Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lexus 04-21-04, 12:50 AM	Does anyone feel that the barbarian is better at fighting(a pun!) than the fighter? Both are suppose to be equal but I don't feel that's the case. Fighter advantages over barbarian- proficient with heavy armor proficient with tower shield access to weapon focus and weapon specialization feats access to much more feats can be better at using ranged weapons can be better at mounted combat is literate for free Barbarian advantages over Fighter- +10 base speed more skills and more class skills d12 hit dice uncanny dodge abilities less prone to will save spells when raging tends to have less armor check penalties indomitable will ability rage eventually becomes much stronger and fatigue penalties disappear at higher levels damage reduction trap sense ability At level 1 both the fighter and barbarian are more less even. The barbarian has to be careful with his rage since he can only use it once. In the higher levels though he has to worry less about it. Also the penalties at level 1 are justified but when the barb's rage becomes stronger the penalties are no big deal for what you're getting in return. Later on the only time a barbarian should be worried about the penalties is if he ever needs to run away for some reason. As a fighter there are certain feats that are nice to have and almost a "must have." These feats are combat expertise, dodge, and others that require those two as prerequisites. To be able to get these feats the fighter has to have 13 int and/or 13 dex. For point-buy campaigns it can be a sacrifice getting your stats high enough. Everything considered I personally don't think the fighter is gimped but I think he could use a couple small boosts. What are your thoughts, everyone?
Szatany 04-21-04, 08:15 AM	Boost the fighter? Say no more than ultimate fighter. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=169285)
Sensei Gith 04-21-04, 09:06 AM	It is possible to convert the barbarian's abilities into feats, believe it or not. +10 speed=Dash x2. +20 hp=a whole lot of toughness, but since that feat royally sucks, we'll count it as two as if toughness gave 10 hp, which is generous to the fighter (since by the rules, it's worth about seven). DR 5=Roll With It x2.5 Uncanny Dodge is probably two feats, maybe better. I think that they still get trap sense, which is about a feat. That's 9.5 feats to the fighters 11, but we haven't even touched Rage. Also note that Roll With It requires a ridiculous Con. The fighter, in exchange, gets proficiency in heavy armor and tower shields. The barbarian can dip two levels of fighter to nullify that. The fighter doesn't get anything that compares to Rage, which makes a comparison difficult. The closest comparison is the weapon focus tree, but it would take four weapon foci and two weapon specializations, plus Iron Will and a whole lot of toughness, in return for -2 AC (worth two feats).
The_Ditto 04-21-04, 09:23 AM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith +20 hp=a whole lot of toughness, but since that feat royally sucks, we'll count it as two as if toughness gave 10 hp, which is generous to the fighter (since by the rules, it's worth about seven). *cough* improved toughness *cough* :smirk:
Sensei Gith 04-21-04, 11:09 AM	Yeah, obviously it's not fair to say that the barbarian's hit points are worth half the fighter's class features. I'm just trying to err on the side of caution.
Roland the Crownbreaker 04-21-04, 02:00 PM	Nothing can beat a barbarian when it comes to dealing loads of hp damage. Except maybe a paladin against an evil creature (and even that only for a few rounds). The fighter (assuming no PrC) excels in many other forms of combat. A fighter can become an expert at multiple combat styles, or a master of 2 (maybe even 3 by 20th level). If your campaign doesn't feature constant use of spring attack a fighter will be a superior wall (mainly because a barbarians AC is low eneough to allow even low BAB attacks to connect, especially if played to the 2 handed weapon stereotype) due to the greater likelyhood of defensive feats, heavier armor, and shield use.
Tony Vargas 04-21-04, 02:03 PM	If the fighter and barbarian are, indeed balanced, then, if you could theoretically convert the barb's abilities into bonus feats - they should, hopefully, come out a few feats ahead of the fighter. If they came out even, then a fighter could take all those feats and /be/ a Barbarian. More to the point, the Barbarians abilities are fixed. A barbarian can't decide to have better Rage and less DR, or to have Great Cleave instead of Uncanny Dodge. In D&D, specialization like that is rewarded with slightly greater power - so, again, the Barb should come out slightly ahead. ... Another minor point to consider is stats. Barbarians lose thier extra movement in heavy armor, and they don't get proficiency in it, anyway, so thier heavily incented to use light or medium armor - and doing so optimally requires a 16 or higher DEX. Barbarians also typically go for very high STR. Compared to a DEX 12 charcter in heavy armor, who ignores mental stats to the same degree as the barbarian, that can only mean lower CON - which the d12 HD helps make up for. Also, as has been noted elsewhere, there's not a huge synergy inherent in having both very high STR and very high DEX...
Jell_Moo 04-21-04, 02:24 PM	I realize that the general consensus is that the barbarian is better than the fighter, and if we are talking core stuff only, I would agree. However, I personally find that if other sources for feats (CW, S&F, OA, etc...) are allowed, the fighter is at least on par with, or perhaps even slightly better. The barbarians biggest problem is that he is basically a one trick pony. Don't get me wrong, it's a great trick, but hitting things real hard and soaking up damage is pretty much it for him. Fighters, on the the other hand, tend to be more diverse and of more use in a larger amount of situations. I just feel that with every new book introduced, the fighter gets better and better. If you have a very genrous DM who allows Dragon and third party feats, then the fighter can become absolutely broken.
detectevil 04-22-04, 08:45 AM	Well, in my opinion, fighters are not suposed to deal more damage than barbarians. I do think they should be able to hold their ground against them, but not by dealing an equal amount of damage or resisting the same amount of penalty, but by outsmarting. Of course, there is no such thing as outsmart someone in D&D unless you are a rogue or has a super-broken triping combo. There is part of the problem. But, when not against each other, I think fighter and barbarian are pretty balanced. But Fighter/Barbarian will always be superior to both. That is what really gets on my nerves.
Sensei Gith 04-22-04, 09:05 AM	If the fighter and barbarian are, indeed balanced, then, if you could theoretically convert the barb's abilities into bonus feats - they should, hopefully, come out a few feats ahead of the fighter. If they came out even, then a fighter could take all those feats and /be/ a Barbarian. And that would be a bad thing? Keep in mind that not all of those abilities are feats; I'm just assigning feat values to the barb's abilities. But the barbarian's class features should be the same value as the fighter's. If the barbarian has almost caught up before rage is factored in, there's a problem. More to the point, the Barbarians abilities are fixed. A barbarian can't decide to have better Rage and less DR, or to have Great Cleave instead of Uncanny Dodge. In D&D, specialization like that is rewarded with slightly greater power - so, again, the Barb should come out slightly ahead. But that's not a specialized character, that's a specialized class. Once a fighter chooses his feats, it's the same effect as having taken a class that provides exactly those feats. For example, if my character took Whirlwind Attack, Combat Reflexes, and Weapon Specialization, he is no more flexible than anyone who took a hypothetical ultra-specific "Qualify for Weapon Master" core class. A fighter character who is not specialized will be weaker than one who is, almost without exception. The problem is that no matter how much the fighter specializes, the barbarian will be better. Barbarians lose thier extra movement in heavy armor, and they don't get proficiency in it, anyway, so thier heavily incented to use light or medium armor - and doing so optimally requires a 16 or higher DEX. That's not hard to come by. Anyway, a fighter level or two will give proficiency, and the dwarf moves at full speed in heavy armor (meaning he's faster than the human fighter if he's a barbarian). More on this later.
Votan 04-22-04, 11:56 AM	Originally posted by detectevil Well, in my opinion, fighters are not suposed to deal more damage than barbarians. I do think they should be able to hold their ground against them, but not by dealing an equal amount of damage or resisting the same amount of penalty, but by outsmarting. Of course, there is no such thing as outsmart someone in D&D unless you are a rogue or has a super-broken triping combo. There is part of the problem. But, when not against each other, I think fighter and barbarian are pretty balanced. But Fighter/Barbarian will always be superior to both. That is what really gets on my nerves. Actually, in 3.5 there are good reasons to take a Barbarian 20. If we look at fully progressed characters, Fighter 20 Barbarian 20 Fighter 16/Barbarian 4 The barbarian 20 has tireless, mightly rage. That is a serious counterbalance to greater weapon specialization. Especially that tireless part which makes the number 1 anti-barbarian tactic work badly (wear him down). So I think that it is a push between a B20 and a F14/B6. But it is not a push at all between a F20 and F14/B6. The F14 has every advantage of the Fighter (the last 3 feats will be meaningless as the best ones are taken first) but also has rage, fast movement, uncanny dodge and so forth. Plus more skill points, more class skills (including listen to avoid suprise) and resistance to sneak attack. This is overwhelmingly better than the fighter. Of course the epic fighter has his own advantages.
Votan 04-22-04, 11:56 AM	Double Post :embarrass
Tony Vargas 04-22-04, 01:07 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith But that's not a specialized character, that's a specialized class. Once a fighter chooses his feats, it's the same effect as having taken a class that provides exactly those feats. This is true. Of course, there are no such classes - and, if there were, they'd most likely have some additional class feature to justisfy thier existance. Flexibility carries some price, even if it's flexibility that exists only in the development stage. It's true - really, it's a feature of the system - that the more narrowly focused a character is, the more effective it will be in it's area of focus. Barbarians /can/ be archers or weapon & shield fighters, or heavy-armor tanks... they just utilize thier class abilities less fully if they choose to be anything other than a fast, two-handed-fighting, melee killbeast. Fighters, OTOH, can throw a lot of feats towards being a fast, two-handed-fighting, melee killbeast, and, one that does will perform better in that role than a same-level fighter who's loaded up on archery feats or whatever. He probably won't be as good at it as the barbarian, but, OTOH, he probably won't be as specialized in it. You don't need that many feats to perform in that role, and, if you're going core, there probably aren't all that many to take (weapon specialization, great cleave) - at 6th, the fighter could have both of those, and thier pre-requisites, and he'd still have his regular feats from 3rd & 6th level to spend on something else... the fighter can't help but be less of a specialist than the barbarian, and, therefor, is going to be less potent within that speciality, and have more flexibility to perform outside of it. So, even if you compare specific builds, and completely discount the value of being able to choose your class features, the expectation should still be that the barbarian will be more 'powerful' than the fighter, by virtue of being more narrowly focused. I understand from previous discussions that you don't accept the value of such flexibility, but, it is there, and it is one way the game seems to be balanced, FWIW.
Mith 04-22-04, 01:08 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith It is possible to convert the barbarian's abilities into feats, believe it or not. +10 speed=Dash x2. +20 hp=a whole lot of toughness, but since that feat royally sucks, we'll count it as two as if toughness gave 10 hp, which is generous to the fighter (since by the rules, it's worth about seven). DR 5=Roll With It x2.5 Uncanny Dodge is probably two feats, maybe better. I think that they still get trap sense, which is about a feat. That's 9.5 feats to the fighters 11, but we haven't even touched Rage. Also note that Roll With It requires a ridiculous Con. The fighter, in exchange, gets proficiency in heavy armor and tower shields. The barbarian can dip two levels of fighter to nullify that. The fighter doesn't get anything that compares to Rage, which makes a comparison difficult. The closest comparison is the weapon focus tree, but it would take four weapon foci and two weapon specializations, plus Iron Will and a whole lot of toughness, in return for -2 AC (worth two feats). I disagree with some of this analysis. I think that some of the feats you picked are weak or could be better represented by other feats. My breakdown would be: +10 speed = 1.5 feats. Compare it to the Fleet of Foot feat. It's a regional feat in PGtF, and I find that all of the easily comparable regional feats in PGtF are worth exactly 1.5 feats. d12 HD = 1 feat. Improved Toughness, which the fighter can access at level 1. DR 5=Roll With It x2.5 (I) Uncanny Dodge - More like 3 feats. Check out "Eyes in the Back of Your Head" in CW - it lets you ignore just part of being flanked, and still lets you get sneak attacked. Trap Sense - 0 feats. Sure, it's free. So is a crap sandwich, doesn't make me think that sandwich will be tasty. Rage - While in rage, the barbarian gets the equivilent of 12 feats. (4 for the +4 to hit, 2 for the +4 to damage, 2 for the +4 to will saves, 4 for the Con bonus (improved toughness again)). He also gets a penalty worth 2 feats minimum (compared to vulnerable flaw in UA, which nets you one feat). Because rage is severely limited, especially at lower levels, I think that rage ability should be worth ~ half of the net value of its feats, so rage is worth 5 feats. Also keep in mind the skill point difference. I would say that heavy armor proficiency allows the fighter to make a 4 point lower investment in dex, which is enough to increase his Int enough to get the same number of skill points. The barbarian still has a better list though - so the barbarian comes out 1 feat ahead (comparing to versatile, and I don't think that there are really 4 skills that the barbarian would feel like maxing out that are on his list only.) So, according to my breakdown, the barbarian gets the equivilent of 14 feats. The fighter gets 11 feats and tower shield proficiency. So yeah, I rank the barbarian ahead of the fighter, by the equivilent of 2 feats over 20 levels. However, you should keep in mind that the fighter gets to choose 11 of his feats, while the barbarian already has his goodies picked out for him.
Sensei Gith 04-22-04, 04:09 PM	+10 speed = 1.5 feats. Compare it to the Fleet of Foot feat. It's a regional feat in PGtF, and I find that all of the easily comparable regional feats in PGtF are worth exactly 1.5 feats. Whatever; half a feat either way is a minor issue. d12 HD = 1 feat. Improved Toughness, which the fighter can access at level 1. Never heard of it. 10 hp/feat is generous. Uncanny Dodge - More like 3 feats. Check out "Eyes in the Back of Your Head" in CW - it lets you ignore just part of being flanked, and still lets you get sneak attacked. Trap Sense - 0 feats. Sure, it's free. So is a crap sandwich, doesn't make me think that sandwich will be tasty. I disagree in both cases, but they cancel out. 4 for the Con bonus (improved toughness again)). I don't know where Improved Toughness came from, but let's see that it goes right back there. Because rage is severely limited, especially at lower levels, I think that rage ability should be worth ~ half of the net value of its feats, so rage is worth 5 feats. Certainly not. At the most, take one feat off for each use below four, the power of Extra Rage. (It only grants one, right?) Four rages per day is, by the core rules, every encounter. It certainly will last out a full encounter, even at level one. I would say that heavy armor proficiency allows the fighter to make a 4 point lower investment in dex, which is enough to increase his Int enough to get the same number of skill points. Nope. Heavy armor is one feat or one level. It's not worth four points of an ability score by any means. That's comparing a weak feat to four epic feats. and tower shield proficiency. You're counting it as a feat? This falls squarely into the "crap sandwich" section. the barbarian already has his goodies picked out for him. Are there any of those goodies that you wouldn't have picked? Flexibility carries some price, even if it's flexibility that exists only in the development stage. It shouldn't. The only flexibility that matter's for the purposes of balance is a character's. Barbarians /can/ be archers or weapon & shield fighters, or heavy-armor tanks... they just utilize thier class abilities less fully if they choose to be anything other than a fast, two-handed-fighting, melee killbeast. They can be heavy-armor tanks just fine with their class features— just play a dwarf. The fact that a two-handed melee killbeast is the most powerful combatant in the game doesn't hurt, either. A fighter THF melee killbeast is just as limited, but it's worse. Besides, the barbarian can still do things other than beating things with sticks. They make great trippers (especially with Wolf totem and/or Wolf Lodge Beserker), disarmers, or sunderers. They are above-average ranged combatants, since they will be able to use ridiculous oversize mighty composite bows. He probably won't be as good at it as the barbarian, but, OTOH, he probably won't be as specialized in it. But when you make the fighter as specialized as the barbarian, he dies. But he's still better than a less specialized fighter. if you're going core Not a good assumption for the pro-fighter side. Complete Warrior and Miniatures Handbook opened up the first, last, and only competitive fighter20 build I've seen: a super spiked-chain tripper by Snow Savant. Even so, Snow conceded that the last levels would be better if replaced by something else besides fighter. Removing those options hurts the fighter far more than the barbarian. and have more flexibility to perform outside of it. ...which rarely happens. The barbarian out-melees the fighter, no question. He will also be doing considerably more damage with ranged attacks. Heaven forbid the barbarian take the Str-based throwing feat from PGtF. If he does, he owns yet again. What does that leave? Factor in limited-use items of dimension door to help him impose his will on even the most difficult or contrived situation. What flexibility is the barbarian missing? Personally, I like Barb16/Ftr4. You get three bonus feats and heavy armor, and only lose one point of trap sense (worthless), one point of DR (half a feat), one more rage/day (usually useless), Tireless Rage (handy, but not overly so), and Mighty Rage (+1 attack and damage, decent but not necessary).
Votan 04-22-04, 05:08 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith I don't know where Improved Toughness came from, but let's see that it goes right back there. Complete Warrior. 3.5 E Warrior expansion. As close to core as you can get. A nice feat for the arcane crowd more than the fighter crowd. Of course we have to account for the fact that the Barbarian's 1 hp/level enhancement stacks with this feat so it is actually worth slightly more than just the feat.
Sensei Gith 04-22-04, 05:33 PM	Does it require Toughness?
Dark Cyril 04-22-04, 05:41 PM	I figure that I'll throw in my two sense. I would honestly have to give the edge to a well thought out 20 Ftr rather than a 20 Bbn. The only reason that I say this is that the fighter has the greatest abilities in the game. The insane number of bonus feats that the fighter gets make him easily the most versatile character in the game. Lets look at this for instance. We've got two 20 Bbns and two 20 Ftrs. When you look at the Bbns, they are the exact same (not taking into account equipment and feats. I'm looking purely at the abilities). Then you take a look at the two Ftrs and they are nowhere near to being the same. I've played fighters more or less my entire gaming career (about 5-6 years) and have never gotten bored of playing them. You know why? I've never had a fighter that was a carbon copy of another fighter that I've played. You get sick of playing barbarians after a while because as someone stated above, they are a "one trick pony." While this trick may get you out of some tight spots, a barbarian rage isn't going to help you in many other situations. As for the Roll With It, I wasn't aware that that was a feat. I thought that it was a rogue special ability. What book is it from?
Tony Vargas 04-22-04, 06:03 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith The only flexibility that matter's for the purposes of balance is a character's. And, the fighter character gets that flexibility every time he chooses a feat. If you've noticed "gee, we are facing a lot of invisible opponents in this game" you could take blindfight as your next bonus feat, if, OTOH, there haven't been many invisible opponents, but lots of low-AC ones, Power Attack might be prefferable. The pure fighter has the flexibility to make choices like that with his class abilities, as he levels. The pure barbarian has his class abilities mapped out. And, assuming a fighter doesn't put all his bonus feats into trying to be a second-rate barbarian, he can't help but be more flexible, inplay, as well as in development. Even if he does /try/ to be a second-rate barbarian, he'll still probably have some feats left over at any given level - I suppose he could just not spend them, but, assuming he does, there's the extra flexibility. They can be heavy-armor tanks just fine with their class features— just play a dwarf. Assuming that were true, it would make Dwarves good tanks, not Barbarians. We're comparing classes, not races. The fact that a two-handed melee killbeast is the most powerful combatant in the game doesn't hurt, either. Well, maybe second, after the spiked chain trip-monkey. And, really, 'most powerful' is pretty hard to quantify. Combat effectiveness is highly situational. A melee killbeast who can't reach the enemy is far from the most powerful combatant on the battlefield. Not a good assumption for the pro-fighter side. Removing those options hurts the fighter far more than the barbarian. We're talking core class balance, so let's stick to core rules. If it hurts my arguments, so be it. I mean, I don't mind fishing the non-core waters to try to figure out how many feats a class ability might hypothetically be 'worth,' but as far as the balance of the classes go, it's best to stick with core stuff. The barbarian out-melees the fighter, no question. In terms of toe-to-toe damage throughput, certainly. While raging, with a two-handed weapon, anyway - since the x1.5 STR bonus will keep ahead of the fighter's specialization, and even greater specialization. He will also be doing considerably more damage with ranged attacks. Well, 2 more points with a thrown weapon, or more more expensive mighty bow, if the fighter isn't specialized in it. And, if both have comparable archery feats... (not that likely, really). Heaven forbid the barbarian take the Str-based throwing feat from PGtF. If he does, he owns yet again. What does that leave? Heaven, and keeping this core-only, yes. Factor in limited-use items of dimension door to help him impose his will on even the most difficult or contrived situation. Cape of the Mountebank? I suppose, if you don't want a Cloak of Resistance... ... and with CON and save bonuses when Raging, you may well not feel the need. What flexibility is the barbarian missing? 11 feats worth, plus loss of a class ability in heavy armor, lack of proficiency in said, and the hardly-worth-mentioning Tower Shield Proficiency (if WotC could make up thier mind how it really worked, it might be worth taking). Personally, I like Barb16/Ftr4. You get three bonus feats and heavy armor, and only lose one point of trap sense (worthless), one point of DR (half a feat), one more rage/day (usually useless), Tireless Rage (handy, but not overly so), and Mighty Rage (+1 attack and damage, decent but not necessary). Heartily agreed. I'm rather fond of Fighter14/Barb6 - you can time the barbarian levels to coincide with certain fighter 'dead' levels, starting at 5th, so you get a goody every level, and the Rage can be a wonderful 'backup weapon' for a less melee-focused fighter.
Votan 04-22-04, 06:18 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith Does it require Toughness? No. It requires a FORT save of +2 or it would be my new 1st level mage feat. It counts as a potential bonus fighter feat (which makes it a "no-brainer" for a fighter to take).
Votan 04-22-04, 06:29 PM	Originally posted by Tony Vargas We're talking core class balance, so let's stick to core rules. If it hurts my arguments, so be it - but you're the one pulling out the non-core examples, not me. Well, outlawing the complete warrior (which is as close to core as possible) really hurts the fighter. There are some really important feats for the fighter in that book (Improved toughness, defensive strike, freezing the lifeblood, greater two weapon defense, improved combat extpertise, improved buckler defense, improved ranged shot, power critical, ranged disarm, rnaged pin, ranged sunder, shield charge and shield slam) that can be selected as bonus figthr feats. They extend the fighter feat chain so that there are worthwhile things to get at higher elvels while making it a lot more difficult for rangers and barbarians to keep up. It isn't enough but it helps enormously.
Donnavin Snowolf 04-22-04, 06:33 PM	I just looked through the SRD to make sure. The only thing the Barbarian looses by wearing heavy armor is Fast Movement (and a feat). Rage, Uncanny Dodge, even Trapsense are unaffected by heavy armor.
Tony Vargas 04-22-04, 06:46 PM	Originally posted by Votan Well, outlawing the complete warrior (which is as close to core as possible) really hurts the fighter. Maybe, but it also complicates the issue. I'd rather compare the core, single-clas Barbarian to the core signle-class Fighter - if they're that badly balanced, core, there's a problem. Heck, I'd just as soon leave magic items and synergy with other classes out of it too - which probably also won't help make the fighter look any better... :(
Roland the Crownbreaker 04-22-04, 06:53 PM	However, IIRC, even a dwarf barbarian suffers from wearing heavy armor. (while the dwarf still moves at what is normally full speed of 20, the class feature of fast movement is specifically lost in heavy armor) As someone said, the barbarian is a very specialized class. In its chosen role, little can compete with it. (just like little can compete with a paladin against an evil opponent) Versatile classes are more effective at one thing, but less effective outside that thing. And to debunk one thing I see as a falacy......... Heaven forbid the barbarian take the Str-based throwing feat from PGtF. If he does, he owns yet again. What does that leave? I fail to see how 5 short range increments can "own" over 10 long ones. In addition, a thrower needs the quickdraw feat in order to ever get more than one attack per round. For the same number of feats an archer can take point blank shot and either rapid shot or far shot, increasing his range advantage even more.
Votan 04-22-04, 07:25 PM	Originally posted by Tony Vargas Maybe, but it also complicates the issue. I'd rather compare the core, single-clas Barbarian to the core signle-class Fighter - if they're that badly balanced, core, there's a problem. Heck, I'd just as soon leave magic items and synergy with other classes out of it too - which probably also won't help make the fighter look any better... :( Yeah, but the biggest problem that I see with the fighter is that he meximizes out a feat chain way too fast. This leaves him at 12th level with "nice to haves" but nothing all that great coming. At this point he might as well multi-class to get abilities that can't be obtained by feats. Adding in a new generation of feats (especially ones that count as fighter bonus feats) can give the fighter some really nice higher elvel enhancments. In core I can't see the reason why you would go above 12th level as a fighter. Even a very feat intesnvie build (like 2 weapon fighter) has everything by this point. Other classes get either high level spells (cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard, bard), unique feats (druid, monk, rogue, barbarian, bard), a scaling ability (Paladin, druid, monk, ranger). The fighter is unique in having none of these. People argue the sorcerer lacks reasons to continue and he at least gets spells that are better and better. Lets consider a really feat intensive half-elf fighter (to strip off the bonus feat): F1: Exotic Weapon Proficicency (Spiked Chain), 2 weapon fighting F2:Weapon focus (spiked chain) F3: Iron will F4: Weapon Specialization (Spiked Chain) F5: F6: Improved 2 weapon fighting, combat expertise F7: F8: Improved trip F9: Lightning Reflexes F10: Combat reflexes F11: F12: Greater weapon specialization (chain), Greater 2 weapon fighting I can do other things after this but they no longer fit this theme. Levels of Barbarian or Kensai would work so much better than the additional feats. This character already has a fully developed combat style. But add the complete warrior and I have other feats that I want with this build: improved toughness, close quarters fighting (to resist grapple), prone attack (against other spiked chain guys), eyes in the back of your head (anti-flanking) and faster healing would round out this build. Okay, this is super feat intensive and not the typical fighter but I can do neat things to level 20 as a fighter. A barbarian will be better in some cases (one big monster enemy) but will be soundly second rate against a group of humanoids compared to this guy. -> While not stolen, this was inspired by a build ocne done by Snow Savant.
Mith 04-22-04, 07:34 PM	Tony, my point wasn't to talk about how the CW changes the fighter vs. barbarian balance, my point was simply that Complete Warrior is a fairly well-balanced book, and so we can use some of the feats contained within to help us decide the value of class features. Gith: I disagree with you about the value of rage. I think that only having those benefits when you are actually raging is a huge penalty. At high levels the barbarian probably has enough rage to rage every encounter, but those rages have limited duration, are limited to 1/encounter, and have to be activated. There's an enourmous difference between just straight up having 80 extra hit points, and being able to have 80 extra hit points for 10 rounds at a time if you activate it. You have to activate rage on your turn, you can be ambushed, and if you actually need those 80 HP you have to get healed before your rage ends or you can just drop dead when it goes away. That's why I think that the benefits of rage should be counted as being of significantly less value than equivilant benefits that you have all the time.
Tony Vargas 04-22-04, 07:39 PM	Originally posted by Votan Yeah, but the biggest problem that I see with the fighter is that he meximizes out a feat chain way too fast. This leaves him at 12th level with "nice to haves" but nothing all that great coming. True enough. That's what I mean by the fighter's flexibility being inevitable: if you stay core, you run out of feats to further specialize in one thing... by the time that happens, though, you should really have run up against any shortcomings often enough that you apreciate throwing some feats into shoring them up. Lets consider a really feat intensive half-elf fighter (to strip off the bonus feat): F1: Exotic Weapon Proficicency (Spiked Chain), 2 weapon fighting F2:Weapon focus (spiked chain) F3: Iron will F4: Weapon Specialization (Spiked Chain) F5: F6: Improved 2 weapon fighting, combat expertise F7: F8: Improved trip F9: Lightning Reflexes F10: Combat reflexes F11: F12: Greater weapon specialization (chain), Greater 2 weapon fighting I can do other things after this but they no longer fit this theme. Seems like Dodge/Mobility/Spring-Attack & Whirlwind Attack would build on this really well.... (BTW, What's the TWF for?) Quickdraw and ranged feats with some thrown weapons might also be a good thing to add, as it would let you keep pressure on enemies who are reluctant to close with you.
