He needs a good Con for his fort save and hit points. He needs a good Wisdom for his spells. He needs a good Charisma to power his DMM. Let's use the elite array [15,14,13,12,10,8] +3 points (28 point buy), +1 adjustment due to level, level 6 (where DMM becomes useful). Fighter: Str 16 (15+1 level) Dex: 14 Con: 14 (13+1 pb) Int: 14 (13+2 pb) Wis: 10 Cha: 8 BAB +6, Str +3 = Melee +9, damage +3 (+6), HP 49 Cleric: Str: 15 Dex: 10 Con: 14 Int: 8 Wis: 15 (14+1 level) Cha: 14 (+2 pb) BAB +4, Str +1 = Melee +5, HP 42 So before DMM kicked in, the cleric was a decidedly worse at melee. Even with Bull's Strength DMM'd in, he only reaches +6 melee. Add in Enlarge Person, and he increases to +7, Str: +5, damage +5 (+10). He has several spells to increase this further (bless, etc). He uses a +1 Longsword due to worshipping Heironeous and gets weapon focus [Longsword], for a total of +8 to hit, 1d10+5 to damage. Used two handed, its +8 (1d10+10). In comparison, the fighter picks up a +1 bastard sword and is at +9, 1d10+6 damage. We haven't done anything yet. Just to be fair, we'll take one of his feats and put it into Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization [Bastard Sword, see below], giving him +10, damage 1d10+8. What feats should we give the fighter? How about the first one from every letter that requires no other feats as prerequisites, and then loop around at the end? Blind Fight, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword), Combat Expertise, Dodge, Improved Feint, Quick Draw, Rapid Reload (Light Crossbow), Weapon Finesse, Combat Reflexes, and Improved Disarm. [Edit: Oops on the Improved Critical. Replace that with the next item down, Improved Feint.] The fighter can fight in darkness, underwater, close his eyes against gaze attack creatures, and suffer no loss of effectiveness. His bastard sword is sub-optimal, and he still out-damage the cleric. :P (You would prefer a spiked chain?) He can increase his AC by 5, including dodge, giving him a touch AC of 16 should he wish. He can start a fight flat-footed and unprepared, and full attack on round #1. He can fire a light crossbow at his full attack bonus. If his opponent targets Strength, he can change weapons and use Weapon Finesse to keep up his hitting potential. He can take three AoO's in any round. He can disarm his opponent like nobody's business. So even with feats picked at random, this guy can do some things that the cleric can't. Even enlarged up to large size, the cleric only increases his damage to 1d10+6/19-20, which is still behind the fighter. Note that I can still crank the fighter up with a Bull's Strength and an Enlarge Person, getting him up to +13 (1d12+12/19-20). Add in a bless, and the fighter hits +14 (1d12+13/19-20). In a tough spot, he can feint against hard-to-hit monsters (who have a lousy sense motive), hitting +16 (1d12+13/19-20). In comparison, the Cleric is near the top of his game and can't go much further than +9 (1d10+11/19-20). The cleric is putting up a good show, but as soon as the Enlarge Person wears off, he drops back down to +8 (1d10+9/19-20). On top of that, the fighter has 5 more hit points. I'm sure that you can tweak out the numbers for both sides. The simple fact is, the fighter is the superior platform to place buff spells on, and starts out where the DMM clerics arrives. That gets me to the less: the buffed cleric is buffed to the max and won't stack any further. He pretty much burns himself out just keeping up, let alone excelling. Note that these are not fully statted, and both have lots of wiggle room to change things.
Kratch 06-22-07, 03:53 PM	For myself, my problem is that if a person is being hostile with me I do occasionally respond in kind. There isnt much else to do, it comes down to that, blocking them, or trying to be reasonable which as is shown in this thread being resonable with many of the people here just makes them feel that they are free to insult others randomly. You may not have realized it, but you came into this debate with a very smug, superior attitude, which is, in effect, a hostility. The initial hositlity that began a lot of what you have since recieved. It's also why you've been blocked by at least 2-3 people as well. Minor points such as a number being off by one or two here or there can be pretty minor, but if we are seeing who is better at what then each point is important and the whole build should be correct otherwise it is a useless comparison point. So, because a simple, generalized example is off by .5 damage per attack (on both sides, so at least it was a consistant mistake), that makes the example useless? What does that say about the examples that don't even exsist because no-ones willing to provide them? Apparently asking them to define which part of the word they are using is something you disagree with, The problem arises when, after providing you with their definition, you reject it out of hand and don't provide an alternative, leaving one side without a definition and till expecting them to provide an argument. (You only ever said, by using the definition bob and khan were using, that the commoner would also fall under that definition. note, that is a different argument entirly, it is not a problem with the use of their definition of viable, it instead is an issue with their definition of viable not being enough to support the fighter, but you instead rejected the definition instead of the argument that used that definition, effectively, denying your opponent any vocabulary to even debate with. As we can't use hand gestures on a text medium, and switching to another language would only produce even more issues, you were efectively trying to deny us the ability to debate instead of actually debating) For the quotes out of context, I am not sure I have done that anywhere at all. I have cut parts that were not relevant to what I was talking about or focused on a specific example, but that is not the same thing. Just because two sentences are in the same paragraph does not mean that they are on the same topic. If you choose to focus on a part and take it out of context not only from its own text but the attatched text in order to claim I am posting out of context then there is a word for that.. but it isnt a nice one. The two statements seem to be contradictory. On one hand, your saying it's ok to take part of a sentance (or a complete one) out of a paragraph (AKA take it out of context not only from its own text but the attatched text), but on the other hand, doing that exact same thing results in you being a "not nice word". You may claim it's acceptable to do this if you don't find the rest of the content relevent, but then, you seem to be condemning arguad for doing the same thing. more importently, using your own words, whats irrelevant to you, is not to everyone. Irrelevant to you, not to everyone. Just because two sentences are in the same paragraph does not mean that they are on the same topic. May want to look up the definition of paragraph. A basic unit of prose. It is usually composed of several sentences that together develop one central idea. The main sentence in a paragraph is called the topic sentence. It is a true statement, as far as I can tell. If the fighter does not need any changes at all then it is, by definition, perfect. If a person things that it could use some fixing up or needs a change here or there then that side has been set to the 'anti-fighter' side of the debate. The problem here is that you define "could use" and "need" as the exact same thing. Most people do not. Note that I have been trying to set an upper and lower bound. Of course too many people here just do not want any bounds set and anytime anyone tries it is met with stonewalling and/or open hostility. As you haven't provided any examples of upper and lower bounds, only rejected those provided by us, i can't really see how you can rightly claim your trying anything of the sort. In fact, it seems your attempting to do quite the opposite. Treating monsters with godlike intelligence as morons is just as stupid as treating all feats that a fighter can get as useless. I see the later far more often then the former. More often, I see monsters with high mental stats being played (in these discussions) with omniscencience (sp?), abusing metagame knowledge and defying their personality writup for the sake of limiting the fighter, dispite the fact it plays right into the stregths of the "more powerful" wizard. But you don't seem to have any objections to that bit. Finding out what sort of mount a character can actually have looks to be pretty important as well. But when the exact kind of mount does not have huge impact, so long as "A" mount can perform the desired effect, it once again becomes a minor issue. Sure, he used hyppogryph and that wasn't possible with the method he suggested using. There were however, other flying mounts (all he was after) available in those same options, and , more importently, they were more powerful mounts. If his tactics would have succeeded using a weak mount that he took improperly, does that mean his tactic will now fail because he's gotten himself a more powerful mount? Does that mean his tactic is useless (as you said above, a build made improperly is useless)? the whole build should be correct otherwise it is a useless comparison point.
Scion of Coldshard 06-22-07, 03:59 PM	He needs a good strength for melee. He needs a good Con for his fort save and hit points. He needs a good Wisdom for his spells. He needs a good Charisma to power his DMM. So from this basic bit it looks like the DMM cleric starts off pretty far behind. He needs more stats to do what he wants to do. Let's use the elite array [15,14,13,12,10,8] +3 points (28 point buy), +1 adjustment due to level. Fighter: Str 16 Dex: 14 Con: 15 Int: 13 Wis: 10 Cha: 8 BAB +6, Str +3 = Melee +9, damage +3 (+6) Cleric: Str: 15 Dex: 10 Con: 13 Int: 8 Wis: 15 Cha: 12 BAB +4, Str +1 = Melee +5 It looks like the Fighter is: Str: 15 (+1 level) = 16 Dex: 12 (+2 pb) = 14 Con: 14 (? = 15) Int: 13 Wis: 10 Cha: 8 So there is 1 point buy point unspent and a con that is 1 real point too high. It looks like the Cleric is: Str: 14 (+1 level) = 15 Dex: 10 Con: 13 Int: 8 Wis: 15 Cha: 12 So there are 3 point buy points unspent for the cleric. How would you like to change these?
Scion of Coldshard 06-22-07, 04:02 PM	So, because a simple, generalized example is off by .5 damage per attack (on both sides, so at least it was a consistant mistake), that makes the example useless? So how large does a mistake have to be before you will choose to acknowledge it? And, again, why is it bad to correct simple mistakes?
Kratch 06-22-07, 04:25 PM	Actually, I offered to help Clawhound (pretty sure that was the guy) with that earlier but I was rebuffed pretty strongly for even suggesting that more detail might be necissary in any way. So, we're expected to provide for both sides of the argument? Whenever we do something of the sort (such as when clawhand provided a quick analysis), it is ether rejected with "a cleric would never do that" or "a cleric would always have such and such", which equates to more blanket statements. If the cleric build is provided by one of those arguming in favour of the fighter, and it shows the cleric fails to do everything it is claimed to do, it will be dismissed as "built poorly" and will become a watsed effort, so why bother putting in the effort when others aren't even willing to support their own arguments). If you don't believe me, look at the work khan, bob and clawhound have done with fighter builds, build comparisons, PC vs monster comparisons and the list of sizes/CR that have been provided compared to those provided to support the arguments of a cleric doing "everything a fighter does and more", that a fighter can't trip anything in the high levels and any other argument that has been levied against the fighter. Once the build is put together properly 'then' a commentary can be made, but until then, it is incorrect so why comment? because, so long as the original intent remains intact (i agree, why bother commenting on a build that is incapable of functioning after a tweak or two, but i'm not entirely sure if thats happened), it is reasonable to make your commentary, otherwise, you are ignoring the point, ignoring the intent of the person you are arguing against... I am argueing for a civil discussion and for people to actually look at the people that are 'against' them. I dont care if the build gets more or less powerful because of the changes, it is not an attempt to devalue the point it is an attempt to 'increase' the value of the build by making sure it is done properly. The fact you only do it to our builds says otherwise. Their have been two "300 flavoured" ToB builds provided, you addressed only one when i called you on it (and even then, you not only provided commentary, you provided suggestions for making it better), the other you ignored entirely. By targeting only a single side of the argument, you are demonstraiting a bias (take a look at your local news stands/stations dureing ellection time, you'll quickly discover what political party that news provider favours by who they cover and in what light they cover them in). Once the bias has been established, any attempt to point out errors in someones argument, particularly if no alternative suggestions are provided, will often, due to human nature, be taken as an attempt to devalue the arguement (Note: I'm not just talking about it being recieved as such, but that all, including those arguming against fighters, will also see it as such, and may choose to dismiss it entirely because "it is flawed and thus useless to the argument". I'm not saying it's right, but you said you wanted to look at the people of the argument, that should mean "ALL" the people).
Scion of Coldshard 06-22-07, 04:33 PM	So, we're expected to provide for both sides of the argument? So I say that I offer to help and you read that I will not help at all? I dont understand, did you quote the wrong person?
Clawhound 06-22-07, 04:35 PM	I accounted for the mistake. I attempted to account for them well, doing justice to both the Cleric and the Fighter at that level. If you can make a better cleric, please do so. Just note that I can easily make a better fighter. (As I see it, I stacked the deck in favor of the cleric.) I made a mistake with Improved Critical. That was not important to the comparison, so I replaced it with Improved Feint, which actually wound up helping the fighter. Go figure. Note that the fighter doesn't need to be human. In fact, I think I forgot to give him a human feat. Oops. The cleric won't see a serious bump in power until Level 7, when Divine Power kicks in. He will then increase another +2, but he still won't be able to match the fighter's ability to pull tricks on the battlefield. He can't dynamically change his AC, boost his to hit by sacrificing attacks, nullify gaze attacks, ignore darkness via blind fighting, etc. One level more, and that fighter will have bought a new book and found the feat that allows him to specialize in Edged Weapons. At level 8, fighter can now get +2/+2 with every edged weapon out there. He could also take the feat that allows him to use edged weapons with Weapon Finesse, allowing him to stay effective against creatures that sap strength. I'll have to remember that. It's a nice combo. There are enough effects that sap strength that this is a good fallback tactic. In short, the DMM cleric is a monster of the upper levels, but God help you if you actually have to play one from level 1. You will pay a heavy price for it.
Kratch 06-22-07, 04:48 PM	So how large does a mistake have to be before you will choose to acknowledge it? And, again, why is it bad to correct simple mistakes? By all means, acknowledge the mistake. But so long as it's not so large or so easy to correct as to make the point being made invalid, you should not limit yourself to solely making corrections. Perhaps if you provided some builds, you'd realize how easy it is to make minor mistakes and would be more willing to see the arguments over the errors. It's easier to keep people down then to stand up yourself. So I say that I offer to help and you read that I will not help at all? I dont understand, did you quote the wrong person? Please, show me where I said you weren't willing to help with the build. But offering to help clawhound implies clawhoud is still responsable to provide something. If he's providing something, and as It was in relation to a cleric build, It means he's providing for both sides (I never said he alone is providing for ether side). My point still stands. ... So, we're expected to provide for both sides of the argument?
Kalarus 06-22-07, 04:51 PM	Not quite, it actually tries for a bit more than that and it uses an example which is completely absurd. We have the Pun-Pun arguement on one side and the Commoner/Warrior arguement on the other. If one brings up the pun-pun then the commoner/warrior is brought up as a foil. While either arguement is being used nothing is going on except people getting upset. Hence why I feel it is best to just leave those aside and actually get to the parts that are important to people. Alright, I am going to butt in here and defend my fallacy :P First off, the fallacy was deliberately absurd to show the absurdity of the premise that people should not pick a certain class level when another option is available that grants them more power. This is what people consistently do when claiming the Cleric has everything over the Fighter. The absurdity of the example illustrates the absurdity of picking classes only for power reasons and actually *supports* the fallacy, it does not refute it. Obviously nobody wants to play Pun-pun, yet nobody can put their finger on why exactly that is. I earlier called it "being above cheese-barrier", yet nobody bothers to define where that cheese barrier is and what constitutes "broken". It is impossible to use a word as a blanket statement (such as "broken") without first specifying what that word should mean for everybody, and that definition should be reasonable enough that everyone should agree on it. This is as difficult as defining what constitutes viable, which is likely why nobody wants to touch it, but if you want to discount Pun-pun this is a step you HAVE to make. I'll make a small modest attempt here. Something which is broken is something which violates the need for four-party teamwork in order to overcome an appropriate challenge rating. CRs are made for four people to use about 20% of their resources on. Occasionally a player gets lucky, occasionally players are better prepared, occasionally DMs get lucky, occasionally DMs are better prepared, on average this will even out. This means that the amount of luck and the level of optimization in your game do not matter because both sides are assumed to be so equally optimized that still 20% of the party resources is used in an appropriate CR encounter. Clerics apparently can do anything, and apparently are powerful enough to do things on their own that were designed to be done by a four-party team. Thus, Clerics by the above definition are broken and should not be played. Yet people will play Clerics, they will play DMM Nightstick Clerics, because they are part of published material. Well guess what, so is Pun-pun, and even if, for his creation, rules were "twisted" (which they were not), the rules were published material. If you want to consider something broken and do something about it, you have to define what constitutes broken and then accept that this will make some published material unusable. This will also mean a significant power decrease in the supposed top 3 classes. This will be done for the purpose of making encounters challenging again, and not a 1-round cakewalk. Of course there are other reasons not to play Pun-pun. Most people will agree that Pun-pun is not fun. Not everyone will agree that playing Pun-pun is not fun. Truth still isn't a democracy, especially not for subjective experiences such as fun, so I only need 1 person who would have fun playing Pun-pun to refute the blanket statement that "Pun-pun is not fun to play". Hi, I can have fun playing Pun-pun. Even then, fun is a flaky criterium, even though it is considered the goal of the game. If I will have more fun picking levels in Fighter instead of picking levels in Cleric, no matter how much more I gain from picking a level in Cleric, I have a very solid reason to play a Fighter. Similarly the Warrior/Commoner counterexample is not in fact a foil. It is only a foil for people who assume that Warrior/Commoners should not be played because they are too weak, in other words, people who are already guilty of the fallacy. Those who use the Pun-pun fallacy have repeatedly stated that if you can make a warrior or commoner work (with this meaning nothing more than overcoming appropriate CR encounters) then have fun with it. Like Khan put it, "more power to you". For those who insist that Pun-pun requires twisting of the rules they see as written, consider the following excerpt from a text published by Stanley Fish: "There is simply the conviction that the facts exist in their own self-evident shape and that disagreements are to be resolved by referring the respective parties to the facts as they really are. In the view that I have been urging, however, disagreements cannot be resolved by reference to the facts, because the facts emerge only in the context of some point of view. It follows, then, that disagreements must occur between those who hold (or are held by) different points of view, and what is at stake in a disagreement is the right to specify what the facts can thereafter said to be. Disagreements are not settled by the facts, but are the means by which the facts are settled. Of course, no such settling is final, and in the (almost certain) event that the dispute is opened again, the category of the facts "as they really are" will be reconstituted in still another shape." Nobody has the right, by nature, to decide which interpretation of anything written work to adopt, like nobody has the right by nature to a greater claim to truth than anyone else. Until this right is granted by the agreement of reason, all interpretations are equally valid and thus equally true.
Scion of Coldshard 06-22-07, 05:00 PM	Ok, checking through again ;) Let's use the elite array [15,14,13,12,10,8] +3 points (28 point buy), +1 adjustment due to level, level 6 (where DMM becomes useful). Fighter: Str 16 (15+1 level) Dex: 14 Con: 14 (13+1 pb) Int: 14 (13+2 pb) Wis: 10 Cha: 8 BAB +6, Str +3 = Melee +9, damage +3 (+6), HP 49 Cleric: Str: 15 Dex: 10 Con: 14 Int: 8 Wis: 15 (14+1 level) Cha: 14 (+2 pb) BAB +4, Str +1 = Melee +5, HP 42 Ok, this looks pretty close. What is the (+6) in the fighter description? I am guessing it is supposed to be two handed damage bonus. If so: Fighter BAB +6, Str +3 = Melee +9, damage +3 (+4), HP 49.5 Cleric BAB +4, Str +2 = Melee +6, damage +2 (+3), HP 42.5 Blind Fight, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword), Combat Expertise, Dodge, Improved Feint, Quick Draw, Rapid Reload (Light Crossbow), Weapon Finesse, Combat Reflexes, and Improved Disarm. 10 feats? Fighter bonus: 1, 2, 4, 6 = 4 HD based: 1, 3, 6 = 3 3 extra? Some of those feats dont even do him any good either. He uses a +1 Longsword due to worshipping Heironeous and gets weapon focus [Longsword] Ok, longsword for the cleric, check ;) Cleric BAB +4, Str +2, +1 weapon focus, +1 enhancement = Melee +8, damage d8+3 the fighter picks up a +1 bastard sword And a bastard sword for the Fighter, cool. Fighter BAB +6, Str +3, +1 enhancement = Melee +10, damage d10+3 Just to be fair, we'll take one of his feats and put it into Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization [Bastard Sword] That is fine, but I have no clue what actual feats the fighter has at this point. Fighter BAB +6, Str +3, +1 weapon focus, +1 enhancement = Melee +11, damage d10+5 I dont have the book on me at the moment so I am unsure what the prereq for divine metamagic is. So far the Fighter looks like this: Fighter: Str 16, Dex: 14 Con: 14 Int: 14 Wis: 10 Cha: 8 BAB +6, Str +3, +1 weapon focus, +1 enhancement = Melee +11, damage d10+5 HP 49.5 Feats: Weapon focus (bastard sword), exotic weapon focus (bastard sword), weapon specialization (bastard sword), (not sure what other feats he is actually supposed to have) Saves: F +7, R +4, W +2 Skills: 9*4 skill points from fighter And the Cleric looks like this: Cleric: Str: 15 Dex: 10 Con: 14 Int: 8 Wis: 15 Cha: 14 BAB +4, Str +2, +1 weapon focus, +1 enhancement = Melee +8, damage d8+3 Domains: War, ? Feats: ? Saves: F +7, R +2, W +7 Skills: 9*1 skill points from cleric Does that look about right?
Scion of Coldshard 06-22-07, 05:03 PM	... Pun-pun and commoner. Two faces, same coin. Whenever one comes up and people use it as a defense against something then their position may be attacked from the other direction by the commoner. That has been true so far. It is unlikely to change. They are both too extreme though. If they come into play then that means it is time to start over again.
aelryinth 06-22-07, 05:05 PM	I accounted for the mistake. I attempted to account for them well, doing justice to both the Cleric and the Fighter at that level. If you can make a better cleric, please do so. Just note that I can easily make a better fighter. (As I see it, I stacked the deck in favor of the cleric.) I made a mistake with Improved Critical. That was not important to the comparison, so I replaced it with Improved Feint, which actually wound up helping the fighter. Go figure. Note that the fighter doesn't need to be human. In fact, I think I forgot to give him a human feat. Oops. The cleric won't see a serious bump in power until Level 7, when Divine Power kicks in. He will then increase another +2, but he still won't be able to match the fighter's ability to pull tricks on the battlefield. He can't dynamically change his AC, boost his to hit by sacrificing attacks, nullify gaze attacks, ignore darkness via blind fighting, etc. One level more, and that fighter will have bought a new book and found the feat that allows him to specialize in Edged Weapons. At level 8, fighter can now get +2/+2 with every edged weapon out there. He could also take the feat that allows him to use edged weapons with Weapon Finesse, allowing him to stay effective against creatures that sap strength. I'll have to remember that. It's a nice combo. There are enough effects that sap strength that this is a good fallback tactic. In short, the DMM cleric is a monster of the upper levels, but God help you if you actually have to play one from level 1. You will pay a heavy price for it. The Cleric will be a reliable melee, complete with the heal spells to help him recover from a fight, a decent armor class that will likely surpass the Fighter's due to Magic vestement and Shield of Faith surpassing magical enhancements available at most lower levels. Unlike the fighter, he also has the option of buffing the whole party, still has all those Turn attempts handy, and has the choice of switching his spells every day to be useful in a wide variety of situations. Arguing that the Cleric isn't a good melee until after level 6 generally isn't a good argue...pretty much everyone on the board agrees that level 1-5 all you need is decent armor and a good BAB and you are just ducky. But it's from 6-10 that pure melees start to fade in comparison to casters, and from 11+ where they start becoming sub-optimal. The argument that most campaigns are from 1-5 is not a good argument to make for a balanced fighter, and even 1-10 is pushing it. In essence, youa re getting out of the game right when spellcasters are actually becoming really fun to play, and melees are really starting to suck. Is that because a DM doesn't know how to play against the rising power of spellcasters when he's been on the melee mindset all along, or just because people are tired of the campaign? In any event, comparing low levels isn't needed or worth it. The Fighter is fine at two things: Existing at low levels, and dealing out damage with a full attack actions. The problem is, low levels is not the whole game, and the other classes are good at low levels....and there's plenty of ways to deal lots of damage with a full attack action for other classes, too. ===Aelryinth
Kratch 06-22-07, 05:11 PM	They are both too extreme though. If they come into play then that means it is time to start over again. And yet, my question about what the wizard provides, in general (thus, no specific spells), that the cleric can't also provide and more goes ignored. It's the exact same standard used against the fighter, using the same generalizations, results in obsoleteing the wizard, yet it is only the fighter who must suffer peoples scorn/distaste.
Khan the Destroyer 06-22-07, 05:11 PM	In short, the DMM cleric is a monster of the upper levels, but God help you if you actually have to play one from level 1. You will pay a heavy price for it. I don't know if you remember from the very beginning of this thread but, no one plays the DMM Cleric from level 1. Level 1 is when they switch to the Druid with the war-trained Riding Dog Animal Companion. In regards to the other stuff, I'll be frank. Most of the work done in this thread to 'prove' any point has been done by those arguing in defense of the fighter's worth. And that's not a bias. Anyone that's been paying attention here can see that builds, analysis of skills, monsters, feat synergies, etc. have been done by pro-fighters. For the most part, the opposition enjoys tearing anything we provide apart by any means necessary, and consistently fail to back up their own opinions with anything resembling data. When Kratch says it feels like we're being led to jump through hoops, I wholeheartedly agree. For the most part, we offer evidence to support our opinions, and sit here while they get picked apart, word-by-word, piece-by-piece, with the other side offering nothing else. As I said before, it is much easier to sit back and simply destroy anything we provide, while refusing to back-up what you say. It is also safer. And that's pretty much what has been going on this entire time. Lot's of statements against the fighter, with very little substance. On the same token, we have a difference of what determines a fighter's worth. Some feel measuring him up to the cleric does. Most of us don't. And yet, those that do simply refuse to provide a build. If that's the crux of your argument, why wouldn't your at least attempt to prove it? The crux of our argument is to compare him to monsters. And we do. But again, it's too safe and easy to nitpick our demonstrations and remain covered by your blanket statements. The only numbers I see in the posts of the anti-fighters are the numbers they quote from us as they dissect our examples and dismiss them out of hand for improper sentence structure or somesuch. I honestly can't imagine how anyone in this thread can disagree on these points.
Kratch 06-22-07, 05:33 PM	The Cleric will be a reliable melee, complete with the heal spells to help him recover from a fight, a decent armor class that will likely surpass the Fighter's due to Magic vestement and Shield of Faith surpassing magical enhancements available at most lower levels. He clearly said level 6, you even acknowledge it later. I don't know of any clerics that are capable of casting heal at level 6. Greater magic vestment is only providing +1 at this point (doesn't get +2 till 8th level), so is more then likely a waste of spell resources. If you want to talk about the higher levels, by all means, provide a build we can discuss. Otherwise, your just expecting us to believe you know what your talking about, not to mention that you've even bothered do that math to ensure it's even possible. I know I'm not prepared to accept that. Unlike the fighter, he also has the option of buffing the whole party, still has all those Turn attempts handy, and has the choice of switching his spells every day to be useful in a wide variety of situations. Thought he was using those turn attempts to DMM. This is what i mean, your assuming it can do something and not even considering the cost, why should we believe your cleric can really exsist when you can't even show you know how DMM works. And if he's switching his spells out, especially at this level, he is losing whatever hope of matching the fighters base melee skills he had. And if he is replaceing the fighter in a group, he is expected to fill that role, and thus can not afford to switch out his spells without failing his duties. Arguing that the Cleric isn't a good melee until after level 6 generally isn't a good argue...pretty much everyone on the board agrees that level 1-5 all you need is decent armor and a good BAB and you are just ducky. But it's from 6-10 that pure melees start to fade in comparison to casters, and from 11+ where they start becoming sub-optimal. I've heard it's 12+ and i've heardit's 15+. You can't assume what you've heard is in fact true unless it's supported by some kind of substantial evidence, evidence you, perhaps, could provide for us her (and note, blanket statements are not evidence). The argument that most campaigns are from 1-5 is not a good argument to make for a balanced fighter, and even 1-10 is pushing it. In essence, youa re getting out of the game right when spellcasters are actually becoming really fun to play, and melees are really starting to suck. Is that because a DM doesn't know how to play against the rising power of spellcasters when he's been on the melee mindset all along, or just because people are tired of the campaign? It's no-moreso a good argument that fighters suck because of 9th level spells, which consists of the last 3 levels of the game. (please note, whenever someone starts to faulter on their "fighters usck" arguments, they fall back on, "nothing a fighter can do ever match's the power of 9th level spells"). At least the first 10 levels are played more often then the last 3, since, when a ccampaign ends, they generally started in the low levels, not the high levels (Note, i did say generally, not always). The problem is, low levels is not the whole game, no moreso then high levels
Kalarus 06-22-07, 07:39 PM	Pun-pun and commoner. Two faces, same coin. Whenever one comes up and people use it as a defense against something then their position may be attacked from the other direction by the commoner. That has been true so far. It is unlikely to change. They are both too extreme though. If they come into play then that means it is time to start over again. It hasn't been true. It has never been true. People *assume* the commoner can never see play because they *assume* that this is because the commoner is outdone by the Fighter. Those of us who do not fall to Pun-pun fallacy do not care that the commoner is outdone by the Fighter. We do not propagate playing commoners because commoners probably do not survive against appropriate CR encounters. We do not hold to other reasons, thus the commoner is not a good counterexample to the Pun-pun fallacy. The entire point of the Pun-pun fallacy is to do away with blatant power comparisons in order to determine viability. It is completely beyond me how you can claim that a power comparison is a proper counter-example to show the Pun-pun fallacy does not work. We are not guilty of the Pun-pun fallacy when we claim the Commoner is not a viable class to play because of reasons that have nothing to do with class comparisons. You constantly accuse people of saying things that have no bearing on the arguments you post. Look in a mirror for a change. Commoners have NO bearing on the Pun-pun fallacy whatsoever. Neither does the Warrior Adept, or Rat Man, or any other class that happens to be weaker than the Fighter.
navar100 06-22-07, 07:45 PM	A cleric on a pegasus could do the same things as a mounted fighter, theres no fighter advantage. There for that example shows a fighter at a disadvantage because the cleric is mounted combat + casting. The Pun-Pun fallacy strikes again! Every day, every time. :rolleyes: Tell me about it! What a load of irrelevant bull feces that was. It makes absolutely no difference that a cleric or any PC class can be a mounted warrior. The point was a fighter can do it. At least saying a cleric could do it means Sleeper agrees the tactic is a sound one, but then he just fails to accept that we're talking about a fighter doing it, which was the whole point - to show how a fighter can be an effective mounted warrior against the tarrasque. The fighter is doing it. The fighter is being an effective mounted warrior. The fighter is not sucking against a tarrasque.
Scion of Coldshard 06-22-07, 08:18 PM	It hasn't been true. I realize you believe that. But, still, it has been true every time and continues to be true.
Leo 06-22-07, 08:25 PM	It hasn't been true. It has never been true. People *assume* the commoner can never see play because they *assume* that this is because the commoner is outdone by the Fighter. Those of us who do not fall to Pun-pun fallacy do not care that the commoner is outdone by the Fighter. We do not propagate playing commoners because commoners probably do not survive against appropriate CR encounters. We do not hold to other reasons, thus the commoner is not a good counterexample to the Pun-pun fallacy. The entire point of the Pun-pun fallacy is to do away with blatant power comparisons in order to determine viability. It is completely beyond me how you can claim that a power comparison is a proper counter-example to show the Pun-pun fallacy does not work. We are not guilty of the Pun-pun fallacy when we claim the Commoner is not a viable class to play because of reasons that have nothing to do with class comparisons. You constantly accuse people of saying things that have no bearing on the arguments you post. Look in a mirror for a change. Commoners have NO bearing on the Pun-pun fallacy whatsoever. Neither does the Warrior Adept, or Rat Man, or any other class that happens to be weaker than the Fighter. They're called NPC classes for a reason. They're just suposed to be cannonfodder, not actually played. And like someone else said, the discussion comes down to this: Fighter:I can take down that guy from my CR in a single round! Cleric:I can take him down as a swift action! Druid:My pet can take it down whitout me moving a finger. Wizard:I can take him down before battle even starts. Pun-pun:I can make that it has never existed in the first place Guy 1 says kill, guy 2 says obliterate from the face of the Earth, guy 3 something even stronger, and when people stop to look they realize the monster is beaten to a bloody pulp by any of the sides and still keep arguing.
The_sleeper1 06-22-07, 08:41 PM	Tell me about it! What a load of irrelevant bull feces that was. It makes absolutely no difference that a cleric or any PC class can be a mounted warrior. The point was a fighter can do it. At least saying a cleric could do it means Sleeper agrees the tactic is a sound one, but then he just fails to accept that we're talking about a fighter doing it, which was the whole point - to show how a fighter can be an effective mounted warrior against the tarrasque. The fighter is doing it. The fighter is being an effective mounted warrior. The fighter is not sucking against a tarrasque. The Primary conclusions of the Pun Pun Fallacy were in fact incorrect, I did not point them out because I was about 10 pages behind the current first page but that does not change that fact in any way. It showed a half-truth and then a conclusion was made that was not supported by the basic reasoning that was presented. The only thing that was said in the conclusions for the Pun Pun Fallacy was that looking at combat alone was not the only thing needed. It was made so the fighter would not have to be compared to any other class because he is not on the same footing as other classes by a long ways. How other wise can you talk about balance, in a vacuum? There in lies the real problem the classes in D&D were balanced in a vacuum and not together so you think that was reasonable but the many many many posts disagree with you. Fighters don’t suck but are not strong enough on their own as is, they need better melee or more non-melee abilities.
Clawhound 06-22-07, 08:44 PM	You have about the right summary of my fighter build. I don't know where i brain farted about the fighter ... oh, yeah, I meant to compare level 10, then I changed my mind. Human 1 + Character 1,3,6 + Fighter 1,2,3,4,6 = 9 feats. I was only off by one. I will removed one of the less useful ones. Yes, the cleric will use Travel domain as well. With those additions, our cleric suddenly becomes very different than our fighter. With the Travel domain, he can make fly last all day. That is very tempting. Now we have another example of limited resources. The cleric has so many possible all-day spells that the can not possibly keep them all going, all at the same time. He has a finite number of turn attempts. In fact, he has so many good needs for more turn attempts that he may as well pick Extra Turning for every feat for the remainder of his career. He also needs Quicken, as any melee cleric will need quicken. That also eats into turning attempts if you DMM it, or you have to use up higher level spell slots on weaker spells. This means that any spell level is competing against itself and all spell 4 levels lower. That's very impressive. In the meantime, you only have enough turn attempts for one DMM. ONE. Which will it be? At 7th level, divine power shows up. It's nice. It boost you up to equal a fighter, but you are now a fighter without feats. You can use spells, but those take time in combat. When you get to 9th, you get get more DMM's, and 12th, even more DMM's, so at 5th, you have enough to empower more DMM spells. At 15th, you still don't have enough. You need more to really make this work. You could go Righteous Might, but they nerfed that. It's only a +4 strength bonus and +2 con. It's a good spell, no doubt, but you lose your Divine Power. Past that point, it's obvious that your spells are more powerful that your melee. You've put ten levels of resources into making this character work, and you now must admit that you are a much better spellcaster than you are a fighter.
Argaud 06-22-07, 08:47 PM	It was made so the fighter would not have to be compared to any other class because he is not on the same footing as other classes by a long ways. How other wise can you talk about balance, in a vacuum? There in lies the real problem the classes in D&D were balanced in a vacuum and not together so you think that was reasonable but the many many many posts disagree with you. Fighters don’t suck but are not strong enough on their own as is, they need better melee or more non-melee abilities. False. The fighters are in perfect footing (and actually it is superior to some) with paladins, barbarians, rangers, monks, rogues and anything not casting except probably the martial adepts. It does not exist in vacuum, no. It is a proven fact it can deal with the monsters of the right CR. So it is balanced. With the monsters. Not with other classes. It needs to be balanced only with the challenges of the game. Do you get it? Needs to be balanced against the right CR encounters. It does not need to be balanced against the cleric, the druid, the wizard or Pun-Pun. How hard is that to understand? It is not rocket science! That is how the freaking game works!
Khan the Destroyer 06-22-07, 08:47 PM	I continue failing to see how the commoner is even slightly relevant to this discussion. Claiming that the fighter works because he can function in melee against level-appropriate monsters/encounters is not claiming that the same applies to the commoner. Fighters don’t suck but are not strong enough on their own as is, they need better melee or more non-melee abilities. At this point, we know what your opinion is. What we'd appreciate is some sort of evidence. Otherwise, you're wasting everyone's time. Seriously... I think everyone has made their *opinion* pretty clear here.
Scion of Coldshard 06-22-07, 08:54 PM	You have about the right summary of my fighter build. I don't know where i brain farted about the fighter ... oh, yeah, I meant to compare level 10, then I changed my mind. Glad it is about right then. Where is the current writeup for the Fighter?
Scion of Coldshard 06-22-07, 08:54 PM	I continue failing to see how the commoner is even slightly relevant to this discussion. It is just as relevant as pun-pun.
Khan the Destroyer 06-22-07, 08:58 PM	Meaning irrelevant. Like the cleric. Or any other class for that matter.
Scion of Coldshard 06-22-07, 09:03 PM	Meaning irrelevant. Yep, irrelevant. Because the arguement goes both ways. Of course, that doesnt mean that cleric is irrelevant, because we could still be dealing with sane bounds for discussion which may allow the cleric to be within them Punpun is an appeal on the high side, commoner is an appeal on the low end, I would hope most people would agree that those end points are too far up and down to be useful. So, more realistic boundaries would need be set.
Khan the Destroyer 06-22-07, 09:06 PM	And before that happens, we'd have to decide on what should determine the boundaries. Such as... why should we look to the cleric as a reasonable standard for melee worthiness? What magical qualities makes cleric the undisputed, hands-down most repeated class title in this thread next to fighter?
Argaud 06-22-07, 09:11 PM	And before that happens, we'd have to decide on what should determine the boundaries. Such as... why should we look to the cleric as a reasonable standard for melee worthiness? What magical qualities makes cleric the undisputed, hands-down most repeated class title in this thread next to fighter? It is the power... IT'S OVER 9,000!!!
Scion of Coldshard 06-22-07, 09:13 PM	And before that happens, we'd have to decide on what should determine the boundaries. Such as... why should we look to the cleric as a reasonable standard for melee worthiness? What magical qualities makes cleric the undisputed, hands-down most repeated class title in this thread next to fighter? I am guessing you mean a cleric that is designed for melee? I dont know, why should we? Who said that we should? I do believe that people will compare to what is in the core though. But there have been a lot of people who have said that the cleric 'isnt' better in melee than the Fighter, so what of them? If the cleric is set above the bar but the Fighter does it better then is he also above the bar? And of course, what about the other primary melee combatants? Why are they apparently not even in the running? Plus, not everyone is caring about primarily melee options. Oh how convoluted ;)
Argaud 06-22-07, 09:18 PM	And of course, what about the other primary melee combatants? Why are they apparently not even in the running? Actually we talked at length about the barbarian. Which I think it is the class that most closely resembles the fighter. We could also talk about the monk, the ranger, the paladin or the martial adepts. But monks are skirmishers, rangers are skill monkeys and paladins are... well, I think they are better warriors than fighters once they have the mount, but that might be just me. The martial adepts are interesting. I only know well the warblade, though, and then only at mid-high level. Hmmm, I saw a warblade run away from a fighter with Robilar's Gambit, the warblade simply couldn't cope with the damage exchange from the fighter. But in general I think warblades are better. However, I think we should mostly consider the fighter (and any class) in relation the encounters in an adventure, and see if he manages to well in a team.
Khan the Destroyer 06-22-07, 09:20 PM	I am guessing you mean a cleric that is designed for melee? I dont know, why should we? Who said that we should? I do believe that people will compare to what is in the core though. But there have been a lot of people who have said that the cleric 'isnt' better in melee than the Fighter, so what of them? If the cleric is set above the bar but the Fighter does it better then is he also above the bar? And of course, what about the other primary melee combatants? Why are they apparently not even in the running? Plus, not everyone is caring about primarily melee options. Oh how convoluted Feel free to ask the ones arguing for class comparison. I honestly couldn't tell you because I'm not looking to compare classes. We have people claiming its the way to show anything about a fighter's balance. But... that's about where they stop. It's not my argument. I couldn't begin to know how to set it up. I'll try and refute what I don't agree with, agree where I do, and provide my own examples to provide a basis for my own opinions. But I'm not going to try and shape what I consider to be an unnecessary and fruitless argument. We could also talk about the monk, the ranger, the paladin or the martial adepts. But monks are skirmishers, rangers are skill monkeys and paladins are... well, I think they are better warriors than fighters once they have the mount, but that might be just me. We could. But it seems to me to be a losing battle. Anything we try to demonstrate will be shot down by the other side, and after dismissing away any findings, they'll demand more from us with more restrictions, all the while not doing anything. And in the end, we'd be trying to demonstrate their argument! Why someone would expect for someone else to prove their point is beyond me.
Scion of Coldshard 06-22-07, 09:28 PM	Actually we talked at length about the barbarian. Which I think it is the class that most closely resembles the fighter. I was mostly just asking that question because it looked like question assumed the Fighter was the only top dog to compare against for melee ;) Feel free to ask the ones arguing for class comparison. I personally like class comparisons. When done well they show off the strengths and weaknesses that each has and then people can use those results and relate them back to their own games. Anything we try to demonstrate will be shot down by the other side I am guessing by 'we' you mean the oddly labled 'pro-fighter' side but the 'anti-fighter' side could make exactly the same claim... well...
Khan the Destroyer 06-22-07, 09:36 PM	I personally like class comparisons. When done well they show off the strengths and weaknesses that each has and then people can use those results and relate them back to their own games. In this particular thread, class comparisons have been used to show why the fighter shouldn't be picked by someone hoping to be the party tank. Beyond that, there is the claim that fighters suck. How would you propose we go about class comparisons without falling back into that? I am guessing by 'we' you mean the oddly labled 'pro-fighter' side but the 'anti-fighter' side could make exactly the same claim... well... Yes Scion. I've tried saying 'those of us that argue in defense of the fighter...' but that's too long for my taste and, in the end, unneeded when I can just say 'pro-fighter'. That's all it means. Really, it isn't meant to be insulting, so I don't know why you keep coming back to it. And no, the anti-fighter side cannot make the same claim. They have provided nothing to shoot down. All we can do is call them out on their lack of evidence, or even an attempt to provide evidence. But you can't claim that we consistently hand-wave their proof away because they've provided none, or, very very little. I see the pro-fighter side taking measures to answer as much of the concerns raised as possible by the anti-fighter side to prove the point, usually providing stats. I see the anti-fighter side blindly proclaiming their opinion over and over again in an attempt to uphold some sort of status quo.
Scion of Coldshard 06-22-07, 09:45 PM	In this particular thread, class comparisons have been used to show why the fighter shouldn't be picked by someone hoping to be the party tank. Beyond that, there is the claim that fighters suck. How would you propose we go about class comparisons without falling back into that? The fighters sucking claim or the comparisons of why not to pick a fighter? The first seem to be par for the course. If you make a comparsion towards a certain goal then the point of different builds is to be good at that goal. If one is clearly better than another then someone can feel free to say that it should be picked while another person could say the opposite. The fighters sucking bit is of course not helpful, so ignore it. Yes Scion. I've tried saying 'those of us that argue in defense of the fighter...' but that's too long for my taste and, in the end, unneeded when I can just say 'pro-fighter'. That's all it means. Really, it isn't meant to be insulting, so I don't know why you keep coming back to it. Why not come back to it? I like the fighter concept just fine, but I bet at least some people here would label me as 'anti-fighter'. And no, the anti-fighter side cannot make the same claim. Oh yes they can! If you think that you have had a monopoly of ideas shot down and whatever other turn of phrase you would like to use then vehement disagreement is a good response. Counter builds have been shot down, comparisons to anything else in the game (from other characters, to races, to monsters, to...) have been told off, ideas about how to find a common ground have been stomped to dust. Frankly, I dont care who may or may not have fired the first shot, at this point it is too late in the game for that to matter. There is simply too much of it everywhere.
Argaud 06-22-07, 09:52 PM	And no, the anti-fighter side cannot make the same claim. They have provided nothing to shoot down. All we can do is call them out on their lack of evidence, or even an attempt to provide evidence. But you can't claim that we consistently hand-wave their proof away because they've provided none, or, very very little. Well we did shot down those ideas about how monsters, by acting completely against the behavior stated in the MM, and being omniscent, could maybe defeat fighters. Otherwise... I have yet to see any character build I can nitpick or shot down.
Ezell Pike 06-22-07, 10:06 PM	The list of what a fighter brings to a fight is short, lacking and inflexable, what a cleric brings to a fight is huge varied and flexable. Odd that my computer sent me to this post I thought I had specified that last page. But since I'm here I might as well respond to this. I believe that a cleric is also very limited in what he brings to a fight. He brings huge varied and flexible powers to the Campaign he's just as locked into decisions made earlier as the fighter is. Not to completely refute your observations I just thought it could use some refining.
Scion of Coldshard 06-22-07, 10:06 PM	... Let me know what the final Fighter guy looks like ;) I will come back to finish this later, not sure when though, things to do. Cleric (melee build): Str: 15 (+1 level) = 16 Dex: 14 Con: 13 (+1 pb) = 14 Int: 10 Wis: 12 (+2 pb) = 14 Cha: 8 Level 6 BAB +4 HD 6d8 Domains: War (mwp, wf longsword), Feats:
Khan the Destroyer 06-22-07, 10:07 PM	The fighters sucking claim or the comparisons of why not to pick a fighter? The first seem to be par for the course. If you make a comparsion towards a certain goal then the point of different builds is to be good at that goal. If one is clearly better than another then someone can feel free to say that it should be picked while another person could say the opposite. The fighters sucking bit is of course not helpful, so ignore it. They're both one and the same. People are claiming that there is no reason to choose the fighter, and at the same time saying that he sucks. Regardless, you were saying that you enjoy class comparisons to demonstrate weaknesses and strengths for player feedback. This is different than what is going on here, so how would you go about it? Why not come back to it? Because it's really not important. You should know who I'm referring to just by being in this thread for so long. When I say Pro-fighter, I'm referring to people such as myself, Bob Loblaw, Clawhound, Argaud, Navar, Kratch, Kalarus, etc. The people that have been defending the fighter. When I say Anti-fighter, I'm referring to people like you, Otto, Archangel, Sleeper, OneWinged4ngel, aelryinth, Seerow, etc. The people that think the fighter needs to be changed. I realize the prefix 'anti' may have a negative connotation to it, but I'm using it here for convenience, nothing more. I like the fighter concept just fine, but I bet at least some people here would label me as 'anti-fighter'. Well, seeing as I've defined the term for you twice, you should know that I am not referring to the fighter 'concept'. Counter builds have been shot down I don't recall builds being given. And to be honest, the pro-fighter side doesn't really claim more than 'it's possible for a fighter to be balanced'. We don't have a need to shoot down any builds. comparisons to anything else in the game (from other characters, to races, to monsters, to...) have been told off I agree with comparisons to monsters, I can't see where a comparison between races would be productive, and to be frank... I haven't seen an analytical comparison between the fighter and any other class besides what Kratch has done with the barbarian. ideas about how to find a common ground have been stomped to dust. I can't honestly remember when we were trying to find common ground. Frankly, I dont care who may or may not have fired the first shot, at this point it is too late in the game for that to matter. That's fine. I'm just stating the facts. Opinions will get shot down. That's why we provide proof. But 'proof' has been pretty one-sided in this thread. Well we did shot down those ideas about how monsters, by acting completely against the behavior stated in the MM, and being omniscent, could maybe defeat fighters. Fair enough ;). Though I can't see how that argument can be backed up anyways.
navar100 06-22-07, 10:20 PM	The Primary conclusions of the Pun Pun Fallacy were in fact incorrect, I did not point them out because I was about 10 pages behind the current first page but that does not change that fact in any way. It showed a half-truth and then a conclusion was made that was not supported by the basic reasoning that was presented. The only thing that was said in the conclusions for the Pun Pun Fallacy was that looking at combat alone was not the only thing needed. It was made so the fighter would not have to be compared to any other class because he is not on the same footing as other classes by a long ways. How other wise can you talk about balance, in a vacuum? There in lies the real problem the classes in D&D were balanced in a vacuum and not together so you think that was reasonable but the many many many posts disagree with you. Fighters don’t suck but are not strong enough on their own as is, they need better melee or more non-melee abilities. There is nothing wrong with comparing a fighter to another class to say one class is more powerful than another. That has nothing to do with Pun-Pun/CoDzilla fallacy. The CoDzilla fallacy states that just because one class is more powerful than another does not mean that other class cannot do its job. It is only a matter of personal taste if one wants to play a cleric over a fighter because he feels he can do much more with a cleric than a fighter. However, asking then "why would anyone want to play a fighter when you can play a cleric" is imposing your preference on others, the CoDzilla fallacy. It was shown that a fighter who was good at mounted combat was "strong enough on their own" to be able to take down a tarrasque. That was the purpose of that build. You saying the cleric could do it is irrelevant. You saying the cleric should be played instead of a fighter because he can do it and cast spells is the CoDzilla fallacy. The fighter can do it. That's all that matters.
itwasntme 06-22-07, 10:20 PM	Considering that most skills are not even needed in a game and can be solved in many other ways for example a Wizard could cast detect traps or other spells to help him disable traps without even reverting to a skill check A dwarf fighter's thief skills - Open Door: Boot. Pick Lock: Bash. Pick Pocket: Mug. Climb Walls: Rope. Hide in Shadows: No. Move Silently: As If. Find/Remove Traps: Ouch. Thats just one way of how you can just say "Who needs skills" Leadership feat = Wizards clerics and eveything eles follows me around and dose what i say ... IE i can now have an army that dose nothing but heal people ... or i can now have ways on how to control the battle field ... heck that feat alone could be the answer to Solve ALL the differnt things as printed above dont have skills? no problem the leadership feat lets me have an army of rouges to do it for me! So leadership feat alone solves just about eveything you just said so yes any class can be and any one of thouse feilds in some way or another inless you ban the use of leadership feat? another arguement is the fact that Clerics can cast 4 or more buffs on them and get +1-3 points ahead of the fighter ... if the same buffs where casted on the fighter he would be 6-12 points ahead then he normoly woulda have been (ie 3-9 points ahead of the fully buffed cleric) and if your talking about what only that class can do then he could do the same thing from the only skill in the game you realy need ... UMD or leadership feat "Hey you cleric who follows me cast all these buffs on me" or just a simple UMD Check to have it casted on you So yes fighters are usefull and can be powerfull indeed Allso i find most of the time players MUCH rather have first level fighter then barbian or ranger ... not only that but most players i play with (I play with alot of differnt groups/players) I find that players level dip in some other class then go fully decked out in Fighter like level 2 barbian level 10 Fighter is useoly something i see more commen then level 10 barbian level 2 fighter
itwasntme 06-22-07, 10:26 PM	If your compareing a class to another class you should be open to the fact that one class will solve the same thing in a differnt way like if you compare the rouge skill abilitys to disarm traps agest a wizard ... then no the wizard cant get as good as a Skill list as the Rouge but the wizard can use his spells to bypass said thing ... the problem was solved just in another way besides why would a wizard want to disarm something like that when the rouge can do it in the first place? even if you compare a class and its useage agest a fighter for example yes the fighter can solve that problem just in a differnt way
navar100 06-22-07, 10:29 PM	Well we did shot down those ideas about how monsters, by acting completely against the behavior stated in the MM, and being omniscent, could maybe defeat fighters. Otherwise... I have yet to see any character build I can nitpick or shot down. I did nitpick against those who would say it's a waste of resources for a spellcaster to dare cast a spell on the fighter because I think sometimes since you're going to cast a buff spell anyway that for a particular combat buffing the fighter just might be the better option. That's not an attempt to defend against the claim of figther suckitude in the sense of the fighter using said buff to overcome an obstacle. It's just an argument against selfish spellcaster play used as an excuse to prove the fighter sucks.
Khan the Destroyer 06-22-07, 10:38 PM	In my opinion, trashing opinions is fine. It's when you start ignoring stats that things get a little wierd. That said... I'd like to go back to the monster/omniscience thing. As with the Tarrasque, I'm not outright dismissing the idea that monsters may behave a certain way (though I feel a lot of the genius tactics presented are pretty much border-line metagaming). But, when you are constantly claiming the fighter sucks, and then the only thing your genius monsters can do is trounce fighters or make themselves immune to fighters... it's kind of strange. Really, the anti-fighter crowd should be showing how those monsters can trounce casters and really not give two hoots about the fighter. Instead, they suggest the opposite.
itwasntme 06-22-07, 10:49 PM	In my opinion, trashing opinions is fine. It's when you start ignoring stats that things get a little wierd. That said... I'd like to go back to the monster/omniscience thing. As with the Tarrasque, I'm not outright dismissing the idea that monsters may behave a certain way (though I feel a lot of the genius tactics presented are pretty much border-line metagaming). But, when you are constantly claiming the fighter sucks, and then the only thing your genius monsters can do is trounce fighters or make themselves immune to fighters... it's kind of strange. Really, the anti-fighter crowd should be showing how those monsters can trounce casters and really not give two hoots about the fighter. Instead, they suggest the opposite. in most of my games spellcasters useoly get punked right away considering alot of things can ignore AC even if they high level doing said things or epic level i have 100 + AC the character can ignore it and still hit the guy ... Like the Hulking Hurler can do the Area Effect special ability to help ignore the AC of a character in that case you need HP to help you or something like Blink But yes anti fighter useoly just Said something and useoly each time there confrounted "Hey wait how is that happning?" They tend to ignore your post and continue ranting on ... not allways but that useoly what happins that or they turn around and attack something of yours and ignore the questioned directed at them
Clawhound 06-22-07, 10:58 PM	I am unlikely to finish the cleric and fighter comparison this weekend. By Monday, we'll be 10 pages back. I am not sure of the worth in continuing the comparison if his has little impact. My main goal was to explore what it means to actually see the classes implemented with limited resources, and what that looks like at a commonly played character level. I hoped that I showed that DMM is not the rosy-cheeked Eden that it is purported to be. I originally intended to compare items and spells as well. I now understand night sticks. The DMM cleric is so hungry for turn attempts that he needs every one that he can get. Even then, he still needs more. I do think that the cleric makes a capable front line, not because he replaces a fighter, but because he is so entirely different than a fighter.
aelryinth 06-22-07, 11:28 PM	He clearly said level 6, you even acknowledge it later. I don't know of any clerics that are capable of casting heal at level 6. Greater magic vestment is only providing +1 at this point (doesn't get +2 till 8th level), so is more then likely a waste of spell resources. If you want to talk about the higher levels, by all means, provide a build we can discuss. Otherwise, your just expecting us to believe you know what your talking about, not to mention that you've even bothered do that math to ensure it's even possible. I know I'm not prepared to accept that. Thought he was using those turn attempts to DMM. This is what i mean, your assuming it can do something and not even considering the cost, why should we believe your cleric can really exsist when you can't even show you know how DMM works. And if he's switching his spells out, especially at this level, he is losing whatever hope of matching the fighters base melee skills he had. And if he is replaceing the fighter in a group, he is expected to fill that role, and thus can not afford to switch out his spells without failing his duties. I've heard it's 12+ and i've heardit's 15+. You can't assume what you've heard is in fact true unless it's supported by some kind of substantial evidence, evidence you, perhaps, could provide for us her (and note, blanket statements are not evidence). It's no-moreso a good argument that fighters suck because of 9th level spells, which consists of the last 3 levels of the game. (please note, whenever someone starts to faulter on their "fighters usck" arguments, they fall back on, "nothing a fighter can do ever match's the power of 9th level spells"). At least the first 10 levels are played more often then the last 3, since, when a ccampaign ends, they generally started in the low levels, not the high levels (Note, i did say generally, not always). no moreso then high levels Wow, what a complete bunch of taken out of context and selective misinterpretation this whole 'rebuttal' was. I was distinctly referring to the pre-Persistent game, i.e. low levels. Healing spells consist of CLW, CMW and CSW at those levels. Where did I say he could cast a Heal Spell? Furthermore, GMV works fine at level 5 for getting you magic armor and a shield. Shield of Faith gets you a deflection bonus. To discuss a Cleric's build, you have the fine job of comparing reusable buff spells to feats. Things like DMM, Persistent and even Extend sometimes become secondary factors to the spells themselves. Thus, a 'build' becomes almost irrelevant for a cleric simply when you look at his spell choices. Domains merely compound the problem with the addition of things like polymorph spells and shapechanging and whatnot. At level 1-6 he's not using DMM to power anything...he doesn't have Persistent yet. That means they are available for other feats...who knows, like Divine Might, if he doesn't want to go the Persistent route and wants to focus on Charisma? Or maybe Divine Ward or shield or whatever it is for the big defense bonus. At lower levels, the difference is base melee power is considerably less then at later levels. A base f/20 chassis is a much stronger base chassis then a c/20...but one spell solves that problem. At level 5, the problem is solved with Divine Favor's luck bonus. And as for switching spells out...that's an Option for him the Fighter doesn't have. Superior ability to recover from a fight. There's even spells he can use swift or immediate actions on. And as for the level question, again, that's a hollow argument. Reasonable balance at 1-5, starting to slow at 6-10 and generally falling down at 11+ vs playing spellcasters is not something you can or should 'ignore' because most campaigns don't go that high...because some campaigns do, and they want a first-rate option all the way through, not a third-rate one. ====================== The fact remains, and has even been acknowledged, that the job the fighter does can be done better by not staying a Pure Fighter, i.e. turning a Fighter into a dip class for PrC's and multiclassing so that you can do the Fighter's job better then the Fighter. The Cleric keeps coming up because it's a viable replacement for any melee at level 10+, it's completely playable and usable before level 10 as a melee or a cleric, and its spells just give it a wider option of playability, and not just in a melee capacity. Does it have to consistently outperform the Fighter or any melee in a melee capacity all the time? No...because not all encounters are completely reliant on melee power to determine the outcome, and the cleric has the option to pursue other solutions. But at higher levels, with the right spells, it can do the job very, very well...well enough, that you don't need a full-time melee who can't contribute much outside a melee situation. As for the other melee classes...the barbarian is comparable to a fighter, with more out of combat utility, better power with standard attacks (not neccessarily Full Attacks) and much easier to play/design; the ranger is a skill monkey with full BAB who can nonetheless be devastating if the enemy is Favored, or his few good spells can be brought into play; and the paladins Owns against Evil and has superior defenses (and saves). The Fighter gets singled out because he's generic. And generic is always the first thing that gets replaced, or swapped out to multi-class or PrC. ===Aelryinth
runestar 06-23-07, 12:38 AM	At level 1-6 he's not using DMM to power anything...he doesn't have Persistent yet. You can use DMM: persist at 1st lv. Go human cleric, take planning domain for free extend spell, take persistent spell and DMM: persist with your 2 starting feats, and take the undeath domain for extra turning? You will have at least 7 turn attempts, enough to persist 1 spell. Take extra turning again at 3rd lv, and have the wizard cast eagle's splendor on you. It should be enough to just persist another spell. I have heard that there are a lot of useful 1st spells from SC and BOED which can be persisted (light of ???), but I do not own any of them. Limited to the PHB, my only suggestion is a persistent bless spell (seems to offer the most utility). This paves the way for a persistent prayer at 5th lv and persistent divine power at 7th lv.:) I must admit that no one in the party complained as the cleric was granting everyone a free +2 to rolls, and a -1 penalty to all foes.:D PS - I do not mean to deliberately flout the rules, but can bless and prayer be persisted? I thought so, but their range is not listed as personal, though they are burst effects centered on you, so I am not really sure.
Bob Loblaw 06-23-07, 01:12 AM	My goodness, I go to work for twelve hours and there's like a ton of new stuff to reply to. Yes, that is right the cleric would not have a tactical advantage, unless we are talking about fighter versus cleric, in this case it does not matter what a wizard can do because were talking fighter or cleric. This is strange because we actually weren't originally talking about fighter and cleric. We were talking about fighter and tarrasque. This is how strawmen arguments begin and end. Change the topic and "prove" that point is wrong instead of addressing the actual topic. At least Scion stays, for the most part, on topic. A cleric has other ways to get there ride skill up besides the ones listed. Back that up. Provide your evidence. Without actually stating how, then this is meaningless. I think that classes need to be balanced so everyone can contribute. The question of is a fighter balanced has nothing to do with the question of is class XYZ more powerful than a cleric. But the question is not "which class is more powerful?" The question is "does the fighter work as written?" These are not the same question. It is not that bad but that shows that major differances in power can negate a classes ability to function what use is a fighter if there is no advantage to useing them. Since there are tons of ways to negate every class ability, then you are saying that no class has an advantage. It is a true statement, as far as I can tell. If the fighter does not need any changes at all then it is, by definition, perfect. If a person things that it could use some fixing up or needs a change here or there then that side has been set to the 'anti-fighter' side of the debate. And of course that is the point, to me it should not be claimed that the fighter is perfect, it isnt. There are definately some changes that need to be made so that it can fit the more common archtypical roles. What I find interesting is that every single pro-fighter has said that they would like to see some improvements to the fighter. Not a single one of us has claimed the fighter is perfect. We all acknowledge, however, that the fighter does work as written. Let's see what we pro-fighters have said we would like to see: 1) Better skill points and skill selections 2) More and better feats 3) Better hit points We have all also managed to show how the fighter functions fine with what he has. How other wise can you talk about balance, in a vacuum? There in lies the real problem the classes in D&D were balanced in a vacuum and not together so you think that was reasonable but the many many many posts disagree with you. Fighters don’t suck but are not strong enough on their own as is, they need better melee or more non-melee abilities. Anyone can disagree. The real question is, can you back that up? Simply saying "I disagree" has no real meaning in a debate. While it makes for a fine Monte Python skit (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-572077907195969915), it really doesn't further the discussion. Take a look at the builds that have been thrown out there. I have put several up. Khan has put up about twice what I have. Every single one is strong enough on its own. And as for switching spells out...that's an Option for him the Fighter doesn't have. Superior ability to recover from a fight. There's even spells he can use swift or immediate actions on. This assumes he lives long enough to correct his mistakes. The fact remains, and has even been acknowledged, that the job the fighter does can be done better by not staying a Pure Fighter, i.e. turning a Fighter into a dip class for PrC's and multiclassing so that you can do the Fighter's job better then the Fighter. Since nearly every cleric or wizard build can be done better by prestige classing rather than staying pure, does this mean that they are no longer worthwhile? I know for a fact that I can make a more powerful cleric or wizard by prestige classing. The Fighter gets singled out because he's generic. And generic is always the first thing that gets replaced, or swapped out to multi-class or PrC. This is probably the biggest reason that the fighter is singled out yet nearly every problem the fighter has is shared by all the other melee/ranged combatants.
Scion of Coldshard 06-23-07, 01:27 AM	What I find interesting is that every single pro-fighter has said that they would like to see some improvements to the fighter. Since that would make them anti-fighters by the definition given I would say that you are incorrect by default with that. We have all also managed to show how the fighter functions fine with what he has. In a way that you feel is fine at least, others disagree.
Bob Loblaw 06-23-07, 01:42 AM	Since that would make them anti-fighters by the definition given I would say that you are incorrect by default with that. To be an anti-fighter, one would have to say that the fighter does not work. Even Khan has said that he would like to see the fighter get more feats and he's the one with the definitions. In a way that you feel is fine at least, others disagree. Obviously. A thread that's over 2000 posts of "I agree" would be rather boring. What I find most strange is that most of the arguments on whether or not the fighter sucks are not based on the fighter at all. They are based on how well the cleric or druid functions. This is the exact definition of a strawman argument. To prove the fighter sucks, one would have to actually show that the fighter cannot function as intended. Very few arguments actually even touch on this.
Kratch 06-23-07, 03:20 AM	Wow, what a complete bunch of taken out of context and selective misinterpretation this whole 'rebuttal' was. I was distinctly referring to the pre-Persistent game, i.e. low levels. Healing spells consist of CLW, CMW and CSW at those levels. Where did I say he could cast a Heal Spell? Furthermore, GMV works fine at level 5 for getting you magic armor and a shield. Shield of Faith gets you a deflection bonus. The Cleric will be a reliable melee, complete with the heal spells to help him recover from a fight I may have misunderstood you, but i don't believe it was a diffucult mistake to make considering your wording. And i certainly didn't intentionally "take you out of context and selectively misinterpret you." Assumeing 3-4 encounters per day, so far your using 2 3rd level spells (GMV on shield and armour) and 4 1st level spells (shield of faith x 4 encounters) To discuss a Cleric's build, you have the fine job of comparing reusable buff spells to feats. Things like DMM, Persistent and even Extend sometimes become secondary factors to the spells themselves. Thus, a 'build' becomes almost irrelevant for a cleric simply when you look at his spell choices. Domains merely compound the problem with the addition of things like polymorph spells and shapechanging and whatnot. If all you do is look at the options available, and don't look at the requirements, costs and limitations of those abilities, your not getting a true assessment of the class. You can say the DMM persist and extend feats are secondary to the spell list, but without those feats, your expending a larger number of your limited spells per day. You can choose to ignore that limitation as well, but then your only fooling yourself into believing your correct, and prooving absolutely nothing. Once you accept you need those feats to perform to standard, you need to consider the cost of those feats. At 6th level, you are incappable of extending GMV or GMW, extending any 2nd level spell will limit your your ability to cast your GMV's. DMMing requires turn attempts, leaving you with few, if any attempts for actually dealing with undead or using devine feats, this is maintained throughout the build, even into higher levels (generally, you need to keep getting more turn attempts just to keep your required spells active as you go up in level and more buffs are required just to keep up.). Additionally, you now need to consider your charisma, as well as your wis for casting and your str and con for meleeing. At level 1-6 he's not using DMM to power anything...he doesn't have Persistent yet. That means they are available for other feats...who knows, like Divine Might, if he doesn't want to go the Persistent route and wants to focus on Charisma? Or maybe Divine Ward or shield or whatever it is for the big defense bonus. Then when is he getting DMM persist and persist (and does he have extend?)? Because as of level 7, you get divine power, and most people need that to keep up, perhaps not right at level 7, but soon. If you have nether persist or DMM persist at this point, you now can't get it till level 12, and by then, it will be required daily. Do you at least have quicken and extend to help keep up, or are you just planning on fumbling your way through till 18 or so before your gonna become the melee guy? Oh, and if your getting divine feats now, will they become a waste once you start using DMM persist and use up most/all of your turnings? If he doesn't want to go the DMM persist route, how is he keeping his buffs maintained throughout the days encounters? how many spell slots is it going to take, how many rounds of preperation is required? It's looking like a lot of questions being left unanswered, most of which could be answered with a build. Guess they aren't so irrelevent. At lower levels, the difference is base melee power is considerably less then at later levels. A base f/20 chassis is a much stronger base chassis then a c/20...but one spell solves that problem. At level 5, the problem is solved with Divine Favor's luck bonus. So your spending the first round each encounter casting divine favour (as you can't quicken yet), this also adds another 4 1st level spells (upping the total to 8 1st level spells and 3 3rd, not including the heal spells). Remember, without DMM persist, it takes more then just 1 spell to solve all that. Even in the high levels, it takes 2-3 active buffs per encounter just to catch up to the fighter (wether thats 2-3 persisted per day, or 2-3 cast at the start of each encounter for 8-12 per day, plus lost casting time or high level slots for quickened). And as for switching spells out...that's an Option for him the Fighter doesn't have. Superior ability to recover from a fight. There's even spells he can use swift or immediate actions on. Not sure what you mean by superior ability to recover from a fight in the context of switching spells out, unless your talking about healing? Cause spells can't be switched out in a fight to help you survive (other then healing, which is why i think this is what you mean). By my count, unless they're domain spells, you've run out of spell slots, so you really don't have spells he can use as swift or immediate actions (unless your talking higher levels again) The Cleric keeps coming up because it's a viable replacement for any melee at level 10+, it's completely playable and usable before level 10 as a melee or a cleric, and its spells just give it a wider option of playability, and not just in a melee capacity. It's a viable alternative, but that does not mean there is no reason to play a fighter, like many people would have others believe. Having a wider option of playability is pointless if melee capacity is all someone really wants to play, If thats the case, should they still be expected to play a cleric because some people don't like fighters? Does that mean the fighter will be unable to function, to provide what the group needs from a meleeist? And depending on the cleric build, that wider option of playability is rather limited after all the required/day melee buffs, buffs to save money on melee gear (so that the required caster gear needed to maintain functioning can then be afforded) and combat options (without some kind of combat options, your once again not keeping up with the fighter in melee).
Archangel62 06-23-07, 10:49 AM	Alright, I'm going to step out into no-mans-land and make some comments on both sides. 1) Thanks to the stances taken by the 'pro-fighters' there is no way to properly define the effectiveness of the fighter. They have consistently railed against direct comparisons, saying that just because other classes are better that it doesn't mean anything for the fighters use. This creates a problem though because we need to decide WHAT a standard of comparison is for the classes, where do they stand, where should we put them, how do we organize them? 2) Thanks to the fighter-doesn't-work group we have a lot of poor ideas for comparison and some other issues as well. Look, we know that the cleric and druid own, unfortunately they own at everything. We might be further off designing a set of challenges for individuals and a group and compare results thereof. Skill based, combat based, and other challenges of the like as well as some sort of idea as to what the baseline for classes is. 3) To both sides, we get it, random antimagic fields screw casters, houserules to nerf a certain class or removal of a lot of core material can make casters less scary, but that doesn't change the underlying issue. Also, we realize that casters are awesome and do have a lot of options and contingencies just from their own spells and theoretical item creation abilities, that being said we also know that sometimes casters fail. As a corollary, it's more realistic for a caster to have the right spell than it is for the fighter to always have the right gear and feat. 4) We need to come to some consensus on how we define equipment and the role that it plays in the characters power. Do we argue that a fighter is more dependant on magic items than a caster because the caster can do fine with an intelligence booster and their spellbook but the fighter needs magical weapons, armor, and other things far more expensive? Yes, I realize stripping the martial characters of their gear skews things too, but I also know that if you pile enough modifiers a squirrel could probably trip a titan.
Clawhound 06-23-07, 12:11 PM	I prefer using the following: 28 Point Buy Magic Equipment per the quick pick method in MIC Assume that there is enough casting to give the character with 1 buff spell per three character levels. Compare the character against appropriate CR's. Assume that the character has a cleric, a rogue, and a wizard to work with him. That approximates actual play. For CR appropriate creatures: 1 encounter of CR+2. (This is a hard encounter.) 3 encounters of CR 3 encounters of 2xCR-2 3 encounters of 4xCR-4 3 encounters of 8xCR-6 That's 13 encounters for a level. That approximates the variety that you would see in actual play. Note that the CR-4 and CR-6 encounters account for HALF of all encounters in any given level.
Argaud 06-23-07, 02:17 PM	I prefer using the following: 28 Point Buy Magic Equipment per the quick pick method in MIC Assume that there is enough casting to give the character with 1 buff spell per three character levels. Compare the character against appropriate CR's. Assume that the character has a cleric, a rogue, and a wizard to work with him. Why 28 points? 25 points (or the elite array, which is also 25 points) is what the game assumes for PCs and NPCs with class levels. Those builds are is the benchmark from which encounters are balanced. (In theory).
aelryinth 06-23-07, 03:13 PM	Most CR challenges have Fighters falling on their faces simply because all they can do is melee. I've seen three or four of them, and generally the fighter does the poorest of whoever is assembled. This is generally because a) casters have a better/easier time going nova and b) casters have the ability to change spells for an encounter they know is coming, whereas you can't logically change gear and you certainly can't change feats. I actually wrote up a Paladin/10 going through a bunch of CR appropriate encounters...he did good on just about all of them except the bebilith (looking at the bebilith's stats I didn't see how he could win, honestly.) He could even handle two or three of them in a day. The fighter...no such luck. He was burning potions like mad, and was still having a hard time. The Druid? No sweat, between his Dire Bat and Wildshape, he had no melee problems, and enough spells to turn the tide on almost anything else. The mage had the combo of ranged attacks, save or dies, or evasion magic to do what needed to be done. Ditto the sorceror. The cleric could buff for ownage in melee, cure themselves, or launch a ranged attack or two to soften things up. Even the bard did better then the Fighter (those Fascinate DC's can be killer for monsters to overcome.) Really, the only comparison is taking the Fighter out of the party and replacing him with something else, usually another cleric. And perhaps to no suprise, this doesn't hurt the party at low levels, and actually becomes more and more useful at high levels as the 'melee cleric' gets access to more spells. ==Aelryinth
TheCobra 06-23-07, 03:16 PM	Fighters are good. They're called warblades now. Play them and enjoy.
Clawhound 06-23-07, 03:28 PM	28 point buy, because that is a very popular point level for characters. It is so commonly cited that many consider it the default.
Kratch 06-23-07, 03:42 PM	1) Thanks to the stances taken by the 'pro-fighters' there is no way to properly define the effectiveness of the fighter. They have consistently railed against direct comparisons, saying that just because other classes are better that it doesn't mean anything for the fighters use. This creates a problem though because we need to decide WHAT a standard of comparison is for the classes, where do they stand, where should we put them, how do we organize them? Just as an aside, although some of us have saying class comparisons prove nothing, Some of us have been debating against them anyways. I for one have been willing to at least try debateing wether a cleric is sufficiently powerful enough to obsolete a fighter, but without a build to see if everything is actually possible, and to what degree, it becomes very hard to debate. Assuming the use of DMM, the cleric has a huge demand on charisma. I have seen all to often people claim they can always fall back on standard casting, but for that to be doable, they need to crank their wisdom. But they also need to start with decent melee stats to survive in the low levels while their building up their power (a build that only succeeds in the top few levels is worthless, except in the top few levels). Some of their melee stats can be "caught up" with using they're buff spells, but how much do they need to catch up and is their buffs enough to do it? how many buffs do they have active using DMM? They can use GMV and GMW to save money on melee gear, but how much of that gets spent on the required caster gear (by my earlier calculations, at least 100,000 gp more then they save, and i didn't include stat enhancment boost items, but may have missed something else)? Considering the feat (and/or domain) investment, what other feats (and/or domain powers) does the character have? When did they get those feats (cleave at level 18?)? Did they lose out on some of the other domain abilities and spell options (runestar suggested planning and undeath domains, which means no travel for DDoor like everyone claims, no war domain for martial WP and WF like everyone claims, no destruction for smite and str for enlarge person like a few people have claimed. And if you change out these domain choices, what result will it have in your ability to perform this tactic?)? How many slots actually get used up in the daily buffing proccess and what do you make use of the rest of the slots for (are you cappable of providing the battlefield control that some fighters can provide?)? If you've sacrificed wisdom to save on gear costs, what spell choices are you using that aren't impacted by the lower DC's of the reduced wisdom? And many more. Now, I'm sure someone can come along and answer all these questions individually, without consideration of the other questions and their answers for those, but i'm willing to bet if someone did do that, you'd find discrepancies, things that couldn't happen if you answered all the questions simulatniously in relation to each other (such as saying you'd max your charsima, including level bonus's to answer how many turning attempts you get per day and thus how many buffs you can have persisted, Answering your str would be eaual to the fighters all along cause it started with identicle starting stats, and maxed it, including all the level bonus's, then answering by maxing your wisdom, including all the level bonus's, you wouldn't suffer from any spells with reduced DC's). And all those questions are just for the DMM version, which a lot of us agree is very powerful (and i think is marginally broken, but not everyone does so I debate it as is), I haven't even started asking the questions about the Non DMM version, which is far more difficult to pull off. So, Dispite not having a build to debate against, I've still tried to point out, not that class comparisons are a bad thing, but that the generalizations being used (such as, the cleric can do everything the fighter does, and then boiling the fighter down to BAB, AC, HP's and hitting things for damage, thus, ignoring the feats), and the general idea that one matching another means the one is not needed, dispite it's doing things differently, is insufficient (not that it's wrong, that it is not enough), because, using the same criteria, you eliminate everything but the cleric. And by only comparing the fighter to the cleric, your only proving a descrpancy between the two, without comparisons to more class's, you can't determine if that descrepancy means the fighter is too weak, the cleric is too strong, or that the descrpancy isn't as large as one originally suspected due to some bias-skewed perceptions. As we've theoretically done the cleric vs fighter, and I've done the barbarian vs fighter, We just have 8 more class's to compare to the fighter and 9 more (including the barbarian) to compare to the cleric (if the cleric outpaces the barbarian as much as people claim it outpaces the fighter, while the barbarian is on par with the fighter, that goes towards the "cleric is too strong" end of things, though in the end, it may result in just the barbarian also being too weak (at which point, at least the fighter won't be the only one ragged on).
aelryinth 06-23-07, 03:48 PM	Keep in mind that one of the ways that melee clerics got around that 'need' for high combat stats is with polymorph/shapechange...which is also a staple of most cleric melee builds, just like wildshape and the pet are for melee druids. Once you can pop into trog form for +7 Nat Armor, upgrade to Annis for 26 str, +11 Nat Armor, 14 Dex, whatever Con, and then you still are looking for War Troll and Firbolg for even higher base stats...they become less of an issue. ==Aelryinth
Kratch 06-23-07, 03:56 PM	Keep in mind that one of the ways that melee clerics got around that 'need' for high combat stats is with polymorph/shapechange...which is also a staple of most cleric melee builds, just like wildshape and the pet are for melee druids. Once you can pop into trog form for +7 Nat Armor, upgrade to Annis for 26 str, +11 Nat Armor, 14 Dex, whatever Con, and then you still are looking for War Troll and Firbolg for even higher base stats...they become less of an issue. ==Aelryinth Which add's another domain or two into the equation, so far that make about 7-8 possible domain choices. EDIT: I'd also like to point out, fighters are also cappable of attaining a PAO to up their stats and size. And they become less of an issue, but if they're insufficient to start with, that is an issue. besides, that was only one of the many many questions I asked, and as i pointed out, by answering it individually or the rest of the questions, there is a descrepancy in the domains chosen and what feats and when (and wether the stat prereq's are met) still remains a mystery, along with everything else.
Leo 06-23-07, 04:00 PM	Sure, have fun explaining how your character knows the MM by letter.
Khan the Destroyer 06-23-07, 05:42 PM	Since that would make them anti-fighters by the definition given I would say that you are incorrect by default with that. Post 216 on Page 8: Ok, let me get this out of the way. Pro-Caster: Someone that bases the balance of everything else on the theoretical power and influence a caster character could wield in a game where the other players don't mind doing absolutely nothing and the DM doesn't mind all of his monsters getting trounced in Round 1. Pro-Fighter: Someone that feels the fighter class can function as a tank as-is, without 'fixing' it. Anti-Fighter: Someone that thinks the fighter class needs something more to make him capable of performing his role as a tank. (No, I don't think you're evil, or hate all warriors or even the concept of a fighter. Get over the term.) There, those are the terms as I see them. Feel free to disagree, ignore, or love them. But now you know what I mean, and we don't have to get our feelings hurt over them. That was in response to you Scion. And it was the very first time I defined these terms. And I remember having to explain it to you again after that. Where in that quote do you seem me saying that if someone would like to see changes made to the fighter, they fall under the term anti-fighter? I specifically said that if someone thinks the fighter needs changes in order to function as a tank, I label them as an anti-fighter. That is not the same as wanting changes made. I personally wouldn't mind changes made to the fighter. But that doesn't qualify me as an anti-fighter, because I don't believe the fighter needs changes to work as intended. I've said as much before to you. And in all honesty, your deliberate misrepresentation of the defintion I gave in response to your constant demand for it will undoubtedly make me reconsider giving you another one next time you ask for one. As a corollary, it's more realistic for a caster to have the right spell than it is for the fighter to always have the right gear and feat. I'm not sure I agree with this. There's a huge supply of spells to choose from, and a wide variety of what spells can do. A wizard would not only have to know the spell, he'd need it prepared as well. Also, he would need to not have used it already. A fighter just has to know the feat, and then he can do it. All the time. His gear is just an extension of his feats. And a melee warrior can only do so much in regards to combat. I mean, you could be a mounted warrior, TWF, THF, archer, tactical fighter, mobile fighter... and I'm running out of ideas. And the fighter can be several of those at once. And I'm not sure how many times you'll be in a situation where you'll *need* any of those feats to win. The wizard on the other hand has 9 schools to choose from, and a huge array of different affects within those schools. besides, that was only one of the many many questions I asked, and as i pointed out, by answering it individually or the rest of the questions, there is a descrepancy in the domains chosen and what feats and when (and wether the stat prereq's are met) still remains a mystery, along with everything else. Yeah. Something that would be alleviated if anyone had the courage to throw up a build.
Scion of Coldshard 06-23-07, 07:32 PM	Where in that quote do you seem me saying that if someone would like to see changes made to the fighter, they fall under the term anti-fighter? In the definition. Right there where you quoted yourself just like I have quoted it in the past. I suppose you could try to say that you didnt mean it in that way, but if you do then your two terms do not have a real difference and the terms are only being used to be inflammatory. If you are using them just to be inflammatory then that is too bad. But if you want them to actually have a difference then what I have said before is how they are made. If you want to change them around so that you can have something else in them then feel free. Until then though I will assume that you meant for them to actually be different and non-inflammatory by default.
Khan the Destroyer 06-23-07, 07:44 PM	Scion, I'm not getting it. Can you show me where in the sentence I am saying an anti-fighter simply wants changes rather than feels changes are needed? Here's my opinion: The fighter can function in a party as intended when taking the role of melee combatant. I wouldn't mind seeing changes to the class, but I don't think changes are needed for the class to function. Here's another opinion: The fighter doesn't work as is. He can't use his feats and his saves suck and he has the worst skills in the game. Everyone can do his job better than he can. In order for the class to work, changes have to be made. Only the second opinion falls under my defintion of anti-fighter. If you disagree, can you explain why? Anyone else can feel free to pitch in their opinion. Who knows... maybe my English is a little rusty. I can admit when I'm wrong.
Scion of Coldshard 06-23-07, 07:56 PM	Either someone feels that a change is needed and has some ideas for how to do it, such as adding in some extra skill points and such, or it is not needed and nothing should be added to the fighter because it is fine as is. If you go with more fuzzy definitions like, 'well, I would like him to have more...' then your definitions overlap. Which means that placing someone is more purposefully inflammatory. If it is the hard line so that they do not overlap then it is not purposefully inflammatory and they work fine. I dont think that you are trying to be inflammatory with them so the only option is the hard line. I am not trying to go super PC here by saying that you need to have each side be 'pro'.. such as pro-fighter0, pro-fighter+, pro-fighter-.. it is just a matter of getting around the hazy edges. You could very easily have firm lines in your head and so the actual lines, for you, would be well drawn even while they look fuzzy while written down but because they are not hardlined out to begin with each person will have their own fuzzy line moved around and people will feel arbitrarily placed into a side they do not think that they are on. I think you are not using the inflammatory version, which means a hard line.
Kratch 06-23-07, 07:59 PM	Khan, It's a pointless, argument, he's unwilling to see the difference between "need" (as in a requirment for the class to function, without which the class becomes useless) and "doesn't need but can use/benifit from" (as in an extra added to an already functioning class to make it a little smoother). I've already tried (dureing which he also showed just how poorly he actually reads our posts) Yes they are. 'Need' implies that something is required or necissary. 'Can benefit from' is a pointless arguement because it leads no where, everyone can benefit from getting something extra that is beneficial, but why would you bother giving it to them unless there is a need? Examine every aspect closely enough and somewhere along the line there is something that could be called 'need'. We can disguise it with other words or thoughts but in the end everything comes down to the needs. A base, simple cause that is always there is some form of need.
Khan the Destroyer 06-23-07, 08:16 PM	Either someone feels that a change is needed and has some ideas for how to do it, such as adding in some extra skill points and such, or it is not needed and nothing should be added to the fighter because it is fine as is. This premise is false. It doesn't have to be one or the other. You can certainly accept that nothing is needed, but that adding something wouldn't hurt. This is different than thinking that something is needed. As a simple example, my computer doesn't need the fastest CPU available to operate. But, I wouldn't mind having one. As opposed to... your computer cannot operate without the fastest CPU available. If you go with more fuzzy definitions like, 'well, I would like him to have more...' then your definitions overlap. You are only considering one part. Sure, perhaps some people on both sides would like to see changes made. But only the people on one side believe changes don't have to be made. That is what defines the terms. Going back to my CPU example, both the pro-fighter and the anti-fighter would like the fastest CPU for their computer. But only the anti-fighter thinks it is necessary for the computer to operate.
The_sleeper1 06-23-07, 08:18 PM	There is nothing wrong with comparing a fighter to another class to say one class is more powerful than another. That has nothing to do with Pun-Pun/CoDzilla fallacy. The CoDzilla fallacy states that just because one class is more powerful than another does not mean that other class cannot do its job. Just because it was made in to the "CoDzilla Fallacy" does not make it correct. Clearly the Fighter is weaker than a fighter, what reason do you impose as the reason that a fighter MUST be weaker than cleric of similar level? Granted I dont want a fighter to be able to twist reailty into a pretezle and have it as a snack but there is a reasonable power level between where a cleric is now and a fighter is now.
itwasntme 06-23-07, 08:20 PM	from reading the last few pages im going to just say this and continue on 1) People are allways going to disagree with each other, for example Someone says paladins are week in combat becouse of the point system, When pointed out how you can solve this the other person is still going to say "Well ok he is a little bit better but still not good enough" To many people the paladin is just fine the way he is we are not trying to create Pun-Pun after all another example arguement of people who like paladins could be as follows One player much rather have the special mount for the paladin i disagree i rather have the Chargeing Smite ability on paladins from PHB2 and if i realy wanted a mount ill grab one from Amrs and Equipment book There for my point for 1) is as follows People are allways going to complain no matter so for people to state "Well this arguement is Voided becouse people disagree with each other ..." is just dumb its going to happin the point of these treads are to put up a post and state it and then back it up its not going to be the greatest but it lets people know YOUR way of thinking 2) The first arguement was agest MR T? If you realy where sitting there planing to take out MR T anyone can do it ... said fighter takes a sword of wish and uses it in any combination to finaily kill MR T 3) People have a way on avoiding arguements or stateing the fact that other people are doing things they do not like ... Again people are allways going to disagree with you 4a) I beleve (This is my point and many people feel strongly on this) That the fighter is a class that dosnt have any 1 way to go he is the class that offers players to do what they want to make a more customized character So to state the fighter MUST be run on one way or another (IE limiteing him so he has to use a Basterd Sword or something eles like that) Is a big limit to not only his class but to all other class's as well 4b) a Person has said one way of how they compare people 28 point buy only items from the quick sheet and other things like that i have problems with this mostly becouse the items are allready picked for me ... which is annoying for a fighter class with Weapon focus weapon Specialation in other Weapons or is an Archer fighter ... Thouse quick point list character sheets are mostly made for NPC characters or something to give you ideas you do not have to have thouse items 5) Players tend to allways point out things that are meaningless or not very worthwhile or if they do give an example of why its worthwhile they argue agest the person who came up with a way to beat it (inless the person who beat it was doing something lame like IE Punpun will do it! or Metagame thinks) then i have to disagree ... evey problem has more then 1 way to solve it that other class's can solve it in there own way i wouldnt mind if you posted something saying you can beat it in such a way but to do so in a Metagame thinking way (IE Lets make a Character specificly Designed to beat that one character! or encounter) or someone like punpun who is specificly made to be the big cheese tho i still think Lord O will kill punpun ... but thats my thought 6) People should relize that eveyone dose things in a certain way or example eveyone likes there character differntly 7) Arena duels and battles i find to be laughible considering you could just make an "Anti that character" build that and i see no reason for rouges to excist ... rouges are not going to go "I Challenge you to a duel!" And charge up there and attack you ... no the rouge is that sneaky guy you never new was there or is very hard to detect inless certain rules apply who just SA attacked you for alot of damage and ran away and disapeared in Arena battles these things never happin the rouge loses his option of hideing in the streets or makeing it where if wizard decides to cast a spell he is going to be hitting inocent bystanderds or perhaps even breaking a law of that kingdom so Arena battles shouldnt ever be allowed to compare class's becouse rules change Drasticly when you enter or leave an Arena Im sure even in an Arena battle the big Barbian could hire a rouge to sneak over to your room and kill you in your sleep or something eles on thouse lines there for the last thing i want to say about 7 is as follows Character class's and Races should be compared agest monsters and things much more likly to happin in a normol game ... with options open and things in the Monster Manual or other challenges you might expect your character to face in a normol game of your level or Stat Block For example in a rule where there is no magic pure wizards are going to complain that they cant use there spells so be open to other people thoughts and how things should be dealt with after all Not eveyone is going to be fighting Pun-Pun! 8) Clerics casting buffs on them selfs then compare there nice NEW Stats agest a Fighter old stats should just stop and think ... What would happin if the fighter got thouse buffs? Oh he would be even more beefyer in melee or ranged combat (Or w/e your character is) Then the fully buffed up cleric? 9) if your going to complain that it a 1on1 battle there for the fighter/cleric or w/e wins then stop ... 1on1 battles do not happin in normol games Yes thats right when you play a game do you ever see your compains disapearing and you have to fight a set dude 1on1 all the time? NO YOU DO NOT 10) there should be no arguements on the line of Thanks to thouse pro fighters who complain about anti Fighter people where they make arguements on characters that are specificly agest the fighter we cannot continue this post Well its a situation that your specificly makeing it agest the fighter lets make situations that are specificly agest the Wizard or what ever type of class? In my option i beleve such arguements are valid becouse they make sense to cast only 1 class/character/player/race into a situation thats agest him and No one eles is unfair ... if something is going to be agest the fighter or wizard then let someone eles come up with something agest your own character and im sure if they acouly tryed (Like not doing something simple or easy like ... well ok go fight kobolts then level 10 wizard) you will find that its an arguement based on one thing Remeber the normol game situation is about Monsters 4 encounters a day on adverage and not something spicifly designed agest you if your going to metagame think then by all means to be fair let the other person have the option of metagameing as well
itwasntme 06-23-07, 08:27 PM	This premise is false. It doesn't have to be one or the other. You can certainly accept that nothing is needed, but that adding something wouldn't hurt. This is different than thinking that something is needed. As a simple example, my computer doesn't need the fastest CPU available to operate. But, I wouldn't mind having one. As opposed to... your computer cannot operate without the fastest CPU available. You are only considering one part. Sure, perhaps some people on both sides would like to see changes made. But only the people on one side believe changes don't have to be made. That is what defines the terms. Going back to my CPU example, both the pro-fighter and the anti-fighter would like the fastest CPU for their computer. But only the anti-fighter thinks it is necessary for the computer to operate. good point i would like something besides this 10 year old computer im sitting next to however this 10 year old computer is still doing the job i need it to do so it works and gets the job done another good point/example you can put is how people could pay and live there lives with the money they have now ... however more money is allways nice but not allways needed you put it in the best words however
The_sleeper1 06-23-07, 08:47 PM	Quote: A cleric has other ways to get there ride skill up besides the ones listed. Back that up. Provide your evidence. Without actually stating how, then this is meaningless. There is prayer for a +1 but also clerics have access to miracle (and I think there is lesser miracle at a lower level) it lets him cast any spell a few levels lower, there is an arcane level 4 spell that (useable with miracle) that gives you a bonus to a skill of +3 and +1/level so at level 20 a cleric would have +23 to ride checks and it lasts for 20 hours. I think it is called Quick Learn, not sure of the book.
Argaud 06-23-07, 08:51 PM	Clearly the Fighter is weaker than a fighter, what reason do you impose as the reason that a fighter MUST be weaker than cleric of similar level? Granted I dont want a fighter to be able to twist reailty into a pretezle and have it as a snack but there is a reasonable power level between where a cleric is now and a fighter is now. Since you are here already accepting the fighter does not need to "twist reality into a pretzel", which is what clerics do, why do you insist in comparing the fighter with a cleric? I am going to make a wild guess and say you think that at least some other classes are good besides the cleric. Not as powerful as the cleric, but okay classes. If so, tell us which one class is viable without being as powerful as the cleric and why that class can take the fighter role and do it better. Please, do not make a blanket statement. Show us a solid build that works decently from levels 1-20. It does not need to be super-detailed, and if it has some minor mistakes, it really does not matter. But show us something.
Scion of Coldshard 06-23-07, 09:36 PM	This premise is false. It doesn't have to be one or the other. You can certainly accept that nothing is needed, but that adding something wouldn't hurt. This is different than thinking that something is needed. If you include that in your definition then the bounds are too fuzzy to be used without the concept being purposefully inflammatory. If you choose to be purposefully inflammatory that is your call, but I would hope people would try to avoid it.
Kratch 06-23-07, 09:42 PM	By all means, if you find the terms inflamitory, provide an alternative method to distinguish between those that feel the fighter works as is (regaurdless of wether we feel adding would benifit or not) and those who would have you believe that additions/changes are required to function at all?
Bob Loblaw 06-23-07, 10:05 PM	1) Thanks to the stances taken by the 'pro-fighters' there is no way to properly define the effectiveness of the fighter. They have consistently railed against direct comparisons, saying that just because other classes are better that it doesn't mean anything for the fighters use. This creates a problem though because we need to decide WHAT a standard of comparison is for the classes, where do they stand, where should we put them, how do we organize them? The fighter should be compared to the encounters he is going to go up against. This is going to be difficult since the variety of encounters is incredibly huge. The fighter should be assumed to be part of a four man party consisting of cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard all using the Elite Array. I would prefer to stick with Core (mostly so I don't have to grab all my books) but it certainly isn't necessary. 2) Thanks to the fighter-doesn't-work group we have a lot of poor ideas for comparison and some other issues as well. Look, we know that the cleric and druid own, unfortunately they own at everything. We might be further off designing a set of challenges for individuals and a group and compare results thereof. Skill based, combat based, and other challenges of the like as well as some sort of idea as to what the baseline for classes is. A set of challenges would be fine. These challenges should be for a variety of encounters and they should be plausible (e.g. no rust monsters with iron golems). I would use Clawhound's encounter ideas. I don't know how the contribution of the fighter would be determined though. If the casters are able to use a single spell to end the encounter, this doesn't show any weakness of the fighter or rogue. Instead it demonstrates a different problem. 3) To both sides, we get it, random antimagic fields screw casters, houserules to nerf a certain class or removal of a lot of core material can make casters less scary, but that doesn't change the underlying issue. Also, we realize that casters are awesome and do have a lot of options and contingencies just from their own spells and theoretical item creation abilities, that being said we also know that sometimes casters fail. As a corollary, it's more realistic for a caster to have the right spell than it is for the fighter to always have the right gear and feat. The problem that I have with this is that the anti-fighters assume that no matter the situation, the caster will have the right spell prepared. If anyone says that they have always had the right spell prepared 100% of the time, they are either lying or being coddled. I lean to lying. 4) We need to come to some consensus on how we define equipment and the role that it plays in the characters power. Do we argue that a fighter is more dependant on magic items than a caster because the caster can do fine with an intelligence booster and their spellbook but the fighter needs magical weapons, armor, and other things far more expensive? Yes, I realize stripping the martial characters of their gear skews things too, but I also know that if you pile enough modifiers a squirrel could probably trip a titan. Gear should be exactly as it is written in the DMG. You have the appropriate amount of gold to spend. Gear is an integral part of the character. We should keep in mind the full costs of everything. That means if the wizard has more than 45 spells over 0-level, he paid the appropriate amount to scribe it as well as obtain it.
Scion of Coldshard 06-23-07, 10:31 PM	By all means, if you find the terms inflamitory, provide an alternative method to distinguish between those that feel the fighter works as is (regaurdless of wether we feel adding would benifit or not) and those who would have you believe that additions/changes are required to function at all? I know that you are chronically unable to actually read my posts but I will try anyway. I already am using a method to distinguish. I am using Khans terms and definitions and treating them as hard lines that actually distinguish between the two rather than soft lines which overlap.
Kratch 06-23-07, 10:38 PM	So, you percieve the terms as inflamatory, yet use them anyways? And then you claim khan is being inflamatory when he has clearly stated otherwise and demonstraited how he defines them, dispite your unwillingess to distiquish between need as in requires and could use, as in does not require? And really, was the personal attack nescessary? I was mearly trying to establish a common vocabulary that is agreeable to both, that is not considered inflamatory, yet still is able to clearly define the various factions of the debate without confusion such as you have demonstraited with your beliefe we believe the fighter is perfect, or that our thinking the fighter could make use additions while still not thinking the fighter requires them to function.
Kalarus 06-23-07, 10:38 PM	Alright, I'm going to step out into no-mans-land and make some comments on both sides. 1) Thanks to the stances taken by the 'pro-fighters' there is no way to properly define the effectiveness of the fighter. They have consistently railed against direct comparisons, saying that just because other classes are better that it doesn't mean anything for the fighters use. This creates a problem though because we need to decide WHAT a standard of comparison is for the classes, where do they stand, where should we put them, how do we organize them? The "pro-Fighters" have repeatedly suggested the use of the CR system, which is the system that generally speaking adventure combat challenges are built on, as a standard for comparison. This has not been challenged by the "anti-Fighters", instead it has been ignored, likely because they cannot find any significant counter-arguments to argue against it. 2) Thanks to the fighter-doesn't-work group we have a lot of poor ideas for comparison and some other issues as well. Look, we know that the cleric and druid own, unfortunately they own at everything. We might be further off designing a set of challenges for individuals and a group and compare results thereof. Skill based, combat based, and other challenges of the like as well as some sort of idea as to what the baseline for classes is. The motor of the D&D game is combat. It is the most reliable way for characters to gain experience and treasure, all others systems are ad hoc DM calls. Hence, it makes sense for combat challenges to be the focus of the comparison. Various combat examples have been offered to show why the Fighter should not be played, however these examples only showed that the Fighter is not as powerful a combatant as a Cleric/Druid/Wizard in these situations. It does not follow from this that the Fighter should not be played, unless the premise is added that one should always play the most powerful build possible and this ends in Pun-pun Fallacy. 3) To both sides, we get it, random antimagic fields screw casters, houserules to nerf a certain class or removal of a lot of core material can make casters less scary, but that doesn't change the underlying issue. Also, we realize that casters are awesome and do have a lot of options and contingencies just from their own spells and theoretical item creation abilities, that being said we also know that sometimes casters fail. As a corollary, it's more realistic for a caster to have the right spell than it is for the fighter to always have the right gear and feat. There is an incredibly basic misunderstanding in the last line. It holds to the assumption that the Fighter needs specific gear/feats in order to be effective, like the spellcaster needs the right spell to be effective. However a Fighter can be built with effective combat options which function fine on a general level, with possibly exception situations occurring in which the Fighter cannot perform as well. This means that the Fighter may not have the perfect answer to every situation but it means that he always has *an* answer. Contrary to this is the spellcaster, whose spells are specific to deal with situations. In a certain situation a spellcaster has powerful options to deal with the specific situation at hand, more powerful than the general answers the Fighter has to deal with the situation at hand. For some reason it is always assumed that the spellcaster has access to these spells at any time needed. This assumes that the spellcaster has access to information and time that allows him to prepare said appropriate spells. These assumptions have never been supported by any evidence whatsoever. 4) We need to come to some consensus on how we define equipment and the role that it plays in the characters power. Do we argue that a fighter is more dependant on magic items than a caster because the caster can do fine with an intelligence booster and their spellbook but the fighter needs magical weapons, armor, and other things far more expensive? Yes, I realize stripping the martial characters of their gear skews things too, but I also know that if you pile enough modifiers a squirrel could probably trip a titan. Go Squirrel. Any character in any comparative situation should have the equipment allowed for its specified level. No-gear comparisons are senseless for the sheer reason that there is such a huge difference in benefits per class. The caster is powerful out of the box and can do with a spellbook and statbooster, anything else is extra. The Fighter is less powerful out of the box but benefits hugely from magical gear. The Fighter is a gear based class, unlike spellcaster classes which can function very well without gear. The balance of spellcasters vs nonspellcasters is reflected in magical gear by allowing non-spellcasting classes to benefit significantly more from gear syneries than spellcasting classes do. Most magic items won't do anything for spells. Most magic items do a lot for a melee combatant. Removing gear from the equation benefits spellcasters by definition.
