Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Genetic 08-18-04, 06:13 PM	From my understanding, the Barbarian is made for dealing and taking the most damage. The Fighter is made for using a lot of combat feats that take on multiple people at once. Am I correct in my understanding? And of course... which one is better? ^_^ Personally I favor the Barbarian but that's just me.
Kaminton 08-18-04, 06:45 PM	The barbarian is a very brute-force type of combatant. Raw, relying on strength and not so much on technique. This is represented by their ability to fly into a rage. The fighter is more tactical, relying on training and technique (in addition to strength or finesse). This is represented by the fighter's bonus feats. A fighter need not be good at taking on multiple people at once - you could focus on combat tricks, for example. So you could have someone very focused on tripping, disarming, grappling, etc. On the other hand, if you want to make a tank out of a fighter you can do that too - wear heavy armor, use a big shield, and pick up toughness (or its more powerful variants in assorted supplements) to boost the HP. Barbarians do get alot more skill points than the fighter, and a much more useful skill list, so they are more useful out of combat. With all those bonus feats, taking a few levels of fighter really helps to qualify for martial prestige classes. Which is more powerful? That depends. At high levels fighters really need to specialize into a prestige class to keep up in power with the barbarian. At low levels the fighter's high number of bonus feats lets them reach combat styles more quickly (whirlwind attack, for example), but once you get to the mid levels the barbarian can do the same thing. Note that at level 4 a barbarian only has 2 feats (3 if human) while a fighter has 5 (6 if human). The barbarian, on the other hand, tends to be one dimensional in terms of combat style. Pretty much every barbarian I've ever seen wields a big 2 handed weapon, rages, and charges into the thick of combat. Fighters can play different styles, and at mid to high levels can switch between them as the circumstances dictate. If you're faced with a flying opponent, most barbarians can't do very much. They may have a bow, but they're nowhere nearly as effective as they would be with a melee weapon, they simply don't have the feats.
Lion21 08-18-04, 06:51 PM	Howdy! In answer to your question, I am forced to ask another question: What kind of combatant do you want to be? A barbarian, and arguably, even a ranger(if using splat and non-core books) will never match a properly made fighter at archery. On the other hand, in the case of a Barbarian Melee attacker versus a Fighter Melee attacker made using only the PHB/DMG.....the Barabarian is often the hands down better player. Don't forget campaign requirements as well. Some people make the mistake of looking purely at figures...thats fine and dandy untill you realize that characters are not just floating in the void... That fighter would be great fun versus other humanoid weapon weilders.... If you throw in the various splat books, the fighter becomes a *very* viable choice. Still underpowered compared to the cleric, but I think we can all agree that clerics are broken thanks to a few particular spells/domain abilities. A Dwarven fighter with lots o' "roll with its" and improved toughness and weapon focus/weapon spec tree with a greatsword makes an incredible tank. Alternatively, that same dwarven fighter with either Anvil of Thunder style or spinning halberd style+TWF'ing+Armor spikes/bootblades borders on the overpowered. Given the choice of a pure meleeist, I would ask if the various splats are allowed. If yes, go with a fighter, if no, a barbarian.
Genetic 08-18-04, 07:42 PM	We only play using the three core books and the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book. I'm the DM, but I do have a character in case I play at all. Right now he's a sixth level Ogre Barbarian (Gogo 30 Str in rage :D). His feats are cleave and power attack. During his rage he gets about +15 to attack due to his massive amount of Strength and his attack bonus. Of course, his +10 strength modifier also gives him +10 damage as well. He uses a Flaming Greataxe +1 (1d12 + 1d6 fire damage). There's probably some way I could get his damage higher. I'm assuming this is through magic items and such. His feats are power attack and cleave. Also--a question about cleave: Do you only get to use the bonus attack when you knock someone into the -HP area? Or is there some rule of combat which knocks people down that I'm forgetting about? Thanks for all the help so far guys :D
Kaminton 08-18-04, 09:57 PM	Originally posted by Genetic Also--a question about cleave: Do you only get to use the bonus attack when you knock someone into the -HP area? Or is there some rule of combat which knocks people down that I'm forgetting about? Pretty much. Cleave is quite decent, but great cleave is usually not worth it. When you use your iterative attacks, you deal enough damage that there's a good chance you'll knock someone unconscious (or kill them), and the free hit is always nice. You get the most use out of great cleave when the mage has been throwing fireballs around before you close into melee. This ups your chances of taking down more than one enemy in a round (unless you allow the stupid bag of rats cheese). The exception is if you face low level minions on a regular basis (sometimes it's fun to just slog through a horde of skeletons/warriors/whatever).
Mitchell 08-18-04, 11:15 PM	I prefer fighters because of the customization aspect. Even if you decide that you want to change your focus a few levels in, you have enough feats to do it. Archer, nimble fighter, TW fighter, power fighter, sword & board, or a combination of two is possible. A pure barbarian on the other hand, is among the least, if not the least, customizeable of all the classes. They are good at what they do, but that is the same thing every barbarian does. Their skill list helps, but they are often saddled with a poor int to maximize their physical traits, meaning that they often can't take full advantage of it.
angryman 08-18-04, 11:43 PM	And dont forget that barbarians don't actually necessarily do more damage than fighters. Weapon spec. gives the fighter an effective +2 damage, or +4 strength (damage only) which is the same as rage. Of course the extra +2 to hit is nice WHILE RAGING, but that runs out, and the Barb is fatigued- this is bad and in a long fight, can happen often. Once fighters get to 12 they have an effective +8 to strength (damage only) if they take improved spec. So really, if you take focus/imp focus and spec/imp spec- and the barb has great rage (+6 to STR and CON) * Fighters will have -1 to hit compared to a RAGING barbarian * Fighters will do 1 point MORE damage Since both classes need strength and will have similar items, everything else for pure hit and damage will be the same. The barb really shines with DR, movement (it makes a surprising difference!), sneak attack resistance and more HP. He loses good armour and rage is limited. The fighter really shines because he is reliably doing similar damage as a raging barbarian, and he can do all sorts of weapon tricks. He would have more chance to sunder, disarm etc against a barb.
Kingside_Bishop 08-19-04, 12:46 AM	Origally posted by Kaminton -- Pretty much every barbarian I've ever seen wields a big 2 handed weapon, rages, and charges into the thick of combat I built a long knife (shortsword) wielding barbarian once, with Improved Grapple. It was awesome, because I could rage to add to my strength and grapple check, and it actually made it harder for the person I was grappling to damage me. Add in other grappling feats from the splatbooks, and he was awesome even when grappling a bear. There's also a feat from mongoose press that allows you to still threaten when you're grappling. I thought it was unbalanced, but the DM didn't, so I took it. Grappling effectively took one guy out of the fight, but my guy was still around to help out. Added a few levels of druid, and I had a great shaman. Good fun. On Topic -- I always liked the Barbarian / Fighter. Best melee combo ever.
Kaminton 08-19-04, 03:30 AM	Originally posted by angryman And dont forget that barbarians don't actually necessarily do more damage than fighters. Weapon spec. gives the fighter an effective +2 damage, or +4 strength (damage only) which is the same as rage. Of course the extra +2 to hit is nice WHILE RAGING, but that runs out, and the Barb is fatigued- this is bad and in a long fight, can happen often. Once fighters get to 12 they have an effective +8 to strength (damage only) if they take improved spec. So really, if you take focus/imp focus and spec/imp spec- and the barb has great rage (+6 to STR and CON) * Fighters will have -1 to hit compared to a RAGING barbarian * Fighters will do 1 point MORE damage Since both classes need strength and will have similar items, everything else for pure hit and damage will be the same. The barbarian can power attack that 1 point, and deal an extra 2 points of damage, so they come out ahead :) And with a decent constitution score and a little magical help, the barbarian shouldn't be running out of rage before the end of combat (either that or you need to rethink your tactics, I've rarely seen combat go longer than 7 rounds). The barb really shines with DR, movement (it makes a surprising difference!), sneak attack resistance and more HP. He loses good armour and rage is limited. Agreed. But! We almost forgot the barbarian's middle name: Trapspringer. When the rogue can't disable a trap (or you don't have a rogue), who do you send in? The barbarian, he of the mighty trap sense and high HP :) The fighter really shines because he is reliably doing similar damage as a raging barbarian, and he can do all sorts of weapon tricks. He would have more chance to sunder, disarm etc against a barb. Unless the fighter is an archer, this is actually quite rare. The barbarian's usually moving twice as fast as the fighter (40ft to 20ft), unless the fighter is Dex-based (who then can't compete in terms of damage). This means that the barbarian can get there first, and has an easier time setting up a full attack.
Kaminton 08-19-04, 03:34 AM	Originally posted by Kingside_Bishop I built a long knife (shortsword) wielding barbarian once, with Improved Grapple. It was awesome, because I could rage to add to my strength and grapple check, and it actually made it harder for the person I was grappling to damage me. Add in other grappling feats from the splatbooks, and he was awesome even when grappling a bear. I never really liked grapplers. If your enemy has allies, you're basically screwing yourself over - you lose your Dex bonus against people you're not grappling against, and you don't threaten any spaces. Sounds like an invitation to be sneak attacked to me - and uncanny dodge doesn't help because you're not being flanked, nor are you flat-footed. And, like trip and disarm, it works best against medium-sized opponents (and is mostly useless against monsters, unless they're the kind that likes to swallow you whole)
angryman 08-19-04, 05:14 AM	The barbarian can power attack that 1 point, and deal an extra 2 points of damage, so they come out ahead True... And with a decent constitution score and a little magical help, the barbarian shouldn't be running out of rage before the end of combat (either that or you need to rethink your tactics, I've rarely seen combat go longer than 7 rounds). Well, yes and no. Our DM does tricksy things, like throwing a lot of monsters at us, we kill them and then when we think it's over (ie, healing) another wave comes at us. The barb is still fatigued so he's a bit lame. Also we often have large epic battles that go for ages, upwards of 20 rounds. Or a lot of battles during the adventuring day, so even high level barbs run out of rage... This means that the barbarian can get there first, and has an easier time setting up a full attack. This means the barbarian charges, hits the fighter once and then the fighter wails on him with his full attacks. Or if he's decently tactical, disarms the barbarian and then hits him a few times. Not that the barbarian can't do that...
Kingside_Bishop 08-19-04, 10:36 AM	I agree about the grappling thing. The only reason I played it was because he was playing with the mongoose rulebooks, which have the feat "Holding Basics" which allows you to keep your dex bonus and still threaten squares around you, while grappling.
Sensei Gith 08-19-04, 01:18 PM	Rage does not run out in combat. You can get a 10-round rage at first level, though 8 is more common. If you kill all the enemies, the encounter is over, even if another group follows the first. If your DM sends a dire rat every few rounds to break the barbarian's rage, he is metagaming horribly.
Tony Vargas 08-19-04, 03:08 PM	Originally posted by Genetic From my understanding, the Barbarian is made for dealing and taking the most damage. The Fighter is made for using a lot of combat feats that take on multiple people at once.Am I correct in my understanding? As far as it goes, yes. The barbarian is also linked to a certain range of character concepts - 'uncivilized,' wilderness-living, survival-oriented ones. There's some overlap with the ranger and fighter in there. And of course... which one is better? ^_^ Personally I favor the Barbarian but that's just me. The real question is 'which one is better for my character concept' or 'which one is better for my party' or, if you must be a munchkin 'which one is more open to abuse in the campaign I'm in.' First version of the question, which is better for building to concept: Usually the fighter. Unless you concept is 'barbarian,' of course. The fighter's bonus feats let you customize exactly the sort of combatant you want. If you want something very focused, you'll want to multiclass or PrC to maintain that focus, unless you DM has allowed in a /lot/ (ie 18) feats that all fit your focus, anyway. Second version, which is best for the party: of course, this depends on the party and the campaign. The barbarian makes an excellent weapon in the hands of the party, his offensive potential can't easily be rivaled. This is doubly true if you generally face challenges on your own terms - if you choose the time and place, and/or the terms of the engagement, a fair proportion of the time - as it will allow you to play to the barbarian's melee strengths, and time encounters so that you don't run out of rage at an inopportune moment. The fighter makes a good 'tank' in the classic sense, a durrable, high-AC front-liner, or a good archer, or a good damage dealer, or a good tactical soldier - and, after low levels, can probably fill two or more such rolls to some degree. If the party has the coesion to take advantage of the fighter's strengths (and/or you tailor your fighter's strengths to the party), he can be an excellent choice. Third virsion, who makes the better munchkin: again, it depends on what you're doing with your 'build.' The fighter class can often be a good /component/ of a power build: two levels of fighter give you two feats of your choice, which can help you get into a PRC sooner. Four levels for weapon specialization may be worth it, as well, and, some builds call for so many feats that even more levels of fighter may be justified. The barbarian makes a solid base, as well, getting valuable abilties like rage, fast movment, and uncanny dodge at relatively low levels. After low levels, PrCs are attractive. If you don't get to PrC, 20 levels of Barbarian is quite strong enough to be munchkin-worthy. The barbarian also lends itself well to maxxing one thing - specifically melee damage via high STR (further amped by Rage) and a two-handed weapon. It's a straightforward, simple, and high-powered (in terms of damage, anyway) path.
Kaminton 08-19-04, 03:44 PM	Originally posted by angryman The barbarian can power attack that 1 point, and deal an extra 2 points of damage, so they come out ahead True... And with a decent constitution score and a little magical help, the barbarian shouldn't be running out of rage before the end of combat (either that or you need to rethink your tactics, I've rarely seen combat go longer than 7 rounds). Well, yes and no. Our DM does tricksy things, like throwing a lot of monsters at us, we kill them and then when we think it's over (ie, healing) another wave comes at us. The barb is still fatigued so he's a bit lame. Also we often have large epic battles that go for ages, upwards of 20 rounds. Or a lot of battles during the adventuring day, so even high level barbs run out of rage... If all the enemies are dead and you're in healing mode, then the encounter is over. Barbarian can rage again if another enemy shows up at that point. If, however, a new enemy keeps appearing right before the previous one dies... that's a different story. Or you can cheese out and get a level of Horizon Walker (terrain mastery: desert) so you're immune to fatigue :) This means the barbarian charges, hits the fighter once and then the fighter wails on him with his full attacks. Or if he's decently tactical, disarms the barbarian and then hits him a few times. Not that the barbarian can't do that... Well, that depends. I wasn't thinking of arena style combat between a barbarian and a fighter. But if we were, then the barbarian would power attack on his charge to deal extra damage. I think it works out to be about the same in the end, the amount of damage the fighter would do with his iterative attacks (compared to the barbarian's power attack). If they're high enough level to have iterative attacks, then the barbarian may have spring attack - so you go in, power attack, and keep going past (without provoking an AOO). Now the fighter can either try the same trick (you'll eventually win either because you have better movement, or damage, or both), or charge you and set YOU up for a full attack.