Sensei Gith 04-23-04, 08:28 AM	Cyril: Two fighters are exactly the same, excluding equipment and feats. And those fighters aren't necessarily any more versatile. Barbarians are certainly not one-trick ponies. If you've noticed "gee, we are facing a lot of invisible opponents in this game" you could take blindfight as your next bonus feat, And the barbarian can take the same feat, or better, a magic item that is more powerful anyway. if, OTOH, there haven't been many invisible opponents, but lots of low-AC ones, Power Attack might be prefferable. Which the barbarian has anyway. Assuming that were true, it would make Dwarves good tanks, not Barbarians. Nope. The point is that the "restriction" in question is incredibly easy to get around. A melee killbeast who can't reach the enemy is far from the most powerful combatant on the battlefield. But that only happens at low levels. We're talking core class balance, so let's stick to core rules. In terms of toe-to-toe damage throughput, certainly.[quote] As well as the ability to turn a combat into a melee killfest, not to mention surviving one. [quote]Well, 2 more points with a thrown weapon, or more more expensive mighty bow, if the fighter isn't specialized in it. More than that, unless the fighter is a dedicated archer. The fighter can't afford to spend feats outside his specialty unless he has a really good reason. Cape of the Mountebank? Or another item similar in function. Dimension door is such a useful and potentially life-saving spell that every character should have some means of using it. 11 feats worth, A fighter who spends eleven feats on being flexible is a fighter who is going to get his ass kicked. plus loss of a class ability in heavy armor, Unless you're a dwarf. lack of proficiency in said,[quote] Unless you take a feat or use the fighter for what it's best at-- one- or two-level dips. [quote]No. It requires a FORT save of +2 or it would be my new 1st level mage feat. It counts as a potential bonus fighter feat (which makes it a "no-brainer" for a fighter to take). Yeah, that feat sounds highly suspect. Well, outlawing the complete warrior (which is as close to core as possible) really hurts the fighter. There are some really important feats for the fighter in that book (Improved toughness, defensive strike, freezing the lifeblood, greater two weapon defense, improved combat extpertise, improved buckler defense, improved ranged shot, power critical, ranged disarm, rnaged pin, ranged sunder, shield charge and shield slam) that can be selected as bonus figthr feats. They extend the fighter feat chain so that there are worthwhile things to get at higher elvels while making it a lot more difficult for rangers and barbarians to keep up. It isn't enough but it helps enormously. I agree; CW was a huge step in the right direction. High-level and synergistic feats are the lifeblood of the fighter (now that they exist, that is). It also represents one of the first times that I've ever felt strapped for feats as a barbarian, trying to get combat brute, shock trooper, and karmic strike. That's a lot of feats. However, IIRC, even a dwarf barbarian suffers from wearing heavy armor. (while the dwarf still moves at what is normally full speed of 20, the class feature of fast movement is specifically lost in heavy armor) Yes, but the dwarf specifically moves at full speed in heavy armor, and it is clearly intended to be an exception in at least the normal case. I fail to see how 5 short range increments can "own" over 10 long ones. Damage. Lots of damage. If you're confronted with an archer half a mile away, use dimension door. If you're confronted by a rogue who just won't get close, or a spider climbing archer, use axethrowing. Back in a few minutes.
Sensei Gith 04-23-04, 08:37 AM	I think that only having those benefits when you are actually raging is a huge penalty. Yes, which is why I subtracted the cost that you would have to spend to get it all of the time. BTW, What's the TWF for? Qualifying for a non-core feat. For that matter, Snow's build used a non-core variant of the chain. Quickdraw and ranged feats with some thrown weapons might also be a good thing to add, as it would let you keep pressure on enemies who are reluctant to close with you. It's better just to get an item that let's you melee from anywhere. Just dimension door next to them. Of course, it doesn't work nearly as well in core without Karmic Strike.
Roland the Crownbreaker 04-23-04, 08:43 AM	quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I fail to see how 5 short range increments can "own" over 10 long ones. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Damage. Lots of damage. If you're confronted with an archer half a mile away, use dimension door. If you're confronted by a rogue who just won't get close, or a spider climbing archer, use axethrowing. Dimension door doesn't help against a fliying opponents, especially those that have ranged attacks. Also, not every character can get a dimension door item. (also, as a DM, when an item gets to the point where every character in every game seems to try and get one, it starts to get limited severely. Every DM I know thinks this way)
Votan 04-23-04, 09:49 AM	Originally posted by Tony Vargas True enough. That's what I mean by the fighter's flexibility being inevitable: if you stay core, you run out of feats to further specialize in one thing... by the time that happens, though, you should really have run up against any shortcomings often enough that you apreciate throwing some feats into shoring them up. [B] Seems like Dodge/Mobility/Spring-Attack & Whirlwind Attack would build on this really well.... (BTW, What's the TWF for?) Quickdraw and ranged feats with some thrown weapons might also be a good thing to add, as it would let you keep pressure on enemies who are reluctant to close with you. TWF is me forgetting that a spiked chain is not a double weapon. I don't usually use one . . . I agree that there are other feats that could work for this character in the regular list. What I was looking for was a feat selection that enhanced the abilities that I had rather than broadening them. This is because Barbarian rage will enhance and it is nice to have feats that contest this. I wanted a build where I'd be giving up something to go barbarian. It is possible to avoid this with the standard feats but the Complete Warrior extensions to thse chains really help.
Sensei Gith 04-23-04, 11:00 AM	Dimension door doesn't help against a fliying opponents, especially those that have ranged attacks. Fly. as a DM, when an item gets to the point where every character in every game seems to try and get one, it starts to get limited severely. It's not a super-item or anything. It's just that when you plan on dealing 5,000 points of damage in melee, it is entirely to your advantage to get items that will allow you to melee more often. Every high-level barbarian I've ever seen has a kickin' magic sword, too, but I've never heard a complaint.
Tony Vargas 04-23-04, 01:35 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith Blindfighting? And the barbarian can take the same feat, Power Attack? Which the barbarian has anyway. More than that, unless the fighter is a dedicated archer. The fighter can't afford to spend feats outside his specialty unless he has a really good reason. A fighter who spends eleven feats on being flexible is a fighter who is going to get his ass kicked. In all likelihood, no, the Barbarian cannot just take the same feat. Sticking to core (where there are no barb-only feats), the fighter could match the barbarian, feat for feat (including, presumably, weapon focus with a greatsword, & Power Attack/Cleave/Great Cleave), take the full fighter-only Specialization sequence, /twice/, and still have bonus feats left over to be, say, about as good an archer as you could be without being a 19 DEX elf (ie, no multishot, just: Point Blank/Rapid/Distance/Precise Shot), or cheese out with EWP:Spiked Chain, Combat Reflexes, Expertise, & Improved Trip. That's while maintaining a higher AC than the Barbarian, with fewer points invested in DEX. That's more flexible, and not exactly signed up for an ass-kicking. Paradoxically, it's only when you bring in tons of non-core feats that individual fighters start to lose thier flexibility, as they get sucked into long feat chains, and have to invest in don't-screw-me feats like Prone Fighting, just to keep from being humiliated on the battlefield. Core, flexibility is inevitable for the individual fighter - and, it's built into the class as a whole. The balance to that flexibility is slightly less raw power. {Blindfight?} ... or better, a magic item that is more powerful anyway. ... Or another item similar in function. ... Unless you're a dwarf. ... Yeah, that feat sounds highly suspect. ... Damage. Lots of damage. If you're confronted with an archer half a mile away, use dimension door. If you're confronted by a rogue who just won't get close, or a spider climbing archer, use axethrowing. OK, Gith, so every barbarian is a Dwarf in heavy armor with a cape of the mountebank, robe of eyes, and boots of flying? :rolleyes: Now that I think about it, much of what you posted has actually made my point - you have the Barbarian picking alternate races, items, and non-core PrCs, trying to graft some versatility onto a class that's more narrowly focused than a laser beam. A fighter doesn't need specific magic items to deal with opponents who aren't anxious to go toe-to-toe, he can just Quickdraw the o'l mighy bow and let fly, probably with at least Point Blank Shot. A fighter doesn't need to transparently cheese his way around limitations on his class abilities - because there aren't any. A fighter doesn't need to dip into a non-core prestige class to be good at tripping, he just takes the feats. Compare the classes the Barbarians class abilities are gained in a fixed progression, and are all good for one thing: charging into melee and trading huge amounts of damage toe-to-toe. The fighter's class abilities are wide open to customization. A single-class, core fighter can be as specialized as can be in toe-to-toe melee, and still have feats left over to be more effective in ranged combat, if that's called for, and probably, a non-bonus feat or two left over to shore up weaknesses.
Khazra 04-23-04, 01:37 PM	Why not compare core fighter and barbarian builds. If there is someone on these boards that is a well known member that you all trust try & get them to test them in an arena? Instead of money give them say a : +5 weapon +5 armour +5 shield or +5 off-hand weapon +5 inherit stat increase item +6 stat item 2*+4 stat items 3 other miscullaneous of players choice.
Tony Vargas 04-23-04, 01:41 PM	Contests like that prove nothing. PC classes are meant to work together, not duel to the death. Besides, on the one hand, it'd be far to easy to custom-tailor a fighter against the barbarian's strengths, while, OTOH, in a stand-up, toe-to-toe fight, it'd be a foregone conclusion in the barbarian's favor.
Mith 04-23-04, 01:49 PM	I think in a case like this, an arena fight could actually prove valuable. What's the fighters job? Beat the crap out of stuff in melee. What's the barbarian's job? Beat the crap out of stuff in melee. So we could build a fighter and barbarian, and let them beat the crap out of each other in melee. We'd see who was better at it. Start the battle at a range of 200 ft. or something to make sure that both builds get to use and tricks and tactics they have, and let them loose.
Khazra 04-23-04, 02:10 PM	200ft seems about right to me, enough time and distance for the fighter to try and even the hp at range. Oh, yeah what should startinging stats be, i think 18,16,16,14,14,12 would be quite gd
Tony Vargas 04-23-04, 02:14 PM	Actually, the fighter's job description isn't that narrow. Fighters might play several rolls: missle combat, high-damage melee, 'meat shield' (high AC melee), battle-field control (reach, trip, etc), or situational tactics (disarm, blindfight, sunder, bullrush, grapple, etc). Most decent fighters can probably cover two or three of those reasonably well, even before reaching high levels. The barbarian is almost always going to be high-damage melee - if he's doing anything else, he's not fully utilizing his class abilities. That's specialization, and the reward for specialization is POWER. The barbarain will prevail unless the figher is just cheesed into a high-damage melee character's worst nightmare (which'd just be silly: no real PC fighter is ever going to be designed soley to frustrate barbarians).
Khazra 04-23-04, 02:21 PM	I wouldnt say thats true, a barbarian makes a good scout & a fairly good ranged combatant. Also there is no reason for a barbarian to be a meat shield (dwarf) and a very good grappler.
Lexus 04-23-04, 02:21 PM	I personally would like to see the fighter more defense and tactics oriented. The sort of character who can soak lots of damage or be hard to hit with a high ac. When on offense he'll take the slow,methodical approach. I know there are feats that let you do the above but if you want the weapon focus/ spec. tree that's four feats that you have to give up. To me spending four feats for +2 to hit and +4 to damage seems like a rip off. However I can't help but want to get them since they're the only four fighter exclusive feats.
Khazra 04-23-04, 02:25 PM	+2 to hit and +4 to damage is pretty poor......unless your an archer becaue anything that adds to the quite lousy damage potential of an arrow is well worth it.
Roland the Crownbreaker 04-23-04, 02:27 PM	And one last thing about closing in via dimension door: Your opponent can do that too. <Bamf!> "I close in with dimension door!" <Bamf!> "He puts distance back between you the same way!"
Votan 04-23-04, 02:28 PM	Originally posted by Mith I think in a case like this, an arena fight could actually prove valuable. What's the fighters job? Beat the crap out of stuff in melee. What's the barbarian's job? Beat the crap out of stuff in melee. So we could build a fighter and barbarian, and let them beat the crap out of each other in melee. We'd see who was better at it. Start the battle at a range of 200 ft. or something to make sure that both builds get to use and tricks and tactics they have, and let them loose. This will prove nothing. With an inexpertly constructed fighter in a duel, the fighter will be slcied to ribbons nearly every time (say using the 3.5 DMG versions). Then optimization will begin. Soon we will have 2 characters optimized for dueling in a way that is never found in nature. It will come down to a few important variables: -> Can the fighter evade the barbarian and have a range duel? -> Can the Barbarian be triped by a trip expert? -> Can the Barbarian be disarmed by a fast fighter? If yes to the above, then the barbarian is in trouble. But if nobody can fly (and the barbarian is faster) and if the Barbarian has prone attack and if the barbarin has several weapons with quick draw it is going to be gruesome. A fighter archer will get one round of firing at 200 ft as the Barbarian runs in then charges. There are a few key levels that this won't be quite as embarrassing (say 4th) but it's pretty grim overall.
Tony Vargas 04-23-04, 02:31 PM	Originally posted by Khazra I wouldnt say thats true, a barbarian makes a good scout & a fairly good ranged combatant. Also there is no reason for a barbarian to be a meat shield (dwarf) and a very good grappler. With no stealth skills and no spot, the barbarian wouldn't make much of a scout, even if he does have survivial. A barbarian /could/ be a decent archer or grappler, if he decided to take a couple of feats in those areas (PBS, Precise Shot or IUS, Imp Grapple). He probably has a good DEX, which helps with archery, and high STR is very good for grappling. But, it's unlikely he'll have those feats to spare any time soon - and, if he does, he's passing up quick access to Great Cleave. I admit, though, that wasn't thinking of grappling as a role, in itself, but, I suppose it is one, and, a second one that a barbarian would be well-suited for. As for a 'meat shield,' the barbarian just isn't suited for it. His Rage lowers his AC, and he's either DEX dependent or throwing away a feat and his fast movement for Heavy armor, plus, his uber-strength just isn't as well suited to weapon & shield as to two-handing. Of course, dedicated 'meat shield' is probably the second-least-fun (and second most necessary) role after 'walking bandaid,' so that's not exactly a big fat '-' is the barbarian column. ;)
Mith 04-23-04, 02:52 PM	So how 'bout we create a battery of test that emphasize different aspects of the characters? I'm not really sure what they should be, but how 'bout everyone that says "xxx is good for so much more than melee combat" contributes a challenge? Off hand, we could have: Arena fight, 1 on 1 "Hold this position" scenario "Take this position" scenario Fighting against a swarm Fighting against ranged opponents
Tony Vargas 04-23-04, 03:18 PM	I'd say a fair battery of tests would be playing a barbarain and a fighter side-by-side, up from first level in a typical, varied, well-run campaign. I volunteer! :D
Sensei Gith 04-23-04, 03:50 PM	Blind-Fight is a bad example in the first place, because there are cheap spells that do it better. Sticking to core (where there are no barb-only feats), the fighter could match the barbarian, feat for feat (including, presumably, weapon focus with a greatsword, & Power Attack/Cleave/Great Cleave), take the full fighter-only Specialization sequence, /twice/, and still have bonus feats left over to be, say, about as good an archer as you could be without being a 19 DEX elf (ie, no multishot, just: Point Blank/Rapid/Distance/Precise Shot), or cheese out with EWP:Spiked Chain, Combat Reflexes, Expertise, & Improved Trip. Yep. He's now a second-rate tank and a second-rate archer. That's while maintaining a higher AC than the Barbarian, with fewer points invested in DEX. How, exactly, is the fighter doing that? Not to mention that putting more points into Dex makes the barbarian better in other ways. Paradoxically, it's only when you bring in tons of non-core feats that individual fighters start to lose thier flexibility, as they get sucked into long feat chains, and have to invest in don't-screw-me feats like Prone Fighting, just to keep from being humiliated on the battlefield. They aren't "sucked into" feat chains. The reason that successful fighters take long feat chains is because they're better. Nor do they have to take feats like Prone Fighting. OK, Gith, so every barbarian is a Dwarf in heavy armor with a cape of the mountebank, robe of eyes, and boots of flying? I didn't say that. I used dwarven barbarians as the example because they happen to be the best. I certainly wouldn't expect you to use gnomes as examples of the best fighters. Heavy armor, obviously, goes with the dwarf. An item of dimension door is a must-have for anyone, so don't blame me. Cape of the Mountebank had never occurred to me. Dimension Door 1/day unslotted isn't expensive. Every high-level opponent needs a way to detect invisible creatures, obviously, and a grounded party tends to be a dead party (do the fighters and barbarians in your campaign run at the sight of dragons and let the casters do the work?). Access to those effects is commonplace, and I'm surprised that you made an issue of it. you have the Barbarian picking alternate races, items, and non-core PrCs, Actually, I'm not. All of that is core and commonplace, and I never mentioned PrC's. A fighter doesn't need specific magic items to deal with opponents who aren't anxious to go toe-to-toe, he can just Quickdraw the o'l mighy bow and let fly, probably with at least Point Blank Shot. Or he can dimension door or fly over there to do more damage. It helps fighters just as much, except that it reduces the effectiveness of ranged attacks relative to melee. A fighter doesn't need to dip into a non-core prestige class to be good at tripping, Nor does a barbarian. With their strength, they do it better than a fighter. If he's going to be into tactical maneuvers, then two levels of fighter would help, too. Of course, non-core PrC's help a barbarian, but they help the fighter, too. Compare the classes the Barbarians class abilities are gained in a fixed progression, and are all good for one thing: charging into melee and trading huge amounts of damage toe-to-toe. A false generalization. They're good archers, and special maneuvers work wonders for them. Improved Sunder, for example, is a one-feat investment. Eventually, the walking weapon shop is going to run out. And if you didn't take Quick Draw, bye bye. A single-class, core fighter can be as specialized as can be in toe-to-toe melee, Which is to say mildly specialized. And one last thing about closing in via dimension door: Your opponent can do that too. If he has the item to, which is not as valuable for those with great ranged attacks anyway. Plus, NPC's are hardly rich. I'd say a fair battery of tests would be playing a barbarain and a fighter side-by-side, up from first level in a typical, varied, well-run campaign. Been there, done that, the fighter sucked.
Tony Vargas 04-23-04, 05:07 PM	Well, Gith, with a few minor disagreements on details, I think we're largely in agreement. Barbarians are, indeed the more specialized class, and fighters the more flexible one. The remaining point of contention is one of opinion: I think that flexibility is worthwhile, while, AFAICT, you value it at nil (at most, nil ... I get the impression you consider any possibility of generalization as a liability). I think we can leave it at that. I just want to make sure I've got it right... From my perspective, if the Barbarian abilities were converted into hypothetical feats for comparison purposes, the barbarian would have to come out a few feats ahead, to be balanced with the more flexible fighter. Exactly how many is hard to say, since the value of specialization vs generalization is highly situational. From yours - and, I don't mean to put words into your mouth, (well, I'm going to, but it's not to misrepresent your position, but to help me under stand it), so correct me if I'm wrong - the fighter would have to have at least as many feats as the barbarian, to have a hope of equaling it, and, even then, would still likely be inferior, unless all the barbarian's 'feats' were actually available for the fighter to actually take. Adding extra bonus feats probably wouldn't help, either, unless /all/ of those feats could contribute to one speciality. Any feats above and beyond that, which would then have to go into other specialities would be, in effect, wasted. Because sucking at any number of things can never be as good as rocking at one thing - and rocking less than the next guy is the same as sucking. To extend that reasoning, unless all feats are equally valuable, and all specialities can avail themselves of feat chains that exactly equal the fighter's total number of feats at 20th level, the fighter is a worthwhile class only for those specialities that meet those requirements, or, if there aren't any, only up until the point that he has completed the available feat chain for his speciality - and only then if there's a suitable set of prestige classes that further build on that speciality to 'finish out' in /and/ only if there is not a combination of core and prestige classes that could also complete that feat chain in the same number of character levels. Thus, if the game were perfectly balanced, there would be, for any given speciality, one build - race/class/multiclass/prestige - that is superior to all other builds. Further, the total set of all possible characters would consist only of such builds (one for each speciality), and, of course, each such build, at each character level, would, overall, be precisely equal to each other in overall power/effectiveness/desireability.
Mith 04-23-04, 05:15 PM	Tony - versatility is nice. However, a guy with one schtick can often find or make ways to use that schtick for everything. In other words, intelligent play can substitute for mechanical versatility more easily than intelligent play can substitute for raw mechanical power. In D&D specialization is king. The barbarian, if played wisely, will take his one schtick and beat the tar out of the fighter with it, because it's a really, really big schtick and the player can find ways to use it in a variety of situations.
Tony Vargas 04-23-04, 05:40 PM	I don't know about that. I mean, a barbarian with an adamantine greatsword, a flight item, ring of regen and a +6 con-booster could bull through a dungeon: traps? hah, he'll just set them off, he has trap sense and tons of hps; locked doors? break them down! Big melee monster? RAGE! CHARGE! KILL! Horde of smaller monsters? CHARGE! GREAT CLEAVE! Caster? Win Initiative (or make save) CHARGE! KILL! Missle users on other side of chasm? (flying)CHARGE! GREAT CLEAVE! Caster defended by horde of smaller monsters with missle weapons behind cover in an elevated position with caltrops spread in front of it? RAGE! (flying)CHARGE! GREAT CLEAVE! (make save) CHARGE! KILL! Is that intelligent play substituting for versatility? Or is it sheer power substituting for intelligent play?
Sensei Gith 04-23-04, 06:14 PM	From yours - and, I don't mean to put words into your mouth, (well, I'm going to, but it's not to misrepresent your position, but to help me under stand it), so correct me if I'm wrong - the fighter would have to have at least as many feats as the barbarian, to have a hope of equaling it, Yep. A fighter and barbarian, outfitted to hit things with big pointy sticks, should be equal in power. If the fighter spends 20 levels of class features on THF tanking, he should be every bit as good of a THF tank as his counterpart. My comparison simply showed that the barbarian could be thought of as a feat tree, and the fighter comes out way behind. If the fighter could use his class features to exactly duplicate the barbarian's, he would still be far worse. even then, would still likely be inferior, unless all the barbarian's 'feats' were actually available for the fighter to actually take. Not by a long shot. There are many ways to THF greatness. It just so happens that as it stands, fighter is not one of them. It would be ridiculous to force fighters to emulate barbarians as closely as possible. And that's just the one combat style. By no means should there be only one build viable for a character. The "feats" were only there for comparison's sake. Adding extra bonus feats probably wouldn't help, either, unless /all/ of those feats could contribute to one speciality. In general, yes. That's why the barbarian is such a powerful class. They get, effectively, more feats than the fighter, and the core fighter couldn't be as good at tanking no matter how many bonus feats they had. To extend that reasoning, unless all feats are equally valuable, and all specialities can avail themselves of feat chains that exactly equal the fighter's total number of feats at 20th level, the fighter is a worthwhile class only for those specialities that meet those requirements, or, if there aren't any, only up until the point that he has completed the available feat chain for his speciality - and only then if there's a suitable set of prestige classes that further build on that speciality to 'finish out' in /and/ only if there is not a combination of core and prestige classes that could also complete that feat chain in the same number of character levels. Sorta. It's an established fact that some types of fighters are simply better than others due to the imbalance of the feats and fighting styles. THF, for example, is almost universally considered the best melee style. There is no reason to TWF (as a normal fighter), there is no reason to finesse, and there is little reason to sword'n'board. This problem is not directly related to the fighter, but ideally, all combat styles should be equally valuable. It is definitely necessary to have much longer feat chains, though. The reason that the barbarian has more "feat points" is that as the barbarian increases in level, he gets more class features and the class features get better. When a fighter reaches sixth level, he's maxed out in terms of the power of his abilities, and in most cases, they don't synergize at all. In the best case, he will be getting more and more sixth-level abilities until he goes Epic. Longer feat chains with progressively more powerful feats can solve the problem. In a more balanced system, Mighty Rage shouldn't be compared to the laughable specialization feats, but to (for example) a feat that grants +2 attack and damage with a chosen weapon, but with feat prerequisites so high only a fighter can take it. There should be breadth as well as depth— more feats that synergize well should be added. Snow Savant's Machine Gun Tripper is a perfect example— power is gained not with huge trees (because they don't exist), but with piles of feats that all synergize and contribute toward the same theme, tripping everything in sight. Thus, if the game were perfectly balanced, there would be, for any given speciality, one build - race/class/multiclass/prestige - that is superior to all other builds. No. That's what I'm objecting to— If you want to deal lots of damage in melee, you take barbarian, no questions asked. Unless the DM allows Persistent Spell, in which case you should play a cleric, and so on. It's harder to do with races, but there should be plenty of ways to build a fighter20 tank, just as there are ways to build a barbarian20 tank. Further, the total set of all possible characters would consist only of such builds (one for each speciality), Again, diversity is good, which is why I object to a single class ruling the melee field. of course, each such build, at each character level, would, overall, be precisely equal to each other in overall power/effectiveness/desireability. Okay, that one I can agree with. However, a guy with one schtick can often find or make ways to use that schtick for everything. In other words, intelligent play can substitute for mechanical versatility more easily than intelligent play can substitute for raw mechanical power. Exactly what I mean! Thanks, Mith.
Mirror, Mirror 04-23-04, 06:22 PM	My favorite fighter was a human that was greater specialized in double sword, longbow, AND completed the TWF chain and had improved critical. Sure, he was second to the Barbarian in meele, and second to the ranger in archery, but he was ALWAYS useful. Nothing ever really posed a problem that he could not handle(well, after the armor that granted Globe of Invulneriability). Can't say I have ever seen a Barbarian that could be nearly as useful. Given a choice, my PARTY would rather have the fighter any day of the week.
Roland the Crownbreaker 04-23-04, 06:45 PM	I've noticed that in a larger party, a generalist works great as a supplement to a number of specialists. A fighter with the feat chains to be a good melee combatant as well as a good missle combatant (as well as a wall if need be) will always be near the top of the heap in multiple situations. Take a few archery feats, quickdraw, power attack, cleave, (but not great cleave. IMX great cleave is rarely useable) expertise, and a few others that fit what you want. (maybe TWF and shield expert) You won't ever be the best (the dedicated archer will be better, the dedicated THF will be better) but you will be better outside of your specialty than others are outside of thiers. (I played a character like this, and having the ability to contribute in every situation made for an enjoyable campaign)
Tony Vargas 04-23-04, 06:45 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith No. That's what I'm objecting to— If you want to deal lots of damage in melee, you take barbarian, no questions asked. ... there should be plenty of ways to build a fighter20 tank, just as there are ways to build a barbarian20 tank. Again, diversity is good, which is why I object to a single class ruling the melee field. I see. So (in what would qualify as a perfect system, from your perspective), for any given speciality, there should, ideally, be multiple builds that perform optimally for that speciality. They might take different paths to get there, and, there may be differences in flavor and detail between them, but, ultimately, mechanically, they would perform equally (and optimally) in thier chosen speciality. An optimal pure melee build, for instance, might, with all factors taken into account, output 62.4 hps of damage (number out of thin air with no bearing on anything), per round, on average - whether it's a raging barbarian, fighter availing himself of hypothetical, deep, scaling, feat-tree, or persistant-divine-might cleric, or some combination of those and whatever PrCs might aply. The same would aply for any other speciality - no one build could be substituted for another of the same speciality and perform better, since it would then obviate the other builds. Similarly, no single build could be permitted to be optimal in two or more specialities - why play an optimal melee build when you could be optimal melee + opitmal buffing caster. And, of course, the existance of each possible build would have to be justified by some speciality, at which it's performance is optimal (or there'd be no reason to use it). I think I can see where you're coming from - it's pretty far off, and I don't much care for it, but, at least the idea is getting across to me.
Sensei Gith 04-23-04, 06:50 PM	Originally posted by Tony Vargas I don't know about that. I mean, a barbarian with an adamantine greatsword, a flight item, ring of regen and a +6 con-booster could bull through a dungeon: traps? hah, he'll just set them off, he has trap sense and tons of hps; locked doors? break them down! Big melee monster? RAGE! CHARGE! KILL! Horde of smaller monsters? CHARGE! GREAT CLEAVE! Caster? Win Initiative (or make save) CHARGE! KILL! Missle users on other side of chasm? (flying)CHARGE! GREAT CLEAVE! Caster defended by horde of smaller monsters with missle weapons behind cover in an elevated position with caltrops spread in front of it? RAGE! (flying)CHARGE! GREAT CLEAVE! (make save) CHARGE! KILL! Is that intelligent play substituting for versatility? Or is it sheer power substituting for intelligent play? I think that by "intelligent play," he means preparing your character for all situations so that he can RAGE CHARGE CLEAVE KILL! no matter what the circumstances. Prior preparation is the key to being successful with any character. Obviously, if the character is used badly in combat, he won't be as successful.
Tony Vargas 04-23-04, 06:59 PM	OK. I consider 'intelligent play' to be intelligence evinced, well, in play. But, sure, optimization requires some smarts, too.
Sensei Gith 04-23-04, 07:06 PM	Interesting character, Mirror, but by itself, it proves no more than the fighter I played that sucked. I've noticed that in a larger party, a generalist works great as a supplement to a number of specialists. A fighter with the feat chains to be a good melee combatant as well as a good missle combatant (as well as a wall if need be) will always be near the top of the heap in multiple situations. Take a few archery feats, quickdraw, power attack, cleave, (but not great cleave. IMX great cleave is rarely useable) expertise, and a few others that fit what you want. (maybe TWF and shield expert) You won't ever be the best (the dedicated archer will be better, the dedicated THF will be better) but you will be better outside of your specialty than others are outside of thiers. (I played a character like this, and having the ability to contribute in every situation made for an enjoyable campaign) I think that you're really saying that in a larger party, a character who can perform well in as many situations as possible works great. The problem is that it is relatively easy to make a specialist like a barbarian effective in almost any circumstance. Tony, I mostly agree with what you said. What you're describing sounds to me like game balance— fighters are just as good as barbarians, which are just as good as clerics, and there is not "super-build" that makes the game boring for everyone who doesn't have it. Obviously, it's rather improbable that it can be perfect. I disagree with the following statement, however: And, of course, the existance of each possible build would have to be justified by some speciality, at which it's performance is optimal (or there'd be no reason to use it). I don't think that everyone should have to specialize to have an effective character— bards should be balanced, too. It's simply that as it stands, a specialized fighter is better than a nonspecialized one.