Kalarus 06-23-07, 10:45 PM	Most CR challenges have Fighters falling on their faces simply because all they can do is melee. I've seen three or four of them, and generally the fighter does the poorest of whoever is assembled. This is generally because a) casters have a better/easier time going nova and b) casters have the ability to change spells for an encounter they know is coming, whereas you can't logically change gear and you certainly can't change feats. Odd. I was not aware that spellcasters have a mystical power to exchange one spell prepared for another from their book. In fact, losing a spell slot that has been used in preparation counts against spells used per day. Unless you have a day to prepare, spellcasters are not any better prepared than melee classes, in fact they could be a lot less prepared. I actually wrote up a Paladin/10 going through a bunch of CR appropriate encounters...he did good on just about all of them except the bebilith (looking at the bebilith's stats I didn't see how he could win, honestly.) He could even handle two or three of them in a day. The fighter...no such luck. He was burning potions like mad, and was still having a hard time. I am curious. Can you provide more detail, such as builds, combat stat percentages, etc.? The Druid? No sweat, between his Dire Bat and Wildshape, he had no melee problems, and enough spells to turn the tide on almost anything else. The mage had the combo of ranged attacks, save or dies, or evasion magic to do what needed to be done. Ditto the sorceror. The cleric could buff for ownage in melee, cure themselves, or launch a ranged attack or two to soften things up. Even the bard did better then the Fighter (those Fascinate DC's can be killer for monsters to overcome.) We've already established that Druid/Cleric/Wizard have more raw power than Fighters. The Bard can not fascinate in combat. He would have to start playing before the monsters were aware of him. The second you start rolling initiative, the Bard is considered in combat and cannot use his fascinate ability. Incidentally, any obvious threat such as drawing a weapon breaks the spell. What is a bard going to do, perform them to death? Really, the only comparison is taking the Fighter out of the party and replacing him with something else, usually another cleric. And perhaps to no suprise, this doesn't hurt the party at low levels, and actually becomes more and more useful at high levels as the 'melee cleric' gets access to more spells. ==Aelryinth Where does this suddenly come from? It does not follow from any of your statements. It is not supported by anything posted by you or anyone else so far. Is this an attempt to confuse by providing arguments in the hope that people fail to see there is no link to the conclusion?
Kalarus 06-23-07, 10:47 PM	Fighters are good. They're called warblades now. Play them and enjoy. Does anyone have a bucket for me? I feel a need to puke when I read crap like this.
Kalarus 06-23-07, 10:50 PM	Keep in mind that one of the ways that melee clerics got around that 'need' for high combat stats is with polymorph/shapechange...which is also a staple of most cleric melee builds, just like wildshape and the pet are for melee druids. Once you can pop into trog form for +7 Nat Armor, upgrade to Annis for 26 str, +11 Nat Armor, 14 Dex, whatever Con, and then you still are looking for War Troll and Firbolg for even higher base stats...they become less of an issue. ==Aelryinth Polymorphy/shapechange... hmm.... wait, aren't those part of that set of spells that WotC recommended in an on-line article to be erased from any form of actual gameplay because their rules are entirely inconsistent and broken? Well they are published nonetheless so let's treat them as such. Polymorph: L4 Sorc/Wiz spell. Not a Cleric spell. Shapechange: Animal Domain, 9 Druid, 9 Sorc/Wiz. Only a Cleric spell for Animal domain. Picking animal domain removes the ability to pick other domains. There's a domain to solve any problem but why do people constantly forget you can not have all at once? and then there's Leo's point about knowing every MM to the letter.
Kalarus 06-23-07, 10:57 PM	Just because it was made in to the "CoDzilla Fallacy" does not make it correct. Clearly the Fighter is weaker than a fighter, what reason do you impose as the reason that a fighter MUST be weaker than cleric of similar level? Granted I dont want a fighter to be able to twist reailty into a pretezle and have it as a snack but there is a reasonable power level between where a cleric is now and a fighter is now. Of course the Pun-pun/CoDzilla-fallacy is not correct. It is a fallacy. A fallacy is a situation where the conclusion does NOT follow from the premises and is thus by definition an incorrect logical train of thought to follow. The Pun-Pun fallacy is unarguably fallacious. There is no way that its conclusion follows from its premises, without modifying the argument by adding additional premises, but then we are no longer talking about the Pun-pun fallacy. Anyone who still holds fast to the conclusion that does not follow from its premises is by definition nothing more than tenacious and certainly has no claim to any level of truth other than a personal one.
Kalarus 06-23-07, 11:02 PM	If you include that in your definition then the bounds are too fuzzy to be used without the concept being purposefully inflammatory. If you choose to be purposefully inflammatory that is your call, but I would hope people would try to avoid it. The definitions are not fuzzy, they are only fuzzy in your mind because you do not like them. The definitions describe a domain, stating the necessary requirements to be part of that domain. These requirements are also sufficient, anyone who meets them falls into that domain of description. You constantly claim they overlap. You claim a lot of other crap as well. You never justify any of it. If his domain definitions overlap provide an example which suits both descriptions. You haven't done so yet, I wager this is because you can't.
runestar 06-23-07, 11:17 PM	2000+ posts and we are still back to square 1...:weep:
Scion of Coldshard 06-23-07, 11:25 PM	And really, was the personal attack nescessary? Since the post of your right before the one I quoted had the same personal attack against me? Yeah, I would say that returning the favor was necissary at this point, especially since you have so many posts where you have ignored what I said, even to the point of quoting it and then saying completely unrelated things. Gah. The definitions are not fuzzy, they are only fuzzy in your mind because you do not like them I have no problem with the base pro and anti definitions except for the fuzzy bit. Apparently you like the fuzzy part so much that you cannot see it or you like to have terms which are so loose around the edges that the for and against overlap.
Scion of Coldshard 06-23-07, 11:27 PM	2000+ posts and we are still back to square 1...:weep: When we actually hit square one that will be a step up. People cant even agree on what the question should be let alone get to step one so that pro's can con's can be put forward reasonably. Getting all the way to square one would be a godsend.
runestar 06-23-07, 11:52 PM	When we actually hit square one that will be a step up. People cant even agree on what the question should be let alone get to step one so that pro's can con's can be put forward reasonably. Getting all the way to square one would be a godsend. You sure know how to make a bad situation sound even worse...:P
Kratch 06-23-07, 11:54 PM	Since the post of your right before the one I quoted had the same personal attack against me? You mean the one where i noted you were unwilling to see the difference between "need" and "could benifit from" and then supported my observations with quotes from your very posts? I suppose you could take them as personal attacks, but as i can and did back up what i say with examples, I think i was within my rights. Perhaps if you could show that i don't read what you say, but instead post something else entirely, you'd be justified in your claims that i don't read your posts. I'll give you an example of what i mean... My brother doesn't "need" me to give him $1000, he makes enough money to pay all his bills, reduce his overall debt and enjoy some minor pleasures in life. This does not mean he can't use, or benifit from, me giving him that $1000. For your brother example, why would he randomly just give you $1000? If you ask it for him then you have expressed a need for it, you have something that you want to do/buy and to do so having more money is necissary. In my quote, I'm clearly speaking about me giving my brother money, in your reply, you speak of my brother giving me money or me asking my brother for money, which is opposite to what i said.
Scion of Coldshard 06-24-07, 12:06 AM	I'll give you an example of what i mean... So I accidentally flipped the pronouns but the meaning behind the thought stays the same either way and this is your example of my not reading your posts? The only thing that was different was who gave the money to who while everything else was intact.
TheCobra 06-24-07, 01:59 AM	Does anyone have a bucket for me? I feel a need to puke when I read crap like this. The truth hurts sometimes. Fighters have been fixed. See the Tome of Battle for more details. You can even go fighter 2/warblade 18 if it makes you feel better.
Kratch 06-24-07, 02:08 AM	This comment, coming from you, is pretty funny. Hence my response calling you on it. You mean this post (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12834274&postcount=1097)? The one where i quote from two of your posts, and then note that at least one of those posts also happen to cantain evidence that you don't read ours properly? which just happens to be the same post i quoted in this responce to you (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12836197&postcount=1119) which shows your not even demonstraiting the most basic form of reading comprehension. I will admit, I make mistakes, I did with aelryinth's "the heal spells" comment, but it is usually a simple misunderstanding that can be cleared up with a bit of correction (as i showed, due to his wording, it was an easy mistake to make, if somewhat knee-jerked). You simply claim i don't read your post right and assume i'll be able to read your mind an know what part your talking about. So I accidentally flipped the pronouns but the meaning behind the thought stays the same either way and this is your example of my not reading your posts? The only thing that was different was who gave the money to who while everything else was intact. Oops, it looks like you caught me in a typo that was insignificant to the point, good job. You've never given me the benifit of the doubt, why should you expect the same? Switching the pronowns is a very large mistake to make for someone who has been claiming I don't read others posts, and you have been making that claim against me since before the quoted incedent, for example, from this post... (much like, but admitadly, not exactly like, what you said above, although, had i snipped everything after the first comma, i could have made it look that way. guess it's a good thing i address peoples thoughts as a whole instead of cherry picking) Since I have seen you repeatidly fail to do this through this entire thread you'll forgive me for laughing. Sure, in this case it's retaliatory. Of course, this isn't the first acusation you have thrown against me. the first attack i can remember started was back on page 9... I have seen people on one side of the debate talk about there being two sides and acknowledging it, sorry you happen to be on the side which hasnt been doing that. I then called you on it (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12504432&postcount=272) You lump me in with other people making a different argument (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12505147&postcount=276) I correct you on what my stand is, and point out i had stated what my stand is in one of the posts you had just quoted of mine (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12505401&postcount=283) You then deny ever making the accusation (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12505461&postcount=284) I connect the dots for you (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12505534&postcount=285) at which point you disappear for a few days (4 pages)and come back as if it had never happened. And all the while, you were shunning/scolding bob or khan for being hostile. But really, I Don't want this to degrade into a flame war. So, I will attempt to stop the personal attacks, even the ones i can support with quotes. I would hope your willing to do the same. If you find me misinterpretting what you've said, By all means, feel free to clerify your points so i may re-address them properly.
TheCobra 06-24-07, 02:16 AM	Fighter suscks...yet lots of people play them, or at least use a few levels in their builds. My current players have started insisting on all playing casters. In one campaign, cohorts, undead minions, and familiars do the tanking. One character began the other campaign with three levels of fighter. He rebuilt it down to two. That's all I've seen so far.
Kratch 06-24-07, 02:20 AM	The truth hurts sometimes. Fighters have been fixed. See the Tome of Battle for more details. You can even go fighter 2/warblade 18 if it makes you feel better. Care to support your opinion, perhaps with a build or 2? khan and bob have provided several fighter builds if your looking for ideas. Otherwise, this is nothing more then you trying to force your opinion into the conversation as a fact, which it is not.
TheCobra 06-24-07, 02:31 AM	Care to support your opinion, perhaps with a build or 2? Just read the Tome of Battle. You don't a special build to make a warblade better than a fighter. Pick maneuvers. Use them. It's fun. I like Insightful Strike and Greater Insightful Strike myself. Otherwise, this is nothing more then you trying to force your opinion into the conversation as a fact, which it is not. I'm okay with that.
Scion of Coldshard 06-24-07, 02:48 AM	You mean this post (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12834274&postcount=1097)? The one where i quote from two of your posts, and then note that at least one of those posts also happen to cantain evidence that you don't read ours properly? sigh.. showing again that you are not reading what I wrote. If you arent even going to bother trying to see what I said what is the point of talking with you? You've never given me the benifit of the doubt, why should you expect the same? Switching the pronowns is a very large mistake to make for someone who has been claiming I don't read others posts So you are saying that switching pronouns, which does nothing to change what the message was in any way, shape, or form, is a very large mistake? The message was not changed at all. Way to go for overreacting to a typo which did not effect any part of the topic. Sure, in this case it's retaliatory. Looks like in every case.. interesting that... Of course, this isn't the first acusation you have thrown against me. the first attack i can remember started was back on page 9... Actually that back and forth started pretty far before that.. Right from the beginning you jumped in on a few different posts that were not directed at you, put them up in quotes, and then talked about side issues that they were not directly about and then got upset such as in my response to your posts here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12503902&postcount=267). You lump me in with other people making a different argument So, you are complaining that when you jump into a discussion between two people, take one side of it, and are responded to that the responses general overview of the topic at that point was mystically not your own personal biography and detailed description of whatever views you may or may not have had that I was supposed to garner, possibly through magic? Sorry about that, my magic was better used in other ways that day. As such, since you had already jumped in on that conversation about a certain topic and chose a side right off the bat lumping you in with the people you had lumped yourself in with seems pretty appropriate.. ...although I didnt actually lump you in with it, I merely made a comment in response to yours that was about the side you had placed yourself on.. so this is a great example of you not reading what I put down, even when you go back and reread it apparently it doesnt click properly for you. I have no idea why that is, but it happens so often I am not sure if it is deliberate or some sort of mental block. You then deny ever making the accusation Good thing I denied it, I didnt make the accusation. You are creating that yourself, which brings us back to your not reading my posts very well even when going back over them again later. I connect the dots for you You 'connect dots' and then create a conclusion wholecloth that has nothing to do with what you quoted. What is up with that?? You even went out of your way to put up the quotes so that it was excrutiatingly, painfully obvious that they did not follow through to your conclusion and yet you are posting it up again as though it is some magical talisman. at which point you disappear for a few days (4 pages)and come back as if it had never happened. Sucks that I both have a life and try to let people be people doesnt it? I even tried to ignore your crazy post of connecting dots and then making up a conclusion seperate from your dots.. so much for that I guess. And all the while, you were shunning/scolding bob or khan for being hostile. Looks like you should get the same treatment. If you find me misinterpretting what you've said, By all means, feel free to clerify your points so i may re-address them properly. I am afraid that I have no idea what clarification you would need. Your post you have relinked here shows that even if the posts are laid out clearly showing that your conclusion does not follow from what has come before you still use that conclusion, even to the point of reposting it! If that sort of thing does not work I really dont know what else to do.
Scion of Coldshard 06-24-07, 02:56 AM	I'm okay with that. lol! Sadly, this looks to be the best solution for entering this thread. Might as well blend in ;)
Argaud 06-24-07, 07:35 AM	lol! Sadly, this looks to be the best solution for entering this thread. Might as well blend in ;) Since you have never supported your statements with facts or numbers I am pretty sure you have never taken a step beyond giving your opinion. Opinions are interesting, but when they are not backed by facts, they lose much weight. Particularly when Bob and Khan can easily show that their opinions have a numerical base and that his statements aren't empty: the fighter does what they say he does. It is not the best solution, it is the easy, lazy "solution". It is also the solution that hints you have no informed opinion at all.
Archangel62 06-24-07, 08:15 AM	The "pro-Fighters" have repeatedly suggested the use of the CR system, which is the system that generally speaking adventure combat challenges are built on, as a standard for comparison. This has not been challenged by the "anti-Fighters", instead it has been ignored, likely because they cannot find any significant counter-arguments to argue against it. Except that the same guys that are advocating the CR system are also the ones who argued that my CR based gauntlet, a challenge that wouldn't even demand a win or survival at each encounter, to see how a character did to compare effectiveness and where most of it came from was unrealistic and unfair Now we have the same guys arguing that we need to use the CR system to compare, so maybe I'm just a smidge irked at it. The motor of the D&D game is combat. It is the most reliable way for characters to gain experience and treasure, all others systems are ad hoc DM calls. Hence, it makes sense for combat challenges to be the focus of the comparison. Various combat examples have been offered to show why the Fighter should not be played, however these examples only showed that the Fighter is not as powerful a combatant as a Cleric/Druid/Wizard in these situations. It does not follow from this that the Fighter should not be played, unless the premise is added that one should always play the most powerful build possible and this ends in Pun-pun Fallacy. Yes, the combat gives XP but unless you're playing in the worlds largest dungeon with no traps then combat isn't the only type of encounter. My reasoning here is that there are many challenges in a game that need skills, hell in combat tumble is incredibly useful, jump is needed for the lovely feat leap attack, intimidate can help you demoralize, etc. But I look more at things like the social skills to gather information and get in good with the locals while at the same time having skills like open lock, disable device, sleight of hand to get the keys, unlock the doors, and either deactivate or circumvent the traps. While not all of these things assure XP they have a decent chance of existing in many games. There is an incredibly basic misunderstanding in the last line. It holds to the assumption that the Fighter needs specific gear/feats in order to be effective, like the spellcaster needs the right spell to be effective. However a Fighter can be built with effective combat options which function fine on a general level, with possibly exception situations occurring in which the Fighter cannot perform as well. This means that the Fighter may not have the perfect answer to every situation but it means that he always has *an* answer. Contrary to this is the spellcaster, whose spells are specific to deal with situations. In a certain situation a spellcaster has powerful options to deal with the specific situation at hand, more powerful than the general answers the Fighter has to deal with the situation at hand. For some reason it is always assumed that the spellcaster has access to these spells at any time needed. This assumes that the spellcaster has access to information and time that allows him to prepare said appropriate spells. These assumptions have never been supported by any evidence whatsoever. Technically most casters will try to divine information about the future and though random encounters truly are random most foes you face randomly follow relatively similar rules as far as it goes. If the party is going to fight a dragon, prep spells to deal with it as necessary and will have the best options. For outside that many spells can pull double or triple duty. Go Squirrel. Any character in any comparative situation should have the equipment allowed for its specified level. No-gear comparisons are senseless for the sheer reason that there is such a huge difference in benefits per class. The caster is powerful out of the box and can do with a spellbook and statbooster, anything else is extra. The Fighter is less powerful out of the box but benefits hugely from magical gear. The Fighter is a gear based class, unlike spellcaster classes which can function very well without gear. The balance of spellcasters vs nonspellcasters is reflected in magical gear by allowing non-spellcasting classes to benefit significantly more from gear syneries than spellcasting classes do. Most magic items won't do anything for spells. Most magic items do a lot for a melee combatant. Removing gear from the equation benefits spellcasters by definition. The bold part here is where I disagree with you strongly. If you believe this then you either don't use casters often or possibly you don't look that far beyond core in terms of gear. The basics I already mentioned, Boccobs blessed book, Headband of intellect are held by virtually all casters as soon as they can amass the money for it. The book is free spell scribing which is nice no matter what. But I look at it, staves, wands, and scrolls are unslotted items which let them either gain more versatility, or more spell access, or simply just more slots. In any of these cases Staves even advance in caster level with them and let them provide their save DC. Metamagic rods are another great addition to this, not to mention rings which can either give you even more slots or give your caster level a nice big bump. My comment is that given the same amount of money the caster usually comes out ahead because their fun stuff is generally cheaper than the fighters and provides more options.
Kalarus 06-24-07, 08:37 AM	The truth hurts sometimes. Fighters have been fixed. See the Tome of Battle for more details. You can even go fighter 2/warblade 18 if it makes you feel better. Given that I am not hurt I guess that means nothing you say is objectively true then. Warblades aren't Fighters. Nobody needs to play with ToB. If you like the ToB that's fine. I don't own the book, I have no intention of buying the book. Ever. This thread is not about ToB. It's about the Fighter. It is not about Warblades being better than Fighters. Maybe you should read more of the thread before you start posting, the Warblade vs Fighter comparison is as irrelevant to this conversation as a Cleric vs Fighter comparison or even a Commoner vs Fighter comparison. We're talking about the Fighter in the game.
Bob Loblaw 06-24-07, 09:13 AM	My current players have started insisting on all playing casters. In one campaign, cohorts, undead minions, and familiars do the tanking. One character began the other campaign with three levels of fighter. He rebuilt it down to two. That's all I've seen so far. While this is all good for your campaign, it certainly isn't representative of all campaigns. I won't deny the fact that your players prefer playing something other than fighters. Why is it so hard to see that others might actually enjoy playing them? We don't all have to want to play the same thing.
Kalarus 06-24-07, 09:15 AM	Except that the same guys that are advocating the CR system are also the ones who argued that my CR based gauntlet, a challenge that wouldn't even demand a win or survival at each encounter, to see how a character did to compare effectiveness and where most of it came from was unrealistic and unfair Now we have the same guys arguing that we need to use the CR system to compare, so maybe I'm just a smidge irked at it. I don't know what the exact setup of your gauntlet is so it's hard to comment. The way you put it it is a comparison between classes, not a comparison of a class performing in an appropriate CR encounter. For a lot of people, the fact that a Cleric is more powerful than a Fighter is irrelevant because they want to play a Fighter and not a Cleric. The anti-Fighters here actually try to tell them they are wrong and that they should never want to play a Fighter. Yes, the combat gives XP but unless you're playing in the worlds largest dungeon with no traps then combat isn't the only type of encounter. My reasoning here is that there are many challenges in a game that need skills, hell in combat tumble is incredibly useful, jump is needed for the lovely feat leap attack, intimidate can help you demoralize, etc. But I look more at things like the social skills to gather information and get in good with the locals while at the same time having skills like open lock, disable device, sleight of hand to get the keys, unlock the doors, and either deactivate or circumvent the traps. While not all of these things assure XP they have a decent chance of existing in many games. This is undeniably true. Yet, the fact that Fighters have few skill points is hardly a point against the Fighter class specifically because there are many classes with few skill points and few class skills. Essentially the only exceptions are the real "skill monkey" classes. This is why you never hear us argue that despite the potential effectiveness of a Fighter, one should play with 4 Fighters. We simply refute the idea that having a Fighter in your party is in any form a problem. We advocate the idea that in a party of mixed classes, Fighters have a role to play which they can do. Incidentally I feel that using those skills in order to achieve a relevant goal should definitely award xp. Let's say the party needs to get past the troll guarding the bridge. Why should character 1 earn xp by beating up the troll, but character 2 would not get xp for bluffing him out of the way, or character 3 would not get xp for diplomatically requesting that he step aside? All solutions should provide experience points, it could even be argued that more elegant solutions than combat could provide more xp. Basically anything that achieves the goal set by the challenge before the party earns the xp that would be awarded when the challenge is overcome and the goal met. Technically most casters will try to divine information about the future and though random encounters truly are random most foes you face randomly follow relatively similar rules as far as it goes. If the party is going to fight a dragon, prep spells to deal with it as necessary and will have the best options. For outside that many spells can pull double or triple duty. I know a lot of casters that don't. I know a lot of DMs that just don't toss every scrap of information the party spellcasters try to divine their way without problem or ambiguity. If the party is on a quest to slay a dragon, it makes sense that the spellcasters will bring appropriate spells to the battle that work well against dragons. Similarly the Fighter will bring gear to the battle that will work well against dragons. The power of the spells brought against the dragon will likely outweigh the more mundane additions the Fighter brought, why is this a problem? The Fighter still has a role to play in the fight, and next time when the party is not in a position to be so well prepared, this difference will fade. These situations really will occur, depending on your DM they may be more or less frequent, but I don't know of a divination spell called "Read DM's mind" that tells you exactly what he has in store for the party's next adventure. Heck I wouldn't even want one, it's like reading a strategy guide before trying a game myself, breezing through the entire predictability of the setup. Often the players will find themselves in a position that the fight is brought to them, instead of vica versa. They will not have the time to scry and prepare. They'll just have to wing it. The bold part here is where I disagree with you strongly. If you believe this then you either don't use casters often or possibly you don't look that far beyond core in terms of gear. The basics I already mentioned, Boccobs blessed book, Headband of intellect are held by virtually all casters as soon as they can amass the money for it. The book is free spell scribing which is nice no matter what. But I look at it, staves, wands, and scrolls are unslotted items which let them either gain more versatility, or more spell access, or simply just more slots. In any of these cases Staves even advance in caster level with them and let them provide their save DC. Metamagic rods are another great addition to this, not to mention rings which can either give you even more slots or give your caster level a nice big bump. My comment is that given the same amount of money the caster usually comes out ahead because their fun stuff is generally cheaper than the fighters and provides more options. Boccob's book is not free spell scribing, it's half-cost spell scribing or if you make the book yourself, a quarter-cost spell scribing. It also requires you to pay this scribing cost in advance (buying/making the book) and there is no guarantee it will get filled over time. The two-spells-per-level gain of the Wizard fills only 216 pages (plus some for L0 spells), 432 if you have Collegiate Wizard feat. That's not even half the book filled, and you already have a lot of useful and common spells, so many in fact that most spellbooks you will encounter will rarely have many unknown spells in them. In my experience, DMs don't rain free new spells to copy on Wizards. And yes I play spellcasters. You are right about the usefulness of staves, however staves tend to be thematic and thus specific, not to mention expensive. There are "always useful" staves out there but the Fighter's weapon is also "always useful". Most of those items mentioned give the spellcasters more versatility this is true, however this is not an unlimited pool of resources, it is in fact a very expensive pool of resources that will, when used up, be gone and require again resources to be replaced, unlike say, boosting your weapon. More spell slots... I assume Rings of Wizardry? They don't go over 4th level and even for that level are bloody expensive. I am curious about which rings give your caster level a "nice big bump", I know there are some that give a +1, usually tied thematically to a theme, but I know of none that significantly increase your caster level beyond your hit dice as long as they are worn. Caster magic items usually increases their versatility, this is true. Fighter gear usually makes them better at what they're good at, in some cases synergizing very well (with each other or with feats). Magic items do not necessarily need to make a character more versatile, nor does every character need to be as versatile as possible. This is why we have different classes and a party to work in. You can specialize, focus on relatively few things on the side and ignore the rest, knowing that the party can help each other out and make sure all the bases are covered.
Kalarus 06-24-07, 09:19 AM	When we actually hit square one that will be a step up. People cant even agree on what the question should be let alone get to step one so that pro's can con's can be put forward reasonably. Getting all the way to square one would be a godsend. Actually most of us have already been at square one, occasionally return to it because someone else entered there or went back there again, and then moved on, or tried to. You seem to be the only one perpetually lost amongst the squares and displaying a lack of understanding about what people are saying. Are you not starting to notice that nobody here can have a normal conversation with you and a lot already try to cease doing so, because you're not in fact replying to them but instead turn the conversation into some confused, confusing mumble-jumble? Are you incapable of coming to the conclusion that if this only happens to you all the time while the rest of us understand each other pretty well with just some kinks to work out, that the problem might be you instead of everyone else?
Bob Loblaw 06-24-07, 10:01 AM	Warblade’s maneuvers (not counting stances). Action L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 Total Swift 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 16 Imm. 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 9 Stan. 8 7 7 7 4 4 6 6 2 51 F. Rnd 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 12 Move 1 1 Total 12 10 10 12 10 9 11 10 5 89 The warblade has a lot to offer a melee character. • Good Base Attack • Saves are equal to a fighter’s • 13 maneuvers and 4 stances known with 7 maneuvers ready and, at 20th level, 2 stances active. • When not flat-footed, their Reflex saves improve by their Intelligence bonus. • Can take fighter-only feats two levels after the fighter. • Can change the focus of their training so that any feat designated to a specific weapon can be changed to another weapon, so long as they retain all prerequisites (i.e., they cannot change Weapon Specialization [longsword] to Weapon Specialization [Greataxe] without also changing Weapon Focus). • Get uncanny dodge and improved uncanny dodge. • Can add their Intelligence bonus to confirm critical hits. • Get 4 bonus feats from a small list (19 total to choose from). • May add their Intelligence bonus to melee damage rolls against flat-footed or flanked opponents. • May add their Intelligence bonus to opposing rolls of bull rush, disarm, feint, overrun, sunder, and trips. • May add their Intelligence bonus to melee attack and damage rolls when making attacks of opportunity. • Nice skill points and decent skill selection • d12 Hit Dice • May recover maneuvers as a swift action • Many maneuvers and stances are really cool Drawbacks: • The warblade must shore up his weak Will saves by taking feats and adding gear • The warblade is limited to medium armors without taking a feat. • The warblade is limited to melee weapons and thrown weapons without taking a feat. • The warblade will most likely be forgoing 2 or more attacks each round so that he can complete one maneuver. • The warblade does not have Bluff, Listen, Sense Motive, or Spot as class skills. • The warblade has no way to heal himself so must either rely on the divine casters or provide his own method of healing. • Recovering maneuvers in combat requires making a melee attack or use a standard action to do nothing else in the round. Cannot initiate a maneuver or stance when doing this. • Likely suffers from MAD. So, the warblade suffers from many of the same problems as the fighter. He has a weak Will save. Must rely on other party members for support when he gets hit. Needs to use his feats to shore up his weaknesses, or relies upon his gear. The warblade also brings his own problems to the game. The fighter does not usually give up his actions and, quite often with many feats, can take additional actions. The warblade may only use his special actions, at best, every other round. The fighter can often use his every round, and usually 4 or more times a round. Forgoing actions in a round can mean the difference between success and failure. I understand the appeal of the warblade. I just don’t think that people think things through very well when making the comparison. The warblade is a very cool concept. It brings interesting things to the table. I might even see it as a bit more powerful than the fighter in many ways. I also see the balancing factors that make me see the fighter as superior is many ways. Number of actions and feats are very potent in combat. The warblade sacrifices these.
Archangel62 06-24-07, 10:38 AM	I don't know what the exact setup of your gauntlet is so it's hard to comment. The way you put it it is a comparison between classes, not a comparison of a class performing in an appropriate CR encounter. For a lot of people, the fact that a Cleric is more powerful than a Fighter is irrelevant because they want to play a Fighter and not a Cleric. The anti-Fighters here actually try to tell them they are wrong and that they should never want to play a Fighter. The gauntlet was a set of combat encounters, each case would be one foe, start at 60 feet, I chose opponents that generally lacked spellcasting abilities up till that last few and most of those were self only so as to offer the fighters the best way for an objective comparison (I didn't feel that caster monsters were really useful to determine the relative power, just my view). The goal of the gauntlet was to simply see how the fighters did, each build could go through, I had said,many times in fact, that the fighters could get killed in every single fight but that it might still prove that the fighter could do something useful in that fight. What I wanted to see in it was if the fighter could provide something, bring something to the table, that couldn't be duplicated by the NPC warrior class or easily copied by any other class sans casters. This is undeniably true. Yet, the fact that Fighters have few skill points is hardly a point against the Fighter class specifically because there are many classes with few skill points and few class skills. Essentially the only exceptions are the real "skill monkey" classes. This is why you never hear us argue that despite the potential effectiveness of a Fighter, one should play with 4 Fighters. We simply refute the idea that having a Fighter in your party is in any form a problem. We advocate the idea that in a party of mixed classes, Fighters have a role to play which they can do. Incidentally I feel that using those skills in order to achieve a relevant goal should definitely award xp. Let's say the party needs to get past the troll guarding the bridge. Why should character 1 earn xp by beating up the troll, but character 2 would not get xp for bluffing him out of the way, or character 3 would not get xp for diplomatically requesting that he step aside? All solutions should provide experience points, it could even be argued that more elegant solutions than combat could provide more xp. Basically anything that achieves the goal set by the challenge before the party earns the xp that would be awarded when the challenge is overcome and the goal met. My point is more that if we want to compare the classes we need to see what they can do, almost every class can work moderately well in mellee. Many classes have requisite skills to do something or have, through substitution options, class features, or spells, some way to circumvent the problem. Not all of them do, but many do. I should also point out what I have said before, my issue with the fighter is an issue that is shared by other martial classes I just see it hitting the fighter a little harder, that and my view is that while the fighter can function as a class I see it as the bare minimum and I don't think any class, especially not one designed as one of the big 4, should be the bare minimum for PC class effectiveness. I know a lot of casters that don't. I know a lot of DMs that just don't toss every scrap of information the party spellcasters try to divine their way without problem or ambiguity. If the party is on a quest to slay a dragon, it makes sense that the spellcasters will bring appropriate spells to the battle that work well against dragons. Similarly the Fighter will bring gear to the battle that will work well against dragons. The power of the spells brought against the dragon will likely outweigh the more mundane additions the Fighter brought, why is this a problem? The Fighter still has a role to play in the fight, and next time when the party is not in a position to be so well prepared, this difference will fade. These situations really will occur, depending on your DM they may be more or less frequent, but I don't know of a divination spell called "Read DM's mind" that tells you exactly what he has in store for the party's next adventure. Heck I wouldn't even want one, it's like reading a strategy guide before trying a game myself, breezing through the entire predictability of the setup. Often the players will find themselves in a position that the fight is brought to them, instead of vica versa. They will not have the time to scry and prepare. They'll just have to wing it. True, my point was more this though, I see the casters spell slots vs the fighters gear sort of like what my father said one day at breakfast, "Ham and eggs, a days work for the chicken and a lifetime commitment for the pig." AKA the casters decision for spells that are prepped are a choice for that day, for equipment, thanks to how expensive it generally is, especially weapons and armor, the fighter is usually making the equivalent of a lifetime commitment, the same for feats though that is a bit more general. Boccob's book is not free spell scribing, it's half-cost spell scribing or if you make the book yourself, a quarter-cost spell scribing. It also requires you to pay this scribing cost in advance (buying/making the book) and there is no guarantee it will get filled over time. The two-spells-per-level gain of the Wizard fills only 216 pages (plus some for L0 spells), 432 if you have Collegiate Wizard feat. That's not even half the book filled, and you already have a lot of useful and common spells, so many in fact that most spellbooks you will encounter will rarely have many unknown spells in them. In my experience, DMs don't rain free new spells to copy on Wizards. And yes I play spellcasters. You are right about the usefulness of staves, however staves tend to be thematic and thus specific, not to mention expensive. There are "always useful" staves out there but the Fighter's weapon is also "always useful". Most of those items mentioned give the spellcasters more versatility this is true, however this is not an unlimited pool of resources, it is in fact a very expensive pool of resources that will, when used up, be gone and require again resources to be replaced, unlike say, boosting your weapon. More spell slots... I assume Rings of Wizardry? They don't go over 4th level and even for that level are bloody expensive. I am curious about which rings give your caster level a "nice big bump", I know there are some that give a +1, usually tied thematically to a theme, but I know of none that significantly increase your caster level beyond your hit dice as long as they are worn. Actually a lot of items give +1 to caster level generally but yeah, most don't go far beyond that but even a couple extra ones beyond your HD are still quite handy. The more slots thing also applied to staves, scrolls and wands, either having those there to free up spell slots or getting off a few more shots of a certain spell. The reserve feats help too in that regard but that's neither here nor there. And I also understand your point too, I also realize I forgot ot add the runestaves which are EXCELLENT items. Caster magic items usually increases their versatility, this is true. Fighter gear usually makes them better at what they're good at, in some cases synergizing very well (with each other or with feats). Magic items do not necessarily need to make a character more versatile, nor does every character need to be as versatile as possible. This is why we have different classes and a party to work in. You can specialize, focus on relatively few things on the side and ignore the rest, knowing that the party can help each other out and make sure all the bases are covered. This is where I sort of disagree again, at least on the item point. The thing is that I'm seeing more and more I don't think we can really make a meaningful class to class comparison because between gear and individual abilities plus different criteria I'm finding more and more how complicated it is to find a place for these classes.
windscar18 06-24-07, 11:15 AM	The truth hurts sometimes. Fighters have been fixed. See the Tome of Battle for more details. You can even go fighter 2/warblade 18 if it makes you feel better. You know what, TheCobra? I find it mildly funny when you start supporting the Warblade when you just started complaining about him in the Barbarians versus Warblade thread.
TheCobra 06-24-07, 11:30 AM	I find it mildly funny when you start supporting the Warblade when you just started complaining about him in the Barbarians versus Warblade thread. You misunderstand me. I think warblades are better than fighters and barbarians, but I don't think this is a problem. Rather, I think it's great. The warblade is more or less what the fighter should be.
Archangel62 06-24-07, 11:36 AM	Very large comprehensive list Just a coupla nitpicks, the warblade still has their stance up during the whole standard action thing, they don't need to keep activating it each round, they just need to spend a swift action to CHANGE it. Also, the warblade can theoretically heal himself with a feat that lets you heal your Martial Adept level +3 once per day when you institute a manuever, or maybe use martial study to get some devoted spirit lovin' (hence my love of the crusader class). Also, the warblade does have manuevers which let him replace will saves with a concentration check. I know that you probably knew all this already but I do think that I should mention it for the sake of accuracy if nothing else.
Kalarus 06-24-07, 01:04 PM	The gauntlet was a set of combat encounters, each case would be one foe, start at 60 feet, I chose opponents that generally lacked spellcasting abilities up till that last few and most of those were self only so as to offer the fighters the best way for an objective comparison (I didn't feel that caster monsters were really useful to determine the relative power, just my view). The goal of the gauntlet was to simply see how the fighters did, each build could go through, I had said,many times in fact, that the fighters could get killed in every single fight but that it might still prove that the fighter could do something useful in that fight. What I wanted to see in it was if the fighter could provide something, bring something to the table, that couldn't be duplicated by the NPC warrior class or easily copied by any other class sans casters. It's a bit hard to do without dicerolls, but I am curious what monsters you picked and how my own Fighter might do against them (alone probably not great, his AC sucks due to relatively low treasure and he's more of a battlefield control guy). Usually in my gaming experiences I find that his standard tactics work pretty well, or at least make the situation problematic enough for others to achieve victory more easily. It would be this last part that I'd miss in your gauntlet: the party synergetic support. For example, the sorceress in my party regularly casts Enlarge Person on my Fighter, saving me a magic item and increasing my combat capabilities immensely for such a low cost. Against another opponent I might be less effective, so I keep it away from her allowing her to blast it to bits instead. Class comparisons in fights are complicated because fights are complicated. I guess what I'm trying to say is that in my experience, your character becomes more effective if you build him in a fashion that synergizes best with the rest of the party, rather than choosing individual power and having a collection of individually powerful characters doing things simultaneously, but not necessarily together. My point is more that if we want to compare the classes we need to see what they can do, almost every class can work moderately well in mellee. Many classes have requisite skills to do something or have, through substitution options, class features, or spells, some way to circumvent the problem. Not all of them do, but many do. I should also point out what I have said before, my issue with the fighter is an issue that is shared by other martial classes I just see it hitting the fighter a little harder, that and my view is that while the fighter can function as a class I see it as the bare minimum and I don't think any class, especially not one designed as one of the big 4, should be the bare minimum for PC class effectiveness. True, a lot of classes can do moderately well in melee. I believe the Fighter excels in melee though, which is far beyond the concept of "moderately". I do not consider it a minimum. I have yet to see a character similar to a well-built Fighter (and I do not consider ToB classes similar) that really outperforms the Fighter. We had a discussion about Barbarians earlier and the result was at best inconclusive. Nobody could prove conclusively that the Barbarian outperformed the Fighter by definition, instead situations had to be brought up in which the Fighter specifically could not use his chosen specialization, and then these situations were tried to be passed off as "common". If you insist on comparing classes, it does no good to compare spellcasting classes that perform in melee. If I do not want to play a spellcaster but want to play a good melee class, I will not pick a spellcasting class to play a melee class, that is obviously contradictory. If you want to compare classes and see how they do in melee you should compare melee classes with each other. True, my point was more this though, I see the casters spell slots vs the fighters gear sort of like what my father said one day at breakfast, "Ham and eggs, a days work for the chicken and a lifetime commitment for the pig." AKA the casters decision for spells that are prepped are a choice for that day, for equipment, thanks to how expensive it generally is, especially weapons and armor, the fighter is usually making the equivalent of a lifetime commitment, the same for feats though that is a bit more general. This is true, so the Fighter has the challenge of picking lifetime commitments that have the greatest possible benefit, if he wants to remain effective. This can be difficult, I redesigned my current fighter five times before I was happy with his concept, in fact tossing out the original idea (spiked chain + whirlwind) completely. So far so good, in fact it is working better than expected. Perhaps having to make the right decisions makes Fighters a bit more difficult to build well, that can not count against the class' potential to perform well. There have been people in this thread who have said "If I screw up on a choice for my Fighter I can't go back and change it so Fighters suck." My only reply can be "Then make sure you don't screw up, it isn't the Fighter that is the problem but rather your incompetence at playing one". Really, constantly hailing the versatility of spellcasters essentially celebrates someone's own inability to come up with solutions to a problem that are not published by WotC in the form of the newest spell collection. Actually a lot of items give +1 to caster level generally but yeah, most don't go far beyond that but even a couple extra ones beyond your HD are still quite handy. The more slots thing also applied to staves, scrolls and wands, either having those there to free up spell slots or getting off a few more shots of a certain spell. The reserve feats help too in that regard but that's neither here nor there. And I also understand your point too, I also realize I forgot ot add the runestaves which are EXCELLENT items. Runestaves are from MiC right? I haven't taken a long look at them yet as currently I have no spellcaster character. Does there happen to be a cool one in there for a Druid or is it all arcane? I am a bit surprised by the way by your example of boosting caster level. Boosting caster level generally does not boost spell save DCs, which means it is useful for buff durations and direct damage spells in most situations. Most people on this forum seem to feel that damage spells are at the bottom of the spell powercurve, instead focusing on save-or-die, save-or-lose and save-or-suck spells, all which hardly benefit from caster level unless someone tries to dispel. Personally I like blowing **** up, so break out the +caster level items :D This is where I sort of disagree again, at least on the item point. The thing is that I'm seeing more and more I don't think we can really make a meaningful class to class comparison because between gear and individual abilities plus different criteria I'm finding more and more how complicated it is to find a place for these classes. Likely you are right and the comparisons are not meaningful at all, which is one of the reasons I am on the "pro-Fighter" side. I find the arguments against the Fighter to be generalizations that do not reflect my gaming experiences at all, for example for just that reason you give. The arguments against the Fighter are far from conclusive, and if we've made it difficult for people to consistently believe in them I'd say the goal of defending the Fighter has been achieved :D
Archangel62 06-24-07, 01:21 PM	Runestaves are from MiC right? I haven't taken a long look at them yet as currently I have no spellcaster character. Does there happen to be a cool one in there for a Druid or is it all arcane? I am a bit surprised by the way by your example of boosting caster level. Boosting caster level generally does not boost spell save DCs, which means it is useful for buff durations and direct damage spells in most situations. Most people on this forum seem to feel that damage spells are at the bottom of the spell powercurve, instead focusing on save-or-die, save-or-lose and save-or-suck spells, all which hardly benefit from caster level unless someone tries to dispel. Personally I like blowing **** up, so break out the +caster level items :D I believe they are arcane but I don't have the book on hand to check. Other thing is that caster level boosts also help avoid dispelling and can help me bust through high end enemy SR. While the latter might be a rare issue I like keeping my options open.
Leo 06-24-07, 02:12 PM	One thing I find really cheesy in this discussions is how substituition levels are used left and right: Ahah, my wizard knows all the spells available! Ok, but then he'll run out of spells very quickly Ahah, no, because I'm a super specialist wizard and cast as many as the sorceror! But then you lose several schools of magic and several of the cheesy spells. Ahah look at me not caring about it! Or the rogue example: Ahah, my rogue pwns your fighter. Yeah. tell that to that magic sneak magic attack immune golem. the fighter at least has a chance to overcome it's damage reduction. Ahah, but then my rogue will suddenly trade his sneak attack ability for the other ability wich lowers AC! But then you don't have sneak attack anymore and can't outdamage the fighter! Aha subtitution level as a free action FTW! Your nonfighter examples seem to get ALL the benefits from the substituition levels and none of thedrawbacks. If that it's the case then I demand for the fighter to have 10d6 of sneak attack togheter with his feats. EDIT:Anyway, the fighter is doomed one way or another in the pro-casters world. How can he defeat oponents who know every detail from every creature and god in existence from level 1 for free?
Kalarus 06-24-07, 02:28 PM	Aha subtitution level as a free action FTW! :rofl: [I] Your nonfighter examples seem to get ALL the benefits from the substituition levels and none of thedrawbacks. If that it's the case then I demand for the fighter to have 10d6 of sneak attack togheter with his feats. EDIT:Anyway, the fighter is doomed one way or another in the pro-casters world. How can he defeat oponents who know every detail from every creature and god in existence from level 1 for free? We could just take it as a compliment to the Fighter. In order for other classes to outdo the Fighter, they need characters that are both omniscient and omnipotent ;) :P
Leo 06-24-07, 02:40 PM	:rofl: We could just take it as a compliment to the Fighter. In order for other classes to outdo the Fighter, they need characters that are both omniscient and omnipotent ;) :P Lol you're right. Casters aren't afraid of other casters.:P They are afraid of fighters:D
Scion of Coldshard 06-24-07, 03:04 PM	Since you have never supported your statements with facts or numbers I am pretty sure you have never taken a step beyond giving your opinion. Just because you dont like my facts and numbers does not mean that they stop being facts and numbers though ;) You do not have to acknowledge them for them to be true. Opinions are interesting, but when they are not backed by facts, they lose much weight. Particularly when Bob and Khan can easily show that their opinions have a numerical base and that his statements aren't empty: the fighter does what they say he does. They say that he can do something. Not that it has to be great, or effective, or even possible a majority of the time.. simply the he can do something. A good portion of the builds that were presented had errors in them, some of which I pointed out which was just one type of instance of facts and numbers, but once a build is made what are we to do with it? Comparing to anything was met with hostility at all turns, so they are just empty vessels of words and numbers that might be impressive or not, who knows? It is not the best solution Considering just how many people are already doing it here and people who have tried to put down some sort of track have been lambasted by those doing it? What other solutions are there exactly? Actually most of us have already been at square one Everyone have been at 'different' square ones and I dont see why that should count. Even Archangel62's very simple, very basic comparison to various CR encounters where the Fighter did not even have to win was shot down! It looks like people might finally be coming around to that one at least. I hope that Archangel62 can get that up off the ground and running. That would be really nice ;) Way to go Archangel62!
Scion of Coldshard 06-24-07, 03:07 PM	One thing I find really cheesy in this discussions is how substituition levels are used left and right For this and the rest of your post have you seen this sort of thing happening that often? And really, where? EDIT:Anyway, the fighter is doomed one way or another in the pro-casters world. How can he defeat oponents who know every detail from every creature and god in existence from level 1 for free? Where did this come from as well?
Leo 06-24-07, 03:22 PM	Whenever a sorceror vs wizard discussion comes up the pro casters claim that the wizard is more versatile AND can ca be a super specialist to get more spells for day wich is somewhat counterproductive. You get more spells but get less versatile. Whenever the effeciency of the rogue in battle is questioned and we ask what the hell the rogue does against sneak attack immune enemies whitout magic stuff suddenly the rogue has substituition levels to fight them. It happenned in the "any reason to have a fighter 1", and plenty of other discussions on this forums. Also, I laugh every time they say 900gp bag of tricks for the rogue. You have more than 50% of chance of geting a creature wich can't flank at all, basically wasting a turn. This one is actually in the rogue's handbook. Go see it. Written by Co themselves. Wich aparently don't even know how flanking works For the second part, the following spells and abilities: Wildshape, shapechange, polymorph, gate, etc, they all demand deep knowledge of the monster manuals, wich the players aren't suposed to know by letter anyway. If I know every weak and strong point of my enemy before battle the challenge is much lower that fighting something unknown. At the same time, spells as web and will or die are only effecient because the casters know that most of the monsters that will appear on their way have low will saves and are unable to attack at range. Alas, the casters know every single weak point of their enemies whitout any effort and thus can prepare the right spells to counter them and abuse generic spells such as polymorph and gate. If the DM enforces that the player only knows what his PC sees and hears casters are much more weaker. No, you can't wildshape into a fleshraker. Why? You have never seen one.(and if they board up in will or die anyway then throw them some disguised zombies or small constructs and laugh as they waste their turns trying to color spray them) Basically, what is the fun of battle in D&D if you already know everything about your oponent, his expected behaviour and have the tools prepared to counter them?
Scion of Coldshard 06-24-07, 03:41 PM	Whenever a sorceror vs wizard discussion comes up the pro casters claim that the wizard is more versatile AND can ca be a super specialist to get more spells for day wich is somewhat counterproductive. You get more spells but get less versatile. I have no idea if it is true or not in sorcerer vs wizard discussions but why does it matter either way to this topic? Not that it matters to this thread either but I could see someone being able to make both cases at once if they choose their barred schools and spells known carefully enough. Whenever the effeciency of the rogue in battle is questioned and we ask what the hell the rogue does against sneak attack immune enemies whitout magic stuff suddenly the rogue has substituition levels to fight them. Why did you bar the rogue magic items? That seems rather unfair dont you think? For the second part, the following spells and abilities: Wildshape, shapechange, polymorph, gate, etc, they all demand deep knowledge of the monster manuals, wich the players aren't suposed to know by letter anyway. If I know every weak and strong point of my enemy before battle the challenge is much lower that fighting something unknown. Do those spells require deep knowledge of the manuals or do they simply require knowledge that something exists? Those are not the same thing after all.. In order to wildshape into a bear do you have to know exactly where its various organs are, how much it needs to eat in a day, what its favorite food is, their varience in height, weight, teeth spacing and eye color are? Wildshape says that you can turn into any animal with certain size restrictions, if I recall correctly it does not mention needing to have indepth knowledge of those creatures at all. The others seem to be the same as well. Now, generally I assume that people have downtime during which they are doing routine tasks such as eating, sleeping, and practicing their various skills. Those casters could be using those spells in their free time to change themselves and others into various creatures that they have heard of through books, other characters, and their own experiences which then allow them to test it out and see what it can do. The game mechanics do not well reflect that sort of thing though. If a character has literally met, fought, and examined every single abberation in a specific campaign then he will have a good deal of knowledge about them, regardless of his ranks in the appropriate skill. With that said however I would assume that it would still take a knowledge check to know a good amount of information ahead of time, unless there is a specific reason why that character would know more than his skill currently represents. The rules for wildshape and such are pretty loose in this area while at the same time the knowledge skills gaining information about creatures is incredibly prohibitive in difficulty (fake dm: you want to know enough about a badger to turn into it? well, that will require you knowing its top 20 habits which means you need to make a knowledge check of DC 111, good luck level 5 druid!) At the same time, spells as web and will or die are only effecient because the casters know that most of the monsters that will appear on their way have low will saves and are unable to attack at range. ?? If the DM enforces that the player only knows what his PC sees and hears casters are much more weaker. No, you can't wildshape into a fleshraker. Why? You have never seen one. If I dont want something on the list of option to be turned into I generally either take the creature out of the game entirely or change the mechanic to do more of what I want. In this case, in what way would they have to have seen one? In a book? Could another druid wildshape into one and show the new druid what it looks like? Some sort of zoo? Growing up in a traveling circus as a backstory? How about a caster with an illusion spell which looks and acts 'exactly' like the creature in question? Basically, what is the fun of battle in D&D if you already know everything about your oponent, his expected behaviour and have the tools prepared to counter them? I think that you might be having some trouble with some players there. Using OOC knowledge for IC purposes is no good. It is a tough fight when you know more about it than your character does but it is an important line to keep in mind. The various 'change into other form' spells though are tougher since they dont seem to require you to know everything about the creature in question, they might not even require you to know anything about the creature at all which is kindof odd.
Clawhound 06-24-07, 04:53 PM	Getting back to my cleric and fighter from earlier, let's look at some CR 6 encounters. I hope that I am fair in these encounters. At level 6, the cleric does not yet have the really cool cleric spells yet, so he will be relying on Persistant Bull's Strength. I made a mistake with the cleric earlier. In order to get a martial weapon, he worships Heironeous. That means that his second domain must be good or law. Those domains aren't know for their uberness. He could choose domains for their abilities, but he will lose his only martial weapon. He could choose a non-human race, but then he loses a feat, which pushes DMM back to 9th level. The most important point at this level is that the fighter gets a second attack. This will make a difference in every encounter. The ability to average more hit points per round means that the fighter concludes fights 1-2 round earlier than the same cleric. We have lots of straight melee for 8xCR1/2 encounters. The scorpions could get lucky with a tail sting, but with an attack at -4, they need luck to succeed. The medium vipers can get nasty fast, but as they have no real damage to back up their attacks, they mostly serve to weaken up the fighter should he miss the fairly easy save. All in all, the cleric's spells can make a difference in some of these fights, but with the number of opponents out there, the fighter's two attacks per round makes a bigger impact. Both do quite well. At 4xCR2, we have more substantial creatures. The black bear is a druid companion staple. On average, a fighter takes one out per full attack. Looking over the creatures, there very little that will prove problematic to the fighter that is also not problematic to the DMM cleric. The hippogriffs could be an issue, but they don't have flyby attack, so their attacks constantly leave opening. At 2x CR 4, we start getting into actual powerful creatures. The dreaded black bear will give both the fighter and cleric a run for their money. Neither is optimized for grappling. The cleric can't channel a Quicken because he's used all his DMM already. Both must fall back onto light weapons in a grapple. The cleric could choose to grow large. The barghest has many gotchas. Most likely, it is using its misdirection abilities to manipulate you. Blink and Dimension Door are problematic for both the fighter and the cleric. Given their writeup, they most likely villains, so they are a bit harder at this CR level to be a bit more challenging. The cleric's Protection From Evil will prove useful. The fighters two attacks per round will be invaluable against blink. The giant crocs are an equal challenge for both the fighter and the cleric. They are stealth attackers. Gray oozes nerf the fighter and the cleric equally. The cleric could have an advantage over the vampire spawn, but he has no turns left (or maybe one). It will be the party's main cleric who dominates this combat. The fighter has the option to close his eyes to avoid the gaze attack, and fight using blind fighting. The cleric has the better will save and the Pr from Evil. CR 6. The fun stuff. One of these creatures should give the entire party pause. The entire party needs to cooperate to take these things out safely. For the most part, the cleric has the exact same problems as the fighter. Because the cleric has so many resources dumped into self-buffing, he has no resources left to handle the weird stuff. If the fighter was a good build and had power attack and cleave, the difference between the two becomes remarkable at the CR 1/2 and CR 2 levels. The cleric can not keep up with the fighter for all the DMM magic in the world. I think that the fighter's feats make him the superior combatant at CR-8 and CR-4, where there are many foes requiring many attacks. I think that the cleric works better at CR-2 and CR, where there are fewer foes, and well placed spells and effects can have a significant impact. Even where the fighter is horribly outclassed, he can statistically single-attack most creatures to death in four rounds. So all-in-all, there are pros and cons to choosing each character. I do not think there are enough pros for the cleric at this level to recommend him over the fighter. In fact, for most fights, the cleric suffers from all the same disadvantages. The cleric has poor range attacks. The cleric can't respond well to most special abilities (fly, blink, gaseous form). The cleric has lousy spot and listen skills. What a cleric does have is his domain spells, and those do prove handy. So, kicking the tires of this adventure, I see that there are some good reasons to choose a fighter. Those extra attacks make a difference. So few encounters included ranged combat that melee is virtually assured in every encounter. He who has the biggest sword kills the fastest. Clerics have a hard time being able to do everything once you account for the things that they need to do.
Scion of Coldshard 06-24-07, 05:56 PM	Getting back to my cleric and fighter from earlier, let's look at some CR 6 encounters. I hope that I am fair in these encounters. Always fun ;) At level 6, the cleric does not yet have the really cool cleric spells yet, so he will be relying on Persistant Bull's Strength. Persistant bulls strength. Ok. I believe that makes the cleric: Cleric: Str: 15 +4 enhancement = 19 Dex: 10 Con: 14 Int: 8 Wis: 15 Cha: 14 BAB +4, Str +4, +1 weapon focus, +1 enhancement = Melee +10, damage d8+5 Feats: Extend spell, persistant spell, divine metamagic, extra turning Domains: War (longsword), ? Spells: 0 1 () 2 (), bulls strength[cast and persisted], 3 () I made a mistake with the cleric earlier. In order to get a martial weapon, he worships Heironeous. I believe he could just follow 'Lawfulness and blah' or something like that so that he could pick up longsword with the War domain and then pick some other domain that fit into his thoughts and feelings. Still, why cant he pick Corellon? Corellon has a longsword after all. The most important point at this level is that the fighter gets a second attack. This will make a difference in every encounter. The ability to average more hit points per round means that the fighter concludes fights 1-2 round earlier than the same cleric. Hmm.. if that is the most important thing then the comparison would probably need to be done at level 5 as well. We have lots of straight melee for 8xCR1/2 encounters. The scorpions could get lucky with a tail sting, but with an attack at -4, they need luck to succeed. The medium vipers can get nasty fast, but as they have no real damage to back up their attacks, they mostly serve to weaken up the fighter should he miss the fairly easy save. All in all, the cleric's spells can make a difference in some of these fights, but with the number of opponents out there, the fighter's two attacks per round makes a bigger impact. Both do quite well. I am thinking that the clerics average, 'I am going to be fighting stuff' spell list needs to be filled out so that we can compare numbers. If 8 small scorpians are coming at each character from some distance away that is close enough that ranged weapons are not really workable but close enough to have some tactical options this could be very important indeed. I am thinking (with the big H and a slight change to stats): Cleric: Str: 14 +4 enhancement = 18 Dex: 10 Con: 14 Int: 8 Wis: 16 Cha: 14 BAB +4, Str +4, +1 weapon focus, +1 enhancement = Melee +10, damage d8+5 Domains: War (longsword), Good Spells: 0 [5] Lightx2, Create waterx2, Mending 1 (prot from evil), [4] Endure elements [cast], Divine Favorx3 2 (spiritual weapon), [4] bulls strength[cast and persisted], Sound burstx3 3 (magic vestment), [3] Magic vestment, Greater magic weaponx2 Magic vestment and greater magic weapon will last for 12 hours a day at this point, which should be sufficient. Bulls strength and endure elements both last for 24 hours which should be more than sufficient. Sound burst for groups of creatures and divine favor for the prep round before more singular battles. Light for those times when carrying a torch would mean giving up the shield, create water for drinking and putting out fires, mending is a just in case.. Spiritual weapon and protection from evil are there for whatever situation demands them. Spiritual weapon is for those things that just plain need a force effect, or multiple attacks on it a round, or with damage reduction that is negating too much damage. Protection from evil helps against summoned creatures and if something is run into that has domination style effects.
Argaud 06-24-07, 06:57 PM	Just because you dont like my facts and numbers does not mean that they stop being facts and numbers though ;) You do not have to acknowledge them for them to be true. Actually I have no idea if I would like your facts and numbers. But that must be because you have never posted any fact or any number. They say that he can do something. Not that it has to be great, or effective, or even possible a majority of the time.. simply the he can do something. Yes. Like beat up the right CR enemies. Maybe that is not great, or effective. That is, if you are not playing D&D. But then again maybe the moon is made of cheese. And maybe some day you will back your blanket statements with fact and number. A good portion of the builds that were presented had errors in them, some of which I pointed out which was just one type of instance of facts and numbers, but once a build is made what are we to do with it? Comparing to anything was met with hostility at all turns, so they are just empty vessels of words and numbers that might be impressive or not, who knows? Most of the mistakes were insignificant and irrelevant to the actual performance of the character. Yet you nitpicked, nitpicked and nitpicked. And come up as a jerk. It happens those draw a degree of hostility. Even Archangel62's very simple, very basic comparison to various CR encounters where the Fighter did not even have to win was shot down! I don't think it was as much shot down as mostly ignored. Which is a pity, because I can see some value in the data. However, I am not sure I even knew half the monsters in the encounters he proposed. I might be missremembering, but when I see a "Gauntlet" with many unknown critters, well, it makes me leery. See, strange monsters taken from MM#76 make me suspect they are handpicked to be the toughest, most impossible monsters possible. MM1, which I know fairly well and use in all my games, has dozens of monster from each CR (except for the highest). Why I keep seeing int he challenges stuff picked from other manuals? My natural paranoia tells me something is afoot.
Clawhound 06-24-07, 07:06 PM	Always fun ;) Domains: War (longsword), Good Spells: 0 [5] Lightx2, Create waterx2, Mending 1 (prot from evil), [4] Endure elements [cast], Divine Favorx3 2 (spiritual weapon), [4] bulls strength[cast and persisted], Sound burstx3 3 (magic vestment), [3] Magic vestment, Greater magic weaponx2 Magic vestment and greater magic weapon will last for 12 hours a day at this point, which should be sufficient. Bulls strength and endure elements both last for 24 hours which should be more than sufficient. Interesting choices. Thanks for the fill-in. It helps me to coach me in making an effective cleric. Things go note: The clerics has already cast all his most powerful spells at the beginning of the day. His booster spells can be cast during battle, but he must spend a round doing so. Against the lower creatures, this isn't bad. Against the CR-2 and CR= creatures, that will hurt. The spiritual weapon is a good tactic. Clever. I like it. It uses your BAB + Wisdom. Great against fewer targets. A move action between targets, making it poor for multiples unless you are securely at range. Very useful against things behind cover. Soundburst is handy against the multiples. From your suggestions, you've helped the cleric be very effective compared to my fighter. He can do things that the fighter can't, but the fighter can do things that the cleric can't, while also having the freedom to choose race and weapon, among other choices. The cleric could really use a dip into a martial class to get a better weapon. This would allow him access to cooler domains. The fighter could really use a dip into cleric, to pick some non-level dependent domains (such as Luck), and the ability to use all those cleric items and maybe pick up a few Divine feats with those otherwise useless turning attempts.
TheCobra 06-24-07, 08:36 PM	The fighter does not usually give up his actions and, quite often with many feats, can take additional actions. The warblade may only use his special actions, at best, every other round. The fighter can often use his every round, and usually 4 or more times a round. Forgoing actions in a round can mean the difference between success and failure. How is the warblade giving up actions? Recover only takes a swift action. The warblade can still full attack or move and attack. And warblades often don't need to do this until the 3rd or 4th round of combat. Many fights are over by then. Remember, fighters don't normally have anything to as a swift action. Though I guess that's changing, especially now that the Magic Item Compendium is out.
Clawhound 06-24-07, 08:54 PM	How is the warblade giving up actions? Recover only takes a swift action. The warblade can still full attack or move and attack. And warblades often don't need to do this until the 3rd or 4th round of combat. Many fights are over by then. Remember, fighters don't normally have anything to as a swift action. Though I guess that's changing, especially now that the Magic Item Compendium is out. Feats. Some are essentially Swift Actions (such as Cleave). Many are Immediate actions (such as AoO's). Many are Free Actions (such as Fast Draw). Many are non-actions (such as Power Attack). Some are additional actions (such as Two-Weapon Fighting, Whirlwind Attack). Some are meta-actions (such as Ride-By Attack and Mobility).
TheCobra 06-24-07, 09:02 PM	Some are essentially Swift Actions (such as Cleave). Many are Immediate actions (such as AoO's). Uh, no to both. While feats can give you bonus actions of a sort, that warblade is still only giving up one swift action every 2-4 rounds. Yeah, that's a serious disadvantage. I guess you could he also gives up certain bonus actions by not taking feats, but so does every character.
Argaud 06-24-07, 09:59 PM	Feats. Some are essentially Swift Actions (such as Cleave). Many are Immediate actions (such as AoO's). Many are Free Actions (such as Fast Draw). Many are non-actions (such as Power Attack). Some are additional actions (such as Two-Weapon Fighting, Whirlwind Attack). Some are meta-actions (such as Ride-By Attack and Mobility). Nope. AoO are non-actions. Yes, you read right, they are non-actions. Weird, uh? :)
TheCobra 06-24-07, 10:16 PM	Nope. AoO are non-actions. Yes, you read right, they are non-actions. Weird, uh? Wait, does that mean a dazed character can takes AoOs?
Argaud 06-24-07, 10:20 PM	Wait, does that mean a dazed character can takes AoOs? Good question. I only know Combat Reflexes allows to take AoOs when flat-footed and surprised. Do you know it is impossible even take free actions when flat-footed in the surprise round? (Except, maybe, scream like a little girl when you are stabbed - which works to activate contingencies).
Bob Loblaw 06-24-07, 10:36 PM	Just a coupla nitpicks, the warblade still has their stance up during the whole standard action thing, they don't need to keep activating it each round, they just need to spend a swift action to CHANGE it. Also, the warblade can theoretically heal himself with a feat that lets you heal your Martial Adept level +3 once per day when you institute a manuever, or maybe use martial study to get some devoted spirit lovin' (hence my love of the crusader class). Also, the warblade does have manuevers which let him replace will saves with a concentration check. I know that you probably knew all this already but I do think that I should mention it for the sake of accuracy if nothing else. I intentionally skipped the stances (partly because they are all swift actions to change). I had intended on writing something about them but I had to stop so I could get to work. The healing yourself with the feat can only be done once per day. While nice, it is only a small amount at 20th level. I know about the maneuver types, it's something I was planning on addressing later. With so many maneuvers, it would be difficult to cover them in any real detail in an already long post.
Khan the Destroyer 06-24-07, 10:39 PM	They say that he can do something. Not that it has to be great, or effective, or even possible a majority of the time.. simply the he can do something. Now you are going to pretend that I haven't include a list of comparisons for my fighter builds? That I didn't demonstrate how he could disarm the Titan, Balor, or anything else? Or how he could bull rush his enemies with ease (including the Tarrasque, before the modifiers for being gargantuan)? Or trip stuff? So, instead of simply showing monster statistics and comparing them to fighter stats, you'd just like for me to add a 'This build is AWESOME!' tag at the end of my fighter builds? You can't determine if disarming the sundering, charging, full attacking Titan of his gargantuan warhammer is effective or not? Even a simple damage listing is enough to get the ball rolling. Afterall, it doesn't take much to flip to a page in any MM and look up the AC, HP, and any DR a monster might have. You are complicating my definitions and simplifying my build demonstrations. A good portion of the builds that were presented had errors in them, some of which I pointed out which was just one type of instance of facts and numbers, but once a build is made what are we to do with it? Comparing to anything was met with hostility at all turns, so they are just empty vessels of words and numbers that might be impressive or not, who knows? This is so strange. When you were asking for a definition of 'viable', you were bombarded with stuff like 'Khan's builds can disarm a titan, bull rush a tarrasque, and kill a balor. That's an example of viable.' Regardless of the definition issue, it was pretty obvious that my build had been compared to various CR 20 monsters. The ones that are constantly being touted as fighter foils. Now you're saying the very idea of comparisons was met with hostility. So strange. I already am using a method to distinguish. I am using Khans terms and definitions and treating them as hard lines that actually distinguish between the two rather than soft lines which overlap. Need and Does not need *are* hard lines Scion. And you'll notice, the issue of wanting changes isn't even mentioned in my definitions. It's all about the changes being needed. If you choose to be purposefully inflammatory that is your call, but I would hope people would try to avoid it. Easy. Let's try to avoid this. I've said, several times, that I'm not trying to be inflammatory. This thread has been horrendously off-topic for ages now. To be honest, the original intent of the thread (IIRC) was to discuss why someone would choose a fighter over some other class built to handle melee as well as some other function. To that end, I don't think simply showing a fighter works is totally relevant. In the end, we'll need fighter builds, but only to compare them against some other class builds to determine whether or not the difference in melee potential (if any) is worth everything else the non-fighter class brings to the party. To that end, I think the best way to get this thread back on topic and perhaps avoid the finger-pointing and name-calling is just simply to agree on those terms. It seems this is what really interests the anti-fighters, and, at least for me on the other side, I'm certain enough of my position that it wouldn't bother me much to oblige someone. As we've said many times before, showing that class X fights better than a fighter doesn't mean the fighter can't fight well. So... will all of that out of the way... I accept that fighters can kick ass, and await for someone to show me that some other class can do it better. I'll try and provide some more fighter builds, and hopefully others will as well. On top of that, we'll need other-class builds to prove the point. Not just clerics. We should probably just do every class and see how below the curve the fighter might be. If anyone's interested that is. I for one was beginning to lose interest pretty rapidly in this thread. In regards to Archangel62's Gauntlet, I didn't shoot it down. I thought it was a great idea in the right direction. But I got lazy. Sorry Archangel :(.
Bob Loblaw 06-24-07, 10:54 PM	A good portion of the builds that were presented had errors in them, some of which I pointed out which was just one type of instance of facts and numbers, but once a build is made what are we to do with it? Comparing to anything was met with hostility at all turns, so they are just empty vessels of words and numbers that might be impressive or not, who knows? I actually acknowledged the errors you pointed out. I never went back to the character because it was ages ago and I didn't want to derail the thread any longer. Nothing you pointed out would actually make the character ineffective however. While it's nice to be perfect, it certainly isn't necessary. However, I am not sure I even knew half the monsters in the encounters he proposed. I might be missremembering, but when I see a "Gauntlet" with many unknown critters, well, it makes me leery. See, strange monsters taken from MM#76 make me suspect they are handpicked to be the toughest, most impossible monsters possible. MM1, which I know fairly well and use in all my games, has dozens of monster from each CR (except for the highest). Why I keep seeing int he challenges stuff picked from other manuals? My natural paranoia tells me something is afoot. He hand selected the beasties to be as melee oriented as possible. By going into several books, he was able to find some of every level that used a variety of tactics. When I shot it down, it was mostly while I was venting at Scion. I still don't think it will show much, but I do think it may be fun. How is the warblade giving up actions? Recover only takes a swift action. The warblade can still full attack or move and attack. And warblades often don't need to do this until the 3rd or 4th round of combat. Many fights are over by then. Most of the maneuvers are standard actions. With 51 of the maneuvers requiring a standard action, this means that the warblade should only be getting a single attack during those rounds. The fighter has 4 actions. While the maneuver may be cool, 4 attacks is also cool. You increase your odds of hitting when you swing more. Recover, while a swift action, states: "You can recover all expended maneuvers with a single swift action, which must be immediately followed in the same round with a melee attack or using a standard action to do nothing else in the round...You cannot initiate a maneuver or change your stance while you are recovering..." A melee attack or standard action. This reads as a single attack. The fighter still has 3 more attacks that round. Remember, fighters don't normally have anything to as a swift action. Though I guess that's changing, especially now that the Magic Item Compendium is out. Right, that's why I had the part about the maneuvers being cool as a benefit.
itwasntme 06-24-07, 11:20 PM	One point i see that keeps riseing is the fact that druids and Clercis and wizards are all powerfull i agree that clerics are nice and so are wizards are powerfull but they lost some of there all mightyness But the druid kinda got nerved with the Change of how Polymoprh works for them the changes first appar in PHB2 about the differnt changes and facts Like the ability to lose all class abilitys/special abilitys sure they can still polymorph but they lose the ability to cast spells inless Silent Spell but that increases spells to a higher level spell slot there items will not work inless they have the Wild ability on it There other class abilitys like Immune to posin and things like that are lost when they WildShape Not only that but they keep there own HP along with other things This nerved them down a bit sure they can still be played but there no long the I Am All mighty and powerfull as i use to be Inless your talking about Core Only (Which many people do) Polymorphing isnt the greatest thing around anymore inless you polymorph the nme into a toad or something so you can step on them or something Its still useable but its weeker to many points The Animol Compainon is useoly only good at low levels but not even then are they "Phear Me!" As many level 1 dwarfs fighters or just dwarfs period can take out your pet level 1 characters of differnt races as a good chance of winning the combat agest your Druid and your Pet at level 1 At Higher levels the Pet just becomes something used as something on the lines of a Scout Fimaliers of Wizards are just plain to week to use in melee combat period only HALF the HP of the Wizard ... considering the Wizard has the lowest HP totol in the game and you cut that in half i dont care how beefy you are you take one hit and your gone For Example a level 5 Wizard in a Maximum HP Game with 18 con (+4 mod) Only has 40 hp your Fimailer has 20 HP The Rouge with 6HP a level has the same con meaning he has 10 hp a level so he has 50 HP im sure the rouge can take on your Wizard Fimalier Thats just one point agest people useing there Fimaliers as a good offance / Defence they should be used more on the lines of Scouts or helpers not primary roles Rouges in many options may be doing 10d6 damage at higher levels but the fighter has more then 60 HP at that time of the game as you can see they will on adverage have 45 hp at level 5 (6 / 5 / 6 / 5 for Hp rolls and a con mod of +2) if we where doing Max hp like the wizard/rouge then he would have (With the same Con modifier as them 18 for a +4 mod) 70 Hp at level 5 he allready has more hp then the maxium damage your dealing with 10d6 Sneak attack Then the fighter gets to have his Go at something And dont get started on the barbian or some other Melee class However some points have allready been made many Pro Wizards seem to Take all the Benefits of said things but never the negitives they seem to swich back and forth between characters which reminds me alot of a game i use to play when i was a child where you would swich your monsters back and forth to fight the oppinant monster where if one is knocked down you would send another to go and fight it and hope it can win the battle for you that game was pokemon and i see pro wizards having a big attactment to that game They swich out one thing about there wizard and send in a differnt Wizard to deal with the same type of problem only to find that it is unable to solve the problem as well then they bring that 2nd wizard back to send in the third wizard then again with the fourth fifth so on so forth Sometimes people like to Metagame think and let there wizards win that way True class's have better skill list then fighters but pointed out you dont need class skills to make your class work or there are simple ways on how to avoid that You can simply toss a rock at that Tomb to see if its traped while standing in the other room A Fighter who needs healing could eather use Potitions or use the combat form feats to give him Fast Healing if you disaprove the use of useing items that are made for you to use then thats your option A Class can use whatever item he wants as long as he can get his hands on it legitly ie by paying for it by eather Gold or some other form of Currentcy there is no rule that stats you are unable to Buy items or Magic items or anything eles on that line Spell componints are Items as well and with the higher level Spells the componints becouse very costly in order to use and are unable to be avoided by the use of a feat you need a spellcomponant pounch to use it Which can eather be targeted by a Call shot or destroyed in other ways and if your hideing said componants in a differnt way then that is with your character the point is you need items to cast your spells so there for if you have the right to items then other class's should have the right to use there own items Things shouldnt be PrePicked for other people to use or if you are PrePicking then allow the use of them makeing the details and options open to them Example is when the DM Says only Based races from the PHB are to be used ... besides that anything can go Then the players are free to make up there minds as long as they use the Based races from the PHB hand book When people get picky and stat you must use a Certain item Race Class or anything eles then the game play for all characters and classes become very limited Things should be talked about before hand dont just say one thing and mean another its allright if you do not know something or have a question to ask Such as AoO is a nonaction and if you can use it even if your Knocked out or Dazed Which im going to ask People Is AoO Realy a non-action meaning my Knocked out character can take his AoO on an oppent? Considering that when your knocked out you cant take Actions but considering if AoO Is not an action ... then why shouldnt my character whos knocked out with -9 HP be able to use it? I beleve this is a NO You cant take it when your knocked out cold or anything eles about said thing perhaps you can but it just dosnt make sense to me This is a post that answers some questions that the past page or two as asked if you have any questions let me know
runestar 06-24-07, 11:26 PM	How many times must it be reiterated that the polymorph spell was never errata'ed, and it still works the same way it originally did despite the addition of the polymorph subschool in PHB2, which does nothing to the original polymorph spell at all.:rolleyes: Yes, this means that a fighter who polymorphs into a troll still retains all his class features, unlike the monomorph line of spells in the PHB2. And the PHB errata spells out what you gain and lose in wildshape. IIRC, you still retain your original class features.
Khan the Destroyer 06-24-07, 11:28 PM	The fighter has 4 actions. While the maneuver may be cool, 4 attacks is also cool. You increase your odds of hitting when you swing more. It will be fair to note that the difference between 1 and 4 actions doesn't happen until level 16+, though that seems to be where people gripe about the fighter most. Anyways, 4 attacks can look like this for a tactical fighter: 1. Attack Opponent, deal 10+ damage ---> Trip Opponent (Knockdown) 1a. Bonus Attack (Improved Trip) ---> Sunder 1b. Attack Opponent (Sundering Cleave, Combat Brute) 1c. Offer Mercy to Prone and Unarmed Opponent (Free Action) 2. Attack Opponent 3. Attack Opponent 4. Attack Opponent So, with your full attack, you've managed to deal damage to your opponent 5 times and leave them prone and without a weapon. A melee attack or standard action. This reads as a single attack. The fighter still has 3 more attacks that round. I'm pretty sure that ToB sympathizers read that to include any melee attack, even one included in a full attack sequence. So you would take the swift action, and then follow it with a melee attack. That melee attack just happens to be the first of your full attack. I only know this from reading it in one of the ToB threads. In regards to AoO's, I can't imagine that a dazed character can be considered as 'threatening', and if not, then he can't in fact take AoO's. Also, even a non-action is a type of action. And a dazed character can take no actions. :evillaugh
navar100 06-24-07, 11:42 PM	Even Archangel62's very simple, very basic comparison to various CR encounters where the Fighter did not even have to win was shot down! It looks like people might finally be coming around to that one at least. I hope that Archangel62 can get that up off the ground and running. That would be really nice ;) Way to go Archangel62! It was shot down for two reasons: 1) Even though it was permitted for the fighter to lose every combat, a monster is not designed to be fought by one character of equal CR. It was meant to be fought by four characters of said CR. Some classes can fiight better than others solo, but for the ones who can't do it as well it wouldn't/shouldn't prove their suckitude. It probably should have been tried anyway for evidence of how well the fighter could do, but the stance was that given before evidence is presented that the fighter would fail, not just lose every combat, the one on one test itself is flawed because of how monsters were designed. 2) Archangel also wanted uniqueness. As Sleeper had said, even a cleric can be a mounted warrior. For a particular combat a fighter will use a particular tactic. That tactic will be different when fighting a different monster. For any one specific tactic, another class can do it such that there is no uniqueness for that particular combat, such as the mounted warrior cleric. The fighter's strength is being able to use different tactics for different combats because of their feats. Spellcasters can adapt easily because of their various spells, but other melee classes (before ToB) cannot because they don't have enough feats. Uniqueness for an individual combat could not be shown, only over the course of the entire gauntlet. There was also a question of relevance of uniqueness. The desire for uniqueness is a matter of personal taste. Given the fighter handles himself well in the gauntlet but did not do so uniquely from any other class, Archangel would say that's a bad thing while the fighter defenders would say that didn't matter. The fact of the ability of the fighter to handle himself is the important factor and proves the fighter is "viable", which led to that debate. Archangel's desire for uniqueness for which if there wasn't any such that another class can do what the fighter does "plus more", that led into the CoDzilla fallacy debate. Not directly straight from it, but that was the topic of the mini debate for a while before Kalarus coined the Pun Pun Fallacy term.
navar100 06-24-07, 11:47 PM	Getting back to my cleric and fighter from earlier, let's look at some CR 6 encounters. I hope that I am fair in these encounters. At level 6, the cleric does not yet have the really cool cleric spells yet, so he will be relying on Persistant Bull's Strength. I meant to mention this for your earlier post. Bull's Strength cannot be persisted. Touch range spells are not fixed range spells. This has been confirmed with the Powers That Be.
itwasntme 06-24-07, 11:50 PM	this post is in responce to Khan the Destroyer who asked for some fighter builds hear is a simple level 20 fighter i made with 32 point buy useing no more then 40% of the cost of the money of a level 20 character he has some bugs and i know he can be improved on but it was just a quick makeing of a character i didnt have much time so think about it as i useoly like to play Paladins or some other class i like Fighters and i know they are needed in my group and that in just about 100% of my groups ive played in the wizard isnt all the greatest player/character in the party and some of the people who play them are the people who are on the side of Pro-Wizard that ive seen speek on this board or others like it,allso take to note in intrust in saveing space i removed many of the items he has and what i did to create him so hear he is in short format HP 376 Human Fighter level 20 AC 31 Initiative + 9 Str 24 Int 8 Dex 20 Wis 8 Con 30 Cha 8 Fort +32 Ref +21 Will +26 Dueling wielding Weapons Weapon 1) To Hit +31 +26 +21 +16 Weapon 2) To Hit +21 +26 +21 +16 Damage Weapon 1) 2d8+13 Wounding Ability 19-20 X 2 Crit Damage Weapon 2) 2d8+13 Wounding Ability 19-20 X 2 Crit Special Abilitys from Feats/Items +2 extra to hit and damage VS Evil creatures +5 to hit on any 2 attacks after the first Take 10 on any 2 attacks Add Con modifier insteed of Wisdom on Will Saves Move +5 Feet Teleport 3/day (Useoly used to escape things like ForceCage or something eles like that) Bonus To Saves and Strength/Con Items Has Fast Healing 1 at all times Spell Resistance 42 Plus normol gear Gold Left Over 750 In intrust of saveing space i did not list all items or Feats though i beleve people can understand why type of feats i tooked (Like TWF Feat tree along with the Weapon Spec Tree and other feats like SteadFast Determination Dash are a few i tooked) Some Items are Modiferd Like Adding Mirthril to the Armor im wearing and other things like that Note Normoly in the book Mithril BreastPlate is not found but you can add mithril to armor/items and many of my items undertooked modification like this and i paid the cost in price or experiance for createing the item If items like Mithril breastplate or other items that are normoly unable to be bought but things can be added to them (Like the ability to add Wounding to a weapon for the correct cost in price and time and experiance if needed) Granted this character was made very short and quickly but there is just a simple post of the fighter He Will use Flying in order to attack targets in the air and teleport to get clouser to people or escape to safty or out of a bad situation (Like Force Cage or something like that)
itwasntme 06-24-07, 11:53 PM	How many times must it be reiterated that the polymorph spell was never errata'ed, and it still works the same way it originally did despite the addition of the polymorph subschool in PHB2, which does nothing to the original polymorph spell at all.:rolleyes: Yes, this means that a fighter who polymorphs into a troll still retains all his class features, unlike the monomorph line of spells in the PHB2. And the PHB errata spells out what you gain and lose in wildshape. IIRC, you still retain your original class features. indeed you can keep many of your features but now you have to have Feats and other things in order to do the same thing that you wanted to do before hand And in many reguards the new Polymorphing is changed it use to let you have the HP of the creature you polymorphed into Which meant Con could be a dump stat for Wizards Druids and anyone eles that could polymorph which cannot happin anymore There AC and To Hit can change eather Decresse or Increase depending on the character and Monster they change into so in many ways yes the polymorph spell did change the role it could play in combat and other things like that as well
runestar 06-24-07, 11:57 PM	I meant to mention this for your earlier post. Bull's Strength cannot be persisted. Touch range spells are not fixed range spells. This has been confirmed with the Powers That Be. Yeah, good thing a persistent divine power is just 1 lv away.:P
navar100 06-25-07, 12:00 AM	Recover, while a swift action, states: "You can recover all expended maneuvers with a single swift action, which must be immediately followed in the same round with a melee attack or using a standard action to do nothing else in the round...You cannot initiate a maneuver or change your stance while you are recovering..." A melee attack or standard action. This reads as a single attack. The fighter still has 3 more attacks that round. I'm pretty sure that ToB sympathizers read that to include any melee attack, even one included in a full attack sequence. So you would take the swift action, and then follow it with a melee attack. That melee attack just happens to be the first of your full attack. I only know this from reading it in one of the ToB threads. Even I had interpreted it that way, that a warblade can recover his maneuvers with the swift action plus a full attack for which a melee attack is part. Is this really not the case? After all, an attack action is a significant meaning as opposed to a melee attack or even standard action. It's why a Crusader cannot use Stone Power feat with a Devoted Spirit maneuver. (Bob should get the reference.)
Scion of Coldshard 06-25-07, 12:18 AM	Interesting choices. Thanks for the fill-in. It helps me to coach me in making an effective cleric. Things go note: The clerics has already cast all his most powerful spells at the beginning of the day. His booster spells can be cast during battle, but he must spend a round doing so. Against the lower creatures, this isn't bad. Against the CR-2 and CR= creatures, that will hurt. The spiritual weapon is a good tactic. Clever. I like it. It uses your BAB + Wisdom. Great against fewer targets. A move action between targets, making it poor for multiples unless you are securely at range. Very useful against things behind cover. Soundburst is handy against the multiples. Currently the third level spells are being used to simulate gear. The cleric has spent whatever amount it takes to get a nonmaster work armor, weapon, and maybe a shield. Plus, 12 hours a day is sufficient for most purposes ;) If gear is actually put in it may shift around a bit. The divine favor boost is interesting though. It is used to best effect when the cleric gets the jump on something or if there is a standard action free while attempting to maneuver. Failing that, they can be converted into cure light wound spells after a fight to keep the cleric up. Sound burst is a lot of fun. Potentially stunning several opponents, and maybe even killing off really weak ones, can be a powerful ability. I am not seeing why Divine Metamagic should really even be part of the build though. That is a lot of feats given up, basically 4, for the equivalent of a 16,000 gp item.. typically feats are priced at around 5,000 gp to buy, and that is for feats without prereqs even.
runestar 06-25-07, 12:28 AM	That is a lot of feats given up, basically 4, for the equivalent of a 16,000 gp item.. typically feats are priced at around 5,000 gp to buy, and that is for feats without prereqs even. Lets see your dm allow a rod of persistent metamagic for just 16,000gp...;)
Scion of Coldshard 06-25-07, 12:32 AM	Lets see your dm allow a rod of persistent metamagic for just 16,000gp...;) Unlikely of course ;) But then persistant is so incredibly hit or miss about what is actually worth doing with it.. At +6 levels the base feat is almost never worth it. I would really prefer it to be a chart kindof like permanency.. Give a list of a few dozen different spells, how many levels it takes to boost each up to 24 hour duration, and guidelines for adding in extra spells. Much better both in use and in balance. As it is though, for this guy it takes 7 turn attempts to put up a single spell and the choice was apparently for bulls strength. Woo.
navar100 06-25-07, 12:38 AM	Lets see your dm allow a rod of persistent metamagic for just 16,000gp...;) I was able to play a DMM Persisted cleric when it was only +4 levels in a campaign the DM admitted was very high powered where I benefited from a cursed item that doubles your strength score while changing your alignment becase my alignment was changed by a spell thus I had a 50 strength (16 character start + 4 book, x 2 cursed item, Persisted Divine Power, DMM Persisted Greater Visage of the Deity) plus Persisted Divine Favor on top of that (we don't use the errataed version) near the end of the campaign, and not even he would allow me such a rod. We were "epic" several levels before actual epic. He never said "no" as quick on anything else anyone inquired about before or since. :D
Kratch 06-25-07, 12:41 AM	Cleric (melee build): Str: 15 (+1 level) = 16 Dex: 14 Con: 13 (+1 pb) = 14 Int: 10 Wis: 12 (+2 pb) = 14 Cha: 8 Level 6 BAB +4 HD 6d8 Domains: War (mwp, wf longsword), Feats: Cleric: Str: 15 +4 enhancement = 19 Dex: 10 Con: 14 Int: 8 Wis: 15 Cha: 14 BAB +4, Str +4, +1 weapon focus, +1 enhancement = Melee +10, damage d8+5 Feats: Extend spell, persistant spell, divine metamagic, extra turning Domains: War (longsword), ? Spells: 0 1 () 2 (), bulls strength[cast and persisted], 3 () I am thinking (with the big H and a slight change to stats): Cleric: Str: 14 +4 enhancement = 18 Dex: 10 Con: 14 Int: 8 Wis: 16 Cha: 14 BAB +4, Str +4, +1 weapon focus, +1 enhancement = Melee +10, damage d8+5 Domains: War (longsword), Good Spells: 0 [5] Lightx2, Create waterx2, Mending 1 (prot from evil), [4] Endure elements [cast], Divine Favorx3 2 (spiritual weapon), [4] bulls strength[cast and persisted], Sound burstx3 3 (magic vestment), [3] Magic vestment, Greater magic weaponx2 I'm really currious where the clerics getting it's ability to change it's stats so often? Between the 3 stat ups you've provided, the only stat to remain consistent has been con.
Kratch 06-25-07, 12:47 AM	I was able to play a DMM Persisted cleric when it was only +4 levels in a campaign the DM admitted was very high powered where I benefited from a cursed item that doubles your strength score while changing your alignment becase my alignment was changed by a spell thus I had a 50 strength (16 character start + 4 book, x 2 cursed item, Persisted Divine Power, DMM Persisted Greater Visage of the Deity) plus Persisted Divine Favor on top of that (we don't use the errataed version) near the end of the campaign, and not even he would allow me such a rod. We were "epic" several levels before actual epic. He never said "no" as quick on anything else anyone inquired about before or since. :D Your alignment shift had no effect on your ethos (you never said how much it changed your alignment)? I was under the impression a cleric had to remain within1 step of his gods alignment in order to retain his abilities, and that a personal ethos had to be worked out in much the same way?
Bob Loblaw 06-25-07, 12:50 AM	It will be fair to note that the difference between 1 and 4 actions doesn't happen until level 16+, though that seems to be where people gripe about the fighter most. True, and I was assuming level 20 since that's where we tend to be. However, the action-sacrificing starts at 6th level and goes from there. I'm pretty sure that ToB sympathizers read that to include any melee attack, even one included in a full attack sequence. So you would take the swift action, and then follow it with a melee attack. That melee attack just happens to be the first of your full attack. I only know this from reading it in one of the ToB threads. While I can see this interpretation (and I was expecting it), the book states a melee attack or standard action. To me, this means that the designers intended on making this a single action rather than a full-round action. This would leave the warblade the option of taking a move-action but not a series of attacks. this post is in responce to Khan the Destroyer who asked for some fighter builds hear is a simple level 20 fighter i made with 32 point buy useing no more then 40% of the cost of the money of a level 20 character he has some bugs and i know he can be improved on but it was just a quick makeing of a character i didnt have much time so think about it as i useoly like to play Paladins or some other class i like Fighters and i know they are needed in my group and that in just about 100% of my groups ive played in the wizard isnt all the greatest player/character in the party and some of the people who play them are the people who are on the side of Pro-Wizard that ive seen speek on this board or others like it,allso take to note in intrust in saveing space i removed many of the items he has and what i did to create him so hear he is in short format I would suggest making the following changes to the character: 1) 25 point buy or elite array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8). The reason is that the game is built around this central concept of character creation. When you go beyond this, you change the power level of the characters but not the monsters. You end up favoring the fighter (or any class) unfairly. 2) List all you feats and the levels you take them. This allows people to honestly evaluate how your character would do as he is leveling. It also helps make sure that you don't take some feats as bonus feats when you shouldn't. Take a look at how we have been posting builds for some guidance. 3) Check your spelling. I'm not going to nitpick, but if you want the character to be analyzed fairly, you need to make sure that your readers can understand what is written. We have a lot going on here and spending an extra 10-15s just trying to understand what is written is going to force the reader to just move on. Note that your spelling doesn't have to be perfect. It just needs to be clear. I'm not trying to pick on you. I want you to be taken more seriously. I think you have a lot to contribute. (Bob should get the reference.) I don't. :( I tried, but I can't figure it out. I don't use Tome of Battle much and I have only been in one other discussion about it. Sorry, I'm lost.
runestar 06-25-07, 12:53 AM	With regards to itwasntme's build, I am curious as to why his AC is so low (just 31), and how he managed a sr of 42...:confused: There are also some minor statistical errors, but I assume they are typos, or are too slight to have any significant impact.:)
Scion of Coldshard 06-25-07, 12:59 AM	I'm really currious where the clerics getting it's ability to change it's stats so often? Between the 3 stat ups you've provided, the only stat to remain consistent has been con. Because they are each different versions without a finalized version? ;) Oh, and you are quoting two different cleric builds one of which is only barely started, it is sitting in a txt file on my computer, while the other two are my trying to get the skeleton of a build that Clawhound wanted finalized. So, in order that you list them: 1) A build I am working on 2) Clawhounds startup with my filling in places as I figured out what he wanted and where 3) A more finalized version of Clawhounds build where I also changed the stats since wasting the 4 point buy points by having the two odd numbers seemed pretty weird.
navar100 06-25-07, 02:05 AM	Your alignment shift had no effect on your ethos (you never said how much it changed your alignment)? I was under the impression a cleric had to remain within1 step of his gods alignment in order to retain his abilities, and that a personal ethos had to be worked out in much the same way? Long story. My cleric had three gods during the campaign as part of campaign plot to explain the DM switching slowly from 3.0 to 3.5 as well as streamlining the pantheon. Originally, there were some home brew gods, the Greyhawk gods, and few others from Forgotten Realms, Norse, Egyptian, etc., in obscure parts of the globe. My cleric was a LG cleric of Heironeous and became a Sacred Exorcist. With the DM streamlining religion to a more sane thing, as part of literal Armageddon, the homebrew gods became the official pantheon afterwards with the others departing for their own realms. We found the curse item, a magic helm, during this time. The War Mind salivated over it, futily trying to find a way to keep the strength doubling while getting rid of the alignment change. When Armageddon ended Heironeous left with the other "interloper" gods so that only homebrew was left. I switched to Gumea, LN goddess of War. She allows LG, LN, and LE clerics. My character was feeling more about the War against evil part of Heironeous than the Justice part at the time. In a later adventure I failed a save vs Mindrape and my alignment was changed to LE. I was able to keep my cleric powers because Gumea accepts LE, but I was no longer a Sacred Exorcist. The party had no idea how to "fix" me. All they could do was Curse me again by knocking me out and put the helm on me, which restored my alignment to LG and doubling my strength. A few adventures later we helped the last homebrew god come into being, Mataros, LG god of Destiny, Chivalry, and Honor, Gumea being his sponsor. Since he was closer in demeanor to Heironeous than Gumea and my character had "calmed down" a bit since Armageddon, with Gumea's full blessing I became a cleric of Mataros - the first one and leader of the church. Also, for the pantheon the DM doesn't use the one-step rule. Some deities permit many different clerical alignments. Still, my main point was an agreement that a rod of Persistent Spell is so powerful, it was even too powerful for that very high powered game. :P
Archangel62 06-25-07, 02:05 AM	It was shot down for two reasons: 1) Even though it was permitted for the fighter to lose every combat, a monster is not designed to be fought by one character of equal CR. It was meant to be fought by four characters of said CR. Some classes can fiight better than others solo, but for the ones who can't do it as well it wouldn't/shouldn't prove their suckitude. It probably should have been tried anyway for evidence of how well the fighter could do, but the stance was that given before evidence is presented that the fighter would fail, not just lose every combat, the one on one test itself is flawed because of how monsters were designed. 2) Archangel also wanted uniqueness. As Sleeper had said, even a cleric can be a mounted warrior. For a particular combat a fighter will use a particular tactic. That tactic will be different when fighting a different monster. For any one specific tactic, another class can do it such that there is no uniqueness for that particular combat, such as the mounted warrior cleric. The fighter's strength is being able to use different tactics for different combats because of their feats. Spellcasters can adapt easily because of their various spells, but other melee classes (before ToB) cannot because they don't have enough feats. Uniqueness for an individual combat could not be shown, only over the course of the entire gauntlet. There was also a question of relevance of uniqueness. The desire for uniqueness is a matter of personal taste. Given the fighter handles himself well in the gauntlet but did not do so uniquely from any other class, Archangel would say that's a bad thing while the fighter defenders would say that didn't matter. The fact of the ability of the fighter to handle himself is the important factor and proves the fighter is "viable", which led to that debate. Archangel's desire for uniqueness for which if there wasn't any such that another class can do what the fighter does "plus more", that led into the CoDzilla fallacy debate. Not directly straight from it, but that was the topic of the mini debate for a while before Kalarus coined the Pun Pun Fallacy term. I had actually wanted to see WHAT the fighter could do in a theoretical encounter and how it functioned in the setup. My goal wasn't to do a comparison my question was more, "Ok, what will this fighter build do against each type of opponent?" And the person could even argue a context for how it might work in a group as well. The idea was that I wanted to get a clear image of function. And I also don't appreciate people saying that they know what I'm thinking or going to do and assuming the worst of my motives. It also might give us a better idea as to where the fighters abilities were growing from mostly, internal or external and then the question of degrees in both. My problem is that when I posted this many of those who shot down my design jumped eagerly to someone else. So I have to wonder if the fact that I have stated that I do not feel the fighter is adequately supported by the system to do the job assigned to it that it is assumed that I will ignore any straight data I get.
navar100 06-25-07, 02:15 AM	Oh, sorry Bob. Stone Power is a feat where you take up to -5 to hit equal not more than your BAB and get 2 temporary hit points per minus taken for one round. However, you can only use it when you take an "attack action", a "full attack action", or a initiate a Stone Dragon maneuver. Because it specifies "attack action" and "full attack action" and specified the Stone Dragon discipline, you can't use it with any other discipline strike, like Devoted Spirit for a Crusader, because said strikes take a "standard action" or a "full round action" to use.If not using a Stone Dragon strike, you have to make a "normal" attack routine to use the Feat. It's still a great feat, just not as often useable as a Crusader would like. Crusaders really, really love this feat because it synergizes so well with their Steely Resolve. The feat also qualifies for a feat, prestige class, or any other ability prerequisite instead of Power Attack if you so choose, but you can take both Stone Power and Power Attack as feats.
Kratch 06-25-07, 02:43 AM	... I'm not sure if i was just not around for your gauntlet, or if, at the time, there seemed to be some criteria that appeared unreasonable, or if I was there and it just got lost in the shuffle. But generally I'm willing to play along (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=867560) with those sort of things. I do remember giving my opinion on how to go about doing a gauntlet, but i though that was someone else that brought it up, and i don't remember it ever being fleshed out. Idea's such as random ecounter terrain/starting distance/monsters (from encounter generation tables), and waiting till after the characters have been made to determine some of these random factors (terrain would be determined beforehand, so spell lists could be prepared accordingly, even i'll admit a caster would have different spells selected for dungeon vs plane hopping, etc).