Tony Vargas 08-19-04, 06:44 PM	Originally posted by Kaminton Well, that depends. I wasn't thinking of arena style combat between a barbarian and a fighter. Good, don't start, it's pretty pointless, and, such hypothetical duels unduly favor characters with highly specialized and/or limitted use abilities (barbarian rage is certainly the latter, and barbarians tend to be pretty specialized in melee). But if we were, then the barbarian would power attack on his charge to deal extra damage. I think it works out to be about the same in the end. If they're high enough level to have iterative attacks, then the barbarian may have spring attack - so you go in, power attack, and keep going past (without provoking an AOO). Now they can either try the same trick (you'll eventually win either because you have better movement, or damage, or both), or charge you and set YOU up for a full attack. Forgetting the duel idea for a moment, the typical barbarian is pretty focused on melee, so usually /does/ end up closing ASAP - which means he generally starts a fight trading a standard attack (often a charge) for a full attack. Power attacking on a charge is a sensible way to help make up the difference. Spring Attack is a less stellar option. For one thing, it's three feats, quite an investment for a non-fighter. For another, it really doesn't play to the barb's strength, leaving him /out/ of melee. In a fight with another melee beast, it just prolongs things - in a fight with a more versatile opponent it could end up trading spring attacks for ranged full-attacks or even spells or other ranged attack abilities.
Sensei Gith 08-19-04, 06:52 PM	Originally posted by Tony Vargas As far as it goes, yes. The barbarian is also linked to a certain range of character concepts - 'uncivilized,' wilderness-living, survival-oriented ones. There's some overlap with the ranger and fighter in there. After spending two skill points on literacy, there is nothing that connects a barbarian to the wilderness or uncivilization (is that a word?) as long as they take skills other than wilderness lore. A barbarian could be a member of the elite beserker unit in the largest kingdom in the world as easily as a member of a remote tribe. First version of the question, which is better for building to concept: Usually the fighter. Unless you concept is 'barbarian,' of course. The fighter's bonus feats let you customize exactly the sort of combatant you want. If you want something very focused, you'll want to multiclass or PrC to maintain that focus, unless you DM has allowed in a /lot/ (ie 18) feats that all fit your focus, anyway. Not necessarily. The barbarian is obviously optimized for THF, but within that, he's very flexible. Second version, which is best for the party: of course, this depends on the party and the campaign. The barbarian makes an excellent weapon in the hands of the party, his offensive potential can't easily be rivaled. This is double true of you generally face challenges on your own terms - if you choose the time and place, and/or the terms of the engagement, a fair proportion of the time - as it will allow you to play to the barbarian's melee strengths, and time encounters so that you don't run out of rage at an inopportune moment. The fighter makes a good 'tank' in the classic sense, a durrable, high-AC front-liner, or a good archer, or a good damage dealer, or a good tactical soldier - and, after low levels, can probably fill two or more such rolls to some degree. If the party has the coesion to take advantage of the fighter's strengths (and/or you tailor your fighter's strengths to the party), he can be an excellent choice. The barbarian is the best at dealing damage, hands down. In a one-on-one fight, a more defensive fighter might have something going for him, but in a party, the dragon can attack anyone. Your AC only protects 1/4 of the party, but killing the dragon protects everyone. If what you need is a ranged combatant, on the other hand, a fighter would obviously be better. A ranger would be better yet, however. Generalists are not as valuable in a party because you will probably have that flexibility in the form of other party members. A ranger with a bow and a barbarian with a greatsword are far better than two fighters that can handle either one. It is only in very small parties that a generalist would provide significant benefit, and even then at the cost of power. Third virsion, who makes the better munchkin: again, it depends on what you're doing with your 'build.' The fighter class can often be a good /component/ of a power build: two levels of fighter give you two feats of your choice, which can help you get into a PRC sooner. Four levels for weapon specialization may be worth it, as well. The barbarian makes a solid base, as well, getting valuable abilties like rage, fast movment, and uncanny dodge at relatively low levels. After low levels, PrCs are attractive. If you don't get to PrC, 20 levels of Barbarian is quite strong enough to be munchkin-worthy. The barbarian also lends itself well to maxxing one thing - specifically melee damage via high STR (further amped by Rage) and a two-handed weapon. It's a straightforward, simple, and high-powered (in terms of damage, anyway) path By "munchkin," Tony means how powerful a class is. Fighters are nice two-level dips and barbarians are good one-level dips, but unlike the fighter, a barbarian can make it to 20th level as a powerful character. A fighter is required to multi or PrC out past about level 6 to maintain effectiveness, so if you don't have access to a lot of PrC's or your DM is not lenient on multiclassing, barbarian is the way to go. The barbarian can certainly use a PrC as well (like the crazybroken FB) but his class features keep coming until level 20.
april151978 08-19-04, 07:00 PM	Both loose... Mainly because they beat a dead horse into the abyss while others came up and killed them while they were comparing thier "packages" instead of playing the game...
allenchan 08-19-04, 07:09 PM	There's feats for pretty much everything in the non-core, and more of them seem to favour barbarians (ones that make them not fatigued, other ones that utilize power attacks, charges, etc). Also magic enhancements that benefits rages etc
Aki Warren 08-19-04, 07:51 PM	take two levels of fighters, and then barbarian. Since you are asking about barbarian, I assume that raging or the wilderness fits you quite well, so I won't go there. Take two levels of fighter to show dedication to learning how to fight, but favoring strength. Let us not forget the old saying; "Strength is a Strength all it's own"
Two Rivers Wolfbrother 08-20-04, 12:06 AM	I've come to find that the best players don't base their characters on classes, but take classes based on their classes. Barbarians have their role, fighters do, swashbucklers, rangers, paladins, they all have their roles, and they all do good with their roles. I don't think any one's better. Some are probably more versatile, but versatility does not equal better.
RadicalTaoist 08-20-04, 01:28 AM	Depends on feats, of course. IMHO the best barb build is all two weapon fighting/cleave feats. For fighters? I would say depends on the build or course. My favorite build is: All mastery feats (Greater Weapon Specialization, Improved Critical) with the dire flail. All two weapon fighting feats Combat Expertise, Improved Disarm, and Improved Trip Combat Reflexes and all the Parry feats from Complete Warrior Give me a 20th level fighter with that build, a dire flail and a suit of dwarven plate both decently enchanted, maybe a belt of giant strength too, and I'll go toe to toe with two 20th level barbs. But note that those barbs would be better than me at fighting a large monster, for example, where I would be better off with archery specialization (where both me and the barb would lose to a ranger with favored enemy against said monster) or dependence on a tower shield and a bastard sword. Barbs I would say are both more and less flexible than fighters: fighters have access to more feats, but need to choose an area of focus to be effective. And we haven't even gotten to mounted fighters! Would you rather be a barb on horseback in a rage or a fighter on horseback with all the right feats? I would say that the access to extra feats gives fighters the easiest time getting into prestige classes, and that's what balances them out against barbs. Few fighter builds cannot be matched by the right PrC, I like to think that mine above is one. But again, like everyone says, it depends on role. Nobody's comparing fighters or barbs to monks, even though a monk with Spring Attack would likely decimate any barb.
Sensei Gith 08-20-04, 01:32 PM	Give me a 20th level fighter with that build, a dire flail and a suit of dwarven plate both decently enchanted, maybe a belt of giant strength too, and I'll go toe to toe with two 20th level barbs. Erm... Was that a serious statement? You do realize that either one of the barbarians could win? And we haven't even gotten to mounted fighters! Would you rather be a barb on horseback in a rage or a fighter on horseback with all the right feats? A paladin on horseback. Maybe even a ranger in some circumstances; mounted archery isn't half bad. Of the two you suggested, the barbarian would certainly fare better. Why? Because he can get every one of those feats. Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack, and Spirited Charge are all that's necessary. Then you once again have the fighter's feats against the barbarian's rage, hit points, and DR, and that is almost always a loss for the fighter. But the key is having a mount that doesn't die on the first round of combat. Both barb and fighter would fare badly in a real game. I would say that the access to extra feats gives fighters the easiest time getting into prestige classes, and that's what balances them out against barbs. What prestige class worth taking requires that many feats? You are correct in that two-level dips are the fighter's best use. But again, like everyone says, it depends on role. Nobody's comparing fighters or barbs to monks, even though a monk with Spring Attack would likely decimate any barb. What? How could a monk possibly do that? A spring-attacking monk can stay a maximum of 45 feet away. A barbarian can charge 80 feet. The monk has sacrificed his only advantage-- many attacks per round-- and still has less damage, less chance to hit, and less hit points. Even a fighter can easily beat a monk, and that's saying something! Monks are not tanks and spring attack is not damage immunity.
amoeba 08-20-04, 01:39 PM	Originally posted by april151978 Both loose... Mainly because they beat a dead horse into the abyss while others came up and killed them while they were comparing thier "packages" instead of playing the game... hehe, you said "package"
Kaminton 08-20-04, 06:56 PM	Well, some barbarians like to get the whirlwind attack feat, which has spring attack in its tree. Even if you don't, Mobility is a decent feat for a barbarian (charging tends to provoke movement-based AOOs), so spring attack is just one more feat on top of that. And unless you like playing barbarians with less than 10 int (or maybe a raptor totem... prefer slashing attacks), you wouldn't be spring attacking all the time, only when it suits you (like when fighting something with alot of attacks that you don't want to give first full attack to). Besides, spring attack complements the fast movement ability. Anyway, I strongly disagree that rangers are better archers than fighters. Rangers get a number of archery related feats, true, but that doesn't match the fighter's sheer number of bonus feats. The ranger gets the feats at the fastest possible time (for improved precise shot, they get it at level 11 instead of 12 for the fighter, who doesn't have a bonus feat at level 11). If you're trying to be a good archer without at least 19 Dex by level 11, you're not working towards your strengths. (It's like the 8 Str/18 Dex fighter trying to wield a great sword in battle. Weapon finesse and a rapier would be much better.) Rangers do get alot of other things that are useful (track, stealth skills and abilities, limited spellcasting), but they do not improve the core archery ability. The fighter, on the other hand, can get weapon specialization and improved weapon specialization, which now apply at any range (used to be within 30 ft only). Meanwhile, there are the following archery feats not on the ranger's class features, and their prerequisites: point blank shot, far shot, improved critical (bow of your choice) precise shot, mounted archery (mounted combat), shot on the run (dodge, mobility), weapon focus (bow of your choice). That's 10 feats, while a human ranger20 only has 8 feats to spend. I haven't included the archery feats in Complete Warrior, either - ranged pin, ranged sunder, ranged disarm, etc. Rangers do get a bonus to damage against their favored enemies (unlimited range also), but this is situational depending on what you're fighting. In short: rangers and fighters both make good archers. Fighters make better "pure" archers, in terms of ability to deliver damage with a bow to anyone they can see (walls of force and windwalls notwithstanding). Rangers get other stuff that makes them better able to deliver that damage (stealth abilities being one of them), plus their favored enemies give a nice bonus if you fight a type of enemy more frequently. Both make good springboards for archery prestige classes; fighters for the feats required, rangers for the skills.
ninjarabbit 08-20-04, 07:49 PM	With Complete Warrior and all it's good feats, a fighter 20 is quite viable.
Sensei Gith 08-20-04, 08:01 PM	Favored enemy, camoflage, and HiPS all contribute to archery. That's five favored enemies, three bonus feats, and two useful abilities that enhance archery. Their better skills, with such useful choices as spot, hide, and move silently and plenty of points to use them also contribute. point blank shot, far shot, improved critical (bow of your choice) precise shot, mounted archery (mounted combat), shot on the run (dodge, mobility), weapon focus (bow of your choice). :bored: Unless you want a character specializing in it, mounted archery is a useless feat. If you do want to specialize it, the ranger wins anyway for obvious reasons. Shot on the run is a wasted investment for three feats, even for a fighter. Weapon focus and improved critical are useful, but grant no additional capabilities; they merely enhance what the archer already has. Far shot is just plain useless due to the spotting rules. That leaves a ranger with point blank shot and precise shot as "must-have" feats and weapon focus and improved critical as "would-be-useful" feats. A human ranger can take them all faster than he can qualify. By level six, he is only two feats behind the fighter but has everything he needs and most everything he wants. By contrast, a human fighter has 19 feat slots to fill. Once he has the seven feats that the ranger wants plus weapon specialization, what then? He is for all intents and purposes finished with archery. The ranger is still getting favored enemy, ranks in archery skills, and supplementary abilities.
Lion21 08-20-04, 09:13 PM	Let me first make this very clear: I, like Gith, believe that the fighter can be underpowered at higher levels. I also believe that way to do this is through the introduction of more high-level/advanced feats with powerful effects. However- The Complete Warrior and the Mini's Handbook, not to mention almost all the various splat books and Kingdom of Kalamar books have taken considerable steps in the right direction. Theres still a *LOT* of improvement needed, but a properly built fighter using these various books can indeed put up a fight, and yes, win in melee with a barb, and in archery with a ranger. Which is well and good until you realize that the Rangers/Barbs skills outside of combat can easily and often, save the party. And both Ranger and Barb are still just as good...if not better (see favoured enemy) against monsters. But in a duel, a *properly* made fighter can certainly fight and win. NOTE: Something of especial interest is the amount of effort that must be made to make a character *viable*. The current fighter requires that you go through and enormous amount of crap in order to be viable. On the other hand, its quite hard to mess a barbarian build up. Very hard in fact. Really ...well, you get the point.
Lion21 08-20-04, 09:37 PM	Oh, and just in case anyone wanted examples of what I would consider remotely "viable" fighter builds to get an idea of what I am talking about: Dwarven/Human Fighter: A halberdier/Talenta Sharrash user using Spinning Halberd style with standstill, pushback, knockdown, karmic strike and of course TWF'ing. OF course, I am always the first to point out the M.A.D. of allmost all good fighter builds. Always keeps this in mind. Dwarven Tank: Roll with it. 'nuff said. No, wait. Actually improved toughness plus save boosting feats plus Roll with it(s). Don't forget the full plate and Improved combat expertise/Elusive target. Lord Sunder: The BBEG who puts the B (the first one..no, the second!) back in B.B.E.G.! Lord Sunder+Leadership feat = Sunderlings! Lord Sunder + Sundering cleave (from "Combat Brute" Tactical feat) = HAHAHAHAHAHAjdlfjal;ejpajf;aojfe;oiaj. Sorry. More in a bit. I am *very sleepy*. Shouldn't stay up this late.