Mirror, Mirror 04-23-04, 07:20 PM	Just pointing out different experiences from different perspectives. The problem with opinions (other than the cliched ones), is that they are usually derived from few experiences. Mine are, and I'm sure yours are as well. My one problem with the fighter being able to be the equal of the barbarian is that then why play a barbarian?? Just play a fighter. If the fighter could equal the ranger, why play a ranger?? Monk?? Now, there IS a class that claims the be a single, all encompassing class. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=205053 You want that, fine. But the fighter should not be that, IMO
Sensei Gith 04-23-04, 10:03 PM	My one problem with the fighter being able to be the equal of the barbarian is that then why play a barbarian?? If the barbarian is better than the fighter, why play a fighter? They're different classes, with different abilities. Aside from the sorcerer and wizard, the barbarian and fighter probably fill the most similar roles. The ranger is not nearly so similar. They never fought as well as fighters, but they get spells, nature stuff, and more skill points. Monks are not even a primary combat class. They are owned by fighters, barbarians, or anything else with full BAB. It's a different class. It has different abilities, it fills different roles. While they might fear tanks, they are a caster's worst enemy. "The questing knight, the conquering overlord, the king's champion, the elite foot soldier, the hardened mercenary, and the bandit king— are all fighters." When a fighter can fill the roles that it was intended to, I'll be happy with the class. It's not supposed to be anything like the class in the link, and I don't want it to be.
Tam 04-23-04, 10:20 PM	Remember that a 20th level barbarian had at any level the opportunity to take a level of fighter, that's 19 feats he could have obtained 20 FEATS, plus heavy armor and tower shield prof. In comparaison a 20th level fighter, had at any time the opportunity to take a barbarian level and gain 2 class features. That make 2 class features. 20 Feats and 2 proficiency, against 2 class features, it is obvious that the barbarian is vastely more versatile. ---- Seriously, with just core book, if you had to built one of these archetype with a 20 level of fighter or 20 level of barbarian, which one would be the more effective and versatile? How would you build your character: (1) Decide what he would need to perform. (2) See what the raw classes can do (without taking feats yet). (2') (optionally) Chose a PHB race, you don't have to take the same. (3) The characters are 25 point buy, +5 from levelling. (4) Distribute the base skill points. For quick assessment, use 5/11/12/18/23 ranks. (5) Distribute extra skill and feats. - The barbarian will often have extra skill points, distribute them. - The fighter spend 11 class feats to establish the base of the character concept. At this point, this is essentially playing catch up with the barbarian. The base of the character concept is fighting well, so the fighter will have to compensate for DR, higher stat, Hp and/or rage ability and even skill points. The fighter doesn't have to spend all his feats if the barbarian extra abilities do not fit the concept. (6) The barbarian chose 6/7 feats that they both must have to fit the archetype. (7) The fighter distributes is left over feats the best he can to supplement the built. Evaluate the difference between the 2. ---- Sniper -> Barbarian: for fast movement and outdoor skills. Good Hp and DR is a plus, rage also allow some decent hand to hand fighting. Hunter -> Barbarian: skill points, survival. Track will serve a barbarian well. 2 Handed Gladiator -> Barbarian: that what they were designed for. Sword and board Gladiator -> Barbarian: DR compensates for the lesser AC (1 point with good Dex, which the Barbarian can have by sacrificing Int). Good Dex makes better Marksman, coupled with less armor penalty for better skills. And that's without raging. Obviously, you will rage only when it is safer to do so. Two weapon fighter -> Barbarian. The same as two handed fighting, in that you lower your AC for better offense. No heavy armor is less an hindrance (you need high dex), and high Hp + DR is a definite plus. Rage might be usefull. Duelist -> Barbarian: see Two weapon fighter, + skill points is a plus. Brawler -> Barbarian: What's better than improved grapple ? +8 to Str. What's better ? Improved grapple AND +8 to Str. DR makes barbarian difficult to damage in grapple situation. Devoted defender -> ? Sword master -> ? Rider -> Fighter: you get mounted feats and other fighting feats. Heavy armor is less of a burden. Phalanx -> Fighter. Heavy armor, Tower shield, combat expertise tree, and still some feats left for actual offense.
Votan 04-23-04, 11:31 PM	Originally posted by Tam Seriously, with just core book, if you had to built one of these archetype with a 20 level of fighter or 20 level of barbarian, which one would be the more effective and versatile? Fighter make 3 good things: a) Trick fighters (trippers, disarmers or grapplers). b) Defensive Fighters c) Archers (serious rivals with Rangers) The modern or skilled soldier archtype is best represented by a ranger (woth specialzied enemies, skills and stealth). Ranger also make very good stalkers and snipers. One level of barbarian really helps the sniper, though. A barbarian does better in front line melee because of focused abilites that enhance this far beyond the average fighter. A Paladin would be a better defensive character (especially with Divine Feats) given abilities like divine grace and heavy armor. But the alignment restrictions and code of conduct make the Paladin too specialized. But for defense on the fly not much beats a Paladin.
Tony Vargas 04-24-04, 03:46 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith I don't think that everyone should have to specialize to have an effective character— bards should be balanced, too. It's simply that as it stands, a specialized fighter is better than a nonspecialized one. See, now you're confusing me again. To be balanced, characters should be equally powerful. But, specialized characters are more powerful than gernalist ones. Now, to me, there's not a problem, because I see versatility as a an aspect of a character's power. A more versatile character is a more effective one. Just as a character that's narrow focused, and thus extremely potent in it's area of focus can be effective. How would you go about ensuring that a genralist character - like a bard, or all-round fighter had the capacity to be balanced, when there are specialist characters like hypothetical 11-feat-deep-Trip-chain fighters and barbarians out there?
Roland the Crownbreaker 04-24-04, 05:59 PM	Every DM I know likes to toss out things that confound specialist characters. The 11 feat trip using fighter will be hard presses against something that is larger and/or on 4 legs, due to the bonuses such things get. A generalist character is not as "nerfed" against an opponent who is prepared for your favorite tactics. (and an intelligent BBEG will be prepared for such things)
Sensei Gith 04-24-04, 07:54 PM	a) Trick fighters (trippers, disarmers or grapplers). IMX, more "tricks" don't help you much. The special maneuvers tend to overlap a great deal. Specializing in one, however, is where the fighter can shine, as long as there are enough feats available to specialize in. Taking a feat or two to support a special maneuver is also fine for many chartacters that don't specialize in them, because of their utility, but if you are going to invest in them, you should really invest. b) Defensive Fighters I'm not sure what you mean. Barbarians are clearly better at soaking up damage, and they can match the fighter's AC just fine. c) Archers (serious rivals with Rangers) Agreed. In core, a ranger can do pretty much anything a fighter can in terms of archery, but when more feats are added, the fighter pulls far ahead. IMO, most of the archery PrC's like Deepwood Sniper should be feat chains to begin with, but that's another topic. To be balanced, characters should be equally powerful. But, specialized characters are more powerful than gernalist ones. Right— meaning that the system is not perfectly balanced. How would you go about ensuring that a genralist character - like a bard, or all-round fighter had the capacity to be balanced, when there are specialist characters like hypothetical 11-feat-deep-Trip-chain fighters and barbarians out there? *shrug* Every DM I know likes to toss out things that confound specialist characters. The 11 feat trip using fighter will be hard presses against something that is larger and/or on 4 legs, due to the bonuses such things get. A generalist character is not as "nerfed" against an opponent who is prepared for your favorite tactics. (and an intelligent BBEG will be prepared for such things) That's why if you plan on focusing in a special maneuver, you need to really focus. If you devote enough to it, you shouldn't have a problem. There's a thread on the CO boards about optimizing grappling. The results are absolutely sick. The only problem are broken items that grant outright immunity instead of bonuses. Freedom of Movement with a +20 to grapple checks is okay, Freedom of movement that makes you immune is not. Also, the tripper is the most specialized character I've ever seen, and really works best in a party as, ironically enough, a support character. Preferably with a real tank who can take full advantage of the fallen foes. A character specialized in "hitting things with big pointy sticks until they fall down" can handle almost any situation.
Tony Vargas 04-25-04, 04:10 AM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How would you go about ensuring that a genralist character - like a bard, or all-round fighter had the capacity to be balanced, when there are specialist characters like hypothetical 11-feat-deep-Trip-chain fighters and barbarians out there? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *shrug* So, you feel there should be a place for more generalist characters, but can't imagine how such a place might be made for them? It is a difficult quandry, if you start with the idea that power in a speciality is all a character needs to be effective: If the only power that counts is you peak power, then, in theory, if you were no better a melee monster than the most specialized melee monster, you could be just as good as the most specialized melee monster and remain balanced - and, also, be just as potent in every other area, as well. That obviously wouldn't work, as there'd be no reason to specialize. Conversely, if the generalist has to accept being even slightly inferior to each specialist in his area, then the generalist becomes under-powered. The real problem is the assumption that only peak potency within a speciality matters. While how good you are at what you do best is important, how bad you are at what you do second-best is also important, because there will be times when what you do best just won't do. That's the power of a generalist. It's not that he's not quite as effective as the archer, when archery is what's needed, or not quite as effective as the melee monster when toe-to-toe is called for - it's that he's substantially more effective than the archer when toe-to-toe is the only viable option, and much more effective than the dedicated melee beast when ranged combat is the only way to go. I've seen some objections to this simple truth that seem pretty plausible, but I don't think the hold up. Originally posted by Sensei Gith quote: That's why if you plan on focusing in a special maneuver, you need to really focus. If you devote enough to it, you shouldn't have a problem. ... A character specialized in "hitting things with big pointy sticks until they fall down" can handle almost any situation. You can try to force your speciality to be useful when it normally wouldn't be. You can try to add enough mobility - flight, dimension door, freedom of action, etc - to a melee build to obviate ranged combat. You can do much the same with a ranged build to try to avoid ever having to melee. Obviously, both strategies can't always work. The idea that you can change all your problems into nails because you're just better with a hammer than a screwdriver is just wishful thinking. It's understandable, though, because when all you have is a hammer, those woodscrews start looking a lot like nails. Specialization /is/ very potent in D&D, and, it's very easy to see the power of specialization when you're just running the numbers. The more class abilities and other resources you can concentrate on doing one thing, the better you'll do it. It's obvious. It's so obvious that it can be hard to see past it to the simple fact that you won't always be doing that one thing.
Sensei Gith 04-25-04, 12:35 PM	So, you feel there should be a place for more generalist characters, but can't imagine how such a place might be made for them? Yep. The entire 3e design team failed at it, too. If the only power that counts is you peak power, then, in theory, if you were no better a melee monster than the most specialized melee monster, you could be just as good as the most specialized melee monster and remain balanced - and, also, be just as potent in every other area, as well. Nope. It's not that secondary abilities are useless. In general, they aren't as good as improving a specialty. Obviously, being a powerful, specialized character and getting free stuff on top of it is not balanced. it's that he's substantially more effective than the archer when toe-to-toe is the only viable option, and much more effective than the dedicated melee beast when ranged combat is the only way to go. But that balance of power does not exist, because of the myriad ways of applying your specialty to anything. If ranged combat is "the only way to go," the barbarian will slap on boots of flying and tank as usual. Obviously, both strategies can't always work. They work over 90% of the time. I can't think of where they wouldn't. The idea that you can change all your problems into nails because you're just better with a hammer than a screwdriver is just wishful thinking. Not if you have a device that unscrews things when you hit it with a hammer.
Tony Vargas 04-26-04, 02:25 AM	Originally posted by Tony Vargas You can try to force your speciality to be useful when it normally wouldn't be. You can try to add enough mobility - flight, dimension door, freedom of action, etc - to a melee build to obviate ranged combat. You can do much the same with a ranged build to try to avoid ever having to melee. Obviously, both strategies can't always work. Originally posted by Sensei Gith They work over 90% of the time. I can't think of where they wouldn't. Well, for one, when the optimized for melee, tactically gauranteed to force melee in all situations, character meets the optimized for ranged, tactically gauranteed to force ranged in all situations character, one of thier strategies must fail. That's just an example of the logical impossiblity of /always/ being able to bring your speciality to bear. In practice, you will not only occassionaly find yourself in situations where your speciality does not aply, you will also frequently find yourself in situations where it aplies, but is sub-optimal, and, if you had the flexibility to better execute other tactics, your performance would be superior. Those situations, though, if you're a dedicated specialist, would likely be invisible to you - you were able to act within your specialty, so you count it a success of your strength within that speciality - even if you had to expend more resources to accomplish that success than even a sub-optimal character acting outside your speciality would have.
Sensei Gith 04-26-04, 08:14 AM	Well, for one, when the optimized for melee, tactically gauranteed to force melee in all situations, character meets the optimized for ranged, tactically gauranteed to force ranged in all situations character, one of thier strategies must fail. I was talking about melee types. The barbarian charges and splatters the archer all over the place. In practice, you will not only occassionaly find yourself in situations where your speciality does not aply, you will also frequently find yourself in situations where it aplies, but is sub-optimal, and, if you had the flexibility to better execute other tactics, your performance would be superior. However, in order to execute the other tactic, you made yourself worse at everything else. In order to gain a slight edge in rare and specific situations, your performance suffers greatly everywhere else. Maybe you can handle 5% of situations better, but that does not nearly make up for the other 95%.
Roland the Crownbreaker 04-26-04, 09:09 AM	quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, for one, when the optimized for melee, tactically gauranteed to force melee in all situations, character meets the optimized for ranged, tactically gauranteed to force ranged in all situations character, one of thier strategies must fail. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I was talking about melee types. The barbarian charges and splatters the archer all over the place How do you know that this is how it will work? It may very well end up with the melee character either bogged down or just unable to close in. (flying steed, boots of flying, dimesion doors, whatever) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In practice, you will not only occassionaly find yourself in situations where your speciality does not aply, you will also frequently find yourself in situations where it aplies, but is sub-optimal, and, if you had the flexibility to better execute other tactics, your performance would be superior. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- However, in order to execute the other tactic, you made yourself worse at everything else. In order to gain a slight edge in rare and specific situations, your performance suffers greatly everywhere else. Maybe you can handle 5% of situations better, but that does not nearly make up for the other 95%. Highly DM dependent. 5% is an arbitrary number, not likely backed up by any amount of real study. Your DM may only go with 5%, but another may go with 75%, or 25% or whatever number they feel is appropriate. Last time I made an unstoppable melee monster my DM tossed out 3 or 4 consecutive encounters designed solely to make sure I could not enter melee. When my druid summoned for every occasion we had to deal with a zone where summoned creatures could not enter. When another player used fire spells constantly we faced mosters immune to fire, and so on. Relying on one tactic in my group is an invitation to be swatted down no matter what that tactic is.
Aki Warren 04-26-04, 11:17 AM	I agree. If you make a Sorceror that only has battle spells (And i mean nothing else in any form) the DM will just cast some spell like "Silence" or something similar. If your a barbarian with no ranged fighting, he'll send flying monsters while a magicuser creates an anti-magic field. It happens a lot. When your specilalization is so obvious and the weaknesses so plain even a DM can see them (that was a joke) then your in trouble.
Tony Vargas 04-26-04, 12:39 PM	It doesn't even require malice on the part of the DM, as long as encounters are reasonably varied, the players will have to vary thier tactics to be effective (or even to survive). Dedicated specialists can't vary thier tactics - they contribute very well when needed, and are mere baggage otherwise. Those less specialized contribute less when everything is going there way, but more in adversity. Either has it's advantages. If you consistently tend to face encounters that are straightforward, or on your own terms to an extent, but which have high CRs, for instance, specialists are great - they can bring thier full power to bear, and you need that power to take down somthing more powerful than yourselves. Conversely, encounters with less potent actual foes, made more challenging by circumstance can run the other way - you need to be flexible to counter intelligent tactics or otherwise deal with adversity - if you can deal with the difficulties of the situation, you can handle the enemies even if you're not absolutely optimized. An example of the first might be a low-level party facing a Giant. The giant's CR is definitely above the party's level, but, they know where it is, can plan, sneak up on it, and fight it on thier own terms. If they're specialized towards range they can ambush it from positions that will be difficult to reach, if they're melee types they can get close without enduring too many hurled boulders, and so forth. It comes down to needing to drop the thing as quickly as possible, and every point of damage and attack bonus counts. An example of the second might be a party harrassed by kobolds in a labyrinth. The enemy knows the territory, is small, sneaky, mobile and sees in the dark. In quick succession, the party may have to deal with traps, ranged ambushes from elevated high-cover positions, pits, hidden enemies getting behind thier 'lines' and so forth. A melee monster might theoretically be able to cleave through hordes of kobolds, but, in this scenario, might never manage to melee more than one of them at a time, and that with great difficulty.
Khazra 04-26-04, 01:32 PM	Earlier you said for core classes that other melee werent comparable in terms of being a fighter but hex blades are in my opinion the best! they get four bonus feats and are more versatile anyway because of magic!
Sensei Gith 04-26-04, 03:45 PM	How do you know that this is how it will work? It may very well end up with the melee character either bogged down or just unable to close in. (flying steed, boots of flying, dimesion doors, whatever) And the fighter can just use the same item. Anything that their opponent can do to escape, the fighter can do to chase. Last time I made an unstoppable melee monster my DM tossed out 3 or 4 consecutive encounters designed solely to make sure I could not enter melee. Metagaming. If every encounter is an archer in an antimagic field suspended from the 50-foot ceiling, it starts to get unbelievable. I agree. If you make a Sorceror that only has battle spells Hold it right there! The two situations are not analogous. Spellcasters can't specialize overmuch in any one area, but they're more powerful in the first place. If you are in an evocation-free zone, you've lost, at max, a couple of feats and a handful of spells known. Besides, batle spells have nothing to do with silence. Just get Silent Spell if it happens a lot, or simply move out of the way. It doesn't even require malice on the part of the DM, as long as encounters are reasonably varied, the players will have to vary thier tactics to be effective (or even to survive). Vary their tactics, sure. But they'll still be using the same handful of feats and weapons. An example of the second might be a party harrassed by kobolds in a labyrinth. The enemy knows the territory, is small, sneaky, mobile and sees in the dark. In quick succession, the party may have to deal with traps, ranged ambushes from elevated high-cover positions, pits, hidden enemies getting behind thier 'lines' and so forth. A melee monster might theoretically be able to cleave through hordes of kobolds, but, in this scenario, might never manage to melee more than one of them at a time, and that with great difficulty. Just charge. Power Attack works just fine on an opponent 100 feet away. Plus, since you are so obscenely powerful in melee, you practically have a guaranteed kill. Fly above traps and take the damage if need be, get a darkvision spell from an item if you don't already have it, fly up and attack archers. if you're too low-level to do that, you're too low-level for specialization-versus-variation to have much effect.
Tony Vargas 04-26-04, 04:30 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith Just charge. Power Attack works just fine on an opponent 100 feet away. Plus, since you are so obscenely powerful in melee, you practically have a guaranteed kill. Sure, one opponent - not that you need it when your minimum damage kills the kobold, anyway - too bad they're not lined up for Cleaving. Rapid shot would be letting you kill two of them a round instead of one - and you wouldn't need to be charging through a trap-riddled labyrinth to do it. Of course, the archer is just going to get swarmed by the enemy after the melee guy has charged off, anyway, so it's not like it's fun for anyone. Fly above traps and take the damage if need be, get a darkvision spell from an item if you don't already have it, fly up and attack archers. if you're too low-level to do that, you're too low-level for specialization-versus-variation to have much effect. I don't know. Second level barbarian with Power Attack & Cleave or 2nd-level Ranger with PBS, Precsie Shot & virtual Rapid Shot is pretty specialized compared to a second level fighter with Power Attack, Cleave, Point-Blank Shot, and Rapid Shot.
Roland the Crownbreaker 04-26-04, 05:45 PM	-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last time I made an unstoppable melee monster my DM tossed out 3 or 4 consecutive encounters designed solely to make sure I could not enter melee. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Metagaming. If every encounter is an archer in an antimagic field suspended from the 50-foot ceiling, it starts to get unbelievable. So whenever an encounter is made to challenge someone (and highlight that one method can't be used for everything) the DM gets accused of metagaming? I don't mean to sound insulting, but I am involved in a debate on the FR board over the Initiate of Mystra feat, and the very mention of tactics tailored against the party was dismissed as metagaming as well. And it wasn't quite as over the top as you describe. (all I need is an opponent who flies faster than your boots and can win a grapple check, perhaps via a feat like close quarter fighting. You can't fly to him, and an attempt to dimension door may get you at best one attack, cause it won't let you grapple) Villians have been known to watch the party from afar, enabling them to tailor tactics against a specific opponent. Heck, the last Hero I played tailored his tactics based on what he was facing, doing his best to eliminate the strengths of the enemy and hit them in a manner that reduced thier capacity to counter-attack. Clever plans was exactly what he specialized in. And he got a lot of mileage out of being a versatile warrior, rather than a heavily specialized one.
Sensei Gith 04-26-04, 10:29 PM	So whenever an encounter is made to challenge someone (and highlight that one method can't be used for everything) the DM gets accused of metagaming? No. it's simply that the subset of encounters is so small. The Dm has every right to run a well-balanced campaign. It's when the DM specifically tailors encounters to screw a particular player in some way just to keep the game balanced that there is a problem. It's just like if a sorcerer found a magic staff that made his fire spells deal holy damage, and the DM threw primarily immune fallen celestials at the party. The DM should be able to run a well-balanced campaign without worrying about whether he is screwing the barbarian enough. all I need is an opponent who flies faster than your boots and can win a grapple check, perhaps via a feat like close quarter fighting. You can't fly to him, and an attempt to dimension door may get you at best one attack, cause it won't let you grapple Solution: keep the damn thing from moving. You have a mage, right? And maybe an item of web? A tanglefoot bag? Bolas? Close-quarters fighting (unless it was substantially boosted in 3.5) would not save the creature from a grapple. Villians have been known to watch the party from afar, enabling them to tailor tactics against a specific opponent. As the villian's ability to spy on the players increases, so does their ability to avoid it, or counter-spy, or simply acquire the types of items that will help them overcome such strategies. Sure, one opponent - not that you need it when your minimum damage kills the kobold, anyway - too bad they're not lined up for Cleaving. Rapid shot would be letting you kill two of them a round instead of one - and you wouldn't need to be charging through a trap-riddled labyrinth to do it. Of course, the archer is just going to get swarmed by the enemy after the melee guy has charged off, anyway, so it's not like it's fun for anyone. Mutual screwage doesn't prove anything. Lots of small, weak monsters? The barbarian will kill them all, no problem, no mess, no damage to speak of. The archer will kill two, and they'll swarm the crap out of him. Even weak AoO's can hurt when you take a dozen just for firing your bow. In this case, the archer has the potential to clear the room faster if he lives, but the barbarian fares far better overall. The best of all worlds, of course, is one where the barbarian hangs back and prevents the archer from being piled onto by a dozen kobolds. But two barbarians would do the same job better.
Tony Vargas 04-27-04, 02:27 AM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith Mutual screwage doesn't prove anything. Lots of small, weak monsters? The barbarian will kill them all, no problem, no mess, no damage to speak of. One at a time? While enduring missle fire from the lot of them? The archer will kill two, and they'll swarm the crap out of him. Even weak AoO's can hurt when you take a dozen just for firing your bow. In this case, the archer has the potential to clear the room faster if he lives, but the barbarian fares far better overall. Well, either one is looking pretty dead - the barbarain can't kill his foes fast enough, and is having to chase them through a dangerous, unfamiliar environment - the archer can kill them faster, but, once at least two of them close, melee's the only real option (5' step-and-shoot can't avoid an AoO once you're flanked), and he's at a disadvantage. ... OTOH, the completely-worthless-because-he-didn't-specialize fighter who's not as good as the barbarian in melee (because he doesn't have rage) and not as good as the archer at range (lower DEX, no precise shot), just might fare a little better - he can seek cover and shoot two of the little buggers a round, just like the archer, but, when they close, he can slice through them just as fast as the barbarian, since, even though he's averaging 7.5 damage per hit instead of 16, he still Cleaves 4 hp monsters just fine. And, if they think better of melee, it's back to the bow... The best of all worlds, of course, is one where the barbarian hangs back and prevents the archer from being piled onto by a dozen kobolds. That's true - the mere threat of the barbarian's Cleave will probably keep it a missle duel - the barbarian won't be doing much, but the archer will be able to keep up his fire. So between the two of them, they could handle the situation as well as the generalist - better since the barbarian can pick up and throw back the occassional javelin, and the archer can attack in melee, if it comes to that - and, of course, since 2 hp scores are a lot better than one. But, either one of them would be in serious trouble - because they /can't/ force thier speciality to be useful. Of course, I'm sure it's just a contrived scenario. Afterall, lower level parties never find themselves outnumbered by inferior little monsters in the monsters' own territory, underground. That's 5% of encounters, tops.
Sensei Gith 04-27-04, 08:02 AM	One at a time? While enduring missle fire from the lot of them? Yep. It's not chain lightining, but it might be the next-best thing. the barbarain can't kill his foes fast enough, Then the whole party needs to run. OTOH, the completely-worthless-because-he-didn't-specialize fighter who's not as good as the barbarian in melee (because he doesn't have rage) and not as good as the archer at range (lower DEX, no precise shot), just might fare a little better - he can seek cover and shoot two of the little buggers a round, just like the archer, but, when they close, he can slice through them just as fast as the barbarian, since, even though he's averaging 7.5 damage per hit instead of 16, he still Cleaves 4 hp monsters just fine. And, if they think better of melee, it's back to the bow You're talking about kobolds. Not the most dangerous of creatures. They're not doing enough to put the barbarian at serious risk unless you seriously swarm the players with an above-EL encounter. It really doesn't matter who kills them fastest, because the end result is exactly the same. Besides, if the barbarian needs to, he can just pull out a bow and deal more damage than either the archer or the generalist. better since the barbarian can pick up and throw back the occassional javelin, Thanks! I had forgotten about thrown weapons. Archery isn't a guaranteed kill (50-50 chance on 1d8), but 1d6+5 from a handaxe is. He's not using his specialty, but he's using the same set of stats and abilities. He's at first level anyway. Not much specialization is possible. And then there's the axethrower feat.
Roland the Crownbreaker 04-27-04, 08:05 AM	Personally I believe that a ratio of 15% to 25% of encounters should be made to force players out of thier element. (the 25% is applicable when dealing with an intelligent bad guy, while the 15% is more or less the everyday number) To expand on Tony's Kobold case, add in a few things kobolds often do. The bolt holes are too small for anything larger than a kobold. They are far enough apart so that you can't cleave, period. Traps are set up to seperate party members who stray too far away. In this scenario, the versatile character wins. He can stick to archery until the enemy attempts to close into melee, and fire his bow at a decent rate until they do. (To make matters even more ill, instead of a specialized archer and melee character, take 2 generalist warriors. In this situation they probably perform even better, as the 2 of them together can missle better than the archer and barbarian, and likely kill in melee faster than the archer and barbarian as well.) Also keep in mind, that while magic items can be used to enable a hammer to hit better, they can also be used to make a versatile fighter better as well. (adamantite armor for DR, Bracers of archery for more bow damage, ect.)
Sensei Gith 04-27-04, 11:34 AM	Personally I believe that a ratio of 15% to 25% of encounters should be made to force players out of thier element. That sounds plausible until you think about how specifically tailored those enounters need to be. The bolt holes are too small for anything larger than a kobold. Makes no difference if the kobolds ever move past them. If they don't, there are plenty of ways though or around them. If the walls are wood, the barbarian can get through them. An Escape Artist check (very low-DC) will let him fit through fine, unless it's so small that the kobolds have to struggle with it. If all else fails, the barbarian can simply move behind something where he gets full cover. If the kobolds are standing behind the holes shooting, the barbarian can hit them from the other side. If not, they can't hit much. For that matter, the character suited to dealing with this is the mage. Magic missile. Goodbye. The barbarian can use ranged attacks as well as the generalist can, so it's not a problem if he needs to. A longbow (1d8+1 damage) will kill a kobold just over half the time. A handaxe (1d6+3 assuming 16 Str without bothering to rage) will kill a kobold every time. Thus, rapid shot is effectively nullified because it will take approximately the same number of attacks on average. The fighter ends up with +1 to attack over the barbarian.. wow. If the fighter had specialized, he could have had quick draw and precise shot, surpassing the barbarian in this specific case, but that's the point, isn't it? The barbarian can do everything the generalist can in the screw-the-barbarian scenario.
Khazra 04-27-04, 11:52 AM	Im gonna keep on saying hexblade till sum1 acknowledges it.