Clawhound 06-25-07, 06:47 AM	I am not seeing why Divine Metamagic should really even be part of the build though. That is a lot of feats given up, basically 4, for the equivalent of a 16,000 gp item.. typically feats are priced at around 5,000 gp to buy, and that is for feats without prereqs even. I've heard how awesome a DMM cleric is, and how that build replaces a fighter. After doing this build, I agree with you. The cleric is not better off using DMM. If you are going to build a cleric for higher levels, by all means, DMM persist. You can work out your build for your level 15 and go. Rock on, baby. If you are going to grow a cleric through the lower levels, then you've got better strategies available that rely on the cleric's strengths. I find that conclusion odd. DMM persist is sub-optimal. It looks good on paper, but is too expensive for actual play. At this point, I could suggest that someone make a melee-oriented fighter and you could make a better melee oriented cleric. No holds barred, the just need to be effective as they grow. Do you know what? I think that the two character would not resemble each other in the slightest. If that isn't commentary on why one would choose a cleric over a fighter, or a fighter over a cleric, then I don't know what is.
Kalarus 06-25-07, 07:30 AM	Even I had interpreted it that way, that a warblade can recover his maneuvers with the swift action plus a full attack for which a melee attack is part. Is this really not the case? After all, an attack action is a significant meaning as opposed to a melee attack or even standard action. It's why a Crusader cannot use Stone Power feat with a Devoted Spirit maneuver. (Bob should get the reference.) Yay for ambiguous lines. I would tend to agree with the interpretation that you can not full attack after recovering your maneuvers. This is because the action you are supposed to take is literally specified: the action called melee attack. This is by definition (PHB p139) a standard action. The second part stating that you must use a standard action to do nothing else instead (such as flourishing your weapon) allows you to take this standard action without engaging an opponent, effectively "hitting the air" to recover your maneuvers. Either way, the action you must take is a standard one, not a full attack, as specified by the "nothing else in the round" part. I would also like to point out that there is no such thing as "an attack action". Actions are divided into standard actions, full-round actions, move actions, swift actions, immediate actions, free actions and non-actions. There is no "attack action" that you can perform in a round. What you can do is make a melee attack, which is a standard action, not an "attack action". It's not like we don't know what people mean when they say "attack action", so as a phrase it is not wrong to use, but it doesn't exist in a rules discussion ;)
Bob Loblaw 06-25-07, 09:52 AM	Stone Power is a feat where you take up to -5 to hit equal not more than your BAB and get 2 temporary hit points per minus taken for one round. However, you can only use it when you take an "attack action", a "full attack action", or a initiate a Stone Dragon maneuver. Because it specifies "attack action" and "full attack action" and specified the Stone Dragon discipline, you can't use it with any other discipline strike, like Devoted Spirit for a Crusader, because said strikes take a "standard action" or a "full round action" to use.If not using a Stone Dragon strike, you have to make a "normal" attack routine to use the Feat. I see what you mean now. That is a bit of a limiting factor I didn't see. That's what I get for trying to understand the rules after a few drinks.
Kalarus 06-25-07, 12:36 PM	I see what you mean now. That is a bit of a limiting factor I didn't see. That's what I get for trying to understand the rules after a few drinks. Hey now, drinks are fine, I created the Pun-pun fallacy while being fairly drunk and look at how much fun it is :D
Clawhound 06-25-07, 12:38 PM	Do we need a Beer Goggles fallacy?
Kalarus 06-25-07, 12:40 PM	Do we need a Beer Goggles fallacy? Can we? And can we then debate wether the same result is achieved by someone drinking, for example, wine? :D
xanadu 06-25-07, 01:14 PM	I've heard how awesome a DMM cleric is, and how that build replaces a fighter. I don't think it is DMM that 'replaces' the fighter. The argument, which the 'pro' fighter crowd seems hesitant in acknowledging, is that if the fighter is indeed a better 'fighter' than the cleric, the cleric can still 'fight' well enough to fit the 'fighter' role and cast miracle. The reverse is not the same. It's the same with the cleric archer. it is not that the cleric makes a better archer than a specialized bow-oriented character, it is that the cleric makes a good archer that can cast 9th level spells. 9th level spells + reasonably effective 'fighter' = fighter's job insecurity.
The_sleeper1 06-25-07, 01:17 PM	I don't think it is DMM that 'replaces' the fighter. The argument, which the 'pro' fighter crowd seems hesitant in acknowledging, is that if the fighter is indeed a better 'fighter' than the cleric, the cleric can still 'fight' well enough to fit the 'fighter' role and cast miracle. The reverse is not the same. It's the same with the cleric archer. it is not that the cleric makes a better archer than a specialized bow-oriented character, it is that the cleric makes a good archer that can cast 9th level spells. 9th level spells + reasonably effective 'fighter' = fighter's job insecurity. QFT
Kratch 06-25-07, 02:55 PM	I don't think it is DMM that 'replaces' the fighter. The argument, which the 'pro' fighter crowd seems hesitant in acknowledging, is that if the fighter is indeed a better 'fighter' than the cleric, the cleric can still 'fight' well enough to fit the 'fighter' role and cast miracle. But then, the cleric is not "replacing" the fighter, as some have claimed, he is simply, doing the best he can to fill in. The fact a fighter can indeed fight better then a cleric (again, many have claimed they do, using DMM (often + nightsticks) to support this claim) gives a reason to play a fighter, superior combat ability without the need to rely on magic spells. For someone who doesn't want to wait 17 levels for the payoff of 9th level spells, Thats a pretty good reason.
xanadu 06-25-07, 03:23 PM	The fact a fighter can indeed fight better then a cleric Debatable. Even if so the difference is marginal and not enough to make them distictive. For someone who doesn't want to wait 17 levels for the payoff of 9th level spells, Thats a pretty good reason. You are missing the point. At 5th level, 3rd level spells are great. At 11th level, 6th level spells are great. The fighter perhaps can marginally 'fight' better than the cleric and does little else. The cleric can 'fight' quite well and cast the highest level spells the party is capable of.
Kratch 06-25-07, 03:53 PM	Debatable. Even if so the difference is marginal and not enough to make them distictive. Well, To this point the only cleric/fighter comparisons i've seen have been theoretical ones, unsupported by anything more then blanket statements, and the one clawhound and scion are working on, so determining how marginal the difference is or isn't is nothing more then a guess/assumption. Although what the cleric and fighter have been providing in the above comparison have been comparable, I don't see the cleric as offering more at this point, and the differces in how they offer what they offer is distinctive enough to make them both very different and viable options. How that changes as they level is yet to be seen Clawhound I can't seem to find your current fighters build/feat choices for the comparison your working on, it may just be that it's farther back then i've looked so far, but if you have a link to it, I'd appreciate taking another look (gonna still see if i can find it myself too.).
Scion of Coldshard 06-25-07, 04:14 PM	Clawhound I can't seem to find your current fighters build/feat choices for the comparison your working on, it may just be that it's farther back then i've looked so far, but if you have a link to it, I'd appreciate taking another look (gonna still see if i can find it myself too.). I dont think that he has finalized the Fighter build as of yet. In the last post that dealt with its abilities there were too many listed and later he said that he would get rid of some but I dont believe that a new writeup was made yet.
OravennasBrother 06-25-07, 04:29 PM	The fighter perhaps can marginally 'fight' better than the cleric and does little else. Two points 1) as long as the fighter invested in a Wand of CLW (or Two at really high levels) he can recharge his HP (with a little help in using the wands - help that need not come from a cleric) and be just as strong at fighting after 10 fights as at the start of the day. This is not true of a cleric who was targeted by Dispel Magic in a previous fight, or who has used up all his spellcasting for the day. 2) I'd be cool with going back to clerics get 2/3 BAB advance, Rogues and Monks 1/2 and Wizards 1/3, as well a limiting all classes without full BAB to 2 bonus HP from Constitution. The game already limits the number of bonus spells memorized/per day for high mental attributes according to character class, it only makes sense to extend some of that concept to other attributes.
Kalarus 06-25-07, 04:57 PM	QFT QFT? Quick! Flee! Tarrasque!
Clawhound 06-25-07, 05:05 PM	I'll try to hammer out a slighly revised fighter tonight. The funny thing about the DMM cleric is that we fairly concluded that is was so incredibly feat intensive that it really didn't give good payoff for the build. Part of the game's strategy is the "leveling up" game. Creating a character that doesn't his his stride until level 10+, possibly levels 12-15, is a very risky build. Compare that to a fighter who gets payoff right now, and every fight after that. In the resource game, the cleric is torn between too many critical limitations. He can't get all good abilities at the 25-28 point level. The build starts suffering from classic over-reach problems. The fighter, with his focus, came out far more effectively. The difference between the cleric and the fighter was not trivial. The fighter at level 6 was easily "outfighting" the cleric without buff spells. This difference was apparent even when I pseudo-randomly picked feats for the fighter. The fighter was a mish-mash of things and wasn't focused, and he was still ahead of the cleric even with the cleric pumping out spells to support himself. If the fighter were a truly maxed, half-orc, greatsword, cleaving machine, the cleric would have been shamed. The cleric is an OK melee person in a pinch, and pretty good at taking damage, but he wasn't good at projecting damage with weapons. The cleric hit his real potential when he started mixing spells with fighting. The minute we stopped looking at DMM, the cleric suddenly had tons of better options that worked better with the class. We also had far more leeway with the figther. DMM is a fairly specific build for a pure cleric. The cleric greatly benefited by a dip into a martial class. Likewise, the fighter greatly benefited by a dip into cleric. You can't even say that one class is better for a dip than the other.
Kalarus 06-25-07, 05:15 PM	I don't think it is DMM that 'replaces' the fighter. The argument, which the 'pro' fighter crowd seems hesitant in acknowledging, is that if the fighter is indeed a better 'fighter' than the cleric, the cleric can still 'fight' well enough to fit the 'fighter' role and cast miracle. The reverse is not the same. It's the same with the cleric archer. it is not that the cleric makes a better archer than a specialized bow-oriented character, it is that the cleric makes a good archer that can cast 9th level spells. 9th level spells + reasonably effective 'fighter' = fighter's job insecurity. I don't have problems acknowledging that the Cleric can make a decent melee combatant. However if he invests his feats into compensating for something he's not very good at (melee fighting) instead of investing feats in what he's actually good at (spellcasting), he's a pathetic excuse for a spellcaster. As a Fighter player I do not find myself threatened by Clerics who can match my hit and damage bonuses, and can cast L9 spells. They won't be doing both at the same time anyway. As a Fighter I can't do any spells, that means I can invest all of my 18-19 feats into improving my combat capabilities. If you think that 18-19 feats devoted to melee combat makes a Fighter a "debatable" better melee combatant than the Cleric with a "marginal" and "not distinctive" difference you need a reality check. Maybe you've been playing too many Clerics and would benefit from playing a properly built Fighter for a change? There's a couple of examples to be found in this thread. The argument that the "anti-Fighter" crowd does not seem capable of understanding is that not everybody wants to play spellcasters. They do not understand that someone might play a pure melee combatant, no matter how much weaker than any other class, while another class can cast level 9 spells. They do not understand that someone can feel fine performing a job, feel secure in doing their job, even with other people around who can do his job and more. If I am at work, do you think I feel in any way insecure because my manager is there and he knows more than I do (I think) as well as can do more than I do because he's, as far as hierarchy goes, "more powerful"? Of course not, because I can do my job, secure in the knowledge that I am good at it, and my manager is secure in the knowledge that he can trust me to do my job properly. The better I am at my job, the less problems my manager has. Security galore. That being said, you don't have a problem with the Fighter, you have a problem with melee combatants in general. You argue under the assumption that melee combat is so negligable compared to spellcasting that nobody should play anything but spellcasters. This is completely unrepresentative of the D&D game. This is completely unrepresentative of how people pick their classes. D&D is about having fun, not about being the most powerful munchkin you can be.
Khan the Destroyer 06-25-07, 05:16 PM	I don't think it is DMM that 'replaces' the fighter. It isn't. The cleric was considered a tank long before DMM. The argument, which the 'pro' fighter crowd seems hesitant in acknowledging, is that if the fighter is indeed a better 'fighter' than the cleric, the cleric can still 'fight' well enough to fit the 'fighter' role and cast miracle. I've never denied this. I think what you're referring to is the hesitance of the pro-fighter side to make the same logical leap and conclude that the fighter therefore cannot fight well. Often, the argument goes hand in hand with that conclusion. I think it's pretty obvious that a cleric can get full BAB, large size, strength and constitution boosts, and other buffs to fight in melee. It's also fairly obvious that he does this without sacrificing his spellcasting abilties. What isn't obvious is to what degree he can do this, and how his melee compares to the fighter. For this, we need more than boasts and generalizations. Even now, when Scion and Clawhound start statting one up, they find DMM to be not worthwhile, at least at low levels. (A point I've raised before, only to be answered with the low level druid.) 9th level spells + reasonably effective 'fighter' = fighter's job insecurity. Unless you don't want to play a cleric. (Also, I find it amusing that people were saying our fighter builds were so complicated and no newb could make one and ToB and clerics and druids were just inherently uber. Then we have one guy go to the CO Boards to get a cleric build, and now we're slowly-but-surely making a cleric build and finding our initial assumptions to be wrong. So interesting.)
TheCobra 06-25-07, 05:18 PM	(A point I've raised before, only to be answered with the low level druid.) And it's a good answer, too.
Khan the Destroyer 06-25-07, 05:23 PM	And it's a good answer, too. It's also indicative of what providing actual statistics can do for a debate. DMM Cleric is hands-down the most repeated reason to not play a fighter. When I ask what happens at low levels... I get the druid. Inconsistent and not helpful. When we go to actually back up what we say... we find that DMM really isn't that great of an option. At least, not if you want to tank at lower levels as a cleric. DMM is a fairly specific build for a pure cleric. Blasphemy! I thought the only specific builds were fighter builds?
Kalarus 06-25-07, 05:24 PM	And it's a good answer, too. I have an even better answer for you. "I don't want to play a Druid." You don't happen to be some Druid's parrot animal companion, do you?
Kalarus 06-25-07, 05:26 PM	DMM Cleric is hands-down the most repeated reason to not play a fighter. When I ask what happens at low levels... I get the druid. Inconsistent and not helpful. Come now Khan, you should know by now that every opponent can switch class choices, feat choices, skill choices, spell choices and enviroment conditions as a free action in order to defeat the Fighter :rolleyes:
TheCobra 06-25-07, 05:35 PM	DMM Cleric is hands-down the most repeated reason to not play a fighter. When I ask what happens at low levels... I get the druid. I've never been that amazed by DMM clerics. It's a cheesy trick and costs a lot of feats to use well. Druids, on the other hand, only need Natural Spell. When we go to actually back up what we say... we find that DMM really isn't that great of an option. At least, not if you want to tank at lower levels as a cleric. That's not too surprising. I'd imagine it wouldn't become really good until 7th level, when you make divine power last all day.
Archangel62 06-25-07, 05:41 PM	Come now Khan, you should know by now that every opponent can switch class choices, feat choices, skill choices, spell choices and enviroment conditions as a free action in order to defeat the Fighter :rolleyes: Just like the fighters can to prove their capability. The problem here is that these arguments are going in circles. Neither side has a clear definition and guess what, THE FIGHTER ARGUMENTS ARE MOST LIKELY BASED ON HOW EACH OF US VIEW OBJECTIVE POWER LEVEL IN THE CONTEXT OF A GAME. To some people the fighter is too weak, mostly because when looked at in comparison to other classes and looked at in terms of what they can provide they simply do not provide enough overall to function as a proper PC class. On the other hand some people find that they work fine in games. The problem is that neither side can come to an objective agreement because we aren't arguing from the objective point of zen balance and comparing all classes, we are arguing from a personal view on character balance and capability and thus where they will end up. A side effect of this is also that both sides are using double standards. The group that argues fighters are fine take the stance that the fighter is viable so long as they can do their job, as they themselves define it, and it doesn't matter that other classes can do the job better or that NPC classes can do it roughly as well, it still means the fighter is viable. The group that says the fighter needs an upgrade points to comparative weaknesses and tactics on the part of the monster but neglect that either the fighter is ignored as the weakest foe until the end or that the fighter goes down first (a theoretically wasted attack). Also, the equipment thing is frankly not going to work well for arguments because no one can honestly work out what percentage of character power is gear based because in some cases it is raw boost, in other cases more the result of synergy and working out who gets the most out of what is not an easy or fast process. The gauntlet arguments get shut down because people argue that they inherently prove nothing, arena matches also prove nothing, and fairly soon I can imagine that class comparisons will prove nothing either because no one will objectively agree on what the results prove or disprove. And before I get misquoted or misconstrued by someone, the arguments as to what the cleric, druid, warblade, almost any class can do better than the fighter isn't a comment that the fighter shouldn't be used! The comments are to point out that because of how the system works the current incarnation of the fighter is being beaten out of their best thing by, guess what, CASTING CLASSES. This is people saying, "The issue here is that a caster class can be at the fighters level or higher and still have themselves at full compliment or near enough for their own thing." If a player wants to be a fighter that's fine, but the fact is that them choosing to be a fighter due to concept shouldn't be such a mechanically inferior choice. If a player came to me saying he wanted to be a commoner I would tell him he could if he really wanted but to expect that he might have some problems and that I wasn't going to use kid gloves on him just because he chose an inferior class. The other issue is that at low levels the cleric can be about as good as the fighter in many cases, while there is a small difference in bonus to hit the cleric will generally have a higher AC and has a greater survival chance due to healing capacity. And for those who want to argue teamwork, please explain to me how we can quantify this in any way that is unbiased. I understand that the casters can and probably should buff the other characters and heal them if capable. By the same rank I would argue that it is rather unfair to essentially treat a caster class as a walking augment dispenser rather than a thinking teammate, especially since as the levels progress they have the ability to make encounters end faster and more decisively which is better for the PCs in general.
Khan the Destroyer 06-25-07, 05:45 PM	I've never been that amazed by DMM clerics. It's a cheesy trick and costs a lot of feats to use well. *shrugs* I agree. I can be impressed by other uses, but not just to become a tank... all day. Druids, on the other hand, only need Natural Spell. Well, since the other side has ruled out melee attacks and grappling as any sort of threat to the opposition, I can't imagine what the druid would bring as a tank that a fighter can't. Maybe we need... a build. That's not too surprising. What isn't? That a claim being made throughout the entirety of this thread without any sort of proof happens to unravel once we delve a little deeper? You're right. It's not too surprising at all ;). I'd imagine it wouldn't become really good until 7th level, when you make divine power last all day. I think what it really might be is the feat cost. Anyone trying to show a cleric outfighting the fighter (starting at level 1), will be hard-pressed to look like he's keeping up. While the fighter is performing combat tacitcs, the cleric is busy getting all of his feats. The cleric can't trip, or cleave, or power attack. He just swings. It's hard to say you're better when you're not. @Archangel and... everyone else: Not everyone shuts down everything. Obviously, some people don't like an idea, but others do. This goes for just about everything brought to the table in this thread. If you have an idea (like the gauntlet) and think it's a good one, do it. Who cares if a handful of people don't like it? What did I hear when I started throwing up builds? Khan, those build don't prove anything. Khan, not everyone will build a fighter like that. Khan, those are specific examples. Khan, builds mean nothing. Please. Your gauntlet will show something, whatever it is. I for one would like to see the gauntlet, though I won't promise a build for it this time. I feel bad for not delivering last time. Also, the pro-fighter side is fairly consistent. Compare him to monsters. The end.
Archangel62 06-25-07, 06:01 PM	@Archangel and... everyone else: Not everyone shuts down everything. Obviously, some people don't like an idea, but others do. This goes for just about everything brought to the table in this thread. If you have an idea (like the gauntlet) and think it's a good one, do it. Who cares if a handful of people don't like it? What did I hear when I started throwing up builds? Khan, those build don't prove anything. Khan, not everyone will build a fighter like that. Khan, those are specific examples. Khan, builds mean nothing. Please. Your gauntlet will show something, whatever it is. I for one would like to see the gauntlet, though I won't promise a build for it this time. I feel bad for not delivering last time. What has me irritated is this, I have tried to be fairly reasonable and open minded in this debate, I offered up my conceptual design and I even built a fighter to show my view on what I viewed as how a class should function in a game. Unfortunately despite the fact that unlike many on both sides I have admitted when I made mistakes I seem to be seen by many on your side of the fence as someone who is going to ignore any data, I built that guantlet because the pro-fighters argued about using Balors, the other side pointed out that there were few core creatures that went up that high and that class levels were going to be too much like the arena battles that we already agreed wouldn't do enough to prove anything conclusively. So yes, I make a gauntlet to offer a challenge, in which I point out that the fighter has a simple job, show what you can do to the best of your abilities, my main limits were on one shot and charged items to avoid anyone from abusing my wealth reset rules when they moved on to the next challenge. And I get told it will accomplish nothing, prove nothing, that I will likely ignore any facts that prove otherwise (frankly insulting) and then the minute someone else does, someone who hasn't been here as long offers up something similar the same damn people who ignored my idea or called it worthless FLOCK TO HIM. So yeah, I'm just a little annoyed right now.
Otto the Bugbear 06-25-07, 06:03 PM	Come now Khan, you should know by now that every opponent can switch class choices, feat choices, skill choices, spell choices and enviroment conditions as a free action in order to defeat the Fighter :rolleyes: Sort of like how the fighter has great versatility is build design, what with 11 extra feats he can use! And then takes these 6 feats (WF tree), but still claims that same versatility. :rolleyes: Also, the pro-fighter side is fairly consistent. Compare him to monsters. The end. And who wanted to do just that with some sort of gauntlet, and got all but ignored? (One fighter defender* did step up to the plate there, I must admit.) * I find the whole "pro-fighter/anti-fighter" claim both disingenuous and insulting. It's retarded to claim that the people that see the fighter as sub-par and want to give it more are somehow 'anti'! But, this has been brought up previously... and totally ignored by those that think the fighter is fine as-is.
Scion of Coldshard 06-25-07, 06:07 PM	as long as the fighter invested in a Wand of CLW Personally, I am very against any arguement that says a class is just fine because you can use other characters abilities. When you are in a game with a group you can generally expect help from them, and that is perfectly fine, but it doesnt tell us anything about the class. I'll try to hammer out a slighly revised fighter tonight. Looking forward to it. The funny thing about the DMM cleric is that we fairly concluded that is was so incredibly feat intensive that it really didn't give good payoff for the build. Part of the game's strategy is the "leveling up" game. Creating a character that doesn't his his stride until level 10+, possibly levels 12-15, is a very risky build. Compare that to a fighter who gets payoff right now, and every fight after that. We only did a comparison, and not a full one just yet, at level 6 though. I think that if we did the comparison at level 5 and at level 7 that would prove very interesting as well. The big part of level 7 is that suddenly the cleric has full BAB, +6 enhancement to str, and +7 temp hp for the day. So it looks like the DMM build basically kicks into overdrive right at level 7. Level 5 might be interesting because the Fighter hasnt gotten his iterative attack yet. The difference between the cleric and the fighter was not trivial. The fighter at level 6 was easily "outfighting" the cleric without buff spells. This difference was apparent even when I pseudo-randomly picked feats for the fighter. The fighter was a mish-mash of things and wasn't focused, and he was still ahead of the cleric even with the cleric pumping out spells to support himself. I doubt anyone would say that the unbuffed cleric can do better than a class who has its buffs effectively on already. But, in the above if the cleric had on the divine power he was actually doing pretty good! He didnt have that iterative attack but he was attacking at +12 with d8+7 damage. I believe the last count that the Fighter was at +11 with d10+6. With the feats placed onto the Fighter though it will be easier to run them through the various challenges. I should get some extra time tonight to work on my other cleric build. It has a good amount of noncore stuff so people might just throw it out and ignore it, but so far it is looking so fun that I might want to play it someday ;)
Khan the Destroyer 06-25-07, 06:16 PM	* I find the whole "pro-fighter/anti-fighter" claim both disingenuous and insulting. I find that I don't care. Get insulted. Many people do, over stuff that isn't intended to be insulting, but they can be insulted by and still seem reasonable. It's convenient. Plain and simple. The real issue is the constant finger-pointing and name-calling that goes on. It's the only reason we have to use these terms. It's retarded to claim that the people that see the fighter as sub-par and want to give it more are somehow 'anti'! Thank you for that little bit of wisdom. We'll go with your preference. Let's see... you referred to us as fighter defender. I guess that would make you a fighter attacker. Brilliant Otto. Leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of us. Call it X's and O's. Call it Peanut Butter and Jelly. I don't care. It's convenient. Get over it. But, this has been brought up previously... and totally ignored by those that think the fighter is fine as-is. Is this the best you have to offer Otto? You popped back up to throw around little jabs and make blatantly false statements? I mean, where do I have to go to prove you wrong? Was it the page before this one that I was arguing with Scion about the definition? Can you argue about an issue while ignoring it? Pretty audacious of you to throw the word retarded in a post like that Otto.
Leo 06-25-07, 06:17 PM	* I find the whole "pro-fighter/anti-fighter" claim both disingenuous and insulting. It's retarded to claim that the people that see the fighter as sub-par and want to give it more are somehow 'anti'! But, this has been brought up previously... and totally ignored by those that think the fighter is fine as-is. I actually replied to that back then, way back in one of the many fighter discussion threads months ago. Let me put it once again: Guy 1 like the fighter as it is:It's a pro-fighter. Guy 2 doesn't like the fighter as it is:It's an anti-fighter. Here, simple. Or you like the fighter as it is or you don't. You may have a dream about an upgraded fighter with battle focus or maneuers or cloud strife swords or that shoots laser beams of his eyes as a a free action at will, but guess what? It won't be a fighter. It will be something else.
Argaud 06-25-07, 06:29 PM	And it's a good answer, too. No, it is stupid. It is a typical example of changing the goalposts. Statement: The cleric is better warrior than the fighter. Counter: Not true. The fighter is better at level 1, 2, 3, 4... X (where X is when Quicken Spell and DMM-persistent become something usable). Builds are shown. CounterCounter: But the druid is better warrior than the fighter. Uh? That is not even logic. That is pure imbecility. It has no relation with the first statement and in no way it supports to the original statement. And yet it is used all the time.
Kalarus 06-25-07, 06:35 PM	(1)The gauntlet arguments get shut down because people argue that they inherently prove nothing (2)And before I get misquoted or misconstrued by someone, the arguments as to what the cleric, druid, warblade, almost any class can do better than the fighter isn't a comment that the fighter shouldn't be used! (3)The comments are to point out that because of how the system works the current incarnation of the fighter is being beaten out of their best thing by, guess what, CASTING CLASSES. This is people saying, "The issue here is that a caster class can be at the fighters level or higher and still have themselves at full compliment or near enough for their own thing." (4)If a player wants to be a fighter that's fine, but the fact is that them choosing to be a fighter due to concept shouldn't be such a mechanically inferior choice. If a player came to me saying he wanted to be a commoner I would tell him he could if he really wanted but to expect that he might have some problems and that I wasn't going to use kid gloves on him just because he chose an inferior class. You are mostly right but still, I picked a few parts out where I feel you are not, labelled them with numbers for easy response. (1) Various people have recently stated that they are interested in what this gauntlet of yours is exactly, yet still you have refrained from posting it, instead continuing your rant about how it was rejected before. (2) That may not be what *you* are saying, but that is what a lot of other people have been saying and the ones defending the Fighter also have a need to reply to those people. In fact they are the ones to whom I mostly direct my arguments, as I could not give a rat's arse about someone's personal preference for classes but I do give a rat's arse that a good bunch are suggesting to people reading these threads that they should never play Fighters, possibly before the reader ever even tried one himself, thus denying that person a possibly fun experience. These people do not say "In my experience Fighters haven't been very effective, especially at high level", they actually say "Don't play Fighters they suck!" A very good example was TheCobra's recent jump into this discussion by making a ToB Fanboy comment about Warblades. (3) This is also the issue we are contesting, and why builds have been provided as counter-examples to that issue. We have yet to see a caster class build that matches those Fighter builds in melee combat. Instead the reply is "Yeah well melee doesn't matter anyway because spells...". Instead we get blanket statements and generalizations without backup. The ones defending the Fighters have already provided the tactical Fighter builds that show what Fighters can do in melee, but the opposing arguers are too lazy to provide a caster build that can do the same in melee? Or is it that they can't and are silent about it, because they know they can't but don't want to openly admit it? (4) This is another part of the contested issue, in how far the Fighter IS in fact a mechanically inferior choice. We pretty much all agree that he is to some extent inferior but we obviously do not agree to what extent. The people who think the Fighter is greatly inferior throw paragon creatures at us that the Fighter supposedly cannot handle. We show specific Fighter builds that in fact handle the example creature very well, but since such builds are too specifically geared against defeating that opponent we have also provided builds of more generalized Fighters that have various options that they are good at and also show that these more generalized Fighters can still perform adequately against those paragon creatures. Yet people tenaciously claim these builds don't mean anything because no argument is allowed to count against the preconcieved notion that the Fighter is mechanically very inferior. Btw, by "we" show/provide builds I mostly mean Khan and Bob who have done most of the gruntwork, and a good job it has been. Sort of like how the fighter has great versatility is build design, what with 11 extra feats he can use! And then takes these 6 feats (WF tree), but still claims that same versatility. Did you actually read the builds that were posted? Few of them had the full WF tree feat choice, unless they synergized very well with the other chosen feats. They had plenty versatility in combat. And who wanted to do just that with some sort of gauntlet, and got all but ignored? (One fighter defender* did step up to the plate there, I must admit.) Archangel got in the unluck position to be drowned out by the pro-Fighters decision to argue against people who take far more radical and far worse argumented positions than he did. This was already acknowledged and we're still waiting for him to post his gauntlet, after our requests the past few days. The pro/anti-Fighter thing by the way is not meant to be derogatory or insulting, it's just a shorthand way of dividing the people who believe the Fighter can work as written and those who thinks he needs improvement before he can work. Anti-Fighter is in fact a very appropriate term since modifying the Fighter class makes it no longer the Fighter class. One such example exists and it's called Warblade. It is not meant to suggest we're in some fashion "against" you or at war or something equally silly.
OravennasBrother 06-25-07, 06:36 PM	The comments are to point out that because of how the system works the current incarnation of the fighter is being beaten out of their best thing by, guess what, CASTING CLASSES. Until the Caster runs low on spells. That WILL happen if the caster NOVA's off "boost" spells in the first fight. Dispel Happens. A Melee fighter ONLY needs HP restoration (in other words Healing) and Feats give a huge array of options even, as others have noted, when chosen sub-optimally. It is EXACTLY that staying power which makes a fighter useful at higher levels.
Archangel62 06-25-07, 06:46 PM	You are mostly right but still, I picked a few parts out where I feel you are not, labelled them with numbers for easy response. (1) Various people have recently stated that they are interested in what this gauntlet of yours is exactly, yet still you have refrained from posting it, instead continuing your rant about how it was rejected before. If you want it sure, I have reposted the thing a few times but I figure one more won't hurt (by this point I figure one more time of getting shot down won't kill me) The rules are as follows 1) Character used must be a pure fighter, Cleric, Warblade or Druid, no LA races, no prestiging, no multi-classing. 2) Character used by the challenger must be the same fighter beginning to end (no switching from charger, to tripper, to archer) 3) Equipment can be changed to deal with new wealth by level adjustments, you can replace sundered gear and you are considered at full, I request that you upgrade existing equipment rather than total rebuilds. 4) I will run the monster, a third party will handle dice rolling for both sides to deal with the results 5) Battle begins at 30 feet outside the monsters maximum reach. 6) This is a side note argument, in each case the terrain is considered to be neutral, trying to set up a proper battlemat for this is going to be a nightmare so we are working under the 'proper illumination for both sides to see correctly without a crapload of obstacles in the way' principle to keep the number of extraneous variables as manageable as I possibly can. 7) You may not hire, or gain through leadership, any followers, if you want to use leadership to get a mount (as khan did in one build) I will consider it but again trying to avoid too many variables. 8) Currently assume 25pb for characters Edit: 9) The battlefields are technically infinite in all directions, sorry dungeon crashers but I can't place barriers without it being arbitrary and most builds work well with a large expanse to play with. Edit 10) Races that are allowed are as follows, PHB, Races, Any non-la Monstrous humanoid (orcs, goblins, kobolds), Non LA races from ECS, non LA races from XPH, Non LA races from MoI, Non LA races from FRCS, Non LA races from Stormwrack, sandstorm, and frostburn, in addition any Races of races without LA will be allowed (including Dragnborn but your base race must follow the rules as listed) Edit 11) For druids, assume that all the monsters in books I pulled from exist for the purposes of your wildshaping, before anyone screams remember that I am allowing a fair amount of pulling. Edit 12) Substitution options are allowable so long as they are from the aforementioned books (I figure this is also fair since we are looking at the fighter overall rather than just core) Edit 13) Spells for casters are available from PH2, PH, Completes, Races of, Spell compendium, Stormwrack, frostburn, sandstorm, Dungeonscape, XPH, MoI, ToM. Edit 14) Feats and weapons listed in all aforementioned books are fair game for use by all. possibly more edits to the rules to come, hope it won't get much worse CR1: Horrid Rat CR2: Worg CR3: Runehound CR4: Minotaur CR5: Adult Arrowhawk CR6: Girallon CR7: Chuul CR8: Lifeleech Otyugh CR9: 10 Headed Hydra CR10: Razor Boar CR11: Skindancer CR12: War Troll CR13: Urophion CR14: Boneyard CR15: Sea Drake CR16: Battletitan CR17: Maulgoth CR18: Blackstone Gigant CR19: Famine Spirit CR20: Megapede Edit: BTW, I think I found a movie clip that gives a good representation of a cleric under the affects of the divine power spell. Link (http://www.badmovies.org/multimedia/moviesl/deadalive1.mpg)
Leo 06-25-07, 06:50 PM	As someone has pointed out a month ago or something this seems like a duel of Pokemon, except that we only have one pokemon and they have everybody else. Go dmm cleric Fighter uses combat effeciency in low levels! Ah, return, cleric, druid I choose you! Fighter uses nobody cares about grapples at high levels, and your big size will only make it easier to the enemy guys using touch attacks on you! Ah, druid, return, go warblade! Fighter uses full attack! Warblade, return, go dmm cleric! And so on. At least we stay with a single guy, but the other side has used every single spells, class, feats and alternative obscure rules that I ever heard. It's the fighter against everything else. How would the druid do if he had to best the wizard, the warblade and the cleric at the same time, hum?
Kharnov 06-25-07, 07:18 PM	Why is it during all these arguments over the fighter and his "issues" is it assumed that the fighter will spend his entire adventuring career in a void and completely without the aid of other party members? Last time I checked the game was designed with the idea of 4 party members. So why is it so wrong for the fighter to need a cleric, or for cleric to need a rogue, or a wizard to need a bard? Why is it wrong for any class to need another? That was the intention of the game designers in the first place. If you keep creating builds that make it so any particular class no longer needs another class to survive then in my opinion the build you have created is the issue. This is not a video game. In general characters do not solo in D&D. Having a build that can tank, and can heal, and can open locks, and can disable traps, and can cast fireballs, and can cast wish, is not in my opinion the goal of D&D. Just because you can create a character to do it, doesn't mean you should create it. There are lots or roles we can create characters for. I personally believe when we let each player focus on one role and let the player next to him or her focus on a different role we have a game that supports teamwork. Having fun and working together is the goal of D&D in my opinion. I think it’s ok that one build can fill a role better than another, that’s fine with me. It’s when your build fills the role for whole party that I have issues with it. It takes away from the fun of the other people who have taken the time to create characters for your group. It’s not cool when that happens.
Kalarus 06-25-07, 07:28 PM	The Gauntlet Ok, I'll see how my current Fighter would've performed. I'll get back to you in a few days with the build(s) as well as what tactics I'd use. If you actually want a round by round combat situation for the monsters it's going to be a lot of back and forth posting... Uhm by the way, does the Fighter build need to be 25-point buy or something? 'cause I'd actually need to look that system up, I've never used it before and the Fighter I play is rolled in a very stat-friendly system (but with relatively low treasure)...
Archangel62 06-25-07, 07:38 PM	Why is it during all these arguments over the fighter and his "issues" is it assumed that the fighter will spend his entire adventuring career in a void and completely without the aid of other party members? Last time I checked the game was designed with the idea of 4 party members. So why is it so wrong for the fighter to need a cleric, or for cleric to need a rogue, or a wizard to need a bard? Why is it wrong for any class to need another? That was the intention of the game designers in the first place. If you keep creating builds that make it so any particular class no longer needs another class to survive then in my opinion the build you have created is the issue. This is not a video game. In general characters do not solo in D&D. Having a build that can tank, and can heal, and can open locks, and can disable traps, and can cast fireballs, and can cast wish, is not in my opinion the goal of D&D. Just because you can create a character to do it, doesn't mean you should create it. There are lots or roles we can create characters for. I personally believe when we let each player focus on one role and let the player next to him or her focus on a different role we have a game that supports teamwork. Having fun and working together is the goal of D&D in my opinion. I think it’s ok that one build can fill a role better than another, that’s fine with me. It’s when your build fills the role for whole party that I have issues with it. It takes away from the fun of the other people who have taken the time to create characters for your group. It’s not cool when that happens. Except that the game function for four party members doesn't deal with the issue of a class that either isn't properly pulling its weight or if that class isn't being properly supported by the game system itself. The idea of teamwork to absolve poor design decisions is silly and also a bad idea because as easily as it can absolve a weak class it can also justify an obscenely powerful class with the idea that it will make the group as a whole more capable. Equally problematic is that it makes the concept of 'teamwork' something closer to slavery. The idea that for some reason the rest of the party is now responsible to make someone who is less than capable up to an acceptable level of skill by expending their abilities is rather unfair in my humble opinion.
Archangel62 06-25-07, 07:39 PM	Ok, I'll see how my current Fighter would've performed. I'll get back to you in a few days with the build(s) as well as what tactics I'd use. If you actually want a round by round combat situation for the monsters it's going to be a lot of back and forth posting... Uhm by the way, does the Fighter build need to be 25-point buy or something? 'cause I'd actually need to look that system up, I've never used it before and the Fighter I play is rolled in a very stat-friendly system (but with relatively low treasure)... I would prefer 25pb but am not averse to higher so long as we can come to a consensus, the round by round stuff could be done in a chatroom or something, we just need us and someone to referee.
Otto the Bugbear 06-25-07, 08:41 PM	Did you actually read the builds that were posted? Few of them had the full WF tree feat choice, unless they synergized very well with the other chosen feats. They had plenty versatility in combat. I wasn't talking about specific build. I was talking about the claim that fighters, as a class, are very versatile. Then, 6 feats get sucked up thereby reducing that versatility. Similar to the claim that was made about the opposite camp. Ironic, no? Khan, Kalarus, all Forgive me about the anti/pro comment. I wasn't in the right place of mind to post at that time. It was wrong. We've all been there before. :( I still stand by the other stuff though. Nice gauntlet, by the way Archangel. That ought to be interesting.
Otto the Bugbear 06-25-07, 08:51 PM	I would prefer 25pb but am not averse to higher so long as we can come to a consensus, the round by round stuff could be done in a chatroom or something, we just need us and someone to referee. Seems like, if the game was designed around 25 points (or the elite array), that's what the characters should be done around too. Otherwise, the argument will turn into "That's not how the game was designed" or "The monsters were pumped up too much to compensate for the extra points."
Argaud 06-25-07, 09:15 PM	If you want it sure, I have reposted the thing a few times but I figure one more won't hurt (by this point I figure one more time of getting shot down won't kill me) The rules are as follows 1) Character used must be a pure fighter, no LA races, no prestiging, no multi-classing. 2) Character used by the challenger must be the same fighter beginning to end (no switching from charger, to tripper, to archer) 3) Equipment can be changed to deal with new wealth by level adjustments, you can replace sundered gear and you are considered at full, I request that you upgrade existing equipment rather than total rebuilds. 4) I will run the monster, a third party will handle dice rolling for both sides to deal with the results 5) Battle begins at 30 feet outside the monsters maximum reach. 6) This is a side note argument, in each case the terrain is considered to be neutral, trying to set up a proper battlemat for this is going to be a nightmare so we are working under the 'proper illumination for both sides to see correctly without a crapload of obstacles in the way' principle to keep the number of extraneous variables as manageable as I possibly can. Although the rules are fair I question the fairness of the encounters. Why did you pick so many monsters out of the MM? Why, the DMG has tables of encounters in page 79! Lets see... CR1: Horrid Rat - I have no idea of what is this. Why not a darkmantle, or two human zombies? CR2: Worg CR3: Runehound - I have heard of those critters. They were used as example of how ridiculously powerful a CR3 creature could be. Why not a ogre or two drow warriors. CR4: Minotaur CR5: Adult Arrowhawk CR6: Girallon CR7: Chuul CR8: Lifeleech Otyugh CR9: 10 Headed Hydra - Another extremely biased example, given the kind of melee destroyers hydra are well known to be. Mind you, almost all the previos examples are pretty high in the power curve, but the hydra breaks the curve completely. I'd like to see a druid or DMM-cleric tackle this one using melee! Hell, even a level 12 meleer would be in trouble. Or... why not using a frost giant instead? CR10: Razor Boar - Another complete unknown for me. Bring in a fire giant, please. It is always used to show how weak level 10 fighter are, anyway. CR11: Skindancer - Yet another one I don't know. Why not the half-celestial paladin or the troll hunter? Both are meleers. CR12: War Troll - See, I know the war troll. It is famous as one of the most under-CRed, overpowered and ridiculously powerful creatures around. Hell, it is always mentioned in the COs as one of the best forms to polymorph! This could be seen as yet another hint the gauntlet is rigged. CR13: Urophion, CR14: Boneyard, CR15: Sea Drake, CR16: Battletitan, CR17: Maulgoth, CR18: Blackstone Gigant, CR19: Famine Spirit, CR20: Megapede. More monsters I have never used or seen used, most of which I barely remember. But given the previous examples, forgive me if I suspect they are all the best meleers for the CR in the whole MM series and hardly representative of the encounters for the levels. Alternatives meleers from the DMG tables: CR12: Leonal. CR 13: Iron golem. CR 14: Werewolf lord. CR15: Elite vampire. CR16: Horned devil. CR17: Marilith. CR18: Nightcrawler. CR19: 3 level 15 gnoll rangers. CR20: Pit fiend. Mind you that I suspect at certain level those monsters just cannot deal with Robilar's Gambit. Or at all with a fighter polymorphed into a planetar (even touch the fighter with melee becomes almost impossible) so I am also wondering how much cheese is acceptable before the anti- people come saying that "it is not the fighter but the cash he spent in pre-buffs" :) Nevertheless, I think using encounters from the DMG tables is a better option for the challenge.
Otto the Bugbear 06-25-07, 09:52 PM	I thought he mentioned that he wanted to pick stuff that was more "fightery" and less "castery". Plus, if it's not core only, then why restrict the monsters to core only? (I agree with questioning the hydra, though.)
Clawhound 06-25-07, 09:54 PM	I am redoing the fighter using the half-orc. Yes, this is cheezy. I'm doing this because I can. The fighter isn't tied to metamagic. (That, and the last build had so many mistakes that I just needed to start over. Don't build characters when you have a migraine.) I consider this a boring build. Think of this as the "benchmark" fighter. I used a 28 point buy as that's what I used on the cleric. He's a bit weaker with a 25 point build. -1 Str, -1 dex. Half-Orc Fighter 6 Str: 20 (15, +4 orc, +1 level) (+5) Dex: 13 (+1) Con: 14 (+2) Int: 13 (12, -2 orc, +3 build) Wis: 10 (+0) Cha: 6 (8, -2 irc) HP: 49 (10 first + 2x6 con + 5.5x5 hd) AC: 20, Full Plate Armor (up to AC 25 with weapon finesse, AC 27 when fighting defensively) BAB: +6/Grapple +15 Melee: +11 Ranged: +7 Fort +6, Refl +4, Wis +3 Intimidate +7, Bluff +2 +1 Greatsword +13/+8 (2d6+13/19-20) [5 str x 2, +1 enhancement, +2 weapon spec], avg 19 hp per hit. With bless, +14/+9 (2d6+14/19-20). Avg 20. + bull's strength +16 (2d6+17/19-20). avg 24 or + enlarge person, +15/+10 (3d6+16/19-20). avg 27. Masterwork Spiked Armor +12 (1d4+2) Unarmed Attack +11 (1d4+5) 4 Javelins +7/+2 (1d6+5/x2) avg 8 Feats 1st: Power Attack F1: Cleave F2: Weapon Focus (Greatsword) 3rd: Combat Expertise (int) F4: Weapon Specialization (Greatsword) 6th: Improved Unarmed Strike F6: Improved Grapple Equipment per MIC quick pick: 6. +1 greatsword 6. Ring of Protection +1 5. Bracers of Quick Strike (one more attack, 1/day) 5. Full Plate, Masterwork 4. Vest of Resistance +1 4. Salve of Slipperiness 3. Amulet of Aquatic Salvation 3. Crystal of Glancing Blows (+2 to resist grapple) 2. Least Crystal of Return (greatsword, allows fastdraw) 2. Silversheen 1. Wand of Enlarge Person (entrusted to party caster) 1. Oil of Bless Weapon If this guy is prepped, he has a 50% chance to kill a brown bear on round #1, followed by a cleave into the second brown bear. That's a high chance of 81 hp in a single round. That's enough to flat-out kill many CR6's, such as a hydra. Let's compare him to the uber Girillon. The girillon has a +2 to out grapple him, but that's before any buffs. With a single enlarge person, he's up to +20. Even unbuffed, he will likely take the girillon out in two rounds in a straight fight. Against CR 2's, he's pure death. This guy has a credible chance of eliminating four black bears in one round. This guy isn't perfect. He isn't even clever. But when someone claims that the cleric can out-fighter-the-fighter, they mean to say that the cleric can be more effective than this guy.
Kalarus 06-25-07, 09:57 PM	I would prefer 25pb but am not averse to higher so long as we can come to a consensus, the round by round stuff could be done in a chatroom or something, we just need us and someone to referee. I'll redesign my character's concept around a 25-point buy, having free reign over treasure spending should cover the lower stats than I'm used to. I have to redesign him anyway since he's "only" 6 levels Fighter (out of 10). Also, could you list the books you got those creatures out of? I also do not recognise many names and am wondering where I could find them. Gives me an idea about what to do. Argaud: I'm not worried about the monsters, I am worried about my horrible solo-character optimization skills ;). I don't see the harm in taking on some of the paragon challenging opponents. I mean, who cares if the Fighter gets beaten by a War Troll, we can then all slap our foreheads and say "Duh, it's a friggin War Troll." :P I wasn't talking about specific build. I was talking about the claim that fighters, as a class, are very versatile. Then, 6 feats get sucked up thereby reducing that versatility. Similar to the claim that was made about the opposite camp. Ironic, no? Uh, yeah, but... where does the idea come from that Fighters constantly pick those 6 feats? I don't recall that really, it popped up a little during the Fighter vs Barbarian thing, but the numbers at the time showed one needed only four at worst (WF, WS, MWM, GWF) to match the raging Barbarian in raw numbers, till level 20 anyway. That leaves 7 to still be very versatile. It also can't be claimed that the pro-Fighter side ever switches class :D Khan, Kalarus, all Forgive me about the anti/pro comment. I wasn't in the right place of mind to post at that time. It was wrong. We've all been there before. I still stand by the other stuff though. It happens, you're forgiven. We still get to rant at you for other stuff ;) :D And I learned something new about the Sblock tag today :P
Bob Loblaw 06-25-07, 09:59 PM	I don't think it is DMM that 'replaces' the fighter. The argument, which the 'pro' fighter crowd seems hesitant in acknowledging, is that if the fighter is indeed a better 'fighter' than the cleric, the cleric can still 'fight' well enough to fit the 'fighter' role and cast miracle. The reverse is not the same. So what? So the fighter can't cast 9th level spells. He isn't supposed to. Strange, the barbarian, paladin, ranger, rogue, bard, monk, all the Tome of Battle classes, and dozens more cannot do this yet they are not targeted like the fighter. The perfect warblade can't even pull this off. 9th level spells + reasonably effective 'fighter' = fighter's job insecurity. This is very far from the truth. If you make a reasonably effective fighter and I make an awesome fighter, then I have no fear of losing my "job." In fact, you can now spend more time functioning as a cleric instead of functioning as a mediocre fighter and average cleric. And before I get misquoted or misconstrued by someone, the arguments as to what the cleric, druid, warblade, almost any class can do better than the fighter isn't a comment that the fighter shouldn't be used! Unfortunately, there are many who actually feel this way. I know that you do not. There are a few others as well. Look at Sleeper1 and TheCobra for two who make it clear that the fighter has no purpose and that another class should be played. They aren't alone, many feel that way. And for those who want to argue teamwork, please explain to me how we can quantify this in any way that is unbiased. I understand that the casters can and probably should buff the other characters and heal them if capable. By the same rank I would argue that it is rather unfair to essentially treat a caster class as a walking augment dispenser rather than a thinking teammate, especially since as the levels progress they have the ability to make encounters end faster and more decisively which is better for the PCs in general. I agree with you 100%. Very few characters should be the buffers. Bards are designed to be buffers, and can augment the whole party with little problem. How's this for a simple way to determine teamwork for you gauntlet: 1) The fighter may choose any one buff or cure spell at any point in the battle so long as it is of a level the cleric or wizard could cast. 2) The fighter may choose to have the rogue flank, but must give up his attacks for the first round this happens. He may fight defensively during this time. 3) The fighter may have the opponent attack any other character once. This can be any action the opponent can take, but it can only happen once during the encounter. What has me irritated is this, I have tried to be fairly reasonable and open minded in this debate, I offered up my conceptual design and I even built a fighter to show my view on what I viewed as how a class should function in a game. Unfortunately despite the fact that unlike many on both sides I have admitted when I made mistakes I seem to be seen by many on your side of the fence as someone who is going to ignore any data, I built that guantlet because the pro-fighters argued about using Balors, the other side pointed out that there were few core creatures that went up that high and that class levels were going to be too much like the arena battles that we already agreed wouldn't do enough to prove anything conclusively. So yes, I make a gauntlet to offer a challenge, in which I point out that the fighter has a simple job, show what you can do to the best of your abilities, my main limits were on one shot and charged items to avoid anyone from abusing my wealth reset rules when they moved on to the next challenge. And I get told it will accomplish nothing, prove nothing, that I will likely ignore any facts that prove otherwise (frankly insulting) and then the minute someone else does, someone who hasn't been here as long offers up something similar the same damn people who ignored my idea or called it worthless FLOCK TO HIM. So yeah, I'm just a little annoyed right now. I have already started working on my fighter. I had started it a long time ago, but as I worked on it I noticed many problems. You addressed some of them. I will continue working on it. You have been one of the more civil people in this debate and deserve more. Might I recommend that we also have the cleric run through the same gauntlet? Maybe the druid as well? This would be a good way to see if those two classes really can replace the fighter in the exact same situation. * I find the whole "pro-fighter/anti-fighter" claim both disingenuous and insulting. It's retarded to claim that the people that see the fighter as sub-par and want to give it more are somehow 'anti'! But, this has been brought up previously... and totally ignored by those that think the fighter is fine as-is. The prefix anti- just means "against." If you don't think the fighter functions as is, the you are against the fighter as is. It's not meant to be insulting at all. I personally don't like labels, but as Khan said, it is merely a matter of convenience with no malice behind it. The pro-fighter group would like to see some changes. We have all thrown our ideas out there. We just don't think the fighter is worthless as written either. We are not blind to the flaws. We just don't think they are as detrimental as many claim.
Bob Loblaw 06-25-07, 10:02 PM	Also, could you list the books you got those creatures out of? I also do not recognise many names and am wondering where I could find them. Gives me an idea about what to do. I did this when he sent me the list many moons ago. CR1: Horrid Rat (Eberron CS) CR2: Worg (MM) CR3: Runehound (MMIII) CR4: Minotaur (MM) CR5: Adult Arrowhawk (MM) CR6: Girallon (MM) CR7: Chuul (MM) CR8: Lifeleech Otyugh (MMIII) CR9: 10 Headed Hydra (MM) CR10: Razor Boar (MII) CR11: Skindancer (MMIII) CR12: War Troll (MMIII) CR13: Urophion (Lords of Madness) CR14: Boneyard (Libris Mortis) CR15: Sea Drake (FF) CR16: Battletitan (MMIII) CR17: Maulgoth (FF) CR18: Blackstone Gigant (FF) CR19: Famine Spirit (MMII) CR20: Megapede (MMII)
TheCobra 06-25-07, 10:32 PM	No, it is stupid. It is a typical example of changing the goalposts. Yeah, I should be been more clear. It's a correct statement, because druids are extremely from powerful starting at level one. By the way, have people actually been arguing that DMM clerics fight better at low levels? I thought everyone understood that fighter are fairly decent early on. A very good example was TheCobra's recent jump into this discussion by making a ToB Fanboy comment about Warblades. Yes, the truth hurts. Does it still sting? Would you like a bandaid? 5) Battle begins at 30 feet outside the monsters maximum reach. Huh. That kind of sucks for archers. Look at Sleeper1 and TheCobra for two who make it clear that the fighter has no purpose and that another class should be played. More or less. If you want be a melee fighter, play a warblade. If want to be an archer, some fighter levels might be reasonable, but not many. Of course, this doesn't mean fighters are that bad in practice. They're not unplayable or anything. Other classes are just better.
Kalarus 06-25-07, 10:36 PM	Euh, that's a few obscure sourcers there, but what gives, not everything has to be from MM 1 or 3 :P. Yes, the truth hurts. Does it still sting? Would you like a bandaid? The truth that you're a fanboy doesn't do anything to me except make me chuckle. You haven't raised a single valid argument, just made a few blanket statements that we've seen a million times before and have been discarded, refuted or ignored a million times before.
xanadu 06-25-07, 10:37 PM	So what? So the fighter can't cast 9th level spells. He isn't supposed to. Strange, the barbarian, paladin, ranger, rogue, bard, monk, all the Tome of Battle classes, and dozens more cannot do this yet they are not targeted like the fighter. The perfect warblade can't even pull this off. All those classes perform useful functions outside combat. The fighter can weave baskets. That is why the fighter is 'targeted' as you say. It is not just the 'cleric.' The druid, 'gishes' and other warrior-classes, however much you underestimate their fighting capabilities, are not 'average' and can adequately fulfill the 'fighter' role while being able to do other things whereas the fighter does little else mechanically. Does this mean you can't play the fighter? No of course not. Make a fighter, take 18 feats, and knock yourself out. Have a fun time.
TheCobra 06-25-07, 10:56 PM	The truth that you're a fanboy doesn't do anything to me except make me chuckle. You haven't raised a single valid argument, just made a few blanket statements that we've seen a million times before and have been discarded, refuted or ignored a million times before. Your persistent denial of the obvious makes me chuckle. So, I guess it was good for both of us. Let's get together again sometime.
Bob Loblaw 06-25-07, 10:58 PM	Yes, the truth hurts. Does it still sting? Would you like a bandaid? How does your warblade deal with the same problems the fighter has? I posted some information on the warblade and no one has contested the issues I brought up. Here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12838761&postcount=1134)it is since you missed it. More or less. If you want be a melee fighter, play a warblade. If want to be an archer, some fighter levels might be reasonable, but not many. After looking the class over, I don't see it as a huge improvement over the fighter. It can do some amazing things, I won't deny that. I just don't see it as great as people want it to be. All those classes perform useful functions outside combat. The fighter can weave baskets. That is why the fighter is 'targeted' as you say. Then you may want to review the skill section of the PHB again. I managed to disprove this months ago. I would be more than willing to go over it again. Note that I will not discuss the fact that the fighter can be roleplayed outside of combat. He is not limited to only fighting, contrary to popular belief. It is not just the 'cleric.' The druid, 'gishes' and other warrior-classes, however much you underestimate their fighting capabilities, are not 'average' and can adequately fulfill the 'fighter' role while being able to do other things whereas the fighter does little else mechanically. I keep reading this, but I have never actually seen a build to prove it. There are two people working on it in this thread. However, why don't you actually show me. I showed that a Core-Only fighter can stand his ground and contribute both in and out of combat. Why don't you do the same with the cleric or druid? I don't want to see theoretical ideas. I want to actually see a 25 point buy build. Until then, I will have to assume that your opinion, while fine, is unfounded.
Khan the Destroyer 06-25-07, 11:06 PM	Just my 2 cents on the gauntlet... We should go with 25 point buy, for the reasons Otto already laid out. I don't really think duels are necessary, unless we were to do them several times over to get a larger sample. It would probably be easier to just note how likely the fighter is to hit, get hit, and perform any combat maneuver he specializes in (if any). This might be more simple, but could allow us to try several different gauntlets with the same fighter. While we can control the potential of the fighter, we can't control the dice rolls, the environment, teamwork, how the monster will be handled, etc. Some of this can be dealt with by having a larger sample of examples. But otherwise, I think just a simple stat comparison could do as well. In regards to the hydra... I was going to say just to move 30' and ready an action to sunder when it attacks, but seeing as it gets all 10 bites even after moving, the fighter is just as dead. In regards to the warblade... since he fails against the druid and the cleric as well, why is he relevant?
TheCobra 06-25-07, 11:06 PM	How does your warblade deal with the same problems the fighter has? I posted some information on the warblade and no one has contested the issues I brought up. Here it is since you missed it. Actually, I responded to that very post. As someone else noted, the Will save problem can be help by Moment of Perfect Mind. That lack of full attacks isn't that bad for various reasons. After looking the class over, I don't see it as a huge improvement over the fighter. It can do some amazing things, I won't deny that. I just don't see it as great as people want it to be. It's certainly not as powerful a full caster. I'll agree with that. But ranged combat is the only thing a fighter can do better. Then you may want to review the skill section of the PHB again. Uh, the fighter has the worst skill selection of any class. How in the world do skills help the fighter? However, why don't you actually show me. Here's a build for you: druid 20. Enjoy.
Archangel62 06-25-07, 11:22 PM	Although the rules are fair I question the fairness of the encounters. Why did you pick so many monsters out of the MM? Why, the DMG has tables of encounters in page 79! Lets see... CR1: Horrid Rat - I have no idea of what is this. Why not a darkmantle, or two human zombies? CR2: Worg CR3: Runehound - I have heard of those critters. They were used as example of how ridiculously powerful a CR3 creature could be. Why not a ogre or two drow warriors. CR4: Minotaur CR5: Adult Arrowhawk CR6: Girallon CR7: Chuul CR8: Lifeleech Otyugh CR9: 10 Headed Hydra - Another extremely biased example, given the kind of melee destroyers hydra are well known to be. Mind you, almost all the previos examples are pretty high in the power curve, but the hydra breaks the curve completely. I'd like to see a druid or DMM-cleric tackle this one using melee! Hell, even a level 12 meleer would be in trouble. Or... why not using a frost giant instead? CR10: Razor Boar - Another complete unknown for me. Bring in a fire giant, please. It is always used to show how weak level 10 fighter are, anyway. CR11: Skindancer - Yet another one I don't know. Why not the half-celestial paladin or the troll hunter? Both are meleers. CR12: War Troll - See, I know the war troll. It is famous as one of the most under-CRed, overpowered and ridiculously powerful creatures around. Hell, it is always mentioned in the COs as one of the best forms to polymorph! This could be seen as yet another hint the gauntlet is rigged. CR13: Urophion, CR14: Boneyard, CR15: Sea Drake, CR16: Battletitan, CR17: Maulgoth, CR18: Blackstone Gigant, CR19: Famine Spirit, CR20: Megapede. More monsters I have never used or seen used, most of which I barely remember. But given the previous examples, forgive me if I suspect they are all the best meleers for the CR in the whole MM series and hardly representative of the encounters for the levels. Alternatives meleers from the DMG tables: CR12: Leonal. CR 13: Iron golem. CR 14: Werewolf lord. CR15: Elite vampire. CR16: Horned devil. CR17: Marilith. CR18: Nightcrawler. CR19: 3 level 15 gnoll rangers. CR20: Pit fiend. Mind you that I suspect at certain level those monsters just cannot deal with Robilar's Gambit. Or at all with a fighter polymorphed into a planetar (even touch the fighter with melee becomes almost impossible) so I am also wondering how much cheese is acceptable before the anti- people come saying that "it is not the fighter but the cash he spent in pre-buffs" :) Nevertheless, I think using encounters from the DMG tables is a better option for the challenge. Ok, big reason I chose most of those are as follows 1) I do not want to use classed monsters because quite frankly I feel that it puts us back in the arena match. 2) A few of the monsters are favorites of mine (I myself admitted the runehound was a bit of a beast in my CR article in Redgars) 3) I WANT monsters that aren't as commonly known here, I want to do that because I'm sorry but on average most monsters in the MM are same song different verse a little bit louder and a little bit worse. These have a few more options to them and can throw more variables around, 4) I am opening the doors to almost all the D&D suppliments. No FR specific, no Eberron specific. The completes, Races of, Dragon magic the XPH, Tomes of Battle and Magic, even weapons of legacy as well as the MiC are all available for use, as is PH2. So I feel that it is reasonable for me to also use supplimental monsters. 5) Most of my chosen beasties are primarily physical, this was on purpose, I want to test the fighter in an environment that is their arena. If I just used caster foes or ranged foes you can't very well tell me that it would be fair to the fighter or allow for testing multiple build types. 6) This is the big one, I want to see different build styles, maybe we'll find that a mounted combatant does really well on 1-5 and 12-14 but not so well on the others. Believe it or not this is also a good way to study the D&D combat system. 7) Remember folks, the fighter can die and lose in each encounter, the goal is to simply see what each one can do and also, I would appreciate if you mention what you might do in the context of a standard group as opposed to what you did solo. 8) I want the main strategy here to be working solo, believe it or not there is a reason here for it. The goal of gauntlet run #1 is to see what the fighter can do and I feel that it is better for the sanity of both sides if we follow that principle. The aid of allies is important but I think we should see what the fighter is doing on their own rather than what they are getting from the group. 9) As for casters, I can theoretically have them in too but then I also need their spell lists and they are going to be skewed in this because they will be able to go in each time with the best spells for the scenario which will skew the results in their favor. 10) I also want to see different types of fighter tactics here, what I enjoyed about Khans builds was that his were different, I want to see each permutation of the fighter from anyone interested and these monsters are diverse enough here that we might find some odd results, even see some aspects of combat tactics that none of us expected. 11) I want to make one area clear, if the fighter just blows through most of their coin on one shot buffs both sides might cry foul on that one but I actually plan to have a group of judges (made up of myself and the contestants) to debate the merits of each design and what we felt about how it functioned in each encounter.
Argaud 06-25-07, 11:24 PM	Here's a build for you: druid 20. Enjoy. I particularly like the quality of the detail, the sharp intelligence with which those feats, items, spells and ACFs are taken. However I can totally beat all that with my: Fighter 20 build. See? Fighter 20! Utterly brilliant. Win. Enjoy the blanket statement of doom.
TheCobra 06-25-07, 11:29 PM	I particularly like the quality of the detail, the sharp intelligence with which those feats, items, spells and ACFs are taken. It's a druid. It doesn't really matter.
Bob Loblaw 06-25-07, 11:38 PM	Actually, I responded to that very post. As someone else noted, the Will save problem can be help by Moment of Perfect Mind. That lack of full attacks isn't that bad for various reasons. That maneuver can be used, at best, every other round. The rounds you are recovering, you are done for. I would rather have 4+ attacks per round, increasing my chances of success instead of putting all my eggs in one basket. It's certainly not as powerful a full caster. I'll agree with that. But ranged combat is the only thing a fighter can do better. I have not seen a warblade in action. Why not run the gauntlet? Uh, the fighter has the worst skill selection of any class. How in the world do skills help the fighter? All the ones in blue are class skills. If we assume a 14 Intelligence (he wants that Combat Expertise), a non-human fighter has 92 skill points to spend. Appraise: DC 12-20. Several synergy bonuses, a feat, and two items can aid here, making Take 10 a very viable option. No skill points invested. Balance: DC 10-32. This one may be difficult, with the heavy armor and all. However, I would assume that the more common DCs are 10-15. Depending on the situation, he may be able to Take 10 which may be enough (most fighters might still need some help). I can also see someone using the Aid Another Action to help out or using a 10-foot pole for an additional +2 to +4 circumstance modifiers. No skill points invested. Bluff: Opposed by Sense Motive which is a class skill for 4 PC classes. Trying to Bluff the Paladin should be left to the Bard anyway. There isn't a strong need to Feint in Combat for the Fighter, so he's left to simply lying out of combat. Climb: While the DCs can get rather high, rope, pitons, a climbing kit, and his probably high Strength makes Taking 10 perfectly within his grasp (the DC is probably 5-15). No skill points invested. Concentration: With his decent Constitution, some of these are within his grasp. Most DMs only use this skill for casters, however there can be plenty of other reasons. No skill points invested. Craft: The character can have Masterworked tools, and a bonus of +8 to put himself into the Take 10 range to make masterworked items. Well within even a low-level character's grasp. Skill Focus and Aid Another makes this even easier. No skill points invested. Decipher Script: This is a skill probably better used by other classes. The fighter should probably either leave this to another party member or hire someone to decipher the document. However, with a decent enough Intelligence, Skill Focus, and the Diligent feat, the simplest messages might be within the Take 10 reach. One could also make an argument for Aid Another here. Diplomacy: DCs are from 0-60. Most of the time, the targets of this skill should be started at Indifferent. With a rank or two, Skill Focus, decent Charisma, and being a half-elf, he can Take 10 on improving the attitude. Note that he could also use it to worsen the attitude if he desires. This use should be carefully done, but I can see it in some circumstances. Also note that this skill is an option for Aid Another so a couple characters giving a speech can improve the odds even more. Disable Device: Not typically the fighter's job (and some devices, especially magical ones, are impossible anyway unless done by a rogue). That being said, simple and tricky devices are within his grasp. He will need 1 rank to do this, but hopefully he has a good enough Intelligence to Take 10 on the DC 15 checks. Nimble Fingers, Skill Focus, and an Intelligence of 14 are all that is needed. Also, depending on the situation, Aid Another is also a potential boost. Disguise: This is an opposed check. Only 4 PC classes have Spot as a skill check. He actually has a chance of pulling this off. Also note that many disguises may not catch anyone's attention. If he only needs to make minor changes, he gets a +5 bonus which can set the DC at 15 for the opposing check. Aid Another can bring this to 17. Note that the only time this check needs to be opposed is when it matters. The sword-and-board fighter who makes himself look like a swashbuckler in a town where no one knows him may not need to worry much. I don't see Skill Focus being used for this, but it is an option. Generally if you want to be good at disguises, you should take a different class. No skill points invested. Escape Artist: This one will be a challenge. Grapples should be okay most of the time. The other checks may have to be bypassed by breaking the binding item. Hopefully the fighter has a good enough Strength to be able to Take 10 or even 20. Feats can make this easier, but unless he's always going up against grapplers, I don't see him taking Skill Focus. No skill points invested. Forgery: This is opposed by another Forgery check. 1 PC class and 2 NPC classes have this as a class skill. Depending on the circumstances, the fighter could have a better than 50% chance of success. He would need 1 rank just to use the skill. Hopefully he has a decent Intelligence since he's spending points on Intelligence-based skills and is spending them on cross-class skills. Give him a 13 Intelligence, and he starts at +2 to this check. The Deceitful feat might be a choice for him giving him +2 more. If he really wants to, he can take Skill Focus for +3 more. He can also set the circumstances to give the opposing check up to a -6 penalty. Well within his grasp for many situations. Gather Information: DC 10 to learn about major news items. Taking 10 makes this achievable most of the time. With some well placed bribes (+2 circumstance), and being a half-elf, he can be at +4. With only 1 rank, he can Take 10 on more checks. There are feats that can make this even easier. No skill points invested. Handle Animal: DC 30 is the highest (unless he wants to rear a wild animal). He needs a +10 to be able to Take 20. This is achievable at level 7, not accounting for Charisma or feats. Most of the time he only needs to hit DC 20 which would really be Taking 10 at level 7. Theoretically, he could take 20 at 1st level. Well within reach. 10 Points invested. Heal: Most of the DCs are 15. A healer's kit, Self-Sufficient feat, and Wisdom 12 make this a Take 10 check. Aid Another can help as can being prepared. Anti-toxins can grant a +5 bonus to the poison save and are not very expensive. Note that the diseases in the SRD are DC 12-20. 8 of the 10 listed are within the Take 10 with the modifiers listed above. With poisons, all but 4 can be accomplished by Taking 10 with the modifiers I listed above. No skill points invested. Hide: Another opposed check. Again, Only 4 PC classes have Spot as a skill check. There is an armor check penalty that must be dealt with. The fighter may have a hard time with this check, but it is still possible to hide well. Two feats can give up to a +5 bonus. Intimidate: This is an opposed check so every point should go here if he wants this skill. While not necessary, it really should be maxed if he chooses it at all. Skill Focus may be a good investment if the fighter wants to be really good at this. 23 Points invested. Jump: The more points here the better. Taking the Run feat will grant a +4 bonus. Honestly though, if you need to be jumping more than 20 feet, it may be time to ask that wizard for a fly spell. However, he needs +20 to be able to jump 30 feet. There are some feats and skill synergies that make this possible. With the Acrobatic feat and Run feat, he gets +6. With a Strength bonus of +6, he's at +12. He can hit that +20 by level 5. If he wears full plate, he needs to wait until level 11. Without using feats, 14 points invested. Knowledge: For many checks, the DC is 10-15. Common knowledge is only a DC 10 so he can Take 10 on this check. At low-levels, he can easily identify many of his monstrous opponents. He doesn't need any ranks for most of his checks. I know that it says "Trained Only" but it also says An untrained Knowledge check is simply an Intelligence check. Without actual training, you know only common knowledge (DC 10 or lower). Common knowledge is definitely a Take 10 check. If he wants to know more, he'll have to invest like anyone else. Even 1 point gives him the opportunity to hit the higher DCs. He can potentially hit the DC 20 for a tough question. Skill Focus can certainly help. Move Silently: 6 PC classes have Listen as a class skill. This makes moving silently a bit more difficult. Combined with the armor check penalty, moving silently isn’t going to be something the fighter should consider most of the time. However, being an opposed check, it is entirely possible that he can pull this off. If he's a halfling and takes the appropriate feats can give him a +8 bonus (halflings get the +2 to Dex). Open Lock: He'll need to invest ranks and possibly a feat or two to make this worth trying. However, since only 1 PC class has this as a class skill, the fighter is in the same boat as everyone else. Perform: With a masterwork instrument and a Charisma of 15, he can Take 10 to earn 1d10 silver daily. There really isn't much use for this skill outside of the bard's abilities so it's not a big deal. A fighter who wants to be good at singing for his money should invest ranks, take Skill Focus, and improve his Charisma so he can at least Take 10 with a +10 bonus. Not really worth the investment if you ask me. Ride: DC 20 is the highest he will have to worry about. DC 10 or 15 is more likely. While he won't be able to Take 10 on most of these checks, 5 ranks in Handle Animal and a military saddle grant him a +4 bonus. Rolling a 6 or 11 isn't that bad at 2nd level. It only gets easier as he goes on. By 8th level, he probably won't be worried about making any of those checks. He may want everything in here to protect his mount. 23 points invested. Search: He can't search for difficult or magical traps, like everyone except the rogue. It's a Take 20 check so many uses are well within his grasp. Even if he's in a situation where he can only Take 10, there are some things he can do. He can also use Aid Another to help someone else (or vice versa). If he's an elf or half-elf, he gets a bonus on these checks making it that much easier. Sleight of Hand: This is an opposed check. The fighter will probably have to deal with the armor check penalty. It is trained only, so he'll need at least 1 rank. Depending on what he's trying to hide on his person, he may have a +4 bonus on this check. He probably shouldn't be using this skill to pick pockets. However, it's still opposed so if he wants to take a gamble, he can definitely try. Synergy and feats can add +4 to +7 to the check. Note that an untrained Sleight of Hand check is simply a Dexterity check. Without actual training, you can’t succeed on any Sleight of Hand check with a DC higher than 10, except for hiding an object on your body. Speak Language: Only 1 class has this as a class skill so the fighter is in the same situation as everyone else. The only difference is that characters that rely on high Intelligence may not need to invest many ranks (if any). Spellcraft: Most uses are for casters. He can invest some ranks, boost his Intelligence, and take a feat or two to make some of these checks doable. However, he has about as much reason to take this skill as the barbarian or monk. No skill points invested. Spot: This is an opposed check. Only 4 classes have Hide as a class skill. Those classes should be good at hiding so the fighter is in the same boat as most everyone else. Note that most of the classes with Hide also have Spot as class skills. If it's that much of an issue, take 1 or 2 feats and be an elf granting you a +7 to your Spot checks by level 3. Improve your Wisdom and invest a few ranks. Swim: DC 20 is the worst one. With masterworked Full Plate, he's at a -10 and if he has a masterworked shield, he suffers another -2. Not a good idea to be swimming in a storm in full plate. He will need to dump a lot into this skill to make it viable at that point. However, DC 10 Calm Water and DC 15 Rough Water are more common. He would have to hit (essentially) DC 26 for calm waters and 31 for rough waters. With a Strength of 22, he's got a 50% chance in calm water. Add in some skill points and that improves by 5% each point. At 7th level, he's at the point where he may be able to Take 10 on the swim check in calm water. I don't think I'd let him Take 10 in rough water. If his Strength is at 30 by level 20: 3 Points invested to Take 10 in Calm Water. 16 Ranks for Rough Water 21 Ranks for Stormy Water. Survival: Most DMs ignore the effects of weather in their games. However, that doesn't mean that all do. A fighter can Take 10, feeding himself every day without any problems. If he wants to feed the party, he will have to do something about it. A 1 or 2 feat investment gives him up to a +5 to his check (making the other uses Take 10 options). A single rank or a Wisdom of 12 makes it so the fighter can now feed a party of 4 every day. Tracking can become an option, with many of the DCs within grasp. No skill points invested. Tumble: The DCs aren't all that bad, but the fighter will probably have to deal with his armor check penalty. This will at best negate his Dex bonus. Taking 10 is rarely an option. He can take a couple feats for up to a +5 bonus and he'll need at least 1 rank. Not the best of options, but still doable. Use Magic Device: The DCs are all tough, but still within his grasp. He'll need to invest at least 1 rank. He can take two feats to give him +5. A high Charisma will also be needed. Since this is not a class skill for most classes, he's no better or worse than most other classes. Use Rope: One use is an opposed check with a +10 bonus. A silk rope and 1 to 2 feats can give +7 more. This makes every use a Take 10 option with no ranks invested. So there you go. There are plenty of things that can be done in and out of combat. He can spend the points as I mentioned and still have 2 points left over. Make some adjustments to his stats and give him some skill boosting items and those numbers only get better. If he doesn't need a mount or doesn't want to be able to swim in stormy weather while wearing plate, he can save 28+ more points. That's plenty to work with. If he feels that Intimidate just isn't worth the investment, that can save him 23 more points. What to do with 51 skill points? The important part here is the the DM understands how to set DCs. Difficulty (DC) Example (Skill Used) Very easy (0) Notice something large in plain sight (Spot) Easy (5) Climb a knotted rope (Climb) Average (10) Hear an approaching guard (Listen) Tough (15) Rig a wagon wheel to fall off (Disable Device) Challenging (20) Swim in stormy water (Swim) Formidable (25) Open an average lock (Open Lock) Heroic (30) Leap across a 30-foot chasm (Jump) Nearly impossible (40) Track a squad of orcs across hard ground after 24 hours of rainfall (Survival) Here's a build for you: druid 20. Enjoy. Well, who can argue with evidence like that? Of course, since you have provided nothing, I will assume that's all there is to the argument: nothing. Thanks for clearing that up.
Bob Loblaw 06-25-07, 11:41 PM	It's a druid. It doesn't really matter. It certainly doesn't matter. The best way to avoid being proven wrong is to provide nothing to be analyzed. Even though some of my builds were found to have flaws, I still threw them out there. I know that I can back up my statements. Can you? Until I see an actual build, then I will assume that the fighter is actually better than the druid. I have seen nothing to disprove this.
TheCobra 06-25-07, 11:51 PM	That maneuver can be used, at best, every other round. The rounds you are recovering, you are done for. If you have make a Will save every round, sure. This is not usually the case. In such a situation, a fighter would be in far more trouble. I would rather have 4+ attacks per round, increasing my chances of success instead of putting all my eggs in one basket. Why? Each iterative is 25% less likely to hit. I'd rather make one deadly attack at my full bonus. Especially when I also get to take a move action. So there you go. There are plenty of things that can be done in and out of combat. Indeed. And if you like the fighter's skills, you'll really love the commoner's. Commoner 20, anyone? Until I see an actual build, then I will assume that the fighter is actually better than the druid. I have seen nothing to disprove this. You have no experience of your own to draw on? None whatsoever?
Scion of Coldshard 06-26-07, 12:14 AM	While I dont really consider having a similar bonus at level 20 to a first level guy who liked a certain class skill as being particularly amazing, I mostly just have a specific comment here: Knowledge: For many checks, the DC is 10-15. Common knowledge is only a DC 10 so he can Take 10 on this check. At low-levels, he can easily identify many of his monstrous opponents. He doesn't need any ranks for most of his checks. I know that it says "Trained Only" but it also says An untrained Knowledge check is simply an Intelligence check. Without actual training, you know only common knowledge (DC 10 or lower). Common knowledge is definitely a Take 10 check. If he wants to know more, he'll have to invest like anyone else. Even 1 point gives him the opportunity to hit the higher DCs. He can potentially hit the DC 20 for a tough question. Skill Focus can certainly help. The check for telling what a monster is and its abilities goes like this: In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information. Unles you are planning on identifying monsters with 0 hd putting a rank in the skill is pretty important by those rules. (of course I think those rules need a bit of a rewrite given that it is possible for one skeleton to have a DC of 11 while another has a DC of 20 and a dm would be justified in not telling you it is actually undead unless you got at or above the appropriate one.. great). Even then, with a +2 from int and 1 rank that puts a character in an ok place to at least be able to put a name to the creature and maybe some other useful information if you roll well. Spending skill focus on a single knowledge skill seems like a bit of a waste though. Knowledge of arcana, dungeoneering, nature, religion, and the planes would be the place to start though. That is 10 skill points but a 14 int Fighter at first level could do it.
Bob Loblaw 06-26-07, 12:51 AM	While I dont really consider having a similar bonus at level 20 to a first level guy who liked a certain class skill as being particularly amazing, I mostly just have a specific comment here: The check for telling what a monster is and its abilities goes like this: Unles you are planning on identifying monsters with 0 hd putting a rank in the skill is pretty important by those rules. (of course I think those rules need a bit of a rewrite given that it is possible for one skeleton to have a DC of 11 while another has a DC of 20 and a dm would be justified in not telling you it is actually undead unless you got at or above the appropriate one.. great). Even then, with a +2 from int and 1 rank that puts a character in an ok place to at least be able to put a name to the creature and maybe some other useful information if you roll well. Spending skill focus on a single knowledge skill seems like a bit of a waste though. Knowledge of arcana, dungeoneering, nature, religion, and the planes would be the place to start though. That is 10 skill points but a 14 int Fighter at first level could do it. While you are correct, I did mention that he would need to invest ranks. Also, he is not limited to identifying monsters. Knowledge checks are used for many other things. The question was about out-of-combat so even if we completely discount the entire monster identification part, the fighter can do just fine. I also wouldn't use Skill Focus for this, but it is still an option. I also would rather just have the wizard, cleric, druid, or whomever just make their check and tell the rest of the party. That's how we do things as it makes the game move along much faster. Our party has even been known to seek out sages for information.
Bob Loblaw 06-26-07, 01:05 AM	If you have make a Will save every round, sure. This is not usually the case. In such a situation, a fighter would be in far more trouble. What if you didn't know when it was coming? What if there were two opponents with spells? What if the opponent waits until you have used you actions for the round? What if you have already used your Swift or Immediate actions? If I can get my Will save up to 20+ as a fighter, without leaving core, then why would this even be an issue for me. Why? Each iterative is 25% less likely to hit. I'd rather make one deadly attack at my full bonus. Especially when I also get to take a move action. I can still get more than one attack even if I move. Take a look at what Khan has done for some examples. Each of them would be at the highest attack bonus. Also, if you have 1 chance to win or 4 chances to win, which would you choose? Indeed. And if you like the fighter's skills, you'll really love the commoner's. Commoner 20, anyone? Are you even paying attention? You said the fighter cannot function out of combat. I proved otherwise. What about the rogue? He's got skills too. Are they now worthless because the Commoner does too? I can't believe I'm actually considering comments like this worth responding to. This has to be one of the actually dumbest comments I have ever seen. You have no experience of your own to draw on? None whatsoever? I actually do not play divine characters. I find them all very boring. No one in our group enjoys them. I have seen them in played in the past. I even use them as DM. Personally, I have yet to see them live up to the potential you are claiming. I can back up my claims. Can you?
TheCobra 06-26-07, 01:30 AM	What if you didn't know when it was coming? What if there were two opponents with spells? What if the opponent waits until you have used you actions for the round? What if you have already used your Swift or Immediate actions? If I can get my Will save up to 20+ as a fighter, without leaving core, then why would this even be an issue for me. Wait, are you seriously arguing both that Will saves own warblades even with Moment of Perfect Mind and that fighters don't care about Will saves? :confused: I can still get more than one attack even if I move. Take a look at what Khan has done for some examples. Each of them would be at the highest attack bonus. Most fighters don't both move and take multiple melee attacks. You said the fighter cannot function out of combat. Where did I say this? I proved otherwise. You showed that the fighter envies the mighty commoner's skill selection. Do you honestly think that giant post enlightened anyone? It did nothing whatsoever to counter the notion that fighters have the least to contribute out of combat. I actually do not play divine characters. I find them all very boring. No one in our group enjoys them. I have seen them in played in the past. I even use them as DM. Personally, I have yet to see them live up to the potential you are claiming. I can back up my claims. Can you? Okay. I concede the point. Fighters are more powerful than druids and clerics.
Bob Loblaw 06-26-07, 01:39 AM	Wait, are you seriously arguing both that Will saves own warblades even with Moment of Perfect Mind and that fighters don't care about Will saves? I'm arguing that the Warblade cannot handle every Will save that comes at him if he uses only one option. I'm also arguing that the fighter can get his Will save up enough to not have to worry as much as people claim. Most fighters don't both move and take multiple melee attacks. Most fighters you have seen maybe. Improved Trip alone grants one additional attack. Many other feats do as well. Khan had an example above that used 6 or 7 attacks in a single round. Where did I say this? You claimed the fighter's skill do not help. You also say it again, just more obviously in about 2 seconds... You showed that the fighter envies the mighty commoner's skill selection. Do you honestly think that giant post enlightened anyone? It did nothing whatsoever to counter the notion that fighters have the least to contribute out of combat. What do you want him to do out of combat? We may have different ideas of what to expect from the classes. I certainly don't expect him to be the party bard or rogue. Okay. I concede the point. Fighters are more powerful than druids and clerics. Glad we cleared that up. Note that I am open to being proven wrong. The ball is in your court. Show me where I am wrong by providing a full build. I worked with Core. I would like to see this as well. You can even point me to a post that someone else has done.
TheCobra 06-26-07, 02:40 AM	I'm arguing that the Warblade cannot handle every Will save that comes at him if he uses only one option. I'm also arguing that the fighter can get his Will save up enough to not have to worry as much as people claim. That's true, I guess, but the warblade can get his Will save just as high as the fighter can. Unlike the fighter, however, he can use Moment of Perfect Mind. Because of this, warblades tend to do better against Will saves than fighters. Improved Trip alone grants one additional attack. If you're count it that way, sure. I wasn't thinking of Improved Trip and Cleave. Those are additional attacks of a sort, but you don't always get them. You claimed the fighter's skill do not help. You also say it again, just more obviously in about 2 seconds... What part of "the least" do you not understand? We may have different ideas of what to expect from the classes. I certainly don't expect him to be the party bard or rogue. In other words, you think he's the least useful out of combat. Am I right? Just for fun, here's a quick idea of what a druid can do at level 20. In dire tiger form: STR 27, DEX 15, CON 23(22 for hp) 213 hp F+18 R+8 W+18 44 AC (-1 size, +11 natural, +13 armor, +9 shield, +2 DEX) claws +28/28(2d4+13), bite +23(2d6+9) Spells in effect: barkskin, greater magic fang Gear: +5 wild dragonhide full plate, +5 wild tower shield, +6 amulet of CON The druid also has a friendly dire tiger animal companion. Using wild shape is rather tough in a core-only game, mainly because it's not at all clear what the druid can wear. I figured no one would argue with an amulet. By the MIC rules, the tiger can wear rings just fine. Many core-only DMs, however, wouldn't allow it. A smart core-only druid would opt for shapechange instead. Then she gets to wear normal items without trouble. As a pit fiend, her base AC is 40. That's before barkskin and her monk's belt.
navar100 06-26-07, 02:54 AM	Can we? And can we then debate wether the same result is achieved by someone drinking, for example, wine? :D Scion would. :P
navar100 06-26-07, 02:57 AM	Debatable. Even if so the difference is marginal and not enough to make them distictive. You are missing the point. At 5th level, 3rd level spells are great. At 11th level, 6th level spells are great. The fighter perhaps can marginally 'fight' better than the cleric and does little else. The cleric can 'fight' quite well and cast the highest level spells the party is capable of. That's it, right there, the CoDzilla Fallacy. It doesn't matter a cleric can fight well and still cast some level spell. The fighter can fight well on his own without casting some level spell. That's good enough.
navar100 06-26-07, 03:18 AM	What has me irritated is this, I have tried to be fairly reasonable and open minded in this debate, I offered up my conceptual design and I even built a fighter to show my view on what I viewed as how a class should function in a game. Unfortunately despite the fact that unlike many on both sides I have admitted when I made mistakes I seem to be seen by many on your side of the fence as someone who is going to ignore any data, I built that guantlet because the pro-fighters argued about using Balors, the other side pointed out that there were few core creatures that went up that high and that class levels were going to be too much like the arena battles that we already agreed wouldn't do enough to prove anything conclusively. So yes, I make a gauntlet to offer a challenge, in which I point out that the fighter has a simple job, show what you can do to the best of your abilities, my main limits were on one shot and charged items to avoid anyone from abusing my wealth reset rules when they moved on to the next challenge. And I get told it will accomplish nothing, prove nothing, that I will likely ignore any facts that prove otherwise (frankly insulting) and then the minute someone else does, someone who hasn't been here as long offers up something similar the same damn people who ignored my idea or called it worthless FLOCK TO HIM. So yeah, I'm just a little annoyed right now. Ok, let me give you a sincere pat on the back. I do agree you have been meeting half way with the fighter defenders. When I recently wrote about why your gauntlet idea was shot down, I was only trying to communicate from my recollection of what the conversations were that transpired afterwards and how/why said conversations led to the gauntlet challenge not being taken. I don't know if it's now just wishful thinking on my part for our side's defense against your irritation, but I'm kind of remembering there were some positive feedback to your idea in the sense that it was a good idea at first look at least as well as a rational argument as opposed to blanket allegations that came before (generically speaking, not you specifically). Another critique I remember is not for the idea itself but rather you offered creatures from Monster Manuals that not everyone had such that unfamiliarity with said monsters made people less inclined to try the gauntlet. The fact that you presented only melee oriented monsters was/is appreciated. Is it possible to try again but this time use only Monster Manual I monsters? Edit: Never mind. I accept your reason as recently stated. The concept of "obscure source" (my terminology here) monsters has been accepted anyway, so it's moot now.
Kratch 06-26-07, 04:47 AM	3) I WANT monsters that aren't as commonly known here, I want to do that because I'm sorry but on average most monsters in the MM are same song different verse a little bit louder and a little bit worse. These have a few more options to them and can throw more variables around, Not to mention, it helps avoid some of the Metagame preperation. I don't mind this too much, other then the fact i have to see if i even have the books to do a general tactical overview (like i did in that other post, or did you want to atually run the encounter, cause I always play casters as it reduces the demand for me to roll, because i get VERY Poor rolls). The character i intend to use will be the same one i used in the other thread. 5) Most of my chosen beasties are primarily physical, this was on purpose, I want to test the fighter in an environment that is their arena. If I just used caster foes or ranged foes you can't very well tell me that it would be fair to the fighter or allow for testing multiple build types. I wouldn't mind seeing a second gauntlet of these foes you consider "unfair" to the fighter, just to see if the fighter can actually surrise you with regaurds to those foes, but thats for later, I'm already pressed for time this week (as i mentioned already) 6) This is the big one, I want to see different build styles, maybe we'll find that a mounted combatant does really well on 1-5 and 12-14 but not so well on the others. Believe it or not this is also a good way to study the D&D combat system. I've always said i keep the same few builds in mind when discussing the fighters. Perhaps they're optimized, but with the plethora of feats, It's reasonable to believe there are many other combinations of feats that can also make a good fighter (and bob and khan have done just that). But as khan and bob may actually be participating, I'll let them use their builds and i'll be using the one i usually keep in mind. 8) I want the main strategy here to be working solo, believe it or not there is a reason here for it. The goal of gauntlet run #1 is to see what the fighter can do and I feel that it is better for the sanity of both sides if we follow that principle. The aid of allies is important but I think we should see what the fighter is doing on their own rather than what they are getting from the group. Unless you have another idea in mind, I was planning on running it like i did the other one, presumably solo, but give ideas for how i'd act in diferent terrains or in group settings. 9) As for casters, I can theoretically have them in too but then I also need their spell lists and they are going to be skewed in this because they will be able to go in each time with the best spells for the scenario which will skew the results in their favor. At this point, I think some of us would be willing to overlook that advantage just so we could finally see a build do what people claim it can do (or fail, should that be the case) 10) I also want to see different types of fighter tactics here, what I enjoyed about Khans builds was that his were different, I want to see each permutation of the fighter from anyone interested and these monsters are diverse enough here that we might find some odd results, even see some aspects of combat tactics that none of us expected. Hopefully, with a few participants, you'll get this. PM me (or post) how you want to procceed. As i've mentioned, I'm short on time this week, but if it's just a general overview on what tactics would be used and how it would likely perform, I can probably do 1-2 CR's every night or so. If you want to actually run the encounters... I have my feats selected (up till 20), and some of my level gear (from the other thread), but will have to spend some time on the rest (wish i had MiC).
Khan the Destroyer 06-26-07, 05:55 AM	Doesn't a swift action use up your immediate action? So, if a warblade were to recover his Moment of Perfect Clarity (with a swift action) he wouldn't be able to use it for another round, correct? In fact, if he uses any swift Boost, or immediate Counter, or recovers his maneuvers, he can't use Moment of Perfect Clarity. Which is not to say the maneuver isn't awesome. But it does take an immediate action. As for more attacks beyond moving... Improved Trip grants an additional one, Cleave does, Sundering Cleave does, AoO's do. You could attack someone and trip them for Knockdown, attack them again with that bonus attack, using it to sunder the weapon, attack them again for sundering the weapon, and then attack them again when they stand up. For that particular fighter, that's moving 30' and attacking four times, at your highest BAB (actually even higher). And that's at level 6.
Clawhound 06-26-07, 06:46 AM	Just for fun, here's a quick idea of what a druid can do at level 20. In dire tiger form: STR 27, DEX 15, CON 23(22 for hp) 213 hp F+18 R+8 W+18 44 AC (-1 size, +11 natural, +13 armor, +9 shield, +2 DEX) claws +28/28(2d4+13), bite +23(2d6+9) Spells in effect: barkskin, greater magic fang Gear: +5 wild dragonhide full plate, +5 wild tower shield, +6 amulet of CON That's fairly un-impressive. At that level, even poorly built fighters are hitting +36 to hit (15 str + 5 level = 20 str (+5); +20 BAB, +5 weapon, +2 weapon focus/ws/etc + 3 gauntlets of str) and have AC's in the 40 range, with 210 hp. A half-orc would be hitting +36. Greatsword damage is 2d6+10 strength + 5 weapon + 2 wf/etc = 2d6+23. That's without buffing. HP are (simplified) 20x5.5 + 20x2 + 20x3 (amulet of con) = 110+40+60=210 hp. AC 42 [+8 full plate + 5 enhancement + 2 large animated shield + 5 enhancment + 5 amulet of armor + 5 ring + 2 dex). Max AC combat reflexes AC 47, improved combat reflexes AC 62. Quite honestly, your tiger has no punch vs creatures with AC 36-40. Back to the gauntlet. What I do not like about the gauntlet is that they are all CR= battles. What about the CR-2x2, CR-4x4, and CR-6x8 battles? In single target battles, fighters are denied all their abilities to handle multiple targets. Cleave/great cleave/combat reflexes/area control are entirely nerfed. That's a huge percentage of a fighter's normal arsenal. This also makes the game of making a solo-character tougher, as you must account for even more circumstances.
itwasntme 06-26-07, 07:06 AM	Just like the fighters can to prove their capability. The problem here is that these arguments are going in circles. Neither side has a clear definition and guess what, THE FIGHTER ARGUMENTS ARE MOST LIKELY BASED ON HOW EACH OF US VIEW OBJECTIVE POWER LEVEL IN THE CONTEXT OF A GAME. To some people the fighter is too weak, mostly because when looked at in comparison to other classes and looked at in terms of what they can provide they simply do not provide enough overall to function as a proper PC class. On the other hand some people find that they work fine in games. The problem is that neither side can come to an objective agreement because we aren't arguing from the objective point of zen balance and comparing all classes, we are arguing from a personal view on character balance and capability and thus where they will end up. A side effect of this is also that both sides are using double standards. The group that argues fighters are fine take the stance that the fighter is viable so long as they can do their job, as they themselves define it, and it doesn't matter that other classes can do the job better or that NPC classes can do it roughly as well, it still means the fighter is viable. The group that says the fighter needs an upgrade points to comparative weaknesses and tactics on the part of the monster but neglect that either the fighter is ignored as the weakest foe until the end or that the fighter goes down first (a theoretically wasted attack). Also, the equipment thing is frankly not going to work well for arguments because no one can honestly work out what percentage of character power is gear based because in some cases it is raw boost, in other cases more the result of synergy and working out who gets the most out of what is not an easy or fast process. The gauntlet arguments get shut down because people argue that they inherently prove nothing, arena matches also prove nothing, and fairly soon I can imagine that class comparisons will prove nothing either because no one will objectively agree on what the results prove or disprove. And before I get misquoted or misconstrued by someone, the arguments as to what the cleric, druid, warblade, almost any class can do better than the fighter isn't a comment that the fighter shouldn't be used! The comments are to point out that because of how the system works the current incarnation of the fighter is being beaten out of their best thing by, guess what, CASTING CLASSES. This is people saying, "The issue here is that a caster class can be at the fighters level or higher and still have themselves at full compliment or near enough for their own thing." If a player wants to be a fighter that's fine, but the fact is that them choosing to be a fighter due to concept shouldn't be such a mechanically inferior choice. If a player came to me saying he wanted to be a commoner I would tell him he could if he really wanted but to expect that he might have some problems and that I wasn't going to use kid gloves on him just because he chose an inferior class. The other issue is that at low levels the cleric can be about as good as the fighter in many cases, while there is a small difference in bonus to hit the cleric will generally have a higher AC and has a greater survival chance due to healing capacity. And for those who want to argue teamwork, please explain to me how we can quantify this in any way that is unbiased. I understand that the casters can and probably should buff the other characters and heal them if capable. By the same rank I would argue that it is rather unfair to essentially treat a caster class as a walking augment dispenser rather than a thinking teammate, especially since as the levels progress they have the ability to make encounters end faster and more decisively which is better for the PCs in general. Note : The Things in Bold i agree with Alot of the arguement is based on how players like to play there Game So ill make a point on a few comparetion on some class's compared to the fighter Ranger) Sure the ranger can get his Free class list on something or another for free but thats not very great his spell list is useoly week but it is something over the fighter however the fighter gets the same bonus as the ranger ... the Ranger however has Less HP and useoly less AC and special manuvers with the weapons Less to Hit and Less Damage Note duel wielding with Sunblades that are Upgraded can be very powerfull sure in the hands of a ranger there nice but there even nicer to the hands of a Fighter who has his weapon tree in eather Short Sword or Basterd Sword The Ranger there for has less To Hit less Damage and Less HP and sometimes even less AC Benefits? A Small spell list better skill list and Fav nme ... Fav nme however is quite pointless inless your up agest the creature you have your class feature on Rouge) Very much less HP and AC Sure he can Sneak Attack for an extra 10d6 but with abilitys like Heavy Fort that can be ignore and only d6 hp? He can be butched right off the bat in fact in just about evey single game ive seen him play in he was only alive becouse the monster did not target him ... not becouse it couldnt but becouse the Fighter or other melee tank was doing a better job them him ... and with Range Combat you have to be clouse for your SA abilitys sure the Rouge has a very nice skill list but when a fighter can do the following ... A dwarf fighter's thief skills - Open Door: Boot. Pick Lock: Bash. Pick Pocket: Mug. Climb Walls: Rope. Hide in Shadows: No. Move Silently: As If. Find/Remove Traps: Ouch. you'll find that there isnt much reason for Skill lists to be in excistance Wizard) Low HP If the fighter is able to get next to him (Magicol or not note i like useing boots of teleportation for this) and attack him thats it the Wizard is more then likly dead Sure the wizard has a long distance attack but the job could be done with Archur Builds Cleric) Sure the Fighter cant Heal him self with spells but there are other ways on how to heal him self eather with potiations or combat form feats or many other ways the Cleric cast all his buffs on himself and at the end result is only 1-3 points ahead of the non Buffed Fighter ... a Fighter with UMD who use's a wand or a rod to cast the same buffs will now be 6-10 points ahead of the fully buffed up Cleric a very deadly combination Druid) Inless where talking about the Core Rules of Polymorphing where there HP Changes to become that of the monster and other such things then the Druid HP is lower then the fighters there to hit is lower though at times there Grapple is higher (Though with feats like Clouse Quarters Fighting Grappleing is something you do not want to do) There Armor is useoly the same as it wes before hand which is lower then the Fully Armored Fighter or a bit above the lightly armored Fighter The Animol Compainon can be taken care of even at the early levels However the benefit of a Druid is its a good healing scoures (Not as good as the Clerics but its good enough at times) And it has spells which attract attation to many people Fighters have the option of having many build Options open to them so that way they can help fill in the roles of differnt options they may not allways be the best in that fild but they fill in more roles then the other character Two weapon fighters Archur Fighters ive seen more offten then not in the same character something Rangers cannot realy Do inless they wish to spend there feats in it ... but then there HP and To Hit is useoly still a few points behind Roleplaying is something like this / You roleplay a character take what you have and do things with it Fighters can do many things outside of Combat alot of things after all in case you didnt know Skill lists are not allways needed sure its nice and at times its good to have but it is something you do not allways need For example you dont have to pick the lock on the door or disarm the trap on the door you could just smash though the wall Need to talk to characters and have them give you infomation or something on that line? Well last i knew Intemidate was a class skill for them it shouldnt be hard to have skill points in that Need to find infomation out? well again you could play the role of spy and peek around the nairborhood in my options Dex Fighters are realy powerfull fighters as they can fill in the role of Duel wielding and Archur build at the same time Frackly i do not understand why people tend to hate the Fighter and diss on it so much if you hate the class only becouse of the fact that it dosnt have skill points then i like to see more hostile combat agest the Barbian or some other class with 2+int mod skill points
Otto the Bugbear 06-26-07, 07:30 AM	Just my 2 cents on the gauntlet... We should go with 25 point buy, for the reasons Otto already laid out. I don't really think duels are necessary, unless we were to do them several times over to get a larger sample. It would probably be easier to just note how likely the fighter is to hit, get hit, and perform any combat maneuver he specializes in (if any). This might be more simple, but could allow us to try several different gauntlets with the same fighter. While we can control the potential of the fighter, we can't control the dice rolls, the environment, teamwork, how the monster will be handled, etc. Some of this can be dealt with by having a larger sample of examples. But otherwise, I think just a simple stat comparison could do as well. In regards to the hydra... I was going to say just to move 30' and ready an action to sunder when it attacks, but seeing as it gets all 10 bites even after moving, the fighter is just as dead. In regards to the warblade... since he fails against the druid and the cleric as well, why is he relevant? I imagine the actual dual will take place anyway, but gathering that information you suggest is a good idea in addition. Like: Fighter likely to get hit: XX% Fighter likely to hit foe's AC: XX% Fighter v. Foe Trip: XX v. ZZ Fighter v. Foe Grapple: XX v. ZZ And so forth. I remember once upon a time there was a C.O. challenge to deal as much damage as possible against a generic dragon over 10 rounds. Anyway, there was some sort of formula used to determine the frequency of hits and how much damage was being dealt. It took into account critical hits and fumbles ('1' being an automatic miss). Perhaps that could also be applied. Doesn't a swift action use up your immediate action? So, if a warblade were to recover his Moment of Perfect Clarity (with a swift action) he wouldn't be able to use it for another round, correct? Incorrect. A swift action does not affect your immediate action for the next round. An immediate action expends you swift action for the next round. So, you had it backwards, but using an immediate counter does mean your next round doesn't get a swift action. Back to the gauntlet. What I do not like about the gauntlet is that they are all CR= battles. What about the CR-2x2, CR-4x4, and CR-6x8 battles? Perhaps when he talked about this being gauntlet #1, there was something about making a gauntlet later that does exactly what you mention. That would be good too, though that does become a logistical nightmare.