Kaminton 08-20-04, 09:41 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith Favored enemy, camoflage, and HiPS all contribute to archery. That's five favored enemies, three bonus feats, and two useful abilities that enhance archery. Their better skills, with such useful choices as spot, hide, and move silently and plenty of points to use them also contribute. Not every archer is a sniper. There's also the machine gun/turret :) Unless you want a character specializing in it, mounted archery is a useless feat. If you do want to specialize it, the ranger wins anyway for obvious reasons. Shot on the run is a wasted investment for three feats, even for a fighter. Weapon focus and improved critical are useful, but grant no additional capabilities; they merely enhance what the archer already has. Far shot is just plain useless due to the spotting rules. That leaves a ranger with point blank shot and precise shot as "must-have" feats and weapon focus and improved critical as "would-be-useful" feats. A human ranger can take them all faster than he can qualify. By level six, he is only two feats behind the fighter but has everything he needs and most everything he wants. By contrast, a human fighter has 19 feat slots to fill. Once he has the seven feats that the ranger wants plus weapon specialization, what then? He is for all intents and purposes finished with archery. The ranger is still getting favored enemy, ranks in archery skills, and supplementary abilities. Why do you have to specialize for mounted archery? It's two feats, plus maxing out a ride skill. A ranger would consider that specializing, but a fighter can do that (he doesn't exactly have alot of good things to spend his skill points on), and still do all the other archery stuff that fighters can do. What are these obvious reasons that a ranger would win? Animal companion: horse? Far shot is still useful for cutting down on ranged penalties, especially against big creatures like dragons and giants (or whenever you're out in the open). Plus, you only need to make a spot check to see someone who is trying not to be seen (or someone who isn't intentionally hiding but is normally hard to see). Spot may apply for determining encounter distance, and the ranger has the edge here because they have spot as a class skill and those stealth abilities. If anything, a ranger really wants far shot to take full advantage of that high spot score and the ability to snipe (as you say, spot penalties due to range add up). Shot on the run or not, Mobility is still useful since neither rangers nor fighters get tumble as a class skill. So it's not a total waste of 3 feats. Shot on the run is extremely useful for archers who want to go into dungeons, instead of staying out in the open. It lets you back up to an intersection, shoot, and take one of the other branches (so charging is blocked). Next round, if nothing comes around the corner, you can go back there, shoot, and keep moving to get cover again. By the rules as written, an archer cannot step out from behind cover, shoot, and get back into cover again without spring attack (exception: standing up and falling prone if your cover is vertical and not a wall). So without shot on the run, a ranger cannot step out from behind a giant sequoia (or other large tree), shoot, and step back behind cover in the same round. From Complete Warrior, as someone mentioned: Improved rapid shot (essentially removes the penalty for making a rapid shot), ranged disarm, ranged pin, ranged sunder, sharpshooting (reduces cover bonuses). Of this list, improved rapid shot and sharpshooting are the "must-have" feats, the ranged expertise feats just give you more flexibility. Though sharpshooter is superceded by improved precise shot later... Favoured enemy is highly campaign dependent. You probably get the most use out of it if you consistently put in dragon as your favored enemy, but only if you are on a dragonslaying campaign. Humanoids are split up into 10 categories, and outsiders into 9 categories. Or you could choose undead, if you're on one of those campaigns. In a generic campaign, though, I don't think you can get consistent use out of it. I'd rate it on par with weapon specialization (for archery purposes, not counting the skill bonuses here), which always deals +2 damage to everything. Fighters do make better pure archers than rangers - in an archery contest (such as in the Olympics), fighters eventually get more attack bonuses. They are also more flexible about their archery. Rangers make better snipers with their stealth abilities (manyshot from hiding, then hide again). Of course there are different prestige classes that accentuate different aspects of archery. Order of the Bow Initiate lets you shoot in a threatened square without provoking an AOO (really useful for closer-quarters combat), deepwood sniper boosts your range increment and crit multiplier, etc. Edit: this is off topic - let's just agree that most barbarians make lousy archers :P
Kaminton 08-20-04, 09:54 PM	In general, with a decent sized party (say 4+ members) you're better off with 4 specialists if they have different specialties. If you're in a situation where one of them shines and the others hold their own (ie, aren't liabilities), then you'll do fine. If you're in a situation where more than one is in their element, then you'll do swimmingly. And if you're in a situation where none of them shine, then you obviously didn't pick the right specialties (too much overlap between them). The problem with fighters, of course, is that with their sad skill list and pitiful skill points per level, they are liabilities out of combat. Unlike the other classes... arguably, a very specialized mage or bard could be useless either in combat or out of combat, but you have to work at it. By default they come with some usefulness in both situations. The fighter by default is useless out of combat, unless you load up on the skill boosting feats and/or take a prestige class (with a better skill list and more points). That's a problem with the fighter compared to all classes though, not just the barbarian. Barbarian vs paladin is fine: they're both good in combat and both useful out of combat (for different reasons, of course).
RadicalTaoist 08-20-04, 11:08 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith 1. Erm... Was that a serious statement? You do realize that either one of the barbarians could win? 2. A paladin on horseback. Maybe even a ranger in some circumstances; mounted archery isn't half bad. 3. Of the two you suggested, the barbarian would certainly fare better. Why? Because he can get every one of those feats. Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack, and Spirited Charge are all that's necessary. Then you once again have the fighter's feats against the barbarian's rage, hit points, and DR, and that is almost always a loss for the fighter. But the key is having a mount that doesn't die on the first round of combat. Both barb and fighter would fare badly in a real game. 4. What prestige class worth taking requires that many feats? You are correct in that two-level dips are the fighter's best use. 5. What? How could a monk possibly do that? A spring-attacking monk can stay a maximum of 45 feet away. A barbarian can charge 80 feet. The monk has sacrificed his only advantage-- many attacks per round-- and still has less damage, less chance to hit, and less hit points. Even a fighter can easily beat a monk, and that's saying something! Monks are not tanks and spring attack is not damage immunity. Numbered for easier responses. 1. Serious as death.:b: If I can parry enough attacks and disarm one barb, it's good - read the parry feats from CW, they're good. I'd take those odds; it's a fair fight. If I have Quick Draw and can surprise to trip a barb b4 it can rage for the str bonus, then I have an advantage straight off the top. My biggest risk is being flanked. Of course I haven't taken the barb's feats into account too, if they are trippers as well that could change things. 2. Point. Pallies have all that healing tho, so it's not necessarily fair to compare them to the other combat classes, it gives them a major advantage IMO. 3. Disarm, trip, attack the mount as you suggest. Fighters can win on tactical flexibility. If they go for a jousting match then I wouldn't give the fighter a chance in hell. Admittedly the difference between barb and fighter on horseback is like barb vs. fighter on foot: fighter wins only - but wins easily - if he has a tactical advantage and can keep the circumstances in his favor. 4. Arcane Archer, Duelist, Dwarven Defender, a lot of the Complete Warrior PrCs, and certainly if you want to get multiple combat PrCs. Note that I think without Complete Warrior fighters are much weaker, all the combat classes really but the Complete Warrior's feats give fighters a great edge. 5. May I suggest a monk who can't match a fighter in some forms of combat (with what I said about tactical advantage above kept in mind) sucks? For the barb, go toe to toe for one round, then back off with the free 5 ft. (no AoO) and retreat fully just beyond barb's charging range. Do this and you can Spring Attack only when the barb moves to get close. If the barb plays it smart and safe and only approaches a smaller increment to attack, use the monk's superior mobility to stay out of charging range until rage ends, then charge with the monk's superior speed and repeat from the top. The battle will go to a patient monk who can win a war of attrition - admittedly, very difficult for the monk, but Wholeness of Body gives the monk more endurance than his hit die would normally allow. Don't forget that terrain determines a lot - a monk needs room to move. High areas to jump to (leap of the clouds?) or cover to hide behind (H & MS, continue to ambush) will favor the monk. By contrast cramped quarters where the barb can corner guarantees dead monk. Lastly, a monk shouldn't toe to toe with a barb for more than two rounds at a time, even for that full attack (a two weapon barb can meet that attack speed and damage easy). Notes on the side: 4 times out of 5, multiclassing (even without PrCs) makes for stronger characters than straight classing. Best barb build IMHO is two weapon fighting. Without Complete Warrior I wouldn't even consider a straight fighter. Kaminton has a great point in that last post.
frisbeet 08-20-04, 11:57 PM	Kaminton: good points for a balanced game. But I find in my playing--and I suspect this is the case for a large % of players--that parties whose member's combat specialties add synergistically and cover many bases are quite a bit more successful than parties which by design have similar non-combat adroitness but only star one combat guru. Bad outcomes in a non-combat scenario don't always lead to death; bad outcomes in combat do--the risk/reward is therefore completley skewed. The principle of "survival of the fittest party" ensures that those parties where everyone contributes in their own way to combat will be successful. Of course, avoiding combat is an essential non-combat skill--but unlike the real world, you don't get any experience points for that. (You surely have guessed that the games I've played emphasize combat, with less attention paid to equally worthy roleplaying aspects.) ---back to topic--- Comparing the average damage/round that a level 20 straight Brb vs. a straight Ftr inflicts is clearly tipped to Brb. But give Ftr just one (might as well make it two) levels of Brb, and the playing field is greatly rectified. Throw in a couple levels of PrC, such as Exotic Weapon Master (Complete Warrior), some choice feat selection, and pound for pound, Mr. Mostly Fighter, Dash of Barb, Couple PrCs, will do more damage than a similarly equiped and optimized straight Barb . Aki Warren had it almost right. Take more levels of fighter, not fewer--there are more good feats (especially from CW) you'll want than you can take. This is of course a rule of thumb, which only requires a few examples for "proof". I'll gladly provide one if warranted.
Kaminton 08-21-04, 12:53 AM	Originally posted by frisbeet Kaminton: good points for a balanced game. But I find in my playing--and I suspect this is the case for a large % of players--that parties whose member's combat specialties add synergistically and cover many bases are quite a bit more successful than parties which by design have similar non-combat adroitness but only star one combat guru. I'm not sure what you mean here. Pretty much everything except the bard can be *very* good in combat (bards merely being good if played well), but not all the time. You only need one physical combat specialist (fighter/barbarian/paladin), really. I find that if you have two of them, they tend to overlap (exception being an archer and a melee guy) instead of being synergistic. When I meant "in their element", here's an example: Some builds (trippers, grapplers) work best against medium-sized and smaller creatures. Some spellcasters (enchanters, for example) have difficulties with undead. So if you're fighting a bunch of orcs, alot of abilities come into play. But if you're fighting undead, then the cleric and paladin turning abilities come into play (assuming you have both), but the enchanter has a hard time, the rogue has a hard time (no sneak attacks), etc. If you're trying to be sneaky, the rogue, ranger, and monk do very well, but your fireball-happy sorceror is probably not too happy sitting on his fireballs. Bad outcomes in a non-combat scenario don't always lead to death; bad outcomes in combat do--the risk/reward is therefore completley skewed. The principle of "survival of the fittest party" ensures that those parties where everyone contributes in their own way to combat will be successful. Of course, avoiding combat is an essential non-combat skill--but unlike the real world, you don't get any experience points for that. (You surely have guessed that the games I've played emphasize combat, with less attention paid to equally worthy roleplaying aspects.) I disagree. If the objective is to rescue the princess from the tower, that doesn't mean you have to kill all the guards in your path. I'd award xp for avoiding the guards as well by sneaking in. If you're trying to deal with a humanoid tribe raiding an area, if diplomacy gets them to stop the raiding, I'd give full xp as if you slaughtered them all. There's a section in the DMG called "Story Awards" that talks about this. Sigh, off topic again. Sorry! :angel:
Sensei Gith 08-21-04, 01:21 AM	Not every archer is a sniper. Hide works at close range. Why do you have to specialize for mounted archery? Two feats alone will not give you an advantage. You need a special mount, whether via a class like the paladin or ranger or leadership (which means paladin again). Otherwise your two feats and one skill are useless after the first arrow shot. A paladin on a silver dragon will kill the most well-built mounted fighter. Every time. Effortlessly. Period. Far shot is still useful for cutting down on ranged penalties ...if you ignore the spotting rules. And it's not like archers don't have attack bonus points to spare. Far shot provides a +4 bonus per 3 range increments. For this to be equal in power to weapon focus, your average shot range would have to be 77.25 feet. In all but the most specialized long-range sniper builds, this feat is best left alone. Shot on the run or not, Mobility is still useful since neither rangers nor fighters get tumble as a class skill. Both get 5-foot steps. Both can withdraw. Both can take a single hit in an emergency. Neither will probably be able to avoid an attack at the opponent's full BAB, +4 or no +4. It's certainly not worth two feats for someone whose entire strategy is staying out of melee to begin with. So without shot on the run, a ranger cannot step out from behind a giant sequoia (or other large tree), shoot, and step back behind cover in the same round. I didn't bother to check that in the rules because any DM who adjucates it that way is a moron or a player-killer. From Complete Warrior Improved Rapid Shot and one of the maneuver feats can go on the "nice-to-have" list. Favoured enemy is highly campaign dependent No it isn't. If you spread your points around, you can easily cover all of the most common types: dragons, evil outsiders, aberrations, magical beats, and undead. You can tailor those choices to fit any campaign. Even a campaign that uses random monsters from the MM will give points to the ranger on a regular basis. Only blatant player-screwing or a freak accident of probability will deny the ranger that. Fighters do make better pure archers than rangers - in an archery contest (such as in the Olympics), fighters eventually get more attack bonuses. Not really. The only feats that you have mentioned that grant attack bonuses are weapon focus, improved rapid shot, point blank shot, and far shot. If a ranger ends up missing opponents a lot of the time, he can take all of them, leaving the fighter with the +1 from weapon specialization. Edit: this is off topic - let's just agree that most barbarians make lousy archers I don't suppose you've ever seen a raging barbarian with a mighty [+8] bow. Although they are indeed better-suited to thrown weapons. Since noncore material is being thrown around everywhere, I don't feel the slightest bit of guilt about giving a hypothetical barbarian the axethrower feat. Strength to attack and damage at range. The relatively low damage of ranged weapons is even less effective agains DR 5 and d12. Serious as death. If I can parry enough attacks and disarm one barb, it's good - read the parry feats from CW, they're good. I'd take those odds; it's a fair fight. If I have Quick Draw and can surprise to trip a barb b4 it can rage for the str bonus, then I have an advantage straight off the top. My biggest risk is being flanked. Of course I haven't taken the barb's feats into account too, if they are trippers as well that could change things. I am unfamiliar with those parry feats, but if they by themselves take a crappy tank and a crappy weapon and make them over twice as powerful as the best tank in the game, they're probably broken. Point. Pallies have all that healing tho, so it's not necessarily fair to compare them to the other combat classes, it gives them a major advantage IMO. It most certainly is fair. Or can we not include the barbarian because rage is so good? Are the ranger's skill points too much as well? Disarm, trip, attack the mount as you suggest. Fighters can win on tactical flexibility. If they go for a jousting match then I wouldn't give the fighter a chance in hell. Admittedly the difference between barb and fighter on horseback is like barb vs. fighter on foot: fighter wins only - but wins easily - if he has a tactical advantage and can keep the circumstances in his favor. The mounts will die in the first round or two. Then you just have a fighter and a barbarian. The former lost use of more of his feats, while the latter relied on rage, DR, and other more widely applicable abilities. That fighter hasn't a chance. It's still moot when a pally will kick both their asses so far they'd need a plane shift before they could be ressurected. It's like a spellbattle between a ranger and paladin. Arcane Archer, Duelist, Dwarven Defender, a lot of the Complete Warrior PrCs, and certainly if you want to get multiple combat PrCs. Note that I think without Complete Warrior fighters are much weaker, all the combat classes really but the Complete Warrior's feats give fighters a great edge. I don't have CW, so I can't speak for those classes, but the arcane archer is too sucky to even mention except in an ultraspecialized gish, although I don't recall it having too many feat requirements. The duelist and dwarven defender each require three. That's not a lot. That's third-level material, and they both require much higher BAB. May I suggest a monk who can't match a fighter in some forms of combat (with what I said about tactical advantage above kept in mind) sucks? With a straight face, you mean? For the barb, go toe to toe for one round, then back off with the free 5 ft. (no AoO) and retreat fully just beyond barb's charging range. Doesn't work. You can't step and then move. You'd take an AoO and be on the ground if you somehow managed to escape that fate already. It's another AoO if you want to get up. You also implicitly assume an infinite plane. BTW, the monk's speed bonuses are enhancement. The barbarian can use boots to speed up to 70 feet and then the game's up. That highlights a major drawback to complicated tactics: even a small anomalous factor can ruin them completely. The barbarian's tactics are simple. You charge and beat them. Repeat as needed or full attack. There is far less that can go wrong.
frisbeet 08-21-04, 01:27 AM	Kaminton, Your 1st paragraph response is what I mean: covering all bases. Couldn't have said it better. Sometimes (enough to matter in my experience), even with special abilites like turning or evoking or sneaking, after a couple rounds it comes down to hit points, plain&simple. Gotta have an effective back up. Cleric, wield your mace. Rogue, flank and dodge. Wizard, save your last ohcrap spell (ie invisibility) and magic missile away--hope you didn't blow them already. Etc. If you didn't take a feat (ie weapon finesse) or skill (ie tumble) to this end, even though your role is non-physical--if you didn't plan your character with combat in mind--you may hurt the party when the going gets really tough. And at low levels, I don't know how you can get by with only one physical fighter type in your party. High levels, sure. Try the Caves of Chaos with only 1 fighter; I swear Gygax intended hiring a phalanx of henchmen to get through that. Anyways, topic, right. Barbarians suffer in my mind from being cookie-cutter. A big oatmeal raisin cookie of raging-goodness. Sort of topic.