Roland the Crownbreaker 04-27-04, 12:03 PM	The barbarian can use ranged attacks as well as the generalist can, so it's not a problem if he needs to. A longbow (1d8+1 damage) will kill a kobold just over half the time. A handaxe (1d6+3 assuming 16 Str without bothering to rage) will kill a kobold every time. Thus, rapid shot is effectively nullified because it will take approximately the same number of attacks on average. Now you are assuming poor stats and poor equipment on the part of the generalist. Why wouldn't he have a mighty bow? And one can assume at least a 14 str on the part of practically any warrior classed character. (if we are in 30 ft we are now at 1d8+3, assring a kill every time. If not, see below) And a thrown axe is not a very good thing to be using if you are stuck in missle combat. The range incerement is not only a mere 10ft, but it only has 5 increments maximum. If the target is any more than 90 ft away (assuming the barbarian moves and throws) they are plain out of range, while a character with a long composite bow can just stand and shoot without penalty, thanks to the 110 ft range such a weapon provides. If you plan to throw things, use javelins for the 20 ft range increments. (and even these are still surpassed by a longbow.)
Mirror, Mirror 04-27-04, 12:15 PM	You know, the single most deadly opponent a party faces can easily be Kobolds. An even # of Kobolds to the party CR can easily destroy a party, barring Teleport and Dimension door. But that is besides the point... Simple trap. The Kobolds fire down the legnth of the cave. The barbarian charges. There is a huge pit trap in front of them, well concealed, with barbed spikes pointing into the pit. Unless the Barbarian knows the trap is there, he will fall in. Now, the barbed spikes are a slight inconvenience, but the green slime at the bottom of the pit is a major one. The Kobolds run away. The Barbarian gets out without dying and regroups with the party. Healed. Round the corner. Kobolds are mooning the party. All clumped together. Now, not wishing to repeat his last mistake, the barbarian does not charge. The Kobolds fire arrows at them. The party decides to take cover. Now, the Kobolds are busy collapsing the tunnel entrance. The party is trapped. Substitute in the fighter. Most of this goes the same way, except the fighter never charges into the trap and is not useless around the corner. This could easily be second or third level, and already the versital character is just as valuable to the party as the specialized character. He's not the optimal character in any particular field, but he makes up for that by having very few weaknesses. With that flexibility, he concentrates on minimizing his weaknesses, then enhancing his strengths. Meanwhile, the barbarian needs much more to minimize his weaknesses, which means he has less to enhance his strengths. Over all, this should equal a 0 sum game, with both characters being even. It does work, but playing a fighter this way takes more imagination and more patience. The barbarian is simply an easier class to play.
Roland the Crownbreaker 04-27-04, 12:28 PM	What many a gamer hates to see, kobolds with a big "T" on thier shields. <bonus points to anyone who understands the reference>
Tony Vargas 04-27-04, 01:14 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith Besides, if the barbarian needs to, he can just pull out a bow and deal more damage than either the archer or the generalist. True, the barbarian's mighty bow can probably dish out d8+4, while the archer's might only be d8+2+1 for PBS, and the fighter's might be d8+3+1.... the kobolds still obligingly die for each of them, though. They just die twice as fast if you have rapid shot. Originally posted by Sensei Gith The barbarian can use ranged attacks as well as the generalist can, so it's not a problem if he needs to. No, he can't. The fighter's bow may not be as mighty as the barbarian's, but it can still auto-kill each kobold it hits, and it's fired twice as often. And, he's not supposed to /need/ to - he's supposed to charge 80' and do massive damage. If the fighter had specialized, he could have had quick draw and precise shot, surpassing the barbarian in this specific case, but that's the point, isn't it? That's what the archer did. The archer kills two kobolds/round at range - so they swarm him. The barbarian kills two kobolds/swing, with cleave, so they /don't/ swarm him - they keep 10' appart and pepper him with missle fire. The worthless generalist does both. The barbarian can do everything the generalist can in the screw-the-barbarian scenario. Sure doesn't look like that to me. The barbarian kills one kobold per round, assuming he can reach them, at the risk of being sepparated from his party and running headlong into simple traps. Because, remember, his speciality is melee, and he's going to /force/ it to work. He's not going to do to well. The archer can kill two kobolds per round, up until they decide it's better to swarm him than trade itty bitty small-sized light crossbow bolts for clothyard-shaft longbow arrows. That's probably a couple of rounds. After that, he's down to one/round - and the occassional miniumum melee damage may even leave one alive now and then. He's doing better than the barbarian, but, still, not that great. The fighter also has rapid shot, so can feather two/round, if they decide to close, he draws his longsword and cleaves through them two per round. At the end of the combat, the kobolds attacking the fighter have suffered about twice the casualties of the ones attacking either the barbarian or the archer. Just to recap who we're talking about: Barb2: Human S:18 D:16 Co:14 hps:23 Power Attack, Cleave Greatsword+1, Cold Iron heavy flail, Alchemical Silver scythe Chain shirt +1, AC:18 move:40 Rang2: Human S:14 D:18 Co:16 hps:19 vRpd Shot, PBS, Precise Shot Mighty (14) bow+1 (20 arrows, 10 cold iron arrows, 10 silver arrows) MW longsword MW chain shirt,MW buckler, AC:18/19 move 30 Fight2: Human S:16 D:13, Co:14 hps:20 PA,Cleave,PBS,RS MW longsword, MW mighty (16) bow (40 arrows), cold iron light hammer, alchemical silver dagger. MW full plate,MW buckler AC:19/20 move 20
Khazra 04-27-04, 04:17 PM	Barb2: Human S:18 D:16 Co:14 hps:23 Power Attack, Cleave Greatsword+1, Cold Iron heavy flail, Alchemical Silver scythe Chain shirt +1, AC:18 move:40 Rang2: Human S:14 D:18 Co:16 hps:19 vRpd Shot, PBS, Precise Shot Mighty (14) bow+1 (20 arrows, 10 cold iron arrows, 10 silver arrows) MW longsword MW chain shirt,MW buckler, AC:18/19 move 30 Fight2: Human S:16 D:13, Co:14 hps:20 PA,Cleave,PBS,RS MW longsword, MW mighty (16) bow (40 arrows), cold iron light hammer, alchemical silver dagger. MW full plate,MW buckler AC:19/20 move 20. Come on, add the hexblade, u know you want to. Speciality and diversity!
Sensei Gith 04-27-04, 04:19 PM	Now you are assuming poor stats and poor equipment on the part of the generalist. I'm assuming first-level equipment. Unless you're in the Realms, that's no mighty bow. And a thrown axe is not a very good thing to be using if you are stuck in missle combat. The range incerement is not only a mere 10ft, but it only has 5 increments maximum. If the target is any more than 90 ft away (assuming the barbarian moves and throws) they are plain out of range, while a character with a long composite bow can just stand and shoot without penalty, thanks to the 110 ft range such a weapon provides. If you plan to throw things, use javelins for the 20 ft range increments. (and even these are still surpassed by a longbow.) I agree; javelins are superior. I just pulled a random weapon off the tables. If mighty bhow are allowed, then by all means, give both classes one. [/quote]You know, the single most deadly opponent a party faces can easily be Kobolds. An even # of Kobolds to the party CR can easily destroy a party, barring Teleport and Dimension door. But that is besides the point...[/quote] The balance of the encounter is beside the point? Substitute in the fighter. Most of this goes the same way, except the fighter never charges into the trap and is not useless around the corner. Sorry, but I call BS. The fighter doesn't know that the trap is there either. Unless he's a specialist archer, he's going to do a lot more damage by, like the barbarian, charging in. He has the same reflex save, and a lower fortitude save, not to mention less hit points. He easily loses that one. Second, the barbarian can use ranged attacks almost as well as the fighter. Stop acting as if he has no ranged weapons. Javelins are good weapons that capitalize on his strength score, and he is just as good as the generalist at them until later levels when the barbarian can simply charge over the pit in the first place. The barbarian can certainly take the counterattack much better. The fighter wins the second one with rapid shot, because you're facing opponents with skewed CR's that are supposed to be 1/8th your power. (On a related note, does anyone honestly believe that 8 kobolds firing arrows for 1d6 apiece are an EL 2 encounter? I thought not. The entire example is based on kobolds having CR's too low for their offensive power if actually played intelligently. And forget the prepared territory, traps, and green slime.) I just fround something in the MM: Kobolds with levels in NPC classes have a CR equal to their character level –3. Right. I think we can safely discount kobolds. True, the barbarian's mighty bow can probably dish out d8+4, while the archer's might only be d8+2+1 for PBS, and the fighter's might be d8+3+1.... the kobolds still obligingly die for each of them, though. They just die twice as fast if you have rapid shot. A transient advantage inspecific circumstances at very low levels. Against level-apopropriate oppponents, the barbarian wins again, if he has to resort to ranged combat for some reason. And, he's not supposed to /need/ to - he's supposed to charge 80' and do massive damage. You misread. He is supposed to use his abilities. That does not mean charging, although the latter is the best option in many cases. The worthless generalist does both. The barbarian can't kill them as quickly at this particular level, although he can a level earlier and a few levels later. This, however, makes no difference. The end result is the same— dead kobolds. The damage isn't serious, certainly not enough to jeapordize the barbarian. In other words, the generalist fares no better. The barbarian kills one kobold per round, assuming he can reach them, at the risk of being sepparated from his party and running headlong into simple traps. Because, remember, his speciality is melee, and he's going to /force/ it to work. Being separated from his party? Big risk. Traps? Look at his HD and fort save. Also, I hope you're adding these traps into the gp and xp rewards. At the end of the combat, the kobolds attacking the fighter have suffered about twice the casualties of the ones attacking either the barbarian or the archer. Assuming: That the kobolds don't try to escape when they see that the party will kick their asses. That they do try to escape at some point after that. That the party lets them escape in the first place. I would also like to remind you that the barbarian has higher chances of hitting. Barb2: Human S:18 D:16 Co:14 hps:23 Power Attack, Cleave Greatsword+1, Cold Iron heavy flail, Alchemical Silver scythe Chain shirt +1, AC:18 move:40 Barb2: Dwarf S: 22 D: 16 Co: 20 hps: 29 Power Attack, Cleave Alchemical Silver Greatsword +1, Small Pile of Javelins Breastplate +1, AC: 17 move: 30
Tony Vargas 04-27-04, 04:21 PM	Originally posted by Khazra Come on, add the hexblade, u know you want to. Speciality and diversity! Sorry, don't have the stats for that handy - and, it don't think you could be one at character level 2...
Khazra 04-27-04, 04:23 PM	Why not, its a core class? And even if not the best, i think the most flavourful
Tony Vargas 04-27-04, 04:29 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- True, the barbarian's mighty bow can probably dish out d8+4, while the archer's might only be d8+2+1 for PBS, and the fighter's might be d8+3+1.... the kobolds still obligingly die for each of them, though. They just die twice as fast if you have rapid shot. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A transient advantage inspecific circumstances at very low levels. Against level-apopropriate oppponents, the barbarian wins again, if he has to resort to ranged combat for some reason. So d8+4 'beats' d8+3, and an extra attack? And, d8+4 for the barb vs d8+4 for the fighter, likewise a 'win?' Your definition of win may be different from mine... You misread. He is supposed to use his abilities. That does not mean charging, although the latter is the best option in many cases. Charge & attack, more and attack, he's supposed to melee - that's his speciality. Assuming: That the kobolds don't try to escape when they see that the party will kick their asses. That they do try to escape at some point after that. That the party lets them escape in the first place. Actually, I was assuming a /lot/ of kobolds, and a dead party, but that's just the pessimist in me. ;) Barb2: Dwarf S: 22 D: 16 Co: 20 hps: 29 Power Attack, Cleave Alchemical Silver Greatsword +1, Small Pile of Javelins Breastplate +1, AC: 17 move: 30 Who did he mug for those stats?
Sensei Gith 04-27-04, 05:17 PM	So d8+4 'beats' d8+3, and an extra attack? I didn't say that it did. I said that at this level and a couple after it, the fighter has the advantage in ranged combat. Charge & attack, more and attack, he's supposed to melee - that's his speciality. He's supposed to use his class features, like incredible strength and endurance. In this case he does. Melee happens to be the best thing that he is suited for in most cases. Actually, I was assuming a /lot/ of kobolds, and a dead party, Umm, what exactly does that prove then? The barbarian, BTW, will be much more likely to survive and/or escape. Who did he mug for those stats? Those are his combat stats, with rage.
Roland the Crownbreaker 04-27-04, 05:42 PM	quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now you are assuming poor stats and poor equipment on the part of the generalist. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm assuming first-level equipment. Unless you're in the Realms, that's no mighty bow. Second level barbarian with Power Attack & Cleave or 2nd-level Ranger with PBS, Precsie Shot & virtual Rapid Shot is pretty specialized compared to a second level fighter with Power Attack, Cleave, Point-Blank Shot, and Rapid Shot. Second level, not first.
Tony Vargas 04-27-04, 06:38 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith Those are his combat stats, with rage. That's OK, I guess. Though, you do only get to Rage once, and, the lowered AC probably isn't worth it when being peppered by low-AB ranged attacks. Originally posted by Sensei Gith Umm, what exactly does that prove then? The barbarian, BTW, will be much more likely to survive and/or escape. Heh. Whether the hypothetical adventurers live or die isn't the point, the question is how effective are they in the encounter. The less specialized fighter is able to respond effectively whether trading missle fire or being swarmed. The other two aren't - the barb will do well if swarmed, less well if persistently attacked from range, the archer will do the reverse - and the enemy can adjust thier tactics to hit thier weaknesses: they can swarm the archer, and pepper the barbarian (the barbarian is fast enough to catch them, one at a time, but that's still underperforming compared to the fighter - well, the human barb in the chain shirt was that fast, the dwarf only matches thier movement, FWIW). With the fighter, they can swarm or pepper - but, neither puts him at a disadvantage. It's just an example of a generalist outperforming a couple of specialists. Running away wasn't really the point, but it is worth noting that, if it came to that, the human barbarian would outrun the kobolds, the archer, and the dwarf barbarian - all of whom would outrun the heavily armored fighter. The point was heavy melee vs dedicated archery vs not-quite-so-good-at-both. Originally posted by Sensei Gith He's supposed to use his class features, like incredible strength and endurance. In this case he does. Well, he can, but they don't help all that much. Particularly, Rage, which serves to improve his capacity to dish out and, in the short term, absorb, damage - at the price of being better to hit - is probably of no value. The loss of 2 AC vs large numbers of low-BAB attacks means getting hit more often - if he was getting hit on a natural 19 or 20, before, ranging makes it 17-20: twice as many hits - probably not worth it to get +4hps for 8 rounds. The extra damage doesn't help since he already instakills with his greatswords (heck, he'd instakill with a spiked gauntelt). The extra to hit is nice - he'll be hitting on, like, a 7 instead of a 9 or something - but not huge.
Sensei Gith 04-28-04, 12:21 AM	Second level, not first. At the time I made that assumption, the level had not been clarified. Though, you do only get to Rage once, and, the lowered AC probably isn't worth it when being peppered by low-AB ranged attacks. If he's supposed to die in the encounter, it's almost certainly worth a rage. Whether the hypothetical adventurers live or die isn't the point, the question is how effective are they in the encounter. If they die, it doesn't matter how many kobolds they took with them. They're dead. No treasure, no xp. They both failed in the worst way possible. Even if the generalist could do twice as well (not likely, since he'd only get extra attacks for a couple of rounds and he would be outlasted by far), twice nothing is still nothing. Well, he can, but they don't help all that much. Particularly, Rage, which serves to improve his capacity to dish out and, in the short term, absorb, damage - at the price of being better to hit - is probably of no value. The loss of 2 AC vs large numbers of low-BAB attacks means getting hit more often - if he was getting hit on a natural 19 or 20, before, ranging makes it 17-20: twice as many hits - probably not worth it to get +4hps for 8 rounds. The extra damage doesn't help since he already instakills with his greatswords (heck, he'd instakill with a spiked gauntelt). The extra to hit is nice - he'll be hitting on, like, a 7 instead of a 9 or something - but not huge. Most of the problem is the kobolds. Taking a decent creature and making it almost defenseless so that swarms can be thrown at players while maintaining an appropriate EL does not a balanced monster make. Being swarmed by relatively versatile opponents is a fine situation, but kobolds in particular are bad examples. We have: -Eight Kobolds (is that a reasonable number? maybe more). EL 2. -Their choice of very familiar terrain. Conservatively, +1 EL. -Special combat-oriented preparations in advance (like the kobold-sized bolt-holes). +1 EL. -All of those wonderful traps. +1 EL, minimum. Probably +2. Now you have an encounter the EL of a standard BBEG. With one character. No matter who whacks the most kobolds before they die, they both lose. Unless one of them becomes an undead, it does not matter one bit how well they did in their failed encounter, or if it was a lucky hit or an unlucky retributive strike. They're dead. Corpses don't get xp.
Tony Vargas 04-28-04, 03:27 AM	Fine, assume they live. Or assume it's one adventurer vs a bunch of kobolds. But face the fact that you can't always force your speciality to be effective... and it doesn't take anything more than a gang of anoying little dog-lizards to do it. IIRC, kobolds have a net +3 AB ranged, and a -1 melee. That means, taking ranged attacks, they'll hit the fighter on a 16, and the barb on a 14. HTH, the they need a 20 for the fighter, and an 18 for th barb. So, the barb takes a hit something between 30% and 300% more often than the fighter. At best, he's killing one per round, while the fighter can get two, so it's taking him twice as long to chew through them. Twice as much time spent taking at least 30% more damage adds up to more than the slightly half-again hp advantage the dwarven barbarian has over the fighter... while raging. On average, the fighter will be able to 'handle' (kill and survive to tell about it) more of the pesky things than the barbarian or the archer. The ranger is a little better off, since he'll get in a couple of rapid shots before he's swarmed, and, even with a flanking bonus, the little buggers won't hit him as well in melee. Still, compared to the fighter, he'll be taking a little more damage in melee (1 AC difference), killing the enemy more slowly, since he can't cleave, and, he has fewer hps. So, the fighter can also 'handle' more cunning dog-lizards than the archer. That's using the human fighter & ranger I posted, and the Dwarf barb you posted (which is basicly just a dwarfified, medium-armor wearing version of my barb). Here's where I have to admit I wasn't exactly fair to the characters when I dreamed them up. I gave the barb and the archer physical stats of 18, 16, and 14. With the Dwarf con bonus added in, that became an 18 STR, 16 DEX, and 16 CON for the barb. I also gave the archer a magic item, and the barbarian 2 magic items. The fighter, OTOH, had full plate - which is about as expensive as +1 armor of any other type - but no actual magic items, and, physical stats of 16,14, & 13. Physical stats are critical for combat, and mental stats don't even come into this exercise. The archer has 5 more points in stats - total of +9 in physical stat bonuses, compared to the fighter's +6 total. The barbarian has 7 more, thanks to dwarven CON.. a staggering +14 in total physical stat bonuses when raging. To be fair, the fighter should have 16 STR, 14 DEX, and 18 CON, and his armor should be magical. At that point, he's being hit even less often, and actually has /more/ hps (using max 1st level, rounded-up-average, 2nd) than the human barbarian, pre-rage, and even the raging dwarf barbarian has only about a 20% advantage in hps. ... OK, so, it was contrived characters in a contrived scenario, right? Well, actually, yes, it was. I picked anoying little enemies against whom high damage would be completely wasted. I gave them the home-court advantage, and, I had them intelligently attacking a lone warrior type. I gave the specialists +1 weapons that, in the scenario, had absolutely no advantage over MW weapons, while giving the fighter some nice non-magical armor that /would/ have an effect - I also gave the fighter 5 fewer physical stat points than the specialists, since I figured a real 'generalist' might want to learn Combat Expertise some day. I ignored the possiblity of magical support on both sides: a first level wiz helping the party, or a 1st level sorcerer helping the kobolds could completely change the complexion of the scenario - so could a lot of things. It's just one example. But, in the face of claims that specialization is /always/ better than versatility, that more damage is always better than more options, that you can /always/ bring your speciality to bear... I think one example is all I really need. This rules lawyer rests his case.
Grox 04-28-04, 03:38 AM	Great example TV. I'm convinced.
Votan 04-28-04, 08:39 AM	Originally posted by Tony Vargas But, in the face of claims that specialization is /always/ better than versatility, that more damage is always better than more options, that you can /always/ bring your speciality to bear... I think one example is all I really need. This rules lawyer rests his case. One example demonstrations make me nervous. I can easily create an example where any build beats another build. A Wiz 20 looks weak compared to a Fighter 16 if the entire game takes place in an anti-magic field. In general you bring up some good poins about how the fighter is actually competitive with the barbarian in combat skills in some situations. This is important -- if the Barbarian were always better than the fighter then the fighter class would be useless. What I don't like is that, on average, a barbarian is more effective in melee combat than a fighter, is more skilled than a fighter and has a massive vulnerability (will save) shored up. Not to mention faster movement and damage resistance. Okay, the fighter has feats and can diversify. Occasionally this will work out well for them. It isn't a one way street (if it where there would be no fighters -- ever). But it sure isn't a level playing field.
Mirror, Mirror 04-28-04, 11:23 AM	Originally posted by Votan What I don't like is that, on average, a barbarian is more effective in melee combat than a fighter, is more skilled than a fighter and has a massive vulnerability (will save) shored up. Not to mention faster movement and damage resistance. Okay, the fighter has feats and can diversify. Occasionally this will work out well for them. Well, since the barbarian cannot choose to not have any of these, it stands to reason: Specialists will always be better in their specialty than generalists Generalists will always have more flexibility then specialists Now, I have no problem with this. I prefer fighters and never feel inadequate to the barbarians (I LOVE saying, "Charge it, meatshield! Or are you an honorless coward?").
Khazra 04-28-04, 11:27 AM	cough, cough, hexblade best, cough. I can do what the fighter can do (to some extent), be invisible, have a powerful ally (familiar) and can reduce your stats or hits & saves. Or, with your crummy will ill put u to sleep the coup degrace you with my scythe!
Mirror, Mirror 04-28-04, 11:57 AM	Originally posted by Khazra cough, cough, hexblade best, cough. I can do what the fighter can do (to some extent), be invisible, have a powerful ally (familiar) and can reduce your stats or hits & saves. Or, with your crummy will ill put u to sleep the coup degrace you with my scythe! Why do you not just start up a new thread on this? BTW, where IS the hexblade?
Khazra 04-28-04, 12:19 PM	Why do you not just start up a new thread on this? BTW, where IS the hexblade? The hexblade is one of the new core classes from complete warrior, sort of a gish class plus it can curse & gets bonus feats. Vey cool, but can't be good. Oh yeah, did u meen start a thread about hex blades or one comparing them to the other core classes. I could bump my best core class thread?
Sensei Gith 04-28-04, 12:46 PM	Fine, assume they live. So are the characters higher-level or are you redoing the scenario? IIRC, kobolds have a net +3 AB ranged, and a -1 melee. That means, taking ranged attacks, they'll hit the fighter on a 16, and the barb on a 14. HTH, the they need a 20 for the fighter, and an 18 for th barb. So, the barb takes a hit something between 30% and 300% more often than the fighter. That is an extrame edge case. The difference between an 18 and a 20 is not nearly so great in reality. At best, he's killing one per round, while the fighter can get two, so it's taking him twice as long to chew through them. Again, you're taking the absolute best-case scenario, at a very specific level. OK, so, it was contrived characters in a contrived scenario, right? Yes, but the real problem was that it depended entirely on the imbalance of the opponents. Splitting a CR 1 into four pieces and giving them far less health but the same offensive power does not a reasonable monster make. You end up with four creatures that, combined, have more health than the CR 1, can't be killed in one hit, and deal far, far more damage. Hence kobolds. Specialists will always be better in their specialty than generalists Generalists will always have more flexibility then specialists Yep. hen you have a specialized character, there will almopst certainly be at least one situation that he would be beaten by a generalist in. This does not make generalists not suck. In a sense, generalists are in fact ultraspecialists, praying to find the few encounters where they will shine. Would you rather have 10d6 100% of the time or 100d6 90% of the time? The 10d6 is worthwhile only in highly specialized situations.
Mirror, Mirror 04-28-04, 01:05 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith Yep. hen you have a specialized character, there will almopst certainly be at least one situation that he would be beaten by a generalist in. This does not make generalists not suck. In a sense, generalists are in fact ultraspecialists, praying to find the few encounters where they will shine. Would you rather have 10d6 100% of the time or 100d6 90% of the time? The 10d6 is worthwhile only in highly specialized situations. I dont think the difference is quite 10d6 vs 100d6, and the 100% vs 90% is arbitrary. Generalists are useful all of the time. Specialists are only useful if conditions favor them. For every specialist there is an opposed specialist. Those fights tend to result in ties or victories in favor of whomever gains the upper hand. Specialist vs generalist results in less ties and basically comes down to if the generalist can minimize the specialists advantage (as opposed to doing that as well as maximizing their own advantage). I have never played a generalist that was useless, but I have played specialists that were useless in particular scenerios. Generalists don't suck. People playing generalists make them suck, either by believing in their own fallibility or by trying to replicate the specialists, which they cannot.
Tony Vargas 04-28-04, 02:41 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith Yep. When you have a specialized character, there will almost certainly be at least one situation that he would be beaten by a generalist in. This does not make generalists not suck. In a sense, generalists are in fact ultraspecialists, praying to find the few encounters where they will shine. Heheh. Generalists are specialists specialized in not being specialized. Cute. :) I guess that means specialists are actually generalists specialized in being generally useful. ;) I don't think you'll find many generalists hoping for the kind of contrived situation where the specialists will really, really suck, so they can shine by contrast. Rather, you find generalists going into each situation, thinking, 'what's the best way to deal with this.' ... The kobold example, for instance, wasn't, at bottom, really a single situation. It was actually several - trading ranged attacks with kobolds, being swarmed by kobolds, chasing kobolds through trap-infested tunnels, running from kobolds through trap infested tunnels - with the hapless non-kobold largely deprived of the ability to choose which situation he got. ... Let's see, another way to look at it is how do you choose your actions when you're a specialist vs a generalis. Even if you're a specialist, you probably have some ability to act outside your speciality, so, at times you have to choose whether to do so or not. The idea is fairly simple - if you can aply your speciality more effectively to a problem than you could tackle the problem by acting outside your speciality, you use your speciality - if acting outside your speciality would be more effective, you do so. The generalist, OTOH, is probably equally good at several things - he has to ask, which of the things I can do reasonably well would be most effective when dealing with the situation - pick the best one, and aply it. Because the specialist is very good at his speciality, and not good at all at other things, most of the time, his speciality, even if it's a poor aproach, is the better choice. It's probably better, for instance, for a barbarian to advance down a 50' caltrop-strewn corridor to engage the enemy, than for him to throw one axe per round at them with a -8 to hit. In effect, this means that, most of the time, the generalist aplies the best tactic for a given situation, while the specialist aplies a sub-optimal one (but aplies it with gusto); some of the time, the specialist aplies the optimal tactic for a situation (which just so happens to be his speciality) and puts in a dazzling performance, while the generalist aplies basicly the same tactic (just not as well); and, some of the time, the generalist aplies the optimal tactic (and does it reasonably well), while the specialist aplies the same tactic (but does so quite poorly). Though, really, that prettymuch amounts to the generalist being as or more effective than the specialist, most of the time (and vice versa), I can see how the generalist could look around and conclude that he 'sucks.' When ranged combat is called for, he's outperformed by the archer, when huge melee damage is called for, the barbarbarian puts in a bigger contribution, when the call is to hold the line, the tower-shield tank can hold it longer. But, why not turn that around. When ranged combat is called for, he outperforms the barbarian and the tank, when huge melee damage is called for he outperforms the archer and the tank, when call is to hold the line, he holds it longer than the archer, and probably, longer than the barbarian*, too. *(I just know this will be disputed: keep in mind that the barbarian's rage runs out and it lowers his AC while it lasts, and he's a lot less likely than a tank or tank-capable generalist to even own a shield, let alone a magical one, and that very high AC is critical to the protracted-hold-the-line tanking role.) For this thought experiment, lets recycle the kobold bait from the previous one. Barb2: Human S:18 D:16 Co:14 hps:23 Power Attack, Cleave Greatsword+1, Cold Iron heavy flail, Alchemical Silver scythe, pile of javelins +1 chain shirt, AC:18 move:40 Rang2: Human S:14 D:18 Co:16 hps:19 vRpd Shot, PBS, Precise Shot Mighty (14) bow+1 (20 arrows, 10 cold iron arrows, 10 silver arrows) MW longsword MW chain shirt, MW buckler, AC:18/19 move 30 Fight2: Human S:16 D:14, Co:18 hps:24 PA,Cleave,PBS,RS MW longsword, MW mighty (16) bow (40 arrows), cold iron light hammer, alchemical silver dagger. MW full plate,buckler+1 AC:19/21 move 20 Plus: Fight2: Dwarf S:16 D12 Co:20 hps:26 Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Blindfight MW cold iron Light Flail, MW Alchemical silver Dwarven WarAxe, Dwarven War ax, throwing axes & hammers MW full plate, +1 Tower Shield AC:24-26 move 20 Here's how they stack up on the critical bits: High-Damage melee (vs an opponent with huge hps and trivial AC - like a really big gelatinous cube or something). Important stats are Peak Average Damage in two-handed melee (with PA), and it's also worth noting movement, as it gets you into melee faster. Avg Dam Move Barb 20 40 Arch 7.5 30 Fght 12.5 20 Dwrf 9.5 20 Ranged combat: Includes rapid shot & PBS, no range mods figured in, range increment shown for reference. Since rapid shot comes into it, we'll include Avg Dam/round vs a given AC, and, since the archer has Precise Shot, the same when firing into melee... (v AC 16) AB Avg Dam #ATT Range Dam/Rnd D/R into melee Barb 5 9.5 1 30' 4.75 2.85 Arch 6 8.5 2 110' 9.35 9.35 Fght 4 8.5 2 110' 7.65 4.25 Dwrf 3 6.5 1 10' 2.6 1.3 Holding the line. This is just standing up to enemies as long as possible, whether you kill a bunch of them or not, so AC & hps are what really matter. AC hps Barb 18 23 Barb* 16 27 (raging) Arch 19 19 Fght 21 24 Dwrf 26 26 Edit: BTW, I was a bit surprised at what a close 3rd the barbarian pulled in on the ranged combat - once I remembered to add extra STR damage from Raging to the thrown weapon. That, and the high DEX the barb needs to keep his AC up really helped.