The_sleeper1 06-26-07, 08:04 AM	Look at Sleeper1 and TheCobra for two who make it clear that the fighter has no purpose and that another class should be played. Please dont put words in to my mouth. I am PRO-fighter I want to see them fixed and brought to a place where they are on even footing with other classes and where they have unique abilitys. I want fighters to be considered more then a 2 or 4 level dip. I am not ANTI-fighter wanting to keep them down with a skill set that many think is not up to par. I think the fighter is fun to and I do play them even though they are considered weaker.
Argaud 06-26-07, 08:06 AM	If you have make a Will save every round, sure. This is not usually the case. In such a situation, a fighter would be in far more trouble. Not true, not only has the fighter the feats to raise the will save to a point where it is higher than the wizard but with the new ACF of CC (Resolute) fighters do not have to care about will saves anymore. Why? Each iterative is 25% less likely to hit. I'd rather make one deadly attack at my full bonus. Especially when I also get to take a move action. A good fighter will almost always hit with the second iterative, and often with the third too. A good fighter will have Boots of Haste as soon as he has the cash and hit twice with the first iterative. At high level 3-4 hits are normal and 5 hits aren't rare. In my experience warblades also seek to have full attacks. Most times a warblade full attack does more damage than any standard action maneuver. But since full attacks aren't always possible, those standard actions still see plenty of use. Of course Time Stand Still is awesome (but it is cheaply duplicated by the Belt of Battles magical item). Indeed. And if you like the fighter's skills, you'll really love the commoner's. Commoner 20, anyone? Strawman anyone? You have no experience of your own to draw on? None whatsoever? My experience is that druids suck. But I freely admit the player wasn't trying very hard and even though I advised him to use some of the tactics I read in the CO boards, he dropped the character to play a warblade. Does this means druids suck? I think not. But if you have had poor experiences with fighters, that is your problem. It's a druid. It doesn't really matter. Yes it does.
Bob Loblaw 06-26-07, 08:08 AM	That's true, I guess, but the warblade can get his Will save just as high as the fighter can. Unlike the fighter, however, he can use Moment of Perfect Mind. Because of this, warblades tend to do better against Will saves than fighters. I see Moment of Perfect Mind as a very good maneuver. It's a nice option but the Warblade won't always be able to exercise that option. I know that I would take it almost every time past level 10 or so (it's not really needed too much before that) as a back up option. I like having back up plans. If you're count it that way, sure. I wasn't thinking of Improved Trip and Cleave. Those are additional attacks of a sort, but you don't always get them. In the same way that you don't always get to use your maneuvers. Both classes have their strengths and weaknesses. I don't see the Warblade as powerful as many others do. I do see the Warblade as having some very cool options that would be difficult to mimic with the fighter, if not impossible in some cases. I'm cool with that. There needs to be a reason to play every class. What part of "the least" do you not understand? I guess I just don't see it the same way. The fighters in the games I run have had no problems contributing out of combat. It all depends on how the player decided to invest in his skills and what needs to be done. Many of the DCs are very achievable without investing any ranks. With options like Take 10 and Take 20, I don't see the fighter as having any real problems most of the time. He just needs to focus on his strengths. In other words, you think he's the least useful out of combat. Am I right? I don't. I do think that some classes are designed to use their skills more than others. I don't see any problem with the fighter going around town and using his skills to his advantage while the other classes do the same. Just for fun, here's a quick idea of what a druid can do at level 20. In dire tiger form: STR 27, DEX 15, CON 23(22 for hp) 213 hp F+18 R+8 W+18 44 AC (-1 size, +11 natural, +13 armor, +9 shield, +2 DEX) claws +28/28(2d4+13), bite +23(2d6+9) Spells in effect: barkskin, greater magic fang Gear: +5 wild dragonhide full plate, +5 wild tower shield, +6 amulet of CON The druid also has a friendly dire tiger animal companion. Using wild shape is rather tough in a core-only game, mainly because it's not at all clear what the druid can wear. I figured no one would argue with an amulet. By the MIC rules, the tiger can wear rings just fine. Many core-only DMs, however, wouldn't allow it. A smart core-only druid would opt for shapechange instead. Then she gets to wear normal items without trouble. As a pit fiend, her base AC is 40. That's before barkskin and her monk's belt. This is a good start, thank you. This is what I was referring to. Your druid (let's call him Roger, it would make me happy - "Sorry Roger, you tiger now"), without the animal companion, is comparable in many ways to the fighter. His attack bonus is a bit low, most fighters will be over +35. The tower shield won't be very useful. You will retain the AC bonus, but the cover will be unusable. With the animal companion, he gains some more options. The dire tiger is a dangerous foe, but certainly not comparable to a fighter. The tiger can do quite a bit and this can mean the difference between success and failure. Pounce and Improved Grab make for a deadly combination. I wouldn't care if the tiger had a ring. Most rings are good, but the the more powerful ones the tiger couldn't use (i.e., ring of wishes, elemental command, etc.).
Argaud 06-26-07, 08:17 AM	Just for fun, here's a quick idea of what a druid can do at level 20. In dire tiger form: STR 27, DEX 15, CON 23(22 for hp) 213 hp F+18 R+8 W+18 44 AC (-1 size, +11 natural, +13 armor, +9 shield, +2 DEX) claws +28/28(2d4+13), bite +23(2d6+9) Spells in effect: barkskin, greater magic fang Gear: +5 wild dragonhide full plate, +5 wild tower shield, +6 amulet of CON The druid also has a friendly dire tiger animal companion. Using wild shape is rather tough in a core-only game, mainly because it's not at all clear what the druid can wear. I figured no one would argue with an amulet. By the MIC rules, the tiger can wear rings just fine. Many core-only DMs, however, wouldn't allow it. A smart core-only druid would opt for shapechange instead. Then she gets to wear normal items without trouble. As a pit fiend, her base AC is 40. That's before barkskin and her monk's belt. Good AC. A fighter would have AC43 before buffs, of course, so nothing to write home about. The fighter will also have 20 hp more, of course. Even though I readily admit 20 hp is not much. claws +28/28(2d4+13), bite +23(2d6+9) is very, very sad. A fighter would have +39/39/34/29/24, plus Supremacy, plus DR penetration, and do at the very least 2d6+25 with each attack. The druid is badly outclassed here. The spells are what makes him superior, of course. But a smart fighter at level 20 will use Polymorph Any Object before leaving town, a spell that last weeks. And will be something like a planetar (+19 AC, to AC61) among other things. (But at least you posted something, congratulations!)
Bob Loblaw 06-26-07, 08:21 AM	A swift action does not affect your immediate action for the next round. An immediate action expends you swift action for the next round. So, you had it backwards, but using an immediate counter does mean your next round doesn't get a swift action. The way I read the two actions is that you can use one or the other each round, but not both. The main difference is when you can use them in the round. Immediate actions can be used on someone else's turn while swift actions can only be used on your turn. That's how the glossary definitions read to me but I may be misreading it. I just woke up.
Bob Loblaw 06-26-07, 08:23 AM	Please dont put words in to my mouth. I am PRO-fighter I want to see them fixed and brought to a place where they are on even footing with other classes and where they have unique abilitys. I want fighters to be considered more then a 2 or 4 level dip. I am not ANTI-fighter wanting to keep them down with a skill set that many think is not up to par. I think the fighter is fun to and I do play them even though they are considered weaker. I misunderstood. Your posts make it sound like you think people should play the cleric instead. I see the fighter as having unique abilities, they just aren't built into the class. You have to go get them with feats, and make sure that you choose the feats with the best synergies.
Bob Loblaw 06-26-07, 08:25 AM	Good AC. A fighter would have AC43 before buffs, of course, so nothing to write home about. The fighter will also have 20 hp more, of course. Even though I readily admit 20 hp is not much. claws +28/28(2d4+13), bite +23(2d6+9) is very, very sad. A fighter would have +39/39/34/29/24, plus Supremacy, plus DR penetration, and do at the very least 2d6+25 with each attack. The druid is badly outclassed here. The spells are what makes him superior, of course. But a smart fighter at level 20 will use Polymorph Any Object before leaving town, a spell that last weeks. And will be something like a planetar (+19 AC, to AC61) among other things. (But at least you posted something, congratulations!) I think he was trying to stick to Core. I would like to see a non-core build as well.
Argaud 06-26-07, 08:29 AM	I think he was trying to stick to Core. I would like to see a non-core build as well. Well, out of core the fighter loses only Supremacy and +2 to hit and damage. Or rather, he exchanges those by other options (which I think would be inferior, but YMMV).
Clawhound 06-26-07, 08:53 AM	When getting an idea of what is good and what isn't, you should really start with the "standard" builds. Those are the no-brainer, obvious builds, or what is otherwise considered standard. Think of them as the "paths of least resistance." They may not be the most effective tactics for various reasons, but they are standards because they are tried and true and work pretty well. You want to do this so that when you make your "comparison" build of a different class, you know what others will compare you against.
magmer2 06-26-07, 09:11 AM	I think I'm going to try to run a fighter build through the gauntlet when I get home. I'm going for the first 10 something like Race orc 28pb Stats Str 18 (14+4racial) Dex 14 (13+1pt) Con 14 12+2pt Int 13 (15-2 racial) Wis 8 Char 6 1-imp. shield bash, dodge 2-weapon focus. breastplate masterwork shield with masterwork shield spikes. 3-expertise maybe, pick up +1 Large steel shield with spikes 4-karmic strike, bashing quality on shield 6-combat reflexes, weapon spec. 8weapon mastery 9 10-?? its still a work in progress. Don't have the stats for abyssal rat so I'm starting with worg Fighter 2 Hp20 AC20(with dodge) Attack +8 Damage d6+6x.7(6.65avg)- 4.5rounds Worg Hp30 AC 14 Attk +7 Dmgd6+4x.4 (3avg) 6.6666 rounds Doesn't take into account trip as I am not sure on the probability for that. CR 3 non core monster I'll do it later CR4 Fighter 35hp AC 21+1 shield of bashing attk +10 Dmg d12+7x.8(10.8avg)3.61rounds till drop 12.15 against the charge. With karmic strike AC17 dmg ~21.6-1.805 rounds dmg 24 against charge With karmic strike and a weapon set against charge Attk+8 2d10+12x.8 27.6 Minotaur Hp 39 AC14 attk+9/+4/+4 Damage 3d6+6x.75/d8+2 x.25=13.925 2.5rounds till drop on the charge Damage 4d6+6x.6=12 Against karmic strike 3d6+6x1.15+d8+2x.45=21.875 1.6rnds 4d6+6x.8=16 The fighter maybe able to pull this off if he goes first, if not dead fighter. By pulling the halberd out the fighter begins the second round with 19hp versus the minotaurs 12.4, and if he deals a bit more than average damage the minotaur will drop. So win to fighter via a lot of planning and math. CR5 Fighter 9k in equipment right? Hp42.5 Ac22 Ring of prot. +1 TAC 14 Attk +8mighty com.longbow Damage d8+5x.65=6.175-6.15 rounds Arrohawk 38hp AC21 attk+12 Damage 2d8x.9=8.1 5.24 rounds My fighter build is flat out going to die unless it gets Electric resistance. Which I have decided to include after looking at this encounter. I would have otherwise had +1 breastplate So for the price break down on equipment 4520 - spiked shield of bashing 10 -halberd 2k - ring of deflection 400-10+1 arrows 500-mighty longbow 350- mstw breastplate 600-potions of resist energy and protection from evil one each. 100 on miscellaneous adventuring gear 620 remain CR6 Fighter treasure 4620 used resist electricity 50hp AC18 Attk+12/7 Dmg d12+9x1.35(20.925) 2.77 rounds Karmic strike-due to karmic strike if the girrallon deals any damage it will take more with the exception of the rend which will deal 3 points more, provided it doesn't hit more than 3 times. Girrallon hp58 AC16 attk+12x4, +7 Dmg 6.5x3.25 21.575+14 (2d4+9) total 35.575, taking 37.2 in return from karmic strike. Pretty easy for the fighter. CR7 Fighter hp57.5 AC20 attack14/9 Dmg d12+10 15.675 ~6rnds Deals 26.4 damage when struck chuul hp93 ac22 att+12x2 dmg 2d6+6 16.6 grapple is the real killer for the fighter so now would be a good time to sell my soul for close-quarters fighting and deft opportunist. I also purchase belt of strength +2 amulet of natural armor+1 and +1 breast plate mitheral, Kills the chuul if the fighter can manage to stay ungrappled(need not be consecutive) for 4 rounds. grappling monsters are a pain in the ass and hydras are just cheap so CR10 30k+2 feats, ability points, unused Fighter hp80 AC20 attck+19/14 dmg d12+12 17.57 Razor boar hp 127 ac 27 attk+18/13x2 dmg d8+8, d4+4 so 26avg round if all hit, fighter deals 62 making this a win for the fighter CR 11 Fighter 29k 98.5 AC20 grabbing mobility and elusive target so the low ac isn't a problem Attack 23/18/13 2 points on strength 18k on shield spikes +2 and +2 on belt dmg d12+16 22.5 on the first hit in the round, 7.5 on subsequent hits. 44 damage a round. 4.6 rounds. 45.9 Karmic strike skin dancer hp202 ac 25 attack+20 dmg 2d6+6 24.7dmg a round 3.985 First round drinks a potion of enlarge shield now does 3d6+18avg 28, 13 on second hit, avg 63.95 a round for 4.1(including the potion) rounds meaning a slight advantage to the skin walker. A difference that could be upset by a flanking ally using aid other action. Fighter at this point Str24(+4belt) Dex14 Con 16(con item) 20k AC ring of deflection+1,Mitharil breastplate+1 +1 amulet of nat. ac, Shield of bashing +1 12k Attacks shield spikes+2 transmuting 32k 2k Miscellaneous potions CR 12 Fighter 2feats, 22k, ability point 107 ac 20 24/19/14 Dmg1d12+16 18.15 on 1st round 22.5 after. Karmic strike allows for 66.5 1st and 85.5 after words, proving no stun. War troll hp131 AC31 tou Att +23/18/13 +19 Dmg 2d8+15 +68.075 No chance, It deals too much damage and it has a 45-70% chance of daze per hit. If it wasn't for the stun I might have been able to finagle near parity. CR 13 44k two unused feats. Dealing with saves is annoying, If I take shield spec. and ward, make my shield +4 bashing, upgrade ring of deflection to +3 37k 4.5 for +3 fortitude bonus on armor. Touch AC 23 FFT 20 First round I get hit 2.7 times, I use karmic strike to sunder, and I will also take 6.075 strength damage. I run if I sundered everything with karmic strike, if not I attack and expertise for 5, bringing my touch AC to 28. meaning it needs a 19+ to hit me. If I can get a way a break out a sling and kill the freaking thing.
Bob Loblaw 06-26-07, 10:05 AM	I was just looking over the Horrid Rat and that's one tough CR1 creature. I still think I can take it, but wow. Archangel, you mentioned that you wanted to avoid templated creatures at one point. The Horrid Rat is a templated dire rat. I don't think it's much of an issue, especially at this level, but it is still templated.
Scion of Coldshard 06-26-07, 11:04 AM	So are we going to see that druid and fighter stat blocked finished and maxed out? I think it'd be interesting at this point mostly because the fighter has spent about 2x as much as the druid on gear in the partially built examples so far ;) Oh, and TheCobra, the dire tiger can wear pretty much any gear a human could. Headgear, neckgear, shirt, cloak, shoes, rings, bracers, etc etc. Go crazy.
Clawhound 06-26-07, 11:43 AM	So are we going to see that druid and fighter stat blocked finished and maxed out? I think it'd be interesting at this point mostly because the fighter has spent about 2x as much as the druid on gear in the partially built examples so far ;) Oh, and TheCobra, the dire tiger can wear pretty much any gear a human could. Headgear, neckgear, shirt, cloak, shoes, rings, bracers, etc etc. Go crazy. Both are way under their wealth. If my fighter drops the animated shield, he fits the MIC quick pick method. (The shield is nice, but by no means necessary.) The same is not true for druid, who is relying on two over-level items. These days, I tend to create my examples via the MIC. I enjoy how tough the fighter can come out, even against builds who do not use the same restrictions.
Archangel62 06-26-07, 11:47 AM	I was just looking over the Horrid Rat and that's one tough CR1 creature. I still think I can take it, but wow. Archangel, you mentioned that you wanted to avoid templated creatures at one point. The Horrid Rat is a templated dire rat. I don't think it's much of an issue, especially at this level, but it is still templated. If you'll excuse me I'll be banging my head against my desk in annoyance at my own rampant stupidity.:embarrass
Scion of Coldshard 06-26-07, 11:51 AM	Both are way under their wealth. That is why I would like to see it fully fleshed out! ;) Small bonuses tend to be a lot cheaper than large bonuses so it would be interesting to see where the money goes.
Otto the Bugbear 06-26-07, 12:20 PM	The way I read the two actions is that you can use one or the other each round, but not both. The main difference is when you can use them in the round. Immediate actions can be used on someone else's turn while swift actions can only be used on your turn. That's how the glossary definitions read to me but I may be misreading it. I just woke up. That's only sort of correct. It confused my at first as well (or maybe still is!) On any given round, you can use ONE swift action during your turn. Then, at the end of YOUR turn in the initiative sequence, it gets refreshed. Then, before your next turn in the sequence, you can use an immediate action which expends your swift/immediate actions until the end of your next turn. So, what happens in reality is that you get that initial burst (swift action on your turn, then immediate action before your next turn ends) which makes it seem like you're getting more than one per turn. It's mostly because of when that swift/immediate action gets refreshed (at the end of your turn), and how that expends the swift action on a future turn, which may never happen. It's like taking a loan out. You get to use the immediate action, but have to pay with your next swift action.
Argaud 06-26-07, 12:27 PM	Oh, and TheCobra, the dire tiger can wear pretty much any gear a human could. Headgear, neckgear, shirt, cloak, shoes, rings, bracers, etc etc. Go crazy. Really? Please direct me to the pertinent rules of animals using gear. I have looked for them several times and I was never able to find them. I even emailed CustServ a few months ago and they assured me they do not exist. Personally I find the idea of a tiger using rings or shoes pretty odd.
xanadu 06-26-07, 12:29 PM	lots of theoretical on stuff like how being a half-elf high charisma fighter [we see those quite frequently on the boards you know :rolleyes: ] is useful as a diplomat This is not impressive. Yes, the fighter can cross class and use his few meager skill points to be worse than the bard at appraise, worse than the ranger in spotting, and worse than the rogue in sleight of hand. When an opposed check *needs* to be won, the fighter PC will sit back and watch the other players do their thing. A melee build that is more versatile, fun, and can 'fight' adequately? Off the top of my head: Human S 14 -> 36 [+5 levels, +6 enhancement, +5 inherent +6 boon] D 14 -> 20 [+6 enhancement] C 14 -> 20 [+6 enhancement] I 14 -> 20 [+6 enhancement] W 9 -> 15 [+6 enhancement] C 8 -> 14 [+6 enhancement] 1) Rogue: able learner, power attack 2) Barbarian [Lion totem: pounce] 3) Rogue: improved bullrush 4) Warblade ...sudden leap, hunter's sense, steel wind, leading the charge 5) Warblade ...wall of blades 6) Chameleon: Leap attack 7) Chameleon: [open] 8) Chameleon 9) Chameleon: shock trooper 10) Chameleon 11) Chameleon 12) Chameleon: ewp spiked chain 13) Chameleon 14) Chameleon 15) Chameleon: robilier's gambit 16) Warblade ...white raven's tactics 17) Warblade ...leaping dragon, sub out steely strike for iron heart aura 18) Warblade: combat reflexes, whatever ...war leader's charge 19) Warblade 18) Warblade ...swooping dragon strike Bab +16 Saves: (w/chameleon foci) 19/18/12 with evasion. That is just from stats. Skills: About triple what the fighter gets and I have able learner. UMD is on my class list. Spells: Access to any arcane spell up to and including 6th level with at least 20th level caster. To Hit: +16 BAB +4 competence + 13 strength + 5 enhancement +2 morale [extended heroism]= +40. Balor AC=35. I also have wraithstrike :) If this guy charges something it is dead. 6th level spells, white raven's tactics, swooping dragon strike make him a presence on any battlefield Decent defense Iron heart aura = get out of jail free. Wall of blades = stop an attack that screws me
Leo 06-26-07, 01:46 PM	Please dont put words in to my mouth. I am PRO-fighter I want to see them fixed and brought to a place where they are on even footing with other classes and where they have unique abilitys. I want fighters to be considered more then a 2 or 4 level dip. I am not ANTI-fighter wanting to keep them down with a skill set that many think is not up to par. I think the fighter is fun to and I do play them even though they are considered weaker. You don't like the fighter as it is. You want to replace the fighter with something diferent. Thus, that makes you an anti-fighter in this discussion, because you want to eliminate the fighter as it is and replace it with your vision of balance, wich, whatever it is, is NOT a fighter. Fighter: good BAB, 11 extra feats, 2 skill points per level, 10 HD, etc, etc. Everything else is no-fighter class. That's what we like. You don't like it. That's fine. But don't come saying you like the fighter. Because if you liked you wouldn't been complaining him being wrong. You like something else. You like a guy with 11 extra feats, 10HD, 2 skill points per level, good BAB, etc, etc, AND other stuff. That's not a fighter.
TheCobra 06-26-07, 02:33 PM	In fact, if he uses any swift Boost, or immediate Counter, or recovers his maneuvers, he can't use Moment of Perfect Clarity. No such luck. Using an immediate action uses your swift action for the next round. Using a swift action during your turn does not prevent you from using an immediate action after it. You could attack someone and trip them for Knockdown, attack them again with that bonus attack, using it to sunder the weapon, attack them again for sundering the weapon, and then attack them again when they stand up. Isn't Knockdown a 3.0 feat? Anyway, I believe the errata said you can't use it with Improved Trip. That's fairly un-impressive. It has less than a third of its gear, so that's not surprising. Remember, the druid also has a dire tiger animal companion backing him up. Not true, not only has the fighter the feats to raise the will save to a point where it is higher than the wizard but with the new ACF of CC (Resolute) fighters do not have to care about will saves anymore. What is this "ACF of CC (Resolute)?" Whatever it is, I'm pretty sure you can't get it at level one. That's when Moment of Perfect Mind can really save a warblade's butt. If you serious believe warblades are worse against will saves than fighters, I can't help you. A good fighter will almost always hit with the second iterative, and often with the third too. Perhaps if DM is feeling friendly and throwing low-AC monsters at you. If that's the case, the warblade will really always hit with his strike. (but it is cheaply duplicated by the Belt of Battles magical item) Where is this item from? I don't. I do think that some classes are designed to use their skills more than others. If the fighter isn't the least useful out of combat, which class is? Good AC. A fighter would have AC43 before buffs, of course, so nothing to write home about. Actually, I'm rather sure someone posted a fighter 20 that had an AC in the low 30s. It surprised me, but there it was. If you want high AC, watch the druid turn into a pit fiend. AC 45, just with barkskin. AC 50 with a ring of protection +5. A fighter would have +39/39/34/29/24, plus Supremacy, Yeah, those core-only fighters and their Weapon Supremacy. Damn them! The druid attacks are more potent as pit fiend, as you might expect. But a smart fighter at level 20 will use Polymorph Any Object before leaving town, a spell that last weeks. And will be something like a planetar (+19 AC, to AC61) among other things. While PAO is indeed a great spell and goes a long way toward making fighters good at high levels, planetars aren't normally allowed. You can only take outsider forms if you are an outsider to begin with. Oh, and TheCobra, the dire tiger can wear pretty much any gear a human could. Headgear, neckgear, shirt, cloak, shoes, rings, bracers, etc etc. Go crazy. According the MIC, yeah. According to the DMG, it's hard to say. Shapechange is a better option anyway. Buy a periapt of WIS +6, a monk's belt, and ring of protection +5. Your AC is now 60. With a belt of STR +6 and large quarterstaff + shillelagh, your attacks are as follows: quarterstaff +31/26/21(3d6+25), wings +30/30(2d6+13), bite +30(4d6+13), tail slap +30(2d8+13) To hit is still a bit low, but your AC is great and you get tons of attacks. A green ioun stone helps you hit, as would a +5 weapon.
The_sleeper1 06-26-07, 03:17 PM	You don't like the fighter as it is. You want to replace the fighter with something diferent. Thus, that makes you an anti-fighter in this discussion, because you want to eliminate the fighter as it is and replace it with your vision of balance, wich, whatever it is, is NOT a fighter. blah blah blah its a label, I chose the one I want and you chose yours if you dont like what I chose too bad. The rest is postureing.
Lacyon 06-26-07, 03:34 PM	No such luck. Using an immediate action uses your swift action for the next round. Using a swift action during your turn does not prevent you from using an immediate action after it. But using your immediate action *does* prevent you from using your swift action on the following round, meaning that you'll typically have to wait until round 3 to recover. -Lacyon
Argaud 06-26-07, 03:47 PM	What is this "ACF of CC (Resolute)?" Whatever it is, I'm pretty sure you can't get it at level one. That's when Moment of Perfect Mind can really save a warblade's butt. Alternate Class Feature from Complete Champion. Can be taken at level 2 or any even level. As an instant action the fighter adds half his bab to his will save. And he keeps the boost a full turn, and then he can use it again. The warblade can use Moment of Perfect Mind just once, then he needs to recover the maneuver. If he is hit by more than a will save effect in one round, or is hit before he can recover, he is shafted. If you serious believe warblades are worse against will saves than fighters, I can't help you. I don't need or want your help. Perhaps if DM is feeling friendly and throwing low-AC monsters at you. If that's the case, the warblade will really always hit with his strike. This is just a lie, and a dumb lie: Pit fiend AC 40 (44 with aura) Balor AC 35 (39 with aura) Tarrasque AC 35 Most CR20 criters have ACs in the 35-45 range. With a base of +39 to hit the fighter has no problems hitting them with 3-4 attacks. With a +28 that tiger druid is a joke. I am sure it can be done better, but as it is: a joke. A warblade that spent 4 feats in focus/specialization/mastery/gfocus can also hit with a +39, but 4 feats (none of them a warblade bonus feat) are quite the investment. Where is this item from? The MIC. Actually, I'm rather sure someone posted a fighter 20 that had an AC in the low 30s. It surprised me, but there it was. If you want high AC, watch the druid turn into a pit fiend. AC 45, just with barkskin. AC 50 with a ring of protection +5. Oh please. That guy is in my ignore list because he can't even type a sentence without 10 typos. Do you take his builds seriously? Really? While PAO is indeed a great spell and goes a long way toward making fighters good at high levels, planetars aren't normally allowed. You can only take outsider forms if you are an outsider to begin with. You really need to read the spells before posting. Normal polymorph does not allow for outsiders, but PAO has very few limits. The planetar is a valid form to transform. According the MIC, yeah. According to the DMG, it's hard to say. Shapechange is a better option anyway. Buy a periapt of WIS +6, a monk's belt, and ring of protection +5. Your AC is now 60. With a belt of STR +6 and large quarterstaff + shillelagh, your attacks are as follows: quarterstaff +31/26/21(3d6+25), wings +30/30(2d6+13), bite +30(4d6+13), tail slap +30(2d8+13) To hit is still a bit low, but your AC is great and you get tons of attacks. A green ioun stone helps you hit, as would a +5 weapon. Do you have multiatack? I don't think so. Yes, ioun stones help. They help the fighter too. By the way, the druid natural attacks are still not getting through DR, so don't forget to substract around 10-15 from all those damages. The fighter is still hitting better and harder. You need far more buffs to match him with a druid. You -can- do it, but it is not simple, it is not easy and it is not "any level 20 druid" by a long shot.
shout27 06-26-07, 03:56 PM	Give the character a self-affecting aura at 3rd level with an increase to the Aura every other level. Starting Aura Example: Fearless: +1 bonus to Saves against Fear Level 5 Upgrade Strong Will: +1 Will Save (requirement: Fearless) Possible Trees: No Fear: Ignores Fear Effects, magical or otherwise (Fearless and Strong Will) Leak Killing Intent: When in battle, oppenents who fail a Will save DC of 5 + 1/2 character level + 1/2 ranks in Intimidate are treated as though under the effects of Bane (characters Immune to Fear ignore this ability). (Fearless + Strong Will) Unyielding Will: +1 Will and Character is immune to Mind-Affecting Spells/Abilities. (Fearless, Strong Will, No Fear) Unleash Killing Intent: When in battle, oppenents who fail a Will save DC of 10 + character level + 1/2 ranks in Intimidate are treated as though under the effects of Bane, and have a 25% chance of being paralyzed (those "Immue to Mind-Affecting" ignore Paralysis, otherwise functions as Leak Killing Intent). (Fearless + Strong Will + Leak Killing Intent) give me some time and i'll expand upon this in the UA section.
Kratch 06-26-07, 04:34 PM	On any given round, you can use ONE swift action during your turn. Then, at the end of YOUR turn in the initiative sequence, it gets refreshed. Then, before your next turn in the sequence, you can use an immediate action which expends your swift/immediate actions until the end of your next turn. I was under the impression that it refrehed at the start of your turn, not the end, which means, if you used a swift action this turn, you don't get an immediate. I will admit, I'm not confident on this, but it was how i always understood it. If someone could point me to the appropriate source material so i can take a look when i get home, I'd appreciate it.
TheCobra 06-26-07, 04:47 PM	Alternate Class Feature from Complete Champion. Can be taken at level 2 or any even level. As an instant action the fighter adds half his bab to his will save. And he keeps the boost a full turn, and then he can use it again. That sounds pretty hot. I've only just looked at Complete Champion. I didn't notice that. But what's an instant action? This is just a lie, and a dumb lie: You obviously haven't played in my campaigns. My players have had to deal with higher ACs well before level 20. Most CR20 criters have ACs in the 35-45 range. With a base of +39 to hit the fighter has no problems hitting them with 3-4 attacks. +34 hits AC 44 only 55% of the time. +29 hits 30% of the time. You really need to read the spells before posting. Normal polymorph does not allow for outsiders, but PAO has very few limits. The planetar is a valid form to transform. I'll agree it's a debated issue, but not how many people read the spell. If I recall correctly, the FAQ even says you can't turn into outsiders. I say the spell keeps all the limits of polymorph, except that the target doesn't have to have as many or more hit dice than the new form. Other than it, it just lasts longer and lets you target objects. Do you have multiatack? I don't think so. That would be a good idea, but I didn't factor it in to the attack bonuses. Each of the pit fiend's natural weapons is affected by greater magic fang. The fighter is still hitting better and harder. Perhaps, but the druid is a much better blocker. 60 AC without any armor bonus. With bracers of armor +8, we're up to 68 AC. She can use stone skin to soak up damage if she has to. And she's got a dire tiger to help her. Especially with animal growth, that matters. Note that cleric with the animal domain can do the same thing, only better, thanks to a quickened divine power. She just needs to buy an amulet of mighty fists +5.
Otto the Bugbear 06-26-07, 05:53 PM	I was under the impression that it refrehed at the start of your turn, not the end, which means, if you used a swift action this turn, you don't get an immediate. I will admit, I'm not confident on this, but it was how i always understood it. If someone could point me to the appropriate source material so i can take a look when i get home, I'd appreciate it. Sure, I can do that. Complete Arcane, page 86 blah,blah,blah ... (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn). ... Bolded for emphasis.
Argaud 06-26-07, 05:56 PM	That sounds pretty hot. I've only just looked at Complete Champion. I didn't notice that. But what's an instant action? CC has some very powerful stuff, if you had followed this thread for a while you would know about Resolute already (immediate action, obviously, not instant). Barbarians get pounce, which is a big boost for them. Paladins get the Battle Blessing feat, so all their spells become quickened, jezbuz. You obviously haven't played in my campaigns. My players have had to deal with higher ACs well before level 20. If you use custom monsters that nobody can hit even at level 20, then I am not surprised fighters (and all meleers) are useless in your games. The druid's pet will also be useless (I mean, even more useless than he is already at high level) of course, only casters are going to count for something. Those are your games and your houserules, though. +34 hits AC 44 only 55% of the time. +29 hits 30% of the time. A critter with AC 44 is a tough bastard, yes (and quite rare even at CR20). Still the fighter (and the barbarian, and the warblade) can still hit it several times per round, which a druid with +28, or +30 to hit, is not going to do. Note that cleric with the animal domain can do the same thing, only better, thanks to a quickened divine power. She just needs to buy an amulet of mighty fists +5. Do. Not. Change. Goalposts. Again. By the way, Shapeshift comes at level 17. You are falling in the trap of using level 9 spells to claim superiority. Druids get those only in 4 out of 16 levels.
TheCobra 06-26-07, 06:07 PM	Those are your games and your houserules, though. Yes, giving dragons good feats and good spells clearly goes beyond the rules. Making the players fight NPCs with class levels does the same thing. I clearly should just read off monster stats out of the MM. Otherwise it's a houserule. Have you ever actually played D&D? which a druid with +28, or +30 to hit, is not going to do. Yeah, but that 68 AC will give her plenty of time to get the job done. And she can easily get it up to +36 with a +5 weapon. +38 or more with morale bonus spells (such as your old potion of heroism) Do. Not. Change. Goalposts. Again. I have never done this. First y'all were demanding cleric builds, so I though I'd also show you what a high-level cleric could manage.
TheCobra 06-26-07, 06:17 PM	By the way, Shapeshift comes at level 17. You are falling in the trap of using level 9 spells to claim superiority. Druids get those only in 4 out of 16 levels. I am aware of that. However, the last build I saw had 20 levels, so I figured I'd do the same. I agree shapechange is way too good. Personally, I don't even think melee combat normally the best option for a druid or cleric. They can fight pretty well, but casting is safer. At first level druids are pretty sad in close combat unless they have good ability scores (most don't, because of wild shape). However, they get an animal companion that has more hp than your average fighter, AC 18 (with leather barding), and a decent attack (+3, 1d6+3, maybe a free trip).
Otto the Bugbear 06-26-07, 06:21 PM	Wee! Watch me quote myself. I remember once upon a time there was a C.O. challenge to deal as much damage as possible against a generic dragon over 10 rounds. Anyway, there was some sort of formula used to determine the frequency of hits and how much damage was being dealt. It took into account critical hits and fumbles ('1' being an automatic miss). Perhaps that could also be applied. If I remember correctly, this was how it was done. Just to throw some numbers out there (this assumes critical hits confirm) +16/+11/+6 (2d6+6/19-20/x2) to hit v. AC 25 (average damage is 13) First attack hits on a 9+, so 55% of the time (.55 x 13) + (1.10 x 13) + (.05 x 13) / 3 normal hit + critical hit + fumble / 3 7.15 + 14.3 + .65 / 3 = 7.36 for the first hit Second attack hits on a 14+, so 35% of the time (.35 x 13) + (1.10 x 13) + 0.5 x 13) / 3 4.55 + 14.3 + .65 / 3 = 6.5 for the second hit Third attack hits on a 19+, so 15% of the time (.15 x 13) + (1.10 x 13) + (0.5 x 13) / 3 1.95 + 14.3 + .65 / 3 = 5.63 for the last hit For a grand total of 19.49 expected damage against that creature for that round. Repeat this for the creature in question when attacking the fighter. Anyway, that's one measuring stick to use instead of relying on dice rolls and player tactics. Both of which can span the vast gulf between phenomenal and craptastic.
Kalarus 06-26-07, 06:55 PM	Just for fun, here's a quick idea of what a druid can do at level 20. In dire tiger form: STR 27, DEX 15, CON 23(22 for hp) 213 hp F+18 R+8 W+18 44 AC (-1 size, +11 natural, +13 armor, +9 shield, +2 DEX) claws +28/28(2d4+13), bite +23(2d6+9) Spells in effect: barkskin, greater magic fang Gear: +5 wild dragonhide full plate, +5 wild tower shield, +6 amulet of CON The druid also has a friendly dire tiger animal companion. Using wild shape is rather tough in a core-only game, mainly because it's not at all clear what the druid can wear. I figured no one would argue with an amulet. By the MIC rules, the tiger can wear rings just fine. Many core-only DMs, however, wouldn't allow it. A smart core-only druid would opt for shapechange instead. Then she gets to wear normal items without trouble. As a pit fiend, her base AC is 40. That's before barkskin and her monk's belt. Incidentally, where's that "Wild" enchantment on the armor and shield coming from? What book that is, it is not in DMG or MiC. I cannot find the Monk's Belt there either. Your attacks in Dire Tiger form are I assume calculated as: 15 BAB + 8 STR + +5 GMFs, with the bite attack as -5. Seems then to me you forgot to calculate the -2 penalty on attack rolls from a tower shield.
TheCobra 06-26-07, 06:59 PM	Incidentally, where's that "Wild" enchantment on the armor and shield coming from? What book that is, it is not in DMG or MiC. DMG 219. Seems then to me you forgot to calculate the -2 penalty on attack rolls from a tower shield. That was intentional. As the shield is wild, the penatly goes away you wild shape. (Yes, I know that's debatable. Outside of core, VoP druids are my favorite anyway. For various reasons.)
Kalarus 06-26-07, 07:07 PM	DMG 219. That was intentional. As the shield is wild, the penatly goes away you wild shape. (Yes, I know that's debatable. Outside of core, VoP druids are my favorite anyway. For various reasons.) Right, now that I took my lenses out I actually found it. The shield thing... very debatable. Especially since Druids aren't even proficient with the tower shields, I assume by this reasoning the armor check penalty vanishes too along with any negative effects it might have due to nonproficiency. Maybe now that my lenses are out of my eyes I might find the Monk's belt too :P Edit: Yeah, found it, DMG 248, weeee. I actually search better without my contact lenses. Eh, so, if I am reading that Monk's Belt right, any non-Monk wearer gains an AC equal to his/her Wis modifier +1 for acting like a 5th level monk?
TheCobra 06-26-07, 07:17 PM	Here are a few more little bits of information about the druid's ability to melee at low levels. At level four, the druid can grab a bison. 37 hp, 13 AC, +8(1d8+9). That's pretty solid. Your average fighter 4 will only have 34.5 hp and attack around +9(2d6+6). The bison's main weakness is the low AC. Leather barding (40 gp) gets it up to 15. The ape is another great choice, though perhaps harder to come by for most druids. 29 hp, 14 AC, +7/7(1d6+5), +2(1d6+2), 10-foot reach.
Krevon 06-26-07, 07:48 PM	So to recap from reading the majority of this, Despite the fact that its been shown that the fighter can hurt creatures all through the challenge rating system. Fighters suck. Characters built to surpass the fighter can only do so with loading up spell lists that focus on a specific area and still don't cut it in other areas. Fighters suck. Having monsters use TPK tactics and customizing them to hose melee is comonly practiced by all dm's so I guess me too. Fighters suck. I see a trend......
Kratch 06-26-07, 08:18 PM	Right, now that I took my lenses out I actually found it. The shield thing... very debatable. Especially since Druids aren't even proficient with the tower shields, I assume by this reasoning the armor check penalty vanishes too along with any negative effects it might have due to nonproficiency. Maybe now that my lenses are out of my eyes I might find the Monk's belt too :P Edit: Yeah, found it, DMG 248, weeee. I actually search better without my contact lenses. Eh, so, if I am reading that Monk's Belt right, any non-Monk wearer gains an AC equal to his/her Wis modifier +1 for acting like a 5th level monk? Yah, The druid's wildshaping and gear synergies are incredably broken IMHO, since the wild enhancment means they can both have an armour bonus (and shield bonus), while not wearing armour and thus benifit from a monks belt. There are also issues with how improved unarmed strike can allow multiple itterative attacks with things like bite or claw. The way i see it, It's allowed by RAW, so i can't really contest it, but that doesn't mean it's not broken (and thus, it doesn't say much about the fighter other then it's not as easy to break), especially considering the wildshape class feature is based off of polymorph, which even WOTC have acknowledged is broken (and I believe scion had mentioned something about adding PAO to a fighter was rather questionable considering how broken it was, though, i may have misread him). For that reason i generally pass on druid builds like this along the same lines people ignore pun pun, It's technically legal, but is based on so many grey areas, questionable interpretations, oversights, loopholes and general abuses, it's unlikely any DM would allow it for long. The only advantage the druid build has over pun pun is it's all core, no need to go outside the PHB and DMG. It falls into the whole "where does the cheese barrior fall?"
Bob Loblaw 06-26-07, 08:28 PM	That's only sort of correct. It confused my at first as well (or maybe still is!) On any given round, you can use ONE swift action during your turn. Then, at the end of YOUR turn in the initiative sequence, it gets refreshed. Then, before your next turn in the sequence, you can use an immediate action which expends your swift/immediate actions until the end of your next turn. So, what happens in reality is that you get that initial burst (swift action on your turn, then immediate action before your next turn ends) which makes it seem like you're getting more than one per turn. It's mostly because of when that swift/immediate action gets refreshed (at the end of your turn), and how that expends the swift action on a future turn, which may never happen. It's like taking a loan out. You get to use the immediate action, but have to pay with your next swift action. It is kinda confusing. To make sure I understand, let's assume that the warblade uses his swift action to recover his maneuvers. Before the round is over, he is unable to use the Moment of Perfect Mind. So basically, if the opponent beats the warblade in initiative, then the warblade can use a swift action and possibly an immediate action before his next action. If the opponent lost initiative, then the warblade will most likely not be able to use both actions before he goes again. Correct?
Bob Loblaw 06-26-07, 08:36 PM	This is not impressive. Yes, the fighter can cross class and use his few meager skill points to be worse than the bard at appraise, worse than the ranger in spotting, and worse than the rogue in sleight of hand. When an opposed check *needs* to be won, the fighter PC will sit back and watch the other players do their thing. Who says the skill check needs to be impressive? It needs to be effective. There is a tremendous difference between the two. I think we have two very different ideas of how the numbers should work out. A melee build that is more versatile, fun, and can 'fight' adequately? Off the top of my head: Human S 14 -> 36 [+5 levels, +6 enhancement, +5 inherent +6 boon] D 14 -> 20 [+6 enhancement] C 14 -> 20 [+6 enhancement] I 14 -> 20 [+6 enhancement] W 9 -> 15 [+6 enhancement] C 8 -> 14 [+6 enhancement] 1) Rogue: able learner, power attack 2) Barbarian [Lion totem: pounce] 3) Rogue: improved bullrush 4) Warblade ...sudden leap, hunter's sense, steel wind, leading the charge 5) Warblade ...wall of blades 6) Chameleon: Leap attack 7) Chameleon: [open] 8) Chameleon 9) Chameleon: shock trooper 10) Chameleon 11) Chameleon 12) Chameleon: ewp spiked chain 13) Chameleon 14) Chameleon 15) Chameleon: robilier's gambit 16) Warblade ...white raven's tactics 17) Warblade ...leaping dragon, sub out steely strike for iron heart aura 18) Warblade: combat reflexes, whatever ...war leader's charge 19) Warblade 18) Warblade ...swooping dragon strike Bab +16 Saves: (w/chameleon foci) 19/18/12 with evasion. That is just from stats. Skills: About triple what the fighter gets and I have able learner. UMD is on my class list. Spells: Access to any arcane spell up to and including 6th level with at least 20th level caster. To Hit: +16 BAB +4 competence + 13 strength + 5 enhancement +2 morale [extended heroism]= +40. Balor AC=35. I also have wraithstrike :) If this guy charges something it is dead. 6th level spells, white raven's tactics, swooping dragon strike make him a presence on any battlefield Decent defense Iron heart aura = get out of jail free. Wall of blades = stop an attack that screws me Holy Mary Mother of God! Let me make sure I get this, you are comparing a single class fighter to a character with 4 classes that mesh very well to give him everything he needs. If I can bring in multiclassing and prestige classes, I know for a fact that I can make a fighter that would dominate in combat, and probably be incredibly effective outside as well. Not really a fair comparison. Not necessarily a bad build (I didn't look it over in detail since it is not an even comparison). What can you do with just the rogue? What about just the barbarian? How about just the Warblade? Skip prestige classes. Skip multiclassing. We are not allowed to have the fighter multiclass or prestige out so the same rules should apply.
Otto the Bugbear 06-26-07, 08:50 PM	It is kinda confusing. To make sure I understand, let's assume that the warblade uses his swift action to recover his maneuvers. Before the round is over, he is unable to use the Moment of Perfect Mind. So basically, if the opponent beats the warblade in initiative, then the warblade can use a swift action and possibly an immediate action before his next action. If the opponent lost initiative, then the warblade will most likely not be able to use both actions before he goes again. Correct? You lost me. (Also, see my response to Kratch.) Round 1: The character can use a swift action. It doesn't matter if his foe has gone first or not. It doesn't matter if he's a martial adept or not (they just happen to use more swift and immediate actions than most other classes). At the end of his turn, his first round is over, so his swift/immediate action is reset. Now, before his turn on Round 2, he has the option of using an immediate action. If he does so, he does not get to have a swift action during his turn on Round 2. Immediate actions only expend the swift action that he would normally be granted for his next turn. Complete Arcane, page 86 has the details. Specifically, the last paragraph dealing with immediate actions, look in the parenthesis. Like mud, right?
Bob Loblaw 06-26-07, 08:52 PM	No such luck. Using an immediate action uses your swift action for the next round. Using a swift action during your turn does not prevent you from using an immediate action after it. So you will not be able to use a maneuver on your turn then, correct? You would be relegated to "normal" combat mode. (I'm really trying to understand the swift/immediate actions, we don't need them in my games.) Isn't Knockdown a 3.0 feat? Anyway, I believe the errata said you can't use it with Improved Trip. There are dozens upon dozens of ways to get extra attacks. The point is that the fighter can get plenty of extra attacks and still be able to move. More than 1 attack is better than 1 attack. Simple math. What is this "ACF of CC (Resolute)?" Whatever it is, I'm pretty sure you can't get it at level one. That's when Moment of Perfect Mind can really save a warblade's butt. The Will saves really don't become an issue until about level 10 or so. Until then, most opponents are using attacks that require Fortitude saves and Reflex saves. If you serious believe warblades are worse against will saves than fighters, I can't help you. I think he is trying to say that the both start at the same bonus. If the warblade is going to rely solely upon his one maneuver to save himself while the fighter takes one or two feats that shore up his Will save at all times, the fighter will have the edge. Just taking Steadfast Determination and Iron Will gives the fighter a more consistent opportunity to succeed. Perhaps if DM is feeling friendly and throwing low-AC monsters at you. If that's the case, the warblade will really always hit with his strike. Or, as is very likely, the DM throws multiple monsters at the party. Imagine for a moment that there are 4 horned devils surrounding the warblade and in the next room, there are 4 horned devils surrounding the fighter. Who is more likely to be dealing damage consistently to them? I would say the one with the most attacks. While I don't know who has the better chance at winning, I do know that taking them down quickly would be key here. Having only one attack per round works great if there is only one opponent. When there are multiple opponents, I would think that multiple attacks might work better in most cases. If the fighter isn't the least useful out of combat, which class is? What do you want the fighter to be able to accomplish out of combat? This is not meant to be rhetorical. Honestly, there is no reason why the fighter (or any other class) needs to have problems outside of combat.
Bob Loblaw 06-26-07, 08:54 PM	Ignore, go to next post.
Bob Loblaw 06-26-07, 09:04 PM	I'm not trying to be dense, so please bear with me. Most of the time we don't have to worry about this in my games. Here is the swift action (also from the glossary): A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. However, you can perform only a single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action any time you would normally be allowed to take a free action. Swift actions usually involve spellcasting or the activation of magic items; many characters (especially those who don't cast spells) never have an opportunity to take a swift action. Casting a quickened spell is a swift action (instead of a free action, as stated in the Quicken Spell feat description in the Player's Handbook). In addition, casting any spell with a casting time of 1 swift action (such as choose destiny) is a swift action. Casting a spell with a casting time of 1 swift action does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Here is the immediate action (from the glossary) Much like a swift action, an immediate action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. However, unlike a swift action, an immediate action can be performed at any time -- even if it's not your turn. Casting feather fall is an immediate action (instead of a free action, as stated in the spell description in the Player's Handbook), since the spell can be cast at any time. Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action, and counts as your swift action for that turn. You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn). You also cannot use an immediate action if you are flat-footed. So swift actions are on your turn only. Immediate actions are at any point in the round. You cannot use more than one immediate or swift action per turn. Your swift/immediate actions "reset" (for lack of a better term right now) as soon as your turn ends. You can "borrow" an immediate action now but you lose any opportunity to use a swift or immediate action during your next turn. Is that right?
Otto the Bugbear 06-26-07, 09:17 PM	Ok, let's say that the PC uses his swift action on his turn. Then, before the round is over, the monster attacks. Can the PC use his immediate action? Yes he can. This is still in the same round. It depends on how you look at it. The round ends once the initiative drops below the lowest initiative count. That's purely a metagame concept. I'll offer a hypothesis. When designing the whole swift/immediate action sequence, the designers had the choice of making each character's "end of round" happen with the initiative count passed the lowest number, OR, each character's "end of round" happens right after their turn in the initiative, once their actions (attack, cast, move, etc.) are done. The way the use of immediate actions are described leads me to the second conclusion. As does that last paragraph on page 86 of Complete Arcane. Also, from the www.d20srd.org Much like a swift action, an immediate action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. However, unlike a swift action, an immediate action can be performed at any time — even if it's not your turn. Casting feather fall is an immediate action, since the spell can be cast at any time. Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action, and counts as your swift action for that turn. You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn). You also cannot use an immediate action if you are flat-footed. In fact, the part "you cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn" also leads to being able to use a swift action, then before your next turn being able to use an immediate action.
Kratch 06-26-07, 09:21 PM	So swift actions are on your turn only. Immediate actions are at any point in the round. You cannot use more than one immediate or swift action per turn. Your swift/immediate actions "reset" (for lack of a better term right now) as soon as your turn ends. You can "borrow" an immediate action now but you lose any opportunity to use a swift or immediate action during your next turn. Is that right? Thats what i get by reading that text, and it's pretty much sounds like how otto put it. I think a bit of the confusion (at least for me) is that, for AoO's, they reset at the start of your turn, while swift/immidiate actions reset at the end.
Bob Loblaw 06-26-07, 09:21 PM	Otto, apparently I was rewriting as you were responding. Scroll up a bit and see if I got it now. I think I do.
Otto the Bugbear 06-26-07, 09:25 PM	Ignore? Too late! Bwahahah! I'm not trying to be dense, so please bear with me. Most of the time we don't have to worry about this in my games. Here is the swift action (also from the glossary): Here is the immediate action (from the glossary) So swift actions are on your turn only. Immediate actions are at any point in the round. You cannot use more than one immediate or swift action per turn. Your swift/immediate actions "reset" (for lack of a better term right now) as soon as your turn ends. You can "borrow" an immediate action now but you lose any opportunity to use a swift or immediate action during your next turn. Is that right? That's right. You "borrow" your next swift action in order to use an immediate action. Then, after your next turn -- in which you are not allowed to use your swift action -- it resets again. Round 1: Swift action OK Round 1 ends for that character, even if other character have yet to go. For that character, it's now essentially round 2, so he can "borrow" the swift action that would normally be available during his Round 2, in order to use an immediate action. Round 2: If the PC "borrowed" the swift action, he must now pay it back, and may not use a swift action during that turn. Round 2 ends for that character, even if other characters have yet to go. For that character, it's not essentially round 3, so he can "borrow" the swift action that would normally be available during his Round 3, in order to use an immediate action. Now, at any point he can choose to not use the immediate action, and therefore not "borrow" the next round's swift action. In which case, the swift action is once again available during his turn.
Otto the Bugbear 06-26-07, 09:33 PM	I think a bit of the confusion (at least for me) is that, for AoO's, they reset at the start of your turn, while swift/immidiate actions reset at the end. Heh! Good point. I wonder why they didn't make them match?
Clawhound 06-26-07, 09:48 PM	Heh! Good point. I wonder why they didn't make them match? I think because it's never an certain bet. It's never a sure thing, so the player must always think about it.
xanadu 06-26-07, 09:49 PM	Not really a fair comparison. Not necessarily a bad build (I didn't look it over in detail since it is not an even comparison). LOL. What happened to this retort when I said other warrior classes and gish types? I keep reading this, but I have never actually seen a build to prove it. There are two people working on it in this thread. However, why don't you actually show me. I showed that a Core-Only fighter can stand his ground and contribute both in and out of combat. Why don't you do the same with the cleric or druid? I don't want to see theoretical ideas. I want to actually see a 25 point buy build. Until then, I will have to assume that your opinion, while fine, is unfounded. I'll take your crying wolf as proof of something you felt was previously 'unfounded'. This is why the fighter is lacking. Leave the fighter class, your character gets better. As in no real benefits to stay other than for 'roleplay' or aesthetic reasons. Why should I limit and confine myself to a single class? YAWN, BORING, 3rd edition was made for creative multi-class to build the character you want. If you want single classes, why don't you play AD&D? A sign of a well thought out class is something that screams "you'll miss something you really want if you multiclass." Very few classes follow this ideal. Dervish, Chameleon, and the Scout for instance. The fighter is the absolute worst offender (except perhaps, ironically, the cleric).
Khan the Destroyer 06-26-07, 09:53 PM	All those classes perform useful functions outside combat. The fighter can weave baskets. That is why the fighter is 'targeted' as you say. I think both Handle Animal and Intimidate are very useful skills. Handle Animal can replace various other skills to some degree. Training animals to scout and keep watch replaces your Listen and Spot modifiers when you're watching over everyone as they sleep. Handle Animal can replace your Survival modifier when your pet gets food for everyone else. The only issue I have with this is that it turns the fighter into a sort of beastmaster, which doesn't fit the fighter of my mind's eye. Oh well. Intimidate does exactly what Diplomacy does, and we all know how strong Diplomacy is. The difference is that the person you intimidate is unfriendly or hostile afterwards. It may be a problem afterwards, but you can't argue that the initial effect of the Intimidate is any less useful than Diplomacy. And don't forget you can Demoralize foes, which softens up their saves for your caster buddy, weakens their attack rolls for your rogue buddy, and lowers their ability checks for... you. Combining this with the item from MIC that lets you do it as a move action is cool, or combining it with the Zhentarim substitution levels to do it as a swift action is awesome. Combining either of those with the Imperious Command feat suddenly makes the fighter very overpowered against anyone basically not immune to fear. Throw in the Never Outnumbered skill trick to make it that much worse. Anyways, I think both of those skills are very handy. And in reality, so are Jump and Climb. I'd rather send the beefy fighter up ahead to make sure it's ok before sending the rogue up to continue scouting. I was just looking over the Horrid Rat and that's one tough CR1 creature. But in reality, take a closer look. Any fighter with Improved Trip at level 1 can trip this guy (touch AC 14, trip mod: ~ +6 vs. the rat's +3). That lowers the AC to 16 if I remember correctly, at which point the fighter may have to roll a 13 to hit, an 11 if someone is flanking (really depends on initiative though). With studded leather, a heavy shield (my tripper used one after Aelyrinth made me aware that Spiked Chains can't sunder and I switched to Flail), and a 14 dexterity, we're looking at an AC of 17. The rat would have to roll a 13 to hit the fighter after getting up. Both the rat and the fighter could kill each other with one hit (unlikely) and can most likely kill each other with two hits. I think it's a tough monster all around, but even deadlier if you just try to swing and hit. I still think I can take it, but wow. Archangel, you mentioned that you wanted to avoid templated creatures at one point. The Horrid Rat is a templated dire rat. I don't think it's much of an issue, especially at this level, but it is still templated. It is also an Eberron-specific monster, and he said no Eberron-specific stuff. Not a big deal though, mistakes happen, and I for one don't mind a challenge anyways. The Horrid Rat has a huge AC for level 1, and deals physical and non-physical damage (enough to kill a wizard with average rolls, and kill a rogue or cleric with decent rolls, and kill a fighter with max rolls). Isn't Knockdown a 3.0 feat? It used to be. But you can find it in the 3.5 SRD. Anyway, I believe the errata said you can't use it with Improved Trip. I checked but I don't see errata for Deities and Demigods (the gods are perfect I guess). It's in the SRD in the Deities and Demigods section and it doesn't say you can't use it with Improved Trip. That would be pretty silly to be honest, but consistent with WoTC's trend of making sure meleers can't do anything too awesome. That spot's reserved :rolleyes:. @Bob in regards to Swift/Immediate Actions: I think that's right (I rarely use those rules as well :)).
Archangel62 06-26-07, 10:04 PM	...wow I really did screw up didn't I :embarrass ?*continues banging head against desk to ease shame* Sorry, if you guys want me to switch monsters I'll look, I am honestly sorry about that. Oh, lemme clarify, no Eberron or FR specific feats or weapons (I don't own FR stuff and a lot of eberron stuff uses action points) but races from those are OK so long as they are sans LA (I also request no subraces but I can deal if you really want to use them).
Kratch 06-26-07, 10:20 PM	This is why the fighter is lacking. Leave the fighter class, your character gets better. As in no real benefits to stay other than for 'roleplay' or aesthetic reasons. Greater weapon focus, Greater weapon spec, Slashing Furry, Driving Attack, Crushing Assult, Overwhelming attack, Weapon Supremacy (names may be a little off as i don't have the books handy, but you get my meaning i'm sure). These are all some of the things you need more then 4 fighter levels to get, just some of the ones i can think of off the top of my head. What reason do you have for staying in cleric? Does that mean the cleric is lacking, or perhaps, your just holding the fighter to a different standard then other class's, which isn't really a problem with the fighters, now is it
Khan the Destroyer 06-26-07, 10:26 PM	...wow I really did screw up didn't I :embarrass ?*continues banging head against desk to ease shame* It's alright, we all make mistakes. It reminds me of when I posted my first fighter build, and I had Iron Will and Leadership as fighter bonus feats.
Archangel62 06-26-07, 10:54 PM	It's alright, we all make mistakes. It reminds me of when I posted my first fighter build, and I had Iron Will and Leadership as fighter bonus feats. Yes, but you've also created pun-pun and are a regular fixture on the optimization board. I'm a perfectionist and seeing that I made that mistake, and didn't notice it back when I first posted the damn thing makes me irritated with myself, my only consolation is that I don't think anyone else noticed it either (thank heaven for small favors)
Khan the Destroyer 06-26-07, 11:17 PM	my only consolation is that I don't think anyone else noticed it either (thank heaven for small favors) Actually, everyone noticed. But after we all PMed each other and deliberated, we decided, as a group, that none of us had the heart to tell you.
xanadu 06-27-07, 12:03 AM	Greater weapon focus, Greater weapon spec, Slashing Furry, Driving Attack, Crushing Assult, Overwhelming attack, Weapon Supremacy (names may be a little off as i don't have the books handy, but you get my meaning i'm sure). These are all some of the things you need more then 4 fighter levels to get, just some of the ones i can think of off the top of my head. What reason do you have for staying in cleric? Does that mean the cleric is lacking, or perhaps, your just holding the fighter to a different standard then other class's, which isn't really a problem with the fighters, now is it LOL. Bob Loblaw says it is unfair I multi-class in fighter vs non-fighter comparisons. You say I miss all the wonderful things by leaving fighter implying it is acceptable to multi-class. Catch 22 is a wonderful way to win a debate, huh? :banghead: Yes, btw, clerics and wizards should PrC to any full casting class because they lose next to nothing. I hold all classes to the same standard. if there is not a particularly compelling reason to stay, I will stray :D
Archangel62 06-27-07, 12:21 AM	Actually, everyone noticed. But after we all PMed each other and deliberated, we decided, as a group, that none of us had the heart to tell you. :surrender :allalone: :doh: :banghead: :explode: ....I think that's all of them Now that I'm done kicking myself should I change the thing or keep it as is? I can dig up something new, I think I had wanted the horrid rat because I felt it was a good example of a low level monster that didn't feel like a commoner but if you folks figure I should change it I'll work to dig something up.
Bob Loblaw 06-27-07, 01:21 AM	LOL. What happened to this retort when I said other warrior classes and gish types? I ignored it then. I only responded because you had deviated from the unwritten standard we've been using. I'll take your crying wolf as proof of something you felt was previously 'unfounded'. You can take it any way you want, but the reality is that I cried foul because it certainly was foul. Prestige classes are meant to make your character more powerful. While that may not have been the original intent, that is how they work. Let me ask you a question, which is more powerful, a Wizard 20 or a Sorcerer 1/Wizard 4/Ultimate Magus 10/Archmage 5? If the multiclassed character is more powerful, why play the Wizard 20? This is why the fighter is lacking. Leave the fighter class, your character gets better. As in no real benefits to stay other than for 'roleplay' or aesthetic reasons. The same holds true for every class. Leave cleric and you sacrifice spellcasting and turning. Leave rogue and you sacrifice sneak attack and skills (among a slew of other abilities). When you leave a class, you give up something. Quite often, if you know what you are doing and stay focused on your concept, you will get a better character. Why should I limit and confine myself to a single class? YAWN, BORING, 3rd edition was made for creative multi-class to build the character you want. If you want single classes, why don't you play AD&D? I have actually not played a single classed character with more than 10 levels. I also am not so blind as to see that a single classed character is a worthless choice. A sign of a well thought out class is something that screams "you'll miss something you really want if you multiclass." Very few classes follow this ideal. Dervish, Chameleon, and the Scout for instance. The fighter is the absolute worst offender (except perhaps, ironically, the cleric). While this may certainly be your opinion, it is not a universal truth. I say that a well designed class fills the role it is designed for while not taking roles away from other classes. This would make the artificer, cleric, druid, and the archivist all poorly designed classes by my definition. The fact that the only argument against the fighter is the cleric actually supports my point.
Bob Loblaw 06-27-07, 01:36 AM	:surrender :allalone: :doh: :banghead: :explode: ....I think that's all of them Now that I'm done kicking myself should I change the thing or keep it as is? I can dig up something new, I think I had wanted the horrid rat because I felt it was a good example of a low level monster that didn't feel like a commoner but if you folks figure I should change it I'll work to dig something up. Well, all I have to say is you deserve a http://bestsmileys.com/whipping/1.gif I don't have a problem with keeping it. However, it might be seen as unfair to do so. What if we use the Varag from MM IV? It seems to be a close match to the Horrid Dire Rat.
Bob Loblaw 06-27-07, 01:46 AM	LOL. Bob Loblaw says it is unfair I multi-class in fighter vs non-fighter comparisons. You say I miss all the wonderful things by leaving fighter implying it is acceptable to multi-class. Catch 22 is a wonderful way to win a debate, huh? :banghead: Yes, btw, clerics and wizards should PrC to any full casting class because they lose next to nothing. I hold all classes to the same standard. if there is not a particularly compelling reason to stay, I will stray :D Just because we may appear to have two different things to say here does not make it a Catch-22. It is both unreasonable and you miss out on things. Both are true. Clerics may lose domain abilities or see them weakened. Clerics lose out on turning more powerful undead (this isn't really a loss after 10th level unless you use the turning undead variant where you deal 1d6 per level damge to undead). Clerics may also see their skills change negatively. They may also be on the verge of losing their divine abilities if they don't stick with their god's portfolio. Their Reflex save may also suffer. Their base attack bonus will most likely advance a little slower. Wizards lose out on bonus feats. Their familiar remains stagnant. They will probably see their Fortitude and Reflex saves remain rather low. Wizards may also see their skills change negatively. Their base attack will most likely advance even more slowly (this could be an issue for some spells). There are plenty of things to take into consideration. While we can tout the benefits, we can't ignore the weaknesses. We all agree that the fighter has weaknesses. We even agree, for the most part, on what those weaknesses are. We just don't agree on how debilitating those weaknesses are.
navar100 06-27-07, 02:09 AM	Who says the skill check needs to be impressive? It needs to be effective. There is a tremendous difference between the two. I think we have two very different ideas of how the numbers should work out. Holy Mary Mother of God! Let me make sure I get this, you are comparing a single class fighter to a character with 4 classes that mesh very well to give him everything he needs. If I can bring in multiclassing and prestige classes, I know for a fact that I can make a fighter that would dominate in combat, and probably be incredibly effective outside as well. Not really a fair comparison. Not necessarily a bad build (I didn't look it over in detail since it is not an even comparison). What can you do with just the rogue? What about just the barbarian? How about just the Warblade? Skip prestige classes. Skip multiclassing. We are not allowed to have the fighter multiclass or prestige out so the same rules should apply. It looks like someone skipped my whole "double standard" debate of warblades multiclassing to get range weapon proficiency.
navar100 06-27-07, 02:18 AM	LOL. What happened to this retort when I said other warrior classes and gish types? I'll take your crying wolf as proof of something you felt was previously 'unfounded'. This is why the fighter is lacking. Leave the fighter class, your character gets better. As in no real benefits to stay other than for 'roleplay' or aesthetic reasons. Why should I limit and confine myself to a single class? YAWN, BORING, 3rd edition was made for creative multi-class to build the character you want. If you want single classes, why don't you play AD&D? A sign of a well thought out class is something that screams "you'll miss something you really want if you multiclass." Very few classes follow this ideal. Dervish, Chameleon, and the Scout for instance. The fighter is the absolute worst offender (except perhaps, ironically, the cleric). Leave the cleric class. Go into Radiant Servant of Pelor. Your character just gets better! Leave the cleric class. Go into Church Inquisitor. Your character just gets better! Clerics suck. Don't play a cleric. Leave the wizard class. Go into Archmage. Your character just gets better. Heck, go wizard/Loremaster/Archmage, your character just gets better. Leave the wizard class. Go into Incantrix. Your character just gets better. Wizards suck. Don't play a wizard. Leave the bard class. Go into Sublime Chord. Your character just gets better. Leave the bard class. Go into Seeker of the Song. Your character just gets better. Bards suck. Don't play a bard. Leave the druid class. Go into Planar Shepherd. Your character just gets better. Druids suck. Don't play a druid. Leave the crusader class. Multiclass into cleric. Go into Ruby Knight Vindicator. Your character just gets so much better. Crusaders suck. Don't play a crusader.
TheCobra 06-27-07, 03:34 AM	So you will not be able to use a maneuver on your turn then, correct? You would be relegated to "normal" combat mode. No, you then couldn't use a swift action on your turn. Many maneuvers are standard actions or full-round actions. The point is that the fighter can get plenty of extra attacks and still be able to move. More than 1 attack is better than 1 attack. Simple math. Not really. Some maneuvers better than many attacks. Diamond Nightmare Blade is rather clearly as good as four attacks. It's commonly better than a full attack, and you also get to move. There aren't many ways for fighters to manage the same thing. Will saves really don't become an issue until about level 10 or so. Until then, most opponents are using attacks that require Fortitude saves and Reflex saves. I guess it really depends on the game. That's not my experience. Sleep and color spray are absolutely brutal at level 1. They're save-or-die spells, at least for monsters. If the warblade is going to rely solely upon his one maneuver to save himself while the fighter takes one or two feats that shore up his Will save at all times, the fighter will have the edge. Maybe. With concentration bonus item, Moment of Perfect Mind almost always works. Only once before recovering, though, so the fighter could still have an edge. Just taking Steadfast Determination and Iron Will gives the fighter a more consistent opportunity to succeed. Steadfast Determination is an excellent feat. That alternate class feature can also help a lot, I imagine. Or, as is very likely, the DM throws multiple monsters at the party. Indeed. Single monster rarely have much of a chance. Imagine for a moment that there are 4 horned devils surrounding the warblade and in the next room, there are 4 horned devils surrounding the fighter. Who is more likely to be dealing damage consistently to them? I would say the one with the most attacks. While I don't know who has the better chance at winning, I do know that taking them down quickly would be key here. I hope both characters are high-level, because horned devils are darn nasty. I'm not sure which character would do better. Cleave would certainly help the fighter, but it'd take one hell of fighter to use it very often. Those fiends have 172 hp each and 35 AC (37 against good). Swooping Dragon Strike could be good for the Warblade, as it'd make sure to prevent one of the devils from attacking him. Having only one attack per round works great if there is only one opponent. When there are multiple opponents, I would think that multiple attacks might work better in most cases. Against mooks, absolutely. Fighters with Great Cleave own mooks. Against a handful of reasonably powerful foes, maneuvers can be better than many attacks. What do you want the fighter to be able to accomplish out of combat? I'm not sure. However, it's obvious fighter aren't even close to as useful as other classes out of combat. Casters provide healing, movement, information, and crafting. The can overcome obstacles that require spells. Compared with that, fighters provide almost nothing. In a dungeon, though, I guess fighter with an adamantine weapon and Power Attack and destroy walls. I don't know what the answer is, but if fighters and casters are equal in combat and casters vastly superior out of combat, it seems unbalanced. It used to be. But you can find it in the 3.5 SRD. Interesting. It's still sort of 3.0, as it hasn't be published in 3.5 book. But I guess most DMs would allow it. That would be pretty silly to be honest, but consistent with WoTC's trend of making sure meleers can't do anything too awesome. That was the errata, back in 3.0 days. Errata for Sword & Fist. I imagine it still applies. Leave the wizard class. Go into Archmage. Your character just gets better. I don't know about that one. The class has good abilities, but there expensive. And the prerequisites are tough. Leave the wizard class. Go into Incantrix. Your character just gets better. Wizards suck. Don't play a wizard. You've got me there. Leave the druid class. Go into Planar Shepherd. Your character just gets better. Druids suck. Don't play a druid. I'm starting to get the idea.
Clawhound 06-27-07, 07:30 AM	The Games D&D isn't just one game, but a number of sub-games. Each works differently. The Attribute/Race Game The Class Game The Save Game The Skill Game The Spell Game The Equipment Game (gold/equipment) The Combat Mat Game - Ranged/Spells The Combat Mat Game - Melee The Combat Mat Game - Battlefield Control The Threatening Environment Game The Social Game The Story Game The Player Experience Game (time on stage) Once you break things apart, you come up with some interesting things. Let's compare a level 10 fighter to pun-pun. No contest, right? Well, in the combat map game, pun-pun can't lose, but strangely enough, he doesn't actually win better than anyone else. Out of the games listed, he aces three of them, but is no better off in the rest. For example, a gather information check of 10,000 may yield no more information than a check of 25. If pun-pun swings a sword, he does 10k damage to an orc, but the fighter great-cleaves eight orcs in the same round. A wizard casts a fireball the same as pun-pun. They roll similar damage, half the orcs save against the wizard, but none against Pun-Pun. For all of Pun-Pun's uberness, he only increased effective damage by 50%. When he uses skills ... he's uber. Poor rogue. He can't kill a tarrasque. Against strong-enough opponents, he is vulnerable to power-words and blasphemies. He vulnerable to effects based on hit dice, especially that dreaded natural 1. The trick here is that each game intersects with other games, but they intersect by varying amounts. Merely by splitting the game into "in combat" and "out of combat", you have simplified out much of the game, and hide where many of the reasons why superiority in one arena does not translate into an equal advantage in another arena.
Kalarus 06-27-07, 07:47 AM	Actually, everyone noticed. But after we all PMed each other and deliberated, we decided, as a group, that none of us had the heart to tell you. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
The_sleeper1 06-27-07, 07:58 AM	Something I reaily dislike about fighters/PRCing is that fighter is one of the only if not the only class that does not continue its class based special ability by going in to a PRC. Casters can continue casting zerkers can up there rage rogues can get more sneak attack damage and so on but fighters totaly stop progressing as a fighter when they leave fighter behind.
Argaud 06-27-07, 07:59 AM	Yes, giving dragons good feats and good spells clearly goes beyond the rules. Making the players fight NPCs with class levels does the same thing. I clearly should just read off monster stats out of the MM. Otherwise it's a houserule. Have you ever actually played D&D? Dragons can buff themselves to get more AC. They can also buff themselves, and use feats, to utterly ruin a caster's day. So what? Are dragons all you use at high levels? Yeah, but that 68 AC will give her plenty of time to get the job done. And she can easily get it up to +36 with a +5 weapon. +38 or more with morale bonus spells (such as your old potion of heroism) Of course. But anyone fighter can do that too. That was intentional. As the shield is wild, the penatly goes away you wild shape. (Yes, I know that's debatable. Outside of core, VoP druids are my favorite anyway. For various reasons.) It does not. None of the armor/shield penalties go away when wildshaped. That idea is a fantasy of some of the worst powergamers around. A druid still suffers ACP, movement restrictions and non-proficience penalties when wearing wild armor. This point has already been confirmed by CustServ. To use a heavy dragonhide armor without huge problems the druid needs heavy armor proficiency. Same with the tower shield (a normal large shield is better, because even with the proficiency the druid can't afford a -2 to hit). Dragonhide armor for a medium sized druid requires the skin of a colossal dragon, good luck getting one, the weakest is CR25. (Nitpick, because a druid can have a magical wood full plate and cast Ironwood, but still noticeable). Monk Belt + Bracers of AC8 are as good as fullplate+5 and shield+5 only if the druid has Wis 32. This is not happening except at very high level. Even starting with Wis 16 and using a Tome of Wis it won't happen until level 20. Of course the druid might be willing to go Monk Belt much earlier just because he will be faster, have a higher touch AC and does not need to burn a feat. But then his normal AC won't be so hot.
Kalarus 06-27-07, 08:46 AM	Yah, The druid's wildshaping and gear synergies are incredably broken IMHO, since the wild enhancment means they can both have an armour bonus (and shield bonus), while not wearing armour and thus benifit from a monks belt. There are also issues with how improved unarmed strike can allow multiple itterative attacks with things like bite or claw. The way i see it, It's allowed by RAW, so i can't really contest it, but that doesn't mean it's not broken (and thus, it doesn't say much about the fighter other then it's not as easy to break), especially considering the wildshape class feature is based off of polymorph, which even WOTC have acknowledged is broken (and I believe scion had mentioned something about adding PAO to a fighter was rather questionable considering how broken it was, though, i may have misread him). For that reason i generally pass on druid builds like this along the same lines people ignore pun pun, It's technically legal, but is based on so many grey areas, questionable interpretations, oversights, loopholes and general abuses, it's unlikely any DM would allow it for long. The only advantage the druid build has over pun pun is it's all core, no need to go outside the PHB and DMG. It falls into the whole "where does the cheese barrior fall?" I came to the same conclusion, when after reading up on those things last night and thinking I might change my new Druid after all, I wondered what the hell I was doing. The Druid's AC already nearly matches the Knight's AC (26 and 27 respectively) at level 7 but with better attacks and full spellcasting, the items are questionable choices for a character even though they are fine choices for a player and some of the actual effects are debatable. It seems to me that if you get the item bonuses in wildshape you are still effectively wearing them by the way. So I'll stick to Beastskin Blue Ice Breastplate and shift in style ;). Maybe in the future I'll pick up a Wild heavy wooden shield to up my AC a bit but my natural armor and deflection bonuses already scale with caster level anyway. I guess it really depends on the game. That's not my experience. Sleep and color spray are absolutely brutal at level 1. They're save-or-die spells, at least for monsters. Colour spray has only a 15 foot range, that's a fairly large risk to take for a low hp spellcaster. Sleep is in fact even worse, it has a casting time of 1 round, something people often seem to forget. It is a very good spell *if* it gets off, but at low levels, casting a spell for 1 round is asking for a few arrows in your gut. I'm not sure. However, it's obvious fighter aren't even close to as useful as other classes out of combat. Casters provide healing, movement, information, and crafting. The can overcome obstacles that require spells. Compared with that, fighters provide almost nothing. In a dungeon, though, I guess fighter with an adamantine weapon and Power Attack and destroy walls. Why is this obvious? My Fighter doesn't have a large list of skill points that's true, neither do a lot of other classes that aren't skillmonkeys. He climbs walls to secure a rope at the top so that people with lower climb checks can climb up more easily, or in case of lack of support, holds the rope himself so that people with lower climb checks can climb up more easily. He can craft the base items that people need to make magical (for example, crafting armor takes a *third* in raw materials of the regular cost). This admittedly takes a lot of time, which is more of a fault of the rather crap craft system than of the Fighter. He jumps pit to bridge the gap with a makeshift rope bridge. Intimidates the weasely shadowy informant into providing the information needed or with the same skill orders a group of bickering nobles to shut up so the discussion can turn productive (Braveheart scene, axe on the table anyone?). Handle animal (which my particular Fighter admittedly does not have) has a variety of uses, from rearing a griffon mount to training the dreaded riding dog. It is true that other classes can do these things as well, it is true that casters can solve a lot of these problems with spells as well. However you do not always have other classes in your party that always have those exact same skills and you do not always have enough casters who always have exactly the spells needed to solve the problem. The fact that these people exist does not mean that the Fighter cannot contribute. Regarding the Knockdown/Improved Trip discussion, I am not familiar with knockdown since never use the SRD (use books instead) but quite frankly I am too lazy to look it up :P. I imagine though that Knockdown gives you a free trip attempt after hitting with your regular attack. Alright fine I'll look it up else I might sound stupid :P Ok, whenever you deal 10 or more points of damage you make a free trip attack against that opponent. Cool. The free attack from Improved trip is, to use the wording from the feat, "as if you hadn't used your attack for the trip attempt". It would then seem to me that you can not, after tripping someone with knockdown, make an additional attack against that opponent, because you do not qualify for that line. You could make a free melee attack as if you hadn't used your attack for the trip attempt, but you *haven't* used your attack for the trip attempt. You didn't substitute an attack at all, in fact the exact reverse happened: the attack gave you a free trip attempt. I'd really like for Fighters to get more cool things and I'd really like for this to work, but I can't think of an interpretation that is supported by the RAW. I don't know about that one. The class has good abilities, but there expensive. And the prerequisites are tough. The prerequisites aren't that tough, maximised spellcraft and knowledge (arcana) are things that most arcane spellcasters tend to do anyway. Two Spell focus feats are a good investment regardless, most people tend to focus on two or three schools for combat purposes, meaning those improved DCs are always a boon. The only price to pay is in Skill Focus (Spellcraft). I agree that the class abilities are expensive though, it's what kept me from ever picking the PrC myself. I can see the use in touch spells at 30 ft., spell power is always useful, but the rest never really rocked my world.
vardock 06-27-07, 08:55 AM	Fighters are combat specialists. they kill things. fighters can kill things under many more circunstances that spellcasters. fighters can do more in combat fighting wise than any other class. The fighter class is like other classes with infinite combinations of alternat class featred and substution levels. Anyone who disses the fighter should check my sig.
Kalarus 06-27-07, 09:17 AM	Fighters are combat specialists. they kill things. fighters can kill things under many more circunstances that spellcasters. fighters can do more in combat fighting wise than any other class. The fighter class is like other classes with infinite combinations of alternat class featred and substution levels. Anyone who disses the fighter should check my sig. Dude, your sig is longer than your post :P
Clawhound 06-27-07, 10:25 AM	I'm all for tricked out character to show what is possible. You don't need a full build. A proof-of-concept is good enough. However, you hurt your cause when you use gray rules, marginal interpretations, and corner-casing. Rather than support your case, these proof-of-concepts distract from your case. The conversation then turns to broken rules, which is not your intent. Your build does have limitations. Pun-pun is great at level 9, but he still insta-dies when the overconfident player discovers that blasphemy allows for no save. Enough save-or-die spells will kill him. If pun-pun has a weakness and limitations, your build is certain to have weaknesses and limitations. You will notice that solid builds do get criticism (we make mistakes), but these criticisms are more corrections. When I did the level 6 fighter vs level 6 DMM cleric comparison, I wanted two good, competent builds. With a little help, we got two workable builds, and that helped enlighten us. If you do use questionable rules, please be straightforward about that. Marginal rulings may be good for the CO board, but for here, a build "counts more" the more likely it is to see play in a reasonably run game. The dividing line between play and nerf is called the "cheese line". The more likely a build crosses the cheese line, the less likely it is to see play. [This isn't a fallacy. This is merely an observation on practicality.]
xanadu 06-27-07, 10:30 AM	Leave the cleric class. Go into Radiant Servant of Pelor. Your character just gets better! Leave the cleric class. Go into Church Inquisitor. Your character just gets better! Clerics suck. Don't play a cleric. Leave the wizard class. Go into Archmage. Your character just gets better. Heck, go wizard/Loremaster/Archmage, your character just gets better. Leave the wizard class. Go into Incantrix. Your character just gets better. Wizards suck. Don't play a wizard. Leave the bard class. Go into Sublime Chord. Your character just gets better. Leave the bard class. Go into Seeker of the Song. Your character just gets better. Bards suck. Don't play a bard. Leave the druid class. Go into Planar Shepherd. Your character just gets better. Druids suck. Don't play a druid. Leave the crusader class. Multiclass into cleric. Go into Ruby Knight Vindicator. Your character just gets so much better. Crusaders suck. Don't play a crusader. I think your knee jerk reactive tendencies to any post questioning the allmighty fighter has blinded you to my point. I do *not* claim the fighter 'sucks'. I do claim the design sucks because there is not much of an opportunity cost for multi-classing out. Because he gets nothing great for remaining a fighter, other classes with 9th level spells or some other powerful class features that can fight decently can replace him and still fulfill the role of 'fighter'. So, yeah the design of the cleric class sucks because you get all its benefits at 1st level. Ditto the sorcerer. The wizard as well. The Swashbuckler is probably worse than the fighter because there is little reason to stay past 3rd level. Etc.
Bob Loblaw 06-27-07, 10:44 AM	Something I reaily dislike about fighters/PRCing is that fighter is one of the only if not the only class that does not continue its class based special ability by going in to a PRC. Casters can continue casting zerkers can up there rage rogues can get more sneak attack damage and so on but fighters totaly stop progressing as a fighter when they leave fighter behind. The fighter does not stop being a fighter. He gains different options, but he is still a fighter. There are two prestige classes that allow the fighter to continue gaining his bonus feats.
Archangel62 06-27-07, 10:52 AM	Well, all I have to say is you deserve a http://bestsmileys.com/whipping/1.gif I don't have a problem with keeping it. However, it might be seen as unfair to do so. What if we use the Varag from MM IV? It seems to be a close match to the Horrid Dire Rat. gotta look the thing up, I don't remember where I put MM4 so I have to dig it up but if it works I'd be happy to change it. And I have to say that that smiley is one of the most disturbing that I have seen yet.
TheCobra 06-27-07, 02:22 PM	Dragons can buff themselves to get more AC. They can also buff themselves, and use feats, to utterly ruin a caster's day. So what? Are dragons all you use at high levels? Certainly not. As I've said, I prefer humanoid NPCs. Often parties of them. Group buffs really help out. The last dragon I used, however, did have AC 40+. The PCs were level 14 or so. They killed it two rounds, thanks the paladin going nuts with find the gap and the sorcerer using melf's unicorn arrow. Of course, we don't play a core-only game. That's probably why I'm used to higher ACs. Of course. But anyone fighter can do that too. Yeah, but without the 68 AC. This point has already been confirmed by CustServ. You might be right, but remember that few people trust CustServ. They've also allowed the abuse of White Raven Tactics, if I recall correctly. Dragonhide armor for a medium sized druid requires the skin of a colossal dragon, good luck getting one, the weakest is CR25. Please don't try to use this unbelievably bad argument. Dragonhide full plate costs 3,300 gp. That's it. It doesn't matter where it came from. You can buy it almost anywhere. See the rules in the DMG. Colour spray has only a 15 foot range, that's a fairly large risk to take for a low hp spellcaster. It's still a very scary spell. Many low-level monsters have little or no bonus to Will saves. As a DM, I'd certainly use this spell against PCs (luckily, failing doesn't always mean death). Of course, I favor NPCs as enemies. leep is in fact even worse, it has a casting time of 1 round, something people often seem to forget. Yeah, I know. It also doesn't affect elves. I think color spray is better, most of the time. The fact that these people exist does not mean that the Fighter cannot contribute. Sure, but you're talking about climbing ropes and training animals. Casters hopping all over the map with teleport and wind walk. They're making castles for themselves with wall of stone. They're summon elementals and outsiders to serve them. They're creating undead. They're making magical traps. They've using divination spells to gather information. They're enthralling people with enchantment spells. And so on. Players notice the difference. In the evil campaign I'm running, as I said, my players now insist on playing casters. All of them. Tanking is left to cohorts and minions. Because they do so much with their spells out of combat, a fighter-type just wouldn't have nearly as much to contribute to the group. They also (ab)use the sacrificing rules from the BoVD, so ranks in knowledge (religion) are required.
Sunic_Flames 06-27-07, 03:15 PM	I'm not following this long discussion. I'd just like to chime in and say, as an exercise I pitted a level 4 human fighter of my creation against a CR 2 monster alone. Said monster was a fleshraker, and did a fair bit of damage before being put down, posing a significant threat to the fighter. The same monster wearing barding to increase its AC by 5 but otherwise completely unchanged (as would be the case for a level 4 or 5 druid's animal companion) very soundly kicked Mr. Fighter's ass, he never even touched him. And in the process of wearing down his HP, also lowered his dex to 1. This was with fairly bad luck on the dino's part, never got a pin in and only 1 trip worked. The fighter could hit on a 16, but never managed to roll that high. I'm not sure what the point I'm trying to make here is, most likely something about the martial role being easily replaced. :P Anyways, carry on.
The_sleeper1 06-27-07, 03:20 PM	The fighter does not stop being a fighter. He gains different options, but he is still a fighter. There are two prestige classes that allow the fighter to continue gaining his bonus feats. I never knew there was any, what classes from what books?
Bob Loblaw 06-27-07, 03:58 PM	I never knew there was any, what classes from what books? Uncanny Trickster in Complete Scoundrel. You'll lose two bonus feats but gain 3 skill tricks and a ton of skill points. There is also Legacy Champion. You'll lose one bonus feat, but gain a ton of skills and several other bonus feats plus the ability to modify your legacy item to your liking. So if you take both classes (hard, but possible) you'll have the following changes: Lose out on 3 fighter bonus feats but gain 2 Legacy feats. Lose 16 hit points. Lose +4 BAB. Saves are now 9/11/10 instead of 12/6/6. Gain 146 skill points rather than the 92 as a pure fighter. You'll have almost all skills as Class Skills (you don't get Heal, Knowledge except History, Speak Language, Spellcraft, or Survival). You also get some other cool abilities. I'm working on one right now for fun.
Keladelros 06-27-07, 03:59 PM	I'm not following this long discussion. I'd just like to chime in and say, as an exercise I pitted a level 4 human fighter of my creation against a CR 2 monster alone. Said monster was a fleshraker, and did a fair bit of damage before being put down, posing a significant threat to the fighter. The same monster wearing barding to increase its AC by 5 but otherwise completely unchanged (as would be the case for a level 4 or 5 druid's animal companion) very soundly kicked Mr. Fighter's ass, he never even touched him. And in the process of wearing down his HP, also lowered his dex to 1. This was with fairly bad luck on the dino's part, never got a pin in and only 1 trip worked. The fighter could hit on a 16, but never managed to roll that high. I'm not sure what the point I'm trying to make here is, most likely something about the martial role being easily replaced. :P Anyways, carry on. 5th level fighter 2 attacks, assuming that the fighter had at least a 15 str (+2) 5+2=7 now... assuming the fighter JUST had that. and had to roll a 16 to hit. 16+7= 23 AC for CR 2. The thing at least had a 23 AC or so. Granted, I'm all for creating concepts and sticking to them but even 'I' have to say, what the heck is wrong with you? Weapon focus? Masterwork weapon? +2 more any of these ring a bell? What did this fighter have for feats? I know you probably dont care but that fight seemed rigged fromt he time the fighter was made. also... hey, i know you hate me for this but ill say it again. The fighter is always useful, it will never die, and ToB is in no way better than a fighter... have at it!
Bob Loblaw 06-27-07, 04:03 PM	I'm not following this long discussion. I'd just like to chime in and say, as an exercise I pitted a level 4 human fighter of my creation against a CR 2 monster alone. Said monster was a fleshraker, and did a fair bit of damage before being put down, posing a significant threat to the fighter. The same monster wearing barding to increase its AC by 5 but otherwise completely unchanged (as would be the case for a level 4 or 5 druid's animal companion) very soundly kicked Mr. Fighter's ass, he never even touched him. And in the process of wearing down his HP, also lowered his dex to 1. This was with fairly bad luck on the dino's part, never got a pin in and only 1 trip worked. The fighter could hit on a 16, but never managed to roll that high. I'm not sure what the point I'm trying to make here is, most likely something about the martial role being easily replaced. :P Anyways, carry on. First, how was your fighter built? Second, how would you have done against a shocker lizard? What about 2 krenshar? There are so many other monsters that a single encounter with only one attempt is less useful that anecdotal evidence.
Sunic_Flames 06-27-07, 04:06 PM	5th level fighter 2 attacks, assuming that the fighter had at least a 15 str (+2) 5+2=7 now... assuming the fighter JUST had that. and had to roll a 16 to hit. 16+7= 23 AC for CR 2. The thing at least had a 23 AC or so. Granted, I'm all for creating concepts and sticking to them but even 'I' have to say, what the heck is wrong with you? Weapon focus? Masterwork weapon? +2 more any of these ring a bell? What did this fighter have for feats? I know you probably dont care but that fight seemed rigged fromt he time the fighter was made. also... hey, i know you hate me for this but ill say it again. The fighter is always useful, it will never die, and ToB is in no way better than a fighter... have at it! How is a 5th level fighter attacking twice in a round, barring dual wielding? The test fighter had 16 str, BAB 4, weapon focus, and a +1 weapon giving him a +9 to hit. The regular one as printed he defeated, because it had 20 AC. The barding boosted this to 25, which as I said before he hit on a 16. If he had hit, he would have killed it in 2 shots. (2d6+7 damage, average 14 vs 26 hp). In fact that's exactly what happened against the unarmored version. But the armor combined with a failure to roll in the top 25% of potential rolls meant he kept being nickel and dimed to death. The idea behind it was to demonstrate a class feature outperforming a class, even at the levels where said class is at its best. Now don't get the wrong idea here. I don't hate fighters, I just think they're too easily trivialized. If I did hate them I wouldn't have fixed them in my game. ^.^ Edit: It wasn't meant as scientific proof, just something to pass boredom. As for specifics... Human Fighter 4: Medium Humanoid HD 4d10+8 (34 hp) Initiative: +5 Speed: 20 feet AC: 20 (+1 Dex, +9 armor), touch 11, flat footed 19 Base Attack/Grapple: +4/+7 Attack: +9 melee (2d6+7 19-20/x2, +1 greatsword) Full Attack: +9 melee (2d6+7 19-20/x2, +1 greatsword) Saves: Fort: +6 Ref: +4 Will: +4 Abilities: Str 16, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8 Feats: Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Power Attack, Weapon Focus: Greatsword, Weapon Specialization: Greatsword Gear: +1 greatsword, +1 full plate, 1 CMW potion, 2 CLW potions Granted, this is not an optimized fighter being core only and all, this was something I threw together in 5 minutes for amusement factor. Feel free to improve upon it including non core material. 2 Krenshar: Init rolls: +22 (fighter) +12 krenshar A +3 krenshar B. Fighter goes first and charges. One krenshar drops to -4. The other uses its fear ability. The fighter rolls a 7 on his save and fails. He's frightened for 1 round and runs away. The Krenshar takes an AoO which misses and then moves to follow. The fighter turns around, having recovered and takes a swing, hitting and dropping to -2. Conclusion: He does fairly well. Someone else can run the shocker lizard. :P
The_sleeper1 06-27-07, 04:20 PM	Uncanny Trickster in Complete Scoundrel. You'll lose two bonus feats but gain 3 skill tricks and a ton of skill points. There is also Legacy Champion. You'll lose one bonus feat, but gain a ton of skills and several other bonus feats plus the ability to modify your legacy item to your liking. So if you take both classes (hard, but possible) you'll have the following changes: Lose out on 3 fighter bonus feats but gain 2 Legacy feats. Lose 16 hit points. Lose +4 BAB. Saves are now 9/11/10 instead of 12/6/6. Gain 146 skill points rather than the 92 as a pure fighter. You'll have almost all skills as Class Skills (you don't get Heal, Knowledge except History, Speak Language, Spellcraft, or Survival). You also get some other cool abilities. I'm working on one right now for fun. It sounds intersting but it does not seem to be PRC that continues fighter feat progression at least not like PRC's progress caster spell progression or rogue sneak attack damage.
Bob Loblaw 06-27-07, 04:53 PM	It sounds intersting but it does not seem to be PRC that continues fighter feat progression at least not like PRC's progress caster spell progression or rogue sneak attack damage. Both prestige classes have levels that grant +1 class ability. The Uncanny Trickster doesn't have this for 1st level and the Legacy Champion doesn't have it for two levels. I personally like this for all classes, especially spellcasters. I think that all spellcasting prestige classes that grant +1 caster should have a level or two where they get no spellcasting.
Clawhound 06-27-07, 04:57 PM	Believe it or not, there's a whole lot of math behind CR's. Deducing that was a project of mine that I never finished. By my primitive CR calculator, barding should push the fleshraker's CR rating up to a CR4, maybe a 5. Animals are characterized by a high damage output coupled with a lowish AC. When you "fix" the AC, the CR of the thing pops up quickly. A brown bear is a CR4, but if you fix its AC, it pops up to a "by the book" CR8. Animals are favored companions because of this particular way that they created animals. Now, when you say that the fleshraker nickled and dimed the fighter down, what you are saying is that the fighter stood very strongly in the face of certain doom, and it was a grinding fight to the bitter end. GOOD. That's exactly what a CR4 should have looked like.
Khan the Destroyer 06-27-07, 05:30 PM	Something I reaily dislike about fighters/PRCing is that fighter is one of the only if not the only class that does not continue its class based special ability by going in to a PRC. Casters can continue casting zerkers can up there rage rogues can get more sneak attack damage and so on but fighters totaly stop progressing as a fighter when they leave fighter behind. While I agree on your other points (that fighters seem to be the only class that doesn't get its class features advanced through prestige classes) I sort of disagree on the Frenzied Berserker comment. There are so many hybrid prestige classes out there right now, mostly for casters to mix with some other class (fighter, barbarian, monk, rogue, druid, and many others). These classes generally continue full advancement of spellcasting and advancement of some other class features of the non-caster class. I think the Frenzied Berserker is the same. It doesn't advance Rage, but adds Frenzy. This keeps the barbarian theme. Then, the Zerker actually improves Power Attack and Cleave. Both Fighter bonus feats, and both needed as prereqs. Without fighter levels, your barbarian can't take the prestige class until level 10. These things make me think that the FB is a hybrid class between fighter and barbarian, and sort of follows the same pattern of advancing both class features, though in this case, instead of granting more feats, it improves them, making a pretty powerful class. Just some musings. Not really. Some maneuvers better than many attacks. Diamond Nightmare Blade is rather clearly as good as four attacks. It's commonly better than a full attack, and you also get to move. There aren't many ways for fighters to manage the same thing. Really, either one can be better than the other. In the case of one attack, it's at your highest BAB and you still have your move action. Also, one attack synergizes better with certain abilities that only work on your next attack. A full attack works better against multiple foes, not necessarily through damage, but through tripping/disarming/bull rushing multiple foes. Instead of harming or hindering just one of several foes, you can attack a few of them, which makes the fighter all the easier for you and your teammates. Also, in the case of miss chances or other factors that can ruin your attack, you get more chances. Against Displacement, a fighter with one attack has a 50% chance to hit. He may or may not hit. The fighter with four attacks will, on average, hit twice. And of course, a full attack usually does more damage than a single attack.