Tony Vargas 08-21-04, 01:33 AM	Originally posted by Kaminton The problem with fighters, of course, is that with their sad skill list and pitiful skill points per level, they are liabilities out of combat. The fighter by default is useless out of combat, unless you load up on the skill boosting feats and/or take a prestige class (with a better skill list and more points). That's really a rather minor point. Most of the out-of-combat situations I can think of don't call for more than one character puting forth a good performance. It only takes one rogue to disarm a trap, one wizard or bard to come up with the needed bit of information, one caster to scry, etc... A non-rogues inability to find or disarm a trap in no way hurts the rogue's chance of doing so. In combat, OTOH, everyone needs to be effective to some extent, a vulnerable, non-contributing character in combat is, indeed, a liability. That's yet another reason that combat is so highly-valued in D&D, and why all classes have some combat ability. Inevitably, the payoff for being even slightly less effective in combat is large, while the compensation for being poor at everything but combat is small.
RadicalTaoist 08-21-04, 03:30 AM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith 1. I am unfamiliar with those parry feats, but if they by themselves take a crappy tank and a crappy weapon and make them over twice as powerful as the best tank in the game, they're probably broken. 2. It most certainly is fair. Or can we not include the barbarian because rage is so good? Are the ranger's skill points too much as well? 3. The mounts will die in the first round or two. Then you just have a fighter and a barbarian. 4. The former lost use of more of his feats, while the latter relied on rage, DR, and other more widely applicable abilities. That fighter hasn't a chance. 5. It's still moot when a pally will kick both their asses so far they'd need a plane shift before they could be ressurected. 6. It's like a spellbattle between a ranger and paladin. 7. I don't have CW, so I can't speak for those classes, but the arcane archer is too sucky to even mention except in an ultraspecialized gish, although I don't recall it having too many feat requirements. The duelist and dwarven defender each require three. That's not a lot. That's third-level material, and they both require much higher BAB. 8. With a straight face, you mean? 9. Doesn't work. You can't step and then move. You'd take an AoO and be on the ground if you somehow managed to escape that fate already. It's another AoO if you want to get up. You also implicitly assume an infinite plane. BTW, the monk's speed bonuses are enhancement. 10. The barbarian can use boots to speed up to 70 feet and then the game's up. 11. That highlights a major drawback to complicated tactics: even a small anomalous factor can ruin them completely. The barbarian's tactics are simple. You charge and beat them. Repeat as needed or full attack. There is far less that can go wrong. 1. Actually, wait, my misquote, I think Parry showed up originally in a Dragon issue. Lemme double check my sources. They go like this: Parry You are skilled at deflecting the attacks of your enemies. Prerequisites: Dex 13+, Int 13+, Expertise Benefit: After a melee attack roll to hit your character has been made, but before damage is assigned, you may attempt to parry the bolow. you may only attempt to parry an attack against a weapon up to two size categories larger than the one you wield. Natural attacks are considered to be weapon two size categories smaller than the creature's size. You cannot parry an attack when unarmed, when wearing medium our heavy armor, or when you are denied your Dexterity bonus to AC. Attempting a parry uses up a an attack of opportunity for the round. You may only make one parry attempt a round. To parry, you must make a melee attack roll in an attempt to surpass the attack roll that you are trying to parry. When wielding a light weapon, you gain a +4 bonus to your parry roll. If you succeed, the attack fails and deals no damage normally. In either case, making a parry attempt gives your opponent the opportunity to make a disarm attempt against the weapon you are parrying with. Attempting to disarm you is a free action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity, and failure does not allow you to make a disarm attempt in return. Expert Parry You may parry multiple attacks by the same creature. Prerequisites: Dex 13+, Int 13+, Combat Reflexes, Expertise, Improved Parry, Parry. Benefit: Your parry attempts can be divided among multiple creature's attacks or a single creature's attacks as you see fit. Each parry attempt uses up an attack of opportunity granted by the Combat Reflexes feat. Guarded Defense You parry with surpassing deftness. Prerequisites: Dex 13+, Int 13+, Expertise, Improved Disarm, Parry, base attack bonus +4 or higher. Benefit: When you make a parry attempt, it does not provoke an automatic disarm attempt. Improved Parry You may make many parry attempts in a round. Prerequisites: Dex 13+, Int 13+, Combat Reflexes, Expertise, Parry Benefit: You may make a number of additional parry attempts in a round equal to your Dexterity bonus. Just as you cannot make multiple attacks of opportunity against the same creature in a round, you cannot attempt to parry multiple attacks made by a single creature ina a round. Each parry attempt uses up an attack of opportunity granted by the Combat Reflexes feat. Incredible Parry You can parry attacks from weapons much larger than the one you wield. Prerequisites: Dex 13+, Int 13+, Expertise, Parry, base attack bonus +6 or higher Benefit: You may parry an attack from a weapon up to three size categories larger than the one you wield. Special: This feat can be taken multiple times. Each time it is taken, you can parry a weapon one size category larger than you otherwise could. Thus, a character who had taken this feat three times could parry a Gargantuan weapon with a dagger. Protective Parry Your training enables you to defend not only yourself, but also friendly creatures adjacent to you. Prerequisites: Dex 13+, Int 13+, Expertise, Parry. Benefit: When a creature that you threaten is attacked, you may use a parry attempt for the round to parry a blow that would hit that creature. Normal: You may only attempt to parry attacks directed to you. Special: If you have the Improved Parry feat, you may parry multiple attacks against allies within the area you threaten with your weapon, but you cannot protect any creature more than once per round. If you have the Expert Parry feat, you may parry multiple attackes that would hit the same creature regardless of their source. In both cases, parrying for another creature uses up a parry attempt and a possible attack of opportunity for the round. That's a lot of feats, and they're very good feats for barbs/pallys/rangers too. Note that they're less useful against monsters with really high attack bonuses. All in all I wouldn't say broken. To be fair if the barbs had these feats then I'd be ****ed against two, but that would leave them without a lot of other options. I could take maybe one barb if it had the parry feats, or if the DM wasn't allowing parry feats. 2. Well I suppose I am not looking at all the aspects of the classes, I was looking at them in combat terms and narrow combat terms at that. Kudos for keeping a view of the bigger picture. Healing allows the Paladin to go on for a lot longer than a Barb alone, especially against numerous lengthy encounters against numerous opponents, the Barbarian really shines in quick bursts as his combat abilities allow him to finish things up in a few rounds, as I have seen and as I'm sure you have seen as well. Barbs clean things up fast. 3. If fighter can disarm barb, dismount barb, or trip mount (or take advantage of the other feats in CW, one of which actually allows you to knock a foe clean out of the saddle) then barb's mount dies before fighter's mount, neutralizing barb's mobility and giving fighter advantage. 4. The point is that the fighter still has plenty of feats to fall back on. A barb would not. I remain of the position that the two classes are equal. 5. :rofl: Great line. 6. Personally, I think either are better classes than fighter or barb. Druid, monk, paladin, ranger, and psion are the only classes out of the 14 that I would seriously consider leveling straight 20. IMHO of course. Note that I am also a big advocate of multiclassing. 7. Check it out, if there was no CW we wouldn't be arguing. I'd be sayingthat the barb beats the fighter hands down. The feats, PrCs, and so on make all the combat classes much stronger. A fair number of the CW PrCs require 4, 5 or occasionally more feats. Most of the 3 feat requirement PrCs are only 5 levels. 8. Actually with a grimace this time, my words are misleading. Lemme rephrase: A monk who cannot match the average fighter of equal level in combat, assuming there is no major tactical advantage to the fighter, is not being played well by the player. 9. Oh wait, you're right, oops. Better would be tumbling and going straight through barb in other direction, which would theoretically require a constant straight line. As for taking advantage of terrain besides a theoretically infinite planeplane, see my comments above. 10. Point to you again. Monk would need leap of the clouds and heavy terrain exploitation to keep ahead. Out of curiosity, if you were a straight lvled monk, how would you take a straight lvled barb? 11. True. Where the barb really quashes the fighter IMHO is against large monsters. Barbs are just better tanks. To be effective against them a fighter must take PrCs. Straight fighters can only hope to be as effective against other humanoid duelists. I remain of the stance that if straight lvled, fighters and barbs are equal in combat. Although I must concede that barbs own fighters outside of combat, lotta good my Intimidate's gonna do me. About the only skill advantage I could imagine for the fighter is the fighter linguist, just 2 points for learning to speak and read/write a language instead of 2 to speak and an additional 1 to read/write. One last question, what thinks you of two-weapon barb builds?
Kaminton 08-21-04, 04:24 AM	Originally posted by Tony Vargas That's really a rather minor point. Most of the out-of-combat situations I can think of don't call for more than one character puting forth a good performance. It only takes one rogue to disarm a trap, one wizard or bard to come up with the needed bit of information, one caster to scry, etc... A non-rogues inability to find or disarm a trap in no way hurts the rogue's chance of doing so. In combat, OTOH, everyone needs to be effective to some extent, a vulnerable, non-contributing character in combat is, indeed, a liability. Some scenarios where a few skill points might be nice: sentry duty (don't you just feel SO secure when it's the fighter's turn at watch tonight?), bypassing encounters through stealth (even in light armor, it's difficult, but this isn't exclusively a fighter problem), talking bits (unless you tell the fighter's player to keep his mouth shut; in general I run my game so that everyone who talks has to roll, and they either help or hinder the primary talker - then the fighter's player can get bored for long stretches of time). But no one plays a pure fighter in my games, so I'm having some difficulty here :) I've also had a fighter set off a trap while searching a room for goodies (they got impatient, the rogue was busy elsewhere) :devil: In general - my players who try a pure class fighter (usually at an early stage of their build) are bored out of combat because they can't do anything most of the time.
Kaminton 08-21-04, 05:12 AM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith Hide works at close range. Yes, yes it does. Sniping from hiding needs to be at least 10 ft away though, and the -20 to your hide check afterwards is pretty tough to overcome without the spot penalties for distance. Two feats alone will not give you an advantage. You need a special mount, whether via a class like the paladin or ranger or leadership (which means paladin again). Otherwise your two feats and one skill are useless after the first arrow shot. A paladin on a silver dragon will kill the most well-built mounted fighter. Every time. Effortlessly. Period. Agreed - but normally a paladin can't ride on silver dragons anyway, unless you're playing a halfling, gnome, or other small race. However, a medium sized paladin can ride on his very young gold dragon mount at level 16... Then again, if the paladin gets to ride on a dragon, why doesn't the archer? There's no real reason not to - and since you've got feats to blow, take the Dragon Cohort feat from the Draconomicon to get a better dragon cohort (not necessary, but lets you get a rideable one a few levels sooner). ...if you ignore the spotting rules. And it's not like archers don't have attack bonus points to spare. Far shot provides a +4 bonus per 3 range increments. For this to be equal in power to weapon focus, your average shot range would have to be 77.25 feet. In all but the most specialized long-range sniper builds, this feat is best left alone. Which spotting rules are you talking about in particular? I'm not sure what you mean here. Can you give me a page reference? I didn't find anything concrete in PHB or DMG. If you present far shot in that way, yeah, it's not so hot. But if you're using a composite longbow and have far shot, your range increment is over 160ft. That means that you can hide 160ft away (which means that people trying to spot you get a -16 to their spot), use manyshot with no ranged penalties, and go back hiding (at -20 to your hide, for a net -4 penalty to hide). If you try this at 10 ft (the minimum distance) away, you're almost certainly going to be spotted (effectively -19 to your hide check) unless your target is guarded by peons. Think of farshot as a +6 bonus to hide when sniping (which you're trying to do often, right?). Skill focus (hide) gives +3 to all hide checks; I figure a +6 bonus for a more situational ability might be worth it if I rely on that situation alot. Both get 5-foot steps. Both can withdraw. Both can take a single hit in an emergency. Neither will probably be able to avoid an attack at the opponent's full BAB, +4 or no +4. It's certainly not worth two feats for someone whose entire strategy is staying out of melee to begin with. Go into an "archers are overpowered" thread, and they'll give you all these ways to get someone to melee with an archer. +4 is still 20%, assuming you aren't completely defenseless to start with. It does lose value at higher levels though. I'm just saying that the feat itself isn't useless, unless you delay taking it until high levels. I didn't bother to check that in the rules because any DM who adjucates it that way is a moron or a player-killer. It's the rules as they were written - you can take only one 5ft step in a round, and if you do, you can't move as well, or, you can shoot and move, or, you can move and shoot, but you can't move/shoot/move without this feat. Maybe that's why shot on the run is low value for you. You can still shoot from the corner, and keep only half cover, but that's not going to stop a charge. I won't argue with your houserules, but please don't call me a moron or a player-killer - archers in my campaign are barely kept in check as it is even with this rule. Improved Rapid Shot and one of the maneuver feats can go on the "nice-to-have" list. No it isn't. If you spread your points around, you can easily cover all of the most common types: dragons, evil outsiders, aberrations, magical beats, and undead. You can tailor those choices to fit any campaign. Even a campaign that uses random monsters from the MM will give points to the ranger on a regular basis. Only blatant player-screwing or a freak accident of probability will deny the ranger that. That was my point - I rate favored enemy about as useful as weapon specialization. If you spread them all around, you only get +4 bonuses against 4 types and +2 to a fifth; or you can get +10 against one type and +2 against 4 more. Compare that to +2 across the board for everything, and they're about even in the end unless you fight some types of enemies more often than others. I like to mix mine up, personally. Not really. The only feats that you have mentioned that grant attack bonuses are weapon focus, improved rapid shot, point blank shot, and far shot. If a ranger ends up missing opponents a lot of the time, he can take all of them, leaving the fighter with the +1 from weapon specialization. I forgot to mention greater weapon focus (fighter level 8 to get). So sue me :P Granted, it's only a 5% difference to hit - but you get to do alot of other things with your archery that the ranger can't (this is the stuff in the nice to have category). And weapon specialization is +2 damage, and greater weapon specialization is another +2 damage more. I don't suppose you've ever seen a raging barbarian with a mighty [+8] bow. Although they are indeed better-suited to thrown weapons. Since noncore material is being thrown around everywhere, I don't feel the slightest bit of guilt about giving a hypothetical barbarian the axethrower feat. Strength to attack and damage at range. The relatively low damage of ranged weapons is even less effective agains DR 5 and d12. No, can't say I have. I didn't even know that bows for medium sized creatures had mighty strength bonuses that high. If, for some reason, you can't rage though (maybe you were raging and got hit with a calm emotions that has since expired, or something), that [+8] bow is gonna be hard to use - you're treated as nonproficient with it if you don't have that strength modifier. Even if you specialize as a barbarian archer, without taking levels in fighter it's going to take a while to get the archery feats that you want (rangers at least get the combat style for the more important ones). As for thrown weapons - you have to close in to throw anyway (throwing axes have a range increment of 10 ft, or a maximum range of 50 ft... javelins are better with range increment 30 ft), so why don't you just charge in with your big weapon and use power attack? Doesn't work. You can't step and then move. You'd take an AoO and be on the ground if you somehow managed to escape that fate already. I thought you were criticizing me for my use of the movement rules as written? I do agree with you here though :P It's another AoO if you want to get up. You also implicitly assume an infinite plane. BTW, the monk's speed bonuses are enhancement. The barbarian can use boots to speed up to 70 feet and then the game's up. Doesn't have to be an infinite plane with creative use of jump, slow fall, and tumble... and the barbarian can only get that 70 ft movement for 10 rounds - the monk has a top speed of 90 ft. He can outlast the barbarian if the monk is careful and smart about it. Besides, mobility (assuming the monk went for the spring attack tree) helps against the AOO :D That highlights a major drawback to complicated tactics: even a small anomalous factor can ruin them completely. The barbarian's tactics are simple. You charge and beat them. Repeat as needed or full attack. There is far less that can go wrong. As I and several posters have mentioned: barbarians tend to be one dimensional, cookie-cutter, etc. So we're in agreement here :) Edit: I did say that at higher levels the fighter needs to specialize into a prestige class to keep up with the barbarian...