Aki Warren 04-28-04, 05:48 PM	I'm confused; Aren't the classes meant to do two different things?
Tony Vargas 04-28-04, 05:53 PM	Originally posted by Aki Warren I'm confused; Aren't the classes meant to do two different things? Yes, they are. You're probably the only one who /isn't/ confused. ;)
Mirror, Mirror 04-28-04, 05:56 PM	Originally posted by Aki Warren I'm confused; Aren't the classes meant to do two different things? Congradulations!!! You get it!!!:D Now, if only the rest of the bar vs ftr posters would get it, the whole "Fighter is too underpowered" arguments would go away... *sigh*
Aki Warren 04-28-04, 05:57 PM	Cool, I feel special. Anyway, how come I never see Samurai versus Fighter, since they are closer to the same class than the Barbarian/Paladin/Ranger/Monk is to the fighter?
Tony Vargas 04-28-04, 06:02 PM	Probably because it's an OA class (isn't it - my copy of OA is for 1E, and I haven't looked at it since it came out, so I'm no authority), rather than PH, and we get all hung up on the relative blance of the core PH classes.
Mirror, Mirror 04-28-04, 06:14 PM	Originally posted by Tony Vargas Probably because it's an OA class (isn't it - my copy of OA is for 1E, and I haven't looked at it since it came out, so I'm no authority), rather than PH, and we get all hung up on the relative blance of the core PH classes. Samurai made it into "Complete Fighter" (which sucks as they wrote it. All samurai are TWF's. :censored: No historical or even cinematic accuracy.:rant: )
Roland the Crownbreaker 04-28-04, 06:32 PM	The real samuria is in Oriental Adventures. Anything else is just a poor imitation.
Mirror, Mirror 04-28-04, 06:35 PM	Originally posted by Roland the Crownbreaker The real samuria is in Oriental Adventures. Anything else is just a poor imitation. Agreed. However, I even prefer the 1st Ed OA to the new one. At least the old one paid SOME homage to the cultural source. The new one is just...I dont know...wrong...
Tam 04-28-04, 07:14 PM	So, what part of the barbarian features is generalist and what is specialised? - extra hp/level - extra skill point/level - better skill list - Uncanny dodge - DR - Rage - Trap sense - Fast movement It seems to me that "barbarian" is a good starting package for a generalist fighter. Why pigeonhole him in the 2 handed fighting domain? Also keep in mind that a character gets as much customisation (specialisation) from spending money as from chosing feats. What will have the most impact on fighter: 760000gp or 11 feats available?
Sensei Gith 04-28-04, 10:20 PM	Generalists are useful all of the time. Specialists are only useful if conditions favor them. Almost true, but highly misleading. First, the generalist could conceivably run up against a situation that he has no good way to deal with. Second, conditions "favor" the specialist most of the time. For every specialist there is an opposed specialist. A rather broad generalization, and one that doesn't support your position either. Take a barbarian, fighter, and archer. The archer and the barbarian would follow a rather predictable pattern. The fighter, OTOH, has two options. If he tries archery, he'll die. If he tries melee, then he has achieved nothing over the barbarian. If both the opponent and the comparison are specialists, the fighter has no advantage. Heheh. Generalists are specialists specialized in not being specialized. Cute. It is ironic that generalists often are narrower in utility. The vast majority of the time, you will wish that you were a barbarian. Only in certain specialized circumstances will you reap the benefits of your sacrifices in other areas. Obviously, this particular analogy is not exact (or it wouldn't be an analogy), but the underlying point is the crux of the problem with generalists. Don't think of them as being versatile in this case. Versatility is just a part of overall power. Think of them as being clearly second- or third-best in most cases. Doesn't a character who lurks in the background until his forte comes up sound like a specialist to you? Rather, you find generalists going into each situation, thinking, 'what's the best way to deal with this.' THF is not always the best way to do something. But with everything that a specialist can invest in it, they will perform better at the task than a generalist who put two feats into the ideal tactic. The kobold example, I'm going to have to remind you again that the kobold example was a draw due to both characters forfeiting. I could drop a barbarian and a generalist into a pool of lava and the barbarian might live one more round, but he certainly would not have won by any reasonable standard. The idea is fairly simple - if you can aply your speciality more effectively to a problem than you could tackle the problem by acting outside your speciality, you use your speciality - if acting outside your speciality would be more effective, you do so. More or less. As always, the secret to success is specializing enough that your chosen tactic will always be the best way to deal with a problem. Versatility is likewise essential. Being two points behind in a room full of kobolds behind special walls with kobold-sized holes shooting arrows at a trap-filles room does not compensate for dealing twice as much damage in melee. In effect, this means that, most of the time, the generalist aplies the best tactic for a given situation, while the specialist aplies a sub-optimal one (but aplies it with gusto); The problem is that the "sub-optimal" tactic will usually work better. Sub-optimal + specialization > optimal + a feat or two. The barbarian is no less versatile in this case. For example, you kept narrowing the specifications in the kobold scenario to turn it into a straight-out archery contest. That's pretty specialized. and, some of the time, the generalist aplies the optimal tactic (and does it reasonably well), while the specialist aplies the same tactic (but does so quite poorly). The problem is the rarity of said encounters. This is the only type of encounter in which the "generalist" comes ahead, and it is very specialized. When ranged combat is called for, he outperforms the barbarian and the tank, when huge melee damage is called for he outperforms the archer and the tank, when call is to hold the line, he holds it longer than the archer, and probably, longer than the barbarian*, too. That's your problem. You're assuming that the barbarian will be forced into those situations. You're mixing up versatility and generalization. Versatility is the abiltiy to perform well in a variety of situations. The barbarian with boots of flying and a ring of dimension door is versatile. No one has denied its necessity. Generalization is the ability to use multiple combat styles effectively. The fighter with Great Cleave and Rapid Shot is generalized. To assume that the barbarian must use ranged weapons is unrealistic. He is a versatile specialist. If he had to use archery, the fighter would win, but he'd just as soon charge in (hovering above the caltrops, spiky pits, pressure plates and hugse chasms).
Tony Vargas 04-29-04, 01:04 AM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith More or less. As always, the secret to success is specializing enough that your chosen tactic will always be the best way to deal with a problem. That's like saying "the secret to winning a fight is being invincible." For example, you kept narrowing the specifications in the kobold scenario to turn it into a straight-out archery contest. That's pretty specialized. Hardly, remember the straight-out archer didn't fare much better than the barbarian. All that scenario did was challenge the assertion that a PC could always dictate the terms of every encounter. To assume that the barbarian must use ranged weapons is unrealistic. He is a versatile specialist. If he had to use archery, the fighter would win, but he'd just as soon charge in (hovering above the caltrops, spiky pits, pressure plates and hugse chasms). To assume that things will always go your way is unrealistic. When will you really, really, need a bow on an adventure - when you didn't bring one. DMs are almost as perverse as real life. You keep couching it like it's the barbarian vs the fighter in some kind of duel. That may be part of the problem.
Sensei Gith 04-29-04, 07:50 AM	That's like saying "the secret to winning a fight is being invincible." :rolleyes: Stick a 95% in there somewhere. Hardly, remember the straight-out archer didn't fare much better than the barbarian. In fact, he fared no better than the barbarian at all. Three-way tie for last place, remember? To assume that things will always go your way is unrealistic. It's nto about things going your way. The idea is that you ensure that you'll do fine when things don't go your way. When will you really, really, need a bow on an adventure - when you didn't bring one. 1. How often, exactly, does that happen? 2. Of course he has a bow. He might use it only rarely, but (except at low levels) he can use it almost as well as the generalist.
Mirror, Mirror 04-29-04, 03:13 PM	Sensei Gith: You keep saying that "most conditions will favor the specialist" and that "the sub-optimal solution is often better than the generalists optimal one". Have you never encountered a situation where the party could not just rush in and kill their opponent?? I am astounded at the apperent lack of intriguing and unique encounters you seem to have experienced. I believe that the value of a generalist can be truly appreciated when conditions are changing all the time. When just charging in fails, or when just firing at range fails, it is the generalist that will fight alongside the specialist this encounter favors. Yes, the generalist will always be worse doing what the specialist does best. But, contrary to your assertations, I find the specialist often is NOT in an optimal position to use their full power. In these situations, they look to the generalist to help them out. That sort of is the point of a "party"; no one can do everything, so everyone needs to do something. The generalist just gives maximum flexibility to the party when they need it.
Sensei Gith 04-29-04, 03:53 PM	Have you never encountered a situation where the party could not just rush in and kill their opponent?? You misunderstand. Put simply, total power=ability*versatility. The generalist has a versatility of one and a baseline power of ten, for a total of 10 (note that this assumes that ranged combat is just as powerful as melee, which is false). The barbarian in the example did almost twice as much damage in melee, but moved ten feet faster, so a power of 20 is reasonable. Now, let's be extremely conservative and say that the barbarian is somehow prevented from entering melee and forced into ranged combat 50% of the time. The barbarian's power is 10, the same as the fighter's. But the barbarian can also fight the other 50% of the time, albeit with reduced effectiveness. Again using the figures that Tony provided, compared to the baseline generalist score of ten, the barbarian scores about a seven. 7/2=3.5, so the barbarian's total power is 13.5. That's flat-out ignoring defense, which the barbarian does better. It's not that the barbarian is always better— the barbarian is simply so much better that the few cases where the fighter emerges superior do not make up the difference. Also note that had the specialist archer been included, he would have dominated, since his specialty is considered the only solution half the time and he could no doubt apply it to most other scenarios. Remember: in that example I assumed that the barbarian would be straight-out forced into the worst-case scernario a full 50% of the time. That sort of is the point of a "party"; no one can do everything, so everyone needs to do something. The generalist just gives maximum flexibility to the party when they need it. Parties are anoither part of the problem. If the barbarian is somehow shoved into a situation that he is not prepared for (like an archer on a perfectly smooth column surrounded by a pit in an antimagic field), the rest of the party could take over. Which would you rather have onn your side: two generalists or a barbarian and an archer? The latter will outperform the former in any melee or ranged combat situation. Using Tony's data. Give the cleric a bow and the fighter a sword and be done with it. Where does the generalist fit?
Mirror, Mirror 04-29-04, 04:40 PM	Well first, the value of 10 on the fighter is not accurate (or the value of 20 on the Barbarian, if you like). You focused on damage alone, but nowhere is AC involved, which does have some value. Furthermore, the Barbarian's penalties due to rage (specifically, when the rage runs out) are not factored in. The value of the barbarian more closely represents 15, not 20. As for range, we are assuming bows. Therefore, the ranged combat involved in that 50% of encounters would be beyond the effective range of the Barbarian, but not the fighter. Using the bow, the fighter wins hands down, even if the barbarian also uses a bow. Generalists DO run second string to the specialists. If your games involve a lot of meele hack-and-slash, then the fighter will always be wishing to be a barbarian. If your games involve a lot of stay-at-ranged combat, then the fighter will be wishing to be a ranger. However, if your games are a mixture of this, and, perhapse, other elements, then the generalist will always be a valuable addition to the party. And two specialists will NEVER beat two generalists, since the generalists will concentrate on isolating one opponent at a time outside of their element (ranged for the barbarian, meele for the ranger). This has been demonstrated so many times, its not even funny. (Battletech games often demonstrated this the best)
Sensei Gith 04-29-04, 05:01 PM	You focused on damage alone, but nowhere is AC involved, which does have some value. Considering the hit points of the barbarian, leaving it out was generous. Furthermore, the Barbarian's penalties due to rage (specifically, when the rage runs out) are not factored in.[quote] I did say that this was meant to apply to mid levels (maybe 5 and up). Take an Extra Rage if you need it. [quote]The value of the barbarian more closely represents 15, not 20. Well, if you want to be picky, the versatility of the barbarian more closely resembles 80% (conservatively). Using the bow, the fighter wins hands down, even if the barbarian also uses a bow. If great, open distances are involved, then the barbarian's array of magic items will serve him better than a bow. And two specialists will NEVER beat two generalists, Maybe "usually" is a better choice of words. Look at Tony's figures. The barbarian-ranger both outtanks and outshoots the fighter-fighter. The ranger deals more than enough damage with a bow to compensate for the barbaran's shortcomings in that area, and vice versa in melee. No matter what the generalists do, they are outmatched. When you replace the ranger archer with the superior fighter archer (a role in which the fighter excels, at least until mid-high levels when he runs out of feats to take), it's not even close.
Mirror, Mirror 04-29-04, 05:28 PM	If great, open distances are involved, then the barbarian's array of magic items will serve him better than a bow. If we are going to magic items, I'm sorry, but the generalist fighter is going to cone out even more ahead. Since he has few, if any, weaknesses, he does not need to use magic to cover them up. Oh, I just thought of another example where the Barbarian is less effective... The enemy spreads out. They are using bows, and they retreat if engaged in meele. The ranger anf the fighter get out their bows are return fire. The barbarian charges one and engages it. Lets assume that between the first hit and the AoO, he can kill one a round. Now, he has to charge another. If he misses either attack, he will have to continue to run. Meanwhile, the archers are getting full attacks. This is similar to the Kobold example, except that the enemy can be anything (say, gobblins, orcs, hobgoblins, etc.) Here, the barbarian is certainly doing well, except that his rage would be ineffective because of the duration of the combat, and the enemy would almost certainly try to pepper him first. Acting logically, some enemies try to get the jump on the archers. The ranger is screwed, but the fighter is still there to defend him. Then, when the archer-killers are dead, he picks his bow back up and continues to attack. Yes, the barbarian could use rabged attacks to try to kill the enemies, but this would make him less effective than the fighter. Here, a generalist was able to fulfill multiple roles (archer defense/meat shield, ranged support) while the barbarian could only fill one (meele combatant). This fight would be brutal if, instead of a generalist, they took along another specialist (archer or barbarian). The two barbarians would be picked at constantly, and the ambush on the ranger would have been deadly. Conversly, the ambush would have killed the two archers, while the barbarian would be kept at range. (oh, the point of keeping the barbarian at range is to limit the # of attacks he gets and to prevent him from using cleave) p.s. the barbarians HP don't make too much difference till higher levels, and then the enemies do so much damage anyway, its better to avoid the attack all together. p.p.s. we can go till the end of time as to what the value of generalization is and if the specialists will "usually" win. However, I don't see that two fighter generalists will loose to the ranger and the barbarian evel half of the time. It seems most battles between then are a complete wash in favor of the fighters.
counterveil 04-29-04, 07:39 PM	Sensei Gith, while i do appreciate your desire for absolutely balanced classes that you wish to be just as effective, all this really sounds like is people whining on MMORPG boards about this class and that class. I've played and GM'ed Fighters and Barbarians in several campaigns, and while the low-level Barbarian will impress all with his 26-34 points of damage vs. the Fighter's 12-18, what does that matter when the Barb is getting smashed every time rage wears off? The Barb is meant to finish a fight fast - hence the high damage. Their survivability in a fight that lasts longer than their rage does is very very low. If your GM can't make a fight last longer than Barbarian rage occasionally, then something is very wrong. It's not hard to do so - throw in a small river with an archer on the other side of it and an AC fighter on the side with two Barbs and it can get pretty ugly for everyone - including the Barb. You seem to be searching for an area where the Fighter could be better than the Barb - some people here gave examples which you always answer with the Dimension Door / Boots of Flying example. So really the Barb is only really good if he has those two items. How about a low fantasy game where you just won't get those items? Or how about a GM like me who won't give arcane items to specific tribes of Barbs? There's a lot of room for interpretation in the experience of any class, but from experience as a GM I have to say that taking down a Barb with an encounter is quite a bit easier than doing so against Fighters.
Sensei Gith 04-29-04, 09:56 PM	If we are going to magic items, I'm sorry, but the generalist fighter is going to cone out even more ahead. Since he has few, if any, weaknesses, he does not need to use magic to cover them up. That doesn't wash. The premise does not support the conclusion. The fighter will have the harder time of it, because to maintain his versatility while increasing his power, he will have to pay a lot more. It is a lot easier and cheaper for a barbarian to increase their versatility than it is for a fighter to increase their power. They are using bows, You'll need to be a bit more specific than that. It's not possible to argue a situation that is so generally defined either way. Here, a generalist was able to fulfill multiple roles (archer defense/meat shield, ranged support) while the barbarian could only fill one (meele combatant). Those are not roles. The objective is to kill the opponent. It does not matter what specific combat style is used. That is not versatility. The important part is the effectiveness. Nothing can be proven until the example is specified. This fight would be brutal if, instead of a generalist, they took along another specialist (archer or barbarian). The two barbarians would be picked at constantly, and the ambush on the ranger would have been deadly. Conversly, the ambush would have killed the two archers, while the barbarian would be kept at range. (oh, the point of keeping the barbarian at range is to limit the # of attacks he gets and to prevent him from using cleave) Okay, how many combatants are you talking about? Is this another solo? As I said, I can't argue with you because you've shown nothing to argue about. p.s. the barbarians HP don't make too much difference till higher levels, and then the enemies do so much damage anyway, its better to avoid the attack all together. Incorrect. The difference is most significant at low levels, when a single volley of arrows from an at-EL encounter can easily kill a character (damn kobolds). At level one, the barbarian will have four more hit points than the fighter. This advantage decreases as time goes on (one per level plus three until 11th above the fighter), but at those levels, the barbarian's DR kicks in, shooting hium far ahead again. Since the only method I've seen used to try to beat a barbarian is to oveewhelm him with as many weak ranged attackers as can fit in an encounter, this will prove especially useful. p.p.s. we can go till the end of time as to what the value of generalization is and if the specialists will "usually" win. However, I don't see that two fighter generalists will loose to the ranger and the barbarian evel half of the time. It seems most battles between then are a complete wash in favor of the fighters. Read Tony's statistics. They conclusively disprove that statement. A barbarian and a ranger will beat two fighters in every category. Sensei Gith, while i do appreciate your desire for absolutely balanced classes that you wish to be just as effective, all this really sounds like is people whining on MMORPG boards about this class and that class. So game balance isn't as important in PnP? I've played and GM'ed Fighters and Barbarians in several campaigns, and while the low-level Barbarian will impress all with his 26-34 points of damage vs. the Fighter's 12-18, what does that matter when the Barb is getting smashed every time rage wears off? Okay. Start with 14 Con. Boost that to 16 from being a dwarf and 4 from rage. That's eight rounds. Combat is over before then. If you really want to, you can take Extended Rage, but I've never once heard of it being useful. throw in a small river with an archer on the other side of it and an AC fighter on the side with two Barbs and it can get pretty ugly for everyone - including the Barb. Kill the archer, kill the tank. Quick and easy at first level, and attack bonuses increase faster than AC. If the fighter's AC is really that high (AFAIK, 24 is the absolute max at level one with a super-specialized defenseman), then the Super-High AC Opponent Killer (arcane spellcaster) will kill them. These characters do not exist in a vaccum. Even if they did, nine rounds is ridiculous. some people here gave examples which you always answer with the Dimension Door / Boots of Flying example. So really the Barb is only really good if he has those two items. Every class is dependent on magic items. If a fighter can get weapons to boost his power, a barbarian can get items to boost his versatility. How about a low fantasy game where you just won't get those items? The fighter's power is sunk even lower, while the barbarian must take one or two alternate feats. Since you're talking nonstandard, I'll mention the Axethrower feat. Instant ranged combat. Or how about a GM like me who won't give arcane items to specific tribes of Barbs? As long as you don't give arcane items to specific schools of fighting or wizardry or clerical orders, that's OK. Otherwise, it's house-rule class-screwing. from experience as a GM I have to say that taking down a Barb with an encounter is quite a bit easier than doing so against Fighters. And from years of experience and min/maxing, I can confidently say the oppposite. More hit points plus damage reduction plus uncanny dodge is greater than 2 points of AC.
Roland the Crownbreaker 04-29-04, 10:15 PM	Since you're talking nonstandard, I'll mention the Axethrower feat. Instant ranged combat. Instant pathetic ranged combat. Maximum range of a thrown axe is 50 ft. Maximum range for any thrown weapon is 150 ft, (at an attack penalty of 8) assuming you are using javelins. And to throw more than one per round you need the quickdraw feat as well. Get a sling, it's better. Spend the two feats for point blank shot and far shot and you are miles ahead of any thrown weapon user. Or just use a bow, which can outrange them both without any feats. And if you add feats to it, no other weapon can touch it.
Sensei Gith 04-29-04, 11:27 PM	A javelin of distance has a range of 300 feet. Not bad if you're adding your strength to attack and damage. Having up to +4 to attack rolls from rage offsets the range penalties up to 180 feet, past which you shouldn't be throwing anyway. And you forget the main disadvantage of thrown weapons: damage. This guy adds his incredible strength to damage, whereas the fighter does not. And to throw more than one per round you need the quickdraw feat as well. True, although it's level six before they would need to do anything about it. Two feats to project the high-strength kill machine strategy at range is a good deal. Quick Draw is also nice if you're disarmed or sundered by a lucky shot. Again, if the opponent is a half-mile away shooting, then you need to think defensive. There are ways to make yourself nigh-unhittable with ranged weapons. Or just DD next to them and blow the living crap out of the stupid archer. Melee types are death to archers, just as they are to rogues or monks.
Roland the Crownbreaker 04-30-04, 07:50 AM	From page 114 of the Players Handbook A thrown weapon, such as a throwing axe, has a maximum range of FIVE range increments. A projectile weapon, such as a bow, can shoot out to TEN range increments. Javelins have a max range of only 150 feet. Axes have a max range of only 50 feet.
Roland the Crownbreaker 04-30-04, 08:01 AM	And as an additional note, Axethrower is a Forgotten Realms Regional feat. This means several things. 1: It must be taken at first level. That means no cleave for your first level barbarian. Your dwarf won't be able to cleave until 6th at the earliest. Meanwhile the worthless fighter was cleaving at level 1. 2: Only one regional feat per character. That mean no Luck of Heroes , no Arcane Schooling , (a fighter using wands looks like a pretty cool thing to me) or any other regional feat that might be interesting. 3: Forgotten Realms only, in Greyhawk (or any homebrewed world for that matter) you don't even have the option of this feat. And if you do, that fighter can have his mighty bow at first level. Or a heavy shiny suit depending on his region.
Sensei Gith 04-30-04, 09:21 AM	Duh; that's why I brought it up in response to a low-magic campaign, not a standard one. Javelins have a max range of only 150 feet. That's why I specifically stated that the javelin had the distance property.
counterveil 04-30-04, 12:34 PM	Yes Sensei Gith, balance in PnP is just as important as it is in MMORPGs - moreso, in my mind because I enjoy PnP more than MMORPGs and I want all my players to have fun in the campaign. However, "balance" is a delicate thing that *must* be dictated in some cases by campaign restriction, GM fairness, and by controlling those things which we do not have access to in MMORPGs. In MMOs, it's hard to balance because no one is at the heart of the campaign. It's just really a bunch of listless players running around hitting stuff. Therefore you get archers whining that melee is overpowered whenever they get closed with, and melees whining when they can't close with archers. In PnP you have many factors that you can bring to bear. Every class has a weakness and it's only a matter of time before those weaknesses can (and hopefully will) be exploited by the GM. Okay. Start with 14 Con. Boost that to 16 from being a dwarf and 4 from rage. That's eight rounds. Combat is over before then. If you really want to, you can take Extended Rage, but I've never once heard of it being useful. A combat will easily last more than 8 rounds - especially if you play a lot of extended-combat scenarios that take place in towns or battlefields during wars. I'm running a Dragonlance campaign right now in which a fight in a town ran for quite a while (about 15 rounds worth) because the PCs had to move about and squash several groups of the enemy. Yes, a combat lasting more than 8 rounds is *very* easy to do. And an exhausted Barbarian surrounded by 8 enemies is an ugly sight. The player was not much happy when that happened. Kill the archer, kill the tank. Quick and easy at first level, and attack bonuses increase faster than AC. If the fighter's AC is really that high (AFAIK, 24 is the absolute max at level one with a super-specialized defenseman), then the Super-High AC Opponent Killer (arcane spellcaster) will kill them. These characters do not exist in a vaccum. Even if they did, nine rounds is ridiculous. Of course they don't exist in a vaccuum. That was simply an example of creating natural geographic obstacles that the Barb has to overcome in order to utilize his specialty (going up and making big big smashy). I've always seen the Barb as being really good against either one tough creature or a few moderately tough creatures. If you can take the Hit Dice of all of those enemies, divide them up into several groups of enemies and place them in disparate locations (with or without tactical advantage), you can play to the Barb's weaknesses. Every class is dependent on magic items. If a fighter can get weapons to boost his power, a barbarian can get items to boost his versatility. Precisely. The magic items are there to boost areas a character is weak in. While a Barb will take items to allow him to move into combat, the Fighter will take those items that allow him to do more damage in combat. Because the way items are distributed is so stratified by money equivalents, you can really see characters as being "point-driven" - except that instead of points, they have gold to buy items. So while the Barb will spend those "points" on enhancing his ability to move into combat, a fighter can take those same points to bring him more to a par with the Barb in terms of damage output. If you have a fair GM who allocates items well and decisively, you will see your dedicated damage Fighter begin to close with the Barb in terms of damage output (crits on 20% of attacks is nasty), beat them in terms of AC, nearly match them in DR (DR items r phun omg), and almost match them in terms of movement and maneuverability. As long as you don't give arcane items to specific schools of fighting or wizardry or clerical orders, that's OK. Otherwise, it's house-rule class-screwing. I would hope that anyone who puts restrictions on specific characters would do so fairly across the spectrum. Yes, this *is* the case in my campaigns, which are very story driven. And from years of experience and min/maxing, I can confidently say the oppposite. More hit points plus damage reduction plus uncanny dodge is greater than 2 points of AC. Again, while the Barb is spending his allocated magic items on increasing his versatility, the Fighter is spending them on increasing his specialization. When magic items are in the equation, the Barb is *not* the only class with access to DR and more HPs.
Tony Vargas 04-30-04, 01:06 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith Considering the hit points of the barbarian, leaving it out was generous. Actually, the barbarian in my example - a perfectly reasonable one, really, with the same total points in physical stats as the fighter - had fewer hps before raging (and, while the extra damage you do to the enemy while raging stays, your extra hps go away at the end of it, quite possibly leaving incapacitated or dead), and lower AC - lower still durring that rage.
Roland the Crownbreaker 04-30-04, 01:22 PM	And from years of experience and min/maxing, I can confidently say the oppposite. More hit points plus damage reduction plus uncanny dodge is greater than 2 points of AC. If the fighter can only get 2 points AC more than you he is obviously noy very good at min/maxing. Javelins have a max range of only 150 feet. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's why I specifically stated that the javelin had the distance property. And how many of these did you plan to have, exactly? 6? That is exactly 3 rounds of missle fire at level nine, which is the lowest level your barbarian can be to throw more than one per round AND manage to have cleave. Or, 3 rounds of fire at level 11. At a cost of 8301 gp per javelin. A total of just under 50000 gp. For just a little more a fighter can manage to get a +4 long composite bow of distance(mighty +4). I don't know about you, but I'd take the bow. Especially since by the level you can perform with them the fighter is likely to have Far Shot as well. (making a range increment of 275 feet, almost as much as your total range to begin with)
Votan 04-30-04, 01:34 PM	Originally posted by Roland the Crownbreaker If the fighter can only get 2 points AC more than you he is obviously noy very good at min/maxing. And how many of these did you plan to have, exactly? 6? That is exactly 3 rounds of missle fire at level nine, which is the lowest level your barbarian can be to throw more than one per round AND manage to have cleave. Or, 3 rounds of fire at level 11. At a cost of 8301 gp per javelin. A total of just under 50000 gp. For just a little more a fighter can manage to get a +4 long composite bow of distance(mighty +4). I don't know about you, but I'd take the bow. Especially since by the level you can perform with them the fighter is likely to have Far Shot as well. (making a range increment of 275 feet, almost as much as your total range to begin with) Would it help if the javelin was returning? After all, we are covering up a weak spot not making an uber ranged attacker (athough that isn't as far from the truth as I'd like).