Sunic_Flames 06-27-07, 06:08 PM	Believe it or not, there's a whole lot of math behind CR's. Deducing that was a project of mine that I never finished. By my primitive CR calculator, barding should push the fleshraker's CR rating up to a CR4, maybe a 5. Animals are characterized by a high damage output coupled with a lowish AC. When you "fix" the AC, the CR of the thing pops up quickly. A brown bear is a CR4, but if you fix its AC, it pops up to a "by the book" CR8. Animals are favored companions because of this particular way that they created animals. Now, when you say that the fleshraker nickled and dimed the fighter down, what you are saying is that the fighter stood very strongly in the face of certain doom, and it was a grinding fight to the bitter end. GOOD. That's exactly what a CR4 should have looked like. I did not know that. As for the damage, well with an attack sequence of 6/6/1/1 vs AC 20... it tends to result in only 1 hit a round. Fleshrakers are made of pretty tough stuff though. Although a single fight doesn't illustrate overall effectiveness, the simulation would have to be repeated to get a better idea. If it were in fact CR 4 it should be about 50/50. Yet the fighter is doing 2d6+7 with a 25% to hit, meaning a weighted average damage of 3.5. Whereas the fleshraker is running 35%/35%/10%/10% for 1d6+3/1d6+3/1d6+1/1d6+2. Which comes out to weighted averages of 2.275/2.275/.45/.55 = 5.55 weighted average a round. So assuming average results, fighter does 3.5 a round and therefore needs 8 rounds to lower 26 hp to negatives. Fleshraker does 5.55 a round and needs 6-7 rounds to lower 34 hp to negatives. Odds in the dino's favor, and this is without factoring in the 35% chance of taking 1d6 dex damage (weighted average 1) on any successful claw or tail hit which would lower the fighter's AC and make him easier to hit, and potentially paralyze him which is a win for dino boy. Also not factoring in the potential to poison, run off, force secondary saves, return... which is listed as a tactic for the creature.
Meyer_William 06-27-07, 06:11 PM	So ... for the gauntlet and this discussion ... are we comparing single-classed non-PrC'ed characters to other single-classed non-PrC'ed characters ... or does this discussion have room for multi-classed PrCed characters ... I doubt anyone on either side of this discussion would argue that adding 1 level of barb to a fighter build to gain pounce is a bad thing -- however, in doing so, the build is no longer a pure lvl 20 fighter. The problem in doing so, is that depending on the desire of the person playing the character -- there is always one .... more ... feat/class/prc to add ... which eventually means that any class is a dip class ... not just fighters. so ... after 40+ pages ... what is this discussion about now? 1) The fighter class (and only the fighter class) is subpar because it can't do X (where X is any ability in the game) 2) To leave the fighter class (and only the fighter class) before 20th level is a sign of weakness? 3) Other classes benefit from branching out ... fighters suffer? 4) Clerics (or any other class) can provide similar damage output to a fighter? 5) That fighters (and any class) perform better in a group? 6) Other ... Cause really ... I am getting confused here ...
Kalarus 06-27-07, 06:12 PM	I'm not following this long discussion. I'd just like to chime in and say, as an exercise I pitted a level 4 human fighter of my creation against a CR 2 monster alone. Said monster was a fleshraker, and did a fair bit of damage before being put down, posing a significant threat to the fighter. The same monster wearing barding to increase its AC by 5 but otherwise completely unchanged (as would be the case for a level 4 or 5 druid's animal companion) very soundly kicked Mr. Fighter's ass, he never even touched him. And in the process of wearing down his HP, also lowered his dex to 1. This was with fairly bad luck on the dino's part, never got a pin in and only 1 trip worked. The fighter could hit on a 16, but never managed to roll that high. I'm not sure what the point I'm trying to make here is, most likely something about the martial role being easily replaced. :P Anyways, carry on. I was interested till I read the word "fleshraker", then I started laughing :P Three poison attacks and a bite attack, 50 ft base movement rate allowing a 100 ft leaping charge for a pounce ability combined with a free trip if ANY of his attacks hit, which if successful, automatically does not only give a free grapple, but in fact gives a free pin, allowing it to claw and rake on every subsequent round, hitting automatically. Given that a L5 fighter has only one attack from BAB, if it is pinned it can't even escape the grapple on its next turn. They're considered the ideal Druid animal companion, up to the point that it's worth keeping all the way till L20. They're about as indicative of their CR as a War Troll. Every time I hear about the Fleshraker I am happy none of my DMs so far got it into their minds to use dinosaurs. The Fleshraker isn't a Fighter's bane. It's the bane of every low level character in existence. Anyways, carry on :P
Khan the Destroyer 06-27-07, 06:16 PM	I'll have to check it out, but why can't a 5th level fighter trip it, or hit it from a distance with arrows?
Sunic_Flames 06-27-07, 06:20 PM	I was interested till I read the word "fleshraker", then I started laughing :P Three poison attacks and a bite attack, 50 ft base movement rate allowing a 100 ft leaping charge for a pounce ability combined with a free trip if ANY of his attacks hit, which if successful, automatically does not only give a free grapple, but in fact gives a free pin, allowing it to claw and rake on every subsequent round, hitting automatically. Given that a L5 fighter has only one attack from BAB, if it is pinned it can't even escape the grapple on its next turn. They're considered the ideal Druid animal companion, up to the point that it's worth keeping all the way till L20. They're about as indicative of their CR as a War Troll. Every time I hear about the Fleshraker I am happy none of my DMs so far got it into their minds to use dinosaurs. The Fleshraker isn't a Fighter's bane. It's the bane of every low level character in existence. Anyways, carry on :P Well funny thing is, this all started when a druid wanted one as an animal companion, as well as to wild shape into one. Then I commented on the length of this thread, and the title. His response was a no, there isn't. End discussion. Which led to the fighter test, and then this. By the way, the dino only managed to get one trip in and no grapples in the test match. And yes I actually allowed a druid to do this. It's a high power game. :P And what would you rate a fleshraker and a war troll at CR wise? As for the trip and range, it was a melee test, not doing anything special. Though he could have been a tripper, in which case it'd likely turn out differently. Also I thought the comparison was level 4 vs dino.
Kalarus 06-27-07, 06:20 PM	I think your knee jerk reactive tendencies to any post questioning the allmighty fighter has blinded you to my point. I do *not* claim the fighter 'sucks'. I do claim the design sucks because there is not much of an opportunity cost for multi-classing out. Because he gets nothing great for remaining a fighter, other classes with 9th level spells or some other powerful class features that can fight decently can replace him and still fulfill the role of 'fighter'. So, yeah the design of the cleric class sucks because you get all its benefits at 1st level. Ditto the sorcerer. The wizard as well. The Swashbuckler is probably worse than the fighter because there is little reason to stay past 3rd level. Etc. There are few classes that do not share this "design problem", up to the level that one can actually wonder if this isn't a designed problem, rather than a design problem. Perhaps it's supposed to encourage people to multiclass and to take prestige classes. If the core classes were so interesting to play to level 20, all that PrC material out there would only be good for toilet paper. I've rarely, if ever, seen high level base class abilities that were so interesting that I would think I was losing out by PrCing or multiclassing. Generally a lot of people only consider the Druid to be worth a 20 level single-class build. His socalled "knee-jerk reaction" in fact illustrates very well that the problem you posed as being the Fighter's, that picking levels other than Fighter makes you a better character, is nothing unique to the Fighter but rather a trait of most if not all classes. A reaction you by your own words endorse.
Archangel62 06-27-07, 06:28 PM	So ... for the gauntlet and this discussion ... are we comparing single-classed non-PrC'ed characters to other single-classed non-PrC'ed characters ... or does this discussion have room for multi-classed PrCed characters ... I doubt anyone on either side of this discussion would argue that adding 1 level of barb to a fighter build to gain pounce is a bad thing -- however, in doing so, the build is no longer a pure lvl 20 fighter. The problem in doing so, is that depending on the desire of the person playing the character -- there is always one .... more ... feat/class/prc to add ... which eventually means that any class is a dip class ... not just fighters. so ... after 40+ pages ... what is this discussion about now? 1) The fighter class (and only the fighter class) is subpar because it can't do X (where X is any ability in the game) 2) To leave the fighter class (and only the fighter class) before 20th level is a sign of weakness? 3) Other classes benefit from branching out ... fighters suffer? 4) Clerics (or any other class) can provide similar damage output to a fighter? 5) That fighters (and any class) perform better in a group? 6) Other ... Cause really ... I am getting confused here ... The goal here is to look at the pure fighter, right now the fighter is our only contestant, however if others are demanding we will also add the cleric and druid, and hell why not a warblade as well, to the menagerie to see what the results are and perhaps what they prove.
Kalarus 06-27-07, 06:30 PM	Well funny thing is, this all started when a druid wanted one as an animal companion, as well as to wild shape into one. Then I commented on the length of this thread, and the title. His response was a no, there isn't. End discussion. Which led to the fighter test, and then this. By the way, the dino only managed to get one trip in and no grapples in the test match. And yes I actually allowed a druid to do this. It's a high power game. :P And what would you rate a fleshraker and a war troll at CR wise? As for the trip and range, it was a melee test, not doing anything special. Though he could have been a tripper, in which case it'd likely turn out differently. Also I thought the comparison was level 4 vs dino. Hrm, I think I saw 5 someone mention 5 somewhere but 4 it could've been. Still doesn't get him out of a pin in one round ;). I'd up the Fleshraker probably by 1 CR, maybe 2, but in the latter case I'd up his hp a little. It has good AC but that's nothing some spells won't fix, his hp is completely off compared to his offensive capabilities. The war troll, CR14 I think. I don't claim to be a CR expert, usually I am on the other side of the DM screen trying to fight off the stuff my DM picked up from his latest books :P
Khan the Destroyer 06-27-07, 06:30 PM	The goal here is to look at the pure fighter, right now the fighter is our only contestant, however if others are demanding we will also add the cleric and druid, and hell why not a warblade as well, to the menagerie to see what the results are and perhaps what they prove.Well, for the thread to be on topic... we would have to include the cleric, druid, warblade, and any other class that can supposedly replace the fighter. We can't just run a fighter and conclude afterwards 'Well, he couldn't, therefore anyone else can.' :)
Archangel62 06-27-07, 06:39 PM	Ok, I'm going back to the gauntlet page to post some new rules to add on a few things, I am keeping the horrid rat for one reason, I can't help but love the picture of what appears to be an armored rat for some reason I just find it very visually amusing. To compensate I will also be showing what is allowed. Edit: BTW, any comments on the little vid I linked?
Argaud 06-27-07, 06:55 PM	Ok, I'm going back to the gauntlet page to post some new rules to add on a few things, I am keeping the horrid rat for one reason, I can't help but love the picture of what appears to be an armored rat for some reason I just find it very visually amusing. To compensate I will also be showing what is allowed. Since I am worried nobody is going to take this challenge with enough rigor, here you have my build and results. Please check out my math and comment what you think is right, wrong, questionable or cool. The character: Stumpy McUgly, villainous dwarf fighter Stumpy is a foul, unpleasant warrior. An arrogant bastard, he refuses to accept combat buffs from the rest of the party because “we fighters rule melee and I ain’t need nothing. And you casters need to cast keep the hell out of melee.” Although he accepts long lasting buffs and stuff that affects all the party, “just as long it is not in combat, ‘cause if you waste a combat action buffing me I am going medieval with your butt”. Stumpy worships Nerull. He was told balors TPK parties of adventurers at high level because of Blasphemy. He is optimistic with regard his chances to face balors in the future, so he is also trying to be evilier than Vecna. Because he heard druids use dogs to kill stuff at low level, Stumpy spent most of his gold in purchasing a riding dog, “if those hippies can, so can I.” The dog has orders to protect him (Trick: Defend). Stumpy also wants to be left alone to fight against enemies, so he usually goes first and bites anyone that tries to help him. Since they suspect he has the rabies, his teammates leave him alone, helping only if he is KOed. Thus this battle will assume Stumpy fights alone while the rest of the party fights other monsters or munch popcorn and make bets. Because all non-campaign specific books are available, I will use ACFs and retraining options for the build. Stumpy McUgly as a level 1 fighter. 25 point build. Str 14 (6 points) Dex 14 (6 points) Con 16 (6 points) Int 13 (5 points) Wis 10 (2 points) Cha 6 (0 points) AL: NE AC 18 (+4 chain shirt, +2 shield, +2 Dex) HP: 13 Initiative: +2 Attack: +3 longsword (1d8+2) Saves: +4 fort, +2 ref, +0 will. +2 vs. poison, +2 vs. spells Skills (12 points): Animal handling +2 (4 ranks, -2 cha), Intimidate +2 (4 ranks –2 cha – but he can use his strength to intimidate, getting a +6), Craft (armors) +6 (2 ranks, +2 int, +2 race), Craft (weapons) + 6 (2 ranks, +2 int, +2 race). Feats: Combat Expertise, Improved Trip Stumpy trained his dog himself. It took a long time because he had to take 20s for the tricks, but dwarves have long lives. I have no idea of how much gold would it save, so I have decided Stumpy expended 100 of his starting 150 gold in the dog. This can be argued, but so can be argued that 4 guard dogs are better then the ridding dog and cost just 100 gold. I stick to the ridding dog to make a point of how ridiculous is claiming a druid is better than a fighter at first level because they have a dog. Stumpy will be crafting his own armors and weapons, so he will pay 1/3 of normal for them. At first level he can craft a chain shirt taking a 10, so he pays 33.3 gold for the armor. He can also craft martial and throwing weapons (but not exotics) with a 10. Gear: Riding Dog (100 gold) Chain Shirt (33.3 gold) Heavy wooden shield (7 gold) Longsword (5 gold) 6 javelins (2 gold) 2.7 gold for beers. Hippyslayer, Stumpy’d riding dog A normal riding dog. AC 16, hp 13, attack: bite +3 (1d6+3+trip) Stumpy vs. the horrid rat The party is attacked by 2 horrid rats, wird templated monsters from an alien hellpit called Eberron. Stumpy fights one all alone. The rat has +4 bite (1d6, + 1d6 acid – basically 2d6), AC 20 (touch 14), 7 hp. It has +3 initiative to Stumpy +2, so I am going to assume it gains the initiative and charges Stumpy flatfooted butt (AC 16). It hits with a 10 (55% chance) average damage is 7 hp. So lets say it does 3.85 hp of damage (7 x .55). Stumpy does not like acidic rats. He declares full Combat Expertise defense (+5 AC) and moves with the dog to flank the critter. He tries a trip, he has a 45% chance to hit the rat (+1 bab, +2 Str, -5 for Combat Ex vs. the rat's 14 touch AC, with -2 for the charge, -2 for flanked). His dog attacks, with a 40% chances to hit (having charged and being flanked, the rat AC is down by 4 points). On average the dog causes 2.6 hp to the rat (.4 x 1d6+3 damage) I am sure you can see what happens now. The rat attacks Stumpy AC 23, hits only with 19-20. So average damage is 0.7 hp/round (7 x 0.1). The rat is flanked, so if Stumpy attacks with the sword he hit with 20s (damage average 0.325/round) and the dog hits with 15-20 (damage average 1.65/round). The rat needs 14 rounds to drop Stumpy. Stumpy&Dog kill it in 3 rounds. But things are much, much worse for the rat. Because Stumpy keeps trying to trip it instead of doing normal attacks, aiming to the rat’s touch armor with trips (he hits with 14s) and he has a +6 modifier against the rat +0 (-4 size, +4 dex). The counter-trip of the rat is laughable, -4 vs. Stumpy’s +10 (he is a dwarf). And the dog automatically tries to trip it with his +2 modifier. Chances are the rat will be prone by round 2, and dead before 3. Winner: Stumpy McUgly. Easily. Although he takes about 5 hp of damage. Next post: the worg.
Khan the Destroyer 06-27-07, 07:03 PM	Two quick things Argaud. 1. Combat Expertise is limited by your BAB. 2. When defending against a trip attack, the defender can choose between strength or dexterity. The rat would have a +3 modifier in this case (+4 for four legs, -4 for size, +3 for dexterity). I know this because I was building a fighter to run the gauntlet a while ago :).
Archangel62 06-27-07, 07:03 PM	Since I am worried nobody is going to take this challenge with enough rigor, here you have my build and results. Please check out my math and comment what you think is right, wrong, questionable or cool. The character: Stumpy McUgly, villainous dwarf fighter Stumpy is a foul, unpleasant warrior. An arrogant bastard, he refuses to accept combat buffs from the rest of the party because “we fighters rule melee and I ain’t need nothing. And you casters need to cast keep the hell out of melee.” Although he accepts long lasting buffs and stuff that affects all the party, “just as long it is not in combat, ‘cause if you waste a combat action buffing me I am going medieval with your butt”. Stumpy worships Nerull. He was told balors TPK parties of adventurers at high level because of Blasphemy. He is optimistic with regard his chances to face balors in the future, so he is also trying to be evilier than Vecna. Because he heard druids use dogs to kill stuff at low level, Stumpy spent most of his gold in purchasing a riding dog, “if those hippies can, so can I.” The dog has orders to protect him (Trick: Defend). Stumpy also wants to be left alone to fight against enemies, so he usually goes first and bites anyone that tries to help him. Since they suspect he has the rabies, his teammates leave him alone, helping only if he is KOed. Thus this battle will assume Stumpy fights alone while the rest of the party fights other monsters or munch popcorn and make bets. Because all non-campaign specific books are available, I will use ACFs and retraining options for the build. Stumpy McUgly as a level 1 fighter. 25 point build. Str 14 (6 points) Dex 14 (6 points) Con 16 (6 points) Int 13 (5 points) Wis 10 (2 points) Cha 6 (0 points) AL: NE AC 18 (+4 chain shirt, +2 shield, +2 Dex) HP: 13 Initiative: +2 Attack: +3 longsword (1d8+2) Saves: +4 fort, +2 ref, +0 will. +2 vs. poison, +2 vs. spells Skills (12 points): Animal handling +2 (4 ranks, -2 cha), Intimidate +2 (4 ranks –2 cha – but he can use his strength to intimidate, getting a +6), Craft (armors) +6 (2 ranks, +2 int, +2 race), Craft (weapons) + 6 (2 ranks, +2 int, +2 race). Feats: Combat Expertise, Improved Trip Stumpy trained his dog himself. It took a long time because he had to take 20s for the tricks, but dwarves have long lives. I have no idea of how much gold would it save, so I have decided Stumpy expended 100 of his starting 150 gold in the dog. This can be argued, but so can be argued that 4 guard dogs are better then the ridding dog and cost just 100 gold. I stick to the ridding dog to make a point of how ridiculous is claiming a druid is better than a fighter at first level because they have a dog. Stumpy will be crafting his own armors and weapons, so he will pay 1/3 of normal for them. At first level he can craft a chain shirt taking a 10, so he pays 33.3 gold for the armor. He can also craft martial and throwing weapons (but not exotics) with a 10. Gear: Riding Dog (100 gold) Chain Shirt (33.3 gold) Heavy wooden shield (7 gold) Longsword (5 gold) 6 javelins (2 gold) 2.7 gold for beers. Hippyslayer, Stumpy’d riding dog A normal riding dog. AC 16, hp 13, attack: bite +3 (1d6+3+trip) Stumpy vs. the horrid rat The party is attacked by 2 horrid rats, wird templated monsters from an alien hellpit called Eberron. Stumpy fights one all alone. The rat has +4 bite (1d6, + 1d6 acid – basically 2d6), AC 20 (touch 14), 7 hp. It has +3 initiative to Stumpy +2, so I am going to assume it gains the initiative and charges Stumpy flatfooted butt (AC 16). It hits with a 10 (55% chance) average damage is 7 hp. So lets say it does 3.85 hp of damage (7 x .55). Stumpy does not like acidic rats. He declares full Combat Expertise defense (+5 AC) and moves with the dog to flank the critter. He tries a trip, he has a 45% chance to hit the rat (+1 bab, +2 Str, -5 for Combat Ex vs. the rat's 14 touch AC, with -2 for the charge, -2 for flanked). His dog attacks, with a 40% chances to hit (having charged and being flanked, the rat AC is down by 4 points). On average the dog causes 2.6 hp to the rat (.4 x 1d6+3 damage) I am sure you can see what happens now. The rat attacks Stumpy AC 23, hits only with 19-20. So average damage is 0.7 hp/round (7 x 0.1). The rat is flanked, so if Stumpy attacks with the sword he hit with 20s (damage average 0.325/round) and the dog hits with 15-20 (damage average 1.65/round). The rat needs 14 rounds to drop Stumpy. Stumpy&Dog kill it in 3 rounds. But things are much, much worse for the rat. Because Stumpy keeps trying to trip it instead of doing normal attacks, aiming to the rat’s touch armor with trips (he hits with 14s) and he has a +6 modifier against the rat +0 (-4 size, +4 dex). The counter-trip of the rat is laughable, -4 vs. Stumpy’s +10 (he is a dwarf). And the dog automatically tries to trip it with his +2 modifier. Chances are the rat will be prone by round 2, and dead before 3. Winner: Stumpy McUgly. Easily. Although he takes about 5 hp of damage. Next post: the worg. Not bad, I take slight umberage to you calling my favorite setting an alien hellpit..but then again if all I knew about it was horrid rats my reaction would likely be similar. The use of the riding dog is good, arguably it's also what saved stumpy. The main concern is the theoretical gold expenditure as we don't know how much it would logically be. I'd say it was legit but I lean slightly on gear (riding dog) influencing the victory. That is my vote, what say you Khan, Bob, and other participants? Also, you made a mistake on damage, stumpy took 6-7 points of damage most likely, not 3.85. *hitting self in forehead* also forgot about the thing with Expertise only letting you get your BaB which is an issue. (Thank you Khan, this is why I like having you around)
TheCobra 06-27-07, 07:09 PM	I stick to the ridding dog to make a point of how ridiculous is claiming a druid is better than a fighter at first level because they have a dog. The dog is class feature for druids. It's an item for the fighter. Also, note the the druid can replace his dog by spending only 24 hours. The fighter has to spend 150 gp. I'm not sure how you got the dog for 100 gp. Stumpy will be crafting his own armors and weapons, so he will pay 1/3 of normal for them. At first level he can craft a chain shirt taking a 10, so he pays 33.3 gold for the armor. Clever. Why not go with an elf and get even more starting gp. Elves have really long lives. He declares full Combat Expertise defense (+5 AC) How on earth do you do that with only +1 BAB?
Khan the Destroyer 06-27-07, 07:15 PM	He obviously made a mistake with the Combat Expertise. Not only will this change his AC, but also his Attack Modifier. I don't know how to get the figures like you guys do, so I'll sit in the Dummies Corner for now and see what you come up with.
Scion of Coldshard 06-27-07, 07:17 PM	It doesnt look like it is listed so I thought I would ask, when did your dwarf use a move action and make a DC 10 handle animal check to make the dog attack? Also, whichever character moved around to do the flanking was there an aoo provoked?
Argaud 06-27-07, 07:19 PM	Not bad, I take slight umberage to you calling my favorite setting an alien hellpit..but then again if all I knew about it was horrid rats my reaction would likely be similar. The use of the riding dog is good, arguably it's also what saved stumpy. The main concern is the theoretical gold expenditure as we don't know how much it would logically be. I'd say it was legit but I lean slightly on gear (riding dog) influencing the victory. That is my vote, what say you Khan, Bob, and other participants? Also, you made a mistake on damage, stumpy took 6-7 points of damage most likely, not 3.85. Well, most of the post was made in a half-humorous tone. The hellpit was a joke, although yeah, the horrid rat would have caused that impression. :D A more powerful Eberron style fighter would have been a warforced with adamantine plating. But I am sticking to no-campaign specific stuff. However, as Khan noticed, Stumpy can't use Combat Expertise as efficiently as I though. He takes considerably more damage, on the other hand, he trips the rat faster too. Lets see. First round: 55% chances of causing 7hp = 3.85 hp Second and successive rounds. Rat hits with +4 vs. AC 19. So 30% chances of 7 hp = 2.1 hp/round. Stumpy will die by round 6. The rat has a +3 against trips vs. Stumpy +6 and the dog +2. Stumpy attacks with +2 (and +2 flanking) against its touch AC 14. 55% chances of a hit. About 65% chance to trip the rat if he hits. Say ~35% chances of tripping each round. The dog has 30% hit and about 45% of trip, add ~15% chances of tripping. I think the rat will be prone by round 3 anyway, likely dead too. Almost sure dead by round 4th. Yes, the dog is handy. But remember that at the end, a dog is worth 150 gold pieces. It is nothing but a expensive piece of gear at level 1. And about half the character classes can train it.
TheCobra 06-27-07, 07:23 PM	But remember that at the end, a dog is worth 150 gold pieces. 150 gp is supposed to be all your average level-1 fighter gets. Period. So if you want the dog, you should be wielding a staff, with a club and sling for backup.
Argaud 06-27-07, 07:24 PM	It doesnt look like it is listed so I thought I would ask, when did your dwarf use a move action and make a DC 10 handle animal check to make the dog attack? Also, whichever character moved around to do the flanking was there an aoo provoked? The dog was ordered to "guard" the fighter. So the dog will automatically attack anything that attacks the fighter. It is stated in the original post. I don't think an AoO would be provoked, Stumpy can take a 5' step to flank once the dog is attacking one side of the rat. 150 gp is supposed to be all your average level-1 fighter gets. Period. So if you want the dog, you should be wielding a staff, with a club and sling for backup. Actually the dog might very well cost 25 gp, since the fighter can train a guard dog to become a riding dog. It is just a few skill rolls.
Khan the Destroyer 06-27-07, 07:27 PM	Balance discussion aside, I don't see why the fighter *has* to buy a dog. If I list a rat in my fighter build, will I have to spend gold on it? And if so, how much? EDIT: On second thought, a working breed dog would probably be difficult to find, or steal. Especially at low levels.
TheCobra 06-27-07, 07:32 PM	Actually the dog might very well cost 25 gp, since the fighter can train a guard dog to become a riding dog. It is just a few skill rolls. Where are the rules for this? The only thing my PHB says about guard dogs is that they cost 25 gp. I don't see anything in handle animal about turning a guard dog into a riding dog.
Khan the Destroyer 06-27-07, 07:33 PM	Perhaps he meant train them for war.
TheCobra 06-27-07, 07:41 PM	Also, note that druid handles her animal companion as free action. She can even push it as a move action. The fighter has to spend a move action or even a full-round action
Argaud 06-27-07, 07:43 PM	God protects me of the nitpickers from hell! Do you realize I could have 4 guard dogs for 100 gp (wall of Chihuahuas cheese!). And have them in front of Stumpy while he trips the rat with a glaive or skewers it with a long spear? He wouldn't even take 1 hp damage, even if the rat kills a couple dogs, who cares? I was just making a point against the druid's supposed advantage for having a 2 hd pet. I am sure Khan build with slaughter the rat easily too.
TheCobra 06-27-07, 07:45 PM	Do you realize I could have 4 guard dogs for 100 gp. Where can I find stats for these guard dogs?
Scion of Coldshard 06-27-07, 08:08 PM	The dog was ordered to "guard" the fighter. So the dog will automatically attack anything that attacks the fighter. It is stated in the original post. I am guessing that you mean the 'defend' trick rather than guard, I had missed that it said that, sorry ;) Still, it would be nice to have a ruleset that explained things just a little bit better. Lets take the 'attack' and 'defend' commands as an example. Attack allows you to tell the animal to attack a humanoid, monstrous humanoid, giant, or other animal. If you make it take up the slot of two tricks then it can attack all creatures at your command. Now we have defend. This means you set the creature to defend another, possibly yourself, but what does it do to defend you? Does it attack your foe? If so, to what extent? How far will it go from you? Ranged attacks, spells, creatures with reach, creatures in trees, flying creatures.. what does it do? Does it use aid another to increase your AC by 2 points? Again the questions about different kinds of attacks as well. Does it try to get in the way, physically imposing its body? If so, what does this do? What does the animal do if there is no spot for it to stand between the two of you? Does it defend you against things that are not attacks but merely threatening? If so, how? If the dog always starts attacking anythin that attacks (or threatens) then that seems to make it significantly stronger than the 2 trick attack command. I don't think an AoO would be provoked, Stumpy can take a 5' step to flank once the dog is attacking one side of the rat. So the dog was not walking next to you? How far away was it? If it was next to you, which would make the most sense to me personally as it is trying to defend you, then flanking would not be possible without someone provoking an aoo from the rat. Actually the dog might very well cost 25 gp, since the fighter can train a guard dog to become a riding dog. It is just a few skill rolls. As asked earlier, where are the rules for this?
Scion of Coldshard 06-27-07, 08:16 PM	God protects me of the nitpickers from hell! Good thing there are none of those here or else you would catch fire everytime a nit was picked ;) But then, some pretty important points have come up, so it really isnt nitpicking. If someone asks you to defend the color underwear your dwarf is wearing stating that some other color is more dwarf like and therefor your comparison is void that would be a nitpick, unless of course your dwarfs underwear are clear at which point I move that the whole dwarf be stricken from the universe. Do you realize I could have 4 guard dogs for 100 gp (wall of Chihuahuas cheese!). And have them in front of Stumpy while he trips the rat with a glaive or skewers it with a long spear? He wouldn't even take 1 hp damage, even if the rat kills a couple dogs, who cares? Hey now, no fair changing builds in the middle of the matches! You can make another build later for another run ;) Still, 4 guard dogs would be pretty nice.. of course the rat in this case would likely chow down on one a round until either it was dead or they all were at which point you would have to spend a few more years training new dogs :( I know that dwarves live a long time but 1 CR 1 guy every several years seems pretty slow even for them! I was just making a point against the druid's supposed advantage for having a 2 hd pet. In order to make the point valid we have to make sure all of the rules are being followed ;) I am sure Khan build with slaughter the rat easily too. It looks like he can try anytime he likes ;)
Scion of Coldshard 06-27-07, 08:17 PM	Where can I find stats for these guard dogs? I believe it would be these (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dog.htm).
TheCobra 06-27-07, 08:19 PM	That's what I suspect as well. There's no way you're turning a 20-50-pound dog into a St. Bernard with a handle animal check.
Argaud 06-27-07, 08:26 PM	Now we have defend. This means you set the creature to defend another, possibly yourself, but what does it do to defend you? Does it attack your foe? If so, to what extent? How far will it go from you? Ranged attacks, spells, creatures with reach, creatures in trees, flying creatures.. what does it do? Does it use aid another to increase your AC by 2 points? Again the questions about different kinds of attacks as well. Does it try to get in the way, physically imposing its body? If so, what does this do? What does the animal do if there is no spot for it to stand between the two of you? Does it defend you against things that are not attacks but merely threatening? If so, how? If the dog always starts attacking anythin that attacks (or threatens) then that seems to make it significantly stronger than the 2 trick attack command. According to the SRD: "Defend (DC 20): The animal defends you (or is ready to defend you if no threat is present), even without any command being given. Alternatively, you can command the animal to defend a specific other character." What does defend do? Exactly the same that it does for the druid. You want nitpick the Animal Handling tricks to hell? Go ahead, make druid animal companions useless in your game by nitpicking the tricks so they are all useless. See if I care. Further nitpicking will get you ignored.
Scion of Coldshard 06-27-07, 08:33 PM	According to the SRD: Defend (DC 20): The animal defends you (or is ready to defend you if no threat is present), even without any command being given. Alternatively, you can command the animal to defend a specific other character. Yes, I know, I have seen it. It doesnt answer any of my questions. What does defend do? Exactly the same that it does for the druid. You want nitpick the Animal Handling tricks to hell? Go ahead, make druid animal companions useless in your game by nitpicking the tricks so they are all useless. See if I care. Both characters can use the 'Guarding Task' which gives the riding dog the commands, 'attack, defend, down, and guard' so that isnt the issue. Both can have the dog on guard and we have to ask the same questions, what does it mean? But, the druid can tell the dog to do some other task as a free action and the druid gets a +4 bonus on the roll so it is much easier for him to switch tasks and make this issue go away. This isnt about the druid though, it is about any character using handle animal. I actually really like the 'aid another to give you +2 AC' option. It seems to fit pretty well. Further nitpicking will get you ignored. Nitpicking would've been me telling you that taking 20 isnt possible, I didnt do that, I accepted that somehow you would be able to get the proper training done. Asking what the defend command does and how it relates along with how you are getting your flanking bonus are not nitpicks, those are very important to your whole scenario!
Argaud 06-27-07, 08:55 PM	I actually really like the 'aid another to give you +2 AC' option. It seems to fit pretty well. Druid players must love you when you have the T-Rex companion gives them +2 to AC when they are attacked, instead of eating the attacker :rolleyes: I think that is all I have to say to you.
Meyer_William 06-27-07, 09:12 PM	Couple Questions: Are any buffs able to be up prior to the start of the fight -- if so, what are the rules for these ... A DMM Pesisting cleric -- can he start with 1 (or more) spells up? Spells with durations in hours? Spells with durations in 10 min/lvl Spells with durations in 1 min/lvl Also ... Rule 7 -- no followers -- does this include animals like the dog mentioned in the above fight? If not -- what is a follower (anything with at least one level in a class?)
navar100 06-27-07, 09:32 PM	I think your knee jerk reactive tendencies to any post questioning the allmighty fighter has blinded you to my point. I do *not* claim the fighter 'sucks'. I do claim the design sucks because there is not much of an opportunity cost for multi-classing out. Because he gets nothing great for remaining a fighter, other classes with 9th level spells or some other powerful class features that can fight decently can replace him and still fulfill the role of 'fighter'. So, yeah the design of the cleric class sucks because you get all its benefits at 1st level. Ditto the sorcerer. The wizard as well. The Swashbuckler is probably worse than the fighter because there is little reason to stay past 3rd level. Etc. And yet, it doesn't matter to the fighter defenders that fighter X/prestige class Y (X+Y=20) is "better" than fighter 20. For the fighter defenders, fighter 20 is a playable, "viable", fun, can do just fine, etc. However, you are saying there's no point to playing fighter 20 because something else is better. That's the CoDzilla Fallacy. It's only a matter of personal taste that you would prefer to play what gets the most optimal strongest combination possible and then look for something better where as others just want what's good enough. As a matter of class comparison of one could say class X is stronger than fighter. The problem lies in saying there's no point to playing a fighter.
navar100 06-27-07, 09:52 PM	God protects me of the nitpickers from hell! Do you realize I could have 4 guard dogs for 100 gp (wall of Chihuahuas cheese!). And have them in front of Stumpy while he trips the rat with a glaive or skewers it with a long spear? He wouldn't even take 1 hp damage, even if the rat kills a couple dogs, who cares? I was just making a point against the druid's supposed advantage for having a 2 hd pet. I am sure Khan build with slaughter the rat easily too. That's your punishment for mocking the druid. Remember, as a fighter defender, you have to dot your i's, cross your t's, and calculate to the 10th decimal point, 12th for Scion.
Bob Loblaw 06-27-07, 10:14 PM	Here is my entry into the Gauntlet. Looks like Argaud and myself have similar combat styles but different methods so far. Note that we will probably see differences as we progress. I don't have any background for him. Blitz Ironchest, Human Fighter 1. Human: Combat Expertise Character 1: Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Dwarven Warpike) Fighter 1: Improved Trip Warpike, dwarven: 45gp, dmg 2d6, crit x3, 15#, piercing or slashing, reach 10ft, ready against charge, can trip Str: 15 Dex: 14 Con: 12 Int: 13 Wis: 10 Cha: 8 AC: 16 (14 flat-footed, 12 touch) Hit Points: 11 Initiative: +2 Attack: +4 (2d6+3) Fort: 3 Ref: 2 Will: 0 Skills (Used Cityscape option to swap Ride for Tumble): Craft (Armor): 4+1 = 5 Tumble: 4+2-2 = 4 Jump: 4+3 = 7 Heal: 2+0 = 2 Gear: 150g Warpike (45) Chain Shirt (100) Remaining: 5 Top of Round 1, the rat goes first and attacks. He hits on 12 or better (65% chance). He deals 4.55 damage. Bottom of Round 1, I step back 5 feet and attempt to trip. Blitz needs a 10 or better to hit (55% chance). If I hit, we make opposed rolls. Blitz has 2 (weapon) +4 (feat) +3 (Str)= +9. Rat has 3 (Dex) +4 (4 legs) -4 (size) = 3. Blitz will probably trip the rat taking his automatic attack. This attack will hit on a 12 or better (45% chance). Blitz deals 4.5 damage. Top of Round 2, the rat attempts to stand provoking an attack of opportunity. Again, Blitz attacks dealing 4.5 damage killing the rat. If the rat chooses to attack while prone, then he will suffer a -4 attack penalty and have to crawl to Blitz, provoking an attack of opportunity. Same as before, Blitz kills him.
navar100 06-27-07, 10:23 PM	Shouldn't he be at 11 hit points not 12 because of +1 CO modifier? Irrelevant for now but can make a difference as the levels progress.
not Yoda 06-27-07, 10:29 PM	Warpike, dwarven: 45gp, dmg 2d6, crit x3, 15#, piercing or slashing, reach 10ft, ready against charge, can trip (and does) I often wondered what the next spiked chain would look like.;) As I would understand it Defend would be to attack any aggressors and if the oppportunity presents itself to interpose itself or distract such an aggressor. Much like a Shepherd. There is a trick to get the +2 to AC it's called Assist Defend there is also an Assist Attack I believe they are in CA.
Kratch 06-27-07, 10:41 PM	Before i continue, i figured i'd check the general concensus on something. The rule for tumbleing is that it can't be done while wearing armor that restricts movement... Dwarves movement is not restricted in armour. Is it generally accepted they can tumble, even in medium or heavy armour? If it is not generally accepted, I will not use it (won't change my build much, will change how i manuver)
Narfolin 06-27-07, 10:42 PM	Edit: I'm rewriting Ralf into a more allowable form, without the 3 dogs. /edit I've been following this for some time now, and I like the Dwarf with a Dog set here. How about this? Ralf O'Reily, Level 1 Fighter, Kobold, 25 pt Point Buy. Str 10 (6) Dex 16 (6) Con 12 (6) Int 13 (5) Wis 8 (0) Cha 10 (2) Feats: Rapid Reload, Point Blank Shot. Skills: 12 skill points Hide 2(cc) (total +7) Move Silently 2(cc) (+3) Craft (Armor) 4 (+5) Equipment: Chain Shirt 33.3g Heavy Metal Shield (crafted) 2.3g Heavy Crossbow 50g Longsword 15g 40 bolts 4g Backpack+Adventuring Gear 10g Init: +3 HP: 11 AC: 21 (+3 Dex, +1 Natural, +4 Chain Shirt, +2 Heavy Shield, +1 size) or 19 (no shield), Touch 14, Flatfooted 18 (16 no shield). Attack: +2 (Longsword, 1d6) or +6 (within 30ft, Heavy Crossbow, 1d8+1) Saves: Fort +2, Ref +3, Will +0 Racials: Light Sensitivity (Daylight spell or bright sunlight), Darkvision 60ft, 30ft base speed, +1 Natural Armor bonus, +2 racial bonus to Craft(Trapmaking), Profession(Miner), Search. Commentary: I decided to rebuild, figuring that Argaud had the dog build well done so far. So, I decided to go with a Kobold fighter. My plan with this guy, is Skirmisher. Horrid Rat: Round One: Since the Init Bonuses are the same, I'll yeild the init to the Rat. Rat Charges, making his to hit a +6, needs to hit AC 16 (Flatfooted, no shield). Hits on a 10, 55% chance, does average of 3.85. My turn, 5ft step back, Fire Crossbow, vs AC18, with a +6, need a 12+, so 45%*5.5=2.475damage. Reload Heavy Crossbow as a Move Action. Round Two: Rat moves forward, attacks. Needs to hit AC19 now, with his +4, needs a 15+, that's 30%*7=2.1 average damage. My turn, 5ft step back, Fire Crossbow. Vs AC20, I need a 14+ to hit, so 35%*5.5=1.925. Rapid Reload Heavy Crossbow as a Move Action. Round 3: Same as Round 2. Rat Damage is 2.1. My damage is 1.925. Round 4: Same. Rat is 2.1 average, mine is 1.925. This kills the rat on this round. Takes an average of 4 rounds to kill the rat. Rat has done 10.15 points of damage to me. Around 1 HP left, not something I'd like to try again. But, again, this is solo against a CR1 mob, so having it take a single PC down to the wire is fine, too. Now, what If I had gone melee with the Rat, like a good fighter? Round one: Rat needs to hit AC 18 (flatfooted w/shield), with his +6, needs a 12+, so that's 45%*7= 3.15. I draw Longsword, Smack the Rat. I need to hit AC18, I have a bonus of +2. So, I need a roll of 16+, or 25%*3.5= .875 Round Two: Rat needs to hit AC21 now, has a +4 bonus, needs to roll 17+, so 20%*7= 1.4 I whack with Longsword, against AC20, have a +2, need an 18+, so that's 15%*3.5= 0.525. I'm going to need 10 more rounds to kill this thing. The Rat'll have me dead in 5 more rounds. Granted, I'm not a melee build fighter. Doing what I'm built to do, I win. Doing what I'm not built to do, I die. -Narfolin
Archangel62 06-27-07, 10:54 PM	Couple Questions: Are any buffs able to be up prior to the start of the fight -- if so, what are the rules for these ... A DMM Pesisting cleric -- can he start with 1 (or more) spells up? Spells with durations in hours? Spells with durations in 10 min/lvl Spells with durations in 1 min/lvl Also ... Rule 7 -- no followers -- does this include animals like the dog mentioned in the above fight? If not -- what is a follower (anything with at least one level in a class?) The caster is assumed to be non-buffed, if you are a persistent caster I will allow you to go for it but beyond that, nada. No followers means no hiring soldiers; this extends to the following: No hiring NPC casters, no hiring warriors, no purchasing animals or monsters, magic items that can create allies are currently on the maybe list but I'm still shaky on them. I allow mounts but that's it as far as it goes, the riding dog pushed it a bit but I'm willing to accept it. @Argaud Nitpicking is necessary here, I hate to put it that way but everyone is going to go through it at each level, no matter what. Also, from now on I think we might be better served working at an external area where we can write up each encounter, reason I state this is that some creatures are smart enough to sunder and such things might not come up normally. @Navar That wasn't really necessary, we both know that you and others will be raking any druid, cleric, or warblade over the coals if they miss anything. And for the purposes of this I missed something big, Khan spotted it before I did (thank goodness), and to be honest it is important to look for mistakes in these builds.
Archangel62 06-27-07, 11:00 PM	I've been following this for some time now, and I like the Dwarf with a Dog set here. How about this? Ralf "The Dogcatcher" O'Reilly. 25pt point buy, level 1, Human. Str 14 (6) Dex 14 (6) Con 12 (4) Int 13 (5) Wis 10 (2) Cha 10 (2) Skills: (total 16 ranks) Handle Animal 4 (+4 total) Craft (Armorsmith) 4 (+5 total) Craft (Weaponsmith) 4 (+5 total) Ride 4 (+6 total) Saves: +3 Fort, +2 Ref, +0 Will Feats: Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Power Attack Equipment: Guard Dog x3 75g Chain Shirt (selfmade) 33.3g Longsword (selfmade) 5g General Adventurer "stuff" (backpack, bedroll, oil, lamp, torch, etc) 10g Heavy Wooden Shield (selfmade) 3g Leather Barding for each dog (selfmade) 10g (extrapolated, but not necessary, will provide stats and comments for with and without the barding) Left-over travelling gold: 13.7g (almost enough to upgrade to studded leather for all the dogs, selfmade, of course) HP: 12 AC: 18 (+4 Armor, +2 Shield, +2 Dex), Touch 12, Flatfooted 16 Attack: +3 (+1 BAB, +2 Str) Longsword (1d8+2) Alignment: NG Background: Ralf O'Reilly grew up, son of the town armor/weaponsmith. His father, Zack, desperately wanted Ralf to go into the family business, and apprenticed him in his own shop. However, Ralf had other plans, plans that included a life of adventure. Putting aside everything he could over the last year, and working on his own time, after his father had gone to bed, Ralf was able to outfit himself relatively well, all things considered. Zack simply thought that Ralf was getting in some extra "practice". Late one night, Ralf snuck out of his father's house, leashed his three best friends, Bud, Spud, and Thud, three hound dogs he had trained for quite some time and had purched with his own money over the last year, gathered his equipment from the shop (hidden in a loose floorboard), and left in the night. Ralf is a nice enough fellow, though he does tend to talk to his dogs as often as he talks to his party members. They're all trained guard dogs, so he rotates them during the night for watch. Commentary: Ralf can either be considered to have trained the dogs himself (possible with a take-20), or for them to have come trained for the task of "Guarding" under Handle Animal, since they are Guard Dogs. I'm figuring they have the stats of the Dog listed in the SRD, and not the Riding Dog. The Barding is questionable. Certainly legal, but the issue that makes it questionable is the cost. The PHB lists the cost multipliers for Large (x4 base) and Medium (x2 base) sized creatures. I extrapolated that the next size down, Small, would be x1, or base cost. Being Guard Dogs, they'd have the "Attack", "Defend", "Down", and "Guard" commands already trained. This allows Ralf to train them for two more tricks each, and I figure "Heel" (DC15, doable on a take-10) and possible making Attack a double trick, attack any creature style, would be the other (DC20, requiring a take-20). Dog Stats (3 dogs): Str: 13, Dex 17, Con 15, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6 Attack: +2 (Bite) 1d4+1 Skills: Jump +7, Listen +5, Spot +5, Survival +1* Feats: Alertness, Track Abilities: Lowlight Vision, Scent. Saves: Fort +4, Ref +5, Will +1 Equipment: Leather Barding (+2 AC) AC: 17 (+1 size, +3 Dex, +1 Natural, +2 Barding) Touch 14, Flatfooted: 14 HP: 6 (1d8+2) Init: +3 Tactics: When Bud, Spud and Thud aren't on guard duty, they're set to "defend" Ralf. Ralf usually attempts to maneuver himself during combat (with 5ft-steps) so that he and at least one of the dogs are flanking the opponent. Since the Dogs are set on "defend", they won't attack until Ralf engages in melee, or the opponent attacks him, whichever comes first. Note also that this version of the Dogs doesn't have trip. Granted, Ralf will likely want to upgrade his Dogs later on, by purchasing Riding Dogs when he can afford them, or by upgrading their armor to Chain Shirt levels. Or both, as funds allow. Against the Horrid Rat, I'll let someone else more competent run the numbers, but they'll mostly look like Stumpy's numbers, without the dog-trips. The AC's the same (after the combat expertise fixes, of course). The Rat will have a slightly easier time trying to trip Ralf than Stumpy, due only to the fact that Stumpy's a Dwarf (+4 for stability). The dogs do less damage, but there's two more of them. The Dogs do have a better AC each than Stumpy's, though (+1 better), though at the cost of having half the hit points of Stumpy's. I'll attempt to do the numbers anyway: Round one: Same assumption that Ralf loses init, and the Rat charges. Same chance to hit, same average damage (3.85hp). Ralf: Attempts to trip the Rat. The Touch Attack needed is 14, Ralf has a +3 AB, so he needs an 11+ to hit, or roughly 50%. Rat has +3 vs. Ralf's +7 (+1BAB, +2 Str, +4 feat). Ralf likely trips the Rat (I don't know how to do the numbers to figure the % chance of tripping on an opposed roll), but cut that % by 50 for the hit on the touch attack. Ralf ends his round by making a 5ft-step to flank with one of the dogs. If he misses the Trip, and the follow up attack, the Dogs attack anyway. +2 to hit vs AC18 (due to the charge), and +2 to hit for at least one of them (Ralf 5ft-step to flank). Assuming the other two don't flank him, they need a 16+ to hit, or roughly a 25% chance. They do 1d4+1, or an average of 3.5 per hit, roughly .875hp per nonflanking dog, or 1.75hp. The Flanking dog has a 35% chance of hitting (14+), and so does 1.225hp this round. So far, the rat's taken ~3hp of average damage. Another 3.25 average from Ralf *if* he made the trip. Round 2: Rat attacks Ralf: Ralf has AC18, Rat has +4, so needs a 14+ to hit, a 35% chance of hitting, for 2.45 average (.35*7). Also, Rat provokes an AoO for attempting to stand *if* he was tripped last round. Rat is already at Half HP (or nearly so) from the average dog damage last round. 4 AoO's would likely finish him off (3.5*.25*3=2.625 for the dogs, 6.5*.30=1.95 for Ralf). If the Rat wasn't tripped, Ralf and the Dogs continue to peck away at him. Ralf with a +5 (+3 +2 for flanking) to hit needs a 15+, or a 30% chance, so 6.5*.3=1.95 from a straight attack from Ralf. Dogs all attack, Thud, who is flanking, needs a 16+ to hit (+2, +2 flank), so a 25% chance to hit, 3.5*.25= .875; Spud and Bud both need 18's to hit (assuming they aren't flanking, again). 3.5*.15*2=1.05. The Rat should be dead by this point. 1.05+.875+1.95+1.225+1.75= 6.85 of the Rat's 7 HP. That's if Ralf didn't get the Trip on the first round. If he did, he dies sooner, as the dogs all get a 20% better chance to hit the Rat, as well as an AoO on the Rat when he tries to stand up. End of second round, Ralf has suffered an average of 2.45+3.85= 6.3hp of damage from the Rat. Granted, high or low Dice rolls would affect this greatly, but that's part of the life of a first level character:). That's level 1 for Ralf "Dogcatcher" O'Reilly. -Narfolin Not bad, unfortunately Ralf violated Rule #7, no purchasing soldiers, the dogs do qualify in that regard. The riding dog is close, but as it is a mount I have to let it go. The problem however is that this design didn't prove conclusively that the fighter worked so much as it proved that dogs were awesome.
not Yoda 06-27-07, 11:06 PM	Not bad, unfortunately Ralf violated Rule #7, no purchasing soldiers, the dogs do qualify in that regard. The riding dog is close, but as it is a mount I have to let it go. The problem however is that this design didn't prove conclusively that the fighter worked so much as it proved that dogs were awesome. Any contest rules aside. Way to go Ralf.:cheer:
Argaud 06-27-07, 11:24 PM	LEVEL 2 Stumpy as a level 2nd fighter. 25 point build. Stre 14 (6 points) Dex 14 (6 points) Con 16 (6 points) Int 13 (5 points) Wis 10 (2 points) Cha 6 (0 points) AL: NE AC 19 (+8 fullplate, +1 Dex). With shield, AC 21 HP: 21 Initiative: +2 Attack: +4 longsword (1d8+2) or +4 Glaive (1d10+3) or +4 javelin (1d6+2) Saves: +5 fort, +2 ref, +0 will. +2 vs. poison, +2 vs. spells Skills (15 points): Animal handling +2 (4 ranks, -2 cha), Intimidate +2 (4 ranks –2 cha – but he can use his strength to intimidate, getting a +6), Craft (armors) +8 (4 ranks, +2 int, +2 race), Craft (weapons) + 7 (3 ranks, +2 int, +2 race). Feats: Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Combat Reflexes Stumpy has 900 gold to play and enough skill to craft a full plate with a take 10. Very nice for second level. For 500 gold, he has full plate. His dog receives a breastplate barding for 133.3 gold (usually it is 400). He also forges a glaive and spikes for the armor. At this point, thanks to his skills, he actually has too much gear for a level 2 character. Ah, the absurdity of the crafting rules. On the other hand, Stumpy has also forged a fullplate for the cleric and weapons for all the other party members that use non-exotic weapons, saving them several hundreds gold pieces. Gear: Riding Dog (100 gold) Barding for the dog (+5 AC) (133.3 gold) Full Plate (500 gold) Armor spikes (16.7 gold) Glaive (2.7 gold) Heavy wooden shield (7 gold) Longsword (5 gold) 6 javelins (2 gold) Obsolete: Chain Shirt (33.3 gold). 100 gold for beers. Hippyslayer, Stumpy’d riding dog A normal riding dog with breastplate barding. AC 21, hp 13, attack: bite +3 (1d6+3+trip) The worg has +7 bite (1d6+4+trip), AC 14 (12 touch), 30 hp. It has +2 initiative, same as Stumpy and his dog. However Hippyslayer won’t attack until someone attacks Stumpy, so he does not count. Whatever happens, Stumpy gets the first hit. Even if the worg gains the initiative Stumpy smacks him first as it comes, because Combat Reflexes let him do AoOs even when flatfooted. Lets say Stumpy lets the worg charge him. First round: Stumpy hit the worg as he comes (AC12) hitting 65% of the times for 1d10+3, or 5.525 damage. The worg hits Stumpy with a 10 (55% of the time) for 1d6+4 = 4.175 damage. He can try a trip, but he is +3 vs. Stumpy’s +6. The dog jumps to protect his master. He hits with a 10 (55%) for 1d6+3 = 3.575 damage. Stumpy drops his glaive (free), moves 5’ to flank the worg, draws his sword (as part of the move) and readies his shield (standard), he declares +2 Combat Expertise defense. His AC goes up to 23. Round 2: The worg has two AC23 targets, he needs 16 to hit (25% chances) hits for (1d6+4 x .25) 1.875 damage per round on average. Likely he will trip Stumpy in 4-5 rounds, but can he last so long? If Stumpy is not tripped, the worg can drop him in 9 rounds. The worg has AC14 and is being flanked. Stumpy hits him with a 10 (55%) for 1d8+2 damage, or 3.375 hp/round. The dog hits him also 55% of the time, for 1d6+3, also 3.375 damage/round. Total 6.5 damage/round. The Worg will die in 4 rounds, that is in round 5. But what if the worg trips Stumpy and avoids being tripped by the dog? Well, Stumpy stands up and takes an AoO against his AC 19, so he gets hit 45% of the time, taking 3.375 damage on average. This means even if the worg trips Stumpy twice, he loses. He needs to trip the dwarf at least three times without getting tripped himself. Unlikely given he has +3 vs. +6. Stumpy wins again, likely missing ~ 15 hp.
The_sleeper1 06-27-07, 11:51 PM	In both cases I dont see how he can flank the creature with a 5' step also why are the creatures not 5' stepping out of flank? Most importantly if spending 100gp on a dog makes you great why not spend all your gold on rideing dogs then you can surround it and have a spare, then you can sit in the tavern drinking ale? A guard dog does not show fighter abilitys or a clerics for that matter. It shows optimiztion skill and if anything stepping away from fighter abilitys.
Khan the Destroyer 06-28-07, 12:06 AM	Also, note that druid handles her animal companion as free action. She can even push it as a move action. The fighter has to spend a move action or even a full-round action Granted. But in this case, when you have only 1 attack and your enemy charged you, spending that move action is sort of a non-issue. Actually making the check is more important, but since the dog is already defending... Still, it would be nice to have a ruleset that explained things just a little bit better. Lets take the 'attack' and 'defend' commands as an example. Let's not. We can speculate all we want, but I doubt we'll hit anything conclusive. When I think of a family dog protecting the family, I think of a dog attacking an intruder, not throwing himself in the path of a bullet, or nudging you away from a knife attack. Before i continue, i figured i'd check the general concensus on something. The rule for tumbleing is that it can't be done while wearing armor that restricts movement... Dwarves movement is not restricted in armour. Is it generally accepted they can tumble, even in medium or heavy armour? If it is not generally accepted, I will not use it (won't change my build much, will change how i manuver) From my experience here, it is generally accepted that dwarves can tumble in medium and heavy armor. Also, I believe this was answered in an Ask the Sage article. @Argaud: I had never considered the benefits of crafting your own gear until seeing your build (as a non-caster). Actually, I probably have, but never seriously. Nice. Also, I was wondering how you were getting your strength to intimidate. A guard dog does not show fighter abilitys or a clerics for that matter. It shows optimiztion skill and if anything stepping away from fighter abilitys. Using your Handle Animal skill to train a dog for combat is moving away from the fighter? Say what? It's a class skill. And he has gold. And there is a price for dogs. And there are dogs trained for war. That you can buy. With your gold. And train. With your skill. And let's face it. That will likely be a rogue flanking with you in an actual game. The creature is dead even sooner.
The_sleeper1 06-28-07, 12:24 AM	Using your Handle Animal skill to train a dog for combat is moving away from the fighter? Say what? It's a class skill. And he has gold. And there is a price for dogs. And there are dogs trained for war. That you can buy. With your gold. And train. With your skill. And let's face it. That will likely be a rogue flanking with you in an actual game. The creature is dead even sooner. Theres prices to hire troops as well. In the context of the gauntlet with no troops it is cheesy. The dwarf will not ride the dog its not a mount he does not even have rideing listed with with the skills he put points in to. If it only takes a +2 to animal handling to train a dog that is hardly a fighter ability.
Khan the Destroyer 06-28-07, 12:31 AM	Yeah, and it only takes a +7 to hit some monster, so that's hardly a fighter ability. And Power Attack is a feat, so that's hardly a fighter ability. Any anyone can get gear as well. So far, we'll disallow trivial skills checks, gear, BAB, feats, and anything else that can be achieved or gained by someone else. What else are we favoring the fighter with unjustly? And he just added the rule about no hirelings, after the riding dogs had been used. And he made a special exception for them. And I am confident that you will see these riding dogs become pretty much useless in the levels to come.
The_sleeper1 06-28-07, 12:42 AM	I tend to agree on dogs becoming useless. Not BAB or other things only an ability that is not unique to a fighter at level one. I did not know it was put in after the fight was up I thought it was in there before, I have not been following it that closely TBH.
Narfolin 06-28-07, 12:55 AM	Theres prices to hire troops as well. In the context of the gauntlet with no troops it is cheesy. The dwarf will not ride the dog its not a mount he does not even have rideing listed with with the skills he put points in to. If it only takes a +2 to animal handling to train a dog that is hardly a fighter ability. Any other goalposts you'd like to change, while you're at it? The Fighter is using his skills. To not allow him to do so is akin to not allowing a Rogue or Bard to use his UMD skill, after buying a wand of X (X being a spell suitable for a Wand). Also, to train an animal, one only needs one rank in Handle Animal. All the DC's are 15 or 20, with the exception of "Rear a wild animal", which is 15+animal's HD. Since the skill can't be used untrained for any of these (it can be used untrained for Handling or Pushing the animal), one only needs a single point, and plenty of time to make the Take-20 check. 5-10 total bonus in the skill is optimal, though, to make the Take-10 checks (5 for the DC15's, 10 for the DC20s), especially since, once a wild animal is reared (which can't have a Take-20 at all), a wild animal learns tricks in the same manner and with the same DCs as a domesticated one (i.e., 15 or 20). Edit: All this is assuming at least a +0 total skill modifier, all said and done. For a Dwarf with a -2 from a 6 Cha, yes, he'll need 2 points in Handle Animal. /edit Also, one might wish to go for +10 or +15 total bonus, in order to train creatures with an intelligence of 1 or 2, due to the +5 added to the creature's DC. Again, though, claiming that a fighter can't use his skills to enhance his abilities is absurd at best. It'd be like claiming the above about a rogue/bard, or that a Wiz/Sorc/Cleric/etc. can't use their concentration skill. Also, see moving the goalposts. Archangel already disallowed the more egregious abuses of this (i.e., buying multiple dogs, equating them to soldiers). Would the build be better if the Fighter was a Halfling? Then he could ride his dog (but wouldn't be required to). Are Paladins not allowed to bring in their Mounts? Druids/Rangers their animal companions? Also note that any Barbarian, Druid, Ranger or Paladin can do the same thing (all share that Class skill with the Fighter). And any other character who wants to spend the time, money, and cross-class skill points on doing so, can do so. -Narfolin
The_sleeper1 06-28-07, 01:32 AM	I did not change the goal posts. As you put it yourself anyone can train a dog, that being the case what does it show about a fighter? Nothing at all. THere is no intention to ride the dog that much is clear. Also if the size of the fighter were reduced he would be up crap creek with out a paddel because his damage trip and grappel checks would be lowered.
TheCobra 06-28-07, 01:37 AM	On the other hand, Stumpy has also forged a fullplate for the cleric and weapons for all the other party members that use non-exotic weapons, saving them several hundreds gold pieces. He's also spent a few years doing it. The other PCs are now epic-level characters. Are Paladins not allowed to bring in their Mounts? Druids/Rangers their animal companions? Hirelings aren't the same as class features.
navar100 06-28-07, 01:49 AM	@Navar That wasn't really necessary, we both know that you and others will be raking any druid, cleric, or warblade over the coals if they miss anything. And for the purposes of this I missed something big, Khan spotted it before I did (thank goodness), and to be honest it is important to look for mistakes in these builds. Implied :P , should have put it in I guess. Since cleric is my favorite class, I would hope it does well. I'm just against double standard treatment between the classes, not that classes which happen not be fighter are awesome. I hope warblade passes. Druids I'm "neutral". ;)
Khan the Destroyer 06-28-07, 01:49 AM	Grief over a riding dog. :rolleyes:
navar100 06-28-07, 01:57 AM	Grief over a riding dog. :rolleyes: Only druids are ... Never mind. You know the drill. Insert as many :P :) :D you want.
Bob Loblaw 06-28-07, 02:14 AM	Shouldn't he be at 11 hit points not 12 because of +1 CO modifier? Irrelevant for now but can make a difference as the levels progress. Thanks. I forgot to subtract the extra I got with the first set of numbers I used.
TheCobra 06-28-07, 02:16 AM	Only druids are ... Yes, the animal companion is a class feature for the druid.
Bob Loblaw 06-28-07, 02:17 AM	Stumpy has 900 gold to play and enough skill to craft a full plate with a take 10. Very nice for second level. For 500 gold, he has full plate. His dog receives a breastplate barding for 133.3 gold (usually it is 400). He also forges a glaive and spikes for the armor. At this point, thanks to his skills, he actually has too much gear for a level 2 character. Ah, the absurdity of the crafting rules. On the other hand, Stumpy has also forged a fullplate for the cleric and weapons for all the other party members that use non-exotic weapons, saving them several hundreds gold pieces. Are you hacking my system? I was planning on crafting my own gear as well. At least we will look different enough in the next few levels.
Bob Loblaw 06-28-07, 02:20 AM	Can we get past the dog for a bit? We constantly read how the fighter can't do stuff out of combat and how he is just not that great in combat. This fighter managed to fill both roles. The dog will lose it's usefulness soon enough. He may move on to bigger and better animals, but even they will lose their usefulness by the time he gets into the higher levels.
TheCobra 06-28-07, 02:20 AM	I was planning on crafting my own gear as well. Do y'all seriously take a year off to craft that suit of full plate in your campaigns? I have never seen this happen in game.
Bob Loblaw 06-28-07, 03:05 AM	Level 2 Human Combat Expertise Character 1 Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Dwarven Warpike) Fighter 1 Improved Trip Fighter 2 Weapon Focus (Dwarven Warpike) Str: 15 Dex: 14 Con: 12 Int: 13 Wis: 10 Cha: 8 AC: 16 (14 flat-footed, 12 touch) Hit Points: 17 (for simplicity, I will use the Fixed Hit Points on mage 198 of the DMG) Initiative: +2 Attack: Warpike +7 (2d6+5) or Longsword +6 (1d8+3) Fort: 4 Ref: 2 Will: 0 Skills (Used Cityscape option to swap Ride for Tumble): Craft (Armor): 5+1 = 6 Craft (Weapon) 4+1 = 5 Tumble: 5+2-1+3 = 9 Jump: 4+3+2 = 9 Heal: 2 Gear: 900g Masterwork Warpike (131) Masterwork Chain Shirt (83) Tanglefoot Bag x4 (200) Masterwork Longsword (105) Remaining: 381g Against the worg, Blitz will go first 50% of the time. I will work with both options. Option 1: Worg goes first. Top of Round 1: Worg charges and needs a 9 or better to hit (60% chance). He deals 4.5 damage and gets a free trip attempt. There is a 50/50 chance Blitz is tripped. If Blitz is tripped, we look at Bottom of Round 1a. If Blitz is not tripped, we look at Bottom of Round 1b. Bottom of Round 1a: Blitz is now prone. He can attempt to stand, but he still has a decent chance of attacking while prone. He can use his tanglefoot bag against the worg, needing a 6 or better to hit (remember the worg charged). Now the worg must make a Reflex save with a 50% chance of success. If successful, Blitz can Tumble out of the way. If unsuccessful, Blitz will need to attempt to stand. Bottom of Round 1b: Blitz throws a tanglefoot bag needing a 6 or better to hit. He then moves back 30 feet, provoking an attack of opportunity. Top of Round 2: If the worg is tangled, then Blitz charges in and attacks, remaining 10 feet away for the remainder of the round. If the worg is not tangled, then Blitz uses Combat Expertise for +2 AC and continues these tactics until they work or he runs out of bags. In theory, this should only take up to 2 rounds to work. The worg will not be able to reach Blitz while Blitz can beat freely on the worg. If Blitz goes first, he uses the tanglefoot bag immediately and then progresses as before.
Bob Loblaw 06-28-07, 03:06 AM	Do y'all seriously take a year off to craft that suit of full plate in your campaigns? I have never seen this happen in game. First, I'm not crafting full plate (and won't with this character). Second, the gauntlet don't to say that we can't. Third, not all campaigns are run the same way. Many DMs actually do give lots of downtime.
TheCobra 06-28-07, 03:23 AM	Third, not all campaigns are run the same way. Many DMs actually do give lots of downtime. I try to give a fair amount, but my players usually aren't interested. They're always trying to do something dangerous. I think characters often advance too fast, but taking a year off after attaining level 2 seems like swinging too far in the other direction. Str: 15 Attack: Warpike +7 (2d6+5) or Longsword +6 (1d8+3) Did I miss something?
Argaud 06-28-07, 06:02 AM	In both cases I dont see how he can flank the creature with a 5' step also why are the creatures not 5' stepping out of flank? Most importantly if spending 100gp on a dog makes you great why not spend all your gold on rideing dogs then you can surround it and have a spare, then you can sit in the tavern drinking ale? A guard dog does not show fighter abilitys or a clerics for that matter. It shows optimiztion skill and if anything stepping away from fighter abilitys. I thought in buying 3 more dogs at level 2, which is what some have commented is the way to go in threads about the drid's ridding-dog-given superiority, but: a) Stumpy wants blood b) It is against Archangel's rules As for the rest: Mwahahaha. The fighter used his non-existing or non-useful skills and guess what? Big combat advantage for him. Now cry me a river. Yes, he optimized, so what? DMM-clerics are optimizing, fleshrakers are optimizing, all the look-the-fighter-sucks-compared-with-this are optimized builds. The challenge is against the toughest critters Archangel could find, of course I am optimizing!
Argaud 06-28-07, 06:28 AM	@Argaud: I had never considered the benefits of crafting your own gear until seeing your build (as a non-caster). Actually, I probably have, but never seriously. Nice. Honestly, crafting armors takes a while, and in some campaigns it would not be practical, but Archangel has set no limited for downtime between encounters. Also, I was wondering how you were getting your strength to intimidate. I am quite sure the option is in some book, and I was half-sure it was omplete Warrior, but it is not. The idea is that you intimidate the target with a show of brutal strength instead of your good looks/presence. Using your Handle Animal skill to train a dog for combat is moving away from the fighter? Say what? I think it is because it is automatically assumed fighters do not have any useful skills, so they are shocked Stumpy is able to do anything with his skill points but taking cross-class ranks of UMD. :rolleyes:
Kalarus 06-28-07, 06:37 AM	He's also spent a few years doing it. The other PCs are now epic-level characters. Hirelings aren't the same as class features. It's always fun to read tons of post after a night's sleep and having to choose at which point one butts in :D In this case, I'm butting in here. A lot of things aren't class features, a good example is gear. Skills aren't class features. Shall we have all characters fight naked? If a character picks Leadership as a feat to attract a cohort and followers, is that not an ability of the character? Heck races aren't class features, let's ignore the human bonus feat or the dwarf stability features as well. The actual reason I chose to butt in here is because apparently it is very sensible that, in a few years, PCs are epic level characters. I am aware this is a very strange persistent practice of a lot of players and DMs not bothering to keep track of age or the general passing of time in so far as it does not have a bearing on the adventure they're playing. This is in stark contrast to most if not all high level NPC characters (with PC class levels for that matter) having been adventurers for decades, becoming grizzled warriors, wizened but still cheeky rogues, and not to forget, a stunted old greybeard of an archmage. That last one always has me the most amused. Why is nearly every NPC archmage an old man, probably with a grey beard still crackling with power, while the PC archmage is a strapping young lad in his early 20s? :D I know the system allows for it, but hell the system allows for me to be a level 20 character in about two months. Sooner, if you have a good party and can push the 4-encounters-per-day 13.33-encounters-per-level up to a better rate. That said the craft system is very poorly done in comparison, at the rate at which you can find gear, or rather find the gold to buy gear, you could have 1000 fullplates for the one you could've crafted. Of course you'd have to have the one you found resized and refitted for you (which costs 2d4x100 gp and the appropriate time to do so) which is also something a lot of people forget for convenience. Technically speaking you can't even just go out and buy a full-plate, it won't be suited for you and will require about half the time required to build a completely new one, just to have it adjusted. So yeah, there's really no issue in taking a year off to craft your gear. It is in fact a lot more suitable than going out, buying your full-plate, and two days later saying "Hey guys, I'm bored, let's go kill more stuff". You just returned home from a likely dirty, certainly exhausing, and possibly gruelling experience, but despite the danger you came out the winner. Nobody would want to repeat that two days later for the sake of sanity. If you've never seen people take a year off for downtime to get and craft their gear, you haven't thought about what the people in the world are actually doing. You were just looking at a bunch of numbers and added, subtracted and multiplied a bit.
Otto the Bugbear 06-28-07, 07:19 AM	Personally, I think the craft thing is both clever and cheesy, but overall it looks fine. So they broke the wealth level by using a class skill that takes quite some time to implement, all at level 2. Wooo. :rolleyes: I'd say let it go as well. Since they have no capability of crafting the more important magical gear at higher levels, even getting simple masterwork items isn't that amazing. Let it go. The dogs on the other hand I'm not sure about. Sure, it's a valid tactic to use if you wish to in game, but the rules of the gauntlet clearly stated "no soldiers" before these dog using fighters were entered. Archangel has said he's fine with it, but that's a mistake IMO. Not because it's so amazingly brutal (it's not), but because it opens a whole can of worms for later. "What? I was allowed to have and use a dog earlier! Why can't I have a war elephant now? Or a Hippogriff? Or a legendary rhino? They're all animals. That still works with Handle Animal." At that, perhaps it would be best to do the fights both ways, with the animal and without. It's something that fights for you, so it should fall under the "no soldiers" clause, but it's something that happens in game, so it should be shown. The same goes for a war horse (which I'm surprised nobody grabbed for 2nd level; they're damn dangerous in combat at this level), though that also applies as a mount.
Sunic_Flames 06-28-07, 07:54 AM	Speaking of jumping back in at random times... A loose end from before that seems like a good time to tie up. By the books a fleshraker is CR 2. Someone else said it should actually be 3, or 4 if it had more HP. So for the gauntlet thing how about a test at level 2, again at 3, and again at 4?
Argaud 06-28-07, 08:29 AM	The dogs on the other hand I'm not sure about. Sure, it's a valid tactic to use if you wish to in game, but the rules of the gauntlet clearly stated "no soldiers" before these dog using fighters were entered. Actually I think the no soldiers rule came after Stumpy brought his dog in. But I half agree it is good since bringing to dungeons hordes of hirelings, followers, undead, charmed monsters or trained pets is not how most adventuring parties work. However, what if he had used the Wild Cohort feat to gain a pet? Or Leadership later on? If those feats are cheesy, how is DMM has not been ruled out for being cheesy? What about Quicken Spell? What about Polymorph or all the other broken spells? The question is... Why is the fighter being nitpicked for the use of his scarce skill uses and some good feats in what is a gauntlet against some of the toughest creatures in the books?
The_sleeper1 06-28-07, 09:01 AM	Actually I think the no soldiers rule came after Stumpy brought his dog in. But I half agree it is good since bringing to dungeons hordes of hirelings, followers, undead, charmed monsters or trained pets is not how most adventuring parties work. However, what if he had used the Wild Cohort feat to gain a pet? Or Leadership later on? If those feats are cheesy, how is DMM has not been ruled out for being cheesy? What about Quicken Spell? What about Polymorph or all the other broken spells? The question is... Why is the fighter being nitpicked for the use of his scarce skill uses and some good feats in what is a gauntlet against some of the toughest creatures in the books? DMM is cheesey but its something that most permit because it uses tso many feats. Personaly I dont like the way it bumps up clerics so I would likely not permit it. A cleric can do the same things of getting a war dog for 100gp, it only costs him 2 skill points with 10 cha. At that point its less of a class feature more a universal wasted time tax because it makes the fights take more effort and muddys the watter because you have a wild card effect. Bob Loblaw did prove a fighter could do it, I think that it is reasonable for just about any class to do it at level 1.
Leo 06-28-07, 09:12 AM	Wohoo the gauntlet already started!:D go fighter go! I'm also intrigued that we already have abilities being nerfed. Today the fighter isn't allowed to use skills, tomorrow what? Not allowed to move? Not allowed to attack? Also, I may point out that any caster's starting age is older than a fighter, so I could go with an half-orc(lowest life span) and argue that while your wizard spent years/decades learning how to be level 1 my half orc would be alreay around lv20+.
Argaud 06-28-07, 09:35 AM	A cleric can do the same things of getting a war dog for 100gp, it only costs him 2 skill points with 10 cha. At that point its less of a class feature more a universal wasted time tax because it makes the fights take more effort and muddys the watter because you have a wild card effect. Bob Loblaw did prove a fighter could do it, I think that it is reasonable for just about any class to do it at level 1. But the cleric hasn't Handle Animal as class skill. Moreover the cleric starts with less cash than the fighter.
itwasntme 06-28-07, 09:37 AM	i like to say a few things first Can you re-type the Gauntlet Sig rules becouse my computer is unable to read that one for some reason Second The problem with Color Spray is this A) 15 ft Range you have to get within range and have it work B) NPC Class's can easyoly have +4 or more to there Will Save or monsters that are immune to such things (Zombies) Or normol monsters with +4 or more to there will save that is CR 1 So they pass about 50% of the time inless your a super spec wizard who is doing allmost anything they can just to make Color Spray good C) Most monsters will eather Charge the Wizard or some other face meaning the monster isnt going to sit there at 15 ft away and let you cast something at him D) Hopefully no allies are in front of you inless you like to risk effecting them E) No Front Line so if it fails bye bye Wizard F) Alot of monsters will possibly use a Range Attack first before going into Melee if they have a Range Attack ... Example Orc Tossing his Javilen at the Wizard before chargeing into Melee tho then again normol orcs are CR 1/2 There For i much rather use the Sleep spell at level 1 for it has much longer range which helps alot but it dosnt solve A-F completly Allso Again like i said i would like to make sure i have all the Gauntlet rules and thats why im asking for it to be Re-typed becouse its unable to load the whole thing (Im only getting part of it) And am woundering if i can Enter the battle? And Possibly play a Paladin? Considering there more on my type of thing insteed of the Fighter ... tho i will play a fighter if i must but it is a test agest multibol Class's Agest other class's correct? ill try and see if i cant get the Gauntlet thing to fully show me the rules Allso its been a while PrC means what again? I just got up its 6:36 AM and i havnt had my Breakfest yet Allso i seem to find i have to agree the fighter is being Baned from useing Skills by all right should we say the wizard is banned from useing his skills aka Concentration checks and there for will auto fail it? Some things from what i gatherd from what i could read from it seem all mixed up and the rule of no soldiers seemed to have come in AFTER he allready added the Dog which to me makes it sound like you made a rule agest him, tho makeing it so it sounded like you didnt ... tho im sure you didnt Anyways i want to join in and try out one of the other class's we can compare agest the fighter like Cleric for example or Druid or something eles ... I Rather not go Wizard can i go Sorc insteed? anyways let me know k thanks i know its only level 2 for now so
The_sleeper1 06-28-07, 09:49 AM	But the cleric hasn't Handle Animal as class skill. Moreover the cleric starts with less cash than the fighter. Class skill does not stop anyone from getting a 1 rank or higher to there skill at level one, thats all you need with the pricedence you did it with. Also clerics are not stopped from crafting either so I don't think the coin issus will be a problem with a cleric either, but all my books are packed away and I dont have time to go digging for them. I am buying a house moveing next month and I need to gut it before I move in so no time till I am moved in.
itwasntme 06-28-07, 09:59 AM	I did not change the goal posts. As you put it yourself anyone can train a dog, that being the case what does it show about a fighter? Nothing at all. THere is no intention to ride the dog that much is clear. Also if the size of the fighter were reduced he would be up crap creek with out a paddel because his damage trip and grappel checks would be lowered. Er ... just notised this and im sure people pointed it out to you but with what your saying the fighter is useless becouse someone with the same Strength score can pick up a longsword and do the same amount of damage at level 1? The Fighter can do X so why shouldnt he? Ok soe other people can do X so what? A Rouge can find traps so can a wizard with Detect Trap Spell ... Oh Wait becouse the Wizard can do the same thing that Rouge can do should we say the Rouge is 100% Useless now? I can find traps with a Rock *Chucks Rock at the Tomb in the other room sees a Fireball go off and whips his face* Good thing that rock wasnt me ... oh wait i just Replaced the Detect/find Traps feature of the Rouge with a simple Rock The fighter should be Allowed to do what he wants to do it is a Feature of the game and Allso Druid Animol Compainon Sure its a class feature ok so you can keep it ... What about the Fighter Class Feature AKA Feat? The 2 that where listed about how a fighter could get Followers or Soliders are they baned as well? ok even tho i cant read the whole Gauntlet Rule settings some reason this morning i guess with the pages after the Gauntlet rule, Posts about it that it has Negitive points and disagreements allready? I Say the fighter should be able to use his Handle Animol Check if he wants to Players should decide what type of CR monster there going to fight and Declare it to the people and Say ok I Do this the monster normoly dose This ... And at the end of the combat players who disagree should say it ... And players who agree afterwords should Second it and should be Considerd Likly not way off target like the Zombie suddenly has intelligence and starts useing skill checks agest you ... I can see why the Leadership feat can be baned its so pos to be a Gaulntlet but i dont see the "I Have a mount" Being Baned from eather skill check or other feature i agree with the Pure level in something or another so you must be that class from level 1 all the way to level 20 Perhaps a Random Chart of what monsters you fight? So make a random chart of CR 1 monsters or monsters that Equal up to CR 1 or w/e your CR is and then randomly Determin what you get? so this way players dont Think ahead of time and Make it where they fight only that monster ... some randomness sure the player can think the best tastic but this way if there is the 1 magicol monster that cant be beaten by that character there is a chance that monster will pop up sure higher percentage should be used for more commenly used monsters (Like Zombies Skeletons Kobolts Goblins Orcs) for the CR Allso we should have a list of people who control other character Class's which they know how to play that class(Lets face it lets not have someone play the Wizard if he never played the Wizard before) possibly let eveyone control 1 of each or something eles like that to show the Differnt Build methoods you could play? right now i only see the Kobold fighter and the Dwarf fighter (Im voteing for Dwarf guy just becouse i happin to like Dwarfs)
itwasntme 06-28-07, 10:00 AM	But the cleric hasn't Handle Animal as class skill. Moreover the cleric starts with less cash than the fighter. the cleric only gets less cash then the fighter at level 1 besides that the DMG States and gives all the cash for characters at X level when createing new characters which people will be useing i beleve
Argaud 06-28-07, 10:07 AM	LEVEL 3 Runehound Stumpy as a level 3 fighter. Str 14 (6 points) Dex 14 (6 points) Con 16 (6 points) Int 13 (5 points) Wis 10 (2 points) Cha 6 (0 points) AL: NE AC 20 (+9 fullplate +1, +1 Dex). With shield, AC 22. Touch 11. HP: 30 Initiative: +2 Attack: +5 longsword (1d8+2) or +6 Spiked chain (2d4+3) or +5 javelin (1d6+2) Saves: +5 fort, +3 ref, +1 will. +2 vs. poison, +2 vs. spells Skills (18 points): Animal handling +2 (4 ranks, -2 cha), Intimidate +2 (4 ranks –2 cha – but he can use his strength to intimidate, getting a +8), Craft (armors) +10 (5 ranks, +1 int, +2 race, +2 tools), Craft (weapons) + 10 (5 ranks, +1 int, +2 race, +2 tools). Feats: Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Combat Reflexes, Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Spiked Chain Stumpy sells some of his old gear. Technically he would have earned some gold, but since he is an adventurer he manages to sell it for no gain at all (don’t laugh, the Sage stated that in Dungeons&Dragons PCs should get no cash from crafting normal or magical items, since it is not Merchants&Craftsmen). He has 2700 gold to play. He purchases mastercraft crafting tools for Craft (armor) and Craft (weapons) for 150 gold each (300 total) getting his skills good enough he can craft masterwork equipment taking a 10. He goes ahead and crafts masterwork fullplate (550 gold) and a masterwork spiked chain (108.3 gold). Then he enchants his armor to +1 for 1000 gold. And spends some cash in potions, tattos and alchemist items: tanglefoot bag (50 gold), smokestick x 2 (40 gold), thnderstone x2 (60 gold), acid vials x 3 (30 gold), antitoxin (50 gold). Potion of Protection from Evil (50 gold), Oil of Magic Weapon (50 gold), Enlarge (50 gold). Psionic Tattoos Force Screen x3 (150 gold), Silversheen (250 gold) Gear: Riding Dog (100 gold) Barding for the dog (+5 AC) (133.3 gold) Full Plate +1 (1550 gold) Masterwork spiked chain (108.3 gold) Cold iron spiked chain (50 gold) Heavy wooden shield (7 gold) Longsword (5 gold) 6 javelins (2 gold) Alchemist items: tanglefoot bag (50 gold), smokestick x 2 (40 gold), thunderstone x2 (60 gold), acid vials x 3 (30 gold), antitoxin (50 gold). Total 230 gold Potion of Protection from Evil (50 gold), Oil of Magic Weapon (50 gold), Enlarge (50 gold). Total 150 gold. Psionic Tattoos Force Screen x2 (100 gold), Silversheen (250 gold) 14.4 gold for beer. The runehound is ridiculously powerful for CR3. It has +8 bite (2d6+5 with 10’ reach even though it is medium sized) and +5 ranged touch vile spew (5d6, DC15 ref for half, or web). DR5/silver, fast healing 3, cannot be flanked, blindsight 500’. AC 16 (touch 12). HP 37. It has initiative +2, but I am going to give Stumpy a break and say this time he wins the initiative. Round 1 Stumpy thinks that rune-covered weirdo is dangerous and drinks his potion of Enlarge. His AC goes down to 19 (touch 10). He has 20’ reach. He still hits with +6 Spiked chain, but damage now is 2d6+4. The dog thinks the hound smells funny (aberration) and goes to hide. Yes, ridding dogs won’t attack aberrations unless they get extra training. I am assuming Stumpy didn’t know this (no knowledge (nature)). Rest assure he will train the dog better for next time. The hound spits acid on Stumpy. Calculations are tricky. Lets see. +5 to hit AC10 means 80% of the time the hound hits. DC 15 with a +2 to save (Stumpy lost 2 Dex from the enlarge) means 40% chances of doing it. Damage average is 17.5 hp which happen .8x.6 of the time (8.4), 8.75 happens .8x.4 of the time (2.8) so on average Stumpy takes 11.2 hp of damage. Ouch. Some other party member yells to Stumpy the basics for the runehound. This is a free action. Round 2 Stumpy taps his tattoo of Force Screen gaining +4 shield AC which works against ranged touch attacks. His AC is now 22 (touch 14). The runehound charges. But Stumpy hits it at 20’, declaring a trip attempt. He hits the touch armor with a 4 (it is 10 because of the charge) and has a +11 trip (+4 large, +4 feat, +3 Str) modifier against the hound +9 (+4 quadruped, +5 Str). About slightly more than half of the time the hound will be tripped (85% of the time gets hits, about 60% of the time hit, it gets tripped). 2a: The hound is tripped. Stumpy hits it again when prone and hits with a 4 because it charged and is down. Damage is 2d6-1, or 6 average. 6 x.85 means 5.1 hp. But it will regenerate 3 next round. 2b: No trip. The hound tries to bite Stumpy. +10 vs. AC22. Needs a 12, 45% of the time hits for 12 damage. Or 5.4 average damage. Things look grim for the black-hearted Stumpy. Unless he trips the hound it keeps hitting him 35% of the rounds for an average 4.2 damage. He will die by round 6. Actually sooner, since the hound will swep acid again. Stumpy could raise his AC to 25 with Combat Expertise and lower the damage to 2.4/round. But even so he will lose unless he manages to trip the monster. Round 3 Going by the most likely scenario the hound was knocked prone at 20’ in round 2 and took some damage. Stumpy uses the silversheen on the spiked chain. This lowers the damage to 2d6+3, but now it can hurt the hound. The hound stands. Takes a AoO vs. his prone AC 12 (hit with a 6, or 75% of the time) taking 10 damage if hit. Average 7.5. He regenerates 3 hp and has 9.6 damage. And now... he has a standard action and the enemy is too far! He can still move to threaten Stumpy, but will provoke another AoO, which Stumpy will use for a trip (Stumpy has 2 AoOs each round with Dex 12). This trip also has a bit less than a 50% chances of succeeding. If it does, the runehound takes 7.5 hp more. This becomes an attrition/luck war. Half of the round the hound is tripped, takes 3 hits in one round for ~20 damage (after healing). Other rounds it is not tripped at all, takes no damage and deals 4.2 to Stumpy. Moreover each 3-4 rounds he spews acid against Stumpy’s touch AC 14 (although this might draw an AoO too) hitting with a 9 (60%) for 8.4 average damage. Whoever wins is going to end very badly wounded. It is technically possible for Stumpy to defeat the hound in round 4, if he gets lucky with three successful trips. He has only about 15% chances of doing this. It is also possible Stumpy dies in round 5 if all his trips fail. Unlikely too. Less than a 10% chance. Assuming a trip, fail, trip, fail, trip, fail routine... Round 2 Hound is tripped and takes 5.1 damage. Heals 3. 2.1 remains. Round 3 Hound takes two AoOs for 7.5 damage. Is not tripped, threatens Stumpy but can’t attack. Heals 3. 6.6 damage. Round 4 Stumpy trips hound. Hits for 7.5 damage. Moves away (draws AoO that has 15% chances of hit only (so 1.8 damage). Hound stands (7.5 damage). Moves to threaten Stumpy (trip fails, no damage). Hound heals 3. Hound has 18.6 damage. Stumpy has 13 damage. Round 5 Same as round 3, except the hound spews acid for 8.4 damage to Stumpy instead of closing. Hound has now 23.1 damage to Stumpy’s 21.4. Round 6 Same as round 4 but without AoO for Stumpy. Hound damage is 35.1 to Stumpy 21.4 Round 7 Stumpy kills the hound with a normal attack. Surprisingly, statistically Stumpy should win this one. It is a very close affair, though. The math here is a bit complex, so there might be mistakes. You can also run this duel at home 10 times. I suspect Stumpy will win about 6 out of 10.
Archangel62 06-28-07, 10:16 AM	And he just added the rule about no hirelings, after the riding dogs had been used. And he made a special exception for them. And I am confident that you will see these riding dogs become pretty much useless in the levels to come. That was a mistake on my part I had sent that order out to everyone during the earlier incarnations and I didn't just add it now either, I didn't add it in the first post but I do believe I added it in the first edit. The main reason is simple, I want this to test the abilities of a class, not the power to number crunch or invent your own party by hiring people.
Khan the Destroyer 06-28-07, 10:25 AM	I'm not saying anything about the rules, just responding to the implication that it was a blatant ignorance of the rules. @Bob: Why didn't Blitz take his AoO when the worg charged?
Archangel62 06-28-07, 10:26 AM	Actually I think the no soldiers rule came after Stumpy brought his dog in. But I half agree it is good since bringing to dungeons hordes of hirelings, followers, undead, charmed monsters or trained pets is not how most adventuring parties work. However, what if he had used the Wild Cohort feat to gain a pet? Or Leadership later on? If those feats are cheesy, how is DMM has not been ruled out for being cheesy? What about Quicken Spell? What about Polymorph or all the other broken spells? The question is... Why is the fighter being nitpicked for the use of his scarce skill uses and some good feats in what is a gauntlet against some of the toughest creatures in the books? The no soldiers rule was before that, I clarified it adding that a cleric couldn't animate armies of undead or casters couldn't call in dozens of planar allies, I did this to offer some form of parity. Also, the mount thing I kept on the logic that a mounted build deserved a chance to be tested, unfortunately the riding dog thing is a loophole, if a person buys a horse and uses it as a test dummy they are still buying a technical mount. As for the nitpicks, polymorph, shapechange and all the others exist in the books and there aren't rules against them. The pets thing is more because I don't want people hiring casters at high levels to buff/heal them or fight alongside or for them. I am probably going to have to add that casters can't enchant their own gear for the purposes of the gauntlet because we have no clean XP gains for item crafting. (and I can already hear the screams of caster testers telling me this is unfair)
Archangel62 06-28-07, 10:33 AM	LEVEL 3 Runehound The third battle of stumpy Impressive, the Runehound is a tough foe and stumpy did an admirable job against it. Only a small complaint that normally the runehound glues first then goes for acid but the situation can change and I do have to admit that you did better than I expected, especially without aid. :tiphat:
Kalarus 06-28-07, 11:23 AM	Incidentally since I also promised to submit a build I need to excuse myself for appearing lazy, but I am in fact very busy. As soon as my current paper for my latest ethics class is done I'll get to work on the Fighter. I'll also, since Sunic Flames requested, pit him against the Fleshraker since I earlier claimed the Fleshraker to be too tough for its CR :P. Edit: Great jobs on the battles so far guys.
Argaud 06-28-07, 11:24 AM	Impressive, the Runehound is a tough foe and stumpy did an admirable job against it. Only a small complaint that normally the runehound glues first then goes for acid but the situation can change and I do have to admit that you did better than I expected, especially without aid. :tiphat: I thought about the glue, but "acts as a single target Web spell" could mean it only works if the hound can anchor the glue to "opposite points" like the Web spells needs to be anchored to work. Without knowing the battlefield that might be impossible. It is an absurdly tough CR3 encounter, though, I was surprised when I realized Stumpy could win without using convoluted tactics that would have made no sense in typical encounters. He is a rather typical tripper, though, and they work very well at low level. :D
Bob Loblaw 06-28-07, 11:26 AM	Did I miss something? Strength 15 (+2) Base Attack +2 Weapon Focus +1 Masterwork +1 Should be +6 for the Warpike and +5 for the Longsword. Originally I had Weapon Focus at 1st level but I moved it to 2nd. I forgot to lower my attack bonus at 1st level. When I hit 2nd, I added +3 to my original number. Looks like I had Weapon Focus added in twice. It won't really change anything in either combat. Blitz will still win. I'll change it for the future though.
Bob Loblaw 06-28-07, 11:35 AM	I'm not saying anything about the rules, just responding to the implication that it was a blatant ignorance of the rules. @Bob: Why didn't Blitz take his AoO when the worg charged? I was flat-footed since the worg went first. I would have loved to take the AoO or even set the warpike for double damage. It is something that Blitz could have done if he went first, and probably should, Blitz would have done 18 points of damage with his first hit. I just really wanted to use my tanglefoot bags. I had just gotten back from watching Die Hard and I still pumped up from that so I didn't think it all the way through. I won, but I would have won better if I had done that.
Bob Loblaw 06-28-07, 11:41 AM	I am probably going to have to add that casters can't enchant their own gear for the purposes of the gauntlet because we have no clean XP gains for item crafting. (and I can already hear the screams of caster testers telling me this is unfair) What if you modify the item creation rules a bit then? I think it should be fair for them to craft items if they spend the feat. Why not use the option of 1 XP = 5 gp? They would still save money, just not as much. Bracers of Armor +3 would normally cost 9,000 gp (4,500 to craft) and 360 XP. If you use this rule, then they would cost 4,500 + (360*5) = 6,300. Casters would still have an advantage with crafting magic items but it would be slightly hindered.
Sunic_Flames 06-28-07, 11:45 AM	What if you modify the item creation rules a bit then? I think it should be fair for them to craft items if they spend the feat. Why not use the option of 1 XP = 5 gp? They would still save money, just not as much. Bracers of Armor +3 would normally cost 9,000 gp (4,500 to craft) and 360 XP. If you use this rule, then they would cost 4,500 + (360*5) = 6,300. Casters would still have an advantage with crafting magic items but it would be slightly hindered. Craft items the caster could make themselves at 70% cost is already a default rule for NPCs, so extending it to PCs is not a stretch at all.
Meyer_William 06-28-07, 11:46 AM	How is stumpy using force screen to add to his touch AC? From the SRD: You create an invisible mobile disk of force that hovers in front of you. The force screen provides a +4 shield bonus to Armor Class (which applies against incorporeal touch attacks, since the force screen is a force effect). Since it hovers in front of you, the effect has no armor check penalty associated with it. How often can it breathe/spit?
Argaud 06-28-07, 12:11 PM	How is stumpy using force screen to add to his touch AC? From the SRD: You create an invisible mobile disk of force that hovers in front of you. The force screen provides a +4 shield bonus to Armor Class (which applies against incorporeal touch attacks, since the force screen is a force effect). Since it hovers in front of you, the effect has no armor check penalty associated with it. How often can it breathe/spit? Hmm, I thought force effects added to your touch AC. Might be wrong. The runehound can use the vile spew every 1d4 rounds.
TheCobra 06-28-07, 12:12 PM	I am aware this is a very strange persistent practice of a lot of players and DMs not bothering to keep track of age or the general passing of time in so far as it does not have a bearing on the adventure they're playing. I don't know what you're talking about. I always keep track of time. Rather exactly, in fact. I even watch the phase of the moon. Characters have birthdays. Time passes. However, in one case, it only took about a year for the PCs to advance between level 3 and level 10 or so. In another, about a year between level 5 and level 12. In another, it took less than that to go from level 10 to level 18. (That was back in 3.0 days, and I was using lots of house rules.) I've the most reliable way to slow the PCs down is to force travel. That only works at lower levels. This is in stark contrast to most if not all high level NPC characters (with PC class levels for that matter) having been adventurers for decades, becoming grizzled warriors, wizened but still cheeky rogues, and not to forget, a stunted old greybeard of an archmage. Perhaps that's the stereotype. I have a rather high-level sorceress NPC who's only in her teens. It depends. But the PCs are special, basically. They're crazy enough to risk death every day, and lucky enough to survive it. (which costs 2d4x100 gp and the appropriate time to do so) Where does it say this refitting follows the crafting rules? Technically speaking you can't even just go out and buy a full-plate, it won't be suited for you and will require about half the time required to build a completely new one, just to have it adjusted. The chapter in the DMG on buying items makes no such restriction. The PCs magically have access to whatever they need as long as it's within the gp limit. And it would require, on average, one third of the time have an existing suit adjusted, assuming it follows the crafting rules. So yeah, there's really no issue in taking a year off to craft your gear. I know you want to believe this because it helps your fighter, but it isn't true. Experience shows me otherwise. If you've never seen people take a year off for downtime to get and craft their gear, you haven't thought about what the people in the world are actually doing. You were just looking at a bunch of numbers and added, subtracted and multiplied a bit. Of course. Unless you give the fighter his special advantage, you're bad at role-playing. That old argument. I'm a big fan downtime. I've seen characters take it, but not years of it. What if, for example, the DM has design the first adventure to take you from level 1 to level 3? What if the group has a long-term goal they want to see completed as quickly as possible? Some groups don't just happen to go on adventure together every so often. Realistically, the party might well split up after taking a year off. Lots and lots situations prevent fighters from taking that year off to craft starting at level 2. Unless the other PCs have craft also, they'll likely reject the idea completely. Also, I may point out that any caster's starting age is older than a fighter, so I could go with an half-orc(lowest life span) and argue that while your wizard spent years/decades learning how to be level 1 my half orc would be alreay around lv20+. Yeah. Right. I guess elves must really suck, then. Strength 15 (+2) How can the warpike do 2d6+5 if your STR is +2?
Scion of Coldshard 06-28-07, 12:14 PM	Probably wont matter, but hey, might as well try. Craft (armors) +10 (4 ranks, +2 int, +2 race, +2 tools), Craft (weapons) + 10 (4 ranks, +2 int, +2 race, +2 tools). You have done this a few times now, how is he geting +2 from int? Some other party member yells to Stumpy the basics for the runehound. This is a free action. Interesting. Does there need to be a more explicit rule in the rules about how spectators can help? Stumpy taps his tattoo of Force Screen gaining +4 shield AC which works against ranged touch attacks. Unfortunately for stumpy Force Screen does not protect against touch attacks of any sort except for incorporeal touch attacks. And now... he has a standard action and the enemy is too far! He can still move to threaten Stumpy, but will provoke another AoO, which Stumpy will use for a trip Or it could take a 5' step out of your threat range and then spit either another glob of acid on you (if its d4 rounds of countdown are up yet) or spit a web on you. With a +2 reflex save either of those options are bad news for stumpy. If it is the acid glob then he takes another 11.2 damage on average which means that one more of those and he is out of the fight. If it is the web then there is an 80% chance of hitting followed by a 60% chance of entangled and unable to move until after spending a full round action to break free and suceeding at a DC 20 str check. This guy has an int of 5 and a wis of 12. Do people feel that such mental scores are sufficient for the creature to realize that sitting back and pelting the dwarf with its ranged touch attack is the better plan?