Kaminton 08-21-04, 05:40 AM	Originally posted by RadicalTaoist 10. Point to you again. Monk would need leap of the clouds and heavy terrain exploitation to keep ahead. Out of curiosity, if you were a straight lvled monk, how would you take a straight lvled barb? Run away. Literally. I'd provoke a rage, and then use my superior movement to stay just out of reach until rage ends (at which point the barbarian is fatigued), and then I'd use spring attack to wear him down. However, the smart barbarian will be readying an action, so it might be worth my while to try some combat tricks while the barbarian is fatigued (improved trip, for example, might actually work). If the barbarian has tireless rage, I would have to rely on some of the combat style/tactical feats to get the drop on the barbarian long enough to trip and/or disarm him (preferably with a stunning attack - it's a long shot, though if you try it often enough the barb's bound to fail one. Then byebye weapon (consider using your newfound time to pick it up and stash it somewhere or otherwise deny it to the barbarian), and a full round of free beats (you might get lucky and stun again if you took the feat that lets you make more than one stun attack per round), and then you can apply some of the other feats in CW like pain touch). However, barbarians can only rage once per encounter, so at least if the monk stays away until the rage runs out the monk is denying the barbarian the benefits of rage in Str and Con. 11. True. Where the barb really quashes the fighter IMHO is against large monsters. Barbs are just better tanks. To be effective against them a fighter must take PrCs. Straight fighters can only hope to be as effective against other humanoid duelists. I remain of the stance that if straight lvled, fighters and barbs are equal in combat. Although I must concede that barbs own fighters outside of combat, lotta good my Intimidate's gonna do me. About the only skill advantage I could imagine for the fighter is the fighter linguist, just 2 points for learning to speak and read/write a language instead of 2 to speak and an additional 1 to read/write. A Fighter LINGUIST? Huh? If you want to be a linguist, why not take bard instead? They're much better suited for it. You can take a few levels in fighter to boost his fighting ability (if you feel the need for it). If straight leveled, in most situations the barbarian will be much better than the fighter after level 10 or so. The barbarian will have all (or almost all) the feats he really wants, and the fighter will have a bunch of nice to have feats. The stuff in CW do help, but they're not enough for the straight fighter (barbarians get some stuff too). The only time you'll want the fighter is if the encounter is specifically designed to make the barbarian's favored tactics unwise, at which point the fighter's versatility means he can switch tactics to something more appropriate. But this is relatively rare unless you have a nasty DM (to be fair, the barbarian in one campaign did get swallowed whole alot... charge in, get bitten, get grappled by improved grab, and then swallowed whole next round - look at the Remorhaz as an example of when not to melee - it's CR7 because you can kill it fairly easily from range, but if you melee... +23 grapple, 8d6 fire damage inside its gizzard, your weapon must make a fort save if you hit it or get melted) One last question, what thinks you of two-weapon barb builds? Bad idea. The higher your strength, the more you want to use a two handed weapon (because it's 1.5*strength mod in extra damage). You don't have the feats to blow on the two weapon fighting tree, and then there's the Dex requirements (17 for improved, 19 for greater two weapon fighting). Though I'm willing to be convinced, if someone shows me a workable build :)
Zelphi 08-21-04, 06:28 AM	Yay another one! Barbarian - Simple and limited. Fighter - Comes through in a variety of combat situations and generally more situations than the other fighter types. Barbarians can be dangerous, but they can also be a complete liability, unless you have a stupid DM, at which point they can A) Always Rage at the right time B) Always have the benefits of Rage when they need it C) Never get the side effects of Rage applied against them D) Never end up in a situation where Rage isn't actually helping you. E) Never end up in a combat situation where your array of feats and abilities don't apply Opting to be a Paladin or Ranger on a Horse instead of a Barbarian on a horse, doesn't really help when you're a Barbarian does it? - Should have a guide up for Fighters next weekend.
amoeba 08-21-04, 12:26 PM	Taoist, read your parry feats more carefully. Notice how its an opposed attack roll, in which case the barb will likely win with higher str. all the parry feats also require int 13, forcing the fighter to have lower other stats. But the most important thing you missed. You can't parry while wearing medium or heavy armor. That just took away the fighter's one advantage in this fight, better AC. The parry feats are designed for duelists, swashbucklers. They will not work, especially when you are fighting 2 barbs. a fighter will get owned by 2 barbs, its not even close. against 1 barb, I still give a slight edge to the barb, but with a lucky sunder or something, the fighter might come out on top.
Tony Vargas 08-21-04, 03:27 PM	Originally posted by Kaminton Some scenarios where a few skill points might be nice: sentry duty, bypassing encounters through stealth (even in light armor, it's difficult, but this isn't exclusively a fighter problem), talking bits OK, the stealth bit is true - if the whole party needs to sneak past something, a number of classes will be a distinct liability - monks, rogues and rangers are about the only solid candidates for sneaking duties, and clerics, paladins, and heavy-armor fighters are right out. Spot is a very useful skills, but as long as at least one character has it, those that don't are only hurting themselves (by being caught flat-footed now and then), not being a liability to the whole party. A lot of 'talking bits' are RP. If the player enjoys RPing his character, it's not a major problem to participate, even if the mechanical benefits of his participation are minimal... (unless you tell the fighter's player to keep his mouth shut; in general I run my game so that everyone who talks has to roll, and they either help or hinder the primary talker - then the fighter's player can get bored for long stretches of time). There's a mechanic for this - aiding another in skills: DC 10, you add a +2 if you succeed. Even a low-CHA, no-ranks character can contribute a bit. But no one plays a pure fighter in my games, so I'm having some difficulty here ... In general - my players who try a pure class fighter (usually at an early stage of their build) are bored out of combat because they can't do anything most of the time. Well, if 'no one' is playing pure class fighters, I don't suppose the pure class fighters are making much of a contribution... :confused: My experience with playing fighters doesn't lead me to the same conclusion. In non-combat activities, where there is a specialized mechanic involved, it's usually handled by one character, and resolved fairly quickly - if it's not, then /everyone/ who's not that one character gets bored (this most often happens with rogues, BTW, when the player gets a little too exhaustive in sneaking and trapfinding duties). In more general non-combat activities, I usually find no meaningful deficiency - you can RP just as well with a character with no special non-combat abilities as one with, often by providing contrast. I have seen plenty of cases like you describe, where the player of the fighter was disinterested or even bored out of combat - but, that's generally because the player is there to kill things, and that's why he's playing a fighter... ;)
Tony Vargas 08-21-04, 03:33 PM	Originally posted by Zelphi Yay another one! Not exactly my reaction...
Sensei Gith 08-21-04, 05:48 PM	I think Parry showed up originally in a Dragon issue. I'm not complaining about your tossing around the noncore CW stuff, but don't push it. If fighter can disarm barb, dismount barb, or trip mount (or take advantage of the other feats in CW, one of which actually allows you to knock a foe clean out of the saddle) then barb's mount dies before fighter's mount, neutralizing barb's mobility and giving fighter advantage. Keep in mind that the barbarian is better at disarming, tripping, and killing things. In this case, whoever lost initiative would lose their mount and then kill the opponent's. That's why the comparison is pointless: there's no mounted combat involved. The point is that the fighter still has plenty of feats to fall back on. A barb would not. I remain of the position that the two classes are equal No he doesn't. He spent them on feats for his dead mount. If you're talking about a random fighter who happens to be on a horse, that would be one thing, but you were talking about a mounted comb at specialist. The barbarian still has all of his class features and most of his feats. He couldn't afford to spend them on feats that become useless in round two. Seriously, just drop the mount issue; both classes suck at it and which one sucks more is really not relevant. Personally, I think either are better classes than fighter or barb. Druid, monk, paladin, ranger, and psion are the only classes out of the 14 that I would seriously consider leveling straight 20. IMHO of course. Note that I am also a big advocate of multiclassing. Interesting. The barbarian keeps getting more and better class features, while some of those classes taper off. What's wrong with the barb? Check it out, if there was no CW we wouldn't be arguing. I'd be sayingthat the barb beats the fighter hands down. The feats, PrCs, and so on make all the combat classes much stronger. A fair number of the CW PrCs require 4, 5 or occasionally more feats. Most of the 3 feat requirement PrCs are only 5 levels. Give examples. A monk who cannot match the average fighter of equal level in combat, assuming there is no major tactical advantage to the fighter, is not being played well by the player. A monk who tries to match the average fighter of equal level in combat, assuming there is no major tactical advantage to the monk, is not being played well by the player. Are you aware that monks are not a combat class? That their abilities are of the least use against fighters and barbarians? That 90% of the "monks suck" threads out there are started by someone trying to use monks as fighters and dying? That using a monk as a fighter is often considered the single largest monk min/max mistake? Oh wait, you're right, oops. Better would be tumbling and going straight through barb in other direction, which would theoretically require a constant straight line. As for taking advantage of terrain besides a theoretically infinite planeplane, see my comments above. The only way to win is to preventthe barbarian from attacking altogether. Even on an infinite flat plane, this could not be accomplished unless the barbarian was a moron. He could draw a freaking longbow and kill the monk at range if the latter didn't want to close. Out of curiosity, if you were a straight lvled monk, how would you take a straight lvled barb? I wouldn't. The absolute worst thing to do would be stand and fight. Unless I got really lucky, I simply could not win. That's where the monk's increased run speed comes in. Where the barb really quashes the fighter IMHO is against large monsters. How exactly does a barbarian fare worse against small monsters? One last question, what thinks you of two-weapon barb builds? Waste of a good class. Completely antisynergistic. Yes, yes it does. Sniping from hiding needs to be at least 10 ft away though, and the -20 to your hide check afterwards is pretty tough to overcome without the spot penalties for distance. You don't have to keep concealed. Starting an encounter the way you want to, starting with a full attack before they move, is benefit enough. Agreed - but normally a paladin can't ride on silver dragons anyway, unless you're playing a halfling, gnome, or other small race. However, a medium sized paladin can ride on his very young gold dragon mount at level 16 It really doesn't matter what type of dragon it is. It doesn't even have to be a dragon. The fact remains that a paladin's mount singlehandedly makes him the best mounted combatant, bar none. Then again, if the paladin gets to ride on a dragon, why doesn't the archer? Because every point of charisma is one less point of dexterity. Paladins already should have charisma maxed. Which spotting rules are you talking about in particular? I'm not sure what you mean here. Can you give me a page reference? I didn't find anything concrete in PHB or DMG. I don't know where it is in the 3.5 books. Think of farshot as a +6 bonus to hide when sniping (which you're trying to do often, right?). You can park at the edge of your spot range and eat the penalties. It's your highest attack bonus and you're an archer. You're going to hit. Keep in mind that this sort of long-range sniping is completely ineffective in dungeons. Go into an "archers are overpowered" thread, and they'll give you all these ways to get someone to melee with an archer. +4 is still 20%, assuming you aren't completely defenseless to start with. It does lose value at higher levels though. I'm just saying that the feat itself isn't useless, unless you delay taking it until high levels. It's not useless. It's just very rarely useful. You need a situation in which you cannot 5-foot step or withdraw and an opponent with a poor attack bonus. It's just not worth two feats. unless you fight some types of enemies more often than others That's a given. It's unrealistic to assume that even random encounters will not favor certain types. Granted, it's only a 5% difference to hit - but you get to do alot of other things with your archery that the ranger can't Useless things. How many of those do you expect to use? The overlap is huge. No, can't say I have. I didn't even know that bows for medium sized creatures had mighty strength bonuses that high. If, for some reason, you can't rage though (maybe you were raging and got hit with a calm emotions that has since expired, or something), that [+8] bow is gonna be hard to use - you're treated as nonproficient with it if you don't have that strength modifier. Even if you specialize as a barbarian archer, without taking levels in fighter it's going to take a while to get the archery feats that you want (rangers at least get the combat style for the more important ones). I didn't say that you should specialize in it. I was merely dispelling the common misconception that barbarians are useless with bows. And a barbarian that can't crank his strength to 26 outside of a rage has problems. As for thrown weapons - you have to close in to throw anyway (throwing axes have a range increment of 10 ft, or a maximum range of 50 ft... javelins are better with range increment 30 ft), so why don't you just charge in with your big weapon and use power attack? You can charge from 80 feet. You can throw a javelin from 150 feet. thought you were criticizing me for my use of the movement rules as written? I criticized you for using them in nonsensical ways. Doesn't have to be an infinite plane with creative use of jump, slow fall, and tumble Explain. and the barbarian can only get that 70 ft movement for 10 rounds Why? He can outlast the barbarian if the monk is careful and smart about it. ...and there are no space limitations and he isn't tripped and the barbarian bothers to rage on such an easy battle. As I and several posters have mentioned: barbarians tend to be one dimensional, cookie-cutter, etc. So we're in agreement here Incorrect. The fighter is forced to such exploits as the super-trip-elusive-target-sidestep-karmic-strike thing. The barbarian can be a trip machine if he wants to, but he does not have to, and even if he grabs a chain and faces someone with the absurdly broken steadfast boots, he still has rage, a two-handed weapon, DR, increased movment, and all of his other abilities.