Mirror, Mirror 04-30-04, 01:39 PM	Gith: Read Tony's statistics. They conclusively disprove that statement. A barbarian and a ranger will beat two fighters in every category. Unfortunatly, you are 100% wrong. Two fighters hold a numeric advantage over and 1 specialist, and an even greater advantage if the specialist is caught outside his speciality. Okay, how many combatants are you talking about? Is this another solo? As I said, I can't argue with you because you've shown nothing to argue about. Obviously, I am reffering to 3 comabtabts. Use Tony's examples if you wish. My point still stands. The objective is to kill the opponent. It does not matter what specific combat style is used. That is not versatility. The important part is the effectiveness. Wrong. Versitility allows a combatant to use an optimal strategy is a variety of situations. That is exactly what I was demonstrating. Sub-optimal strategies are inherrently less effifient and less effective. That doesn't wash. The premise does not support the conclusion. The fighter will have the harder time of it, because to maintain his versatility while increasing his power, he will have to pay a lot more. It is a lot easier and cheaper for a barbarian to increase their versatility than it is for a fighter to increase their power. Premise 1: Barbarians, being specialists, suffer major weaknesses to effectiveness and efficiency. Premis 2: Fighters, being generalists, do not suffer major weaknesses to effectiveness and efficiency. Premis 3: Magic can reduce or eliminate weaknesses for a cost proportional to the degree of weakness. Conclusion 1: Fighters are cheaper to have their weaknesses covered due to the proportional cost contingency in premis 3. Premis 4: Barbarians, being specialists, have major strengths associated with their speciality. Premis 5: Fighters, being generalists, do not have major strengths associated with their speciality. Premis 6: Magic can optimize strengths for a cost proportional to the degree of strength(in order to make the values equal). Conclusion 2: Barbarians are cheaper to have their strengths optimized due to the proportional cost contingency in premis 6. Premis 7: Conclusion 1 Premis 8: Conclusion 2 Assumption 1: The degree of difference in conclusion 1 is greater than or equal to the degree of difference in conclusion 2. Conclusion 3: Fighters, when having their weaknesses minimized and their strengths optimized, are overall cheaper or as expensive as Barbarians. Notice how the conclusion follows from the premises? You want to refute it? Assumption 1 is the place to start... [NOTE] I did change slightly my original conclusion.
Roland the Crownbreaker 04-30-04, 01:46 PM	Would it help if the javelin was returning? After all, we are covering up a weak spot not making an uber ranged attacker (athough that isn't as far from the truth as I'd like). It would help, but you would need one javelin per attack you get in the round. (a returning weapopn returns at the end of your turn, useable the next round. DMG pg. 225 ) To get enough for one round costs 36602 gp if you have 2 attacks, and costs 54903 gp if you have 3 attacks. Not to mention that if need be a bow user can also have a few cold iron arrows, a few silver arrows, and a few adamantite arrows. Plus he can drop the bonus on the bow for an alignment descriptor on the weapon, if need be. (the combination of all these greatly increases his versatility at ranged combat) Now, a ranger can be made almost as versatile as a fighter by level 11, if he puts his mind to it. (possibly even more so) Simply take the archery style and use the rast of your feats for melee combat. While you won't have the combat flexibility of a fighter, you will have a few things he doesn't. Flexibility outside of combat. 4 extra skill points per level, a host of class abilities, and spells add up to a nice package.
Votan 04-30-04, 01:59 PM	Originally posted by Roland the Crownbreaker It would help, but you would need one javelin per attack you get in the round. (a returning weapopn returns at the end of your turn, useable the next round. DMG pg. 225 ) To get enough for one round costs 36602 gp if you have 2 attacks, and costs 54903 gp if you have 3 attacks. I think the main thing that I'm wondering is whether or not a single returning javelin would cover the weakness. The idea is not to make a Barbarian as strong as a fighter is at archery. That is a fool's quest. Instead it is to make sure that the Barbarian is not rendered into a non-issue by certain tactical situations. I have no trouble with a fighter outperforming a Barbarian in some circumstances. My issue was always that the Barbarian was roughly equal to a fighter in combat (overall but never exactly so in a specific situation). I then noted that the Barbarian has some nice features that do not relate to fighting directly (better will saves, more skills, more skill points) and wonder how the fighter will compensate. In any specific situation (except melee damage maximization and even then if I can have a Kensai PrC, which a Barbarian can't be, it is close) I can optimize a fighter to be better than a barbarian at that situation. My concern with Mirror's premises is that I thinik it is the fighter who is the specialist based on picking feats to optimize a combat style (at least before level 12 or so -- afterwards it improves alot). But the strange omissions from the fighter's skill list and lack of a non-combat role really hurt this class.
Roland the Crownbreaker 04-30-04, 02:10 PM	But the strange omissions from the fighter's skill list and lack of a non-combat role really hurt this class. This is the one glaring problem I have with the fighter as well. My group has added a few things to the fighter skill list, but that still doesn't help the role outside of combat.
Tony Vargas 04-30-04, 02:18 PM	Originally posted by Votan I then noted that the Barbarian has some nice features that do not relate to fighting directly (better will saves, more skills, more skill points) and wonder how the fighter will compensate. ... But the strange omissions from the fighter's skill list and lack of a non-combat role really hurt this class. Well, the Barb's will save bonus is when he's raging - so that's pretty directly related to fighting. Listen and Survival are nice skills to have, certainly, and they fit the barbarian concept well enough. Often, though (and this may be a little cynical), those 4 skill points are just viewed as a buffer for low INT: you can play a six-INT half-orc barbarian and still get 2 skillpoints/level. Every class could probably use more skill or skill points - the way the skill system works, it strongly encourages specialization and huge blindspots. A fighter does have the option of using his fighter bonus feats for combat-related feats, and putting some of those from leveling into other areas. There aren't a huge amount of core, non-combat feats that'd be particularly worth it, but it's a possibility, FWIW.
Mirror, Mirror 04-30-04, 02:25 PM	Well, the general idea is that the fighter has enough feats to spread out his specialty. Sensei Gith's argument that the barbarian, being a more specialist class, is going to be better than the fighter in his speciality only really holds up if the fighter chooses to be more versitle, and even then, the barbarian is still marginally better. The biggest boost to the fighter would be more class skills. I would look to medieval Knights (the romanticized version, not that worthless historical stuff:D ) Knowledge, Heraldry. Knowledge, Nobility. Knowledge, History (Local). Give fighters bonis skills that must be used towards one of these. or others, if you prefer... The major reason I play Human fighters: Bonus feat and bonus skills...
Votan 04-30-04, 02:49 PM	Originally posted by Tony Vargas Well, the Barb's will save bonus is when he's raging - so that's pretty directly related to fighting. Listen and Survival are nice skills to have, certainly, and they fit the barbarian concept well enough. Often, though (and this may be a little cynical), those 4 skill points are just viewed as a buffer for low INT: you can play a six-INT half-orc barbarian and still get 2 skillpoints/level. Every class could probably use more skill or skill points - the way the skill system works, it strongly encourages specialization and huge blindspots. A fighter does have the option of using his fighter bonus feats for combat-related feats, and putting some of those from leveling into other areas. There aren't a huge amount of core, non-combat feats that'd be particularly worth it, but it's a possibility, FWIW. I was more thinking of Indomitable will which is a +4 to all will saves. The raging bonuses are just icing on the cake.
Roland the Crownbreaker 04-30-04, 02:56 PM	Even Indominatable Will only applies when raging. Meanwhile, a fighter who chooses to do so can put one of those leveling feats into Iron Will and still have plenty to spare. Granted, It in no way compares to having a good base will save, but it helps. One option for the knight that my campaign uses was to "westernize" the OA samuria class. (not the crummy CW version) Drop Ancestral Diasho, lose Iajitsu Focus as a skill, pick up Heavy Armor proficiency, Shield Proficiency, and possibly a few minor tweaks based on what works in your campaign. The high will save and the extra skill points more than makes up for the slightly slower feat progression.
Votan 04-30-04, 02:59 PM	Originally posted by Mirror, Mirror Well, the general idea is that the fighter has enough feats to spread out his specialty. Sensei Gith's argument that the barbarian, being a more specialist class, is going to be better than the fighter in his speciality only really holds up if the fighter chooses to be more versitle, and even then, the barbarian is still marginally better. The biggest boost to the fighter would be more class skills. I would look to medieval Knights (the romanticized version, not that worthless historical stuff:D ) Knowledge, Heraldry. Knowledge, Nobility. Knowledge, History (Local). Give fighters bonis skills that must be used towards one of these. or others, if you prefer... More class skills would also mkae the fighter more of a "generic" class rather than a specialist class. One of the hidden complexities of D&D is that those classes that, on first glance, look like beginner/generic classes are actually the most complex and vice versa. A cleric looks complex but it is hard to go wrong. A fighter or sorcerer looks easy but actually requires massive planning to go right. In 3.5 I tend to go ranger because the non-combat options outweigh the loss of combat power (spells, plus skills, plus skill list) and the bonus feats that a ranger gets are kinda nice (plus the reflex save is not a bad thing). Favored enemy never really gets used but oh well. The fighter can cremate the barbarian around level 12 in a duel. The fighter has all of his dueling feat chains maximized while the poor barbarian still hasn't really got his high level abilities. The barbarian duels much better at level 1 and level 20 with a fighter.
Votan 04-30-04, 03:03 PM	Originally posted by Roland the Crownbreaker Even Indominatable Will only applies when raging. Meanwhile, a fighter who chooses to do so can put one of those leveling feats into Iron Will and still have plenty to spare. Granted, It in no way compares to having a good base will save, but it helps. My bad. I misread that feat. Still, at 20th level a barbarian can rage for a +8 to will saves which is better than a good save would be. That is situationally very helpful.
Aki Warren 04-30-04, 03:40 PM	While I generally think that they are two different classes, and therefore should not be compared to each other any more than a paladin should be compared to a cleric, I will engange in the discussion, just because I love the fighter more than the Barbarian, and he's my back-up class when the DM doesn't want to deal with a Pally. Here's something I have yet to see (and, which I must admit, a paladin CAN do better) a horse fighter. A horse fighter with all the horse fighting feats (Mounted Combat, Spirited Charge) will allow the Fighter to deal substantial damage. If he has a magical mount and Ride-by-attack (or the flying variation...I think it's attack on the wing but that might not apply to mounts) then the damage is not only crazy from the lance, but he is so far away that the 80 ft charge seems...silly. With using Ride as his armor class, it is unlikely that the Barbarian will get a hit in (especially if the Fighter takes Skill focus, or some magical items for his steed that raises the Ride Skill) and the Barbarian will get damaged greatly by the lance. Or, you could be REALLY annoying, and just shot the crap out of him while running away using mounted archery.
Tony Vargas 04-30-04, 03:46 PM	Mounted combat can do some impressive things, but, it can suffer from the relative vulnerability or ungainliness of the mount, FWTW. I also wonder why this sort of comparison so often becomes cast in the form of a duel. The relative merits of the classes have much more to do with thier respective effectiveness as part of a party, facing a wide variety of challenges, than thier relative effectiveness against eachother.
Aki Warren 04-30-04, 04:05 PM	I agree with you, but you really get great ideas for impressive builds from this! Can you sunder on a charge? I think you can, and man that would REALLY screw the barbarian over
Sensei Gith 04-30-04, 04:21 PM	A combat will easily last more than 8 rounds - especially if you play a lot of extended-combat scenarios that take place in towns or battlefields during wars. I'm running a Dragonlance campaign right now in which a fight in a town ran for quite a while (about 15 rounds worth) because the PCs had to move about and squash several groups of the enemy. Several seperate distinct groups? That's several encounters. If you can take the Hit Dice of all of those enemies, divide them up into several groups of enemies and place them in disparate locations (with or without tactical advantage), you can play to the Barb's weaknesses. And also to his DR 5/–. More, weaker attacks means less damage to the barb. While a Barb will take items to allow him to move into combat, the Fighter will take those items that allow him to do more damage in combat. The former are far cheaper. So while the Barb will spend those "points" on enhancing his ability to move into combat, a fighter can take those same points to bring him more to a par with the Barb in terms of damage output. The fighter is always going to be far behind in damage output, whereas the items that extend a barbarian's versatility are cheap. I would hope that anyone who puts restrictions on specific characters would do so fairly across the spectrum. Yes, this *is* the case in my campaigns, which are very story driven. A game without arcane magic items is already pretty far into house-rule land. If the fighter can only get 2 points AC more than you he is obviously noy very good at min/maxing. Or maybe the barbarian si good at min/maxing too? Anything the fighter can do, the barbarian can. The only difference is the two-point raging penalty. And how many of these did you plan to have, Only one or two are needed. They're mostly substitutes until you can get the items to render them unecessary. Unfortunatly, you are 100% wrong. Two fighters hold a numeric advantage over and 1 specialist, and an even greater advantage if the specialist is caught outside his speciality. Obviously, but that's not what we were discussing. The barbarian and ranger beat two fighters. If you don't believe me, keep reading the figures until you understand them. Obviously, I am reffering to 3 comabtabts. Well, since the previous one was a solo, it's not obvious at all. What three combatants are they? Cleric, wizard, and test subject? Versitility allows a combatant to use an optimal strategy is a variety of situations. That is exactly what I was demonstrating. Sub-optimal strategies are inherrently less effifient and less effective. If you mean that optimal strategies can be the same power as sub-optimal strategies with more investient, you are correct. However, when the generalist invests a minimum amount into the optimal tactic and the specialist maxes out #2, the results are not going to come up well for the former. Barbarians, being specialists, suffer major weaknesses to effectiveness and efficiency. Far too general. You could say that about any class, possibly replacing the word "specialist" with "archer," "spellcaster," or even "generalist." Every class has weaknesses. Fighters, being generalists, do not suffer major weaknesses to effectiveness and efficiency. Dead wrong, read the thread. Starting with "barbarians have weaknesses, fighters don't" is not a very good way to show your point. Magic can reduce or eliminate weaknesses for a cost proportional to the degree of weakness. Also wrong. It is much cheaper, for example, to apply your speciality to a variety of situations (linear costs, for one thing) than it is to improve a variety of different tactics. Premises one and two can be restated as "fighters are better than barbarians." Of course you got your conclusion; it's what you started with to begin with. Barbarians, being specialists, have major strengths associated with their speciality. Again, true of every class. No character lacks strengths. Fighters, being generalists, do not have major strengths associated with their speciality. Well obviously if they don't have a specialty, then their specialty can't have major strengths. But I certainly would never use such specious logic and exploitation of wording to arrive at the next conclusion: Barbarians are cheaper to have their strengths optimized due to the proportional cost contingency in premis 6. This doesn't make sense. First of all, even a barbarian is never perfectly optimized at one thing. Unless you spend every gold piece, every feat (which I do not recommend), you will always be able to optimize just a bit more. That's what optimization means. Plus, you can't compare a barbarian's specialty with a generalist's specialty, because the latter doesn't have one. Finally, if you really meant that it is cheaper for a barbarian to increase his power than it is for a generalist, you'd be correct, but that does not necessarily imply the next point. Assumption 1: The degree of difference in conclusion 1 is greater than or equal to the degree of difference in conclusion 2. I don't even have to refute that, since you have posted no evidence to support it in the first place. Notice how the conclusion follows from the premises? Notice how the premises are the conclusion? It looks like you started from "fighters pwn barbarians" and worked back from there. That's how you arrived at things like "barbarians have weaknesses and fighters don't." Your premises should also be for the most part reclassified as assumptions. This is the one glaring problem I have with the fighter as well. My group has added a few things to the fighter skill list, but that still doesn't help the role outside of combat. Agreed. IMC, all classes get +2 skill points per level and skill lists are highly flexible. Well, the Barb's will save bonus is when he's raging - so that's pretty directly related to fighting. On top of that, I'd have to say that almost all will saves are made during combat to begin with, when the barb will have rage up. Well, the general idea is that the fighter has enough feats to spread out his specialty. I'm not sure what you're saying. "Spread out" and "specialty" just aren't clicking. He can't specialize to nearly the degree of the barbarian, if that's what you're saying. With the addition of noncore feats, you can finally start to do just that— a giant leap in the fight direction IMO. For that matter, we've spent so much time arguing about specialists vs. generalists that maybe we should put that aside. Does anyone think that a fighter can viably specialize in the core books? With CW and company? Sensei Gith's argument that the barbarian, being a more specialist class, is going to be better than the fighter in his speciality only really holds up if the fighter chooses to be more versitle, I would obviously use a separate argument to prove that barbarians are better than specialized fighters, but that isn't what we've been mainly arguing about. The fighter can cremate the barbarian around level 12 in a duel. The fighter has all of his dueling feat chains maximized while the poor barbarian still hasn't really got his high level abilities. The barbarian duels much better at level 1 and level 20 with a fighter. I disagree. The barbarian has +3 to attack and damage and almost 50 more hit points. Some of the barbarians class features really work best when there are many enemies around, like uncanny dodge and DR, but all the barbarian needs are a couple of feats like Improved Sunder or Trip to gain a clear advantage over the fighter. The fighter will have an AC of two points higher, but that is almost trivial at 12th level. Ranged combat is futile, since the barbarian will simply charge up and return fire for far more damage, so the fighter will essentially end up in a straight-out tank-fest, which is not a good place to be.
Mirror, Mirror 04-30-04, 04:22 PM	Originally posted by Tony Vargas I also wonder why this sort of comparison so often becomes cast in the form of a duel. The relative merits of the classes have much more to do with thier respective effectiveness as part of a party, facing a wide variety of challenges, than thier relative effectiveness against eachother. Most likely because that is the easiest way for people to compare classes. A 12th level human fighter can be Gtr.Specialized in two-bladed sword, Composite longbow, and complete the TWF chain. Oh, he also has Inp. Critical with the TBS. He is truly a nightmare in close combat, and formidible at range. With rapid shot, precise shot, and point-blank shot, as well as with Imp. Crit. Composite longbow, he is almost equally dangerous at both range and meele. Only the ranger comes close to natching that, and , even then, not fully. W/O magic items, he is a combat monster. With magic, a god (sort of..) Show me the Barbarian that can match him (no magic)!
Lexus 04-30-04, 04:27 PM	The barbarian will rarely ever run out of rage since most battles don't last THAT long. Also the barbarian can use martial ranged weapons for rare situations where he can't attack in melee. Chances are the barbarian(most barbs tend to have around 14 dex) will be better at aiming than a strength-based fighter who who wears heavy armor and specializes at melee.
Mirror, Mirror 04-30-04, 04:29 PM	*sigh* Obviously, but that's not what we were discussing. The barbarian and ranger beat two fighters. If you don't believe me, keep reading the figures until you understand them. Oh great one, please tell me what I am missing??:rolleyes: Well, since the previous one was a solo, it's not obvious at all. What three combatants are they? Cleric, wizard, and test subject? Read the original post again. Slowly. You'll see... As to all the attacks against my premises, provide your own. Mine are common sense. I'd like to see yours. Make an argument that supports your position. I did. And if you are going to say that it IS more expensive for a fighter to cover his bases with magic, provide some examples, because I don't see how. It seems clear that the barbarian needs more, plain and simple. If you disagree, provide an argument. Your current tactic of simply saying that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong is not exactly the best way to bring your point across. At some point, YOU have to bring the points...
Sensei Gith 04-30-04, 04:31 PM	Here's something I have yet to see (and, which I must admit, a paladin CAN do better) a horse fighter. A horse fighter with all the horse fighting feats (Mounted Combat, Spirited Charge) will allow the Fighter to deal substantial damage. If he has a magical mount and Ride-by-attack (or the flying variation...I think it's attack on the wing but that might not apply to mounts) then the damage is not only crazy from the lance, but he is so far away that the 80 ft charge seems...silly. Yes, but a barbarian can take the full mounted combat chain and come out ahead. I also wonder why this sort of comparison so often becomes cast in the form of a duel. The relative merits of the classes have much more to do with thier respective effectiveness as part of a party, facing a wide variety of challenges, than thier relative effectiveness against eachother. As do I. I once typed up an elaborate system of encounters that would measure the two classes well, but I don't remember where it is. It included a wide variety of situations, inclusing a dragon fight (it's obligatory, what can I say?), a kobold rogue swarm (the balance problems are gone with classed monsters) with sorcerer support and traps, a cleric with a handful of fighter bodyguards, an enemy iconic party, and an evil necromancer that likes summoning undead. Not to mention a fighter/barb duel, of course ;).I doubt that that was exhaustive, but if tests are to be done, they should look more like that than two duel-specialized, cheesed-out horribly contrived characters duking it out in an arbitrary setting. Most likely because that is the easiest way for people to compare classes. Bogus, but easy. Show me the Barbarian that can match him (no magic)! First of all, read the posts before you (I'm not referring to mine). Second of all, ditch the two-bladed sword. A greatsword will serve you far better and free up useless TWF feats for power attack and such.
Mirror, Mirror 04-30-04, 04:32 PM	Originally posted by Lexus The barbarian will rarely ever run out of rage since most battles don't last THAT long. Also the barbarian can use martial ranged weapons for rare situations where he can't attack in melee. Chances are the barbarian(most barbs tend to have around 14 dex) will be better at aiming than a strength-based fighter who who wears heavy armor and specializes at melee. But that is not the kind of fighter we are bringing. Our fighter is using both his str and dex scores. He is becoming equally good at range and meele. And I have seen way too many battles run longer than 8 rounds to EVER rage as a barbarian, unless this is the final, big fight.
Mirror, Mirror 04-30-04, 04:37 PM	First of all, read the posts before you (I'm not referring to mine). Second of all, ditch the two-bladed sword. A greatsword will serve you far better and free up useless TWF feats for power attack and such. And loose the 6 attacks a round with a full-round action? The better you crit, the more attacks you want. The more base bonuses (non-str) you have, the more attacks you want. Greatsword is nice, but the TWF/Doublesword combo is just killer...
Sensei Gith 04-30-04, 04:39 PM	Oh great one, please tell me what I am missing?? Avg Dam Move Barb 20 40 Arch 7.5 30 Fght 12.5 20 Dwrf 9.5 20 Two fighters: 25. Barbarian and ranger: 27.5. AB Avg Dam #ATT Range Dam/Rnd D/R into melee Barb 5 9.5 1 30' 4.75 2.85 Arch 6 8.5 2 110' 9.35 9.35 Fght 4 8.5 2 110' 7.65 4.25 Dwrf 3 6.5 1 10' 2.6 1.3 Two fighters: 8.5. Barbarian and ranger: 12.2. Make an argument that supports your position. Read the thread. And if you are going to say that it IS more expensive for a fighter to cover his bases with magic, provide some examples, because I don't see how. It seems clear that the barbarian needs more, plain and simple. If you disagree, provide an argument. I already have. Read more carefully. Your current tactic of simply saying that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong is not exactly the best way to bring your point across. Amusing coming from someone who just assumed that fighters>barbarians and tried to use it to prove itself. If you expect something like that, you won't get it.
Sensei Gith 04-30-04, 04:42 PM	And loose the 6 attacks a round with a full-round action? Exactly. The better you crit, the more attacks you want. Wrong. The more base bonuses (non-str) you have, the more attacks you want. Greater Specialization is not nearly enough to recoup your losses. What you're thinking of is sneak attack, which is a difference of 35 points per attack, not 4.
Tony Vargas 04-30-04, 04:42 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith Or maybe the barbarian si good at min/maxing too? Anything the fighter can do, the barbarian can. The only difference is the two-point raging penalty. Well, armor choice is likely to be different, too. The barb isn't likely to take heavy armor proficiency, and would be throwing away his fast movement if he did. That's another point (assuming optimum DEX). The barb is also virtualy gauranteed to be using a two-handed weapon - so, his sheild will have to be animated, a +2 equivalent, so 2 less there. So, maybe, in an extreme min/max case, with all standard items freely available, a 5 point difference in AC for the raging barbarian. Depending on campaign and circumstance, it could be more: if animated shields aren't available, or aren't deemed worth it compared to some other items, for instance, or if the fighter is using feats to boost his AC, etc... In general, I'd expect a thoroughly min/maxxed barbarian to have an AC well below a typical fighter's of the same level - because it's just so much more 'worth it' to dump everything you possibly can into damage. You need just enough AC to keep full-on power attacks and third+ itterative attacks from landing on you effortlessly. I disagree. The barbarian has +3 to attack and damage and almost 50 more hit points. When raging? I don't put too much stock in the extra hps from raging. They just go away when the rage ends. After 5th level or so, they're just a way to get in some extra hits, in effect, /after/ you die. Quick clerical healing or a strong potion can save you, if your rage doesn't end at an inoportune moment, though, FWTW. The fighter will have an AC of two points higher, but that is almost trivial at 12th level. Ranged combat is futile, since the barbarian will simply charge up and return fire for far more damage, so the fighter will essentially end up in a straight-out tank-fest, which is not a good place to be. Once again, we slip into the dueling paradigm. What's up with this? It's about the least meaningful comparison there is.
Mirror, Mirror 04-30-04, 04:46 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith Exactly. Wrong. Greater Specialization is not nearly enough to recoup your losses. What you're thinking of is sneak attack, which is a difference of 35 points per attack, not 4. Why, why, and I am not thinking about SA, though that is an optimal example... Another is a bursting weapon, a +3 weapon, etc. What makes the greatsword so great??
Sensei Gith 04-30-04, 04:51 PM	Another is a bursting weapon They suck horribly no matter how good your crit is. Just go read a thread on them. a +3 weapon The barbarian has a better one. So you're getting more damage from th eehhancements on the blades, but they hit less. Hmm, sorta lika a sucky, always'on version of power atack.
Sensei Gith 04-30-04, 04:55 PM	The barb isn't likely to take heavy armor proficiency, The secret is a fighter dip. One level is great, two is nice too. Any more than that and you tend to lose out. and would be throwing away his fast movement if he did. Not if he's a dwarf. The barb is also virtualy gauranteed to be using a two-handed weapon - so, his sheild will have to be animated, a +2 equivalent, so 2 less there. OTOH, a sword'n'boarder is way behind in the damage department. When raging? Well, the quote referred to a duel, so yes, definitely. Once again, we slip into the dueling paradigm. What's up with this? It's about the least meaningful comparison there is. That's why I only devoted a paragraph to it. ;)
Mirror, Mirror 04-30-04, 04:59 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith They suck horribly no matter how good your crit is. Just go read a thread on them. The barbarian has a better one. So you're getting more damage from th eehhancements on the blades, but they hit less. Hmm, sorta lika a sucky, always'on version of power atack. Sorry, but I just don't see your point. Why the greatsword? Why not more attacks per round? Why would you not want more attacks if you have a greater chance to critical? Since PA directly takes from your attack and adds to your damage, why is that better than a +3 sword? Than +2/+4 from specialization? Why would the extry 1-6 damage from bursting be worthless? Why would you NOT want that weapon to hit more? Considering the penalty for a Grt.TWF doublesword is only -2, and you are getting 2 attacks at -2 your full att. bonus, 2 attacks at -7, and 2 more at -12, why is that worthless compared to full/-5/-10?