Archangel62 06-28-07, 12:16 PM	What if you modify the item creation rules a bit then? I think it should be fair for them to craft items if they spend the feat. Why not use the option of 1 XP = 5 gp? They would still save money, just not as much. Bracers of Armor +3 would normally cost 9,000 gp (4,500 to craft) and 360 XP. If you use this rule, then they would cost 4,500 + (360*5) = 6,300. Casters would still have an advantage with crafting magic items but it would be slightly hindered. I'll head over to the rules page to add that in, also, we might want to talk to a WizO about setting up a new thread for this...
TheCobra 06-28-07, 12:20 PM	Wizards will probably just take a year off to make as much money with fabricate as possible. Either that or try to sell their spells by the rules in the PHB for buying spellcasting services.
Argaud 06-28-07, 12:34 PM	Probably wont matter, but hey, might as well try. You have done this a few times now, how is he geting +2 from int? Good catch. It does not matter in the sense Stumpy can still craft the stuff by moving around points in the useless Intimidate skill, but it matters because it was a miscalculation and I have to fix it. Interesting. Does there need to be a more explicit rule in the rules about how spectators can help? My rules are in the first post. Stumpy is part of a party. But he is an egomaniac that fights alone. I have every intention of abusing Magical Vestment, Greater Magic Weapon and Polymorph later on, when Stumpy has cash for Pearls of Power and Rings of Spellstoring. Unfortunately for stumpy Force Screen does not protect against touch attacks of any sort except for incorporeal touch attacks. Maybe not. In that case it means he takes ~4 more hp of damage before killing the hound. He can still lose if he is even mildly unlucky, and now it is slightly more likely. Or it could take a 5' step out of your threat range and then spit either another glob of acid on you (if its d4 rounds of countdown are up yet) or spit a web on you. Only if there are opposite anchoring points, as per the Web spell description. This is not a given, so I am not using that particular ability. This guy has an int of 5 and a wis of 12. Do people feel that such mental scores are sufficient for the creature to realize that sitting back and pelting the dwarf with its ranged touch attack is the better plan? Yes, it is a moron. it is a huge moron beyond the most stupid moron you can imagine - even an ogre is smarter! It has some common sense, but it is still incredibly stupid, barely above an animal. Wis 12 means that it is a bit more perceptive and intuitive than normal humans, and generally has slightly over average instincts, but certainly won't allow him to analyze Stumpy's abilities, measure how far he reaches with the chain, discover how can he keep tripping it, know if he can grow and shrink at will or not, know if he has ranged attacks, estimate his "level" from his gear or any other kind of clairvoyant/omniscient abilities that somehow are usually automatically granted to Pit Fiends and the like. Animals can't do that and they can have very decent wisdoms.
Otto the Bugbear 06-28-07, 12:36 PM	Actually I think the no soldiers rule came after Stumpy brought his dog in. But I half agree it is good since bringing to dungeons hordes of hirelings, followers, undead, charmed monsters or trained pets is not how most adventuring parties work. Exactly. It sort of prevents the "I buy 8 dozen donkeys and have them trample the enemy by using handle animal" routine. It sort of prevents "I buy the services of an 11th level wizard to cast disintegrate on my CR 3 or 4 enemy." Where is the cut-off point, exactly? And how can that cut-off point be made fair for Paladins (free buffed mount), Rangers (free sucktastic companion), or Druids (free companion). However, what if he had used the Wild Cohort feat to gain a pet? Or Leadership later on? If those feats are cheesy, how is DMM has not been ruled out for being cheesy? What about Quicken Spell? What about Polymorph or all the other broken spells? You're asking the wrong guy. Archangel made the gauntlet and its rules, the people are participating in it voluntarily. You'll also note that I mention doing the numbers for both with the dog, and without. That way readers can see exactly how it performs both ways. The question is... Why is the fighter being nitpicked for the use of his scarce skill uses and some good feats in what is a gauntlet against some of the toughest creatures in the books? The dog thing is being questioned because of where it will lead. "I buy 10 elephants and train them for war. They trample the hydra! See how good the fighter performed against that challenge?"
Meyer_William 06-28-07, 12:38 PM	Based on the way the other combatants are handling this ... here goes it ... Mr. Underpowered (missing skills, total equipment is 50 gp) Level 1 Barbarian - human Str 18 Dex 14 Con 11 Int 8 Wis 8 Cha 8 Hps: 12 (14 while raging) AC: 12 (10 while raging or charging / 8 while both raging and charging) Skills Jump 4 Feats: Power Attack Improved Initiative Equipment: Greatsword Round 1: My init is +6, which beats the rats. So I will assume I go first. My apologies if I miss something, as I don't have the book this guy is in. Rage, and charge. Attack bonus is +1 (bab) +6 (Str + rage) +2 (charge) = +9, it is flatfooted, leaving its AC at 17 ... I need an 8 to hit it (65% chance). Average damage is 2d6+9 = 16 * .65 = 10.4 (dead rat) If I don't win intiative: Round 1 Rat attacks me. He needs a 6 to hit me. average damage is 7*.75 = 5.25 (2 more rounds before it kills me) I rage and counter attack. My attack bonus is still +9, the rats AC is 20. I need an 11 to hit (50% chance) with an average damage of 2d6+9 (16) * .50 = 8 (dead rat)
Meyer_William 06-28-07, 12:38 PM	Based on the way the other combatants are handling this ... here goes it ... Mr. Underpowered (missing skills, total equipment is 50 gp) Level 2 Barbarian - human Str 18 Dex 14 Con 11 Int 8 Wis 8 Cha 8 Hps: 19 (23 while raging) AC: 12 (10 while raging or charging / 8 while both raging and charging) Skills Jump5 Feats: Power Attack Improved Initiative Equipment: Greatsword Round 1: My init is +6, which beats the Worg. so I will asume I go first. Rage and charge. Attack bonus is +2(bab) +6 (str+rage) +2 (charge) -2 (power attack)= +8. It is flatfooted, leaving its AC at 12. I hit on a 4 (85% chance). average damage is 2d6+9+4 = 20*.85 = 17 (worg is 1/2 dead) Its attack. Since 1s automiss, it needs a 2 to hit me. Average Damage is 7.5*.95 = 7.125/round (2 more rounds before death for me) Trip attack -- worgs modifier is +3, mine is +6 -- on average I win. Second round ... Attack bonus is +6 (no charge). Its AC is 14. I hit on an 8. Average damage is 20*.65=13 -- dropping it to 0 -- it is staggered but alive. It attacks. I wasn't able to charge, so my AC is 10, it needs a 3 to hit me. Average Damage is 7.5*.90 = 6.75/round (2 more round before death for me) -- however, it takes 1 point of damage for attacking while at 0 -- and falls unconscious. If I had failed the trip attempt, it would still be alive at this point in time, so on round 3 it dies. Based on the numbers ... I would still live had I lost initiative ...
Meyer_William 06-28-07, 12:40 PM	Based on the way the other combatants are handling this ... here goes it ... Mr. Underpowered (missing skills, total equipment is 440 gp) Level 3 Barbarian - human Str 18 Dex 14 Con 11 Int 8 Wis 8 Cha 8 Hps: 25 (31 while raging) AC: 12 (10 while raging or charging / 8 while both raging and charging) Skills Jump 6 Feats: Power Attack Improved Initiative Combat Reflexes Equipment: Silvered Masterworked Greatsword Round 1: My init is +6, which beats the Runehound. so I will asume I go first. Rage and charge. Attack bonus is +3(Bab) +6 (Str+rage) +2 (charge) -3 (power attack) +1 (MW weapon) = +9 to hit. Average damage is 16.8 (7+9+6-1)*.8 (it is flatfooted, I need a 5 to hit it) Assuming it breaths on me in return (it does slightly more damage to me with its touch attack than with biting (11.6 vs 11) -- and assuming it refreshes every round) Assumption is that we both take 5 ft adjustments ... End of Round one: It: 20.2, Me 19.4 Second Round. I am no longer charging. It breathes again, I full power attack again. End of Round one: It: 8.5, Me 10.25 Round three ... it dies. Based on the numbers ... I would lose if I lose initiative.
TheCobra 06-28-07, 12:41 PM	I have every intention of abusing Magical Vestment, Greater Magic Weapon and Polymorph later on, when Stumpy has cash for Pearls of Power and Rings of Spellstoring. You'll do well, then. When properly buffed, fighters keep up just fine. Yes, it is a moron. it is a huge moron beyond the most stupid moron you can imagine - even an ogre is smarter! It's as as smart or smarter than some humans. I'm sure it'd be able to understand reach and AoOs.
Argaud 06-28-07, 12:45 PM	Based on the way the other combatants are handling this ... here goes it ... <zip> Based on the numbers ... I would still live had I lost initiative ... Good work! Barbarians are great at low levels. Keep going, please, personally I think he will get into serious trouble around level 6. Of course the runehound is pretty nasty too. I think you forgot the AoO he gets form the 10' reach, as well as the DR5/silver.
Scion of Coldshard 06-28-07, 12:47 PM	Good catch. It does not matter in the sense Stumpy can still craft the stuff by moving around points in the useless Intimidate skill, but it matters because it was a miscalculation and I have to fix it. I know, just trying to get the numbers to work ;) Only if there are opposite anchoring points, as per the Web spell description. This is not a given, so I am not using that particular ability. Actually, it says that it works, 'as a single target web spell; a DC 15 reflex save negates the effect' so it is significantly different in how it works vs a normal web spell. Yes, it is a moron. it is a huge moron beyond the most stupid moron you can imagine - even an ogre is smarter! It has some common sense, but it is still incredibly stupid, barely above an animal. Wis 12 means that it is a bit more perceptive and intuitive than normal humans, and generally has slightly over average instincts, but certainly won't allow him to analyze Stumpy's abilities, measure how far he reaches with the chain, discover how can he keep tripping it, know if he can grow and shrink at will or not, know if he has ranged attacks, estimate his "level" from his gear or any other kind of clairvoyant/omniscient abilities that somehow are usually automatically granted to Pit Fiends and the like. Animals can't do that and they can have very decent wisdoms. It is dumb, but it isnt an object with a - for int. Even animals, with a 1 or 2 int, can judge distances and know when to get away from certain things. The dog was already shown to have done so! In this case we have a creature with an int 5 and a wis 12 that has a ranged attack that works from a very long way away and might just be smart enough to use it once it figures out that it cannot get near the shiny spinning thing. It doesnt have to know exactly how far you can reach, it only needs to know 2 things: 1) did you hit it where at the distance it is now? 2) if it moves 5' closer can it hit you with its melee attack? If you are 15' away then it can take a 5' step and chomp down. If you are 20' away then it cannot get there so backing up 5' and trying to trap you in a web seems pretty much perfect for what this creature can do. There is nothing incredibly fancy about this or even needing a really high level of intelligence. It is just a basic 'get closer/get farther' scheme and its wisdom is above an average humans to boot ;)
Argaud 06-28-07, 12:49 PM	Actually, it says that it works, 'as a single target web spell; a DC 15 reflex save negates the effect' so it is significantly different in how it works vs a normal web spell. In that case it would be working as a tanglefoot bag with higher DCs. The reference to Web makes be believe it has the limitations of Web too.
Scion of Coldshard 06-28-07, 12:57 PM	In that case it would be working as a tanglefoot bag with higher DCs. The reference to Web makes be believe it has the limitations of Web too. The designers certainly do not do things the smart way sometimes ;)
Archangel62 06-28-07, 01:05 PM	My rules are in the first post. Stumpy is part of a party. But he is an egomaniac that fights alone. I have every intention of abusing Magical Vestment, Greater Magic Weapon and Polymorph later on, when Stumpy has cash for Pearls of Power and Rings of Spellstoring. Your rules, my gauntlet. You can't have others cast spells for you, says so in my guidelines. For those wondering about the leadership thing, I want to test the merits of the class, leadership is a nice feat but it can very quickly turn into "Forward my minions, destroy my enemies MUAHAHAHAHA!" That and a martial character could just use it to get an endless supply of buffs and other augments which would taint the results of class to class comparison in the gauntlet. I will probably allow someone to use leadership to get a unique mount, but that will be pushing it in this regard, especially since I can imagine now an army of dragonriders popping up. Yes, it is a moron. it is a huge moron beyond the most stupid moron you can imagine - even an ogre is smarter! It has some common sense, but it is still incredibly stupid, barely above an animal. Wis 12 means that it is a bit more perceptive and intuitive than normal humans, and generally has slightly over average instincts, but certainly won't allow him to analyze Stumpy's abilities, measure how far he reaches with the chain, discover how can he keep tripping it, know if he can grow and shrink at will or not, know if he has ranged attacks, estimate his "level" from his gear or any other kind of clairvoyant/omniscient abilities that somehow are usually automatically granted to Pit Fiends and the like. Animals can't do that and they can have very decent wisdoms. Actually the tactics description for the thing states that it stays at range in most cases, only moving in if its target isn't falling easily to the ranged attacks.
Kalarus 06-28-07, 01:13 PM	I don't know what you're talking about. I always keep track of time. Rather exactly, in fact. I even watch the phase of the moon. Characters have birthdays. Time passes. Good for you, really. This still fits in the remark I made. However, in one case, it only took about a year for the PCs to advance between level 3 and level 10 or so. In another, about a year between level 5 and level 12. In another, it took less than that to go from level 10 to level 18. (That was back in 3.0 days, and I was using lots of house rules.) I've the most reliable way to slow the PCs down is to force travel. That only works at lower levels. It has nothing to do with slowing down PCs. It has to do with taking a year to craft a full plate if a PC desires this should not be a problem hampering game play in the least. All they need to do is choose it. The rest is hardly affected by the year down-time. There's no reason PCs *must* go on an adventure every few weeks. Perhaps that's the stereotype. I have a rather high-level sorceress NPC who's only in her teens. It depends. But the PCs are special, basically. They're crazy enough to risk death every day, and lucky enough to survive it. There's always reasons why stereotypes exist. "PCs are special" is a cop-out out of any argument. They are by no means unique, especially compared to NPCs in the world who have PC classes, some of the more fleshed out ones having a history of adventuring. These people risked death for years, the only reason the PCs are special enough that they can survive the risk of death on a daily basis is DM fiat regarding the characters of his players. Where does it say this refitting follows the crafting rules? Where does it say that one drops 2d4x100 gold in to the armorer's pocket and the item instantly pops into shape? Armor needs to be refitted. That means it needs to be changed. That means one needs to work on the armor. That means it's crafting. That means it follows the crafting rules. The chapter in the DMG on buying items makes no such restriction. The PCs magically have access to whatever they need as long as it's within the gp limit. And it would require, on average, one third of the time have an existing suit adjusted, assuming it follows the crafting rules. The Full Plate description in the PHB makes such a restriction. Full-plate is so effective because it is fitted to a character's body as efficiently as possible. As directly quoted from the PHB, "Each suit of full plate must be individually fitted to its owner by a master armorsmith, although a captured suit can be resized to fit a new owner at a cost of 200 to 800 (2d4x100) gold pieces." Magical access is a houserule. Houserules have no place in a rules discussion. I know you want to believe this because it helps your fighter, but it isn't true. Experience shows me otherwise. Ah, of course, and your subjective experience is the standard for objective truth, how could I forget? Perhaps you've been DMing too much, you don't get to decide what is objectively true for people here. Of course. Unless you give the fighter his special advantage, you're bad at role-playing. That old argument. I'm a big fan downtime. I've seen characters take it, but not years of it. What if, for example, the DM has design the first adventure to take you from level 1 to level 3? What if the group has a long-term goal they want to see completed as quickly as possible? Then either you houserule things as you have, but then your argument about truth is shot to all hell, or the players suck it up and deal with it. Not every armor requires custom fitting. If the DM does not houserule full plate but designs an adventure without downtime to run from level 1 to level 3, he can't expect anyone to be wearing any of the full plate they find, if he does, he's made a mistake. Some groups don't just happen to go on adventure together every so often. Realistically, the party might well split up after taking a year off. They might, they might now. Platinum pieces might rain from the sky too. Probability is no guarantee for success, no matter how high. The people controlling the characters will decide if their character will want to continue adventuring with the people they were adventuring with, if they don't, they'll have to deal with the consequences. Lots and lots situations prevent fighters from taking that year off to craft starting at level 2. Unless the other PCs have craft also, they'll likely reject the idea completely. From the way you post you seem to have a strange tendency to take away player responsibility for their choices by removing the choice altogether. I believe they call that "railroading". If the rest of the PCs can not think of anything appropriate for their characters to do except smack monster, get xp, get gold, they aren't in fact roleplaying. They have no character to roleplay because the character doesn't exist outside of the adventures it is on. Since you seem to favor easy solutions you could just take the choice out of their hands (again) and fast-forward a year later, assuming everyone has done something to keep them busy. Let's look at some examples of what people can do though: Ranger and Druid: Spend time in their animal companion's natural habitat. You know, that assumption about animal companions specified on DMG page 205? The characters might *gasp* actually tend nature in their home territory, check up on their fellow Druids/Rangers, things like that. Wizard: These characters are assumed to spend time researching the spells they gain for free every level. How about they actually spend time doing so? On an adventure that took a few levels they have a lot of research to do. They might actually take the time to study and experiment, reflecting the points gained in all those knowledge skills. Cleric: Temple duties, spreading the faith, contemplating and discussing the practical consequences of their ethos, or for that matter the theoretical. There are people in real life who devote their lives to understanding spiritual matters, if a D&D Cleric can't do it for a year he's a pathetic excuse for a believer. Bard and Rogue: If you have trouble finding something to do for a bunch of skillmonkeys you need more imagination. The Bard is easiest: spread your party fame, sing songs of their bravery, learn new songs and poems, actually have a justification for that Bardic knowledge you pick up. Rogues don't learn to use their fingers so deftly by killing trolls either, practice till it's perfect is the rule. Set yourself up on a good position with the Thieves' guild or start your own, burglarize some homes, have fun being more than a walking pile of sneak attack d6s. Paladin: See Cleric Sorcerer: If there is a class that gets to do nothing but masturbate between adventures, this one is probably it. Intuitive magic, no class abilities or theme defining it, the sorcerer has about the standard roleplaying of an automatic handgun. Which means the player has to do it all, but you might do some of the stuff similar to the Wizard to expand your magical knowledge, or research your sorcerous heritage. Monk: Perfect your martial arts at your home monastery, medidate on the greatness of the D&D Buddha, bring your mind to its utmost discipline. Did I forget anyone, other than the Fighter who's busy crafting? Yeah. Right. I guess elves must really suck, then. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html Yeah, they really do. If you are unfamiliar with the comic, it often makes a joke of the horrid inconsistencies of the game. The socalled "stereotype" of the greybeard archmage finds itself justified in the rules, but rarely if ever, in actual game play.
Meyer_William 06-28-07, 01:25 PM	Argaud Snip: Keep going, please, personally I think he will get into serious trouble around level 6. Of course the runehound is pretty nasty too. I think you forgot the AoO he gets form the 10' reach, as well as the DR5/silver. **** No AoO from 10' reach, as I beat him in initiative so he was flat footed. No DR5/Silver, with my Silvered Greatsword ... As far as him getting into trouble -- heck ... I might have to buy ARMOR or something ...
Bob Loblaw 06-28-07, 02:29 PM	Here is Blitz...with the minor correction to damage. Things wouldn't have changed in the first two battles, but when dealing with fast healing and damage reduction it can make a much larger difference. Level 3 Feats: Combat Expertise, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Dwarven Warpike), Improved Trip, Weapon Focus (Dwarven Warpike), Power Attack Str: 15 Dex: 14 Con: 12 Int: 13 Wis: 10 Cha: 8 AC: 17 (14 flat-footed, 12 touch) Hit Points: 24 (for simplicity, I will use the Fixed Hit Points on page 198 of the DMG) Initiative: +2 Attack: Warpike +7 (2d6+3) or Longsword +6 (1d8+3) or Composite Longbow +6 (1d8+2) Fort: 4 Ref: 3 Will: 1 Skills (Used Cityscape option to swap Ride for Tumble): Craft (Armor): 5+1 = 6 Craft (Weapon) 4+1 = 5 Tumble: 6+2-2+3+2 = 10 Jump: 5+3+2 = 10 Heal: 3 Gear: 2700g Masterwork Warpike (131) Mithril Chain Mail (1383) Tanglefoot Bag x2 (100) Masterwork Longsword (105) Masterwork Composite Longbow (Str +2) (200) 20 Arrows (1) Potion of Enlarge Person (250g) Silversheen x2 (500) Remaining: 30g I’m not convinced this is really a CR 3 creature. Damage Reduction and fast healing make for one tough creature. 50/50 chance Blitz goes first. It won’t matter who goes first because Blitz will open with his potion and the runehound will open by entangling Blitz. Top of Round 1: Runehound spits goo. It needs to roll a 4 or better to hit. Blitz will probably be hit. Blitz needs to roll a 12 or better to not be glued. Odds are he’ll be glued. Runehound moves back 20 feet. Bottom of Round 1: Blitz drinks his Potion of Enlarge Person. Top of Round 2: Runehound spits acid, dealing 14.875 damage. Runehound moves back 50 feet. Bottom of Round 2: Blitz readies an action to fight defensively while setting his Warpike against a charge, he’ll Power Attack for 3. Top of Round 3: Runehound charges 100 feet. Blitz takes his attack of opportunity, first attempting to trip. He’ll need a 6 or better to hit. Blitz is at +13 to his trip attempt to the runehound’s +9. Hopefully he’ll be tripped. Blitz takes his free attack, dealing 11.2 damage. Bottom of Round 3, Blitz coats his weapon with Silversheen. At the start of Round 3, Blitz is at 9 hit points. The runehound is at 23. Top of Round 4, the runehound cannot use his spit (prone attackers cannot use ranged weapons while prone). The rune hound attempts to stand, provoking an attack from Blitz. Blitz deals 8.1 damage bringing the runehound down to 18 (accounting for fast healing). Bottom of Round 4, Blitz attacks attempting to trip (still power attacking). If he trips, he’ll deal another 8.1 damage brining the runehound down to 10 hit points. If he fails to trip, he will not be dealing any damage . Top of Round 5: If the runehound is prone again, it tries to stand getting hit for 8.1 damage and is at 3 hit points. This continues until the runehound is able to spit or Blitz kills him. This is one tough fight. The incredible ranged damage coupled with the reduction of damage made it incredibly hard. 15 points of acid damage on a ranged touch attack is rough at this level, especially if you are entangled. The only way I can keep the runehound from killing Blitz was to keep him prone. If at any point the runehound gets a second acid spit, Blitz will not survive.
Bob Loblaw 06-28-07, 02:49 PM	Having the runehound use tactics that would be consistent with its abilities should not be a problem. While I don't see the runehound as being able to figure out that the wizard would be an easier target than the rogue (initially anyway), I can see it understanding how to use its abilities. This happens all the time with real animals so it's not a stretch to say the runehound can even adapt its tactics a bit.
Archangel62 06-28-07, 03:00 PM	Here is Blitz...with the minor correction to damage. Things wouldn't have changed in the first two battles, but when dealing with fast healing and damage reduction it can make a much larger difference. The third battle of blitz So far I have to say that this one might be my favorite, Blitz looks quite capable and useful. Impressive, the Runehound will be tough but look at it like this, the average caster will have to face this soon too (assuming anyone makes one) and we can see how it works out.
Argaud 06-28-07, 03:27 PM	No AoO from 10' reach, as I beat him in initiative so he was flat footed. But it has Combat Reflexes! (Even if it must be the only monster in the whole MM series that has them) No DR5/Silver, with my Silvered Greatsword ... As far as him getting into trouble -- heck ... I might have to buy ARMOR or something ... I missed that one. Odd the only weapon carried is coincidentally silvered, though. Why not cold iron or even adamantine. Might it be he somehow knew he would be facing an enemy with DR/Silver? Go prescient barbarian! Go! :D
Argaud 06-28-07, 03:41 PM	Top of Round 4, the runehound cannot use his spit (prone attackers cannot use ranged weapons while prone). The rune hound attempts to stand, provoking an attack from Blitz. Blitz deals 8.1 damage bringing the runehound down to 18 (accounting for fast healing). Are you sure about that? I know bows can't be used when prone, but crossbow can, and I think ranged touch spells can too. The table in the PHB page 151 mentions only "most ranged weapons." Notice the runehound can stand up (move) and then spit (standard). I think that giving him a ranged attack each round instead of each 1d4 rounds is a bit brutal, though. I am starting to like that weapon of yours. Is it from Races of Stone? Might it be the spiked chain is not the only exotic weapon that is worth a feat? :)
TheCobra 06-28-07, 03:44 PM	"PCs are special" is a cop-out out of any argument. That's the way the game is supposed to work. The universe centers on them. Heck, look at how much gear PCs get compared with NPCs. They're special. Is it stupid? Maybe. But that's how it works. These people risked death for years, the only reason the PCs are special enough that they can survive the risk of death on a daily basis is DM fiat regarding the characters of his players. That's the way the game is meant to be run. It doesn't matter whether you take the downtime. Either way, the PCs have the advantage. They generally fight foes they can beat rather easily, and gets tons of treasure. It's good to be a PC. They're explicitly supposed to win. Where does it say that one drops 2d4x100 gold in to the armorer's pocket and the item instantly pops into shape? It says you have to pay the gold. It doesn't say anything about time requirements. I imagine many players would be rather annoyed if a DM decided they had to wait a while. It'd also be more work for the DM. He'd have to figure exactly who was doing the refitting. Magical access is a houserule. Houserules have no place in a rules discussion. Note how the PHB says a "captured" suit of full plate has to be refitted. If anything, that suggests that you don't have worry if you buy the item yourself. That's the difference between full plate and other armors. Also, if the players have to wait to get full plate they buy crafted, who does the crafting? Do higher level NPCs cost more? Where are the rules for this? Ah, of course, and your subjective experience is the standard for objective truth, how could I forget? You're forgiven, as long as you remember next time. Perhaps you've been DMing too much, you don't get to decide what is objectively true for people here. Wrong, n00b. Then either you houserule things as you have I haven't houseruled anything. If the DM does not houserule full plate but designs an adventure without downtime to run from level 1 to level 3, he can't expect anyone to be wearing any of the full plate they find, if he does, he's made a mistake. According to you, not the rules. The people controlling the characters will decide if their character will want to continue adventuring with the people they were adventuring with, if they don't, they'll have to deal with the consequences. As I figured. You know your arguing about role-playing was absurd, so you go back to player fiat. Yes, players will do what they want. If you want to craft, you'll have to get them to agree to chill out for a year. Either that or the DM has to force a year of downtime on the unwilling players. Of course, as long as it helps the fighter get his full plate for cheap, that's fine, right? From the way you post you seem to have a strange tendency to take away player responsibility for their choices by removing the choice altogether. I believe they call that "railroading". Ha. It's exactly the opposite. Unlike your downtime-happy DM, I don't force the PCs would take a year off between every level. If the rest of the PCs can not think of anything appropriate for their characters to do except smack monster, get xp, get gold, they aren't in fact roleplaying. Indeed. Taking a year of downtime after reaching level 2 is clearly the only option. Man, you must be loads of fun at the table. When the other PCs disagree with you, you immediately tell them they're playing their characters wrong. Good show. It's enough to make me glad my players don't like fighters. Odd the only weapon carried is coincidentally silvered, though. Yeah. On the other hand, alchemical silver is one of the cheapest. It also makes the weapon suck, though. -1 to damage is bad.
Bob Loblaw 06-28-07, 03:59 PM	Are you sure about that? I know bows can't be used when prone, but crossbow can, and I think ranged touch spells can too. The table in the PHB page 151 mentions only "most ranged weapons." Notice the runehound can stand up (move) and then spit (standard). I think that giving him a ranged attack each round instead of each 1d4 rounds is a bit brutal, though. I am starting to like that weapon of yours. Is it from Races of Stone? Might it be the spiked chain is not the only exotic weapon that is worth a feat? :) Prone states the only ranged weapon that can be used is a crossbow. I know it's weird, and as DM I would allow the spitting. If he can use the spit, then Blitz doesn't have much of a chance. That acid is brutal. While he can only use it every 1d4 rounds, it's still rough. I assumed he could use it every other round. I could have assumed the first reuse is 2 rounds and the second is 3 rounds. I don't know if that would have made much of a difference. The warpike is from Races of Stone. I chose it because the damage was good along with 3 special abilities (reach, trip, set against a charge). Blitz is being built as a skirmisher. You'll see how cool the warpike really is when I go up against the minotaur. BTW, I like the dog. It's stretching the rules a bit, but I honestly don't see it as a problem since you spent so much money on the little guy.
Meyer_William 06-28-07, 04:01 PM	Reposted ... correcting the issue with the AoO - as I didn't know it had Combat Reflexes ... For people who are complaining that I have a silvered weapon ... if that is the only thing that is wrong with a build that uses less than 1/6 of starting cash ... then we have other things to worry about. Mr. Underpowered (missing skills, total equipment is 398 gp) Level 3 Barbarian - human Str 18 Dex 14 Con 11 Int 8 Wis 8 Cha 8 Hps: 25 (31 while raging) AC: 12 (10 while raging or charging / 8 while both raging and charging) Skills Jump 6 Feats: Power Attack Improved Initiative Combat Reflexes Equipment: Silvered Masterworked Glaive Round 1: My init is +6, which beats the Runehound. so I will assume I go first. Rage and charge. Attack bonus is +3(Bab) +6 (Str+rage) +2 (charge) -3 (power attack) +1 (MW weapon) = +9 to hit. Average damage is 16.31 (5.5+9+6-1)*.8 (it is flatfooted, I need a 5 to hit it) Assuming it breaths on me in return (it does slightly more damage to me with its touch attack than with biting (11.6 vs 11)) Assumption is that we both take 5 ft adjustments ... End of Round one: It: 21.4, Me 19.4 Second Round. I am no longer charging. It breathes again, I full power attack again. End of Round one: It: 5.8, Me 10.25 Round three ... it dies. Based on the numbers ... I would lose if I lose initiative.
Bob Loblaw 06-28-07, 04:10 PM	As I figured. You know your arguing about role-playing was absurd, so you go back to player fiat. Yes, players will do what they want. If you want to craft, you'll have to get them to agree to chill out for a year. Either that or the DM has to force a year of downtime on the unwilling players. Of course, as long as it helps the fighter get his full plate for cheap, that's fine, right? Ha. It's exactly the opposite. Unlike your downtime-happy DM, I don't force the PCs would take a year off between every level. Indeed. Taking a year of downtime after reaching level 2 is clearly the only option. Man, you must be loads of fun at the table. When the other PCs disagree with you, you immediately tell them they're playing their characters wrong. Good show. What's the problem with a year of downtime? Unless the campaign has time constraints there really shouldn't be a problem. You don't actually have to play out the downtime. The DM is allowed to say, "time passes." Maybe the rest of the party has things they'd like to do that don't involve adventuring. They may have family nearby, or actually start a family. This is a great time to have them flesh out their stories more. Besides, let's be honest here. This is about the gauntlet. Since there is plenty of time between encounters, there is no reason why crafting can't be allowed. It saves the fighter on some money initially but will have very little effect later on when he is supposedly weaker.
Meyer_William 06-28-07, 04:12 PM	Sometimes you win -- sometimes you lose ... for this fight, having a weapon other than my silvered glaive would have been nice ... but ... I am rather attached to it ... Mr. Underpowered (missing skills, total equipment is 398 gp) Level 4 Barbarian - human Str 18 Dex 14 Con 12 (bump) Int 8 Wis 8 Cha 8 Hps: 36 (44 while raging) AC: 12 (10 while raging or charging / 8 while both raging and charging) Skills Jump 8 Feats: Power Attack Improved Initiative Combat Reflexes Equipment: Silvered Masterworked Glaive (Never got rid of it) Round 1: My init is +6, which beats the Minotaur. so I will assume I go first. Rage and charge. Attack bonus is +4(Bab) +6 (Str+rage) -4 (power attack) +1 (MW weapon) = +9 to hit. Average damage is 23.5 (5.5+9+8-1)*.8 = 17.2 It attacks me for 17*.95 = 15.68 End of Round one: It: 21.8, Me 28.32 Second Round. We exchange attacks. End of Round two: It: 6.75, Me: 13.47 Third Round. It dies. Based on the numbers ... I would lose if I lose initiative.
Bob Loblaw 06-28-07, 04:15 PM	For people who are complaining that I have a silvered weapon ... if that is the only thing that is wrong with a build that uses less than 1/6 of starting cash ... then we have other things to worry about. I think the problem is that we were all assuming that we were unaware of the creature's damage reduction until after our first hit. If we brought in a silvered weapon the battle would definitely have gone differently for both of us. We would not have wasted a round sheening our weapons. Based on the numbers ... I would lose if I lose initiative. Not bad. Everything depends on initiative for you in this case. If he hits you with that glue, your barbarian is pretty much just sitting there getting pounded on.
Argaud 06-28-07, 04:23 PM	Not bad. Everything depends on initiative for you in this case. If he hits you with that glue, your barbarian is pretty much just sitting there getting pounded on. No complains for me. He took Improved Initiative because in this kind of duels initiative is very important. I wish I had a spare feat to give Stumpy Improved Initiative. The problem is he is metagaming a bit. He knows beforehand it is going to be a duel where initiative is very important. He knows the enemy is vulnerable to silver. He knows a charge is always possible. He even switched from greatsword to glaive to avoid a deadly AoO from the runehound (why not longspear?). A naked, gearless barbarian is not very useful to the party in most encounters. He is pretty good in this gauntlet, though. On the other hand barbarians only have one good tactic: hit them very hard and hit them first. It is a simple tactic, but it works pretty well, and barbarians are built to excel at it.
Bob Loblaw 06-28-07, 04:25 PM	Here comes the Minotaur: Level 4 Blitz Ironchest Feats: Combat Expertise, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Dwarven Warpike), Improved Trip, Weapon Focus (Dwarven Warpike), Power Attack, Dodge Str: 16 Dex: 14 Con: 12 Int: 13 Wis: 10 Cha: 8 AC: 19 (16 flat-footed, 13 touch) Hit Points: 30 Initiative: +2 Attack: Warpike +8 (2d6+4) or Longsword +7 (1d8+3) or Longbow +6 (1d8+3) Fort: 5 Ref: 2 Will: 0 Skills (Used Cityscape option to swap Ride for Tumble): Craft (Armor): 5+1 = 6 Craft (Weapon) 5+1 = 5 Tumble: 7+2-2+3+2 = 12 Jump: 7+3+2 = 13 Heal: 3 Gear: 5400g Masterwork Warpike with Least Crystal of Life Drinking (531) Mithril Chain Mail +1 with Least Iron Ward Diamond Crystal (2883) Tanglefoot Bag x2 (100) Masterwork Longsword (105) Masterwork Composite Longbow (Str +2) (200) 20 Arrows (1) Potion of Enlarge Person (250g) Silversheen x2 (500) Brute Gauntlets (500) Remaining: 330g Looks like Blitz will finally have the chance to go first. Top of Round 1: Blitz drink his potion of Enlarge Potion and move back 30 feet. Bottom of Round 1: Minotaur charges. Blitz takes the Attack of Opportunity needing a 2 or better to hit since he wants to trip. Blitz attempts to trip the minotaur (+13 v +9). Blitz has the upper hand here so he will probably trip the minotaur. If he trips the minotaur, Blitz takes his free attack at +12 to hit dealing 15.65 damage leaving the minotaur at 24 hit points. The minotaur is 15 feet away from Blitz. Top of Round 2: Blitz moves back 30 feet and fires his bow needing a 9 or better to hit dealing 4.5 damage. Blitz is now 45 feet away from the minotaur who is now at 20 hit points. Bottom of Round 2: Minotaur stands up and moves forward 20 feet. He doesn’t want to be attacked like that again, but needs to be closer in case Blitz moves. Top of Round 3: Blitz moves back 30 feet and sets his warpike against a charge. Bottom of Round 3: Minotaur is 50 feet away so he must charge to attack. Blitz takes his attack of opportunity (doesn’t want to trip this time) needing a 4 or better to hit. Blitz deals 14.875 damage bringing the minotaur down to 7 hit points. Blitz now gets his normal attack at double damage, dealing an additional 29.75 points to the minotaur killing him. Even if Blitz doesn’t take his Attack of Opportunity, he will kill the minotaur. Blitz took no damage, didn't power attack and only tripped once. If he power attacks, the minotaur is in serious trouble. If Blitz Power Attacks for 4 on the charge, he'll deal 39 damage.
TheCobra 06-28-07, 04:29 PM	What's the problem with a year of downtime? Unless the campaign has time constraints there really shouldn't be a problem. It's not automatically bad, but extremely dependent on the campaign and the other PCs. In some campaigns it could work, but it's not normal. Maybe the rest of the party has things they'd like to do that don't involve adventuring. Maybe. In my experience, some PC always makes even short amounts of downtime into a lot of trouble. Fighter: "I start crafting my armor." Rogue: "Downtime, right? Cool. I want to rob people." DM: "To speed things along, how about you only go after easy targets? Then it'll be like a profession check." Rogue: "I don't know. There's that really rich guy, right? The duke? I was thinking about stealing from him. Sweet loot!" You can see what ends up happening.
Bob Loblaw 06-28-07, 04:29 PM	No complains for me. He took Improved Initiative because in this kind of duels initiative is very important. I wish I had a spare feat to give Stumpy Improved Initiative. I've been debating taking a flaw so I can get Improved Initiative. So far, I have chosen to get Dexterity enhancing gear so that I can improve my AC, Initiative, Reflex saves, and Tumble checks. I think this would be better. The problem is he is metagaming a bit. He knows beforehand it is going to be a duel where initiative is very important. He knows the enemy is vulnerable to silver. He knows a charge is always possible. A naked, gearless barbarian is not very useful to the party in most encounters. He is pretty good in this gauntlet, though. I agree. However, there are no rules on how we got to this place. It is possible that he has a list of opponents, given to him by some angel... On the other hand barbarians only have one good tactic: hit them very hard and hit them first. It is a simple tactic, but it works pretty well, and barbarians are built to excel at it. We'll see how this tactic works as he levels. He may want to consider other options eventually. I predict the Hydra will teach him a lesson if he doesn't make any adjustments. Combat Reflexes already threw him off once.
Bob Loblaw 06-28-07, 04:32 PM	Maybe. In my experience, some PC always makes even short amounts of downtime into a lot of trouble. Players have this annoying habit of doing this. I know exactly what you are talking about. Sometimes it's hard to tell them to knock it off. Fighter: "I start crafting my armor." Rogue: "Downtime, right? Cool. I want to rob people." DM: "To speed things along, how about you only go after easy targets? Then it'll be like a profession check." Rogue: "I don't know. There's that really rich guy, right? The duke? I was thinking about steal from him. Sweet loot!" You can see what ends up happening. I would consider having the rogue get himself into trouble and he ends up in jail for a bit. He can make some contacts while he's here. I don't know if I would go that route, but I would definitely consider it.
TheCobra 06-28-07, 04:35 PM	Top of Round 2: Blitz moves back 30 feet and fires his bow needing a 9 or better to hit dealing 4.5 damage. Top of Round 3: Blitz moves back 30 feet and sets his warpike against a charge. How did Blitz shoot his bow without dropping the warpike?
Argaud 06-28-07, 04:46 PM	LEVEL 4 Minotaur Stumpy is a level 4 fighter. Str 15 (6 points, +1 level) Dex 14 (6 points) Con 16 (6 points) Int 13 (5 points) Wis 10 (2 points) Cha 6 (0 points) AL: NE AC 20 (+9 fullplate +1, +1 Dex). With shield, AC 22. Touch 11. HP: 38 Initiative: +2 Attack: +6 longsword (1d8+2) or +7 Spiked chain (2d4+3) or +6 javelin (1d6+2) Saves: +6 fort, +3 ref, +1 will. +2 vs. poison, +2 vs. spells Skills (21 points): Animal handling +2 (4 ranks, -2 cha), Intimidate +5 (7 ranks –2 cha – but he can use his strength to intimidate, getting a +8), Craft (armors) +10 (5 ranks, +1 int, +2 race, +2 tools), Craft (weapons) + 10 (5 ranks, +1 int, +2 race, +2 tools). Feats: Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Combat Reflexes, Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Spiked Chain, Power Attack Stumpy has 5,400 gold 2700 more than last level. But not enough for anything terribly interesting. Stumpy saves the cash. Gear: Riding Dog (100 gold) Barding for the dog (+5 AC) (133.3 gold) Full Plate +1 (1550 gold) Masterwork spiked chain (108.3 gold) Cold iron spiked chain (50 gold) Heavy wooden shield (7 gold) Longsword (5 gold) 6 javelins (2 gold) Alchemist items: tanglefoot bag (50 gold), smokestick x 2 (40 gold), thunderstone x2 (60 gold), acid vials x 3 (30 gold), antitoxin (50 gold). Total 230 gold Potion of Protection from Evil (50 gold), Oil of Magic Weapon (50 gold), Enlarge (50 gold). Total 150 gold. Psionic Tattoos Force Screen x2 (100 gold), Silversheen (250 gold) 2714.4 gold for lots of beer. The minotaur sure hits hard. He has 3 attacks in a full attack: +9/4 greataxe (3d6+6) and gore +4 (1d8+2). Also powerful charge with a +11 to hit and 4d6+6 damage. But he sucks at AC 14 (9 touch) and 39 hp is not so hot. In other words, the mino hits superhard, but has crap defense. And +0 initiative means generally Stumpy goes first. Round 1 Stumpy sees a large guy with horns and a big axe. Stumpy decides he wants to be large too. If he had some knowledge he would know about powerful charge and maybe raise his AC instead, but he is a tripper, and tripping requires range and size. The minotaur charges (powerfully) of course. Alas, he takes an AoO at 20’. He has touch AC 9, -2 from charging. Stumpy hits with +7, can’t miss this one. Then it is +11 trip (+4 size, +4 feat, +3 str) vs. + 8 (+4 size, +4 str). Chances are the powerful charge never takes place. Bad start: Powerful charge hits +11 vs. AC 18 (70%) of the time for 14 damage (70% of 20 is 14). Good start, most likely: minotaur is tripped and then gets hit 95% of the time (with an AC of 14 -4 prone -2 charge) for 10.45 damage. The dog attacks. The minotaur kills him with an AoO. A minute of silence, please. Round 2 In the case of a bad start, Stumpy steps back to 20’ and tries another trip. No AoO, the mino used it to kill the dog. If he fails yet again, the mino can charge him again, but this time he will be tripped. It is almost impossible that Stumpy fails 3 trip attempts. In the case of the good start, Stumpy power attacks his full bab on the minotaur. And does it again when the poor cow-man tries to stand. +3 to hit on AC 10 means 70% to hit with 2d6+12. Or 26.6 damage. The minotaur has now 35 damage and has yet to touch Stumpy. When he moves, or charges again, Stumpy hits him again. This time the minotaur has AC 14, but that is still a 50% of a 19 hp hit, too much for the critter. Dead. Round 3 See “good start” above. The minotaur dies, although at least he did some damage. Winner: Stumpy. A rather easy win. The minotaur had almost no chance. I am sure you noticed the minotaur is actually far weaker than the runehound. The dog is dead. Stumpy makes hotdogs with its meat because he is still trying to outevil Vecna. At this level the animal was quite useless, anyway.
Archangel62 06-28-07, 04:48 PM	So far while this is showing us some useful things on the fighter, and the barbarian for that matter, it also is showing us a bit about early low combats. 1) Most monsters are melee oriented, those that aren't tend to be an issue (runehound) 2) Initiative tends to mean a lot at low levels, as evidenced by the barbarians build and some comparable designs. 3) For both the fighter and the barbarian, perhaps martial characters in general, reach weapons are of a greater importance than is usually shown in conceptual designs. 4) Not seeing any fighter tanks, perhaps a bad sign for the ol' Sword and board. Edit: Question for stumpy: Are you trying for Vile feats?
Bob Loblaw 06-28-07, 04:49 PM	How did Blitz shoot his bow without dropping the warpike? In round 1, I hadn't used my warpike yet. I was assuming that it was stored.
Bob Loblaw 06-28-07, 04:51 PM	4) Not seeing any fighter tanks, perhaps a bad sign for the ol' Sword and board. I was thinking about working on a sword-and-board but I wanted someone else to jump in. I will if no one takes on the role. I see no reason why I can't run two fighters through this.
Archangel62 06-28-07, 04:58 PM	I was thinking about working on a sword-and-board but I wanted someone else to jump in. I will if no one takes on the role. I see no reason why I can't run two fighters through this. I'm actually tempted to make something myself, though I'd want to make a crusader and I didn't put that on the list. This is a shout out, remember folks the fighter isn't all we want to test here, clerics, druids, wizards, warblades and barbarians are all welcome to join the gauntlet, you must start from the beginning and go to the end but I want to see how each design does, maybe see if we can learn a few things about the classes and the system from this.
TheCobra 06-28-07, 05:01 PM	In round 1, I hadn't used my warpike yet. I was assuming that it was stored. Oh really? Bottom of Round 1: Minotaur charges. Blitz takes the Attack of Opportunity needing a 2 or better to hit since he wants to trip. Does Blitz carry around two warpikes?
Sunic_Flames 06-28-07, 05:03 PM	I'm actually tempted to make something myself, though I'd want to make a crusader and I didn't put that on the list. This is a shout out, remember folks the fighter isn't all we want to test here, clerics, druids, wizards, warblades and barbarians are all welcome to join the gauntlet, you must start from the beginning and go to the end but I want to see how each design does, maybe see if we can learn a few things about the classes and the system from this. This is probably a stupid question but what post number is the gauntlet info in?
Meyer_William 06-28-07, 05:07 PM	Guys ... my apologies, I didn't notice that minotaur had 3 attacks with a full attack -- that would take me out ... time to adjust tactics slightly. Mr. Underpowered (missing skills, total equipment is 358 gp) Level 4 Barbarian - human Str 18 Dex 14 Con 12 (bump) Int 8 Wis 8 Cha 8 Hps: 36 (44 while raging) AC: 12 (10 while raging or charging / 8 while both raging and charging) Skills Jump 7 Feats: Power Attack Improved Initiative Combat Reflexes Equipment: Masterworked Glaive (Had to trade the silvered in for the potion) Potion of enlarge person Round 1: My init is +6, which beats the Minotaur. so I will assume I go first. Drink my potion and rage. Minotaur Charges. I take my AoO, dealing 21.6 damage (BAB 4, Str 7, Size -1, MW +1, Power Attack -4) It hits me for 15.68 Second Round. I attack it for 18.9 damage, killing it. Not sure how I would handle it with losing initiative. But I sure do like this BROKEN potion of enlarge person potion I bought (Honestly, I thought it was soda pop)
Meyer_William 06-28-07, 05:08 PM	Also, someone mentioned flaws ... What listed book are those in (I know they are in UA, but I didn't see that listed last time I looked)? Hopefully we cannot use them ... as I know of a flaw that reduces my AC ... would hate to see me drop further ...
Bob Loblaw 06-28-07, 05:17 PM	Oh really? Does Blitz carry around two warpikes? http://bestsmileys.com/angry2/10.gif, I did do that. Stupid editing on my part. Oh well, skip the bow. I'll still kill the minotaur with ease. I had done so much damage with my warpike he didn't stand a chance.
Archangel62 06-28-07, 05:17 PM	This is probably a stupid question but what post number is the gauntlet info in? http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12855741&postcount=1215 I think I might start a gauntlet thread here, if we want to copy what we have and move it there I'd be willing to, is anyone else interested in my making this a unique thread?
Argaud 06-28-07, 05:20 PM	So far while this is showing us some useful things on the fighter, and the barbarian for that matter, it also is showing us a bit about early low combats. 1) Most monsters are melee oriented, those that aren't tend to be an issue (runehound) Honestly, I thought this was a melee contest and I didn't even read carefully the section about tactics. You must have noticed Stumpy is not carrying a bow and has yet to use the javelins. 2) Initiative tends to mean a lot at low levels, as evidenced by the barbarians build and some comparable designs. Only if you have no defense. Stumpy manages with high AC and Combat Reflexes. 3) For both the fighter and the barbarian, perhaps martial characters in general, reach weapons are of a greater importance than is usually shown in conceptual designs. Agreed. Size and reach is very important. This is why half-ogres are good even though they have +2 LA. And one of the reasons Polymorph is so broken. 4) Not seeing any fighter tanks, perhaps a bad sign for the ol' Sword and board. You kidding? Sword and board is all all the fighters! Animated board, of course. Coming soon ;) Edit: Question for stumpy: Are you trying for Vile feats? I don't think there is any really good vile feat, am I wrong? But I wanted aberrant feats (particularly Aberrant Reach) but I am not sure if I am going to be able to get them. I want the focus chain and Robilar's asap. Edit: go ahead with the crusader. I want to see a crusader in action! :)
The_sleeper1 06-28-07, 05:20 PM	AC: 19 (16 flat-footed, 13 touch) Looks like Blitz will finally have the chance to go first. Top of Round 1: Blitz drink his potion of Enlarge Potion and move back 30 feet. Bottom of Round 1: Minotaur charges. Blitz takes the Attack of Opportunity needing a 2 or better to hit since he wants to trip. Blitz attempts to trip the minotaur (+13 v +9). Blitz has the upper hand here so he will probably trip the minotaur. If he trips the minotaur, Blitz takes his free attack at +12 to hit dealing 15.65 damage leaving the minotaur at 24 hit points. The minotaur is 15 feet away from Blitz. Top of Round 2: Blitz moves back 30 feet and fires his bow needing a 9 or better to hit dealing 4.5 damage. Blitz is now 45 feet away from the minotaur who is now at 20 hit points. Bottom of Round 2: Minotaur stands up and moves forward 20 feet. He doesn’t want to be attacked like that again, but needs to be closer in case Blitz moves. Did you include dodge in your ac? At a glance it looks like you did not. After the mino is tripped when you move you have your pike in your hand and need to draw your crossbow (part of a move action) then fire (standard action) your only option is to drop your pike if you do this where you have no feat to quickly put it away as a free action. After you fired your crossbow you are not threatning because you did not have a chance to go pick up your pike again. The mino would charge and not take an AoO from him.
Bob Loblaw 06-28-07, 05:22 PM	Also, someone mentioned flaws ... What listed book are those in (I know they are in UA, but I didn't see that listed last time I looked)? Hopefully we cannot use them ... as I know of a flaw that reduces my AC ... would hate to see me drop further ... They are in Unearthed Arcana and several Dragon Magazines. You don't have to choose the one that lowers your AC. You could choose the one that gives you a -2 to hit with ranged weapons. I'm currently staying away for a variety of reasons. I allow them in my games which gives the PCs 7 additional feats and 7 traits by level 20 (the rules are 2 at 1st level and 1 every 5 levels thereafter). If we allow flaws, we can choose flaws that will have no effect on the character for the gauntlet (-4 to Spot and Listen, as an example). I think this would skew the results unfairly.
Bob Loblaw 06-28-07, 05:25 PM	Did you include dodge in your ac? At a glance it looks like you did not. 10 + 6 (Chain Mail +1), +2 (Dex), +1 (Dodge) = 19 After the mino is tripped when you move you have your pike in your hand and need to draw your crossbow (part of a move action) then fire (standard action) your only option is to drop your pike if you do this where you have no feat to quickly put it away as a free action. After you fired your crossbow you are not threatning because you did not have a chance to go pick up your pike again. The mino would charge and not take an AoO from him. I addressed this a few posts back. Bad editing on my part. The minotaur still dies and Blitz takes no damage.
Sunic_Flames 06-28-07, 05:27 PM	http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12855741&postcount=1215 I think I might start a gauntlet thread here, if we want to copy what we have and move it there I'd be willing to, is anyone else interested in my making this a unique thread? Sure. Edit: How's this? Mr. Overpowered: Level 1 human druid Str: 10 (2) Dex: 12 (4) Con: 14 (6) Int: 8 (0) Wis: 17 (13) Cha: 9 (0) HP: 10 AC: 15 (+1 Dex, +3 armor, +1 shield) Skills: Craft (armorsmithing) +3, Handle Animal +3, Knowledge (nature) +6, Survival +9. Feats: Spell Focus: Conjuration Augment Summoning Equipment: Sling +10 bullets (1 sp) Hide armor (5 gp) Heavy Wooden Shield (2 gp 3 sp 3 cp) Studded leather barding (16 gp 6 sp 7 cp) Scroll of Cure Light Wounds (25 gp) 9 sp remaining. Animal Companion: Riding dog, trained for war. Tricks: Attack (any), Come, Defend, Down, Seek, Track. Default stats but +3 AC due to barding.
Bob Loblaw 06-28-07, 05:27 PM	http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12855741&postcount=1215 I think I might start a gauntlet thread here, if we want to copy what we have and move it there I'd be willing to, is anyone else interested in my making this a unique thread? If we do this, we should add in any edits to our original combats so that those who are just joining in don't repeat what we've already done.
Archangel62 06-28-07, 05:27 PM	Also, someone mentioned flaws ... What listed book are those in (I know they are in UA, but I didn't see that listed last time I looked)? Hopefully we cannot use them ... as I know of a flaw that reduces my AC ... would hate to see me drop further ... UA wasn't listed, since flaws are houserules I kept those out on purpose, also I want to see how each build works as is.
Meyer_William 06-28-07, 05:30 PM	Bob, you are misunderstanding ... I was not asking where they are from, I was saying that the listed books allowed for this gauntlet did not include it. I would love to take a penalty to my AC to gain a feat ... I mean come-on, I am already wearing no armor ... monsters need a not-1 to hit me ... giving up more AC is not going to hurt this build. Btw -- if I was doing this for real (i.e. being a character to play) -- I would take 1 level of Barbarian, and the rest in fighter. One of the drawbacks of the barbarian in this gauntlet, is that my special abilies (Uncanny Dodge, Trapsense +1, Rage 2/day) are of no benefit for this gauntlet
Archangel62 06-28-07, 05:30 PM	If we do this, we should add in any edits to our original combats so that those who are just joining in don't repeat what we've already done. That was the plan, I'd do it that way, each of you could put your current stuff in Sblocks, I even have a story for this gauntlet oddly enough, I should have it posted up relatively soon, once it's up we can start transferring.
Archangel62 06-28-07, 05:38 PM	Gauntlet post is up, let's start moving our stuff over there so that we may work on a clean thread.
Kalarus 06-28-07, 06:50 PM	That's the way the game is supposed to work. The universe centers on them. Heck, look at how much gear PCs get compared with NPCs. They're special. Is it stupid? Maybe. But that's how it works. That's the way the game is meant to be run. It doesn't matter whether you take the downtime. Either way, the PCs have the advantage. They generally fight foes they can beat rather easily, and gets tons of treasure. It's good to be a PC. They're explicitly supposed to win. Cool. I can then play a Fighter and the universe will center on my capabilities as a Fighter within the party. The universe will then use tactics that make my capabilities as a Fighter worthwhile, even if such things make no sense at all. Everything will get into melee combat with me because I exist. Is it stupid? Maybe. But that's how it works. It says you have to pay the gold. It doesn't say anything about time requirements. I imagine many players would be rather annoyed if a DM decided they had to wait a while. It'd also be more work for the DM. He'd have to figure exactly who was doing the refitting. I spelled it out for you, step by step. How hard is it to understand? Things do not happen instantly when you pay gold for them. Even Fabricate requires an appropriate craft check. I do not know of any player that found it unreasonable that his full plate actually had to be refitted, as long as his DM did not actively deny him the right to wear full plate. So the characters have to wait a while, cry me a river. If you don't want to wear armor that needs refitting pick something other than a piece of gear which explicitly states it needs refitting. Note how the PHB says a "captured" suit of full plate has to be refitted. If anything, that suggests that you don't have worry if you buy the item yourself. That's the difference between full plate and other armors. Also, if the players have to wait to get full plate they buy crafted, who does the crafting? Do higher level NPCs cost more? Where are the rules for this? Note how the PHB doesn't state a dead character can't move. Some things are relegated to common sense. Each suit of full plate must be individually fitted. EACH. That means the armorer needs to try and fit the full plate till he gets it right. If you're a kind DM the armorer is good enough to do it just by taking your measurements and trying it on once. If armorers magically know the exact size of the PC coming to buy full plate today you're houseruling. The rules for this are in fact in the DMG. They are part of the NPC class rules, describing NPC classes, their skill points per level, as well as the cost of an armorer per level. It's not unreasonable to assume that the price of a full plate is so high because a master armorer needs to be paid to refit this. It is reasonable to assume a master armorer is one who can make the armor on an average roll, in other words, he can take 10 and deliver a proper suit. Crafting rules also specify rules for faster crafting. If a PC wants a faster result, a master armorer for his desires will be something who can take 10 on the higher DC. You're forgiven, as long as you remember next time. Wrong, n00b. Please, not the leetspeak, I am now so horribly offended. First you display an inability to argue, then an inability to reason, followed by an inability to read, and now to top off, an inability to write. Oh shock and horror, I do not think I can take this anymore. You wrote two zeroes where two instances of the letter "o" should be in a made-up slang word, how can I ever match that kind of superiority? I haven't houseruled anything. PHB: Each full plate needs to be individually fitted to its owner. TheCobra: My players can wear any full plate they find! Houserule. According to you, not the rules. According to the rules, not according to your houserules. As I figured. You know your arguing about role-playing was absurd, so you go back to player fiat. Yes, players will do what they want. If you want to craft, you'll have to get them to agree to chill out for a year. Either that or the DM has to force a year of downtime on the unwilling players. Of course, as long as it helps the fighter get his full plate for cheap, that's fine, right? Player fiat? There is no such thing. Players control their characters. Very elementary rule for D&D and one that any DM should understand. You still have provided no reason whatsoever why a player should NOT be allowed to use his craft skill and take a year downtime if that's what the craft takes. The rest of the players aren't affected at all. You are simply denying someone the use of a skill because you don't want to see it used. We're on opposite perspectives here regarding crafting, however my perspective is supported by the existence of crafting rules, your perspective isn't supported by anything you have said so far. Your players might agree with you that a year downtime doesn't make sense, because they apparently cannot fathom what their characters would be doing for a year if not adventuring. That does not make you right, truth is not a democracy. It certainly isn't the tenacity you've displayed so far. Ha. It's exactly the opposite. Unlike your downtime-happy DM, I don't force the PCs would take a year off between every level. We don't need to. We have most of the gear we need, the rest is magical upgrades and wondrous items. Enchanting regular gear into magical gear or improving existing magical gear takes a fraction of the time it takes to craft a suit of full plate. If I want a year downtime, I tell my DM what I want to do during that year. He might inform me of some consequences which I may or may not deal with, depending on what they are. I'll inform my fellow players of my character's intentions and the consequences the DM informed us of, and here's the miracle: If they don't have a problem with some of the possible consequences they don't even need a reason, the fact that I as a fellow party member and friend request it is enough. No DM enforcement needed. Isn't that just marvellous? Indeed. Taking a year of downtime after reaching level 2 is clearly the only option. Man, you must be loads of fun at the table. When the other PCs disagree with you, you immediately tell them they're playing their characters wrong. Good show. I didn't say they were playing their characters wrong. I said they weren't roleplaying. I never said not roleplaying is wrong. When I ask something and they disagree I ask them why they have a problem with it. We then find a way to solve that problem. Again there's that miracle of party cooperation, if there is no practical result of the problem, there is, in fact, no problem at all. They don't even NEED to flesh out their characters more, they just say "Sure, go right ahead" and the DM starts his adventure with "A year has passed...".
navar100 06-28-07, 11:41 PM	Actually I think the no soldiers rule came after Stumpy brought his dog in. But I half agree it is good since bringing to dungeons hordes of hirelings, followers, undead, charmed monsters or trained pets is not how most adventuring parties work. However, what if he had used the Wild Cohort feat to gain a pet? Or Leadership later on? If those feats are cheesy, how is DMM has not been ruled out for being cheesy? What about Quicken Spell? What about Polymorph or all the other broken spells? The question is... Why is the fighter being nitpicked for the use of his scarce skill uses and some good feats in what is a gauntlet against some of the toughest creatures in the books? Bubble Hand Guard? No Trouble Stamford? No Duffle Band Card? No Double Stand... Ah, forget it. :P Note: Meant for the concept of an effective fighter in general, not for the purpose of the gauntlet.
TheCobra 06-29-07, 02:21 AM	Wow, apparently I really offended you when I described you as a ToB fanboy, you're starting to cease being civil. You stopped being civil a while ago. I've responded in kind, just as a fighter would. Duel of Wills, son. Cool. I can then play a Fighter and the universe will center on my capabilities as a Fighter within the party. The universe will then use tactics that make my capabilities as a Fighter worthwhile, even if such things make no sense at all. Everything will get into melee combat with me because I exist. Is it stupid? Maybe. But that's how it works. You're being silly for effect, but you've got it, more or less. DMs try to make each and every PC useful. I spelled it out for you, step by step. How hard is it to understand? Because it's not in the text. The full plate entry doesn't say anything about crafting. The skill description doesn't list refitting full plate. Also, the full entry doesn't say anything about using the crafting rules to determine when the full plate is ready. If armorers magically know the exact size of the PC coming to buy full plate today you're houseruling. The DMG says the PCs can buy whatever they want within the gp limit. Most likely, all the full plate entry means is that you have to pay for captured full plate. You can read other things into it, but that's speculation. I wouldn't have a problem with the DM going with your interpretation, but taking the text at face value isn't a house rule. Sorry. You wrote two zeroes where two instances of the letter "o" should be in a made-up slang word, how can I ever match that kind of superiority? You can't. Don't bother trying. TheCobra: My players can wear any full plate they find! When did I say this? You still have provided no reason whatsoever why a player should NOT be allowed to use his craft skill and take a year downtime if that's what the craft takes. The rest of the players aren't affected at all. Experience shows otherwise. Even simple reasoning does. What if the other players don't want to wait? Your previous response was to call them bad roleplayers. Now you deny reality by claiming a year of downtime won't even affect them. There's another problem with that year off, and that's upkeep. Getting by costs money. Even at self-sufficient, a year costs 24 gp. And that's if you have family or friends to support you and are willing to live like a peasant. Common upkeep requires 540 gp per year, which is more than full plate costs you to craft. Your character could get buy on meager, of course, for just 60 gp. But that's a rough life. Many characters don't want to live like that. Sorry, but scraping by as peasant for a year or so to get sweet gear doesn't strike me as an example of amazing roleplaying. You are simply denying someone the use of a skill because you don't want to see it used. No, I merely understand that time isn't free. It's a limitation, not just fluff. No DM enforcement needed. Isn't that just marvellous? Actually, yes. That's sounds neat. I'm happy for you, even if you are my enemy. I didn't say they were playing their characters wrong. I said they weren't roleplaying. Which is utter bunk. There are plenty of rapid reasons for not taking a year of downtime after hitting level 2. This is in fact a hilarious comment. We have now gone from "Fighters can do nothing outside of combat and have no skills worth speaking of" to "A Fighter requesting to use his skills is a gameplay problem". No, that was simply a personal attack against you. I'm sure most fighter fans are polite and sensible, but you're giving them all a bad name.
GrayGuard 06-29-07, 03:08 AM	http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12855741&postcount=1215 I think I might start a gauntlet thread here, if we want to copy what we have and move it there I'd be willing to, is anyone else interested in my making this a unique thread? I've been reading the tread for a while and like some of the results that have been seen, however I am new to this online websight and may or may not understand eveything. I Will make a Cleric and post results of battle on adverage and hopfully I can get eveything right. I Would of liked to make a fighter and see how well I would do but I see other people are allready useing that role and I see no one useing the Cleric or Druid And Yes Force Effects add to your Touch AC. The only Differnace I will make is I will be attacking your monsters and I Will post a bonus creature I Have to face which will be determined Randomly. I Will possibly use a Fighter on the bonus creature/Tread. My Next Post will contain my Character build and the Monster I will be fighting. However considering that I beleve players may take advantage of the fact they know what monsters are coming up ahead I Decided to randomly Determin what Monster I Will face if this annoys anyone please let me know. If I randomly do pick the monster I will add in another encounter at the Same Level of differculty that I will have to face to help make it even.
TheCobra 06-29-07, 03:15 AM	And Yes Force Effects add to your Touch AC. No, they don't. Shield doesn't. Mage armor doesn't. These spells would be much better if they did.
GrayGuard 06-29-07, 03:56 AM	My Cleric will be a Dwarf Cleric and my Bonus Class will be a Dwarf Fighter However considering I Do not have all my books with me to look up Monsters. I Will ask if I Can face the following insteed, Allso note that I would like some randomness as well as players do not allways know what is ahead There For i would like someone to place a CR 1 Monster or an Enfective CR 1 challange (For example 2 orcs which are both 1/2 CR) and give the Abilitys and simple tastics of them if they cannot be found in the normol Monster Manual. The Reason I ask this is becouse of the following A) I Do not have any other Monster Manual with me currently B) Im new to this websight if there is a page or tread that gives the listing of all the monsters I do not know it Now hear are my 2 characters Torisk the Male Dwarf cleric Dwarf Cleric Level 1 25 Point buy Starting Gold 125 Alg CG Worships Kord God of Strength Domains Luck and Strength Starting known Domain Spell Strength (Enlarge PErson) Granted Power Feat of Strength Strength - 14 +2 mod 6 points Dexterity - 12 +1 mod 4 points Constitution - 16 +3 mod 6 points (2 Racial) Intelligence - 9 -1 mod 1 point Wisdom - 15 +2 mod 8 points Charisma - 6 -2 mod (-2 Racial) Initive +1 HP : 11 HD : 1 Feats : Martial Weapon Proficiency Dwarfven WarAxe Skills : Concentration 4 ranks + 3 con = +7 bonus Fort + 5 Ref + 1 Will + 4 Special +2 VS Posin +2 Vs Spells and spell like effects Bab : +0 Ability to turn undead Spell DC 12+ Level of spell Spells per day 0-level spells : 3 1-level spells : 2 Domain Spell Strength domain first level (Bulls Strength) 0 level spells know - Mending - Resistance - Light 1 level spells know - Sanctuary - Divine Favor Items : Normol Gear (10 gp) WarAxe Dwarven (30 gp) Scale Mail (50 gp) Light Wooden Shield (3 gp) 3 Acid Flask (10 gp each) Left over gold 2 I Will post at a later time with the abilitys on the Dwarf Fighter
GrayGuard 06-29-07, 04:14 AM	No, they don't. Shield doesn't. Mage armor doesn't. These spells would be much better if they did. I will take your word over my own, I beleved it did but aparently it dosnt So Luck Insight Dodge Size is all that adds to your Touch AC? And dosnt Mage Armor Give Bonus Armor and thats why it dosnt add to your Touch AC? Touch Attacks only ignore Shield Natrual Armor and Armor Bonus i thought Force was another way of Upgradeing your Touch AC Considering it is not a Natrual Armor Bonus a Shield bonus or an Armor Bonus its a Force Bonus. Thats why I Beleve it can add to your Touch AC Ring of Protection gives a bonus to AC And that can improve your Touch AC as well. However perhaps im missing something with Force Bonus spells or the spell he was useing.
GrayGuard 06-29-07, 04:38 AM	BrozeBeard the Dwarf Fighter level 1 25 Point buy Strength - 16 +3 mod 10 points Dexterity - 13 +1 mod 5 points Constitution - 18 +4 mod (+2 Race) 10 points Intelligence - 8 -1mod Wisdom - 8 - 1 mod Charisma - 6 -2 mod (-2 Race) HP 14 HD 1 Initive : +1 Feats : Weapon Focus Dwarven WarAxe, Enduarance Skills : BrozeBeard dosnt like skills and puts all his skill points into UMD from hear on out (Level 1 = +0 to UMD Skill +2 Rank -2 Charisma) it was that or Professtion Beer Fort +6 Ref +1 Will -1 Special +2 Vs Posin +2 Vs Spells and Spell like effects Starting Gold 150 Items : Basic stuff (10 GP) WarAxe Dwarven (30 GP) Scale Mail (50 GP) Tower Shield (30 gp) 3 Acid Flasks left over gold 0 Like I Said earlyer I Feel that the current rules for this Gauntlet lets players have the ability to metagame think agest the monster if you wish you can toss the rat at both of these characters or you can choose a differnt CR 1 monster
Sunic_Flames 06-29-07, 06:26 AM	I think those specific monsters were chosen because they're damn tough for their level. The rat for example is a CR 1 with AC 20 and 2d6 damage. Ouch. Something like... 2 orcs... it'd be too easy.
GrayGuard 06-29-07, 06:41 AM	I think those specific monsters were chosen because they're damn tough for their level. The rat for example is a CR 1 with AC 20 and 2d6 damage. Ouch. Something like... 2 orcs... it'd be too easy. True but players are able to MetaGame think agest the said monsters For Example a character could give them selfs a High AC And have a good chance the Rat will not hit them then Drop Acid Flasks on top of the Rat which will more then likly Hit considering its a Splash Weapon For Example my Dwarf Fighter has 19 AC (4 Armor 1 Dex 4 Shield) My Tastic early on if I went agest the rat or, another creature thats differcult to hit, attacking I will insteed pour the Acid Flask on them 1d6 Acid Damage about 3 damage or 3.5 From what i know about the rat it only has 8 HP However i do not have the book With me that contanes all the monsters listing I Bought the Acid Flask for a few reasons A) To prove a point that i could metagame think agest thouse said creatures B) My characters useoly allways have a few flasks incase i meet something that needs that type of damage (Like Trolls need Fire or Acid) So if you want go ahead and use the rat agest me however considering im useing it as a Splash attack I can determin that inless the Rat has more HP on Adverage I beleve that my 3 damage x 3 flasks will kill it ( 9 damage ) in 3 rounds which I beleve on adverage he will not be able to kill the Fighter in 3 rounds on Adverage however again I do not have all my books with me and will not have be able to use them for some time so eather post the Stats of the Rat so I can see it combat moves or Post a Tread where I can find it
Argaud 06-29-07, 06:44 AM	GreyGuard, please, spellcheck your posts. They are hard to read because there are so many typos :(
GrayGuard 06-29-07, 07:07 AM	GreyGuard, please, spellcheck your posts. They are hard to read because there are so many typos :( I understand my english is lacking in skill but please do your best to understand me if you have a question or do not understand something just ask However I do hope you will not try and correct me for periods at the end of a short paragraph like above?
Bob Loblaw 06-29-07, 08:13 AM	No, they don't. Shield doesn't. Mage armor doesn't. These spells would be much better if they did. They do work against incorporeal touch attacks, but it looks like they don't help against regular touch attacks.
Bob Loblaw 06-29-07, 08:16 AM	True but players are able to MetaGame think agest the said monsters Go to the Gauntlet thread. Archangel has allowed some metagaming. There is a post that says what the characters can assume. However i do not have the book With me that contanes all the monsters listing Argaud has been posting the relevant information with each monster he fights.
Sunic_Flames 06-29-07, 09:14 AM	True but players are able to MetaGame think agest the said monsters For Example a character could give them selfs a High AC And have a good chance the Rat will not hit them then Drop Acid Flasks on top of the Rat which will more then likly Hit considering its a Splash Weapon Having a high AC is called being smart, not metagaming. General prep work. Having splash weapons is not metagaming, automatically assuming it has a high AC is sort of, but then a natural armor of 6 on a small creature would manifest itself as a very thick hide, it wouldn't be that hard to deduce. By the way, that tactic would kill the 7 HP rat in 2 rounds if you hit its touch AC of 14... were it not immune to acid. :P
Kalarus 06-29-07, 09:27 AM	I will take your word over my own, I beleved it did but aparently it dosnt So Luck Insight Dodge Size is all that adds to your Touch AC? And dosnt Mage Armor Give Bonus Armor and thats why it dosnt add to your Touch AC? Touch Attacks only ignore Shield Natrual Armor and Armor Bonus i thought Force was another way of Upgradeing your Touch AC Considering it is not a Natrual Armor Bonus a Shield bonus or an Armor Bonus its a Force Bonus. Thats why I Beleve it can add to your Touch AC Ring of Protection gives a bonus to AC And that can improve your Touch AC as well. However perhaps im missing something with Force Bonus spells or the spell he was useing. Touch AC is insight, luck, size, competence, dodge, deflection... basically anything that affects your ability to avoid attacks as a person, rather than anything that is used to interpose between you and the attack such as armor and shield bonuses. You are correct about mage armor, its bonus is an armor bonus and thus does not help against touch attacks. Mage armor as a force effect does help against "incorporeal touch attacks", which are in fact not touch attacks at all but rather they are slam attacks. Apparently the name "incorporeal touch attack" was chosen to illustrate that these attacks normally ignore armor. There is no such thing as a "Force bonus to AC". The closest thing to a force-field effect is a deflection bonus. The SHield of Faith spell, if I recall correctly, provides this type of bonus, as does Halo of Sand (Druid spell from Sandstorm) or the protection from alignment spells. Mage armor and Shield are armor and shield bonuses respectively, not deflection bonuses, even though all can be created by force-like effects. Rings of protection also provide a deflection bonus, so they do count for touch attacks. They do not provide a "force bonus".
Kalarus 06-29-07, 07:21 PM	You stopped being civil a while ago. I've responded in kind, just as a fighter would. Duel of Wills, son. The quarrel is fairly one-sided, really. See below. You're being silly for effect, but you've got it, more or less. DMs try to make each and every PC useful. Great. Really. I, for one, agree with you and that this is a key reason why, despite all statistic numberthrowing people do around here, few people who play Fighters (and have a decent DM) actually feel their character is genuinely useless. A lot of people jump into the conversation with exactly such an argument for playing the Fighter, because the discussion in no way reflects their gaming experience. The sad part is that a lot of people who would be termed by earlier definitions as "anti-Fighter" then claim that their experience is wrong, the Fighter is objectively useless and that this kind of behaviour is DMs coddling Fighters. "Pro-Fighters" have typically responded to this by just that: DMs try to make each and every PC useful. Every PC is subject to coddling as DM power is by definition unlimited and player power by definition limited. Yet consistently a lot of people claim that the Fighter surviving is DM fiat but other classes surviving is not DM fiat but player capability. Because it's not in the text. The full plate entry doesn't say anything about crafting. The skill description doesn't list refitting full plate. Also, the full entry doesn't say anything about using the crafting rules to determine when the full plate is ready. The DMG says the PCs can buy whatever they want within the gp limit. Most likely, all the full plate entry means is that you have to pay for captured full plate. You can read other things into it, but that's speculation. I wouldn't have a problem with the DM going with your interpretation, but taking the text at face value isn't a house rule. Sorry. Refitting the plate would quite simply be a craft check equal to creating the full plate's DC as a seperate component requiring a cost equal to the refitting, the speed of which is then determined by the craft check per normal crafting rules. In this regard refitting is much like creating a masterwork item, only not as difficult because you are still working with the base plate. I am still wondering though how you feel that when the text said that each full plate must be individually fitted, pre-fitted full plates exist in your world. The DMG states players should be allowed to buy gear appropriate for their level, that's fine. The DMG states nothing about gear magically appearing in the world, in fact it has rules for NPCs that create gear. Experience shows otherwise. Even simple reasoning does. What if the other players don't want to wait? Your previous response was to call them bad roleplayers. Now you deny reality by claiming a year of downtime won't even affect them. I said that a player who cannot think of anything his character might be doing for a year when not adventuring would be a bad roleplayer, because apparently he cannot give his character a place in the world. Roleplaying isn't over- or melodramatic acting. Roleplaying is about being a person and a subject does not exist without a world to relate to. Having no idea about how your character relates to the world outside your collection of numbers on a character sheet makes for a definitive obstruction of roleplay. If the reality of people is that a year of downtime will affect them, I'd like to know why that would be. If they can provide a sufficient reason for wanting to go off as soon as possible, that's fine. If they can't provide a reason beyond "I don't want to take a year downtime because I have no clue what my character would do for a year", see above. The DM can solve this entire problem easily by just letting a year pass without it affecting anyone but the crafter. It's a simple solution because in the above case, no reality is being denied. There's another problem with that year off, and that's upkeep. Getting by costs money. Even at self-sufficient, a year costs 24 gp. And that's if you have family or friends to support you and are willing to live like a peasant. Common upkeep requires 540 gp per year, which is more than full plate costs you to craft. Your character could get buy on meager, of course, for just 60 gp. But that's a rough life. Many characters don't want to live like that. Sorry, but scraping by as peasant for a year or so to get sweet gear doesn't strike me as an example of amazing roleplaying. I'll get back to that later, it's late, I need to get up early tomorrow and I am currently too tired to verify those numbers. I am a little curious how a self-sufficient person loses 24 gp a year, lives like a peasant and is supported by family and friends. Doesn't seem very self-sufficient to me, in fact, everyone would constantly lose money in life. No, I merely understand that time isn't free. It's a limitation, not just fluff. It's only a limitation if the DM makes it so. Since imposing this limitation has a negative effect on the use of craft skills, I would really like the DM to provide a solid reason why the use of certain skills is actively denied in the campaign. Actually, yes. That's sounds neat. I'm happy for you, even if you are my enemy. Enemy? At worst I am your opponent since in the discussion we seem to be on opposite perspectives. Apparently I've offended you, I apologise for that, this board is meant to be a place to have a civil discussion, not a hostile one. I have no quarrel with you, I simply disagree with your perspective, do not believe your experiences to be objective and wish to see arguments when people want their truth to be accepted. That is not personal, and I am not your enemy. Which is utter bunk. There are plenty of rapid reasons for not taking a year of downtime after hitting level 2. So, provide some. No, that was simply a personal attack against you. I'm sure most fighter fans are polite and sensible, but you're giving them all a bad name. It's pretty hard to make a personal attack against someone when you do not in fact know them personally. However, like I said, shall we refrain from personal attacks and try to have a civil discussion in the future? There really is no reason to escalate this in any form.
TheCobra 06-30-07, 12:01 AM	Refitting the plate would quite simply be a craft check equal to creating the full plate's DC as a seperate component requiring a cost equal to the refitting, the speed of which is then determined by the craft check per normal crafting rules. In this regard refitting is much like creating a masterwork item, only not as difficult because you are still working with the base plate. That's a reasonable way to run it, but it's not noted in the text. I am still wondering though how you feel that when the text said that each full plate must be individually fitted, pre-fitted full plates exist in your world. They're not exactly pre-fitted. Players should have to by the 500 gp to refit the armor, yes. But if they get fitted and buy it, I don't believe the PHB requires them to wait for someone to craft it. As I said, I think that rules is just a way of making PCs pay to use captured full plate. On the other hand, I did use the crafting rules one time when a player a suit of heavy plate. But it may have been over the gp limit of the community. I can't remember. Either way, I gave the crafter a forge with a crafting bonus so it didn't take forever. I'll get back to that later, it's late, I need to get up early tomorrow and I am currently too tired to verify those numbers. I am a little curious how a self-sufficient person loses 24 gp a year, lives like a peasant and is supported by family and friends. Doesn't seem very self-sufficient to me, in fact, everyone would constantly lose money in life. They come from the DMG, page 130. Yes, it's a variant rule, but the alternative is keeping track of each and every pint your character drinks. If you think the numbers are harsh, remember that unskilled laborers makes 1 sp a day. If he works every day of the year, that's 36.5 gp. That gives peasants 12.5 gp of spending money per year. How these laborers work so much and still have time to grow their own food and make their own clothes is unclear. It's only a limitation if the DM makes it so. Since imposing this limitation has a negative effect on the use of craft skills, I would really like the DM to provide a solid reason why the use of certain skills is actively denied in the campaign. Consider, for a moment, what unlimited crafting would do to the wealth by level rules. Lets say I'm a gray elf wizard with 20 INT. That gives me a +9 bonus to craft checks. I make 9.5 gp per week. As soon as I can, I buy some masterwork artisan's tools and make 10.5 gp per week. That's 546 gp per year. I declare I'm living on meager upkeep, so I make 486 gp in profit every year. I'm an elf, so I hunker down and do this for 29 years. I make 14,090 gp. At level 1, I now have more wealth than your average 6th level character is supposed to have. Does that seem right to you? Allowing unlimited crafting is just throwing a big pile of gold at the PCs. I agree the limits aren't clearly stated, but you can't just let PCs go wild with craft. Remember, the DMG specifically tells us DMs to clearly monitor wealth by level. (Yes, crafting magic items can also be a problem.) At worst I am your opponent since in the discussion we seem to be on opposite perspectives. That's another way of putting it, sure. Apparently I've offended you, I apologise for that, this board is meant to be a place to have a civil discussion, not a hostile one. Well, you did call me ToB fanboy. And some other things. There's nothing wrong with a little flaming in an internet debate. But if you want me to stay civil, I can do that as well. So, provide some. First-level PCs start with 50-150 gp. That's it. In getting to level 2, they make 900+ gp. This commonly only takes weeks or months, if that. Who'd want to go back to making silver pieces? Looting ancient tombs is the way to go. This argument is especially good for character who had hard lives before adventuring. It takes a day laborer more than 24 years to make 900 gp, and he has to spend most of it just to survive. The thrill of adventure is another one, and makes sense for many characters. Warblades, for example, typically want to prove themselves in combat. If another adventure presents itself, why wait? This argument goes along with the first. Finally, why assume as that the adventure is over when you hit level 2? What if, in defeating that band of goblins menacing your village, you come across the tale of kidnapped princess and a map to where she's being held? What if some or all of the PCs have longterm goals. Valerius doesn't only want to defeat the attacking goblins. No, he's decided their king must die for his village to be safe. That kind of thing. If level 2 is anatural stopping point, great. Take a year off. Craft away. If it's not, don't. It depends entirely on the DM and the campaign.
navar100 06-30-07, 09:57 AM	With the gauntlet running, will this thread finally pass on? Sad, in a way. I'm going to miss it. It's been fun.
Bob Loblaw 06-30-07, 09:59 AM	With the gauntlet running, will this thread finally pass on? Sad, in a way. I'm going to miss it. It's been fun. I was thinking the same thing. I hope not. We may have to wait a bit to see how the fighters do past the CR 10 creatures. This seems to be the cut-off for viability of the fighter.
Archangel62 06-30-07, 11:51 AM	Actually to be honest I'm impressed, most of the fighters are still doing fairly well, not quite how I had anticipated in tactics but still fairly impressive. Each design is showing a few different strategies (though tripping seems rather popular) and frankly I'm starting to wonder if maybe I was wrong, once the gauntlet is done I'll actually explain what each monster was there to test as I had chosen each one for not just their capabilities but to also test different aspects and see how they turned out.
Meyer_William 06-30-07, 12:26 PM	I hope this thread doesn't pass on ... it has been quite entertaining. However, I started the gauntlet off with a barbarian, and am now taking a warrior (npc) class through it ... unfortunately, I (and other posters) have learned quite a bit of tactics versus these monsters, so these later builds have a much easier time than the initial builds. If I can pass by some of the other fighters ... by using a warrior ... what does that prove about the fighter class? Now, before anyone thinks I am trolling/etc ... I fully admit - having a mitload of feats would be terrific ... but ... since I wanted to dip into barbarian for pounce/skills -- then pop into fighter for the feats, I am considering the barbarian the dip class, not the fighter. Since that wasn't allowed in the gauntlet, I didn't.
Bob Loblaw 06-30-07, 12:31 PM	Actually to be honest I'm impressed, most of the fighters are still doing fairly well, not quite how I had anticipated in tactics but still fairly impressive. Each design is showing a few different strategies (though tripping seems rather popular) and frankly I'm starting to wonder if maybe I was wrong, once the gauntlet is done I'll actually explain what each monster was there to test as I had chosen each one for not just their capabilities but to also test different aspects and see how they turned out. Tripping is a great way to reduce the number of actions the opponent has while reducing his mobility. Notice that we all have to use giant growth though. Tripping isn't too bad at the lower levels, but we really need to grow to make it remain useful. The hydra proved a challenge for my tripping. I'm glad to show you that the fighter can hold his ground. My stats so far are 1 loss, 1 tie, and 7 wins I think. It may be two losses or two ties. What are your opinions on each build so far? I'm curious how you feel each build has done individually.
Bob Loblaw 06-30-07, 12:34 PM	If I can pass by some of the other fighters ... by using a warrior ... what does that prove about the fighter class? Now, before anyone thinks I am trolling/etc ... I fully admit - having a mitload of feats would be terrific ... but ... since I wanted to dip into barbarian for pounce/skills -- then pop into fighter for the feats, I am considering the barbarian the dip class, not the fighter. Since that wasn't allowed in the gauntlet, I didn't. It will prove nothing. The fighter can do what is expected of him and that's all that is needed. I think you'll find your warrior having some issues later when he falls behind in feats. At the beginning, there may not be much noticeable difference between the two classes. I think you'll see that the warrior is going to fall short starting around level 5 or 6. The lack of gear and feats is going to make this more than challenging.
Archangel62 06-30-07, 12:59 PM	Tripping is a great way to reduce the number of actions the opponent has while reducing his mobility. Notice that we all have to use giant growth though. Tripping isn't too bad at the lower levels, but we really need to grow to make it remain useful. The hydra proved a challenge for my tripping. I'm glad to show you that the fighter can hold his ground. My stats so far are 1 loss, 1 tie, and 7 wins I think. It may be two losses or two ties. What are your opinions on each build so far? I'm curious how you feel each build has done individually. The differing level of tactics were interesting. I like your build a lot actually as it seems fairly strong, the barbarian is doing well too. However if the warrior does well in it as well it might actually prove some useful and new data for future debates. If the warrior can do these as well that might mean that we can trace WHERE the abilities of the fighter are diverging and why, how much do the feat chains mean, how much does gear matter? Each thing that we learn from this helps us in final analysis of the fighter, the cleric, and multiple other classes.
Argaud 06-30-07, 01:34 PM	However, I started the gauntlet off with a barbarian, and am now taking a warrior (npc) class through it ... unfortunately, I (and other posters) have learned quite a bit of tactics versus these monsters, so these later builds have a much easier time than the initial builds. I am also learning about some cheap & awesome magical items in the MIC :) Although some are 1/day use, so in other setting that aren't a duel they wouldn't be so hot.
The_sleeper1 06-30-07, 02:37 PM	The fighters are doing well, the few non fighters I am mostly amazed with, a barb fighting thigns with no armor and pwning them hard and a druid similary not breaking a sweat.
Argaud 06-30-07, 03:00 PM	The differing level of tactics were interesting. I like your build a lot actually as it seems fairly strong, the barbarian is doing well too. However if the warrior does well in it as well it might actually prove some useful and new data for future debates. If the warrior can do these as well that might mean that we can trace WHERE the abilities of the fighter are diverging and why, how much do the feat chains mean, how much does gear matter? Each thing that we learn from this helps us in final analysis of the fighter, the cleric, and multiple other classes. Are you checking the math and reviewing all the battles? I have seen some serious mistakes and I am just skimming over many of the posts. I am also pretty sure there are mistakes in my posts. Are alright with the metagaming that I see done by some posters? Some guys seem to have just the right gear for each creature all the time. Or solve the battles against land-bound monsters with potions of flying (which I am tempted to do with the hydra because I really dislike its presence in the gauntlet - it is a closet troll, slow, dumb, easy to avoid). How do you see crafting with unusual materials like mithril or adamantine? There are no rules I know, should I assume Stumpy can craft stuff from those materials and save 2/3 of the costs?
TheCobra 06-30-07, 03:06 PM	As far as potions go, you could look at the DMG expectations for one-use items. They expect some the treasure players find will be used up. Spending 1,050 gp to win a battle at level 5 seems a little dubious to me.
Kratch 06-30-07, 04:21 PM	If I can pass by some of the other fighters ... by using a warrior ... what does that prove about the fighter class? Now, before anyone thinks I am trolling/etc ... I fully admit - having a mitload of feats would be terrific ... but ... since I wanted to dip into barbarian for pounce/skills -- then pop into fighter for the feats, I am considering the barbarian the dip class, not the fighter. Since that wasn't allowed in the gauntlet, I didn't. It will show that you understand and are willing to make use of the limitations of this kind of event. You understand the value of going first, particularly with a charge build, you understand the value of limited use abilities/items in an envirounment that only requires one battle per day and you understand the value of metaknowledge. This is not to invalidate your barbarian build, it is an effective build that would in fact see play, but it is also approaching the gautlet by tackeling it's limitations. Most of the fighter builds have tackled this guantlet at it's strengths, not it's limitations, and i think that is a credit to the people playing this gauntlet against it's strengths, and a testament to the fighter considering how effective they have been so far.
Leo 06-30-07, 04:35 PM	Another victory for the fighter: thecobra himself admited the warblade can't beat the powerfull CR3 runehoud :D
Bob Loblaw 06-30-07, 05:43 PM	Another victory for the fighter: thecobra himself admited the warblade can't beat the powerfull CR3 runehoud :D He admitted that his warblade build can't. The runehound is one tough cookie. There may be some maneuvers and feat combinations that could help. Just want to point out that there is a difference between the two statements. We've seen fighters lose and win to the runehound. The same will probably hold for the warblades as well.
Otto the Bugbear 06-30-07, 06:46 PM	The same will probably hold for the warblades as well. I agree. Especially considering that it's not so far fetched to see a 3rd level warblade with exactly 1 less feat than a certain dwarven fighter in the gauntlet. (Who is doing fairly well, and beat the Runehound.)
Leo 06-30-07, 08:12 PM	Yes, probably you can make a warblade able to tackle the runehound but he was bragging on how easy it was to make a warblade stronger than a fighter, yet fails to do so in this test.:P
Bob Loblaw 06-30-07, 08:17 PM	Yes, probably you can make a warblade able to tackle the runehound but he was bragging on how easy it was to make a warblade stronger than a fighter, yet fails to do so in this test.:P I wouldn't yet say that his warblade isn't better than the fighters. I think we'll see more by level 20.
aelryinth 06-30-07, 09:29 PM	There's also the distinct possibility that a series of one on one duels doesn't work as well for the Warblade as it does for the Fighter/tank. The Warblade could be made as a tank, but as it stands, most of his manuvers are standard actions...he's made to be motile. The whole White Raven tree becomes useless because there's no one around to share it with. Fighters don't have near the ability to synergize with a group that the Warblade does. Also, a good chunk of his abilities apply to building much, much better defenses then a Fighter gets. In one on one duels, these tend not to apply much if at all...or the Fighter can buy one shots to deal with save problems. On an ongoing basis, that's really not possible...being able to buy whatever you need to solve a problem all the time is playing the duel game, not proving you have a viable character. I mean, I find it hard to imagine not building a Warblade without the Diamond Mind Concentration/Save manuvers, or Iron Heart Surge. But are either of them really that useful in a Nova situation, which is basically what the Gauntlet is? ===Aelryinth
Leo 06-30-07, 09:30 PM	No, my point now isn't if the warblade is stronger than the fighter or not. It's wich class is easier to optimize to max power.
Leo 06-30-07, 09:33 PM	There's also the distinct possibility that a series of one on one duels doesn't work as well for the Warblade as it does for the Fighter/tank. The Warblade could be made as a tank, but as it stands, most of his manuvers are standard actions...he's made to be motile. The whole White Raven tree becomes useless because there's no one around to share it with. Fighters don't have near the ability to synergize with a group that the Warblade does. Also, a good chunk of his abilities apply to building much, much better defenses then a Fighter gets. In one on one duels, these tend not to apply much if at all...or the Fighter can buy one shots to deal with save problems. On an ongoing basis, that's really not possible...being able to buy whatever you need to solve a problem all the time is playing the duel game, not proving you have a viable character. I mean, I find it hard to imagine not building a Warblade without the Diamond Mind Concentration/Save manuvers, or Iron Heart Surge. But are either of them really that useful in a Nova situation, which is basically what the Gauntlet is? ===Aelryinth And that's why it's so hard to compare classes. This is the best we managed to find. Archangel himself choosed the monsters and they are all pretty tough guys. The fighter is also somewhat screwed also. There's no one to help him flank, there are no mounts to abuse ride feats, there is no one to make Aoo once he bulrushes, etc, etc. But, you have at least to admit the fighter is puting up a good show right?
navar100 06-30-07, 11:38 PM	As far as potions go, you could look at the DMG expectations for one-use items. They expect some the treasure players find will be used up. Spending 1,050 gp to win a battle at level 5 seems a little dubious to me. Keep in mind the monsters of given CR are supposed to be fought by 4 characters of that CR, not one on one as the gauntlet has it. It may be necessary for a character to use up a lot of his resources.
navar100 06-30-07, 11:41 PM	My cleric can't even beat the rat. :weep: But my crusader crushed it! :fight!:
Scion of Coldshard 06-30-07, 11:41 PM	Keep in mind the monsters of given CR are supposed to be fought by 4 characters of that CR, not one on one as the gauntlet has it. It may be necessary for a character to use up a lot of his resources. The point of the exercise is to see real builds that would actually be played. Winning or losing is not nearly as important as showing what the classes are normally capable of. Extreme single use item abuse probably doesnt fit within those parameters.
TheCobra 07-01-07, 02:00 AM	Another victory for the fighter: thecobra himself admited the warblade can't beat the powerfull CR3 runehoud Have any fighters actually beat it? The barbarian only did so by assuming it would just stand there and let itself die, when it could easily withdraw and heal. And spam the barbarian to death with ranged attacks. It didn't try potion tricks, because not very interested in that and because I think runehound would just leave and heal anyway. Though enlarge person + the reach might be enough. Maybe I should try that. Yes, probably you can make a warblade able to tackle the runehound but he was bragging on how easy it was to make a warblade stronger than a fighter, yet fails to do so in this test. Uh, I wasn't trying to. I'm going for a more standard character, not a Master of Many Potions. I haven't used crafting either, but there's nothing stopping a warblade from doing it. I'm also trying to limit myself to costing no more than a fourth of the characters total wealth. I know the 3.0 suggested this, but it may have been removed in 3.5. I can't find it. Finally, I don't believe I've ever claimed warblades were better at lower levels. Everyone knows fighter are decent to powerful early on.
aelryinth 07-01-07, 03:01 AM	My cleric can't even beat the rat. :weep: But my crusader crushed it! :fight!: Your cleric build is pretty weak, given the rules. You should start out with the Planning Domain, which gives you Extend spell. Be human, take Extra turning, and Persistent spell. Congratulations, it's now level 1 and you can Persist Divine Favor before the fighting actually starts. Since you are meta gaming, there's absolutely nothing else to save your turn attempts for. take war for your second domain to give you weapon Focus. there...now your TH is up by +2 and your Dmg by +1, and you can choose any weapon you want to have weapon focus in... Concentrate on a decent charisma and perhaps Divine Shield or Divine Might, OR take Extra turning again, and again, so you can Persist Divine Power when it becomes available, or Righteous Might. All you need are the turn attempts and the right spells. I believe clerics also get access to summoning spells, which might take care of your entire rat problem for you. remember, being able to play at melee doesn't mean you HAVE to...you're a cleric, use your spells wisely. level 1-2 should really be the only levels you have any real vulnerabilities at. ===Aelryinth
Meyer_William 07-01-07, 03:13 AM	Have any fighters actually beat it? The barbarian only did so by assuming it would just stand there and let itself die, when it could easily withdraw and heal. And spam the barbarian to death with ranged attacks. In a battle with the barbarian, it lasted 3 rounds, not sure what the issue is. Round one: (Me) charge, (It) range touch attack Round two: (Me) attack, (It) range touch attack Round three: (Me) attack ... If Round 1, it withdrew, I charge/attack again. Same with Round 2 and 3. Not sure how its tactics could change? Additionally, I have mentioned either here or the other thread, that most of the barbarians class abilities are not being tested in this gauntlet, which skews things somewhat.
Meyer_William 07-01-07, 03:22 AM	It will prove nothing. The fighter can do what is expected of him and that's all that is needed. I think you'll find your warrior having some issues later when he falls behind in feats. At the beginning, there may not be much noticeable difference between the two classes. I think you'll see that the warrior is going to fall short starting around level 5 or 6. The lack of gear and feats is going to make this more than challenging. One of the things I am seeing, is that there are a lot of abilities (options) of the fighter class that are not being tested, or fail to appear. A fighter build with 3 times the number of tactical feats has a better chance of beating a random encounter compared to a build optimized for the gauntlet opponent for the level. The gear I am choosing, although optimal for my warrior build for this gauntlet, is still an assortment of equipment that I would like to get as a warrior of that level. This is MUCH harder for me than it would be if I was playing a fighter. The lack of feats = lack of choices for character development. I am hunting for gear to shore up the character flaws ... this basically assumes that the DM is cherry picking gear for the build. A less-than-nice DM will mean that this class has already fallen behind considerally. However, as people have pointed out, these encounters are supposed to be for the entire party, not a single character. This build would do much better, if the wizard (sorceror, cleric w/str domain) of the party was able to cast buffing spells on him (specifically enlarge person) so that it would free up an action. I can see this character staying next to the squishies, preventing monsters from interfering.
TheCobra 07-01-07, 03:43 AM	If Round 1, it withdrew, I charge/attack again. How? Its speed is 50! Even in light armor, you can only charge 80, unless you have some speed boost I didn't notice.
Kratch 07-01-07, 03:48 AM	How? Its speed is 50! Even in light armor, you can only charge 80, unless you have some speed boost I didn't notice. Actually, he can only charge 60. He took the pounce substitution level.
TheCobra 07-01-07, 03:51 AM	That's even worse. The runehound would probably withdraw and heal whenever it felt worried about being kayoed. The MM 3 makes it seems quite cunning. The runehound could probably beat Stumpy as well by keeping out of range, healing, and spamming ranged attacks. Though I'm still impressed by being able to defeat it up close.
Kratch 07-01-07, 07:04 AM	Stumpy's AoO and trip attempt can be used to keep it within melee range should it try to move out. It's not gaurenteed, but it's a pretty good chance
Meyer_William 07-01-07, 09:33 AM	How? Its speed is 50! Even in light armor, you can only charge 80, unless you have some speed boost I didn't notice. Sorry .. not having that MM, just working off what I read, and I must have missed the 50' movement. Not sure (really) how this changes anything, as most every build has to contend with this issue ... If the Runehound runs off to regen its wounds ... I have a couple potions of faith healing to drink to regen mine ... just makes things longer.