RadicalTaoist 08-21-04, 05:53 PM	Originally posted by Kaminton 1. Run away. Literally. I'd provoke a rage, and then use my superior movement to stay just out of reach until rage ends (at which point the barbarian is fatigued), and then I'd use spring attack to wear him down. However, the smart barbarian will be readying an action, so it might be worth my while to try some combat tricks while the barbarian is fatigued (improved trip, for example, might actually work). 2. If the barbarian has tireless rage, I would have to rely on some of the combat style/tactical feats to get the drop on the barbarian long enough to trip and/or disarm him (preferably with a stunning attack - it's a long shot, though if you try it often enough the barb's bound to fail one. Then byebye weapon (consider using your newfound time to pick it up and stash it somewhere or otherwise deny it to the barbarian), and a full round of free beats (you might get lucky and stun again if you took the feat that lets you make more than one stun attack per round), and then you can apply some of the other feats in CW like pain touch). However, barbarians can only rage once per encounter, so at least if the monk stays away until the rage runs out the monk is denying the barbarian the benefits of rage in Str and Con. 3. A Fighter LINGUIST? Huh? If you want to be a linguist, why not take bard instead? They're much better suited for it. You can take a few levels in fighter to boost his fighting ability (if you feel the need for it). 4. If straight leveled, in most situations the barbarian will be much better than the fighter after level 10 or so. The barbarian will have all (or almost all) the feats he really wants, and the fighter will have a bunch of nice to have feats. The stuff in CW do help, but they're not enough for the straight fighter (barbarians get some stuff too). The only time you'll want the fighter is if the encounter is specifically designed to make the barbarian's favored tactics unwise, at which point the fighter's versatility means he can switch tactics to something more appropriate. But this is relatively rare unless you have a nasty DM (to be fair, the barbarian in one campaign did get swallowed whole alot... charge in, get bitten, get grappled by improved grab, and then swallowed whole next round - 5. look at the Remorhaz as an example of when not to melee - it's CR7 because you can kill it fairly easily from range, but if you melee... +23 grapple, 8d6 fire damage inside its gizzard, your weapon must make a fort save if you hit it or get melted) 6. Bad idea. The higher your strength, the more you want to use a two handed weapon (because it's 1.5*strength mod in extra damage). You don't have the feats to blow on the two weapon fighting tree, and then there's the Dex requirements (17 for improved, 19 for greater two weapon fighting). Though I'm willing to be convinced, if someone shows me a workable build :) 1. Any way you cut it monk has to use his manuverability to challenge the barb. Really a barb with those boots of striding and springing scares me more than tireless rage. 2. I'd think those combat style/tactical feats would be necessary tireless rage or no. You'd have to hit with a lot of sa's to have the unlucky barb fail one Fort save. 3. Exactly my point, barbs beat fighters with skills any day of the week, they have Survival and more skill points/level. 4. I think you aren't valuing the fighter's tactical ability as much as I am. 5. Worst is the monk vs. a remorhaz, OUCH :eek: 6. I disagree, not a bad idea. I'd rather use that natty strength more often, it's a matter of preference. I'd say the two builds are balanced. Let's compare a GTWF barb with a two-bladed sword to a barb who's using a greatsword. Straight damage potential: if they theoretically hit with all their attacks, our two weapon barb does 7d8 damage plus 7 times his Str mod (double weapon not off weapon; you do get full str mod on the off hand attacks right?) where the straight barb does 8d6 plus 6 times his Str mod. The difference between average dice damage is about 10 points, so these barbarians would have to be Str 30 for the Str bonus to balance the two (not unlikely) More Chance of Crit. Hits: This I conside to be the Two Weapon Barb's greatest advantage. Of course this is assuming both builds have the sense to take Improved Critical, which every barb build should, IMHO. Better use of Weapon Enhancements: Those elemental burst enhancements will do better with more attacks, and heaven help your foes if you can get one end of those ends of your double sword wounding or vorpal. :smirk: Speed is equal for both barb builds. Charging: advantage goes to the single weapon barb, unless you can get access to a full attack charge somehow, then they are equal. Cleaving and multiple opponents: About equal. If you take three hits to kill a foe with the single weapon barb, then your Cleave attack is at a +10 bab. If you take four to kill the same foe with the two weapon barb, then you're cleaving with a +13 b.a.b. Less damage to kill with, more chances to kill and cleave. Whirlwind attack and Spring attack favor the single weapon barb. Final Judgment: the two builds are equal, varying on circumstances and feats of course. My usual 3.5 build is all the two weapon fighting feats, the Great Cleave line of feats, and EWP + Improved Crit for the double sword. Originally posted by amoeba Taoist, read your parry feats more carefully. Notice how its an opposed attack roll, in which case the barb will likely win with higher str. all the parry feats also require int 13, forcing the fighter to have lower other stats. But the most important thing you missed. You can't parry while wearing medium or heavy armor. That just took away the fighter's one advantage in this fight, better AC. The parry feats are designed for duelists, swashbucklers. They will not work, especially when you are fighting 2 barbs. a fighter will get owned by 2 barbs, its not even close. against 1 barb, I still give a slight edge to the barb, but with a lucky sunder or something, the fighter might come out on top. Oops. Still, if the fighter's in mithral breastplate and has good gloves of dexterity, it's only a loss of one AC point. I repeat that if a barb had those feats, I'd be screwed against two. What you state (I took their str bonus into consideration, it's still better than no parry feat at all) does make things harder for the fighter, yes. Again, disarming and tripping would make the difference. EDIT: ^AYIYIYI, give me a day and I'll try to get back to you.
philosofool 08-21-04, 10:26 PM	Originally posted by Zelphi Yay another one! Barbarian - Simple and limited. Fighter - Comes through in a variety of combat situations and generally more situations than the other fighter types. Simple but incredibly effective at what they do. No core class is better at being the guy who does lots of damage while taking damage. There's a term for what barbarians do best, 'tank'. The reason for that we have the term 'tank' is that the role is one of the most central in the game. Any party without one is probably weaker than a party with one. Fighters are the most limited class in the game outside combat. That's not true of a barbarian, who will often have a survial skill that allows the party to live off the land; can handle animals, and as pointed out above, spring the traps for the party with no rogue. Barbarians can be dangerous, but they can also be a complete liability, unless you have a stupid DM, at which point they can A) Always Rage at the right time B) Always have the benefits of Rage when they need it C) Never get the side effects of Rage applied against them D) Never end up in a situation where Rage isn't actually helping you. E) Never end up in a combat situation where your array of feats and abilities don't apply You make it sound as if a non-raging barbarian has the martial prowress of a bard. This obviously isn't so; non-raging barbarians are melee warriors better than any class except the fighter, since unlike rangers and paladins, who will invest some of their develpment options in non-combat class features and ability scores, the barbarian is investing almost everything he's got in melee power. In most minor encounters, a barbarian will do their job admirably without raging.
Sensei Gith 08-22-04, 01:28 AM	I hate to have to say this, but Zelphi isn't really the best source on fighters. Just remember to double-check (and reality-check) things before you take them for granted.
Sensei Gith 08-22-04, 01:28 AM	Double Post.
Kaminton 08-22-04, 05:40 AM	Originally posted by Tony Vargas OK, the stealth bit is true - if the whole party needs to sneak past something, a number of classes will be a distinct liability - monks, rogues and rangers are about the only solid candidates for sneaking duties, and clerics, paladins, and heavy-armor fighters are right out. Spot is a very useful skills, but as long as at least one character has it, those that don't are only hurting themselves (by being caught flat-footed now and then), not being a liability to the whole party. A lot of 'talking bits' are RP. If the player enjoys RPing his character, it's not a major problem to participate, even if the mechanical benefits of his participation are minimal... [B] There's a mechanic for this - aiding another in skills: DC 10, you add a +2 if you succeed. Even a low-CHA, no-ranks character can contribute a bit. [B] Well, if 'no one' is playing pure class fighters, I don't suppose the pure class fighters are making much of a contribution... :confused: My experience with playing fighters doesn't lead me to the same conclusion. In non-combat activities, where there is a specialized mechanic involved, it's usually handled by one character, and resolved fairly quickly - if it's not, then /everyone/ who's not that one character gets bored (this most often happens with rogues, BTW, when the player gets a little too exhaustive in sneaking and trapfinding duties). In more general non-combat activities, I usually find no meaningful deficiency - you can RP just as well with a character with no special non-combat abilities as one with, often by providing contrast. I have seen plenty of cases like you describe, where the player of the fighter was disinterested or even bored out of combat - but, that's generally because the player is there to kill things, and that's why he's playing a fighter... ;) It depends on how you run things, though. I always require skill checks (otherwise no one would ever take diplomacy), with the quality of the RP providing a bonus or penalty to the roll.
Kaminton 08-22-04, 06:19 AM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith You don't have to keep concealed. Starting an encounter the way you want to, starting with a full attack before they move, is benefit enough. Sorry. At best you get a surprise round, and then initiative takes over. You *may* lose initiative, high Dex or not. Surprise round will let you get off one shot (or a manyshot). You will *usually* get to go first, if you take Improved Initiative, but I've seen the rogue go last often enough to make me laugh. It really doesn't matter what type of dragon it is. It doesn't even have to be a dragon. The fact remains that a paladin's mount singlehandedly makes him the best mounted combatant, bar none. Because every point of charisma is one less point of dexterity. Paladins already should have charisma maxed. Yes, the paladin's mount is definitely better than anything else out there - it's supposed to be. But the paladin usually tries to close in for melee - the archer's mount can keep flying away, and the archer can keep shooting all the while. Besides, if you're not evil, why would a paladin be harrassing you anyway? I personally run more heroic campaigns, so I don't have to worry about it. I don't think that this is relevant to why a mounted archer is useless (which I don't think it is). I don't know where it is in the 3.5 books. Fine, give me a quote from the 3.0 books and I'll try to find a similar passage in the 3.5 books. You can park at the edge of your spot range and eat the penalties. It's your highest attack bonus and you're an archer. You're going to hit. Keep in mind that this sort of long-range sniping is completely ineffective in dungeons. One hit won't kill anything important after level 3 or so. You need to use manyshot to deal enough damage to have a decent chance for a kill. You're looking at escalating penalties: -4 for 2 arrows, -6 for 3 arrows, -8 for 4 arrows. You get your 4th arrow at level 16, so the -8 penalty knocks you back down 8 level's worth of BAB. I don't see why you would want to tack on more penalties to that. Remember that enchantments on the bow and arrow don't stack, so you top off at +5 there. If you're taking ranged penalties as well, unless you're aiming at a soft target (one that poses no challenge for you at your level), you're going to see alot of misses. What exactly is your spot range anyway? How many range increments are we talking about here? It's not useless. It's just very rarely useful. You need a situation in which you cannot 5-foot step or withdraw and an opponent with a poor attack bonus. It's just not worth two feats. It's useful often enough that it's not a total waste. The main point here is that it's needed for shot on the run, which you do need if your archer wants to go into a dungeon. That's a given. It's unrealistic to assume that even random encounters will not favor certain types. Like I said it's campaign specific. If you're always in the same area, then you get a feel for what types of things you'll encounter more often, and you're great. But if you travel to different terrain, or a different area, then you're likely to meet different things. You only get bonuses against FIVE total types, after 20 levels. If you get to level 20, you *may* meet an orc of similar level - or you may not. But if orcs were common enemies at lower levels, you would've taken favored enemy: humanoid (orc). Sometimes you just plain outlevel them - the favored enemy bonus isn't doing much if you totally outclass them anyway. This is particularly true with magical beasts, which tend to be clustered in the low-mid levels. Useless things. How many of those do you expect to use? The overlap is huge. Well, by those standards the duelist is useless too, but people seem to like playing that archtype (complete with flashy disarms and trips). They are options you can use to build an archer, and the fighter happens to have the feats to play with them. I didn't say that you should specialize in it. I was merely dispelling the common misconception that barbarians are useless with bows. And a barbarian that can't crank his strength to 26 outside of a rage has problems. They're not useless (they're proficient, after all) with bows - they're just not particularly good with them. Neither is a fighter who decides to play tank instead of getting archery feats. You can charge from 80 feet. You can throw a javelin from 150 feet. Good javelins at high levels are expensive. They cost just as much as melee weapons to enchant, but unless you use the returning enchantment, it's gone after a throw until you pick it up (typically at the end of combat). Even if you use the returning enchantment, it doesn't come back until just before your next turn. You are limited to one throw per round with a returning weapon (and if you use more than one returning weapon the others pile up on the ground next to you - I wouldn't allow you to pick them up and throw in a full attack even with quickdraw). Explain. This was in reference to my assertion that a monk doesn't need an infinite plane, but does need to make creative use of jump, slow fall, and tumble. Barbarians can't charge through difficult terrain. If your terrain includes cliffs, chasms, etc, then you can get away from the barbarian by jumping on and off the cliffs. If the barbarian follows, then the barbarian will have to a) jump as high (monk has better speed after a while, so they can jump farther/higher), and b) follow the monk back down (slow fall negates damage, barbarian starts taking damage). Use tumble when you need to go past the barbarian without provoking an AOO to stay out of range (take the penalty to move at full speed). If you have to, ready an action so that "if the barbarian gets within 5 feet of me, I will tumble past him and move X feet away in a straight line" - I think that works as a readied action. This all assumes a high level monk and barbarian. Anyway, I don't want to debate monks vs barbarians - if the monk is foolish enough to let the barbarian get close enough, he's in trouble. If he stays away, then he has a chance. But it's not the monk's role to go head to head with anything big. Why? This was in reference to the boots of speed only lasting 10 rounds... because that's how long the DMG description says they last. If you meant the boots of springing and striding, it's only a 10ft movement bonus, so the barbarian can't move at 70ft. ...and there are no space limitations and he isn't tripped and the barbarian bothers to rage on such an easy battle. Space limitations are dealt with using tumble. Monks can get improved trip and tend to have good dex (or strength, one or the other), so they should be ok in a tripping situation... the smart monk would run away, though :P Incorrect. The fighter is forced to such exploits as the super-trip-elusive-target-sidestep-karmic-strike thing. The barbarian can be a trip machine if he wants to, but he does not have to, and even if he grabs a chain and faces someone with the absurdly broken steadfast boots, he still has rage, a two-handed weapon, DR, increased movment, and all of his other abilities. No, the fighter can be a very good archer. The fighter can be a very good tank (when I say tank, I mean the ability to hold a front line and soak up hits and damage, not necessarily deal damage). The fighter can be a cavalry charger. The fighter can cheese out and do some absurd combo. The fighter has options, and isn't forced to do anything except take an appropriate prestige class after level 10. And don't say the cavalry charger is useless - yes, the paladin does it better. But the fighter isn't straitjacketed into a code of behaviour either. There are prestige classes that let you take all sorts of mounts, including dragons. Fighters have plenty of options. Barbarians *tend* to go one way, that is all I'm saying. People who play them differently probably do exist, and may be successful, but they are definitely a minority.
Kaminton 08-22-04, 06:27 AM	Originally posted by Zelphi Barbarians can be dangerous, but they can also be a complete liability, unless you have a stupid DM, at which point they can A) Always Rage at the right time B) Always have the benefits of Rage when they need it C) Never get the side effects of Rage applied against them D) Never end up in a situation where Rage isn't actually helping you. E) Never end up in a combat situation where your array of feats and abilities don't apply ?!? Are you confusing the barbarian with a frenzied berserker? A) You rage when you choose to rage - this is something the player must learn. If it looks like a big fight, or you know it's a big fight, rage. If you have more than one use of rage per day, it might be a good idea to rage anyway unless you think you can take the enemies down in one round. B) Get instanteneous rage (feat in MoTW, CW) if you need it. Most barbarians won't die before they get the chance to rage, so why worry? Only real concern here is they might get hit by a Will save before raging. C) This happens rarely - usually when the opponent is expecting to fight a barbarian and plans accordingly. Side effects of rage can also be mitigated (eliminate fatigue). D) If it's a fight, rage is usually helping you. If it's not a fight, well... I give the barbarian a bonus to intimidate if he rages out of combat, but that's just me. E) This happens with surprising frequency... I don't see the point - how does this make the barbarian a liability if he can't power attack?