Tony Vargas 04-30-04, 05:10 PM	Originally posted by Mirror, Mirror quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Obviously, but that's not what we were discussing. The barbarian and ranger beat two fighters. If you don't believe me, keep reading the figures until you understand them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh great one, please tell me what I am missing??:rolleyes: Well, when he says 'win' he really means 'outperform,' since it's not a fight between them. I think he's just comparing the damage figures of the Barb & Ranger I posted, combined (the barbs huge damage in melee + the ranger's lower damage in melee; the rangers high ranged damage + the barbarian's javelins) - to the corresponding totals for the generalist-Fighter + the Tank fighter. Not a good comparison, because the tank fighter is very much a specialist. Even so, it means that a team of two specialists excell in thier specialities, while a team of a specialist and a generalist excell in the specialist's speciality (the barb + ranger don't come close to the fighter + tank on the 'holding the line' criteria) and lag by a lower margin outside it. Of course, as before, I was conservative, and tilted things slightly against the generalist. For instance, assuming that he'd stick with his longsword & buckler when tanking or performing two-handed melee duties. If he switches weapons, he does even better. For instance, the generalist fighter lugs around a MW greatsword (not too hard for a 16 STR character who only needs to stay under Heavy enc), his high-damage melee potential goes up to 15. Then, if you compare a pair of generalists to the Barb + Ranger, you get: Two handed melee: 2G = 15 x 2 = 30 (still moving 20, though) B&R = 20 +7.5 = 27.5 (moving at 40 and 30, though, so definitely doing well) I'd call that comparable - the higher movement doesn't always come up when high-damage melee is called for, but it's a higher margin than the difference in damage. Straight-up ranged-only (obviously, if both are shooting, niether are in melee): B&R = 4.75 + 9.35 = 14.1 2G = 7.65 x2 = 15.3 Again, comparable, and it'll vary based on AC faced and range. ... Now, what that doesn't show is that the Barb & Archer totally clean up when the Barb's in melee & the archer is firing into that melee (from an angle where th barb doesn't provide cover) 20 + 9.35 = 29.35! whereas, if the pair of generalists need to do the same thing, it's: 15 + 4.25 = 19.25 That's where the specialist team really cleans up - where both they're specialities can be optimally aplied. Of course, there was a third point of comparison, the 'hold the line' scenario. On that, the barb and archer both stack up poorly - the former lacking AC, and the latter hps. While the two fighters do pretty well.
Roland the Crownbreaker 04-30-04, 05:12 PM	Of course you got your conclusion; it's what you started with to begin with. Likewise. Also, the whole thing with the two bladed sword is that it can be used as a single two handed weapon if need be. (for example, in any instance where you only get one attack due to moving)
Tony Vargas 04-30-04, 05:18 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith The secret is a fighter dip. One level is great, two is nice too. Any more than that and you tend to lose out. Plus, dipping into fighter is hardly reasonable for a comparison /with fighter/. Should fighter's be taking 1 level of Barb for the Rage and Fast movement ... or a second one for the Uncanny Dodge? (Well, actually, quite possibly, yes - Fighter/Barb is a good combo - but not when you're comparing the two!) ;) Still, even taking Heavy Armor as a feat, the Barb is throwing away that fast movement, though, so probably it's not worth the 1 net AC. Not if he's a dwarf. The barbarian only gets his extra movement when in no, light, or medium armor and unencumbered or at medium encumbrance. A Dwarf has the same 30' move in light or medium armor, because of his dwarfiness, but in heavy, he moves at 20.
Mirror, Mirror 04-30-04, 05:22 PM	My point with the 2 specialists vs 2 generalists is thus: The generalists will always try to limit the effectiveness of the specialist. This means that they will do their best to not let the barbarian into meele. By focusing their ranged attacks, they can kill the barbarian. Now, they have been taknig damage from the archer, but, hopefully, they are both still up. Now, the archer will, of course, try to keep them out of meele. However, there are 2 of them and 1 of him. Chances are, he will fail. Even if the combat never enters meele, he is at a numeric disadvantage. Here is the power of the generalist. In a 2 on 2 match, they were able to effectively change it into 2 seperate 2 on 1 matches. The specialists, therefore, loose, since none of them are twice as effective as the generalists.
Roland the Crownbreaker 04-30-04, 05:27 PM	From page 14 of the Player's Handbook Dwarf base land speed is 20 feet. However dwarves can move at THIS speed even when wearing medium or heavy armor or when carrying a medium or a heavy load (unlike most creatures, whose speed is reduced in such situations) Note that it does not say full movement, merely that dwarves get the standard 20 foot move when in heavy armor. Allowing dwarf barbarians to move 30 feet in heavy armor is a house rule, not a standard one.
Tony Vargas 04-30-04, 05:38 PM	Originally posted by Mirror, Mirror The generalists will always try to limit the effectiveness of the specialist. Um, well, unless they're on the /same side/. Then it behoves the generalist to step forcefully into whatever role his party specialists can't handle - and, hopefully, in doing so, enable the specialists to act effectively within thiers. When it comes to who gets to dictate the terms of the battle to whom - whether the archers get to keep it at range, or the barbarians get to force melee or whatever - it gets highly situational. The difference between the specialist and the generalist is that, when attempts to force the desired confrontation fail, the generalist will fare better than the specialist. Basicly, specialists do better when everything's going according to plan, and all the breaks are breaking thier way - they get to keep using thier speciality, optimally, and they're optimized for it - generalists also do better under those circumstances, just not as much better than the specialists. When things go south, though, the specialist suffers a dramatic drop in effectiveness, while the generalist probably doesn't. And, if he's a good generalist, he'll try to get things back under control so the specialist can get back to work, rather than revelling in his 'chance to shine.' :rolleyes:
Mirror, Mirror 04-30-04, 06:00 PM	Yes, Yes, I know that vs duels are a poor way to compare classes. Your preaching to the faithful... I was only illustrating my point in a previously submitted example as a response to an argument brought forth against my position. Another example of mine using a hypothetical 3 person party better illustrated my argument: 2 rangers, 1 barbarian; 1 ranger, 2 barbarians; 1 ranger, 1 fighter, and 1 barbarian. Party 3 has more survivability that either party 1 or 2, meaning that generalists are NOT useless, in fact, they are almost necessary for an effective party to have. And that has nothing to do with a generalists "chance to shine". I do believe we are agreeing at this point...:cool:
Tony Vargas 04-30-04, 07:24 PM	True. An all-extreme-specialist party could 'cover all the bases' if it were big enough, but they'd have a big party, with, in effect, only one of them 'working' at a time. Any party needs some characters specialized enough to deal with challenges that require, basicly, 'big numbers' in a speciality (like a Rogue to disarm high-DC traps, and a dedicated primary Caster to dispell high-level effects), and also enough breadth from it's members that most (or preferably all) can do something of use in most situations. If you have a single warrior type handling combat duty in your party, he'll need to be flexible enough to handle any fighting challenges that come your party's way, but specialized enough to have the 'numbers' to handle those challenges without another warrior helping out - if you have three, you can have one of them be a very dedicated specialist or a very 'scattered' generalist.
Sensei Gith 04-30-04, 10:16 PM	Sorry, but I just don't see your point. Why the greatsword? Why not more attacks per round? Just read a thread on TWF. This isn't the place for a detailed analysis. Why would you not want more attacks if you have a greater chance to critical? Because your greatsword crits are better. Crirical hits make almost no difference in the THF/THF balance of power. Since PA directly takes from your attack and adds to your damage, why is that better than a +3 sword? A +3/+3 double-bladed sword costs 36,000 gp. A +4 greatsword costs 32,000 gp. The double +3 sword adds a total of +6 damage per round. Power attacking for one point, the +4 greatsword gives the same attack and damage bonuses, but is cheaper and harder to sunder, and you can turn off the power attack against high-AC opponents. It is certainly no advantage to the TWF'er. Than +2/+4 from specialization? That's not bad, but nor is is nearly good enough to recoupl the difference in damage and certainly not to justify the feat expenditure. Plus, your single attacks will suck in comparison to the greatsworder's. Why would the extry 1-6 damage from bursting be worthless? It's not. Burst is a +2 enhancement. Flaming Shocking is a better +2 enhancement. Burst sucks in the best case. Considering the penalty for a Grt.TWF doublesword is only -2, and you are getting 2 attacks at -2 your full att. bonus, 2 attacks at -7, and 2 more at -12, why is that worthless compared to full/-5/-10? Because you deal so much less damage per hit. I think he's just comparing the damage figures of the Barb & Ranger I posted, combined (the barbs huge damage in melee + the ranger's lower damage in melee; the rangers high ranged damage + the barbarian's javelins) - to the corresponding totals for the generalist-Fighter + the Tank fighter. Almost— I compared the barbarian and ranger to a two-fighter generalist team. Both teams are equal in the areas that they haven't invested in. That leaves melee and ranged combat. The specialist combo won both. And I could certainly design a more powerful barbarian and archer. Likewise. Do you have anything to back that up? I sure did when I said it. Also, the whole thing with the two bladed sword is that it can be used as a single two handed weapon if need be. The greatsword is still much better. Plus, dipping into fighter is hardly reasonable for a comparison /with fighter/. Should fighter's be taking 1 level of Barb for the Rage and Fast movement ... or a second one for the Uncanny Dodge? If that were true, there would be no problem. But the best way to use the fighter is a two-level dip. That is the root of the problem: it is almost never worthwhile to take more than a few levels of fighter. Still, even taking Heavy Armor as a feat, the Barb is throwing away that fast movement, though, so probably it's not worth the 1 net AC. I got your PM, and it seems that you are correct. Well, that's what breastplates are for. The generalists will always try to limit the effectiveness of the specialist. This means that they will do their best to not let the barbarian into meele. Note that the ranger/barbarian has superior firepower at range. By focusing their ranged attacks, they can kill the barbarian. Maybe. Rather a stupid idea, really; the barbarian is the hardest of any of them to kill. If they pursue that course of action, it will eventually be a badly wounded fighter against a pristine ranger. Now, they have been taknig damage from the archer, but, hopefully, they are both still up. Maybe you weren't listening the first time. THE BARBARIAN AND RANGER HAVE SUPERIOR FIREPOWER AND THE BARBARIAN HAS SUPERIOR ENDURANCE. Or are you assuming that the barbarian and ranger don't also concentrate fire? First to die is a fighter. It will never, ever come out as ranger versus two fighters. Ever. When it comes to who gets to dictate the terms of the battle to whom - whether the archers get to keep it at range, or the barbarians get to force melee or whatever - it gets highly situational. The difference between the specialist and the generalist is that, when attempts to force the desired confrontation fail, the generalist will fare better than the specialist. No matter which type of combat it is, melee or ranges, the specialists will beat the generalists. Another example of mine using a hypothetical 3 person party better illustrated my argument: 2 rangers, 1 barbarian; 1 ranger, 2 barbarians; 1 ranger, 1 fighter, and 1 barbarian. Party 3 has more survivability that either party 1 or 2, meaning that generalists are NOT useless, in fact, they are almost necessary for an effective party to have. Could you post this example? An all-extreme-specialist party could 'cover all the bases' if it were big enough, but they'd have a big party, with, in effect, only one of them 'working' at a time. No and no. The two-person team from your example beat the fighters in every circumstance that any of them invested in, and all of them contributed significantly. If you have a single warrior type handling combat duty in your party, he'll need to be flexible enough to handle any fighting challenges that come your party's way, but specialized enough to have the 'numbers' to handle those challenges without another warrior helping out - Agreed. But flexible doesn't mean general. A barbarian is both flexible and specialized.
Tony Vargas 05-01-04, 02:16 AM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith Note that the ranger/barbarian has superior firepower at range. Look at it again - if it's firing into melee, that's true, in this example, because the archer has Precise shot - if it's just two groups trading missle fire, the advantage lies with the two fighters with rapid shot - not by a huge margin, but it's there. The one scenario where the archer/barb team really works is the one you'd expect - when the barb melees and the archer fires into that melee. They'd do very well when taking on a lone threat, for instance - the barb ties up the big bad in melee and the archer pumps arrows into it. In pure missle or pure melee combat, the out-of-his-element specialist pulls the team's performance down. And, of course, in the hold-the-line scenario, the archer/barb team significantly underperforms compared to the pair of generalists. Of course, none of that is to the degree, or sufficiently aplicable to all situations to indicate that the pair of generalists is at all superior to the team of opposite specialists - quite the contrary, all it shows is that the specialists aren't overall more effective. Both, realy are viable - though they're effectiveness will vary with the situation. No matter which type of combat it is, melee or ranges, the specialists will beat the generalists. If you assume it's the ranged specialist at range and the melee specialist in melee. No matter how hard you try, or how clever you think you are, you will find yourself having to stretch at times. If you're too specialized, you're ineffectual outside your speciality - if you're too generalized, you're rarely ever that effective (or ineffective).
Sensei Gith 05-01-04, 02:42 PM	Look at it again - if it's firing into melee, that's true, That happens to be most ranged combats. In pure missle or pure melee combat, the out-of-his-element specialist pulls the team's performance down. But they're still ahead. And, of course, in the hold-the-line scenario, the archer/barb team significantly underperforms compared to the pair of generalists. You mean the stand-still-and-see-how-long-you-live scenario? I've never heard of that actually happening, ever. If you assume it's the ranged specialist at range and the melee specialist in melee I'm assuming that it's both in either situation. No matter how hard you try, or how clever you think you are, you will find yourself having to stretch at times. If you're too specialized, you're ineffectual outside your speciality - if you're too generalized, you're rarely ever that effective (or ineffective). I only took into account the scenarios that someone invested in. The rest of the time, they're even. The generalists have no more versatility.
Tony Vargas 05-01-04, 02:53 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith That happens to be most ranged combats. But they're still ahead. Not ranged combats where both the ranged specialist and the melee specialist are engaging in ranged combat though. And, the generalist do pull ahead in pure ranged (not firing into melee) - it's by 1.2 points of damage throughput at AC 16, but it's something. Parity would be quite adequate, frankly, since they can't help but be better in the hold-the-line scenario. You mean the stand-still-and-see-how-long-you-live scenario? I've never heard of that actually happening, ever. Holding the line? It's the classic melee role. The idea is to keep enemy melee types away from casters long enough for the casters to do thier thing. Sometimes, it's critical, because, while you can stand up to the opposition you can't kill them (maybe because of DR, maybe because of numbers, etc), but the casters can (if they don't get melee'd). I only took into account the scenarios that someone invested in. The rest of the time, they're even. The generalists have no more versatility. You mean that one of the specialists invested in. The generalists are invested in all three (thus, generalist). In the hold-the-line scenario, that investment is just the choice of heavy armor & a shield and high hps form 18 CON, but it's there - and it's enough to substantially outperform the archer/barb team.
Sensei Gith 05-01-04, 04:39 PM	Not ranged combats where both the ranged specialist and the melee specialist are engaging in ranged combat though. It looks like we're starting to get into the problems with the inane precise shot rules, namely that the specialists really want to summon a housecat and have it attack them. Holding the line? It's the classic melee role. The idea is to keep enemy melee types away from casters long enough for the casters to do thier thing. That doesn't work in practice. The very idea of physically shielding the spellcasters is rather flawed. What they can do is kill the combatants attacking the spellcasters. But forming an impenetrable wall will get them nothing. The generalists are invested in all three (thus, generalist). In the hold-the-line scenario, that investment is just the choice of heavy armor & a shield and high hps form 18 CON, but it's there - and it's enough to substantially outperform the archer/barb team. But the question remains: exactly how is that helping? Sure, more hit points are always nice. But standing there and taking it is a very, very bad strategy. The cherecter who actually kills the attackers will come out far ahead of the one who goes into defense mode and prays for arcane intervention.
Tony Vargas 05-03-04, 03:01 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith It looks like we're starting to get into the problems with the inane precise shot rules, namely that the specialists really want to summon a housecat and have it attack them. We can just leave Precise Shot out of it. Assume the archer has Distance Shot, instead. That doesn't work in practice. The very idea of physically shielding the spellcasters is rather flawed. What they can do is kill the combatants attacking the spellcasters. But forming an impenetrable wall will get them nothing. Maybe I'm just set in my ways, but forming a 'fighter wall' has always been a standard D&D tactic. /Most/ of the time, the 'wall' is also inflicting damage on the enemy, but, not always. Some monsters have insane DR, or are otherwise hard for the fighters to hurt. I know quick-kill scenarios are popular these days, but sometimes the best thing you can do is stand up to the enemy as long as possible, so someone else can accomplish something important (maybe killing the baddie, or maybe just foiling his plans so you can all bug out of there).
Iron Chef Vastrox 05-03-04, 03:53 PM	In my experience, heavy armor proficiency is almost moot by 10th level when the Barbarian has access to Mithral Fullplate. Actually, unless one is using a shield, the Barbarian and Fighter have almost identical ACs. The -2 Rage penalty is nullified by the +2 Dex allowment for Mithral. This is, of course, 'in general'. Carry on.
Sensei Gith 05-03-04, 04:04 PM	We can just leave Precise Shot out of it. Assume the archer has Distance Shot, instead. Nope. It's a perfectly fine feat 90% of the time, and a very significant and valid advantage that the archer has over the generalist. Do make the archer a fighter and give him Weapon Focus, though. He would pick up Far Shot at third and Weapon Spec. at fourth. Maybe I'm just set in my ways, but forming a 'fighter wall' has always been a standard D&D tactic. /Most/ of the time, the 'wall' is also inflicting damage on the enemy, but, not always. Some monsters have insane DR, or are otherwise hard for the fighters to hurt. I know quick-kill scenarios are popular these days, but sometimes the best thing you can do is stand up to the enemy as long as possible, so someone else can accomplish something important (maybe killing the baddie, or maybe just foiling his plans so you can all bug out of there). I can't think of any situations where it would be more advantageous to sit there and *do nothing but take damage* tna actually fighting. BTW, here's a recent quote from the one and only JosephKell: Is is possible to make a viable fighter (the class only) that instead of choosing a specialty, takes feats from all over the place that don't necessarily work together, like rapid shot and cleave? Would the versatility offset the lack of power? No it wouldn't. All the Fighter has is feats, a BAB, and hit points. They have to use their feats for one purpose. There is no Min/Maxed Jack of All Trades. A Fighter COULD pass on Weapon Focus tree, though it would instead mean concentrating on another part of combat. And a link (http://www.giantitp.com/Func0009.html) that I came across that contains the kind of feats that would help with the problem. And a quote from the webcoming that I quite coincidentally read before finding that url that is semi-relevant. :D You know, what I can't figure out is how a subliterate thug like you made it through fighter college. thog not just fighter. thog start as barbarian. thog only multiclass to fighter for two levels to get bonus feats. fighter level 3 is dumb level. thog not take. You can't argue with that.
Tony Vargas 05-03-04, 04:18 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith I can't think of any situations where it would be more advantageous to sit there and *do nothing but take damage* tna actually fighting. Heh. Not many, but there are plenty of stituations where the ability to stand up to an enemy for a longer time, is more important than the ability to do damage to it - since the critical aspect of the situation may be allowing another character to accomplish something without interference, or to put the 'real' hurt on the thing you're holding off. I mean, you don't just go "oh well, I don't have the right weapon to do much damage to this monster, so I'll just stand aside and let it eat the wizard..."
Aki Warren 05-03-04, 05:31 PM	When your playing as a Paladin in a very magic heavy group with little healing, your whole entire life becomes "Hold that damn Line". I know it is not the fighter class, but there are scenarios. Let's Say an Orc Horde is attacking. A HORDE. You going to kill...what, 1 maybe 2 a round with melee? WOW impressive! If they surround you with the DnD rules (which really don't represent real fighting, but what can you do?) then you can kill 4 or 5 a turn, possibly more. Only 9995 more orcs to go! In this Situation, you want to stay alive while the wizards shoot fireballs, wail of the banshee, or summon monsters to help out. You can do very little. In this situation a fighter and barbarian are about equal, but I'm sure there are others
Megrim_Lord 05-03-04, 10:02 PM	Play a human barbarian starting at 1st level, take extra rage twice, and that just shatters the number of rages per day problem (5/day at 1st level...). Sure you lose out on Power Attack and Cleave or Dodge and Combat reflexes or something like that, but then you don't have to worry much about running out of rages, and just shattered all balance between fighters and barbarians (Mental Note: Human Barbarian 1/ Fighter multiclass = uber fighter build?)
Sensei Gith 05-03-04, 11:01 PM	Heh. Not many, but there are plenty of stituations where the ability to stand up to an enemy for a longer time, is more important than the ability to do damage to it Could you post an example? since the critical aspect of the situation may be allowing another character to accomplish something without interference Since you're not harming it, and the other players are, why doesn't it attack them? I mean, you don't just go "oh well, I don't have the right weapon to do much damage to this monster, so I'll just stand aside and let it eat the wizard..." As opposed to what? Standing next to the wizard so he'll have company before he is devoured? Or maybe convinving the target that you are the greater threat. When your playing as a Paladin in a very magic heavy group with little healing, your whole entire life becomes "Hold that damn Line". Very little healing != stand still and take it. The best way to keep from taking excessive damage is to kill the thing and be done with it. Let's Say an Orc Horde is attacking. A HORDE. You going to kill...what, 1 maybe 2 a round with melee? WOW impressive! If they surround you with the DnD rules (which really don't represent real fighting, but what can you do?) then you can kill 4 or 5 a turn, possibly more. There are several scenarios. 1. You are too low level to kill them. Bye bye. 2. You are high enough level. Well, they will be dealing approximately nil, and you can just fly out of range of their main weapons. With a thousand orcs, if they're high enough level to do any damage at all, you'll die. If not, it's a pathetically easy battle. Play a human barbarian starting at 1st level, take extra rage twice, and that just shatters the number of rages per day problem (5/day at 1st level...). Sure you lose out on Power Attack and Cleave or Dodge and Combat reflexes or something like that, but then you don't have to worry much about running out of rages, and just shattered all balance between fighters and barbarians (Mental Note: Human Barbarian 1/ Fighter multiclass = uber fighter build?) Extra Rage gives two rages? Nice. One Extra Rage will give you three at first level, probably plenty. You can bail before six rages and you'll always be prepared. I wouldn't recommend going fighter, though. Two levels is nice, or maybe four with Complete Warrior. More than that is essentially a waste, though.
Tony Vargas 05-04-04, 12:50 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith Could you post an example? Of fighters holding the line? Maybe 80% of the D&D combats I've been in since 1980? Usually, you're /also/ doing damage to the enemies you're holding back, but keeping the less melee-capable out of melee has always been a major responsibility of the warrior types. Since you're not harming it, and the other players are, why doesn't it attack them? Because it's a mindless/programmed/viscious critter that just attacks the nearest living target. Because you and the other melee types block it's path. Because you Improved Trip it when it tries to run past you.
Sensei Gith 05-04-04, 03:44 PM	Of fighters holding the line? Maybe 80% of the D&D combats I've been in since 1980? That doesn't help either. Because it's a mindless/programmed/viscious critter that just attacks the nearest living target. Okay, zombies I could see, although you'd be far better off killing them. What else? Because you and the other melee types block it's path. That's an awful lot of melee-types. Besides which, if you stand close enough so that they can't get to the back ranks (which requires very specialized circumstances itself), they can just unload arrows and laugh. Because you Improved Trip it when it tries to run past you. Finally, something concrete! It's not especially relevant, but it's progress. Barbarian wins, easy. Improved Trip is often a worthwhile investment considering how much it can help your THF'ing. Especially if you have Unearthed Arcana.
Tony Vargas 05-04-04, 04:28 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith That doesn't help either. That you can question the concept of 'holding the line' - (figher walls, meat shields, c'mon it's not a new idea ) - just mystifies me. You might as well try to convince me that wizards don't use 'vancian' casting or that elves aren't annoying - it's that venerable an aspect of the game. The critical traits for holding the line are hps & AC - you need to be able to stand up to something horrid in melee, and the only thing that really counts is how long you can stand up to it. It certainly helps to be able to do damage to it at the same time, but, that's not the critical aspect. Barbarains don't do it well because they're too offensively-specialized: thier AC suffers and they 'burn out' too quickly. Fighters can do it well since they can go with heavy armor, favoring CON over DEX for more hps, and/or load up on feats useful for the role. Barbarian wins, easy. Improved Trip is often a worthwhile investment considering how much it can help your THF'ing. If I ever see a Barbarian with 13+ INT & Combat Expertise, I'll let you know. I'm sure there's some way to cheese Improved Trip for your barbarian, somewhere, but for a core comparison of the classes, I don't see it happening. The Barb has too intense a need for physical stats (and plenty of skill points, already) to put a 13 in INT; Combat Expertise becomes unuseable when Raging, so it's hardly an optimal choice; and he doesnt' have the feats to become a trip-miester, anyway, so it's hardly a good path for him to start down.
Sensei Gith 05-04-04, 10:52 PM	That you can question the concept of 'holding the line' - (figher walls, meat shields, c'mon it's not a new idea ) - just mystifies me. You might as well try to convince me that wizards don't use 'vancian' casting or that elves aren't annoying - it's that venerable an aspect of the game. I could name a thousand examples of situations where one would want to hit things with pointy sticks until they fall down. Can't you think of any for this? The critical traits for holding the line are hps & AC Not to mention DR. Barbarian wins two out of three. If I ever see a Barbarian with 13+ INT & Combat Expertise, I'll let you know. It's been done. The Barb has too intense a need for physical stats (and plenty of skill points, already) to put a 13 in INT; And doesn't the fighter need physical stats? Even without Improved Trip, the barbarian ties the fighter.
Tony Vargas 05-05-04, 02:51 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith I could name a thousand examples of situations where one would want to hit things with pointy sticks until they fall down. Can't you think of any for this? You don't need to give me one example, because it's patently obvious that there will be situations where you'll want to hurt the enemy. It should be equally obvious to you that there will be situations where you want to protect your allies. ... DR is certainly a plus, as it effectively gives you a few more hps. It's not nearly enough to make up for having a lower AC, and having some of those hps only temporarily, though. Besides, in the actual example, DR doesn't come into it, as the characters are still low-level.
Sensei Gith 05-05-04, 03:33 PM	It should be equally obvious to you that there will be situations where you want to protect your allies. Hold on there. Protecting your allies does not mean standing still and getting hit. That simply puts your allies at greater risk. Kill the things attacking your allies and get them to try to return the favor, and you will protect your allies.
Tony Vargas 05-05-04, 03:47 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith Hold on there. Protecting your allies does not mean standing still and getting hit. Then we're arguing about something I never said. I never said you don't get to hit back - just that the important factor in holding the line is how long you can hold it, not how quickly you can kill the enemy (that's high-damage melee). Sometimes, you face an enemy that you can dispatch in melee before it can dispatch you, and all you need from the casters is a lot of healing afterwards. Sometimes you face an enemy that can kill you before you can kill it, if all you do is trade your best damage for it's best damage. If you're a barbarian, you're optimized to trade damage very quickly - you do a lot each round, you absorb a lot each round, it's overy relativelly fast. If you're a 'tank' you're a less proffligate damage-trader, you don't dish it out as fast, but you also don't take as much each round either - a stand-up fight with you takes longer. If they're not alone, the tank gives his allies more time to help him finish off the enemy before he goes down than does the barbarian.
Sensei Gith 05-05-04, 05:38 PM	Sometimes, you face an enemy that you can dispatch in melee before it can dispatch you, and all you need from the casters is a lot of healing afterwards. Sometimes you face an enemy that can kill you before you can kill it, if all you do is trade your best damage for it's best damage. If you're a barbarian, you're optimized to trade damage very quickly - you do a lot each round, you absorb a lot each round, it's overy relativelly fast. If you're a 'tank' you're a less proffligate damage-trader, you don't dish it out as fast, but you also don't take as much each round either - a stand-up fight with you takes longer. If they're not alone, the tank gives his allies more time to help him finish off the enemy before he goes down than does the barbarian. Okay, standing and trading blows with a superior opponent is heroic, but also very stupid. If you anticipate needing a ressurect spell if you engage an opponent, the party should probably run. The AC gap between the barbarian and fighter is approximately four. Two for rage, one for full plate, and I'll throw in dodge because I'm in a good mood. The barbarian then has up to five more hit points per level, plus five more hit points for every time he is hit. If your opponent is unkillable, the barbarian will last longer, except in edge cases where 4 AC makes a huge difference. If not, the barbarian wins by leaps and bounds. You "win" a holding-the-line encounter by keeping your opponent from passing you until they die. If you die, he walks past your corpse. You can either go turtle and pray for intervention from the back row or kill the thing and be done with it.