Bob Loblaw 07-01-07, 09:41 AM	One of the things I am seeing, is that there are a lot of abilities (options) of the fighter class that are not being tested, or fail to appear. A fighter build with 3 times the number of tactical feats has a better chance of beating a random encounter compared to a build optimized for the gauntlet opponent for the level. My character is not optimized, especially not optimized for this gauntlet. I am building him as if he is an actual adventurer. Some things work better in this type of encounter rather than the standard adventuring encounter, but the reverse would also hold true. Believe me, if I was building this fighter to handle the gauntlet only, I wouldn't have two losses and one tie. I would have 10 wins. The gear I am choosing, although optimal for my warrior build for this gauntlet, is still an assortment of equipment that I would like to get as a warrior of that level. This is MUCH harder for me than it would be if I was playing a fighter. The lack of feats = lack of choices for character development. I am hunting for gear to shore up the character flaws ... this basically assumes that the DM is cherry picking gear for the build. A less-than-nice DM will mean that this class has already fallen behind considerally. The DM should allow the players to have the gear they feel they need for their characters, at least according to the Magic Item Compendium. I don't have a problem with the players having the gear they want, I just won't give it to them. They need to take what I give and either make the best of it or get rid of it. However, as people have pointed out, these encounters are supposed to be for the entire party, not a single character. This build would do much better, if the wizard (sorceror, cleric w/str domain) of the party was able to cast buffing spells on him (specifically enlarge person) so that it would free up an action. I can see this character staying next to the squishies, preventing monsters from interfering. That's something we have said that the fighter can do, but we were told that was wrong. We mentioned that the casters can use a buff or a heal every now and then and we were told that they shouldn't have to. I agree with you, but the anti-fighters wouldn't allow teamwork for the fighter. I think it would be disingenuous to give that to the warrior.
Argaud 07-01-07, 09:59 AM	My character is not optimized, especially not optimized for this gauntlet. I am building him as if he is an actual adventurer. Some things work better in this type of encounter rather than the standard adventuring encounter, but the reverse would also hold true. Believe me, if I was building this fighter to handle the gauntlet only, I wouldn't have two losses and one tie. I would have 10 wins. Exactly. It is extremely easy to beat the monsters by assuming the character knows them before hand and giving him the right gear. Some people is doing exactly that, which in my opinion invalidates the fights. I am trying to keep Stumpy useful at all times and not abuse one shot items. This is why I admit the fight with the arrowhawk was cheesy. Some posters have an almost perfect 100% cheesy fights, though, which shows very little of the characters general fighting capabilities.
The_sleeper1 07-01-07, 12:51 PM	This is a class versus class test not gear to gear test or a test to see what gear is fair. Classses are not limited to certain gear. If theres an item that NO DM would permit then yes keep it out but gear is an equal boon to the fighter with many attacks and the druid with less. That makes equivelent gear on 2 different classes close any gaps between ones melee and the others. In short those boots may help a lot to turn you in to a melee powerhouse but it does so for all classes.
Bob Loblaw 07-01-07, 04:50 PM	This is a class versus class test not gear to gear test or a test to see what gear is fair. Classses are not limited to certain gear. If theres an item that NO DM would permit then yes keep it out but gear is an equal boon to the fighter with many attacks and the druid with less. That makes equivelent gear on 2 different classes close any gaps between ones melee and the others. In short those boots may help a lot to turn you in to a melee powerhouse but it does so for all classes. That, and the boots actually come with a limitation that is going to be more apparent now that Blitz is going to hit 11th level. Blitz will be limited to a standard attack each round if he wants to use the boots. Also, it should be noted that the boots only work if the creature charges. Even though Blitz didn't have them against the arrowhawk, they wouldn't have helped him anyway. The boots require Blitz to work on setting up a favorable scenario to be effective. In actual game play, they may be even less useful.
Meyer_William 07-01-07, 05:27 PM	That's something we have said that the fighter can do, but we were told that was wrong. We mentioned that the casters can use a buff or a heal every now and then and we were told that they shouldn't have to. I agree with you, but the anti-fighters wouldn't allow teamwork for the fighter. I think it would be disingenuous to give that to the warrior. In the DnD sessions I play, I love tossing spells on the fighter of the party -- in exchange, he makes it so I can sit back and fireball without worry (sometimes I am the fighter, protecting the fireball-er -- but in either case -- the party acts as a ... team). re: teamwork -- Sorry, one of us is miscommunicating, I was not wanting extra favors on behalf of the warrior ... i was just commenting that some of the supposed cheesiness factor of fights, are the characters attempting to cover-up the lack of buffing by the missing party members.
TheCobra 07-01-07, 06:25 PM	Stumpy's AoO and trip attempt can be used to keep it within melee range should it try to move out. It's not gaurenteed, but it's a pretty good chance Yeah, that does help. Tripping is probably the way to go against it. Of course, a mean DM would decide the beast is too clever to run in against a foe with superior reach. Still, I'm impressed with any build that can beat it up close. If the Runehound runs off to regen its wounds ... I have a couple potions of faith healing to drink to regen mine ... just makes things longer. Yes, it just makes things longer. The runehound wins anyway. Unlike the runehound, your healing is limited. In the DnD sessions I play, I love tossing spells on the fighter of the party -- in exchange, he makes it so I can sit back and fireball without worry (sometimes I am the fighter, protecting the fireball-er -- but in either case -- the party acts as a ... team). Yeah, and that's one of reasons fighters can do fine at higher levels. No, he's probably not useful as the casters, but a buffed fighter kills things really well. Since he's part of the group, that's probably the most efficient use of those slots. Might as well buff him.
Bob Loblaw 07-01-07, 07:56 PM	In the DnD sessions I play, I love tossing spells on the fighter of the party -- in exchange, he makes it so I can sit back and fireball without worry (sometimes I am the fighter, protecting the fireball-er -- but in either case -- the party acts as a ... team). re: teamwork -- Sorry, one of us is miscommunicating, I was not wanting extra favors on behalf of the warrior ... i was just commenting that some of the supposed cheesiness factor of fights, are the characters attempting to cover-up the lack of buffing by the missing party members. I was more trying to get a response from those who take issue with the fighter wanting a heal spell (1/66 of a cleric's spells) or an Enlarge Person (1/44th of a wizard's spells at 20th level). But it's okay for them to want the fighter to get into the situations where those spells are going to be needed. I'm of the opinion that teamwork is an essential part of the game and no character should be played without it unless there are no alternatives (solo adventures). The gauntlet removes that option from play, which makes the combats that much more challenging. What I find the most interesting is that we have all had to work harder to compensate for the lack of teamwork. I know that I would not have chosen the same gear if this was a character for a standard adventure. I would have more "fun" items rather than combat only items.
Meyer_William 07-01-07, 10:44 PM	Yes, it just makes things longer. The runehound wins anyway. Unlike the runehound, your healing is limited. Correct, if it makes the decisions immediately, then it might work ... but really, if my build causes the enemy to run away to regroup ... that is a win by my book.
Bob Loblaw 07-01-07, 11:34 PM	This gauntlet has changed my opinion on the elite array and point buy. While I still like rolling my stats, I think I can do just fine with the elite array. I may build more characters this way. It forces me to think more about my character's capabilities instead of always having the stats high enough to do whatever I want. I can roll very well sometimes. I have some characters with several stats over 13 and no penalties at all. Point buy would bring those characters back in line with the system.
navar100 07-01-07, 11:46 PM	I was more trying to get a response from those who take issue with the fighter wanting a heal spell (1/66 of a cleric's spells) or an Enlarge Person (1/44th of a wizard's spells at 20th level). But it's okay for them to want the fighter to get into the situations where those spells are going to be needed. I'm of the opinion that teamwork is an essential part of the game and no character should be played without it unless there are no alternatives (solo adventures). The gauntlet removes that option from play, which makes the combats that much more challenging. What I find the most interesting is that we have all had to work harder to compensate for the lack of teamwork. I know that I would not have chosen the same gear if this was a character for a standard adventure. I would have more "fun" items rather than combat only items. Indeed. My crusader already has a couple of maneuvers and a stance that's useless for the gauntlet. As he gains levels, I can't really choose "help someone else" maneuvers. I will be taking very little, if any, White Raven manevuers. Devoted Spirit has a few "help someone else" maneuvers I can't take. Playing a crusader in a real game I probably would take a shield maneuver or two, but for the gauntlet, they are useless. I can't even take "against alignment" maneuvers because most, if not all, the monsters are neutral. That's not even fair to the paladin who won't be able to smite evil. The gauntlet is not perfect, but it is fun.
navar100 07-02-07, 12:00 AM	This gauntlet has changed my opinion on the elite array and point buy. While I still like rolling my stats, I think I can do just fine with the elite array. I may build more characters this way. It forces me to think more about my character's capabilities instead of always having the stats high enough to do whatever I want. I can roll very well sometimes. I have some characters with several stats over 13 and no penalties at all. Point buy would bring those characters back in line with the system. I still don't like it, definitely 25 points at least. My cleric bombed big time. I was aching for build points. Had I built my cleric for combat for the gauntlet specifically and ignored Charisma, I could have won round 1. However, as mentioned in another thread in the What's A Player To Do forum, point buy hurts MAD characters at these low values. In a normal campaign I think my cleric would have been fine. The fighter and rogue would flank and fight. The wizard would sling spells. I'd buff and heal and be happy playing as such. However, there's no way I could be the uberoverlord cleric. A DMM cleric cannot get out of the gate at low level with 25 point buy. If I did have Planning and Undead domains to get DMM Persistent Spell at first level, the cleric still would have lost. I love clerics and was sad he lost, but it does bolster the fighter argument here. DMM clerics at high level can be uberoverlord, especially if you make a straight high level cleric to play in a high level game immediately, but at the low levels, forget it. If you gimp Strength for Charisma, you can't hit and do damage. If you gimp Constitution, you will die much faster. To fight well, you have to gimp Charisma and thus not turn undead and thus not be quite effective using DMM. I had thought about trying again with the cleric using a DMM Quicken Summon Monster I and another Summon Monster I, but even if the cleric won the battle he lost the war. There's no way one can conceivably believe a 1st level cleric would prepare two Summon Monster I in a party of four. The saying goes you can learn a lot from losing. Sad as it was for my cleric to lose, we got good insight.
Meyer_William 07-02-07, 08:42 AM	Hey -- how are class rankings for the gauntlet going to be done ... or are they? Unless I missed it ... we have only had one cleric build, which didn't make it out the gate ... are they that hard to run for this type of event?
Kratch 07-02-07, 12:46 PM	Yeah, and that's one of reasons fighters can do fine at higher levels. No, he's probably not useful as the casters, but a buffed fighter kills things really well. Since he's part of the group, that's probably the most efficient use of those slots. Might as well buff him. Not to mention it is usually a far better use of the low level spells then any other option in more cases then not. At 20th level, there is very few 1st level spells to compare to enlarge person (the most highly sought after buff for fighters, to my knowledge). Sure it expends a full round action, but so long as you can be sure to cast it (and most fighters will go out of their way to make sure that happens), but more often then not, if cast on a dedicated melee, it's as potent a spell to cast as a 7th-8th level spell.
Scion of Coldshard 07-02-07, 01:15 PM	Sure it expends a full round action Not sure if you meant this or not, but it is a 1 round casting time spell. Casting that during combat can be very tricky indeed. Most fighter types I know would prefer to have a haste spell cast initially. But if you are really high level and all you want to do is buff people then a quickened haste followed by a mass enlarge person might be an ok way to go, depending on the party. Although in my experience that standard action is likely better spent putting up wall type spells or readying actions, but each party is different.
Kratch 07-02-07, 02:51 PM	Not sure if you meant this or not, but it is a 1 round casting time spell. Casting that during combat can be very tricky indeed. Yes, I am aware of that. It's what i meant when i continued the quoted sentance with "but so long as you can be sure to cast it (and most fighters will go out of their way to make sure that happens)". I've had little difficulty finding an oppotunity to cast in within the first 2-3 rounds, YMMV Most fighter types I know would prefer to have a haste spell cast initially. But if you are really high level and all you want to do is buff people then a quickened haste followed by a mass enlarge person might be an ok way to go, depending on the party. Although in my experience that standard action is likely better spent putting up wall type spells or readying actions, but each party is different. It depends on the opponent. As a caster (what i usually play), my first spell is usually something that gets my melee's into the fight with minimal damage to them. be it a baleful transport to get him onto the other side of the palicade (sp?), an enlarge to match reach for reach and help with grapples (i know it's not gonna help on the initial rush, but against large things, my fighters tend to ready for a 5ft step and attack, negating that reach anyways), or a haste or fly to give them the movement needed. My second spell is usually something to boost the groups attacks or defence as needed (usually haste or mass fire shield). Against particularly tough opponents, I may forego the buffs in exchange for some group defences (IE, walls, summons, various clouds, mass fire shield etc) or an offence, if i think it's a particularly effective option, followed next round by a buff or 2.
Scion of Coldshard 07-02-07, 03:00 PM	Haste is simply better even in those cases though. It goes off faster, hits more people, improves offense and defense at the same time, plus makes the people move faster so they can get into position easier. 1 round of casting is a 'long' time in a combat situation. It also has an annoying tendency to make the caster an even larger target than normal (if you hit the caster then the spell might be disrupted which basically meant its last round was wasted and you dealt damage to it, this is even better with area effects as the collateral damage can be high). Enlarge person just seems like an odd spell to be casting during combat with regularity, especially at very high levels.
Kratch 07-02-07, 03:25 PM	Haste is simply better even in those cases though. It goes off faster, hits more people, improves offense and defense at the same time, plus makes the people move faster so they can get into position easier. Haste is a better spell (hence why it's third level, not first), But it's also a little more situational and can also be quickened (and thus also cast), though i don't often use that quickened one except in very tough battles. I mentioned in the above post i'd use haste (or fly) first round if the mobility was needed, If it isn't needed, then haste is a waste on the first round when the full attack option isn't usable due to movement. (granted, initiative order also plays a part in this descision). a first round enlarge on a melee with the build to use it, followed by a second round haste is a little more potent, if, somewhat more risky (note though: if enemys are casting/firing to interupt my spell this round, they can't ready to counter/interupt next round, so a second round haste will still likely get cast). 1 round of casting is a 'long' time in a combat situation. It also has an annoying tendency to make the caster an even larger target than normal (if you hit the caster then the spell might be disrupted which basically meant its last round was wasted and you dealt damage to it, this is even better with area effects as the collateral damage can be high). Agreed, Hence why i like to cast it on the first round when my opponent is less likely to be able to get to me because he hasn't closed the distance yet. Enlarge person just seems like an odd spell to be casting during combat with regularity, especially at very high levels. You mean in the high levels when stoneskin, protection from arrows (all day), Elemental resistance items and contingencies are rather common? I thought people here said caster never got hit? By the high levels, it may not even be required, due to items (i think someone mentioned a belt of growth?) or permanancy. I did say it depends on the enemy, if you want to assume every enemy knows your defences (and thus can bypass them)and can get to you on the first round, by all means, don't cast it. But i generally find the first round ideal for starting a full round cast, as most opponents won't be able to get to you easily (depnding on your melees of course).
TheCobra 07-02-07, 03:28 PM	Greater enlarge person from the Spell Compendium solves the issue of casting enlarge person in combat. It laster hours per level. Polymorph any object also lasts a very long time. The main problem is getting weapons and armor that work in the new form.
Kratch 07-02-07, 03:31 PM	Greater enlarge person from the Spell Compendium solves the issue of casting enlarge person in combat. It laster hours per level. Thanks (don't have spell compendium). I'm guessing level 3-4? Polymorph any object also lasts a very long time. The main problem is getting weapons and armor that work in the new form. This is why i generally don't like PAO or permanent enlarge on my own characters, but it's not to say it's not a valid option
TheCobra 07-02-07, 03:41 PM	Thanks (don't have spell compendium). I'm guessing level 3-4? Level 5. This is why i generally don't like PAO or permanent enlarge on my own characters, but it's not to say it's not a valid option It's so powerful though, especially with firbolgs and war trolls around. You can use enlarge person to make your weapons and armor the right size, for as long as the spell lasts. You can also just buy armor and weapons suited to your new size and get the cleric to use greater magic weapon and magic vestment. However, both options leave you vulnerable to dispels. The MIC makes sizing weapons pretty easy, so that helps.
Kratch 07-02-07, 04:03 PM	It's so powerful though, especially with firbolgs and war trolls around. You can use enlarge person to make your weapons and armor the right size, for as long as the spell lasts. You can also just buy armor and weapons suited to your new size and get the cleric to use greater magic weapon and magic vestment. However, both options leave you vulnerable to dispels. Yah. It's just a personal taste thing there. Though I generally play casters anyways, so it rarely comes up.
Scion of Coldshard 07-02-07, 04:06 PM	Haste is a better spell (hence why it's third level, not first), But it's also a little more situational and can also be quickened (and thus also cast) I did mention quickening it above ;) but that is a 7th level slot so is a pretty decent resource use even for a 20th level guy. But more situational? Haste gives a bonus to hit, enlarge person overall evens out (argueable in certain cases depending on how you want to use it though). Haste gives a bonus to AC and touch AC, enlarge person reduces your AC and touch AC. Haste gives extra movement, enlarge person does not. Haste gives a bonus to reflex saves, enlarge person gives a penalty. Haste takes a standard action normally while enlarge person takes a 1 round action. Haste gives an extra attack on a full attack, enlarge person does not. Haste can work on the whole party at once, enlarge person is a single target. Enlarge person increases reach (in most cases where it would be used I imagine), increased damage, and modifiers for certain checks. I would imagine haste is more useful in a wider set of circumstances and is so 'less' situational ;) Agreed, Hence why i like to cast it on the first round when my opponent is less likely to be able to get to me because he hasn't closed the distance yet. Area and ranged stuff, with your target close by and not closing on the opponents.. it seems like a way to invite trouble :( You mean in the high levels when stoneskin, protection from arrows (all day), Elemental resistance items and contingencies are rather common? Yes, those levels, when there are lots of very, very good options that take less than 1 round and do more than making a single guy larger ;) I thought people here said caster never got hit? People also say Elvis is alive and well with aliens who will return him one day as a new age Jesus. I did say it depends on the enemy, if you want to assume every enemy knows your defences (and thus can bypass them)and can get to you on the first round, by all means, don't cast it. But i generally find the first round ideal for starting a full round cast, as most opponents won't be able to get to you easily (depnding on your melees of course). Of course it is enemy dependent, but standing around for a 1 round spell to be cast that will not suddenly end the battle at very high levels seems like a pretty bad move!
Scion of Coldshard 07-02-07, 04:09 PM	Greater enlarge person from the Spell Compendium solves the issue of casting enlarge person in combat. It laster hours per level. I will have to look that up later. Polymorph any object also lasts a very long time. The main problem is getting weapons and armor that work in the new form. Pretty brokenly powerful spell overall though.
TheCobra 07-02-07, 04:14 PM	Why are you casting haste at higher levels? Everyone who wants the effect should have boots of speed by then. Free actions are good.
Scion of Coldshard 07-02-07, 04:18 PM	Why are you casting haste at higher levels? Everyone who wants the effect should have boots of speed by then. Free actions are good. Some people like to use various footgear that gives them the ability to fly, or the equivalent, and having to buy multiple boots of all the same type can be tiresome ;) Why are people casting enlarge person at higher levels? A ring of spell storing with a Righteous Might in it is much better!
TheCobra 07-02-07, 04:29 PM	Some people like to use various footgear that gives them the ability to fly, or the equivalent, and having to buy multiple boots of all the same type can be tiresome Well, you can usually add other abilities to your boots of speed. (I guess it depends how the DM feels about custom items. But the MIC at least lets you add a DEX bonus to boots for as cheap as gloves would cost.) Why are people casting enlarge person at higher levels? A ring of spell storing with a Righteous Might in it is much better! While cool, that takes a standard action. Boots of speed are so much fun because it's a free action.
Scion of Coldshard 07-02-07, 04:33 PM	Well, you can usually add other abilities to your boots of speed. (I guess it depends how the DM feels about custom items. But the MIC at least lets you add a DEX bonus to boots for as cheap as gloves would cost.) I was taking that into account actually ;) 10 rounds of haste a day I have found typically gets me through one battle and maybe part of a non-combat situation. At that point having 2 or 3 sets is necissary. If I also want them to have other abilities then each set has to have them all.. and that gets really costly, very quickly! While cool, that takes a standard action. The comparison in actions I see more along the lines of 'standard action' for one guy or '1 round action' for another guy. The standard action for a bigger benefit seems to win as far as I am concerned ;) The Righteous Might is being compared to Enlarge Person after all.
Kratch 07-02-07, 04:43 PM	I did mention quickening it above ;) but that is a 7th level slot so is a pretty decent resource use even for a 20th level guy. I thought i acknowledged that when i said i save it for particularly tough opponents But more situational? I mentioned in the above post i'd use haste (or fly) first round if the mobility was needed, If it isn't needed, then haste is a waste on the first round when the full attack option isn't usable due to movement. Perhaps situational wasn't the best choice of words, but my explanation of what i ment that followed should have given you an idea of what i meant. Haste gives a bonus to hit, enlarge person overall evens out (argueable in certain cases depending on how you want to use it though). Haste gives a bonus to AC and touch AC, enlarge person reduces your AC and touch AC. Haste gives extra movement, enlarge person does not. Haste gives a bonus to reflex saves, enlarge person gives a penalty. Haste takes a standard action normally while enlarge person takes a 1 round action. Haste gives an extra attack on a full attack, enlarge person does not. Haste can work on the whole party at once, enlarge person is a single target. All reasons why Haste in general is a better spell, I've already acknowledged that. Doesn't mean it's always the best first spell option. In the same way i've already acknowledged enlarge person isn't always the best first round option. I do however think enlarge person is, generally speacking, a better first round option then haste in most cases (if your far enough down the init that your melee's and the opponents have all closed, then no, haste is the better option. If your opponent is riddled with ranged attackers and you have no defences for the most likely attack they'll administer, then no (though in that case, I think even haste is also a poor option).). I would imagine haste is more useful in a wider set of circumstances and is so 'less' situational ;) Not denying this. But haste is also a 3rd level spell, vs enlarge person as a 1st. My original point was that, for a 1st level spell, there is little else that is a better option to cast, and in the case your not pressed for something else (such as group defences, But i've already addressed this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12936366&postcount=1550)too), It is a good option and a decent payoff for the expenditure of resources. Area and ranged stuff, with your target close by and not closing on the opponents.. it seems like a way to invite trouble :( Hmm, Area spells would likely have been used wether you were casting or not. You may lose your spell, though a concentration check to cast through damage on a 1st level spell against any area effect spell isn't always difficult, perhaps an example of what spell your talking about would help. besides, a lot of people think area effect damage spells are a poor option, especially in the high levels, so it forced the opponent to use a suboptimal choice in exchange for a 1st level spell and some damage, which could have been a save or die against someone. not a pleasant trade, but a fair one. Ranged attacks, being ones that aren't dealt with by protection from arrows and stoneskin, are attacks that would likely have been used/readied to interupt your casting next round. better used on a 1st level spell then the higher one you would have cast on round 2. Of course, seems once again the battlefield is being populated to thwart my opinion on things. Against a single opponent or 2, very little if any of this is an issue. Yes, those levels, when there are lots of very, very good options that take less than 1 round and do more than making a single guy larger ;) i've already addressed this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12936366&postcount=1550) People also say Elvis is alive and well with aliens who will return him one day as a new age Jesus. It was sarcasm. Of course it is enemy dependent, but standing around for a 1 round spell to be cast that will not suddenly end the battle at very high levels seems like a pretty bad move! And spending a round casting a 1st level spell that will allow the fighter to almost single handedly kill all your current opponents seems like a rather good move. Or spending a round casting a spell that will allow the fighter to block the opponents from getting to you, while still being able to attack them (an option a wall spell does not provide), seems like a pretty good move. It really depends on the build of the fighter your enlarging and the opponents your facing (and i suppose terrain is a factor as well). It seems to me your trying to tell me i'm wrong, that enlarge person is never a useful spell, but my experience tells me otherwise. Hence why, throughout my entire conversation on this topic, i have repeated said, "IT DEPENDS"
TheCobra 07-02-07, 04:44 PM	10 rounds of haste a day I have found typically gets me through one battle and maybe part of a non-combat situation. Interesting. You use it during non-combat situations? I'm not sure if my players have ever run out of boots of speed activations. 2-3 rounds per battle seems to be plenty for them. The standard action for a bigger benefit seems to win as far as I am concerned The Righteous Might is being compared to Enlarge Person after all. Well, I think casting enlarge person during battle is pretty crazy. It lasts minutes per level, though, so you can use it out of combat. Righteous might only lasts rounds per level.
Kratch 07-02-07, 04:47 PM	Why are people casting enlarge person at higher levels? A ring of spell storing with a Righteous Might in it is much better! Addressed that already too By the high levels, it may not even be required, due to items (i think someone mentioned a belt of growth?) or permanancy.
Scion of Coldshard 07-02-07, 07:28 PM	I've already covered the rest more than sufficiently so I'll just stick to one bit. And spending a round casting a 1st level spell that will allow the fighter to almost single handedly kill all your current opponents seems like a rather good move. Or spending a round casting a spell that will allow the fighter to block the opponents from getting to you, while still being able to attack them (an option a wall spell does not provide), seems like a pretty good move. If increasing the fighters melee damage by a single step is enough to take them into 'almost single handedly kill all your current opponents' then they likely werent that big of a problem to begin with. Especially at the levels we are talking about here. Blocking opponents is also highly situational. I am not saying it isnt a good spell, it is, but in many, many, many cases it simply isnt worth the casting time. 1 Round is huge! Choosing not to use the spell because it takes so long to get up is perfectly valid. It seems to me your trying to tell me i'm wrong, that enlarge person is never a useful spell I didnt say anything like that. It is a situational spell that takes a very long time to cast, combat wise. Some of the people in this thread are making it sound like a crime if a caster decides to do anything but buff some other character and that is a very bad thing in my opinion. If the caster decides not to buff the fighter then that is his call, if he decides not to stand around like a chump casting a 1 round casting time spell and instead wants to use standard action spells or use his movement or anything else that is his call as well. I am still recommending the ring of spell storing. It allows the guy who wants the spell to get it while not costing the other guy some very valuable actions.
Scion of Coldshard 07-02-07, 07:35 PM	Interesting. You use it during non-combat situations? I'm not sure if my players have ever run out of boots of speed activations. 2-3 rounds per battle seems to be plenty for them. Yep, I do. Sometimes you need a little boost of speed (extra jump check, farther movement in a round, etc). Sometimes someone needs to trigger the trap that you know is there but the party rogue cant disarm (+1 AC and +1 reflex save can be helpful there). Sometimes you need to break through something but cant hit the break DC and that extra attack in a round allows for getting through significantly faster (I am calling this noncombat, others might not). It is a really nice, all around item. Plus, in general combats I run in my own games almost never last less than 4 rounds. The last several sessions I have been in as a player the shortest combat was 2 rounds, but that was only because we were running away as quickly as we could since we were obviously 'way' overmatched. Well, I think casting enlarge person during battle is pretty crazy. It lasts minutes per level, though, so you can use it out of combat. Righteous might only lasts rounds per level. It sounds like you are talking about ambush type situations now with the 'cast out of combat'. At that point there are so many incredible spells to cast at high levels it could be tough to choose between them, especially as several have the 'does not stack with other size enhancing spells' line. Precombat buffing is not really what I was talking about though, that is a whole other animal, I am talking about action use in combat. ;)
Kratch 07-02-07, 08:14 PM	If increasing the fighters melee damage by a single step is enough to take them into 'almost single handedly kill all your current opponents' then they likely werent that big of a problem to begin with. Especially at the levels we are talking about here. Blocking opponents is also highly situational. First of all, those were simply examples of times the spell could be useful, not a comprehensive list, just so your clear on that, so how situational one of those examples may be (and i'll note, it's more common a situation in many dungeon settings. if you want to claim that never happens, go right ahead, but that doesn't reflect everyones experience). As for enlarge increasing the damage by a single step, thats only part of the effects of enlarge, I'm sure you know the rest, so i won't bother to repeat it. I do believe i clearly said "It really depends on the build of the fighter your enlarging and the opponents your facing (and i suppose terrain is a factor as well). .... Hence why, throughout my entire conversation on this topic, i have repeated said, "IT DEPENDS"". I think casting enlarge person on this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10325801&postcount=1694)build is better then any wall spell (like you suggested in your initial post on this topic) I am not saying it isnt a good spell, it is, but in many, many, many cases it simply isnt worth the casting time. 1 Round is huge! Choosing not to use the spell because it takes so long to get up is perfectly valid. I never said not casting it wasn't a perfectly valid option, in fact, I've said several times there are other options that, depending on the encounter, may be better chosen above enlarge person. The choice to cast it is situational, but the option is their and isn't necessarily a bad one. I didnt say anything like that. Sorry, You don't say i'm wrong to cast the spell, I'm just a chump if i make that choice... ... if he decides not to stand around like a chump casting a 1 round casting time spell and instead wants to use standard action spells or use his movement or anything else that is his call as well. Some of the people in this thread are making it sound like a crime if a caster decides to do anything but buff some other character and that is a very bad thing in my opinion. A lot of people here have said that casting a buff on a fighter is tantamount to a crime, that it's a waste of an action, or that it proves nothing about a fighters effectiveness (this however is a seperate issue i don't care to discuss now). The only thing we've been saying is that it's not a crime, and that buffs can be benifitial, sometimes moreso then other spells of equal level (if you'd like me to quote myself, I will), that is quite different to "not casting buffs is a crime". Your "opinion" is noted. My "opinion" tells me different. I'll leave it at that.
Scion of Coldshard 07-02-07, 08:47 PM	Sorry, You don't say i'm wrong to cast the spell, I'm just a chump if i make that choice... You personally being a chump? Nope, I didnt say anything about you. But the wizard who has been asked at level 20 to stand around for 1 round of casting during combat to put a 1st level buff spell on a guy when there are a number of other options might just feel that he is doing so. Some people like being the buffer, some dont. There are ways around the issue. Drinking a potion, using an item to cast it, feats and items which allow for casting it faster. Those are all options. But I would have to say that if you are a really high level guy in the middle of a combat standing around for a 1 round casting time to put enlarge person on a guy is likely not the best use of very important combat resources, namely actions. A lot of people here have said that casting a buff on a fighter is tantamount to a crime, that it's a waste of an action, or that it proves nothing about a fighters effectiveness (this however is a seperate issue i don't care to discuss now). Who said that casting spells on a guy was a crime? Dont go repeating things that navar100 has said, he was already unable to back up his claims earlier in this regard. I would definately agree, however, that it proves nothing about the Fighters effectiveness. How could someone else using their resources to buff the Fighter prove something about the Fighter one way or another? Except possibly proving that the Fighter can be buffed, but that isnt much of a leap in logic ;) Your "opinion" is noted. My "opinion" tells me different. I'll leave it at that. I am not really even sure what your opinion is at this point. The only part of what I have said that you actually seem to disagree with is that using a 1 round casting time in the middle of the combat by the party caster is not using actions very optimally in the majority of the cases. To me, that is trivially true given all of the options that abound that would make the action cost less (ring of spell storing, potion, tatoos, etc). At high levels actions in combat are incredibly important. Using them wisely can mean the different between life and death.. I would suggest getting the Fighter guy an item which can use the spell on himself directly ;)
Otto the Bugbear 07-02-07, 09:10 PM	Not to mention it is usually a far better use of the low level spells then any other option in more cases then not. At 20th level, there is very few 1st level spells to compare to enlarge person (the most highly sought after buff for fighters, to my knowledge). Sure it expends a full round action, but so long as you can be sure to cast it (and most fighters will go out of their way to make sure that happens), but more often then not, if cast on a dedicated melee, it's as potent a spell to cast as a 7th-8th level spell. :rofl: It never occurred to me that someone, somewhere, might think that enlarge person was a better choice for a wizard to cast in a battle than something like maze, trap the soul, otto's irresistible dance or polymorph any object. Heck, even insanity, forcecage, finger of death, or a maximized orb. This is truly a wonder.
Kratch 07-02-07, 09:16 PM	:rofl: It never occurred to me that someone, somewhere, might think that enlarge person was a better choice for a wizard to cast in a battle than something like maze, trap the soul, otto's irresistible dance or polymorph any object. Heck, even insanity, forcecage, finger of death, or a maximized orb. This is truly a wonder. Reread what you quoted. Not to mention it is usually a far better use of the low level spells then any other option in more cases then not. At 20th level, there is very few 1st level spells to compare to enlarge person (the most highly sought after buff for fighters, to my knowledge). Sure it expends a full round action, but so long as you can be sure to cast it (and most fighters will go out of their way to make sure that happens), but more often then not, if cast on a dedicated melee, it's as potent a spell to cast as a 7th-8th level spell.
Otto the Bugbear 07-02-07, 09:24 PM	Isn't this fun? Not to mention it is usually a far better use of the low level spells then any other option in more cases then not. At 20th level, there is very few 1st level spells to compare to enlarge person (the most highly sought after buff for fighters, to my knowledge). Sure it expends a full round action, but so long as you can be sure to cast it (and most fighters will go out of their way to make sure that happens), but more often then not, if cast on a dedicated melee, it's as potent a spell to cast as a 7th-8th level spell. Like, oh, polymorph any object? A standard action, that provides all the same benefits as this "sought after 1st level spell", plus an ass-load more. That's less sought after than enlarge person, huh?
Kratch 07-02-07, 09:38 PM	not the issue you were :rofl: about. You were claiming i thought enlarge was comparable to maze, trap the soul, otto's irresistible dance, insanity, forcecage, finger of death, maximized orb, which clearly i didn't. You want to change your argument, go right ahead, but don't play stupid trying to say that was your issue all along. PAO is something you cast out of combat for several reason, the main being the fact the duration allows for out of combat casting without worrying about the duration wearing off, but more importantly, it doesn't resize your gear, so can actually be detrimental to cast in combat. I may have been presumptuous to assume enlarge person was "the most sought after buff", but it certainly is up there.
Irving 07-02-07, 09:55 PM	It's a 1st level spell - a much smaller expenditure of resources for the caster than forcecage or better spells, and on a fighter who's ready to exploit it fully it produces a bigger damage output than just about any other 1st level spell that could be cast. It does cost 1 full round, but it can buy that much time and more in the right circumstances. Like every other spell out there, it's situational, but considering that it can produce some great results while saving that big spell for threats that have no other answer it's worth remembering.
Otto the Bugbear 07-02-07, 10:15 PM	not the issue you were :rofl: about. You were claiming i thought enlarge was comparable to maze, trap the soul, otto's irresistible dance, insanity, forcecage, finger of death, maximized orb, which clearly i didn't. You want to change your argument, go right ahead, but don't play stupid trying to say that was your issue all along. That's because you said, "it's as potent as a 7th-8th level spell". That's a comparison. PAO is something you cast out of combat for several reason, the main being the fact the duration allows for out of combat casting without worrying about the duration wearing off, but more importantly, it doesn't resize your gear, so can actually be detrimental to cast in combat. Good point about the equipment. I may have been presumptuous to assume enlarge person was "the most sought after buff", but it certainly is up there. Perhaps. It's a 1st level spell - a much smaller expenditure of resources for the caster than forcecage or better spells, and on a fighter who's ready to exploit it fully it produces a bigger damage output than just about any other 1st level spell that could be cast. It does cost 1 full round, but it can buy that much time and more in the right circumstances. Like every other spell out there, it's situational, but considering that it can produce some great results while saving that big spell for threats that have no other answer it's worth remembering. At 20th level, which Kratch specifically mentioned, a wizard has exactly the same number of spell slots for 1st level as for 7th level, barring bonus spells from high ability score. Also, the cost of casting it is exactly the same; one action in combat. One that is decidedly more dangerous, thanks to the 1 round casting time.
Scion of Coldshard 07-02-07, 10:22 PM	PAO is something you cast out of combat for several reason, the main being the fact the duration allows for out of combat casting without worrying about the duration wearing off, but more importantly, it doesn't resize your gear, so can actually be detrimental to cast in combat. Luckily most gear will resize on its own just fine ;) A dm may choose to restrict that, but that is his own in game issue. I may have been presumptuous to assume enlarge person was "the most sought after buff", but it certainly is up there. ;)
Irving 07-02-07, 10:27 PM	At 20th level, which Kratch specifically mentioned, a wizard has exactly the same number of spell slots for 1st level as for 7th level, barring bonus spells from high ability score. Also, the cost of casting it is exactly the same; one action in combat. One that is decidedly more dangerous, thanks to the 1 round casting time. ...and if you think for a second that that 20th level wizard doesn't have bonus spells due to a high ability score, I've got a bridge in Faerun for you... There are many, many resources that a wizard can use to regain a 1st level spell that can't be used on a 7th level spell. More to the point, conventional wisdom says that every encounter should use up 1/4 of a play group's resources. Do you use that forcecage on the first encounter of the night? Or the last?
Khan the Destroyer 07-02-07, 10:44 PM	Why are we even discussing the exact value of Enlarge Person at higher levels again?
Scion of Coldshard 07-02-07, 10:47 PM	More to the point, conventional wisdom says that every encounter should use up 1/4 of a play group's resources. An level appropriate challenge should use up roughly that much. If you are able to spend that much time in a combat to drop this spell on someone it might not be level appropriate.. Or you might have an ambush situation which completely destroys the CR system. Do you use that forcecage on the first encounter of the night? Or the last? Depends on which it is needed for I would imagine.
Irving 07-02-07, 11:27 PM	Depends on which it is needed for I would imagine. Ah, but how do you know if you need it now, or need it later? Perhaps the quote's a bit old for the modern day, but you're supposed to beware of wizards becuase they're subtle and slow to anger... using the minimum amount of power needed to handle an encounter garauntees you've got the maximum amount of power when it's needed.
Scion of Coldshard 07-02-07, 11:36 PM	Ah, but how do you know if you need it now, or need it later? Are you really asking how to know if you need it now?? ;) I think you really mean, 'how do you know if you should use it now or if you will need it more later?' But in this case that question isnt really the issue. If you need it now it doesnt matter if you would have needed it later but chose to not use it and were killed because of it. Also, we are talking about one of the most important resources in combat: Actions. Standard action vs 1 round action makes for a very hefty cost differential!
Meyer_William 07-03-07, 12:19 AM	Just in case I missed something here ... the title of the thread is "Any reason to have a fighter... 2!" -- correct? Pro-Fighters During this thread people came up with reasons to play a pure one ranging from "I like them" to "I get my weapon specialization sooner" to "I like feats" Anti-Fighters Tried to show that a mix (either dipping in other classes, or going PrC) is usually a better approach than a pure fighter in terms of skill points and abilities. Pro-Melees Stated there is a place for melee people who serve a nice role in the party, ranging from meat-shield, to controlling the field, to sustainability. Anti-Melees Showed that at high levels, mass damage from spells usually ends fights before melees shine, plus that there are enough spells to run out. At low levels, melees have their place? Am I missing anything? What is there left to talk about on this thread?
windscar18 07-03-07, 12:20 AM	Blatant arguing on the validity of any of the above points?
Bob Loblaw 07-03-07, 02:16 AM	Am I missing anything? What is there left to talk about on this thread? Apparently the value of enlarge person compared to polymorph any object. To the issue of wizards casting buffs. When I play wizards, I tend to take a few item creation feats. The party may ask me to build gear for them at the reduced cost. We do use the houserule where people can sacrifice their own XP to help out the crafters. As a wizard, I would rather have given the fighter his belt of giant growth that he can use whenever he wants and I can use that 1st level spell slot for something else I may want. In any case, I'm not spending my time buffing, I'm acting. The fighter can act as well instead of having to be next to me, hoping that I get around to him this round. The rogue also wants a buff. I want a buff. I also want to keep the enemy at bay. I don't have a ton of spells to cast this round. I have 2. If I can have some precast, that's a better way to go.
Clawhound 07-03-07, 12:16 PM	In a normal campaign I think my cleric would have been fine. The fighter and rogue would flank and fight. The wizard would sling spells. I'd buff and heal and be happy playing as such. However, there's no way I could be the uberoverlord cleric. A DMM cleric cannot get out of the gate at low level with 25 point buy. If I did have Planning and Undead domains to get DMM Persistent Spell at first level, the cleric still would have lost. Part of the gauntlet's idea is getting a feel for these extreme encounters. For example, a fairly white bread sword n board fighter does 1d8+2 hp (6 hp avg) * .25 (bab +1, mw +1, strength +2, weapon focus +1), or 1.5 hp, round. That's 5 rounds to kill the rat. He loses a statistical 3.75 hp/round. That's 12 hp/3.75=3.2 attacks. Make this guy a half-orc with a greatsword, and it become a statistical race to see if the half-orc lands a blow before he dies. In the classic Level 10 fighter vs. fire giant, the best I ever cranked out was a statistical 50/50. With the MIC, I may now be able to do better. A party cleric can keep the fighter going with a statistical 5 hp/round of healing. Even getting unlucky, the fighter won't die. So in round #5, a cooperating party should be able to kill this monstrosity with no loss of life. Add in a rogue and a wizard, and they should be able to do this even quicker. Even one heal here makes a huge difference. The difference between team play and solo play is huge. What is a sure loss in solo play can be a reliable victory in a team encounter.
navar100 07-03-07, 10:07 PM	A party cleric can keep the fighter going with a statistical 5 hp/round of healing. Even getting unlucky, the fighter won't die. So in round #5, a cooperating party should be able to kill this monstrosity with no loss of life. Add in a rogue and a wizard, and they should be able to do this even quicker. Even one heal here makes a huge difference. The difference between team play and solo play is huge. What is a sure loss in solo play can be a reliable victory in a team encounter. I agree; I'm just sad my cleric lost in solo. I love clerics. :weep: :D ;)
TheCobra 07-03-07, 10:16 PM	You could build a cleric to do better against the rat, you know. But it's not as if anyone actually believed clerics were vastly superior to fighters at level 1.
Meyer_William 07-04-07, 12:09 AM	I agree; I'm just sad my cleric lost in solo. I love clerics. :weep: :D ;) Hey, feel free to take a page of my warrior build for assistance in how to defeat the monsters in the gauntlet without being able to use many feats ... It will cramp your DMM style though, as I had no free feats to spend on things like that ... as well as not having ability scores to spend on things like wis or char ... hmm ... on second thought, it might not be that easy.
navar100 07-04-07, 12:51 AM	You could build a cleric to do better against the rat, you know. But it's not as if anyone actually believed clerics were vastly superior to fighters at level 1. Yes, but then I'd gimp Charisma and can't do DMM nastiness. There's no way I'm gimping Constitution. :D As for the second part, it makes you wonder how those DMM Persistent Spell nightstick crazy clerics got to achieve that power in the first place. Too bad no one gave such a build in this debate. ;) My cleric losing actually helps to prove the fighter's worth, so I still "win". :dancin:
TheCobra 07-04-07, 01:09 AM	Yes, but then I'd gimp Charisma and can't do DMM nastiness. Better spells might be enough, though the rat will probably always be tough. As for the second part, it makes you wonder how those DMM Persistent Spell nightstick crazy clerics got to achieve that power in the first place. Too bad no one gave such a build in this debate. Probably by healing folks and generally being useful. Horrid rats aren't the only CR 1 encounters out there. The cleric has considerably less to fear from color spray than the fighter does. Especially the fighters in that contest, who commonly had 8 WIS. A beguiler could literally murder four such fighters per day (assuming she could hide and get a surprise round). My cleric losing actually helps to prove the fighter's worth, so I still "win". Was anyone actually claiming that fighters are worthless at level 1? I have trouble believing this.
Kratch 07-04-07, 01:16 AM	Was anyone actually claiming that fighters are worthless at level 1? I have trouble believing this. Worthless, no. But several claimed there was no point playing a fighter cause everyone does just as well in the low levels and is superior in the high levels
TheCobra 07-04-07, 01:29 AM	Well, arcane casters do have very powerful abilities starting at level 1. (Color spray, how I love you.) On the other hand, they have their vulnerabilities. I wouldn't say fighters are superior to wizards and such at level 1. In some situations they are better, in some they're not. Beguilers, now beguilers probably are superior. Great skills, light armor, 6 hp, and four spells spontaneously cast from long list. In overall power, I believe fighters and caster are roughly equal early on. Sometimes fighters are a lot better, sometimes casters are.
navar100 07-04-07, 03:36 AM	Was anyone actually claiming that fighters are worthless at level 1? I have trouble believing this. No. I meant that the Uberoverlord Cleric that people hype would never get to be an Uberoverlord Cleric without the Fighter being the frontal force at the low levels. The Uberoverlord Cleric needs the Fighter.
TheCobra 07-04-07, 03:47 AM	Well, this cleric needs allies of some sort, at least. She doesn't need a fighter, though a fighter could indeed fill that role. So could various other classes. I bet a party of four clerics would survive the lower levels. Perhaps not if all of them blew all their feats on Divine Metamagic. Personally, I think Divine Spell Power is very often a better way to spend those turning attempts. How would that horrid rat like getting hit by a 1d8+5 inflict light wounds? Or perhaps a 5d4 burning hands?
guru7892 07-04-07, 04:15 AM	Fighters are really good because they are perfect in attrition scenarios. They don't 'run out' of pretty much anything. Since they are based on feats rather than perX based abilities they can keep fighting long after the barbarian has run out of rages, the sorcerer is out of spells and the cleric is down to their final few spells. fighters are a straight line. They don't decrease in power as time goes on, they can keep hitting encounter after encounter. fighters play tactical. grapple, disarm, trip, bull-rush, AoO. Barbarians hit their target very hard and deal a lot of damage. Fighters take out their targets with a two handed power attack from a bastard-sword while their opponant is on the ground without a single weapon. They bull rush their opponants over cliffs, trip horses out under riders, beat down wizards in a grappple. A barbarian can do any of these things, but a fighter can do all of these things... and throw knives...
The_sleeper1 07-04-07, 08:27 AM	Fighters are really good because they are perfect in attrition scenarios. They don't 'run out' of pretty much anything. Since they are based on feats rather than perX based abilities they can keep fighting long after the barbarian has run out of rages, the sorcerer is out of spells and the cleric is down to their final few spells. fighters are a straight line. They don't decrease in power as time goes on, they can keep hitting encounter after encounter. fighters play tactical. grapple, disarm, trip, bull-rush, AoO. Barbarians hit their target very hard and deal a lot of damage. Fighters take out their targets with a two handed power attack from a bastard-sword while their opponant is on the ground without a single weapon. They bull rush their opponants over cliffs, trip horses out under riders, beat down wizards in a grappple. A barbarian can do any of these things, but a fighter can do all of these things... and throw knives... In attrition battles fighters run out of the most important thing hit points. Wizard, cleric rogue fighter just does not have the staying power of wizard cleric cleric rogue if the second cleric is built right. Most of those things that "Fighters can do" are things barb's can do out of the box just like a fighter, they have an inherent bonus because of strength, most of those things are rarely if ever useful and depending on the level many non fighters can do all of those as well.
Meyer_William 07-04-07, 08:55 AM	Most of those things that "Fighters can do" are things barb's can do out of the box just like a fighter, they have an inherent bonus because of strength, most of those things are rarely if ever useful and depending on the level many non fighters can do all of those as well. Read the gauntlet thread ... I built a barbarian ... until 9th level, I never had a feat to use for things like tripping, disarming, etc ... I need the earlier feats to be massive damage ones (power attack, leap attack, close quarters fighting, etc). Raging only gets you through 1 combat/day unless you have extra rage feat, which eats up one of the other nice ones. But since my first free feet was at lvl 9, it was pointless to take extra rage at that time, as I am already getting multiple at that level. Reading the tactics of some of the fighters made me want to multi-class (which would have broken one of the cardinal rules of the gauntlet) to get enough feats for things like trip and standstill, etc ...
Meyer_William 07-04-07, 08:57 AM	How would that horrid rat like getting hit by a 1d8+5 inflict light wounds? Or perhaps a 5d4 burning hands? I would assume that a CR1 encounter would not like being hit by a spell cast by a 5th level spellcaster.
Bob Loblaw 07-04-07, 09:51 AM	In attrition battles fighters run out of the most important thing hit points. Wizard, cleric rogue fighter just does not have the staying power of wizard cleric cleric rogue if the second cleric is built right. Most of those things that "Fighters can do" are things barb's can do out of the box just like a fighter, they have an inherent bonus because of strength, most of those things are rarely if ever useful and depending on the level many non fighters can do all of those as well. I want to make sure I understand, the classes with fewer hit points will do better than the fighter if they have clerical support. This is actually supposed to be one of the flaws of the fighter, that it needs support. I want to see a non-fighter build that can do as much as the fighter builds in combat, and don't use non-buffing spells. Just for the record, what rarely happens in your games may be common in other games.
TheCobra 07-04-07, 05:19 PM	I would assume that a CR1 encounter would not like being hit by a spell cast by a 5th level spellcaster. And that's exactly why Divine Spell Power is so good. Like Divine Metamagic, it requires decent CHA to use to best effect. However, it's only one feat as opposed to three.
The_sleeper1 07-04-07, 10:35 PM	I want to make sure I understand, the classes with fewer hit points will do better than the fighter if they have clerical support. This is actually supposed to be one of the flaws of the fighter, that it needs support. Cleric can heal so can wizards and both have magical ways that will make hurting them more difficult. Both of those can be rare. Someone made a comment that fighters dont have ANY limited resources, I rebuked that claim, fighters have HP and they are limited.
navar100 07-04-07, 11:15 PM	Someone made a comment that fighters dont have ANY limited resources, I rebuked that claim, fighters have HP and they are limited. For my crusader, they've been a virtual unlimited resource, knock on wood. :P So far Tempest Stormwind's comment has proven true: Stone Power + Steely Resolve = Crusader's don't die. Add in Vital Recovery and healing strikes for flavoring. In a real game, George's nemesis will be enemy spellcasters. He has terrible reflex and will saves. Damage dealing spells ignore Steely Resolve. I think the cleric is a crusader's best friend in the whole world. :)
Meyer_William 07-05-07, 08:05 AM	And that's exactly why Divine Spell Power is so good. Like Divine Metamagic, it requires decent CHA to use to best effect. However, it's only one feat as opposed to three. What is divine spell power, and which book is it from?
Clawhound 07-05-07, 09:26 AM	Cleric can heal so can wizards and both have magical ways that will make hurting them more difficult. Both of those can be rare. Someone made a comment that fighters dont have ANY limited resources, I rebuked that claim, fighters have HP and they are limited. Most folks use "limited resources" in the sense of "limited, active-use resources." You decide when to use active use resources, and using them provides you a definite benefit. Those resources are gone after you use them. Spells are active resources. In comparison, hit points are passive resources. You do not decide when and how to lose them. Losing them does not produce an effect that is beneficial to you. You do not get to choose what hit points are. They accumulate. "Ammo" is a better example of a limited, active-use resource that fighters have. "Gold" is another example of a limited, active-use resource. Characters also have slotted resources. All characters have body slots. All characters have feat slots. Some characters have spell slots. Levels are slotted resources as well.
The_sleeper1 07-05-07, 12:44 PM	Most folks use "limited resources" in the sense of "limited, active-use resources." You decide when to use active use resources, and using them provides you a definite benefit. Those resources are gone after you use them. Spells are active resources. In comparison, hit points are passive resources. You do not decide when and how to lose them. Losing them does not produce an effect that is beneficial to you. You do not get to choose what hit points are. They accumulate. "Ammo" is a better example of a limited, active-use resource that fighters have. "Gold" is another example of a limited, active-use resource. Characters also have slotted resources. All characters have body slots. All characters have feat slots. Some characters have spell slots. Levels are slotted resources as well. All true but none the less HP are still a limited resource.
TheCobra 07-05-07, 01:21 PM	What is divine spell power, and which book is it from? It's a feat from Complete Divine. It allows you to make a turning check with a special +3 bonus and add the result to your effective caster level for one spell. Using it costs a turning attempt.
Leo 07-05-07, 01:30 PM	Cleric can heal so can wizards and both have magical ways that will make hurting them more difficult. Both of those can be rare. Someone made a comment that fighters dont have ANY limited resources, I rebuked that claim, fighters have HP and they are limited. Wait, since when can wizards heal easily? Could you provide examples?
TheCobra 07-05-07, 01:51 PM	Summon monster VI gets you a bit of healing if you summon a bralani. Summon monster VII gets an avoral, who can heal much more. And that's just in core.
The_sleeper1 07-05-07, 02:17 PM	Wait, since when can wizards heal easily? Could you provide examples? Wizards have a number of spells that heal by tapping life from someone, spells that let you heal 1/2 the damage you do with weapons and later spells that let you just heal yourself up (limited wish used to heal), though not true in the strictest sence also the aid line. Theres others but that more backs up my claim. LIKE: Vampiric Touch Necromancy Level: Sor/Wiz 3 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Living creature touched Duration: Instantaneous/1 hour; see text Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: Yes You must succeed on a melee touch attack. Your touch deals 1d6 points of damage per two caster levels (maximum 10d6). You gain temporary hit points equal to the damage you deal. However, you can’t gain more than the subject’s current hit points +10, which is enough to kill the subject. The temporary hit points disappear 1 hour later.
peteyrock 07-05-07, 03:17 PM	I usually grab up to 4 levels of fighter if I can. This gives a nice boost to fort, BAB, and three bonus feats. I'd think that's handy for anyone. My current favorite character to play is a Ranger 8/Fighter4. He has access to spells (limited as it is). Also, he can fight with the best of them and is a tracking/dungeoneering machine. Using the Combat Style class feature on Two-Weapon Fighting and then spending a couple of extra feats on archery gives nice versatility.
Fabius Maximus 07-05-07, 03:58 PM	Wizards have a number of spells that heal by tapping life from someone, spells that let you heal 1/2 the damage you do with weapons and later spells that let you just heal yourself up (limited wish used to heal), though not true in the strictest sence also the aid line. Theres others but that more backs up my claim. LIKE: Vampiric Touch Necromancy Level: Sor/Wiz 3 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Living creature touched Duration: Instantaneous/1 hour; see text Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: Yes You must succeed on a melee touch attack. Your touch deals 1d6 points of damage per two caster levels (maximum 10d6). You gain temporary hit points equal to the damage you deal. However, you can’t gain more than the subject’s current hit points +10, which is enough to kill the subject. The temporary hit points disappear 1 hour later. That's not healing. It's a combat spell with the side effect of gaining hitpoints.
The_sleeper1 07-05-07, 04:39 PM	That's not healing. It's a combat spell with the side effect of gaining hitpoints. True, in the strict sence but it is a major help if you have no or limited healing. Also theres many others that let you heal up hitpoints I know of a few: Bestow wounds (1 hp damage transfered req touch & fort save, SR applies) LV 1 Wound Closure (closes all wounds (stops bleeding) and heals 1D4+1. LV 2 Yes it is lame but when you get WC a wizard only has 10 HP on average at level 3 and at level 5, 15hp when you can maximize it to heal 5HP every time w/scroll.
Meyer_William 07-12-07, 08:23 AM	I wasn't trying to invalidate the build (i believe i even let it be known i looked forward to him continueing when i said i'd look forward to seeing how he did in the multi-opponent gauntlet), he asked if anyone saw any issues/concerns with his tank sorcerer build, I offered a concern, but i still acknowledge the fact that this was not a group encounter and thus more resources then normal were spent, but it was still a concern for a sorcerer filling the tank role as he has claimed it to be.... Kratch, Just to make sure we are clear on this ... I am not saying that my build could replace the fighter, someone ... somewhere in the gauntlet thread (not worth my time to try to find it) commented about how sad it was that there were no arcane tankers to try to demonstrate the validity (or lack thereof) of one taking on the role of fighter. Resourcewise, top of the cuff, my sorceror build could take on the following: Level 1, 4 dire rats, one after the next, each waiting to respawn until after my buff spell wore off, before I took damage. 5th one would do slightly more than 1/2 my hps. This assumes the +2 edge I have on initiative is enough to keep going first. Starting out at 0 xp, this puts me at 1500 xp (2nd level), assuming I get the XP for a 1st level monster. Level 2, I could use 1 first level spell and 1 0 level spell to kill the worg, afterwhich, I use my potion of faith healing. I had used 1st and 1st, cause i wasn't even thinking of my 0 level spells. Second worg, same thing. Third worg, I end combat with 7.02 hps left. Fourth worg, I end combat with 1.04 hps left. Starting out at 1500 xp, I am now at 3900 xp. (3rd level) Level 3: A much harder fight. About 1/2 the builds lost to this one. This one, I had to go nova on ... it was that tough. Starting out at 3900 xp, I am now at 4800 (halfway through 3th level) Level 4: Different tactics I could have used: Round 1, Touch of fatigue, move backwards 30', drawing spear on move), Round 2, touch of fatigue, accept the hit, Round 3+ hit him with spear and move backwards (his speed is 15, mine is 30) ... however that would not have been tanking tactics, so I used other ones. Those tactics would have allowed me to kill 4 minotaurs easily, the 5th would have been difficult, if not impossible. (starting out at 4800 xp (but acting as a 4th level character), I gain 4800 xp, 9600, (almost 5th level) As it was, I could handle 2 minotaurs. Level 5: If I was going to see how many of them I could handle, one after the other, after my buffs ran out ... I would have used different tactics. First Arrowhawk: Magic Missile 3 times (it dies), belt of healing (1 charge each, 3 times) back up to full. Second Arrowhawk: Magic missile twice, using my arcanist glove, using the last charge from my belt of healing, end at full if I win initiative, down at 23 if I lose initiative. Third Arrowhawk: Use 2nd level slots to magic missile three times, 0 level to reduce damage, law domain (ac) to reduce damage. Fourth arrowhawk kills me. (starting out at 9600 xp (but acting as a 5th level character), I gain 5400 xp, 15000, (6th level) etc ... yes, I used up tons of resources, but thats because I wasn't aware that in addition to beating the monster, we needed to conserve resources.
Kratch 07-12-07, 01:28 PM	Ironman gauntlet would be good as well. Take the normal gauntlet, you get your guy, and then do your fight. After that fight, long enough for anything with duration less than X to go away, the same fight happens again. Over and over and over until either it is shown that they can take on an unlimited supply of that level of the gauntlet or they die. No recharging limited use items, no getting spells back through resting, and the like. What about healing? Give them a level appropriate cure wand with limited charges and someone to use it between fights (not during fights?)? out of combat healing is pretty cheep, especially in the mid levels, that should be accounted for. In this kind of challenge, I also don't think a CR equal opponent is a good idea, because that would turn out like a CR+4 opponent in a group, and thats supposed to be pretty much a once per day fight.
Kratch 07-12-07, 01:44 PM	.... I didn't comment on the resource expenditure until you asked if i saw any issues with your sorcerer filling the role as tank because the gauntlet isn't specifically designed that way. You weren't told to conserve resources, etc. In my reply, I acknowledged that you obviously were conserving resources, particularly because of the difficulty of the encounter, which would require a large use of resources, but that an issue i did see was one of potentially not having enough slots to fill the role reliably. I also mentioned I wanted to see how you did in the multi-opponent gauntlet (for the specific reason that i was reserving judgment till that point, though perhaps i should have mentioned that reasoning). My rant was in response to someone telling me i had no business even mentioning groups. The rant wasn't directed at you and i have no problems with you running your sorcerer tank through, I actually like the idea. But as to it's validity? I'm reserving the right to pass judgment on that till later. because of the nature of the current gauntlet, it's hard to see the staying power of your tank sorcerer.
Meyer_William 07-12-07, 02:23 PM	I didn't comment on the resource expenditure until you asked if i saw any issues with your sorcerer filling the role as tank because the gauntlet isn't specifically designed that way. You weren't told to conserve resources, etc. In my reply, I acknowledged that you obviously were conserving resources, particularly because of the difficulty of the encounter, which would require a large use of resources, but that an issue i did see was one of potentially not having enough slots to fill the role reliably. I also mentioned I wanted to see how you did in the multi-opponent gauntlet (for the specific reason that i was reserving judgment till that point, though perhaps i should have mentioned that reasoning). My rant was in response to someone telling me i had no business even mentioning groups. The rant wasn't directed at you and i have no problems with you running your sorcerer tank through, I actually like the idea. But as to it's validity? I'm reserving the right to pass judgment on that till later. because of the nature of the current gauntlet, it's hard to see the staying power of your tank sorcerer. No worries, I didn't take it as directed at me. When I first ran the gauntlet (naked barbarian), I tried to see how little equipment it would take to run through it ... then, later when i ran the fighter through, someone posted "people are considering things a win when the PC only has 3 or so HPs" ... so for the sorceror, I ended each fight with a "here is how many more rounds it takes to kill me" ... When I saw the "sorceror is expending tons of spells" post, I got to thinking how grading/scoring has evolved over time ... from initially a "did you win", to a "how much did you win", to a "yes, but how many more fights are you good for after this". That led to my post ... My question about anyone see anything wrong with my sorceror build, was just that it felt like that build of a sorceror was almost too cheesy ... as it has tons of DR/ (effective DR, costs a spell slot/conc check/immediate action). Btw ... this tank sorceror is not meant to fill the role of a traditional spellcaster (at least at early levels) ... which helps to show something on the nature of needing a fighter ... if the contention is "but look, you ran a sorceror through, why have a fighter, it can do everything a fighter can do AND it has spells" ... then all I have to do, is point you to my spell list at each level ... and point out how valuable (or not) to the party having the ability to cast those spells are ...
Scion of Coldshard 07-12-07, 03:09 PM	What about healing? Give them a level appropriate cure wand with limited charges and someone to use it between fights (not during fights?)? out of combat healing is pretty cheep, especially in the mid levels, that should be accounted for. In this kind of challenge, I also don't think a CR equal opponent is a good idea, because that would turn out like a CR+4 opponent in a group, and thats supposed to be pretty much a once per day fight. Healing? Only if they can do it themselves through class abilities or spending money. Ironman gauntlet with unlimited free healing just doesnt make any sense. The point is to see how long they can go. In a party people could get healing, maybe, but that isnt what is being tested here. Losing is not the same as saying that the character is worthless ;) Luckily though any of the Gauntlet setups would work fine for this. Any that could be done for one could be done for both.
Meyer_William 07-12-07, 03:33 PM	Healing? Only if they can do it themselves through class abilities or spending money. Ironman gauntlet with unlimited free healing just doesnt make any sense. The point is to see how long they can go. In a party people could get healing, maybe, but that isnt what is being tested here. Losing is not the same as saying that the character is worthless ;) Luckily though any of the Gauntlet setups would work fine for this. Any that could be done for one could be done for both. Almost. Ironman Gauntlet with unlimited out-of-combat free healing ... eventually devolves into 'how well does a character/build do without access to any per/day items/abilities' -- which means "be a spellcaster without spells, a barbarian without rages, etc" One of the things we need to worry about is moving the goalposts too much. Testing sustainability / endurance is not the same thing as testing effectiveness / viability (except, of course, the viability of the character to have sustainability/endurance). On the flip side, there has to be a minimum of sustainability. A character that ends a fight with 1 hp, no charges, no abilities left ... is relatively useless ... while a character that ends a fight with 1 hp, but all their abilities intact ... just needs a few minutes sitting and recoving (lesser vigor, dragon shaman, healing reserve feat, etc)
Scion of Coldshard 07-12-07, 03:39 PM	Testing sustainability / endurance is not the same thing as testing effectiveness / viability (except, of course, the viability of the character to have sustainability/endurance). I would assume that a character which needs less help from the rest of the party and can deal with the widest variety of challenges is at the top of the 'viability' list ;) Just a different test piled in with the other tests.
Kratch 07-12-07, 03:55 PM	Ironman gauntlet with unlimited free healing just doesnt make any sense. The point is to see how long they can go. I'm currious what part of "limited charges" translates into unlimited free healing? Healing? Only if they can do it themselves through class abilities or spending money. In a party people could get healing, maybe, but that isnt what is being tested here. Losing is not the same as saying that the character is worthless ;) I would assume that a character which needs less help from the rest of the party and can deal with the widest variety of challenges is at the top of the 'viability' list ;) But then your relegating the challange to only class's that can tank and use cure wands, since potions are far to expensive to be used as out of combat healing.
Scion of Coldshard 07-12-07, 04:05 PM	I'm currious what part of "limited charges" translates into unlimited free healing? It depends on how limited your limited charges are. Although I was making an exagerated comment if you give 1000 charges of cure light to use and a build can potentially fight off so many guys to eventually use all of those and then start working on not having healing, if everyone dies before all of the charges are up then it is the same as unlimited healing. Might as well cut out the middle man at that point. But then your relegating the challange to only class's that can tank and use cure wands, since potions are far to expensive to be used as out of combat healing. How many of the builds posted so far have wands of healing? I havent checked when making this post but I would assume a number pretty close to none.. and if a rule is made to get rid of 'partially charged wands' then that reduces their likelyhood even further. The point is keeping the same character through each though so if none of them have the wands now then none of them will have them then ;) Still, if a character is built to maximize on the Ironman then that means they are spending resources that they could have used to do better in the other gauntlet challenges. Each character only has so many resources after all. Some builds will be better at 1 on 1, some will be better at dealing with multiple threats, and some will be able to deal better with a series of the same CR challenge over and over again. Isnt that one of the points of the gauntlet? See which each are good at, how and when.
Meyer_William 07-12-07, 04:52 PM	How many of the builds posted so far have wands of healing? I havent checked when making this post but I would assume a number pretty close to none.. and if a rule is made to get rid of 'partially charged wands' then that reduces their likelyhood even further. The point is keeping the same character through each though so if none of them have the wands now then none of them will have them then ;) Still, if a character is built to maximize on the Ironman then that means they are spending resources that they could have used to do better in the other gauntlet challenges. Each character only has so many resources after all. Some builds will be better at 1 on 1, some will be better at dealing with multiple threats, and some will be able to deal better with a series of the same CR challenge over and over again. Isnt that one of the points of the gauntlet? See which each are good at, how and when. Why should a solo melee combatant have a wand of healing? with very few exceptions (core: paladin, ranger, cleric, druid spring to mind) melee characters cannot use wands of healing ... so to use it, they need ranks in UMD (cross class almost every time) -- which further penalizes 2 skill points/lvl characters. No character is good in every situation, and no character should. This gauntlet is about combat viability. Can a character/build perform comparably versus another one. Scoring: 1) Did the PC live? (yes, no, depends) 2) Would a monster normally ignore it? (AC 20000, damage 1d2, is generally ignored) 3) Is the character done for the day after the fight (are all of its abilities spent (i.e. power attack is always active, law devotion is once / day without turn attempts)) 4) Would this character ever exist in a normal campaign (hello commoner) 5) Is this character fun to play? 6) Is this character considered a tank in any normal sense? Bad points for scoring: 1) How well does this character pick locks? 2) How high is its diplomacy? 3) How well does it toss fireballs? 4) How much healing can it do. Additionally, if we continue to raise the bar as far as what is being considered for a victory (staying power, etc), then I declare that my next build will be a multi-class character, as if we want versatility, then multi-class is the way to go. Pick up a level of cleric for turning attempts and domains, pick up a level or two of rogue for evasion, pick up a level of barbarian for pounce + rage, several level of fighter, a couple levels of ToB characters for unlimited healing/etc ... and then we are no longer comparing classes ... but wierd hybrids (which, surprisingly enough, is what i like to play).
Scion of Coldshard 07-12-07, 04:56 PM	Why should a solo melee combatant have a wand of healing? It looks like none of them do, so I guess when building for the solo gauntlet the need was not felt. So, no worries there ;) This gauntlet is about combat viability. Can a character/build perform comparably versus another one. Hence why I suggested another gauntlet type to go with the rest ;) Single creature, multiple creatures at once, multiple fights in a row. Something of a trinity.
Meyer_William 07-12-07, 05:02 PM	I would assume that a character which needs less help from the rest of the party and can deal with the widest variety of challenges is at the top of the 'viability' list ;) Just a different test piled in with the other tests. But that is a completely unrelated test, which is actually cross-purpose to the main theme of the gauntlet, which is combat prowess. As such, it cannot be a valid basis for scoring. Also, I might be misinterpretting the word "help" here. A fighter being healed post combat by a cleric is not being helped by the cleric in my mind. The cleric is filling its role. A fighter bashing the skull of a charging troll in, while the druid finished casting summon nature's ally X is not helping the druid. The fighter is filling its role. A fighter that needs a wizard to cast enlarge person on him to be effective, is requiring help. A cleric that comes into power at level 10, and is sub-par before then, needs the rest of the party to help.
Meyer_William 07-12-07, 05:12 PM	It looks like none of them do, so I guess when building for the solo gauntlet the need was not felt. The need was not felt, in my case at least (barbarian, warrior, commoner, fighter, sorceror) because we level up after the fight, fully healed, and with equipment comparable to the new level. Single creature, multiple creatures at once, multiple fights in a row. Something of a trinity. Lets examine these gauntlets: 1) Single creature. This sounds like the one we did so far, sounds valid. 2) Multiple creatures. This also sounds similar to the one we did so far, sounds valid. 3) Multiple fights in a row ... hmmm .. depends. In a normal dungeon setting, whenever I cast alter self (10 min/level) it basically lasts until the rest of the party is ready to rest for the day (more than 5+ encounters), as we spend about 1 minute in combat, 4 minutes in searching, then less than 10 minutes traveling to the next encounter. My experiences might be different than yours. If the multiple fights in a row means that my buff spells are still active from the fight before, than spellcasters might be given an unfair advantage. If the multiple fights are such that all my buff spells fall off, then it unfairly targets spellcasters (or anyone who uses potion versions of the spells). How would healing be done? Do have time to heal between fights? If not, then classes with in-combat, or continuous healing, have the clear advantage. If so, do we have to pay for this? Classes with the ability to use wands, spend 15 gp to the non-wanding 50 gps. Clear advantage to people able to use wands. Bigger advantage to classes that have continuous healing. I am sure that there are other contentions as well.
Scion of Coldshard 07-12-07, 05:25 PM	But that is a completely unrelated test I disagree. They are all aspects of what a 'tank' is supposed to do.
Scion of Coldshard 07-12-07, 05:27 PM	The need was not felt, in my case at least (barbarian, warrior, commoner, fighter, sorceror) because we level up after the fight, fully healed, and with equipment comparable to the new level. Which only helps to show one specific dimension of the character and encourages nova tactics. My suggestion allows the first while rewarding those who build more for a real character ;) Lets examine these gauntlets: 1) Single creature. 2) Multiple creatures. 3) Multiple fights in a row All variations of the same thing, which for this gauntlet is a tank ;)
Meyer_William 07-12-07, 05:41 PM	Which only helps to show one specific dimension of the character and encourages nova tactics. Nova tactics vs one opponent are quite different than nova tactics versus multiple ones. If a character is built to be able to do either, then even though they are nova tatics, they are still different dimensions. My suggestion allows the first while rewarding those who build more for a real character ;) Can you give me a class-less (meaning, most any class can replace the one you use in your build) example build, that carries around, and uses, any significant amount of healing? When I say significant, I mean more than 4X the builds total hps All variations of the same thing, which for this gauntlet is a tank ;) Sorry that I am not understanding. Can you explain how actions outside of combat (healing, etc) is related to being a tank? We might have different definitions of what a tank is. Additionally, how do you respond to my comment about how to set up rules for multiple opponents?
Scion of Coldshard 07-12-07, 05:47 PM	Nova tactics vs one opponent are quite different than nova tactics versus multiple ones. Yep! Which is why the different types of gauntlets help show what a character is good at and what it is not. Of course nova tactics in and of themselves are, by definition, unsustainable. So the Ironman would show that as well ;) Can you give me a class-less (meaning, most any class can replace the one you use in your build) example build, that carries around, and uses, any significant amount of healing? When I say significant, I mean more than 4X the builds total hps What does this have to do with anything? Sorry that I am not understanding. Can you explain how actions outside of combat (healing, etc) is related to being a tank? We might have different definitions of what a tank is. I am the one who said no to lots of people waiting on the sidelines with wands of cure light or something similar... perhaps you have me confused with Kratch? Additionally, how do you respond to my comment about how to set up rules for multiple opponents? Which post number?
Meyer_William 07-12-07, 06:00 PM	Yep! Which is why the different types of gauntlets help show what a character is good at and what it is not. Of course nova tactics in and of themselves are, by definition, unsustainable. So the Ironman would show that as well ;) Per my post (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13049324&postcount=1618) -- if you take an ironman contest to its logical conclusion, and take out the middle man (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13049789&postcount=1621), then anything less than unlimited times per day is just a subset of nova tactics. Really makes reserve feats/TOB healing/etc the optimal choices. Originally Posted by Meyer_William Can you give me a class-less (meaning, most any class can replace the one you use in your build) example build, that carries around, and uses, any significant amount of healing? When I say significant, I mean more than 4X the builds total hps What does this have to do with anything? It is in answer to the below posts: Originally Posted by Kratch What about healing? Give them a level appropriate cure wand with limited charges and someone to use it between fights (not during fights?)? out of combat healing is pretty cheap, especially in the mid levels, that should be accounted for. In this kind of challenge, I also don't think a CR equal opponent is a good idea, because that would turn out like a CR+4 opponent in a group, and thats supposed to be pretty much a once per day fight. Healing? Only if they can do it themselves through class abilities or spending money. Quote: Originally Posted by Meyer_William The need was not felt, in my case at least (barbarian, warrior, commoner, fighter, sorceror) because we level up after the fight, fully healed, and with equipment comparable to the new level. Which only helps to show one specific dimension of the character and encourages nova tactics. My suggestion allows the first while rewarding those who build more for a real character and finally ... Which post number? 1625 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13050784&postcount=1625)
Kratch 07-12-07, 06:10 PM	I am the one who said no to lots of people waiting on the sidelines with wands of cure light or something similar... perhaps you have me confused with Kratch? Your implying that ones ability to self heal outside combat is relevent to the position of tank. This is interpreted by your denyal of outside help in healing between battles. Healing is generally a fast and cheep for most levels (very early levels and late levels are the exception) and does not take away from the resources of other characters in the group.
Scion of Coldshard 07-12-07, 06:15 PM	Per my post (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13049324&postcount=1618) -- if you take an ironman contest to its logical conclusion, and take out the middle man (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13049789&postcount=1621), then anything less than unlimited times per day is just a subset of nova tactics. Really makes reserve feats/TOB healing/etc the optimal choices. ? Nova tactics are using a lot of resources quickly in order to do something larget and impressive. If you do that with many creatures in a row you might get one or two with it but by 3+ you simply cannot nova again. How exactly is free healing between battles going to show anything? If the class in question cannot use the item itself then it tells us nothing about the class, if another class which can use it spends money on the option then that cuts into their other options and so might be taken out of the fight sooner because of it. The important information is how a build does overall between all gauntlets, regardless of how well or how poorly a particular build does in any one version of the gauntlet. Whether it 'favors' one style of build or another isnt really an issue because all of the choices for any particular gauntlet will favor one style of build over another. It is in answer to the below posts: So you want a classless healing option for 4x their max hp why? If they want healing then a healing belt is cheap and works for everyone, but it takes money out of their funds for the fights. 1625 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13050784&postcount=1625) From my original post on the subject: Take the normal gauntlet, you get your guy, and then do your fight. After that fight, long enough for anything with duration less than X to go away, the same fight happens again. That seems to cover all of your questions. Normal guy, taken from the other gauntlet so normal wealth and whatever gear they ran through the first fights with. The only issue is deciding what the duration should be between fights which I assume would happen during the setup of that particular gauntlet ;)
Scion of Coldshard 07-12-07, 06:21 PM	Posts keep dissapearing and other issues.. bah.. Your implying that ones ability to self heal outside combat is relevent to the position of tank. Actually, it is a matter of self-reliance and bringing different types of resources to bear. This is interpreted by your denyal of outside help in healing between battles. Outside help does not show us things about the class. If we were allowed to use outside help then each of the guys in the first gauntlet could be getting buffed before the fight and healed+buffed during the fight. The first gauntlet looks like mostly single combatant fights, the next one proposed looks like multiple combatant fights, following that I proposed multiple fights. These are all extensions of the same thing, testing to see where the character is good and where it is bad. It is a gauntlet and therefore not true in game experience but varying the tests should give a good overall feel. If there is unlimited healing between fights what does it show? If the character won the first round without a limited use item then they will go forever, but different builds which do this in different way are indistinguishable. If one build would actually fail after 4 fights while another would fail after 44 fights with no outside assistance that tells us something useful. If both go on forever we miss out on important information.
Bob Loblaw 07-12-07, 06:23 PM	I don't know exactly how we'd set up the Ironman rules. To be fair, one of the things that some have argued for the fighter is that he can fight longer than the casters. Why are we not willing to put this to the test as well?
Scion of Coldshard 07-12-07, 06:26 PM	I don't know exactly how we'd set up the Ironman rules. There look to be some difficulties arrising from multiple creatures at once as well, just have to work through the kinks ;) To be fair, one of the things that some have argued for the fighter is that he can fight longer than the casters. Why are we not willing to put this to the test as well? Thanks bob ;)
Bob Loblaw 07-12-07, 06:31 PM	There look to be some difficulties arrising from multiple creatures at once as well, just have to work through the kinks ;) What I'm trying to do with the multiple creature gauntlet is to use opponents that most people have access to. I'm looking at the Previews section here at Wizards so that everyone will be able to use the monster even if they don't have the book the monster is in. For example: EL 8: 2 Arcadian Avengers (MMV), can be found here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20070710a Not all fighters are good aligned and not all good aligned creatures see eye-to-eye… I also think some people may like the fact that their favored class is crusader. Thanks bob ;) No prob. I'm probably the last person you expected to support your idea ;)
Scion of Coldshard 07-12-07, 06:35 PM	What I'm trying to do with the multiple creature gauntlet is to use opponents that most people have access to. I'm looking at the Previews section here at Wizards so that everyone will be able to use the monster even if they don't have the book the monster is in. Always good to let people play with what they have access too.. wasnt there some talk about posting up a stat block for the less well known guys? My old campaign folder has a bunch of custom made guys as I almost never use the monstrous manual.. doubt they would be terribly helpful though as CR is in the eye of the beholder.. No prob. I'm probably the last person you expected to support your idea ;) Actually no, I figured you or Khan were likely to at some point. My guess for people saying no were Kalarus and Kratch ;)
Bob Loblaw 07-12-07, 06:41 PM	Always good to let people play with what they have access too.. wasnt there some talk about posting up a stat block for the less well known guys? I was going to post the relevant details but then Kratch (I think it was him) was posting them at the beginning of each battle so I chose not to. However, I did post one for someone. It's a fine line between posting the relevant information and violating the CoC. I know WizO_Shadow said I could post what was needed, but some monsters need more than others. My old campaign folder has a bunch of custom made guys as I almost never use the monstrous manual.. doubt they would be terribly helpful though as CR is in the eye of the beholder.. That and the CR can vary by class as well. I think the current system is good, but a novice can make some serious errors if he doesn't understand how the system works. Actually no, I figured you or Khan were likely to at some point. My guess for people saying no were Kalarus and Kratch ;) Really? Even after that comment I made a while back chastising you?
Kratch 07-12-07, 06:58 PM	My guess for people saying no were Kalarus and Kratch ;) I didn't actually say no, i offered suggestions with reasons for those suggestions. Note the question mark after my mention of healing. It was only when my suggestion of healing was rejected with only "those who can do it themselves get to heal", my suggestion of limited charges being exagerated into unlimted free healing, and my other suggestion on the issue completely ignored that i got defensive. My reasoning is, if you want to place time between the encounters (for the buffs to run out), then it should only be fair they have time to heal between encounters as well, as both time between encounters and healing between encounters is indicative of what a party experiences. If you want to limit it to a "how many can you kill before your resources run out", then granting those capable of healing time to heal, while denying those who use buffs that chance to make full use of those buffs for as many fights as they can get out of them seems a little unfair. If my fighter who uses enlarge potions can take a guy out in 2 rounds of being enlarged, and the next guy with the same buff takes 7 rounds, but can heal himself after combat is over, the second guy seems to be getting more benifit of the suggested set up then the first, as both only get 1 encounter out of the enlarge potion, but the first has 8 rounds of potion wasted and no chance to heal, while the second only gets 3 rounds wasted and gets to heal up for those 3 rounds, using rather cheep resources.
Kratch 07-12-07, 07:00 PM	It was argaud posting the bare basic details at the begining. I quoted him on the first few, but got lazy as i progressed.
Meyer_William 07-12-07, 07:28 PM	? Nova tactics are using a lot of resources quickly in order to do something larget and impressive. If you do that with many creatures in a row you might get one or two with it but by 3+ you simply cannot nova again. Ah, hence lies the confusion ... I am of the opinion that going nova is blowing everything in one fight ... leaving basically nothing left for the (potential) second fight. It appears (please correct me if I am misreading your statement) that you have a longer view of going nova, allowing 1-2 fights? (wait a minute, are fights the same as creatures? (i.e. single-creature gauntlet vs multi-creature gauntlet) ? How exactly is free healing between battles going to show anything? If the class in question cannot use the item itself then it tells us nothing about the class, if another class which can use it spends money on the option then that cuts into their other options and so might be taken out of the fight sooner because of it. That is fine in a vaccuum ... in a normal setting, I (a non-caster) can buy a wand of lesser vigor and hand it to the divine caster ... there is no need for me to have the capability to use it. ? So you want a classless healing option for 4x their max hp why? If they want healing then a healing belt is cheap and works for everyone, but it takes money out of their funds for the fights. I was trying to pre-empt the definition of sufficient (or whichever word I used) by saying 4x their max hps. Healing belt is usable between 1 and 3 times a day, healing a max of 6d8, (average 27). This is less than the amount needed to heal most combatants, level 5+. ? That seems to cover all of your questions. Normal guy, taken from the other gauntlet so normal wealth and whatever gear they ran through the first fights with. The only issue is deciding what the duration should be between fights which I assume would happen during the setup of that particular gauntlet ;) All I am saying, is that changing the rules mid-stream to include multiple fights before recharging seems ... wrong somehow. Now, just so you know, I posted how many fights my sorceror could take from levels 1-5 (i think thats where I ended) ... and except for the runehound, he could take quite a number of them before ending (exact number depends on how long it is between fights)
Meyer_William 07-12-07, 07:32 PM	Outside help does not show us things about the class. If one build would actually fail after 4 fights while another would fail after 44 fights with no outside assistance that tells us something useful. If both go on forever we miss out on important information. What does this really tell us? If a single-classed character can take on 2-3 CR of its level in one day soloing -- what additional information do we need to find out? It is obviously powerful enough to assist in a 4-person party that together takes on the traditional 4 encounters a day.
Meyer_William 07-12-07, 07:36 PM	I don't know exactly how we'd set up the Ironman rules. To be fair, one of the things that some have argued for the fighter is that he can fight longer than the casters. Why are we not willing to put this to the test as well? I posted mostly fighters, started to push my sorcerer through, then got distracted by life ... I will finish pushing it through later -- possibly this weekend, so I don't see myself on the fighter side, nor the spell-caster side. I just have objections to having non-divine-casters pay 3.33 times (15 vs 50) as much for healing as divine casters (and bards). Especially with the suggested cap on consumables.
Bob Loblaw 07-12-07, 07:36 PM	What does this really tell us? If a single-classed character can take on 2-3 CR of its level in one day soloing -- what additional information do we need to find out? It is obviously powerful enough to assist in a 4-person party that together taken on the traditional 4 encounters a day. One of the arguments given quite some time ago was that the fighter can outlast the casters in number of combats. The argument was about there being more than the standard 4 encounters per day. What it will show is that the fighter doesn't have to worry about nova. He can be a consistent combatant. The casters need to be cautious with the spells they choose and when they cast those spells. At least, that's what I believe it is going to show, if we attempt this.
Scion of Coldshard 07-12-07, 07:59 PM	That and the CR can vary by class as well. I think the current system is good, but a novice can make some serious errors if he doesn't understand how the system works. I think my biggest issue with CR is not that it varies based on the character, cant help that, but that it relies on a few very different assumptions that do not mesh together. Assuming that the CR is based on going up against 4 PC's then a monster has to be very buff to be able to pull off what it needs to do to meet that challenge, while at the same time not being so strong that it does too much or is insurmountable. Very tough.. take the CR 1 Horrid Rat as an example. There were a few people who said it looked too tough for a CR 1 given its high AC and damage but when push came to shove most builds built to actually be in and around melee combat can deal with it. If you then add in a whole party what do you get? Dead rat, likely very quickly, quite possibly before it gets to do anything. So does that mean it is too tough for CR 1? Not tough enough? The difference sheer numbers on each side is so extreme that the sheer number of actions can overwhelm the system... Anyway, just rambling.. on with the thread! Really? Even after that comment I made a while back chastising you? There was some back and forth ;) Disagreements will happen, occasionally they will go over the top, but we are all bigger people than that right?
Meyer_William 07-12-07, 08:01 PM	One of the arguments given quite some time ago was that the fighter can outlast the casters in number of combats. The argument was about there being more than the standard 4 encounters per day. What it will show is that the fighter doesn't have to worry about nova. He can be a consistent combatant. The casters need to be cautious with the spells they choose and when they cast those spells. At least, that's what I believe it is going to show, if we attempt this. So ... to reiterate, we are looking for a build, that can take on MORE than 3 CR of its level each day, with no help from a party. Heck, why don't we go a little further ... and try this for the Ironman Gauntlet: Fight 2 Encounters of your CR, then 1 CR+1, then 1 CR+2 -- all without resting for the day, taking as much time as you want between fights (PC chooses rest duration). Then, we can ask the question, "Any reason to have a party?" Seriously though, being a single character taking on that many (2-3) per day already shows that you have staying power ...
Scion of Coldshard 07-12-07, 08:05 PM	Ah, hence lies the confusion ... I am of the opinion that going nova is blowing everything in one fight ... leaving basically nothing left for the (potential) second fight. It appears (please correct me if I am misreading your statement) that you have a longer view of going nova, allowing 1-2 fights? (wait a minute, are fights the same as creatures? (i.e. single-creature gauntlet vs multi-creature gauntlet) Nova is using a ton of resources all at once.. but given some of the fights we have seen a nova guy might just have two rounds of this Nova in him and if the fight only lasts one round.. well.. 2 fights of nova potential ;) That is fine in a vaccuum ... in a normal setting, I (a non-caster) can buy a wand of lesser vigor and hand it to the divine caster ... there is no need for me to have the capability to use it. The Gauntlet is a vacuum of sorts though. We are testing the character builds, not how well their buddy can do stuff to help them, otherwise there would be buffing from other party members as well. I was trying to pre-empt the definition of sufficient (or whichever word I used) by saying 4x their max hps. Healing belt is usable between 1 and 3 times a day, healing a max of 6d8, (average 27). This is less than the amount needed to heal most combatants, level 5+. I guess disallowing the healing belt would be an option. Although I personally have more of an issue with the steadfast boots of doom. All I am saying, is that changing the rules mid-stream to include multiple fights before recharging seems ... wrong somehow. I think it is perfect. Just like I think we should have made a bunch of builds 'before' the list of creatures was revealed.
Scion of Coldshard 07-12-07, 08:09 PM	What does this really tell us? Relative strengths in an endurance challenge while negating much/most/all of the benefit of nova/single battle builds. Some days go long, how shall our intrepid hero of the gauntlet fair when the gods are in an off mood? So we have: 1 on 1 1 on several 1 going on and on and on until it fails Each of these shows something extra, although technically one could just make up a bunch of lists and only do the third and compare the first round of all builds and compare the whole spectrum for all builds. ;)
Scion of Coldshard 07-12-07, 08:12 PM	Fight 2 Encounters of your CR, then 1 CR+1, then 1 CR+2 -- all without resting for the day, taking as much time as you want between fights (PC chooses rest duration). Actually assuming that this went on long enough my next suggestion was going to be to take each of the builds and run them through at the same level until they failed, and then level them up once and try again, on and on to see who could get to the top at the lowest level ;) Ex: Gibbi level 1 CR 1 fight -> win CR 2 fight -> win CR 3 fight -> lose Gibbi level 2 CR 3 fight -> win CR 4 fight -> lose Gibbi level 3 CR 4 fight -> lose Gibbi level 4 CR 4 fight -> lose Gibbi level 5 ... ;)
Meyer_William 07-12-07, 08:19 PM	Nova is using a ton of resources all at once.. but given some of the fights we have seen a nova guy might just have two rounds of this Nova in him and if the fight only lasts one round.. well.. 2 fights of nova potential ;) I assume this is directed at my normal less-than-lengthy battles ... *bow* ... although some other people have had similarly short battles, a couple single-round (discounting level 1) The Gauntlet is a vacuum of sorts though. We are testing the character builds, not how well their buddy can do stuff to help them, otherwise there would be buffing from other party members as well. Ok, just so that I am clear ... post battle number 1, a caster can use a wand of healing on himself. Can a fighter reset his alchemical vials before a fight? Can a caster cast a non-healing spell on himself? Could he use a wand of buffing on himself? Where is the boundary? Alternately, could a character finish the battle, then, on the battlefield, buff pre-next combat? I am still failing to see what is meant to be accomplished by showcasing that *gasp* fighters have a hard time healing themselves. I guess disallowing the healing belt would be an option. Although I personally have more of an issue with the steadfast boots of doom. So non-healers would get ... potions? and healers get wands+scrolls+potions? Admittedly, that would showcase the classes strengths, just ... not the strengths I think need showcasing.
Bob Loblaw 07-12-07, 08:35 PM	So ... to reiterate, we are looking for a build, that can take on MORE than 3 CR of its level each day, with no help from a party. I was thinking more of EL, but yes. I am confident that my builds can hold up. I don't expect them to win every battle, but I do think that there are some things I can do. Seriously though, being a single character taking on that many (2-3) per day already shows that you have staying power ... I doubt that any of the builds will last more than 2-3 encounters anyway. We might see some go as far as 4 or 5, but I think those will be rather uncommon.
Bob Loblaw 07-12-07, 08:37 PM	So non-healers would get ... potions? and healers get wands+scrolls+potions? Admittedly, that would showcase the classes strengths, just ... not the strengths I think need showcasing. One thing I think this will show is that all the classes are dependent on their magic items. If the clerics end up spending money on wands of curing and scrolls, then they are not spending this money on nightsticks and other gear.
Kratch 07-12-07, 09:01 PM	One of the arguments given quite some time ago was that the fighter can outlast the casters in number of combats. I seem to remember the argument being more along the lines of a fighter uses less resources during an encounter, and thus, can be used to make it through more encounters per day (i could be mistaken, but this is what i thought the argument was). Thats not to say they don't use any resources, nor that they don't need assistance from allies. But cure wands (or more likely, vigor wands), become quite cheap/inexpensive, and thus are considered only a small resource in the mid levels. As has been shown in the gauntlet so far (we still have the high levels to do), a melee can do a lot with little assistance, but expecting them to take on equal CR encounter and not grant them healing afterwards seems a little unrealistic. Thats why, in the same paragraph i suggested healing, I also suggested an alternative, making sure the encounters were not ones expected to deplete all of the characters resources in one fight, but this second suggestion got ignored and the first suggestion (healing) got dismissed, but only for those not capable of doing it themselves. One thing I think this will show is that all the classes are dependent on their magic items. If the clerics end up spending money on wands of curing and scrolls, then they are not spending this money on nightsticks and other gear. And yet, the time between fights is enough to make useless some of those items. If one persons fighter is able to make better use of a potions effect then another's (IE by being able to kill twice as many opponents while the duration lasts then the others), why then is he being penalized by only getting to use it against 1 opponent? because battles in parties aren't back to back? well, battles in parties have healing between them too, and it isn't necessarily the one who was injured in the group who does the healing. Why are those who are capable of healing themselves being granted that same time that i'm being denied to use my potion buff, to heal themselves?
Scion of Coldshard 07-12-07, 10:03 PM	I am still failing to see what is meant to be accomplished by showcasing that *gasp* fighters have a hard time healing themselves. You do realize that the point is that the combatant will die eventually right?
Otto the Bugbear 07-12-07, 10:23 PM	In the Gauntlet thread, we started talking about a multiple monster gauntlet. I guess, as Archangel has more pressing issues, it sort of became a side project between Bob Loblaw and myself. EL 1: 2 Kobolds (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/kobold.htm) (MM) plus 1 Orc (MM) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/orc.htm) EL 2: 3 Goblins (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/goblin.htm) (MM) with a Thri-Kreen (MMII) taskmaster (non-psionic) Medium bug man HP: 9 Initiative: +2 Spd: 40 AC 15 (2 dex, 3 nat) BAB +1 Grp +2 Atk: 4 claws +3 (1d4+1) plus bite -2 (1d4 + poison; DC 11/paralysis) SQ: immune to sleep, leap (+30 to jump checks) Fort +0, Ref +5, Will +4 Deflect Arrows EL 3: 1 Bugbear (http://boards1.wizards.com/member.php?u=170210) (MM) and 1 Hippogriff (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hippogriff.htm) (MM) EL 4: 1 Dracotaur (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20040905a&page=3) (MMIII) and 1 Deinonychus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dinosaur.htm#deinonychus) (MM) EL 5: 1 Undying Soldier (ECS) riding 1 Dire Wolf (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/direWolf.htm) (MM), with 1 Iron Defender (ECS), running alongside medium deathless HP 26 Init +0 Spd 20 AC 17 (+5 armor, +2 shield) BAB +2 Grp +4 short spear +5 (1d6+2) 5 ft. reach Smite Evil 1/day DR 5/targath Deathless traits small construct (quadraped) HP 21 Init +2 Spd 50 AC 17 (+1 size, +2 dex, +4 nat) BAB +1 Grp -1 Bite +5 (1d6+3) 5 ft. reach EL 6: 1 Displacer Beast (MM) and 1 Reth Dekala (ToB) LE medium outsider HP 37 Init +2 Spd 30 ft. air walk AC 19 (+2 dex, +5 armor, +2 nat) BAB +5 Grp +9 Halberd +11 (1d10+6) Ranged blast 1d8 damage plus Fort DC 15 or sickened for 1 round Aura deals 1d6 damage plus Fort DC 15 or be sickened for 1 round to adjacent creatures Fire and Acid resist 15 50% fortification Combat Reflexes Stances: Martial Spirit, Thicket of Blades Strikes: Daunting Strike, Death from Above, Disarming Strike, Entangling Blade Counters: Wall of Blades EL 7: 1 Tauric Hobgoblin-Griffon (MMII) with 1 Large Earth Elemental (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elemental.htm#earthElemental) (MM) Large Monstrous Humanoid HP 60 Init +2 Speed 30 ft., fly 80 ft. (avg) AC 18 (-1 size, +2 dex, +6 natural, +1 shield) Long sword +11/+6 (1d8+4) plus 2 claws +6 (2d6+2) 5 ft. reach Pounce, Rake 1d6+2 Fort +11, Ref +8, Will +2 EL 8: 1 Invisible Stalker (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/invisibleStalker.htm) (MM) with 1 Huge Animated (tall) statue (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/animatedObject.htm) (MM) EL 9: 1 Naityan Rakshasa (ToB) with 1 Dire Lion (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/direLion.htm) (MM) and 1 Polar Bear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/bearPolar.htm) (MM) Medium outsider Init +5 HP 67 AC 20 (+1 dex, +9 natural) DR 15/good and piercing SR 17 Fort +9 Ref +9 Will +9 Speed 40 MW greatsword +13/+8 (2d6+4) plus bite +10 (1d6+1) BAB +9 Grp +12 I rolled randomly for the shape this one is in, and it came up Hellfire Hunter (see the book). It can only use one maneuver per turn. Stance: Flames Blessing Strike: Flashing Sun Counter: Fire Riposte EL 10: 1 Ogre Barbarian 4 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ogre.htm#ogreBarbarian) (MM), 1 Hill Giant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/giant.htm#hillGiant) (MM), and their pet Dire Bear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/direBear.htm) (MM) EL 11: 2 bone devils (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devil.htm#boneDevilOsyluth) (MM) EL 12: 1 Stone Giant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/giant.htm#stoneGiant) (MM), 1 Treant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/treant.htm) (MM), 1 Dire Tiger (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/direTiger.htm) (MM), 1 Warforged Titan (ECS) Huge construct HP: 106 Init -1 Speed 50 AC 25 (-2 size, -1 dex, +18 armor) BAB +9 Grp +26 Axe +16 (2d8+9) plus Maul +16 (2d8+9) 15 ft reach Powerful Charge (+3d6 damage when it charges) Trample (2d6+13 damage, Ref DC 25 half) Damage Reduction 10/adamantine Resist Acid, Cold, Electricity, Fire, Sonic all 10 Fort +4 Ref +3 Will +4 Feats: Awesome Blow, Improved Bull Rush, Power Attack EL 13: an 11 headed cryo hydra (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hydra.htm) (MM) and a bebilith (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#bebilith) (MM) EL 14: 3 retrievers (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#retriever) (MM) EL 15: 2 Behir (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/behir.htm) (MM), 1 Glabrezu (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#glabrezu) (MM), 1 Elder Storm Elemental (MMIII) Huge Elemental HP: 252 Init +5 Speed 50 ft. / fly 100 ft. perfect AC 24 (-2 size, +1 dex, +15 nat) BAB +18 Grp +37 Atk 2 slams +27 (3d6+11 plus 2d6 electricity) Reach 15 ft. Shock (1/round free action shock to living creature 10d4 nonlethal, Fort DC 26 for half) Thunder and Lightning (1/minute, full-round deal 21d6 electricity damage (Ref DC 26 half) plus 10d6 sonic damage (Fort DC 26 half) to creatures within 60 ft. of it.) Electrical and Sonic Healing (heals 1 hit point for every 3 points of damage it is supposed to do. Improved Crit, Power Attack EL 16: 2 adult black dragons (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm#blackDragon) (a mated pair) (MM), 1 Displacer Beast Pack Lord (MM) EL 17: 1 Elder Fire Elemental (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elemental.htm#fireElemental) (MM), 1 Ice Devil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devil.htm#iceDevilGelugon) (MM), 1 Fire Giant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/giant.htm#fireGiant) (MM), 1 Young Adult Red Dragon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm#redDragon) (MM) EL 18: 2 Cornugons (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devil.htm#hornedDevilCornugon) (MM) EL 19: (MM) 12 headed pyrohydra (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hydra.htm), 1 Fire Monolith (CAr), 2 Iron Golems (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/golem.htm#ironGolem) (MM) Gargantuan Elemental HP: 378 Initiative: +13 Speed: 60 AC 29 (-4 size, +9 dex, +14 nat) BAB +27 Grp +50 Atk 2 slams +35 (6d6+11 plus 4d6 fire) 20 ft. reach Burn (DC 34 reflex or catch fire if it hits you, or you hit it with natural weapons) DR 15/-, Fire elemental immunities and vulnerabilities Fort +20, Ref +29, Will +16 Blind Fight, Cleave, Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Imp Crit (slam), Mobility, Power Attack, Spring Attack EL 20: 2 Mariliths and 1 Greater (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/golem.htm#greaterStoneGolem) Stone Golem (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/golem.htm#stoneGolem) (MM) I'm not unhappy with this list. Unless someone has a huge problem with some of these, expect Round 2 posting within a day or two. Of course, Bob Loblaw deserves a lot of credit for this list, in case anyone didn't already know that.