Kaminton 08-22-04, 06:48 AM	Originally posted by RadicalTaoist 1. Any way you cut it monk has to use his manuverability to challenge the barb. Really a barb with those boots of striding and springing scares me more than tireless rage. The monk must rely on a stupid barbarian while being perfect himself in order to win. Monks are more skirmisher than tank. 2. I'd think those combat style/tactical feats would be necessary tireless rage or no. You'd have to hit with a lot of sa's to have the unlucky barb fail one Fort save. If the barbarian is fatigued you can get by without stunning him, because the barbarian's movement is really restricted, plus the penalties to strength and dexterity. If the barbarian isn't fatigued, you don't have a chance otherwise. 3. Exactly my point, barbs beat fighters with skills any day of the week, they have Survival and more skill points/level. I'm not disagreeing :) 4. I think you aren't valuing the fighter's tactical ability as much as I am. The problem here is that the fighter's power plateaus - you're not doing something you couldn't have done X levels ago if you chose those feats first. Multiclassing reduces raw power in favor of versatility - for example the rogue who takes fighter levels loses sneak attack damage dice, but picks up extra BAB. Other trade offs happen, with the most spectacular losses happening with a Wiz10/Clr10 or similar build. If you take fighters much past 10 (or 12, for greater weapon specialization), you're effectively multiclassing the fighter with itself - you gain the versatility of another fighting style, at the loss of sheer power that you would've gotten if you could've continued to specialize in your preferred style (which is what a prestige class would've done). This is the only class with this self-multiclassing feature. 5. Worst is the monk vs. a remorhaz, OUCH :eek: Run for it. If you must deal with it, use your brain instead to lure it into a trap or something instead of fighting it. 6. I disagree, not a bad idea. I'd rather use that natty strength more often, it's a matter of preference. I'd say the two builds are balanced. Let's compare a GTWF barb with a two-bladed sword to a barb who's using a greatsword. Straight damage potential: if they theoretically hit with all their attacks, our two weapon barb does 7d8 damage plus 7 times his Str mod (double weapon not off weapon; you do get full str mod on the off hand attacks right?) I thought you treated the second side as a light weapon - and hence half strength mod on offhand attacks. I couldn't find a clear ruling on damage though, only on attack penalties. where the straight barb does 8d6 plus 6 times his Str mod. The difference between average dice damage is about 10 points, so these barbarians would have to be Str 30 for the Str bonus to balance the two (not unlikely) What're you fighting that all your attacks hit? At level 20, your last attack is only +3 base. I'm not sure this is a fair comparison, assuming every attack will hit. But it's late and I'm too tired for a full analysis - and I'm still not convinced that the two weapon fighter is a good idea for a barbarian. Usually two weapon fighters want non-strength bonuses to damage, such as from sneak attack (hence Ranger2/RogueX), elemental damage on your weapons, weapon specialization, etc. Note that with only one weapon you can put a bigger enchantment on it, so you can deal more damage as well (double weapons need to enchant each side separately). More Chance of Crit. Hits: This I conside to be the Two Weapon Barb's greatest advantage. Of course this is assuming both builds have the sense to take Improved Critical, which every barb build should, IMHO. No argument here - try more often and you'll get more crits eventually. Better use of Weapon Enhancements: Those elemental burst enhancements will do better with more attacks, and heaven help your foes if you can get one end of those ends of your double sword wounding or vorpal. :smirk: Speed is equal for both barb builds. $$$! As I noted above, you want non-strength damage. But this is very expensive. And why barbarian instead of ranger/dervish or ranger/rogue or fighter/dervish or fighter/rogue? Seems to me like the sneak attack damage is more synergistic (and cheaper) than elemental enchantments. And speed is better with the two handed weapon fighter, because it only adds one attack at your highest bonus during a full attack. This is an extra 25% (assuming all attacks hit) damage for the two handed weapon fighter (the % increases if fewer attacks hit), going from 4 attacks to 5 at level 20. For the two weapon fighter, you have 7 attacks, so one extra attack helps you alot less (and your highest bonus is also lower) comparatively. Charging: advantage goes to the single weapon barb, unless you can get access to a full attack charge somehow, then they are equal. Cleaving and multiple opponents: About equal. If you take three hits to kill a foe with the single weapon barb, then your Cleave attack is at a +10 bab. If you take four to kill the same foe with the two weapon barb, then you're cleaving with a +13 b.a.b. Less damage to kill with, more chances to kill and cleave. Whirlwind attack and Spring attack favor the single weapon barb. If the barbarian takes down an enemy during a charge + power attack (which really favors 2 handed weapons), then they get to cleave. In my games charging happens more often than full attacks. Final Judgment: the two builds are equal, varying on circumstances and feats of course. My usual 3.5 build is all the two weapon fighting feats, the Great Cleave line of feats, and EWP + Improved Crit for the double sword. For the reasons I posted above, I'm not convinced. You'll have to build a barbarian of some level and equip him using standard PC wealth for me to make a comparison.
Sensei Gith 08-22-04, 01:28 PM	Sorry. At best you get a surprise round, and then initiative takes over. You *may* lose initiative, high Dex or not. Surprise round will let you get off one shot (or a manyshot). Yes, manyshot is what I meant. It's all of your attacks at almost your full BAB, so who's counting? Yes, the paladin's mount is definitely better than anything else out there - it's supposed to be. But the paladin usually tries to close in for melee - the archer's mount can keep flying away, and the archer can keep shooting all the while. Charge. If the mounts have equal speeds, the pally can move at least twice as fast. Besides, if you're not evil, why would a paladin be harrassing you anyway? I personally run more heroic campaigns, so I don't have to worry about it. I don't think that this is relevant to why a mounted archer is useless (which I don't think it is). I never said that mounted archers are useless. Mounted fighters are useless. Fine, give me a quote from the 3.0 books and I'll try to find a similar passage in the 3.5 books. I can't find the quote (I think it's in the DMG, and mine isn't handy), but just think about the probability of a character with no spot score (this is most of them) detecting the ranger even at only -2 range. That's an up to -22 penalty. One hit won't kill anything important after level 3 or so. You need to use manyshot to deal enough damage to have a decent chance for a kill. You're looking at escalating penalties: -4 for 2 arrows, -6 for 3 arrows, -8 for 4 arrows. You get your 4th arrow at level 16, so the -8 penalty knocks you back down 8 level's worth of BAB. I don't see why you would want to tack on more penalties to that. Remember that enchantments on the bow and arrow don't stack, so you top off at +5 there. If you're taking ranged penalties as well, unless you're aiming at a soft target (one that poses no challenge for you at your level), you're going to see alot of misses. What exactly is your spot range anyway? How many range increments are we talking about here? Since when do single hits not kill high-level opponents? Manyshot is a single hit, BTW. By the time you have that -8 penalty to manyshot, you simply aren't going to miss most opponents with your first attacks, let alone with a bow. And once you have that -8 penalty, what's another -2? And why do you even need to be half a mile away to snipe? 110 feet is out of charge range, barely within run range if they know exactly where you are and can easily reach you. If it actually gives you problems, buy a distance bow. It's better than far shot and doesn't take a feat. It's useful often enough that it's not a total waste. The main point here is that it's needed for shot on the run, which you do need if your archer wants to go into a dungeon. "Not a total waste" is just about the best you can say for it. That second sentence has absoilutely no basis in reality, BTW. Like I said it's campaign specific. If you're always in the same area, then you get a feel for what types of things you'll encounter more often, and you're great. But if you travel to different terrain, or a different area, then you're likely to meet different things. You only get bonuses against FIVE total types, after 20 levels. If you get to level 20, you *may* meet an orc of similar level - or you may not. But if orcs were common enemies at lower levels, you would've taken favored enemy: humanoid (orc). Sometimes you just plain outlevel them - the favored enemy bonus isn't doing much if you totally outclass them anyway. This is particularly true with magical beasts, which tend to be clustered in the low-mid levels. Look in the Monster Manual. You will find that the majority of the monsters are concentrated in a minority of the types. Those types can exist in any setting or environment. If it's too cold for a red dragon there'll be a white somewhere around. A DM who consistantly denies the ranger his FE bonuses is metagaming or extremely lucky. Well, by those standards the duelist is useless too, but people seem to like playing that archtype (complete with flashy disarms and trips). They are options you can use to build an archer, and the fighter happens to have the feats to play with them. So ranged trip is in CW? You never mentioned that. Add another to the "would be nice" list. The duelist is entirely unrelated because disarm and trip overlap far less. If he chose disarm and sunder he's be wasting feats. They're not useless (they're proficient, after all) with bows - they're just not particularly good with them. Neither is a fighter who decides to play tank instead of getting archery feats. But between a tank-focued fighter and barbarian, the latter will almost certainly be a better archer, because again, the latter's skills are far more widely applicable. Good javelins at high levels are expensive. They cost just as much as melee weapons to enchant, but unless you use the returning enchantment, it's gone after a throw until you pick it up (typically at the end of combat). Even if you use the returning enchantment, it doesn't come back until just before your next turn. You are limited to one throw per round with a returning weapon (and if you use more than one returning weapon the others pile up on the ground next to you - I wouldn't allow you to pick them up and throw in a full attack even with quickdraw). Why on earth would you not have returning weapons? And why would you drop them on the ground? If your terrain includes cliffs, chasms, etc, then you can get away from the barbarian by jumping on and off the cliffs. No you can't. All he needs is one attack. If he grapples you, the monk is toast. The barbarian can even eat the falling damage and tackle the slow-falling monk in midair. Use tumble when you need to go past the barbarian without provoking an AOO to stay out of range (take the penalty to move at full speed). He charges you. You have to run away from the barbarian. Running back the other way will give him ample opportunity to kill you. This was in reference to the boots of speed only lasting 10 rounds... because that's how long the DMG description says they last. If you meant the boots of springing and striding, it's only a 10ft movement bonus, so the barbarian can't move at 70ft. Expeditious retreat. Space limitations are dealt with using tumble. Monks can get improved trip and tend to have good dex (or strength, one or the other), so they should be ok in a tripping situation Tumble is not a perfect solution to everything. You have to stay permanently out of charge range to survive, which means no attacking. A monk's dexterity cannot compete with a barbarian's strength. The barbarian can pick up Jotunbrud as easily as the monk can get Improved Trip. No, the fighter can be a very good archer. The fighter can be a very good tank (when I say tank, I mean the ability to hold a front line and soak up hits and damage, not necessarily deal damage). The fighter can be a cavalry charger. The fighter can cheese out and do some absurd combo. The fighter has options, and isn't forced to do anything except take an appropriate prestige class after level 10. And don't say the cavalry charger is useless - yes, the paladin does it better. But the fighter isn't straitjacketed into a code of behaviour either. There are prestige classes that let you take all sorts of mounts, including dragons. Fighters have plenty of options. Name 19 archery feats that do not suck and will make him compare with the ranger. Name 19 tanking feats that do not suck and will make him compare with the barbarian. Name 19 mounted combat feats that do not suck and will make him compare with the paladin. (That last must include a feat giving the fighter a special mount without requiring a high charisma.)
Kaminton 08-22-04, 05:55 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith Yes, manyshot is what I meant. It's all of your attacks at almost your full BAB, so who's counting? See below. Charge. If the mounts have equal speeds, the pally can move at least twice as fast. You can shoot while your mount is making a double move... this is irrelevant, you can move as fast as the paladin (paladin mounts don't get speed bonuses). I never said that mounted archers are useless. Mounted fighters are useless. Get an appropriate mount. Fighters can be archers too. I don't think we're getting anywhere here, I won't discuss this part further. I can't find the quote (I think it's in the DMG, and mine isn't handy), but just think about the probability of a character with no spot score (this is most of them) detecting the ranger even at only -2 range. That's an up to -22 penalty. I have no idea what you're talking about here. You fire your shot, you take a -20 penalty to hide afterwards. This completely erases the hide bonus of even mid level rangers. Find me the quote, and we can talk about it - until then there's no point. Since when do single hits not kill high-level opponents? Manyshot is a single hit, BTW. By the time you have that -8 penalty to manyshot, you simply aren't going to miss most opponents with your first attacks, let alone with a bow. And once you have that -8 penalty, what's another -2? And why do you even need to be half a mile away to snipe? 110 feet is out of charge range, barely within run range if they know exactly where you are and can easily reach you. If it actually gives you problems, buy a distance bow. It's better than far shot and doesn't take a feat. -8 penalty is the equivalent of almost your 3rd attack on a regular full attack... not your first. If you are fighting a suitably challenging opponent, then there is a reasonable miss chance involved. An additional -2 penalty does make it the equivalent of a 3rd attack. Regarding distance bows: I believe that unlike improved critical, the range increment stacks with what you get from far shot. The point here is to allow you to snipe without getting caught, so the further you can shoot at no additional penalty, the better your chances. If you're high enough to have multishot, you're high enough to be in danger at 110 ft if you're spotted, from a variety of sources. "Not a total waste" is just about the best you can say for it. That second sentence has absoilutely no basis in reality, BTW. So how do your archers work in a dungeon? Shot on the run helps them to avoid melee in relatively tight quarters and still deal damage. Explain how archer tactics in your game work in this environment, please - I've explained how they work in mine. Look in the Monster Manual. You will find that the majority of the monsters are concentrated in a minority of the types. Those types can exist in any setting or environment. If it's too cold for a red dragon there'll be a white somewhere around. A DM who consistantly denies the ranger his FE bonuses is metagaming or extremely lucky. Get it through your head: rangers in my campaigns DO get use out of their favored enemy ability. They just don't CONSISTENTLY get to use it. I don't consistently deny the rangers encounters with their favored enemies, nor do I consistently provide them with encounters against their favored enemies. The bonus is situational, and averages out in the end. But if you know that the theme of your campaign is dragonslaying or undead hunting, by all means, take advantage of it. So ranged trip is in CW? You never mentioned that. Add another to the "would be nice" list. The duelist is entirely unrelated because disarm and trip overlap far less. If he chose disarm and sunder he's be wasting feats. Hmm, they have ranged disarm, ranged pin, and ranged sunder. As for the duelist, most of them shouldn't be sundering anyway - low damage weapon plus a (usually) low strength means you're not sundering very often. But between a tank-focued fighter and barbarian, the latter will almost certainly be a better archer, because again, the latter's skills are far more widely applicable. Explain? Is it spot? Because barbarians don't get that either... I don't think Listen or Survival help you with archery. Why on earth would you not have returning weapons? And why would you drop them on the ground? Read the description: if you already have something in hand (ie, the first resturning weapon), the returning weapon drops to the ground. So you don't have a choice, unless you have 4 arms. No you can't. All he needs is one attack. If he grapples you, the monk is toast. The barbarian can even eat the falling damage and tackle the slow-falling monk in midair. As I've said, I don't think monks should really be fighting barbarians head to head (they do get diplomacy). A monk has to be smart and perfect, with a dumb and/or unlucky barbarian opponent. He charges you. You have to run away from the barbarian. Running back the other way will give him ample opportunity to kill you. Depends on the terrain. If you tumble you can avoid AOOs. I won't continue on a monk vs barbarian discussion after this post. Expeditious retreat. Personal only spell that lasts 1 minute per level. You don't allow items that cast spells like this at the caster level x spell level x 2000 price for the same reason you don't allow that item of use-activated cure light wounds. Tumble is not a perfect solution to everything. You have to stay permanently out of charge range to survive, which means no attacking. A monk's dexterity cannot compete with a barbarian's strength. The barbarian can pick up Jotunbrud as easily as the monk can get Improved Trip. Never heard of that feat. Name 19 archery feats that do not suck and will make him compare with the ranger. Name 19 tanking feats that do not suck and will make him compare with the barbarian. Name 19 mounted combat feats that do not suck and will make him compare with the paladin. (That last must include a feat giving the fighter a special mount without requiring a high charisma.) Didn't you read that part about having to take a prestige class after level 10 as the only thing they HAVE to do to maintain power parity? After a while it's like multiclassing to another class (that happens to be named fighter as well). Do you even read what I post?