Tony Vargas 05-05-04, 05:54 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith If you anticipate needing a ressurect spell if you engage an opponent, the party should probably run. If you can't kill something /by yourself/ the /whole party/ should run? The AC gap between the barbarian and fighter is approximately four. ...The barbarian then has up to five more hit points per level, plus five more hit points for every time he is hit. Maybe, at 20th level, when raging, if he has the same CON as the fighter. When not raging he may have comparable, or even slightly lower hps than the fighter (due to needing to prioritize DEX over CON). And, don't forget shields. Unless we're just talking pie-in-the-sky unlimitted equipment, that probably means at least 2 more for the fighter (large shield vs none at low level, +2 better enhancement bonus than the cheesy animated shield at higher level) - possibly a lot more. Then there's expertise - barb can't use it while raging, so we're up to an 11+ AC difference. If that doesn't make a huge difference in how often they get hit, it should at least make a difference in how big a power attack bonus they have to suck up with each of those hits.
frisbeet 05-05-04, 06:03 PM	Here's my analysis. Barbarian does more average full attack damage round than Fighter in this example. Barbarian 20 Str 25 Raging Wields Speed +3 GS Feats of WF, PA, & IC Fighter 20 Str 25 Wields Speed +3 GS Feats of WF, WS, gWF, gWS, IC, & PA Oh, let's just for kicks look at B 2 F 18 Raging Str 25 Wields Speed +3 GS Feats of WF, WS, gWF, gWS, IC, & PA Everybody's optimum power attacking, of course. That's the integer column sandwiched by damage averages. AC lvl 20 F lvl 20 B lvl 2 B 18 F 10 19 297.6 20 332.6 20 329.6 11 18 288.0 20 324.7 20 321.6 12 17 278.4 20 316.8 19 312.0 13 16 268.8 19 307.2 18 302.4 14 15 259.2 18 297.6 17 292.8 15 14 249.6 17 288.0 16 283.2 16 14 240.2 16 278.4 15 273.6 17 13 231.0 15 268.8 14 264.0 18 13 222.0 14 259.2 13 254.4 19 12 213.1 13 249.6 13 244.9 20 12 204.5 13 240.2 12 235.6 21 11 196.0 12 231.0 12 226.4 22 11 187.7 12 222.0 11 217.6 23 10 179.5 11 213.1 11 208.7 24 10 171.6 11 204.5 10 200.2 25 9 163.8 10 196.0 10 191.8 26 8 156.0 10 187.7 9 183.6 27 7 148.2 9 179.5 9 175.5 28 6 140.4 9 171.6 8 167.7 29 5 132.6 8 163.8 7 159.9 30 4 124.8 7 156.0 6 152.1 31 3 117.0 6 148.2 5 144.3 32 2 109.2 5 140.4 4 136.5 33 1 101.4 4 132.6 3 128.7 34 0 93.6 3 124.8 2 120.9 35 0 86.2 2 117.0 1 113.1 36 0 79.0 1 109.2 0 105.3 37 0 71.8 0 101.4 0 97.0 38 0 66.1 0 93.4 0 88.8 39 0 60.3 0 85.5 0 80.8 40 0 54.4 0 77.8 0 74.3 41 0 48.5 0 71.6 0 67.8 42 0 42.8 0 65.3 0 61.2 43 0 38.5 0 58.9 0 54.6 44 0 34.2 0 52.6 0 48.2 45 0 29.7 0 46.4 0 43.3 46 0 25.3 0 41.7 0 38.5 47 0 21.1 0 37.1 0 33.4 48 0 18.2 0 32.2 0 28.5 49 20 16.8 0 27.4 0 23.7 50 20 16.8 0 22.8 0 20.5 I'd say it's more of a wash between B20 & B2F18: extra feats offsets DR and other Barb special abilities. Edit: see boldface
Sensei Gith 05-05-04, 10:40 PM	If you can't kill something /by yourself/ the /whole party/ should run? If you're assured of dying. Just because something is beyond your capabilities doesn't mean it will kill you. There are other people on your team. Maybe, at 20th level, when raging, if he has the same CON as the fighter. When not raging he may have comparable, or even slightly lower hps than the fighter (due to needing to prioritize DEX over CON). The barbarian doesn't need any more Dex than the fighter. Sixteen is enough to maximise mithral full plate, the best case at any level. That takes one point off the AC gap too; mithril plate is the best armor, and both classes will be using it. And, don't forget shields. No, I think that the inferiority of S&B has been proven ad nauseum. Just ask the Min/Max boards. The only time I see a shield there is with the word "divine" preceeding it. Then there's expertise - barb can't use it while raging, so we're up to an 11+ AC difference. Expertise is a bad choice most of the time anyway, and you obviously can't simply add it to your AC. It takes away from your attack rolls as well.
Tony Vargas 05-06-04, 02:37 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith No, I think that the inferiority of S&B has been proven ad nauseum. ... Expertise is a bad choice most of the time anyway, and you obviously can't simply add it to your AC. It takes away from your attack rolls as well. Well, if S&B is 'inferior' and expertise a poor choice, you certainly won't mind the assumption that the barbarian doesn't use them, and the fighter does: that's a 14 point AC spread between the raging Barb and the defensive fighter, assuming the same armor, and the same net DEX. Temporary hps and DR aren't going to make up being hit that much more often. Now, I know you feel the need to circle back to the barb doing more damage. That's not the point of holding the line - the critical aspect is how long you can stay up. If you need to hold the baddies back for 5 rounds, because that's how long it'll take the casters to erase a huge horde of them with thier area spells, or that's how long it'll take to disable the world-destroying artifact, or whatever, it doesn't matter whether you did 126 pts of damage or 298 pts of damage to whatever thing(s) you were beating on in the meantime. And, please, don't go trying to attack the validity of the venerable hold-the-line scenario, again. After 7 pages, the conclusion is still obvious. The barbarian rocks for high-damage melee, he's a powerful, reasonably specialized class, that can be focused to be highly specialized - the fighter can't match him in that arena. The fighter is a much more flexible class that can be developed in a variety of directions, either specializing, to a degree, or generalizing - the barbarian can't match that flexibility. Each class stands on it's own merits.
Sensei Gith 05-06-04, 03:56 PM	Well, if S&B is 'inferior' and expertise a poor choice, you certainly won't mind the assumption that the barbarian doesn't use them, and the fighter does: As long as you don't try comparing them directly head-to-head, because they are no longer the same type of character. that's a 14 point AC spread between the raging Barb and the defensive fighter, Where exactly did you get that number? I count two for rage, two (I'm being generous again) for feats, and two for a better sheild, assuming a defensive fighter. You can use Expertise, but then you also have to compare average damage in thr same comparison. Actually, you do anyway— you can have your six points of AC, and the barbarian will deal twice the damage instead. If you need to hold the baddies back for 5 rounds, because that's how long it'll take the casters to erase a huge horde of them with thier area spells, If you're against so many weak opponents that it taked 5 rounds of fireballs to kill them, it probably doesn't matter anyway. or that's how long it'll take to disable the world-destroying artifact, I'm having difficulty envisioning this. Are you talking about a rogue disabling something that cannot be broken physically, and when it disappears, the huge swarm of monsters do so with it? And you have enough fighters to shield the rogue and wizard? Otherwise, I don't see how "holding the line" would help. Even then, the opponents could simply rush, and the fighters would run out of AoO's. In fact, in any of these situations (which seem to require vast hordes of weak monsters), the opponents could simply charge right through you. A few of them would take AoO's and probably die, but the other 995 would hardly notice you. And, please, don't go trying to attack the validity of the venerable hold-the-line scenario, again. I won't if you don't try to attack the validity of the fighter's inferiority. ;)
Roland the Crownbreaker 05-06-04, 08:14 PM	The fighter might not be using Mithral Full Plate, he may very likely be using Adamantite Full Plate, closing the DR gap a little bit. After all, if the barbarian can use magic items, it is fair game for the fighter to use them as well. and to note..... As long as you don't try comparing them directly head-to-head, because they are no longer the same type of character. That's the idea, a fighter is not a barbarian, and a barbarian is not a fighter. One trying to be the other is always a bad idea. A fighter has different advantages over the barbarian, and the opposite is also true. A barbarian trying to be an AC monster picked the wrong class, just like a fighter going after the highest number of HP damage per swing has also picked the wrong class.
Sensei Gith 05-06-04, 11:10 PM	The fighter might not be using Mithral Full Plate, he may very likely be using Adamantite Full Plate, closing the DR gap a little bit. After all, if the barbarian can use magic items, it is fair game for the fighter to use them as well. Suit thyself. That's the idea, a fighter is not a barbarian, and a barbarian is not a fighter. One trying to be the other is always a bad idea. A fighter has different advantages over the barbarian, and the opposite is also true. A barbarian trying to be an AC monster picked the wrong class, just like a fighter going after the highest number of HP damage per swing has also picked the wrong class. The question, of course, being whether or not those few points of AC make up for the twofold damage difference.
Tony Vargas 05-07-04, 04:50 AM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith As long as you don't try comparing them directly head-to-head, because they are no longer the same type of character. What? They were never the same type of character. Where exactly did you get that number? I count two for rage, two (I'm being generous again) for feats, and two for a better sheild, assuming a defensive fighter. 7 for a +5 shield - part of the 'inferior' S&B that the barbarian disdains. Or is your point that S&B is 'inferior' because of the existance of Animated Sheilds? ::shrug:: maybe it is. But do we want to compare pie-in-the-sky, infinite-budget magical equipment, or the actual classes? You can use Expertise, but then you also have to compare average damage in thr same comparison. Actually, you do anyway— you can have your six points of AC, and the barbarian will deal twice the damage instead. Damage is nice, but it's not relevant when determing how long you can stand up to punishment. Damage was considered in the high-damage melee scenario, where the barb came out clearly ahead - as expected. I'm having difficulty envisioning this... I don't see how "holding the line" would help. Play a wizard who's companions all feel that way. You'll understand.
Sensei Gith 05-07-04, 08:42 AM	What? They were never the same type of character. They were much closer when the fighter was using THF at least some of the time. 7 for a +5 shield - part of the 'inferior' S&B that the barbarian disdains. Or is your point that S&B is 'inferior' because of the existance of Animated Sheilds? ::shrug:: maybe it is. But do we want to compare pie-in-the-sky, infinite-budget magical equipment, or the actual classes? If you get that, the barbarian gets 5 AC from a +3 Animated shield, which is the same price. I included the AC difference. Damage is nice, but it's not relevant when determing how long you can stand up to punishment. Actually, it is. Character that deal more take less in return, all else being equal. CLearly, it is not all equal, because the fighter has a slightly higher AC, but the opponent will stop attacking the barbarian far sooner, meaning he'll take far less damage considering his AC and DR. Play a wizard who's companions all feel that way. You'll understand. I have. The rest of the party always protected the wizard in the best way possible. Of course, forming a defensive ring around him all the time is not a viable option in a four-person party, but by quickly killing anything that tried to attack the wizard and presenting a more tempting target, my character prevented the wizard from taking much damage at all. I can say with absolute certainty that sitting in front of the wizard waiting to be attacked would have accomplished nothing. He never went below 1 hp the whole adventure.
Roland the Crownbreaker 05-07-04, 08:58 AM	I'm not sure of the name of the feat, but TWF is a big help for a shield user. (The feat that lets you keep the shield AC while attacking with it) the barbarian gets 5 AC from a +3 Animated shield, Campaign dependent. I have yet to meet a DM who does not despise animated shields. It gets lumped into the same category as paladins summoning the warhorse for a short time per day. Speaking of which, magic items and how common they are happen to be entirely campiagn dependent. Nothing, and I mean nothing, destroys game balance faster than a load of magic items. No prestige class ever envisioned can do quite as good a job as opening up the DMG to magic item shoppers. I have yet to play in a game where magic items were not rigidly controlled. (even in the higher magic game where our party had well above the recommended wealth for our levels we had to settle for what we could find and loot. Other than potions, scrolls, and wands anyways. Those could be bought) To put it another way, open up the magic item shop and you can probably make a commoner into an engine of destruction.
Sensei Gith 05-07-04, 09:20 AM	I'm not sure of the name of the feat, but TWF is a big help for a shield user. (The feat that lets you keep the shield AC while attacking with it) Improved Shield Bash. A great option for pallys with Divine Shield; otherwise, not that great. Campaign dependent. I have yet to meet a DM who does not despise animated shields. House rule. Maybe IMC, only two-handed weapons can be enhcnaced past +1, but it doesn't matter. Speaking of which, magic items and how common they are happen to be entirely campiagn dependent. Since this would affect both characters evenly, it's not a problem.
Tony Vargas 05-07-04, 02:16 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith Actually, it is. Character that deal more take less in return, all else being equal. CLearly, it is not all equal, because the fighter has a slightly higher AC, but the opponent will stop attacking the barbarian far sooner, meaning he'll take far less damage considering his AC and DR. Keep in mind he may stop attacking the barbarian sooner, because the barbarian died. What you say holds true only when the battle is a foregone conclusion, in the barbarian's favor, based solely on his own damage potential. In other words: ideal conditions for his speciality. While I can accept that, in an RP sense, an 8 WIS/WIS barbarian may well be confident that his ability to chop his opponents into itty bitty pieces will /always/ be the deciding factor that will carry the day, I beleive that, in a more practical sense, such will not be the case nearly so often. At minimum, a fighter going defensive (expertise, BAB 5) is likely to have an AC some 9 or 10 points in advance of the barbarian (2 rage, 2 shield, 5 expertise, maybe 1 for heavy armor). There's a convenient way of converting AC to damage potential - power attack. An opponent power attacking the barb such that he has the same chance of hitting him as the fighter will do 10 extra damage - the barb's damage reduction. No less than 5 more points per hit. If that opponent is some giant with a two-handed weapon, it's 15 points per hit. For instance, at 10th level, two hits for a greatclub erases the barb's hp advantage from his d12 HD, and raging. After that he falls behind. Staying power just is not his forte. Of course, in a one-on-one duel, the barb's superior damage - say he does twice as much damage per round, what with the rage, two-handed weapon, and no to hit penalty - means his opponent dies a /lot/ sooner, too - twice as fast as the fighter's, in fact. But, if it's not one-on-one, it's different. Say the rest of the melee guy's party is back there, plinking away, each of the 4 of them also doing about half what the barbarian can (on average) per round (because barbs are just that baddass). That means the barbarian's party, in total, is killing whatever the monster that's power attacking the barbarian for an extra 15 pts/hit is, 6/5th faster than the fighter's party. Thus, if it take's the barb's party 5 rounds to dispatch the threat, and the barb is absorbing only hit out of a several-attack-routine, he's absorbed an extra 75 points of damage compared to the fighter on the 5th round - he's 45 pts closer to death than the fighter that round. Assuming the monster doesn't do 45 points of damage in one hit (in which case, they both would've died a while back), the fighter finishes the combat further from death than the barbarian - and, requires less of his party's resources be devoted to healing him. If the situation is such that the fighter /barely/ survives round 6, the barbarian will have fallen back in round 3 or 4 (and will be /dead/, not just incapacitated, if he's not healed before his rage runs out), and the monster will be ripping into the rest of his party (who will have to finish it off without the barb's damage, and with at least one of them forced into melee). Now, that's just some numbers out of the ether. I don't think it 'proves' much of anything, but, I hope it illustrates the idea. Specializing for damage over defense just means that fights you participate in will be over faster. In a duel, that can be /very/ significant. For instance, if you took the fighter and barb from this example and put them in a steel-cage death match, the fighter would only be able make a 5-pt power attack in order to hit the barb as often as the barb hits him ('cause he's also got 5 pts going to expertise), and, that with a one-handed weapon - little more than enough to make up for the DR, let alone his lower basic damage potential - he'd be doomed, and the barb is barely past 1/2 hps before he drops. In other situations, though, it can work to your disadvantage. I guess it depends on whether your party fights with you, or you fight with your party.
Sensei Gith 05-07-04, 04:35 PM	Keep in mind he may stop attacking the barbarian sooner, because the barbarian died. "Holding the line" is a rather straightforward tanking scenario. If the barbarian is in danger of sying, the fighter is toast. What you say holds true only when the battle is a foregone conclusion, in the barbarian's favor, based solely on his own damage potential. In other words: ideal conditions for his speciality. Again, if the barbarian is going to be killed in this kind of situation, the fighter has no chance whatsoever. Holding the line is really just the standard take-away-their-hit-points-before-they-take-away-yours situation. Even if a fighter fared better in the latter part, the barbarian's performance in the former is far more significant. At minimum, a fighter going defensive (expertise, BAB 5) is likely to have an AC some 9 or 10 points in advance of the barbarian (2 rage, 2 shield, 5 expertise, maybe 1 for heavy armor). There's a convenient way of converting AC to damage potential - power attack. An opponent power attacking the barb such that he has the same chance of hitting him as the fighter will do 10 extra damage - the barb's damage reduction. No less than 5 more points per hit. If that opponent is some giant with a two-handed weapon, it's 15 points per hit. For instance, at 10th level, two hits for a greatclub erases the barb's hp advantage from his d12 HD, and raging. After that he falls behind. Staying power just is not his forte. Almost right, but while the fighter is busy sinking his attack bonus, the barbarian kills the opponent. If they're attacked the same number of turns, the fighter will win, but that obviously won't happen. If the barbarian deals twice the damage, which is likely after the fighter dumped his attack score into Expertise, he will be attacked half as many times. So unless the fighter takes less than half as much damage as the barbarian, measured as a percentage of his hit points, he loses. Thus, if it take's the barb's party 5 rounds to dispatch the threat, Another problematic assumption. I forgot that you were S&B as well as Expertiseing, so note that double damage is conservative. You seem to have an entire party full of fighters, and the results reflect this. Let's pare that down to something more realistic. The other three party members each deal 25% of the barbarian's damage on average. The fighter's battle lasts nine rounds, so if the monster deals at least 20 damage per hit, the barbarian wins. I guess it depends on whether your party fights with you, or you fight with your party. If the other party members are dealing comparable damage to the fighter, the monster will attack them because they are less well-defended. The only situatiuon where this makes sense is if the tank is far and away the best damage dealer, despite S&B and Expertise. This, of course, shoots the barbarian up to ridiculous heights, but I dodn't make the comparison.
Tony Vargas 05-07-04, 05:32 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith You seem to have an entire party full of fighters, and the results reflect this. Let's pare that down to something more realistic. The other three party members each deal 25% of the barbarian's damage on average. Wow. Better yet, let's assume they leave the barbarian there and go get coffee, because, obviously, they aren't really adventures. I know, they can be four bards there to get a first-hand glimpse of his awesomeness, so they can win an epic-saga contest - they're too busy taking notes to attack every round. Casters, sneak-attacking rogues, dedicated archers... I think other classes can squeeze out /half/ the damage a barbarian does, each, overall, in the course of a fight - at least. If the other party members are dealing comparable damage to the fighter, the monster will attack them because they are less well-defended. They're defended by the barbarian/fighter. Presumably, the melee type is holding an extant or 'manufactured' (by the party's battle-field control spells) choke point, or other wise holding the monster's attention. Thus, 'holding the line.' Given the choice between unleashing a full attack, and hitting at least once (once is assumed in this example), or taking an AoO, moving, and making a single attack which may or may not hit, most big bad PC killers will repeatedly full-attack anyone so foolhardy as to melee them, then move on to the next victim. Heck, most barbarians would do that.
Sensei Gith 05-07-04, 11:00 PM	Casters, sneak-attacking rogues, dedicated archers... I think other classes can squeeze out /half/ the damage a barbarian does, each, overall, in the course of a fight - at least. I'm not basing it on the barbarian, I'm basing it on the fighter. I had a nice long post justifying those numbers, but IE ate it because it sucks worse than anyone's most horrid nightmare of the fighter. I've taken to backing posts up in Stickies because the message field randomly clears itself. Remind me to download Safari, please. :) Or anything as long as it's not Microsoft.[/rant] I'm assuming a four-character party: wizard, cleric, rogue, and fighter/barbarian. The cleric and rogue I gave each 2/3 of the fighter's damage. They're not combat classes, but they can hold their own. Of course, a properly-designed cleric will kick any barbarian's ass, but that's another topic :rolleyes:. I gave the wizard 1/5 of the fighter's damage. Obviously, his spells can do significantly more than that. But if the wizard is using his spells, the fighter and barbarian may as well pack up and go home for all the difference they'll make. Plus, incredible offensive power plus d4 hit dice and inability to wear armor means that they'd be the first targeted, not the fighter safely going turtle in the front row. And the barbarian deals twice the fighter's damage, conservatively. Adding those together, the other party member count as approximately 1.5 fighters, or .75 barbarians. They're defended by the barbarian/fighter. Presumably, the melee type is holding an extant or 'manufactured' (by the party's battle-field control spells) choke point, or other wise holding the monster's attention. Thus, 'holding the line.' The monster walks right through and eats both the AoO and the wizard. most big bad PC killers will repeatedly full-attack anyone so foolhardy as to melee them, then move on to the next victim. It depends on how intelligent they are. Zombies will just hit the closest party member, whereas unusually intelligent monsters will go for the back row every time. They're easier to kill and it helps the monsters more. Why not? Heck, most barbarians would do that. That's what dead barbarians did. You attack the weak links in the chain. Without the caster support, the barbarian is far, far better off. Of course, in a party situatiuon, the barbarian could leave the wizard to the monk, rogue, or friendly wizard.
Tony Vargas 05-07-04, 11:15 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith The cleric and rogue I gave each 2/3 of the fighter's damage. They're not combat classes, but they can hold their own... gave the wizard 1/5 of the fighter's damage. Obviously, his spells can do significantly more than that. But if the wizard is using his spells, the fighter and barbarian may as well pack up and go home I'd assume the casters do at least some casting, and the rogue makes some attempt to snipe, gets turned invisible, or otherwise gets in some SA damage, then there's the archer making with the full attacks. There's plenty of damage potential in classes other than barbarian. The fighter's not at full offensive potential - the other's might do 2/3rds his when he's got a two-hander out, when he's doing more like 3/4 the Barb's damage output. As it is, rating them all about the same - 1/2 the barb's damage - is pretty conservative.
Sensei Gith 05-08-04, 12:24 AM	If the "soft" party members were dighing it out like the tank, they would bve attacked instead if the monster was intelligent. The example only works if the tank deals far more damage. Which would you rather attack first: the tank who deals 50 damage per round, or the nice, easily killable wizard doing the same?
Tony Vargas 05-08-04, 02:35 AM	Unless you simply don't have the option of a full attack, chasing after prospective targets when you're already in melee doesn't have a lot of percentage in it... even if you don't have a full attack to miss out on, provoking AoOs to chase after disapearing wizards, tumbling rogues and clerics who might just buff themselves up to the equal of the fighter (who's now happilly following after you, re-engaging, and taking the thoughtfully provided full-BAB AoOs as you try to catch his buddies) just might not be the very best use of your remaining rounds of life. But, if, for some reason, it's in the best interest of the big bad to give his melee opponent some extra free hits, leaving him free to switch from Expertise to Power Attack, in order to reduce it's overall damage potential, and spread it out over several opponents, that's it's perogative. In any case, the baddies gonna die - it may die thinking, 'darn that fighter's hard to hit' or 'why won't these buggers stand still and fight ' or 'at least I took the barbarian with me' - but (I've learned from using the kobold example to couch it this way) at least the party is victorious.
Sensei Gith 05-08-04, 09:58 PM	Unless you simply don't have the option of a full attack, chasing after prospective targets when you're already in melee doesn't have a lot of percentage in it. That assumes that you are already in melee, which is not likely. Rule #1 of combat is kill the wizards. For a smaller time investment, you kill the most dangerous party member. Engaging the tank is a bad choice. even if you don't have a full attack to miss out on, provoking AoOs to chase after disapearing wizards, You don't take any additional attacks. Maybe the fighter gets one AoO, but then he doesn't get to full attack after you engage him. Instead, you suffer the not-quite-so-fearsome wrath of the back row. tumbling rogues It will still take far less time to kill him than the tank with your huge AC. and clerics who might just buff themselves up to the equal of the fighter If the cleric's buffing himself, there's no point because he'll outperform both the fighter and barbarian in combat, and have spells to back it up. who's now happilly following after you, re-engaging, and taking the thoughtfully provided full-BAB AoOs as you try to catch his buddies As opposed to being disintegrated by the wizard while you try to kill the tank. In the first round, everyone's going to attack you no matter who you attack. After the first target falls (which will occur sooner for the monster who chooses the wizard), you're only attacked by a defensive tank rather than save-or-die spells. In any case, the baddies gonna die - it may die thinking, 'darn that fighter's hard to hit' or 'why won't these buggers stand still and fight ' or 'at least I took the barbarian with me' - but (I've learned from using the kobold example to couch it this way) at least the party is victorious. Not necessarily. The fighter has a greater chance of dying.
Tony Vargas 05-09-04, 02:20 AM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith That assumes that you are already in melee, which is not likely. Rule #1 of combat is kill the wizards. Engaging the tank is a bad choice. But, one, in this instance, that has already been made for you by the barb/fighter, in the example. You don't take any additional attacks. Maybe the fighter gets one AoO, but then he doesn't get to full attack You take an AoO for moving away from the fighter, to attack one of his buddies, giving up a full attack to do so. Then the fighter closes with you again, taking a full BAB attack, and the non-meleeist tumbles away, poofs or buffs and fights (depending on who you attacked. Now, you're either provoking another AoO and giving up a full attack to close again, or trading full melee attacks with the fighter and the buffed cleric - and, if you persist in ignoring the versatile fighter, his damage goes up as he switches out of defense mode. If you persist in chasing down the 'more vulnerable' (but in no mood to toe-to-toe with you) party members, you'll take a standard attack (possibly a charge if you ignore him too persistently) and an AoO from the fighter every round... that's actually a little worse than a Full Attack, since the itterative attacks have reduced attack bonus. After the first target falls (which will occur sooner for the monster who chooses the wizard), you're only attacked by a defensive tank rather than save-or-die spells. A valid, basic strategy in a situation where you have total command of the battlefield, and cooperative foes. If you're on the wrong side of a choke point from the juicy targets, though, you don't have that total command of the battlefield. There's more going on in even a relatively simple combat than damage throughput and target choice. Not necessarily. The fighter has a greater chance of dying. I think we've demonstrated, in this example, that the barbarian will die before the fighter - he just takes damage so much faster that, after two hits, his 'extra' hps from raging and that d12 HD (and even DR) are used up. ..... I think I'm begining to see where you're combing from. The assumptions you're working with are: If you're playing a barbarian, everything always breaks your way: you dictate when, where, and what sort of combat takes place, and decide which opponent will face you and how he will respond tactically. If you're playing a fighter, everything breaks against you. All battles will take place at a time and situation dictated by your opponents that will be as disadvantageous to you as possible. I can see how you've become convinced of the barbarian's superiority.
Sensei Gith 05-09-04, 03:35 PM	But, one, in this instance, that has already been made for you by the barb/fighter, in the example. Not if the tank is back holding the line. You take an AoO for moving away from the fighter, to attack one of his buddies, giving up a full attack to do so. Then the fighter closes with you again, taking a full BAB attack, and the non-meleeist tumbles away, poofs or buffs and fights (depending on who you attacked. Now, you're either provoking another AoO and giving up a full attack to close again, or trading full melee attacks with the fighter and the buffed cleric - and, if you persist in ignoring the versatile fighter, his damage goes up as he switches out of defense mode. If you persist in chasing down the 'more vulnerable' (but in no mood to toe-to-toe with you) party members, you'll take a standard attack (possibly a charge if you ignore him too persistently) and an AoO from the fighter every round... that's actually a little worse than a Full Attack, since the itterative attacks have reduced attack bonus. Wrong. The tanks is holding the line, not blindly charging in to kill the monster. You have already admitted that in a straight-up tankfest, the barbarian will win. The monster runs in past the fighter (AoO) and attacks the wizard. At worst, he'll get standard attacks on the wizard every round, and the tank will return the favor. If you allow the cleric to "buff up," the fighter has no reason for being there, since a cleric could do his job better anyway. And the rest of your argument if based on the unkillability of the wizard, which is in and of itself broken. Also bear in mind that you have reduced this to chase/tank, and the barbarian does both better. A valid, basic strategy in a situation where you have total command of the battlefield, and cooperative foes. If you're on the wrong side of a choke point from the juicy targets, though, you don't have that total command of the battlefield. There's more going on in even a relatively simple combat than damage throughput and target choice. Rule #1 is still kill the wizard. I think we've demonstrated, in this example, that the barbarian will die before the fighter - he just takes damage so much faster that, after two hits, his 'extra' hps from raging and that d12 HD (and even DR) are used up. Correction: in this example, the barbarian will kill the opponent much faster, lessening the chances of the more vulnerable party members dying. If the monster wants to get into a slugfest with a fighter or barbarian, the winner is clear. The monster can't be attacking both the tank and the wizard. Either the monster rushes the back row, in which case the barbarian kills him faster, or he fights with the party tank, in which case the barbarian has a far greater chance of success. If you're playing a barbarian, everything always breaks your way: you dictate when, where, and what sort of combat takes place, and decide which opponent will face you and how he will respond tactically. Wrong. That's why barbarians have to be versatile: because combat rarely goes how you planned it. The barbarian wants the opponent to appear 5 feet away, flat-footed, but since that isn't going to happen, he loads up with feats and items that let him handle any unexpected situation without trouble. Fortunately, this is quite easy to do.
Aki Warren 05-09-04, 09:53 PM	I think here is the problem. Your assuming the wizard is going to let himself get touched. I know I wouldn't. Walls would create a choke point where the fighter would be. I'd rather have a fighter since he'll live longer, and can throw people through said walls better than the Barbarian can since the Fighter has enough extra feats to be good at grappling or bullrushing. Also, in the case I can't make that small a choke, the Fighter can use a trip weapon, take improved trip and all the related feats. He therefore stops the big ugly enemy from ever reaching me. Also, being a Gray Elf, I will not tolerate a disgusting a barbarian :rolleyes: Personally, I'd rather have the fighter keeping the guy busy then trying to kill him. As you yourself pointed out, with the wizard attacking the barbarian might as well go home. What's the point of dealing damage when a Sorceror does it better? And he does it to more people!
Tony Vargas 05-10-04, 02:32 AM	Gith, you are impervious not only to reason, but to simple communication through the medium of written english. *plonk*