Bob Loblaw 07-12-07, 10:28 PM	I seem to remember the argument being more along the lines of a fighter uses less resources during an encounter, and thus, can be used to make it through more encounters per day (i could be mistaken, but this is what i thought the argument was). Thats not to say they don't use any resources, nor that they don't need assistance from allies. But cure wands (or more likely, vigor wands), become quite cheap/inexpensive, and thus are considered only a small resource in the mid levels. As has been shown in the gauntlet so far (we still have the high levels to do), a melee can do a lot with little assistance, but expecting them to take on equal CR encounter and not grant them healing afterwards seems a little unrealistic. Thats why, in the same paragraph i suggested healing, I also suggested an alternative, making sure the encounters were not ones expected to deplete all of the characters resources in one fight, but this second suggestion got ignored and the first suggestion (healing) got dismissed, but only for those not capable of doing it themselves. I was thinking waaaaay back in this thread. Probably before it was split. There are so many posts I don't want to go digging for them. I may be misremembering exactly what was said. I do know that the argument was a little weak because we were trying to argue from the game design standpoint and anything over 4 encounters goes against that design. I do think that it would help deal with the nova problem we have been seeing from some builds, especially casters. I also think it would really show how good the Tome of Battle classes can be since they can almost nova every battle. And yet, the time between fights is enough to make useless some of those items. If one persons fighter is able to make better use of a potions effect then another's (IE by being able to kill twice as many opponents while the duration lasts then the others), why then is he being penalized by only getting to use it against 1 opponent? because battles in parties aren't back to back? well, battles in parties have healing between them too, and it isn't necessarily the one who was injured in the group who does the healing. Why are those who are capable of healing themselves being granted that same time that i'm being denied to use my potion buff, to heal themselves? I was thinking more along the lines of an hour between battles. Long enough to heal/buff and for casters to use their ability to save spell slots for use later. Of course, this last part wouldn't be necessary since everyone knows the battles that are coming up next.
Bob Loblaw 07-12-07, 10:42 PM	EL 8: 1 Arrow Demon with 1 Huge Animated (tall) statue What do you think about: EL 8: 2 Arcadian Avengers (MMV), can be found here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20070710a Not all fighters are good aligned and not all good aligned creatures see eye-to-eye… I also think some people may like the fact that their favored class is crusader. Of course, Bob Loblaw deserves a lot of credit for this list, in case anyone didn't already know that. Thanks, but it really wasn't meant to be much of anything. Just an example of how EL compares to CR. Glad that people liked it though.
Archangel62 07-12-07, 11:09 PM	In the Gauntlet thread, we started talking about a multiple monster gauntlet. I guess, as Archangel has more pressing issues, it sort of became a side project between Bob Loblaw and myself. .[/size] Terribly sorry, been rather busy as of late, though I have a few ideas for opponents but sadly most of them are rather...shall we say unusable unless we use classed foes and I'd rather not try introducing that yet.
Meyer_William 07-12-07, 11:54 PM	One thing I think this will show is that all the classes are dependent on their magic items. If the clerics end up spending money on wands of curing and scrolls, then they are not spending this money on nightsticks and other gear. Ok ... sorry to have to belabor the point ... For every potion of healing that a non-healer buys, a healer gets 3.3 (charges) or 2 (scrolls) of the same potion. Using the same cash, a healer gets more healing ... this is actually freeing up money for the cleric (assuming the same amount of healing) or increasing the amount of healing available (assuming the same amount of cash spent). I was thinking more of EL, but yes. I am confident that my builds can hold up. I don't expect them to win every battle, but I do think that there are some things I can do. Thanks for the catch ... I usually use CR and EL interchangeably, even though I know they are different. I doubt that any of the builds will last more than 2-3 encounters anyway. We might see some go as far as 4 or 5, but I think those will be rather uncommon. Tell you what, you make sure that there is no rule on consumables taking up any given fraction of the character's available cash, and I will make sure my characters outlast expectations ... (gotta heal/etc up somehow between matches). I was thinking more along the lines of an hour between battles. Long enough to heal/buff and for casters to use their ability to save spell slots for use later. Of course, this last part wouldn't be necessary since everyone knows the battles that are coming up next. Oh, also make sure that after my 8th battle, I don't start feeling like it is time for a nap *grin* Additionally, does this mean that the rule on pre-combat buffing will be reduced/eliminated? Or do we have to finish round one before we start buffing? I do think that it would help deal with the nova problem we have been seeing from some builds, especially casters. I also think it would really show how good the Tome of Battle classes can be since they can almost nova every battle. I haven't been seeing the nova problem with casters ... with the exception of the sudden maximize/empower scorching ray approach ... Druid used few summons to take out the monsters, and my sorceror had (except for the runehound) lots of slots remaining. It was more a problem with the rage/chronocharm/belt of battle/etc issue with melee combatants (note, everything I mention, I used in at least one build). Additionally, per Scion's definition, TOB classes cannot go Nova as their class abilites refresh every combat.
Meyer_William 07-13-07, 12:00 AM	I seem to remember the argument being more along the lines of a fighter uses less resources during an encounter, and thus, can be used to make it through more encounters per day (i could be mistaken, but this is what i thought the argument was). Thats not to say they don't use any resources, nor that they don't need assistance from allies. But cure wands (or more likely, vigor wands), become quite cheap/inexpensive, and thus are considered only a small resource in the mid levels. As has been shown in the gauntlet so far (we still have the high levels to do), a melee can do a lot with little assistance, but expecting them to take on equal CR encounter and not grant them healing afterwards seems a little unrealistic. Thats why, in the same paragraph i suggested healing, I also suggested an alternative, making sure the encounters were not ones expected to deplete all of the characters resources in one fight, but this second suggestion got ignored and the first suggestion (healing) got dismissed, but only for those not capable of doing it themselves. Not the way I have been following the conversation ... non-healers can buy potions to heal up after a fight, they are just forbidden from buying a wand to hand to mr. 1st level healer to use ... And yet, the time between fights is enough to make useless some of those items. If one persons fighter is able to make better use of a potions effect then another's (IE by being able to kill twice as many opponents while the duration lasts then the others), why then is he being penalized by only getting to use it against 1 opponent? because battles in parties aren't back to back? well, battles in parties have healing between them too, and it isn't necessarily the one who was injured in the group who does the healing. Why are those who are capable of healing themselves being granted that same time that i'm being denied to use my potion buff, to heal themselves? Don't worry ... people didn't think a naked barbarian with no magical weapon and very little equipment could make it as far as it did ... but when he took down the hydra by using a potion of flying ... people were surprised. If we have to keep buying our healing/buffing through potions (3.3 times as expensive) and reapplying them ... well ... we just need to start clipping coupons ...
Meyer_William 07-13-07, 12:08 AM	You do realize that the point is that the combatant will die eventually right? *blink* *blink* Not sure exactly why he needs to ... people thought a commoner wouldn't make it through the gauntlet, although I stopped, I could have continued ... If the rules are spelled out before the gauntlet begins, why should people have to make builds expecting to fail? Actually yes, with infinite battles to fight, then any character, who uses any resource, no matter how few, will eventually be overwhelmed, so I propose putting a cap on the number of battles needed, like ... 20-30 or is that too low? (over...confidence ... building ... ego ... growing ...) Hm ... with this large a number of fights/day ... even taking the extra rage feat multiple times, will not be enough to get me through them ... so ... i might as well plan on playing the barbarian without the ability to rage ... however, the d12 hp, and higher skill points makes it remarkably easier than playing the warrior/commoner ...
Meyer_William 07-13-07, 12:17 AM	I want to apologize, if I seem to be negative on this ... I am quite looking forward to the gauntlet ... I just am leery about several things ... which we are all trying to hash out before this next gauntlet is started ... Guys, when everything is ready, I assume a new thread will be started? Will new contestants be allowed, or are we taking our existing builds through this one, knowing that we now have to worry about things like healing, and that 1/day items are no longer sufficient for the battles ... which was not part of the original set-up. Or existing builds with the ability to retrain/respend? What are people's opinions of multi-classing ... should this stay straight classed to continue to compare class-to-class ...
navar100 07-13-07, 02:02 AM	In the Gauntlet thread, we started talking about a multiple monster gauntlet. I guess, as Archangel has more pressing issues, it sort of became a side project between Bob Loblaw and myself. EL 1: 2 Kobolds (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/kobold.htm) (MM) plus 1 Orc (MM) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/orc.htm) EL 2: 3 Goblins (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/goblin.htm) (MM) with a Thri-Kreen (MMII) taskmaster (non-psionic) Medium bug man HP: 9 Initiative: +2 Spd: 40 AC 15 (2 dex, 3 nat) BAB +1 Grp +2 Atk: 4 claws +3 (1d4+1) plus bite -2 (1d4 + poison; DC 11/paralysis) SQ: immune to sleep, leap (+30 to jump checks) Fort +0, Ref +5, Will +4 Deflect Arrows EL 3: 1 Bugbear (http://boards1.wizards.com/member.php?u=170210) (MM) and 1 Hippogriff (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hippogriff.htm) (MM) EL 4: 1 Dracotaur (MMIII) and 1 Deinonychus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dinosaur.htm#deinonychus) (MM) Large dragon HP 28 Init +1 Spd 50 AC 17 (-1 size, +1 dex, +5 nat, +2 armor) BAB +3 Grp +16 Spear +6 (2d6+6) and bite +1 (1d8+2) and tail slap +1 (1d8+6) 5 ft. reach Spit Fire 1/min, 20 ft., 2d6 damage, splash 5 ft. for 1d4 damage Immune to sleep, paralysis quadraped EL 5: 1 Undying Soldier (ECS) riding 1 Dire Wolf (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/direWolf.htm) (MM), with 1 Iron Defender (ECS), running alongside medium deathless HP 26 Init +0 Spd 20 AC 17 (+5 armor, +2 shield) BAB +2 Grp +4 short spear +5 (1d6+2) 5 ft. reach Smite Evil 1/day DR 5/targath Deathless traits small construct (quadraped) HP 21 Init +2 Spd 50 AC 17 (+1 size, +2 dex, +4 nat) BAB +1 Grp -1 Bite +5 (1d6+3) 5 ft. reach EL 6: 1 Displacer Beast (MM) and 1 Reth Dekala (ToB) LE medium outsider HP 37 Init +2 Spd 30 ft. air walk AC 19 (+2 dex, +5 armor, +2 nat) BAB +5 Grp +9 Halberd +11 (1d10+6) Ranged blast 1d8 damage plus Fort DC 15 or sickened for 1 round Aura deals 1d6 damage plus Fort DC 15 or be sickened for 1 round to adjacent creatures Fire and Acid resist 15 50% fortification Combat Reflexes Stances: Martial Spirit, Thicket of Blades Strikes: Daunting Strike, Death from Above, Disarming Strike, Entangling Blade Counters: Wall of Blades EL 7: 1 Tauric Hobgoblin-Griffon (MMII) with 1 Large Earth Elemental (MM) EL 8: 1 Arrow Demon with 1 Huge Animated (tall) statue EL 9: 1 Naityan Rakshasa (ToB) with 1 Dire Lion (MM) and 1 Polar Bear (MM) EL 10: 1 Ogre Barbarian 4 (MM), 1 Hill Giant (MM), and their pet Dire Bear (MM) EL 11: 2 bone devils (MM) EL 12: 1 Stone Giant (MM), 1 Treant (MM), 1 Dire Tiger (MM), 1 Warforged Titan (ECS) EL 13: an 11 headed cryo hydra (MM) and a bebilith (MM) EL 14: 3 retrievers (MM) EL 15: 2 Behir (MM), 1 Glabrezu (MM), 1 Elder Storm Elemental (MMIII) EL 16: 2 adult black dragons (a mated pair) (MM), 1 Displacer Beast Pack Lord EL 17: 1 Elder Fire Elemental (MM), 1 Ice Devil (MM), 1 Fire Giant (MM), 1 Young Adult Red Dragon (MM) EL 18: 2 Cornugons (MM) EL 19: (MM) 12 headed pyrohydra, 1 Fire Monolith (CAr), 2 Iron Golems (MM) EL 20: 2 Mariliths and 1 Greater Stone Golem (MM) I'm not unhappy with this list. Unless someone has a huge problem with some of these, expect Round 2 posting within a day or two. Of course, Bob Loblaw deserves a lot of credit for this list, in case anyone didn't already know that. I still don't like this. Maybe it's just my apprehension like I had with the minotaur but giving more actions to the "bad guys" just blink unfairness to me. It doesn't matter a contestant doesn't have to win to prove anything; it's no fun if he can't win at all. Contestants were rightly not allowed to take Leadership for a cohort, yet effectively that's what every monster now has. A second gauntlet with different single monsters using the same contestant builds is a good idea. That should be enough to show versatility. Right now I'm just seeing a slaughter, and it won't be fun.
GrayGuard 07-13-07, 04:02 AM	*blink* *blink* Not sure exactly why he needs to ... people thought a commoner wouldn't make it through the gauntlet, although I stopped, I could have continued ... If the rules are spelled out before the gauntlet begins, why should people have to make builds expecting to fail? Actually yes, with infinite battles to fight, then any character, who uses any resource, no matter how few, will eventually be overwhelmed, so I propose putting a cap on the number of battles needed, like ... 20-30 or is that too low? (over...confidence ... building ... ego ... growing ...) Hm ... with this large a number of fights/day ... even taking the extra rage feat multiple times, will not be enough to get me through them ... so ... i might as well plan on playing the barbarian without the ability to rage ... however, the d12 hp, and higher skill points makes it remarkably easier than playing the warrior/commoner ... Remeber your Commenor couldnt take on the Horrid Rat (CR 1 Battle) Becouse of the fact that commenors are to poor at the start of the game However becouse you used NPC Gold at first level THEN Swiched over to the PC Gold Your Commenor was able to go though the Gauntlet However That Brings up a few more intrusting Points I Seem to recall a few spellcasters skiping an early level battle or two and then declared "Victory" When they got to the end Your Fighter Bobs Fighter and a few other characters Fighters Go though all the battles and Won Did they all win on round 1? No But they Won You have a Sorc Go though the Gauntlet as well Grats the only real good Arcane spellcaster I Saw being able to BEAT the Challanged (And Not Skip a few) Was your Orc Sorc Good Job
GrayGuard 07-13-07, 04:35 AM	The Gauntlet there was to see if the "Fighter" Was Useful And I Beleve it was Alot of people posted differnt builds and it became fun (IT was alot of fun) However the question I beleve that gauntlet was asking was this 1Q Can the fighter take on the challanges in some way and win? 1A Yes 2Q Was a Fighter able to go into the Gauntlet and beat the differnt challanges in some way? 2A Yes the fighter is doing his job by smashing in or Helping the party take out a monster/Critter Was the fighter able to show that he could do his job? YES The Cleric Job is to heal the injured do clerics do this? Yes Just becouse a "Cleric" Has to heal the fighter dosnt mean the fighter is pointless After all Even the Tank Sorc and other characters that where not Fighters needed to drink a pot of Healing Fact : People in D&D Need Healing whos job is it? useoly the Cleric People do There jobs the Gauntlet and the whole arguement on if the fighter is usefull is just an arguement of "Dose the party need a Tank at some point in the group?" The Answer is yes Evey class has there usefulness and evey class plays differntly If you think all the fighter dos is chage in and attack then no the Only person who did that and not care about Defence was My Barbian Orc Named Jugga Bobs Fighters where great examples of how fighters could fill multibol roles up and are played Smartly, At least his earlyer Versions of Fighters where The one where people thought he was a dwarf becouse of his weapon when realy he wasnt, Thats a good fighter build Remeber the gauntlet was MADE to be HARD to show people that a Fighter Can be usefull and that a Fighter has a reason to be there just like anyone eles Remeber you can be in a group with no Wizard or Sorc sure You lack the Arcane Casting ability to help you out but partys can make due just fine The more powerfull useful class would have to be the cleric for the simple reason that its his job to make sure you dont die (Useoly by use of Healing) Sure you dont HAVE to have a cleric you could do the job other ways as allready pointed out. So I Beleve that a Multibol Post Battle would be helpful However some tastics on battles would be nice as well For Example How is the Hobgoblin and Hippogriph going to fight? Is the Hobgoblin start off on the ground? or on the Hippogriph? On it in the air or on the ground? Things like that Basic tastics for monsters Remeber Tastics could easyoly change the ECL Of a challange For Example a Combat of Orcs who are not realy fighting you but are trying to push you into a room so there rituarul is a whole challange in it self Yes you have to fight the orcs but you allso have to worrie about them not Bullrushing you back into the other room not only that but you are agest the clock Yes the Gauntlet didnt have these things WHY? Becouse there More Extreame Things that dont happin that offten the Gauntlet forced you to be Useful in the combat situation and showed and to my mind proved that a fighter could indeed still be usefull at the higher levels Yes some rules where changes mid-battle but thats fine, Due to the fact that people where "Bending" or "Twisting" The rules the rules needed to be changed The Fighters did fine and I Beleve they have a Reason to be in the party As allready mentioned a Super Nova Caster is good agest 1 battle not multibol Battles the Fighter was able to solve that 1 battle just like the Super Nova Caster ... did he do it on the first 2 rounds? No but he was able to beat it still There was the one Orc Fighter build who beat evey challanged within 3 rounds of combat which is impressive 25 point buy is Hard to play the monsters choosen where Hard The Rules and the way combat worked in that gauntlet was hard the whole reason why that was, is becouse of the fact that It was to show that characters or class's can be usefull (Namly the Fighter) If your going to argue about "If the fighter is fun to play" Then your going to allways have an arguement becouse people are allways going to have Arguements I Like Dragon Shamens more then I Like Wizards so if anyone was to post a wizard build at most I will go "Impressive" But It wouldnt shine to be as brightly as the Dragon Shamen would Yes there are class's I Like better then the Dragon Shamen but thats my point People are going to like class's for differnt reasons I Personoly Happin to like characters who play Somewhat below adverage but still gets the job done (No Im not going to do retarded things but I like doing things underhanded and I like going up agest the odds)
Bob Loblaw 07-13-07, 05:03 AM	Before we declare victory for the fighter, let's not forget that the anti-fighters (most of them anyway) did not think the fighter sucked at low levels. In fact, many of them feel that the fighter does well for level 1-6 or so; they are ok from 6-12 and then the fighter rapidly becomes less useful. We have not yet seen the fighter in the gauntlet past level 10. We do not yet get to claim victory.
Meyer_William 07-13-07, 06:16 AM	I still don't like this. Maybe it's just my apprehension like I had with the minotaur but giving more actions to the "bad guys" just blink unfairness to me. It doesn't matter a contestant doesn't have to win to prove anything; it's no fun if he can't win at all. Contestants were rightly not allowed to take Leadership for a cohort, yet effectively that's what every monster now has. A second gauntlet with different single monsters using the same contestant builds is a good idea. That should be enough to show versatility. Right now I'm just seeing a slaughter, and it won't be fun. Take a look at the monsters, these guys are nothing compared to the first one ... lower AC, less hps, less damage/hit ... Thats what happens when you increase the number of monsters per encounter.
Meyer_William 07-13-07, 06:23 AM	Evey class has there usefulness and evey class plays differntly If you think all the fighter dos is chage in and attack then nothe Only person who did that and not care about Defence was My Barbian Orc Named Jugga Take a look at my barbarian build, which predates yours, ... no armor ... basically no equipment -- he didn't care about defence ... For Example How is the Hobgoblin and Hippogriph going to fight? Is the Hobgoblin start off on the ground? or on the Hippogriph? On it in the air or on the ground? Things like that Basic tastics for monsters Remeber Tastics could easyoly change the ECL Of a challange For Example a Combat of Orcs who are not realy fighting you but are trying to push you into a room so there rituarul is a whole challange in it self Right, that is one thing I would like to see as well, that way there are no cries of "foul" from anyone. There was the one Orc Fighter build who beat evey challanged within 3 rounds of combat which is impressive Thank you ... that was me also ... but that guy went nova ... could not (usually) repeat that multiple times a day ... sustainability takes longer to do than going nova.
Meyer_William 07-13-07, 06:25 AM	Before we declare victory for the fighter, let's not forget that the anti-fighters (most of them anyway) did not think the fighter sucked at low levels. In fact, many of them feel that the fighter does well for level 1-6 or so; they are ok from 6-12 and then the fighter rapidly becomes less useful. We have not yet seen the fighter in the gauntlet past level 10. We do not yet get to claim victory. Want me to post my battles for the higher levels in the normal gauntlet? I haven't since we were asked to stop after a certain point ...
Otto the Bugbear 07-13-07, 07:19 AM	What do you think about: EL 8: 2 Arcadian Avengers (MMV), can be found here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20070710a Not all fighters are good aligned and not all good aligned creatures see eye-to-eye… I also think some people may like the fact that their favored class is crusader. I don't like that particular one that much, but I may have to dig though the books and grab a good-guy to fight there. That's a neat idea. Terribly sorry, been rather busy as of late, though I have a few ideas for opponents but sadly most of them are rather...shall we say unusable unless we use classed foes and I'd rather not try introducing that yet. No problem. Once my warblade started losing due to not copying the same tactics I'd already seen, I really slowed down on participating with a contestant. I know he could have done better with the enlarge/standstill/trip combo, but we already see how that works, so why rehash it with yet another character? Ok ... sorry to have to belabor the point ... For every potion of healing that a non-healer buys, a healer gets 3.3 (charges) or 2 (scrolls) of the same potion. Using the same cash, a healer gets more healing ... this is actually freeing up money for the cleric (assuming the same amount of healing) or increasing the amount of healing available (assuming the same amount of cash spent). Tell you what, you make sure that there is no rule on consumables taking up any given fraction of the character's available cash, and I will make sure my characters outlast expectations ... (gotta heal/etc up somehow between matches). I'm guessing the limit will be Round 2 contestants... 1. Have the same non-consumable equipment as in round 1. Things like armor, weapon, boots, charms, belts, etc. 2. Can use the same amount of gold for consumables they did in round 1, except they may choose differently for Round 2. Things like potions, scrolls, etc. This represents that character "restocking" potions and whatnot while at that same level. I'm not sure about your barbarian dilema. You chose to give it next to nothing, knowing this was a gauntlet about proving how well a class can contribute in-game. I'd say don't spend the extra cash, just to stay consistent. This is NOT about the ironman gauntlet. That's something you'll have to hash out with whoever wanted to go that route. I want to apologize, if I seem to be negative on this ... I am quite looking forward to the gauntlet ... I just am leery about several things ... which we are all trying to hash out before this next gauntlet is started ... Guys, when everything is ready, I assume a new thread will be started? It will. Will new contestants be allowed, or are we taking our existing builds through this one, knowing that we now have to worry about things like healing, and that 1/day items are no longer sufficient for the battles ... which was not part of the original set-up. Or existing builds with the ability to retrain/respend? Same contestant as Round 1. Of course, you can take a new character through Round 1, then proceed to Round 2. What are people's opinions of multi-classing ... should this stay straight classed to continue to compare class-to-class ... Pretty clear. The original rules say "no multi-classing". Which really means, multi-classed characters won't count toward proving anything, but if you want to have fun with it, go ahead. Much like custom classes. (I did do my swashbuckler rewrite, but didn't post it, through the Chuul.) I still don't like this. Maybe it's just my apprehension like I had with the minotaur but giving more actions to the "bad guys" just blink unfairness to me. It doesn't matter a contestant doesn't have to win to prove anything; it's no fun if he can't win at all. Contestants were rightly not allowed to take Leadership for a cohort, yet effectively that's what every monster now has. A second gauntlet with different single monsters using the same contestant builds is a good idea. That should be enough to show versatility. Right now I'm just seeing a slaughter, and it won't be fun. Except it's not. If you take leadership, and end up at level 9 with a level 7 follower, that's going over the EL. Even if the contestants all ultimately fail, it would depend upon how well they perform against those monsters. The Round 2 gauntlet is meant to portray a "BBEG" scenario, where the EL is Party Level +4. That means that every character of a party would be fighting a similar set-up. That's where the 50/50 chance of victory thing comes from. Now, if a contestant kills 2/3 of the monsters, and gets the last one down to 20 hit points, that's a clear sign he's doing DAMN GOOD. Also, the next quote covers some of this as well... Take a look at the monsters, these guys are nothing compared to the first one ... lower AC, less hps, less damage/hit ... Thats what happens when you increase the number of monsters per encounter. This is especially true when it gets into really high numbers of contestants. Want me to post my battles for the higher levels in the normal gauntlet? I haven't since we were asked to stop after a certain point ... Likely this was asked precisely because of the questionable tactics that the monsters started using. Stuff like "[the monster] charge onto the spike and get stood still every round, even when its Int or Wis might show otherwise. Then again, perhaps those high level battles are what is making Archangel a sparse commodity lately. Nobody is going to stop you from posting, but I expect that there will be more than a few questions as to why a monster didn't act differently.
Scion of Coldshard 07-13-07, 10:33 AM	Ok ... sorry to have to belabor the point ... For every potion of healing that a non-healer buys, a healer gets 3.3 (charges) or 2 (scrolls) of the same potion. Using the same cash, a healer gets more healing ... this is actually freeing up money for the cleric (assuming the same amount of healing) or increasing the amount of healing available (assuming the same amount of cash spent). If they happen to have it then they can use it. It is a class ability after all. Or should we toss out all class abilities as well? ;) 'it isnt fair! the fighter gets to use more feats than me.. he should be able to do that, it saves on money for equipment' Additionally, per Scion's definition, TOB classes cannot go Nova as their class abilites refresh every combat. ToB classes are interesting in that they are balanced on a 'per encounter' system rather than the casters 'per day' system. Fighting classes in the core are somewhere in between with aspects of each but the Fighter itself is essentially a 'per encounter' guy as well. Can they 'nova'? They are limited by actions and typically the big ones in combat use standard, swift, and full-round actions. Are they able to expend most of their maneuvers in one round after the first level or so? *blink* *blink* Not sure exactly why he needs to Because it is the point of the Ironman gauntlet? To see how long they can last against battles never ending.
Bob Loblaw 07-13-07, 11:41 AM	Want me to post my battles for the higher levels in the normal gauntlet? I haven't since we were asked to stop after a certain point ... There's no need to since Archangel wanted to run the encounter. I think he wants to make sure that the monsters are using appropriate tactics. Especially when dealing with some of the more intelligent creatures. I don't like that particular one that much, but I may have to dig though the books and grab a good-guy to fight there. That's a neat idea. I liked their Wrath ability. I thought it would be interesting to beat one monster and have the other get a little tougher because of it. Their flight ability will prove problematic for many fighters though.
Archangel62 07-13-07, 12:24 PM	There's no need to since Archangel wanted to run the encounter. I think he wants to make sure that the monsters are using appropriate tactics. Especially when dealing with some of the more intelligent creatures. Yep, I plan to do it over AIM, if enough of you are ready we'll do it one at a time but it should work. I will be using the errata'd data on most of the opponents and we will post overall transcripts after the battle is done, we will assume average rolls again simply to avoid the crit happens issues unless the critical hits are supremely important to the design.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 07-13-07, 12:38 PM	Likely this was asked precisely because of the questionable tactics that the monsters started using. Stuff like "[the monster] charge onto the spike and get stood still every round, even when its Int or Wis might show otherwise. Well, most contestants were wearing Steadfast Boots, that's why charging is not a good idea. Does the monster know you are wearing Steadfast Boots? No? Then why shouldn't it charge?
Otto the Bugbear 07-13-07, 12:49 PM	It's not a matter of knowing about the boots. It's not a matter of charging, even doing it a couple times. But when the monster charges into that problem over and over andoverandoverandover, it's brings up a question. Mindless creatures, sure. Otherwise it raises an eyebrow.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 07-13-07, 12:58 PM	It's not a matter of knowing about the boots. It's not a matter of charging, even doing it a couple times. But when the monster charges into that problem over and over andoverandoverandover, it's brings up a question. Mindless creatures, sure. Otherwise it raises an eyebrow. Have I been doing this? I think I have them take move actions whenever they can do so and still make attacks. Should they simply forego attacks to get out of charging?
Bob Loblaw 07-13-07, 01:54 PM	Have I been doing this? I think I have them take move actions whenever they can do so and still make attacks. Should they simply forego attacks to get out of charging? I have been doing this. However, my character (Blitz) has been built to be more mobile than my opponents. This forces the monster to either charge to attack or not attack at all. Combined with Spring Attack (and soon the next ones in the tree), I will be able to attack them without too many problems (at least that's the plan). If the monster wants a chance to win, it's going to have to charge. However, I built my character to force the opponent to charge. Not everyone has done this.
Bob Loblaw 07-13-07, 01:55 PM	Yep, I plan to do it over AIM, if enough of you are ready we'll do it one at a time but it should work. I will be using the errata'd data on most of the opponents and we will post overall transcripts after the battle is done, we will assume average rolls again simply to avoid the crit happens issues unless the critical hits are supremely important to the design. I can be ready Saturday morning or Sunday at just about any time.
Otto the Bugbear 07-13-07, 06:52 PM	Have I been doing this? I think I have them take move actions whenever they can do so and still make attacks. Should they simply forego attacks to get out of charging? Didn't you just say "most contestants"? If you say "most contestants", and I respond to that, am I calling you out specifically for doing that? Or am I still talking about the "most contestants" that you mentioned?
Einvaldurinn_mikli 07-13-07, 06:53 PM	Didn't you just say "most contestants"? If you say "most contestants", and I respond to that, am I calling you out specifically for doing that? Or am I still talking about the "most contestants" that you mentioned? I was actually just asking in general.
Otto the Bugbear 07-13-07, 08:02 PM	Round 2 rules... As round 1, plus A: You may use the same amount of gold as Round 1 to purchase potions or other one-shot expendable items. Your permanent equipment, such as armor, weapon, boots, belts, charms, crystals, etc., remain the same. B: To clarify, there are 6 empty spaces between the area the monster threatens and the edge of your space. (not the space you threaten). If (when?) you use enlarge, that 6 space is maintained -- you don't grow and close the gap. (I know this isn't necessarily true; just striving for consistency between contestants.) Layouts Layout 1 Monsters are straight ahead of the contestant, with 2 empty squares between the spaces they threaten. They are side by side. Layout 2 First monster in front of the contestant, Second monster to the left of the contestant, Third monster to the right of the contestant, Fourth monster behind first monster, with one empty space between them, Fifth monster behind second monster with one empty space between them, etc. Layout 3 First (and third, fifth, etc.) monster in front of contestant, Second (and fourth, sixth, etc.) behind contestant. Monsters have one empty space between then and stand side by side Layout 4 Like bowling pins First monster is ahead of contestant. Second and third are behind and to the side of the contestant. Fourth, fifth and sixth monsters are behind the second and third, staggered. All monsters have minimum two empty spaces between them. Please act as if the contestant wouldn't know how that encounter is going to be set up, even though I'll be posting the set-up with each EL's monster list. If someone has a way to post pictures of the layouts, please feel free. At best, I might be able to figure out how to put up some VERY crude MSPaint diagrams. If there are objections, let me know. If not, we can get this part started.
navar100 07-13-07, 11:48 PM	Yep, I plan to do it over AIM, if enough of you are ready we'll do it one at a time but it should work. I will be using the errata'd data on most of the opponents and we will post overall transcripts after the battle is done, we will assume average rolls again simply to avoid the crit happens issues unless the critical hits are supremely important to the design. My crusader is unique. The randomness of maneuvers means randomness of his tactics a bit. Plus, using statistical averages for damage gets skewed due to Steely Resolve/Furious Counterstrike. I've been rolling dice and having actual battles, though crits are ignored in fairness to others not being able to use crits. For him I think it best to continue dice rolling. Whether you want to do it or not is fine either way since the focus is really on fighters and I'm using a crusader for fun, personal learning to play one, and generally seeing how he does stack up. I'd be happy just having the important combat statistics, including apropros combat strategies, and running them myself.
Bob Loblaw 07-14-07, 12:33 AM	I would like to add a way to determine a win/loss/tie. Win: Fighter maintained enough hit points to last an additional round Tie: Either side could not survive another round, but one side was defeated Loss: Opponents maintained enough hit points to last an additional round Loss does not necessarily mean failure. It just means that the build could not single-handedly defeat the encounter.
Meyer_William 07-14-07, 01:27 AM	Once my warblade started losing due to not copying the same tactics I'd already seen, I really slowed down on participating with a contestant. I know he could have done better with the enlarge/standstill/trip combo, but we already see how that works, so why rehash it with yet another character? Is this necessarily a bad thing? If any character can use the same tactics to defeat the monster, then it tells us something ... either that the tactics are not unique to any single class, or that the monster is a poor choice to our idea of appropriate feats/equipment. (If the tactics involve 8+ feats, they can be assumed to be fighter only, due to the sheer volume needed). I'm guessing the limit will be Round 2 contestants... 1. Have the same non-consumable equipment as in round 1. Things like armor, weapon, boots, charms, belts, etc. 2. Can use the same amount of gold for consumables they did in round 1, except they may choose differently for Round 2. Things like potions, scrolls, etc. This represents that character "restocking" potions and whatnot while at that same level. I'm not sure about your barbarian dilema. You chose to give it next to nothing, knowing this was a gauntlet about proving how well a class can contribute in-game. I'd say don't spend the extra cash, just to stay consistent. Ok, so this is just talking about the gauntlet posted, with the creatures? I have no dilemna then ... this barbarian exists in a low-cash campaign, where the DM is stingy ... Honestly though, if the barbarian -- with (basically) no equipment can contribute as well as the other fully-stocked characters, might this tell us something as well? Pretty clear. The original rules say "no multi-classing". Which really means, multi-classed characters won't count toward proving anything, but if you want to have fun with it, go ahead. Much like custom classes. (I did do my swashbuckler rewrite, but didn't post it, through the Chuul.) Naw, no worries. My multi-classing comments were directed at the iron-man gauntlet, as well as the self-sufficiency route. Now, if a contestant kills 2/3 of the monsters, and gets the last one down to 20 hit points, that's a clear sign he's doing DAMN GOOD. You mean 2/3s of the monsters at each level -- with the same refresh/level up before the next batch -- right? (Sorry, it is late, and I just returned from a long day at Cedar Point (amusement park))
Meyer_William 07-14-07, 01:34 AM	If they happen to have it then they can use it. It is a class ability after all. Or should we toss out all class abilities as well? ;) 'it isnt fair! the fighter gets to use more feats than me.. he should be able to do that, it saves on money for equipment' When the scoring criteria are directly related to the presence or absense of a given class ability, and the criteria is only tangentally related to the primary point of the contest, then I call foul. By this I mean, if I have a barbarian who suffers slightly less than 1/4 hps damage each fight ... he will die in the fifth fight ... A dragon shaman who suffers slightly less than 1/2 damage, will never die ... he heals up during the rest period. That out-of-combat ability (1 hp/round is traditionally not considered to be an in-combat healing method) should not be used to help judge tank-worthiness of a class/build. Can they 'nova'? They are limited by actions and typically the big ones in combat use standard, swift, and full-round actions. Are they able to expend most of their maneuvers in one round after the first level or so? Sure, but since they refresh every battle (or moreso if they want to) ... they are not really using up any resources. Although I agree that there is a limit to the number of actions able to be taken, using up several free, one swift, and a full round -- is not considered to be going nova.
Meyer_William 07-14-07, 01:36 AM	It's not a matter of knowing about the boots. It's not a matter of charging, even doing it a couple times. But when the monster charges into that problem over and over andoverandoverandover, it's brings up a question. Mindless creatures, sure. Otherwise it raises an eyebrow. Not sure that any of my battles lasted long enough for monsters to do things multiple times ... Unless we talk about ones where I saw "Here is where the monster probably fled", or "Here is why the monster could not flee"
Meyer_William 07-14-07, 01:39 AM	Yep, I plan to do it over AIM, if enough of you are ready we'll do it one at a time but it should work. I will be using the errata'd data on most of the opponents and we will post overall transcripts after the battle is done, we will assume average rolls again simply to avoid the crit happens issues unless the critical hits are supremely important to the design. For high damage attacks (leap attack) for a high-crit weapon (x3 or 18-20), with a high rate of success, crits will account for several points of damage ... which is why I use them. For attacks with low crittable amounts of damage (a rogue rolling 1d6 (rapier) and a bunch of d6s (sneak attack)) there is no point to worrying about crits.
navar100 07-14-07, 02:17 AM	When the scoring criteria are directly related to the presence or absense of a given class ability, and the criteria is only tangentally related to the primary point of the contest, then I call foul. By this I mean, if I have a barbarian who suffers slightly less than 1/4 hps damage each fight ... he will die in the fifth fight ... A dragon shaman who suffers slightly less than 1/2 damage, will never die ... he heals up during the rest period. That out-of-combat ability (1 hp/round is traditionally not considered to be an in-combat healing method) should not be used to help judge tank-worthiness of a class/build. I disagree. In a given party, the fact that dragon shaman could heal himself after a combat is a good thing. For whatever reason he can't use up only 1/4 of hit points like a barbarian could, but he makes up for that by healing himself so others don't have to, No spell used from the cleric. No potion drunk. No wand charge used. The dragon shaman doesn't have to tank the same way a barbarian does. They can't by virtue of not being barbarians. What's only important is if they can tank, and they can do so. Whether the bararian or dragon shaman is better at it is a matter of personal preference. (The barbarian may only lose 1/4 of his hit points but he needs to use up resources to get them back, unlike the dragon shaman.)
Scion of Coldshard 07-14-07, 03:14 AM	When the scoring criteria are directly related to the presence or absense of a given class ability, and the criteria is only tangentally related to the primary point of the contest, then I call foul. Good thing class abilities and how they are used to accomplish a certain goal are exactly the priorities of this combat. You feel that having the option to heal more effectively than someone else is poor form? Ok, then I feel having feats above the base is poor form. Yey for not getting anywhere. The gauntlets currently show nothing about longevity, which is an incredibly important aspect of the game! My suggestion helps to remedy that problem. By this I mean, if I have a barbarian who suffers slightly less than 1/4 hps damage each fight ... he will die in the fifth fight ... A dragon shaman who suffers slightly less than 1/2 damage, will never die ... he heals up during the rest period. The dragon shaman is not as powerful a combatant as the barbarian but if he can handle the fights effectively forever then that is incredibly important to show! Likely the barbarian kills the foe faster but the dragon shaman can go on in a day longer. If the shaman is built for tanking then that is a pretty nice tank, self healing and party healing as well. Different aspects of what a tank can expect. to need to face on occasion. To show one while ignoring the other is going to give an incomplete picture.
Kratch 07-14-07, 03:50 AM	The gauntlets currently show nothing about longevity, which is an incredibly important aspect of the game! My suggestion helps to remedy that problem. Then why grant time between battles? it denies those who can kill faster from benefiting from their ability to make better use of their buffs, while granting those who can heal themselves the benefit of the time needed to heal themselves. If the class is capable of making the time IE hold person, fine by me, but granting them free time that is also used to deny the benefits of buff use efficiency seems a little skewed to me. I don't see why
Scion of Coldshard 07-14-07, 04:16 AM	Then why grant time between battles? To limit the effectiveness of short term buffs. I have no problem with people using their abilities to heal themselves. In fact, I think it is great that some part of the guantlet actually checks on abilities that will give greater longevity.
Kratch 07-14-07, 04:28 AM	To limit the effectiveness of short term buffs. It also inflaits the effectiveness of self healing though. By limiting the short term buffs to only 1 encounter per use, your effectively removing them altogether. This may be your intent, but it would be just as easy to just deny short term buffs altogether. But i think it's not unreasonable to allow the challenge to show if a class can make more effective/efficient use of buffs then others (i suppose this may be seen in the multi-opponent gauntlet) But i suppose, if the character is required to run through this gauntlet first, i can deal with it. I just think specifically limiting the benefits of one thing that will allow some class' builds to perform well, but not indefinably, while inflating the value of another thing, something that is not really representative of the role being evaluated, is a little bit ... off. IE the ability to self heal using wands is not the role of the tank, and ones ability to do so is not indicative of a tanks effectiveness. I suppose it is reasonable for class abilities like spell slots and fast healing, but just giving them time to use a wand, simply because they don't need an ally to do it, doesn't seem right.
Dragom 07-14-07, 04:35 AM	A player once asked me for advice on building a Barbarian. I explained how to get the most out of it's various abilities. The increase to strength from rage magnifies when using a two handed weapon so you'll want on of those. No don't worry about cross class skill ranks in Tumble or going Heavy armor. That's what the d12 and the eventual DR is for, Barbarians really aren't about avoiding damage. They inflict it, but the Party Healer will still hate you. Remember, the most common thing you'll do is go into rage and then charge. That's a -4 to your AC right there. But you can never win against a Fighter. A +2 bonus on your breastplate is twice the price of a +1 on a suit of Fullplate and a +1 on a Heavy Shield, giving him a better AC pretty much forever. And he can just go to fighting defensively and using combat expertise and wait for your rage to end and you become fatigued making all those bonuses into penalties. And he can probably Sunder your Great Axe too. Yes, you could use a weapon without a wooden haft, but look at that irresistable x3 crit. Think how good it will feel rolling 3 d12 + 1.5 your enhaced str mod x3. The only decent front liner that doesn't need to ask the ambush to wait a minute while he buffs and is free of preachyness in the core books. Yes the last 10 levels gets a little hazzy, and yes maybe it would be nice if the class most likely to be a Knight or General could converse with the VIPs properly but in general a party without a Fighter to stiffen it's ranks feel a little mushy when I hit them with a fair encounter (not a suggested CR encounter but a fair encounter)
Archangel62 07-14-07, 04:37 AM	As a side note, I have what seems to be a CR 8 or 9 encounter that I would love to test because I would call it a tactical encounter. It deals with synergistic abilities and I would like to see how a party would get through it sans AOE spell.
Otto the Bugbear 07-14-07, 07:18 AM	I would like to add a way to determine a win/loss/tie. Win: Fighter maintained enough hit points to last an additional round Tie: Either side could not survive another round, but one side was defeated Loss: Opponents maintained enough hit points to last an additional round Loss does not necessarily mean failure. It just means that the build could not single-handedly defeat the encounter. I agree with this. The question being put forth -- well, one of them -- was "is class X actually equal to its supposed CR?" If the battle was so close that one round meant the different between victory or defeat, then that's pretty even. Especially once actual dice start rolling, instead of the formulas we've been using. Is this necessarily a bad thing? If any character can use the same tactics to defeat the monster, then it tells us something ... either that the tactics are not unique to any single class, or that the monster is a poor choice to our idea of appropriate feats/equipment. No, it's not a bad thing. What it is, however, is something I saw quite a bit of, then decided to so how a character might perform avoiding these tactics that had already been shown. That's all. Ok, so this is just talking about the gauntlet posted, with the creatures? I have no dilemna then ... this barbarian exists in a low-cash campaign, where the DM is stingy ... Right. Honestly though, if the barbarian -- with (basically) no equipment can contribute as well as the other fully-stocked characters, might this tell us something as well? It might. [/quote]Naw, no worries. My multi-classing comments were directed at the iron-man gauntlet, as well as the self-sufficiency route.[/quote] Honestly, it'd be interesting to me to see them. But, if we're trying to prove/disprove a particular class, then even something as simple as going Warblade 18 / Overwhelming Attack Monk 2 is going to skew the results. You mean 2/3s of the monsters at each level -- with the same refresh/level up before the next batch -- right? (Sorry, it is late, and I just returned from a long day at Cedar Point (amusement park)) Yes, at each level. (Awesome park!) Not sure that any of my battles lasted long enough for monsters to do things multiple times ... Unless we talk about ones where I saw "Here is where the monster probably fled", or "Here is why the monster could not flee" Quite. As a side note, I have what seems to be a CR 8 or 9 encounter that I would love to test because I would call it a tactical encounter. It deals with synergistic abilities and I would like to see how a party would get through it sans AOE spell. Put it up.
Meyer_William 07-14-07, 08:16 AM	Good thing class abilities and how they are used to accomplish a certain goal are exactly the priorities of this combat. You feel that having the option to heal more effectively than someone else is poor form? Ok, then I feel having feats above the base is poor form. Yey for not getting anywhere. The gauntlets currently show nothing about longevity, which is an incredibly important aspect of the game! My suggestion helps to remedy that problem. Judging tanking is the goal of the contest. Healing ... is not. If it were, then most, if not all, 3rd level characters will take a feat from dragon magic, which gives the character one dragon shaman aura. Then they can self-heal all day long. As I mentioned previously, if ANY form of healing is allowed between combats, then the iron man test rapidly turns into "how do you do with no per day items/abilities". Which is not what should be judged. The dragon shaman is not as powerful a combatant as the barbarian but if he can handle the fights effectively forever then that is incredibly important to show! Likely the barbarian kills the foe faster but the dragon shaman can go on in a day longer. If the shaman is built for tanking then that is a pretty nice tank, self healing and party healing as well. Different aspects of what a tank can expect. to need to face on occasion. To show one while ignoring the other is going to give an incomplete picture. If a dragon shaman kills its opponents in 5-10 rounds, and a barbarian/fighter takes theirs out in 1-3 rounds, then the barbarian/fighter is the better tank. While the dragon shaman is plinking away at the opponent, the opponents are able to attack the squishies (non-tanking party members). Which means that it is not an effective tank. Healing/Self-Healing is the role of the healer in the party ... which is a distinctly different role than the tank.
Meyer_William 07-14-07, 08:18 AM	Then why grant time between battles? it denies those who can kill faster from benefiting from their ability to make better use of their buffs, while granting those who can heal themselves the benefit of the time needed to heal themselves. If the class is capable of making the time IE hold person, fine by me, but granting them free time that is also used to deny the benefits of buff use efficiency seems a little skewed to me. I don't see why An iron-man gauntlet where you yell "next" demonstrates how tanks handle dungeons -- where the rooms/encounters can come as fast as you can run from room to room. Which normally let 10 min/day and even sometimes 1 min/day buffs last from fight to fight to fight. An iron-man gauntlet with 1 hour between demonstrates random encounters ... which lets 1 hour/day buffs start in play.
Meyer_William 07-14-07, 08:23 AM	INaw, no worries. My multi-classing comments were directed at the iron-man gauntlet, as well as the self-sufficiency route. Honestly, it'd be interesting to me to see them. But, if we're trying to prove/disprove a particular class, then even something as simple as going Warblade 18 / Overwhelming Attack Monk 2 is going to skew the results. Naw, if it is not meaningful, then it is not really worth my time to take them through it. Anyways, as I have already mentioned, if a fighter can go through any given CR of its level, then it is a viable class to play. Regardless of how hard/easy another class combination goes through it.
Meyer_William 07-14-07, 10:08 AM	Large dragon HP 28 Init +1 Spd 50 AC 17 (-1 size, +1 dex, +5 nat, +2 armor) BAB +3 Grp +16 Spear +6 (2d6+6) and bite +1 (1d8+2) and tail slap +1 (1d8+6) 5 ft. reach Spit Fire 1/min, 20 ft., 2d6 damage, splash 5 ft. for 1d4 damage Immune to sleep, paralysis quadraped http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20040905a&page=3 Use this instead, as it has more information, and your's (at least) typoed the grapple modifier.
Otto the Bugbear 07-14-07, 10:23 AM	Thanks I'm going to post The Guantlet, Round 2, but with instruction not to go past EL 7. If Archangel's encounter is EL 8, I'd gladly replace the one that posted now (Invis Stalker plus Huge Animated Object). I like the EL 9 encounter, so hopefully his won't be EL 9.
Archangel62 07-14-07, 10:44 AM	Put it up. K, this uses classed monsters, I will do the feats and other stuff later, just give the skeleton right now. The party/test subject is moving on a trail, it is 25 feet across (beyond that is the fun of free fall and squish), they come to an obstacle, a group of monstrous humanoids is blocking the pass. 5 Level 3 Hobgoblin Crusaders (elite array) 5 Level 3 Orc Warblades (elite array) 2 Hobgoblin level 6 Marshals (elite array) 1 hobgoblin level 6 Bard (elite array) For those who are already thinking of the horror this could do they will use NPC gold and I will send otto the exact data on the group and we can see how it can be navigated outside of AOE.
Bob Loblaw 07-14-07, 10:51 AM	K, this uses classed monsters, I will do the feats and other stuff later, just give the skeleton right now. The party/test subject is moving on a trail, it is 25 feet across (beyond that is the fun of free fall and squish), they come to an obstacle, a group of monstrous humanoids is blocking the pass. 5 Level 3 Hobgoblin Crusaders (elite array) 5 Level 3 Orc Warblades (elite array) 2 Hobgoblin level 6 Marshals (elite array) 1 hobgoblin level 6 Bard (elite array) For those who are already thinking of the horror this could do they will use NPC gold and I will send otto the exact data on the group and we can see how it can be navigated outside of AOE. Did you say this was EL 8? I get 11. I would also put this in the Unbeatable category since the enemy is not only using the elite array, but they also are designed to be synergistic. I don't see a level 11 or 12 fighter actually surviving this one without metagaming/cheating.
Archangel62 07-14-07, 10:57 AM	Did you say this was EL 8? I get 11. I would also put this in the Unbeatable category since the enemy is not only using the elite array, but they also are designed to be synergistic. I don't see a level 11 or 12 fighter actually surviving this one without metagaming/cheating. Point, since it is solo I guess ramping it up to 12 would work. My CR calculator showed it being a strong CR 8 challenge.
Bob Loblaw 07-14-07, 11:05 AM	Point, since it is solo I guess ramping it up to 12 would work. My CR calculator showed it being a strong CR 8 challenge. I used the calculator here (http://www.penpaperpixel.org/tools/d20encountercalculator.htm). I am very nervous about bringing Blitz through that one. He's going to end up shredded. Hopefully he will take a few out first.
Meyer_William 07-14-07, 11:09 AM	Anyone using my excel spreadsheet, To account for the 50% fortification ... Take the crit multiplier, subtract one (normal damage), mutliply this amount by the 50%, and add it back to the 1. Examples: Crit multiple of 2 ... 1.5 (always does normal damage, 50% chance of doing an addition amount) Crit multiple of 3 ... 2 Crit multiple of 4 ... 2.5
Otto the Bugbear 07-14-07, 11:48 AM	I'm using the same one as Bob, and I get EL 12 for that set-up. (Hobgoblins are LA +1 Bob, that might be the difference.) I don't mind using a classed monster set-up, but EL 8 would be better. BTW, I did post the new gauntlet. Link (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=886079)
Meyer_William 07-14-07, 11:59 AM	Question: Last gauntlet, they had no treasure (equipment) ... this time they do ... Is that equipment fair game to pick up? Or does it disappear with the corpses?
Otto the Bugbear 07-14-07, 12:01 PM	I doubt it. You're being allowed to cherry-pick 100% of your equipment, under the consideration that the treasure you find is sold and used to stock your character with perfect gear choices. What items did you really want from them anyway?
Bob Loblaw 07-14-07, 12:13 PM	I'm using the same one as Bob, and I get EL 12 for that set-up. (Hobgoblins are LA +1 Bob, that might be the difference.) I don't mind using a classed monster set-up, but EL 8 would be better. BTW, I did post the new gauntlet. Link (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=886079) If you use base-ten numbers, sure. I use base-banana. It's more complicated and tends to get me wrong numbers when I convert back to base-ten. I just like all the yellow fruits.
Meyer_William 07-14-07, 12:17 PM	I doubt it. You're being allowed to cherry-pick 100% of your equipment, under the consideration that the treasure you find is sold and used to stock your character with perfect gear choices. What items did you really want from them anyway? My understanding, is that my underequipped barbarian is not allowed to buy any items (except swap a couple potions around if he feels like it). The bugbear is wearing medium sized leather armor ...
Argaud 07-14-07, 12:20 PM	Question: Last gauntlet, they had no treasure (equipment) ... this time they do ... Is that equipment fair game to pick up? Or does it disappear with the corpses? Monsters with classes get NPC gear. In the first gauntlet they were just non-classed monsters. They might have had some useful treasure, though, although I think about the only one with any smarts to use it would have been the chuul and maybe the minotaur.
Bob Loblaw 07-14-07, 01:09 PM	My understanding, is that my underequipped barbarian is not allowed to buy any items (except swap a couple potions around if he feels like it). The bugbear is wearing medium sized leather armor ... I would like to point out that you were trying to show how well the barbarian can do without much equipment. I say you should keep this up. It's the right thing to do.
Meyer_William 07-14-07, 01:29 PM	I would like to point out that you were trying to show how well the barbarian can do without much equipment. I say you should keep this up. It's the right thing to do. Remind me to add you to my buddy list ...
Scion of Coldshard 07-14-07, 01:31 PM	It also inflaits the effectiveness of self healing though. Even if this is true I dont see a problem. I would say that it makes killing the enemy faster and damage mitigation much more important. Whatever way the character goes about it is dependent on their abilities but if a character is good at it in some way it will show. By limiting the short term buffs to only 1 encounter per use, your effectively removing them altogether. Good. I just think specifically limiting the benefits of one thing that will allow some class' builds to perform well, but not indefinably, while inflating the value of another thing, something that is not really representative of the role being evaluated, is a little bit ... off. It is incredibly important to what is being evaluated though. How much damage can you mitigate as a character, how long can you last, how few short term buffs do you rely upon, how long can you stand against the horde before falling, etc. Every one of the gauntlets and each creature set values certain builds over others, that is why multiple types of each are needed. Judging tanking is the goal of the contest. This is extended endurance tanking, which is another aspect of tanking. It is not about healing, it is about mitigating damage and being able to overcome challenges quickly, efficiently, or just being able to take what the enemy dishes out and keep going. If a dragon shaman kills its opponents in 5-10 rounds, and a barbarian/fighter takes theirs out in 1-3 rounds, then the barbarian/fighter is the better tank. As I understand it a 'tank' does not necissarily have to do much damage, but they do have to be an obstacle and/or be a reasonable enough threat to require dealing with and/or be able to take whatever the enemy does and keep on going. Different classes do this in different ways, to ignore how one class does it while favoring another completely is something to avoid and ignoring the endurance trial is to ignore the strengths and weaknesses of different builds in a very important setting. The other gauntlets wont really show that very well, this one will cover part of those aspects a little better.
Bob Loblaw 07-14-07, 01:37 PM	Even if this is true I dont see a problem. I would say that it makes killing the enemy faster and damage mitigation much more important. Whatever way the character goes about it is dependent on their abilities but if a character is good at it in some way it will show. It is incredibly important to what is being evaluated though. How much damage can you mitigate as a character, how long can you last, how few short term buffs do you rely upon, how long can you stand against the horde before falling, etc. Every one of the gauntlets and each creature set values certain builds over others, that is why multiple types of each are needed. This is extended endurance tanking, which is another aspect of tanking. It is not about healing, it is about mitigating damage and being able to overcome challenges quickly, efficiently, or just being able to take what the enemy dishes out and keep going. I just finished dealing with the thri-kreen and I had not been prepared to deal with its poisonous bite. Fortunately I had a few points in Heal. After the battle, I was able to stop the poison with a simple skill check. While I know that I can't use Heal to stop every problem, it's an example of what you are talking about. If I didn't use the skill, Blitz may have been paralyzed. What if the poison was more dangerous...like Constitution damage? I'm glad I built Blitz to be an adventurer rather than a gauntlet runner. I think it'll pay off more in any upcoming fights. He may not be the most useful, but he certainly won't be completely useless either.
Scion of Coldshard 07-14-07, 05:26 PM	Nice ;) Combat triage.
Kratch 07-14-07, 08:49 PM	An iron-man gauntlet with 1 hour between demonstrates random encounters ... which lets 1 hour/day buffs start in play. No, it doesn't. Because random encounters with 1 hour between them will come with some form of healing in between, and it isn't required to be done by the person who is taking all the hits. At least with the "next" version, it can demonstrait closer a combatant stuck in a room and a constant stream of encounters keep poring in from various rooms down the hall. At this point though, I don't really care how it's done. So long as the builds also have to participate in the first gauntlet and in the multi-opponent one. You'll see those who have self healing (for between fights) and those who assume they win init and charge/kill first round of each new encounter doing well, while those who aren't built around those 2 skills will appear to fall behind. This is extended endurance tanking, which is another aspect of tanking. It is not about healing, it is about mitigating damage and being able to overcome challenges quickly, efficiently, or just being able to take what the enemy dishes out and keep going. If this is the case, why grant time between encounters to make use of healing, but only if you can do it yourself? By granting the time to heal, only if you can do it yourself, you are only demonstrating the value of healing and the time to get it done. As I understand it a 'tank' does not necessarily have to do much damage, but they do have to be an obstacle and/or be a reasonable enough threat to require dealing with and/or be able to take whatever the enemy does and keep on going. Different classes do this in different ways, to ignore how one class does it while favoring another completely is something to avoid and ignoring the endurance trial is to ignore the strengths and weaknesses of different builds in a very important setting. So a tank that takes 3-4 times as long (and so, demonstraits he doesn't threaten nearly as efficiently), but can do this non threatening tanking all day long because he doesn't need to ask allies to use his wand for him demonstraits what? that he's a better tank because he can use a wand when not fighting? doesn't seem like a real evaluation of anything to do with tanking. I said in an earlier post, i can see how this is relevent if it's a class feature doing the healing (spell slots or draconic arua), but if it's a wand, the tank in a group has any number of allies who can use it. The other gauntlets wont really show that very well, this one will cover part of those aspects a little better. It won't show anything about mitigating damage and overcoming challenges quickly... (well, I suppose it will once you filter out those who self heal and those that don't, then compare them separately), it will only show the value of healing outside combat. Bob, last i checked, you can't use heal on yourself :p But i get your point. Kratch (my fighter) is also built to be an adventurer. He has search maxed out (to go with his free search check from stone cunning), but thats not relevant in any way to these gauntlet challenges. Once i hit level 12, I was planning to take robilar's gambit, I was also planning to take a cure wand to mitigate the extra damage i was taking due to the tactic i was choosing to use, so as not to drain the groups resources because of my choice. I was NOT however, planning to take UMD because, in a group, i wouldn't need to, i have allies to use the wand for me.
Bob Loblaw 07-14-07, 09:05 PM	Bob, last i checked, you can't use heal on yourself :p But i get your point. Kratch (my fighter) is also built to be an adventurer. He has search maxed out (to go with his free search check from stone cunning), but thats not relevant in any way to these gauntlet challenges. Once i hit level 12, I was planning to take robilar's gambit, I was also planning to take a cure wand to mitigate the extra damage i was taking due to the tactic i was choosing to use, so as not to drain the groups resources because of my choice. I was NOT however, planning to take UMD because, in a group, i wouldn't need to, i have allies to use the wand for me. Why can't I use Heal on myself? I'm just treating poison. It doesn't state I cannot treat poison only on someone else. In fact it only discusses the character I choose to treat.
Kratch 07-14-07, 09:50 PM	My bad. The flavour text combined with the mention of not being able to give long term care to yourself plus some else needing to treat a wound from spike growth.. I assumed it applied to all factors of heal. As far as first aid, poison and disease goes, it says nothing ether way (except in the flavour text, but that doesn't count)
Scion of Coldshard 07-14-07, 09:53 PM	If this is the case, why grant time between encounters to make use of healing, but only if you can do it yourself? By granting the time to heal, only if you can do it yourself, you are only demonstrating the value of healing and the time to get it done. 'Granting' time? The time is there to use as the character will and to bleed off short term buffs. In that respect it is a cost and detriment, being able to use your items (that you spent money on that you could have spent on other equipment) or spells (that are nonrenewable during the fights so you are using spells that could have been used offensively to instead do something else) is an extra special benefit in that it shows a dimension that the other gauntlets do not. Why are you so insistant on denying characters their class abilities? Should the barbarian be denied his DR? Should fighters be denied their feats? If a monk was to go in could he not use his improved unarmed damage? Let the characters use their abilities to see who does what and how in each gauntlet. Denying the use of class features seems very bad to me, why not to you? So a tank that takes 3-4 times as long (and so, demonstraits he doesn't threaten nearly as efficiently), but can do this non threatening tanking all day long because he doesn't need to ask allies to use his wand for him demonstraits what? That he kills slower but can do other things which might make up for it in a tanking role. Or that the character does not work well as a tank if he cannot meet someones personal standards. To me the gauntlets arent about determining who is better at winning or losing, they are about demonstrating a large amount of potential scenarios so that someone may judge what is good or bad for themselves. It won't show anything about mitigating damage and overcoming challenges quickly... (well, I suppose it will once you filter out those who self heal and those that don't, then compare them separately), it will only show the value of healing outside combat. I really have no clue why you are stuck so hard on denying people their own abilities and trying to grant others abilities that they do not have. How does that show anything at all? Filter out those who win battles in ways that you dont like? Or is it that they might win in ways that whichever class you favor cannot? I was NOT however, planning to take UMD because, in a group, i wouldn't need to, i have allies to use the wand for me. Groups do exist where no one in the party could use the wand for you. I have been in a few myself. What does having someone else use their class abilities to help you show about 'your' character? Using other characters abilities strikes me in the same vein as having a guy go into the gauntlet, sit down, and declare himself the winner because the rest of the party will deal with each challenge.
Kratch 07-14-07, 11:15 PM	Why are you so insistant on denying characters their class abilities? Should the barbarian be denied his DR? Should fighters be denied their feats? If a monk was to go in could he not use his improved unarmed damage? I really have no clue why you are stuck so hard on denying people their own abilities and trying to grant others abilities that they do not have. How does that show anything at all? I said in an earlier post, i can see how this is relevent if it's a class feature doing the healing (spell slots or draconic arua), but if it's a wand, the tank in a group has any number of allies who can use it. I suppose it is reasonable for class abilities like spell slots and fast healing, but just giving them time to use a wand, simply because they don't need an ally to do it, doesn't seem right. As you can see, I'm not trying to deny anyone class abilities, I just don't think ones ability to use a wand for healing is a class ability that needs to have a gauntlet created to demonstrait it's effectiveness. Everyone already knows healing is required to make a party, especially a tank, function. Who makes use of that healing wand is rarely if ever an issue. Question: If, in this ironman gauntlet, we have a melee who is able to kill his opponents in 2 rounds and takes only 10% damage per fight, and thus can win about 10 fights. Then we have another contestent who takes 10 rounds to kill anything, loses 95% of his HP's, but can use a wand to restore his HP's to full and thus fight as long as that wand lasts (say 25-50 fights, depending on level and what wand). What does that demonstrait? Let the characters use their abilities to see who does what and how in each gauntlet. Denying the use of class features seems very bad to me, why not to you? will there be a gauntlet to allow my fighter to make use of his stonecunning and search? That he kills slower but can do other things which might make up for it in a tanking role. To me the gauntlets arent about determining who is better at winning or losing, they are about demonstrating a large amount of potential scenarios so that someone may judge what is good or bad for themselves. I'm curious about what potential scenario will involve a melee fighting once per hour all alone with out access to his allies. Using my fighter as an example again, he has a potion of fly from level 4 up in his inventory and chose to play into his strengths by using stonecunning and putting his ranks into search, but had i instead spent that 750 gp on a wand of lessor vigor and played against his strengths (low charisma) to put his ranks into UMD, he'd be a better tank/character option in the average group? despite the average group will have at least 1, likely 2 others who could use a wand, likely much much better? Filter out those who win battles in ways that you dont like? Or is it that they might win in ways that whichever class you favor cannot? By filter out, I meant there will likely be a clear line, those who can't heal themselves and those who can. Do what you want, set up this ironman gauntlet and i'll participate, but as it stands now, the greatest thing it will demonstrait is the value of healing, but we all know that already. Groups do exist where no one in the party could use the wand for you. I have been in a few myself. and if i started in such a group, my skill choices would change to account for that. but i'm not talking about some theoretical group that i'm thrown into with no knowledge of their abilities and no option to adjust my abilities to cover weakness's as I level.
Scion of Coldshard 07-15-07, 04:16 AM	As you can see, I'm not trying to deny anyone class abilities, I just don't think ones ability to use a wand for healing is a class ability that needs to have a gauntlet created to demonstrait it's effectiveness. A wand or not is unimportant though, only the ability to make it through multiple fights. Whatever method is used just doesnt matter. Higher AC, killing the enemy faster, healing, damage mitigation, or anything else. The important part is making it through the fights. Question: If, in this ironman gauntlet, we have a melee who is able to kill his opponents in 2 rounds and takes only 10% damage per fight, and thus can win about 10 fights. Then we have another contestent who takes 10 rounds to kill anything, loses 95% of his HP's, but can use a wand to restore his HP's to full and thus fight as long as that wand lasts (say 25-50 fights, depending on level and what wand). What does that demonstrait? Someone brought along a wand of cure light in the original gauntlet? They have so few hp that 1 to 2 charges fills them up and yet they didnt want to spend that money on, say, armor or a weapon? I would say that the situation looks to be impossible from the given data. But it would tell us that the first guy kills faster while the second guy can beat the same challenge and spent all of his money on a wand to make sure that he was ready to go at any given moment. What it means for any given person relative to their own games is their own call though. Having the extra info is certainly much better than not having it however. will there be a gauntlet to allow my fighter to make use of his stonecunning and search? You can work on that. If you can relate it to fighting and tanking somehow more power to you. I'm curious about what potential scenario will involve a melee fighting once per hour all alone with out access to his allies. I am pretty sure I didnt suggest once per hour. But, I would guess that the scenario is similar to why the characters in the other gauntlets start at the distances they do on featureless, infinite plains with the conditions that are set up. None of them are terribly realistic in a 'when is it going to happen' sense, but the results can be extrapolated. Using my fighter as an example again, he has a potion of fly from level 4 up in his inventory and chose to play into his strengths by using stonecunning and putting his ranks into search, but had i instead spent that 750 gp on a wand of lessor vigor and played against his strengths (low charisma) to put his ranks into UMD, he'd be a better tank/character option in the average group? despite the average group will have at least 1, likely 2 others who could use a wand, likely much much better? The potion of fly is essentially a nova item, as such it helps with a single battle and then must be replaced. It can show what would happen if you had it on hand, but the endurance gauntlet only lets you use it for the first battle of the set after which you will have to rely on other tactics. If you had the wand of lesser vigor instead then in the single combatant gauntlet and the team gauntlet you would likely have done worse (possibly much worse). If you now lose the fight because of the lack of the potion of flying there will be no difference between those fights and the endurance fight. If you do live through the fight then the dwarf can try to activate his wand, likely failing several times per success in order to get those hp back. If you ever roll a 1 then that item is useless to you for the rest of the encounters that you are going to live through. Each case will show something different. If you have your guy spend lots of resources on maximizing the endurance gauntlet then he is almost certainly going to do worse in the others or look less like a real character and more like a guy simply built to beat a gauntlet of specific challenges. I for one plan on ignoring any builds that I feel are too far over the 'must beat the gauntlet and who cares about the rest' line. Do what you want, set up this ironman gauntlet and i'll participate, but as it stands now, the greatest thing it will demonstrait is the value of healing, but we all know that already. If you feel that way that is your call of course. One could also say that the other gauntlets only show nova tactics or cater to specific types of builds and so already show us something we knew to begin with anyway, that nova tactics are big on power during the nova. But I think that people are still trying to use the other gauntlets in the spirit that they are intended. And since exactly the same character that ran through the other gauntlets would be the ones running through the endurance making a character built specifically for one is likely to cause trouble in the others. and if i started in such a group, my skill choices would change to account for that. Either way it should not impact the characters built for the gauntlet. I see no reason that they should be built assuming that there is some other characters ability that they can take advantage of.
Meyer_William 07-15-07, 07:46 AM	Why are you so insistant on denying characters their class abilities? Should the barbarian be denied his DR? Should fighters be denied their feats? If a monk was to go in could he not use his improved unarmed damage? Let the characters use their abilities to see who does what and how in each gauntlet. Denying the use of class features seems very bad to me, why not to you? I think I am coming around to your side now ... it totally doesn't make sense that a healer can't use his class abilities to heal himself while a barbarian can use his trapsense ability ... or his Indomitable rage ... ability. That he kills slower but can do other things which might make up for it in a tanking role. Or that the character does not work well as a tank if he cannot meet someones personal standards. To me the gauntlets arent about determining who is better at winning or losing, they are about demonstrating a large amount of potential scenarios so that someone may judge what is good or bad for themselves. Again, we are totally in synch in this as well ... Just because a character cannot defeat monsters quickly ... doesn't mean that the character cannot tank ... for instance, a character with AC 10000, but does 1d2 damage that bypasses DR, and has fast healing 100 ... would be a quite effective tank ... as they could do it all day long. Groups do exist where no one in the party could use the wand for you. I have been in a few myself. What does having someone else use their class abilities to help you show about 'your' character? Using other characters abilities strikes me in the same vein as having a guy go into the gauntlet, sit down, and declare himself the winner because the rest of the party will deal with each challenge. Sounds interesting ... I myself, have never been in a group without someone who could use a wand ... too many opportunities for someone to have at least one level of ranger/paladin/cleric/druid/favored soul/etc ... or even a rogue/etc with UMD ... that must have been a very difficult/expensive set of adventures. Either way it should not impact the characters built for the gauntlet. I see no reason that they should be built assuming that there is some other characters ability that they can take advantage of. You mean ... people should not build characters as if they could potentially be part of a normal party? Instead, they should build characters to exist in an endurance match, using unrealistic skill/feat sets (tankers healing) ... to show how well they might exist in a normal party?
Bob Loblaw 07-15-07, 11:31 AM	I am pretty sure I didnt suggest once per hour. But, I would guess that the scenario is similar to why the characters in the other gauntlets start at the distances they do on featureless, infinite plains with the conditions that are set up. I suggested the 1 hour time frame. I was just tossing an idea out there. Sorry if it caused any confusion.
Bob Loblaw 07-15-07, 11:40 AM	I think I am coming around to your side now ... it totally doesn't make sense that a healer can't use his class abilities to heal himself while a barbarian can use his trapsense ability ... or his Indomitable rage ... ability. The gauntlets consist of 20 encounters each. One for each level of the character. I'll bet that every character must deal with this problem at least once per level. I don't have a problem with some class abilities being useless, especially when we already know how useful those abilities are. Just because a character cannot defeat monsters quickly ... doesn't mean that the character cannot tank ... for instance, a character with AC 10000, but does 1d2 damage that bypasses DR, and has fast healing 100 ... would be a quite effective tank ... as they could do it all day long. I don't think using examples that could not exist in the game is a good way to get the point across. I also think that Scion is trying to look at another aspect of tanking. I would like to point out that we have yet to have an actual definition of "Tank." I think if we managed to come up with a working definition, as it applies to DnD, then some of these issues would go away (while others would crop up). Sounds interesting ... I myself, have never been in a group without someone who could use a wand ... too many opportunities for someone to have at least one level of ranger/paladin/cleric/druid/favored soul/etc ... or even a rogue/etc with UMD ... that must have been a very difficult/expensive set of adventures. I have, many times. My group hates playing divine characters. When we have a rogue, he generally doesn't put any points in Use Magic Device. We have some hard times, but our strength lies elsewhere. When we get into combat, we tend to wipe out the enemy fast enough so we don't take a ton of damage. You mean ... people should not build characters as if they could potentially be part of a normal party? Instead, they should build characters to exist in an endurance match, using unrealistic skill/feat sets (tankers healing) ... to show how well they might exist in a normal party? I think people should build the type of character they would play in an actual game. There will be some differences as the character should evolve with the environment he is in. For example, I had no intention on taking Improved Initiative, but it turns out that going first in the gauntlets can mean the difference between winning and losing more than it would in a regular game.
Meyer_William 07-15-07, 12:14 PM	I don't think using examples that could not exist in the game is a good way to get the point across. I also think that Scion is trying to look at another aspect of tanking. I would like to point out that we have yet to have an actual definition of "Tank." I think if we managed to come up with a working definition, as it applies to DnD, then some of these issues would go away (while others would crop up). Sounds like a plan ... lets work on defining Tank. I stole this definition from http://ddo.tentonhammer.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=289&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 The Tank is a physical juggernaut whose sole purpose is to draw all attackers to him. He is not concerned with damage as he relies on companions for that. Instead, the Tank makes himself a living shield, placing himself between his friends and danger. Feel free to use this as a starting point ... but we need to make sure that any definition of tank can easily include iconoclastic builds (charger, twf, tripper, grappler, monk, etc) I think people should build the type of character they would play in an actual game. There will be some differences as the character should evolve with the environment he is in. For example, I had no intention on taking Improved Initiative, but it turns out that going first in the gauntlets can mean the difference between winning and losing more than it would in a regular game. For charging builds, going first has a direct correlation to whether or not the opponent gets a turn ... (flatfooted + massive damage) -- in fact, if UA (unearthed arcana) was used, I would take the trait that lowers your AC but raises your init ...
Scion of Coldshard 07-15-07, 01:48 PM	I think I am coming around to your side now I am glad it is catching on ;) You mean ... people should not build characters as if they could potentially be part of a normal party? Instead, they should build characters to exist in an endurance match, using unrealistic skill/feat sets (tankers healing) ... to show how well they might exist in a normal party? Actualy, people should make real characters that could be used in a real game but they should not assume that other characters are going to have certain abilities that they could use. Or, if they do assume it, they simply cannot use their assumed teammate during the gauntlet. Either works for me, so long as they are not actually getting the benefit of a character who is not actually 'in' the gauntlet with them ;) Building real characters that could go into a real game and do all right is very important to the gauntlet! Just dont use any characters abilities other than your own during the gauntlet. :cool:
Meyer_William 07-15-07, 03:35 PM	Hey, is that valorious enhancement thing allowed? Doubling charging damage? Let me know so I can either buy it -- or not ... depending.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 07-15-07, 03:45 PM	Hey, is that valorious enhancement thing allowed? Doubling charging damage? Let me know so I can either buy it -- or not ... depending. Well, I'm voting yes....:P
Meyer_William 07-15-07, 03:51 PM	Well, I'm voting yes....:P Somehow -- I thought you would ... Its a great weapon, and since you can pounce like I can ... I think we would be using it very similarly.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 07-15-07, 03:56 PM	Somehow -- I thought you would ... Its a great weapon, and since you can pounce like I can ... I think we would be using it very similarly. Yes, yes we would.
Argaud 07-15-07, 04:03 PM	Then, I want Shadowstrike and Split allowed too :)
Otto the Bugbear 07-15-07, 04:11 PM	Dear Santa, I want a custom item of Giant Size, CL 16, swift action, with cost reducers.
Meyer_William 07-15-07, 04:33 PM	Dear Santa, I want a custom item of Giant Size, CL 16, swift action, with cost reducers. I am thinking of paying an NPC to cast spells on me with really long duration (permanent enlarge person, polymorph any object, etc) ... this should be allowed, as spell-casting is listed in the PHB as special services ...
Otto the Bugbear 07-15-07, 04:44 PM	LOL! I pay a spellcaster 1200 gold to Polymorph Any Object on me for this fight. Since it's just this fight, I won't have to worry about the LA hit.
Argaud 07-15-07, 04:46 PM	LOL! I pay a spellcaster 1200 gold to Polymorph Any Object on me for this fight. Since it's just this fight, I won't have to worry about the LA hit. There is never an LA hit anyway, the spells is not instantaneous and can be dispelled even if the duration would be permanent. Just like Permanencied spells. However, I think that having NPCs cast spells on the PC is against Archangel's rules.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 07-15-07, 04:49 PM	LOL! I pay a spellcaster 1200 gold to Polymorph Any Object on me for this fight. Since it's just this fight, I won't have to worry about the LA hit. There's never an LA hit. In fact, this is standard procedure in some gaming groups.
Meyer_William 07-15-07, 10:28 PM	There is never an LA hit anyway, the spells is not instantaneous and can be dispelled even if the duration would be permanent. Just like Permanencied spells. However, I think that having NPCs cast spells on the PC is against Archangel's rules. I don't think so, as in the players handbook it shows the cost for spellcasting services. If people can take time off to craft, then what is the difference to paying someone to cast a spell on you? In this case, I am only talking about a spell with a really long duration, so that there is no talk about things like mage armor, bull's strength, etc.
navar100 07-15-07, 11:21 PM	I think people should build the type of character they would play in an actual game. There will be some differences as the character should evolve with the environment he is in. For example, I had no intention on taking Improved Initiative, but it turns out that going first in the gauntlets can mean the difference between winning and losing more than it would in a regular game. Unfortunately, with admittance, George is not in terms of maneuvers chosen. A lot of good Crusader maneuvers are "help someone else" maneuvers. Even though I could still deal out normal weapon damage when using them for the gauntlet, they're useless. I am a fighter defender and applaud their feat tricks, but the crusader's tricks are his maneuvers. If they aren't going to do anything effective, they're wasted slots. I have to choose maneuvers that will somehow help George, even if it's just extra damage to kill the monster faster. In an actual party, with 5 maneuvers to ready, I'd be happy with 1 healing maneuver, 1 extra damage maneuver, 1 defensive maneuver, 1 charge maneuver, and 1 help someone else maneuver. The charge maneuver could even be replaced some game days since personal playing style is I don't charge often. However, George is doing well in the gauntlet, so it at least shows a go it alone crusader is viable, but it's a shame we can't see how helpful to party combat cohesion a crusader can be.
Bob Loblaw 07-16-07, 12:57 AM	Unfortunately, with admittance, George is not in terms of maneuvers chosen. A lot of good Crusader maneuvers are "help someone else" maneuvers. Even though I could still deal out normal weapon damage when using them for the gauntlet, they're useless. I am a fighter defender and applaud their feat tricks, but the crusader's tricks are his maneuvers. If they aren't going to do anything effective, they're wasted slots. I have to choose maneuvers that will somehow help George, even if it's just extra damage to kill the monster faster. In an actual party, with 5 maneuvers to ready, I'd be happy with 1 healing maneuver, 1 extra damage maneuver, 1 defensive maneuver, 1 charge maneuver, and 1 help someone else maneuver. The charge maneuver could even be replaced some game days since personal playing style is I don't charge often. However, George is doing well in the gauntlet, so it at least shows a go it alone crusader is viable, but it's a shame we can't see how helpful to party combat cohesion a crusader can be. To a point this is acceptable. George is growing with the environment he is in. That is fine. It's different than building a character to simply defeat the gauntlet.
Meyer_William 07-16-07, 09:07 AM	But in most of your fights your characters win due to charge. Particularly Mr. Underpowered. Either your character charges for huge damage through a completely offensive built or they kill the monsters by taking advantage of the Steadfast Boots (and sometimes a high degree of stupidity by the critters). I think that if the terrain didn't allow for constant charges the characters wouldn't do very well. Quite frankly, I didn't go on with the paladin's gauntlet because with Ride by Attack he auto-wins against all but the arrowhawk. It was boring. (Although all this proves charger builds work just fine under good conditions) Barbarians get rage + pounce (assuming complete champions variant). Fighters get feats I take advantage of anything I can to win in the gauntlet while keeping the cheese factor as low as possible (1 potion of flight per gauntlet so far). Can you link me to any fight that I did not redo, that the board called me on monster tactics? I was commenting on your AC/Trip attack tactics, because of the allegation that low AC builds are worse in the gauntlet than high AC builds ... so I was just pointing out the hp comparison between a character wearing fullplate, and one wearing no armor. With MIC, there are boots (boots of the mountain king) that let you ignore most penalties for terrain for charging. Additionally, you will notice that when I actually spent all my skill points (gauntlet 2) I put ranks in balance, etc and picked up skill tricks that let me charge more often. So regardless of terrain, charging should be a viable tactic most of the time. However, this build is (with the exception of almost no equipment for 9 levels) a perfectly viable normal build for a barbarian gauntlet or not.
Thrawn183 07-16-07, 10:12 AM	I'd like to lay out some of my thoughts so that I can make sure I'm on the same page as you guys. And then ask some questions just to get all of your opinions. The point of this is to show the effectiveness of a melee character. We are doing this by sending them to solo on CR encounters without any help under the assumption that if they are capable of doing so then they must inherently be a valuable addition to a party that is facing those very same encounters. Now it has been mentioned that a tank is supposed to not die. Well, I'm am conflicted on this issue. If a tank is invincible but does no damage, (AC 10,000, d2 damage that overcomes DR), yes it really will get ignored and it will have failed its purpose as a tank (I know this was an extreme example.) My point is this: at what point do you say, "Well, the tank held it off long enough and did enough damage to prevent itself from being ignored"? Is this 2 rounds? 4? 10? I mean, we have to remember to bring this back into a party situation. If the party rogue or whatever that can also do unlimited damage per day is just sitting there plinking away at the thing, it doesn't matter so much if you do enough damage to kill the thing as long as you can keep its attention. This also goes for grappling. The chuul for instance can paralyze and therefore coup de grace while grappling you. But the lifeleach otyugh can only churn out the damage while grappling. And I've seen what happens to monsters that grapple in the presence of rogues.:eek: I feel that high AC/HP classes that don't have high damage output are usually very beneficial in a party setting. This is because their abilities are synergistic with the party as a whole (specializing in defesne, while someone else specializes in offense) but this isn't represented in the gauntlet. I feel that healing out of battle is mostly a non-issue. Sure your party might not have a divine caster, but that just means you need a single character to take umd. Or one feat. That's one character out of four. Now I accept that some encounters will come one after the other so relying solely on vigor might have a downside on an encounter or two throughout a campaign, but for most parties and most encounters it just doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Also, if you're going to start taking out of combat abilites such as the ability to heal into account, wouldn't you need to start taking everything else into account to? Someone without diplomacy is going to have to pay more for their equipment. Someone without gather information loses out on potential opportunities to make easy money. Depending on the campaign, someone without knowledge skills might not know much about magic weapons (highly campaign dependent and I'm against this one personally, but I have to play the devil's advocate occaisionally.) In the end, I think it all comes back to the fact that these PC's are supposed to be part of a party and were supposed to assume that some things aren't required of them. They're supposed to tank. Somebody else is supposed to be the party face or have the ability to use a healing scroll. At what point do you guys think should we should draw the line for just how many party roles these characters should assume? As for the repetition battles. I think it is easy to just look at a character and see how much they nova'd versus how much their tactics are repeatable. I think it was Meyer, who said that at a certain point your moving from why have a fighter to why have a party. If you want to do repeat encounters, than why not try 4 encounters of lower CR? Anyway, I've got a lot more things floating around in my head, so I'll probably have some follow up questions/things to address, but I'd be really interested to hear what you guys think about these topics.
Dragom 07-16-07, 12:06 PM	The Tank is a physical juggernaut whose sole purpose is to draw all attackers to him. He is not concerned with damage as he relies on companions for that. Instead, the Tank makes himself a living shield, placing himself between his friends and danger. I actually made one of those. A Fighter with the Mark of Sentinal. After a while he was able to maintain a continous link of Shield Other effects with his 3 party members 20 hours a day, he had a Shield of Arrow Catching and the Protection from Arrows Ability. Boy could he soak up the damage! No he really couldn't fight very well. But boy did he keep everyone else alive, even better then a Cleric.
Otto the Bugbear 07-16-07, 12:13 PM	I don't think so, as in the players handbook it shows the cost for spellcasting services. If people can take time off to craft, then what is the difference to paying someone to cast a spell on you? In this case, I am only talking about a spell with a really long duration, so that there is no talk about things like mage armor, bull's strength, etc. The purpose of the gaunlet is not to win or lose. The purpose of the gauntlet is to show the viability of a class (or lack thereof). Buying the services of an NPC spellcaster is showing the viability of the spellcaster, not the fighter, barb, commoner, or whatever. No hiring spellcasters to show the viability of the chosen class.
Meyer_William 07-16-07, 04:55 PM	The only unique thing you have there is Pounce, and magic items can now duplicate that easily enough. It's not an uber ability. the rest can be done by any fighter, and more besides. Wraithstrike allows you to ignore Natural AC. That is HUGE...a massive component of most creatures AC at higher levels, to say nothing of just plain Armor. It's effectively a True Strike that lasts an entire round, which means you can Power Attack away for huge damage knowing you are not going to miss. It's a pure cheese way of killing something. Ubercharger has its own limitations, but with Wraithstrike, your power level can be effectively doubled and more. An AC 45 CL 24 Red Dragon goes down to AC...11 with this spell. There's also the problem of using and resheathing the wand. You'd have to use it and likely drop it on the ground to employ it in one round, and without Quick Draw, it'd probably have to start out in your hand. Just stay away from Wand Cheese and focus on your class strengths. If you are getting defensive about your build, then you should be just fine with doing this. And where are you getting a 17-20 x3 crit? Since threat ranges don't stack, that should be impossible for a x3 weapon, unless you are talking about Spirited Charge or something. ====Aelryinth Cityscape barbarian variant (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20070228a)-- you give up your DR to gain alternate abilities: At 7th level, the critical threat range of any charge attack he makes, or any attack he makes against a flat-footed foe, increases by 1. (Thus, a greataxe would threaten a critical hit on a roll of 19 or 20.) This ability stacks with the Improved Critical feat or the keen weapon enhancement. What magic item gives pounce? I must have missed this one. And yes, I agree that wraith strike is huge, which is why I am going for it ... note: I have not posted any higher levels until that level's combat is either (collectedly) shot down for the cheese factor ... or acknowledged as a uniquely barbarian thing. You are correct that it starts out in my hand, with my high init modifier, few things should get the drop on me ... so I can always use it round 1: then drop and attack. After the battle is over, I pick it off the ground. As far as being defensive about my build ... possibly, just trying to keep valid (non-disallowed) tactics on the board. Seriously though, I took a naked barbarian through the first gauntlet, doing better than most (possibly all) other characters. Second gauntlet, I had to use the same naked barbarian, and so far, am leading in this one as well ... The one level I actually get equipment, people are jumping over the build ... calling foul. However, the other charger build is using a X2 damage weapon from an unlisted book ... and not much is said about it ... So far: Flight is pseudo banned (called cheese if used by player, not cheese if used by monsters) Spellcasting services are banned: Valid melee tactics of paying an NPC to cast a spell is not allowed -- this hurts the melee character a lot ... Normal party dynamics (I buy pearl of power lvl 3, have wizard cast greater magic weapon) are disallowed. The funny thing is ... melee characters get more attacks / round (bab + feat) than non-melee characters, so anything that boosts the attack -- benefits the melee more than the non-melee
Meyer_William 07-16-07, 04:57 PM	The purpose of the gauntlet is not to win or lose. The purpose of the gauntlet is to show the viability of a class (or lack thereof). Buying the services of an NPC spellcaster is showing the viability of the spellcaster, not the fighter, barb, commoner, or whatever. No hiring spellcasters to show the viability of the chosen class. Not sure how hiring a spellcaster to cast a spell detracts from your class abilities. Additionally, isn't winning in the gauntlet considered better than losing?
Otto the Bugbear 07-16-07, 06:00 PM	Not sure how hiring a spellcaster to cast a spell detracts from your class abilities. I never said it detracts from your class abilities. I said it fails to show that your class abilities are what is winning you the battle. Additionally, isn't winning in the gauntlet considered better than losing? No. Showing how well class abilities can be used to compete and contribute at all levels, including against equal CR encounters, is what the gauntlet is about. If Mr. Underpowered, or Stumpy, or Blitz had lost every single fight, but did so by only one or two rounds, that's showing that the class is doing exactly its job. Regardless that he actually lost. Losing by a lot is bad, but only because that might be showing problems with the class. As usual, each case must be handled on a case by case basis.
Meyer_William 07-17-07, 07:28 AM	I never said it detracts from your class abilities. I said it fails to show that your class abilities are what is winning you the battle. Showing how well class abilities can be used to compete and contribute at all levels, including against equal CR encounters, is what the gauntlet is about. If Mr. Underpowered, or Stumpy, or Blitz had lost every single fight, but did so by only one or two rounds, that's showing that the class is doing exactly its job. Regardless that he actually lost. Losing by a lot is bad, but only because that might be showing problems with the class. As usual, each case must be handled on a case by case basis. OK ... fair warning, my sorceror is going to be buying a scroll of polymorph any object for the gauntlet, and will be using his class abilities (ability cast arcane spells) to use it in the gauntlet. The duration is large enough that it will last quite some time. Please let me know if this would not be legal before I get to that level (unsure of the level ... possibly level 9).
Kratch 07-17-07, 08:30 AM	OK ... fair warning, my sorceror is going to be buying a scroll of polymorph any object for the gauntlet, and will be using his class abilities (ability cast arcane spells) to use it in the gauntlet. The duration is large enough that it will last quite some time. Please let me know if this would not be legal before I get to that level (unsure of the level ... possibly level 9). Level isn't so much an issue (if your not the right level, you need to make a spellcraft roll). The issue is going to be needing your primary casting stat at the right level. As PAO is an 8th level spell, you need an 18 charisma to use a scroll of it. Normally that wouldn't be an issue, but for your sorcerer, with his 12 starting charisma, thats going to be very difficult. UMD can be used to mimic the stat needed though.
Meyer_William 07-17-07, 08:50 AM	Level isn't so much an issue (if your not the right level, you need to make a spellcraft roll). The issue is going to be needing your primary casting stat at the right level. As PAO is an 8th level spell, you need an 18 charisma to use a scroll of it. Normally that wouldn't be an issue, but for your sorcerer, with his 12 starting charisma, thats going to be very difficult. UMD can be used to mimic the stat needed though. Good catch, looks like it will probably be level 12 before I can do that ... 12 + cloak (4) + 2 level ups ... UMD isn't really an option ... as I only get 1 skill point / level, and I have been sinking them into concentration (spell casting and energy shield)
Kratch 07-17-07, 09:34 AM	Good catch, looks like it will probably be level 12 before I can do that ... 12 + cloak (4) + 2 level ups ... UMD isn't really an option ... as I only get 1 skill point / level, and I have been sinking them into concentration (spell casting and energy shield) Then your going to have issues with the spellcraft roll untill level 16 when you could cast the spell normally. EDIT: My bad, it's a caster level check. Though a failed caster level requires the wisdom check to avoid a mishap, and with your dismal wisdom, that may be an issue.
Mongoose4937 07-17-07, 11:10 AM	Ah, the never ending "Fighters are useless" debate. When it gets right down to it, does this debate even matter? People play fighters. Fighters contribute to the party. There are things fighters do better than anyone else, and if you argue that, you've probably never really played a fighter. Yes, there are other classes that can be "optimized" better than fighter, but this is D&D, not Warhammer or WoW. Optimization is only part of the game if you want it to be, and frankly, most people don't want it to be. Now, you can cite sources and plug in numbers to your heart's content and not come up with any conclusive evidence for either side of the argument. You can also just play the game. Yes, magic is powerful, but the true power in arcane magic isn't specific spell effects, like Freedom of Movement, it's in the open ended quality magic posesses. A smart player will be able to cast one or two spells and beat most encounters. That's part of D&D, and part of the wonder of fantasy in general. That being said, every argument I've seen about fighters being a non-viable class is circumstantial to say the least, and assumes the fighter is alone. Welcome to the world of teamwork, and having the party wizard or cleric cast Dispel Magic before the fighter charges. You can play Theory and Dragons all you want, but in the acutal game, things are very different than they are in a vacuum. If they're not, I pity you for having a poor DM. Now, keep going back and forth as you will, and always have done. This debate has raged since 1st edition came out back in 1974, and behold, fighters are still in the game. You may now resume your pointless debate.
Meyer_William 07-17-07, 11:24 AM	Any objections to extending the gauntlet (either one) to allowing non-prc multiclassing? If there are no objections, I plan on dipping into 2 classes, and have fighter as my main backbone for this character. I am quite curious to know how this type of character would work.
Bob Loblaw 07-17-07, 12:05 PM	Any objections to extending the gauntlet (either one) to allowing non-prc multiclassing? If there are no objections, I plan on dipping into 2 classes, and have fighter as my main backbone for this character. I am quite curious to know how this type of character would work. You can bring any character you wish through either gauntlet. The only ones that will be considered for viability will be the single classed characters. The reason for this is to show how the class works from 1 through 20. Do what you want to have fun, just don't expect the character to be used for data gathering.
Kratch 07-17-07, 12:58 PM	Ah, the never ending "Fighters are useless" debate. When it gets right down to it, does this debate even matter? I generally agree with much of what you said. However, there are a great many people who come to these boards for advise, and that advice often comes in the form of, fighters suck, they beieve the hype, then pass it on again to the next person, and so on and so forth. Sometimes, they do this without even understanding the arguments they use. I don't know how many times i've seen someone post something so blatently untrue, or something that has been repeatedly proven false, and when they are shown they're wrong, they disappear since they are unable to back up their claims (likely because they never understood the claims to begin with, only were told them and believed them). It is for this reason many of us still argue in defence of the fighter. It has been given a bad reputation, mostly through ignorance. It isn't the most powerful class, far from it, but it isn't so far under the rest that it is worthless as many try to say, and some (including myself) would argue it is on par with many of the other melee class's
magmer2 07-17-07, 01:16 PM	Any objections to extending the gauntlet (either one) to allowing non-prc multiclassing? If there are no objections, I plan on dipping into 2 classes, and have fighter as my main backbone for this character. I am quite curious to know how this type of character would work. I would prefer prestige classes if they were in a C10/Prc!0 or C15/Prc5 format. It would show the viability of certain prestige classes.
Meyer_William 07-17-07, 01:42 PM	It is for this reason many of us still argue in defence of the fighter. It has been given a bad reputation, mostly through ignorance. It isn't the most powerful class, far from it, but it isn't so far under the rest that it is worthless as many try to say, and some (including myself) would argue it is on par with many of the other melee class's Even those of us who not restricting ourselves to only fighter builds for the gauntlet -- appreciate the power of additional feats ... especially when we need just...one...more feat for the uber-build ... I would like to see some of the anti-melees (pro-casters?) whichever -- post some builds to take through either (or both?) gauntlets. Edit: I just thought of something ... for gauntlets, in addition to win/lose .. post what it would take to bring you back up to full (cost for healing + cost of consumables + amount of spells/abilities expended for the fight).
Kratch 07-17-07, 04:00 PM	Even those of us who not restricting ourselves to only fighter builds for the gauntlet -- appreciate the power of additional feats ... especially when we need just...one...more feat for the uber-build ... I would like to see some of the anti-melees (pro-casters?) whichever -- post some builds to take through either (or both?) gauntlets. My general playstyle is typically based on teamwork and/or subtlety. I like using a lot of buffs, illusions and enchantments in my casters. for that reason, i know my typical character wouldn't do well in this sort of gauntlet and thats resulted in my providing only the one build (i was going to do a second one, but robilar beat me to it (or very close to it)). I too would love to see some builds by those that denounce fighters or melee's in general. But considering there is about 8 pages streight of khan, bob, argaud and myself asking for a single build to support the arguments we were being expected to believe, and people disappeared from the debate instead, i don't intend to hold my breath. Edit: I just thought of something ... for gauntlets, in addition to win/lose .. post what it would take to bring you back up to full (cost for healing + cost of consumables + amount of spells/abilities expended for the fight). you mean like charges on a vigor wand and how many of your once per day items you used on top of potions?
Meyer_William 07-17-07, 04:21 PM	My general playstyle is typically based on teamwork and/or subtlety. I like using a lot of buffs, illusions and enchantments in my casters. for that reason, i know my typical character wouldn't do well in this sort of gauntlet and thats resulted in my providing only the one build (i was going to do a second one, but robilar beat me to it (or very close to it)). Unfortunately, those skills are unrelated to tanking so are not being judged. And buffs are really hard to do (see my battles where I render the monster unable to harm me, but then spend 3-5 rounds buffing so that I can kill it) I too would love to see some builds by those that denounce fighters or melee's in general. But considering there is about 8 pages streight of khan, bob, argaud and myself asking for a single build to support the arguments we were being expected to believe, and people disappeared from the debate instead, i don't intend to hold my breath. My warrior build does not invalidate fighters, if anything, it makes the case that if a warrior can do it, a fighter should be able to, as a fighter is warrior+ (no opportunity cost, no tradeoff,etc) My sorceror build is my take on what a sorceror needs to do, to be able to tank. Now, a blaster variant of a sorceror would look different, but that is not what pro-casters are showcasing as the replacement to fighters. However, to defend pro-casters lack of participation in this, most casters use (require?) PrCs to work well ... abjurant champion, eldritch knight, spellsword, etc ... you mean like charges on a vigor wand and how many of your once per day items you used on top of potions? Exactly ... that way, it is a closer idea of how much you are going nova -- and a simple matter of adding it up -- to do iron-man type things. And yes, lesser vigor charges to heal you up ... (cheapest way I know to heal, outside of an aura).
Meyer_William 07-29-07, 02:06 PM	re: multiple encounters ... eh ... level 3 spell at level 16 -- is not a lot of resources to expend ... so you recast it every encounter ... if that is the most their mage guy is doing ... then that is pretty good -- right? As for the mage...who says he's going to keep 4 of those memorized just for you? There's other spells he might want to have in memory (notably Fly) and there's three other members of the party also begging for buffs. If you consider your character more important then the rest of the party and they exist just to buff him to awesomeness, you haven't played with caster heavy parties much, where they stick the spotlight on their own characters, not yours, and YOUR job is to make THEM look good. ===Aelryinth Snipped from other thread. To recap ... a 16th level mage (wizard or sorceror) is complaining about having to cast a level 3 spell (greater magic weapon, 1hour/lvl) on the melee's weapon(+1 with lots of abilities (keen, etc))? There are much more powerful spells to cast ... Additionally, one of the pro-bard arguments is "keep track of the number of times the PC would have missed if not for your bonuses" ... can't the mage character do something similar? If a melee character + 3rd level spell is buffed to awesomeness in a caster-heavy party -- isn't that saying something about the viability of melee's at all levels?