RadicalTaoist 08-22-04, 07:02 PM	OK, OK, you know what? I give up. I am defending one straight leveled class to another straight leveled class when I really feel either class does far better with PrCs and multiclassing. On top, the SRD is not agreeing with my computer and I have to depend on my friends to email me rules while I’m away from home (and my books). Depending on memory has led to slipups such as the Parry feats, which I still don’t know to be in CW or not (I thought I read them in there….). I just don’t have the resources to devil’s advocate this argument. Sorry Fighter Man, you lose. On Barbs: Don’t get me wrong. I am not an anti-barb. But I would rather go frenzied berserker or runescarred berserker or bear warrior (God CW kicks ass, your rage can eventually turn you into a dire bear with this one) or even multiclass with cleric or wilder or druid than go straight barb. Maybe it’s just me. And your comments made me think of two barb builds I’d never consider before: Barb/rogue and barb/dervish. What thinks thee? On Monks: No, I was not thinking of tank-on-tanking a barb. I’m not stupid. VERY few non-barb class combos can tank-on-tank a barb (mounted paladin and buffed druid taking the form of something big and nasty do come to mind). That’s why I placed such emphasis on mobility. To win monk would probably need to determine terrain advantage aforehand (read: set up a really well planned ambush). One thing though: the barb won’t shoot a monk with Deflect Arrows to death. Where I think monks really shine is mage-killing (needs no explanation) and cooperative combat. A monk and a barb or mounted paladin can really control the battlefield with their mobility and high damage potential. A foe flanked by a monk and a rogue is dead very very fast. Rangers or well designed fighters (see below comments) can provide the monk with the necessary ranged and close quarter support they need to kill a mage. Hell, monk and monk is a nasty combo, as my DM proved by sending a whole 8 of them at us at a time (they were each two levels lower but still quite painful). Monks back other combatants up very nicely I find. On Fighters: Don’t forget that a fighter can choose to specialize in two combat styles, either by taking advantage of the multiple feats to choose what would otherwise have been inaccessible, or by (better choice IMHO) taking two prestige classes, which can be hard for the other combat classes to do. Trip machine or archer – why not be both? :D
Sensei Gith 08-22-04, 07:12 PM	You can shoot while your mount is making a double move... this is irrelevant, you can move as fast as the paladin (paladin mounts don't get speed bonuses). Use the run action. You will certainly catch up, and when you do, you will get just as many melee attacks as they get ranged. Get an appropriate mount. Fighters can be archers too. Those two statements are incompatible. I have no idea what you're talking about here. You fire your shot, you take a -20 penalty to hide afterwards. The hide rules favor the hiding character, even if the opponent has spot. You have no net penalty, the opponent has no idea where the shot came from, and if you're smart, you'll have cover, further boosting your hide. If you are fighting a suitably challenging opponent, then there is a reasonable miss chance involved. That's not how the AC system works. Attack bonuses increase far, far faster than AC. Look at some dragons for the perfect example. Archers are in turn on top of the attack bonus curve. AC exists for two purposes at that level: to jeapordize late iterative attacks (not a seriour problem for archers) and reduce power attack. An archer has the best attack bonuses and no access to power attack. So how do your archers work in a dungeon? Shot on the run helps them to avoid melee in relatively tight quarters and still deal damage. Explain how archer tactics in your game work in this environment, please - I've explained how they work in mine. They work normally, relying on tanks and cover. SotR allows them too maintain an additional 15 feet of distance. I am actually running an archer in a typical close-quarters dungeon crawl. He has only been threatened once, when he was ambushed by someone right next to him who blocked off his retreat. SotR would not have helped one bit. Hmm, they have ranged disarm, ranged pin, and ranged sunder. As for the duelist, most of them shouldn't be sundering anyway - low damage weapon plus a (usually) low strength means you're not sundering very often. You were comparing an archer with those feats to a duelist with trip and disarm. Trip and disarm can work well together. Disarm and sunder do not. If ranged pin is like the feat in a Dragon magazine I once saw, it's moderately useful but very situational, even more so than SotR. Explain? Is it spot? Because barbarians don't get that either... I don't think Listen or Survival help you with archery. Skills are more valuable to archers, and the barbarian has twice the fighter's. Rage strength bonuses work with bows. Incoming arrows have their effectiveness dramatically reduced by DR, and hit points (up to effectively a d20 while in rage). So if neither took archery feats, you essentially have a warrior20 against someone with higher strength, more hit points, and better defensive abilities. Neither one's an archer, but if it comes down to it, the barbarian wins, no contest. Read the description: if you already have something in hand (ie, the first resturning weapon), the returning weapon drops to the ground. So you don't have a choice, unless you have 4 arms. ...or you transfer the javelins to your off hand. Personal only spell that lasts 1 minute per level. You don't allow items that cast spells like this at the caster level x spell level x 2000 price for the same reason you don't allow that item of use-activated cure light wounds. And how does the first one break the rules? Never heard of that feat. Nor had I heard of half the noncore stuff you throw around. Didn't you read that part about having to take a prestige class after level 10 as the only thing they HAVE to do to maintain power parity? In other words, fighters cannot maintain power parity after level 10. Only characters who used it to qualify for a PrC can, whereas barbarians can safely take all 20 levels. I'm glad you see the problem.
Kaminton 08-22-04, 08:51 PM	Originally posted by Sensei Gith Use the run action. You will certainly catch up, and when you do, you will get just as many melee attacks as they get ranged. I made a mistake here: paladin mounts DO get a +10 speed bonus eventually. But a mounted archer can make a full attack while the mount is running, albeit at a -8 penalty. The mounted archery feat cuts this penalty in half, to -4. Those two statements are incompatible. How are they incompatible? Mount means something to ride, not the paladin's special mount class feature. The mounted combat rules explicitly allow archers to shoot while riding a creature. Fighters can choose to take archery feats, hence becoming archers. I don't see what the problem here is. The hide rules favor the hiding character, even if the opponent has spot. You have no net penalty, the opponent has no idea where the shot came from, and if you're smart, you'll have cover, further boosting your hide. Huh?!? From the PHB, p76: Sniping: If you've already successfully hidden at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack, then immediately hide again. you take a -20 penalty on your Hide check to conceal yourself after your shot. Actually I think with this rule you can't use manyshot - manyshot says "as a standard action, you may", instead of being a ranged attack. This was the same reasoning why manyshot doesn't work with shot-on-the-run. In any case, how does a -20 penalty to your Hide check favor the sniper? Arrow comes in, everyone gets a spot check while the sniper must make a hide check at -20. I don't see where it says "no net penalty" - unless you're 200 ft away. You need total cover to not require a hide check at all. You need SOME cover or concealment to even attempt a hide check unless you have camouflage (which is part of a high level ranger's abilities). Less than total cover doesn't give a bonus to hide checks. That's not how the AC system works. Attack bonuses increase far, far faster than AC. Look at some dragons for the perfect example. Archers are in turn on top of the attack bonus curve. AC exists for two purposes at that level: to jeapordize late iterative attacks (not a seriour problem for archers) and reduce power attack. An archer has the best attack bonuses and no access to power attack. Ok, you say "to jeopardize late iterative attacks" - the -8 manyshot penalty (plus an extra -2 for being in the second range increment since you don't want far shot) makes ALL your attacks have attack bonuses equal to your 3rd iterative attack, which I would classify as "late". You were comparing an archer with those feats to a duelist with trip and disarm. Trip and disarm can work well together. Disarm and sunder do not. If ranged pin is like the feat in a Dragon magazine I once saw, it's moderately useful but very situational, even more so than SotR. I personally don't like all these ranged flashy moves myself (I don't like duelists either). You would choose either sunder or disarm, not both, I agree. I wouldn't take any of these feats at all - I'd have long since taken an archer prestige class. Skills are more valuable to archers, and the barbarian has twice the fighter's. Rage strength bonuses work with bows. Incoming arrows have their effectiveness dramatically reduced by DR, and hit points (up to effectively a d20 while in rage). So if neither took archery feats, you essentially have a warrior20 against someone with higher strength, more hit points, and better defensive abilities. Neither one's an archer, but if it comes down to it, the barbarian wins, no contest. Rage bonuses only work with bows if you have a big enough bow to use it. If you have a big enough bow, then you're not proficient with it unless you're raging. You aren't always going to be raging. Your tank fighter should be taking stuff like arrow catching or arrow deflection on his shield anyway. The superior AC helps reduce the damage taken by cutting down on the number of arrows that hit. The first arrows will almost certainly hit (this is where the arrow deflection comes in handy); the ones afterwards should have a decent miss chance. Adamantine armor gives DR as well. Barbarian skill points are more likely to go towards maxing out that Listen, and probably Survival. You really don't have THAT many more skill points to spend on cross-class skills that are useful to archers. ...or you transfer the javelins to your off hand. You only have 2 hands. You can't take free action (except in very specific circumstances, like to cast feather fall - it's explicitly stated in the description) unless it's your action. The returning weapons appear in your hand before the start of your turn - you don't have time to transfer them to your hand until the extra ones drop. At most you can have 2, unless you grow more arms. And how does the first one break the rules? New items that aren't on the DMG's list require DM approval to make. If the DM allows you to do it, good for you. Ask for the ring (or better yet, slotless) item that automatically casts cure X wounds on you every round, while you're at it. Nor had I heard of half the noncore stuff you throw around. I do tell you my sources. Quite frankly, they're nice to have, but the core stuff is all a fighter needs below level 10. Complete Warrior just helps them compete at higher levels, even though it's not enough. In other words, fighters cannot maintain power parity after level 10. Only characters who used it to qualify for a PrC can, whereas barbarians can safely take all 20 levels. I'm glad you see the problem. I did explain how I see fighters: after level 10, they're basically multiclassing into another fighting style. From 3.0 to 3.5 core material, some extra high level stuff was introduced to help the fighter (but the highest requirements are met by level 12, so this isn't enough). You pretty much need to go to non-core material here to keep up, since the core material is deficient. If you're specializing in a fighting style, you're pretty much qualifying for a prestige class anyway. Take the duelist (blech, but it's the only core pure fighter prestige class): the feats you need, are the feats you would be taking anyway - Dodge, Mobility, Weapon Finesse are all things you want as a duelist (you want to spring attack, and you're using a rapier, and you're agile not strong). You would be taking cross class ranks in tumble anyway to do duelist moves. The only thing that they need that you wouldn't necessarily get by making a duelist-type fighter is Perform, and even that is within the duelist archtype.
Kaminton 08-22-04, 09:01 PM	Originally posted by RadicalTaoist OK, OK, you know what? I give up. I am defending one straight leveled class to another straight leveled class when I really feel either class does far better with PrCs and multiclassing. On top, the SRD is not agreeing with my computer and I have to depend on my friends to email me rules while I’m away from home (and my books). Depending on memory has led to slipups such as the Parry feats, which I still don’t know to be in CW or not (I thought I read them in there….). I just don’t have the resources to devil’s advocate this argument. Sorry Fighter Man, you lose. I pretty much have to agree with you here. Researching this stuff is taking up a heck of alot of time... On Barbs: Don’t get me wrong. I am not an anti-barb. But I would rather go frenzied berserker or runescarred berserker or bear warrior (God CW kicks ass, your rage can eventually turn you into a dire bear with this one) or even multiclass with cleric or wilder or druid than go straight barb. Maybe it’s just me. And your comments made me think of two barb builds I’d never consider before: Barb/rogue and barb/dervish. What thinks thee? Sorry, can't use the dervish dance while raging or frenzied. Most of their abilities are tied to the dance, so the barb/dervish doesn't have much synergy. Barb/rogue has decent synergy, because you can sneak attack while raging, and the trap sense and uncanny dodge stack. The only problem here is that you can't feint to set up sneak attacks, or use most of your skills while raging. On Monks: No, I was not thinking of tank-on-tanking a barb. I’m not stupid. VERY few non-barb class combos can tank-on-tank a barb (mounted paladin and buffed druid taking the form of something big and nasty do come to mind). That’s why I placed such emphasis on mobility. To win monk would probably need to determine terrain advantage aforehand (read: set up a really well planned ambush). One thing though: the barb won’t shoot a monk with Deflect Arrows to death. Deflect arrows only works on the first arrow (the one with the best chance of hitting). The monk can still be killed, but the archer (barb or otherwise) must rely on the iterative attacks (or a manyshot) to deal damage. Where I think monks really shine is mage-killing (needs no explanation) and cooperative combat. A monk and a barb or mounted paladin can really control the battlefield with their mobility and high damage potential. A foe flanked by a monk and a rogue is dead very very fast. Rangers or well designed fighters (see below comments) can provide the monk with the necessary ranged and close quarter support they need to kill a mage. Hell, monk and monk is a nasty combo, as my DM proved by sending a whole 8 of them at us at a time (they were each two levels lower but still quite painful). Monks back other combatants up very nicely I find. I have no idea how monks go into this, this is a barbarian and fighter thread... On Fighters: Don’t forget that a fighter can choose to specialize in two combat styles, either by taking advantage of the multiple feats to choose what would otherwise have been inaccessible, or by (better choice IMHO) taking two prestige classes, which can be hard for the other combat classes to do. Trip machine or archer – why not be both? :D Because you're not as powerful as the uber-archer of doom who took some prestige class to get to level 20, or the uber-tripper of falling who took another prestige class to get to level 20. It's hard to take 2 prestige classes unless you a) don't intend on taking their ultimate abilities, but are only there for a quick dip for an early ability, or b) are taking 5 level prestige classes, and if they synergize, you can use levels in the first prestige class to qualify for the second. Fighters who take two fighting styles are less likely to be useless in combat, but are less effective in combats where they are useful.
allenchan 08-22-04, 09:23 PM	Not to nit pick, but to get the most out of most PrC's you really dont need to stay in them for more then a small dip, they tend to be "Front heavy" and you can get more out of taking a few similiar PrCs for 3-4 levels then one for 10, such as the various archer PrCs. but other then that I agree ;)
Kaminton 08-22-04, 10:07 PM	Originally posted by allenchan Not to nit pick, but to get the most out of most PrC's you really dont need to stay in them for more then a small dip, they tend to be "Front heavy" and you can get more out of taking a few similiar PrCs for 3-4 levels then one for 10, such as the various archer PrCs. but other then that I agree ;) That was my option a) :P Prestige classes in my campaigns are tied to organizations - you can't take levels in them without being a member. It's harder to justify being a member in too many organizations (or the DM gets plot hooks galore as one organization or another needs something done NOW). And if you leave on bad terms, well, plenty of enemies for the DM to choose from. I'm a fan of big abilities at the end of the prestige class (at level 10) to encourage people to take it all the way instead of dipping in and out.